Okay as a "newbie" I noticed a ranging war going on and I want to include my 2 cents. Before I go on I hope I do not misinterpret both camps arguments.
In my opinion using the term, "black" is not useless. It's just that the term or ANY modern day racial terms have any use in science/anthropology. And trying to make them relevant in that field is futile. Scientific Anthropologist refrain from using racial terms. "Race" is not biologically defined and this is nothing new. So I don't get why SOME people on here are having a hard time grasping this. No anthropologist will out right say the Ancient Egyptians were "black"! That is just a fact neither would they say the Ancient Egyptians were white or whatever.
Keita for example who is a well known anthropologist refrains from using racial terms. He never in any of his works outright said the Ancient Egyptians were "black" and yet by reading his work and using common sense we know what he is saying.
Anyways poster Swenet hit the nail with this post from that Sir Clair Drake thread.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
A subset of dynastic Egyptian samples squeezed in between Abyssinians and Cretans, Etruscans and Sardinians and showing considerable ties with the biblical inhabitants of the Judaean city of Lachish. No competent western, middle eastern or oriental academic who has seriously looked into this is going to use the term "black" (in a racial sense) when applied to dynastic Egyptians (although they might do it in a pigmentation sense, by saying they would have been dark brown). And in the occasion they do use 'black' in a racial sense (usually when they speak in an informal context), they're likely to say that they think that the ancient Egyptians were half black/half non-black based on their position in cranio-facial analysis.
This is the obvious peril/risk you run when you engage opponents trying to repurpose and reinvigorate old prejudiced terms (i.e. "black" as applied in the west) as opposed to focusing on the real issue, i.e., the question whether they were indigenous Africans or not. Of course, someone's position in multivariate space is going to determine how lay people perceive their "race", so the "forget science, I'm just focusing on what lay people would say" escape, is a deliberately deceptive fallacy. Craniofacial analysis uses measurements that the lay public intuitively uses when assigning race.
But to expand on further what Swenet meant...
Who are those people? Are they African? If that was your answer than you are wrong! Those are the Adamanese people of Indian. They look what you would call "black" or even "black African". Yet they are not only NOT African, but distant from Africans.
These mixed Dominicans are more "African" than those Adamanese will ever be.
Yet the Adamanese people are "blacker" in terms of phenotype.
This is why Swenet, Keita and other anthropologist refrain from using black in scientific discussions. This is the mess you run into. And from experience with arguments with laymen it's been a very frustrating time explaining to them how "black" Asians/pacific Islanders are distant from Africans.
Now I don't think the term black is completely irrelevant. The idea is separating historic discussions from scientific discussions.
History is different, because history is well just history.... Saying we shouldn't use "black" in a historical discussion is like saying we shouldn't use black when having a historical discussion about the Civil Rights or the Haitian revolution. History is just the study of past events and even what terms they used back then.
For example I don't not see a problem with arguing that the Ancient Egyptians were black in a historical discussion considering that Greek and Roman writers referred to them and the Nubians as black(though not a racial sense like modern times), but still black nonetheless.
Also using black in historical discussions involving the Moors is not only relevant, but very important considering the term "Moor" meant black.
My point is we should know when and when not to use "black" in discussions. Basically by separating historical discussions from scientific ones.
Again just my 2 cents.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
That was just the beginning of the problems of the 'black' crowd. What do you do when people akin to the ancestors of pale northwestern Europe had dark skin somewhere within the range of African Americans during most of their stay in Europe? What implications does that have for the premise that "white" and "black" are fundamentally opposite and the idea that 'black' neatly excludes European ancestry/people?
quote:[T]he new data confirm that about 8500 years ago, early hunter-gatherers in Spain, Luxembourg, and Hungary also had darker skin: They lacked versions of two genes—SLC24A5 and SLC45A2—that lead to depigmentation and, therefore, pale skin in Europeans today.
Please critique and analyze what I wrote when you have time. I worked very hard on that and on writing that information.
The point you have to understand is, there is a huge time gap, too huge between neolithic DNA and settlers of Europe and NOW! In that sort of time gap, North America went from being majority Amerindian to within majority White within a few hundred years.
So logic tells us that you cannot use Neolithic and early pre-modern samples to make guesses as to how Europe's population became what it is today.
The fact of the matter is that White Europeans are not Europeans, and that Europe underwent several major demographic changes and shifts.
Most of Europe, mostly Northern and Central Europe did not have major population centers and civilizations.
White Europeans did not originally have literacy or settled civilizations when they entered Europe in major waves as Central Asian nomadic barbarian tribes.
And since Northern Europe was a backwater at early points in history, and Whites were mostly illiterate nomads, we don't know much about that time period and how Whites came to be the major population.
You had major climate shifts like the mini-ice age that killed off Europe's Black original populations.
You had plagues like the Bubonic plague and black death that also killed off Europe's original black populations and population centers.
You had racial wars like the Thirty years war, between Black European Catholics and Protestant Central Asian whites that depopulated Central and Northern Europe of it's original Black European population.
At several major points in Europe's history, the original Greek, Etruscan, Minoan, Roman, Italic ?European civilizations declined and were made extremely vulnerable to outside barbarian invasions.
These were the major points when Whites also began taking over these places and the entirety of Europe. AT EXACTLY THESE INSTANCES AND POINTS! It is even written on records that Whites began taking over DURING THESE POINTS! Is that a coincidence? I think not..
Simply put, Black Europe was demographically swamped and taken over by more virile and more numerous Whites from Central Asia and Northern Europe.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
@Blessed by Horus
In regards to Bronze Age demographics, check out Herodotus' statement where he says that the argument that Colchians were Egyptians because they had significantly more darker skin and tightly coiled hair (than the Greeks) didn't mean much to him because "others had those traits too".
He then went on to name cultural commonalities as presenting stronger evidence for the idea that Colchians were ethnically Egyptian. Darkbrown skinned people in and around Asia Minor, the Levant and other places must have been common to the extent that the ancients felt that it would be presumptive to automatically invoke Africa and not also consider nearby populations.
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
@Swenet
Aye... I was actually was looking for that exact text from Herodotus around the net. I heard(don't know if true) of "black Caucasian" in Russia. Again don't know if that's true.
Will checkout link.
Posted by Mindovermatter (Member # 22317) on :
Blessed
Please read my quote, I accidentally didn't provide the link to the ESR thread post in that thread I linked to.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
@BlessedbyHorus
For me, the part where he says "But that doesn't mean much, because others had those traits, too" is far more meaningful than just his reference to Colchians. Together with other Greek texts and Bronze Age Anatolian and Syrian skeletal remains, it speaks to Herodotus' implied familiarity with dark skinned people (other than the Colchians), close to the Aegean.
He didn't explicitly mention those implied dark skinned populations, because his audience would have immediately understood whom he was talking about. In fact, were it not relevant to his intention to discuss the obscure origins of the Colchians, Herodotus probably wouldn't even have mentioned the physical appearance of all three populations in that passage. Apparently, it was not something that would have needed excessive treatment in those days, because it was obvious.
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
I don't know if this is a silly question, but could it be said that pale skin in Homo-Sapiens is more of a recent thing?
Posted by Mindovermatter (Member # 22317) on :
Blessed, pale skin is a symptom of albinism, I thought by now you have would realized this. White Europeans are basically OCA-1 and OCA-2 and OCA-4 majority albino's.
Mike is not crazy and neither are the other people on this forum when they say White Europeans are albino's, THERE IS LOADS OF EVIDENCE FOR THAT!
And you are obviously being tricked by whites when you imply that Pale skin is an "evolution"; IT IS NOT! THERE IS NO ADVANTAGE TO IT!
EVEN IN NORTHERN AND COLD CLIMATES, the people ARE NORMALLY DARK SKINNED! Just look at the Inuits, the Canadian Native Americans, Native Alaskans, Nepalese, Tibetan people, the natives of Terra tel fuego, the Chuckchi tribes, the original Saami people etc etc etc.
THEY ARE ALL DARK SKINNED AND HAVE BEEN LIVING IN THESE CLIMATES LONGER THEN WHITES, YET ARE STILL DARK SKINNED!
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
@Mindovermatter.
Just looked at your post. Major demographic changes from outside are not necessary to explain why Europeans look the way they look.
Look at the ancestors of native Americans. The American continent is a useful example because it was isolated (at least for our purposes). Many ancestors of native Americans arrived looking like Australian absoriginals (e.g. Luzia woman), some arrived looking more like Polynesians and the Jomon (e.g. Kennewick man). Both had Amerindian genetics. Features from both morphotypes are present in living Amerindian populations, with some taking more after one of the 'founding population' and others more after the other 'founding population'. But they generally all have features in common that emerged after the settlement.
Posted by Mindovermatter (Member # 22317) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: @Mindovermatter. Major demographic changes from outside are not necessary to explain why Europeans look the way they look.
Look at the ancestors of native Americans. Many arrived looking like Australian absoriginals (e.g. Luzia woman), some arrived looking more like Polynesians and the Jomon (e.g. Kennewick man). Both had Amerindian genetics.
YES IT IS!
BECAUSE WHITES ARE NOT NATIVE TO EUROPE AND REALLY HAD NO PART IN BUILDING ANCIENT EUROPEAN CIVILIZATIONS LIKE GREECE AND ETRURIA OR IT'S MAJOR POPULATION CENTERS!
Dude I can't still believe you are sprouting that garbage about Whites turning White due to climate which has been debunked countless times already c'mon now!
WHITE EUROPEANS ARE NOT NATIVE TO EUROPE! THEY ARE ALBINO'S FROM CENTRAL AND SOUTH ASIA! THAT IS WHERE THE R1a GENE ORIGINATES FROM! THEY ARE HYBRIDS OF INDIAN ALBINO'S AND AFRICAN ALBINO'S AND YOU CAN LOOK AT A GENETIC TABLE TO SEE THIS!
IT IS IMPORTANT THAT PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THE FACT THAT WHITE EUROPEANS ARE NOT ANCIENT EUROPEANS AND HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THEM BECAUSE THE LAYMAN AND IGNORANT ASSUME THE MODERN WHITE EUROPEAN POPULATION HAS A RELATIONSHIP WITH THE ORIGINAL EUROPEANS!
THE ORIGINAL EUROPE WAS A DARK AND BROWN SKINNED MAJORITY PLACE WITH ALBINO POPULATIONS IN THE NORTH AND IN FORESTED/ISOLATED AREAS!
THESE BLACK/BROWN EUROPEANS WERE KILLED OFF IN THE WAYS I DESCRIBED AND BRED OUT OR SENT AWAY BY INVADING WHITE CENTRAL ASIAN BARBARIAN TRIBES WHO OUTNUMBERED THEM POPULATION WISE DUE TO CLIMATIC SHIFTS AND EPIDEMICS/WARS!
THESE INVADING WHITE TRIBES TOOK OVER ONCE ALL THESE EVENTS HAPPENED AND BEGAN POPULATING THE ENTIRETY OF EUROPE WHILE BECOMING EUROPE'S WHITE FACE TO THE OUTSIDE WORLD!
What I'm stating is nothing but evidence that refutes the assumption that Ancient Europeans turned into modern White Europeans, which itself is silly since Ancient Europeans have genes that ARE NON-EXISTENT IN MODERN EUROPEANS AND HAVE A DIFFERENT DNA MAKEUP ENTIRELY THEN MODERN WHITE EUROPEANS! Therefor modern White Europeans have NOTHING TO DO WITH ANCIENT BLACK EUROPEANS!
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
@Mind over matter
If that's what you subscribe to, knock yourself out and more power to you. Genetically speaking, I wouldn't know how to reconcile that with all genetic evidence.
Yes you're right. Indo-European speaking tribes entered Europe from elsewhere, but you're forgetting one thing. Those Indo-Europeans who invaded Europe were 'white' then, but they too would have been dark skinned at one point. So, you may reject that dark aboriginal Europeans morphed into 'white' living Europeans over time. But those 'white' invaders most definitely went from dark to pale. What you dismiss as "turning white due to climate" had to happen somewhere, whether in Europe or in Asia.
You're merely shifting the problem, like Darwinists who try to solve the problem of life by proposing it came out of space. But guess what, they still have to explain how dead, inanimate matter became alive. Saying it came from space doesn't solve the fundamental problem.
You are right though about Y-DNA R. Its ancestor (K-M526) seems to have originated much closer to the Pacific than to Europe.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Herodotus is simply saying there are many black peoples. He says black. He does not say darker skinned nor does he say dark brown. To say he does is a deliberate falsification as is putting black in parenthesis. Basil Davidson gave up on using that old tired Colchis statement to mean other than what it in fact says, that there are many black skinned woolly haired nations. Herodotus is without any ambiguity calling Egyptians black. Only 19th and 20th century melanophobes tried to twist it to mean anything different.
Amazing how no one anywhere argues pink Euros contemporary to AEs were not white and shouldn't be thought racially white in today's terms.Yet negroes vehemently rail against use of black.
Since for the last 3000 years black has meant Old World peoples whose lands border the Indian Ocean as well as Africa the drive should be to restore the time honored usage not to embrace the calculated pigeonhole new fangled one.
Indians are still black. When Iranians agreed to release black hostages they were referring to a black American and an Indian. The black American refused to go. He didn't want to be freed if it was due to racial discrimination (no lie).
Supporting the Western pink man's sleight of hand current definition of black (only thode peoples ripe for the slave trade) is fiddling for white is right domination of global terminology. I mean, ****, besides Iranis sticking to the time honored meaning of black Greeks & Turks still refer to Arabs as black using their word for nigger as the accepted adjective. So not even all Euros ate buying this "only African Americans and their African source populations are black" bullshit.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Here we go again. Why must I always take the fall for people's loose grasp of the material discussed?
1) I'm certainly willing to review any evidence put forth that 'melas' and its variants mean 'black' and that the Greeks made no distinction between certain jet-black Africans (like Pygmies and certain Sudanese) on the one hand, and brown to dark brown Egyptians, Garamantes and certain northern Sudanese on the other hand.
2) I've consistently said that early European farmers (though generally in possession of the derived SLC24A5 allele) weren't 'white' and that UP Europeans weren't 'white'. I've also consistently said that modern Europeans have ~33% African ancestry, and was dismissed back then for it by the same people who today accuse me of spreading Eurocentric falsehoods. Funny how the accusations change over time.
3) People like Carlos invoke the "pigeonhole new fangled" definition themselves by insisting that ancient Egyptians would have been classified as 'black' using WESTERN, and specifically, US, standards. The current US use of 'black' is narrow, whether anyone likes it or not.
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mindovermatter: Blessed, pale skin is a symptom of albinism, I thought by now you have would realized this. White Europeans are basically OCA-1 and OCA-2 and OCA-4 majority albino's.
Mike is not crazy and neither are the other people on this forum when they say White Europeans are albino's, THERE IS LOADS OF EVIDENCE FOR THAT!
And you are obviously being tricked by whites when you imply that Pale skin is an "evolution"; IT IS NOT! THERE IS NO ADVANTAGE TO IT!
EVEN IN NORTHERN AND COLD CLIMATES, the people ARE NORMALLY DARK SKINNED! Just look at the Inuits, the Canadian Native Americans, Native Alaskans, Nepalese, Tibetan people, the natives of Terra tel fuego, the Chuckchi tribes, the original Saami people etc etc etc.
THEY ARE ALL DARK SKINNED AND HAVE BEEN LIVING IN THESE CLIMATES LONGER THEN WHITES, YET ARE STILL DARK SKINNED!
None of you guys are crazy. You guys have your theories and I have mine.
Pale skin would have most definitely been needed for much colder climates. . People living in northern latitudes often don’t get enough UV to incorporate vitamin D in their skin. Which forced the mutation for pale skin. Pale skin people who by the way still have "melanin".
You don't have to agree with this, but fact is this isn't apart of this thread.
Posted by Mindovermatter (Member # 22317) on :
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Swenet: [QB] @Mind over matter
"If that's what you subscribe to, knock yourself out and more power to you. Genetically speaking, I wouldn't know how to reconcile that with all genetic evidence."
No it's not what I subscribe to, IT IS THE FACTS! It's not my problem if you can't accept them; simply put this is what one comes to the conclusion to WHEN LOOKING AT THE HISTORICAL AND RESEARCH DATA!
"Yes you're right. Indo-European speaking tribes entered Europe from elsewhere, but you're forgetting one thing. Those Indo-Europeans who invaded Europe were 'white' then, but they too would have been dark skinned at one point."
EXCEPT THEY WERE NOT! First they were MULTIPLE to MASSIVE MIGRATIONS OF THEM, FROM THE CENTRAL ASIAN STEPPES! There WERE LARGE POPULATION MIGRATIONS OF THEM INTO EUROPE, OBVIOUSLY THIS CHANGED EUROPE'S DEMOGRAPHICS AS LOGIC DICTATES!
It's like how Mexicans are invading the South-west of the U.S, Mexicans are out-breeding and outnumbering White Americans, but once Mexicans take over the South-west, does that imply that long ago it was primarily Mexicans that BUILT ALL THE ORIGINAL MODERN LANDMARKS, INFRASTRUCTURES AND BUILDINGS THERE IN THE PAST? HELL NO!
Same logic applies to the Indo-European migrants into old Europe! And THEY WERE NOT DARK SKINNED! THERE ARE RECORDS DESCRIBING THEM AS NOT BEING DARK SKINNED!
THEY WERE ALBINO SOUTH ASIANS FROM CENTRAL ASIA! THAT IS WHY THEY HAD BLOND/RED/BROWN HAIR AND LIGHT FEATURES! BECAUSE THEY WERE A COMBINATION OF OCA-1, OCA-2, OCA-4 majority ALBINO'S! THIS IS WHERE ALL THOSE OLD RED HAIRED AND LIGHT FEATURED OLD GREEKS COME FROM!
THE EARLY INDO-EUROPEANS MIXED WITH THE ORIGINAL BLACK GREEKS AND ITALIANS AND WERE ABSORBED INTO THEIR POPULATION CREATING A MIXED RACE BROWNISH/BLACKISH MULATTO SOCIETY!
"So, you may reject that dark aboriginal Europeans morphed into 'white' living Europeans over time. But those 'white' invaders most definitely went from dark to pale. What you dismiss as "turning white due to climate" had to happen somewhere, whether in Europe or in Asia."
"You're merely shifting the problem, like Darwinists who try to solve the problem of life by proposing it came out of space. But guess what, they still have to explain how dead, inanimate matter became alive. Saying it came from space doesn't solve the fundamental problem."
No now you are just using false analogies and red herring arguments to rationalize away why I am right and you are simply wrong. The facts and research data is there, and IT SIMPLY PROVE MY CLAIMS AND CONCLUSIONS TIME AND TIME AGAIN! The fact of the matter is that White Europeans are albino's and are the result of albinism like in the story I linked to and is NOT AN EVOLUTIONARY ADVANTAGE AND NEVER WAS IN THE EUROPEAN ENVIRONMENT!
That's why cold climate NATIVE POPULATIONS, like the populations I named dropped ARE ALL DARK SKINNED DESPITE LIVING IN THESE CLIMATES LONGER THEN WHITES!
"You are right though about Y-DNA R. Its ancestor (K-M526) seems to have originated much closer to the Pacific than to Europe."
Yes, but these were not the Indo-Europeans, they most likely branches of Indo-Europeans expanding into Siberia. I myself have theorized that early Indo-European albino Indian tribes in Central Asia expanded into Siberia and caused the Native American tribes to move to North America in another thread.
Because Indo-European albino Indian tribes invaded several places in history at around the same time frames and time periods. You have the Aryan migration period into India, you have the Tocharian expansion into Western China, you have the Scythian/Ossetian migrations in the Middle East, you have the Dorian/Italic/Latin tribes expanding into Southern Europe etc etc.
So they changed the population makeup and demographics of several areas, areas they were not originally native to in the first place, AS THESE AREAS DECLINE IN CIVILIZATION OR UNDERWENT MAJOR CLIMATIC SHIFT LIKE IN THE INDUS VALLEY CASE!
Posted by Child Of The KING (Member # 9422) on :
MindOverMatter,
Interesting..
Just remember to try and get rid of the dark. no skin color is dark..Black skinned, Blacker skinned, Deep Black etc.
Posted by Mindovermatter (Member # 22317) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
quote:Originally posted by Mindovermatter: Blessed, pale skin is a symptom of albinism, I thought by now you have would realized this. White Europeans are basically OCA-1 and OCA-2 and OCA-4 majority albino's.
Mike is not crazy and neither are the other people on this forum when they say White Europeans are albino's, THERE IS LOADS OF EVIDENCE FOR THAT!
And you are obviously being tricked by whites when you imply that Pale skin is an "evolution"; IT IS NOT! THERE IS NO ADVANTAGE TO IT!
EVEN IN NORTHERN AND COLD CLIMATES, the people ARE NORMALLY DARK SKINNED! Just look at the Inuits, the Canadian Native Americans, Native Alaskans, Nepalese, Tibetan people, the natives of Terra tel fuego, the Chuckchi tribes, the original Saami people etc etc etc.
THEY ARE ALL DARK SKINNED AND HAVE BEEN LIVING IN THESE CLIMATES LONGER THEN WHITES, YET ARE STILL DARK SKINNED!
None of you guys are crazy. You guys have your theories and I have mine.
Pale skin would have most definitely been needed for much colder climates. . People living in northern latitudes often don’t get enough UV to incorporate vitamin D in their skin. Which forced the mutation for pale skin. Pale skin people who by the way still have "melanin".
You don't have to agree with this, but fact is this isn't apart of this thread.
NO PALE SKIN IS NOT NEEDED FOR COLD CLIMATES!
The TIBETAN PEOPLE, CANADIAN NATIVE AMERICANS, NORTH AMERICAN PLAINS INDIANS, ALASKAN INUITS, THE CHUKCHI TRIBES, THE NATIVES OF TERRA TEL FUEGO, THE NEPALESE WERE ALL COLD CLIMATE ADAPTED PEOPLE!
THEY HAD LIVED IN THESE CLIMATES AND ENVIRONMENTS LONGER THEN EUROPEANS! AND YET THEY ARE STILL DARK SKINNED TO THIS DAY!
THEREFORE IT IS A FACT THAT PALE SKIN IS NOT NEEDED FOR COLD CLIMATES AND WITH RESEARCH DATA AND LOGIC SUPPORTING IT! THEREFORE I DON'T HAVE A THEORY, I AM STATING NOTHING BUT FACTS WHEN I SAY PALE SKIN IS NOT ADVANTAGE IN COLD CLIMATES!
quote: Expeditioners to Antarctic train for freezing temperatures and social isolation, but a study has found there is something else to be wary of -- sunburn.
The recent joint study by the Australian Antarctic Division (AAD) and the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency found that more than 80 percent of researchers to the South Pole were potentially exposed to ultraviolet (UV) rays in excess of the recommended limits.
Almost a third received more than five times these limits.
The study showed that in some cases the UV exposure levels in Australian Antarctic stations can reach an index level of 8 or more, making exposure levels there similar to what lifeguards in Australia's sunny Queensland state potentially receive.
Almost a third received more than five times these limits.
The study showed that in some cases the UV exposure levels in Australian Antarctic stations can reach an index level of 8 or more, making exposure levels there similar to what lifeguards in Australia's sunny Queensland state potentially receive. "It's the first study that we have done to look at the personal doses of solar UV radiation of Australians working in Antarctica," AAD Chief Medical Officer Jeff Ayton, co-author of the report, told Reuters.
Measurements were carried out during unloading of two vessels while they were at Australian Antarctic stations Casey, Davis and Mawson. Participants wore UV-sensitive badges on their chests for the duration of the working day, which ranged from five to 10 hours but could be as long as 14 hours.
Their face, hands and in some cases more of their limbs were uncovered and subjected to UV exposure.
"Despite sun protection being provided to the workers, a large portion of them reported feeling sunburnt," Ayton said.
There is a large variation of UV radiation in Antarctica. In winter, when there's very low levels, vitamin D deficiency is a real threat.
But in summer, the study found that the extended duration of sunlight, the hole in the ozone layer and the light's reflection off the ice and water contributed to the high levels of UV radiation exposure.
This meant a higher risk of UV damage to the skin and the eyes, with long-term effects including potential skin cancers, Ayton said.
A team of 10 Australians from The Mawson's Huts Foundation Expedition for 2009/10 is currently working in East Antarctica, conserving the base of the Australasian Antarctic Expedition of 1911-14 organized and led by Sir Douglas Mawson.
Even the coldest, most Sun-Deprived place on the Earth, is not safe for White people!
And you get this too:
Look at the absurdly high cancer rates in NORTHERN EUROPE OF ALL PLACES COMPARED TO SOUTHERN EUROPE WHICH HAS MORE SUN LIGHT THEN NORTHERN EUROPE! NORTHERN EUROPE IS A REALLY DARK ENVIRONMENT!
THEREFORE IT'S A FACT THAT WHITES ARE NOT AN ADAPTATION TO COLD ENVIRONMENTS! YOU DON'T HAVE TO AGREE WITH ME, YOU HAVE TO ACCEPT THE FACT THAT IT ISN'T EVENTUALLY AND THAT MY CLAIMS AND MY "OPINION" IS AN ACTUAL CORRECT FACT!
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
I couldn't care less who embraces The "only African Americans and Their African source populations Are black" misconception.
I have explained it is NOT universal. Accepting it as universal is tantamount To supporting Euro global hegemony In terminology is capitulating to a Simon Says mentality no matter Who it is that agrees to black Means African negro.
EuroAmerica is not the world and The world's peoples obviously do Not accept nor recognize that Misconception as universally Valid.
Has nothing to do with ES Personalities or demagoguery
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
Again @Mindovermatter I'M NOT DEBATING THIS.
Posted by Mindovermatter (Member # 22317) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: Again @Mindovermatter I'M NOT DEBATING THIS.
You are not because you simply can't, every single supporting evidence that you have for your "opinion" can be refuted EASILY! I don't have an OPINION, I HAVE A FACT! I am right and I have the factually correct claim, and you are simply wrong in disputing it. What I'm stating is NOTHING BUT FACTS!
And what you are DISPUTING AND DISAGREEING WITH IS NOTHING BUT FACTS! FACTS THAT CAN BE EASILY PROVEN BY A QUICK SEARCH AND SIMPLE LOGIC!
Therefore you cannot refute me so you have to leave the argument!
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler:
Amazing how no one anywhere argues pink Euros contemporary to AEs were not white and shouldn't be thought racially white in today's terms.Yet negroes vehemently rail against use of black.
Supporting the Western pink man's sleight of hand current definition of black (only thode peoples ripe for the slave trade) is fiddling for white is right domination of global terminology.
Why do you say the "Western pink man" and not the white man?
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
More strawmen. How can I "accept it as universal" when I have abandoned the term and don't even use it (as I've said many times). All I've done is provide commentary on how its used in various traditions and whether various African populations would be consistent with different traditions of the term.
Fact of the matter is, when you debate western opponents who don't have any other concept of the term than the western one (as Carlos tries to do), you're automatically going to invoke the narrow one. When you make bold sweeping claims about what population x would look like to modern US citizen eyes (as Carlos tries to do), it's even more self-defeating, because you'd be invoking the narrow one yourself. He's willfully setting up the conditions for self-fulfilling prophesies to happen and then cries "racism" when it actually does, like a chicken without a head.
Interesting that I'm being accused of accepting the narrow definition of 'black' (which I don't), when it is Carlos who is accepting the US census bureau one--albeit modified to some degree. Even down to the one drop rule and primarily considering dark skinned Africans (i.e. excluding certain Maghrebi groups and only begrudgingly considering dark skinned Asians when called out for being inconsistent). Right Carlos?
"musician Goldie and swarthy modern Egyptians are 'black'" --Carlos Oliver Coke
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
I'm not addressing yyou only So If you do not accept it as Universal then good for you
You tend to talk out both Sides of your mouth in Order to shift weight When exposed
I'm not foolish enough to Engage s demagog on a Popular forum where ideas Are judged by buddie camps
I will continue to address The topic for anyone Interested in "the West And the rest of us' Else I'll shut up and Go away. Whichever Pleases me at the Moment.
Anyway I am pleased to Havevcountered erroneous Ideas and promulgate that black rightfully Defines AEs since AE Writings and writings Clear up to Napoleon All agree on AE blackness And ad Volney shows AE blackness is no different Than any other African's Blackness (especially the Transplanted enslaved Varieties) and blackness Is not monolithic since It varies quite widely From the CCape to The pre-sahara.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Tukuler:
Amazing how no one anywhere argues pink Euros contemporary to AEs were not white and shouldn't be thought racially white in today's terms.Yet negroes vehemently rail against use of black.
Supporting the Western pink man's sleight of hand current definition of black (only thode peoples ripe for the slave trade) is fiddling for white is right domination of global terminology.
Somebody please tell us why Tukuler calls white Europeans "pink"
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
I got it from star trek Where blue aliens Keep calling whites Pink
Now go ahead and Say well if whites Are pink then blacks Are brown you troll you
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
How bizarre. I guess googling evidence for Herodutus' 'melas' necessarily meaning 'black' must not have went according to expectation.
For people interested in investigating the history of excessively narrow applications of 'black' and related terms to African territories and people, I suggest looking up:
--The meaning of 'melas' as applied to the Egyptians and how that contrasts with other skin color terms that were applied more often to Aethiopians --The selective application of jet-black paint in ancient Egypt --The term bilad as sudan as applied by Arabs --The term Zanj as applied by Arabs and others --The application of the term 'Aethiopia' in Greece, which went from referring to the lands of all dark skinned Africans and Asians to just referring to a small patch of land. Something similar happened eventually with the people formally called Aethiopians. In later times it often only included jet-black people. --A similar shift in Hebrew literature in regards to the term 'Kush' and related terms.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Bizarre? Nigga please
number one I don't Go wher you point
Number two I addressed That years Ago and it's Still in ES Archives
Number three U just proved My point you Are nothing More than A demagog Carefully A voiding The salient Issues
Number four You will now Indulge in more Demagoguery
I don't see anybody Else engaging me In discussion so I've successful ly Made my points Clearly whether Or not readership Agrees
It's unimportant they Agree as we all hold Differing opinions.
All thats important Is readers get my Points not bow Down to them
At this point I await Questions comments And criticisms from BBHorus and others Who are not your FB Psychophants
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Declaring oneself "black" is legitimates declaring oneself "white"
That's why Europeans invented the negro concept, what in English we call 'black', to legitimize them being white. It's a duality system
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: Okay as a "newbie" I noticed a ranging war going on and I want to include my 2 cents. Before I go on I hope I do not misinterpret both camps arguments.
In my opinion using the term, "black" is not useless. It's just that the term or ANY modern day racial terms have any use in science/anthropology. And trying to make them relevant in that field is futile. Scientific Anthropologist refrain from using racial terms. "Race" is not biologically defined and this is nothing new. So I don't get why SOME people on here are having a hard time grasping this. No anthropologist will out right say the Ancient Egyptians were "black"! That is just a fact neither would they say the Ancient Egyptians were white or whatever.
Keita for example who is a well known anthropologist refrains from using racial terms. He never in any of his works outright said the Ancient Egyptians were "black" and yet by reading his work and using common sense we know what he is saying.
Anyways poster Swenet hit the nail with this post from that Sir Clair Drake thread.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
A subset of dynastic Egyptian samples squeezed in between Abyssinians and Cretans, Etruscans and Sardinians and showing considerable ties with the biblical inhabitants of the Judaean city of Lachish. No competent western, middle eastern or oriental academic who has seriously looked into this is going to use the term "black" (in a racial sense) when applied to dynastic Egyptians (although they might do it in a pigmentation sense, by saying they would have been dark brown). And in the occasion they do use 'black' in a racial sense (usually when they speak in an informal context), they're likely to say that they think that the ancient Egyptians were half black/half non-black based on their position in cranio-facial analysis.
This is the obvious peril/risk you run when you engage opponents trying to repurpose and reinvigorate old prejudiced terms (i.e. "black" as applied in the west) as opposed to focusing on the real issue, i.e., the question whether they were indigenous Africans or not. Of course, someone's position in multivariate space is going to determine how lay people perceive their "race", so the "forget science, I'm just focusing on what lay people would say" escape, is a deliberately deceptive fallacy. Craniofacial analysis uses measurements that the lay public intuitively uses when assigning race.
But to expand on further what Swenet meant...
Who are those people? Are they African? If that was your answer than you are wrong! Those are the Adamanese people of Indian. They look what you would call "black" or even "black African". Yet they are not only NOT African, but distant from Africans.
These mixed Dominicans are more "African" than those Adamanese will ever be.
Yet the Adamanese people are "blacker" in terms of phenotype.
This is why Swenet, Keita and other anthropologist refrain from using black in scientific discussions. This is the mess you run into. And from experience with arguments with laymen it's been a very frustrating time explaining to them how "black" Asians/pacific Islanders are distant from Africans.
Now I don't think the term black is completely irrelevant. The idea is separating historic discussions from scientific discussions.
History is different, because history is well just history.... Saying we shouldn't use "black" in a historical discussion is like saying we shouldn't use black when having a historical discussion about the Civil Rights or the Haitian revolution. History is just the study of past events and even what terms they used back then.
For example I don't not see a problem with arguing that the Ancient Egyptians were black in a historical discussion considering that Greek and Roman writers referred to them and the Nubians as black(though not a racial sense like modern times), but still black nonetheless.
Also using black in historical discussions involving the Moors is not only relevant, but very important considering the term "Moor" meant black.
My point is we should know when and when not to use "black" in discussions. Basically by separating historical discussions from scientific ones.
Again just my 2 cents.
Scientists not calling the Egyptians black is not because there is some 'better' way of describing them for scientific purposes. That is nonsense. They are not calling them black because of racism. To state that there is some 'other' reason for this is nonsense. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, then what reason is there to call it anything but a duck? The same applies here. Note how there is no other civilization where this problem exists other than those in Africa which has been 99.9% populated by black people for over 200,000 years. I don't need to go all over the earth finding examples of folks who are mixed an 'could' possibly be called not black and have various ways of self identifying not labeling themselves as black. That isn't the topic at hand. The topic at hand is the population of the Nile Valley in what is now called Egypt prior to 800 BC. That is the only population that needs to be looked at and the only language and self identity that matters. And on that point the evidence is clear that they were physically and self identified as 'black', as the name they gave themselves means literally "black people" KMT= black nation = black people. Case closed. The only people who have a problem with this are people who have little relevance, namely white people from Europe and frankly don't matter as they are not the same people and don't count whatsoever.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
^That's the same attitude I've had for years, until I got the chance to see some of these professors' private emails and saw my own assumptions about them fall apart of front of my eyes. Flip flops, incompetence and inconsistencies, yes, but placing the blame squarely on racism? That's a hefty accusation.
Simply screaming racism isn't going to be enough. Conspiracy theories aren't falsifiable. To come to a conclusion about what is going on, the best way I can think of would be to look at western coverage of African populations with a similar range of phenotypes as the dynastic Egyptians, and see if there is a difference in coverage.
There are plenty of living populations to choose in the Sahel and Sahara that fit the mold. Take your pick and let's see how much a reluctance to attribute civilization to Africans (assuming that's what you meant) has to do with it.
Ancient documents from populations with a familiarity with Egyptians and other Africans should also be used. This issue is much more easy to settle than people are making it out to be. Another good question to ask is: did the ancient writers treat ancient Egyptians different from the Africans who are today considered 'black'. The answer to these questions aren't up for discussion, and can be answered today.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ^That's the same attitude I've had for years, until I got the chance to see some of these professors' private emails and saw my own assumptions about them fall apart of front of my eyes. Flip flops and inconsistencies, yes, but placing the blame squarely on racism? That's a hefty accusation.
Simply screaming racism isn't going to be enough. Conspiracy theories aren't falsifiable. To come to a conclusion about what is going on, the best way would be to look at western coverage of African populations with a similar range of phenotypes as the dynastic Egyptians, and see if there is a difference in coverage.
There are plenty of living populations to choose in the Sahel and Sahara that fit the mold. Take your pick and let's see how much a reluctance to attribute civilization to Africans (assuming that's what you meant) has to do with it.
Swenet, your personal communications with so and so scientists don't change the facts I presented. The history of Egyptology as a white institution founded on principles of racism and white supremacy are clearly and unambiguously documented by the whites themselves who created said institution. Those today who are part of that institution are following the same course whether they admit it or not. But again, what they think doesn't matter. As I said, if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck and then calls itself a duck, where is the discussion? There is none. What cows think doesn't matter no matter whether they claim to be liberal are cowcentric doesn't matter. Ducks are ducks and specifically these animals called themselves ducks. That is the point as it relates to Nile Valley history. The facts on the ground are the only thing that matter and the facts point to black as the only appropriate label and term that applies and there is no other way to look at it.
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
@Doug M
I'll repeat again. The reason why scientist do NOT use black or any other racial terms is because "race" itself is NOT repeat NOT scientifically defined. Its mostly a social constructs. Now do social constructs have validity in science? No.
Now not denying that there are some bias/bigoted anthropologist that still hold onto refuted ideas such as YAP being Eurasian or most of African diversity being attributed to Eurasian. But all in all race is just not accepted in science.
I mean Coons racist ideas are not even looked at anymore in anthropology. Caucasoid and Negroid are NO LONGER used in a racial sense. Its not just "black" thats not used, but white too!
Keita doesn't use the term black either, is he a racist?
Now with Historians this would be a different story in my opinion.
And just to be clear I am person who PROUDLY identifies as black. We just have to be careful when and when not to use racial social terms is all I am saying.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ^That's the same attitude I've had for years, until I got the chance to see some of these professors' private emails and saw my own assumptions about them fall apart of front of my eyes. Flip flops and inconsistencies, yes, but placing the blame squarely on racism? That's a hefty accusation.
Simply screaming racism isn't going to be enough. Conspiracy theories aren't falsifiable. To come to a conclusion about what is going on, the best way would be to look at western coverage of African populations with a similar range of phenotypes as the dynastic Egyptians, and see if there is a difference in coverage.
There are plenty of living populations to choose in the Sahel and Sahara that fit the mold. Take your pick and let's see how much a reluctance to attribute civilization to Africans (assuming that's what you meant) has to do with it.
Swenet, your personal communications with so and so scientists don't change the facts I presented. The history of Egyptology as a white institution founded on principles of racism and white supremacy are clearly and unambiguously documented by the whites themselves who created said institution. Those today who are part of that institution are following the same course whether they admit it or not. But again, what they think doesn't matter. As I said, if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck and then calls itself a duck, where is the discussion? There is none. What cows think doesn't matter no matter whether they claim to be liberal are cowcentric doesn't matter. Ducks are ducks and specifically these animals called themselves ducks. That is the point as it relates to Nile Valley history. The facts on the ground are the only thing that matter and the facts point to black as the only appropriate label and term that applies and there is no other way to look at it.
I agree with a lot of what you say, but your generalizing conclusions about physical anthropologists today doesn't work for me. I'm ready if you want to take up that challenge. We can look at media coverage of northern Sudanese, Tuareg, etc, from multiple sources, and see if and how the attribution of race differs, compared to ancient Egyptians. It should be easy. The more the racial narratives differ along the lines of who is 'civilized' and who isn't, the more it's suggestive of prejudice and racism.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
The Ancient Egyptians called themselves blacks and were blacks. Either that is true or it is not. Just like the Ancient Greeks were white and called themselves white.
There is nothing else to it.
This is one case of a simple black vs white debate where it is totally and wholly appropriate.
To say that race is a social construct is one thing, but to claim that skin color is not real because race is a social construct is bullsh*t. Skin color is just as real as any other aspect of human biology and there is nothing 'unscientific' about using words to describe skin color. Calling certain ranges of skin color white is no less accurate or valid than calling other ranges of skin colors black. This usage of colors to describe human skin complexion is not new and is not based on 'racism'. It is based on observed facts. Now to argue that the Egyptians or any other population weren't black is to argue that their skin complexion was not within the range of what could be considered black.
Period.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote: Originally posted by Doug M: As populations inhabiting tropical and subtropical environments black people can and have been found all over the globe.
Doug's definition of black is
"any brown skinned person who is indigenous to a tropical or sub tropical climate"
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
@Doug M
Would you consider it necessarily 'racist' if western lay people or bio-anthropologists found depictions with these facial profiles racially ambiguous and fundamentally harder to place 'racially' than certain other Saharan rock art?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The Ancient Egyptians called themselves blacks
That was to distiguish themselves from the Nubians
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
Scientists not calling the Egyptians black is not because there is some 'better' way of describing them for scientific purposes. That is nonsense. They are not calling them black because of racism.
Many scientists today say there is no such thing as race.
People who do not believe in race don't use the terms "white people" or "black people"
They say a person is "dark skinned" or "light skinned" because other people who DO say race does exists say examples of races are "whites" and "blacks" Therefore to use the term "white" or "black"is to leave open the possibility the these are meant in the racial sense. Other terms don't have this possibility
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
I would direct you to the Thread proving the right Worshipful Almighty Whitey academicians Have never abandoned Caucasian as descriptor For the whites and it's Corollary Caucasoid for Blacks and others they Want to appropriate.
But I'm still waiting your Comments on my posts Which request So far You've ignored who Knows why
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
@Doug M
The way I see it, people in the so-called "afrocentric" community have catching up to do, not just the establishment you're talking about.
When it comes to accepting OOA, most people in this community are all gung ho. But they don't want to admit that a caveat comes with this. That is, that there are going to be extinct and extant Africans who are going to look 'racially' intermediate to SSA and Eurasians due to something called 'isolation by distance'. Such evolutionary processes often mimic admixture (i.e. makes populations halfway such clines look hybrid without any need for backflow).
Describing these intermediate populations or populations affected by them, and finding something fundamentally different about them is hardly racist. Although I agree that this has often worked to the advantage of racists.
But to know when you're dealing with racists and when not should be determined on a case by case basis. I have read more than enough papers to know that scholars who apply 'black' or 'Sub-Saharan' in ways people here would disagree with, are not always racist. Anyone who claims this simply betrays their ignorance.
Can't have your OOA cake and eat it, too.
quote: My eye was drawn to one villager, the man in this picture, above. He had a piercing look, striking facial features and an Afro hair straight style out of the 70’s. I knew we had never met but he still looked very familiar. I wracked my brain to remember where. The closest I could recall was a friend from the Solomon Islands in the South pacific who had a similar style.
But, no. That was not it.
The answer came to me an hour later just when we were about to leave. I noticed the unique curved stick that that the Handadawa people use to heard their animals. It is quite short and not really very useful for herding animals or even as a walking aid.
Considering how practical their life is, how could they have invented such an inefficient implement?
Suddenly it struck me, the stick looked like a stylized ‘boomerang’ the one used by the Aborigines of Australia. I was in fact told the men and boys sometimes use it to hunt birds and small animals in a similar way to the Australian first people.
That is when I remembered where I had seen the Afro sporting man before. He reminded of an Australian Aborigine musician I met in Perth Australia two years ago.
I have always been struck by the unique facial features common with many Aboriginal men and women. They are really distinctive. Many have piercing eyes, and sharp angled facial features, almost Caucasian, but with the black skin of Africans. Even the back skin color is different somehow, sometimes lighter on the surface, ‘off black’ but almost blue in other cases. The hair is long and not as curly as for most African people. I have never seen Africans who look exactly like Aborigines, until now.
The blogger is African, BTW.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: @Doug M
Would you consider it necessarily 'racist' if western lay people or bio-anthropologists found depictions with these facial profiles racially ambiguous and fundamentally harder to place 'racially' than certain other Saharan rock art?
I am not talking about rock art. This issue has nothing to do with rock art. We are talking about the overwhelming amount of facts from all disciplines which is how you reach a conclusion on something like ancient Egypt. Like I said the facts are clear that Egyptology as an institution has been founded as an arm of white supremacy since its creation. The artifacts, rock art, language, physical remains, colors of the spectrum, language are not the problem, it is the racists that are the problem. I am just calling it like it is. Whether 'some' of these folk feel they are being 'objective' or not is irrelevant to the overall point.
The facts and information needed to reach a conclusion on the skin color of the ancient Egyptians are available and unambiguous. And from that one can easily answer the question with a simple yes or no. There is no need for 'other'. And there is only one right answer. Now these same scientists have no problem answering this question with a simple yes or no when it comes to Rome, Greece and so forth, but when it comes to Egypt suddenty yes or no becomes a problem, when it is just as simple as Greece or Rome. Where they are were they not a black population? It is a simple cut and dry question with a simple cut and dry answer. If you don't need to invoke rock art and all these other 'scientific' terms for Greece and Rome or anywhere else why do you need it in Egypt? You don't. It is not that dam complex.
Posted by tropicals redacted (Member # 21621) on :
@BBHorus
quote: The reason why scientist do NOT use black or any other racial terms is because "race" itself is NOT repeat NOT scientifically defined. Its mostly a social constructs. Now do social constructs have validity in science? No.
What about Forensic Anthropologists?
Scott MacEachern, Bowdoin College
Chapter 3,The Concept of Race in Contemporary Anthropology, in Race and Ethnicity:The United States and the World (2012)
sub-heading Race in Forensic Anthropology
quote: Forensic anthropologists, more than most other practitioners of anthropology, function in co-operation with nonspecialists: law enforcement officers, legal specialist, and members of juries. These people for the most part do not have a background in anthropology, and so their views of biological variation tend to be those of the North American public –they accept traditional racial divisions, and they hold typological views of race. Forensic anthropologists must report their results in terms that are meaningful to their nonanthropological audience, and they have adopted traditional race categories as the most effective way of doing that. As Gill (1990:Viii) says, “Providing answers for the attribution of race solves cases just as much as providing a useful age bracket or living stature for the individual. Law enforcement agencies know this, and request simple, straight answers. Any anthropologist who contends that races do not exist and provides a vague answer as to ancestry of an unidentified skeleton, or launches into discourse on ‘ethnic groups,’ will never likely be called upon again to assist in solving a case.” A major reason for the use of racial categories by American forensic anthropologists is thus pragmatic: their target audience wants to hear about race (p48).
Yes, the approach might fail to take into account diversity across groups due to stereotypical approaches/thinking, but I'm not sure it can be argued that there's a complete separation of science and sociological categories of race.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: @Doug M
I'll repeat again. The reason why scientist do NOT use black or any other racial terms is because "race" itself is NOT repeat NOT scientifically defined. Its mostly a social constructs. Now do social constructs have validity in science? No.
Now not denying that there are some bias/bigoted anthropologist that still hold onto refuted ideas such as YAP being Eurasian or most of African diversity being attributed to Eurasian. But all in all race is just not accepted in science.
I mean Coons racist ideas are not even looked at anymore in anthropology. Caucasoid and Negroid are NO LONGER used in a racial sense. Its not just "black" thats not used, but white too!
Keita doesn't use the term black either, is he a racist?
Now with Historians this would be a different story in my opinion.
And just to be clear I am person who PROUDLY identifies as black. We just have to be careful when and when not to use racial social terms is all I am saying.
Skin color is not race. Because there are no 'races' in humans doesn't mean humans don't have skin color and that they cant be described using names like black or white. The reason white European scientists don't want to use the term black is because from the very beginning of the study of anthropology and Egyptology European racists have been using Egypt as the basis for their claims of biological superiority. So even if they don't use 'race' anymore they will not admit that the ancient Egyptians were black people, meaning having an outward complexion that can be defined as black.
And bottom line, these people are hypocrites, because the exact same people claiming that they don't want to use the word black when it comes to Egypt have no problem using it elsewhere in Africa or for those descendants of African slaves who live in Europe or the Americas. So again, it is not the terminology or the science that is the issue, it is the racism.
The word black has been used as a reference to humans since long before racism became an issue. And specifically the ancient Egyptians called themselves black as a pejorative no less. So whatever these folks come up with is irrelevant.
I have no problem calling a spade a spade and rejecting the nonsense of Europeans or anyone else when it comes to facts that are obvious. And the absurd part is that after all these hundreds of years of Europeans writing openly racist books of so called 'science' about 'races' all over the planet and the superiority of the white 'race', we got silly folks sitting here trying to claim that European scientists are objective and we must follow their nonsense wherever it goes rather than just calling it for what it is.
Posted by tropicals redacted (Member # 21621) on :
quote: we got silly folks sitting here trying to claim that European scientists are objective and we must follow their nonsense wherever it goes rather than just calling it for what it is.
--Frank W Sweet
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
Scientists not calling the Egyptians black is not because there is some 'better' way of describing them for scientific purposes. That is nonsense. They are not calling them black because of racism.
Many scientists today say there is no such thing as race.
People who do not believe in race don't use the terms "white people" or "black people"
They say a person is "dark skinned" or "light skinned" because other people who DO say race does exists say examples of races are "whites" and "blacks" Therefore to use the term "white" or "black"is to leave open the possibility the these are meant in the racial sense. Other terms don't have this possibility
Indeed they are right, these traits you see are simply biological affinities. Then again you have the replacement for caucasoids as Eurasians.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
Scientists not calling the Egyptians black is not because there is some 'better' way of describing them for scientific purposes. That is nonsense. They are not calling them black because of racism.
Many scientists today say there is no such thing as race.
People who do not believe in race don't use the terms "white people" or "black people"
They say a person is "dark skinned" or "light skinned" because other people who DO say race does exists say examples of races are "whites" and "blacks" Therefore to use the term "white" or "black"is to leave open the possibility the these are meant in the racial sense. Other terms don't have this possibility
Indeed they are right, these traits you see are simply biological affinities. Then again you have the replacement for caucasoids as Eurasians.
Oh please. White people to this day call themselves white people and call other folks black people as they see fit. And it doesn't mean 'race' it is a reflection of outward appearance.
Skin color is not a social construct. How people treat you or prejudice based on skin color is a social construct.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The Ancient Egyptians called themselves blacks and were blacks. Either that is true or it is not. Just like the Ancient Greeks were white and called themselves white.
There is nothing else to it.
This is one case of a simple black vs white debate where it is totally and wholly appropriate.
To say that race is a social construct is one thing, but to claim that skin color is not real because race is a social construct is bullsh*t. Skin color is just as real as any other aspect of human biology and there is nothing 'unscientific' about using words to describe skin color. Calling certain ranges of skin color white is no less accurate or valid than calling other ranges of skin colors black. This usage of colors to describe human skin complexion is not new and is not based on 'racism'. It is based on observed facts. Now to argue that the Egyptians or any other population weren't black is to argue that their skin complexion was not within the range of what could be considered black.
I'm against this 19th century racialist sort of thing but anyway here's the link for curiousity's sake dividing the wolrd into two categories is idiotic Dienekes Pontikos
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The Ancient Egyptians called themselves blacks and were blacks. Either that is true or it is not. Just like the Ancient Greeks were white and called themselves white.
There is nothing else to it.
This is one case of a simple black vs white debate where it is totally and wholly appropriate.
To say that race is a social construct is one thing, but to claim that skin color is not real because race is a social construct is bullsh*t. Skin color is just as real as any other aspect of human biology and there is nothing 'unscientific' about using words to describe skin color. Calling certain ranges of skin color white is no less accurate or valid than calling other ranges of skin colors black. This usage of colors to describe human skin complexion is not new and is not based on 'racism'. It is based on observed facts. Now to argue that the Egyptians or any other population weren't black is to argue that their skin complexion was not within the range of what could be considered black.
I'm against this 19th century racialist sort of thing but anyway here's the link for curiousity's sake dividing the wolrd into two categories is idiotic Dienekes Pontikos
Who said anything about dividing the world into categories? That has nothing to do with the dam question. Stick to the point. Were the ancient Kemetians black or not? And why are you bringing up an avowed racist? When I say racist, I mean they hate anything to do with black skin when it can be shown to be 'superior' in any regard relative to white skin. And that is from their own writings on the issue, this is not something coming from black folks. So why are you even entertaining this nonsense? If they are against racism then they should be debating with white folks who created the construct.
All this going all over the world to avoid answering a simple dam question.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
I posted this because of the calculator. I have noticed that quite a few academics have him linked on there page. The reason why, I don't know.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: I posted this because of the calculator. I have noticed that quite a few academics have him linked on there page. The reason why, I don't know.
They have it linked because Europeans created the concept of race based on craniometry and other "metrics". All of it is total garbage that they use to divide up the world as they see fit based on their racist views. Again, I don't know why folks are trying so hard to give these folks a pass for their B.S.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
tropicals has a new thread up in AE called
"Nearly three-quarters of African immigrants reported their race as "Black."
And since he didn't question this premise, that black is not just "anyone with dark brown skin" but in fact it's a race then we must assume tropicals redacted believes that blacks and whites are races
Posted by Mindovermatter (Member # 22317) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
I'll repeat again. The reason why scientist do NOT use black or any other racial terms is because "race" itself is NOT repeat NOT scientifically defined. Its mostly a social constructs. Now do social constructs have validity in science? No.
This is false logic and displays an ignorant double standard. When one looks at the genetic table of White Europeans, you see completely different genes and haplogroups for some populations.
Take for instance the Basque, the Basque look superficially mediterranean and White, yet they are primarily of Haplogroup R1b and have zero to none of Haplogroup R1a. They have a distinct genepool and geneset then the rest of Europe and predates other White European groups with haplogroup R1a and are very inbred and are one of the oldest European groups.
Yet these same White European academics state that the Basque are part of a "greater" White European race and are lumped with a European "white race" that includes Poles, Czechs, Germans, Lithuanians etc etc. And furthermore they are presented as proof by these lying academics that Whites originate from Europe. When they have nothing to do with other White Europeans who are hybrids of recent Central Asian migrants.
Yet these SAME academics have a double standard and have no qualms about saying that these black Indians and Black Chinese ARE NOT ACTUALLY BLACK BECAUSE OF DIFFERENT GENES, DESPITE LOOKING COMPLETELY BLACK ON THE OUTSIDE!
So the obvious conclusion is that there is a double standard at work here, and none of what your professors are saying is actually true but sunk in personal and racial agenda's with no basis in reality.
And African genes ARE EXTREMELY DIVERSE! One SINGLE AFRICAN VILLAGE, is more genetically diverse and further apart, then another African village/tribe a couple of miles away! They could be more further apart then a European is to a Chinaman genetically.
Therefore, the BLACK INDIAN ISLANDERS, and BLACKS ELSEWHERE, are just variations of the BLACK GENETIC DIVERSITY that is inherent and part of the genetics of people from BLACK AFRICA!
I don't think your professors and you yourself grasp this concept...
quote: Now not denying that there are some bias/bigoted anthropologist that still hold onto refuted ideas such as YAP being Eurasian or most of African diversity being attributed to Eurasian. But all in all race is just not accepted in science.
I mean Coons racist ideas are not even looked at anymore in anthropology. Caucasoid and Negroid are NO LONGER used in a racial sense. Its not just "black" thats not used, but white too!
Actually it is, there are still "professional" blogs and forums that still use those terms and terminologies. For example, they call Black looking people from Asia and Oceania as "negrito's".
quote: Keita doesn't use the term black either, is he a racist?
Now with Historians this would be a different story in my opinion.
And just to be clear I am person who PROUDLY identifies as black. We just have to be careful when and when not to use racial social terms is all I am saying.
No it's not racist or false to use term "black" at all, if these people in question were black skinned in the first place. After all, even geneticists and anthropologists like Spencer wells, and others still throw around the term "black" and "black skinned" here and there, just go watch Spencer's latest documentary.
Oh and Horus, just because science and genetics have disproved concepts of blackness and race DOES NOT MEAN that the social implications of it or the politics of blackness/whiteness is going to GO AWAY ANY TIME SOON!
Even with genomic science, people ARE STILL GOING TO SUBSCRIBE to old misconceptions and social categories of RACE from THE AVERAGE GUY to HIGH LEVEL POLITICIANS JUST LIKE IN THE U.S TODAY NO MATTER WHAT!
Did genomic science advances in race stop cops from racially profiling and killing innocent blacks or employers/college administrates denying people with black skin certain rights and prestigious positions/jobs TO THIS DAY?
Even with advances from genomic science, did it stop White liberals who preach racial equality and know all this genomic science, from MOVING AWAY FROM MAJORITY BLACK FILLED AREAS OR FROM BLACK SKINNED PEOPLE IN GENERAL because of the fact that they had black skin despite knowing race is a "social construct"?
Does it stop people like Jared Taylor and HBD bloggers from saying that people with dark skin had lower IQ'S and can't fit into civilization? Hell no!
So it's irrelevant whether these "black skinned" people have different "genes" or not. Because society and the majority of the world's civilizations and peoples, still operate on "social constructs" on the highest levels of society, then so should we and adapt accordingly and use it accordingly.
No one really gives a **** about genes in real life except for monarchies, and if you have black skin then you are treated as someone with black skin no matter your genes or where you are from.
And it's using this logic, that professional academics and historians use the concept of skin color and the social construct of "race" to tie Europe to a some sort of a mythical lineage and continuity of "western" civilization that includes non-white European civilizations and peoples like the Assyrians/Babylonians/Phoenicians/Egyptians/GREEKS/Etruscans when no such thing exists.
It's a play on words and a double standard tactic, using the same logic as you Horus, modern Western Europeans and White Europeans in general are descendants of Ancient Greeks and Roman civilizations because of supposed "common genes".
But MODERN WHITE EUROPEANS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH ANCIENT GREECE OR ETRUSCANS DESPITE CLAIMING THEIR CIVILIZATIONS! Modern Greeks HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH ANCIENT GREEKS!
All of these White Europeans are recent migrants and invaders from Eurasia that have no genetic lineage to Ancient Greeks. Ancient Greece and Roman civilizations HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MODERN WHITE EUROPEANS ON A GENETIC CHRONOLOGICAL BASIS!
Yet does it stop White academics from claiming "ancient Greece" as a "white civilization" when that in itself is dubious? Hell no!
But compare this with Egypt, where you have BLACK SKINNED people from around the Egyptian area, WHO DO HAVE GENES AND LINEAGES THAT DIRECTLY COINCIDE WITH ANCIENT EGYPTIAN GENES! But are ignored by academics.
Yet you have a hybrid mulatto Roman/Greek/Arab/Turk/Black/Germanic/Eurasian population IN EGYPTIAN CITIES TODAY who claim they are descendants of THE ACTUAL EGYPTIANS WHEN NO SUCH THING IS POSSIBLE! Yet these people's opinions are taken more seriously.
So yes, black and dark skin does matter even to these lying professors and scientists you talk with, no matter the genes and blacks outside Africa are blacks for all intents and purposes and DEFINITELY SO ARE ANCIENT EGYPTIAN BLACKS!
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mindovermatter:
All of these White Europeans are recent migrants and invaders from Eurasia that have no genetic lineage to Ancient Greeks. Ancient Greece and Roman civilizations HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MODERN WHITE EUROPEANS ON A GENETIC CHRONOLOGICAL BASIS!
You don't know what the ancient Greek haplgroups are, you are just blowing hot air. You are going to have to look it up now
Posted by Mindovermatter (Member # 22317) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: I posted this because of the calculator. I have noticed that quite a few academics have him linked on there page. The reason why, I don't know.
They have it linked because Europeans created the concept of race based on craniometry and other "metrics". All of it is total garbage that they use to divide up the world as they see fit based on their racist views. Again, I don't know why folks are trying so hard to give these folks a pass for their B.S.
Hey Doug could you make more big posts on the African and Asian origins and basis of "western civilization"? I have printed numerous arguments of yours because they were so good.
The current belief is that Africa had no advanced cvilizations or advanced tech that influence civilizations like Ancient Egypt and that matched with Ancient civilizations like Greece, Rome, China, Persia etc etc. And that these Africans had no influence on Europe.
However African civilizations in Africa had already entered the Iron age and discovered Iron BEFORE WHITE EUROPEANS, and this was used by Hannibal for his Carthaginian army.
They were more wealthier and more advanced then all of Northern Europe and Western Europe combined during the Medieval era. Could you please do future posts elaborating and explaining this.
Even on forums like Historum, the misconceptions that Africans had no other advanced civilizations like Egypt and not on par with Egypt or Eurasian cvilizations still run amok. And also that Africans did not influence Europeans or were more advanced or just as advanced as them during the Medieval ages.
I know this is OT, but you have made GREAT posts here on this forum in past debunking Eurocentrists on Africa, and I'm still searching for more of them and they are gems.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: I posted this because of the calculator. I have noticed that quite a few academics have him linked on there page. The reason why, I don't know.
They have it linked because Europeans created the concept of race based on craniometry and other "metrics". All of it is total garbage that they use to divide up the world as they see fit based on their racist views. Again, I don't know why folks are trying so hard to give these folks a pass for their B.S.
Old on, I don't give them a pass nor credits. And he's I know it's B.S.
I have devoted a few pages on this while you were gone.
All of these White Europeans are recent migrants and invaders from Eurasia that have no genetic lineage to Ancient Greeks. Ancient Greece and Roman civilizations HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MODERN WHITE EUROPEANS ON A GENETIC CHRONOLOGICAL BASIS!
You don't know what the ancient Greek haplgroups are, you are just blowing hot air. You are going to have to look it up now
Yes I do, Ancient Europeans and Ancient Greek genes are not found in many cases, in modern Greeks and White Europeans in general TODAY!
Just by studying history, one has to conclude that MODERN WHITE EUROPEANS HAVE PRETTY MUCH NOTHING TO DO WITH ANCIENT GRECO-ROMANS!~
Modern White Europeans ARE PRETTY MUCH ALL DESCENDANTS OF EURASIAN MIGRANTS AND INVASIONS!
All one needs to do, is just DO A GOOGLE SEARCH!
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: I would direct you to the Thread proving the right Worshipful Almighty Whitey academicians Have never abandoned Caucasian as descriptor For the whites and it's Corollary Caucasoid for Blacks and others they Want to appropriate.
But I'm still waiting your Comments on my posts Which request So far You've ignored who Knows why
Tukuler, your mailbox is full, can you empty the box a bit. I need too messages you.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mindovermatter:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Mindovermatter:
All of these White Europeans are recent migrants and invaders from Eurasia that have no genetic lineage to Ancient Greeks. Ancient Greece and Roman civilizations HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MODERN WHITE EUROPEANS ON A GENETIC CHRONOLOGICAL BASIS!
You don't know what the ancient Greek haplgroups are, you are just blowing hot air. You are going to have to look it up now
Yes I do, Ancient Europeans and Ancient Greek genes are not found in many cases, in modern Greeks and White Europeans in general TODAY!
Just by studying history, one has to conclude that MODERN WHITE EUROPEANS HAVE PRETTY MUCH NOTHING TO DO WITH ANCIENT GRECO-ROMANS!~
Modern White Europeans ARE PRETTY MUCH ALL DESCENDANTS OF EURASIAN MIGRANTS AND INVASIONS!
All one needs to do, is just DO A GOOGLE SEARCH!
As I said you don't know what the haplogroups of the ancient Greeks are. You don't know anything about the genetics, you are just bullshitting
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mindovermatter:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Mindovermatter:
All of these White Europeans are recent migrants and invaders from Eurasia that have no genetic lineage to Ancient Greeks. Ancient Greece and Roman civilizations HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MODERN WHITE EUROPEANS ON A GENETIC CHRONOLOGICAL BASIS!
You don't know what the ancient Greek haplgroups are, you are just blowing hot air. You are going to have to look it up now
Yes I do, Ancient Europeans and Ancient Greek genes are not found in many cases, in modern Greeks and White Europeans in general TODAY!
Just by studying history, one has to conclude that MODERN WHITE EUROPEANS HAVE PRETTY MUCH NOTHING TO DO WITH ANCIENT GRECO-ROMANS!~
Modern White Europeans ARE PRETTY MUCH ALL DESCENDANTS OF EURASIAN MIGRANTS AND INVASIONS!
All one needs to do, is just DO A GOOGLE SEARCH!
Of course this lioness knows about population replacements in Europe. The people in southern Europe carry small snippets of these older populations.
All of these White Europeans are recent migrants and invaders from Eurasia that have no genetic lineage to Ancient Greeks. Ancient Greece and Roman civilizations HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MODERN WHITE EUROPEANS ON A GENETIC CHRONOLOGICAL BASIS!
You don't know what the ancient Greek haplgroups are, you are just blowing hot air. You are going to have to look it up now
Yes I do, Ancient Europeans and Ancient Greek genes are not found in many cases, in modern Greeks and White Europeans in general TODAY!
Just by studying history, one has to conclude that MODERN WHITE EUROPEANS HAVE PRETTY MUCH NOTHING TO DO WITH ANCIENT GRECO-ROMANS!~
Modern White Europeans ARE PRETTY MUCH ALL DESCENDANTS OF EURASIAN MIGRANTS AND INVASIONS!
All one needs to do, is just DO A GOOGLE SEARCH!
Of course this lioness knows about population replacements in Europe. The people in southern Europe carry small snippets of these older populations.
quote: Bogucki agrees that climate change might have been a trigger for the change in Europe's genetic makeup, but he thinks it was only a factor and not the sole cause.
One thing that is clear from the genetic data is that nearly half of modern Europeans can trace their origins back to this mysterious group.
"About [4,500 B.C.], you start seeing a diversity and composition of genetic signatures that are beginning to look like modern [Central] Europe," Cooper said. "This composition is then modified by subsequent cultures moving in, but it's the first point at which you see something like the modern European genetic makeup in place."
Whatever prompted the replacement of genetic signatures from the first pan-European culture, Cooper is clearly intrigued. "Something major happened," he said in a statement, "and the hunt is now on to find out what that was."
See Ish Gebor? I AM RIGHT AND I WAS RIGHT!
Europe's original black/brown population WAS KILLED off by PLAGUES and CLIMATIC/WEATHER SHIFTS! Even these scientists agree that climatic shifts resulted in change in genetic makeup of Europeans.
These modern White Europeans are simply albino Central Asians and the albino's of original Europeans.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: I am not talking about rock art. This issue has nothing to do with rock art. We are talking about the overwhelming amount of facts from all disciplines which is how you reach a conclusion on something like ancient Egypt. Like I said the facts are clear that Egyptology as an institution has been founded as an arm of white supremacy since its creation. The artifacts, rock art, language, physical remains, colors of the spectrum, language are not the problem, it is the racists that are the problem. I am just calling it like it is. Whether 'some' of these folk feel they are being 'objective' or not is irrelevant to the overall point.
The facts and information needed to reach a conclusion on the skin color of the ancient Egyptians are available and unambiguous. And from that one can easily answer the question with a simple yes or no. There is no need for 'other'. And there is only one right answer. Now these same scientists have no problem answering this question with a simple yes or no when it comes to Rome, Greece and so forth, but when it comes to Egypt suddenty yes or no becomes a problem, when it is just as simple as Greece or Rome. Where they are were they not a black population? It is a simple cut and dry question with a simple cut and dry answer. If you don't need to invoke rock art and all these other 'scientific' terms for Greece and Rome or anywhere else why do you need it in Egypt? You don't. It is not that dam complex. [/qb]
Like I said, if it were true that the findings so far are enough to throw around terms like 'black', there would be a major difference in how people related to the ancient Egyptians are covered. There is no such difference. Living Africans related to ancient Egyptians receive very similar treatment in bio-anthropology and by reporters.
Look at how the Malian and Darfur conflicts are reported. People are making the exact same racial distinctions between both sides in each conflict. But the Janjaweed and Tuareg are pastoralists, traders, etc and live relatively simple lives (compared to ancient Egyptians) and so explain how exactly racism is involved in the narratives of the ethnic backgrounds of these parties. We see the same "somewhat black, but fundamentally different" and "Arab" or "North African" descriptions thrown around in coverage of these conflicts. The people referred to with such labels are often brown to dark brown skinned, but often differ in their physiognomies and facial features in the same way the ancient Egyptians would have.
An additional point is that the vast majority of the racism in Egyptology has been directed into channels other than the ethnic background of the ancient Egyptians. Early writings on the AE phenotypical associations mostly centered on their so-called 'Hamitic' origins. The comparative populations in this 'Hamitic' grouping are still considered their closest relatives today by bio-anthropologists widely cited on egyptsearch.
How by far most of the racism has expressed itself, is in the following, among other things:
1) reluctance to admit or at least consider that the 'Hamitic' grouping consists of groups who are indigenous African in principle. 2) saying civilization was brought in from Sumer and elsewhere. 3) insisting that they couldn't have been 'black' and then pointing to region x in Africa they perceive to be uncivilized. 4) making the the ability to progress in civilization hereditary. 5) explaining unexpected (i.e. "negroid") skeletal remains away as individuals who were 'enslaved' by the ancient Egyptians. 6) explaining Egypto-Nubian conflicts as racial wars. 7) saying 'black Africans' couldn't have crossed the Sahara when it was a desert. 8) ignoring and marginalizing cultural links with inner Africa and magnifying cultural links with the Middle East.
etc.
Posted by kdolo (Member # 21830) on :
What about genocides ??
Posted by tropicals redacted (Member # 21621) on :
Lioness and her/his usual idiocy.
There are no races, only social races/ populations.
quote: tropicals has a new thread up in AE called
"Nearly three-quarters of African immigrants reported their race as "Black."
And since he didn't question this premise, that black is not just "anyone with dark brown skin" but in fact it's a race then we must assume tropicals redacted believes that blacks and whites are races
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mindovermatter:
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by Mindovermatter:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Mindovermatter:
All of these White Europeans are recent migrants and invaders from Eurasia that have no genetic lineage to Ancient Greeks. Ancient Greece and Roman civilizations HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MODERN WHITE EUROPEANS ON A GENETIC CHRONOLOGICAL BASIS!
You don't know what the ancient Greek haplgroups are, you are just blowing hot air. You are going to have to look it up now
Yes I do, Ancient Europeans and Ancient Greek genes are not found in many cases, in modern Greeks and White Europeans in general TODAY!
Just by studying history, one has to conclude that MODERN WHITE EUROPEANS HAVE PRETTY MUCH NOTHING TO DO WITH ANCIENT GRECO-ROMANS!~
Modern White Europeans ARE PRETTY MUCH ALL DESCENDANTS OF EURASIAN MIGRANTS AND INVASIONS!
All one needs to do, is just DO A GOOGLE SEARCH!
Of course this lioness knows about population replacements in Europe. The people in southern Europe carry small snippets of these older populations.
quote: Bogucki agrees that climate change might have been a trigger for the change in Europe's genetic makeup, but he thinks it was only a factor and not the sole cause.
One thing that is clear from the genetic data is that nearly half of modern Europeans can trace their origins back to this mysterious group.
"About [4,500 B.C.], you start seeing a diversity and composition of genetic signatures that are beginning to look like modern [Central] Europe," Cooper said. "This composition is then modified by subsequent cultures moving in, but it's the first point at which you see something like the modern European genetic makeup in place."
Whatever prompted the replacement of genetic signatures from the first pan-European culture, Cooper is clearly intrigued. "Something major happened," he said in a statement, "and the hunt is now on to find out what that was."
See Ish Gebor? I AM RIGHT AND I WAS RIGHT!
Europe's original black/brown population WAS KILLED off by PLAGUES and CLIMATIC/WEATHER SHIFTS! Even these scientists agree that climatic shifts resulted in change in genetic makeup of Europeans.
These modern White Europeans are simply albino Central Asians and the albino's of original Europeans.
I am not sure about the albino thing, but I do agree with the population replacement.
quote: Given our results, it remains possible that the PWC represent remnants of a larger northern European Mesolithic hunter-gather complex. However, it appears unlikely that population continuity exists between the PWC and contemporary Scandinavians or Saami. Thus, our findings are in agreement with archaeological theories suggesting Neolithic or post-Neolithic population introgression or replacement in Scandinavia.
--Helena Malmström
Ancient DNA Reveals Lack of Continuity between Neolithic Hunter-Gatherers and Contemporary Scandinavians
And since he didn't question this premise, that black is not just "anyone with dark brown skin" but in fact it's a race then we must assume tropicals redacted believes that blacks and whites are races
If Nearly three-quarters of African immigrants reported their race as "Black"
Then>>
three-quarters of African immigrants reported their race as "Black"
So that means according to the questioner and answerer race exists, the black race and the white race, etc
Now if you have an alternate meaning for race meaning " any person with dark skin" that's on you not on what this poll was about
If they wanted to ask "are you dark skinned" they would have asked.
So let's not play games and invent a new term "social race".
"Social race" is not a term anybody uses, stop it
You've got an inconsistent double standard. You say "there are no races" then as soon as these African immigrants say they are of the black race you applaud it, no questions asked
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by kdolo: What about genocides ??
you mean the imaginary ones Mike makes up or the real ones that are historical ?
kdolo and Mindovermatter, you are in the wrong lane. Mike stays in AE forum, that's the historical revisionist forum where such perspectives are the 'norm'. Nobody is going to buy any of that alternative history stuff here. Here they basically discuss mainsteam anthropology but arguing over the details, not switching everything 360 ala paranoid fantasy albino-land
Posted by Nodnarb (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Like I said, if it were true that the findings so far are enough to throw around terms like 'black', there would be a major difference in how people related to the ancient Egyptians are covered. There is no such difference. Living Africans related to ancient Egyptians receive very similar treatment in bio-anthropology and by reporters.
Look at how the Malian and Darfur conflicts are reported. People are making the exact same racial distinctions between both sides in each conflict. But the Janjaweed and Tuareg are pastoralists, traders, etc and live relatively simple lives (compared to ancient Egyptians) and so explain how exactly racism is involved in the narratives of the ethnic backgrounds of these parties. We see the same "somewhat black, but fundamentally different" and "Arab" or "North African" descriptions thrown around in coverage of these conflicts. The people referred to with such labels are often brown to dark brown skinned, but often differ in their physiognomies and facial features in the same way the ancient Egyptians would have.
An additional point is that the vast majority of the racism in Egyptology has been directed into channels other than the ethnic background of the ancient Egyptians. Early writings on the AE phenotypical associations mostly centered on their so-called 'Hamitic' origins. The comparative populations in this 'Hamitic' grouping are still considered their closest relatives today by bio-anthropologists widely cited on egyptsearch.
Where by far most of the racism has come in is the following, among other things:
1) reluctance to admit or at least consider this is indigenous African variation. 2) saying civilization was brought in from Sumer and elsewhere. 3) insisting that they couldn't have been 'black' and then pointing to region x in Africa they perceive to be uncivilized. 4) making the the ability to progress in civilization hereditary. 5) explaining unexpected (i.e. "negroid") skeletal remains away as individuals who were 'enslaved' by the ancient Egyptians 6) explaining Egypto-Nubian conflicts as racial wars 7) saying 'black Africans' couldn't have crossed the Sahara when it was a desert 8) ignoring and marginalizing cultural links with inner Africa and magnifying cultural links with the Middle East
etc.
I will add that Eurocentrics and other supporters of orthodoxy don't simply stop at saying AE didn't look exactly like broad-featured SSAs. That is something many "Afrocentrics" wouldn't even dispute. Instead the orthodoxy goes even further and claim AEs in general looked like stereotyped "Mediterranean" or "Semitic" people with olive skin. They may very well consider dark-skinned Saharans to be "racially" different from "black" sub-Saharans as you have said. But from what I've seen, most of them still wouldn't hold these darker Saharans as representative of the AE type. If I had to guess, they probably assume dark Saharans are simply hybrids between Mediterraneans/Middle Easterners and SSAs, so in their view AEs with dark skin would necessarily have significant SSA ancestry. Maybe too much for their comfort, if they really happen to be racist.
It seems to me that the average layperson's perception of Africa is simplistically binary; they divide it into an "Arab" north and a "black" sub-Sahara and figure that any phenotype that doesn't fit into either the Arab or sub-Saharan stereotype must represent admixture. If anyone is going to communicate to the public on how AEs would have looked, I say it's important to get them up to speed on how different African populations would have looked rather than crutching on stereotyped terminology.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
If my radar over the years is anything to go by, I think that's mostly people who have been influenced by early Hollywood films that depicted AE as light skinned and publications like National Geographic and other amateurs. Egyptologists who were making up crap as they went along also did this.
The most influential and widely cited racists and racialists like Morton, Coon, Elliot Smith, Sergi, Petrie, etc. considered dark skinned eastern Saharans to be the main founding populations of predynastic (upper) ancient Egypt. They then considered both to be partly or entirely non-African. Other prominent racists in that discipline who said that the Egyptians would have been pale or light skinned (I can't recall any, but maybe others can) would have just been trolling. See Keita's many summations of the literature for a quick overview on what these authors wrote. Terms like "Negroid" and links with certain African groups, especially eastern Saharan groups, were a recurring theme. Often they just didn't considered them indigenous (in principle) and were still dismissive in regards to certain facts.
Posted by Nodnarb (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: If my radar over the years is anything to go by, I think that's mostly people who have been influenced by early Hollywood films that depicted AE as light skinned and publications like National Geographic and other amateurs. Egyptologists who were making up crap as they went along also did this.
Perhaps that's the case for many laypeople. But you have to admit some individuals who ought to know better get awfully invested in that image if it came entirely from the movies. The only analog that comes to my mind is how certain dinosaur fans are resistant to the idea of Velociraptors and other dromaosaurid dinosaurs having feathers---and even in that case, the problem is exacerbated by the cultural prejudice that birds are less "scary" than reptiles.
Movies can distort the public image of the past for sure, but usually that's because the public doesn't know any better. For the public to grow so attached to the misconceptions, there must be something extra that pushes them away from the reality. What would you say that is?
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Let's examine it with specifics. Who are these professional Egyptologists and physical anthropologists who considered founding AE populations to have been pale or olive colored and how frequent are they?
Even known racist Coon used a dark skinned male with a profile consistent with many Africans as representative of the Kharga oasis. He could have easily picked the more Middle Eastern-looking plates.
Posted by Nodnarb (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Let's examine it with specifics. Who are these professional Egyptologists and physical anthropologists who considered founding AE populations to have been pale or olive colored and how frequent are they?
Excuse me, but I wasn't referring to any specific professionals, but rather various armchair historians and nerds I and others have encountered throughout the Internet. Apologies for the misunderstanding.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
The misunderstanding is not that serious though, lol. But nah, you said it right, looking back. I was thrown of by when you said 'orthodoxy' and thought you were referring to the establishment Doug was talking about.
It sounds like you're describing people like ES' trolls. That's why I said that professionals who have seriously looked into this and say that representative AE were pale or olive colored are simply trolling. The only thing I can think of that perpetuates that idea is hollywood and media coverage (e.g. National Geographic). The Nordicists claim to Egypt is almost completely restricted to internet communities (at least nowadays).
Many of them don't even believe what they say in public. Ask Beyoku about that PM conversation on one of the troll forums where one of the mods admitted that, contrary to their posts, they don't believe that the AE weren't African.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Anybody who is says that "black" is a term Egyptologists should use and that it means a range of skin color alone, not race, needs to get serious about what they saying and be able to look at the above chart and determine anything up to a certain number is black and beyond it is not black
If tropicals redacted, Tukuler and Doug can't do that then applying the term "black" is pure political rhetoric, not something scientists should be involved with
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Anybody who is says that "caucasoids" is a term Egyptologists should use and that it means a range of phenotype alone, not race, needs to get serious about what they saying and be able to look at the above chart and determine anything up to a certain number is caucasoids and beyond it is not caucasoids
If tropicals redacted, Tukuler and Doug can't do that then applying the term "caucasoids" is pure political rhetoric, not something scientists should be involved with
If we're going to do quizzes, let's do it the right way. This has gone on for way too long. This is especially for Doug, since he pretends it's either 'yes' or 'no'.
Name the branches on this dendrogram (which is based on measurements) in modern western racial terms without tripping up or copping out:
Ish Gebor he said let Doug name them, not you
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: I am not talking about rock art. This issue has nothing to do with rock art. We are talking about the overwhelming amount of facts from all disciplines which is how you reach a conclusion on something like ancient Egypt. Like I said the facts are clear that Egyptology as an institution has been founded as an arm of white supremacy since its creation. The artifacts, rock art, language, physical remains, colors of the spectrum, language are not the problem, it is the racists that are the problem. I am just calling it like it is. Whether 'some' of these folk feel they are being 'objective' or not is irrelevant to the overall point.
The facts and information needed to reach a conclusion on the skin color of the ancient Egyptians are available and unambiguous. And from that one can easily answer the question with a simple yes or no. There is no need for 'other'. And there is only one right answer. Now these same scientists have no problem answering this question with a simple yes or no when it comes to Rome, Greece and so forth, but when it comes to Egypt suddenty yes or no becomes a problem, when it is just as simple as Greece or Rome. Where they are were they not a black population? It is a simple cut and dry question with a simple cut and dry answer. If you don't need to invoke rock art and all these other 'scientific' terms for Greece and Rome or anywhere else why do you need it in Egypt? You don't. It is not that dam complex.
Like I said, if it were true that the findings so far are enough to throw around terms like 'black', there would be a major difference in how people related to the ancient Egyptians are covered. There is no such difference. Living Africans related to ancient Egyptians receive very similar treatment in bio-anthropology and by reporters.
Look at how the Malian and Darfur conflicts are reported. People are making the exact same racial distinctions between both sides in each conflict. But the Janjaweed and Tuareg are pastoralists, traders, etc and live relatively simple lives (compared to ancient Egyptians) and so explain how exactly racism is involved in the narratives of the ethnic backgrounds of these parties. We see the same "somewhat black, but fundamentally different" and "Arab" or "North African" descriptions thrown around in coverage of these conflicts. The people referred to with such labels are often brown to dark brown skinned, but often differ in their physiognomies and facial features in the same way the ancient Egyptians would have.
An additional point is that the vast majority of the racism in Egyptology has been directed into channels other than the ethnic background of the ancient Egyptians. Early writings on the AE phenotypical associations mostly centered on their so-called 'Hamitic' origins. The comparative populations in this 'Hamitic' grouping are still considered their closest relatives today by bio-anthropologists widely cited on egyptsearch.
How by far most of the racism has expressed itself, is in the following, among other things:
1) reluctance to admit or at least consider that the 'Hamitic' grouping consists of groups who are indigenous African in principle. 2) saying civilization was brought in from Sumer and elsewhere. 3) insisting that they couldn't have been 'black' and then pointing to region x in Africa they perceive to be uncivilized. 4) making the the ability to progress in civilization hereditary. 5) explaining unexpected (i.e. "negroid") skeletal remains away as individuals who were 'enslaved' by the ancient Egyptians. 6) explaining Egypto-Nubian conflicts as racial wars. 7) saying 'black Africans' couldn't have crossed the Sahara when it was a desert. 8) ignoring and marginalizing cultural links with inner Africa and magnifying cultural links with the Middle East.
etc.
What you said makes no sense. I asked a simple straight forward question and it has a simple yes no answer. All this other stuff is simply irrelevant. You are simply deviating from the point. Were the ancient Egyptians a black African population. Yes or no. It is a simple question with a simple answer.
All this other stuff is simply nonsense but rather than calling it nonsense you want to claim that there is some 'logical' reason why this nosense shouldn't be called for what it is: nonsense. All those folks you pointed out are black Africans yet are you seriously claiming that somehow there is some reason not to call their skin complexion black? Pray tell what reason is that? Or is that too complex to understand why skin color being black among MOST indigenous African populations has ALWAYS been an accepted fact no less accepted than MOST Europeans having white skin. There is nothing more complex to it than that and trying to subdivide and categorize these populations in order to create other terminologies that do not change the fundamental fact of common shared skin complexion among black Africans is simply NON SENSE.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
. I asked a simple straight forward question and it has a simple yes no answer. All this other stuff is simply irrelevant. You are simply deviating from the point. Were the ancient Egyptians a black African population. Yes or no. It is a simple question with a simple answer.
If you indicate which shades are black and which are not maybe Swenet can answer
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nodnarb:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Like I said, if it were true that the findings so far are enough to throw around terms like 'black', there would be a major difference in how people related to the ancient Egyptians are covered. There is no such difference. Living Africans related to ancient Egyptians receive very similar treatment in bio-anthropology and by reporters.
Look at how the Malian and Darfur conflicts are reported. People are making the exact same racial distinctions between both sides in each conflict. But the Janjaweed and Tuareg are pastoralists, traders, etc and live relatively simple lives (compared to ancient Egyptians) and so explain how exactly racism is involved in the narratives of the ethnic backgrounds of these parties. We see the same "somewhat black, but fundamentally different" and "Arab" or "North African" descriptions thrown around in coverage of these conflicts. The people referred to with such labels are often brown to dark brown skinned, but often differ in their physiognomies and facial features in the same way the ancient Egyptians would have.
An additional point is that the vast majority of the racism in Egyptology has been directed into channels other than the ethnic background of the ancient Egyptians. Early writings on the AE phenotypical associations mostly centered on their so-called 'Hamitic' origins. The comparative populations in this 'Hamitic' grouping are still considered their closest relatives today by bio-anthropologists widely cited on egyptsearch.
Where by far most of the racism has come in is the following, among other things:
1) reluctance to admit or at least consider this is indigenous African variation. 2) saying civilization was brought in from Sumer and elsewhere. 3) insisting that they couldn't have been 'black' and then pointing to region x in Africa they perceive to be uncivilized. 4) making the the ability to progress in civilization hereditary. 5) explaining unexpected (i.e. "negroid") skeletal remains away as individuals who were 'enslaved' by the ancient Egyptians 6) explaining Egypto-Nubian conflicts as racial wars 7) saying 'black Africans' couldn't have crossed the Sahara when it was a desert 8) ignoring and marginalizing cultural links with inner Africa and magnifying cultural links with the Middle East
etc.
I will add that Eurocentrics and other supporters of orthodoxy don't simply stop at saying AE didn't look exactly like broad-featured SSAs. That is something many "Afrocentrics" wouldn't even dispute. Instead the orthodoxy goes even further and claim AEs in general looked like stereotyped "Mediterranean" or "Semitic" people with olive skin. They may very well consider dark-skinned Saharans to be "racially" different from "black" sub-Saharans as you have said. But from what I've seen, most of them still wouldn't hold these darker Saharans as representative of the AE type. If I had to guess, they probably assume dark Saharans are simply hybrids between Mediterraneans/Middle Easterners and SSAs, so in their view AEs with dark skin would necessarily have significant SSA ancestry. Maybe too much for their comfort, if they really happen to be racist.
It seems to me that the average layperson's perception of Africa is simplistically binary; they divide it into an "Arab" north and a "black" sub-Sahara and figure that any phenotype that doesn't fit into either the Arab or sub-Saharan stereotype must represent admixture. If anyone is going to communicate to the public on how AEs would have looked, I say it's important to get them up to speed on how different African populations would have looked rather than crutching on stereotyped terminology.
No they accept that the Ancient Egyptians looked like Charleton Heston and not even olive skinned white Europeans. You only need to look at hollywood or more recently many of the reenactments on the history channel to see that. The only difference being the history and discovery channel started using more Arab actors in some of these shows versus Europeans.
When these folks say Caucasiod they mean pure white Aryan, blue blood, pale as snow white folks.
That has ALWAYS been the agenda of the white supremacists concerning Egypt.
I mean if folks who have been on this board supposedly for so long don't at least understand this simple fact, then it is no wonder they hard time distinguishing facts from objective nonsense.
I think somewhere along the line this has become about something else than I thought it was. The people you're talking about don't classify populations based on skin color alone. The west uses 'black' to mean 'race', not skin color. Most people have no concept of lumping all dark skinned populations into 'black', just like they don't recognize East Asians into 'white'. If you live in the west, you should already know this.
Specify which Egyptologists and bio-anthropologists you're talking about. When asked whether the above Sudanese had the same range of skin colors as African Americans, who in the establishment would disagree? Name names. I can't comment on free-floating rumors and accusations.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: I think somewhere along the lines this has become about something else entirely. The people you're talking about don't classify populations based on skin color alone. The west uses 'black' to mean 'race', not skin color. If you live in the west, you already know this.
Specify which Egyptologists you're talking about. When asked whether the above Sudanese had the same range of skin colors as African Americans, who in the establishment would disagree? Name names..
Swenet. Stop. You simply are digging the hole deeper for yourself. White folks in Europe have been calling Africans black since before the concept of genes existed. Examples: Negro, Maure/Moor, Ethiop and so on. This absurd desire to give white folks a pass is annoying.
The definition of black from TWO standard English dictionaries:
quote: Dictionary 1black adjective \ˈblak\
: having the very dark color of coal or the night sky
: very dark because there is no light
: of or relating to a race of people who have dark skin and who come originally from Africa How many of these commonly misspelled words can you spell? » Full Definition of BLACK 1 a : of the color black b (1) : very dark in color <his face was black with rage> (2) : having a very deep or low register <a bass with a black voice> (3) : heavy, serious <the play was a black intrigue> 2 a : having dark skin, hair, and eyes : swarthy <the black Irish> b (1) often capitalized : of or relating to any of various population groups having dark pigmentation of the skin <black Americans>
quote: (also Black) Of any human group having dark-colored skin, especially of African or Australian Aboriginal ancestry: black adolescents of Jamaican descent
You're mixing up completely different things. Why not throw in there that medieval Europeans once called Spanish looking folk 'black'? You need to specify and distinguish between different traditions, time periods and cultures when each use was in vogue. You also need to specify the skin color range associated with each use. You can't just throw out a bunch of past traditions of 'black' throughout time and use that to argue that this is what black means today in the west. This is a perfect example of pedestrian analysis.
If you're saying that that dictionary entry is consistent with daily use of black in the modern West, prove it. Post statistics, surveys, etc.
People like Sade are called 'black' in the West, while dark skinned Hindus aren't. None of your dictionary entries take such modern daily use into account.
And what if I would start to post dictionary entries you conveniently left out. Then what?
quote:4. also Black a. A member of a racial group having brown to black skin, especially one of African origin. b. An American descended from peoples of African origin having brown to black skin; an African American.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: You're mixing up completely different things. Why not throw in there that Europeans once called Spanish looking folk 'black'? You need to specify and distinguish between these different traditions and the time periods they were in vogue. This is a perfect example of pedestrian analysis.
If you're saying that that dictionary entry is consistent with daily use of black in the modern West, prove it. Post statistics, surveys, etc.
Look, the first thing is to look at the color chart and first establish the minimum shade to be black. You or Doug could come up with the number, anything else, Spanish this or that is just icing on the cake. This has to be approached with the basics like Tukuler says, what the skin tones are qulaify as black, as per the Greek authoriies
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: @Doug
You're mixing up completely different things. Why not throw in there that medieval Europeans once called Spanish looking folk 'black'? You need to specify and distinguish between different traditions, time periods and cultures when each use was in vogue. This is a perfect example of pedestrian analysis.
If you're saying that that dictionary entry is consistent with daily use of black in the modern West, prove it. Post statistics, surveys, etc.
People like Sade are called 'black' in the West. None of your dictionary take such modern daily use into account.
No Swenet, you are mixing stuff up. The term black as a description of skin color has been used for THOUSANDS of years. Whether or not there have been other usages is irrelevant. There have ALWAYS been people who used their eyeballs and called Africans with black skin black. Period. Just like there have always been people who have called folks with white skin white. You are simply failing to prove otherwise, as if to claim that someone can't see black skin and simply call it for what it is. People weren't using melanin dosage charts, cue cards, genetic sampling or skull measurements to simply describe the outward appearance of the people they saw. And it was no less accurate then than it is now.
The only people who have a problem with this simple fact are those with an agenda.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: You're mixing up completely different things. Why not throw in there that Europeans once called Spanish looking folk 'black'? You need to specify and distinguish between these different traditions and the time periods they were in vogue. This is a perfect example of pedestrian analysis.
If you're saying that that dictionary entry is consistent with daily use of black in the modern West, prove it. Post statistics, surveys, etc.
Look, the first thing is to look at the color chart and first establish the minimum shade to be black. that comes before Spanish this or that. If Doug can't come up with step 1 then the whole black concept is out the window, It's built on color as the fundamental so let's deal with that
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
@ Doug M
I have already commented on that.
Look at my earlier posts in this thread. There were times (more towards the common era) when even the Greeks and Hebrews were extremely selective in who they applied 'black' to. Is this necessarily racist?
These terms change over time. We see it ancient Greece, in ancient Israel, etc. In Egypt we see different attitudes and descriptions about the same populations, throughout time. In a certain place in India Marco Polo documented that darker skin was prized. Today Indians don't identify by color in that way. This speaks for itself. You can't take 3000 years of written history and expect people who have NO CONCEPT of such history, to know what the heck you're talking about.
If modern Egyptians refuse to call themselves 'black' in accordance with what you say their ancestors did during dynastic Egypt. Is that racist? Inconsistent? Bespeaking of ill will towards other Africans? They probably don't even know about that tradition. Same goes for many northern Sudanese who today may consider themselves primarily Arab. What you're trying to do doesn't even make sense.
Build a credible case, come with specific examples I can actually comment on (as opposed to free-floating abstract accusations about unnamed racists) then come back and we can have a discussion.
And for your information, many racists said things that are consistent with the idea of there being black skinned founding populations in ancient Egypt. So you're wrong on that account as well. Many racists also call lower Nubians 'black' in terms of skin pigmentation and also sometimes in terms of race. You're clearly not well-read on this subject if you think the vault lines of this discussion in Egyptology or bio-anthropology are necessarily always around skin pigmentation. They're mostly around race, since even jet-black Somalis don't escape the 'Caucasoid' label.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Everybody wants to say "black" is not a race it's just color, a range of brown.
Yet when asked what the range is, no one can answer
--because they were BSing when they said it was just color.
"Black people" is a concept Europeans came up with to justify them calling themselves white, It's a duality system
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Does that mean he isn't racist? If he can be racist while using the term 'black' in reference to Egyptians, what makes you think someone who uses the term differently can't be non-racist?
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: @ Doug M
I have already commented on that.
Look at my earlier posts in this thread. There were times (more towards the common era) when even the Greeks and Hebrews were extremely selective in who they applied 'black' to. Is this necessarily racist?
These terms change over time. We see it ancient Greece, in ancient Israel, etc. In Egypt we see different attitudes and descriptions about the same populations, throughout time. In a certain place in India Marco Polo documented that darker skin was prized. Today Indians don't identify by color in that way. This speaks for itself. You can't take 3000 years of written history and expect people who have NO CONCEPT of such history, to know what the heck you're talking about.
If modern Egyptians refuse to call themselves 'black' in accordance with what you say their ancestors did during dynastic Egypt. Is that racist? Inconsistent? Bespeaking of ill will towards other Africans? They probably don't even know about that tradition. Same goes for many northern Sudanese who today may consider themselves primarily Arab. What you're trying to do doesn't even make sense.
Build a credible case, come with specific examples I can actually comment on (as opposed to free-floating abstract accusations about unnamed racists) then come back and we can have a discussion.
And for your information, many racists said things that are consistent with the idea of there being black skinned founding populations in ancient Egypt. So you're wrong on that account as well. Many racists also call lower Nubians 'black' in terms of skin pigmentation and also sometimes in terms of race. You're clearly not well-read on this subject if you think the vault lines of this discussion in Egyptology or bio-anthropology are necessarily always around skin pigmentation. They're mostly around race, since even jet-black Somalis don't escape the 'Caucasoid' label.
Swenet, I am not talking about race, how words change over time and nothing else. I am referring to the fundamental fact that people have skin color and that throughout history have and will use words to describe that skin color. And the original point is whether the word black was appropriate in its usage for ancient Egyptian people. You keep going all over the map to avoid that simple point. I know what I said and I kept it simple as possible but YOU refuse to stick to the point. What was the skin color of that ancient population and was black an accurate description of that color AND did the AE or any other ancient population in or outside the Nile valley use color references in reference to the AE or other populations in Africa as BLACK PEOPLE.
It is a simple yes or no question. All that other stuff is irrelevant.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
I already said many times that according to several traditions, including the al Jahiz one, the early Greek tradition, the ancient Egyptians would be 'black'. They would NOT be black according to the late Greek tradition, according to some Greek authors.
quote:"if the moderns have confined the appellation Ethiopians to those only who dwell near Egypt, this must not be allowed to interfere with the meaning of the ancients." --Strabo
quote:"For in the correspondingly situated places on our side of the equator, that is those on the Summer Tropic, people do not yet have the color of the Aithiopians, and there are no rhinoceros and elephants; but in places not much to the south of these, moderately black people are to be found, such as those who live in the "Thirty Schoinoi" [region in lower Nubia] outside of Soene. Of the same type, too, are the people of Garame, whom Marinos also says (and indeed, for this very reason) live neither right on the Summer Tropic nor to the north, but entirely to the south of it. But in places around Meroe people are already quite black in color, and are at last pure Aithiopians, and the habitat of the elephants and more wonderful animals is there." --Ptolemy
And I don't agree with you that people are necessarily racist for having different traditions. I think that's one of the most retarded ideas to have ever been subscribed to by Egyptsearch members.
I've shown pictures of Elamites to my family once, back when 'black' was still a part of my vocabulary. They said the figures depicted weren't 'black' and were disappointed because they thought it would mean a link to Africa when I announced I would show it to them. They are never going to call Dravidians black the same way they call themselves 'black'. My Caribbean folks know what I mean. In our countries, they are our neighbors and we interact with them everyday.
Wake up. Wipe the cold out your eye. Your points make no sense to anyone outside of minorities who see racism everywhere. You can't hold people accountable for what they don't know.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: I already said many times that according to several traditions, including the al Jahiz one, the early Greek tradition, the ancient Egyptians would be 'black'. They would NOT be black according to the late Greek tradition, according to some Greek authors.
And I don't agree with you that people are necessarily racist for having different traditions. I think that's one of the most retarded ideas to have ever been subscribed to by Egyptsearch members.
I've shown pictures of Elamites to my family once, back when 'black' was still a part of my vocabulary. They said the figures depicted weren't 'black' and were disappointed because they thought it would mean a link to Africa when I announced I would show it to them.
Wake up. Wipe the cold out your eye. Your points make no sense. You can't hold people accountable for what they don't know.
Swenet, you are all over the place and getting yourself confused. You say that skin color is not used as a way to describe people all over the world and you failed. You tried to claim that the word black is not understood when used as a reference to skin color and failed. Now you are trying to claim that because usage of terms change over time that skin color is not still a way of describing a population which can and is used by a great many people all over the world to this day. So now what? Are you going to answer the question or not? Were the ancient Egyptians black or not? And what did they say on the topic? It isn't a hard question and a simple yes or no will suffice.
And the reason I know you wont answer it is because you already know the answer and you simply are trying to avoid it.
And when I say racists I am talking about people who wrote in their OWN WORDS that they were racist and that they understood race to be the division of the world between the white race as the superior race and everyone else being somewhere on a scale inferior to WHITE PEOPLE based on skin color as how they identified race. That is fact and ancient Egypt was the cornerstone of their attempts to prove this.
You are simply running all over the map to deny and avoid the obvious.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: You say that skin color is not used as a way to describe people all over the world and you failed.
This is false, traditional peoples all over the word DO NOT use skin color as ethnic categorization. Colorism is a European invention
Posted by Punos_Rey (Member # 21929) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Skin color is not race. Because there are no 'races' in humans doesn't mean humans don't have skin color and that they cant be described using names like black or white. The reason white European scientists don't want to use the term black is because from the very beginning of the study of anthropology and Egyptology European racists have been using Egypt as the basis for their claims of biological superiority. So even if they don't use 'race' anymore they will not admit that the ancient Egyptians were black people, meaning having an outward complexion that can be defined as black.
And bottom line, these people are hypocrites, because the exact same people claiming that they don't want to use the word black when it comes to Egypt have no problem using it elsewhere in Africa or for those descendants of African slaves who live in Europe or the Americas. So again, it is not the terminology or the science that is the issue, it is the racism.
The word black has been used as a reference to humans since long before racism became an issue. And specifically the ancient Egyptians called themselves black as a pejorative no less. So whatever these folks come up with is irrelevant.
I have no problem calling a spade a spade and rejecting the nonsense of Europeans or anyone else when it comes to facts that are obvious. And the absurd part is that after all these hundreds of years of Europeans writing openly racist books of so called 'science' about 'races' all over the planet and the superiority of the white 'race', we got silly folks sitting here trying to claim that European scientists are objective and we must follow their nonsense wherever it goes rather than just calling it for what it is.
Doug do you have any references where the Egyptians directly referred to themselves as black? I mean besides the definition of KMT (which I've seen fiercely debated)
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Punos_Rey:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Skin color is not race. Because there are no 'races' in humans doesn't mean humans don't have skin color and that they cant be described using names like black or white. The reason white European scientists don't want to use the term black is because from the very beginning of the study of anthropology and Egyptology European racists have been using Egypt as the basis for their claims of biological superiority. So even if they don't use 'race' anymore they will not admit that the ancient Egyptians were black people, meaning having an outward complexion that can be defined as black.
And bottom line, these people are hypocrites, because the exact same people claiming that they don't want to use the word black when it comes to Egypt have no problem using it elsewhere in Africa or for those descendants of African slaves who live in Europe or the Americas. So again, it is not the terminology or the science that is the issue, it is the racism.
The word black has been used as a reference to humans since long before racism became an issue. And specifically the ancient Egyptians called themselves black as a pejorative no less. So whatever these folks come up with is irrelevant.
I have no problem calling a spade a spade and rejecting the nonsense of Europeans or anyone else when it comes to facts that are obvious. And the absurd part is that after all these hundreds of years of Europeans writing openly racist books of so called 'science' about 'races' all over the planet and the superiority of the white 'race', we got silly folks sitting here trying to claim that European scientists are objective and we must follow their nonsense wherever it goes rather than just calling it for what it is.
Doug do you have any references where the Egyptians directly referred to themselves as black? I mean besides the definition of KMT (which I've seen fiercely debated)
You answered the question yourself. And the debates are simply that debates which are irrelevant if you investigate the facts. KM is the only word in the Egyptian language for black as a color. The Egyptians identified their nation and the people of that nation using the word black in their own language. There was no other population anywhere on the planet in or outside Africa who they referred to explicitly the term 'black/km' other than themselves as a people and nation. The color black was sacred to them and very much part of their identity and world view. But of course racists and misguided 'theorists' simply want to deny the facts because it doesn't suit their agenda. There is no real debate about KM meaning the color black, the debate is whether that term in its use as the name of the country in ANY way applied to the skin color of the population. At the end of the day all of this is about skin color and the whole issue of this thread and others like it is to try and pretend that skin color doesn't exist and that people cannot be identified by their skin color and that words can't accurately be used to describe that skin color, as in black or white.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
The Egyptians called themsleves black because they lived in Africa and people in Africa like the Nubians weren't black, So the Egyptians had to distinguish themsleves as the blacks of the region
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Swenet, you are all over the place and getting yourself confused. You say that skin color is not used as a way to describe people all over the world and you failed. You tried to claim that the word black is not understood when used as a reference to skin color and failed. Now you are trying to claim that because usage of terms change over time that skin color is not still a way of describing a population which can and is used by a great many people all over the world to this day. So now what? [/qb]
When you attribute claims to me, please reproduce them in your post, so I and others can see which claim you're addressing and whether you're accurately describing them. I really, really, want to see you point I where I said any of that.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Are you going to answer the question or not? Were the ancient Egyptians black or not?
The below doesn't qualify as an answer? If not, why?
I already said many times that according to several traditions, including the al Jahiz one, the early Greek tradition, the ancient Egyptians would be 'black'. They would NOT be black according to the late Greek tradition, according to some Greek authors. --Swenet
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: And when I say racists I am talking about people who wrote in their OWN WORDS that they were racist and that they understood race to be the division of the world between the white race as the superior race and everyone else being somewhere on a scale inferior to WHITE PEOPLE based on skin color as how they identified race. That is fact and ancient Egypt was the cornerstone of their attempts to prove this.
Who are these elusive, shadowy figures presumably active in Egyptology and bio-anthropology and how did you come to the conclusion that modern professionals who use black in ways you don't like, fit the people you're describing? Name them. Name them all. Let's look at the specifics.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
Everybody wants to say "black" is not a race it's just color, a range of brown.
Yet when asked what the range is, no one can answer
--because they were BSing when they said it was just color.
"Black people" is a concept Europeans came up with to justify them calling themselves white, It's a duality system
So is negroid, caucasoid etc... and every other oid.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
"Black people" was a trick concept that Europeans played on dark skinned Africans so that they wouldn't affilate the many brown people of the world. That is why AA's love the term black so much. Like "white" there's an illusion of exclusivity. Obviously the American contruct "black" does not include dark skinned Mexicans or Indians because neither of these people call themselves "black people" So when this is pointed out some black anthro enthusiasts try to say "black" also includes all these other people. It's just an of the moment rhetorical stunt to try to protect the brand. When the pressure's off the exclusivity returns.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
Everybody wants to say "black" is not a race it's just color, a range of brown.
Yet when asked what the range is, no one can answer
--because they were BSing when they said it was just color.
"Black people" is a concept Europeans came up with to justify them calling themselves white, It's a duality system
So is negroid, caucasoid etc... and every other oid.
yeah , so what ?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
When you look at a chocolate bar and say it's brown you are stating a fact
But if you look at a brown person of African descent and ignore your eyes and call them black, that is race
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
This thread is a false debate created by racist idiots and agents of confusion and people influenced by them.
Ancient Egyptians were their own people like Zulu and Ancient Greece people were their own people. This doesn't prevent American and British people, for example, to include Ancient Greece as part of their history.
Ancient Egyptians were indigenous Africans more related to African-Americans, for example, than people in Europe or Middle East.
Unrelated people can share the same skin color, certain facial features or limb proportion but they can't share the same DNA.
DNA are passed down from parents to child. That's why DNA are used in paternity test, to identify suspects/victims in criminal investigations, by DNA ancestry company or in population genetics.
Since Ramses III and son were E1b1a, it means they had at least one African male parent ancestor.
The current genetic results taken from Ancient Egyptian mummies and other ancient specimen makes it clear Ancient Egyptians were related to modern Africans in sub-Sahara Africa. European lineages (like the I haplogroup) have been found in later foreign dynasties like during the Greek or Roman dynasty so they were probably rare but not absent before those times (Hyksos -foreign rulers- for example were people from the Middle East called Aamu by Ancient Egyptians).
All those things and more are discussed in this other thread: LINK Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
Everybody wants to say "black" is not a race it's just color, a range of brown.
Yet when asked what the range is, no one can answer
--because they were BSing when they said it was just color.
"Black people" is a concept Europeans came up with to justify them calling themselves white, It's a duality system
So is negroid, caucasoid etc... and every other oid.
yeah , so what ?
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
@Doug M
To prevent misunderstandings from dragging on longer than they have to, I'm going to correct your statements with what I actually said. Last thing I want is another round with attributions that aren't mine.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: You say that skin color is not used as a way to describe people all over the world and you failed.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: You tried to claim that the word black is not understood when used as a reference to skin color and failed.
What I actually said was specific to people in the modern day West. Your dictionary entries don't specify who is black in the modern day West.
Google "black people", go to the image section and tell me how many dark skinned Asians and North Africans you see. How do you reconcile this narrow focus on only certain African descended groups with your dictionary entry? In the West, 'black people' is generally used the same way 'white people' is used: restrictive. (i.e. it excludes pale Asians in everyday use).
Your other response was to post historical uses of the term 'black' in various time periods and regions in Europe. My question: are the modern people you try to impose these older traditions on aware of them? If no, explain to me in detail how it makes someone necessarily racist for subscribing to the tradition of the term they're familiar with.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Now you are trying to claim that because usage of terms change over time that skin color is not still a way of describing a population which can and is used by a great many people all over the world to this day.
The point is that, since the range of diversity covered under the same racial terms changes over time, the same dark skinned population can easily fall within and outside the meaning of the same term, over time.
Another point is that, just because the same terms in different languages have the literal or symbolic meaning of 'black', it doesn't mean that the same range of pigmentation is implied. In certain places in Africa you can have 'black' and 'red' races, and both can, in turn, fit in someone else's range of the 'black' race.
If you introduce those terms into the discussion to make a point, you have to substantiate that with some sort of analysis. I'm not taking anyone's word for it that they're all the same.
Serious replies to these points are appreciated.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
Swenet, I did look it up out of curiosity. I know a search-engines work by collecting "meta-data".
To prevent misunderstandings from dragging on longer than they have to, I'm going to correct your statements with what I actually said. Last thing I want is another round with attributions that aren't mine.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: You say that skin color is not used as a way to describe people all over the world and you failed.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: You tried to claim that the word black is not understood when used as a reference to skin color and failed.
What I actually said was specific to people in the modern day West. Your dictionary entries don't specify who is black in the modern day West.
Google "black people", go to the image section and tell me how many dark skinned Asians and North Africans you see. How do you reconcile this narrow focus on only certain African descended groups with your dictionary entry? In the West, 'black people' is generally used the same way 'white people' is used: restrictive. (i.e. it excludes pale Asians in everyday use).
Your other response was to post historical uses of the term 'black' in various time periods and regions in Europe. My question: are the modern people you try to impose these older traditions on aware of them? If no, explain to me in detail how it makes someone necessarily racist for subscribing to the tradition of the term they're familiar with.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Now you are trying to claim that because usage of terms change over time that skin color is not still a way of describing a population which can and is used by a great many people all over the world to this day.
The point is that, since the range of diversity covered under the same racial terms changes over time, the same dark skinned population can easily fall within and outside the meaning of the same term, over time.
Another point is that, just because the same terms in different languages have the literal or symbolic meaning of 'black', it doesn't mean that the same range of pigmentation is implied. In certain places in Africa you can have 'black' and 'red' races, and both can, in turn, fit in someone else's range of the 'black' race.
If you introduce those terms into the discussion to make a point, you have to substantiate that with some sort of analysis. I'm not taking anyone's word for it that they're all the same.
Serious replies to these points are appreciated.
The point is you fail to grasp the question I asked which is for a SPECIFIC population in Africa. I am not talking about anything else right now other than Egypt in ancient times and Africa generally. There is absolutely NO REASON for the term BLACK PEOPLE to be questioned as a valid reference to populations in Africa, just as there is no valid reason why WHITE PEOPLE is not a valid reference to the people of Europe, all of which is based on skin color. Of course every single person in Europe or Africa may not fit that description but you know what the f*ck is meant by the terms and simply refuse to admit that it is a simple reference to skin color. That is my whole point and you simply are trying to duck and dodge because you want to open up the door to all other sorts of ways of looking at words other than what is the simplest and most obvious answer. People in Europe are called white because on average they are very pale and people in Africa are called black because on average they are very dark. It is that dam simple. And as I have said over and over again, people with eyes have made this simple observation throughout history and used words like black or white to describe folks who fit that definition.
The issue here is whether the ancient Egyptians or Africans in general fit the description as black people in terms of skin color. The obvious answer is yes and there is nothing else really to say about it. You simply are going above and beyond in order to entertain nonsense instead of getting to the bottom line point: the history of such terms as black people or white people is based on simple observation of outward skin color characteristics and nothing else. It isn't more complicated than that which is why most people on earth understand what is meant when you say it. Whether or not other folks have tried to add other meanings to this basic observation of skin color does not change the fact that SKIN COLOR itself is a fact of human biology and can be described with simple color references which are valid and viable in spoken language given that those described as such actually fit the description.
So please stop replying to me with nonsense.
We all know full well that European 'scientists' have spent the last 500 years trying to redo world history in order to downplay the importance of 'black people' in world history while playing up the history of 'white people'. They know what black people means worldwide and they know what white people means because they use that definition to divide the world up based on their racist beliefs to the point of contradicting their own logic in order to promote ideas of racial superiority. That kind of scientific and academic racism is not objective and not really scientific it is based on an agenda and you unfortunately are more open to that agenda than folks who see it and call it for what it is.
That said, humans have been using terms like black or white in reference to human populations since long before there was a white supremacist scientist and to claim that because of these racists we should ignore the simple obvious facts of skin color in language is ridiculous.
The facts are that all humans come from black people and that all human features descend from aboriginal black populations all over the world and as part of that history and diversity there are black populations all over the planet. Obviously I am talking about skin color as a part of human diversity and therefore it doesn't require rocket science to understand what I am saying.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
You call it 'nonsense' that people have different traditions for applying the term 'black' to populations and that this undermines the simpleton narratives you're trying to construct and impose on others? You're free to call it non sense, racism, etc. and be in denial all you want.
In the real world, however, we can see that people throughout time haven't always agreed with the notion that various shades of brown along the Nile Valley (or anywhere else, for that matter) should all be lumped into the term 'black'. Sometimes traditions applied 'black' and related terms in a restricted sense. Are you salty over that?
quote:"For in the correspondingly situated places on our side of the equator, that is those on the Summer Tropic [i.e. at Egypt's latitude], people do not yet have the color of the Aithiopians, and there are no rhinoceros and elephants; but in places not much to the south of these, moderately black people are to be found, such as those who live in the "Thirty Schoinoi" [region in lower Nubia] outside of Soene. Of the same type, too, are the people of Garame, whom Marinos also says (and indeed, for this very reason) live neither right on the Summer Tropic nor to the north, but entirely to the south of it. But in places around Meroe people are already quite black in color, and are at last pure Aithiopians, and the habitat of the elephants and more wonderful animals is there." --Ptolemy
quote:The Ethiopians stain the world and depict a race of men steeped in darkness;less sun-burnt are the natives of India; the land of Egypt, flooded by the Nile, darkens bodies more mildly owing to the inundation of its fields: it it a country nearer to us and its moderate climate imparts a medium tone. The Sun-God dries up with dust the tribes of Africans amid their desert lands; the Moors derive their name from their faces, and their identity is proclaimed by the colour of their skins. --Manilius
quote:"if the moderns have confined the appellation Ethiopians to those only who dwell near Egypt, this must not be allowed to interfere with the meaning of the ancients." --Strabo
Like I said. Build a case, gather evidence, then come back and we can have a more symmetric discussion. All you've done so far is give your opinions and views and expect others to take your word for it.
I could post many, many more examples from Greco-Roman times. I'm holding back because I know that would just invite strawmen and propaganda from certain folks itching to portray me as a Eurocentric mouthpiece. I invite more rational and open-minded ES readers to look up Greco-Roman texts and come to their own conclusions. There were times when ancient Greeks emphasized brown skin color gradients and times when many dark skinned people from certain regions were all lumped together as 'Aethiopians'.
Posted by Firewall (Member # 20331) on :
Interesting thread/topic. I did not read everything or every post however.
quote:
These mixed Dominicans are more "African" than those Adamanese will ever be.
quote: Originally posted by Doug M:
I don't need to go all over the earth finding examples of folks who are mixed an 'could' possibly be called not black and have various ways of self identifying not labeling themselves as black.
I wanted to bring this up for the moment. I don't really want to change the topic,but i have to mention this real quick,then after this you guys could back to the main topic.
The Dominicans girls in the pic above. Some look mixed,some don't(most don't),but of course it's possible that the ones that don't look mixed,could be mixed or just have some admixture or none.
This is interesting too.
Dominican Republic
Population 2015 estimate -9,980,243
Ethnic groups
quote: The Dominican Republic's population is 73% of racially mixed origin, 16% White, and 11% Black.Ethnic immigrant groups in the country include West Asians—mostly Lebanese, Syrians and Palestinians. Numerous immigrants have come from other Caribbean countries, as the country has offered economic opportunities. There are about 30,000 Jamaicans living in the Dominican Republic.There is an increasing number of Puerto Rican immigrants, especially in and around Santo Domingo; they are believed to number around 10,000. There are over 700,000 people of Haitian descent, including a generation born in Dominican Republic.
Some of those called mixed only above are black too.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
humans have been using terms like black or white in reference to human populations since long before there was a white supremacist scientist and to claim that because of these racists we should ignore the simple obvious facts of skin color in language is ridiculous.
^^ this is false
traditional ethnic groups don't call themselves a skin color, that is bullshh. Exceptions to this are very rare
Doug has been brainwashed by European colorism and he doesn't even know it. This ignorance is tiresome, no support to his statements
He believes there are two types of people, tropical black and cold white, that of course is a another form of unspoken racial categorization
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
The pharoahs of Egypt are depicted with dark brown skin. That is all that is needed
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
According to various sources ‘black’ was a derogatory term in the Afram community before the I’m black and proud movement. So it’s interesting to see that some pass it off as some sort of gospel that has always been etched in stone everywhere.
And the suggestion to go back to pre white supremacy European color classifications is quite comical given the common view back then that dark skin was Ham's curse. In light of this it’s interesting that some claim that individuals who are going by the modern day western use of ‘black’ are automatically “racist”. The older use isn't even more ugly? Oh, but its racist connotations are okay in that case, because it at least included Egyptians? Lol.
Some indigenous people apparently use completely different skin color systems. I'm told that the Khoisan are ‘white’ in the eyes of some neighboring Bantu speakers, with Europeans being ‘red’ in this tradition, IIRC. Some of that stuff Awlaad Berry had to say about certain Arab classifications of various shades of dark skin also deserve mention.
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
Black was NOT consider a derogatory term to Haitians, especially after they won their independence.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
^Noted. Any more info?
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ^Noted. Any more info?
Well I would have to search around for info. But just saying that around the same time, "black" was not considered a bad term to other people of African descent in the diaspora like Haitians. Who after their independence took pride in being the first "black republic" and IIRC the leaders wanted Haiti to be a safe haven for "blacks" around the diaspora.
I'm also part Haitian descent(other half AA) and Haitians have long considered themselves "black" just as long or longer than AA's. I'm just pointing this out. Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
@Firewall
Noted, but my point is that those Adamanese would be considered "pure African" or "stereotypical African" than those Dominicans by phenotype according to most laymens. Those Dominicans to laymen would be considered biracial, while those Adamanese would be considered a "true unmixed black African" to your average joe.
Yet those Dominicans(whether they look black or mixed to you) are more "African" than those Adamanese would ever be...
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ^Noted. Any more info?
Well I would have to search around for info. But just saying that around the same time, "black" was not considered a bad term to other people of African descent in the diaspora like Haitians. Who after their independence took pride in being the first "black republic" and IIRC the leaders wanted Haiti to be a safe haven for "blacks" around the diaspora.
I'm also part Haitian descent(other half AA) and Haitians have long considered themselves "black" just as long or longer than AA's. I'm just pointing this out.
You aint gotta be apologetic about it. If its their tradition then that's what it is. I meant to ask about the way they classify people the people they're familiar with in color terms. If it's not any material you can immediately expand on, never mind. Don't have to go through to effort of searching for it.
Posted by tropicals redacted (Member # 21621) on :
quote: "musician Goldie and swarthy modern Egyptians are 'black'" --Carlos Oliver Coke
Bullshit.
Goldie IS seen as black, and never said anything about swarthy modern Egyptians being such.
The quotation is Sidney Anson bullshit.
Posted by tropicals redacted (Member # 21621) on :
Stuart Tyson Smith:
1998 review of Egypt in Africa
"Thus, while the Egyptians can be reasonably characterized as "black" by modern standards, we must acknowledge not only similarities, but also the evidence for the physical and cultural diversity of African peoples."
Submission to The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt Volume 3 (2001).
"Physical anthropologists are increasingly concluding that racial characteristics are the culturally defined product of selective perception and should be replaced in biological terms by the study of populations and clines. Consequently, any characterization of the race of the ancient Egyptians depends on modern cultural definition, not scientific study. Thus, by modern American standards , it is reasonable to characterize the Egyptians as "black", while acknowledging the scientific evidence for the physical diversity of Africans" (p28).
Operative terms here being 'modern' and 'American', although British perceptions are similar to those of the US.
Posted by tropicals redacted (Member # 21621) on :
Nearly three-quarters of African immigrants reported their race as "Black."
In 2009, 74.4 percent of the African-born population reported their race as Black, either alone or in combination with another race. African immigrants identified as Black at a much higher rate than the native born (14.0 percent) and the foreign born overall (8.6 percent),and accounted for 33.3 percent of all foreign-born Blacks and 2.7 percent the total Black population in the United States.
Racial self-identification varied widely by African country of origin. For example, nearly all immigrants from Ghana (99.7 percent), Somalia(99.3 percent) , Cameroon (98.8 percent), Nigeria (98.7 percent), and Ethiopia (98.2 percent) reported their race as Black, either alone or in combination with another race, compared to 4.6 percent of Algerians, 5.6 percent of Egyptians, 8.1 percent of Moroccans, 13.8 percent of South Africans, 56.7 percent of Tanzanians, and 65.7percent of Cape Verdeans ."
'Elongated' Africans see themselves as 'black' in modern American context shock. Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Operative terms here being 'modern' and 'American'.
Operative reality: Carlos still fails.
Current US views on what 'black' generally means to US citizens and how it evolved:
quote:Negro superseded colored as the most polite word for African Americans at a time when black was considered more offensive.[3] This word was accepted as normal, including by people classified as Negroes, until the late 1960s, after the later African-American Civil Rights Movement. One well-known example is the identification by Martin Luther King, Jr. of his own race as "Negro" in his famous speech of 1963, "I Have a Dream".
During the civil rights movements era of the 1950s and 1960s, some black American leaders in the United States, notably Malcolm X, objected to the word Negro because they associated it with the long history of slavery, segregation, and discrimination that treated African Americans as second class citizens, or worse.[4] Malcolm X preferred Black to Negro, but also started using the term Afro-American after leaving the Nation of Islam.[5]
Since the late 1960s, various other terms have been more widespread in popular usage. These include black, Black African, Afro-American (in use from the late 1960s to 1990) and African American (used in the United States to refer to black Americans, people often referred to in the past as American Negroes).
quote:The Black racial category includes people who marked the “Black, African Am., or Negro” checkbox. It also includes respondents who reported entries such as African American; Sub-Saharan African entries, such as Kenyan and Nigerian; and Afro-Caribbean entries, such as Haitian and Jamaican.*
So, how exactly do, say, brown skinned Tuareg fit here?
Posted by tropicals redacted (Member # 21621) on :
^Irrelevant.
Sid runs from reality, as given to him by Somalis and Ethiopians.
Seems Horners see themselves as black in even greater numbers than Cape Verdeans, who ARE seen as a black population in Europe and the US.
Lame attempt at chicanery...maybe your online fans here will be dazzled, but doubt it will survive contact with the real world.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
So, let me get this straight. He brings in his usual citations saying that the AE would be considered black using US standards. US standards are then posted. Then he shifts the goal post to what Somali and Ethiopians reportedly believe and calls his own previously set goal post "irrelevant".
Not only that, but he then blames me for "chicanery". These extremely bizarre antics and flip flops is really all one needs to know about Carlos Oliver Coke.
This is EXACTLY what Carlos Oliver Coke does to academics who tell him they subscribe to the WESTERN use of black. He's told they're using the modern day WESTERN tradition (as most westerners do), and then he tries to debate them using his own free-floating, clumsily defined, cooked up definition. When they reject said definition (probably because they realize it's just Carlos' trojan horse), Carlos calls them "wasist".
quote:maybe your online fans here will be dazzled, but doubt it will survive contact with the real world.
This is the funny part. Crazy people always think the whole world is wrong and they're right.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Carlos Oliver Coke: Seems Horners see themselves as black in even greater numbers than Cape Verdeans, who ARE seen as a black population in Europe and the US.
And anyone who has interacted with Cushitic and Ethio-Semitic speaking Somalis and Ethiopians in real life, on blogs and forums know they can be quite snobbish toward certain Africans. Without credible polls I can't make sweeping statements, but what can be said is that many of these people don't identify 'racially' with all African populations beyond their immediate linguistic kin. Many of them are obviously cognizant of their often dark brown and jet-black skin, but this is no guarantee that they identify racially with the people considered "black" in the US.
Of course, Carlos Oliver Coke's chronic lack of understanding about what constitutes admissible evidence leads him to post useless stuff like this all the time. Given the alternative multiple choice items usually offered and the social benefits associated with checking 'black' in the US, these results can hardly be considered useful for what Carlos is using them for.
I recall Carlos Oliver Coke's anger towards a certain academic when he was told that self-identification plays a role in assessing "race". Now he's doing the same thing. It's always about expediency and deception with this guy.
Tsk, tsk, tsk. Just another example of Carlos Oliver Coke's sleight of hand and his many trojan horses.
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Firewall: Interesting thread/topic. I did not read everything or every post however.
How is that an interesting topic? I'm really curious about it. It seems like another lame bait created by racist idiots to try dissociating Ancient Egypt from the rest of Africa.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
And mark my words. Carlos Oliver Coke will NEVER admit he was wrong in regards to his US standards. He's been trying to recover from his many blunders in his attempt to prove me wrong, ever since 2014. He never admitted he was wrong, and he's not going to now, either. Just watch.
His book desperately relies on his many trojan horses. Besides, he's already lied about me and my beliefs (in regards to this topic) to certain people. He doesn't want to lose face by going back. So, in all probability, he will just resurface elsewhere at some other time to redeem himself and his repulsive methods.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Swenet if one were to say "the Egyptians were North East African black people", even if that's not 100% accurate wouldn't that be progress for American and European culture?
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
I don't necessarily care about the ways forum members use 'black' right now, right? (Djehuti and others I associate with still use it). So why would I try to get in the way of something like that? Carlos is trying to change people and punishes them if they refuse by posting their private conversations, not me. I've already said that in that other thread when someone entertained the idea of collectively dropping the term 'black'.
As far as I'm concerned, the problem primarily comes in when some guy starts to tell others how to apply US racial terms to further their own agenda, calling them "racist" if they refuse. Also, when they're assuming a teaching role and plan to knowingly deceive the public with subtle misinformation. Or when they try to question my sincerity for my choices in the "racial" terminology I use.
So, as long as it results in scientifically accurate portrayals (i.e. if using the term triggers the right imagery in the minds of the audience Carlos tries to cheat), I wouldn't object to it. At least not with the objections I've used so far. I can't rule out having some other qualm after new data emerges.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: You call it 'nonsense' that people have different traditions for applying the term 'black' to populations and that this undermines the simpleton narratives you're trying to construct and impose on others? You're free to call it non sense, racism, etc. and be in denial all you want.
In the real world, however, we can see that people throughout time haven't always agreed with the notion that various shades of brown along the Nile Valley (or anywhere else, for that matter) should all be lumped into the term 'black'. Sometimes traditions applied 'black' and related terms in a restricted sense. Are you salty over that?
quote:"For in the correspondingly situated places on our side of the equator, that is those on the Summer Tropic [i.e. at Egypt's latitude], people do not yet have the color of the Aithiopians, and there are no rhinoceros and elephants; but in places not much to the south of these, moderately black people are to be found, such as those who live in the "Thirty Schoinoi" [region in lower Nubia] outside of Soene. Of the same type, too, are the people of Garame, whom Marinos also says (and indeed, for this very reason) live neither right on the Summer Tropic nor to the north, but entirely to the south of it. But in places around Meroe people are already quite black in color, and are at last pure Aithiopians, and the habitat of the elephants and more wonderful animals is there." --Ptolemy
quote:The Ethiopians stain the world and depict a race of men steeped in darkness;less sun-burnt are the natives of India; the land of Egypt, flooded by the Nile, darkens bodies more mildly owing to the inundation of its fields: it it a country nearer to us and its moderate climate imparts a medium tone. The Sun-God dries up with dust the tribes of Africans amid their desert lands; the Moors derive their name from their faces, and their identity is proclaimed by the colour of their skins. --Manilius
quote:"if the moderns have confined the appellation Ethiopians to those only who dwell near Egypt, this must not be allowed to interfere with the meaning of the ancients." --Strabo
Like I said. Build a case, gather evidence, then come back and we can have a more symmetric discussion. All you've done so far is give your opinions and views and expect others to take your word for it.
I could post many, many more examples from Greco-Roman times. I'm holding back because I know that would just invite strawmen and propaganda from certain folks itching to portray me as a Eurocentric mouthpiece. I invite more rational and open-minded ES readers to look up Greco-Roman texts and come to their own conclusions. There were times when ancient Greeks emphasized brown skin color gradients and times when many dark skinned people from certain regions were all lumped together as 'Aethiopians'.
I call it nonsense because you act like people don't understand what is meant when someone says "black person" especially in the context of Africa. You keep trying to claim that the term "black people" isn't valid and shouldn't be used as if there aren't people who are indeed called 'black people' as a reference to their skin color both IN and outside Africa. You keep trying to claim that the obvious outward appearance of these people is somehow not the basis of such words as black, negro and Maure when we all know that is not the case. You keep trying to pretend that when someone has historically used such terms that somehow it was based on cellular biology, genetic lineages, haplogroups or skeletal metrics and not plain old fashioned and simply obvious skin color, when that too is obviously false. You keep trying to claim that the dictionary definition of 'black people' is somehow rare and obscure in the English language to the point where someone doesn't understand what you mean when you say it. You keep trying to claim that 'black people' is something specific to the history of Europeans in the American continent as if the term and other terms like it weren't used for thousands of years prior for Africans by Africans and others not of the African continent as in Europe where the English language originates. And you have similar terms for populations with black skin elsewhere outside of Africa in other languages that are also many thousands of years old and predate "western" concepts of race.
Point blank it is nonsense because what you are claiming is that the simple observation of someones skin color is not valid as a way of describing said person or population and that this is not the basis of the words "black people" or "white people" being used throughout history. Therefore, what you are saying makes no sense.
And the part that really gets me is that you sit here and try to claim that the folks who are quibbling about the use of the term black, especially in reference to ancient Egypt are doing so because of their desire to be scientifically 'accurate' and "objective" which you know I have already said is total and absolute 'bullsh*t' because it is these same 'westerners' who came up with the so called 'western' racial constructs that you claim don't apply outside of the west. Which at the end of the day because it is the same 'western' language they are using and 'western' ideologies, it makes them hypocrites. And further you really jumped the tracks when you blindly follow these hypocrites and claim that 'western' racial constructs are NOT based on skin color.
So please, like I said before stop including me in your nonsense logical fallacy.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Here we go again.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: I call it nonsense because you act like people don't understand what is meant when someone says "black person" especially in the context of Africa. You keep trying to claim that the term "black people" isn't valid and shouldn't be used as if there aren't people who are indeed called 'black people' as a reference to their skin color both IN and outside Africa.
Already shown to be wrong (but you keep ignoring it):
I already said many times that according to several traditions, including the al Jahiz one, the early Greek tradition, the ancient Egyptians would be 'black'. They would NOT be black according to the late Greek tradition, according to some Greek authors. --Swenet
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: You keep trying to claim that the obvious outward appearance of these people is somehow not the basis of such words as black, negro and Maure when we all know that is not the case.
Again, since you keep ignoring it:
I already said many times that according to several traditions, including the al Jahiz one, the early Greek tradition, the ancient Egyptians would be 'black'. They would NOT be black according to the late Greek tradition, according to some Greek authors. --Swenet
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: You keep trying to pretend that when someone has historically used such terms that somehow it was based on cellular biology, genetic lineages, haplogroups or skeletal metrics and not plain old fashioned and simply obvious skin color, when that too is obviously false.
Of course it didn't start that way. But that doesn't mean they can't get the sense that certain racial terms as they and their audience understand them, aren't appropriate for certain studied populations, due to their affinities.
quote:Point blank it is nonsense because what you are claiming is that the simple observation of someones skin color is not valid as a way of describing said person or population
Go search in the first post you replied to where I said skin color is not a valid way of describing populations:
although they might do it in a pigmentation sense, by saying they would have been dark brown --Swenet
Posted by Nodnarb (Member # 3735) on :
To be honest, even if I was a contributor to it, I am dead sick of all the in-fighting in this community. It's depressing to witness. If only there was a way to stop it.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Here we go again.
quote:I call it nonsense because you act like people don't understand what is meant when someone says "black person" especially in the context of Africa. You keep trying to claim that the term "black people" isn't valid and shouldn't be used as if there aren't people who are indeed called 'black people' as a reference to their skin color both IN and outside Africa.
Already shown to be wrong (but you keep ignoring it):
I already said many times that according to several traditions, including the al Jahiz one, the early Greek tradition, the ancient Egyptians would be 'black'. They would NOT be black according to the late Greek tradition, according to some Greek authors. --Swenet
quote:You keep trying to claim that the obvious outward appearance of these people is somehow not the basis of such words as black, negro and Maure when we all know that is not the case.
Again, since you keep ignoring it:
I already said many times that according to several traditions, including the al Jahiz one, the early Greek tradition, the ancient Egyptians would be 'black'. They would NOT be black according to the late Greek tradition, according to some Greek authors. --Swenet
quote:You keep trying to pretend that when someone has historically used such terms that somehow it was based on cellular biology, genetic lineages, haplogroups or skeletal metrics and not plain old fashioned and simply obvious skin color, when that too is obviously false.
Of course it didn't start that way. But that doesn't mean they can't get the sense that certain racial terms as they understand them, aren't appropriate for certain skeletal remains, due to their affinities.
quote:Point blank it is nonsense because what you are claiming is that the simple observation of someones skin color is not valid as a way of describing said person or population
Go search in the first post you replied to where I said skin color is not a valid way of describing populations:
Moron you keep proving me right. Jahiz and these other writers were using the words 'black' in reference to what? Skin color? If that is the case then you made my point for me. And now thousands of years later, western racism is based on what? Skin color, with the two main races being what? Blacks and whites. Now please stop with your nonsense. So the ancient Greeks knew what 'black people' meant. Al Jahiz knew what black people meant. White Europeans and racists know what black people means. But Swenet claims somehow these people are not all talking about the same dam thing: skin color.
So for the fifteenth time you have been shown that the word 'black people' has not changed and is still understood by all these folks to mean the same dam thing: people with black skin.
So stop making a fool of yourself.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
You keep arguing against me when there isn't even a real disagreement where you think there is one. Look back how often I've told you this. It took how many times of telling you this in the same post, before you got it? I simply assigned YOUR use of 'black' to the al Jahiz tradition and kept telling you to stop infringing your use onto other uses because they don't imply the same pigmentation ranges and are DISTINCT traditions.
I'm not going to respond to the rest of your post again. My replies, which you probably didn't even read (look how many times I had to quote the same piece before you read it), are posted throughout this thread.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote: Originally posted by Doug M: As populations inhabiting tropical and subtropical environments black people can and have been found all over the globe.
^^^ this is an actual Doug quote from another thread with the picture he posted to go with it.
Look, if we are talking about who is black or not in 2015 in America it doesn't go by the ancient Greeks or Al-Jahiz.
In America in 2015 the definition of a black person is a dark skinned person with an afro.
Americans do not call the above Amazonians "black people'. East Indian people in America who can be quite dark do not call themselves "black people" nor do other Americans.
So in America in 2015 "black" is not only skin color, period. Doug is a fool. These people themselves don't even call themselves black people. So stop the nonsense
And Doug claiming ancient people referred to skin color to define their ethnicity is a lie and he continues to have no support for it.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
"Misreading Black Others in Greco-Roman Antiquity Rezension zu: Erich S. Gruen, Rethinking the Other in Antiquity" (Princeton 2011).
"The lower parts of the country on either side of Meroê, along the Nile towards the Red Sea, are inhabited by Megabari and Blemmyes, who are subject to the Aethiopians and border on the Aegyptians, and, along the sea, by Troglodytes (the Troglodytes opposite Meroê are a ten or twelve days' journey distant from the Nile), but the parts on the left side of the course of the Nile, in Libya, are inhabited by Nubae, a large tribe, who, beginning at Meroê, extend as far as the bends of the river, and are not subject to the Aethiopians but are divided into several separate kingdoms. The extent of Aegypt along the sea from the Pelusiac to the Canobic mouth is one thousand three hundred stadia. This, then, is what Eratosthenes says.
quote:Originally posted by tropicals redacted: Stuart Tyson Smith:
1998 review of Egypt in Africa
"Thus, while the Egyptians can be reasonably characterized as "black" by modern standards, we must acknowledge not only similarities, but also the evidence for the physical and cultural diversity of African peoples."
Submission to The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt Volume 3 (2001).
"Physical anthropologists are increasingly concluding that racial characteristics are the culturally defined product of selective perception and should be replaced in biological terms by the study of populations and clines. Consequently, any characterization of the race of the ancient Egyptians depends on modern cultural definition, not scientific study. Thus, by modern American standards , it is reasonable to characterize the Egyptians as "black", while acknowledging the scientific evidence for the physical diversity of Africans" (p28).
Operative terms here being 'modern' and 'American', although British perceptions are similar to those of the US.
It's remarkable how they "now" try to twist it into Eurasian/ caucasoids diversity.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Operative terms here being 'modern' and 'American'.
Operative reality: Carlos still fails.
Current US views on what 'black' generally means to US citizens and how it evolved:
quote:Negro superseded colored as the most polite word for African Americans at a time when black was considered more offensive.[3] This word was accepted as normal, including by people classified as Negroes, until the late 1960s, after the later African-American Civil Rights Movement. One well-known example is the identification by Martin Luther King, Jr. of his own race as "Negro" in his famous speech of 1963, "I Have a Dream".
During the civil rights movements era of the 1950s and 1960s, some black American leaders in the United States, notably Malcolm X, objected to the word Negro because they associated it with the long history of slavery, segregation, and discrimination that treated African Americans as second class citizens, or worse.[4] Malcolm X preferred Black to Negro, but also started using the term Afro-American after leaving the Nation of Islam.[5]
Since the late 1960s, various other terms have been more widespread in popular usage. These include black, Black African, Afro-American (in use from the late 1960s to 1990) and African American (used in the United States to refer to black Americans, people often referred to in the past as American Negroes).
quote:The Black racial category includes people who marked the “Black, African Am., or Negro” checkbox. It also includes respondents who reported entries such as African American; Sub-Saharan African entries, such as Kenyan and Nigerian; and Afro-Caribbean entries, such as Haitian and Jamaican.*
quote: Originally posted by Doug M: As populations inhabiting tropical and subtropical environments black people can and have been found all over the globe.
^^^ this is an actual Doug quote from another thread with the picture he posted to go with it.
Look, if we are talking about who is black or not in 2015 in America it doesn't go by the ancient Greeks or Al-Jahiz.
In America in 2015 the definition of a black person is a dark skinned person with an afro.
Americans do not call the above Amazonians "black people'. East Indian people in America who can be quite dark do not call themselves "black people" nor do other Americans.
So in America in 2015 "black" is not only skin color, period. Doug is a fool. These people themselves don't even call themselves black people. So stop the nonsense
And Doug claiming ancient people referred to skin color to define their ethnicity is a lie and he continues to have no support for it.
What Doug is saying is, that this is due to white supremacy. They have created this catagory basis. While essentially black simple means dark skin (never was said the hue, or did they, the brown paper bag test?), which is what they have.
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nodnarb: To be honest, even if I was a contributor to it, I am dead sick of all the in-fighting in this community. It's depressing to witness. If only there was a way to stop it.
Agreed...
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
quote:Originally posted by Nodnarb: To be honest, even if I was a contributor to it, I am dead sick of all the in-fighting in this community. It's depressing to witness. If only there was a way to stop it.
Agreed...
What is ridiculous is that most of us know Ancient Egyptians are Africans, more related to lets say African-Americans than white Europeans or West Asians. So there's no need to create any of those distractions.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: You keep arguing against me when there isn't even a real disagreement where you think there is one. Look back how often I've told you this. It took how many times of telling you this in the same post, before you got it? I simply assigned YOUR use of 'black' to the al Jahiz tradition and kept telling you to stop infringing your use onto other uses because they don't imply the same pigmentation ranges and are DISTINCT traditions.
I'm not going to respond to the rest of your post again. My replies, which you probably didn't even read (look how many times I had to quote the same piece before you read it), are posted throughout this thread.
Nonsense. 'black people' and 'white people' are standard terms used in the English dictionary and that definition has not changed in thousands of years and is no different than what it meant in the time of Al Jahiz. YOU said that yourself when you said they used it as a reference to dark skin people in Africa. So please stop trying to wiggle your way out of the fact that black people and white people as English language terms has a usage and definition that has not changed and is based on observations of folks going back thousands of years. That is not "my" definition of the words, those are the standard definitions created thousands of years ago by people like even the Egyptians themselves calling themselves 'black people', Jahiz calling Africans 'black people', the Greeks and others all over the dam planet calling certain people 'black people' because of their skin color. You are simply defending a nonsense excuse to ignore historical fact that skin color is an obvious basis for the use of certain terms in language. And above all else, since when did 'black people' stop being the majority population in Africa to the point where you are claiming that the use of the term is no longer consistent with the terms used thousands of years ago?
You are full of nonsense.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Operative terms here being 'modern' and 'American'.
Operative reality: Carlos still fails.
Current US views on what 'black' generally means to US citizens and how it evolved:
quote:Negro superseded colored as the most polite word for African Americans at a time when black was considered more offensive.[3] This word was accepted as normal, including by people classified as Negroes, until the late 1960s, after the later African-American Civil Rights Movement. One well-known example is the identification by Martin Luther King, Jr. of his own race as "Negro" in his famous speech of 1963, "I Have a Dream".
During the civil rights movements era of the 1950s and 1960s, some black American leaders in the United States, notably Malcolm X, objected to the word Negro because they associated it with the long history of slavery, segregation, and discrimination that treated African Americans as second class citizens, or worse.[4] Malcolm X preferred Black to Negro, but also started using the term Afro-American after leaving the Nation of Islam.[5]
Since the late 1960s, various other terms have been more widespread in popular usage. These include black, Black African, Afro-American (in use from the late 1960s to 1990) and African American (used in the United States to refer to black Americans, people often referred to in the past as American Negroes).
quote:The Black racial category includes people who marked the “Black, African Am., or Negro” checkbox. It also includes respondents who reported entries such as African American; Sub-Saharan African entries, such as Kenyan and Nigerian; and Afro-Caribbean entries, such as Haitian and Jamaican.*
Wrong. Remember when the U.S. was in Libya overthrowing Qaddafi? Who were they saying were the allies of Qadafi? The 'black' Tuaregs from Southern Libya. Come on dude with this. Black people means black people and NOBODY is confused about what it means when it comes to Africans. And you don't have to go to America to see this as the exact SAME thing is in Europe where Africans of all shades are lumped together still as black people.
Racism is based on skin color and benefits white people when it comes to identifying those who are not in 'the club'. Stop trying to pretend there is some other basis of racism or that is unique to the United States. ALL of the Americas has the same meaning when it comes to black people albeit some parts of the Americas like the Portuguese and Spanish areas have more subdivisions based on mixture but it is still based on outward appearance at the core, along with degrees of mixture between populations. Brown has always been part of what is called black, especially when it comes to folks in Africa as black folks come in various shades.
And for goodness sake, Negro, black and African American are synonyms when it comes to Africans held captive in America. It means dark skin folks from Africa. There is no 'change' in that definition. I don't know why people pretend this is so dam complex. You keep allowing white folks who are the ones trying to redefine their own words because of a racist agenda to get you confused. If they call dark skin folks from Africa in the Americas blacks or Negroes, going back to the same terms being used in Europe and Spain from long ago, how is it they don't use the same terms for the same people in the continent of Africa? Whats different? They are both Africans? OBVIOUSLY, they are quibbling because they have an agenda and you folks keep giving them a pass on B.S.
Notice how NOBODY is confused about what 'white people' means when it comes to America and nobody says that there is confusion about the term not applying to people in Europe.
The root of all this confusion is white people and their desperate attempts to recategorize and classify people based on their own racist agenda. Nothing more and nothing less. There are plenty of books going back to the 18th and 19th century written by white folks laying out all these 'racial' schemes and it is contradictory. And we know how this agenda applies in Northern Africa. So again, why are we claiming these folks are 'objective' when they claim certain terms aren't valid anymore. Yet they still use those terms every day. They don't say that about 'white people' now do they?
I mean didn't you post these yourself showing that England certainly knows what black and white means and that it is a reference to skin color?
Skin color is not race. The fact that people no longer believe in 'race' as a biological subspecies among humans does not mean that SKIN COLOR does not exist and that you can't describe it as 'black' or 'white'. Skin color is also not a tribal identity, ethnic identity or pejorative identity among most populations around the world, except in a few cases as in KMT. When you say 'black people' in reference to a population it does not mean race it only means skin color. White folks have muddied the concept because they use skin color as the basis of race, but that does not mean that calling someone black is identifying a race. Nobody is confused when you say 'black Indians' or 'white Indians' from India. Nobody is confused when you say 'black Iranian'. Nobody is confused when you say 'black Israeli'. Nobody is confused when you say 'black Australian' or even 'black Native American'.
Dark black, coal black or jet black people are the first humans on earth and have been on earth longer than any other human population. And certainly there will ALWAYS be black people on earth no matter the attempts by WHITE PEOPLE to erase them from it, both in the present day and in history.
When people start complaining about these terms it is because what they are saying is 'black people' don't exist or are only limited to a certain sub group of Africans, which is demonstrably and totally false.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
Doug, I posted those pictures from the Britain not because if the color but because of facial structures. Focusing more on the first two. But those guys, all have completely different facial features.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: Doug, I posted those pictures from the Britain not because if the collor but because of facial structures. Focusing more on the first two. But those guys, all have completely different facial features.
The point is that the poster shows clearly that black people is a reference to skin color and that this is how Europeans use it. It does not say that 'black people' or 'white people' is a reference to bone structure.
Man how can you be so purposely deceptive.
I mean the dam poster says it quite clearly that they are talking about skin color. How can you not see that? So it is you in this case that is twisting something that is an obvious reference to skin color and trying to claim that this is not what the obvious meaning is.
This is a perfect example of what I mean by folks on this thread going out of their way to avoid the obvious meaning of these words even when it is spelled out clearly right in front of their faces. Yet they are going to argue that other people are confused and misusing language. No, you guys are confused and trying to misuse language.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
Of course it doesn't say nothing about bone structure, however, looking at the bone structure we can see different traits in these men.
One of the determinations to call people black, or not, was based on "bone structure".
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
^^^ As they say: Use DNA stupid!!
The ancient DNA taken from Ancient Egyptian mummies give us everything we need to determine the population affiliations of Ancient Egyptians with modern populations.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: ^^^ As they say: Use DNA stupid!!
The ancient DNA taken from Ancient Egyptian mummies give us everything we need to determine the population affiliations of Ancient Egyptians with modern populations.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: Of course it doesn't say nothing about bone structure, however, looking at the bone structure we can see different traits in these men.
One of the determinations to call people black, or not, was based on "bone structure".
But that is the point. Skin color is not bone structure and when one says black person they aren't talking about bone structure. You keep introducing stuff that has nothing to do with the use of the term as a reference to skin color. And to reiterate and reinforce they are talking about skin color, the poster says "taking the COLOR out of Britain" not taking the "bone structure" out of Britain.
Dam I don't understand what part of this you fail to comprehend.
And at the end of the day the whole debate about ancient Egypt boils down to skin color and nothing else. Everybody knows this, from the so-called 'objective' scholars to the most hard core racists, yet you got clowns on this forum sitting here saying that it isn't about that.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
All the above people are brown skinned.
To call any one of them black is a racial concept. It's only applied to humans so we know it's not pure observation. Brown animlas or brown objects ae not black.
In the United States the top two people would not call themsleves black in casual converstaion or on the U.S. census. And in Brazil they even have a racial categpry called "pardo" menaing brown.
In America only the man in the bottom picture would call himself black because he has an afro. That is how it works in America and everybody knows it. The man in the bottom picture is classified as black the others are nit
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: And at the end of the day the whole debate about ancient Egypt boils down to skin color and nothing else.
It's more than this.
Anta Diop, for example, didn't just claim Ancient Egyptians were black skinned people but determined linkages (cultural, historical, etc) with basically all African populations.
Modern historians can also see a lot of linkage and similarities with modern African people (divine kingship, origin of headrest, religion, musical instruments, worldview, etc) and Ancient Egyptians.
In term of determining scientifically the ethnic affiliations of Ancient Egyptians with modern populations DNA is still the strongest. Unrelated people can share the same skin color, some facial features or limb proportion but they can't share the same DNA. Thus far, the DNA taken from Ancient Egyptian mummies (JAMA, BMJ, DNA Tribes, Paabo) certainly show an affiliations with modern African populations.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: Of course it doesn't say nothing about bone structure, however, looking at the bone structure we can see different traits in these men.
One of the determinations to call people black, or not, was based on "bone structure".
But that is the point. Skin color is not bone structure and when one says black person they aren't talking about bone structure. You keep introducing stuff that has nothing to do with the use of the term as a reference to skin color. And to reiterate and reinforce they are talking about skin color, the poster says "taking the COLOR out of Britain" not taking the "bone structure" out of Britain.
Dam I don't understand what part of this you fail to comprehend.
And at the end of the day the whole debate about ancient Egypt boils down to skin color and nothing else. Everybody knows this, from the so-called 'objective' scholars to the most hard core racists, yet you got clowns on this forum sitting here saying that it isn't about that.
The promotional flyer in the campaign is not what I focused on, the text happened to be there, because it was there.
What I am my purpose was, is to show that all these men are considered black males in modern society. Yet have different bone structure. If one was to make a reconstruction on them, one could have argued that one is not black and the other is etc....This is how anthropology has formed its basis.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
All the above people are brown skinned.
To call any one of them black is a racial concept. It's only applied to humans so we know it's not pure observation. Brown animlas or brown objects ae not black.
In the United States the top two people would not call themsleves black in casual converstaion or on the U.S. census. And in Brazil they even have a racial categpry called "pardo" menaing brown.
In America only the man in the bottom picture would call himself black because he has an afro. That is how it works in America and everybody knows it. The man in the bottom picture is classified as black the others are nit
That's nice and dandy. But only one of them had ancestry in america recently which resulted in this segregation.
Yesterday I saw an interview on the origins of Hip Hop, with the Black Spades. One of guys being interviewed was of PR-descent explaining racism towards PR during the 60's, being called n-gg-r. etc.
And Brazil has a lot of categories, not just pardo. And eventually we get back to what Doug stated, on top of the pile is who? The branco. The same branco who created these devisions in the first place. And we can read the multiple reports from Black women from Brazil, on the treatment of these people who are supposed "pardo". While they themselves say we are negra.
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: Of course it doesn't say nothing about bone structure, however, looking at the bone structure we can see different traits in these men.
One of the determinations to call people black, or not, was based on "bone structure".
But that is the point. Skin color is not bone structure and when one says black person they aren't talking about bone structure. You keep introducing stuff that has nothing to do with the use of the term as a reference to skin color. And to reiterate and reinforce they are talking about skin color, the poster says "taking the COLOR out of Britain" not taking the "bone structure" out of Britain.
Dam I don't understand what part of this you fail to comprehend.
And at the end of the day the whole debate about ancient Egypt boils down to skin color and nothing else. Everybody knows this, from the so-called 'objective' scholars to the most hard core racists, yet you got clowns on this forum sitting here saying that it isn't about that.
The promotional flyer in the campaign is not what I focused on, the text happened to be there, because it was there.
What I am my purpose was, is to show that all these men are considered black males in modern society. Yet have different bone structure. If one was to make a reconstruction on them, one could have argued that one is not black and the other is etc....This is how anthropology has formed its basis.
You posted the flyer so you focused on it. Now why on earth you missed the OBVIOUS point of the flyer is simply an example of how some folks on this forum are going too far in avoiding the obvious. These people are called black because of their skin color. Your theoretical story about some scientists later on using their skeletal structure basically is irrelevant. Black people as a term is based on skin color and nothing else. As for bone structure, notice how nobody claims that the remains of Africans "South of the Sahara" aren't black based on 'bone structure', even though that bone structure is very variable. The point being that white people created the science of so-called anthropology based on using cranial measurements to 'prove' the ancient Egyptians were white people. It was not objective and it was ultimately all about skin color. Your refusal to admit this is simply nonsense. Humans have skin color and there are various ways to determine the skin color of ancient populations and YES anthropologists do make determinations of skin color based on analysis of human remains, but it is not an exact science and is very subjective based on the history of racism in anthropology. Any future scientist looking at the bones of these people and claiming that they were not black would be easily proven wrong by this poster. But you seem to want to sit there and suggest we should give those scientists the benefit of the doubt rather than just saying they are wrong. Not to mention the idea that people with eyeballs who see these people in life are incorrect in calling them black or that the term is scientifically inaccurate as if it doesn't reflect the facts.
quote: Samuel George Morton is often thought of as the originator of "American School" ethnography, a school of thought in antebellum American science that claimed the difference between humans was one of species rather than variety and is seen by some as the origin of scientific racism.
Morton argued against the single creation story of the Bible (monogenism) and instead supported a theory of multiple racial creations (polygenism). Morton claimed the Bible supported polygenism, and within working in a biblical framework his theory held that each race had been created separately and each was given specific, irrevocable characteristics.
After inspecting three mummies from ancient Egyptian catacombs, Morton concluded that Caucasians and Negroes were already distinct three thousand years ago. Since the Bible indicated that Noah's Ark had washed up on Mount Ararat, only a thousand years ago before this, Morton claimed that Noah's sons could not possibly account for every race on earth. According to Morton's theory of polygenesis, races have been separate since the start.
Morton claimed that he could define the intellectual ability of a race by the skull capacity. A large volume meant a large brain and high intellectual capacity, and a small skull indicated a small brain and decreased intellectual capacity. He was reputed to hold the largest collection of skulls, on which he based his research. He claimed that each race had a separate origin, and that a descending order of intelligence could be discerned that placed Caucasians at the pinnacle and Negroes at the lowest point, with various other race groups in between.[7] Morton had many skulls from ancient Egypt, and concluded that the ancient Egyptians were not African, but were Caucasian. His results were published in three volumes between 1839 and 1849: the Crania Americana, An Inquiry into the Distinctive Characteristics of the Aboriginal Race of America and Crania Aegyptiaca.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: And at the end of the day the whole debate about ancient Egypt boils down to skin color and nothing else.
It's more than this.
Anta Diop, for example, didn't just claim Ancient Egyptians were black skinned people but determined linkages (cultural, historical, etc) with basically all African populations.
Modern historians can also see a lot of linkage and similarities with modern African people (divine kingship, origin of headrest, religion, musical instruments, worldview, etc) and Ancient Egyptians.
In term of determining scientifically the ethnic affiliations of Ancient Egyptians with modern populations DNA is still the strongest. Unrelated people can share the same skin color, some facial features or limb proportion but they can't share the same DNA. Thus far, the DNA taken from Ancient Egyptian mummies (JAMA, BMJ, DNA Tribes, Paabo) certainly show an affiliations with modern African populations.
That is wrong. Diop did his work to refute the racists who were claiming that the ancient Egyptians were white people. You are seriously denying history to claim that his work was not about proving the skin color of these ancient people USING multiple lines of evidence. It is still about skin color.
To sit here and claim otherwise is retarded.
Posted by kdolo (Member # 21830) on :
Lioness,
All those men you posted are BLACk according to the one drop rule.
George Lopez is an American comedian, actor, and television personality. His father was a Mexican immigrant, from Nayarit. His mother was born in Los Angeles, of Mexican descent. On his show, Lopez Tonight, he undertook a DNA test, which stated that he is of 55% European, 32% Native American, 9% East Asian, and 4% sub-Saharan African ancestry.
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
Modern historians can also see a lot of linkage and similarities with modern African people (divine kingship, origin of headrest, religion, musical instruments, worldview, etc) and Ancient Egyptians.
In term of determining scientifically the ethnic affiliations of Ancient Egyptians with modern populations DNA is still the strongest. Unrelated people can share the same skin color, some facial features or limb proportion but they can't share the same DNA. Thus far, the DNA taken from Ancient Egyptian mummies (JAMA, BMJ, DNA Tribes, Paabo) certainly show an affiliations with modern African populations.
Keep in mind that DNA is only ONE line of evidence. Limb proportions are another and are just as valid as DNA if not more so. And DNA can involve a lot of guesstimates sometimes with ranges in tens of thousands of years plus/minus. It is hardly a beacon of accuracy. Skeletal material may also have to be estimated but at least it is found on the ground, in specific locations, with specific cultural contexts, and can be dated and measured scientifically, and/or in connection with the cultural context. It can be just as valid, sometimes more so than DNA guesswork tens of thousands of years- off or on. In fact one measure of the credibility of DNA is how well it matches the fossil/material record. Where there are discrepancies, the DNA guesswork is sometimes suspect. It is naive to look at DNA as some sort of paragon of science or accuracy. It is only one tool or line of evidence among many.
Unrelated people can share the same skin color, some facial features or limb proportion but they can't share the same DNA.
Explain your statement more. Here are 3 questions:
1- What's your definition of "unrelated people"?
2- Give an example of peoples who are unrelated.
3- If people from tropical environments on the same continent show similar limb proportions, aren't they related in the sense of coming from the same tropical environment, on the SAME CONTINENT?
Aren't they related CONTINENTAL POPULATIONS with similar adaptive features? Western Africans and NE Africans in the form of Egyptians for example are both in the African continent, and related via showing similar patterns of limb proportions. By this we know that claims of cold-climate "Hamites" sweeping into the Nile Valley are false, for the skeletal material shows heat adapted populations. Conclusion: We don't need DNA to establish the case. The skeletal record has ALREADY done so.
So why should DNA command attention as the be all and end all?
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
@Doug M
Stop wasting my time and your own time. What you're bringing up has already been dealt with. All your claims have already been falsified. Your way of trying to keep your points 'relevant' is by repeatedly ignoring what I say and spamming already debunked claims.
Also, your debate style has the undertone that people should take your word for everything you say. You haven't even once posted evidence to back up your claims. Not even the many outrageous ones.
When you debate someone, the underlying understanding is that opponents leave behind points that have already been dealt with. Not Doug M.
Debating you is like wack-a-mole.
Greco-Roman writings completely undermine his claim that the black vs white dichotomy has been universal and constant throughout time. He doesn't even acknowledge the existence of these writings or respond to my posts. He just talks over them with a barrage of opinionated rants and then repeatedly talks about how right he is that these terms were universal. SMH.
Here is an early (1497) pre white supremacy European description of certain Khoisan groups. You have to be pretty confused to think it's self-evident that all onlookers would independently come to the conclusion that the Khoisan referred to below, must be lumped in with 'Aethiopians', 'moors', 'blacks', 'negro', etc. Completely preposterous.
quote:The inhabitants of this country are tawny-coloured [baço]. Their food is confined to the flesh of seals, whales, and gazelles, and the roots of herbs. They are dressed in skins, and wear sheaths over their virile members. They are armed with poles of olive wood to which a horn, browned in the fire, is attached. Their numerous dogs resemble those of Portugal, and bark like them.
--Da Gama
^To claim it would be self-evident for people to indiscriminately lump all dark skinned people into 'black' a la al Jahiz, is completely false. And Doug, don't think I didn't notice how you nitpicked your dictionary definition of 'black' and ignored dictionaries that also focus on the US use of the term.
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
@Doug M What part of "more than this" and he "didn't just" don't you understand?
@zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova
quote:Explain your statement more. Here are 3 questions:
1- What's your definition of "unrelated people"?
2- Give an example of peoples who are unrelated.
3- If people from tropical environments on the same continent show similar limb proportions, aren't they related in the sense of coming from the same tropical environment, on the SAME CONTINENT?
1) Probably the same one as yours and everybody else 2) Every humans are related but Ancient Egyptians are more related to African-Americans than to modern Europeans or West Asians for example. 3) Yes, they are related by geographical location and limb proportions (and possibly more).
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: Of course it doesn't say nothing about bone structure, however, looking at the bone structure we can see different traits in these men.
One of the determinations to call people black, or not, was based on "bone structure".
But that is the point. Skin color is not bone structure and when one says black person they aren't talking about bone structure. You keep introducing stuff that has nothing to do with the use of the term as a reference to skin color. And to reiterate and reinforce they are talking about skin color, the poster says "taking the COLOR out of Britain" not taking the "bone structure" out of Britain.
Dam I don't understand what part of this you fail to comprehend.
And at the end of the day the whole debate about ancient Egypt boils down to skin color and nothing else. Everybody knows this, from the so-called 'objective' scholars to the most hard core racists, yet you got clowns on this forum sitting here saying that it isn't about that.
The promotional flyer in the campaign is not what I focused on, the text happened to be there, because it was there.
What I am my purpose was, is to show that all these men are considered black males in modern society. Yet have different bone structure. If one was to make a reconstruction on them, one could have argued that one is not black and the other is etc....This is how anthropology has formed its basis.
You posted the flyer so you focused on it. Now why on earth you missed the OBVIOUS point of the flyer is simply an example of how some folks on this forum are going too far in avoiding the obvious. These people are called black because of their skin color. Your theoretical story about some scientists later on using their skeletal structure basically is irrelevant. Black people as a term is based on skin color and nothing else. As for bone structure, notice how nobody claims that the remains of Africans "South of the Sahara" aren't black based on 'bone structure', even though that bone structure is very variable. The point being that white people created the science of so-called anthropology based on using cranial measurements to 'prove' the ancient Egyptians were white people. It was not objective and it was ultimately all about skin color. Your refusal to admit this is simply nonsense. Humans have skin color and there are various ways to determine the skin color of ancient populations and YES anthropologists do make determinations of skin color based on analysis of human remains, but it is not an exact science and is very subjective based on the history of racism in anthropology. Any future scientist looking at the bones of these people and claiming that they were not black would be easily proven wrong by this poster. But you seem to want to sit there and suggest we should give those scientists the benefit of the doubt rather than just saying they are wrong. Not to mention the idea that people with eyeballs who see these people in life are incorrect in calling them black or that the term is scientifically inaccurate as if it doesn't reflect the facts.
quote: Samuel George Morton is often thought of as the originator of "American School" ethnography, a school of thought in antebellum American science that claimed the difference between humans was one of species rather than variety and is seen by some as the origin of scientific racism.
Morton argued against the single creation story of the Bible (monogenism) and instead supported a theory of multiple racial creations (polygenism). Morton claimed the Bible supported polygenism, and within working in a biblical framework his theory held that each race had been created separately and each was given specific, irrevocable characteristics.
After inspecting three mummies from ancient Egyptian catacombs, Morton concluded that Caucasians and Negroes were already distinct three thousand years ago. Since the Bible indicated that Noah's Ark had washed up on Mount Ararat, only a thousand years ago before this, Morton claimed that Noah's sons could not possibly account for every race on earth. According to Morton's theory of polygenesis, races have been separate since the start.
Morton claimed that he could define the intellectual ability of a race by the skull capacity. A large volume meant a large brain and high intellectual capacity, and a small skull indicated a small brain and decreased intellectual capacity. He was reputed to hold the largest collection of skulls, on which he based his research. He claimed that each race had a separate origin, and that a descending order of intelligence could be discerned that placed Caucasians at the pinnacle and Negroes at the lowest point, with various other race groups in between.[7] Morton had many skulls from ancient Egypt, and concluded that the ancient Egyptians were not African, but were Caucasian. His results were published in three volumes between 1839 and 1849: the Crania Americana, An Inquiry into the Distinctive Characteristics of the Aboriginal Race of America and Crania Aegyptiaca.
The reason why I posted those flyers was because of the facial traits. Not because of the campaign. Nowhere did I say they aren't black. Or did I? It was the intend from the beginning to show the facial differences in these black men.
Posted by kdolo (Member # 21830) on :
Negroes.....nothing but Negroes......
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: @Doug M
Stop wasting my time and your own time. What you're bringing up has already been dealt with. All your claims have already been falsified. Your way of trying to keep your points 'relevant' is by repeatedly ignoring what I say and spamming already debunked claims.
Also, your debate style has the undertone that people should take your word for everything you say. You haven't even once posted evidence to back up your claims. Not even the many outrageous ones.
When you debate someone, the underlying understanding is that opponents leave behind points that have already been dealt with. Not Doug M.
Debating you is like wack-a-mole.
Greco-Roman writings completely undermine his claim that the black vs white dichotomy has been universal and constant throughout time. He doesn't even acknowledge the existence of these writings or respond to my posts. He just talks over them with a barrage of opinionated rants and then repeatedly talks about how right he is that these terms were universal. SMH.
Here is an early (1497) pre white supremacy European description of certain Khoisan groups. You have to be pretty confused to think it's self-evident that all onlookers would independently come to the conclusion that the Khoisan referred to below, must be lumped in with 'Aethiopians', 'moors', 'blacks', 'negro', etc. Completely preposterous.
quote:The inhabitants of this country are tawny-coloured [baço]. Their food is confined to the flesh of seals, whales, and gazelles, and the roots of herbs. They are dressed in skins, and wear sheaths over their virile members. They are armed with poles of olive wood to which a horn, browned in the fire, is attached. Their numerous dogs resemble those of Portugal, and bark like them.
--Da Gama
^To claim it would be self-evident for people to indiscriminately lump all dark skinned people into 'black' a la al Jahiz, is completely false. And Doug, don't think I didn't notice how you nitpicked your dictionary definition of 'black' and ignored dictionaries that also focus on the US use of the term.
No Swenet, you are simply using absurd logic to claim that the word 'black people' in general has not been consistently used for thousands of years to refer to people of the African continent. Whether or not other terms have been used and whether or not specific populations have been included in that is another matter entirely.
YOUR point if you haven't grasped this argument by now is that 'black people' has some vague and ambiguous meaning to the point where people don't understand what you mean when you say it. MY point is that fundamentally yes people understand what you mean when you say it, because skin color is a fact of life, specifically the skin color of most Africans as included in the definition of the term according to the standard English dictionary.
You simply are claiming that this fundamental definition is not 'good enough' in the English language to describe a population in Africa (or outside Africa) with dark skin. My argument is that it is perfectly good enough for communicating what is being said. That is from a communication perspective. But whether people AGREE on that term being used for specific populations is different point altogether. And on that point, my argument has been consistent that racists are the most vocal when it comes to using this term when it comes to ancient Egypt because they are concerned about skin color specifically. And on top of that European science has always been in support of that agenda, therefore the changes in terminology on the part of Europeans and how they categorize and label Africans is suspect to me and therefore does not require a change in language on my part to address inconsistencies, hypocrisy and racism on the part of the wider European academic community.
YOU on the other hand keep trying to bend and twist to respond to the whims of these folks which is absurd, because at the end of the day, the goal hasn't changed. They still want to have the power to categorize folks in a way that supports white supremacy, which ALL boils down to skin color. That has not changed. And this takes me back to why the word black people is perfectly viable in language because it describes skin color which can be observed and understood as to what is being commented on.
You are simply making excuses because you know full well what is meant when saying the ancient Egyptians were 'black people' especially by folks on this board. There is no confusion about it or ambiguity about it. Yet you sit up here and claim there is some reason this term isn't good enough to understand what the hell is being said by folks on this forum. And you pretend that nobody else understands what is being said, even those 'white objective scholars' you keep bringing up, which is nonsense.
We aren't talking about ancient Greeks right now We aren't talking about Al Jahiz right now in the current day. We are talking about communications between people in the here and now. The only reason Al Jahiz or the Greeks have been brought up is to show that over thousands of years people with dark skin have been labeled as black in various languages and various ways as a reference to skin color. You have not disproven that. You just keep changing the goalpost in order to avoid the point that black people is a perfectly viable and acceptible term to use to describe populations in Africa and elsewhere. Now if there is a disagreement on specific groups then that is a whole different discussion requiring facts or evidences related to such populations, but that does not mean that the word 'black people' is not a basic and common adjective for skin color that cannot and should not be used in language as a reference to said skin color.
You simply are getting yourself confused because you are open to entertaining nonsense from European people....
quote: Here is an early (1497) pre white supremacy European description of certain Khoisan groups. You have to be pretty confused to think it's self-evident that all onlookers would independently come to the conclusion that the Khoisan referred to below, must be lumped in with 'Aethiopians', 'moors', 'blacks', 'negro', etc. Completely preposterous.
First, that is not pre white supremacy, unless you mean American racism. White supremacy started in Europe from long before America colonized or the United States created. And that is something you need to understand. White Supremacy and racism is a EUROPEAN ideology exported and taken around the world by Europeans. And second, this passage only proves that Europeans have used language to describe skin colors in reference to an African population, which actually proves my point. Now they are inconsistent and contradictory in its usage because MOST Europeans would certainly lump Khoisan and other Southern Africans with black people. But then again, according to the Spanish and Portuguese they have always had multiple 'categories' for populations based on skin color and you see this in all Spanish and Portuguese colonies. Not to mention that Vasco Da Gama and the Portuguese colonized large parts of Southern Africa and oppressed the native 'black people' including these 'tawny' San people, as a part of white supremacy. The English and Boer colonists most certainly lumped all these people together as 'black Africans'. And to even claim otherwise because of some obscure passage is straight bullsh*t. Are you even serious? And you are saying that I should not call the Khoisan black people because of this? Seriously? Tawny is a color reference to skin color and it does not exclude these people from also being called 'black Africans', just as black populations all over Africa come in different shades. And ultimately it still all boils down to skin color being used in language and as the basis of racism/white supremacy. You make no damn sense.
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: Of course it doesn't say nothing about bone structure, however, looking at the bone structure we can see different traits in these men.
One of the determinations to call people black, or not, was based on "bone structure".
But that is the point. Skin color is not bone structure and when one says black person they aren't talking about bone structure. You keep introducing stuff that has nothing to do with the use of the term as a reference to skin color. And to reiterate and reinforce they are talking about skin color, the poster says "taking the COLOR out of Britain" not taking the "bone structure" out of Britain.
Dam I don't understand what part of this you fail to comprehend.
And at the end of the day the whole debate about ancient Egypt boils down to skin color and nothing else. Everybody knows this, from the so-called 'objective' scholars to the most hard core racists, yet you got clowns on this forum sitting here saying that it isn't about that.
The promotional flyer in the campaign is not what I focused on, the text happened to be there, because it was there.
What I am my purpose was, is to show that all these men are considered black males in modern society. Yet have different bone structure. If one was to make a reconstruction on them, one could have argued that one is not black and the other is etc....This is how anthropology has formed its basis.
You posted the flyer so you focused on it. Now why on earth you missed the OBVIOUS point of the flyer is simply an example of how some folks on this forum are going too far in avoiding the obvious. These people are called black because of their skin color. Your theoretical story about some scientists later on using their skeletal structure basically is irrelevant. Black people as a term is based on skin color and nothing else. As for bone structure, notice how nobody claims that the remains of Africans "South of the Sahara" aren't black based on 'bone structure', even though that bone structure is very variable. The point being that white people created the science of so-called anthropology based on using cranial measurements to 'prove' the ancient Egyptians were white people. It was not objective and it was ultimately all about skin color. Your refusal to admit this is simply nonsense. Humans have skin color and there are various ways to determine the skin color of ancient populations and YES anthropologists do make determinations of skin color based on analysis of human remains, but it is not an exact science and is very subjective based on the history of racism in anthropology. Any future scientist looking at the bones of these people and claiming that they were not black would be easily proven wrong by this poster. But you seem to want to sit there and suggest we should give those scientists the benefit of the doubt rather than just saying they are wrong. Not to mention the idea that people with eyeballs who see these people in life are incorrect in calling them black or that the term is scientifically inaccurate as if it doesn't reflect the facts.
quote: Samuel George Morton is often thought of as the originator of "American School" ethnography, a school of thought in antebellum American science that claimed the difference between humans was one of species rather than variety and is seen by some as the origin of scientific racism.
Morton argued against the single creation story of the Bible (monogenism) and instead supported a theory of multiple racial creations (polygenism). Morton claimed the Bible supported polygenism, and within working in a biblical framework his theory held that each race had been created separately and each was given specific, irrevocable characteristics.
After inspecting three mummies from ancient Egyptian catacombs, Morton concluded that Caucasians and Negroes were already distinct three thousand years ago. Since the Bible indicated that Noah's Ark had washed up on Mount Ararat, only a thousand years ago before this, Morton claimed that Noah's sons could not possibly account for every race on earth. According to Morton's theory of polygenesis, races have been separate since the start.
Morton claimed that he could define the intellectual ability of a race by the skull capacity. A large volume meant a large brain and high intellectual capacity, and a small skull indicated a small brain and decreased intellectual capacity. He was reputed to hold the largest collection of skulls, on which he based his research. He claimed that each race had a separate origin, and that a descending order of intelligence could be discerned that placed Caucasians at the pinnacle and Negroes at the lowest point, with various other race groups in between.[7] Morton had many skulls from ancient Egypt, and concluded that the ancient Egyptians were not African, but were Caucasian. His results were published in three volumes between 1839 and 1849: the Crania Americana, An Inquiry into the Distinctive Characteristics of the Aboriginal Race of America and Crania Aegyptiaca.
The reason why I posted those flyers was because of the facial traits. Not because of the campaign. Nowhere did I say they aren't black. Or did I? It was the intend from the beginning to show the facial differences in these black men.
True, but I don't see this thread being about bone structure it is about using the word 'black people' as a reference to skin color. And more specifically whether we should blindly jump through hoops to avoid certain words because of the convoluted logic of white academia or science.
Posted by tropicals redacted (Member # 21621) on :
quote: True, but I don't see this thread being about bone structure it is about using the word 'black people' as a reference to skin color. And more specifically whether we should blindly jump through hoops to avoid certain words because of the convoluted logic of white academia or science.
And I would ask the question as to why we shouldn't challenge them when, in their work, they deny something that's entirely reasonable to infer--that most indigenous ancient Egyptians were 'black'.
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
^^^tropicals redacted is lying. The academia already acknowledged than Ancient Egyptians were black Africans indigenous to the region.
For those curious about this, here's a few mainstream Egyptology publications which acknowledge the indigenous African origins of Ancient Egyptians. So Ancient Egyptians were not people who came from Europe or the Middle East to create the Ancient Egyptian state in Africa. They were for the most part indigenous black Africans who never left Africa and related to modern day Sub-Saharan Africans and thus African-Americans.
Here's the real bottom line (published by a reliable source - The Oxford university press)
"Physical anthropologists are increasingly concluding that racial definitions are the culturally defined product of selective perception and should be replaced in biological terms by the study of populations and clines. Consequently, any characterization of race of the ancient Egyptians depend on modern cultural definitions, not on scientific study. Thus, by modern American standards it is reasonable to characterize the Egyptians as `black' while acknowledging the scientific evidence for the physical diversity of Africans." --Source: The Oxford encyclopedia of ancient Egypt, Volume 3. Oxford University Press. 2001. p. 27-28
Same thing with the archaeological/cultural continuity which demonstrate that Ancient Egyptians are indigenous Africans. Even displaying "strong similarities to modern African cultures".
"Archaeological evidence also strongly supports an African origin. A widespread northeastern African cultural assemblage, including distinctive multiple barbed harpoons and pottery decorated with dotted wavy line patterns , appears during the early Neolithic (also known as the Aqualithic, a reference to the mild climate of the Sahara at this time). Saharan and Sudanese rock art from this time resembles early Egyptian iconography. Strong connections between Nubian (Sudanese) and Egyptian material culture continue in later Neolithic Badarian culture of Upper Egypt. Similarities include black-topped wares, vessels with characteristic ripple-burnished surfaces, a special tulip-shaped vessel with incised and white-filled decoration, palettes, and harpoons. [...] Other ancient Egyptian practices show strong similarities to modern African cultures including divine kingship, the use of headrests, body art, circumcision, and male coming-of-age rituals, all suggesting an African substratum or foundation for Egyptian civilization"[/b] - The Oxford encyclopedia of ancient Egypt, Volume 3. Oxford University Press (2001). p.28
The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt above does a good summary. Here's many other reliable academic sources (not afrocentrists or racist eurocentrists from another era):
I don't even know what all this argument is about. It doesn't make any sense to me. The early Greeks like Herodotus and Aristotle described the ancient Egyptians as black, and later Greek scholars could easily see that the 'Aethiops' were darker than the Egyptians, but that doesn't distract from the blackness of the ancient Egyptians.
A great deal of non-African foreigners may have have flooded into Egypt by the time the Romans took Egypt. This was long after the time of Herodotus.
Even with that being said, if a person was to be shown a Dinka and and an indigenous Egyptian from Luxor, Esna, Edfu, Aswan, the Siwa Oasis and the Red Sea coast, most people would understand that they were just different gradients of black.
You can describe the ancient Egyptians as black in a social sense, but I guess I can understand why an anthropologists might want to use 'tropical', just as long as they make it clear that these 'tropical' people [ancient Egyptians] are related to other tropical populations just South of them and that they ultimately originate from the South.
Even people from the Western desert would have originated from the South. There is to be no compromise on emphasizing the South.
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: I don't even know what all this argument is about. It doesn't make any sense to me. The early Greeks like Herodotus and Aristotle described the ancient Egyptians as black, and later Greek scholars could easily see that the 'Aethiops' were darker than the Egyptians, but that doesn't distract from the blackness of the ancient Egyptians.
A great deal of non-African foreigners may have have flooded into Egypt by the time the Romans took Egypt. This was long after the time of Herodotus.
Even with that being said, if a person was to be shown a Dinka and and an indigenous Egyptian from Luxor, Esna, Edfu, the Siwa Oasis and the Red Sea cost, most people would understand that they were just different gradients of black.
You can describe the ancient Egyptians as black in a social sense, but I guess I can understand why an anthropologists might want to use 'tropical', just as long as they make it clear that these 'tropical' people [ancient Egyptians] are related to other tropical populations just South of them and that they ultimately originate from the South.
Even people from the Western desert would have originated from the South. There is to be no compromise on emphasizing the South.
I agree with this. Although modern egyptologists don't use words like tropical and prefer to say they were indigenous Africans, which is what the were of course. The source of the population of Ancient Egypt. The source of the religions, political structure, scientific knowledge and curiosity. The Ancient Egyptians origin is in Africa: Sudanese/southern part of Egypt, Green Sahara, Nabta Playa, Tasian, Badarian, Naqada culture.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Doug came with a Spanish casta painting as if it has authority while at the same time criticizing white supremacy. That doesn't make sense at all. Furthermore the damn painting doesn't even have the word the Spanish word for black on it "negro" Europeans didn't even call themselves white until a few hundred years ago
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: ^^^tropicals redacted is lying. The academia already acknowledged than Ancient Egyptians were black Africans indigenous to the region.
For those curious about this, here's a few mainstream Egyptology publications which acknowledge the indigenous African origins of Ancient Egyptians. So Ancient Egyptians were not people who came from Europe or the Middle East to create the Ancient Egyptian state in Africa. They were for the most part indigenous black Africans who never left Africa and related to modern day Sub-Saharan Africans and thus African-Americans.
Here's the real bottom line (published by a reliable source - The Oxford university press)
"Physical anthropologists are increasingly concluding that racial definitions are the culturally defined product of selective perception and should be replaced in biological terms by the study of populations and clines. Consequently, any characterization of race of the ancient Egyptians depend on modern cultural definitions, not on scientific study. Thus, by modern American standards it is reasonable to characterize the Egyptians as `black' while acknowledging the scientific evidence for the physical diversity of Africans." --Source: The Oxford encyclopedia of ancient Egypt, Volume 3. Oxford University Press. 2001. p. 27-28
Same thing with the archaeological/cultural continuity which demonstrate that Ancient Egyptians are indigenous Africans. Even displaying "strong similarities to modern African cultures".
"Archaeological evidence also strongly supports an African origin. A widespread northeastern African cultural assemblage, including distinctive multiple barbed harpoons and pottery decorated with dotted wavy line patterns , appears during the early Neolithic (also known as the Aqualithic, a reference to the mild climate of the Sahara at this time). Saharan and Sudanese rock art from this time resembles early Egyptian iconography. Strong connections between Nubian (Sudanese) and Egyptian material culture continue in later Neolithic Badarian culture of Upper Egypt. Similarities include black-topped wares, vessels with characteristic ripple-burnished surfaces, a special tulip-shaped vessel with incised and white-filled decoration, palettes, and harpoons. [...] Other ancient Egyptian practices show strong similarities to modern African cultures including divine kingship, the use of headrests, body art, circumcision, and male coming-of-age rituals, all suggesting an African substratum or foundation for Egyptian civilization"[/b] - The Oxford encyclopedia of ancient Egypt, Volume 3. Oxford University Press (2001). p.28
The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt above does a good summary. Here's many other reliable academic sources (not afrocentrists or racist eurocentrists from another era):
The crux of the issue here is that white scientists have conned you to believing that 'black' as used in "the West" is a social term. This proposes the absurd idea that 'black' as used in the West is not primarily based on skin color. That is fundamentally and primarily FALSE. Black as used in the west for Africans is a reference to skin color and social status and treatment based on skin color. But they have played this game of trickery in trying to claim that if someone says 'black person' somehow they are applying a social rule as opposed to simply talking about skin color which is the basis of the term going back long ago prior to the existence of America.
But folks on this forum and elsewhere are playing along with this, claiming that saying some African population is 'black' is somehow trying to apply American 'racial terms' as opposed to simply referring to the skin color of said population. That is pure and absolute propaganda on the part of the scientists who are fundamentally claiming that skin color is a non existent entity when it comes to humans. Which all of us know is false. Skin color is a fact of biology no less significant in human biology than any other aspect of that physiology.
And also not only does it contradict observed reality, it also contradicts the historical facts of the SAME scientific community using skin color as the basis of their racial schemes in the past. And rather than just admit that European scientists are part of the racist agenda, they now spin the tables around say that simply using a term like 'black people' is tantamount to being racist which is so inane and insidious as to be laughable. But folks like some on this forum are open to such nonsense trickery and go for it rather than simply calling it out for what it is.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with the term 'black people' when it comes to labeling the skin color of populations in Africa and elsewhere. These people just are playing games with the issue of ancient Egypt and imposing all sorts of barriers and obstacles to avoid the fundamental issue which is skin color, which is what this debate has been about since the Europeans discovered Egypt and imposed their racist ideologies on ancient Egypt which are absolutely based on skin color. But you got folks on this forum and on this thread who claim these folks don't see skin color or know what the hell skin color is meant when someone says 'black African'. Come on man give it up already. These people aren't stupid. They are playing mind games with you and you go for it.
You chasing your tail and jumping through hoops to please these folks is not going to change the point that white racists in and outside of academia have an agenda to make ancient Egypt white people meaning the palest and lightest looking European white folks. And this is why no matter what terms they uses in their 'objective scientic analysis' the end result will always have the AE looking like white Europeans. It isn't an issue of language or words and until you focus on that and stop focusing on distractions and mind games the sooner you will get to the point.
There have been black people on this planet since before white Europeans or any other population existed. So how the hell do 'black people' only exist in an American 'social context'? Some of you people are denying the existence of the very same people you claim to be representing. And that shows what happens when you follow the nonsense ideologies of folks who are clearly against 'black people'.
Another example of white European scientists basing schemes on skin color:
quote: Most of these degenerations, Blumenbach argued, arose directly from differences in climate and habitat--ranging from such broad patterns as the correlation of dark skin with tropical environments, to more particular (and fanciful) attributions, including a speculation that the narrow eye slits of some Australian aborigines may have arisen in response to "constant clouds of gnats . . . contracting the natural face of the inhabitants." Other changes, he maintained, arose as a consequence of customs adopted in different regions. For example, nations that compressed the heads of babies by swaddling boards or papoose carriers ended up with relatively long skulls. Blumenbach held that "almost all the diversity of the form of the head in different nations is to be attributed to the mode of life and to art." ... Blumenbach established a special library in his house devoted exclusively to black authors, singling out for special praise the poetry of Phillis Wheatley, a Boston slave whose writings have only recently been rediscovered: "I possess English, Dutch, and Latin poems by several [black authors], amongst which however above all, those of Phillis Wheatley of Boston, who is justly famous for them, deserves mention here." Finally, Blumenbach noted that many Caucasian nations could not boast so fine a set of authors and scholars as black Africa has produced under the most depressing circumstances of prejudice and slavery: "It would not be difficult to mention entire well-known provinces of Europe, from out of which you would not easily expect to obtain off-hand such good authors, poets, philosophers, and correspondents of the Paris Academy."
Nonetheless, when Blumenbach presented his mental picture of human diversity in his fateful shift away from Linnaean geography, he singled out a particular group as closest to the created ideal and then characterized all other groups by relative degrees of departure from this archetypal standard. He ended up with a system that placed a single race at the pinnacle, and then envisioned two symmetrical lines of departure away from this ideal toward greater and greater degeneration. ... Blumenbach then presented all human variety on two lines of successive departure from this Caucasian ideal, ending in the two most degenerate (least attractive, not least morally unworthy or mentally obtuse) forms of humanity--Asians on one side, and Africans on the other. But Blumenbach also wanted to designate intermediary forms between ideal and most degenerate, especially since even gradation formed his primary argument for human unity. In his original four-race system, he could identify native Americans as intermediary between Europeans and Asians, but who would serve as the transitional form between Europeans and Africans?
The four-race system contained no appropriate group. But inventing a fifth racial category as an intermediary between Europeans and Africans would complete the new symmetrical geometry. Blumenbach therefore added the Malay race, not as a minor, factual refinement but as a device for reformulating an entire theory of human diversity. With this one stroke, he produced the geometric transformation from Linnaeus's unranked geographic model to the conventional hierarchy of implied worth that has fostered so much social grief ever since.
I have allotted the first place to the Caucasian . . . which makes me esteem it the primeval one. This diverges in both directions into two, most remote and very different from each other; on the one side, namely, into the Ethiopian, and on the other into the Mongolian. The remaining two occupy the intermediate positions between that primeval one and these two extreme varieties; that is, the American between the Caucasian and Mongolian; the Malay between the same Caucasian and Ethiopian. [From Blumenbach's third edition.]
Scholars often think that academic ideas must remain at worst, harmless, and at best, mildly amusing or even instructive. But ideas do not reside in the ivory tower of our usual metaphor about academic irrelevance. We are, as Pascal said, a thinking reed, and ideas motivate human history. Where would Hitler have been without racism, Jefferson without liberty? Blumenbach lived as a cloistered professor all his life, but his ideas have reverberated in ways that he never could have anticipated, through our wars, our social upheavals, our sufferings, and our hopes.
Your summation of my positions is not entirely accurate. Better than the previous ones, but still lacking. I also see a lot of goal post shifts going on. Basically, what it boils down to:
1) My position is that 'black' as applied by al Jahiz (where black has no primary or special connection with Africa as it equally includes dark skinned people in Asia) is broadly consistent with your use, my ***PAST*** use of the term and that of the more reputable ES veterans. As you know, this use is purely based on the range of brown skin pigmentation. This is the application of the term that is most defensible in terms of rationality and consistency, although it's still problematic for several reasons (some of which I've already mentioned).
2) Most people today in the West don't understand the term that way. Doug M, you want to attribute this solely to white supremacy, so when examples from other cultures/earlier times are posted showing that they also don't understood/understand the term as explained in point 1, you ignore said posts and/or change the topic (see how you started flip flopping with the example of Da Gama).
There is no shortage of online forums where discussions between proponents of point 1 and point 2 play out.
Often, there is little to no apparent motive for racism towards Africans in these conversations.
3) To reduce proponents of point 2 automatically to adherents of racism towards Africans is not only paranoid and laughably simplistic (this use of the term is not even specific to Europeans or to recent times), but it also suggests to me that you're in no shape to discuss this topic. You simply haven't done your homework on this one.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
There is a book out there discussing the origins of the Midianites (the tribe Mozes supposedly married into) and how they were considered 'black' by the Hebrews and were said to live in regions in Arabia where ancient documents typically documented the presence of dark skinned people.
The book went on to talk about how, as time went on, more and more dark skinned Asians were excluded from this ancient 'black' category. This continued until dark skinned people were thought to be restricted to Africa. The author pin pointed the rough time period when a travelers to this part of the Hijaz region no longer seemed to have a memory of earlier traditions of them being related to Africans on the other side of the Red Sea. This is not because they disappeared, because there are still brown skinned Arabs in that region, today.
Some authorities consider this gradual narrowing of terms related to 'black' (or 'Cush' in this case) in the Middle East the reason why authors of the bible placed certain Cushite tribes (e.g. like Dedan and Sheba) sometimes in the lineage of Shem as opposed to Ham.
Unfortunately, despite my efforts today, I can't find this book anymore. But what it shows, contrary to claims expressed here, is that there is nothing universal self-evident about skin color terms and that racism is not necessarily the underlying intent of ancient or modern day restrictive use of 'black'.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: @Doug M:
Your summation of my positions is not entirely accurate. Better than the previous ones, but still lacking. I also see a lot of goal post shifts going on. Basically, what it boils down to:
1) My position is that 'black' as applied by al Jahiz (where black has no primary or special connection with Africa as it equally includes dark skinned people in Asia) is broadly consistent with your use, my ***PAST*** use of the term and that of the more reputable ES veterans. As you know, this use is purely based on the range of brown skin pigmentation. This is the application of the term that is most defensible in terms of rationality and consistency, although it's still problematic for several reasons (some of which I've already mentioned).
2) Most people today in the West don't understand the term that way. Doug M, you want to attribute this solely to white supremacy, so when examples from other cultures/earlier times are posted showing that they also don't understood/understand the term as explained in point 1, you ignore said posts and/or change the topic (see how you started flip flopping with the example of Da Gama).
There is no shortage of online forums where discussions between proponents of point 1 and point 2 play out.
Often, there is little to no apparent motive for racism towards Africans in these conversations.
3) To reduce proponents of point 2 automatically to adherents of racism towards Africans is not only paranoid and laughably simplistic (this use of the term is not even specific to Europeans or to recent times), but it also suggests to me that you're in no shape to discuss this topic. You simply haven't done your homework on this one.
Please show me where 'black people' is not understood by MOST PEOPLEin America as referring to the majority population of the African continent. You are really reaching if you claim this is your argument after stating that 'black people' is an American 'social term'. You are just reaching and groping for straw men to keep throwing around to justify your aim of appeasing racists, as if anybody would even buy that nonsense. Why is there so much concern about a single word? No matter what words you use white racists will have a problem with ancient Egyptians being lumped with 'black Africans'. Your attempts to rephrase and change approach is not going to change their racism no matter what language you use. I prefer to address the core of the issue which is and has always been skin color. Your attempts to pretend that this is not the issue are the problem. You keep jumping all over the map to avoid this fundamental issue is the point because you keep trying to deny that it is the issue.
No that is not a misrepresentation of your points.
In fact, you keep representing my point, which is that Al Jahiz and other folks have used skin color as the basis of reference for Africans. It doesn't matter what population he was referring to, the point is people have used skin color as a reference for populations for people in and outside of Africa. You keep trying to claim that people don't use skin color as a description of populations in Africa. You keep trying to claim that racists don't use skin color as the basis of racism. And then the most insulting part is you then go on to claim that skin color doesn't exist because of 'racism' as talking about a persons skin color suddenly equates to racism.
Stop trying to avoid the point. Race and racism is based on skin color and most Americans understand what is meant when you say 'black person' in reference to Africa. That nonsense you keep making up to justify your absurd position is getting annoying, because now you are just outright lying.
You have not proven that black people is not a valid reference to black Africans. You are simply trying to say that you agree with whatever white folks say and if they say the ancient Egyptians or whatever other population is 'whatever they want to call them' and you will agree with that. And I am saying that to hell with them and their racism I don't need to stop using a term which is simple and plain because they are racist. I prefer to address THEM and THEIR RACISM. You prefer to appease and kiss their behinds. I do not pretend for one second that this issue in reference to Egypt or any other part of Africa is an issue of language it is fundamentally an issue of racism based on skin color.
So you are just trolling.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: I don't even know what all this argument is about. It doesn't make any sense to me. The early Greeks like Herodotus and Aristotle described the ancient Egyptians as black, and later Greek scholars could easily see that the 'Aethiops' were darker than the Egyptians, but that doesn't distract from the blackness of the ancient Egyptians.
A great deal of non-African foreigners may have have flooded into Egypt by the time the Romans took Egypt. This was long after the time of Herodotus.
Even with that being said, if a person was to be shown a Dinka and and an indigenous Egyptian from Luxor, Esna, Edfu, the Siwa Oasis and the Red Sea cost, most people would understand that they were just different gradients of black.
You can describe the ancient Egyptians as black in a social sense, but I guess I can understand why an anthropologists might want to use 'tropical', just as long as they make it clear that these 'tropical' people [ancient Egyptians] are related to other tropical populations just South of them and that they ultimately originate from the South.
Even people from the Western desert would have originated from the South. There is to be no compromise on emphasizing the South.
I agree with this. Although modern egyptologists don't use words like tropical and prefer to say they were indigenous Africans, which is what the were of course. The source of the population of Ancient Egypt. The source of the religions, political structure, scientific knowledge and curiosity. The Ancient Egyptians origin is in Africa: Sudanese/southern part of Egypt, Green Sahara, Nabta Playa, Tasian, Badarian, Naqada culture.
Why not just call them black people? Isn't that ultimately what you mean? Why beat around the bush? If that is what you mean then just say that. Maybe the issue here is that some people don't really mean 'black people'. I wouldn't be surprised if that was true as much argument they give over a word.
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Why not just call them black people? Isn't that ultimately what you mean? Why beat around the bush? If that is what you mean then just say that. Maybe the issue here is that some people don't really mean 'black people'. I wouldn't be surprised if that was true as much argument they give over a word.
I don't know why you reply to me about it but Ancient Egyptians were black people (based on our current scientific knowledge) as every other African civilizations including the Kushite empire, Wagadu/Ghana, Zulu, etc. Ancient Egyptians were not a special case of black or African people. They were black people as any indigenous Africans. It's been determined genetically and by modern archaeology.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Please show me where 'black people' is not understood by MOST PEOPLEin America as referring to the majority population of the African continent.
This (making it about minority/majority) is obviously a goal post shift as well as a strawman. You've already been falsified on all fronts. You either haven't read my posts or you're deliberately mixing them up to create confusion.
But, to answer your question (and I have already talked about this several times), all one has to do is look at how Tuareg and more southern Malian people are covered by western media to see how 'black' is understood by the West:
quote:Regardless of the ideological differences between MNLA, Ansar Dine and AQIM, they are primarily led by non-black Tuaregs and Arabs, distinguished by their lighter skin complexions and sharper facial features, in contrast with their enemies -- black Africans who compose the bulk of the Malian government’s military.
You're in denial about racial views in the West. There is a whole range of phenotypes that they don't consider 'black', even if they're in al Jahiz pigmentation range. And everyone here who isn't in Camp Denial with you can see that.
quote:Your attempts to pretend that this is not the issue are the problem. You keep jumping all over the map to avoid this fundamental issue is the point because you keep trying to deny that it is the issue.
Laughably transparent misrepresentation of what I've said for the last couple of days. I said this modern day western use of 'black' has been convenient historically for racists, but that I'm simply not convinced that all proponents of this view are racists. You, on the other hand, are making sweeping paranoid generalizations, by saying that ALL proponents of this view are necessarily and automatically racist. At least when you're not back peddling and shifting the goal post by flip flopping to the position that, not Petrie et al, but only people who create a racial hierarchies are racist. Lol. Simpleton.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by tropicals redacted: Djehuti sez (28/11/2006):
quote: This nonsense about a combination of "Sub-Saharan" dental traits with "North African" crania again only show the ridiculous fallacy of there being an actual division between the said regions 'North Africa' and 'Sub-Sahara'.
When will other anthropologists (since some have already wisened up) realize that anthropologically there was no division between populations living to the south and north of the Sahara?!
Indigenous (black) African peoples are native to all parts of the continent and migrations and geneflow have occurred between them.
Interesting. Djehuti if you're still around, do you still hold these^ views?
There you have it for those who can't see the bigger picture and who try to reduce this conversation to a petty squabble over nothing.
Carlos Oliver Coke's denialism and refusal to cope with the fact that the Sahara was among the first regions to be settled by AMHs and the implications of this. Carlos' insecurities and neediness prevent him from accepting that indigenous prehistoric Saharans weren't (recent) Sub-Saharan Africans. That is one of the facts he desperately tries obfuscate with his trojan horses and calculated use of racial language.
Note that anyone in 2015 who holds the views Carlos Oliver Coke is fishing for here (quite comically) is either light years behind current scientific findings or is in denial about them. In Carlos Oliver Coke's case, it's both.
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
^^^I know this is a silly question, but what dies AMH stand for again? Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
^Anatomically Modern Human. That is, prehistoric humans who are our recent ancestors or closely related cousins. It's a useful term to exclude archaic humans who were also humans, but in another clade.
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ^Anatomically Modern Human. That is, prehistoric humans who are our recent ancestors or closely related cousins. It's a useful term to exclude archaic humans who were also humans, but in another clade.
Thanks.
Also didn't Haplogroup "A" AKA Y-DNA Adam arose near the Sahara? And the carry is like the most recent ancestor for human males?
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
But anyways I know the early homo-sapiens would have lived in the Sahara, but wouldn't the "oldest" origin for modern human be East or South Africa?
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Please show me where 'black people' is not understood by MOST PEOPLEin America as referring to the majority population of the African continent.
This (making it about minority/majority) is obviously a goal post shift as well as a strawman. You've already been falsified on all fronts. You either haven't read my posts or you're deliberately mixing them up to create confusion.
Then why do you keep brining it up then? Why are you objecting to using the word black in reference to Africans? I am still trying to understand why you keep beating a dead horse. Most Africans are black Africans. What part of that do you have a problem with? Why do you keep bringing up all these objections and rebuttals if you agree? Otherwise.....
quote: But, to answer your question (and I have already talked about this several times), all one has to do is look at how Tuareg and more southern Malian people are covered by western media to see how 'black' is understood by the West:
quote:Regardless of the ideological differences between MNLA, Ansar Dine and AQIM, they are primarily led by non-black Tuaregs and Arabs, distinguished by their lighter skin complexions and sharper facial features, in contrast with their enemies -- black Africans who compose the bulk of the Malian government’s military.
You're in denial about racial views in the West. There is a whole range of phenotypes that they don't consider 'black', even if they're in al Jahiz pigmentation range. And everyone here who isn't in Camp Denial with you can see that.
quote:Your attempts to pretend that this is not the issue are the problem. You keep jumping all over the map to avoid this fundamental issue is the point because you keep trying to deny that it is the issue.
Laughably transparent misrepresentation of what I've said for the last couple of days. I said this modern day western use of 'black' has been convenient historically for racists, but that I'm simply not convinced that all proponents of this view are racists. You, on the other hand, are making sweeping paranoid generalizations, by saying that ALL proponents of this view are necessarily and automatically racist. At least when you're not back peddling and shifting the goal post by flip flopping to the position that, not Petrie et al, but only people who create a racial hierarchies are racist. Lol. Simpleton.
And why are you bringing up the contradictions of "the west"? Are you saying that we shouldn't use the term 'black Africans' because folks in the west are "contradictory"? Who cares about what they think? Why are you so dam concerned about what they think given that they are historically racist. I mean for goodness sake give up this dam argument. white people are racist and racism is based on skin color. Therefore they will use whatever means at their disposal to define African populations to suit their agenda. Are you suggesting that all of history of racism in Europe and America which was so predominant over 500 years is not in play in all of this? Seriously you are purely delusional and as I said bending over backwards to give white people the benefit of the doubt. I don't. And there is nothing about what they do in terms of use and abuse of language to change the fact that 'black people' is a perfectly acceptable and logical term in reference to populations in and out of Africa. At the end of the day this is what this thread is about. I am not jumping through hoops to fit into the various and sundry ways Americans, Europeans and other white folks try and redefine terms when it comes to Africans, which is what you are doing.
And bottom line, are you saying that we shouldn't call the ancient Egyptians black people because 'some people' in America or Europe don't like it? And that this is a perfectly reasonable and objective, non racist point of view that we should take seriously to the point of not using the term to refer to the AE? And above all else, are you seriously saying that this whole debate about AE that we spend so much time on this forum talking and debating about is NOT about skin color? And what is the point of posting on this forum if you are just going to go along with whatever these folks decide to say regarding Africans? You simply are not making any sense.
You keep saying the same thing over and over and still the bottom line point is racism is based on skin color and 'black people' or 'white people' have been and will continue to be used as references to the skin color of various populations. Your bullsh*t argument that this is not commonly used in America is a total flat out nonsense lie as you can turn on the news in any city in America or many other programs on almost any day and here them talking about 'black people' and 'white people' daily. That nonsense you are talking about is garbage you are pulling out the crack of your behind. And when they say black people they are talking about Africans. When they say white people they are talking about Europeans. Europeans are generally 'white people' in terms of skin color. Africans are generally black people in terms of skin color. Those two terms and those two populations are linked in common language all over Europe and America and your argument that this is not the case is nonsense drivel you just keep droning on about because you just wont accept that you lost the debate a long dam time ago.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
@Blessed by Horus
Right. Several early breakaway 'A' lineages are found in North Africa or nearer to North Africa than oft-touted regions of human origins.
The early breakaway orange and red lineages have been found in and/or near Africa. The yellow and light green ones have been found among the Khoisan. Only the dark green one has been found in East Africa.
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: @Blessed by Horus
Right. Several early breakaway 'A' lineages are found in North Africa or nearer to North Africa than oft-touted regions of human origins.
The early breakaway orange and red lineages have been found in and/or near Africa. The yellow and light green ones have been found among the Khoisan. Only the dark green one has been found in East Africa.
I heard there is still a small frequency of A in SOME North African groups.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
@Doug M
My observations in between 2014 and now on this forum in regards to this topic are there for everyone to see. Post them here and refute them. You can't. We've seen you consistently fail to disprove my observations. So why not just leave it alone? The only reason I'm still replying to you is because you're misrepresenting my views, not because you've demonstrated where something I've said is false.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: @Blessed by Horus
Right. Several early breakaway 'A' lineages are found in North Africa or nearer to North Africa than oft-touted regions of human origins.
The early breakaway orange and red lineages have been found in and/or near Africa. The yellow and light green ones have been found among the Khoisan. Only the dark green one has been found in East Africa.
I heard there is still a small frequency of A in SOME North African groups.
Yes, my bad. Instead of just saying "Africa", the above post should say North Africa, as in:
"The early breakaway orange and red lineages have been found in and/or near ***North*** Africa." Click on the link to see said orange and red NRY 'A' lineages.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: @Doug M
My observations in between 2014 and now on this forum in regards to this topic are there for everyone to see. Post them here and refute them. You can't. We've seen you consistently fail to disprove my observations. So why not just leave it alone? The only reason I'm still replying to you is because you're misrepresenting my views, not because you've demonstrated where something I've said is false.
You haven't responded to anything because you don't want to answer a simple yes or no question. So stop running and stand up like a man and dodging the dam question.
Is black people not a valid word to apply to the ancient Egyptian population or any other population in Africa based on skin color?
Yes or No.
If you answer that I will give you some slack.
Otherwise you are trolling and I am done with you.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: @Doug M
My observations in between 2014 and now on this forum in regards to this topic are there for everyone to see. Post them here and refute them. You can't. We've seen you consistently fail to disprove my observations. So why not just leave it alone? The only reason I'm still replying to you is because you're misrepresenting my views, not because you've demonstrated where something I've said is false.
You haven't responded to anything because you don't want to answer a simple yes or no question. So stop running and stand up like a man and dodging the dam question.
Is black people not a valid word to apply to the ancient Egyptian population or any other population in Africa based on skin color?
Yes or No.
If you answer that I will give you some slack.
Otherwise you are trolling and I am done with you.
That's a good one. Classic chest thumping and back talking when in defeat. I don't need your "slack" nor am I going to jump through your hoops. I've already explained that there are different traditions of 'black' and that according to some ancient traditions they were 'black' and according to other ancient traditions a shade of brown with certain Nubians being "true black". Only to have you perform your usual bizarre antics. You either refute my posts or you can't. Simple.
All these attempts to sidetrack the discussion are just to distract from your inability to deal with the subject matter at hand.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Your bullsh*t argument that this is not commonly used in America is a total flat out nonsense lie as you can turn on the news in any city in America or many other programs on almost any day and here them talking about 'black people' and 'white people' daily.
Here he says that the argument between me and him is about whether the West uses "black" in conversation and in the media. WTF? His other posts contain the same spaced out cuckoo allegations. They get more spacey with every post. How can you be so astronomically far off track in regards to what this discussion is about?
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: The early breakaway orange and red lineages have been found in and/or near Africa. The yellow and light green ones have been found among the Khoisan. Only the dark green one has been found in East Africa.
Correction: of all the NRY 'A' lineages considered, only the dark green one has been found in East Africa.
Posted by tropicals redacted (Member # 21621) on :
Regarding the Four races depiction...
Originally posted by the lioness:
quote: Noticing some differences between the merenpath second glyph (?) and the Rameses second glyph (T rope). Not sure what this means:
Sidney Anson/Swenet replied:
quote:
Its astonishing, that this b!tch just can't cope with the idea that Egyptians were depicted in this manner. It's mind boggling, how someone can be so terrified by the possibility, that the Egyptians actually did this, that they will desperately latch onto every oppertunity to descredit and falsify anything that hints at the Egyptians thinking of themselves as alligned with fellow black Africans .
Yes, if there is one thing one can say that has been consistent about Lioness, it is that she has always been uncomfortable with Ancient Egyptians saying they're unapologetically African. Her anxieties have also reared their ugly heads when the texts accompanying the images discussed here, were brought to her attention, and those who have seen her angsts come out when I included that text in my Youtube video, know this.
I can honestly and gladly say that I'm done going back and forth on this forum with those wackjobs. Should've made this decision a long time ago.
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: Okay as a "newbie" I noticed a ranging war going on and I want to include my 2 cents. Before I go on I hope I do not misinterpret both camps arguments.
In my opinion using the term, "black" is not useless. It's just that the term or ANY modern day racial terms have any use in science/anthropology. And trying to make them relevant in that field is futile. Scientific Anthropologist refrain from using racial terms. "Race" is not biologically defined and this is nothing new. So I don't get why SOME people on here are having a hard time grasping this. No anthropologist will out right say the Ancient Egyptians were "black"! That is just a fact neither would they say the Ancient Egyptians were white or whatever.
Keita for example who is a well known anthropologist refrains from using racial terms. He never in any of his works outright said the Ancient Egyptians were "black" and yet by reading his work and using common sense we know what he is saying.
Anyways poster Swenet hit the nail with this post from that Sir Clair Drake thread.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
A subset of dynastic Egyptian samples squeezed in between Abyssinians and Cretans, Etruscans and Sardinians and showing considerable ties with the biblical inhabitants of the Judaean city of Lachish. No competent western, middle eastern or oriental academic who has seriously looked into this is going to use the term "black" (in a racial sense) when applied to dynastic Egyptians (although they might do it in a pigmentation sense, by saying they would have been dark brown). And in the occasion they do use 'black' in a racial sense (usually when they speak in an informal context), they're likely to say that they think that the ancient Egyptians were half black/half non-black based on their position in cranio-facial analysis.
This is the obvious peril/risk you run when you engage opponents trying to repurpose and reinvigorate old prejudiced terms (i.e. "black" as applied in the west) as opposed to focusing on the real issue, i.e., the question whether they were indigenous Africans or not. Of course, someone's position in multivariate space is going to determine how lay people perceive their "race", so the "forget science, I'm just focusing on what lay people would say" escape, is a deliberately deceptive fallacy. Craniofacial analysis uses measurements that the lay public intuitively uses when assigning race.
But to expand on further what Swenet meant...
Who are those people? Are they African? If that was your answer than you are wrong! Those are the Adamanese people of Indian. They look what you would call "black" or even "black African". Yet they are not only NOT African, but distant from Africans.
These mixed Dominicans are more "African" than those Adamanese will ever be.
Yet the Adamanese people are "blacker" in terms of phenotype.
This is why Swenet, Keita and other anthropologist refrain from using black in scientific discussions. This is the mess you run into. And from experience with arguments with laymen it's been a very frustrating time explaining to them how "black" Asians/pacific Islanders are distant from Africans.
Now I don't think the term black is completely irrelevant. The idea is separating historic discussions from scientific discussions.
History is different, because history is well just history.... Saying we shouldn't use "black" in a historical discussion is like saying we shouldn't use black when having a historical discussion about the Civil Rights or the Haitian revolution. History is just the study of past events and even what terms they used back then.
For example I don't not see a problem with arguing that the Ancient Egyptians were black in a historical discussion considering that Greek and Roman writers referred to them and the Nubians as black(though not a racial sense like modern times), but still black nonetheless.
Also using black in historical discussions involving the Moors is not only relevant, but very important considering the term "Moor" meant black.
My point is we should know when and when not to use "black" in discussions. Basically by separating historical discussions from scientific ones.
Again just my 2 cents.
Crux of my argument if not understood by now.
1) Black skin is not a 'racial term'. It is a skin color 2) Humans have skin color and adjectives like black, white, brown, tan and olive can be used to describe such complexions. 3) Black in reference to populations in Africa has always been a reference to skin color 4) Skin color is not race. There is only a single human race. 5) Racism is based on skin color but skin color is not race. 6) The debate about Ancient Egypt, among other populations in and outside of Africa, is about skin color, no more and no less. 7) Diop and most other black folks leading the charge against racists and their views on Egypt in particular and Africa in general were all talking about skin color. Diop most notably using the melanin dosage test to reinforce the point that it is about skin color. 8) At the end of the day if the debate is about skin color, then why pretend it is about anything else? 9) Genetics, skeletal metrics, biological chemistry, limb ratios and environmental factors all are facts and evidences that ultimately can be used to determine the skin color of an ancient population. That is a standard part of anthropology. 10) Skin color is and has always been part of anthropological study. 11) Therefore if you are debating the skin color of an ancient population in anthropological terms, then words like 'black people' or 'white people' are actually valid ways of calling out the skin color of the populations at hand, depending on the facts or evidence available. 12) In Europe, America and other parts of the world colonized or conquered by white people, skin color has always been part of the way Europeans segregated themselves from those they conquered. 13) Terms for populations based on skin color are absolutely well understood in such societies dominated by European colonists. There is no confusion on anybodys part when someone says black people, white people or even Negroes in the language of said societies. They all understand it is a reference to skin color. 14) White power as a universal term related to white supremacy is absolutely unambiguous and clear on what they mean and what they are referring to with that term.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
More early European/North African usages of 'black'. These are interesting in light of the so far unsubstantiated claim that the 19th century use of 'black' was a collective conspiracy that supposedly broke with "3000 years of European tradition" of lumping all brown skinned people as 'black'.
Just a couple of examples of how Leo Africanus apllied 'black' in one of his works, published in 1550:
quote:They [Zenaga Berbers] have since migrated across the Sahara, and, still calling themselves Zanega and speaking a Berber dialect, are dangerous neighbours to the black people of the Senegal.
quote:Moreouer it maketh a separation betweene nations of sundrie colours: for the people on this side [north] are of a dead ash-colour, leane, and of a small stature; but on the farther side [south] they are exceeding blacke, of tall and manly stature, and very well proportioned : howbeit neere vnto the riuer on either side, they are of a meane colour, complexion, and stature betweene both the aboue mentioned.
quote:From thence the Abassin [Abyssinian] borders trend south somewhat crookedly in manner of abowe, as farre as the kingdome of Adea (from the mountaines whereof springeth a riuer called by Ptolemey* Raptus which falleth into the sea about Melinde) for the space of two hundred and fiftie nine leagues; next vnto the which borders, inhabite certaine Gentiles of blacke colour, with curled haire.
quote:The people of Adel [place in Ethiopia] are of the colour of an oliue [brown[?]], being very warlike, notwithstanding that the greatest part of them want weapons.
quote: Barbora likewise, a citie of the Moores [Muslims], standeth in this kingdome of Adel, and hath a commodious hauen, whereunto resort many ships laden with merchandize, from Aden in Arabia, and from Cambaya vpon the riuer of Indus. The citizens are blacke people, and their wealth consisteth most of all in flesh.
quote:The inhabitants of Magadazo [Mogadishu(?)] are of an oliue-colour [dark shade of brown(?)], and some of them blacke, like vnto the nations adioining, and they go naked from the girdle-stead vpward, and speak the Arabian toong.
quote:The inhabitants [of Zanzibar] are for the most part black, with curled haire, being Idolaters, and much addicted to sorcery and witchcraft.
quote:They [inhabitants of Zanzibar's northern coast] are of a colour inclining to white, and some blacke people they haue also among them, which are for the greatest part Idolaters: howbeit all of them pretend a kinde of ciuilitie both in their apparel], and in the decencie and furniture of their houses. The women are white, and sumptuously attired after the Arabian fashion with cloth of silke.
quote:The people of this place [place in southern Africa] called in the Arabian toong Cafri, Cafres, or Cafates, that is to say, lawlesse or outlawes, are for the most part exceeding blacke of colour, which very thing may be a sufficient argument, that the sunne is not the sole or chiefe cause of their blacknes; for in diuers other countries where the heate thereof is farre more scorching and intolerable, there are tawnie, browne, yellowish, ash-coloured, and white people; so that the cause thereof seemeth rather to be of an hereditarie qualitie transfused from the parents, then the intemperature of an hot climate
quote:All the kingdomes and countries by vs before described, from the cape of Buena esperanca, to the riuer last mentioned [southwest to West Africa], are inhabited by blacke people. The most northerly are the Gialofi, who spread themselues between the two foresaid riuers for the space of flue hundred leagues eastward: so that the riuer Senaga is the vtmost northern bound of Negros, or nations extremely blacke; howbeit vpon the bankes thereof are found people of sundry colours, by reason of the varietie of women.
Leo Africanus - The History and Description of Africa And of the Notable Things Therein Contained (1550)
So, so far we have the following skin color based classifications, per Leo Africanus:
Exceedingly black, extremely black, negro black with curled hair black olive [shade of dark brown(?)] brown tawny yellowish ash-coloured [swarthy(?)] white
More observations:
--Leo Africanus spoke of a latitudinal cline along which "negro" and Berber speaking people were situated. In the middle of this cline, there were brown skinned people whom Leo didn't treat as 'black'.
--the northernmost limit of the "negro" variety of Leo's black skinned people was pin-pointed by him as somewhere in the Sahel. This is broadly consistent with Ptolemy's placement of "pure" black skinned people.
I think I've made my point that historically speaking, there is nothing necessarily intuitive or self-evident about indiscriminately lumping various brown skinned people into a 'black' category. Only in conversation with certain people you're going to run into staunch denialism when you make this observation.
Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
I think I understand what Swenet has been saying all along... he simply appreciates the fact that scientists are not going to use subjective social terms in lieu of objective scientific terminology.
Swenet has said nothing to suggest that he doesn't believe that the ancient Egyptians could be described as black despite being considerably lighter than some of the populations that lay to the south of them - populations that were depicted as dark as the Dinka, Nuer and Nuba -- some of the darkest people on earth.
Some of the 'Nubians' in Lower Nubia were depicted with the same skin tone as the ancient Egyptians, but nobody in their right mind would suggest that they aren't black.
The Italians, Spaniards and Greeks are considerably darker than the Swedes and Norwegians but everybody understands that they are all white. The same has to apply in the Nile valley.
The first group of soldiers are darker than the second but they would be both described as black.
Nobody could describe queen Tiye and Amenhotep III as anything but black:
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: 1) Black skin is not a 'racial term'. It is a skin color
How can this be true when there are arguments about certain Africans and whether are not they are "Black"...even when they are dark skinned? The fact that you are having this discussion should tell you everyone does not use the term as you use it. Are you not familiar with the anthropological tradition of "Black" that EXCLUDES Pygmies and Khoisan ("pygmoid" and "Capoid")?
quote: The africa encountered by the first European explorers in the fifteenth century was already home to five human races: blacks, whites, Pygmies, Khoisan, and Asians. The only race not found in Africa is the aboriginal Australians and their relatives.
Some people are so paranoid and needy that they feel compelled to force their variant of 'black' onto academics and others. Disagreement immediately results in indignation and crybaby reactions. Their hidden agendas won't allow them to acknowledge that there simply are different traditions of the term.
Depending on the tradition you adhere to, you can prefer that all shades of brown skin should be called 'black' (al Jahiz), that only jet-black skin should be called 'black' (e.g. Ptolemy and Leo Africanus) or that a perceived racial grouping should be considered 'black' (e.g. United States).
It speaks for itself that merely saying that population x wouldn't classify as 'black' in the US tradition, doesn't mean that they wouldn't classify as such in another tradition.
At least in the Egyptian case, the worst that will often happen is that some of these nay-sayers are going to say "they weren't black, but a shade of brown". NO serious non-trolling academic is going to look at this and say it's not dark brown:
In terms of skin pigmentation, why someone would get teary eyed over the difference between 'brown' and 'black' is beyond me. I'd have to invoke some sort of hidden agenda for it to make sense.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
Crux of my argument if not understood by now.
1) Black skin is not a 'racial term'. It is a skin color 2) Humans have skin color and adjectives like black, white, brown, tan and olive can be used to describe such complexions. 3) Black in reference to populations in Africa has always been a reference to skin color
7) Diop and most other black folks leading the charge against racists and their views on Egypt in particular and Africa in general were all talking about skin color. Diop most notably using the melanin dosage test to reinforce the point that it is about skin color.
Here is Doug advocating that scientists should use inaccurate descriptions of people like "white" and at the same time advocates a melanin dosage test if applied "white" would be meaningless. And Diop believed in race and is quoted as saying so!
Then Doug applies an inconsistent double standard and expects scientists to do the same
" Humans have skin color and adjectives like black, white, brown, tan and olive can be used to describe such complexions"
But if a person is African then they can't be brown, tan and olive they are all black.
3) Black in reference to populations in Africa has always been a reference to skin color
Doug insists old European negro sterotypes be applied. Doug has been brainwashed and doesn't even know it. African diversity does include brown people, most of African people in fact
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
Do you think this woman could role-play the role of an African American woman?
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
Racist white French cops ‘black up for negro party’
A group of police officers based in a Paris suburb are under internal investigation after photos of them at a “negro party” with their faces painted black, surfaced on social media.
The pictures show policemen from Kremlin Bicetre ( Paris/France) disguised as blacks.
I see someone can't tell the difference between what Leo Africanus actually wrote and what John Pory his English language translator added both in front of and in back of Africanus' 9 books of The History of Africa; thus revealing no familiarity with that author but who has no more than "frantically googled" for any thing to pull over on the gullible which is why the agenda driven "Africanus" quotes lack citation.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Please show me where 'black people' is not understood by MOST PEOPLEin America as referring to the majority population of the African continent.
This (making it about minority/majority) is obviously a goal post shift as well as a strawman. You've already been falsified on all fronts. You either haven't read my posts or you're deliberately mixing them up to create confusion.
But, to answer your question (and I have already talked about this several times), all one has to do is look at how Tuareg and more southern Malian people are covered by western media to see how 'black' is understood by the West:
quote:Regardless of the ideological differences between MNLA, Ansar Dine and AQIM, they are primarily led by non-black Tuaregs and Arabs, distinguished by their lighter skin complexions and sharper facial features, in contrast with their enemies -- black Africans who compose the bulk of the Malian government’s military.
You're in denial about racial views in the West. There is a whole range of phenotypes that they don't consider 'black', even if they're in al Jahiz pigmentation range. And everyone here who isn't in Camp Denial with you can see that.
quote:Your attempts to pretend that this is not the issue are the problem. You keep jumping all over the map to avoid this fundamental issue is the point because you keep trying to deny that it is the issue.
Laughably transparent misrepresentation of what I've said for the last couple of days. I said this modern day western use of 'black' has been convenient historically for racists, but that I'm simply not convinced that all proponents of this view are racists. You, on the other hand, are making sweeping paranoid generalizations, by saying that ALL proponents of this view are necessarily and automatically racist. At least when you're not back peddling and shifting the goal post by flip flopping to the position that, not Petrie et al, but only people who create a racial hierarchies are racist. Lol. Simpleton.
Surprisingly that article was written by Palash Ghosh.
I wonder how many Tuareg people Palash Ghosh has met personally?
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
This is no more than using local internal colour designations as If the same as the white West ones.
Except for the Mike111 crowd who've flipped it rational readers And researchers know that Euros internal local use of black means black haired or brown eyed or etc white Euro individuals.
Do I haffe bump the threads showing what we mean Internally by white where some of us call even dark skinned Black Americans white?
Centuries ago we called foreigners and followers of nontraditional ideologies white yet during that time Arabic writers like ibn Butlan label these Saharan's black and Africanus is positing Tawnie Africans and Blacke Africans are biologically of one origin.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: @Blessed by Horus
Right. Several early breakaway 'A' lineages are found in North Africa or nearer to North Africa than oft-touted regions of human origins.
The early breakaway orange and red lineages have been found in and/or near Africa. The yellow and light green ones have been found among the Khoisan. Only the dark green one has been found in East Africa.
I heard there is still a small frequency of A in SOME North African groups.
Yes, my bad. Instead of just saying "Africa", the above post should say North Africa, as in:
"The early breakaway orange and red lineages have been found in and/or near ***North*** Africa." Click on the link to see said orange and red NRY 'A' lineages.
The American Journal of Human Genetics, Volume 88 Supplemental Data
A Revised Root for the Human Y Chromosomal Phylogenetic Tree: The Origin of Patrilineal Diversity in Africa
Figure S1. Map Showing Location of the Population Samples Considered in This Study Populations are represented by circles and numbered as in Table S5. Sectors within circles are proportional to the frequency of haplogroup A1a (green), A1b (red) and A2-T (black). Green asterisks indicate countries were haplogroup A1a has previously been observed.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: This is no more than using local internal colour designations as If the same as the white West ones.
Except for the Mike111 crowd who've flipped it rational readers And researchers know that Euros internal local use of black means black haired or brown eyed or etc white Euro individuals.
Do I haffe bump the threads showing what we mean Internally by white where some of us call even dark skinned Black Americans white?
Centuries ago we called foreigners and followers of nontraditional ideologies white yet during that time Arabic writers like ibn Butlan label these Saharan's black and Africanus is positing Tawnie Africans and Blacke Africans are biologically of one origin.
"Plenty of analyses by Western officials and journalists these days are structured around simple binaries dividing Mali’s population into north and south, white and black, North African and sub-Saharan, good guys and bad guys. Such crude dualisms need to be dispensed with. Below are a few facts about northern Mali generally, and the Tuareg specifically, that can help in this regard."
[...]
But the Songhay, a sedentary, phenotypically “black” population, are the biggest group in northern Mali. (Arabs or “Moors” make up about four percent of the population in those three regions, and one percent nationally.)
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: I see someone can't tell the difference between what Leo Africanus actually wrote and what John Pory his English language translator added both in front of and in back of Africanus' 9 books of The History of Africa; thus revealing no familiarity with that author but who has no more than "frantically googled" for any thing to pull over on the gullible which is why the agenda driven "Africanus" quotes lack citation.
quote: "The mobilization of local ideas about racial difference has been important in generating, and intensifying, civil wars that have occurred since the end of colonial rule in all of the countries that straddle the southern edge of the Sahara Desert. From Sudan to Mauritania, the racial categories deployed in contemporary conflicts often hearken back to an older history in which blackness could be equated with slavery and non-blackness with predatory and uncivilized banditry. This book traces the development of arguments about race over a period of more than 350 years in one important place along the southern edge of the Sahara Desert: the Niger Bend in northern Mali. Using Arabic documents held in Timbuktu, as well as local colonial sources in French and oral interviews, Bruce S. Hall reconstructs an African intellectual history of race that long predated colonial conquest, and which has continued to orient inter-African relations ever since."
--Bruce S. Hall
A History of Race in Muslim West Africa, 1600–1960
I once suggested to a racist white guy, that we should divide whites into racial categories of eye and hair color. The dude went rampant.
Posted by DD'eDeN (Member # 21966) on :
(60 below zero or 120 F anyone?)
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
I know we have talked about other populations on this forum not just those in Africa in relation to the term black. But that aside, when you look at all the threads on this forum that have been created over many years, the bottom line issue is whether the AE would justly be called black people based on their skin color.
I don't think any sane person would argue that skin color is not the crux of the issue regarding the debates over the 'scientific identification' of specific African populations, like the AE or other populations in and outside of Africa in general.
As I said before, if the issue is about skin color of the AE or any other population in Africa, I am going to say what I mean and mean what I say. The AE and most Africans are black Africans. There is nothing "social" about black people in the English language. People have been bamboozled by white folks into being scared so say that the AE or any other population were 'black people'.
So if that is the case then why are people debating and spending so much time on this forum if you aren't going to challenge the status quo?
Folks are contradicting themselves.
Everybody and their grandmother knows what black person means at a fundamental description of skin color.
And then not only that folks will sit here and lie and say that racism in the Americas and Europe are based on 'social definitions' not skin color. Please save me the lame nonsense. Yet everyday on the dam news you have folks called 'black people' and 'white people' and they aren't talking about 'race' in so much as they are talking about skin color. Meaning, she could claim to be 'racially' white but if she was anything other than pale white and more brown or tan or darker she would not be considered as such because skin color is the marker for the 'social' definition of 'race'.
This is a white woman:
And this is what she is labeled as in the media and nobody is confused about what is being referred to when they call her white:
quote:Fisher, who is white, first challenged the program in 2008, after she was denied admission to the state university. The university's "holistic" admission program uses race as one of several factors in the admissions process. She claimed the consideration of race violated her 14th Amendment right to equal protection.
And this woman will be called white in America and she will be called white in Europe and she will also be called white in Africa and this is by 'white people'. So where is this 'social' definition that varies from place to place? And please show me how they are not talking about her skin color when they call her white? You just got a bunch of fakers on this forum pretending to be standing up for telling the truth when it comes to skin color but run and hide when it comes time to put up or shut up. All of a sudden they are so worried about what 'other folks' may think. Please. Then STFU if you are scared to say what you mean and stop lying.
He is called black in America, he is called black in Canada, he is called black in Europe and he would be called black in Africa. And of course they are talking about his skin color. I already provided the definition of 'black people' from a standard English dictionary and it says 'dark skin people, especially from Africa'. It does not say 'a social definition based on social norms and standards'.
According to morons on this thread when white folks say "white power" they don't mean skin color they mean something 'social' so anybody can join their club right?
And when they lynched people or they created apartheid, skin color wasn't the basis of any of it because skin color isn't real now is it? And of course when they called Africans black people they didn't mean skin color? Of course not.....
For the sake of my sanity folks need to stop trying to sound objective. You sound stupid. Folks got their heads so far up white folks behinds they can't see straight, but have the nerve to lecture me about what black means.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
@Ish Gebor
That article doesn't necessarily depict Tuareg self-perceptions. They reflect western perceptions and are typical of western coverage of the area. But if you feel that talking to more Tuareg would have necessarily produced a radically different result in terms of their perceived relatedness to Africans to the south, we can also look at Tuareg self-perceptions:
quote:One of the best things about this whole time has been how happy my team has been, consistently. There has not been a cross face or a bad mood from any of them. They start and end each day in the same way, chatting, smiling and laughing as they crouch around the fire. I know “Africans” are supposed to be happy people, but the Tuareg dismiss all black people from the south as “les Africains” and would be horrified to be lumped in with them. This is a Tuareg thing.
--Hanbury-Tenison
quote:The name of 'Air' in Tamashek signifies 'crossroad, place of meeting.' It has been so called since Imazighen began to people it, coming from the north, the east and the west. Before their arrival, other people originating in faraway Yemen, Ethiopia, archaic Egypt and ancient Nubia made their way to that region, and gave it the archaic name of 'Abzin' a word closely related to Abysinnia which was the ancient name of Ethiopia. The descendants of these ancient populations are said to be of red skin (Ikanawane, red ochre people) and they are found among potters and Inadane, smiths and artisans. Imazighen, themselves of a fairer complexion, were a later arrival who mixed with the original red sknned populations in the mountains of Northern Niger; as time went by, their descendants spread to further regions due to their nomadic lifestyle. Tuareg individuals known as Inadane (guardians of traditional knowledge) are keenly aware of this dual ancient heritage and carefully protect it. In the collective memory of the Tuaregs, the ties that were forged from this union are very powerful.
Helene E. Hagan - Tuareg Jewelry: Traditional Patterns and Symbols
quote:Interestingly, tradition affirms the existence of ancient connections between Ethiopia and the Tuareg. Thus, the mountains of Air in northern Niger allegedly saw various ancestral migrations from Ethiopia (and other regions far to the east), to the extent that the archaic name for the area is Abzin, a word related to Abyssinia, the old name for Ethiopia. The descendants of these early populations are called Ikanawane (“red skin”) and are particularly found among the silversmiths and artisans (inaden) of the Tuareg.
Lloyd D. Graham - The Magic Symbol Repertoire of Talismanic Rings from East and West Africa
An example of a supposedly "red" Tuareg blacksmith (posting this to show that "red" isn't necessarily consistent with how people in the US might construe it):
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: I think I understand what Swenet has been saying all along... he simply appreciates the fact that scientists are not going to use subjective social terms in lieu of objective scientific terminology.
Swenet has said nothing to suggest that he doesn't believe that the ancient Egyptians could be described as black despite being considerably lighter than some of the populations that lay to the south of them - populations that were depicted as dark as the Dinka, Nuer and Nuba -- some of the darkest people on earth.
Some of the 'Nubians' in Lower Nubia were depicted with the same skin tone as the ancient Egyptians, but nobody in their right mind would suggest that they aren't black.
The Italians, Spaniards and Greeks are considerably darker than the Swedes and Norwegians but everybody understands that they are all white. The same has to apply in the Nile valley.
The first group of soldiers are darker than the second but they would be both described as black.
Nobody could describe queen Tiye and Amenhotep III as anything but black:
There is a difference between saying "I don't agree with calling such and such population black" and "I don't agree that black skin exists". Those are two totally different and separate things. Skin color exists and calling skin color by names 'black' or 'white' is not a 'racial' term it is a skin color term. Ancient Greeks, Al Jahiz and many other folks using various terms in reference to black Africans were all talking about skin color. The point being is that skin color exists and it is perfectly legitimate to describe skin color by certain labels, like black or white. The other part of this is when I say black people I generally mean people who are on average very dark, as in the average complexion across the entire group. I am not talking about folks on the fringe who are ambiguous. There is no confusion about what I mean when I say black person. And that is the definition that is in the dictionary which is a very broad generic statement about a population across a continent and other areas of the world where the complexion is generally very dark. There is no real confusion about this and when I say that the AE were black, of course it is meant they were well within the range of complexions found among the majority of Africans who are black Africans.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
What a confusing, convoluted hot mess Doug's posts have been reduced to.
Doug M dismisses the observations I've made as "defending racists", but he is utterly confused. Even some of the most hardcore racist anthropologists agreed that the dark skinned Egyptians on the Egyptian monuments were in al Jahiz range in terms of skin pigmentation. Like I said before, only the trolling academics and those who have never seriously looked into this deny that the ancient Egyptians would fall into the skin pigmentation range of African Americans.
These early hardcore racist 'scientists' who cluster them with Nubians were far more racist and sophisticated in their racism than trolling Egyptologists who say that the AE were pale or the same as modern Egyptians. They make Egyptologists like Bob Brier (who try to drive a wedge between Nubians and Egyptians), look like saints.
Here is an example of a hardcore racist/white supremacist 'scientist' saying that the dark skinned Egyptians (as contrasted with this author's perception of "Mediterranean" lower Egyptians) had the skin pigmentation of modern day NUBIANS:
quote:Professor Rosellini supposes the Egyptians to have been of a brown, or reddish-brown colour, (rosso-fosco,) like the present inhabitants of Nubia; but, with all deference to that illustrious archaeologist, I conceive that his remark is only applicable to the Austral-Egyptians as a group, and not to the inhabitants of Egypt proper, except as a partial result of that mixture of nations to which I have already adverted, and which will be more fully inquired into hereafter.
--Samuel Morton
As shown again and again, Doug simply has no idea what he's talking about. His last couple of posts here have dumbed down into an unintelligible, spammy mess that have little to do with the matter at hand.
Doug's touted racists, as described by him in his vague descriptions, do not exist or they describe only a small, non-prominent fraction. And in comparison with the aforementioned 'professional' and ideologically driven racists, they are moderately racist or simply incompetent and parroting others. Again, not using 'black' (as generally understood by the US public) in reference to certain populations isn't necessarily racist.
Doug's imaginary pre-white supremacy European consensus in regards to classifying all shades of brown skin as 'black', isn't based in reality either.
Stop making it up as you go along.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
Skin color exists and calling skin color by names 'black' or 'white' is not a 'racial' term it is a skin color term.
This is an anthropology forum. It's a science. This is 2015 not the 9th century Arabs or ancient Greeks.
Observation tells us most of the Egyptians in their art were depicted as brown in color. That is irrefutable
The fact that Doug insists that they instead be called black clearly shows his agenda is more than color
For some reason an apple is red an orange is orange but something brown is not brown. All of the sudden the word "brown" doesn't exist a common ordinary color, a color that accurate describes the Egyptian art.
"White" is another term which has no place in anthropology articles.
All that is important is>>
were the Egyptians primarily African in both their paternal and maternal ancestry?
For some reason Africa is not good enough. For some reason skin color is the most important thing to a person's identity
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
All that is important is>>
were the Egyptians primarily African in both their paternal and maternal ancestry?
For some reason Africa is not good enough. For some reason skin color is the most important thing to a person's identity
As I said in the other thread, personally I'm waiting for full genome sequence of ancient egyptian mummies.
You've probably noticed I often say AE were black African (or something of that sort like AE were related to sub-Saharan and Afro-Americans ,etc) and I often add "based on our current scientific knowledge" or something of that sort.
When I say that for me it's really about waiting for full genome. The haplogroup and autosomal (STR) analysis of Ancient Egyptians mummies put them without a doubt as Africans. Same as archaeological analysis of course. E1b1a and the DNA Tribes analysis of the JAMA and BMJ data make it clear. Those royal mummies from the 18th, 12th(old Paabo study) and 20th dynasty had a lot of African in them and almost more importantly not a lot of Eurasian in them. So based on our current knowledge they were truly Africans in every sense of the word. Indigenous black Africans related to modern sub-Sahara Africans and thus African-Americans. Full genome sequence of royal mummies (before foreign dynasties of course) is the last step.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: @Ish Gebor
That article doesn't necessarily depict Tuareg self-perceptions. They reflect western perceptions and are typical of western coverage of the area. But if you feel that talking to more Tuareg would have necessarily produced a radically different result in terms of their perceived relatedness to Africans to the south, we can also look at Tuareg self-perceptions:
quote:One of the best things about this whole time has been how happy my team has been, consistently. There has not been a cross face or a bad mood from any of them. They start and end each day in the same way, chatting, smiling and laughing as they crouch around the fire. I know “Africans” are supposed to be happy people, but the Tuareg dismiss all black people from the south as “les Africains” and would be horrified to be lumped in with them. This is a Tuareg thing.
--Hanbury-Tenison
quote:The name of 'Air' in Tamashek signifies 'crossroad, place of meeting.' It has been so called since Imazighen began to people it, coming from the north, the east and the west. Before their arrival, other people originating in faraway Yemen, Ethiopia, archaic Egypt and ancient Nubia made their way to that region, and gave it the archaic name of 'Abzin' a word closely related to Abysinnia which was the ancient name of Ethiopia. The descendants of these ancient populations are said to be of red skin (Ikanawane, red ochre people) and they are found among potters and Inadane, smiths and artisans. Imazighen, themselves of a fairer complexion, were a later arrival who mixed with the original red sknned populations in the mountains of Northern Niger; as time went by, their descendants spread to further regions due to their nomadic lifestyle. Tuareg individuals known as Inadane (guardians of traditional knowledge) are keenly aware of this dual ancient heritage and carefully protect it. In the collective memory of the Tuaregs, the ties that were forged from this union are very powerful.
Helene E. Hagan - Tuareg Jewelry: Traditional Patterns and Symbols
quote:Interestingly, tradition affirms the existence of ancient connections between Ethiopia and the Tuareg. Thus, the mountains of Air in northern Niger allegedly saw various ancestral migrations from Ethiopia (and other regions far to the east), to the extent that the archaic name for the area is Abzin, a word related to Abyssinia, the old name for Ethiopia. The descendants of these early populations are called Ikanawane (“red skin”) and are particularly found among the silversmiths and artisans (inaden) of the Tuareg.
Lloyd D. Graham - The Magic Symbol Repertoire of Talismanic Rings from East and West Africa
An example of a supposedly "red" Tuareg blacksmith (posting this to show that "red" isn't necessarily consistent with how people in the US might construe it):
1) it's cool, but I know what the Kel looks like, I know that very well. For this reason, I posted what I posted, several times.
2) What I showed is how the west imposes the terms to segregate ethnic groups (into racial designation). Sometimes based on facial tructure and at times on color complexion. Had the author of that article you've posted, seen this man somewhere in the west, he would never seen him as a white person. Case in point is, the author is talking about people he doesn't really know.
What I noticed in this articles was, that the did not mention specific ethnic groups of the Kel population to explain the history of the Tuareg, they just some random names narratives to "black and with", "master/ slaves".
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
Skin color exists and calling skin color by names 'black' or 'white' is not a 'racial' term it is a skin color term.
This is an anthropology forum. It's a science. This is 2015 not the 9th century Arabs or ancient Greeks.
Observation tells us most of the Egyptians in their art were depicted as brown in color. That is irrefutable
The fact that Doug insists that they instead be called black clearly shows his agenda is more than color
For some reason an apple is red an orange is orange but something brown is not brown. All of the sudden the word "brown" doesn't exist a common ordinary color, a color that accurate describes the Egyptian art.
"White" is another term which has no place in anthropology articles.
All that is important is>>
were the Egyptians primarily African in both their paternal and maternal ancestry?
For some reason Africa is not good enough. For some reason skin color is the most important thing to a person's identity
Well several studies in physical and cultural anthropology have shown that the ancient Egyptians were indigenous to Africa. The genetic imprints are only confirmative.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
@Ish Gebor
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: 1) you don't have to show me what the Kel looks like, I know that very well.
I clearly said I didn't post that picture for you.
EDIT: Deleted question. Not going to lead anywhere, anyway.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: What a confusing, convoluted hot mess Doug's posts have been reduced to.
I told you I was done but you keep responding to me and misrepresenting the point.
The only confusing convoluted hot mess here is you because you keep claiming that the use of the term black is simply not a reference to the various range of brown and black skin tones in Africa and that this is not the crux of the debate over AE and other populations in and outside of Africa. Your claim that using brown and other words indicating various shades of brown is going to please some group of scientists or change the opinions of those who are determined to turn the ancient Egyptians into white people is the problem, because you are avoiding the point that whatever ranges of colors and terms you use to describe them they still wont agree with you. And above all else, you are lying when you say that the word black people doesn't include all those brown colors, as in the colors of Egypt and 'Nubia' as referred to by Al Jahiz and others or the Ancient Egyptians themselves who called themselves 'black people/black nation'. That right there is a bold face lie.
quote: Doug M dismisses the observations I've made as "defending racists", but he is utterly confused. Even some of the most hardcore racist anthropologists agreed that the dark skinned Egyptians on the Egyptian monuments were in al Jahiz range in terms of skin pigmentation.
So are you saying that these hardcore racists are the reason we shouldn't use the term black people in reference to these mummies? And are you seriously claiming that these same 'hardcore racists' still would not call them 'black people' because they wanted to lump them in with populations called 'white people' in Europe based on skin color? Again, if these hardcore racists would not call these mummies 'black people' then you have to ask yourself why and why is it you seem to believe using similar terms to theirs and not calling them 'black people' somehow changes the point? The point is and has always been skin color and whether those skin colors equates to the range of colors labeled in the dam dictionary as black people. If they don't agree with the use of that term it is because they are racist and nothing else, because they don't want these people lumped with the rest of Africans. Therefore, knowing that and knowing that when I debate the issue I am saying that these people were and in many cases today are in the same range of colors as the rest of black Africa, I am making the point that there is no difference in the ranges of browns they use and what is called black. That is the fundamental point.
quote: Like I said before, only the trolling academics and those who have never seriously looked into this deny that the ancient Egyptians would fall into the skin pigmentation range of African Americans.
Most Egyptologists would not call the AE black africans because of the skin color. This is not just a few this is almost all of them. Your dumb behind is trying to sit up here and claim that there is some 'other' reason why they won't use the term black other than skin color, when we all know that this is about skin color and you are now trying to sit up here and lie and claim that suddenly all along we all agree with the Egyptologists and Racists in that we are all referring to the same skin complexions and our debate was merely an issue of semantics and we all mean the same range of browns. BULL SH*T. You are the only one stating this.
quote: These early hardcore racist 'scientists' who cluster them with Nubians were farmore racist and sophisticated in their racism than trolling Egyptologists who say that the AE were pale or the same as modern Egyptians.
How does what you said make any sense? What hardcore racist would ever lump AE and Nubians together in terms of skin color? It is the African scholars and anti-racists who have been lumping so-called Nubian and AE mummies together in terms of skin color. You are absolutely misrepresenting all sides of the issue. Now you are claiming that the hard core racists and the African scholars like Diop are in agreement. In fact you even lied and said Diop wasn't using science to identify skin color in ancient remains and that this debate was more about 'science' for science sake and not about skin color. Come on man, you are seriously going off the deep end here to justify avoiding using a term which is simple straight forward and gets to the point of the skin color of the AE and other Africans. They were black people. Period. The fact that you don't want to use this term as if it changes the point and what this debate is about is the issue. It is about skin color and it is about 'black' and 'white' in terms of the outward skin color of the AE. That is the point no matter you you try and sit here and contradict yourself claiming that European scientists aren't talking about this and have not always been talking about this whether they are 'hardcore racists' or not.
quote: They make Egyptologists like Bob Brier (who try to drive a wedge between Nubians and Egyptians), look like saints.
Here is an example of a hardcore racist/white supremacist 'scientist' saying that the dark skinned Egyptians (as contrasted with this author's perception of "Mediterranean" lower Egyptians) had the skin pigmentation of modern day NUBIANS:
quote:Professor Rosellini supposes the Egyptians to have been of a brown, or reddish-brown colour, (rosso-fosco,) like the present inhabitants of Nubia; but, with all deference to that illustrious archaeologist, I conceive that his remark is only applicable to the Austral-Egyptians as a group, and not to the inhabitants of Egypt proper, except as a partial result of that mixture of nations to which I have already adverted, and which will be more fully inquired into hereafter.
--Samuel Morton
Who is the hardcore racist in this quote? There are actually 3 'scientists' in this quote. One is Brier, one is Rosellini and the other is Morton. You yourself said two of the three do not lump the AE with Nubians and are 'hardcore racists'. So which hardcore racist is saying the AE were close to Nubians? Rosellini is the only one in this quote and I don't see where he is a 'hardcore racist'. The only hardcore racist here is Morton and he says himself that he disagrees with Rosellini, so what on earth are you talking about? In no way shape or form was Morton in agreement with the AE and Nubians being 'brown' black African. You have lied about the opinions of Jahiz, the Greeks and now even the racists. You are a seriously disturbing individual and this is why nothing you say makes any dam sense.
Rosellini produced one of the best works on AE art which makes it clear that the AE were black Africans so you actually have shown yourself to be unreliable in everything you are saying.
quote: As shown again and again, Doug simply has no idea what he's talking about. His last couple of posts here have dumbed down into an unintelligible, spammy mess that have little to do with the matter at hand.
No I think you have no idea what you are talking about. You keep misrepresenting the issue, claiming that all these folks aren't talking about skin color and then misrepresenting the facts on all sides of the debate in order to justify an absurd argument that this isn't about skin color when everybody and their granddaddy knows it is about skin color.
quote: Doug's touted racists, as described by him in his vague descriptions, do not exist or they describe only a small, non-prominent fraction. And in comparison with the aforementioned 'professional' and ideologically driven racists, they are moderately racist or simply incompetent and parroting others. Again, not using 'black' (as generally understood by the US public) in reference to certain populations isn't necessarily racist.
You are a dummy. You are misrepresenting what I said. I said that this debate is about skin color and that those so called 'objective' scientists are not using the term 'black' because of skin color. They absolutely are referring to skin color when they reject the use of the term. You on the other hand are trying to crawl up the crack of their behinds because you are in agreement with them and think that by not saying the word black that somehow they are in agreement with you when they are not in agreement with you and many on this forum. Please show me how changing your terminology have brought you and these 'objective' scholars into agreement on the skin color of the AE? You can't. You are simply blowing so much nonsense out of your behind it is ridiculous. According to you these folks are actually in agreement with us and they aren't. According to you if we just understand the words they use we will see that we are all in agreement and we are not. And this is all about skin color and the fact that the truth is they don't want to call them black Africans because they know full well what black Africans means in terms of skin color and they fundamentally disagree with using that range of skin colors when it comes to the AE. You are simply lying if you claim that they actually believe otherwise.
quote: Doug's imaginary pre-white supremacy European consensus in regards to classifying all shades of brown skin as 'black', isn't based in reality either.
Stop making it up as you go along.
Obviously you are retarded. Only a moron would claim that ancient writers were not referring to the skin colors of Africans as dark using various terms, including 'black' throughout history including the AE themselves. You simply are running away from this simple fact. Not to mention you are going to sit here and claim that these 'objective' Egyptologists do not know what skin color is and are not in disagreement with the AE being labeled as 'black Africans' because of skin color. You are absolutely full of sh*t. What is the debate about then moron? You are the only one making up stuff at this point.
Because according to you this is not a white person and this is not what Egyptologists mean when they say the AE were not black people:
And there is no confusion about what these people believe the only one confused here is you.
Posted by Child Of The KING (Member # 9422) on :
Doug M
That dude gerard butler PLAYING WHO, what does the Egyptians look like inside that movie...
that person gerard butler?
theres a term that defines majority of those from hollywood
Persons of Interests
quote:
"Persons of interest"
is a term used by U.S. law enforcement when identifying someone involved in a criminal investigation who has not been arrested or formally accused of a crime.
Could that movie of interest?
Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: @sudaniya
Bingo.
Some people are so paranoid and needy that they feel compelled to force their variant of 'black' onto academics and others. Disagreement immediately results in indignation and crybaby reactions. Their hidden agendas won't allow them to acknowledge that there simply are different traditions of the term.
Depending on the tradition you adhere to, you can prefer that all shades of brown skin should be called 'black' (al Jahiz), that only jet-black skin should be called 'black' (e.g. Ptolemy and Leo Africanus) or that a perceived racial grouping should be considered 'black' (e.g. United States).
It speaks for itself that merely saying that population x wouldn't classify as 'black' in the US tradition, doesn't mean that they wouldn't classify as such in another tradition.
At least in the Egyptian case, the worst that will often happen is that some of these nay-sayers are going to say "they weren't black, but a shade of brown". NO serious non-trolling academic is going to look at this and say it's not dark brown:
In terms of skin pigmentation, why someone would get teary eyed over the difference between 'brown' and 'black' is beyond me. I'd have to invoke some sort of hidden agenda for it to make sense.
If scientists want to use terms like tropically-adapted in their scientific papers, then that's perfectly fine, but if they were asked [in conversation] whether or not the ancient Egyptians generally had skin tones in the range of most Africans and they said no and claimed that the ancient Egyptians instead resembled the people of modern day Egypt, then I would be suspicious.
Most Africans are visually identifiable shades of brown, with the Dinka and other Nilotics being the only true exception that I can think of... and they actually do resemble the people that were depicted as jet black by the ancient Egyptians... and so a lot of westerners -quite cynically- seem to be saying that since the ancient Egyptians were not as dark as these particular group of Africans, then you can't use the term black on the ancient Egyptians.
Question: What racial terms [if any] do anthropologists use when it comes to the ancient Minoans and Greece in general? I just want to make sure that these scientists are being consistent.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
And this is directed at Doug's misinformation:
Anyone who is familiar with my posts knows I have no intentions to change the views of "racists" so the repeated strawman that I've dropped the term 'black' as a concession to nay sayers is just a fabrication. Nowhere have I ever said that making concessions to nay sayers is going to lead to agreement with the views of this forum. What I did say is that refusing to use accurate terms is going to set you up for convenient strawman fallacies.
How do you even respond to someone who misrepresents everything you say? And when you clarify, he'll misrepresent your clarifications as well. Oh, well.
Earlier on in the conversation, Doug said:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: No they accept that the Ancient Egyptians looked like Charleton Heston and not even olive skinned white Europeans.
and
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: When these folks say Caucasiod they mean pure white Aryan, blue blood, pale as snow white folks.
and
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: They are not calling them black because of racism.
^If there is one re-occurring theme in the writings of racist and racialist specialists, it's that AE who were depicted as brown skinned, WERE actually brown skinned and related to Lower Nubians.
Almost all of the racists and racialists who had elaborate racist schemes and ideologies thought that the founding AE had the same level of skin pigmentation as modern day Nubians. Extremely influential racist specialist on this subject like Coon, Baker, Morton, Strouhal, etc. all fit into this category.
Therefore, it makes no sense to say that "refusing to apply 'black skinned' to ancient Egypt" is a sign of white supremacy. The majority of the professionally committed white supremacist specialists of the past have and would gladly throw you that bone.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
@Sudaniya
See above. It's a misconception that specialists think they AE were pale skinned. As far as I know, this is mostly the position of amateur commentators and academic trolls who have never looked into the matter. The specialists (both the racist and the non-racist) tend to think either that they and their afro-asiatic relatives were mixed or that both are indigenous and in their own clade.
Personally, I would get suspicious if I saw a white academic harp on "tropically adapted" in reference to AE origins. See Raxter's thesis to see what I mean. What I personally look for is an acknowledgment that they were indigenous Africans.
^Time after time again, people have claimed the AE were "negro" or "black" (according to US standards). Time after time again, papers then emerged, conveniently shooting this claim down (it's easy to falsify by performing statistical analysis). The papers cited above were done by authors who got word of these claims and then decided to test these claims.
Note that both authors believe that the AE were dark brown in pigmentation (at least one of them explicitly says this in these papers). In their minds, though, this does not necessarily mean that they were indigenous Africans.
Look it up and make up your own mind about whether the use of old racial terms sets you up for easy strawman attacks.
Posted by tropicals redacted (Member # 21621) on :
^
quote:Therefore, it makes no sense to say that "refusing to apply 'black skinned' to ancient Egypt is a sign of white supremacy". The majority of the professionally committed white supremacist specialists of the past have and would gladly throw you that bone.
It's interesting then that so many Egyptologists and others today demure on the question of whether ancient Egyptians would be regarded as 'black'.
Posted by tropicals redacted (Member # 21621) on :
Oh, deary me...what a clumsy attempt at a sleight of hand:
quote: ^Time after time again, people have claimed the AE were "black" (according to US standards) or "negro". Time after time again, papers then emerged, conveniently shooting this claim down. The papers cited above were done to specifically test the claim that the AE were "negro" or "black" (according to US standards) .
Again:
'Elongated' Africans (presumably they would not be called 'negroes', whatever that means) living in the US regard themselves as 'black':
Nearly three-quarters of African immigrants reported their race as "Black.
quote: In 2009, 74.4 percent of the African-born population reported their race as Black, either alone or in combination with another race. African immigrants identified as Black at a much higher rate than the native born (14.0 percent) and the foreign born overall (8.6 percent),and accounted for 33.3 percent of all foreign-born Blacks and 2.7 percent the total Black population in the United States.
Racial self-identification varied widely by African country of origin. For example, nearly all immigrants from Ghana (99.7 percent), Somalia(99.3 percent) , Cameroon (98.8 percent), Nigeria (98.7 percent), and Ethiopia (98.2 percent) reported their race as Black, either alone or in combination with another race, compared to 4.6 percent of Algerians, 5.6 percent of Egyptians, 8.1 percent of Moroccans, 13.8 percent of South Africans, 56.7 percent of Tanzanians, and 65.7percent of Cape Verdeans ."
quote: The papers cited above were done to specifically test the claim that the AE were "negro" or "black" (according to US standards).
Incredible.Absolutely incredible.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Egyptologists are specialists on the ethnic background of ancient Egyptians? That's a good one. And note the strawman fallacy. I said the people I mentioned would generally agree that the AE had skin tones that fit in the so-called "black" pigmentation range.
Therefore, it makes no sense to say that "refusing to apply 'black skinned' to ancient Egypt is a sign of white supremacy". --Swenet
For the slow among us:
It says "black skinned", not the 'racially black' trojan horse Carlos Coke tries to slip into conversations.
As for those Somalis, I don't care what some midget named Carlos Oliver Coke thinks. What matters to me is that people in the real world, including African immigrants, know what I mean. They know that 'black' in the US is generally not used as a reference to skin tone only:
In America, blackness simply means African American. I am not African American. I am from Kenya. Benjamin Aigbe Okonofua - “I Am Blacker Than You” - Theorizing Conflict Between African Immigrants and African Americans in the United States
Although conceptions about race in America among academics continue to emphasize local, mutable, and contradictory constructions (Bailey, 2001), the public continues to treat the issue of race as a dichotomy, that is in either White or Black terms. Benjamin Aigbe Okonofua - “I Am Blacker Than You” - Theorizing Conflict Between African Immigrants and African Americans in the United States
The construction and/or enactment of distinct ethnolinguistic identities (including preliminary construction of pseudomigrant identities) by African immigrants signify inherent contradictions within the amorphous “Black” identity that is thought to be a code word for African American. Benjamin Aigbe Okonofua - “I Am Blacker Than You” - Theorizing Conflict Between African Immigrants and African Americans in the United States
Third, because the prevailing system of racial classification lumps African immigrants and African Americans into the Black or African American category without enabling these elements to make clear behavioral and cultural assertions based on their sociohistorical milieus, opportunities and resources can only be accessed as African American. Benjamin Aigbe Okonofua - “I Am Blacker Than You” - Theorizing Conflict Between African Immigrants and African Americans in the United States
Posted by tropicals redacted (Member # 21621) on :
^
quote: As for those Somalis, I don't care what some midget named Carlos Oliver Coke thinks. What matters to me is that people in the real world, including African immigrants, know what I mean. They know that 'black' in the US is generally not used as a reference to skin tone only:
This only gets worse for you, doesn't it Sid?
It's not about what I think, it's what the census return shows.
So now Africans don't regard themselves as black?
Beyond pathetic.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
And don't forget to scroll down to the "similar thread" section. Then you can fade to the background like you always do when you get thrashed.
Posted by tropicals redacted (Member # 21621) on :
^The people on that forum need to take a look at the census.
This was interesting though:
quote: Jamaicans don't even consider themselves black.
Hahahahahaha!!!
Where do they get these people?!
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
People who aren't intellectually challenged (like Carlos Oliver Coke) will know that there is no discrepancy between the so-called "census" and that Somali forum thread I posted, due to the different traditions of 'black' I've talked about here over the last five thread pages.
Of course Somalis are aware of their skin pigmentation. It's not hard to imagine that they will recognize their skin color can be called black. This, however, has nothing to do with 'black' as understood by the American public. The Somalis in that thread are mostly rejecting the latter, not that they have 'black' skin.
quote: Originally posted by Carlos Oliver Coke: Beyond pathetic.
Yes, I agree. Carlos Oliver Coke is a pathetic midget with Napoleon Complex.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: And this is directed at Doug's misinformation:
Anyone who is familiar with my posts knows I have no intentions to change the views of "racists" so the repeated strawman that I've dropped the term 'black' as a concession to nay sayers is just a fabrication. Nowhere have I ever said that making concessions to nay sayers is going to lead to agreement with the views of this forum. What I did say is that refusing to use accurate terms is going to set you up for convenient strawman fallacies.
How do you even respond to someone who misrepresents everything you say? And when you clarify, he'll misrepresent your clarifications as well. Oh, well.
Earlier on in the conversation, Doug said:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: No they accept that the Ancient Egyptians looked like Charleton Heston and not even olive skinned white Europeans.
and
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: When these folks say Caucasiod they mean pure white Aryan, blue blood, pale as snow white folks.
and
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: They are not calling them black because of racism.
^If there is one re-occurring theme in the writings of racist and racialist specialists, it's that AE who were depicted as brown skinned, WERE actually brown skinned and related to Lower Nubians.
NO Swenet. The point is they are talking about skin color. This is the issue you keep trying to duck and dodge. They are talking about skin color and they are NOT calling the AE black because they mean just that, which is they were not the same range of complexions as most Africans.
And on top of that they do NOT call the AE the same as most Nubians. Where do they say that? If they were saying that this wouldn't be a debate that has taken place for so many years. You are absolutely lying through your teeth if you claim these folks are calling the AE brown like "Nubians" because most of these folks call the Nubians BLACK. So you are completely lying and pulling bull sh*t out of your rear end to make an absurd argument. You are trolling. You may sound like you are down with the cause to many folks but really you are not. Because you have shown continually not to want to get to the point. The point is the AE were black people like most Africans and that includes Dinka, "Nubians", Ethiopians, Tutsi, Igbo and all other African ethnic groups. You simply have shown a desire to jump through hoops in order to appease racists rather than just saying what you mean which is "they were black", period.
And for you to sit here and claim that they are using the word brown because they are objective or calling the AE close to the skin color of "Nubians" is a lie. They don't say that or post those who you say do say that because they don't because if that was the case then the debate is over as universally the Nubians are called black.
You are simply sitting here being a mouthpiece for them and not being a mouthpiece for yourself. You are trying to argue THEIR position not your position. Their position is that brown is 'good enough' and that 'black' is not necessary and yes it has everything to do with skin color and NO they absolutely do not mean brown the way anyone else on this forum or anyone else means brown when it comes to the AE or any other African population. Because all black Africans are a shade of brown. And these people are not calling them brown in the sense they were in the same range of color as black Africans. You just want to promote their views as objective and not based on skin color and ULTIMATELY not meaning white folks. Because absolutely that is what they mean and rather than call them out on their hypocrisy you sit here and entertain their nonsense as if somehow what they say is 'objective' and not promoting racist ideologies based on skin color when it absolutely is.
quote: Almost all of the racists and racialists who had elaborate racist schemes and ideologies thought that the founding AE had the same level of skin pigmentation as modern day Nubians. Extremely influential racist specialist on this subject like Coon, Baker, Morton, Strouhal, etc. all fit into this category.
Therefore, it makes no sense to say that "refusing to apply 'black skinned' to ancient Egypt is a sign of white supremacy". The majority of the professionally committed white supremacist specialists of the past have and would gladly throw you that bone.
You are talking insane nonsense. These people are not calling them black because they are not claiming they are in the same range of complexions as most Africans. YOU are trying to appease these folks and make it seem like they are 'close' to what we are talking about when we say black folks and they absolutely are not and they are absolutely not saying in any shape or form that these people were in the same range of colors as most Africans. That is a bold faced lie. You are simply trying to crawl up the behinds of these folks and give them the benefit of the doubt that somehow somewhere maybe they are in agreement with folks here an elsewhere in terms of skin color and no they absolutely are not. These people are hypocritical liars and that is the problem and the only way to expose their hypocrisy and lies is to use the strongest terms possible and get to the dam point. Black people is that term and it gets to the point because it draws out the racism which is the point.
You on the other hand want to allow this B.S. to keep going on by not using language that gets right to the dam point. So they can hide behind words and terms that really are still racist and based on ideologies of white skin color supremacy, but you don't want to challenge them on it and will not draw them out and expose them like you have been exposed as a hypocritical fraud.
There is absolutely nothing misleading or inaccurate about calling most Africans as black Africans having similar shades of brown skin color generally called black. You are simply really not in agreement that the AE were black. Because if you were in agreement and if that was what you meant then you would say it. And that is the point. You don't really want to call the AE black people. And it is because maybe you really agree with them since the terminology they use and the terminology you use are consistent but we know that in terms of real world complexions and skin color obviously they aren't really agreeing with the majority of people calling the AE black folks.
Posted by tropicals redacted (Member # 21621) on :
Sidney Anson/Swenet says:
quote: Of course Somalis are aware of their skin pigmentation. It's not hard to imagine that they will recognize their skin color can be called black. This, however, has nothing to do with 'black' as understood by the American public.
What???? And the other African immigrants, and Jamaicans who are black, but have, apparently, nothing to do with 'black' as understood by the American public?
Anson you have a problem.
What do you think the reaction would be if a Hollywood studio made a major film about ancient Egyptian and used Ethiopians and Somalis?
Do you think there'd be no comments on their racial backgrounds?
Do you think the term 'black' would be mentioned in the press and online?
Posted by tropicals redacted (Member # 21621) on :
Facebook discussion:
August 5th 2013
Brandon Pilcher:
quote: “I don't intentionally provoke debates on the biological affinities of the ancient Egyptians any more, but I have had a couple of people on DeviantArt and tumblr asking why the Egyptian characters in my art and stories are black. Should I just ignore them, or is there a way to quickly address them without getting into another long and unproductive argument?”
Sidney Anson replies:
quote: “Ask them what they perceive the red to brown skinned murals to depict if not an Ethiopian-like population (of course, there is more to their population affinities, but since you're talking to lay people, its reasonable to dumb it down to Ethiopian-like). I'm actually curious about their answer to this question. I've heard seasoned Euronuts attempt to answer it with the True Negro approach, and by contrasting the Egyptian figures with supposedly 'real africans', but, presumably, your artistic audience doesn't have access to such data. Ask them and do tell us what they said."
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
The Somali census trojan horse fails, so now the Carlos Oliver Coke midget tries to change the subject.
The Carlos Oliver Coke midget keeps blundering. He keeps trying to interject in this thread when he thinks he sees an opening, but no. Just like the previous 50 times he tried to rear his head to take sneak shots, Carlos Oliver Coke is going to run off with his tail between his legs again. (Only to resurface later to solicit the same thrashing that made him run off the previous 50 times).
Just wait. Only a matter of time before Carlos Oliver Coke starts calling them "wacist".
Posted by tropicals redacted (Member # 21621) on :
^^Sidney Anson/Swenet says:
quote: Of course Somalis are aware of their skin pigmentation. It's not hard to imagine that they will recognize their skin color can be called black. This, however, has nothing to do with 'black' as understood by the American public.
What????
And the other African immigrants, and Jamaicans who are black, but have, apparently, nothing to do with 'black' as understood by the American public?
Anson you have a problem.
What do you think the reaction would be if a Hollywood studio made a major film about ancient Egypt and used Ethiopians and Somalis?
Do you think there'd be no comments on their racial backgrounds?
Do you think the term 'black' would be mentioned in the press and online? Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: @Sudaniya
See above. It's a misconception that specialists think they AE were pale skinned. As far as I know, this is mostly the position of amateur commentators and academic trolls who have never looked into the matter. The specialists (both the racist and the non-racist) tend to think either that they and their afro-asiatic relatives were mixed or that both are indigenous and in their own clade.
Personally, I would get suspicious if I saw a white academic harp on "tropically adapted" in reference to AE origins. See Raxter's thesis to see what I mean. What I personally look for is an acknowledgment that they were indigenous Africans.
^Time after time again, people have claimed the AE were "negro" or "black" (according to US standards). Time after time again, papers then emerged, conveniently shooting this claim down (it's easy to falsify by performing statistical analysis). The papers cited above were done by authors who got word of these claims and then decided to test these claims.
Note that both authors believe that the AE were dark brown in pigmentation (at least one of them explicitly says this in these papers). In their minds, though, this does not necessarily mean that they were indigenous Africans.
Look it up and make up your own mind about whether the use of old racial terms sets you up for easy strawman attacks.
It's clear that contemporary specialists no longer maintain that the ancient Egyptians were pale-skin but some still try to create a racial dichotomy in the Nile Valley between the so called 'Nubians' and the Egyptians.
The Kabyle Berbers are indigenous Africans and so racist specialists could try to lump the ancient Egyptians into this group of indigenous North Africans.
Indigenous is good but I'm a little greedy and so I want this to be accompanied with the affirmation that the ancient Egyptian civilization stems from its predynastic cultures and that these cultures cluster with other African cultures like the Qustul culture and Mesolithic Cultures as far South as Khartoum and that they don't closely cluster with any cultures in Europe or western Asia. It's a bit of a mouth-full I know.
Wasn't that Brace study terribly flawed? And shouldn't we adapt to putting their feet to the fire and making sure that they don't purposely precontrive the studies in their favour?
Posted by tropicals redacted (Member # 21621) on :
@Sudanaiya
quote: It's clear that contemporary specialists no longer maintain that the ancient Egyptians were pale-skin
You also didn't see the facial reconstructions that an Egyptologist sent me...strange, weren't they Sid?
quote: Indigenous is good
Hmmm. The Egyptologist I refer to even demurred on that.
Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: The Somali census trojan horse fails, so now the Carlos Oliver Coke midget tries to change the subject.
The Carlos Oliver Coke midget keeps blundering. He keeps trying to interject in this thread when he thinks he sees an opening, but no. Just like the previous 50 times he tried to rear his head to take sneak shots, Carlos Oliver Coke is going to run off with his tail between his legs again. (Only to resurface later to solicit the same thrashing that made him run off the previous 50 times).
Just wait. Only a matter of time before Carlos Oliver Coke starts calling them "wacist".
Certain African groups say stuff like that. I've noticed that the Dinka don't group themselves with non-Nilotics and I once heard a Dinka girl say that she no longer wanted to date Dinka men and would rather date African men - she was referring to West Africans. It's just bizarre.
Nilotics think that 'Negro' refers exclusively to Bantus and would be offended if you even suggested that they could be closely grouped with any Bantu group.
Posted by tropicals redacted (Member # 21621) on :
^A friend of mine, of West African descent, when he worked in Sudan, was asked by a Dinka man whether he was 'black'...????
My friend describes himself as full-featured.
Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
quote:Originally posted by tropicals redacted: ^A friend of mine, of West African descent, when he worked in Sudan, was asked by a Dinka man whether he was 'black'...????
My friend describes himself as full-featured.
Is your friend light skin? If, so, that's probably why he was asked that question. The Dinka proudly identify as black but don't like the word 'Negro' for some strange reason and associate it with Bantus.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
@Sudaniya
Yep, it happens. Not too long ago I had a conversation with a native South African Bantu speaker on this forum and he said his people don't think of themselves as 'black' in their culture. According to him, they call themselves 'brown' in their language.
It can get confusing really fast (e.g. many Africans have origin myths science doesn't recognize and some place their ancestors outside of Africa). Best thing to do is to simply be aware of these different sentiments instead of dismissing everything as "wasist", like some here tend to do.
As for Brace, his statistical analyses were never debunked. Some of his interpretations of these analyses have been debunked, though. Keita did a similar statistical analysis in his study on 1st dynasty royals. Only a couple % (2% when ran as "unknown", 0% when ran with 1st dynasty royals available as a choice) were classified with West/Central Africans, and the majority were classified with the Kerma and Upper Egyptian skeletal remains.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
Black Africans being black have different ways of referring to each other from an ethnic perspective. But if you are simply talking about skin color there is no disagreement when talking about pure skin color comparison that black skin is common among all these populations. Within Africa the distinction is ethnic and that makes sense. But outside Africa where people are not black, it is the primary and most obvious distinction because it stands out visibly. Skin color is obviously not drastically different enough among most Africans for skin color to be a primary reference within African populations. Similarly white people in Europe all are considered white people based on shared skin complexion no matter what ethnic differences and subtleties may exist within European populations.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by tropicals redacted: @Sudanaiya
quote: It's clear that contemporary specialists no longer maintain that the ancient Egyptians were pale-skin
You also didn't see the facial reconstructions that an Egyptologist sent me...strange, weren't they Sid?
quote: Indigenous is good
Hmmm. The Egyptologist I refer to even demurred on that.
But he didn't demur on them being called black though did he? So how can they be indigenous and not black? So obviously no matter what when it comes to skin color they are VEHEMENTLY not in agreement with the AE being black people in terms of skin color. They made sure to make the color in the reconstruction as light as possible because that is what they want the AE to look like, which is white people.
All this nonsense about these people calling the AE brown like Nubians is shown by their own reconstructions, reenactments and movies they are lying. Like I said before, black is synonymous with brown in terms of the skin color of most Africans. There is no dichotomy between the two words, yet you got folks sitting here claiming that these white folks using the word brown is somehow really the same shade of brown as seen in any color chart which it is not. But rather than call these folks on their nonsense they sit here and claim that we should change our language as if the issue is words and not skin color. This issue is skin color and that is what this is about and what it has always been about.
Bottom line, the use of the term black people for the skin color of the AE is not misunderstood by these people they just are trying to hide behind language and pretend to be 'objective' as a result of all the controversy and debate over the issue. In fact they now often use the term Caucasoid not even brown because that is absolutely what they mean, but that is really a racial term and I don't hear anybody complaining here about them using those 'racial' terms when engaging with these folks. Yet they will sit here and claim using skin color which is a fact of human biology and not some arbitrary racial category based on some mountains is not valid.
Point blank, this is what they consider as a "brown" indigenous AE:
The absolute point here is that this is not a 'brown' person and certainly anybody who claims that his is not what these white scientists are talking about when they say the AE were not black or that they were 'brown' are simply trying to appease racism and avoid the issue rather than getting to the dam point.
There is no confusion about what they mean in reality but some folks on this forum are just scared to call the issue for what it is which is racism based on skin color.
The tactics of the racists basically has changed from overt to covert. Now they no longer make pronouncements that are overt, rather they hide behind language and try to sound objective but in reality they have not changed their point of view not one bit if it comes down to the fundamental point of skin color. They will always try and defer and divert the discussion into claiming that calling the AE black is a 'racial' discussion and not a 'skin color' discussion in order to try and turn the tables and make everybody arguing with them jump through hoops in a reactionary fashion. No the point is skin color and the racism of these same people regarding skin color. The sooner people accept that the sooner you will get to the point of exposing these folks for the racists they are.
Posted by tropicals redacted (Member # 21621) on :
@Swenet
quote: Not too long ago I had a conversation with a native South African Bantu speaker on this forum and he said his people don't think of themselves as 'black' in their culture. According to him, they call themselves 'brown' in their language.
It can get confusing really fast (e.g. many Africans have origin myths science doesn't recognize and some place their ancestors outside of Africa). Best thing to do is to simply be aware of these different sentiments instead of dismissing everything as "wasist", like some here tend to do.
What was their ethnicity? Were their people regarded as 'black' during apartheid? Do you think they would be regarded as 'black' in the US?
I notice that you didn't address my points/ questions on the press and online reaction if Hollywood made a film on ancient Egypt casting Somalis and Ethiopians.
I posted the message twice on this page, second time with the questions in bold, so not sure how you could have missed it.
Posted by tropicals redacted (Member # 21621) on :
@ DougM
quote: But he didn't demur on them being called black though did he? So how can they be indigenous and not black?
He was reluctant to accept the term 'indigenous African', and regarding the question of 'blackness' wrote:
"I certainly don't consider the ancient Egyptians to have been black/black African."
Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: @Sudaniya
Yep, it happens. Not too long ago I had a conversation with a native South African Bantu speaker on this forum and he said his people don't think of themselves as 'black' in their culture. According to him, they call themselves 'brown' in their language.
It can get confusing really fast (e.g. many Africans have origin myths science doesn't recognize and some place their ancestors outside of Africa). Best thing to do is to simply be aware of these different sentiments instead of dismissing everything as "wasist", like some here tend to do.
As for Brace, his statistical analyses were never debunked. Some of his interpretations of these analyses have been debunked, though. Keita did a similar statistical analysis in his study on 1st dynasty royals. Only a couple % (2% when ran as "unknown", 0% when ran with 1st dynasty royals available as a choice) were classified with West/Central Africans, and the majority were classified with the Kerma and Upper Egyptian skeletal remains.
Which fits in with what you've been saying all along... that black isn't perceived by all as necessarily enveloping of all gradients of brown, and isn't universal - not even in Africa, where you would expect that it would reign supreme.
I wonder if the same thing prevails in Europe today. The ancient Greeks seem to have described their skin tone as one that was between black and white:
Aristotle:
“Those who are too Black are cowards, like for instance, the Egyptians and Ethiopians. But those who are excessively White (like the Scythians) are also cowards as we can see from the example of women, the complexion of courage is between the two.”
I think that Africans [and those in the diaspora] will have to re-evaluate some of these studies and distill and subject the claims and conclusions to rigorous, acid scrutiny and scalpel-like precision.
The fact that the ancient Egyptians clustered with Kerma is good enough for me, but I doubt that they clustered closely with modern Europeans.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
SMH. My post was barely submitted and it is already subjected to strawman attacks. This is hilarious. How can you be so desperately reaching for points to antagonize like a chicken without a head? I was clearly talking about specialists who have seriously studied the origin of the ancient Egyptians. What does that have to do with the views of a randomly contacted geneticist? Geneticists are automatically qualified to talk about the origins of the AE now, simply because they know genetics? SMH.
quote:Morant shows that the Badarian cranial type is closely similar to that of some of the modern Christians of northern Ethiopia who incidentally do not show negroid characteristics in the skull and also to the crania of Dravidian-speaking peoples of southern India. One might add that living Somalis show a close approximation to this physical type in most respects, and the extremely narrow jaw in which the Badarians seem to reach a world extreme may be duplicated among both Somalis and the inhabitants of southern India. In Europe, the closest parallel to the Badarian type is found among modern Sardinians, but this is not as close as their relationships to other and later Egyptians.
--Coon
^This is coming from racist Coon, mind you. Like I said, it's simply a rampant misconception among illiterate confusion spreaders like Doug M. These paranoid loons think that there is a massive conspiracy among specialists on this topic and that they all believe that the AE weren't in the African American skin pigmentation range.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: @Sudaniya
Yep, it happens. Not too long ago I had a conversation with a native South African Bantu speaker on this forum and he said his people don't think of themselves as 'black' in their culture. According to him, they call themselves 'brown' in their language.
It can get confusing really fast (e.g. many Africans have origin myths science doesn't recognize and some place their ancestors outside of Africa). Best thing to do is to simply be aware of these different sentiments instead of dismissing everything as "wasist", like some here tend to do.
As for Brace, his statistical analyses were never debunked. Some of his interpretations of these analyses have been debunked, though. Keita did a similar statistical analysis in his study on 1st dynasty royals. Only a couple % (2% when ran as "unknown", 0% when ran with 1st dynasty royals available as a choice) were classified with West/Central Africans, and the majority were classified with the Kerma and Upper Egyptian skeletal remains.
Which fits in with what you've been saying all along... that black isn't perceived by all as necessarily enveloping of all gradients of brown, and isn't universal - not even in Africa, where you would expect that it would reign supreme.
I wonder if the same thing prevails in Europe today. The ancient Greeks seem to have described their skin tone as one that was between black and white:
Aristotle:
“Those who are too Black are cowards, like for instance, the Egyptians and Ethiopians. But those who are excessively White (like the Scythians) are also cowards as we can see from the example of women, the complexion of courage is between the two.”
I think that Africans [and those in the diaspora] will have to re-evaluate some of these studies and distill and subject the claims and conclusions to rigorous, acid scrutiny and scalpel-like precision.
The fact that the ancient Egyptians clustered with Kerma is good enough for me, but I doubt that they clustered closely with modern Europeans.
Actually you just contradicted yourself. The quote says point blank that the consider white folks in Europe to be white folks and not like black folks from Africa.
You are grasping at straws to even begin to claim that there is a confusion about what black means in reference to Africans or white means in reference to Europeans.
You actually proved the point of what I have been saying that they consider Europeans to fall under the category of 'white people' in terms of skin color and Africans to fall under the umbrella of 'black people' and that is consistent with how those terms are used until this very day.
Posted by tropicals redacted (Member # 21621) on :
The geneticist is someone who's worked on ancient Egyptian mummies!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I mention this because Anson wrote in the previous page:
quote: SMH. My post was barely submitted and it is already subjected to strawman attacks. This is hilarious. How can you be so desperately reaching for points to antagonize? I was clearly talking about specialists who have seriously studied the origin of the ancient Egyptians. What does that have to do with the views of a randomly contacted geneticist? Geneticists are automatically qualified to talk about the origins of the AE now, simply because they know genetics? SMH.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: SMH. My post was barely submitted and it is already subjected to strawman attacks. This is hilarious. How can you be so desperately reaching for points to antagonize? I was clearly talking about specialists who have seriously studied the origin of the ancient Egyptians. What does that have to do with the views of a randomly contacted geneticist? Geneticists are automatically qualified to talk about the origins of the AE now, simply because they know genetics? SMH.
quote:Morant shows that the Badarian cranial type is closely similar to that of some of the modern Christians of northern Ethiopia who incidentally do not show negroid characteristics in the skull and also to the crania of Dravidian-speaking peoples of southern India. One might add that living Somalis show a close approximation to this physical type in most respects, and the extremely narrow jaw in which the Badarians seem to reach a world extreme may be duplicated among both Somalis and the inhabitants of southern India. In Europe, the closest parallel to the Badarian type is found among modern Sardinians, but this is not as close as their relationships to other and later Egyptians.
--Coon
^This is coming from Coon, mind you. Like I said, it's simply a rampant misconception among illiterate commentators like Doug M. These paranoid loons think that there is a massive conspiracy among specialists on this topic and that they believe that the AE weren't in the African American skin pigmentation range.
Swenet you are lying again. This is explicitly what coon said in regards to the Badarians. there is no confusion about what he means. He called them 'white'.
quote: After this excursion let us return to Upper Egypt, to a number of sites close to that section of the valley in which the Tasians had previously lived, From the type site, Badari, come the earliest skulls of a definitely Egyptian group which have yet been discovered. These Badarians lived about 4000 B.C., after the climate had become considerably drier than it was in Tasian times, so dry, in fact, that in many cases the skin and hair of their dead have been naturally preserved. The skin was apparently brunet white, while the hair was black or dark brown in color, thick, of fine texture, and usually wavy in form. .... Morant shows that the Badarian cranial type is closely similar to that of some of the modern Christians of northern Ethiopia who incidentally do not show negroid characteristics in the skull and also to the crania of Dravidian-speaking peoples of southern India. One might add that living Somalis show a close approximation to this physical type in most respects, and the extremely narrow jaw in which the Badarians seem to reach a world extreme may be duplicated among both Somalis and the inhabitants of southern India. In Europe, the closest parallel to the Badarian type is found among modern Sardinians, but this is not as close as their relationships to other and later Egyptians.
So right there it shows that what you are saying is totally and blatantly false. Coon calls these people 'white' and then he refers to another person named Morant in terms of the observations of these cranial measurements but the point here is that those cranial measurements completely contradict his skin color assessment. So again, like I have said over and over again, the issue is skin color and nothing else. You simply keep running from it and pretending that using other terms and other ways of talking about the issue changes the point. It does not. You are simply wrong. His assessment of cranial relationships does not suggest a correlation to his assessment of skin color, which is why what you are saying in terms of avoiding specific terms relevant to skin color is insane because bottom line that is the dam point.
Over and over and over again on this thread you keep claiming that the issue isn't about skin color and that these scientists aren't talking about skin color or even worse that they are somehow in agreement in some way on the skin color of the AE and that we just need to adjust our language to understand that we are in agreement. This is false. They are not in agreement with many folks about this and the point of disagreement is specifically skin color primarily among other things.
Period.
Using the term black people is specific and deliberate as to avoid any dam confusion and any attempts to divert and hide behind language because it is unambiguous in terms of what kinds of skin colors are being talked about and that is the reason I use it, because that is the point i am trying to make.
And to sit here and think you are going to post first Samuel Morton and Carleton Coon as somehow saying the AE were anywhere near the complexion of what we call 'black people' is totally and absolutely ridiculous and shows just how stupid you sound.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
It's not my fault that you don't know how these terms are applied by racialists. Without copping out, prove this necessarily means "white" as you understand it and/or that this terminology excludes the populations I mentioned in my previous post (Dravidians, Abyssinians, etc).
Posted by tropicals redacted (Member # 21621) on :
@Swenet (third attempt)
What do you think the reaction would be if a Hollywood studio made a major film about ancient Egypt and used Ethiopians and Somalis?
Do you think there'd be no comments on their racial backgrounds?
Do you think the term 'black' would be mentioned in the press and online? Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: It's not my fault that you don't know how these terms are applied by racialists. Without copping out, prove this necessarily means "white" as you understand it and/or that this terminology excludes the populations I mentioned in my previous post (Dravidians, Abyssinians, etc).
Simply put he means white like Europeans. The only one confused by this is you. So like I said before it is on you to show how he is claiming that they were not white and brown like Africans who are called by everyone else 'black people'. Your lies are simply ridiculous.
quote: The pigmentation of the Egyptians was usually a brunet white; in the conventional figures the men are represented as red, the women often as lighter, and even white. Although the hair is almost inevitably black or dark brown, and the eyes brown, Queen Hetep-Heres II, of the Fourth Dynasty, the daughter of Cheops, the builder of the great pyramid, is shown in the colored bas reliefs of her tomb to have been a definite blond. Her hair is painted a bright yellow stippled with fine red horizontal lines, and her skin is white. This is the earliest known evidence of blond- ism in the world. Later Egyptian reliefs, however, frequently represented Libyans as blond, and in early Egyptian times, the territory of the Libyans extended to the Delta itself. The Egyptian representation of foreigners is quite accurate; besides the Libyans, who have Nordic features as well as coloring, Asiatics, with prominent noses and curly hair, sea peoples from the Mediterranean, with lighter skins and a more pronounced facial relief than the Egyptians, are also shown, as well as negroes.
The blondism of Hetep-Heres II apparently belonged to the Delta and to the connections outside to east or west, rather than to Egypt proper, for it never recurred as an important or characteristic Egyptian trait. The Mediterranean pigmentation of the Egyptians has probably not greatly changed during the last five thousand years.
The point here is this people are hypocrites, liars and pseudoscientists concerned more with promoting the image of the 'white race' as superior to all others, specifically 'black people'. You on the other hand seem to think that they are not talking about a distinction between white people and black people as the ROOT of racism. You are seriously simply lying.
What does brunet white even mean? It has no real definition other than being some kind of 'white'. Yet you are going to claim that somehow this is somehow meaning the same as what we mean as black. You are really going out of your way to make yourself look stupid.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
"white" or "brunet" in racialist language does not necessarily mean white pigmentation. Are you going to prove that it does in Coon's case, or are you just going to stall and troll?
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
"white" in racialist language does not necessarily mean white pigmentation. Are you going to prove that it does in Coon's case, or are you just going to stall and troll?
YOu are stalling because you claim that brunet white means the same color as Nubians. Your retarded behind is simply wrong and refuses to admit that you are wrong. Nowhere does Coon claim that the AE as "brunet whites" were "brown" like the Nubians. You have been caught in another lie so there is no need to sit here and try and change the subject moron.
This is what you said and you are wrong:
quote:Almost all of the racists and racialists who had elaborate racist schemes and ideologies thought that the founding AE had the same level of skin pigmentation as modern day Nubians. Extremely influential racist specialist on this subject like Coon, Baker, Morton, Strouhal, etc. all fit into this category.
So please stop trying to save face as you have been shown to be a complete fraud on this issue...
Like I said, you are simply trying to make these racists into 'objective' scholars whose language means something else than what it really means. Their language is meant to obfuscate and promote their agenda and is not 'objective' or in agreement with anyone on the side of a 'black' AE in any way shape or form. Your dumb behind is simply trying to justify why we should follow their nonsense logic and terminologies rather than simply sticking to the point and being clear and unambiguous by using terms like 'black people'. Because now your dumb butt would have us to believe that 'brunet white' is the same as what we mean by 'black African' which includes 'brown Nubian' and it certainly does not. Coon is not in agreement with me or many other folks on this because if we take what you said to be literally true (which it is not) he is saying that the AE were the same complexion as the Nubians (or some subset) which would mean that he is in agreement semantically with them being in the same range as people called 'black'. He is not and you are simply shooting pure bull sh*t out of your butt hole.
The issue is skin color it has always been about skin color and there is no way around it.
Posted by Nodnarb (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by tropicals redacted: What do you think the reaction would be if a Hollywood studio made a major film about ancient Egyptian and used Ethiopians and Somalis?
Do you think there'd be no comments on their racial backgrounds?
Do you think the term 'black' would be mentioned in the press and online?
For what it's worth, last year I made a mod for the game Age of Mythology that gave its ancient Egyptian characters darker skin. You can see it and the attached comments panel here. I did not modify the characters' facial features, nor did I invoke obvious racially loaded language like "black" or "African" in my description. That still didn't stop commentators from complaining I made the Egyptians look "Black", in many cases implying I had confused them with the "Nubians" or Kushites.
Obviously none of these guys are specialists in Egyptology or bio-anthropology, so their commentary is not necessarily informative of what academics (even old racist ones like Coon) would think. And some of them could very well consider Northeast Africans a different "race" from West and Central Africans. But I will admit that for these trolls at least, merely darkening the Egyptian characters' skin color in that mod was enough to make them scream "Afrocentrism".
Again, I for one would say Northeast Africans are popularly considered to be somewhat related to "Black people" in Africa; they're just assumed to be hybrid between "pure Blacks" as seen in West and Central Africa and Middle Easterners. Hence all the speculation that any perceived overlap between their features and those of "Caucasoids" has to be the product of non-African admixture. Would public opinion of Northeast Africans' "Black" status change if people could be convinced that their peculiar range of phenotypes isn't necessarily all due to non-African genetic influences? I dunno.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
You're just demonstrating that you have no idea what the old terminology means. Even when you post stuff out of sources you're not familiar with like a chicken without a head, you're asking me to clean up after you.
quote:In fact, the foreheads of Ethiopians are in some instances lighter than their shirt protected bodies. In the three highland groups of Amharas, Gallas, and Sidamos, the Amharas are lightest skinned, with the majority of shades concentrated in the medium brown category, between von Luschan #21 and #25; individually the series runs as light as #13, a brunet-white, which is approximately the color of the former Emperor, Hailie Selassie. At the other extreme it reaches #34, which is almost jet black, nearer the color of the great Emperor Menelik II.
--Coon
quote:The skin color of both these oasis populations is likewise on the brunet side. In Siwa it falls for the most part between the von Luschan #12 and #15, which is a dark brunet-white or a light brown, and 10 per cent of the group has pinkish-white skin. In Awjila it runs from #16 to #24, and is often a medium brown.
--Coon
Where does it say that "brunet" or "white" in the racialist sense refers to white pigmentation?
And for someone who is harping on skin color as opposed to craniofacial measurements and anthro comparisons, you have a lot of blindspots as to your own excerpts from Coon.
quote:so dry, in fact, that in many cases the skin and hair of their dead have been naturally preserved. The skin was apparently brunet white
^After complaining about my use of a Coon citation that said that Badarians were like Somalis in most physical respects, this clown starts using Badarian mummified skin as evidence that the Badarians had yellowish skin.
At the end of the day, Doug completely failed to prove that most specialist have said that the AE were pale.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: You're just demonstrating that you have no idea what the old terminology means. Even when you post stuff out of sources you're not familiar with like a chicken without a head, you're asking me to clean up after you.
quote:In fact, the foreheads of Ethiopians are in some instances lighter than their shirt protected bodies. In the three highland groups of Amharas, Gallas, and Sidamos, the Amharas are lightest skinned, with the majority of shades concentrated in the medium brown category, between von Luschan #21 and #25; individually the series runs as light as #13, a brunet-white, which is approximately the color of the former Emperor, Hailie Selassie. At the other extreme it reaches #34, which is almost jet black, nearer the color of the great Emperor Menelik II.
--Coon
Where does it say that "brunet" or "white" in the racialist sense refers to white pigmentation?
And for someone who is harping on skin color as opposed to craniofacial measurements and anthro comparisons, you have a lot of blindspots as to your own excerpts from Coon.
All I know is you said it means brown Nubian. So what does it mean since you claim to be the one who knows what it means.
The point is you claim that brunet white is the same as a brown Nubian. You said that so you certainly need to prove that this is indeed what Coon meant. Just as you also need to prove that Samuel Norton meant the same thing.
My argument is they didn't. Their full works are online and anybody can read it for themselves.
But certainly, the names and subjects of these two works you quoted from are defining how white Europeans are different and superior from everybody else: namely "Races of Europe" by Carleton Coon and "Observations of Egyptian Ethnography derived from Anatomy history and monuments" by Samuel Morton.
I have already shown you that Coon is definitely not lumping these people with Nubians in terms of skin color, but lets now go to Morton:
quote: It is not, however, to be supposed that the Egyptians were really red men, as they are represented on the monuments. This colour, with a symbolic signification, was conven- tionally adopted for the whole nation, (with very rare exceptions,) from Meroe to Mem- phis. Thus, also, the kings of the Greek and Roman dynasties are painted of the same complexion.
Professor Rosellini supposes the Egyptians to have been of a brown, or reddish-brown colour, (rosso-fosco,) like the present inhabitants of Nubia; but, with all deference to that illustrious archseologist, I conceive that his remark is only applicable to the Austral- Egyptians as a group, and not to the inhabitants of Egypt proper, except as a partial result of that mixture of nations to which I have already adverted, and which will be more fully inquired into hereafter.
The well known observation of Ammianus Marcellinus, " Homines Egyptii pUrique subfusculi sunt, et atrati," is sufficiently descriptive, and corresponds with other positive evidence, in relation to the great mass of the people; and when the author subsequently tells us that the Egyptians' blush and grow red," we find it difficult to associate these ideas with a black, or any approximation to a black skin.
So again, you are shown to be a liar. None of these people are claiming the AE to be 'brown' like the Nubians. You keep misrepresenting the argument and being a mouthpiece for white folks, constantly trying to misrepresent every side of this issue because you are desperate for approval by some sect of white society but you just come off looking like a clown for denying the obvious facts that these people are not in agreement on the issue of the AE being anywhere near in complexion to what would be called black people and you are simply lying about it.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Again, you floundering clown, you don't know what you're talking about. Posting citations like a chicken without a head. That Samuel Morton quote refers to what he calls "Austral Egyptians", which I pointed out. When I quoted it, I acknowledged that Morton doesn't say the same about his other "Egyptian" types.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: You're just demonstrating that you have no idea what the old terminology means. Even when you post stuff out of sources you're not familiar with like a chicken without a head, you're asking me to clean up after you.
quote:In fact, the foreheads of Ethiopians are in some instances lighter than their shirt protected bodies. In the three highland groups of Amharas, Gallas, and Sidamos, the Amharas are lightest skinned, with the majority of shades concentrated in the medium brown category, between von Luschan #21 and #25; individually the series runs as light as #13, a brunet-white, which is approximately the color of the former Emperor, Hailie Selassie. At the other extreme it reaches #34, which is almost jet black, nearer the color of the great Emperor Menelik II.
--Coon
quote:The skin color of both these oasis populations is likewise on the brunet side. In Siwa it falls for the most part between the von Luschan #12 and #15, which is a dark brunet-white or a light brown, and 10 per cent of the group has pinkish-white skin. In Awjila it runs from #16 to #24, and is often a medium brown.
--Coon
Where does it say that "brunet" or "white" in the racialist sense refers to white pigmentation?
And for someone who is harping on skin color as opposed to craniofacial measurements and anthro comparisons, you have a lot of blindspots as to your own excerpts from Coon.
quote:so dry, in fact, that in many cases the skin and hair of their dead have been naturally preserved. The skin was apparently brunet white
^After complaining about my use of a Coon citation that said that Badarians were like Somalis in most physical respects, this clown starts using Badarian mummified skin as evidence that the Badarians had yellowish skin.
At the end of the day, Doug completely failed to prove that most specialist have said that the AE were pale.
Where in any of this does it show Coon claiming the AE having specific skin color ranges to any of the people above. Again, on the point which you clearly now trying to avoid, where is it that Coon says the AE specifically approached the same colors that he specifically calls out in terms of reference to the color scales of von Luschan. That is the issue here. You still have not shown where Coon is saying that the AE were the same complexion as these people you liar.
And certainly you have a whole series of examples of Coon talking about skin colors in terms of a color scale yet you are still denying that this is about skin color. What kind of absolute retard are you?
And are you claiming we need to carry around color scales when we talk about the skin color of black people in order to be understood? GTFOH.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
This is what Doug does all the time. He asks a question (I was supposed to prove that "brunet white" could also include Abyssinian skin pigmentation). Then I post proof. Then he shifts the goal posts and uses my answer as evidence that I'm wrong on some other point.
In other words, his request to post evidence that 'brunet white' doesn't mean pale was fulfilled. Instead of admitting that he messed up, he starts moving the goal post:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Where in any of this does it show Coon claiming the AE having specific skin color ranges to any of the people above.
Posted by kdolo (Member # 21830) on :
Negroes.....
Negroes everywhere......
As far as the eye can see...
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: This is what Doug does all the time. He asks a question (I was supposed to prove that "brunet white" could also include Abyssinian skin pigmentation). Then I post proof. Then he shifts the goal posts and uses my answer as evidence that I'm wrong on some other point.
In other words, his request to post evidence that 'brunet white' doesn't mean pale was fulfilled. Instead of admitting that he messed up, he starts moving the goal post:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Where in any of this does it show Coon claiming the AE having specific skin color ranges to any of the people above.
Stop lying. You said twice that these racists said the AE were the same color as the Nubians and both times I showed you to be wrong. And now you claim that Coon talking about the Ethiopians or some other folks like the Siwa (with specific color chart designations) somehow means that he is saying the AE were the same color as these people or as the 'Nubians' using any specific color codes from any color charts. YOU are the one saying that and I am calling you on it as someone who is putting words into peoples mouths. Just like you did for Morton:
quote: Professor Rosellini supposes the Egyptians to have been of a brown, or reddish-brown colour, (rosso-fosco,) like the present inhabitants of Nubia; but, with all deference to that illustrious archaeologist, I conceive that his remark is only applicable to the Austral-Egyptians as a group, and not to the inhabitants of Egypt proper, except as a partial result of that mixture of nations to which I have already adverted, and which will be more fully inquired into hereafter.
Which you said was support for Morton saying the AE were the same complexion as "Nubians" when clearly he was NOT saying that and said so explicitly.
And here is another quote from Coon in the same dam book, showing you to be an inveterate liar on all fronts:
quote: It can be shown that Sumerians who lived over five thousand years ago in Mesopotamia are almost identical in skull and face form with living Englishmen, and that predynastic Egyptian skulls can be matched both in a seventeenth century London plague pit, and in Neolithic cist-graves in Switzerland. Modern dolichocephalic whites or browns are very similar in head and face measurements and form. The Nordic race in the strict sense is merely a pigment phase of the Mediterranean
Again your misquoting and picking of passages from Coon misses the point. He is claiming the AE to be literally closest to white Europeans.
Again you are a dam liar and trying too dam hard to make the obsevations of racists as reliable references on any dam thing especially the skin color of the AE.
Posted by tropicals redacted (Member # 21621) on :
...when Ridley Scott casted for Black Hawk Down, he didn't use Somalis...Africans are interchangeable....and black...
In any big budget Hollywood film where Horners played the ancient Egypts the press and audiences would see black people, and react accordingly...that's the reality.
quote: Would public opinion of Northeast Africans' "Black" status change if people could be convinced that their peculiar range of phenotypes isn't necessarily all due to non-African genetic influences? I dunno.
quote: For what it's worth, last year I made a mod for the game Age of Mythology that gave its ancient Egyptian characters darker skin. You can see it and the attached comments panel here. I did not modify the characters' facial features, nor did I invoke obvious racially loaded language like "black" or "African" in my description. That still didn't stop commentators from complaining I made the Egyptians look "Black", in many cases implying I had confused them with the "Nubians" or Kushites.
Obviously none of these guys are specialists in Egyptology or bio-anthropology, so their commentary is not necessarily informative of what academics (even old racist ones like Coon) would think. And some of them could very well consider Northeast Africans a different "race" from West and Central Africans. But I will admit that for these trolls at least, merely darkening the Egyptian characters' skin color in that mod was enough to make them scream "Afrocentrism".
Again, I for one would say Northeast Africans are popularly considered to be somewhat related to "Black people" in Africa; they're just assumed to be hybrid between "pure Blacks" as seen in West and Central Africa and Middle Easterners. Hence all the speculation that any perceived overlap between their features and those of "Caucasoids" has to be the product of non-African admixture. Would public opinion of Northeast Africans' "Black" status change if people could be convinced that their peculiar range of phenotypes isn't necessarily all due to non-African genetic influences? I dunno.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Doug is obviously a mental case. Everyone can go back to my posts and see I fulfilled my part of the bargain. All citations show that the groups I referred to were thought to be in the specified pigmentation range and thought to be related to Afro-Asiatic speakers, even by people who were racists for a living.
Doug M said they were all believed to be pale Europeans. Look at where his goal post shifts have led him to now. Completely silent on his earlier falsified positions and desperately trying to find flaws in mine to hide that.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Simply put he means white like Europeans.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: No they accept that the Ancient Egyptians looked like Charleton Heston and not even olive skinned white Europeans.
SMH.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Doug is obviously a mental case. Everyone can go back to my posts and see I fulfilled my part of the bargain. All citations show that the groups I referred to were thought to be in the specified pigmentation range and thought to be related to Afro-Asiatic speakers, even by people who were racists for a living.
Doug M said they were all believed to be pale Europeans. Look at where his goal post shifts have led him to now. Completely silent on his earlier falsified positions and desperately trying to find flaws in mine to hide that.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Simply put he means white like Europeans.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: No they accept that the Ancient Egyptians looked like Charleton Heston and not even olive skinned white Europeans.
SMH.
Bullsh*t I asked you where Coon and Morton said the AE skin colors the same as Nubians and you have not. You are a liar and continue to lie.
And at this point you still haven't shown how your 6 pages of antics have proven that black African is not a perfectly legitimate and reliable reference to the skin color of African populations.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Again, you floundering clown, you don't know what you're talking about. Posting citations like a chicken without a head. That Samuel Morton quote refers to what he calls "Austral Egyptians", which I pointed out. When I quoted it, I acknowledged that Morton doesn't say the same about his other "Egyptian" types.
Which means he did not consider the AE to be the same complexion as Nubians which is what you said idiot.
To sum it up, you said that black people is not a good term as nobody agrees on what it means and that scientists, including the racists all admit the AE were some kind of brown, which you claim means they are in agreement with what other folks mean by black Africans. That has been shown to be a lie.
You then said that African scholars were not debating the skin color of the AE, specifically Diop. Another lie.
You said that people in Europe and elsewhere were not talking about skin color when they use terms like 'black people' and 'white people' in language. Another lie.
You said that other folks were not talking about the skin color of the AE and other folks when they said black or used other terms, another lie.
You are simply lying continually trying to pretend that 1) this isn't fundamentally about skin color and that 2) objective science agrees with folks on this board in terms of the skin color of the AE as it pertains to them being called 'black people'. Another lie.
You simply failed on all fronts in this regard and have proven to be trolling in support of white folks and their racist views and outlook on the issue meaning preferring to avoid getting to the point rather than play along with them and their word games.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
In regards to the racists I mentioned and their beliefs about AE pigmentation, I said that they perceived AE to be in the pigmentation range of African Americans and modern day Nubians and that they were perceived to be 'racially' related to Nubians and related groups.
My part of the bargain has withstood scrutiny despite Doug M's trolling.
In regards my observations re: Morton's perceived affinity of Egyptians to Nubians, this is what I said:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Here is an example of a hardcore racist/white supremacist 'scientist' saying that the dark skinned Egyptians (as contrasted with this author's perception of "Mediterranean" lower Egyptians) had the skin pigmentation of modern day NUBIANS:
I never said it applied to ALL Egyptians. More floundering and desperate antics on Doug's part.
I'll let level-headed onlookers be the judge of whether my posts in regards to there being more than one tradition of 'black' makes sense and resonated with them. If not, I'll make adjustments to my presentation where needed.
You, on the other hand, have shown that you're in no position to be discussing ANY of this. The racists specialists you described are a figment of your imagination. Your positions on the supposedly consistent European use of 'black' over a period of 3000 years has been falsified. As a matter of fact, which of your positions haven't been falsified?
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Still squeaking?
And don't forget to scroll down to the "similar thread" section. Then you can fade to the background like you always do when you get thrashed.
This is more of a cultural thing, and the negative typing of African Americans. The people go by ethnicity first before anything else. This is what makes the racial and color categorization so weird. It was all imposed by westerners, supposed anthropologists.
Posted by Child Of The KING (Member # 9422) on :
Black Is The Color of the Ancient Egyptians..(THINK)
Notice that the goofs will try and drive people away from Claiming Truth by mocking the very People they claim they are defending?
Remember that that person who followed Dr. Winter Around for his discussion of Some Native Americans being Black and
BLACK AFRICANS!!! VISITED THE AMERICAS BEFORE EUROPEANS!!!
He claimed he was defending The Native Americans With "QUETZCOATEL STATED IF AFRICANS CAME TO AMERICAS THAT THE NATIVE AMERICANS WOULD OF EATEN THEM "
THEY DONT EVEN GIVE RESPECT TO THE VIKINGS!!! FOR COMING TO AMERICA BEFORE THE RACIST GOOF COLOUMBUS BECAUSE THERE WAS NO BLOODTHIRSTY VIOLENCE!!!
Credit Doug M for showing the lying picture of Tut and how they dressed him.....
look at DOUGS DISCOVERING THE PICTURE OF FAKE TUT tell me what those goofs are doing posting a Picture of Tut like that
Don't get things twisted, ANCIENT EGYPTIANS BLACK!!!
No need to twist and jump through hoops cause they, european racist goofs just deserve to get humiliated for there so blatant Mockery of Peoples....
remember those EUROPEAN GOOFS DRANK HUMAN MUMMIES (Cannibals) AND CONVINCED BRITISH PEOPLE TO EAT BLOOD SAUSAGE AND BLOOD PUDDING etc........
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: In regards to the racists I mentioned and their beliefs about AE pigmentation, I said that they perceived AE to be in the pigmentation range of African Americans and modern day Nubians and that they were perceived to be 'racially' related to Nubians and related groups.
Well people who can read will see you are lying. First off, you said that 'objective scientists' and modern scientists are not racist if they don't use the term 'black people' Yet throughout this thread you have constantly referred to white racists as you even called them and not once have you cited any so called objective scholar. So you are lying.
Here is one example of a full passage of one of these racists who you claim that the AE were similar to brown Nubians. Give it up you are wrong and talking blatant nonsense....
quote: Professor Rosellini supposes the Egyptians to have been of a brown, or reddish-brown colour, (rosso-fosco,) like the present inhabitants of Nubia; but, with all deference to that illustrious archseologist, I conceive that his remark is only applicable to the Austral- Egyptians as a group, and not to the inhabitants of Egypt proper, except as a partial result of that mixture of nations to which I have already adverted, and which will be more fully inquired into hereafter.
The well known observation of Ammianus Marcellinus, " Homines Egyptii pUrique subfusculi sunt, et atrati," is sufficiently descriptive, and corresponds with other positive evidence, in relation to the great mass of the people; and when the author subsequently tells us that the Egyptians' blush and grow red," we find it difficult to associate these ideas with a black, or any approximation to a black skin.
Point blank you are a liar and continue to lie and have only to this point promoted the views of racists as if somehow or someway these racists are in agreement with folks on this board on what they mean by black Africans and the AE. So give it up already. You are proven wrong and just wont admit it.
quote: My part of the bargain has withstood scrutiny despite Doug M's trolling.
In regards my observations re: Morton perceived affinity of Egyptians to Nubians, this is what I said:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Here is an example of a hardcore racist/white supremacist 'scientist' saying that the dark skinned Egyptians (as contrasted with this author's perception of "Mediterranean" lower Egyptians) had the skin pigmentation of modern day NUBIANS:
I never said it applied to ALL Egyptians. More floundering and desperate antics on Doug's part.
I'll let level-headed onlookers be the judge of whether my posts in regards to their being more than one tradition of 'black' makes sense and resonated with them. If not, I'll make adjustments to my presentation where needed.
You, on the other hand, have shown that you're in no position to be discussing ANY of this. The racists specialists you described are a figment of your imagination. Your positions on the supposedly consistent European use of 'black' has been falsified. As a matter of fact, which of your positions haven't been falsified?
You have not done anything to support any part of any bargain. From the beginning I asked you whether the AE were black or not as a yes or no question. You consistently have not answered that question yet you are sitting here trying to defend the words of known racists as if they are somehow saying something that is in agreement with what many folks mean when they say black Africans. You are simply a fool and a liar.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Child of the King.
If there is only one rigid tradition of 'black', explain why maps reconstructed from Greek and Middle Eastern texts depicted "Cush" and "Aethiopia" all over tropical Eurasia and Africa ~1000BC until the around the Common Era. Why did contemporary terms related to 'black' gradually start to refer exclusively to Africa by then?
Posted by kdolo (Member # 21830) on :
Swenet,
Negroes........
Everywhere......Negroes.
Posted by Child Of The KING (Member # 9422) on :
NO, must understand...
BLACK IS ALL BLACK SKIN AND BROWN SKIN FAM...Think
Credit Lioness for showing the Picture of Some Southern Europeans...
Look at that man and Think, BROTHA LOOKS PUERTO RICAN
Brown is a Mixture Of Peoples...
Great map Swenet
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
@Child of the King:
I acknowledge that tradition of black and brown skin (see the two maps I just posted). But I also acknowledge that towards the time of Christ, an additional meaning arose that excluded a lot of black and brown people in the Middle East and started focusing on Africa as the source of 'blacks'.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Child of the King.
If there is only one rigid tradition of 'black', explain why maps reconstructed from Greek and Middle Eastern texts depicted "Cush" and "Aethiopia" all over tropical Eurasia and Africa ~1000BC until the around the Common Era. Why did contemporary terms related to 'black' gradually start to refer exclusively to Africa by then?
Because they considered them all black folks from the Southern Hemisphere which is actually consistent to what we know about the tropical basis for black skin. And there is really nothing inconsistent about it. Aethiopes, means burnt face and is a reference to skin color.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
^You're not answering the question. You know you can't answer the question without considering my observation that there was more than one tradition. That's why.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: @Child of the King:
I acknowledge that tradition of black and brown skin (see the two maps I just posted). But I also acknowledge that towards the time of Christ, an additional meaning arose that excluded a lot of black and brown people in the Middle East and started focusing on Africa as the source of 'blacks'.
Don't all blacks come from Africa? Clarify why you see something wrong with this statement? I mean what part of this is incorrect?
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
The question was, why is population X in Arabia considered black 400BC and no longer in 400AD, even though they're still around, LOOKING EXACTLY THE SAME.
Start providing answers as to why 'Cush' and 'Aethiopia' were no longer applied to these people as consistently as before:
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ^You're not answering the question. You know you can't answer the question without considering my observation that there was more than one tradition. That's why.
Wait so you are saying that the map of Aethiopia is not the same as calling these people black people.
Are you even serious?
Posted by Child Of The KING (Member # 9422) on :
Blessings Swenet.
Not knowing what these traditions are brotha, Can you post these traditions...
Also divders(whisperers) seem to have the abilty to CONvince Peoples they different negatively....
Read This Swenet:
quote: Acts 14:1-2,4,5
1 The same thing happened in Iconium. Paul and Barnabas went to the Jewish synagogue and preached with such power that a great number of both Jews and Greeks became believers.
2Some of the Jews, however, spurned God's message and poisoned the minds of the Gentiles against Paul and Barnabas.
4But the people of the town were divided in their opinion about them . Some sided with the Jews, and some with the apostles.
5Then a mob of Gentiles and Jews, along with their leaders, decided to attack and stone them.
Notice that even though, The APOSTLES WERE TEACHING THE ONLY WAY TO SALVATION FOR GENTILES....
SOME!! JEWS WERE ABLE TO CONVINCE SOME OF THE GENTILES TO HATE THE APOSTLES, THE MINDS OF GENTILES WERE POISONED!
SOME GENTILES AND IGNORANT JEWS TEAMED UP TO ATTACK THE APOSTLES....
whisperers seem very CONvincing, negatively!!! that gentiles would try and Harm those who were teaching them the only way to Salvation..
THEY GENTILES WOULD ATTACK PEOPLES TRYING TO SAVE THEM EVEN IF THAT COST THEM SALVATION
DON'T HATE JEWS.... JEWS NOT THE PROBLEM(think)
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: The question was, why is population X in Arabia considered black 400BC and no longer in 400AD, even though they're still around, LOOKING EXACTLY THE SAME.
Start providing answers as to why Cush and Aethiopia were no longer applied to these people as consistently as before:
The populations in these regions changed that's why. In some areas most people are not black anymore even if there is a good number of blacks there. That simply reflects the facts that populations have changed over time. Not to mention place names have changed to represent changes to political boundaries, states and kingdoms.
But that does not mean that when they originally called these areas Cush or Aethiopia they were not talking about black people. In fact most of that map still is populated by black people. Arabia is only a small part of this map.
And another thing you are talking about how outsiders identified foreigners. The people of these areas did not call themselves Aethiopes. That is a Greek word for the people they saw as a general description of their skin color.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
That it applied to dark skinned people is self-evident.
Your explanation doesn't explain why the term suddenly became narrow, even inside Africa in a certain sense. And how do you go from it applying to tropical Eurasia + Africa, to just Africa in a span of just a couple of centuries. Even Strabo apparently felt his contemporaries were out of touch, and he made no mention of demographic events that introduced significant changes.
quote:And if the moderns have confined the term of Ethiopians to those only who dwell near to Egypt, and have also restricted the Pygmies in like manner, this must not be allowed to interfere with the meaning of the ancients. We do not speak of all the people who fought against Troy as merely Achæans and Argives, though Homer describes the whole under those two names. Similar to this is my remark concerning the separation of the Ethiopians into two divisions, that under that designation we should understand the whole of the nations inhabiting the sea-board from east to west. The Ethiopians taken in this sense are naturally separated into two parts by the Arabian Gulf, which occupies a considerable portion of a meridian circle, [Note] and resembles a river, being in length nearly 15,000 stadia, [Note] and in breadth not above 1000 at the widest point.
--Strabo
^They're clearly still there in Arabia by his time (this is also attested by Josephus' comments on the Cushites in Arabia). Strabo also seems to think his contemporaries are being unreasonable for applying the term Aethiopia in a restricted sense.
Moreover, over time Greeks started implementing terms like "white-Aethiopian" and similar combined terms to populations in North Africa, presumably to describe populations that looked mixed to them. They could have done the same in Arabia if this shift happened due to assimilation of the indigenous Cushites. They never did.
Even known heroes who were perceived to be 'black' initially (e.g. Memnon) weren't considered 'black' anymore in later times by Greco-Romans. In biblical texts we see the same tribal names increasingly being confused (e.g. Cushite tribes were also placed in Jokshan's lineage). Sometimes it's completely unclear from the context whether Jokshan's lineage is referred to or Ham's lineage.
The Ptolemy piece I've reposted several times in this thread probably explains why. Pure Aethiopians were perceived to only include pitch-black people towards the interior of Africa. The darker the people who came to their attention, the more their goal post for "true Aethiopian" shifted to only include the darkest people known at the time. Greeks conquered Egypt later on, so more opportunities to interact with equatorial Africans arose. The lower Nubians who were "black" at first in Homer's time then suddenly became "moderately black" by comparison.
But I'm not out to change anyone's positions. I'll let people make up their own mind. Just don't try to act like I'm making this up as I go along or that it's a non-issue.
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
^Anything specific you're asking about?
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
^^Do you agree with the concept of "Africoid" I was saying in the OP?
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
The way I see it, the best thing you can do is to simply go over all the observations made here and elsewhere and come up with terms that work for you. If you're going to change anything, you should change it strengthen your own position, avoid strawman attacks and present an accurate picture to lay people. If you think Africoid fits this purpose, then use it.
I agree though with Doug's observation that the academics and opponents elsewhere who aren't qualified to speak on AE origins, aren't necessarily going to change their views because you apply more objective terminology. I don't recall ever having said this.
In fact, not too long ago I had a discussion with someone about Brace et al (1993) in regards to objective language. Brace not only seems to have said that the AE indigenous origins were questionable (he seems to have flip flopped several times), but he also said that the term 'Africa' preferably shouldn't be used in reference to the AE; he seems to think that 'Africa' primarily means SSA, when it doesn't/shouldn't:
quote:Consistent with the position we have developed above, we would have to argue that these statements are hopelessly simplistic, misleading, and basically wrong. Even the categorical labeling of the civilization of ancient Egypt as “fundamentally African” (Bernal, 1987, 1989) is misleadingly simplistic. To the classical world, there were several Africas: the “north face of Africa” along the Mediterranean coast, the “Black Africa” to the south, and especially the connection via the Nile through Nubia to the Sudan (Adams, 1977) that formed “almost a ‘third Africa’” (Brilliant, 1979). When the debt of Greece and later Rome to that “third Africa” is stressed by the label “Black Athena,” it is misrepresented. Even the use of the term Afroasiatic, however justified, should be accompanied by the note that this implies no more than the identification of the language family that includes ancient Egyptian and modern Arabic, Hebrew, and Somali (Greenberg, 1955; Gregersen, 1977).
^You can tell he hasn't studied African history, otherwise he would have never suggested that AE speaking a language related to Arabic and Hebrew undermines the use of "Africa". The fact that they speak AA pulls Arabs and Hebrews to Africa, not the other way around.
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
^Interesting and thanks. Yeah I definitely know I won't be changing opinions, which is why I don't argue with people about the origins of the Ancient Egyptians or African diversity like I use to do on the internet. Because people already have fixed opinions.
And I agree 100% that certain people in academia like Egyptologist aren't qualified to speak on the origins of the Ancient Egyptians. Anthropologist have been much better in that area than Egyptologist who always get "lost" when discussing the origins of the Ancient Egyptians or their "race".
But I hope you and Doug can come to a agree-disagreement. Good debate between you two. Just think the ad homine is not necessary.
Anyways "Africoid" may be my own personal term to describe indigenous African people across the continent.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: And I agree 100% that certain people in academia like Egyptologist aren't qualified to speak on the origins of the Ancient Egyptians. Anthropologist have been much better in that area than Egyptologist who always get "lost" when discussing the origins of the Ancient Egyptians or their "race".
The descending order of the most the most blunders and flip flops is this:
1) Assyriologists and graduates of Middle Eastern studies (most resistant to Afro-Asiatic originating in Africa) 2) Egyptologists 3) Bioanthropologists 4) Bioanthropologists specialized in AE ethnic background
I don't know where Classicists fit on average, although I suspect it's the same as Egyptologists. #4 only rarely say that the AE were pale skinned whites, not even the hardened racists among them (this doesn't mean that they all consider AE fundamentally African). I think Brace fits somewhere in between #3 and #4 or maybe even #4. He has barely studied North African history, but he is already light years ahead of most who fit in #1, 2 and 3. See if you can get your hands on Brace et al 1993. It's not all bad.
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: And I agree 100% that certain people in academia like Egyptologist aren't qualified to speak on the origins of the Ancient Egyptians. Anthropologist have been much better in that area than Egyptologist who always get "lost" when discussing the origins of the Ancient Egyptians or their "race".
The descending order of the most the most blunders and flip flops is this:
1) Assyriologists (most resistant to Afro-Asiatic originating in Africa) 2) Egyptologists 3) Bioanthropologists 4) Bioanthropologists specialized in AE ethnic background
#4 only rarely say that the AE were pale skinned whites. I think Brace fits somewhere in between #3 and #4. He has barely studied North African history, but he is already light years ahead of most who fit in #1, 2 and 3. See if you can get your hands on Brace 1993. It's not all bad.
I think this is a REALLY good way to look at academia when involving the Ancient Egyptians.
IMO the mainstream media/Hollywood would be #0.
Posted by Nodnarb (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: ^Interesting and thanks. Yeah I definitely know I won't be changing opinions, which is why I don't argue with people about the origins of the Ancient Egyptians or African diversity like I use to do on the internet. Because people already have fixed opinions.
And I agree 100% that certain people in academia like Egyptologist aren't qualified to speak on the origins of the Ancient Egyptians. Anthropologist have been much better in that area than Egyptologist who always get "lost" when discussing the origins of the Ancient Egyptians or their "race".
But I hope you and Doug can come to a agree-disagreement. Good debate between you two. Just think the ad homine is not necessary.
Anyways "Africoid" may be my own personal term to describe indigenous African people across the continent.
TBH, "Africoid" sounds too evocative of old-school racialism for my personal taste. Especially with the "-oid" suffix. But whatever works for you.
With regards to arguing about the Egyptians' "race" over the Internet, I think people fall into that trap because they want to influence how ancient Egypt is portrayed in pop-culture media like movies, books, or video games. And I still empathize with that sentiment. But I don't think this is the way to go about it. You'd probably have to contact casting agents, book illustrators, or game developers if that's possible rather than pick fights with random strangers on random forums. Or maybe do what I've chosen to do and learn how to produce your own media. People here know I'm an artist and occasional writer, and I'm currently studying game design and development at a small college here in San Diego. Arguing with morons on the 'Net is useful only if you're really bored out of your mind.
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
^Agreed.
But I don't see how "Africoid" has to do with old school racism??? If anything its the complete opposite. Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
we all know that this is about skin color
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
all black Africans are a shade of brown.
If Africans are a shade of brown then why would you call Africans black if they are brown?
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
Most Africans are visually identifiable shades of brown, with the Dinka and other Nilotics being the only true exception that I can think of...
If most Africans are a shade of brown then why would you call them black if they are brown?
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
they absolutely do not mean brown the way anyone else on this forum or anyone else means brown when it comes to the AE or any other African population. Because all black Africans are a shade of brown. And these people are not calling them brown in the sense they were in the same range of color as black Africans.
"Brown skinned African" is not good enough for Doug. He said it was about color. Yet he admits they are brown. Persumably he now wants "black" to mean dark brown only because Europeans might include shades of brown too light for his liking.
Yet he says only the Dinka and other Nilotics are black people.
There is no consistency to Doug's remarks, the goal post is constantly shifted
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
Most Africans are visually identifiable shades of brown
^^ Finally a truthful statement about color from Doug.
Color is a visual thing. So if Doug observes most Africans are visually identifiable shades of brown and then says that this means "black" when applied to Africans. obviously something more than observing color is going on. It's a "you know what we mean" wink,wink type of thing going on. After stating their color, brown, he insists that an exaggetatted stereotype of brown be applied as "black" Applying circular logic he keeps saying that this is only about color yet when his eyes see the color he ignores the color "brown" and says black is brown. It makes no sense. It's anti-science to disregard observation in place of political terminology.
Furthermore a much bigger challenge to white supremacy would be to call Africans brown becasue that would affilaite them with all the othre brown skin people of the world.
-that's why Europeans didn't do that, they called brown Africans "Negroes", the word for "Black" in Spanish.
I use the word "black" for people but I understand what it is. It is not an accurate description of the color of most Africans' skin. It's a political symbol made for whoever feels at a given moment that it is an advantage for them to be part of the group of people calling themselves this. Other people might group themsleves ideologically or religiously.
The thing that would solve this is if African Americans actors would be cast in a feature film to portray the Pharoahs and most of the Egyptian populaltion.
Art carries more weight in the public mind than what academics say or don't say.
That would have much more impact than trying to force academics to pay lip service.
Art doesn't have to be accurate but it can sometimes raise issues more strongly than other methods
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
BlessHorus says: I think Brace fits somewhere in between #3 and #4. He has barely studied North African history, but he is already light years ahead of most who fit in #1, 2 and 3. See if you can get your hands on Brace 1993. It's not all bad.
True to some extent. In the 1993 article Brace skewers Eurocentric race models in Africa. His sardonic comment about "wandering Caucasoids" is a classic, as is his expose elsewhere of racist scholar JP Rushton's obsession with negro penis size, based not only on such "research" as him paying college students to measure ejaculation "ranges" but also in part on Rushton's own confessed, reputed "self-assessment" in that area. Ruston is widely followed and quoted by assorted racists, "HBD" and "hereditarian" types. This speaks for itself, even without the extensive debunking of Rushton on the merits of his work.
But in 1993 there were also a number of problems, as discussed numerous times on ES. Brace's sampling and definition issues have long been noted.
Nodarb says: "Africoid" sounds too evocative of old-school racialism for my personal taste. Especially with the "-oid" suffix. But whatever works for you.
"Africoid" has nothing to do with any "old school racialism." It iis a term with a valid basis, that seeks to capture INDIGENOUS African bio-cultural diversity. None less than SOY Keita uses it in his 1990 articles on that diversity. Assorted Wikipedia racists destroyed the old Africoid article some years back and now redirect queries to "Negroid" hoping to bury what credible scholars have said on the topic, and producing, as is conveniently designed, a weak article that removes numerous recent scholarly references but conveniently leaves references to obsolete racist Carleton Coons.
Pathetic fools. DO they think that buries anything, or that they are doing anything as they "guard" their laughable "stealth" edits? People don't take their work seriously, not with so many other avenues of accurate info on the web. They think this will make the data "disappear" but they fail miserably. We have already picked it up on ES, and broadcast it far and wide.
QUOTE:
""There is little demarcation between the predynastics and tropical series and even the early southern dynastic series. Definite trends are discernible in the analyses. This broadly shared "southern" metric pattern, along with the other mentioned characteristics to a greater or lesser degree, might be better described by the term Africoid, by definition connoting a tropical African microclade, microadaptation, and patristic affinity, thereby avoiding the nonevolutionary term "Negroid" and allowing for variation both real and conceptual." --Keita 1990. Studies of ancient crania in North Africa
^And Keita is absolutely right.
^^Over 10,000 hits in Google and counting fools.. Your little "edits" don't mean anything ..
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
^^^That wasn't me that said that, but Swenet. Just saying.
But I agree 100% with your stance on "Africoid" which is what I've been trying to argue about the term.
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
OK and as I say, Brace had some good points in there particularly the "wandering Caucasoids" bit..
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
It's important to base our opinion on science and the current scientific researches.
quote:Originally posted by Nodnarb: Again, I for one would say Northeast Africans are popularly considered to be somewhat related to "Black people" in Africa; they're just assumed to be hybrid between "pure Blacks" as seen in West and Central Africa and Middle Easterners.
This is true to some degree.
*Modern* northeastern African populations are indeed hybrids in various degrees between Africans and Eurasians. But here's the catch: this apply to MODERN people living there. Ancient north-eastern Africans were not hybrids (at least not to the current level). According to science, the Eurasian admixtures in Northeast Africa (including Egypt, Somali, Ethiopia, etc) is recent. Most of it from the last 3000 years so this is much earlier than the foundation of Ancient Egypt or their origin in the green Sahara, Nabta Playa, Tasian, Badariand and Naqada culture. 3000 years ago is around 1000BC. The Ancient Egyptian state was founded around 4000BC.
Those latest studies come down to what everybody has been saying for years. Ancient Egyptians are not like the modern Egyptians in term of ethnicity. Modern Egyptians are made up of Ancient Egyptians, Kushites, Greeks, Romans, Muslim Arabs, Ottoman, Mamluk, Banu Hilal people. Ancient Egyptians were indigenous black Africans like the Kushite, Ashanti, Ghana/Wagadu, Zulu (etc) kingdoms. Modern Egyptians are made of many people including Eurasians (mostly muslim Arabs).
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
Case in point:
According to this recent study modern Egyptians are 80% non-African and 20% African. And the non-African admixtures are dated to around 750 years ago. Well after the foundation of Ancient Egypt or the precursor cultures (Badarians, Tasians, Nabta Playa, etc).
quote:Using ADMIXTURE and principal-component analysis (PCA) (Figure 1A), we estimated the average proportion of non-African ancestry in the Egyptians to be 80% and dated the midpoint of the admixture event by using ALDER20 to around 750 years ago (Table S2), consistent with the Islamic expansion and dates reported previously.
It's important to base our opinion on science and the current scientific researches.
quote:Originally posted by Nodnarb: Again, I for one would say Northeast Africans are popularly considered to be somewhat related to "Black people" in Africa; they're just assumed to be hybrid between "pure Blacks" as seen in West and Central Africa and Middle Easterners.
This is true to some degree.
*Modern* northeastern African populations are indeed hybrids in various degrees between Africans and Eurasians. But here's the catch: this apply to MODERN people living there. Ancient north-eastern Africans were not hybrids (at least not to the current level). According to science, the Eurasian admixtures in Northeast Africa (including Egypt, Somali, Ethiopia, etc) is recent. Most of it from the last 3000 years so this is much earlier than the foundation of Ancient Egypt or their origin in the green Sahara, Nabta Playa, Tasian, Badarian and Naqada cultures. 3000 years ago is around 1000BC. The Ancient Egyptian state was founded around 4000BC.
Those latest studies come down to what everybody has been saying for years. Ancient Egyptians are not like the modern Egyptians in term of ethnicity. Modern Egyptians are made up of Ancient Egyptians, Kushites, Greeks, Romans, Muslim Arabs, Ottoman, Mamluk, Banu Hilal people. Ancient Egyptians were indigenous black Africans like the Kushite, Ashanti, Ghana/Wagadu, Zulu (etc) kingdoms. Modern Egyptians are made of many people including Eurasians (mostly muslim Arabs).
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
Case in point:
According to this recent study modern Egyptians are 80% non-African and 20% African. And the non-African admixtures are dated to around 750 years ago. Well after the foundation of Ancient Egypt or the precursor cultures (Badarians, Tasians, Nabta Playa, etc).
quote:Using ADMIXTURE and principal-component analysis (PCA) (Figure 1A), we estimated the average proportion of non-African ancestry in the Egyptians to be 80% and dated the midpoint of the admixture event by using ALDER20 to around 750 years ago (Table S2), consistent with the Islamic expansion and dates reported previously.
Another case in point : Kushite/Sudanese ancient DNA.
- From Genetic Patterns of Y-chromosome and Mitochondrial DNA Variation, with Implications to the Peopling of the Sudan (2009) by Hassan
Like Mota there's no evidence of Eurasian admixtures (M89) before the christian era. So Eurasian admixtures must have been rare or absent before that time in the region. Let's recall Kadruka is one of the place of origin of Ancient Egyptians (it's located in northern Sudan).
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: According to science, the Eurasian admixtures in Northeast Africa (including Egypt, Somali, Ethiopia, etc) is recent. Most of it from the last 3000 years [/QUOTE
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
According to this recent study modern Egyptians are 80% non-African and 20% African. And the non-African admixtures are dated to around 750 years ago.
which is it?
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: According to science, the Eurasian admixtures in Northeast Africa (including Egypt, Somali, Ethiopia, etc) is recent. Most of it from the last 3000 years [/QUOTE
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
According to this recent study modern Egyptians are 80% non-African and 20% African. And the non-African admixtures are dated to around 750 years ago.
which is it?
Both of course, as one doesn't exclude the other.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
@Child of the King
You left suddenly. Have you thought about the answer? If there historically has only been one correct use of 'black', why did 'Cush' and 'Aethiopia' went from including the people below, to excluding them in ancient times? How can one reconcile this discrepancy in your view?
quote:"Friederichs and Miiller ( ’33, pp 402-403) hold a Veddoid element to be basic to Southern Asia, found also in Southern Arabia, Southern Mesopotamia, Persia, Afghanistan, Baluchistan, Northwestern and Southern India. To this generalized "Pre-Dravidian," "Proto-Ausltraloid," "Veddoid" group Guha (’35, p. l A r ) would give the term Nisadic. In present-day Burma Guha and Basu (’31, p. 26) find "Australoid-Negroid" characters in Naga crania; von Eickstedt (’23, p. 164) finds in the Indus Valley "a coarse type with robust proportions, overhanging occiput and prominent supraciliary ridges"; Lebzelter ( ’31, p. 225) finds in Persian crania a dolichocranic, euryprosopic, chamaerrhinic type "with many Australiform characters," possibly referable to a dark "pre-Aryan ‘Urbevolkerung’"; Haddon ( ’25, p. 110) finds that "in Susiana there are traces of a dark-skinned population who . . . . indicate a Pre-Dravidian, or possibly a Ulotrichous, stock."
--Krogman 1940
Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
Lioness
You seem to have confused me with Doug, so you should probably apologise to Doug.
Posted by Child Of The KING (Member # 9422) on :
Swenet
Bless,
What needs to get to understood is that Black is Black regardless of whether the author mean Deep Black(blackest) or pale Black(light brown), remember that Herodotus claimed there was the western Ethiopians and the eastern Ethiopians etc that was different basically because of Hair, certain Blacks Had Straighten hair, and some had kinky hair...Yet the color...the same...Can you imagine that you have a brother or sister from your parents and One of You had straight hair, and you had kinky hair, and some batty bwoy(european) decides to publish that the brothers are not related and
the european separates you from your brother because the goof european barks "yeah the skin color is the same, yet the hair is different so your not related?
look at these People and whats the difference between them?
the whisperer seducer(think) would try and divide the Black People with saying the Indian is not as Black as the African cause His hair looks different then The African... and will harp on that one trait thats different and claim one brotha "Black" and the Next brotha "Brown" even though BOTH BROTHAS( AFRICAN AND INDIAN)ARE ORIGINALS! AND NOT FROM MIXTURE....
Brown people are mixed,
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: Lioness
You seem to have confused me with Doug
show me a post of mine where I have you confused with Doug. I have no idea what you are talking about
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Child Of The KING:
What needs to get to understood is that Black is Black regardless of whether the author mean Deep Black(blackest) or pale Black(light brown)....
Brown people are mixed
^^^ Another confused person making contradictory statements. He claims light brown is also black but yet says brown people are mixed, makes no sense whatsoever
The thing that divides brown people is when you call some seletc ones black when they still are brown
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
^ Not everyone has had the chance to really think through their views on 'black'. Most people are just responding intuitively with beliefs that have clear western influences. That's why I don't believe that everyone who has differing views in regards to the word is necessarily "racist".
@Child Of The KING
Not exactly the answer to the question I was looking for, but noted. At least now you also know where I'm coming from.
Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: Lioness
You seem to have confused me with Doug
show me a post of mine where I have you confused with Doug. I have no idea what you are talking about
OK, I will. I wrote:
Most Africans are visually identifiable shades of brown, with the Dinka and other Nilotics being the only true exception that I can think of...
I wrote that, and you responded to it [twice] as though Doug had... so yeah, you did confuse Doug and I.
Sorry, I got the quote source wrong. Doug's got me on ignore anyway
Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Sorry, I got the quote source wrong. Doug's got me on ignore anyway
That's alright. It happens.
Posted by Child Of The KING (Member # 9422) on :
the lioness,
Must understand that Brown is mixture...NONE START OFF BROWN....
Blacks, Whites, Reds, and Yellows are The Colors of The Originals....
Mixing from the Original Colors creates Brown...Think...
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Child Of The KING:
Blacks, Whites, Reds, and Yellows are The Colors of The Originals....
Mixing from the Original Colors creates Brown...Think... [/QB]
So if your skin is brown you're mixed
Child Of The KING is mixed
Posted by Child Of The KING (Member # 9422) on :
the lioness,
Listen
Black Mixes with White..
Child comes out White
THE CHILD WHITE OR BROWN
Child comes out Black
THE CHILD BLACK OR BROWN
Black mixes with Yellow..
Child comes out Yellow
THE CHILD YELLOW OR BROWN
Child comes out Black
THE CHILD BLACK OR BROWN
Black mixes with Red..
Child comes out Red
THE CHILD RED OR BROWN
Child Comes out Black
THE CHILD BLACK OR BROWN
etc for all Peoples Mixtures...
BROWN IS MIXTURE.
Think
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: Okay as a "newbie" I noticed a ranging war going on and I want to include my 2 cents. Before I go on I hope I do not misinterpret both camps arguments.
In my opinion using the term, "black" is not useless. It's just that the term or ANY modern day racial terms have any use in science/anthropology. And trying to make them relevant in that field is futile. Scientific Anthropologist refrain from using racial terms. "Race" is not biologically defined and this is nothing new. So I don't get why SOME people on here are having a hard time grasping this. No anthropologist will out right say the Ancient Egyptians were "black"! That is just a fact neither would they say the Ancient Egyptians were white or whatever.
Keita for example who is a well known anthropologist refrains from using racial terms. He never in any of his works outright said the Ancient Egyptians were "black" and yet by reading his work and using common sense we know what he is saying.
Anyways poster Swenet hit the nail with this post from that Sir Clair Drake thread.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
A subset of dynastic Egyptian samples squeezed in between Abyssinians and Cretans, Etruscans and Sardinians and showing considerable ties with the biblical inhabitants of the Judaean city of Lachish. No competent western, middle eastern or oriental academic who has seriously looked into this is going to use the term "black" (in a racial sense) when applied to dynastic Egyptians (although they might do it in a pigmentation sense, by saying they would have been dark brown). And in the occasion they do use 'black' in a racial sense (usually when they speak in an informal context), they're likely to say that they think that the ancient Egyptians were half black/half non-black based on their position in cranio-facial analysis.
This is the obvious peril/risk you run when you engage opponents trying to repurpose and reinvigorate old prejudiced terms (i.e. "black" as applied in the west) as opposed to focusing on the real issue, i.e., the question whether they were indigenous Africans or not. Of course, someone's position in multivariate space is going to determine how lay people perceive their "race", so the "forget science, I'm just focusing on what lay people would say" escape, is a deliberately deceptive fallacy. Craniofacial analysis uses measurements that the lay public intuitively uses when assigning race.
But to expand on further what Swenet meant...
Who are those people? Are they African? If that was your answer than you are wrong! Those are the Adamanese people of Indian. They look what you would call "black" or even "black African". Yet they are not only NOT African, but distant from Africans.
These mixed Dominicans are more "African" than those Adamanese will ever be.
Yet the Adamanese people are "blacker" in terms of phenotype.
This is why Swenet, Keita and other anthropologist refrain from using black in scientific discussions. This is the mess you run into. And from experience with arguments with laymen it's been a very frustrating time explaining to them how "black" Asians/pacific Islanders are distant from Africans.
Now I don't think the term black is completely irrelevant. The idea is separating historic discussions from scientific discussions.
History is different, because history is well just history.... Saying we shouldn't use "black" in a historical discussion is like saying we shouldn't use black when having a historical discussion about the Civil Rights or the Haitian revolution. History is just the study of past events and even what terms they used back then.
For example I don't not see a problem with arguing that the Ancient Egyptians were black in a historical discussion considering that Greek and Roman writers referred to them and the Nubians as black(though not a racial sense like modern times), but still black nonetheless.
Also using black in historical discussions involving the Moors is not only relevant, but very important considering the term "Moor" meant black.
My point is we should know when and when not to use "black" in discussions. Basically by separating historical discussions from scientific ones.
Again just my 2 cents.
"Black" in America in 2015 means
"looks like a West African"
So anytime soemone asks an academic "were the Egyptians black" that is the intent that should be assumed.
More honestly stated "did the Egyptians look like West Africans?"
If you feel that North East Africans should be included in "black" then the question should be "were the Egyptians African?"
You may feel that "black" includes any person in the world with dark skin. You may feel that the Ancient Greek or medieval Arab defintion was better. You might be right but that is not what the word means in contemporary American usage. In contemporary American usage black means "looks like a West African"
If the question was about skin the question would be "what color were the Egyptians? That is a fair and proper question, not a question where you suggest one of the answers in the question which is called a loaded question.
Everybody here agrees the vast majority of Africans are brown.
The word "brown" is the actual truthful color observation.
Therefore if you ask a professor what color were the Egyptians and they don't say "brown" then that is suggestive that they were not African,
The proper and fair question to aks somebody is "what color were the Egyptians?" and then deal with the answer
Posted by kdolo (Member # 21830) on :
1. Did the Ancient Egyptians look West African. ?
2. Where the Egyptians African ??
3. What color were the Egyptians ??
1. Yes 2. Yes 3. Black = Negro or Brown/Black = Negro
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by kdolo: [QB] 1. Did the Ancient Egyptians look West African. ?
This is two photos of the same sculpture of Huni. The top one is from a websiste that mislabeled it as Pharoah Sanakht. Regardless of name, one or the other, it's two photos of the same sculpture.
The nose is broken off so you can't tell if it was a long pointed nose or a flatter nose.
In the art some Ancient Egyptians looked similar to West Africans, like Amenhotep III, others didn't, so one can't generalize
Posted by kdolo (Member # 21830) on :
Bump.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: That it applied to dark skinned people is self-evident.
Your explanation doesn't explain why the term suddenly became narrow, even inside Africa in a certain sense. And how do you go from it applying to tropical Eurasia + Africa, to just Africa in a span of just a couple of centuries. Even Strabo apparently felt his contemporaries were out of touch, and he made no mention of demographic events that introduced significant changes.
quote:And if the moderns have confined the term of Ethiopians to those only who dwell near to Egypt, and have also restricted the Pygmies in like manner, this must not be allowed to interfere with the meaning of the ancients. We do not speak of all the people who fought against Troy as merely Achæans and Argives, though Homer describes the whole under those two names. Similar to this is my remark concerning the separation of the Ethiopians into two divisions, that under that designation we should understand the whole of the nations inhabiting the sea-board from east to west. The Ethiopians taken in this sense are naturally separated into two parts by the Arabian Gulf, which occupies a considerable portion of a meridian circle, [Note] and resembles a river, being in length nearly 15,000 stadia, [Note] and in breadth not above 1000 at the widest point.
--Strabo
^They're clearly still there in Arabia by his time (this is also attested by Josephus' comments on the Cushites in Arabia). Strabo also seems to think his contemporaries are being unreasonable for applying the term Aethiopia in a restricted sense.
Moreover, over time Greeks started implementing terms like "white-Aethiopian" and similar combined terms to populations in North Africa, presumably to describe populations that looked mixed to them. They could have done the same in Arabia if this shift happened due to assimilation of the indigenous Cushites. They never did.
Even known heroes who were perceived to be 'black' initially (e.g. Memnon) weren't considered 'black' anymore in later times by Greco-Romans. In biblical texts we see the same tribal names increasingly being confused (e.g. Cushite tribes were also placed in Jokshan's lineage). Sometimes it's completely unclear from the context whether Jokshan's lineage is referred to or Ham's lineage.
The Ptolemy piece I've reposted several times in this thread probably explains why. Pure Aethiopians were perceived to only include pitch-black people towards the interior of Africa. The darker the people who came to their attention, the more their goal post for "true Aethiopian" shifted to only include the darkest people known at the time. Greeks conquered Egypt later on, so more opportunities to interact with equatorial Africans arose. The lower Nubians who were "black" at first in Homer's time then suddenly became "moderately black" by comparison.
But I'm not out to change anyone's positions. I'll let people make up their own mind. Just don't try to act like I'm making this up as I go along or that it's a non-issue.
The only point I am making here is that the primary description of these people by the Greeks was based on skin color, which goes back to my point that people have been using the word black to describe Africans for thousands of years. Where else do you see the Greeks naming whole continents and seas based on the skin color of the population? Whether they changed how the term was specifically applied over time doesn't change the point. They still viewed most Africans as black in some way as the primary label based on skin color. White Ethiopian is still a label based on skin color. None of these terms are true national, ethnic or tribal identities used by the people themselves and nowhere else do you see whole maps of geography named based on the skin color of the population.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: And I agree 100% that certain people in academia like Egyptologist aren't qualified to speak on the origins of the Ancient Egyptians. Anthropologist have been much better in that area than Egyptologist who always get "lost" when discussing the origins of the Ancient Egyptians or their "race".
The descending order of the most the most blunders and flip flops is this:
1) Assyriologists and graduates of Middle Eastern studies (most resistant to Afro-Asiatic originating in Africa) 2) Egyptologists 3) Bioanthropologists 4) Bioanthropologists specialized in AE ethnic background
I don't know where Classicists fit on average, although I suspect it's the same as Egyptologists. #4 only rarely say that the AE were pale skinned whites, not even the hardened racists among them (this doesn't mean that they all consider AE fundamentally African). I think Brace fits somewhere in between #3 and #4 or maybe even #4. He has barely studied North African history, but he is already light years ahead of most who fit in #1, 2 and 3. See if you can get your hands on Brace et al 1993. It's not all bad.
Who are the folks in #3 and #4 and where do they specifically address the skin color of the AE. Last I checked most times they speak in terms of 'relationships' to other populations in terms of genetics or skeletal metrics. Rarely have I seen specific discussions of skin color at all.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: It's important to base our opinion on science and the current scientific researches.
quote:Originally posted by Nodnarb: Again, I for one would say Northeast Africans are popularly considered to be somewhat related to "Black people" in Africa; they're just assumed to be hybrid between "pure Blacks" as seen in West and Central Africa and Middle Easterners.
This is true to some degree.
*Modern* northeastern African populations are indeed hybrids in various degrees between Africans and Eurasians. But here's the catch: this apply to MODERN people living there. Ancient north-eastern Africans were not hybrids (at least not to the current level). According to science, the Eurasian admixtures in Northeast Africa (including Egypt, Somali, Ethiopia, etc) is recent. Most of it from the last 3000 years so this is much earlier than the foundation of Ancient Egypt or their origin in the green Sahara, Nabta Playa, Tasian, Badariand and Naqada culture. 3000 years ago is around 1000BC. The Ancient Egyptian state was founded around 4000BC.
Those latest studies come down to what everybody has been saying for years. Ancient Egyptians are not like the modern Egyptians in term of ethnicity. Modern Egyptians are made up of Ancient Egyptians, Kushites, Greeks, Romans, Muslim Arabs, Ottoman, Mamluk, Banu Hilal people. Ancient Egyptians were indigenous black Africans like the Kushite, Ashanti, Ghana/Wagadu, Zulu (etc) kingdoms. Modern Egyptians are made of many people including Eurasians (mostly muslim Arabs).
Hybrids how? Who are you including in this definition of Hybrids? You posted a picture of Ethiopia as if to imply they are hybrids. Hybrids of what? Ethiopian populations are far older than any population outside Africa how are they hybrids and technically they aren't even North East African they are simply East African and share features in common with other East Africans like Kenyans.
The reason I am saying this is because certain folks have been claiming that the features of Ethiopians and Somalis are based on mixture which is blatantly false. Also I don't like the way the image implies that African populations stayed static since 65000 years ago. That isn't true either. The arrows between Africa and the rest of the world have been bi directional since 65000 years ago and never stopped. Also we should be careful about this idea of "Eurasian" DNA in the Khoisan. What about all the other populations between the Khoisan and East Africa? How did they somehow get skipped over? And how did these genes of so-called Eurasian genes get so widespread in Africa from just a few people? It makes it sound like there was this massive wave of Eurasian movement into North East Africa when there is no evidence for it. I believe a lot of this is mislabeling African DNA as Eurasian as convenience suits the agenda.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Last I checked most times they speak in terms of 'relationships' to other populations in terms of genetics or skeletal metrics. Rarely have I seen specific discussions of skin color at all.
When was the last time you checked? And what exactly did you check? What was the last paper you read on this, and what did it say? And give a serious answer please. It seems to me that you prefer making general statements to stay on the safe side and appeal to staunch misconceptions people here already may have. As soon as I asked you to elaborate who the specialists are who think that the AE were pale, you didn't answer several times.
But, to answer your question:
quote:As many have noted, there is a gradient of skin color in the Nile valley from north to south. Pigmentation becomes more intense upstream as one goes south into Nubia and toward the equator (Bernal, 1987,1989; Prichard, 1851; Seligman, 1957; Trigger, 1978; Yurco, 1989), as was recognized in the descriptions and portrayals of ancient Egypt (James, 1988; Vercoutter, 1976). The standard explanation has attributed this to a mixing of “black’ equatorial African elements into the lighter Mediterranean population of the Nile delta in the north (Mokhtar and Vercoutter, 1981; Morton, 1844; Smith and Derry, 1910; Snowden, 1989; Yurco, 1989). The “Egypt-as-a-zone-of-mixture” hypothesis, however, [b]assumes the prior existence of discrete parent populations of different appearance-in this case, a lightskinned one in the north and a dark-skinned one in the south (Batrawi, 1935; Burnor and Harris, 1968; Lawrence, 1819; Morant, 1925, 1935; Morton, 1844; Smith, 1909; Strouhal, 1971). Whether that hypothetical southern dark-skinned population is called “Ethiopian” (Blumenbach, 1794; Prichard, 1851; Snowden, 1970, 1976, 1983, 19891, “negre” (Diop, 1955, 19811, “Bantu,” “Black,” “Kaffir,” “Negro,” or whatever, the universal assumption is that the increase in skin pigmentation is accompanied by everted lips, low-bridged noses, projecting jaws and teeth, attenuated lower legs, and a variety of other physical attributes. All recent assessments of ancient Egyptian art invariably focus on the portrayal of this configuration (Breasted, 1909; Diop, 1955; James, 1988; Van Sertima, 1985; Vercoutter, 1976). Whatever name is used, the underlying mind-set is the same, and it is the old-fashioned typological essentialism of the “race” concept.
--Brace et al 1993
quote:In this regard, it is interesting to note that the limb proportions of the Predynastic Naqada people in Upper Egypt are reported to be “super-negroid,” meaning that the distal segments are elongated in the fashion of tropical Africans (Robins and Shute, 1986). It would be just as accurate to call them “super-Veddoid or “super- Carpentarian” since skin color intensification and distal limb elongation is apparent wherever people have been long-term residents of the tropics. The term “supertropical” would be better since it implies the results of selection associated with a given latitude rather than the more “racially loaded” term “negroid.”
--Brace et al 1993
quote:From the observation that 12,000 years was not a long enough period of time to produce any noticeable variation in pigment by latitude in the New World and that 50,000 years has been barely long enough to produce the beginnings of a gradation in Australia (Brace, 1993a1, one would have to argue that the inhabitants of the Upper Nile and the East Horn of Africa have been equatorial for many tens of thousands of years.
--Brace et al 1993
quote:Finally, skin color in such places as southern India, Melanesia, and the northern part of Australia is every bit as dark as it is in “darkest Africa,” and yet the time depth of the separation of those various “black" populations may well be greater than the time of the divergence of the ancestors of Europeans from African forebears.
--Brace et al 1993
^Brace et al explicitly and implicitly acknowledge the past use of 'black' in the al Jahiz sense (i.e. a range brown skin pigmentations), regardless of whether they themselves subscribe to this tradition of 'black'. Brace et al also acknowledge that there is a different use of 'black', i.e. the Unites States' tradition:
quote:Others have taken the symbolic import of the words “Black Athena” and the designation of Egyptian civilization as “African” to mean that the ancient Egyptians must have looked like West Africans and their modern “black” descendants in America and elsewhere (Associated Press, 1989; Barringer, 1990). Our data and treatment obviously have a bearing on these matters, and we use them here to take issue with the provocative implications in Bernal’s title.
--Brace et al 1993
quote:The use of a characterization of a single trait that is under selective force control to generalize about any particular human population can only create confusion. This then will be the inevitable consequence of the use of a description of skin color to say anything about the general nature of human biological variation. The use of the designation “black” in America today to specify a person of African ancestry is the most flagrant example.
--Brace et al 1993
I fail to see what's so spectacular about this. That racist and non-racist specialists and racialists have often said or implied that the ancient Egyptian skin color would have been in the range of African American skin pigmentation is ancient news.
Do you acknowledge that there is a completely different tradition of 'black' in both sets of Brace et al 1993 quotes I just posted? Do you acknowledge that bio-anthropologists are generally going to be reluctant to apply 'black' in the latter sense to certain African populations, but may agree that such populations were in the pigmentation range of African Americans?
If you disagree with this then evidence to the contrary would be welcome.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Last I checked most times they speak in terms of 'relationships' to other populations in terms of genetics or skeletal metrics. Rarely have I seen specific discussions of skin color at all.
When was the last time you checked? And what exactly did you check? What was the last paper you read on this, and what did it say? And give a serious answer please. It seems to me that you prefer making general statements to stay on the safe side and appeal to staunch misconceptions people here already may have. As soon as I asked you to elaborate who the specialists are who think that the AE were pale, you didn't answer several times.
But, to answer your question:
quote:As many have noted, there is a gradient of skin color in the Nile valley from north to south. Pigmentation becomes more intense upstream as one goes south into Nubia and toward the equator (Bernal, 1987,1989; Prichard, 1851; Seligman, 1957; Trigger, 1978; Yurco, 1989), as was recognized in the descriptions and portrayals of ancient Egypt (James, 1988; Vercoutter, 1976). The standard explanation has attributed this to a mixing of “black’ equatorial African elements into the lighter Mediterranean population of the Nile delta in the north (Mokhtar and Vercoutter, 1981; Morton, 1844; Smith and Derry, 1910; Snowden, 1989; Yurco, 1989). The “Egypt-as-a-zone-of-mixture” hypothesis, however, [b]assumes the prior existence of discrete parent populations of different appearance-in this case, a lightskinned one in the north and a dark-skinned one in the south (Batrawi, 1935; Burnor and Harris, 1968; Lawrence, 1819; Morant, 1925, 1935; Morton, 1844; Smith, 1909; Strouhal, 1971). Whether that hypothetical southern dark-skinned population is called “Ethiopian” (Blumenbach, 1794; Prichard, 1851; Snowden, 1970, 1976, 1983, 19891, “negre” (Diop, 1955, 19811, “Bantu,” “Black,” “Kaffir,” “Negro,” or whatever, the universal assumption is that the increase in skin pigmentation is accompanied by everted lips, low-bridged noses, projecting jaws and teeth, attenuated lower legs, and a variety of other physical attributes. All recent assessments of ancient Egyptian art invariably focus on the portrayal of this configuration (Breasted, 1909; Diop, 1955; James, 1988; Van Sertima, 1985; Vercoutter, 1976). Whatever name is used, the underlying mind-set is the same, and it is the old-fashioned typological essentialism of the “race” concept.
--Brace et al 1993
quote:In this regard, it is interesting to note that the limb proportions of the Predynastic Naqada people in Upper Egypt are reported to be “super-negroid,” meaning that the distal segments are elongated in the fashion of tropical Africans (Robins and Shute, 1986). It would be just as accurate to call them “super-Veddoid or “super- Carpentarian” since skin color intensification and distal limb elongation is apparent wherever people have been long-term residents of the tropics. The term “supertropical” would be better since it implies the results of selection associated with a given latitude rather than the more “racially loaded” term “negroid.”
--Brace et al 1993
quote:From the observation that 12,000 years was not a long enough period of time to produce any noticeable variation in pigment by latitude in the New World and that 50,000 years has been barely long enough to produce the beginnings of a gradation in Australia (Brace, 1993a1, one would have to argue that the inhabitants of the Upper Nile and the East Horn of Africa have been equatorial for many tens of thousands of years.
--Brace et al 1993
quote:Finally, skin color in such places as southern India, Melanesia, and the northern part of Australia is every bit as dark as it is in “darkest Africa,” and yet the time depth of the separation of those various “black" populations may well be greater than the time of the divergence of the ancestors of Europeans from African forebears.
--Brace et al 1993
^Brace et al explicitly and implicitly acknowledge the past use of 'black' in the al Jahiz sense (i.e. a range brown skin pigmentations), regardless of whether they themselves subscribe to this tradition of 'black'. Brace et al also acknowledge that there is a different use of 'black', i.e. the Unites States' tradition:
quote:Others have taken the symbolic import of the words “Black Athena” and the designation of Egyptian civilization as “African” to mean that the ancient Egyptians must have looked like West Africans and their modern “black” descendants in America and elsewhere (Associated Press, 1989; Barringer, 1990). Our data and treatment obviously have a bearing on these matters, and we use them here to take issue with the provocative implications in Bernal’s title.
--Brace et al 1993
quote:The use of a characterization of a single trait that is under selective force control to generalize about any particular human population can only create confusion. This then will be the inevitable consequence of the use of a description of skin color to say anything about the general nature of human biological variation. The use of the designation “black” in America today to specify a person of African ancestry is the most flagrant example.
--Brace et al 1993
I fail to see what's so spectacular about this. That racist and non-racist specialists and racialists have often said or implied that the ancient Egyptian skin color would have been in the range of African American skin pigmentation is ancient news.
Do you acknowledge that there is a completely different tradition of 'black' in both sets of Brace et al 1993 quotes I just posted? Do you acknowledge that bio-anthropologists are generally going to be reluctant to apply 'black' in the latter sense to certain African populations, but may agree that such populations were in the pigmentation range of African Americans?
If you disagree with this then evidence to the contrary would be welcome.
And so Brace is the reason why we shouldn't use the term black now? These quotes from the same person reveal a very contradictory and convoluted concept of blackness as I have already pointed out before. If blackness is skin color, why is it associated with lip shape or nose shape? The definition of blackness holds no such association, compared to the term "negroid" which is much more of a true 'racial' category than black is. Black is simply an adjective describing skin color. Also, 'darkest Africa' again reflects the fact that for thousands of years people have referred to the skin color of Africans as their primary descriptor of the geography and people as opposed to actual tribal and ethnic names. The Greeks started to distinguish between different types of Africans but that isn't a 'different tradition' because as your own map shows they still considered most of Africa as the land of the 'burnt face people'. Nowhere in there is there any 'different tradition' and that parallels 'darkest Africa' again no real 'change'. Those distinctions between lighter skinned Africans on the Northern coast is not a different tradition at all. That really only confirms what I said not distracts from it.
At the end of the day I see nothing here other than the standard double talk that most European scientists go through, trying to create fake distinctions where there are none. When I say black I mean black skin as an adjective describing physical skin complexion, nothing else. That is the same meaning in the United States, the same meaning in Europe and the same meaning in ancient times. Those folks claiming that it only means West African slave folks in America only need to be shown the ancient Greek maps of "Aethiopia" to be proven wrong, or "darkest Africa" representing the fact that ALL Africans have been associated with black skin since ancient times not just West Africans and this need to create artificial boundaries about who and what is black in Africa is simply Europeans and their typical nonsense.
And because of that nonsense I see no reason to change the language because of it. I would rather point out the holes in their logic and hypocrisy by sticking to the point.
The last quote by Brace being the most explicit example of what I am saying.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
Well I for one have always maintained the obvious FACT that there never was a clear division between 'black' and 'white' as there is a range of intermediate i.e. "brown" complexions in between. Hence peoples who identify or are identified in the West as neither black nor white but 'brown'.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
A subset of dynastic Egyptian samples squeezed in between Abyssinians and Cretans, Etruscans and Sardinians and showing considerable ties with the biblical inhabitants of the Judaean city of Lachish. No competent western, middle eastern or oriental academic who has seriously looked into this is going to use the term "black" (in a racial sense) when applied to dynastic Egyptians (although they might do it in a pigmentation sense, by saying they would have been dark brown). And in the occasion they do use 'black' in a racial sense (usually when they speak in an informal context), they're likely to say that they think that the ancient Egyptians were half black/half non-black based on their position in cranio-facial analysis.
This is the obvious peril/risk you run when you engage opponents trying to repurpose and reinvigorate old prejudiced terms (i.e. "black" as applied in the west) as opposed to focusing on the real issue, i.e., the question whether they were indigenous Africans or not. Of course, someone's position in multivariate space is going to determine how lay people perceive their "race", so the "forget science, I'm just focusing on what lay people would say" escape, is a deliberately deceptive fallacy. Craniofacial analysis uses measurements that the lay public intuitively uses when assigning race.
Swenet, recall the various past threads on the Lachish crania. Remember when they were first examined how they were thought to be a "colony of Egypto-Nubians". Also, recall Tukuler's posts about how Greco-Roman authors described some Judaeans as being 'black' in appearance as well as the fact that Israelite authors described their Canaanite predecessors especially in the south as 'black' and related to Africans and that many tribes in the Negev were called black by Israelites as noted by Biblical historian David Goldenberg, and as Dana pointed out some still are to this day!
This is why I ask if the Lachish finds actually present a problem or obstacle at all instead of a fortune or opportunity at showing that the 'black' phenotype is not limited to the African continent but obviously entered right next door to Southwest Asia.
Note this whole issue of back-migrations into the Horn from southern Arabia, yet proponents like Lioness and others NEVER talk about how those indigenous Arabians look like.
Forget the Andamanese from the other side of the globe, there are black 'Asians' right next to Africa. As Tukuler said, there was NEVER some disconnect or discontinuation of black populations from Africa to Asia with blacks in Asia only occurring in India!
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
@Djehuti
Good that you're commenting here. Maybe you can prove a better answer. See if you can answer the following question.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The Greeks started to distinguish between different types of Africans but that isn't a 'different tradition' because as your own map shows they still considered most of Africa as the land of the 'burnt face people'.
The fact that you see "Aethiopia" plastered all across the width of those maps simply reflects the 'racial' views of early Greek authors (in this case, Homer) who thought Aethiopians lived there.
In other words, maps reconstructed from later Greek texts from Strabo's time would generally look different in this regard, with 'Aethiopia' confined to Africa. Strabo explicitly says that many of his contemporaries restrict 'Aethiopia' to those who dwell south of the Egyptian border.
quote: And so Brace is the reason why we shouldn't use the term black now?
If you claim that it's Brace et al who subscribe to this racial use of 'black', prove it. Brace et al simply acknowledged that 1) such racial use exists, 2) that this is how many westerners interpreted Bernal's "Black Athena" title. This doesn't mean that Brace et al racialize 'black', themselves. Not sure if that's what you're saying, but if you claim they do, you'll have to specify where.
In the quotes I posted, you can clearly see that Brace et al tried to deracialize skin pigmentation (as well as tropically adapted limb ratios), not racialize them like the US use of 'black'.
But you seem to deny that the US generally uses 'black' in a racial way (i.e. including only certain Africans), so you're not going to see eye to eye with what I'm saying.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The Greeks started to distinguish between different types of Africans but that isn't a 'different tradition' because as your own map shows they still considered most of Africa as the land of the 'burnt face people'.
The fact that you see "Aethiopia" plastered all across the width of those maps simply reflects the 'racial' views of early Greek authors (in this case, Homer) who thought Aethiopians lived there.
In other words, maps reconstructed from later Greek texts from Strabo's time would generally look different in this regard, with 'Aethiopia' confined to Africa. Strabo explicitly says that many of his contemporaries restrict 'Aethiopia' to those who dwell south of the Egyptian border.
quote: And so Brace is the reason why we shouldn't use the term black now?
If you claim that it's Brace et al who subscribe to this racial use of 'black', prove it. Brace et al simply acknowledged that 1) such racial use exists, 2) that this is how many westerners interpreted Bernal's "Black Athena" title. This doesn't mean that Brace et al racialize 'black', themselves. Not sure if that's what you're saying, but if you claim they do, you'll have to specify where.
In the quotes I posted, you can clearly see that Brace et al tried to deracialize skin pigmentation (as well as tropically adapted limb ratios), not racialize them like the US use of 'black'.
But you seem to deny that the US generally uses 'black' in a racial way (i.e. including only certain Africans), so you're not going to see eye to eye with what I'm saying.
I am talking about the last quote from Brace questioning the use of "black" in reference to Egypt.
quote: Others have taken the symbolic import of the words “Black Athena” and the designation of Egyptian civilization as “African” to mean that the ancient Egyptians must have looked like West Africans and their modern “black” descendants in America and elsewhere (Associated Press, 1989; Barringer, 1990). Our data and treatment obviously have a bearing on these matters, and we use them here to take issue with the provocative implications in Bernal’s title.
Is he defending the term or not? Sounds like he is saying that only West Africans can be black in Africa.
"black" is a color. It is an adjective used to describe the color of something. "Black person" is not a "racial" term unless you believe that people with black skin are a separate species from everyone else. Black is no more racial than tall or short as adjectives describing the height of a person. And in fact, "black Person" used anywhere English is spoken has been used to refer to Africans with dark skin as the dictionary states. That is simply strawman logic that Europeans use to try and claim that "black" doesn't apply to Africans, yet most foreigners have been observing and describing most Africans as "black" for thousands of years. Hence all of Africa below Egypt at a point most likely after Egypt had been colonized by Greece which would mean many Egyptians at the time likely were not black.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
.
The only way matters like these can be resolved is if photographed examples of actual people are used
If this man is black then the Egyptians were black
Is Barack Obama black?
Yes or No?
.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ More idiocy. Obama's mother is white so he has a very light complexion. Complexion wise NO he is not 'black' but socially he is called black because of his ancestry through his father.
Ancient Egyptians on the other hand did NOT have a light complexion like Obama as was proven by the melanin study tests. So get over it! Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Complexion wise NO he is not 'black'
How do you know?
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^^ Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Complexion wise NO he(Barack Obama) is not 'black'
And you assume black people agree with you?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
The only way matters like these can be resolved is if photographed examples of actual people are used
If this man is black then the Egyptians were black
Is Barack Obama black?
Yes or No?
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Complexion wise NO he is not 'black'
This topic is "When to use black and when not to". You can put up childish pictures of women with guns to their heads as a diversion or you can deal with real world examples that are pertinant to the topic
.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Complexion wise NO he(Barack Obama) is not 'black'
And you assume black people agree with you?
It's not a matter of what "black people" think. We are talking about color labels used as objectively as possible in scientific usage. And you aren't black anyway, oh dishonest one.
And lightened up pictures of L.L. Cooljay won't help your argument either! LMAO
So you might as well...
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
This question is for black people only.
Barack Obama and LL Cool J are of very similar complexion.
Are they both black?
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: "black" is a color. It is an adjective used to describe the color of something. "Black person" is not a "racial" term unless you believe that people with black skin are a separate species from everyone else.
Sure, it refers to skin pigmentation in some quarters, and the argument can be made that the term should only be used to refer to skin pigmentation. But in the real world we see this doesn't always happen.
When I look at various dictionaries, I see BOTH the al Jahiz/early Greek use of the term (inclusive) and the late Greek use of the term (restrictive).
"Black 3. (sometimes initial capital letter) a.pertaining or belonging to any of the various populations characterized by dark skin pigmentation, specifically the dark-skinned peoples of Africa, Oceania, and Australia. b.African American." http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/black
Late Greek/modern US:
"Black, designating Americans of African heritage, became the most widely used and accepted term in the 1960s and 1970s, replacing Negro. It is not usually capitalized: black Americans. Through the 1980s, the more formal African American replaced black in much usage, but both are now generally acceptable." http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/black
"Black 3. (sometimes initial capital letter) a.pertaining or belonging to any of the various populations characterized by dark skin pigmentation, specifically the dark-skinned peoples of Africa, Oceania, and Australia. b.African American." http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/black
"Usage note 3, 21. Black, colored, and Negro —words that describe or name the dark-skinned peoples of sub-Saharan Africa and their descendants—have had a complex social history in the United States." http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/black
"Black person - a person with dark skin who comes from Africa (or whose ancestors came from Africa)" http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Black+person Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
"Black 3. (sometimes initial capital letter) a.pertaining or belonging to any of the various populations characterized by dark skin pigmentation, specifically the dark-skinned peoples of Africa, Oceania, and Australia. b.African American." http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/black
Late Greek/modern US:
"Black, designating Americans of African heritage, became the most widely used and accepted term in the 1960s and 1970s, replacing Negro. It is not usually capitalized: black Americans. Through the 1980s, the more formal African American replaced black in much usage, but both are now generally acceptable." http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/black
"Black 3. (sometimes initial capital letter) a.pertaining or belonging to any of the various populations characterized by dark skin pigmentation, specifically the dark-skinned peoples of Africa, Oceania, and Australia. b.African American." http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/black
"Usage note 3, 21. Black, colored, and Negro —words that describe or name the dark-skinned peoples of sub-Saharan Africa and their descendants—have had a complex social history in the United States." http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/black
take any of the above definitions. If Barack Obama and LL Cool J are not dark skinned they are not black.
According to Doug a black person is any person with a dark skin color
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: "black" is a color. It is an adjective used to describe the color of something. "Black person" is not a "racial" term unless you believe that people with black skin are a separate species from everyone else.
Sure, it refers to skin pigmentation in some quarters, and the argument can be made that the term should only be used to refer to skin pigmentation. But in the real world we see this doesn't always happen.
When I look at various dictionaries, I see BOTH the al Jahiz/early Greek use of the term (inclusive) and the late Greek use of the term (restrictive).
"Black 3. (sometimes initial capital letter) a.pertaining or belonging to any of the various populations characterized by dark skin pigmentation, specifically the dark-skinned peoples of Africa, Oceania, and Australia. b.African American." http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/black
Late Greek/modern US:
"Black, designating Americans of African heritage, became the most widely used and accepted term in the 1960s and 1970s, replacing Negro. It is not usually capitalized: black Americans. Through the 1980s, the more formal African American replaced black in much usage, but both are now generally acceptable." http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/black
"Black 3. (sometimes initial capital letter) a.pertaining or belonging to any of the various populations characterized by dark skin pigmentation, specifically the dark-skinned peoples of Africa, Oceania, and Australia. b.African American." http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/black
"Usage note 3, 21. Black, colored, and Negro —words that describe or name the dark-skinned peoples of sub-Saharan Africa and their descendants—have had a complex social history in the United States." http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/black
All of those are referring to skin the skin color of populations in Africa in elsewhere. What 'distinctions' are you referring to? They all have skin color as part of the core definition.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
^^^ Notice how in each definition Indian people are left out
That shows you that the definition of black is not color alone, it's more narrow than that.
That means if they are skipping over India that there most be traits more common in Africa, Oceania and Australia that are implied in addition to skin
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: They all have skin color as part of the core definition.
Therefore if one does not have the other part that is not skin color, one is not black, according to these definitions
Case in point the U.S. census:
^^ If you are a dark skinned Indian you can check "Asian Indian" and if you feel like it you can also check "black" but you don't have to be black if you don't want to.
However if you are of African descent you could be lighter skinned than this Indian man but you have no other option than to check the black box.
That shows "black" is more than just skin color
So if you want it to mean just skin color, that's just what you personally want, It's not what most of society thinks
Notice how East Asians and others are not assigned a color, just Europeans and Africans
.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
^Right.
quote: Originally posted by Doug M: All of those are referring to skin the skin color of populations in Africa in elsewhere.
Half of those entries restrict 'black' to Sub-Saharan Africa, which shows that that use (the default US use of the term) is racialized and restrictive. Not that I haven't already said that a 1000 times.
quote:What 'distinctions' are you referring to? They all have skin color as part of the core definition.
The distinction I'm referring to is that half of the dictionary entries describe a use of 'black' that ignores a large segment of the historical and modern day brown skinned people in Africa and Asia. Even if these people fall in the pigmentation range of African Americans.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ^Right.
quote: Originally posted by Doug M: All of those are referring to skin the skin color of populations in Africa in elsewhere.
Half of those entries restrict 'black' to Sub-Saharan Africa, which shows that that use (the default US use of the term) is racialized and restrictive. Not that I haven't already said that a 1000 times.
quote:What 'distinctions' are you referring to? They all have skin color as part of the core definition.
The distinction I'm referring to is that half of the dictionary entries describe a use of 'black' that ignores a large segment of the historical and modern day brown skinned people in Africa and Asia. Even if these people fall in the pigmentation range of African Americans.
Only one of those definitions includes"Sub Saharan" Africa as a specific region in Africa. All the rest just say Africa. So as far as Africa is concerned I don't see any distinction and Al Jahiz makes no distinction in your quote either.... And they all say "any population with dark skin" but then specify certain places where black skin is the most common. That doesn't really make a distinction as you imply it does.
It doesn't say black only applies to certain people within Africa or elsewhere.
And all of these definitions explicitly say it is based on skin color. There is nothing inherently "racial" in it. It is largely still an adjective to describe skin color and a noun when used in reference to said population with that skin color.
I have been been encountering folks making the argument that the word black is "racial" since long before I even came to this forum and it is always a strawman argument from white folks trying to claim that it is an "American racial" term, totally ignoring that the English language has had this term going back many years before such racism even existed. And really it just shows the hypocrisy of those who use it because if Africans in America are black because of their skin color which comes from Africa then of course that means that this skin color is a common trait in Africa. Right? Of course. And that is the general historical pattern of usage for the term as a reference to the fact that the majority of Africans have always been 'black people'.
The point here being that they want black people to feel guilty for something that they didn't create or benefit from just for using words. So they make this nonsense argument that saying black means you are being racist when it is only an adjective meaning skin color. Period. But heres the trick, to turn the tables, find out why skin color is not the only measure of what makes black black and you will see the old racial paradigms at work. So I say black and I only mean skin color and I am explicit on it. No association to culture, language, eye shape, lip shape, ethnicity or anything else. Yet the folks arguing that the term is "racial" are the ones holding the "racial" views that there is more to it than skin color and it implies some sort of 'social status' or unique ethnic, cultural and language identity when it does not. So they are using reverse psychology to make you feel bad for their racial views based on skin color when you use the word. I don't play that game. Their racial views are the issue, not my use of words that have been around for a very long time. It is like saying white people can only be of European heritage, when you have White Asians who are not of European heritage, not to mention Mike's favorite: albinos.
"Black 3. (sometimes initial capital letter) a.pertaining or belonging to any of the various populations characterized by dark skin pigmentation, specifically the dark-skinned peoples of Africa, Oceania, and Australia. b.African American." http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/black
Late Greek/modern US:
"Black, designating Americans of African heritage, became the most widely used and accepted term in the 1960s and 1970s, replacing Negro. It is not usually capitalized: black Americans. Through the 1980s, the more formal African American replaced black in much usage, but both are now generally acceptable." http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/black
"Black 3. (sometimes initial capital letter) a.pertaining or belonging to any of the various populations characterized by dark skin pigmentation, specifically the dark-skinned peoples of Africa, Oceania, and Australia. b.African American." http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/black
"Usage note 3, 21. Black, colored, and Negro —words that describe or name the dark-skinned peoples of sub-Saharan Africa and their descendants—have had a complex social history in the United States." http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/black
Swenet ther is no need to go on endlessly wih Doug.
Doug would say the above person is black, so fine, as long as a person first states their defintion of black anytime they use the term it's all good
So Doug in regard to the Egyptians could make this statement:
" A black person is any person in the world with dark skin. Most of the ancient Egyptians, for example, were black"
^^ Now we have a clear statement, as long as the person first indicates the definition they are using
______________________________
Similarly another person like Clyde and millions Americans who believe in race could make the following statement:
"The race of the Egyptians was black"
If they just say "The Egyptians were black" it does not tell you which definition they are using so they must do that for the statement to be acceptable.
So if somebody said to Doug "The Egyptians were black" that could mean they were native to any part of the world where people who have dark skin. Only if they said "They were black Africans" would the statement mean they were African.
Yet of somebody said "The Egyptians were black" to Clyde and many Americans he would say that is not only skin but is a racial type which is also defined by skelatal proportions and other traits in addition to skin
Thereforre the statement is only clear when soembody first indicates their definition. In Doug's case clealrly it's " anybody in the world with drak skin"
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
^Read Doug's post. It seems to me that Doug would reject your summation and tell you that even the narrow use of 'black' in the West is not racial, but skin color based.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Only one of those definitions includes "Sub Saharan" Africa as a specific region in Africa.
Of the last four entries I cited, two of them equate 'black' with African Americans and one equates 'black' with Sub-Saharan Africans. Of these three, two also treat 'black' as a synonym of 'negro'. I think most observers would agree that all three entries say essentially the same thing. The forth one is less clear, but also restricts 'black' to Africa (leaving out dark skinned Asians who are in the African American pigmentation range).
quote:And they all say "any population with dark skin" but then specify certain places where black skin is the most common.
Interesting attempt at sleight of hand. No offense, but I seriously think you're in denial. I really do. This is what the rest of the world knows about how people in the Unites States apply 'black' by default:
quote:In a number of countries, societal variables affect classification as much as skin color, and the social criteria for "blackness" vary. For example, in North America the term black people is not necessarily an indicator of skin color or ethnic origin but is instead a socially based racial classification related to being African American, with a family history associated with institutionalized slavery. In South Africa and Latin America, mixed-race people are generally not considered "black", and in other regions, such as Australia and Melanesia, the term "black" has been applied to and/or used by populations with different histories and ancestral backgrounds.
It speaks for itself that this default US tradition of 'black' excludes many dark skinned people in Africa. It speaks for itself that this US tradition is more racial or at least also includes racial connotations (i.e. it excludes other 'black races' and zeros in only one 'black race'). It also speaks for itself that this US tradition is completely different from other traditions of 'black' in other countries (see the wiki citation above).
I'll let people decide for themselves, if they haven't already.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ^Read Doug's post. It seems to me that Doug would reject your summation and tell you that even the narrow use of 'black' in the West is not racial, but skin color based.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Only one of those definitions includes "Sub Saharan" Africa as a specific region in Africa.
Of the last four entries I cited, two of them equate 'black' with African Americans and one equates 'black' with Sub-Saharan Africans. Of these three, two also treat 'black' as a synonym of 'negro'. I think most observers would agree that all three entries say essentially the same thing. The forth one is less clear, but also restricts 'black' to Africa (leaving out dark skinned Asians who are in the African American pigmentation range).
quote:And they all say "any population with dark skin" but then specify certain places where black skin is the most common.
Interesting attempt at sleight of hand. No offense, but I seriously think you're in denial. I really do. This is what the rest of the world knows about how people in the Unites States apply 'black' by default:
quote:In a number of countries, societal variables affect classification as much as skin color, and the social criteria for "blackness" vary. For example, in North America the term black people is not necessarily an indicator of skin color or ethnic origin but is instead a socially based racial classification related to being African American, with a family history associated with institutionalized slavery. In South Africa and Latin America, mixed-race people are generally not considered "black", and in other regions, such as Australia and Melanesia, the term "black" has been applied to and/or used by populations with different histories and ancestral backgrounds.
It speaks for itself that this default US tradition of 'black' excludes many dark skinned people in Africa. It speaks for itself that this US tradition is more racial or at least also includes racial connotations (i.e. it excludes other 'black races' and zeros in only one 'black race'). It also speaks for itself that this US tradition is completely different from other traditions of 'black' in other countries (see the wiki citation above).
I'll let people decide for themselves, if they haven't already.
Swenet you are going out on a limb and this is what I have been saying all along. Racism in America is based on skin color. BUT skin color in Africa and everywhere does not exist because of racism. That is backwards. The distribution and presence of black skin in Africa has absolutely NOTHING to do with American racism. American racists did not seed certain parts of Africa with different complexions of people.
You provided the dictionary defintions of the word black to support your argument that "American racism" has different views of 'who is black'. Yet those definitions had no such distinction. Yet here you are posting an article from wikipedia, something that isn't even 20 years old as if that is even relevant to how the word 'black' was used in the English language for the last 1000 years.
However, I believe the problem here is you are confusing the word "Negro" with "Black" as used in America to refer to African slaves. Negro is a term that was used during slavery and after to indicate Africans as being an inferior "species" of human. This is the term used by folks like Blumenbach and others in their definition of "races". And as a result "Negro" which is nothing more than the Spanish version of "Black", became associated with "Negroid" which was a very specific racial category created by the racists to prove the biological inferiority of West Africans and other Africans based on not only skin color but other features including lip shape, nose shape and head measurements.
That term Negro was also used by African Americans as a self reference for most of the 18th, 19th and 20th century for example the NAACP and UNIA used the term, but in the 1960s, the term was deemed offensive and the term "black" became preferred, as in the "black power" movement and black panthers. To this day in slang calling someone a Negro is considered as a term of derision indicating someone who is slow, coonish or buffoonish (and this is from other black folks). Black is simply a reference to skin color, more closely linked to the dictionary term and definitely not connected to the word Negro with all its negative pseudo scientific "racial" baggage.
Big difference.
However, I think the issue here is that many whites and others still see the word black as synonymous with the old racial term "Negro" and "Negroid" and therefore infer that they are interchangeable. But in reality they are not, except that as far as THEY are concerned, "black" people in America are "Negroes" who still associated with the racial term "Negroids" and therefore still biologically an inferior species. But that in itself just shows how they still believe in the racial classifications and justifications for oppression and slavery that they supposedly did away with years ago. And that is precisely my point, while many of these folks may claim they no longer believe in "race", their usage and definition of the term is still based on the racial schemes created by Blumenbach and others. But again, the problem is their racism not the word black itself, which is why changing the word you use wont change the racism.
Similarly, in Latin America, as I said before, they have multiple 'castes' based on skin color and mixture between Africans, Spanish/Portuguese and Native Folks. That is a caste system based on skin color and biological parentage and yes it is much more complex than what is found in English speaking colonies. And within this system only the purest blood Africans are called "Negro" meaning black, (again... referring to or implying the fact that most Africans are "black/negro" in color). Any other mixture is called something else. However, this is a reference to populations within the colonies in America not necessarily a "universal" description of who and what is "black" around the world.
As everyone should know by now black as a pejorative term for Africans is far older than Blumenbach, Spanish and English racists and even within those schemes created by those folks it still all comes down to skin color. They just tried to create "scientific" sub categories of black where, the lighter complexion, the closer you are to white which of course in their system is "superior". This is not withstanding the fact that biologically "white skin" is the youngest of all skin complexions on the planet. But still even with all of that when I say black I mean black not watered down sorta kinda, I mean as black as any black person anywhere else in Africa or an average shade across all African populations and in the case of Egypt as black as some of the blackest Sudanese in many (not all) cases. And this removes any ambiguity and doubt about what I mean.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote: Originally posted by Doug M: Racism in America is based on skin color. BUT skin color in Africa and everywhere does not exist because of racism. That is backwards. The distribution and presence of black skin in Africa has absolutely NOTHING to do with American racism. American racists did not seed certain parts of Africa with different complexions of people.
^Can you clarify this? I'm not sure what you mean with this.
quote:You provided the dictionary defintions of the word black to support your argument that "American racism" has different views of 'who is black'.
The dictionary entries were posted to counter your claim that, globally speaking, there is only one correct and universally accepted use of 'black'. You claimed that even people in North America subscribe to this universally accepted use. The dictionary entries I posted falsify this. Of the narrow uses of 'black', two of the four dictionary entries equate 'black' with 'negro', one equates 'black' with 'Sub-Saharan African' and one equates 'black' with dark skinned groups in Africa (but not Asia). This is how people in North America primarily understand 'black' in every day conversation.
quote:However, I believe the problem here is you are confusing the word "Negro" with "Black" as used in America to refer to African slaves.
Don't even go there. That is what the dictionary entry said (i.e., the evolution of socially accepted ethnonyms for African Americans). You're in denial that the dictionary said this, so you project their description of US sentiments onto me, so you can then dismiss it as a fringe opinion.
You did the same to Brace et al, but, as I've already stated several times, they reject the usefulness of grouping based on skin color. Despite rejecting this, they acknowledge that such a paraphyletic grouping would include all dark skinned people (including in Asia), not just certain Africans:
quote:"The use of a characterization of a single trait that is under selective force control to generalize about any particular human population can only create confusion. This then will be the inevitable consequence of the use of a description of skin color to say anything about the general nature of human biological variation. The use of the designation “black” in America today to specify a person of African ancestry is the most flagrant example."
Brace et al 1993
quote:Finally, skin color in such places as southern India, Melanesia, and the northern part of Australia is every bit as dark as it is in “darkest Africa,” and yet the time depth of the separation of those various “black" populations may well be greater than the time of the divergence of the ancestors of Europeans from African forebears.
Brace et al 1993
quote:The use of the term “Ethiopian” to stand for all the heavily pigmented people in Africa as was done in classical antiquity and from the Bible to Kipling is equally confusing (Blumenbach, 1794; Jeremiah, 13: 23; Kipling, 1912; Snowden, 1970,1989)
Brace et al 1993
I think what is happening here is that you repeatedly fail to make the distinction between someone commenting on and acknowledging the existence of others' views (me, Brace et al) vs subscribing to those views. Failing to make this distinction makes it seem like a fringe view and allows you to ignore the fact that it's, in fact, the default US use of the term.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote: Twenty-two million African-Americans - that's what we are - Africans who are in America
El Hajj Malik Shabazz
excerpt:
'Blackness' fails at every level in both the historical and political context. Africans are the natural people of Africa: The diverse hair textures, the diverse skin hues, are all specific adaptations to living in the diverse African landscape. For this reason alone 'skin blackness" is certainly not a marker for African identity; far too many native Africans, depending on geography, have light skin. The Motherland of these adaptations and the cultures are primarily Africa; hence the relevance of the name. [2] 'African' refers exclusively to the historical people of Africa and their descendants in the Diaspora.In plain language, no one is an African unless they can also be considered a 'Black' person. But not every 'Black person' is an African.
Slavery was both mental and physical, much of the physical has been washed away—But the mental remains. And one of the greatest objectives in making "good slaves" was to remove the African connection. And hence Africans were made black/Negro/colored, and homeless — no other connection, other than the reality of the master's plantation —no dreams, other than those of a slave—no higher destiny, other than to service the master's empire, and no greater identity except relative to the slave-master's skin color. And still today the consequences of that enslavement, while diminishing, still impact all African people where identity and agency are concerned.
"white" depends for its stability on its negation, "black." Neither exists without the other, and both come into being at the moment of imperial conquest
Franz Fanon
They have for a long time argued that these groups are not "true Africans." or in the case of Egypt "Egyptians were not black Africans" when the very term "black African" and "Sub-Saharan African" are racist constructions in colonial theory. This is why the term black is so problematic because it is based on a mis-observation of perceived skin color which is used to define populations which might not share anything in common; For example the people of Australia and Solomon Islands.
Africa, unlike "black," is a name, not a adjective. You can get on a plane and visit it, you can find it on a Sat Nav, it has boundaries, governments, you can grow crops on it, and build a house on it. But some say, Africa was a foreign name given to us, if this is true, it was given to us by our contemporaries not our conquerors. However, the word has Berber Tunisian origins meaning " A sunny place" - Ifriqiya . Either Romans appropriated this word from which it is believed the modern word Africa came about the describe the entire continent. Or the Berbers Berberized the Roman word. Either way, Africa is a unique name of a place and Africans are simply people who are native to that place. And over the course of history different names such as Habesha and Takruri were used to refer to African people of various regions, Ethiopia and West Africa respectively. Also the word Moor has been used across the centuries but as critics have established, the term "Moor" was used interchangeably with such other ambiguous terms such as "Ethiopian," "Negro," and even "Indian" to designate a figure from different parts or the whole of Africa (or beyond) who was either black or Muslim, neither, or both. [3]
Black is a problem because it is a color (not because it is a European word) and It has no other meaning in any European language. Africans were called Black because it was, according to conquers, the "best" thing to describe a people they had no respect for. The sum total of the identity was summed up as black--and nothing else. Africa is a name, like Marcus, Tewdos, Malcolm, Karenga, Jobarteh--Ethiopian is a Name, Italy is a name, Rome is a name, England is a name, Briton and Britain a name, Nubian is a name, Habesha is a name, Sudan is now a name. Where it comes from is of no consideration, because all names have their origin somewhere. Where it started and what it means today, as a name, is not the same. The word Holocaust is Greek, the word Ethos is Greek, Ethnogenesis is Greek, theology is Greek, Pedagogy is Greek, on and on til the cows come home. If we start down this logic of Africa is from Europe then it is a wasted effort because then we would have to start recreating every single word. Most of the English language words are not of English origin. (loanwords).
“Black” as an identity ultimately sets Africans outside of their connection to history and culture. Black does not connect us to Kemet, it only goes back 500 Years ago. Hence, “black” people are an “urban” people/culture and “urban” people's history is 5 minutes old. In addition, because it is a term placed on us, we have no bases for its control, and hence they are able to say; “Ancient Egyptians weren't black.” Black has no meaning; except the meaning they place on it, if and when they chose.
Oppressors do not like calling the real names of their victims. In cases of kidnapping the victim's family always humanizes the victim by saying their name. It creates a realization in the perpetrators mind that the person they have kidnapped also has a history, a life, a family, love and is therefore not is not disposable. Whites slavers were far happier in removing the humanity of Africans by re-classifying people as blacks. Not even "Black people", just blacks. It dehumanized the person to a mere color, which had no name, no history, no culture and most importantly no Motherland. To raid a village and kill women and children, you have to first remove the notion of them possession any humanity. Notice how Israel will always say "those people." Because to say "those Palestinians" gives Palestine a claim to the land called Palestine. South Africa also does not want to link Africans to land, hence the preferred identification with "blacks", void of history, agency, culture and land rights. And in the newly fabricated contrived rainbow, everyone became African-- thus everyone had claim.
The term Black people has no function in any debate beyond European enslavement, it has only been a name imposed by "the other." Black pride is reactionary pride, necessary then, irrelevant now. As Africa blossoms into a greater historical and cultural awareness of a Motherland, Africans are starting to detach themselves from slave names and slave definitions and embrace terminologies which better do justice to a historical and cultural reality.
Garvey also believed that African Americans were universally oppressed and any program of emancipation would have to be built around the question of race. Now Runoko Rashidi travels far and wide expanding the so-called Black race, and if Black means non-White then there is some merit in that. But If 18th century definitions of "African" physical features are the only criteria for being African, i.e. broad nose, then many Africans will become unAfrican and many non-Africans will become African.
Black is a construction which articulates a recent social-political reality of people of color (pigmented people). Skin darkness or blackness is caused by the sun; Africaness is an an identity of far greater ontological weight. Black is not a racial family, an ethnic group or a super-ethnic group. Political blackness is thus not an identity but moreover a social-political consequence of a world which after colonialism and slavery existed in those color terms.
Brief History : During the displacement of the African Holocaust people were disconnected from culture, language and identity, they went from Fulani, Hausa, Igbo to a relative color, aptly describing their status in European society-- Black. Now stuck with this name, and with no agency, no conscious of self outside of the chains of the Holocaust, being black became a source of reactionary pride. (especially in the 60's). This happened also because the involuntary Diaspora had a deep self-hatred for their African connection, and would prefer to be a empty color than connected to their Motherland--that was the dept of the self hatred. And this produced reactionary love because they had to be something, and they could not be European, so in the psyche reaffirming a negative name was in some sense a statement of ownership--a statement of being. In reality it was a statement of displacement and self-hatred.
"White" depends for its stability on its negation, "black." Neither exists without the other, and both come into being at the moment of imperial conquest. - Franz Fanon. If there are no White people, could there be Black people? For over 100,000 years there were only native people of Africa on the planet, and since there were no "White" people there could not have been Black people, since everyone would have been "Black"? And if all the "White people" vanished from the Earth, would the remaining "Black" people still be Black? Black and White are therefore debunked as regressive incomplete terms for describing people.
Most of Africans in the West and Southern Africa have an image of self built out of a house of racism. They are hence blacks, finding identity in the fringes of whiteness. Today only two major racial groups adhere to color definitions; the African (the most oppressed group on Earth) and the apex oppressor, the European (White). While every other self-determined people have commuted color labels, the African in lands of strong white influence still romantically hold on to it.
If there are a black or Black people then where do "black" people come form? Since Asians come from Asia, Indians from India (all makes perfect logically sense). So where do Black people come from? Blackia, Negroland or Blackistan following the obvious naming convention. So if they do not come from these fictitious places and we find that so-called Black people come from Africa (at some time in our recent history) then why not just call them Africans? What is the purpose of Blackness?
In Israel Ethiopians are Black but Ethiopians did not consider themselves to be Black when they arrived. You see young people identifying with reggae music, Afro-Caribbean culture that people tend to view as natural, but it's not natural. It's a choice they made, because it speaks to them. (Kaplan) All over the African world where African people from anywhere come into contact with mainstream "Black" culture there is a current creating new Blackness as an identity. Just as consciousness via music and revolution has created a global Pan-African identity. But there is a difference. Africaness is rooted in a cultural understanding of African peoples links and interconnectedness to development and civilization, Blackness on the other hand is link to a culture relevant to YouTube and MTV base. Blackness has zero concern with anything beyond attitude, speaking bad English, wearing your pants low, walking with bad posture, and gaining status by being as ignorant as possible. While Africaness seeks to create an alternative to the White world linguistics and identity, Blackness is a sub-culture in Whiteness. It is not concerned with Swahili but broken English. It is not concerned with African clothing - but with Western designer garments worn low. Its historical references are not the battles between Ancient Egypt and Nubia but between Tupac and Biggie. Africaness is concerned with our humanity, while Blackness is concerned with consumerism. It is a statement of ownership of self and ideals. Africaness defines itself and creates it's own agenda. Blackness is defined as the opposite of whiteness and it's agenda has been pre-arranged . The New Blackness takes African people further into a Western identity trap of still being alienated but without a framework for self-development.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote: Originally posted by Doug M: Racism in America is based on skin color. BUT skin color in Africa and everywhere does not exist because of racism. That is backwards. The distribution and presence of black skin in Africa has absolutely NOTHING to do with American racism. American racists did not seed certain parts of Africa with different complexions of people.
^Can you clarify this? I'm not sure what you mean with this.
Swenet, you speak and understand english quite well and claim to understand biology. I know you aren't questioning racism being based on skin color. But, do you not understand that natural biology does not originate with racism? Black skin in Africa isn't there because "white folks in America said so or don't say so". That is the stupidest and most asinine comment you could make. The point being that Europeans aren't gods and their made up racial terminologies aren't biology. They are just that, made up racial terminologies reflecting social prejudices based on skin color. The biological fact is that black skin has been in Africa and on this planet since before "white people" walked the planet and therefore its existence in Africa and historically throughout the planet is not determined by them. But that is precisely what they want to do and that is determine who is what and what was where based on domination of the discussion and I totally completely reject that, which why I don't jump through hoops to change my language when I am perfectly able to communicate what I mean.
quote:
quote:You provided the dictionary defintions of the word black to support your argument that "American racism" has different views of 'who is black'.
The dictionary entries were posted to counter your claim that, globally speaking, there is only one correct and universally accepted use of 'black'. You claimed that even people in North America subscribe to this universally accepted use. The dictionary entries I posted falsify this. Of the narrow uses of 'black', two of the four dictionary entries equate 'black' with 'negro', one equates 'black' with 'Sub-Saharan African' and one equates 'black' with dark skinned groups in Africa (but not Asia). This is how people in North America primarily understand 'black' in every day conversation.
You are reading into this to dam much and seeing things that are not there. The quote says that black refers to dark skinned people in Africa and their descendants in America. It does not say: dark skin people only from certain parts of Africa. You keep implying that the dictionary says that but it does not. The dictionary quote also says that black replaced Negro and I already provided information on why. And you know who drove that change? Black folks, because they wanted to define themselves and not be defined by others, which partly has to do with the term Negro being associated with the stereotypical racial characterizations of "Negroid". That distinction between "negro" and "black" is not called out explicitly anywhere in the dictionary definition of black because both of them are just color names and basically adjectives describing skin color. And nowhere in either definition does it distinguish what populations should be called black in Africa. It just says "dark skinned people in Africa". So I am still waiting for you to provide the "distinction" you are referring to in the dictionary. It isn't there. (And I didn't need the dictionary to tell me the distinction between Negro and black or Negroid. I know all that already. The point is where is your dictionary distinction in the word black as only applying to "certain Africans"?)
quote: Definition of Negro in English: noun (plural Negroes) A member of a dark-skinned group of peoples originally native to Africa south of the Sahara. adjective Back to top Relating to black people. Usage
The word Negro was adopted from Spanish and Portuguese and first recorded from the mid 16th century. It remained the standard term throughout the 17th-19th centuries and was used by such prominent black American campaigners as W. E. B. DuBois and Booker T. Washington in the early 20th century. Since the Black Power movement of the 1960s, however, when the term black was favored as the term to express racial pride, Negro has dropped out of favor and now seems out of date or even offensive in both US and British English. The 2010 US Census questionnaire was criticized when it retained the racial designation Negro as an option (along with Black and African Am.). The Census Bureau defended its decision, citing the 2000 Census forms, on which more than 56,000 individuals handwrote “Negro” (even though it was already on the form). Apparently, Negro continues to be the identity strongly preferred by some Americans. See also black (usage).
Like I said, the only time you see the distinction is when you come to terms like "Negroid":
quote: dated or , offensive Of or relating to the division of humankind represented by the indigenous peoples of central and southern Africa. Example sentences Usage
The term Negroid belongs to a set of terms introduced by 19th-century anthropologists attempting to categorize human races. Such terms are associated with outdated notions of racial types, and so are now potentially offensive and best avoided. See also Mongoloid (usage).
And as I also said, many white folks in America and Europe still hold and cling to the old racial stereotypes of "negroid" equating to "negro" and therefore equating to "black". But the term "Negroid" did not exist along with its so called "racial distinctions" at the time of Al Jahiz, but black certainly did and black has been used even before that to refer to Africans and their skin color. And you provided the evidence in the maps for this yourself. What you are saying is that you agree with the idea that "black" equates with "negroid" as a "racial type" used in America and Europe but the reality is that the word Negroid is a relatively new term and concept that is not half as old as the word black which is simply a color name used to refer to skin color and makes no implicit association to the concept of "race", which is also a recent invention.
quote:
quote:However, I believe the problem here is you are confusing the word "Negro" with "Black" as used in America to refer to African slaves.
Don't even go there. That is what the dictionary entry said (i.e., the evolution of socially accepted ethnonyms for African Americans). You're in denial that the dictionary said this, so you project their description of US sentiments onto me, so you can then dismiss it as a fringe opinion.
You are confused. If 'black people' in America rejected the term Negro then it is not "socially equivalent" because the distinction is between black as simply a reference to black skin and "Negro" as associated with the outdated and offensive term "Negroid". Black people in America reject the term Negro as a "social term". Now white folks are perfectly happy with Negro and they are implicitly happy with Negroid, even though they claim that those old racist ideas are gone, they still cling to them. Now how many times and how many ways are you going to dance around this? I have been saying this for the last 10 pages of this thread and here we are still going around in circles refusing to admit that the core of this issue is racism and nothing else.
quote: You did the same to Brace et al, but, as I've already stated several times, they reject the usefulness of grouping based on skin color. Despite rejecting this, they acknowledge that such a paraphyletic grouping would include all dark skinned people (including in Asia), not just certain Africans:
But we are talking about words used to describe skin color. What the hell is it with you and your absurd nonsense? When I say black people I am talking about skin color? And only black people are black, so yes that is a grouping based on skin color not race. Just like white people is a grouping based on white skin color. Or tall people is a grouping based on height. Or retarded people is a grouping based on physical disability. None of that implies anything about inferiority or superiority.
quote:
quote:"The use of a characterization of a single trait that is under selective force control to generalize about any particular human population can only create confusion. This then will be the inevitable consequence of the use of a description of skin color to say anything about the general nature of human biological variation. The use of the designation “black” in America today to specify a person of African ancestry is the most flagrant example."
Brace et al 1993
quote:Finally, skin color in such places as southern India, Melanesia, and the northern part of Australia is every bit as dark as it is in “darkest Africa,” and yet the time depth of the separation of those various “black" populations may well be greater than the time of the divergence of the ancestors of Europeans from African forebears.
Brace et al 1993
quote:The use of the term “Ethiopian” to stand for all the heavily pigmented people in Africa as was done in classical antiquity and from the Bible to Kipling is equally confusing (Blumenbach, 1794; Jeremiah, 13: 23; Kipling, 1912; Snowden, 1970,1989)
Brace et al 1993
I think you hit on the crux of the issue. Brace is confused because he wants to divide black folks up so that it fits into a 'racial scheme' even if he doesnt' call it that. Yet at the same time he claims that calling someone black is making generalizations about their biology. No it isn't. It is ONLY a reference to skin color. And that is the problem. If two people from different parts of Africa have the same exact skin color then what is wrong with identifying them as having the same trait in terms of skin color? That is all this is about: skin color. White racists are the ones who have added all sorts of "extra things" to it and that belies the argument that they aren't racist. It is a convoluted statement that Brace is making. What is confusing about skin color? Skin color is skin color. Period. There is nothing confusing about it. What he is really saying is that he wants to add other things to it for the purposes of distinguishing folks by other biological differences, which is fine when talking about anthropology and biology in a general sense. But if you are ONLY talking about skin color, then the only thing that matters is the color. Nobody in the time of Al Jahiz had any idea how skin color evolved or what biological markers at the genetic level or cellular level were responsible for those traits. They only saw the outward color and used names to describe that color. Period. And that is the point I am making. Brace and other scientists are stuck on race because that is how the framework they created for understanding human biology and they are invested in it, no matter if they say that they are not "racists". They just can't accept that black skin just means black skin and nothing else is implied beyond that. It doesn't imply language, culture, ethnicity or anything else. That is the way THEY think and everyone doesn't think like that. And you notice that they have no problem lumping white folks from central Asia all the way to Britain together as white people? Yet the only time they have a problem is when it comes to black folks. Now why is that?
Why aren't there distinctions between white people?
quote: Belonging to or denoting a human group having light-coloured skin (chiefly used of peoples of European extraction): a white farming community
And certainly Europeans aren't the only ones who are white skinned.
Bottom line the problem here is racism. Brace wasn't dumb and these other scientists aren't dumb. If two AFRICANS from any part of Africa are the same exact complexion, as in the darkest shade of black then they are part of what I call "black people". There is nothing confusing about it. And when it comes to Ancient Egypt, that is what I am saying, which is that the population of Egypt had the same ranges of complexions as most Africans on the continent which is implied by the term "black" as used throughout history, even by the Egyptians themselves. The only ones who have a problem with this are white people because they cannot be included in it because of their skin color. Period. That is why they have been trying to come up will all sorts of ways of redefining skin color so they can put themselves biologically into something they had nothing to do with. It isn't like black people in the Nile Valley were subject to different biological and environmental circumstances from black people anywhere else in Africa. They are both black because ultimately they originate in the same biological and environmental place of origin which is Africa which is primarily tropical. So biologically it is consistent that most Africans are black people.
Think of it this way. They don't want to use black, but they use the term caucasian, which includes people who are also called black, if those folks are in certain parts of Africa, like the Nile Valley. And the reason they do this is because "biologically" they can link that to Europe and thus make the Nile Valley linked to Europe. But that is biologically invalid. The closest biological link to the Nile Valley people were other populations in Africa. No matter what terms you come up with, the issue is going to boil down to how they can come up with some way of saying that 'black people in the Nile Valley weren't black because of some special biological association to Europe' which is false and why no special terms are needed other than black people if one is simply referring to skin color.
quote: I think what is happening here is that you repeatedly fail to make the distinction between someone commenting on and acknowledging the existence of others' views (me, Brace et al) vs subscribing to those views. Failing to make this distinction makes it seem like a fringe view and allows you to ignore the fact that it's, in fact, the default US use of the term.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Typical Lioness hypocritical obfuscation and questioning the concept of "black" but NEVER "white".
Tell me, would the ancient Greeks be considered white or not??
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Typical Lioness hypocritical obfuscation and questioning the concept of "black" but NEVER "white".
Tell me, would the ancient Greeks be considered white or not??
"white" is obsolete social-racial terminology
It is not accurate scientific observation of color applied to any Europeans, from Noweigians to Greeks
I would use it only in casual conversation, not in any scientific context
By the way are you as dark as LL Cool J ?
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
@Doug M
You're contradicting yourself. On the one hand you ask why there aren't any distinctions between 'white' people, and on the other hand you admit that Europeans aren't the only ones who are pale. There ARE distinctions between 'white' people, and you just admitted it by saying that Europeans aren't the only ones who are 'white'. Since the default use of 'white people' never refers to pale East Asians in the West, it does make distinctions between pale people. In fact, these distinctions are no different from the narrow use of 'black' in the West.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: It does not say: dark skin people only from certain parts of Africa. You keep implying that the dictionary says that but it does not.
Of course it doesn't say that dark skin is only restricted to Sub-Saharan Africa. What it says is that North America applies 'black' in a racial way and that the people thought to belong to this race (not this skin color, as you mistakenly claim I said) are found in Sub-Saharan Africa:
quote:"Usage note 3, 21. Black, colored, and Negro —words that describe or name the dark-skinned peoples of sub-Saharan Africa and their descendants—have had a complex social history in the United States."
Of course, you'll now blow up in frustration and ask me why I keep bringing in 'race' when 'black' refers only to skin color. But you're engaging in circular reasoning.
On the one hand you say 'black' uniformly and universally refers to skin color. Then I introduce other uses to falsify this claim and you'll reply with something like "these other uses are irrelevant because 'black' only refers to skin color" or "these dictionary entries don't say that dark skin is only found in Sub-Saharan Africa". Using this circular reasoning you can ignore all counter evidence on completely arbitrary grounds. If what you say can't be falsified with everyday criteria, let's examine why.
Answer my question: how would one test your claim that there is only one universal and correct use of 'black'? It can't be tested, because every time someone tries, you reject this attempt on flimsy grounds or ignore it.
Also, if what you say about Europeans were true in this case, we'd be able to set aside European views on Africans and look at Arab and North African literature and see drastic differences in the way skin color is assigned to Africans.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
certainly Europeans aren't the only ones who are white
What ???
So who else is white ??
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: @Doug M
You're contradicting yourself. On the one hand you ask why there aren't any distinctions between 'white' people, and on the other hand you admit that Europeans aren't the only ones who are pale. There ARE distinctions between 'white' people, and you just admitted it by saying that Europeans aren't the only ones who are 'white'. Since the default use of 'white people' never refers to pale East Asians in the West, it does make distinctions between pale people. In fact, these distinctions are no different from the narrow use of 'black' in the West.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: It does not say: dark skin people only from certain parts of Africa. You keep implying that the dictionary says that but it does not.
Of course it doesn't say that dark skin is only restricted to Sub-Saharan Africa. What it says is that North America applies 'black' in a racial way and that the people thought to belong to this race (not this skin color, as you mistakenly claim I said) are found in Sub-Saharan Africa:
quote:"Usage note 3, 21. Black, colored, and Negro —words that describe or name the dark-skinned peoples of sub-Saharan Africa and their descendants—have had a complex social history in the United States."
Can you read? Seriously? At the beginning I thought you were really serious but now I see you really are just trolling. I already explained the difference between Black and Negro and that "complex" history. The word black as used to describe Africans has not changed for thousands of years. Negroid is the racial term that is only a few hundred years old and came to be associated with Negro and thus in the minds of some people equivalent to black. But that is not correct. Black means black skin and has ALWAYS meant black skin people, especially of Africa but also elsewhere. Like I said the only ones introducing race into this are the racists who want to make the term "black" equivalent to the now supposedly outdated term Negroid, but again this is an issue with the racism of white folks.
So here we are pages and pages later and what has occurred:
1) Still you have not shown that black as in "black people" has fundamentally changed its meaning as a reference to dark skin people in Africa which has been used since ancient times. 2) Still haven't shown that these white folks who object to using the term are not driven by ideas of race when its obvious by now that my usage of the term and the dictionary definition of the term has nothing to do with race
Like I said, just use whatever words you want but I will also use the words that makes sense when I am talking. And there is nothing yet you have provided which says black people is something too complex to understand when I am talking about skin color. It gets right to the point. I am not trying to dance around the issue with these people. I would rather get to the point.
quote: Of course, you'll now blow up in frustration and ask me why I keep bringing in 'race' when 'black' refers only to skin color. But you're engaging in circular reasoning.
On the one hand you say 'black' uniformly and universally refers to skin color. Then I introduce other uses to falsify this claim and you'll reply with something like "these other uses are irrelevant because 'black' only refers to skin color" or "these dictionary entries don't say that dark skin is only found in Sub-Saharan Africa". Using this circular reasoning you can ignore all counter evidence on completely arbitrary grounds. If what you say can't be falsified with everyday criteria, let's examine why.
Answer my question: how would one test your claim that there is only one universal and correct use of 'black'? It can't be tested, because every time someone tries, you reject this attempt on flimsy grounds or ignore it.
Why should I have to answer anything? I already clearly provided and you actually helped me, information that black in reference to Africans has always meant skin color going back thousands of years. Why do I need to answer anything when you haven't clearly provided support for the so called distinction you claim to make in the term? You are simply trolling at this point. I already said what I meant earlier. There is no need to keep going further on this. Everything that needs to be said to understand what I mean has been said. The fact is the reason you are going on and on with this is you DONT WANT TO UNDERSTAND what I am saying and that is the issue. I asked you 5 dam pages ago were the AE black and you have been running from that simple dam question for this whole thread. What the hell is it with you and this nonsense? I am not talking about random hypothetical scenarios lets get to the dam point. Were the AE black or not? Yes or no? That's all this is about and that's it.
quote: Also, if what you say about Europeans were true in this case, we'd be able to set aside European views on Africans and look at Arab and North African literature and see drastic differences in the way skin color is assigned to Africans.
The dictionary term 'black' makes no such distinctions. Remember, it was YOU who said that black as a reference to Africans has changed over time. The problem is you haven't been able to prove it. It has always referred to dark skin people in Africa. Nothing about that has changed in the sense that it is a reference to skin color. Now OBVIOUSLY some parts of Africa have had changes due to conquest and wars and therefore some folks in Africa are not black. However, the fact is that STILL even with that black means dark skin Africans and there is no distinction within that definition as to who is and who isn't black in Africa. What you are saying in a very round about way is that many white folks don't consider the AE as black people.
Well duh. We have known this on this board for many years. But this is not a 'language issue' it is a racism issue. No matter how you try and deny it is a racism issue. In fact your own argument proves this. You keep saying "but the way that they used black in the United States.." was based on racism and therefore you are saying that the racism of the United States is what causes objection to the usage to the people like the AE. And this goes all the way back to folks like Samuel Morton and others. So really at this point there is nothing more to argue. You have proven whole argument that these folks aren't motivated by racism invalid.
For example, here is something on Jay Gould and Samuel Morton. It is full of flip flops, contradictions and illogical reasoning and yet you are claiming we should not say black people because of this? LOL! You are missing the point. The point is they are flip flopping because they are racist and no matter what words you use the racism will still be there.
quote: Second, the racial groups to which Morton, Lewis et al., and Gould credulously assigned the skulls have little bearing to any biological reality. For example, the skulls from what Morton called the “Negro Race” represent a collection of peoples that are genetically heterogeneous. In part, this is because it includes “Native African” skulls, and Africa contains more genetic diversity than the rest of the world combined (groups of people from different places in Africa can be more genetically different from one another than Swedish people and Japanese people, for instance [13]); and in part because Morton lumped other people with “black” skin, e.g. Australian Aboriginals, into the same “race,” despite the fact that they are not particularly closely related. Gould removed the Australian Aboriginals when he recalculated the “Negro Race” averages, but this falsely implies that there isn’t anything wrong with considering the “Native African race” a legitimate single entity. It isn’t. Again, genetic diversity within Africa is both extensive and subdivided. Or consider Morton’s “American Group.” On his analysis, this “race” contains the “Toltecan Family” which consists of two “populations” — the “Mexicans” and the “Peruvians.” Not only does this bear no relationship to any biological reality, but it isn’t at all clear in this case what would.
This is the reason for the so-called distinctions you keep referring to. It is the European obsession with trying to categorize and classify people into groups based on features whether outwardly observable or biologically and this is the 'scientific' root of the racism of the last few hundred years. None of that however, invalidates that skin color exists and that black skin is a perfectly legitimate way of identifying and labeling people with that complexion.
And yes it is perfectly understandable to argue that biologically and genetically populations are not related as implied by old outdated "racial" classifications. However, it is another thing to claim that people don't have similar skin colors across the African continent and elsewhere because of similar biological responses to tropical environments. That is wholly and totally nonsense.
Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
If black is a suitable descriptive for 'Nubians' then I don't see why it can't be used for the AE especially when one considers that these two populations were ethnically the closest groups -- ethnic groups with a common origin.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: If black is a suitable descriptive for 'Nubians' then I don't see why it can't be used for the AE especially when one considers that these two populations were ethnically the closest groups -- ethnic groups with a common origin.
Absolutely. Not to mention they still also use "caucasoid" which is supposedly an outdated racial classification, even though we know full well ancient North East Africans did not in any way come from the caucasus mountains.
These people are pure hyprocrites and racists but will sit here and try and tell you that you are being the racist for using the term black.
Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
Their hypocrisy is infuriating. I remember when they said that Tut was a North African 'Caucasian', despite there being absolutely no evidence for any of this. The people responsible for that disgusting 'reconstruction' of Tut laughably claimed that it was anybody's guess what skin tone he had, despite a lot of pictures showing him with black skin.
We know that his grandparents both had black skin and that his parents were full siblings, so they're clearly lying and we should not accomodate them.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: If black is a suitable descriptive for 'Nubians' then I don't see why it can't be used for the AE especially when one considers that these two populations were ethnically the closest groups -- ethnic groups with a common origin.
Are there any indigenous Africans who are not dark skinned ?
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
@Sudaniya
Again, the issue in this discussion isn't whether the AE would have been regarded as having skin pigmentation that is within the range of African Americans. So the fringe illiterates who advance the pale Egyptian/black Nubian fallacy represent a different group of people than the ones I was addressing in the OP of this thread.
The issue is whether the western public agrees that falling in this skin pigmentation range necessarily fits their criteria of 'black' (regardless of how dark skinned they are), in the same way that Europeans don't call Chinese 'white' (regardless of how pale skinned they are).
According to this narrow North American definition of who is 'black', a sub-set of Nubians would fall out of the boat, too. But to say that means that the dark pigmentation of these people was automatically ignored or dismissed is a complete fallacy.
Anyone who is familiar with the bio-anthropological literature knows that northern Nubians and their living relatives have been subject to the same treatment, albeit to a somewhat lesser extent. But it is a misconception and fallacy to say that getting this treatment automatically means their skin has been white-washed.
quote:It appears that the current population of Egypt and Sudan are not influenced by those of Black Equatorial Africa, but are closely related to coastal populations of Ethiopia and the Arabian Peninsula to a lesser degree.
^Does this mean that the skin pigmentation of living northern Sudanese and Kharga Egyptians has been white-washed? Does G.Billy think living Nubians and Kharga Egyptians are pale? Of course not.
If you'd ask them what their pigmentation was, most of these academics would say:
quote:The archers from the 11th Dynasty (ca. 2150-2000 BCE) tomb of Mesheti and the Nubian representatives in the 18th Dynasty tomb of Huy appear to belong to a different group of “Nehesiu”. They are shown in different shades of brown and exhibit less pronounced biologically sub-Saharan features.
--Becker 2011
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
Can you read? Seriously? At the beginning I thought you were really serious but now I see you really are just trolling. I already explained the difference between Black and Negro and that "complex" history. The word black as used to describe Africans has not changed for thousands of years.
Many pages in this thread yet Doug has not provided one example where Africans in ancient history or traditionally have described skin color using an African word for black.
Why even continue arguing if you Doug provide this "thousands of years example"
Secondly, if we are to let Europeans define skin color where are the ancient Greek quotes using the Greek word for black? Some exist but I don't see any scholoarship from Doug. Why even continue he has NO references?
So far Doug has only used Swenet's statements he has no shown no examples of specific words for black being used by Africans pertaining to skin color for thousands of years.
Some Africans even get offened being called black.
Doug has no scholarship.
I recommend nobody come in and try to help him/For all the pages he has written he should no be able to come with the documentation for his claims.
Clyde, Mike and many others at least have quotes for theor claims. Doug is just like, wink, trust me "for thousands of years...blah blah blah.
He has failed unless he can back it
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
^As far as I'm concerned, at least, people can come in and make observations all they want. I'll tell you what they won't do: disprove what I'm saying.
This discussion would play out completely differently on a neutral board. All the strawman, non-sequitors and other fallacies in Doug's posts would have been pointed out a long time ago. Here, he gets away with it for obvious reasons.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
At the end of the day:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: A subset of dynastic Egyptian samples squeezed in between Abyssinians and Cretans, Etruscans and Sardinians and showing considerable ties with the biblical inhabitants of the Judaean city of Lachish. No competent western, middle eastern or oriental academic who has seriously looked into this is going to use the term "black" (in a racial sense) when applied to dynastic Egyptians (although they might do it in a pigmentation sense, by saying they would have been dark brown). And in the occasion they do use 'black' in a racial sense (usually when they speak in an informal context), they're likely to say that they think that the ancient Egyptians were half black/half non-black based on their position in cranio-facial analysis.
Specialists and bio-anthropologists who aren't in denial in regards to skin pigmentation (both racists and non-racists) consistently admit that the AE and northern Nubians were brown skinned and so in the pigmentation range of African Americans. But they're not going to use 'black' in the racial, North American sense to describe this pigmentation range, because they don't understand their use of 'black' to be a reference to skin color only:
quote:Term: Black
Meaning: As for Negro.
Strenghts: Used in USA and UK censuses gives denominator; ‘‘usually tested’’.
Weaknesses: Used to describe heterogeneous populations. Unrelated to ethnicity.
Comments and recommendations: In practice it refers to persons with subSaharan African ancestral origins with brown or black complexion. Socially recognised and historically lasting concept. In some circumstances the term Black signifies all non-White minority populations Use with caution
Source: Negro, Black, Black African, African Caribbean, African American or what? Labelling African origin populations in the health arena in the 21st century http://jech.bmj.com/content/59/12/1014.full.pdf+html
I never said this has to be true for other historical uses of 'black' or that this is the golden, universal or practically useful standard. However, it does hold true for THEIR OWN narrow use of 'black' and you'd have to be in some sort of pathological denial to deny that such narrow use of 'black' exists in North America. There is only so much time I'm willing to spend on debating the obvious.
Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
Swenet
Thank you for your extensive response, brother. I'm aware of the fact that no one in their right mind would argue and present the AE as pale skin as the Swedes for example, but there are 'scientists' that do render them with a light sand colour, in opposition to the chocolate-brown hue that the AE actually depicted themselves in.
The distortion is clear and is done on purpose, even if it just skirts around the ludicrous.
Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
Originally posted by Swenet: No competent western, middle eastern or oriental academic who has seriously looked into this is going to use the term "black" (in a racial sense) when applied to dynastic Egyptians (although they might do it in a pigmentation sense, by saying they would have been dark brown).
quote:
I don't see what 'competence' has to do with an academic's willingness [or not] to recognise that the ancient Egyptians were black Africans. I mean if they truly were 'competent' and seriously did look into it, wouldn't they understand that black Africans have the most physical diversity and that this has been established by objective science?
Wouldn't you expect 'scientists' to adapt their usage to be in line with objective material instead of having it contingent on subjective, biased, dishonest, self-serving and historically discriminatory criterias of a particular society?
quote:
The issue is whether the western public agrees that falling in this skin pigmentation range necessarily fits their criteria of 'black' (regardless of how dark skinned they are), in the same way that Europeans don't call Chinese 'white' (regardless of how pale skinned they are).
No, I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with you. The analogy is flawed and inadequate and just won't do.
The Chinese don't have recent origins with the people of Europe; the linguistic, cultural, genetic, dental, skeletal and cranial evidence doesn't directly tie them in with Europeans - the only recognised 'white' people on earth... whereas the ancient Egyptians are clearly related to other black Africans in Sudan and elsewhere, using all those lines of evidence.
We can dismiss their criteria, can't we? We don't need to adopt it and subscribe to it.
quote:
Specialists and bio-anthropologists who aren't in denial in regards to skin pigmentation (both racists and non-racists) consistently admit that the AE and northern Nubians were brown skinned and so in the pigmentation range of African Americans. But they're not going to use 'black' in the racial, North American sense to describe this pigmentation range, because they don't understand their use of 'black' to be a reference to skin color only.
And they're free to make those judgements just as we are free to dismiss their judgements as subjective, contradictory, dishonest and self-serving. It's clear that [in their use of the word] that 'black' isn't just a metonymy for considerably pigmented skin -- other factors are at play.
So just what are these other factors that evidently go beyond pigmentation? What other considerations oh so very conveniently make it impossible for them to use 'black' in the case of the AE? We're talking about certain features, aren't we? We're talking about 'wavy' hair, 'aquiline' noses and thin lips -- features that have scientifically been proven to be derivatives of in-situ adaptation -> features that are indigenous. Features that the AE share with certain African all over the African continent.
Their use of 'black' seems to be in compliance with the true negro model and their refusal to adapt their usage in line with mounds of grit-edged scientific evidence...
..objective facts that have firmly established that the features that ostensibly prevent these 'specialists' from correctly applying 'black' to the AE are features that are indigenous to certain black African groups - their self-serving criteria notwithstanding.
Their criteria is evidently not objective. It's certainly not scientific. It almost seems entirely based on their vagaries of perception - to borrow from The Matrix.
The obvious questions now are:
Should our use of black conform with their flawed, subjective and self-serving perceptions, thereby committing ourselves to hands-on-knees submission and revolting self-immolation?
Or should we dismiss them completely as untrustworthy in recognition of the fact that they have historically distorted the truth and systematically hijacked the heritages of others for their own interests and self-aggrandizement? I choose to dismiss their subjective judgements.
Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: If black is a suitable descriptive for 'Nubians' then I don't see why it can't be used for the AE especially when one considers that these two populations were ethnically the closest groups -- ethnic groups with a common origin.
Are there any indigenous Africans who are not dark skinned ?
The 'Berbers' on the North African coast have been in Africa for thousands of years and considering that their language came from East Africa, I cannot regard them as anything but indigenous. I don't know exactly just how long they've been in Africa.
They have considerable African DNA, and they adopted their script from black Berbers - the Tuaregs.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sudaniya: I don't see what 'competence' has to do with an academic's willingness [or not] to recognise that the ancient Egyptians were black Africans.
If by 'black Africans' you're referring to skin color only, you misread what I said. I said they're not going to apply 'black' in a racial sense to many North Africans. Racial as in: White, Black, Yellow, Red, Australoid, etc. Pick up a bio-anthro textbook from a reputable scholar and open their chapter on race. Chances are they denounce it and they may even have a section dedicated to what in the past has been called the 'black race'. Read it and see what it says. This is from my own library:
quote:In contemporary society, however, race is still a common category. In this context the term has a social connotation more than a biological one. In state and federal government reports, “race” identifies some aspect of geographic origin and ethnic identity. For example, “black” refers to African or African American descent. “Hispanic” refers to Spanish speakers but actually encompasses a wide variety of peoples from Mexicans to Bolivians. Such classifications have their use, particularly in defining groups of people who have suffered social inequities, but they are not without their own problems. Classification into discrete groups always means that we obscure the subtle gradations of human variation.
John H Relethford - The Human Species, An Introduction to Biological Anthropology
and
quote:The Number of Human Races A major problem with the race concept is that scientists have never agreed on the number of human races. How many can you name, or see? Some have suggested that there are three human races: Europeans, Africans, and Asians (often referred to by the archaic terms “Caucasoid,” “Negroid,” and “Mongoloid,” which are almost never used in scientific research today). But many populations do not fit neatly into these three basic categories. What about native Australians (aborigines)? As shown in Figure 5.4, these are dark-skinned people who frequently have curly or wavy (and, in some cases, blond) hair. On the basis of skin color, we might be tempted to label these people as African, but on the basis of hair and facial shape they might be classified as European. One approach has been to create a fourth category, the “Australoid” race. As we travel around the world, however, we find more and more populations that do not fit a three- or four-race system. As a result, some authors have added races to their list. There has never been clear consensus on the actual number, though. In 1758, for example, Linnaeus described four major human races in his classification of humans. Since that time, different authors have suggested four, five, and nine major races, among other numbers.
John H Relethford - The Human Species, An Introduction to Biological Anthropology
quote:The ancient Egyptians have long been a source of fascination. Egyptian civilization dates back roughly 5,000 years and is best known because of its many pyramids. There have been many debates over the origin of the ancient Egyptians. Some argue that this population is distinctly related to Europeans, whereas others favor a sub-Saharan origin. Still others suggest that the ancient Egyptians did not come from any one specific group but rather represent an in-place evolution in northeastern Africa, with contact with other populations. The origin of the ancient Egyptians has been argued on the basis of archaeology and other clues. Here, we examine what inferences can be made from patterns of biological variation. One example is given. Genetic distances were computed among 13 samples of ancient skulls—three populations each from sub-Saharan Africa, Europe, the Far East, and Australia, and a sample from the ancient Egyptians (26th–30th dynasties, dating between 2550 and 2150 years B.P.). The data consisted of 57 measurements of the skull and face, provided by Dr. W. W. Howells (Howells 1989). These data were used to estimate genetic distances (Relethford and Blangero 1990). Different patterns of genetic distances would result depending on which historical hypothesis was correct. If, for example, the ancient Egyptians came primarily from Europe, then they should be most similar to European populations. If they came from sub-Saharan Africa, then they should be most similar to sub-Saharan African populations. If, however, the ancient Egyptians were not the result of primary movement from one region or another, then their biological relationships would be somewhere intermediate between other geographic regions. The figure here shows the results very clearly. The ancient Egyptian sample does not cluster with either Europeans or sub-Saharan Africans. More extensive analyses have shown similar results (Brace et al. 1993)—the ancient Egyptians are Egyptian. Their biological affinities reflect their geographic position more than anything else. The fact that Egypt is part of the African continent does not mean that they are closer to other African populations than to non-African groups. This analysis reveals an important feature of human variation. If we ignore Egypt for the moment, we can see four recognizable clusters—Europe, sub-Saharan Africa, the Far East, and Australia. The clear separation of these clusters seems to argue strongly for four distinct “races.” Or does it? By adding Egypt to the analysis, we see the problem of inferring race from widespread geographic samples; other populations fall in between, thus forcing us to add a fifth “race.” Of course, if we add still other groups, we have to continually increase our number of races. Our image of distinct races often results from not using a full sampling of humanity.
John H Relethford - The Human Species, An Introduction to Biological Anthropology
Since strawman attacks always lurk around the corner when you quote or say something people here don't like, here are a couple of caveats:
--The Egyptian sample used here by Relethford is late Dynastic in date and not representative of the early founding populations in certain measurements. They tend to group in the middle of the subset of Egyptian samples I posted earlier (see the OP of this thread). They look like what has been called "the lower Egyptian type". In terms of living populations, living Arab and Berber speaking Maghrebis cluster in that same intermediate position, whereas Upper Egyptians gravitate a bit more to Sub-Saharan Africans on the other side of this spectrum.
--The sample choice was limited, but it was supposed to be. They carried out the analysis to demonstrate that populations aren't going to always cluster with representatives of racial groups who are perceived to be 'pure' and morphologically representative of that 'race'.
--Obviously, I don't agree with that borrowed Brace remark that "Egyptians are Egyptians". They're not are on some isolated 'island' when it comes to morphometric affinity. Plenty of western, central and eastern Saharan populations that plot next to them.
@Sudaniya
Now see my post again with these Relethford quotes and their emphasized parts in mind and see how they relate to my post re: competent bio-anthropologists and how they understand populations to be structured. Competence has everything to do with recognizing that microevolution doesn't 'obey' the expectations of pre-conceived, man-made racial ideology. That goes for ANY man-made racial ideology, including the 'racial' ideologies many here subscribe to.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sudaniya:
The Chinese don't have recent origins with the people of Europe; the linguistic, cultural, genetic, dental, skeletal and cranial evidence doesn't directly tie them in with Europeans - the only recognised 'white' people on earth... whereas the ancient Egyptians are clearly related to other black Africans in Sudan and elsewhere, using all those lines of evidence. We can dismiss their criteria, can't we? We don't need to adopt it and subscribe to it.
That quote talks about western perceptions and their subjective ideas about who is white and who is black, not factual morphometrics and culture. If you think East Asians are a completely different example, then pick an example of pale and swarthy groups in the pigmentation range of Europeans: Indo-Aryan speakers. How many Indo-Aryan speakers in Central and South Asia are recognized as white in the West in every day conversation? All one needs to do is go to the UK and the US and see how Sikhs are treated as non-white terrorists and Arabs.
How many Indo-Aryan speaking migrants are welcomed as 'whites' by Australian policy makers?
quote:Their use of 'black' seems to be in compliance with the true negro model and their refusal to adapt their usage in line with mounds of grit-edged scientific evidence...
Thank you. Tell that to Doug. I've been saying that all along. He's the one denying that the North American public applies 'black' in this narrow sense.
quote:Their use of 'black' seems to be in compliance with the true negro model and their refusal to adapt their usage in line with mounds of grit-edged scientific evidence...
What evidence would that be? What evidence would justify transforming old racial terms to new racial terminology? If you transform 'black' to refer to all dark skinned Africans on the African continent, do you think that would reflect cutting-edge science? How? Can you explain in detail the pigmentation range that should be included in such a revised use of 'black'?
quote:Should our use of black conform with their flawed, subjective and self-serving perceptions, thereby committing ourselves to hands-on-knees submission and revolting self-immolation?
Regarding "our use of black": I've been talking to many people in this community about their use of 'black'. There is no uniformity or consensus. Some use it in a racial sense and some use it in a pigmentation sense. This has been talked about extensively in this thread and elsewhere. And no, you don't have to adopt their use of 'black'. The discussion is about either dropping it altogether or using another tradition of the term (e.g. the al Jahiz tradition). I don't think anyone has suggested to adopt the western use of the term. I did acknowledge that it exists and that continued use of the term has repeatedly led to strawman attacks.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: If black is a suitable descriptive for 'Nubians' then I don't see why it can't be used for the AE especially when one considers that these two populations were ethnically the closest groups -- ethnic groups with a common origin.
Are there any indigenous Africans who are not dark skinned ?
The 'Berbers' on the North African coast have been in Africa for thousands of years and considering that their language came from East Africa, I cannot regard them as anything but indigenous. I don't know exactly just how long they've been in Africa.
They have considerable African DNA, and they adopted their script from black Berbers - the Tuaregs.
So going strictly according to Doug's definition that black is skin color alone would it be correct to say none of the above people are black?
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Sudaniya: I don't see what 'competence' has to do with an academic's willingness [or not] to recognise that the ancient Egyptians were black Africans.
If by 'black Africans' you're referring to skin color only, you misread what I said. I said they're not going to apply 'black' in a racial sense to many North Africans. Racial as in: White, Black, Yellow, Red, Australoid, etc. Pick up a bio-anthro textbook from a reputable scholar and open their chapter on race. Chances are they denounce it and they may even have a section dedicated to what in the past has been called the 'black race'. Read it and see what it says. This is from my own library:
quote:In contemporary society, however, race is still a common category. In this context the term has a social connotation more than a biological one. In state and federal government reports, “race” identifies some aspect of geographic origin and ethnic identity. For example, “black” refers to African or African American descent. “Hispanic” refers to Spanish speakers but actually encompasses a wide variety of peoples from Mexicans to Bolivians. Such classifications have their use, particularly in defining groups of people who have suffered social inequities, but they are not without their own problems. Classification into discrete groups always means that we obscure the subtle gradations of human variation.
John H Relethford - The Human Species, An Introduction to Biological Anthropology
and
quote:The Number of Human Races A major problem with the race concept is that scientists have never agreed on the number of human races. How many can you name, or see? Some have suggested that there are three human races: Europeans, Africans, and Asians (often referred to by the archaic terms “Caucasoid,” “Negroid,” and “Mongoloid,” which are almost never used in scientific research today). But many populations do not fit neatly into these three basic categories. What about native Australians (aborigines)? As shown in Figure 5.4, these are dark-skinned people who frequently have curly or wavy (and, in some cases, blond) hair. On the basis of skin color, we might be tempted to label these people as African, but on the basis of hair and facial shape they might be classified as European. One approach has been to create a fourth category, the “Australoid” race. As we travel around the world, however, we find more and more populations that do not fit a three- or four-race system. As a result, some authors have added races to their list. There has never been clear consensus on the actual number, though. In 1758, for example, Linnaeus described four major human races in his classification of humans. Since that time, different authors have suggested four, five, and nine major races, among other numbers.
John H Relethford - The Human Species, An Introduction to Biological Anthropology
quote:The ancient Egyptians have long been a source of fascination. Egyptian civilization dates back roughly 5,000 years and is best known because of its many pyramids. There have been many debates over the origin of the ancient Egyptians. Some argue that this population is distinctly related to Europeans, whereas others favor a sub-Saharan origin. Still others suggest that the ancient Egyptians did not come from any one specific group but rather represent an in-place evolution in northeastern Africa, with contact with other populations. The origin of the ancient Egyptians has been argued on the basis of archaeology and other clues. Here, we examine what inferences can be made from patterns of biological variation. One example is given. Genetic distances were computed among 13 samples of ancient skulls—three populations each from sub-Saharan Africa, Europe, the Far East, and Australia, and a sample from the ancient Egyptians (26th–30th dynasties, dating between 2550 and 2150 years B.P.). The data consisted of 57 measurements of the skull and face, provided by Dr. W. W. Howells (Howells 1989). These data were used to estimate genetic distances (Relethford and Blangero 1990). Different patterns of genetic distances would result depending on which historical hypothesis was correct. If, for example, the ancient Egyptians came primarily from Europe, then they should be most similar to European populations. If they came from sub-Saharan Africa, then they should be most similar to sub-Saharan African populations. If, however, the ancient Egyptians were not the result of primary movement from one region or another, then their biological relationships would be somewhere intermediate between other geographic regions. The figure here shows the results very clearly. The ancient Egyptian sample does not cluster with either Europeans or sub-Saharan Africans. More extensive analyses have shown similar results (Brace et al. 1993)—the ancient Egyptians are Egyptian. Their biological affinities reflect their geographic position more than anything else. The fact that Egypt is part of the African continent does not mean that they are closer to other African populations than to non-African groups. This analysis reveals an important feature of human variation. If we ignore Egypt for the moment, we can see four recognizable clusters—Europe, sub-Saharan Africa, the Far East, and Australia. The clear separation of these clusters seems to argue strongly for four distinct “races.” Or does it? By adding Egypt to the analysis, we see the problem of inferring race from widespread geographic samples; other populations fall in between, thus forcing us to add a fifth “race.” Of course, if we add still other groups, we have to continually increase our number of races. Our image of distinct races often results from not using a full sampling of humanity.
John H Relethford - The Human Species, An Introduction to Biological Anthropology
Since strawman attacks always lurk around the corner when you quote or say something people here don't like, here are a couple of caveats:
--The Egyptian sample used here by Relethford is late Dynastic in date and not representative of the early founding populations in certain measurements. They tend to group in the middle of the subset of Egyptian samples I posted earlier (see the OP of this thread). They look like what has been called "the lower Egyptian type". In terms of living populations, living Arab and Berber speaking Maghrebis cluster in that same intermediate position, whereas Upper Egyptians gravitate a bit more to Sub-Saharan Africans on the other side of this spectrum.
--The sample choice was limited, but it was supposed to be. They carried out the analysis to demonstrate that populations aren't going to always cluster with representatives of racial groups who are perceived to be 'pure' and morphologically representative of that 'race'.
--Obviously, I don't agree with that borrowed Brace remark that "Egyptians are Egyptians". They're not are on some isolated 'island' when it comes to morphometric affinity. Plenty of western, central and eastern Saharan populations that plot next to them.
@Sudaniya
Now see my post again with these Relethford quotes and their emphasized parts in mind and see how they relate to my post re: competent bio-anthropologists and how they understand populations to be structured. Competence has everything to do with recognizing that microevolution doesn't 'obey' the expectations of pre-conceived, man-made racial ideology. That goes for ANY man-made racial ideology, including the 'racial' ideologies many here subscribe to.
But here is the problem, skin color is a fact of human biology and as I have been saying on this thread for 8 pages, why should we allow racists and their 'racial definitions' to hijack a word that has been around for thousands of years and has no distinction of race. This is the argument I am making. If you don't believe in race then stop thinking racially. Black means skin color not race. And if the European or Americans biologists have a problem with it then that makes them racists because they are thinking in racial terms about a word that has been around for thousands of years to refer to the skin complexion of Africans. Again, this is not about nose shape, eye shape, lip shape, cranial volume or anything else but skin color. But here is the trick, these people know full damn well what you mean by black skin yet they refuse to acknowledge it because they are desperately trying to ignore and deny it exists so they can promote their indigenous 'pale skin' ancient Egyptian nonsense. And to this point you have not provided one argument from any "objective" biologist on this issue which you claimed were so numerous you could cite them. So far the only people you have cited are the racists whose bias is shown even in your own quotes yet you are claiming that this proves 'objectivity'? As in the case here with your quoting of John Rutherford who has used selective samples to carefully avoid the populations in Egypt who are obviously to this day still black. If you can't even trust these people to take accurate samples of the population then how can you trust them with there "objective" definitions of what the people looked like? You can't. And that is the point. And no, I don't believe that middle to lower Egyptians were not black in ancient times. They were all black. Every single population in Africa has regional variations in craniofacial measurements and Egypt isn't unique and special in this regard. Cline exists everywhere not just in Egypt. And again, Africans are the most diverse population on earth so those craniofacial variations don't necessarily imply skin color variation to the degree they want it to.
And here is how you catch them in their contraditctions. Ask these same biologists if they have a problem calling Sudanese black people. Now considering that Sudan is not sub saharan or West African, especially the northern part closest to Egypt, then if they claim Sudanese are black then they have just contradicted themselves. Sudanese aren't West Africans or Sub Saharans and the ancient northern populations of what is now Sudan are the closest to the ancients. And if they call them black it means they have no problem lumping them with African Americans and suddenly black people means dark skin Africans. But when it comes to Egypt they want to make a distinction. And my point is their distinction now and in the past has always been skin color. Their whole objection to using black isn't based on any 'scientific accuracy' their objection is based on skin color and skin color alone even though they got some folks believing it is more than that. Basically what they are objecting to in terms of 'lumping together' of populations is any possiblity of a relationship between ancient Egypt and the Negro population of America. That has always been their issue going all the way back to Samuel Morton. But you got folks here claiming that these people and their 'racial distinctions' are objective.
Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
Swenet
I understand that modern 'western' definitions of 'black' would exclude virtually all the people of North Africa and based on their criteria, the AE would certainly be excluded.
I couldn't possibly contest this.
Other than the faults you've already identified in his work, John Relethford's book looks interesting, and so I'll put it on my book-list. Thank you.
Some non-white Indo-Europeans are only a shade or two darker than some Southern Europeans, but [correct if I'm wrong] but isn't their link confined to linguistics? And since speakers of common language families are not necessarily biologically related, I don't think a premium should be put on it.
Just like in the United States, it took a long time for Australians to accept Italians and Greeks as white, and they still get called 'Wogs' - an amorphous racial category that also includes Arabs, Kurds and Persians.
quote: What evidence would that be? What evidence would justify transforming old racial terms to new racial terminology? If you transform 'black' to refer to all dark skinned Africans on the African continent, do you think that would reflect cutting-edge science? How?
I'm obviously not anywhere near as informed as you are on this matter, but hasn't science firmly established that indigenous Africans have the greatest amount of variability in every conceivable category? Their physiological adaptations to their wide range of ecological zones should not be used to slice them up and separate them into nonsensical racial categories.
quote: Can you explain in detail the pigmentation range that should be included in such a revised use of 'black'?
The revised usage of 'black' would envelope the lightest 'Bushmen' to the blackest jet black Dinka -- people that really are midnight personified. Posted by Child Of The KING (Member # 9422) on :
Great Posts DougM and Sudaniya
DON'T FORGET the EGYPTIAN MAN MOSTAFA HEFNY who THE AMERICAN GOVERNMENT STILL TRYING TO FORCE HIM TO SAY HE COCKASIAN(SODIMITE) OOPS CAUCASIAN.
Mostafa Hefny
quote: When Mostafa Hefny immigrated to the U.S. in 1978, he got a rude awakening.
As the customs agent welcomed him into the country, the brown-skinned Egyptian-native was told that he was now considered white.
Despite the fact that Hefny, now 61, looks like a black man ,
he was classified on his government-issued documents as Caucasian, a designation he’s been fighting ever since
THE DISGUSTING PERVERTED STINKING USA WAS TRYING TO TELL A BLACK MAN HE COCKASIAN(EURO GOOFS) ER UM CAUCASIAN
BECAUSE THAT WOULD THROW THE WHOLE DISGUSTING FILTHY DIRTY EGYPTOLOGY ONTO A DEATH DROP!!! CAUSE THEY CLAIM BLACKS NOT FROM EGYPT!!!
AND HES STILL DEMANDING HIS RIGHTS AS BLACK YET AMERICA GIVES RIGHTS TO HOMOSEXUALS AND OTHER PERVERTS WHO SHOULD GET LOCKED UP AND NOT SEE THE DAY...
PERVERTS SHOULD GET THROWN INTO GENERAL POPULATION JAILS WITH THE JAIL MEN...
HOMOSEXUALS A DISGUSTING DIRTY PERVERSION HAS RIGHTS, YET MR. HEFNY STILL FORCED TO GET CALLED COCKASIAN(euro batty bwoys) OOPS CAUCASIAN???
THERES POSSIBLY NO WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE ABOUT MOSTAFA HEFNY!!NONE!!! THATS A POSSIBLE COVERUP WITH THE DIRTY EURO GOOFS AND THE U.S.GAY..OOPS U.S.A!!!
PEOPLE CHOOSE WHAT THEY ARE...NOT THE GOVERNMENT.
SKIN COLOR'S NOT DARK!!!(think), THEY CLAIM EVIL DEMONIC WHEN THEY CALL SKIN DARK...
PERSONS ON TV, MEDIA ENTERTAINMENT THAT HAVE UNNATURAL STRAIGHT HAIR USING CHEMICALS, HOT COMBS, POISON ETC, THEY DARK SKINNED!!!
Black, White, Red, Yellow and Brown, Colors of The People Cross All The Towns. United as One, Til Christ Kingdom Comes Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: @Sudaniya
Again, the issue in this discussion isn't whether the AE would have been regarded as having skin pigmentation that is within the range of African Americans. So the fringe illiterates who advance the pale Egyptian/black Nubian fallacy represent a different group of people than the ones I was addressing in the OP of this thread.
The issue is whether the western public agrees that falling in this skin pigmentation range necessarily fits their criteria of 'black' (regardless of how dark skinned they are), in the same way that Europeans don't call Chinese 'white' (regardless of how pale skinned they are).
According to this narrow North American definition of who is 'black', a sub-set of Nubians would fall out of the boat, too. But to say that means that the dark pigmentation of these people was automatically ignored or dismissed is a complete fallacy.
Anyone who is familiar with the bio-anthropological literature knows that northern Nubians and their living relatives have been subject to the same treatment, albeit to a somewhat lesser extent. But it is a misconception and fallacy to say that getting this treatment automatically means their skin has been white-washed.
quote:It appears that the current population of Egypt and Sudan are not influenced by those of Black Equatorial Africa, but are closely related to coastal populations of Ethiopia and the Arabian Peninsula to a lesser degree.
^Does this mean that the skin pigmentation of living northern Sudanese and Kharga Egyptians has been white-washed? Does G.Billy think living Nubians and Kharga Egyptians are pale? Of course not.
If you'd ask them what their pigmentation was, most of these academics would say:
quote:The archers from the 11th Dynasty (ca. 2150-2000 BCE) tomb of Mesheti and the Nubian representatives in the 18th Dynasty tomb of Huy appear to belong to a different group of “Nehesiu”. They are shown in different shades of brown and exhibit less pronounced biologically sub-Saharan features.
--Becker 2011
Swenet, you are simply running around avoiding the point and you think you are slick. Way back on page 1 of this thread you claimed that the "western" use of this term as a "racial term" trumps all other usages AND that the 'objective scientists' are not using the term because they have BETTER ways of describing said populations in Africa. I said to you that the 'western way' of distinguishing blackness is based on racism and racial categories that are only a few hundred years old, yet the term black and other words like it to refer to dark skin Africans across the entire continent is thousands of years old. Then I asked you if the AE were black and you simply didn't answer the question. So then I asked you to show us the objective scientists who were avoiding using the term because of their 'objectivity'. You have not quoted any 'objective' scientist saying the AE were black like the Nubians. In fact what you posted was Samuel Morton who objected to it and others who objected to such an association between the two groups. Meaning, these folks reject facts that go against their preconceived beliefs and notions yet you call them objective. And more to the point, you claimed that because of this 'objective' group of scholars and their desire to not use the term we should not use it either.
But here is the problem. Over these 8 pages you have not shown me anything 'objective' about rejecting the term black. In fact, you have proven why we should use it. Because white folks no matter how objective they claim to be, are rejecting the term black because in reality, deep down, they are rejecting the concept that the AE had skin colors in the range of most Africans, not just African Americans. This has absolutely zero to do with objectivity, because if they were objective they would see that black skin is a distinctive trait of ALL indigenous African people, not only today but even moreso going back thousands of years. And this is the historic backdrop of the usage of the term which had no association with modern 'racial groups' because those groups and that definition did not exist as a figment of European pseudo scientific racist imagination.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Sudaniya:
The Chinese don't have recent origins with the people of Europe; the linguistic, cultural, genetic, dental, skeletal and cranial evidence doesn't directly tie them in with Europeans - the only recognised 'white' people on earth... whereas the ancient Egyptians are clearly related to other black Africans in Sudan and elsewhere, using all those lines of evidence. We can dismiss their criteria, can't we? We don't need to adopt it and subscribe to it.
That quote talks about western perceptions and their subjective ideas about who is white and who is black, not factual morphometrics and culture. If you think East Asians are a completely different example, then pick an example of pale and swarthy groups in the pigmentation range of Europeans: Indo-Aryan speakers. How many Indo-Aryan speakers in Central and South Asia are recognized as white in the West in every day conversation? All one needs to do is go to the UK and the US and see how Sikhs are treated as non-white terrorists and Arabs.
Again for the fifteenth time, the point is WHY DO YOU CARE SO MUCH ABOUT THE VIEWS OF RACISTS?
EUROPEANS INVENTED THE MODERN DEFINITION OF RACE TO SUPPORT WHITE SUPREMACY 300 YEARS AGO. This is not an 'ancient' concept. This was something explicitly invented after the Europeans began traveling around the world and conquering people, taking their land and wealth and using it to build their empires. Black people as a term for Africans was around thousands of years before that. So again, like I said 8 pages ago, if we reject racism that does not mean rejecting skin color because skin color is a fact of life. This isn't rocket science. When I say the AE people were black Africans, I mean just that. I mean that the were primarily a very dark population of Africans very similar to many Sudanese to this day. And that is specifically what I mean when I use it and in that usage there is no distinction between the AE and any other African population because they all have similar overall features.
quote: How many Indo-Aryan speaking migrants are welcomed as 'whites' by Australian policy makers?
What does this have to do with people INSIDE AFRICA 3,000 years ago?
quote:
quote:Their use of 'black' seems to be in compliance with the true negro model and their refusal to adapt their usage in line with mounds of grit-edged scientific evidence...
Thank you. Tell that to Doug. I've been saying that all along. He's the one denying that the North American public applies 'black' in this narrow sense.
Really, Swenet the point here is I have said numerous times that this 'distinction' is based on the racism of Europe and America which created the concept of the Negro Race to justify slavery and to divide up Africans for the purposes of white supremacy. And your own arguments show that is this RACISM is the basis for the desire not to use the term black in relation to the AE. But you keep claiming that there is some objective reason why they don't want to use it. No the reason is skin color. They want the AE to be white or pale and using the term black just makes it impossible for them to even promote that notion. And that is the whole point but you simply keep running around trying to tell us that this isn't the case and all these movies and reenactments from 2015 not 1800 are simply our imagination and we are just wrong those people are just 'really objective'. Please. You have simply shown your self to be a mouth piece for white folks on this issue.
quote:
quote:Their use of 'black' seems to be in compliance with the true negro model and their refusal to adapt their usage in line with mounds of grit-edged scientific evidence...
What evidence would that be? What evidence would justify transforming old racial terms to new racial terminology? If you transform 'black' to refer to all dark skinned Africans on the African continent, do you think that would reflect cutting-edge science? How? Can you explain in detail the pigmentation range that should be included in such a revised use of 'black'?
Why does someone have to pull out a dam color chart to define blackness in Africa? Does anybody use a color chart anywhere else? Do Americans use color charts to say who is black or not? Come on this charade is becoming nonsensical. The only people who need a dam color chart are those claiming the AE were not black, because in reality what these people are saying is that the AE weren't DARK ENOUGH to be called black. I am just so tired of you beating around the bush and trying to claim that this IS NOT the issue. So like I said 8 pages ago, I am not beating around the bush, I say what I mean and mean what I say when using the term black. On the other hand, white so-called objective scientists play word games and use reverse psychology to get morons to play along with them and their games which will eventually lead to the AE not being 'black' and being very light skinned. I am not in that camp.
quote:
quote:Should our use of black conform with their flawed, subjective and self-serving perceptions, thereby committing ourselves to hands-on-knees submission and revolting self-immolation?
Regarding "our use of black": I've been talking to many people in this community about their use of 'black'.
There is only one dictionary definition of the term black. I hate that you refuse to admit you are wrong but you keep persisting with this nonsense argument even after being shown you are wrong. The oldest definition of black used for thousands of years has been for Africans with dark skin with no 'distinction' on which Africans or what shades were dark enough to be called black. Again, if I say the AE were black there is no confusion about what I mean. NOBODY is confused and most people know what I am saying. Rather than just admit that the disagreement is based on skin color, you are sitting here making up absurd straw men about language. The disagreement is not about words, it is about actual skin color and I wish you would just accept it. You simply are running around pushing the agenda of white folks to make something very simple and obvious overly complex and convoluted. It is about skin color and one side sees the AE as very light and the other sees them as very dark. One that is the only distinction that matters when it comes to calling the AE black. Nothing else. Not Al Jahiz. Not the Greeks, not Western Racists and nothing else. It all boils down to skin color. This is the point you keep running away from and no matter what words you use this is always going to be the issue. And I would rather just address the issue head on and not run away from it.
quote: There is no uniformity or consensus. Some use it in a racial sense and some use it in a pigmentation sense. This has been talked about extensively in this thread and elsewhere. And no, you don't have to adopt their use of 'black'. The discussion is about either dropping it altogether or using another tradition of the term (e.g. the al Jahiz tradition). I don't think anyone has suggested to adopt the western use of the term. I did acknowledge that it exists and that continued use of the term has repeatedly led to strawman attacks.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: Swenet
I understand that modern 'western' definitions of 'black' would exclude virtually all the people of North Africa and based on their criteria, the AE would certainly be excluded.
I couldn't possibly contest this.
Other than the faults you've already identified in his work, John Relethford's book looks interesting, and so I'll put it on my book-list. Thank you.
Some non-white Indo-Europeans are only a shade or two darker than some Southern Europeans, but [correct if I'm wrong] but isn't their link confined to linguistics? And since speakers of common language families are not necessarily biologically related, I don't think a premium should be put on it.
Just like in the United States, it took a long time for Australians to accept Italians and Greeks as white, and they still get called 'Wogs' - an amorphous racial category that also includes Arabs, Kurds and Persians.
quote: What evidence would that be? What evidence would justify transforming old racial terms to new racial terminology? If you transform 'black' to refer to all dark skinned Africans on the African continent, do you think that would reflect cutting-edge science? How?
I'm obviously not anywhere near as informed as you are on this matter, but hasn't science firmly established that indigenous Africans have the greatest amount of variability in every conceivable category? Their physiological adaptations to their wide range of ecological zones should not be used to slice them up and separate them into nonsensical racial categories.
quote: Can you explain in detail the pigmentation range that should be included in such a revised use of 'black'?
The revised usage of 'black' would envelope the lightest 'Bushmen' to the blackest jet black Dinka -- people that really are midnight personified.
South Asian genetics can be understood in very simple terms as comprising an ANI component (Ancestral North Indians) and an ASI component (Ancestral South Indians). The former component is broadly related to Middle Easterners and Europeans, the latter component is broadly related to people from the Andaman islands. In South Asia there is a strong correlation between North and South, pale and dark, and ANI and ASI. Pale Pakistanis, for instance, have little to no ASI and are mostly ANI.
All the evidence can say is who is or isn't indigenous African. The evidence can also say who is and who isn't light and dark skinned and this can be quantified with skin reflectance and melanin dosage tests. Going beyond this tangible stuff has nothing to do with science.
Unless people literally have any of these skin colors (which is rare), the evidence cannot falsify or confirm who is 'black', 'white', 'yellow' (East Asian), red (Native American) or brown (Mexican); these are all man-made labels. Take a group like the Tuareg who are often a shade of brown. The evidence doesn't answer a question like "Are the Tuareg 'red' (as they call themselves) or 'black' (as they call many other Africans)?"
IMO the most reasonable use of 'black', i.e. if it's going to be used at all, is the al Jahiz approach, which sorts any population based on dark skin pigmentation. But this is not a choice that is informed by any evidence. Nowhere is it written in stone that tawny Khoisan pigmentation should be in the range of 'black'. An observer could just as easily say that the tawny skin color of some Khoisan is in the range of 'medium'. Then what? According to some here, that's apparently 'racist'.
And thanks for actually reading the clarifications and responding to their content, instead of mindlessly attacking strawmen as several people have done in the past thread pages. Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Way back on page 1 of this thread you claimed that the "western" use of this term as a "racial term" trumps all other usages AND that the 'objective scientists' are not using the term because they have BETTER ways of describing said populations in Africa.
I challenge any accusers to provide evidence for this lie with direct quotes. I want the exact quote and a link to the thread page where I supposedly said this.
Posted by Punos_Rey (Member # 21929) on :
I've been following this thread for weeks and have not ever seen that supposed statement.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: Swenet
I understand that modern 'western' definitions of 'black' would exclude virtually all the people of North Africa and based on their criteria, the AE would certainly be excluded.
I couldn't possibly contest this.
Other than the faults you've already identified in his work, John Relethford's book looks interesting, and so I'll put it on my book-list. Thank you.
Some non-white Indo-Europeans are only a shade or two darker than some Southern Europeans, but [correct if I'm wrong] but isn't their link confined to linguistics? And since speakers of common language families are not necessarily biologically related, I don't think a premium should be put on it.
Just like in the United States, it took a long time for Australians to accept Italians and Greeks as white, and they still get called 'Wogs' - an amorphous racial category that also includes Arabs, Kurds and Persians.
quote: What evidence would that be? What evidence would justify transforming old racial terms to new racial terminology? If you transform 'black' to refer to all dark skinned Africans on the African continent, do you think that would reflect cutting-edge science? How?
I'm obviously not anywhere near as informed as you are on this matter, but hasn't science firmly established that indigenous Africans have the greatest amount of variability in every conceivable category? Their physiological adaptations to their wide range of ecological zones should not be used to slice them up and separate them into nonsensical racial categories.
quote: Can you explain in detail the pigmentation range that should be included in such a revised use of 'black'?
The revised usage of 'black' would envelope the lightest 'Bushmen' to the blackest jet black Dinka -- people that really are midnight personified.
South Asian genetics can be understood in very simple terms as comprising an ANI component (Ancestral North Indians) and an ASI component (Ancestral South Indians). The former component is broadly related to Middle Easterners and Europeans, the latter component is broadly related to people from the Andaman islands. In South Asia there is a strong correlation between North and South, pale and dark, and ANI and ASI. Pale Pakistanis, for instance, have little to no ASI and are mostly ANI.
All the evidence can say is who is or isn't indigenous African. The evidence can also say who is and who isn't light and dark skinned and this can be quantified with skin reflectance and melanin dosage tests. Going beyond this tangible stuff has nothing to do with science.
Again, Swenet. you are missing the point. Lets just stick to Egypt. Melanin dosage tests, AE art, craniofacial measurements and skeletal measurements have all been done on the ancient populations from a 'scientific' perspective. Then you also have AE art which can give you a 'subjective' perspective. At the end of the day though, does this make the argument go away? No. Subjective opinions go both ways. The point being the debate over the skin color of the AE is and has always been about racism. Lets just be clear on this and stop trying to pretend there is something else to this. THAT is a strawman and a lie. European anthropology was created as scientific racism and for most of the history of anthropology it was quite racist. Those are the facts. So when it comes to debates like the AE it does no good to pretend there is an issue of semantics and that people are arguing over words for the sake of 'scientific accuracy' and 'literacy' or any other such thing. The argument over the skin color of the AE is basically fundamentally about skin color and racism, where racists just don't want to let go of the notion pushed in all their discovery and history channel reenactments and other documentation that the AE were a pale population similar to white Europeans. That is the whole point in a nutshell. There is really no other population in Africa that has this much focus when it comes to skin color and we know why and it has nothing to do with dialectics and definitions of words. That is the part you are lying about.
quote: Unless people literally have any of these skin colors (which is rare), the evidence cannot falsify or confirm who is 'black', 'white', 'yellow' (East Asian), red (Native American) or brown (Mexican); these are all man-made labels. Take a group like the Tuareg who are mostly a shade of brown. The evidence doesn't answer a question like "Are the Tuareg 'red' (as they call themselves) or 'black' (as they call many other Africans)?"
Why are you using outdated racial terms? Where did anyone else on this thread or myself mention the word 'yellow' in reference to Asians. If you look at human skin colors across a spectrum it goes from DARK BROWN/BLACK on one end to VERY LIGHT/WHITE on the other and in between are shades of brown. That is a fact of human biology. You keep making it seem like skin color is some 'social thing' and not biological. Skin color is biological and it is based on science, which means studying it and describing it using terms related to colors is perfectly legitimate considering that the observed population actually fits the description. White skin exists all over the planet and is not limited to Europe. Black skin exists all over the planet and is not limited to Africa. The reason for this is not 'subjective social standards'. The reason for this existence of a wide range of complexions in human skin color is biology. And this nonsense that studying skin color is not studying biology is pure garbage you keep spewing out of your head. And within any population there is going to be variability, but that does not mean that the statistical mean or average value of that population cannot be described by one or two representative terms. Hence, calling Europeans white doesn't mean that there aren't any Europeans who are tawny or relatively dark, as in Southern Europeans. It only means that on average the mean color of European people is very pale and white. Similarly calling Africans black also means that on average the statistical mean complexion of an African is very dark. Tuaregs, bushmen, Ethiopians and other populations have variability in skin color like all other Africans, but there are very DARK Tuareg and there are some who are very light and undoubtedly some of that is due to mixture. But even then, across all these groups the statistical mean complexion still falls within the range of what we call black in terms of skin color. There is nothing confusing, misleading or non scientific about this.
And I am saying this because you keep pushing this absurd notion that describing skin color by using color names is somehow not scientific. That is garbage.
quote: IMO the most reasonable use of 'black', i.e. if it's going to be used at all, is the al Jahiz approach, which sorts any population based on dark skin pigmentation. But this is not a choice that is informed by any evidence. Nowhere is it written in stone that tawny Khoisan pigmentation should be in the range of 'black'. An observer could just as easily say that the tawny skin color of some Khoisan is in the range of 'medium'. Then what? According to some here, that's "racist".
All Khoisan are not light skinned. There are plenty of dark skinned Khoisan. In fact Sara Baartman comes to mind. In fact the first hottentots as the Europeans called them were originally depicted as very dark. Some of the more modern populations of San and other bushmen groups are also mixed with Europeans, as in the Griqua. Not to mention that other African groups in South Africa have similar features to the San even though they are not Bushmen, like the Xhosa. So again, if you look across the entire group and not just individual subsets of groups you will still see the mean complexion across the group falls well within the range of what is called black. Also note that there is no overlap in what is the mean average on what is called white and what is called black. They are literally opposite ends of the spectrum. And this isn't due to any 'social norms or standards' It is because of natural selection which means that in order to change skin complexion from very dark to light requires very extreme environmental pressures which rules out an 'in between' scenario. Tropical Africa does not produce a lot of 'in between' colors like tan on average as most Africans originate in tropical environments where the rule is that skin color is very dark. similarly in Europe the northern Environment results in natural selection that produces very light skin. Only in places like Southern Africa has a population been in place long enough to support the idea of a 'in situ' evolution towards light brown skin but again, across the whole population of bushmen across various countries in the region the color is not uniform and varies.
quote: And thanks for actually reading the clarifications and responding to their content, instead of mindlessly attacking strawmen as several people have done in the past thread pages.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
@Punos_Rey
Thank you. Can't believe readers have given him a pass so far for his many fabrications.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Punos_Rey: I've been following this thread for weeks and have not ever seen that supposed statement.
From page one:
My reply:
quote: Scientists not calling the Egyptians black is not because there is some 'better' way of describing them for scientific purposes. That is nonsense. They are not calling them black because of racism. To state that there is some 'other' reason for this is nonsense. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, then what reason is there to call it anything but a duck? The same applies here. Note how there is no other civilization where this problem exists other than those in Africa which has been 99.9% populated by black people for over 200,000 years. I don't need to go all over the earth finding examples of folks who are mixed an 'could' possibly be called not black and have various ways of self identifying not labeling themselves as black. That isn't the topic at hand. The topic at hand is the population of the Nile Valley in what is now called Egypt prior to 800 BC. That is the only population that needs to be looked at and the only language and self identity that matters. And on that point the evidence is clear that they were physically and self identified as 'black', as the name they gave themselves means literally "black people" KMT= black nation = black people. Case closed. The only people who have a problem with this are people who have little relevance, namely white people from Europe and frankly don't matter as they are not the same people and don't count whatsoever.
Followed by Swenet's reply:
quote: ^That's the same attitude I've had for years, until I got the chance to see some of these professors' private emails and saw my own assumptions about them fall apart of front of my eyes. Flip flops, incompetence and inconsistencies, yes, but placing the blame squarely on racism? That's a hefty accusation.
Simply screaming racism isn't going to be enough. Conspiracy theories aren't falsifiable. To come to a conclusion about what is going on, the best way I can think of would be to look at western coverage of African populations with a similar range of phenotypes as the dynastic Egyptians, and see if there is a difference in coverage.
There are plenty of living populations to choose in the Sahel and Sahara that fit the mold. Take your pick and let's see how much a reluctance to attribute civilization to Africans (assuming that's what you meant) has to do with it.
Ancient documents from populations with a familiarity with Egyptians and other Africans should also be used. This issue is much more easy to settle than people are making it out to be. Another good question to ask is: did the ancient writers treat ancient Egyptians different from the Africans who are today considered 'black'. The answer to these questions aren't up for discussion, and can be answered today.
Now if this isn't a rejection of the usage of the term black because of the presence of 'objective' scientists within the White European community who have differences on the use of the term then what was the point of replying on a thread that has a specific topic of the use of the term black?
If it isn't relevant then why post it?
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
^That's what it looks like when someone is humbled by his own inability to substantiate his fabricated accusations and has to come back empty handed. Or worse: having to come back with 'evidence' that only proves he's seeing things.
Posted by Child Of The KING (Member # 9422) on :
The Whole reason we Discuss things among Each other is Not to always agree and use the terms of the racist goofy batty bwoy establishment..
We SUPPOSED TO ALL CORRECTING THE IGNORANCE OF THE PAST SEVERAL CENTURYS.
SUPPOSED TO FIND PROPER TERMS FOR ANCESTRY, PROPER TERMS FOR THE PAST ETC.
AFRICAN SKIN COLOR BETWEEN PALE BROWN,MEDIUM BROWN,DEEP BROWN AND BLACK.
USE CORRECT TERMS FOR PEOPLES, NOT COPY THE LOWLIVE EVIL DEMONIC HOMOSEXUAL ESTABLISHMENT(Egyptology,U.S.Gay oops U.S.A. etc)
SKIN COLOR NOT DARK!!!
quote: Ephesians 4:18
Their minds are full of darkness they wander far from the life God gives because they have closed their minds and hardened their hearts against him.
quote: Psalm 91:6 Do not dread the disease that stalks in darkness , nor the disaster that strikes at midday.
quote: Isaiah 29:15
Woe to those who go to great depths to hide their plans from the LORD,
who do their work in darkness and think, "Who sees us? Who will know?"
quote: Ephesians 5:8
for at one time you were darkness , but now you are light in the Lord. Walk as children of light
SKIN COLOR NOT LIGHT OR DARK
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
But here is the problem, skin color is a fact of human biology and as I have been saying on this thread for 8 pages, why should we allow racists and their 'racial definitions' to hijack a word that has been around for thousands of years and has no distinction of race.
Because human biology is a science and scientific observation uses modern terms for colors like brown.
One cannot argue that race does not exist and then insist that we not use the word "brown" for people, just for other brown things.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
Black means skin color not race....
this is not about nose shape, eye shape, lip shape, cranial volume or anything else but skin color.
We live in modern society not ancient Greece. In modern society "black" means a brown skinned person who has an afro and broad features That is the current usage, not only skin color but other traits. Even if you don't like this definition that is what is currently being used by the majority of people.
So if you want to say it's skin color alone and then include Amazonians, South Asians, etc. That is the definition you like but it is not the definition that the vast majority of modern people are using.
And you are trying to force Swenet to say the Egyptians were black based on your much broader definition not the common usage. That is not fair.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
Basically what they are objecting to in terms of 'lumping together' of populations is any possibility of a relationship between ancient Egypt and the Negro population of America. That has always been their issue going all the way back to Samuel Morton. But you got folks here claiming that these people and their 'racial distinctions' are objective.
Now you have gotten to the heart of the matter.
You want the "Negro" population of America to be associated with the Egyptians.
Yet you are the same person who wants to include dark skinned Native Americans and dark South East Asians as black as well. That makes no sense at all.
At least if you were using the common definition that is not only skin color but other "African looking" traits, you could have made a stronger case for some Egyptian pharaohs looking "black"
Your whole approach to trying to link Egypt and the "Negro" population of America is wrong headed and based on colorism , stereotypes of color imposed by Europeans such as the ancient Greeks and contemporary Americans. -not by the Africans themselves
Somebody could say the Egyptians were black like East Indians or Melanesians. What good is that ? How is that going to link AAs and Egyptians?
The much better approach to trying to link Egypt and the "Negro" population of America is to use genetics, physical proportions and cultual affinities. It would be stupid to use skin color alone which as you have noted is so broad to include people all over the world on different continents. Insisting one particular word be used is politics not anthropology
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
For all the morons on this thread who think that skin color equates to racism and therefore is not an aspect of scientific study, I refer you to the following book. Needless to say this is purely a result of nonsensical logic among those desperate to stay in the status quo of "racial thinking" by ignoring the reality of skin color as opposed to understanding that skin color is a biological and thus scientific reality.
And the title of the book is "black skin". So all biologists and scientists don't ascribe to this notion of skin color not existing and words like black being inherently racist:
quote: Classifications of humankind have been based primarily on skin color. Such grouping has had, and still has, more than any other racial trait, an enormous impact on social relationships. However, in an essay on human skin color, Slack (1844) pointed out that if all the people in the world were arranged in a straight line according to the color of their skin, beginning with the whitest and ending with the blackest, it would be impossible to see where the white race ended and the black race began. And yet European (Christian) art and literature have reduced the gamut of human skin colors to a blackwhite dualism with the underlying notion that 'Whites' are biologically and intellectually superior to 'Blacks'.
For many years even scientific research was not spared from racial prejudices, and the answer to such a basic question as why black skin is black and, conversely, why white skin is white was left largely to anatomists and anthropologists. During the last two decades, however, progress in the chemistry of melanin pigmentation has led us to a better understanding of the regulatory mechanisms that underlie skin color differences among the human races. Although many things still remain to be explained, it now seems clear that skin pigmentation is the result of a complex interplay between enzymes and cofactors that appear to act extracellularly and to control the amount of melanin formed. It is because of these epigenetic factors, and especially the redox state of the glutathione system, that black skin is black and white skin is white. The glutathione system is also involved in many vital biological processes. The more we learn about the regulation of melanogenesis, the more we can check certain misconceptions and prejudices about ethnic skin colors.
There is increasing evidence that black skin is endowed with specific biological properties that are lacking in white skin. For example, black skin is smoother and firmer to the touch than white skin. Black people also appear to age more gracefully than white people, developing fewer and less conspicuous wrinkles in their middle-aged years. Black skin is also considerably more resistant to dermal elastotic changes when chronically exposed to ultraviolet radiation. Furthermore, epidemiological studies indicate that black skin is largely spared from skin cancers, including malignant melanomas (Willis, 1988).
We believe that the greater amounts of melanin and the packaging of melanosomes in black skin are not the only agents responsible for the biologic uniqueness of black skin. A biochemical search for the agent or agents that protect black skin from actinic damages has not yet been pursued seriously; finding such agent or agents might teach us a great deal about what causes photoaging and the higher incidence of skin cancer in white people. This book is aimed at gathering facts and making possible correlations in our scattered and, as yet, incomplete knowledge of the biology, physiology, and chemistry of black skin. We include some details of the dermatology and cosmetology of black skin, from a practical view of skin care and current treatments of pigmentary disorders. We also discuss the structure of black skin and current and past thinking about skin pigmentation, and we mention the multifaceted sociological implications of skin color differences in ancient and modern times.
We hope that the information and references assembled in this book will provide a guide to the functional properties of black skin, as well as a stimulus to further research on the intriguing relationship between skin color and skin physiology. We believe that this book should be of interest to a wide range of readers from lay persons to specialists in different scientific and medical disciplines, such as anthropology, skin biology and biochemistry, clinical dermatology, and the ever increasing group of research-oriented practitioners in the field of functional cosmetology.
Why do people from different parts of the world have different colored skin? Why do people from the tropics generally have darker skin color that those who live in colder climates? Variations in human skin color are adaptive traits that correlate closely with geography and the sun’s ultraviolet (UV) radiation.
As early humans moved into hot, open environments in search of food and water, one big challenge was keeping cool. The adaptation that was favored involved an increase in the number of sweat glands on the skin while at the same time reducing the amount of body hair. With less hair, perspiration could evaporate more easily and cool the body more efficiently. But this less-hairy skin was a problem because it was exposed to a very strong sun, especially in lands near the equator. Since strong sun exposure damages the body, the solution was to evolve skin that was permanently dark so as to protect against the sun’s more damaging rays.
Melanin, the skin's brown pigment, is a natural sunscreen that protects tropical peoples from the many harmful effects of ultraviolet (UV) rays. UV rays can, for example, strip away folic acid, a nutrient essential to the development of healthy fetuses. Yet when a certain amount of UV rays penetrates the skin, it helps the human body use vitamin D to absorb the calcium necessary for strong bones. This delicate balancing act explains why the peoples that migrated to colder geographic zones with less sunlight developed lighter skin color. As people moved to areas farther from the equator with lower UV levels, natural selection favored lighter skin which allowed UV rays to penetrate and produce essential vitamin D. The darker skin of peoples who lived closer to the equator was important in preventing folate deficiency. Measures of skin reflectance, a way to quantify skin color by measuring the amount of light it reflects, in people around the world support this idea. While UV rays can cause skin cancer, because skin cancer usually affects people after they have had children, it likely had little effect on the evolution of skin color because evolution favors changes that improve reproductive success.
There is also a third factor which affects skin color: coastal peoples who eat diets rich in seafood enjoy this alternate source of vitamin D. That means that some Arctic peoples, such as native peoples of Alaska and Canada, can afford to remain dark-skinned even in low UV areas. In the summer they get high levels of UV rays reflected from the surface of snow and ice, and their dark skin protects them from this reflected light.
Black Skin: Structure and Function (1993) By William Montagna, Giuseppe Prota, John A. Kenney, Jr. >>>
^^ here "Black" is defined as African or American.
That limitation means something beyond skin color, contradicting Doug who says it's skin color alone
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
Why are you using outdated racial terms?
SMH Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Thanks for the ebook link. I was looking for evidence to test Relethord hypothesis about the great variation of skin color of "pure" Africans. I think I have it now.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: For all the morons on this thread who think that skin color equates to racism and therefore is
Xyyman. See the position of "Namaqualand" all the way at/near 50%:
^Apparently Khoi and San skin can get even lighter.
Also see Relethford's several papers on skin reflectance and human variation in skin pigmentation.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
^ Informative chart. Source?
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Xyyman. See the position of "Namaqualand" all the way at/near 50%:
^Apparently Khoi and San skin may get even lighter.
Also see Relethford's several papers on skin reflectance and human variation in skin pigmentation.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
Old image of different ethnic groups and their features from German antrhopological paintings:
Caption:
quote:From left to right, they include (top row) a Bushman, a Namaqualand woman, a Loango woman, a man from Darfur in the Sudan, a New Hebridean, a Tasmanian, two Italians; (middle row) a south-west Australian, a Nubian, a Swede, a Russian, a Tongan, a Dayak from Borneo; (bottom row) two Mongolians, a Chinaman, a Yakut (or Sakha) woman from Siberia, a North American native, a South American native, a Koriakin and a Greenlander.
quote: For thousands of years, the Khoisan peoples of South Africa and southern Namibia maintained a nomadic life.
From 1904 to 1907, the Germans, who had colonised present-day Namibia waged war against the Nama and the Herero, leading to the Herero and Namaqua Genocide in which they killed at least 80% of the Nama and Herero populations.[2] This was motivated by the German desire to establish a prosperous colony which required displacing the indigenous people from their agricultural land. Large herds of cattle were confiscated and Nama and Herero people were driven into the desert and in some cases interred in concentration camps on the coast, for example at Shark Island. Additionally, the Nama and Herero were forced into slave labour to build railways and to dig for diamonds during the diamond rush.
However, in the 1920s diamonds were discovered at the mouth of the Orange River, and prospectors began moving there, establishing towns at Alexander Bay and Port Nolloth. This accelerated the appropriation of traditional lands that had begun early in the colonial period. Under apartheid, remaining pastoralists were encouraged to abandon their traditional lifestyle in favour of village life.
The Nama originally lived around the Orange River in southern Namibia and northern South Africa. The early colonialists referred to them as Hottentots. Their alternative historical name, "Namaqua", simply stems from the addition of the Khoekhoe language suffix "-qua/khwa", meaning "people" (found in the names of other Southern African nations like the Griqua)
In 1991, a part of Namaqualand (home of the Nama and one of the last true wilderness areas of South Africa) was named the Richtersveld National Park. In December 2002, ancestral lands, including the park, were returned to community ownership and the governments of South Africa and Namibia began creating a trans-frontier park from the west coast of southern Africa to the desert interior, absorbing the Richtersveld National Park. Today, the Richtersveld National Park is one of the few places where the original Nama traditions survive. Here, the Nama move with the seasons and speak their language. The traditional Nama dwelling – the |haru oms, or portable rush-mat covered domed hut – protects against the blistering sun, and is easy to move when grazing lands become scarce.
And looking at their very broad features and epicanthic fold, to think that the lighter skinned ones are due to recent admixture with Europeans is silliness
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
@Xyyman
It's in the aforementioned Relethford book (p129). References for the samples are in Relethford 1997.
Posted by Child Of The KING (Member # 9422) on :
Ladies and Gentleman, made a Mistake about the Word Pale Brown..
Does the Word Beige Brown work?
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote: When the first hominins (human ancestors) began hunting and gathering on the open savannah, they lost their body hair, likely to keep cool amid the strenuous exercise of their lifestyle. These early humans probably had pale skin, much like humans' closest living relative, the chimpanzee, which is white under its fur. Around 1.2 million to 1.8 million years ago, early Homo sapiens evolved dark skin. But evolutionary biologists haven't been convinced that skin cancer itself drove the evolutionary change.(Light skin evolved again after humans moved out of Africa to higher latitudes.)
Black skin in humans is older than any other kind of skin color by many many years.
Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: Swenet
I understand that modern 'western' definitions of 'black' would exclude virtually all the people of North Africa and based on their criteria, the AE would certainly be excluded.
I couldn't possibly contest this.
Other than the faults you've already identified in his work, John Relethford's book looks interesting, and so I'll put it on my book-list. Thank you.
Some non-white Indo-Europeans are only a shade or two darker than some Southern Europeans, but [correct if I'm wrong] but isn't their link confined to linguistics? And since speakers of common language families are not necessarily biologically related, I don't think a premium should be put on it.
Just like in the United States, it took a long time for Australians to accept Italians and Greeks as white, and they still get called 'Wogs' - an amorphous racial category that also includes Arabs, Kurds and Persians.
quote: What evidence would that be? What evidence would justify transforming old racial terms to new racial terminology? If you transform 'black' to refer to all dark skinned Africans on the African continent, do you think that would reflect cutting-edge science? How?
I'm obviously not anywhere near as informed as you are on this matter, but hasn't science firmly established that indigenous Africans have the greatest amount of variability in every conceivable category? Their physiological adaptations to their wide range of ecological zones should not be used to slice them up and separate them into nonsensical racial categories.
quote: Can you explain in detail the pigmentation range that should be included in such a revised use of 'black'?
The revised usage of 'black' would envelope the lightest 'Bushmen' to the blackest jet black Dinka -- people that really are midnight personified.
South Asian genetics can be understood in very simple terms as comprising an ANI component (Ancestral North Indians) and an ASI component (Ancestral South Indians). The former component is broadly related to Middle Easterners and Europeans, the latter component is broadly related to people from the Andaman islands. In South Asia there is a strong correlation between North and South, pale and dark, and ANI and ASI. Pale Pakistanis, for instance, have little to no ASI and are mostly ANI.
All the evidence can say is who is or isn't indigenous African. The evidence can also say who is and who isn't light and dark skinned and this can be quantified with skin reflectance and melanin dosage tests. Going beyond this tangible stuff has nothing to do with science.
Unless people literally have any of these skin colors (which is rare), the evidence cannot falsify or confirm who is 'black', 'white', 'yellow' (East Asian), red (Native American) or brown (Mexican); these are all man-made labels. Take a group like the Tuareg who are often a shade of brown. The evidence doesn't answer a question like "Are the Tuareg 'red' (as they call themselves) or 'black' (as they call many other Africans)?"
IMO the most reasonable use of 'black', i.e. if it's going to be used at all, is the al Jahiz approach, which sorts any population based on dark skin pigmentation. But this is not a choice that is informed by any evidence. Nowhere is it written in stone that tawny Khoisan pigmentation should be in the range of 'black'. An observer could just as easily say that the tawny skin color of some Khoisan is in the range of 'medium'. Then what? According to some here, that's apparently 'racist'.
And thanks for actually reading the clarifications and responding to their content, instead of mindlessly attacking strawmen as several people have done in the past thread pages.
Thanks for the information on Northern Indian genetics, but I still think that you can't equate the two. I would assume that the linguistic, cranio-facial, genetic [and very importantly] cultural links between the Lower Nubians [even Kerma-Kushites] and the AE would have been infinitely closer than the links between Northern Indians and Europeans.
Some 'Nubians' undoubtedly spoke Afro-Asiatic languages. The Beja were considered 'Nubians' as well.
The vast majority of the San and the Tuaregs have very dark skin, in the same way that most Spaniards, Greeks and Italians have relatively very light skin, but there are exceptions with relatively dark skin all over the Mediterranean and yet they are accepted as part of the 'white' European continuum and yet nobody in their right mind would try to extricate them from the people of Europe.
One of my gripes with western academics is their insistence on using the scientifically bereft 'Caucasian' moniker far outside the borders of Europe for people that are not even linguistically, culturally and genetically related to them.
Beyond the science of melanin dosage tests and skin reflectance analysis... linguistics is a science; cultural anthropology is a science -- and all of these sciences directly intimate the AE with other black Africans.
I have learned a great deal from you and I truly feel that I am in your debt and so I have no reason to be anything but amiable with you, even if we disagree.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya:
The vast majority of the San and the Tuaregs have very dark skin, in the same way that most Spaniards, Greeks and Italians have relatively very light skin, but there are exceptions with relatively dark skin all over the Mediterranean and yet they are accepted as part of the 'white' European continuum and yet nobody in their right mind would try to extricate them from the people of Europe.
So you're saying some San are black and others are not?
The vast majority of San do not have very dark skin.
what the hell are you talking about?
Do you have some kind of data to support that? Read any literature describing their skin and see if they characterize it as very dark
Many have medium brown skin, many have light brown skin, some are darker, many are mixed with bantus. Here are some of the lighter San (or you can try to sweep them under the rug) Notice, no European traits >
^^ Either the above people are black or they are not black. It doesn't matter what other people in their group are. If according to Doug any person who has dark enough skin is black and it's just color you look at the person and see if they are black or not, not deal with ethnicity by attempting to figure out what the majority looks like. You use your eyes. Is this individual black or not ? According to Doug's strictly by skin definition of black some ethnic groups are comprised of both blacks and whites. The Tuaregs, for instance, as nomads, have a wide range of ethnicties and could not be called homogeneous. South Africa has bantus and Khosians, people with very different genetics and mixtures thereof
Salief Keita
^^^ If we are talking about skin color and restricted to using "black" or "white" this man is white, period end of story
He is an African albino (and great singer) not a "black Albino" misnomer
I prefer the politcial definition of black = a person of largely African ancestry regardless of skin tone. That would include all the San, not just some. It would exclude many berbers who had 40% or more Eurasian ancetry even if they had dark skin and exclude Barack Obama. -- But in the best of worlds not to use "white" or "black" since both are both dumb stereotypes (an attempt to split the world in two) and are not accurate descriptions of skin color which has thousands of shades
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote: Originally posted by Sudaniya: Thanks for the information on Northern Indian genetics, but I still think that you can't equate the two. I would assume that the linguistic, cranio-facial, genetic [and very importantly] cultural links between the Lower Nubians [even Kerma-Kushites] and the AE would have been infinitely closer than the links between Northern Indians and Europeans.
The comparison between pale South Asians and Europeans was used to make a certain argument. The argument I was making is that populations who aren't thought to fit the criteria of 'black' in the West, can still be considered dark brown or even jet-black skinned. In the same way, East Asians who aren't considered 'white' in the West can still be considered pale. The figurative use (in the West) of terms like 'white' and 'black' is what I was pointing out:
The issue is whether the western public agrees that falling in this [the African American] skin pigmentation range necessarily fits their criteria of 'black' (regardless of how dark skinned they are), in the same way that Europeans don't call Chinese 'white' (regardless of how pale skinned they are). --Swenet
For all intents and purposes (i.e. regardless of distant cultural and cranio-metric relationships), I think the fact that pale East Asians aren't considered 'white' in the West illustrates very well what I tried to say about the narrow western use of 'black'. That is, being considered "not black" or "questionably black" in the default western use of the term isn't mutually exclusive with being considered dark brown or even jet-black skinned. One refers (in the West) to a perceived race which approximates the described skin color and the other refers to skin pigmentation only.
quote:Originally posted by Sudaniya: One of my gripes with western academics is their insistence on using the scientifically bereft 'Caucasian' moniker far outside the borders of Europe for people that are not even linguistically, culturally and genetically related to them.
Noted.
Glad I could be of some help. Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
It is like saying white people can only be of European heritage, when you have White Asians who are not of European heritage
yeah, right, what Chinese person is going for the "or more" option and check the "White" box as well as the "Chinese" box ?? That is a joke. No Chinese person identifies as white no matter how light they are, stop the nonsense
And what African is going to check the "African" box as well as the "Black" box ??
--wait a minute, there is no African box Africans are forced to pick a color Chinese are not
So obviously the terms "white" and "black" are not applied without bias and inconsistency
Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
the lioness
Where have I said that some San are black and others are not?
The San have very dark skin when you compare them to Germanic and Slavic Europeans. The only San that wouldn't have very dark skin [in comparison to these Europeans] are precisely those that are mixed with Europeans, and even then they would be slightly darker than Southern Europeans - the darkest Europeans. The pictures you have chosen show people with very dark skin.
I'm sorry to say this, but your arguments don't make any sense to me. I like how you chose the lightest possible pictures of the San people and of Winnie Mandela and ignored all the others. This is just like when you laughably claimed that one Tut mask was more realistic than the other.
What was the reason behind your absurd little assertion? Oh, that's right, the one you tried to disregard seems to have presented the boy king with more stereotypical African features and so you tried to discount it.
Has anybody ever told you that you're so incredibly transparent when you try to fake the funk? It's almost painful just being a witness to it.
Do you honestly think that adjustments have to be made to the usage of black because of conditions like albinism? Why is it that people of European stock [like you] feel the need to suspend their critical faculties when it comes to matters concerning Africans?
Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
Swenet
I now get what you're saying about narrow western conventions on race. I beamed in on colour only. I gave a little bit of a knee-jerk response without considering all the particulars.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote: Originally posted by Sudaniya: Thanks for the information on Northern Indian genetics, but I still think that you can't equate the two. I would assume that the linguistic, cranio-facial, genetic [and very importantly] cultural links between the Lower Nubians [even Kerma-Kushites] and the AE would have been infinitely closer than the links between Northern Indians and Europeans.
The comparison between pale South Asians and Europeans was used to make a certain argument. The argument I was making is that populations who aren't thought to fit the criteria of 'black' in the West, can still be considered dark brown or even jet-black skinned. In the same way, East Asians who aren't considered 'white' in the West can still be considered pale. The figurative use (in the West) of terms like 'white' and 'black' is what I was pointing out:
The issue is whether the western public agrees that falling in this [the African American] skin pigmentation range necessarily fits their criteria of 'black' (regardless of how dark skinned they are), in the same way that Europeans don't call Chinese 'white' (regardless of how pale skinned they are). --Swenet
For all intents and purposes (i.e. regardless of distant cultural and cranio-metric relationships), I think the fact that pale East Asians aren't considered 'white' in the West illustrates very well what I tried to say about the narrow western use of 'black'. That is, being considered "not black" or "questionably black" in the default western use of the term isn't mutually exclusive with being considered dark brown or even jet-black skinned. One refers (in the West) to a perceived race which approximates the described skin color and the other refers to skin pigmentation only.
quote:Originally posted by Sudaniya: One of my gripes with western academics is their insistence on using the scientifically bereft 'Caucasian' moniker far outside the borders of Europe for people that are not even linguistically, culturally and genetically related to them.
Noted.
Glad I could be of some help.
The point you are making is not making any sense, when folks are arguing about skin color. When you hear people debating about skin color the debate is truly about skin color and nothing else.
I completely disagree with the idea that avoiding skin color in order to discuss genetics, linguistics, cranial measurements, skeletal structure and anything else is going to remove the core point of contention which is skin color.
But seriously, who claims that Spanish and Italians aren't white people? Where?
And who seriously claims that saying that a population is black is somehow not an issue of skin color? This is the problem I have with this circular line of argument. It is designed to try and deviate from the ultimate point which is the skin color of the AE. That is the new tactic which the scientific community has adopted by trying to make themselves seem 'unbiased' by just avoiding the issue of skin color all together. Then when somebody brings it up, they suddenly claim "oh, you are going by western racial standards" as if to say any discussion of skin color is promoting "western racial standards". And that is the biggest bunch of B.S. but it works because apparently folks on this forum can't get past it. Skin color is a part of human biology and studying it is no less scientific than any other aspect of human biology and just like no other aspect of human biology equates to 'western racial standards" neither does skin color. Saying that the ancient Egyptians had black skin is not saying anything about race. And at this point those folks who have an agenda are the ones trying to duck, doge and deviate from the issue and I don't advocate this tactic whatsoever.
If I say any population is or was black, I mean that and I mean dark as any black person anywhere. This is because if you actually look at the ranges of skin pigmentation among populations in the tropical belt and elsewhere you will find similar same ranges of skin complexion around the world as you see in Africa. So I can find dark brown populations on almost any part of the planet, which proves my point that black people as a reference to skin color is absolutely accurate and consistent with what the type of populations I am referring to. Similarly, when I say the AE were black Africans, I absolutely mean that the average skin complexion of the ancient Egyptians were very dark and on average darker than many African Americans. But you can't get into these kinds of specific details of skin color gradients, means and averages within specific populations if you decide to simply avoid the issue altogether.
And as this pertains to white Europeans, southern Europeans nowhere and no how fall within the mean skin complexion of what anyone would consider as black. THey are still well within the mean average of what someone would call white. And certainly, if Europeans made a distinction between Italians and Greeks versus Northern Europeans, then they would not consider Greece nor Rome as the basis of "western WHITE civilization". So again, these kinds of silly nitpicks over semantics can be easily solved by looking at the Europeans and Americans own use of the language and we know that outside the specialized world of racist pseudo-science, most average people on the street take the view that I am taking which is the view that has the most antiquity whether anyone on this forum agrees or not.
And as for East Asians, the original term for Asians within the specialized world of racist pseudo science was that they were a "yellow" race or Mongoloid. That term and that distinction is no longer accepted supposedly in western scientific literature. Most up to date science on this issue states point blank that Northern Eurasians have white skin. And that is different from saying they are part of the "white race" because there is no such thing as race. This is where folks on this board who supposedly know better keep getting confused or worse keep running in circles to avoid the point. The point is that all skin color is based on human biological adaptation to the environment. And that is the current standard understanding of skin color, whether very light as in "white" or very dark as in "black". But for some reason folks keep avoiding that part of modern science and keep going back to old "western racial definitions" in order to avoid the obvious fact that skin color is a very real part of human biology and can be described using adjectives like black or white. This isn't describing a race it is describing skin color and this absurd desire to pretend that this isn't a simple and understandable observation of fact is beyond absurd.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya:
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya:
The pictures you have chosen show people with very dark skin.
Do I even need to comment?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
But seriously, who claims that Spanish and Italians aren't white people? Where?
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
It is like saying white people can only be of European heritage, when you have White Asians who are not of European heritage
But seriously who cliams any Asians are white ? What Asian calls themselves white?
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
But seriously, who claims that Spanish and Italians aren't white people? Where?
People in this forum that Southen Italians and Spanish are not white, what are you talking about ??
All of the sudden Doug disregrads skin color completely and dubs Italians and Spainiards "white"
Ther is no consistency to his arguments, he is constantly shifting the goal posts
And when we compare thes Europeans to The Khosians I just posted who sudaniya just called "very dark skinned" the above Euroepans' skin is just as dark !!!
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: Swenet
I now get what you're saying about narrow western conventions on race. I beamed in on colour only. I gave a little bit of a knee-jerk response without considering all the particulars.
Again, I am going to reiterate my point and the subject of this thread since people like to play stupid.
Is "black" a valid word to be used to describe skin color (not genetics, not skull shape, not limb lengths, language or anything else).
Lets focus on that.
Assume for sake of argument that you are talking about the observed complexion of specific people or a general group of people.
Is it accurate to describe said population as "black" if their skin is within a certain range of complexions?
That is the issue.
Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya:
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya:
The pictures you have chosen show people with very dark skin.
Do I even need to comment?
When compared to the Europeans I specified, yes. If a Scandinavian had a skin tone like the San people, his fellow Scandinavians would consider him unusually very dark.
Posted by Nodnarb (Member # 3735) on :
Don't San have small quantities of a skin-lightening allele ultimately from Eurasia? They might have been darker before then.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
By the way, the reason Asians aren't considered "white" is more because of the fact that so many Asians still have features and ranges of skin color associated with black people. In fact there are plenty of black Asians and because of this fact and the fact that there are plenty darker skinned Asians, Europeans have never associated them with "white people" because of their obvious association with black folks.
quote: HERSHEY, Pa. -- Genetic investigation of a Malaysian tribe may tell scientists why East Asians have light skin but lower skin cancer rates than Europeans, according to a team of international researchers. Understanding the differences could lead to a better way to protect people from skin cancer.
While the genetics of skin color is largely unknown, past research using zebrafish by Penn State College of Medicine's Keith Cheng, M.D., Ph.D., identified the gene in Europeans that differs from West Africans and contributes to a lighter skin color. Mutations in the genes SLC24A5 and SLC45A2 are largely responsible for European pigmentation, showing only single amino acid differences between Europeans and West Africans. Each version of a gene is called an allele.
While East Asians -- Chinese, Japanese and Korean -- also are light skinned, these European alleles are not present, suggesting that while both groups' lighter skin color evolved to allow for better creation of vitamin D in northern climates, they did so in a different way. This difference also affects skin cancer rates. Europeans have 10 to 20 times higher rates of melanoma than Africans. However, despite also having lighter skin, East Asians have the same melanoma rates as Africans. The reason for this difference can only be explained when the gene mutations for both groups are found.
"By finding the differences, we have the potential to find ways to make people with the European ancestry genes less susceptible to skin cancer," said Cheng, professor of pathology.
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: When compared to the Europeans I specified, yes. If a Scandinavian had a skin tone like the San people, his fellow Scandinavians would consider him unusually very dark.
That is bullshit. It's a from of argumenttation that Doug is also using called "shifting the goal posts".
A person is dark or light in comparision to human beings of the planet earth, not in comparision to extremely light people that you use to try to make your wrong argument right. Scandinavians are not the yardstick for if a person is light or dark. The yardstick to compare the San people I posted to the average skin tone of human beings in general. If you took all human beings skin color and put it into a blender that is the median, don't get it twisted
Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: Swenet
I now get what you're saying about narrow western conventions on race. I beamed in on colour only. I gave a little bit of a knee-jerk response without considering all the particulars.
Again, I am going to reiterate my point and the subject of this thread since people like to play stupid.
Is "black" a valid word to be used to describe skin color (not genetics, not skull shape, not limb lengths, language or anything else).
Lets focus on that.
Assume for sake of argument that you are talking about the observed complexion of specific people or a general group of people.
Is it accurate to describe said population as "black" if their skin is within a certain range of complexions?
That is the issue.
Yes, black would be a valid word to use, but Swenet was just pointing out that 'westerners' wouldn't call people with certain features black, no matter how black their skin, because their subjective criteria goes beyond pigmentation.
It's not as though I agree with this flawed, subjective and dishonest criteria. I am merely acknowledging that it does exist, and that I am bitterly opposed to it. I see absolutely no problem with the usage of black on the AE. It is applicable.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: By the way, the reason Asians aren't considered "white" is more because of the fact that so many Asians still have features and ranges of skin color associated with black people.
So, black is is assoiated with features now, constantly flipping the script
All of the sudden multi millions of Asians are black because some South Asians are dark
There is no consistency to Doug's remarks
All of the sudden it's not just about skin color it's other "considerations"
Wake up, Asians have a variety of skin tones. You can't say that becuase some are dark that they are all black, that doesn't work. Similarly Europeans and Africans have a variety of skin tones > not just one label That is racism, to try to label them all by one color label
But now you are going to say "I never said Asians like the ones you posted are black"
O.k. fine these Asians above, what color are they ?
You must have an answer, it's all about color right?
Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: When compared to the Europeans I specified, yes. If a Scandinavian had a skin tone like the San people, his fellow Scandinavians would consider him unusually very dark.
That is bullshit.
A person is dark or light in comparision to human beings of the planet earth, not in comparision to extremely light people that you use to try to make your wrong argument right. Scandinavians are not the yardstick for if a person is light or dark. The yardstick to compare the San people I posted to the average skin tone of human beings in general. If you took all human beings skin color and put it into a blender that is the median, don't get it twisted
Most San people have skin tones on the lighter end of chocolate-brown, your selective pictures notwithstanding. The San are very dark when compared to the bulk of the European population. I will not budge on this. When did I shift the goal-post? That has been my argument from the beginning.
Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nodnarb: Don't San have small quantities of a skin-lightening allele ultimately from Eurasia? They might have been darker before then.
Has this actually been substantiated?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: Most San people have skin tones on the lighter end of chocolate-brown, your selective pictures notwithstanding. The San are very dark when compared to the bulk of the European population. I will not budge on this.
You stand by a comparison to the bulk of Europeans. Again that is irrelevant because they are not the median of humanity they are not the yardstick to compare to. By the same token I could call the above Southern Europeans black in comparison to a Scandinavian. Stop the BS
What most San are is irrelevant. The thread is about when to use the term black or not. Some San are dark others are light. Because some are dark does not mean all are dark. That is a false statement. You seem to think that the above people are lighter because they mixed with Europeans. It doesn't matter, are they black or not?
Doug says it's determined solely by color.
Above I have posted several people.
Are they black or not based on color?
An individual is standing in front of you. They are completely covered in a cloth so you are unbiased but there is a large hole in the cloth showing the skin of their chest.
Is that skin black or is it not black?
That is how you are supposed to look at this, objectively if "black" is to mean skin color alone, with no ethnic affinities
Europeans are more genetically similar to Africans than are Chinese. Chinese people have a hair type that is least like Africans. But if we are just going by skin color, put all that aside and look at the damn color
Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
the lioness
Have your Southern Europeans exposed to the light [just as the San are in your pictures] and I guarantee that your Southern Europeans would be lighter. Where have I said that the San people [you carefully selected to showcase] are mixed?
Those Southern Europeans would be considered dark compared to Scandinavians.
The San would are very dark when compared to most Europeans and Asians. I have a friend that is Maori and we have a mutual friend that is Vietnamese-Chinese; the mother of our Vietnamese-Chinese friend calls my Maori friend 'black', even though the Maori are lighter than the San.
The San are black people. Excluding the Berbers on the coast, all indigenous Africans are black.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya:
Those Southern Europeans would be considered dark compared to Scandinavians.
The San would are very dark when compared to most Europeans and Asians.
So, according to skin color, each of the people above are black skinned, correct ?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
Keita for example who is a well known anthropologist refrains from using racial terms. He never in any of his works outright said the Ancient Egyptians were "black"
History is different, because history is well just history My point is we should know when and when not to use "black" in discussions. Basically by separating historical discussions from scientific ones.
Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya:
Those Southern Europeans would be considered dark compared to Scandinavians.
The San would are very dark when compared to most Europeans and Asians.
So, according to skin color, each of the people above are black skinned, correct ?
Don't be ridiculous. The Southern European would not be darker than the San if he were in the light. In any case, my definition of 'black' goes beyond just pigmentation. I also use it in a racial sense.
For example I recognise the people of the Andaman Islands, Melanesians, Australian Aboriginals and Papuans as 'black' because of their skin pigmentation, but I would not try to associate them with black Africans because they are genetically Asian and left Africa tens of thousands of years ago.
They are 'black' people... just a different sort of black people. The San are indigenous to Africa; they generally have light chocolate-brown skin -> they are black people. Case closed.
Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
Keita for example who is a well known anthropologist refrains from using racial terms. He never in any of his works outright said the Ancient Egyptians were "black"
History is different, because history is well just history My point is we should know when and when not to use "black" in discussions. Basically by separating historical discussions from scientific ones.
I don't agree with this at all. Black is perfectly suitable at all times. Just as white would be suitable for Greeks and Romans at all times. These double-standards cannot be allowed to stand.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ 9 freaking pages now, yet you point out the very crux of the matter that the Euronut provocateur troll NEVER addresses! We are not talking about trying to fit peoples into neat categories of 'black' or 'white' nor are we talking about those whose complexions make them ambiguous or intermediate. What we are discussing is the glaringly obvious double-standard Westerners use when applying color labels like 'black' and 'white'. Why are the ancient Greeks and other southern Europeans called 'white' but Egyptians and other North Africans called black even though their complexion would indeed be considered black?!!
The dishonest troll would rather throw up light-skinned Khoisan and dark-skinned Italians as her personal straw dolls but avoids the actual issue like the plague. She is a pathetic troll who uses the same dead 1-trick pony.
Surely she knows the rest of us are smarter than this, or she truly that stupid??
Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ 9 freaking pages now, yet you point out the very crux of the matter that the Euronut provocateur troll NEVER addresses! We are not talking about trying to fit peoples into neat categories of 'black' or 'white' nor are we talking about those whose complexions make them ambiguous or intermediate. What we are discussing is the glaringly obvious double-standard Westerners use when applying color labels like 'black' and 'white'. Why are the ancient Greeks and other southern Europeans called 'white' but Egyptians and other North Africans called black even though their complexion would indeed be considered black?!!
The dishonest troll would rather throw up light-skinned Khoisan and dark-skinned Italians as her personal straw dolls but avoids the actual issue like the plague. She is a pathetic troll who uses the same dead 1-trick pony.
Surely she knows the rest of us are smarter than this, or she truly that stupid??
Oh my God, I know right. Her semantics are just ridiculous. I really should have just avoided her instead of engaging her in discussion.
PS: Like Swenet and Doug, you're someone that I also learned so much from. Thank you. Whatever happened to rasol?
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
To anyone who has read the conversation up until this point and sees no problem with 'black' in academia, including folks like Djehuti:
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that you're in Martin Bernal's shoes. You've just written your manuscript for 'Black Athena' and you've found yourself in a public debate with a colleague on the ethnic background of this native Egyptian:
People are tuning in to see who has the best evidence.
Your opponent sticks to his narrow western use of 'black', but acknowledges that this Egyptian man's skin color falls in the darker end of the pigmentation range of African Americans. You notice that your continued use of the term 'black' in relation to this Egyptian man leads your opponent to reject your argument.
Your opponent maintains that the western public doesn't understand your use of the term to refer to skin pigmentation only. Progression in the REAL debate (i.e. that man's ethnic background) is impossible because you can't even agree on the meaning of your own terminology. Now what?
Your options are:
*Walking away from the debate. *Keep butting heads over the meaning of the term, even though there are alternatives that have the exact same meaning but none of the controversial baggage. *Replacing your use of the term, at least for now, with a non-controversial alternative that says the same thing you want it to convey. * ... * ...
^Complete this list with better options and/or pick one.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Thank you. I have no idea what happened to Rasol. To be honest I really miss his insights as well. I am really sick and tired of the racial b.s. being posted in this forum but I do plan on posting some more culturally relevant things soon. I know I keep saying this, but work and social life has preoccupied my time.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: To anyone who has read the conversation up until this point and sees no problem with 'black' in academia, including folks like Djehuti:
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that you're in Martin Bernal's shoes. You've just written your manuscript for 'Black Athena' and you've found yourself in a public debate with a colleague on the ethnic background of this native Egyptian:
People are tuning in to see who has the best evidence.
Your opponent sticks to his narrow western use of 'black', but acknowledges that this Egyptian man's skin color falls in the darker end of the pigmentation range of African Americans. You notice that your continued use of the term 'black' in relation to this Egyptian man leads your opponent to reject your argument.
Your opponent maintains that the western public doesn't understand your use of the term to refer to skin pigmentation only. Progression in the REAL debate (i.e. that man's ethnic background) is impossible because you can't even agree on the meaning of your own terminology. Now what?
Your options are:
*Walking away from the debate. *Keep butting heads over the meaning of the term, even though there are alternatives that have the exact same meaning but none of the controversial baggage. *Replacing your use of the term, at least for now, with a non-controversial alternative that says the same thing you want it to convey. * ... * ...
^Complete this list with better options and/or pick one.
I would say it is a retarded scenario. But be that as it may, simply put I would refer these people to a standard english dictionary and rebuke him for maintaining racist views based on outdated racial stereotypes created in Western academia to subdivide Africans and the rest of the world based on arbitrary characteristics. I would then go on to say that black and white are not racial terms as opposed to adjectives describing skin color and that this is the common definition of the term found in any dictionary. Therefore, his objections are founded on his own adherence to racial stereotypes that don't have anything to do with the true disposition of populations with black skin in Africa or anywhere else.
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
Just because I'm bored, I'm going to play Lioness game against her...
Which one is really "white"?
Note: I don't believe in this Europeans are albino nonsense.
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: To anyone who has read the conversation up until this point and sees no problem with 'black' in academia, including folks like Djehuti:
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that you're in Martin Bernal's shoes. You've just written your manuscript for 'Black Athena' and you've found yourself in a public debate with a colleague on the ethnic background of this native Egyptian:
People are tuning in to see who has the best evidence.
Your opponent sticks to his narrow western use of 'black', but acknowledges that this Egyptian man's skin color falls in the darker end of the pigmentation range of African Americans. You notice that your continued use of the term 'black' in relation to this Egyptian man leads your opponent to reject your argument.
Your opponent maintains that the western public doesn't understand your use of the term to refer to skin pigmentation only. Progression in the REAL debate (i.e. that man's ethnic background) is impossible because you can't even agree on the meaning of your own terminology. Now what?
Your options are:
*Walking away from the debate. *Keep butting heads over the meaning of the term, even though there are alternatives that have the exact same meaning but none of the controversial baggage. *Replacing your use of the term, at least for now, with a non-controversial alternative that says the same thing you want it to convey. * ... * ...
^Complete this list with better options and/or pick one.
Why can't people just use "indigenous African" or "African descent"?
Like I said Keita doesn't use black? But if we read between the lines we know that he is talking about "black people".
Most Africans are the "western version of black", but not all western version of black are Africans...
That didn't sound good did it?
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: To anyone who has read the conversation up until this point and sees no problem with 'black' in academia, including folks like Djehuti:
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that you're in Martin Bernal's shoes. You've just written your manuscript for 'Black Athena' and you've found yourself in a public debate with a colleague on the ethnic background of this native Egyptian:
People are tuning in to see who has the best evidence.
Your opponent sticks to his narrow western use of 'black', but acknowledges that this Egyptian man's skin color falls in the darker end of the pigmentation range of African Americans. You notice that your continued use of the term 'black' in relation to this Egyptian man leads your opponent to reject your argument.
Your opponent maintains that the western public doesn't understand your use of the term to refer to skin pigmentation only. Progression in the REAL debate (i.e. that man's ethnic background) is impossible because you can't even agree on the meaning of your own terminology. Now what?
Your options are:
*Walking away from the debate. *Keep butting heads over the meaning of the term, even though there are alternatives that have the exact same meaning but none of the controversial baggage. *Replacing your use of the term, at least for now, with a non-controversial alternative that says the same thing you want it to convey. * ... * ...
^Complete this list with better options and/or pick one.
Why can't people just use "indigenous African" or "African descent"?
Like I said Keita doesn't use black? But if we read between the lines we know that he is talking about "black people".
Most Africans are the "western version of black", but not all western version of black are Africans...
That didn't sound good did it?
Keita is afraid to grab the bull by the horns so to speak. Like I said like 50 times before, skin color is just as much a part of human biology as genetics, limb ratios and everything else. So it makes no sense to pretend it doesn't exist and isn't a valid part of anthropological study.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
It is like saying white people can only be of European heritage, when you have White Asians who are not of European heritage
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: Just because I'm bored, I'm going to play Lioness game against her...
Which one is really "white"?
Note: I don't believe in this Europeans are albino nonsense.
You're not playing anybody. I just posted some light skinned Asians. Do you know how many have failed trying to out-lioness the lioness? You should be asking Doug or Djehuti this question. I'm not playing games I'm giving ambiguous examples to test people's colorism classification theories. "Colorism" look it up. If ambiguities exist (and such are huge) that proves these simplistic stereotype color categories fatally flawed. If the examples are too hard, you need to quit. Any examples should be able to be dealt with. I don't give the easy tests just to pass the class. Even Doug and Djehuti argue over calling dark skinned South East Asians "black". They can't even agree and they are on the same team. What color is Djehuti for instance and do some indigenous Africans have that same color?
Without testing theories by examples, the harder the better, nothing gets resolved, it's endless rhetoric (although I realize people love endless rhetoric)
Science, Anthropology, genetics should not use the stereotype inaccurate terms "black" and "white" in my opinion.
According to Djehuti, who subscribes to the idea that "white" and "black" refer to skin color alone all the people above are white, try asking him According to Doug some Asians are black others are white
According to contemporary society "white" is defined as "of European descent" therefore the Asian girl at top is not "white"
Likewise racism is not founded solely on skin color alone as Doug suggests. It is founded on the concept of race, for example Caucasoid, Negroid ("Afracoid" if you prefer) , Mongoloid and sometimes more "oids" and the "ism" part is that there is a hierarchy of superiority of these races. The people who define these races talk about facial features, crania, skeletal proportions, hair type and skin color, obviously not only skin color - so attempts to do a revresal will not be as simple as desired
Racism is not founded solely on skin color alone. For instance racists will classify many Asian people as "Mongoloid" despite some having dark skin.
During World War II there was racist propaganda about Japanese people, not based on skin color. Likewise the Nazis had a concept that Jews were of another race but they didn't base it on skin color.
That isn't to say that skin color has not been used as an element of racial ideology but racism is not dependent on skin color.
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
Why can't people just use "indigenous African" or "African descent"?
exactly right. It's what Doug has been avoiding since page 1
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
I don't see how the discussion in this thread as anything to do with Egyptology. Ancient Egyptians were not dark skinned people from India or whatnot. Ancient Egyptians were black indigenous people from Africa.
Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: To anyone who has read the conversation up until this point and sees no problem with 'black' in academia, including folks like Djehuti:
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that you're in Martin Bernal's shoes. You've just written your manuscript for 'Black Athena' and you've found yourself in a public debate with a colleague on the ethnic background of this native Egyptian:
People are tuning in to see who has the best evidence.
Your opponent sticks to his narrow western use of 'black', but acknowledges that this Egyptian man's skin color falls in the darker end of the pigmentation range of African Americans. You notice that your continued use of the term 'black' in relation to this Egyptian man leads your opponent to reject your argument.
Your opponent maintains that the western public doesn't understand your use of the term to refer to skin pigmentation only. Progression in the REAL debate (i.e. that man's ethnic background) is impossible because you can't even agree on the meaning of your own terminology. Now what?
Your options are:
*Walking away from the debate. *Keep butting heads over the meaning of the term, even though there are alternatives that have the exact same meaning but none of the controversial baggage. *Replacing your use of the term, at least for now, with a non-controversial alternative that says the same thing you want it to convey. * ... * ...
^Complete this list with better options and/or pick one.
So in this scenario people want to be exposed to objective evidence and not subjective fluff? They want Scientific evidence. I don't see how the opponent would have a prayer in such a scenario.
The opponent [in your scenario] is standing on a foundation of delicate, crumbling sand. He'll have to argue [using objective science] why the man in the picture can't be associated with other black Africans in North-east Africa and elsewhere.
At that point he'll predictably argue that the AE have certain physiological features that necessitate disassociating them from other black Africans in a racial sense.
The response will then make full use of scientific evidence using various disciplines and lines of evidence; evidence demonstrating that certain phenotypic features [hair, lips and nose shapes] found on the AE are part of Africa's natural variability -> derivatives of in-situ adaptation, and that the AE share these features with other black Africans on the continent, in immediate proximity and further afield.
The opponent will have to argue why people that are phenotypically, genetically, culturally and linguistically linked with other Africans must be extricated from them using outmoded racial constructs.
The opponent will have to justify why these outmoded constructs are scientifically sound and how it is they apparently trump data from limb ratios, genetics, skin reflectance analysis, melanin dosage tests, cranio-facial evidence and cultural anthropology.
The burden of proof is on him. Objective evidence is ranged against him. You're not trying to have your opponent accept the merits of your arguments.
Whether or not he rejects your arguments is beyond immaterial. Your objective is to sway the minds of those that are intellectually honest enough to at least try to eschew their preconceived notions and prejudices and accept objective science as presented. Everybody else is irrelevant and can bloody well just sod off.
There is nothing controversial about 'black'. 'Caucasian' is infinitely less scientific and far more untenable and yet they get away with using it - even now. The usage of 'black' on the AE has to be just as un-controversial as the usage of 'white' on the Greeks. No ifs, not buts - no compromise. I want us to be like the Chinese - they don't indulge the west when it comes to their own history. Some clueless, jerk-off western academic tried associate the advance nature of Chinese civilization to the 'Tocharians' - some eastern 'white' population that lived in Asia 4, 000 years ago and the Chinese immediately and unceremoniously dismissed such nonsense.
Western academics used the 'Caucasian' moniker on Tut [a black African], so as far as I'm concerned, we're at war with these people - so their sensibilities be damned. I just wish Africa was stable, united and strong enough to vigorously and unapologetically pursue the study of its own history with sufficient resources without paying any mind to western double-standards, hangups, insecurities and hypocrisy.
Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Thank you. I have no idea what happened to Rasol. To be honest I really miss his insights as well. I am really sick and tired of the racial b.s. being posted in this forum but I do plan on posting some more culturally relevant things soon. I know I keep saying this, but work and social life has preoccupied my time.
Due to the influx of certain personalities, Egyptsearch has degenerated into a strange version of Stormfront. It really is sad. Balancing your work life and social life with whatever obligations you feel for this forum must be daunting. I don't think anybody can ask anymore of you, Swenet and Doug. Your contribution is immense and is appreciated.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
@Sudaniya
The default western use of 'black' is basically a racialized version of Hiernaux 'broad African' phenotype concept. Does the mere discovery that populations with previously disputed origins are, in fact, biologically African, mean they should also all be lumped in Hiernaux 'broad African' category?
The default use of 'black' describes a perceived race in the West and the mere accumulation of evidence from various scientific fields that certain populations are biologically African doesn't change this tradition that they have of the term.
I don't see a mutual exclusiveness between adhering to a narrow use of 'black' and the evidence of AE being Africans and related to Africans. One can easily subscribe to both. The former relates to West-specific racial nomenclature and the latter relates to objective evidence. So, your evidence would only target any disagreement that scholar would have with the idea that that man's phenotype is African.
Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
quote: The western use of 'black' is basically a racialized version of Hiernaux 'broad African' phenotype concept. Does the mere discovery that populations with previously uncertain origins are, in fact, biologically African, mean they should also all be lumped in Hiernaux 'broad African' category?
Yes. One may have problems with this, but it is no more controversial than Europeans all being lumped together under one moniker despite not being identical.
Most Asians are lumped in together without any regard for variations in skin tone or any other phenotypic features. Nobody argues that Cambodians and Japanese have to appear under different categories despite the obvious physical differences.
quote:'Black' describes a perceived race in the West and the mere discovery that other Africans are biologically African doesn't change this tradition that they have of the term.
I understand that but I simply no longer care. They can use whatever tradition they please and we can disregard it just as easily. What they think simply doesn't matter in the slightest and no intellectual energy should be expended [and wasted] to convince them of anything.
Words have power and their tradition of the term is a weapon - a weapon against us. No term that links other black Africans with the earliest civilization on earth is ever going to be acceptable to them and their matrix of power, so why bother indulging them with any gymnastics in language?
quote: I don't see a mutual exclusiveness between adhering to a narrow use of 'black' and the evidence of AE being Africans and related to Africans. One can easily subscribe to both. The former relates to West-specific nomenclature and the latter relates to objective evidence. So, your evidence would only target any disagreement that scholar would have with the idea that that man's phenotype is African.
I now tend to see that they are mutually exclusive and can't be reconciled. One definition of the word [the one with a certain negative tradition] compartmentalizes Africans and attempts to intentionally and forcefully pull AE away from the bulk of the African population and its diaspora, in order to comfort westerners and harm our interests.
The other use of black does the complete opposite. It serves our interests. My evidence goes beyond phenotype; it would firmly establish that the ancestors of the man in the picture were every bit as African -black African- as say a Kushite, a Chadian, a Nigerian or a Senegalese.
Western Egyptologists and anthropologists can say whatever they want for all I care; they can convince all the people of the west of their world view. I only care what factual & demonstrable things our people believe in Africa and the diaspora. It's that simple.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sudaniya: Most Asians are lumped in together without any regard for variations in skin tone or any other phenotypic features.
Right. But today, they're certainly not lumped using racialized color terms. They're lumped based on regional origin. Which is what 'indigenous African' should be for Africans. The grouping that's ontologically parallel to 'Asian' is 'African', not the skin color or racial use of 'black'.
Mesolithic Europeans don't fit the western criteria of 'white' either. I don't think it's a contradiction to say that Mesolithic Europeans with postulated dark skin aren't 'white' in the western racial sense, but that they are indigenous European.
I don't think there is a contradiction in saying that the Ainu Japanese aren't 'yellow' in the defunct western sense, but that they're biologically indigenous East Asians.
I don't think there is a contradiction in saying that many African/Oceanic looking Palaeoamericans aren't 'red' in the defunct western sense, but that they're biologically Native American.
In the same way, I don't think there is a contradiction if an academic stuck in western racial language says that one African population belongs to a 'black race' while other indigenous Africans in the same brown skin pigmentation range are in another African 'race'/family with another label. So long as it's understood that they're in the same pigmentation range and that this racial group isn't the only authentic African.
One relates to western racial nomenclature that describes various subsets of the local variation and the other describes the total variation in a particular region. They operate on completely different levels.
Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
quote:Right. But today, they're certainly not lumped using racialized color terms. They're lumped based on regional origin. Which is what 'indigenous African' should be for Africans. The grouping that's ontologically parallel to 'Asian' is 'African', not the skin color or racial use of 'black'.
For whatever reason 'yellow' is now seen and regarded in the West [by Asians and others] as truly offensive and Asians never really took a shine to it. Asians never made any attempts to claim it positively -in the West- the same way that African-Americans consciously, proactively and proudly took ownership of 'black'. There were no yellow and proud movements anywhere in the Western world.
I was always puzzled by the fact that Asians were called 'yellow' because it just seemed so detached from any truly corresponding skin tone that I could identify in Asians, but even then East and Southeast Asians were not broken into different racial categories despite having markedly varied skin tones and features.
I've never met an Asian that thought that 'yellow' was an appropriate colour identifier. The Ainu Japanese seem to have skin tones in the range of other Asians. 'Yellow' was extensively used in a negative, fear-mongering way [the 'Yellow peril'], and so with the advent and rise of the 'progressive' movement in the West, 'yellow' went in the way of the dodo. That I think is the essential difference between 'yellow' and 'black'.
quote:In the same way, I don't think there is a contradiction if an academic stuck in western racial language says that one African population belongs to a 'black race' while other indigenous Africans in the same brown skin pigmentation range are in another African 'race'/family with another label. So long as it's understood that they're in the same pigmentation range and that this racial group isn't the only authentic African.
I can't agree with this at all. A true academic should be expected to not perpetuate such arbitrary nonsense. I would be immediately suspicious of any academic that insisted on perpetuating or creating nonsensical racial categories among Africans on a whim when this is not done anywhere else.
The day I see Western academics make clear racial distinctions and categories between Southern Europeans and other Europeans, is the day that I might reconsider my opposition to their attempts at apartheid in the Nile Valley and Africa in general -- until then no dice.
Just to make it clear, I have no problem with 'indigenous African' as long as the facts clearly outline that ancient Egypt's predynastic origins stretch as far back and south as the Khartoum Mesolithic. The fact that 'Berbers' on the North African coast are 'indigenous' is why I insist on a caveat to 'indigenous African'.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
@Sudaniya
What would the basis for making deep racial distinctions among themselves be? The linguistic diversity/time depth of the Indo-European language family across Eurasia is about the same as one young, minor African language family (e.g. Semitic). Morphometrically and genetically most Europeans are also close, compared to Africans.
What do you think about something like this?
quote:In this study, we focus on two aspects of African population genetics, 1. the nature of population structure in Africa going back in time and 2. the timing of the Out-of-Africa event. To address these questions, we assembled a dataset with whole genome sequences from 162 individuals using both in-house sequencing and publicly available sources. These samples span 22 populations worldwide. These include eleven African populations which we use to dissect the population substructure in Africa. In addition, we also have 2 Middle Eastern, 5 European and 4 East/Central Asian populations which inform the population split time estimates for the Out-of-Africa event and the European-Asian split. We find extensive population structure in Africa extending back to before the Out-of-Africa event. The Ethiopian populations, Amhara and Oromo, show evidence of mixing beyond 15 kya. The Maasai and Luhye merge with the Ethiopian populations to form a panmictic East African population ~40kya. We find evidence for extensive mixing between east and west African populations before 50kya. Among the pygmy populations, we see recent gene flow between the Batwa and Mbuti. All African populations except the San merge into a single population around 110 kya. The San exchange migrants with the other African populations beginning ~120 kya. We estimate the Out-of-Africa event to have occurred ~75kya and the European-Asian split to ~25kya.
^Note the split time of Europe + East Asia as merely 25kya per this report. Leaves one wondering how puny the European time depth is without East Asians. How is making distinctions along the lines of the above African 'families' 'arbitrary' or reminiscent of 'apartheid'? The time depths of the splits of surviving African families are staggering and obviously have huge implications for how they're going to be assigned into discrete 'races' by ethnographers.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Sudaniya: Most Asians are lumped in together without any regard for variations in skin tone or any other phenotypic features.
Right. But today, they're certainly not lumped using racialized color terms. They're lumped based on regional origin. Which is what 'indigenous African' should be for Africans. The grouping that's ontologically parallel to 'Asian' is 'African', not the skin color or racial use of 'black'.
Mesolithic Europeans don't fit the western criteria of 'white' either. I don't think it's a contradiction to say that Mesolithic Europeans with postulated dark skin aren't 'white' in the western racial sense, but that they are indigenous European.
I don't think there is a contradiction in saying that the Ainu Japanese aren't 'yellow' in the defunct western sense, but that they're biologically indigenous East Asians.
I don't think there is a contradiction in saying that many African/Oceanic looking Palaeoamericans aren't 'red' in the defunct western sense, but that they're biologically Native American.
In the same way, I don't think there is a contradiction if an academic stuck in western racial language says that one African population belongs to a 'black race' while other indigenous Africans in the same brown skin pigmentation range are in another African 'race'/family with another label. So long as it's understood that they're in the same pigmentation range and that this racial group isn't the only authentic African.
One relates to western racial nomenclature that describes various subsets of the local variation and the other describes the total variation in a particular region. They operate on completely different levels.
Why on earth are we going back to talking of races? I reject Western Racial standards and using the word black isn't referring to a race at all. This is the problem. The Western Racists and their "racial categories" need to be rejected. That is the point.
The point isn't about words the point is about rejecting western nonsensical, arbitrary groupings of populations in order to support a white supremacist agenda. Using the word black is consistent with the fact that black skin comes in a variety of shades for Africans because of the same biological and evolutionary factors across Africa. All Africans with black skin have that skin color for the same biological and environmental reasons. You cannot show me a population in Africa that has similar differences in genetic structure for skin color that is found between East Asians and Europeans.
Allowing Europeans to persist with nonsensical divisions between populations is silly. Doing that only prolongs the problem as opposed to fixing it. And the word black as an explicit reference to skin color is not the issue.
Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: @Sudaniya
What would the basis for making deep racial distinctions among themselves be? The linguistic diversity/time depth of the Indo-European language family across Eurasia is about the same as one young, minor African language family (e.g. Semitic). Morphometrically and genetically most Europeans are also close, compared to Africans.
What do you think about something like this?
quote:In this study, we focus on two aspects of African population genetics, 1. the nature of population structure in Africa going back in time and 2. the timing of the Out-of-Africa event. To address these questions, we assembled a dataset with whole genome sequences from 162 individuals using both in-house sequencing and publicly available sources. These samples span 22 populations worldwide. These include eleven African populations which we use to dissect the population substructure in Africa. In addition, we also have 2 Middle Eastern, 5 European and 4 East/Central Asian populations which inform the population split time estimates for the Out-of-Africa event and the European-Asian split. We find extensive population structure in Africa extending back to before the Out-of-Africa event. The Ethiopian populations, Amhara and Oromo, show evidence of mixing beyond 15 kya. The Maasai and Luhye merge with the Ethiopian populations to form a panmictic East African population ~40kya. We find evidence for extensive mixing between east and west African populations before 50kya. Among the pygmy populations, we see recent gene flow between the Batwa and Mbuti. All African populations except the San merge into a single population around 110 kya. The San exchange migrants with the other African populations beginning ~120 kya. We estimate the Out-of-Africa event to have occurred ~75kya and the European-Asian split to ~25kya.
^Note the split time of Europe + East Asia as merely 25kya per this report. Leaves one wondering how puny the European time depth is without East Asians. How is making distinctions along the lines of the above African 'families' 'arbitrary' or reminiscent of 'apartheid'? The time depths of the splits of surviving African families are staggering and obviously have huge implications for how they're going to be assigned into discrete 'races' by ethnographers.
Thank you for the information. It's certainly very interesting. The fact that Africans are far older than all others is undoubtedly a factor that would explain greater genetic and morphometric differences between Africans...
..But I really don't think that 'Western' racial constructs are informed by linguistic diversity, 'time depths' or genetic distance considerations. It's a lot more simple and sinister than that.
I maintain that Western racial categories are predicated solely on phenotypic features among Africans and that this serves their racial interests.
They cynically define and limit what must be considered conventionally black African and create different racial categories for what doesn't fit this restrictive mold in Africa on the oldest populations on earth while expanding what 'Caucasian' can envelope all over the world - despite it being the youngest... and none of this references objective disciplines for the sake of science.
I think we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: Thank you for the information. It's certainly very interesting. The fact that Africans are far older than all others is undoubtedly a factor that would explain greater genetic and morphometric differences between Africans...
Most Africans are not older than anybody. All human populations come from Africa and are of the same age like brothers and sisters from the same parents. It doesn't matter if they migrated outside or inside Africa. It's like having twin brothers born in Africa (from the Y-DNA haplogroup CT) and one leave Africa the other stays. They are both the same age. Beside hunter-gatherers like Khoisan/Mbuti (who left eastern Africa before the other Africans/Eurasian somewhere before the OOA migrations), most Africans who are from the E-P2 haplogroup are recent migrants to their current locations in Africa. By recent, I mean well after the OOA migrations of Eurasian. Before that time modern Africans had their common genetic and linguistic origin somewhere in Eastern Africa (around Sudan). So that means E-P2 populations (like Karrayyu, Somali, Wolof, Yoruba) are closer to each others.
This proximity between most modern African populations can also be seen autosomally by the modest Fst value between SSA populations(which include East/West/Bantu Africans).
"On examining ~2.2 million variants, we found modest differentiation among SSA populations (mean pairwise FST 0.019) (Supplementary Methods and Supplementary Table 1)."
The Fst(genetic distance between populations) calculation can be seen in multiple studies (I like this one because it's full genome).
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
Recent genetic studies have been extraordinary for us who wanted more proof Ancient Egyptians were indigenous Africans not migrants from the Middle East and Europe. Recent studies have found no substantial amount of Eurasian admixture in Egypt before around 750 years ago. It means Ancient Egyptians were truly indigenous Africans not migrants from Middle East or Europe.
According to this recent study modern Egyptians are 80% non-African and 20% African. And the non-African admixtures are dated to around 750 years ago. Well, after the foundation of Ancient Egypt or Ancient Egyptian precursor cultures like the Green Sahara, Nabta Playa (cave of swimmers, cave of the beasts), Tasians, Badarians, Naqada, etc.
quote:Using ADMIXTURE and principal-component analysis (PCA) (Figure 1A), we estimated the average proportion of non-African ancestry in the Egyptians to be 80% and dated the midpoint of the admixture event by using ALDER20 to around 750 years ago (Table S2), consistent with the Islamic expansion and dates reported previously.
I guess, the only thing left for us is full genome sequencing of Ancient Egyptian mummies (partial sequencing already done and showing African affinities like E1b1a for Ramses III).
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: @Sudaniya
What would the basis for making deep racial distinctions among themselves be? The linguistic diversity/time depth of the Indo-European language family across Eurasia is about the same as one young, minor African language family (e.g. Semitic). Morphometrically and genetically most Europeans are also close, compared to Africans.
What do you think about something like this?
quote:In this study, we focus on two aspects of African population genetics, 1. the nature of population structure in Africa going back in time and 2. the timing of the Out-of-Africa event. To address these questions, we assembled a dataset with whole genome sequences from 162 individuals using both in-house sequencing and publicly available sources. These samples span 22 populations worldwide. These include eleven African populations which we use to dissect the population substructure in Africa. In addition, we also have 2 Middle Eastern, 5 European and 4 East/Central Asian populations which inform the population split time estimates for the Out-of-Africa event and the European-Asian split. We find extensive population structure in Africa extending back to before the Out-of-Africa event. The Ethiopian populations, Amhara and Oromo, show evidence of mixing beyond 15 kya. The Maasai and Luhye merge with the Ethiopian populations to form a panmictic East African population ~40kya. We find evidence for extensive mixing between east and west African populations before 50kya. Among the pygmy populations, we see recent gene flow between the Batwa and Mbuti. All African populations except the San merge into a single population around 110 kya. The San exchange migrants with the other African populations beginning ~120 kya. We estimate the Out-of-Africa event to have occurred ~75kya and the European-Asian split to ~25kya.
^Note the split time of Europe + East Asia as merely 25kya per this report. Leaves one wondering how puny the European time depth is without East Asians. How is making distinctions along the lines of the above African 'families' 'arbitrary' or reminiscent of 'apartheid'? The time depths of the splits of surviving African families are staggering and obviously have huge implications for how they're going to be assigned into discrete 'races' by ethnographers.
Thank you for the information. It's certainly very interesting. The fact that Africans are far older than all others is undoubtedly a factor that would explain greater genetic and morphometric differences between Africans...
..But I really don't think that 'Western' racial constructs are informed by linguistic diversity, 'time depths' or genetic distance considerations. It's a lot more simple and sinister than that.
I maintain that Western racial categories are predicated solely on phenotypic features among Africans and that this serves their racial interests.
They cynically define and limit what must be considered conventionally black African and create different racial categories for what doesn't fit this restrictive mold in Africa on the oldest populations on earth while expanding what 'Caucasian' can envelope all over the world - despite it being the youngest... and none of this references objective disciplines for the sake of science.
I think we'll just have to agree to disagree.
I think the motivation/intent in distinguishing between Africans has been questionable in many cases. These racist intentions should not be confused with the distinctions themselves, at least not where the population distinctions are justified and consistent with standards applied elsewhere (e.g. in Asia).
Many of the racial classifications in Africa that keep recurring in the old literature are observed today statistically and verifiably. They're just not considered to be 'races' anymore, but populations. See Tishkoff et al 2009 for instance. And no, Europeans didn't initially use this genetic stuff, but what I'm saying is that phenotypical differences observed between Africans reflect these genetic realities.
I look at what the objective and verifiable findings say. If that specific part of the old racialist writings fits the evidence, then so be it. It makes little sense for me to be bitter to the point that I would reject or antagonize genuine differences between Africans, just to spite racist Europeans.
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: I look at what the objective and verifiable findings say. If that specific part of the old racialist writings fits the evidence, then so be it. It makes little sense for me to be bitter to the point that I would reject or antagonize genuine differences between Africans, just to spite racist Europeans.
There's genuine differences between Africans like Karrayyu, Somali, Zulu, Ancient Egyptians, Kushites, Wolof, Serer, etc but also genuine similarities. People who wants to emphasize only the differences (like Swenet) or only the similarities (like some afrocentrics) have an agenda.
Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: @Sudaniya
What would the basis for making deep racial distinctions among themselves be? The linguistic diversity/time depth of the Indo-European language family across Eurasia is about the same as one young, minor African language family (e.g. Semitic). Morphometrically and genetically most Europeans are also close, compared to Africans.
What do you think about something like this?
quote:In this study, we focus on two aspects of African population genetics, 1. the nature of population structure in Africa going back in time and 2. the timing of the Out-of-Africa event. To address these questions, we assembled a dataset with whole genome sequences from 162 individuals using both in-house sequencing and publicly available sources. These samples span 22 populations worldwide. These include eleven African populations which we use to dissect the population substructure in Africa. In addition, we also have 2 Middle Eastern, 5 European and 4 East/Central Asian populations which inform the population split time estimates for the Out-of-Africa event and the European-Asian split. We find extensive population structure in Africa extending back to before the Out-of-Africa event. The Ethiopian populations, Amhara and Oromo, show evidence of mixing beyond 15 kya. The Maasai and Luhye merge with the Ethiopian populations to form a panmictic East African population ~40kya. We find evidence for extensive mixing between east and west African populations before 50kya. Among the pygmy populations, we see recent gene flow between the Batwa and Mbuti. All African populations except the San merge into a single population around 110 kya. The San exchange migrants with the other African populations beginning ~120 kya. We estimate the Out-of-Africa event to have occurred ~75kya and the European-Asian split to ~25kya.
^Note the split time of Europe + East Asia as merely 25kya per this report. Leaves one wondering how puny the European time depth is without East Asians. How is making distinctions along the lines of the above African 'families' 'arbitrary' or reminiscent of 'apartheid'? The time depths of the splits of surviving African families are staggering and obviously have huge implications for how they're going to be assigned into discrete 'races' by ethnographers.
Thank you for the information. It's certainly very interesting. The fact that Africans are far older than all others is undoubtedly a factor that would explain greater genetic and morphometric differences between Africans...
..But I really don't think that 'Western' racial constructs are informed by linguistic diversity, 'time depths' or genetic distance considerations. It's a lot more simple and sinister than that.
I maintain that Western racial categories are predicated solely on phenotypic features among Africans and that this serves their racial interests.
They cynically define and limit what must be considered conventionally black African and create different racial categories for what doesn't fit this restrictive mold in Africa on the oldest populations on earth while expanding what 'Caucasian' can envelope all over the world - despite it being the youngest... and none of this references objective disciplines for the sake of science.
I think we'll just have to agree to disagree.
I think the intent in distinguishing between Africans has been questionable in many cases. But many of the racial classifications in Africa that keep recurring in the old literature are observed today statistically and verifiably. They're just not considered to be 'races' anymore, but populations. See Tishkoff et al 2009 for instance. And no, Europeans didn't initially use this genetic stuff, but what I'm saying is that phenotypical differences observed between Africans reflect these genetic realities.
I look at what the objective and verifiable findings say. If that specific part of the old racialist writings fits the evidence, then so be it. It makes little sense for me to be bitter to the point that I would reject or antagonize genuine differences between Africans, just to spite racist Europeans.
I have absolutely no problem with the recognition that Africa has different population groups with different genetic markers and phenotypic features. Well that's perfect.
If an academic said that the AE were in the same population group as other Northeast Africans in Sudan, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Djibouti and Somalia, I could not reasonably oppose that. I would be a stubborn, mule of a man to oppose that.
'Indigenous Northeast Africans'... that is what I think we should settle on. I've been a pain in the arse, but that's it - that's the term.
Specialists can say that the AE were in a specific branch of the African 'family tree' and there certainly won't be any howls of protest from me as long as other African population groups are not presented as racial groups.
You've conveyed your thoughts objectively, clearly, beautifully and very patiently, and I can no longer maintain any objection. Thank you.
Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: I look at what the objective and verifiable findings say. If that specific part of the old racialist writings fits the evidence, then so be it. It makes little sense for me to be bitter to the point that I would reject or antagonize genuine differences between Africans, just to spite racist Europeans.
There's genuine differences between Africans like Karrayyu, Somali, Zulu, Ancient Egyptians, Kushites, Wolof, Serer, etc but also genuine similarities. People who wants to emphasize only the differences (like Swenet) or only the similarities (like some afrocentrics) have an agenda.
That's incredibly unfair, mate. Swenet has no ulterior motives. How can you accuse him of that? Are you really going to attack one of the best intellectual soldiers?
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: I have absolutely no problem with the recognition that Africa has different population groups with different genetic markers and phenotypic features. Well that's perfect.
If an academic said that the AE were in the same population group as other Northeast Africans in Sudan, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Djibouti and Somalia, I could not reasonably oppose that. I would be a stubborn, mule of a man to oppose that.
'Indigenous Northeast Africans'... that is what I think we should settle on. I've been a pain in the arse, but that's it - that's the term.
Specialists can say that the AE were in a specific branch of the African 'family tree' and there certainly won't be any howls of protest from me as long as other African population groups are not presented as racial groups.
You've conveyed your thoughts objectively, clearly, beautifully and very patiently, and I can no longer maintain any objection. Thank you.
This I agree with you (sudaniya/swenet, same person).
Karrayyu, Somali, Wolof, Ancient Egyptians, Kushites, Wagadu, Serer, Zulu, Ashanti were all their own people with their own languages and history. The same can be said about Ancient Greek people and modern British/American people. It doesn't mean they don't share anything between each others either. There's both similarities and differences between African populations.
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya:
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: I look at what the objective and verifiable findings say. If that specific part of the old racialist writings fits the evidence, then so be it. It makes little sense for me to be bitter to the point that I would reject or antagonize genuine differences between Africans, just to spite racist Europeans.
There's genuine differences between Africans like Karrayyu, Somali, Zulu, Ancient Egyptians, Kushites, Wolof, Serer, etc but also genuine similarities. People who wants to emphasize only the differences (like Swenet) or only the similarities (like some afrocentrics) have an agenda.
Are you really going to attack one of the best intellectual soldiers?
I'll let you 2 declare your love for each other in some other venue but to answer your question. Yes, I will.
Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: I have absolutely no problem with the recognition that Africa has different population groups with different genetic markers and phenotypic features. Well that's perfect.
If an academic said that the AE were in the same population group as other Northeast Africans in Sudan, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Djibouti and Somalia, I could not reasonably oppose that. I would be a stubborn, mule of a man to oppose that.
'Indigenous Northeast Africans'... that is what I think we should settle on. I've been a pain in the arse, but that's it - that's the term.
Specialists can say that the AE were in a specific branch of the African 'family tree' and there certainly won't be any howls of protest from me as long as other African population groups are not presented as racial groups.
You've conveyed your thoughts objectively, clearly, beautifully and very patiently, and I can no longer maintain any objection. Thank you.
This I agree with you (sudaniya/swenet, same person).
Karrayyu, Somali, Wolof, Ancient Egyptians, Kushites, Wagadu, Serer, Zulu, Ashanti were all their own people with their own languages and history. The same can be said about Ancient Greek people and modern British/American people. It doesn't mean they don't share anything between each others either. There's both similarities and differences between African populations.
You are undoubtedly mentally ill. How in the world am I Swenet? Why don't you run an IP address check? Do it. Ask the moderator to do it. I am trying to understand bio-anthropology whereas Swenet is light years ahead of me on this, and you think that we're the same person?
In case you hadn't noticed, I've been disagreeing with Swenet on certain points in this thread. Why would anybody engage in such a pathetic sock-puppet routine!?
Oh my God, this place [Egyptsearch] has people that belong in a mental ward and are trying to turn this forum into a digital asylum.
PS: No one has said that there are no similarities between different African groups. Where are you getting this from? Who's argued this point? Get professional help, mate - you need it.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
@Sudaniya
quote:You've conveyed your thoughts objectively, clearly, beautifully and very patiently, and I can no longer maintain any objection. Thank you.
Thanks, but I'm not sure if that (no longer having objections) is what I wanted. The best thing for people reading this is to look up all the views expressed in this thread (including Doug's and the views of others), contrast them with the anthro literature and to then make informed decisions. Decisions about terminology that come from a place of deliberation and having carefully weighed things (including things not discussed here) are always more effective than when they come from reading or participating in a discussion.
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: PS: No one has said that there are no similarities between different African groups. Where are you getting this from? Who's argued this point? Get professional help, mate - you need it.
If we agree with each others then there's no need to get mad at me.
I don't need you to tell me there's a lot of similarities between African groups since they share a modest genetic distance between each others. They are genetically close to each others, so they share a "recent" history with each others.
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
Mesolithic Europeans don't fit the western criteria of 'white' either. I don't think it's a contradiction to say that Mesolithic Europeans with postulated dark skin aren't 'white' in the western racial sense, but that they are indigenous European.
I don't think there is a contradiction in saying that the Ainu Japanese aren't 'yellow' in the defunct western sense, but that they're biologically indigenous East Asians.
I don't think there is a contradiction in saying that many African/Oceanic looking Palaeoamericans aren't 'red' in the defunct western sense, but that they're biologically Native American.
In the same way, I don't think there is a contradiction if an academic stuck in western racial language says that one African population belongs to a 'black race' while other indigenous Africans in the same brown skin pigmentation range are in another African 'race'/family with another label. So long as it's understood that they're in the same pigmentation range and that [B][/B] this racial group isn't the only authentic African.
/Thread. I dont understand why folks are all butt hurt and pigheaded over the obvious.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: @Sudaniya
What would the basis for making deep racial distinctions among themselves be? The linguistic diversity/time depth of the Indo-European language family across Eurasia is about the same as one young, minor African language family (e.g. Semitic). Morphometrically and genetically most Europeans are also close, compared to Africans.
What do you think about something like this?
quote:In this study, we focus on two aspects of African population genetics, 1. the nature of population structure in Africa going back in time and 2. the timing of the Out-of-Africa event. To address these questions, we assembled a dataset with whole genome sequences from 162 individuals using both in-house sequencing and publicly available sources. These samples span 22 populations worldwide. These include eleven African populations which we use to dissect the population substructure in Africa. In addition, we also have 2 Middle Eastern, 5 European and 4 East/Central Asian populations which inform the population split time estimates for the Out-of-Africa event and the European-Asian split. We find extensive population structure in Africa extending back to before the Out-of-Africa event. The Ethiopian populations, Amhara and Oromo, show evidence of mixing beyond 15 kya. The Maasai and Luhye merge with the Ethiopian populations to form a panmictic East African population ~40kya. We find evidence for extensive mixing between east and west African populations before 50kya. Among the pygmy populations, we see recent gene flow between the Batwa and Mbuti. All African populations except the San merge into a single population around 110 kya. The San exchange migrants with the other African populations beginning ~120 kya. We estimate the Out-of-Africa event to have occurred ~75kya and the European-Asian split to ~25kya.
^Note the split time of Europe + East Asia as merely 25kya per this report. Leaves one wondering how puny the European time depth is without East Asians. How is making distinctions along the lines of the above African 'families' 'arbitrary' or reminiscent of 'apartheid'? The time depths of the splits of surviving African families are staggering and obviously have huge implications for how they're going to be assigned into discrete 'races' by ethnographers.
Thank you for the information. It's certainly very interesting. The fact that Africans are far older than all others is undoubtedly a factor that would explain greater genetic and morphometric differences between Africans...
..But I really don't think that 'Western' racial constructs are informed by linguistic diversity, 'time depths' or genetic distance considerations. It's a lot more simple and sinister than that.
I maintain that Western racial categories are predicated solely on phenotypic features among Africans and that this serves their racial interests.
They cynically define and limit what must be considered conventionally black African and create different racial categories for what doesn't fit this restrictive mold in Africa on the oldest populations on earth while expanding what 'Caucasian' can envelope all over the world - despite it being the youngest... and none of this references objective disciplines for the sake of science.
I think we'll just have to agree to disagree.
I think the motivation/intent in distinguishing between Africans has been questionable in many cases. These racist intentions should not be confused with the distinctions themselves, at least not where the population distinctions are justified and consistent with standards applied elsewhere (e.g. in Asia).
Many of the racial classifications in Africa that keep recurring in the old literature are observed today statistically and verifiably. They're just not considered to be 'races' anymore, but populations. See Tishkoff et al 2009 for instance. And no, Europeans didn't initially use this genetic stuff, but what I'm saying is that phenotypical differences observed between Africans reflect these genetic realities.
I look at what the objective and verifiable findings say. If that specific part of the old racialist writings fits the evidence, then so be it. It makes little sense for me to be bitter to the point that I would reject or antagonize genuine differences between Africans, just to spite racist Europeans.
And my point is that black skin is a common trait across all indigenous African populations. And there is not enough of a distinction between the skin color of the AE and other Africans to argue that the skin color of the AE, as but one form of phenotype diversity, is different enough to claim that calling them black isn't accurate. The diversity across African populations in bone lengths, cranial measurements and genetics has absolutely nothing to do with skin color, because all of this diversity is among black people.
So again, where are all these objective scholars who are against "racial labels" because to me, it seems like after 8 pages we are back to trying justify sub categorizing Africans into "racial" clusters which I am totally against. This really is simply nonsense. There are no races. Period. And the fact of the tremendous diversity within Africa among black Africans in terms of genetics, language and phenotype makes grouping Africans accurately very difficult. The diversity of Africans means the phenotypes seen in one population are not unique to one population and can be seen in percentage across other populations. That is different from other populations outside Africa who are less diverse and seem to have a smaller subset of features which are more often found clumped into individual populations. Africa is just the opposite, across all populations you will find similar combinations of features, even though some populations do carry traits that are relatively unique to that population. And as far as Egypt goes, phenotypically, genetically and skin color wise, they fall well within this indigenous black African feature set and are not separate from it.
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: And as far as Egypt goes, phenotypically, genetically and skin color wise, they fall well within this indigenous black African feature set and are not separate from it.
Yes, Ancient Egyptians are truly indigenous Africans. Ancient Egyptians also share a lot of cultural elements with other African populations.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: Recent genetic studies have been extraordinary for us who wanted more proof Ancient Egyptians were indigenous Africans not migrants from the Middle East and Europe. Recent studies have found no substantial amount of Eurasian admixture in Egypt before around 750 years ago. It means Ancient Egyptians were truly indigenous Africans not migrants from Middle East or Europe.
According to this recent study modern Egyptians are 80% non-African and 20% African. And the non-African admixtures are dated to around 750 years ago. Well, after the foundation of Ancient Egypt or Ancient Egyptian precursor cultures like the Green Sahara, Nabta Playa (cave of swimmers, cave of the beasts), Tasians, Badarians, Naqada, etc.
quote:Using ADMIXTURE and principal-component analysis (PCA) (Figure 1A), we estimated the average proportion of non-African ancestry in the Egyptians to be 80% and dated the midpoint of the admixture event by using ALDER20 to around 750 years ago (Table S2), consistent with the Islamic expansion and dates reported previously.
I guess, the only thing left for us is full genome sequencing of Ancient Egyptian mummies (partial sequencing already done and showing African affinities like E1b1a for Ramses III).
admixture midpoint of 1,500 is 750
quote: Assuming that the African and non-African components of the Ethiopian genomes result from a single admixture event, we used ROLLOFF to estimate the midpoint of the period of admixture. However, if there were multiple or continuous admixture events, as with the North African populations, this method detected the most recent event or the admixture midpoint, respectively.
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: Yes, Ancient Egyptians are truly indigenous Africans. Ancient Egyptians also share a lot of cultural elements with other African populations.
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
I guess, the only thing left for us is full genome sequencing of Ancient Egyptian mummies (partial sequencing already done and showing African affinities like E1b1a for Ramses III). [/QB]
The DNA analysis of Egyptian mummies is only in it's infancy
Posted by Nodnarb (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Thanks, but I'm not sure if that (no longer having objections) is what I wanted. The best thing for people reading this is to look up all the views expressed in this thread (including Doug's and the views of others), contrast them with the anthro literature and to then make informed decisions. Decisions about terminology that come from a place of deliberation and having carefully weighed things (including things not discussed here) are always more effective than when they come from reading or participating in a discussion.
I want to add the suggestion that we look inside ourselves and ask why we're so invested in this to begin with.
I shouldn't lie about it: I first got interested in this entire topic in response to white supremacist claims that "Black Africans" had no indigenous civilization and have contributed nothing of value to modern society. Even non-racists tend to gloss over "Black Africa" and its people as significant players in world history other than targets of oppression. Some of this can be attributed to an incomplete archaeological or historical record for large regions of the continent, but you can't deny this neglect feeds into the dehumanizing perception that black people had no history worth celebrating before Europeans and Arabs barged in to mess things up.
I don't know what the average black person feels, but I imagine they're damn sick of every "Black History" movie having something to do with the oppression they've suffered at the hands of whites. Constantly portraying them as impoverished victims isn't uplifting them, it's patronizing even if it's usually well-intentioned. And it's still giving them a narrower range of stories to consume than what white people enjoy all the time.
Now it's true that there were plenty of complex societies throughout Africa beyond the Nile Valley, and probably many more than archaeologists have yet uncovered. In fact, West Africa, the homeland of African-Americans, has its own long history of urbanization and even imperialism. But given that Egypt perceivably had the most influence on the non-African world and has had more documents and artifacts recovered than other regions, I can see why "Afrocentric" activists fixate on it. It's harder to dismiss a Bronze Age superpower like Egypt to the historical periphery than, say, Songhay or Great Zimbabwe.
I don't say any of that to justify the pseudo-scholarship and in-fighting that plague this community. I mean to ask for introspection here.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
And my point is that black skin is a common trait across all indigenous African populations. And there is not enough of a distinction between the skin color of the AE and other Africans to argue that the skin color of the AE, as but one form of phenotype diversity, is different enough to claim that calling them black isn't accurate. The diversity across African populations in bone lengths, cranial measurements and genetics has absolutely nothing to do with skin color, because all of this diversity is among black people.
So again, where are all these objective scholars who are against "racial labels" because to me, it seems like after 8 pages we are back to trying justify sub categorizing Africans into "racial" clusters which I am totally against. This really is simply nonsense. There are no races. Period. And the fact of the tremendous diversity within Africa among black Africans in terms of genetics, language and phenotype makes grouping Africans accurately very difficult. The diversity of Africans means the phenotypes seen in one population are not unique to one population and can be seen in percentage across other populations. That is different from other populations outside Africa who are less diverse and seem to have a smaller subset of features which are more often found clumped into individual populations. Africa is just the opposite, across all populations you will find similar combinations of features, even though some populations do carry traits that are relatively unique to that population. And as far as Egypt goes, phenotypically, genetically and skin color wise, they fall well within this indigenous black African feature set and are not separate from it.
It's odd the way if you say the Egyptians were brown it's unacceptable to Doug.
"Brown" is an accurate color description of the skin color in most Egyptian art.
Doug prefers "black" because when you use it you can't tell if the person means "Negroid" or if they just mean skin color.
So then if somebody says "The Egyptians were black" and you secretely want it to mean "Negroid" (even puporting not to believe in race but knowing that "Negroid traits" are typical of AAs) you can cosign the statement but then not have to deal with the issues raised by that. You just say "it only means skin color" and then then wink
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nodnarb:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Thanks, but I'm not sure if that (no longer having objections) is what I wanted. The best thing for people reading this is to look up all the views expressed in this thread (including Doug's and the views of others), contrast them with the anthro literature and to then make informed decisions. Decisions about terminology that come from a place of deliberation and having carefully weighed things (including things not discussed here) are always more effective than when they come from reading or participating in a discussion.
I want to add the suggestion that we look inside ourselves and ask why we're so invested in this to begin with.
I shouldn't lie about it: I first got interested in this entire topic in response to white supremacist claims that "Black Africans" had no indigenous civilization and have contributed nothing of value to modern society. Even non-racists tend to gloss over "Black Africa" and its people as significant players in world history other than targets of oppression. Some of this can be attributed to an incomplete archaeological or historical record for large regions of the continent, but you can't deny this neglect feeds into the dehumanizing perception that black people had no history worth celebrating before Europeans and Arabs barged in to mess things up.
I don't know what the average black person feels, but I imagine they're damn sick of every "Black History" movie having something to do with the oppression they've suffered at the hands of whites. Constantly portraying them as impoverished victims isn't uplifting them, it's patronizing even if it's usually well-intentioned. And it's still giving them a narrower range of stories to consume than what white people enjoy all the time.
Now it's true that there were plenty of complex societies throughout Africa beyond the Nile Valley, and probably many more than archaeologists have yet uncovered. In fact, West Africa, the homeland of African-Americans, has its own long history of urbanization and even imperialism. But given that Egypt perceivably had the most influence on the non-African world and has had more documents and artifacts recovered than other regions, I can see why "Afrocentric" activists fixate on it. It's harder to dismiss a Bronze Age superpower like Egypt to the historical periphery than, say, Songhay or Great Zimbabwe.
I don't say any of that to justify the pseudo-scholarship and in-fighting that plague this community. I mean to ask for introspection here.
What pseudo scholarship are you referring to and how does that relate to the simple description of the AE skin color or any other human skin color as black?
Also, the investment on my part is to challenge hypocrisy which tries to lay the blame for racism in science at the feet of black people in order to try and stop them from doing the research and telling the truth about African history. Of course Egypt is only one part of African culture but there is also another dimension. The United States is symbolically built as a New Egypt/New Atlantis. That is why so many towns and cities are called Memphis and so many Egyptian symbols are seen in the architecture and monuments of the country. So it is a part of popular occult lore within European society that Egypt was the first civilization and as part of this lore Europeans see themselves as direct inheritors of that legacy while at the same time oppressing the Africans who actually come from the continent.
At the end of the day this is simply one aspect of a fight against white supremacy.
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
Doug you are butthurt. Please stop lying to yourself in saying that you dont use "Black" in racial terms.
Once you use "Black" when talking about people in Africa this is mainly racial usage because the people you are calling "Black" LITERALLY almost always have BROWN SKIN! IF you were only talking about "Skin Tone" then you would be calling these populations "Brown". We are all adults, you dont have to lie as if you are using it as a descriptive label. This is the difference between descriptive labels vs Social interpretation of race: My toddler, having learned her colors, when I ask what color my skin is she says "Brown". My niece, who is Ethiopian when asked what her skin color was said "Brown" yet us being the SAME skin tone labeled mine as "Black".
The usage of "Black" in the "Western World" over the past few hundred years is mainly racial and social in origin. It has changed over time, excluded certain folks, even when they have brown skin and sometimes even when they are of African origin. NOW, whether or not this is the best application of the word you cant deny the fact that different interpretations on "Black" exists. Not all these interpretations have to do Racism, Not all of them overlap, and you would be hard pressed to find reason to argue why your usage is better than someone else when the term is outdated racial usage ANYWAY when looking that the science and population affinity.
Please answer: Is "White" the equivalent of "Black"? If not or if so: Are ancient Europeans white?
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nodnarb:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Thanks, but I'm not sure if that (no longer having objections) is what I wanted. The best thing for people reading this is to look up all the views expressed in this thread (including Doug's and the views of others), contrast them with the anthro literature and to then make informed decisions. Decisions about terminology that come from a place of deliberation and having carefully weighed things (including things not discussed here) are always more effective than when they come from reading or participating in a discussion.
I want to add the suggestion that we look inside ourselves and ask why we're so invested in this to begin with.
I shouldn't lie about it: I first got interested in this entire topic in response to white supremacist claims that "Black Africans" had no indigenous civilization and have contributed nothing of value to modern society. Even non-racists tend to gloss over "Black Africa" and its people as significant players in world history other than targets of oppression. Some of this can be attributed to an incomplete archaeological or historical record for large regions of the continent, but you can't deny this neglect feeds into the dehumanizing perception that black people had no history worth celebrating before Europeans and Arabs barged in to mess things up.
I don't know what the average black person feels, but I imagine they're damn sick of every "Black History" movie having something to do with the oppression they've suffered at the hands of whites. Constantly portraying them as impoverished victims isn't uplifting them, it's patronizing even if it's usually well-intentioned. And it's still giving them a narrower range of stories to consume than what white people enjoy all the time.
Now it's true that there were plenty of complex societies throughout Africa beyond the Nile Valley, and probably many more than archaeologists have yet uncovered. In fact, West Africa, the homeland of African-Americans, has its own long history of urbanization and even imperialism. But given that Egypt perceivably had the most influence on the non-African world and has had more documents and artifacts recovered than other regions, I can see why "Afrocentric" activists fixate on it. It's harder to dismiss a Bronze Age superpower like Egypt to the historical periphery than, say, Songhay or Great Zimbabwe.
I don't say any of that to justify the pseudo-scholarship and in-fighting that plague this community. I mean to ask for introspection here.
Still, the whole thing started with racist Europeans who wanted to steal African civilizations like Ancient Egypt and even Great Zimbabwe from African people. It was all racists propaganda to justify their own racism (slavery, colonisation, etc), but it still did a lot of damage to the Egyptology field we still feel today. For them, Ancient Egypt was created by a dynastic race coming from outside Africa instead of indigenous black Africans. This view was held for many years. Only recently did real effort been made to place Ancient Egypt in its African context.
So asking why we are interested is a waste of time. People were always interested and nobody ever claimed Ancient Greek were built by an African dynastic race or a dynastic race coming from outside Europe. Everybody take it as a given Ancient Greeks were European people and include it as part of European history because the were never a period of politically motivated "dynastic race theory" for them.
The real question is asking. Were Ancient Egyptians truly indigenous black Africans or migrants from Europe or the Middle East like the old dynastic race theory stipulated. The current scientific results seem to indicate Ancient Egyptians were truly indigenous Africans genetically, culturally and historically related to modern sub-Saharan Africans (Karrayyu, Somali, Wolof, Serer, Yoruba, Zulu, etc). It seems pretty obvious since Ancient Egypt is in Africa and modern Egyptians mostly trace their origin to the islamic migrations of North Africa (Banu Hilal, etc). But if we dig more we can see Ancient Egyptians were indeed historically, genetically, culturally black Africans in every way based on our current scientific knowledge.
Posted by Nodnarb (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: Please answer: Is "White" the equivalent of "Black"? If not or if so: Are ancient Europeans white?
To be honest, I think he and many other people here would answer "yes". We've all seen the thousands of posts throughout ES claiming that the very first Europeans were "black" like Africans. But even if that label ostensibly describes skin color rather than ancestry, I still sense that there's a desire to claim those "Black Europeans" as part of a global "Black race". For that matter, some of the other posts here applying "black" to certain non-African populations (Indians, Southeast Asians, Mesoamericans, etc.) were probably meant to link those people to Africans. Perhaps that goes to show you that even the simple chromatic descriptor can still be manipulated to support racialist activism.
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: Recent genetic studies have been extraordinary for us who wanted more proof Ancient Egyptians were indigenous Africans not migrants from the Middle East and Europe. Recent studies have found no substantial amount of Eurasian admixture in Egypt before around 750 years ago. It means Ancient Egyptians were truly indigenous Africans not migrants from Middle East or Europe.
According to this recent study modern Egyptians are 80% non-African and 20% African. And the non-African admixtures are dated to around 750 years ago. Well, after the foundation of Ancient Egypt or Ancient Egyptian precursor cultures like the Green Sahara, Nabta Playa (cave of swimmers, cave of the beasts), Tasians, Badarians, Naqada, etc.
quote:Using ADMIXTURE and principal-component analysis (PCA) (Figure 1A), we estimated the average proportion of non-African ancestry in the Egyptians to be 80% and dated the midpoint of the admixture event by using ALDER20 to around 750 years ago (Table S2), consistent with the Islamic expansion and dates reported previously.
I guess, the only thing left for us is full genome sequencing of Ancient Egyptian mummies (partial sequencing already done and showing African affinities like E1b1a for Ramses III).
admixture midpoint of 1,500 is 750
quote: Assuming that the African and non-African components of the Ethiopian genomes result from a single admixture event, we used ROLLOFF to estimate the midpoint of the period of admixture. However, if there were multiple or continuous admixture events, as with the North African populations, this method detected the most recent event or the admixture midpoint, respectively.
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: Yes, Ancient Egyptians are truly indigenous Africans. Ancient Egyptians also share a lot of cultural elements with other African populations.
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
I guess, the only thing left for us is full genome sequencing of Ancient Egyptian mummies (partial sequencing already done and showing African affinities like E1b1a for Ramses III).
The DNA analysis of Egyptian mummies is only in it's infancy [/QB]
Those are good points but they were many studies posted on this forum showing us the same thing in term of dating the Eurasian back migrations into Africa (Mota, Sudan Ancient DNA, Ramses III, autosomal STR, Pickrell, etc). Particularly Mota and Sudan DNA (Kadruka) showing us an absence or rarity of European DNA in those time periods.
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nodnarb:
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: [qb]Please answer: Is "White" the equivalent of "Black"? If not or if so: Are ancient Europeans white?
To be honest, I think he and many other people here would answer "yes". /QB]
Well, I am going to go ahead and let him answer. He knows the implications of the answer regardless of which way it goes. Anyone else can feel free to chime in too.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
When you say on this forum that no one, I mean NO ONE is going to call the man below 'white' in the western sense, everyone immediately understands what you mean.
Reconstruction of Bronze Age inhabitant of what is today Poland:
Proved invaluable assistance skeleton results Rogalin. Also genetic. Thanks to them, we know that the warrior had a dark complexion, dark hair and eyes.
When you acknowledge that many lay people in the West, North Africa and elsewhere have similarly narrow terms for Africans, they act like they're confused for 10 thread pages.
Makes you wonder to what extent people are motivated by racial politics. Already knew it was bad, but this bad?
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: Doug you are butthurt. Please stop lying to yourself in saying that you dont use "Black" in racial terms.
Once you use "Black" when talking about people in Africa this is mainly racial usage because the people you are calling "Black" LITERALLY almost always have BROWN SKIN! IF you were only talking about "Skin Tone" then you would be calling these populations "Brown". We are all adults, you dont have to lie as if you are using it as a descriptive label. This is the difference between descriptive labels vs Social interpretation of race: My toddler, having learned her colors, when I ask what color my skin is she says "Brown". My niece, who is Ethiopian when asked what her skin color was said "Brown" yet us being the SAME skin tone labeled mine as "Black".
The usage of "Black" in the "Western World" over the past few hundred years is mainly racial and social in origin. It has changed over time, excluded certain folks, even when they have brown skin and sometimes even when they are of African origin. NOW, whether or not this is the best application of the word you cant deny the fact that different interpretations on "Black" exists. Not all these interpretations have to do Racism, Not all of them overlap, and you would be hard pressed to find reason to argue why your usage is better than someone else when the term is outdated racial usage ANYWAY when looking that the science and population affinity.
Please answer: Is "White" the equivalent of "Black"? If not or if so: Are ancient Europeans white?
Because retards on this thread are simply cowards hiding behind a fake facade of trying to sound "objective" they are scared so say what they really mean.
I am saying what I mean and no more and no less.
Black skin is not race and neither is white skin or any other type of skin.
And when I say that the AE were black Africans I mean just that:
The only population that matches this artistic rendition along with the biological, genetic and skeletal affinities of this person are black African people. That has nothing to do with race.
But rather than argue with white scientists who use whatever terms they want to use to say that no black Africans were in AE, cowards will sit here and debate whether we should talk about skin color as if that will soothe their egos for being cowards.
I say what I mean and when I say black that is what I mean:
And the reason I am saying this is because the whole point is that people keep claiming that suggesting that the AE were "biologically" Africans is enough to correct the historical deception promoted by white racists. But it won't. In their minds and in their writings and in every other form of propaganda they promote the AE were "caucasian" or white folks. So no, I don't pretend for one second that changing my words is going to fix the issue. I do say however that on the issue of biological debate there is no substitute for addressing skin color as a biological fact if that is the actual subject at hand. [u]Nobody[/u] is debating the population of AE because of skull shape, nose shape, genetics or anything else. It is all a debate about skin color and some folks are too scared to even mention skin color because of some cowardly attitude that talking about skin color equates to talking about race. If that is the case then talking about any aspect of human biology is talking about race. Give it up already. You make no sense. That is why 8 pages into the thread where I made my self very clear why the term is perfectly valid as a reference to skin color we got folks sitting here claiming "but what if their skeletal features look like XYZ... does that make them black?" Skeletal features aren't skin color stupid. Black Africans have a wide range of skeletal features.
quote: Egypt was ruled by black pharaohs for nearly 100 years, but their role as leaders of the ancient civilization has been largely kept in the dark because of racism, according to this month's National Geographic magazine.
Yeah, but I guess we shouldn't use black in Egypt because "objective" scientists sure have no problem using it for the rest of Africa....
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: When you say on this forum that no one, I mean NO ONE is going to call the man below 'white' in the western sense, everyone immediately understands what you mean.
Reconstruction of Bronze Age inhabitant of what is today Poland:
Proved invaluable assistance skeleton results Rogalin. Also genetic. Thanks to them, we know that the warrior had a dark complexion, dark hair and eyes.
When you acknowledge that many lay people in the West, North Africa and elsewhere have similarly narrow terms for Africans, they act like they're confused for 10 thread pages.
Makes you wonder to what extent people are motivated by racial politics. Already knew it was bad, but this bad?
Why wouldn't they if the facts permit it? The fact is you have to provide the evidence to support the claim. What biological evidence do you have for the skin color of this person? Right now you are clinging to outdated notions that skull shape indicates skin color when it doesn't. That is the stupidest nonsense I keep hearing over and over on this thread. Skin color is skin color and unfortunately there is only limited science for determining skin color from a skull. It is all hypothetical at best. But there are plenty of white folks in Poland to this day with similar features:
But arguing that the skin color of this person was very pale due to adaptation to a northern environment, AKA WHITE, is not absurd in the least but this garbage is simply folks talking out of their behinds as usual. Is saying blood is red racist? Of course not. I saying bones are white racist? Of course not. Is saying eye color is blue racist? Of course not. But somehow saying skin color is black or white is racist.
Man you guys are retards.
But hey I can play along with this. This guys facial features I guess are supposedly "NEGROID" so I guess we cant all him white huh?
Oh and this guys features are supposedly "CAUCASOID" so we cant call him black either? Right..
Typical blowhard nonsense from folks that SUPPOSEDLY know better but at every turn they keep running back to white daddy to get "objective" approval.
And what about this? How come nobody is complaining about this then?
Folks don't even know anything about European diversity in features but want to lecture me about skin color in Africa.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nodnarb:
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: Please answer: Is "White" the equivalent of "Black"? If not or if so: Are ancient Europeans white?
To be honest, I think he and many other people here would answer "yes". We've all seen the thousands of posts throughout ES claiming that the very first Europeans were "black" like Africans. But even if that label ostensibly describes skin color rather than ancestry, I still sense that there's a desire to claim those "Black Europeans" as part of a global "Black race". For that matter, some of the other posts here applying "black" to certain non-African populations (Indians, Southeast Asians, Mesoamericans, etc.) were probably meant to link those people to Africans. Perhaps that goes to show you that even the simple chromatic descriptor can still be manipulated to support racialist activism.
No, I believe some folks are confused about the issue. The issue and reason of black folks talking about ancient "black history" is to refute the racists who have spent the last 500 years trying to claim everything good and positive in human history came from very light skin "white" people, in their own words. But nobody challenges that. Nobody breaks them down on who is white and who isn't. Yet when the actual correct facts emerged within the last 50 years that all humans originated in Africa and therefore provided the basis of the argument that the majority of humans were black for most of human history, all of a sudden Africans who point this out from white scientists are racists.
No at this point it is just retards being retards for the sake of being retarded.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug: Why wouldn't they if the facts permit it? The fact is you have to provide the evidence to support the claim. What biological evidence do you have for the skin color of this person? Right now you are clinging to outdated notions that skull shape indicates skin color when it doesn't.
More proof that this guy simply does not read. He didn't even read that 5 sentence post he pretends to be addressing. Makes you wonder what else he skimmed over in the previous 10 thread pages or scientific studies in general.
Good luck getting on topic replies out of him Beyoku.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
But arguing that the skin color of this person was very pale due to adaptation to a northern environment, AKA WHITE, is not absurd in the least but this garbage is simply folks talking out of their behinds as usual. Is saying blood is red racist?
The man's hair is white.
His skin is not white. Let's be honest here
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Because retards on this thread are simply cowards hiding behind a fake facade of trying to sound "objective" they are scared so say what they really mean.
I am saying what I mean and no more and no less.
Black skin is not race and neither is white skin or any other type of skin.
And when I say that the AE were black Africans I mean just that:
The only population that matches this artistic rendition along with the biological, genetic and skeletal affinities of this person are black African people. That has nothing to do with race.
But rather than argue with white scientists who use whatever terms they want to use to say that no black Africans were in AE, cowards will sit here and debate whether we should talk about skin color as if that will soothe their egos for being cowards.
I say what I mean and when I say black that is what I mean:
He shows a dimly lit painting of Thutmose IV, still clearly brown skinned and then he has a man under who is much darker, nearly black and he says " when I say black that is what I mean"
Why not show someone who at least has a skin tone that matches the painting ?
Thutmose IV
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: A lot of the stuff that we have been discussing on this forum has always been stated in the occult works of the various Western Secret Societies as traditional lore about the history of 'mysteries', 'magic' and the occult.
Now in the age of the internet a lot of this stuff is at your fingertips online without a trip to a masonic bookstore or good library.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: A lot of the stuff that we have been discussing on this forum has always been stated in the occult works of the various Western Secret Societies as traditional lore about the history of 'mysteries', 'magic' and the occult.
Now in the age of the internet a lot of this stuff is at your fingertips online without a trip to a masonic bookstore or good library.
I suggest we leave the ad hominem to Doug. Doug seems to be fond of questioning people's credibility when they don't agree with him or mindlessly attacking strawmen because he doesn't (want to) understand.
What Doug chooses to believe in elsewhere shouldn't be relevant here, UNLESS it is relevant to the topic.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
.
"Black skinned" doesn't indicate if there is any African ancestry at all.
Therefore if one is trying to associate African Americans with the ancient Egyptians it makes much more sense to draw the parallels in the genetics and physical proportions rather than insist on a word which is a much weaker association and say it's brave to do so. All it means is your old and still living in the old skin color based system.
Suppose someone said the Egyptians were "black" skinned.
^^ Then both of the above men could say that they were also black like the Egyptians
Yet while Will Smith might have the highest similarly to ancient Egyptians of anyone on this page. Both Napoleon and Lyndon B Johnson, both belonging to Haplogroup E would be closer genetically to the ancient Egyptians than the Peruvian man would be to the Egyptians. Therefore it is silly to skin color is the primary factor that relates people. It's quite superficial
.
Posted by Child Of The KING (Member # 9422) on :
Good Posts Doug M as usual..
Blacks Color
Whites Color
Browns Color
Reds Color
Yellows Color
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Doug: Why wouldn't they if the facts permit it? The fact is you have to provide the evidence to support the claim. What biological evidence do you have for the skin color of this person? Right now you are clinging to outdated notions that skull shape indicates skin color when it doesn't.
More proof that this guy simply does not read. He didn't even read that 5 sentence post he pretends to be addressing. Makes you wonder what else he skimmed over in the previous 10 thread pages or scientific studies in general.
Good luck getting on topic replies out of him Beyoku.
The only one with empty statements is you. I suggest the skull looks similar to modern Polish people who happen to have white skin.
But rather than address that you sit here and pretend not to understand English.
So do you agree that the skull looks similar to modern Polish people and that the likelihood is high that the person when alive had a similar skin complexion?
Or are you just making up arguments just to argue?
If you aren't serious about depending your own logic why continue posting? You posted the skull so what was your point? Are you seriously claiming that because of the skull shape we should question whether a person in Europe during the bronze age had white skin or not? As if there is no way to figure it out?
Do you even know how stupid that sounds?
You are simply trying to make a simple word into something complex when it isn't: white skin.
So how is it European scientists have no problem calling pale skin "white skin"? Yet you are sitting on this thread debating me as if the term isn't still used quite often in scholarly context, not to mention 'black skin'. At this point you have shown nothing that suggests otherwise, other than you mindless attempts to divert from the point which is that "black skin" or "black people" is a perfectly viable way of describing people with dark skin from Africa and elsewhere.
quote: When it comes to skin color, the team found a patchwork of evolution in different places, and three separate genes that produce light skin, telling a complex story for how European’s skin evolved to be much lighter during the past 8000 years. The modern humans who came out of Africa to originally settle Europe about 40,000 years are presumed to have had dark skin, which is advantageous in sunny latitudes. And the new data confirm that about 8500 years ago, early hunter-gatherers in Spain, Luxembourg, and Hungary also had darker skin: They lacked versions of two genes—SLC24A5 and SLC45A2—that lead to depigmentation and, therefore, pale skin in Europeans today.
But in the far north—where low light levels would favor pale skin—the team found a different picture in hunter-gatherers: Seven people from the 7700-year-old Motala archaeological site in southern Sweden had both light skin gene variants, SLC24A5 and SLC45A2. They also had a third gene, HERC2/OCA2, which causes blue eyes and may also contribute to light skin and blond hair. Thus ancient hunter-gatherers of the far north were already pale and blue-eyed, but those of central and southern Europe had darker skin.
Then, the first farmers from the Near East arrived in Europe; they carried both genes for light skin. As they interbred with the indigenous hunter-gatherers, one of their light-skin genes swept through Europe, so that central and southern Europeans also began to have lighter skin. The other gene variant, SLC45A2, was at low levels until about 5800 years ago when it swept up to high frequency.
Another example of black Egyptians, which also is used to show that the AE would have had similar complexions. But the issue is some people want to pretend not to understand what you mean when you say "black people" and "Ancient Egypt" and all of sudden act deaf, dumb and blind as if they don't know what the hell you mean. And they do this because they don't want to accept it because it goes against their fantasy, which has nothing to with reality. Which is why they want to avoid any discussion of skin color at all so they can stay in their fantasy.
quote:A view as Egyptian Army soldiers sit on their camels in the desert of Aswan, Egypt. March 01, 1948
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: When you say on this forum that no one, I mean NO ONE is going to call the man below 'white' in the western sense, everyone immediately understands what you mean.
Reconstruction of Bronze Age inhabitant of what is today Poland:
Proved invaluable assistance skeleton results Rogalin. Also genetic. Thanks to them, we know that the warrior had a dark complexion, dark hair and eyes.
When you acknowledge that many lay people in the West, North Africa and elsewhere have similarly narrow terms for Africans, they act like they're confused for 10 thread pages.
Makes you wonder to what extent people are motivated by racial politics. Already knew it was bad, but this bad?
Interesting, as they continue:
This combination of traits is rather uncommon in modern Poles. It seems that Eastern Europeans looked quite different four thousand years ago than they do today.
quote:Also I'm Polish and I read this source in original. Dark doesn't means black there. You have skin tone on reconstruction, is rather swarthy. Regretabbly I don't have cranofacial measurements, which will be very helpful. But nose looks rather narrow. There is no prognatism. This is denifinietly not negroid It could be some Berberoid (which is consider white by Polish typologist) element mixed with Cromagnoid. According to Polish sources the very slight Berber admixture was noted from Meghalitic times in Central European skeletal remains. And it is connected from migrants from Southern Europe.
--Lukasz Torun
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
I used Google translator, since I don't understand Poolish.
The museum in Hrubieszow reconstructed face of a warrior from the first half of the second millennium BC In the reconstruction helped specialists in forensic medicine from. He used them to this perfectly preserved skeleton of prehistoric man found during excavations in Rogalin for Hrubieszow. Alongside there is also a warrior princess - that archaeologists have called the woman whose richly endowed grave found in the same cemetery. The story of "The Warrior and the Princess" will be shown at the exhibition, which opens on 25 April.
Skeletons warrior and princess for over 4000 years lay on the field in Rogalin for Hrubieszow. It was only in 2010 discovered them in the ground, one of the farmers. It turned out that there are graves of people from the early Bronze Age. One of them, probably a warrior - has been preserved in very good condition and are encouraged archaeologists to reconstruct his face.
In the reconstruction of specialists helped with the Department of Forensic Medicine at the Medical University in Poznań. The combination of traditional archeology and modern technology gave excellent results. Based on the teeth, the researchers found that the warrior at the time of death was 47 years.
On the basis of a well-preserved skeleton was reconstructed face not only a warrior but his whole character. Its dimensions and weight. Hrubieszów now visiting the museum will be able to literally stand face to face with a man four thousand years. Archaeologists have also developed a portrait of 20-year-old woman whose bones were discovered in a subsequent graves. She was named a princess because her grave was the richest facilities.
The story of "The Warrior and the Princess" will be shown at the exhibition on 25 April. It documents the lives of people from the second century BC and the effect of archaeological excavations in Rogalin. These are the monuments found in graves: pottery, flint tools, weapons, ornaments. The 3D glasses will be able to view three-dimensional photographs of skeletons. The exhibition is part of the celebrations of the 50th anniversary of the Hrubieszów museum and you can see it to the end of July.
W muzeum w Hrubieszowie zrekonstruowano twarz wojownika z pierwszej połowy II tysiąclecia p.n.e. W rekonstrukcji pomogli specjaliści z zakresu medycyny sądowej z Poznania. Posłużył im do tego doskonale zachowany szkielet prehistorycznego człowieka znaleziony podczas wykopalisk w Rogalinie pod Hrubieszowem. Obok wojownika pojawia się też księżniczka - tak archeolodzy nazwali kobietę, której bogato wyposażony grób znaleźli na tym samym cmentarzysku. Historię "Wojownika i Księżniczki" będzie można zobaczyć na wystawie, która otwarta zostanie 25 kwietnia. Szkielety wojownika i księżniczki przez ponad 4 tysiące lat spoczywały na polu w Rogalinie pod Hrubieszowem. Dopiero w 2010 roku odkrył je w ziemi, jeden z rolników. Okazało się, że znajdują się tam groby ludzi z wczesnej epoki brązu. Jeden z nich, prawdopodobnie wojownik - zachował się w bardzo dobrym stanie i to zachęciło archeologów do zrekonstruowania jego twarzy. W rekonstrukcji pomogli specjaliści z Katedry i Zakładu Medycyny Sądowej Uniwersytetu Medycznego w Poznaniu. Połączenie tradycyjnej archeologii i nowoczesnej technologii dało rewelacyjne efekty. Na podstawie uzębienia naukowcy ustalili, że wojownik w chwili śmierci miał 47 lat. Na podstawie dobrze zachowanego szkieletu odtworzona została nie tylko twarz wojownika ale cała jego postać. Jego wymiary i waga. Teraz odwiedzając hrubieszowskie muzeum będzie można stanąć dosłownie twarzą w twarz z człowiekiem sprzed czterech tysięcy lat. Archeolodzy opracowali też portret 20-letniej kobiety, której kości odkryto w jednym z kolejnych grobów. Została nazwana księżniczką, bo jej grób miał najbogatsze wyposażenie. Historię "Wojownika i Księżniczki" będzie można zobaczyć na wystawie 25 kwietnia. Dokumentuje życie ludzi z II wieku p.n.e. i efekt archeologicznych wykopalisk w Rogalinie. Pokazane będą zabytki znalezione w grobach: naczynia gliniane, narzędzia krzemienne, broń, ozdoby. W okularach 3D będzie można oglądać trójwymiarowe fotografie szkieletów. Wystawa wpisuje się w obchody 50-lecia hrubieszowskiego muzeum i będzie można ją oglądać do końca lipca.
White racist idiot Ish Gebor posting stuff about his ancestors in Europe. Diversionary tactics.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: .
"Black skinned" doesn't indicate if there is any African ancestry at all.
Therefore if one is trying to associate African Americans with the ancient Egyptians it makes much more sense to draw the parallels in the genetics and physical proportions rather than insist on a word which is a much weaker association and say it's brave to do so. All it means is your old and still living in the old skin color based system.
Suppose someone said the Egyptians were "black" skinned.
^^ Then both of the above men could say that they were also black like the Egyptians
Yet while Will Smith might have the highest similarly to ancient Egyptians of anyone on this page. Both Napoleon and Lyndon B Johnson, both belonging to Haplogroup E would be closer genetically to the ancient Egyptians than the Peruvian man would be to the Egyptians. Therefore it is silly to skin color is the primary factor that relates people. It's quite superficial
.
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: I used Google translator, since I don't understand Poolish.
The museum in Hrubieszow reconstructed face of a warrior from the first half of the second millennium BC In the reconstruction helped specialists in forensic medicine from. He used them to this perfectly preserved skeleton of prehistoric man found during excavations in Rogalin for Hrubieszow. Alongside there is also a warrior princess - that archaeologists have called the woman whose richly endowed grave found in the same cemetery. The story of "The Warrior and the Princess" will be shown at the exhibition, which opens on 25 April.
Skeletons warrior and princess for over 4000 years lay on the field in Rogalin for Hrubieszow. It was only in 2010 discovered them in the ground, one of the farmers. It turned out that there are graves of people from the early Bronze Age. One of them, probably a warrior - has been preserved in very good condition and are encouraged archaeologists to reconstruct his face.
In the reconstruction of specialists helped with the Department of Forensic Medicine at the Medical University in Poznań. The combination of traditional archeology and modern technology gave excellent results. Based on the teeth, the researchers found that the warrior at the time of death was 47 years.
On the basis of a well-preserved skeleton was reconstructed face not only a warrior but his whole character. Its dimensions and weight. Hrubieszów now visiting the museum will be able to literally stand face to face with a man four thousand years. Archaeologists have also developed a portrait of 20-year-old woman whose bones were discovered in a subsequent graves. She was named a princess because her grave was the richest facilities.
The story of "The Warrior and the Princess" will be shown at the exhibition on 25 April. It documents the lives of people from the second century BC and the effect of archaeological excavations in Rogalin. These are the monuments found in graves: pottery, flint tools, weapons, ornaments. The 3D glasses will be able to view three-dimensional photographs of skeletons. The exhibition is part of the celebrations of the 50th anniversary of the Hrubieszów museum and you can see it to the end of July.
W muzeum w Hrubieszowie zrekonstruowano twarz wojownika z pierwszej połowy II tysiąclecia p.n.e. W rekonstrukcji pomogli specjaliści z zakresu medycyny sądowej z Poznania. Posłużył im do tego doskonale zachowany szkielet prehistorycznego człowieka znaleziony podczas wykopalisk w Rogalinie pod Hrubieszowem. Obok wojownika pojawia się też księżniczka - tak archeolodzy nazwali kobietę, której bogato wyposażony grób znaleźli na tym samym cmentarzysku. Historię "Wojownika i Księżniczki" będzie można zobaczyć na wystawie, która otwarta zostanie 25 kwietnia. Szkielety wojownika i księżniczki przez ponad 4 tysiące lat spoczywały na polu w Rogalinie pod Hrubieszowem. Dopiero w 2010 roku odkrył je w ziemi, jeden z rolników. Okazało się, że znajdują się tam groby ludzi z wczesnej epoki brązu. Jeden z nich, prawdopodobnie wojownik - zachował się w bardzo dobrym stanie i to zachęciło archeologów do zrekonstruowania jego twarzy. W rekonstrukcji pomogli specjaliści z Katedry i Zakładu Medycyny Sądowej Uniwersytetu Medycznego w Poznaniu. Połączenie tradycyjnej archeologii i nowoczesnej technologii dało rewelacyjne efekty. Na podstawie uzębienia naukowcy ustalili, że wojownik w chwili śmierci miał 47 lat. Na podstawie dobrze zachowanego szkieletu odtworzona została nie tylko twarz wojownika ale cała jego postać. Jego wymiary i waga. Teraz odwiedzając hrubieszowskie muzeum będzie można stanąć dosłownie twarzą w twarz z człowiekiem sprzed czterech tysięcy lat. Archeolodzy opracowali też portret 20-letniej kobiety, której kości odkryto w jednym z kolejnych grobów. Została nazwana księżniczką, bo jej grób miał najbogatsze wyposażenie. Historię "Wojownika i Księżniczki" będzie można zobaczyć na wystawie 25 kwietnia. Dokumentuje życie ludzi z II wieku p.n.e. i efekt archeologicznych wykopalisk w Rogalinie. Pokazane będą zabytki znalezione w grobach: naczynia gliniane, narzędzia krzemienne, broń, ozdoby. W okularach 3D będzie można oglądać trójwymiarowe fotografie szkieletów. Wystawa wpisuje się w obchody 50-lecia hrubieszowskiego muzeum i będzie można ją oglądać do końca lipca.
Reconstruction looks pretty white to me. Not sure where this idea that this skull and the skin color of Polish people 4,000 years ago has to do with ancient or Modern Egypt. I would argue that those polish people were white.
Look at this thread on the topic and look at this poster named Krefter:
He is still white European, no matter his "features": Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
Both reports seem to be different in interpreting the given, of this 3.500 Yr remain.
The article as posted by dienekes.
They recreated the face of a warrior from the Bronze Age. His tomb was for Hrubieszow
Researchers from the Department of Forensic Medicine University of Medical Sciences reconstructed face of the man from the Bronze Age.
His grave was under Hrubieszow. Graveyard of the pre-4000 years was discovered in Rogalin for Hrubieszow. The best preserved is the skeleton of a man who at death was 45 years. Archaeologists called it a warrior. Why?
- In the grave we found, among others, several flint arrowheads to a shot, flint knife or spear, sickle with flint and bone buckle - lists Bartecki Bartholomew, director of the Museum. Fr.. Staszic in Hrubieszow.
The skull warrior was in such good condition that the museum was tempted by experiment - a reconstruction of his face. Tasks undertaken by the research team of Dr. Dorothy Lorkiewicz-Muszyńska of the Department of Forensic Medicine at the Medical University in Poznań. Every day with their ability to use police, for example, when you need to identify a murder victim. The first step was to do a scan of the skull in 3D.
- At the base using a special computer program was applied to the muscle tissues - explains the director Bartecki. - Method shows more than 90 percent. compliance with the real appearance of a man - he remarks.
Invaluable assistance proved to be the results of the skeleton of Rogalin. Also genetic. Thanks to them, we know that the warrior had a dark complexion, dark hair and eyes.
- Generally enjoyed good health. He had all his teeth, there have also discovered no significant bone degeneration - says the head of the museum in Hrubieszow.
But it turned out that the man who lived in the Lublin region 4000 years ago, he suffered from bone cancer. - The tumor was not malignant, so you may not feel pain feet - wonders Bartholomew Bartecki. With genetic testing, we also know that some people from the cemeteries were related. For example, in one place next to each other were buried two brothers or cousins. The youngest children at the time of death were 7 to 10 years.
In April the Museum. Fr.. Staszic in Hrubieszow will take place opening of the exhibition devoted to the excavations of Rogalin. I'll see to it, among others, skeleton warrior, and next records the next steps in the reconstruction of his face. Alongside boards will show a multimedia presentation, showing step by step how to print skull was created in 3D.
- We're not betray everything. The full effect of the reconstruction will present only at our exhibition - says the director of Bartecki.
On this basis it will be drawn cast of the head of a warrior. Dummy get a "hand" copy of his tools.
Research cemetery in Rogalin not yet been completed. It may be that the discovery of 12 graves is just the beginning.
Odtworzyli twarz wojownika z epoki brązu. Jego grób był pod Hrubieszowem Naukowcy z Katedry i Zakładu Medycyny Sądowej UM w Poznaniu zrekonstruowali twarz mężczyzny z epoki brązu. Jego grób znajdował się pod Hrubieszowem. Cmentarzysko sprzed 4 tysięcy lat zostało odkryte w Rogalinie pod Hrubieszowem. Najlepiej zachowany jest szkielet mężczyzny, który w chwili śmierci miał 45 lat. Archeolodzy nazwali go wojownikiem. Dlaczego? - W grobie znaleźliśmy m.in. kilkanaście krzemiennych grotów do strzał, krzemienne ostrze noża lub włóczni, sierp z krzemienia i sprzączkę z kości - wylicza Bartłomiej Bartecki, dyrektor Muzeum im. ks. Stanisława Staszica w Hrubieszowie. Czaszka wojownika była w tak dobrym stanie, że muzeum pokusiło się o eksperyment - rekonstrukcję jego twarzy. Zadania podjął się zespół badawczy dr Doroty Lorkiewicz-Muszyńskiej z Katedry i Zakładu Medycyny Sądowej Uniwersytetu Medycznego w Poznaniu. Na co dzień z ich umiejętności korzysta policja, na przykład, gdy trzeba zidentyfikować ofiarę morderstwa. Pierwszym krokiem było zrobienie skanu czaszki w 3D. - Na tę bazę za pomocą specjalnego programu komputerowego nakładane były tkanki mięśniowe - wyjaśnia dyrektor Bartecki. - Metoda wykazuje ponad 90 proc. zgodności z rzeczywistym wyglądem mężczyzny - zaznacza. Nieocenioną pomocą okazały się wyniki badań szkieletu z Rogalina. Także genetyczne. Dzięki nim wiemy, że wojownik miał ciemną karnację, ciemne włosy oraz oczy. - Generalnie cieszył się dobrym zdrowiem. Miał wszystkie zęby, nie odkryliśmy też żadnych znaczących zwyrodnień kości - opowiada szef muzeum w Hrubieszowie. Okazało się jednak, że mężczyzna żyjący na Lubelszczyźnie 4 tysiące lat temu, cierpiał na raka kości. - Nowotwór nie był jednak złośliwy, więc być może nie odczuwał bólu nogi - zastanawia się Bartłomiej Bartecki. Dzięki badaniom genetycznym wiemy także, że niektóre osoby z tego cmentarzyska były ze sobą spokrewnione. Na przykład, w jednym miejscu obok siebie zostali pochowani dwaj bracia lub kuzyni. Najmłodsze dzieci w chwili śmierci miały od 7 do 10 lat. W kwietniu w Muzeum im. ks. Stanisława Staszica w Hrubieszowie odbędzie się wernisaż wystawy poświęconej wykopaliskom z Rogalina. Zobaczymy na niej m.in. szkielet wojownika, a obok dokumentację kolejnych etapów rekonstrukcji jego twarzy. Obok plansz pokazana zostanie multimedialna prezentacja, przedstawiająca krok po kroku, jak powstawał wydruk czaszki w 3D. - Na razie nie zdradzamy wszystkiego. Pełny efekt rekonstrukcji zaprezentujemy dopiero na naszej wystawie - zapowiada dyrektor Bartecki. Na tej podstawie zostanie sporządzony odlew głowy wojownika. Manekin dostanie "do ręki" kopię jego narzędzi. Badania cmentarzyska w Rogalinie nie zostały jeszcze zakończone. Może okazać się, że odkrycie 12 pochówków to dopiero początek.
I know it's a bit off topic. But it grabbed my curiosity.
14.09.2012
Warrior tomb from the Bronze Age discovered in Rogalin | News | Science & Scholarship in Poland
A well-preserved tomb of a warrior with weapons from the early Bronze Age (almost 4 thousand years old) was discovered in Rogalin (Lublin province). In the same place, archaeologists previously unearthed a princess tomb containing rich ornaments.
In the cemetery in Rogalin near Hrubieszow, near the Polish-Ukrainian border, during the archaeological research that continues for four years now, archaeologists discovered 11 graves from the early Bronze Age. Most of them contained bronze ornaments and utensils, like three graves discovered this August. Among them is the tomb of a warrior.
"In this tomb we have found a very well-preserved skeleton of an adult man, laid in the straight position, but with folded hands" - told PAP Anna Hyrchała, archaeologist from the Stanisław Staszic Museum in Hrubieszów, head of excavations in Rogalin.
"The warrior status is indicated by a flint blade found at the side of the deceased, probably a knife originally framed in a wooden handle, and a dozen arrowheads arranged in one place with tips pointing towards the feet of the deceased" - she said.
Hyrchała announced that the skeleton would be subjected to anthropological studies that would determine the man’s height, whether and what with he was ill, perhaps the cause of death. The plan is to reconstruct his face, as the skull is well preserved.
In the warrior tomb archaeologists found 15 flint arrowheads and a flint spear tip. According to Hyrchała, it also had to contain a wooden bow that decomposed, like wooden parts of the javelin and arrows. The grave also contained a flint sickle for cutting grain, a pin with holes (probably used to fasten a coat), bone plates which could be used as a belt buckle.
This year, archaeologists have also discovered in the cemetery the graves of two boys, one of whom was about 10 years old, the other a few years older. The graves contained decorative pendants made of cockle shells (species of mollusc) and copper, faience beads and specific dishes decorated with cord impressions and rugged, rubbed with a bunch of grass before burning.
Hyrchała reported that last year on the same site archaeologists discovered a princess tomb. "We called it that because of the extremely large number of rich ornaments, including copper, which was very valuable in the Bronze Age" - she said. Ornaments included an earring made with copper sheet and wire, worn on the head, on the wristband or headband. Archaeologists also found 80 beads and several cockle pendants, which could form a necklace. The skeleton in the grave was poorly preserved, the grave only contained a skull and a few vertebrae.
Items from the princess tomb have already undergone conservation and will be displayed on the permanent archaeological exhibition at the museum in Hrubieszów, together with other finds from Rogalin.
The cemetery in Rogalin originates from the Strzyżów culture that flourished between 2000 and 1600 BC. Its name comes from the name of the Strzyżów village in the district Hrubieszów, where in the 1950s a settlement of this period was discovered. The Strzyżów culture covered the areas of today’s Volhynia in Ukraine and eastern Lublin region.
People of the Strzyżów culture had settlements mainly in the valley of the River Bug, and their occupations included agriculture and animal husbandry. Cemeteries were on the hills and their slopes.
Fr. St. Staszic Museum in Hrubieszów conducts excavations in the Early Bronze Age cemetery in Rogalin (commune Horodło), in cooperation with the Institute of Archaeology of the Maria Curie-Skłodowska University in Lublin since 2008. This year's season ended a few days ago. Research will continue perhaps even this fall.
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: Both reports seem to be different in interpreting the given, of this 3.500 Yr remain.
The article as posted by dienekes.
They recreated the face of a warrior from the Bronze Age. His tomb was for Hrubieszow
Researchers from the Department of Forensic Medicine University of Medical Sciences reconstructed face of the man from the Bronze Age.
His grave was under Hrubieszow. Graveyard of the pre-4000 years was discovered in Rogalin for Hrubieszow. The best preserved is the skeleton of a man who at death was 45 years. Archaeologists called it a warrior. Why?
- In the grave we found, among others, several flint arrowheads to a shot, flint knife or spear, sickle with flint and bone buckle - lists Bartecki Bartholomew, director of the Museum. Fr.. Staszic in Hrubieszow.
The skull warrior was in such good condition that the museum was tempted by experiment - a reconstruction of his face. Tasks undertaken by the research team of Dr. Dorothy Lorkiewicz-Muszyńska of the Department of Forensic Medicine at the Medical University in Poznań. Every day with their ability to use police, for example, when you need to identify a murder victim. The first step was to do a scan of the skull in 3D.
- At the base using a special computer program was applied to the muscle tissues - explains the director Bartecki. - Method shows more than 90 percent. compliance with the real appearance of a man - he remarks.
Invaluable assistance proved to be the results of the skeleton of Rogalin. Also genetic. Thanks to them, we know that the warrior had a dark complexion, dark hair and eyes.
- Generally enjoyed good health. He had all his teeth, there have also discovered no significant bone degeneration - says the head of the museum in Hrubieszow.
But it turned out that the man who lived in the Lublin region 4000 years ago, he suffered from bone cancer. - The tumor was not malignant, so you may not feel pain feet - wonders Bartholomew Bartecki. With genetic testing, we also know that some people from the cemeteries were related. For example, in one place next to each other were buried two brothers or cousins. The youngest children at the time of death were 7 to 10 years.
In April the Museum. Fr.. Staszic in Hrubieszow will take place opening of the exhibition devoted to the excavations of Rogalin. I'll see to it, among others, skeleton warrior, and next records the next steps in the reconstruction of his face. Alongside boards will show a multimedia presentation, showing step by step how to print skull was created in 3D.
- We're not betray everything. The full effect of the reconstruction will present only at our exhibition - says the director of Bartecki.
On this basis it will be drawn cast of the head of a warrior. Dummy get a "hand" copy of his tools.
Research cemetery in Rogalin not yet been completed. It may be that the discovery of 12 graves is just the beginning.
Odtworzyli twarz wojownika z epoki brązu. Jego grób był pod Hrubieszowem Naukowcy z Katedry i Zakładu Medycyny Sądowej UM w Poznaniu zrekonstruowali twarz mężczyzny z epoki brązu. Jego grób znajdował się pod Hrubieszowem. Cmentarzysko sprzed 4 tysięcy lat zostało odkryte w Rogalinie pod Hrubieszowem. Najlepiej zachowany jest szkielet mężczyzny, który w chwili śmierci miał 45 lat. Archeolodzy nazwali go wojownikiem. Dlaczego? - W grobie znaleźliśmy m.in. kilkanaście krzemiennych grotów do strzał, krzemienne ostrze noża lub włóczni, sierp z krzemienia i sprzączkę z kości - wylicza Bartłomiej Bartecki, dyrektor Muzeum im. ks. Stanisława Staszica w Hrubieszowie. Czaszka wojownika była w tak dobrym stanie, że muzeum pokusiło się o eksperyment - rekonstrukcję jego twarzy. Zadania podjął się zespół badawczy dr Doroty Lorkiewicz-Muszyńskiej z Katedry i Zakładu Medycyny Sądowej Uniwersytetu Medycznego w Poznaniu. Na co dzień z ich umiejętności korzysta policja, na przykład, gdy trzeba zidentyfikować ofiarę morderstwa. Pierwszym krokiem było zrobienie skanu czaszki w 3D. - Na tę bazę za pomocą specjalnego programu komputerowego nakładane były tkanki mięśniowe - wyjaśnia dyrektor Bartecki. - Metoda wykazuje ponad 90 proc. zgodności z rzeczywistym wyglądem mężczyzny - zaznacza. Nieocenioną pomocą okazały się wyniki badań szkieletu z Rogalina. Także genetyczne. Dzięki nim wiemy, że wojownik miał ciemną karnację, ciemne włosy oraz oczy. - Generalnie cieszył się dobrym zdrowiem. Miał wszystkie zęby, nie odkryliśmy też żadnych znaczących zwyrodnień kości - opowiada szef muzeum w Hrubieszowie. Okazało się jednak, że mężczyzna żyjący na Lubelszczyźnie 4 tysiące lat temu, cierpiał na raka kości. - Nowotwór nie był jednak złośliwy, więc być może nie odczuwał bólu nogi - zastanawia się Bartłomiej Bartecki. Dzięki badaniom genetycznym wiemy także, że niektóre osoby z tego cmentarzyska były ze sobą spokrewnione. Na przykład, w jednym miejscu obok siebie zostali pochowani dwaj bracia lub kuzyni. Najmłodsze dzieci w chwili śmierci miały od 7 do 10 lat. W kwietniu w Muzeum im. ks. Stanisława Staszica w Hrubieszowie odbędzie się wernisaż wystawy poświęconej wykopaliskom z Rogalina. Zobaczymy na niej m.in. szkielet wojownika, a obok dokumentację kolejnych etapów rekonstrukcji jego twarzy. Obok plansz pokazana zostanie multimedialna prezentacja, przedstawiająca krok po kroku, jak powstawał wydruk czaszki w 3D. - Na razie nie zdradzamy wszystkiego. Pełny efekt rekonstrukcji zaprezentujemy dopiero na naszej wystawie - zapowiada dyrektor Bartecki. Na tej podstawie zostanie sporządzony odlew głowy wojownika. Manekin dostanie "do ręki" kopię jego narzędzi. Badania cmentarzyska w Rogalinie nie zostały jeszcze zakończone. Może okazać się, że odkrycie 12 pochówków to dopiero początek.
"Dark" in the context of this article is next to meaningless. And again what does this have to do with places like Egypt and elsewhere where we have lots more evidence of what the people actually looked like? Again, lets assume we actually can see the skin complexion of the people in question, so we can rule out guessing skin color from skeletons. Assuming we see populations in various complexions, what is wrong with labeling certain populations, as in Africans, as black? Or other populations, as in Europeans as white? Nothing actually, this thread is just going above and beyond pulling any kind of gimmicks to avoid the point.
Populations in temperate zones like Europe are not the same as populations in tropical areas like Africa and South Asia. The tropical environment presents strong environmental pressure for creating black skin (not just "dark") while temperate environments present less environment pressure for white skin. Black folks living there could retain that skin color without "turning white". The theory is that truly white folks in Europe came from somewhere else where environmental pressure for white skin was more predominant, as in the far north or "great white north", as in Central Asia and Siberia. This is why there is so much confusion about what "dark" means in a temperate environment like Poland.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: White racist idiot Ish Gebor posting stuff about his ancestors in Europe. Diversionary tactics.
"According to the current data East Africa is home to nearly 2/3 of the world genetic diversity independent of sampling effect.The antiquity of the east African gene pool could be viewed not only from the perspective of the amount of genetic diversity endowed within it but also by signals of uni-modal distribution in their mitochondrial DNA (Hassan et al., unpublished) usually taken as an indication of populations that have passed through ‘‘recent’’ demographic expansion [33], although in this case, may in fact be considered a sign of extended shared history of in situ evolution where alleles are exchanged between neighboring demes [34]."
--Jibril Hirbo, Sara Tishkoff et al.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: Both reports seem to be different in interpreting the given, of this 3.500 Yr remain.
"Dark" in the context of this article is next to meaningless. And again what does this have to do with places like Egypt and elsewhere where we have lots more evidence of what the people actually looked like? Again, lets assume we actually can see the skin complexion of the people in question, so we can rule out guessing skin color from skeletons. Assuming we see populations in various complexions, what is wrong with labeling certain populations, as in Africans, as black? Or other populations, as in Europeans as white? Nothing actually, this thread is just going above and beyond pulling any kind of gimmicks to avoid the point.
Populations in temperate zones like Europe are not the same as populations in tropical areas like Africa and South Asia. The tropical environment presents strong environmental pressure for creating black skin (not just "dark") while temperate environments present less environment pressure for white skin. Black folks living there could retain that skin color without "turning white". The theory is that truly white folks in Europe came from somewhere else where environmental pressure for white skin was more predominant, as in the far north or "great white north", as in Central Asia and Siberia. This is why there is so much confusion about what "dark" means in a temperate environment like Poland.
I too have no idea on what the "dark argument" is based. Did you actually read my post where I mentioned Hirisplex?
But I am starting to wonder to what degree it deals with the Black Madonnas?
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: When you say on this forum that no one, I mean NO ONE is going to call the man below 'white' in the western sense, everyone immediately understands what you mean.
Reconstruction of Bronze Age inhabitant of what is today Poland:
Proved invaluable assistance skeleton results Rogalin. Also genetic. Thanks to them, we know that the warrior had a dark complexion, dark hair and eyes.
When you acknowledge that many lay people in the West, North Africa and elsewhere have similarly narrow terms for Africans, they act like they're confused for 10 thread pages.
Makes you wonder to what extent people are motivated by racial politics. Already knew it was bad, but this bad?
Why wouldn't they if the facts permit it? The fact is you have to provide the evidence to support the claim. What biological evidence do you have for the skin color of this person? Right now you are clinging to outdated notions that skull shape indicates skin color when it doesn't.
SMH, Did you even bother to read what was posted? I dont think so, and you dodged the question.
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
Nodnarb, Swenet, Beyoku, Ish Gebor = White Racists with multiple IDs
Be very careful folks!
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: When you say on this forum that no one, I mean NO ONE is going to call the man below 'white' in the western sense, everyone immediately understands what you mean.
Reconstruction of Bronze Age inhabitant of what is today Poland:
Proved invaluable assistance skeleton results Rogalin. Also genetic. Thanks to them, we know that the warrior had a dark complexion, dark hair and eyes.
When you acknowledge that many lay people in the West, North Africa and elsewhere have similarly narrow terms for Africans, they act like they're confused for 10 thread pages.
Makes you wonder to what extent people are motivated by racial politics. Already knew it was bad, but this bad?
Why wouldn't they if the facts permit it? The fact is you have to provide the evidence to support the claim. What biological evidence do you have for the skin color of this person? Right now you are clinging to outdated notions that skull shape indicates skin color when it doesn't.
SMH, Did you even bother to read what was posted? I dont think so, and you dodged the question.
Look dude. Are you seriously trying to claim that this 4,000 year old Polish skeleton was black?
I never said that. So why are you even bringing it up here in a thread about when and when not to use the term black?
Seriously?
What is the point of posting it unless you are trying to say that this "dark" Polish person from 4,000 years ago somehow disproves that the AE, Africans in general and other populations elsewhere ARE BLACK?
You make no dam sense. Nobody was even talking about Europe. And yes white scientists in Europe do indeed call Europeans white. That is not ME making up words these are words used every day in the English language.
So stop pretending this is something I or other people made up on my own. This is simply ridiculous.
quote: A study by academics at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM) published in 2011, explores why in London “cycling is disproportionately an activity of affluent, white men” or, as Transport for London (TfL), has put it, why the London cyclist is “typically white, under 40, male, with medium to high household income.” Funded by TfL and NHS Camden, it examines in-depth interviews with 78 Londoners: women and men of assorted ethnicities, cultural backgrounds and occupations, some of them cyclists, some of them not and some of them thinking about taking cycling up.
Now if you object so much to people referring to populations as white or black based on skin color then you need to go around the world and fix the newspapers, science publications, book publishers, movies and everything else which uses such language. Sitting up here trying to tell me about when or when not to use those terms as if it is "my personal agenda" is beyond foolish and stupid.
The fact that you don't accept the English language is not my problem.
quote: Nikesh Shukla, writer
Latest work: Meatspace (Friday Project)
I’m writing this hoping it’ll be my last piece on diversity in publishing. I am tired. Tired of fighting for representation for writers of colour, pushing for more black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) people to be in positions of management in the industry. I am tired of sitting on panels about diversity, writing pieces about diversity, and tweeting about prizes, review coverage and lists that ignore diversity. Which is why I lost my patience at the end of November when the titles announced for the 2016 World Book Night – when free books are distributed to encourage reading – failed to include a single BAME author. It might seem heartless to criticise a brilliant charity for wanting to put books in the hands of non-readers, and, in response, World Book Night expressed frustration that no publishers had put forward any BAME writers.
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/dec/11/how-do-we-stop-uk-publishing-being-so-posh-white-male
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Doug believes there are two types of people on the planet.
a) The Good Tropical People (Blacks)
b) The Bad Cold People (Whites)
But
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
Nodnarb, Swenet, Beyoku, Ish Gebor = White Racists with multiple IDs
Be very careful folks!
Look at the remains of the ancient European above. Is he white? Why or why not?
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
Also, I am very well aware of the history of the word white as a pejorative term for all Europeans being a relatively new concept. But that doesn't change or diminish the reality of white skin in Europe.
Nodnarb, Swenet, Beyoku, Ish Gebor = White Racists with multiple IDs
Be very careful folks!
Look at the remains of the ancient European above. Is he white? Why or why not?
@ Doug - You still dodged the question. The fact that you cannot answer the question shows how you racially use the term "Black". There is nothing wrong with this. I personally use the term "Black" racially as well as I exclude non African populations. The point of contention revolves around weaseling and blackmailing individuals that don't agree with YOUR usage and attempting to act as if there are not other traditional uses. Lastly assuming that racism is the underlying motive for one not accepting your usage. Its like not accepting that dark skin Dominicans see themselves as "Latino" and only see Haitians as "Black".
On to the remains. That individual being "Dark".........like the other remains are "Dark" in the GLOBAL context of the word. They were dark skinned like Africans. If its ONLY about color, then Ancient Europeans were "Black" as you would put it. Once you start including and excluding populations based on origin it is MORE than just skin color, its Racial ideas based on where humans originate.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Not only does the reconstruction I posted look like what westerners may call 'ethnic' (as opposed to looking like living Europeans), but he has the ancestral pigmentation genes for hair, skin and eyes. This was conveyed in the post and linked content which seem to challenge Doug's reading comprehension.
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: Look at the remains of the ancient European above. Is he white? Why or why not?
Do I look to you like someone who gives a shitt?
This forum is about Ancient Egypt not European history.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Interesting that blog commentators of European descent on Eurocentric sites are capable of making a distinction between the narrow western criteria for 'whiteness' vs being factually and demonstrably biologically European:
quote:Originally posted by Krefter:
quote:Originally posted by bmdriver: Europeans are nothing but Indian migrants. Who have turned white over the past 3000years.
The term white is only relevant when it comes to culture in the modern world. Ancient DNA shows that Euro-genes are much older than light skin, and so there's no such thing as the white race. Euros are a composite of 3 very different people who lived in west and north Eurasia 10,000YBP>, as are middle easterns.
The objections of lay people and others not very familiar with this subject are understandable, but some ES 'vets' are resisting for 10 thread pages and on other threads because their whole agenda is to mix anthropology with racial politics. But it's not racial agenda when you do it, right? Only when Eurocentrics do it.
And how can you be a 'vet' on ES when you can't even grasp this basic concept, even though it has been explained again and again over 10 thread pages?
Posted by Nodnarb (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: Now I don't think the term black is completely irrelevant. The idea is separating historic discussions from scientific discussions.
History is different, because history is well just history.... Saying we shouldn't use "black" in a historical discussion is like saying we shouldn't use black when having a historical discussion about the Civil Rights or the Haitian revolution. History is just the study of past events and even what terms they used back then.
For example I don't not see a problem with arguing that the Ancient Egyptians were black in a historical discussion considering that Greek and Roman writers referred to them and the Nubians as black(though not a racial sense like modern times), but still black nonetheless.
Also using black in historical discussions involving the Moors is not only relevant, but very important considering the term "Moor" meant black.
My point is we should know when and when not to use "black" in discussions. Basically by separating historical discussions from scientific ones.
Again just my 2 cents.
I do think the writings of ancient Mediterranean people are useful for understanding how they perceived different populations they came into contact with. When you have not only ancient Greeks and Roman but also early Judeo-Christian and Islamic writers (such as those cited by Goldenberg's Curse of Ham) describing indigenous Egyptians as "black" dark-skinned---sometimes even grouping or confusing them with "Aethiopians" or Kushites---it gives you a clue that they must have been significantly darker than the typical "tan" Middle Eastern or Mediterranean person of that time.
Where you run into problems is when you try to equate ancient terminology like the Greek melas or aethiopes with the later "racial" taxonomy that came into vogue in the 18th through 19th centuries. I don't think the Greeks had an equivalent word for our "Negroid" or "Caucasoid" for instance. And while ancient ethnographers almost certainly could pick up on physical distinctions between ethnic groups in Africa as well as elsewhere, none of them had our neo-Darwinian Theory of Evolution, let alone all the tools and knowledge used by modern population genetics. It wasn't that long ago when Melanesians and Aboriginal Australians were also considered part of the "Negroid" race (see here for example) even though they're probably even further removed from West Africans genetically than ancient Egyptians, Nubians, or Somalis. Hell, I've even see white supremacists in places like VNN post photos of "Black" Oceanians in traditional attire as proof of "African cultural inferiority".
For that matter, I would argue even the construct "sub-Saharan African" isn't monophyletic. They have their own sub-structural differences that even the narrower constructs of "Black" identity gloss over. Look at this graph for example and you'll observe that Yoruba and Dinka are less genetically divergent from OOAs than are Khoisan or Hadzabe. There are grades of affinity to OOA even within sub-Sahara, so it's not like "Negroid" or "sub-Saharan" describes a singular sub-structure any more than "Black".
Another graph illustrating this reality:
Of course, migrations across Africa like the Bantu and Nilo-Saharan expansions had smeared over some of these earlier substructures with admixture. But then, even Swenet has stated repeatedly that the Green Sahara would have led to a degree of "equatorial African" input into predynastic Egyptians and Nubians that wouldn't have been present in their Upper Paleolithic ancestors.
In summary, racial constructs change over time and culture and typically aren't grounded in today's phylogenetic knowledge.
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
^^^Very interesting post.
Posted by Nodnarb (Member # 3735) on :
^ You could say "SSA" is like "non-avian dinosaur". Sure, Velociraptor is closer to birds than Tyrannosaurus, but than Tyrannosaurus is closer to those two than it is Brontosaurus, which in turn is more like the previous three than it is Triceratops, and so on. A term like "SSA" might be useful as an exclusionary grade for Africans more distantly related from OOA, but even then you have gradients of relatedness to OOA within that grouping. Besides, "sub-Saharan" has taken on racial connotations in its conventional usage, e.g. as a PC synonym for "Black", so it's still potentially problematic for a post-racial anthropology.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
Nodnarb, Swenet, Beyoku, Ish Gebor = White Racists with multiple IDs
Be very careful folks!
Look at the remains of the ancient European above. Is he white? Why or why not?
@ Doug - You still dodged the question. The fact that you cannot answer the question shows how you racially use the term "Black". There is nothing wrong with this. I personally use the term "Black" racially as well as I exclude non African populations. The point of contention revolves around weaseling and blackmailing individuals that don't agree with YOUR usage and attempting to act as if there are not other traditional uses. Lastly assuming that racism is the underlying motive for one not accepting your usage. Its like not accepting that dark skin Dominicans see themselves as "Latino" and only see Haitians as "Black".
On to the remains. That individual being "Dark".........like the other remains are "Dark" in the GLOBAL context of the word. They were dark skinned like Africans. If its ONLY about color, then Ancient Europeans were "Black" as you would put it. Once you start including and excluding populations based on origin it is MORE than just skin color, its Racial ideas based on where humans originate.
Don't start that double talk. I never said skin color is race. Africans being black is not a statement of race. YOU believe that which is why YOU keep saying it.
You sound like a racist troll claiming that calling the AE black is racist. That is you trying to change the subject versus addressing the point which is skin color. I said the AE were black because they had black skin color. There is no other way to say that because that is what I mean. You interpret that in any way you want to interpret it but I never said anything about race. The only one bringing race into this is you.
So you are saying that this Polish skeleton from the bronze age was black then? Is that what you are saying?
I don't agree. Whatever kind of "dark" they mean, I don't agree that it was "dark" enough to be "black".
And honestly the actual painted reconstruction shows the face as white.
But either way what on earth does that have to do with Africa where we know people are black to this very day? The biological and environmental factors for skin color from Africa are totally different from Europe. Yet you are trying to mix the two as if they are the same. The environment of Europe produces lighter skin not darker. So your point is nonsensical.
But show me anywhere in any study where it says this Polish man was "dark" enough to be black....
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Interesting that blog commentators of European descent on Eurocentric sites are capable of making a distinction between the narrow western criteria for 'whiteness' vs being factually and demonstrably biologically European:
quote:Originally posted by Krefter:
quote:Originally posted by bmdriver: Europeans are nothing but Indian migrants. Who have turned white over the past 3000years.
The term white is only relevant when it comes to culture in the modern world. Ancient DNA shows that Euro-genes are much older than light skin, and so there's no such thing as the white race. Euros are a composite of 3 very different people who lived in west and north Eurasia 10,000YBP>, as are middle easterns.
The objections of lay people and others not very familiar with this subject are understandable, but some ES 'vets' are resisting for 10 thread pages and on other threads because their whole agenda is to mix anthropology with racial politics. But it's not racial agenda when you do it, right? Only when Eurocentrics do it.
And how can you be a 'vet' on ES when you can't even grasp this basic concept, even though it has been explained again and again over 10 thread pages?
I am not promoting racial politics and if you believe that you are talking pure garbage and simply ignoring what has been said for 10 pages. In fact, the only person posting any racial politics is you. Why on earth are you even using a reference to a racist blog as if there is anything there of value as it relates to this discussion? Are you seriously claiming that they don't engage in racial politics? This is a pattern with you, where you keep posting arguments and ideas from racists and claim that they are "objective" in their views on skin color. You are simply being a mouthpiece for them. And then you keep trying to label some folks here as racists when they aren't. You just cant accept that all your justifications for this idea that we shouldn't use black is invalid. And that is why we have 10 pages of you changing the subject and moving to other areas of the map to defend yourself. And now we are in Europe.
I have consistently said that skin color is not race since page 1. You keep saying that "western" scientists are objective, yet who is it that posted racist scholars and their racist views, as in Samuel Morton? You did. The point is there is no valid credible reason not to use the word black for all indigenous black Africans. You have yet to post an 'objective' scholar who has openly and publicly admitted the skin color of the ancient Egyptians to be "black" using whatever terminology you believe is valid. Somehow I don't see where debating European skin color has anything to do with this.
And here is my point, the AE were on average as dark as or DARKER than many African Americans. And we all know that Sudanese are some of the darkest people in Africa. Sudanese are not "Sub Saharan" Africans. Not to mention the black Africans IN the Sahara. So this nonsense of trying to limit black skin to a certain part of Africa is an agenda and that agenda starts with racist white folks either directly or indirectly through folks on this thread who are being the mouthpiece of white folks. Because if the Sudanese and Upper Egyptians are very black you cannot claim that somehow there is a 'special grade' of color unique to Egypt that makes it distinct from the rest of Africa. That is not true now and it wasn't true 5,000 years ago.
That is the only point I am making by the use of the term black and this is exactly what white folks have been trying hard to deny, downplay and ignore which is another reason why I continue to use the word to expose their hypocrisy and dishonesty.
Folks on this thread are still trying to pretend that this is a language issue when it isn't. It is a racism issue and black and white are used all over Europe and other English speaking countries as references to very light or dark people respectively. So the only issue here is with the English language which is not inherently racist yet folks are trying to redefine words to make it what the want it to mean when that is not how it is defined in the dictionary.
And bottom line, when Europeans object to the AE being labelled black it is because they want to promote them as white. Hence:
quote: 1. Gods of Egypt
Starting with the most recent one: this is a movie where the ancient Egyptian sun god is played by Geoffrey Rush. And Gerard Butler is playing the god Set. And when you think of Horus, is the name that immediately springs to mind is “Nikolaj Coster-Waldau?” And the whitewashing isn’t limited to the gods. Even the main human character, Bek, is being played by a white actor: Brenton Thwaites. This is a movie based on Egyptian mythology that takes place in Egypt, and pretty much every major character is white.
And given the objections of some folks on this thread, I wouldn't be surprised if they wouldn't say that an "accurate" movie about ancient Egypt had to be "multicultural" so that nobody would be offended.
This is simply absurd but it also shows how cowardly and deceptive some folks are as they are scared to use the word black without 'white permission and approval'.
GTFOH.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Not only does the reconstruction I posted look like what westerners may call 'ethnic' (as opposed to looking like living Europeans), but he has the ancestral pigmentation genes for hair, skin and eyes. This was conveyed in the post and linked content which seem to challenge Doug's reading comprehension.
And there are "ethnic" Poles with those same features to this day. As I posted unless you can't see.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: And honestly the actual painted reconstruction shows the face as white.
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
Nodnarb, Swenet, Beyoku, Ish Gebor = White Racists with multiple IDs
Be very careful folks!
Look at the remains of the ancient European above. Is he white? Why or why not?
@ Doug - You still dodged the question. The fact that you cannot answer the question shows how you racially use the term "Black". There is nothing wrong with this. I personally use the term "Black" racially as well as I exclude non African populations. The point of contention revolves around weaseling and blackmailing individuals that don't agree with YOUR usage and attempting to act as if there are not other traditional uses. Lastly assuming that racism is the underlying motive for one not accepting your usage. Its like not accepting that dark skin Dominicans see themselves as "Latino" and only see Haitians as "Black".
On to the remains. That individual being "Dark".........like the other remains are "Dark" in the GLOBAL context of the word. They were dark skinned like Africans. If its ONLY about color, then Ancient Europeans were "Black" as you would put it. Once you start including and excluding populations based on origin it is MORE than just skin color, its Racial ideas based on where humans originate.
Don't start that double talk. I never said skin color is race. Africans being black is not a statement of race. YOU believe that which is why YOU keep saying it.
You sound like a racist troll claiming that calling the AE black is racist. ...............I said the AE were black because they had black skin color............. So you are saying that this Polish skeleton from the bronze age was black then? Is that what you are saying?
But show me anywhere in any study where it says this Polish man was "dark" enough to be black....
I call bullshit. You cannot say a population is "Black" because they have "Black skin color" when their skin color is in fact BROWN. This is why I said you are using the term "Black" in a "racial" sense and not a literal skin color sense. I dont see a problem with this, like is said, I racially use the term that way. As to Ancient Europeans having skin color similar to Africans? You didnt know this? :
Repetition for emphasis : The individual had dark hair and the dark-skinned genes OF AN AFRICAN!
Now, If you want to use "Black" in a strict sense when ONLY looking at skin color then ancient Europeans "were black because they had black skin color." If instead you want to use it in more exclusive "Racial" terms you could exclude populations based on recent African origin like these Ancient Europeans. As I said before, its "MORE than just skin color, its Racial ideas based on where humans originate." If you are saying its ONLY about skin color you are being inconsistent by NOT saying ancient Europeans were Black (ala Marc, Clyde, Mike).
With that said, "Black" right now provides limited information in terms of biological and cultural affinity because it sheds little light when you are looking into the origin an migration of people like this:
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
Nodnarb, Swenet, Beyoku, Ish Gebor = White Racists with multiple IDs
Be very careful folks!
Look at the remains of the ancient European above. Is he white? Why or why not?
@ Doug - You still dodged the question. The fact that you cannot answer the question shows how you racially use the term "Black". There is nothing wrong with this. I personally use the term "Black" racially as well as I exclude non African populations. The point of contention revolves around weaseling and blackmailing individuals that don't agree with YOUR usage and attempting to act as if there are not other traditional uses. Lastly assuming that racism is the underlying motive for one not accepting your usage. Its like not accepting that dark skin Dominicans see themselves as "Latino" and only see Haitians as "Black".
On to the remains. That individual being "Dark".........like the other remains are "Dark" in the GLOBAL context of the word. They were dark skinned like Africans. If its ONLY about color, then Ancient Europeans were "Black" as you would put it. Once you start including and excluding populations based on origin it is MORE than just skin color, its Racial ideas based on where humans originate.
Don't start that double talk. I never said skin color is race. Africans being black is not a statement of race. YOU believe that which is why YOU keep saying it.
You sound like a racist troll claiming that calling the AE black is racist. ...............I said the AE were black because they had black skin color............. So you are saying that this Polish skeleton from the bronze age was black then? Is that what you are saying?
But show me anywhere in any study where it says this Polish man was "dark" enough to be black....
I call bullshit. You cannot say a population is "Black" because they have "Black skin color" when their skin color is in fact BROWN. This is why I said you are using the term "Black" in a "racial" sense and not a literal skin color sense. I dont see a problem with this, like is said, I racially use the term that way. As to Ancient Europeans having skin color similar to Africans? You didnt know this? :
Repetition for emphasis : The individual had dark hair and the dark-skinned genes OF AN AFRICAN!
Now, If you want to use "Black" in a strict sense when ONLY looking at skin color then ancient Europeans "were black because they had black skin color." If instead you want to use it in more exclusive "Racial" terms you could exclude populations based on recent African origin like these Ancient Europeans. As I said before, its "MORE than just skin color, its Racial ideas based on where humans originate." If you are saying its ONLY about skin color you are being inconsistent by NOT saying ancient Europeans were Black (ala Marc, Clyde, Mike).
With that said, "Black" right now provides limited information in terms of biological and cultural affinity because it sheds little light when you are looking into the origin an migration of people like this:
Dude stop trying to put words in my dam mouth. I didn't say skin color equals race. If you can't address what I said then don't reply to me. I said the word black in the dictionary applies to dark skin people from Africa and elsewhere. It doesn't say only 'certain shades of brown'. And the understanding is that most people know full well that black doesn't mean literally 'coal black' even though some people come close.
The word black for Africans has a long history and Americans call themselves black, but not as a racial term, but a skin color term. You are going way out on a limb to sit up here and argue with me about what skin color is and what words should be used when terms like black and white are used on a daily basis to refer to people with black skin and white skin all over the world. So again, like I said before, stop trying to pull this asinine mind game that somehow "I am making things up" when it comes to these words.
Point blank the AE along with most indigenous Africans were and are black and black is a reference to the shades of skin color found in Africa and elsewhere that is a result of tropical environmental adaptation. You know that is what I mean and to sit here and pretend that I mean something else is BULLSHIT. Stop making up arguments just to argue moron.
Bronze Age Europeans were not tropically adapted people and therefore, the idea that their skin color was anywhere close to being "black" as found in Africa is not very credible. But we aren't talking about Bronze Age Europeans and if any bronze age European or other European was dark as an African I would certainly say they were black. So again, stop trying to put words in my mouth. The point here is for YOU to prove that this polish skull had black skin. That's all.
But again, the point here since you are the one who harping on it, produce any evidence you think you have that this Polish skull has a skin color anywhere near to or similar to Ancient Egyptians or other "black" Africans and I don't mean generic "hunter gatherers". And understand if you are saying that these people had "SKIN COLOR LIKE THEIR AFRICAN ANCESTORS" then they would be black but I want evidence specifically for this polish skull not any other "generic" group of Europeans. Otherwise, you argument is irrelevant.
Otherwise stop going all over the place to avoid the dam point. When talking about people with dark skin in Africa and other tropical environments absolutely black is a valid term. Europe is not a tropical environment and therefore isn't expected to produce dark skin which is why the native population of Europe and North Asia have white skin.
Stop trying to make more of this than it really is. It has nothing to do with race. And the only "biological affinity" that is relevant is the biological process involving skin color mutation in relation to the environment. Skin color is a biological trait like any other trait and is not "race" which is the part you keep skipping over. Any biological characteristic could be used to define race but there are no human races so a biological characteristic is simply one of many traits found within the human species and skin color is one of them.
We know that all humans originated in Africa which means that at some point in time all humans were black African in appearance. The point is whether or not black is an accurate term to describe said populations in or outside Africa who maintain tropical adapted skin color.
Posted by Child Of The KING (Member # 9422) on :
Doug M
That's Why Doug's One of My Original Teachers.
ALL PEOPLE COME FROM BLACK!
Black Peoples
White Peoples
Brown Peoples (Think)
Red Peoples
Yellow Peoples
BROWN IS MIXTURE!!!
Posted by Child Of The KING (Member # 9422) on :
Remember That The INDIANS Brothas, DO NOT PLAY..
The Ones Around Canada Know THEY BLACK
AND will often Times Get Angry when Some Indians(brainwashed) would say they Brown, And Would Try and Educate The Indian Brothas about what Color Indians Really Are..
It got to the Point that the Indian Brothas Would Get Very Critical of Certain Peoples Mentality.
REAL INDIANS DO NOT HAVE PATIENCE FOR EUROPEAN SCUM TRYING TO TELL THEM THAT THEY THIS OR THAT...
Self hate an issue inside India that even lots of Bollywood actors and actresses scum promote skin bleaching creams to the Indian People.
Real Indians don't have Patience's for stuff like that
Indians and Africans Originals
Remember that
One Love Crews, Black, White, Red, Yellow and Brown All Hebrews
Divison Does Not Work, Big confusing words do not Work...Stop Trying To Claim Peoples Skin color as Dark..
PEOPLES SKIN COLOR NOT DARK....
EVIL DEMONIC PERSONS HAVE DARK SKIN..JUST WATCH BOLLYWOOD COMMERCIALS THAT PROMOTE SKIN BLEACHING CREAMS
Posted by Nodnarb (Member # 3735) on :
With regards to the Bronze Age specimen from Poland, one Polish commentator on the Dienekes post had this to say:
quote:Also I'm Polish and I read this source in original. Dark doesn't means black there. You have skin tone on reconstruction, is rather swarthy. Regretabbly I don't have cranofacial measurements, which will be very helpful. But nose looks rather narrow. There is no prognatism. This is denifinietly not negroid It could be some Berberoid (which is consider white by Polish typologist) element mixed with Cromagnoid. According to Polish sources the very slight Berber admixture was noted from Meghalitic times in Central European skeletal remains. And it is connected from migrants from Southern Europe.
So while the specimen might have been less pale in color than the average modern Polish, he's not really the best example of a "Black" European that would stump Doug. Obviously Doug is married to a word he must know would be confused for a racial group, but I would pick much earlier Europeans from the Upper Paleolithic (whom I presume could have been confused for modern South Asians superficially) for the argument's sake.
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
What do you think someone that is POLISH is going to say about their ancestry having the ancestral state of Skin tone? The are going to attempt to discredit it.....and even then so long as its not "Negroid" it can be associated with Africans.....as long as its North Africans.
We now have Minoan DNA. When we see how they displayed themselves in their earliest artwork I think i know what I am looking at. Other than a few caveats, we are likely not looking at wholesale RECENT migrants from Africa.
Calling folks black is too simplistic and does not form a basis for biological affinity. There is countless phenotype variation within africa that has actually been LOST in the past 10's of thousands of years. These phenotypes if reconstructed may not fit within what we picture as MODERN African variability. They would be totally out of the MODERN spectrum of the stereotypical "Negroid" to "Elongated African" range.
Hofmeyr comes to mind. Dont look like modern Africans NOR modern Europeans. The skull "would not look like modern Africans or like modern Europeans, or like modern Khoisan people, but he is definitely a modern human being".
11 pages long and butthurt folks cannot understand that different folks in different places have different uses for a similar term.
quote: Chechens aren’t White. Well, nobody’s white, not white in the way a piece of paper is white. But Chechens aren’t White in the way that they would not check the box “white” on a census. If there were such a box.
Does Chechen skin tone overlap with Western Europeans - Damn straight.....see any parallels?
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
The skin color of that reconstruction is just an approximation. It's on the low end of skin pigmentation range that Europeans are typically willing to admit to when reconstructing their ancestors with dark skin pigmentation genes. I've never seen these forensic workers use medium or dark brown skin pigmentation, even though that would be just as consistent with the data as this ambiguous tannish skin color.
Depending on how many of his skin pigmentation genes were in the ancestral state, he could have been anywhere in the African American pigmentation range. If he has as many skin pigmentation genes in the ancestral state as Mesolithic Europeans, everything points to him being completely outside of the Polish and European skin pigmentation range.
Meaning? He could have been just as dark as Oprah or Indie Arie, which is much darker than this reconstruction, LL Cool J and some of the other pictures you posted.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: What do you think someone that is POLISH is going to say about their ancestry having the ancestral state of Skin tone? The are going to attempt to discredit it.....and even then so long as its not "Negroid" it can be associated with Africans.....as long as its North Africans.
We now have Minoan DNA. When we see how they displayed themselves in their earliest artwork I think i know what I am looking at. Other than a few caveats, we are likely not looking at wholesale RECENT migrants from Africa.
Calling folks black is too simplistic and does not form a basis for biological affinity. There is countless phenotype variation within africa that has actually been LOST in the past 10's of thousands of years. These phenotypes if reconstructed may not fit within what we picture as MODERN African variability. They would be totally out of the MODERN spectrum of the stereotypical "Negroid" to "Elongated African" range.
Hofmeyr comes to mind. Dont look like modern Africans NOR modern Europeans. The skull "would not look like modern Africans or like modern Europeans, or like modern Khoisan people, but he is definitely a modern human being".
11 pages long and butthurt folks cannot understand that different folks in different places have different uses for a similar term.
quote: Chechens aren’t White. Well, nobody’s white, not white in the way a piece of paper is white. But Chechens aren’t White in the way that they would not check the box “white” on a census. If there were such a box.
Does Chechen skin tone overlap with Western Europeans - Damn straight.....see any parallels?
Dude. What are you talking about Europeans for? Nobody is talking about Europeans being black except you. So what is your point of bringing it up? Since when did Europeans become the definition of black?
You are obviously confused if you think that this thread about what is and can be called black is focusing on Europe.
The point was according to you Europeans don't call themselves white because of skin color.
They do. You are wrong so please leave it at that and stop mixing apples and oranges. And yes those African immigrants to Europe thousands of years ago were black. But over time they lost their black skin and exactly when that happened is a good question. But this does not discredit black skin being called black skin. It only means you are mixing things up.
As for the Minoans, many of them also had direct ancestry from Africa and many of them are depicted as black. But most modern Europeans are not black? Why? Because Europe is a northern environment that is not going to support dark skin. That is a simple biological fact.
That Polish skull looks like modern polish people to me. So I don't see anything "special" about it.
But this is about calling black people black and certainly European people is not who we are talking about. European people are white.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: That Polish skull looks like modern polish people to me. So I don't see anything "special" about it.
He's just agreed with racists and racialists who say that this morphotype in Egypt and elsewhere in Africa is "Caucasian". SMH.
You're obviously in no position to be talking about any of this. You're way out of your league here, and it shows. You have no idea what you're talking about.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nodnarb: With regards to the Bronze Age specimen from Poland, one Polish commentator on the Dienekes post had this to say:
quote:Also I'm Polish and I read this source in original. Dark doesn't means black there. You have skin tone on reconstruction, is rather swarthy. Regretabbly I don't have cranofacial measurements, which will be very helpful. But nose looks rather narrow. There is no prognatism. This is denifinietly not negroid It could be some Berberoid (which is consider white by Polish typologist) element mixed with Cromagnoid. According to Polish sources the very slight Berber admixture was noted from Meghalitic times in Central European skeletal remains. And it is connected from migrants from Southern Europe.
So while the specimen might have been less pale in color than the average modern Polish, he's not really the best example of a "Black" European that would stump Doug. Obviously Doug is married to a word he must know would be confused for a racial group, but I would pick much earlier Europeans from the Upper Paleolithic (whom I presume could have been confused for modern South Asians superficially) for the argument's sake.
The only one here promoting racialist claims is you. I never said Polish people had anything to do with definition of black.
But again it just shows how many folks look to Deinike's web blog for guidance on who is black.
Be that as it may, to sit here and try and claim I am racist for saying people in tropical environments with tropical adaptation can be called black is not racist. Just like saying hair can be black or brown or blonde isn't racist either.
Why don't you fools just give up?
Skin color does not equal race and colors have names. White and black are perfectly legitimate terms for describing skin color, brown and tan are actually valid as well but doesn't rule out black and white either. But no matter what "words" you use to describe color, that doesn't equate to race.
And at this point this thread has gone long past its useful value with all the nonsense being posted by folks who just don't want to accept that skin color is a fact of human biology and is not race. The terms "black African" and "White European" are perfectly legitimate words to describe the majority of Europeans and Africans and everybody knows it simply a reference to skin color except the so called 'objective scientists' on this thread who think it means race.... Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: That Polish skull looks like modern polish people to me. So I don't see anything "special" about it.
He's just agreed with racialists who say that this morphotype in Egypt and elsewhere in Africa is "Caucasian". SMH.
Really? Where did I say that?
Can you show me because I did not.
At this point you obviously know your argument was useless if that is all you can come up with to try and divert from the fact that the AE and other populations with similar skin colors were BLACK and that Europeans and other people with similar skin colors are WHITE.
Does that bother you?
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
That skull looks consistent with modern day Maghrebis and dynastic Lower Egyptians, among other African groups. Stop making a fool out of yourself.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: That skull looks consistent with modern day Maghrebis and Lower Egyptians, among other African groups. Stop making a fool out of yourself.
And? Are those modern day Maghrebis and Lower Egyptians black?
And if they are or arent what does that have to do with the AE, the rest of Africa and other places outside of Africa where populations are black?
Obviously Polish people are not candidates for what AE people or most Africans look like.
If I want to know what a black African looks like, I know where to look and it is not Europe.
But this is what you get from people who think Deinikes and Samuel Morton are "objective" scholars.
Let me give you some help:
This is a black person in Egypt with white Europeans. See the difference? Need more help let me know. One of these folks is not like the other and I can point it out if you are confused.:
quote: US servicemen ride a camel in the Giza Plateau in Giza, Egypt. (Photo by Ivan Dmitri/Michael Ochs Archives/Getty Images) July 01, 1943
Obviously I know what I mean when I say black and you simply don't know Europe from Africa.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: And? Are those modern day Maghrebis and Lower Egyptians black?
SMH. He just keeps digging himself in further.
If those skeletal remains look 'Polish' according to you, are racist and racialist scientists right when they call this morphotype 'Caucasian' when they see it in Ancient Egypt?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: That skull looks consistent with modern day Maghrebis and Lower Egyptians, among other African groups. Stop making a fool out of yourself.
And? Are those modern day Maghrebis and Lower Egyptians black?
And if they are or arent what does that have to do with the AE, the rest of Africa and other places outside of Africa where populations are black?
Obviously Polish people are not candidates for what AE people or most Africans look like.
If I want to know what a black African looks like, I know where to look and it is not Europe.
But this is what you get from people who think Deinikes and Samuel Morton are "objective" scholars.
Let me give you some help:
This is a black person in Egypt with white Europeans. See the difference? Need more help let me know. One of these folks is not like the other and I can point it out if you are confused.:
quote: US servicemen ride a camel in the Giza Plateau in Giza, Egypt. (Photo by Ivan Dmitri/Michael Ochs Archives/Getty Images) July 01, 1943
Obviously I know what I mean when I say black and you simply don't know Europe from Africa.
Ridiculous. He uses a picture where the shadows are so heavy all their faces look very dark
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: And? Are those modern day Maghrebis and Lower Egyptians black?
SMH. He just keeps digging himself in further.
If those skeletal remains look 'Polish' according to you, are racist and racialist scientists right when they call this morphotype 'Caucasian' when they see it in Ancient Egypt?
This is going way off topic. Not sure this has anything to do with the subject of this thread.
If you want to discuss the validity of the term caucasoid or the relationship of Polish bronze age skulls to Egyptian bronze age skulls then create a new thread.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
I would want to change the subject and get out of that quagmire too if I were you.
You kept going off about how it was necessarily racist for academics to refrain from calling the AE individuals in the OP 'black' in the western racial sense and now you're (indirectly) doing the same by relating this Bronze Age man to living Europeans. You did this not only in terms of cranio-facial shape, but also in terms of skin pigmentation (even though his genotype was suggestive of dark complexion):
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: So do you agree that the skull looks similar to modern Polish people and that the likelihood is high that the person when alive had a similar skin complexion?
The significance here is that many dynastic Egyptians of the Lower Egyptian type, living Maghrebi people and certain Bronze Age Europeans (see that Polish warrior) occupy the same general multivariate space that's intermediate between Northwest Europeans and many Sub-Saharan Africans.
You've just ethered your own positions and claims, whether you want to admit it or not.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
The surprise is that the Neolithic peoples of Europe and their Bronze Age successors are not closely related to the modern inhabitants, although the prehistoric/modern ties are somewhat more apparent in southern Europe. --Brace et al 2005
Are you sure you're fit to have this discussion, Doug M? I don't think so. I think you're way out of your league, here.
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: The surprise is that the Neolithic peoples of Europe and their Bronze Age successors are not closely related to the modern inhabitants, although the prehistoric/modern ties are somewhat more apparent in southern Europe. --Brace et al 2005
I already posted about this before (here) . This dendogram was taken from the Brace 2005 study mentionned by Swenet above:
Fig. 1. Neighbor-joining dendrogram for a series of prehistoric and recent human populations (Craniofacial measures)
Ancient specimen are different in term of cranio-facial measurements than their modern successors. For example, England (aka modern England) and Neolithic England are not on the same branch. So ancient Specimen are different in term of cranio-facial measurements than their modern successors. While Naqada and Congo are still on the same branch (they share African cranio-facial similarities with Nubians too) the ancient specimen in Africa are also different than the modern specimen.
There's also quite a difference between modern specimen. For example, modern Greek people seem quite different in term of cranio-facial measurements than modern Italian or French specimen for example.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: I would want to change the subject and get out of that quagmire too if I were you.
You kept going off about how it was necessarily racist for academics to refrain from calling the AE individuals in the OP 'black' in the western racial sense and now you're (indirectly) doing the same by relating this Bronze Age man to living Europeans. You did this not only in terms of cranio-facial shape, but also in terms of skin pigmentation (even though his genotype was suggestive of dark complexion):
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: So do you agree that the skull looks similar to modern Polish people and that the likelihood is high that the person when alive had a similar skin complexion?
The significance here is that many dynastic Egyptians of the Lower Egyptian type, living Maghrebi people and certain Bronze Age Europeans (see that Polish warrior) occupy the same general multivariate space that's intermediate between Northwest Europeans and many Sub-Saharan Africans.
You've just ethered your own positions and claims, whether you want to admit it or not.
Swenet, the point is you are claiming that the AE had the same skin complexion of bronze age Polish people, because they 'occupy the same general multivariate space' cranially. Here is the problem, skin color isn't skull shape. Skull shape doesn't prove skin color idiot! That study by Brace is an example of racial thinking because, according to the racists, skull shape determines race. And by extension, if two populations have similar skull shapes, then they have similar skin complexions.... RIGHT?
Wrong.
Skull shape does not prove skin color. Skin color proves skin color. And there is nothing about that Polish Skull that suggests his skin color was close to any Ancient Egyptian. And this is why I don't engage with that nonsense about avoiding the term black or white when it is appropriate. The AE were black Africans because of the biological factors specific to Egypt, the Nile Valley and Africa. Period. Those biological factors are not replicated in Poland or Europe. Any clown who would even suggest this isn't a scientist, but a retard. Nothing about the environment of Europe produces black skin. While the environment of the Nile Valley and Sahara certainly does.
Again, the only population that is relevant to Ancient Egypt is ancient Egypt. Not Poland. Not Germany. Not Ireland. Not England.
Nothing you have posted disproves that the AE had black skin. It only shows that your 'objective' scholarship is simply a fraud when it comes to skin color. You don't know the skin color of that Polish skull and that Polish skull is irrelevant when it comes to the skin color of AE and Africans in general. They are two totally separate populations.
This is the 4th time you have quoted a white racists and claimed that they were 'objectively' calling the AE black using "other terms". Brace was certainly not calling the AE black by 'some other terminology' when he linked them to European skulls. If anything he was claiming they were white. But you seem to want to pretend otherwise. According to him the Ancient Egyptians and North Africans were not close to other Africans (or as he says 'Sub Saharan Africans', the racist keyword for black), but according to Mr Swenet, we can infer from this that he means these folks had a skin complexion equivalent to what I call black. I would argue that this is bull sh*t.
quote: When the samples used in Fig. 1 are compared by the use of canonical variate plots as in Fig. 2, the separateness of the Niger-Congo speakers is again quite clear. Interestingly enough, however, the small Natufian sample falls between the Niger-Congo group and the other samples used. Fig. 2 shows the plot produced by the first two canonical variates, but the same thing happens when canonical variates 1 and 3 (not shown here) are used. This placement suggests that there may have been a Sub-Saharan African element in the make-up of the Natufians (the putative ancestors of the subsequent Neolithic), although in this particular test there is no such evident presence in the North African or Egyptian samples. As shown in Fig. 1, the Somalis and the Egyptian Bronze Age sample from Naqada may also have a hint of a Sub-Saharan African component. That was not borne out in the canonical variate plot (Fig. 2), and there was no evidence of such an involvement in the Algerian Neolithic (Gambetta) sample.
This chart doesn't say that the AE and Polish people were the SAME biologically. That is pure asinine nonsense.
This is what you get trying to read into things that are not said explicitly. Brace isn't talking about skin color in his study and really it does nothing to show one way or other what skin colors were present in the populations documented.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
This is what Doug keeps avoiding with his strawman attacks and misrepresentations of what I said. According to Doug, the same general morphometric pattern is 'black' in Egypt, but 'white' when found on the European continent.
"The skeletal remains of the Lower Egyptians in the OP belong to black people." --Doug M (paraphrased)
Several thread pages later, an individual who approximates the ancient Lower Egyptian modal phenotype is posted. At that moment we see that Doug agrees with the racist academics he was ranting against in this thread:
"So do you agree that the skull looks similar to modern Polish people [...]" --Doug M
But don't worry, Doug. Incompetent and/or Eurocentric forensic workers who reconstruct ancient Egyptian mummies agree with your fantasy that this morphometric pattern equates to 'white European'. So you're not entirely alone in your fantasy:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: This is what Doug keeps avoiding with his strawman attacks and misrepresentations of what I said. According to Doug, the same general morphometric pattern is 'black' in Egypt, but 'white' when found on the European continent.
This trolling is becoming absurd. But OK. So are you seriously claiming that white people are not indigenous to Europe and the majority skin color in Europe and that black people are not the majority population in Africa and the majority skin color there as well?
Come on man. You are losing your mind, because the morphological patterns of Egypt are not the same as Europe. Ancient Egyptians are not Europeans. And that is why you have been arguing for 11 dam pages about the word black. This has nothing to do with words but your attempt to sneak Europeans into Egypt claiming that you are 'objective'. Ancient Egyptians were not Europeans! And therefore they could not be the same and the skin color of the AE was not the same as the skin color of Europeans. And if they were the 'same color' then either both populations were black or both populations were white. And I say neither, because the populations were not the same skin color.
As I said before this thread is not about whether the AE were close to Europeans in any metric analysis. The topic of the thread is whether "black" is an accurate description of Africans and others with tropically adapted skin in Africa and elsewhere.
quote: "The skeletal remains of the Lower Egyptians in the OP belong to black people." --Doug M (paraphrased)
I can speak for myself. It is simple. The AE were primarily black Africans. Period along with the majority of Africans. You are trolling.
quote: Several thread pages later, an individual who approximates the ancient Lower Egyptian modal phenotype is posted. At that moment we see that Doug agrees with the racist academics he was ranting against in this thread:
"So do you agree that the skull looks similar to modern Polish people [...]" --Doug M
You are right. Polish skulls have nothing to do with Egypt. Apparently that is a problem with you and your 'objective' knowledge of geography being severely impaired, not to mention your lack of reading comprehension. Africans are black and Europeans are not. There. Hopefully you will understand that this time. And none of the nonsense you posted says otherwise.
quote: But don't worry, Doug. Incompetent and/or Eurocentric forensic workers who reconstruct ancient Egyptian mummies agree with your fantasy that this morphometric pattern equates to 'white European'. So you're not entirely alone in your fantasy:
Sure. You have gone 11 pages arguing with me about what the word black means and the only thing you got now is whether ancient Polish skulls are the key to what black is in Africa.....
Sure dude.
So now we know why you don't want to call the AE black. Because your 'objective' white scientists say they were white, like that mummy reconstruction.
Finally we get to the truth.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:You are losing your mind, because the morphological patterns of Egypt are not the same as Europe. Ancient Egyptians are not Europeans.
No one said anything about "the same as Europeans".
Higher percentages of misclassification rates of Lower Egyptian crania into prehistoric European samples (and vice versa) prove my point, re: a shared general morphometric pattern that resembles living Berber and Arabic speaking Maghrebis. What evidence can you bring to the table to say otherwise? Nothing. I know you have nothing, because I know what the relevant papers generally have to say about this.
You messed up labeling this shared pattern 'European'. You messed up even worse labeling it 'Polish'. To talk about Polish people (who are Slavs) in Bronze Age Europe is just as preposterous as talking about Bantu speakers in South Africa 10.000 years ago.
Just give it up, Doug.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Doug calls the Bronze Age warrior "European-looking" and "white", but when the same general pattern is found in dynastic Egypt it's somehow "completely different"?
Perfect example of Doug's flip flops and racial politics.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:You are losing your mind, because the morphological patterns of Egypt are not the same as Europe. Ancient Egyptians are not Europeans.
No one said anything about "the same as Europeans".
Higher percentages of misclassification rates of Lower Egyptian crania into prehistoric European samples (and vice versa) prove my point, re: a shared general morphometric pattern that resembles living Berber and Arabic speaking Maghrebis. What evidence can you bring to the table to say otherwise? Nothing. I know you have nothing, because I know what the relevant papers generally have to say about this.
You messed up labeling this shared pattern 'European'. You messed up even worse labeling it 'Polish'. To talk about Polish people (who are Slavs) in Bronze Age Europe is just as preposterous as talking about Bantu speakers in South Africa 10.000 years ago.
Just give it up, Doug.
Swenet, you keep bringing up European skulls as being relevant to the AE being black. Then you accuse me of flip flopping. Seriously? You are losing your mind. European skulls are not the same as AE skulls.
You are the one saying this not me.
They are not the same so what European skulls looked like skin color wise is irrelevant to AE and Africa.
You are the only one introducing European skulls into a discussion about tropical populations in Africa and elsewhere. Europeans are not tropical populations....
And like I said before, if you want to discuss European skulls being similar to Skulls from North Africa and Egypt please open a new thread. This thread isn't about that. AE skulls are not the same as European skulls and therefore irrelevant when it comes to the skin color of AE people.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote: Originally posted by Doug: European skulls are not the same as AE skulls.
Stop lying, I never said "same as Europeans". I said dynastic Lower Egyptians often occupy the same general morphospace as the prehistoric Europeans I was referring to. I also said that living Europeans were typically more distant from both. And I've proven exactly that.
I was very clear on who I was referring to in this observation. But somewhere in the demented mush you call your brains this message gets reduced to "Swenet said ancient Egyptians are the same as Europeans".
Other than lying about my positions and ranting like a confused chicken without a head, which of your claims have you proven with scientific sources throughout these 11 pages? All you've done is offer opinionated rants and your trademark strawman attacks.
^'Eurneo' (neolithic Europeans) and 'Egypt' (late dynastic Lower Egypt) occupy the same general position. This is the same general position that that Bronze Age warrior would fall into. Doug keeps ranting on and on about the racists he claims to be against, but then parrots their Eurocentric claim that this morphospace is necessarily 'European', 'white' and 'Polish'.
My advice to you Doug: get a new hobby. After at least 11 years in this community (you registered in 2005) you clearly don't have the slightest clue and you're floundering left and right..
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Interesting that blog commentators of European descent on Eurocentric sites are capable of making a distinction between the narrow western criteria for 'whiteness' vs being factually and demonstrably biologically European:
quote:Originally posted by Krefter:
quote:Originally posted by bmdriver: Europeans are nothing but Indian migrants. Who have turned white over the past 3000years.
The term white is only relevant when it comes to culture in the modern world. Ancient DNA shows that Euro-genes are much older than light skin, and so there's no such thing as the white race. Euros are a composite of 3 very different people who lived in west and north Eurasia 10,000YBP>, as are middle easterns.
The objections of lay people and others not very familiar with this subject are understandable, but some ES 'vets' are resisting for 10 thread pages and on other threads because their whole agenda is to mix anthropology with racial politics. But it's not racial agenda when you do it, right? Only when Eurocentrics do it.
And how can you be a 'vet' on ES when you can't even grasp this basic concept, even though it has been explained again and again over 10 thread pages?
Krefter forgot about the 4th component, which is from Africa. They have major problems with this component.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
Nodnarb, Swenet, Beyoku, Ish Gebor = White Racists with multiple IDs
Be very careful folks!
Do you even understand what I have posted? SMH
"According to the current data East Africa is home to nearly 2/3 of the world genetic diversity independent of sampling effect.The antiquity of the east African gene pool could be viewed not only from the perspective of the amount of genetic diversity endowed within it but also by signals of uni-modal distribution in their mitochondrial DNA (Hassan et al., unpublished) usually taken as an indication of populations that have passed through ‘‘recent’’ demographic expansion [33], although in this case, may in fact be considered a sign of extended shared history of in situ evolution where alleles are exchanged between neighboring demes [34]."
--Jibril Hirbo, Sara Tishkoff et al.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
"Blacks and whites don't realize that they're really pink and brown" --Message Ii (Survival) (Feat. Melle Mel)
Caucasus (n.) Look up Caucasus at Dictionary.com mountain range between Europe and the Middle East, from Latin Caucasus, from Greek kaukasis, said by Pliny ("Natural History," book six, chap. XVII) to be from a Scythian word similar to kroy-khasis, literally "(the mountain) ice-shining, white with snow." But possibly from a Pelasgian root *kau- meaning "mountain."
Caucasian (adj.) Look up Caucasian at Dictionary.com 1807, from Caucasus Mountains, between the Black and Caspian seas; applied to the "white" race 1795 (in German) by German anthropologist Johann Blumenbach, because its supposed ancestral homeland lay there; since abandoned as a historical/anthropological term. (See Aryan).
Caucasian (n.) Look up Caucasian at Dictionary.com "resident or native of the Caucasus," 1843; see Caucasus + -ian. Meaning "one of the 'white' race" is from 1958 (earlier Caucasoid, 1956).
c. 1600, as a term in classical history, from Latin Arianus, Ariana, from Greek Aria, Areia, names applied in classical times to the eastern part of ancient Persia and to its inhabitants. Ancient Persians used the name in reference to themselves (Old Persian ariya-), hence Iran. Ultimately from Sanskrit arya- "compatriot;" in later language "noble, of good family."
Also the name Sanskrit-speaking invaders of India gave themselves in the ancient texts, from which early 19c. European philologists (Friedrich Schlegel, 1819, who linked the word with German Ehre "honor") applied it to the ancient people we now call Indo-Europeans (suspecting that this is what they called themselves); this use is attested in English from 1851. The term fell into the hands of racists, and in German from 1845 it was specifically contrasted to Semitic (Lassen).
German philologist Max Müller (1823-1900) popularized the term in his writings on comparative linguistics, recommending it as the name (replacing Indo-European, Indo-Germanic, Caucasian, Japhetic) for the group of related, inflected languages connected with these peoples, mostly found in Europe but also including Sanskrit and Persian. Arian was used in this sense from 1839 (and is more philologically correct), but this spelling caused confusion with Arian, the term in ecclesiastical history.
Gradually replaced in comparative linguistics c. 1900 by Indo-European, except when used to distinguish Indo-European languages of India from non-Indo-European ones. Used in Nazi ideology to mean "member of a Caucasian Gentile race of Nordic type." As an ethnic designation, however, it is properly limited to Indo-Iranians (most justly to the latter) and has fallen from general academic use since the Nazi era.
Indo-European Look up Indo-European at Dictionary.com 1814, coined by English polymath Thomas Young (1773-1829) and first used in an article in the "Quarterly Review," from Indo- + European. "Common to India and Europe," specifically in reference to the group of related languages and to the race or races characterized by their use.
The alternative Indo-Germanic (1835) was coined in German in 1823 (indogermanisch), based on the two peoples then thought to be at the extremes of the geographic area covered by the languages, but this was before Celtic was realized also to be an Indo-European language. After this was proved, many German scholars switched to Indo-European as more accurate, but Indo-Germanic continued in use (popularized by the titles of major works) and the predominance of German scholarship in this field made it the popular term in England, too, through the 19c. See also Aryan. Indo-Aryan (1850) seems to have been used only of the Aryans of India. Indo-European also was used in reference to trade between Europe and India or European colonial enterprises in India (1813).
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: The surprise is that the Neolithic peoples of Europe and their Bronze Age successors are not closely related to the modern inhabitants, although the prehistoric/modern ties are somewhat more apparent in southern Europe. --Brace et al 2005
I already posted about this before (here) . This dendogram was taken from the Brace 2005 study mentionned by Swenet above:
Fig. 1. Neighbor-joining dendrogram for a series of prehistoric and recent human populations (Craniofacial measures)
Ancient specimen are different in term of cranio-facial measurements than their modern successors. For example, England (aka modern England) and Neolithic England are not on the same branch. So ancient Specimen are different in term of cranio-facial measurements than their modern successors. While Naqada and Congo are still on the same branch (they share African cranio-facial similarities with Nubians too) the ancient specimen in Africa are also different than the modern specimen.
There's also quite a difference between modern specimen. For example, modern Greek people seem quite different in term of cranio-facial measurements than modern Italian or French specimen for example.
quote:BIOLOGICAL AFFINITIES
Data from cranial and dental non-metric traits from Sites 277 and 179 were used to assess biological differentiation between the A-Group and C-Group. Results indicate biological continuity, consistent with in situ evolution (although the problem of small samples requires that these results be accepted with caution). Although the diffusion of ideas of material culture into the area through military and trade contacts is likely, any archaeologically visible cultural differences are more consistent with local cultural evolution than with the importation of a new cultural system through the migration of a foreign population into the area.
quote:"Still, it appears that the process of state formation involved a large indigenous component. Outside influence and admixture with extraregional groups primarily occurred in Lower Egypt—perhaps during the later dynastic, but especially in Ptolmaic and Roman times (also Irish, 2006). No large-scale population replacement in the form of a foreign dynastic ‘race’ (Petrie, 1939) was indicated. Our results are generally consistent with those of Zakrzewski (2007). Using craniometric data in predynastic and early dynastic Egyptian samples, she also concluded that state formation was largely an indigenous process with some migration into the region evident. The sources of such migrants have not been identified; inclusion of additional regional and extraregional skeletal samples from various periods would be required for this purpose."
--Schillaci MA, Irish JD, Wood CC. 2009 Further analysis of the population history of ancient Egyptians.
Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
Will this discussion ever come to an end? 'Indigenous Northeast Africans' is a perfect term because it's specific and could reasonably be argued is the term that should be used in academic papers.
It's when somebody asks a specialist whether or not the AE were 'black' that problems arise; some specialists will idiotically argue that the AE were just Egyptians and that modern Egyptians are reasonable representatives of the ancients.
I just don't think that it matters anymore if western academics use 'black' in relation to the AE, because they're simply NEVER going to accept its usage on the AE, so there's no point crying about their refusal.
We [Africans] can use 'black' on the AE and Europeans can use whatever terms tickle their fancy.
Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
Does anybody know who this man is?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
The semicircular base on which the figure sits must have originally fit into a larger base that carried his name and titles, such as the base for the statue of Prince Setka, exhibited in room 22 of the Louvre. This base is missing, and the context of the discovery does not provide any additional information. According to the archeologist Auguste Mariette, who found the work, the statue of the scribe was apparently discovered in Saqqara on 19 November 1850, to the north of the Serapeum's line of sphinxes. But the precise location is not known; unfortunately, the documents concerning these excavations were published posthumously, the excavation journals had been lost, and the archives were scattered between France and Egypt. Furthermore, the site had been pillaged and ransacked, and no information concerning the figure's identity could be provided. Some historians have tried to link it to one of the owners of the statues discovered at the same time. The most convincing of these associates the scribe to Pehernefer. Certain stylistic criteria, such as the thin lips, which was unusual, the form of the torso, and the broad chest could support this theory. The statue of Pehernefer dates from the 4th Dynasty. This is an additional argument in favor of an earlier dating for this statue, which has sometimes been dated to the 6th Dynasty. Another argument supporting this date is that "writing" scribes were mostly created in the 4th and early 5th Dynasties; after this period, most scribes were portrayed in "reading" poses. A scribe at work The scribe is portrayed at work, which is unusual in Egyptian statuary. Although no king was ever portrayed in this pose, it seems that it was originally used for members of the royal family, such as the king's sons or grandsons, as was the case for the sons of Didufri (4th Dynasty), who were represented in this position.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: Will this discussion ever come to an end? 'Indigenous Northeast Africans' is a perfect term because it's specific and could reasonably be argued is the term that should be used in academic papers.
It's when somebody asks a specialist whether or not the AE were 'black' that problems arise; some specialists will idiotically argue that the AE were just Egyptians and that modern Egyptians are reasonable representatives of the ancients.
I just don't think that it matters anymore if western academics use 'black' in relation to the AE, because they're simply NEVER going to accept its usage on the AE, so there's no point crying about their refusal.
We [Africans] can use 'black' on the AE and Europeans can use whatever terms tickle their fancy.
There are some individuals who will argue that Northeast African came from "Eurasia", as there origin. Some will claim they "returned 40 Kya" and the everything beyond that is actually "Eurasian history in Africa". Yes, it is that terrible.
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
Does anybody know who this man is?
He is known as the unknown scribe. lol
There here is exciting:
Secrets of the Serapeum at Saqqara, Part 1
He soon came to what he described as a courtyard of the ruins of a small temple. There he found the famous statue of the seated scribe who is now in the Louvre ...
quote: Originally posted by Doug: European skulls are not the same as AE skulls.
Stop lying, I never said "same as Europeans". I said dynastic Lower Egyptians often occupy the same general morphospace as the prehistoric Europeans I was referring to. I also said that living Europeans were typically more distant from both. And I've proven exactly that.
I was very clear on who I was referring to in this observation. But somewhere in the demented mush you call your brains this message gets reduced to "Swenet said ancient Egyptians are the same as Europeans".
Other than lying about my positions and ranting like a confused chicken without a head, which of your claims have you proven with scientific sources throughout these 11 pages? All you've done is offer opinionated rants and your trademark strawman attacks.
^'Eurneo' (neolithic Europeans) and 'Egypt' (late dynastic Lower Egypt) occupy the same general position. This is the same general position that that Bronze Age warrior would fall into. Doug keeps ranting on and on about the racists he claims to be against, but then parrots their Eurocentric claim that this morphospace is necessarily 'European', 'white' and 'Polish'.
My advice to you Doug: get a new hobby. After at least 11 years in this community (you registered in 2005) you clearly don't have the slightest clue and you're floundering left and right..
Swenet, you persist trolling with bull sh*t. Since when are Europeans the basis of calling ANYBODY black? Who said that understanding the term "BLACK PEOPLE" is based on looking at the relationship of African people to Europe? The point is for folks that don't get it by now, is you are trying to include European cranial metrics into something that has nothing to do with Europe. "Black people" as description of populations with tropically adapted features do not come from Europe. No matter how many ways you try to say it or try to spin it, European populations are not black people. Simply put you are lying out the crack of your behind trying to claim that "mixed" Late Lower Egyptian skulls represent "black people". Coon didn't say it. Morton didn't say it. Dienikes didn't say it. I certainly didn't say it. And Brace didn't say it. So why do you keep bringing it up?
You lost this argument a long time ago.
BLACK means BLACK And European populations are not the basis of the definition for 'black' people. You simply are confused.
And certainly the AE were not mixed Lower Egyptians. AE people came from the Sahara and South inside Africa not Europe. Nice try but late period Lower Egyptians are not what I mean by the AE being "black".
The point again after all these pages is that we are talking about skin color and this whole fiasco of the "Polish warrior" shows how meaningless and ridiculous it is to talk about cranial metrics when the question is about skin color. "Black" is not a cranial metric. And neither is "white". You can associate the two in a general sense but really the only way to understand and determine skin color is by actually having skin or tissue to analyze. And that is my point. Avoiding the discussion of skin color does not change the issue of racism. Racism will be there regardless and skin color is as valid a form of biological study as any other aspect of biology. And certainly describing skin color as "black" or "white" is valid as well.
Some folks here think they can support the argument of the AE or other people being "black" historically by not saying so specifically as if that is an equivalent substitute in defeating racism in academics and science. I will say no that is nonsense. If you are "free" of racism in academics and science then you should be able to say what you mean without code words and innuendo. If I say a population is/was black, that is what I mean and I am only talking about skin color and nothing else. Skin color is skin color, just like hair color is hair color or eye color is eye color. Notice nobody tries to describe ancient populations hair color or eye color by cranial metrics. Why? Because you can't without tissue remains.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: The surprise is that the Neolithic peoples of Europe and their Bronze Age successors are not closely related to the modern inhabitants, although the prehistoric/modern ties are somewhat more apparent in southern Europe. --Brace et al 2005
I already posted about this before (here) . This dendogram was taken from the Brace 2005 study mentionned by Swenet above:
Fig. 1. Neighbor-joining dendrogram for a series of prehistoric and recent human populations (Craniofacial measures)
Ancient specimen are different in term of cranio-facial measurements than their modern successors. For example, England (aka modern England) and Neolithic England are not on the same branch. So ancient Specimen are different in term of cranio-facial measurements than their modern successors. While Naqada and Congo are still on the same branch (they share African cranio-facial similarities with Nubians too) the ancient specimen in Africa are also different than the modern specimen.
There's also quite a difference between modern specimen. For example, modern Greek people seem quite different in term of cranio-facial measurements than modern Italian or French specimen for example.
quote:BIOLOGICAL AFFINITIES
Data from cranial and dental non-metric traits from Sites 277 and 179 were used to assess biological differentiation between the A-Group and C-Group. Results indicate biological continuity, consistent with in situ evolution (although the problem of small samples requires that these results be accepted with caution). Although the diffusion of ideas of material culture into the area through military and trade contacts is likely, any archaeologically visible cultural differences are more consistent with local cultural evolution than with the importation of a new cultural system through the migration of a foreign population into the area.
These cranial studies aren't talking about skin color and make no mention of them and therefore are irrelevant to the discussion. And I already showed you earlier where brace stated point blank these "Lower Egyptian" cranial metrics were not close to "sub saharans" which is a code word for "black". So for anyone to suggest that this means the "AUTHOR" of the study, namely Brace, is implying or stating that these people were black is ridiculous. Nice try but that wont work. In fact most would use that data to suggest the opposite.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Simply put you are lying out the crack of your behind trying to claim that "mixed" Late Lower Egyptian skulls represent "black people".
SMH. Doug just keeps digging himself in further with everything he says. The above is proof that his use of black has sneaky hidden criteria that have nothing to do with skin color.
He keeps flip flopping between accusing me of trying to deduce skin color from skeletal remains and then doing it himself. How does Doug know what skin color these Lower Egyptians had? Of course, he doesn't know. But that doesn't stop him from doing what he repeatedly accused me of.
Floundering clown.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: And certainly the AE were not mixed Lower Egyptians.
No one said that the AE were mixed lower Egyptians. But thanks for revealing that you're a floundering clown, because that is exactly where all Egyptians of the lower Egyptian type generally cluster. It has nothing to do with late period Egyptians. This pattern was already found in some of the skeletal remains of the 1st dynasty Abydos tombs.
You've just gone on record blundering again. You've just implied that Egyptians of the lower Egyptian type are all "mixed" and "don't represent black people".
Are you sure Stormfront isn't a better site for you to post on? First you called Neolithic and Bronze Age Europeans "white". Now you're calling Lower Egyptians of the Lower Egyptian type "not black". SMH.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: The surprise is that the Neolithic peoples of Europe and their Bronze Age successors are not closely related to the modern inhabitants, although the prehistoric/modern ties are somewhat more apparent in southern Europe. --Brace et al 2005
I already posted about this before (here) . This dendogram was taken from the Brace 2005 study mentionned by Swenet above:
Fig. 1. Neighbor-joining dendrogram for a series of prehistoric and recent human populations (Craniofacial measures)
Ancient specimen are different in term of cranio-facial measurements than their modern successors. For example, England (aka modern England) and Neolithic England are not on the same branch. So ancient Specimen are different in term of cranio-facial measurements than their modern successors. While Naqada and Congo are still on the same branch (they share African cranio-facial similarities with Nubians too) the ancient specimen in Africa are also different than the modern specimen.
There's also quite a difference between modern specimen. For example, modern Greek people seem quite different in term of cranio-facial measurements than modern Italian or French specimen for example.
quote:BIOLOGICAL AFFINITIES
Data from cranial and dental non-metric traits from Sites 277 and 179 were used to assess biological differentiation between the A-Group and C-Group. Results indicate biological continuity, consistent with in situ evolution (although the problem of small samples requires that these results be accepted with caution). Although the diffusion of ideas of material culture into the area through military and trade contacts is likely, any archaeologically visible cultural differences are more consistent with local cultural evolution than with the importation of a new cultural system through the migration of a foreign population into the area.
These cranial studies aren't talking about skin color and make no mention of them and therefore are irrelevant to the discussion. And I already showed you earlier where brace stated point blank these "Lower Egyptian" cranial metrics were not close to "sub saharans" which is a code word for "black". So for anyone to suggest that this means the "AUTHOR" of the study, namely Brace, is implying or stating that these people were black is ridiculous. Nice try but that wont work. In fact most would use that data to suggest the opposite.
Which is exactly the reasons why posted what I did. Metrically they are indigenous African in situ: "more consistent with local cultural evolution".
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
^ why do quote everything all over again all the time? Does that big block of text have to be in the thread 3 times just so you can make a two sentence comment?
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Doug. If these brown skinned Native Americans are 'black', why do Egyptians of the lower Egyptian type and the Bronze Age warrior with dark skin pigmentation genes fall outside of it?
quote: Originally posted by Doug M: As populations inhabiting tropical and subtropical environments black people can and have been found all over the globe.
Stop peddling your laughably transparent racial politics. Stop your silly strawman attacks. And stop commenting on topics you don't know anything about.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: ^ why do quote everything all over again all the time? Does that big block of text have to be in the thread 3 times just so you can make a two sentence comment?
1) because I want to.
2) because I responded from a mobile device.
3) because I wish you a happy new Grergorian new year.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Simply put you are lying out the crack of your behind trying to claim that "mixed" Late Lower Egyptian skulls represent "black people".
SMH. Doug just keeps digging himself in further with everything he says. The above is proof that his use of black has sneaky hidden criteria that have nothing to do with skin color.
He keeps flip flopping between accusing me of trying to deduce skin color from skeletal remains and then doing it himself. How does Doug know what skin color these Lower Egyptians had? Of course, he doesn't know. But that doesn't stop him from doing what he repeatedly accused me of.
Floundering clown.
I didn't say anything about these late period Egyptian remains YOU did.
Typical troll tactics. You introduced something that nobody else mentioned and now you claim I was the one who said it.
No man. You are a troll and simply moving from one thing to the next and not addressing the issue.
Here is what YOU said.
I never said Europeans were the basis of what I mean by black. You said that idiot.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: That was just the beginning of the problems of the 'black' crowd. What do you do when people akin to the ancestors of pale northwestern Europe had dark skin somewhere within the range of African Americans during most of their stay in Europe? What implications does that have for the premise that "white" and "black" are fundamentally opposite and the idea that 'black' neatly excludes European ancestry/people?
quote:[T]he new data confirm that about 8500 years ago, early hunter-gatherers in Spain, Luxembourg, and Hungary also had darker skin: They lacked versions of two genes—SLC24A5 and SLC45A2—that lead to depigmentation and, therefore, pale skin in Europeans today.
See? You make no sense. Now you are trying to claim that when I say "black" we must include Europeans, because thousands of years ago yes ALL humans were black. So does that make the use of the word black invalid? Of course not. THe point is that 5,000 years ago, most Europeans were not black. You are the only one saying this and you are silly.
First you started talking about this bronze age Polish skull and when that didn't work, you went to "Neolithic" European skulls and then when that didn't work you went on to Late Period "Lower" Egypt and now you are going back to the ancestors of modern Europeans. Like I said before, Europe is not an environment that produces white skin. Africa is. Your own arguments show this. However, rather than understanding the biological basis for skin color you have totally jumped the shark in trying to equate skin color in Europe with skin color in Africa. Obviously you are blind, deaf and dumb if you think Europeans have the same skin color as Africans..... not to mention whether white is a valid term for European skin color versus black for African skin color. You are simply mixing apples and oranges and going all over the board trying to make excuses instead of addressing the point.
You are trolling.
Period.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: If I say a population is/was black, that is what I mean and I am only talking about skin color and nothing else. BLACK means BLACK
Then be clear, say a population is "black skinned"
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
"Black people" as description of populations with tropically adapted features do not come from Europe.
what color is this?
can you guess which one? (also check mirror)
.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Doug. If these brown skinned Native Americans are 'black', why do Egyptians of the lower Egyptian type and the Bronze Age warrior with dark skin pigmentation genes fall outside of it?
quote: Originally posted by Doug M: As populations inhabiting tropical and subtropical environments black people can and have been found all over the globe.
Stop peddling your laughably transparent racial politics. Stop your silly strawman attacks. And stop commenting on topics you don't know anything about.
First this thread is not about Lower Egyptian skulls being the same as Polish skulls.
This thread is not about skull shapes and sizes. It is about skin color. If you want to make a thread about cranial shapes in Bronze age Europe and what it means about the outward skin color of Lower Egyptians then fine, make a new thread. This topic is not about either topic. The thread is about skin color only and the viability of the word black to describe skin color in tropical environments like Africa.
Stop trolling.
Again address the point which is skin color not skull shape.
The point is you are engaging in classical 'racial' politics not me by making assumptions about skull shape and skin color. That is the hallmark of scientific racism. I am talking about actual skin color and not making assumptions of skull shape at all.
This thread is not about skull shape!
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: This thread is not about skull shape!
The dynastic Egyptians of the lower Egyptian type and their metric relationships were first commented on in the OP of this thread:
quote: Observations cited in the OP of this thread: A subset of dynastic Egyptian samples squeezed in between Abyssinians and Cretans, Etruscans and Sardinians and showing considerable ties with the biblical inhabitants of the Judaean city of Lachish. No competent western, middle eastern or oriental academic who has seriously looked into this is going to use the term "black" (in a racial sense) when applied to dynastic Egyptians (although they might do it in a pigmentation sense, by saying they would have been dark brown). And in the occasion they do use 'black' in a racial sense (usually when they speak in an informal context), they're likely to say that they think that the ancient Egyptians were half black/half non-black based on their position in cranio-facial analysis.
You're confused. You don't get to dictate what is and isn't on topic.
Take your medicine, then come back and respond to my points without resorting to strawman attacks and your unintelligible jibberish.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: The dynastic Egyptians of the lower Egyptian type and their metric relationships were first commented on in the OP of this thread. You're confused. You don't get to dictate what is and isn't on topic.
Take your medicine, then come back and respond to my points.
I have already addressed your points and the OP. You just don't want to agree you can't equate skin color to skull shape.
There is nothing complex about it.
Skin color is skin color and skull shape is skull shape. Those are two separate biological characteristics that are not the same.
The skull shapes of Bronze Age Europe has nothing to do with the Skin color of the AE or most Africans as being black.
I don't understand how hard it is for you to get that through your skull.
One is not determined by the other. The Skin color of AE people or any population is not determined by skull shape alone, you need tissue samples to determine that, which makes posting similarities between skulls of two totally different populations on two totally different continents with two totally different types of environments IRRELEVANT when it comes to determining skin color without actual biological samples of tissue, especially skin tissue.
Skin color is skin color and cannot be determined by skull shape alone.
It isn't hard to understand. Black skin refers to skin color not skull shape.
Skull shape does not INVALIDATE the use of words like "black", "white", "brown" or "pink" when it comes to skin color because you can't determine skin color from a skull.
I have been saying this from page one. You cannot discuss skin color and terms to describe skin color without skin tissue. There is no substitute. Skull metrics only give general approximate biological relationships between populations but it doesn't determine skin color.
When I say "black" or "white" I am not talking about skulls. All skulls are greyish or brownish white in color. That is not the same as skin color.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: And certainly the AE were not mixed Lower Egyptians.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Simply put you are lying out the crack of your behind trying to claim that "mixed" Late Lower Egyptian skulls represent "black people".
This clown just whitewashed Egyptians of the Lower Egyptian type. SMH.
He doesn't have the slightest shred of a clue that he's talking about people who were depicted like this:
Ramses II and many members of his family are of this Lower Egyptian type. But Doug just said they're "non-black".
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Skin color is skin color and cannot be determined by skull shape alone.
Pray tell, where did I say something even remotely resembling this? This is getting more bizarre by the minute. DOUG is the only one who has repeatedly tried to infer skin color from skeletal remains:
Simply put you are lying out the crack of your behind trying to claim that "mixed" Late Lower Egyptian skulls represent "black people". --Doug M
So do you agree that the skull looks similar to modern Polish people and that the likelihood is high that the person when alive had a similar skin complexion? --Doug M
Nice try but late period Lower Egyptians are not what I mean by the AE being "black". --Doug M
Don't forget to take your medicine, Doug.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: And certainly the AE were not mixed Lower Egyptians.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Simply put you are lying out the crack of your behind trying to claim that "mixed" Late Lower Egyptian skulls represent "black people".
This clown just whitewashed Egyptians of the Lower Egyptian type. SMH.
He doesn't have the slightest shred of a clue that he's talking about people who were depicted like this:
Ramses II and many members of his family are of this Lower Egyptian type. But Doug just said they're "non-black".
The skulls of the Ramesids were classified as "Nubian" based on the XRAY atlas of Royal Mummmies which has been cited numerous times on this forum.
Not to mention the other available evidence showing that the Ramessids were soldiers and warriors from Ta Seti worshipping the deity Set from Nubt or "Nubia" (the golden city).
The point being that the Ramessids were black African ancient Egyptians. So again I am still talking about skin color not skull shape. The Ramessids did not have "European" skulls. They had skulls similar to other black Africans....
Since the European invention of the concept of race they have gone in many different directions trying define "racial types" going from purely a skin color basis to a skeletal and skull metric basis. This idea that skull shapes determine "race" or more importantly here, skin color has been thoroughly debunked by many scholars, yet here we have Mr. Swenet claiming that no, we can use skull metrics alone to determine skin color.
WRONG. Especially when you compare different populations in different continents. WRONG WRONG WRONG.
Quoting Keita:
quote: Responds to M. J. Zyphur's (see record 2006-01690-012) comments on the original article by A. Smedley and B. D. Smedley (see record 2005-00117-003). Race, as people live and understand it, inhabits a dimension of reality that transcends biology and cannot be reduced to genes, chromosomes, or even phenotypes. A biological or genetic view of race cannot encompass the lived social reality of race, nor does it represent biogenetic variations in human populations very well (Marks, 1995). As Zyphur notes, biogenetic variations in the human species were produced by evolutionary forces as different groups interacted with and underwent adaptation to the natural environments encountered in their migrations. The result was a pattern of variation that should be familiar to everyone: People with dark skin coloring remained adapted to tropical environments (with some internal variations resulting from amounts of tree cover, land elevation, rainfall, etc.). Peoples of tropical lands thus resemble one another in their varying shades of dark skin color and often curly or frizzy hair (known as polytopicity). Some of the darkest skins are found not in Africa but in India, Sri Lanka, Melanesia, and Northern Australia, as anyone who watched the news coverage of the recent tsunami would readily recognize. Groups migrating beyond the tropical areas gradually lost genes for dark skin as they adapted to cooler climates with less sunlight. Geneticists have shown that just as no two individuals are genetically alike (except for identical twins), no two human groups are precisely alike, even when they derive from a common ancestral population. Biogenetic variation has continued to increase as individuals once widely separated meet and mate. Quite apart from the controversy over races as biological taxa, the idea of race as it is known and lived in American society is composed of social values and meanings imposed on this biological variation over the past three or four centuries. As a social construct, race refers to an ideology. Since the 18th century, Americans and many other people in the world have been conditioned to believe that race as biology is the main source of human identities. As Americans have come into contact with peoples around the world, confusion has inevitably ensued, because U.S. racial categories do not necessarily apply in other countries. Given the complexity of the human genome and the history of (continuous) intermixtures, I doubt if it will ever be possible to correlate our genes with our racial (i.e., social) identities. Nor can I imagine at this point why anyone should want to do so. What service to society or science will this fulfill? Social constructs have their own complex dynamics and are vulnerable to change, just as is any other cultural phenomenon. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
The "Ramesids" were never classified skeletally as Nubian. Produce the quote, right now. No stalling, no BS excuses, no changing the topic. Just produce the quote.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Not to mention the other available evidence showing that the Ramessids were soldiers and warriors from Ta Seti worshipping the deity Set from Nubt or "Nubia" (the golden city).
Take that esoteric jibberish elsewhere. Ramses II and his family members either have skeletal affinity to Nubians (supposedly to the exclusion of other late dynastic Egyptians) or they don't. Praying to a deity doesn't make you look like Nubians, cranio-facially speaking. SMH.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Sniff to the black Asian thread long gone but in homage to threads of days gone by peruse this finest collection of vintage internet photo anthropology...... The land of Soul.... Korea.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ True. Not only Korea but even northern Asia around the arctic where there is very little sunlight. Yet there are populations in the region where dark or tan-like complexions do occur. The reason why is because these people supplement their diet with vitamin D. Vitamin D is produced in the skin using UV rays from the sun. Fair skin is an adaptation to areas with little UV so the skin can get as much UV as possible. In areas where there is a lot of UV like in the tropics, too much UV damages the skin so more melanin is needed for protection. Examples of dark north Asians
Kirgiz Turk
Khalka Mongol
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
It's stupid to call people black and white
I do it out of convention but I know it's stupid
Others don't know this. They like the division
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: The "Ramesids" were never classified skeletally as Nubian. Produce the quote, right now. No stalling, no BS excuses, no changing the topic. Just produce the quote.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Not to mention the other available evidence showing that the Ramessids were soldiers and warriors from Ta Seti worshipping the deity Set from Nubt or "Nubia" (the golden city).
Take that esoteric jibberish elsewhere. Ramses II and his family members either have skeletal affinity to Nubians (supposedly to the exclusion of other late dynastic Egyptians) or they don't. Praying to a deity doesn't make you look like Nubians, cranio-facially speaking. SMH.
The link was provided or did you not bother to read it.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
I know exactly what it says. I just want you to post it, because I know your reading comprehension is failing you again. The same poor reading comprehension that causes you to misread everything I say.
Why not just get it over with and post it if you're so confident that it says that Ramses' family members were classified as 'Nubian' and not 'Lower Egyptian'?
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: I know exactly what it says. I just want you to post it, because I know your reading comprehension is failing you again. The same poor reading comprehension that leads to you misread everything I say.
Why not just get it over with and post it if you're so confident that it says that Ramses' family members were classified as 'Nubian' and not 'Lower Egyptian'?
The point is the Ramessids were black Africans from Upper Egypt. I have posted the link and I don't need to post it again....
Suffice to say the point here is that the Ramessids did not look like Bronze Age Europeans.... which is what you said.
Man trolls today....
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
This is why you should always fact-check when people here make claims that are convenient to their racial politics agenda. This is what the actual quote says:
quote:The difference between late XVII and XVIII dynasty royal mummies and contemporary Nubians is slight. During the XVIV and XX dynasties we see possibly some mixing between a Nubian element that is more similar to Mesolithic Nubians (low vaults, sloping frontal bone, etc.), with an orthognathous population. Since the Ramessides were of northern extraction, this could represent miscegenation with modern Mediterraneans of Levantine type. The projecting zygomatic arches of Seti I suggest remnants of the old Natufian/Tasian types of the Holocene period.
The comparison of Ramses II's family to Nubians only pertains to superficial aspects of their neurocrania, not to their entire cranio-facial structure.
You have no idea how much you're debunking your own claims, do you?
Do you realize that the neurocranium of that Bronze Age European resembles Mesolihtic Nubians in the mentioned traits (as well as certain others) even more than most of Ramses II's family members?
Remind me again: why are you aggressively pontificating on a subject you're completely ignorant of?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Doug's lying, Ramesses II was brown and straight haired
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: This is why you should always fact-check when people here make claims that are convenient to their racial politics agenda. This is what the actual quote says:
quote:The difference between late XVII and XVIII dynasty royal mummies and contemporary Nubians is slight. During the XVIV and XX dynasties we see possibly some mixing between a Nubian element that is more similar to Mesolithic Nubians (low vaults, sloping frontal bone, etc.), with an orthognathous population. Since the Ramessides were of northern extraction, this could represent miscegenation with modern Mediterraneans of Levantine type. The projecting zygomatic arches of Seti I suggest remnants of the old Natufian/Tasian types of the Holocene period.
The comparison to Nubians only pertains to superficial aspects their neurocrania, not to their entire cranio-facial pattern.
You have no idea how much you're debunking your own claims, do you?
Do you realize that the neurocranium of the Bronze Age European resembles Mesolihtic Nubians in the mentioned traits even more than most of Ramses II's family members?
Which points out the flaws in your methodology of using skulls to determine skin color.
Which is what I have been saying all along.
The only one saying skulls alone and other "objective" metrics are relevant to a discussion about skin color is you. I have been saying this since you brought up the Polish skull but somehow you keep ignoring that.
So actually you invalidated your own point. The similarity or dissimilarity of skulls between two separate populations on different continents has nothing to do with skin color. Yet you keep arguing this point for what? Skin color is skin color and not skull shape.
It is funny how you call the similarity of skull shapes between the Ramessids and "Nubians" superficial, as if those two populations aren't historically, genetically and biologically neighboring populations, yet you tried to claim close "deep" ties between the Ramessids and European skulls, which is totally hypocritical and nonsensical. Come on man your train crashed a long time ago.... you need to give it up.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
You called ancient Egyptians with the cranio-facial pattern of Ramses II "non-black". You're the only one who tried to infer skin color from skeletal remains
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: DOUG is the only one who has repeatedly tried to infer skin color from skeletal remains:
Simply put you are lying out the crack of your behind trying to claim that "mixed" Late Lower Egyptian skulls represent "black people". --Doug M
So do you agree that the skull looks similar to modern Polish people and that the likelihood is high that the person when alive had a similar skin complexion? --Doug M
Nice try but late period Lower Egyptians are not what I mean by the AE being "black". --Doug M
You ethered yourself. Go home before you embarrass yourself further.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
Which points out the flaws in your methodology of using skulls to determine skin color.
Yet Doug after 12 pages has presented no methodology as to what shades of brown* are included in what he prefers to call black
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
According to Doug Milk Duds are black
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
I haven't read this 12 page circular argument. But to the last post. Someone is equating skull shape and skin pigmentation.
So Rameses II is an European now? After the last 4 years of revelation through JAMA we still haven't learned much? Have we?
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: You called ancient Egyptians with the cranio-facial pattern of Ramses II "non-black". You're the only one who tried to infer skin color from skeletal remains
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: DOUG is the only one who has repeatedly tried to infer skin color from skeletal remains:
Simply put you are lying out the crack of your behind trying to claim that "mixed" Late Lower Egyptian skulls represent "black people". --Doug M
So do you agree that the skull looks similar to modern Polish people and that the likelihood is high that the person when alive had a similar skin complexion? --Doug M
Nice try but late period Lower Egyptians are not what I mean by the AE being "black". --Doug M
You ethered yourself. Go home before you embarrass yourself further.
No I didn't. You need to stop lying. I never said anything about skulls at all. In fact the only person who has been saying that skull shape determines skin color is guess who? YOU.
I never said anything about skin color being determined by skull shape.
YOU did.
Skin color is the only metric relevant to the terms black and white. Black and white are not "racial" terms.
You simply don't want to accept this then fine. But that does not change the dictionary and the historical usage of the term as a descriptor of SKIN COLOR.
Understanding and describing human skin color using standard color names as is describing hair color, eye color and so forth. Nobody claims skull shape determines hair color yet as I have been saying even before this thread was created, you cannot determine skin color from skull shape alone. Therefore, the similarity of European skulls to African skulls in any point of time by itself does not prove the skin color of one or the other population. You may infer similarities but that is not hard proof of anything. The only way to determine skin color is through samples of skin tissue or by extracting DNA. Up to this point Swenet has not offered ANY specific data about genetics or melanin content or any other specific biological data related to skin color directly. He only promotes this nonsense that Skull shape alone can be used to infer or determine skin color. As he himself has shown this is totally WRONG and even Keita rejects it.
And the reason this thread has gone as long as it has is because some folks refuse to admit that skin color as a biological trait is something that can be studied scientifically but isn't necessarily correlated with skull shape. Therefore it does not invalidate using color names as adjectives to describe skin color as they are used to describe other parts of the human phenotype.
Like I said, leave skull shape out of this and focus on skin color alone.
THIS is a black Egyptian. And this what I mean by the Ancient Egyptians were black. I mean they had a skin complexion similar to this guy.
Now does anyone disagree with calling this guy black? If so why?
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote: ORiginally posted by Doug M: No I didn't.
Of course you did. Here is another bizarre example:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: In terms of living populations, living Arab and Berber speaking Maghrebis cluster in that same intermediate position, whereas Upper Egyptians gravitate a bit more to Sub-Saharan Africans on the other side of this spectrum.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: That skull looks consistent with modern day Maghrebis and dynastic Lower Egyptians, among other African groups. Stop making a fool out of yourself.
And? Are those modern day Maghrebis and Lower Egyptians black?
^I was talking about a cranio-facial pattern and Doug insists on inserting skin color in the conversaton. SMH.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
Skin color is the only metric relevant to the terms black and white.
Here Doug calls skin color a metric.
A metric is something that can be measured.
Yet after 12 pages he has not presented any way of measuring it
and has not given any relevance as to categorizing human beings as being in one of two groups "black" or "white"
"Whites" the bad ones and "Blacks" the good ones
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote: ORiginally posted by Doug M: No I didn't.
Of course you did. Here is another bizarre example:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: In terms of living populations, living Arab and Berber speaking Maghrebis cluster in that same intermediate position, whereas Upper Egyptians gravitate a bit more to Sub-Saharan Africans on the other side of this spectrum.
And? Are those modern day Maghrebis and Lower Egyptians black?
^I was talking a cranio-facial pattern and Doug inserts skin color in the conversaton.
The topic of this thread is "when to use black and when not to". I would assume that people understand that black or white are references to skin color. If you are saying seriously that you didn't get that point by now there is no help for you.
Craniofacial variation is not skin color variation. Black is a reference to skin color variation not craniofacial variation....
No wonder this thread keeps going because Mr Swenet just wont quit trying to tie the two together when they aren't the same thing.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Craniofacial variation is not skin color variation.
Then why do you utter jibberish like this:
So do you agree that the skull looks similar to modern Polish people and that the likelihood is high that the person when alive had a similar skin complexion? --Doug M
Why would it be "likely" that this Bronze Age warrior had a pale skin color? The answer is you THOUGHT that the Bronze Age warrior closely resembled modern day Europeans and you INFERRED from that erroneous assumption that his skin color must have resembled modern Europeans as well.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
Skin color is the only metric relevant to the terms black and white.
Here Doug calls skin color a metric.
A metric is something that can be measured.
That's not true. Stop spreading lies. If anything, it's the opposite of what you are saying about Doug.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
Skin color is the only metric relevant to the terms black and white.
Here Doug calls skin color a metric.
A metric is something that can be measured.
That's not true. Stop spreading lies. If anything, it's the opposite of what you are saying about Doug.
Your comprehension is off
read it again:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
Skin color is the only metric....
He's right about this. A "metric" is something that can be measured
Darkness or lightness of a color, like somebody's skin or a painting can be measured by laboratory equiptment and assigned a numerical frequency.
So a series of shades between white and black can be illustrated. Then Doug can come in the middle of all of these grays (or browns), pick one based on his remarkable intuitive powers and decide that everything to the left of it is white and everything to the right of it is black. Thus Doug's new two color racial paradigm
But he presents no method for us to do this. People are "Black" or "White" based on whatever he feels like at the moment
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
^ @Lioness, he wrote: Skin color is the only metric relevant to the terms black and white.
This here was no mistake, they got it down as accurate to the nails.
Did you not post this:
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: [QB] ^ @Lioness, he wrote: Skin color is the only metric relevant to the terms black and white.
Yes. A metric is something that can be measured.
Darkness or lightness can be measured.
According to Doug these meaurements can be interpreted as belonging to the White range or belonging to the Black range
I have not misrepresented anything Doug said
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: [QB] ^ @Lioness, he wrote: Skin color is the only metric relevant to the terms black and white.
Yes. A metric is something that can be measured.
Darkness or lightness can be measured.
According to Doug these meaurements can be interpreted as belonging to the White range or belonging to the Black range
I have not misrepresented anything Doug said
Well there you have it. And I doubt you meant what you are claiming here and now.
Here is your pitfall:
"Yet after 12 pages he has not presented any way of measuring it "
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: .
Here is your pitfall:
"Yet after 12 pages he has not presented any way of measuring it " [/QB]
That is not a pitfall
Again, after 12 pages Doug has not presented any method of measuring what is "black" and what is "white"
Posting random pictures of people and saying "this guy's black" is not methodology or comparitive. And if you are dealing with color alone than the comparsion should be people compared to pure color samples.
And if anybody thinks that could be devisive, then they shouldn't keep bringing up color over and over again, it's completely hypocritical
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: .
Here is your pitfall:
"Yet after 12 pages he has not presented any way of measuring it "
That is not a pitfall
Again, after 12 pages Doug has not presented any method of measuring what is "black" and what is "white"
Posting random pictures of people and saying "this guy's black" is not methodology or comparitive. And if you are dealing with color alone than the comparsion should be people compared to pure color samples.
And if anybody thinks that could be devisive, then they shouldn't keep bringing up color over and over again, it's completely hypocritical [/QB]
Lioness, your initial claim was not in support of his statements.
He has never segregated cranial measurements from color complexion. This I noticed from the beginning I started posting here.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: .
Here is your pitfall:
"Yet after 12 pages he has not presented any way of measuring it "
That is not a pitfall
Again, after 12 pages Doug has not presented any method of measuring what is "black" and what is "white"
Posting random pictures of people and saying "this guy's black" is not methodology or comparitive. And if you are dealing with color alone than the comparsion should be people compared to pure color samples.
And if anybody thinks that could be devisive, then they shouldn't keep bringing up color over and over again, it's completely hypocritical
Lioness, your initial claim was not in support of his statements.
He has never segregated cranial measurements from color complexion. This I noticed from the beginning I started posting here. [/QB]
Again, you are tiresome with your constant misinterperations of what people are saying
Doug just said "craniofacial variation is not skin color variation. Black is a reference to skin color variation not craniofacial variation."
Doug can fill you in
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
I am not the one misinterpreting, it was you who made the erroneous error. You now trie to switch it.
Doug just said "craniofacial variation is not skin color variation. Black is a reference to skin color variation not craniofacial variation."
That is correct, since many different shapes can have similar color. I however understand both sides, Doug and Swenet and the implications referred at.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
Here is the point. Changing your words and trying to play according to the "rules" will not change racism in Egyptology.
They are letting you know that they don't care about any debates or disagreements with their racism. Here is your so called 'objective' scholarship.
Here is a write up on that cover. No science on how they came up with a white woman and white male for that cover, when nothing from Egypt suggests such a thing.
Suffice to say, that 'objective' science doesn't exist and changing your language isn't going to address the problem, because if you ask the folks who produced these images, they will say that the "skull shapes" supported such images.....
Year 400 stela and the origin of the Ramessids from Ta Seti/Nubt/Nubia:
quote: King Ramses II, sovereign, who equips the Two Lands with monuments in his name, so that Re rises in heaven for love of him, King Ramses II.
541. His majesty commanded to make a great stela of granite (ynr-n-m 3 '/), in the great name of his fathers, in order that the name of his grandfather, a King Menmare, Son of Re: Seti-Merneptah, might be exalted, enduring and abiding forever, like Re, every day. 542. In the year 400, in the fourth month of the third season, on the fourth day, of the King of Upper and Lower Egypt: Opehtiset ( c 3 -phty-St) ; Son of Re, his beloved : Nubti, b whom Harakhte desires to be forever and ever; came the hereditary prince, governor of the (residence) city, vizier, fan-bearer on the right of the king, chief of bowmen, governor of foreign countries, commandant of the fortress of Tharu (T^-rw), chief of the foreign gendarmes, king's-scribe, master of horse, chief priest of the Ram-god, lord of Mendes, High Priest of Set, ritual priest of Buto-Upet-Towe, chief of prophets of all gods, Seti, triumphant, son of the hereditary prince, governor of the (residence) city, vizier, chief of bowmen, governor of foreign countries, commandant of the fortress of Tharu, king's-scribe, master of horse, Peramses, triumphant; born of the lady (nb't-pr), the musician of Re (P 3 -R c ) y Teya (Ty- 5 ), triumphant. He said: "Hail to thee, O Set, son of Nut, great in strength in the barque of millions of years, overthrowing enemies in front of the barque of Re, great in terror,
But of course, these Europeans twist this to say that the line of "Seti father of Ramses I" came from the Hyksos, knowing full well that Nubti means the city of Nubt where the first temple of Set was created in "Ta SETi" and the king Seti was from Upper Egypt/Nubia(Nubt/City of Gold). These people are simply liars.
quote: Although headed with the full titulary of Ramses II, the document is dated in the four hundredth year of King Opehtiset-Nubti, a Hyksos ruler. This remarkable fact shows that the reign of this king began an era the only one known in Egypt which had survived in use at Tanis into the Ramessid times. a Unfortunately, the stela does not give the year of Ramses II in which it was erected. Wiede- mann dates it, as it seems to me with probability, at Ramses IPs death. In any case, the knowledge of the lapse of 400 years between the Hyksos Nubti and some year of Ramses II is of great value.
So instead of a black Soldier leading black bowmen from Nubt (Nubia) we get that Ramses II went to Tanis and set up his dynasty in homage to a Hyksos king...... The point of setting up shop was to be a warning to future invaders, invoking the god of Nubt (Nubia) Set as defender of the Bark of Ra.....
Ramessid dynasty portraits as depicted in Ancient Egyptian monuments by Ippolito Rosselini:
quote: Fig. 12. Ramses VII. Fig. 13. Ramses IX [Ramses IV]. Fig.14. Ramses X [Ramses IX]. Fig. 15. Amenemses [Amenmesse]. Fig. 16. Nahsctefnèb (Nectanebo) [Nectanebo I ]. Fig. 17. Ramses-Manduhipefsciopsc [Ramses-Mentuherkhepshef].
quote: Fig. 6. Amenôf II [Amenhotep II]. Fig. 7. Ramses I. Fig. 8. Menephtah II [Merneptah]. Fig. 9. Menephtah III [Seti II]. Fig. 10. Uerri [Sethnakhte]. Fig. 11. Ramses VI.
Editors, “Historical introduction” Edwin de Vries, “Eudoxus, explorer extraordinaire” Owen Rees, “Herodotus’ map” Joe Hall, “Pytheas” Judith Weingarten, “Hatshepsut’s expedition to Punt” Sidney Dean, “Romans in Sub-Saharan Africa” (Debate) Jona Lendering, “Exploring the Incense Route” Murray Dahm, “Hanno the Carthaginian” (Source) Features:
Daan Nijssen, “The Median Dark Age” Lucas Petit, “Authentic of Fake?” Mark McCaffery, “The vigiles” Richard Kroes, “Smashing bottles. An archaeologist reads Mark 14:3” Nicola Bergamo, “Porphyrius the charioteer” Christian Koepfer, “Getting wine to the frontier” Jona Lendering, "How do they know? Is that papyrus really old?"
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Here is the point. Changing your words and trying to play according to the "rules" will not change racism in Egyptology.
They are letting you know that they don't care about any debates or disagreements with their racism. Here is your so called 'objective' scholarship.
Here is a write up on that cover. No science on how they came up with a white woman and white male for that cover, when nothing from Egypt suggests such a thing.
I take it, Jona Lendering wrote about Queen Hatshepsut, above?
Jona is editor of Ancient History Magazine. He has read history in Leiden, worked on several excavations in Greece and the Netherlands, and has traveled widely in the Near East. He is the webmaster of Livius.org and the author of several books, including Edge of Empire. Rome’s frontier on the Lower Rhine (with Arjen Bosman). He has also written several pieces for Ancient Warfare.
Today's chief guardian of the Temple of Hatshepsut (Maat Ka-Re)
quote:"There is still some debate regarding the precise location of Punt, which was once identified with the region of modern Somalia. A strong argument has now been made for its location in either southern Sudan or the Eritrean region of Ethiopia, where the indigenous plants and animals equate most closely with those depicted in the Egyptian reliefs and paintings.
-- Ian Shaw, The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt, p. 317, 2003:
Queen Hatshepsut:
Hatshepsut Soldiers
Men of Punt
King and Queen of Punt
Scientists zero in on ancient Land of Punt David Perlman Chronicle Science Editor The San Francisco Chronicle May 08, 2010
Thousands of years ago, there once stood a place called Punt, a land of gold and ebony, and ivory, frankincense and myrrh.
To the pharaohs who built their palaces along the Nile, the Land of Punt was the source of great treasure. Among the most prized were Punt`s leopards and baboons, which they viewed as sacred and took as royal pets.
The pharaohs sent great expeditions to Punt; they welcomed delegations of Puntites to their palaces, and their scribes recorded their gifts and commercial products in detail.
But not one of the Egyptian scribes who wrote about the strange land - Ta netjer, or God`s Land, as it was sometimes called - ever revealed exactly where it lay.
The riddle was left to modern-day scholars to solve.
Now researchers armed with the sophisticated tools of modern physics have tackled the problem and declared that while they still can`t tell exactly where Punt was, they do know where it wasn`t.
Disputes over Punt`s location have gone on for decades. Punt (pronounced Poont), archaeologists have said, was in Mozambique, or Somalia; or on the Sinai Peninsula or in Yemen, or somewhere in Western Asia where Israel, Lebanon and Syria now lie.
Narrowing the search
At a recent meeting in Oakland of the American Research Center in Egypt three scientists announced with confidence they had ruled out all of those five locations, and there was no disagreement from the 300 archaeologists there.
The Land of Punt, the scientist said, must have existed in eastern North Africa - either in the region where Ethiopia and Eritrea confront each other, or east of the Upper Nile in a lowland area of eastern Sudan.
The three experts, all specialists in arcane disciplines, were:
-- Nathaniel J. Dominy, a UC Santa Cruz anthropologist and primate ecologist who studies the lives and habitats of apes, baboons and other monkeys, as well as human evolution;
-- Gillian Leigh Moritz, a specialist in manipulating the mass spectrometer in Dominy`s laboratory to analyze the stable isotopes of oxygen and other elements;
-- Kathryn A. Bard, a Boston University Egyptologist who for nearly 10 years has been excavating the ancient Red Sea harbor of Wadi Gawassis, where royal sailing expeditions were sent to Punt and returned with precious cargo.
The key to solving the mystery of Punt was Dominy`s intimate knowledge of baboon geography - there are five species of the animals, and Dominy can identify the African regions where each one has its specialized habitat. He also knows the characteristics of the body tissue of each species.
"We used baboons as a lens to solve the Punt problem," he said. "They were among the most important commodities brought back to the pharaohs from Punt, but until now no one has known where those baboons came from."
The British Museum in London`s collection of Egyptian antiquities holds two mummified baboons that were once gifts from Punt to the pharaohs, and although museum officials would not allow Dominy to drill into the mummies for bone samples to analyze their DNA, he was allowed to snip a few precious hairs from the baboons for Moritz to work on.
Clues in the water
Despite their age, those hairs still contained trace molecules of the water the animals drank when alive, and Moritz could analyze that water to determine the ratio of two oxygen isotopes in the hairs.
It`s a complicated bit of chemistry, but every oxygen atom is made up of three different stable isotopes - their atomic masses - and the ratio between two of them, oxygen-16 and oxygen-18, varies significantly in the rainfall and humidity from one part of the world to another, even from different parts of a continent.
Moritz used her mass spectrometer in the Dominy lab to determine the oxygen isotope ratios in the hairs of each mummified baboon, and compared them with the ratios in all five species of baboons living in varied parts of Africa today.
"The results of the mass spectrometer showed us that the region of Ethiopia and Eritrea was the place to look for Punt," she said.
Bard, the Boston University Egyptologist, said the findings are convincing and make Punt more real than ever, but she suggests that the land might also have existed in a similar nearby baboon region - perhaps in eastern Sudan.
Remains of ships
The ancient harbor on the Red Sea where Bard is excavating is called Mersa/Wadi Gawassis, and Bard`s excavations have yielded well- preserved ship`s timbers, anchors, coils of ancient rope, and the rigging of seagoing ships that date from the reigns of several Pharaonic dynasties.
From that port, a pharaoh named Amenhotep IV sent a major expedition to Punt some 3,800 years ago during the eighth year of his reign, Bard and her colleagues have discovered.
"We`ve made a wonderful find there," Bard said. "It was really amazing - 40 cargo boxes from the ship, and some were inscribed with the name of that very king, the name of the scribe, and the inscribed words, `wonderful things from Punt.` "
The woman who became pharaoh Kausalya Santhanam The Hindu
December 19, 2008
Queen Hatshepsut`s life reads like a modern best seller. She ruled ancient Egypt for over 15 years.
Her story seems as threaded with love, mystery and murder as a modern best seller. Wearing the false beard that distinguished the rulers of ancient Egypt, Queen Hatshepsut (1473-1458 B.C.) held on to the position of a pharaoh for more than 15 years. Quite a feat considering it was an exclusively male preserve. We arrive at Luxor which was once called Thebes, the capital of ancient Egypt, and embark on a cruise down the Nile. But nothing will make us miss a visit to this extraordinary temple which was constructed by Hatshepsut as a funerary monument for her royal father Thuthmose I and herself. It was designed by Hatshepsut`s great architect Senmut (Was he also her lover?). This monument ensured him a place in Egyptian history along with Imhotep, the architect who designed the first pyramid 1,200 years before him.
The ancient Egyptians strongly believed that life would be perpetuated in the other world, after death. Mortuary temples were constructed by the rulers on a grand scale. We stand lost in admiration as we gaze at the massive rectangular structure which owes its presence to the queen- pharaoh.
The temple appears to spring from the hill of pale brown rock, so fabulous is the architecture, and the vision that built it. It is a most unusual building quite unlike the temples we get to see later in the rest of Egypt, in Philae and Kom Ombo. The temple is dedicated to God Amun, Goddess Hathor – who in the form of a cow was believed to receive the dead in the underworld – and God Anubis. We win brownie points from our guide by pointing out Hathor in the paintings and sculptures, not a difficult task considering the goddess is shown wearing horns.
Hathshepsut was married to Thuthmose II, her half -brother. Although it seems strange and shocking to us today, male royals in ancient Egypt consolidated their claim to the throne by generally marrying their sisters as it was believed that it was the women in the family who carried the royal blood. After the death (was it murder?) of her husband, Hatshepsut assumed power, acting not as just regent but full blown ruler in the place of her stepson and nephew, the future Thuthmose III. It is believed by many that after her death (was she murdered?), Thuthmose III erased her name and likeness from many monuments.
Towering obelisk
We learn that Hatshepsut`s reign was marked by the building of numerous monuments. In the evening at the great temple of Karnak in Luxor, we see the towering obelisk erected by Hatshepsut to worship the god Amun.
The temple of Queen Hatshepsut is located at the head of the plateau known as Deir el -Bahari. The plateau had been the site of the huge funerary complex of pharaoh Mentuhotep III, 500 years before Hatshepsut. Its ruins can be seen near her temple.
As with many ancient structures in Egypt, the temple of the queen was covered in sand which was cleared in the 1890s. The building was restored, it appears, from the fresh look of the steps leading to the terraces. A convent was once located in the temple which explains why it is so well preserved, we are told.
The building is in the form of a vast, three-tiered terrace with wide steps and ramps leading to the final one which has shrines to Hathor, and other gods. The pillars are striking and many of them are crowned by the image of the beautiful pharaoh queen, round faced and smiling. Our guide seems to think that it was a case of “photo-shop,” “because any ruler wants to be remembered as good looking more so if she is a woman.” But he is prejudiced, we discover when we later read accounts that speak of the queen`s beauty.
To reinforce her claim to be the throne, Hatshepsut claimed descent from the gods as was customary with the pharaohs of Egypt. We see pictorial depictions of her “divine” birth, and scenes of innocent childhood, as also of the expedition she sent to the “land of Punt”, thought to be Somalia.
On the hills above can be spotted various caves “where the temple priests lived and were buried.”
Later in the day, when we visit the colossi of Memnon, enormous ruined statues, located a few kms away, we can still see the temple of Queen Hatshepsut.
She was evidently not only an astute wielder of power but also a far-sighted planner who made sure that her monument on the hillside made its presence felt for miles – and through the millennia.
If only her name had not been so difficult to pronounce it might have been even more on people`s lips today, is the tongue–in–cheek comment of the youngest in our tour group, who as usual has the last word.
2008 Kasturi & Sons Ltd
Boxes of wonder help to locate lost land of Punt; The Register Norman Hammond Archaeology Correspondent The Times
January 31, 2006
TREASURES from the lost land of Punt have been found in a cave on the shores of the Red Sea. The discovery may help scholars to relocate Punt, which has long been known by its appearance in Ancient Egyptian art and inscriptions.
More than a score of wooden cargo boxes coated with gypsum were found in the sand-filled cave, one of a series which lies at Wadi Gawasis, just south of Safaga on the western Red Sea coastline and about 300 miles southeast of Cairo. The ancient harbour, now inland from the present beach, lay at the point where an overland trade route from Qena on the Nile, and thus from the southern capital at Thebes and Luxor, reached the sea.
One of the boxes had a painted hieroglyphic inscription with a royal cartouche, probably of the Pharaoh Nimaatra Amenemhat III (1831-1786BC). It dates to Year 8 of his reign, and describes the contents of the box as "The wonderful things of Punt". Exactly what these "wonderful things" are will have to await the opening of the boxes.
Punt is best known from the portrayal of an expedition sent there by Queen Hapshetsut around 1470BC: numerous reliefs on her mortuary temple at Deir el-Bahari in Thebes, near the Valley of the Kings where the only female pharaoh was subsequently entombed, show imaginative and exotic scenes of clearly African, rather than Egyptian, buildings and people. The location of Punt has always clearly been to the south of Egypt, but guesses as to its location have ranged from Sudan to Somalia and Eritrea to Yemen.
The new finds make it clear that Punt was reached by sea: the expedition, led by Professor Kathryn Bard, of Boston University, and Professor Rodolfo Fattovich, of L`Orientale University in Naples, has also found fragments of ships and their gear. Last year the blades of two 6ft steering oars, dating to 1500-1400BC, were found in another of the caves at Wadi Gawasis: this season, ship`s planks of cedar and decking timbers, some with mortise and tenon joints and with their copper fastenings still in place, were also discovered.
The cedar wood came from Lebanon, but the project`s wood specialist, Dr Rainer Gerisch, has also identified pine and two species of oak, all from southwest Asia, and in the past few days he has also
reported the presence of ebony. One cave complex functioned as an arsenal or chandler`s store: inside were found 60 to 80 coils of ship`s rope, which Professor Bard says were "all neatly tied and knotted, just as the sailors left them almost 4,000 years ago".
The Wadi Gawasis maritime base was used for several centuries: seals found included some of Twelfth Dynasty date, roughly 2000-1800BC, as well as a new stela of Amenemhat III bearing all five of his royal names, which have been deciphered by Dr Elsayed Mahfouz, of the University of Alexandria. Twelfth Dynasty copper-working furnaces were discovered last year along the shore of the wadi, as well as clay ovens for making bread moulds: it seems that ships could be repaired and provisioned for their voyages to Punt.
Professor Bard notes that the stratigraphy of these sites demonstrates at least four expeditions to the site from the Nile Valley during this period, while the later date of pottery found with the steering oars makes it possible that they were used in Queen Hatshepsut`s ships on her famous expedition to Punt.
Egyptian officials have taken great pleasure in announcing the discoveries: "For the Ancient Egyptians, Punt was a source of prized goods such as incense, ivory, ebony, gum and the hides of giraffes and panthers that were worn by temple priests," said Dr Zahi Hawass, chairman of the Supreme Council of Antiquities in Cairo. All the pieces are in good shape, and will be moved to museum facilities for restoration and display, he said, noting that the finds confirmed that the Egyptians "were excellent ship builders and had a fleet capable of sailing to remote lands".
It`s time to teach ancient Egypt`s black heritage Atlanta Journal and Constitution May 27, 1990
Charles S. Finch III Charles S. Finch III, M.D., assistant director of international health at the Morehouse School of Medicine, has conducted private studies in Egyptology and African history since 1971.
Until recently, it was assumed in the West that ancient Egypt, though located in Africa, was a "Euro-Asian" culture. This comfortable viewpoint has been challenged in Atlanta and across the country. The issue of Egypt`s origins was an underlying theme at recent seminars attended by administrators and teachers of the Atlanta Public Schools.
Many African-Americans are insisting that the ancient Egyptians, since they originated in the interior of Africa, be depicted in school curricula as blacks. Such insistence has provoked angry denials from legions of whites who take it as an article of faith that the pyramid- builders were Caucasians.
These are not idle questions. Who the ancient Egyptians were, and where they came from, can have important ramifications for interpretations of world history.
While many academics now lament the "racializing" of historical study, such a posture begs the issue. We live in a racially polarized world largely because of the massive distortions of African history perpetuated by academic historians. Redressing the balance by a correct reconstruction of history requires that we understand clearly who did what, where and at what time - impossible without a delineation of the racial origins of the ancient civilization builders.
Clear testimony to the ethnicity of the ancient Egyptians comes from their own inscriptions. Their name for their country was "Kamit." This word - derived from the root "kam," meaning black - denoted "the black land." While this in part referred to the dark soil from the Ethiopian highlands deposited in Egypt during floods, it also referred to the people. Their name for themselves was "kamiu," meaning literally "the blacks."
They claimed that one branch of their ancestors came from Punt, now identified as Somalia on the horn of Africa.
Moreover, their word for "east" - "yabi" - is the same as their word for "left," and their word for "west" - "imen" - is the same as their word for "right." This means that the ancient Egyptians oriented themselves southward despite their northern hemispheric location. No people immigrating into the Nile Valley from the north would have oriented themselves this way.
The Old Testament provides additional evidence of the ancient Egyptians` racial affiliation. The story of Noah in Genesis reveals that his son Ham, the ancestor of all black peoples, had four sons: Mizraim, Cush, Canaan and Phut. Mizraim is the Hebrew word for Egypt and Cush that for Ethiopia, meaning that Egypt and Ethiopia belonged to the same family. Though this genealogy is undoubtedly legendary, it shows that the ancient Hebrew writers, assuredly eyewitnesses, put Egyptians and Ethiopians in the same ethnic category.
More explicit eyewitness testimony comes from the pens of ancient Greek writers. Herodotus, who spent seven months in Egypt around 450 B.C., states that the Egyptians were "black-skinned and woolly-haired." There are more than a dozen other references to the ethnicity of the ancient Egyptians in Greek writings, and they unanimously confirm Herodotus`s assertion.
Those who challenge the identification of the ancient Egyptians as black Africans point to their mural figures. These figures are variously tinted yellow, brown, red and black in different scenes. The hues are cited to disprove the connection to black Africa, or at least to prove that ancient Egypt was a "mixed" culture, neither black nor white.
But this delicate reasoning does not hold up under close examination. While Egyptian murals and reliefs depict people with a range of colorings, the black African Negro predominates. Scene after scene shows this racial type as peasant, priest and pharaoh.
A vignette from the tomb of Seti I portrays individual representatives of the four major peoples with whom the Egyptians were most familiar: an Egyptian, a northern Libyan, a Sudanese and a Western Asiatic. What is noteworthy about the tableau is that the artist drew the Egyptian and Sudanese exactly alike, including black skin color.
Modern technology has also been brought to bear on this question. The late Senegalese polymath Cheikh Anta Diop tested the mummified skin of several 19th-dynasty Egyptians for melanin concentration. He found that all of the specimens showed melanin concentrations comparable to what is found in sub-Saharan Africans. This finding apparently so unnerved museum curators from Paris to Cairo that Dr. Diop was never again allowed to obtain samples of mummified skin.
Much of the argument for a "mixed" ancient Egyptian culture rests on the famous bust of Nefertiti, which depicts a fair-skinned woman assumed to be Caucasian. What is confusing is that other reliefs of Nefertiti show her with the thick lips and broad nostrils characteristic of a Negroid countenance.
But whether Nefertiti is Caucasian or not is beside the point. The presence of a number of whites in the later periods in ancient Egypt says nothing at all about the fundamental ethnic and cultural origins of that people, any more than the presence of 2 million blacks currently in Great Britain reflects on the ethnic origins of that culture.
Linguistic analysis provides further evidence of the African origin of Egyptian civilization. It used to be said that ancient Egyptian belonged to the Semitic language family. In 1920, E.A. Wallis Budge was the first to assert that Egyptian was fundamentally an African language. Later, Dr. Diop of Senegal and Theophile Obenga of the Congo demonstrated that ancient Egyptian exhibited all the characteristics of an African language. Its similarity to the Semitic language s can be attributed either to mutual borrowing in the period after the 18th Egyptian dynasty or a common ancestry for the Semitic and northeast African families in the highlands of Ethiopia.
Finally, Professor Bruce Williams of the University of Chicago`s Oriental Institute has analyzed a group of artifacts recovered from a gravesite at Qustul in northern Sudan. His analysis reveals the presence of a pharaonic civilization there, called Ta-Seti, at least three centuries before the first Egyptian dynasty. This means that Egyptian civilization came down the Nile from the South. No such transitional sequence is traceable from the northeast, where Western Asia lies.
Facing the facts squarely, free from the blinders of racial preconceptions, the inevitable conclusion is that ancient Egypt was a black African civilization.
Chapter 8: Queen Hatasu, and Her Expedition to the Land of Punt." by Amelia Ann Blanford Edwards (1831-1892) Publication: Pharaohs Fellahs and Explorers. by Amelia Edwards. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1891. (First edition.) pp. 261-300.
Men from Punt Carrying Gifts, Tomb of Rekhmire Artist: Nina de Garis Davies (1881–1965) Period: New Kingdom Dynasty: Dynasty 18 Reign: reign of Thutmose III–early Amenhotep II Date: ca. 1479–1420 B.C. Geography: Original from Egypt, Upper Egypt, Thebes, Sheikh Abd el-Qurna, Tomb of Rekhmire (TT 100) Medium: Tempera on paper Dimensions: Facsimile: H. 46 cm (18 1/8 in.); W. 61.5 cm (24 3/16 in.) scale 1:1 Frame: H. 49 cm (19 5/16 in.); W. 65.5 cm (25 13/16 in.) Credit Line: Rogers Fund, 1930 Accession Number: 30.4.152
Why is this a bonus and what was the point of posting all that material from AWH?
Do you agree with that image of Hatshepsut as based on "objective" science and therefore reasonable she isn't depicted as black?
My point is they are liars and have always been liars and the whole point is to continue to lie about AE in every form of public mass communication available. Most research journals are not read by the masses.
Also, much of the secret lore behind European secret societies is widely available online.
Sub-Saharan Africans have traditionally been named by references to their dark skin color. Examples include the term Blacks and in some countries the term Colored. Terms like Negro, Negroid, and Nigger are derived from the Latin Nigrum meaning "black".
This can be seen as problematic since it implies that the defining characteristic is the black skin color. This is disproven by, for example, the existence of albinos in Sub-Saharan Africa. There are also very dark-skinned populations in southern India and in Australia that are darker than some populations in Sub-Saharan Africa. Furthermore, large racial groups are today usually named after their geographic origin (Europeans, East Asians, Amerindians, etc). The geographic origin is a characteristic shared by all members of a race unlike skin color.
This article will therefore for clarity use the term Sub-Saharan Africans which is commonly used in the scientific literature.
Why is this a bonus and what was the point of posting all that material from AWH?
Do you agree with that image of Hatshepsut as based on "objective" science and therefore reasonable she isn't depicted as black?
My point is they are liars and have always been liars and the whole point is to continue to lie about AE in every form of public mass communication available. Most research journals are not read by the masses.
Also, much of the secret lore behind European secret societies is widely available online.
If you can't understand my posts, then I can't help you here. Sorry. In my research I always go to the core to understand the problem. This is why I some times post "off", while it's on point.
If you can't see that my posts are actually supportive for you, then I can't help you. I even posted original ancient material versus what eurocetrics post as supposed "real art". I did so, to show people how they are misleading the public.
You are stuck in defensiveness. This is what many people have told you in this thread. This then leads to not being able to see when someone posts with a certain supportive purpose. This has happened over and over in this thread. Yet, you ask me what my point is, when I show you the ridiculousness of daughters of the nile.com /temples/ hatasu1. These people obviously aren't daughters of the nile. But euros will attack black people for making these comparatives being daughters of the nile. It shows what the mindset is about. Daughters of the nile.com appears as a secret societies. Secret societies usually have members who are "educated".
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Gebor your posts are too big. This is supposed to be a dialog. a conversation not where everybody posts long recommended reading materials
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
Doug, are Sub Saharan African Albinos White or Black?
He he he he he. I know you feel trapped answering this question. Lulz
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: [QB] Here is the point. Changing your words and trying to play according to the "rules" will not change racism in Egyptology.
They are letting you know that they don't care about any debates or disagreements with their racism. Here is your so called 'objective' scholarship.
Here is a write up on that cover. No science on how they came up with a white woman and white male for that cover, when nothing from Egypt suggests such a thing.
Suffice to say, that 'objective' science doesn't exist and changing your language isn't going to address the problem, because if you ask the folks who produced these images, they will say that the "skull shapes" supported such images.....
Right, semantics are not going to solve the problem The above are pop history magazines Yes, the best form of protest for this is not to argue they use they word "black". Look at what Nat Geo did. They used the word black, but selectively "The Black Pharoahs" and the message was only the 25th dynasty was black. Forget the words. We have the art. Their Tut doesn't match the skin tone of the Egyptian art, period. Ramesses same problem That is what needs to be pointed out - in an organized letter protest,
Instead of writing book length arguments in Egyptsearch forum preaching to the converted it's better to write to the editors and letters section and instead of saying they are racists (even if they are) just ask them politely why their art doesn't match the skin tones depicted in the Egyptian art and put in URL links
And the proper thing to do is to do an overview of Egyptology magazines and history magazines to see how many are doing these inaccurate illustrations. Many I've seen in a google search use the original Egyptian art on the cover rather than these Hollywood influenced items above. Obviously big feature films have much larger visibility.
Exodus and Gods of Egypt took heat for inaccurate casting The best thing to do is that when word is out of another Egyptian themed movie people do an organized letter campaign the producer and director and threaten to write articles if they are not sensitive in the casting
quote:
‘Gods of Egypt’ Director, Studio Apologize for Lack of Diverse Casting: ‘We Can Do Better’
“Gods of Egypt” director Alex Proyas and the film’s studio, Lionsgate, have issued apologies for the lack of diverse casting in the mythological action film, which has generated controversy for its predominantly white cast.
Proyas issued a statement apologizing for the lack of racial diversity in the cast on Friday. “The process of casting a movie has many complicated variables, but it is clear that our casting choices should have been more diverse. I sincerely apologize to those who are offended by the decisions we made.” Lionsgate also acknowledged the need for more inclusive casting in a statement obtained by Variety, which reads: “We recognize that it is our responsibility to help ensure that casting decisions reflect the diversity and culture of the time periods portrayed. In this instance we failed to live up to our own standards of sensitivity and diversity, for which we sincerely apologize. Lionsgate is deeply committed to making films that reflect the diversity of our audiences. We have, can and will continue to do better.”
^^^ This is actually progress. The issue is being raised instead of not being raised. Gods of Egypt, an upcoming action film, should have known better but at least they are apologizing in advance.
I suspect big feature movies on Egypt will improve their casting in the near future --if we organize
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: Terminology
Sub-Saharan Africans have traditionally been named by references to their dark skin color. Examples include the term Blacks and in some countries the term Colored. Terms like Negro, Negroid, and Nigger are derived from the Latin Nigrum meaning "black".
This can be seen as problematic since it implies that the defining characteristic is the black skin color. This is disproven by, for example, the existence of albinos in Sub-Saharan Africa. There are also very dark-skinned populations in southern India and in Australia that are darker than some populations in Sub-Saharan Africa. Furthermore, large racial groups are today usually named after their geographic origin (Europeans, East Asians, Amerindians, etc). The geographic origin is a characteristic shared by all members of a race unlike skin color.
This article will therefore for clarity use the term Sub-Saharan Africans which is commonly used in the scientific literature.
That is the fundamental point. Black skin occurs across the entire African continent and outside of Africa.
In relation to ancient Egypt the debate is not really a debate. Black skin obviously occurs in Egypt and Sudan and therefore is not limited to being "south" of the Sahara. Some of the blackest populations in Africa are found in Sudan and Upper Egypt. So when I say black I am referring to that and nothing else.
Meaning, that the AE were as dark as some of the darkest Africans on the continent, even though there was variation as in any population in Africa.
Those are the baseline facts. Skin color exists on all humans. Africans are primarily black skinned due to tropical adaptation including ancient Egyptians.
This has always been the crux of the issue when it comes to Egypt, trying to claim some 'special exception' as why Ancient Egyptians would not have been black yet right next to Sudan.
Sub Saharan has nothing to do with it. European skulls have nothing to do with it. Cranial metrics are not enough to determine skin color. Tissue samples and analysis are used to determine skin color. White racists historically and to this day have used cranial metrics to categorize populations into "races", ie. Caucasoid or Negroid even though they claim to be objective. White racists still claim that the AE were white even though no evidence supports it.
Those folks claiming to want to be "obejctive" given the historical fact of racism in academia and science on this issue are normally passive aggressive trolls who support the racists....
Calling black folks black is not racist and neither is calling white folks white. Yet this is the strawman tactic used by passive agressive trolls to try and shut down the argument. However, they never argue with white folks continually representing the AE as white. They never challenge the representation of skin color when it comes to AE.
But they come to places like this and challenge the usage of the word black.
This thread is a perfect example of all the above.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
On point. Close thread....
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: Terminology
Sub-Saharan Africans have traditionally been named by references to their dark skin color. Examples include the term Blacks and in some countries the term Colored. Terms like Negro, Negroid, and Nigger are derived from the Latin Nigrum meaning "black".
This can be seen as problematic since it implies that the defining characteristic is the black skin color. This is disproven by, for example, the existence of albinos in Sub-Saharan Africa. There are also very dark-skinned populations in southern India and in Australia that are darker than some populations in Sub-Saharan Africa. Furthermore, large racial groups are today usually named after their geographic origin (Europeans, East Asians, Amerindians, etc). The geographic origin is a characteristic shared by all members of a race unlike skin color.
This article will therefore for clarity use the term Sub-Saharan Africans which is commonly used in the scientific literature.
That is the fundamental point. Black skin occurs across the entire African continent and outside of Africa.
In relation to ancient Egypt the debate is not really a debate. Black skin obviously occurs in Egypt and Sudan and therefore is not limited to being "south" of the Sahara. Some of the blackest populations in Africa are found in Sudan and Upper Egypt. So when I say black I am referring to that and nothing else.
Meaning, that the AE were as dark as some of the darkest Africans on the continent, even though there was variation as in any population in Africa.
Those are the baseline facts. Skin color exists on all humans. Africans are primarily black skinned due to tropical adaptation including ancient Egyptians.
This has always been the crux of the issue when it comes to Egypt, trying to claim some 'special exception' as why Ancient Egyptians would not have been black yet right next to Sudan.
Sub Saharan has nothing to do with it. European skulls have nothing to do with it. Cranial metrics are not enough to determine skin color. Tissue samples and analysis are used to determine skin color. White racists historically and to this day have used cranial metrics to categorize populations into "races", ie. Caucasoid or Negroid even though they claim to be objective. White racists still claim that the AE were white even though no evidence supports it.
Those folks claiming to want to be "obejctive" given the historical fact of racism in academia and science on this issue are normally passive aggressive trolls who support the racists....
Calling black folks black is not racist and neither is calling white folks white. Yet this is the strawman tactic used by passive agressive trolls to try and shut down the argument. However, they never argue with white folks continually representing the AE as white. They never challenge the representation of skin color when it comes to AE.
But they come to places like this and challenge the usage of the word black.
This thread is a perfect example of all the above.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
Calling black folks black is not racist and neither is calling white folks white.
Wrong.
Both of the terms are racist because they stereotype color.
Most people of European descent and people of African descent (mainly in America) accept and like the concept of race and they like calling themsleves these racist words.
But try calling a light skinned Japanese person "white" see what they do. You will find out instantly that your color system doesn't work logically and multi millions of people DON'T want to have their primary identity a color. Why would they? It's already been demonstrated that dark skinned people live in the Northern hemisphere as well. And this is the age of genetics where we can go to a deeper level and see people's true affinities rather than think skin color determines everything
People of European descent have decided they are "white" . That is garbage. They are not that color. People of African descent in America and Europe are not in power so they have decided "well if you insist on being white then we'll be the opposite, we are mainly brown skinned but we'll play your stereotype game and call ourselves black"
So both sides are "happy"
Yet there's a campaign going that Black lives matter and people getting shot in the back So no, this splitting humanity into color stereotypes "black" and "white" in constant compettiton is not going to make everyone happy
If you want to eliminate racism start by getting rid of the false color stereotypes, begin with "white"
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
Why is this a bonus and what was the point of posting all that material from AWH?
Do you agree with that image of Hatshepsut as based on "objective" science and therefore reasonable she isn't depicted as black?
My point is they are liars and have always been liars and the whole point is to continue to lie about AE in every form of public mass communication available. Most research journals are not read by the masses.
Also, much of the secret lore behind European secret societies is widely available online.
If you can't understand my posts, then I can't help you here. Sorry. In my research I always go to the core to understand the problem. This is why I some times post "off", while it's on point.
If you can't see that my posts are actually supportive for you, then I can't help you. I even posted original ancient material versus what eurocetrics post as supposed "real art". I did so, to show people how they are misleading the public.
You are stuck in defensiveness. This is what many people have told you in this thread. This then leads to not being able to see when someone posts with a certain supportive purpose. This has happened over and over in this thread. Yet, you ask me what my point is, when I show you the ridiculousness of daughters of the nile.com /temples/ hatasu1. These people obviously aren't daughters of the nile. But euros will attack black people for making these comparatives being daughters of the nile. It shows what the mindset is about. Daughters of the nile.com appears as a secret societies. Secret societies usually have members who are "educated".
I am not defensive I say what I mean. In other words, that depiction of Hatshepsut is bull sh*t and I am not afraid to call it as historical racist propaganda.
So you aren't supporting me you are either supporting facts are you are not. Either you are standing up for what is right or you are not. And that is the crux of the issue when it comes to the word black.
Even beyond skin color, look at the image and you will see it is pure fantasy nonsense. Look at her hair which looks straight like Sigourney Weaver or something. Who is this bald head dude in the front? Senenmut? Where did you ever see Senenmut depicted as bald? All of it is blatantly inaccurate nonsense.....
And this is supposed to be a historical magazine based on facts and evidence yet this is what we get.
It just proves that this battle isn't being won by being nice to racists or pretending that racism doesn't still exist.
Over and over the AE themselves say in their own monuments and documents that they look to the South as the place of their origin. The earliest dynasties arose in Ta Seti and Nubt (the first nome of AE). The prophecies of Neferti of Amenhemet in the Middle Kingdom. The invasions and unrest were put down by alliances with bowmen from Ta Seti and Nubt (the first nome of AE). The 18th dynasty is founded by Southerners in alliances stretching deep into Sudan as the Southern Opet. The voyages of Hatshepsut to Southern Lands as the lands of the ancestors. The Origin of the Ramessids under Seti from Ta Seti Nubt. Again and again you have the AE showing clearly that among all other people they were most closely tied to the South, yet white scholars consistently try and inject white folks into this some kind of way, implying that there were these roving bands of white folks all over the Southern and Eastern deserts that the Egyptians were in league with. That has been consistent since France started plundering Egypt.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
Even beyond skin color, look at the image and you will see it is pure fantasy nonsense. Look at her hair which looks straight like Sigourney Weaver or something.
Mummy of Queen Tiye
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Like I said, skin color doesn't equal race.
That fabrication went out of the window when you betrayed your real agenda. You implied that having a skin color that falls in the range of 'black' and being a somewhat(?) mixed dynastic Lower Egyptian are mutually exclusive.
Simply put you are lying out the crack of your behind trying to claim that "mixed" Late Lower Egyptian skulls represent "black people". --Doug M
Or this gem that reveals the non-skin color/racial connotation Doug applies to the term 'black':
Nice try but late period Lower Egyptians are not what I mean by the AE being "black". --Doug M
Mixed Africans in the diaspora fall in the 'black' skin pigmentation range, but mixed Lower Egyptians don't? How is this use of black not tainted with racial connotations? SMH.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Like I said, skin color doesn't equal race.
That fabrication went out of the window when you betrayed your real agenda. You implied that having a skin color that falls in the range of 'black' and being a somewhat(?) mixed dynastic Lower Egyptian are mutually exclusive.
Simply put you are lying out the crack of your behind trying to claim that "mixed" Late Lower Egyptian skulls represent "black people". --Doug M
Or this gem that reveals the non-skin color/racial connotation Doug applies to the term 'black':
Nice try but late period Lower Egyptians are not what I mean by the AE being "black". --Doug M
Mixed Africans in the diaspora fall in the 'black' skin pigmentation range, but mixed Lower Egyptians don't? How is this use of black not tainted with racial connotations? SMH.
Swenet. You have been avoiding the point since page one, which is the AE were black Africans. Now you want to sit here and talk about who was mixed and who wasn't and who looked like Europeans.
Obviously what you really are saying is you don't believe the AE were black folks.
Stop trying to twist it. That is why you don't want to call them black, because you don't believe they were black.
By now this is obvious because otherwise this wouldn't have gone past page 2.
According to Swenet, when you say 'black' you have to include Northern Europeans into the mix. As if Northern Europe is anybody's homeland of black people...... Seriously.
quote: What do you do when people akin to the ancestors of pale northwestern Europe had dark skin somewhere within the range of African Americans during most of their stay in Europe? What implications does that have for the premise that "white" and "black" are fundamentally opposite and the idea that 'black' neatly excludes European ancestry/people?
This is the problem with the whole so called "objective" argument. They want to include everybody and the kitchen sink in Ancient Egypt because Ancient Egypt just can't be black by itself. Nope. We got to include Europeans into this mix some kind of way, even though NO scientist calls the environment of Europe the basis for black skin. We can't just accept what Keita says....
quote: Responds to M. J. Zyphur's (see record 2006-01690-012) comments on the original article by A. Smedley and B. D. Smedley (see record 2005-00117-003). Race, as people live and understand it, inhabits a dimension of reality that transcends biology and cannot be reduced to genes, chromosomes, or even phenotypes. A biological or genetic view of race cannot encompass the lived social reality of race, nor does it represent biogenetic variations in human populations very well (Marks, 1995). As Zyphur notes, biogenetic variations in the human species were produced by evolutionary forces as different groups interacted with and underwent adaptation to the natural environments encountered in their migrations. The result was a pattern of variation that should be familiar to everyone: People with dark skin coloring remained adapted to tropical environments (with some internal variations resulting from amounts of tree cover, land elevation, rainfall, etc.). Peoples of tropical lands thus resemble one another in their varying shades of dark skin color and often curly or frizzy hair (known as polytopicity). Some of the darkest skins are found not in Africa but in India, Sri Lanka, Melanesia, and Northern Australia, as anyone who watched the news coverage of the recent tsunami would readily recognize. Groups migrating beyond the tropical areas gradually lost genes for dark skin as they adapted to cooler climates with less sunlight. Geneticists have shown that just as no two individuals are genetically alike (except for identical twins), no two human groups are precisely alike, even when they derive from a common ancestral population. Biogenetic variation has continued to increase as individuals once widely separated meet and mate. Quite apart from the controversy over races as biological taxa, the idea of race as it is known and lived in American society is composed of social values and meanings imposed on this biological variation over the past three or four centuries. As a social construct, race refers to an ideology. Since the 18th century, Americans and many other people in the world have been conditioned to believe that race as biology is the main source of human identities. As Americans have come into contact with peoples around the world, confusion has inevitably ensued, because U.S. racial categories do not necessarily apply in other countries. Given the complexity of the human genome and the history of (continuous) intermixtures, I doubt if it will ever be possible to correlate our genes with our racial (i.e., social) identities. Nor can I imagine at this point why anyone should want to do so. What service to society or science will this fulfill? Social constructs have their own complex dynamics and are vulnerable to change, just as is any other cultural phenomenon. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
But that isn't good enough for Swenet. Nope. Africans can't be black by themselves, we have to go searching far and wide for Europeans and other populations outside of Africa and other tropical environments to include in this when NOBODY ELSE said anything about the skin color of Europeans being the basis of, standard for or definition of the word black. NOBODY said this except Swenet. But rather than acknowledging what is being said he keeps throwing Europeans into the mix, trying to claim that since European skulls were similar to some AE skulls, we can't call the AE black. How come this only applies to AE? If so-called Nubian skulls and other African skulls are similar to European skulls then doesn't this mean that Africans and Europeans have the same skin color? Of course not. But rather than admitting what Keita himself already acknowledged, that cranial similarity has nothing to do with skin color, Swenet keeps riding the dead pony trying to spin the story into someone denying European historical diversity in skin color.....
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Do you realize that the neurocranium of the Bronze Age European resembles Mesolihtic Nubians in the mentioned traits even more than most of Ramses II's family members?
Please. Give me a break with that nonsense. If the skin color of those European skulls was the same as "Nubians" or Sudanese then of course those folks were BLACK. But the problem is that the similarities in skull shape don't prove similarity of skin color.
According to Swenet, the following scholarly article says that Europeans were basically the same complexion as Africans 8,000 years ago and maybe even later. But here is the problem, we know that skin color changes were taking place before that time and we know that those changes spread to the entire population of Europe and it didn't happen overnight. Therefore, there could have been many "shades" of skin color in Europe present 8,000 years ago. That is for certain. And what is also certain is that Europe isn't Africa and what was happening to the skin color of Europeans was NOT happening in Africa. So whatever ranges of skin color were in Europe 8,000 years ago, it probably did not match that of most Africans, including the AE. So trying to say that the AE and those Europeans had the same skin complexion without more evidence for the actual skin complexion of said Europeans is ridiculous. It is basically a nonstarter. All of this goes back to the point I have made multiple times. The only way to determine skin color is through skin tissue. Skulls don't tell the story. And trying to use skulls alone to imply or suggest the skin color of a population is inaccurate at best and totally wrong at worst. Yet this is precisely what Swenet wants to do and this is precisely why his whole 'objective' scientific approach that relies on skulls and DNA alone without skin tissue samples is flawed.
quote: According to a new study reported in Science Magazine, it has been found that Caucasions are the product of “a patchwork of evolution in different places” across Europe, while scientist have discovered three genes that produce light skin – both of which have played a part in the lightening of Europeans’ skin colour over the past 8,000 years.
Since researchers began to sequence the genome of ancient populations last year, it has been discovered that Europeans today are the product of hunter gatherers and farmers of at least three ancient populations having mixed together during their migration to the continent over the past 8,000 years.
By comparing key parts of DNA across the genomes of 83 ancient humans from European archaeological sites with recent ones from the 1000 Genomes Project, Iain Matheison of Harvard University’s lab of population, and geneticist David Reich, discovered the genes linked to skin pigmentation that had survived the natural selection process across Europe.
When modern humans first travelled from Africa to the continent around 40,000 years ago they had darker skin, which was still seen in Spain, Luxembourg and Hungary around 8,500 years ago.
These humans lacked two genes – SLC24A5 and SLC45A2 – which lead to the depigmentation and lightening of the skin. But in the far north, ancient bodies in Sweden from 7,700 years ago were found to have both these genes, and a third causing blue eyes, meaning they were pale-skinned and blue-eyed.
Once the first farmers from the near East began to arrive in Europe, and who carried both genes for light skin, they began breeding with the “indigenous hunter gatherers”. One of the depigmentation genes became prominent throughout Europe to the point where central and southern Europeans developed lighter skin.
yet the populating of Eurasia goes back 60K or more and Europe 35-45kya
7,000-Year-Old Man Had Dark Skin And Blue Eyes; DNA From ‘La Braña 1’ Taken From Ancient Tooth
7,000-Year-Old Man Had Dark Skin And Blue Eyes; DNA From ‘La Braña 1’ Taken From Ancient Tooth [PHOTO] BY ZOE MINTZ @ZOEMINTZ ON 01/27/14 AT 11:49 AM
La Braña 1, the name used to baptize a 7,000-year-old individual from the Mesolithic Period, had blue eyes and dark skin. PHOTO: CSIC The remains of a 7,000-year-old man have shed light on how ancient European hunter-gatherers may have looked.
Dubbed La Braña 1, the remains recovered at the La Braña-Arintero archeological site in Valdelugueros, Spain, included a wisdom tooth. DNA taken from the tooth suggests he had blue eyes, dark hair and dark skin. The findings, published in the journal Nature, also suggest that light skin developed not just because of Europe's relatively low-light conditions, but also due to hunter-gatherers' diet and environment.
"Before we started this work, I had some ideas of what we were going to find," Carles Lalueza-Fox, who led the study at the Institute of Evolutionary Biology in Barcelona, told the Guardian. "Most of those ideas turned out to be completely wrong."
Many scientists have supported the theory that lighter skin in Europeans developed approximately 40,000 years ago after humans migrated from tropical Africa. The latest discovery suggests this adaptation took longer than previously thought and instead occurred just 7,000 years ago.
"It was assumed that the lighter skin was something needed in high latitudes to synthesize vitamin D in places where UV light is lower than in the tropics," Lalueza-Fox told LiveScience.
Instead, the findings suggest that light skin was not wholly developed due to high latitudes, because that adaptation would have taken place thousands of years earlier, Lalueza-Fox said.
Besides skin color, the eye color suggested by the hunter-gatherer's DNA came as another surprise, since the mutation that causes blue eyes was thought to have developed earlier than the mutation that affects light skin color.
"Even more surprising was to find that he possessed the genetic variations that produce blue eyes in current Europeans, resulting in a unique phenotype in a genome that is otherwise clearly northern European," Lalueza-Fox said.
La Braña 1 was first discovered in 2006 when a group of cavers found two skeletons in the Cantabrian Mountains of northwest Spain. The cave’s cool environment preserved the remains of two men believed to be in their early thirties. Using the better-preserved of the two skeletons, scientists made several attempts before successfully reconstructing the man’s genome.
The researchers say their next attempt will be to perform the same task on the lesser-preserved skeleton, La Braña 2, in hopes of gaining a better understanding of early Europeans.
The findings also suggest that La Braña 1 may be a common ancestor of a 24,000-year-old boy found at Mal’ta near Lake Baikal in eastern Siberia. The boy’s DNA indicates he most likely had brown hair, brown eyes and freckled skin.
"These data indicate that there is genetic continuity in the populations of central and western Eurasia. In fact, these data are consistent with other archeological remains, similar to those found in excavations in Europe and Russia, including the site of Mal'ta, where anthropomorphic figures called Paleolithic Venus have been recovered, and they are very similar to each other," Lalueza-Fox says.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: They want to include everybody and the kitchen sink in Ancient Egypt because Ancient Egypt just can't be black by itself.
That's it. Keep showing your secret discomfort with the inconvenient implications of your claim that 'black' refers to skin color only. You want to cite the dictionary that 'black' refers to all dark skinned people above a certain threshold, but closer examination has exposed that you adhere to this dictionary ONLY when it doesn't upset your racial politics agenda.
Because that's all it really is. You want black reserved for Africans and other equatorial and southern hemisphere people so you can pit them against modern day Europeans. Your agenda is embarrassingly transparent. God forbid that we add Bronze Age Europeans with dark skin pigmentation genes to this grouping. That would complicate the racial politics agenda, wouldn't it?
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: You have been avoiding the point since page one, which is the AE were black Africans.
You didn't like my answer and felt at a loss because you didn't know how to tackle it. Don't try to window dress your failures, Doug.
Posted by JMT2 (Member # 16951) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Like I said, skin color doesn't equal race.
That fabrication went out of the window when you betrayed your real agenda. You implied that having a skin color that falls in the range of 'black' and being a somewhat(?) mixed dynastic Lower Egyptian are mutually exclusive.
Simply put you are lying out the crack of your behind trying to claim that "mixed" Late Lower Egyptian skulls represent "black people". --Doug M
Or this gem that reveals the non-skin color/racial connotation Doug applies to the term 'black':
Nice try but late period Lower Egyptians are not what I mean by the AE being "black". --Doug M
Mixed Africans in the diaspora fall in the 'black' skin pigmentation range, but mixed Lower Egyptians don't? How is this use of black not tainted with racial connotations? SMH.
Swenet. You have been avoiding the point since page one, which is the AE were black Africans. Now you want to sit here and talk about who was mixed and who wasn't and who looked like Europeans.
Obviously what you really are saying is you don't believe the AE were black folks.
Stop trying to twist it. That is why you don't want to call them black, because you don't believe they were black.
By now this is obvious because otherwise this wouldn't have gone past page 2.
According to Swenet, when you say 'black' you have to include Northern Europeans into the mix. As if Northern Europe is anybody's homeland of black people...... Seriously.
quote: What do you do when people akin to the ancestors of pale northwestern Europe had dark skin somewhere within the range of African Americans during most of their stay in Europe? What implications does that have for the premise that "white" and "black" are fundamentally opposite and the idea that 'black' neatly excludes European ancestry/people?
This is the problem with the whole so called "objective" argument. They want to include everybody and the kitchen sink in Ancient Egypt because Ancient Egypt just can't be black by itself. Nope. We got to include Europeans into this mix some kind of way, even though NO scientist calls the environment of Europe the basis for black skin. We can't just accept what Keita says....
quote: Responds to M. J. Zyphur's (see record 2006-01690-012) comments on the original article by A. Smedley and B. D. Smedley (see record 2005-00117-003). Race, as people live and understand it, inhabits a dimension of reality that transcends biology and cannot be reduced to genes, chromosomes, or even phenotypes. A biological or genetic view of race cannot encompass the lived social reality of race, nor does it represent biogenetic variations in human populations very well (Marks, 1995). As Zyphur notes, biogenetic variations in the human species were produced by evolutionary forces as different groups interacted with and underwent adaptation to the natural environments encountered in their migrations. The result was a pattern of variation that should be familiar to everyone: People with dark skin coloring remained adapted to tropical environments (with some internal variations resulting from amounts of tree cover, land elevation, rainfall, etc.). Peoples of tropical lands thus resemble one another in their varying shades of dark skin color and often curly or frizzy hair (known as polytopicity). Some of the darkest skins are found not in Africa but in India, Sri Lanka, Melanesia, and Northern Australia, as anyone who watched the news coverage of the recent tsunami would readily recognize. Groups migrating beyond the tropical areas gradually lost genes for dark skin as they adapted to cooler climates with less sunlight. Geneticists have shown that just as no two individuals are genetically alike (except for identical twins), no two human groups are precisely alike, even when they derive from a common ancestral population. Biogenetic variation has continued to increase as individuals once widely separated meet and mate. Quite apart from the controversy over races as biological taxa, the idea of race as it is known and lived in American society is composed of social values and meanings imposed on this biological variation over the past three or four centuries. As a social construct, race refers to an ideology. Since the 18th century, Americans and many other people in the world have been conditioned to believe that race as biology is the main source of human identities. As Americans have come into contact with peoples around the world, confusion has inevitably ensued, because U.S. racial categories do not necessarily apply in other countries. Given the complexity of the human genome and the history of (continuous) intermixtures, I doubt if it will ever be possible to correlate our genes with our racial (i.e., social) identities. Nor can I imagine at this point why anyone should want to do so. What service to society or science will this fulfill? Social constructs have their own complex dynamics and are vulnerable to change, just as is any other cultural phenomenon. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
But that isn't good enough for Swenet. Nope. Africans can't be black by themselves, we have to go searching far and wide for Europeans and other populations outside of Africa and other tropical environments to include in this when NOBODY ELSE said anything about the skin color of Europeans being the basis of, standard for or definition of the word black. NOBODY said this except Swenet. But rather than acknowledging what is being said he keeps throwing Europeans into the mix, trying to claim that since European skulls were similar to some AE skulls, we can't call the AE black. How come this only applies to AE? If so-called Nubian skulls and other African skulls are similar to European skulls then doesn't this mean that Africans and Europeans have the same skin color? Of course not. But rather than admitting what Keita himself already acknowledged, that cranial similarity has nothing to do with skin color, Swenet keeps riding the dead pony trying to spin the story into someone denying European historical diversity in skin color.....
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Do you realize that the neurocranium of the Bronze Age European resembles Mesolihtic Nubians in the mentioned traits even more than most of Ramses II's family members?
Please. Give me a break with that nonsense. If the skin color of those European skulls was the same as "Nubians" or Sudanese then of course those folks were BLACK. But the problem is that the similarities in skull shape don't prove similarity of skin color.
According to Swenet, the following scholarly article says that Europeans were basically the same complexion as Africans 8,000 years ago and maybe even later. But here is the problem, we know that skin color changes were taking place before that time and we know that those changes spread to the entire population of Europe and it didn't happen overnight. Therefore, there could have been many "shades" of skin color in Europe present 8,000 years ago. That is for certain. And what is also certain is that Europe isn't Africa and what was happening to the skin color of Europeans was NOT happening in Africa. So whatever ranges of skin color were in Europe 8,000 years ago, it probably did not match that of most Africans, including the AE. So trying to say that the AE and those Europeans had the same skin complexion without more evidence for the actual skin complexion of said Europeans is ridiculous. It is basically a nonstarter. All of this goes back to the point I have made multiple times. The only way to determine skin color is through skin tissue. Skulls don't tell the story. And trying to use skulls alone to imply or suggest the skin color of a population is inaccurate at best and totally wrong at worst. Yet this is precisely what Swenet wants to do and this is precisely why his whole 'objective' scientific approach that relies on skulls and DNA alone without skin tissue samples is flawed.
quote: According to a new study reported in Science Magazine, it has been found that Caucasions are the product of “a patchwork of evolution in different places” across Europe, while scientist have discovered three genes that produce light skin – both of which have played a part in the lightening of Europeans’ skin colour over the past 8,000 years.
Since researchers began to sequence the genome of ancient populations last year, it has been discovered that Europeans today are the product of hunter gatherers and farmers of at least three ancient populations having mixed together during their migration to the continent over the past 8,000 years.
By comparing key parts of DNA across the genomes of 83 ancient humans from European archaeological sites with recent ones from the 1000 Genomes Project, Iain Matheison of Harvard University’s lab of population, and geneticist David Reich, discovered the genes linked to skin pigmentation that had survived the natural selection process across Europe.
When modern humans first travelled from Africa to the continent around 40,000 years ago they had darker skin, which was still seen in Spain, Luxembourg and Hungary around 8,500 years ago.
These humans lacked two genes – SLC24A5 and SLC45A2 – which lead to the depigmentation and lightening of the skin. But in the far north, ancient bodies in Sweden from 7,700 years ago were found to have both these genes, and a third causing blue eyes, meaning they were pale-skinned and blue-eyed.
Once the first farmers from the near East began to arrive in Europe, and who carried both genes for light skin, they began breeding with the “indigenous hunter gatherers”. One of the depigmentation genes became prominent throughout Europe to the point where central and southern Europeans developed lighter skin.
One last thing I wanted to address out of that misrepresentation and misinformation riddled post. Just so my refusal to engage Doug's incompetence and the restrained tone in my previous reply aren't misconstrued as that he somehow has a point (this is for those who can't tell who is right in this regard, because people in the know, know what I'm talking about, anyway):
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Therefore, there could have been many "shades" of skin color in Europe present 8,000 years ago. That is for certain.
Just being a homozygote for the following derived skin pigmentation gene, already explains almost 30% of the skin pigmentation variation in South Asia and, all things being equal, literally makes the difference between having swarthy skin vs having medium brown skin:
Our data confirm significant association of rs1426654 SNP with skin pigmentation, explaining about 27% of total phenotypic variation in the cohort studied. --Moorjani et al 2013
^Only a tiny minority of the sampled South Asian homozygotes for the derived gene were brown skinned and none of the sampled homozygotes for the ancestral gene were pale or even swarthy. In dark skinned populations with ancestry that's reasonably close to prehistoric Europeans, it's that simple.
The significance? The South Asians who were GG (ancestral genotype) for SLC24A5 and who had their their skin pigmentation levels measured, all centered around the melanin average of African Americans (i.e. they had an MI of 48 and higher while the African American sample's MI averages 53.4 and their range is 32–80). Mesolithic European hunter gatherers were almost exclusively GG for this gene and a strong case can be made that the small sample that wasn't consistently GG had admixture from elsewhere.
No ifs, buts, maybes or that "cold climate" bs. And this paper only tested the effects of one of several light skin pigmentation genes that most prehistoric Europeans didn't have.
Posted by Nodnarb (Member # 3735) on :
Re: the Bronze Age Polish guy, the claim that he in particular was "dark-skinned" isn't based on actual pigmentation data:
quote:The previous report that the warrior was "dark complected" was purely based on a high amount of mtDNA H in these Bronze age Poles, no pigmentation SNPs were tested. Pigmentation SNPs tested in R1-bearing Germans from several hundred years before this Polish man though do suggest Central-East Euros back then were significantly darker than their modern descendants(see here).
Source Though to be fair, data from slightly earlier German finds has revealed darker complexions for Bronze Age Central Europeans. So it might be a minor correction.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Are you joking? Please tell me this is not a joke..?
I'm supposed to take some random internet guy's word for it when 1) the article said he had dark pigmentation genes for hair, eyes and skin and 2) it's already public knowledge that the European light skin pigmentation gene profile didn't exist during the Bronze Age?
Posted by Nodnarb (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Are you joking? Please tell me this is not a joke..?
I'm supposed to take some internet guy's word for it when it's already public knowledge that the European skin pigmentation profile didn't exist during the Bronze Age?
Your general claim isn't being disputed. I'm just citing a source saying that this singular Polish find wasn't tested for pigmentation SNPs. I'm sure you could find better examples from the same time period though.
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
Message to the 2 morons above:
Ancient Egyptians were not dark-skinned Europeans related to Polish people but dark-skinned Africans related to modern sub-Saharan African people. They were indigenous black Africans.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Since dark skin is not an expression of biological affinity, it has nothing to do with the seperate issue of being African or not.
You'd think that basics like this would have gotten through your intransigent head by now.
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
^^^so why discuss bronze age Europe and the history of the Polish people in a forum about Ancient Egypt?
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
So, first you're confused about the meaning of dark skin, and now you're confused about the fact that prehistoric Europeans with dark skin pigmentation genes have implications for how 'black' is used. Is that it?
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: So, first you're confused about the meaning of dark skin, and now you're confused about the fact that prehistoric Europeans with dark skin pigmentation genes have implications for how 'black' is used. Is that it?
The only point I was making is that skin color is something that can't solely be determined from skull shape and we should rather focus on known skin color ranges and determine whether or not black is a valid term to refer to a subset of those color ranges based on tropical adaptation.
Skin color evolution around the world is a complex subject and science is only recently getting to the point of being able to reasonable analyze these types of changes in ancient populations. And to some degree they still do rely on cranial measurements since that is the only data available, which has historically been problematic because of the ideas of "race" that were popular in the 18th and 19th century. But science no longer tends to promote the idea of race and that doesn't change the issue of the viability of using certain words when the skin color ranges are a known quantity as in modern day populations with observable skin color characteristics.
Posted by Nodnarb (Member # 3735) on :
On the topic of dark-skinned Mesolithic Europeans (which, to be frank, is far more interesting to me than this fruitless back-and-forth about the b-word), has anyone considered that they might have represented a wave of colonists from more southerly areas before the introduction of agriculture.
First off, it's not true that all Europeans before the Neolithic were dark-skinned. There are in fact remains of light-skinned, blue-eyed, and blond-haired hunter-gatherers dating to 7,700 BP from Scandinavia:
quote:But in the far north—where low light levels would favor pale skin—the team found a different picture in hunter-gatherers: Seven people from the 7700-year-old Motala archaeological site in southern Sweden had both light skin gene variants, SLC24A5 and SLC45A2. They also had a third gene, HERC2/OCA2, which causes blue eyes and may also contribute to light skin and blond hair. Thus ancient hunter-gatherers of the far north were already pale and blue-eyed, but those of central and southern Europe had darker skin.
Secondly, keep in mind that during the preceding Paleolithic period, much of northern Europe would have been covered by ice, so most of the people living in the subcontinent during that time period would have been concentrated further south. You can imagine that, as the ice sheets retreated, human populations in Europe shifted northward even before the Neolithic. Some of those would have included the ancestors of Motala who would have moved into the northern areas, whereas darker-skinned peoples from further south would have claimed the rest of the subcontinent.
What I'm getting at is that these dark-skinned Mesolithic Europeans we've been hearing about lately might themselves represent a wave of migrations from somewhere further south (say, the Mediterranean littoral) rather than completely representing the aboriginal populations throughout the subcontinent. On the other hand, the pale Motala types could have had a wider distribution throughout Europe during the Last Glacial Maximum. Thoughts?
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote: Originally posted by Doug M: The only point I was making is that skin color is something that can't solely be determined from skull shape
You may fool some who think making the most noise and attacking the most strawmen means you're right.
But people who followed this discussion know you're lying and that I never said any of the things you falsely accused me of. You've been called out for fabricating lies about me before. That's enough for me. People who believe your lies and fall for your pathetic appeals (e.g. "you just don't want to call the Egyptians black") are not my audience anyway.
In a moderated discussion you would have been called out for your strawman attacks, unsubstantiated claims and incompetence so many times that it would look like they were picking on you.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
This is all Doug has been doing during these 13 pages:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: When you say on this forum that no one, I mean NO ONE is going to call the man below 'white' in the western sense, everyone immediately understands what you mean.
quote:Proved invaluable assistance skeleton results Rogalin. Also genetic. Thanks to them, we know that the warrior had a dark complexion, dark hair and eyes.
What biological evidence do you have for the skin color of this person? Right now you are clinging to outdated notions that skull shape indicates skin color when it doesn't. That is the stupidest nonsense I keep hearing over and over on this thread.
And more strawman attacks (I was making the argument below to counter his claim that the Bronze Age warrior looked "white" and "European"):
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: According to Doug, the same general morphometric pattern is 'black' in Egypt, but 'white' when found on the European continent.
You are losing your mind, because the morphological patterns of Egypt are not the same as Europe. Ancient Egyptians are not Europeans.
And more strawman attacks (the argument I was making below is the same as aforementioned one):
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: That skull looks consistent with modern day Maghrebis and Lower Egyptians, among other African groups. Stop making a fool out of yourself.
And? Are those modern day Maghrebis and Lower Egyptians black?
And more strawman attacks (the argument I was making below is the same as aforementioned one):
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: If those skeletal remains look 'Polish' according to you, are racist and racialist scientists right when they call this morphotype 'Caucasian' when they see it in Ancient Egypt?
If you want to discuss the validity of the term caucasoid or the relationship of Polish bronze age skulls to Egyptian bronze age skulls then create a new thread.
And more strawman attacks (the argument I was making below is the same as aforementioned one):
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: The significance here is that many dynastic Egyptians of the Lower Egyptian type, living Maghrebi people and certain Bronze Age Europeans (see that Polish warrior) occupy the same general multivariate space that's intermediate between Northwest Europeans and many Sub-Saharan Africans.
Swenet, the point is you are claiming that the AE had the same skin complexion of bronze age Polish people, because they 'occupy the same general multivariate space' cranially. Here is the problem, skin color isn't skull shape.
And more strawman attacks (the argument I was making below is the same as aforementioned one):
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: The significance here is that many dynastic Egyptians of the Lower Egyptian type, living Maghrebi people and certain Bronze Age Europeans (see that Polish warrior) occupy the same general multivariate space that's intermediate between Northwest Europeans and many Sub-Saharan Africans.
So are you seriously claiming that white people are not indigenous to Europe and the majority skin color in Europe and that black people are not the majority population in Africa and the majority skin color there as well?
These strawman attacks basically sum up what Doug has done for 13 thread pages with the different issues that came up.
This is the only reason why the discussion dragged on for 13 thread pages. But like I said, people in the know have caught on to that already.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: That was just the beginning of the problems of the 'black' crowd. What do you do when people akin to the ancestors of pale northwestern Europe had dark skin somewhere within the range of African Americans during most of their stay in Europe? What implications does that have for the premise that "white" and "black" are fundamentally opposite and the idea that 'black' neatly excludes European ancestry/people?
quote:[T]he new data confirm that about 8500 years ago, early hunter-gatherers in Spain, Luxembourg, and Hungary also had darker skin: They lacked versions of two genes—SLC24A5 and SLC45A2—that lead to depigmentation and, therefore, pale skin in Europeans today.
Yeah. Swenet hasn't been focusing on Europeans as the reason that Africans and other tropically adapted folks shouldn't be called black, as if Europe is the homeland or origin of black folks. And yes Swenet, that IS the basis of your argument since page 1 of this thread, which is some Neolithic folks in Europe looked like African Americans and Africans so we can't call them black can we?
LOL!
Swenet this was posted by the OP as well:
You claimed that Objective white scholars say the AE were dark brown, as if to say "black" isn't necessary because white folks acknowledge their 'dark brown' color?
I asked you to provide evidence of said 'objective' scholars. Of course, none provided, which tells me white folks want ancient Egypt to be white and I post two contemporary "historical" scholarly publications doing just that....
Not to mention you claim that black skin is somehow racial. No. Skin color is just skin color and is not inherently racial.
Yet he then contradicts his own argument by admitting most white scholars will use craniofacial data to suggest the AE were at least "half white". Which is enough really to make them "all white" in most respects for white scholarship.
Which ultimately shows how ridiculous and nonsensical this claim is that talking about the AE or any other population having "black" skin is not the best approach of getting to the fundamental point that is being debated. Focusing on craniofacial data and not addressing other aspects of biology in ancient populations, like skin color and tissue is not going to change anything.
quote: A subset of dynastic Egyptian samples squeezed in between Abyssinians and Cretans, Etruscans and Sardinians and showing considerable ties with the biblical inhabitants of the Judaean city of Lachish. No competent western, middle eastern or oriental academic who has seriously looked into this is going to use the term "black" (in a racial sense) when applied to dynastic Egyptians (although they might do it in a pigmentation sense, by saying they would have been dark brown). And in the occasion they do use 'black' in a racial sense (usually when they speak in an informal context), they're likely to say that they think that the ancient Egyptians were half black/half non-black based on their position in cranio-facial analysis.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
All the above issues have been addressed already in the past 13 thread pages.
For instance, I've mentioned several scholars (e.g. G Billy, Coon, Brace, etc) who in some way or form acknowledge(d) the northeast African affinities of the founding or living Egyptians, without calling them 'black' in the western racial sense.
Even now, as Doug is paraphrasing my statements and fabricating contradictions, he's floundering and attacks strawmen. Doug's strawman attacks are designed to appeal to people who share his racial politics agenda. In any neutral setting with unbiased moderation he would have been ripped to shreds as he was here. Only difference is that he wouldn't have been able to obscure his incompetence and other failures.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
you claim that black skin is somehow racial. No. Skin color is just skin color and is not inherently racial.
.
If you say that the chocolate above is brown but the Tutankhamen bust is black when in fact they are all brown
you are lying
you are racializing color.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
They say imitation is the highest form of flattery.
Regardless it is is up to people of African descent to represent the Egyptians in their own media. If that is not being done, that's the bigger failure
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
@^ The more I look at that cover the more repulsive it becomes, I almost vomit. Miserable, disgusting!
For iota on self-expression, too many African people (African descent) are stuck up in region. Weither it Islamic or Christianity.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nodnarb: On the topic of dark-skinned Mesolithic Europeans (which, to be frank, is far more interesting to me than this fruitless back-and-forth about the b-word), has anyone considered that they might have represented a wave of colonists from more southerly areas before the introduction of agriculture.
First off, it's not true that all Europeans before the Neolithic were dark-skinned. There are in fact remains of light-skinned, blue-eyed, and blond-haired hunter-gatherers dating to 7,700 BP from Scandinavia:
quote:But in the far north—where low light levels would favor pale skin—the team found a different picture in hunter-gatherers: Seven people from the 7700-year-old Motala archaeological site in southern Sweden had both light skin gene variants, SLC24A5 and SLC45A2. They also had a third gene, HERC2/OCA2, which causes blue eyes and may also contribute to light skin and blond hair. Thus ancient hunter-gatherers of the far north were already pale and blue-eyed, but those of central and southern Europe had darker skin.
Secondly, keep in mind that during the preceding Paleolithic period, much of northern Europe would have been covered by ice, so most of the people living in the subcontinent during that time period would have been concentrated further south. You can imagine that, as the ice sheets retreated, human populations in Europe shifted northward even before the Neolithic. Some of those would have included the ancestors of Motala who would have moved into the northern areas, whereas darker-skinned peoples from further south would have claimed the rest of the subcontinent.
What I'm getting at is that these dark-skinned Mesolithic Europeans we've been hearing about lately might themselves represent a wave of migrations from somewhere further south (say, the Mediterranean littoral) rather than completely representing the aboriginal populations throughout the subcontinent. On the other hand, the pale Motala types could have had a wider distribution throughout Europe during the Last Glacial Maximum. Thoughts?
This one also explains the continuum of cold adaption.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: yet the populating of Eurasia goes back 60K or more and Europe 35-45kya
7,000-Year-Old Man Had Dark Skin And Blue Eyes; DNA From ‘La Braña 1’ Taken From Ancient Tooth
7,000-Year-Old Man Had Dark Skin And Blue Eyes; DNA From ‘La Braña 1’ Taken From Ancient Tooth [PHOTO] BY ZOE MINTZ @ZOEMINTZ ON 01/27/14 AT 11:49 AM
La Braña 1, the name used to baptize a 7,000-year-old individual from the Mesolithic Period, had blue eyes and dark skin. PHOTO: CSIC The remains of a 7,000-year-old man have shed light on how ancient European hunter-gatherers may have looked.
Dubbed La Braña 1, the remains recovered at the La Braña-Arintero archeological site in Valdelugueros, Spain, included a wisdom tooth. DNA taken from the tooth suggests he had blue eyes, dark hair and dark skin. The findings, published in the journal Nature, also suggest that light skin developed not just because of Europe's relatively low-light conditions, but also due to hunter-gatherers' diet and environment.
"Before we started this work, I had some ideas of what we were going to find," Carles Lalueza-Fox, who led the study at the Institute of Evolutionary Biology in Barcelona, told the Guardian. "Most of those ideas turned out to be completely wrong."
Many scientists have supported the theory that lighter skin in Europeans developed approximately 40,000 years ago after humans migrated from tropical Africa. The latest discovery suggests this adaptation took longer than previously thought and instead occurred just 7,000 years ago.
"It was assumed that the lighter skin was something needed in high latitudes to synthesize vitamin D in places where UV light is lower than in the tropics," Lalueza-Fox told LiveScience.
Instead, the findings suggest that light skin was not wholly developed due to high latitudes, because that adaptation would have taken place thousands of years earlier, Lalueza-Fox said.
Besides skin color, the eye color suggested by the hunter-gatherer's DNA came as another surprise, since the mutation that causes blue eyes was thought to have developed earlier than the mutation that affects light skin color.
"Even more surprising was to find that he possessed the genetic variations that produce blue eyes in current Europeans, resulting in a unique phenotype in a genome that is otherwise clearly northern European," Lalueza-Fox said.
La Braña 1 was first discovered in 2006 when a group of cavers found two skeletons in the Cantabrian Mountains of northwest Spain. The cave’s cool environment preserved the remains of two men believed to be in their early thirties. Using the better-preserved of the two skeletons, scientists made several attempts before successfully reconstructing the man’s genome.
The researchers say their next attempt will be to perform the same task on the lesser-preserved skeleton, La Braña 2, in hopes of gaining a better understanding of early Europeans.
The findings also suggest that La Braña 1 may be a common ancestor of a 24,000-year-old boy found at Mal’ta near Lake Baikal in eastern Siberia. The boy’s DNA indicates he most likely had brown hair, brown eyes and freckled skin.
"These data indicate that there is genetic continuity in the populations of central and western Eurasia. In fact, these data are consistent with other archeological remains, similar to those found in excavations in Europe and Russia, including the site of Mal'ta, where anthropomorphic figures called Paleolithic Venus have been recovered, and they are very similar to each other," Lalueza-Fox says.
There is a slight chance you forgot about certain aspects.
quote: Lalueza-Fox states: "However, the biggest surprise was to discover that this individual possessed African versions in the genes that determine the light pigmentation of the current Europeans, which indicates that he had dark skin, although we can not know the exact shade."
quote: The mitochondria of both individuals are assigned to U5b2c1, a haplotype common among the small number of other previously studied Mesolithic individuals from Northern and Central Europe.
This suggests a remarkable genetic uniformity and little phylogeographic structure over a large geographic area of the pre-Neolithic populations. Using Approximate Bayesian Computation, a model of genetic continuity from Mesolithic to Neolithic populations is poorly supported. Furthermore, analyses of 1.34% and 0.53% of their nuclear genomes, containing about 50,000 and 20,000 ancestry informative SNPs, respectively, show that these two Mesolithic individuals are not related to current populations from either the Iberian Peninsula or Southern Europe.
[...]
Indicate that La Bran ̃ a specimens (Figure 1) belong to the U5b haplotype (16192T-16270T).
[...]
Figure 2 | Ancestral variants around the SLC45A2 (rs16891982, above) and SLC24A5 (rs1426654, below) pigmentation genes in the Mesolithic genome.
The SNPs around the two diagnostic variants (red arrows) in these two genes were analysed. The resulting haplotype comprises neighbouring SNPs that are also absent in modern Europeans (CEU) (n = 112) but present in Yorubans (YRI) (n = 113). This pattern confirms that the La Braña 1 sample is older than the positive-selection event in these regions. Blue, ancestral; red, derived.
--Carles Lalueza-Fox
Nature 507, 225–228 (13 March 2014) doi:10.1038/nature12960
Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
They say imitation is the highest form of flattery.
Regardless it is is up to people of African descent to represent the Egyptians in their own media. If that is not being done, that's the bigger failure
If all of Africa scrounged together $1 billion dollars, it could create three [3] blockbuster films using indigenous people from Luxor, Edfu, Esna and Kom Ombo. A film like this should employ the services of the world's best directors and producers.
These are the people that would be used:
Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
These are the people that I would use in a film about AE and I suspect that this would inspire anger, denial and atavistic hatred from racists the world over.
Racists would predictably insist that these people are mixed with 'Nubians' and are therefore not suitable representatives of the AE, despite the fact that these people are the closest thing to what the AE looked like. They are the most pristine representatives of the AE.
Egypt has always been invaded from the North, so using people from Cairo and Alexandra is completely out of the question; it would be akin to using modern white Americans to represent American Indians before the arrival of the European invaders and settlers.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: These are the people that I would use in a film about AE and I suspect that this would inspire anger, denial and atavistic hatred from racists the world over.
Racists would predictably insist that these people are mixed with 'Nubians' and are therefore not suitable representatives of the AE, despite the fact that these people are the closest thing to what the AE looked like. They are the most pristine representatives of the AE.
Egypt has always been invaded from the North, so using people from Cairo and Alexandra is completely out of the question; it would be akin to using modern white Americans to represent American Indians before the arrival of the European invaders and settlers.
quote: Introduction to Research at Naqada Region
The Naqada region is located to the north of Luxor in Upper Egypt. The settlement of Nubt-South Town is located on the west bank of the Nile halfway between the modern towns of Kom Billal and el-Zawayda and is the most famous and largest settlement in the Naqada region, which consists of a cluster of sites of differing sizes and types (see Fig. 1). Together with Hierakonpolis and Abydos, Nubt-South Town is one of the most important sites for understanding the socio-economic developments that occurred during the Predynastic (Naqada I-II, 3,900-3,300 BC) to Protodynastic (Naqada IIIA-B, 3,300-3,060 BC) periods, and represents one of the primary political centres of early Egypt. As such, it was a major player in the process of state formation (Wilkinson 2000). As the funerary remains cover the entire Predynastic and Protodynastic periods, it is enormously important for both chronological and bioarchaeological studies (Hendrickx 1986).
Petrie uncovered a huge cemetery (N or the Great New Race Cemetery), along with other smaller cemeteries (B and T) and several structures (South Town area) as well as finding indications of Predynastic occupation around the temple area (Nubt area). Subsequent investigations by Kaiser (1961) have identified settlement remains dating to the Predynastic and later along the floodplain edge north of the South Town spur and in front of the Temple spur. He also identified a Predynastic cemetery located just to the north of the temple spur. Re-analyse of Cemetery N, primarily by Bard (1987; 1989; 1994) has allowed for a better understanding of the distribution of early remains at Nubt-South Town (van Wetering & Tassie in press).
--G. J. Tassie (University of Winchester) and Joris van Wetering (ECHO)
The History and Research of the Naqada Region Collection
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: All the above issues have been addressed already in the past 13 thread pages.
For instance, I've mentioned several scholars (e.g. G Billy, Coon, Brace, etc) who in some way or form acknowledge(d) the northeast African affinities of the founding or living Egyptians, without calling them 'black' in the western racial sense.
Even now, as Doug is paraphrasing my statements and fabricating contradictions, he's floundering and attacks strawmen. Doug's strawman attacks are designed to appeal to people who share his racial politics agenda. In any neutral setting with unbiased moderation he would have been ripped to shreds as he was here. Only difference is that he wouldn't have been able to obscure his incompetence and other failures.
They are not calling them black because they don't discuss skin color. You are making assumptions about what skin color those folks would have had which they didn't state explicitly.
And I have been challenging you for the last 13 pages to prove that Brace, Coon or any of these other folks actually used any terms referencing skin color of these said populations in any way shape of form that would resemble what folks mean by black. You have not provided any such thing. Coon and Brace never explicitly mentioned the skin color of any populations yet you keep insisting that the cranial studies do that which they don't. And more notably instead of providing evidence of said skin color you detoured off into European cranial measurements and vague references to dark skin in neolithic and bronze age Europeans as if that has anything to do with ancient Egypt.
So no, you haven't clarified anything. You still believe that skull shape determines skin color and you still believe that the word "black skin" equates to race when it does not.
You haven't changed your position since page one of this thread and I haven't changed mine. My position is that their is no substitute for explicitly talking about skin color in specific terms if that is the subject being discussed. Of course skin color is not the only aspect of ancient remains that is important but in terms of historic charges of racism against the wider academic community and the continuing misrepresentation of Ancient Egyptians in European popular media, including film, tv, books and magazines, yes the issue is skin color. There is no substitute for talking in specifics about skin color when challenging the scientific community on their role in these portrayals. And typically when someone says talking about skin color in ancient populations equates to race it is to provide a defense of the status quo as the study of skin color in ancient remains is as scientific as any other aspect of studying ancient remains.
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
Here's a short recap of this thread:
Ancient Egyptians = Black Kushite = Black African-Americans = Black Ancient Greece = White Roman Republic/Empire = White
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: These are the people that I would use in a film about AE and I suspect that this would inspire anger, denial and atavistic hatred from racists the world over.
Racists would predictably insist that these people are mixed with 'Nubians' and are therefore not suitable representatives of the AE, despite the fact that these people are the closest thing to what the AE looked like. They are the most pristine representatives of the AE.
Egypt has always been invaded from the North, so using people from Cairo and Alexandra is completely out of the question; it would be akin to using modern white Americans to represent American Indians before the arrival of the European invaders and settlers.
quote: Introduction to Research at Naqada Region
The Naqada region is located to the north of Luxor in Upper Egypt. The settlement of Nubt-South Town is located on the west bank of the Nile halfway between the modern towns of Kom Billal and el-Zawayda and is the most famous and largest settlement in the Naqada region, which consists of a cluster of sites of differing sizes and types (see Fig. 1). Together with Hierakonpolis and Abydos, Nubt-South Town is one of the most important sites for understanding the socio-economic developments that occurred during the Predynastic (Naqada I-II, 3,900-3,300 BC) to Protodynastic (Naqada IIIA-B, 3,300-3,060 BC) periods, and represents one of the primary political centres of early Egypt. As such, it was a major player in the process of state formation (Wilkinson 2000). As the funerary remains cover the entire Predynastic and Protodynastic periods, it is enormously important for both chronological and bioarchaeological studies (Hendrickx 1986).
Petrie uncovered a huge cemetery (N or the Great New Race Cemetery), along with other smaller cemeteries (B and T) and several structures (South Town area) as well as finding indications of Predynastic occupation around the temple area (Nubt area). Subsequent investigations by Kaiser (1961) have identified settlement remains dating to the Predynastic and later along the floodplain edge north of the South Town spur and in front of the Temple spur. He also identified a Predynastic cemetery located just to the north of the temple spur. Re-analyse of Cemetery N, primarily by Bard (1987; 1989; 1994) has allowed for a better understanding of the distribution of early remains at Nubt-South Town (van Wetering & Tassie in press).
--G. J. Tassie (University of Winchester) and Joris van Wetering (ECHO)
The History and Research of the Naqada Region Collection
Naqada is the Arabic name for the region used by Egyptologists. In the Ancient Egyptian language the name was Nubt, meaning "golden town" meaning this literally the "Nubian" region in the Egyptian language. There was no other population outside of Ancient Egypt ever referred to as "golden" by the Egyptians, especially not any so-called enemies to the South. This is a key point to remember in all of this. Nubian = golden in the Ancient Egyptian language and is a reference to gold and used most often as a reference to the flesh of the gods and the transmuted soul of the deceased in the afterlife. Nub or "golden" was also one of the names of the Pharaoh and his Queen, which was used from the first dynasty, meaning every king and queen had "Nubian" names in all dynasties. Nubian did not mean black in the AE language. KM meant black in the AE language.
quote: The third name was the "Golden Horus"- name. The origins of the Golden Horus name may be traced in royal inscriptions of the 1st and 3rd Dynasties and in the Palermo Stone. It was simply written with the hieroglyphic for gold when it was introduced in the Early Dynastic period, so perhaps it symbolized the kings divinity (gold was considered eternal and the gods were said to have skins of gold; gold therefore was a representation of divinity). Gold also symbolized the appearance of the rising sun.
It is also possible that the Golden name derived from the early connection of the god Set with the king. Set was the tutelary god of the city of Nubt or Naqada, the center of the gold trade. Set was also the patron deity of at least one king of the 2nd dynasty and possibly more.
The point being that AE culture originated in the south and nobody in the Southern regions of Egypt to this day look like white Europeans except white European foreigners and thousands of years ago these people would have been on average even darker. All of the key locations in AE state formation happened from Abydos going South.
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: Here's a short recap of this thread:
Ancient Egyptians = Black Kushite = Black African-Americans = Black Ancient Greece = White Roman Republic/Empire = White
Not quite. Here is the play by play - This thread exists as a FOLLOW UP on Tropical Redacted in reference to his trolling of academics to weasel them into calling Ancient Egyptians "Black"
-Subsequent discussion went on to talk about how there are different interpretations of "Black", there being no standard and there being multiple traditions with the MAIN ONES being: 1-All Dark Skin populations globally 2-Dark skin populations in/from Africa 3-New world people of African descent and Sub Saharan Africans fitting a specific phenotype (Negroes).
-DOUG M made the statement that its all about skin color ONLY and has nothing to do with race. Others countered say no, because even when learned folks and layman admit AE were "Dark skinned" (Within the range of African Americans and SSA) they exclude them from "Black" based on Geography, Language Physical Anthropology etc. Contemporary groups were brought up as examples of similar practice (Nubians, Sudanese Darfur conflict, Horn Africans, Tuareg, etc)
-Others, including myself then CHALLENGED Doug on his usage of "Black" accusing him of using it in a "racial manner" (not "RACIST" but "Racial", Doug) and not simply one in regards to color. I noted that I TOO use "Black" as racial as I excluded non Africans and dont use the term solely based on Skin tone. DOUG M was then challenged to reconcile his usage of "Black" with an example of Ancient Europeans whos skin-tone was similar to "Black People" yet who's language, genetics, physiology has nothing to do with Africans and instead are the forerunners of Humans that settled Europe Thousands of years ago.
-Doug M didnt read, and straw-manned, and asked if these Ancient Europeans really were dark skinned, and said they look similar to modern day Euros. References were given to show they were Dark as Africans which left Doug somewhat on the fence, flip flopping if they were black or not:
quote: " I would argue that those polish people were white ."
"Are you seriously trying to claim that this 4,000 year old Polish skeleton was black? "
"I don't agree. Whatever kind of "dark" they mean, I don't agree that it was "dark" enough to be "black".
" if any bronze age European or other European was dark as an African I would certainly say they were black."
-Somewhere in this exchange Doug slipped up again as he calls "Mixed Lower Egyptians" non-black. Also in an attempt to distract from the subject he wanted to discuss this ONE specific Polish skeleton and not Ancient Europeans as their Dark skin status as the THEME we have been seeing with the publishing of their remains. Considering the RANGE of Sub Saharan "Black People" Skin tones being Dark as Dinka and light as Ethiopians, San and Pygmies..............Doug is flip flopping on Lower Egyptians not being "Black".
-Doug is then called out on the reconstruction of the Polish person when he says it is similar to poles. He is called out on his ignorance as the facial structure of Ancient Europeans shows discontinuity with modern Europeans. Some of the Older Europeans remains diverge toward North East Africans and the Middle East while even older remains diverge toward the the Central and Pacific Asia. Swenet brings up some of the Ancient European NE African similarity and asks Doug if he thinks that polish skull is similar to modern Polish people hence "Caucasoid" are racists and racialists correct to call that similar configuration "Caucasoid" when it is found in Egypt? Doug falters, and acts confused as if the example has not bearing on who is black or not....and asks for a new thread.
-Doug Then goes on and own straw-manning and telling folks they cannot get Skin color from Bones while others respond saying that is exactly what he did (They quoted him) while explaining that the Europeans remains have DNA that indicates dark skin. Doug again flips flops on his usage of Black sometimes saying all Dark skin people (See Above) other times excluding people based on Geography (See Below)
quote: See? You make no sense. Now you are trying to claim that when I say "black" we must include Europeans, because thousands of years ago yes ALL humans were black. So does that make the use of the word black invalid? Of course not.
See above, if one wanted to argue that Black = Skin color ONLY, and Ancient Europeans were "Black", then of course you would have to include them. That was the point of bringing them up in the first place to show that his use of Black was racial and not all encompassing based on color alone. And going into ABSOLUTES with a note that ancient Euros were not *ALL* "Black" is a cop out similar to how Euros will say AE were not *ALL* Black. Doug then goes on to strawman that you cant get skin color from Skeletons....and skin color is not race...flip flopping on his usage all the while.
My Conclusion: I dont see any issues using "Black" in a racial way. IMO Ancient Egyptians were "Black". My usage of Black for the most part excludes non Africans. I have no qualms about my usage and that others dont use the term in the same way that I do.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: Terminology
Sub-Saharan Africans have traditionally been named by references to their dark skin color. Examples include the term Blacks and in some countries the term Colored. Terms like Negro, Negroid, and Nigger are derived from the Latin Nigrum meaning "black".
This can be seen as problematic since it implies that the defining characteristic is the black skin color. This is disproven by, for example, the existence of albinos in Sub-Saharan Africa. There are also very dark-skinned populations in southern India and in Australia that are darker than some populations in Sub-Saharan Africa. Furthermore, large racial groups are today usually named after their geographic origin (Europeans, East Asians, Amerindians, etc). The geographic origin is a characteristic shared by all members of a race unlike skin color.
This article will therefore for clarity use the term Sub-Saharan Africans which is commonly used in the scientific literature.
That is the fundamental point. Black skin occurs across the entire African continent and outside of Africa.
In relation to ancient Egypt the debate is not really a debate. Black skin obviously occurs in Egypt and Sudan and therefore is not limited to being "south" of the Sahara. Some of the blackest populations in Africa are found in Sudan and Upper Egypt. So when I say black I am referring to that and nothing else.
Meaning, that the AE were as dark as some of the darkest Africans on the continent, even though there was variation as in any population in Africa.
Those are the baseline facts. Skin color exists on all humans. Africans are primarily black skinned due to tropical adaptation including ancient Egyptians.
This has always been the crux of the issue when it comes to Egypt, trying to claim some 'special exception' as why Ancient Egyptians would not have been black yet right next to Sudan.
Sub Saharan has nothing to do with it. European skulls have nothing to do with it. Cranial metrics are not enough to determine skin color. Tissue samples and analysis are used to determine skin color. White racists historically and to this day have used cranial metrics to categorize populations into "races", ie. Caucasoid or Negroid even though they claim to be objective. White racists still claim that the AE were white even though no evidence supports it.
Those folks claiming to want to be "obejctive" given the historical fact of racism in academia and science on this issue are normally passive aggressive trolls who support the racists....
Calling black folks black is not racist and neither is calling white folks white. Yet this is the strawman tactic used by passive agressive trolls to try and shut down the argument. However, they never argue with white folks continually representing the AE as white. They never challenge the representation of skin color when it comes to AE.
But they come to places like this and challenge the usage of the word black.
This thread is a perfect example of all the above.
Doug, my point is to show how eurocentrics view things and (have) shape definitions in their advantage. That does not mean that I agree with their theory. I assumed that this was clear by now. Guess not so.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: Here's a short recap of this thread:
Ancient Egyptians = Black Kushite = Black African-Americans = Black Ancient Greece = White Roman Republic/Empire = White
Not quite. Here is the play by play - This thread exists as a FOLLOW UP on Tropical Redacted in reference to his trolling of academics to weasel them into calling Ancient Egyptians "Black"
-Subsequent discussion went on to talk about how there are different interpretations of "Black", there being no standard and there being multiple traditions with the MAIN ONES being: 1-All Dark Skin populations globally 2-Dark skin populations in/from Africa 3-New world people of African descent and Sub Saharan Africans fitting a specific phenotype (Negroes).
-DOUG M made the statement that its all about skin color ONLY and has nothing to do with race. Others countered say no, because even when learned folks and layman admit AE were "Dark skinned" (Within the range of African Americans and SSA) they exclude them from "Black" based on Geography, Language Physical Anthropology etc. Contemporary groups were brought up as examples of similar practice (Nubians, Sudanese Darfur conflict, Horn Africans, Tuareg, etc)
-Others, including myself then CHALLENGED Doug on his usage of "Black" accusing him of using it in a "racial manner" (not "RACIST" but "Racial", Doug) and not simply one in regards to color. I noted that I TOO use "Black" as racial as I excluded non Africans and dont use the term solely based on Skin tone. DOUG M was then challenged to reconcile his usage of "Black" with an example of Ancient Europeans whos skin-tone was similar to "Black People" yet who's language, genetics, physiology has nothing to do with Africans and instead are the forerunners of Humans that settled Europe Thousands of years ago.
-Doug M didnt read, and straw-manned, and asked if these Ancient Europeans really were dark skinned, and said they look similar to modern day Euros. References were given to show they were Dark as Africans which left Doug somewhat on the fence, flip flopping if they were black or not:
quote: " I would argue that those polish people were white ."
"Are you seriously trying to claim that this 4,000 year old Polish skeleton was black? "
"I don't agree. Whatever kind of "dark" they mean, I don't agree that it was "dark" enough to be "black".
" if any bronze age European or other European was dark as an African I would certainly say they were black."
-Somewhere in this exchange Doug slipped up again as he calls "Mixed Lower Egyptians" non-black. Also in an attempt to distract from the subject he wanted to discuss this ONE specific Polish skeleton and not Ancient Europeans as their Dark skin status as the THEME we have been seeing with the publishing of their remains. Considering the RANGE of Sub Saharan "Black People" Skin tones being Dark as Dinka and light as Ethiopians, San and Pygmies..............Doug is flip flopping on Lower Egyptians not being "Black".
-Doug is then called out on the reconstruction of the Polish person when he says it is similar to poles. He is called out on his ignorance as the facial structure of Ancient Europeans shows discontinuity with modern Europeans. Some of the Older Europeans remains diverge toward North East Africans and the Middle East while even older remains diverge toward the the Central and Pacific Asia. Swenet brings up some of the Ancient European NE African similarity and asks Doug if he thinks that polish skull is similar to modern Polish people hence "Caucasoid" are racists and racialists correct to call that similar configuration "Caucasoid" when it is found in Egypt? Doug falters, and acts confused as if the example has not bearing on who is black or not....and asks for a new thread.
-Doug Then goes on and own straw-manning and telling folks they cannot get Skin color from Bones while others respond saying that is exactly what he did (They quoted him) while explaining that the Europeans remains have DNA that indicates dark skin. Doug again flips flops on his usage of Black sometimes saying all Dark skin people (See Above) other times excluding people based on Geography (See Below)
quote: See? You make no sense. Now you are trying to claim that when I say "black" we must include Europeans, because thousands of years ago yes ALL humans were black. So does that make the use of the word black invalid? Of course not.
See above, if one wanted to argue that Black = Skin color ONLY, and Ancient Europeans were "Black", then of course you would have to include them. That was the point of bringing them up in the first place to show that his use of Black was racial and not all encompassing based on color alone. And going into ABSOLUTES with a note that ancient Euros were not *ALL* "Black" is a cop out similar to how Euros will say AE were not *ALL* Black. Doug then goes on to strawman that you cant get skin color from Skeletons....and skin color is not race...flip flopping on his usage all the while.
My Conclusion: I dont see any issues using "Black" in a racial way. IMO Ancient Egyptians were "Black". My usage of Black for the most part excludes non Africans. I have no qualms about my usage and that others dont use the term in the same way that I do.
Man stop lying so dam much. I have kept challenging you to provide support for why skin color equals race. You keep trying to claim skin color equals race and it does not. That is you trying to make skin color equal to race which is why you can't make a coherent point. Then I asked you to provide support for your argument that the Europeans have provided explicit support for the AE having skin colors like other Africans and African Americans who have black skin. Again, you have NOT PROVIDED SAID REFERENCES yet you keep sitting here claiming that Coon, Brace and others have provided said references. And this is where you keep lying because you have provided no such thing.
Therefore you keep lying and now keep accusing me of strawmen in order to avoid the point that those Europeans if asked about the skin color of said AE populations HAVE NOT and WILL NOT say that they had a range of complexions similar to any Africans called black. To the point where I have been calling you out as a mouthpiece for these folks who absolutely do not agree with you and your insane argument that IN THEIR OWN WAY THEY SAY THE AE WERE "BLACK" and since page one I have been saying NO THEY DON'T SWENET IS PUTTING WORDS AND COLORS INTO THEIR MOUTHS.
Don't you get it by now these so-called 'objective' scholars don't agree with you and your claim that they think or admit that the AE were 'brown skinned', meaning in the same range of colors covered by the word black.
You simply keep lying when you claim that they do say this when they don't.
Dam, if you would quit defending these clowns and stop trying to pretend that they are saying something that they aren't this would have ended.
But you keep lying on them, on me and everybody else who disagrees with your nonsense.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: These are the people that I would use in a film about AE and I suspect that this would inspire anger, denial and atavistic hatred from racists the world over.
Racists would predictably insist that these people are mixed with 'Nubians' and are therefore not suitable representatives of the AE, despite the fact that these people are the closest thing to what the AE looked like. They are the most pristine representatives of the AE.
You have the skin tone right but they are not matching the strait wavy straight hair type on some of the mummies such as Ramesses II, Tiye, Thutmose IV I don't think the Egyptians were homogenous from the earliest dynasties on up. I'm not saying they weren't African
Ramesses II
Ramesses II
Amenhotep III
Amenhotep III
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
Why is this a bonus and what was the point of posting all that material from AWH?
Do you agree with that image of Hatshepsut as based on "objective" science and therefore reasonable she isn't depicted as black?
My point is they are liars and have always been liars and the whole point is to continue to lie about AE in every form of public mass communication available. Most research journals are not read by the masses.
Also, much of the secret lore behind European secret societies is widely available online.
If you can't understand my posts, then I can't help you here. Sorry. In my research I always go to the core to understand the problem. This is why I some times post "off", while it's on point.
If you can't see that my posts are actually supportive for you, then I can't help you. I even posted original ancient material versus what eurocetrics post as supposed "real art". I did so, to show people how they are misleading the public.
You are stuck in defensiveness. This is what many people have told you in this thread. This then leads to not being able to see when someone posts with a certain supportive purpose. This has happened over and over in this thread. Yet, you ask me what my point is, when I show you the ridiculousness of daughters of the nile.com /temples/ hatasu1. These people obviously aren't daughters of the nile. But euros will attack black people for making these comparatives being daughters of the nile. It shows what the mindset is about. Daughters of the nile.com appears as a secret societies. Secret societies usually have members who are "educated".
I am not defensive I say what I mean. In other words, that depiction of Hatshepsut is bull sh*t and I am not afraid to call it as historical racist propaganda.
So you aren't supporting me you are either supporting facts are you are not. Either you are standing up for what is right or you are not. And that is the crux of the issue when it comes to the word black.
Even beyond skin color, look at the image and you will see it is pure fantasy nonsense. Look at her hair which looks straight like Sigourney Weaver or something. Who is this bald head dude in the front? Senenmut? Where did you ever see Senenmut depicted as bald? All of it is blatantly inaccurate nonsense.....
And this is supposed to be a historical magazine based on facts and evidence yet this is what we get.
It just proves that this battle isn't being won by being nice to racists or pretending that racism doesn't still exist.
Over and over the AE themselves say in their own monuments and documents that they look to the South as the place of their origin. The earliest dynasties arose in Ta Seti and Nubt (the first nome of AE). The prophecies of Neferti of Amenhemet in the Middle Kingdom. The invasions and unrest were put down by alliances with bowmen from Ta Seti and Nubt (the first nome of AE). The 18th dynasty is founded by Southerners in alliances stretching deep into Sudan as the Southern Opet. The voyages of Hatshepsut to Southern Lands as the lands of the ancestors. The Origin of the Ramessids under Seti from Ta Seti Nubt. Again and again you have the AE showing clearly that among all other people they were most closely tied to the South, yet white scholars consistently try and inject white folks into this some kind of way, implying that there were these roving bands of white folks all over the Southern and Eastern deserts that the Egyptians were in league with. That has been consistent since France started plundering Egypt.
You are completely misunderstanding people, that is the point. I show the view by a eurocentric magazine and other authors vs original art. Yet, it is not supportive? But I'm getting attacked instead, but you're not defensive?
What Swenet is showing are implication on how black/ dark skin can be used. So even if scholars would use the definition, eurocentrics would misuse it. That is the problem Swenet is describing.
As some people said, you really need to reread the thread. Since none is saying ancient Egyptians weren't black/ dark skinned and indigenous Africans. I truly thought this was clear by now.
Saying black/ dark is not enough, references such is origin are important as well. Even then I had euronuts saying but that it is not definitive, it's about native African populations. This is what all these back migrations refer to. And that is how it is being used. Even though all the affinities refer to indigenous African ethnic groups as we know them today.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: These are the people that I would use in a film about AE and I suspect that this would inspire anger, denial and atavistic hatred from racists the world over.
Racists would predictably insist that these people are mixed with 'Nubians' and are therefore not suitable representatives of the AE, despite the fact that these people are the closest thing to what the AE looked like. They are the most pristine representatives of the AE.
You have the skin tone right but they are not matching the strait wavy straight hair type on some of the mummies such as Ramesses II, Tiye, Thutmose IV I don't think the Egyptians were homogenous from the earliest dynasties on up. I'm not saying they weren't African
Ramesses II
Ramesses II
Amenhotep III
Amenhotep III
I prefer frizzy hair, as a term to describe the hair texture. Especially because of the treatment they gave it with fats and waxes. Which we still see in populations from the South, Sahara-belt.
I mean there is just too much referring to who the ancient Egyptians relate with, till this day.
quote:
Halim El-Dabh is University Professor Emeritus of African Ethnomusicology at Kent State University, Kent, Ohio.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: They say imitation is the highest form of flattery.
Regardless it is is up to people of African descent to represent the Egyptians in their own media. If that is not being done, that's the bigger failure
If all of Africa scrounged together $1 billion dollars, it could create three [3] blockbuster films using indigenous people from Luxor, Edfu, Esna and Kom Ombo. A film like this should employ the services of the world's best directors and producers.
These are the people that would be used:
You don't need a billion dollars, only a few hundred thousand, to a few million (depending on the leading actors), because everything is already there in place.
What you need is professional cameras like RED-EPIC and professional lenses and other equipment, to create the right cinematics scenes. A good camera team, editors etc, who knows what they are doing; lighting, shooting-scenes, angle locations etc.... So, with a few million, I am guessing, you're set to go. Per movie that is. I am sure Southern Egyptians are glade to help and to be re-presented.
In these blockbuster movies they use the most expansive people and equipment, studios etc..
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
@ Doug - That data was already posted. But it doesnt even need to be posted again, simply use your brain. Anyone that sees BROWN skinned images is simply trolling to say they are not brown skin people. But what do the racists, racialists and nearly everyone else that writes books about AE Say?
They look at the difference in colors between Egyptians and Nubians and note that "Nubians are depicted as Black"..........."Egyptians are Reddish Brown".
Once they say Egyptians are "Reddish Brown" they have admitted that AE share skin tone with the vast majority of Africans who are also..........."Reddish Brown". Reddish Brown people are not "Black People" to them. THere are various reasons as to why this is the case.
Furthermore Nobody is saying that Skin color = "Race." "Race" does not exist biologically. Race is a social construct. Myself and others are arguing that YOU are using "Black" in racial context and not skin tone context because you include and exclude populations......(many who have the same skin tone) based on your own internal racial-social leanings. You CLAIM you see "Black" as nothing but skin tone but if that was the case you would not exclude Ancient Dark Skin Europeans nor would you exclude "Mixed Lower Egyptians". Modern "Mixed Lower Egyptians" have skin tones that approximate to Khoisan and the type of Tuareg we would normally see as "Black People". You exuded them. ANCIENT "Mixed Lower Egyptians" would be as dark as they depicted themselves. Not sure if you excluded them too.
I (and others) have argued that using "Racial" terms all Dark skinned populations are not equally "Black" just as being "White" excludes Chechens, and Turks, and Middle Easterners, and all those swarthy populations called "Wogs". It also excludes that vast majorly of Central and East Asians who skin color appropriates/overlaps with defacto "white people" : Europeans. It also excludes American Indians who's skin tones are also Light....Light as in "White", the same color as Europeans.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: [QB] @ Doug - That data was already posted. But it doesnt even need to be posted again, simply use your brain. Anyone that sees BROWN skinned images is simply trolling to say they are not brown skin people. But what do the racists, racialists and nearly everyone else that writes books about AE Say?
They look at the difference in colors between Egyptians and Nubians and note that "Nubians are depicted as Black"..........."Egyptians are Reddish Brown".
Once they say Egyptians are "Reddish Brown" they have admitted that AE share skin tone with the vast majority of Africans who are also..........."Reddish Brown".
/close thread
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Man stop lying so dam much.
It's always entertaining to see a proven bser accuse someone else of bsing.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Then I asked you to provide support for your argument that the Europeans have provided explicit support for the AE having skin colors like other Africans and African Americans who have black skin. Again, you have NOT PROVIDED SAID REFERENCES yet you keep sitting here claiming that Coon, Brace and others have provided said references.
Racist & racialist John Baker, whom I mentioned earlier in relation to the fact that some of the most prominent professional racists knew very well the skin color that founding Egyptians would have had:
The relative unimportance of colour in comparison with morphological features is witnessed by the fact that there is no race of man, in the sense of the word adopted in this book (pp. 99 ff.), that is characterized by the possession of a pale skin. Most of the subraces of the Europid race have pale skins, but the Nordindids (Indo-Afghans) and Aethiopids have not. The Sikhs and other Nor- dindids become pale brown in the exposed parts of the body, and members of the Aethiopid subrace are very dark—darker, in fact, than certain Negrid tribes. If a Nordindid were slightly paler, it would not be easy to distinguish him from a Mediterranid. Indeed, some authorities regard the Nordindids as constituting a local form of the Mediterranid subrace, --John Baker
Is that explicit enough? Of course it is. As were the other references of Brace and Coon saying essentially the same thing in regards to the trivial nature of dark pigmentation. But Doug is simply too dense, too incompetent and too unfamiliar with the anthro literature to be authorized to speak on this subject. And it shows by the dumb claims he keeps making. That's why it's all the more entertaining to see people pick sides and co-sign Doug's buffoonery and lies; it tells you they're just as confused and obtuse.
If you want to group Africans based on indigenous ancestry/origin, you cannot use skin pigmentation without running into problems; you have to use terminology appropriate to describe local origin.
Let's see what other strawmen attacks, goalpost shifts, lies, changes in subject matter etc. Doug is going to conjure up now to escape the fact that many of the most influential scientific racists had no qualms with assigning ancient Egyptians and related groups a dark skin.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: @ Doug - That data was already posted. But it doesnt even need to be posted again, simply use your brain. Anyone that sees BROWN skinned images is simply trolling to say they are not brown skin people. But what do the racists, racialists and nearly everyone else that writes books about AE Say?
They look at the difference in colors between Egyptians and Nubians and note that "Nubians are depicted as Black"..........."Egyptians are Reddish Brown".
Once they say Egyptians are "Reddish Brown" they have admitted that AE share skin tone with the vast majority of Africans who are also..........."Reddish Brown". Reddish Brown people are not "Black People" to them. THere are various reasons as to why this is the case.
Furthermore Nobody is saying that Skin color = "Race." "Race" does not exist biologically. Race is a social construct. Myself and others are arguing that YOU are using "Black" in racial context and not skin tone context because you include and exclude populations......(many who have the same skin tone) based on your own internal racial-social leanings. You CLAIM you see "Black" as nothing but skin tone but if that was the case you would not exclude Ancient Dark Skin Europeans nor would you exclude "Mixed Lower Egyptians". Modern "Mixed Lower Egyptians" have skin tones that approximate to Khoisan and the type of Tuareg we would normally see as "Black People". You exuded them. ANCIENT "Mixed Lower Egyptians" would be as dark as they depicted themselves. Not sure if you excluded them too.
I (and others) have argued that using "Racial" terms all Dark skinned populations are not equally "Black" just as being "White" excludes Chechens, and Turks, and Middle Easterners, and all those swarthy populations called "Wogs". It also excludes that vast majorly of Central and East Asians who skin color appropriates/overlaps with defacto "white people" : Europeans. It also excludes American Indians who's skin tones are also Light....Light as in "White", the same color as Europeans.
But still they refuse to call this a black individual.
Looks like a duck quacks like a duck, but isn't a duck.
The thing is, with these supposed scholars:
They will call this man BLACK within a heartbeat.
And this man not black, to them.
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
^ Is the usage of "Caucasoid" correct in its description of certain metric variables found in Europeans?
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: ^ Is the usage of "Caucasoid" correct in its description of certain metric variables found in Europeans?
Yes, that is what they mention often. And the most ironic thing is. It is that these traits are in Africans due to the migrations of "Eurasians", as they claim. They of course refer to themselves, as these Eurasians. They are to be credited, they claim.
They claim that people like these Southern Egyptian men below are so due to admixture, not because of situ. At this moment we have a nut like that, on this site, going by the name viceroy. As he/ she twist and swirls. But constantly fails.
Why is this a bonus and what was the point of posting all that material from AWH?
Do you agree with that image of Hatshepsut as based on "objective" science and therefore reasonable she isn't depicted as black?
My point is they are liars and have always been liars and the whole point is to continue to lie about AE in every form of public mass communication available. Most research journals are not read by the masses.
Also, much of the secret lore behind European secret societies is widely available online.
If you can't understand my posts, then I can't help you here. Sorry. In my research I always go to the core to understand the problem. This is why I some times post "off", while it's on point.
If you can't see that my posts are actually supportive for you, then I can't help you. I even posted original ancient material versus what eurocetrics post as supposed "real art". I did so, to show people how they are misleading the public.
You are stuck in defensiveness. This is what many people have told you in this thread. This then leads to not being able to see when someone posts with a certain supportive purpose. This has happened over and over in this thread. Yet, you ask me what my point is, when I show you the ridiculousness of daughters of the nile.com /temples/ hatasu1. These people obviously aren't daughters of the nile. But euros will attack black people for making these comparatives being daughters of the nile. It shows what the mindset is about. Daughters of the nile.com appears as a secret societies. Secret societies usually have members who are "educated".
I am not defensive I say what I mean. In other words, that depiction of Hatshepsut is bull sh*t and I am not afraid to call it as historical racist propaganda.
So you aren't supporting me you are either supporting facts are you are not. Either you are standing up for what is right or you are not. And that is the crux of the issue when it comes to the word black.
Even beyond skin color, look at the image and you will see it is pure fantasy nonsense. Look at her hair which looks straight like Sigourney Weaver or something. Who is this bald head dude in the front? Senenmut? Where did you ever see Senenmut depicted as bald? All of it is blatantly inaccurate nonsense.....
And this is supposed to be a historical magazine based on facts and evidence yet this is what we get.
It just proves that this battle isn't being won by being nice to racists or pretending that racism doesn't still exist.
Over and over the AE themselves say in their own monuments and documents that they look to the South as the place of their origin. The earliest dynasties arose in Ta Seti and Nubt (the first nome of AE). The prophecies of Neferti of Amenhemet in the Middle Kingdom. The invasions and unrest were put down by alliances with bowmen from Ta Seti and Nubt (the first nome of AE). The 18th dynasty is founded by Southerners in alliances stretching deep into Sudan as the Southern Opet. The voyages of Hatshepsut to Southern Lands as the lands of the ancestors. The Origin of the Ramessids under Seti from Ta Seti Nubt. Again and again you have the AE showing clearly that among all other people they were most closely tied to the South, yet white scholars consistently try and inject white folks into this some kind of way, implying that there were these roving bands of white folks all over the Southern and Eastern deserts that the Egyptians were in league with. That has been consistent since France started plundering Egypt.
You are completely misunderstanding people, that is the point. I show the view by a eurocentric magazine and other authors vs original art. Yet, it is not supportive? But I'm getting attacked instead, but you're not defensive?
What Swenet is showing are implication on how black/ dark skin can be used. So even if scholars would use the definition, eurocentrics would misuse it. That is the problem Swenet is describing.
As some people said, you really need to reread the thread. Since none is saying ancient Egyptians weren't black/ dark skinned and indigenous Africans. I truly thought this was clear by now.
Saying black/ dark is not enough, references such is origin are important as well. Even then I had euronuts saying but that it is not definitive, it's about native African populations. This is what all these back migrations refer to. And that is how it is being used. Even though all the affinities refer to indigenous African ethnic groups as we know them today.
OK. Can you show me what scholars are calling the AE black/brown in some other language or using some other words?
Because I have not yet seen it not once.
All I see is the standard white European phenotype coming out of European scholarship.
So I don't see where there is some 'objective' group of scholars standing up challenging or pushing a different view of the AE as anything other than white.
You had Exodus movie last year. You have had the Nat Geo and Discovery productions before that. Now you got Gods of Egypt And you got the standard magazine covers of history mags showing the AE as white folks.
Yet you are sitting here telling me that I just need to "read between the lines" to understand that they really mean the AE were black?
Come on dude.
Lay off the crack.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: @ Doug - That data was already posted. But it doesnt even need to be posted again, simply use your brain. Anyone that sees BROWN skinned images is simply trolling to say they are not brown skin people. But what do the racists, racialists and nearly everyone else that writes books about AE Say?
They look at the difference in colors between Egyptians and Nubians and note that "Nubians are depicted as Black"..........."Egyptians are Reddish Brown".
Once they say Egyptians are "Reddish Brown" they have admitted that AE share skin tone with the vast majority of Africans who are also..........."Reddish Brown". Reddish Brown people are not "Black People" to them. THere are various reasons as to why this is the case.
Furthermore Nobody is saying that Skin color = "Race." "Race" does not exist biologically. Race is a social construct. Myself and others are arguing that YOU are using "Black" in racial context and not skin tone context because you include and exclude populations......(many who have the same skin tone) based on your own internal racial-social leanings. You CLAIM you see "Black" as nothing but skin tone but if that was the case you would not exclude Ancient Dark Skin Europeans nor would you exclude "Mixed Lower Egyptians". Modern "Mixed Lower Egyptians" have skin tones that approximate to Khoisan and the type of Tuareg we would normally see as "Black People". You exuded them. ANCIENT "Mixed Lower Egyptians" would be as dark as they depicted themselves. Not sure if you excluded them too.
I (and others) have argued that using "Racial" terms all Dark skinned populations are not equally "Black" just as being "White" excludes Chechens, and Turks, and Middle Easterners, and all those swarthy populations called "Wogs". It also excludes that vast majorly of Central and East Asians who skin color appropriates/overlaps with defacto "white people" : Europeans. It also excludes American Indians who's skin tones are also Light....Light as in "White", the same color as Europeans.
What I am saying is that these 'objective' scholars are not admitting that the AE were reddish brown as in 'black'. They are only supporting the idea in every public form of media that the AE were white.
Either I am lying or you are lying.
I know I am not lying.
Show me where there is a public communication, broadcast or any other kind of media presentation by European scholarship showing the AE as anything other than white.
It doesn't exist.
And you are living in fantasy land.
WTF is it with retards thinking they can lie with straight faces when everybody knows full dam well these racists haven't changed one bit for the last few hundred years?
Yet you got clowns sitting here lying to people's faces saying that white = black?
This is absurd.
OBVIOUSLY the only reason these clowns are defending this losing position is because they REALLY believe they are having an impact on "objective" scholarship.
RIGHT....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSdpukdjQig Note how the guy in this video makes the argument that 'no it isn't racism', we shouldn't focus on that... of course not. Thats all social engineering. Which is to say black folks pointing out white racism is black folks being racist.... or pointing out skin color in depictions of ancient Egyptians is black folks being racist......
BTW, there is a brand new show on BBC2 with Joanne Fletcher about ancient Egypt.
Care to bet what the reenactors will look like if there are any?
In the first episode, she goes in search of the building blocks of Egyptian civilisation and attempts to explain how the society evolved, in just a few centuries, from primitive farmers to pyramid builders.
Joann travels almost 20,000 years back in time to discover North Africa’s earliest rock art in Qurta, upper Egypt, and explores the primal signs of Egyptian society at one of the earliest settlements along the River Nile. She discovers the first writing that was used to calculate taxes, and explores one of the first stone structures on Earth – Egypt’s first pyramid.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Man stop lying so dam much.
It's always entertaining to see a proven bser accuse someone else of bsing.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Then I asked you to provide support for your argument that the Europeans have provided explicit support for the AE having skin colors like other Africans and African Americans who have black skin. Again, you have NOT PROVIDED SAID REFERENCES yet you keep sitting here claiming that Coon, Brace and others have provided said references.
Racist & racialist John Baker, whom I mentioned earlier in relation to the fact that some of the most prominent professional racists knew very well the skin color that founding Egyptians would have had:
The relative unimportance of colour in comparison with morphological features is witnessed by the fact that there is no race of man, in the sense of the word adopted in this book (pp. 99 ff.), that is characterized by the possession of a pale skin. Most of the subraces of the Europid race have pale skins, but the Nordindids (Indo-Afghans) and Aethiopids have not. The Sikhs and other Nor- dindids become pale brown in the exposed parts of the body, and members of the Aethiopid subrace are very dark—darker, in fact, than certain Negrid tribes. If a Nordindid were slightly paler, it would not be easy to distinguish him from a Mediterranid. Indeed, some authorities regard the Nordindids as constituting a local form of the Mediterranid subrace, --John Baker
Is that explicit enough? Of course it is. As were the other references of Brace and Coon saying essentially the same thing in regards to the trivial nature of dark pigmentation. But Doug is simply too dense, too incompetent and too unfamiliar with the anthro literature to be authorized to speak on this subject. And it shows by the dumb claims he keeps making. That's why it's all the more entertaining to see people pick sides and co-sign Doug's buffoonery and lies; it tells you they're just as confused and obtuse.
If you want to group Africans based on indigenous ancestry/origin, you cannot use skin pigmentation without running into problems; you have to use terminology appropriate to describe local origin.
Let's see what other strawmen attacks, goalpost shifts, lies, changes in subject matter etc. Doug is going to conjure up now to escape the fact that many of the most influential scientific racists had no qualms with assigning ancient Egyptians and related groups a dark skin.
That quote mentions Aethiopids not Egyptians.... And he point blank says Aethiopids are a subrace of Europids.... Literally he is saying black whites or white blacks or whatever. But nowhere in this does he say Egyptians are Aethiopids.
I think at this point the thread has basically served its purpose in showing the fallacy of pretending that there is "objective" white scholarship on the issue. It isn't there and you can claim 'objective' argumentation is making a difference but I don't see it. I still see the same old white racists up to their usual antics.
The fact that the only folks you can dig up are racists says a whole lot about the fact there is little "objective" white scholarship on this issue.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote: Originally posted by Doug M: That quote mentions Aethiopids not Egyptians....
Wrong again (as usual). The racist Baker himself related founding Egyptians to what he called "Aethiopids" (as did Coon and other racists who have seriously studied their skeletal remains):
From predynastic times onwards a principal part of the population of Egypt appears to have been composed of a section of the Aethiopid subrace (pp. 225-^6), but with this stock there coexisted for a time an ‘Aeneolithic’ (Chalcolithic) people that disappeared before the beginning of the First Dynasty. The skulls of the latter people show that they were related to the main population, but distinct from it. --Baker
Now what? What strawman attack or deceptive fallacy you're going to pull out of the hat now?
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: And he point blank says Aethiopids are a subrace of Europids....
Your point? You specifically and repeatedly asked for examples of racist Eurocentric scholars who got the AE skin pigmentation level right. According to you, I fabricated and lied about their existence in academia, even though evidence was repeatedly posted.
Stop moving the goalpost.
You made the claims below and you repeatedly tried to generalize them to all the Eurocentric European descent scholars who have seriously studied the ancient Egyptian remains:
quote: Originally posted by Doug M: No they accept that the Ancient Egyptians looked like Charleton Heston and not even olive skinned white Europeans.
quote: Originally posted by Doug M: When these folks say Caucasiod they mean pure white Aryan, blue blood, pale as snow white folks.
quote: Originally posted by Doug M: That has ALWAYS been the agenda of the white supremacists concerning Egypt.
Just give it up. Your paranoia and these sweeping fictitious allegations may appeal to a certain audiences, but beyond that you're not fooling anyone. Duping people who don't know any better. That's what you've done the majority of the time in this thread.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The fact that the only folks you can dig up are racists says a whole lot about the fact there is little "objective" white scholarship on this issue.
First class bullshitter. He goes on a rant for half a dozen thread pages asking for the same evidence he now tries to marginalize.
This is the evidence Doug said he demanded a little while ago:
Then I asked you to provide support for your argument that the Europeans have provided explicit support for the AE having skin colors like other Africans and African Americans who have black skin. Again, you have NOT PROVIDED SAID REFERENCES yet you keep sitting here claiming that Coon, Brace and others have provided said references. And this is where you keep lying because you have provided no such thing. --Doug M
You accused me of being a liar. What happened, Doug? I mean, it was just a couple of hours ago that you said you wanted to see this evidence. You're already trying to hide from the same thing you desperately wanted me to post?
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
Doug says: The point being that AE culture originated in the south and nobody in the Southern regions of Egypt to this day look like white Europeans except white European foreigners and thousands of years ago these people would have been on average even darker. All of the key locations in AE state formation happened from Abydos going South.
Yes- it is from the south that the Dynastic civilization sprung as scholars show. Several key elements of Egyptian culture such as in religion, came from fellow African cultures to the south.
Yet you got clowns sitting here lying to people's faces saying that white = black?
I don't think that is what they are explicitly saying per se. As far as popular media and culture, yes, the bias is to spin the AEs as "white" or some variant of "Caucasoid", or a vague "Middle Eastern"- anything but indigenous black African. Today's Arabized Egyptians push the same line- anything but "black" or "African." Heaven forbid that Egypt be "African". They immediately "distance" themselves from it. That is to be expected. It is a propaganda operation with many vested interests- with huge emotional,racial and financial investments extending across centuries- it will not change soon.
But we now have a body of hard evidence on Egypt's African character that exposes and renders much of the propaganda operation dubious. The fallback game in some quarters is to grudgingly admit some instance of the term "black", in a backhanded way. See Lefkowitz below for example.
Some academics though have rendered a more balanced approach. There has been some progress it could be said, relatively speaking, compared to where we where 20 years ago. More needs to be done of course. The key is building up a credible alternative foundation and database that can effectively critique and challenge the operation above, not merely in relation to Egypt, but Africa as well. ES of course is skewed towards an academic/scholarship/data approach. But other counter-hegemonic narratives from politics, religion or literature are also in the mix. A broad front will continue to generate change.
Posted by Mindovermatter (Member # 22317) on :
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: ^ Is the usage of "Caucasoid" correct in its description of certain metric variables found in Europeans?
Beyoku the entire Caucasoid name and term is false and can be refuted very easily. White Europeans are not and never belonged to a singular "Caucasian race", that is simply false.
Proof of this is the fact that the Basque are the oldest surviving European group and they have absolutely nothing in common with Eastern and Northern and Western Europeans; they are so inbred also that they are their own population in the island of European genes. They only primarily are of Haplogroup R1b and are genetically distant from other more modern white Europeans.
On one side of Europe, you have people that are predominantly haplogroup R1b whereas in Eastern Europe and Russia you have haplogroup R1a. And even White Russians and white finns and Hungarians all look different from each other and have different genes.
Even groups like Maltese people and Albanian people have different genes from the rest of Europe and have African genes in them. Thus there is no Caucasoid race and there never was in Europe before.
Also there are Japanese and Asiatic people who look pseudo-Caucasian or have pseudo-Caucasian features, but yet they have no immediate admixture with any so called Caucasoid group of peoples AT ALL!
So this whole term of "Caucasian" is false and is made up entirely and has no real genetic basis.
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
Originally posted by Doug M: When these folks say Caucasiod they mean pure white Aryan, blue blood, pale as snow white folks.
Not necessarily. They have also used other covering labels- like "Hamitic", "Oriental", "Middle Eastern" etc. In fact they are careful not to define a "true white" in the same way they define and use the "true negro" dodge.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
zarahan why do you have the ridiculous Mary Lefkowitz quote up? She says "If you go by the American 'one drop rule' the Egyptians would be black"
That could mean the ancient Egyptians were 5/8 or more non-African. The quote has NO value and the racist 'one drop rule' is garbage and has NO value.
A perfect example of the widely varied meaning of "black"
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
"The quote has NO value and the racist 'one drop rule' is garbage and has NO value"
The quote explains a relevant part of American history. You try to shove this under the rug. Is if it never happened.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: zarahan why do you have the ridiculous Mary Lefkowitz quote up? She says "If you go by the American 'one drop rule' the Egyptians would be black"
That could mean the ancient Egyptians were 5/8 or more non-African. The quote has NO value and the racist 'one drop rule' is garbage and has NO value.
A perfect example of the widely varied meaning of "black"
The brown paper bag is where this one drop rule ends. Not my words. Don't get it twisted.
quote:That was one cultural legacy that would be put to rest in a hurry-we all made sure of that. But in a manner of speaking, it was replaced by an opposite test whereby those who were deemed "not black enough' ideologically were to be shunned. I was not sure this was an improvement."
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: OK. Can you show me what scholars are calling the AE black/brown in some other language or using some other words?
Because I have not yet seen it not once.
All I see is the standard white European phenotype coming out of European scholarship.
So I don't see where there is some 'objective' group of scholars standing up challenging or pushing a different view of the AE as anything other than white.
You had Exodus movie last year. You have had the Nat Geo and Discovery productions before that. Now you got Gods of Egypt And you got the standard magazine covers of history mags showing the AE as white folks.
Yet you are sitting here telling me that I just need to "read between the lines" to understand that they really mean the AE were black?
Come on dude.
Lay off the crack.
They aren't going to use such terminology, ... because they considered it an implication.
The only crack I am into, is the one I can get into. I am a sportsman, btw.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mindovermatter:
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: ^ Is the usage of "Caucasoid" correct in its description of certain metric variables found in Europeans?
Beyoku the entire Caucasoid name and term is false and can be refuted very easily. White Europeans are not and never belonged to a singular "Caucasian race", that is simply false.
Proof of this is the fact that the Basque are the oldest surviving European group and they have absolutely nothing in common with Eastern and Northern and Western Europeans; they are so inbred also that they are their own population in the island of European genes. They only primarily are of Haplogroup R1b and are genetically distant from other more modern white Europeans.
On one side of Europe, you have people that are predominantly haplogroup R1b whereas in Eastern Europe and Russia you have haplogroup R1a. And even White Russians and white finns and Hungarians all look different from each other and have different genes.
Even groups like Maltese people and Albanian people have different genes from the rest of Europe and have African genes in them. Thus there is no Caucasoid race and there never was in Europe before.
Also there are Japanese and Asiatic people who look pseudo-Caucasian or have pseudo-Caucasian features, but yet they have no immediate admixture with any so called Caucasoid group of peoples AT ALL!
So this whole term of "Caucasian" is false and is made up entirely and has no real genetic basis.
I'm not sure about this accuracy, but I had a conversation with a girl from Italy years ago. She explained that Mediterranean skulls are different from West Europeans. Then some white American dude got upset.
Do you happen to know anything about this difference. Or anyone else for that matter. Swenet,perhaps?
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote: Originally posted by Doug M: That quote mentions Aethiopids not Egyptians....
Wrong again (as usual). The racist Baker himself related founding Egyptians to what he called "Aethiopids" (as did Coon and other racists who have seriously studied their skeletal remains):
From predynastic times onwards a principal part of the population of Egypt appears to have been composed of a section of the Aethiopid subrace (pp. 225-^6), but with this stock there coexisted for a time an ‘Aeneolithic’ (Chalcolithic) people that disappeared before the beginning of the First Dynasty. The skulls of the latter people show that they were related to the main population, but distinct from it. --Baker
Now what? What strawman attack or deceptive fallacy you're going to pull out of the hat now?
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: And he point blank says Aethiopids are a subrace of Europids....
Your point? You specifically and repeatedly asked for examples of racist Eurocentric scholars who got the AE skin pigmentation level right. According to you, I fabricated and lied about their existence in academia, even though evidence was repeatedly posted.
Stop moving the goalpost.
You made the claims below and you repeatedly tried to generalize them to all the Eurocentric European descent scholars who have seriously studied the ancient Egyptian remains:
quote: Originally posted by Doug M: No they accept that the Ancient Egyptians looked like Charleton Heston and not even olive skinned white Europeans.
quote: Originally posted by Doug M: When these folks say Caucasiod they mean pure white Aryan, blue blood, pale as snow white folks.
quote: Originally posted by Doug M: That has ALWAYS been the agenda of the white supremacists concerning Egypt.
Just give it up. Your paranoia and these sweeping fictitious allegations may appeal to a certain audiences, but beyond that you're not fooling anyone. Duping people who don't know any better. That's what you've done the majority of the time in this thread.
Do you honestly read what you post? Are you seriously claiming that this racist is supporting theidea that the AE were black some sort of way?
You are seriously delusional.
But that is not a strawman. You said that 'objective' scholars were admitting in some way shape or form that the AE were black. Yet the only folks you have been posting to support your claim are racists and YOU call them that. So really, you are seriously making no attempt to even cover the fact that you are just being a mouthpiece for white folks and white racists no less in a debate about words being used for the skin color of black folks. Yeah your main defense is racists now.... You have been doing it the whole thread just looking ridiculous claiming that these 'objective' scholars exist but you haven't posted one yet.
I say the AE were black Africans and you say no we need to please racists with language that doesn't talk about skin color directly because that makes you look racist...... Yet you have no problem using actual racists as your defense that white folks are somehow claiming that these folks in AE were black, knowing full dam well if you asked them they would say they were white. The words they used are supposed to be misleading. They mean white and you are the only one buying into this nonsense.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: OK. Can you show me what scholars are calling the AE black/brown in some other language or using some other words?
Because I have not yet seen it not once.
All I see is the standard white European phenotype coming out of European scholarship.
So I don't see where there is some 'objective' group of scholars standing up challenging or pushing a different view of the AE as anything other than white.
You had Exodus movie last year. You have had the Nat Geo and Discovery productions before that. Now you got Gods of Egypt And you got the standard magazine covers of history mags showing the AE as white folks.
Yet you are sitting here telling me that I just need to "read between the lines" to understand that they really mean the AE were black?
Come on dude.
Lay off the crack.
They aren't going to use such terminology, ... because they considered it an implication.
The only crack I am into, is the one I can get into. I am a sportsman, btw.
They consider it an implication? You mean an assumption on your part? So these scholars don't says anything about skin color directly, yet you are standing here defending them and assuming that "they really do mean that the AE were black" yet you can't provide any public mass media articles, books, magazines or videos where they are publicly and openly saying this. Because they aren't. They are being vague and ambiguous so they don't look openly racist. The only one defending these clowns is you.
People and their "personal communications" are irrelevant, because if they had put all the facts out openly and publicly then you wouldn't have had to contact them on the side to address the issue.
You should be careful not to contradict your own point. Because folks on this thread are challenging the use of the term black which is about skin color but have no problem letting white folks off the hook with vague and ambiguous language as if they 'really mean black', but they don't and that is why they don't use the term. I go by what people say and I assume that people say what they mean. If they don't use the term black it is because they feel the AE were not black and that is what it means with all its "implications".
Other folks on this thread are trying to defend this as "objective science". I think not.
Black as a reference to skin color is the most direct and obvious way to address the issue of skin color and there is really no way around it.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: They consider it an implication? You mean an assumption on your part? So these scholars don't says anything about skin color directly, yet you are standing here defending them and assuming that "they really do mean that the AE were black" yet you can't provide any public mass media articles, books, magazines or videos where they are publicly and openly saying this. Because they aren't. They are being vague and ambiguous so they don't look openly racist. The only one defending these clowns is you.
People and their "personal communications" are irrelevant, because if they had put all the facts out openly and publicly then you wouldn't have had to contact them on the side to address the issue.
You should be careful not to contradict your own point. Because you challenge folks on this thread on the use of the term black which is about skin color but you have no problem letting white folks off the hook with vague and ambiguous language af if they 'really mean black', but they don't and that is why they don't use the term. I go by what people say and I assume that people say what they mean. If they don't use the term black it is because they feel the AE were not black and that is what it means with all its "implications".
Other folks on this thread are trying to defend this as "objective science". I think not.
Can you explain how I am defending "them"?
HOW DOES THE WESTERN WORLD REFER TO THE WORD BLACK, IS IT NOT THE REFERRED AT BY THE "STEREOTYPE NEGRO"?
If they use the word black it becomes an implication to them, because they see "stereotype negroes" as black. Not the rest of Africa. The rest can have dark skin, but that doesn't mean black to them, since black means the stereotype negro.
Please reread, and explain how I am defending them?
Man I am truly trying. lol smh
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: Originally posted by Doug M: When these folks say Caucasiod they mean pure white Aryan, blue blood, pale as snow white folks.
Not necessarily. They have also used other covering labels- like "Hamitic", "Oriental", "Middle Eastern" etc. In fact they are careful not to define a "true white" in the same way they define and use the "true negro" dodge.
I understand what you mean but you only have to look at the movies, tv shows, magazines and other media that they control to see what they mean. Caucasoid is code language for white even if it refers to populations who are black. It is just double talk. It seems odd that folks don't see this for what it is. When they say the AE were Caucasoid they don't mean like "black African Caucasoids".
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: "The quote has NO value and the racist 'one drop rule' is garbage and has NO value"
The quote explains a relevant part of American history. You try to shove this under the rug. Is if it never happened.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: zarahan why do you have the ridiculous Mary Lefkowitz quote up? She says "If you go by the American 'one drop rule' the Egyptians would be black"
That could mean the ancient Egyptians were 5/8 or more non-African. The quote has NO value and the racist 'one drop rule' is garbage and has NO value.
A perfect example of the widely varied meaning of "black"
The brown paper bag is where this one drop rule ends. Not my words. Don't get it twisted.
quote:That was one cultural legacy that would be put to rest in a hurry-we all made sure of that. But in a manner of speaking, it was replaced by an opposite test whereby those who were deemed "not black enough' ideologically were to be shunned. I was not sure this was an improvement."
LOL! Lioness first Afro American USN flight officer Matice Wright....
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: They consider it an implication? You mean an assumption on your part? So these scholars don't says anything about skin color directly, yet you are standing here defending them and assuming that "they really do mean that the AE were black" yet you can't provide any public mass media articles, books, magazines or videos where they are publicly and openly saying this. Because they aren't. They are being vague and ambiguous so they don't look openly racist. The only one defending these clowns is you.
People and their "personal communications" are irrelevant, because if they had put all the facts out openly and publicly then you wouldn't have had to contact them on the side to address the issue.
You should be careful not to contradict your own point. Because you challenge folks on this thread on the use of the term black which is about skin color but you have no problem letting white folks off the hook with vague and ambiguous language af if they 'really mean black', but they don't and that is why they don't use the term. I go by what people say and I assume that people say what they mean. If they don't use the term black it is because they feel the AE were not black and that is what it means with all its "implications".
Other folks on this thread are trying to defend this as "objective science". I think not.
Can you explain how I am defending "them"?
HOW DOES THE WESTERN WORLD REFER TO THE WORD BLACK, IS IT NOT THE REFERRED AT BY THE "STEREOTYPE NEGRO"?
If they use the word black it becomes an implication to them, because the see stereotype negroes as black. Not the rest of Africa. The rest can have dark skin, but that doesn't mean black to them, since black means the stereotype negro.
Please reread, and explain how I am defending them?
I mean black is skin color as I have said numerous times and when they reject the term black they are referring to skin color also. That should be obvious. "True Negro" is not "black skin". Black skin is part of "true Negro" but not the only thing. And when they reject the word black they are rejecting both the skin color component and everything else. However, folks keep trying to claim they are rejecting the other "True Negro" characteristics but keeping the skin color part..... Come on. No they aren't. Why are you going so far on a limb to try and speak for them? They mean they weren't black and obviously that means skin color as well. What part of English don't you understand when they say this? Why do you keep trying to claim that there is some "other" way to interpret this that includes black skin? That makes no sense.
You and other folks just seem to want to deny the obvious.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: I mean black is skin color as I have said numerous times and when they reject the term black they are referring to skin color also. That should be obvious. "True Negro" is not "black". Black skin is part of "true Negro" but not the only thing. And when they reject the word black they are rejecting both the skin color component and everything else. However, folks keep trying to claim they are rejecting the other "True Negro" characteristics but keeping the skin color part..... Come on. No they aren't. Why are you going so far on a limb to try and speak for them. They mean they aren't black and obviously that means skin color as well. What part of English don't you understand when they say this?
You and other folks just seem to want to deny the obvious.
LOL "You and other folks just seem to want to deny the obvious." SMH
AGAIN. THE WEST SEES BLACK AS STEREOTYPE NEGROES. NIGGERS if that is more clear! THEY HAVE A BILLION OTHER NAMES. If they would use the word black to refer to other Africans, it means that their race theory ends. This is why they aren't doing it. It's inconvenient.
It has nothing to do with me, it has to do with Western standards.
Of course they know they had dark skin. And yes, they know that originate from the Sahara-Sahel. But hey will call them mixed with eurasians and a million other things. So they can avoid the term black.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: I mean black is skin color as I have said numerous times and when they reject the term black they are referring to skin color also. That should be obvious. "True Negro" is not "black". Black skin is part of "true Negro" but not the only thing. And when they reject the word black they are rejecting both the skin color component and everything else. However, folks keep trying to claim they are rejecting the other "True Negro" characteristics but keeping the skin color part..... Come on. No they aren't. Why are you going so far on a limb to try and speak for them. They mean they aren't black and obviously that means skin color as well. What part of English don't you understand when they say this?
You and other folks just seem to want to deny the obvious.
LOL "You and other folks just seem to want to deny the obvious." SMH
AGAIN. THE WEST SEES BLACK AS STEREOTYPE NEGROES. NIGGERS if that is more clear! THEY HAVE A BILLION OTHER NAMES. If they use the word black to refer to other Africans, it means that their race theory ends. This is why they aren't doing it. It's inconvenient.
It has nothing to do with me, it has to do with Western standards.
Of course they know they had dark skin. And yes, they know that originate from the Sahara-Sahel. But hey will call them mixed with eurasians and a million other things. So they can avoid the term black.
Well I just call them being racists and no matter what words you use that will still be there. Black is not race and has been used to refer to Africans since before Europeans invented the term race. If the Europeans don't want to refer to the AE as black it is because of racism, meaning they need to feel that the black Africans they endlsaved are inferior to them and they can't have black Africans being the originators of civilization. That is exactly why folks like Samuel Morton began studying the skulls of Egyptian remains in order to prove the superiority of the white race via AE skull measurements. Skin color was always the underlying issue in American and European obsession with Egypt. Therefore, I don't look at them avoiding the term black as being anything other than them saying the AE were white. That is the bottom line and has always been the agenda since they invaded Egypt and started stealing artifacts. Those are the facts of history, yet folks like you think it is 'objective' when it is not. You keep saying that they had "dark skin" yet dark skin is as vague and ambiguous a word there is and can include anything from a sun tan to coal black. So again you are trying to interperet what they say and claim to know what they mean even when they say explicitly the AE were not black, you keep trying to suggest that somehow or someway this includes black skin when it does not.
quote: gypt is justly regarded as the parent of civilization, the cradle of the arts, the land of mystery. Her monuments excite our wonder, and her history confounds chronology; and the very people who thronged her cities would be unknown to us, were it not for those vast sepulchres whence the dead have arisen, as it were, to bear witness for them- selves and their country. Yet even now, the physical characteristics of the ancient Egyptians are regarded with singular diversity of opinion by the learned, who variously refer them to the Jews, Arabs, Hindoos, Nubians, and Negroes. Even the details of organic structure have been involved in the same uncertainty, the configuration of the head, the position of the ear, the form of the teeth, the colour of the skin, and the texture of the hair; while the great question is itself undetermined whether civilization ascended or descended the Nile; whether it had its origin in Egypt or in Ethiopia.* These con- flicting opinions long since made me desirous to investigate the subject for myself; but the many difficulties in the way of obtaining adequate materials, compelled me to suspend the inquiry; and it is only within a recent period that I have been able effectively to re- sume it. It gives me great pleasure to state, that my present facilities have been almost exclusively derived, directly or indirectly, from the scientific zeal and personal friendship of George R. Gliddon, Esq., late United States consul for the city of Cairo. During a former visit to the United States, this gentleman entered warmly into my views and wishes; and on his return to the East, in 1838, he commenced his researches on my behalf; and in the course of his various travels in Egypt and in Nubia, as far as the second Cataract, he procured one hundred and thirty-seven human crania, of which one hundred pertain to the ancient inhabitants of Egypt. Of these last, seventeen were most obligingly sent me, at the instance of Mr. Gliddon, by M. Clot Bey, the distinguished Surgeon in chief to the Viceroy of Egypt They are arranged by the latter gentleman into two series, the Pharaonic, and the Ptolemaic; but without availing myself of this classification, I have merely regarded them in reference to their national characters.
....
The Egyptian form differs from the Pelasgic in having a narrower and more receding forehead, while the face being more prominent, the facial angle is consequently less. The nose is straight or aquiline, the face angular, the features often sharp, and the hair uniformly long, soft, and curling. In this series of crania I include many of which the conformation is not appreciably different from that of the Arab and Hindoo; but I have not, as a rule, attempted to note these distinctions, although they are so marked as to have induced me, in the early stage of the investigation, and for reasons which will appear in the sequel, to group them, together with the proper Egyptian form, under the provisional name of Austral-Egyptian crania. I now, however, propose to restrict the latter term to those Caucasian communities which inhabited the Nilotic valley above Egypt. Among the Caucasian crania are some which appear to blend the Egyptian and Pelasgic characters: these might be called EgypttyPelasgic heads; but without making use of this term, except in a very few instances by way of illustration, I have thought best to transfer these examples from the Pelasgic group to the Egyptian, inas- much as they so far conform to the latter series as to be identified without difficulty. For examples of this mixed form, I refer especially to Plate XI., Fig. 1, and Plate III., Fig. 7.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: I mean black is skin color as I have said numerous times and when they reject the term black they are referring to skin color also. That should be obvious. "True Negro" is not "black". Black skin is part of "true Negro" but not the only thing. And when they reject the word black they are rejecting both the skin color component and everything else. However, folks keep trying to claim they are rejecting the other "True Negro" characteristics but keeping the skin color part..... Come on. No they aren't. Why are you going so far on a limb to try and speak for them. They mean they aren't black and obviously that means skin color as well. What part of English don't you understand when they say this?
You and other folks just seem to want to deny the obvious.
LOL "You and other folks just seem to want to deny the obvious." SMH
AGAIN. THE WEST SEES BLACK AS STEREOTYPE NEGROES. NIGGERS if that is more clear! THEY HAVE A BILLION OTHER NAMES. If they use the word black to refer to other Africans, it means that their race theory ends. This is why they aren't doing it. It's inconvenient.
It has nothing to do with me, it has to do with Western standards.
Of course they know they had dark skin. And yes, they know that originate from the Sahara-Sahel. But hey will call them mixed with eurasians and a million other things. So they can avoid the term black.
Well I just call them being racists and no matter what words you use that will still be there. Black is not race and has been used to refer to Africans since before Europeans invented the term race. If the Europeans don't want to refer to the AE as black it is because of racism, meaning they need to feel that the black Africans they endlsaved are inferior to them and they can't have black Africans being the originators of civilization. That is exactly why folks like Samuel Morton began studying the skulls of Egyptian remains in order to prove the superiority of the white race via AE skull measurements. Skin color was always the underlying issue in American and European obsession with Egypt. Therefore, I don't look at them avoiding the term black as being anything other than them saying the AE were white. That is the bottom line and has always been the agenda since they invaded Egypt and started stealing artifacts. Those are the facts of history, yet folks like you think it is 'objective' when it is not.
Black is not a race, and this is what Swenet is explaining, thoughout this entire thread. He gave many examples. As I said, I understand both positions.
On a few occasions I had folks ignoring this melanin dosage study, and looking for all kinds of excuses: "It doesn't mean all were ..., it's not true ... because all people have melanin etc .... The funniest response was, it doesn't mean they are black i.e. negroid."
I then ask them to name 5 ethnic groups of the Sahara-Sahel region, they can't and get upset. They usually end the conversation with you nigger or terminology similar to that. lol
Melanin Dosage Tests: Ancient Egyptians
Determination of optimal rehydration, fixation and staining methods for histological and immunohistochemical analysis of mummified soft tissues
-- A-M Mekota1, M Vermehren2 Biotechnic & Histochemistry 2005, 80(1): 7_/13 " Materials and Methods
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: I mean black is skin color as I have said numerous times and when they reject the term black they are referring to skin color also. That should be obvious. "True Negro" is not "black". Black skin is part of "true Negro" but not the only thing. And when they reject the word black they are rejecting both the skin color component and everything else. However, folks keep trying to claim they are rejecting the other "True Negro" characteristics but keeping the skin color part..... Come on. No they aren't. Why are you going so far on a limb to try and speak for them. They mean they aren't black and obviously that means skin color as well. What part of English don't you understand when they say this?
You and other folks just seem to want to deny the obvious.
LOL "You and other folks just seem to want to deny the obvious." SMH
AGAIN. THE WEST SEES BLACK AS STEREOTYPE NEGROES. NIGGERS if that is more clear! THEY HAVE A BILLION OTHER NAMES. If they use the word black to refer to other Africans, it means that their race theory ends. This is why they aren't doing it. It's inconvenient.
It has nothing to do with me, it has to do with Western standards.
Of course they know they had dark skin. And yes, they know that originate from the Sahara-Sahel. But hey will call them mixed with eurasians and a million other things. So they can avoid the term black.
Well I just call them being racists and no matter what words you use that will still be there. Black is not race and has been used to refer to Africans since before Europeans invented the term race. If the Europeans don't want to refer to the AE as black it is because of racism, meaning they need to feel that the black Africans they endlsaved are inferior to them and they can't have black Africans being the originators of civilization. That is exactly why folks like Samuel Morton began studying the skulls of Egyptian remains in order to prove the superiority of the white race via AE skull measurements. Skin color was always the underlying issue in American and European obsession with Egypt. Therefore, I don't look at them avoiding the term black as being anything other than them saying the AE were white. That is the bottom line and has always been the agenda since they invaded Egypt and started stealing artifacts. Those are the facts of history, yet folks like you think it is 'objective' when it is not.
Black is not a race, and this is what Swenet is explaining, thoughout this entire thread. He gave many examples. As I said, I understand both positions.
On a few occasions I had folks ignoring this melanin dosage study, and looking for all kinds of excuses: "It doesn't mean all were ..., it's not true ... because all people have melanin etc .... The funniest response was, it doesn't mean they are black i.e. negroid."
I then ask them to name 5 ethnic groups of the Sahara-Sahel region, they can't and get upset. They usually end the conversation with you nigger or terminology similar to that. lol
Melanin Dosage Tests: Ancient Egyptians
Determination of optimal rehydration, fixation and staining methods for histological and immunohistochemical analysis of mummified soft tissues
-- A-M Mekota1, M Vermehren2 Biotechnic & Histochemistry 2005, 80(1): 7_/13 " Materials and Methods
I never called black a race. Why do you insist on avoiding the point? Black is a reference to skin color and white folks will always promote ancient Egyptians as white skinned. Isn't that obvious? They know what white means and they know what black means and both are references to skin color and they know it. There is nothing objective about it and many white scientists are on board with it going back to the very beginning of Egyptology. I don't know what part of this is so difficult to understand. You keep claiming they aren't racist but then say they call you "nigger" if you push them on it....And that is supposedly "objective"?
They are avoiding the melanin dosage test because it proves the AE were black folks which is what they have been rejecting for 200 years. Yet you keep claiming they "know these people were dark skinned". I go by what they say and not by what they may or may not know.
Please.
This is nonsense.
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: I never called black a race. Why do you insist on avoiding the point? Black is a reference to skin color and white folks will always promote ancient Egyptians as white skinned.
Bullshit. Why do you keep repeating the same bullshit when over and over examples have been posted of Scholars saying AE were Brown skinned and not "Black"? Remember when Zahi Hawass said the Tut was not "Black" but then went on to talk about how the type of "Black" that exists in Egypt is different from Negroes?
Remember when Zahi Hawass said that Egyptians are not Arabs NOR are they Africans "even though Egypt is in Africa". When he said they are not "Africans" are you dumb enough to argue that he meant they didn't LIVE on the African continent even when the next thing out of his mouth said "Egypt is in Africa"?
Remember when KEITA would not call Egyptians "Black" but said their skin tone would be brown/Dark brown for the majority of the country? IS KEITA RACIST TOO? Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: I never called black a race. Why do you insist on avoiding the point? Black is a reference to skin color and white folks will always promote ancient Egyptians as white skinned. Isn't that obvious? They know what white means and they know what black means and both are references to skin color and they know it. There is nothing objective about it and many white scientists are on board with it going back to the very beginning of Egyptology. I don't know what part of this is so difficult to understand. You keep claiming they aren't racist but then say they call you "nigger" if you push them on it....And that is supposedly "objective"?
They are avoiding the melanin dosage test because it proves the AE were black folks which is what they have been rejecting for 200 years. Yet you keep claiming they "know these people were dark skinned". I go by what they say and not by what they may or may not know.
Please.
This is nonsense.
Please can you show me where I stated that you called black a race?
"I never called black a race."
I wrote that the western world, in modern terms, calls blacks, in the reference to the stereotype "sub-Sahara negro". This is why don't and refuse to refer to other Africans as black. It is you who is avoiding the point. Or you are just ignorant. It has nothing to do with me supporting their ideology.
"They are avoiding the melanin dosage test because it proves the AE were black folks which is what they have been rejecting for 200 years.
Yet you keep claiming they "know these people were dark skinned". I go by what they say and not by what they may or may not know." I keep claiming they "know these people were dark skinned" (?)
I posted the melanin dosage test as an explanation, to what I have encountered in conversations, it is not about me, or "my claims". smh
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
(short version)
S.O.Y. Keita The Bio Cultural Origins of Egypt
In this 6 Part Lecture Keita speaks on the "Bio-Cultural" Origins and aspects of the Ancient populations of the Nile Valley. He includes details on the Afro-Asiatic Language Family, Genetics of the P2 Clade, Skull Measurements and Limb Proportions. AND SKIN COLOR.
quote: The technique of forensic facial approximation, or reconstruction, is one of many facets of the field of mummy studies. Although far from a rigorous scientific technique, evidence-based visualization of antemortem appearance may supplement radiological, chemical, histological, and epidemiological studies of ancient remains. Published guidelines exist for creating facial approximations, but few approximations are published with documentation of the specific process and references used. Additionally, significant new research has taken place in recent years which helps define best practices in the field. This case study records the facial approximation of a 3,000-year-old ancient Egyptian woman using medical imaging data and the digital sculpting program, ZBrush. It represents a synthesis of current published techniques based on the most solid anatomical and/or statistical evidence. Through this study, it was found that although certain improvements have been made in developing repeatable, evidence-based guidelines for facial approximation, there are many proposed methods still awaiting confirmation from comprehensive studies. This study attempts to assist artists, anthropologists, and forensic investigators working in facial approximation by presenting the recommended methods in a chronological and usable format.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Do you honestly read what you post? Are you seriously claiming that this racist is supporting theidea that the AE were black some sort of way?
Why not? Before you answer and further weaken your own positions for me, remember that you said that 'black' ONLY refers to skin color. That's the definition of 'black' you so repeatedly steered the discussion towards in the first couple of thread pages.
With that out of the way, explain to me why Baker's observation that Egyptians were mainly from a 'race' that's darker than some Sub-Saharan Africans, does not say what the rest of the sane world reads into it (i.e. that the Baker excerpts are consistent with the AE having 'black' skin on par with Sub-Saharan Africans).
Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
lioness
Northwest Europeans are absurdly representing themselves as AE and you think that it's somehow important that the actual descendants of the AE have the 'wavy' hair of *some* pharaohs, even though afro hair is just as indigenous to Southern Egyptians and lower 'Nubians'?
The fact that you've previously tried to link 'wavy hair in Africans' to Eurasians makes me think that you're trying to evoke them here with your homogenous comment. The people of AE originated from the South and the Western desert, so that's the only way you can describe them as heterogeneous.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: I never called black a race. Why do you insist on avoiding the point? Black is a reference to skin color and white folks will always promote ancient Egyptians as white skinned.
Bullshit. Why do you keep repeating the same bullshit when over and over examples have been posted of Scholars saying AE were Brown skinned and not "Black"? Remember when Zahi Hawass said the Tut was not "Black" but then went on to talk about how the type of "Black" that exists in Egypt is different from Negroes?
Remember when Zahi Hawass said that Egyptians are not Arabs NOR are they Africans "even though Egypt is in Africa". When he said they are not "Africans" are you dumb enough to argue that he meant they didn't LIVE on the African continent even when the next thing out of his mouth said "Egypt is in Africa"?
Remember when KEITA would not call Egyptians "Black" but said their skin tone would be brown/Dark brown for the majority of the country? IS KEITA RACIST TOO?
No such scholars have been posted. Swenet posted notes from racists. Are you sure you are reading the thread? You are losing your mind if you think that white scholars are openly and publicly saying in any way shape or form that the AE were black. The ones that do are few and far between and have not been posted on this thread.
Why don't you post it since you swear it has been posted already because it hasn't.
Otherwise, if all these white folks were so publicly admitting the AE were black then what is the point of most of the posts on this forum then? There should be no reason to post then should it?
The point being that some folks in this thread are claiming that we don't need to use the word "black" because Western science has deemed it a bad word and there are other ways to say the same thing. Fine. So where is Western science doing this using other words?
My point is that Western science is avoiding the term black relative to AE, not because they don't feel it is a valid word, but because they don't agree the AE were black in any shape or form, including skin color wise. And since page one some folks have been trying to tell me that for the last 200 years white folks have really been agreeing with some of us but using different words to describe the AE as black and that black is a "racial" term and that Western science has been calling the AE black in other ways without using the term black. And I am calling bull **** on all of the above. I say black because I mean skin color black and white folks don't want to use the term because of the implications of skin color more than any other so called "racial" characteristic.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Do you honestly read what you post? Are you seriously claiming that this racist is supporting theidea that the AE were black some sort of way?
Why not? Before you answer and further weaken your own positions for me, remember that you said that 'black' ONLY refers to skin color. That's the definition of 'black' you so repeatedly steered the discussion towards in the first couple of thread pages.
With that out of the way, explain to me why Baker's observation that Egyptians were mainly from a 'race' that's darker than some Sub-Saharan Africans, does not say what the rest of the sane world reads into it (i.e. that the Baker excerpts are consistent with the AE having 'black' skin on par with Sub-Saharan Africans).
I am saying that Baker was not saying the AE had black skin. Race doesn't exist idiot. Skin color does.
Baker does not say in any way shape or form that the AE had a black skin complexion.
This is what he actually says:
quote: Similarly, the Aethiopids of Ethiopia and elsewhere (Galla and other tribes) are almost certainly hybrids between Europids with some Negrid admixture, but certain authorities[303,8361 regard them as Negrids with Europid admixture.
A remote possibility exists, however, that the Aethiopids are the descendants of a group from which both Europids and Negrids are derived. There are several tribes commonly grouped together as ‘Nilo-Hamites’, because they are supposed to have Nilotid Negrids and Aethiopid Europids as ancestors; but different tribes were probably derived from different Negrid subraces and/or different Europid subraces, and if so, the grouping under a single name is misleading because it does not reflect a common ancestry.
What he actually says is that the AE were a branch of the Aethiopid RACE with Europid RACE mixture. His words are used to imply that these people are close to Europeans. He does not mention color here but uses RACIAL terms. The use of racial terms within European science means Aethiopids can be classified as a form of Europids and therefore portrayed as white in the case of AE. He never mentions skin color but if asked to produce an image of what he felt an AE person looked like it would be white skinned most likely.
But again why are you trying to twist the words of racists to say what they arent? They don't mention skin color and they are using all sorts of racial terms (but not the word black) and yet you sit here and claim this is admission of black skin color? Not it isn't. Also note how nowhere in this are black or white used as racial terms. Nowhere. Black and white are skin color terms not "racial" terms. Aethiopid, Negrid, Caucasoid and other similar terms are racial terms. Skin color is not race. Which is why black Ethiopians can be considered as part of the "Caucasoid race" with Europeans. All of this is based solely on cranial measurements with skin color hardly ever mentioned directly. Race historically has always been based on skull measurements not skin color. So based on cranial measurements, if Ethiopians, the AE and other Europeans had similar cranial types, then they were part of the same race with varying skin complexions, according to the old school racists. Implying that the AE were white skinned "Aethiopids" or "Caucasoids" with the possibility of some "negroid" admixture to imply some folks may have been "black" because of mixture. This is why I am so determined to separate cranial measurements from skin color measurements or analysis. They are two totally separate and distinct things and calling skin color black has absolutely nothing to do with historical concepts of race scientifically since it is historically based on skull measurements.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
@Doug
You're denying that he assigned the AE 'black' skin and to support that you post a quote that talks about race. Then you flip flop and swear that 'black' only refers to dark skin pigmentation and has nothing to do with race. Are you off your meds again?
Doug M, just fall back and give it up. Baker said that South Asians and "Aethiopids" had "black" skin, regardless of the race he assigned them. Dishonest flip flopper.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: You're denying that he assigned the AE black skin and to support that you post a quote that talks about race. Then you flip flop and swear that 'black' only refers to dark skin pigmentation and has nothing to do with race. Are you off your meds again?
Doug M, just fall back and give it up. Baker said that South Asians and "Aethiopids" had "black" skin, regardless of the race he assigned them. Flip flopper.
Stop trolling Swenet. You are not seriously addressing what I said. If you are so concerned about discussing "race" then why are you quoting racists who do nothing but talk in terms of "race"?
The only one flip flopping is you.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
You're the one who repeatedly invoked white supremacists and you desperately wanted to talk about them. Now you're trying to shift the discussion away from them because you failed to prove your bizarre claims. Flip flopper.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
This is what you said and how we arrived at the present topic, which you now want to abandon desperately, like a flip flopping buffoon:
They still want to have the power to categorize folks in a way that supports white supremacy, which ALL boils down to skin color. --Doug M
You are talking insane nonsense. These people [white supremacists] are not calling them black because they are not claiming they are in the same range of complexions as most Africans. --Doug M
they [white supremacists] are absolutely not saying in any shape or form that these people were in the same range of colors as most Africans. That is a bold faced lie. --Doug M
The charge that white supremacists universally have the agenda to depict Egyptians as pale skinned has been proven to be a fictitious figment of your imagination. Whether you want to own up to the figments of your imagination or whether you want to flip flop for five more thread pages is up to you. But it doesn't change the facts.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug: He never mentions skin color but if asked to produce an image of what he felt an AE person looked like it would be white skinned most likely.
Lol. Groping in the dark and floundering, like on the rest of the pages of this thread.
In their monuments the dynastic Egyptians represented themselves as having a long face, pointed chin with scanty beard, a straight or somewhat aquiline nose, black irises, and a reddish-brown complexion. --John Baker
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
So. This is the new stratetgy? To wrestle away “Black” from Africa. Disentangle Black from Africa thus making Balck Africans null when speaking of Ancient Eygyptians. Not bad Swenet. I like it!
Euronutz have lost the war on claiming AEians and Caucasoids Europeans. So the strategy is now remove Black and thus they are only African. Word of advice. That is an uphill battle. But I like it. Cunniing as a fox Mr Swenet.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
But here is the problem. Ignoring the fact there may be politically black people. I agree Black is not a “racial term” although it is used by some Afrocentrics as “racial”. There are biologically black people. Meaning heavily Melaniated people found inside and outside Africa. So where do we draw the line as how dark is black? I think that is your argument. But the fact is the matter is as far as the AEians are concerned. Are they black like other Africans south of the sahara? Or do you prefer white Africans. Is Tan African preferable? Or even Red Africans? Bottomline. AEians were pcitured very dark. But pictures can be misleading. But the TWO the studies cited so far conclude they were deeply pigmented. So to this poiint Black Africans is apppropriate. Of course undoubtedly they were indigenous Africans from the south and had no relation to modern Europeans. So does it really matter if they are black, brown, tan red or even….white.
Posted by kdolo (Member # 21830) on :
Swenet,
Negroes.......nothing but Negroes....
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
@Xyyman
I don't use 'black' anymore for reasons I've explained elsewhere. I'm commenting on how others use the term. But my past use of 'black' has been predominantly pigmentation related (e.g. see how al Jahiz includes all global low latitude populations based on skin pigmentation).
Recap of my views (emphasis on my as I'm not trying to 'convert' anyone), since reading what someone is saying by going over their posting history on that subject seems to have become a thing of the past:
*I don't think the term 'black' is needed in anthro conversations. *It tends to lead to strawman attacks from the other side *People tend to flip flop between different usages of 'black'. Because this happens subconsciously, they don't announce when they're doing it, which causes confusion. *Everyone and their mother has their own slight and large variations in their personal and default use of the term *Unless it can be substantiated with evidence, I don't think someone who is reluctant to apply 'black' to certain Africans is automatically racist *I don't think that someone who doesn't use 'black' in regards to certain dark skinned populations is automatically saying they aren't brown, or even dark brown skinned *Anything you want to express by saying 'black', you can express in more accurate terminology. If you want to group all indigenous Africans and exclude non-Africans, an alternative for 'black' can be 'indigenous Africans' or 'Saharo-Tropical variants' (Keita). If you want to refer to levels of skin pigmentation, you can talk in terms of melanin units, luschan scale values or ranges (e.g. the African American skin pigmentation range).
But I dislike how people are using 'black' like a trojan horse to trick academics and lay people. I don't support that at all. This lies at the root of why this discussion keeps resurfacing. I'm going to call it out where I see it, especially when I suspect people are doing it deliberately.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
My latest views on the level of skin pigmentation of the ancient Egyptians and how it changed over time (from early holocene to dynastic times) are discussed in the thread below.
So all of that "he doesn't believe they were 'black'" (whatever the hell that is supposed to mean) groping in the dark can be put to bed immediately.
I understand what you are saying. Yes, Black Africans conjures up an image. But “Caucasoids” is used with the same purpose. Europeans use it to steal African History. But which one is better suited to describe AEians? That is why I have no problem using the word Caucasoids now to describe AEians. I am no longer afraid of the word….Caucasoid. Because I know it is a trgger to get a response and image. Modern Europeans has absolute no connection to AEians.. Neine! None! Nada! You see the cat is out the bag already. There is no turning back the clock. The Amarna are undoubtedly related to South Saharans and West Africans more than a hundred-fold compared to Europeans and Berbers or Levantine. Too late the turn things around. The BMJ place Rameses III in direct lineage with SSA. Strike TWO! Last I checked SSA were balck. So yes, Black African is Appropraite. Nevertheless these people were scientifically tested and proven to be heaviliy pigmented. Nothing more to add here.
But to following with the logic in that thread by the banned member linked to. I understadn his arugument about latitude within Egypt. But the data emerging now indicates Europeans were phenotypically balck up to 4000BC and they may have only turned white on a large scale only recently. Point being light skin, is newer than we think.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Doug: He never mentions skin color but if asked to produce an image of what he felt an AE person looked like it would be white skinned most likely.
Lol. Groping in the dark and floundering, like on the rest of the pages of this thread.
In their monuments the dynastic Egyptians represented themselves as having a long face, pointed chin with scanty beard, a straight or somewhat aquiline nose, black irises, and a reddish-brown complexion. --John Baker
So that comment about the paint color somehow is Baker's statement on what he believed the actual skin color was of those people? Most Egyptologists say that. But it has nothing to do with how they represent the AE in popular media.
That is not a statement about the actual skin color they believe was in AE.
Bottom line the racists have been using double talk and any old made up terminology to make the AE white because it supports their racist agenda. For you to sit here and claim that they "really meant" just the opposite is ridiculous.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
^Sure
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: I understand what you are saying. Yes, Black Africans conjures up an image. But “Caucasoids” is used with the same purpose. Europeans use it to steal African History. But which one is better suited to describe AEians? That is why I have no problem using the word Caucasoids now to describe AEians. I am no longer afraid of the word….Caucasoid. Because I know it is a trgger to get a response and image. Modern Europeans has absolute no connection to AEians.. Neine! None! Nada! You see the cat is out the bag already. There is no turning back the clock. The Amarna are undoubtedly related to South Saharans and West Africans more than a hundred-fold compared to Europeans and Berbers or Levantine. Too late the turn things around. The BMJ place Rameses III in direct lineage with SSA. Strike TWO! Last I checked SSA were balck. So yes, Black African is Appropraite. Nevertheless these people were scientifically tested and proven to be heaviliy pigmented. Nothing more to add here.
But to following with the logic in that thread by the banned member linked to. I understadn his arugument about latitude within Egypt. But the data emerging now indicates Europeans were phenotypically balck up to 4000BC and they may have only turned white on a large scale only recently. Point being light skin, is newer than we think.
Noted.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike111:
After seeing these arguments for what, ten years or so. You still don't understand that Europeans "ARE" the Albinos of Dravidians and other Caucasian Blacks. If you can't even get that right, how can you participate in a discussion on the subject?
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Mike111:
After seeing these arguments for what, ten years or so. You still don't understand that Europeans "ARE" the Albinos of Dravidians and other Caucasian Blacks. If you can't even get that right, how can you participate in a discussion on the subject?
This is getting old.
quote:
Southeast and south Asian populations are also often thought to be derived from the admixture of various combinations of western Eurasians (‘Caucasoids’), east Asians and Australasians. ...
These findings, coupled with the recently discovered presence of haplogroup U in Ethiopia [11], support a scenario in which a northeast African population dispersed out of Africa into India, presumably through the Arabian peninsula, before 50,000 years ago (Figure 2). Other migrations into India also occurred, but rarely from western Eurasian populations. ...
Thus, the ‘caucasoid’ features of south Asians may best be considered ‘pre-caucasoid’— that is, part of a diverse north or north-east African gene pool that yielded separate origins for western Eurasian and southern Asian populations over 50,000 years ago.
--Todd R. Disotell.
Human evolution: The southern route to Asia
Volume 9, Issue 24, 30 December 1999, Pages R925–R928
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Funny the author said “presumably through the Arabian peninsular”.. Because ther eis no genetic evidence the migration was THROUGH Arabia. IIRC U9 found in Souath Asia and East Africa are related . The U9 in Africa was older than the U9 in India. So yes, these “Caucasoid” features always existed IN Africa. The question is, as I told MOM, How did they arrive in India …….or Canary Islands?
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
^ @ Xyyman,
It was the year 1999. It was not clear yet whether they moved out via the Sinai or the Horn. Straits of Gibraltar was no option back then, thus far I know.
And what do you mean with the "Canary Islands". The Canary Islands are on the West side of the African continent.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
The question on Iberia was directed at MOM, Mindovermatter poster, my bad.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
Oh, ok.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: @Xyyman
I don't use 'black' anymore for reasons I've explained elsewhere. I'm commenting on how others use the term. But my past use of 'black' has been predominantly pigmentation related (e.g. see how al Jahiz includes all global low latitude populations based on skin pigmentation).
Recap of my views (emphasis on my as I'm not trying to 'convert' anyone), since reading what someone is saying by going over their posting history on that subject seems to have become a thing of the past:
*I don't think the term 'black' is needed in anthro conversations. *It tends to lead to strawman attacks from the other side *People tend to flip flop between different usages of 'black'. Because this happens subconsciously, they don't announce when they're doing it, which causes confusion. *Everyone and their mother has their own slight and large variations in their personal and default use of the term *Unless it can be substantiated with evidence, I don't think someone who is reluctant to apply 'black' to certain Africans is automatically racist *I don't think that someone who doesn't use 'black' in regards to certain dark skinned populations is automatically saying they aren't brown, or even dark brown skinned *Anything you want to express by saying 'black', you can express in more accurate terminology. If you want to group all indigenous Africans and exclude non-Africans, an alternative for 'black' can be 'indigenous Africans' or 'Saharo-Tropical variants' (Keita). If you want to refer to levels of skin pigmentation, you can talk in terms of melanin units, luschan scale values or ranges (e.g. the African American skin pigmentation range).
But I dislike how people are using 'black' like a trojan horse to trick academics and lay people. I don't support that at all. This lies at the root of why this discussion keeps resurfacing. I'm going to call it out where I see it, especially when I suspect people are doing it deliberately.
There is no trojan horse. White racists want the AE to have white skin. That is the point. This was not created by nor originated with black folks. Black people are oppressed world wide because of their skin color. It is not an American issue it is a world wide issue. This nonsense about people not being able to describe skin colors by names like black and white is simply a tactic chosen by white Europeans in control of Egyptology to avoid the discussion all together. This tactic was even used when folks protested the King Tut reconstruction. But that is all it is.
Discussing skin color of ancient populations is as valid as any other aspect of anthropology. Yet when white folks keep presenting their lilly white Egyptians in movies, magazines, TV and other forms of media we are supposed to assume this is based on valid science? Of course not.
Egyptsearch has been a perennial thorn in the side of the mainstream community precisely because of the fact many folks here have exposed the hypocrisy and continuing racism within Egyptology. And this is done using multi disciplinary data across a wide range of populations and sites inside and outside Egypt.
But bottom line, the whole issue has always been about skin color. And if anyone thinks that the controversy and debates over Ancient Egypt are just about the Egyptians being "African" they are being either totally stupid or in denial. At the end of the day the issue is and has always been about skin color.
And if that is the issue then that is what should be addressed directly in terms of facts and evidence to support the Ancient Egyptians having black skin. There is no other way to do it. Because that is the fundamental underlying issue. And no matter how much data and multi disciplinary research folks on this site or other sites post showing otherwise, white folks are not going to stop portraying the AE as white because it suits their agenda which is inherently racist. And racism has always been based on skin color. The white Europeans who run Egyptology, finance the digs and own the artifacts know full dam well that the issue is about skin color yet they got some folks believing that skin color "isn't important". And that means they can continue portraying the AE as white and if you ask them they will claim that you are introducing "race" into the discussion. That is why I wholeheartedly disagree with this nonsense that skin color equals race. And if anybody believes skin color equals race we know for a fact it is white European science as it is they who created the concept in the first place. So I don't by that garbage that these folks don't know and understand what you mean when you say "black people" when you are talking about Ancient Egypt. They know dam well you are talking about skin color and when they reject the word black, they are absolutely rejecting the skin color it represents. There is no denying that fact.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
Black people are oppressed world wide because of their skin color. It is not an American issue it is a world wide issue.
what color are these so called "black people" ?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
Black people are oppressed world wide because of their skin color. It is not an American issue it is a world wide issue.
I thought the reason was to use them as slave labor and take their land
-but it was all because they didn't like their skin color? So it wasn't about greed, it's just a visual thing?
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: White racists want the AE to have white skin. That is the point.
Show me a list of academics, racist or otherwise, who aggregated the multidisciplinary evidence in their work and concluded at the end of their discourse that unadmixed (i.e. native) AE were pale skinned blondes.
Note that I said ***"academics who went through the evidence"***, so don't come back with no bs talking about pop culture portrayals or ignorant Egyptologists who are talking from their social conditioning.
The post of mine that was cited in the OP never talked about pop culture commentators or people who were influenced by hollywood portrayals. As usual, you're flip flopping and shifting the goalpost, but what else is new?
You're talking about the same trolls and fantasists who have historically depicted Jesus as pale, blue eyed, blonde haired and/or with European facial features. Stop wasting my time with obsessing over inconsequential nincompoops when I'm talking about academia.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: White racists want the AE to have white skin. That is the point.
^^^ Doug's point
then react by doing the exact opposite, that must be the solution
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
What do you mean "doing the exact opposite"? Are you suggesting that I should post counter evidence to his claim that "white racists want the AE to have white skin"? I've posted plenty examples of white racists who acknowledged the dark skin of AE.
When I disprove Doug M's claims, he starts flip flopping and flipping the script. That is all Doug does.
1) Doug claims A 2) I counter it with B 3) Instead of acknowledging he messed up, Doug then questions your motives for posting B, even though he may have explicitly asked you to post B (e.g. "why are you posting B when it was written by racists? You're a mouthpiece for Eurocentrics" or "the fact that you're posting B proves that you can't post [insert whatever his new goal post shift is]" or "[after I disproved his claim that the Bronze Age warrior resembled modern Europeans] you posted B, so are you saying that Maghrebis and Lower Egyptians are black?", etc, etc.)
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: [QB] What do you mean "doing the exact opposite"? Are you suggesting that I should post counter evidence to his claim that "white racists want the AE to have white skin"?
My last message was to Doug not you.
My point was that Doug is being reactionary. He sees something he thinks is wrong and thinks by doing the exact opposite it's right. Not realizing he's conforming to a paradigm
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: White racists want the AE to have white skin. That is the point.
Show me a list of academics, racist or otherwise, who aggregated the multidisciplinary evidence in their work and concluded at the end of their discourse that unadmixed (i.e. native) AE were pale skinned blondes.
Note that I said ***"academics who went through the evidence"***, so don't come back with no bs talking about pop culture portrayals or ignorant Egyptologists who are talking from their social conditioning.
The post of mine that was cited in the OP never talked about pop culture commentators or people who were influenced by hollywood portrayals. As usual, you're flip flopping and shifting the goalpost, but what else is new?
You're talking about the same trolls and fantasists who have historically depicted Jesus as pale, blue eyed, blonde haired and/or with European facial features. Stop wasting my time with obsessing over inconsequential nincompoops when I'm talking about academia.
You have takend the words of racists who don't say anything specifically about the skin color of the AE and tried to claim they specifically said anything about the skin color of the AE when they did not. The racists like Morton and the other guy used CRANIAL measurements as the basis of their definition of race. You keep trying to pretend that if someone says "Aethiopid" they mean black when they don't. "Aethiopid" is a generic "racial" category that they define to include Europeans based on skull shape. Historically all the major race scientists have used skull shape to define race. Hardly ever do you hear them say anything about the skin color of the AE directly. Most often they only claim that the AE skulls were similar to European skulls of various types. The implication being that if the skulls had similar shapes, then the skin color was similar as well. This has always been the standard racist paradigm concerning the skin color of the AE. Not to mention the only time you hear these same scientists use the term black is in reference to so-called "Nubians". So it isn't that they don't use the word black, they certainly do use it to refer to Africans. It is just that they don't use it for the AE because it is not in their interest to do so because they want to leave the door open for the AE being white.
And contrary to your point, white scholars are not sitting up here saying anything about the skin color of the AE directly. Hollywood, popular magazines, the History Channel, Discovery Channel all have scientists and scholars from the field of Egyptology who push the same racist nonsense that they have been pushing for the last 300 years. The fact is that Egyptology as a course of study was founded on making Ancient Egypt into a white society. And that is what they continue to do up to the present day. You are simply misunderstanding what is really happening in academia. Any scholar who has done a study can publish it for peer review. Just because it is deemed as sound science does not mean that individual studies will cause the entire scholarly community to change their own conclusions. The study of AE mummies being packed with melanin has done nothing to change the attitudes and public statements of Scholars on AE. For example, take the statement on the skin color of the King Tut reconstruction. Those were scholars and there was a large body of scholarship behind it. So the point is again skin color and these people are absolutely continuing to push their agenda and you are sitting here saying that even though everything these people produce shows the AE as white, there are other scientists somewhere who know that the AE were black. This is nonsense. If they existed this racist paradigm wouldn't be continuing to the present day.
Again, you are simply being a mouthpiece for racists and trying to put words into their mouths and change what they have written to make it say something it does not say. They are racists. They want ancient Egypt to be white. Your pronouncements and exhortations to the contrary are irrelevant. Which is why I don't agree with your proclamations that we can 'trust' or 'assume' these people really have the best intentions at heart. They don't.
There is nothing in current scholarship that suggests that the information below is NOT the consensus of modern scholarship on the skin color of ancient Egypt. If you go to the Oriental Institute, University of Pennsylvania or any institution that does research on ancient Egypt they will most likely say the exact same thing or something similar. NOTHING in here says that the AE were black people. In fact it says something absurd but that is the whole point, to make absurd blanket open ended statements that leave room for interperetation so that they can cover themselves in a cloak of legitimacy. In fact, this page actually shows why your point of view makes no sense. They say the Ancient Egyptians were "dark skinned" yet then conclude the image of Tut is "brown skinned", when it is not. Yet according to you this means they think the AE were black. Please. That is nonsense. And even if they do know it, they will never ever state it publicly.
You know dam full well that folks are talking bull sh&t out of their behinds when they start saying things like "they were neither white nor black", when the fact is that no population on earth is literally white or black, but we know that some populations have very light skin, generally called "white" and some populations have very dark skin generally called "black" regardless. Not to mention they claim that they are limited by statements of ancient writers, as if there is no science available to determine independently from that or that the artworks themselves aren't reliable enough.
quote: Not white. There is not yet enough evidence to make a definitive judgment about the pigmentation of the pharaohs or Moses, who himself was likely an Egyptian. Mummies are too desiccated to reveal skin tone, and the tiny amount of genetic evidence they have yielded so far adds nothing to the question. As the Explainer wrote back in 2011, small differences in bone structure don’t reliably indicate the race of a recently deceased person, let alone a 3,000-year-old corpse. We are mostly limited to the subjective statements of Egyptians and the outsiders who depicted them, which suggest that majority of people of pharaonic Egypt were neither white nor black, by modern standards.
Herodotus, for example, referred to the Egyptians as melanchroes. That term is sometimes translated as “black-skinned,” but Herodotus typically used a different word to describe people from further south in Africa, suggesting that “dark-skinned” is more appropriate. He also compared Egyptian skin to that of the people of Colchis, in the Southern Caucasus. The Egyptians typically painted representations of themselves with light brown skin, somewhere between the fair-skinned people of the Levant and the darker Nubian people to the south. These paintings, however, may not be entirely reliable, because Egyptian artists didn’t always faithfully attempt to recreate reality. They sometimes alternated skin tones of people in a row to create contrast. Men were depicted with darker skin than women to represent gender roles—men worked in the fields while women stayed in the home—even when the subjects were royalty who did not engage in manual labor.
Ancient Egypt was a racially diverse place, because the Nile River drew people from all over the region. Egyptian writings do not suggest that the people of that era had a preoccupation with skin color. Those who obeyed the king, spoke the language, and worshipped the proper gods were considered Egyptian. Outsiders were allowed to marry Egyptians. Even the aristocracy was racially integrated. Princesses from the Levant joined the Egyptian nobility. Maiherpri, a dark-skinned Nubian who lived shortly before the reign of Ramses II, was also part of the Egyptian royal court and was buried in the Valley of the Kings.
The skin color of ancient Egyptians is a long-running modern debate, both among scholars and in the lay community, even if the ancient Egyptians themselves didn’t much care about it. The last major flare-up came in 2005, when National Geographic launched a traveling exhibition featuring a reconstruction of the face of the boy-king Tutankhamun. A pair of earlier representations had suggested darker skin, and the lighter National Geographic version annoyed some observers. The Franklin Institute in Philadelphia convened a conference at which scholars slammed the depiction as too white. (One participant even compared the bust to a young Barbra Streisand.)* Nearly a decade later, though, the light-brown depiction of King Tut remains as good a guess as any.
Wrong. In fact she lies and says that new discoveries in the North have changed their understanding of the predynastic. No they haven't. The Egyptian state and culture still originated in the South. Nothing found in the North has changed this.
Let me know when you have that list Doug. Where are all these boogeymen in academia who went over the evidence and came out claiming that the AE were pale and blue eyed? I'm not going to take your word for it. Prove it.
Other than the clumsy Tut comment and other biases, this is what your article says:
quote:Originally posted by Brian Palmer: What was the skin color of ancient Egyptians? Not white.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Let me know when you have that list Doug. Where are all these boogeymen in academia who went over the evidence and came out claiming that the AE were pale and blue eyed? I'm not going to take your word for it. Prove it.
Other than the clumsy Tut comment and other biases, this is what your article says:
quote:Originally posted by Brian Palmer: What was the skin color of ancient Egyptians? Not white.
I just did. Emily U of Chicago.
But since you are in denial I will post some more. Suffice to say the only phantoms or boogeymen are those white scholars who claim that the AE were anything other than white or very light skinned.
I mean why on earth would people be posting so much on forums like this if mainstream scholarship was openly acknowledging that the AE were black? You don't make any sense. You just sound like you are defending white scholarship when they don't need to be defended. That makes you their mouthpiece. Note how she has problems with the word black, but claims that everybody and their grandmom was in ancient Egypt except black folks..... Seriously this is retarded and your attempts to claim that white scholars are saying something different no matter all the evidence to the contrary is also ridiculous.
quote: SBM: The Egyptians are a separate ethnic group, aren't they? They're not Arabs--
ET: That's correct. It's a difficult question. Because Egypt is in northeastern Africa on the big migration routes, we're not exactly sure what group the Egyptians are. We can trace the language, but it's dangerous to say what ethnic group people are from a language, because you can change languages. Languages are not affixed to gene types.
Our assumption is that the Egyptians are essentially a mongrel people--in a nice sense--a mixed group of people because of the location. You've got indigenous African stock. You've got a lot of peoples from Palestine. The precursors of the Arabs are mixed in there. There are blond, light-skinned people from North Africa, like the Libyans. You've got all of these people mixed together to make what were called the Egyptians.
You can even see from the painted reliefs in Egyptian tombs that Egyptians came in a wide spectrum of skin colors, everything from very light to very black. But they considered themselves to be Egyptians. They did not, particularly, have a sense of race. They had a sense of national identity.
People are studying the remains--because Egypt has so many mummies to study--but the question of where these people came from has not been resolved. We've been able to completely discard this colonial idea that came at the turn of the century, where people said, "It couldn't have been Africans who made this fabulous civilization. It must have been Anglo-Saxon types or Indo-Europeans." This has now been rejected for 40 or 50 years, but occasionally comes up from people who are not aware that this is nonsense--and nastiness.
SBM: What about the opposite view, the Afrocentric view, that it's all black civilization and they taught the Greeks everything they knew?
ET: There are problems with that also. First of all there are problems with the use of the term black. What does black mean? It's so imprecise. And when you look at the reliefs, what does black have to do with these?
The impact of Egypt on Greece is being reevaluated. Certainly there is not as much transfer of information as had been thought, because in the Greek period in Egypt there were two parallel societies. There was a Greek society, the overlords of Egypt, and then there were the Egyptians.
Not that watching you debunk your own claims with your own sources isn't entertaining (none of them claim that the AE were pale and blue eyed), but I still don't see academics who did what I asked you to substantiate. Post academics who WENT OVER THE EVIDENCE and came to the conclusion that they were pale and blue eyed.
Which one the articles you posted discuss the evidence? They're just opinionated rookies. You're just proving my point that the Eurocentrics you're obsessing over NEVER STUDIED THIS and if they did study this and they're saying that, they're TROLLING.
Again, THIS is generally what Eurocentric scholars who studied the subject say in regards to AE skin:
According to the best preserved monuments, the ancient Egyptians had a brownish-reddish complexion of skin, long face, pointed chin, scant beard, straight or aquiline nose like the Ethiopian race (see p. 288). The hair of the mummies makes us think of the black and frizzy hair of the Ethiopians themselves. --Joseph Deniker (1900)
I don't have time for this. This is getting more ridiculous by the second. Who cares about Emily Teeter or what she thinks? You just pluck random articles off the internet and try to pass them off as knowledgeable specialists.
Posted by Nodnarb (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Let me know when you have that list Doug. Where are all these boogeymen in academia who went over the evidence and came out claiming that the AE were pale and blue eyed? I'm not going to take your word for it. Prove it.
Other than the clumsy Tut comment and other biases, this is what your article says:
quote:Originally posted by Brian Palmer: What was the skin color of ancient Egyptians? Not white.
Thing is, a lot of the public commentators on this issue that Doug is referencing haven't gone over that evidence before spouting that bullshit. Hopefully if they did, they would revise their statements accordingly. But that being said, the fact that they're presenting themselves as authoritative voices despite not having examined the evidence in depth is still a problem. I wouldn't say they are involved in some deliberate coverup like Doug seems to be claiming, but you can still fault them for arrogance and presenting their own ignorance as reliable information. And in a way, that's no less infuriating. The way I see it, ignoramuses pretending to be experts can be at least as obnoxious as conscious liars.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Not that watching you debunk your own claims with your own sources isn't entertaining (none of them claim that the AE were pale and blue eyed), but I still don't see academics who did what I asked you to substantiate. Post academics who WENT OVER THE EVIDENCE and came to the conclusion that they were pale and blue eyed.
Which one the articles you posted discuss the evidence? They're just opinionated rookies. You're just proving my point that the Eurocentrics you're obsessing over NEVER STUDIED THIS and if they did study this and they're saying that, they're TROLLING.
Again, THIS is generally what Eurocentric scholars who studied the subject say in regards to AE skin:
According to the best preserved monuments, the ancient Egyptians had a brownish-reddish complexion of skin, long face, pointed chin, scant beard, straight or aquiline nose like the Ethiopian race (see p. 288). The hair of the mummies makes us think of the black and frizzy hair of the Ethiopians themselves. --Joseph Deniker (1900)
I don't have time for this. This is getting more ridiculous by the second. Who cares about Emily Teeter or what she thinks? You just pluck random articles off the internet and try to pass them off as knowledgeable specialists.
Swenet, your trolling tactics are getting annoying. I posted a current up to date article by current scholars in the field at a leading university involved in teaching Egyptology and you go to a dam article from 1900? Why don't you address what has been posted? You have been doing this since page one. I prove you wrong and you jump to something else continually trying to troll as if you have a point. You don't. Egyptology as a whole is racist and has always been racist and your attempts to defend it and pretend that it is otherwise are simply asinine.
Nothing you have posted on this thread justifies the notion that European scholars are anything but promoting ancient Egypt as white or that use of the word black is being rejected for any other reason other than skin color. You are trying to defend these people and it is the reason why this thread has been going for over 13 pages now. Yes some European scholars have acknowledged that the AE were black Africans, but most of them don't. That is the point that you simply keep refusing to admit and now you finally find one who actually says the AE had black skin and you act like this changes all the other scholars who say the exact opposite. Not only that you pretend that this somehow contradicts the following which is what you asked for and I provided. So the point is you are wrong. European scholars as a whole are not admitting or claiming the AE were black. You are wrong and no amount of special pleading will change those facts. Budge, Bernal, Poe and many other individual white scholars have acknowledged the AE as black, but the bulk of European scholars still to this day views them and portrays them as white.
quote: One of the greatest powerhouses of Egyptology--the study of the history, language, and culture of ancient Egypt--and other ancient Near Eastern studies is the Oriental Institute, established in 1919 as an arm of the University of Chicago. It's been a leader in archaeology and epigraphy, the study of inscriptions, and its museum, which is now being expanded and improved, is a major resource for anyone with an interest in the field.
Dr. Emily Teeter, author of numerous scholarly papers on ancient Egypt, has been assistant curator at the museum for the last five years. A Seattle native, she was one of the Egyptologists for the "Treasures of Tutankhamun" show that toured American cities, including Chicago, in the late 70s, and has been a curator and consultant for many other exhibits and programs.
Our assumption is that the Egyptians are essentially a mongrel people--in a nice sense--a mixed group of people because of the location. You've got indigenous African stock. You've got a lot of peoples from Palestine. The precursors of the Arabs are mixed in there. There are blond, light-skinned people from North Africa, like the Libyans. You've got all of these people mixed together to make what were called the Egyptians.
ET: Certainly the Greeks did borrow from the Egyptians. The problem I have is when you say black Africans. Certainly they're Africans. Some of them you might say were black. The Afrocentric view is an important one to consider, and it is something that we deal with quite a bit. But there's not that much that the Greeks got from Egypt. There are significant amounts, but it's not as though Egypt inspired Greek civilization--not at all. Martin Bernal's Black Athena and all of that are just based on loose scholarship. It seems to be a sort of academic exercise of taking information and molding it to a certain preset conclusion--obviously not well received by Egyptologists or linguists.
SBM: But it's being taught in universities all over the country.
ET:That's right, and it's a shame, because there is a lot of good in the Afrocentrist approach. Certainly Africa has been given short shrift. There are now more publications coming out about ancient African civilizations, of which Egypt of course is one. It's something we've tried to do here, emphasizing Nubia, because Nubia--which is in today's southern Egypt and northern Sudan--has much less Middle Eastern influence. It's much more African--whatever African is. Africa is this incredible mosaic of hundreds of different cultures.
We've been emphasizing Nubia, because first of all it's a culture that people have no idea about. Because it is less Middle Eastern-influenced, people who are looking for African roots and the glories of Africa can look at that. And it was an absolutely incredible civilization. At one point, in fact, the Nubians conquered Egypt and unified most of the Nile Valley, about the eighth century BC. They built pyramids, they trained elephants for the Roman army, they were in a lot of contact with Rome and with Greece--a very rich civilization. We feel that part of our mission here is to educate people about cultures like that, which fall within our sphere because it is in the Nile Valley.
This is what you asked for and this is what you got from modern day European scholars. Address that and stop running.
This woman is defending the portrayals of AE people in movies, TV and popular media as white. That is the context of the conversation. Now again, please show me where these folks know the AE were black. They don't. What this woman is saying is the "party line" for all of Egyprtology. That is what she teaches to her students and that is what they need to regurgitate in order to get "acceptance" from Egyptology. Whatever it is you are talking about is irrelevant.
You are nothing but a troll defending white folks and their nonsense at this point.
These people are consistent across the board with their lies and misrepresentations of the facts.
quote: The Ancient Egyptians’ use of color is a controversial topic, one which is quite often deeply misunderstood. It is a famous point of contention for those overly concerned with “race,” specifically Afrocentrists, some of whom often make claims to the effect of Egyptian deities being “literally Black” because some were depicted with black or reddish-brown skin in some instances, and that Ancient Egyptian society, rather than being a multi-ethnic Afro-Asiatic mosaic* society as has been clearly and repeatedly demonstrated to the point of intuitive ubiquity, were originally and uniformly “Black Africans” by virtue of one of the several names for their homeland: Kemet, or “Black Land.” However, such claims furthering specific racial ideologies grossly decontextualize and distort the Ancient Egyptians’ codified systems of metaphor and depiction. These depictions are not always literal or true to life, particularly where the representation of Divine, Otherworldly beings and sacred concepts are concerned. In this article, I will attempt to clear the air by explaining what each of the major colors meant to the Ancient Egyptians, and how those colors were used.
Thesis paper on ancient Egypt from 2007: Totally avoids the point by not discussing skin color at all, as if any discussion of skin color in ancient populations equates to race.
quote: Race vs Ethnicity
Despite the Egyptian focus on physical differences, and this paper's interpretation of this focus, the term "race" will be avoided where possible. The concept of "race" has long been used to describe and label people who display similar physical characteristics, most notoriously so in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Attempts to predict the behavior pattern of groups of people belonging to the various "races" were once backed by pseudo-scientific assertions that claimed that individual characteristics such as intellect and personality were biological and could thus be linked to physical characteristics like skin color. These arguments have no serious scientific grounding but the term "race" remains problematic. The idea that behavior or ability is connected with skin color is "the classic definition of racism" and so, to avoid unintentionally bringing to mind the negative and primarily modem connotations associated with race, this work will focus instead on describing the ethnic identities of the various peoples of the ancient Near East and to interpret critically the relationships that existed between these groupings.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Let me know when you have that list Doug. Where are all these boogeymen in academia who went over the evidence and came out claiming that the AE were pale and blue eyed? I'm not going to take your word for it. Prove it.
Other than the clumsy Tut comment and other biases, this is what your article says:
quote:Originally posted by Brian Palmer: What was the skin color of ancient Egyptians? Not white.
Thing is, a lot of the public commentators on this issue that Doug is referencing haven't gone over that evidence before spouting that bullshit. Hopefully if they did, they would revise their statements accordingly. But that being said, the fact that they're presenting themselves as authoritative voices despite not having examined the evidence in depth is still a problem. I wouldn't say they are involved in some deliberate coverup like Doug seems to be claiming, but you can still fault them for arrogance and presenting their own ignorance as reliable information. And in a way, that's no less infuriating. The way I see it, ignoramuses pretending to be experts can be at least as obnoxious as conscious liars.
Emily Teeter is not ignorant. She is custodian at the Oriental Institute in the University of Chicago. These people are not ignorant. They are willful liars and deceivers. Ignorant doesn't come into the equation.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Why don't you address what has been posted?
There is nothing to "address" other than that you set the goal post here:
White racists want the AE to have white skin. That is the point. --Doug M
And then you single handedly debunked yourself by posting Emily Teeter and Brian Palmer:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: What was the skin color of ancient Egyptians? Not white. --Brian Palmer
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The Egyptians typically painted representations of themselves with light brown skin, somewhere between the fair-skinned people of the Levant and the darker Nubian people to the south. --Emily Teeter
Do you even see yourself flip flop?
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Why don't you address what has been posted?
There is nothing to "address" other than that you set the goal post here:
White racists want the AE to have white skin. That is the point. --Doug M
And then you single handedly debunked yourself by posted Emily Teeter and Brian Palmer:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: What was the skin color of ancient Egyptians? Not white. --Brian Palmer
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The Egyptians typically painted representations of themselves with light brown skin, somewhere between the fair-skinned people of the Levant and the darker Nubian people to the south. --Emily Teeter
Do you even see yourself flip flop?
No Swenet, you are a lame troll at this point simply defying logic to try and avoid the fact that all of your arguments on this thread have been shown to be invalid.
You started on page one claiming that "objective" European scholars did not use the word black but still acknowledged that the AE were 'black' using some other kind of words. You failed.
You then tried to equate studying skin color in ancient populations to racism and failed.
You then tried to claim that ancient European people are relevant when talking about "black people" in Africa and Ancient Egypt and failed.
Then you claimed that racists were admitting the AE were black in some way and failed.
You simply keep skipping from one point to the next every time you get debunked trying to find some other superfluous tidbit of data to try and defend white European scholarship as if we all don't know that when it comes to the AE they are racists. Yet you pretend that the movies books and other publications showing the AE as white are not supported by the same European scholarly community that created scientific racism. And now you have skipped again, like a record player after being bumped because you simply keep getting demolished and keep trying to save face.
Now you are saying that the page I posted is somehow acknowledging the AE as "black" using some other language.
No it isn't.
quote: Not white. There is not yet enough evidence to make a definitive judgment about the pigmentation of the pharaohs or Moses, who himself was likely an Egyptian. Mummies are too desiccated to reveal skin tone, and the tiny amount of genetic evidence they have yielded so far adds nothing to the question. As the Explainer wrote back in 2011, small differences in bone structure don’t reliably indicate the race of a recently deceased person, let alone a 3,000-year-old corpse. We are mostly limited to the subjective statements of Egyptians and the outsiders who depicted them, which suggest that majority of people of pharaonic Egypt were neither white nor black, by modern standards.
According to the full quote they were neither white nor black. Which is nonsense.
But here you go claiming that the page says what it does not, which is that the AE were "black people" in some kind of 'dark skinned' way. OK.
Then the article goes on to say:
quote: Ancient Egypt was a racially diverse place, because the Nile River drew people from all over the region. Egyptian writings do not suggest that the people of that era had a preoccupation with skin color. Those who obeyed the king, spoke the language, and worshipped the proper gods were considered Egyptian. Outsiders were allowed to marry Egyptians. Even the aristocracy was racially integrated. Princesses from the Levant joined the Egyptian nobility. Maiherpri, a dark-skinned Nubian who lived shortly before the reign of Ramses II, was also part of the Egyptian royal court and was buried in the Valley of the Kings.Ancient Egypt was a racially diverse place, because the Nile River drew people from all over the region. Egyptian writings do not suggest that the people of that era had a preoccupation with skin color. Those who obeyed the king, spoke the language, and worshipped the proper gods were considered Egyptian. Outsiders were allowed to marry Egyptians. Even the aristocracy was racially integrated. Princesses from the Levant joined the Egyptian nobility. Maiherpri, a dark-skinned Nubian who lived shortly before the reign of Ramses II, was also part of the Egyptian royal court and was buried in the Valley of the Kings.
Yeah this article is NOT acknowledging the AE as dark skinned or "black".
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Yeah, yeah.
Talk is cheap. Strawman attacks are cheaper. Let me know when you're ready to stop flip flopping and to start demonstrating.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Let me know when you have that list Doug. Where are all these boogeymen in academia who went over the evidence and came out claiming that the AE were pale and blue eyed? I'm not going to take your word for it. Prove it.
Other than the clumsy Tut comment and other biases, this is what your article says:
quote:Originally posted by Brian Palmer: What was the skin color of ancient Egyptians? Not white.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Yeah, yeah.
Talk is cheap. Strawman attacks are cheaper. Let me know when you're ready to stop flip flopping and start demonstrating.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Let me know when you have that list Doug. Where are all these boogeymen in academia who went over the evidence and came out claiming that the AE were pale and blue eyed? I'm not going to take your word for it. Prove it.
Other than the clumsy Tut comment and other biases, this is what your article says:
quote:Originally posted by Brian Palmer: What was the skin color of ancient Egyptians? Not white.
Nobody is flip flopping. You keep getting your nonsense demolished on this thread but sure I am flip flopping.
bottom line: You are wrong. White European scholars are not acknowledging the AE as black skinned using some other language, words or anything else among the large majority of scholars in Egyptology or even anthropology.
That has been shown to be completely false.
Which makes your argument that using "other words" than black will somehow change the way the AE are depicted in European popular media and scholarship totally false.
I have been saying this consistently since page one. And you have consistently failed to prove me wrong which is why you keep jumping around trying to divert the topic into something else in order to avoid the fact you are wrong.
Whatever you claim I am flip flopping about is irrelevant to the point above.
You are simply wasting time because you can't defend your argument.
Period.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: White European scholars are not acknowledging the AE as black skinned using some other language, words or anything else among the large majority of scholars in Egyptology or even anthropology.
All my comments have been restricted to academics who have a certain competence in this area and who have studied the AE ethnic background:
No competent western, middle eastern or oriental academic who has seriously looked into this is going to use the term "black" (in a racial sense) when applied to dynastic Egyptians (although they might do it in a pigmentation sense, by saying they would have been dark brown). --Swenet
Emily Teeter and Brain Palmer don't have a firm grasp on the subject matter, which is evident from their language and inability to go much deeper beyond "red skinned Egyptians on the monuments". Try again flip flopper.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Which makes your argument that using "other words" than black will somehow change the way the AE are depicted in European popular media and scholarship totally false.
His persistent strawmen attacks and hopes they're going unnoticed would be amusing if they weren't so transparent and played out by now.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: White European scholars are not acknowledging the AE as black skinned using some other language, words or anything else among the large majority of scholars in Egyptology or even anthropology.
All my comments have been restricted to academics who have a certain competence in this area and who have studied the AE ethnic background:
No competent western, middle eastern or oriental academic who has seriously looked into this is going to use the term "black" (in a racial sense) when applied to dynastic Egyptians (although they might do it in a pigmentation sense, by saying they would have been dark brown). --Swenet
Emily Teeter and Brain Palmer don't have a firm grasp on the subject matter, which is evident from their language and inability to go much deeper beyond "red skinned Egyptians on the monuments". Try again flip flopper.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Which makes your argument that using "other words" than black will somehow change the way the AE are depicted in European popular media and scholarship totally false.
His persistent strawmen attacks and hopes they're going unnoticed would be amusing if they weren't so transparent and played out by now.
Swenet you are in no position to determine who is competent or acknowledged as an authority in any field of scholarship anywhere. You don't pay their salaries, confer their degrees or sign off on their thesis papers. Therefore what you consider as 'valid' scholarship is irrelevant. The faculty at the U of Chicago is not paid by you and do not require your approval for their degrees or to teach. Your absurd attempts to downplay and ignore the fact that Europeans are absolutely racist when it comes to Egypt are simply sad and delusional to say the least.
I don't have any illusion about the situation while you keep with some delusional belief that these people aren't saying what they actually say or that the European scholarly community isn't the European scholarly community because you say so.
Like I said before, modern Egyptology has taken the stance that any discussion of skin color in Ancient Egypt is equivalent to discussing race, which is used to keep students studying Egyptology from debating or disagreeing with any "authorities" in the field on the subject. It basically is trying to avoid the accusation that the portrayals of the skin color of the Ancient Egyptians by modern scholars is based on modern racism in the European academic community and does not match the facts nor evidence from ancient or modern Egypt itself.
quote: Talking about what race the Ancient Egyptians is a fascinatingly controversial topic that, even today, ignites angry passions. There exists a fierce argument between Afro-centrists and those who would love to discredit them (the latter group is almost hilarious in their desperation to discredit the former) over whether or not the Ancient Egyptians were black. But trying to “retcon” them into our narrow parameters of race is difficult to say the least as, most importantly, race is not even real in the biological sense. Human DNA does not vary much between one population to the next–in fact, more genetic variation can be found within a population–and as such it is impossible to determine race based on DNA alone.
People are studying the remains--because Egypt has so many mummies to study--but the question of where these people came from has not been resolved. --Emily Teeter
Has no authority to speak on the matter. Stop trying to fool yourself. You seem to have the "smart massa" complex where every white academic with a position in a university is automatically an authority on every niche subject.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Your absurd attempts to downplay and ignore the fact that Europeans are absolutely racist when it comes to Egypt are simply sad and delusional to say the least.
Stop the strawman attacks Doug. It's making it seem like you have the short term memory of a goldfish.
This is what I said in regards to Eurocentric racism. I don't deny it exists, I just don't agree most of it was channeled into the skin pigmentation of the EA by academics who have studied the subject.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: An additional point is that the vast majority of the racism in Egyptology has been directed into channels other than the ethnic background of the ancient Egyptians. Early writings on the AE phenotypical associations mostly centered on their so-called 'Hamitic' origins. The comparative populations in this 'Hamitic' grouping are still considered their closest relatives today by bio-anthropologists widely cited on egyptsearch.
How by far most of the racism has expressed itself, is in the following, among other things:
1) reluctance to admit or at least consider that the 'Hamitic' grouping consists of groups who are indigenous African in principle. 2) saying civilization was brought in from Sumer and elsewhere. 3) insisting that they couldn't have been 'black' and then pointing to region x in Africa they perceive to be uncivilized. 4) making the the ability to progress in civilization hereditary. 5) explaining unexpected (i.e. "negroid") skeletal remains away as individuals who were 'enslaved' by the ancient Egyptians. 6) explaining Egypto-Nubian conflicts as racial wars. 7) saying 'black Africans' couldn't have crossed the Sahara when it was a desert. 8) ignoring and marginalizing cultural links with inner Africa and magnifying cultural links with the Middle East.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
Black is a reference to skin color and white folks will always promote ancient Egyptians as white skinned
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Let me know when you have that list Doug. Where are all these boogeymen in academia who went over the evidence and came out claiming that the AE were pale and blue eyed? I'm not going to take your word for it. Prove it.
Other than the clumsy Tut comment and other biases, this is what your article says:
quote:Originally posted by Brian Palmer: What was the skin color of ancient Egyptians? Not white.
I just did. Emily U of Chicago.
But since you are in denial I will post some more. Suffice to say the only phantoms or boogeymen are those white scholars who claim that the AE were anything other than white or very light skinned.
I mean why on earth would people be posting so much on forums like this if mainstream scholarship was openly acknowledging that the AE were black? You don't make any sense. You just sound like you are defending white scholarship when they don't need to be defended. That makes you their mouthpiece. Note how she has problems with the word black, but claims that everybody and their grandmom was in ancient Egypt except black folks..... Seriously this is retarded and your attempts to claim that white scholars are saying something different no matter all the evidence to the contrary is also ridiculous.
quote: SBM: The Egyptians are a separate ethnic group, aren't they? They're not Arabs--
ET: That's correct. It's a difficult question. Because Egypt is in northeastern Africa on the big migration routes, we're not exactly sure what group the Egyptians are. We can trace the language, but it's dangerous to say what ethnic group people are from a language, because you can change languages. Languages are not affixed to gene types.
Our assumption is that the Egyptians are essentially a mongrel people--in a nice sense--a mixed group of people because of the location. You've got indigenous African stock. You've got a lot of peoples from Palestine. The precursors of the Arabs are mixed in there. There are blond, light-skinned people from North Africa, like the Libyans. You've got all of these people mixed together to make what were called the Egyptians.
You can even see from the painted reliefs in Egyptian tombs that Egyptians came in a wide spectrum of skin colors, everything from very light to very black. But they considered themselves to be Egyptians. They did not, particularly, have a sense of race. They had a sense of national identity.
People are studying the remains--because Egypt has so many mummies to study--but the question of where these people came from has not been resolved. We've been able to completely discard this colonial idea that came at the turn of the century, where people said, "It couldn't have been Africans who made this fabulous civilization. It must have been Anglo-Saxon types or Indo-Europeans." This has now been rejected for 40 or 50 years, but occasionally comes up from people who are not aware that this is nonsense--and nastiness.
SBM: What about the opposite view, the Afrocentric view, that it's all black civilization and they taught the Greeks everything they knew?
ET: There are problems with that also. First of all there are problems with the use of the term black. What does black mean? It's so imprecise. And when you look at the reliefs, what does black have to do with these?
The impact of Egypt on Greece is being reevaluated. Certainly there is not as much transfer of information as had been thought, because in the Greek period in Egypt there were two parallel societies. There was a Greek society, the overlords of Egypt, and then there were the Egyptians.
Doug keeps saying over and over again mainstream Egyptology wants the Egyptians to be white and when asked to give an example it's this:
quote:
where people said, "It couldn't have been Africans who made this fabulous civilization. It must have been Anglo-Saxon types or Indo-Europeans." This has now been rejected for 40 or 50 years, but occasionally comes up from people who are not aware that this is nonsense--and nastiness.
You can even see from the painted reliefs in Egyptian tombs that Egyptians came in a wide spectrum of skin colors, everything from very light to very black
In Doug's mind this 20 year old quote is supposed to be a glaring example of "white" racist Egyptologists wanting the Egyptians to be white
How can Doug be that delusional ? The woman plainly says some Egyptians are depicted not only black but "very black" and of the ones depicted with lighter skin she specifically excludes then from being Anglo-Saxon types or Indo-Europeans Instead she references Libyans
Doug needs to do his homework and find a recent quote where an Egyptologist is saying the Egyptians were white, otherwise he needs to hang up the straw men because he is looking very foolish with this example
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Anyone who says this:
People are studying the remains--because Egypt has so many mummies to study--but the question of where these people came from has not been resolved. --Emily Teeter
Has no authority to speak on the matter. Stop trying to fool yourself. You seem to have the "smart massa" complex where every white academic with a position in a university is automatically an authority on every niche subject.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Your absurd attempts to downplay and ignore the fact that Europeans are absolutely racist when it comes to Egypt are simply sad and delusional to say the least.
Stop the strawman attacks Doug. It's making it seem like you have the short term memory of a goldfish.
This is what I said in regards to Eurocentric racism. I don't deny it exists, I just don't agree most of it was channeled into the skin pigmentation of the EA by academics who have studied the subject.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: An additional point is that the vast majority of the racism in Egyptology has been directed into channels other than the ethnic background of the ancient Egyptians. Early writings on the AE phenotypical associations mostly centered on their so-called 'Hamitic' origins. The comparative populations in this 'Hamitic' grouping are still considered their closest relatives today by bio-anthropologists widely cited on egyptsearch.
How by far most of the racism has expressed itself, is in the following, among other things:
1) reluctance to admit or at least consider that the 'Hamitic' grouping consists of groups who are indigenous African in principle. 2) saying civilization was brought in from Sumer and elsewhere. 3) insisting that they couldn't have been 'black' and then pointing to region x in Africa they perceive to be uncivilized. 4) making the the ability to progress in civilization hereditary. 5) explaining unexpected (i.e. "negroid") skeletal remains away as individuals who were 'enslaved' by the ancient Egyptians. 6) explaining Egypto-Nubian conflicts as racial wars. 7) saying 'black Africans' couldn't have crossed the Sahara when it was a desert. 8) ignoring and marginalizing cultural links with inner Africa and magnifying cultural links with the Middle East.
What I said was not a strawman. You do not confer degrees upon or pay the salaries of anybody in any field of study in any discipline. So your attempt to ignore Emily Teeter as a scholar of Egyptology is simply you living in fantasy land. You did say that yet her paycheck and her titles say otherwise. Rather than debate the fact that her position is not dependent on your approval, I would rather point out she is just promoting the standard party line concerning ancient Egypt in terms of what you must accept and regurgitate in order to get a degree in Egyptology. Whether you like it or not is irrelevant, but the fact is that this is what the 'scholarly community' promotes as Ancient Egyptian history and your attempts to downplay and ignore the racism in Egyptology as an institution is beyond belief.
Here is another video by Miss Teeter rehashing the trope that the color of Egyptian men was red (when it was brown) and the women were yellow because they stayed inside:
We all know full damn well this is nonsense and I am quite sure she is familiar with the objections to this nonsense but that won't stop her from continuing to say it because again, nobody here pays this woman's checks or confers her any degrees or authority over anything.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
Here is another video by Miss Teeter rehashing the trope that the color of Egyptian men was red (when it was brown) and the women were yellow because they stayed inside:
We all know full damn well this is nonsense and I am quite sure she is familiar with the objections to this nonsense but that won't stop her from continuing to say it because again, nobody here pays this woman's checks or confers her any degrees or authority over anything.
^^^ Time 43:52
"very very commpn that the men are painted kid of terra-cotta red and women are painted yellow and this is an encoding, it's symbolic, that supposedly this family is well off enough that the woman does not have to word outdoors, this is what we think is going on here...."
So agin the word "white" was not used but Doug is claiming that it was
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
the color of Egyptian men was red (when it was brown)
interesting, they were brown, clip and save quote
Let's look at the sculpture form the Oriental Institute Teeter is referring to:
quote: The brown and yellow skin tones are common ancient Egyptian convention that differentiate male from female. The woman's lighter tone indicates that she lived a protected life and did not have to work under the harsh sun. The affectionate pose of the couple attests to the close tie between man and wife in ancient Egypt.
Terrracotta is reddish brown not red like an apple as Doug tries to imply by leaving out the word "terracotta" Color semantics again (yet this is the age of genetics)
So we see the words "terracotta red" is a fair description of this particular sculpture and the woman never said "white" or anything close to it
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Yet pop depictions in movies today sometimes depict the Egyptians as Europeans.
So what to do about?
I suggest one thing that is better than crying about it here or trying to entrap professors to use words you like is to instead go to the sources of whoever is misrepresenting the Egyptians.
Doug pointed out a history magazine published in Britain "All About History" with Ramesses II depicted as a European looking type on the cover
So you are free to contact them and complain in any way you see fit.
But did any of you do it? I did.
Do people really care about taking action? Or is it really about winning debates in forums?
Maybe that won't change anything but I will tell you it is certainly more likely to have an influence than endlessly debating semantics in this long ass thread
It is time to stop nitpicking and focusing on words.
The best approach is to go to the sources and say your representation is not matching the Egyptian's representation and it's not fair and not respectful or twitter about it
Ridley Scott took heat for Exodus despite his defensiveness about it
To an extent however, one can use artistic license in a film and have any ethnicity play any other ethnicity
But,,, historians and history magazines can't use such excuses - and you need to call them to account for it
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
Egyptology, since its founding by the rich robber barons of Europe who began going there to steal the treasures, has been founded on white supremacy. They created a whole discipline with one purpose, which is to turn ancient Egypt into a long lost white civilization, which was based upon enslaving black folks to the south. This narrative was the reason for the Samuel Morton's and other racists of the world creating the science of craniology and anthropology in the first place, in order to show the world that white folks have always built their civilizations based on conquest and enslavement of "inferior" races, like Africans. This language is consistent in all the books written by the racists on ancient Egypt from the 1700s to this very day and it continues in the movies, TV shows, magazines and other popular publications put out in the media.
Because of this history, Egyptology as a degree granting course of study in many major European universities have come up with a doctrine that tries to blame racism in science on black folks. This is based on the idea that "scholars aren't racists" even if their views and ideas on what the Ancient Egyptians looked like haven't changed for over 200 years. They basically force you to accept their blanket statements on the skin color of the ancient Egyptians being white but when you challenge them on this portrayal, turn around and claim you are being racist for focusing on skin color. That is the whole underlying argument that is being made by some folks on this thread. they must be trying to get acceptance from or admission into some European school of Egyptology because they are going out of their way to support the same doctrine.
Here is an example from a current page from an egyptology department professors web site:
quote: Race is based on phenotypic characteristics with skin color being the first indication of one’s background, but this process is flawed due to the simple fact of clinal distribution and other, highly variable factors such as diet.
Skin color is not race. Studying the skin color of an ancient population is no different than studying any other aspect of biology in anthropology. It becomes racist when you identify skin color of said population based on preconceived notions of superiority or inferiority based on skin color, which is implicit in most of the works of European anthropology for the last 200 years. In fact, most of the racism was based using skull measurements to determine "race", where certain types of skulls were deemed to be closer to the European "ideal" racial type, even in Egypt.... See Samuel Morton. None of this originates with black people or black scholars.
quote: There is simply no place where “black” skin ends and white “skin” begins, though many are hoping that by studying the DNA of mummies the racial background of the Ancient Egyptians will be revealed.
Populations have skin color based on environmental adaption to prevailing local conditions. Ancient Egypt was primarily populated from the South by populations who would have been tropically adapted and therefore black in complexion. Nothing in the environment of the Sahara or Southern Egypt would produce the skin color and phenotype of a modern European or very pale Levantine type population.
quote: Moreover, race as we know it is a modern concept. Our pattern of white supremacy, which was birthed out of economic concern, only began after African slaves had been brought to the Americas. For the ancients, nationality as we understand it was much more important than whatever shade of skin might have. The Ancient Greeks, for example, considered themselves the premier race based on culture, not color. But these racist ideals were too blinding to early archaeologists, who practically fabricated reason after reason the Ancient Egyptians could only be white. Even more desperately, the Nubians were not escape this pattern of whitewashing.
OK. But this hasn't changed. Europeans are still portraying the ancient Egyptians as white. So where does Egyptology stand on this point? And we know that the word "white skin" refers to any population with very pale skin colors. But to this day in most depictions of ancient Egyptians the populations are depicted this way, even though most people in Egypt to this day don't match this, especially those in Upper Egypt (Abydos on down) who have always been black.
But here is the key. Even on this very page of Egyptology they admit that Europeans are still very racist in terms of what the Ancient Egyptians looked like. However, instead of addressing the issue as originating within Egyptology itself, they try and pretend that skin color isn't a part of anthropology and the study of human biology. As if to say "white scholars" aren't racist, but other people are. The point is nobody would know about Egypt in the West or most of the world if it was not for the so-called science of Egyptology and it is that same field of scholarship that is responsible for promoting the idea of ancient Egypt as being white.
So take responsibility for the racism within the institution that you belong to and stop trying to pretend it is somebody else's fault.
Egyptology was financed by rich white folks like the David Rockefeller to analyze and study the artifacts they stole from Egypt. The University of Chicaco and the Oriental institute were founded by Rockefeller money along with the expeditions to Egypt and the Egyptian museum itself. In other words, the whole institution was founded by and for racists who were plundering nations and people of the world for their own wealth and power and plundering Egypt was just the jewel in the crown of their stolen glory.
quote: Regardless of the race of the Egyptian people, does it matter?
It doesn’t matter to me in the sense that it proves the superiority of one race or another at any given time. It doesn’t matter to me in the sense that I feel moved to prove the Egyptians as one race or another. It is important because of our recent history with race, one that leaves children feeling lesser and some feeling cheated as the race of famous individuals is left out of history books. If the Egyptians were truly a white race I wouldn’t care; they would still be an amazing people. But what is so offensive about this argument is that for so many it is literally impossible to imagine the Egyptians not being of European descent, that while researching I found comments ranging from ignorant to outright hateful and racist, that there exists a rhetoric that Africans could never have accomplished so much. And that is exceedingly problematic.
So, why isn't Egyptology setting the record straight then not from a "racial" perspective, because skin color is not race, but from a biological perspective on how the origins of the populations that became ancient Egyptians would have had skin colors very dark and not looked anything like Europeans, if indeed that is what you believe. Because otherwise, you are in support of the racists.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Jean-Francois Champollion (1790 – 1832) , acknowledged as the father of modern Egyptology, best known for his work on the Rosetta Stone made the following remarks on a scene form the book of gates:
"Right in the valley of Biban-el-Moluk, we admired, like all previous visitors, the astonishing freshness of the paintings and the fine sculptures on several tombs. I had a copy made of the peoples represented on the bas-reliefs. At first I had thought, from copies of these bas-reliefs published in England, that these peoples of different races led by the god Horus holding his shepherd's staff, were indeed nations subject to the rule of the Pharaohs. A study of the legends informed me that this tableau has a more general meaning. It portrays the third hour of the day, when the sun is beginning to turn on its burning rays, warming all the inhabited countries of our hemisphere. According to the legend itself, they wished to represent the inhabitants of Egypt and those of foreign lands. Thus we have before our eyes the image of the various races of man known to the Egyptians and we learn at the same time the great geographical or ethnographical divisions established during that early epoch. Men led by Horus, the shepherd of the peoples, belong to four distinct families. The first, the one closest to the god, has a dark red color, a well-proportioned body, kind face, nose slightly aquiline, long braided hair, and is dressed in white. The legends designate this species as Rot-en-ne-Rome, the race of men par excellence i.e., the Egyptians. There can be no uncertainty about the racial identity of the man who comes next: he belongs to the Black race, designated under the general term Nahasi. The third presents a very different aspect; his skin color borders on yellow or tan; he has a strongly aquiline nose, thick, black pointed beard, and wears a short garment of varied colors; these are called Namou. Finally, the last one is what we call flesh-colored, a white skin of the most delicate shade, a nose straight or slightly arched, blue eyes, blond or reddish beard, tall stature and very slender clad in a hairy ox-skin, a veritable savage tattooed on various parts of his body; he is called Tamhou. I hastened to seek the tableau corresponding to this one in the other royal tombs and, as a matter of fact, I found it in several. The variations I observed fully convinced me that they had tried to represent here the inhabitants of the four corners of the earth, according to the Egyptian system, namely: 1. the inhabitants of Egypt which, by itself, formed one part of the world ...; 2. the inhabitants of Africa proper: Blacks; 3. Asians; 4. finally (and I am ashamed to say so, since our race is the last and the most savage in the series), Europeans who, in those remote epochs, frankly did not cut too fine a figure in the world. In this category we must include all blonds and white-skinned people living not only in Europe, but Asia as well, their starting point. This manner of viewing the tableau is all the more accurate because, on the other tombs, the same generic names reappear, always in the same order. We find there Egyptians and Africans represented in the same way, which could not be otherwise; but the Namou (the Asians) and the Tamhou (Europeans) present significant and curious variants. Instead of the Arab or the Jew, dressed simply and represented on one tomb, Asia's representatives on other tombs (those of Ramses II, etc.) are three individuals, tanned complexion, aquiline nose, black eyes, and thick beard, but clad in rare splendor. In one, they are evidently Assyrians, their costume, down to the smallest detail, is identical with that of personages engraved on Assyrian cylinders. In the other, are Medes or early inhabitants of some part of Persia. Their physiognomy and dress resemble, feature for feature, those found on monuments called Persepolitan. Thus, Asia was represented indiscriminately by any one of the peoples who inhabited it. The same is true of our good old ancestors, the Tamhou. Their attire is sometimes different; their heads are more or less hairy and adorned with various ornaments; their savage dress varies somewhat in form, but their white complexion, their eyes and beard all preserve the character of a race apart. I had this strange ethnographical series copied and colored. I certainly did not expect, on arriving at Biban-el-Moluk, to find sculptures that could serve as vignettes for the history of the primitive Europeans, if ever one has the courage to attempt it. Nevertheless, there is something flattering and consoling in seeing them, since they make us appreciate the progress we have subsequently achieved." Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Doug preaching from Amsterdam, lol
Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
So this despicable woman [Emily Teeter] is basically saying that Africans should concentrate all their efforts on 'Nubia' and forget Egypt because AE was somehow heavily influenced by the 'Middle-East' and that 'Nubia' was unambiguously African? What Middle-eastern 'influence' is this snake of a woman talking about? It was the other way round.
There is no evidence that AE was mix race. This is maddening.
This reminds me of what rasol once said: "Nubia" is the contrived Bantustan of Nile Valley history.
Western Egyptology attempts to say to Africans: "You go play here, and don't cross the line."; a line of their own creation and serving their agenda, and not an African one.
Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Doug preaching from Amsterdam, lol
Swenet is in Amsterdam and Doug is an American.
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
'nuff said
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Let me put it like this.
If Teeter et al know for a fact from the skeletal evidence that there are no racial undertones (i.e. a preference for [and the presence of] 'mixed' and West Asian women) implied in the skin color scheme below, I agree with your assessment about her. If she's unsure or assumes out of ignorance that there are racial implications, I mostly disagree. [/qb]
I would assume that she knows exactly what she's doing, because she's been in this field for many decades now and was confident enough in her 'knowledge' on the subject to write a long list of books and papers on AE -- one of which was centered around religion and ritual in AE, and so she would have been aware of the symbolic conventions in AE art in one way or another, directly through her own research or through discussions with colleagues.
So I doubt that her 'mixed group' position is influenced by art. Nothing in the disciplines lends credence to her assertions; she's willfully sending into emission factually false assertions that are not grounded in science. And if she was merely ignorant about findings in certain fields, then she have been a little more reticent. [/qb]
There tends to be a tangible difference in beliefs between white Egyptologists and white bio-anthropologists who have seriously studied AE skeletal remains.
The latter rarely say that the AE men were tanned whites and that the AE women (who remained indoors) represent the true pigmentation level of the entire AE population, while people who subscribe to this among Egyptologists and lay people are much, much more common.
These proponents are all white, so we know this difference has nothing to do with their background.
These proponents can all be just as racist. In fact, the latter can be even more committed to their racism as I've shown, so we know this difference doesn't lie there, either.
What would you say this difference can be chalked up to?
Reposted from other thread. Sudaniya, please answer here for the sake of continuity.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
So far no examples of scientists calling the Egyptians "white"
Ippolito Rosellini, 1800-1843 was the founder of Egyptology in Italy also made many illustrations, copies of tomb paintings. Doug keeps claiming that Egyptologists wanted the Egyptians to be white. Yet we see from the start, them recording the art in faithful dark skinned reproductions
[
And Egyptologists who first started excavating these tombs did not know exactly who the Egyptians were ethnically or to what extent their population was homogeneous or heterogeneous -and they're still not sure about it today
Petrie had his Dynastic race theory, was it calculated racism or ignorance? yet he is the same person who bought a broad featured Egyptian artifact in a shop and declared it to be the head of Narmer. The field has been a mixed bag of interpretation from the start
Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Let me put it like this.
If Teeter et al know for a fact from the skeletal evidence that there are no racial undertones (i.e. a preference for [and the presence of] 'mixed' and West Asian women) implied in the skin color scheme below, I agree with your assessment about her. If she's unsure or assumes out of ignorance that there are racial implications, I mostly disagree.
I would assume that she knows exactly what she's doing, because she's been in this field for many decades now and was confident enough in her 'knowledge' on the subject to write a long list of books and papers on AE -- one of which was centered around religion and ritual in AE, and so she would have been aware of the symbolic conventions in AE art in one way or another, directly through her own research or through discussions with colleagues.
So I doubt that her 'mixed group' position is influenced by art. Nothing in the disciplines lends credence to her assertions; she's willfully sending into emission factually false assertions that are not grounded in science. And if she was merely ignorant about findings in certain fields, then she have been a little more reticent. [/qb]
There tends to be a tangible difference in beliefs between white Egyptologists and white bio-anthropologists who have seriously studied AE skeletal remains.
The latter rarely say that the AE men were tanned whites and that the AE women (who remained indoors) represent the true pigmentation level of the entire AE population, while people who subscribe to this among Egyptologists and lay people are much, much more common.
These proponents are all white, so we know this difference has nothing to do with their background.
These proponents can all be just as racist. In fact, the latter can be even more committed to their racism as I've shown, so we know this difference doesn't lie there, either.
What would you say this difference can be chalked up to?
Reposted from other thread. Sudaniya, please answer here for the sake of continuity. [/QB]
Bio-anthropologists are scientists and have very little room to maneuver in favour of any prejudices that they may hold; their methodology, sampling and conclusions have to be clearly laid bare, and if they transgress against the science by allowing their prejudices to overwhelm them and influence their works, they can quite easily be called out for it, as Keita has done regarding the skewed samplings of other bio-anthropologists.
Egyptology has no such clearly defined constraints and accords far too much flexibility - allowing dishonest Egyptologists to constantly subject people to nauseatingly nonsensical guff.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: There tends to be a tangible difference in beliefs between white Egyptologists and white bio-anthropologists who have seriously studied AE skeletal remains.
To clarify what I mean, consider this 1992 bit, from bio-anthropologist Christian Simon. Despite Simon's confused concept of what 'African' means (he equates it to Sub-Saharan Africa) and other biases, he ties dynastic Egyptians in with Nubians and observes "affinities" between the Badarians and "black Africans":
quote:The dendrogram of Figure 8 shows the proximity of various populations. We find two well individualized sets; The Nubians and Egyptians, while Africans seem more different. Overall the Nubian Kerma populations are grouped with the Ethiopians and the group of Siwah. We had already observed in other analyzes, this similarity between Kerma and Ethiopians. By Siwah against the position of group from Upper Egypt remains poorly explained. Other Nubian groups are related to this set but with a less strong similarity. The [dynastic] Egyptian population is fairly homogeneous but with the group of Badari which has affinities with black populations. The Sahara group is a little different it relates to the Egyptians but with low affinity. Negroid groups are very different and show very little affinity with the Egyptian-Nubian populations. However, it should be noted that these populations are recent and that therefore a significant distortion may arise from this great chronological difference. In conclusion, found in a fairly strong Kerma population morphological continuity from one period to another, formed a large population of Nubian background associated with foreign ethnic elements. At its insertion in the Nilo-African populations, it shows a relatively large affinity with the Egyptian people and much less with the South. However it should be noted as we have already said, that African populations are recent comparison. To get a more accurate view it would have archaeological populations in southern Sudan or East Africa. Unfortunately we have not such populations.
They may have not always have said that this Egypto-Nubian cluster is completely indigenous African, but, historically, this has been the most common explanation of AE relationships among white bio-anthropologists, including notorious racists like Baker, Morton and Coon. Among the Egyptologists I'm familiar with, people who believe this are a minority.
What would you attribute this huge gap to, if you disagree that it has a lot to do with familiarity with the bio-anthro evidence?
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sudaniya: Bio-anthropologists are scientists and have very little room to maneuver in favour of any prejudices that they may hold; their methodology, sampling and conclusions have to be clearly laid bare, and if they transgress against the science by allowing their prejudices to overwhelm them and influence their works, they can quite easily be called out for it, as Keita has done regarding the skewed samplings of other bio-anthropologists.
I don't think you understand the magnitude of difference involved between the Egyptologists and bio-anthropologists I've mentioned. Modern bio-anthroplogists who fit your description (only reluctantly admitting relationships to Africans because they're forced to) are bio-anthropologists like Raxter and Godde, who say that the AE resemble Nubians due to ecology. According to them, the AE migrated from some place to the north and gradually acquired tropically adapted limbs and other characteristics that make them "appear" close to Nubians. This sounds an awful lot like the "tanned" red outdoors Egyptians and the swarthy "indoors" theory Egyptologists love so much.
Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Sudaniya: Bio-anthropologists are scientists and have very little room to maneuver in favour of any prejudices that they may hold; their methodology, sampling and conclusions have to be clearly laid bare, and if they transgress against the science by allowing their prejudices to overwhelm them and influence their works, they can quite easily be called out for it, as Keita has done regarding the skewed samplings of other bio-anthropologists.
I don't think you understand the magnitude of difference involved between the Egyptologists and bio-anthropologists I've mentioned. Modern bio-anthroplogists who fit your description (only reluctantly admitting relationships to Africans because they're forced to) are bio-anthropologists like Raxter and Godde, who say that the AE resemble Nubians due to ecology. According to them, the AE migrated from some place to the North and gradually acquired tropically adapted limbs and other characteristics that make them "appear" close to Nubians. This sounds an awful lot like the "tanned" red outdoors Egyptians and the swarthy "indoors" Egyptian theory Egypologists love so much.
I had no idea that modern bio-anthropologists peddled such scientifically bereft nonsense. I looked up some of these 'specialists' and have now concluded that they are purposely distorting the affinities of AE. We can't trust Europeans to faithfully research African history whether as bio-anthropologists or Egyptologists because they will always attempt to distort the evidence and skew things in their favour in one way or another.
Bio-anthropologists can't maneuver as well, but they will still lie. We are at war with these people, unfortunately our death-deserving leaders in Africa are too busy killing their own and stealing resources instead of arming Africa for the intellectual battles required to reclaim our history.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Raxter and Godde are by no means specialists in the true sense of the word (although they are more specialized than others), but what I'm saying is that the degree to which EVEN THEY show improvements relative to the Egyptologists I mentioned, has to do with the fact that they realize that certain positions that ignorant Egyptologist and lay people may find acceptable (based on their interpretation of certain AE artwork), are untenable.
Just for the sake of clarity (so my point doesn't get lost in the mix), what I repeatedly said in regards to "specialists" or people who have studied AE skeletal remains, is that they're not in denial in regards to skin pigmentation (this argument came up because Doug claimed that there was a consensus among them that the AE were pale skinned and blue eyed). I didn't say that they're specialists in the sense that they're right about everything they're saying. There are both racists and non-racists among said "specialists", but the point is they're ahead of people who think that the AE were tanned, but originally pale or swarthy immigrants. In that sense (familiarity with the skeletal remains), they're "specialists" for the lack of a better word.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ^If there is one re-occurring theme in the writings of racist and racialist specialists, it's that AE who were depicted as brown skinned, WERE actually brown skinned and related to Lower Nubians.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: See above. It's a misconception that specialists think they AE were pale skinned. As far as I know, this is mostly the position of amateur commentators and academic trolls who have never looked into the matter. The specialists (both the racist and the non-racist) tend to think either that they and their afro-asiatic relatives were mixed or that both are indigenous and in their own clade.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: That racist and non-racist specialists and racialists have often said or implied that the ancient Egyptian skin color would have been in the range of African American skin pigmentation is ancient news.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Also:
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: I had no idea that modern bio-anthropologists peddled such scientifically bereft nonsense.
The flip flops you're talking about are entirely within the bounds of science. Often they do it deliberately and due to denial, but it's not like it's contra science in and of itself. As I've said earlier, most scientific disciplines cannot tell if Coon and Baker or we are right.
*Yes, if Levantines would settle in the tropics, they would darken gradually and become more like Nubians in their cranio-facial features. *Yes, there is evidence for mixed populations who cranio-facially approximate the ancient Egyptians (namely, Dravidians, who are ANI/ASI mixed).
On a fundamental level, most branches of science don't favor one ancient Egyptian origin narrative of the ancient Egyptian over the other.
The only way you can prove OUR position over their position is by analyzing all the data and seeing which theory stands when the dust settles. If you don't have all the data at your disposal, but just a few pieces of the puzzle, their theory is as good as ours or almost as good from the perspective of science.
Again, examples of what science can prove:
*that the AE had levels of pigmentation that were way out of the range of Europeans and swarthy people and in the range of African Americans *that the AE were phenotypically close to Nubians and closely related Africans *that the AE so far have mainly shown haplogroups and autosomal genetic material that occurs more in Africans *that the AE spoke a language that belongs to a phylum that has more speakers in Africa
What science can't prove on a fundamental level:
*That any of this, including haplogroup E, M1, etc. did or didn't arrive on the African continent as a result of backmigration.
Yes, we know they didn't backmigrate (at least in the case of E we're very determined), but we didn't arrive at that conclusion because there is a gene somewhere that talks to you when you ask it if it's African or Asian.
One can only arrive at this conclusion by looking at all the data and carefully applying ockham's razor. Only when you do that you can see that science supports our case more than theirs. But that's a matter of analysis, not the raw "cutting edge" findings. And it's not a self-evident matter. Just because we've come to the conclusion over the years that it's self evident to us doesn't mean that it's self-evident to all observers.
These 'standoffs' are very common in science. In fact, they're natural to science because all sciences start with making descriptions about natural phenomena and not being able to see the larger patterns of what things mean in the larger scheme. Everything from evolution to physics gets demystified like this over time and mostly based on skillful analysis and ockham's razor, not based on any specific set of findings.
Posted by Nodnarb (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: One can only arrive at this conclusion by looking at all the data and carefully applying ockham's razor. Only when you do that you can see that science supports our case more than theirs. But that's a matter of analysis, not the raw "cutting edge" findings. And it's not a self-evident matter. Just because we've come to the conclusion over the years that it's self evident to us doesn't mean that it's self-evident to all observers.
These 'standoffs' are very common in science. In fact, they're natural to science because all sciences start with making descriptions about natural phenomena and not being able to see the larger patterns of what things mean in the larger scheme. Everything from evolution to physics gets demystified like this over time and mostly based on skillful analysis and ockham's razor, not based on any specific set of findings.
This is true. A lot of this knowledge comes from synthesizing data from various disciplines, not any single headline-grabbing study. What's needed here is a comprehensive synthesis of all the data, like maybe an updated follow-up to Keita's "Studies and Comments" papers.
That said, the odd headline-grabbing (or "cutting edge") study would come in handy for communicating this information to a public that hasn't been picking up all the pieces over time like we have. Back in the late 90's, when fossils of certain maniraptoran dinosaurs (e.g. Caudipteryx and Sinornithosaurus) were found with feathers preserved, paleontological consensus was already shifting towards feathers being ubiquitous throughout this theropod subgroup, including charismatic dromaeosaurids like Velociraptor and Deinonychus. Before then, feathers were generally considered an apomorphy specific to Archaeopteryx and then birds proper. But it wasn't until 2007 when feathers were practically confirmed on Velociraptor itself, by virtue of quill knobs (feather attachment points) found on one of its arm bones. That would have been the headline-grabbing event that abolished any doubt that Velociraptor, and by extensive all Dromaeosauridae, had feathers.
What a comparable headline-grabber would be for our pet hobbyhorse, I don't know. The DNA Tribes studies might come closer than most, but their non-peer-reviewed publication and misleading characterization of their results (AEs related most of all to South Africans, what?) might not give them the gravitas of a peer-reviewed paper.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
^This thread makes me even more convinced that trying to explain stuff to lay people or even this forum is just a bad investment of time. 15 thread pages already. No matter what headline you show them, they're going to read into it whatever they want to read.
Take Carlos Coke. After everything I taught him, he got belligerent with me and tried to lecture me on that reconstructions of most dynastic AE would necessarily come out looking unambiguously 'black', which is crap of the highest order. He even admitted this privately when he looked at some NK pharaohs and said their looks threw him off. But selective memory is how these people cope, so why not let them get high off their own fantasies.
Doug proved that Eurocentrics aren't necessarily racists when he called that Bronze Age warrior European-looking. If something like that, which is clearly consistent with North Africans and some dynastic Lower Egyptians, looks necessarily European to Doug, it shows that Eurocentric authors aren't necessarily deliberately racist when they get a hard on looking at certain North African skeletal remains with a similar craniofacial pattern.
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
Speaking of which...where is tropicals?
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
^No idea. But I've participated in this thread for 15 thread pages so it's on record and he can't lie about my positions or flip flop to do damage control. I'm about to wrap it up shortly and save this thread and his screw ups in case he tries to take his crap elsewhere in public.
Posted by Nodnarb (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ^This thread makes me even more convinced that trying to explain stuff to lay people or even this forum is just a bad investment of time. 15 thread pages already. No matter what headline you show them, they're going to read into it whatever they want to read.
Understood. People are too invested in their preconceptions and agendas to reason with them either way.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
What about you? Do you think they're ever going to accept something like the DFA affinities of Brace et al 1993's 'averaged' Naqada, recent Nubian and X group Nubian individuals? If this thread is any indication they'd rather accuse Brace et al of tampering with his data than admitting that this is the result you can get with the measurements and DFA statistics he used.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ^This thread makes me even more convinced that trying to explain stuff to lay people or even this forum is just a bad investment of time. 15 thread pages already. No matter what headline you show them, they're going to read into it whatever they want to read.
Take Carlos Coke. After everything I taught him, he got belligerent with me and tried to lecture me on that reconstructions of most dynastic AE would necessarily come out looking unambiguously 'black', which is crap of the highest order. He even admitted this privately when he looked at some NK pharaohs and said their looks threw him off. But selective memory is how these people cope, so why not let them get high off their own fantasies.
Doug proved that Eurocentrics aren't necessarily racists when he called that Bronze Age warrior European-looking. If something like that, which is clearly consistent with North Africans and some dynastic Lower Egyptians, looks necessarily European to Doug, it shows that Eurocentric authors aren't necessarily deliberately racist when they get a hard on looking at certain North African skeletal remains with a similar craniofacial pattern.
Nice try Swenet but it wont work. This thread went for 15 pages for 4 main reasons:
1) You refuse to admit that modern science still is quite racist in their portrayals and depictions of the skin color of ancient Egypt and that the issue is fundamentally all about skin color, not nose shape, eye shape, head shape or anything else. THIS is obvious from the last 200 years of argument and debate by various scholars.
2) You refuse to admit that 'black' is historically a reference to skin color in populations like Africa and not anything else which other folks have tried to graft onto it over time, especially with the advent of scientific racism. The AE were black because their skin color was indeed black.
3) You brought up a whole bunch of irrelevant facts about European Bronze Age people to other populations outside of Africa to try and debate whether 'black' is a valid word for black skinned people as if European people are currently identified as black or similar to Ancient Egyptian people.
4) And the last main point, you are ultimately in denial of the fact that when these scholars reject the idea of 'black' ancient Egyptians they are absolutely talking about skin color. This National Geographic magazine proves that quite clearly.
quote: The Black Pharaohs An ignored chapter of history tells of a time when kings from deep in Africa conquered ancient Egypt. By Robert Draper National Geographic Contributing Writer Photograph by Kenneth Garrett
In the year 730 B.C., a man by the name of Piye decided the only way to save Egypt from itself was to invade it. Things would get bloody before the salvation came.
“Harness the best steeds of your stable,” he ordered his commanders. The magnificent civilization that had built the great pyramids had lost its way, torn apart by petty warlords. For two decades Piye had ruled over his own kingdom in Nubia, a swath of Africa located mostly in present-day Sudan. But he considered himself the true ruler of Egypt as well, the rightful heir to the spiritual traditions practiced by pharaohs such as Ramses II and Thutmose III. Since Piye had probably never actually visited Lower Egypt, some did not take his boast seriously. Now Piye would witness the subjugation of decadent Egypt firsthand—“I shall let Lower Egypt taste the taste of my fingers,” he would later write.
quote: Chosen By God - The Great Black Pharaohs of the 25th Dynasty!
And of course I already posted the comments by Emily Teeter.
So what do they mean by black in this context? Are they not talking about skin color here? And are you suggesting that the same scholars who have such a problem with black in terms of Ancient Egypt have no problem with it in Sudan? If so then it proves you absolutely, totally and fundamentally wrong. You keep getting proven wrong but of course you will try and blissfully ignore all the facts contradicting your point to try and paint a picture of "objective" scholars rejecting the term black for some 'technical and scientific' reason but of course miss the obvious point that they are rejecting the connotation of skin color.
And this article from National Geographic which openly and blatantly calls the Sudanese and so called "Nubians" black is something repeated consistently across the board among all Egyptologists. So your argument that 'black' is not a reference to skin color and is some arcane reference to some other combination of 'very specific' biological features on some super technical level is bull sh*t. And your argument that they do this because of some concerns about 'objectivity' is bull sh*t as well. They don't want to call them black because they don't want to portray them as having skin colors similar to most Africans who are black.
And as for this article Sudan is not "deep inside of Africa". It is North African.
Not to mention the Egyptian culture originated in and was continually renewed from the South as even the Metropolitan museum is currently showcasing:
So stop lying with your nonsense that these people don't use the word black when they use it all the time and if they don't use it in Egypt it is because they are rejecting the notion that the Ancient Egyptians had black skin. Period.
And if you want to be technical and scientific about it, the AE looked exactly like the black people depicted in the ancient art who are still in Egypt to this day:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: 4) And the last main point, you are ultimately in denial of the fact that when these scholars reject the idea of 'black' ancient Egyptians they are absolutely talking about skin color.
Time to put Doug back to sleep again (or probably a more likely reaction we'll see from him: his predictable tendency of goalpost shifts, denialism and flip flopping when confronted with inconvenient data). Here is yet another Egyptologists who rejects the applicability of 'black' in the western, racial sense for the Egyptians, yet accepts that the Egyptians who are depicted as dark brown and jet-black skinned on the monuments would have been exactly that in real life:
quote:The iconography of the Egyptians’ depictions of themselves and foreigners suggests that, for most of their history, they saw themselves as midway between the black, woolly-haired Africans and the pale, bearded Asiatics. Scenes in the tombs of the New Kingdom pharaohs Seti I and Ramesses III in the Valley of the Kings specifically depict the various human types in the universe over which the sun-god Ra presided. These types included reddish brown Egyptians whose skin colour contrasts equally starkly both with the black-skinned Kushites (Nubians) and with the paler skinned Libyans and Asiatics. Although partly based on skin colour and other physical characteristics, these ancient ethnic types were also based on varieties in hairstyles and costume, and their function was apparently to allow the Egyptians to define themselves as a national group, relative to the rest of the world. Such depictions, however, would have been recognized by the Egyptians themselves as simplified stereotypes, given that the thousands of portrayals of individual Egyptians show that the population as a whole ranged across a wide spectrum of complexions, from light to dark brown and black.
--Ian Shaw, Ancient Egypt A Very Short Introduction (2004)
In case someone decides to get cute and attack strawman as usual: I'm not saying that Shaw is without Eurocentric biases. I'm not posting him to parade him as a paragon of objectiveness that people should rally behind. I'm posting him to refute a specific claim Doug is making, so miss me with the strawman attacks.
Thanks (to any would-be strawman attacker).
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: 4) And the last main point, you are ultimately in denial of the fact that when these scholars reject the idea of 'black' ancient Egyptians they are absolutely talking about skin color.
Time to put Doug back to sleep again. Here is yet another Egyptologists who rejects 'black' as a racial term for the Egyptians, yet accepts that the Egyptians who are depicted as dark brown and jet-black skinned on the monuments would have been exactly that in real life:
quote:The iconography of the Egyptians’ depictions of themselves and foreigners suggests that, for most of their history, they saw themselves as midway between the black, woolly-haired Africans and the pale, bearded Asiatics. Scenes in the tombs of the New Kingdom pharaohs Seti I and Ramesses III in the Valley of the Kings specifically depict the various human types in the universe over which the sun-god Ra presided. These types included reddish brown Egyptians whose skin colour contrasts equally starkly both with the black-skinned Kushites (Nubians) and with the paler skinned Libyans and Asiatics. Although partly based on skin colour and other physical characteristics, these ancient ethnic types were also based on varieties in hairstyles and costume, and their function was apparently to allow the Egyptians to define themselves as a national group, relative to the rest of the world. Such depictions, however, would have been recognized by the Egyptians themselves as simplified stereotypes, given that the thousands of portrayals of individual Egyptians show that the population as a whole ranged across a wide spectrum of complexions, from light to dark brown and black.
--Ian Shaw, Ancient Egypt A Very Short Introduction (2004)
Which means what? So would Mr Shaw use the word black to refer to the "nubians"? Are not black people in all of Africa or specifically places like Sudan who are also called black not shades of brown? You are arguing for racists again and not for yourself. And this is why this thread goes on for pages and pages.
What I said was that the colors of 'brown' in the Ancient Egyptian artwork is called 'black' as a reference to the skin color of most Africans and indeed to this day Egyptians still have that complexion. And these scholars who are rejecting this notion of 'black' in Egypt are rejecting that those colors are literally the complexion the AE actually had. So you are misunderstanding the quote. He is NOT claiming that the AE matched those colors of brown in the art 'of various shades' and I would argue they DID match those shades and they are the same shades found elsewhere in Africa. His argument is that those colors are symbolic and that the actual people were probably much lighter as in almost white. But of course you are trying to claim he is saying something different. Again, you are wrong.
And if black is not a valid term then it isn't valid for ANY population on earth, because technically no population is black as opposed to a shade of brown. If black is not a valid term that scholars refuse to use in Egypt because it is not "technically valid" and because the AE portrayed themselves as brown, does that mean that 'black' is not used by these same people for OTHER Africans who are also brown? And what is the difference in 'brown' from ancient Egypt and the 'brown' of other Africans? Because there is no one shade of brown. And this is where your assumption that because they say brown they mean 'black' like other Africans you are totally, absolutely and fully incorrect. They mean white. In their eyes, the reconstruction of TUT is brown, as I already have shown you from Emily Teeter and others in Egyptology itself. Which means that in terms of actual skin color those words are less than meaningless and as meaningless as 'black' supposedly is but actually this proves why using 'black' is better because it is the most direct and unambiguous way of making sure there is no wiggle room for these clowns to wiggle out of the fact that the AE had black skin not like 'brown' tan white folks.
Bottom line, when these white scholars say 'in between' Asiatics and "Nubians" they mean 'white skinned' or almost white. Sorry Swenet, you have spent 15 pages trying to defend these clowns and you are still wrong and your whole 6 horse team is dead no matter how much you keep trying to beat them.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Flip flopping, fabricating incoherent mumbo jumbo BS and shifting the goal post as usual. But, of course, most onlookers aren't going to call you out of for your shenanigans. So, go ahead. The flip flop stage is all yours. I've demonstrated what I came here to demonstrate.
Posted by Nodnarb (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: What about you? Do you think they're ever going to accept something like the DFA affinities of Brace et al 1993's 'averaged' Naqada, recent Nubian and X group Nubian individuals? If this thread is any indication they'd rather accuse Brace et al of tampering with his data than admitting that this is the result you can get with the measurements and DFA statistics he used.
I wasn't really talking about this forum in particular in my last couple of posts. But obviously ES posters generally aren't counter-examples to my statement that a lot of people are too invested in their preconceptions to accept reality.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Flip flopping, fabricating incoherent mumbo jumbo BS and shifting the goal post as usual. But, of course, most onlookers aren't going to call you out of for your shenanigans. So, go ahead. The flip flop stage is all yours. I've demonstrated what I came here to demonstrate.
Swenet, how about reading the books you cite before posting them?
Because this man contradicts everything you have been saying and reinforces everything I have been saying since page one.
quote: Egyptologists, particularly in North America, cannot escape the fact that ancient Egyptian culture has become a 'black Issue'. The view that Egypt was a fundamentally black civilization - often described as an "Afrocentric" position is important to many Africans and African Americans because it gives both Africans and black people a much more significant statek in the emergence of early civilizations. Many Afrocentrics regard the standard Egyptological study of "Egypt" as so tainted that they will only refer to the country by the Ancient Egyptian toponym Kemet ....
There is no doubt that some Egyptologists in the past have been guilty of racist interpretations of the Egyptians. At the most heinous end of the scale, Grafton Elliot Smith suggested in 1909 that 'the smallest infusion' of Negro-blood immediately manifests itself in a dulling of initiative and 'drag' on the further development of the arts of civilization. It is also difficult to read the theories advanced by Flinders Petrie concerning the establishment of pharaonic Egypt by and invading Near Eastern or even European 'master race' without being aware of his right wing political views and the fact that he was an enthusiastic member of the Eugenics movement, which was dedicated to 'improving' human stock by 'the study of agencies under social control that may improve or impair the racial qualities of future generations' (according to its founder, the anthropologist Sir Francis Galton). Bryan Emry's espousal of invasion theories concerning early Egypt, on the other hand, was no doubt influenced more by the diffusionist ideas of Gordon Childe, but also by pre-war British colonialism in Egypt and Sudan.
However, to assume, as many Afrocentrics appear to do, first that much conventional Egyptological thought is still infected by such racism, and second that the very existence of such prejudice in some way proves that, contrary to much of the visual and written evidence, ancient Egyptians were both black and African, seems a little unjustified. Perhaps the last word on this should be left to C. Loring Brace:
The 'race' concept did not exist in Egypt, and it is not mentioned in Herodotus, the bible, or any of the other writings of classical antiquity. Because it was neither biological nor social justification, we should strive to see that it is eliminated from both public and private usage. Its absence will be missed by no one, and we shall all be better off without it. RIP
Again, the horses are dead so stop beating them up. He is not saying that the AE looked anything like 'black' people in anyway and he applies 'black and African' in the same sentence as if to say black and African don't always go together or in other words explicitly implying that black is a reference to skin color. Not to mention avoiding the issue of the skin color of the AE in terms of very detailed observations of both modern Egyptians and other Africans along the Nile and comparing them to the portraits which is what should be part of any true form of anthropological study... but I digress.
The book is online. Interested parties can go and verify for themselves that when Shaw disapproves of "black", he talks about the western racial use of the term.
quote:I cannot leave the subject of the identity of the Egyptians as a nation without attempting to tackle the very contemporary question of the extent to which the ancient Egyptians should be regarded as racially and ethnically ‘black’. How justified are such writers as Martin Bernal and Cheikh Anta Diop in regarding Egypt as an essentially ‘black’ civilization culturally appropriated and misrepresented by white Europeans? In 1981 Diop confidently asserted that ‘Egyptians were Negroes, thick-lipped, kinky-haired and thin-legged’. Although it is certainly true that some surviving Egyptian mummies or depictions of ancient Egyptians fit this description, the fact is that most of both the former and the latter are anthropologically and visually quite different to Diop’s description.
--Ian Shaw, Ancient Egypt A Very Short Introduction (2004)
No different from what I've tried to convey here:
quote: Originally posted by Swenet: A subset of dynastic Egyptian samples squeezed in between Abyssinians and Cretans, Etruscans and Sardinians and showing considerable ties with the biblical inhabitants of the Judaean city of Lachish. No competent western, middle eastern or oriental academic who has seriously looked into this is going to use the term "black" (in a racial sense) when applied to dynastic Egyptians (although they might do it in a pigmentation sense, by saying they would have been dark brown).
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: The book is online. Interested parties can go and verify for themselves that when Shaw disapproves of "black", he talks about the western racial use of the term.
quote:I cannot leave the subject of the identity of the Egyptians as a nation without attempting to tackle the very contemporary question of the extent to which the ancient Egyptians should be regarded as racially and ethnically ‘black’. How justified are such writers as Martin Bernal and Cheikh Anta Diop in regarding Egypt as an essentially ‘black’ civilization culturally appropriated and misrepresented by white Europeans? In 1981 Diop confidently asserted that ‘Egyptians were Negroes, thick-lipped, kinky-haired and thin-legged’. Although it is certainly true that some surviving Egyptian mummies or depictions of ancient Egyptians fit this description, the fact is that most of both the former and the latter are anthropologically and visually quite different to Diop’s description.
--Ian Shaw, Ancient Egypt A Very Short Introduction (2004)
No different from what I've tried to convey here:
quote: Originally posted by Swenet: A subset of dynastic Egyptian samples squeezed in between Abyssinians and Cretans, Etruscans and Sardinians and showing considerable ties with the biblical inhabitants of the Judaean city of Lachish. No competent western, middle eastern or oriental academic who has seriously looked into this is going to use the term "black" (in a racial sense) when applied to dynastic Egyptians (although they might do it in a pigmentation sense, by saying they would have been dark brown).
And he also states that black is a valid reference to other Africans just not the AE.
So again, he is not agreeing with the AE looking anything like other Africans who are black.
You are simply denying the obvious. He is rejecting black as a reference to skin color.
But you can pretend whatever you like in your fairy tale imagination which is what you have been spewing on this thread for 15 pages trying to deny the obvious that this rejection of the word black is a rejection of skin color in AE being anything like other Africans who are black and this is the whole reason for the whole debate over this topic for 200 years.
How many ways can someone say the AE weren't black, which includes their skin color, before you will accept that this is what they are saying? He is not saying they were 'dark' like other Africans called "black", because if he was he would have said they were black then. Because he has no problem using the term black for other Africans. So this just shows you trying to twist these peoples words to mean just the opposite of what they are saying is what has made this go on for 15 pages..... He is saying that the AE did NOT have skin colors like other Africans who are normally called black, which means no shade of brown darker than light tan, which is consistent with everything I have been saying on this thread since page one. But you have been denying this since page one as if to say they 'really' mean dark like black Africans some other way. No they don't.
quote: However, to assume, as many Afrocentrics appear to do, first that much conventional Egyptological thought is still infected by such racism, and second that the very existence of such prejudice in some way proves that, contrary to much of the visual and written evidence, ancient Egyptians were both black and African, seems a little unjustified. Perhaps the last word on this should be left to C. Loring Brace:
And if this person is a 'competent scholar' why is it OK for him to use the word black for other Africans just not the AE then? Why is that 'competent' scholarship for other Africans but not the AE? You are simply tying yourself in knots trying to defend these racists. Nowhere in his book is he calling the AE dark brown in any kind of way as an alternative to the word black. He is rejecting the word black as also rejecting the idea that they were anything close to dark brown.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
.
Ian Shaw, Ancient Egypt A Very Short Introduction (2004)
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
Nowhere in his book is he calling the AE dark brown in any kind of way as an alternative to the word black. He is rejecting the word black as also rejecting the idea that they were anything close to dark brown.
thousands of portrayals of individual Egyptians show that the population as a whole ranged across a wide spectrum of complexions, from light to dark brown and black. -- Ian Shaw, Ancient Egypt A Very Short Introduction (2004)
.
Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Also:
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: I had no idea that modern bio-anthropologists peddled such scientifically bereft nonsense.
The flip flops you're talking about are entirely within the bounds of science. Often they do it deliberately and due to denial, but it's not like it's contra science in and of itself. As I've said earlier, most scientific disciplines cannot tell if Coon and Baker or we are right.
*Yes, if Levantines would settle in the tropics, they would darken gradually and become more like Nubians in their cranio-facial features. *Yes, there is evidence for mixed populations who cranio-facially approximate the ancient Egyptians (namely, Dravidians, who are ANI/ASI mixed).
On a fundamental level, most branches of science don't favor one ancient Egyptian origin narrative of the ancient Egyptian over the other.
The only way you can prove OUR position over their position is by analyzing all the data and seeing which theory stands when the dust settles. If you don't have all the data at your disposal, but just a few pieces of the puzzle, their theory is as good as ours or almost as good from the perspective of science.
Again, examples of what science can prove:
*that the AE had levels of pigmentation that were way out of the range of Europeans and swarthy people and in the range of African Americans *that the AE were phenotypically close to Nubians and closely related Africans *that the AE so far have mainly shown haplogroups and autosomal genetic material that occurs more in Africans *that the AE spoke a language that belongs to a phylum that has more speakers in Africa
What science can't prove on a fundamental level:
*That any of this, including haplogroup E, M1, etc. did or didn't arrive on the African continent as a result of backmigration.
Yes, we know they didn't backmigrate (at least in the case of E we're very determined), but we didn't arrive at that conclusion because there is a gene somewhere that talks to you when you ask it if it's African or Asian.
One can only arrive at this conclusion by looking at all the data and carefully applying ockham's razor. Only when you do that you can see that science supports our case more than theirs. But that's a matter of analysis, not the raw "cutting edge" findings. And it's not a self-evident matter. Just because we've come to the conclusion over the years that it's self evident to us doesn't mean that it's self-evident to all observers.
These 'standoffs' are very common in science. In fact, they're natural to science because all sciences start with making descriptions about natural phenomena and not being able to see the larger patterns of what things mean in the larger scheme. Everything from evolution to physics gets demystified like this over time and mostly based on skillful analysis and ockham's razor, not based on any specific set of findings.
That makes sense and so I agree.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
Another video from the Metropolitan Museum showing clearly how Egyptology clearly and openly promotes white supremacy and racism. This is what they mean when they reject the AE as black. They feel that Victor Mature is what Horemheb actually looked like.
quote:Moses film attacked on Twitter for all white cast. Since when are Egyptians not white? All I know are.
And this is not rejected by any white Egyptologist in any real sense.
Because in their minds they are the Ancient Egyptians and the black local Egyptian population does not even exist in the Eye of Eternity or Train of Horus or the Party of the Gods... In other words they are liars.
Another Egyptologist in the Tomb of Horemheb with the locals and the only pale white person there is who? HIM. But Victor Mature is a splitting image of Horemheb. https://youtu.be/7jrjNcBNF7A?t=3642
Note not only do the monuments not match the Victor Mature neither do modern Egyptians from Upper Egypt or any of Egypt.
The point being is that none of these modern European depictions of ancient Egypt match either the skin tone and complexion of Egyptians today, who range from light skinned to very dark brown or those of the past who would have been on average dark brown in skin complexion. When they say brown they do not mean brown like the brown seen in Upper Egypt to this day.
So bottom line this whole discussion is about the basics of anthropology. Where are the picture books of local Egyptian "types" created by Europeans from the late 19th to early 20th century? Wny aren't those not used as the basis for understanding the features in Egypt today and how they relate to the poulation and features of the past as seen in the ancient artwork? That should be part of any basic anthropological study. But they don't do this and the reason there aren't many photos is because either they are kept in private or institutional collections away from the public or because they knew that the populations don't match the European phenotype they keep trying to pass off as Ancient Egyptian. This is all intentional and deliberate and this is why they don't call the AE black.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: [QB] Another video from the Metropolitan Museum showing clearly how Egyptology clearly and openly promotes white supremacy and racism. This is what they mean when they reject the AE as black. They feel that Victor Mature is what Horemheb actually looked like.
quote:Moses film attacked on Twitter for all white cast. Since when are Egyptians not white? All I know are.
And this is not rejected by any white Egyptologist in any real sense.
Because in their minds they are the Ancient Egyptians and the black local Egyptian population does not even exist in the Eye of Eternity or Train of Horus or the Party of the Gods... In other words they are liars.
Another Egyptologist in the Tomb of Horemheb with the locals and the only pale white person there is who? HIM. But Victor Mature is a splitting image of Horemheb. https://youtu.be/7jrjNcBNF7A?t=3642
Note not only do the monuments not match the Victor Mature neither do modern Egyptians from Upper Egypt or any of Egypt.
The point being is that none of these modern European depictions of ancient Egypt match either the skin tone and complexion of Egyptians today, who range from light skinned to very dark brown or those of the past who would have been on average dark brown in skin complexion. When they say brown they do not mean brown like the brown seen in Upper Egypt to this day.
So bottom line this whole discussion is about the basics of anthropology. Where are the picture books of local Egyptian "types" created by Europeans from the late 19th to early 20th century? Wny aren't those not used as the basis for understanding the features in Egypt today and how they relate to the poulation and features of the past as seen in the ancient artwork? That should be part of any basic anthropological study. But they don't do this and the reason there aren't many photos is because either they are kept in private or institutional collections away from the public or because they knew that the populations don't match the European phenotype they keep trying to pass off as Ancient Egyptian. This is all intentional and deliberate and this is why they don't call the AE black.
HOREMHEB
Victor Mature as Horemheb, of Italian/ Swiss background Peep his fro. He seems to have straightened it down with hair grease at other times
^^ Here he is again looking reddish brown with the goddess Hathor. Interestingly there is also a small light skinned man head glyph and a darker head one also in the top middle
The Europeans like playing Egyptians with their actors.
Yet Africa has a whole huge continent of independent countries. They've been independent for 55 years, they have a film industry, they have African millionaires and billionaires
So why the hell aren't our damn billion black people in Africa making movies on ancient Egypt with African actors ???
There's the problem
-expecting some other culture to rep you right
Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
For the first time I agree with lioness, in that we [Africans] have utterly failed to protect our interests by not using native Egyptians in inspired films for global audiences, but more importantly for African audiences.
Horemheb could easily be played by black Egyptians in Luxor, Esna, Edfu, Kom Ombo, Aswan, the Red sea coast, the Siwa Oasis and the village at Malqata. Europeans and Middle-Easterners have no business playing the AE in any sense but it's all our fault; we're too busy killing each other and destroying our countries, which makes it difficult to challenge the 'west' in its insistence on appropriating African history.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
On the other hand the Egyptian civilization has been dead for 2000 years while other African cultures have survived to the present day and many Africans seem uninterested in ancient Egypt
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
I really DID NOT expect this thread to get 15 pages... Can't you guys just come to a agree-disagreement? I mean both parties have made good points, but whats the point in keep arguing and banging your head on the desk when you know the other will NEVER agree with your argument?
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
What did you take away from the points that were raised, BBH or anyone else for that matter?
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: I really DID NOT expect this thread to get 15 pages... Can't you guys just come to a agree-disagreement? I mean both parties have made good points, but whats the point in keep arguing and banging your head on the desk when you know the other will NEVER agree with your argument?
Both parties didnt make good points. Doug is basically lying. Doug claimed that learned scholars are saying AE had Pale White Skin and look like Nordics then he quotes folks that say AE was light, Brown and Black.
Doug lied saying race does not exist and all populations with dark skin = Black because Black is only a skin color. He then proceeds to argue that some population that are Black skinned are not "Black"......flip flopping and instead referring to the Racial Model of Black when he can include and exclude on a whim.
Doug then attempts to play the 'crowd appeal tactic' where he accuses those that dont agree with him of supporting Euro-centrism. Because you know....black people need to stick together..'sure that will get passive readers on my side.'
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
That's why I'm trying to find out what people took away from the conversation, because if someone thinks Doug had a "point" where he and I actually collided (i.e. not including the strawman attacks Doug wants to draw people's attention to), I would really love to see what those "points" are. Everyone is welcome to point Doug's "good points" out if they can demonstrate that I argued against them.
Doug's only good points were the ones no one here disagreed with. That's an easy way to score "points". Just make the most noise and fabricate the most strawmen in your posts.
Bread and circuses:
quote:"Bread and circuses" (or bread and games; from Latin: panem et circenses) is metonymic for a superficial means of appeasement. In the case of politics, the phrase is used to describe the generation of public approval, not through exemplary or excellent public service or public policy, but through diversion; distraction; or the mere satisfaction of the immediate, shallow requirements of a populace,[1] as an offered "palliative."
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: I really DID NOT expect this thread to get 15 pages... Can't you guys just come to a agree-disagreement? I mean both parties have made good points, but whats the point in keep arguing and banging your head on the desk when you know the other will NEVER agree with your argument?
Both parties didnt make good points. Doug is basically lying.
Here is what I said on page one of this thread.
What specifically am I lying about?
quote: Swenet, your personal communications with so and so scientists don't change the facts I presented. The history of Egyptology as a white institution founded on principles of racism and white supremacy are clearly and unambiguously documented by the whites themselves who created said institution. Those today who are part of that institution are following the same course whether they admit it or not. But again, what they think doesn't matter. As I said, if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck and then calls itself a duck, where is the discussion? There is none. What cows think doesn't matter no matter whether they claim to be liberal are cowcentric doesn't matter. Ducks are ducks and specifically these animals called themselves ducks. That is the point as it relates to Nile Valley history. The facts on the ground are the only thing that matter and the facts point to black as the only appropriate label and term that applies and there is no other way to look at it.
Am I lying about Egyptology being founded on white supremacy? If so why don't you prove it? Show me where they believe the AE were black folks in terms of actual skin color.
quote: The Ancient Egyptians called themselves blacks and were blacks. Either that is true or it is not. Just like the Ancient Greeks were white and called themselves white.
There is nothing else to it.
This is one case of a simple black vs white debate where it is totally and wholly appropriate.
To say that race is a social construct is one thing, but to claim that skin color is not real because race is a social construct is bullsh*t. Skin color is just as real as any other aspect of human biology and there is nothing 'unscientific' about using words to describe skin color. Calling certain ranges of skin color white is no less accurate or valid than calling other ranges of skin colors black. This usage of colors to describe human skin complexion is not new and is not based on 'racism'. It is based on observed facts. Now to argue that the Egyptians or any other population weren't black is to argue that their skin complexion was not within the range of what could be considered black.
Period.
Am I lying about the AE calling themselves blacks? Am I lying about skin color being a part of racism? Am I lying about white folks being racists? Am I lying about humans having skin color?
What am I lying about?
What is it because I want to know.
But since you like to play stupid, I can quote every single post that I put on this thread and why don't you show me word for word where I lied? We can go for fifty pages since you think you can come on page 15 and talk trash and the point is if you cant prove I am lying then it shows you don't know what the hell you are talking about. How about that?
quote: I am not talking about rock art. This issue has nothing to do with rock art. We are talking about the overwhelming amount of facts from all disciplines which is how you reach a conclusion on something like ancient Egypt. Like I said the facts are clear that Egyptology as an institution has been founded as an arm of white supremacy since its creation. The artifacts, rock art, language, physical remains, colors of the spectrum, language are not the problem, it is the racists that are the problem. I am just calling it like it is. Whether 'some' of these folk feel they are being 'objective' or not is irrelevant to the overall point.
The facts and information needed to reach a conclusion on the skin color of the ancient Egyptians are available and unambiguous. And from that one can easily answer the question with a simple yes or no. There is no need for 'other'. And there is only one right answer. Now these same scientists have no problem answering this question with a simple yes or no when it comes to Rome, Greece and so forth, but when it comes to Egypt suddenty yes or no becomes a problem, when it is just as simple as Greece or Rome. Where they are were they not a black population? It is a simple cut and dry question with a simple cut and dry answer. If you don't need to invoke rock art and all these other 'scientific' terms for Greece and Rome or anywhere else why do you need it in Egypt? You don't. It is not that dam complex.
So am I lying about white scientists and their racism not being objective for over 200 years of anthropology? Seriously?
quote: Doug claimed that learned scholars are saying AE had Pale White Skin and look like Nordics then he quotes folks that say AE was light, Brown and Black.
You are confused. I posted Egyptologists saying that King Tut looked like the reconstruction with pale skin and that this is what they call "brown skin". I posted Egyptologists saying Victor Mature is an accurate image of what Horemheb looked like. So again, where am I lying?
quote: Doug lied saying race does not exist and all populations with dark skin = Black because Black is only a skin color. He then proceeds to argue that some population that are Black skinned are not "Black"......flip flopping and instead referring to the Racial Model of Black when he can include and exclude on a whim.
Where did I say that there are black skinned people who aren't black? Show us where I said that? Kinda sounds stupid doesn't it.
Go ahead, go through and find every case and point where I lied..... I dare you.
quote:[QB Doug then attempts to play the 'crowd appeal tactic' where he accuses those that dont agree with him of supporting Euro-centrism. Because you know....black people need to stick together..'sure that will get passive readers on my side.' [/QB]
Crowd appeal? I thought it was about facts and evidence. But to this point in this thread, NOBODY has yet provided any proof that mainstream Egyptology believes the AE looked anything like black folks using whatever terms you want to use.
NOBODY HAS.
If these people say the AE weren't black, I say it is because they are referring to skin color. YOU and other folks are trying to say, 'NO THEY REALLY MEAN BLACK BUT HAVE SOME OTHER SPECIAL SCIENTIFIC WAY OF SAYING IT THAT YOU DONT UNDERSTAND YET'.
And when you can show me that modern Egyptology as a whole believes this and teaches this and supports this in all forms of public information dissemination, I will take you seriously.
When you can prove that you will have made your point.
Otherwise, the only liar here is you.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: That's why I'm trying to find out what people took away from the conversation, because if someone thinks Doug had a "point" where he and I actually collided (i.e. not including the strawman attacks Doug wants to draw people's attention to), I would really love to see what those "points" are. Everyone is welcome to point Doug's "good points" out if they can demonstrate that I argued against them.
Doug's only good points were the ones no one here disagreed with. That's an easy way to score "points". Just make the most noise and fabricate the most strawmen in your posts.
Bread and circuses:
quote:"Bread and circuses" (or bread and games; from Latin: panem et circenses) is metonymic for a superficial means of appeasement. In the case of politics, the phrase is used to describe the generation of public approval, not through exemplary or excellent public service or public policy, but through diversion; distraction; or the mere satisfaction of the immediate, shallow requirements of a populace,[1] as an offered "palliative."
The only "point" I am making is that nobody has shown that Egyptology and anthropologists in general are saying the AE looked anything like black folks in any other language or terminology that you would like to imagine they do.
THEY DONT.
And understand this very simple point. If they were, none of you would be on this forum posting your 'scholarhip' trying to disprove them.
And if that is not what you are doing and you believe that YOU AND THEM are on the same page, then you are contradicting yourself and the purpose of even posting on this forum.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
The only "point" I am making is that nobody has shown that Egyptology and anthropologists in general are saying the AE looked anything like black folks in any other language or terminology that you would like to imagine they do.
THEY DONT.
quote: thousands of portrayals of individual Egyptians show that the population as a whole ranged across a wide spectrum of complexions, from light to dark brown and black. -- Ian Shaw, Ancient Egypt A Very Short Introduction (2004)
quote:
"Any characterization of race of the ancient Egyptians depends on modern cultural definitions, not on scientific study. Thus, by modern American standards it is reasonable to characterize the Egyptians as 'black', while acknowledging the scientific evidence for the physical diversity of Africans." --Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt, 2001
quote:
"There is no doubt that the beliefs examined herein are of indigenous origin, Nilotic or Sundani in the broadest signification of the word, and I have endeavoured to explain those which cannot be elucidated in any other way, by the evidence which is afforded by the Religions of the modern peoples who live on the great rivers of East, West, and Central Africa . . . Now, if we examine the Religions of modern African peoples, we find that the beliefs underlying them are almost identical with those Ancient Egyptian ones described above. As they are not derived from the Egyptians, it follows that they are the natural product of the religious mind of the natives of certain parts of Africa, which is the same in all periods." --Wallace Budge, Osiris and the Egyptian Resurrection (1911)
Posted by Child Of The KING (Member # 9422) on :
Must Understand The Reality of Color...
Black White, Red, and Yellow Original Colors.
Browns Mixture,
Meaning Yellow Mixes With Red
Child Comes Out Yellow
THE CHILD YELLOW OR BROWN
Child Comes Out Red
THE CHILD RED OR BROWN
Repeated Post:
Listen
Black Mixes with White..
Child comes out White
THE CHILD WHITE OR BROWN
Child comes out Black
THE CHILD BLACK OR BROWN
Black mixes with Yellow..
Child comes out Yellow
THE CHILD YELLOW OR BROWN
Child comes out Black
THE CHILD BLACK OR BROWN
Black mixes with Red..
Child comes out Red
THE CHILD RED OR BROWN
Child Comes out Black
THE CHILD BLACK OR BROWN
etc for all Peoples Mixtures...
BROWN IS MIXTURE.
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Swenet: [qb] T
And understand this very simple point. If they were, none of you would be on this forum posting your 'scholarhip' trying to disprove them.
And if that is not what you are doing and you believe that YOU AND THEM are on the same page, then you are contradicting yourself and the purpose of even posting on this forum.
And that's the difference between the stagnant old guard and folks that have progressed : The need to get white folks approval and vain attempts to disprove phantom folks on the web. I cannot speak for others but the VAST MAJORITY of the time I study to learn FOR MYSELF the fundamental truths of African Biological and historical history. I dont sit around stagnant rehashing old **** to the choir while being totally unfamiliar with the latest findings in anthropology, genetics and linguistics. Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: That's why I'm trying to find out what people took away from the conversation, because if someone thinks Doug had a "point" where he and I actually collided (i.e. not including the strawman attacks Doug wants to draw people's attention to), I would really love to see what those "points" are. Everyone is welcome to point Doug's "good points" out if they can demonstrate that I argued against them.
Doug's only good points were the ones no one here disagreed with. That's an easy way to score "points". Just make the most noise and fabricate the most strawmen in your posts.
Bread and circuses:
quote:"Bread and circuses" (or bread and games; from Latin: panem et circenses) is metonymic for a superficial means of appeasement. In the case of politics, the phrase is used to describe the generation of public approval, not through exemplary or excellent public service or public policy, but through diversion; distraction; or the mere satisfaction of the immediate, shallow requirements of a populace,[1] as an offered "palliative."
The only "point" I am making is that nobody has shown that Egyptology and anthropologists in general are saying the AE looked anything like black folks in any other language or terminology that you would like to imagine they do.
THEY DONT.
And understand this very simple point. If they were, none of you would be on this forum posting your 'scholarhip' trying to disprove them.
And if that is not what you are doing and you believe that YOU AND THEM are on the same page, then you are contradicting yourself and the purpose of even posting on this forum.
You do very well on forums populated by people with racial politics agendas, I'll give you that. Some are even willing to look the other way when you're flip flopping in broad daylight throughout the debate on several issues. Those flip flopping antics you did would have got you fried like the right side of Sandor Clegane's face in any neutral debate.
Robert Bauval is the most generous "white" academic you will ever get and while he uses the term 'black' in relationship to the ancient Egyptians freely, even he makes it clear that there were elements in the neolithic, dynastic and predynastic Egyptian population who don't fit what people in the west understand the racial use of that label to mean.
Flip flopper.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: That's why I'm trying to find out what people took away from the conversation, because if someone thinks Doug had a "point" where he and I actually collided (i.e. not including the strawman attacks Doug wants to draw people's attention to), I would really love to see what those "points" are. Everyone is welcome to point Doug's "good points" out if they can demonstrate that I argued against them.
Doug's only good points were the ones no one here disagreed with. That's an easy way to score "points". Just make the most noise and fabricate the most strawmen in your posts.
Bread and circuses:
quote:"Bread and circuses" (or bread and games; from Latin: panem et circenses) is metonymic for a superficial means of appeasement. In the case of politics, the phrase is used to describe the generation of public approval, not through exemplary or excellent public service or public policy, but through diversion; distraction; or the mere satisfaction of the immediate, shallow requirements of a populace,[1] as an offered "palliative."
The only "point" I am making is that nobody has shown that Egyptology and anthropologists in general are saying the AE looked anything like black folks in any other language or terminology that you would like to imagine they do.
THEY DONT.
And understand this very simple point. If they were, none of you would be on this forum posting your 'scholarhip' trying to disprove them.
And if that is not what you are doing and you believe that YOU AND THEM are on the same page, then you are contradicting yourself and the purpose of even posting on this forum.
You do very well on forums populated by people with racial politics agendas, I'll give you that. Some are even willing to look the other way when you're flip flopping in broad daylight throughout the debate on several issues. Those flip flopping antics you did would have got you fried like the right side of Sandor Clegane's face in any neutral debate.
Robert Bauval is the most generous "white" academic you will ever get and while he uses the term 'black' in relationship to the ancient Egyptians freely, even he makes it clear that there were elements in the neolithic, dynastic and predynastic Egyptian population who don't fit what people in the west understand the racial use of that label to mean.
Flip flopper.
I am not flip flopping. You are simply pushing a weak argument and mixing up a lot of different things because you are running all over the place avoiding the point.
You could have posted Bauval on page 1 or 2 a long time ago, but you didn't. You posted racists and then tried to claim that they were calling the AE black and they weren't.
Now you are trying to say that Bauval calls the AE black but there were others that were 'not black' in the Neolithic? There is no "western understanding" of black. Black only means dark skin. So are you saying that bauval feels there was a large migration of Non black Non Africans into the Nile Valley in the Neolithic? Then just say that. Black people are diverse people period. They come in all shapes and sizes and most indigenous Africans are black as a consequence of natural selection. That is not race. That is just biology. The point is the only reason 'non black' gets injected into AE is because of foreign intrusion into the Egyptian Nile Valley. NOBODY, even the racists believe that pure indigenous Africans would evolve into 'non blacks'. But they also know there was no large scale migration of non Africans into the Nile Valley prior to the rise of the dynastic state. But they still push their agenda regardless.
Safe to say these 'elements' that you speak of can be identified and quantified can they not?
And here is the overall point. There are enough tombs and remains that have been uncovered for this issue to have been put to rest long ago, because melanin dosage test along with a photographic record of the various ethnic gruops in Egypt would make it clear which features are found in Egypt to this day which correlate with the ancient Artwork and which ranges of skin complexions would have been most dominant in the ancient population. My argument is the ancient population would have been black meaning very much in the range of Sudanese and other Africans. But Egyptology to this day as a institution, not merely individual scholars, still dismisses this and that is the point. It doesn't matter what words you use the point is still the same. And there have been plenty of scholars who have said the AE were black but most of those were rejected by Egyptology. Budge, Champollion, Bauval, Poe and many others have said this and they are not considered valid scholars.
In fact, here is a review of the book where the reviewer uses the standard tactic of trying to claim that 'black skin' in Egypt is somehow a discussion of race. It is a tactic and deliberate strategy to try and invoke race as if to say skin color in Africa or the Nile Valley can't be black. And this is the agenda I am against. Black skin is not race. These clowns don't want to talk about facts and evidence when it comes to skin color as if ANY aspect of human biology equates to race. And this is where you see the hypocrisy. If there is no such thing as race then why is "black skin" discussing race? Is the fact that the Greeks and Roman had white skin race? Of course not.
No skin color equals race, but these clowns simply want to try and end all discussion of skin color by claiming saying the AE had 'black skin' is 'race'. And that is the nonsense I am rejecting on this thread.
quote: Black Genesis (2011) by Robert Bauval and Thomas Brophy is a book that seems almost purposely designed to prevent critics from criticizing it without sounding like racists. It claims that the civilization of ancient Egypt derived from “Black” antecedents in sub-Saharan Africa, and I am uncomfortable with the authors’ use of modern racial categories to represent past peoples, who may or may not meet contemporary definitions of socially-constructed “races.” I am also uncomfortable with the idea that civilization should be attributed to a race rather than a culture, as though the Greeks were synecdoche for all Whites or this lost African culture somehow synonymous with everyone with black skin.
Reviewing "Black Genesis" (Pt. 1)
8/29/2013
19 Comments
Black Genesis (2011) by Robert Bauval and Thomas Brophy is a book that seems almost purposely designed to prevent critics from criticizing it without sounding like racists. It claims that the civilization of ancient Egypt derived from “Black” antecedents in sub-Saharan Africa, and I am uncomfortable with the authors’ use of modern racial categories to represent past peoples, who may or may not meet contemporary definitions of socially-constructed “races.” I am also uncomfortable with the idea that civilization should be attributed to a race rather than a culture, as though the Greeks were synecdoche for all Whites or this lost African culture somehow synonymous with everyone with black skin.
The authors write that “Black Genesis [is] not only a scientific thesis but also a testament of respect and admiration of all whose skin happens to be black and who have a direct ancestral line to Black Africa.”
I wonder how discussions between Bauval and his onetime writing partner Graham Hancock went after this book, since Hancock has steadfastly advocated for a white origin for Egypt, from his lost white civilization. Although Hancock later took exception to this characterization of his lost civilization, he mentions their white skin twelve times in Fingerprints of the Gods (1995) as “lean, bearded white men” of “distinctively non-Indian ethnic type.”
The book’s primary focus early on is the site of Nabta Playa, an archaeological site that has become a focus for alternative ideas. Archaeologists recognize it as an early (and small-sized) stone calendar laid out in the Nubian Desert just south of ancient Egypt sometime between 6000 and 3000 BCE. Gavin Menzies claimed in his Atlantis book that the Egyptians used it to teach the Minoans how to build stone circles, which they spread around the world. I covered this back in 2012, and I see nothing in Black Genesis to change my evaluation of Brophy’s extreme theories:
I feel Doug M made some good points about the racism in mainstream Egyptology which imo has been an issue in progression
And you already know(even based in the OP) that I found your usage of the word "black" interesting. IIRC you go by Al Jahiz usage of black which I also found interesting.
You guys are going back and forth with long posts, which obvious means you both believe strongly in what you are saying. I just say agree-disagreement.
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
quote:Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: I really DID NOT expect this thread to get 15 pages... Can't you guys just come to a agree-disagreement? I mean both parties have made good points, but whats the point in keep arguing and banging your head on the desk when you know the other will NEVER agree with your argument?
Both parties didnt make good points. Doug is basically lying. Doug claimed that learned scholars are saying AE had Pale White Skin and look like Nordics then he quotes folks that say AE was light, Brown and Black.
Doug lied saying race does not exist and all populations with dark skin = Black because Black is only a skin color. He then proceeds to argue that some population that are Black skinned are not "Black"......flip flopping and instead referring to the Racial Model of Black when he can include and exclude on a whim.
Doug then attempts to play the 'crowd appeal tactic' where he accuses those that dont agree with him of supporting Euro-centrism. Because you know....black people need to stick together..'sure that will get passive readers on my side.'
Not trying to get into this war... But reading through this thread I did see that there is hardly if at all any proof of even the most racist scholar referring to the Ancient Egyptians as wandering pale skinned caucasoids. That idea only seems to be supported by non-professional Eurocentrics online...
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote: Originally posted by Doug M: You could have posted Bauval on page 1 or 2 a long time ago, but you didn't. You posted racists and then tried to claim that they were calling the AE black and they weren't.
Of course I posted racists. Before you flip flopped to your current position of complaining about how I'm posting racists, you introduced them into the conversation yourself by talking about the racist establishment. But you flip flop so many times that after five minutes debating you everything spirals down into a messy soup filled with strawman attacks, ad hominem and flip flops. But kudos to you, you have them all fooled.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: In fact, here is a review of the book
You're reaching. Desperately trying to keep up with the sources I post. Every time I post an academic you're googling them to know what they say because you didn't know beforehand. Yet, you make a priori sweeping generalizations about personalities who send you off to a google session every time a new one is mentioned. That's the difference between me and you. You're hanging on by a thread and dangling and flip flopping with every post trying to make a priori generalizations and allegations you made match new information that comes to your attention. You're bending over backwards with this cringe-worthy display and lioness has called you out for your antics several times. I speak from actual familiarity with what these people are saying. What have you actually read on this subject?
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Black only means dark skin.
Stop flip flopping. That lie went out the window when you refused to acknowledge Baker's statement that they had reddish brown SKIN, simply because he aligned them with the European RACE. Mind you, this followed after your complaints about how race has nothing to do with 'black' skin. As if that embarrassing flip flop didn't take the cake, you also suggested that clustering cranio-facially with Maghrebis is mutually exclusive with having a 'black' skin:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: That skull looks consistent with modern day Maghrebis and Lower Egyptians, among other African groups.
And? Are those modern day Maghrebis and Lower Egyptians black?
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Safe to say these 'elements' that you speak of can be identified and quantified can they not?
Bauval, who is undeniably non-racist in his writings, called these elements 'Mediteranean' proving that such misconceptions among 'white' scholars aren't necessarily motivated by racism and that sweeping allegations of racism only make you look like a confused loon. That's why the academic community will never accept people like you. You come off like a bunch of paranoid, fringe loons.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: I feel Doug M made some good points about the racism in mainstream Egyptology which imo has been an issue in progression
But that's the thing. Did you fact-check if he's attacking strawmen when he tries to pretend that that is a point of contention in my discussion with him?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
NOBODY, even the racists believe that pure indigenous Africans would evolve into 'non blacks'.
That's odd. I thought all 'non blacks' derive from Africans.
I wonder if Doug has some unusual point of view on this he is hiding.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
there have been plenty of scholars who have said the AE were black but most of those were rejected by Egyptology. Budge, Champollion, Bauval, Poe and many others have said this and they are not considered valid scholars.
Now, finally Doug admits that Champollion one of the founders of Egyptology and the famous Wallace Budge said things along the lines of the Egyptians being 'black' but his excuse now is that Champollion and Budge were rejected by Egyptology and not considered valid scholars. That is a lie.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
In fact, here is a review of the book where the reviewer uses the standard tactic of trying to claim that 'black skin' in Egypt is somehow a discussion of race. It is a tactic and deliberate strategy to try and invoke race as if to say skin color in Africa or the Nile Valley can't be black.
Using the word 'black' when the color is brown is a code word for race.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
Here is another video by Miss Teeter rehashing the trope that the color of Egyptian men was red (when it was brown) and the women were yellow because they stayed inside:
^ here Doug says the color of Egyptian men was brown. Now watch the flip >
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
And this is the agenda I am against. Black skin is not race. These clowns don't want to talk about facts and evidence when it comes to skin color as if ANY aspect of human biology equates to race. And this is where you see the hypocrisy. If there is no such thing as race then why is "black skin" discussing race? Is the fact that the Greeks and Roman had white skin race? Of course not.
No skin color equals race, but these clowns simply want to try and end all discussion of skin color by claiming saying the AE had 'black skin' is 'race'.
Doug is constantly flip flopping terms
At one moment he uses the word "brown" which is accurate observation of color
At another moment he uses 'black'
and when he starts talking about 'black' not being a race he slips in 'skinned' That's a flip
Is a person brown black brown skinned black skinned ?
Here is the U.S. census
^ It doesn't say "what is person 1's skin color?" it says "what is person 1's race?"
The whole society he lives in says black and white are words for race and Doug knows this
That is why he doesn't say "the Egyptians were black skinned" or "Europeans are white skinned" on a consistent basis He usually leaves "skinned" out, that's intentional. When you do that, as he well knows the word is interpreted as common modern usage, a word for race
So it's this constant game. He talk about "black skin". Then in the middle of the discussion the sudden he leave "skinned" out, hoping no one will notice because he wants it to mean more than skin - but not take responsibility for wanting it. That is bullshit
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
Damn...even Lioness is beating that ass:
Posted by Child Of The KING (Member # 9422) on :
Great Post Doug,
On Point As Usual.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet Stop flip flopping. That lie went out the window when you refused to acknowledge Baker's statement that they had reddish brown SKIN, simply because he aligned them with the European RACE. Mind you, this followed after your complaints about how race has nothing to do with 'black' skin. As if that embarrassing flip flop didn't take the cake, you also suggested that clustering cranio-facially with Maghrebis is mutually exclusive with having a 'black' skin:
Here is the problem. He doesn't say that. That is the point. You keep saying he does but he does not and I showed you he does not but you still keep insisting he says he does.
You are the one who has spent the last 15 pages trying to defend white racists claiming they "know the AE were black" yet I keep posting how you are putting words into their mouths and simply lying outright in many cases.
Thats fine. YOU are defending racists saying what they don't say.
Call it whatever you want but racists like Baker are not calling the AE black in any kind of way.
Here is what Mr Baker actually says:
quote: The descendants of Ham were the Hamites, but here again we are in difficulty, because it is uncertain who the Hamites were. Since Canaan was one of the sons of Ham, it seems reasonable to suppose that the Canaanites were Hamites. Usually, however, the Hamites of the Bible are assumed to have been the early Egyptians, who are thought to have been Protomediterranids hybridized with Orientalids; but Chapter x of Genesis makes it clear that the Sumerians and Assyrians, among others, were also descendants of Ham. Certain authorities have supposed that the Hamites were Negrids. It has, indeed, been claimed that the latter were descendants of Phut, one of Ham"s sons; but it is doubtful whether much was known of Negrids by the writers of Genesis, x, and Phut"s descendants do not appear to have made any clear mark on the available historical records. The Japhetic peoples are usually supposed to have been of "Indo-European" or "Indo-Germanic" stock; but these expressions, based on linguistic studies, are not translatable into ethnic terms. Evidence has been brought forward for the view that the Japhetic peoples were in fact Armenids and Alpinids.
It is impossible to draw any definite conclusions from the account in Genesis of the origin of the various peoples to whom reference is made, beyond the fact that they were all supposed to have sprung from a common ancestor; but it seems very probable that they were all Europids. Whatever the correct interpretation may be, there is no doubt that hybridization among subraces occurred in Palestine and Mesopotamia in biblical times, and that the Hebrews were strongly urged by some of their spiritual leaders to avoid it. Although the ethnic taxa in question were only subraces of the same (Europid) race as themselves, there was no question of "equality" in the minds of the leaders. It was legitimate to despise people of another taxon that was regarded as more primitive.
....
Those in modern times who overstress the significance of 'colour' would receive a wholesome corrective on reading the excellent essay on physical anthropology written by an anonymous traveller and published in the Journal des Sgavans in 1684. In this very remarkable work on the geographical distribution of human "Especes ou Races", the author clearly recognizes that the people of North Africa, Arabia, and India belong to the same race as those of Europe. He writes on the subject of colour as follows. For although the Egyptians, for instance, and the Indians are very black, or rather tawny, this colour is nevertheless only accidental to them, and comes only because they expose themselves to the sun; for those who take care of themselves and are not obliged to expose themselves to it as often as the common people are, are not blacker than many Spaniards. It is true that most Indians have something rather different from us in the expression of the face and in the colour, which often tends towards yellow; but that does not seem sufficient to make a particular species; for otherwise it would be necessary to make one also for the Spaniards, another for the Germans, and similarly for several other peoples of Europe. The author sharply distinguishes certain other "coloured" races from the Indians, by morphological criteria. He considered the women of Lahore the most beautiful of India. These would have been Nordindids (Indo-Afghans). Some of the important facts first clearly established by the anonymous traveller were well exhibited in the atlas published by de Vaugondy nearly a century later. The area of "iLes Europeens", identified by the appearance of the face (visage), includes not only Europe itself (apart from the extreme north of Scandinavia and the region north of the Black Sea), but also Africa north of the Sahara, Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India as far south as the River Ganges.
It was already recognized in the seventeenth century that the skin-colour of certain races of man was not solely due to the action of the sun's rays during the life of the individual. One Leutholf or Ludolfus, writing in 1691, put the matter very clearly in a commentary published separately from his book on Africa. "But still", he says, "within the range of the tropical sun there are nations if not actually white, at any rate not actually black; many are far distant from the equator, beyond one tropic or the other, such as the inhabitants of Persia or Syria, or the Cape of Good Hope, for example, and nevertheless they are very black." Ludolfus refers to the blackness of the native inhabitants of Ceylon and other countries and remarks, "If you attribute the natural cause fof their skin-colour to the heavens and the sun, why do not white men who grow old in these regions become black?" There is here clear recognition of the reality of genetic differences between ethnic taxa.
...
Rousseau was by no means the only celebrated author of the eighteenth century who contributed to the discussion of the ethnic problem. Some of the greatest philosophical and political thinkers of the period-Montesquieu, Hume, Kant, and Voltaire among them made comments, though mostly short ones. Some of these were merely satirical, and therefore not helpful in the search for truth. Thus Montesquieu wrote of the Negro in De Vesprit des lois: "Those concerned are black from the feet to the head; and they have the nose squashed so flat that it is almost impossible to pity them. One cannot take it into one’s mind that God, who is a wise being, has placed a soul, especially a good soul, in a wholly black body." The irony is so heavy-handed in the passage from which this extract is taken, that it cannot be regarded as effective even by the standards according to which this kind of rhetoric is commonly judged. The Scottish philosopher and historian David Hume was one of those opponents of conventional religious thought who did not hesitate to express their belief in the inferiority of certain ethnic taxa. In his Essays, moral and political he writes, "And indeed, there is some Reason to think, that all the Nations, which live beyond the polar Circles or betwixt the Tropics, are inferior to the rest of the Species, and are utterly incapable of all the higher Attainments of the human Mind." He remarked, however, that there was no relation between intelligence and latitude within the limits of the temperate zone. Hume was particularly impressed by the ease with which Negroes could be bribed by the gift of alcoholic drinks. He noted that the character of the Chinese was remarkably uniform over a huge area, in which the climatic conditions varied widely from place to place, and he concluded that the differences in "Temper" of the various nations could not be due solely to the physical environment. He thought, however, that fortuitous circumstances might have produced some of the differences. In developing nations, a few persons gain control and eventually influence the mass of the people. Since the governing body is small, there must be a large element of chance in its composition. .... Gobineau considered that most scientific observers showed a marked tendency to present an unduly low estimate of primitive human types. "In the most repugnant cannibals", he claimed, "there remains a spark of divine fire, and the faculty of understanding can kindle itself at least to a certain degree." Gobineau’s principal criterion for judging the superiority of a race was its capacity to originate a great civilization. In his opinion there had been ten such civilizations in the course of history, seven in the Old World and three in America. The seven were those of the Indians, Egyptians, Assyrians, Greeks, Chinese, Romans, and finally the races germaniques. The American civilizations were those of the Meghaniens, Mexicans, and Peruvians. It should be pointed out that at the time when Gobineau wrote, it was scarcely possible to realize that the culture of the Assyrians was derived from that of the Sumerians. His Alleghanian civilization was presumably a branch of the ancient "Mound-building" culture, subsequently recognized as widespread in the United States. It is clear that by the name "races germaniques" Gobineau meant the Nordid subrace. He attributed the civilization of modern Europe to people of this stock, who had intermarried to some extent with Slavs and others without degrading too quickly their natural instinct of initiative. The Germanics were, for Gobineau, a branch of the ‘Aryan race’, to which he ascribed, in part at least, no fewer than six of the great civilizations of the Old World all, that is to say, except the Assyrian; for he considered that culture had been brought to China by Aryans of India. The Aryans, in his sense, appear to have been the various peoples who spoke Indogermanic languages, for he did not define them in terms of physical anthropology. He regarded them as the great initiators of civilization. Gobineau’s long book ends on a pessimistic note. Hybridization was destroying the great civilizations of modern times as it had destroyed those of the past. "Thus mixture, mixture everywhere, always mixture: that is the clearest, most certain, the most durable work of great societies and powerful civilizations." He recognizes two periods in the existence of man on earth. "The one, which has passed, will have witnessed and possessed the youth, the vigour, the intellectual grandeur of the species; the other, which has begun, will know the faltering procession towards decrepitude." .... The Nilotids remained for a long time almost free from external influence. The ancient camel-routes across the Sahara passed well to the west of them, and the Nile itself was far from providing a convenient approach. Direct passage up the river from Egypt was made difficult not only by the cataracts in the lower part of its course, but even more so further upstream by the periodical accumulation of enormous masses of entangled aquatic vegetation. For long ages this sudd constituted a formidable barrier between the Egyptians and the Negrid tribes to the south.
Although the inhabitants of Egypt throughout the dynastic period were similar to one another in many respects, they were differentiated at first into two local forms, one of them occupying the Fayum and parts of the country in the vicinity of the lower Nile, and the other living far upstream, in the region called the Thebaid. In anthropological studies the former region is referred to as "Lower Egypt", though it does not correspond exactly with the modern province of that name; the other is called "Upper Egypt". The Upper Egyptians had narrower skulls, and consequently somewhat lower cranial indices (commonly about 73 -5, in comparison with 75 0 or rather more among the Lower Egyptians) and one may condense a very large body of statistical data into a few words by saying that in all the six criteria by which Egyptian skulls can be distinguished from Negrid ones, the Upper Egyptian skulls approximated at first a little more closely towards the Negrid condition than did those from Lower Egypt. This differentiation did not persist, however. Extremely gradually, as one dynasty succeeded another, over an immense period, the skulls of the Upper Egyptians changed, until at last they were scarcely distinguishable from those of the Lower Egyptians, even by the most refined statistical techniques. Morant considers two possible causes of the change: either miscegenation in Upper Egypt on a very large scale, with eventual predominance of the Lower Egyptian element, or an independent evolutionary change in the Upper Egyptian population. He does not decide the question, but the former possibility seems much the more probable of the two. Eickstedt maintained a third opinion, that the Upper Egyptians were pushed out of the country towards the south by their relatives from downstream. Whichever hypothesis is correct, the population of the whole country became almost homogeneous, with attenuation of the Negrid element. The Fellahin and Copts of modern Egypt are regarded as scarcely modified descendants of the Egyptians of late dynastic times
Now you are sitting here saying that he is saying they are black some kind of way but in reality he is doing what racists have always been doing, trying to make Ancient Egypt part of the white European "race".
Suffice to say, he is not calling them black because in his own words, they are a sub population of "Europids" and not "darker than Spaniards". Which means interchangeable with White Europeans.
But this is the point. These racist scholars make up racial categories so that they can include white Europeans into other populations that have no European ancestry. It is pseudo science and hardly based on anything we would consider logical science. So the problem is you are introducing these racists into the discussion knowing full well that their whole jargon is full of contradictions and inherent fallacies but you are defending them saying they 'really' mean something that they "really" don't. They simply make up any old scientific sounding reason to claim that the AE were some kind of "white European" population. That is why they created these racial categories in the first place and obviously they don't reflect anything but the racist mentality of the European. And according to that to claim that they viewed the AE as "black" like other Africans is preposterous. They don't and they are simply using pseudo science to make up distinctions in order to justify claiming these folks as part of the white "race", which is a made up concept allowing them to take non white people and turn them into white Europeans. Meaning they use words and language to mislead and misdirect versus clarify on purpose in order to support your agenda. Yet here you are posting up these people as examples of clarity in the use of language on the subject of skin color. That is simply an example of why your whole argument doesn't even make sense.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Doug is flip flopping again. He rejects the notion that Baker said that the AE had 'black' skin because Baker grouped them racially with Europeans. This is a flip flop relative to Doug's earlier claim that 'black' only refers to skin color and transcends 'race'.
Sheesh Doug, how many times do you plan to flip flop back and forth in your description of what 'black' means? You posted the dictionary entry of 'black' below, and now that it dawns on you that racists apply the same definition, you want to flip flop away from your earlier claim that 'black' only refers to skin color? Does 'black' transcend race or does it have sneaky racial politics connotations when it's convenientb to your agenda? Make up your mind.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:"(also Black) Of any human group having dark-colored skin, especially of African or Australian Aboriginal ancestry: black adolescents of Jamaican descent"
quote: The relative unimportance of colour in comparison with morphological features is witnessed by the fact that there is no race of man, in the sense of the word adopted in this book (pp. 99 ff.), that is characterized by the possession of a pale skin. Most of the subraces of the Europid race have pale skins, but the Nordindids (Indo-Afghans) and Aethiopids have not. The Sikhs and other Nor- dindids become pale brown in the exposed parts of the body, and members of the Aethiopid subrace are very dark—darker, in fact, than certain Negrid tribes. If a Nordindid were slightly paler, it would not be easy to distinguish him from a Mediterranid. Indeed, some authorities regard the Nordindids as constituting a local form of the Mediterranid subrace,
[...]
From predynastic times onwards a principal part of the population of Egypt appears to have been composed of a section of the Aethiopid subrace (pp. 225-^6), but with this stock there coexisted for a time an ‘Aeneolithic’ (Chalcolithic) people that disappeared before the beginning of the First Dynasty. The skulls of the latter people show that they were related to the main population, but distinct from it.
--John Baker
There is no difference. If that dictionary entry is the ONLY meaning of 'black', then Baker called the AE and Indians 'black', PERIOD. No ifs, buts and wishy washiness.
Of course Baker was a racist. Of course Baker denied that the AE were indigenous Africans. But Baker was posted to show that Doug's claim (i.e., racists all say the AE were pale and blue eyed) is false. Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
^Cuz Doug was in denial and kept challenging people to post such data right before he realized it wasn't what he wanted and started flip flopping.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Then I asked you to provide support for your argument that the Europeans have provided explicit support for the AE having skin colors like other Africans and African Americans who have black skin. Again, you have NOT PROVIDED SAID REFERENCES yet you keep sitting here claiming that Coon, Brace and others have provided said references. And this is where you keep lying because you have provided no such thing.
Therefore you keep lying and now keep accusing me of strawmen in order to avoid the point that those Europeans if asked about the skin color of said AE populations HAVE NOT and WILL NOT say that they had a range of complexions similar to any Africans called black. To the point where I have been calling you out as a mouthpiece for these folks who absolutely do not agree with you and your insane argument that IN THEIR OWN WAY THEY SAY THE AE WERE "BLACK" and since page one I have been saying NO THEY DON'T SWENET IS PUTTING WORDS AND COLORS INTO THEIR MOUTHS.
Don't you get it by now these so-called 'objective' scholars don't agree with you and your claim that they think or admit that the AE were 'brown skinned', meaning in the same range of colors covered by the word black.
You simply keep lying when you claim that they do say this when they don't.
That reason enough?
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: I feel Doug M made some good points about the racism in mainstream Egyptology which imo has been an issue in progression
But that's the thing. Did you fact-check if he's attacking strawmen when he tries to pretend that that is a point of contention in my discussion with him?
Like I said I'm reading through the thread and also I did see the inconsistency with him saying the bronze age Europeans were "white" when they did not have white skin.
Just trying to stay neutral.
Edit: Sent you a PM.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: I feel Doug M made some good points about the racism in mainstream Egyptology which imo has been an issue in progression
But that's the thing. Did you fact-check if he's attacking strawmen when he tries to pretend that that is a point of contention in my discussion with him?
Like I said I'm reading through the thread and also I did see the inconsistency with him saying the bronze age Europeans were "white" when they did not have white skin.
Just trying to stay neutral.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: I used Google translator, since I don't understand Poolish.
The museum in Hrubieszow reconstructed face of a warrior from the first half of the second millennium BC In the reconstruction helped specialists in forensic medicine from.
Reconstruction looks pretty white to me.
Here's the Doug quote^^* on page 10. Indeed the man is represented as light skinned
You guys are misunderstanding Doug on this point. He was not talking about the below unpainted clay >>
^^ This could be a skin color but it's not. It's the color of the clay. Doug's remark applies to the smaller, painted, half skull picture at the top of this post, not this lower unpainted one
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Doug said the skull looked European and tried to infer from that that the guy was "white" in terms of skin pigmentation. He then later tried to lecture me about the dubiousness of trying to infer skin color from skeletal remains, but he's the only one who did this:
Going back to find out who said what now after 15 pages, not to learn or find out what the discussion is about, but to point fingers and referee is corny to me. 15 pages is a lot to go over and if you didn't read it in the first place, it's obviously because you're not interested, so why go back now? It's not that important and I'm not asking people to take sides and come back to voice their support to someone in particular. All I'm asking for is that the conversation isn't misrepresented because I've had enough of Doug's and other folks' strawmen attacks over the past 15 pages.
In regards to racism in Egyptology, I never denied it existed, but I did say that dubious claims made by academics should be looked at on a case by case basis to see if it is an issue of racism, ignorance or just a (wrong) interpretation of the evidence. Simply pointing out that a scholar disagrees with you over the ethnic background of the AE is not enough to prove racism. I don't see what's so unreasonable about that or why that would justify Doug's repeated rants about the existence of racism in Egyptology. That's obviously a strawman attack Doug is engaging in.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: Just trying to stay neutral.
Understood.. Posted by Nodnarb (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: I feel Doug M made some good points about the racism in mainstream Egyptology which imo has been an issue in progression
But that's the thing. Did you fact-check if he's attacking strawmen when he tries to pretend that that is a point of contention in my discussion with him?
Like I said I'm reading through the thread and also I did see the inconsistency with him saying the bronze age Europeans were "white" when they did not have white skin.
Just trying to stay neutral.
Edit: Sent you a PM.
Doug is long-winded as hell, so I imagine reading through his rants must be a tiresome chore anyway. Good luck.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Doug is flip flopping again. He rejects the notion that Baker said that the AE had 'black' skin because Baker grouped them racially with Europeans. This is a flip flop relative to Doug's earlier claim that 'black' only refers to skin color and transcends 'race'.
Sheesh Doug, how many times do you plan to flip flop back and forth in your description of what 'black' means? You posted the dictionary entry of 'black' below, and now that it dawns on you that racists apply the same definition, you want to flip flop away from your earlier claim that 'black' only refers to skin color? Does 'black' transcend race or does it have sneaky racial politics connotations when it's convenientb to your agenda? Make up your mind.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:"(also Black) Of any human group having dark-colored skin, especially of African or Australian Aboriginal ancestry: black adolescents of Jamaican descent"
quote: The relative unimportance of colour in comparison with morphological features is witnessed by the fact that there is no race of man, in the sense of the word adopted in this book (pp. 99 ff.), that is characterized by the possession of a pale skin. Most of the subraces of the Europid race have pale skins, but the Nordindids (Indo-Afghans) and Aethiopids have not. The Sikhs and other Nor- dindids become pale brown in the exposed parts of the body, and members of the Aethiopid subrace are very dark—darker, in fact, than certain Negrid tribes. If a Nordindid were slightly paler, it would not be easy to distinguish him from a Mediterranid. Indeed, some authorities regard the Nordindids as constituting a local form of the Mediterranid subrace,
[...]
From predynastic times onwards a principal part of the population of Egypt appears to have been composed of a section of the Aethiopid subrace (pp. 225-^6), but with this stock there coexisted for a time an ‘Aeneolithic’ (Chalcolithic) people that disappeared before the beginning of the First Dynasty. The skulls of the latter people show that they were related to the main population, but distinct from it.
--John Baker
There is no difference. If that dictionary entry is the ONLY meaning of 'black', then Baker called the AE and Indians 'black', PERIOD. No ifs, buts and wishy washiness.
Of course Baker was a racist. Of course Baker denied that the AE were indigenous Africans. But Baker was posted to show that Doug's claim (i.e., racists all say the AE were pale and blue eyed) is false.
No Swenet, I am saying you can't read.
Why don't you read the whole book and stop taking bits and pieces. This is what he says specifically:
quote: In their monuments the dynastic Egyptians represented themselves as having a long face, pointed chin with scanty beard, a straight or somewhat aquiline nose, black irises, and a reddish-brown complexion. On the evidence of their mummies it would appear that the head-hair was curly, wavy, or almost straight, and very dark brown or black. Facial and body-hair was scanty apart from the chin tuft of males. The skeletons show that stature was low, and the bones are slight and suggest a rather feeble frame. The skulls stand near the dividing-line between meso- and dolichocranial, with bulging occiput; viewed from on top they appear eoffin-shaped or ovoid; supraciliary ridges are poorly developed or absent; the forehead is nearly vertical. The cheeks are narrow, the nose rather broad. The lower jaw is feeble, and the pointed chin confirms the reliability of their images. There is some tendency towards projection of the face and jaws (mesognathy) (cf. Smith (981]). Sergi, the originator of the idea of a ‘Mediterranean race’ (‘stirpe mediterranean, regarded the Aethiopids in general as a part of its ‘African branch’; [958] and there is general agreement among those who have written on this subject that the Europid element in the Egyptians from predynastic times onwards has been primarily Mediterranid, though it is allowed that Orientalid immigrants from Arabia made a contribution to the stock.[98i,302] It is agreed, too, by the British anatomist Elliot Smith, [981] who worked for many years in Egypt, and by Morant, [761] that the Negrid contribution to the Egyptian stock was a small one. Morant showed that all the sets of ancient Egyptian skulls that he analysed statistically were distinguishable by each of six criteria from Negrid skulls (represented by a considerable number of specimens from each of eight different Kafrid, Palaenegrid, and ‘Northern Negro’ tribes); and he concluded that the whole of the Negrid contribution (if indeed there were any, for he would not decide definitely on this point) must have been made in predynastic times.
In reality we all know these folks misuse language and are trying to twist the facts to say that the AE were European looking white folks even though they claim this is some sort of result of being outdoors too long. That is what he is saying in the book. I provided you the quotes. He is basically calling them tanned Europeans, like this:
And this is the image of ancient Egypt that has persisted in Egyptology to this very day as I have posted already previously where Victor Mature is called a perfect image of Horemheb.
But again, you believe that racists believe the AE were black like other Africans.
And we all know that this is not the case. If this was true then why on earth would everyone be on this forum debating the subject? You are losing your mind and the 'debate' was lost long ago. Your point is so illogical that you resort to using racists to claim that the usage of the word black is invalid but you turn right around and use quotes from racists who use the word black.
So back to the original point. You claimed that this usage of the word black was a "western" concept that only applied in America as a "racial" construct. Yet you post "western" racist scholars using the same term in the context of Egypt as a reference to skin color. You claimed that this "racial" concept did not mean skin color and was problematic because of that. And you don't see how you have contradicted your whole point? Yet you accuse me of flip flopping? You don't have a point. You are running in circles and have been running in circles since page one.
And because you are running in circles you now AGREE with me that using the word black is perfectly valid for any population of dark sin in tropical environments around the world. You just posted it yourself.
Anything else further you want to debate?
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Doug said the skull looked European and tried to infer from that that the guy was "white" in terms of skin pigmentation. He then later tried to lecture me about the dubiousness of trying to infer skin color from skeletal remains, but he's the only one who did this:
Going back to find out who said what now after 15 pages, not to learn or find out what the discussion is about, but to point fingers and referee is corny to me. 15 pages is a lot to go over and if you didn't read it in the first place, it's obviously because you're not interested, so why go back now? It's not that important and I'm not asking people to take sides and come back to voice their support to someone in particular. All I'm asking for is that the conversation isn't misrepresented because I've had enough of Doug's and other folks' strawmen attacks over the past 15 pages.
In regards to racism in Egyptology, I never denied it existed, but I did say that dubious claims made by academics should be looked at on a case by case basis to see if it is an issue of racism, ignorance or just a (wrong) interpretation of the evidence. Simply pointing out that a scholar disagrees with you over the ethnic background of the AE is not enough to prove racism. I don't see what's so unreasonable about that or why that would justify Doug's repeated rants about the existence of racism in Egyptology. That's obviously a strawman attack Doug is engaging in.
No what I said was that the skull looks similar to modern Polish who are white.
YOU said the skull represents a black person.
I am saying that you need to prove this.
That is what I said.
I also said this skull has nothing to do with Egypt because they are two totally different populations living in different environments.
But somehow you simply keep running away from this.
I am also saying those polish skulls are irrelevant to whether populations were black in AE or not.
Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
Some Egyptologists like Emily Teeter and Jimmy Dunn have claimed that AE was heavily influenced by the 'Middle-East', but what specific influences did the 'Middle-East' actually have on ancient Egypt?
Jimmy Dunn claims that the architecture of ancient Egypt and its artistic motifs were influenced by the 'Middle-East'. We now know that AE did not derive its writing from Mesopotamia and I find it hard to believe that western Asia influenced the architecture and artistic motifs of AE.
..we must recognize, as with most cultures, that Egypt was not immune to foreign influence. In fact, most successful civilization must borrow from other cultures some technological advances, even if they produce a few themselves. Thus, it is clear that the Predynastic culture of Egypt was receptive to ideas from neighboring lands. Foreign architectural and artistic motif, and perhaps even the idea of writing, were adopted by the Egyptians at the dawn of history. However, like the chariots of the New Kingdom which were themselves adapted from foreign sources, but modified to be lighter in order to better handle the Egyptian terrain and the Egyptians battle tactics, all such borrowings from even the earliest times were quickly fitted into an Egyptian context. Hence, there is certainly no evidence whatsoever for an invasion of dynastic conquerors, though in ancient times as even today, Egypt was a cultural melting pot, where Africa, Asia and the Mediterranean met. The civilization that emerged in the Nile Valley simply absorbed influences from all of these areas.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Why don't you read the whole book and stop taking bits and pieces. This is what he says specifically:
Doug, you're flip flopping (as usual). You're now deviating from your earlier goalpost that 'black' is all about skin color, not race:
At the end of the day if the debate is about skin color, then why pretend it is about anything else? --Doug M
when we all know that this is about skin color and you are now trying to sit up here and lie and claim that suddenly all along we all agree with the Egyptologists and Racists in that we are all referring to the same skin complexions and our debate was merely an issue of semantics and we all mean the same range of browns. BULL SH*T. You are the only one stating this. --Doug M
You keep misrepresenting the issue, claiming that all these folks aren't talking about skin color and then misrepresenting the facts on all sides of the debate in order to justify an absurd argument that this isn't about skin color when everybody and their granddaddy knows it is about skin color. --Doug M
NO Swenet. The point is they are talking about skin color. This is the issue you keep trying to duck and dodge. They are talking about skin color and they are NOT calling the AE black because they mean just that, which is they were not the same range of complexions as most Africans. --Doug M
The issue is skin color it has always been about skin color and there is no way around it.
--Doug M
You're now rejecting Baker's claim that they were reddish brown ('black') skinned Aethiopids because Baker combined this view with certain racial sidenotes.
Flip flopper.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Baker's reproduced plates for his 'Mediterranids' (A) and and 'Aethiopids' (B):
Doug, you're confused. In no way, shape or fashion does Baker's 'Aethiopid' or 'Mediterranid' in reference to AE translate to "pale skinned" and "blue eyed". Go peddle your desperate see-through lies elsewhere. Just because he's a racist doesn't mean you can just lie about his positions. Stop lying. Facts are facts, whether he's racist or not. Has nothing to do with "defending" him. You need to stop spreading your misinformation. Enough is enough.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: YOU said the skull represents a black person.
I never said he was a "black person". I leave that sort of clumsy language to you. We've seen how your use of 'black' is not consistent as you flip flop by being reluctant to include Mesolithic Europeans with ancestral skin pigmentation gene profiles and Baker's reddish brown "Aethiopid" Egyptians. Why would I want any thing to do with your free-floating, racial politics driven labeling schemes?
What I actually said in regards to the Bronze Age warrior is that, according to that article, his skin pigmentation level would have fallen within the pigmentation range of African Americans.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
What I actually said in regards to the Bronze Age warrior is that, according to that article, his skin pigmentation level would have fallen within the pigmentation range of African Americans. [/QB]
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Baker's reproduced plates for his 'Mediterranids' (A) and and 'Aethiopids' (B):
Doug, you're confused. In no way, shape or fashion does Baker's 'Aethiopid' or 'Mediterranid' in reference to AE translate to "pale skinned" and "blue eyed". Go peddle your desperate see-through lies elsewhere. Just because he's a racist doesn't mean you can just lie about his positions. Stop lying. Facts are facts, whether he's racist or not. Has nothing to do with "defending" him. You need to stop spreading your misinformation. Enough is enough.
Swenet you are absolutely missing the point and defying logic. Where in that list of plates is there a picture of an Egyptian?
When you find that let me know.
Those are modern populations Swenet and you know it. That has absolutely nothing to do with what Baker thought the AE looked like. You are simply lying again.
This is what he actually said:
quote:For although the Egyptians, for instance, and the Indians are very black, or rather tawny, this colour is nevertheless only accidental to them, and comes only because they expose themselves to the sun; for those who take care of themselves and are not obliged to expose themselves to it as often as the common people are, are not blacker than many Spaniards.
And note that here he uses black as a reference to skin complexion. So are you simply not able to read? And then he goes on to say that the AE were not darker than Spaniards. Even after he called them black. Of courses this is a contradiction in terms, but that is consistent with the absurd logic of racists. Yet here you are using this man and his convoluted logic to defend your views which is why your views are also convoluted and lacking logic.
As I already posted, Mr Baker also called the AE Europids. So which one is it?
You are simply grasping at straws trying taking bits and pieces of baker and totally missing the point. The point being that Mr Baker was a racist and would absolutely not use ANY WORDS to indicate that the AE were close to black Africans. If you actually read the book you would understand that....
But that is what you get when you have determined that what people say isn't good enough and when scholars say that the AE weren't black, as with other scholars you have posted, you will still claim that they are. Now you are using the looney pseudo science of Mr Baker and the funniest point is you somehow see the illogical nonsensical language of Mr Baker as actually being coherent when in reality it is absolutely anything but.
But you are going to try and sit here and lecture me about using language while chasing the loony language of racists for "truth" about blackness...
You can't be serious.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: YOU said the skull represents a black person.
I never said he was a "black person". I leave that sort of clumsy language to you. We've seen how your use of 'black' is not consistent as you flip flop by being reluctant to include Mesolithic Europeans with ancestral skin pigmentation gene profiles and Baker's reddish brown "Aethiopid" Egyptians. Why would I want any thing to do with your free-floating, racial politics driven labeling schemes?
What I actually said in regards to the Bronze Age warrior is that, according to that article, his skin pigmentation level would have fallen within the pigmentation range of African Americans.
Swenet you have no point. You are simply going in circles making up garbage as you go trolling in order to safe face. You say the bronze age warrior has skin colors similar to African Americans and you claim that "black" is only used in the "west" is racial as a label for African Americans, yet turn right around and claim the bronze age skull can't be called "black". OK. So what was the point of introducing this skull if the person was not "black"? We are talking about populations who we can see in the modern day and do not have to guess or figure out what they looked like because they are long gone. You are simply pulling crap out of your behind if you think bronze Age Europeans are the basis of any definition of the word black as it applies to populations in tropical environments. And if they looked similar to African Americans and had the same skin colors as African Americans doesn't that make them black? So that is what you are saying. You are just contradicting yourself and falling all over yourself with contradictions making a nonsense point. Black means skin color and here you are equating the skin color of some ancient European population with Africans but claiming that 'black' isn't appropriate for both groups. The logic goes like this, if group A is accepted as being black and group B looks like group A, then group A and group B are both black. But this is you trolling because you need to prove that Group B really looks like group A. Because I don't think they are that similar at all. I think you are just using this bronze age skull to divert from actual populations in Africa and other tropical environments who are unquestionably and unmistakably black.
And the absurd part is even Baker uses black as a reference to skin color so again you are proving my point for me. The only one falling on their face is you because you think you can reinterpret things in whatever way you want to rather than sticking with words as they are written, which is why you have a problem with black being a reference to black skin, even when that is what the authors you quoted say explicitly. Yet you don't call Bakers use of the word black as improper or his words like "Aethiopid" or "Europid" as being based on "racial politics", yet you have the nerve to sit up here and try and tell me I am promoting racial politics. So you defend racists and their usage of words whether they be racial, illogical or otherwise, but you want to sit here and tell me how my language is incorrect. You are simply one sick confused puppy.
That is not my problem. That is your problem with words.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
In reality we all know these folks misuse language and are trying to twist the facts to say that the AE were European looking white folks even though they claim this is some sort of result of being outdoors too long. That is what he is saying in the book. I provided you the quotes. He is basically calling them tanned Europeans, like this:
and you're sure this guy is European? got proof? who's the actor?
.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: [qb]
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: YOU said the skull represents a black person.
I never said he was a "black person". I leave that sort of clumsy language to you. We've seen how your use of 'black' is not consistent as you flip flop by being reluctant to include Mesolithic Europeans with ancestral skin pigmentation gene profiles and Baker's reddish brown "Aethiopid" Egyptians. Why would I want any thing to do with your free-floating, racial politics driven labeling schemes?
What I actually said in regards to the Bronze Age warrior is that, according to that article, his skin pigmentation level would have fallen within the pigmentation range of African Americans.
Swenet you have no point. You are simply going in circles making up garbage as you go trolling in order to safe face. You say the bronze age warrior has skin colors similar to African Americans, and you claim that "black" is only used in the "west" because of racism as a label for African Americans, yet turn right around and claim the bronze age skull can't be called "black". OK. So what was the point of introducing this skull if the person was not black? We are talking about populations who we can see in the modern day and do not have to guess or figure out what they looked like because they are long gone. You are simply pulling crap out of your behind if you think bronze Age Europeans are the basis of any definition of the word black as it applies to populations in tropical environments. And if they looked similar to African Americans and had the same skin colors as African Americans doesn't that make them black? So that is what you are saying. You are just contradicting yourself and fallling all over yourself with contradictions making a nonsense point. black means skin color.
Stop being a jackass.
Above is the U.S. census it represents "black" as a race and this is what the majority of Westerners think "black" means, somebody with dark skin, broad features and afro hair
The fact that you prefer it to mean what it meant in ancient times, color alone is irrelevant.
Try calling someone a "faggot" and then when they get mad see if saying the meaning is a "bundle of sticks" makes them happy
The fact that you don't like the common definition or if it's a bad or wrong definition doesn't matter.
Words are not understood by what you what them to mean. They are understood as communication by modern common usage.
And if you want to refer to color you should be talking about "dark brown" period, not "black"
You are simply playing with ambiguity saying a word means one thing only when you know most people interpret it otherwise
If one wants to talk about the skin color of the Egyptians it should be done by example, showing pictures of the art or other physical evidence not insisting that highly politicized words be used.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: This is what he actually said:
Did you forget to take your meds again? Those were not Baker's words, but the words of an anonymous seventeenth century traveler, way before the modern Eurocentric agenda had set its eyes on ancient Egypt and before the average European had much factual extra-biblical information about them. Are you really that obtuse?
Moreover, the author cited by Baker is talking about then-contemporary Egyptians and North Africans, not ancient Egyptians. Do you think the average European in 1684 knew much about the ancient Egyptians? Your sense of history is completely off.
The lighter skinned Indians he referred to, presumably from Lahore, are in (or at least resemble the average look of the people of) what today is Pakistan. And yes, dark Spaniards, Indian Indo Aryan speakers and many modern Egyptians tend to have a similar level of skin pigmentation. Does that get your panties in a bunch?
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: And then he goes on to say that the AE were not darker than Spaniards.
Yes, you definitely forgot to take your meds. You can't read to save your life. SMH.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: You are just contradicting yourself and falling all over yourself with contradictions making a nonsense point.
It's not my job to medically treat detractors for a state of chronic denial they may suffer from. You should see a doctor to help you with that. All I can do is reiterate the default racial use of 'black' in the modern day West.
quote:Term: Black
Meaning: As for Negro.
Strenghts: Used in USA and UK censuses gives denominator; ‘‘usually tested’’.
Weaknesses: Used to describe heterogeneous populations. Unrelated to ethnicity.
Comments and recommendations: In practice it refers to persons with subSaharan African ancestral origins with brown or black complexion. Socially recognised and historically lasting concept. In some circumstances the term Black signifies all non-White minority populations Use with caution
Source: Negro, Black, Black African, African Caribbean, African American or what? Labelling African origin populations in the health arena in the 21st century http://jech.bmj.com/content/59/12/1014.full.pdf+html Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: You are just contradicting yourself and falling all over yourself with contradictions making a nonsense point.
It's not my job to medically treat detractors for a state of chronic denial they may suffer from. You should see a doctor to help you with that. All I can do is reiterate the default racial use of 'black' in the modern day West.
quote:Term: Black
Meaning: As for Negro.
Strenghts: Used in USA and UK censuses gives denominator; ‘‘usually tested’’.
Weaknesses: Used to describe heterogeneous populations. Unrelated to ethnicity.
Comments and recommendations: In practice it refers to persons with subSaharan African ancestral origins with brown or black complexion. Socially recognised and historically lasting concept. In some circumstances the term Black signifies all non-White minority populations Use with caution
Source: Negro, Black, Black African, African Caribbean, African American or what? Labelling African origin populations in the health arena in the 21st century http://jech.bmj.com/content/59/12/1014.full.pdf+html
LOL! No wonder this is going on 16 pages. Every time I show you that you are wrong using your own 'facts' you pull some new 'facts' out from somewhere.
Why did we leave Baker if you were so confident in what you were saying?
Did Baker not say this:
quote: For although the Egyptians, for instance, and the Indians are very black, or rather tawny, this colour is nevertheless only accidental to them, and comes only because they expose themselves to the sun; for those who take care of themselves and are not obliged to expose themselves to it as often as the common people are, are not blacker than many Spaniards.
Now where is the "racial" aspect of black in this statement? It is obviously a reference to skin color with no "racial" connotation even from a determined racist. But you can't see what is right in your face and even when you provided these 'facts' to support your argument.
Now you are running somewhere else.
This document you posted certainly does not say anything about the biological validity of black or white skin in humans or the fact that black and white have been used since as references to skin color before there was even a "west" to begin with. But here is the kicker:
quote:In practice it refers to persons with sub saharan African ancestral origins with brown or black complexion.
They use the same dam word as a reference to skin color even as they attempt to define "black" in your so called "racial" definition. Which again proves my point that black as a word for skin color goes back long before any so called "western" racial concepts, which are based on skin color in the first place. I have been saying this since page one but you have been falling all over yourself trying to deny it. Social definitions of race in the "west" have always been based on skin color and you just provided concrete evidence to support what I have been saying.
Keep on running dude. You are simply going in circles.
Posted by Child Of The KING (Member # 9422) on :
YO DOUG,
SOMEONE DELETED THE THREAD THAT WAS ABOUT SKIN COLOR WHEN YOU AND DJEHUTI WERE DISCUSSING
Asian blacks? Not unless they're negroid I say
THE TOPIC WAS DELETED...WHO WOULD DO THAT???
POSSIBLY PEOPLE SHOULD BE SAVING CERTAIN THREADS THEY LIKE
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Child Of The KING: YO DOUG,
SOMEONE DELETED THE THREAD THAT WAS ABOUT SKIN COLOR WHEN YOU AND DJEHUTI WERE DISCUSSING
Asian blacks? Not unless they're negroid I say
THE TOPIC WAS DELETED...WHO WOULD DO THAT???
POSSIBLY PEOPLE SHOULD BE SAVING CERTAIN THREADS THEY LIKE
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ I seriously question these photos as proof of black Asians, considering that these are supposedly Koreans and I have never seen or heard of black indigenes in Korea or in any part of northeast Asia. That there are folks darker in color than the usual pale or 'yellow' complexions, sure even such dark complexion are found among Siberians but I wouldn't exactly call them 'black'.
If I'm not mistaken the thread "Asian blacks? Not unless they're negroid I say" I think has been gone for over 2.5 years and was started in 2011 or earlier
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: They use the same dam word as a reference to skin color even as they attempt to define "black" in your so called "racial" definition.
The citation you're addressing is comprised of two components, one relating to skin color ("brown and black complexion") and the other one relating to a perceived race ("Sub-Saharan African ancestral origins"). Because you can't read, you only see the former aspect, disregard the latter aspect, and try to act like you were right all along. No Doug, aside from those who share your racial politics agenda, no one is buying into your flip flops.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Did Baker not say this:
No, Baker never said that. Repeatedly misattributing a quote to someone who clearly says he's quoting someone else, suggests you can't read.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Social definitions of race in the "west" have always been based on skin color and you just provided concrete evidence to support what I have been saying.
Oh, so now you're saying that other traditions of 'black' are merely based on skin pigmentation (as opposed to what you did earlier: categorically denying that there is more than one tradition of 'black'). Does that mean that you're flip flopping away from your position that 'black' only refers to skin color and has no other connotations or traditions?
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: It is obviously a reference to skin color with no "racial" connotation even from a determined racist.
I don't see how citing a seventeenth century (1684 AD) traveler who thinks that Spaniards and other swarthy and tawny people are "very black" helps your case that the there has historically only been one use of 'black'. Is this another case of your flip flopping? I mean, help me out here, Doug.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
Did Baker not say this:
For although the Egyptians, for instance, and the Indians are very black, or rather tawny, this colour is nevertheless only accidental to them, and comes only because they expose themselves to the sun; for those who take care of themselves and are not obliged to expose themselves to it as often as the common people are, are not blacker than many Spaniards.
we are constantly having to correct this guy. The above quote is Francois Bernier, of the 17th century
Posted by Child Of The KING (Member # 9422) on :
Just To Clarify the
thread called Asian blacks? Not unless they're negroid I say is the Thread title
All Asian Blacks Black, regardless of the negroid
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Child Of The KING: Just To Clarify the
thread called Asian blacks? Not unless they're negroid I say is the Thread title
All Asian Blacks Black, regardless of the negroid
If a person, African or Asian, has brown skin then they are brown skinned not black skinned
Posted by Child Of The KING (Member # 9422) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Child Of The KING: Just To Clarify the
thread called Asian blacks? Not unless they're negroid I say is the Thread title
All Asian Blacks Black, regardless of the negroid
If a person, African or Asian, has brown skin then they are brown skinned not black skinned
The Colors of The Peoples have Been Like that from The Jump, Everyone Technically a Shade of Brown(hint) since everyone has Melanin even the Palest of Peoples..
Remember Though Brown's Mixture EVERYONE MIXED! Since We All Come from Black(hint )
Yet The Original Colors Black, White, Red, Yellow... Those The Original Colors.
There Was no Yellow Before Yellow...Just Tink Lioness..
SKIN COLORS NOT DARK!!!
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Child Of The KING:
Yet The Original Colors Black, White, Red, Yellow... Those The Original Colors.
Where did you get the idea that these are "the original colors" ?
Posted by Child Of The KING (Member # 9422) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Child Of The KING:
Yet The Original Colors Black, White, Red, Yellow... Those The Original Colors.
Where did you get the idea that these are "the original colors" ?
Lioness, Why did you take one sentence and not post the whole post?
There was no Yellow Before Yellow, Read The Whole Post Again.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Child Of The KING:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Child Of The KING:
Yet The Original Colors Black, White, Red, Yellow... Those The Original Colors.
Where did you get the idea that these are "the original colors" ?
Lioness, Why did you take one sentence and not post the whole post?
There was no Yellow Before Yellow, Read The Whole Post Again.
Ok, you're just making this whole original color thing up out of your head
Posted by Child Of The KING (Member # 9422) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Child Of The KING:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Child Of The KING:
Yet The Original Colors Black, White, Red, Yellow... Those The Original Colors.
Where did you get the idea that these are "the original colors" ?
Lioness, Why did you take one sentence and not post the whole post?
There was no Yellow Before Yellow, Read The Whole Post Again.
Ok, you're just making this whole original color thing up out of your head
Lioness What Yellow Came Before Yellow?
Posted by Child Of The KING (Member # 9422) on :
Some Great Threads from the Past have been deleted, Does not make no sense.
Posted by Child Of The KING (Member # 9422) on :
The Reality of Color That Doug M Bin Representing About, and The Thread that got deleted sadly would show that Doug has Not Changed his Views at all even from 10 years ago...
Big Ups Teacher Doug M, One Of My Favorite Teachers On The Egyptsearch Forums. TruthSeeker
Black, White, Red, and Yellow Original Colors.
Browns Mixture,
Meaning Yellow Mixes With White
Child Comes Out White
THE CHILD WHITE OR BROWN
Child Comes out Yellow
THE CHILD YELLOW OR BROWN
continued repost
Meaning Yellow Mixes With Red
Child Comes Out Yellow
THE CHILD YELLOW OR BROWN
Child Comes Out Red
THE CHILD RED OR BROWN
Black Mixes with White..
Child comes out White
THE CHILD WHITE OR BROWN
Child comes out Black
THE CHILD BLACK OR BROWN
Black mixes with Yellow..
Child comes out Yellow
THE CHILD YELLOW OR BROWN
Child comes out Black
THE CHILD BLACK OR BROWN
Black mixes with Red..
Child comes out Red
THE CHILD RED OR BROWN
Child Comes out Black
THE CHILD BLACK OR BROWN
etc for all Peoples Mixtures...
BROWN IS MIXTURE.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
^^^ Doug doesn't teach any of this, red , yellow brown stuff.
Doug teaches the world's peoples are comprised of two colors, black and white.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: They use the same dam word as a reference to skin color even as they attempt to define "black" in your so called "racial" definition.
The citation you're addressing is comprised of two components, one relating to skin color ("brown and black complexion") and the other one relating to a perceived race ("Sub-Saharan African ancestral origins"). Because you can't read, you only see the former aspect, disregard the latter aspect, and try to act like you were right all along.
That means that skin color and race are not the same thing, which is what I have been saying since page one and you keep denying and trying to counter argue but keep losing. And this is a resource you quoted and yet you still don't get it. You are shooting your own self in the foot. Yet no matter if it is right there in your face you will still try and find some way to pretend you don't see it.
The only one pushing this idea that skin color is race is you. And you have the nerve to say I am promoting racial politics, yet you are the one posting racist scholars. So who is promoting "racial politics"? You. Because there is no such thing as race and therefore skin color is not race. But since you just don't want to admit you are wrong you keep trying beyond hope to repair your damaged argument to try and make it seem like your argument has merit, when it doesn't. Your own information contradicts you.
quote: No Doug, aside from those who share your racial politics agenda, no one is buying into your flip flops.
I have been consistent since page one. You simply have a weak argument that is why the data you post contradicts what you have been saying. White scholars are generally racist on the subject of ancient Egypt and when they say black they are most definitely referring to skin color, as your own data shows. But yeah, of course you wont admit that.
The point being the racists have historically used cranial studies to define race scientifically but skin color to define race socially. That is not something I created, that is the contradiction inherent in "racial politics" as created by white society. It is not an issue of words it is an issue of racism. The cranial studies were used to warp reality as if to say that a population with cranial features classified as a racial group called "caucasoid" could be presented as some ancient 'white' racial group because the implication is the cranial shape came from mixture with Europeans. This has always been the goal of the racists, which is to take any kind of 'superior' traits found in any society around the world and somehow or someway tie it to white European ancestry.
quote:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Did Baker not say this:
No, Baker never said that. Repeatedly misattributing a quote to someone who clearly says he's quoting someone else, suggests you can't read.
Sure, whatever you say.
quote:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Social definitions of race in the "west" have always been based on skin color and you just provided concrete evidence to support what I have been saying.
Oh, so now you're saying that other traditions of 'black' are merely based on skin pigmentation (as opposed to what you did earlier: categorically denying that there is more than one tradition of 'black'). Does that mean that you're flip flopping away from your position that 'black' only refers to skin color and has no other connotations or traditions?
No it means skin color is the basis of race, meaning "black people" as a "race" are people with black skin or some semblance of black skin or mixture. Obviously it means that skin color is the key criteria of the 'racial group'. Therefore the word black is not a 'separate tradition' from historical usage. It is the same tradition of labeling groups of people based on skin color. The difference is the social, political and economic treatment of said populations BECAUSE of their skin color.
quote:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: It is obviously a reference to skin color with no "racial" connotation even from a determined racist.
I don't see how citing a seventeenth century (1684 AD) traveler who thinks that Spaniards and other swarthy and tawny people are "very black" helps your case that the there has historically only been one use of 'black'. Is this another case of your flip flopping? I mean, help me out here, Doug.
You make no sense. It means people have been observing skin color in populations from Africa and elsewhere and calling them black. What is 'different' about it? Nothing. You just keep running from that fact and trying to claim it is a 'different' tradition. How is all these people calling the same people black a 'different' tradition? You are absurdly ridiculous.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Swenet Doug's at it again.
One can only point out so many times that modern society uses "black" and "white" as SKIN COLOR+FEATURES+HAIR while Doug wants to pretend that is not common usage.
But you might also want to address >
a) why the word brown is not used when that is the proper color and is used in every other situation describing brown objects
b) If all the the world's people are to be divided in two types "black" and"white", color only as Doug wants it to be how to have a standard method to determine if a given person is "black" or "white"
c) Doug's assumption all cold adapted people are light skinned and that light/dark always corresponds to cold/tropical in a similar simplistic paradigm
d) why Doug would only call a light skinned Chinese or Japanese person "white" buried deep on some page into a semantic discussion like this but would never attempt it in real life with such people present, thus undermining his rhetoric
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
No it means skin color is the basis of race,
This is so not true. The MAIN two categories in describing "Race" are Geography and Phenotype, I cannot say which one is more important. Skin color is actually one of the last indicators. This should be even MORE apparent if you have paid attention to recent findings in Anthropology and genetics.
The fact that the light skin variation that you see in "White People" is very recent lessens its importance as a RACIAL indicator.
Traditionally the "African Race" or "Black Africans" in a racial sense uses GEOGRAPHY (Africa) to racially group dark skinned populations. It more importantly uses Geography to TRUMP dark skinned populations in Asia and the south pacific (Skin tone) as well as other populations that have have phenotype overlap with Africans....it excludes them from being part of the "African Race"
While Caucasoid is more inclusive for obvious reasons, skin color has little importance and instead the definition is rooted on Geography and Phenotype.....For instance grouping Europeans, With North Africans and Southern Indians regardless of the different levels of pigmentation and genetic differentiation in the 3 different groups.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Then why from the start of European race science and following Napoleon's Egypt expedition were races characterised by colour i.e. * white * black * yellow soon aaugmented with * brown * red none of which excepting red were restricted to any delimited geography if I remember my old school anthropologists correctly.
When I say race to my mobile device none of the returned definitions are about geography nor any physical characteristics save colour. The common definition closest to acceptability is "common descent." And yes, they give the scientific definition "subspecies."
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Read far east Asian literature and see them describe themselves as white particularly their women.
I had a young Indonesian friend who told me without my asking that her ethnicity is WHITE CHINESE.
The world does not begin and end with Europe's definitions of every thing. Why suck up to Europe? Who made Europe Simon that the world must as Simon Says?
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The only one pushing this idea that skin color is race is you.
The source I posted acknowledges that the default use of ‘black’ in the West is synonymous with ‘negro’. You think that this means I'm arguing that “skin color is race” because you can’t read and are mentally constipated.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The point being the racists have historically used cranial studies to define race scientifically but skin color to define race socially.
Which scientific racists with a shred of competence have used skin color as a primary criterion to “define race socially”? List them all and we’ll see how quickly you’ll run out of names.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Sure, whatever you say.
No, not “sure, whatever you say”. Own up to your errors. Baker never said that ancient Egyptians had the same skin pigmentation level as Spaniards. In fact, the source Baker was citing didn't make this claim either, as he was talking about then-contemporary Egyptians (not ancient ones). This means that you can’t reject Baker’s observation that the AE were “reddish brown Aethiopids”. Which means that your claim that prominent scientific racists were involved in a conspiracy to whitewash the skin and eye pigmentation of the AE is completely false.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: No it means skin color is the basis of race, meaning "black people" as a "race" are people with black skin or some semblance of black skin or mixture.
Flip flopper, didn’t you just post this when you blundered by repeatedly misattributing this statement to Baker?
For although the Egyptians, for instance, and the Indians are very black, or rather tawny \baganes], this colour is nevertheless only accidental to them, […]
And:
It is true that most Indians have something rather different from us in the expression of the face and in the colour, which often tends towards yellow; but that does not seem sufficient to make a particular species; for otherwise it would be necessary to make one also for the Spaniards, another for the Germans, and similarly for several other peoples of Europe.
How does this excerpt from someone you just passed off as "representative", support your claim that skin color is the primary determinant of race? It’s clearly SECONDARY to facial structure and cladism in the view of most western observers, including scientific racists. This is precisely why the one drop rule--which groups people with Colin Powel's skin color with people with Wesley Snipe's skin color--was so eagerly adopted in the US. Here is another piece from Baker:
quote:It results that an Indian, who may show close resemblance to many Europeans in every structural feature of his body, and whose ancestors established a civilization long before the inhabitants of the British Isles did so, is grouped as ‘coloured’ with persons who are very different morphologically from any European or Indian, and whose ancestors never developed a civilization of their own. Those who group human beings in this unscientific way would not think of applying the same classificatory principle to animals. They would not predicate anything about the virtues or defects of the ordinary types of Labrador retrievers, Scottish terriers, and schipperkes merely on the basis of their black pigmentation, and they would be well aware that a golden Labrador retriever is very similar in most respects to a black one.
--John Baker
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Swenet Doug's at it again.
One can only point out so many times that modern society uses "black" and "white" as SKIN COLOR+FEATURES+HAIR while Doug wants to pretend that is not common usage.
But you might also want to address >
a) why the word brown is not used when that is the proper color and is used in every other situation describing brown objects
b) If all the the world's people are to be divided in two types "black" and"white", color only as Doug wants it to be how to have a standard method to determine if a given person is "black" or "white"
c) Doug's assumption all cold adapted people are light skinned and that light/dark always corresponds to cold/tropical in a similar simplistic paradigm
d) why Doug would only call a light skinned Chinese or Japanese person "white" buried deep on some page into a semantic discussion like this but would never attempt it in real life with such people present, thus undermining his rhetoric
I can barely get him to address the sources I posted without having him botch them all the time. What makes you think such new directions won't devolve in the messy soup this thread has already devolved to?
I'm already at a disadvantage because Doug's strawman attacks and racial politics appeals will always win when you say facts that are unpopular. I just want to get closure on the outstanding issues and finish participating in this thread ASAP.
Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
Does anybody know who the white looking person in the middle is:
Is he a naturalized Egyptian from a foreign land or something?
Posted by Child Of The KING (Member # 9422) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Then why from the start of European race science and following Napoleon's Egypt expedition were races characterised by colour i.e. white black yellow soon aaugmented with brown red none of which excepting red were restricted to any delimited geography if I remember my old school anthropologists correctly.
When I say race to my mobile device none of the returned definitions are about geography nor any physical characteristics save colour. The common definition closest to acceptability is "common descent." And yes, they give the scientific definition "subspecies."
Blessings Elder Tukuler,
Seems That Dem naw Know
how egyptsearch bin repping that Steady flow
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: Does anybody know who the white looking person in the middle is:
Is he a naturalized Egyptian from a foreign land or something?
answer: Imset (Imsety)
Imset a funerary deity, one of the Four sons of Horus, who are associated with the canopic jars, specifically the one that contained the liver. Unlike his brothers, Imsety is not associated with any animal and is always depicted as human, above resembling a Pharaoh Isis is Imset's protector. He is considered the patron of the direction of the south. Imsety's role was to protect the liver of the deceased and was the guardian of the South. He was protected by the goddess Isis.
Same scene, tomb wall, not illustration, detail of first two leftmost figures >>
Amenherkhepshef (again) Rameses III (again) Duamutef
_______________________
Amenherkhepshef
The Tombs of the sons of Ramesses III are considered some of the finest monuments in the Valley of the Queens on the West Bank at Luxor (ancient Thebes). One of these, QV55, belongs to Amenherkhepshef (Amun-her-Khepshef), his son by the Great Royal Wife, Tyti, who is listed in the tomb (QV52) as God's Wife and God's Mother. Her tomb lies nearby and includes some of the same titles on its walls. Amenherkhepshef probably died in about the 30th year of Ramesses III's reign when he was around 15 years old (though some of his titles may indicate an older age), and was not one of the king's elder sons, though he did maintain a number of important positions within the court. We know from reliefs at Medinet Habu and the Karnak Temple that he was the fan bearer to the right of the king (a role more important then it sounds) a royal scribe and a cavalry commander. He was also the "Superior of the Two Lands, which probably saw him having a role in the management of the administrative affairs of the kingdom of Egypt. However, it should be noted that throughout his tomb, he wears the side locks of a youth.
After the initial entrance corridor in the antechamber on the left, we first find scenes depicting this pharaoh leading his son, who carries a broad fan of feathers, to meet the great god, Ptah, after which Ramesses III intercedes for his son before Ptah-Tatenen. This is followed by two genies, including Duamutef with the head of a black dog and Imset with a human head.
Rameses III and Isis Amonherkhopeshaf's Tomb
Modern Illustration of Amonherkhopeshaf's Tomb scene
photo of actual wall Amonherkhopeshaf's Tomb the left three figures correspond to the illustration two pictures above Amenherkhepshef (again) Rameses III (again) Duamutef
Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
Thanks, lioness. I knew there was something off with that photo. I found it on the google images and had no idea that it was a modern illustration. Why somebody would re-create a masterpiece and ruin it with a rendition showing a god with white skin and blonde hair, when he was originally depicted with blue skin and hair [in that scene], is beyond me.
There was also no need to change the skin tone of the others from light brown to dark brown when there are thousands of images with people with dark brown skin.
Rameses III
Nubian mercenaries with the same skin tone
Sudanese tomb paintings
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: [QB] Thanks, lioness. I knew there was something off with that photo. I found it on the google images and had no idea that it was a modern illustration. Why somebody would re-create a masterpiece and ruin it with a rendition showing a god with white skin and blonde hair, when he was originally depicted with blue skin and hair [in that scene], is beyond me.
However even in the above rendition the skin of Imset is not "white"
That is a cut out of Imset on top of Amseti with no other alteration. The color is nearly the same. The headgear is a nemes, a striped headcloth, not hair
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
No it means skin color is the basis of race,
This is so not true. The MAIN two categories in describing "Race" are Geography and Phenotype, I cannot say which one is more important. Skin color is actually one of the last indicators. This should be even MORE apparent if you have paid attention to recent findings in Anthropology and genetics.
The fact that the light skin variation that you see in "White People" is very recent lessens its importance as a RACIAL indicator.
Traditionally the "African Race" or "Black Africans" in a racial sense uses GEOGRAPHY (Africa) to racially group dark skinned populations. It more importantly uses Geography to TRUMP dark skinned populations in Asia and the south pacific (Skin tone) as well as other populations that have have phenotype overlap with Africans....it excludes them from being part of the "African Race"
While Caucasoid is more inclusive for obvious reasons, skin color has little importance and instead the definition is rooted on Geography and Phenotype.....For instance grouping Europeans, With North Africans and Southern Indians regardless of the different levels of pigmentation and genetic differentiation in the 3 different groups.
We are talking about the word "black" as a "racial" term in the west being based on "black skin". Black skin is one biological trait based on skin color adaptation to the environment in the human species. "Race" is a social definition based on biological traits like skin color. Skin color is not "race" in the sense of being a biological basis for the subdivision of the human species. Europeans tried to create and reinforce this idea of such a subdivision by their pseudo scientific "racial" categories like caucasoid and negroid, but these have been shown to be invalid. But that does not mean that biological traits like skin color are not a fact of life for humans. So when I say skin color is not race, I mean skin color is not a biological trait that indicates a different subspecies of human. However, social definitions of race are based on skin color which is why the word black, which historically was a reference to outward skin color became the name used to indicate the social "class" that people with black skin were forced into by a system of white supremacy. So western "racial" categories are indeed based on skin color and have always been, as a ranking of human populations in a hierarchy from lightest to darkest. Blumenbach being but one example of this kind of ranking even though he did not claim to be a racist, he laid the foundation that other racists built on.
Posted by Nodnarb (Member # 3735) on :
So Doug, what have you made of the whole "True Negro" argument as applied to ancient Egyptians all this time? Doesn't it go that Egyptians couldn't have been "black" because their facial features were distinct from those of West Africans? Obviously skin color and facial features are distinct physical traits, but surely you remember that the latter have sometimes been claimed as a critical part of "racial" identity.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
We are talking about the word "black" as a "racial" term in the west being based on "black skin". Black skin is one biological trait based on skin color adaptation to the environment in the human species. "Race" is a social definition based on biological traits like skin color. Skin color is not "race" in the sense of being a biological basis for the subdivision of the human species. Europeans tried to create and reinforce this idea of such a subdivision by their pseudo scientific "racial" categories like caucasoid and negroid, but these have been shown to be invalid. But that does not mean that biological traits like skin color are not a fact of life for humans. So when I say skin color is not race, I mean skin color is not a biological trait that indicates a different subspecies of human. However, social definitions of race are based on skin color which is why the word black, which historically was a reference to outward skin color became the name used to indicate the social "class" that people with black skin were forced into by a system of white supremacy. So western "racial" categories are indeed based on skin color and have always been, as a ranking of human populations in a hierarchy from lightest to darkest. Blumenbach being but one example of this kind of ranking even though he did not claim to be a racist, he laid the foundation that other racists built on. [/QB]
Doug is bullshitting here.
He knows the concept of race is not only based on skin color but is also based on physical features, skull shape, hair and limb ratios. But even when he is talking about the concept of race he says it's based on skin color and mentions nothing else, stop faking. He says that it is valid to divide human beings into two categories only "white people" and"black people" but he says the concept of race is wrong. Then when he talks about race he describes it the exact same way. It's a game
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
Doug, even lioness is calling out your bullshit.
For one, While you can argue that this is true: "Black skin is one biological trait based on skin color adaptation to the environment in the human species"
The OPPOSITE is NOT true in the case the white skin. What the latest data from ancient DNA has told us is that Europeans didn't simply turn "White" from inhabiting a northern latitude for 10's of thousands of years. NO, instead they turned white RECENTLY because of the NEED of more vitamin D in response to an adoption of Farming. Light skin solely due to latitude adaptation is an old guard idea no longer supported by ancient DNA of Northerners that surprisingly were not white skinned.
You then try to bullshit the forum when you say this
"Black skin is one biological trait based on skin color adaptation to the environment in the human species" .....You even bring up old anthropologists for whatever reasons.....when we all know that "Race" Traditionally has been based on Craniometrics and skin color. This is where we get the 3 race model from: Caucasoid, Mongoloid and Negroid. It was later expanded to 5 races to include Capoids and Australoids. And with all that said the skin tones in the range of Sub Saharan Africans can be found in ALL 5 RACES. This tells you that skin color is not a main defining feature of Race when the skin color of Sub Saharans can be found in nearly every old school configuration of Race that were imagined.
Your goose is cooked homie. How long are you going to play this charade?
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sudaniya: Thanks, lioness. I knew there was something off with that photo. I found it on the google images and had no idea that it was a modern illustration. Why somebody would re-create a masterpiece and ruin it with a rendition showing a god with white skin and blonde hair, when he was originally depicted with blue skin and hair [in that scene], is beyond me.
You know why I'm quoting this, right? I love how people insist to me that white Egyptologists are AUTOMATICALLY racists for making similar conclusions based on Egyptian artwork. But we can see even ES posters falling in the same traps. (And for the record, I don't know which of the two is the accurate one; I've always taken it for granted that the one with the dark skinned royal family was accurate).
That's why we see Doug call the craniofacial pattern of that Bronze Age warrior "European" when it's easy for me to find ancient Africans who have the same general look. Xxyman is right in saying that such a cranio-facial appearance has always existed in Africa.
The UP ancestors of Europeans entered Europe with a look that approximates that. How can something originate in a region when a section of the first Upper Palaeolithic AMH settlers already had it? So the notion that it is somehow "European-specific" is preposterous and shows a lack of understanding on Doug's part.
I'm not buying any of that self-victimization BS. I've been in this seven years. I've interacted with many racists and I've seen racism. No one is going yes-man me into using the race card where there is no evidence beyond "boo-hoo, Emily Teeter said they were mixed".
Do your homework, Doug.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Conclusion:
If you think non-African scholars are automatically "racist" for not applying 'black' (in the western racial sense) to all the North African populations cited below, or if you think Keita is "timid" or "placating racists" when he refuses to do the same, you need to get a new hobby because African prehistory is clearly not working out for you.
quote:Variability of human types, and consequent intermixing, are evident in the few human remains of the Acacus, as well as in the different modalities of inhumation and treatment of corpses. Some non-conformities may be cautiously claimed in cranial and post-cranial remains of the Acacus people, but sharp differences are mainly recorded in the trend of dental reduction beginning in the early Holocene. Particularly interesting is the case of the mummy of Uan Muhuggiag (Figure 14.6), radiocarbon dated to 5400 uncalibrated years bp (6.25 kyr cal BP), which shows different physical traits if compared to other contemporary burials, such as Imenennaden and more so at Fozzigiaren (di Lernia and Manzi, 1998).
Besides the differences in human types, we should outline how, even in a small sample, strong variations are present in funerary practices. Inhumation in deep burials, bodies just a few centimeters below the sand surface, single, double and multiple burials, inhumation and desiccation of corpses, with or without grave goods, and so on. We are facing a typical case of multi-faceted sociocultural organization, probably reflecting the mixture of races and cultures following the dry period at the end of the seventh millennium bp. Rock art also seems to confirm this scenario, with different peoples represented in the paintings and engravings in the regions, depicted in daily activities, initiation ceremonies and rituals of various kinds. Such a variety of human types was already indicated by Mori (1965), mostly on the basis of face profiles, physique and types of hairstyle. More recently, Smith has recognized the difficulties in this kind of exercise. He nevertheless notes the contemporary presence of ‘Sub-Saharan’ and ‘Proto-Mediterranean’ people in the central massifs of the Sahara during the middle Holocene (Smith, 1993, p. 475).
DRY CLIMATIC EVENTS AND CULTURAL TRAJECTORIES: ADJUSTING MIDDLE HOLOCENE PASTORAL ECONOMY OF THE LIBYAN SAHARA -- S. di Lernia
And anyone who tries to divert attention away from what I'm saying and towards the dubious language in the excerpt above is simply trying to distract from my point that people not trained in African physical anthropology—especially those with Eurocentric tendencies—are more prone to misunderstand a situation that is fraught with misleading 'clues' (e.g. yellow skin in Egyptian art) that SEEM to conform to Eurocentric hypotheses.
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
^^^^all posters before me:blablablablabla
Me:
'nuff said
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Only peer-reviewd journal stuff, thanks "MLI" is not standard genetics nomeclature
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Even the Greco-Latin realized that it'd take more than pigment for one of their kind to successfully impersonate a black because of the basic inherent cranio-facial incompatible between most N Meds and Saharo-Tropical Afrs of black skin tones.
We don't even have to wait for more aDNA. Plug the pharaonic values into this tool and flip on the 5 population setting and confirm for yourself that the troll calling himself "Amun Ra" is desperately latching on to a fantasy.
Results from the 3 population setting are consistent with DNA Tribes. The results from 5 population setting are consistent with a "Saharan" origin and all the linguistic, skeletal and cultural data. The truth is, both results are reconcilable because none of DNA Tribes samples far to the south of the Sahara score like the Egyptians in DNA Tribes' MLI score profiles (i.e. having their genetic material consistently found in Sub-Saharan Africa and Eurasia in clines that respectively decrease Great Lakes/South Africa to North Africa in Africa and from the Levant to Europe in Eurasia). At least not the ones that have come to my attention. And contrary to the Amun Ra troll, I've actually looked into this by trying to see which living populations reproduce the pharaonic MLI score relationships.
As is customary here, you always have to anticipate strawman attacks because people here take shooting the messenger to a whole new level. Unless I've specifically said that I subscribe to a source I'm posting or commenting on, don't put words in my mouth. If you don't know what my views are on a particular subject, leave me out of your strawman-attacking posts.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
" No, we have yet to discover the way to safety. Listen to my new idea ! Eumolpus, being a literary gent, of course brought ink with him. Very well, with its assistance we'll dye ourselves all over, from head to foot. Then in the ruse of Ethiopian slaves we'll attend you cheerfully without risk of the lash and delude our enemies with our false complexions."
Gito sneered : " Why not circumcise us as well, so that they'll take us for Jews 6; pierce the lobes of our ears, and we'll look like Arabs; chalk our faces, and Gaul will greet us as her offspring? As though the mere colour would make a complete disguise ! — as though a really complete make-up didn't require all sorts of corroborative detail! ... Do you suggest we can puff out our lips in a disgusting pout like the Ethiopians? — frizz up our hair with curling-tongs? — plough up our fore- heads with scars? — make ourselves bow-legged? — cause our anklebones to touch the ground? — adopt a heathenish style of beard? Artificial colour doesn't change the body: it only makes it dirty.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: [QB] @Lioness
We don't even have to wait for more aDNA. Plug the pharaonic values into this tool and flip on the 5 population setting and confirm for yourself that the troll calling himself "Amun Ra" is desperately latching on to a fantasy.
Does two separate headings and figures "Population Assignments" represent two different individuals? Why is there two sets of figures
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
The results are from Amenhotep III, but I've done this test several times and most if not all pharaohs produce the same results.
There are two sets of values at each locus because we're dealing with a genotype (we inherit one value from both parents).
As for your other question: When you ask the program to 'predict' where your individual comes from, you can tell it to test your individual against three or five global meta-populations. When you test Amenhotep against 5 populations, you get a result that is consistent with Egypt's geographical region (i.e. in the Sahara) aka the result that dishonest trolls like Amun-Ra like to hide from the public.
Don't take my word for it. Try it yourself. Although you have to insert 'dummy' values to get results (the program doesn't work when you provide only the 8 STR profiles [8 x 2 = 16 markers] provided by Hawass et al 2010 and 2012). Inserting random dummy values (I used '5') doesn't fundamentally affect the results because the >90% SSA predictions in the three population analyses are maintained when you use random dummy values to meet the required amount of markers.
EDIT: Note that I got two of Amenhotep III's alleles (at CSF1PO) mixed up with Thuya's alleles at this locus. The corrected analysis:
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: The results are from Amenhotep III, but I've done this test several times and most if not all pharaohs produce the same results.
There are two sets of values at each locus because we're dealing with a genotype (we inherit one value from both parents).
EDIT: Note that I got two of Amenhotep III's alleles (at CSF1PO) mixed up with Thuya's alleles at this locus. The corrected analysis:
[/QB]
So is one set male the other female?
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
most if not all pharaohs produce the same results.
This previous chart is Thuya? I see 30% Eurasia. That seems substantially different than the other one at 7.5%
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
You can't really say that because the values are from the part of the genome that men and women share. So, they're not extracted from the the same areas of the genome that harbors sex-based information. In humans, haplogroups are determined from region of the genome that is passed down based on sex (e.g one from your mother and one from your father [if you're male]).
The pharaonic values are from the sex-neutral part of the genome, so it's perfectly possible to inherit two values at the same locus from the same grandfather (or grandmother), if your parents are siblings. See Tut's STR profile; he inherited his grandfather Amenhotep III's alleles twice on several loci.
quote:This previous chart is Thuya? I see 30% Eurasia. That seems substantially different than the other one at 7.5%
In the first picture I posted, only 2 of the 26 markers were from Thuya, the rest were from Amenhotep III. In the corrected image, all are from Amenhotep.
You're right, the results in the second image are more 'African'. This presumably means that Amenhotep is more 'African' in this STR profile. This probably explains why Tut has numerically higher MLI scores to Africans than all the other royals (he inherited more alleles from 'more African' Amenhotep III in his STR profile due to the incest of his parents).
But this is just a random sampling (8 STR loci, but there are many more Loci one can examine; Tishkoff et al 2009 looked at hundreds of STR loci). It's conceivable that when you take a different set of 8 STR loci into account, Thuya will appear to be more 'African' than Amenhotep III.
Note that African is in quotes not because I'm questioning the term but because being more indigenous African than the next African doesn't have to express itself in having more affinities to Sub-Saharan Africans and less to Eurasians (e.g. Mota isn't necessarily any less African than a Mbuti hunter gatherer).
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
read back. I put in another question at the end on the edit
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Great captures. It's important we layman use and explain to others the tools allowing us to make our own conclusions.
I think if given 3 previous generations the values may let on from whom each allele repeat originated in the prime subjects parents.
EDIT: Where can I quikly find data for Thutmosis III other than Hawass 2010 which does not table his parents?
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
.
popSTR is compatible w/MiniFiler.
To simulate DNAtribes regions I used 5 population sets
Kenya (Bantu NE)
Namibia (San) + South Africa (Bantu)
Senegal (Mandenka)
Yoruba (Nigeria)
Algeria (Mzabi)
popSTR Db is nowhere near as robust as DNAtribes Db but will suit the purpose of example to show the MiniFiler 8 STR haplotypes can and do validly delineate geographies and ethnies
Use CTL+ to enlarge the captures for pair values and bar graph comparison.
It's tedious but one can
select any mummy
note its 8 loci's pair values
match them to popSTRs results
Using Tut for example we find the pooled Southern African set as perfect a match as our tool allows. And since the haplotypes match for all given alleles we don't need to check frequencies for the most likely match. If we want to complete the ranking for all five sets we'd have to take highest frequencies of matching alleles into consideration.
And no, the science is NOT this crude.
. . .
popSTR is compatible w/MiniFiler.
Let's use 3 major geographic population sets
Africa (including Mzab)
Europe
South West Asia
popSTR Db is nowhere near as robust as DNAtribes Db but will suit the purpose of example to show the MiniFiler 8 STR haplotypes can and do validly delineate geographies and ethnies
Using the same algorithm as before we
select a mummy
note its 8 loci's pair values
match them to popSTRs results
Using Tut for example we find the pooled African set as perfect a match as our tool allows. And since the haplotypes match for all given alleles we don't need to check frequencies for the most likely match. If we want complete ranking for all three sets we'd have to take the highest frequencies of matching alleles into consideration noting where gaps are insignificant. But here we can see by simple matching that Europe is likelier than SW Asia though the latter has more of the highest frequencies for some loci's alleles. And no, the science is NOT that crude.
As with our earlier comparison of DNAtribes' MLIs against popSTR's results we find the allele pairs of two loci to be decisive in a one to one match of Tut's mummy to a specific population. They are
Hb S and miniSTRs are different types of informative DNA. Modern Egyptians mainly have Benin Hb S and that fact is extrapolated to ancient Egyptians and hence Tut.
One must know how to read DNAtribes Table 1 MLIs if one wishes to comment on or apply its information. It tells us [url=mrkp]Tut most likely matches Southern Africa and the African Great Lakes but it does not exclude Tropical West Africa the 3rd likeliest match.
Tut's Tropical West Africa MLI score is 314. That's higher than both the SA and AGL scores for Amenhotep III. It exceeds all mummies' Southern Africa scores except Thuya's. It exceeds all mummies' African Great Lakes scores except Akhenaton's.
popSTR shows actual population frequencies with Tut's miniSTR alleles * D13S317=12 is of high frequency in TWA * D2S1338=16,26 of high frequency in TWA * D18S51=19 is of high frequency in TWA
Tut has 4 TWA high freq alleles including two allele pairs. Tut having Benin Hb S only agrees with miniSTR. They both are mutually supportive.
.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by lioness:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: most if not all pharaohs produce the same results.
That seems substantially different than the other one at 7.5%
The same as in: primary affinity to North Africans in the 5 pop analysis and primary affinity to SSAs in the 3 pop analysis. Not that they can't vary in proportion of 'Eusasian' affinities.
Aside from the fact that 'Eurasian' could still mean African and that the same individual's results may differ depending on which set of a given amount of STRs you use, at this level of resolution you can't really take things overly literal and deduce which royal is more African. So when I said "the same", I was talking about the general pattern of seemingly contradictory affinities (SSA in 3 pop analysis vs North Africa in 5 pop analysis) that all the royals tend to have.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
I did the same for a couple other mummies but the data is long lost to some failed hardrive. It was tedious and time consuming but now would be easier to tabulate (experience under he belt).
If I can steal a few consecutive hours I will see if I can parent the alleles question in that popaffiliator example above.
Posted by Nodnarb (Member # 3735) on :
@ Swenet
Looking at those Pop Affiliator results, I observe that unlike the MLI scores, they're expressed as proportions of probability. They measure the likelihood that a given STR profile will fit into one region relative to others. So if a profile has a very high percentage in one specific region, would that mean the profile is largely endemic to that region?
For example, since Amenhotep III's probabilities are 93% sub-Saharan in the 3-pop analysis and 90% North African in the 5-pop, does that mean his profile would be endemic to the Saharan area and scarcely found in the other areas sampled? By contrast, I would think your standard North African "Arab" people would have a more even balance of probabilities between North Africa, the Near East, and Eurasia.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
I'm having trouble seeing PopAffiliator's paired results. Look like it's giving the result for one and the other repeat values that make up the pair?
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
As when looking into DNAtribes a while back it still holds their arriving at group assignments is not a statistical mystery. Once a good size number of global samples exist it's simple interpolation.
Each sample has it's own profile of alleles. Certain regions will have a higher number of the same or very near the same profilee over samples in a limited geography. Unlike not for profit peer reviewed scientific reports, DNAtribes is not publishing the allele data associated with the geographies.
For customer paid reports DNAtribes uses either 15, 21 or 27 STR autosomes to assign a profile which is then checked against so many individual populations in their database.
For the Amarna mummy article DNAtribes used a stripped down 8 loci profie which in this case we know includes D13S317, D7S820, D2S1338, D21S11, D16S539, D18S51, CSF1PO, FGA. We know the values of these polymorphic microsatellites and anybody can compare and match these to a pop db (eg., DNAtribes lets on that both D18S51=19 and D21S11=34 are African specific markers by frequency). a Identified as Tiye (KV35EL) b Identified as Akhenaten (KV55)
I am confident of the basic validity of DNAtribes' findings on the nDNA STR lineages of the Amarna mummies but I do note their Table 1 indices for Yuya do not list the Americas populations circled on Yuya's regional analysis map Appendix Figure 3. Perhaps it is just a glitch.
I see no reason to distrust DNAtribes' science behind the region matching in their January 1, 2012 article.
I commend DNAtribes for not making a press release touting their find the way less reputable companies have done even though DNAtribes' analysis is without doubt based on the actual raw data (not screen shots) of Hawass and the Egyptian laboratories report as in JAMA. 2010;303(7):638-647.
.
[/QUOTE].
quote:Originally posted by Omo Baba:
The Armana mummies family tree
.
Akhenaten and the Younger Lady are full sibs. Amenhotep III is their father, Tiye their mother. Compare and contrast the mother and children. We must be careful when making statements about their DNAtribes MLI scores and geographies.
EDIT: Note that I got two of Amenhotep III's alleles (at CSF1PO) mixed up with Thuya's alleles at this locus. The corrected analysis:
Looking at, North Africa 90.4% Eurasia 4.4%
Normally if you look at North African DNA it's around half African half Eurasian But here since Eurasia is separate here is it correct to assume North Africa 90.4% is "pure" African ?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Tukuler, check your images. Some have been hacked
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Yes I'm trying to reconstitute them by hit and miss GOOGLE and any pages I save in time before imageshack got funky (the Hawass2010 able and igure urls are different tan back in 2010/11
Gotta go. Will clean up as soon as time permts. Sorry or loose ends
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nodnarb: @ Swenet
Looking at those Pop Affiliator results, I observe that unlike the MLI scores, they're expressed as proportions of probability. They measure the likelihood that a given STR profile will fit into one region relative to others. So if a profile has a very high percentage in one specific region, would that mean the profile is largely endemic to that region?
Note that relative affinity and endemic affinity are a contradiction, or so it seems to me. The MLI scores tell you where you're more likely to find dynastic Egyptian or dynastic Egypt-related genetic material among the studied groups and also the relative probabilities. The way I see it, that suggests exactly what it says. It doesn't necessarily say how much foreign admixture ancient Egyptian had or how much ancestry from Sub-Saharan Africa the Egyptians had. It merely states where dynastic Egyptian-like genetic material is found.
1) If the MLI scores represent absolute affinities, it would suggest that it wouldn't matter if A-group Nubians, Kerma Nubians and ancient Saharans in general would be included, because the affinities in DNA Tribes' preliminary analysis would be definitive and conclusive in that case.
2) It doesn't necessarily rule out that the MLI scores aren't driven, in part at least, by predynastic migration from the Egyptian area and larger Sahara. Who is to say the Great Lakes and South Africa MLI scores aren't (partly) a reflection of the Sanga herding Nilo-Saharan and Afro-Asiatic speakers who were absorbed by the natives of these regions and who left behind their pottery, lithics and genetics?
EDIT: My bad, I misunderstood your question. But I think my view of what the answer to your question is, is in there (i.e. I think that, in the 5 pop analysis, the algorithm is better at picking up what I think is going on with than in the 3 pop analysis).
Popaffiliator may simply be better at picking up African affinities since it's not (or doesn't seem to be) treating "North Africa" as an essentially Eurasian construct, contrary to DNA Tribes "North Africa" cluster.
Remember this bit I wrote some time ago? popaffiliator is clearly capable of picking up African ancestry where other algorithms often fail.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: To illustrate my point, I'm putting up my own minor investigation into the autosomal ancestry of the neolithic Avellaner cave specimen from Spain, and the results seem to support my case. While only 1/13 African haplogroup has been found in this sample (n=7), their probabilities of being Sub-Saharan in the 3 population analysis seem to be much higher than one would predict from the presence of the E-V13 carrier.
Ave01 — 11% probability of being SSA (K1a - G2a) Ave02 — 10.5% probability of being SSA (K1a - G2a) Ave03 — 1.2% probability of being SSA (H3 - G2a) Ave04 — 82.4% probability of being SSA (T2b - x) Ave05 — 1.5% probability of being SSA (T2b - G2a) Ave06 — 23.3% probability of being SSA (K1a - G2a) Ave07 — 10.8% probability of being SSA (U5 - E1b1b1a1b [V13])
Microsatellite data taken from [Lacan et al 2011] and processed using popaffiliator
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lioness: Looking at, North Africa 90.4% Eurasia 4.4%
Normally if you look at North African DNA it's around half African half Eurasian But here since Eurasia is separate here is it correct to assume North Africa 90.4% is "pure" African ?
My interpretation:
Whatever Sub-Saharan ancestry popaffiliator had in mind when it diagnosed Amenhotep as having a >90% probability of being "Sub-Saharan African" in the 3 pop analysis is mostly diagnosed as "North African" in the 5 pop analysis.
So, clearly, North African doesn't mean Eurasian here or even hybrid. It seems to be the case that 'Sub-Saharan' is simply an imperfect label and that this gets resolved when you give it 'better' options in the 5 pop analysis. With Maghrebis in the North African cluster, it's not exactly the right label either, but popaffiliator's North African database is also made up of Siwa Egyptians.
I could be wrong (I would have to re-familiarize myself with what the accompanying documents say), but it seems to me that its algorithm is capable of comparing the Egyptian samples to such northeast African samples without having the good matches it finds in North Africa held back by poorer matches with other North Africans (who often have substantial Iberian ancestry). If the authors of that program averaged North Africa and treated it as a monolithic region, that could easily happen.
quote:This calculator performs affiliation based on a model constructed using machine learning techniques. The model was constructed using a data set of approximately fifteen thousand individuals collected for this work. The accuracy of individual population affiliation is approximately 86%, showing that the common set of STRs routinely used in forensics provide a considerable amount of information for population assignment, in addition to being excellent for individual identification.
We don't even have to wait for more aDNA. Plug the pharaonic values into this tool and flip on the 5 population setting and confirm for yourself that the troll calling himself "Amun Ra" is desperately latching on to a fantasy.
^^This racist nut is desperate. We already have the DNA Tribes results (and the British Medical Journal/BMJ/Ramesses III) study, so why try to invent new results?
We already been over this. You can't put 5 (or any random number) as values as this will corrupt the results (try it). Any random value that you put there which are not from mummies will corrupt the results. Only fools will fall for this shitt. The DNA Tribes and BMJ results are clear and done with a large population database. The closest modern relatives to Ancient Egyptians are Sub-Saharan Africans (thus also including African-Americans).
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Toothless butthurt crybaby. When you contradict his fantasies the best this troll can come up with is "wasist".
quote: Originally posted by Amun Ra the Ultimate: We already have the DNA Tribes results (and the British Medical Journal/BMJ/Ramesses III) study
We do indeed. And V38 is not an autochtonous West/Central African haplogroup the way L2, L1, etc are fundamentally West/Central African. You still haven't proven anything. Keep on dreaming, midget troll.
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
^^Nice picture of you after reading the JAMA, DNA Tribes and BMJ study results!
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
"Again, North Africans tend to cluster with West Africans, suggesting that the sub-Saharan component of North Africans originates primarily from West rather than East Africa (as expected, on geographical grounds). Unlike other North Africans, Egyptians are closer to East than to West Africans. (Note that, if Eurasian haplogroups were included, North and West Africans would be much more clearly distinguished, since, in the former, the major contribution is from European and Near Eastern mtDNAs [Rando et al. 1999].)" Salas et al 2002
^Where modern Egyptians (EG) cluster mtDNA-wise when you take away all their foreign mtDNA influences.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amun Ra the Ultimate: You can't put 5 (or any random number) as values as this will corrupt the results (try it). Any ramdom value that you put there which are not from mummies will corrupt the results.
Lol. He actually said "try it". As if this looney toon has ever lifted a finger to to figure out what the results mean. Just who does this loon think he's kidding?
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
Of course results will vary pending how many loci are fudged. To prove it here's Amenhotep III 3 group assignment fudging only one locus (TPOX 5/5).
Above result from PopAffiliator 2 (compare with Swenet's query) Below result from PopAffiliator 'beta'
Even PopAffiliator versions yield different results from identical data!
Besides these reliability factors (fudging, version) please note 3 group assignment is 90% accurate whereas the 5 group assignment is 65% accurate.
To get a 5 group result n loci must be fudged which skews the result to less than 65% accuracy.
PopAffiliator 2 gave me no 5 group result even when I fudged 9 loci with 5/5 or 8/8.
Allele values can correspond to geo-ethnies so fudging figures inadvertantly yields somewhat fudged results, the more fudges the more bias toward an unknown region.
quote: Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
We already been over this. You can't put 5 (or any random number) as values as this will corrupt the results (try it). Any random value that you put there which are not from mummies will corrupt the results. Only fools will fall for this shitt. The DNA Tribes and BMJ results are clear and done with a large population database. The closest modern relatives to Ancient Egyptians are Sub-Saharan Africans (thus also including African-Americans).
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Allele values can be region indicative.
To see the gross effect of fudging values and the true significance of chosen value see differing results re TPOX 5/5 vs 17/17
Big difference!
Years ago I chose popSTR over PopAffiliator because though one must do diligent comparison manually all regional/ethnic data is visible and though limited one can choose precise geo-ethnies.
I put my popSTR query return in a post above. I invite comparison of Amenhotep III profile with the Mzabi profile vs the 4 other profiles to see how much a match any of them make.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
**** I just saw CSF1PO values were for Thuya (7/12) not Amenhotep III (6/9). Shoulda went directly to the study.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
>> CORRECTING CSF1PO values for Amenhotep III <<
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
Of course results will vary pending how many loci are fudged. To prove it here's Amenhotep III 3 group assignment fudging only one locus (TPOX 5/5).
Above result from PopAffiliator 2 (compare with Swenet's query) Below result from PopAffiliator 'beta'
Even PopAffiliator versions yield different results from identical data!
Besides these reliability factors (fudging, version) please note 3 group assignment is 90% accurate whereas the 5 group assignment is 65% accurate.
To get a 5 group result n loci must be fudged which skews the result to less than 65% accuracy.
PopAffiliator 2 gave me no 5 group result even when I fudged 9 loci with 5/5 or 8/8. ???
Allele values can correspond to geo-ethnies so fudging figures inadvertantly yields somewhat fudged results, the more fudges the more bias toward an unknown region.
quote: Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
We already been over this. You can't put 5 (or any random number) as values as this will corrupt the results (try it). Any random value that you put there which are not from mummies will corrupt the results. Only fools will fall for this shitt. The DNA Tribes and BMJ results are clear and done with a large population database. The closest modern relatives to Ancient Egyptians are Sub-Saharan Africans (thus also including African-Americans).
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
>> CORRECTING CSF1PO values for Amenhotep III <<
Allele values can be region indicative.
To see the gross effect of fudging values and the true significance of chosen value see differing results re TPOX 5/5 vs 17/17
Big difference!
The skew from using TPOX 17/17 biases toward EurAsia (5 points) and Asia (1 point) at the expense of Africa (5.9 points). Or one can say TPOX 5/5 favors Africa. Either way the value assigned a locus does very well deliver different results and for SCIENCE that is significant.
Years ago I chose popSTR over PopAffiliator because though one must do diligent comparison manually all regional/ethnic data is visible and though limited one can choose precise geo-ethnies.
I put my popSTR query return in a post last page. I invite comparison of Amenhotep III profile with the Mzabi profile vs the 4 other profiles to see how much a match any of them make.
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
So what the values are saying is what I thought in that most Africans prior to dynastic Egypt lived in the Green Sahara?
The DNAtribes South African and Great Lake scores shouldn't be taken "literally", but those scores represent people who would have lived in the Sahara?
Someone correct me. Just want to be sure my theory is correct.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
@BBH
There is no agreement. People have different views in regards to what you're asking.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Well they say STRs are good for only ~1000 years back.
Who knows the African STR profiles elsewhere in Africa at the time of the Amarna age? Somebody please submit if existant.
What we can definitively say is the Amarna mummy STR profiles of Egypt ~3300 years ago are predominantly found today in Southern Africa, the Great Lakes, and Tropical West Africa.
If anything is shown it is temporal and spatial movement OUT from 1300 BCE Egypt toward the south and west. But considering what scientists say about the life of STR profiles no movement at all may be shown but maybe just the random effect of STR repeats over time in populations.
No hard and fast conclusions can be reached without STR profiles from the Green Sahara, again a 2000-3000 year stretch away from the Amarna age.
One thing for sure one person's theory is as good as the next provided it is well founded on data and acceptable methodology no matter who agrees or disagrees with it.
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: @BBH
There is no agreement. People have different views in regards to what you're asking.
I was certain you would have had an answer.
Anyways I personally intepreated the results by DNAtribes as Tut's dynasty NOT LITERALLY being from South Africa, West Africa or Great Lake regions.
But instead the results representing the ancestors of the people who livein those three regions, those ancestors who would have lived in the Green Sahara and would have been "North Africans" or better yet "Saharans". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FkZB5j5Eqm8
@5:00
Again that's how I personally interpeted the results. Many laymen literally think Tut's dynasty was from South Africa and scream "buh! buh! Da ancient GYPTIANS werent BANTUS!!!!" When thats not what the results are saying.
@Tukuler
Great post.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
@BBH
I do have an answer, but I didn't know if you were addressing me and I didn't want to needlessly get bogged down in another discussion seeing as the strawman attacks keep piling up left and right, even now.
My interpretation is that DNA Tribes' observation that dynastic Egypt-related material is found more in South Africa and Great Lakes obviously doesn't mean automatically that the ancestry component that is NATIVE to these regions has anything directly to do with Dynastic Egyptians. Let alone in a way that TRUMPS regions like ancient Lower Nubia and the Central Sahara.
I hope that makes sense.
Also consider this:
quote: This individual’s second highest match is with the African Great Lakes World Region (MLI of 1,369,325). Hence, this individual’s genetic make-up is 2,501,605 / 1,369,325 = 1.8 times more likely to occur in the Tropical West African World Region than in the African Great Lakes World Region.
Ask yourself why the Pharaohs generally average an MLI score in the low hundreds to African populations while unadmixed Sub-Saharan Africans generally have MLI scores to Sub-Saharan African regions that run in the millions. If the Pharaonic ancestry is mutually inclusive with the modal ancestry that is found in these DNA Tribes regions, why does it behave completely differently? Not only in DNA tribes, but also in popaffiliator.
Let me know what you think as I'm curious what you make of this.
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
Yeah it definitely makes sense. Thanks.
And lets not forget the 18th dynasty was just ONE dynasty.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Since this thread is not a PM everyone can post or reply to whatever they please!
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Southern Africa is home to San and Khoe as well as baNtu. SA Bantu are a confluence of people originating in SE Africa, E Africa, and the CW Africa birth place of the language and some aspects of the culture
Remember, the posited nativity of baNtu ain't that far from the southern Sahara. Compose a timeline comparing the Sahara and 'Bantu' at the time of the 'Great XVIII'.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: My interpretation is that DNA Tribes' observation that dynastic Egypt-related material is found more in South Africa and Great Lakes obviously doesn't mean automatically that the ancestry component that is NATIVE to these regions has anything directly to do with Dynastic Egyptians. Let alone in a way that TRUMPS regions like ancient Lower Nubia and the Central Sahara.
@BHB
To clarify my point:
Khoisan today may have substantial non-Khoisan genetic material (including from Afroasiatic speakers). Therefore, Khoisan groups may rank higher than expected in lists of MLI scores for Ethiopians for this reason. Obviously such rankings are suspect and don't automatically mean that the ancestry component that is native to Khoisan drives this high MLI score ranking.
According to DNA Tribes own documents, the South African and Great Lakes regions have such contributions from groups related to Nilo-Saharan and Afroasiatic speakers.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Yet none of those non-SA people & places outrank those peoples they contributed to.
Interesting the dilute should be stronger than the full strength. Snap goes Occam's Razor. It can't tolerate the convolutions, abiding the simple and straight forward.
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
To clarify my point:
Khoisan today may have substantial non-Khoisan genetic material (including from Afroasiatic speakers). Therefore, Khoisan groups may rank higher than expected in lists of MLI scores for Ethiopians for this reason. Obviously such rankings are suspect and don't automatically mean that the ancestry component that is native to Khoisan drives this high MLI score ranking.
According to DNA Tribes own documents, the South African and Great Lakes regions have such contributions from groups related to Nilo-Saharan and Afroasiatic speakers.
The bolded definitely clarifies things.
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
Southern Africa is home to San and Khoe as well as baNtu. SA Bantu are a confluence of people originating in SE Africa, E Africa, and the CW Africa birth place of the language and some aspects of the culture
Remember, the posited nativity of baNtu ain't that far from the southern Sahara. Compose a timeline comparing the Sahara and 'Bantu' at the time of the 'Great XVIII'.
What are your thoughts on Bantu's such as the Zulus saying they have ancestry in the Sahara or near Egypt?
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
@BBH
Also look at how DNA Tribes' North Africa and Horn regions are hybridized with Eurasian groups who have lower MLI scores, and think about how that affects their own MLI scores when tested against the Pharaohs.
Then come back and let me know what YOU think based on your own investigation.
What some here do is conveniently take the MLI scores of Sub-Saharan Africans with known Egyptian-like or at least Eastern Sahara genetic influences and who were mostly out of reach of recent Eurasian admixture and compare their MLI scores to the MLI scores of groups in North Africa and other regions that are hybridized today. SMH.
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: @BBH
Also look at how DNA Tribes' North Africa and Horn regions are hybridized with Eurasian groups who have lower MLI scores, and think about how that affects their own MLI scores when tested against the Pharaohs.
Then come back and let me know what YOU think based on your own investigation.
What some here do is conveniently take the MLI scores of Sub-Saharan Africans with known Egyptian-like or at least Eastern Sahara genetic influences and who were mostly out of reach of recent Eurasian admixture and compare their MLI scores to the MLI scores of groups in North Africa and other regions that are hybridized today. SMH.
The last paragraph is something I always had a hunch about. Especially the bolded.
WHat I think is that MODERN "hybrized" North Africans(who have significant "western Eurasian admixture") shouldn't be used as a representation region for an ancient population like the Ancient Egyptians and then compare it to modern Sub Saharan Africans. Obviously DNAtribes grouping Horners and North Africans with outside Eurasians will lower the MLI scores for North Africans and Horners compared to "unmixed" SSA.
Now if they were to you "ancient" Saharan/Northeast African population or a specific Northeast population with not much recent Eurasian admixture then it would be a different story. The reason Horners and North Africans score lower is because they are using modern population. This is just my opinion, I obviously need to investigate more.
Anyways I did find this which I think confirms further what you're saying. Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Don't forget all populations compared to the MLIs are moderns none of them reflect the populations of any region in the 14 century BCE whether Saharan or Southern Africa or Great Lakes or whatever.
All the comparisons tell us is Amarna STR profiles are found in Africa more than any other geography and Southern Africa than other African regions.
It isn't a matter of AEs coming from Bantu nor Bantu pouring into ancient Egypt. Why? STRs only show contemporaneous plus or minus 500 years (best for genealogy). SNPs show deep ancestry (good for prehistoric and ancient connectison pending age of an haplogroup itself).
The Amarna age is somewhere in between. No SNP tests were carried out on these mummies. Ramses II hg assignment is a best guess prediction and trustworthy only in lieu of actual SNP testing.
Many ethnies have origin and migration epics that don't jibe with current DNA analysis. I prefer to steer clear of 'enthusiast politicized science'
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
@BBH
I'm assuming you're referring the inclusion of Egyptians in the Levantine region?
If you hypothesize for a sec that Naqada and Badarian-like groups were mainly involved in the distribution of Sanga cattle to DNA Tribes' Tropical West African, Great Lakes and South African regions—regions we know received cattle from the Egyptian region directly or indirectly—you would expect the EXACT same pattern you see in the MLI scores.
Correcting the MLI scores for these hypothetical Egyptian migrations (and for recent admixture events in Ethiopia) would make the order of MLI scores look like this:
Horn of Africa (which includes Sudan, at times) Sahel ↓ Levant Aegean Arabian (...bunch of Eurasian regions...)
^This list looks so consistent with the anthro data that it looks like I shifted a bunch of DNA Tribes regions around to make my hypothesis 'work'. I really didn't. All I did was temporarily removing the three regions we know were recipients of Nile Valley immigrants, cattle, haplogroups and loanwords.
The Great Lakes, Tropical West Africa and South Africa regions can then be imagined to fall where the arrow points when you correct for the L3f and other Egyptian-like haplogroups they have:
RESULTS: The L3f variant found in Asturias seems to constitute an Iberian-specific haplogroup, distantly related to lineages in Northern Africa and with a deep ancestry in Western Africa. Coalescent algorithms estimate the minimum arrival time as 8,000 years ago, and a possible route through the Gibraltar Strait." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25130626
Note that Maghrebis have substantial amounts of West/Central African ancestry. From genome wide studies we know that this is pretty much what makes them cluster closer to Sub-Saharan Africans than Levantines are to Sub-Saharan Africans. So, if West/Central African ancestry is what causes a high MLI ranking, I'm going to need an explanation why North Africans have even a lower MLI score with the 18th dy royals than Levantines and Europeans. Their West/Central ancestry seems to do nothing for them to make their MLI scores higher than Europeans.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
If I'm not mistaken MLI scores from DNA Tribes for the Amarna was determined before DNA Tribes had Khosians in their database
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
MLI scores are proprietary to DNAtribes. Only they know how to compute them. Others assuming to fudge around with MLI scores are doing nothing more than indulging speculations.
quote:
Q: What are MLI scores?
A: Each DNA Tribes Native and Global Population Match and World Region Match is listed with a Match Likelihood Index (MLI) score that indicates your odds of belonging to that population relative to your odds of belonging to a generic human population. For instance, a Native Population Match with Macedonia scored 45.2 indicates your genetic ancestry is 45.2 times as likely in Macedonia as in the world.
Q: What are typical scores for my ethnic group? Are my scores very high or low?
A: Individuals within each population exhibit a characteristic range of world region scores. This range varies by world region and ethnicity. For this reason, each MLI score in your population and world region rankings is assigned a percentile-based TribeScore that expresses how your MLI score fits among members of that population or region.
Q: What are TribeScores?
TribeScores are a unique scoring method developed by DNA Tribes that compares a person's match scores for a population to the scores of actual members within that ethnic group or region. Each DNA Tribes match includes a TribeScore in parentheses, listing your MLI score’s percentile in that population. TribeScores compares your MLI scores to members of each ethnic group and world region. For instance, results listing “Switzerland (0.73)” indicate that your MLI score is higher than 73% of scores from this Swiss reference population, and lower than 27% of these Swiss individuals. TribeScores of (0.05) and above are within the expected range for a population, and TribeScores between the (0.25) and above are ordinary or typical for members of that population. TribeScores indicate how high or low your score is in the specific context of each population, providing the necessary point of reference to explain each MLI score
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
@Lioness
I highly doubt that, but you can verify easily by looking at their digest page. All the PDFs are dated so you should be able to see what the Africans regions were composed of at a specific point in time.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: @Lioness
I highly doubt that, but you can verify easily by looking at their digest page. All the PDFs are dated so you should be able to see what the Africans regions were composed of at a specific point in time.
DNA Tribes Digest for January 1, 2012: Last of the Amarna Pharaohs: King Tut and His Relatives
DNA Tribes Digest for February 1, 2013: Ramesses III and African Ancestry in the 20th Dynasty of New Kingdom Egypt
New African populations: Afar (Ethiopia) Anuak (Ethiopia) Ari Blacksmith (Ethiopia) Ari Cultivator (Ethiopia) Bantu (South Africa) Gui and Gana San (Botswana) Gumuz (Ethiopia) Herero (Namibia) Juoansi San (Tsumkwe, Namibia) Karretjie San (Colesberg, South Africa) Khomani San (Askham, South Africa) Khwe San (Caprivi, Southern Africa) Nama Khoe[ (Windhoek, Namibia) Somali (Ethiopia) South Sudanese Wolayta (Ethiopia) Xun San (Menongue, Angola)
New European populations: Argyll and Bute (Scottish Highlands) Ireland Norway Sweden
New Diasporic populations: Coloured (Colesberg, South Africa) Coloured (Wellington, South Africa) Native American (US and Canada)
__________________________
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
^I know what you're referring to. I remember when they added those samples. The Ethiopian samples are from Pagani if I recall it correctly and the Khoisan samples from a paper that came out around the same time.
^They always had their own samples.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nodnarb: So Doug, what have you made of the whole "True Negro" argument as applied to ancient Egyptians all this time? Doesn't it go that Egyptians couldn't have been "black" because their facial features were distinct from those of West Africans? Obviously skin color and facial features are distinct physical traits, but surely you remember that the latter have sometimes been claimed as a critical part of "racial" identity.
I haven't made anything of anything except to say that white racism created these concepts and contradictions because of the pseudo scientific writings from said scholars over the last 400 years. The point is that words aren't the issue. Racism is. But folks on this thread are claiming that somehow the underlying mentality that created all these inherent contradictions within "racial" classifications will go away if you use different words. No they won't. Those underlying prejudices will still be there and the distortions and lies about the skin colors of various populations, including the AE, will still exist because the underlying philosophy and mentality behind racism is still there. But rather than admit that, folks on this thread are trying to pretend it is all about language and words and racism as a mentality and ideology don't matter.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The only one pushing this idea that skin color is race is you.
The source I posted acknowledges that the default use of ‘black’ in the West is synonymous with ‘negro’. You think that this means I'm arguing that “skin color is race” because you can’t read and are mentally constipated.
No, it means you are trying to take the illogical, contradictory and nonsense arguments of racists and make coherent logic out of them and then use this silly pseudoscience as a basis of your argument that somehow the problem isn't the mentality and philosophy of the racists that creates these contradictions and inherent inconsistencies, but words. No the problem is you introducing racists into the discussion as if their words have any merit other than to show that the root of the problem is the racists and not anyone else's use of words. Remember, YOU are the one who keeps trying to sit up here and argue on behalf of the racists on what they meant by racial classifications and on this point you are the one looking ridiculous. I don't defend racists and I don't look to them other than to show how absurd and illogical their thought processes are.
quote:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The point being the racists have historically used cranial studies to define race scientifically but skin color to define race socially.
Which scientific racists with a shred of competence have used skin color as a primary criterion to “define race socially”? List them all and we’ll see how quickly you’ll run out of names.
All of them. I don't need to name any because they all do, starting with Blumenbach. You said it yourself when you said that you cited an author who equates Negro with black. The problem with you is you refuse to admit that the whole basis of racism in "the west" is based on skin color and because of that you are falling all over yourself trying to take the inconsistent and illogical arguments of racists as some sort of logical thought process that justifies your absurd argument. "Black" in America has always been a reference to "Negroes" from Africa. In other words, in America blacks are Negroes and Negroes are black. That means skin color is an obvious marker for "Negroes" as defined by racists. You simply are confused. Skin color was always the most obvious marker used to determine race in America and the reason why race in America was so easily defined and perpetrated because of the obvious physical differences in skin color between whites from Europe and black folks from Africa. If you don't understand that simple fact then you really have no clue what you are talking about.
Case in point. Here is a racist book from the 1800s showing that race is inherently about skin color and Negroes as being a pseudo-scientific concept created to justify the notion of the biological inferiority of black people.
"The negroes in negroland; the negroes in America; and negroes generally. Also, the several races of white men, considered as the involuntary and predestined supplanters of the black races. A compilation" :
quote: There are now in the United States of America thirty millions of white people, who are (or ought to be) bound together the ties of a kindred origin, the affinities of a sameness of noble purpose, by the links of a common nationality, and by the cords of an inseparable destiny. We have here also, unfortunately" for us all, four millions of black people, whose ancestors, like themselves, were never known (except in very rare instances, which form the exceptions to a general rule) to aspire to any other condition than that of base and beastlike slavery. These black people are, by nature, of an exceedingly low and grovelling disposition. They have no trait of character that is lovely or admirable. They are not high-minded, enterprising, nor prudent. In no age, in no part of the world, have they, of themselves, ever projected or advanced any public or private Interest, nor given expression to any thought or sentiment that could worthily elicit the praise, or even the favorable mention, of the better portion of mankind. Seeing, then, that the negro does, indeed, belong to a lower and inferior order of beings, why, in the name of Heaven, why should we forever degrade and disgrace both ourselves and our posterity by entering, of our own volition, into more intimate relations with him? May God, in his restraining mercy, forbid that we should ever do this most foul and wicked thing! Acting under the influence of that vile spirit of deception and chicanery which is always familiar with every false pretence, the members of a Radical Congress, the editors of a venal press, and other peddlers of perverted knowledge, are now loudly proclaiming that nowhere in our country, henceforth, must there be any distinction, any discrimination, on account of color; thereby covertly inculcating the gross error of inferring or supposing that color is the only difference and that a very trivial difference between the whites and the blacks! Now, once for all, in conscientious deference to truth, let it be distinctly made known and acknowledged, that, in addition to the black and baneful color of the negro, there are numerous other defects, physical, mental; and moral, which clearly mark him, when compared with the white man, as a very different and inferior creature. While, therefore, with an involuntary repugnance which we cannot control, and with a wholesome antipathy which it would be both unnatural and unavailing in us to attempt to destroy, we behold the crime-stained blackness of the negro, let us, also, at the same time, take cognizance of
His low and compressed Forehead ; His hard, thick Skull ; His small, backward-thrown Brain ; His short, crisp Hair ; His flat Nose ; His thick Lips ; His projecting, snout-like Mouth ; His strange, Eunuch-toned Voice ; The scantiness of Beard on his Face ; The Toughness and Unsensitiveness of his Skin ; The Thinness and Shrunkenness of his Thighs ; His curved Knees ; His calfless Legs ; His low, short Ankles ; His long, flat Heels ; His glut-shaped Feet ;
The general Angularity and Oddity of his Frame ; The Malodorous Exhalations from his Person ; His Puerility of Mind ; His Inertia and Sleepy-headedness ; His proverbial Dishonesty ; His predisposition to fabricate Falsehoods ; and His Apathetic Indifference to all Propositions and Enter- prises of Solid Merit.
Many other differences might be mentioned ; but the score and more of obvious and undeniable ones here enumerated ousfht to sutUce for the utter confusion and shame of all those disingenuous politicians and others, who, knowing better, and who are thus guilty of the crime of defeating the legitimate ends of their own knowledge, would, for mere selfish and partisan purposes, convey the delusive impression that there is no other difference than that of color.
The point being that race in "the West" was based on discrimination against and the enslavement of Africans based on skin color, with the creation of the concept of the "Negro" as a way to come up with a biological basis for that treatment based on an idea of 'biological inferiority'. That is race 101. And that is why they have been historically against calling the AE black because it would contradict the whole point of black folks or "Negroes" being an inferior species.... But this is the point you have been trying to deny since page one.
quote:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Sure, whatever you say.
No, not “sure, whatever you say”. Own up to your errors. Baker never said that ancient Egyptians had the same skin pigmentation level as Spaniards. In fact, the source Baker was citing didn't make this claim either, as he was talking about then-contemporary Egyptians (not ancient ones). This means that you can’t reject Baker’s observation that the AE were “reddish brown Aethiopids”. Which means that your claim that prominent scientific racists were involved in a conspiracy to whitewash the skin and eye pigmentation of the AE is completely false.
And again, that one passage did not change the fact that Mr Baker later on said the AE were "Europids". You can't have it both ways. You harp on one passage but fail to mention that other passages directly contradict what is said in it. Again, this is the problem with trying to hold up racists as some sort of benchmark or standard in terms of understanding anything in human biology or language and rigorous consistency concerning human biology which again makes your whole argument absurd and silly.
quote:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: No it means skin color is the basis of race, meaning "black people" as a "race" are people with black skin or some semblance of black skin or mixture.
Flip flopper, didn’t you just post this when you blundered by repeatedly misattributing this statement to Baker?
For although the Egyptians, for instance, and the Indians are very black, or rather tawny \baganes], this colour is nevertheless only accidental to them, […]
That shows that scholars from the period absolutely understood "black" as a reference to skin color. Somehow I have been saying this since page one and of course you just don't want to admit that this contradicts everything YOU have been claiming.
quote:
And:
It is true that most Indians have something rather different from us in the expression of the face and in the colour, which often tends towards yellow; but that does not seem sufficient to make a particular species; for otherwise it would be necessary to make one also for the Spaniards, another for the Germans, and similarly for several other peoples of Europe.
How does this excerpt from someone you just passed off as "representative", support your claim that skin color is the primary determinant of race? It’s clearly SECONDARY to facial structure and cladism in the view of most western observers, including scientific racists. This is precisely why the one drop rule--which groups people with Colin Powel's skin color with people with Wesley Snipe's skin color--was so eagerly adopted in the US. Here is another piece from Baker:
quote:It results that an Indian, who may show close resemblance to many Europeans in every structural feature of his body, and whose ancestors established a civilization long before the inhabitants of the British Isles did so, is grouped as ‘coloured’ with persons who are very different morphologically from any European or Indian, and whose ancestors never developed a civilization of their own. Those who group human beings in this unscientific way would not think of applying the same classificatory principle to animals. They would not predicate anything about the virtues or defects of the ordinary types of Labrador retrievers, Scottish terriers, and schipperkes merely on the basis of their black pigmentation, and they would be well aware that a golden Labrador retriever is very similar in most respects to a black one.
--John Baker
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
racism in "the west" is based on skin color and because of that you are falling all over yourself trying to take the inconsistent and illogical arguments of racists as some sort of logical thought process that justifies your absurd argument. "Black" in America has always been a reference to "Negroes" from Africa. In other words, in America blacks are Negroes and Negroes are black. That means skin color is an obvious marker for "Negroes" as defined by racists.
The people above have skin as dark as many Africans but are not from Africa and would not be called "black people" by most Americans
So obviously if "Black" in America has always been a reference to "Negroes" from Africa then "Black" in America means not only dark skin but other traits as well but Doug pretends not to see this
And we needed 18 pages to point this out ??
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: BTW: is the skull in extended Data Fig 4 that of a Caucasian?
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: No, it means you are trying to take the illogical, contradictory and nonsense arguments of racists and make coherent logic out of them and then use this silly pseudoscience as a basis of your argument that somehow the problem isn't the mentality and philosophy of the racists that creates these contradictions and inherent inconsistencies, but words.
Doug, you misrepresent everyone's views. All you do is attack strawmen and several people have already pointed this out in this thread.
Debating you leads nowhere, because you obviously don't have the slightest clue what my positions are, because you can't read and because you're flip flopping all the time.
This is how Doug flip flops out of compromising positions when he's cornered:
1) Doug claims that people in the West have used skin color as a primary criterion to assign race:
No it means skin color is the basis of race, --Doug M
2) I counter this by posting Doug's own source. Doug's own source says that dark skin color is only "accidental" to many South Asians. In other words, the source says that skin color is not a primary criterion to assign race and that race, in fact, transcends skin color:
For although the Egyptians, for instance, and the Indians are very black, or rather tawny, this colour is nevertheless only accidental to them, […] --Anonymous 17th century European traveler
It is true that most Indians have something rather different from us in the expression of the face and in the colour, which often tends towards yellow; but that does not seem sufficient to make a particular species; for otherwise it would be necessary to make one also for the Spaniards, another for the Germans, and similarly for several other peoples of Europe. --Anonymous 17th century European traveler
3) Because he's cornered (as usual), Doug starts flip flopping instead of addressing the point that is cornering him.
Instead of addressing the fact that his own source clearly says that skin color is a trivial and superficial trait that is not enough to delineate races, Doug starts misreading the quote and says "see, I'm right all along, as the quote uses very black in relation to skin color".
This had nothing to do with the point Doug was scared to address. Doug was supposed to address the fact that his claims are refuted by his source, which said that skin color is TRIVIAL and that people of the same race can have more than one type of skin color. Here is Doug's flip flop:
That shows that scholars from the period absolutely understood "black" as a reference to skin color. --Doug M
^This has nothing to do with his initial point of contention, which was that skin color was a primary criterion to determine race. And note that even his current flip flop doesn't make sense. I've said that the default use of black in the West is racial. Desperately trying to find people who use 'black' as an adjective for skin pigmentation (which is a separate tradition of 'black' than the one that is commonly used in the West) doesn't change that default use.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: RESULTS: The L3f variant found in Asturias seems to constitute an Iberian-specific haplogroup, distantly related to lineages in Northern Africa and with a deep ancestry in Western Africa. Coalescent algorithms estimate the minimum arrival time as 8,000 years ago, and a possible route through the Gibraltar Strait." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25130626
quote:Haplogroup L3f most likely also arose in Eastern Africa, where it is both most frequent (Figure 3B) and most diverse (Salas et al. 2002), although several branches were carried by migrants into the Sahel and Central Africa: L3f1 has two main subclades (L3f1a and L3f1b) with basal lineages from Eastern Africa; L3f2 is specific to Eastern Africa; L3f3 seems to have expanded into the Sahel 8–9 ka ago hypothetically from an Eastern African source (Cerný et al 2009b), as it is also present in Central and North Africa. The scan of the founder lineages in Central Africa (Figure 4B) suggests that this region received a strong genetic input of L3f lineages in the beginning of the Holocene, around the time of the expansion of L3f3, perhaps reflecting a wide scale demographic process in the early Holocene, also suggested from the BSP analysis (Figure S6, Table 1).
--Soares et al 2011
quote:One such variant is the Tenerean, best known from Adrar Bous and Arlit in Aïr but extending eastwards to Borkou in Chad (Bailloud 1969; J. D. Clark et al. 1973). The industry (Fig. 80) dates between 5000 and 3300 bc, the skeleton of a domestic shorthorn ox from Adrar Bous (Carter and Clark 1976; Van Neer 2002) being dated to the mid-fifth millennium. Domestic small stock were also herded but the sole evidence for plant exploitation, other than the ubiquitous grindstones, consists of a single impression on a potsherd of a grain that is thought to be sorghum. Hunting was also important, and the prey included warthog, antelope, hippopotamus and rhinoceros. Pottery and ground-stone axes show some resemblance to those from the broadly contemporary Nile Valley sites of Esh Shaheinab and Kadero (pp. 181--3 below).
African Archaeology — D. W. Phillipson
quote:Like the Bovidian, the Tenerean seems to cover the fourth and third millennia BC, as evidenced by the date of 3180 + 500 BC from Adrar Bous and 2520+115 BC at Areschima, and it appears to be a Middle Neolithic. The same characteristics and techniques seen in the hard-stone figurines of the Bovidians are also exhibited by the many objects that make up the Tenerean tool-kit: pestles, grindstones, rubbers and above all grooved axes some of which are veritable works of art. The lithic industry is very fine; to the artifacts on blades and bladelets and the geometric microliths of the Epi-Palaeolithic tradition is added an important Neolithic element with bifacial retouch - especially long, fine arrow-points, tranchets and, in particular, discs whose thinness bears witness to the great skill of the Tenerean craftsmen. With this assemblage must also be counted knives of Egyptian type and flat grindstones notched at the edges to facilitate transport on ox-back. The discovery of a skeleton of a domestic ox in a Tenerean site at Adrar Bous confirms that these people were pastoralists
Beginnings of pastoralism and cultivation in north-west Africa and the Sahara: origins of the Berbers—G. Camps
The argument is being made that the Neolithic and predynastic Egypto-Nubian groups found in West Africa somehow don't affect the MLI scores of these regions and that their high ranking in the pharaonic MLI scores are necessarily "all natural".
Right.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Amun. This is not for you. Get a new hobby.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
This is simple to diagnose.
Both Southern African and African Great Lakes top the Amarna mummy MLI list. No sleight of mouth will ever change that fact.
Some find it distasteful to see Southern Africa ranked so high instead of their pet preferred population so speculation gets substituted to explain away that result.
Meanwhile not a chick peep against Great Lakes Africans score.
Amarna mummy MLIs are based on nDNA STR haplotypes reported in Hawass 2010 and can not be disputed using non-STR evidence.
Proper methodology is to either note complete haplotypes or specific locus values and see if they approximate or match extant individuals or populations as have done DNAtribes, myself, and ESers years ago [url=http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=005881;p=17][/URL] in the thread DNAtribes analysis on Tel Amarna mummies
starting on page 1 and soon to be revisited.
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: This is simple to diagnose.
Both Southern African and African Great Lakes top the Amarna mummy MLI list. No sleight of mouth will ever change that fact.
While this is true you still have to look at PERSPECTIVE.....you also have to analyze the Mummy results with and understanding how CONTEMPORARY DNA results from DNA tribes look. Since I have had my genome (and other continental Africas) analyzed by DNA Tribes I have argued that the profile as we know it.....at how it relates to Sub Saharan Africans is EXTINCT!
Look at the MLI scores. King Tut has the Highest score of 1519. The other scores have a AVERAGE that ranges from 326 to 14 among Sub Saharan Africans. A contemporary African American has Top MLI score with Sub Saharan Africans specific countries to the tune of 17 MILLION! This same African American sample will have an MLI score with Arabians that is twice that of these mummies average with there HIGHEST Sub Saharan group: Southern Africa. The Horn of Africa and Sahel MLI scores of the mummies top out at around 15. Compare this with this same African American MLI score with Slavic @ 11 and North Western Europeans at 13.8. Matter of fact with an MLI score 30,46,52 and 68 this African American has a genome that is twice as likely to be found in Iberian, 3 to 4 times likely to be found in Greece, and 5 times more likely to be found Mexican Mestizos than any of these mummy genomes are to be found in the Sahel or the Horn of Africa.
Lets move to Europeans and their MLI scores. This "White American" has a top match MLI score with North Western Europe at 1.4 Million. With Arabia at 5800 and a Horn of Africa MLI score of 675. Take 675 score and compare that to all the mummy scores. This European has an MLI score that is twice as likely to be found in Ethiopia than the average of all these mummies in Southern Africa.
Folks need to stop looking at these results in some type of bubble. The MLI score connecting these mummies to ANY CONTEMPORARY population is EXTREMELY MINUTE! STR mutations change very fast in comparison to SNP's. This is why the STR "PROFILE" from the time of these mummies (in my opinion) is basically extinct.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: No, it means you are trying to take the illogical, contradictory and nonsense arguments of racists and make coherent logic out of them and then use this silly pseudoscience as a basis of your argument that somehow the problem isn't the mentality and philosophy of the racists that creates these contradictions and inherent inconsistencies, but words.
Doug, you misrepresent everyone's views. All you do is attack strawmen and several people have already pointed this out in this thread.
Debating you leads nowhere, because you obviously don't have the slightest clue what my positions are, because you can't read and because you're flip flopping all the time.
This is how Doug flip flops out of compromising positions when he's cornered:
1) Doug claims that people in the West have used skin color as a primary criterion to assign race:
No it means skin color is the basis of race, --Doug M
2) I counter this by posting Doug's own source. Doug's own source says that dark skin color is only "accidental" to many South Asians. In other words, the source says that skin color is not a primary criterion to assign race and that race, in fact, transcends skin color:
For although the Egyptians, for instance, and the Indians are very black, or rather tawny, this colour is nevertheless only accidental to them, […] --Anonymous 17th century European traveler
It is true that most Indians have something rather different from us in the expression of the face and in the colour, which often tends towards yellow; but that does not seem sufficient to make a particular species; for otherwise it would be necessary to make one also for the Spaniards, another for the Germans, and similarly for several other peoples of Europe. --Anonymous 17th century European traveler
3) Because he's cornered (as usual), Doug starts flip flopping instead of addressing the point that is cornering him.
Instead of addressing the fact that his own source clearly says that skin color is a trivial and superficial trait that is not enough to delineate races, Doug starts misreading the quote and says "see, I'm right all along, as the quote uses very black in relation to skin color".
This had nothing to do with the point Doug was scared to address. Doug was supposed to address the fact that his claims are refuted by his source, which said that skin color is TRIVIAL and that people of the same race can have more than one type of skin color. Here is Doug's flip flop:
That shows that scholars from the period absolutely understood "black" as a reference to skin color. --Doug M
^This has nothing to do with his initial point of contention, which was that skin color was a primary criterion to determine race. And note that even his current flip flop doesn't make sense. I've said that the default use of black in the West is racial. Desperately trying to find people who use 'black' as an adjective for skin pigmentation (which is a separate tradition of 'black' than the one that is commonly used in the West) doesn't change that default use.
Swenet, you lost the argument. Black has always been a reference to the skin color of Africans and other tropically adapted people around the planet, including by racists and other scholars over the last 400 years. At this point you are just making absurd accusations when every post I have written since page one has said the same thing and your attempts to sidetrack and derail that simple point have only backfired which leaves you picking at straws trying to find some flaw or something to nitpick in order to avoid the inevitable admission that you have no earthy idea what you are talking about.
Black is a perfectly legitimate word to refer to skin color for populations who have tropically adapted skin color. And this has absolutely nothing to do with race because there are no human races, meaning subspecies of human. Therefore no biological trait in any human population indicates race. Race is a historical concept created by Europeans to justify mistreatment of various non European populations based on the idea of biological inferiority of non Europeans to Europeans. It has no validity in biology or anthropology. However, that does not mean that prejudice based on biological traits like skin color still don't exist and that "race" as a concept still doesn't exist in the minds of some European scholars and populations to this day, because it absolutely does. And on this point changing your wording will not stop those folks with such a mentality from distorting or altering facts to suit their agenda.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Swenet, you lost the argument. Black has always been a reference to the skin color of Africans and other tropically adapted people around the planet, including by racists and other scholars over the last 400 years.
Doug, go peddle your BS elsewhere. You have no credibility when you say that you believe that 'black' refers to skin color only. Just a post ago you said this:
And again, that one passage did not change the fact that Mr Baker later on said the AE were "Europids". You can't have it both ways. --Doug M
Why are 'black skin' and "Europid race" mutually exclusive if 'black' only refers to skin color and "Europid" only to ancestry? One can't be 'black' in terms of skin pigmentation and "Europid" in ancestry in theory?
You admit so here yourself, so why are you flip flopping?
Black is a perfectly legitimate word to refer to skin color for populations who have tropically adapted skin color. And this has absolutely nothing to do with race because there are no human races --Doug M
You're a flip flopper and you can't read. Even your own dictionary sites have entries that acknowledge that 'black' is ALSO applied racially.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: And again, that one passage did not change the fact that Mr Baker later on said the AE were "Europids". You can't have it both ways.
Doug, stop flip flopping.
According to you there are:
'Black' skinned Pinoy (Filipino folk) 'Black' skinned Indonesians 'Black' skinned aboriginals from the Philippines and elsewhere in the Pacific 'Black' skinned Africans 'Black' skinned South Asians 'Black' skinned Native Americans
But somehow 'black' skinned "Europids" is an inherent contradiction? If you think it's a contradiction and you bar "Europids" from having 'black' skin, it's because you're racializing 'black' and because you have all sorts of sneaky rules, exceptions and racial politics considerations when it comes to discerning who has 'black' skin.
Flip flopper.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
"Black" in America has always been a reference to "Negroes" from Africa.
Swenet did you notice Doug saying this a couple of posts back ? He's right. "Black" in America is not applied to any dark skinned person. It is applied to Africans
/close thread
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
@Beyoko (and all ESers)
I agree the exact haplotype of any study mummy is extinct as you put it. But we know STR profiles are not inherited intact. They are a random jumble generated from both parents.
Because of that fact they do not have a lifetime spanning 3300 years as many are supposing. Amarna profiles cannot indicate descent and migration from ancient Egypt to our times much less the reverse scenario of migration from any place in the present back into time as the truly ignorant have maintained.
Yet both modes of thought seem the only alternatives to some
Years ago when the forum looked into Hawass (actually Pusch & Zinc) 2010 I noticed a parent's profile affiliation is not shared by the child and so I realized while they factually show parental descent they do not show ethnic group nor localized population descent.
Just by random happenstance profiles congeal and dissolve. Since they are ephemeral I think it prudent to examine discrete locus values for regional geo- ethnic indicative markers.
I'm thinking about a new thread to revisit the Tel Amarna mummy STRs focusing on loci with the profiles pushed to the background.
There aren't many left who could drop heavy insights to make it worth my while. The hard work requires you, Swenet, and me backed by ARtU and Xyyman with 'a little help from my friends' Ish Gebor, Mr Cordova, DougM, Djehuti, and Brandon. C Coke and, of course, the Lioness will keep us honest and myself as Ardo sweeping it troll free but only by panel approval.
Well, what say ye all listed preapproved panelists ( and the rest who must be on that list but escape my absent mind)?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
There is another "affiliator" program called Omnipop I don't if it's still available. I works a bit differently
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Yep, OmniPop is the shis as I think it was Xyyman hipped us to it before.
I've just manually checked the frequencies of the three founding matriarchs and patriarchs of Tut's family in living populations and their alleles are most common in Egyptian Copts as opposed to Namibians or Tanzanians. Somalis are right behind the Copts, but a Nubian sample would be better.
Unfortunately there is no other SSA sample to further delve into this. There is one combined SSA sample that the webmaster intended to be in there, but it links to the wrong (a Sri Lankan) sample.
Of course, when you pool such Copts with strongly hybridized Maghrebis or Levantines, you're going to get DNA tribes' result, which assigns the pooled North African region a low MLI score. Of course, Copts can be hybridized too, but at least the groups they hybridized with have/had substantial ancient Egyptian ancestry. Maghrebis hybridized mainly with Iberian groups. Huge difference.
So much for Amun's literalist interpretation of DNA tribes' Amarna results.
I'm reluctant to post my results because I haven't double checked everything. I already rushed things yesterday and then had to go back and correct it. But interested parties can check for themselves. This is the page with popaffiliator's downloadable genotype data:
I will add European and Middle Eastern data to my analysis tomorrow and if things fall in line in a way that is consistent with the known cline of Egyptian ancestry in Eurasia, I will consider my crude investigation's results valid--with or without additional SSA samples (note by the way that this cline of ancient Egyptian ancestry in Eurasia has little South Africa-specific or Great Lakes-specific ancestry in it, which is why I will NEVER accept a literal interpretation of DNA Tribes).
@lioness
If you're interested in ancestry amounts I guess one could use Omnipop. But I wasn't interested in that when I cited popaffiliator, and I'm not convinced that these tools can reliably do that with 8 STR profiles.
The reason why I brought up popaffiliator is to show that such tools WILL 'predict' a North African regional origin for the pharaohs IF if given the option to consider the appropriate North Africans.
Incrementally adding dummy alleles doesn't make the prediction percentages flip flop from a Sub Saharan prediction to a North African prediction. And if your dummy alleles make the predictions fluctuate strongly you can see it and play with it until it accepts a dummy value that doesn't substantially change the results.
The goal of using dummy values is just to get your foot in the door just enough to get it to give you its 5 population predictions, not to get 'accurate' results. There is no such thing as 'accurate' ancestry results when you're working with 8 STR profiles, anyway. You want the five population results to see if it will assign a Sub-Saharan African or a North African origin to the ancient Egyptians.
By keeping your eye on the 3 population predictions while you incrementally add dummy values, you can tell whether your dummy value is steering the predictions in the 'wrong' direction and, if so, go back and try another approach.
Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
Doug should just admit that he uses 'black' in a racial sense instead of insisting that his definition is strictly contingent on the colour itself. I don't think that it's wrong to use 'black' in a racial sense.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
I already demonstrated the methodology flaw of fudging data to insert for PopAffiliator and that the 90% accuracy of the 3 group result vs 65% accuracy of 5 group result which is not a refinement of the 3 group return.
Even Dienekes realized PopAffiliator is unsuited for 8 locus MiniFiler data.
Manipulating input data so it delivers desirable returns, shame, shame.
It is not scientific to approach an iinvestigation bringing adamant precon lusions. That is the bias of those who cannot tolerate any view and out of hand reject that which smashes their pet guesses.
Simply put, it is shooting an arrow first and later ddrawing the target to feign bullseye.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
You guys still at it? Huh!? Ya’ll know there are other tools besides PopAffliator freely available on the internet. In fact At most 2 STR values are needed to get a preliminary indication of population affinity. ALL corraborate DNATribes. Who are we trying to convince now? SMH
Come on my man. Give it up.
“I've just manually checked the frequencies of the three founding matriarchs and patriarchs of Tut's family in living populations and their alleles are most common in Egyptian Copts as opposed to Namibians or Tanzanians. Somalis are right behind the Copts, but a Nubian sample would be better.”
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
@ Sage. If you are willing to revisit the STR values , I am in. I am not clear on what we are going to gain. But let see what you have. Keep it Troll free and we are good.
I am not sure I follow you. Are you saying the STR values may differ between a parent to child based upon recombination so much that the result may indicate two DIFFERENT geographic origin.?
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
You guys do know the game FTDNA played when they assigned certain STRs to certain geographic regions around the World? They singled out “ONE” STR at a time then found the population with the highest frequency and labeled that STR. That is why they came up with a label such as “Native American” gene for some Amarnas. Looking at ONE STR is misleading and a marketing ploy. With a minimum of 2 STR’s the picture changes and population affinity emerges. This is not very difficult to understand. Posted on ESR. But if we want to continue to discuss it and have NEW revelation. I am game.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Also keep in mind it is not the specific STR that differentiates geographic populations but the number “repeats” since all populations have an African origin all will have the same STR but it is the AMOUNT of repeats where we differ. That is why Amazigh are classified as “Negros” in CODIS-like systems. That is why “recombination” is insignificant. But I am open to new ideas.
For the Newbies. Hypothetically , take the STR TPOX for example Africans may have a RANGE of 5-10 repeats, Europeans will have 11-15 repeats while Asian and Native Americans will have 15-20.
While with another STR Africans may carry 20-30 repeats, and Native American 3-5 repeats. That is why you can NOT just take ONE STR and come to conclusion. You need at least TWO to get a preliminary idea. But two will do it! The more the merrier. Lol!
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
I popSTRed Thuya and North Africa was the weakest surpassed by all the other African regions.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote: Originally posted by Xyyman: You guys still at it? Huh!? Ya’ll know there are other tools besides PopAffliator freely available on the internet. In fact At most 2 STR values are needed to get a preliminary indication of population affinity. ALL corraborate DNATribes. Who are we trying to convince now? SMH
Come on my man. Give it up.
It's not a matter of what does or doesn't "corroborate" DNA Tribes. I never said I don't accept their results. I said I don't take their MLI scores literally.
And DNA Tribes own reading of their results is consistent with everything I've said here. DNA Tribes evoke southward migrations from the Nile Valley as an explanation or their results--as do I. DNA Tribes says trying to interpret their MLI scores without looking at the accompanying TribeScores is pretty much groping in the dark.
We already discussed this, and you have yet to address what I said back then without copping out: Per the TribeScores, Ramses III and Pentawer are by far the best fit in the "Horn of Africa" DNA Tribes region. The fact that the South African, Great Lakes and West African DNA Tribes regions have poorer TribeScores is consistent with my interpretation of the data.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
We are beating a dead horse. SMH. I will sit on the sidelines until something gets my interest. I thought Sage had new information. Salom!.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: We are beating a dead horse. SMH. I will sit on the sidelines until something gets my interest. I thought Sage had new information. Salom!.
^Running back then, and still running now.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet in 2014: Ramses III's TribeScores relative to DNA Tribes' Old World top 6 regional constructs:
Horn region - 0.93 Great Lakes region - 0.84 Tropical West African - 0.76 Levantine - 0.76 North African - 0.75 Southern African - 0.74
^Stop running Xyyman. You've been running for almost two years now on the TribeScore data. Address the issue.
Even as hybridized as DNA Tribes' pooled North Africa region is, Ramses III's genetics—as captured by his STR profile—fits equally well in the Levantine, North African, South African and West African regions.
The only region that towers above this with a wide margin is DNA Tribes Horn of Africa region (which includes more than just Ethiopia; I'm not talking about Ethiopians). If DNA Tribes North Africa region wasn't so mixed, you and I both know that the North Africa region would dwarf these the other regions as well, in terms of both MLI scores and TribeScores.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
That is not how DNAtribes explained the use of TribeScores. Let me repost them without any spin.
Now we should not be chasing non- replicable MLIs and TribeScores. The pertinent thing is independently and without a priori bias investigating Tel Amarna STR profile haplogroups revealed in the 8 loci of Hawass 2010 and recording their locus pair values for present day geo-ethnic matches of highest frequency regardless of wwhat we wish to find and accept those findings no matter how far removed from expectations.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
MLI scores are proprietary to DNAtribes. Only they know how to compute them. Others assuming to fudge around with MLI scores are doing nothing more than indulging speculations.
quote:Q: What are MLI scores?
A: Each DNA Tribes Native and Global Population Match and World Region Match is listed with a Match Likelihood Index (MLI) score that indicates your odds of belonging to that population relative to your odds of belonging to a generic human population. For instance, a Native Population Match with Macedonia scored 45.2 indicates your genetic ancestry is 45.2 times as likely in Macedonia as in the world.
Q: What are typical scores for my ethnic group? Are my scores very high or low?
A: Individuals within each population exhibit a characteristic range of world region scores. This range varies by world region and ethnicity. For this reason, each MLI score in your population and world region rankings is assigned a percentile-based TribeScore that expresses how your MLI score fits among members of that population or region.
Q: What are TribeScores?
TribeScores are a unique scoring method developed by DNA Tribes that compares a person's match scores for a population to the scores of actual members within that ethnic group or region. Each DNA Tribes match includes a TribeScore in parentheses, listing your MLI score’s percentile in that population. TribeScores compares your MLI scores to members of each ethnic group and world region. For instance, results listing “Switzerland (0.73)” indicate that your MLI score is higher than 73% of scores from this Swiss reference population, and lower than 27% of these Swiss individuals. TribeScores of (0.05) and above are within the expected range for a population, and TribeScores between the (0.25) and above are ordinary or typical for members of that population. TribeScores indicate how high or low your score is in the specific context of each population, providing the necessary point of reference to explain each MLI score
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
may be someone can bump that thread...don't need to rehash same ole same ole
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
@Xyyman
Good. Go Google that thread. When you're ready to address the fact that the pharaonic STR profiles are a better fit among members of DNA Tribes' Sudan + Horn composite region (per DNA Tribes) than among members of other African DNA Tribes regions, get back to me.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
There's a reason to revisit things.
People don't reread 25 page threads trying to filter the irrelevant stuff.
Best to do as the Lioness and open up a new thread.
But I'm not putting out solo effort and if we can't make a panel to look into this then I'm not bothering because it was already done 5 years ago.
Southern and Great Lakes Africa have the greatest affiliatiosn by far with the Amarna STRs that are known geo-ethnic markers.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
There's a reason to revisit things.
People don't reread 25 page threads trying to filter the irrelevant stuff.
Best to do as the Lioness and open up a new thread.
But I'm not putting out solo effort and if we can't make a panel to look into this then I'm not bothering because it was already done 5 years ago.
Southern and Great Lakes Africa have the greatest affiliatiosn by far with the Amarna STRs that are known geo-ethnic markers.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
@Xyyman
Just plugged this African American's STR profile into popaffiliator:
This is the individual's STR profile (this STR set is fully compatible with popaffiliator's 34 input slots):
These are this individual's popaffiliator results:
(5 population predictions) North Africa: 59.6% Sub-Saharan Africa: 37.4% Eurasia: 1.7% Asia: 1% Near East: 0.4%
(3 population predictions) Sub-Saharan Africa: 91.8% Eurasia: 4.1% Asia: 4.1%
These are his regional MLI score results:
Again, the above individual is an African American who took DNA Tribes' STR test.
A literal interpretation of this individual's world region match MLI scores would lead to the conclusion that (s)he is most likely to be a West African with no outside influence. A literal interpretation of this individual's global population match scores would suggest that (s)he is more likely to be a mainland African than an African American.
Popaffiliator suggests that (s)he's not completely Sub-Saharan African in this 17 STR profile
This individual's TribeScores suggests that (s)he doesn't rank particularly high among individuals within the Tropical West African region where most African Americans come from. His/her best TribeScore is with the Sudan + Horn composite region (which is interesting because African American genomes do tend to cluster close to Maasai and other East African groups in PCA). In the global population match rankings you can clearly see that, while the MLI scores get it completely wrong, this African American has the best TribeScore with low MLI scoring Afro-Carribeans from the UK (0.77) and from the Bahamas (0.62).
From this individual's heritage (African American) we KNOW that (s)he's not as Sub-Saharan in this 17 STR profile as most West Africans.
Which result is closer to the mark? The world region and global population match MLI scores or the popaffiliator and TribeScore results?
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
The bizarre Eurocentric fictions.
Eurocentric explains what's black and what's not black. The boy is obsessed with terms like caucasoids and negroid.
NO MATTER WHAT MIXTURE PEOPLE MIXED WITH, ALL OF THE MIXTURE MAKES BROWN.
BLACK COLOR, WHITE COLOR, RED COLOR, YELLOW COLOR, ORIGINAL COLORS, BROWN COLOR'S MIXTURE
Black Mixes With Red
Child Comes Out Red
THE CHILD RED OR BROWN
Child Comes out Black
THE CHILD BLACK OR BROWN
Meaning Yellow Mixes With White
Child Comes Out White
THE CHILD WHITE OR BROWN
Child Comes out Yellow
THE CHILD YELLOW OR BROWN
continued repost
Meaning Yellow Mixes With Red
Child Comes Out Yellow
THE CHILD YELLOW OR BROWN
Child Comes Out Red
THE CHILD RED OR BROWN
Black Mixes with White..
Child comes out White
THE CHILD WHITE OR BROWN
Child comes out Black
THE CHILD BLACK OR BROWN
Black mixes with Yellow..
Child comes out Yellow
THE CHILD YELLOW OR BROWN
Child comes out Black
THE CHILD BLACK OR BROWN
Black mixes with Red..
Child comes out Red
THE CHILD RED OR BROWN
Child Comes out Black
THE CHILD BLACK OR BROWN
etc for all Peoples Mixtures..
BROWN IS MIXTURE.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Swenet, you lost the argument. Black has always been a reference to the skin color of Africans and other tropically adapted people around the planet, including by racists and other scholars over the last 400 years.
Doug, go peddle your BS elsewhere. You have no credibility when you say that you believe that 'black' refers to skin color only. Just a post ago you said this:
I am not peddling anything other than the fact that you keep pushing this thread to infinite numbers of pages trying avoid the point you have been shown to be wrong over and over again, going all the way back to the beginning where you claimed that Jahiz and the Greeks were not referring to skin color when they described Africans as black. And you are still trying to deny it even when your own references say so in black and white.
According to you:
Jahiz and the Greeks were referring to the cellular structure of African people when they called them blacks.
And later Medieval Europeans were referring to genetic structures when calling them black.
And even later racists were referring to hemoglobin levels when calling them black.
All of which is pure bull sh*t. You know it yet you are still trying to claim that black is and hasn't always been a reference to skin color.
quote: And again, that one passage did not change the fact that Mr Baker later on said the AE were "Europids". You can't have it both ways. --Doug M
Why are 'black skin' and "Europid race" mutually exclusive if 'black' only refers to skin color and "Europid" only to ancestry? One can't be 'black' in terms of skin pigmentation and "Europid" in ancestry in theory?
The point is Mr Baker called them Europids not Aethiopids. The two are not the same people and therefore to claim that one is the same as the other is simply you plainly putting words into Mr Bakers mouth. You have been doing this with every source you cite yet when they say something contradicting your point you avoid it. He also called them Tawny. So is tawny the same as black now? Nowhere is Mr Baker calling the AE black people. Yet you keep sitting here claiming that somehow in some way he is and he is not. Now you are going so far to reiterate this nonsense that Europids (whatever that is) means black too. Everything means black to you except the word black which makes your whole argument stupid.
quote: You admit so here yourself, so why are you flip flopping?
No. I never called Europids "black people".
You are simply hilarious in your nonsense.
quote: Black is a perfectly legitimate word to refer to skin color for populations who have tropically adapted skin color. And this has absolutely nothing to do with race because there are no human races --Doug M
You're a flip flopper and you can't read. Even your own dictionary sites have entries that acknowledge that 'black' is ALSO applied racially.
I have been saying the same thing since page one and the point is YOU have not shown that black as used since ancient times is not a reference to skin color even when your own sources say so. It doesn't matter if Mr Baker used the word black, he wrote a book on race where the authors he cited who were also racists also used the word black plainly and unambiguously as a reference to skin color.
Yet you tell me I am flip flopping.
So whenever you learn how to accept English as what it is let me know, because right now your whole point is fighting the english language.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: And again, that one passage did not change the fact that Mr Baker later on said the AE were "Europids". You can't have it both ways.
Doug, stop flip flopping.
According to you there are:
'Black' skinned Pinoy (Filipino folk) 'Black' skinned Indonesians 'Black' skinned aboriginals from the Philippines and elsewhere in the Pacific 'Black' skinned Africans 'Black' skinned South Asians 'Black' skinned Native Americans
But somehow 'black' skinned "Europids" is an inherent contradiction? If you think it's a contradiction and you bar "Europids" from having 'black' skin, it's because you're racializing 'black' and because you have all sorts of sneaky rules, exceptions and racial politics considerations when it comes to discerning who has 'black' skin.
Flip flopper.
The only one stupid is you because you keep calling Europeans black, when last I checked Europeans are white. So again in your silly logic there is no skin color. Everybody is all the same. All those folks you listed all have the same skin color right?
Because you sound stupid.
The point is there are black populations all over the planet because of tropical adaptation.
You have not disproven this. You are simply talking stupidity.
Don't you know it was the Chinese and Europeans who called the Filippinos black?
Oh but that didn't mean skin color did it?
You are simply all over the place with your refusal to accept facts.
Skin color is a fact of human biology. Race is not.
You refuse to understand this.
Yet you claim to know something about biology.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: Doug should just admit that he uses 'black' in a racial sense instead of insisting that his definition is strictly contingent on the colour itself. I don't think that it's wrong to use 'black' in a racial sense.
Why don't you admit it? Because you are the only one who seems to be claiming this?
Black people are people with black skin. Just as white people are people with white skin.
Skin color is a fact of human nature.
There are people in as dark as the darkest African outside Africa. All of those people are black. There is nothing 'racial' about it. Skin color is not race because there are no human races.
So you are making a stupid point.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
See what I mean Sudaniya? This guy is not addressing any of your points. He's addressing his own figments and then projecting them onto you.
Doug, you're spinning out of control with your strawman attacks. Your posts have dwindled down to a messy heap of unintelligible crap. I would ask you to prove I said any of that, but I know from my past attempts to get you to prove your accusations that you will simply cop out.
Your attempts to describe people's views always come out botched and a funky mix of fact and fiction—usually more of the latter. You can't read, dude.
Look at how you're reaching trying to apply telepathy to what Sudaniya is saying. Lol.
Doug debates you with 5% of actual reading and 95% attempts at ESP. Here is an example of Doug applying ESP. He thinks he can bend reality to make it conform to his flip flops. That's why, when you call out his flip flops, he still thinks he's right.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The point is Mr Baker called them Europids not Aethiopids.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: And he point blank says Aethiopids are a subrace of Europids....
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: What he actually says is that the AE were a branch of the Aethiopid RACE with Europid RACE mixture.
More of Doug's epic flip flops:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Race historically has always been based on skull measurements not skin color.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: No it means skin color is the basis of race,
Doug debunked by his own dictionary pages as both of them say that 'black' has also been used to describe a perceived racial group, i.e. Sub-Saharan Africans and their descendants in the diaspora:
quote:Black, designating Americans of African heritage, became the most widely used and accepted term in the 1960s and 1970s, replacing Negro. It is not usually capitalized: black Americans. Through the 1980s, the more formal African American replaced black in much usage, but both are now generally acceptable. Afro-American, first recorded in the 19th century and popular in the 1960s and 1970s, is now heard mostly in anthropological and cultural contexts.
quote:of or relating to the African-American people or their culture <black literature> <a black college> <black pride> <black studies> (3) : typical or representative of the most readily perceived characteristics of black culture <trying to sound black> <tried to play blacker jazz>
^Doug's own sources don't even agree with his fabrication that 'black' only refers to dark skin pigmentation. Since the two dictionary entries he selectively posted out of these dictionary pages are the only 'sources' he has to peddle his BS claims, it's game over for him.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: My interpretation is that DNA Tribes' observation that dynastic Egypt-related genetic material is found more in South Africa and Great Lakes obviously doesn't mean automatically that the ancestry component that is NATIVE to these regions has anything directly to do with Dynastic Egyptians. Let alone in a way that TRUMPS regions like ancient Lower Nubia and the Central Sahara.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Khoisan today may have substantial non-Khoisan genetic material (including from Afroasiatic speakers). Therefore, Khoisan groups may rank higher than expected in lists of MLI scores for Ethiopians for this reason. Obviously such rankings are suspect and don't automatically mean that the ancestry component that is native to Khoisan drives this high MLI score ranking.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: What some here do is conveniently take the MLI scores of Sub-Saharan Africans with known Egyptian-like or at least Eastern Sahara genetic influences and who were mostly out of reach of recent Eurasian admixture and compare their MLI scores to the MLI scores of groups in North Africa and other regions that are hybridized today. SMH.
quote: The culture during this time appeared to focus on lake based on numerous barbed bone harpoon points and aquatic bone remains (tortoise, crocodile, but predominantly fish). In addition, wavy-line pottery shards and Later Stone Age microliths have been uncovered. Furthermore, harpoon points and wavy-line pottery are quite similar to artifacts found in the Sahara and Sudan and indicate migration to and from the Turkana Basin.
As Beyoku pointed out, such finds of Saharan pottery near Lake Turkana are not new. Bone harpoons in and near Central Africa certainly aren't new either. Their significance here, at least to me, has to do with their early dates and the fact that the bone harpoons are said to be of the eastern Saharan variety in this case.
Quite relevant given Amun's wet dream that the Great Lakes MLI scores aren't at least partly due to migration and somehow necessarily reflect direct relationships that trump AE relationships to groups in DNA Tribes regions with a seemingly low MLI score.
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
Yeah I am seeing the in consistence. I thought his meaning of "black" was strictly USA based, but it seems to be all over the place.
Doug M is your view of black strictly "color" or phenotype based? I'm not trying to insult you.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: Yeah I am seeing the in consistence. I thought his meaning of "black" was strictly USA based, but it seems to be all over the place.
Doug M is your view of black strictly "color" or phenotype based? I'm not trying to insult you.
Doug's view is that the predominant definition of black is based on skin color alone and he has stated that 534 times in this thread, you need to read it. Doug's view is there are two types of people in the world "black" and "white", any person falls into one of these two categories. Similarly Doug defines "white" strictly according to skin color and has stated there are white East Asians
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: See what I mean Sudaniya? This guy is not addressing any of your points. He's addressing his own figments and then projecting them onto you.
Doug, you're spinning out of control with your strawman attacks. Your posts have dwindled down to a messy heap of unintelligible crap. I would ask you to prove I said any of that, but I know from my past attempts to get you to prove your accusations that you will simply cop out.
Your attempts to describe people's views always come out botched and a funky mix of fact and fiction—usually more of the latter. You can't read, dude.
Look at how you're reaching trying to apply telepathy to what Sudaniya is saying. Lol.
Doug debates you with 5% of actual reading and 95% attempts at ESP. Here is an example of Doug applying ESP. He thinks he can bend reality to make it conform to his flip flops. That's why, when you call out his flip flops, he still thinks he's right.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The point is Mr Baker called them Europids not Aethiopids.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: And he point blank says Aethiopids are a subrace of Europids....
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: What he actually says is that the AE were a branch of the Aethiopid RACE with Europid RACE mixture.
More of Doug's epic flip flops:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Race historically has always been based on skull measurements not skin color.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: No it means skin color is the basis of race,
Doug debunked by his own dictionary pages as both of them say that 'black' has also been used to describe a perceived racial group, i.e. Sub-Saharan Africans and their descendants in the diaspora:
quote:Black, designating Americans of African heritage, became the most widely used and accepted term in the 1960s and 1970s, replacing Negro. It is not usually capitalized: black Americans. Through the 1980s, the more formal African American replaced black in much usage, but both are now generally acceptable. Afro-American, first recorded in the 19th century and popular in the 1960s and 1970s, is now heard mostly in anthropological and cultural contexts.
quote:of or relating to the African-American people or their culture <black literature> <a black college> <black pride> <black studies> (3) : typical or representative of the most readily perceived characteristics of black culture <trying to sound black> <tried to play blacker jazz>
^Doug's own sources don't even agree with his fabrication that 'black' only refers to dark skin pigmentation. Since the two dictionary entries he selectively posted out of these dictionary pages are the only 'sources' he has to peddle his BS claims, it's game over for him.
Swenet you aren't making any point and all you are doing is rehashing. You simply are not making any sense and you have not addressed anything said to you over the last 19 pages of this thread. Therefore, I will just repost what has previously been posted since you like rehashing just to show how you keep trying to beat a dead horse to prove you won something when you lost on page 1.
Every time I prove you wrong using your own citations and references you simply ignore it and keep on trolling with more nonsense...
So of course, nothing below was said by Mr Baker and according to you he is saying the AE were "black", some other kind of way.
No he wasn't. You are literally putting words into peoples mouths with this nonsense argument that you can reword or interpret the writings of racists and other scholars who reject the term black and somehow spin it to mean just the opposite of what it means: that the people were not black skinned.
You keep trying to claim that Mr Baker calls the AE brown skinned Aethiopids, but what he actually says is that they were tawny Europids.
That is the point. This is where you lost but you can continue to spin it and pretend that "even the racists agree" with the AE were "brown skinned" nonsense when your own references do not say this.
So give it up. You lost.
Liar.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet Stop flip flopping. That lie went out the window when you refused to acknowledge Baker's statement that they had reddish brown SKIN, simply because he aligned them with the European RACE. Mind you, this followed after your complaints about how race has nothing to do with 'black' skin. As if that embarrassing flip flop didn't take the cake, you also suggested that clustering cranio-facially with Maghrebis is mutually exclusive with having a 'black' skin:
Here is the problem. He doesn't say that. That is the point. You keep saying he does but he does not and I showed you he does not but you still keep insisting he says he does.
You are the one who has spent the last 15 pages trying to defend white racists claiming they "know the AE were black" yet I keep posting how you are putting words into their mouths and simply lying outright in many cases.
Thats fine. YOU are defending racists saying what they don't say.
Call it whatever you want but racists like Baker are not calling the AE black in any kind of way.
Here is what Mr Baker actually says:
quote: The descendants of Ham were the Hamites, but here again we are in difficulty, because it is uncertain who the Hamites were. Since Canaan was one of the sons of Ham, it seems reasonable to suppose that the Canaanites were Hamites. Usually, however, the Hamites of the Bible are assumed to have been the early Egyptians, who are thought to have been Protomediterranids hybridized with Orientalids; but Chapter x of Genesis makes it clear that the Sumerians and Assyrians, among others, were also descendants of Ham. Certain authorities have supposed that the Hamites were Negrids. It has, indeed, been claimed that the latter were descendants of Phut, one of Ham"s sons; but it is doubtful whether much was known of Negrids by the writers of Genesis, x, and Phut"s descendants do not appear to have made any clear mark on the available historical records. The Japhetic peoples are usually supposed to have been of "Indo-European" or "Indo-Germanic" stock; but these expressions, based on linguistic studies, are not translatable into ethnic terms. Evidence has been brought forward for the view that the Japhetic peoples were in fact Armenids and Alpinids.
It is impossible to draw any definite conclusions from the account in Genesis of the origin of the various peoples to whom reference is made, beyond the fact that they were all supposed to have sprung from a common ancestor; but it seems very probable that they were all Europids. Whatever the correct interpretation may be, there is no doubt that hybridization among subraces occurred in Palestine and Mesopotamia in biblical times, and that the Hebrews were strongly urged by some of their spiritual leaders to avoid it. Although the ethnic taxa in question were only subraces of the same (Europid) race as themselves, there was no question of "equality" in the minds of the leaders. It was legitimate to despise people of another taxon that was regarded as more primitive.
....
Those in modern times who overstress the significance of 'colour' would receive a wholesome corrective on reading the excellent essay on physical anthropology written by an anonymous traveller and published in the Journal des Sgavans in 1684. In this very remarkable work on the geographical distribution of human "Especes ou Races", the author clearly recognizes that the people of North Africa, Arabia, and India belong to the same race as those of Europe. He writes on the subject of colour as follows. For although the Egyptians, for instance, and the Indians are very black, or rather tawny, this colour is nevertheless only accidental to them, and comes only because they expose themselves to the sun; for those who take care of themselves and are not obliged to expose themselves to it as often as the common people are, are not blacker than many Spaniards. It is true that most Indians have something rather different from us in the expression of the face and in the colour, which often tends towards yellow; but that does not seem sufficient to make a particular species; for otherwise it would be necessary to make one also for the Spaniards, another for the Germans, and similarly for several other peoples of Europe. The author sharply distinguishes certain other "coloured" races from the Indians, by morphological criteria. He considered the women of Lahore the most beautiful of India. These would have been Nordindids (Indo-Afghans). Some of the important facts first clearly established by the anonymous traveller were well exhibited in the atlas published by de Vaugondy nearly a century later. The area of "iLes Europeens", identified by the appearance of the face (visage), includes not only Europe itself (apart from the extreme north of Scandinavia and the region north of the Black Sea), but also Africa north of the Sahara, Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India as far south as the River Ganges.
It was already recognized in the seventeenth century that the skin-colour of certain races of man was not solely due to the action of the sun's rays during the life of the individual. One Leutholf or Ludolfus, writing in 1691, put the matter very clearly in a commentary published separately from his book on Africa. "But still", he says, "within the range of the tropical sun there are nations if not actually white, at any rate not actually black; many are far distant from the equator, beyond one tropic or the other, such as the inhabitants of Persia or Syria, or the Cape of Good Hope, for example, and nevertheless they are very black." Ludolfus refers to the blackness of the native inhabitants of Ceylon and other countries and remarks, "If you attribute the natural cause fof their skin-colour to the heavens and the sun, why do not white men who grow old in these regions become black?" There is here clear recognition of the reality of genetic differences between ethnic taxa.
...
Rousseau was by no means the only celebrated author of the eighteenth century who contributed to the discussion of the ethnic problem. Some of the greatest philosophical and political thinkers of the period-Montesquieu, Hume, Kant, and Voltaire among them made comments, though mostly short ones. Some of these were merely satirical, and therefore not helpful in the search for truth. Thus Montesquieu wrote of the Negro in De Vesprit des lois: "Those concerned are black from the feet to the head; and they have the nose squashed so flat that it is almost impossible to pity them. One cannot take it into one’s mind that God, who is a wise being, has placed a soul, especially a good soul, in a wholly black body." The irony is so heavy-handed in the passage from which this extract is taken, that it cannot be regarded as effective even by the standards according to which this kind of rhetoric is commonly judged. The Scottish philosopher and historian David Hume was one of those opponents of conventional religious thought who did not hesitate to express their belief in the inferiority of certain ethnic taxa. In his Essays, moral and political he writes, "And indeed, there is some Reason to think, that all the Nations, which live beyond the polar Circles or betwixt the Tropics, are inferior to the rest of the Species, and are utterly incapable of all the higher Attainments of the human Mind." He remarked, however, that there was no relation between intelligence and latitude within the limits of the temperate zone. Hume was particularly impressed by the ease with which Negroes could be bribed by the gift of alcoholic drinks. He noted that the character of the Chinese was remarkably uniform over a huge area, in which the climatic conditions varied widely from place to place, and he concluded that the differences in "Temper" of the various nations could not be due solely to the physical environment. He thought, however, that fortuitous circumstances might have produced some of the differences. In developing nations, a few persons gain control and eventually influence the mass of the people. Since the governing body is small, there must be a large element of chance in its composition. .... Gobineau considered that most scientific observers showed a marked tendency to present an unduly low estimate of primitive human types. "In the most repugnant cannibals", he claimed, "there remains a spark of divine fire, and the faculty of understanding can kindle itself at least to a certain degree." Gobineau’s principal criterion for judging the superiority of a race was its capacity to originate a great civilization. In his opinion there had been ten such civilizations in the course of history, seven in the Old World and three in America. The seven were those of the Indians, Egyptians, Assyrians, Greeks, Chinese, Romans, and finally the races germaniques. The American civilizations were those of the Meghaniens, Mexicans, and Peruvians. It should be pointed out that at the time when Gobineau wrote, it was scarcely possible to realize that the culture of the Assyrians was derived from that of the Sumerians. His Alleghanian civilization was presumably a branch of the ancient "Mound-building" culture, subsequently recognized as widespread in the United States. It is clear that by the name "races germaniques" Gobineau meant the Nordid subrace. He attributed the civilization of modern Europe to people of this stock, who had intermarried to some extent with Slavs and others without degrading too quickly their natural instinct of initiative. The Germanics were, for Gobineau, a branch of the ‘Aryan race’, to which he ascribed, in part at least, no fewer than six of the great civilizations of the Old World all, that is to say, except the Assyrian; for he considered that culture had been brought to China by Aryans of India. The Aryans, in his sense, appear to have been the various peoples who spoke Indogermanic languages, for he did not define them in terms of physical anthropology. He regarded them as the great initiators of civilization. Gobineau’s long book ends on a pessimistic note. Hybridization was destroying the great civilizations of modern times as it had destroyed those of the past. "Thus mixture, mixture everywhere, always mixture: that is the clearest, most certain, the most durable work of great societies and powerful civilizations." He recognizes two periods in the existence of man on earth. "The one, which has passed, will have witnessed and possessed the youth, the vigour, the intellectual grandeur of the species; the other, which has begun, will know the faltering procession towards decrepitude." .... The Nilotids remained for a long time almost free from external influence. The ancient camel-routes across the Sahara passed well to the west of them, and the Nile itself was far from providing a convenient approach. Direct passage up the river from Egypt was made difficult not only by the cataracts in the lower part of its course, but even more so further upstream by the periodical accumulation of enormous masses of entangled aquatic vegetation. For long ages this sudd constituted a formidable barrier between the Egyptians and the Negrid tribes to the south.
Although the inhabitants of Egypt throughout the dynastic period were similar to one another in many respects, they were differentiated at first into two local forms, one of them occupying the Fayum and parts of the country in the vicinity of the lower Nile, and the other living far upstream, in the region called the Thebaid. In anthropological studies the former region is referred to as "Lower Egypt", though it does not correspond exactly with the modern province of that name; the other is called "Upper Egypt". The Upper Egyptians had narrower skulls, and consequently somewhat lower cranial indices (commonly about 73 -5, in comparison with 75 0 or rather more among the Lower Egyptians) and one may condense a very large body of statistical data into a few words by saying that in all the six criteria by which Egyptian skulls can be distinguished from Negrid ones, the Upper Egyptian skulls approximated at first a little more closely towards the Negrid condition than did those from Lower Egypt. This differentiation did not persist, however. Extremely gradually, as one dynasty succeeded another, over an immense period, the skulls of the Upper Egyptians changed, until at last they were scarcely distinguishable from those of the Lower Egyptians, even by the most refined statistical techniques. Morant considers two possible causes of the change: either miscegenation in Upper Egypt on a very large scale, with eventual predominance of the Lower Egyptian element, or an independent evolutionary change in the Upper Egyptian population. He does not decide the question, but the former possibility seems much the more probable of the two. Eickstedt maintained a third opinion, that the Upper Egyptians were pushed out of the country towards the south by their relatives from downstream. Whichever hypothesis is correct, the population of the whole country became almost homogeneous, with attenuation of the Negrid element. The Fellahin and Copts of modern Egypt are regarded as scarcely modified descendants of the Egyptians of late dynastic times
Now you are sitting here saying that he is saying they are black some kind of way but in reality he is doing what racists have always been doing, trying to make Ancient Egypt part of the white European "race".
Suffice to say, he is not calling them black because in his own words, they are a sub population of "Europids" and not "darker than Spaniards". Which means interchangeable with White Europeans.
But this is the point. These racist scholars make up racial categories so that they can include white Europeans into other populations that have no European ancestry. It is pseudo science and hardly based on anything we would consider logical science. So the problem is you are introducing these racists into the discussion knowing full well that their whole jargon is full of contradictions and inherent fallacies but you are defending them saying they 'really' mean something that they "really" don't. They simply make up any old scientific sounding reason to claim that the AE were some kind of "white European" population. That is why they created these racial categories in the first place and obviously they don't reflect anything but the racist mentality of the European. And according to that to claim that they viewed the AE as "black" like other Africans is preposterous. They don't and they are simply using pseudo science to make up distinctions in order to justify claiming these folks as part of the white "race", which is a made up concept allowing them to take non white people and turn them into white Europeans. Meaning they use words and language to mislead and misdirect versus clarify on purpose in order to support your agenda. Yet here you are posting up these people as examples of clarity in the use of language on the subject of skin color. That is simply an example of why your whole argument doesn't even make sense.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Hey flip flopper. This is the advice you need to heed:
Black people are people with black skin. Just as white people are people with white skin.
Not trying to be a pissant but I think you could've put a lot more thought into this one.
Not black by your rules:
Not black by your rules:
Not black by your rules:
STILL not black by your rules:
*almost* black by your rules:
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
↑ That is EXACTLY what it all boils down to: made-made RULES.
When I say that the AE weren't black according to a particular tradition, some knuckleheads think I'm questioning the Africanity of the AE.
If many brown and dark brown skinned North Africans fall outside of the definition of 'black' of a particular observer, and I acknowledge that such a definition exists (e.g. Ptolemy who only considered the tribes around Meroe "pure Aethiopians" and "true blacks"), that doesn't mean that I'm co-signing that tradition.
SMH. These are subjective rules, and yes, if someone uses 'black' in reference to any other skin tone than what visually appears to be jet-black skin, their own definition of 'black', whatever it is, is based on subjective rules. And yes, Ptolemy's definition of who has 'black' skin is more defensible than other definitions of who has 'black' skin, including the al Jahiz one I've subscribed to in the past.
If you're going to argue that Ptolemy is wrong for applying brown to brown-skinned Egyptians and lower Nubians and black to those further south who had jet-black skin, you're chemically imbalanced and I don't need to be talking to you.
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
^Exactly...
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:The Berg Damaras have not risen to the adoption of an own national name. Everything to this effect in the literature on the subject is based on mishearing or incorrect interpretation of what has been heard. They called themselves Nu Khoin, i.e., black people, apparently to distinguish themselves from the Hottentots, whose favourite appellation for themselves was Awa Khoin, i.e., red people. It is a fact that the Berg Damaras are amongst the darkest-skinned tribes of Africa.
Again, man-made rules involved in what can be included under 'black', even in Africa. This convention here seems to mirror Ptolemy's tradition where 'black' equals jet-black skin and 'brown' (or 'red') equals brown skin.
There is no 'right' or 'wrong' as far as lay people's decisions about the range of brown skin pigmentation shades that can be called 'black'.
Just different traditions of 'black'.
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
^^Hell I heard from many people that even still to this day Fulanis in the very rural parts of Africa are still looked at as "red people" or even "white" by some Sahalian Africans. I read in medieval Africa that Fuklanis were viewed as "red people". Can't find source for that one sadly, but I do remember reading it.
Hell I'll go even further and say that I red about the IGBOS being referred to as red people by their neighbors.
This TOO correlates to Ptolemy tradition of jet black and brown.
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
@Swenet
Found it!
quote:"He disengaged himself from other life experiences and went back to a particular spot in his memory to capture the racial distinctions he was able to make. He saw no distinction in skin color between the red men in Igboland and the white men he met on the slave ship."
--Jacob Korieh. 2009. Olaudah Equiano and the Igbo world: history, society and Atlantic. 2009
But obviously these Igbos would be considered "black" in the USA.
But anyways this is exactly why I created this thread, this is exactly why I never just use skin tone to "define" a "race". Too many holes you can fall into.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Jeez how many times do Ihave to eexplain Sfican's use of red and black .
Yes red monkey and white man of Africa are what tthey call us.
We call Euros red ears but we don't call Berbers that. No Senegalese ever called me that either.
Do you have any day to day association with born and bred continental Africans
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: ...
Also the USA idea of black is not Africa's idea. In Africa people are recognized by their actual tone or the tone of the majority of their ethny.
Ethiopia has a three colour terminology tequr:black teyem:brown qey:red
Fon me-wi:black people nya/na-wi:male/female black (very dark or pitch black complexion nya/na-vo:male/female red (lighter than average skin complexion
Yoruba dudu:black light-skinned Africans are referred to as pupa:red-yellow (think 'palm oil') and funfun:White (albinos).
Ibo ojii:black ocha:white
Then there are the Kel taGelmust with their various designations for themselves, coastal Berbers, and Gnawas, yellow, white, grey; or internal assignments by class noble, vassal, and enslaved, red green black.
You black guys who have no other identity than Black just don't get it or don't want to get it. USA will never dominate our own precise choice terms for our skin colours. ]
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
@BBH interesting
Skin color conventions from Greco-Roman Egypt:
quote:Pamonthes, aged about forty-five, of middle size, dark complexion, and handsome figure, bald, round faced and straight nosed; Snachomneus, aged about twenty, of middle size, sallow complexion, round faced and straight nosed; Semmuthis Persinei, aged about twenty-two, of middle size, sallow complexion, round faced, flat nosed, and of quiet demeanour; and Tathlyt Persinei, aged about thirty, of middle size, sallow complexion, round face and straight nose,—the four being children of Petepsais, of the leather cutters of the Memnonia; and Nechutes the less, the son of Asos, aged about forty, of middle size, sallow complexion, cheerful countenance, long face and straight nose, with a scar upon the middle of his forehead.
Fayum mask from the same Greco-Roman era with "sallow" complexion:
This is the individual's STR profile (this STR set is fully compatible with popaffiliator's 34 input slots):
These are this individual's popaffiliator results:
(5 population predictions) North Africa: 59.6% Sub-Saharan Africa: 37.4% Eurasia: 1.7% Asia: 1% Near East: 0.4%
(3 population predictions) Sub-Saharan Africa: 91.8% Eurasia: 4.1% Asia: 4.1%
These are his regional MLI score results:
Again, the above individual is an African American who took DNA Tribes' STR test.
A literal interpretation of this individual's world region match MLI scores would lead to the conclusion that (s)he is most likely to be a West African with no outside influence. A literal interpretation of this individual's global population match scores would suggest that (s)he is more likely to be a mainland African than an African American.
Popaffiliator suggests that (s)he's not completely Sub-Saharan African in this 17 STR profile
This individual's TribeScores suggests that (s)he doesn't rank particularly high among individuals within the Tropical West African region where most African Americans come from. His/her best TribeScore is with the Sudan + Horn composite region (which is interesting because African American genomes do tend to cluster close to Maasai and other East African groups in PCA). In the global population match rankings you can clearly see that, while the MLI scores get it completely wrong, this African American has the best TribeScore with low MLI scoring Afro-Carribeans from the UK (0.77) and from the Bahamas (0.62).
From this individual's heritage (African American) we KNOW that (s)he's not as Sub-Saharan in this 17 STR profile as most West Africans.
Which result is closer to the mark? The world region and global population match MLI scores or the popaffiliator and TribeScore results?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler:
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: ...
Also the USA idea of black is not Africa's idea. In Africa people are recognized by their actual tone or the tone of the majority of their ethny.
Ethiopia has a three colour terminology tequr:black teyem:brown qey:red
Fon me-wi:black people nya/na-wi:male/female black (very dark or pitch black complexion nya/na-vo:male/female red (lighter than average skin complexion
Yoruba dudu:black light-skinned Africans are referred to as pupa:red-yellow (think 'palm oil') and funfun:White (albinos).
Ibo ojii:black ocha:white
Then there are the Kel taGelmust with their various designations for themselves, coastal Berbers, and Gnawas, yellow, white, grey; or internal assignments by class noble, vassal, and enslaved, red green black.
You black guys who have no other identity than Black just don't get it or don't want to get it. USA will never dominate our own precise choice terms for our skin colours. ]
Doug comment?
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
@Xyyman
It takes another thread for you to admit that the MLI scores can't be taken literally and that it's the TribeScore figures that assign the best matches to this African American every time? Mind you, the best matches (i.e. Africans in the diaspora) mostly have relatively low MLI scores.
It's obviously NOT a contradiction to have strong MLI scores with one group, yet 1) belong to a group with low MLI scores and 2) fit better in that low MLI scoring group in terms of percentile ranking. Just admit it bro.
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
@Tukuler if that post was directed at me, yes I do have contact with born and bred Africans. And matter fact I'm actually planning on visiting my sister in Ethiopia this May. And if I do, I'll share my experience how actual Africans like Ethiopians view "skin color". It should be interesting.
NO ONE is trying to FORCE USA version of black on any Africans. Especially not me, I'm just furthering Swenets point he made.
Btw if you mind me asking are you a "Sahelian" African? Because you seem to know your stuff about that region of Africa.
@Swenet
Thanks and interesting point about "sallow".
I find it funny that some arrogant Eurocentrics see "red" paintings of Egyptians and jet black paintings of Nubians and say, "SEE! SEE! DA GYPTIANS were NOT NEGROIDS!"
When Ancient people literally went by skin color such as Ptolemy. Those "red" paintings of Egyptians would have most likely been similar to those "red" Fulanis and Igbos in skin color in my honest opinion. And those "jet black" Nubians would have been similar to modern day Dinkas in Southern Sudan.
But...When we post "red paintings" of Kushites their arguments fall flat. Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Ptolemaic period – Ptolemy V Limestone, In the middle we can see Buchis, and in front of him the King Ptolemy V offers the bull the sekhet, the symbol of the fields.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Agreed. The MLI score and Tribe Score can contrast. But let me read the DNATribes writeup.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
NO ONE is trying to FORCE USA version of black on any Africans. Especially not me, I'm just furthering Swenets point he made.
You're furthering used car salesman bullshit patter.
quote:Btw if you mind me asking are you a "Sahelian" African? Because you seem to know your stuff about that region of Africa.
I'm an Americanized Mauritanian Toucouleur Fulani of the Torodbe class with very recent Libyan bani Yisra'el paternal ancestry. I have Kameroun Hamidou kinsmen and in fact my genetic profile is more indicative of Central West Africa than Atlantic West Africa.
I can only post as my new Jamakan 4th wife (all kids from previous marriages and dalliances grown and out the house) permits me to steal moments away from her attentive affection. Never thought I'd love a down yard woman but life is full of surprises, just wait you'll see.
Posted by Nodnarb (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: I'm an Americanized Mauritanian Toucouleur Fulani with very recent Libyan bani Yisra'el paternal ancestry.
Are the Toucouleur and Fulani really the same ethnic group? Because I thought they were distinct but related. Or are you a mix?
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Toucouleur are the root. Originally Fulani just designated cattle herders and "bush" folk. Toucouleur are the haughty primeval original Hal Pulaaren of Tekrur. We are 'Town Fulani' scholars and aristocrats and nobody in Senegal/Mauritania doubts that.
Posted by Nodnarb (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Toucouleur are the root. Originally Fulani just designated cattle herders and "bush" folk. Toucouleur are the haughty primeval original Hal Pulaaren of Tekrur. We are 'Town Fulani' scholars and aristocrats and nobody in Senegal/Mauritania doubts that.
I see. I admit that the recent revelation of ausar's stunts have made me more suspicious of certain people's professed ethnicities, but thanks for the clarification there.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Agreed. The MLI score and Tribe Score can contrast. But let me read the DNATribes writeup.
Who gives a **** about DNAtribes which is business proprietary not SCIENCE.
I didn't wanna post till more analysis but here's the preliminaries of that AfrAm sample profile posted earlier without paragraphs of my further analysis which may or may not be forthcoming
--------------------------------------
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Quote: -------- Summary Comments:DNA Tribes results for this person provide a detailed and comprehensive picture of their African-American ancestry including their closest genetic relatives amongst ethnic groups in both Africa and the modern African Diaspora populations as well as detailed information about other world populations where their genetic material is common. Comments for this sample individual: The Top 20 Native population matches for this individual include several indigenous African nations and tribes in our database. The listed individual MLI scores do not indicate the percentage of individual’s genetic material attributable to individual populations. Instead, these MLI scores assess the RELATIVE LIKELIHOOD of this person’s genetic make-up occurring in a particular population:
• The STRONGEST match is with a Tanzanian population where this individual’s DNA profile is 17,822,172 times more likely to occur than in the world as a whole. The TribeScore of (0.50) indicates this MLI score is higher than 50% of MLIs for sampled Tanzanian individuals; thus, this individual’s genetic make-up is quite common in this Tanzanian population. However, similar DNA profiles can be found in other native African populations: the MLI score of 13,549,274 for Angola indicates that this example DNA profile is 17,822,172 / 13,549,274 = 1.3 times more likely in Tanzania than in Angola. For both populations, the TribeScores are within the expected range of (0.25) or above which indicates this person's DNA fits well within the genetic range for members of both populations
---------------
So the issue is Tribe Score vs MLI.
The above translates to – so the Amarnas DNA material is most like to be found “IN” the Great Lakes/Southern African population. Of course the West Africans are 3rd in line.
In mathematical terms the Tribe score is a ***FUNCTION*** of the MLI score.
So in other words, the “OVERALL” Amarnas genetic material is most likely found in Southern Africans.
In the African-American Example above: 17,822,172 genetic components are found in the Tanzanian population. The most than any other population. However ONLY! ONLY! 13,549,274 genetic components from the Afram is found in the Angolan population compared to 17,822,172. Now, “WITHIN” the 13,549,274 components, >36%(Tribescore) of the Angolan population have these 13,549,274 components. Hope you get it now!
So the first thing that needs to be taken into consideration is the MLI. The Tribes Score is secondary to the MLI. Hit me up if you have any more questions.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
I just cleared it up. See above. Hope we don’t have to revisit this unless some NEW information comes up.
I don’t get it when you guys diss DNATribes. Like it is not “peer reviewed” or “it is proprietary”. Shows that you don’t UNDERSTAND what is going on and how this thing works. It is a level of ignorance. DNATribes does not need to be “peer reviewed”. Lol! What they do, YOU and ANYONE can do also. They are not conducting studies. They are processing data. It is very simple. Just as you take the Amarnas reported STR material from the JAMA report and plug it into popAffliator or OMNI. This what DNATribes did. Matched the Amarna results with from JAMA with “their” database. Simple. SMH.
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Agreed. The MLI score and Tribe Score can contrast. But let me read the DNATribes writeup.
Who gives a **** about DNAtribes which is business proprietary not SCIENCE.
I didn't wanna post till more analysis but here's the preliminaries of that AfrAm sample profile posted earlier without paragraphs of my further analysis which may or may not be forthcoming
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Quote: -------- Summary Comments:DNA Tribes results for this person provide a detailed and comprehensive picture of their African-American ancestry including their closest genetic relatives amongst ethnic groups in both Africa and the modern African Diaspora populations as well as detailed information about other world populations where their genetic material is common. Comments for this sample individual: The Top 20 Native population matches for this individual include several indigenous African nations and tribes in our database. The listed individual MLI scores do not indicate the percentage of individual’s genetic material attributable to individual populations. Instead, these MLI scores assess the RELATIVE LIKELIHOOD of this person’s genetic make-up occurring in a particular population:
• The STRONGEST match is with a Tanzanian population where this individual’s DNA profile is 17,822,172 times more likely to occur than in the world as a whole. The TribeScore of (0.50) indicates this MLI score is higher than 50% of MLIs for sampled Tanzanian individuals; thus, this individual’s genetic make-up is quite common in this Tanzanian population. However, similar DNA profiles can be found in other native African populations: the MLI score of 13,549,274 for Angola indicates that this example DNA profile is 17,822,172 / 13,549,274 = 1.3 times more likely in Tanzania than in Angola. For both populations, the TribeScores are within the expected range of (0.25) or above which indicates this person's DNA fits well within the genetic range for members of both populations
---------------
So the issue is Tribe Score vs MLI.
The above translates to – so the Amarnas DNA material is most like to be found “IN” the Great Lakes/Southern African population. Of course the West Africans are 3rd in line.
In mathematical terms the Tribe score is a ***FUNCTION*** of the MLI score.
So in other words, the “OVERALL” Amarnas genetic material is most likely found in Southern Africans.
In the African-American Example above: 17,822,172 genetic components are found in the Tanzanian population. The most than any other population. However ONLY! ONLY! 13,549,274 genetic components from the Afram is found in the Angolan population compared to 17,822,172. Now, “WITHIN” the 13,549,274 components, >36%(Tribescore) of the Angolan population have these 13,549,274 components. Hope you get it now!
So the first thing that needs to be taken into consideration is the MLI. The Tribes Score is secondary to the MLI. Hit me up if you have any more questions. [/qb]
You picked it up precisely as DNAtribes themselves put it down without any self serving spin. Congrats!
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: [QB] Quote: -------- Summary Comments:DNA Tribes results for this person provide a detailed and comprehensive picture of their African-American ancestry including their closest genetic relatives amongst ethnic groups in both Africa and the modern African Diaspora populations as well as detailed information about other world populations where their genetic material is common. Comments for this sample individual: The Top 20 Native population matches for this individual include several indigenous African nations and tribes in our database. The listed individual MLI scores do not indicate the percentage of individual’s genetic material attributable to individual populations. Instead, these MLI scores assess the RELATIVE LIKELIHOOD of this person’s genetic make-up occurring in a particular population:
• The STRONGEST match is with a Tanzanian population where this individual’s DNA profile is 17,822,172 times more likely to occur than in the world as a whole. The TribeScore of (0.50) indicates this MLI score is higher than 50% of MLIs for sampled Tanzanian individuals; thus, this individual’s genetic make-up is quite common in this Tanzanian population. However, similar DNA profiles can be found in other native African populations: the MLI score of 13,549,274 for Angola indicates that this example DNA profile is 17,822,172 / 13,549,274 = 1.3 times more likely in Tanzania than in Angola. For both populations, the TribeScores are within the expected range of (0.25) or above which indicates this person's DNA fits well within the genetic range for members of both populations
---------------
So the issue is Tribe Score vs MLI.
The above translates to – so the Amarnas DNA material is most like to be found “IN” the Great Lakes/Southern African population. Of course the West Africans are 3rd in line.
In mathematical terms the Tribe score is a ***FUNCTION*** of the MLI score.
So in other words, the “OVERALL” Amarnas genetic material is most likely found in Southern Africans.
Agree so far.
quote:In the African-American Example above: 17,822,172 genetic components are found in the Tanzanian population. The most than any other population. However ONLY! ONLY! 13,549,274 genetic components from the Afram is found in the Angolan population compared to 17,822,172. Now, “WITHIN” the 13,549,274 components, >36%(Tribescore) of the Angolan population have these 13,549,274 components.
Now you're completely losing me. What do you mean with "components"?
quote:So the first thing that needs to be taken into consideration is the MLI. The Tribes Score is secondary to the MLI. Hit me up if you have any more questions.
The MLI scores tell you how frequently the genetic material captured by a particular STR profile occurs in a population. But what if the MLI score of a particular population is lower because it's hybridized and heterogeneous? In that case, a lower MLI score doesn't mean anything because admixture has displaced the native ancestry in the hybrid comparative sample and decreased the frequency of the native alleles.
Hence, why most of the somewhat admixed diasporal African individuals who take tests with DNA Tribes have exceptional MLI scores with continental Africans and relatively lower MLI scores with African Americans and Afro-Caribbeans. That doesn't mean that they're more related to continental Africans than to their family members or neighbors in their own communities.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
N
quote:Originally posted by xyyman:
I don’t get it when you guys diss DNATribes. Like it is not “peer reviewed” or “it is proprietary”. Shows that you don’t UNDERSTAND what is going on and how this thing works. It is a level of ignorance. DNATribes does not need to be “peer reviewed”. Lol! What they do, YOU and ANYONE can do also. The]
onetheless DNAtribes is not peer reviewed. DNAtribes is a proprietary business never cited nor quoted in sscientific journals. Stop telling me to accept them as other than layman opinion.
Both Swenet w/PopAffiliator %s and myself with popSTR actual data have shown some holes in DNAtribes' results.
Andyes iit's true results will vary pending databases used. So now get off your ass and present us with your own work on par with DNAtribes, myself, and Swenet's research and analysis, my cousin.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Sage. You need to calm down. You want to discuss MLI or you don’t? Stop being a tizzy. Point is, there is nothing more to add to the discussion. Swenet is just spinning. You should know that.
How long have Swenet /Kalonji have been posting here. You know he is a spinmaster.
Keep in mind the only difference between DNATribes and a layman is DNATribes has an extensive database to compare the Amarna samples. Irregardless OMNI and PopAffliator gives the same result as DNATribes.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Quote: -------- Summary Comments:DNA Tribes results for this person provide a detailed and comprehensive picture of their African-American ancestry including their closest genetic relatives amongst ethnic groups in both Africa and the modern African Diaspora populations as well as detailed information about other world populations where their genetic material is common. Comments for this sample individual: The Top 20 Native population matches for this individual include several indigenous African nations and tribes in our database. The listed individual MLI scores do not indicate the percentage of individual’s genetic material attributable to individual populations. Instead, these MLI scores assess the RELATIVE LIKELIHOOD of this person’s genetic make-up occurring in a particular population:
• The STRONGEST match is with a Tanzanian population where this individual’s DNA profile is 17,822,172 times more likely to occur than in the world as a whole. The TribeScore of (0.50) indicates this MLI score is higher than 50% of MLIs for sampled Tanzanian individuals; thus, this individual’s genetic make-up is quite common in this Tanzanian population. However, similar DNA profiles can be found in other native African populations: the MLI score of 13,549,274 for Angola indicates that this example DNA profile is 17,822,172 / 13,549,274 = 1.3 times more likely in Tanzania than in Angola. For both populations, the TribeScores are within the expected range of (0.25) or above which indicates this person's DNA fits well within the genetic range for members of both populations
---------------
So the issue is Tribe Score vs MLI.
The above translates to – so the Amarnas DNA material is most like to be found “IN” the Great Lakes/Southern African population. Of course the West Africans are 3rd in line.
In mathematical terms the Tribe score is a ***FUNCTION*** of the MLI score.
So in other words, the “OVERALL” Amarnas genetic material is most likely found in Southern Africans.
In the African-American Example above: 17,822,172 genetic components are found in the Tanzanian population. The most than any other population. However ONLY! ONLY! 13,549,274 genetic components from the Afram is found in the Angolan population compared to 17,822,172. Now, “WITHIN” the 13,549,274 components, >36%(Tribescore) of the Angolan population have these 13,549,274 components. Hope you get it now!
So the first thing that needs to be taken into consideration is the MLI. The Tribes Score is secondary to the MLI. Hit me up if you have any more questions.
You picked it up precisely as DNAtribes themselves put it down without any self serving spin. Congrats! [/QB]
quote:Originally posted by xyyman:
The above translates to – so the Amarnas DNA material is most like to be found “IN” the Great Lakes/Southern African population. Of course the West Africans are 3rd in line.
That is a mistranslation
They are not saying people of the Great Lakes/Southern African/ West Africans have Amarna DNA
The DNA that they have is in common with the Amarna, that is common ancestry between these groups but it is certainly not "Amarna DNA" that is specific to the Amarna. That is an important point. The DNA they are referring to far predates the Amarna. The Amarna, Great Lakes/Southern African/ West Africans are some of the people who carry some of this DNA.
To miss-call it "Amarna DNA" is to suggest Great Lakes/Southern African/ West Africans are descendants of the Amarna. That could be possible in some cases but that is not what these MLI scores are determining
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Sage. You need to calm down. You want to discuss MLI or you don’t? Stop being a tizzy. Point is, there is nothing more to add to the discussion. Swenet is just spinning. You should know that.
How long have Swenet /Kalonji have been posting here. You know he is a spinmaster.
Cuz
U need 2 shut the **** up pay attention and do what me and Swenet did.
Where's yr comprehension? Didn't u hear me say I don't care much about non replicable MLIs and TribeScores.
I only care about matching sample profiles against Db entries for independent analysis.
Show me u r capable of doing that as well as u can pat yrself on the back.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Agreed Lioness – but potato – potato. Doesn’t matter. Amarnas, West Africans, Grate Lakes and Southern Africans shared the closest genetic material.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Quote: -------- Summary Comments:DNA Tribes results for this person provide a detailed and comprehensive picture of their African-American ancestry including their closest genetic relatives amongst ethnic groups in both Africa and the modern African Diaspora populations as well as detailed information about other world populations where their genetic material is common. Comments for this sample individual: The Top 20 Native population matches for this individual include several indigenous African nations and tribes in our database. The listed individual MLI scores do not indicate the percentage of individual’s genetic material attributable to individual populations. Instead, these MLI scores assess the RELATIVE LIKELIHOOD of this person’s genetic make-up occurring in a particular population:
• The STRONGEST match is with a Tanzanian population where this individual’s DNA profile is 17,822,172 times more likely to occur than in the world as a whole. The TribeScore of (0.50) indicates this MLI score is higher than 50% of MLIs for sampled Tanzanian individuals; thus, this individual’s genetic make-up is quite common in this Tanzanian population. However, similar DNA profiles can be found in other native African populations: the MLI score of 13,549,274 for Angola indicates that this example DNA profile is 17,822,172 / 13,549,274 = 1.3 times more likely in Tanzania than in Angola. For both populations, the TribeScores are within the expected range of (0.25) or above which indicates this person's DNA fits well within the genetic range for members of both populations
---------------
So the issue is Tribe Score vs MLI.
The above translates to – so the Amarnas DNA material is most like to be found “IN” the Great Lakes/Southern African population. Of course the West Africans are 3rd in line.
In mathematical terms the Tribe score is a ***FUNCTION*** of the MLI score.
So in other words, the “OVERALL” Amarnas genetic material is most likely found in Southern Africans.
In the African-American Example above: 17,822,172 genetic components are found in the Tanzanian population. The most than any other population. However ONLY! ONLY! 13,549,274 genetic components from the Afram is found in the Angolan population compared to 17,822,172. Now, “WITHIN” the 13,549,274 components, >36%(Tribescore) of the Angolan population have these 13,549,274 components. Hope you get it now!
So the first thing that needs to be taken into consideration is the MLI. The Tribes Score is secondary to the MLI. Hit me up if you have any more questions.
You picked it up precisely as DNAtribes themselves put it down without any self serving spin. Congrats!
quote:Originally posted by xyyman:
The above translates to – so the Amarnas DNA material is most like to be found “IN” the Great Lakes/Southern African population. Of course the West Africans are 3rd in line.
That is a mistranslation
They are not saying people of the Great Lakes/Southern African/ West Africans have Amarna DNA
The DNA that they have is in common with the Amarna, that is common ancestry between these groups but it is certainly not "Amarna DNA" that is specific to the Amarna. That is an important point. The DNA they are referring to far predates the Amarna. The Amarna, Great Lakes/Southern African/ West Africans are some of the people who carry some of this DNA.
To miss-call it "Amarna DNA" is to suggest Great Lakes/Southern African/ West Africans are descendants of the Amarna. That could be possible in some cases but that is not what these MLI scores are determining [/QB]
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nodnarb:
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Toucouleur are the root. Originally Fulani just designated cattle herders and "bush" folk. Toucouleur are the haughty primeval original Hal Pulaaren of Tekrur. We are 'Town Fulani' scholars and aristocrats and nobody in Senegal/Mauritania doubts that.
I see. I admit that the recent revelation of ausar's stunts have made me more suspicious of certain people's professed ethnicities, but thanks for the clarification there.
U r welcome
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
BTW - @ Lioness and newbies. That is the same marketing ploy FTDNA used when they labeled some genetic materials as the “Tut” gene or the “Thuya” gene. It is all marketing spin for the gullible. But the fact is, as a group, of the 8 STR released by Hawass and JAMA the Amarnas are Southern Africans. Bottom line. They are not North Africans, they are not Arabians or even Levantines. Europeans don’t even come into the picture. (wait I take that back – aren’t they closer to Europeans than modern Levantines/Turks) But, they are undoubtedly pure Africans.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler:
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: ...
Also the USA idea of black is not Africa's idea. In Africa people are recognized by their actual tone or the tone of the majority of their ethny.
Ethiopia has a three colour terminology tequr:black teyem:brown qey:red
Fon me-wi:black people nya/na-wi:male/female black (very dark or pitch black complexion nya/na-vo:male/female red (lighter than average skin complexion
Yoruba dudu:black light-skinned Africans are referred to as pupa:red-yellow (think 'palm oil') and funfun:White (albinos).
Ibo ojii:black ocha:white
Then there are the Kel taGelmust with their various designations for themselves, coastal Berbers, and Gnawas, yellow, white, grey; or internal assignments by class noble, vassal, and enslaved, red green black.
You black guys who have no other identity than Black just don't get it or don't want to get it. USA will never dominate our own precise choice terms for our skin colours. ]
Doug comment?
.
I've no beef with 98% of DougM's presentation.
Throughout recorded history the people of lands bordering the Indian Ocean are known as blacks when compared to north and north east of the Mediterranean peoples.
Anthropologically, black has never and will never be relegated to negro. Is there a negro crayon, a negro dog, a negro car, etc
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Ok, Doug ignore Tukular's "Also the USA idea of black is not Africa's idea." list
Nevermind, it's cancelled
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman:
The above translates to – so the Amarnas DNA...
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: [QB] BTW - @ Lioness and newbies. That is the same marketing ploy FTDNA used when they labeled some genetic materials as the “Tut” gene or the “Thuya” gene. It is all marketing spin for the gullible.
Shouldn't this be addressed to yourself since you did the exact same thing ?
lioness productions, squashing suckas like ants Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Horseshit, my cuz never said no **** about no damn Tut gene or such BULLISH
He know the diff between gene allele haplotype / STR profile.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
So, Swenet, I hope you give it a rest….finally. Amarnas are NOT closer to the Horners compared to the Great Lakes and Southern Africans. First, read and understand the charts. Horners have a higher Tribescore in specific (ie a sub-set) genetic material. BUT Southern Africans have a closer match in MOST, MOST MOST genetic material.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Horseshit, my cuz never said no **** about no damn Tut gene or such BULLISH
quote:Originally posted by xyyman
the Amarnas DNA material is most like to be found “IN” the Great Lakes/Southern African population. Of course the West Africans are 3rd in line.
He clearly did the same thing in regard to the whole family
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
yes. I did the same thing but I corrected it.......But i said the "Amarna gene" which is misleading.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman:
The above translates to – so the Amarnas DNA...
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: [QB] BTW - @ Lioness and newbies. That is the same marketing ploy FTDNA used when they labeled some genetic materials as the “Tut” gene or the “Thuya” gene. It is all marketing spin for the gullible.
Shouldn't this be addressed to yourself since you did the exact same thing ?
lioness productions, squashing suckas like ants
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: [QB] yes. I did the same thing but I corrected it.......But i said the "Amarna gene" which is misleading.
thank you for your honesty
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
De nada! I call it like I see it
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: [QB] yes. I did the same thing but I corrected it.......But i said the "Amarna gene" which is misleading.
thank you for your honesty
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Well now I have to ask Do you indeed know gene allele haplotype / STR profile are not synonymous?
Maybe I credit you where you don't deserve it
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Well now I have to ask Do you indeed know gene allele haplotype / STR profile are not synonymous?
Maybe I credit you where you don't deserve it
that is irrelevant, the MLI does not answer that question
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: How long have Swenet /Kalonji have been posting here. You know he is a spinmaster.
You credit me with a lot of powers, gramps. Thanks, I guess.
But do let me know when you're going to address this without running away or copping out.
Edit: replaced with latest version.
Note that the alleles are color-coded using Hawass et al 2010. So the dark green cells stands for Amenhotep III, the pink ones for Yuya and the blue ones for Thuya.
Note that the Copt sample came out last whereas they came out with the most hits p/p before I had the chance to double check everything. I also used a better counting method.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
So?
Ain't I told you MLI is proprietary it is not replicable science.
U ain't get it last page where I threw down my stance
gimme profile samples I check em against data
science puddy tat science I'll leave pussyfooting 2 u
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
use the double 14 at D8S1179
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: You're furthering used car salesman bullshit patter.
Though again I have no beef how Africans themselves classify themselves.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: I'm an Americanized Mauritanian Toucouleur Fulani of the Torodbe class with very recent Libyan bani Yisra'el paternal ancestry. I have Kameroun Hamidou kinsmen and in fact my genetic profile is more indicative of Central West Africa than Atlantic West Africa.
I can only post as my new Jamakan 4th wife (all kids from previous marriages and dalliances grown and out the house) permits me to steal moments away from her attentive affection. Never thought I'd love a down yard woman but life is full of surprises, just wait you'll see.
Cool!
Also if you mind me asking are the "Arabs" in Mauritania just Arabized Berbers? Because many people have this silly idea that they are Arabs from the peninsula. I just want to get my answers from an actual Mauritanian.
Also what are the relationship between "Arabs" and "Black Africans" in Mauritania, because the western media seems to indicate that there is so type of "race war" or the light skin "Arabs" enslaving the darker "Black Africans".
Again want to get my answers from an actual Mauritaniam plus I have not met many Mauritanians on the net.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Don't want to rehearse slavery and expulsions of the last 30 years. Stirs emotions I'd rather leave submerged. Mauritania's a shameful place but some Yemeni Hasaniya Arabic speakers whatever Arab or Zenaga etc blood they have are neutral and even anti-racist.
But enough. How bout some of your bio?
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Don't want to rehearse slavery and expulsions of the last 30 years. Stirs emotions I'd rather leave submerged. Mauritania's a shameful place but some Yemeni Hasaniya Arabic speakers whatever Arab or Zenaga etc blood they have are neutral and even anti-racist.
But enough. How bout some of your bio?
Understood.
As for me African-American and Haitian. Ask away. Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Great share!
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
Edit: replaced with latest version.
Note that the alleles are color-coded using Hawass et al 2010. So the dark green cells stands for Amenhotep III, the pink ones for Yuya and the blue ones for Thuya.
Note that the Copt sample came out last whereas they came out with the most hits p/p before I had the chance to double check everything. I also used a better counting method.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ↑ That is EXACTLY what it all boils down to: made-made RULES.
When I say that the AE weren't black according to a particular tradition, some knuckleheads think I'm questioning the Africanity of the AE.
If many brown and dark brown skinned North Africans fall outside of the definition of 'black' of a particular observer, and I acknowledge that such a definition exists (e.g. Ptolemy who only considered the tribes around Meroe "pure Aethiopians" and "true blacks"), that doesn't mean that I'm co-signing that tradition.
SMH. These are subjective rules, and yes, if someone uses 'black' in reference to any other skin tone than what visually appears to be jet-black skin, their own definition of 'black', whatever it is, is based on subjective rules. And yes, Ptolemy's definition of who has 'black' skin is more defensible than other definitions of who has 'black' skin, including the al Jahiz one I've subscribed to in the past.
If you're going to argue that Ptolemy is wrong for applying brown to brown-skinned Egyptians and lower Nubians and black to those further south who had jet-black skin, you're chemically imbalanced and I don't need to be talking to you.
Here is the problem. The word black has been used for all those people from Egypt down to Cape town since thousands of years ago. And the word black in the english dictionary is not defined as someone who is black as tar. Neither is it used that way in Europe or by racists. Black skin among all of these folks refers to the shades of brown skin from tropically adapted populations in and out of Africa. That is the point I have been making since page one.
If you follow this thread you will see even your own racist scholars say that. So no, it isn't an issue of definitions of terms. Everybody on this planet knows what white white skin is and what black skin is as references to skin color. Yet somehow folks want to come on this forum and act like all of a sudden there is some 'mystery' as to what black means in terms of populations in tropical areas like Africa. There is no mystery and people know full damn well what someone means when they say the AE were black folks.
SO again, going all the way back to page one, it is a question of damn skin color. Period. There is nothing else to it. And whatever philosophy you have on what words you want to use that doesn't change the fact that the historic debate over the words black in reference to AE has ALWAYS been about skin color. This isn't an issue of semantics. It is an issue of skin color. Racists want the AE to be closer to Europeans in complexion, meaning very light and white skinned and not like any complexion found among the majority population of Africans who come in various shades. That has always been the point and that has always been well understood especially on this damn forum. For you to sit here and talk that bull sh*t that this is all some misunderstanding of 'terminology' where the racists and all these white folks have actually been calling the AE 'black' using other words is you talking pure bull sh*t out of the crack of your behind.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
The word black has been used for all those people from Egypt down to Cape town since thousands of years ago.
For all the numerous Egyptian texts no one has produced one that talks about human skin being a color.
Therefore the fact that the Egyptians had a word for the color black proves nothing.
Nor have you produced any record of some ancient African culture doing so.
And notably the Egyptians didn't even use the word Kem in relation to Nubians
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: How long have Swenet /Kalonji have been posting here. You know he is a spinmaster.
^What happened to all that mouth, Xyyman? Allll that mouth and now quiet as a church mouse.
For those who are noticing the unexpected position of the Greater Syrian sample (given what we know about the cline of Egyptian ancestry in Eurasia), note that the file containing this sample seems to be damaged (or maybe something went wrong during sequencing) as many of the sampled individuals have zeros in their genotypes. I'm sure that eastern Mediterranean samples will turn out to have a similar amount of hits p/p as the Greek sample.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
It goes without saying but I just read my post again and it read like my comments on Ptolemy could've been directed at Punos. They weren't, of course; I co-signed his post.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: And yes, Ptolemy's definition of who has 'black' skin is more defensible than other definitions of who has 'black' skin, including the al Jahiz one I've subscribed to in the past.
More clarification: "more defensible" simply means that Ptolemy's use of 'black' and brown/"moderately black" are more descriptive and so they run into fewer problems and inconsistencies when used in anthropological discussions than the more abstract and figurative traditions of 'black'. That doesn't mean that 'black' is in my vocabulary again. I'm just making observations.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: For all the numerous Egyptian texts no one has produced one that talks about human skin being a color.
And notably the Egyptians didn't even use the word Kem in relation to Nubians
Why do you keep regurgitating this long ago disproven bullshit?
Akhenaten's Hymn explicitly mentions humanity has variegated skin colour and both the Gate of Teka Hra & Book of Nights explicitly use km.t to label Nehhesu black.
You already know that and I only make this post to make plain a liar's incessant repitition doesn't transform the lie into the truth and I'd hate to see any newbie make an idiot of themselves falling for a lie because of a liar's reiterations.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: For all the numerous Egyptian texts no one has produced one that talks about human skin being a color.
And notably the Egyptians didn't even use the word Kem in relation to Nubians
Why do you keep regurgitating this long ago disproven bullshit?
Akhenaten's Hymn explicitly mentions humanity has variegated skin colour and both the Gate of Teka Hra & Book of Nights explicitly use km.t to label Nehhesu black.
You already know that and I only make this post to make plain a liar's incessant repitition doesn't transform the lie into the truth and I'd hate to see any newbie make an idiot of themselves falling for a lie because of a liar's reiterations.
Your comment is misleading
Hymn of Akenhaten ( Great Hymn to the Aten)
quote: How manifold it is, what thou hast made! They are hidden from the face (of man). O sole god, like whom there is no other! Thou didst create the world according to thy desire, Whilst thou wert alone: All men, cattle, and wild beasts, Whatever is on earth, going upon (its) feet, And what is on high, flying with its wings. The countries of Syria and Nubia, the land of Egypt, Thou settest every man in his place, Thou suppliest their necessities: Everyone has his food, and his time of life is reckoned. Their tongues are separate in speech, And their natures as well; Their skins are distinguished, As thou distinguishest the foreign peoples. Thou makest a Nile in the underworld, Thou bringest forth as thou desirest To maintain the people (of Egypt) According as thou madest them for thyself, The lord of all of them, wearying (himself) with them, The lord of every land, rising for them, The Aton of the day, great of majesty
Bottom line no specific colors are mentioned
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler:
Gate of Teka Hra & Book of Nights explicitly use km.t to label Nehhesu black.
Again you mislead, and purposely don't put up the text quote Secondly there is no evidence that km.t refers to skin, so you need to stop. You are constantly going into these ancient texts and trying to insert modern day racial polemics
It's the same as Doug's race concept, the two part paradigm that all people fall into the category of either" White" cold adapted people or "Black" tropical people
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
But skin exists, it's very important. Skin is biological. You guys are trying to say skin doesn't exist, F Swenet
calm down Doug, we all know that skin exists and skin color is the most important thing in life but there are numerous shades of it not just two-as you have been brainwashed to believe
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: @BBH
There is no agreement. People have different views in regards to what you're asking.
I was certain you would have had an answer.
Anyways I personally intepreated the results by DNAtribes as Tut's dynasty NOT LITERALLY being from South Africa, West Africa or Great Lake regions.
But instead the results representing the ancestors of the people who livein those three regions, those ancestors who would have lived in the Green Sahara and would have been "North Africans" or better yet "Saharans". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FkZB5j5Eqm8
@5:00
Again that's how I personally interpeted the results. Many laymen literally think Tut's dynasty was from South Africa and scream "buh! buh! Da ancient GYPTIANS werent BANTUS!!!!" When thats not what the results are saying.
@Tukuler
Great post.
This is it. Ancient Egyptians share a past with other Africans in the Green Sahara. South Africans and other people are not direct descendant of Ancient Egyptians. They just share a common ancestors with them. The same can be said about the Ashanti and Zulu for example. Zulu are not descendants of the Ashanti but they share a common past. With Ancient Egyptians this common past is in the Green Sahara and before in (north) Eastern Africa.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: This is it. Ancient Egyptians share a past with other Africans in the Green Sahara. South Africans and other people are not direct descendant of Ancient Egyptians. They just share a common ancestors with them. The same can be said about the Ashanti and Zulu for example. Zulu are not descendants of the Ashanti but they share a common past. With Ancient Egyptians this common past is in the Green Sahara and before in (north) Eastern Africa. [/QB]
Then the question is who are the direct descendants of the Ancient Egyptians? Possibly Sudanese Copts.
Sudan has a native Coptic minority, although many Copts in Sudan are descended from more recent Coptic immigrants from Egypt. Copts in Sudan live mostly in northern cities, including Al Obeid, Atbara, Dongola, Khartoum, Omdurman, Port Sudan, and Wad Medani. Copts say they numbered 400,000–500,000 in the past, but through emigration and – sometimes forced – conversion to Islam, their ranks are now thinner.
Copts began moving to Sudan in the sixth century CE to escape persecution in Egypt. Under Islamic rule which began in Egypt in the seventh century, they became subject to the code of dhimma, which offered them protection while according them second-class citizenship.
Initially this was an improvement over their vulnerable status under previous rulers, but, as the Islamization process became consolidated, strict regulations were imposed on the building of churches. Emigration from Egypt peaked in the early nineteenth century and the generally tolerant reception they received in Sudan was interrupted by a decade of persecution under Mahdist rule at the end that century. Many were obliged to relinquish their faith and adopted Islam, intermarrying with other Sudanese.
In 2005 Sudan’s Government of National Unity (GNU) named a Coptic Orthodox priest to a government position, although the ruling Islamist party’s continued dominance under the GNU provides ample reason to doubt its commitment to broader religious or ethnic representation.
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: @BBH
Also look at how DNA Tribes' North Africa and Horn regions are hybridized with Eurasian groups who have lower MLI scores, and think about how that affects their own MLI scores when tested against the Pharaohs.
Then come back and let me know what YOU think based on your own investigation.
What some here do is conveniently take the MLI scores of Sub-Saharan Africans with known Egyptian-like or at least Eastern Sahara genetic influences and who were mostly out of reach of recent Eurasian admixture and compare their MLI scores to the MLI scores of groups in North Africa and other regions that are hybridized today. SMH.
The last paragraph is something I always had a hunch about. Especially the bolded.
WHat I think is that MODERN "hybrized" North Africans(who have significant "western Eurasian admixture") shouldn't be used as a representation region for an ancient population like the Ancient Egyptians and then compare it to modern Sub Saharan Africans. Obviously DNAtribes grouping Horners and North Africans with outside Eurasians will lower the MLI scores for North Africans and Horners compared to "unmixed" SSA.
Now if they were to you "ancient" Saharan/Northeast African population or a specific Northeast population with not much recent Eurasian admixture then it would be a different story. The reason Horners and North Africans score lower is because they are using modern population. This is just my opinion, I obviously need to investigate more.
Anyways I did find this which I think confirms further what you're saying.
This is true and I had similar thought. Let's investigate a bit more.
In my opinion, the best way to analyse the DNA Tribes results is to see them as using software like structure and admixture. They probably used something similar imo, and we can see adxixture results in almost every genetic study lately.
Each of the population clusters like Horn Africa, Great Lakes, etc are like clusters with their own colors in the admixture software at a certain k (like k=16). Modern horn african people are made of this Horn Africa cluster (maybe about 60% by memory) and also made of other clusters from Eurasia (maybe about 35%). So the Horn African cluster is the indigenous African proportion of their ancestry since Horn Africans are very much admixed in modern times. Ancient Egyptians mummies tested have mostly the colored bar of the Southern, Great Lakes and Tropical West African clusters but they also have the Horn African colored bar (aka the indigenous African portion of Horn African populations ancestry) as well as some Eurasian colored bar to a lower degree.
For Ancient Egyptians it is clear, based on those (limited?) results, that they were indigenous Africans. They all match colors and populations clusters of African populations all over Africa not Europeans or West Asians which are present only in small degrees.
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Then the question is who are the direct descendants of the Ancient Egyptians? Possibly Sudanese Copts.
The direct descendants of Ancient Egyptians are modern Egyptians. Modern Egyptians are made of Ancient Egyptians, Kushites, Ancient Greeks, Romans, Muslim Arabs, Ottoman, Mamluk, Banu Hilal people. Nowadays they mostly cluster with muslim Arab people (from Saudi Arabia, where Islam come from), so their Ancient Egyptian and Kushite cluster form only a small part of their ancestry. Culturally most modern Egyptians are related to the Muslim Arab world.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
You lost me here youngster. What are you showing me? I thought we were discussing DNATribes Tribescore vs MLI and the relation to Great Lakes and Horners.
What are you showing me in this chart?
link or reference?
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: How long have Swenet /Kalonji have been posting here. You know he is a spinmaster.
You credit me with a lot of powers, gramps. Thanks, I guess.
But do let me know when you're going to address this without running away or copping out.
Edit: replaced with latest version.
Note that the alleles are color-coded using Hawass et al 2010. So the dark green cells stands for Amenhotep III, the pink ones for Yuya and the blue ones for Thuya.
Note that the Copt sample came out last whereas they came out with the most hits p/p before I had the chance to double check everything. I also used a better counting method.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
silence.......
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Well now I have to ask Do you indeed know gene allele haplotype / STR profile are not synonymous?
Maybe I credit you where you don't deserve it
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
All you need to know is that the samples with more pharaonic alleles are listed from top to bottom. "Ave. hits per cap." is an expression of how often the combined alleles of the three Amarna matriarchs and patriarchs occur in that sample. Affinity to the pharaonic family is expressed as "hits per person". A 'hit' is one occurrence of one pharaonic allele in one of the comparative samples. Therefore, more hits = more affinity. Since the amount of hits is primarily driven by sample size (larger samples have more hits than smaller samples), you need to account for sample size. Hence, hits/cap.
Relevant links where I got the samples from were already posted. Search for them. I'm not going to reward poor reading comprehension or unwillingness to read my posts due to hubris. Especially not with the rampant strawman attacks.
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: You lost me here youngster. What are you showing me? I thought we were discussing DNATribes Tribescore vs MLI and the relation to Great Lakes and Horners.
What are you showing me in this chart?
link or reference?
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: How long have Swenet /Kalonji have been posting here. You know he is a spinmaster.
You credit me with a lot of powers, gramps. Thanks, I guess.
But do let me know when you're going to address this without running away or copping out.
Note that the alleles are color-coded using Hawass et al 2010. So the dark green cells stands for Amenhotep III, the pink ones for Yuya and the blue ones for Thuya.
Note that the Copt sample came out last whereas they came out with the most hits p/p before I had the chance to double check everything. I also used a better counting method.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
"Pharaonic alleles" ? ?
Apple's vs apples, what samples dataset are we looking at? I don't buy used cars .....from the corner lot.
Still not sure what you on about youngster
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
He's expanded the dataset with some unseen samples.
You need present your charts as we have.
Posted by Nodnarb (Member # 3735) on :
This post doesn't directly relate to previous discussions in this thread, but it's still about the larger topic of ancient Egypt as it pertains to "Black African/Afro-Diasporan" identity.
I may have come around to agreeing that "black" isn't a useful term for any population in a bio-anthropological context. But I shouldn't lie, as an amateur artist, I still like mixing Egyptian influences with those from elsewhere in Africa as well as the African Diaspora. Sometimes, when I'm in a shits-and-giggles mood, I like to throw recognizable aspects of African-American culture into an AE context. Examples have included hip-hop, twerking, finger-snapping, and distaste for Eurasians molesting their hair, among others.
I am fully aware the dynastic AE ancestry in Diasporans isn't as significant as that from West or Central Africa, and that Africa has never been a culturally homogeneous continent either. Certainly I don't assume every "Black" person I see has the mannerisms of an archetypical African-American; I would recall such an assumption stereotypical and ignorant at best. But it does seem to me that a large proportion of Black African-descended people, regardless of their specific ancestral population substructure, do see the AEs as a prestigious part of the larger "Pan-African" club, and as far as I can tell they mostly find my portrayals cute or humorous rather than offensive. Plus I like being provocative and bucking the larger trend of conflating AE culture with Arabs or Mesopotamians.
But given how Pan-Africanism clashes with the complex realities of biological anthropology as elaborated here, this kind of art is starting to feel like a guilty pleasure.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: "Pharaonic alleles" ? ?
Apple's vs apples, what samples dataset are we looking at? I don't buy used cars .....from the corner lot.
Still not sure what you on about youngster
Xyyman. You call ME a spin doctor?
Stop the 'confused' act, bro. YOU said I was "spinning" DNA Tribes and you refused to address any of my points, forcing me to produce independent data. You're now asking me what this independent data has to do with it?
I posted my own analysis to demonstrate that I'm not spinning anything. My results demonstrate that select samples in North Africa, even as mixed as they are, have pharaonic allele frequencies that rival those in southern and southeast Africa. I bet that with ancient Nubian and Saharan genetic material included, MLI scores would go through the roof.
*YOU are hiding behind the fact that DNA Tribes has POOLED their samples into regions. Naturally, when you pool modern Egyptian and Nubian samples with with decent STR profile affinity to the AE with poorer scoring Maghrebi, Levantine or even some other Nile Valley samples, you're going to get DNA Tribes' results which seemingly suggest that the modern day Nile Valley is light years behind DNA Tribes' Great Lakes and South African regions in terms of Egyptian affinity.
*YOU are hiding behind the fact that DNA Tribes' pooled North Africa region is hybridized today, that DNA Tribes' other African regions have ancient Egyptian ancestry and that the MLI scores are going to push other pooled African regions to the forefront because of this.
*YOU are running away from the fact that DNA Tribes' TribeScores see right through your messy interpretation of DNA Tribes. You've been running from this since 2014. The TribeScore figures show that the STR profiles of Ramses III and Pentawer are not as "typically" South African as they are "typically" Sudan-Horn. Just the mere observation that a particular genetic material occurs more somewhere than elsewhere, doesn't prove that it's the native ancestry in that region.
Who is spinning and playing sneaky?
You can drop the see-through 'confused' act and prove me wrong. Stop wasting time. You've already been running since 2014. Either put up or shut up:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: I'm reluctant to post my results because I haven't double checked everything. I already rushed things yesterday and then had to go back and correct it. But interested parties can check for themselves. This is the page with popaffiliator's downloadable genotype data:
"Spin"? No, you're just terribly incompetent. It's just embarrassing at this point. You been getting thrashed by every publication on this topic since the DNA Tribes results came out in 2012.
Cluster A (green) is frequent in EA, mostly in Ethiopia, and in CA. Interestingly, one Yemenite and two Egyptian populations are included in this cluster. Cluster B (black) occupies a relatively tighter area, spanning from Tanzania to Southern Ethiopia. From a linguistic point of view, cluster B includes non-AA speakers (namely Nilo-Saharan and Niger-Congo), as well as AACushitic and Omotic speakers. Cluster C (blue) collects populations from NA and the Levant. From a linguistic point of view, these populations are affiliated to AA-Semitic and AA-Berber families. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.22212/abstract
^Much of North Africa clusters with Eurasia (blue), while some modern day Nile Valley samples still cluster with samples in Sudan, Chadic speaking groups in the Sahel and Cushitic and Ethio-Semitic speaking groups in the Horn (green). Bantu speaking groups from the Great Lakes region are thoroughly mixed with East African groups; they don't even look recognizably West African in their overall mtDNA profiles and PCA picks up on that (their mtDNAs group with Nilo-Saharan, Omotic and South Cushitic speakers).
If this North Africa region was pooled, the Egyptian samples which cluster with groups to the south would get lost in the pooled North Africa region. Is that the unfair picture you sneaky loons want to tell me I should take as-is and literal? And then you tell ME that I'm "spinning"?
Just admit it, Xyyman. You never had a point to begin with. The entire anthro-blogosphere is laughing at you for trying to lie to yourself and the public. Other than your yes-men, who do you think you're kidding, Xyyman?
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Gramps. Tell the truth. Just for once.
Let's see if you can bring yourself to let the truth flow from your lips. I want to see you admit it.
Who do the do above Great Lakes Bantu speaking groups (e.g. Nairobi, Hutu, Kikiyu) cluster with in their mtDNA profile? Where did they get their L3f, L3a, L3c, L3h, L4, L5, L0 etc. contributions from? And then explain to me how such contributions don't ultimately lead back to Nile Valley and other regions you try to write off as having low MLI scores.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Ok. I got you now. But the fact of the matter is I explained DNATribes MLI vs Tribescore and based upon THEIR dataset Great Lakes, Southern Africans and West Africans have closer affinity than Horners and Amazigh. End of Story.
If you are challenging their dataset computation that is a different discussion. But based on what DNATribes presented, YES, SSA are closer to AEians than Horners.
Again you moved the target, YOU were saying Horners are closer BASED upon the charts(Tribescore numbers) DNATribes presented and YOU WERE WRONG.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: [Q]
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: [q] "Pharaonic alleles" ? ?
Apple's vs apples, what samples dataset are we looking at? I don't buy used cars .....from the corner lot.
Still not sure what you on about youngster [/q][/]Xyyman. You call []ME[] a spin doctor?
. You're now asking me what this independent data has to do with it?
My results demonstrate that []select[/] samples in North Africa, even as mixed as they are, have pharaonic allele frequencies that rival those in southern and southeast Africa. ****I bet that with ancient Nubian and Saharan genetic material included, MLI scores would go through the roof.***(AGREED AND POSSIBLE)
*YOU are hiding behind the fact that DNA Tribes has POOLED their samples into regions. Naturally, when you pool modern Egyptian and Nubian samples with with decent STR profile affinity to the AE with poorer scoring Maghrebi, Levantine or even some other Nile Valley samples, you're going to get DNA Tribes' results which seemingly suggest that the modern day Nile Valley is light years behind DNA Tribes' Great Lakes and South African regions in terms of Egyptian affinity.
*YOU are hiding behind the fact that DNA Tribes' pooled North Africa region is hybridized today, that DNA Tribes' other African regions have ancient Egyptian ancestry and that the MLI scores are going to push other pooled African regions to the forefront because of this.
*YOU are running away from the fact that DNA Tribes' TribeScores see right through your messy interpretation of DNA Tribes. You've been running from this since 2014. The TribeScore figures show that the STR profiles of Ramses III and Pentawer are not as "typically" South African as they are "typically" Sudan-Horn. Just the mere observation that a particular genetic material occurs more somewhere than elsewhere, doesn't prove that it's the native ancestry in that region.
Who is spinning and playing sneaky?
You can drop the see-through 'confused' act and prove me wrong. Stop wasting time. You've already been running since 2014. Either put up or shut up:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Swenet: ****I'm reluctant to post my results *****(SPIN) because I haven't double checked everything. I already rushed things yesterday and then had to go back and correct it. But interested parties can check for themselves. This is the page with popaffiliator's downloadable genotype data:
So you have given up on the Tribescore interpretation argument and moved on to arguing that DNAtribes mixed and matched sampleset thereby skewing the results. OK. That is quite possible. But you were wrong with your Tribescore argument. Now you have gone back to the drawing board to disassemble DNATribes grouping of population.
You need to focus. Sign of a "scatter brain"
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xyyman:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: I bet that with ancient Nubian and Saharan genetic material included, MLI scores would go through the roof.
Ok. I got you now.
I've said it all along. And you know I said that all along, because you tried to tell me I was wrong for introducing ancient Nubian aDNA to settle the score, because it wasn't specifically ancient Egyptian.
Don't try to act like it wasn't your claim all along that ancient Egyptians WERE like the Luhya genetically and that the Luhya would cluster with the Amarna family, ***to the exclusion of ancient Nubians***. You tried to peddle the fairytale that you could make the ancient Egyptians Luhya-like and somehow make the Nubians only distantly related, even though they've been neighbors to the AE since time immemorial. Really, gramps? You would really stoop that low?
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: If you are challenging their dataset that is a different discussion.
Stop introducing confusion. The popaffiliator samples I used are in DNA tribes' database. Guess in who else database they are? That's right: DNAconsultant.com. And I don't think I have to remind you of what they say about the frequency and distribution of 2/3 Amarna alleles (or "rare genes" as they call them) in the Nile Valley and the Horn. As you very well know (we've been over this many times), they support my analysis.
Akhenaten received it from his mother, Queen Tiye. Today, it is the gene type carried by a majority (52%) of the Copts living in the Pre-dynastic site of Adaima near Thebes or Luxor and the Valley of the Kings on the Nile River in Upper (southern) Egypt. http://dnaconsultants.com/akhenaten-gene
Thuya passed it to her grandson Akhenaten and great-grandson Tutankhamun, among others, as documented in a forensic study of the Amarna mummies by Zahi Hawass, head of the Supreme Council of Antiquities in Cairo, in 2010. Today, its highest incidence is in Somalians at nearly 50%. It is found in 40% of Muslim Egyptians. http://dnaconsultants.com/thuya-gene
Of course, this doesn't necessarily apply to the rest of the individual Amarna alleles, but that's irrelevant. As a whole, the Amarna allele mix is more frequent (has more hits) in some (not all) Nile Valley and nearby samples if you don't POOL the samples.
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Where are the SAME 8 STRs for the Horners, Copts etc?
At this point, I know for a fact that this is simply your poor reading comprehension talking. I've posted the webpage with the samples TWICE, including in the post you just replied to without having a clue as to what I actually said.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
You have a muss-mosh of ideas going on in that little head of yours. I now realize you still don't get it.
I never said AEians are Luyha-like. I and Henn has stated that the Luyha are ancestral to the Amazigh. Different discussion to what we are talking about here.
Again - You still don't understand what DNAconsultants are doing vs DNATribes.
DNAtribes took the holistic(ALL inclusive approach), while DNAConsultants parse out the STRs applying labels.
That is why DNATribes came up with a Tribescore and and MLI showing Amarnas cluster with SSA. With only specific(single) STRs Amarnas will cluster with other populations eg Copts and even the DISTANT Native Americans.
That does not mean the Amarnas are Native American or Copts. lol! Since ALL world populations carry the same STRs. But when the 8 STRs are combined AEians cluster with SSA.
You are wasting my time...bro.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Quote by DNAconsultants
Akhenaten Gene
Named for the pharaoh who attempted to convert Egypt to monotheism, this autosomal ancestry marker like most of the Amarna family group’s DNA is CLEARLY African in origin - See more at: http://dnaconsultants.com/akhenaten-gene#sthash.Bn9pu1rF.dpuf
====
In other words DNAconsultants AND DNATribes agree on the samething.
So the "Proprietary Software" nonsense that Sage mouthing off is nonsensical. Again shows most here don't get it.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
For the record from DNAconsultants. They too like DNATRibes are that Africans civilized that world.
===
Take the Thuya Gene, for instance. Like most of the other Rare Genes from History, it has an African origin in deep time. But it experienced its greatest expansion in ancient Egypt, where it was carried by the queens of Upper and Lower Egypt and High Priestesses of the temples. It was reported in the profile of Queen Thuya's mummy, and we can see that she passed it to her children, grandchildren and descendants. King Tut was a great-grandson and has it, according to the new forensic evidence.
Today, as many as one-fourth of all people on earth would test positive for the Thuya Gene. It is twice as common in Somalia as outside Africa and is found in 40% of Muslim Egyptians.
That's not so rare after all, but unsurprising. Egyptian civilization lasted for three thousand years and sowed the seed of its peoples and ideas throughout the world. We can imagine that Autosomal Thuya started out in East Africa about 100,000 years ago, and that her descendants were prominent in the first out-of-Africa group as well as in the Middle Easterners who helped spread agriculture, animal husbandry, religion and settled town life to Europe.
The spirit of Thuya lives on in 27% of Jews who have been tested in academic studies. Extrapolating to world population figures, that's nearly 400,000 people, about evenly divided between the United States and Israel - See more at:
You are wasting my time.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xyyman: I never said AEians are Luyha-like. I and Henn has stated that the Luyha are ancestral to the Amazigh
Same difference, gramps. The Luhya are in DNA Tribes' pooled Great Lakes sample. Are you saying that it wasn't/isn't your position that the AE were Great Lakes and that the Nubians I cited were only distantly related to both?
quote:Originally posted by Xyyman: DNAtribes took the holistic(ALL inclusive approach), while DNAConsultants parse out the STRs applying labels.
Stop changing the subject and lecturing me on captain obvious non-issues. Answer the issue. How did you come to the conclusion that it's a database issue? DNA Tribes has the same African samples that popaffiliator has.
quote:Originally posted by Xyyman: You are wasting my time.
Then put your "time" to good use by proving that the Amarna alleles occur more in the Ovamba and Tanzanian sample than in the Egyptian samples.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Gramps, what's the matter. Scared?
No one cares about opinions. Produce evidence for your claims. Apparently I have to hold your hand and walk you through the samples. If that's what it takes for you to stop polluting this thread with your fabrications, so be it.
And PROVE that the pharaonic alleles occur more in the above **unpooled** Sub-Saharan African samples than in the above **unpooled** northeast African samples. Don't even try to come back with no sneaky pooled North African vs pooled SSA sample analysis. When you're done, report your results back here so everyone can verify your results.
*Grabs popcorn*
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nodnarb: This post doesn't directly relate to previous discussions in this thread, but it's still about the larger topic of ancient Egypt as it pertains to "Black African/Afro-Diasporan" identity.
I may have come around to agreeing that "black" isn't a useful term for any population in a bio-anthropological context. But I shouldn't lie, as an amateur artist, I still like mixing Egyptian influences with those from elsewhere in Africa as well as the African Diaspora. Sometimes, when I'm in a shits-and-giggles mood, I like to throw recognizable aspects of African-American culture into an AE context. Examples have included hip-hop, twerking, finger-snapping, and distaste for Eurasians molesting their hair, among others.
I am fully aware the dynastic AE ancestry in Diasporans isn't as significant as that from West or Central Africa, and that Africa has never been a culturally homogeneous continent either. Certainly I don't assume every "Black" person I see has the mannerisms of an archetypical African-American; I would recall such an assumption stereotypical and ignorant at best. But it does seem to me that a large proportion of Black African-descended people, regardless of their specific ancestral population substructure, do see the AEs as a prestigious part of the larger "Pan-African" club, and as far as I can tell they mostly find my portrayals cute or humorous rather than offensive. Plus I like being provocative and bucking the larger trend of conflating AE culture with Arabs or Mesopotamians.
But given how Pan-Africanism clashes with the complex realities of biological anthropology as elaborated here, this kind of art is starting to feel like a guilty pleasure.
I don't understand your point. What bio-anthropological context omits skin color and the fact that almost all indigenous Africans are tropically adapted black people. It is one thing to say that "black" has been muddied by 400 years of racism and totally another to say that "black skin" isn't a valid bio-anthropological concept IN AFRICA. One is a semantic issue the other is nonsense. It implies that bio-antrhopologically the AE somehow fall outside the range of features, including skin color found throughout the rest of Africa which is a contradiction in terms. If the point is that bio-anthropologically the AE were well within the range of biological features found across other African populations then that would also assume this includes skin color which is also biological in nature.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ↑ That is EXACTLY what it all boils down to: made-made RULES.
When I say that the AE weren't black according to a particular tradition, some knuckleheads think I'm questioning the Africanity of the AE.
If many brown and dark brown skinned North Africans fall outside of the definition of 'black' of a particular observer, and I acknowledge that such a definition exists (e.g. Ptolemy who only considered the tribes around Meroe "pure Aethiopians" and "true blacks"), that doesn't mean that I'm co-signing that tradition.
SMH. These are subjective rules, and yes, if someone uses 'black' in reference to any other skin tone than what visually appears to be jet-black skin, their own definition of 'black', whatever it is, is based on subjective rules. And yes, Ptolemy's definition of who has 'black' skin is more defensible than other definitions of who has 'black' skin, including the al Jahiz one I've subscribed to in the past.
If you're going to argue that Ptolemy is wrong for applying brown to brown-skinned Egyptians and lower Nubians and black to those further south who had jet-black skin, you're chemically imbalanced and I don't need to be talking to you.
DUMB ASS I AM SAYING THEY WERE THE SAME COMPLEXION AS SUDANESE WHO NOBODY HAS A PROBLEM CALLING BLACK. NOBODY GOES TO SUDAN AND CLAIMS ONLY SOME SUDANESE LIKE THE DINKA AND NEUER ARE BLACK WHILE THE REST ARENT, EVEN THOUGH THERE ARE VARIOUS SHADES OF BROWN IN SUDAN JUST LIKE THERE ARE VARIOUS SHADES OF BROWN THROUGHOUT ALL OF AFRICA. EGYPT WAS NO DIFFERENT THAN ANY OTHER AFRICAN POPULATION STUPID. THERE WAS NO DIFFERENCE IN COMPLEXION IS MY POINT.
STOP TALKING RETARDED.
WHEN I SAY BLACK I MEAN BLACK.
YOU ARE BEING REFUCKINGTARDED.
NOBODY IS GOING TO SIT HERE AND TRY TO COME UP WITH HUNDREDS OF DIFFERENT NAMES FOR INDIVIDUAL SHADES OF BROWN FOUND ACROSS ALL OF AFRICA. THAT IS ABSURD. BLACK IS PERFECTLY SUFFICIENT AS A RFEFERENCE TO TROPICALLY ADAPTED BLACK POPULATIONS IN AFRICA. AND THAT IS HOW THE WORD IS DEFINED IN THE DAM DICTIONARY AND HOW IT HAS BEEN USED FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS. AND THERE WAS NO "SPECIAL" SHADE OF BROWN CALLED "EGYPTIAN #22" THAT WAS UNIQUE TO EGYPT. THEY WERE BLACK. PERIOD, WITH THE SAME KINDS OF FEATURES AND SKIN COLOR AS OTHER BLACK AFRICANS.
YOUR POINT IS STUPID.
I AM NOT FLIP FLOPPING YOU SIMPLY ARE DISGUSTING WITH YOUR B.S.
WHEN WHITE SCIENTISTS REJECT BLACK FOR AE THEY ARE REJECTING WHAT I JUST SAID, MEANING THEY REJECT THAT THE AE HAD A SKIN COLOR SIMILAR TO MOST AFRICANS AND SUDANESE. YOU SIMPLY ARE TALKING GARBAGE WHEN YOU KNOW BETTER.
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nodnarb: This post doesn't directly relate to previous discussions in this thread, but it's still about the larger topic of ancient Egypt as it pertains to "Black African/Afro-Diasporan" identity.
I may have come around to agreeing that "black" isn't a useful term for any population in a bio-anthropological context. But I shouldn't lie, as an amateur artist, I still like mixing Egyptian influences with those from elsewhere in Africa as well as the African Diaspora. Sometimes, when I'm in a shits-and-giggles mood, I like to throw recognizable aspects of African-American culture into an AE context. Examples have included hip-hop, twerking, finger-snapping, and distaste for Eurasians molesting their hair, among others.
I am fully aware the dynastic AE ancestry in Diasporans isn't as significant as that from West or Central Africa, and that Africa has never been a culturally homogeneous continent either. Certainly I don't assume every "Black" person I see has the mannerisms of an archetypical African-American; I would recall such an assumption stereotypical and ignorant at best. But it does seem to me that a large proportion of Black African-descended people, regardless of their specific ancestral population substructure, do see the AEs as a prestigious part of the larger "Pan-African" club, and as far as I can tell they mostly find my portrayals cute or humorous rather than offensive. Plus I like being provocative and bucking the larger trend of conflating AE culture with Arabs or Mesopotamians.
But given how Pan-Africanism clashes with the complex realities of biological anthropology as elaborated here, this kind of art is starting to feel like a guilty pleasure.
Its just that most serious Africanist who are African-American just want to see Ancient Egypt be part of African history like Rome and Greece are apart of European history. Some people exaggerate that most Africanist AA's "want to be Egyptians."
Good post by the way.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
quote:Originally posted by Nodnarb: This post doesn't directly relate to previous discussions in this thread, but it's still about the larger topic of ancient Egypt as it pertains to "Black African/Afro-Diasporan" identity.
I may have come around to agreeing that "black" isn't a useful term for any population in a bio-anthropological context. But I shouldn't lie, as an amateur artist, I still like mixing Egyptian influences with those from elsewhere in Africa as well as the African Diaspora. Sometimes, when I'm in a shits-and-giggles mood, I like to throw recognizable aspects of African-American culture into an AE context. Examples have included hip-hop, twerking, finger-snapping, and distaste for Eurasians molesting their hair, among others.
I am fully aware the dynastic AE ancestry in Diasporans isn't as significant as that from West or Central Africa, and that Africa has never been a culturally homogeneous continent either. Certainly I don't assume every "Black" person I see has the mannerisms of an archetypical African-American; I would recall such an assumption stereotypical and ignorant at best. But it does seem to me that a large proportion of Black African-descended people, regardless of their specific ancestral population substructure, do see the AEs as a prestigious part of the larger "Pan-African" club, and as far as I can tell they mostly find my portrayals cute or humorous rather than offensive. Plus I like being provocative and bucking the larger trend of conflating AE culture with Arabs or Mesopotamians.
But given how Pan-Africanism clashes with the complex realities of biological anthropology as elaborated here, this kind of art is starting to feel like a guilty pleasure.
Its just that most serious Africanist who are African-American just want to see Ancient Egypt be part of African history like Rome and Greece are apart of European history. Some people exaggerate that most Africanist AA's "want to be Egyptians."
Good post by the way.
No the problem is racism and some folks on this thread are playing this game of pretending that European science is objective about it but last I checked all the movies and reenactments about Egypt to this day still show them as WHITE EUROPEANS.
So here is the point. If you and your crew of 'objective scholars' was really doing such a great job on schooling everyone on how African AE was, then how come they still portray them as pure white Europeans? And where is this "objective science" that claims the AE were really brown, because I don't see it.
So I call it like I see it while some clowns like living in fantasy world.
And these clowns have the nerve to come here and show their azz and talk sh*t to people who know better.
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
^^^
Hollywood=/=Academia.
Most filmmakers in Hollywood are laymen who never even read scientific anthropological date on the AE, so I can careless if they depict the Egyptians as pake skinned Europeans. Its up to us blacks in America to make our own film industry/media.
Edit: Heck I think I remember the film producer of Gods of Egypt saying he just made them "white" because he wasn't really sure what race the AE were...
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: ^^^
Hollywood=/=Academia.
Most filmmakers in Hollywood are laymen who never even read scientific anthropological date on the AE, so I can careless if they depict the Egyptians as pake skinned Europeans. Its up to us blacks in America to make our own film industry/media.
Edit: Heck I think I remember the film producer of Gods of Egypt saying he just made them "white" because he wasn't really sure what race the AE were...
Bull sh*t. I already post prominent Egyptologists who are currently sponsoring DIGS in Egypt saying Victor Mature was a perfect representation of Horemheb.
Go to ANY school of Egyptology in America and Europe and call the AE black and they will tell you point blank that they were not black. And what they are referring to is skin color, which includes brown skin as well.
White scientists have been rejecting the idea of the AE as black since they discovered Egypt including folks like Zahi Hawass. Don't start talking that silly tripe that the white scientists 'really' believe otherwise, because they don't.
White scientists created scientific racism stupid and they are deserving of criticism and are not 'objective' in any sense other than individuals who buck the system and publish truth, but those are individuals who buck the system. The system still promotes lies.
Just admit it. You want approval from these folks which is why you would rather be a lap dog and not challenge them.... Including telling lies to defend them.
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
^^^No offense but your reading is really off. Read my reply to you AGAIN. Especially the "Hollywood=/acedemia".
NO ONE is denying racism in Egyptology(hell I agree that Egyptology to an extent was founded on racism), but that LAYMEN in Hollywood are NOT the same as those in academia.
Since you brought up Hollywood depicting AE as white in their films. Again their opinions does not matter because like I said most film makers are not even well versed in the origins of the Ancient Egyptians, hell Hollyweird is not well versed in ANYTHING historical!
Now do you get what I am saying?
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: ^^^No offense but your reading is really off. Read my reply to you AGAIN. Especially the "Hollywood=/acedemia".
NO ONE is denying racism in Egyptology(hell I agree that Egyptology to an extent was founded on racism), but that LAYMEN in Hollywood are NOT the same as those in academia.
Since you brought up Hollywood depicting AE as white in their films. Again their opinions does not matter because like I said most film makers are not even well versed in the origins of the Ancient Egyptians, hell Hollyweird is not well versed in ANYTHING historical!
Now do you get what I am saying?
You are stupid then.
How about that?
If you don't see the obvious that white folks run both Egyptology and hollywood you are stupid. They are same people who raped Africa and AE history. Racism requires no advanced degree. These are the same dam people.
Don't talk that retarded nonsense to me.
As long as they are in power in Hollywood and in control of the antiquities in Egypt they will never show the AE as anything other than white people because of racism. This is not an 'expertise' issue it is a racism issue.
I am getting tired of clowns trying to sit here and claim these people are 'objective' when everything they do shows just the opposite. GTFOH with that nonsense.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
What are you going to do about it?
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
When I ran Amenhotep's STR profile against distinct ethnic groups with pooled Upper Egypt and pooled Sudan data it overturned narrow sampling used 5 years ago.
It sure was silly to think results convincing when Egypt, Sudan, and Nilo-Saharans left out.
This table shows Upper Egypt, Sudan, and Somali as closest to Amenhotep's profile.
Kenya BaNtu follows further behind.
Above comments based on weighing locus and allele matches and frequencies.
Below comments are observations on ethnic and geographic affinities of some loci and alleles.
CSFP1O = 6; San D7S820 = 6; Biaka FGA = 31.2; Kenya Bantu alleles are exclusive in Africa to only the above today.
D2S1338 = 16 27; Egypt Sudan D18S51 = 16 22; Egypt Sudan Somali FGA = 23 31.2; Somali loci are only found today as where named.
D16S539 = 8 13 locus and D2S1338 = 16 D13S317 = 10 D18S51 = 16 FGA = 23 alleles are not very specific markers.
D21S11 = 34 interestingly enough appears only in Biaka, San, Mbuti, and NE Africa.
The situation is more complex than simply closest matching population or geography. This was well worth revisiting.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Amenhotep III is the blackest looking of all Pharaohs
-just kidding
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Comparatively, the Yuya Mummy:
Not your typical South African
Posted by Child Of The KING (Member # 9422) on :
Updated
NO MATTER WHAT MIXTURE PEOPLE MIXED WITH, ALL OF THE MIXTURE MAKES BROWN.
BLACK COLOR, WHITE COLOR, RED COLOR, YELLOW COLOR, ORIGINAL COLORS, BROWN COLOR'S MIXTURE
Black Mixes With Red
Child Comes Out Red
THE CHILD RED OR BROWN
Child Comes out Black
THE CHILD BLACK OR BROWN
Meaning Yellow Mixes With White
Child Comes Out White
THE CHILD WHITE OR BROWN
Child Comes out Yellow
THE CHILD YELLOW OR BROWN
continued repost
Meaning Yellow Mixes With Red
Child Comes Out Yellow
THE CHILD YELLOW OR BROWN
Child Comes Out Red
THE CHILD RED OR BROWN
Black Mixes with White..
Child comes out White
THE CHILD WHITE OR BROWN
Child comes out Black
THE CHILD BLACK OR BROWN
Black mixes with Yellow..
Child comes out Yellow
THE CHILD YELLOW OR BROWN
Child comes out Black
THE CHILD BLACK OR BROWN
Black mixes with Red..
Child comes out Red
THE CHILD RED OR BROWN
Child Comes out Black
THE CHILD BLACK OR BROWN
etc for all Peoples Mixtures..
BROWN IS MIXTURE.
NO MATTER THE COLOR PEOPLES SKIN COLOR NOT DARK
ALL PEOPLE COME FROM BLACK PEOPLE
DARK SKIN ALL EUROPEANS
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: ^^^No offense but your reading is really off. Read my reply to you AGAIN. Especially the "Hollywood=/acedemia".
NO ONE is denying racism in Egyptology(hell I agree that Egyptology to an extent was founded on racism), but that LAYMEN in Hollywood are NOT the same as those in academia.
Since you brought up Hollywood depicting AE as white in their films. Again their opinions does not matter because like I said most film makers are not even well versed in the origins of the Ancient Egyptians, hell Hollyweird is not well versed in ANYTHING historical!
Now do you get what I am saying?
You are stupid then.
How about that?
If you don't see the obvious that white folks run both Egyptology and hollywood you are stupid. They are same people who raped Africa and AE history. Racism requires no advanced degree. These are the same dam people.
Don't talk that retarded nonsense to me.
As long as they are in power in Hollywood and in control of the antiquities in Egypt they will never show the AE as anything other than white people because of racism. This is not an 'expertise' issue it is a racism issue.
I am getting tired of clowns trying to sit here and claim these people are 'objective' when everything they do shows just the opposite. GTFOH with that nonsense.
Yeah now I definitely see what Swenet was talking about... And I thought you were a good poster.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ↑ That is EXACTLY what it all boils down to: made-made RULES.
When I say that the AE weren't black according to a particular tradition, some knuckleheads think I'm questioning the Africanity of the AE.
If many brown and dark brown skinned North Africans fall outside of the definition of 'black' of a particular observer, and I acknowledge that such a definition exists (e.g. Ptolemy who only considered the tribes around Meroe "pure Aethiopians" and "true blacks"), that doesn't mean that I'm co-signing that tradition.
SMH. These are subjective rules, and yes, if someone uses 'black' in reference to any other skin tone than what visually appears to be jet-black skin, their own definition of 'black', whatever it is, is based on subjective rules. And yes, Ptolemy's definition of who has 'black' skin is more defensible than other definitions of who has 'black' skin, including the al Jahiz one I've subscribed to in the past.
If you're going to argue that Ptolemy is wrong for applying brown to brown-skinned Egyptians and lower Nubians and black to those further south who had jet-black skin, you're chemically imbalanced and I don't need to be talking to you.
DUMB ASS I AM SAYING THEY WERE THE SAME COMPLEXION AS SUDANESE WHO NOBODY HAS A PROBLEM CALLING BLACK. NOBODY GOES TO SUDAN AND CLAIMS ONLY SOME SUDANESE LIKE THE DINKA AND NEUER ARE BLACK WHILE THE REST ARENT, EVEN THOUGH THERE ARE VARIOUS SHADES OF BROWN IN SUDAN JUST LIKE THERE ARE VARIOUS SHADES OF BROWN THROUGHOUT ALL OF AFRICA. EGYPT WAS NO DIFFERENT THAN ANY OTHER AFRICAN POPULATION STUPID. THERE WAS NO DIFFERENCE IN COMPLEXION IS MY POINT.
STOP TALKING RETARDED.
WHEN I SAY BLACK I MEAN BLACK.
YOU ARE BEING REFUCKINGTARDED.
NOBODY IS GOING TO SIT HERE AND TRY TO COME UP WITH HUNDREDS OF DIFFERENT NAMES FOR INDIVIDUAL SHADES OF BROWN FOUND ACROSS ALL OF AFRICA. THAT IS ABSURD. BLACK IS PERFECTLY SUFFICIENT AS A RFEFERENCE TO TROPICALLY ADAPTED BLACK POPULATIONS IN AFRICA. AND THAT IS HOW THE WORD IS DEFINED IN THE DAM DICTIONARY AND HOW IT HAS BEEN USED FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS. AND THERE WAS NO "SPECIAL" SHADE OF BROWN CALLED "EGYPTIAN #22" THAT WAS UNIQUE TO EGYPT. THEY WERE BLACK. PERIOD, WITH THE SAME KINDS OF FEATURES AND SKIN COLOR AS OTHER BLACK AFRICANS.
YOUR POINT IS STUPID.
I AM NOT FLIP FLOPPING YOU SIMPLY ARE DISGUSTING WITH YOUR B.S.
WHEN WHITE SCIENTISTS REJECT BLACK FOR AE THEY ARE REJECTING WHAT I JUST SAID, MEANING THEY REJECT THAT THE AE HAD A SKIN COLOR SIMILAR TO MOST AFRICANS AND SUDANESE. YOU SIMPLY ARE TALKING GARBAGE WHEN YOU KNOW BETTER.
Doug, dry your eyes and take your medicine. There have always been people who didn't group all shades of brown into 'black'. I know it's a bitter pill to swallow, given your racial politics, but get over it. You're starting to look like a mental case right now.
quote:Now the inhabitants of the marches are not yet fully black but are half-breeds in matter of color, for they are partly not so black as the Ethiopians, yet partly more so than the Egyptians. Apollonius, accordingly, when he realized the character of the market, remarked: "Contrast our good Hellenes: they pretend they cannot live unless one penny begets another and unless they can force up the price of their goods by chaffering or holding them back; and one pretends that he has got a daughter whom it is time to marry, and another that he has got a son who has just reached manhood, and a third that he has to pay his subscription to his club, and a fourth that he is having a house built for him, and a fifth that he would be ashamed of being thought a worse man of business than his father was before him.
And yes, brown skinned North Africans in Sudan and elsewhere are often called non-black using whatever use of 'black' they adhere to. You're delusional, Doug. And you can't read. But what else is new?
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ↑ That is EXACTLY what it all boils down to: made-made RULES.
When I say that the AE weren't black according to a particular tradition, some knuckleheads think I'm questioning the Africanity of the AE.
If many brown and dark brown skinned North Africans fall outside of the definition of 'black' of a particular observer, and I acknowledge that such a definition exists (e.g. Ptolemy who only considered the tribes around Meroe "pure Aethiopians" and "true blacks"), that doesn't mean that I'm co-signing that tradition.
SMH. These are subjective rules, and yes, if someone uses 'black' in reference to any other skin tone than what visually appears to be jet-black skin, their own definition of 'black', whatever it is, is based on subjective rules. And yes, Ptolemy's definition of who has 'black' skin is more defensible than other definitions of who has 'black' skin, including the al Jahiz one I've subscribed to in the past.
If you're going to argue that Ptolemy is wrong for applying brown to brown-skinned Egyptians and lower Nubians and black to those further south who had jet-black skin, you're chemically imbalanced and I don't need to be talking to you.
DUMB ASS I AM SAYING THEY WERE THE SAME COMPLEXION AS SUDANESE WHO NOBODY HAS A PROBLEM CALLING BLACK. NOBODY GOES TO SUDAN AND CLAIMS ONLY SOME SUDANESE LIKE THE DINKA AND NEUER ARE BLACK WHILE THE REST ARENT, EVEN THOUGH THERE ARE VARIOUS SHADES OF BROWN IN SUDAN JUST LIKE THERE ARE VARIOUS SHADES OF BROWN THROUGHOUT ALL OF AFRICA. EGYPT WAS NO DIFFERENT THAN ANY OTHER AFRICAN POPULATION STUPID. THERE WAS NO DIFFERENCE IN COMPLEXION IS MY POINT.
STOP TALKING RETARDED.
WHEN I SAY BLACK I MEAN BLACK.
YOU ARE BEING REFUCKINGTARDED.
NOBODY IS GOING TO SIT HERE AND TRY TO COME UP WITH HUNDREDS OF DIFFERENT NAMES FOR INDIVIDUAL SHADES OF BROWN FOUND ACROSS ALL OF AFRICA. THAT IS ABSURD. BLACK IS PERFECTLY SUFFICIENT AS A RFEFERENCE TO TROPICALLY ADAPTED BLACK POPULATIONS IN AFRICA. AND THAT IS HOW THE WORD IS DEFINED IN THE DAM DICTIONARY AND HOW IT HAS BEEN USED FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS. AND THERE WAS NO "SPECIAL" SHADE OF BROWN CALLED "EGYPTIAN #22" THAT WAS UNIQUE TO EGYPT. THEY WERE BLACK. PERIOD, WITH THE SAME KINDS OF FEATURES AND SKIN COLOR AS OTHER BLACK AFRICANS.
YOUR POINT IS STUPID.
I AM NOT FLIP FLOPPING YOU SIMPLY ARE DISGUSTING WITH YOUR B.S.
WHEN WHITE SCIENTISTS REJECT BLACK FOR AE THEY ARE REJECTING WHAT I JUST SAID, MEANING THEY REJECT THAT THE AE HAD A SKIN COLOR SIMILAR TO MOST AFRICANS AND SUDANESE. YOU SIMPLY ARE TALKING GARBAGE WHEN YOU KNOW BETTER.
Doug, dry your eyes and take your medicine. There have always been people who didn't group all shades of brown into 'black'. I know it's a bitter pill to swallow, given your racial politics, but get over it. You're starting to look like a mental case right now.
Why is that only relevant to Egypt? I don't see anybody questioning the use of the term black for any population in Africa below Egypt. And we all know that across Africa there are many shades of brown. Just like there are many shades of brown among Africans in the diaspora like in Europe, the Americas and the Caribbean. So why is it perfectly fine to call all of these shades of brown black everywhere else but not Egypt? You are clowning yourself trying to sit up here and claim that there is some 'real' science behind not wanting to call the AE black. There is none. They don't want the AE to have any complexion similar to any population in Africa or the Diaspora. You are simply trying to claim that racists aren't racists and that somehow all this is a misunderstanding when it isn't. There is no misunderstanding about what black means in terms of skin color. You simply are lying.
quote:
quote:Now the inhabitants of the marches are not yet fully black but are half-breeds in matter of color, for they are partly not so black as the Ethiopians, yet partly more so than the Egyptians. Apollonius, accordingly, when he realized the character of the market, remarked: "Contrast our good Hellenes: they pretend they cannot live unless one penny begets another and unless they can force up the price of their goods by chaffering or holding them back; and one pretends that he has got a daughter whom it is time to marry, and another that he has got a son who has just reached manhood, and a third that he has to pay his subscription to his club, and a fourth that he is having a house built for him, and a fifth that he would be ashamed of being thought a worse man of business than his father was before him.
The point is they used the word black as a reference to skin color moron. You just contradicted yourself again. Since page one you have been claiming that 'black' had different meanings and wasn't a reference to skin color yet here they are using it. So you just keep going in circles trying to deny the obvious that black has always been a reference to skin color. And in this particular example, they don't use some other term to represent the 'mix breeds' they just call them 'less black'. Come on dude. Give it up already. Everybody knows what black means and you are simply being asinine about the idea that the word 'black' is so complex that someone doesnt understand it as a reference to skin color when your own references state just that.
quote: And yes, brown skinned North Africans in Sudan and elsewhere are often called non-black using whatever use of 'black' they adhere to. You're delusional, Doug. And you can't read. But what else is new?
Last I checked, all the scientists I have heard and Egyptologists called Sudanese black. So again, where is this 'science' saying the Sudanese aren't black people and that the word black isn't valid in Sudan with all the different ethnic groups and variations of brown skin there? There is no one shade of brown in Africa and therefore if science was so 'objective' then no population of Africans anywhere on the planet or other populations outside of Africa would be called black because they aren't literally all the same color. But that is not how it works in reality and you know it. The issue here is that there is no problem calling the Sudanese and other Africans South of Egypt black. The problem is calling the AE black and again, it is because the racists refuse to show the AE as anything similar to other Africans in skin color. Your appeals to objectivity are simply hot air because these folks are not being objective they are racist. If black wasn't valid they wouldn't use it anywhere but they do and it means what I said it means, dark skinned tropically adapted skin colors, as found in Africa. They know that and so does everybody else. You are the only one sitting up here trying to claim there is some other meaning for the word and that it isn't about skin color when everybody knows that it is.
European descriptions of Sudan and its history from 100 years ago where they impose 'racial politics' on ancient history along the Nile, with all its inherent contradictions. To claim that anyone on this forum introduced this is nonsensical.
quote: IV All these people are Muhammadans and have Arab blood in their veins, but racial characteristics derived from non-Arab ancestors have survived very persistently, and more noticeably so among the Mahass and Sukkot. The Kanuz and Danagla approximate very much more to the Arab type.
At the same time, the importation of slave women from the south, which has proceeded uninterruptedly for centuries, has lent a further measure of spurious homogeneity to all of these Nubian peoples 4 .
As regards the Barabra as a whole one thing is quite certain: there are no grounds for closely connecting them as a race with the Nuba of southern Kordofan as Riippell, Rossi and Keane did 1 . They are very similar in type to the Middle Nubians who lived between 3000 and 4000 years ago in the same locality, but these had no more racial affinity with the southern Nuba than the Barabra-Danagla have, and the latter are almost the complete antithesis of the southern Nuba both physically and culturally 2 .
It may be the case, and probably is, that the southern Nuba are to some extent the modern representatives of the race of negroes who temporarily held Dongola and the cataract country south of Haifa in the days of the Middle Kingdom and early Empire and whose congeners, no doubt at a later date, formed part of the forces of the Ethiopian dynasty that conquered Egypt and ruled it for something less than a century, but these negroes were aliens in the northern Sudan and most of them were forced back to the south, and their place in Lower Nubia was taken by its original inhabitants and settlers from Egypt.
In the Dodekaschoinos 3 it is probable that the negroes had hardly displaced the original inhabitants, but south of Haifa they must have done so temporarily and to some extent modified the racial type in the process. But, even so, allowing for periods of interruption, it is true to say that from the time of the Middle Empire (2000-1600 B.C.) and onwards for centuries, and throughout the Meroitic, Ptolemaic and classical periods, and again in the years preceding the decisive Arab conquest of the Sudan, a strong infiltration of the Egyptian and, later, of the Egypto-Arab type was steadily and almost un- interruptedly proceeding in the northern Sudan and the negro element was correspondingly decreasing in that region.
VI It will be seen too that this prolonged infiltration to the south was more than the return of an ancient population, reinforced by fresh blood, to its quondam home on the river. When once the Arabs had overthrown the Christian kingdom of Dongola and established themselves in its place, they rapidly amalgamated with the local Nubians and began to send colonies further afield.
Thus it came about that Barabra, with an Arab leaven, penetrated into Kordofan and settled round about the most northernly of the Nuba mountains and intermarried with the negroes who were probably descendants of the erstwhile conquerors of Nubia 1 . The immigrating race, in addition, imposed its own language upon the blacks in their vicinity, and thus are explainable the linguistic affinities which have troubled so many generations of investigators. The Barabra, in short, do not speak a language akin to that of the northern Nuba of southern Kordofan because the negroes conquered Nubia, the negroes probably spoke some language or languages of their own that may still survive in the mountain fastnesses of the far south, but because the Barabra colonized the country round the foot of the northern hills of Dar Nuba. The conclusion, however, has here anticipated the argument and we must revert.
The Earliest Inhabitants of Nubia
VII As regards the earliest period it has been proved that those shadowy inhabitants of northern Nubia, who are known to archaeologists as "Group A," were contemporaries of the pre-dynastic Egyptians, that both buried their dead in the same way and that in cultural matters there were marked similarities. The two peoples must have been practically uniform 2 , and their stock may have extended in a more or less diluted form from Egypt to the Blue Nile and Abyssinia 3 . They were a "small, dark-haired, black-eyed, glabrous people" bearing a close resemblance to the Libyans of the southern Mediterranean seaboard, and were, in the earliest period of all, devoid of all negro characteristics 4 .
The First Arrival of the Negroes
VIII Later, about the time of the third dynasty, negro types began to settle in Nubia as far north as Aswan, and from now onwards "the population that grew up was a mixture of early Nubian and dynastic Egyptian with an ever increasing Negro element 5 ."
(a) The Bahr el Ghazdl Type
These negroes were for the most part "short and relatively broad- headed," of a type akin to that found at the present day in the south of the Bahr el Ghazal province, and entirely distinct from the invaders of the Empire period.
(b) The Nilotic Type
The tall Nilotes, Shilluk, Dinka and Nuer of the White Nile valley, who now intervene between the Bahr el Ghazal and Nubia, and are dissimilar to either group and display certain Bantu affinities, could not at the time of the earlier (Bahr el Ghazal) invasion have yet occupied their present position 1 . It is likely that they arrived there during the second millennium B.C., or later.
The "C Group" in Lower Nubia
IX By the time of the twelfth dynasty the fusion of races in Lower Nubia had resulted in the production of the singularly homogeneous blend of traits which distinguish the people of the Middle Empire, that is, dynasties twelve to seventeen, or "C Group"; the very type which in a modified form is represented in the same locality by the Barabra of the present day.
By the same date the population further south must have become almost exclusively negro (nehes).
Early Libyan Influences in Nubia
X Concurrently with the early negro infusion into Nubia further racial modification was probably being caused by the settlement on the Nile of Libyans (Temehu) from the western oases and the steppes of northern Kordofan.
In the time of the sixth dynasty, about 2750 B.C., Harkhuf, the Governor of the district round Aswan, went to Yam, i.e. Lower Nubia on the west side 2 , and, he says, "I found the chief of Yam going to the land of Temeh to smite Temeh as far as the western corner of heaven. I went forth after him to the land of Temeh and I pacified him... 3 ." Harkhuf then went southwards through Upper Nubia, crossed over to the east bank, and returned downstream to Egypt bringing with him incense, ebony, oil, grain, panther-skins, ivory and throwing-sticks 4 . The advocates of the Libyan theory find here evidence that the Libyans (Temehu) lived between the first and second cataracts, but as Giuffrida-Ruggeri remarks 5 , "there is still the possibility suggested by Hrdlicka 6 that these Temehu lived... on the oases of Kharga and Dakhla, which are in the Libyan desert...." .... .... Christianity had penetrated to the Ethiopians and Blemyes refers to the Abyssinians and Troglodytes converted by Frumentius in the east 2 , but it is none the less probable that there were Christians in Nubia at the same period, and the record of Cosmus Indico- pleustes prove that there were some there in the fifth century 3 .
XXVIII In the sixth century conversion took place on a larger scale. A certain priest named Julianus "...was greatly concerned for the black people of the Nobades, who lived on the southern border of the Thebaid, and as they were heathen he wished to convert them " He accordingly persuaded Theodora, the Empress of Justinian, to send him on a mission to Nubia. There he "taught and baptized the king and the nobles, and... thus were all the people of Kushites converted to the orthodox faith 4 , and they became subjects of the throne of Alexandria 5 ."
You're starting to look like a mental case right now.
-when you see all capital letters it's a sign the mental state is deteriorating
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Good work.
Deleted my first comment because I thought I would take more time to analyze your table. But a quick glance at it confirms what DNATribes stated. Even including your new sample sets. The Amarnas lean towards Southern Africans. Like San – 167, 250, and Biaka 025, 150, Mbuti 231, 077, SAFRb 188, 250, KenB 091, 227, 045
So DNATribes was correct. The Amarnas lean towards Southern Africans and based upon DNATribes dataset Levantines and Amazigh are not very close to AEians.
But the fact is based upon the dataset DNATribes used, Great Lakes and South Africans carry closest affinity. And NOT Horners. Which was Swenet’s argument
BTW – I recommended this be in a different thread. As a mod I guess you can sort that out.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
More Doug flip flops:
1) Throughout this thread, Doug has tried to peddle his BS claim that 'black' has always included a range of brown pigmentation.
2) I then prove this wrong by posting Ptolemy and other late Greeks who used 'black' ONLY in reference to jet-black skin, while considering brown skin BROWN (not 'black').
3) Instead of addressing what I said, Doug flip flops and starts talking about dumb crap like whether or not 'black' is used as a color by that late Greek. As usual, Doug starts spacing out and knocking down the strawmen in the figments of his imagination:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The point is they used the word black as a reference to skin color moron.
No sh!t, captain obvious. Black was applied as a skin color in late Greek times. But your claim that that 'black' has always implied a range of brown skin colors just got torn a new one. Maybe that's why you're so butthurt.
Doug, take your meds.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Good work.
Deleted my first comment because I thought I would take more time to analyze your table. But a quick glance at it confirms what DNATribes stated. Even including your new sample sets. The Amarnas lean towards Southern Africans. Like San – 167, 250, and Biaka 025, 150, Mbuti 231, 077, SAFRb 188, 250, KenB 091, 227, 045
So DNATribes was correct. The Amarnas lean towards Southern Africans and based upon DNATribes dataset Levantines and Amazigh are not very close to AEians.
But the fact is based upon the dataset DNATribes used, Great Lakes and South Africans carry closest affinity. And NOT Horners. Which was Swenet’s argument
BTW – I recommended this be in a different thread. As a mod I guess you can sort that out.
Tunnel vision on your part.
Seven populations star in A III's movie. It's the NE Afrs who steal the show i. e * Upper Egypt * Sudan * Somali
Don't play dumb about pooling. Stand three midgets on their shoulders and they're taller than any baller but they can't sweep downcourt and dunk can they?
The table by target, latitude, and longitudeas originally loaded
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Tunnel vision?! But the fact is your data supports DNATribes proposal. Because of the "uniqueness" of these STRs between AIII and San/Mbuti (not Biaka) proves the ancient connection with the deep South . IIRC the Mbuti align with Nilo-Saharans . So it makes sense. DNA TRIBES was correct.
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Good work.
Deleted my first comment because I thought I would take more time to analyze your table. But a quick glance at it confirms what DNATribes stated. Even including your new sample sets. The Amarnas lean towards Southern Africans. Like San – 167, 250, and Biaka 025, 150, Mbuti 231, 077, SAFRb 188, 250, KenB 091, 227, 045
So DNATribes was correct. The Amarnas lean towards Southern Africans and based upon DNATribes dataset Levantines and Amazigh are not very close to AEians.
But the fact is based upon the dataset DNATribes used, Great Lakes and South Africans carry closest affinity. And NOT Horners. Which was Swenet’s argument
BTW – I recommended this be in a different thread. As a mod I guess you can sort that out.
Tunnel vision on your part.
Seven populations star in A III's movie. It's the NE Afrs who steal the show i. e * Upper Egypt * Sudan * Somali
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Let me break it down for you. Eg CSFP1O. yes, it has highest frequency in Somalia at 093. But you are making the big mistake as many Eurocentrics. The frequency does not mean shyte without “uniqueness”. Most Africans carry CSFP1O including Yorubans. So that nullifies CSFP1O. With that in mind the overview is AIII and the Amarnas STRONGLY lean towards the South as DNATribes susggested.
In fact the more I look at your table the more I am convinced DNATribes was correct. Step through the STRs of AIII and you will see a pattern. Just eye ball it, no computers necessary. Most of the STRs are not “exclusive” to AIII and your populations in Egypt/Sudan?som. Those STRs shared with Som, Sud, UpEg are very common throughout Africa. Amazingly the exclusivity lies with San, Biaka, MButi, KenB. There is “some” exclusivity with SOM which may be indicative of a genetic trail of ancestors of the AEians migration path. Keep in mind they are all Africans
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Let me break it down for you. Eg CSFP1O. yes, it has highest frequency in Somalia at 093.
Wha?
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: The frequency does not mean shyte without “uniqueness”. Most Africans carry CSFP1O including Yorubans.
Wha?
Everyone in the know reading this is laughing at your contortions at this point. Just stop it bro. Enough is enough.
You came back without proof, even though I challenged you to put money where your mouth is and provided links to the samples. I had to provide the links because you pretended that you hadn't seen the page they were on. Now you're pretending that you don't know by now that your interpretation of DNA Tribes is full of bs.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
What you wrote about CSFP1O is ignorant. It is simply a locus used in determining relationships between individuals and or populations.
No most Africans do not carry CSFP1O = 6. That is why the San percentage of 16.7% is so significant. San alone of all the sampled Africans carry CSFP1O = 6.
CSFP1O = 9 is absent in Senegalese Mandenka, Mzabi, South African BaNtu, and Biaka. Its freq shows a Somali, Kenya baNtu, Mbuti, Yoruba Cline tapering off with a weaker Sudan and trivial Upper Egypt showing.
No sampled populations (continental Africa + Israel) harbored A III's locus pair CSFP1O = 6 9.
Of course a more robust sample set could alter the above which is why I invite all to submit your own test results. No one who's worked at it as has Swenet (who corrected pop resolution) is going to listen to opinionated caterwauling from a MENSA won't put up original data gathering and analysis.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Siiiiigh!!! What is your problem? Calm down man. This is not a pissing contest besides I would win that one. You and Beyoku are cut from the same cloth man. Quick pick up on insignificant stuff. CSFP1O=9!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Look at your fkging chart. Most Africans carry CSFP1O=9 including AIII. I assume, your chart does not show it, but AIII CSFP1O=6?
Trying to explain to “me” what a lucus is is really stupid and shows you psycho state. I am only interpreting what your Table has. Not sure where you got the details from? I assume AIII has CSFP1O with 6 repeats since it was included. Which means San and AIII share a fkging uniquesness.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Lip service is all we getting from you. But if you change your mind you might post it as an original table to ES.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
An apology would be better……..
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Lip service is all we getting from you. But if you change your mind you might post it as an original table to ES.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Siiiiigh!!! What is your problem? Calm down man. This is not a pissing contest besides I would win that one. You and Beyoku are cut from the same cloth man. Quick pick up on insignificant stuff. CSFP1O=9!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Look at your fkging chart. Most Africans carry CSFP1O=9 including AIII. I assume, your chart does not show it, but AIII CSFP1O=6?
Trying to explain to “me” what a lucus is is really stupid and shows you psycho state. I am only interpreting what your Table has. Not sure where you got the details from? I assume AIII has CSFP1O with 6 repeats since it was included. Which means San and AIII share a fkging uniquesness.
.
Tables are made of rows and columns. This table's 1st row lists the basic 8 STRs of Amarna mummies.
The 2nd row gives the values of Amenhotep's paired alleles for each locus. The following rows do the same for 4 nations, 12 ethnic groups, 4+ language families, and 8 regions.
To the right of the main frequency table is a count of matching locus allele pair, highest frequency allele, and single alleles between A III and a selected sample. The highest frequency allele pair column is empty because in this case no locus has the highest frequency for both its alleles.
Below the main frequency table each allele's hi freq nation or ethnicity is noted making easy to spot assessments of today's major harborers of a 3300 year old pharaonic set of STRs.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
You are going over-board while you did pain- sakingly good work this is very simple. AIII carry 6 repeats at CSFP1O and 9 repeats at the other region. Most Africans carry 9 repeats also. But only San carry 6 repeats…along with AIII. Step through the process. No computer needed. By a process of elimination through shared STR one has to conclude DNATribes was right. This is very simple. No emotional outburst needed or waving your small dick around is needed.
QUOTE]Originally posted by Tukuler:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Siiiiigh!!! What is your problem? Calm down man. This is not a pissing contest besides I would win that one. You and Beyoku are cut from the same cloth man. Quick pick up on insignificant stuff. CSFP1O=9!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Look at your fkging chart. Most Africans carry CSFP1O=9 including AIII. I assume, your chart does not show it, but AIII CSFP1O=6?
Trying to explain to “me” what a lucus is is really stupid and shows you psycho state. I am only interpreting what your Table has. Not sure where you got the details from? I assume AIII has CSFP1O with 6 repeats since it was included. Which means San and AIII share a fkging uniquesness.
.
Tables are made of rows and columns. This table's 1st row lists the basic 8 STRs of Amarna mummies.
The 2nd row gives the values of Amenhotep's paired alleles for each locus. The following rows do the same for 4 nations, 12 ethnic groups, 4+ language families, and 8 regions. [/QUOTE]
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: More Doug flip flops:
1) Throughout this thread, Doug has tried to peddle his BS claim that 'black' has always included a range of brown pigmentation.
2) I then prove this wrong by posting Ptolemy and other late Greeks who used 'black' ONLY in reference to jet-black skin, while considering brown skin BROWN (not 'black').
3) Instead of addressing what I said, Doug flip flops and starts talking about dumb crap like whether or not 'black' is used as a color by that late Greek. As usual, Doug starts spacing out and knocking down the strawmen in the figments of his imagination:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The point is they used the word black as a reference to skin color moron.
No sh!t, captain obvious. Black was applied as a skin color in late Greek times. But your claim that that 'black' has always implied a range of brown skin colors just got torn a new one. Maybe that's why you're so butthurt.
The only person claiming that 'black' only applies to a certain segment of the population is you. Don't start lying because you have been shown WRONG again by your own dam citations.
Remember, YOU said white scholars don't use the term black. YOU said that it is a racial term and not based on skin color. YOU said that it is not scientific. Yet here they are using this term to this very day as a reference to skin color all over Africa. So again, you are wrong and you need to stop trying to resuscitate your comatose point.
quote: Doug, take your meds.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
No, you don't know how to do it right.
A III has 6 and 9 at CSFP1O.
San have 6, no others sampled do. That makes it very significant.
9 seeps from Somalia westward through Kenya toward Congo showing up in southern Nigeria. Remnants linger in Sudan and Upper Egypt though Palestinians have roughly the same amount.
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: You are going over-board while you did pain- sakingly good work this is very simple. AIII carry 6 repeats at CSFP1O and 9 repeats at the other region. Most Africans carry 9 repeats also. But only San carry 6 repeats…along with AIII. Step through the process. No computer needed. By a process of elimination through shared STR one has to conclude DNATribes was right. This is very simple. No emotional outburst needed or waving your small dick around is needed.
QUOTE]Originally posted by Tukuler:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Siiiiigh!!! What is your problem? Calm down man. This is not a pissing contest besides I would win that one. You and Beyoku are cut from the same cloth man. Quick pick up on insignificant stuff. CSFP1O=9!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Look at your fkging chart. Most Africans carry CSFP1O=9 including AIII. I assume, your chart does not show it, but AIII CSFP1O=6?
Trying to explain to “me” what a lucus is is really stupid and shows you psycho state. I am only interpreting what your Table has. Not sure where you got the details from? I assume AIII has CSFP1O with 6 repeats since it was included. Which means San and AIII share a fkging uniquesness.
.
Tables are made of rows and columns. This table's 1st row lists the basic 8 STRs of Amarna mummies.
The 2nd row gives the values of Amenhotep's paired alleles for each locus. The following rows do the same for 4 nations, 12 ethnic groups, 4+ language families, and 8 regions.
[/QUOTE]
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Ok. Expand on “empty” in your table. I assume that empty=no value in a column means…..what? I interpret CSFP1O=6 mean only San and AIII matches and the others do not have the same repeats. ie 16.7% of San carry 6 repeats for CSFP1O. Keep in mind the pattern is hyperbolic for STR within any population.
--- To the right of the main frequency table is a count of matching locus allele pair,highest frequency allele, and single alleles between A III and a selected sample. The highest frequency allele pair column is ****empty**** because in this case no locus has the highest frequency for ****both**** its alleles
---
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Most populations DO NOT carry 6 or 9 repeats at CSFP1O. They may carry 7 or 5 or some other numbers. Keep in mind the STRs fall within a range
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Aw hell naw While I work on Thuya U ain't doctor my table U lazy biscuit eater
I'm done wit ur asz, cuzn
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Royal ancestress Thuya's alleles are PanAfrican today. Her exact STR profile is extant in Upper Egypt & Sudan. Somali and South Africa baNtu would otherwise be nearest. Somalia due to loci & allele totals, S Afr Bantu to loci & highest frequency allele sums.
Standing out are D2S1338 = 26; Senegalese Mandenka, Yoruba, S Afr Bantu D21S11= 26; Mbuti
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
The weighed version
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Sorry, couldnt edit so hadto repost
Royal ancestress Thuya's exact STR profile is extant in Upper Egypt & Sudan. Her alleles are PanAfrican (including Israel/Palestine -- tectonic Africa) today.
Somali and South Africa baNtu would otherwise be nearest. Somalia due to loci & allele totals, S Afr Bantu to loci & highest frequency allele sums.
Standing out are D2S1338 = 26; Senegalese Mandenka, Yoruba, S Afr Bantu D21S11= 26; Mbuti
[/QB][/QUOTE]
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
I am not doctoring anything. This is a teaching and learning moment. Using your chart as an example. Example with CSFP1O for AIII and San. They are the ONLY two that carry 6 repeats at that one locus. The matching locus(9) - many African carry 9 repeats. In that same column(CSFP1O) the empty space/blank means a different amount of repeats are in that locus. That number could be 4,5,7,9(not 6). At the other locus it could be7, 8,10,11(not 9) etc. The repeats are usually a narrow range. That is why it is a standard distribution curve. That is what separates geographic populations . So for example at CSFP1O Europeans may 15-20 repeats at that locus. And that is how you know we are looking at an African vs European population. So undoubtedly the Amarnas are pure Africans. But the question we are trying to answer here is WHICH modern African population they are genetically closest too. Modern Europeans and Levantines are not even in the conversation. Swenet tried to BS his way through with Tribescore which he did not understand. He moved that target and tried to do his own analysis. So here we are….
I look at as …..16.7% ONLY found in San and AIII( 6-repeats). That is an exclusive connection. Same is seen with Biaka for D2S1338 (6 repeats), KenB for FGA 31 repeats. With that approach it is evident the Somalians do NOT have exclusivity with AIII. So it points to what DNATribes concluded. The Amarnas came from Southern Africa and probably admixing with an existing African population (Somalians?).
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Again all the Amarna you analyzed so far shows a strong genetic connection to modern Southern African populations. Unbelievable as it may sound. Goes to shows you cannot use eyeball anthropology. And brings that question of plasticity. Can the environment have that dramatic and rapid effect on phenotype?
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Why can't you tell me something I didn't already post when I put up tthe A III table.
Why can't you research and build your own tables.
Why can't you stop fronting? CSFP1O = 20? Prove there is any such thing why don't you.
Africa and Europe both have CSFP1O = 6 limited to one ethnicity or nation for each.. All Old World major geographies, the Pacific, Central and South America carry CSFP1O = 9.
Above comments based on weighing locus and allele matches and frequencies.
Below comments are observations on ethnic and geographic affinities of some loci and alleles.
D2S1338 = 16 27; Egypt Sudan D18S51 = 16 22; Egypt Sudan Somali FGA = 23 31.2; Somali loci are only found today as where named.
CSFP1O = 6; San D7S820 = 6; Biaka FGA = 31.2; Kenya Bantu alleles are exclusive in Africa to only the above today.
D16S539 = 8 13 locus and D2S1338 = 16 D13S317 = 10 D18S51 = 16 FGA = 23 alleles are not very specific markers.
D21S11 = 34 interestingly enough appears only in Biaka, San, Mbuti, and NE Africa.
The situation is more complex than simply closest matching population or geography.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Yo! As a mod why don’t you move this to another thread?
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
You are welcome.....
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Why can't you tell me something I didn't already post when I put up tthe A III table.
Why can't you research and build your own tables.
You said to bring it…I am bring the heat bro. Great incite and discussion.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
I don’t have all the world populations STR profile in my head. I am good but not that good. I am explaining how the process works using YOUR table. I don’t have the Amarnas exact STR numbers either. Once you understand how it works it becomes easy. And the premise of what I posted still stands. DNATribes got it right. YOUR Table confirms that.
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Why can't you tell me something I didn't already post when I put up tthe A III table.
Why can't you research and build your own tables.
Why can't you stop fronting? CSFP1O = 20? Prove there is any such thing why don't you.
Africa and Europe both have CSFP1O = 6 limited to one ethnicity or nation for each.. All Old World major geographies, the Pacific, Central and South America carry CSFP1O = 9.
Above comments based on weighing locus and allele matches and frequencies.
Below comments are observations on ethnic and geographic affinities of some loci and alleles.
D2S1338 = 16 27; Egypt Sudan D18S51 = 16 22; Egypt Sudan Somali FGA = 23 31.2; Somali loci are only found today as where named.
CSFP1O = 6; San D7S820 = 6; Biaka FGA = 31.2; Kenya Bantu alleles are exclusive in Africa to only the above today.
D16S539 = 8 13 locus and D2S1338 = 16 D13S317 = 10 D18S51 = 16 FGA = 23 alleles are not very specific markers.
D21S11 = 34 interestingly enough appears only in Biaka, San, Mbuti, and NE Africa.
The situation is more complex than simply closest matching population or geography.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
BTW – Just so you know. Different world populations may carry the same STR repeats at ONE locus. But when you include a “second” STR locus the differentiation begins. That is why I said earlier in this thread that at minimum ONLY “TWO” STR are needed to give a” preliminary” geographic profile. But the more the merrier. Lol! JAMA released 8 STRs for the Amarnas. That is more than enough. DNATribes got it right. As YOU have showed no” proprietary software” is needed. Lol!
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Charlie Bass was correct...the war is over.
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
Finding which African population carries the matching Repeat of a specific STR found in AE Mummies a the highest frequency does not debunk DNA Tribes proprietary algorithm. It gives you something to talk about, a new way of taking the data and giving your own interpretation of what it means but it cannot debunk the commercial algorithm from DNA Tribes.
It is too simplistic to just look at a populations and try and break it down by peak frequency. These profiles are actual "PROFILES" so peak frequency may not be the determining factor of affinity as far a DNA TRIBES algorithm is concerned. To put things in perspective.....Lets assume the ancient DNA from the Lake Turkana remains has a heterogeneous Y-Chromosome profile of A3b, B2a, E1a, M2, M35 and E2. It would be incorrect to point to populations that Peak those respective lineages : Dinka, Nuer, Dogon, Bamileke, Somali, Alur respectively looking for some sort of parental genetic affinity. I would be equally incorrect to assume these 6 Ethnic groups individually contributed their Y-Chromosomes to the humans found at Lake Turkana in whatever proportion they are found.
When looking at Y-Chromosome STR profiles, it is the profile itself that you have to break down. You couldn't just go through each individual STR value to see where it peaks in a given population/haplogroup. One sequence of repeats may be more common in E1b1a, others more common in E1a, I2a or R1b. The totality of the STR profile will give you a better prediction of a REAL haplogroup.
I cannot sit back and say what is MORE correct. What i can say is their algorithm is proprietary. There is no way for us to know the details.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
You just proved you don't know what a STR locus is.
I explained it to you 3 times already so I give up unless someone else wants a glossary type FAQ.
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: BTW – Just so you know. Different world populations may carry the same STR repeats at ONE locus. But when you include a “second” STR locus the differentiation begins. That is why I said earlier in this thread that at minimum ONLY “TWO” STR are needed to give a” preliminary” geographic profile. But the more the merrier. Lol! JAMA released 8 STRs for the Amarnas. That is more than enough. DNATribes got it right. As YOU have showed no” proprietary software” is needed. Lol!
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Coming from a man who created a thread to understand Cluster/Kluster vs Population. ….nuff said. But we are all here to learn. Wink wink
Not to see who has the bigger dick!! Tukuler/Beyoku
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: You just proved you don't know what a STR locus is.
I explained it to you 3 times already so I give up unless someone else wants a glossary type FAQ.
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: BTW – Just so you know. Different world populations may carry the same STR repeats at ONE locus. But when you include a “second” STR locus the differentiation begins. That is why I said earlier in this thread that at minimum ONLY “TWO” STR are needed to give a” preliminary” geographic profile. But the more the merrier. Lol! JAMA released 8 STRs for the Amarnas. That is more than enough. DNATribes got it right. As YOU have showed no” proprietary software” is needed. Lol!
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Listen man if you don’t want to learn… I will shut up.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: Finding which African population carries the matching Repeat of a specific STR found in AE Mummies a the highest frequency does not debunk DNA Tribes proprietary algorithm. It gives you something to talk about, a new way of taking the data and giving your own interpretation of what it means but it cannot debunk the commercial algorithm from DNA Tribes.
It is too simplistic to just look at a populations and try and break it down by peak frequency. These profiles are actual "PROFILES" so peak frequency may not be the determining factor of affinity as far a DNA TRIBES algorithm is concerned. To put things in perspective.....Lets assume the ancient DNA from the Lake Turkana remains has a heterogeneous Y-Chromosome profile of A3b, B2a, E1a, M2, M35 and E2. It would be incorrect to point to populations that Peak those respective lineages : Dinka, Nuer, Dogon, Bamileke, Somali, Alur respectively looking for some sort of parental genetic affinity. I would be equally incorrect to assume these 6 Ethnic groups individually contributed their Y-Chromosomes to the humans found at Lake Turkana in whatever proportion they are found.
When looking at Y-Chromosome STR profiles, it is the profile itself that you have to break down. You couldn't just go through each individual STR value to see where it peaks in a given population/haplogroup. One sequence of repeats may be more common in E1b1a, others more common in E1a, I2a or R1b. The totality of the STR profile will give you a better prediction of a REAL haplogroup.
I cannot sit back and say what is MORE correct. What i can say is their algorithm is proprietary. There is no way for us to know the details.
.
As I posted earlier my concern is with matching loci and alleles not DNAtribes.
I will say this, DNAtribes obviously missed out honing in on Upper Egypt and Sudan samples. Sudan samples offer much more Nilo-Saharan than DNAtribes did. It is silly to accept a search for modern occurrences of Amarna STRs and exclude Upper Egypt and Sudan.
I am examining autosomal STRs in profile for Amarna haplotypes. A III had no extant profile but Thuya's haplotype is found in living Upper Egyptians and Sudanese.
To ascertain affinity in absence of haplotype match, locus and even allele matching is quite informative and accurate.
Tabling frequencies of alleles allows * detection of haplotype * number of loci matches 1 - 8 * number of allele matches 1 - 16 * number of highest frequency alleles * number of loci whose allele pair is the highest frequency which info is right of the main frequemcy table.
Then locus and allele markers are sought and notice taken of sample sets having the locus or allele and frequency gradation of sample sets all to clarify usefulness of a locus or allele for exclusivity identifying significant modern ethnic groups or geography.
All in all pretty powerful for the meager resource and certainly not based solely on frequency. But please critique one of my findinds you find in error.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
For the newbies – a locus is a “location” ie an “address of a block of genes or genetic material. Eg FGA is an STR that is located at a specifc region ….or address or locus. Don’t believe me…Google it. Lol!
My man - Now put your small dick back in your pants.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
What are on about now. DNATribes was right. Amarnas are people from the “deep” south.
BTW – I did not want to point it out but you are using “allele” in the wrong context. Allele is essentially a base pair. I don’t recall the JAMA report go down to that resolution to disclose specific Neuclotide bases but you may know something I don’t. Carry on.
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: As I posted earlier my concern is with matching loci and alleles not DNAtribes.
I will say this, DNAtribes obviously missed out honing in on Upper Egypt and Sudan samples. Sudan samples offer much more Nilo-Saharan than DNAtribes did. It is silly to accept a search for modern occurrences of Amarna STRs and exclude Upper Egypt and Sudan.
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: BTW – Just so you know. Different world populations may carry the same STR repeats at ONE locus. But when you include a “second” STR locus the differentiation begins. That is why I said earlier in this thread that at minimum ONLY “TWO” STR are needed to give a” preliminary” geographic profile. But the more the merrier. Lol! JAMA released 8 STRs for the Amarnas. That is more than enough.
This. And this is why I stated that you have to look at the profile as a whole. One value may peak in a certain population but the combination of two, at a specific frequency not even being the peak frequency is what would differentiate continental groups. Perhaps proportion is more important in an analysis. Perhaps it's a combination of a lower African specific value in one STR and a higher African specific repeat in another that pulls or pushes the Ancient profile in whatever intra continental direction.
We are also making the mistake of assuming that these profiles were the standard ones of the region. I am assuming they are but the remains are of royals that have been inbreeding for a while.
Posted by Child Of The KING (Member # 9422) on :
Great Discussion With The 2 Elders.
Seems That Somalians may get Related To the Southern Africans?
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Anyone got that new study released on Dienekes on Africans – Busby et al? My personal interest is more African influence OUTSIDE of Africa. Like the Neolithics migration. This study in more to do with inter-Africans genetic relationships. Beyoku may find it interesting. I am not familiar with the parsing out of African genes WITHIN Africa. I will look at that study later.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
I don’t discuss hypotheticals, What if scenarios. No one can win that battle. It will never end. I look at the data and tell you what it means. I have no idea who is who in Africa. Can’t tell the difference between a Tutsi and a Hutu or Bantu from a Hausa. You may or may not be right. But I can tell you the Amarnas are related to the Southern Africans for some strange reason. Did the Southern African disperse to the south? Did the AEians migrate to the North? That still needs to be determined.
quote:Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: BTW – Just so you know. Different world populations may carry the same STR repeats at ONE locus. But when you include a “second” STR locus the differentiation begins. That is why I said earlier in this thread that at minimum ONLY “TWO” STR are needed to give a” preliminary” geographic profile. But the more the merrier. Lol! JAMA released 8 STRs for the Amarnas. That is more than enough.
This. And this is why I stated that you have to look at the profile as a whole. One value may peak in a certain population but the combination of two, at a specific frequency not even being the peak frequency is what would differentiate continental groups. Perhaps proportion is more important in an analysis. Perhaps it's a combination of a lower African specific value in one STR and a higher African specific repeat in another that pulls or pushes the Ancient profile in whatever intra continental direction.
We are also making the mistake of assuming that these profiles were the standard ones of the region. I am assuming they are but the remains are of royals that have been inbreeding for a while.
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: As I posted earlier my concern is with matching loci and alleles not DNAtribes.
I will say this, DNAtribes obviously missed out honing in on Upper Egypt and Sudan samples. Sudan samples offer much more Nilo-Saharan than DNAtribes did. It is silly to accept a search for modern occurrences of Amarna STRs and exclude Upper Egypt and Sudan.
I am examining autosomal STRs in profile for Amarna haplotypes. A III had no extant profile but Thuya's haplotype is found in living Upper Egyptians and Sudanese.
I dont know if they "missed out". Their matching algorithm is proprietary and we dont know exactly how it produced the results it did OVER existing north East Africans. Going back to the time when they dropped the data. Their database already contained:
Like I said, we know whats going on regarding individual STR values and how they match Horn and Nile Valley Populations but we dont know exactly why SSA trump these populations according to DNA TRIBES. Swenet mentions the Heterogeneity of Nile Valley populations and the pooled sample of Nile Valley moderns with Maghrebi to form "North Africa". That makes sense but that doesn't explain the preference for Sub Saharan non Horners over Horn Africans.
Posted by Child Of The KING (Member # 9422) on :
Repeated Post
NO MATTER WHAT MIXTURE PEOPLE MIXED WITH, ALL OF THE MIXTURE MAKES BROWN.
BLACK COLOR, WHITE COLOR, RED COLOR, YELLOW COLOR, ORIGINAL COLORS, BROWN COLOR'S MIXTURE
Black Mixes With Red
Child Comes Out Red
THE CHILD RED OR BROWN
Child Comes out Black
THE CHILD BLACK OR BROWN
Meaning Yellow Mixes With White
Child Comes Out White
THE CHILD WHITE OR BROWN
Child Comes out Yellow
THE CHILD YELLOW OR BROWN
continued repost
Meaning Yellow Mixes With Red
Child Comes Out Yellow
THE CHILD YELLOW OR BROWN
Child Comes Out Red
THE CHILD RED OR BROWN
Black Mixes with White..
Child comes out White
THE CHILD WHITE OR BROWN
Child comes out Black
THE CHILD BLACK OR BROWN
Black mixes with Yellow..
Child comes out Yellow
THE CHILD YELLOW OR BROWN
Child comes out Black
THE CHILD BLACK OR BROWN
Black mixes with Red..
Child comes out Red
THE CHILD RED OR BROWN
Child Comes out Black
THE CHILD BLACK OR BROWN
etc for all Peoples Mixtures..
BROWN IS MIXTURE.
NO MATTER THE COLOR PEOPLES SKIN COLOR NOT DARK
ALL PEOPLE COME FROM BLACK PEOPLE
DARK SKIN ALL EUROPEANS
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: Finding which African population carries the matching Repeat of a specific STR found in AE Mummies a the highest frequency does not debunk DNA Tribes proprietary algorithm. It gives you something to talk about, a new way of taking the data and giving your own interpretation of what it means but it cannot debunk the commercial algorithm from DNA Tribes.
It is too simplistic to just look at a populations and try and break it down by peak frequency. These profiles are actual "PROFILES" so peak frequency may not be the determining factor of affinity as far a DNA TRIBES algorithm is concerned. To put things in perspective.....Lets assume the ancient DNA from the Lake Turkana remains has a heterogeneous Y-Chromosome profile of A3b, B2a, E1a, M2, M35 and E2. It would be incorrect to point to populations that Peak those respective lineages : Dinka, Nuer, Dogon, Bamileke, Somali, Alur respectively looking for some sort of parental genetic affinity. I would be equally incorrect to assume these 6 Ethnic groups individually contributed their Y-Chromosomes to the humans found at Lake Turkana in whatever proportion they are found.
When looking at Y-Chromosome STR profiles, it is the profile itself that you have to break down. You couldn't just go through each individual STR value to see where it peaks in a given population/haplogroup. One sequence of repeats may be more common in E1b1a, others more common in E1a, I2a or R1b. The totality of the STR profile will give you a better prediction of a REAL haplogroup.
I cannot sit back and say what is MORE correct. What i can say is their algorithm is proprietary. There is no way for us to know the details.
Thanks. It's just cringing to see people micro analyze individual alleles.
You can't micro analyze individual alleles. As you know (we've discussed this), there have been plenty studies that tested how AIM amount affect ancestry assignment. They all show that a ancestry assignments based on random sampling of a handful of SNPs processed by STRUCTURE look progressively different as you add more AIMs.
At least the alleles handpicked by DNAconsultant.com fit the cline of ancient Egyptian ancestry in Eurasia. And so, they're informative and self-consistent in that regard.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Examining STRs not SNPs 8 of the CODIS Core STRs used precisely because they point out ethnic and geographic affinity.
Numerous articles report efficacy of certain locus values and allele values as markers. No pioneering on my part there.
And the below was posted in evidence of allele discrimination power
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: I don’t discuss hypotheticals, What if scenarios. No one can win that battle. It will never end. I look at the data and tell you what it means. I have no idea who is who in Africa. Can’t tell the difference between a Tutsi and a Hutu or Bantu from a Hausa. You may or may not be right. But I can tell you the Amarnas are related to the Southern Africans for some strange reason. Did the Southern African disperse to the south? Did the AEians migrate to the North? That still needs to be determined.
quote:Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: BTW – Just so you know. Different world populations may carry the same STR repeats at ONE locus. But when you include a “second” STR locus the differentiation begins. That is why I said earlier in this thread that at minimum ONLY “TWO” STR are needed to give a” preliminary” geographic profile. But the more the merrier. Lol! JAMA released 8 STRs for the Amarnas. That is more than enough.
This. And this is why I stated that you have to look at the profile as a whole. One value may peak in a certain population but the combination of two, at a specific frequency not even being the peak frequency is what would differentiate continental groups. Perhaps proportion is more important in an analysis. Perhaps it's a combination of a lower African specific value in one STR and a higher African specific repeat in another that pulls or pushes the Ancient profile in whatever intra continental direction.
We are also making the mistake of assuming that these profiles were the standard ones of the region. I am assuming they are but the remains are of royals that have been inbreeding for a while.
"Southern Africans for some strange reason. Did the Southern African disperse to the south? Did the AEians migrate to the North? That still needs to be determined."
Both happened.
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler:
And the below was posted in evidence of allele discrimination power
Huh? Your diagram does not show.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
I see it
Press on missing image's place holder Select view image Return Refresh
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: I see it
Press on missing image's place holder Select view image Return Refresh
I can see it as I posted it but thanks for the URL that Works for everybody else.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
The more I look at this. It just hit me like a lightning bolt. The Amarna “exclusive” genetic materials is only found today in Central and Southern Africa. So Amarnas left very little genetic trace in “modern” Egyptians. Thoughts? Anyone? Hypotheticals?
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
By now after repeating myself all know my focus isn't DT. My intent's to check Amarna nSTRs against pop dB's for locus and individual allele matches.
Even if a sample matches all loci its probability (a function of frequency) could be lower than another sample's.
For its worth, Thuya haplotype is a match for Upper Egypt. Looking at S. Africa Bantu and the 4 loci they share with Thuya and UE
SA Bantu's genotype probability is 7 times greater than Upper Egypt. .
quote:Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: As I posted earlier my concern is with matching loci and alleles not DNAtribes.
I will say this, DNAtribes obviously missed out honing in on Upper Egypt and Sudan samples. Sudan samples offer much more Nilo-Saharan than DNAtribes did. It is silly to accept a search for modern occurrences of Amarna STRs and exclude Upper Egypt and Sudan.
I am examining autosomal STRs in profile for Amarna haplotypes. A III had no extant profile but Thuya's haplotype is found in living Upper Egyptians and Sudanese.
I dont know if they "missed out". Their matching algorithm is proprietary and we dont know exactly how it produced the results it did OVER existing north East Africans. Going back to the time when they dropped the data. Their database already contained:
Like I said, we know whats going on regarding individual STR values and how they match Horn and Nile Valley Populations but we dont know exactly why SSA trump these populations according to DNA TRIBES. Swenet mentions the Heterogeneity of Nile Valley populations and the pooled sample of Nile Valley moderns with Maghrebi to form "North Africa". That makes sense but that doesn't explain the preference for Sub Saharan non Horners over Horn Africans.
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
LOVING the discussion that is going on. Learning a lot about how STR works.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: As I posted earlier my concern is with matching loci and alleles not DNAtribes.
I will say this, DNAtribes obviously missed out honing in on Upper Egypt and Sudan samples. Sudan samples offer much more Nilo-Saharan than DNAtribes did. It is silly to accept a search for modern occurrences of Amarna STRs and exclude Upper Egypt and Sudan.
I am examining autosomal STRs in profile for Amarna haplotypes. A III had no extant profile but Thuya's haplotype is found in living Upper Egyptians and Sudanese.
I dont know if they "missed out". Their matching algorithm is proprietary and we dont know exactly how it produced the results it did OVER existing north East Africans. Going back to the time when they dropped the data. Their database already contained:
Like I said, we know whats going on regarding individual STR values and how they match Horn and Nile Valley Populations but we dont know exactly why SSA trump these populations according to DNA TRIBES. Swenet mentions the Heterogeneity of Nile Valley populations and the pooled sample of Nile Valley moderns with Maghrebi to form "North Africa". That makes sense but that doesn't explain the preference for Sub Saharan non Horners over Horn Africans.
See DNA Tribes reports on the Horn of Africa STR region. In some of its reports it's assigned ~40% Arabian ancestry. The combination of a low MLI ranking BUT a high TribeScore suggests to me that the Horn of Africa region is, in fact, scoring decently. In terms of MLI scores, it just can't score much better than what you see due to the displacement of a large amount of this region's alleles. Linguistically speaking, the Horn region has been separated from Egypt since the separation of Chris Ehret's Boreafrasan, while other DNA Tribes regions were still direct recipients of eastern Saharan ancestry, cattle, loanwords, etc. throughout the early and mid holocene.
A good case can be made that the Pharaohs have a relatively low MLI score (but high TribeScores) with DNA Tribes Horn of Africa region for the same reason that African Americans have low MLI scores (but high TribeScores) with African American and Afro-Caribbean samples.
Posted by Punos_Rey (Member # 21929) on :
Thanks a lot for all these posts guys, its filling in a lot of blanks though I personally still have quite a bit to learn so I'm glad for the information being put out by people much further along on this subject.
EDIT: Swenet can you clarify this last statement a little further?
"A good case can be made that the Pharaohs have a relatively low MLI score (but high TribeScores) with DNA Tribes Horn of Africa region for the same reason that African Americans have low MLI scores (but high TribeScores) with African American and Afro-Caribbean samples. "
I'm sure it's really obvious in hindsight I'm just trying to make sure I have the best understanding possible.
Posted by Nodnarb (Member # 3735) on :
Wait a moment. Are these not the same eastern Saharans who contributed the so-called "Basal Eurasian" component in West Eurasian ancestry? West Eurasia does rank higher in the MLIs than other OOA regions, but still not as strong as sub-Sahara. So does that mean that extant SSAs are even more affected by Holocene Saharan admixture than West Eurasians, if that's the driver behind their high MLIs?
I mean, people on ES have noted the PN2 links throughout the whole of Africa since the beginning, but this implies that there's a huge hunk of Saharan, pre-OOA-affiliated ancestry in modern SSAs that I don't remember being reported in autosomal data before. And in a sense it would kinda vindicate "Afrocentric" claims that West Africans etc. have some kinship, however remote, to the Nile Valley.
Which is not to say I'm disputing the suggestion that Saharan ancestry in SSAs is a factor driving these scores. However, has anyone here considered that maybe OOAs, being descended from a bottleneck, have only a fraction of the alleles present in Saharans as well as other Africans? Maybe ancestral Saharans had a whole bunch of alleles widespread across the continent, but the bottleneck effect excised these out after OOAs proper diverged from them. This could make native Saharans look more SSA-like in MLI scores without refuting their contribution to OOA.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
@Punos_Rey
Good that the discussion is benefiting you and Blessedbyhorus.
See this image (the TribeScores are in parenthesis to the left, while the MLI scores are to the right of each bar):
African Americans have the highest MLI scores with Sub-Saharan Africans, but the best TribeScores are with low MLI scoring Afro-Colombians (0.78), Afro-Caribbeans from the UK (0.77), Jamaicans (0.62) and from the Bahamas (0.62). African American individuals who take tests with DNA Tribes have primarily Sub-Saharan African ancestry and this ancestry is found with a higher probability in Sub-Saharan African samples than in African American samples.
Obviously, MLI scores don't tell you anything about where a STR profile is from specifically. Saying otherwise is plain delusional. How can MLI scores do this when they often list several high probability regions with completely different ancestry at the same time? All it does is say where the genetic material captured in that specific STR profile is most common.
There are many reasons why a STR profile can be more common in regions other than the actual origin of the tested individual. In the case of African Americans, their relatively low MLI scores with Africans in the diaspora is due to their heterogeneity (i.e. ~25-20% of their native alleles have been displaced by genetic contacts in the New World).
And notice how sensitive the MLI scores are. Only ~25-20% of non-African admixture in African Americans is already enough to distort the picture and rank mainland Africans higher than African Americans and Afro-Caribbeans.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nodnarb: Wait a moment. Are these not the same eastern Saharans who contributed the so-called "Basal Eurasian" component in West Eurasian ancestry? West Eurasia does rank higher in the MLIs than other OOA regions, but still not as strong as sub-Sahara. So does that mean that extant SSAs are even more affected by Holocene Saharan admixture than West Eurasians, if that's the driver behind their high MLIs?
I mean, people on ES have noted the PN2 links throughout the whole of Africa since the beginning, but this implies that there's a huge hunk of Saharan, pre-OOA-affiliated ancestry in modern SSAs that I don't remember being reported in autosomal data before. And in a sense it would kinda vindicate "Afrocentric" claims that West Africans etc. have some kinship, however remote, to the Nile Valley.
Which is not to say I'm disputing the suggestion that Saharan ancestry in SSAs is a factor driving these scores. However, has anyone here considered that maybe OOAs, being descended from a bottleneck, have only a fraction of the alleles present in Saharans as well as other Africans? Maybe ancestral Saharans had a whole bunch of alleles widespread across the continent, but the bottleneck effect excised these out after OOAs proper diverged from them. This could make native Saharans look more SSA-like in MLI scores without refuting their contribution to OOA.
Look at the Nile Valley haplogroup package that reached West Africa and other regions with the spread of the neolithic and prior to the neolithic. It's not the same package that reached Eurasia in the terminal pleistocene and again with Proto-Semitic speakers. The ~10kya West African A-M13 for instance, to me also suggests a Nilo-Saharan component in that eastern Saharan mix that spread to West Africa throughout the holocene.
It could be that SSA and Eurasia are affected by different kinds of so-called "Basal Eurasian". My interpretation is that the primary type that is found in West Asians and some modern Egyptian samples is different than the kind that primarily found in Egyptian Copts in Sudan, Beja, Somalis, which is different than the kind that is primarily found in Maghrebis, etc.
Hodgson et al misinterpret their data in my view (seeing all of it as a sign of Eurasian admixture in Africa), and the below isn't directly comparable to what I'm saying, but it still shows that the Maghrebi, Ethio-Somali and Arabian components have a similar ancestry from the same source that is lowering their split times to only about ~23kya. Some of SSA samples also have ancestry from this source and the kind inner Africa has seems best matched so far by the Ethio-Somali kind (you can see it in the significantly lower Fst values; Niger-Congo is just behind Nilo-Saharan and Ethiopic) as opposed to the Eurasian kind. As you know, it's also present in the European samples due to the neolithic. It's present in all these samples, but it's not really visible as such in the K graphics.
quote:The most recent divergence date estimates for the Ethio-Somali ancestral population are with the Maghrebi and Arabian ancestral populations at 23 and 25 ka.
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: The Amarna “exclusive” genetic materials is only found today in Central and Southern Africa.
stop making false statements
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
"primarily"....better?
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by lioness:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: most if not all pharaohs produce the same results.
That seems substantially different than the other one at 7.5%
The same as in: primary affinity to North Africans in the 5 pop analysis and primary affinity to SSAs in the 3 pop analysis. Not that they can't vary in proportion of 'Eusasian' affinities.
Aside from the fact that 'Eurasian' could still mean African and that the same individual's results may differ depending on which set of a given amount of STRs you use, at this level of resolution you can't really take things overly literal and deduce which royal is more African. So when I said "the same", I was talking about the general pattern of seemingly contradictory affinities (SSA in 3 pop analysis vs North Africa in 5 pop analysis) that all the royals tend to have.
Explaining what I said earlier, re: "low resolution" and how that factors into the fact that you can't take popaffiliator predictions overly literal in terms of precise percentages or anything of that nature:
"The results indicate that 10,000 SNPs selected at random from an individual can be used to infer genome ancestry with negligible error when considering the three HapMap populations CEU, CHB, and YRI. Even so, panels of 500 rSNPs perform reasonably well in this population scenario. Below this number, errors in the inference of ancestry increase noticeably as the number of rSNPs is reduced."
"As expected, the number of rSNPs needed to infer ancestry strongly depends on the evolutionary proximity of the populations under study. For instance, we made simulations to test the number of rSNPs needed to differentiate ancestry in two different East Asian populations, Chinese and Japanese. Here the number of rSNPs needed to differentiate these populations increases significantly more than one order of magnitude; therefore, the need for searching panels of highly discriminating AIMs is more justified."
"The distinction between individual ancestries within Asian populations (or other closely related groups) would require genome-wide screenings [4] or very large panels of AIMs (probably containing thousands of SNPs)."
"During the last few years, several panels of SNPs have been designed in order to estimate ancestry using only a few markers (AIM panels). Analyses were carried out in the present study in order to assess the performance of these panels when applied to three main HapMap continental populations, CEU, CHB, and YRI. The results indicate that inference of ancestry can be seriously compromised when using panels containing small numbers of AIMs."
"For instance, out of the panels tested in the present study, those showing the best performance are ILU and GAL, that is, those that have more AIMs, while the ones including only a few dozen AIMs show higher errors and variability (Additional file 4)." http://bmcgenomics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2164-15-543
There are only 16 markers for each Amarna royal (2 x 8 STR locus alleles), which is far below the amount of the above recommended AIMs for making specific ancestry inferences about which Amarna family member gets ancestry from which population in Africa. I demonstrated that I wasn't "spinning" when I said that the alleles occur more in select northeast African samples than elsewhere and that the pooling of Egyptian and Maghrebi samples into regions is one of the factors that make a literal interpretation of DNA Tribes wrong. I demonstrated that the alleles indeed occur more in select groups in the Nile Valley region, even though the region is hybridized today and other DNA Tribes regions in Sub-Saharan Africa have an unfair advantage due to little to no displacement of their native ancestry.
Now Xyyman is moving the goalpost, talking about Khoisan affinities because of Amenhotep's CSF1PO=6. He's saying this right after he said individual alleles produce inconsistent results. What changed? I challenged him to prove me wrong with the downloadable genotype sets. That's what changed. Flip flopper.
Going beyond what DNA tribes did, i.e. calculating where the allele mix occurs more often, or popaffiliator's tried and tested machine learning-based predications, is purely wild unsubstantiated speculation. The original goalpost was where the pharaonic allele mix occurs more often. Hefty allegations were made that I was "spinning". Now it's about individual isolated "Khoisan alleles" in Amenhotep? SMH.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Still waiting for the forum's loudest, yet sneakiest hit and run poster to respond:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
Gramps. Tell the truth. Just for once.
Let's see if you can bring yourself to let the truth flow from your lips. I want to see you admit it.
Who do the do above Great Lakes Bantu speaking groups (e.g. Nairobi, Hutu, Kikiyu) cluster with in their mtDNA profile? Where did they get their L3f, L3a, L3c, L3h, L4, L5, L0 etc. contributions from? And then explain to me how such contributions don't ultimately lead back to Nile Valley and other regions you try to write off as having low MLI scores.
So lame with all that running and coming back years later talking about "you're spinning".
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Bzzzzz! bzzzzz! bzzzz! This has been resolved
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Still waiting for the forum's loudest, yet sneakiest hit and run poster to respond:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
Gramps. Tell the truth. Just for once.
Let's see if you can bring yourself to let the truth flow from your lips. I want to see you admit it.
Who do the do above Great Lakes Bantu speaking groups (e.g. Nairobi, Hutu, Kikiyu) cluster with in their mtDNA profile? Where did they get their L3f, L3a, L3c, L3h, L4, L5, L0 etc. contributions from? And then explain to me how such contributions don't ultimately lead back to Nile Valley and other regions you try to write off as having low MLI scores.
So lame with all that running and coming back years later talking about "you're spinning".
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
^^ arguing with xyyman
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Speaking about haplogroups. You do know that no haplogroups were disclosed for the Amarnas? In addition the only hg disclosed for the AEians were for Ramesid III and man E. Take a guess what that hsplogroup was? Druuuuuuum roll....!!!
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Still waiting for the forum's loudest, yet sneakiest hit and run poster to respond:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
Gramps. Tell the truth. Just for once.
Let's see if you can bring yourself to let the truth flow from your lips. I want to see you admit it.
Who do the do above Great Lakes Bantu speaking groups (e.g. Nairobi, Hutu, Kikiyu) cluster with in their mtDNA profile? Where did they get their L3f, L3a, L3c, L3h, L4, L5, L0 etc. contributions from? And then explain to me how such contributions don't ultimately lead back to Nile Valley and other regions you try to write off as having low MLI scores.
So lame with all that running and coming back years later talking about "you're spinning".
DNA Tribes' Great Lakes region contains samples that are broadly similar to the samples in DNA Tribes' combined Sudan-Horn region. The exceptions are the Bantu speakers, but even they have substantial admixture from groups who are in DNA Tribes' Sudan-Horn region. In fact, many of the Great Lakes groups are migrants from the Sudan-Horn region.
There is very little difference between DNA Tribes' Great Lakes and Sudan-Horn regions other than the substantial recent Eurasian admixture in the latter region and the Bantu speakers with regional contributions in the former region. All that Sudan-Horn ancestry in the Great Lakes region and it still has the best MLI scores with most royals. Yet he tries to peddle the bs that the Sudan-Horn region's lower MLI ranking should be interpreted literally.
That's why he keeps running from the inevitable end conclusion that he has no point. In about a year he'll try to window dress what happened and tell me I'm "spinning".
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
^
To the newbies. Think of the human genome as an I-95 highway from New York to Florida. Philadelphia is a city along the way. In some populations Philadelphia( STR/CSFP1O) is repeated 6 times. ie there are 6 Philadelphias connected together. In other nearby populations it is repeated 7times but in very distant populations it may be repeated 15times. That is how the process works. Also keep in mind we have primarily TWO sets of the same genes(excluding sex related genes) because one from mommy and one from daddy. That is where the 6 vs 9 in Sages table comes in. AIII and San carry 6 repeats in one of parental set. They are the only TWO in the table which means they are extremely close genetically. At the other regions it is 9 repeats which is NOT unique and relatively common in African. Not such strong connection between AIII and Somalians and other Africans. That is how the process works. Two sets of I-95. One from mommy and one from daddy. Think High school Biology. Homo and Hetero two of the same or two different.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Its not 6 vs 9
Its 6 AND 9
Stop effin up the newbies
Newbies please consult a glossary
Meanwhile here again for the 4th time are Amenhotep's loci and alleles of particular significance
= - =
D2S1338 = 16 27; Egypt Sudan D18S51 = 16 22; Egypt Sudan Somali FGA = 23 31.2; Somali loci are only found today as where named.
CSFP1O = 6; San D7S820 = 6; Biaka FGA = 31.2; Kenya Bantu alleles are exclusive in Africa to only the above today.
D16S539 = 8 13 locus and D2S1338 = 16 D13S317 = 10 D18S51 = 16 FGA = 23 alleles are not very specific markers.
D21S11 = 34 interestingly enough appears only in Biaka, San, Mbuti, and NE Africa.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: ^
To the newbies. Think of the human genome as an I-95 highway from New York to Florida. Philadelphia is a city along the way. In some populations Philadelphia( STR/CSFP1O) is repeated 6 times. ie there are 6 Philadelphias connected together. In other nearby populations it is repeated 7times but in very distant populations it may be repeated 15times. That is how the process works. Also keep in mind we have primarily TWO sets of the same genes(excluding sex related genes) because one from mommy and one from daddy. That is where the 6 vs 9 in Sages table comes in. AIII and San carry 6 repeats in one of parental set. They are the only TWO in the table which means they are extremely close genetically. At the other regions it is 9 repeats which is NOT unique and relatively common in African. Not such strong connection between AIII and Somalians and other Africans. That is how the process works. Two sets of I-95. One from mommy and one from daddy. Think High school Biology. Homo and Hetero two of the same or two different.
This is an excerpt of of the results the Euronuts got when they tried to invalidate DNA Tribes using your nonsense approach:
quote:TUTANKHAMUN (KV62)
Locus: D13S317
*Allele: 10 (1st parent)
1. Yupik - South-Western Alaska, United States (42.5%) 2. Madia-Gond - Maharashtra, India (28%) 3. Inupiat - Northern Alaska, United States (26.61%) 4. Athabaskan - Alaska, United States (22.77%) 5. Ximeng - Inner Mongolia (20.5%)
Population affinity: Inuit, South Asian, Mongolian
Allele: 12 (2nd parent)
1. Guinean - Guinea-Bissau (48%) 2. Arab - Zriba, Tunisia (47.8%) 3. Afro-Caribbean - United Kingdom (45.5%) 4. African American - Jamaica (45.49%) 5. Berber - Ghardaia, Algeria (44.3%)
Population affinity: West African, Northwest African
Locus: D7S820
Allele: 10 (1st parent)
1. Hutu - Nyarurema, Rwanda (44%) 2. Tutsi - Central Rwanda (43.103%) 3. Arab - Zriba, Tunisia (42.2%) 4. Argentine - Salta, Argentina (41.7%) 5. Mozambican - Maputo, Mozambique (39.1%)
Population affinity: Sub-Saharan African, Northwest African, Amerindian
Allele: 15 (2nd parent)
1. Buddhist - Ladakh, India (2.8%) 2. Katkari - Maharashtra, India (1.6%) 3. Berber - Southern Morocco (1%) 4. Northern Arab - Dubai Emirate (0.5%) 5. Chinese - Eastern China (0.5%)
Population affinity: Indian, Berber, Chinese
Like I said, YOU CAN'T microanalyse these alleles individually and construct elaborate admixture histories from them. SMH.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
English major...?
Let me rephrase.
One = 6(mommy or daddy)
One = 9(mommy or daddy)
Happy!!??
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Its not 6 vs 9
Its 6 AND 9
Stop effin up the newbies
Newbies please consult a glossary
Meanwhile here again for the 4th time are Amenhotep's loci and alleles of particular significance
= - =
D2S1338 = 16 27; Egypt Sudan D18S51 = 16 22; Egypt Sudan Somali FGA = 23 31.2; Somali loci are only found today as where named.
CSFP1O = 6; San D7S820 = 6; Biaka FGA = 31.2; Kenya Bantu alleles are exclusive in Africa to only the above today.
D16S539 = 8 13 locus and D2S1338 = 16 D13S317 = 10 D18S51 = 16 FGA = 23 alleles are not very specific markers.
D21S11 = 34 interestingly enough appears only in Biaka, San, Mbuti, and NE Africa.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Its not 6 vs 9
Its 6 AND 9
Stop effin up the newbies
Newbies please consult a glossary
Meanwhile here again for the 4th time are Amenhotep's loci and alleles of particular significance
= - =
D2S1338 = 16 27; Egypt Sudan D18S51 = 16 22; Egypt Sudan Somali FGA = 23 31.2; Somali loci are only found today as where named.
CSFP1O = 6; San D7S820 = 6; Biaka FGA = 31.2; Kenya Bantu alleles are exclusive in Africa to only the above today.
D16S539 = 8 13 locus and D2S1338 = 16 D13S317 = 10 D18S51 = 16 FGA = 23 alleles are not very specific markers.
D21S11 = 34 interestingly enough appears only in Biaka, San, Mbuti, and NE Africa.
. .
.
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler:
D16S539 = 8 13 locus and D2S1338 = 16 D13S317 = 10 D18S51 = 16
^where are these alleles found?
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Whaddaya mean?
Their power of discrimination is negligible as ethnic or 'pinpoint' geographic markers for the target STR profile (Amenhotep III's 8 STR MiniFiler haplotype).
The fewer occurrences of a locus pair (genotype) or an allele the more it will discriminate firstly a subcontinental region or possibly a major language family and secondly ethnicity.
AFAIK a locus must have a pair of values, different or the same, to tell how probable the sample is to show up in its population.
The product of a profile's genotype probabilities limit the number of possible matches as low as one in a billion.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler:
Amenhotep's loci and alleles of particular significance
= - =
D2S1338 = 16 27; Egypt Sudan D18S51 = 16 22; Egypt Sudan Somali FGA = 23 31.2; Somali loci are only found today as where named.
CSFP1O = 6; San D7S820 = 6; Biaka FGA = 31.2; Kenya Bantu alleles are exclusive in Africa to only the above today.
D16S539 = 8 13 locus and D2S1338 = 16 D13S317 = 10 D18S51 = 16 FGA = 23 alleles are not very specific markers.
D21S11 = 34 interestingly enough appears only in Biaka, San, Mbuti, and NE Africa.
. .
.
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler:
D16S539 = 8 13 locus and D2S1338 = 16 D13S317 = 10 D18S51 = 16
^where are these alleles found?
.
OK will assume you mean their specificity. Back with that in a few
D16S539 = 8 13 nonspecific but highest in Africa
D2S1338 = 16 nonspecific but highest in Israel nonexistant in Oceania
D13S317 = 10 nonspecific but highest in E Asia Asia
D18S51 = 16 nonspecific but highest in Central-South Asia
per popSTR's database for metapopulations Africa Israel Europe Central-South Asia Far East Asia Central Caribbean South America Oceania
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: The more I look at this. It just hit me like a lightning bolt. The Amarna “exclusive” genetic materials is only found today in Central and Southern Africa. So Amarnas left very little genetic trace in “modern” Egyptians. Thoughts? Anyone? Hypotheticals?
Well you gotta watch that word "exclusive" - DNA tribes qualifies it per below. But if you mean certain exclusive genetic elements yes they might primarily be found in Central Africa.
Anywho, just to make it clear to the new volk. Contrary to various, bogus strawman constructs floating around to "refute," the data do not mean that the Armana people "came from Central Africa"- but rather there are ancestral links with other African populations from that region and of course further south of Egypt's border. They could have arrived a variety of ways- marriage, concubinage, a deep-rooted remnant of an ancient sub-group finally manifesting itself in the Armana period royals, etc. etc. Whatever the vehicle, the bottom line of said links remains.
The lack of linkage with modern Arabized Egyptians might also reflect sampling. But then again, other data suggest what we have said here on ES for some time- modern Egyptians, contrary to sweeping claims in some quarters, are not identical to the ancients and in some cases, depending on study, do not show strong links with the ancients. This does not mean no links existed-far from it- but assorted claims of super continuity, often meant to insinuate "darker" or "African looking" Egyptians as somehow "foreign," fail repeatedly.
New reader Recap Section 2:
But anyway here's an interesting item on Armana and those "southern" links: One Dutch author, defends the hypothesis that the "expressionism" of the Amarna art cannot have been derived from the Minoan art, but was due to influence of Negro Africa. Jelgersma, H.C. "Een hypothese over Echnaton en de negerkunst," Phoenix, Leiden 19 (1973) 231-240 - Cited in: ANNUAL EGYPTOLOGICAL BIBLIOGRAPHY 1977
Do you, Tukler or any have any thing on this positied link of the Armana art innovations or changes with "Negro" Africa?
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Here're my preliminary on unique (only one pop) or semi-specific (two pops only) MinFiler 8 STR locus alleles. The semi specifics were to show "links".
You can see, where exclusive, these markers are useful African geo-lingual-ethnic identifiers.
I was thinking language groupings.
Shorties speak non-Shorty languages but are easily distinguishable. Sudan data is a language pool.
Note Bantu can be identified separate from other Niger-Congo due possibly to west vs 'south-east' geography or ethnicity.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Amarna art could be said to share an element of abstract exaggeration curve flow and nonlinearity similar to art southwest to south of Egypt.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Amarna art could be said to share an element of abstract exaggeration curve flow and nonlinearity similar to art southwest to south of Egypt.
what Nubian art? Ugandan?
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Congo is famously known for practices including head binding which is the reason for the Europeans calling out the connection to Amarna art.
The DNA also tells the tale. There cannot be a coincidence. Ancient KMT is basically the ancient conduit and collection point for many very ancient streams of African collected cultural artifacts that developed over thousands of years. Breaking down all the links to various African cultures would take years. But these links are to African cultures from before Colonial destruction as the modern condition of Africa is but a mere shadow of its former self. We are talking about the pinnacle of a time where for thousands of years the innovation and advancement flowed out of Africa, not the other way around.
And the sad part is that Europeans have the biggest collection of video and photo evidence along with artifacts from these previous eras. Heck I remember an old National Geographic video where they showed African kings wearing loin cloths being carried around in palanquins, which are still found in parts of West Africa.
Late 1800s Congo expedition photos:
Young boy with head binding on a low chair (common in AE imagery) with musical instruments.
Young man with large vase, looking almost identical to various old Kingdom images
The incredible elongated head culture of the Mangbetus
Because of this art, the Mangbetus had a distinctive look and this was partly due to their elongated heads. This was done at birth by tightly wrapping the heads of babies with cloth in order to give their heads the streamlined look. The skulls of their babies were pressed and wrapped between pieces of giraffe hide or wood. As the head grows, the bands are replaced until an elongated head is produced. Deformation usually begins just a month after birth for the next couple of years until the desired shape has been reached or the child rejects the apparatus.As per their culture, it was believed that the process increased the brain cavity and therefore the intelligence of the child. This deformation usually didn’t affect the brain. As long as intracranial pressure remains the same as with a normal person, the brain should was able to adapt and grow into the new shape of the skull, resulting in no damage beyond cosmetic changes. The brain is a developmentally plastic organ and grows (expands) in the shape it’s given.
Now, the Lipombo’, the custom of skull elongation, was a status symbol among the Mangbetu ruling class at the beginning of the century. It was later emulated by neighboring groups but later it became a common ideal of beauty among the peoples of the northeastern Congo. According to schildkrout and Keim, this tradition survived until the middle of this century, when it was outlawed by the Belgian government.
quote: Hesiod, Catalogues of Women Fragment 44 (from Strabo, Geography 1. 13) (trans. Evelyn-White) (Greek Epic C8th or C7th B.C.) : "No one would accuse Hesiod of ignorance though he speaks of the Hemikunes (Half-Dog people) and the Makrokephaloi (Macrocephali) (Great-Headed people) and the Pygmaioi (Pygmies)."
quote:
Philostratus, Life of Apollonius of Tyana 3. 45-47 (trans. Conybeare) (Greek biographer C1st to C2nd A.D.) :
"[The C1st A.D. prophet Apollonios of Tyana asked the Indian sage Iarkhos] about the Men who live Underground (anthropoi hypogen) and the Pygmaioi (Pygmies) also and the Skiapodes (Sciapods) (Shadow-foots); and larkhas answered his questions thus: ‘. . . As to men that are Skiapodes (Shadow-foots) or Makrokephaloi (Macrocephali) (Long-heads), and as to the other poetical fancies which the treatise of Skylax recounts about them, he said that they didn't live anywhere on the earth, and least of all in India.’"
quote:
On Airs, Waters, and Places
By Hippocrates
Written 400 B.C.E
Translated by Francis Adams
Table of Contents
Part 14
I will pass over the smaller differences among the nations, but will now treat of such as are great either from nature, or custom; and, first, concerning the Macrocephali. There is no other race of men which have heads in the least resembling theirs. At first, usage was the principal cause of the length of their head, but now nature cooperates with usage. They think those the most noble who have the longest heads. It is thus with regard to the usage: immediately after the child is born, and while its head is still tender, they fashion it with their hands, and constrain it to assume a lengthened shape by applying bandages and other suitable contrivances whereby the spherical form of the head is destroyed, and it is made to increase in length. Thus, at first, usage operated, so that this constitution was the result of force: but, in the course of time, it was formed naturally; so that usage had nothing to do with it; for the semen comes from all parts of the body, sound from the sound parts, and unhealthy from the unhealthy parts. If, then, children with bald heads are born to parents with bald heads; and children with blue eves to parents who have blue eyes; and if the children of parents having distorted eyes squint also for the most part; and if the same may be said of other forms of the body, what is to prevent it from happening that a child with a long head should be produced by a parent having a long head? But now these things do not happen as they did formerly, for the custom no longer prevails owing to their intercourse with other men. Thus it appears to me to be with regard to them.
Artificial cranial deformation
Intentional cranial deformation predates written history; it was practised commonly in a number of cultures that are widely separated geographically and chronologically, and still occurs today in a few places, including Vanuatu.
The earliest suggested examples were once thought to include the Proto-Neolithic Homo sapiens component (ninth millennium BC) from Shanidar Cave in Iraq,[1][2][3] and also among Neolithic peoples in Southwest Asia.[1][4] The view that these were artificially deformed, thus representing the oldest example of such practices (by tens of thousands of years) has since been argued incorrect by Chech, Grove, Thorne, and Trinkaus, based on new cranial reconstructions in 1999, where the team concluded "we no longer consider that artificial cranial deformation can be inferred for the specimen"
Pre-Inca Paracas skull, 10th Century BCE
Ukraine skull, 3rd century BCE
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Not sure I follow what you did here. I assume the numbers represent exclusivity shared between ALL the Amarnas and these African ethnic groups? If that is the case. I see Somalia(AfraS?). Surprisingly there is such a strong Pygmy and San connection at these STRs. The definitely Sudan has closest matching sequences for exclusivity.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Here're my preliminary on unique (only one pop) or semi-specific (two pops only) MinFiler 8 STR locus alleles. The semi specifics were to show "links".
You can see, where exclusive, these markers are useful African geo-lingual-ethnic identifiers.
I was thinking language groupings.
Shorties speak non-Shorty languages but are easily distinguishable. Sudan data is a language pool.
Note Bantu can be identified separate from other Niger-Congo due possibly to west vs 'south-east' geography or ethnicity.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Using popSTR I looked up exclusive alleles in Africa more or less by language speakers. Amarnas have nothing to do with it at all but of course you can compare the data with them.
Shorties use neighboring peoples speech. Whether or not any elements of theirown ooriginal language remain or what extent they share biological origins I consider them a set, Mbuti and Biaka live in separate regions. Exclusive African alleles * D7S820 = 6 or 7.3 or 8.1 * D21S11 = 25.3 or 26 or 30.3 * FGA = 33.3
BaNtu speakers here are Kenyans and South Africans. Bantu is the major sub family of Niger-Congo Kordofanian. So I allowed D7S820 = 14 to show that link.
These San are Namibians with * CSF1PO = 6 * D7S820 = 10.3 * D13S317 = 23 * D18S51 = 23 * D21S11 = 36.1 alleles exclusive to them in Africa.
Niger-Congo Kordofanian reps are Senegalese Mandenka and Nigerian Yoruba.. The former are savannah folk. The latter forest. I allowed D13S317 = 11 to show western Sahel link with SSahara 'Afro- Asian' speakers. FGA = 30 is Ni-Co's Horn link. Exclusives * D7S820 = 11.3 * D13S317 = 13.2 * D18S51 = 13.2 * D21S11 = 33 or 34.1
AFRoASian, which I think a misnomer, have Mzab and Somali repping for iMazighen and Cushitics. Too many exclusives to list, see chart.
Not in popSTR, but a 'control' of sorts, Sudan is a nation. Taking away what it shares with others leaves Nilo-Saharan(?). * D2S1338 = 15 or 27 or 28 * D13S317 = 15 * D18S51 = 9 or 12.2
Even popSTR can show some of these markers outside the continent. My method was for African reality. CCSF1PO = 6 shows up in Sweden at like 2 10ths of a percent but it's a San African exclusive marker at 16.7%.
.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Amenbotep III and Thuya are the only Amarnas I've checked against Upper Egypt and Sudan.
Upper Egypt, Sudan, and Somali share 3 loci genotypes and an additional 4 alleles -- 5 in the case of Somali -- with A III. Their claim is staked and Somali are the winner among today's people for affinity to the father of the founder of 'Amarna'.
Upper Egypt and Sudan completely match Thuya's STR profile/haplotype. No nneed look any further per forensics. The maternal grandmother of Amarna's founder, her STR profile/haplotype is found intact in living Upper Egyptians and Sudanese. The precision is down to n * 10 to the negative 8th power or one in a hundred million.
Egypt's population is 83 million. Sudan's is 31 million .
Multi-locus probability can be figured to find how many Egyptians and Sudanese are statistically w walking around with Thuya's haplotype. A haplotype with an at least 3300 year pinpoint local continuity.
For me, the implication is Thuya's haplotype though royal was found also elsewhere in Ancient Egypt as native peoples profiles.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Oops, left out the baNtu markers .
- = -
BaNtu speakers here are Kenyans and South Africans. Bantu is the major sub family of Niger-Congo Kordofanian. So I allowed D7S820 = 14 to show that link. *D13S317 = 7 * FGA = 19 or 31.2 are their exclusive alleles considering Africa.
.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
@Xyyman
You seem to change your mind, but for all the wrong reasons. You pretend to not understand a thing I say but then you change your view based on what exactly? I'm not seeing what you reading into it.
Here we have a very low resolution K-based analysis very roughly and imperfectly depicting what seems to be stereotypical African (red), non-stereotypical African (yellow) and 'pseudo Eurasian'-admixed Eurasian proper (green) at K=3. 8/15 of the STR loci used to compute this overlap with the STR loci used to genotype the Amarna family.
Two observations:
1) Look at all the Eurasian green in the Egyptian sample (which is the same Omran et al Upper Egyptian sample that had the most hits with the Amarna sample in my analysis). Despite the displacement of large amounts of their own RED and YELLOW, they STILL have a more than decent showing of Amarna alleles. But you already know that. You just want to pretend to not understand that your interpretation of DNA Tribes is simply based on your confirmation bias and blatant disregard for the Eurasian ancestry in DNA Tribes' North Africa and Sudan + Horn composite regions.
2) This study uses 15 STR loci which overlap with the STR loci that were used to genotype the Amarna family. And even though 15 is almost twice the amount of the meagre 8 STR loci data we have of the Amarna family, the results are still low res and the relative proportions of red vs yellow vs green captured in each individual are STILL just rough approximations. Which is why all the individuals look more heterogeneous in their relative proportions of red, yellow and green than they'd be if they had their whole genomes sequenced and why the PCA in this study [i.e. Babiker 2011] can't really capture much beyond Africanity and nationality (i.e. the various highly differentiated ethno-linguistic sets of Sudanese samples were only barely distinguishable).
Posted by Punos_Rey (Member # 21929) on :
Currently involved in a 10+ page long debate on Egypt's place in Africa that goes to the question of this very thread:
Unbelievable to me how quickly the racism comes out on even supposedly objective forums, and the denial of African variation is mindboggling
I am sick and tired of the semantic word games and ever shifting goalposts with the word black, and black people presuming to "inform" others of blacks inferiority complexes or "afrocentrist conspiracies" get my goat. As if the history of Egyptology is not rife with delusions, lies, conspiracies and all types of cherry picked evidence Posted by Nodnarb (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Punos_Rey: Currently involved in a 10+ page long debate on Egypt's place in Africa that goes to the question of this very thread:
Unbelievable to me how quickly the racism comes out on even supposedly objective forums, and the denial of African variation is mindboggling
I am sick and tired of the semantic word games and ever shifting goalposts with the word black, and black people presuming to "inform" others of blacks inferiority complexes or "afrocentrist conspiracies" get my goat. As if the history of Egyptology is not rife with delusions, lies, conspiracies and all types of cherry picked evidence
I've decided the best way to frame the issue is to address the AE's origins and what ramifications those would have for how we picture them. In other words, emphasize they came from the interior of the eastern Sahara and so would have been indigenous Africans and therefore darker-skinned, since we know modern Mediterranean "North Africans" have Arab admixture and light-skin alleles of recent West Eurasian origin. You can mention that, in certain traditions, they could be called "black", but clarify that the lay race is a social construct and that not everyone we call "black", even south of the Sahara, is part of the same population substructure.
Sure, some people will still object, and may twist your words into saying AEs were from this or that sub-Saharan population substructure. But that's their distorted interpretation, not yours.
quote:So who would the indigenous Egyptians, who laid the groundwork of what we consider Pharaonic civilization, have been? It is fair to say that, far from being European or even Middle Eastern in appearance, they and their culture would have been native African in origin. Most probably they developed from cattle-herding African tribes roaming the savannas of the Sahara before they turned to desert around 3500 BC. When the time came for these Africans to settle along the Nile and organize themselves into larger chiefdoms that would later merge into the Egyptian nascent state, most of the foundations of classical Egyptian civilization would be laid in the southern part of the country (Upper Egypt, since it is further upriver) before they conquered the northern (Lower, or downriver) reaches.
The biological anthropologist S.O.Y. Keita, perhaps the most specialized in this topic, reports on these:
"Studies of crania from southern predynastic Egypt, from the formative period (4000–3100 B.C.), show them usually to be more similar to the crania of ancient Nubians, Kushites, Saharans, or modern groups from the Horn of Africa than to those of dynastic northern Egyptians [referring to a Late Period series from 664–341 BC, regarded as a period of decline for Pharaonic Egyptian hegemony] or ancient or modern southern Europeans." ---— S.O.Y. Keita and AJ Boyce, “ The Geographical Origins and Population Relationships of Early Ancient Egyptians”, Egypt in Africa (1996: pp. 25–27
Among modern populations, perhaps the ones who most closely resemble the majority of ancient Egyptians would be those living in northern Sudan, or “Nubia” (with the caveat added that these populations may still have minor Arabic admixture). More distant proxies would come from other Northeast African countries like Somalia and Ethiopia, who nonetheless share the same common Saharan African heritage as the indigenous Egyptians and North Sudanese.
Posted by Punos_Rey (Member # 21929) on :
^Brandon I contorted myself into as many pretzels as I could emphasizing how race varies depending on how we define it, how indigenous Africans have great diversity, etc. But I will not be bullrushed into ceding the fact that the AE were tropically adapted Africans who clustered most closely with other Northeastern Africans but still have commonalities with other Africans.
I also refuse to entertain people calling the Nubians black and not the Egyptians. Not going to happen.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Some Euronuts don't call lower Nubians and Egyptians 'black' because they don't fit the racialized use of the word (i.e. the one one-drop is based on), but then turn around and flip flop and call lower Nubians 'black' based on AE caricatures or their jet-black skin in some paintings. These are all different usages, but people, even academics, will flip flop to different usages of 'black' in mid-conversation.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
@Nodnarb
In regards to your article: maybe we just need to come to grips with that adherence to the scientific method is not teachable, no matter what approach one takes. It doesn't work in other science/faith interfaces, so why would it work here?
Posted by Nodnarb (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Punos_Rey: ^Brandon I contorted myself into as many pretzels as I could emphasizing how race varies depending on how we define it, how indigenous Africans have great diversity, etc. But I will not be bullrushed into ceding the fact that the AE were tropically adapted Africans who clustered most closely with other Northeastern Africans but still have commonalities with other Africans.
I also refuse to entertain people calling the Nubians black and not the Egyptians. Not going to happen.
I see that now. To be frank about it, I think those guys just have a deeply ingrained psychological bias that is blinding them to your point of view, nuances and all. And there is where I think it's time to call them out on it. They'll be in denial about it and play the inverted race card (i.e. accuse you of being the racist) of course, but if you can't do anything else, puncture their egos and break them into much-needed self-reflection as much as you can.
Posted by Nodnarb (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: @Nodnarb
In regards to your article: maybe we just need to come to grips with that adherence to the scientific method is not teachable, no matter what approach one takes. It doesn't work in other science/faith interfaces, so why would it work here?
I understand why you're cynical, but I just wanted to get a more accurate opinion onto widely read social media than what's currently out there. Of course parties invested in the opposition will not listen to me, but there are always readers who are legitimately curious without the racial investments either way. But who knows, maybe I'm just being naive.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
^Right. I agree that the data needs to be out there for those who are looking. If only that the other side is def not stopping. But I'm talking expectations. It's just something we should think about and keep in mind. We're at a disadvantage.
You can't teach AE ethnic background without using terms like black skin, brown skin, Sahara, North Africa, Africa, neolithic, mtDNA M1, etc. but these terms have already been appropriated by ideologues and carry racial connotations that differ in the lay person's mind from what they actually mean. And people just aren't going to allow anyone to reset their racial connotations.
Posted by Punos_Rey (Member # 21929) on :
^Especially when they can just brush people off as "Afrocentrists" and completely shut down the discussion. What a joke. I even tried to dance around black as much as possible but got dragged into it anyway so started swinging. But I quoted heavily from this forums Nile Valley database and it seems I made a breakthrough with at least one person but who knows. I'm glad ES is still around if nothing else
Posted by Nodnarb (Member # 3735) on :
I wonder how much perceived credibility affects openness to different perspectives here. Assuming they don't already have an emotional investment either way, audiences will probably show more willingness to listen to sources they perceive as credible. Ideally that would be someone with anthropological or other relevant academic training, but failing that, you need to show some degree of familiarity with the topics invoked.
On the other hand...forgive me if this causes offense, but I believe most black posters are naturally at a disadvantage when arguing this topic no matter how reasonable their approach. Not only will you be presumed as "Afrocentrists" out to steal others' history, but I've observed that a lot of non-blacks will knee-jerk dismiss anything a black person says that doesn't affirm their prejudices. It's not fair and it's not their fault, but black people don't get taken seriously enough.
Sometimes I wonder whether non-black posters like me and Djehuti would have an edge in the perceived credibility department, if only because we'd be harder to dismiss as "Afrocentric". Even ausar might have had it without needing to fake an Egyptian ethnicity, because he was a white guy all along. But then, I've had opponents accuse me of having some ulterior agenda (usually sexual) even when they knew I was a white dude.
Posted by Punos_Rey (Member # 21929) on :
^I don't take offense to that at all Brandon and I think you are absolutely correct. I didn't even cite Keita once as any black scholar or academic is automatically assumed to be "Afrocentrist" unless they De-Africanize Egypt. It's absolutely crazy how acceptable the idea that black people don't even have the *right* to even discuss Egypt, let alone engage in real debate on it. I have felt the disadvantage every single time.
Racist practice doesn't always entail brute force out in the open violence against people of another race, but more often(especially nowadays) takes a much more subtle approach, as the silencing of me and the other two black posters not toting the party line demonstrated.
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
HuminBehaviorz says I hear arguments all day every day from Afocentrists claiming that Egyptians were black. I'm aware that we all have our own definitions of black but I'm sure most of us can agree that people generally classify blacks as negroids. In other words: dark skinned people with kinky hair, wide flat noses, broad and round nostrils, and thick lips. I also fully accept the evidence presented that shows a clearly indigenous black/African origin of Egyptian civilization. However even if that's true, I don't think that really is enough to say that "the Egyptians were black." That would be just like saying Jamaicans were white just because the country was founded by the British. Even though Jamaica was founded by whites, it's no longer considered a white country. I think the same goes for Egypt.
Then whites always claim that they were brown (or white). Skeletal records as well as paintings and sculptures depict many different races but it's undeniable that the majority of them depicted brown/red skinned people similar to Berbers, Arabs and of course modern Egyptians. I think everyone just needs to get their head out of their a** and be a bit more open-minded.
Egypt is located in the northeastern corner of Africa, right in the center of Europe, Africa, and Asia. With that being said, Egypt as well as other parts of northeast Africa and the middle east are very multiethnic places multicultural places. Features from Europeans such as light skin, hair and eyes, as well as African features like dark skin and kinky hair and even some mongoloid features can be found within this region of the world. It's a natural melting pot strictly due to it's location.
Last but not least (this is directed at Afrocentrists) blacks that lived in Egypt, Nubia, and other parts of east Africa aren't even related to the ancestors of Western blacks. They belong to the Nilotic ethnic group. They are tall, thin, dark-skinned people with very distinct facial features from western and central Africans (the ancestors of Western blacks). So if you want to claim African history, you should place your focus on our actual ancestors. Putting all of your attention on northeastern Africa would be no different than a British person putting Russian history on a pedestal.
PS: I'm black and a strong supporter of African history. I just want us to come together and do it the right way. I don't condone Afrocentricism. --------------------------
Much of this is a laughable bunch of rubbish. This poster "HuminBehaviorr" gives away his fake pose by talking about "blacks are negroids" which sounds exactly like the white racists we have been dealing with on ES for years. They can't even troll effectively- the same bullshite formulas keep coming out of their mouths. Its doubtful if "HuminBehaviorr" is black. He seems like just another lame white poseur, like the fake “black militants” who appear on cue in various venues to spout ludricrous strawmen, conveniently set up to “refute.” No credible black man who is a "strong supporter of African history" would be uttering the nonsense in his OP. What black person knowledgeable in African history for example subscribes to the notion that black people only look one particular way? The dummy is so clueless he gives away the game right off the bat. His little troll effort is obviously transparent, and easily debunked on 6 counts as we have been doing for years on ES.
1) Sub-Saharan "black" Africans are the most diverse people in the world- with plenty of people and groups having narrow noses, non kinky hair, thin lips etc. Their skin ranges from light brown to jet black, and even pale white in a small number of cases, and in the cases of albinos.
2) The dummy contradicts his own troll opener. He says: "I also fully accept the evidence presented that shows a clearly indigenous black/African origin of Egyptian civilization. However even if that's true, I don't think that really is enough to say that "the Egyptians were black."". Uhm dummy, if evidence as you say: "shows a clearly indigenous black/African origin of Egyptian civilization" how then is that "not enough" to say they were black? Duh...
3) He says: "Skeletal records as well as paintings and sculptures depict many different races but it's undeniable that the majority of them depicted brown/red skinned people". The dummy seems not to realize that the same "skeletal records" show tropical limb proportions clustering with black Africans nearby, whether it be Nubia or further south, along with cranial data showing similar clustering depending on the sampling and study cited. The Nubians are the closest ethnic cousins to the Egyptians- at times the two populations are indistinguishable in the archaeological record. And there are plenty of paintings and sculptures that show dark skinned "Black" Egyptians. Furthermore, the diversity of black Africans INCLUDES brown and reddish-brown skin. Just living in a cool zone for a long time will affect skin color, just as living in the dry arid air of deserts, or at high altitudes for a long period cause adaptations that give narrow noses.
4) He says East African blacks are not related to Western blacks- implying that those western negroes should “know their place.”. What a dummy. They are related by cultural artifacts, cultural practices, tropical adaptations to skeleton, language on some counts, and DNA. The PN2 transition of Haplogroup E for example unites a majority of African males throughout the continent, as just one example. Can't these dummies troll better? Be more creative? And "Nilotic ethnic groups" are black people, dumb bunny. The Nile Basin by the way extends from Kenya in the East, all the way to Republic of Congo in the West and thence the Atlantic ocean.
5) Then the troll trots out the standard line that "West Africans" should focus on their "actual ancestors" not East Africans. Dummies- West Africa was heavily populated by a foundational population originally coming from East Africa via the Sahara and elsewhere- indeed East Africa is a key hub of the OOA migrations out of Africa, but also a hub for key migrations INSIDE Africa. So "East Africans" in that sense are the ancestors of West Africans. West Africans thus have every right to engage with East Africans, or any other Africans if they see fit.
6) Finally, aside from all the above is the sheer hypocrisy of the white lamers and racists. They say that Afro Americans should "stick with West Africa" as if they need some sort of "clearance" from white people about what to study or engage. Curiously, the same white hypocrites do not apply the same rule to themselves- America and Britain are thousands of miles away from Greece, much more so than say Ethiopia to Nigeria. Yet northwest European Anglo-American whites flock to study all things Greek, and to copy from the Greeks. They don't say "let's confine ourselves to Northwest Europe." The white hypocrites only have a "problem" and a double standard when it comes to Africa. Africans apparently are supposed to sit silently and not engage the heritage of their continent, until given approval by self-styled white "role models." And speaking of cultural appropriation, white people have been the biggest hypocrites and appropriators of Egyptian heritage - even consuming the flesh of dead Egyptians in various historical areas for medicinal purposes. Hell even their currency rips off Egyptian iconography. Can anyone say white hypocrisy? I knew you could.
Bu the game has changed. The hypocrites no longer get to dictate to black folk, who need no "clearance" or "permission" or "approval" from "native" Egyptians (bogus or otherwise) or white people to study or make informed comment on the Nile Valley, East Africa or any other part of Africa. They don't need no badges of approval from anyone to study, theorize, apply and comment.
But anyway, ten pages on with the above dumb troll, I am glad to see him being hammered with info from the ES base. Predictably, a large number of allied idiots can't deal with hard data, so they fall back on hollering "nig$#@" in lieu of real debate. As usually happens with these type discussions and forums, the white lamers and racists sooner or later reveal their true colors. But anyway, we have the data, we have the more balanced models and approaches, we have the info repositories. We have end-run and defeated numerous bogus WIkipedia "stealth" edits and admin sandbagging ploys intended to bury and remove credible scholarship. And the base is in place, furnishing the ammo needed to hit hard. In that forum thread, black poster "mansamusa" is holding court and schooling assorted chumps and lamers. That is as it should be.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nodnarb:
quote:Originally posted by Punos_Rey: Currently involved in a 10+ page long debate on Egypt's place in Africa that goes to the question of this very thread:
Unbelievable to me how quickly the racism comes out on even supposedly objective forums, and the denial of African variation is mindboggling
I am sick and tired of the semantic word games and ever shifting goalposts with the word black, and black people presuming to "inform" others of blacks inferiority complexes or "afrocentrist conspiracies" get my goat. As if the history of Egyptology is not rife with delusions, lies, conspiracies and all types of cherry picked evidence
I've decided the best way to frame the issue is to address the AE's origins and what ramifications those would have for how we picture them. In other words, emphasize they came from the interior of the eastern Sahara and so would have been indigenous Africans and therefore darker-skinned, since we know modern Mediterranean "North Africans" have Arab admixture and light-skin alleles of recent West Eurasian origin. You can mention that, in certain traditions, they could be called "black", but clarify that the lay race is a social construct and that not everyone we call "black", even south of the Sahara, is part of the same population substructure.
Sure, some people will still object, and may twist your words into saying AEs were from this or that sub-Saharan population substructure. But that's their distorted interpretation, not yours.
quote:So who would the indigenous Egyptians, who laid the groundwork of what we consider Pharaonic civilization, have been? It is fair to say that, far from being European or even Middle Eastern in appearance, they and their culture would have been native African in origin. Most probably they developed from cattle-herding African tribes roaming the savannas of the Sahara before they turned to desert around 3500 BC. When the time came for these Africans to settle along the Nile and organize themselves into larger chiefdoms that would later merge into the Egyptian nascent state, most of the foundations of classical Egyptian civilization would be laid in the southern part of the country (Upper Egypt, since it is further upriver) before they conquered the northern (Lower, or downriver) reaches.
The biological anthropologist S.O.Y. Keita, perhaps the most specialized in this topic, reports on these:
"Studies of crania from southern predynastic Egypt, from the formative period (4000–3100 B.C.), show them usually to be more similar to the crania of ancient Nubians, Kushites, Saharans, or modern groups from the Horn of Africa than to those of dynastic northern Egyptians [referring to a Late Period series from 664–341 BC, regarded as a period of decline for Pharaonic Egyptian hegemony] or ancient or modern southern Europeans." ---— S.O.Y. Keita and AJ Boyce, “ The Geographical Origins and Population Relationships of Early Ancient Egyptians”, Egypt in Africa (1996: pp. 25–27
Among modern populations, perhaps the ones who most closely resemble the majority of ancient Egyptians would be those living in northern Sudan, or “Nubia” (with the caveat added that these populations may still have minor Arabic admixture). More distant proxies would come from other Northeast African countries like Somalia and Ethiopia, who nonetheless share the same common Saharan African heritage as the indigenous Egyptians and North Sudanese.
These populations mentioned certainly see themselves as black.
Annnnd the racists on historum have stopped pretending
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Punos_Rey: Annnnd the racists on historum have stopped pretending
What do you mean?
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Punos_Rey: ^I don't take offense to that at all Brandon and I think you are absolutely correct. I didn't even cite Keita once as any black scholar or academic is automatically assumed to be "Afrocentrist" unless they De-Africanize Egypt. It's absolutely crazy how acceptable the idea that black people don't even have the *right* to even discuss Egypt, let alone engage in real debate on it. I have felt the disadvantage every single time.
Racist practice doesn't always entail brute force out in the open violence against people of another race, but more often(especially nowadays) takes a much more subtle approach, as the silencing of me and the other two black posters not toting the party line demonstrated.
"I didn't even cite Keita once as any black scholar or academic is automatically assumed to be "Afrocentrist" unless they De-Africanize Egypt."
Very well, said. They have created this strategy where only white is right. Although now they've come up with a "solution" to white academics who write progressive. They start call them Marxist and communists. It's somewhat trendy I think. I even saw Doxie meantion this. And unless a black person not De-Africanize Egypt, he becomes "negrocentric".
I even read on the forum Topix years ago, how this person named Barros demanded to expel black scholars and ban blacks as a whole from academia. This Barros had major trouble with Clyde Winters, This individual Barros, claimed to be an anthropologist. He, Barros confirmed that he challenged Clyde on many occasions and "defeated" him (Clyde). I later came to find out that this person has been and is writing on Egyptsearch.
Posted by Punos_Rey (Member # 21929) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by Punos_Rey: Annnnd the racists on historum have stopped pretending
What do you mean?
The thread is now closed but posters came out full force declaring Sub-Saharan Africa had no civilizations, were too primitive and stil are today and thus couldn't have founded Egypt.
Posted by tropicals redacted (Member # 21621) on :
Punos el rey 19/03/2016
quote: I also refuse to entertain people calling the Nubians black and not the Egyptians. Not going to happen.
Swenet 18/05/2014 Facebook
quote: “Claus [Tropicals Redacted] Your argument in favor of the use of black (i.e. they apply it to Nubians) is reactionary and not based on any practical merit continued use of the term has, given the cards we're dealt. They [academics] aren't wrong in applying the term the way they do. It could be argued that you are forcing a definition on them and calling them out for refusing to use your hi-jacked definition. Anywhere else this wouldn't be accepted either. Sounds like a battle they're not going to let you win and moreover, technically, you'd be the one at fault here, not them. Regardless of whether they have racist motives for refusing to accept your appended definition .”
So Punos, you're being reactionary.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
LMAO. The chronic liar is at it again. Compare the full content of the quote with his poor reading comprehension interpretation of what it says (he's desperately drawing attention to the first and last sentence).
When Kemp tried to pull the "Nubians = black, but Egyptians aren't" angle, I said the following (and this was before I had gained more sympathy for Kemp's position):
quote:It's just a way for him to muddy up the conversation and to delay the inevitable with irrelevant objections. They all do this. They start talking about population affinity of Nubians and use the term 'black' freely, then they start talking about Egyptians and all of a sudden the term itself is scientifically problematic. It's true, but if you're intellectually honest you won't use semantics as a strategic advantage to not have to answer what someone is asking you. He could just as easily have said: "While black is a problematic term, I don't agree with the notion that they were predominantly African in genetic make-up, either", and he'd at least have addressed the heart of the matter.
—Swenet
Anyone familiar with my posts knows I've always rejected this "Nubians = black, but Egyptians aren't" notion, and still do. But, at the same time, I agreed and still agree with Kemp's position that 'black' is problematic (you can see me agreeing with this aspect of Kemp's statement when I say "it's true"). I disagreed with one aspect, and agreed with the other part.
The chronic liar knows this, but he just doesn't know when to stop lying.
You can look at my quote he's posting and see for yourself that that quote doesn't even say what he's making it out to mean. As the quote says, I was criticizing his APPENDED definition of 'black' AND his stupid justifications of using it. No one in this community worth his/her salt subscribes to the liar's appended definition of 'black'.
The liar started making up a definition of 'black' that had no historicity and got schooled. Ever since that day he's been bitter and disgruntled.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: 1) Historically, 'black' could refer to (a) jet-black skin (excluding brown skin), (b) a range of brown skin tones (including jet-black skin), (c) (one drop of blood from) a perceived race thought to epitomize African ancestry, (d) swarthy skin, etc.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
And BTW, Punos can disagree with me. Who gives a sh!t. Punos is his own man and has his own considerations for why he does or doesn't subscribe to certain views. Part of the reason why the conflict with the liar happened is because the liar tried to impose his fake use of 'black' on academics and because he was deceptive with his trojan horses. I've never seen Punos do that with his use of 'black' so the comparison is moot. Pathetic, really.
The disgruntled liar needs to act his age. He's almost 50 years and still employs kindergarten tactics. Tries to sow discord with gossip but fails every time.
This is exactly how the liar tries to play academics against each other (i.e. with false accusations).
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Punos_Rey: ^I don't take offense to that at all Brandon and I think you are absolutely correct. I didn't even cite Keita once as any black scholar or academic is automatically assumed to be "Afrocentrist" unless they De-Africanize Egypt. It's absolutely crazy how acceptable the idea that black people don't even have the *right* to even discuss Egypt, let alone engage in real debate on it. I have felt the disadvantage every single time.
Racist practice doesn't always entail brute force out in the open violence against people of another race, but more often(especially nowadays) takes a much more subtle approach, as the silencing of me and the other two black posters not toting the party line demonstrated.
While I didnt and probably wont read the entire thread I will say two things.
1 - You ran into the problem of coming into the discussion with facts and walls of text. I believe your first post was a block of text. It is likely they will simply scroll past walls of text and even if they read it they will not have the discernment to apply the knowledge as YOU would. IE: Even when they see Brown skinned Africans in Ghana they call "Black"...and pitch black Ghanaians they call Black.....understanding there is a range of skin color that can be applied to the Nile valley will not stick with them. If the dont understand what they see with their naked eye there is not way they can accurately conceptualize abstract science. Science and terms that they haven't ever even heard of.
2 - The question is framed as an either or question. Black or White. To really understand what they know I found it best to speak of influences and migration. You dont want people to feel some kind of way like they are disrespecting you or they are putting themselves in some type of position where they are simply telling you what you want to hear..............or playing down what they really want to say. If there is a person IN THE KNOW, you can simply ask them what are the Non African contributions and let them answer....and then ask what are the African contributions.
I see nothing wrong with the up-playing of the presence of SW Asian Specific domesticated crops and animals as a package coming into the Nile Valley on separate occasions even. Whether they argue an African or Non-African origin of AE, the fact regarding the animal and plants of SW Asian origin hold firm as facts. Once you start to address what is factual......and talk about real migration you can get to the heart of the issues as to what truths or misconceptions they have about cultural links and migrations. As a mater of fact you should TEACH them about the non-African influences and migrations into the Nile Valley. Once you start to do this nearly everything you say will make them look unreasonable.
Posted by Punos_Rey (Member # 21929) on :
^thanks for the advice Beyoku, I admit that I did frequently throw out blocks of quotations, but I still feel the bar was set much higher for me and the other posters arguing African origin for AE, and I didn't once deny influences from SW Asia. But influences doesn't make AE less African.
Posted by tropicals redacted (Member # 21621) on :
quote: When Kemp tried to pull the "Nubians = black, but Egyptians aren't" angle, I said the following (and this was before I had gained more sympathy for Kemp's position) :
Oh dear...funny, because when I asked why Nubians are black, but Egyptians aren't, he seemed to change course:
July 4th 2014:
I ask Barry Kemp: "4) Could you also briefly explain why 'black' is acceptable when applied to 'Nubians', but gives rise to difficulties when applied to skeletally similar Egyptians?"
July 9th
Barry Kemp replied: "I would not call the Nubians a black population. I would say they are simply Nubians."
quote: And BTW, Punos can disagree with me. Who gives a sh!t
You really are all over the place. You can fleck spittle rant about false accusations all you want, the quote's there for all to see.
And why do you keep saying I'm nearly 50/in my 50s, when I'm not???
BTW this is the same individual, who, in a context entirely devoid of any sexual context, accused me of exhibiting the behavior of a paedophile. Yep. That's what he said.
A couple of nights ago he also said that he'd been in conversation with academics about me and threatened to post their comments on this forum, saying he had sufficient correspondence to post "for days"...when I repeatedly asked him to do so, he bottled it. Nothing materialised as far as I'm aware.
This is the same person who knocked against the idea of the Ethiopians and Somalis being black populations, but when I asked him in the course of a thread what the online and press reaction/descriptions would be if Hollywood made a film casting Somalis and Ethiopians as ancient Egyptians, he failed to answer...despite the questions being put to him twenty times... BTW he himself had previously referenced the Ethiopians as a black population ...but then later, after he and I fell out, he'd criticise me for doing the same thing...
This is what we have here.
Erratic.
But more fool me for wasting my time on him.
quote:And BTW, Punos can disagree with me. Who gives a sh!t. Punos is his own man and has his own considerations for why he does or doesn't subscribe to certain views. Part of the reason why the conflict with the liar happened is because the liar tried to impose his fake use of 'black' on academics and because he was deceptive with his trojan horses. I've never seen Punos do that with his use of 'black' so the comparison is moot. Pathetic, really.
The disgruntled liar needs to act his age. He's almost 50 years and still employs kindergarten tactics. Tries to sow discord with gossip but fails every time.
This is exactly how the liar tries to play academics against each other (i.e. with false accusations).
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
The chronic liar tried to fabricate some sort of fake meaning of 'black' that artificially circumscribes all Africans that suit his fancy (e.g. includes light skinned people like Colin Powell, Goldie, tawny skinned Khoisan but selectively excludes light skinned Berbers) and pays no mind to people outside of Africa with the same range of skin pigmentation.
Needless to say, he got his ass handed to him. Lol! Then he tried to spam my past use of 'black', Djehuti's use of 'black', and now Punos use of 'black' to drum up support/point out inconsistencies. But the 50 year old troll has yet to point out how his appended 'black' relates to these people.
Again, you can see him in this thread deceptively co-signing Doug, but Doug's positions as recorded here and elsewhere reject this willy nilly use of 'black' as well. There is no one on this forum whose posting history can be shown to align with this shaky use of the term. It has no historicity and therefore no legitimacy.
This is what the liar said about the same views he's now posting out of context, like the liar he is:
19 June 2014
quote:Great discussion by the way...keeps us limber.
The same discussion led to his emotional temper tantrum a couple of days later. The same discussion he labeled 'great' now causes him to nitpick my quotes and post them out of context. Who is the erratic one? SMH.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
What changed the erratic liar's mind? Why the sudden change of heart? He certainly didn't think the post he's spamming out of context right now was a problem then. Lol.
quote: The filthy liar back then when he had the opportunity to speak up about the post he's spamming around right now:
quote: Swenet 18/05/2014 Facebook
“Claus [Tropicals Redacted] Your argument in favor of the use of black (i.e. they apply it to Nubians) is reactionary and not based on any practical merit continued use of the term has, given the cards we're dealt. They [academics] aren't wrong in applying the term the way they do. It could be argued that you are forcing a definition on them and calling them out for refusing to use your hi-jacked definition. Anywhere else this wouldn't be accepted either. Sounds like a battle they're not going to let you win and moreover, technically, you'd be the one at fault here, not them. Regardless of whether they have racist motives for refusing to accept your appended definition .”
19 June 2014 Great discussion by the way...keeps us limber.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Note how the chronic liar is taking my posts completely out of context. This, among other things, is the arbitrary willy nilly crap I was responding to in the post quoted above which he's completely taking out of context (he even admits that he is fabricating his own use of 'black'):
18 June 2014
quote:Originally posted by the liar: However, my sense of what is black is far wider than what is in anthropological terms - I've relatives who have the same sort of appearance as Colin Powell, Haile Selassie. I've always regarded these particular family members as black, they self-identify as black, and within the context of the UK, they've always been referred to as such. I think that's where the sociological sense of blackness kicks in - Kemp alludes to this in terms of people's 'street' racial divisions. However, Keita points out that the light-skinned Berbers are indigenous Africans - generally, I wouldn't regard them as 'black'.
I'm not logged in right now so I can't access his other ridiculous left field comments on his use of 'black'. These posts show the extent to which he was making his definition of 'black' up as he was going along. The liar now tries to hide this so he can make it seem like the quoted comments necessarily apply to other folks' use of 'black'.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
These are the weak, child-like reactionary arguments the liar used in that discussion to justify his own willy nilly, fabricated use of 'black':
quote:It's therefore noticeable that the term black is much more readily applied to Nubians, yet we're meant to be more cautious when applying it to Egypt.
quote:Remembered this comment made by Djehuti on Egyptsearch:
quote:In the e-mail correspondence with Barry Kemp, the anthropologist made the equation between Nubians and Black Africans
quote:Tristan makes very good points in the post above yours.
quote:So why did the anthropologists at Amarna and Lawrence Owens make the equation between Nubians and Black Africans?
All his reasons for why his use fabricated use of 'black' is justified can be summed up as "well, they're also doing it", like a confused reactionary puppet who can't think for himself and articulate objective reasons.
As a grownup you're supposed to be able to justify something based on its own intrinsic merits. But this lame can't even begin to justify his arbitrary use of 'black' without somehow referring to what someone else is doing/thinks.
Even on the issue of reactionary, the liar is deliberately taking my post completely out of context... as usual.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
In the same discussion, the liar made it clear that the dark-skinned Nefertiti reconstruction many here consider to be a decent representation of the ancient Egyptians, bothers him to a degree:
quote:Originally posted by the liar: Gotta say that when I look at that reconstruction of Nefertiti I see a black woman. I understood that they worked on it 'blind' so weren't aware of who they were working on or the political context. She may have been darker, but honestly, I'm not that bothered by it.
^More proof that the liar's fabricated use of 'black' secretly cannot accommodate a huge portion of dynastic Egyptians. The disgruntled lame says he's "not that bothered" by the Nefertiti reconstruction. Lol. Like he has options to 'like' it or not.
He's made similar comments before:
quote:The images are attached- you've no doubt already seen them elsewhere. I find the image of Amenhotep I on page 2 really striking; I've got to admit that I'm thrown by the images of Thutmose IV and Amenhotep III on p.6 and p.7. Can't articulate what it is about the photo of Sitamun that jumps out at me as African. I don't want to talk about the three pictures of Sety I but would rather focus on what I think I can see in the x-ray!
It should be noted that the remains of Amenhotep III, one of the pharaoh he admits he has a hard time reconciling with African', are a decent general representation of an ancient Egyptian. The other pharaoh that apparently challenges his conception of African, Thutmose IV, is actually a good representation of the Amarna family males, according to Harris and Wente.
It's not a mystery what happened in the quote the liar posted. What happened is that it was picked up by others that his fabricated use of 'black' was arbitrary and justified with reactionary arguments (basically his trademark "whataboutism" misdirection). Moreover, it shows that when the lame says that the AE were 'black', he's deliberately deceiving the public considering the fact that he knows he can't or only barely accommodate them under that label.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Other lingering questions remain. If the liar's concept of 'black' can easily accommodate all indigenous African variations, both 'negro' and non-'negro', as he claims, why can't he accept that some scholars see the dynastic AE art falling outside the negro morphotype? Why can't the lame tolerate Robins and Shute's statement that, though the AE had "super negroid" limbs, "they weren't negroes" (which is not unlike Hiernaux observation of elongated and broad featured Africans):
quote:Originally posted by the liar: They also try something similar in the introduction of the Robins and Schute (1986) paper on limb lengths, where they concede that the Egyptians had tropical African limb proportions but:
quote:"This does not mean that the ancient Egyptians were negroes; indeed in their art they clearly distinguished between their own facial features and skin colour and those of people from further south."
The defensiveness and racism in this is incredible. I had to recheck the year to make sure I read 1986 and not fucking 1886!
I'm familiar with the contents of the paper in question and I've not been able to detect a single instance of what the delusional loon calls "racism" of a type that belongs in the 1880s. In fact, the whole notion that negrophobic racists would ever associate the AE with Sub-Saharans (by calling their bodyplans "super-negroid"), even if just nominally, seems to me to be irrational and paranoid. His knee jerk reactions are not surprising though, given the indications we already have that this liar is insecure and sensitive about reminders that the AE skeletal remains challenge his concept of 'black'.
Note also the fact that we keep seeing that this lame has a tendency to single out academics for personal reasons and accuse them of racism without any evidence.
Here is the full Robins and Shute quote. Racism?
quote:ROBINS (1983) and ROBINS & SHUTE (1983) have shown that more consistent results are obtained for ancient Egyptian male skeletons if TROTTER & GLESER formulae for negro subjects are used, rather than those for whites which have always been applied in the past. This does not mean that the ancient Egyptians were negroes; indeed, in their art they clearly distinguished between their own facial features and skin colour and those of people from further south. It does, however, suggest that their physical proportions were more like those of modern negroes than those of modern whites, with limbs that were relatively long compared with the trunk, and distal limb segments that were long compared with the proximal segments. If ancient Egyptian males had what may be termed negroid proportions, it seems reasonable to suppose that females did likewise. Consequently, we shall in this paper be concerned only with the applicability of TROTTER & GLESER male and female negro formulae.
—Robins & Shute (1986)
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Same Robins and Shute quote, different occasion. Robins and Shute really do bring out the paranoid, race-baiting, raging loon in him, don't they? Why, though, if his use of 'black' embraces ALL Africans, no matter what morphotype they belong to?
quote:I now see where Barry Kemp gets his bullshit from:
quote:. . . “ROBINS (1983) AND Robins & SHUTE (1983) have shown that more consistent results are obtained for ancient Egyptian male skeletons if TROTTER & GLESSER formulae for negro subjects are used, rather than those for whites which have always been applied in the past. This does not mean that the ancient Egyptians were negroes; indeed in their art they clearly distinguished between their own facial features and skin colour and those of people from further south.”
. . .
How fucking shameless, warped and confused, . . . .
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Here we have the race-baiting loon fishing for confirmation that putative Upper Paleolithic ancestors of the Egyptians were "black people". He was repeatedly told that they were indigenous African as far as we can tell. But the loon kept baiting for me to tell him that they were "black African". WHY was it not sufficient that I repeatedly said "indigenous African", if, as he claims, his use of "black African" can capture ALL indigenous African variations?
quote: The race-baiter: Other question just to get it straight in my head - do the al khiday results prove that what was previously considered 'north African' actually falls within the range of indigenous black African variability? Thanks in advance
Swenet: Yes. What it shows is that what Irish et al call the "Sub-Saharan dental pattern" does not capture the full range of indigenously African dental variability.
Swenet: SSA and NAF are geographical descriptions. This needs to be remembered, because the dental pattern can be both found in northern Africa, and distinct from the dental pattern below the Sahara, and totally indigenous to Africa
The race-baiter: OK. I guess I'm not saying anything new though in suggesting that the North African/SSA distinction, although a geographical one, is racially loaded?
Swenet: So, what I mean is, those terms are tricky. Yes, the alKhiday dental pattern seems to be on remains which appear to be African people. biologically speaking but geographically speaking, there is no record of a SSA sample with this dental pattern. So, what I'm arguing is: biologically SSA, but the pattern belongs to a subset of variation which isn't common to that found in SSA remains so far. Just be aware of that distinction.
The race-baiter: OK, but the fact that al khiday is south of Khartoum suggests that these traits belonged to indigenous black Africans, right?
Note that, back then, I assumed that the liar's phrase 'black African' was a reference to skin pigmentation (which is how I used 'black back then), not to a particular race. That's why I never objected to his baiting attempts to get me to say "black African". Either way, it's clear from his line of questioning that the race-baiter makes a deliberate distinction between "black African" and 'indigenous African', indicating beyond doubt that, despite his claims to the contrary, his use of "black African" is a racial reference and encompasses only a fraction of all indigenous African variability.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
There, that provides the much needed context that the lying race-baiter deliberately withheld when he posted my comments.
The race-baiter has a preference for 'black African' over 'indigenous African', because he likes the extra racial ambiguity that comes with it (so he can usher in his trojan horse). Of course, the race baiter is aware of of the fact that this makes him dishonest, so he has his cute comebacks in case someone calls him out on it. When I noticed that his insistence on "black African" was becoming more problematic, I told him to switch to 'indigenous African', and he objected:
quote:I wasn't going to adapt the term 'black' because that lies at the crux of the debate. They're more comfortable with the term 'indigenous', or 'a people of Africa', but have a visceral, inconsistent reaction to what most everyday people would readily intuit by reading the evidence/discussion; that the AEs were 'black'. I wasn't going to move on that.
However, as we've already seen, the race-baiter would not even settle with "indigenous African" when I used the term and repeatedly tried to bait me into saying "black African", indicating that his use of "black African" is a deliberate preference that he also uses to lie to himself. Moreover, it has been established from this liar's posts that he deliberately avoids the genetic data (also with excuses) because he knows that "black African" doesn't cover the evolutionary complexities. (For instance, when we set out to find "black African" ancestry in groups close to the AE, we sometimes may find only ~35% ancestry that matches this racial description). The liar only cites genetic evidence when he sees an opening to deceive people.
When the liar sees an opportunity to deceive people:
quote: Originally posted by the liar: Could you comment on the finding that the studied modern sample (100) is 80% non-African, with the admixture event following the Islamic conquest?
When the liar is confronted with the fact that the genetic evidence isn't consistent with his "black African" category, he flip flops back to "but, I'm only interested in talking about sociological "blackness".
quote:My view has been that, in British and American sociological terms, most ancient Egyptians would be regarded as black/black Africans. I’ve said this all along.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
Well. As I said, you can try and play this game that racists are objective and aren't concerned with skin color all day but when the reality smacks you in the face you see otherwise.
At the end of the day this is about skin color and the only ideology of the racists is that any form of superior culture has to be associated with white skin and the word black has to be associated with inferiority. Hence the reason why the word black is problematic in ancient Egypt.
Yet folks on this forum refuse to admit the fundamental underlying facts that this whole issue is about skin color and white supremacy, which is why their silly appeals to objectivity go nowhere. The people you are trying to appeal to aren't being objective. They are racists...... And it just looks silly to try and water down your argument by being careful with words as if they don't know what the hell they are doing.
You guys should be smarter than that.
Either that or you are simply trying to play both sides of the fence.
In particular, to hear folks keep trying to play this game that black isn't a reference to skin color and then go all over the map trying to introduce all sorts of other anthropological metrics as if those metrics contradict the fact that black is a reference to skin color. Circular logic and circular reasoning.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug: Well. As I said, you can try and play this game that racists are objective and aren't concerned with skin color all day but when the reality smacks you in the face you see otherwise.
Are you talking about the Historum thread? How many nay sayers and racists claimed that the AE didn't have brown skin? What happened in that thread is basically a prediction of what I said all along. Most nay sayers agreed that the AE had dark (i.e. brown) skin and refused to call it 'black' because they felt 'black' is a racial term. Again, proving that such an understanding exists and is pretty dominant in the West. The dictionary entries of 'black' cited in this thread are simply not in use by default in the West, and that is exactly what these dictionaries acknowledge in their usage notes.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Wow, the Oxford on American use of English language is not in use by default in the West.
Are we now to default definitions as what the LCD man on the street says?
But, oh hell, damn what the dictionaries say. When they disconfirm ideology assert Svengali spin to pooh pooh MerriamWebster Oxford or any other dictionary. "Damn what the dictionary says, listen to me, I know better than that! Who you gonna believe, the Oxford dictionary or me? After all I've interviewed everybody in the West so how does the Oxford dare to say else?"
And please let's ignore the over 2000 year historic use of black in reference to populations. Either that or else let's make reference to exceptional individuals within a population to negate the obvious.
After all the hyperbolic use of melanchroes for a rejuvenated Odysseus' complexion proves Colchians, Egyptians, and Aithiopians complexion was no more than the colour of a north Mediterranean' daily year after year sun tan, right?
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
...
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Doug: Well. As I said, you can try and play this game that racists are objective and aren't concerned with skin color all day but when the reality smacks you in the face you see otherwise.
Are you talking about the Historum thread? How many nay sayers and racists claimed that the AE didn't have brown skin? What happened in that thread is basically a prediction of what I said all along. Most nay sayers agreed that the AE had dark (i.e. brown) skin and refused to call it 'black' because they felt 'black' is a racial term. Again, proving that such an understanding exists and is pretty dominant in the West. The dictionary entries of 'black' cited in this thread are simply not in use by default in the West, and that is exactly what these dictionaries acknowledge in their usage notes.
What I am saying is that it is completely dishonest to claim that these kinds of heated debates going back over 100 years is simply a case of semantics about a single dam word. That is so completely and utterly false I don't even see how you can even open your mouth to say it. The racists and white supremacists want the AE to be white or as close to white as possible and because they cant be as overt as they used to be, they try to use language that sounds less racist.
But here is the problem with your argument. "Brown" is no better than "black" in terms of settling a disagreement which fundamentally is about the range of skin complexions found in AE. It is just as ambiguous and imprecise and therefore useless if one claims to be trying to achieve clarity in language. One person could claim that brown includes very light tan and thus not be in agreement at all with what someone else calls brown as in very dark chocolate brown. So again, the issue is skin color and no amount of trying to claim it is about semantics will change that.
The other problem with the path of anthropological metrics proving African variability is that it is tied to skin color also. Variability in Africans is about showing how African people with tropically adapted skin colors, or in other words BLACK people, have a large degree of variation in physical features aside from skin color. The point is that it refutes the goal of the racists which is to limit the kinds of skeletal or physical features that can be associated with black skin. African physical feature variability is not a refutation of the word black it is actually just the opposite. Southern Egyptian Nubians, Egyptians in and around Luxor, Bedja Sudanese, Sudanese Dinka, Nuer in Ethiopia, Ethipian Tigray, Somalis, Kenyan Kikuyu, Kenyan Masai, South African Zulus, Nigerian Igbo and many other African populations are all black, even though they have tremendous variability in their physical features.
And lastly, one last issue with the falsehoods implicit in some of your arguments. Black and white as racial terms in the west have always been about skin color. They were used as ways to group folks who had similar skin complexions together as a single group, regardless of ethnic background, language or national origin. Hence, any population from Europe with white skin was labelled white, whether Irish, Scotsman, Italian, Jewish, German, Polish, Russian or so forth. Yes there was still some ethnic tension between some of these groups, but once they got to the Americas they were all still considered as part of the "white race". Conversely any population with black skin, which were primarily Africans from various parts of Africa, were considered blacks and it didn't matter the ethnic group, language or culture that they came from. The skin color was the primary attribute that determined their "race". So it is again dishonest to claim that black and white are racial terms have nothing to do with skin color. They are absolutely references to skin color and the "racial" usage of such terms reinforces that, which has everything to do with why they don't want to use black in Ancient Egypt. They don't want the AE to be lumped together with other Africans as having black skin and therefore contradict all the racist propaganda they have been putting out about folks with black skin.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Doug, stick to the topic at hand.
You don't have to speculate about what they mean with 'brown', because you can read click on the thread and read the posts of each nay sayer and see what they say.
quote:Originally posted by Pacific Victory: In other words, the average Ancient Egyptian probably looked something like this: We all seem to agree on this by the way, and the only question seems to be whether or not to classify those people as "black", which I find a bit meaningless either way.
Did you actually read the thread before started claiming the outcome of that thread as proof of what you were saying in this thread?
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Doug, you've already been shown that there is no truth to your claim that all white supremacists necessarily rallied around the notion that the AE were "white".
I've posted plenty sources proving otherwise. But since I enjoy seeing you skirt around facts, I'll post some more examples of white supremacists quarreling among themselves and coming to the conclusion that the AE were brown skinned indigenous Africans before there even was such a thing as organized “Afrocentric” or Africanist opposition:
quote: That the skins of Egyptians, in Grecian times, were much darker than those of Greeks and other white races around the Archipelago, there can be no question ; nor that this complexion was accompanied sometimes with curly or frizzled hair, tumid lips, slender limbs, small heads, with receding foreheads and chins, which, by contrast, excited the wonder or derision of the fair-skinned Hellenes. But, while it must be conceded that Negroes, at no time within the reach even of monumental history, have inhabited any part of Egypt, save as captives ; it may, on the other hand, be equally true, that thg ancient Egyptians did present a type intermediate between other African and Asiatic races ; and, should such be proved to have been the case, the autocthones of Egypt must cease to be designated by the misnomer of "Caucasian."
Types of Mankind: Or, Ethnological Researches, Based Upon the Ancient Monuments, Paintings, Sculptures, and Crania of Races, and Upon Their Natural, Geographical, Philological and Biblical History (1854)
quote: "We read the Crania jEgyptiaca, with intense interest, so soon as it was published ; and, down to the time when Lepsius's plates of the IVth, Yth, and Vlth dynasties appeared, we had not ceased to regard Morton's Egyptian type as the true representative of that of the Old Empire ; but the first hour's glance over those magnificent delinea tions of the primeval inhabitants produced an entire revolution in the authors' opinions, and enforced the conviction that the Egyptians of the earliest times did not correspond with our honored friend's description, but with a type which, although not Negro, nor akin to any Negroes, was strictly African — a type, in fact, that supplied the long-sought^for link between African and Asiatic races.
Types of Mankind: Or, Ethnological Researches, Based Upon the Ancient Monuments, Paintings, Sculptures, and Crania of Races, and Upon Their Natural, Geographical, Philological and Biblical History (1854)
What is your excuse now, Doug?
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
I first read Nott & Glidden in 1973, it and the less well known book Negro Mania.
N&G is available free in entirety online. They are racist to the core.
I cannot understand how anyone cannot see them detach AE from Africa and by brown they mean no more than the Brown Hamitic Caucasian or the Brown Mediterranean race (non-Sergi) or whatever.
If anything N&G is the perfect example of DougM's plaint.
Everyone really needs to download that book to see it in context and the reviling woodcuts of African blacks a/o descendents. It'll turn your stomach.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
@Tukuler^ Thanks for the post above, this exposes the mindset.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
What mindset does it expose, exactly? If you're referring to post #1134, how does said post relate to the points of contention, Ish Gebor?
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Doug, stick to the topic at hand.
You don't have to speculate about what they mean with 'brown', because you can read click on the thread and read the posts of each nay sayer and see what they say.
quote:Originally posted by Pacific Victory: In other words, the average Ancient Egyptian probably looked something like this: We all seem to agree on this by the way, and the only question seems to be whether or not to classify those people as "black", which I find a bit meaningless either way.
Did you actually read the thread before started claiming the outcome of that thread as proof of what you were saying in this thread?
Do you even know that what you are saying is proving my point? Are black people not brown skinned? Again how is this clarifying anything? If black people are people with "brown" skin then how on earth is "brown" better than "black"? Both words are highly subjective and can be interpreted different ways by different people. It is a logical contradiction yet you sit here and keep trying to claim that one word is better than the other when logically they mean the same thing. Black means brown skinned people of Africa and other tropically adapted areas. You keep trying to claim that these people are only arguing because of semantics when everybody knows that the issue is of skin color. All this trying to deny the obvious is simply absurd. You can try and be objective all you want but the point is no matter what words you use the issue is and has always been about skin color. Otherwise why on earth would there be so much debate over a dam word if people SUPPOSEDLY are in agreement on the actual skin color? Either they are in agreement on the issue of skin colors as found in AE or they are not and obviously the reason for these 10 page arguments is over skin color.
Your attempts to deny this and try to play it up as purely semantics are asinine.
It is not an issue of semantics it is an issue of skin color and black is no less valid than any other words to describe the colors of populations in AE just as it is no less valid anywhere else in Africa or elsewhere.
You keep letting these people off the hook with their illogical nonsense by playing along and trying to sound 'objective', when the core issue hasn't really changed one bit. If a brown skinned African in America is black and brown skinned Africans in any other part of Africa is black, then obviously a brown skinned African in AE would also be black. The logical contradiction being that if two different sets of people with the same brown skin are labeled differently based on having the same skin color then what is the difference? Either blacks have brown skin or they don't. If "blacks" are people with brown skin and indigenous African people are ALL shades of brown then all indigenous Africans are black. Period. Otherwise, in order for the opposite to be true, some indigenous Africans would not have brown skin and therefore not be black. But if they don't have brown skin then they cant be brown either.
It is a logical contradiction.
Here is an African man from Swaziland standing outside the oldest mine in the world, used to extract hematite, also called red ochre. Such compounds are the basis of the paint seen in Egyptian art. Note the skin color of this man is brown and matches the brown of the walls of the mine and the hematite and the brown seen in AE art. He is also black.
The point being that the AE in terms of skin color and other features were no different than other Africans, as denoted by the usage of the word black. That has always been the point of debate no matter how you seem to deny the obvious.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug: Do you even know that what you are saying is proving my point? Are black people not brown skinned?
You didn't read the thread, did you? You completely misinterpreted what he was saying. He was one of several people in the thread who said that darkbrown skin doesn't equate to belonging to the "black race". I know you don't acknowledge that there is such a thing as a "black race", but it's not about what you want. It's about the perceptions that are out there and the associations people generally conjure up in the West TODAY when they hear the word 'black' in relation to people, ethnicity, organizations, culture, etc. No one thinks about an indigenous Australian when they hear "black music". When people say Alicia Keys is half black, no one is going to ask "is the other half Melanesian"?
Moreover, contrary to what you were claiming, it's not uncommon for racists and Eurocentrics to admit that the average AE would have looked like the figures picture below or that these were autochtonous Egyptians.
If your claims in this thread were true, Eurocentrics and other dissenters wouldn't be pointing to these paintings as representing ancient Egyptians.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Doug: Do you even know that what you are saying is proving my point? Are black people not brown skinned?
You didn't read the thread, did you? You completely misinterpreted what he was saying. He was one of several people in the thread who said that darkbrown skin doesn't equate to belonging to the "black race". I know you don't acknowledge that there is such a thing as a "black race", but it's not about what you want. It's about the perceptions that are out there and the associations people generally conjure up in the West TODAY when they hear the word 'black' in relation to people, ethnicity, organizations, culture, etc. No one thinks about an indigenous Australian when they hear "black music". When people say Alicia Keys is half black, no one is going to ask "is the other half Melanesian"?
Moreover, contrary to what you were claiming, it's not uncommon for racists and Eurocentrics to admit that the average AE would have looked like the figures picture below or that these were autochtonous Egyptians.
If your claims in this thread were true, Eurocentrics and other dissenters wouldn't be pointing to these paintings as representing ancient Egyptians.
All I am saying is you aren't making any sense trying to defend these folks. What was this 10 page about then? Seriously? Why was Diop at the Unesco conference and why did they reject his findings? Why has did Hawass jump up and make his famous pronouncement about the AE not being black? Why do you have National Geographic and other European magazines still claiming that only the Sudanese pharoahs in the 25th dynasty were black? And on and on and on.
No, you are not going to sit here and tell me to my face that all these folks have been debating this for over 100 years because of silly semantics. No, they have been debating it because fundamentally the issue is skin color. And no, these people know full well why they are debating this issue so much and it is not because of semantics or any misunderstanding of anthropology.
No this debate is about skin color, it has been about skin color for over 100 years and it is not an issue of SEMANTICS.
Your attempts to say that the racists actually believe the AE had the same complexion as black Africans is absurd. Because if they REALLY believed the AE had brown skin then how on earth could they be against using the term black with such determination and energy? What was the 10 page debate about? The word "black", but not skin color? Are you serious?
These people using the word "brown" does not mean that they are in agreement with other folks on the ACTUAL skin color of AE people. My point being that this debate is primarily about whether or not the AE had the same skin colors as the rest of Africans all of whom are called black. This is the debate and the reason they reject the word black is because they are saying that the AE did not have the same skin color as Africans. That has ALWAYS been the crux of the issue. My argument with you is you keep trying to say this is an issue of semantics and not an issue of skin color. No, it is an issue of skin color and no matter what words you use, they are not really in agreement that the AE had skin colors anywhere close to other Africans. THAT is why they reject the word black and this has been shown time and time again by their own arguments yet you sit here and keep trying to say that it is about words not skin color. The words they use are absolutely clear. When they say the AE were not black they are talking about skin color.
And on that note, I don't have to read the whole 10 page thread. Your own example post is enough to prove what I am saying is correct and that you try to be objective but miss the whole point:
quote:Originally posted by Pacific_Victory It seems like the only real argument here is about the definition of the word black.
As far as I can tell, everyone agrees that the native Egyptian population was of African origin, genetically closest to other eastern African populations such as Nubians and Ethopians.
It is clear from the artistic evidence that the Egyptian population of pharoanic times was rather diverse with regards to skin color, but the most common seems to have been a ruddy brown color somewhere between the dark black of central Africa and the olive of the Meditteranean. This was salted with substantial admixtures of both dark subsaharan Africans and Eurasians from Arabia and the Levant.
Point 1, the AE were > 95% indigenous Nile Valley Africans with little to no mixture with Levantines. So this person is rehashing the point that has been the crux of the debate all along. The AE were not MIXED with Levantines and therefore they were black because of being PURE indigenous Africans like all other Africans. This person is not saying anything different than what the racists have always been saying, yet YOU keep claiming they are in agreement when they are not, especially not with me anyway.
quote:Originally posted by Pacific_Victory The average Egyptian's skin color was probably very close to the color they usually depicted themselves as in their art. Something like this shade:
Point 2, note the usage of the terms "very close" and "something like". Of course they cannot deny the obvious colors used in the artwork of AE, so they use weasel words to give themselves room to include a WIDE RANGE of colors in whatever definition they want to call "brown". You seem to agree with this but my point is this is not actually sign of any agreement on anything. Because there are plenty of black Africans who are the same shade of brown as shown in that portrait, especially in America and those black folks in America ARE more mixed with white folks. So again, if the AE were brown and all black people are actually a shade of brown, why is there so much of a debate? This is what you should be asking ANYBODY who puts up such a fight over this. Because I know dam well they haven't been fighting this so hard because of misunderstandings on semantics of words.
quote:Originally posted by Pacific_Victory We have no reason to doubt that this is accurate coloring, especially because their depictions of skin color of whites and subsaharan blacks is pretty close to the reality.
So if the shade they use to depict Nubians is accurate:
And the shade they use to depict Libyans and Syrians (1st and 3rd) is accurate: Click the image to open in full size.
Why would we think that the Egyptians lied about their own coloring? They were a predominately ruddy brown people with admixtures of both white and black. On average darker than Eurasians and lighter than subsaharans. Seems obvious.
Point 3, again he reiterates this idea that the AE were mixed and intermediate in terms of skin color when my point is that the average skin color of the AE was no different that the average skin color of black Africans anywhere in Africa. And at no time did the AE depict any sub saharan Africans in their art. All of those so-called Nubians were either above or within the Sahara and none of them were "sub saharans". Meaning that black skin was present in the Nile valley right up to and INTO Egypt proper and not separated from Egypt by the Sahara desert.
And not to mention the fact that most black Africans aren't as dark as those jet black Sudanese in the picture. And if that is the only color that represents "black" skin, then most Africans aren't black. But we know that the word black doesn't mean literally black skin and that this is simply a red herring which again you should have challenged but you didn't as most black people are shades of brown.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: we know that the word black doesn't mean literally black
that's why no one would call this a black object, no the dman thing is brown, period end of story, no second feel good word needed
.
So what's wrong with literal language?
Are we supposed to be more poetic with what color we call things?
So now this is a "red" because we are throwing out literal observation in favor of official racial colors?
This is 2016 "white" and "black" are relics of a pre-gentetics era
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug: All I am saying is you aren't making any sense trying to defend these folks.
I don't see how I'm defending white supremacy when I disagree with you on something they supposedly did, that only you accuse them of. Who else other than you claims that white supremacists in anthropology and Egyptology universally claimed that the AE were blonde, blue eyed and pale skinned? I've literally never heard of your claim that this is somehow a consensus among white supremacists. I would say it's a myth, but that would give it too much credit because no one with familiarity with the literature would say that that is the consensus.
quote:Originally posted by Doug: No, you are not going to sit here and tell me to my face that all these folks have been debating this for over 100 years because of silly semantics.
Of course it's not all about silly semantics. I've already told you why not. You keep talking about trolls, liars, ignorant people and proponents with vested interests in Hollywood, Egyptology and elsewhere who have no training in this area and are not even authorized to speak on the matter.
When you eliminate these opinionated Eurocentrics, then yes, the refusal to use 'black' in reference to the AE will boil down more or less to what you call "semantics" (I personally don't think it's semantics, but if you want to call it that...). Not that you still won't find examples of negrophobic Eurocentrics here and there trying to pull a fast one, but the confusion as far as who today approaches the predynastic AE in appearance would be resolved. And they would mostly point to darkbrown skinned Nile Valley people, not Nordics, as you've claimed.
I gave you many opportunities to prove me wrong, but you never did. Again, post the prominent, widely cited Eurocentrics with training in bio-anthropology and the ethnic background of the predynastic Egyptians, who didn't identify their sister populations among the dark skinned people in North Africa, if not early on in their career, then at some later point when they had access to more data.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Doug. Any reason in particular why you so far avoided my quotes of white supremacists who said that the AE were indigenous Africans? According to what you've claimed so far, these white supremacists should all be claiming that the AE were blonde, blue eyed and pale skinned—not that they were indigenous Africans. So how is it possible that I'm quoting one such white supremacist academic right now?
quote:Dr. Prichard, in denning the Abyssinians, has taken much pains, as we have said, to prove that they, together with families generally of the eastern basin of the Nile, down to Egypt inclusive, not only are not Negro, but were not originally Asiatic races , display ing somewhat of an intermediate type, which is nevertheless essen taily African in character. To us, it is very gratifying to see this view so ably sustained ; because, regarding it as an incontrovertible fait, we have made it the stand-point of our argument respecting the origin of the ancient Egyptians, whose effigies present this African type on the earliest monuments of the Old Empire more vividly than upon those of the New. This autochthonous type, as we shall prove, ascends so far back in time, is so peculiar, and withal so connected with a primordial tongue — presenting but small incipient affinity with Asiatic languages about 3500 years b. c.— as to preclude every idea of an Asiatic origin for its aboriginally-Nilotic speakers and hieroglyphical scribes.
Types of Mankind: Or, Ethnological Researches, Based Upon the Ancient Monuments, Paintings, Sculptures, and Crania of Races, and Upon Their Natural, Geographical, Philological and Biblical History (1854)
quote:Ancient Crania, from Thebes; by Morton termed " Negroid Heads," -whereas to us they yield rather the Old Egyptian type.
Types of Mankind: Or, Ethnological Researches, Based Upon the Ancient Monuments, Paintings, Sculptures, and Crania of Races, and Upon Their Natural, Geographical, Philological and Biblical History (1854)
In fact, I've just quoted more than two white supremacists. Prichard and the authors who just agreed with Prichard.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Ancient Egyptian civilization spans millennia. I can't give percentages. The founding Africans weren't free of Aamu in their northeast. Tehenu it seems had the far north first. Documents like Narmer's Pallette show all were subdued by the kingdom. We know the affiliation Lower Nubia and proto-Dynastic Egypt had. All four elements * Remetu * Aamu * Nehesu * Tjemehu were eligible for judgement and resurrection in the New Kingdom afterworld even though foreign not nationalized as many were in all ages of the civilization.
Chancellor Williams 1974 chronicled Egypt's creaming over time. It was ever increasing in number and territory though I can't quality his concept of an off-white and 'mulatto' team up against the blacks. He even accepts each 'side' had supporters not of their remote ancestry.
[....] Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by lioness: This is 2016 "white" and "black" are relics of a pre-gentetics era
Right. And I find it very suspicious that certain people here who insist on/don't speak out against 'black' in the pan-African racial sense (see Tropicals Redacted's pathetic willy nilly use of 'black') aren't posting the genomes of darkbrown skinned Middle Nile Valley people to prove that they are predominantly 'black' in this racial sense. Yes, they are predominantly indigenous African, but I don't see how one can translate this racial concept of 'black' to their genomes. It just doesn't work without invoking hybridism and population replacement.
I've asked many times for people here to explain these genomes under the "black race" paradigm and all I get is silence. I've asked many times why there is such a small genetic footprint of "black Africans" in the neighbors of ancient Egypt (Syria and Palestine) and all I get is silence. How is it possible for so little ancient "black African" ancestry to be detected there (~3-5% according to Moorjani et al 2011) if the genomes of the ancient Egyptians are supposed to have been dominated by ancestry that is consistent with "black Africans" as opposed to an indigenous Saharan component? Dynastic Egypt lasted for 3000 years and that's not counting predynastic Egypt, the neolithic or the epipalaeolithic. All these periods have evidence of Egyptian presence there, but all we get is 3-5%? Right..
That's why I think that many people here secretly know what I'm talking about re: my qualms with 'black' and the need to distinguish various uses of the term; they're simply LYING and toeing the party line. I don't think everyone who does this is necessarily lying, but if you're supposed to be a 'big time' population genetics buff and you're silent on this issue/don't take the initiative to talk about it, I think you're suspect. Either that, or they don't know what they're talking about when they post all that genetics stuff.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: What mindset does it expose, exactly? If you're referring to post #1134, how does said post relate to the points of contention, Ish Gebor?
I am not talking about any particular post on here. I am speaking of the consensus in general.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by lioness: This is 2016 "white" and "black" are relics of a pre-gentetics era
Right. And I find it very suspicious that certain people here who insist on/don't speak out against 'black' in the pan-African racial sense (see Tropicals Redacted's pathetic willy nilly use of 'black') aren't posting the genomes of darkbrown skinned Middle Nile Valley people to prove that they are predominantly 'black' in this racial sense. Yes, they are predominantly indigenous African, but I don't see how one can translate this racial concept of 'black' to their genomes. It just doesn't work without invoking hybridism and population replacement.
I've asked many times for people here to explain these genomes under the "black race" paradigm and all I get is silence. I've asked many times why there is such a small genetic footprint of "black Africans" in the neighbors of ancient Egypt (Syria and Palestine) and all I get is silence. How is it possible for so little ancient "black African" ancestry to be detected there (~3-5% according to Moorjani et al 2011) if the genomes of the ancient Egyptians are supposed to have been dominated by ancestry that is consistent with "black Africans" as opposed to an indigenous Saharan component? Dynastic Egypt lasted for 3000 years and that's not counting predynastic Egypt, the neolithic or the epipalaeolithic. All these periods have evidence of Egyptian presence there, but all we get is 3-5%? Right..
That's why I think that many people here secretly know what I'm talking about re: my qualms with 'black' and the need to distinguish various uses of the term; they're simply LYING and toeing the party line. I don't think everyone who does this is necessarily lying, but if you're supposed to be a 'big time' population genetics buff and you're silent on this issue/don't take the initiative to talk about it, I think you're suspect. Either that, or they don't know what they're talking about when they post all that genetics stuff.
Some people prefer the statement "The Egyptians were black" to "The Egyptians were African"
This is because Western civilization has brainwashed us to think skin color is more important than ancestry
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
^Yes that, and also other lay folk may think there is only one monolithic African ancestry, and that the term 'black' (in the racial sense) can therefore cover all this ancestry. If ignorance is the reason, then that's excusable. If you don't know, you simply don't know. But some use 'black' (as in: a pan-African 'race') with the intention to obscure and deceive.
The types of African ancestry that left Africa via Egypt after the initial OOA are mostly Maghrebi-like (light green) and what has been called 'Ethio-Somali' (dark green). (See the Druze, Palestinians, Bedouins, Turks, below). Early farmer genomes from >7000 years ago also reveal that the main type of African ancestry in Europe and the Middle East conforms to what I just mentioned.
On the other hand, across the Bab el Mandeb (see Yemen and Qatar samples below) we see see that Niger-Congo and Nilo-Saharan input roughly equals the amount of Ethio-Somali and Maghrebi-like input. If the posters with literal interpretations of DNA Tribes were right, Syrians should have an African component that looks like the Afro-Qatar sample (lots of light and dark blue). Instead, we see that Egypt's northern and eastern neighbors mostly have light and dark green. There is no close affinity between dark and light blue on the one hand and light and dark green on the other hand, although purple ("Ethiopic", meaning, Omotic) bridges the gap somewhat in terms of phylogenetic relationships.
Edited from Hodgson et al 2014 (K=12). Note that I don't agree with Hodgson et al that both types of ancestry are completely non African. This can be easily disproved.
Instead of obscuring ancient Egyptian ancestry with unlikely interpretations of DNA Tribes Amarna results (e.g. South Africa, which couldn't be more distant from Egypt) and misleading use of 'black' (most people will not think of Ethio-Somali and Maghrebi-like genetic material when they hear the racial use of 'black'), they should own up to this fact and move on. Parts of the popular narrative many people here subscribed to in 2009 (including myself) has long been falsified.
Posted by Nodnarb (Member # 3735) on :
@ Swenet
With regards to Hodgson's Maghrebi component (looking at Fig. 2 here), don't you think it odd that it's found in highest concentration in Northwest Africans like Tunisians that are mostly depigmented and have actual Eurasian (not pre-OOA) ancestry? Not that there isn't some indigenous Saharan ancestry bundled up in there, but I doubt it's predominant. I also notice it's found in some southern European samples that lack a comparable Ethio-Somali component, which is odd since presumably all these West Eurasians would have "basal Eurasian" ancestry. I think the trend you noted could partly be explained by travel during the Islamic age, which would have presumably established commercial and cultural ties between Maghrebis and populations in the Levant (which would have been easier to access than southern Arabia).
I do agree with you the Ethio-Somali component can be attributed to indigenous Saharans though.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nodnarb: @ Swenet
With regards to Hodgson's Maghrebi component (looking at Fig. 2 here), don't you think it odd that it's found in highest concentration in Northwest Africans like Tunisians that are mostly depigmented and have actual Eurasian (not pre-OOA) ancestry? Not that there isn't some indigenous Saharan ancestry bundled up in there, but I doubt it's predominant. I also notice it's found in some southern European samples that lack a comparable Ethio-Somali component, which is odd since presumably all these West Eurasians would have "basal Eurasian" ancestry. I think the trend you noted could partly be explained by travel during the Islamic age, which would have presumably established commercial and cultural ties between Maghrebis and populations in the Levant (which would have been easier to access than southern Arabia).
I assume the hapolgroup corresponding to a "Maghrebi component" is none other than E-M81
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
@Nodnarb.
Yes, your second sentence sums up what I think is going on.
Note that I keep saying Maghrebi-like component (as opposed to just 'Maghrebi component'), because if light and dark green (Maghrebi and Ethio-Somali) have a common ancestor ~23kya as Hodgson et al state, this ancestry wouldn't include what the ancestors of modern day Maghrebis encountered when they settled in the Maghreb (e.g. Iberian ancestry).
Ideally, these clumsy and discretized ancestry components (e.g. Maghreb, Ethio-Somali, Nilo Saharan, etc) should be avoided because I can easily make the case that the European, Arabian, Niger-Congo, etc components are hybridized themselves, complicating simple admixture models. The Niger Congo component, for instance, has Nilo-Saharan and Ethio-Somali in it.
Revisit my long post in the FB group under the Trombetta et al 2015 post to see how I construe the Maghreb component in North Africa. What you'll find there is where I'm still at as far as my views on ancient North Africa.
Also remember that Basal Eurasian was partially broken down into Maghrebi-like ancestry and Horner-like ancestry by DNA Tribes, among others. In Lazaridis et al, the Basal Eurasian in Stuttgart has affinity with the Maghrebi component in North Africans and the ancestry in East Africa that many think is Eurasian. My point? Basal Eurasian isn't distinct from the Maghrebi component and the Ethio-Somali component. Don't fall into the trap of discretizing these ancestry components. SOME of what is Basal Eurasian in Stuttgart and other early farmers has a 'common ancestor' with some of the Maghrebi component and some of the Ethio-Somali component. I'm saying that the common ancestor where these parts overlap is North African.
Posted by Punos_Rey (Member # 21929) on :
Swenet I'm running into that problem every where I go. Even when I intentionally try to avoid using black I get dragged into semantic bs games. I'm ready to throw my hands up into the air
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Give an example of said semantic bs games.. do you have a link?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Punos_Rey: Swenet I'm running into that problem every where I go. Even when I intentionally try to avoid using black I get dragged into semantic bs games. I'm ready to throw my hands up into the air
what about saying "African" or "African American" ?
Posted by Punos_Rey (Member # 21929) on :
Though I did come out swinging with the use of black for ancient North Africa so I'm red handed there
Posted by Punos_Rey (Member # 21929) on :
And Lioness when I do try and use African/Indigenous African/Tropically Adapted African/or any other qualifier I still immediately get dragged into the black game, ridiculous.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
It's not clear what that Ghost character means with 'black' in this post (could be both racial and pigmentation):
People like this, on the other hand, are talking about complexion (at least at that point in time) and they rule out that the AE were 'black' in terms of complexion:
It's not a surprise that people who think the AE were "tan" are going to reject any notion of the AE ethnic background other than "tan", no matter how you phrase it. The same goes for people who think the AE were Nordics, Asiatics, etc.
I don't understand what you mean with semantics games though, although I only read the tenth and eleventh thread. See the post below for some of the reasons why I removed the word from my vocabulary during debates. Note that I cite an example where my alternative term (African) also would be rejected (although in that case you're on firmer ground to call them out):
Also see the post below. No matter how you phrase it, you're not going to convince many people within category 1, 2 and 3 by using more scientific language:
You'll have to debate the latter group of people, just like all of us have. You're not going to talk them out of their Eurocentrism by toning down racialized terms. You will, however, potentially cause more problems for yourself if you use racialized terms when you debate them.
Posted by Punos_Rey (Member # 21929) on :
You may have to go back a page in the thread Swenet, I came into the thread on page 8
And yeah I'm seeing what you are getting at, *sigh*
Posted by Nodnarb (Member # 3735) on :
I plead guilty to having used "black" to label AEs in that thread (albeit while clearly defining it as "dark-skinned native African", which I feel is a common enough understanding of the word that is nonetheless technically accurate). But then, I was responding to an arrogant ignoramus who was insistent that North Africans have never been "black" (his language). And I notice that even after I defined "black" to be based on pigmentation and a native African heritage, without reference to any particular "race" or population substructure, they still insisted AEs had to be "tan" and related to Arabs or Mediterraneans rather than "sub-Saharans".
I believe these guys don't simply want AE to be affiliated with any understanding of "black people", even broad pigmentation-based ones like I was using. Recognizing a distinction between native Saharans and certain "sub-Saharan" ancestries doesn't seem to be sufficient for them; they're going out of their way to make AEs look like stereotyped "tan Caucasians". Is it because they actually do view darker Saharans as "black", or at least partly so (as the old Hamitic hypothesis would claim), and don't want them to be proxies for AE either? I dunno for sure, but I'm inclined to think so.
When you consider the traditional racialist model that divided Africans into "Caucasoid" northerners and "Negroid" southerners, one of its implications was that Africans who didn't fit into either mold had to be admixed between those two basic stocks. Thereby, if coupled with the one-drop rule, darker Saharans and Horners would qualify as "black" or at least mulatto. This perception that Africans who didn't fit neatly into the two stocks were "mixed" were what Iman was complaining about when she said people thought she had to be "mixed" rather than a "pure black" Somali. But on the other hand, if one insisted on AEs not being "black" according to traditional racialist rules, even a total overlap with darker Saharans would be too "black" by virtue of their alleged "mixed" status.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
^I agree that some seem to have had their mind made up about the AE being tanned, but you treat them like they just read my and Doug's arguments over the last 24 pages of this thread and made a conscious choice between the various schools of thought out there. When people think of 'black' they don't go, "oh, let's see, you have the racial use, the literal pigmentation use, the range of brown and based on that last paper about skin pigmentation I would say that the eastern Saharans with substructure had 10% skin reflectance as measured by a spectrophotometer". They seem to me to be just shooting from the hip, and it's not uncommon to see people flip flop between various uses of the term in mid-conversation. This just further proves to me, at least, (apparently I'm the only one who sees this?!?) how potentially problematic the term is. Which brings me to my next point:
@Punos
I like what you're doing. I agree with Beyoku's point though about overkill. In this thread I think you would have been better off just using one strong piece of evidence that they can't wiggle around, like the Wadi Sura rock art (and continuing from there based on the objections they throw your way). Sometimes visual proof can be more persuasive than a list of what they often see as 'politically correct' or 'Afrocentric' academics. And the Central Saharan (round head) rock art could have done the same for other North African countries.
In future threads, i.e. when they don't know your posting history, it would also be interesting (as a social experiment) to drop that bomb without ANY racial labeling (e.g. "they looked like this [insert Wadi Sura rock art]") and see how they'll respond.
Posted by Nodnarb (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ^I agree that some seem to have had their mind made up about the AE being tanned, but you treat them like they just read my and Doug's arguments over the last 24 pages of this thread and made a conscious choice between the various schools of thought out there. When people think of 'black' they don't go, "oh, let's see, you have the racial use, the literal pigmentation use, the range of brown and based on that last paper about skin pigmentation I would say that the eastern Saharans with substructure had 10% skin reflectance". They seem to me to be just shooting from the hip, and it's not uncommon to see people flip flop between various uses of the term in mid-conversation. This just further proves to me, at least, (apparently I'm the only one who sees this?!?) how potentially problematic the term is. Which brings me to my next point:
@Punos
I like what you're doing. I agree with Beyoku's point though about overkill. In this thread I think you would have been better off just using one strong piece of evidence that they can't wiggle around, like the Wadi Sura rock art (and continuing from there based on the objections they throw your way). Sometimes visual proof can be more persuasive than a list of what they often see as 'politically correct' or 'Afrocentric' academics. And the Central Saharan (round head) rock art could have done the same for other North African countries.
It would also be interesting (as a social experiment) to drop that bomb without ANY racial labeling (e.g. "they looked like this [insert Wadi Sura rock art]") and see how they'll respond.
Fair enough. I actually like the idea of citing Wadi Sura and other Saharan-Sudanese rock paintings, especially given their southern location combined with the presence of motifs from dynastic Egyptian mythology. Like I've said, pointing out that these people came from within the Sahara and would inferentially have been dark brown would be key here.
Posted by Punos_Rey (Member # 21929) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ^I agree that some seem to have had their mind made up about the AE being tanned, but you treat them like they just read my and Doug's arguments over the last 24 pages of this thread and made a conscious choice between the various schools of thought out there. When people think of 'black' they don't go, "oh, let's see, you have the racial use, the literal pigmentation use, the range of brown and based on that last paper about skin pigmentation I would say that the eastern Saharans with substructure had 10% skin reflectance as measured by a spectrophotometer". They seem to me to be just shooting from the hip, and it's not uncommon to see people flip flop between various uses of the term in mid-conversation. This just further proves to me, at least, (apparently I'm the only one who sees this?!?) how potentially problematic the term is. Which brings me to my next point:
@Punos
I like what you're doing. I agree with Beyoku's point though about overkill. In this thread I think you would have been better off just using one strong piece of evidence that they can't wiggle around, like the Wadi Sura rock art (and continuing from there based on the objections they throw your way). Sometimes visual proof can be more persuasive than a list of what they often see as 'politically correct' or 'Afrocentric' academics. And the Central Saharan (round head) rock art could have done the same for other North African countries.
In future threads, i.e. when they don't know your posting history, it would also be interesting (as a social experiment) to drop that bomb without ANY racial labeling (e.g. "they looked like this [insert Wadi Sura rock art]") and see how they'll respond.
I appreciate your feedback Swenet and yeah I definitely feel I've made some missteps as well as left open weaknesses. I think I did ok in some areas but see your point. I definitely learned a lot from these past two threads I've been involved in for future conversations
Edit: I felt it was important to back up every statent with citations lest I be accused of afrocentrism/black supremacy, yet I still ended up being accused as such due to Karlingid mistaking Mary Lefkowitz for an Afrocentrist (to his credit he did own his mistake). Even when I posted several onstances of cultural overlap/influence/connections those were still glossed over. I should've started with a more concise offensive even with the North African point though so yeab
Posted by Punos_Rey (Member # 21929) on :
What do you guys think of my last post in there? I tried to account again for indigenous African variation and even mentioned variation among Black Americans. Overkill?
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Doug. Any reason in particular why you so far avoided my quotes of white supremacists who said that the AE were indigenous Africans? According to what you've claimed so far, these white supremacists should all be claiming that the AE were blonde, blue eyed and pale skinned—not that they were indigenous Africans. So how is it possible that I'm quoting one such white supremacist academic right now?
quote:Dr. Prichard, in denning the Abyssinians, has taken much pains, as we have said, to prove that they, together with families generally of the eastern basin of the Nile, down to Egypt inclusive, not only are not Negro, but were not originally Asiatic races , display ing somewhat of an intermediate type, which is nevertheless essen taily African in character. To us, it is very gratifying to see this view so ably sustained ; because, regarding it as an incontrovertible fait, we have made it the stand-point of our argument respecting the origin of the ancient Egyptians, whose effigies present this African type on the earliest monuments of the Old Empire more vividly than upon those of the New. This autochthonous type, as we shall prove, ascends so far back in time, is so peculiar, and withal so connected with a primordial tongue — presenting but small incipient affinity with Asiatic languages about 3500 years b. c.— as to preclude every idea of an Asiatic origin for its aboriginally-Nilotic speakers and hieroglyphical scribes.
Types of Mankind: Or, Ethnological Researches, Based Upon the Ancient Monuments, Paintings, Sculptures, and Crania of Races, and Upon Their Natural, Geographical, Philological and Biblical History (1854)
quote:Ancient Crania, from Thebes; by Morton termed " Negroid Heads," -whereas to us they yield rather the Old Egyptian type.
Types of Mankind: Or, Ethnological Researches, Based Upon the Ancient Monuments, Paintings, Sculptures, and Crania of Races, and Upon Their Natural, Geographical, Philological and Biblical History (1854)
In fact, I've just quoted more than two white supremacists. Prichard and the authors who just agreed with Prichard.
I am not avoiding anything. The point isn't those Europeans who admitted the truth, begrudgingly or otherwise. The point here is what this debate and back and forth has been about for the last 200 years. Fundamentally the issue is skin color and it is amazing to sit here and watch some posters on this forum who SUPPOSEDLY are so smart act so ignorant and naive about it.
Come on stop playing dumb.
Everybody is not being "objective" as you want to claim. They use word games to try and hide their racism, meaning their desire to portray the AE as some sort of very light population and to seem "objective". But when you move beyond the word games and get right down to the facts of skin color it becomes obvious what the agenda is. Yet some folks like you will sit here and swear these people don't have and agenda and it hasn't been the basis of an argument that has gone on for hundreds of years. Come on man stop trying so hard to deny the obvious.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
The white supremacists said to Morton "Sorry bro, but the skeletal remains you dismissed as atypical (i.e. non Egyptian) 'negroids' are more representative of the Egyptians than the Egyptians you epitomized". They also said "We were with Morton until better data from earlier dynasties became available". This was in 1854!
Again, Keita summarizes the general trends and zeitgeist in the literature regarding the 'race' of the ancient Egyptians. The most common view that runs like a red thread through the early literature is that the predynastic Egyptians were 'negroid', but not 'negro'. The view that the AE were Nordics, on the other hand, was a minority view and never taken seriously. What I'm saying is not controversial... AT ALL.
According to what you've said repeatedly in this thread, this was completely out of question. Yet, we have a clear example of a WHITE SUPREMACIST, telling another WHITE SUPREMACIST this. Clearly, white supremacy among these racists wasn't some sort of unified front against a 'negroid' and Afro-Asiatic speaking Egypt. Clearly, the blue eyed Egyptian theory isn't some sort of common denominator.
I've never said they are objective overall. I've only maintained that most of the racism was deployed into other channels. How does that make them objective? They still say that the ability to produce civilization is hereditary, and assign this ability to what they call "the higher races". They're still anti-African and appropriate dark skinned African populations into the European race. Throughout this thread I've maintained that THAT is where most of their racism was directed. NOT at the skin color of the ancient Egyptians.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: They use word games to try and hide their racism, meaning their desire to portray the AE as some sort of very light population and to seem "objective". But when you move beyond the word games and get right down to the facts of skin color it becomes obvious what the agenda is.
But who are you talking about when you say this? Surely you're talking about Egyptsearch trolls, Hollywood execs and Egyptologists who don't know what they're talking about. If not, then I really need to be educated. Educate me man, apparently I need it. Shine your light on me. Where are the white supremacists who're trained in anthropology and AE ethnic background who came to the conclusion that they weren't related to dark skinned populations in North Africa?
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
I don't see your claims reflected as a consensus in Keita's review. Most said that the predynastic Egyptians were 'negroid'.
"Previous Egyptologists in another generation actually saw these connections in terms of Egypt's embeddedness in Africa." https://youtu.be/kwMvxir1n7Q?t=1m26s Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Swenet given that Western culture has agreed that "white" and "black" are legitimate social categories and if Western culture is racist and if they hold Greek and Roman culture in high historical regard and if Greece and Rome was influenced by the earlier civilization of Egypt then wouldn't it be an effective political strategy for African Americans and African Europeans to claim themselves and Egypt as part of the black side?
Posted by Punos_Rey (Member # 21929) on :
Swenet/Lioness/Doug, thoughts on my post over there?
Just trying to see what criticisms/feedback you guys would give so I can better formulate things
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
@lioness
You act like people aren't already doing that. Does it look like their racial approaches are successful?
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
@Punos
I would have just posted the image below (i.e. just one picture) and asked for the Ghost character and other outspoken nay sayers to comment on it and why there is such a discrepancy between what they claim and the figures depicted.
In my view, that's ALL you need for now. Less is more here (IMO). Some people also don't appreciate it when they have to scroll past walls of pictures and text.
It might not work anymore though (as far as getting as many posters as possible to engage your topic). The thread is too fragmented and people reply to different conversations within that thread.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: @lioness
You act like people aren't already doing that. Does it look like their racial approaches are successful?
Propaganda doesn't have to be truthful to be influential. It just has to be presented cleverly and with resources backing it Racial politics are very much alive in the present day.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
I think that's really sick if people are going to lie knowingly (no matter what ideological camp they're from). It delegitimizes this community and adds to the already existing perception that we're all "just Afrocentrics" with an axe to grind. You can't even cite Keita or Ehret anymore on the net without being disparaged as "just another Afrocentric".
A lot of people in this community are dead weight and harmful to the cause. They should just STFU and take a backseat. There are standards and basic requirements to anthropology. You're not an expert if you've read a webpage and seen ten statues of thick-lipped ancient Egyptians.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
The argument for doing it is that a two part skin color paradigm comprised of white and black has been forced on African Americans therefore the best one can do is to try to apply it to history as best as possible
Posted by Punos_Rey (Member # 21929) on :
^Yeah even when I try and avoid the white and black dichotomy I still get forced into it. Luckily I've beaten a few people at the "black" vs "brown" game but that hasn't always happened and some people will persist with it *shrugs*
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Punos_Rey: ^Yeah even when I try and avoid the white and black dichotomy I still get forced into it. Luckily I've beaten a few people at the "black" vs "brown" game but that hasn't always happened and some people will persist with it *shrugs*
there's a lot of text on that paradox page.
You need to post a small portion of your text and the exact point where somebody steps in and forces you into these skin color stereotypes
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
quote:Originally posted by Punos_Rey: ...thoughts on my post over there?
Just trying to see what criticisms/feedback you guys would give so I can better formulate things
The original thread had to do with the game pack representations of soldiers. Right away some ignoramuses suggest that the north African soldiers are "too dark." You were right in pointing out the laughably bogus nature of that claim. The only thing you might have added is the scientific basis behind African diversity, including skin color (Relethford 2001 et al.) It is not merely a bunch of bloggers or gamers looking at pictures. Other than that its typical ignorance met on the web, asserted with the usual messianic certainty of the ignorant. No need to convince them- just keep on exposing their ignorance with real data.
^^"Too black" North African soldiers..
^^Another guy "too black"..
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
Commenter1 says Re- Eula Biss
Whiteness is not a kinship or a culture. White people are no more closely related to one another, genetically, than we are to black people. [...] Which is why it is entirely possible to despise whiteness without disliking yourself. (Biss, 2015, h/t to Steve Sailer)
Biss can perhaps be criticized as plugging a trendy line in liberal quarters. She is a writer- a product of the English and fine arts type university departments. She is also not an anthropologist, and will lack a handle on detailed anthro concepts. But she is correct on some points. Whiteness is not a kinship or culture in any rigorous scientific or logical sense. The notion of "whiteness" is primarily a product of racialists and racists in the 19th and 20th century. Credible historians have long shown this. See books such as How the Irish became White, and The Wages of Whiteness, for detailed scholarship on the issue.
The last sentence needs little explanation. It’s possible to like yourself a lot while despising your own people.
Maybe but it is pretty clear what Eula Biss is condemning is not the fact that she is white, but the edifice of racism and propaganda that has arisen during the last 2 centuries to justify white greed, corruption, exploitation and violence against non-white peoples, or peoples viewed as "tainted" in the non-white manner- such as Jews. Nazi propaganda for example held that Jews absorbed a certain proportion of "negro blood" during their long stay in Egypt and Palestine, and this in part, explained their collaboration or acquiescence to the presence of black colonial troops of France during the occupation after WW1. Under Nazi whiteness doctrine therefore, Jews were a racial enemy. During the Holocaust, in the name of white supremacy, millions of "sub-human" Jewish children where murdered, some by injecting them with chemicals, others by incinerating them with flamethrowers, others by mass shootings, into mass graves.
Whiteness proponents in America also have not been shy about where they stood. Aside from the usual hordes of Jim Crow supporters, in America, until rather recently, white union members murdered black men working on the railroads because some of them worked in allegedly "white only jobs." Likewise white union members went on strike specifically to force companies to fire decent black workers who had paid their dues for years, so the whites could take over their jobs. And they did this explicitly in the name of whiteness (Rothmayr 2013).
Indeed, into the 1970s unions were still up to such tricks albeit in a "softer" way such as manipulating seniority rules to ensure black workers did not move up. It took years of marches, lawsuits and government pressure to quell such practices, even as greedy white unions kept denying what they were doing. There are of course many more examples. This is what Biss is condemning- the edifice of deception, hypocrisy and greed, explicitly in operation in the service of whiteness.
It is also clear that Bliss is condemning a whiteness that seeks to advance its own interests at the expense of the other groups, by any means necessary. The concept of whiteness that Bliss is condemning seeks to ensure that non-white groups have fewer resources, lower social status, lower fertility, and proportionately less political power. All means are deployed so that whiteness secures these ends, including deception, mass violence and genocide. Oh to be sure, there are different flavors of whiteness- some "soft", some much more explicit, but the essential bottom lines are the same. Tactics would vary- for example rather than openly refuse to hire blacks, white unions would and did maintain two "seniority" lists based on job classification. To move up to a higher job classification, you would have to give up all the years vested while held back in the lower level slots, including pension payments. On the face of it such "mere" seniority rules are "neutral"- after all, skilled machinists should be on a separate track from manual laborers- right? Sounds fair- but the result is to basically eliminate any attempts from blacks in lower categories to move up, since they would lose all their previous seniority rights and pension levels. See, the racist white unions say, "we can't get black people to apply for any of these higher level jobs, we don't know why..." (wink).. Thus white "plausible deniability" is maintained. The history of American railroads is filled with such white deception and hypocrisy. But the railroads are not unique.
Commenter1 says: Richard Lewontin, in 1972. [...] It is clear that our perception of relatively large differences between human races and subgroups, as compared to the variation within these groups, is indeed a biased perception and that, based on randomly chosen genetic differences, human races and populations are remarkably similar to each other, with the largest part by far of human variation being accounted for by the differences between individuals. (Lewontin, 1972)
Lewontin's overall conclusions have been validated numerous times by credible modern scientists. See Templeton 1999, 2003, 2002 for example, or Barbujani et al 2010.
When a gene varies between two groups the cause is more likely a difference in natural selection, since the group boundary also tends to separate different natural environments (vegetation, climate, topography) or, more often, different cultural environments (diet, means of subsistence, sedentism vs. nomadism, gender roles, state monopoly of violence, etc.).
Natural selection is only one player. Genetic drift and play just as large a role or even larger. It is a article of faith in some quarters to tout "natural selection" for this or that physical or "behavioral" trait. Mexican guy cuts you off in traffic? Well ancient environmental pressures in the Valley of Mexico circa 15,000 BC "selected" for such lineages that lack "restraint". But reality is a lot more complicated:
"It may appear counter-intuitive, but a large part, if not the majority, of genetic change in human populations is not thought to be due to natural selection but rather due to the play of chance (genetic drift; Harris and Meyer, 2006; Li et al., 2008; see Table 2 for a glossary of terms frequently used in population genetics). Many opportunities for chance can occur in the transmission of alleles from parents to offspring, and evidently did occur as part of the demographic process of dispersal out of Africa. Thus, finding differences in the frequency of alleles at a particular locus between populations is not an evidence of natural selection per se. The default position is that of neutral theory, whereby chance events account for most patterns of genetic diversity (Harris and Meyer, 2006). Of course, deleterious mutations will be selected against (purifying selection) and beneficial mutations may increase in frequency to fixation, but overall these events will contribute little to explaining the presence of most polymorphisms." --J. Rees and R. Harding 2011. Understanding the Evolution of Human Pigmentation: Recent Contributions from Population Genetics.
Conversely, when a gene varies within a population, the cause is more likely a random factor without adaptive significance. That kind of variation is less easily flattened out by the steamroller of similar selection pressures.
What is missing here is that the SAME population can inhabit widely different climatic zones or be subject to many different influences causing variability. There are African groups for example that have narrow noses due to living in desert areas, or at high altitude, yet their genetic counterparts at lower altitudes or more humid locales have broader noses. The same variation WITHIN the same group can occur based o mode of subsistence, geographic barriers etc etc and other variables. Furthermore same populations can be spread out over thousands of miles. The notion that human populations can be neatly diced up into little "races" due to neatly placed geographic phenomena, etc etc is simplistic and has been pretty much debunked by several scholars. Again see Templeton, Armelagos 2001, Keita 2005 et al. There can be, and is, plenty of variability WITHIN groups, and this Lewotinin and others show. See Barbujani 2010 for example: http://www2.webmatic.it/workO/s/113/pr-1400-file_it-Barbujani-Colonna.pdf
This point isn’t merely theoretical. In other animals, as Lewontin himself noted, we often see the same genetic overlap between races of one species. But we also see it between many species that are nonetheless anatomically and behaviorally distinct.
Yes, and there is a threshhold in which scientists look for a consistent and SUBSTANTIAL differentiation before declaring a "subspecies." We know for example that there are 4 subspecies of chimpanzee because the genetic difference between them is so great- they meet a substantial threshold- to declare them a subspecies, a level of differentiation far in excess of what exists among humans.
The proponents of biological race have repeatedly failed to show such consistent and substantial differentiation between humans with the same rigor credible scientists use for mammalian subspecies. Some proponents for example use geographical "barriers" as a sort of magic litmus test- declaring people west of the Himalayas, or south of the Sahara - massive areas that are among the most diverse on earth- as a different "subspecies." Such claims lack both scientifically and logically, and are among the foremost reasons most credible scientists have abandoned such simplistic "race" models. Unfortunately this does not stop assorted racialist types from rushing off to proclaim for example Asians, or even Jews to be a different "subspecies."
Some two decades after Lewontin’s study, this apparent paradox became known when geneticists looked at how genes vary within and between dog breeds:
The weakness with the dog breed argument is that dog breeds are heavily an artificial creation, with even minor variations being taken and developed in isolation, sometimes for centuries, sometimes within just a few miles of each other. Artificial dog breeds are not a realistic representation of how normal species interact in nature, nor of how the human species developed, and show variation.
Kennel clubs insist that each breed should conform to a limited set of criteria. All other criteria, particularly those not readily visible, end up being ignored. So artificial selection targets a relatively small number of genes and leaves the rest of the genome alone.
Which is exactly why the analogy continues to be relatively weak.
But is natural selection any different? When a group buds off from a population and moves into a new environment, its members too have to conform to a new set of selection pressures that act on a relatively small number of genes. So the new group will diverge anatomically and behaviorally from its parent population, and yet remain similar to it over most of the genome. This is either because most of the genes respond similarly to the new environment—as with those that do the same housekeeping tasks in a wide range of species—or because they respond weakly to natural selection in general. Many genes are little more than “junk DNA”—they change slowly over time, not through the effects of natural selection but through gradual accumulation of random mutations.
But natural selection does not create the heavily artificial environment that controlled dog breeding does. Yes, natural selection is quite different. And even if a new environment creates new selection pressures, it does not at all follow that the variation developing meets a credible threshhold for declaring a new "subspecies." Declarations of "racial subspecies" are arbitrary constructs developed by racialists to push their particular ideological agendas. And bio-race proponents fail to realize that human groups do not neatly sit behind apartheid-like geographic barriers waiting for "sub-species" to develop. They move around, and indeed, the geographic barriers are themselves in flux, such as the Sahara which once was a lush greenbelt, and even now fluctuates with a general southern tendency for several kilometers a year. This means that groups once ABOVE the Sahara, become "Sub-Saharan" as the desert moves, sometimes in a relatively short period, rendering shaky simplistic geographic claims. Declaring people a "sub-species" due to a shifting barrier, when the same people are on BOTH sides of the barrier sharing numerous genetic links is a dubious exercise that too often, passes for "logic" among assorted racialists.
Thus, the genetic overlap between dog breeds also appears between many natural species. In the deer family, genetic variability is greater within some species than between some genera (Cronin, 1991).
Indeed. Variation can always be shown depending on time, place and entity in question, but again, it does not at all follow that humans show this same trend with enough rigor, consistency and substantiality to declare a "sub-species." Another factor that debunks simplistic thinking is that humans outside Africa are themselves a sub-section of the original African diversity. Human diversity does not divide itself neatly up into little "subspecies" or "race" checkboxes, often arbitrarily defined in advance. The reality is a lot more complicated.
Objector/Commenter1 says: Just think. Lewontin used the same blood group polymorphisms for his study. While the O alleles are specific to each primate species, the A and B alleles show considerable overlap between primates that have been separated for millions of years. So it’s not surprising that this polymorphism should vary much more within human races than between them, as Lewontin found.
Fine, but this fact in itself does little to establish that races or subspecies exist among humans, at the same rigorous level at which we differentiate subspecies among other mammalian species. Artificial dog breeds by their very artificality, do not reflect the real development of humans or other species. Biss is a novice writer on science, but here is what Alan Templeton, a credible heavyweight geneticist has to say:
"Sometimes traits show independent patterns of geographical variation such that some combination will distinguish most populations from all others. To avoid making "race" the equivalent of a local population, minimal thresholds of differentiation are imposed. Human "races" are below the thresholds used in other species, so valid traditional subspecies do not exist in humans. A "subspecies" can also be defined as a distinct evolutionary lineage within a species. Genetic surveys and the analyses of DNA haplotype trees show that human "races" are not distinct lineages, and that this is not due to recent admixture; human "races" are not and never were "pure." Instead, human evolution has been and is characterized by many locally differentiated populations coexisting at any given time, but with sufficient genetic contact to make all of humanity a single lineage sharing a common evolutionary fate." --Templeton, A, 1999. Human Races: A Genetic and Evolutionary Perspective. Amer Anth 100(3) 632-650
And other scholars: (Goodman, Heath and Lindee 2003, Genetic Nature/Culture) show that interbreeding among humans is not only strong, but furnish strong evidence that African and Eurasian populations are not isolates sufficient to create any "sub-species." Even one of the strongest examples of genetic fragmentation, that of the peopling of the Americas, turns out to be not so spectacular upon closer examination, for multiple colonization events and large population movements have resulted in extensive sharing of genetic polymorphisms between new and Old World populations. In fact strong statistical analyses up to the 95 percent confidence range show recurrent gene flow between human populations for the last 600,000 years (Templeton 2002).
In short - quote: "..the major human populations have been inter-connected by gene flow (recurrent at least on a time scale on the order of tens or thousands of years or less) during at least the last six hundred thousand years, with 95 percent statistical confidence (Templeton 2002). Hence the haplotype analyses of geographic associations strongly reject the existence of multiple evolutionary lineages of humans, reject the idea that Eurasians split from Africans one hundred thousand years ago, and reject the idea that "pure races" existed in the past, Thus the idea that "races" existed among humans has no biological validity under the evolutionary lineage definition of subspecies." (Goodman, Heath and Lindee 2003, Genetic Nature/Culture: Anthropology and Science beyond the Two-Culture Divide 247-248)
. We show instead that the remarkable distribution of ABO alleles across species reflects the persistence of an old ancestral polymorphism that originated at least 20 million years
Fine, but likewise detailed statistical analyses have show that humans have been interbreeding and sharing genetic polymorphisms for the last 600,000 years, (Templeton 2002) debunking claims of so-called "evolutionary" racial lineages. See Goodman, heath and Lindee above.
.
In sum, if we are to believe blood groups and other genetic markers, it seems that Eula Biss may have more in common with certain apes than with the white folks she despises. Let’s hope she feels gratified.
Only the blood group data actually supports what Biss is saying overall, that there are no biological races or "sub-species" among humans in the same way that we define races or subspecies among other mammalian species. Assorted racialists usually throw out the "eyeball argument" to claim scientists are "denying" that "race exists." But this is a strawman. Of course a tall, dark-skinned Dinka looks different from a short pale-skinned Eskimo. Human variation exists- who is going about "denying" this truism? The key issue is not whether variation exists - but whether in a biological sense, such variation can be credibly said to represent a race or subspecies, the way scientists define the threshold of races or subspecies in other animals. That is s the key issue, not strawmen about whether Swedes or Zulus look different.
. .But it is above all Lewontin who gave antiracism a veneer of scientific objectivity. He still impresses people who are less impressed by academics who attack racism by attacking objectivity, like Stephen Jay Gould. “I criticize the myth that science itself is an objective enterprise, done properly only when scientists can shuck the constraints of their culture and view the world as it really is”
You are absolutely correct to criticize Gould, and Lewontin 1972 is dated, but Lewontin's OVERALL bottom line has been verified many times over by scholars coming after him. Antiracists do not have to rely on Lewontin for any veneer of objectivity. There is plenty of hard data, from credible scientists and geneticists, that debunks claims of biological race, as noted above (Templeton 1999, 2003, 2002 for example among many others).
And Gould, while himself running into problems with objectivity, in general is right. The history of anthropology proves his point- there have been plenty of cases where objectivity is lacking. And both data and results can be manipulated, and have been to produce the desired ideological effects- ranging from skewed sampling, selective sampling, to use of predefined "race" categories and then shoehorning data into said categories in advance, rather than letting the data speak for themselves after an analysis (Long 2009, Armelagos 2001) These are among the problems widely noted in the literature among scientists themselves. It is not mere bloggers on the web pointing out such weaknesses.
. When one takes Lewontin and Gould out of the picture, who is left? A lot of people, to be sure. Followers for the most part—those like Eula Biss who believe because everyone else in their milieu seems to believe, at least anyone with moral authority.
Not so. Both Lewontin and Gould are old news chronologically, but again, Lewontin has been validated numerous times by credible scientists. Here is Long 2009 for example who demonstrated that genetic classifications of reputed "races" outside of Sub-Saharan Africa are simply subsets of Sub-Saharan African diversity. Ironically the same "exclusive" "race" categories at times themselves have to include "sub-Saharan" Africans. Quote:
, “a classification that takes into account evolutionary relationships and the nested pattern of diversity would require that Sub-Saharan Africans are not a race because the most exclusive group that includes all Sub-Saharan African populations also includes every non-Sub-Saharan African population” (Long et al. 2009:32 cited in Goodman et al ).
Indeed, Long et al “agree entirely with Lewontin that classical race taxonomy is a poor reflection of human diversity” (Long et al. 2009:32).
They disagree with Lewontin over whether this is intrinsic to human genetics–rather, it is a product of evolutionary history and migration, but they validate his overall 1972 conclusion as to the relatively small differences between groups. Says another heavyweight geneticist- Guido Barbujani (2010):
"Is it accurate to assign individuals to discrete geographical groups, thus envisaging our species as essentially discontinuous at the genetic level, or in this way do we misrepresent some aspects of human biodiversity? Since 1972 [19] many independent studies have established that differences between continental populations are small, accounting for less than 10% of the global species variance [20]. That figure holds also for loci under balancing selection, such as the human leukocyte antigens (HLA; 7%), and has been recently confirmed in the analysis of 624000 SNPs(9%)[26]." -- Barbujani et al. 2010. Human genome diversity. --Trends in Genetics, Vol. 26 No. 7.
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
The Hometeam Cat on YouTube below is using solid data that we deal in- to tackle many of these topics. Seems he has been reading a bit of ES and Reloaded. Here is his video on the fallacy of the "True Negro." He talks about phenotypes, diversity etc etc. Sounds familiar don't it..
And after his careful exposition some white idiot says:
I'm not picking a fight...I like your channel.... but this video is alot like Hitler's National Socialist race studies...
LOL. Apparently it is like "Nazism" these days to talk about African diversity.. A Very telling comment. Seems that racist idiots out there are getting more and more disturbed. In past times they had it easy. Few black folk were in place with resources to effectively challenge their nonsense on a wide scale. Now we are hitting them hard, not with mere emotion, but cold logic and hard data. Kudos to this guy who is spreading the word. We need more like him- breaking down the data for the "man on the street" to grasp. Excellent work.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
^ this guy's definition of black is "African"
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
^A lot of people use 'black' as 'black African'. Doug M vehemently denies it (he says people only use it to refer to skin color), but it obviously happens and MOST people in the West use it either as THAT or, more narrowly, to refer to African Americans and their ancestors. Mansa Musa (Morpheus) explicitly defines black as 'black African' in the historum thread.
Elsewhere Mansa Musa said something about expecting ancient Egyptian DNA to come out ~90% "black African". Good look waiting for that to materialize, because it's not going to happen LINK. They just don't get it or simply don't want to get it. The African component in the northern Sudanese genome does not conform to 100% "black African". The African component in the Dinka genome doesn't even conform to 100% "black African". But they expect it to be 100% in the ancient Egyptians? Okay.
quote:Originally posted by lioness: I assume the hapolgroup corresponding to a "Maghrebi component" is none other than E-M81
It could be, but I wouldn't count on it. There is not enough E-M81 to account for it. I would think more along the lines of E-M35, mtDNA M1 and various mtDNA L haplogroups that are already out there in West Eurasia. Remember, Henn et al 2012's Egyptian sample is from Siwa. And their "Maghrebi" component is also larger than you'd think from published Siwa percentages of E-M81 (1.1%) and U6 (0%). Siwa also don't have strong haplogroup commonalities with Maghrebi people in general. Neither their African nor their Eurasian lineages (e.g. mtDNA H) show much special resemblance to Maghrebi ones.
EDIT: I can't confirm that the sample is from Siwa, so I might be wrong there. But the point still stands. The so called 'Maghrebi' component shows up in Egyptian samples in general (see Hodgson et al 2014's two Egyptian samples) and there is a known rift between eastern and western North Africans in haplogroups.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: [QB] ^A lot of people use 'black' as 'African'. Doug M vehemently denies it (he says people only use it to refer to skin color), but it obviously happens and MOST people in the West use it either as THAT or, more narrowly, to refer to African Americans and their ancestors. Mansa Musa (Morpheus) explicitly defines black as 'African' in the historum thread.
If the world is viewed as a competition between black and white, some people who identify as black would like black to have the widest definition possible for the sake of strength in numbers
Posted by Nodnarb (Member # 3735) on :
@ Swenet I don't think the "mansamusa" on Historum is Morpheus though. Morph these days goes by the username EgalitarianJay on most forums; he hasn't used anything referencing a Mansa in years AFAIK.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
^If it's not him, my bad then.
@lioness
I know the intention and I address the goalpost shifts on both sides. Although European population genetics hobbyists seem a lot smarter about dealing with new genetic revelations that have implications for traditional racial terms like 'white'. Many in the anthro blogosphere (especially the 'thought leaders') openly admit the uselessness of 'white' in prehistory and some are retreating back to the imaginary safety of 'Caucasian' when they describe European AMHs, since it doesn't have the (skin color) restrictions.
Posted by Nodnarb (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: I think that's really sick if people are going to lie knowingly (no matter what ideological camp they're from). It delegitimizes this community and adds to the already existing perception that we're all "just Afrocentrics" with an axe to grind. You can't even cite Keita or Ehret anymore on the net without being disparaged as "just another Afrocentric".
A lot of people in this community are dead weight and harmful to the cause. They should just STFU and take a backseat. There are standards and basic requirements to anthropology. You're not an expert if you've read a webpage and seen ten statues of thick-lipped ancient Egyptians.
Not perfectly on topic, but one thing that bothers me about a lot of "Afrocentric" historiographic media is how it seems to be targeted at black audiences. Usually the intention is either to boost black people's collective self-esteem or validate it. Now I'm all for combating the very real problem of internalized racism, but I've always felt the fixation on black audiences had the effect of widening the rift in perceptions of history between black people and more "dominant" races. You can make a black person as unashamed of their heritage as possible, but narratives aimed to do that are always going to be written off as "fringe" by the larger, white-dominated society. And in the end, it's that same white-dominated society that is pushing the racist Eurocentric narratives that most of you are resisting.
Even if debating Eurocentric diehards usually goes nowhere, I will give guys like Punos some credit for actually confronting the standard Eurocentric narrative on "mainstream" forums rather than staying in "Afrocentric" circlejerks like this one. I wish I had the courage to do the same without backup.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ^If it's not him, my bad then.
@lioness
I know the intention and I address the goalpost shifts on both sides. Although European population genetics hobbyists seem a lot smarter about dealing with new genetic revelations that have implications for traditional racial terms like 'white'. Many in the anthro blogosphere (especially the 'thought leaders') openly admit the uselessness of 'white' in prehistory and some are retreating back to the imaginary safety of 'Caucasian' when they describe European AMHs, since it doesn't have the (skin color) restrictions.
It's funny how present day people try to associate themselves with ancient achievements
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by lioness: I assume the hapolgroup corresponding to a "Maghrebi component" is none other than E-M81
It could be, but I wouldn't count on it. There is not enough E-M81 to account for it. I would think more along the lines of E-M35, mtDNA M1 and various mtDNA L haplogroups that are already out there in West Eurasia. Remember, Henn et al 2012's Egyptian sample is from Siwa. And their "Maghrebi" component is also larger than you'd think from published Siwa percentages of E-M81 (1.1%) and U6 (0%). Siwa also don't have strong haplogroup commonalities with Maghrebi people in general. Neither their African nor their Eurasian lineages (e.g. mtDNA H) show much special resemblance to Maghrebi ones.
Let me clarify this. Reading back your comment I spoke too quickly even though you made a very, very good point. (Something I would have argued against a couple of years ago).
I agree that in the Maghreb, E-M81 is the corresponding haplogroup of the Maghrebi component. Just not in Egypt and the Middle East. In 2015 there was a big incremental shift in my already evolving views after the Trombetta 2015 paper so I view North Africa somewhat differently, compared to what you're used to from my posts in the past on the Iberomaurusians. I still think the Afalou and Taforalt people had lots of Iberian DNA (some of which is ultimately from the Middle East). Only today I reject extending this to their first culture bearers >22kya (the first makers of Iberomaurusian lithics), since all of the Iberian admixture was found in the young Afalou and Taforalt samples which date to ~10kya. For this reason (i.e. we only have their bones AFTER this Iberian admixture), as well as other reasons, it also makes little sense to project the 'Eurasian' looks of these Afalou and Taforalt remains back to anything older than this Iberian admixture.
When you look at it like this, the things you're left with in terms of the ORIGINAL Maghrebi ethnic identity (i.e. what they were like 22ky ago at the beginning of their 'ethnogenesis') is their Iberomaurusian lithic industry and other cultural features. We now know that these all had affinity with contemporary Nile Valley industries and people. So when Hodgson et al say that the Ethio-Somali component and the Maghreb component form a common ancestor 23kya, and we see cultural practices that are consistent with this (e.g. pulled upper frontal teeth), we have every reason to pay attention. If true, it means letting go of the notion that the Maghreb component is the same everywhere. In that case its presence in Egypt and Syrio-Palestine could easily be (mostly) independent of Maghrebi migrations to the east. Most of it could simply be an imperfect detection of this ancestral 23kya eastern Sahara ancestry.
Putative ancestors of the predynastic Egypto-Nubians (left) and Maghrebi (right) with removed upper incisors (the Nile Valley individual [left] dates to the epipalaeolithic or older):
We already knew about pulled incisors among Mesolithic Nubians, but they're all young(er) (i.e. holocene), not epipalaeolithic like in the Maghreb and among some of the Natufians. Nubians also mostly pulled their lower incisors, which differs from the Maghrebi examples (see pic). The picture I just posted of the Nile Valley individual is a new finding which pushes back the oldest examples in the Nile Valley and because of what I just said, it's also more closely related to the Maghrebi practice.
Even if you find what I just wrote difficult to follow, just know that your point is consistent with the data so far.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
The Iberomaurusian (green) was replaced by the more gracille Capsian (blue). The sites are limited in range and there is a thousand year or so gap of no known settlements in that coastal and near to coastal area until the Phoenicians came from the Levant. There is also the Gobero site in Niger "allies the early Holocene population at Gobero (Gob-e) with mid-Holocene “Mechtoids” from Mali and Mauritania], and with Late Pleistocene Iberomaurusians and early Holocene Capsians from across the Maghreb" Some writers on the topic suggest a discontinuity between some of these groups, particularly the “Mechtoid” types present day Maghrebians, however there is a Haplogroup H commonality ( but there are manly later periods which can also account for that)
Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: [QB] ^A lot of people use 'black' as 'African'. Doug M vehemently denies it (he says people only use it to refer to skin color), but it obviously happens and MOST people in the West use it either as THAT or, more narrowly, to refer to African Americans and their ancestors. Mansa Musa (Morpheus) explicitly defines black as 'African' in the historum thread.
If the world is viewed as a competition between black and white, some people who identify as black would like black to have the widest definition possible for the sake of strength in numbers
This is ridiculous. The AE were black and so nobody is trying to incorporate people that don't have the same skin tones of Africans all over the continent as a way of bolstering numbers. The AE are anatomically, biologically, culturally and linguistically related to other black populations in Northeast Africa, so the definition isn't being altered to accommodate the AE.
Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nodnarb:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: I think that's really sick if people are going to lie knowingly (no matter what ideological camp they're from). It delegitimizes this community and adds to the already existing perception that we're all "just Afrocentrics" with an axe to grind. You can't even cite Keita or Ehret anymore on the net without being disparaged as "just another Afrocentric".
A lot of people in this community are dead weight and harmful to the cause. They should just STFU and take a backseat. There are standards and basic requirements to anthropology. You're not an expert if you've read a webpage and seen ten statues of thick-lipped ancient Egyptians.
Not perfectly on topic, but one thing that bothers me about a lot of "Afrocentric" historiographic media is how it seems to be targeted at black audiences. Usually the intention is either to boost black people's collective self-esteem or validate it. Now I'm all for combating the very real problem of internalized racism, but I've always felt the fixation on black audiences had the effect of widening the rift in perceptions of history between black people and more "dominant" races. You can make a black person as unashamed of their heritage as possible, but narratives aimed to do that are always going to be written off as "fringe" by the larger, white-dominated society. And in the end, it's that same white-dominated society that is pushing the racist Eurocentric narratives that most of you are resisting.
Even if debating Eurocentric diehards usually goes nowhere, I will give guys like Punos some credit for actually confronting the standard Eurocentric narrative on "mainstream" forums rather than staying in "Afrocentric" circlejerks like this one. I wish I had the courage to do the same without backup.
I disagree. Africans should not care about what other people think -- others are irrelevant with regard to our history. Accuracy in research is the only thing that matters, and it is accurate information that we must transmit to our people... the others be damned. As long as our children know the truth, the Europeans can teach the lies to their children to their hearts content. It is immaterial.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: [QB] ^A lot of people use 'black' as 'African'. Doug M vehemently denies it (he says people only use it to refer to skin color), but it obviously happens and MOST people in the West use it either as THAT or, more narrowly, to refer to African Americans and their ancestors. Mansa Musa (Morpheus) explicitly defines black as 'African' in the historum thread.
If the world is viewed as a competition between black and white, some people who identify as black would like black to have the widest definition possible for the sake of strength in numbers
This is ridiculous. The AE were black and so nobody is trying to incorporate people that don't have the same skin tones of Africans all over the continent as a way of bolstering numbers. The AE are anatomically, biologically, culturally and linguistically related to other black populations in Northeast Africa, so the definition isn't being altered to accommodate the AE.
I didn't say the definition of "black" was broadened for the sake of including the AE. The definition of black the man in the video kept associating with being African but Doug's definition of black is anybody on the planet as dark as a paper bag or darker and that all dark skinned people should unite politically, strength in numbers.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: The white supremacists said to Morton "Sorry bro, but the skeletal remains you dismissed as atypical (i.e. non Egyptian) 'negroids' are more representative of the Egyptians than the Egyptians you epitomized". They also said "We were with Morton until better data from earlier dynasties became available". This was in 1854!
Really? All the racists were admitting the AE were Negroids now? What the hell is it with you trying to warp and distort history? What kind of crazy idiot are you? So are you seriously saying that the racist Europeans were not REALLY racists and they really were calling the AE black all along and everybody else and all the black scholars were just confused over words? GTFOH with that nonsense. Just admit the dam argument is about skin color and stop trying to tap dance around those basic facts.
quote: Again, Keita summarizes the general trends and zeitgeist in the literature regarding the 'race' of the ancient Egyptians. The most common view that runs like a red thread through the early literature is that the predynastic Egyptians were 'negroid', but not 'negro'. The view that the AE were Nordics, on the other hand, was a minority view and never taken seriously. What I'm saying is not controversial... AT ALL.
Nobody is talking about race except you. We are talking about skin color. You keep running all over the dam map trying to avoid that fundamental point.
quote: According to what you've said repeatedly in this thread, this was completely out of question. Yet, we have a clear example of a WHITE SUPREMACIST, telling another WHITE SUPREMACIST this. Clearly, white supremacy among these racists wasn't some sort of unified front against a 'negroid' and Afro-Asiatic speaking Egypt. Clearly, the blue eyed Egyptian theory isn't some sort of common denominator.
So Keita is a white supremacist now? The only thing I have been saying is that black as a reference to skin color is a perfectly valid word to use in a DEBATE about the SKIN COLOR of the AE and other people. You just keep trying to deny that this debate is about skin color and most absurd of all you keep trying to claim that the white supremacists actually agree that the AE were black. You are delusional.
quote: I've never said they are objective overall. I've only maintained that most of the racism was deployed into other channels. How does that make them objective? They still say that the ability to produce civilization is hereditary, and assign this ability to what they call "the higher races". They're still anti-African and appropriate dark skinned African populations into the European race. Throughout this thread I've maintained that THAT is where most of their racism was directed. NOT at the skin color of the ancient Egyptians.
No, you keep running all over the place trying to avoid the obvious point that this whole debate has been about skin color all along and not WORDS.
quote:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: They use word games to try and hide their racism, meaning their desire to portray the AE as some sort of very light population and to seem "objective". But when you move beyond the word games and get right down to the facts of skin color it becomes obvious what the agenda is.
But who are you talking about when you say this? Surely you're talking about Egyptsearch trolls, Hollywood execs and Egyptologists who don't know what they're talking about. If not, then I really need to be educated. Educate me man, apparently I need it. Shine your light on me. Where are the white supremacists who're trained in anthropology and AE ethnic background who came to the conclusion that they weren't related to dark skinned populations in North Africa?
No I am talking about all the folks DEBATING you over the skin color of the AE. But for some reason somehow you don't realize that this is what people are debating about. You are either naive or stupid.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
The only thing I have been saying is that black as a reference to skin color is a perfectly valid word to use in a DEBATE about the SKIN COLOR of the AE and other people.
and you keep lying. The skin color is brown. The word "black" is politics
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Punos_Rey: Swenet/Lioness/Doug, thoughts on my post over there?
Just trying to see what criticisms/feedback you guys would give so I can better formulate things
I thought your posts on the thread were nice. Overall the impression I got by the end of the thread was that people were rightly pointing out the contradictions of the other posters and bringing it back to the facts of skin color and feature diversity of Africans.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: bringing it back to the facts of skin color and feature diversity of Africans.
the most important thing in Doug's life is skin color.
Yet when his eyes see the color brown his mouth says "black".
That is politics not observation
from AE:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: I think a lot of it is people wanted to be part of what the Europeans were selling even if it was to their own demise ultimately. But yes fundamentally it is the divide and conquer strategy at play. Unfortunately most people didn't have a concept of a monolithic racial identity prior to the arrival of Europeans to band together around. So Africans to this day don't see themselves as "black people" or "african people" and unify around that identity, whereas Europeans have been unifying under the "white" banner for a few hundred years now.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Lol. You know someone is acknowledging defeat when they try to invent new points to disagree with. Either Doug is trying to pull a fast one or he's not really the sharpest tool in the shed. I'm going to go easy on him because I sense that he's not really all there anymore.
Let's wrap this up.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: All the racists were admitting the AE were Negroids now?
^This is Doug trying to skirt around the fact that the white supremacists I quoted said that the skeletal remains dismissed as 'negroid' outliers by Morton, represented the original Egyptians:
Ancient Crania, from Thebes; by Morton termed " Negroid Heads," -whereas to us they yield rather the Old Egyptian type. —White supremacist whose statement disproves Doug's self-victimization narrative that Nordic Egypt was a consensus.
He knows all his points have been dismantled one by one, so now he's desperately trying to invent new issues to disagree with.
quote:Originally posted by Doug: Nobody is talking about race except you.
Again, Keita's review of the literature shows that Nordic Egypt was never a dominant view. You can't stand having that self-victimization card pulled from under you, can you? Where is your counter evidence Doug? Your posts are filled with opinions.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: So are you seriously saying that the racist Europeans were not REALLY racists
You consistently misrepresent my views because you think that gullible people are going to believe your lies and co-sign your posts. SMH. Is that how much these misguided co-signs from confused commentators mean to you?
quote:Originally posted by Doug: We are talking about skin color.
Which reminds me:
The Ethiopian races have generally something in their physical character which is ptculiarly African, though not reaching the degree in which it is displayed by the black people of Soudan. Their hair, though not woolly, is commonly frizzled, or strongly curled or crisp. Their complexion is sometimes black, at others, of the color of bronze, or olive, or more frequently of a dark-copper or red-brown ; such as the Egyptian paintings display in human figures, though generally of a deeper shade. —White supremacist whose statement disproves Doug's self-victimization narrative that Nordic Egypt was a consensus.
quote:So Keita is a white supremacist now?
Absent-minded lunatic. This right here alone is proof that you're chemically imbalanced. Debunked on every point.
You're dismissed.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Africans to this day don't see themselves as "black people" or "african people" and unify around that identity, whereas Europeans have been unifying under the "white" banner for a few hundred years now. [/qb]
^ this quote already closed the thread
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
^I think I missed that. This dude really is the king of flip flops.
Recap, just for entertainment value:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Why don't you address what has been posted?
There is nothing to "address" other than that you set the goal post here:
White racists want the AE to have white skin. That is the point. --Doug M
And then you single handedly debunked yourself by posting Emily Teeter and Brian Palmer:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: What was the skin color of ancient Egyptians? Not white. --Brian Palmer
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The Egyptians typically painted representations of themselves with light brown skin, somewhere between the fair-skinned people of the Levant and the darker Nubian people to the south. --Emily Teeter
Do you even see yourself flip flop?
And
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Doug calls the Bronze Age warrior "European-looking" and "white", but when the same general pattern is found in dynastic Egypt it's somehow "completely different"?
Perfect example of Doug's flip flops and racial politics.
And
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: And again, that one passage did not change the fact that Mr Baker later on said the AE were "Europids". You can't have it both ways.
Doug, stop flip flopping.
According to you there are:
'Black' skinned Pinoy (Filipino folk) 'Black' skinned Indonesians 'Black' skinned aboriginals from the Philippines and elsewhere in the Pacific 'Black' skinned Africans 'Black' skinned South Asians 'Black' skinned Native Americans
But somehow 'black' skinned "Europids" is an inherent contradiction? If you think it's a contradiction and you bar "Europids" from having 'black' skin, it's because you're racializing 'black' and because you have all sorts of sneaky rules, exceptions and racial politics considerations when it comes to discerning who has 'black' skin.
Flip flopper.
And
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Doug debates you with 5% of actual reading and 95% attempts at ESP. Here is an example of Doug applying ESP. He thinks he can bend reality to make it conform to his flip flops. That's why, when you call out his flip flops, he still thinks he's right.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The point is Mr Baker called them Europids not Aethiopids.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: And he point blank says Aethiopids are a subrace of Europids....
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: What he actually says is that the AE were a branch of the Aethiopid RACE with Europid RACE mixture.
More of Doug's epic flip flops:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Race historically has always been based on skull measurements not skin color.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: No it means skin color is the basis of race,
Doug debunked by his own dictionary pages as both of them say that 'black' has also been used to describe a perceived racial group, i.e. Sub-Saharan Africans and their descendants in the diaspora:
quote:Black, designating Americans of African heritage, became the most widely used and accepted term in the 1960s and 1970s, replacing Negro. It is not usually capitalized: black Americans. Through the 1980s, the more formal African American replaced black in much usage, but both are now generally acceptable. Afro-American, first recorded in the 19th century and popular in the 1960s and 1970s, is now heard mostly in anthropological and cultural contexts.
quote:of or relating to the African-American people or their culture <black literature> <a black college> <black pride> <black studies> (3) : typical or representative of the most readily perceived characteristics of black culture <trying to sound black> <tried to play blacker jazz>
^Doug's own sources don't even agree with his fabrication that 'black' only refers to dark skin pigmentation. Since the two dictionary entries he selectively posted out of these dictionary pages are the only 'sources' he has to peddle his BS claims, it's game over for him.
And
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: More Doug flip flops:
1) Throughout this thread, Doug has tried to peddle his BS claim that 'black' has always included a range of brown pigmentation.
2) I then prove this wrong by posting Ptolemy and other late Greeks who used 'black' ONLY in reference to jet-black skin, while considering brown skin BROWN (not 'black').
3) Instead of addressing what I said, Doug flip flops and starts talking about dumb crap like whether or not 'black' is used as a color by that late Greek. As usual, Doug starts spacing out and knocking down the strawmen in the figments of his imagination:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The point is they used the word black as a reference to skin color moron.
No sh!t, captain obvious. Black was applied as a skin color in late Greek times. But your claim that that 'black' has always implied a range of brown skin colors just got torn a new one. Maybe that's why you're so butthurt.
Doug, take your meds.
SMH. Maybe I should just go easy on him. He doesn't seem to be all there.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Lol. You know someone is acknowledging defeat when they try to invent new points to disagree with. Either Doug is trying to pull a fast one or he's not really the sharpest tool in the shed. I'm going to go easy on him because I sense that he's not really all there anymore.
Let's wrap this up.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: All the racists were admitting the AE were Negroids now?
^This is Doug trying to skirt around the fact that the white supremacists I quoted said that the skeletal remains dismissed as 'negroid' outliers by Morton, represented the original Egyptians:
Ancient Crania, from Thebes; by Morton termed " Negroid Heads," -whereas to us they yield rather the Old Egyptian type. —White supremacist whose statement disproves Doug's self-victimization narrative that Nordic Egypt was a consensus.
So are you seriously trying to deny that Morton and OTHERS LIKE HIM continued to segregate the AE from the rest of Africa? Again are you trying to tell all of us on this forum that we are just confused and making up the idea that white folks historically have used "race" to take the AE population out of Africa based on skin color?
Stop trying to sound like you have a point. You don't. You don't make any sense and at this point you should stop making yourself look stupid.
quote: He knows all his points have been dismantled one by one, so now he's desperately trying to invent new issues to disagree with.
quote:Originally posted by Doug: Nobody is talking about race except you.
Again, Keita's review of the literature shows that Nordic Egypt was never a dominant view. You can't stand having that self-victimization card pulled from under you, can you? Where is your counter evidence Doug? Your posts are filled with opinions.
Keita has dedicated himself to correcting the "racial" distortions of the past by European scientists. But OBVIOUSLY you seem to feel that there was no distortion because you claim the white supremacists REALLY thought the AE were negroids and black folks.
Come on dude your tap dancing is retarded.
quote:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: So are you seriously saying that the racist Europeans were not REALLY racists
You consistently misrepresent my views because you think that gullible people are going to believe your lies and co-sign your posts. SMH. Is that how much these misguided co-signs from confused commentators mean to you?
Did you not say that "other white supremacists have called the AE NEGROID". Oh. That's right. I am misinterpreting this:
quote:
quote:Originally posted by Doug: We are talking about skin color.
Which reminds me:
The Ethiopian races have generally something in their physical character which is ptculiarly African, though not reaching the degree in which it is displayed by the black people of Soudan. Their hair, though not woolly, is commonly frizzled, or strongly curled or crisp. Their complexion is sometimes black, at others, of the color of bronze, or olive, or more frequently of a dark-copper or red-brown ; such as the Egyptian paintings display in human figures, though generally of a deeper shade. —White supremacist whose statement disproves Doug's self-victimization narrative that Nordic Egypt was a consensus.
Again you are saying that the white supreamcists think the AE were black and that this whole debate over the skin color of the AE is just black folks being confused about words.
Yes that is what you just said.
quote:
quote:So Keita is a white supremacist now?
Absent-minded lunatic. This right here alone is proof that you're chemically imbalanced. Debunked on every point.
You're dismissed.
You may as well say it because according to your absurd logic, Keita and the white supremacists all agree on the features and skin color of the AE since the "nordicist" view wasn't prominent AND because "white supremacists" admitted the AE were black because they called them "brown like Ethiopians"....
Sure. Whatever you say dude.
You are retarded.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: You may as well say it because according to your absurd logic, Keita and the white supremacists all agree on the features and skin color of the AE since the "nordicist" view wasn't prominent AND because "white supremacists" admitted the AE were black because they called them "brown like Ethiopians"=
^This confused flip flopper thinks my logic (which he can't even paraphrase without resorting to strawman attacks) regarding Keita is absurd because he hasn't read a single Keita paper in his life. In the man's own words:
"A careful reading of the various studies and opinions on the most ancient "Egyptians (and Nubians) placed in the context of modern evolutionary theory and archaeological data (e.g., de Heinzelin 1962; Arkell and Ucko 1965; Arkell 1975; Hassan 1988) suggests that these peoples are fundamentally a part of the African population reticulum"
^Here Keita says that many of the old studies got the features of the early Egyptians right, but need to be put into a modern evolutionary context. This is what I've said since the beginning of this thread; that most of the racism was NOT directed at what they thought the AE looked like.
"As noted previously, other Egyptologists and anthropologists have stated that the Egyptians resembled various East Africans, specifically Nubians and Somali (e.g. Peschel 1888; Breasted 1908; Bohannan 1964). Childe (1953) thought that many Old Kingdom Egyptians resembled the Shilluk, and the Naqada people, the Beja. Drake (1987:332) reviewed numerous volumes of photographs of Egyptian portraits and statuary; using either (old) anthropological or North American social criteria, he found large numbers of Negroids. Petrie's (1939:105) interpretation of Dynasty III as having come from the Sudan is based on portraiture."
^Again, as far as the FEATURES, the PIGMENTATION LEVEL and the CLOSELY RELATED POPULATIONS go, the old(er) literature often got it right—even the white supremacists. Anyone who says otherwise is simply exposing how little they know about the subject.
In most cases the morphological descriptions of early southern "Egyptian" crania fall within Broad to Elongated Saharo-tropical African ranges of variation
^Again, Keita on what he feels most of the descriptions in the old(er) texts are saying.
This review has addressed several issues regarding the biological affinities of the ancient inhabitants of the northern Nile Valley. The morphological, metric, morphometric and nonmetric studies demonstrate immense overlap with tropical variants
^Here he makes the same observation about the old(er) literature.
As indicated by the analysis of the data in the studies reviewed here, the southern predynastic peoples were Saharo-tropical variants.
Doug is a member of this community since at least 2005 and still can't be trusted with the basics. Makes me wonder where else he's dropping the ball. As we've already seen with that Bronze Age warrior, Doug has no business speaking on bio-anthropological texts. He keeps making a mess of things and doesn't even know how Europeans differ cranio-facially from North Africans.
This flip flopping turd actually believes that most of the literature says that the AE were blue eyed and pale skinned. SMH. How out of touch with reality can you possible be? That's why I've decided to go easy on Doug. He seems a little confused.
quote:Originally posted by Doug: No they accept that the Ancient Egyptians looked like Charleton Heston and not even olive skinned white Europeans. You only need to look at hollywood or more recently many of the reenactments on the history channel to see that. The only difference being the history and discovery channel started using more Arab actors in some of these shows versus Europeans.
When these folks say Caucasiod they mean pure white Aryan, blue blood, pale as snow white folks.
That has ALWAYS been the agenda of the white supremacists concerning Egypt.
Says who? Says the flip flopping jackass who watches too much history channel and thinks hollywood execs are scientists.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Head of Narmer before the paint wore off
Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
Head of Narmer before the paint wore off
It was never found like that, you lying piece of trash. Provide authoritative sources that say precisely just that.
Posted by Punos_Rey (Member # 21929) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
Head of Narmer before the paint wore off
HHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA
Please tell me this is satire Liones?? Lmfao
One can clearly see traces of dark paint. Only in your most alcohol soaked dreams was Narmer blonde and blue eyed Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
The story was that Diop threw acid on the piece and the Museum guards threw him out, look it up, it's in Diops lost letters
Une fois que je suis entré dans la chambre b j'ai rencontré un énorme choc. Il était à la tête du roi Narmer et avec la peau pâle et les yeux bleus. Le premier roi d'Egypte un homme blanc! Je savais que ce serait un gros problème pour mes théories. Je devais agir rapidement pour éliminer ces choses de l'histoire. Rien ne m'a arrêté. Je suis retourné le lendemain avec un petit pot de l'acide chlorhydrique de mon laboratoire. En quelques secondes, je verse de l'acide sur la tête de Narmer. Les gardes hurlaient comme se précipita sur, mais il était trop tard. La couleur misérable avait disparu à jamais. Il n'y aurait pas preuve de plus de blanc Egypte. Il était cher pour moi de soudoyer les officals du musée de garder le silence, mais certains de mes collaborateurs contribué. Des années plus tard, j'ai eu quelques problèmes quand quelqu'un avait découvert que je l'avais trompé le test de dosage de la mélanine pour montrer des concentrations plus élevées de la mélanine. J'ai eu un de mes associés le jeter dans la Seine
--Cheikh Anta Diop, les lettres perdues, 1987, Université Paris-Sorbonne
Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: The story was that Diop threw acid on the piece and the Museum guards threw him out, look it up, it's in Diops lost letters
Une fois que je suis entré dans la chambre b j'ai rencontré un énorme choc. Il était à la tête du roi Narmer et avec la peau pâle et les yeux bleus. Le premier roi d'Egypte un homme blanc! Je savais que ce serait un gros problème pour mes théories. Je devais agir rapidement pour éliminer ces choses de l'histoire. Rien ne m'a arrêté. Je suis retourné le lendemain avec un petit pot de l'acide chlorhydrique de mon laboratoire. En quelques secondes, je verse de l'acide sur la tête de Narmer. Les gardes hurlaient comme se précipita sur, mais il était trop tard. La couleur misérable avait disparu à jamais. Il n'y aurait pas preuve de plus de blanc Egypte. Il était cher pour moi de soudoyer les officals du musée de garder le silence, mais certains de mes collaborateurs contribué. Des années plus tard, j'ai eu quelques problèmes quand quelqu'un avait découvert que je l'avais trompé le test de dosage de la mélanine pour montrer des concentrations plus élevées de la mélanine. J'ai eu un de mes associés le jeter dans la Seine
--Cheikh Anta Diop, les lettres perdues, 1987, Université Paris-Sorbonne
More lies, as usual. There is no evidence that what you say is even remotely true. Why don't you just come out as a white person, instead of pretending to be some kind of self-hating black person. Fly under your true colour.
How in the world could Narmer be a blond with blue eyes? The great ancestor was from Upper Egypt.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: You may as well say it because according to your absurd logic, Keita and the white supremacists all agree on the features and skin color of the AE since the "nordicist" view wasn't prominent AND because "white supremacists" admitted the AE were black because they called them "brown like Ethiopians"=
^This confused flip flopper thinks my logic (which he can't even paraphrase without resorting to strawman attacks) regarding Keita is absurd because he hasn't read a single Keita paper in his life. In the man's own words:
"A careful reading of the various studies and opinions on the most ancient "Egyptians (and Nubians) placed in the context of modern evolutionary theory and archaeological data (e.g., de Heinzelin 1962; Arkell and Ucko 1965; Arkell 1975; Hassan 1988) suggests that these peoples are fundamentally a part of the African population reticulum"
^Here Keita says that many of the old studies got the features of the early Egyptians right, but need to be put into a modern evolutionary context. This is what I've said since the beginning of this thread; that most of the racism was NOT directed at what they thought the AE looked like.
"As noted previously, other Egyptologists and anthropologists have stated that the Egyptians resembled various East Africans, specifically Nubians and Somali (e.g. Peschel 1888; Breasted 1908; Bohannan 1964). Childe (1953) thought that many Old Kingdom Egyptians resembled the Shilluk, and the Naqada people, the Beja. Drake (1987:332) reviewed numerous volumes of photographs of Egyptian portraits and statuary; using either (old) anthropological or North American social criteria, he found large numbers of Negroids. Petrie's (1939:105) interpretation of Dynasty III as having come from the Sudan is based on portraiture."
^Again, as far as the FEATURES, the PIGMENTATION LEVEL and the CLOSELY RELATED POPULATIONS go, the old(er) literature often got it right—even the white supremacists. Anyone who says otherwise is simply exposing how little they know about the subject.
In most cases the morphological descriptions of early southern "Egyptian" crania fall within Broad to Elongated Saharo-tropical African ranges of variation
^Again, Keita on what he feels most of the descriptions in the old(er) texts are saying.
This review has addressed several issues regarding the biological affinities of the ancient inhabitants of the northern Nile Valley. The morphological, metric, morphometric and nonmetric studies demonstrate immense overlap with tropical variants
^Here he makes the same observation about the old(er) literature.
As indicated by the analysis of the data in the studies reviewed here, the southern predynastic peoples were Saharo-tropical variants.
Doug is a member of this community since at least 2005 and still can't be trusted with the basics. Makes me wonder where else he's dropping the ball. As we've already seen with that Bronze Age warrior, Doug has no business speaking on bio-anthropological texts. He keeps making a mess of things and doesn't even know how Europeans differ cranio-facially from North Africans.
This flip flopping turd actually believes that most of the literature says that the AE were blue eyed and pale skinned. SMH. How out of touch with reality can you possible be? That's why I've decided to go easy on Doug. He seems a little confused.
quote:Originally posted by Doug: No they accept that the Ancient Egyptians looked like Charleton Heston and not even olive skinned white Europeans. You only need to look at hollywood or more recently many of the reenactments on the history channel to see that. The only difference being the history and discovery channel started using more Arab actors in some of these shows versus Europeans.
When these folks say Caucasiod they mean pure white Aryan, blue blood, pale as snow white folks.
That has ALWAYS been the agenda of the white supremacists concerning Egypt.
Says who? Says the flip flopping jackass who watches too much history channel and thinks hollywood execs are scientists.
Come on Swenet you are just digging yourself deeper into a hole. And stop LYING when you say I am misquoting you. YOU just said that all these black folks who have been writing books and engaging in debates all these years were wrong and everything was a big misunderstanding between them and the white supremacists. That is what you just said and you keep saying it, because as you JUST SAID:
quote: ^Again, as far as the FEATURES, the PIGMENTATION LEVEL and the CLOSELY RELATED POPULATIONS go, the old(er) literature often got it right—even the white supremacists. Anyone who says otherwise is simply exposing how little they know about the subject.
That the white supremacists believed the AE were black and that all these folks who have been debating this issue are debating over a misunderstanding of words. The white supremacists never really were disagreeing about the SKIN COLOR of the AE not being like the rest of Africans and they were not trying to segregate the AE from the rest of Africa based on features.
That is what you said you retard.
And basically you are saying all these folks debating this issue on Egyptsearch all these years are wrong and that the white supremacists were really not disagreeing with us on the skin color of the AE. Racism isn't about skin color and black folks are just paranoid.
Come on man. You are simply delusional and you have insulted EVERYBODY who has ever written a book on this or debated this from an African context. You even just said that Keita and most white supremacists before him are in agreement. I don't even know why you even keep going.
Read the following summary on the issue from the Unesco symposium on Ancient Egypt and you will see how these white supremacists are NOT REALLY in agreement with us and you are simply pandering to them and their points of view as being 'objective' when they are not.
quote: The theories advanced
Following in the footsteps of G. Elliot Smith (1923, p. 53-69), and those of Sergi at an earlier date (Sergi, 1895), most Egyptologists (Vandier, 1952, p. 22) take the view that the primitive population occupying the Egyptian and Nubian Nile valley from the predynastic period onwards (Badarian and Amratean or Naqada I), and up to the first dynasty, belonged to a 'dark', 'Mediterranean' or again 'Euro-African' race, often incorrectly called 'Hamitic'. This population is taken to have been leucodermic, i.e. white, although its pigmentation may have been dark, even black; it is subdivided into two groups, one eastern (ancient Egyptians, Bejas, Gallas, Somalis and Danakils) and the other Western (Libyans, ancient Nubians, North African Berbers, the Tuaregs and Tudus of the Sahara, as well as the ancient Guanches of the Canary Islands and, lastly, the Fulani) (Cornevin, 1963, p. 71, 351-3). The distant origin of this human type might be the 'Olduvai man' of East Africa, signs of which are found from the end of the Gamblian period onwards, around 11,000, and which is related to the Combe-Capelle race of Cro-Magnon in Europe (Cornevin, 1963, p. 88, 136; Boule and Vallois, 1952, p. 466). This type, therefore, would appear to be African in origin without being 'Negro' in the usual sense. Indeed, even those Egyptologists who are convinced of the essentially African nature of Egyptian civilization stress the fact that the population which founded this civilization was not 'Negro' (Naville, 1911, p. 199; Bissing, 1929, Frankfort, 1950).
The authors are always at pains to point out that the pure Negro element appears to have been minute in the groups analysed; two skeletons in a hundred, for example, at Naga-ed-Der in early predynastic times, and one in fifty-four in lower Nubia (Massoulard, 1949, p. 396, 410-11), although all anthropolo- gists concur in acknowledging the existence of a 'Negroid' component in the mixed population which constitutes the primitive Egyptian 'ethnic group', at least from neolithic times onwards. It will also be observed that, in spite of the composite character of this population, which is confirmed by all anthro- pologists, it is considered to belong to a single race or branch of humanity. According to a well-known study by H. Junker, true 'Negroes' appeared in the lower Nile valley only from the eighteenth dynasty onwards, around --1600 (Junker, 1921, p. 121-32). Junker's conclusions have been accepted by all Egyptologists, who since 1921 have no longer translated the Egyptian word nehesy by 'Negro' as had formerly been the practice, and translate it instead as 'Nubian'.
If Egyptologists are very nearly unanimous on the composition of the primitive Egyptian race from the end of the neolithic period until the dawn of history (from approximately 5000 to 3300), the same is not true for the protodynastic period and the first dynasties of the Pharaohs. From these periods onwards there is a marked divergence of views. According to some (Naville, 1911; Bissing, 1929; Smith and Jones, 1910, p. 25-6), the Egyptian population remained fundamentally the same before and after the advent of writing; they consider that foreign penetration, anthropologically speaking, was numerically limited in the historical era and the few centuries immediately preceding it (Smith and Jones, 1910, p. 28). Others believe, however, that the speeding up of Egypt's cultural development in the protodynastic period was due to the entry of foreigners into the Egyptian Nile valley (Morgan, 1922, Chapter VI; Pétrie, 1914ft, p. 43; 1926, p. 102-3); this migration, spreading from Asia, either from Mesopotamia or from Elam, is considered to have changed the ethnic composition of the population (Pétrie 1914c). A third hypo- thesis introduced a different ethnic group, presumed not to have come from Asia, or at least not directly, but from the Delta, where it is believed to have been established for an indeterminate length of time and to have developed, before pushing up the Nile, carrying civilization to the natives of the south; this is often called the 'dynastic race* (Derry, 1956).
If Egyptologists are very nearly unanimous on the composition of the primitive Egyptian race from the end of the neolithic period until the dawn 1. cf. A. H. Gardiner, Egyptian Grammar, p. 575, Oxford, 1927. 20 The peopling of ancient Egypt of history (from approximately 5000 to 3300), the same is not true for the protodynastic period and the first dynasties of the Pharaohs. From these periods onwards there is a marked divergence of views. According to some (Naville, 1911; Bissing, 1929; Smith and Jones, 1910, p. 25-6), the Egyptian population remained fundamentally the same before and after the advent of writing; they consider that foreign penetration, anthropologically speaking, was numerically limited in the historical era and the few centuries immediately preceding it (Smith and Jones, 1910, p. 28). Others believe, however, that the speeding up of Egypt's cultural development in the protodynastic period was due to the entry of foreigners into the Egyptian Nile valley (Morgan, 1922, Chapter VI; Pétrie, 1914ft, p. 43; 1926, p. 102-3); this migration, spreading from Asia, either from Mesopotamia or from Elam, is considered to have changed the ethnic composition of the population (Pétrie 1914c). A third hypo- thesis introduced a different ethnic group, presumed not to have come from Asia, or at least not directly, but from the Delta, where it is believed to have been established for an indeterminate length of time and to have developed, before pushing up the Nile, carrying civilization to the natives of the south; this is often called the 'dynastic race* (Derry, 1956).
......
Until 1955, it had been generally accepted that the population of Egypt was 'Caucasoid' (the expression is Cornevin's (1963, p. 103-4, 152)), but Cheikh Anta Diop was instrumental in causing it to be reclassified as 'Negroid' (Diop, 1955, p. 21-253; 1959, p. 54-8; 1960, p. 13-15; 1962a, p. 449-541). A recent publication gives a faithful and extended summary of Cheikh Anta Diop's thesis (Obenga, 1973), which is forcefully expressed: 'In fact, the neo- lithic and predynastic inhabitants of the Egyptian and Nubian valley were Negroes.... Negroes were responsible for building the prehistoric. . . and historic Egypto-Nubian civilizations.' (Obenga, 1973, p. 102.)
The arguments put forward to support the 'Negroid' theory are more often cultural and linguistic, or even literary, than based on scientific anthro- pology (cf. in particular Obenga, 1973, p. 55-6, on the accounts given by Herodotus and Diodorus; p. 221-321 on linguistics ; p. 333-443 on the method of counting and the graphic system). When the evidence of anthropology, concerning hair, for exemple, is called in (Obenga, 1973, p. 59, 124-25), it sometimes clashes with the observations of certain archaeologists and anthro- pologists (Brunton, 1929, p. 466; 1937, p. 20, 26-7; Fouquet, 1896-1897; Smith, 1923, p. 53-69; Massoulard, 1949, p. 408, 410-11).
The theory that the Egyptian population should be classed as Negro has not so far, to my knowledge, been studied critically and in depth by anthropologists. The reproach has been made (Suret-Canale, 1958, p. 54, quoted by Cornevin, 1963, p. 63) that it confuses the different concepts of race and culture. Egyptologists, with one exception (Sainte-Fare-Garnet), although given a brief idea of the current work of Cheikh Anta Diop by the Biblio- graphie Egyptologique Annuelle 1 have not yet made use of his work.
There are thus two theories, both of them categorical. According to some—a great many—the Egyptian population is 'white', 'Mediterranean'. As Vandier sums up: 'It may justly be claimed that the Egyptian race is of Hamitic origin... it is certain... that Negroes did not arrive in Egypt until... late' (Vandier, 1952, p. 22). According to others, as Obenga puts it, 'the Egypt of the Pharaohs, by virtue of the ethnic character and language of its inhabi- tants, belongs wholly, from its neolithic infancy to the end of the native dynas- ties, to the human past of the black peoples of Africa' (Obenga, 1973, p. 445).
And from that quote you see the hypocrisy and contradictions of white European Egyptologists. But somehow YOU think these folks are sane and objective even when they call black people "leucoderms". You are simply confused and really don't know what on earth you are talking about, because even if they say brown they STILL can mean white. And this is the most definitive statement on the subject stands to this very day covering the views of most Egyptologists. Bottom line what they are really saying is "I don't care if their skin was dark or black, I will call them white and see them as whites regardless and this is what I will teach and promote in all my media and all my schoolbooks". And that is what white supremacy is all about. It doesn't matter what the facts are, they can do what they want to do regardless, because the goal is to uphold the superiority of the "white race". And it is on that latter point that is the point of all the debates. They don't want to be challenged on their ability to push their white supremacist agenda.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: This population is taken to have been leucodermic, i.e. white,
Didn't you just say that race is off-limits, you flip flopping jackass:
Nobody is talking about race except you. —Doug M
Or are you trying to say that 'leucodermic' and 'white' IN THIS CONTEXT (i.e. older anthropological reports) aren't racial references that are independent of actual skin pigmentation levels?
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: although its pigmentation may have been dark, even black; it is subdivided into two groups, one eastern (ancient Egyptians, Bejas, Gallas, Somalis and Danakils) and the other Western (Libyans, ancient Nubians, North African Berbers, the Tuaregs and Tudus of the Sahara, as well as the ancient Guanches of the Canary Islands and, lastly, the Fulani) (Cornevin, 1963, p. 71, 351-3).
Keep on debunking yourself. You are the only one who argued against this with your bizarre obsession re: blue eyed, aryan Egyptians. Like I haven't said this was their position all along. Flip flopping jackass.
"Again, as far as the FEATURES, the PIGMENTATION LEVEL and the CLOSELY RELATED POPULATIONS go, the old(er) literature often got it right—even the white supremacists. Anyone who says otherwise is simply exposing how little they know about the subject." —Swenet
"An additional point is that the vast majority of the racism in Egyptology has been directed into channels other than the ethnic background of the ancient Egyptians. Early writings on the AE phenotypical associations mostly centered on their so-called 'Hamitic' origins. The comparative populations in this 'Hamitic' grouping are still considered their closest relatives today by bio-anthropologists widely cited on egyptsearch.
How by far most of the racism has expressed itself, is in the following, among other things:
1) reluctance to admit or at least consider that the 'Hamitic' grouping consists of groups who are indigenous African in principle. 2) saying civilization was brought in from Sumer and elsewhere. 3) insisting that they couldn't have been 'black' and then pointing to region x in Africa they perceive to be uncivilized. 4) making the the ability to progress in civilization hereditary. 5) explaining unexpected (i.e. "negroid") skeletal remains away as individuals who were 'enslaved' by the ancient Egyptians. 6) explaining Egypto-Nubian conflicts as racial wars. 7) saying 'black Africans' couldn't have crossed the Sahara when it was a desert. 8) ignoring and marginalizing cultural links with inner Africa and magnifying cultural links with the Middle East." —Swenet
And Keita doesn't agree with you. Admit it, jackass. You've never read a single Keita paper in your life.
"A careful reading of the various studies and opinions on the most ancient "Egyptians (and Nubians) placed in the context of modern evolutionary theory and archaeological data (e.g., de Heinzelin 1962; Arkell and Ucko 1965; Arkell 1975; Hassan 1988) suggests that these peoples are fundamentally a part of the African population reticulum"
^Keita clearly states that most of the old reports can be repurposed, using modern scientific understandings, to indicate relatedness to modern dark skinned eastern Saharan people. Do you have any idea what that means, turd? This wouldn't have been possible if these reports said that the AE were pale-skinned, blue-eyed, Aryan blondes. Are you of the bizarre mindset that pale-skinned, blue-eyed people can be repurposed to mean 'dark skinned people in the Sahara today', turd?
Frankfort (1949) long ago stated that Egyptian culture arose from an African substratum. General historians and scholars also paid little attention to the variation in the anthropological reports. This variation clearly contains fundamentally different conceptual orientations in biology, anti-African bias, habitual tradition or some combination of these. Somehow a simplistic consensus view emerged that the Egyptians and even Nubians were simply Mediterranean "Whites". This "consensus" view, transmitted to the public, clearly ignored the complexity and variability in the scientific reports.
That is exactly what your dumbass is doing. You're ignoring the complexity and variability in these scientific reports. They didn't all think that the ancient Egyptians were pale-skinned Aryans.
Opinionated troll dismissed.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya:
How in the world could Narmer be a blond with blue eyes? The great ancestor was from Upper Egypt. [/QB]
The Nordics didn't settle in lower Egypt, they went right past lower Egypt and settled in Upper Egypt, wtf ??? similar situation with the moors
Grombly, 1976, Ancient Egypt, The Pre Dynastic Aryan Colonization
Posted by Punos_Rey (Member # 21929) on :
Wtf is this ****??? So I'm guessing Lioness has changed his/her race again? This has got tobe a gimmick
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: This population is taken to have been leucodermic, i.e. white,
Didn't you just say that race is off-limits, you flip flopping jackass:
Nobody is talking about race except you. —Doug M
Or are you trying to say that 'leucodermic' and 'white' IN THIS CONTEXT (i.e. older anthropological reports) aren't racial references that are independent of actual skin pigmentation levels?
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: although its pigmentation may have been dark, even black; it is subdivided into two groups, one eastern (ancient Egyptians, Bejas, Gallas, Somalis and Danakils) and the other Western (Libyans, ancient Nubians, North African Berbers, the Tuaregs and Tudus of the Sahara, as well as the ancient Guanches of the Canary Islands and, lastly, the Fulani) (Cornevin, 1963, p. 71, 351-3).
Keep on debunking yourself. You are the only one who argued against this with your bizarre obsession re: blue eyed, aryan Egyptians. Like I haven't said this was their position all along. Flip flopping jackass.
"Again, as far as the FEATURES, the PIGMENTATION LEVEL and the CLOSELY RELATED POPULATIONS go, the old(er) literature often got it right—even the white supremacists. Anyone who says otherwise is simply exposing how little they know about the subject." —Swenet
"An additional point is that the vast majority of the racism in Egyptology has been directed into channels other than the ethnic background of the ancient Egyptians. Early writings on the AE phenotypical associations mostly centered on their so-called 'Hamitic' origins. The comparative populations in this 'Hamitic' grouping are still considered their closest relatives today by bio-anthropologists widely cited on egyptsearch.
How by far most of the racism has expressed itself, is in the following, among other things:
1) reluctance to admit or at least consider that the 'Hamitic' grouping consists of groups who are indigenous African in principle. 2) saying civilization was brought in from Sumer and elsewhere. 3) insisting that they couldn't have been 'black' and then pointing to region x in Africa they perceive to be uncivilized. 4) making the the ability to progress in civilization hereditary. 5) explaining unexpected (i.e. "negroid") skeletal remains away as individuals who were 'enslaved' by the ancient Egyptians. 6) explaining Egypto-Nubian conflicts as racial wars. 7) saying 'black Africans' couldn't have crossed the Sahara when it was a desert. 8) ignoring and marginalizing cultural links with inner Africa and magnifying cultural links with the Middle East." —Swenet
And Keita doesn't agree with you. Admit it, jackass. You've never read a single Keita paper in your life.
"A careful reading of the various studies and opinions on the most ancient "Egyptians (and Nubians) placed in the context of modern evolutionary theory and archaeological data (e.g., de Heinzelin 1962; Arkell and Ucko 1965; Arkell 1975; Hassan 1988) suggests that these peoples are fundamentally a part of the African population reticulum"
^Keita clearly states that most of the old reports can be repurposed, using modern scientific understandings, to indicate relatedness to modern dark skinned eastern Saharan people. Do you have any idea what that means, turd? This wouldn't have been possible if these reports said that the AE were pale-skinned, blue-eyed, Aryan blondes. Are you of the bizarre mindset that pale-skinned, blue-eyed people can be repurposed to mean 'dark skinned people in the Sahara today', turd?
Frankfort (1949) long ago stated that Egyptian culture arose from an African substratum. General historians and scholars also paid little attention to the variation in the anthropological reports. This variation clearly contains fundamentally different conceptual orientations in biology, anti-African bias, habitual tradition or some combination of these. Somehow a simplistic consensus view emerged that the Egyptians and even Nubians were simply Mediterranean "Whites". This "consensus" view, transmitted to the public, clearly ignored the complexity and variability in the scientific reports.
That is exactly what your dumbass is doing. You're ignoring the complexity and variability in these scientific reports. They didn't all think that the ancient Egyptians were pale-skinned Aryans.
Opinionated troll dismissed.
I understand English. You on the other hand are fighting the English language yet you STILL sit here and try to lecture somebody about what words mean.
quote:
Frankfort (1949) long ago stated that Egyptian culture arose from an African substratum. General historians and scholars also paid little attention to the variation in the anthropological reports. This variation clearly contains fundamentally different conceptual orientations in biology, anti-African bias, habitual tradition or some combination of these. Somehow a simplistic consensus view emerged that the Egyptians and even Nubians were simply Mediterranean "Whites". This "consensus" view, transmitted to the public, clearly ignored the complexity and variability in the scientific reports.
It doesnt MATTER how simple it is. It means that Keita was rejecting their RACIST VIEWS on the biological features of the AE, which EXPCLICITY INCLUDES SKIN COLOR. You keep trying to spin it and make it seem that Keita is in agreement with them or that somehow they weren't really RACIST because they didn't use the word "Nordics". You are simply being an idiot trying to save face after 25 pages of being shown to be completely and utterly wrong but you sit here and try and claim somehow OTHER people are confused and don't understand what this debate is about.
Which is why you completely ignored this which contradicts everything you have been saying or trying to say about this NOT being about skin color or the white supremacists AGREEING with black scholars on the skin color of the AE. No they are calling these folks white which means JUST what it says, meaning no matter how "black" some of these folks were or are in terms of color, they will prefer to call them WHITE. This is not about confusion over what "hamitic" means. This is not about confusion over what "negro" means. This is not about confusion over what "black" or "white" means. It is about potraying the AE as having the skin complexion of "white" which is the same as white Europeans.
You have been trying to duck and avoid this since page one and doing anything and everything to try and LIE about this fundamental fact.
quote: Following in the footsteps of G. Elliot Smith (1923, p. 53-69), and those of Sergi at an earlier date (Sergi, 1895), most Egyptologists (Vandier, 1952, p. 22) take the view that the primitive population occupying the Egyptian and Nubian Nile valley from the predynastic period onwards (Badarian and Amratean or Naqada I), and up to the first dynasty, belonged to a 'dark', 'Mediterranean' or again 'Euro-African' race, often incorrectly called 'Hamitic'. This population is taken to have been leucodermic, i.e. white, although its pigmentation may have been dark, even black; it is subdivided into two groups, one eastern (ancient Egyptians, Bejas, Gallas, Somalis and Danakils) and the other Western (Libyans, ancient Nubians, North African Berbers, the Tuaregs and Tudus of the Sahara, as well as the ancient Guanches of the Canary Islands and, lastly, the Fulani) (Cornevin, 1963, p. 71, 351-3).
Hence you try and PARAPHRASE this issue and leave out the inherent contradictions and double talk by claiming that somehow these folks actually AGREE with the AE being black, when they EXPLICITLY SAY just the opposite and explicitly CALL THEM WHITE LEUCODERMS, even if they also call them Hamitic, Ethiopian or even "brown skinned". You are simply unable to follow facts and accept them for what they are which is why your argument and point makes no sense and has no validity.
quote: 1) reluctance to admit or at least consider that the 'Hamitic' grouping consists of groups who are indigenous African in principle. 2) saying civilization was brought in from Sumer and elsewhere. 3) insisting that they couldn't have been 'black' and then pointing to region x in Africa they perceive to be uncivilized. 4) making the the ability to progress in civilization hereditary. 5) explaining unexpected (i.e. "negroid") skeletal remains away as individuals who were 'enslaved' by the ancient Egyptians. 6) explaining Egypto-Nubian conflicts as racial wars. 7) saying 'black Africans' couldn't have crossed the Sahara when it was a desert. 8) ignoring and marginalizing cultural links with inner Africa and magnifying cultural links with the Middle East." —Swenet
Stop lying and trying to speak for white racists and make them into "objective scholars" when they are perfectly able to defend and elaborate their OWN views without you trying to paraphrase and leave things out.
quote: There are thus two theories, both of them categorical. According to some—a great many—the Egyptian population is 'white', 'Mediterranean'. As Vandier sums up: 'It may justly be claimed that the Egyptian race is of Hamitic origin... it is certain... that Negroes did not arrive in Egypt until... late' (Vandier, 1952, p. 22). According to others, as Obenga puts it, 'the Egypt of the Pharaohs, by virtue of the ethnic character and language of its inhabi- tants, belongs wholly, from its neolithic infancy to the end of the native dynas- ties, to the human past of the black peoples of Africa' (Obenga, 1973, p. 445).
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Doug's concept is "not white" = "black"
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Lol @ Doug's advanced stage of stupid.
Keita performed a review of the old literature:
This paper reviews a representative sample of previous studies on the "racial" or biological affinity of the ancient inhabitants of the northern Nile valley, specifically those called Egyptians. —Keita (1995)
And the conclusion was that most of the papers in the old literature grouped predynastic Egyptians with dark skinned groups in the eastern Sahara:
A review of studies covering the biological relationships of the ancient Egyptians was undertaken. An overview of the data from the studies suggests that the major biological affinities of early southern Egyptians lay with tropical Africans. —Keita (1995)
General historians and scholars also paid little attention to the variation in the anthropological reports. This variation clearly contains fundamentally different conceptual orientations in biology, anti-African bias, habitual tradition or some combination of these. Somehow a simplistic consensus view emerged that the Egyptians and even Nubians were simply Mediterranean "Whites". This "consensus" view, transmitted to the public, clearly ignored the complexity and variability in the scientific reports. —Keita (1995)
"A careful reading of the various studies and opinions on the most ancient "Egyptians (and Nubians) placed in the context of modern evolutionary theory and archaeological data (e.g., de Heinzelin 1962; Arkell and Ucko 1965; Arkell 1975; Hassan 1988) suggests that these peoples are fundamentally a part of the African population reticulum" —Keita (1995)
"As noted previously, other Egyptologists and anthropologists have stated that the Egyptians resembled various East Africans, specifically Nubians and Somali (e.g. Peschel 1888; Breasted 1908; Bohannan 1964). Childe (1953) thought that many Old Kingdom Egyptians resembled the Shilluk, and the Naqada people, the Beja. Drake (1987:332) reviewed numerous volumes of photographs of Egyptian portraits and statuary; using either (old) anthropological or North American social criteria, he found large numbers of Negroids. Petrie's (1939:105) interpretation of Dynasty III as having come from the Sudan is based on portraiture." —Keita (1995)
Fall back, flip flopper.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Lol @ Doug's advanced stage of stupid.
Keita performed a review of the old literature:
This paper reviews a representative sample of previous studies on the "racial" or biological affinity of the ancient inhabitants of the northern Nile valley, specifically those called Egyptians. —Keita (1995)
And the conclusion was that most of the papers in the old literature grouped predynastic Egyptians with dark skinned groups in the eastern Sahara:
A review of studies covering the biological relationships of the ancient Egyptians was undertaken. An overview of the data from the studies suggests that the major biological affinities of early southern Egyptians lay with tropical Africans. —Keita (1995)
General historians and scholars also paid little attention to the variation in the anthropological reports. This variation clearly contains fundamentally different conceptual orientations in biology, anti-African bias, habitual tradition or some combination of these. Somehow a simplistic consensus view emerged that the Egyptians and even Nubians were simply Mediterranean "Whites". This "consensus" view, transmitted to the public, clearly ignored the complexity and variability in the scientific reports. —Keita (1995)
"A careful reading of the various studies and opinions on the most ancient "Egyptians (and Nubians) placed in the context of modern evolutionary theory and archaeological data (e.g., de Heinzelin 1962; Arkell and Ucko 1965; Arkell 1975; Hassan 1988) suggests that these peoples are fundamentally a part of the African population reticulum" —Keita (1995)
"As noted previously, other Egyptologists and anthropologists have stated that the Egyptians resembled various East Africans, specifically Nubians and Somali (e.g. Peschel 1888; Breasted 1908; Bohannan 1964). Childe (1953) thought that many Old Kingdom Egyptians resembled the Shilluk, and the Naqada people, the Beja. Drake (1987:332) reviewed numerous volumes of photographs of Egyptian portraits and statuary; using either (old) anthropological or North American social criteria, he found large numbers of Negroids. Petrie's (1939:105) interpretation of Dynasty III as having come from the Sudan is based on portraiture." —Keita (1995)
Fall back, flip flopper.
You lack the ability to comprehend English.
Are you saying that those citations from keita contradict the words written at the UNESCO conference to address the origin and peopling of the Nile Valley? Of course not. Keep on trying to run from the facts. Racists and their views are the basis of this debate going back 200 years and it fundamentally is an issue of skin color. Your attempts to cherry pick and avoid this are asinine.
Fundamentally Egyptology as a whole and an institution DOES NOT agree on the AE as being in any way black, based on skin color as documented in the UNESCO Conference featuring Diop and Obenga. Your attempts to claim that they "really are in agreement" are null and void.
Just because these scientists admitted the OBVIOUS FACTS that the populations came from the South does not mean that they would call them black based on skin color. In fact, they could acknowledge they came from the South and STILL call them white which is exactly the position of Egyptology to this day. But you are confused and don't know what you are talking about so you claim that because they have to admit these folks came from the South that it somehow means they agree on the skin color when they DO NOT. And these folks are not really in agreement with Keita either. He is just taking those parts of their work which reflect objective FACTS and separating it from their racist views that turned these people into "whites".
quote: Professor Diop's theory was rejected in its entirety by one participant.
In the course of the discussion, Professor Obenga added some important points and emphasized the interest of ancient written sources concerning the population of Egypt. Herodotus, in a passage concerning the Colchians which was neither disputed by modern scholarship nor invalidated by the comparative critical study of manuscripts, endeavoured to show, through a series ot critical arguments, that the Colchians were similar to the Egyptians: 'They speak in the same way as they do, they and the Egyptians are the only peoples to practise circumcision, they weave linen like the Egyptians'; these similarities were in addition to two other features which they had in common, their black pigmentation and their crinkly hair.
Professor Leclant maintained that ancient writers used the expression 'burnt face' (Ethiopians) to refer to Nubians and Negroes but not to Egyptians.
Professor Obenga replied that the Greeks applied the word 'black' (melas) to the Egyptians. None of the participants explicitly voiced support for the earlier theory, referred to by Professor Vercoutter in his paper concerning a population which was 'white' with a dark, even black, pigmentation. There was no more than tacit agreement to abandon this old theory.
Two categories of objection were made to the ideas propounded by Professor Diop. These objections revealed the extent of a disagreement which remained profound even though it was not voiced explicitly.
Most of the objections raised were of a methodological nature. Although he hoped that the notion of race would be abandoned and that reference would be made rather to the 'people' of ancient Egypt, Professor Vercoutter agreed that no attempt should be made to estimate percentages, which meant nothing, as it was impossible to establish them without reliable statistical data. He hoped that, before final con- clusions were drawn, a series of research projects would be carried out to study the human remains in museums throughout the world and those found in recent exca- vations. He also suggested that the connection between the rock engravings and those who made them should be established chronologically and anthropologically, thus providing accurate chronological reference points for the history of the peopling. He considered that it would be hazardous to draw conclusions concerning the peopling of Egypt in very ancient times while so much information was still lacking.
Professor Ghallab totally rejected the idea of establishing percentages within the population of ancient Egypt. He considered that it was more important to study hair types than to study skin.
Professor Säve-Söderbergh also stated that it was impossible for anthro- pologists to establish percentages in terms of 'race', a concept which was now in- creasingly being abandoned by anthropologists. Furthermore, what was meant by the homogeneity or heterogeneity of a given population was a matter which required to be defined. Modern physical anthropology was based on research using the statistical method and was therefore a very demanding science which did not lightly come to conclusions.
Professor Sauneron considered that, in view of the existence of chipped pebbles in the old Pleistocene strata of the Theban hills, it could be inferred that human beings had inhabited the Nile valley since very ancient times.
Professor El Nadury thought that the problem could be more readily approach- ed if the neolithic period were taken as the starting point, since the information relating to earlier periods was extremely scanty. In —5,000 there were sedentary populations in the north-western part of the Delta. Migrants were believed to have come from all parts of the Sahara in neolithic times, resulting in an intermingling of ethnic groups. Discussion of this point was resumed later during the discussions on the problem of migrations. Professor El Nadury used the adjectives 'Hamitic' and 'Negro' to denote this two-fold admixture from the Sahara. This mixed component was the basis of the population of Egypt from the neolithic period onwards and without break in continuity until dynastic times. Nagada II had dealings with the west. During the dynastic period, a further element, coming from the north-east and described as Semitic, was added to the population. Professor El Nadury thought it a striking fact that, during the first dynasty, fortifications had been built at Abydos, in all probability for the purpose of preventing immigration from the south towards the north.
Professor Debono added further information: to the east of the Delta, in a region which was then more fertile than it is today, epipalaeolithic material had been found; the users of these artefacts were undeniably in contact with the east. To the west of the Delta, the vast neolithic complex of Merimde was an example of a highly developed, large-scale settlement. Lastly, the El Omari site was situated at the southern tip of the Delta. In the course of subsequent discussion of these points, Professor El Nadury noted that the abundant archaeological material discovered at Merimde was clearly stratified, and showed that the site had been settled gradually by the population.
Professor Shinnie was in agreement regarding the settlement of homo sapiens, but without mentioning the colour of his skin, and dated the first settled population of the Nile valley at about 20,000 years ago. Subsequently, various human groups came from different regions, increasing this population and altering its composition.
Professor Ghallab, who was sharply criticized by Professor Cheikh Anta Diop and Professor Obenga, stated that the inhabitants of Egypt in palaeolithic times were Caucasoids. He went on to say that recent excavations had provided evidence of the existence of men of the 'Bushman' type in the population during the predynastic period. Professor Abu Bakr emphasized that the Egyptians had never been isolated from other peoples. They had never constituted a pure race and it was impossible to accept the idea that in the neolithic period the population of Egypt was entirely black. The population of Egypt in neolithic times was a mingling of men from the west and east, who had been incorrectly called Hamitic. Professor Abu Bakr referred to the case of the yellow-haired, blue-eyed wife of Cheops, as an example of the existence of 'non-black' people in Egypt. Professor Diop regarded this isolated instance as an exception which proved the rule. Professor Abu Bakr considered it possible that black people might have come to Egypt from the Arabian peninsula.
Professor Vercoutter remarked that, in his view, Egypt was African in its way of writing, in its culture and in its way of thinking.
Professor Leclant, for his part, recognized the same African character in the Egyptian temperament and way of thinking. In his opinion, however, the unity of the Egyptian people was not racial but cultural. Egyptian civilization had remained stable for three millenniums; the Egyptians described themselves as REMET (Rome in Coptic) and, particularly in their iconographie representations, drew a distinction between themselves and the peoples of the north and those of the south who differed from them. Professor Obenga denied that Egyptians, in using the word REMET, drew a racial distinction between themselves and their neighbours; he considered the distinction made to be similar to that which led the Greeks to differentiate between themselves and other peoples, whom they termed Barbarians.
Professor Leclant noted that important palaeo-African features in the cultural life of Egypt were worthy of study. As an example, he mentioned the baboon, which was an attribute of the God Thoth, and the frequent appearance in iconography of 'panther' skins as a ritual garment during the worship of Osiris by Horus. In his opinion, however, the Egyptians, whose civilization was culturally stable for three millenniums, were neither white nor Negro.
Professor Vercoutter stated his conviction that the inhabitants of the Nile valley had always been mixed; outside elements coming from west and east had been numerous, particularly in predynastic times.
On the question of ancient sources, particularly Herodotus, which spoke of the Egyptians as black, the only reservations expressed related to the method of reading and interpreting these texts. Professor Vercoutter, in particular, asked in what precise context Herodotus had defined the Egyptians as Negroes.
Professor Diop replied that Herodotus referred to them on three occasions: in speaking of the origin of the Colchians, in speaking of the origin of the Nile floods, and in dis- cussing the oracle of Zeus Amon.
Professor Diop felt that the objections which had been advanced against his ideas did not amount to positive and soundly argued criticisms.
It was not possible to take the discussion further in this field and the symposium was unable to make any clear recommendation on the question at this point in the debate.
According to you all these folks at the UNESCO conference were in agreement on the SKIN COLOR of the AE and Prof Diop and Obenga were simply confused by the words people were using. You seem to feel they really weren't in disagreement at all over skin color.
Yeah right.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya:
How in the world could Narmer be a blond with blue eyes? The great ancestor was from Upper Egypt.
The Nordics didn't settle in lower Egypt, they went right past lower Egypt and settled in Upper Egypt, wtf ??? similar situation with the moors
Grombly, 1976, Ancient Egypt, The Pre Dynastic Aryan Colonization [/QB]
LOL SMH
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: The story was that Diop threw acid on the piece and the Museum guards threw him out, look it up, it's in Diops lost letters
Une fois que je suis entré dans la chambre b j'ai rencontré un énorme choc. Il était à la tête du roi Narmer et avec la peau pâle et les yeux bleus. Le premier roi d'Egypte un homme blanc! Je savais que ce serait un gros problème pour mes théories. Je devais agir rapidement pour éliminer ces choses de l'histoire. Rien ne m'a arrêté. Je suis retourné le lendemain avec un petit pot de l'acide chlorhydrique de mon laboratoire. En quelques secondes, je verse de l'acide sur la tête de Narmer. Les gardes hurlaient comme se précipita sur, mais il était trop tard. La couleur misérable avait disparu à jamais. Il n'y aurait pas preuve de plus de blanc Egypte. Il était cher pour moi de soudoyer les officals du musée de garder le silence, mais certains de mes collaborateurs contribué. Des années plus tard, j'ai eu quelques problèmes quand quelqu'un avait découvert que je l'avais trompé le test de dosage de la mélanine pour montrer des concentrations plus élevées de la mélanine. J'ai eu un de mes associés le jeter dans la Seine
--Cheikh Anta Diop, les lettres perdues, 1987, Université Paris-Sorbonne
More lies, as usual. There is no evidence that what you say is even remotely true. Why don't you just come out as a white person, instead of pretending to be some kind of self-hating black person. Fly under your true colour.
How in the world could Narmer be a blond with blue eyes? The great ancestor was from Upper Egypt.
That image is only on two sites, a phishing site, and the lioness ephotobay account. I too don't understand this trolling as an "African American woman". lol
Facing Egyptian sculpture Limestone head of a king bought by Petrie, who thought it depicted king Narmer, c.3100BC (UC15989).
The Petrie Museum is rightly famed for the number of objects that have come from documented archaeological excavations. However, not everything in the collection was acquired through fieldwork. Flinders Petrie also prided himself on having a good eye for antiquities and he often took advantage of the Egyptian market to fill in gaps in his artefact sequences. Sometimes he was simply lucky and, as he noted in 1915, ‘good things have turned up in the most unexpected manner’. This is certainly true of a rare sculpture that he acquired in Cairo some time during the early 1900s.
One evening after dinner, Petrie found himself besieged by a lively crowd of antiquities dealers, each cajoling the well-known archaeologist to purchase their curios. In the chaos a stone head rolled out of a bag and on to the floor. When Petrie looked down he found himself staring at ‘the finest piece of 1st dynasty sculpture that is known’. For Petrie this limestone head was a representation of none other than Narmer, considered by many to be the first king to rule all of Egypt. If that identification is correct, it is the earliest known royal sculpture from Egypt.
A century later, Petrie’s original theory has been challenged. Nonetheless, the style of this unusual figure is rare and intriguing. More recently, Egyptologists have scrutinized the anonymous king’s features – the widely spaced eyes and protruding ears – and recognized in them the face of Khufu, the famous Old Kingdom king who was the owner of the Great Pyramid at Giza. Despite Khufu’s association with one of the seven wonders of the ancient world, his image is only securely known from a small and fragmentary ivory statuette now in the Cairo Museum, which was found during Petrie’s excavations at Abydos. Could this Petrie Museum object be the face behind the Great Pyramid? Or is it one of his sons, king Menkaure? http://ucldigitalpress.co.uk/Book/Article/3/23/88/ Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Swenet: [qb] Lol @ Doug's advanced stage of stupid.
Keita performed a review of the old literature:
This paper reviews a representative sample of previous studies on the "racial" or biological affinity of the ancient inhabitants of the northern Nile valley, specifically those called Egyptians. —Keita (1995)
And the conclusion was that most of the papers in the old literature grouped predynastic Egyptians with dark skinned groups in the eastern Sahara:
So if this is true, why is this author from 2015 saying just the opposite?
quote: If Western scholars and writers believed in physically distinguishable 'races' as late as the 1940s and 1950s, a conventional assumption was that the rulers and bulk of the population of ancient Eguypt were Mediterranean, European or White in appearance, or at least physically not black and African. Thereafter histories of the land would cease to discuss the racial characteristics and mix of pharaonic society: indeed, almost self-consciously, the 'appearance' of ancient Egyptians is omitted from modern surveys. But a long tradition of intellectuals, writers and activists who identified with a black community would present a different perspective on ancient Egypt. These lines of argument emphasize the indigenous origins of civilization in Egypt and therefore within the African continent; the Egyptian contribution to Greek and subsequent civilization; and often specifically argue for a physical black, wholly or partly "negroid" race of ancient Egypt responsible for its innovations.
However, within this genre there is a range in the strength and emphasis of the arguments, with varied approaches in the treatment of physical appearance. To some, the discussion revolves around a 'pure' black African racial category, with additional elements subsequently diluting this. To others, there is more of a social category: just as the underclass once defined as the "American Negro" has racial variability, so the 'fundamentally negro' characteristics of ancient Egypt were within a mixed society. This different writers would vary from a total to a moderate version of the narrative which would come to be defined as 'Afrocentrist' and with variation in detail and degree. The development of these alternative ideas began as a challenge to the racial bias of the Western establishment and continued as part of identity politics.
...
While the origins of this 'black Egypt' movement paralleled and countered popular images of white Egypt in European society, much of its growth and strength have been from the 1950s until now, a period when ideas of separate physical races were rapidly losing their scientific usage.
So I guess this guy is also confused about the words used by the old scholars saying the AE were black whites? Of course not. And note how he has no problem jumping on "Afrocentrics" for promoting "black Egypt" as racists, but at the same time Europeans promoting "white Egypt" are given a pass, notwithstanding all their history of racist literature.....
You are simply in denial and distorting facts as usual. This issue has always been about skin color and the only one confused is you.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
This is what Doug, the king of flip flops and self-defeating quotes is lying about.
Doug's own UNESCO quote applies 'white' to people who look like this (Afar from the Danakil region):
Yet Doug wants to pretend that 'white' used in this context necessarily means blonde hair, pale skin and blue eyes. They're clearly talking about a cranio-facial pattern which they (erroneously) labeled 'white' (i.e. 'Caucasian').
Only Doug the flip flopper is confused about the fact that black skin and 'white race' were not mutually exclusive in this context, precisely because one was a reference to skin while the other one a reference to race:
Hamitic as a term is just as interesting since it changed from meaning "Negro" to dark even black skinned [Mediterranean?] White (Sanders, 1969). —Keita (1995)
Doug, go take your meds.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: This population is taken to have been leucodermic, i.e. white, although its pigmentation may have been dark, even black; it is subdivided into two groups, one eastern (ancient Egyptians, Bejas, Gallas, Somalis and Danakils) and the other Western (Libyans, ancient Nubians, North African Berbers, the Tuaregs and Tudus of the Sahara, as well as the ancient Guanches of the Canary Islands and, lastly, the Fulani) (Cornevin, 1963, p. 71, 351-3).
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Don't be snowed.
Nott & Gliddon were adamant about Egyptians of any era being no kin and having no biological relationship to blacks.
quote: 2. Handsome East African Hamitic Type (from Nelle Puccioni, "Ricerche antropometriche sui Somali," Archivio per I'antropologia, 1911; cited by Seligman in Egypt and Negro Africa). Fully to appreciate the joke, replace Selig- man's wording above by the "official" interpretation:
Handsome type of the paleo-Mediterranean white race to which we owe all black civilizations, including that of Egypt.
... Ham is cursed, blackened, and made into the ancestor of the Negroes. This is what happens whenever one refers to contemporary social relations.
On the other hand, he is whitened whenever one seeks the origin of civilization, because there he is inhabiting the first civilized country in the world. So, the idea of Eastern and Western Hamites is conceived-nothing more than a convenient invention to deprive Blacks of the moral advantage of Egyptian civilization and of other African civilizations, as we shall see. Figure 2 enables us to perceive the biased nature of these theories.
UNESCO did not pervert Diop, pay attention
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
quote: ... the primitive population occupying the Egyptian and Nubian Nile valley from the predynastic period onwards (Badarian and Amratean or Naqada I), and up to the first dynasty, belonged to a
'dark', 'Mediterranean' or again 'Euro-African' race, often incorrectly called 'Hamitic'.
although its pigmentation may have been dark, even black;
it is subdivided into two groups, one eastern (ancient Egyptians, Bejas, Gallas, Somalis and Danakils) and the other Western (Libyans, ancient Nubians, North African Berbers, the Tuaregs and Tudus of the Sahara, as well as the ancient Guanches of the Canary Islands and, lastly, the Fulani) (Cornevin, 1963, p. 71, 351-3). The distant origin of this human type might be the 'Olduvai man' of East Africa, signs of which are found from the end of the Gamblian period onwards, around 11,000, and which is related to the Combe-Capelle race of Cro-Magnon in Europe (Cornevin, 1963, p. 88, 136; Boule and Vallois, 1952, p. 466). This type, therefore, would appear to be African in origin without being 'Negro' in the usual sense. Indeed, even those Egyptologists who are convinced of the essentially African nature of Egyptian civilization STRESS the fact that the population which founded this civilization was not 'Negro' (Naville, 1911, p. 199; Bissing, 1929, Frankfort, 1950).
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
lioness says: If the world is viewed as a competition between black and white, some people who identify as black would like black to have the widest definition possible for the sake of strength in numbers
Actually white racialists would like to & use the widest definitions of "white" to serve themselves- which is why they came up with the stereotypical "true negro" as the "true" representative of back people when advanced culture, civilization or polities are at issue, why they run away from likewise defining a "true white" as Keita notes, and why you have Cavalli-Sforza some 2 decades ago relying on obsolete 1960/7-s references talkin bout Ethiopians being "white people with black skin." White anthropologists have always used the widest white definitions when it suited them.
But the thing is- black people don't have to reach for any "wider" definition. Whites solved that problem for them by creating and maintaining the "one-drop" rule where it could be deployed to stymie black gains or agency socially, economically, and politically. On top of the one-drop rule is the Euro-American racial hierarchy which defines its content was white on top with non-white in various gradations down the scale. Luso-Hispano zone whites as in Brazil do the same thing using their "mestizo" format.
Again it all depends on whatever self-serving agenda white people are pursuing at the moment. At times they have pushed for EXPANDED whiteness- both in Brazil where the negro was supposed to disappear in time (but the white on top hierarchy would remain), to the US, where formerly "tainted" groups like the Irish became "white" with the "new" whites emerging as among the foremost racist groups in the US.
So white people are the greatest hypocrites if they object to wide definitions of black. When it suits them they can draw the net pretty widely, or narrowly as needed for their agendas.
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
Doug says: And note how he has no problem jumping on "Afrocentrics" for promoting "black Egypt" as racists, but at the same time Europeans promoting "white Egypt" are given a pass, notwithstanding all their history of racist literature.....
Of course. It is the same old hypocritical white double game. When it fits their agendas, the "blacks" become "whites" - "whites with black skin."
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
Doug says: ^Again, as far as the FEATURES, the PIGMENTATION LEVEL and the CLOSELY RELATED POPULATIONS go, the old(er) literature often got it right—even the white supremacists.
This is true. As Keita notes when you go back and read some old excavation reports you see the white excavation leaders recognizing "negroid" remains. But by the time some summaries and final writeups are done, whether with new excavations or analyzes of older material, the negroes conveniently "disappear." Ironically, some early archaelogical work actually yields a more balanced picture.
"Analyses of Egyptian crania are numerous. Vercoutter (1978) notes that ancient Egyptian crania have frequently all been lumped (implicitly or explicitly) as Mediterranean, although Negroid remains are recorded in substantial numbers by many workers... "Nutter (1958), using the Penrose statistic, demonstrated that Nagada I and Badari crania, both regarded as Negroid, were almost identical and that these were most similar to the Negroid Nubian series from Kerma studied by Collett (1933). [Collett, not accepting variability, excluded "clear negro" crania found in the Kerma series from her analysis, as did Morant (1925), implying that they were foreign..." --(S. Keita (1990) Studies of Ancient Crania From Northern Africa. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 83:35-48)
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Don't be snowed.
Nott & Gliddon were adamant about Egyptians of any era being no kin and having no biological relationship to blacks.
Anta Diop had, and still has a lot of "white enemies". So I am not that surprised.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
It was not a white who made that post.
What's giving me indigestion is seeing black get a 21st century deconstruction, that's no more than a white caucasoid hamitic hypothesis NE Afr vs true negro update for our times, rolled out by a supposedly conscious and intelligent independent minded student of African studies.
Woodson anyone ?
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Yes, non-charlatans recorded what they saw in measure yet many interpreted that observed reality out of existance. It took a Sergi to confront them with a simple fact when he said " But if they are black then how can they be white?", as he did in both print and at conference.
Your SOY Keita quote is valuable. It shows what length objective professionals will go when data doesn't conform with expectations, suppress it. We saw Kefi do with the one sample she had to record as possibly L(M,N). She suppressed it in her data analysis and ignored it in her comments.
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: Swenet says: ^Again, as far as the FEATURES, the PIGMENTATION LEVEL and the CLOSELY RELATED POPULATIONS go, the old(er) literature often got it right—even the white supremacists.
This is true. As Keita notes when you go back and read some old excavation reports you see the white excavation leaders recognizing "negroid" remains. But by the time some summaries and final writeups are done, whether with new excavations or analyzes of older material, the negroes conveniently "disappear." Ironically, some early archaelogical work actually yields a more balanced picture.
"Analyses of Egyptian crania are numerous. Vercoutter (1978) notes that ancient Egyptian crania have frequently all been lumped (implicitly or explicitly) as Mediterranean, although Negroid remains are recorded in substantial numbers by many workers... "Nutter (1958), using the Penrose statistic, demonstrated that Nagada I and Badari crania, both regarded as Negroid, were almost identical and that these were most similar to the Negroid Nubian series from Kerma studied by Collett (1933). [Collett, not accepting variability, excluded "clear negro" crania found in the Kerma series from her analysis, as did Morant (1925), implying that they were foreign..." --(S. Keita (1990) Studies of Ancient Crania From Northern Africa. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 83:35-48)
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Since the bewildered accusation that a "perversion of Diop" had taken place and that "UNESCO didn't pervert Diop", I was waiting to see how long it would take for someone to correct it and point out the fact that Diop did not even write the UNESCO piece in question. No one stepped up. The UNESCO document is basic reading material posted many times here.
Diop didn't even write that. Diop was never brought up in the recent explorations of this subject prior to the bewildered accusation. And this individual makes false, bewildered and completely left field accusations all the time. Don't buy into the see-through strawman attacks from the usual suspects of little understanding.
If you don't understand physical anthropology, my posts aren't always going to make sense to you, the lay people. But I see it as a confirmation that I'm on the right path that reputable African Americans trained in physical anthropology, who have ACTUALLY assessed these skeletal remains, are in essential agreement with my views. Contrary to many spectators in this community, they mostly do not challenge the descriptions of early anthropologists; they simply put them in a MODERN evolutionary context. So who cares about the figments of spectators who don't know what they're talking about.
Beyond the negrophobia and anti-African bias in the old literature (which no one here is denying and which is irrelevant to the subject at hand, namely, Doug's original claim that 'Nordic Egypt' was rampant in these texts) the self-victimization narrative doesn't hold weight. Certain classic ES views on population affinity and North Africa (which I've subscribed to as well in the past) have long been falsified. I'm not going to go in-depth and beyond what I've already posted on this subject due to the permanently lurking strawman attacks, goalpost shifts and false accusations that seem to go mostly unchecked here. But I'm going to say that the usual suspects who make the most noise and spread the most misinformation know what I'm talking about anyway.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Diop was the first to juxtapose picture and text to expose the cognitive dissonance separating objective visual reality from subjective interpretive text declaration of black-skinned whites aka Hamites or caucasoids as due to chagrin at Antériorité des Civilizations Négres
The post I commented on is and remains a deliberate perversion of Diop's 1967 pre-UNESCO presentation.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
If these northeast Africans are not black then there are no African nor diasporan blacks. Some pharaonic 8 STR MiniFiler haplotypes are still found among their people in that geography.
These NE Afrs are not only black. They're more closely related to the other Africans elsewhere on the continent than they are to any other people of any other continent. It is also a fact they're closer to non-Africans than are most other Africans are whether via the non-Afrs OoA inheritance or non-Afrs [proto]historic settling in Africa.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
You see, no need for grandstanding when all can judge the presented materials for themselves thus avoiding poisoned wells and similar fluff unrelated to examining given evidence drama free.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
I feel sorry for lay people who are seeking information and instead treated to this incompetence, misinformation and flip floppery. If 'black' is strictly skin pigmentation as the opposition has maintained throughout this thread, how can (African) ancestry be a criterion to establish whether someone has black skin? Pay close attention to how certain personalities are flip flopping between various uses of black right after they were swearing that Doug's dictionary entries and ancient Greek texts describe the default and only legitimate use of the term.
Moreover, note how the Diop quote, brought in as "evidence" that Diop was "perverted" by me (even though I quoted Vercoutter, not Diop), is closer to my interpretation of Vercoutter's "white" than it is to Doug's interpretation. According to Doug, "white" in this context necessarily means pale skin, blue eyes and blonde hair. Diop clearly says that "white" in some contexts has included people with dark skin. This FACT, mirrored by academics who did reviews of the literature and are familiar with what these old texts are saying (e.g. Keita), is something Doug and others have been antagonizing for more than 20 thread pages.
You can see how bewildered the attempt to bring in Diop was by how it debunks Doug instead of the person who supposedly "perverted Diop".
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Diop and others say these peoples are black.
Swenet and others maintain it's incorrect to say they are black even when their skin is darker than Pepsi Cola, behind a definition of black limited to trans-atlantic slavery connection.
There you have it. After 25 pages you the reader take your pick or give your alternate views.
No need to grand stand, poison wells, or coach. Those with minds of their own will make up their own minds. Followers of the cult of personality will heed their Pied Piper of whichever side they most emote.
Posted by Punos_Rey (Member # 21929) on :
^this is exactly why I tried to be as careful as possible in those other threads, just too many ways to get tripped up especially when equivocation(stredsing one use of black when others are using different ones) is going on
Also is there any historicity to that "Diop letter" regarding the acid incident? I find that incredibly hard to believe
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
^Unless I've missed a relapse in her progress, Lioness is just trolling you and Sudaniya. Lioness doesn't believe that AE was Nordic. She has some lingering inclinations towards mixed and "Indian-looking Tut", but not Nordic if her posts are an indication.
The new Lioness can be insightful when she wants to. The key to dealing with the new Lioness is to simply commend her for making good posts and ignore her trolling. Pavlovian psychology (not implying that she's a dog, of course).
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:All Africa is black or tawny
Source: Benjamin Franklin, "Observations Concerning the Increasing of Mankind, Peopling of Countries, &c." (Boston: Printed by S. Kneeland, 1755)
"I was on the whole much pleased, and from what I then saw, have conceived a higher opinion of the natural capacities of the black race, than I had ever before entertained. Their apprehension seems as quick, their memory as strong, and their docility in every respect equal to that of white children."
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: This is what Doug, the king of flip flops and self-defeating quotes is lying about.
Doug's own UNESCO quote applies 'white' to people who look like this (Afar from the Danakil region):
Yet Doug wants to pretend that 'white' used in this context necessarily means blonde hair, pale skin and blue eyes. They're clearly talking about a cranio-facial pattern which they (erroneously) labeled 'white' (i.e. 'Caucasian').
Only Doug the flip flopper is confused about the fact that black skin and 'white race' were not mutually exclusive in this context, precisely because one was a reference to skin while the other one a reference to race:
Hamitic as a term is just as interesting since it changed from meaning "Negro" to dark even black skinned [Mediterranean?] White (Sanders, 1969). —Keita (1995)
Doug, go take your meds.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: This population is taken to have been leucodermic, i.e. white, although its pigmentation may have been dark, even black; it is subdivided into two groups, one eastern (ancient Egyptians, Bejas, Gallas, Somalis and Danakils) and the other Western (Libyans, ancient Nubians, North African Berbers, the Tuaregs and Tudus of the Sahara, as well as the ancient Guanches of the Canary Islands and, lastly, the Fulani) (Cornevin, 1963, p. 71, 351-3).
Nobody is flip flopping. I am calling you out on your nonsense. You sit here and try to proclaim that there is something wrong with using the word "black" when obviously referring to the skin color of black skinned people, yet turn right around and try and explain away Europeans calling these exact same people "white leucoderms".
So you have a double standard and are trying to force your double standard on other people under the guise of being "objective". Not only that, but you are trying to sit here and claim that the Europeans who OBVIOUSLY lied about calling the skin color of these black people "white" are just doing so from some sort of 'scientifically objective' position and not because of racism and their desire to falsify the skin color of ancient people in Africa. You have gone 25 pages at this trying to make racists sound like they are on the same page with us and trying to make them sound "objective" even when faced with the facts that are just the opposite. And then after ALL OF THAT you claim that the African scholars are the ones who are confused and that there is no disagreement between them and the white European racists and all of this is simply a misunderstanding of words.
You have no point. Your position is baseless and utterly devoid of any value.
As an a perfect example, you seriously try to claim that the folks on the UNESCO panel who called certain Northeast Africans with black skin 'white' were not talking about skin color, even when they reinforce the term white with LEUCODERM which literally is a reference to skin color, which just goes to show how far you will reach in your idiotic attempts to deny the facts and twist logic to suit your position.
quote: Yet Doug wants to pretend that 'white' used in this context necessarily means blonde hair, pale skin and blue eyes. They're clearly talking about a cranio-facial pattern which they (erroneously) labeled 'white' (i.e. 'Caucasian').
And you then have the nerve to sit here and argue why the word black is not valid yet give Europeans a pass on their obvious misuse and abuse of words referring to skin color and claim Africans are the ones who "dont understand anthropology".
GTFOH with that nonsense.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Lol. Lies emanate from Doug's posts almost to the point of looking like satire. Even in the parts where this liar is quoting me I said that this use of 'white' is erroneous. Then he turns around and claims I said I've condoned it. Every attempt to paraphrase my views is a bald-faced lie. The fact that Doug is willing to go very far with his lies can be shown in the fact that he is going against common ES interpretations in his attempt to lie, troll and flip flop:
quote: Originally posted by Charlie Bass:
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: "Basic-White" seems to be Angel's way of saying the human prototypes or forebearers of contemporary "whites". Terms like "negroid" are next to worthless scientifically speaking, but one gets the idea of what Angel is trying to get across, and perhaps he may be forgiven, given the time of publication.
True indeed, but this citation bolsters the case against racial categories, so called "pure" Caucasoids never existed and the fact that such traits are noted in Sub-Saharans, Northeast Africans and then in Macedonia supports the hypothesis of a northward migration of Africans perhaps the spread of E3b.
Note that Doug participated in that thread and never protested against this interpretation.
The lies are just too much. You can't even debate here; you have to debate AND correct lies told about you at the same time. But since every point you make during the debate is lied about, you end up basically defending yourself the entire time just so bystanders don't start getting the wrong idea from these lies.
Like I said, I feel sorry for the truth seekers who are misled by these 'veterans' in sheep's clothing. They have no other alternative.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Angel's description of his 'white' that included many prehistoric North Africans:
These descriptions of what "white" in the racial sense entails in Angel (but also many other early anthro works) CLEARLY describe (descendants of) generalized prehistoric populations who share many commonalities with prehistoric northeast Africans. That 'white' in the racial sense is based on this can be seen not just in the provided descriptions, but also in the fact that certain prehistoric northeast Africans have very similar morphologies at Angel's skull regions and are therefore included (by Angel) in this morphological type; type 'A' (see A3/"Eurafrican").
I disagree with this label (i.e. basic white) and the implication that Europeans epitomize or are the source of these commonalities, but I DEFINITELY agree with people who see these commonalities as apomorphic. And I disagree with the people here who still naively see these as homoplastic.
But what I think and Doug's lies about what I think are irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that Doug was speaking out of turn peddling his BS claim that this old anthro use of 'white' necessarily entails pale skin, blue eyes and blonde hair:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: When these folks say Caucasiod they mean pure white Aryan, blue blood, pale as snow white folks.
^Incompetent buffoon. Lot of mouth, but little substance in his weak and opinionated posts.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
(got em)
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
I'm actually surprised all those old-time white supremacist scholars ever admitted that AEs most closely resembled darker Saharans. You'd think they would do what modern Eurocentrics do and claim the lighter-skinned modern Egyptians as ideally representative of AE while writing off the rest as admixed with "Negroid" slaves. In that sense the earlier scientific racists were a step closer to the truth, and more willing to concede as much, than their "followers" today.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Nodnarb. I know you already know this (you cautiously worded your observations about these white supremacists by talking in relative terms), so the following is not a statement for you as much as it is intended to preemptively take away room for Doug to spin his foul lies. (So good job not feeding into his "defending racists" crap and keeping it nuanced).
Doug and others have been desperately attempting to paint this discussion as an attempt on my part to apologize for white supremacists. These people keep lying about me and what this discussion is about, so let's not give them the big break they're looking for by getting distracted re: the real reason why Doug is spinning all these lies:
Doug's internalized self-victimization narrative requires him to lie about these old texts and paint them as racists in EVERY aspect of their coverage of Africa and ancient Egypt. According to Doug, they ALL claimed that the AE were pale skinned and blue eyed.
My only point has been that they were racist in a LOT, but mostly not in terms of the comparative populations they felt were close to the AE. But even so, as you know, this is still no reason to start handing out medals because most of them were STILL racists and anti-African. They were still trying to downplay and obscure in other areas.
Another thing to keep in mind regarding the old literature is that it admitted this mainly about predynastic Egyptians and later Egyptians of the predynastic physical type (e.g. "the old Egyptian type"), not necessarily about all later dynastic Egyptians. So that's another reason to be cautious with their work. That's why in my posts you can see that I've constantly tried to keep the goalpost on what they said about predynastic Egyptians.
But yeah, I agree with you. Generally, the anthropologists trained in bio-anthropology and the ethnic background of the AE obviously made the right call in the aforementioned areas. As Keita said, most of the old reports are consistent with the AE being eastern Saharan once you look past the nominal "white race" BS (i.e. very dark skinned eastern Saharan were, as an intact CLADE, lumped into the so-called "white race"; not just the Egyptians in isolation as Doug is fabricating) and put said reports in a modern evolutionary context. The people in charge with disseminating this to the public completely obscured this layer of complexity. You can't reconstruct this eastern Saharan connection back from the watered down statements of the internet trolls, hollywood, the media and others who are disseminating the information in these old reports to the public.
You can tell from his posts that Doug belongs to this confused bunch who are too challenged and biased to read the old reports in context.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Angel's description of his 'white' that included many prehistoric North Africans:
These descriptions of what "white" in the racial sense entails in Angel (but also many other early anthro works) CLEARLY describe (descendants of) generalized prehistoric populations who share many commonalities with prehistoric northeast Africans. That 'white' in the racial sense is based on this can be seen not just in the provided descriptions, but also in the fact that certain prehistoric northeast Africans have very similar morphologies at Angel's skull regions and are therefore included (by Angel) in this morphological type; type 'A' (see A3/"Eurafrican").
I disagree with this label (i.e. basic white) and the implication that Europeans epitomize or are the source of these commonalities, but I DEFINITELY agree with people who see these commonalities as apomorphic. And I disagree with the people here who still naively see these as homoplastic.
But what I think and Doug's lies about what I think are irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that Doug was speaking out of turn peddling his BS claim that this old anthro use of 'white' necessarily entails pale skin, blue eyes and blonde hair:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: When these folks say Caucasiod they mean pure white Aryan, blue blood, pale as snow white folks.
^Incompetent buffoon. Lot of mouth, but little substance in his weak and opinionated posts.
Dude. You should lay off drugs and stop trying to resuscitate a dead argument.
So are you REALLY saying that when they say "white" the European racists were not trying to arbitrarily reassign black Africans to the "white race"? Are you seriously trying to claim that there is 'objective science' that is the basis for calling black Africans "white"?
And don't you not also see that the word black skin is also used by these same people right along with the word white? So right there you have the racists using the term 'black skin' to refer to black people yet you continue to try and divert from the point that black is a reference to skin color just like white is.
But according to your objective science, you claim that when these racists wort the term white leucuderm they did not REALLY MEAN white skinned people. Of course not. And all these movies and reenactments, artwork and other images that they produce with white skinned ancient Egyptians DON'T REALLY represent their view of what "white skin" is.
You are beyond retarded.
Again, this below is the commonly accepted definition of what Egyptology considers as "white" ancient Egyptians:
quote: Following in the footsteps of G. Elliot Smith (1923, p. 53-69), and those of Sergi at an earlier date (Sergi, 1895), most Egyptologists (Vandier, 1952, p. 22) take the view that the primitive population occupying the Egyptian and Nubian Nile valley from the predynastic period onwards (Badarian and Amratean or Naqada I), and up to the first dynasty, belonged to a 'dark', 'Mediterranean' or again 'Euro-African' race, often incorrectly called 'Hamitic'. This population is taken to have been leucodermic, i.e. white, although its pigmentation may have been dark, even black;it is subdivided into two groups, one eastern (ancient Egyptians, Bejas, Gallas, Somalis and Danakils) and the other Western (Libyans, ancient Nubians, North African Berbers, the Tuaregs and Tudus of the Sahara, as well as the ancient Guanches of the Canary Islands and, lastly, the Fulani) (Cornevin, 1963, p. 71, 351-3).
That is the only reference we need to look at. All your attempts to ignore the facts and divert to other works to try and avoid the obvious implications of the word white and what "white race" means are irrelevant.
Again, if these people actually accept that the AE were black Africans why are there so many debates on the topic? Surely you can't be claiming that the white folks on one side of the debate aren't arguing with folks on the other about a question of skin color?
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Doug, that quote from the earlier ES members rejecting that 'white' in this context necessarily implies skin pigmentation bothers you, doesn't it? You kept talking about "us", but now it's been proven there was never an "us" to begin with as far as the 'white' issue. Who, other than you, is in the "us" camp you were talking about? Your posts are opinionated garbage and lack proper sources.
You're just salty at this point. The old literature's observed cranial commonalities, THOUGH NOT THEIR LABELING OR THE SELF-SERVING PRIORITY EUROPEANS GAVE THEMSELVES IN THIS PICTURE, have been vindicated by population genetics. I can make many of their observations fit modern day genetic revelations by substituting "Basic White" with a term that points to an origin in North Africa. That is Keita's point and that is my point.
I can't make none of your BS fit population genetics. What is your point other than opinionated garbage? Your point that 'white' in this context refers to skin pigmentation is garbage.
Doug. Stop lying about my positions and stop flip flopping.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
I'm supposed to reject these observed cranial commonalities in the old texts, just because they were labeled wrong (e.g. "basic white") or wrongly attributed to some imaginary European source population? Why, just because Doug is insecure and paranoid about the term 'white' and wants to maintain his self-victimization narrative that all of this was all pseudo-science?
Again, the use of 'white' in the old texts does not necessarily refer to skin pigmentation; sometimes it referred to a cranio-facial pattern thought to be ancestral to modern Europeans. See Angel's explanation of his terminology and note that this 'white type' was thought to transcend the boundaries of Europe (even in white supremacists like Coon), proving that 'white' wasn't necessarily a reference to the palest skin pigmentation, let alone combined with blue eyes and blonde hair:
Source: Angel 1971
If you don't have the faintest idea what you're talking about, and Doug, we know at this point that you don't, why even bother embarrassing yourself? Just stay in your lane: posting pictures of 'black' Indonesians and Amerindians.
And any other dissenting person on here can try to debate me on this. I know some lurkers are salty for the fact that I refuse to toe the party line. They'll just get debunked, just like Doug.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Doug, that quote from the earlier ES members rejecting that 'white' in this context necessarily implies skin pigmentation bothers you, doesn't it? You kept talking about "us", but now it's been proven there was never an "us" to begin with as far as the 'white' issue. Who, other than you, is in the "us" camp you were talking about? Your posts are opinionated garbage and lack proper sources.
You're just salty at this point. The old literature's observed cranial commonalities, THOUGH NOT THEIR LABELING OR THE SELF-SERVING PRIORITY EUROPEANS GAVE THEMSELVES IN THIS PICTURE, have been vindicated by population genetics. I can make many of their observations fit modern day genetic revelations by substituting "Basic White" with a term that points to an origin in North Africa. That is Keita's point and that is my point.
I can't make none of your BS fit population genetics. What is your point other than opinionated garbage? Your point that 'white' in this context refers to skin pigmentation is garbage.
Doug. Stop lying about my positions and stop flip flopping.
Why are you avoiding the quote I posted. It states explicitly that these people are talking about skin color when they say white.
Again you keep trying to avoid what I posted by deviating and going somewhere else. You have been playing this game since page one. You were proven wrong and that quote shows you as wrong.
Anybody who would sit here and claim that when white people say "white people" they are not talking about skin color is obviously retarded.
And it doesn't matter what other folks have said, the whites themselves have made it clear for 500 years what "white people" means as they raped and pillaged the earth. Yet here you are trying to salvage your dead argument that somehow there is an "objective scientific" basis for this.
Please, stop making yourself look like a poor loser.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: I'm supposed to reject these observed cranial commonalities in the old texts, just because they were labeled wrong (e.g. "basic white") or wrongly attributed to some imaginary European source population? Why, just because Doug is insecure and paranoid about the term 'white' and wants to maintain his self-victimization narrative that all of this was all pseudo-science?
Again, the use of 'white' in the old texts does not necessarily refer to skin pigmentation; sometimes it referred to a cranio-facial pattern thought to be ancestral to modern Europeans. See Angel's explanation of his terminology and note that this 'white type' was thought to transcend the boundaries of Europe (even in white supremacists like Coon), proving that 'white' wasn't necessarily a reference to the palest skin pigmentation, let alone combined with blue eyes and blonde hair:
Source: Angel 1971
If you don't have the faintest idea what you're talking about, and Doug, we know at this point that you don't, why even bother embarrassing yourself? Just stay in your lane: posting pictures of 'black' Indonesians and Amerindians.
And any other dissenting person on here can try to debate me on this. I know some lurkers are salty for the fact that I refuse to toe the party line. They'll just get debunked, just like Doug.
Come on man you look bad. You are simply losing on every front and just determined to try and sound like you won something.
Let me ask you something, what is "white" a reference to? You do know that white is a word for a color don't you? And since he is using it, primarily as a reference to European populations, why do you feel that this is not a reference to skin color?
What does "white" refer to here?
The point being that these are pseudo-scientific attempts to create the origins of "white people" in Northern Europe who then expanded into Africa later and got darker but still were "white" because of their ancestry from earlier Europeans. That is what they were trying to claim by suggesting the cranial diversity of Africans implies a "white type" of skull shape. What part of that don't you understand? These skull shapes didn't come from "white" and therefore the whole thing is regarded as garbage in modern anthropology. Yet here you are sitting up here trying to claim that these people are being "objective scholars" and not trying to promote the superiority of "white skinned" races of people in Europe even though they clearly try and associate black African skulls with "white people". How on earth can you even sit here and try to call this garbage "objective science". And then turn right around and argue with other folks calling black Africans black? Come on you can't be serious.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
The incompetent fumbler is still squeaking.
Compare Doug's fanatical faith-based devotion to his fantasy that 'white' in these texts necessarily refers to pale skin with what these racists were actually saying re: what it means to be racially 'white':
quote:In the totality of facial features, with a few exceptions, the Upper Pa- laeolithic people may be said to have resembled modern white men. Some, however, probably looked like a certain type of American Indian, notably that of the North American Plains, and of the OnaS and Tehuelche of southernmost South America. This comparison, we must remember, is wholly morphological, since we do not know Upper Palaeolithic man's pigmentation, hair form, or hair distribution.
—Coon 1939
^Coon's comment that he doesn't know their hair, eye and skin pigmentation is significant, because he considers these people racially (i.e. cranially and taxonomically) "white". How does this come even close to Doug's fanatical imagination that 'white' in these old texts referred to skin pigmentation at all times?
Another quote from the racist Coon on the pigmentation of a subset of the "white" race:
quote:Before the Neolithic, the principal branches of the Mediterranean family must already have come into existence. Some Mediterraneans were probably white skinned, and others brown; it is also possible that the differences in hair and eye color which so strongly distinguish living Mediterranean sub-varieties had already come into existence.
—Coon 1939
quote:It can be shown that Sumerians who lived over five thousand years ago in Mesopotamia are almost identical in skull and face form with living Englishmen, and that predynastic Egyptian skulls can be matched both in a seventeenth century London plague pit, and in Neolithic cist-graves in Switzerland. Modern dolichocephalic whites or browns are very similar in head and face measurements and form. The Nordic race in the strict sense is merely a pigment phase of the Mediterranean.
—Coon 1939
Here racist Coon seems to describe the pale skinned varieties of the 'white race' as mere derivatives of darker skinned 'whites'. How does this come even close to Doug's incoherent rant that the racism of these anthropologists was more heavily invested in skin pigmentation than in ideas about perceived racial differences and taxonomies? In his epic stupefaction Doug admits that Coon, Baker etc. had no problems subsuming darkbrown people in South Asia and North Africa into the 'white' race. But then the incompetent tries to act like 'white' in these texts necessarily meant pale skin.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
It should be noted that some capable people from this community have ALWAYS discussed the works of racist anthropologists responsibly and ON THEIR OWN TERMS. Keita being a big example. Yet, the fumbling incompetent is fuming and crying over my attempts to make sense of the EXACT SAME views and observations. Doug, WTF are you talking about?
That's why I'm going easy on Doug. He's confused and needs immediate access to his meds. Can someone help him out?
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
It's raining flip flops. And this is all happening in the same post; he literally just said both of these in the span of a couple of seconds. Dementia?
"'White', the way they used it, refers to skin color, Swenet" —Doug M
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: And since he is using it, primarily as a reference to European populations, why do you feel that this is not a reference to skin color?
"'White', the way they used it, doesn't refer to skin color, Swenet, but to a biological taxon" —Doug M
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:. The point being that these are pseudo-scientific attempts to create the origins of "white people" in Northern Europe who then expanded into Africa later and got darker but still were "white" because of their ancestry from earlier Europeans.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: It's raining flip flops. And this is all happening in the same post; he literally just said both of these in the space of a couple of seconds. Dementia?
"'White', the way they used it, refers to skin color, Swenet" —Doug M
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: And since he is using it, primarily as a reference to European populations, why do you feel that this is not a reference to skin color?
"'White', the way they used it, doesn't refer to skin color, Swenet, but to a biological taxon" —Doug M
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:. The point being that these are pseudo-scientific attempts to create the origins of "white people" in Northern Europe who then expanded into Africa later and got darker but still were "white" because of their ancestry from earlier Europeans.
Oh please, the only one flip flopping here is you.
Come on man give it a break. We all know what white people mean when they say white. Only you would sit here and try to convince us that when racists use the word white they aren't talking about skin color.
Maybe we need a thread on when to use white and when not to just so you can argue for 40 pages how racists using the term white don't really mean skin color....
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
As I've said many times, when the racists and were talking about the cranio-facial commonalities of the 'white race', what they were wrong about is the direction of ancestry (in principle, Eurasia wasn't the source of the convergence between populations in various time periods, but indigenous North Africans were) and the labeling of this ancestry (it wasn't 'racially' European/'white').
Other than that, there is nothing wrong with the observed cranial commonalities. The set of cranio-facial traits they labeled 'Mediterranean', for instance, have been proven to have a real biological underpinning. And BTW, even the racist Coon said the source of this 'race' was a split between Africa and West Asia. Although, again, these concepts need to be placed in a modern evolutionary context, as Keita says.
The fact that Doug is calling everything in these texts 'pseudoscience' proves how stupefied and incompetent he is. Even worse, the fact that Doug tries to boil all this disagreement down to skin color (only to flip flop away from this bizarre position later) shows that his posts are an opinionated mess.
Note that neither Doug, nor anyone else for that matter, will reply in a coherent manner and prove I'm wrong here or elsewhere. Just more opinionated posts and flip flops.
Note the light blue component below (with the oldest attestation so far in the first farmers in Greece and Anatolia, some of which, e.g. Stuttgart, look like indigenous prehistoric North Africans), in various populations in the Mediterranean Basin, indicating that the observed cranial commonalities between various holocene skeletal remains in the circum Med. are not pseudo-scientific.
/thread
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: As I've said many times, when the racists and were talking about the cranio-facial commonalities of the 'white race', what they were wrong about is the direction of ancestry (in principle, Eurasia wasn't the source of the convergence between populations in various time periods, but indigenous North Africans were) and the labeling of this ancestry (it wasn't 'racially' European/'white').
Other than that, there is nothing wrong with the observed cranial commonalities. The set of cranio-facial traits they labeled 'Mediterranean', for instance, have been proven to have a real biological underpinning. And BTW, even the racist Coon said the source of this 'race' was a split between Africa and West Asia. Although, again, these concepts need to be placed in a modern evolutionary context, as Keita says.
The fact that Doug is calling everything in these texts 'pseudoscience' proves how stupefied and incompetent he is. Even worse, the fact that Doug tries to boil all this disagreement down to skin color (only to flip flop away from this bizarre position later) shows that his posts are an opinionated mess.
Note that neither Doug, nor anyone else for that matter, will reply in a coherent manner and prove I'm wrong here or elsewhere. Just more opinionated posts and flip flops.
Note the light blue component below (with the oldest attestation so far in the first farmers in Greece and Anatolia, some of which, e.g. Stuttgart, look like indigenous prehistoric North Africans), in various populations in the Mediterranean Basin, indicating that the observed cranial commonalities between various holocene skeletal remains in the circum Med. are not pseudo-scientific.
/thread
Come on man leave it alone. We don't need a genetics chart to understand what racists mean when they say white. They mean skin color. That is the only thing that is relevant to this discussion. But you just keep running in circles trying to avoid the fundamental fact that white and black are obviously references to skin color. Invoking Keita and adding a color chart is not going to change the ideology of racism from the past and the pseudo science that went along with it to bolster its credentials. It was not "objective" science, meaning science for the sake of understanding truth. It was science for the purpose of promoting racist ideologies and propaganda based on skin color.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
We don't need a genetics chart to understand what racists mean when they say white. They mean skin color. That is the only thing that is relevant to this discussion.
yeah right
Posted by DD'eDeN (Member # 21966) on :
Gave blood the other day blacked out buddy said I turned white
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: We don't need a genetics chart to understand what racists mean when they say white. They mean skin color. That is the only thing that is relevant to this discussion.
This dude just doesn't get it. He's simply too slow to see the light, which is that aspects of the standard ES narrative were wrong and that select aspects of the old literature were right.
He's deluded to the point that he thinks genetics is irrelevant to settling the points of contention where there was friction between both schools of thought and thinks it's all a matter of skin color. Talk about mental constipation.
When Upper Palaeolithic aDNA from the ancestors of modern North Africans comes out, and it'll be parsed from possible outside influences, Doug and other clowns like Tropicals Redacted are going to be laughing stock and academics are going to eventually classify these buffoons in the same boat as creationists who think humans are 6000 years old.
Mark my words.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
What's even more pathetic is that clowns like Tropicals Redacted have the audacity to pretend in public that Keita agrees with their position.
He doesn't (note that there is a convergence between Keita's views and the racist literature in terms of where Africans might cluster in cranio-facial analysis): https://youtu.be/qErhFiCvyKE?t=1m14s
Note that the man in the audience whom Keita is addressing talks just like Tropicals Redacted, Amun Ra and certain others here. From my experience, these people will simply NEVER get it. It's the same reason why you have 25 pages of this thread and so-called 'Egyptsearch veterans' arguing against what I'm saying with weak arguments. I bet that guy in that lecture is still going around repeating the same crap Keita told him to stay away from. Just like Tropicals Redacted, who has been repeatedly proven to be wrong, but still repeats his delusions.
When you confront these clowns they'll act like Keita is playing a game to 'please' European academics... that his caveats are 'optional' things that you can somehow take or leave. That's why I'm waiting for Tropicals Redacted to publish his "book" or "literature review" (lol!) and prove to the academics he's persecuting that he's more of a clown than them.
Also peep the mental blockage and how dense some of these people are. It's definitely a mental constipation thing that isn't going to go away any time soon, no matter how many times you try to explain it:
quote:Nguzo LoveInLoFi 1 year ago Why can't he [Keita] unequivocally say that they are African though?
quote:Nguzo LoveInLoFi 1 year ago At 7:33 he [Keita] uses DNA lineage, geography and language to discount the people of PauPau New Guinea from being African- yet he is reluctant to call the Ancient people of Khmt( Egypt) African though their DNA lineage, geography and language links them with other African people?
Keita, in fact, does say African and related phrases. He just doesn't use the problematic racial terminology these people want to hear so desperately. Nguzo is making stuff up now to disparage Keita. Same tactics we're familiar with when it comes to some of the other salty clowns (just read this thread to see the strawman attacks play out again and again).
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
HA! HA! HA! Comedian and researcher?!
quote:Originally posted by DD'eDeN: Gave blood the other day blacked out buddy said I turned white
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Deleted
Posted by Mindovermatter (Member # 22317) on :
Well it looks like I am going to finally drop the bomb and end the stupid issue in this thread; for all you eurocentric ass-wipes who are trying to create a false issue out of the term "black" with red herring arguments, please explain this then.
How come nearly ALL European colonial writers during the 1800's and 1900's, EXTENSIVELY USED BLACK TO DESCRIBE BLACK PEOPLE/AFRICAN PEOPLE IN HISTORY? AND ALSO NON-AFRICAN ASIATIC "BLACK PEOPLES" IN ASIA?
Making inquiries from one of the principal native revenue officials at the place, it was ascertained that there was a family living hardly a mile away, of which more than one of the members has been born, and continued, white all their lives. That this did not result from their being lepers, and none of their neighbors were in the least afraid of them, though opinion was not clear as to the whiteness not being a disease.
Losing no time, it did not take long to reach the hint in which this family of albinos were to be found. They are of the Hindu blacksmith caste. The father and mother are stated to be of the ordinary BLACKNESS OF NATIVES OF INDIA, but were not seen on this occasion.
A SON, AGED TWENTY-TWO, WAS THERE WORKING AT HIS TRADE, WITH THE WHITE COLOR, FEATURES, AND LIGHT FLAXEN HAIR OF A EUROPEAN, THE ONLY DIFFERENCE BEING A COARSENESS OF THE TEXTURE OF THE SKIN, AND A SLIGHTLY VACANT EXPRESSION. There was beside him, an apparently elder brother, quite dark, and a native Hindu in every respect. It was said that albinos has occasionally appeared in the family, one of the uncles for instance, HAVING BEEN WHITE.
On being questioned AS TO WHETHER THERE WAS ANY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE ALBINOS AND ORDINARY NATIVES, IT WAS ONCE SAID THAT THE FORMER COULD NOT STAND BEING IN THE SUN, WHICH REDDENED AND INFLAMED THE SKIN, UPON WHICH THE REMARK FELL FROM THE WRITER THAT IT COULD BE WORTH WHILE TO TRANSPORT SUCH INDIVIDUALS TO A COLD CLIMATE, WHERE THEY WOULD BE EXPOSED TO NO INCONVENIENCE.
AND SO IT WOULD, BECAUSE THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT THAT ONE OF THESE WHITE HINDUS, EARLY TAKEN, AND EDUCATED IN A EUROPEAN CLIMATE, WOULD FROM PALPABLE OBSERVATION OF THE SPECIMEN NOW DESCRIBED BE ABSOLUTELY INDISTINGUISHABLE AS A NATIVE OF INDIA.
Evidently some cause has interfered with the production of pigment in the cells, with the effect of rendering the albinos highly sensitive, and more so then a European, to the invisible heat rays of the spectrum, which are so injurious to the constitution in India.
THE CONTRAST BETWEEN THE FACES OF THE BROTHERS WERE PECULIARLY STRIKING, FOR THERE WAS SUFFICIENT RESEMBLANCE, IN THE LOWER PART OF THE FACE ESPECIALLY, TO SHOW THERE WAS A DISTINCT RELATIONSHIP- THAT OF THE ONE WHO WAS DARK WORE THE ORDINARY MILD COMPOSURE; BUT THE OTHER, BY THE MERE CHANGE OF COLOR, HAD COMPLETELY AND INADVERTENTLY THROWN OFF THE ORIENTAL MASK; AND IT WOULD BE ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TO CONVEY TO ANYONE, NOT SEEING IT EXEMPLIFIED, HOW VAST A CHANGE COULD BE MADE BY SO SIMPLE AN ALTERATION, DISPLAYING THE WAY THE REAL INDIVIDUALITY OF RACE IS LURKING IN AN EXTRAORDINARY MANNER BENEATH A TROPICAL BLACKNESS.
254 J. Cjelawfubd " Colour as a Test o/ihe Races of Man.
" The offspring of an Albino with a perfect individual of the same race, would not be a half-caste, but either an Albino or an ordinary individual The child of an Albino Negro, with a common Negro, for example, is always either a Negro or an Albino, while the child of an Albino Negress by an European, would assuredly be either an ordinary Mulatto or an Albino Mulatto.
There is no recorded example of the union to the production of offspring of two Albinos, but it is certain that if such were to take place, the offspring would not be a true hybrid, but a creature with or without the colouring matter. The union of two Albinos is, of course, avoided by Albinos sensible of their own imperfection, and consequently desirous that their offspring should return to the normal and approved type of the stamp to which they belong.
" At other times, the transformation " [of colour] '* may be sadden, arising from cir-ie call accidental For example, there may be an Albino boy in a family, in which there had been no Albino before. Let this boy grow up to man's estate and marry, and it is probable that one or more of his children may be Albinos like himself But let him marry an Albino woman, and all the issue of such a marriage may be Albinos like the parents. SUPPOSE TWO SUCH FAMILIES TO BE PLACED ON AN ISLAND BY THEMSELVES, AND THEN TO INTERMARRY, AND THERE WOULD PROBABLY THEN BE A DISTINCT RACE OF ALBINOS AS CUMSTANCES WHCH W CANNOT EXPLAIN, AND WHICH WE, THEREFORE, THERE NOW IS OF NEGROES."
WHO WAS TO PERFORM THE CURIOUS EXPERIMENT OF PLACING ALBINO FAMILIES IN A DESERT ISLAND? THE TRANSFORMATION OF COMPLEXIONS, IF IT EVER HAPPENED AT ALL, MUST HAVE TAKEN PLACE AT A TIME WHEN ALL MANKIND WERE STILL SAVAGES, SINCE WE HAVE NO RECORD OF IT; AND RECORDS, AS IS WELL KNOWN, ARE ONLY KEPT IN A VERY ADVANCED STATE OF SOCIETY.
IN A SAVAGE STATE OF SOCIETY, THE ALBINO, AN IMPERFECT BEING, NOT ABLE EFLTECTUALLY TO HELP HIMSELF OR TO HELP OTHERS, IS FAR MORE LIKELY TO BE DESTROYED, AS ARE OTHER IMPERFECT BIRTHS, THAN TO BE MULTIPLIED, BY THE PERFORMANCE OF AN EXPERIMENT WHICH, EVEN THE CURIOSITY OF CIVILISED MAN HAS NEVER ATTEMPTED.
IF THE EXPERIMENT WERE EVER MADE, THE PROBABILITY IS THAT A GENUINE NEGRO WOULD NOW AND THEN SPRING UP, AND HENCE, THAT INSTEAD OF A WHITE POPULATION, WE SHOULD HAVE A PIE-BALD ONE, " ^THE WHITES BEING ONLY COLOURLESS NEGROES AND THE BLACKS COLOURED ONES. As already stated, the intermarriage of Albinos or of any other congenital malformations, is far more likely to be avoided than encouraged.
WHEN I WAS IN THE COUNTRY OF THE BURMESE, AN ALBINO WAS POINTED OUT TO ME I HAD LONG TAKEN HIM FOR AN UGLY DANE OR NORWEGIAN, FOR HE WAS DRESSED AS AN EUROPEAN. ON INQUIRY, I FOUND THAT HE WAS A BURMESE IN ALL BUT THE ABSENCE OF COLOUR.
AS AN UNNATURAL BIRTH HE HAD BEEN DISCARDED BY HIS PARENTS, WHO HANDED HIM OVER TO A CATHOLIC PRIEST, WHO BROUGHT HIM UP AS A CHRISTIAN " CLAD HIM IN AN EUROPEAN COSTUME, AND APPRENTICED HIM TO AN ENGLISH SHIP-CARPENTER. COLONEL YULE, SPEAKING OF THE HAIR-COVERED BURMESE WOMAN BEFORE MENTIONED,FIE KING OFFERED A REWARD TO ANY ONE WHO WOULD MARRY HER, BUT IT WAS LONG BEFORE ANY ONE WAS FOUND BOLD ENOUGH, OR AVARICIOUS ENOUGH TO VENTURE.''
When I saw this person as a child, she was about two years old, and when Colonel Yule saw her, her eldest child was of the age of four years only, so that the probability is, that she did not obtain a husband until six-and- twenty, a very late age in a country in which marriage usually takes place at the age of puberty. I conclude, then, that a race of Albinos is no more likely to spring up than a race of men with hare-lips, or a race says,"
Ceylon A General_Description of the Island Historical Physical
"Albinism, which exhibits itself among all the fauna of Ceylon, is not confined to the animals, but occasionally breaks out among the natives: instances have occurred where they were spotted black and white, and with buff hair.
Although the Sinhalese evince a singular preference for elephants when marked in this manner, they consider it a great misfortune when it occurs amongst their children, and it has been supposed many are '* made away with " on this account.
COLONEL LOW, IN AN ARTICLE IN THE '' TRANSACTIONS OF THE BOYAL ASIATIC SOCIETY," GIVES AN ACCOUNT OF A MALAY ALBINO, A VERY STOUT MAN, RESEMBLING A FLORID EUROPEAN, WITH RED HAIR, BUT HIS CHILDREN WERE QUITE BLACK."
quote: AN ABORIGINAL ALBINO. A SEARCH IN THE FAR INTERIOR.
[b]On Friday there arrived in the colony, by the steamship Albany, from Perth [says the Melbourne Argus], a most re markable individual, in the person of a West Australian aboriginal named Jungun, who appears to possess all the peculiarities of an albino.[b]
Thus, remarkable as it may appear, he is able to converse freely with both classes of natives, while they cannot all speak with each other. Last April, while at Lagrange Bay, in the Kim-berley district, Mr. M'Phee was present at a corroboree where there were several natives from inland.
[b]THUS, REMARKABLE AS IT MAY APPEAR, HE IS ABLE TO CONVERSE FREELY WITH BOTH CLASSES OF NATIVES, WHILE THEY CANNOT ALL SPEAK WITH EACH OTHER. LAST APRIL, WHILE AT LAGRANGE BAY, IN THE KIM-BERLEY DISTRICT, MR. M'PHEE WAS PRESENT AT A CORROBOREE WHERE THERE WERE SEVERAL NATIVES FROM INLAND.
THEY HAD NEVER BEFORE MET A WHITE MAN, BUT TOLD THE COASTAL NATIVES AT THE CORROBOREE THAT THEY HAD SEEN A MAN MANY HUNDREDS OF MILES INLAND VERY MUCH LIKE MR. M'PHEE, WITH WHOSE, TO THEM, STRANGE APPEARANCE THEY WERE STRUCK. THEY REMARKED THAT THEY HAD SEEN THE PERSON ALLUDED TO ONLY ONCE.
THE COASTAL NATIVES TOLD MR. M'PHEE WHAT THEY HAD HEARD, AND HE AT ONCE CONCLUDED THAT SOME UNFORTUNATE WHITE MAN WAS FIX THIS TEXTDRAGGING OUT A MISERABLE EXISTENCE IN THE INTERIOR AMONGST THE BLACKS, AND IN JULY LAST/
HE SET OUT FROM YINNERDONG WITH THE PHILANTHROPIC OBJECT OF RESCUING HIM. THIS ACTION IS THE MORE NOTEWORTHY AND CREDITABLE FROM THE FACT THAT MR. M'PHEE HAD NEVER BEEN OUT EXPLORING, and in July last he set out from Yinnerdong with the philanthropic object of rescuing him. This action is the more noteworthy and creditable from the fact that Mr. M'Phee had never been out exploring...
He took with him only two coastal natives, young fellows, who are still with him, and six horses, one of the latter to carry nothing but water-bags. Mr. M'Phee was armed with a first-class repeat-ing rifle and two excellent revolvers, his aboriginal companions also having a revolver each. The party travelled 150 miles before hearing of the supposed whiteman, their course lying through country traversed by no other European but Julius Brockman, the pioneer of the Kimberley district.
He had gone through that portion of the country endeavouring to find a short cut to the head of the Fitzroy River, but had to turn back owing to the want of water. Mr. M'Phee, although hearing now and again some shadowy information as to Fix this textthe "white man," after travelling the 150 miles already mentioned, heard nothing reliable until he had gone over 270 miles of country.
AT LAST, AFTER MANY MISLEAD-ING REPORTS [UNINTENTIONALLY MISLEADIUG HOWEVER, MR. M'PHEE STATES] HE DIS-COVERED THE INDIVIDUAL HE WAS IN QUEST OF, AND ON FIRST SEEING HIM THOUGHT HE WAS INDEED A WHITE MAN. SUBSEQUENT OBSERVATIONS, HOWEVER, SHOWED THAT THE MAN WAS WITHOUT DOUBT AN ABORI- GINAL ALBINO, FOR HE POSSESSED ALL THE CHARACTERISTICS ABOUT THE EYES &C, OF AN ALBINO.
HE AGREED TO GO WITH MR. M'PHEE TO THE SETTLEMENTS, BUT THE LATTER, WISHING TO SEE HIS PARENTS, ARRANGED TO MEET AT A CERTAIN WATERHOLE LATER ON. A FORTNIGHT AFTER-WARDS MR. M'PHEE, WITH THE SAME TWO ABORIGINALS, WENT OUT AGAIN ALONG THE SAME TRACK AND FOUND JUNGUN, WITH HIS FATHER, MOTHER, AND TWO SISTERS, ALL OF WHOM WERE JET BLACK, LIKE ANY OTHER ABORIGINALS.
IN EIGHT DAYS AFTERWARDS MR. M'PHEE, THE TWO COASTAL BLACKS, AND THE ALBINO WERE BACK AT LAGRANGE BAY, JUNGUN HAVING AGREED QUITE WILLINGLY TO LEAVE HIS RELATIONS FOR THE TIME BEING. MR. M'PHEE EXHIBITED HIM IN PERTH, WHERE NEARLY A THOUSAND PERSONS SAW HIM, INCLUDING MESSRS.
GILES AND FORREST, THE EXPLORERS, AND MANY OTHER PROMINENT PERSONS. MR. M'PHEE THEN RESOLVED TO BRING JUNGUN AND THE TWO BLACKS WHO WENT WITH FIX THIS TEXTHIM ON THE SEARCH TO MELBOURNE, AND THERE EXHIBIT THEM. TO DO THIS HE HAD TO GIVE UP HIS EMPLOYMENT, AND PAY A DEPOSIT OF £10 FOR EACH NATIVE TO THE ABORIGINAL BOARD FOR THEIR RETURN.
Mr. M'Phee will probably add to the party Jungun's relations, and exhibit the whole in London and elsewhere. Jun-gun proves to be a really remarkable indi-vidual. He is 27 years old, and 5ft. 7in. in height, and has most of the appearance of an Australian black, yet the colour of his skin is only a shade darker than that of a Chinaman. He has long wavy hair of a golden hue, and a full beard, sandy in colour.
THE SKIN ON THE CROWN OF THE HEAD IS PERFECTLY WHITE, AND MR. M'PHEE THINKS THAT HAD JUNGUN BEEN SHELTERED FROM THE WEATHER DURING CHILD-HOOD, AS IN THE CASE OF CIVILISED PEOPLE, HE WOULD PROBABLY HAVE BEEN AT THE PRESENT TIME AS WHITE AS MOST EUROPEANS. HIS BODY IS COVERED WITH HAIR ABOUT A QUARTER OF AN INCH LONG, PERFECTLY WHITE, AND THE EYES HAVE THE PECULIAR APPEARANCE SO WELL KNOWN IN ALBINOS. Jungun is very docile and obeys every word and gesture of Mr M'Phee, yet he has seen some rough times, for the top of his head is a mass of old wounds. There is not a square inch of surface without more than one large gash, and he is credited himself with having killed two men in battle Jungun was terribly frightened of the sea when he first saw it, and also of the horses, and even swans, having scarcely ever in his part of the country, which is mostly desert, seen a bird of any kind.
Yes, if the term "black" is not valid, THEN WHY DID EUROPEAN COLONIAL WRITERS USE IT EXTENSIVELY TO DESCRIBE AND ASCERTAIN GROUPS/PEOPLES IN THE PAST AND STILL DO TO THIS DAY? Obviously the term is valid and is correctly used by people in this forum if that is the case.
The only people who are trying to make this into an issue are basically trolls and asswipes like lioness. This should end this thread...
end thread/
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Lol. He said "finally drop the bomb".
That so-called "bomb" is really a strawman attack I anticipated and nullified preemptively when I said what was quoted in the OP of this thread:
quote:No competent western, middle eastern or oriental academic who has seriously looked into this is going to use the term "black" (in a racial sense) when applied to dynastic Egyptians (although they might do it in a pigmentation sense, by saying they would have been dark brown).
Not that it worked, given the repeated strawman attacks... and mental constipation.
Posted by tropicals redacted (Member # 21621) on :
Swenet the odious, lying nutjob doesn't quit, does he? Gotta be some sort of personality disorder there...
I swing by this forum and still see the delusional loon, who avoided the hypothetical ancient Egyptian Hollywood casting question that I put to him 20 times, still making up sh1t about me...what kind of evasive, shameless freak avoids questions 20 times, and then still thinks themselves credible..anyway,I'm keeping my powder dry and trying not to waste time here, so much sh1t doing offline...I want to say more, reeaallly want to say more...but, for now, let's just say that I feel somewhat vindicated in my efforts...and that the following especially made me laugh....
quote: What's even more pathetic is that clowns like Tropicals Redacted have the audacity to pretend in public that Keita agrees with their position.
He doesn't (note that there is a convergence between Keita's views and the racist literature in terms of where Africans might cluster in cranio-facial analysis): https://youtu.be/qErhFiCvyKE?t=1m14s
Note that the man in the audience whom Keita is addressing talks just like Tropicals Redacted, Amun Ra and certain others here. From my experience, these people will simply NEVER get it. It's the same reason why you have 25 pages of this thread and so-called 'Egyptsearch veterans' arguing against what I'm saying with weak arguments. I bet that guy in that lecture is still going around repeating the same crap Keita told him to stay away from. Just like Tropicals Redacted, who has been repeatedly proven to be wrong, but still repeats his delusions.
When you confront these clowns they'll act like Keita is playing a game to 'please' European academics... that his caveats are 'optional' things that you can somehow take or leave. That's why I'm waiting for Tropicals Redacted to publish his "book" or "literature review" (lol!) and prove to the academics he's persecuting that he's more of a clown than them.
Also peep the mental blockage and how dense some of these people are. It's definitely a mental constipation thing that isn't going to go away any time soon, no matter how many times you try to explain it:
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
"Making sh!t up"? Lol. This is exactly the type of flip floppery, back-tracking and lies I need records of.
This is what the fraud said originally about Keita:
quote:Originally posted by Tropicals Redacted: Courtesy of that guy Salassin, who recorded their conversation, Keita says something like: Shomarka doesn't call you black, only himself, that's political. (The exact quote is somewhere below.) My point is that he obviously knows what the score is regarding the racial backgrounds of the Egyptians, but comes across as aloof, and at the same time timid - he even tried to advise Sally-Ann Ashton against using 'black' as a racial descriptor when referencing the Egyptians. I don't like it that we're supposed to repress our common sense and intuition just to placate racists, whether they're on the internet or in academia. No way.
^Today, he's calling me a liar for calling this out:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: When you confront these clowns they'll act like Keita is playing a game to 'please' European academics... that his caveats are 'optional' things that you can somehow take or leave. That's why I'm waiting for Tropicals Redacted to publish his "book" or "literature review" (lol!) and prove to the academics he's persecuting that he's more of a clown than them.
This is what the fraud originally said about Keita:
quote:Originally posted by Tropicals Redacted: I don't think I'm being radical, or diverging from the evidence here, but I'm pretty confident that if you took every indigenous ancient Egyptian skull ever found, and where possible, subjected them to 'blind' reconstruction under the supervision of someone with Keita-like knowledge...then most of the reconstructions would evoke someone of black African descent.
^Today, he's calling me a liar for calling this out:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: What's even more pathetic is that clowns like Tropicals Redacted have the audacity to pretend in public that Keita agrees with their position.
He doesn't (note that there is a convergence between Keita's views and the racist literature in terms of where Africans might cluster in cranio-facial analysis):
Lol. The fraud tried to invoke Keita, but Keita doesn't even share his beliefs when it comes to African variability and rigid terminology. The fact that the fraud keeps lying about his previous embarrassing positions lets you know that he's in a compromising position juggling selective aspect of Keita's work and ignoring others. But the very aspects in Keita's work that the fraud is deliberately ignoring, is precisely what he's trying to cover up in public when he tries to make it seem like Keita is in support of the aforementioned views. So, in essence, the fraud is citing Keita, even though he's going against Keita. SMH. The result of which is what you see above... lying, flip flopping and backtracking to make the embarrassing mess he's created, seem congruent.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
The fraud just keeps lying. Here is another example illustrating that the parts he's been so dogmatic about towards the academics he's been persecuting, are supported by NO bio-anthropologist, not even Keita:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet on 18 june 2014: [Participant's name removed] what would you call an indigenous North African component which is closer to non-Africans than equatorial Africans due to prehistoric substructure, but still indigenous? See, this paradox can easily exist and is the root cause behind a debate that's raging on right now. One wouldn't see it as associated with a particular set of equatorial Africans because such a component would seem hybrid (i.e. African and non-African) in origin, even though it isn't. Read this article to understand how substructure works. This specific article concerns Neanderthals, but you can easily see how it would work with certain North African ancestry. Could one capture this sort of ancestry under "black diversity" when "blacks" themselves are genetically distant from it?
The fraud's reaction (even though that post wasn't directed towards him):
quote:Originally posted by Tropicals Redacted: That's a very good way of highlighting the potential complexities surrounding the issue. I would say that they're certainly African, and intuit that their skin colour/phenotype would have fallen within the range of what we call black.
Note the forceful attempt the fit all indigenous Africans who've historically inhabited Africa in a "black phenotype", even though the specifics of the situation calls for an approach that doesn't have these pitfalls. Again, the fraud is now going to lie about this damning deviation from what the evidence is saying. But there is no denying that his main beef with the academics he's persecuting isn't backed by Keita's work and the other bio-anthropologists he's citing.
Of course, the fraud just claimed I was lying for stating that Keita doesn't agree with him on these issues. Who's the liar, now?
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: What's even more pathetic is that clowns like Tropicals Redacted have the audacity to pretend in public that Keita agrees with their position.
He doesn't (note that there is a convergence between Keita's views and the racist literature in terms of where Africans might cluster in cranio-facial analysis):
According to Keita's analysis (Keita 1990), a substantial amount (>40%) of first dynasty royal remains don't cluster as what this fraud calls "the black phenotype". (Actually, this is a somewhat problematic analysis to demonstrate this for several reasons [actual facial feature-based investigations, like the ones cited in Diop's work, could be more appropriate given the fraud's insistence on "black phenotype"] but it allows one to get an idea):
So, is the lying fraud being up front about this when he tries to:
1) bait academics into describing the AE as necessarily exhibiting a so-called "black African phenotype" (whatever the hell that means)?
2) create the impression that he's backed by Keita's and others' work when he's, in fact, going out on a limb while hiding behind Keita and others?
I don't think so. In my book that's called lying deliberately. In my book that's called 'you just wait and see how you're going to get torn apart when you go public'.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
^Correction.. the above is from Keita 1992, not Keita 1990.
quote:Originally posted by Tropicals Redacted: However, Keita points out that the light-skinned Berbers are indigenous Africans - generally, I wouldn't regard them as 'black'.
^Keep in mind that the fraud said that he doesn't regard light skinned Berber phenotypes as phenotypically 'black'. Let's look at what Keita says about the role that the Maghrebi/Berber cranio-facial pattern plays in dynastic Egypt:
The Maghreb series does have a modal pattern most similar to late lower dynastic Egyptians (Keita, 1990). —Keita 1992
The centroid values of the various upper Egyptian series viewed collectively are seen to vary over time. The general trend from Badari to Nakada times, and then from the Nakadan to the First Dynasty epochs demonstrate change toward the northern-Egyptian centroid value on Function I with similar values on Function 11. This might represent an average change from an Africoid (Keita, 1990) to a northern-Egyptian- Maghreb modal pattern. —Keita 1992
Here Keita says that the dynastic Egyptians were, morphologically speaking, typically somewhere between between two poles: the predynastic cranio-facial pattern and the Maghrebi cranio-facial pattern.
So, not only does Keita completely reject to his narrow, problematic terminology, but, according to this fraud's own self-contradicting commentary on Keita's views, he wouldn't consider a lot of dynastic Egyptians to have been phenotypically 'black'. So then, why is he insisting in public that phenotypically 'black' is a useful way to look at things and persecuting academics for holding out on such terminology?
Moreover, why is this fraud hiding behind Keita and other bio-anthroplogists who obviously don't agree with him?
And what happens when Keita entertains the idea these so-called "non-black Berbers" share a common ancestor with ancient Egyptians? What type of implications does that have for the fraud's misrepresentation of Keita and his self-contradicting use of 'black phenotype'?
The issue of how much Paleolithic migration from the Near East there may have been is intriguing, and the mitochondrial DNA variation may need to be reassessed as to what can be considered to be only of "Eurasian origin" because if hunters and gatherers roamed between the Saharan and supra-Saharan regions and Eurasia it might be difficult to determine exactly "where" a mutation arose. In any case the actual biocultural emergence of the archaeologically and historically attested Amazigh and Egyptians occurred in Africa; these peoples are not settler colonists in Africa. —Keita 2008
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
And just so we have it on record, in case he starts lying and acting like he doesn't know that he's been botching Keita deliberately. I already told the fraud in 2013 that many dynastic Egyptians had a similar cranio-facial pattern to his so-called "non-black" Berbers:
these pharaohs will plot somewhere in between the Naqada series and the Gizeh series (which is late dynastic).
And these Gizeh series, in turn, are halfway in between West Africans and Europeans. Unfortunately you can't see that here
Just taking a look...
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: The 19th dynasty Pharaoh's seem more halfway underway to[wards] modern Berbers and North Africans With the exception of some. Seti II looks [unambiguously] African to me. . . . But that's just me eyeballing.
So when he says that modern Maghrebis somehow aren't phenotypically 'black', but dynastic Egyptians with the same morphometric pattern aren't (under the same definition of the word), you know he's fidgeting with the data and with Keita's conclusion that dynastic Egyptian crania typically cluster with and somewhere in between predynastic Egyptians and dynastic lower Egyptians/Maghrebis.
Lol. Probably the greatest liar I've ever seen post on Egyptsearch and other anthro-fora. He literally lies about everything. Even the fact that he tampered with Kemp's quote. He actually thinks he's going to get away with his lies when he goes "public". SMH.
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Nodnarb. I know you already know this (you cautiously worded your observations about these white supremacists by talking in relative terms), so the following is not a statement for you as much as it is intended to preemptively take away room for Doug to spin his foul lies. (So good job not feeding into his "defending racists" crap and keeping it nuanced).
Doug and others have been desperately attempting to paint this discussion as an attempt on my part to apologize for white supremacists. These people keep lying about me and what this discussion is about, so let's not give them the big break they're looking for by getting distracted re: the real reason why Doug is spinning all these lies:
Doug's internalized self-victimization narrative requires him to lie about these old texts and paint them as racists in EVERY aspect of their coverage of Africa and ancient Egypt. According to Doug, they ALL claimed that the AE were pale skinned and blue eyed.
My only point has been that they were racist in a LOT, but mostly not in terms of the comparative populations they felt were close to the AE. But even so, as you know, this is still no reason to start handing out medals because most of them were STILL racists and anti-African. They were still trying to downplay and obscure in other areas.
Another thing to keep in mind regarding the old literature is that it admitted this mainly about predynastic Egyptians and later Egyptians of the predynastic physical type (e.g. "the old Egyptian type"), not necessarily about all later dynastic Egyptians. So that's another reason to be cautious with their work. That's why in my posts you can see that I've constantly tried to keep the goalpost on what they said about predynastic Egyptians.
But yeah, I agree with you. Generally, the anthropologists trained in bio-anthropology and the ethnic background of the AE obviously made the right call in the aforementioned areas. As Keita said, most of the old reports are consistent with the AE being eastern Saharan once you look past the nominal "white race" BS (i.e. very dark skinned eastern Saharan were, as an intact CLADE, lumped into the so-called "white race"; not just the Egyptians in isolation as Doug is fabricating) and put said reports in a modern evolutionary context. The people in charge with disseminating this to the public completely obscured this layer of complexity. You can't reconstruct this eastern Saharan connection back from the watered down statements of the internet trolls, hollywood, the media and others who are disseminating the information in these old reports to the public.
You can tell from his posts that Doug belongs to this confused bunch who are too challenged and biased to read the old reports in context.
Just wanna say that after all these months and me being absent from here I still grasps your POV...
Just know that some of us are not misinterpreting you.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
^Good to know. The reason why I've let this drag on so long is because I know people are already plotting behind the scenes how they're going to spin their lies and blunders. I've seen them spin their lies behind the scenes, and now that I have hindsight I can see even more instances where they were fidgeting with the facts. So I know for a fact they're lying right now with their little behind the scenes conversations with so-called "PhDs". When you see that these psychos are lying to themselves and so-called "PhDs" that they debated academics on their own (when they don't even know how to read a diagram in a paper), you know you're dealing with a true pathological liar who is capable of lying about anything. So I'm nipping that sh!t in the bud, immediately, proactively and continuously. Once lies are in print, you're already too late.
So that's why I've made your thread the public go-to place for my views. I've changed my views in a lot of ways in response to new data while I wasn't posting here full-time. So when I come back here and I say certain things, it makes it easier for people to lie about my positions and get these crybaby bystanders emotional. In reality, anyone following my posts on the FB group since 2013 would see a smooth progression based on sound evidence and reasoning. Every time I changed my views I discussed it and said why. Sometimes I ended up making the wrong call (e.g. interpreting Henn et al's Maghrebi/Iberomaurusian component as completely Eurasian ancestry), but mostly I think I can safely say I was close a lot of times.
This is definitely not one of those cases where I was wrong. The Upper Palaeolithic phenotypically "negroid" people who came out of Egypt and left their DNA in the eastern and northern Mediterranean did not primarily have ancestry that's consistent with the racial use of "black" (see the separation between Dinka and the red branch leading to Gokhem and Iceman). Their skin color would have been like what is on the Wadi Sura caves (I'm not going to label that type of skin pigmentation 'black' because I know some are going to use that as license to flip flop to the racial use of the term). They were to some extent mixed with people who have ancestry consistent with that racial term (e.g. humid Sahara migrants) but all or most of that wouldn't have been their native ancestry.
That's why you see that the amount of SSA ancestry in the Middle East is completely different from what you would expect if Egypt had the same ancestry composition as, say, South Africa. Some people think they can ignore this. They try to pretend that it's not relevant that the amount of SSA-specific ancestry in the northern and eastern neighbors of Egypt is trivial.
Right.. Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: We don't need a genetics chart to understand what racists mean when they say white. They mean skin color. That is the only thing that is relevant to this discussion.
This dude just doesn't get it. He's simply too slow to see the light, which is that aspects of the standard ES narrative were wrong and that select aspects of the old literature were right.
He's deluded to the point that he thinks genetics is irrelevant to settling the points of contention where there was friction between both schools of thought and thinks it's all a matter of skin color. Talk about mental constipation.
When Upper Palaeolithic aDNA from the ancestors of modern North Africans comes out, and it'll be parsed from possible outside influences, Doug and other clowns like Tropicals Redacted are going to be laughing stock and academics are going to eventually classify these buffoons in the same boat as creationists who think humans are 6000 years old.
Mark my words.
What on earth are you babbling on about? See how you jumped from the word black and white as references to skin color to Neantderthal DNA?
You are delusional and simply babbling.
Like I said, you lost this argument 20 pages ago but you believe just throwing around DNA and cranial metrics makes your dead argument look pretty in the casket.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
Interesting facial traits he has. He could stand in the role of a Pharao with eas.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: What on earth are you babbling on about? See how you jumped from the word black and white as references to skin color to Neantderthal DNA?
You are delusional and simply babbling.
Like I said, you lost this argument 20 pages ago but you believe just throwing around DNA and cranial metrics makes your dead argument look pretty in the casket.
Keep squeaking. I know who is talking—some random anonymous cat online who thinks there is meaning in calling every pre-colonial population in between the southern hemisphere and the northern tropic 'black'. But even then he makes wacky exceptions; if they brown-skinned, but have European ancestry, they're out of the boat of his 'black' category. Talk about special pleading. Yes, that's the same loony tune who thinks he's in any position to quibble with white supremacists he accuses of doing the same.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Doug, stop flip flopping.
According to you there are:
'Black' skinned Pinoy (Filipino folk) 'Black' skinned Indonesians 'Black' skinned aboriginals from the Philippines and elsewhere in the Pacific 'Black' skinned Africans 'Black' skinned South Asians 'Black' skinned Native Americans
But somehow 'black' skinned "Europids" is an inherent contradiction? If you think it's a contradiction and you bar "Europids" from having 'black' skin, it's because you're racializing 'black' and because you have all sorts of sneaky rules, exceptions and racial politics considerations when it comes to discerning who has 'black' skin.
Flip flopper.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: What on earth are you babbling on about? See how you jumped from the word black and white as references to skin color to Neantderthal DNA?
You are delusional and simply babbling.
Like I said, you lost this argument 20 pages ago but you believe just throwing around DNA and cranial metrics makes your dead argument look pretty in the casket.
Keep squeaking. I know who is talking—some random anonymous cat online who thinks there is meaning in calling every pre-colonial population in between the southern hemisphere and the northern tropic 'black'. But even then he makes wacky exceptions; if they brown-skinned, but have European ancestry, they're out of the boat of his 'black' category. Talk about special pleading. Yes, that's the same loony tune who thinks he's in any position to quibble with white supremacists he accuses of doing the same.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Doug, stop flip flopping.
According to you there are:
'Black' skinned Pinoy (Filipino folk) 'Black' skinned Indonesians 'Black' skinned aboriginals from the Philippines and elsewhere in the Pacific 'Black' skinned Africans 'Black' skinned South Asians 'Black' skinned Native Americans
But somehow 'black' skinned "Europids" is an inherent contradiction? If you think it's a contradiction and you bar "Europids" from having 'black' skin, it's because you're racializing 'black' and because you have all sorts of sneaky rules, exceptions and racial politics considerations when it comes to discerning who has 'black' skin.
Flip flopper.
What is 'black' skin? I thought that according to you 'black' is not a valid term for skin color?
See how you are flip flopping yourself in a thread where you have spent 25+ pages chasing your tail in circles?
Now you use the same word you claim isn't VALID in any discussion of biology to try and salvage some sort of 'victory'. But you just contradicted yourself. If 'black' skin doesn't exist, why are you so determined to associate it with Europe?
So stick to the point. Is there such a thing as skin color that can be described as 'black'? Yes or no?
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: See how you are flip flopping yourself in a thread where you have spent 25+ pages chasing your tail in circles?
Quote the alleged flip flops right now or it did not happen.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: the same word you claim isn't VALID in any discussion of biology to try and salvage some sort of 'victory'. But you just contradicted yourself.
'Black' in terms of skin pigmentation is not quantifiable and it's problematic for a variety of reasons (albeit far less problematic than certain other uses), sure. I wouldn't necessarily say 'black' in reference to skin is "invalid". The reason why I've said it's problematic isn't because I think it's "invalid". When people use 'black' in reference to a range of brown skin pigmentation they know it's figurative so it's not a matter of "valid" or "invalid". That's like asking "Is a fictional theater play valid". You're not making any sense.
But since you say I've contradicted myself by using the term in a condoning manner, let's see you quote where I've used it in this way. And if you're referring to the instances in which I merely provide commentary on the term 'black' there is something really wrong with you.
Posted by tropicals redacted (Member # 21621) on :
quote: ^Good to know. The reason why I've let this drag on so long is because I know people are already plotting behind the scenes how they're going to spin their lies and blunders. I've seen them spin their lies behind the scenes, and now that I have hindsight I can see even more instances where they were fidgeting with the facts. So I know for a fact they're lying right now with their little behind the scenes conversations with so-called "PhDs". When you see that these psychos are lying to themselves and so-called "PhDs" that they debated academics on their own (when they don't even know how to read a diagram in a paper), you know you're dealing with a true pathological liar who is capable of lying about anything. So I'm nipping that sh!t in the bud, immediately, proactively and continuously. Once lies are in print, you're already too late.
So-called PhDs? The boy's lost it. Tragic.
Swenet, how many times did you avoid the Hollywood question? Twenty. Just because you couldn't face the reality of referring to Ethiopians and Somalis as black. Buffoon.
See how your deranged insistence on being right makes you look like a clown?
Posted by tropicals redacted (Member # 21621) on :
Message from Swenet 02/07/2012
quote: You've made a thread about Frank Yurco's antics regarding the appearance of Egyptians in certain versions of the book of gates. I believe the biases of many Egyptologists regarding the evidence of a predominantly African Egypt, including the Egyptologists under discussion here, are all symptoms of the same disease.
I do not believe Wilkinson or Kemp would ever go to the lengths of misinforming the public as much as certain researchers in the Theban Mapping Project and Yurco have done in the past, but they all display symptoms of the same disposition.
Thanks for bringing the Barry Kemp issue to our attention, its always good to know that some scholars, who on the surface seem to be on your wavelength, are saying contradicting stuff elsewhere.
BTW, this happens with Physical Anthropologists too. Not too long ago, a poster named Charlie Bass exposed a female Physical Anthropologist name K Godde, who concluded from her cranio-facial work in '09 that Nubians and Egyptians were mostly indistinguishable, and that some Nubian groups were closer to Egyptians than some Egyptians were to those Egyptian samples.
She cited Keita and also synthesized a lot of work in the area, which generally came to the same conclusion (about Egypto-Nubian mutual inclusivity).
She said a lot of things that were off in what she thought would remain a private email conversation between her and Sundiata (another poster who emailed her), but the thing that struck me as flatout bizarre and surreal, is that she actually believed we'd have to go back to Homo Erectus to find a common ancestor between the Nubian population, and the Egyptian population!!
In private, she also said Nubians were distinct from Sub Saharan Africans, even though she cites Keita, and notes several times that Nubians and Ancient Egyptians also show ties to Sub Saharan people.
I guess the thing to be learned from this all is to generally not make assumptions about the views of researchers who cite the same/similar studies we're citing to reinforce our positions, even if they explicitly lend credence to those works.
Take care
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
quote:Originally posted by tropicals redacted: Message from Swenet 02/07/2012
This was 4 years ago?
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
^See what I mean when I say that he's a bald-faced liar?
You (Beyoku) were there the entire time so you know the various papers that were influential in my thinking. He knows about the same papers and changes in my thinking, because he's seen me comment on them and adjust my views, IN REAL TIME, as the papers were coming out. Real time:
quote: Definition of real time : the actual time during which something takes place "the computer may partly analyze the data in real time (as it comes in) — R. H. March"
But we don't even have to take it there (i.e. talk about evolution in my views in response to better data) because I know for a fact that even then, in 2012, I told his lying ass that those SSA-lower Nile Valley ties I talked about in that 2012 private exchange were exactly that—ties.
quote:Full Definition of tie 1 a : a line, ribbon, or cord used for fastening, uniting, or drawing something closed; especially : shoelace b (1) : a structural element (as a rod or angle iron) holding two pieces together : a tension member in a construction (2) : any of the transverse supports to which railroad rails are fastened to keep them in line 2 : something that serves as a connecting link: as a : a moral or legal obligation to someone or something typically constituting a restraining power, influence, or duty b : a bond of kinship or affection
I DARE his lying dumb ass to prove me wrong. I NEVER said, implied or left room for interpretation that SSAs can accommodate ALL (pre)dynastic Egyptian and Nubian variations or the other way around.
Like I said earlier, I'm very appreciative of all these records of his bald-faced lies.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
This was the liar in 2013 walking on eggshells around me in private conversations when it came to Egyptians and Nubians being primarily developments on eastern Saharan soil, not as-is transplants from SSA. He knew I didn't play that partisanship crap he's now trying to associate me with:
29-10-2013
quote:Ok. So it's fair to say that the image of the woman was Egyptian royalty, even though the identification is unclear? Whilst remembering the caveats around stereotyping and the fact of diversity, does the image strike you as African?
Somewhere down the line that liar thought he knew it all and started changing his tune. He can't even read and understand a paper but this dumb ass actually thought he could lecture people on the Egyptian skeletal record. Classic case of hubris-fueled novice trying to bite the hand that feeds him:
22-06-2014
quote:then most of the reconstructions would evoke someone of black African descent
Posted by Fourty2Tribes (Member # 21799) on :
I have a piss easy time with the debates like the one on http://historum.com
To put it simple its 90% framing and the truth is on your side. One key is to not deal in absolutes. I simply contend that Ancient Egypt was by the common dictionary/state/nation definitions of black, black in abundance and Greece was a far better example of a multiracial society as defined by modern terms. I like to keep it simple too with lots of pics. One picture of baby oil and afro-picks are worth several anthropological studies on limb ratios.
Never use the term Nubian. Trust me on that one.
Also when people post picks of modern Egyptians go to the history of occupations. Always note that Greece moved their capital there. Egypt wasnt just invaded it was occupied by people who had to bring enough manpower to not just quail insurrection but to progress against the Sudan until future invading forces came in even greater numbers to remove them. Then post pictures of ancient Egyptians and ask has their skin lightened?
When people argue that Egypt is not close to African Americans break out tribal history and culture. Example.
Always go back to history, art and DNA to collaborate. You have to know your art starting with the tomb of Ramses iii and Seti.
Also I don't use the term negroid except in this context.
The very term Negroid was created with such features abound in predynastic Egyptian art down to at least one Cleopatra bust.
North Africa
Prognathous (protruding jaws)
Steatopygia aka fat high ass
wide noses
Long flat skulls Like Tut…
Dark Skin Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
As soon as Doug is asked to back up the alleged "flip flops" he's accused me of, he's nowhere to be seen.
Also note how deliberately silent Doug was every time I proved him wrong about his fabrication that Eurocentric bio-anthropologists were engaging in pseudo-science when their measurements seemingly supported their argument.
The Eurocentric scholars who assigned dark skinned Africans to the "white race" were doing the same thing Doug is doing when he's assigning precolonial non-African populations in the tropics to his 'black' category. But now it turns out that he is even going a step further than that. Here, in Doug's own words:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Wow Clyde. It seems you have come full circle after disagreeing with me on this when I said it in the past.
But that said, I still don't rule out direct contact from Africa over the centuries before European contact. The problem is finding the evidence. Not only that, I also believe there was contact with other parts of the world as well.... but that is a whole different subject.
^Over the last 25 thread pages he ranted on and on about Eurocentric appropriation. Look what he says in the other forum (note that he was careful not to ever say that here). This lunatic is obviously engaging in appropriation as well. But he thinks he's somehow a special snowflake. Uniquely victimized by Eurocentric appropriation.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Thanks to lioness' pic (which captures a good deal of UP European cranio-facial variation) I can convey the point I've been making throughout this thread, better.
UP Europeans (left) and holocene Nile Valley Africans (right)
^Based on eyeballing, the African one in the middle (in the right hand pic) shows a good degree of general resemblance to two of the UP European ones. The two other African ones also show resemblances to the UP Europeans, but more in isolated parts of their faces, mandibles and neurocrania. In the ancestors of these North Africans the relationships would be even more obvious.
Note how, every time I bring this up, Doug keeps skirting around the fact that these two sets would show a lot of general overlap to the exclusion of most Sub-Saharan populations when subjected to PCA.
Doug also keeps skirting around the fact that this EMPIRICAL FACT plays a role in Eurocentric appropriation. Doug is simply lying at this point and trying to keep his self-victimization narrative from getting blown to smithereens.
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes: One picture of baby oil and afro-picks are worth several anthropological studies on limb ratios.
Word of advice, take is as you wish....
If this is the case then yall are not having an intellectual discussion. I would suggest to stay far away from habits like this, you could do this for years and your own understanding of the science and bio-cultural origins of the region will not advance one iota. We would fast forward to year 2020 and you would be asking questions about Basal Eurasian, Ethio-Somali or the origin and distribution of A3b2 - Stuff that you should know right now.
Posted by Fourty2Tribes (Member # 21799) on :
quote:Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes: One picture of baby oil and afro-picks are worth several anthropological studies on limb ratios.
Word of advice, take is as you wish....
If this is the case then yall are not having an intellectual discussion. I would suggest to stay far away from habits like this, you could do this for years and your own understanding of the science and bio-cultural origins of the region will not advance one iota. We would fast forward to year 2020 and you would be asking questions about Basal Eurasian, Ethio-Somali or the origin and distribution of A3b2 - Stuff that you should know right now.
I'm not saying there isnt an intellectual aspect to this thread but one fact makes this thread 90% Uckery and 10% intellectual.
Race is all opinion and nothing but opinion.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes: One picture of baby oil and afro-picks are worth several anthropological studies on limb ratios.
quote: Tropically adapted groups also have relatively longer distal limb elements (tibia and radius, as compared to femur and humerus) than groups in colder climates.
Matt Cartmill, Fred H. Smith - 2011 - Social Science
The Human Lineage
Posted by Fourty2Tribes (Member # 21799) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes: One picture of baby oil and afro-picks are worth several anthropological studies on limb ratios.
quote: Tropically adapted groups also have relatively longer distal limb elements (tibia and radius, as compared to femur and humerus) than groups in colder climates.
Matt Cartmill, Fred H. Smith - 2011 - Social Science
The Human Lineage
This has already been explained to me but thanks. My point was that since race is what you make of it I personally take more from afro-picks, waves, extensions, and oil for the skin than what essentially equates to lankiness and heat dissipation.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes: This has already been explained to me but thanks. My point was that since race is what you make of it I personally take more from afro-picks, waves, extensions, and oil for the skin than what essentially equates to lankiness and heat dissipation. [/QB]
what you are interpreting as afro picks are not afro picks
^this is a victorian comb. It's called an ornamental comb. You stick it in your hair and leave it there. The top part is sticking out as decoration
here's more decorative combs:
Ornamental combs, ancient Egypt
____________________________________
This one is for actually combing your hair (or wig)
comb, Amarna, 18th Dynasty (New Kingdom), c.1352-1356 BC
Comb, Amarna, Dynasty 18, reign of Akhenaten (1353-1336 BCE), Wood Egyptians carved double-sided combs much like modern examples with thick teeth on one side and fine teeth along the other. Ancient hairstyles, especially those of women, were often quite elaborate. Combs like this would have been used for both natural hair and for wigs which were worn by both men and women.
Double-Sided Ivory Comb - BF.125
Origin: Egypt Circa: 1500 BC to 1100 BC Dimensions: 2.80" (7.1cm) high x 3.75" (9.5cm) wide Collection: Egyptian Antiquities Style: New Kingdom Medium: Wood and Paint For ancient Egyptians, appearance was an important issue. Appearance indicated a person’s status, role in a society or political significance. Like modern hairstyles, Egyptian hairstyles varied over time. During the Old Kingdom, hair was usually worn short. Some shaved their heads and then wore a wig when going to social events or for protection from the sun. During the New Kingdom Period, the style was to wear the hair longer and sometimes braided. Children’s heads were shaved, except for a braid on the left side, until they hit puberty. Combs of the New Kingdom were either single or double-sided and made from wood or bone. The hot dry atmosphere in Egypt helps to preserve wood that was normally imported from other countries. Traces of red paint are still visible on this comb. Some of them were finely made with long grips. Combs have been found among early tomb goods, even those dating from Predynastic times. This comb may have been part of a funeral equipment. -
Queen Tiye with wig Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by lioness: what you are interpreting as afro picks are not afro picks
They might be afro picks, but you're partially right, they're not NECESSARILY afro picks.
But he knows they weren't necessarily afro picks. But you gotta play along with the kumbaya game. This is the point at which we're supposed to say "Wow, really? Afro picks. Damn. They all had afro-type hair". *Wink, wink*.
People in this topic are like the weak-minded dude in matrix that couldn't deal with the truth and wanted the amnesia pill to go back to the lie aka the matrix. Doug and certain other washed up 'vets' are spearheading the movement. All you have to do to sign up is play along and act like you never seen a study on ancient Egyptian hair types, skeletal remains, etc.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes: One picture of baby oil and afro-picks are worth several anthropological studies on limb ratios.
quote: Tropically adapted groups also have relatively longer distal limb elements (tibia and radius, as compared to femur and humerus) than groups in colder climates.
Matt Cartmill, Fred H. Smith - 2011 - Social Science
The Human Lineage
This has already been explained to me but thanks. My point was that since race is what you make of it I personally take more from afro-picks, waves, extensions, and oil for the skin than what essentially equates to lankiness and heat dissipation.
Oh, ok.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: [QB]
quote:Originally posted by lioness: what you are interpreting as afro picks are not afro picks
They might be afro picks, but you're partially right, they're not NECESSARILY afro picks.
yes, some of the combs might also function as "afro picks".
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes: This has already been explained to me but thanks. My point was that since race is what you make of it I personally take more from afro-picks, waves, extensions, and oil for the skin than what essentially equates to lankiness and heat dissipation
"what you are interpreting as afro picks are not afro picks"
quote:Origins of the Afro Comb follows the evolution of the comb from pre-dynastic Egypt to modern-day, tracing the similarities in form and the remarkablediversity of designs found across Africa and the African Diaspora.
quote: Careful removal of the upper layer of matting and linen pads around the head resulted in the preservation of her entire head of hair, revealing a shoulder-length style of natural waves extending c.22cm from the crown of the head with a left side parting and asymmetrical fringe made up of S-shaped curls bordering the forehead. In addition to the excellent preservation of the cranial hair, the right eyebrow also survived.
quote:Finely carved ivory combs and knife handles produced toward the end of Egypt's prehistory demonstrate the high standards Egyptian artists had achieved, even before the Old Kingdom. This comb may have been part of the funeral equipment of an elite person who lived about 5,200 years ago. Parts of the comb's teeth, now missing, can be seen along the bottom edge. The detailed decoration suggests that it was a ceremonial object, not just an instrument for arranging the hair. On both sides are figures of animals in horizontal rows, a spatial organization familiar from later Egyptian art. The animals include elephants and snakes; wading birds and a giraffe; hyenas; cattle; and perhaps boars. Similar arrangements of these creatures on other carved ivory implements suggest that the arrangement and choice of animals were not haphazard. Elephants treading on snakes suggest that this part of the scene was symbolic. The mythologies of many African peoples associate elephants and serpents with the creation of the universe. The uppermost row of this comb may symbolize a creative deity to whom the rest of the animals owe their existence. Comb, Predynastic Period, ca. 3200 B.C. Egyptian Ivory; H. 2 1/4 in. (5.7 cm)
Theodore M. Davis Collection, Bequest of Theodore M. Davis, 1915 (30.8.224)
quote: Six ivory combs were found in the same area of the tomb. One of them has carved on its top the figurine of an animal with long legs and a prominent nose, but broken off ears. It is possibly a donkey. The other five combs have flat tops and are square or rectangular in shape. These are all made of hippopotamus ivory.
quote:Originally posted by lioness: what you are interpreting as afro picks are not afro picks
They might be afro picks, but you're partially right, they're not NECESSARILY afro picks.
yes, some of the combs might also function as "afro picks".
I think it's the other way around. I think they were originally afro picks (look at their overall shape, you can't deny that they're tailored to afro type hair) and then later the traditional designs were maintained even when they diffused to (North) African populations who might not all have had majorities with afro type hair.
When the designs and dimensions of a cultural item (in this case, narrow combs with elongated handles and needles) is constrained over thousands of years it's not a coincidence. Yes, Europeans might have had similar shaped combs here and there but the shapes of their combs were much more varied (e.g. including combs with wider shapes).
Read this again. The combs are part of a larger cultural complex:
And many of these people would have had afro hair. Captives with afro hair either indigenous to predynastic Egypt or some place nearby on predynastic palette:
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:"this is a victorian comb. It's called an ornamental comb. You stick it in your hair and leave it there. The top part is sticking out as decoration"
That is what whites like you do, but the combs at Hierakonpolis had a different purpose. But yeah, you can leave in the hair!
quote: Raw footage taken in the Cairo Museum of several Afro wigs dating to the 18th Dynasty found in the tomb of a high priest of Amun from Thebes, modern day Luxor. The wigs are all human hair with added braided extensions in the back. They were coated with animal fats and beeswax.
quote: The waters of this well are reputed to be effective in curing skin complaints and those who make use of it are still in the habit of leaving behind offerings of soap and combs.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: [qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes: This has already been explained to me but thanks. My point was that since race is what you make of it I personally take more from afro-picks, waves, extensions, and oil for the skin than what essentially equates to lankiness and heat dissipation
You are desperate, jealous and dishonest. [QB]
Of what and about what? You are proving my point. Afro-picks, skin oil, weaves, hair extensions and you left out waves
have more to do with how people define race than lankiness.
When I bring up how some white people are very lanky just in terms of having long arms and legs people bring up limb ratios between bones which might be more signature to modern people called black or white but this is never demonstrated because its never been tested. Is a white dude like Cole Aldrich who very long arms and wide shoulders have an African body type or does his limb ratio still cluster with white people? The answer is only going to be theory because its not tested.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
^There are a few people here who don't know who the quotes are arranged. And you are one of them, Fourty2Tribes. Look at the post again, and look at the first name; Originally posted by "the lioness". That's the person being addressed. Your name appeared second.
And if you use logic, you can see what my post is about. So logically it conveys a story.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
And many of these people would have had afro hair. Captives with afro hair either indigenous to predynastic Egypt or some place nearby on predynastic palette:
[/QB]
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
And many of these people would have had afro hair. Captives with afro hair either indigenous to predynastic Egypt or some place nearby on predynastic palette:
[/QB]
You cannot tell much about ethnicity based on the hair and beard depicted here. Asian, African, ?, etc
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
^ LOL at the above, the same nonsense euronut game again.
This is more than just pathetic. It shows how mentally sick AND racist you are. What is the background of these folks you posted, please? lol
Now the indigenous people are being swiped away quickly by lioness, and replaced by cold adapted europeans, for political convenience. Typical. Cool African American black woman imposter.
quote:There is now a sufficient body of evidence from modern studies of skeletal remains to indicate that the ancient Egyptians, especially southern Egyptians, exhibited physical characteristics that are within the range of variation for ancient and modern indigenous peoples of the Sahara and tropical Africa.
In general, the inhabitants of Upper Egypt and Nubia had the greatest biological affinity to people of the Sahara and more southerly areas
[...]
Any interpretation of the biological affinities of the ancient Egyptians must be placed in the context of hypothesis informed by the archaeological, linguistic, geographic or other data.
In this context the physical anthropological evidence indicates that the early Nile Valley populations can be identified as part of an African lineage, but exhibiting local variation.
This variation represents the short and long term effects of evolutionary forces, such as gene flow, genetic drift, and natural selection influenced by culture and geography"
--Kathryn A. Bard (STEPHEN E. THOMPSON Egyptians, physical anthropology of Physical anthropology)
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
^It's called being objective, the hair type and ethnicity is unknown on that palette. They are not Egyptians, it is unknown who they are
For instance, are they African or Asian? How light is their skin? You can't tell be looking at the palette and I think SOY Keita would agree with me. That is called being scientific and not assuming things without basis -not "euronut" or "sick"
Enough paranoia and slander. It's your knee-jerk reactions at play again
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: ^It's called being objective, the hair type and ethnicity is unknown on that palette. They are not Egyptians, it is unknown who they are
For instance, are they African or Asian? How light is their skin? You can't tell be looking at the palette and I think SOY Keita would agree with me. That is called being scientific and not assuming things without basis -not "euronut" or "sick"
Enough paranoia and slander. It's your knee-jerk reactions at play again
It is not objective, it's dumb and stupid game you play as usually. Especially after the post prior to this one, it's even more stupid. That is why you are laughing stock and known as a racist! You are a coward who hides behind a character, as an; "American American black woman". smh
Knee-jerk reactions are when you post random pics of folks who's background you don't know. You've posted those same pictures how many times? For multiple historical purposes, on many continents at different time zones. lol And now again try to push them as a relevant argument to proto-Egyptians. But at the same time, Africans in recent or classical Europe you'll fight off with tooth and nail as you become paranoid. Totally dishonest, a racist and a liar you are. lol
quote:"Many of the sites reveal evidence of important interactions between Nilotic and Saharan groups during the formative phases of the Egyptian Predynastic Period (e.g. Wadi el-Hôl, Rayayna, Nuq’ Menih, Kurkur Oasis). Other sites preserve important information regarding the use of the desert routes during the Protodynastic and Pharaonic Periods, particularly during periods of political and military turmoil in the Nile Valley (e.g. Gebel Tjauti, Wadi el-Hôl)."
quote:Pleistocene through to the Christian periods, reveals a break in population continuity between the Pleistocene (Jebel Sahaba) and the Final Neolithic (Gebel Ramlah, dating to the first half of the fifth millennium BC) samples. The dental traits from Jebel Sahaba align more closely with modern sub-Saharan populations, while Gebel Ramlah and later align closer to Egypt specifically and to the Sahara in general."
--Michael Brass
Reconsidering the emergence of social complexity in early Saharan pastoral societies, 5000 – 2500 B.C.
quote:"As a result of their facial prognathism, the Badarian sample has been described as forming a morphological cluster with Nubian, Tigrean, and other southern (or "Negroid") groups (Morant, 1935, 1937; Mukherjee et al., 1955; Nutter, 1958, Strouhal, 1971; Angel, 1972; Keita, 1990). Cranial nonmetric trait studies have found this group to be similar to other Egyptians, including much later material (Berry and Berry, 1967, 1972), but also to be significantly different from LPD material (Berry et al., 1967). Similarly, the study of dental nonmetric traits has suggested that the Badarian population is at the centroid of Egyptian dental samples (Irish, 2006), thereby suggesting similarity and hence continuity across Egyptian time periods. From the central location of the Badarian samples in Figure 2, the current study finds the Badarian to be relatively morphologically close to the centroid of all the Egyptian samples. The Badarian have been shown to exhibit greatest morphological similarity with the temporally successive EPD (Table 5). Finally, the biological distinctiveness of the Badarian from other Egyptian samples has also been demonstrated (Tables 6 and 7).
These results suggest that the EDyn do form a distinct morphological pattern. Their overlap with other Egyptian samples (in PC space, Fig. 2) suggests that although their morphology is distinctive, the pattern does overlap with the other time periods. These results therefore do not support the Petrie concept of a \Dynastic race" (Petrie, 1939; Derry, 1956). Instead, the results suggest that the Egyptian state was not the product of mass movement of populations into the Egyptian Nile region, but rather that it was the result of primarily indigenous development combined with prolonged small-scale migration, potentially from trade, military, or other contacts.
This evidence suggests that the process of state formation itself may have been mainly an indigenous process, but that it may have occurred in association with in-migration to the Abydos region of the Nile Valley. This potential in-migration may have occurred particularly during the EDyn and OK. A possible explanation is that the Egyptian state formed through increasing control of trade and raw materials, or due to military actions, potentially associated with the use of the Nile Valley as a corridor for prolonged small scale movements through the desert environment."
--Sonia R. Zakrzewski. (2007). Population Continuity or Population Change: Formation of the Ancient Egyptian State. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 132:501-509)
quote:Originally posted by lioness: ^It's called being objective, the hair type and ethnicity is unknown on that palette.
All the defeated figures on the fragments of that palette have afro type hair, seemingly without exception. Are you saying you know of a West Eurasian population where afro type hair is the modal phenotype? Yes or no. Don't skirt around the question.
quote:Originally posted by lioness: They are not Egyptians, it is unknown who they are
The prospect of them being predynastic Egyptian natives unsettles you, doesn't it? I've never said they were necessarily inhabitants of Egypt. Yet, for some reason, you feel the need to rule this out. Then you strangely admit that you don't know their origin. So why do you rule something out when you don't have any grounds to do so?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: [QB]
quote:Originally posted by lioness: ^It's called being objective, the hair type and ethnicity is unknown on that palette.
All the defeated figures on the fragments of that palette have afro type hair,
It could be afro hair but how do we know it's not non-afro curly hair?
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by lioness: ^It's called being objective, the hair type and ethnicity is unknown on that palette.
All the defeated figures on the fragments of that palette have afro type hair,
It could be afro hair but how do we know it's not non-afro curly hair?
How was Afro-hair depicted during classical and ancient times? Ps, impostor black woman, Afro-hair has many textures, also that of a loose type, aka "curly".
quote: The Narmer Palette: The victorious king of the south
The reverse side
A few palettes from the predynastic period have been found, some like the Bull Palette similar in content and style to the Narmer Palette which was found at Hierakonpolis and dates to about 3200 BCE.
The Social and Ritual Contextualisation of Ancient Egyptian Hair and Hairstyles from the Protodynastic to the End of the Old Kingdom Volume 1
--Geoffrey John Tassie
Posted by Fourty2Tribes (Member # 21799) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: ^There are a few people here who don't know who the quotes are arranged. And you are one of them, Fourty2Tribes. Look at the post again, and look at the first name; Originally posted by "the lioness". That's the person being addressed. Your name appeared second.
And if you use logic, you can see what my post is about. So logically it conveys a story.
Lol sorry
Posted by Fourty2Tribes (Member # 21799) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: ^It's called being objective, the hair type and ethnicity is unknown on that palette. They are not Egyptians, it is unknown who they are
For instance, are they African or Asian? How light is their skin? You can't tell be looking at the palette and I think SOY Keita would agree with me. That is called being scientific and not assuming things without basis -not "euronut" or "sick"
Shouldn't we assume that the depictions of people found in Egypt represent people living there. Remember this was a civil war.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: ^There are a few people here who don't know who the quotes are arranged. And you are one of them, Fourty2Tribes. Look at the post again, and look at the first name; Originally posted by "the lioness". That's the person being addressed. Your name appeared second.
And if you use logic, you can see what my post is about. So logically it conveys a story.
Lol sorry
It's ok.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: ^It's called being objective, the hair type and ethnicity is unknown on that palette. They are not Egyptians, it is unknown who they are
For instance, are they African or Asian? How light is their skin? You can't tell be looking at the palette and I think SOY Keita would agree with me. That is called being scientific and not assuming things without basis -not "euronut" or "sick"
Shouldn't we assume that the depictions of people found in Egypt represent people living there. Remember this was a civil war.
Lioness think pattern is different when it comes to Africa. Every other continent is culturally uplifted by lioness as, to be of indigenous people. But when it comes to Africa, lioness applies a different approach.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: It could be afro hair but how do we know it's not non-afro curly hair?
Let's face reality.
quote: Abstract
Artificial mummification in ancient Egypt involved the application of chemicals to the body mostly for the purpose of preservation; others were applied for ritual aspects. Unguents were used also in everyday toilette.
Here we report a type of material which was applied specifically to the hair, a fatty material used as a ‘hair gel’. Personal appearance was important to the ancient Egyptians so much so that in cases where the hair was styled the embalming process was adapted to preserve the hair style.
This further ensured that the deceased’s individuality was retained in death, as it had been in life, and emphasises the importance of the hair in ancient Egyptian society.
Ancient Egyptian hair gel: new insight into ancient Egyptian mummification procedures through chemical analysis
Again, one cannot determine if this is afro hair, large curl non-afro hair, or afro hair treated with gel
I have seen one book speculate that they are Libyans due to penis sheaths and another book call them Nubian most researchers are unable to determine who they are
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness the racist bigot,: Battlefield Palette
Again, one cannot determine if this is afro hair, large curl non-afro hair, or afro hair treated with gel
I have seen one book speculate that they are Libyans due to penis sheaths and another book call them Nubian most researchers are unable to determine who they are
Repost, how was Afro-texture hair being portrayed during classical and ancient times? I already posted about the local inhabitants of that time, from the region. lol
You are a funny indiviual. Always looking for a way to derail the subject, that's your favorite game play. Now it's supposed ancient "Libyans or Nubians"? lol as if that will change a thing. However the question becomes, why then did you post those white dudes? lol SMH
Was it your convenient eyeballing?
Posted by Nodnarb (Member # 3735) on :
Moving back to topic...
As beyoku and others have said, there's not much to be gained from starting Internet fights about the "race" of the AE. Most opponents are, frankly, ignoramuses who have already made up their minds and can't contribute much to your own knowledge of the topic. You might as well be arguing with creationists.
If what you're trying to do is influence media portrayals, I've decided this is a bit like arguing for more diversity in movies, video games, or whatever. You can make all the noise you want, but the odds that the powers that be in Hollywood, video game studios, comic book publishing, etc. are going to listen to you are slim even without accounting for the opposition. I say it's better to make your own contributions to the media than to pester Big Hollywood/Ubisoft/Marvel/whatever about it.
That's one of the reasons I've become an artist and writer and am studying video game design these days. I have more control that way.
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
^^^But what if the true origins of the Ancient Egyptians become more mainstream to the media? Are big Hollywood gonna ignore facts?
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote: Originally posted by Nodnarb: Moving back to topic...
Thanks.
Posted by Nodnarb (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: ^^^But what if the true origins of the Ancient Egyptians become more mainstream to the media? Are big Hollywood gonna ignore facts?
Maybe not, since they might figure African Egyptians would score diversity points and maybe more dough and less controversy. But that would require our perspective expanding past the perceived "noisy kooks" point in mainstream acceptance. Do you see that happening anytime soon?
Posted by Fourty2Tribes (Member # 21799) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: ^^^But what if the true origins of the Ancient Egyptians become more mainstream to the media? Are big Hollywood gonna ignore facts?
I just finished a script. Trying to crowed fund the promotion soon.
Posted by kdolo (Member # 21830) on :
"But what if the true origins of the Ancient Egyptians become more mainstream to the media? Are big Hollywood gonna ignore facts?
YES. when it comes to AE, this is exactly what they do and will do until it becomes economically unsustainable.
You have to understand that just about everything relies upon the idea of a non-Black Ancient Egypt. The notion is a main pillar of White Supremacy. Furthermore, Hollywood is owner and run by Ashkenazi Jews. They don't take kindly to the notion that 1. They have NOTHING to do with the Hebrews of the Bible (Moses and Hebrews coming out of Egypt and 2. All those people in the Bible and their religion comes from Blacks.
Gentile and Jew Albinos have a community of interest - especially in America with the always potentially volatile and aggressive Black population. They most certainly don't want to have anything to do with providing anything that may improve African American esteem and self perception.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by kdolo: "But what if the true origins of the Ancient Egyptians become more mainstream to the media? Are big Hollywood gonna ignore facts?
YES. when it comes to AE, this is exactly what they do and will do until it becomes economically unsustainable.
You have to understand that just about everything relies upon the idea of a non-Black Ancient Egypt. The notion is a main pillar of White Supremacy.
Give one example of a white supremacist manifesto or credo that even mentions ancient Egypt
You are building a straw man
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
I'm just waiting for an explanation as to why these comedians try to disown half of the dynastic Egyptian population and still think they're onto something when they say AE fits their supposedly inclusive use of 'black'. Or when they claim that the dividing line for 'black' is and has always been dark skin pigmentation. See what I mean when I say that they're secretly sorting based on perceived race, not skin pigmentation? A lot of the personalities depicted in what some think were "immigrants" or "forgeries" in the upper picture were painted as having dark skin in other artworks that have their paint preserved (e.g. painting of Ka'aper). So, yes, they're authentic portrayals of ancient Egyptians; there is nothing "questionable" about them.
Regardless of whether explanations are going to be forthcoming, thanks for undoing 25 thread pages of Doug's fabrications and proving me right.
quote:Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes: ^^ This is why point at the Sphinx and change the subject to Europe I'm working on a promotion video for a script I wrote for the big screen. In the video I contrast this with this.
Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by kdolo: "But what if the true origins of the Ancient Egyptians become more mainstream to the media? Are big Hollywood gonna ignore facts?
YES. when it comes to AE, this is exactly what they do and will do until it becomes economically unsustainable.
You have to understand that just about everything relies upon the idea of a non-Black Ancient Egypt. The notion is a main pillar of White Supremacy.
Give one example of a white supremacist manifesto or credo that even mentions ancient Egypt
You are building a straw man
You're kidding, right? Does the Dynastic race theory not qualify? What about the Hamitic hypothesis? Did these racist theories not assert that indigenous black Africans were inferior and thus incapable of building advanced civilization, including but not limited to ancient Egypt!?
These pillars of white supremacism assert that Eurasians were responsible for every advanced civilization that arosed in Africa, so stop pretending that you have NEVER come across these racist lies that your people continue to cling to.
There are still Egyptologists to this very day that assert [against the overwhelming evidence] that the ancient Egyptians were not black Northeast Africans and that the modern mainstream of today's Egypt is a legitimate representative of what the ancient Egyptians would have looked like.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: [qb]
quote:Originally posted by kdolo: "But what if the true origins of the Ancient Egyptians become more mainstream to the media? Are big Hollywood gonna ignore facts?
YES. when it comes to AE, this is exactly what they do and will do until it becomes economically unsustainable.
You have to understand that just about everything relies upon the idea of a non-Black Ancient Egypt. The notion is a main pillar of White Supremacy.
Give one example of a white supremacist manifesto or credo that even mentions ancient Egypt
You are building a straw man
You're kidding, right? Does the Dynastic race theory not qualify? What about the Hamitic hypothesis? Did these racist theories not assert that indigenous black Africans were inferior and thus incapable of building advanced civilization, including but not limited to ancient Egypt!?
this is 2016 not 1916
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: [qb]
quote:Originally posted by kdolo: "But what if the true origins of the Ancient Egyptians become more mainstream to the media? Are big Hollywood gonna ignore facts?
YES. when it comes to AE, this is exactly what they do and will do until it becomes economically unsustainable.
You have to understand that just about everything relies upon the idea of a non-Black Ancient Egypt. The notion is a main pillar of White Supremacy.
Give one example of a white supremacist manifesto or credo that even mentions ancient Egypt
You are building a straw man
You're kidding, right? Does the Dynastic race theory not qualify? What about the Hamitic hypothesis? Did these racist theories not assert that indigenous black Africans were inferior and thus incapable of building advanced civilization, including but not limited to ancient Egypt!?
this is 2016 not 1916
lol, These theories are still being maintained, but of course not in your mind. LOL Look at the stuff you post. Even with in recent days, in this very same thread. With all these crazy loony excuses. SMH
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: ^^^But what if the true origins of the Ancient Egyptians become more mainstream to the media? Are big Hollywood gonna ignore facts?
The fight is eventually with conglomerates. If what is analyzed is truth, it means they willingly maintain classic theories on ancient Egypt, in a new format, 2.0, tell-a-vision.
We now know the problem, the majority of Hollywood is being controlled by dated, old white males 60+, who obviously have a certain dated worldview, from decades ago. They are stuck in their past (youth), 1950's and 60's, some even 40's.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: I'm just waiting for an explanation as to why these comedians try to disown half of the dynastic Egyptian population and still think they're onto something when they say AE fits their supposedly inclusive use of 'black'. Or when they claim that the dividing line for 'black' is and has always been dark skin pigmentation. See what I mean when I say that they're secretly sorting based on perceived race, not skin pigmentation? A lot of the personalities depicted in what some think were "immigrants" or "forgeries" in the upper picture were painted as having dark skin in other artworks that have their paint preserved (e.g. painting of Ka'aper). So, yes, they're authentic portrayals of ancient Egyptians; there is nothing "questionable" about them.
Regardless of whether explanations are going to be forthcoming, thanks for undoing 25 thread pages of Doug's fabrications and proving me right.
quote:Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes: ^^ This is why point at the Sphinx and change the subject to Europe I'm working on a promotion video for a script I wrote for the big screen. In the video I contrast this with this.
Historically the problem was not light complexion, but the portrayal of dark complexion.
That is why they depict light complexion in mainstream media, but also on YouTube and forums, as being authentic Egyptian, modern and classic.
Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: I'm just waiting for an explanation as to why these comedians try to disown half of the dynastic Egyptian population and still think they're onto something when they say AE fits their supposedly inclusive use of 'black'. Or when they claim that the dividing line for 'black' is and has always been dark skin pigmentation. See what I mean when I say that they're secretly sorting based on perceived race, not skin pigmentation? A lot of the personalities depicted in what some think were "immigrants" or "forgeries" in the upper picture were painted as having dark skin in other artworks that have their paint preserved (e.g. painting of Ka'aper). So, yes, they're authentic portrayals of ancient Egyptians; there is nothing "questionable" about them.
Regardless of whether explanations are going to be forthcoming, thanks for undoing 25 thread pages of Doug's fabrications and proving me right.
quote:Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes: ^^ This is why point at the Sphinx and change the subject to Europe I'm working on a promotion video for a script I wrote for the big screen. In the video I contrast this with this.
The vast majority of those statues have either lost their original paint or are unpainted and are thus inconclusive. The statue of the sitting scribe lost the original brown hue that it had and the few ghost white images must be symbolic representations of death.
The Syrian looking man on the first row on the upper left side does strike me as odd and really doesn't look like an ancient Egyptian. I personally believe that Nofret, Nefertiti and Nefeteri could have been of foreign extraction. Rahotep looks markedly different to his immediate ancestors like Huni and Sneferu and also looks different to Khufu.
Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: [qb]
quote:Originally posted by kdolo: "But what if the true origins of the Ancient Egyptians become more mainstream to the media? Are big Hollywood gonna ignore facts?
YES. when it comes to AE, this is exactly what they do and will do until it becomes economically unsustainable.
You have to understand that just about everything relies upon the idea of a non-Black Ancient Egypt. The notion is a main pillar of White Supremacy.
Give one example of a white supremacist manifesto or credo that even mentions ancient Egypt
You are building a straw man
You're kidding, right? Does the Dynastic race theory not qualify? What about the Hamitic hypothesis? Did these racist theories not assert that indigenous black Africans were inferior and thus incapable of building advanced civilization, including but not limited to ancient Egypt!?
this is 2016 not 1916
Hmmm, so why does Egyptology still insist that the ancient Egyptians were not black Northeast Africans and that they looked just like the modern people of Egypt? Why do they so conveniently now pretend that the ancient Egyptians were "mixed" when there is no evidence for this!? The ancient Egypt was "mixed" agenda is a transparent ploy that basically revives the dynastic race theory -- one that would put Eurasians at the top and blacks at the bottom. This is completely unacceptable.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
@sudaniya, ^"one that would put Eurasians at the top and blacks at the bottom. "
Which is the ultimate deployment.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: [qb]
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: [qb]
quote:Originally posted by kdolo: "But what if the true origins of the Ancient Egyptians become more mainstream to the media? Are big Hollywood gonna ignore facts?
YES. when it comes to AE, this is exactly what they do and will do until it becomes economically unsustainable.
You have to understand that just about everything relies upon the idea of a non-Black Ancient Egypt. The notion is a main pillar of White Supremacy.
Give one example of a white supremacist manifesto or credo that even mentions ancient Egypt
You are building a straw man
You're kidding, right? Does the Dynastic race theory not qualify? What about the Hamitic hypothesis? Did these racist theories not assert that indigenous black Africans were inferior and thus incapable of building advanced civilization, including but not limited to ancient Egypt!?
this is 2016 not 1916
Hmmm, so why does Egyptology still insist that the ancient Egyptians were not black Northeast Africans and that they looked just like the modern people of Egypt?
Show us an example in the past 10 years saying that. You are making straw mans, mischaracterizing contemporary Egyptology
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya:
Why do they so conveniently now pretend that the ancient Egyptians were "mixed" when there is no evidence for this!?
you are contradicting what you just said in a post on this page:
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: I personally believe that Nofret, Nefertiti and Nefeteri could have been of foreign extraction. Rahotep looks markedly different to his immediate ancestors like Huni and Sneferu and also looks different to Khufu.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
what is the source of this collage?
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
@Ish Gebor
What does that mean in relation to my post? I'm just making sure I'm not misinterpreting your post.
@Sudaniya
I'm sure there are grounds to assign that guy Syrian ancestry, but I don't think that can always be inferred from the facial features or (lack of a) paint job. Both Nofret and Rahotep fall in the range of Old Kingdom statue conventions. One such convention seems to consist of pale (or unpainted) women (as opposed to yellow) and the males orange (as opposed to brown). Also see the same Rahotep in this wall painting with a typically Egyptian facial profile and remnants of paint that falls well within the African American pigmentation range. IIRC there is a rare image of Nofret in a wall painting with the same level of skin pigmentation. Nefertiti also has wall paintings with brown skin. That's why I said that many in the upper collage are genuine Egyptians.
Both collages contain images of unpainted depictions of Africans. Yet, in one case they're pushed to the forefront and in the other case they're covered up or disowned. So contra Doug's fantasy delusions, there are numerous examples of people who betray through their actions that they can't accommodate all Africans in their use of 'black'.
Doug et al should just come out of the closet and admit that their use of 'black' is racialized and, when it comes down to it, doesn't differ from the Euronut position that these unpainted Egyptian faces don't fit in how 'black' is used in practice.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Originally posted by alTakruri, August 11, 2010:
quote: The very earliest masks were experimentally crafted as independent sculptural work, and have been dated to the Herakleopolitan period (late First Intermediate Period). These early masks were made of wood, fashioned in two pieces and held together with pegs, or cartonnage (layers of linen or papyrus stiffened with plaster. They were molded over a wooden model or core. The masks of both men and women had over-exaggerated eyes and often enigmatic half smiles. These objects were then framed by long, narrow, tripartite wigs held securely by a decorated headband. The "bib" of the mask extended to cover the chest, and were painted for both males and females with elaborate beading and floral motif necklaces or broad collars that served not only an aesthetic function but also an apotropaic requirement as set out in the funerary spells. Hollow and solid masks (sometimes of diminutive size) were also built by pouring clay or plaster into generic, often unisex molds. To this, ears and gender specific details were than added.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Originally posted by alTakruri, August 11, 2010:
quote:Cartonage mummy mask of High Egyptian Official Middle Kingdom 2000-1980 BCE
"The use of a mummy mask is one of the most characteristic features of ancient Egyptian burial customs. Such cartonnage masks covered the head and the upper part of the chest of a mummy. Generally, they consist of layers of linen and gypsum that could be molded to the shape of the deceased. Finally, each mask was painted in bright colors.
Because of their fragility, relatively few mummy masks of the Middle Kingdom have survived in as good a state of preservation as this one. The face is rendered in a formal, stylized way, giving it a somewhat stiff expression. Even so, some details are indicated: the bristles of the full beard, the mustache, and the eyebrows, all stippled in black over a blue ground. The man wears a voluminous wig with long, rounded ends, which are neatly rimmed with a decorative border. A broad collar composed of many rows of beads features falcon-headed terminals, which are held in position by strings emerging from under the wig on the mask's back. In addition, a simple necklace with a large pearl completes his adornment. But most striking is the richly ornamented diadem with a floral motif over the forehead. The model for this diadem was gold and silver, inlaid with semiprecious stones like carnelian, lapis lazuli, and turquoise.
Although the original burial spot of the Walters' newly acquired mummy mask is not known, its general style and details undoubtedly indicate that it came from the necropolis at Asyut. At this important site, the capital of the 13th district of Upper Egypt, a French mission as well as the Egyptian nobleman Sayed Khashaba Pascha conducted intensive archaeological excavations during the early 20th century. Many rock-cut tombs belonging to the courtiers of the Asyut nomarchs (the rulers of the nome) were found untouched and still contained their original grave goods. This mask was probably discovered d uring the poorly documented Khashaba excavation, which left no records about related objects found in the tomb, including the coffin of the deceased with its inscriptions. Without records of his titles and name, the identity of the owner of this mask must remain a mystery." - Walters Art Museum
Posted by Punos_Rey (Member # 21929) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:Show us an example in the past 10 years saying that. You are making straw mans, mischaracterizing contemporary Egyptology
[/QB][/QUOTE]
In From Slave to Pharaoh, noted Egyptologist Donald B. Redford examines over two millennia of complex social and cultural interactions between Egypt and the Nubian and Sudanese civilizations that lay to the south of Egypt. These interactions resulted in the expulsion of the black Kushite pharaohs of the Twenty-fifth Dynasty in 671 B.C. by an invading Assyrian army.
Redford traces the development of Egyptian perceptions of race as their dominance over the darker-skinned peoples of Nubia and the Sudan grew, exploring the cultural construction of spatial and spiritual boundaries between Egypt and other African peoples. Redford focuses on the role of racial identity in the formulation of imperial power in Egypt and the legitimization of its sphere of influence, and he highlights the dichotomy between the Egyptians' treatment of the black Africans it deemed enemies and of those living within Egyptian society. He also describes the range of responses—from resistance to assimilation—of subjugated Nubians and Sudanese to their loss of self-determination. Indeed, by the time of the Twenty-fifth Dynasty, the culture of the Kushite kings who conquered Egypt in the late eighth century B.C. was thoroughly Egyptian itself.
Ankhef, an official at Asyut, was a middle-aged man who was at least 45 when he died. He suffered from osteoarthritis in his spine and left hip, but seems to have been otherwise generally healthy. The headrest which was placed close to his head was probably one of his personal possessions. His coffin is decorated with funerary texts to help him to enter the Afterlife.
Once a mummified body had been bandaged, it was wrapped in a shroud, or funerary cloth. A mask covering the head and shoulders was the last element to be added. This was made of cartonnage, moulded linen stiffened with plaster. The mask represented the face of the deceased, but was not really a portrait. The only real examples of portraits on mummies in ancient Egypt are the Fayum mummy portraits of the Roman Period, such as that of Artemidorus, which is in The British Museum.
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Originally posted by alTakruri, August 11, 2010:
quote: The very earliest masks were experimentally crafted as independent sculptural work, and have been dated to the Herakleopolitan period (late First Intermediate Period). These early masks were made of wood, fashioned in two pieces and held together with pegs, or cartonnage (layers of linen or papyrus stiffened with plaster. They were molded over a wooden model or core. The masks of both men and women had over-exaggerated eyes and often enigmatic half smiles. These objects were then framed by long, narrow, tripartite wigs held securely by a decorated headband. The "bib" of the mask extended to cover the chest, and were painted for both males and females with elaborate beading and floral motif necklaces or broad collars that served not only an aesthetic function but also an apotropaic requirement as set out in the funerary spells. Hollow and solid masks (sometimes of diminutive size) were also built by pouring clay or plaster into generic, often unisex molds. To this, ears and gender specific details were than added.
Tukuler do you have any other information about the orovenance of this mask? I've seen Eurocentrists post it several times in favor of Nordic Egypt and would like to know just where it came from if possible
Posted by Fourty2Tribes (Member # 21799) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
what is the source of this collage?
Me. Mostly Greeks some Romans.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Don't know anything about the ownership, provenance, or authenticity of that mask in particular.
There are other pasty colored cartonnages. A striking one is female, the hair is massive.
To see a full range of these from brown to cream GOOGLE
cartonnage mummy mask
switch to image search.
quote:Originally posted by Punos_Rey:
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler:
Tukuler do you have any other information about the orovenance of this mask? I've seen Eurocentrists post it several times in favor of Nordic Egypt and would like to know just where it came from if possible
Posted by Fourty2Tribes (Member # 21799) on :
quote:Originally posted by Punos_Rey: Originally posted by the lioness,:Show us an example in the past 10 years saying that. You are making straw mans, mischaracterizing contemporary Egyptology
In From Slave to Pharaoh, noted Egyptologist Donald B. Redford examines over two millennia of complex social and cultural interactions between Egypt and the Nubian and Sudanese civilizations that lay to the south of Egypt. These interactions resulted in the expulsion of the black Kushite pharaohs of the Twenty-fifth Dynasty in 671 B.C. by an invading Assyrian army.
Redford traces the development of Egyptian perceptions of race as their dominance over the darker-skinned peoples of Nubia and the Sudan grew, exploring the cultural construction of spatial and spiritual boundaries between Egypt and other African peoples. Redford focuses on the role of racial identity in the formulation of imperial power in Egypt and the legitimization of its sphere of influence, and he highlights the dichotomy between the Egyptians' treatment of the black Africans it deemed enemies and of those living within Egyptian society. He also describes the range of responses—from resistance to assimilation—of subjugated Nubians and Sudanese to their loss of self-determination. Indeed, by the time of the Twenty-fifth Dynasty, the culture of the Kushite kings who conquered Egypt in the late eighth century B.C. was thoroughly Egyptian itself.
Redford is a racist. He struggles to find examples of anything we know of slavery today but still juxtaposes the supposition. He does the same with the art. Ignore primary sources and call it slavery. Ignore the fact that all of the Egyptian Pharaohs look like black people and run game about black people becoming Pharaohs.
I also include this pic in the video
Basically my point is Hollywood's double standard. Cherry picked, edited and forged Egyptian art is sited for Egypt while it represents a smaller minority of Egyptian art than the representations of Greeks but I don't remember any black or mullato Greeks in any ancient Greek or Macedonian movies while damn near all the blacks in movies set in Rome are slaves.
Posted by Fourty2Tribes (Member # 21799) on :
quote:Originally posted by Punos_Rey:
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Originally posted by alTakruri, August 11, 2010:
quote: The very earliest masks were experimentally crafted as independent sculptural work, and have been dated to the Herakleopolitan period (late First Intermediate Period). These early masks were made of wood, fashioned in two pieces and held together with pegs, or cartonnage (layers of linen or papyrus stiffened with plaster. They were molded over a wooden model or core. The masks of both men and women had over-exaggerated eyes and often enigmatic half smiles. These objects were then framed by long, narrow, tripartite wigs held securely by a decorated headband. The "bib" of the mask extended to cover the chest, and were painted for both males and females with elaborate beading and floral motif necklaces or broad collars that served not only an aesthetic function but also an apotropaic requirement as set out in the funerary spells. Hollow and solid masks (sometimes of diminutive size) were also built by pouring clay or plaster into generic, often unisex molds. To this, ears and gender specific details were than added.
Tukuler do you have any other information about the orovenance of this mask? I've seen Eurocentrists post it several times in favor of Nordic Egypt and would like to know just where it came from if possible
Most of the cartonnage mask are from the Greko-Roman period. Many are dated in the AD.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: @Ish Gebor
What does that mean in relation to my post? I'm just making sure I'm not misinterpreting your post.
@Sudaniya
I'm sure there are grounds to assign that guy Syrian ancestry, but I don't think that can always be inferred from the facial features or (lack of a) paint job. Both Nofret and Rahotep fall in the range of Old Kingdom statue conventions. One such convention seems to consist of pale (or unpainted) women (as opposed to yellow) and the males orange (as opposed to brown). Also see the same Rahotep in this wall painting with a typically Egyptian facial profile and remnants of paint that falls well within the African American pigmentation range. IIRC there is a rare image of Nofret in a wall painting with the same level of skin pigmentation. Nefertiti also has wall paintings with brown skin. That's why I said that many in the upper collage are genuine Egyptians.
Both collages contain images of unpainted depictions of Africans. Yet, in one case they're pushed to the forefront and in the other case they're covered up or disowned. So contra Doug's fantasy delusions, there are numerous examples of people who betray through their actions that they can't accommodate all Africans in their use of 'black'.
Doug et al should just come out of the closet and admit that their use of 'black' is racialized and, when it comes down to it, doesn't differ from the Euronut position that these unpainted Egyptian faces don't fit in how 'black' is used in practice.
Swenet, it's in relation to the photo-collage, with lighter depictions (and unpainted) of ancient Egyptians. The media portrays these as the authentic and the dark complected are being ignored. This reflects in movies, magazines etc...
Posted by Fourty2Tribes (Member # 21799) on :
We should have a thread about the theory of how many white foreigners and/or white neighborhoods?
It's rare to see anyone painted lighter than this fellow.
Evidence of late has suggested that while white skin predates humanity a white race is younger. Damn near younger and further away... however I always bet on humanity. Yes I think Africans came to the Americans many times over before nations and from different nations right before and long before Columbus. By the same human ingenuity I think primitive white people from the crap lands of Asia traveled to the Nile and were greeted with respect for having made such a journey.
I'm not quite sure the older cartonage represent white people because of some of the reconstruction on the faces. However from what I understand Nefertiti's family was from Asia so the journey is possible. It's worth mentioning that Egyptians were numerous in Asia, she seemed to be the mixed chick of the Amarna mummies and most of her depictions were indistinguishable from other Egyptians.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes: We should have a thread about the theory of how many white foreigners and/or white neighborhoods?
It's rare to see anyone painted lighter than this fellow.
Evidence of late has suggested that while white skin predates humanity a white race is younger. Damn near younger and further away... however I always bet on humanity. Yes I think Africans came to the Americans many times over before nations and from different nations right before and long before Columbus. By the same human ingenuity I think primitive white people from the crap lands of Asia traveled to the Nile and were greeted with respect for having made such a journey.
I'm not quite sure the older cartonage represent white people because of some of the reconstruction on the faces. However from what I understand Nefertiti's family was from Asia so the journey is possible. It's worth mentioning that Egyptians were numerous in Asia, she seemed to be the mixed chick of the Amarna mummies and most of her depictions were indistinguishable from other Egyptians.
One what do you base these claims?
Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: @Ish Gebor
What does that mean in relation to my post? I'm just making sure I'm not misinterpreting your post.
@Sudaniya
I'm sure there are grounds to assign that guy Syrian ancestry, but I don't think that can always be inferred from the facial features or (lack of a) paint job. Both Nofret and Rahotep fall in the range of Old Kingdom statue conventions. One such convention seems to consist of pale (or unpainted) women (as opposed to yellow) and the males orange (as opposed to brown). Also see the same Rahotep in this wall painting with a typically Egyptian facial profile and remnants of paint that falls well within the African American pigmentation range. IIRC there is a rare image of Nofret in a wall painting with the same level of skin pigmentation. Nefertiti also has wall paintings with brown skin. That's why I said that many in the upper collage are genuine Egyptians.
Both collages contain images of unpainted depictions of Africans. Yet, in one case they're pushed to the forefront and in the other case they're covered up or disowned. So contra Doug's fantasy delusions, there are numerous examples of people who betray through their actions that they can't accommodate all Africans in their use of 'black'.
Doug et al should just come out of the closet and admit that their use of 'black' is racialized and, when it comes down to it, doesn't differ from the Euronut position that these unpainted Egyptian faces don't fit in how 'black' is used in practice.
Thanks, Swenet... that certainly puts everything into perspective. I'm going to have to assess things a little more carefully instead of jumping to conclusions.
Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: [qb]
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: [qb]
quote:Originally posted by kdolo: "But what if the true origins of the Ancient Egyptians become more mainstream to the media? Are big Hollywood gonna ignore facts?
YES. when it comes to AE, this is exactly what they do and will do until it becomes economically unsustainable.
You have to understand that just about everything relies upon the idea of a non-Black Ancient Egypt. The notion is a main pillar of White Supremacy.
Give one example of a white supremacist manifesto or credo that even mentions ancient Egypt
You are building a straw man
You're kidding, right? Does the Dynastic race theory not qualify? What about the Hamitic hypothesis? Did these racist theories not assert that indigenous black Africans were inferior and thus incapable of building advanced civilization, including but not limited to ancient Egypt!?
this is 2016 not 1916
Hmmm, so why does Egyptology still insist that the ancient Egyptians were not black Northeast Africans and that they looked just like the modern people of Egypt?
Show us an example in the past 10 years saying that. You are making straw mans, mischaracterizing contemporary Egyptology
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya:
Why do they so conveniently now pretend that the ancient Egyptians were "mixed" when there is no evidence for this!?
you are contradicting what you just said in a post on this page:
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: I personally believe that Nofret, Nefertiti and Nefeteri could have been of foreign extraction. Rahotep looks markedly different to his immediate ancestors like Huni and Sneferu and also looks different to Khufu.
So you think that because I argued that some queens could quite possibly have been of foreign extraction that I was arguing that the general ancient Egyptian population was "mixed"?
That makes no sense. A small handful of foreign women doesn't make ancient Egypt "mixed". I know that your people desperately wish that AE was "mixed" so that Africans can't lay exclusive claim to their own civilization while Europeans and everybody else can have their own civilizations without people trying to exaggerate foreign presence and influence.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
I just want to be sure about something.
Does anyone participating in this thread posit that Egypt was 100% black at any period after the proto-dynastic?
My question is separate from the fact of Egypt's African cultural origins of SudanoSahara antecedents or their adaptation of 'SW Asian' crops or animals.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
@Sudaniya. In regards to Nofret and Rahotep. You're probably aware of a third option, i.e. allegations of forgery. If not you can read more about it here:
^And I'm posting this for the sake of nuance. Personally, I think strong allegations require extraordinary evidence. But everyone should make up their own mind.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Here are some of Manu Ampim's claims
quote: The Ra-Hotep and Nofret statues are seated in strange chairs with backboards and Mdw Ntr writing near their head. These statues are among the greatest forgeries in the history of ancient African archaeology....
The Ra-Hotep statue violates a long list of clearly defined rules
He calls it a great forgery yet his analysis is that it violates a long list of clearly defined rules. If that is accurate it would make it a terrible forgery
He says these "rules" are
quote:
Ra-Hotep is a royal son and high ranking official, but he does not wear a wig;
he has a gray moustache;
he never had an emblem in his right hand across his chest.
Ra-Hotep's entire kilt belt is shown on his lap, rather than the universal ancient Egyptian practice of showing one belt-end protruding from the waist line.
Also, Ra-Hotep never had an emblem in his left hand.
^ So this is supposed to be a fake sculpture to promote a white Egypt ???
Look at the damn thing !!
Posted by Punos_Rey (Member # 21929) on :
No but its definitely an excellent example of how lighting can be used to give off a completely different impression/effect.
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: I just want to be sure about something.
Does anyone participating in this thread posit that Egypt was 100% black at any period after the proto-dynastic?
My question is separate from the fact of Egypt's African cultural origins of SudanoSahara antecedents or their adaptation of 'SW Asian' crops or animals.
( Grabs popcorn ).
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Interestingly, Manu Ampim repeatedly uses 'black' in a way so-called 'vets' INSISTED FOR 25 THREAD PAGES is not how the term is used in the real world. A cursory look at works of other Afrocentric writers reveals the same thing.
Lol. How can you be so washed up and in denial that you're willing to lie to yourself for 25 thread pages that 'black' is only used in reference to skin color?
It's still unclear to me just who Doug is talking about when he keeps saying "we", "us" etc. No authority agrees with you. Speak for yourself. Stop trying to puff up your credibility by talking about "us". No one who hasn't had the chance to think about the pitfalls associated with the term uses 'black' exclusively as a reference to skin pigmentation. Hiding behind a dictionary entry doesn't make that fact go away.
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
Anyways lets get REALLY back om topic where I wanted this thread to go...
Do you guys agree with my original argument in the OP that we should exclude using "black" in bio-anthropological discussions about the Ancient Egyptians, because racial terms in general are unscientific, while it would be okay to use black while discussing the Ancient Egyptians in a historical sense? Since history is not scientific...
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: I just want to be sure about something.
Does anyone participating in this thread posit that Egypt was 100% black at any period after the proto-dynastic?
My question is separate from the fact of Egypt's African cultural origins of SudanoSahara antecedents or their adaptation of 'SW Asian' crops or animals.
I wouldn't say 100%, but maybe 75%. Something like the USA, although very diverse with a lot of foreigners you still had a population that was the majority and dominate people(White Americans).
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: Do you guys agree with my original argument in the OP that we should exclude using "black" in bio-anthropological discussions about the Ancient Egyptians, because racial terms in general are unscientific, while it would be okay to use black while discussing the Ancient Egyptians in a historical sense? Since history is not scientific...
Are you asking this for others (lurkers) to pitch in or are you asking the participants of this thread? If the latter, most folks' take on that question has been answered several times already. Your line of questioning doesn't reflect developments in the points of contention in the course of this thread.
For instance, Doug et al have said a 10.000 times already that a racial use of black doesn't exist and that people have always used the term to describe brown to jetblack skin. Your question ignores that there are apparently people out there who think your question is a red herring and that, since eumelanin is a biological fact, this whole discussion is about nothing.
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: Do you guys agree with my original argument in the OP that we should exclude using "black" in bio-anthropological discussions about the Ancient Egyptians, because racial terms in general are unscientific, while it would be okay to use black while discussing the Ancient Egyptians in a historical sense? Since history is not scientific...
Are you asking this for others to pitch in or are you asking the participants of this thread? If the latter, most folks' take on that question has been answered several times already. Your line of questioning doesn't reflect developments in the points of contention in the course of this thread.
For instance, Doug et al have said a 10.000 times already that a racial use of black doesn't exist and that people have always used the term to describe brown to jetblack skin. Your question ignores that there are apparently people out there who think your question is a red herring.
For the participant and I don't think people were really answering it imo.
The question wasn't really about the term "black", but that we should SEPARATE racial terms from scientific discussions, while they can be allowed in historic discussions since history is just study of the past and many people back then did use racial terms, for example in a historic discussion one can use a quote by a Greek writer describing the Ethiopians as "black" to prove the Ancient Ethiopians were black. Meanwhile in a scientific discussion using genetics saying the Ethiopians were "black" would not be a good idea. Am I making sense?
This thread never really was about what type of "term" of black are we using. But instead scientific discussions vs historic discussions.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
@BBH
I understand you better now, yes. But notice that when you say "instead scientific discussions vs historic discussions" you're, in fact, referring to two or more distinct uses of 'black'.
The early ancient Greek use of 'black' is skin pigmentation-based and the racial use of 'black' is not or only marginally based on skin pigmentation. That's why African American albinos can still be racially 'black' according to racial typology even if they're depigmented. And why, as Beyoku observed in this thread, some races are imagined to cover much of the human skin pigmentation spectrum.
This has all been covered a lot in this thread. All I can say is re-read the thread, bruh.
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
@Swenet
Noted. And I'm going to give the thread another read. I mean there were good discussions in this thread though most of it heated. Still a good read.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Interestingly, Manu Ampim repeatedly uses 'black' in a way so-called 'vets' INSISTED FOR 25 THREAD PAGES is not how the term is used in the real world. A cursory look at works of other Afrocentric writers reveals the same thing.
Lol. How can you be so washed up and in denial that you're willing to lie to yourself for 25 thread pages that 'black' is only used in reference to skin color?
It's still unclear to me just who Doug is talking about when he keeps saying "we", "us" etc. No authority agrees with you. Speak for yourself. Stop trying to puff up your credibility by talking about "us". No one who hasn't had the chance to think about the pitfalls associated with the term uses 'black' exclusively as a reference to skin pigmentation. Hiding behind a dictionary entry doesn't make that fact go away.
Anybody who says black is skin color alone would need to indicate on a color chart of graduating tones what is black and what is not black. If they can't do that then it's not about color. It's about whim. They apply the term whenever you feel like with no standard. Therefore the application of the term is pure opinion.
Anybody who says black is skin color alone makes the issue very simple. All you have to do then is refer to a color chart. If somebody cannot refer to examples of color then it's just a rhetorical game. They are not serious
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
^They're just going to say it covers at least 10% to 50% in the chart below. But you can already see the can of worms that opens in that case. The % of skin reflectance of the African inhabitants of Namaqualand extends to 40%-50%, but they overlap with Tibetans. So you'd have to call the swarthy segments of these populations 'black' as well, which would conflict with certain agendas many have.
quote: Originally posted by Swenet:
^Apparently Khoi and San skin can get even lighter.
Also see Relethford's several papers on skin reflectance and human variation in skin pigmentation.
EDIT: You know what, never mind. I don't think anyone here (excepting a certain troll who's gone MIA) is trying to force their vocabulary onto anyone else. No point asking for validating your own personal word choices.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: I just want to be sure about something.
Does anyone participating in this thread posit that Egypt was 100% black at any period after the proto-dynastic?
My question is separate from the fact of Egypt's African cultural origins of SudanoSahara antecedents or their adaptation of 'SW Asian' crops or animals.
Over all dynasties 100% can't be, they had contact with foreign people. But over all, it was indignious, that is was students tell us.
Btw, can you translate these hieroglyphs?
Posted by Punos_Rey (Member # 21929) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: I just want to be sure about something.
Does anyone participating in this thread posit that Egypt was 100% black at any period after the proto-dynastic?
My question is separate from the fact of Egypt's African cultural origins of SudanoSahara antecedents or their adaptation of 'SW Asian' crops or animals.
No, surely there was some outside presence if nothing else from SW Asia(whom I don't consider "black" even if some of their ancient populations were very dark). My problem with this specifically is how people use even the slightest presence of foreign input to "prove" AE was not an indigenous development. It's like I can drop just *one* SW Asian into AE and all of a sudden its a mixed society. That rule applies to NO OTHER civilization which is crazy as no large civilization existed in a vacuum insulated from its neighbors. Europeans adopting gunpowder which originated in China and was crucial to European conquests hasn't made those European empires Chinese. Ancient Greece and Rome surely weren't 100% ethnic Greek or ethnic Italian due to the far reaching and multiethnic sense of their empires. Yet when it comes to them, Alexander and his Macedonians, Genghis Khan and the Mongols, absolutely no one(well outside of certain characters..) questions their indigeneity or where they came from. Its crap.
Posted by Fourty2Tribes (Member # 21799) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes: We should have a thread about the theory of how many white foreigners and/or white neighborhoods?
It's rare to see anyone painted lighter than this fellow.
Evidence of late has suggested that while white skin predates humanity a white race is younger. Damn near younger and further away... however I always bet on humanity. Yes I think Africans came to the Americans many times over before nations and from different nations right before and long before Columbus. By the same human ingenuity I think primitive white people from the crap lands of Asia traveled to the Nile and were greeted with respect for having made such a journey.
I'm not quite sure the older cartonage represent white people because of some of the reconstruction on the faces. However from what I understand Nefertiti's family was from Asia so the journey is possible. It's worth mentioning that Egyptians were numerous in Asia, she seemed to be the mixed chick of the Amarna mummies and most of her depictions were indistinguishable from other Egyptians.
One what do you base these claims?
The length of time and proximity.
There are enough images of white people in Sumer which was a trade caravan away from the Nile Valley. I see race as 100% opinion so if someone views albinos as white I won't argue. It makes more sense than calling an albino black. So if someone wan't to say there were always white people in North Africa or Egypt meh whatever just don't be hypocritical with images of white or multiracial Egypt.
Societies idea of multiracial Egypt is what we should see with Greeks.
#racism. Rahotep's glyphs came from a crackerjack box.
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
Originally posted by Tukuler: I just want to be sure about something.
Does anyone participating in this thread posit that Egypt was 100% black at any period after the proto-dynastic?
My question is separate from the fact of Egypt's African cultural origins of SudanoSahara antecedents or their adaptation of 'SW Asian' crops or animals.
A bit of a recap for new readers in this reply, because I do not often run across as strong rebuttals and exposure of Eurocentric hypocrisy as there should be. Too often some rebuttals consist of simply saying words to the effect - "you are racist" and then vacating the field, rather than hammering them hard across the spectrum.
For consistency- Europe must be considered "mixed race" No society would be 100% "pure" over time - even less so societies in that North African, Medit, Middle Eastern zone. If DNA is a guide for example, numerous southern Europeans are "mixed race."
And it goes back to ancient times- it is nothing recent..
Double standards Those who go around talking bout "mixed race" in Egypt are hypocritical if they do not likewise apply the same standard to Europe and call Greeks, Italians etc "mixed race." Their refusal or avoidance of the issue exposes the race hypocrisy that motivates them. Its like the true negro standard pointed out by Keita. Academics who use it likewise do not go on to define a "true white" - say a Nordic up in Sweden, exposing their hypocrisy.
Pointing out hypocrisy We must always point out that hypocrisy and double standard- just like Diop did. Pious denials about the irrelevance of race are fine, IF THEY WERE APPLIED CONSISTENTLY. But they are not- again as Keita points out- some in the academic literature piously decry race, then re-introduce in in new guises. See his critique of Cavalli-Sforza.
If genotypes are all how come they use phenotypes when it suits them ? Another dodge used is to wave away phenotypes and say only genotypes count. Sounds scientific and all, but why then do conservative academics and pundits CONTINUE TO INSIST on phenotype when it suits them? When it is time to bash black folks culture or achievements they always pull "negro" phenotypes out. It is only when the dreaded black phenotypes can be credited with the positive than many then want to holler about genotype, so as to downplay or dismiss. Furthermore, assorted "hereditatians", "HBD" types are always yapping about "the reality of biological race." Fine. Why then do they try to run away from the implications of ancient Africans in ancient Europe? Or African DNA in today's Europe from long ago? If "the negro" is static and unchanging, with discrete racial boundaries, why are you changing your tune when the above is applied? Again, we must never cease pointing out Eurocentric hypocrisy.
Light skin color is nothing special in Africa The "true negro" fallacy is the standard ploy- sometimes used with skin color re Egypt, as if everybody supposed to be jet black in Africa as the "true" color of "the African." But this too is false and again exposes the double standards at play. Light skin color for example is nothing special in West Africa, or Africa as a whole.
And the very definition of the term "negro" traditionally acknowledges a variety of skin colors. Interesting how some rail against "modern pc definitions" but then themselves want to deny the traditional definitions when it suits them.
When it suits Eurocentric interests they never ceased to invoke the "one drop rule" with all its "tainted" associations. But how come when the one-drop rule is applied across the board and black folk can be credited with something positive then there is a "problem"? Why is "one drop" fine until it is applied in ancient Egypt? Can we again say white hypocrisy?
Calling the ancient Egyptians black is reasonable say some Egyptologists Now in 2001, the mainstream Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt finally got around to acknowledging that to call the ancient Egyptians black, based on the standard European understanding of, and application of the "one drop" was quite reasonable. This is not "Afrocentrics" saying it. Now they tried to water down what they say- but they had to come around to acknowledging what "the Afrocentrics" have been saying all along.
Ancient Egypt it could be said was PREDOMINANTLY an African civilization- with links to many areas of the Mediterranean and Middle East, and a change in that predominance at the later phases of the Dynastic era, when Hyskos, Persians, Greeks, Romans and Arabs took over. Again to recap- today's Egyptians are not direct descendants of the ancients. And aside from these conquests and migrations, a place like Egypt, near one of the busies crossroads on earth, linking Asia, Europe, Arabia, the Medit etc would always see a minority of other types- whether they be traders, war captives, slaves, diplomats, nomads, etc. No one is gong about "denying" this, as bullshiit strawmen allege. But "later phases" does not mean African influence disappeared, as Ramses and others show.
Posted by kdolo (Member # 21830) on :
'today's Egyptians are not direct descendants of the ancients.'
bull.
There are certain to be inhabitants who are descendants of the ancients, they are probably the inhabitants of the South and going South.
The northerners are mixed or turks and arabs.
This the new cop out argument i have been seeing lately. I am sure any studies done focus on people in the North to manipulate the outcome
Posted by Fourty2Tribes (Member # 21799) on :
Marry Lefkowitz's one drop assertion is that familiar cognitive dissonance of racism. One drop by European standards is genetically 6%. Charles Barkley is 75% black genetically. He is lighter than most depictions of Ancient Egyptians and he is not considered one drop black by any of the legal or cultural definitions in any state. The only people who question his blackness are black people because of how he sucks up to white daddy.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes: We should have a thread about the theory of how many white foreigners and/or white neighborhoods?
It's rare to see anyone painted lighter than this fellow.
Evidence of late has suggested that while white skin predates humanity a white race is younger. Damn near younger and further away... however I always bet on humanity. Yes I think Africans came to the Americans many times over before nations and from different nations right before and long before Columbus. By the same human ingenuity I think primitive white people from the crap lands of Asia traveled to the Nile and were greeted with respect for having made such a journey.
I'm not quite sure the older cartonage represent white people because of some of the reconstruction on the faces. However from what I understand Nefertiti's family was from Asia so the journey is possible. It's worth mentioning that Egyptians were numerous in Asia, she seemed to be the mixed chick of the Amarna mummies and most of her depictions were indistinguishable from other Egyptians.
One what do you base these claims?
The length of time and proximity.
There are enough images of white people in Sumer which was a trade caravan away from the Nile Valley. I see race as 100% opinion so if someone views albinos as white I won't argue. It makes more sense than calling an albino black. So if someone wan't to say there were always white people in North Africa or Egypt meh whatever just don't be hypocritical with images of white or multiracial Egypt.
Societies idea of multiracial Egypt is what we should see with Greeks.
#racism. Rahotep's glyphs came from a crackerjack box.
How come this length of time and proximity, doesn't reflect in anthropology?
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
quote:Originally posted by kdolo: 'today's Egyptians are not direct descendants of the ancients.'
bull.
There are certain to be inhabitants who are descendants of the ancients, they are probably the inhabitants of the South and going South.
The northerners are mixed or turks and arabs.
This the new cop out argument i have been seeing lately. I am sure any studies done focus on people in the North to manipulate the outcome
It is no "cop out" it is established fact. Are some moderns a holdover? Sure, I agree, particularly in the south, traditionally the "darker" region, and no one "denies" that- as bogus strawmen try to make out. But the bulk of today's Egyptians are Arabized mixes or part of the Arab, Maghreb, Levantine, and European migrations since the fall of the dynasties, not direct, pristine, allegedly "pure" descendants of the ancients as a substantial number of modern Egyptians try to make out. Many like the idea of "purity" so they can "distance" themselves from "anything African." But they fail here too. Could it be argued that the moderns are "mixed" descendants with the Arabs, etc etc? Sure, and I have no big objection to that argument- only to point out that the "mixture" would ALSO INCLUDE BLACKS.
It is interesting how many seek to talk about modern mixes to make a continuity/descendant argument but then want to exclude or airbrush blacks from their allegedly pristine, exclusive "club." To reiterate, any "argument from admixture" must also include the blacks as part of the "original" pool that mingles with Arabs, Syrians etc.
^^Modern Egyptians "distancing" themselves from the blacks thru prayer...
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
^^^Then why the heck did you have a problem with that 2009 Omran study I posted and claimed that I was a "dupe account", when that same study proved that modern Egyptians are DISTANT from the Ancients. 2009 Omran study even had the same STRs that were used used in the DNAtribes one on the Amarna mummies
D18S51 and D21S11 for example were used in DNAtribes study of the Amarna mummies.
So again why did you have a problem when I posted it? I tried asking you, but you kept ignoring me while throwing subliminal at me.
I just want a answer, thats all.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote: Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes: Charles Barkley is 75% black genetically.
There you have it. A use of 'black' completely divorced from skin pigmentation, which we've been told over 25 thread pages doesn't exist.
We've been told westerners religiously stick to the dictionary's pigmentation-based use of 'black' in real life. Right. Posted by Fourty2Tribes (Member # 21799) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes: We should have a thread about the theory of how many white foreigners and/or white neighborhoods?
It's rare to see anyone painted lighter than this fellow.
Evidence of late has suggested that while white skin predates humanity a white race is younger. Damn near younger and further away... however I always bet on humanity. Yes I think Africans came to the Americans many times over before nations and from different nations right before and long before Columbus. By the same human ingenuity I think primitive white people from the crap lands of Asia traveled to the Nile and were greeted with respect for having made such a journey.
I'm not quite sure the older cartonage represent white people because of some of the reconstruction on the faces. However from what I understand Nefertiti's family was from Asia so the journey is possible. It's worth mentioning that Egyptians were numerous in Asia, she seemed to be the mixed chick of the Amarna mummies and most of her depictions were indistinguishable from other Egyptians.
One what do you base these claims?
The length of time and proximity.
There are enough images of white people in Sumer which was a trade caravan away from the Nile Valley. I see race as 100% opinion so if someone views albinos as white I won't argue. It makes more sense than calling an albino black. So if someone wan't to say there were always white people in North Africa or Egypt meh whatever just don't be hypocritical with images of white or multiracial Egypt.
Societies idea of multiracial Egypt is what we should see with Greeks.
#racism. Rahotep's glyphs came from a crackerjack box.
How come this length of time and proximity, doesn't reflect in anthropology?
How doesn't it?
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
@Fourty2Tribes, ^Not that I know of. Do you know?
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: As soon as Doug is asked to back up the alleged "flip flops" he's accused me of, he's nowhere to be seen.
Also note how deliberately silent Doug was every time I proved him wrong about his fabrication that Eurocentric bio-anthropologists were engaging in pseudo-science when their measurements seemingly supported their argument.
The Eurocentric scholars who assigned dark skinned Africans to the "white race" were doing the same thing Doug is doing when he's assigning precolonial non-African populations in the tropics to his 'black' category. But now it turns out that he is even going a step further than that. Here, in Doug's own words:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Wow Clyde. It seems you have come full circle after disagreeing with me on this when I said it in the past.
But that said, I still don't rule out direct contact from Africa over the centuries before European contact. The problem is finding the evidence. Not only that, I also believe there was contact with other parts of the world as well.... but that is a whole different subject.
^Over the last 25 thread pages he ranted on and on about Eurocentric appropriation. Look what he says in the other forum (note that he was careful not to ever say that here). This lunatic is obviously engaging in appropriation as well. But he thinks he's somehow a special snowflake. Uniquely victimized by Eurocentric appropriation.
The point is that people have skin color and therefore just like anything else that has visible color, you use words to describe it. Your point over the course of this thread is to claim that common words are not enough to convey meaning when used in language. When someone says the person has "black skin", what comes to mind? According to you and your absurd contradictory logic, somehow this simple phrase conjures very confusing and ambiguous concepts in a persons brain and renders them unable to understand that the phrase is referring to the skin color of a person in a certain shade of colors. And as you said, no matter what word you use, whether dark, brown or "other" you cannot sit here and describe every single shade of skin color found on Africans with a unique word. Nobody has ever tried to do this and nobody does it to this day. Therefore, the word black is used to refer to the various shades of brown skinned Africans and other populations outside of Africa with similar skin colors. This is the dictionary definition. Your argument is to say that there is something wrong with the dictionary definition, which is the commonly accepted definition and somehow that people don't understand the meaning of such a term in common language. Especially when the phrase "black skin" is used specifically to avoid the desire to claim that someone may be confused by "racial" concepts, even though racial concepts are closely related to skin color.
Again, the bottom line point here, notwithstanding your attempts to deny and avoid it, is that the whole debate over ancient Egypt is a debate over the skin color of the majority of the ancient population. That is the fundamental point. Race, racism and white supremacy are the reasons for this debate and not Africans or the dictionary definition of words like black. This is fundamentally an issue of people trying to change facts to suit their agenda and luring gullible folks who don't know better (or should know better) into supporting their nonsense by sounding "objective" or "unbiased" when they are everything but.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
Interestingly, Manu Ampim repeatedly uses 'black' in a way so-called 'vets' INSISTED FOR 25 THREAD PAGES is not how the term is used in the real world. A cursory look at works of other Afrocentric writers reveals the same thing.
Lol. How can you be so washed up and in denial that you're willing to lie to yourself for 25 thread pages that 'black' is only used in reference to skin color?
It's still unclear to me just who Doug is talking about when he keeps saying "we", "us" etc. No authority agrees with you. Speak for yourself. Stop trying to puff up your credibility by talking about "us". No one who hasn't had the chance to think about the pitfalls associated with the term uses 'black' exclusively as a reference to skin pigmentation. Hiding behind a dictionary entry doesn't make that fact go away.
Swenet, you are off the rails. We have established very early on in this thread the the word "black" relative to the skin color of Africans has been used for thousands of years. Yet you have tried your best over the course of this thread to claim that these ancient uses of "black", including the ancient Egyptians own use of the term "black", ie. KMT are somehow "different" from modern usages of the term also as a reference to skin color. To that point all of these usages are consistent with the dictionary definition of the word black in reference to skin color, yet you still sit here and try to claim that somebody on this forum or African scholars "invented" this usage of the term black as a reference to skin color.
Give up and stop lying.
Your only point on this thread is basically to claim that skin color in places like Ancient Egypt are too complex to be understood by simple language terms as if Ancient Egyptian or other human skin color is that hard to describe using language. This isn't rocket science. Skin color is an observable fact of nature and there is absolutely nothing non scientific about describing skin color in terms easily understood with words describing colors. Actually the cognitive challenge here is one of white racists being able to conjure the thought of black skin in ancient Egypt, let alone admit it in human speech, which leads them to try and come up with ways to create alternate visions of ancient Egypt and other populations which more suit their own mental vision. Of course, you seem to support this notion as somehow "objective" scientific reasoning. I call it nonsense racist rhetoric and mind games.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Lol. Doug made sure he stopped short of addressing my last post to him:
Instead, he's cooking up new imaginary accusations. Let's point them out again and watch how he'll just repeat and rinse filling his posts with rabid delusions:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The point is that people have skin color and therefore just like anything else that has visible color, you use words to describe it. Your point over the course of this thread is to claim that common words are not enough to convey meaning when used in language.
Prove that was ever my point using direct quotes.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: When someone says the person has "black skin", what comes to mind? According to you and your absurd contradictory logic, somehow this simple phrase conjures very confusing and ambiguous concepts in a persons brain and renders them unable to understand that the phrase is referring to the skin color of a person in a certain shade of colors.
Note the lie he sneaked in there (of course "black skin" refers to skin, but 'black' itself doesn't necessarily refer to skin).
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Therefore, the word black is used to refer to the various shades of brown skinned Africans and other populations outside of Africa with similar skin colors.
That black is used to describe skin color here and there is an irrelevant red herring. The issue at hand is whether that's the only use of the term 'black'. Prove it.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Again, the bottom line point here, notwithstanding your attempts to deny and avoid it, is that the whole debate over ancient Egypt is a debate over the skin color of the majority of the ancient population.
Maybe in Hollywood, the media and among trolls on the internet, but you were talking about white supremacists in science. Among the academics discussed throughout this thread, this simply wasn't true. And we'll see that in a minute when you're going to skirt around answering how these Giza reserve heads should be classified ethnically:
There is no skin color paint here for Eurocentric observers to manipulate (the busts are unpainted or the paint has faded), but the problem of 'racial' ambiguity is still there. But, of course, you already know this. Denial is just your way of coping.
And for the people who try to disown these ancient Egyptians: you're not going to worm out of this by saying that they look 'racially' ambiguous because they were admixed. This is completely irrelevant. African Americans are admixed as well; they generally look unambiguous enough to be called 'black' in the West and contrasted with 'whites'.
The word 'black' doesn't cover the complexities of African biodiversity. Even if you try to stick to the more objective skin pigmentation-based use of the term, at some point you're going to run into problems that can be avoided. The newbies can be forgiven for not realizing this. But if you're a "vet" and you still vehemently deny this, you're washed up and need to retire. Also, if you've been repeatedly told this in one-on-one coaching over a time span of years (like the troll who calls himself "Tropicals Redacted") and you still try to sweep this under the rug, you're a liar and you need to retire as well.
Posted by Fourty2Tribes (Member # 21799) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: There you have it. A use of 'black' completely divorced from skin pigmentation, which we've been told over 25 thread pages doesn't exist.
We've been told westerners religiously stick to the dictionary's pigmentation-based use of 'black' in real life. Right. [/QB]
People are being disingenuous Posted by Fourty2Tribes (Member # 21799) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: @Fourty2Tribes, ^Not that I know of. Do you know?
Not until later. I contend that archelogical measurements while interesting and worthy of study can only generally determine the modern definitions of race. The two brothers with 'Caucasoid' and 'negroid' skulls was enough for me. The recreations looked like two everyday black brothers.
I do wonder about this. I;ve seen this image aplenty but it looks like a recreation. If this is truly a representation of skin color this is the oldest depiction of white people ever.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes: People are being disingenuous
Right. How people can supposedly live in the West and walk away with the idea that 'black' only denotes skin pigmentation in everyday use is beyond me.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: @Fourty2Tribes, ^Not that I know of. Do you know?
Not until later. I contend that archelogical measurements while interesting and worthy of study can only generally determine the modern definitions of race. The two brothers with 'Caucasoid' and 'negroid' skulls was enough for me. The recreations looked like two everyday black brothers.
I do wonder about this. I;ve seen this image aplenty but it looks like a recreation. If this is truly a representation of skin color this is the oldest depiction of white people ever.
In my family we have supposed 'caucasoid' and 'negroid' features. Yet we make up one family. This is why I laugh at such presentations.
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes: People are being disingenuous
Right. How people can supposedly live in the West and walk away with the idea that 'black' only denotes skin pigmentation in everyday use is beyond me.
Indeed. The American/Western use of black does also doesn't go by the "true negroid" concept.
Not only that, but I am hearing that the American/Western use of "black" is becoming more common with other non-Western blacks.
@Ish Gebor
If you mind me asking, but does your family go by the western definition of "black."
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
^ yes. But I do have Indian friends who consider themselves black too.
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: ^ yes. But I do have Indian friends who consider themselves black too.
So the Indian friend considers himself as the same as Africans?
Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: @Sudaniya. In regards to Nofret and Rahotep. You're probably aware of a third option, i.e. allegations of forgery. If not you can read more about it here:
^And I'm posting this for the sake of nuance. Personally, I think strong allegations require extraordinary evidence. But everyone should make up their own mind.
Thanks for the link, Swenet. I do think that it may be a fake but since there is no definitive evidence for this position, I will have to defer judgement. Was Rahotep's mother from Upper Egypt or the Delta?
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
What kind of bullshit is this with the unpainted artifacts that it can't be told what colour the subject is?
It's really quite simple is the image of someone known to be a member of a black people?
Inner African albinos for instance are blacks only a fool says they are white because they are well known not to originate from a white people.
Its as stupid as lioness one off examples of kinky haired non-blacks Never a crowd scene of Richard Simmons people because his kinky hair is an anomaly far from the norm.
Egyptians have been known as B L A C K S by themselves Hebrews Greeks Romans Arabs Zanj and others throughout time and so shall they remain B L A C K for the rest of time except for those following the blatantly Eurocentric view of late that we can't tell what color grouping they belonged to or they are a colour all their own.
That and the reworking of the True Negro myth that only one inner African phenotype is really representative of black and that we must ignore facts like most East Indians are B L A C K and called so in neighboring countries.
For those of us not suffering a Simon Says psychosis and are not ashamed of our colour there is never a doubt about when to use B L A C K, there is never a time nor insta ce not to use B L A C K.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler:
It's really quite simple is the image of someone known to be a member of a black people?
partially
It's difficult to determine by looking how many memberships a person might have
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: ^ yes. But I do have Indian friends who consider themselves black too.
So the Indian friend considers himself as the same as Africans?
We never spoke like that, about the issue.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: @Sudaniya. In regards to Nofret and Rahotep. You're probably aware of a third option, i.e. allegations of forgery. If not you can read more about it here:
^And I'm posting this for the sake of nuance. Personally, I think strong allegations require extraordinary evidence. But everyone should make up their own mind.
Thanks for the link, Swenet. I do think that it may be a fake but since there is no definitive evidence for this position, I will have to defer judgement. Was Rahotep's mother from Upper Egypt or the Delta?
No idea. But that possibility (intermingling with northern nobility) might explain the heterogeneity among Rahotep's siblings and nephews (e.g. ranging from Khufu to Prince Hemiunu). But I don't know their origins so the reverse (Sneferu being a northerner and intermingling with southern nobility) could just as well be true.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes: People are being disingenuous
Right. How people can supposedly live in the West and walk away with the idea that 'black' only denotes skin pigmentation in everyday use is beyond me.
Indeed. The American/Western use of black does also doesn't go by the "true negroid" concept.
Not only that, but I am hearing that the American/Western use of "black" is becoming more common with other non-Western blacks.
How do you see the western use of the word in your view? What phenotypes and lineages are included and what isn't? And based on what?
To be clear, for our intents and purposes it's not important in and of itself what western lay people think about the 'taxonomy' of various tropically adapted people. But it becomes important in light of the agendas and sleight of hand involved in anthro topics.
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
That's how I view it.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
^Ok. Got it. You see the modern day western use of 'black' as similar to Jim Crow era perceptions.
Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: @Sudaniya. In regards to Nofret and Rahotep. You're probably aware of a third option, i.e. allegations of forgery. If not you can read more about it here:
^And I'm posting this for the sake of nuance. Personally, I think strong allegations require extraordinary evidence. But everyone should make up their own mind.
Thanks for the link, Swenet. I do think that it may be a fake but since there is no definitive evidence for this position, I will have to defer judgement. Was Rahotep's mother from Upper Egypt or the Delta?
No idea. But that possibility (intermingling with northern nobility) might explain the heterogeneity among Rahotep's siblings and nephews (e.g. ranging from Khufu to Prince Hemiunu). But I don't know their origins so the reverse (Sneferu being a northerner and intermingling with southern nobility) could just as well be true.
I couldn't possibility dismiss the possibility that Sneferu was from the North but the South was historically dominant and so I would bet that Sneferu was from the South. The North was incredibly fortunate to have been conquered and dominated by the South; the North was a primitive and disunited backwater that was not responsible for any of the technical and cultural achievements of ancient Egypt.
I found a pathetic forgery on Wikipedia. It's been ascribed to Sneferu.
"[Reign of] Sneferu. Year. The building of Tuataua ships of mer wood of a hundred capacity, and 60 royal boats of sixteen capacity. Raid in the Land of the Blacks, and the bringing in of seven thousand prisoners, men and women, and twenty thousand cattle, sheep, and goats... The bringing of forty ships of cedar wood (or perhaps "laden with cedar wood")..."
Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
I still don't believe that any truly reasonable grounds have been provided for precluding the use of black on the ancient Egyptians. What could possibly justify avoiding this word for the ancient Egyptians? Their hair? Their nose and lips? Their varying shades of brown skin? These are all features that the ancient Egyptians share with Sudanese, Somalis and other Africans in Northeast Africa and the Sahel... features that are indigenous to Africa.
People argue and insist that nobody is literally black, but nobody is also literally white, so why is why is "white" appropriate for all Europeans whereas "black" must be limited to a certain group of Africans per the insistence of Europeans!?
Black is a legitimate word and cannot be held hostage to the wholly self-serving and limited use of black that Northwest Europeans would like us to use.
Europeans are going to lose their significance in the coming decades so we should just completely disregard everything they have to say about anything.
I don't think that modern European academics would ever hesitate to call the ancient Greeks and Romans "white".
Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Again, the bottom line point here, notwithstanding your attempts to deny and avoid it, is that the whole debate over ancient Egypt is a debate over the skin color of the majority of the ancient population.
Maybe in Hollywood, the media and among trolls on the internet, but you were talking about white supremacists in science. Among the academics discussed throughout this thread, this simply wasn't true. And we'll see that in a minute when you're going to skirt around answering how these Giza reserve heads should be classified ethnically:
There is no skin color paint here for Eurocentric observers to manipulate (the busts are unpainted or the paint has faded), but the problem of 'racial' ambiguity is still there. But, of course, you already know this. Denial is just your way of coping.
And for the people who try to disown these ancient Egyptians: you're not going to worm out of this by saying that they look 'racially' ambiguous because they were admixed. This is completely irrelevant. African Americans are admixed as well; they generally look unambiguous enough to be called 'black' in the West and contrasted with 'whites'.
The word 'black' doesn't cover the complexities of African biodiversity. Even if you try to stick to the more objective skin pigmentation-based use of the term, at some point you're going to run into problems that can be avoided. The newbies can be forgiven for not realizing this. But if you're a "vet" and you still vehemently deny this, you're washed up and need to retire. Also, if you've been repeatedly told this in one-on-one coaching over a time span of years (like the troll who calls himself "Tropicals Redacted") and you still try to sweep this under the rug, you're a liar and you need to retire as well.
These people don't look ambiguous to me. They look like us. People look like this in North Sudan and Somalia. They would only be "ambiguous" if people were evoking Bantus.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Yes, the Land of the Blacks translation is faulty but what's your evidence the Palermo Stone Royal Annals isn't an authentic relic?
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya:
I found a pathetic forgery on Wikipedia. It's been ascribed to Sneferu.
"[Reign of] Sneferu. Year. The building of Tuataua ships of mer wood of a hundred capacity, and 60 royal boats of sixteen capacity. Raid in the Land of the Blacks, and the bringing in of seven thousand prisoners, men and women, and twenty thousand cattle, sheep, and goats... The bringing of forty ships of cedar wood (or perhaps "laden with cedar wood")..."
I assume all fragments of the Royal Annals are authentic primary document artifacts but what makes you say this Seneferu record held in Palermo isn't real?
Ta Nahhas outlined in red at bottom. Words for captive, female, and how many of them outlined in red at top.
And this is not offered in challenge as Lioness will poison it but in spirit of discussion to increase knowledge as I want to learn anything about a Palermo Stone validity controversy that I did not know before.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Yes, the Land of the Blacks translation is faulty but what's your evidence the Palermo Stone Royal Annals isn't an authentic relic?
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya:
I found a pathetic forgery on Wikipedia. It's been ascribed to Sneferu.
"[Reign of] Sneferu. Year. The building of Tuataua ships of mer wood of a hundred capacity, and 60 royal boats of sixteen capacity. Raid in the Land of the Blacks, and the bringing in of seven thousand prisoners, men and women, and twenty thousand cattle, sheep, and goats... The bringing of forty ships of cedar wood (or perhaps "laden with cedar wood")..."
what is the Egyptian word on the stone?
Wallace Budge said in his book Literature of the Ancient Egyptians
quote: The earliest known annals are found on a stone which is preserved in the Museum at Palermo, and which for this reason is called “The Palermo Stone”; the Egyptian text was first published by Signor A. Pellegrini in 1896....
Raid in the Land of the Blacks (i.e. the Sudan), and the bringing in of seven thousand prisoners, men and women, and twenty thousand cattle, sheep, and goats.
and
EDICT AGAINST THE BLACKS
This short inscription is dated in the eighth year of the reign of Usertsen III. “The southern frontier in the eighth year under the Majesty of the King of the South and North, Khakaura (Usertsen III), endowed with life for ever. No Black whatsoever shall be permitted to pass [this stone] going down stream, whether travelling by land or sailing in a boat, with cattle, asses, goats, &c., belonging to the Blacks, with the exception of such as cometh to do business in the country of Aqen[1] or on an embassy. Such, however, shall be well entreated in every way. No boats belonging to the Blacks shall in future be permitted to pass down the river by the region of Heh.”
You know what word's on the Royal Annals (Palermo Stone) or are you just a useless data miner what can't as much as read that you find?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Yes, the Land of the Blacks translation is faulty but what's your evidence the Palermo Stone Royal Annals isn't an authentic relic?
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya:
I found a pathetic forgery on Wikipedia. It's been ascribed to Sneferu.
"[Reign of] Sneferu. Year. The building of Tuataua ships of mer wood of a hundred capacity, and 60 royal boats of sixteen capacity. Raid in the Land of the Blacks, and the bringing in of seven thousand prisoners, men and women, and twenty thousand cattle, sheep, and goats... The bringing of forty ships of cedar wood (or perhaps "laden with cedar wood")..."
sudaniya, ignore Tukuler. He is asking you for evidence the Palermo Stone isn't an authentic yet at the same time when he says the translation is faulty and did not give YOU evidence. So the plane is still in the hanger.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: @Sudaniya. In regards to Nofret and Rahotep. You're probably aware of a third option, i.e. allegations of forgery. If not you can read more about it here:
^And I'm posting this for the sake of nuance. Personally, I think strong allegations require extraordinary evidence. But everyone should make up their own mind.
Thanks for the link, Swenet. I do think that it may be a fake but since there is no definitive evidence for this position, I will have to defer judgement. Was Rahotep's mother from Upper Egypt or the Delta?
No idea. But that possibility (intermingling with northern nobility) might explain the heterogeneity among Rahotep's siblings and nephews (e.g. ranging from Khufu to Prince Hemiunu). But I don't know their origins so the reverse (Sneferu being a northerner and intermingling with southern nobility) could just as well be true.
I couldn't possibility dismiss the possibility that Sneferu was from the North but the South was historically dominant and so I would bet that Sneferu was from the South. The North was incredibly fortunate to have been conquered and dominated by the South; the North was a primitive and disunited backwater that was not responsible for any of the technical and cultural achievements of ancient Egypt.
I found a pathetic forgery on Wikipedia. It's been ascribed to Sneferu.
"[Reign of] Sneferu. Year. The building of Tuataua ships of mer wood of a hundred capacity, and 60 royal boats of sixteen capacity. Raid in the Land of the Blacks, and the bringing in of seven thousand prisoners, men and women, and twenty thousand cattle, sheep, and goats... The bringing of forty ships of cedar wood (or perhaps "laden with cedar wood")..."
here's another translation, "Nubians" instead of "Blacks"
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Again, the bottom line point here, notwithstanding your attempts to deny and avoid it, is that the whole debate over ancient Egypt is a debate over the skin color of the majority of the ancient population.
Maybe in Hollywood, the media and among trolls on the internet, but you were talking about white supremacists in science. Among the academics discussed throughout this thread, this simply wasn't true. And we'll see that in a minute when you're going to skirt around answering how these Giza reserve heads should be classified ethnically:
There is no skin color paint here for Eurocentric observers to manipulate (the busts are unpainted or the paint has faded), but the problem of 'racial' ambiguity is still there. But, of course, you already know this. Denial is just your way of coping.
And for the people who try to disown these ancient Egyptians: you're not going to worm out of this by saying that they look 'racially' ambiguous because they were admixed. This is completely irrelevant. African Americans are admixed as well; they generally look unambiguous enough to be called 'black' in the West and contrasted with 'whites'.
The word 'black' doesn't cover the complexities of African biodiversity. Even if you try to stick to the more objective skin pigmentation-based use of the term, at some point you're going to run into problems that can be avoided. The newbies can be forgiven for not realizing this. But if you're a "vet" and you still vehemently deny this, you're washed up and need to retire. Also, if you've been repeatedly told this in one-on-one coaching over a time span of years (like the troll who calls himself "Tropicals Redacted") and you still try to sweep this under the rug, you're a liar and you need to retire as well.
These people don't look ambiguous to me. They look like us. People look like this in North Sudan and Somalia. They would only be "ambiguous" if people were evoking Bantus.
What was the purpose of these reserve heads? From what I read, it's unclear what they mean. The suggestion is symbolism. But you're right, in appearance they do look like what you will in in North Sudan etc...
Logically this is the conclusion:
quote:"The ancient Egyptians were not 'white' in any European sense, nor were they 'Caucasian'... we can say that the earliest population of ancient Egypt included African people from the upper Nile, African people from the regions of the Sahara and modern Libya, and smaller numbers of people who had come from south-western Asia and perhaps the Arabian penisula."
--Robert Morkot (2005). The Egyptians: An Introduction. pp. 12-13
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Battlefield Palette
Naqada III Date3100BC (circa)
The lower half of a palette of grey mudstone: together with a cast of another fragment in the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford. The palette is decorated on both faces with scenes in low relief. On one face, two long-necked gazelles (gerenuk) are browsing on a central date-palm. Behind the head of one animal (on the Oxford fragment) is a bird with a hooked beak, possibly a form of guinea-fowl. The other face bears a scene showing prisoners and the casualties of battle, the latter being preyed upon by vultures, ravens and a lion. It has been suggested that the lion represents the king defeating his enemies, but it may simply be intended as a scavenger like the vultures. Near the top of the main fragment, a bound captive stands in front of a figure clad in a long cloak, whilst the smaller (Oxford) fragment bears two figures of captives gripped by the standards of the ibis and the falcon. The space towards the top of the palette seems to have been devoted to more representations of the slain. On the right-hand edge of the Oxford fragment, in front of the two captives, is the circular plain area surrounded by a raised ridge, derived from cosmetic palettes. The defeated people are bearded, have curled hair, and are circumcised. A cast of the fragment in the Ashmolean Museum is attached.
I had said earlier that the nature of the hair here can't be told if it's curly hair or afro hair in particular. Nobody knows who these people are. They appear to have penis sheaths which have led to some speculate that they are Libyans but penis sheaths are not unique to LIbyan only, if I am not mistaken and Libyans are depicted in much or Egyptian art as straight haired. Another proposal I had seen in a book is that that they are Nubians. sudaniya what do you think?
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
Yawn^ Now the people who have inhabited the Naqada region are all of a sudden unknown. lol sure!
btw Doug's lurking
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Yeah, lioness will do anything to distract, digress, disrupt, destroy a thread and d its subjects especially reposting **** gone through the ringer zillions of times already keeping us mired down to protect the innocent newbies and new lurkers.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Yes, the Land of the Blacks translation is faulty but what's your evidence the Palermo Stone Royal Annals isn't an authentic relic?
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya:
I found a pathetic forgery on Wikipedia. It's been ascribed to Sneferu.
"[Reign of] Sneferu. Year. The building of Tuataua ships of mer wood of a hundred capacity, and 60 royal boats of sixteen capacity. Raid in the Land of the Blacks, and the bringing in of seven thousand prisoners, men and women, and twenty thousand cattle, sheep, and goats... The bringing of forty ships of cedar wood (or perhaps "laden with cedar wood")..."
I assume all fragments of the Royal Annals are authentic primary document artifacts but what makes you say this Seneferu record held in Palermo isn't real?
Ta Nahhas outlined in red at bottom. Words for captive, female, and how many of them outlined in red at top.
And this is not offered in challenge as Lioness will poison it but in spirit of discussion to increase knowledge as I want to learn anything about a Palermo Stone validity controversy that I did not know before.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Yeah, lioness will do anything to distract, digress, disrupt, destroy a thread and d its subjects especially reposting **** gone through the ringer zillions of times already keeping us mired down to protect the innocent newbies and new lurkers.
^ Ignore Tukuler, he is in one of his paranoid angry moods.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Yeah, lioness will do anything to distract, digress, disrupt, destroy a thread and d its subjects especially reposting **** gone through the ringer zillions of times already keeping us mired down to protect the innocent newbies and new lurkers.
Well said.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Yeah, lioness will do anything to distract, digress, disrupt, destroy a thread and d its subjects especially reposting **** gone through the ringer zillions of times already keeping us mired down to protect the innocent newbies and new lurkers.
Well said.
quiet, I said no cheerleading, we need useful content. Tukuler's just mad he's not the only one posting sources and also I called him out on his membership theory
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Reposted to deflect distraction:
Yes, the Land of the Blacks translation is faulty but what's your evidence the Palermo Stone Royal Annals isn't an authentic relic?
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya:
I found a pathetic forgery on Wikipedia. It's been ascribed to Sneferu.
"[Reign of] Sneferu. Year. The building of Tuataua ships of mer wood of a hundred capacity, and 60 royal boats of sixteen capacity. Raid in the Land of the Blacks, and the bringing in of seven thousand prisoners, men and women, and twenty thousand cattle, sheep, and goats... The bringing of forty ships of cedar wood (or perhaps "laden with cedar wood")..."
I assume all fragments of the Royal Annals are authentic primary document artifacts but what makes you say this Seneferu record held in Palermo isn't real?
Ta Nahhas outlined in red at bottom. Words for captive, female, and how many of them outlined in red at top.
And this is not offered in challenge as Lioness will poison it but in spirit of discussion to increase knowledge as I want to learn anything about a Palermo Stone validity controversy that I did not know before.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Yes, the Land of the Blacks translation is faulty but what's your evidence the Palermo Stone Royal Annals isn't an authentic relic?
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya:
I found a pathetic forgery on Wikipedia. It's been ascribed to Sneferu.
"[Reign of] Sneferu. Year. The building of Tuataua ships of mer wood of a hundred capacity, and 60 royal boats of sixteen capacity. Raid in the Land of the Blacks, and the bringing in of seven thousand prisoners, men and women, and twenty thousand cattle, sheep, and goats... The bringing of forty ships of cedar wood (or perhaps "laden with cedar wood")..."
I assume all fragments of the Royal Annals are authentic primary document artifacts but what makes you say this Seneferu record held in Palermo isn't real?
Ta Nahhas outlined in red at bottom. Words for captive, female, and how many of them outlined in red at top.
And this is not offered in challenge as Lioness will poison it but in spirit of discussion to increase knowledge as I want to learn anything about a Palermo Stone validity controversy that I did not know before.
This is typical Tukuler. Hr always try to highbrow and use the most obscure spellings so people don't know what he's talking about. Example , spelling " Nahhas" with two h's
On the Etymology of the Egyptian word Nehesi ‘Nubian’
Nḥsj(w)
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Reposted to deflect distraction:
Yes, the Land of the Blacks translation is faulty but what's your evidence the Palermo Stone Royal Annals isn't an authentic relic?
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya:
I found a pathetic forgery on Wikipedia. It's been ascribed to Sneferu.
"[Reign of] Sneferu. Year. The building of Tuataua ships of mer wood of a hundred capacity, and 60 royal boats of sixteen capacity. Raid in the Land of the Blacks, and the bringing in of seven thousand prisoners, men and women, and twenty thousand cattle, sheep, and goats... The bringing of forty ships of cedar wood (or perhaps "laden with cedar wood")..."
I assume all fragments of the Royal Annals are authentic primary document artifacts but what makes you say this Seneferu record held in Palermo isn't real?
Ta Nahhas outlined in red at bottom. Words for captive, female, and how many of them outlined in red at top.
NOTE hh is used to transliterate h with the diacritic dot under it.
And this is not offered in challenge as Lioness will poison it but in spirit of discussion to increase knowledge as I want to learn anything about a Palermo Stone validity controversy that I did not know before.
Please, if anybody's got a photo of the bottom register of the Palermo Stone Royal Annal please post it to replace the drawing I used. Thanks.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: I still don't believe that any truly reasonable grounds have been provided for precluding the use of black on the ancient Egyptians. What could possibly justify avoiding this word for the ancient Egyptians? Their hair? Their nose and lips? Their varying shades of brown skin? These are all features that the ancient Egyptians share with Sudanese, Somalis and other Africans in Northeast Africa and the Sahel... features that are indigenous to Africa.
People argue and insist that nobody is literally black, but nobody is also literally white, so why is why is "white" appropriate for all Europeans whereas "black" must be limited to a certain group of Africans per the insistence of Europeans!?
Black is a legitimate word and cannot be held hostage to the wholly self-serving and limited use of black that Northwest Europeans would like us to use.
Europeans are going to lose their significance in the coming decades so we should just completely disregard everything they have to say about anything.
I don't think that modern European academics would ever hesitate to call the ancient Greeks and Romans "white".
It all goes back to what I said in the OP. The post quoted by BBH there sums up what I've been saying in this thread. See that post... what you say here does not address it.
I'm still waiting on someone to address that post and justify some of the uses of 'black' I've seen people use in this thread. Especially when I caught them flip flopping to a racial use of the term. I'm still waiting on someone to prove that the academic rope tugging over the origins of ancient Egypt was somehow purely a matter of denial. So where are all these arguments? I see a bunch of "vets" thumping their chests and making a lot of noise over 25 thread pages, but I'm not seeing anything of substance. Whoever wants to take the challenge of addressing my arguments, I'm here.
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: These people don't look ambiguous to me. They look like us. People look like this in North Sudan and Somalia. They would only be "ambiguous" if people were evoking Bantus.
Sure, there is a degree of overlap with northern Sudanese. But that doesn't nullify what I said. They're still racially ambiguous. 'Ambiguous' doesn't rule out that you'll find places in Africa where those looks occur. It means that there is a gray area where such faces could occur in a number of places. An objective and well-traveled observer wouldn't necessarily point to northern Sudan if you showed them that image. That's what I mean when I say ambiguous.
And remember that I said that in response to Doug's claim that this debate is only about skin color. Let's not lose sight of why I brought up those Giza heads.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Yeah, lioness will do anything to distract, digress, disrupt, destroy a thread and d its subjects especially reposting **** gone through the ringer zillions of times already keeping us mired down to protect the innocent newbies and new lurkers.
Well said.
quiet, I said no cheerleading, we need useful content. Tukuler's just mad he's not the only one posting sources and also I called him out on his membership theory
Did I call for sh.t to talk? Nope, I did not. Then why respond? We need useful content indeed, no fake African American black woman, who is posting repetively stuff. Yet you have the nerve to call for quietness? Smh at his imposter. How dumb are you really? smh
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Reposted to deflect distraction:
Yes, the Land of the Blacks translation is faulty but what's your evidence the Palermo Stone Royal Annals isn't an authentic relic?
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya:
I found a pathetic forgery on Wikipedia. It's been ascribed to Sneferu.
"[Reign of] Sneferu. Year. The building of Tuataua ships of mer wood of a hundred capacity, and 60 royal boats of sixteen capacity. Raid in the Land of the Blacks, and the bringing in of seven thousand prisoners, men and women, and twenty thousand cattle, sheep, and goats... The bringing of forty ships of cedar wood (or perhaps "laden with cedar wood")..."
I assume all fragments of the Royal Annals are authentic primary document artifacts but what makes you say this Seneferu record held in Palermo isn't real?
Ta Nahhas outlined in red at bottom. Words for captive, female, and how many of them outlined in red at top.
NOTE hh is used to transliterate h with the diacritic dot under it.
And this is not offered in challenge as Lioness will poison it but in spirit of discussion to increase knowledge as I want to learn anything about a Palermo Stone validity controversy that I did not know before.
Please, if anybody's got a photo of the bottom register of the Palermo Stone Royal Annal please post it to replace the drawing I used. Thanks.
Who looks like the ancient Egyptians in terms of craniofacial structure?
Is it: group a (tropically adapted people in the skin pigmentation range of African Americans), group b (coastal North Africans), group c (coastal North Africans and West Eurasians with varying degrees of resemblance to OOA Africans and post-OOA North African ancestry) group d (speakers of Afro-Asiatic languages and nearby groups)
No matter how you try to slice it (a, b, c or d), you're not going to get a neat Africa/Eurasia binary distinction. Therefore, any use of 'black' that pretends that such a binary distinction is real is misleading at best or deliberately deceptive in the case of some trolls who are deliberately lying. (The same goes for people who say group c is a 'Caucasoid' cluster). People who use 'black' to refer to skin pigmentation are off the hook as far as that problem is concerned, but as I've pointed out many times, when you look at how these people use 'black' they flip flop all the time depending on convenience. They have some explaining to do as well. I'm definitely not buying that they're using it solely to refer to skin pigmentation.
But I'm getting tired of repeating myself at this point. You either have done your homework on this anthro-stuff or you haven't. No in betweens. And the "vets" who made all this noise in this thread are clearly not in a position to be teaching anyone anything on this subject. They don't get to pontificate about what was racism or deliberate denial in anthro texts as far as the modern human taxons that were devised.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Mm hmm, that's that London Fragment Royal Annals, one of like seven some pieces right?
That appears to be correct. Fragment 27.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Who looks like the ancient Egyptians in terms of craniofacial structure?
Is it: group a (tropically adapted people in the skin pigmentation range of African Americans), group b (coastal North Africans), group c (coastal North Africans and West Eurasians with varying degrees of resemblance to OOA Africans and post-OOA North African ancestry) group d (speakers of Afro-Asiatic languages and nearby groups)
No matter how you try to slice it (a, b, c or d), you're not going to get a neat Africa/Eurasia binary distinction. Therefore, any use of 'black' that pretends that such a binary distinction is real is misleading at best or deliberately deceptive in the case of some trolls who are deliberately lying. (The same goes for people who say group c is a 'Caucasoid' cluster). People who use 'black' to refer to skin pigmentation are off the hook as far as that problem is concerned, but as I've pointed out many times, when you look at how these people use 'black' they flip flop all the time depending on convenience. They have some explaining to do as well. I'm definitely not buying that they're using it solely to refer to skin pigmentation.
But I'm getting tired of repeating myself at this point. You either have done your homework on this anthro-stuff or you haven't. No in betweens. And the "vets" who made all this noise in this thread are clearly not in a position to be teaching anyone anything on this subject. They don't get to pontificate about what was racism or deliberate denial in anthro texts as far as the modern human taxons that were devised.
Swenet, why they used European populations in the plot, and excluded Sahara-Sahel populations?
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: Swenet, why they used European populations in the plot, and excluded Sahara-Sahel populations?
Certain quarters claimed and still claim that 'black' in the racial sense covers ancient Egyptian variation. Brace et al set out to test that claim and that is the result. No need to be salty with Brace et al. People need to show some responsibility for their actions. They make themselves easy targets for refutation by insisting on racial language. They make their beds but don't want to lay in it. Of course, when their racial terminology backfires people get angry with Brace and flip flop to the 'safe' position that 'black' only refers to skin pigmentation. When they think it's safe to revert back to their racial use of the term, you can see them talk about someone being "genetically black" or having "black features".
But pray tell. What would be the added benefit of including more Sahelian populations in Brace et al's analysis? And which Sahelian populations specifically would have to be included to produce more 'satisfying' results?
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
And this is why I say YET AGAIN lets just keep racial terms out of bio-anthropology to be safe...
Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: Swenet, why they used European populations in the plot, and excluded Sahara-Sahel populations?
Certain quarters claimed and still claim that 'black' in the racial sense covers ancient Egyptian variation. Brace et al set out to test that claim and that is the result. No need to be salty with Brace et al. People need to show some responsibility for their actions. They make themselves easy targets for refutation by insisting on racial language. They make their beds but don't want to lay in it. Of course, when their racial terminology backfires people get angry with Brace and flip flop to the 'safe' position that 'black' only refers to skin pigmentation. When they think it's safe to revert back to their racial use of the term, you can see them talk about someone being "genetically black" or having "black features".
But pray tell. What would be the added benefit of including more Sahelian populations in Brace et al's analysis? And which Sahelian populations specifically would have to be included to produce more 'satisfying' results?
So Upper Egyptians, Southern Egypt's Nubians, North Sudanese, Egypt's Eastern desert Beja and Somalis were used by Brace?
I can't imagine that any "Eurasian" population would be craniofacially closer to the ancient Egyptians than any of these Northeast Africans.
Forgive my for my ignorance on the matter, but didn't Northeast Africans leave Africa to colonise the world? Isn't this the reason that Eurasians would plot somewhat closely with us?
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
^What I was thinking too.
Posted by Nodnarb (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: Swenet, why they used European populations in the plot, and excluded Sahara-Sahel populations?
Certain quarters claimed and still claim that 'black' in the racial sense covers ancient Egyptian variation. Brace et al set out to test that claim and that is the result. No need to be salty with Brace et al. People need to show some responsibility for their actions. They make themselves easy targets for refutation by insisting on racial language. They make their beds but don't want to lay in it. Of course, when their racial terminology backfires people get angry with Brace and flip flop to the 'safe' position that 'black' only refers to skin pigmentation. When they think it's safe to revert back to their racial use of the term, you can see them talk about someone being "genetically black" or having "black features".
But pray tell. What would be the added benefit of including more Sahelian populations in Brace et al's analysis? And which Sahelian populations specifically would have to be included to produce more 'satisfying' results?
Were Upper Egyptians, Southern Egypt's Nubians, North Sudanese, Egypt's Eastern desert Beja and Somalis used by Brace?
I can't imagine that any "Eurasian" population would be craniofacially closer to the ancient Egyptians than any of these Northeast Africans.
Forgive my for my ignorance on the matter, but didn't Northeast Africans leave Africa to colonise the world? Isn't this the reason that Eurasians would plot somewhat closely with us?
If you look at the Brace plot, you will see that Nubians and Somalis do plot relatively close to predynastic Upper Egyptians. But then, you will also notice that Australo-Melanesians plot close to the pooled sub-Saharans despite being even more genetically divergent from them than Saharans ever were, so the graph isn't a perfect reflection of genetic relationships among these populations. But it does suffice to show ancient Egypto-Nubians had a different craniofacial morphology on average from the sub-Saharan norm.
I would say what it boils down to is whether Northeast Africans indigenous to the Sahara would count as "Black" in traditional Western understandings the way sub-Saharans typically are. Clearly you, as a Northeast African from Sudan, identify as Black, and I presume you accepted that identity from some influence out there. But the very fact that the "true Negro" archetype has been a recurring theme in debates here on ES shows that there's also a tendency to delimit "Black" identity to sub-Saharans with broad facial features. What Swenet seems to be saying is that by chucking out color labels, you can skirt that "True Negro" issue entirely.
What special use do you see in the word "Black" that "African" couldn't cover just as well?
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: I can't imagine that any "Eurasian" population would be craniofacially closer to the ancient Egyptians than any of these Northeast Africans.
That various samples in Eurasia are closer to the predynastic sample than some of the northeast African samples in that graphic is not what I intended to draw attention to. They're just two (Upper[?]) Nubian samples out of many. What I meant to say is that people can try to slice that map up in a way that is consistent with a racial use of 'black' (i.e. by arbitrarily making predynastic Egypt the periphery of the 'black' phenotype) but that's subjective and not at all what that graph says. That's my point. Who is to say what that grey colored area occupied by Lower Egypt represents? The cranio-facial phenotypes there are not consistent with a racial use of 'black', that's for sure. The grey colored area is literally a GREY AREA. And the cranio-facial phenotypes there are ambiguous in the sense that they could occur in a number of populations. Doug just said that grey area is "white" when he called that Bronze Age European warrior "white". With that move he disowned ancient Nile Valley phenotypes and he doesn't have the foggiest clue. SMH.
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: Forgive my for my ignorance on the matter, but didn't Northeast Africans leave Africa to colonise the world? Isn't this the reason that Eurasians would plot somewhat closely with us?
The early Upper Palaeolithic Eurasians who belong to the M and N lineages look like Predynastic Nile Valley populations in a lot of ways. They just more robust, larger and generalized. Even in their bodyplan they resemble ancient Nubians and Egyptians according to Holliday. If a representative sample of Upper Palaeolithic M and N people were projected on that Brace graph, their centroid would plot exactly there, in that grey area I just talked about.
quote:originally posted by Swenet: ^'Eurneo' (neolithic Europeans) and 'Egypt' (late dynastic Lower Egypt) occupy the same general position. This is the same general position that that Bronze Age warrior would fall into. Doug keeps ranting on and on about the racists he claims to be against, but then parrots their Eurocentric claim that this morphospace is necessarily 'European', 'white' and 'Polish'.
Posted by Punos_Rey (Member # 21929) on :
Could someone explain to me what exactly is the "sub-saharan norm" as far as phenotypic expression? Considering the sheer diversity even within "Sub-Saharan Africa" what is the metric for that statement that bifurcates them from Northeast Africans?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: Yawn^ Now the people who have inhabited the Naqada region are all of a sudden unknown. lol sure!
I have already schooled your ass on this so you can stop "loling" like a schoolgirl
1) Victorian ornamental comb
2) Hair Comb Decorated with Rows of Wild Animals
Period: Predynastic, Late Naqada III Date: ca. 3200–3100 B.C.
Notice the size of the remaining portions of each of the prongs
_______________________________
Queen Tiye
_____________Maiherpri
Posted by Punos_Rey (Member # 21929) on :
Maiherpri's "hair" is a wig tightly glued to his scalp so using him in a hair compare contest is comical.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Ok, disregard Maiherpri
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: Swenet, why they used European populations in the plot, and excluded Sahara-Sahel populations?
Certain quarters claimed and still claim that 'black' in the racial sense covers ancient Egyptian variation. Brace et al set out to test that claim and that is the result. No need to be salty with Brace et al. People need to show some responsibility for their actions. They make themselves easy targets for refutation by insisting on racial language. They make their beds but don't want to lay in it. Of course, when their racial terminology backfires people get angry with Brace and flip flop to the 'safe' position that 'black' only refers to skin pigmentation. When they think it's safe to revert back to their racial use of the term, you can see them talk about someone being "genetically black" or having "black features".
But pray tell. What would be the added benefit of including more Sahelian populations in Brace et al's analysis? And which Sahelian populations specifically would have to be included to produce more 'satisfying' results?
I am not arguing about the word black here. I have been to Egypt (several places). And I know they identify with being black. This doesn't mean, they identified with being west African. The west created this Bantu-concept of "black features" at a time when only they had access to "science" and publishings. But it's obviously imploding now.
I noticed that in the plot, surrounding people populations have been excluded, which I think is weird. Why would one do so? And yes, I do think it would have produced more 'satisfying' results. Instead of trying to plot European populations. It's like showing a Celtic settlement, yet plotting Amerindians to see which fits best, and leaving out surrounding populations.
But I do think the outcome of the plot would have been/ looked different.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: Swenet, why they used European populations in the plot, and excluded Sahara-Sahel populations?
Certain quarters claimed and still claim that 'black' in the racial sense covers ancient Egyptian variation. Brace et al set out to test that claim and that is the result. No need to be salty with Brace et al. People need to show some responsibility for their actions. They make themselves easy targets for refutation by insisting on racial language. They make their beds but don't want to lay in it. Of course, when their racial terminology backfires people get angry with Brace and flip flop to the 'safe' position that 'black' only refers to skin pigmentation. When they think it's safe to revert back to their racial use of the term, you can see them talk about someone being "genetically black" or having "black features".
But pray tell. What would be the added benefit of including more Sahelian populations in Brace et al's analysis? And which Sahelian populations specifically would have to be included to produce more 'satisfying' results?
So Upper Egyptians, Southern Egypt's Nubians, North Sudanese, Egypt's Eastern desert Beja and Somalis were used by Brace?
I can't imagine that any "Eurasian" population would be craniofacially closer to the ancient Egyptians than any of these Northeast Africans.
Forgive my for my ignorance on the matter, but didn't Northeast Africans leave Africa to colonise the world? Isn't this the reason that Eurasians would plot somewhat closely with us?
These are only a few you mentioned, which I am refer at. There are more ethic groups. "Less popular", for most people. None of them had been plotted, or even considered. SMH
And I am almost certain that C. Brace can't mention 10 local ethnic groups, who have settled the region for the last thousands of years. Except for the most "known" ethnic groups.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: [qb] Yawn^ Now the people who have inhabited the Naqada region are all of a sudden unknown. lol sure!
https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/prec/www/course/egypt/274RH/Pictures/Predynastic%20Period/PredynCombs.jpgI have already schooled your ass on this so you can stop "loling" like a schoolgirl
You have schooled no one, in fact it was the opposite.
LOL at the "Victorian comb". What the **** are trying to prove?
Relevant sources stated Afro-comb, people who have resided in the region use it as what? An Afro-comb. They sport what hair do? AFRO!
Ironically these ethnic groups from the region, still have similar combs, and hair textures.
The settlements where these combs were found, show the first mummies to have curlied hair.
Yet, here you are with some white victiorian female, with bone straight hair?
In case you don't know, the victiorian period dates from 1837 to 1901. A time where whites were slaying niggers. Or are you now going to claim whites where actually the niggers?
And that Ashanti-combs, were actually combs used by (white) euro-Victorians.
quote:Originally posted by Punos_Rey: Maiherpri's "hair" is a wig tightly glued to his scalp so using him in a hair compare contest is comical.
That person has been using this argument for over 5 crazy years. But you have to understand that that person knows very little about local ethnic groups, from the Sahara-Sahel region.
Now the claim is some Victorian comb, and white Victorian woman? And completely scrubbing off the local populations who have settled in these regions for thousands of years. And this is considered completely normal for this person. Yet, see what happens when Mike or Iron Lion take about Europe.lol
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nodnarb:
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: Swenet, why they used European populations in the plot, and excluded Sahara-Sahel populations?
Certain quarters claimed and still claim that 'black' in the racial sense covers ancient Egyptian variation. Brace et al set out to test that claim and that is the result. No need to be salty with Brace et al. People need to show some responsibility for their actions. They make themselves easy targets for refutation by insisting on racial language. They make their beds but don't want to lay in it. Of course, when their racial terminology backfires people get angry with Brace and flip flop to the 'safe' position that 'black' only refers to skin pigmentation. When they think it's safe to revert back to their racial use of the term, you can see them talk about someone being "genetically black" or having "black features".
But pray tell. What would be the added benefit of including more Sahelian populations in Brace et al's analysis? And which Sahelian populations specifically would have to be included to produce more 'satisfying' results?
Were Upper Egyptians, Southern Egypt's Nubians, North Sudanese, Egypt's Eastern desert Beja and Somalis used by Brace?
I can't imagine that any "Eurasian" population would be craniofacially closer to the ancient Egyptians than any of these Northeast Africans.
Forgive my for my ignorance on the matter, but didn't Northeast Africans leave Africa to colonise the world? Isn't this the reason that Eurasians would plot somewhat closely with us?
If you look at the Brace plot, you will see that Nubians and Somalis do plot relatively close to predynastic Upper Egyptians. But then, you will also notice that Australo-Melanesians plot close to the pooled sub-Saharans despite being even more genetically divergent from them than Saharans ever were, so the graph isn't a perfect reflection of genetic relationships among these populations. But it does suffice to show ancient Egypto-Nubians had a different craniofacial morphology on average from the sub-Saharan norm.
I would say what it boils down to is whether Northeast Africans indigenous to the Sahara would count as "Black" in traditional Western understandings the way sub-Saharans typically are. Clearly you, as a Northeast African from Sudan, identify as Black, and I presume you accepted that identity from some influence out there. But the very fact that the "true Negro" archetype has been a recurring theme in debates here on ES shows that there's also a tendency to delimit "Black" identity to sub-Saharans with broad facial features. What Swenet seems to be saying is that by chucking out color labels, you can skirt that "True Negro" issue entirely.
What special use do you see in the word "Black" that "African" couldn't cover just as well?
Yes, I did notic that, and that is not my argument. But Nubians are a cluster of several ethnic groups. Just like Somalis are. What I am arguing is, why aren't other local and neighbouring populations in the plot, who reside at the Sahara-Sahel. And what is meant by sub-Saharans?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: Or are you now going to claim whites where actually the niggers?
quote:The cemetery called HK43, belonging to the non-elite (or workers) segment of the predynastic population, is located on the southern side of the site beside the Wadi Khamsini. Work here in 1996 when a land reclamation scheme threatened its preservation and excavations continued until 2004, resulting in the discovery of a minimum of 452 graves holding over 500 individuals of Naqada IIB-IIC date (roughly 3650-3500BC).
Careful removal of the upper layer of matting and linen pads around the head resulted in the preservation of her entire head of hair, revealing a shoulder-length style of natural waves extending c.22cm from the crown of the head with a left side parting and asymmetrical fringe made up of S-shaped curls bordering the forehead. In addition to the excellent preservation of the cranial hair, the right eyebrow also survived.
So what would be the appropriate comb type for this type of hair ?
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: Or are you now going to claim whites where actually the niggers?
The term is wig-er
Nope the term wigger is not what I meant, I meant nigger. Replacing the actual population is what I am talking about, not imposing as a black person as you have done for over 5 years.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: mummy sporting "S" shaped curl
What is that supposed to prove? That local from the region people did not and don't have this type of curls? Are you truly that arrogant and ignorant.
quote:"As a result of their facial prognathism, the Badarian sample has been described as forming a morphological cluster with Nubian, Tigrean, and other southern (or "Negroid") groups (Morant, 1935, 1937; Mukherjee et al., 1955; Nutter, 1958, Strouhal, 1971; Angel, 1972; Keita, 1990). Cranial nonmetric trait studies have found this group to be similar to other Egyptians, including much later material (Berry and Berry, 1967, 1972), but also to be significantly different from LPD material (Berry et al., 1967). Similarly, the study of dental nonmetric traits has suggested that the Badarian population is at the centroid of Egyptian dental samples (Irish, 2006), thereby suggesting similarity and hence continuity across Egyptian time periods. From the central location of the Badarian samples in Figure 2, the current study finds the Badarian to be relatively morphologically close to the centroid of all the Egyptian samples. The Badarian have been shown to exhibit greatest morphological similarity with the temporally successive EPD (Table 5). Finally, the biological distinctiveness of the Badarian from other Egyptian samples has also been demonstrated (Tables 6 and 7).
These results suggest that the EDyn do form a distinct morphological pattern. Their overlap with other Egyptian samples (in PC space, Fig. 2) suggests that although their morphology is distinctive, the pattern does overlap with the other time periods. These results therefore do not support the Petrie concept of a \Dynastic race" (Petrie, 1939; Derry, 1956). Instead, the results suggest that the Egyptian state was not the product of mass movement of populations into the Egyptian Nile region, but rather that it was the result of primarily indigenous development combined with prolonged small-scale migration, potentially from trade, military, or other contacts.
This evidence suggests that the process of state formation itself may have been mainly an indigenous process, but that it may have occurred in association with in-migration to the Abydos region of the Nile Valley. This potential in-migration may have occurred particularly during the EDyn and OK. A possible explanation is that the Egyptian state formed through increasing control of trade and raw materials, or due to military actions, potentially associated with the use of the Nile Valley as a corridor for prolonged small scale movements through the desert environment."
--Sonia R. Zakrzewski. (2007). Population Continuity or Population Change: Formation of the Ancient Egyptian State. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 132:501-509)
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: So what would be the appropriate comb type for this type of hair ?
Besides hair treatments, the hair texture is a loose type of hair texture. You are a lame, dishonest and lying individual.
Thra lala.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: I am not arguing about the word black here. I have been to Egypt (several places). And I know they identify with being black.
BTW, in general I think it's a bad idea to go down that road of self-identifications. I shouldn't even be posting that article. But I'm doing it this time because for some reason people just like to lie about the meaning of 'black' in every day use. Not saying that you're making that argument, but no one in the article is subscribing to Doug's claim that people understand 'black' to mean skin pigmentation in every day use.
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: I noticed that in the plot, surrounding people populations have been excluded, which I think is weird. Why would one do so? And yes, I do think it would have produced more 'satisfying' results. Instead of trying to plot European populations.
Plenty of Sahelian samples in the paper below. Makes no difference whatsoever as far as the 'racially awkward' relationships of the northern Sudanese and Kharga oasis samples. There is still no binary distinction with Africans on the one hand and non Africans neatly on the other hand.
But I get it. We just have to look harder, right? Just like the Euronuts who are trying to find the 'white hope' sample with no African ancestry that will magically cluster with predynastic Egyptians to the exclusion of regional samples.
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: It's like showing a Celtic settlement, yet plotting Amerindians to see which fits best, and leaving out surrounding populations.
Other than the various Sub-Saharan samples, Brace et al used one lower Nubian sample, two (Upper[?]) Nubian samples, one neolithic Algerian sample, a single X group Nubian individual and a Somali sample. The latter four didn't fail to show strong relationships with the predynastic Egyptian sample. I think that's a clue in and of itself.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
@Swenet, ^ "they", are the many people I encountered at many places. This doesn't mean, they associate black with being "Bantu" or any stereotype African.
How does Abdel-latif aboul-ela speak for lay people? And what does he mean by Deep South? Ramses II remains were found in the Deep South, near what is now considered Sudan, Luxor, at the Valley of The Kings tomb KV7.
People there (the region) on average look similar to this man.
I see Abdel-latif aboul-ela is cited often, also by Mary Lefkowitz. But can't find any image of him. If I see his appearance perhaps I can understand his position better.
Lol. Are you saying that modern Egyptians at the latitude of Luxor and lower generally look like that man next to Ramses?
This is just like when you said that most Moroccans consider themselves 'black' in the Netherlands. I know the Netherlands on my pinky and I don't share that experience at all. But let's just leave it at that. Agree to disagree.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Lol. Are you saying that modern Egyptians at the latitude of Luxor and lower generally look like that man next to Ramses?
This is just like when you said that most Moroccans consider themselves 'black' in the Netherlands. I know the Netherlands on my pinky and I don't share that experience at all. But let's just leave it at that. Agree to disagree.
What I say is that on average people at Luxor look like that man. Next to Ramses II, yes. This goes as far as Northern Sudan. I also posted videos by common tourists, at Luxor. At Cairo or Sharm-el-Sheikh etc. you will find the diversity we see on TV and other media-outlets. But rural places mostly show different.
Then we both know the Netherlands on our pinky. Often Dutch white people mistake "biracial people" for Moroccans. Another issue is, the "stereotype" Morrocan, as is known in Holland derives from Rif ethic groups. While other (Moroccans) go unidentified. Sometimes even by these Rif Moroccans.
But as you said, let's leave it at that.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
African is not a substitute for black.
An imaginary meaning for black not found in the dictionary nor explicitly defined by OP is used under a 'you know what I mean' presumption.
From the earliest written records to current university produced dictionaries black as applied to a human being denotes Asian and African populations.
The difference is at some point in time every African people is called black but Asia always through history has had non blacks.
Black Americans are hardly the population to paint as the poster of B L A C K to deny AE the same identity. Black American variety is vast even including physical types found anywhere around the Mediterranean. BA are hardly your imaginary forest negro.
Not only that but nowhere in Inner Africa is there any exclusive forest negro preserve. That's a minority phenotype.
We need to leave post Napoleonic Expedition anthropology to its Eurocentric design and decolonize the mind from fear of blackness in all its Africa to Pacific Island expanse.
The various African exodes that populated Eurasia originated almost entirely from NE Africans so its small wonder those Eurasian close to Africa share in or approximate some African features. Regular commerce, slavery, and conquest are at the root of physical features now found in northern africans unrelated to original NE African features.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: African is not a substitute for black.
From the earliest written records to current university produced dictionaries black as applied to a human being denotes Asian and African populations.
The difference is at some point in time every African people is called black but Asia always through history has had non blacks.
Black Americans are hardly the population to paint as the poster of B L A C K to deny AE the same identity. Black American variety is vast even including physical types found anywhere around the Mediterranean. BA are hardly your imaginary forest negro.
Not only that but nowhere in Inner Africa is there any exclusive forest negro preserve. That's a minority phenotype.
We need to leave post Napoleonic Expedition anthropology to its Eurocentric design and decolonize the mind from fear of blackness in all its Africa to Pacific Island expanse.
The various African exodes that populated Eurasia originated almost entirely from NE Africans so its small wonder those Eurasian close to Africa share in or approximate some African features. Regular commerce, slavery, and conquest are at the root of physical features now found in northern africans unrelated to original NE African features.
Repost:
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: The Lacey Schwartz, interview at Hot97, 2014. Enjoy:
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: African is not a substitute for black.
An imaginary meaning for black not found in the dictionary nor explicitly defined by OP is used under a 'you know what I mean' presumption.
From the earliest written records to current university produced dictionaries black as applied to a human being denotes Asian and African populations.
The difference is at some point in time every African people is called black but Asia always through history has had non blacks.
Black Americans are hardly the population to paint as the poster of B L A C K to deny AE the same identity. Black American variety is vast even including physical types found anywhere around the Mediterranean. BA are hardly your imaginary forest negro.
Not only that but nowhere in Inner Africa is there any exclusive forest negro preserve. That's a minority phenotype.
We need to leave post Napoleonic Expedition anthropology to its Eurocentric design and decolonize the mind from fear of blackness in all its Africa to Pacific Island expanse.
The various African exodes that populated Eurasia originated almost entirely from NE Africans so its small wonder those Eurasian close to Africa share in or approximate some African features. Regular commerce, slavery, and conquest are at the root of physical features now found in northern africans unrelated to original NE African features.
But see, "Black" itself is a European construct imposed onto all those dark-skinned populations. It's not like these groups would have called themselves "Black" absent European colonial influence. So don't kid yourself into believing the appropriation of a European adjective is "decolonization" in the least.
That said, I must confess to having "sinned" by calling AE and related populations "Black" despite my earlier resolving not to. Partly it may be out of an earlier habit, and partly it may be because years of influence from ES are hard for me to shake off. But I've also found that "Black" is a convenient shorthand for indigenous Africans and their Diasporan offshoots. It's far from a perfect word and I wouldn't use it in the context of anthropological discourse. But it's a shortcut everyone recognizes even if there's disagreement on what precisely it means.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Nonsense.
As a veteran, here before I was, you know better.
Zanj delineated a range of B L A C K s spanning Africa and Indian Ocean shorelines and islands a thousand years before any such Euro construct.
How ethnocentrically arrogant to think the world waited for Europe for worldview.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Medieval Sourcebook: Al-Jâhiz: From The Essays, c. 860 CE
On the Zanj [ "Black Africans"]
Everybody agrees that there is no people on earth in whom generosity is as universally well developed as the Zanj. These people have a natural talent for dancing to the rhythm of the tambourine, without needing to learn it. There are no better singers anywhere in the world, no people more polished and eloquent, and no people less given to insulting language. No other nation can surpass them in bodily strength and physical toughness. One of them will lift huge blocks and carry heavy loads that would be beyond the strength of most Bedouins or members of other races. They are courageous, energetic, and generous, which are the virtues of nobility, and also good-tempered and with little propensity to evil. They are always cheerful, smiling, and devoid of malice, which is a sign of noble character.
The Zanj say to the Arabs: You are so ignorant that during the jahiliyya you regarded us as your equals when it came to marrying Arab women, but with the advent of the justice of Islam you decided this practice was bad. Yet the desert is full of Zanj married to Arab wives, and they have been princes and kings and have safeguarded your rights and sheltered you against your enemies.
The Zanj say that God did not make them black in order to disfigure them; rather it is their environment that made them so. The best evidence of this is that there are black tribes among the Arabs, such as the Banu Sulaim bin Mansur, and that all the peoples settled in the Harra, besides the Banu Sulaim are black. These tribes take slaves from among the Ashban to mind their flocks and for irrigation work, manual labor, and domestic service, and their wives from among the Byzantines; and yet it takes less than three generations for the Harra to give them all the complexion of the Banu Sulaim. This Harra is such that the gazelles, ostriches, insects, wolves, foxes, sheep, asses, horses and birds that live there are all black. White and black are the results of environment, the natural properties of water and soil, distance from the sun, and intensity of heat. There is no question of metamorphosis, or of punishment, disfigurement or favor meted out by Allah. Besides, the land of the Banu Sulaim has much in common with the land of the Turks, where the camels, beasts of burden, and everything belonging to these people is similar in appearance: everything of theirs has a Turkish look.
Source.
Scanned by: J. S. Arkenberg, Dept. of History, Cal. State Fullerton. Prof. Arkenberg has modernized the text.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
BEWARE THE VENOM OF A LYIN'ASS SNAKE SEE HER TRY TO POISON MINDS THEN WHOOPS SHE DATA MINES AND SIDEWINDS OUT OF HER ORIGINAL ATTA CK SEEN BELOW
the lioness,
Member Member # 17353
Rate Member posted May 19, 2016 10:45 AM quote: Originally posted by Tukuler: [QB] Nonsense.
Zanj delineated a range of B L A C K s spanning Africa and Indian Ocean shorelines and islands a thousand years before any such Euro construct.
^don't accept this until he posts evidence of it
BEWARE NEWBIE AND INNOCENT LURKER/SURFER THE LYIN'ASS SNAKE DELIBERATELY OMITTED THE ZANJ LIST OF BLACKS POSTED ON ES TOO MANY TIMES TO RECOUNT.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nodnarb:
But see, "Black" itself is a European construct imposed onto all those dark-skinned populations. It's not like these groups would have called themselves "Black" absent European colonial influence. So don't kid yourself into believing the appropriation of a European adjective is "decolonization" in the least.
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Nonsense.
As a veteran, here before I was, you know better.
Zanj delineated a range of B L A C K s spanning Africa and Indian Ocean shorelines and islands a thousand years before any such Euro construct.
How ethnocentrically arrogant to think the world waited for Europe for worldview.
Al-Jahiz wrote that he was a member of the Arabian tribe Banu Kinanah.
As for the Zanj, bantu people of the Swahili coast, don't accept Tukuler's statement unless he provides historical evidence originating in this region of the people calling themselves "black"
be afraid of the lioness be very afraid Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Nonsense.
As a veteran, here before I was, you know better.
Zanj delineated a range of B L A C K s spanning Africa and Indian Ocean shorelines and islands a thousand years before any such Euro construct.
How ethnocentrically arrogant to think the world waited for Europe for worldview.
That's true, and somehow black came associated with the term Bantu.
quote:there are black tribes among the Arabs, such as the Banu Sulaim bin Mansur, and that all the peoples settled in the Harra, besides the Banu Sulaimare black.
--Al-Jahiz (776-869): Al-Fakhar al-Sudan min al-Abyadh (Superiority Of The Blacks To The Whites)
quote: And also: we inspire the most fear in the heart and catch most of the glances (of the onlookers), just as the carriers of black (Abbasid) inspire more fear and fill up more the heart than the carriers of white (Umayyad), in the same way the night inspires more fear than the day.
^^^ I'm not sure if this translation is correct. It's calling the Umayyad, the second caliphate who conquered spain white and the Abbasid, the third caliphate who overthrew the Umayyad black
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote: delineated a range of B L A C K s
^ this doesn't mean anything
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
^ in America it does. "Self-proclaimed African American black woman"! LOL
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Originally posted 07 March, 2006 by alTakruri:
quote: "And they said, 'The number of blacks is greater than the number of whites, because most of those who are counted as whites are comprised of peoples from Persia, the mountains, Khurasan, Rome, Slavia, France, and Iberia, and anything apart from them is insignificant.
But among the blacks are counted * Zanj * Ethiopians * Fezzani * Berbers * Copts * Nubians * Zaghawa * Moors
the people of * Sind * the Hindus * the Qamar * the Dabila * the IndoChinese and those beyond them.
The sea is more extensive than the land, and the islands in the sea between IndoChina and Zanzibar are full of blacks, like the * Sarandib * Kalah * Amal * Zabij and its islands up to Hindustan and IndoChina * Kabul and those coasts.
"They said, 'The Arabs come from us -- not from the whites -- because of the similarity of their colour to ours. The Hindus are more yellow in color than the Arabs, yet they are counted among the black peoples."
Abu Uthman Amr ibn Bahr al-Jahiz Kitab Fakhr as-Sudan 'Ala al-Bidan Baghdad: self-published, 815 C.E.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
^^^ hearsay written in Arabic by an Arab about other people doesn't count
It has to be self identified, primary source
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
BTW, in general I think it's a bad idea to go down that road of self-identifications.
yes, even then where is a standard? Some figure of antiquity, in another culture, eyeballing and beginning the trend of racial categorization by skin "black" and "white"
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
^What the heck do you mean "hearsay", why don't you actually refute what he posted.
I've actually seen that quote many times.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: ^What the heck do you mean "hearsay", why don't you actually refute what he posted.
I've actually seen that quote many times.
"They said" is hearsay as opposed to "I say"
Now, if somebody were to make such a remark in the 9th century, which groups are "black" and which groups are "white" there is no scientific basis to it, no methodology. It is no better than some anonymous person in a forum giving opinion on who is black and who is not. In other words, just opinion, proof of absolutely nothing
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
^What is the point of that picture?
Anways those groups listed by the author(Al Jahiz iirc) weren't just HIS mere opinions, but groups that were considered "black" back during the authors time. The author was just noting that.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: ^What is the point of that picture?
Anways those groups listed by the author(Al Jahiz iirc) weren't just HIS mere opinions, but groups that were considered "black" back during the authors time. The author was just noting that.
His grandfather was reportedly African and these ethnic profiles of the Zanj and others are flamboyant rhetoric and not like his more scientific treatises on animals and so on.
As for the picture, it relates to the the theme of the thread. Look at these to individuals and ponder " When to use "black" and when not to..."
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Always use B L A C K every time
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Always use B L A C K every time
why is there a space in between each letter ? what does it signify?
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: His grandfather was reportedly African and these ethnic profiles of the Zanj and others are flamboyant rhetoric and not like his more scientific treatises on animals and so on.
Okay? Wasn't it said that Al Jahiz was a Zanj who were those from the Eastern coast of Africa? And who's being scientific? Again he was noting how people grouped "black" and "white" during his times.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: As for the picture, it relates to the the theme of the thread. Look at these to individuals and ponder " When to use "black" and when not to..." [/QB]
No, this thread is about excluding racial terms as black from bio-anthropology(since in science we don't use those terms), but including it in historical discussions like this one with Al Jahiz.
I don't know why you're doing this skin color game, when we know the man on the right is "racially" black, while the other is not. Yeah Al Jahiz was most likely using "black" in terms of skin complexion, but that was during his time but more importantly excluding dark skinned East Indians he was almost accurate.
But another thing, he did include these type of people under "blacks."
And claimed they were among the "fairest" of the black people. Hinting that the definition of black him and his people went by had variation in skin color.
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Who looks like the ancient Egyptians in terms of craniofacial structure?
Is it: group a (tropically adapted people in the skin pigmentation range of African Americans), group b (coastal North Africans), group c (coastal North Africans and West Eurasians with varying degrees of resemblance to OOA Africans and post-OOA North African ancestry) group d (speakers of Afro-Asiatic languages and nearby groups)
No matter how you try to slice it (a, b, c or d), you're not going to get a neat Africa/Eurasia binary distinction. Therefore, any use of 'black' that pretends that such a binary distinction is real is misleading at best or deliberately deceptive in the case of some trolls who are deliberately lying. (The same goes for people who say group c is a 'Caucasoid' cluster). People who use 'black' to refer to skin pigmentation are off the hook as far as that problem is concerned, but as I've pointed out many times, when you look at how these people use 'black' they flip flop all the time depending on convenience. They have some explaining to do as well. I'm definitely not buying that they're using it solely to refer to skin pigmentation.
But I'm getting tired of repeating myself at this point. You either have done your homework on this anthro-stuff or you haven't. No in betweens. And the "vets" who made all this noise in this thread are clearly not in a position to be teaching anyone anything on this subject. They don't get to pontificate about what was racism or deliberate denial in anthro texts as far as the modern human taxons that were devised.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
[/QB]
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
I don't know why you're doing this skin color game, when we know the man on the right is "racially" black, while the other is not. Yeah Al Jahiz was most likely using "black" in terms of skin complexion, but that was during his time but more importantly excluding dark skinned East Indians he was almost accurate.
You've got to be kidding. We have a 30 page thread here where Doug argues that "black" is skin color alone and Tukuler also endorses that view, B L A C K every time
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
^^Are you kidding me? Doug and Tukuler can argue for themselves. My responds to YOU is about Al Jahiz and his grouping of "black" people. You said his statements are just "hearsay" because you don't like what it says, but you also don't cite any sources from other writers that refutes what Al Jahiz said.
Again can you cite sources that states Al Jahiz statement was just "hearsay?"
I don't care whether Al Jahiz was using a racial or skin complexion version of black, show me a source that states his grouping of "black" people at that time was just hearsay.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: ^^Are you kidding me? Doug and Tukuler can argue for themselves. My responds to YOU is about Al Jahiz and his grouping of "black" people. You said his statements are just "hearsay" because you don't like what it says, but you also don't cite any sources from other writers that refutes what Al Jahiz said.
Again can you cite sources that states Al Jahiz statement was just "hearsay?"
I don't care whether Al Jahiz was using a racial or skin complexion version of black, show me a source that states his grouping of "black" people at that time was just hearsay.
It's in the quote "And they said..." When you see that phrase, it is hearsay by definition, obviously
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: ^^Are you kidding me? Doug and Tukuler can argue for themselves. My responds to YOU is about Al Jahiz and his grouping of "black" people. You said his statements are just "hearsay" because you don't like what it says, but you also don't cite any sources from other writers that refutes what Al Jahiz said.
Again can you cite sources that states Al Jahiz statement was just "hearsay?"
I don't care whether Al Jahiz was using a racial or skin complexion version of black, show me a source that states his grouping of "black" people at that time was just hearsay.
It's in the quote "And they said..." When you see that phrase, it is hearsay by definition, obviously
I admit this is true, but I have not seen any other writer during that time or any modern writer discredit Al Jahiz grouping of blacks around the world.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: ^^Are you kidding me? Doug and Tukuler can argue for themselves. My responds to YOU is about Al Jahiz and his grouping of "black" people. You said his statements are just "hearsay" because you don't like what it says, but you also don't cite any sources from other writers that refutes what Al Jahiz said.
Again can you cite sources that states Al Jahiz statement was just "hearsay?"
I don't care whether Al Jahiz was using a racial or skin complexion version of black, show me a source that states his grouping of "black" people at that time was just hearsay.
It's in the quote "And they said..." When you see that phrase, it is hearsay by definition, obviously
I admit this is true, but I have not seen any other writer during that time or any modern writer discredit Al Jahiz grouping of blacks around the world.
Why are you referring to this quote as " Al Jahiz grouping of blacks around the world." ?
If this quote was his grouping he would not say "they say"
I also recommend reading the whole thing not just a small piece of it
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Tukuler, like Doug believes thr world is comprised of two races, "blacks" and "whites". Whites are Europeans and blacks are everybody else. Therefore whites are vastly outnumbered. Therefore when all non-Europeans realize their blackness and unify, it should not be too difficult to overthrow the whites.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: ^What is the point of that picture?
Anways those groups listed by the author(Al Jahiz iirc) weren't just HIS mere opinions, but groups that were considered "black" back during the authors time. The author was just noting that.
Al Jahiz was clear of who he spoke, he spoke of the ethnic groups and tribes. Lioness is now posting random pictures, of unidentified individuals who's ethnic group nor background we don't know. The usual picture spam. Completely irralivant.
quote:there are black tribes among the Arabs, such as the Banu Sulaim bin Mansur, and that all the peoples settled in the Harra, besides the Banu Sulaimare black.
--Al-Jahiz (776-869): Al-Fakhar al-Sudan min al-Abyadh (Superiority Of The Blacks To The Whites)
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: ^^Are you kidding me? Doug and Tukuler can argue for themselves. My responds to YOU is about Al Jahiz and his grouping of "black" people. You said his statements are just "hearsay" because you don't like what it says, but you also don't cite any sources from other writers that refutes what Al Jahiz said.
Again can you cite sources that states Al Jahiz statement was just "hearsay?"
I don't care whether Al Jahiz was using a racial or skin complexion version of black, show me a source that states his grouping of "black" people at that time was just hearsay.
It's in the quote "And they said..." When you see that phrase, it is hearsay by definition, obviously
I admit this is true, but I have not seen any other writer during that time or any modern writer discredit Al Jahiz grouping of blacks around the world.
Why are you referring to this quote as " Al Jahiz grouping of blacks around the world." ?
If this quote was his grouping he would not say "they say"
I also recommend reading the whole thing not just a small piece of it
You clearly know what I meant. The STATEMENT itself was still by Al Jahiz himself. So your point? Why nitpick?
And again while it MIGHT be hearsay I still have not seen other writer during his time or modern disagree with that source.
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: ^What is the point of that picture?
Anways those groups listed by the author(Al Jahiz iirc) weren't just HIS mere opinions, but groups that were considered "black" back during the authors time. The author was just noting that.
Al Jahiz was clear of who he spoke, he spoke of the ethnic groups and tribes. Lioness is now posting random pictures. The usual picture spam. Completely irralivant.
quote:there are black tribes among the Arabs, such as the Banu Sulaim bin Mansur, and that all the peoples settled in the Harra, besides the Banu Sulaimare black.
--Al-Jahiz (776-869): Al-Fakhar al-Sudan min al-Abyadh (Superiority Of The Blacks To The Whites)
She mostly now trying to say its all "hearsay" and so not valid. Though again I still have not seen other writers especially modern discredit the source.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: ^What is the point of that picture?
Anways those groups listed by the author(Al Jahiz iirc) weren't just HIS mere opinions, but groups that were considered "black" back during the authors time. The author was just noting that.
Al Jahiz was clear of who he spoke, he spoke of the ethnic groups and tribes. Lioness is now posting random pictures. The usual picture spam. Completely irralivant.
quote:there are black tribes among the Arabs, such as the Banu Sulaim bin Mansur, and that all the peoples settled in the Harra, besides the Banu Sulaimare black.
--Al-Jahiz (776-869): Al-Fakhar al-Sudan min al-Abyadh (Superiority Of The Blacks To The Whites)
She mostly now trying to say its all "hearsay" and so not valid. Though again I still have not seen other writers especially modern discredit the source.
That is the typical Eurocentric approach, when they are loosing it.
Al Jahiz is/ was very specific and detailed.
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
^Agreed!
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
The STATEMENT itself was still by Al Jahiz himself.
The statement was written by al-Jahiz and the statement says that some people "they" had a particular opinion. Who is the they? Is it all people of Basra? Is it all Zanj people? They are monolithic in opinion? Do some of them have their own writing in their own language?
And for all of the words written in that piece (comprising a lot more than the small segments you have read) it is no better than you or I applying either "black" or "white" to ethnic groups, pure opinion nothing more, no methodology whatsoever.
So these ancient people saying this or that or Al Jahiz himself saying this or that pertaining to this subject has no value whatsoever. It's completely subjective.
If your goal is to divide the world into two pieces "black" and "white" you need no old writings
You need to have a methodology that can be measured.
So you look at a black and white photo of someone and if they are are gray and that gray is 51% black then they are black and if it's 51% white they are white. Endless semantics and rhetoric is not science, it's people masturbating over skin color, endless masturbation
Doug had said that "black" is color alone, either "black" or "white" That is the two choices.
Tukuler has said the same thing, yet in practice his version of "black" is someone of an ethnic group whose skin is described as "black" by old writers. So they could be light skinned but as long as an old writer said the skin of their ethnic group was black they are a black. -However if they are part of more than one ethnic group, who is really encompassed in an ethnic group and he multitude of ethnic groups not described in these writings it presents a big problem to this old text approach.
At least Doug's approach to dividing the world into two races could employ actual applied measurement
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
No hearsay involved anywhere.
"They said " is a citation where they = Zanj, I.e., "The Zanj said".
But you need familiarity with the work itself beyond mere mining stand alone quotes.
Regardless, the point is clear East Africans had what has erroneously been posited as a 18th - 20th century Euro construct.
Neither 9th century Zanj nor later post renaissance Euros thought all these B L A C K s were recently biological relatives. Even 'modern' race science said no such thing nor posit discrete racial divisions but see interconnection.
More like clouds than like a tree describes our human family.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
Lioness is now posting random pictures, of unidentified individuals who's ethnic group nor background we don't know.
Doug says that the term "black" or "white" is based on color alone. Therefore their ethnic group is completely and totally irrelevant. One only need to measure how dark their skin is and make an assessment.
Divisive as that is one could use scientific methods to analyze how dark or light a person's skin color is, choose a dividing line and then give each range name "black" or "white"
Yet determining what the boundaries of an ethnic groups is and ascribing it "black" or "white" is much more vague and subjective and is much further complicated by the fact that huge masses of people, probably almost all people in this forums are comprised of more than one so called "ethnicity" -and it certainly is not color alone
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
LOL @ that killshot card.
quote:Originally posted by Nodnarb: But see, "Black" itself is a European construct imposed onto all those dark-skinned populations. It's not like these groups would have called themselves "Black" absent European colonial influence. So don't kid yourself into believing the appropriation of a European adjective is "decolonization" in the least.
That said, I must confess to having "sinned" by calling AE and related populations "Black" despite my earlier resolving not to. Partly it may be out of an earlier habit, and partly it may be because years of influence from ES are hard for me to shake off. But I've also found that "Black" is a convenient shorthand for indigenous Africans and their Diasporan offshoots. It's far from a perfect word and I wouldn't use it in the context of anthropological discourse. But it's a shortcut everyone recognizes even if there's disagreement on what precisely it means. [/QB]
I agree that the western use of 'black' is a tradition of its own. Presumably you can see this in that 'negro' originally referred to dark skin. 'Negro' has a Latin (European) origin and is now found in many European languages. And since no one has proved there is continuity with al Jahiz and early Greek purely skin pigmentation based use of 'black', it's just retarded to even bring those earlier traditions up to make some sort of sloppy argument that "the western use is a conspiracy and deliberately breaks with tradition".
As if people in the West are descendants of early Greeks or al Jahiz. These people have no idea how weak their arguments are. It would be one thing to simply say you don't recognize the narrow western use of 'black' and that you stick to an ancient tradition of the term that's just as legitimate, but these people always have to take it a step further and lie. That's when you end up with Doug's bizarre claim that 'black' ALWAYS refers to skin pigmentation.
Right. Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
The statement was written by al-Jahiz and the statement says that some people "they" had a particular opinion. Who is the they? [/QB]
See Tukulor's recent post. "They" refers to the Zanj.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
If you read the work bitch you'd know. Stop pretending to know more about it than those who have read it and other Arabic and Hebrew notice.
All you have is rhetoric though volumes exist from all points in history on which populations are of what colour you fail to produce any contradictory record, no, not even one.
Chain rattler fluff. That's that lyin'ass stuff.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
The STATEMENT itself was still by Al Jahiz himself.
The statement was written by al-Jahiz and the statement says that some people "they" had a particular opinion. Who is the they? Is it all people of Basra? Is it all Zanj people? They are monolithic in opinion?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: [QB] No hearsay involved anywhere.
"They said " is a citation where they = Zanj, I.e., "The Zanj said".
Saying a whole ethnic group has a particular opinion is not a citation.
A citation is where a named person says something and it's quoted verbatim.
Also you are claiming that the "they say" = " the Zanj" yet you have not quoted the portion of text that would prove that that is who "they" is or to prove that the "they" is indicated anywhere in the text as opposed to never being clarified
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler:
"And they said, 'The number of blacks is greater than the number of whites, because most of those who are counted as whites are comprised of peoples from Persia, the mountains, Khurasan, Rome, Slavia, France, and Iberia, and anything apart from them is insignificant.
"And they said, 'The number of blacks is greater than the number of whites, because most of those who are counted as whites are comprised of peoples from Persia, the mountains, Khurasan, Rome, Slavia, France, and Iberia, and anything apart from them is insignificant.
But among the blacks are counted * Zanj * Ethiopians * Fezzani * Berbers * Copts * Nubians * Zaghawa * Moors
the people of * Sind * the Hindus * the Qamar * the Dabila * the IndoChinese and those beyond them.
The sea is more extensive than the land, and the islands in the sea between IndoChina and Zanzibar are full of blacks, like the * Sarandib * Kalah * Amal * Zabij and its islands up to Hindustan and IndoChina * Kabul and those coasts.
"They said, 'The Arabs come from us -- not from the whites -- because of the similarity of their colour to ours. The Hindus are more yellow in color than the Arabs, yet they are counted among the black peoples."
Abu Uthman Amr ibn Bahr al-Jahiz Kitab Fakhr as-Sudan 'Ala al-Bidan Baghdad: self-published, 815 C.E.
that is improper citation, no publication given, no translator
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: If you read the work bitch you'd know. Stop pretending to know more about it than those who have read it and other Arabic and Hebrew notice.
I have read much more of that text Jahiz text but it is irrelevant what I have read. You are presenting this in public. You have edited this and other texst and formatted things in list form. That is not the original format. That is why it is only fair to the readership that you do what Is Gebor does, post the quotation in original form and the publication it is from. That is minimum for the readership
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
It irks the afraid of B L A C K crowd when they're shown historical continuity recognizing Asian and African B L A C K s be it Sanskrit Hebrew Greek Latin Arabic Romance or Germanic including the Oxford dictionary.
See how they froth.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
So if we go backwards in time was their a point at which people were afraid to be Negro but overcame that as proud to be Negro? and now we are beyond that point and people must not be afraid to be black?
The "black" thing is largey reminiscing over the 60s, JB, Panthers and the 68 Olympics. Yet "Black" in actuality is politically weak. It';s marketing for Beyonce now. There is no connection to Africa, a landmass with sovereign countries and resources and this is why you don't find Chinese people being proud of being "yellow" or native Americans being "red". Some kind of illusion has occurred that one is privileged if identified by color, that Europeans claiming "white" must be the key to their power-not
And these other people like dark skinned East Indians in America. The vast majority have no interest in affiliating with AAs and identifying as blacks, get real, and on a genetic level they are closer to light skinned Europeans, colorism paradigms are obsolete
"black" is comfortable because people are ashamed of being Africa but Africa is coming up fast.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: So if we go backwards in time was their a point at which people were afraid to be Negro but overcame that as proud to be Negro?
Good question. Another good question is when 'negro' went from just a range of brown skin on the one hand, to jetblack skin + a set of bodily features on the other hand. In my view this happened several times. You can see Ptolemy already do this when he says that pure Aethiopians and 'black' people aren't in the Fezzan, Upper Egypt and northern Sudan but in the tribes near Meroe. This is presumably a reference to people related or ancestral to modern day southern Sudanese.
So much for the fairy tale that the narrow western use of 'black' has no ancient precedent and was a conspiracy.
The lying on this forum by certain individuals is really obnoxious.
quote:"For in the correspondingly situated places on our side of the equator, that is those on the Summer Tropic, people do not yet have the color of the Aithiopians, and there are no rhinoceros and elephants; but in places not much to the south of these, moderately black people are to be found, such as those who live in the "Thirty Schoinoi" [region in lower Nubia] outside of Soene. Of the same type, too, are the people of Garame, whom Marinos also says (and indeed, for this very reason) live neither right on the Summer Tropic nor to the north, but entirely to the south of it. But in places around Meroe people are already quite black in color, and are at last pure Aithiopians, and the habitat of the elephants and more wonderful animals is there."
--Ptolemy
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Let's learn more of the 9th century Zanj worldview on B L A C K thanks to al~Jahiz we have this over one thousand year old African take on the topic. Below is just another except, find and download as many differing translations of the complete book.
The Zanj say: The Prophet (p.b.u.h.) said: I was sent to the red and the black. And everybody knows that the Zanj, Abyssinians and Nubians are surely not white nor red but definitely black.
We know that Allah, the Most Powerful and Exalted, sent His Prophet (to the people), all of them: Arabs and non-Arabs (ajam) alike. And if he (Muhammad) said: I was sent to the ruddy (Al-ahmar) and the dark-skinned (al-aswad), then in his view we are neither ruddy nor light-skinned (bid); so he was sent to us. Indeed, his use of the dark-skinned refers to us, as the people (of our community) are in one of these categories (i.e. either ruddy or dark-skinned). Therefore, if the Arabs are ruddy, then they belong to the Byzantines (Rum), Slavs (Saqaliba), Persians and Khurasanis. But if they belong to the dark-skinned peoples, then they are a sub-category of our stock. So they are called medium- complexioned and brownish-black (sumr sud) when they are classified with us, as the Arabs use the masculine gender to refer to a group consisting of females and males and if the Prophet – may Allah be pleased with him – knew that the Zanj, Ethiopians and Nubians were not ruddy or light-skinned, rather dark-skinned, and that Allah Most High sent him to the dark-skinned and the ruddy, then surely he made us and the Arabs equals.
Thus to this day the white-reds (Greeks and Turks) classify both Arab and African colloquially as nigger as nearly do USA whites prefacing it with sand yet all the while counting them white when it comes to the census.
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: So if we go backwards in time was their a point at which people were afraid to be Negro but overcame that as proud to be Negro?
Good question. Another good question is when 'negro' went from just a range of brown skin to jetblack skin + a set of bodily features. In my view this happened several times. You can see Ptolemy already do this when he says that pure Aethiopians and 'black' people aren't in the Fezzan, Upper Egypt and northern Sudan but in the tribes near Meroe. This is presumably a reference to people related or ancestral to modern day southern Sudanese.
So much for the fairy tale that the narrow western use of 'black' has no ancient precedent and was a conspiracy.
The lying on this forum by certain individuals is really obnoxious.
quote:"For in the correspondingly situated places on our side of the equator, that is those on the Summer Tropic, people do not yet have the color of the Aithiopians, and there are no rhinoceros and elephants; but in places not much to the south of these, moderately black people are to be found, such as those who live in the "Thirty Schoinoi" [region in lower Nubia] outside of Soene. Of the same type, too, are the people of Garame, whom Marinos also says (and indeed, for this very reason) live neither right on the Summer Tropic nor to the north, but entirely to the south of it. But in places around Meroe people are already quite black in color, and are at last pure Aithiopians, and the habitat of the elephants and more wonderful animals is there."
--Ptolemy
Interesting!
Some people have it that black in Ancient times only referred to skin color alone. And I'm not talking about the people in this thread, but Eurocentrics that hold this view online.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Swenet what if somebody said
"All definitions of blacks are now obsolete. Above is the new standard. Anybody this color or darker is black and anybody lighter is white.
What would your opinion of that be?
Posted by Nodnarb (Member # 3735) on :
To be honest, the Ptolemy quote still looks like he's referencing gradations in skin color to me. I don't see facial features mentioned in that passage, but I do see mention of skin color getting dark as you move southward. So I believe he is still working with a strict, color-based definition of "black" that disagrees with the modern Western usage.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nodnarb: To be honest, the Ptolemy quote still looks like he's referencing gradations in skin color to me. I don't see facial features mentioned in that passage, but I do see mention of skin color getting dark as you move southward. So I believe he is still working with a strict, color-based definition of "black" that disagrees with the modern Western usage.
That is exactly what I just posted a strict, color-based definition of "black"
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: What would your opinion of that be?
It would remove a lot of what is problematic with the term and it would be much more objective (in the sense that it would at least be based on an agreed-upon standard).
quote:Originally posted by Nodnarb: To be honest, the Ptolemy quote still looks like he's referencing gradations in skin color to me. I don't see facial features mentioned in that passage, but I do see mention of skin color getting dark as you move southward. So I believe he is still working with a strict, color-based definition of "black" that disagrees with the modern Western usage.
You're right that he doesn't explicitly mention facial features. But notice that he simultaneously speaks of two clines and that both go from north to south. One cline concerns levels of skin pigmentation and another cline concerns what he calls "pure Aethiopians".
How do you interpret both clines? If you interpret both as strictly based on skin pigmentation, it seems to me that it would make that sentence redundant.
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
^Indeed. I too got that he was referring to facial features also. Notice how he uses the word "type."
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: Notice how he uses the word "type."
You're on point with that one. I completely overlooked that. But Nodnarb made me less certain about my reading. It would be interesting to get the views of a classical scholar to be a 100% certain as sometimes things get lost or added in translation.
What makes me read "pure Aethiopian" as a reference that includes facial features is that it was usually reference to people (who were dark), not to their dark skin color in and if itself. (For dark skin color the Greeks used 'melas' and related words). If Ptolemy's "Aethiopian" describes people here you'd have to read "pure" as also meaning that only the tribes around Meroe fully matched that Aethiopian appearance.
Posted by Nodnarb (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: What would your opinion of that be?
It would remove a lot of what is problematic with the term and it would be much more objective.
quote:Originally posted by Nodnarb: To be honest, the Ptolemy quote still looks like he's referencing gradations in skin color to me. I don't see facial features mentioned in that passage, but I do see mention of skin color getting dark as you move southward. So I believe he is still working with a strict, color-based definition of "black" that disagrees with the modern Western usage.
You're right that he doesn't explicitly mention facial features. But notice that he simultaneously speaks of two clines and that both go from north to south. One cline concerns levels of skin pigmentation and another cline concerns what he calls "pure Aethiopians".
How do you interpret both clines? If you interpret both as strictly based on skin pigmentation, it seems to me that it would make that sentence redundant.
To me it seemed like he was saying, "These people are very black in color and therefore are pure Aethiopians." But I see where you're coming from.
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: Notice how he uses the word "type."
To me that read, "those other people are of the same 'moderately black/dark' type as the Lower Nubians".
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
@Nodnard
Read it again. Him correlating "type" with skin color would be redundant. When he says "of the same type", he is most likely referring to more than just skin color. Like different looks he noticed.
@Swenet
Indeed.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
^One thing that also favors reading two separate clines in that Ptolemy text is that there is a Greek tradition of describing Nile Valley Aethiopians like tall Nilo-Saharan speakers. I don't think Ptolemy's audience would have been able to read "pure Aethiopian" in isolation of that context so that it only reads 'jetblack skin'. By the time of Ptolemy, Greek geographers and historians had documented the appearance of Nile Valley Aethiopians for hundreds of years.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Stela dedicated by Ptolemy V to the bull Buchis
Ptolemaic period – Ptolemy V
Limestone, painted and gilded H. 72 cm; W. 50 cm; thickness 14 cm
Succession[
The elder of his two sons, Ptolemy VI Philometor (181–145 BC), succeeded as an infant under the regency of his mother Cleopatra the Syrian. Her death was followed by a rupture between the Ptolemaic and Seleucid courts, on the old question of Coele-Syria.
This stela comes from the Bucheum, the cemetery of the sacred bulls of Armant on the west bank of the Nile in Upper Egypt.
At the top of the stela the whole scene is dominated by a winged sun disk. Below this is a scarab, and the emblem of Osiris, flanked by two uraeus serpents. Two lateral images show Anubis.
In the middle we can see Buchis, and in front of him the King Ptolemy V offers the bull the sekhet, the symbol of the fields.
In the end of the stela inscriptions contains Ptolemy’s and Queen Cleopatra’s dedication to the sacred bull that was born in year 11 of their reign and died in year 25.
British Museum, London. 200 B.C. This relief shows a scene of an offering where the Pharaoh Ptolemy V offers the spiritual inner eyes of Horus, to Horus, seated on the throne. Horus was the son of Isis and Osiris. They form the fundamental triad of the Egyptian religion. Traditionally, Horus is considered the first Pharaoh of Egypt and at later times, the spiritual King where the Pharaoh is only his representative. This sculpture originates from the Ptolemaic period which began when Alexander the Great conquered Egypt from the Persians in 332 B.C. The Pharaohs of this period were Greek but even so they not only respected the Egyptian traditions but also dedicated large funds for the reconstruction of many temples especially in Upper Egypt like the temple of Hathor at Dendera, the temple of Horus at Edfu and the temple of Khnum at Esna.
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
quote:Originally posted by Punos_Rey: Could someone explain to me what exactly is the "sub-saharan norm" as far as phenotypic expression? Considering the sheer diversity even within "Sub-Saharan Africa" what is the metric for that statement that bifurcates them from Northeast Africans?
The"norm" would be extremely wide- including narrow noses and light brown skin. Just like Europe gets to have a big range, from pasty pale whites of the north to dark Southern Europeans. The best "norm" to recognize is that sub-Saharan Africans have the highest phenotypic diversity, and cannot be pigeonholed, as is standard practice in popular culture and in many parts of academia,
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
Lioness is now posting random pictures, of unidentified individuals who's ethnic group nor background we don't know.
Doug says that the term "black" or "white" is based on color alone. Therefore their ethnic group is completely and totally irrelevant. One only need to measure how dark their skin is and make an assessment.
Divisive as that is one could use scientific methods to analyze how dark or light a person's skin color is, choose a dividing line and then give each range name "black" or "white"
Yet determining what the boundaries of an ethnic groups is and ascribing it "black" or "white" is much more vague and subjective and is much further complicated by the fact that huge masses of people, probably almost all people in this forums are comprised of more than one so called "ethnicity" -and it certainly is not color alone
Al Jahiz spoke of root and origin. You post random pictures. It makes no sense.
But all times sake:
Head of a Beduin from Syria KhM 3896b TILE; RAMESSES III/USERMAATRE-MERIAMUN
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: I looked hard for this
came up with:
__________________________________
Male head with Negroid features : ( CE12093 ) Hometown : The seabed in the vicinity of the tip of the Nao (La Caleta ) Size : 22.5 x 16.5 cm (8.9 inches x 6.5 inches) Dating: sixth century B.C. Museum Museum of Cádiz
Cultural Context / Iron Old Style . Phoenician- Punic Hometown Playa de La Caleta , Cádiz ( m ) ( Cadiz Northwest Coast (district) , Cádiz ( province): Punta del Nao Underwater Archaeological Survey , Rodicio Mera, Antonio Specific / Site Location Playa La Caleta
________________________________________ It's 9 inches tall maybe it's not a jar or pithos.
Also jars and vases have a lip edge at the hole, if not liquids leak on the body of the vessel at the end of a pour
Maybe it's not a not a storage container
Could it be a thymiaterion ( ncense burner) ? But those are usually more bowl like at top, or a bowl with a lid. function unknown
it's a beautiful sculpture
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: So if we go backwards in time was their a point at which people were afraid to be Negro but overcame that as proud to be Negro?
Good question. Another good question is when 'negro' went from just a range of brown skin on the one hand, to jetblack skin + a set of bodily features on the other hand. In my view this happened several times. You can see Ptolemy already do this when he says that pure Aethiopians and 'black' people aren't in the Fezzan, Upper Egypt and northern Sudan but in the tribes near Meroe. This is presumably a reference to people related or ancestral to modern day southern Sudanese.
So much for the fairy tale that the narrow western use of 'black' has no ancient precedent and was a conspiracy.
The lying on this forum by certain individuals is really obnoxious.
quote:"For in the correspondingly situated places on our side of the equator, that is those on the Summer Tropic, people do not yet have the color of the Aithiopians, and there are no rhinoceros and elephants; but in places not much to the south of these, moderately black people are to be found, such as those who live in the "Thirty Schoinoi" [region in lower Nubia] outside of Soene. Of the same type, too, are the people of Garame, whom Marinos also says (and indeed, for this very reason) live neither right on the Summer Tropic nor to the north, but entirely to the south of it. But in places around Meroe people are already quite black in color, and are at last pure Aithiopians, and the habitat of the elephants and more wonderful animals is there."
--Ptolemy
Can you post the original text and or source. Thanks in advance.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
Head of an "Ethiopian" depicted in Hellenistic mode
All black Africans were termed Ethiopians by the ancient Greeks, and Greek artists had defined for them a distinct iconography well before the cosmopolitan Hellenistic period, when, especially in Ptolemaic Egypt, regular contact came about. (See the Timeline of Art History essay Africans in Ancient Greek Art http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/afrg/hd_afrg.htm)
This beautiful head of an "Ethiopian" was created as an attachment for some luxurious object of Hellenistic Greek type. A gold plug remains in the top of the head, and on the back twin loops were broken away. Possibly the head was part of a richly ornamented serving dish: for example, on one elaborate dish from Pompeii a head with a loop and ring decorates the rim next to the handle.
Lioness is now posting random pictures, of unidentified individuals who's ethnic group nor background we don't know.
Doug says that the term "black" or "white" is based on color alone. Therefore their ethnic group is completely and totally irrelevant. One only need to measure how dark their skin is and make an assessment.
Divisive as that is one could use scientific methods to analyze how dark or light a person's skin color is, choose a dividing line and then give each range name "black" or "white"
Yet determining what the boundaries of an ethnic groups is and ascribing it "black" or "white" is much more vague and subjective and is much further complicated by the fact that huge masses of people, probably almost all people in this forums are comprised of more than one so called "ethnicity" -and it certainly is not color alone
Al Jahiz spoke of root and origin. You post random pictures. It makes no sense.
The thread topic is not Al Jahiz or root and origin. Read the initial post, observe the pictures and wake up
quote:Originally posted by Doug The only thing I have been saying is that black as a reference to skin color
Therefore one can simply look at a RANDOM picture of a person and determine if the person is black or not.
If you get into root or origin to define "black" then you are using a color word and that is what makes no sense, Again, East Indians are more genetically similar to light skinned Europeans therefore if they are to be regarded as "black" it has no relation to root and origin. This is above your head son, stop the cheeerleading
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
My bad. Source for the Ptolemy text for those who are interested.
Lioness is now posting random pictures, of unidentified individuals who's ethnic group nor background we don't know.
Doug says that the term "black" or "white" is based on color alone. Therefore their ethnic group is completely and totally irrelevant. One only need to measure how dark their skin is and make an assessment.
Divisive as that is one could use scientific methods to analyze how dark or light a person's skin color is, choose a dividing line and then give each range name "black" or "white"
Yet determining what the boundaries of an ethnic groups is and ascribing it "black" or "white" is much more vague and subjective and is much further complicated by the fact that huge masses of people, probably almost all people in this forums are comprised of more than one so called "ethnicity" -and it certainly is not color alone
Al Jahiz spoke of root and origin. You post random pictures. It makes no sense.
The thread topic is not Al Jahiz or root and origin. Read the initial post, observe the pictures and wake up
quote:Originally posted by Doug The only thing I have been saying is that black as a reference to skin color
Therefore one can simply look at a RANDOM picture of a person and determine if the person is black or not.
If you get into root or origin to define "black" then you are using a color word and that is what makes no sense, Again, East Indians are more genetically similar to light skinned Europeans therefore if they are to be regarded as "black" it has no relation to root and origin. This is above your head son, stop the cheeerleading
Once again, Al Jahiz spoke of ethnic groups and tribes specifically, from the region. What do the people you posted have to do with this? Look forward to your answer and explanation. Since it's "above my head" I urge you to post Arabic, or Swahilin sources. because I can't see how picture spams can eat above anyone's head, especially when it has nothing to do with Al Jahiz and the Zanj. LOL
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: Head of an "Ethiopian" depicted in Hellenistic mode
All black Africans were termed Ethiopians by the ancient Greeks, and Greek artists had defined for them a distinct iconography well before the cosmopolitan Hellenistic period, when, especially in Ptolemaic Egypt, regular contact came about. (See the Timeline of Art History essay Africans in Ancient Greek Art http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/afrg/hd_afrg.htm)
This beautiful head of an "Ethiopian" was created as an attachment for some luxurious object of Hellenistic Greek type. A gold plug remains in the top of the head, and on the back twin loops were broken away. Possibly the head was part of a richly ornamented serving dish: for example, on one elaborate dish from Pompeii a head with a loop and ring decorates the rim next to the handle.
Αἰθίοψ , οπος, ὁ, fem. Αἰθιοπίς , ίδος, ἡ （Αἰθίοψ as fem., A.Fr.328, 329): pl.
A. “Αἰθιοπῆες” Il.1.423, whence nom. “Αἰθιοπεύς” Call.Del.208: (αἴθω, ὄψ):—properly, Burnt-face, i.e. Ethiopian, negro, Hom., etc.; prov., Αἰθίοπα σμήχειν 'to wash a blackamoor white', Luc.Ind. 28.
2. a fish, Agatharch.109.
II. Adj., Ethiopian, “Αἰθιοπὶς γλῶσσα” Hdt.3.19; “γῆ” A.Fr.300, E.Fr.228.4: Subst. Αἰθιοπίς, ἡ, title of Epic poem in the Homeric cycle; also name of a plant, silver sage, Salvia argentea, Dsc.4.104:— also Αἰθιόπιος , α, ον, E.Fr.349: Αἰθιοπικός , ή, όν, Hdt., etc.; Αἰ. κύμινον, = ἄμι, Hp.Morb.3.17, Dsc. 3.62:—Subst. Αἰθιοπία , ἡ, Hdt., etc. 2. red-brown, AP7.196 (Mel.), cf. Ach. Tat.4.5.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote: 4. Practice in translating kush: from Septuagint through a recent semantic shift.
Much of the translators' tendency to translate kush by a term that has modern day political significance stems from the Septuagint's use of the word Aithiopia . At the time the Septuagint was translated, this was indeed a correct Greek term to use in translating kush. The Greek word Aithiopia had both a narrow and a wide use. The narrow definition was the Nile valley, south of Egypt, such as used by Herodutus (5th century BC). "Aithiopians inhabit the country immediately above (south of] Elephantine [n.b. an island at Aswan]... you will arrive at a large city called Meroe: this city said to be the capital of all Aithiopia" (Herodutus ii.9). He also used the same definition of Aithiopia when he wrote of Cambyses procuring interpreters at Elephantine (modern Aswan) for his expedition into Aithiopia and marching in via Thebes and back out through Thebes and on to Memphis (iii 19-25). This Aithiopia is clearly the adjacent area south of Egypt. This narrow usage of Greek Aithiopia is also found in the Greek text of Acts 8:27, where the homeland of the eunuch is referred to as Aithiopia, where he served as treasurer to Candace, who is known to have reigned in Meroe. not in the modern state of Ethiopia (Adams 1977:260).
However, in recent centuries, translators into English and other languages have too often simply transliterated Aithiopia (from the Septuagint) into their target languages. This was not a problem as long as the meaning of the transliterated form in the target language was approximately the same as kush . This was the case when "Ethiopia" was first used in English Bible translation, at least as far back as 1382, when John Wyclif used it, a tradition continued by the KJV over 200 years later. When the English KJV was translated 400 years ago, the word "Ethiopia" in English was understood to mean the parts of Africa inhabited by black people. Also, at the time, there was no specific political state or government labeled "Ethiopia" known to English speakers. The use of the word "Ethiopia" in English was formerly a legitimate, though overly broad, translation of kush , well into the 1800's.
A clear example of how "Ethiopia was understood to include all of Black Africa can be seen in the founding of a denomination called the "Ethiopian Church" in 1892 (Balia 1994:20). Though these people lived far south of the borders of Ethiopia, they felt it to be a legitimate use of the word, reflecting their application of Ps. 68:31 to themselves.
Incidentally, a study of the usage of the word "Ethiopia" in English throughout the centuries disproves Adamo's argument that the use of the word "Ethiopia" in English Bibles led white English speakers to the misunderstanding that dark-skinned Africans are not a part of the Biblical narrative. A brief study of the Oxford English Dictionary, (the standard multi-volume historical dictionary of English), shows that up until at least the late 1800's, the word "Ethiopia" was understood to mean Black Africa and the term "Ethiopian" or "Ethiop" meant "a Black person", or just "black". For example, in 1684 an author described a person as "an Ethiopian, or Negro", using the labels in a synonymous sense. A botanist in 1578 referring to the seseli plant, labeled the black stalked variety as "the Ethiopian Seseli". In an apparent reference to Africa, Dryden wrote of "Ethiopian lands" (1697). We see then that "Ethiopia" and "Ethiopian" formerly did communicate the idea of Africa and black skinned people to English speakers. Adamo's assertion that translating with "Africa" will rectify a long- standing deficiency in English Bibles does not reflect an understanding of how "Ethiopia" was understood in the past. That is, the use of "Ethiopia" in the KJV conveyed exactly what he claims it did not: the people of kush were black skinned.
Ptolemy is but one source and at least 7 GrecoLatin authors were posted labeling Egyptians B L A C K
As Brandon aptly commented, Ptolemy does no more than relate the effects of mixing on colour from the heavily and longest time miscegenated Delta to the 'homogeneous' 5th cataract. But colour gradation is also natural as in Manilius.
The B L A C K scholar Chancellor Williams detailed the creaming of Egypt's 'coffee', from foreigner flooded delta ever upriver, 40 years ago. It's no new news, no bombshell.
But now for both colour and features equivalent to race science's so-called only real black physical type the true forest negro our GrecoLatin author is the Moretum . Anyone actually trying to share knowledge rather than rack up points or slander opponents knows that from their previous studies.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
From back in 2006 a member named Israel shared a list of GrecoLatin writers on Egypt's B L A C K description
quote:Originally posted by Israel: What's happening Ausar,
been a bit busy, but I got a little time now...
In terms of your question, here is Cheikh Anta Diop's summary.........
The Egyptian Race According to the Classical Authors of Antiquity
To the Greek and Latin writers contemporary with the ancient Egyptians the latter's physical classification posed no problems: the Egyptians were negroes, thick-lipped, kinky-haired and thin-legged; the unanimity of the author's evidence on a physical fact as salient as a people's race will be difficult to minimize or pass over. Some of the following evidence drives home the point.
(a) Herodotus, 'the father of history', -480(?) to -425. With regard to the origins of the Colchians25 he writes:
it is in fact manifest that the Colchidians are Egyptian by race ... several Egyptians told me that in their opinion the Colchidians were descended from soldiers of Sesostris. I had conjectured as much myself from two pointers, firstly because they have black skins and kinky hair (to tell the truth this proves nothing for other peoples have them too) and secondly, and more reliably for the reason that alone among mankind the Egyptians and the Ethiopians have practiced circumcision since time immemorial. The Phoenicians and Syrians of Palestine themselves admit that they learnt the practice from the Egyptians while the Syrians in the river Thermodon and Pathenios region and their neighbors the Macrons say they learnt it recently from the Colchidians. These are the only races which practice circumcision and it is observable that they do it in the same way as the Egyptians. As between the Egyptians themselves and the Ethiopians I could not say which taught the other the practice for among them it is quite clearly a custom of great antiquity. As to the custom having been learnt through their Egyptian connections, a further strong proof to my mind is that all those Phoenicians trading to Greece cease to treat the pudenda after the Egyptian manner and do not subject their offspring to circumcision.26
Herodotus reverts several times to the negroid character of the Egyptians and each time uses it as a fact of observation to argue more or less complex theses. Thus to prove that the Greek oracle at Dodona in Epirus was of Egyptian origin, one of his arguments is the following: '. . . and when they add that the dove was black they give us to understand that the woman was Egyptian.'27 The doves in question - actually there were two according to the text - symbolize two Egyptian women who are said to have BEEN carried off from the Egyptian Thebes to found the oracles in Greece at Dodona and in Libya (Oasis of Jupiter Amon) respectively. Herodotus did not share the opinion of Anaxagoras that the melting of the snows on the mountains of Ethiopia was the source of the Nile floods.28 He relied on the fact that it neither rains or snows in Ethiopia 'and the heat there turns men black'.29
(b) Aristotle, -389 to -332, scientist, philosopher and tutor of Alexander the Great.
In one of his minor works, Aristotle attempts, with unexpected naivete', to establish a correlation between the physical and moral natures of living beings and leaves us evidence on the Egyptian-Ethiopian race which confirms what Herodotus says. According to him, 'Those who are too black are cowards, like for instance, the Egyptians and Ethiopians. But those who are excessively white are also cowards as we can see from the example of women, the complexion of courage is between the two.'30
(c) Lucian, Greek writer, +125(?) to +190.
The evidence of Lucian is as explicit as that of the two previous writers. He introduces two Greeks, Lycinus and Timolaus, who start a conversation.
Lycinus (describing a young Egyptian): 'This boy is not merely black; he has thick lips and his legs are too thin. . . his hair worn in a plait behind shows that he is not a freeman.'
Timolaus: 'But that is a sign of really distinguished birth in Egypt, Lycinus. All freeborn children plait their hair until they reach manhood. It is the exact opposite of the custom of our ancestors who thought it seemly for old men to secure their hair with a gold brooch to keep it in place.'31
(d) Apollodorus, first century before our era, Greek philosopher.
'Aegyptos conquered the country of the blackfooted ones and called it Egypt after himself.'32
(e) Aeschylus, -525(?) to -456, tragic poet and creator of Greek tragedy.
In The Suppliants, Danaos, fleeing with his daughters, the Danaids, and pursued by his brother Aegyptos with his sons, the Aegyptiads, who seek to wed their cousins by force, climbs a hillock, looks out to sea and describes the Aegyptiads at the oars afar off in these terms: 'I can see the crew with their black limbs and white tunics.'33
A similar description of the Egyptian type of man recurs a few lines later in verse 745.
(f) Achilles Tatius of Alexandria.
He compares the herdsmen of the Delta to the Ethiopians and explains that they are blackish, like half-castes.
(g) Strabo, -58 to about +25.
Strabo visited Egypt and almost all the countries of the Roman empire. He concurs in the theory that the Egyptians and the Colchoi are of the same race but holds that the migrations to Ethiopia and Colchoi had been from Egypt only
'Egyptians settled in Ethiopia and in Colchoi.'34 There is no doubt whatever as to Strabo's notion of the Egyptian's race for he seeks elsewhere to explain why the Egyptians are darker than the Hindus, a circumstance which would permit the refutation, if needed, of any attempt at confusing 'the Hindu and Egyptian races'.
(h) Diodorus of Sicily, about -63 to +14, Greek historian and contemporary of Caesar Augustus.
According to Diodorus it was probably Ethiopia which colonized Egypt (in the Athenian sense of the term, signifying that, with overpopulation, a proportion of the people emigrate to new territory).
The Ethiopians say that the Egyptians `are one of their colonies,35 which was led into Egypt by Osiris. They claim that at the beginning of the world Egypt was simply a sea but that the Nile, carrying down vast quantities of loam from Ethiopia in its flood waters, finally filled it in and made it part of the continent. . . They add that the Egyptians have received from them, as from authors and their ancestors, the greater part of their laws.36
(i) Diogenes Laertius.
He wrote the following about Zeno, founder of the stoic School (-333 to -261): 'Zeno son of Mnaseas or Demeas was a native of Citium in Cyprus, a Greek city which has taken in some Phoenician colonists.' In his Lives, Timotheus of Athens describes Zeno as having a twisted neck. Apollonius of Tyre says of him that he was gaunt, very tall and black, hence the fact that, according to Chrysippus in the First Book of his Proverbs, certain people called him an Egyptian vine-shoot.37
(j) Ammianus Marcellinus, about +33 to +100, Latin historian and friend of the Emperor Julian.
With him we reach the sunset of the Roman empire and the end of classical antiquity. There are about nine centuries between the birth of Aeschylus and Herodotus and the death of Ammianus Marcellinus, nine centuries during which the Egyptians, amid a sea of white races, steadily crossbred. It can be said without exaggeration that in Egypt one household in ten included a white Asiatic or Indo-European slave.39
It is remarkable that, despite its intensity, all this crossbreeding should not have succeeded in upsetting the racial constants. Indeed Ammianus Marcellinus writes: ". . .the men of Egypt are mostly brown and black with a skinny and desiccated look."39 He also confirms the evidence already cited about the Colchoi: 'Beyond these lands are the heartlands of the Camaritae40 and the Phasis with its swifter stream borders the country of the Colchoi, an ancient race of Egyptian origin.'41
Beyond this, I know that Plutarch said that the tradition about Osiris was that he was Black........
Diodorus said that Osiris was Mitzraim(Egypt), who was the son of Ham.........(If you need me to, I can can give you the references on these last two descriptions).
This is what I know and have researched. Salaam
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Originally posted 07 March, 2006 by alTakruri:
quote: "And they said, 'The number of blacks is greater than the number of whites, because most of those who are counted as whites are comprised of peoples from Persia, the mountains, Khurasan, Rome, Slavia, France, and Iberia, and anything apart from them is insignificant.
But among the blacks are counted * Zanj * Ethiopians * Fezzani * Berbers * Copts * Nubians * Zaghawa * Moors
the people of * Sind * the Hindus * the Qamar * the Dabila * the IndoChinese and those beyond them.
The sea is more extensive than the land, and the islands in the sea between IndoChina and Zanzibar are full of blacks, like the * Sarandib * Kalah * Amal * Zabij and its islands up to Hindustan and IndoChina * Kabul and those coasts.
"They said, 'The Arabs come from us -- not from the whites -- because of the similarity of their colour to ours. The Hindus are more yellow in color than the Arabs, yet they are counted among the black peoples."
Abu Uthman Amr ibn Bahr al-Jahiz Kitab Fakhr as-Sudan 'Ala al-Bidan Baghdad: self-published, 815 C.E.
Ultimately, How does the following fit in with today's ideas of evolutionary genetics and human relatedness? I fail to see how this is useful when studying the origins or relatedness of human populations. Or maybe I am just missing the point.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
When did I say the concept of human skin colour meant any recent relatedness?
Recently on Nepal&Tibet I posit the skin colour Asian and African B L A C K s have in common goes back to southern route OoA and nrY E folk regardless of colour are obviously closer related than are eastern and western Aithiopians or Vanatu and Serere, for example.
You can't fork your argument, at one time claiming man on the street then next time claiming science whichever suits your purpose for the sake of the moment.
You could be mentoring a student at your former high school. You didn't have it but you going back to do it could make an unconceived positive impact with ripple effects.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Peep the sleight of hand and note the population genetics non sense.
The claim was made repeatedly that the western use of 'black' was a modern conspiracy.
It was implied that the western use of 'black' is a corruption of al Jahiz purely skin pigmentation-based use of 'black' even though no proof of a connection between this medieval Arab and modern western use of the term was ever given in the first place. This is the type of absent-minded drivel we're dealing with. It's a complete non-sequitur fallacy that one use of black should necessarily inform the other.
Ptolemy was posted as proof that elements of the narrow use of 'black' are already attested in ancient times.
There was disagreement on whether features were included in said ancient use. But note the sleight of hand above, trying to make it seem like the Ptolemy text is now somehow irrelevant in regards to the reasons why it was posted. If not an early attestation of the combining of general outward appearance (Aethiopian) with skin pigmentation (jetblack skin), the Ptolemy text still proves that the stereotyping seen in the western use of 'black' is ancient. It's even more ancient than al Jahiz' text, the 'model' that the western use of 'black' supposedly 'conspires' against.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
My claim remains as posited 2005 when I got here that authors since antiquity (and on three different continents) up to the Oxford Dictionary recognize Asian and African B L A C K s who aren't necessarily closely nor recently related.
I disagree with the position since the Black Americans identity went from African to coloured to negro to AfroAmerican to Black that only they and their glow are the only ones who are B L A C K.
Anyone saying anything else intentionally misrepresents me. I welcome all to ask me, without insolence, for precision, clarification, or expansion on what I mean and where I stand.
Eurocentrics used to pen 'black but not negro', now progressive deconstructionists want it 'not black unless negro'.
It's not gonna work.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: My claim remains as posited 2005 when I got here that authors since antiquity (and on three different continents) up to the Oxford Dictionary recognize Asian and African B L A C K s who aren't necessarily closely nor recently related.
I disagree with the position since the Black Americans identity went from African to coloured to negro to AfroAmerican to Black that only they and their glow are the only ones who are B L A C K.
Anyone saying anything else intentionally misrepresents me. I welcome all to ask me, without insolence, for precision, clarification, or expansion on what I mean and where I stand.
Eurocentrics used to pen 'black but not negro', now progressive deconstructionists want it 'not black unless negro'.
It's not gonna work.
Describing people's skin as "black" as an adjective is a significant difference from describing a person as "black" as a noun as done in modern classification.
So many of these writers you refer to do not recognize "blacks" they are describing skin tone
and these writers are not such people describing themselves, they are the very Eurocentrics introducing this focus on skin color !
Ethiopians are are dark, East Indians are dark and Aboriginal Australians are dark. Is this some important similarity? But what importance is there in labeling these brown skinned people as "black" and putting it in capital letters with spaces between each letter?
Is that their main achievement that their skin is dark ?
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
Al-Jahiz (776-869) born in Basra : Al-Fakhar al-Sudan min al-Abyadh
How do you describe the woman, in your avatar?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: How do you describe the woman, in your avatar? [/QB]
brown skinned
-also, edit out the long quotes it's disrupting the thread
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: How do you describe the woman, in your avatar?
brown skinned
-also, edit out the long quotes it's disrupting the thread [/QB]
Ok, thanks. I can't edit easily, I am on a mobile device. It's hard to do.
Should we replace brown for black?
quote:I'm not white or red or black I'm brown from the Boogie Down Productions, of course our music be thumpin'
--KRS One - My Philosophy
quote:Blacks and whites don't realize that they're really pink and brown
--Grandmaster Flash – Message 2 (Survival) (Feat. Melle Mel)
Posted by Nodnarb (Member # 3735) on :
There is one question I want to ask.
If a white supremacist were to declare to you that "Black Africans never built a worthy civilization", would people here still choose to abstain from "Black"? Let's assume for argument's sake that you don't have the option of running away from the debate or blocking them. On the one hand, if you choose to adopt their terminology, there's the risk that they'll shift the goalpost by narrowing the definition of "Black" identity. On the other hand, since they won't listen to non-racialist anthro discourse if they even understand it, you're pretty much stuck communicating in terms they can grasp. So how would you answer them?
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nodnarb: There is one question I want to ask.
If a white supremacist were to declare to you that "Black Africans never built a worthy civilization", would people here still choose to abstain from "Black"? Let's assume for argument's sake that you don't have the option of running away from the debate or blocking them. On the one hand, if you choose to adopt their terminology, there's the risk that they'll shift the goalpost by narrowing the definition of "Black" identity. On the other hand, since they won't listen to non-racialist anthro discourse if they even understand it, you're pretty much stuck communicating in terms they can grasp. So how would you answer them?
From what I can recall, Blumenbach called the cranium of an Ghanian woman, Ethiopian.
Anyway, I just looked at "dc legends of tomorrow", last episode, and wondered about some of the characters.
While searching I bumped into this one, blurred lines:
quote: Expanding on the work of Carolus Linnaeus, German professor of medicine Johann Friedrich Blumenbach introduced one of the race-based classifications in On the Natural Variety of Mankind.
In the second edition Blumenbach changed his original geographically based four-race arrangement to a five-group one that emphasized physical morphology (the study of the form of an organism).
Blumenbach’s five categories were: Caucasian, the white race; Mongolian, the yellow race; Malayan, the brown race; Ethiopian, the black race; and American, the red race. Although he retained geographical names for his categories, the change marked a shift from geography to physical appearance.
Since the 1980s, CBS reports, Henfy has been fighting to have the U.S. government reclassify him as black, which is how he’s always seen himself. “My classification as a white man takes away my black pride, my black heritage and my strong black identity,” Henfy told the Detroit News.
Hefny, 61, filed a suit in 1997 against the U.S. government to be reclassified, but his case was dismissed. Hefny has also reached out to President Obama for help, writing him a letter on June 29, the Detroit News reports, as well as the Justice Department and the United Nations.
“I have been awarded, inadvertently, the negative effects of being black such as racial profiling, stereotypes and disenfranchisement due to my Negroid features. However, the legal demand of my racial classification of ‘white’ prevents me from receiving benefits established for black people, “ he told CBS. Hefny says he’s lost out on university teaching positions because they were positions designed for a minority and he did not qualify.
Currently, Directive 15 for the federal Office of Management and Budget Standards for the Classification of Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity defines race by the following categories: Hispanic or Latino, American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Black of African American, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific islander, White, Nonresident alien, Resident alien, and Race/ethnicity unknown.
White” is defined as “a person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa” — which is why the U.S. government classifies Hefny as such. However, the desgination for “Black or African American” applies to “a person having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa.” According to CBS, Hefny says that he is descended from the Nubians, the ancient group of Egyptians from the northern part of Sudan and southern part of Egypt.
An article by Charles Whitaker in Ebony in 2002 entitled “Was Cleopatra Black?” explored this topic of racial classification in Egypt, and found that, among scholars, “discussions of Cleopatra’s race were so couched and so guarded that professors even fear engaging in the discussion publicly.”
“Cleopatra is one of those figures whose race often depends on the lens you use to view her,” Julia Perkins, associate directors of community programs for the Art Institute of Chicago told Ebony. Whitaker talked to various scholars who all found classifying Cleopatra to be “full of complexity, full of odd historical twists, and that there was no real, easy answer.” Her father’s mother may have been a concubine from Nubia, Whitaker writes, so that would make her African Egyptian.
Hefny also classifies himself as African Egyptian, and has co-founded The Association of Black Egyptian, Ethiopian, and Nubian Advocates to drum up support for his cause. He’s posted a petition online, and currently has collected 188 signatures.
^nice write up but in his own statements Hefny reifies the "non-African" or rather more specifically "non-Black" notion of indigenous AE
Edit@Swenet: I see what you are stressing now and wby you used the quote from Ptolemy. I've always tried to be careful to keep in mind disparate uses of the word black or other synonyms and also tie those uses to their historical context. As I've tried to do in arguments outside this forum when I enter discussions avoiding the use of the term black entirely yet still get pulled into it anyway, ugh.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Punos_Rey: ^nice write up but in his own statements Hefny reifies the "non-African" or rather more specifically "non-Black" notion of indigenous AE
Not sure what you mean, can you elaborate?
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
@Punos
In my last semi-public debate with someone from the opposing side i had that happen to me. I find that the problem is not so much that they're doing it but that the bystanders (often their friends) don't correct this. It's still easy to refute the crap out of them, even if they try to gang up on you. It'll just take a little longer.
A lot of debates go on longer than needed because there is no moderation or because the moderators themselves are participating in that sort of behavior. He was a mod there. I challenged him several times to continue the debate we were having publicly on a reputable anthro forum with neutral mods assigned to keep tabs on who was winning. He changed the subject and ignored my invitation several times.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: My claim remains as posited 2005 when I got here that authors since antiquity (and on three different continents) up to the Oxford Dictionary recognize Asian and African B L A C K s who aren't necessarily closely nor recently related.
I disagree with the position since the Black Americans identity went from African to coloured to negro to AfroAmerican to Black that only they and their glow are the only ones who are B L A C K.
Anyone saying anything else intentionally misrepresents me. I welcome all to ask me, without insolence, for precision, clarification, or expansion on what I mean and where I stand.
Eurocentrics used to pen 'black but not negro', now progressive deconstructionists want it 'not black unless negro'.
It's not gonna work.
Describing people's skin as "black" as an adjective is a significant difference from describing a person as "black" as a noun as done in modern classification.
So many of these writers you refer to do not recognize "blacks" they are describing skin tone
and these writers are not such people describing themselves, they are the very Eurocentrics introducing this focus on skin color !
Ethiopians are are dark, East Indians are dark and Aboriginal Australians are dark. Is this some important similarity? But what importance is there in labeling these brown skinned people as "black" and putting it in capital letters with spaces between each letter?
Is that their main achievement that their skin is dark ?
I totality forgot about this post. But Egyptians can be dark as well. Especially in middle Egypt, and more so to the South. Should we include or exclude them? They themselves say black, which to them is synonymous to saying Nubian.
But this color debate certainly has a philosophical point of view, and is all relative...
quote: "The lower parts of the country on either side of Meroê, along the Nile towards the Red Sea, are inhabited by Megabari and Blemmyes, who are subject to the Aethiopians and border on the Aegyptians, and, along the sea, by Troglodytes (the Troglodytes opposite Meroê are a ten or twelve days' journey distant from the Nile), but the parts on the left side of the course of the Nile, in Libya, are inhabited by Nubae, a large tribe, who, beginning at Meroê, extend as far as the bends of the river, and are not subject to the Aethiopians but are divided into several separate kingdoms. The extent of Aegypt along the sea from the Pelusiac to the Canobic mouth is one thousand three hundred stadia. This, then, is what Eratosthenes says.
Ish Gabor says: Since the 1980s, CBS reports, Henfy has been fighting to have the U.S. government reclassify him as black, which is how he’s always seen himself. “My classification as a white man takes away my black pride, my black heritage and my strong black identity,” Henfy told the Detroit News.
You notice other modern Egyptians are not beating down the door to follow Hefny- what with a whopping 188 signatures on his petition. Most of the modern Egyptians I have run into rather like the "white" classification - there are benefits- and they can "distance" themselves from being black. They really gain very little from the black classification. There are few "affirmative action" advantages. 'Affirmative Action" has been a dying or minor horse since the 1980s- with minor impact for blacks- as even conservative scholars like Thomas Sowell show, contrary to the bogus propaganda claims of assorted right wingers. One, ex-felon pundit Dinesh Dsouza, has oft declared "The End of Racism" but fails to mention that EEOC has a backlog of thousands of race discrimination cases, a TWO YEAR BACKLOG, or should we say a "BLACKLOG." And credible research shows bias and discrimination based on skin color is still alive and well. See for example Hochschild 2007. The Skin Color Paradox and the American Racial Order. Social FOrces 86, 2. So much for bogus right-wing white propaganda.
Ish Gabor says: quote:Originally posted by Punos_Rey: ^nice write up but in his own statements Hefny reifies the "non-African" or rather more specifically "non-Black" notion of indigenous AE
Not sure what you mean, can you elaborate?
^^From what I have read on Hefny he was trying an Affirmative action" tie-in in his beef with his employers. His opponents no doubt say he "became black" only when the heat was on. But I don't blame him for fighting back using all weapons available.
FROM ARTICLE:
Currently, Directive 15 for the federal Office of Management and Budget Standards for the Classification of Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity defines race by the following categories: Hispanic or Latino, American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Black of African American, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific islander, White, Nonresident alien, Resident alien, and Race/ethnicity unknown.
“White” is defined as “a person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa” — which is why the U.S. government classifies Hefny as such. However, the desgination for “Black or African American” applies to “a person having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa.” According to CBS, Hefny says that he is descended from the Nubians, the ancient group of Egyptians from the northern part of Sudan and southern part of Egypt.
^Again, modern Egyptians in the US with the benefit of being "white" are in no hurry to follow Hefny.
An article by Charles Whitaker in Ebony in 2002 entitled “Was Cleopatra Black?” explored this topic of racial classification in Egypt, and found that, among scholars, “discussions of Cleopatra’s race were so couched and so guarded that professors even fear engaging in the discussion publicly.”
^^The reason it is "couched" and "guarded" is that Cleopatra's exact "racial" makeup is somewhat ambiguous, and to say that is to expose the edifice of white falsity and propaganda that trumpeted white Elizabeth Taylor types as the "true representative." But also - many don't want at all to advertise the possibility of any race mix because under the American-European "one drop rule" that would make Cleo "black."
“Cleopatra is one of those figures whose race often depends on the lens you use to view her,” Julia Perkins, associate directors of community programs for the Art Institute of Chicago told Ebony. Whitaker talked to various scholars who all found classifying Cleopatra to be “full of complexity, full of odd historical twists, and that there was no real, easy answer.” Her father’s mother may have been a concubine from Nubia, Whitaker writes, so that would make her African Egyptian.
^^Which is another primary reason they are "couched" and "guarded."
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: [QB] Ish Gabor says: Since the 1980s, CBS reports, Henfy has been fighting to have the U.S. government reclassify him as black, which is how he’s always seen himself. “My classification as a white man takes away my black pride, my black heritage and my strong black identity,” Henfy told the Detroit News.
You notice other modern Egyptians are not beating down the door to follow Hefny- what with a whopping 188 signatures on his petition. Most of the modern Egyptians I have run into rather like the "white" classification - there are benefits- and they can "distance" themselves from being black. They really gain very little from the black classification.
Why have color classification? What good is it?
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
Skin color classification pays, and most of the benefits have flowed to white people, who have rigged the game to ensure that their color gets paid handsomely indeed. White scholars who have studied the field are candid about it. See for example Daria Rothmayr's book. Her angle is to apply cartel and monopoly concepts to show how white people get paid by discrimination. Her examples are good ones- if anything they are understated, though her notion of using technical anti-trust law per se to attack discrimination is weaker. But there is a lot of literature out there.
Reproducing Racism: How Everyday Choices Lock in White Advantage.
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: [QB] Skin color classification pays, and most of the benefits have flowed to white people, who have rigged the game to ensure that their color gets paid handsomely indeed.
Therefore "white" and "black" should be discarded
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: [QB] Skin color classification pays, and most of the benefits have flowed to white people, who have rigged the game to ensure that their color gets paid handsomely indeed.
Therefore "white" and "black" should be discarded
I agree, but that's Utopia.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: [QB] Ish Gabor says: Since the 1980s, CBS reports, Henfy has been fighting to have the U.S. government reclassify him as black, which is how he’s always seen himself. “My classification as a white man takes away my black pride, my black heritage and my strong black identity,” Henfy told the Detroit News.
You notice other modern Egyptians are not beating down the door to follow Hefny- what with a whopping 188 signatures on his petition. Most of the modern Egyptians I have run into rather like the "white" classification - there are benefits- and they can "distance" themselves from being black. They really gain very little from the black classification.
Why have color classification? What good is it?
The classification was born centuries ago. It deals with superiority. People in certain positions don't want to lose control over their position.
Henfy his experiences are factual in this. No one is going to follow that path. At least not that manny.
However the question is, how does this translate into daily experience?
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: Skin color classification pays, and most of the benefits have flowed to white people, who have rigged the game to ensure that their color gets paid handsomely indeed. White scholars who have studied the field are candid about it. See for example Daria Rothmayr's book. Her angle is to apply cartel and monopoly concepts to show how white people get paid by discrimination. Her examples are good ones- if anything they are understated, though her notion of using technical anti-trust law per se to attack discrimination is weaker. But there is a lot of literature out there.
Reproducing Racism: How Everyday Choices Lock in White Advantage.
Thanks, I'm going to read it.
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
If you can get your hands on the one below is much better- a real eye opener. I was surprised to learn for example the extent to which white govt regimes subsidized the destruction of black neighborhoods via "urban renewal" and building of new highways so white people could get out to the suburbs an commute back to the central area for jobs. Meanwhile the same governments (a) did not replace all the housing they had destroyed, (b) supported racist real estate practices freezing out black buyers (though talking piously about "free markets"), (c) turned over some of the "renewed" areas to white corporate interests so they could profit and (d) refused to give black people federal or other loans to buy housing in areas designated as "white."
The presence of just one or two black families in an area could cause it to be "redlined" off- with very few or no govt backed loans available. This is one reason white homeowners so often responded violently when blacks tried to buy into an area. Their own white banks and govt agencies might "seal off" the area in red- meaning their property values would suffer, and loans to help finance sale or purchase would be hard to come by in the "tainted area." It was not an abstract "government" doing this but government ruled by white people and backed and supported by white people.
Then there are the white unions, who murdered black railroad workers in some areas so whites could take over their jobs. Even President Harry Truman commented on this phenomenon.
In some ways - it is a very disturbing read, but an eye opener shattering many myths and propaganda tropes.
Zarahan, I had several discussions with white racist online. About 90% of them claimed to have some college or university degree. They were always very hostile, with clear racist intentions.
A real eyeopener was:
He may have unravelled DNA, but James Watson deserves to be shunned
"But it’s not awful. Watson has said that he is “not a racist in a conventional way”. But he told the Sunday Times in 2007 that while people may like to think that all races are born with equal intelligence, those “who have to deal with black employees find this not true”. Call me old-fashioned, but that sounds like bog-standard, run-of-the-mill racism to me."
His view was based on a traditional/ classic view, and reinforced with the bestseller, the bell-curve. Hence bestseller.
When, I posted at Topix, there was this individual who stated that blacks should be banned from higher-education because of Afrocentric fews. This was a way to prevent spread of Africana, as he sated. He claimed to be a professor and called blacks who disagree on his views, Afro-nazis. Yes.
This individual goes by the name of Barros, amongst other nicknames.
A few snippets: The Possessive Investment in Whiteness
Ish Gebor I wonder if this "Barros" is the same personage as "David Bowden" who for months claimed to have a doctorate in African Studies and was proven to be lying.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Punos_Rey: Ish Gebor I wonder if this "Barros" is the same personage as "David Bowden" who for months claimed to have a doctorate in African Studies and was proven to be lying.
I have never heard of "David Bowden". But Barros does has different screen names.
Posted by Fourty2Tribes (Member # 21799) on :
Most of the people who argue for a non-black Egypt are racist. When I say argue I don't mean asking questions. There are some racially ambiguous traits to Egyptian art. I'm talking about people who will continue to argue against evidence and logic because they struggle with the realization that white daddy lied to them.
Someone talking about the relation with Berbers and people in the Nile Valley but you can't name more than three other African tribes is a racist.
Someone like the dude at Historum who said Amenhotep iii, Narmer and Huni looked mixed race is a racist.
Someone who questioned the Amarna results even after you explained to them that it links to Jama and showed them the Carsten Pusch interview is a racist.
Someone who talks about African Americans stealing history while Hollywood white washes the hell out of ancient Egyptian casting is a racist.
Someone who uses the term Afrocentric for any black scholar they disagree with or think they might disagree with is a racist.
Then you have that breed that does racist stuff based on a deeper bit of programming. Example:
quote: People have always enslaved each-other
quote:Have you studied African history before Christ?
quote: *Google* The Nubians!
quote:Did not exist before Christ.
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
Ish Gabor says: "But it’s not awful. Watson has said that he is “not a racist in a conventional way”. But he told the Sunday Times in 2007 that while people may like to think that all races are born with equal intelligence, those “who have to deal with black employees find this not true”.
Call me old-fashioned, but that sounds like bog-standard, run-of-the-mill racism to me."
Indeed, it is basic racism, and typically, and conveniently, Watson and assorted white right-wingers skip over the behavior of alleged WHITE "role models" in comparison. As regards pace-setting northern Europeans for example the white Irish were notorious for violence, drunkenness and sloth in the workplace as even CONSERVATIVE authors like Thomas Sowell shows. Irish employees of certain railroads for example were reported to commit “a murder a mile” of track laid. Let's recap:
[QUOTE:]
Northern European "role models" unimpressive
"Such living patterns reflected not only the poverty of the Irish but also their being used to squalid living conditions in mud huts in Ireland... Sewage piled up in backyard privies until the municipal authorities chose to collect it, or else it ran off in open trenches, fouling the air and providing breeding grounds for dangerous diseases. The importance of proper garbage disposal, to keep the neighborhood from being overrun with rats, was one of many similar facts of urban life that every rural group new to the city would have to learn over the years, beginning with the Irish, and continuing through many others until the present day. Cholera, which had been unknown before, swept through Boston in 1849, concentrated almost exclusively in Irish neighborhoods. In New York, cholera was also disproportionately observed in Irish wards. In various cities, both tuberculosis and fire swept regularly through the overcrowded tenements where the Irish lived, and there was a high rate of insanity among the Irish immigrants.. The incidence of tuberculosis in Boston varied closely with the proportion of the Irish living in a neighborhood.
Patterns of alcoholism and fighting brought over from Ireland persisted in the United States. Over half the people arrested in New York in the 1850s were Irish.. Police vans became known as 'Paddy wagons" because the prisoners in them were so often Irish. "The fighting Irish" was a phrase that covered everything from individual brawls to mass melees (known as "Donnybrooks" for a town in Ireland) to criminal gangs.. Irish neighborhoods were tough neighborhoods in cities around the country. The Irish Sixth Ward in New York was known as "the bloody ould Sixth." Another Irish Neighborhood in New York was known as "Hell's Kitchen," and another as 'San Juan Hill" because of the battles fought there. In Milwaukee, the Irish section was called the "Bloody Third".. Where the Irish workers built the Illinois Central Railroad, people spoke of "a murder a mile" as they laid track. The largest riot in American history was by predominantly Irish rioters in New York in 1863. . .
Even the proportion of the black population who were laborers and house servants in Boston in 1850 was much lower than among the Irish, and the free blacks in mid-century Boston were in general economically better off than the Irish. The Irish-women's work as domestic servants and washerwomen was usually more steadily available than that of Irishmen- a situation later to be repeated among blacks.
As in Ireland itself, the poverty and improvidence of the Irish immigrants to America often reduced them to living on charity when hard times came. In early nineteenth-century Ireland, even before the famine, it was common for whole families of the poor to go 'tramping about it for months, bragging from parish to parish.' Recourse to public charity was a well-established habit carried over to America. Expenditures for relief to the poor in Boston more than doubled from 1845 to 1855, during the heavy influx of the Irish, after such expenditures had been relatively stable for years. In New York City in the same era, about 60 percent of the people in almshouses had been born in Ireland. As late as 1906, there were more Irish than Italian paupers, beggars and inmates of almshouses, even though the Italians arrived a generation later and were generally poorer at the turn of the century. radically different attitudes toward accepting charity existed in Ireland and Italy, and these attitudes apparently had more effect than their respective objective economic conditions in America. There were similar cultural differences in attitudes toward the abandonment of wives and children. In the 1840s, 'it was almost automatically assumed than an orphan was Irish," and as late as 1914, about half the Irish families on Manhattan's west side were fatherless. No such pattern appeared among the Italians.
Although the Irish immigrants (like other immigrants) had a disproportionate representation of young people in the prime of life, the mortality rate shot up after their arrival. Boston's mortality rate in 1850 was double that of the rest of Massachusetts, even though there were relatively fewer aged people in Boston. The difference was due to the extremely high mortality rate in the Irish neighborhoods. Diseases that had become rare in America now flourished again. In 1849, cholera spread through Philadelphia to New York and to Boston- primarily in Irish neighborhoods. There had not been a smallpox epidemic in Boston since 1792, but after 1845, it became a recurring plague, again primarily among the Irish. The spread of the Irish into other neighborhoods, mean, among other things, the spread of these and other diseases. The residential flight of middle-class Americans from the Irish immigrants was by no means all irrationality...
Today's neighborhood changes have been dramatized by such expressions was 'white flight' but these patterns existed long before black-white neighborhood changes were the issue. When the nineteenth-century Irish immigrants flooded into New York and Boston, the native Americans fled. With the first appearance of an Irish family in a neighborhood, 'the exodus of non-Irish residents began. 'White flight' is a misleading term, not only because of its historical narrowness, but also because blacks too have fled when circumstances were reversed. Blacks fled a whole series of neighborhoods in nineteenth-century New York, 'pursued' by new Italian immigrants who moved in. The first blacks in Harlem were fleeing from the tough Irish neighborhoods in mid-Manhattan, and avoided going north of 145th Street for fear of encountering more Irish there." [ENDQUOTE] --FROM: Sowell, T. (1981). Ethnic America
On the violence front, putative white "role models" are unimpressive. In fact in some eras rates of murder and other violence far exceed anything by blacks. One only has to examine different historical periods, and we are not even getting into 20th century violence by those paragons of white virtue- the northern European Germans and their "final solution."
The white Irish for example posted arrest rates well above their population representation- 50% in some years of NYC compared to an Irish population of about 24% of the city. If the comparison is to the Irish as a proportion of the total population the disparity is even more shocking. More than 5 times as many Irish were convicted in court than among the native population. Back then the "law and order" problem, was essentially a white Irish problem. In Philadelphia in the 1860s and thru the mid 1870s the indictment rate for crimes for the white Irish was almost twice that of other groups, even though the Irish made up less that 20% of the city's people- posting an indictment rate of 4.7 per 100,000 compared to the citywide average of 2.9 per 100,000. The murder rate among the white Irish exceeded that of blacks. In 1860 in Boston the white Irish accounted for 75% of arrestees and police detainees, though only making up about 40% of the population. Again if the comparison is to the Irish as a percentage of the national population the disparity looms wider. This pattern was all over where the Irish settled: from New York, to Philly, to Boston, to Chicago.
If violent Irish group riots are added on top of the above the picture is even grimmer. Leaving aside from the worse Irish riots in US history- the Draft Riots- Irish gangs actually grew in size and ferocity afterwards. Groups like the Dead Rabbits or the Bowery Boys fought for days, deploying thousands, and requiring the National Guard or the militia to suppress them. Indeed, allegedly more ":restrained" whites posted the bloodiest street violence in US History. As one history notes:
"The New York Draft Riot has gone down in history as one of the nation's bloodiest urban riots. Moreover, the behavior of the Irish during these fateful days and the racism they exhibited reinforced their reputation for violence." (Dolan, JP, The Irish Americans: A History. p. 49)
On the political scene, the Irish used thuggish violence and intimidation on a mass scale- with street riots, stabbings and shootings as squads of drunken Irishmen packing clubs, knives gun and razors went from precinct to precinct assaulting the opposition. Chicago was the scene of much of this election mayhem. People complain about intimidation by ACORN? ACORN ain't nothing really but a bunch of old ladies, compared to the Irish intimidation and murder squads of the past. (Source: Micahel Barone, 2001: The New Americans p 41-45)
On other measures of social propriety, assorted whites were no paragons. One survey of prostitutes in the 1800s in heavily Irish NYC for example "revealed that 35 percent were Irish and 12 percent German." The Irish also posted higher rates of female-headed families than other ethnic groups in the same time period. (Binder, F, and Reimers D. (1996) All the Nations Under Heaven: An Ethnic and Racial History of New York City. Columbia University Press.)
More violence..
As regards the 2011 black homicide rate of 17.51 per thousand this is high, but often surpassed by whites- it just depends on the time period you want to study. The supposedly more self-restrained Dutch of Amsterdam posted a whopping 47 per 100,000 in the 16th century, higher than any rate ever recorded for New York City, Irish and all. (Epstein and Gang 2010. Migration and Culture, Vol 8) In Maryland the rate at which unrelated European adults killed was 29 per 100,000 adults per year in the mid 1600s. In white Virginia it was 37 per 100,000. The supposedly more virtuous Yankee peoples in colonial America in the Chesapeake posted a rate of 12 per 100,000.
In some decades of the 1800s, white San Francisco posted rates well above 17.5. Even allegedly milder white Oregon posted a rate around 30 per 100,000. (Randolph Roth- Homicide Rates in the American West) Using modern FBI formulas, mostly white Los Angeles County in the 19th century ran up a body count of about 414 homicides per 100,000. (McKanna 2002. Race and Homicide in 19th Century California). Nor is the West unique. Studies show the heavily white Scotch-Irish Kentucky-Tennessee borderlands posting a rate of 24 per 100,000 starting in the 1850s. ( –Randolph Roth, 2009. American Homicide). In a study of homicides in white Russia, it was found that in 1998, the homicide victimization rate was 23.9 per 100,000. The 1999 homicide figures were substantially up over those for 1998.” –Encyclopedia of Crime and Punishment, Vol 1. 2002 (David Levinson ed) p. 1426. ============================================ ==========
As regards marriage and morality, white northern European “role models” are equally unimpressive.
It is a fact that for decades prior to the 1960s, black folk in the US posted higher marriage rates and lower divorce rates than whites. Furthermore white OOW rates are hardly sterling. Among the supposedly more virtuous northern Europeans for example, like the white Irish, the OOW rate in some decades of the 19th century exceeded 50% in heavily Irish areas of settlement in cities like NYC, even though the Irish made up less than 26% of the population at the time (Sowell 1981, 1983).
Supposedly virtuous white "Nordic" Europeans are no better. In the 1850s, in Sweden's biggest city, Stockholm, for example, the illegitimacy rate was close to 50%. As Burns and Scott (1994) show, by the mid 19th century when reliable cross-national figures are widely available, it was found than in illegitimacy, (Stockholm (with a 46% rate in the 1850s) was second only to Vienna (49%) among European capitals. Indeed this trend was a continuation since the early 1800s. Nor was this solely a pattern for mid century 1800s. In ultra-white Sweden at the start of the 20th century, barely half of Swedish women married and around one-sixth of children were born out of wedlock. Nor was this solely an urban Stockholm phenomenon. High illegitimacy rates and declining marriage rates were also found in rural areas as well (A companion to nineteenth-century Europe, 1789-1914, By Stefan Berger, Wiley 2006.) By contrast, as late as 1950 the US black illegitimacy rate stood at 17%, well below that of the touted white Swedish "role models" above, and for 50 years, black marriage rates were higher than that of US whites (Sowell 2004- Black Rednecks, White Liberals), and better than the Swedish pattern over several decades. The black illegitimacy rate in 1965 was STILL lower than the 28% posted by US whites in 2000.
Closer into the 20th century, white Nordic "role models" are no paragons of virtue: By the year 2000, out of wedlock births in Nordic Sweden had reached 53% of all births- a steep rise from a mere 10% illegitimacy rate in mid century. (A population history of the United States By Herbert S. Klein, Cambridge University Press. 2004. p. 216) Nor are supposedly more virtuous white people of other "Nordic" nations any better. In the early 1980s illegitimacy rates were on the order of 45% in Iceland and Sweden and 40% in Denmark. (Report on Immigrant populations and demographic development in the member states of the Council of Europe. Rinus Penninx, Council of Europe. 1984.)
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: My bad. Source for the Ptolemy text for those who are interested.
Unfortunately the author did not refer to the original Ptolemy text. So I had to look it up. But from what I understand the author of the classical Greek text is Claudius Ptolemaeus.
I will do deep search, research on this; Γεωγραφικὴ Ὑφήγησις.
Thanks for the post.
quote:
The Geographike Hyphegesis , which can be translated as Geographical Guide (or manual, handbook ), comprises eight Books (I-VII). In Book I, containing 24 chapters, Ptolemy develops his theories on both world cartography ( γεωγραφία , geography ) and regional topography ( χωρογραφία , chorography ), explains the method of constructing a map of the then inhabited world ( oikoumene ) in proportion to the real world. In that map is depicted Europe without Scandinavia, Asia and the northern part of Africa with the famous terra incognita to the south of the Equator unifying Africa with Asia.
This video is miss leading. He proposes that Bayesian statistics represent is the best way to do research. This is false . The example he provides of a 60/50 comparison of data will naturally provide false results because the two groups are unequal.
Scientific method vs.Bayesian statitics Research is the foundation of good science, or knowing in general. There are four methods of 1) Method of tenacity (one holds firmly to the truth, because "they know it" to be true); 2) method of authority (the method of established belief, i.e., the Bible or the "experts" says it, it is so); 3) method of intuition (the method where a proposition agrees with reason, but not necessarily with experience); and 4) the method of science (the method of attaining knowledge which calls for self-correction).
The aim of science is theory construction (F.N. Kirlinger, 1986, pp.6-10; R. Braithwaite, 1955, pp. 1-10). A theory is a set of interrelated constructs, propositions and definitions that provide a systematic understanding of phenomena by outlining relations among a group of variables that explain and predict phenomena. Scientific inquiry involves issues of theory construction, control and experimentation.
Scientific knowledge must rest on testing, rather than mere induction which can be defined as inferences of laws and generalizations, derived from observation. Karl Popper (2002) rejects this form of logical validity based solely on inference and conjecture (pp. 33-65). Popper maintains that confirmation in science is arrived at through falsification.
I will admit that I am a falsificationist . It can be defined as “ Falsificationism is an inductivist approach to knowledge production that basically asserts that theories cannot be proved but that theories or hypotheses can be disproved, or falsified. “
Therefore to confirm a theory in science one tests the theory through rigorous attempts at falsification. In falsification the researcher uses cultural, linguistic, anthropological and historical knowledge to invalidate a proposed theory. If a theory can not be falsified through yes of the variables associated with the theory it is confirmed. It can only be disconfirmed when new generalizations associated with the original theory fail to survive attempts at falsification.
In short, science centers on conjecture and refutations.
John P. A. Ioannidis recommends the use of Bayesian statistical methods to get a better understanding of research, instead of statistical significance to falsify a hypothesis. Bayesian statistical method, is a subjective research design/method that provides a rational method of updating the researcher's beliefs. Since Bayesian statistics are only updating a researcher’s beliefs there is no hypothesis testing and reality: no science, since you can not have science without hypothesis testing.
Instead of using Bayesian statistics researchers should use random sampling to secure a sample population for the study. This is done because a Random sample makes the groups equal. It also controls the extraneous variables. In this way statistical significance will provide a good measure for the reliability and validity of your research, as oppose to simply using Bayesian statistics updating your prior beliefs
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: My bad. Source for the Ptolemy text for those who are interested.
Unfortunately the author did not refer to the original Ptolemy text. So I had to look it up. But from what I understand the author of the classical Greek text is Claudius Ptolemaeus.
I will do deep search, research on this; Γεωγραφικὴ Ὑφήγησις.
Thanks for the post.
quote:
The Geographike Hyphegesis , which can be translated as Geographical Guide (or manual, handbook ), comprises eight Books (I-VII). In Book I, containing 24 chapters, Ptolemy develops his theories on both world cartography ( γεωγραφία , geography ) and regional topography ( χωρογραφία , chorography ), explains the method of constructing a map of the then inhabited world ( oikoumene ) in proportion to the real world. In that map is depicted Europe without Scandinavia, Asia and the northern part of Africa with the famous terra incognita to the south of the Equator unifying Africa with Asia.
It's somewhat odd, because. he lived at Alexandria.
This is why wikipedia is useful. One easily discovers that Claudius Ptolemaeus AD 100 – c. 170 is the latin version of "Claudius Ptolemy" and the man is often referred to by his just his last name Ptolemy. When you see Ptolemy I with the roman numeral "I" after it, that is when it is referring to the a Macedonian king of Egypt a few hundred years prior
wikipedia:
Ptolemaeus (Πτολεμαῖος – Ptolemaios) is a Greek name. It occurs once in Greek mythology, and is of Homeric form.[8] It was common among the Macedonian upper class at the time of Alexander the Great, and there were several of this name among Alexander's army, one of whom made himself King of Egypt in 323 BC: Ptolemy I Soter. All the kings after him, until Egypt became a Roman province in 30 BC, were also Ptolemies.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: Unfortunately the author did not refer to the original Ptolemy text. So I had to look it up. But from what I understand the author of the classical Greek text is Claudius Ptolemaeus.
The book I quoted clearly says in its title and elsewhere that it's a translation of Ptolemy's Geography. Are you saying the quote isn't in Ptolemy's Geography?
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: It's somewhat odd, because Claudius Ptolemaeus lived at Alexandria.
That he lived near the Tropic of Cancer is implied in that quote when he says "on our side of the equator . . . on the Summer Tropic" and refers to place in Nubia as "places to the south of here". Please clarify what is odd about his residence in the Delta.
Posted by Child Of The KING (Member # 9422) on :
Great Posts DougM and Sudaniya
DON'T FORGET the EGYPTIAN MAN MOSTAFA HEFNY who THE AMERICAN GOVERNMENT STILL TRYING TO FORCE HIM TO SAY HE COCKASIAN(SODIMITE) OOPS CAUCASIAN.
Mostafa Hefny
quote: When Mostafa Hefny immigrated to the U.S. in 1978, he got a rude awakening.
As the customs agent welcomed him into the country, the brown-skinned Egyptian-native was told that he was now considered white.
Despite the fact that Hefny, now 61, looks like a black man ,
he was classified on his government-issued documents as Caucasian, a designation he’s been fighting ever since
Unfortunately the author did not refer to the original Ptolemy text. So I had to look it up. But from what I understand the author of the classical Greek text is Claudius Ptolemaeus.
I will do deep search, research on this; Γεωγραφικὴ Ὑφήγησις.
Thanks for the post.
quote:
The Geographike Hyphegesis , which can be translated as Geographical Guide (or manual, handbook ), comprises eight Books (I-VII). In Book I, containing 24 chapters, Ptolemy develops his theories on both world cartography ( γεωγραφία , geography ) and regional topography ( χωρογραφία , chorography ), explains the method of constructing a map of the then inhabited world ( oikoumene ) in proportion to the real world. In that map is depicted Europe without Scandinavia, Asia and the northern part of Africa with the famous terra incognita to the south of the Equator unifying Africa with Asia.
It's somewhat odd, because. he lived at Alexandria.
This is why wikipedia is useful. One easily discovers that Claudius Ptolemaeus AD 100 – c. 170 is the latin version of "Claudius Ptolemy" and the man is often referred to by his just his last name Ptolemy. When you see Ptolemy I with the roman numeral "I" after it, that is when it is referring to the a Macedonian king of Egypt a few hundred years prior
wikipedia:
Ptolemaeus (Πτολεμαῖος – Ptolemaios) is a Greek name. It occurs once in Greek mythology, and is of Homeric form.[8] It was common among the Macedonian upper class at the time of Alexander the Great, and there were several of this name among Alexander's army, one of whom made himself King of Egypt in 323 BC: Ptolemy I Soter. All the kings after him, until Egypt became a Roman province in 30 BC, were also Ptolemies.
I have seen it, and have been avoiding it on purpose. LOL I am looking for the actual validated info on this.
But since we are in the wiki, realm:
quote:The Geography (Greek: Γεωγραφικὴ Ὑφήγησις, Geōgraphikḕ Hyphḗgēsis, lit. "Geographical Guidance"), also known by its Latin names as the Geographia and the Cosmographia, is a gazetteer, an atlas, and a treatise on cartography, compiling the geographical knowledge of the 2nd-century Roman Empire. Originally written by Ptolemy in Greek at Alexandria around AD 150, the work was a revision of a now-lost atlas by Marinus of Tyre using additional Roman and Persian gazetteers and new principles.[1] Its translation into Arabic in the 9th century and Latin in 1406 was highly influential on the geographical knowledge and cartographic traditions of the medieval Caliphate and Renaissance Europe.
quote:Claudius Ptolemy (/ˈtɒləmi/; Greek: Κλαύδιος Πτολεμαῖος, Klaúdios Ptolemaîos, [kláwdios ptolɛmɛ́ːos]; Latin: Claudius Ptolemaeus; c. AD 100 – c. 170)[2] was a Greco-Egyptian writer, known as a mathematician, astronomer, geographer, astrologer, and poet of a single epigram in the Greek Anthology.[3][4] He lived in the city of Alexandria in the Roman province of Egypt, wrote in Koine Greek, and held Roman citizenship.[5] Beyond that, few reliable details of his life are known. His birthplace has been given as Ptolemais Hermiou in the Thebaid in an uncorroborated statement by the 14th-century astronomer Theodore Meliteniotes.[6] This is a very late attestation, however, and there is no other reason to suppose that he ever lived anywhere else than Alexandria,[6] where he died around AD 168.[7]
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: Unfortunately the author did not refer to the original Ptolemy text. So I had to look it up. But from what I understand the author of the classical Greek text is Claudius Ptolemaeus.
The book I quoted clearly says in its title and elsewhere that it's a translation of Ptolemy's Geography. Are you saying the quote isn't in Ptolemy's Geography?
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: It's somewhat odd, because Claudius Ptolemaeus lived at Alexandria.
That he lived near the Tropic of Cancer is implied in that quote when he says "on our side of the equator . . . on the Summer Tropic" and refers to place in Nubia as "places to the south of here". Please clarify what is odd about his residence in the Delta.
1) in and during my posting I had some crossovers, as I was trying to figure things out. So yes, the source is Ptolemy's Geography by the author Claudius Ptolemaeus. But I only found about that later, to who this particular Ptolemy is. Initially it tought it was about/ referring to the Ptolemaic's.
But I like to see what the actual Greek text states. Whether it's semantics and a matter of interpretation, or has a philosophical approach to it. Do I doubt the translation, a bit yes.
2) the odd part is, did he only see people of darker complexion at far South? It appears as odd to me, since he had to cross Siwa etc... I need to read more on his endeavors and journeys. I am trying to understand what gradient of color complexion the text is referring at.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:In 150 AD, the Greek scholar Claudius Ptolemy wrote a textbook entitled the Geography, which earned him the title ‘The Father of Geography’. Drawing on nearly a thousand years of classical learning, Ptolemy’s book provided a list of over 8,000 locations known to Greco-Roman civilization, centered on the Mediterranean. Ptolemy’s world stretches from the Canary Islands in the west to Korea in the east. Iceland is the northernmost point, there is no Pacific or American landmass, and South Africa is joined to Asia. Ptolemy’s book also provided a written description of how to draw world maps, using a grid of intersecting lines known as a graticule. He also invented two map projections. Ironically, no maps drawn by Ptolemy have ever been found; the first ones appeared in Byzantium over a thousand years after his death.
quote:IntroPtolemy (c.100-178) was a hugely important geographer and astronomer working in Ancient Rome. This map takes valuable information from his famous book Geographia. His work informed mapmakers on the size of the Earth, and the co-ordinates for the positions of all the places and features indicated on the map. Until a copy of Geographia was translated from Greek into Latin in 1407, all knowledge of these co-ordinates had been lost in the West. The book created a sensation, as it challenged the very basis of medieval mapmaking – mapmakers before this had based the proportions of countries, not on mathematical calculations, but on the importance of different places - the more important a country was, the bigger it appeared on the map. In fact, many of Ptolemy’s calculations were later proved to be incorrect. However, the introduction of mathematics and the idea of accurate measurement were to change the nature of European mapmaking forever. This copy of Ptolemy's World Map was produced slightly later, in 1482.
A comparison between two Egyptians.At left, Mostafa Hefny, an Egyptian who lives in America and wishes to be classified as black and Jermy Shenouda, a Coptic youtube video maker who calls himself "arealegyptian" and does not want to be called "black" and is angry with "blacks"
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: [QB] Ish Gabor says: Since the 1980s, CBS reports, Henfy has been fighting to have the U.S. government reclassify him as black, which is how he’s always seen himself. “My classification as a white man takes away my black pride, my black heritage and my strong black identity,” Henfy told the Detroit News.
You notice other modern Egyptians are not beating down the door to follow Hefny- what with a whopping 188 signatures on his petition. Most of the modern Egyptians I have run into rather like the "white" classification - there are benefits- and they can "distance" themselves from being black. They really gain very little from the black classification. There are few "affirmative action" advantages. 'Affirmative Action" has been a dying or minor horse since the 1980s- with minor impact for blacks- as even conservative scholars like Thomas Sowell show, contrary to the bogus propaganda claims of assorted right wingers. One, ex-felon pundit Dinesh Dsouza, has oft declared "The End of Racism" but fails to mention that EEOC has a backlog of thousands of race discrimination cases, a TWO YEAR BACKLOG, or should we say a "BLACKLOG." And credible research shows bias and discrimination based on skin color is still alive and well. See for example Hochschild 2007. The Skin Color Paradox and the American Racial Order. Social FOrces 86, 2. So much for bogus right-wing white propaganda.
Perhaps the difference is that despite a certain amount of racism in America identifying as black in America has more advantages than identifying as black in Egypt. This is probably because most Americans accept two skin colors "black" and "white" as primary identity classification and that people have organized more along these lines. It demonstrates well the political nature of the term "black". And the term "black power" is an example
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
A comparison between two Egyptians.At left, Mostafa Hefny, an Egyptian who lives in America and wishes to be classified as black and Jermy Shenouda, a Coptic youtube video maker who calls himself "arealegyptian" and does not want to be called "black" and is angry with "blacks"
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: [QB] Ish Gabor says: Since the 1980s, CBS reports, Henfy has been fighting to have the U.S. government reclassify him as black, which is how he’s always seen himself. “My classification as a white man takes away my black pride, my black heritage and my strong black identity,” Henfy told the Detroit News.
You notice other modern Egyptians are not beating down the door to follow Hefny- what with a whopping 188 signatures on his petition. Most of the modern Egyptians I have run into rather like the "white" classification - there are benefits- and they can "distance" themselves from being black. They really gain very little from the black classification. There are few "affirmative action" advantages. 'Affirmative Action" has been a dying or minor horse since the 1980s- with minor impact for blacks- as even conservative scholars like Thomas Sowell show, contrary to the bogus propaganda claims of assorted right wingers. One, ex-felon pundit Dinesh Dsouza, has oft declared "The End of Racism" but fails to mention that EEOC has a backlog of thousands of race discrimination cases, a TWO YEAR BACKLOG, or should we say a "BLACKLOG." And credible research shows bias and discrimination based on skin color is still alive and well. See for example Hochschild 2007. The Skin Color Paradox and the American Racial Order. Social FOrces 86, 2. So much for bogus right-wing white propaganda.
Perhaps the difference is that despite a certain amount of racism in America identifying as black in America has more advantages than identifying as black in Egypt. This is probably because most Americans accept two skin colors "black" and "white" as primary identity classification and that people have organized more along these lines.
arealegyptian is mentally disturbed, I had a conversation with him. Posted a few sources here and there. And he retrieved. His thing is that African Americans claim Egyptian history. The ironic pat is that eurocentrism started out as claiming a white Egypt, by folks from the North. Then Afrocentrism started to counteract, saying no, it is African and black.
And, yep I have heard on instances where darker Egyptians have been discriminated, in Egypt. Obviously this wasn't at the South, but more so in Northern parts.
By the way at Luxor you'll see people in this "caramel complexion" and in darker hues.
I was at Luxor, and the captain of a boat looked like a Hollifield twin. Except for having somewhat more narrower features.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
This is why wikipedia is useful. One easily discovers that Claudius Ptolemaeus AD 100 – c. 170 is the latin version of "Claudius Ptolemy" and the man is often referred to by his just his last name Ptolemy. When you see Ptolemy I with the roman numeral "I" after it, that is when it is referring to the a Macedonian king of Egypt a few hundred years prior
wikipedia:
Ptolemaeus (Πτολεμαῖος – Ptolemaios) is a Greek name. It occurs once in Greek mythology, and is of Homeric form.[8] It was common among the Macedonian upper class at the time of Alexander the Great, and there were several of this name among Alexander's army, one of whom made himself King of Egypt in 323 BC: Ptolemy I Soter. All the kings after him, until Egypt became a Roman province in 30 BC, were also Ptolemies.
This reads peculiar.
quote:Beyond his being considered a member of Alexandria's Greek society, few details of Ptolemy's life are known. He wrote in Ancient Greek; some scholars have concluded that Ptolemy was a Greek, and others, a Hellenized Egyptian. He was often known in later Arabic sources as "the Upper Egyptian", suggesting that he may have had origins in southern Egypt. Ptolemy is also known to have used Babylonian astronomical data.
quote:We know very little of Ptolemy's life. He made astronomical observations from Alexandria in Egypt during the years AD 127-41. In fact the first observation which we can date exactly was made by Ptolemy on 26 March 127 while the last was made on 2 February 141. It was claimed by Theodore Meliteniotes in around 1360 that Ptolemy was born in Hermiou (which is in Upper Egypt rather than Lower Egypt where Alexandria is situated) but since this claim first appears more than one thousand years after Ptolemy lived, it must be treated as relatively unlikely to be true. In fact there is no evidence that Ptolemy was ever anywhere other than Alexandria.
arealegyptian is mentally disturbed, I had a conversation with him. Posted a few sources here and there. And he retrieved. His thing is that African Americans claim Egyptian history. The ironic pat is that eurocentrism started out as claiming a white Egypt, by folks from the North. Then Afrocentrism started to counteract, saying no, it is African and black.
And, yep I have heard on instances where darker Egyptians have been discriminated, in Egypt. Obviously this wasn't at the South, but more so in Northern parts.
Mentally disturbed sounds about right. And Black Americans don't have to "claim" any Egyptian history. They claim AFRICAN history, and Egypt is an integral part of that history. It is laughable to hear some modern Egyptians act as if ancient Egyptians somehow sprang up spontaneously out of thin air or be like space aliens suddenly emerging from the Nile. They talk about history and heritage but want to airbrush that same "heritage" away because -gasp- there may be "blacks" in it. Same with their pious denials to be "beyond race" but as soon as anything African shows up they want to "distance" themselves. These are some of the same people talking bout those incompetent Africans when they let their asses get repeatedly kicked by the small Israeli state.
^^Mystical Egyptian springing spontaneously from the Nile
Ad today there is a clear pattern of discrimination against darker skinned folk- its not only refugees, but native Egyptians who are "too black". hence application of the rule- If you black, get back.
Black Egyptians decry daily racism Non-Arab Africans say they are routine victims of discrimination by officials and on the street. Black refugees fall into a legal grey area where the government has no obligation to provide for them [AFP] By Max Siegelbaum
Cairo, Egypt - When Mohamed Ahmed Mohamed first started receiving calls on his mobile phone from an unknown number telling him to leave Egypt, he ignored them.
But when the threats against the Sudanese asylum-seeker increased and he began to receive emails and Facebook posts with the same message - "Get out of the country" - he grew nervous.
A member of one of Sudan's multitude of opposition groups, Mohamed tracked the messages back to a Sudanese embassy official - and took his concerns to the police. But he says the duty officer's response was terse - "Why should I believe you?". Other police stations also dismissed his fears.
"No one helps us. They never do," Mohamed said.
Black, non-Arab Africans say the case reveals long-standing racism that threatens the security and livelihoods of Egypt's sizeable sub-Saharan population. While refugees in the country face an overburdened and highly bureaucratic asylum system and aid organisations are underfunded and ill equipped to help them, non-Arab refugees face much more serious problems.
"You can be here 15 years as a recognised refugee and not for a moment of that will you ever be recognised legally or have a home," said Christopher Eades, director of legal programming at AMERA, a British NGO for refugees.
Aid workers believe sub-Saharan refugees are treated by different informal rules than those of Arab origin - excluded from schools, facing hurdles opening businesses and finding work, and hampered in legal cases.
Refugee hurdles
Lengthy UNHCR registration processes mean most refugees in Egypt must remain in the country without identification or any means of subsistence for at least three years.
They are forced into the dark economy, working illegally at cafes, on construction sites, and in other manual jobs where abuse is routine and they have little protection in law. Al Jazeera talks to Amnesty about abuse claims in Egypt
"Even if you're a recognised refugee, and you have a blue card, you have no right to medical treatment, no right to education, no right to work," Eades said.
As far as the state is concerned, the refugees fall into a legal grey area where the government has no obligation to provide for them.
"Egypt is part of the Arab world, and any place in the Arab world is your home," said Reda Sada El-Hafnawy, a member of the Shura Council's Human Rights Committee and the political wing of the Muslim Brotherhood. "They are welcomed but we can't put them under the protection of Egyptian law."
El-Hafnawy insists: "There is no racism in Egypt, so if there's abuse, it's from the absence of the law."
But aid workers and community organisers say otherwise - and believe not all refugees are created equal.
"When there was an influx of African refugees, there was no attention from the NGOs," said Yagoub Hamdan a Sudanese refugee and community outreach leader at AMERA.
However, when Syrians began pouring into the country in late 2012, the UN set up mobile stations throughout Cairo and the rest of the country, Hamdan pointed out.
"Why did they do that for Syrians when we had the same problem?"
Hamdan and other community organisers say Islamic aid organisations provide ample support to Syrians and Libyans, but rarely to non-Arab Africans.
Christian organisations
Lack of state support means non-Arab African refugees are forced to turn towards smaller NGOs and Christian organisations.
Most Egyptians don't consider themselves African.
-Nada Zeitoun, Nubian filmmaker
But lack of funding - and the hazards of operating in a climate often hostile towards Christians - greatly limits the ability of these groups to function effectively.
"We have always been told there is no space in Egyptian schools, they are overcrowded. Now we have Iraqi and Syrians, and they find a place in these schools," said an Italian priest working at a Catholic organisation who requested anonymity.
"Africans face deep political racism, and as an organisation, we get no help from the Egyptian state."
Racism faced by black Africans can also be found in politics, he added. When meeting with their Egyptian counterparts, black African embassy officials are often "told that being black, they have to keep a distance".
'Egyptians are not African'
This discrimination finds its was onto the street, and black Egyptians say they encounter constant social hurdles.
Nada Zeitoun, a Nubian filmmaker from the upper Egypt city of Aswan, was recently denied service at a pharmacy in central Cairo because the pharmacist said he "didn't accept money from black hands".
Zeitoun exposed the incident on social media and eventually the pharmacist was fired, but she says it was just one example of a broader culture of racism.
"Most Egyptians don't consider themselves African," she said.
Although Nubians are among the first inhabitants of what is now considered modern Egypt, "[Egyptian people] don't believe we have a huge provenance of Nubian people."
Zeitoun adds: "Even [deposed President Mohammed] Morsi thinks we are foreigners."
Several weeks after the incident, Zeitoun says she received a call from one of the owners of the pharmacy.
He told her: "I'm sorry, [the pharmacist] didn't know you were Egyptian. He thought you were an African refugee."
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
@zarahan,
"They claim AFRICAN history, and Egypt is an integral part of that history."
My bad Zarahan, you're correct. It's part of Africana curriculum.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
@zarahan,
"Aid workers believe sub-Saharan refugees are treated by different informal rules than those of Arab origin - excluded from schools, facing hurdles opening businesses and finding work, and hampered in legal cases."
I am not sure if that is necessarily the case, .... But my focus was more on indigenous dark complected Egyptians from way-back, not recent immigrants.
I know Syrian refugees received the same kind of treatment. So they too had flee to Europe. The case you described could be because of xenophobia.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Again, the bottom line point here, notwithstanding your attempts to deny and avoid it, is that the whole debate over ancient Egypt is a debate over the skin color of the majority of the ancient population.
Maybe in Hollywood, the media and among trolls on the internet, but you were talking about white supremacists in science. Among the academics discussed throughout this thread, this simply wasn't true. And we'll see that in a minute when you're going to skirt around answering how these Giza reserve heads should be classified ethnically:
There is no skin color paint here for Eurocentric observers to manipulate (the busts are unpainted or the paint has faded), but the problem of 'racial' ambiguity is still there. But, of course, you already know this. Denial is just your way of coping.
And for the people who try to disown these ancient Egyptians: you're not going to worm out of this by saying that they look 'racially' ambiguous because they were admixed. This is completely irrelevant. African Americans are admixed as well; they generally look unambiguous enough to be called 'black' in the West and contrasted with 'whites'.
The word 'black' doesn't cover the complexities of African biodiversity. Even if you try to stick to the more objective skin pigmentation-based use of the term, at some point you're going to run into problems that can be avoided. The newbies can be forgiven for not realizing this. But if you're a "vet" and you still vehemently deny this, you're washed up and need to retire. Also, if you've been repeatedly told this in one-on-one coaching over a time span of years (like the troll who calls himself "Tropicals Redacted") and you still try to sweep this under the rug, you're a liar and you need to retire as well.
Swenet, again, you keep trying to make something simple into something complex. Describing a persons skin color as it relates to the environmental adaptation of human biology does not require an advanced degree in biochemistry. You have been spinning your wheels on this thread trying to make up all sorts of excuses and arguments as to why simple words like "black skin" or "white skin" aren't completely sufficient to describe populations who have certain ranges of skin colors. And to this point, the dictionary shows that this is exactly how societies have used language to describe such outward observed characteristics. And you can find similar terms in many languages. None of which require any advanced understanding of chemistry or biology. You are simply making up nonsense as to why simple language is not enough to convey observed facts....
quote: The word 'black' doesn't cover the complexities of African biodiversity.
Does the word chair, require an advanced understanding of woodworking? Does the word rocket ship require an advanced understanding of jet propulsion? Of course not. You are simply delusional and silly.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: I am not arguing about the word black here. I have been to Egypt (several places). And I know they identify with being black.
BTW, in general I think it's a bad idea to go down that road of self-identifications. I shouldn't even be posting that article. But I'm doing it this time because for some reason people just like to lie about the meaning of 'black' in every day use. Not saying that you're making that argument, but no one in the article is subscribing to Doug's claim that people understand 'black' to mean skin pigmentation in every day use.
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: I noticed that in the plot, surrounding people populations have been excluded, which I think is weird. Why would one do so? And yes, I do think it would have produced more 'satisfying' results. Instead of trying to plot European populations.
Plenty of Sahelian samples in the paper below. Makes no difference whatsoever as far as the 'racially awkward' relationships of the northern Sudanese and Kharga oasis samples. There is still no binary distinction with Africans on the one hand and non Africans neatly on the other hand.
But I get it. We just have to look harder, right? Just like the Euronuts who are trying to find the 'white hope' sample with no African ancestry that will magically cluster with predynastic Egyptians to the exclusion of regional samples.
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: It's like showing a Celtic settlement, yet plotting Amerindians to see which fits best, and leaving out surrounding populations.
Other than the various Sub-Saharan samples, Brace et al used one lower Nubian sample, two (Upper[?]) Nubian samples, one neolithic Algerian sample, a single X group Nubian individual and a Somali sample. The latter four didn't fail to show strong relationships with the predynastic Egyptian sample. I think that's a clue in and of itself.
Swenet, the dictionary is a compilation of the definition of words in "everyday use". Your attempts to deny this are showing that you are against language. Black as a word describing color is a term in "everyday use" and people have been calling Africans "blacks" in everyday use for thousands of years.
At this point you are simply just continuing a dead end journey swearing you make sense.
And if you and the folks following you were serious, then you would be fighting against all the English language newspapers, books, tv shows, news shows and so forth that use the word "black" in every day use on a consistent basis. But you don't. You choose to come here and talk that garbage here on a forum about ancient Egypt and claim that this usage of the term is a distortion of African scholarship.
Skin color is real and words to describe skin color are valid, logical and consistent with "everyday use" of language. You are simply out of your mind stupid in trying to avoid the point that the debates about Egypt are implicitly about SKIN COLOR and nothing else.
You keep trying to run from this and deny this or try and distract from it but that is the bottom line issue and has always been the bottom line issue. Words are not the issue.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Swenet, again, you keep trying to make something simple into something complex. Describing a persons skin color as it relates to the environmental adaptation of human biology does not require an advanced degree in biochemistry.
Note that Doug is so confused, he doesn't even know what he's responding to anymore. For the record, what he's pretending to respond to is my response to his claim that there wasn't a genuine confusion about the population affinity of the ancient Egyptians. As you can see, Doug doesn't address that point. He keeps fidgeting and skirting around the fact that it wasn't about skin color all along in academics, as he's claiming.
This is not up for debate. Modern day statistics come to the EXACT same conclusion as the racist academics Doug says were engaging in pseudoscience when they juxtaposed Nile Valley populations with Africans elsewhere. If it were just about skin pigmentation, modern day statistical analysis would have settled the matter conclusively instead of occasionally coming out like Brace et al 1993:
quote:We collected measurements for a single specimen from what was called the Nubian X Group in Reisner’s terminology (Reisner, 1909). This was a population that immediately preceded the early Christian Nubians of AD 550 (Carlson and Van Gerven, 19791, and, in the subjective treatment of a generation gone by, had been regarded as evidence for a “Negroid incursion’’ (Batrawi, 1935; Smith, 1909; Seligman, 1915). As our figures show, the probability of finding our representative specimen in a sub-Saharan population is 0.009, which is highly unlikely. Its col- umn loadings are generally similar to the loadings in the column for the Predy- nastic Naqada sample, and, except for the fact that it is only marginally unlikely that it can be excluded from the Giza sample, it cannot be denied membership in the Naqada, European, or South Asian samples.
—Brace et al 1993
^But that's "racist" too, right? Reporting harsh statistical realities that don't jibe with convenient racial politics?
But what else do you expect on a forum where some people apparently are even in denial about the fact that the modal phenotype of modern Upper Egyptians approaches HESDY GERGES, not some dark brown skinned type we would expect to find more typically in dynastic Egypt:
Time to wrap this up. The thread is going off-topic, anyway. If I see something worth commenting on I might pitch in again later. I think I've made my point for now.
Posted by Nodnarb (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: Unfortunately the author did not refer to the original Ptolemy text. So I had to look it up. But from what I understand the author of the classical Greek text is Claudius Ptolemaeus.
The book I quoted clearly says in its title and elsewhere that it's a translation of Ptolemy's Geography. Are you saying the quote isn't in Ptolemy's Geography?
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: It's somewhat odd, because Claudius Ptolemaeus lived at Alexandria.
That he lived near the Tropic of Cancer is implied in that quote when he says "on our side of the equator . . . on the Summer Tropic" and refers to place in Nubia as "places to the south of here". Please clarify what is odd about his residence in the Delta.
1) in and during my posting I had some crossovers, as I was trying to figure things out. So yes, the source is Ptolemy's Geography by the author Claudius Ptolemaeus. But I only found about that later, to who this particular Ptolemy is. Initially it tought it was about/ referring to the Ptolemaic's.
But I like to see what the actual Greek text states. Whether it's semantics and a matter of interpretation, or has a philosophical approach to it. Do I doubt the translation, a bit yes.
2) the odd part is, did he only see people of darker complexion at far South? It appears as odd to me, since he had to cross Siwa etc... I need to read more on his endeavors and journeys. I am trying to understand what gradient of color complexion the text is referring at.
Keep in mind he was writing in the Common Era, and he was comparing the Egyptians (presumably on average) of that time with "pure", ultra-dark Kushites way down in Meroe. You know the Egyptians had already assimilated generations of foreign migrants (e.g. mercenaries and conquerors) by this date. Not that there weren't still some darker ones present in Upper Egypt, but you know the Egyptians of that time wouldn't look like their predynastic through New Kingdom ancestors. So is there really a problem here?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
Swenet, the dictionary is a compilation of the definition of words in "everyday use". Your attempts to deny this are showing that you are against language. Black as a word describing color is a term in "everyday use" and people have been calling Africans "blacks" in everyday use for thousands of years.
Doug is trying to switch definitions now. Before he said "black" and "white " are color ranges (but he never showed what the ranges are). Now he say it means African
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: Are my eyes deceiving me?
Nova: Building Pharaoh's Chariot (Full Documentary)
Here is a color sample from the painting
These supposedly credible venues like PBS do one thing on the poster but when you watch the documentary they use a person noticeably lighter than as depicted in the art
^ This is still from the documentary of a soldier in Ahmose's army they talk about
^ yet in the documentary they show this flabby ass white boy
The solution to this however is not to get bogged down in an endless semantic argument about the word "black" which has no measurable definition. The solution is to show the art and compare it to what is depicted in these documentaries but more importantly to send a letter to the producer and director
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
I don't know. I posted the Oxford complete definition. Maybe too much for some to peruse, so:
Current Am Eng usage, Asian & African blacks, echoes the Greeks Eastern & Western Aithiopians including the Roman/Byzantine Eastern & Western Aethiopians, and expands the Zanj's sets of Indian Ocean & African blacks.
Well ain't that nuthin.
When to use B L A C K ? Every time.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: I don't know. I posted the Oxford complete definition. Maybe too much for some to peruse, so:
Current Am Eng usage, Asian & African blacks, echoes the Greeks Eastern & Western Aithiopians. and expands the Zanj's sets of Indian Ocean & African blacks.
When to use B L A C K ? Every time.
Again the problem as depicted here is dual membership
and is also common in North Africa and somewhat in the horn
-in advance, no Jim Crow created rule nonsense, thanks
Obama's memberships >>>
Therefore the terms "black" and "white" utterly destroyed
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
As I've said repeatedly in this thread, dictionaries, including the Oxford dictionary, generally have an entry acknowledging the racial use of 'black', in addition to other uses. People will go to extreme lengths to lie about this. Always fact-check everything people say, especially when claims go against the grain and sound like someone just cooked it up.
quote:Usage Black, designating Americans of African heritage, became the most widely used and accepted term in the 1960s and 1970s, replacing Negro. It is not usually capitalized: black Americans. Through the 1980s, the more formal African American replaced black in much usage, but both are now generally acceptable. Afro-American, first recorded in the 19th century and popular in the 1960s and 1970s, is now heard mostly in anthropological and cultural contexts. Colored people, common in the early part of the 20th century, is now usually regarded as offensive, although the phrase survives in the full name of the NAACP, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. An inversion, people of color, has gained some favor, but is also used in reference to other nonwhite ethnic groups: a gathering spot for African Americans and other people of color interested in reading about their cultures. See also colored (usage) and person of color.
quote:"Usage note 3, 21. Black, colored, and Negro —words that describe or name the dark-skinned peoples of sub-Saharan Africa and their descendants—have had a complex social history in the United States."
quote:usage: Black, colored, and Negro have all been used to describe or name the dark-skinned African peoples or their descendants. Colored, now somewhat old-fashioned, is usu. offensive. It is still used, however, in the title of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. The term colored is also used among blacks to refer to another black who acts as if he or she were superior. In the late 1950s black began to replace Negro and is still widely used and accepted, whereas Negro is not. Common as both adjective and noun, black is usu. not capitalized except in proper names or titles (Black Muslim; Black English). However, members of the African-American community have expressed a strong preference for use of capital “B” for both the noun and the adjective, to parallel the names of other ethnic groups. African-American, urged by leaders in the American black community, is now widely used in both print and speech, esp. as a term of self-reference. Afro-American is accepted but less widely used, mostly as an adjective."
quote:Words that avoid giving offense: black Use the adjective black (sometimes spelled Black) to refer to people with dark skin whose families originally came from Africa. Avoid using black as a noun because this is sometimes considered offensive. Black Americans usually prefer to be called African-American. Black people in the U.K. whose families originally came from the Caribbean often prefer to be called African Caribbean. In Australian English, use black to refer to the people whose families were living in Australia before Europeans arrived and settled.
quote:3. also Black a. Of or belonging to a racial group having brown to black skin, especially one of African origin: the black population of South Africa. b. Of or belonging to an American ethnic group descended from African peoples having dark skin; African-American.
Current Am Eng usage, Asian & African blacks, echoes the Greeks Eastern & Western Aithiopians including the Roman/Byzantine Eastern & Western Aethiopians, and expands the Zanj's sets of Indian Ocean & African blacks.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Failed attempt to baffle with bullshit since the Oxford remains as quoted
Current Am Eng usage, Asian & African blacks, echoes the Greeks Eastern & Western Aithiopians including the Roman/Byzantine Eastern & Western Aethiopians, and expands the Zanj's sets of Indian Ocean & African blacks.
Again, multiple "memberships" destroy the dualist "black and white paradigm "
see berbers, etc, etc
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nodnarb:
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: Unfortunately the author did not refer to the original Ptolemy text. So I had to look it up. But from what I understand the author of the classical Greek text is Claudius Ptolemaeus.
The book I quoted clearly says in its title and elsewhere that it's a translation of Ptolemy's Geography. Are you saying the quote isn't in Ptolemy's Geography?
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: It's somewhat odd, because Claudius Ptolemaeus lived at Alexandria.
That he lived near the Tropic of Cancer is implied in that quote when he says "on our side of the equator . . . on the Summer Tropic" and refers to place in Nubia as "places to the south of here". Please clarify what is odd about his residence in the Delta.
1) in and during my posting I had some crossovers, as I was trying to figure things out. So yes, the source is Ptolemy's Geography by the author Claudius Ptolemaeus. But I only found about that later, to who this particular Ptolemy is. Initially it tought it was about/ referring to the Ptolemaic's.
But I like to see what the actual Greek text states. Whether it's semantics and a matter of interpretation, or has a philosophical approach to it. Do I doubt the translation, a bit yes.
2) the odd part is, did he only see people of darker complexion at far South? It appears as odd to me, since he had to cross Siwa etc... I need to read more on his endeavors and journeys. I am trying to understand what gradient of color complexion the text is referring at.
Keep in mind he was writing in the Common Era, and he was comparing the Egyptians (presumably on average) of that time with "pure", ultra-dark Kushites way down in Meroe. You know the Egyptians had already assimilated generations of foreign migrants (e.g. mercenaries and conquerors) by this date. Not that there weren't still some darker ones present in Upper Egypt, but you know the Egyptians of that time wouldn't look like their predynastic through New Kingdom ancestors. So is there really a problem here?
Yes, that's true, had admixture going on about one millennium, prior to Ptolemy's exsistance.
But I know of settlements who do have ( and had) dark skinned Egyptians. Perhaps it's the "ultra dark" such as the Nuba people. They are exceptionally dark skinned. Most of Africans have dark brown skin with reddish undertone.
When I was in Egypt I was told that Ptolemaic (Greeks and Romans) never went to the South in masses. They stayed in the North (Med climate) E-V13 is evident of this.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Failed attempt to baffle with bullshit since the Oxford remains as quoted
Current Am Eng usage, Asian & African blacks, echoes the Greeks Eastern & Western Aithiopians including the Roman/Byzantine Eastern & Western Aethiopians, and expands the Zanj's sets of Indian Ocean & African blacks.
Again, multiple "memberships" destroy the dualist "black and white paradigm "
see berbers, etc, etc
What do you mean?
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
Ish says: @zarahan,
"Aid workers believe sub-Saharan refugees are treated by different informal rules than those of Arab origin - excluded from schools, facing hurdles opening businesses and finding work, and hampered in legal cases."
I am not sure if that is necessarily the case, .... But my focus was more on indigenous dark complected Egyptians from way-back, not recent immigrants.
I know Syrian refugees received the same kind of treatment. So they too had flee to Europe. The case you described could be because of xenophobia.
-------------------------------------------
Good point. Most likely the Syrians are disliked as economic competition/ refugees who strain local services etc etc. But with black people, there seems a definite racial animus directed against them,over and above the the competition. Or perhaps the tensions play out "racially" or assume a racist tinge when Africans show up.
Below an African-American woman recounts her experiences. Her final statement is interesting- warning African Americans about romanticizing assorted peoples overseas. I have read similar accounts elsewhere. Ironically, if you are seen as clearly African American- or more accurately clearly American, some report receiving better treatment. Sunni M. Khalid got better treatment after he started jumping around like, and mentioned Muhammed Ali, to prove he was an American.
On the flip side her take on "romanticizing" may be somewhat limited though. Few black folk "romanticize" MODERN Egypt- after all as Asar Imohotep and others point out- it is the 'Arab Republic of Egypt." Asar and his tour had to tread very carefully about talking about "African ancestors" etc if near the watchful scrutiny of Arab Islamic gatekeepers. But her larger point is for black Americans not to be naive about people overseas- whatever talk of "brotherhood" may be bandied about. Keep your powder dry and your rifle within reach, metaphorically speaking.
I disagree with ex-New Black Panther Party leader Khallid Muhammed on several points, but he was uncompromising about dealing with this kind of thing. If he is to be believed, in one of his videos he saw some Arab officials in Mecca manhandling and mistreating an elderly black woman pilgrim from Nigeria and he took off on them.
If you're a dark-skinned black woman in Egypt, you're likely to be sexually propositioned by men and slighted by women there. At least, that's what African-American journalist Sunni Khalid observed during his three years in the North African country with his Kenyan Somali wife. Although Khalid is light enough to pass for an Egyptian Arab, his wife, Zeinab, cannot and experienced race-based sexism there as a result. "Whenever my wife would come to the airport to pick me up, she'd often have to fend off several Arab men, who assumed that, as a black woman, she was somehow immediately 'available' to their desires, whether she was married or not," recalled Khalid in a thoughtful piece called "Egypt's Race Problem." I've never been to Egypt, but as a black woman who's traveled to countries such as Mexico, Italy and Spain, I've experienced similar treatment. Particularly in Italy and Mexico, I endured men leering at me, catcalling me and insisting that I meet them for dates. On many of these occasions I was with non-black American women who were stunned at the attention I attracted. But this attention had little to do with me personally and much to do with lasting negative perceptions about people of African descent.
"For too many Egyptians, sub-Saharan Africa is a stereotypical exotic land of thick jungles and masses of poor, starving and black-skinned savages," Khalid explains. But I'd argue that this is a global perception of "black Africa" and not just an Egyptian one. Along with this perception is, of course, the idea that black women are sexually promiscuous and insatiable, which is why non-black men around the world don't hesitate to proposition black women. In Egypt, though, Khalid's wife didn't just attract sexual attention, but rude behavior from Egyptian women. In high-end shops, for example, Egyptian women would cut in front of her in line. Once while Khalid and his wife dined at an upscale restaurant, an Egyptian woman scolded him for bringing "a woman like that into a place like this." She assumed Zeinab was a prostitute. When Khalid tried to explain that the woman in question was his wife, the Egyptian woman wouldn't hear it.
But it's not only dark-skinned women who face bigotry in Egypt. Khalid says that before leaving Egypt, he met with sub-Saharan African students who told him they faced racial harassment just strolling down Cairo streets.
Moreover, Khalid writes that male and female refugees from sub-Saharan African nations such as Sudan, Ethiopia and Eritrea routinely face security roundups in Cairo. He notes that in December 2005, Egyptian riot police killed as many as 100 Sudanese refugees who were protesting mistreatment, but that the tragedy hardly garnered any outcry.
What's stunning about Khalid's remembrance of his time in Egypt is that many African Americans—most of whom originate, of course, from sub-Saharan Africa—not only romanticize Egypt but have claimed it as their own. Some name their children after Egyptian Queen Nefertiti or Egyptian gods and goddesses such as Osiris and Isis. To boot, whenever a white actress plays the role of Cleopatra, the black community loudly objects. Perhaps it's time for African Americans to learn more about how many people in the country they've romanticized hold them in such low regard.
-----------------------------------------
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
^^The Egyptian who was "too black".. -------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Nada Zatouna Incident: The Strange Case of the Racist Egyptian Pharmacist that came out of Nowhere!! 44171_10151405584933907_2133818881_n
Nada Zatouna
A black Egyptian director and activist is refused service in a pharmacy and Egyptians protest but Mubarak-era myths of a “innocent” society and false ideas about Africa still keep people from really interrogating racism even in revolutionary Egypt.
The other week went by like any other in Egypt when a girl was refused service in a store and was insulted by employees because of the color of her skin.
A pharmacist passed her by in line when it was her turn to buy medicine, stared straight in her face as he probably did many others with faces too dark before her, and without fear of losing his humanity or his job he said “I don’t take anything from people who are not white.” With that he instructed another employee to take the money from her black hands that were apparently not good enough for him to touch.
The difference this time though is that this girl was Nada Zatouna, a well-known Egyptian political activist and filmmaker in Cairo who is also Nubian and who is also a revolutionary and this, this small fact would upset the natural order of things in Cairo.
“I swear on my mother’s head aafashaaax them!!!” cried Nada on Facebook publicly about Seif Pharmacies, the famous chain of pharmacies that refused her. Arabic-learners, I’ll link you to my favorite Egyptian dictionary website to help you translate this not so polite Arabic gem. 532129_10151545147473648_1705700227_n
Nada Zatouna and supporters protest racism. You picked the wrong ‘Samara’ to mess with…fool!
But this was not the time to be decent or polite, it was time to fight. Nada with the support of her friends took to Facebook determined to instigate, incite, and interrupt the minds of the Egyptian public. Her online testimony circulated and in only a matter of hours after publishing it garnered over 400 shares and now stands at over 2,000. (Read the translation of the testimony here)
Nada’s testimony spread and quickly struck fear and shock into the minds of Egyptian social networkers. What was most scary about what happened to Nada was the fact that it sounded so much like those horrible stories we heard coming out of the Jim Crow U.S. or apartheid-era South Africa, it’s certainly not something that could come out of Egypt, Om ad-Dunia?!
Newspaper op-eds and Facebook comments about Nada’s experience all acted like this has never happened before. The incident was strange. Came out of nowhere. No historical precedent. An innocent society! An innocent people! How is this happening in Egypt? A moral breakdown of an innocent society!
“This is the first time this has happened in Egypt!” one comment says in Arabic.
“Is what you’re saying real?!” another one said in response to Nada on her wall.
“We’ve never had this in Egypt before! How could this happen?! Wallahi this is a new problem,” another comment in an online discussion says.
Even the Facebook protest page created in support of Nada bought into this narrative of never-before-seen -super-duper-new problem of racism!
“All of our lives we have never known anything about “black” or “white” and then comes someone who discriminates!” the Facebook page laments.
Then when the weeping and the gnashing of teeth subsided a bit, then came some voices of clarity, sanity and honesty, ones whom I genuinely appreciate and I have translated for you below:
Tamer Mowafy was one of the first to take down the pretentiousness in the reactions of some commentators and directly criticize the sentence claiming Egyptians were innocent of any knowledge of racism on the Facebook protest page for Nada.
When considering what happened to Nubian filmmaker and activist Nada Zatouna it’s important to point out that many people in Egypt retain false ideas about Africa.
In Egypt there is an elephant in the room and that elephant is Africa. Egypt has an Africa problem and that is not new. There exist many misconceptions of Africa among people here. There are three false premises dealing with Africa in particular that many Egyptians believe and which make life more difficult for all blacks in Egypt.
Though many may not verbally admit it, their actions and statements reveal just how pervasive these false premises are in the collective unconscious of a society that silently breeds discriminatory men in pharmacies…
The Three False Premises FOXNEWS-EGYPT
For many in Egypt this Fox News internet meme of Egypt in Iraq might as well as be true.
1.) Egypt is not in Africa Its quite usual to hear Egyptians of all classes and educational backgrounds to laugh and talk about Africa as if they were not on the continent. When blacks walk the streets here they shout “Afreeqee” or “African” at us as if it is a bad word, along with a whole host of names you cannot shout back of course because those who say these things do not realize what continent they are on. This statement is geographically incorrect, culturally incorrect, and just flat out all over wrong and foolish but most Egyptians go about their lives like it’s true.
2.) There are no Black people in Egypt – This statement is never said aloud here but it is embedded in hearts. Everyone knows what an “Aswani” is, but that doesn’t stop some Egyptians from mocking my Nubian friends on why they speak Arabic so well, it doesn’t stop them from assuming that all blacks in this country are foreigners or refugees as in the case of Nada Zatouna.
3.) There is no racism – Egyptians who have watched racial insults thrown my way while we walk the streets together will say this statement proudly minutes later… This is actually a very common belief here and found among all classes and groups who only imagine racism to be something of those Americans, Germans, or Israelis. Others who advocate this idea are staunch nationalists who wish to shield Egypt and Arabs from criticism especially from foreigners or from fellow citizens who they deem are being “divisive” by bringing the issue up.
Not one of these statements is true, not one of them. But you can always find at least one person in the room who will believe at least one of them if not all three even if they do not openly state it.
The Bifurcation of a Continent and of a People
Mervat Hatem an Egyptian feminist and political scientist at Howard University, one of the United States’ oldest historically black universities, explains in her paper the division of Africa into two regions ignores the ways cultures and peoples have historically blended, interacted and shared traditions among each other.
Hatem says this artificially created division is recent but still influences the way many perceive Africa, from the ordinary citizen to the academic. These “imaginative geographies” she tells us were promoted by the West in their drive to pursue political interests but also to reinforce Africa’s subordinate status as “the other.”
In Egypt, many have internalized these colonial era “imaginary divisions.” They “otherize” Africa and Africans by saying they are not really on the continent. They cannot think outside colonially drawn and enforced borders and geographies.
To be one and of the continent yet refuse it at the same time, to rebuke the people you believe are more “native” is as much a colonialist mentality as it is a colonialized one… and unfortunately it’s not just one pharmacist on Asr Al-Aini Street who thinks like this.
Notes:
* White Westerners love premise number two in particular – A white expat friend once laughed when another black expat argued that blackness was relevant in revolutionary Egypt. But since of course there no “black” people here she just found that nonsense hilarious! This type of thinking by Westerners also leads to weird things like this for Nubians settling abroad.
* Mervat Hatem’s “Why and How Should Middle East and African Studies Be Connected? “International Journal of Middle East Studies / Volume 41 / Issue 02 / May 2009, pp 189-19 --------------------------------------------------
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
@Nodnard
I sent you a PM.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Swenet, again, you keep trying to make something simple into something complex. Describing a persons skin color as it relates to the environmental adaptation of human biology does not require an advanced degree in biochemistry.
Note that Doug is so confused, he doesn't even know what he's responding to anymore. For the record, what he's pretending to respond to is my response to his claim that there wasn't a genuine confusion about the population affinity of the ancient Egyptians. As you can see, Doug doesn't address that point. He keeps fidgeting and skirting around the fact that it wasn't about skin color all along in academics, as he's claiming.
This is not up for debate. Modern day statistics come to the EXACT same conclusion as the racist academics Doug says were engaging in pseudoscience when they juxtaposed Nile Valley populations with Africans elsewhere. If it were just about skin pigmentation, modern day statistical analysis would have settled the matter conclusively instead of occasionally coming out like Brace et al 1993:
quote:We collected measurements for a single specimen from what was called the Nubian X Group in Reisner’s terminology (Reisner, 1909). This was a population that immediately preceded the early Christian Nubians of AD 550 (Carlson and Van Gerven, 19791, and, in the subjective treatment of a generation gone by, had been regarded as evidence for a “Negroid incursion’’ (Batrawi, 1935; Smith, 1909; Seligman, 1915). As our figures show, the probability of finding our representative specimen in a sub-Saharan population is 0.009, which is highly unlikely. Its col- umn loadings are generally similar to the loadings in the column for the Predy- nastic Naqada sample, and, except for the fact that it is only marginally unlikely that it can be excluded from the Giza sample, it cannot be denied membership in the Naqada, European, or South Asian samples.
—Brace et al 1993
^But that's "racist" too, right? Reporting harsh statistical realities that don't jibe with convenient racial politics?
But what else do you expect on a forum where some people apparently are even in denial about the fact that the modal phenotype of modern Upper Egyptians approaches HESDY GERGES, not some dark brown skinned type we would expect to find more typically in dynastic Egypt:
Time to wrap this up. The thread is going off-topic, anyway. If I see something worth commenting on I might pitch in again later. I think I've made my point for now.
The only one confused here is you, because you continuously keep trying change the subject from using words like black as a reference to skin color into some complex scientific discussion requiring specialized terminologies and phraseology in order to convey very deep biological realities to the non trained eye.
Then you go right on to make a statement about the "modal phenotype" of modern upper egypt without any actual evidence from modern Egypt. As if to suggest there are no black skinned people in modern Egypt, because some aren't that dark, which is a round about way of suggesting that black skin wasn't that prevalent in Ancient Egypt.
But again, notwithstanding that, you have proven the point that this issue is one of skin color and not words as you try to claim.
Obviously you know that but rather than admit it you keep up your silly games.
We are talking about skin color and words used to describe skin color. Your dumb behind takes a quote from Brace and act like it is intended to describe skin color but it does not. The "measurements" referred to here have absolutely nothing to do with skin color which is where you are wrong. The specimens included in Brace's quote had skin colors and to sit here and claim that those skin colors are not as valid in terms of scientific study as any other "metric" of human biology is you talking out the crack of your behind. Skin and therefore skin color are aspects of human biology and as valid as any other. That is the point you are trying to run away from. And as has been shown over and over again, European racists have indeed tried to equate skeletal metrics with skin color in trying to assign certain measurements to populations and imply that similarity in one biological feature equates to similarity in other feature, as in skin color. This tactic has been used going all the way back to Morton who was the most famous of those who used the method of cranial measurements to try and equate the skin color of ancient Egyptians to Europeans.
So no, this isn't complex it is simply you don't want to address the issue of skin color which is the issue and has always been the issue.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Negro (n.)
"member of a black-skinned race of Africa," 1550s, from Spanish or Portuguese negro "black," from Latin nigrum (nominative niger) "black, dark, sable, dusky," figuratively "gloomy, unlucky, bad, wicked," of unknown origin (perhaps from PIE *nekw-t- "night;" see Watkins). As an adjective from 1590s. Use with a capital N- became general early 20c. (e.g. 1930 in "New York Times" stylebook) in reference to U.S. citizens of African descent, but because of its perceived association with white-imposed attitudes and roles the word was ousted late 1960s in this sense by Black (q.v.).
quote: Meaning "English language as spoken by U.S. blacks" is from 1704. French nègre is a 16c. borrowing from Spanish negro.
Current Am Eng usage, Asian & African blacks, echoes the Greeks Eastern & Western Aithiopians including the Roman/Byzantine Eastern & Western Aethiopians, and expands the Zanj's sets of Indian Ocean & African blacks.
Again, multiple "memberships" destroy the dualist "black and white paradigm "
see berbers, etc, etc
Lioness, what do you mean?
quote: The Berber-Abidiya region is situated just south of the fifth Nile cataract in Sudan. This project, a joint mission with the Sudanese National Corporation for Antiquities and Museums (NCAM), is focussed on the late Kushite city of Dangeil (third century BC – fourth century AD) and associated cemeteries.
Current Am Eng usage, Asian & African blacks, echoes the Greeks Eastern & Western Aithiopians including the Roman/Byzantine Eastern & Western Aethiopians, and expands the Zanj's sets of Indian Ocean & African blacks.
Again, multiple "memberships" destroy the dualist "black and white paradigm "
see berbers, etc, etc
Lioness, what do you mean?
I mean that Barack Obama is a "member of" both so called "white" and so called "black" skin hypothetical color groups
Therefore he cannot be categorized by people like Doug and Tukuler who think that all the world's people can be classified as either "white" or "black"
Doug provides absolutely zero scientific methodology on how to determine who is "black" and who is "white" ( it's a joke that has been ongoing 32 pages) and Tukuler thinks old writers are what determine it, again zero science
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
@Lioness, ^that is in theory the case, in practicality it's different. But yes, it's all relative. Btw, you will have people who are "unmixed" but light complected, and mixed people who are dark complected. It's all relative.
quote:Leucosyri, to distinguish them from the people from beyond Taurus, which bear also the name of Syrians, but who, compared to the cistauric populations, are to have the dye browned by the heat of the sun, while those do not have it, difference which gave place to the denomination of Leucosyri.
Strabo Geography 12:3:
quote:.. the populations of the one and other Cappadoce, Cappadoce Taurique and Cappadoce Pontique, even nowadays, are often called Leucosyri or Syrian white, by opposition apparently to other Syrians known as Melanosyri or Black Syrians, who can be only the Syrians established across Taurus, and, when I say Taurus, I give to this name his greater extension, I prolong the chain until Amanus.[Antioch]."
Strabo Geography 16:1:2
quote:The Cha'ab Arabs, the present possessors of the more southern parts of Babylonia, are nearly black; and the "black Syrians," of whom Strabo speaks, seem intended to represent the Babylonians.
George Rawlinson The Seven Great Monarchies Of The Ancient Eastern World, Vol 4
quote:Sayce has identified the Hittites with the "White Syrians" of Strabo as contrasted with "the Black Syrians or Semitic Aramaeans, east of the Amanus"
Henry George Tomkins Remarks on Mr. Flinders Petrie's Collection of Ethnographic Types from the Monuments of Egypt The Journal of the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, Vol. 18.
quote:LEUCOSYRI, the ancient name of the Syrians inhabiting Cappadocia, by which they were distinguished from the more southern Syrians, who were of a darker complexion. (Herod. i.72, vii.72; Strabo, xvi. p.737; Pliny, H.N. vi.3; Eustath. ad Dionys. 772,970.)
A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography, Volume II, Pages 171-172
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
yes, all relative Below is a book written by a Scottish spy John Macky (d. 1726) called 'Memoirs of the Secret Services' In the book Macky makes repeated references, more than I have shown, to royals as "black". The qualification for these people being "black" seems to be that they have a slight brown tint compared to fair skinned pale looking people.
King Charles I
.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
^that is in theory the case, in practicality it's different. But yes, it's all relative. Btw, you will have people who are "unmixed" but light complected, and mixed people who are dark complected. It's all relative.
quote:Leucosyri, to distinguish them from the people from beyond Taurus, which bear also the name of Syrians, but who, compared to the cistauric populations, are to have the dye browned by the heat of the sun, while those do not have it, difference which gave place to the denomination of Leucosyri.
Strabo Geography 12:3:
quote:.. the populations of the one and other Cappadoce, Cappadoce Taurique and Cappadoce Pontique, even nowadays, are often called Leucosyri or Syrian white, by opposition apparently to other Syrians known as Melanosyri or Black Syrians, who can be only the Syrians established across Taurus, and, when I say Taurus, I give to this name his greater extension, I prolong the chain until Amanus.[Antioch]."
Strabo Geography 16:1:2
quote:The Cha'ab Arabs, the present possessors of the more southern parts of Babylonia, are nearly black; and the "black Syrians," of whom Strabo speaks, seem intended to represent the Babylonians.
George Rawlinson The Seven Great Monarchies Of The Ancient Eastern World, Vol 4
quote:Sayce has identified the Hittites with the "White Syrians" of Strabo as contrasted with "the Black Syrians or Semitic Aramaeans, east of the Amanus"
Henry George Tomkins Remarks on Mr. Flinders Petrie's Collection of Ethnographic Types from the Monuments of Egypt The Journal of the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, Vol. 18.
quote:LEUCOSYRI, the ancient name of the Syrians inhabiting Cappadocia, by which they were distinguished from the more southern Syrians, who were of a darker complexion. (Herod. i.72, vii.72; Strabo, xvi. p.737; Pliny, H.N. vi.3; Eustath. ad Dionys. 772,970.)
A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography, Volume II, Pages 171-172
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
^ In other words this is where Eurocentrism begins, these discussions of skin color and ethnicity
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
Nice negro-ish pictures you posted there. Good clearance.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: yes, all relative Below is a book written by a Scottish spy John Macky (d. 1726) called 'Memoirs of the Secret Services' In the book Macky makes repeated references, more than I have shown, to royals as "black". The qualification for these people being "black" seems to be that they have a slight brown tint compared to fair skinned pale looking people.
King Charles I
.
Yes, it's all relative, like calling these people white. Whether classic or recent:
However:
quote:All Africa is black or tawny
Source: Benjamin Franklin, "Observations Concerning the Increasing of Mankind, Peopling of Countries, &c." (Boston: Printed by S. Kneeland, 1755)
"I was on the whole much pleased, and from what I then saw, have conceived a higher opinion of the natural capacities of the black race, than I had ever before entertained. Their apprehension seems as quick, their memory as strong, and their docility in every respect equal to that of white children."
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: ^ In other words this is where Eurocentrism begins, these discussions of skin color and ethnicity
Nope, that is where start to analyze and segregate facts from fiction.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus]/b]:
[b]Part 2: Levant an extension of Africa? And were the Ancient Canaanite's black? Like I said I've always held the view that at least Southern Canaan(Levent) was an extension of African until at least the period of the Romans and Christianity. To me the Levant was an extension of Northeast Africa going as far back to the Neolithic with the Natufians. This is just my personal opinion. Though the Levant is just a hopscotch away from Africa. :yeshrug: Not only that , but Southern Canaan(Levant) is ACTUALLY apart of Africa if you like at their tectonic plates. So where does Africa really end?
The Levant was always a crossroad, but from the studies I read it seems the migrations were mostly coming from Africa and into the Middle East. The most known were the Natufians. Who were said to spread the AA language, but also spread agriculture to the middle east and Europe. The Natufians basically were one of the earliest colonizers of the area. African culture pre-dominated the area, even for the pre-dynastic culure of Egypt.
quote:"Approximately 14 kya, climatic changes associated with the end of the Last Glacial Maximum resulted in regions around the world becoming more favorable to human exploitation. Northern Africa is one such region, and ~13 kya, novel technologies (“Natufian”) thought to be the immediate precursor to agricultural technologies emerged and were associated with semisedentary subsistence and population expansions in northeastern Africa (35). Moreover, before the emergence of the Natufian styled artifacts, the archaeological record includes two artifact styles, the “Geometric Kebaran” and the “Mushabian” associated with Middle Eastern and Northern African populations, respectively (35).The archaeological evidence suggests the peoples using these assemblages interacted for well over 1,000 years, and linguistic evidence suggests that the peoples using these assemblages may have spoken some form of proto-Afroasiatic (35, 36). Although the origins of the Afroasiatic language family remain contentious, linguistic data generally support a model in which the Afroasiatic language family arose in Northern Africa >10 kya (36). Moreover, analyses of the Cushitic branch of the Afroasiatic language family suggest that proto-Cushitic arose and diversified at least 7 kya, and this likely took place in Ethiopia .
Intriguingly, the origin and diversification of proto-Afroasiatic is consistent with the spread of intensive plant collection in the archaeological record, and some interpret this pattern to represent a model in which proto-Afroasiatic speakers developed the novel subsistence technology resulting in the expansion and spread of their Afroasiatic descendants in the region (37). Some examples of the relevant linguistic data include reconstructed Chadic root words for “porridge” and “sorghum” and the Cushitic root words for “grain” and “wheat” (37). Because these and other root words are present in many of the Chadic and Cushitic languages, it is assumed that they were present in the proto-Chadic and proto-Cushitic languages and therefore must be as old as those proto-languages (37). The genetic data appear to be consistent with the archaeological and linguistic data indicative of extensive population interactions between North African and Middle Eastern populations. A recent NRY study explores the distribution of haplogroups in a sample of African, Middle Eastern, and European males (38). Whereas a subclade of haplogroup E (M35) appears to have arisen in eastern Africa over 20 kya and subsequently spread to the Middle East and Europe, haplogroup J (M267) appears to have arisen in the Middle East over 20 kya and subsequently spread into northern Africa (38). A recent study of genomewide autosomal microsatellite markers reports that Middle Eastern and African samples share the highest number of alleles that are also absent in other non-African samples, consistent with bidirectional gene flow(1). In addition, a recent study of domestic goat mtDNA and NRY variation reports similar findings as well as evidence of trade along the Strait of Gibraltar (39). The combined archaeological, linguistic, and genetic data, therefore, suggest bidirectional migration of peoples between northern Africa and the Levant for at least the past ~14 ky."
^^^From what I read from above proto-Semitic most likely originated in the Levant among the Natufians during the period of the bronze age. So the early Semitic speakers could have just been migrating Africans.
quote:Many human craniofacial dimensions are largely of neutral adaptive significance, and an analysis of their variation can serve as an indication of the extent to which any given population is genetically related to or differs from any other. When 24 craniofacial measurements of a series of human populations are used to generate neighbor-joining dendrograms, it is no surprise that all modern European groups, ranging all of the way from Scandinavia to eastern Europe and throughout the Mediterranean to the Middle East, show that they are closely related to each other. The surprise is that the Neolithic peoples of Europe and their Bronze Age successors are not closely related to the modern inhabitants, although the prehistoric/modern ties are somewhat more apparent in southern Europe. It is a further surprise that the Epipalaeolithic Natufian of Israel from whom the Neolithic realm was assumed to arise has a clear link to Sub-Saharan Africa. Basques and Canary Islanders are clearly associated with modern Europeans. When canonical variates are plotted, neither sample ties in with Cro-Magnon as was once suggested. The data treated here support the idea that the Neolithic moved out of the Near East into the circum-Mediterranean areas and Europe by a process of demic diffusion but that subsequently the in situ residents of those areas, derived from the Late Pleistocene inhabitants, absorbed both the agricultural life way and the people who had brought it.
Cranio wise the Natufians cluster with Niger-Congo like people:
I am aware that this is well before the Ancient Canaanites and Phoenicians, but again African culture pre-dominated the area. These are the people who made up part of the later Phoenicians long before there was a Phoenicia. And before the colonization of the area by the Egyptians.
But lets talk about the Ancient Canaanites and Phoenicians themselves.
With the Phoenicians I get the sense because southern Canaan was so heavily influenced by North East Africans, since at least the Neolithic, the Phoenicians were maybe a distant branch of Africans..
This makes sense because Ta-Seti established relations with Byblos even before the unification of Egypt. Egypt would come to have an overwhelming cultural and economic influence over Byblos. And one must note that Southern Canaan was Egypt's oldest colony.
Now I am aware that there were Ancient Canaanites who did not look black, but white(keeping it real), but after doing some research around the web, I found that the white looking Canaanites/Syrians were differentiated from the majority black looking Canaanites by the Greeks. IIRC Canaan and Syria received large immigrants north from the Caucasus. The Greeks called the new non-black Syrians "Leucosyrian" meanng white and the black ones "Melanosyrians" meaning burnt. It's interesting because the Phoenicians ere said to belong to the 'black' - Melanosyrian branch along with many other Southern Canannites.
Lets see how the Greeks and others themselves described the two:
quote:Leucosyri, to distinguish them from the people from beyond Taurus, which bear also the name of Syrians, but who, compared to the cistauric populations, are to have the dye browned by the heat of the sun, while those do not have it, difference which gave place to the denomination of Leucosyri.
Strabo Geography 12:3:
quote:.. the populations of the one and other Cappadoce, Cappadoce Taurique and Cappadoce Pontique, even nowadays, are often called Leucosyri or Syrian white, by opposition apparently to other Syrians known as Melanosyri or [COLOR=#ff0000]Black Syrians[/COLOR], who can be only the Syrians established across Taurus, and, when I say Taurus, I give to this name his greater extension, I prolong the chain until Amanus.[Antioch]."
Strabo Geography 16:1:2
quote:The Cha'ab Arabs, the present possessors of the more southern parts of Babylonia, [COLOR=#ff0000]are nearly black[/COLOR]; and the "black Syrians," of whom Strabo speaks, seem intended to represent the Babylonians.
George Rawlinson The Seven Great Monarchies Of The Ancient Eastern World, Vol 4
quote:Sayce has identified the Hittites with the "White Syrians" of Strabo as contrasted with "the Black Syrians or Semitic Aramaeans, east of the Amanus"
Henry George Tomkins Remarks on Mr. Flinders Petrie's Collection of Ethnographic Types from the Monuments of Egypt The Journal of the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, Vol. 18.
quote:LEUCOSYRI, the ancient name of the Syrians inhabiting Cappadocia, by which they were distinguished from the more southern Syrians, [COLOR=#ff0000]who were of a darker complexion[/COLOR]. (Herod. i.72, vii.72; Strabo, xvi. p.737; Pliny, H.N. vi.3; Eustath. ad Dionys. 772,970.)
A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography, Volume II, Pages 171-172
Now lets look at how some of these "Melanosyrians" of southern Levant/Canaan were depicted:
Face of a Canaanite man (fragment) from Beth Shan Painting on a jar (about 1300 BCE)
Canaanite God Reshef
More...
So one could conclude that the Canaan was inhabited by blacks and it had a close relationship with Northeast Africa, though there were later migration from non-blacks to the area. Just my opinion. As for the Phoenicians, this thread really wasn't about them, but the area they are from but if one was to take in account of Canaanites being Ham's descendants and Phoenicians being descendants of Canaanites, then shouldn't one conclude that the Phoenicians may have been black?
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
^ yes that's the actual source.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: yes, all relative Below is a book written by a Scottish spy John Macky (d. 1726) called 'Memoirs of the Secret Services' In the book Macky makes repeated references, more than I have shown, to royals as "black". The qualification for these people being "black" seems to be that they have a slight brown tint compared to fair skinned pale looking people.
Rembrandt Harmensz. van Rijn 1606 –1669 Twee trommelaars 1638 Pen en krijt op papier, 22,9 x 17,1 cm British Museum, Londen.
quote: Blanke, John (fl. 1507–1512), royal trumpeter, was employed as a musician at the courts of Henry VII and Henry VIII, making his first recorded appearance there in 1507. He is thought to have been of African descent, but his age, place of birth, and parentage are unknown. His surname may have originated as a nickname, derived from the word blanc in French or blanco in Spanish, both meaning ‘white’. Blanke was part of a wider trend for European rulers to employ African musicians, dating from at least 1194, when turbaned black trumpeters heralded the entry of the Holy Roman emperor Henry VI into Palermo in Sicily. It has been suggested that Blanke arrived in England with Katherine of Aragon when she came to marry Arthur, prince of Wales, in 1501. While there is no record of Blanke's arrival, there is evidence of other Africans in Katherine's retinue, including Catalina de Cardones, who was born in Motril, Granada. However, the Tudor court employed musicians from across continental Europe, and Blanke may have come from Spain, Portugal, or Italy, all of which had growing African populations at this time.
Between 1507 and 1512 Blanke was one of eight royal trumpeters under the leadership of Peter de Casa Nova. The first payment to ‘John Blanke, the blacke Trumpet’ was made in early December 1507, when he was paid 20s. (8d. a day) for his services in the previous month (TNA: PRO, E 36/214, fol. 109). Monthly payments for the same amount continued throughout the following year. Blanke played at the funeral of Henry VII on 11 May 1509, when he wore black mourning livery, and then at the coronation of Henry VIII on 24 June, when he was dressed in bright scarlet. Following the death of the Italian trumpeter Domynck Justinian (last recorded as performing at Henry VIII's coronation), Blanke successfully petitioned the king to grant him Justinian's position and wage of 16d. a day. He complained that his current wage was ‘not sufficient to mayntaigne and kepe hym to doo your grace lyke service as other your trompeters doo’ and asked that his ‘true & faithfull service’ be considered, adding that he intended to continue to serve the king ‘during his lyf’ (TNA: PRO, E101/417/2, no. 150). On 12 and 13 February 1511 Blanke played at the Westminster tournament, a flamboyant Burgundian-style joust held to celebrate the birth of the short-lived Prince Henry on new year's day. The event would have required many fanfares, and the royal trumpeters were paid more than ten times their daily wage.
John Blanke is depicted twice on the 60 foot long Westminster tournament roll of 1511, which was produced in the workshop of Thomas Wriothesley, Garter king of arms. He is shown first riding a grey horse with a black harness. All the trumpeters wear yellow and grey livery, while their double-curve instruments are decorated with the royal quarterings. The trumpeters appear again at the end of the day's jousting. Here, in the more frequently reproduced portrait, Blanke's horse is shown as black with a crimson harness. His dark face contrasts strikingly with those of his companions, but his one visible hand, holding the trumpet, is incongruously shown as white. In both depictions Blanke wears a turban, which is brown and yellow in the first image, and green with a linear design in gold in the second, while his companions are bareheaded.
John Blanke married in January 1512, though the identity of his wife is unknown. Henry VIII sent the great wardrobe a warrant, dated 14 January, to deliver to ‘John Blak, our trompeter’, a gown of violet cloth, and also a bonnet and a hat, ‘to be taken of our gift against his marriage’ (PRO: TNA, E 101/417/6, no. 50). After this no further reference to Blanke has been found in the royal records and he is not mentioned in the full list of trumpeters on 31 January 1514. That he achieved a prominent position in the royal household, was paid wages, negotiated an increase in his pay, and was able to marry, suggest that Blanke was not enslaved.
John Blanke is the only identifiable black person portrayed in sixteenth-century British art. Alongside his relatively high-status occupation and connection to Henry VIII, this has made Blanke the most widely recognized and cited example of an African in Tudor England. In the first decade of the twenty-first century Blanke featured in teaching resources including BBC programmes for seven- to eleven-year-olds, and in the National Archives' guide to black history; his image was the most requested for reproduction of those held by the College of Arms. From 2003 he featured in the National Trust's annual ‘Black History Month’ exhibition at Sutton House, Hackney.
The English and Scottish surname Black is derived from the Middle English term blak(e) meaning “black’”(Old English blæc, blaca), a nickname given from the earliest times to a swarthy or dark-haired man. The second possible origin is as a shortened form of Black-Smith, a worker in cold metals, as distinct from a White (Smith), one who worked in hot metals.
The surname was popular in Scotland from the 15th Century. Adam Black of Edinburgh (1784 - 1874), a publisher, acquired the rights to the Encyclopedia Britannica in 1827. The first recorded spelling of the family name is shown to be that of Wulfhun des Blaca which was dated circa 901, in the "Old English Bynames Register."
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: [qb] ^ In other words this is where Eurocentrism begins, these discussions of skin color and ethnicity
Nope, that is where start to analyze and segregate facts from fiction.
I'll help you
"black" and "white" are fictional concepts
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: [qb] ^ In other words this is where Eurocentrism begins, these discussions of skin color and ethnicity
Nope, that is where start to analyze and segregate facts from fiction.
I'll help you
"black" and "white" are fictional concepts
Yes, they are, that's why they are relative and social concepts, negro-ish.
However, the fiction is propossed when the social characteristics suite best. For instance when it comes to ancient Egypt. That is why this thread has taken this long, 32 pages to be exact.
Anonymous French Illuminator
Conversion of a Saracen
France (c. late 1300s)
Illumination on Vellum, 318 x 220 mm.
Illumination. Jehan Germain, bishop of Chalon-sur-Saône, Le Débat du Chrétien et du Sarrasin, fol. 14 sup v : Conversion of a Saracen.
Paris, Bibliothèque nationale., Département des Manuscrits.
The Image of the Black in Western Art Research Project and Photo Archive, W.E.B. Du Bois Institute for African and African American Research, Harvard University
Renaud de Montauban, 1468 –1470
quote:Black Moors in Scotland
Africans have been present in Europe from classical times. In the 2nd and 3rd centuries Roman soldiers of African origin served in Britain, and some stayed after their military service ended. According to the historians Fryer, Edwards and Walvin, in the 9th century Viking fleets raided North Africa and Spain, captured Black people, and took them to Britain and Ireland. From the end of the 15th century we begin to see more evidence for the presence of Glossary - Black Moors in the accounts of the reign of King James IV of Scotland, and later in Elizabethan England.
[...]
After James IV's death at Flodden in 1513 during the Franco-Scottish invasion of England, fewer references to Africans appear in the accounts. Interestingly, however, in 1594, during the reign of James VI, a richly attired Black Moor was paid to help pull the chariots during celebrations to mark the birth of James's eldest son, Henry Frederick. Nothing more is known about this man except that he lived in Edinburgh.
quote: Royal marriages were used to reinforce periods of good relations between England and Scotland. On 8 August 1503 Margaret Tudor, daughter of Henry VII of England, married James IV of Scotland.
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: Swenet, why they used European populations in the plot, and excluded Sahara-Sahel populations?
Certain quarters claimed and still claim that 'black' in the racial sense covers ancient Egyptian variation. Brace et al set out to test that claim and that is the result. No need to be salty with Brace et al. People need to show some responsibility for their actions. They make themselves easy targets for refutation by insisting on racial language. They make their beds but don't want to lay in it. Of course, when their racial terminology backfires people get angry with Brace and flip flop to the 'safe' position that 'black' only refers to skin pigmentation. When they think it's safe to revert back to their racial use of the term, you can see them talk about someone being "genetically black" or having "black features".
But pray tell. What would be the added benefit of including more Sahelian populations in Brace et al's analysis? And which Sahelian populations specifically would have to be included to produce more 'satisfying' results?
Were Upper Egyptians, Southern Egypt's Nubians, North Sudanese, Egypt's Eastern desert Beja and Somalis used by Brace?
I can't imagine that any "Eurasian" population would be craniofacially closer to the ancient Egyptians than any of these Northeast Africans.
Forgive my for my ignorance on the matter, but didn't Northeast Africans leave Africa to colonise the world? Isn't this the reason that Eurasians would plot somewhat closely with us?
If you look at the Brace plot, you will see that Nubians and Somalis do plot relatively close to predynastic Upper Egyptians. But then, you will also notice that Australo-Melanesians plot close to the pooled sub-Saharans despite being even more genetically divergent from them than Saharans ever were, so the graph isn't a perfect reflection of genetic relationships among these populations. But it does suffice to show ancient Egypto-Nubians had a different craniofacial morphology on average from the sub-Saharan norm.
I would say what it boils down to is whether Northeast Africans indigenous to the Sahara would count as "Black" in traditional Western understandings the way sub-Saharans typically are. Clearly you, as a Northeast African from Sudan, identify as Black, and I presume you accepted that identity from some influence out there. But the very fact that the "true Negro" archetype has been a recurring theme in debates here on ES shows that there's also a tendency to delimit "Black" identity to sub-Saharans with broad facial features. What Swenet seems to be saying is that by chucking out color labels, you can skirt that "True Negro" issue entirely.
What special use do you see in the word "Black" that "African" couldn't cover just as well?
My issue isn't the use of "black" but the instance and consistency of its use. Egyptologists and other scientists are opposed to the use of "black" in reference to the ancient Egyptians, but when the BBC and PBS make documentaries [featuring Egyptologists and others] talk of the "black" Pharaohs is now conveniently proper and objective.
I don't advocate for the use of racial language in bio-anthropology but I have observed a double standard in the field. The use of Caucasian [racial language] seems to be accepted whereas black or Negro would be rejected for being inapplicable.
"African" isn't enough for me because there are people on this continent [Mediterranean-looking Berbers] that speak our languages and share their paternal DNA with us but are mostly "Eurasian" and have their origins outside the continent and so the word African is simply insufficient.
I want precision and so I prefer *Northeast African*, and I would so very much love to see bio-anthropologists clearly associating North Sudanese, the Oromo and Somalis with the ancient Egyptians. I want there to be no confusion on this matter.
Ps: Traditional Western understandings of what it means to be "black" are beyond irrelevant.
Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ^One thing that also favors reading two separate clines in that Ptolemy text is that there is a Greek tradition of describing Nile Valley Aethiopians like tall Nilo-Saharan speakers. I don't think Ptolemy's audience would have been able to read "pure Aethiopian" in isolation of that context so that it only reads 'jetblack skin'. By the time of Ptolemy, Greek geographers and historians had documented the appearance of Nile Valley Aethiopians for hundreds of years.
Ptolemy seems to be focusing entirely on colour and "type" could mean anything and so I'm hesitant to ascribe this to features. We would have to refer to a classical academic to clarify things for us.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: My issue isn't the use of "black" but the instance and consistency of its use. Egyptologists and other scientists are opposed to the use of "black" in reference to the ancient Egyptians, but when the BBC and PBS make documentaries [featuring Egyptologists and others] talk of the "black" Pharaohs is now conveniently proper and objective.
These people you speak of don't use 'black' in a way African Americans and other westerners (including many on this forum) use it in every day use. So, either it's a problem across the board or it's not a problem at all.
Why is the quoted piece below, where the guy is sorting 'black' people based on facial features, not a problem?
quote:Well , I gonna say what I know
Originally, Egyptians were black people and this can be found in the pictures in the pyramids and also in the traditional hairstyles all over africa(today) that relfect the ancient hairstyles of the egyptians. Prisoners that the egyptians captured are depicted on the walls of the pyramids, they range from black people through semites to white people. Where as the racial differences can be made out between white, asian and semite prisoners. There is "NO DIFFERENCE" in the pictures between black prisoners and the egyptians.
They didnt refer to themselves as bronze but as the "red man" this was due to the reddish colour of a black mans skin. (if you're white you wouldnt know about this, try looking closesly at black skin) They called themselves The Red man to distinguish themselves from other africans who were not as advanced as them. Genetically there is no differnece. Not until the Persian and Semetic integration did they move to other parts of Africa and embue their knowledge on the different people.
And I do think theres a conspirancy by so called Egyptologists to present a white face to egypt. For example White Cleopatra played by Elizabeth Taylor and YO! What happend to the Sphinx's Nose? I'm sure it was a black mans nose and they got rid of it. I mean even if it fell off, it would still be there, I'm sure its big enough
Egyptologists like Kemp and Shaw apply the same standard of 'black' as that guy but come to a different conclusion (i.e. the caricatured Nubian captives on the Egyptian monuments have 'black' features but many or most Egyptians depicted next to them, don't). So, this racial use of 'black' is only 'outrageous' when it leads to unsatisfying conclusions? It's only 'wrong' when Brace et al investigate these claims and the results don't conform to preconceived notions? Then 'black' is all of a sudden restricted to skin color and has "nothing to do with facial features". Right
Posters like that guy I just quoted are co-signed and cheered on all the time on this forum. So why the double standard?
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
Just saying didn't the 1993 Brace study(if that's the one you guys are talking about) over empathizes on nose shape and is the reason why the Egyptians grouped more with Europeans?
Again, just asking. Once more I understand perfectly what you are saying.
Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: My issue isn't the use of "black" but the instance and consistency of its use. Egyptologists and other scientists are opposed to the use of "black" in reference to the ancient Egyptians, but when the BBC and PBS make documentaries [featuring Egyptologists and others] talk of the "black" Pharaohs is now conveniently proper and objective.
These people you speak of don't use 'black' in a way African Americans and other westerners (including many on this forum) use it in every day use. So, either it's a problem across the board or it's not a problem at all.
Why is the quoted piece below, where the guy is sorting 'black' people based on facial features, not a problem?
quote:Well , I gonna say what I know
Originally, Egyptians were black people and this can be found in the pictures in the pyramids and also in the traditional hairstyles all over africa(today) that relfect the ancient hairstyles of the egyptians. Prisoners that the egyptians captured are depicted on the walls of the pyramids, they range from black people through semites to white people. Where as the racial differences can be made out between white, asian and semite prisoners. There is "NO DIFFERENCE" in the pictures between black prisoners and the egyptians.
They didnt refer to themselves as bronze but as the "red man" this was due to the reddish colour of a black mans skin. (if you're white you wouldnt know about this, try looking closesly at black skin) They called themselves The Red man to distinguish themselves from other africans who were not as advanced as them. Genetically there is no differnece. Not until the Persian and Semetic integration did they move to other parts of Africa and embue their knowledge on the different people.
And I do think theres a conspirancy by so called Egyptologists to present a white face to egypt. For example White Cleopatra played by Elizabeth Taylor and YO! What happend to the Sphinx's Nose? I'm sure it was a black mans nose and they got rid of it. I mean even if it fell off, it would still be there, I'm sure its big enough
Egyptologists like Kemp and Shaw apply the same standard of 'black' as that guy but come to a different conclusion (i.e. the caricatured Nubian captives on the Egyptian monuments have 'black' features but many or most Egyptians depicted next to them, don't). So, this racial use of 'black' is only 'outrageous' when it leads to unsatisfying conclusions? It's only 'wrong' when Brace et al investigate these claims and the results don't conform to preconceived notions? Then 'black' is all of a sudden restricted to skin color and has "nothing to do with facial features". Right
Posters like that guy I just quoted are co-signed and cheered on all the time on this forum. So why the double standard?
It is a problem, Swenet. I don't know why these people insist on exclusively associating "black" with people with wide features.
The gratuitous use of the word "Nubian" for the people depicted as pitch-black in ancient Egyptian reliefs needs to be investigated and properly contextualized. The people with pitch-black skin and wide features don't even reside anywhere North of Kosti so I am genuinely perplexed.
I think that those people with pitch-black skin and wide features may have been the ancestors of the Nilotic tribes in the Gezira and the Niger-Congo "Nuba" of Kordofan.
Were Eurasians closer to the ancient Egyptians than the Nubians of Upper Egypt and the people of North Sudan? I would find that hard to believe. How many Nubians of Upper Egypt and North Sudan were used in that study? I basically want to know if the study was free of manipulation.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
@BBH
If someone lies and says there was never really a serious reason for academics to rope tug over the population affinity of the ancient Egyptians, Brace's results are valid to disprove that. In that case, it doesn't really matter where the measurements were taken. It was said that their population affinity was necessarily immediately "obvious" since the early days of anthropology and that lie was targeted by posting Brace.
If someone were to say that that's the only or typical result you can get with skeletal analyses involving ancient Egyptians (which is what many Euronuts are insinuating or claiming), that's where that critical note re: Brace would come in.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: Just saying didn't the 1993 Brace study(if that's the one you guys are talking about) over empathizes on nose shape and is the reason why the Egyptians grouped more with Europeans?
Again, just asking. Once more I understand perfectly what you are saying.
If I understand this correctly, this is actually a white woman?
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: Were Eurasians closer to the ancient Egyptians than the Nubians of Upper Egypt and the people of North Sudan? I would find that hard to believe. How many Nubians of Upper Egypt and North Sudan were used in that study? I basically want to know if the study was free of manipulation.
This question can be problematic. The Eurasian samples are IN Eurasia, they're not necessarily biologically Eurasian. Reread what I said in this post about cluster C:
Cluster C is not 'Caucasoid'. Even IF the samples in Eurasia would have been closer to the predynastic Egyptian sample, most of them are mixed with North Africans and still have a degree of resemblance to OOA Africans.
But, that said, to answer your question, in one analysis the Somali and X group individuals seem to be closest to the predynastic Egyptians. But most of the samples were excavated on the African continent, so it's missing the relationship values of some of the other samples. In the other analysis, the Portugese neolithic sample was closest to the predynastic Egyptians, followed by the late dynastic and Indian samples (a tie).
Remember that Brace's results are primarily about cranio-facial resemblance. In the case of the Indian sample, a lot of genetic closeness is virtually ruled out (aside from generic genetic closeness, considering that Indians are OOA people). However, in this discussion the values of genetically distant Eurasian sample samples like Indians are still relevant given the claims that have been made in this thread about physical resemblance.
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: [QB] @BBH
If someone lies and says there was never really a serious reason for academics to rope tug over the population affinity of the ancient Egyptians, Brace's results are valid to disprove that. In that case, it doesn't really matter where the measurements were taken. It was said that their population affinity was necessarily immediately "obvious" since the early days of anthropology and that lie was targeted by posting Brace.
If someone were to say that that's the only or typical result you can get with skeletal analyses involving ancient Egyptians (which is what many Euronuts are insinuating or claiming), that's where that critical note re: Brace would come in.
If I am reading you correctly you're saying the Brace results proves that certain people were lying about claiming to always knowing the affinity of the Ancient Egyptians?
Posted by Nodnarb (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: The gratuitous use of the word "Nubian" for the people depicted as pitch-black in ancient Egyptian reliefs needs to be investigated and properly contextualized. The people with pitch-black skin and wide features don't even reside anywhere North of Kosti so I am genuinely perplexed.
I think that those people with pitch-black skin and wide features may have been the ancestors of the Nilotic tribes in the Gezira and the Niger-Congo "Nuba" of Kordofan.
I originally doubted this, since some of the subjects are portrayed with linen clothing that would suggest Egyptian influence like that absorbed by Kush. But then, that would be assuming Egyptian influences stopped at Kush which might not necessarily be the case. Who knows, there might very well have been communities of South Sudanese-type people further up the Nile who still had cultural and commercial ties to Egypt and Kush, and maybe those are the people depicted in the Egyptian artworks.
That said, I also believe Egyptians had a need to distinguish themselves from foreigners in art even if it meant taking creative liberties with the truth. If all those images of Sudanese were given reddish-brown skin like the Egyptian characters, would people necessarily figure out they were meant to be foreign nationals? I doubt so.
Incidentally we do have a few ancient Greek images (apparently) depicting Egyptians that look like this: The guy on the left is said to be the mythical Egyptian king Busiris and his counterpart on the vase (right) is Heracles. Now we know late dynastic Egyptians who lived when that vase was made didn't all look like the stereotyped image of Busiris here, but then the Greek artist who made the vase had to distinguish the Egyptian from the Greek somehow. Possibly he considered Egyptians to be part of a larger "African" construct and chose to represent that with the African phenotype furthest removed from his native Greeks, similar to how the artists at Firaxis chose to depict the Ethiopian Zara Yaqob for their game Civilization IV: Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
@BBH
What I meant to say is that some Euronuts use Brace to say that the relationship of Egyptians to samples in Eurasia is due to the sharing of 'Caucasian' ancestry shared by all samples in that cluster. They insist on spamming Brace (as opposed to posting some other studies that came out somewhat differently) because they're trying to insinuate or claim that predynastic Egyptians ALWAYS cluster in what they see as that 'Caucasian' cluster.
In that case, one would draw attention to certain choices made by Brace et al, which influence their results. In that case, that argument is relevant.
But for the reasons why I posted Brace, that doesn't really matter. For instance, in this thread, the argument was made that the population affinities of ancient Egyptians were always apparent. It was said by Doug that it was pseudoscience that led to wrong classifications. Brace et al's results prove that's complete nonsense. This Brace paper is one in a long line of papers that prove that to be nonsense.
Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: Were Eurasians closer to the ancient Egyptians than the Nubians of Upper Egypt and the people of North Sudan? I would find that hard to believe. How many Nubians of Upper Egypt and North Sudan were used in that study? I basically want to know if the study was free of manipulation.
This question can be problematic. The Eurasian samples are IN Eurasia, they're not necessarily biologically Eurasian. Reread what I said in this post about cluster C:
Cluster C is not 'Caucasoid'. Even IF the samples in Eurasia would have been closer to the predynastic Egyptian sample, most of them are mixed with North Africans and still have a degree of resemblance to OOA Africans.
But, that said, to answer your question, in one analysis the Somali and X group individuals were closest to the predynastic Egyptians. But most of the samples were excavated on the African continent, so it's missing data. In the other analysis, the Portugese neolithic sample was closest to the predynastic Egyptians, followed by the late dynastic and Indian samples (a tie). Remember that this is about cranio-facial resemblance.
I think I get it now. Question: In the analysis involving neolithic Portugese, Nubians were used, right? I do find it a little strange that Predynastic Nubians would be further removed from predynastic Egyptians than neolithic Portugese in that one specific analysis.
Like you said neolithic Eurasians resembled Africans at this point and mixed with them, so the confluence is understandable
In either case the Eurocentrics are trumped by data from limb ratios, genetics, skin reflectance analysis, melanin dosage tests, cultural anthropology and linguistics.
Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nodnarb:
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: The gratuitous use of the word "Nubian" for the people depicted as pitch-black in ancient Egyptian reliefs needs to be investigated and properly contextualized. The people with pitch-black skin and wide features don't even reside anywhere North of Kosti so I am genuinely perplexed.
I think that those people with pitch-black skin and wide features may have been the ancestors of the Nilotic tribes in the Gezira and the Niger-Congo "Nuba" of Kordofan.
I originally doubted this, since some of the subjects are portrayed with linen clothing that would suggest Egyptian influence like that absorbed by Kush. But then, that would be assuming Egyptian influences stopped at Kush which might not necessarily be the case. Who knows, there might very well have been communities of South Sudanese-type people further up the Nile who still had cultural and commercial ties to Egypt and Kush, and maybe those are the people depicted in the Egyptian artworks.
That said, I also believe Egyptians had a need to distinguish themselves from foreigners in art even if it meant taking creative liberties with the truth. If all those images of Sudanese were given reddish-brown skin like the Egyptian characters, would people necessarily figure out they were meant to be foreign nationals? I doubt so.
Incidentally we do have a few ancient Greek images (apparently) depicting Egyptians that look like this: The guy on the left is said to be the mythical Egyptian king Busiris and his counterpart on the vase (right) is Heracles. Now we know late dynastic Egyptians who lived when that vase was made didn't all look like the stereotyped image of Busiris here, but then the Greek artist who made the vase had to distinguish the Egyptian from the Greek somehow. Possibly he considered Egyptians to be part of a larger "African" construct and chose to represent that with the African phenotype furthest removed from his native Greeks, similar to how the artists at Firaxis chose to depict the Ethiopian Zara Yaqob for their game Civilization IV:
That is exactly right, friend. The people of Kush depicted themselves in the same way that the ancient Egyptians depicted themselves and I really do believe that the pitch-black people we see in those reliefs are "Nuba" or Nilotic tribes like the Dinka, Nuer, Shilluk and so on.
I posted images of Lower Nubians that were depicted in the same fashion as the Egyptians. The people of Punt were also almost identical to the ancient Egyptians in the reliefs that I've seen.
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: @BBH
What I meant to say is that some Euronuts use Brace to say that the relationship of Egyptians to samples in Eurasia is due to the sharing of 'Caucasian' ancestry shared by all samples in that cluster. They insist on spamming Brace (as opposed to posting some other studies that came out somewhat differently) because they're trying to insinuate or claim that predynastic Egyptians ALWAYS cluster in what they see as that 'Caucasian' cluster.
In that case, one would draw attention to certain choices made by Brace et al, which influence their results. In that case, that argument is relevant.
But for the reasons why I posted Brace, that doesn't really matter. For instance, in this thread, the argument was made that the population affinities of ancient Egyptians were always apparent. It was said by Doug that it was pseudoscience that led to wrong classifications. Brace et al's results prove that's complete nonsense. This Brace paper is one in a long line of papers that prove that to be nonsense.
Okay I get it now. Btw keep up the good work. Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
@Sudaniya
In both analyses the Nubian samples are used. And in the second analysis, several other neolithic European samples were closer to the predynastic Egyptian sample. This doesn't say anything about Nubian vs Eurasian relationships to ancient Egyptians. Remember that this is not a conclusive picture. These Nubian samples are just two Nubian samples, presumably Upper Nubian ones (more distant from Egypt). There are many other Nubian samples that would have been closer to the ancient Egyptians if they were included.
Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: In both analyses the Nubian samples are used. And in the second analysis, several other neolithic European samples were closer to the predynastic Egyptian samples. This doesn't say anything about Nubians vs Eurasian relationships to ancient Egyptians. Remember that this is not a conclusive picture. These Nubian samples are just two Nubian samples, presumably Upper Nubian ones. There are many other Nubian samples that would have been closer to the ancient Egyptians if they were included.
I get it now, Swenet. Thank you.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya:
would so very much love to see bio-anthropologists clearly associating North Sudanese, the Oromo and Somalis with the ancient Egyptians. I want there to be no confusion on this matter.
Ps: Traditional Western understandings of what it means to be "black" are beyond irrelevant.
In the New Kingdom you find these Book of Gates scenes in several tombs and the Egyptians are depicting themselves brown but the people of the south black. You can also find depictions of Kushites as brown also in other scenes. But in these Book of Gates scenes they suggest that Egyptians have a different skin color than the people of the South. Why would they do that? Why aren't the Egyptians and Kushites all black or all brown or an equal mix of alternating black and brown? By clothing one could distinguish them. Here we see the Nubians have a broad sash going across the chest which wraps around the waist as a belt and then the excess hangs down. The Egyptians often depict groups of all black Kushites but they don't show often groups of all jet black Egyptians, only kings depicted alternatively as jet black in funerary scenes as the personification of Osiris. In these particular scene they make a color distinction
tomb of king Merenptah I
tomb of king Merenptah I
Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
lioness
You really are daft, aren't you? The people of the South would not all have had the same skin tone, would they?
The people to the immediate South had the same skin tone as the ancient Egyptians but those further afield did not. What is the significance of this for you?
I maintain that those pitch-black people were the ancestors of the Nuba of Kordofan and/or the Nilotic tribes that used to live in the Gezira -- tribes like the Dinka and Nuer.
"Nubians" as portrayed by ancient Egyptians
Kushites portraying themselves
[/QB]
Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
The Dinka and Nuer have significantly darker skin than all the Africans so you really can't ask why the ancient Egyptians didn't have the same pitch-black skin of these Nilotic tribes.
Here's a picture of a black man from Swaziland standing next to a Hematite mine and his skin tone matches the red ochre that we see in ancient Egyptian art.
Should we use the Dinka as the standard by which we measure blackness? Should we insist on implying that since the man from Swaziland doesn't have the same pitch-black skin of the Dinka that he is not to be associated with them?
Should we also apply this standard to Europe? Should we insist that since the ancient Greeks and Romans were not quite as light as the Swedes and Norwegians that they should not be associated with them?
This is a map of all the kingdoms of ancient Sudan -- kingdoms that were contemporaries of ancient Egypt. The word "Nubian" is applied to all of them and this is where the confusion arises.
There was no kingdom or entity called "Nubia" in ancient times. There were no "Nubians".
Some of Egypt's Southern neighbours [those to the immediate South] would have been closely intimated with Egypt on all accounts and very closely resembled the ancient Egyptians. Those further South did not.
"Nubia" is a corruption of the ancient Egyptian word Nubt -- a word for gold. There was a city in Upper Egypt called Nubti, which would have been the original Nubia.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: [QB] lioness
You really are daft, aren't you? The people of the South would not all have had the same skin tone, would they?
The people to the immediate South had the same skin tone as the ancient Egyptians but those further afield did not. What is the significance of this for you?
I maintain that those pitch-black people were the ancestors of the Nuba of Kordofan and/or the Nilotic tribes that used to live in the Gezira -- tribes like the Dinka and Nuer.
As I said some depictions of Kushites are brown but in the Book of Gates Scenes they have 4 ethnic groups and they distinguish themselves from the Kushites by skin color and clothing. Why would they do that?
Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: [QB] lioness
You really are daft, aren't you? The people of the South would not all have had the same skin tone, would they?
The people to the immediate South had the same skin tone as the ancient Egyptians but those further afield did not. What is the significance of this for you?
I maintain that those pitch-black people were the ancestors of the Nuba of Kordofan and/or the Nilotic tribes that used to live in the Gezira -- tribes like the Dinka and Nuer.
As I said some depictions of Kushites are brown but in the Book of Gates Scenes they have 4 ethnic groups and they distinguish themselves from the Kushites by skin color and clothing. Why would they do that?
What makes you think that those pitch-black people are Kushites? Did the ancient Egyptians specifically spell out that those people are Kushites? And why wouldn't two closely related people have different cultural dresses? Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
@DougM. Please stop lying to yourself man. It looks desperate. Black is not only about skin color. Many times it has a racial element to it.
Are you telling me he (Salif Keita) is NOT a Black man?
Once you call this man "Black" you are not talking about skin color and instead are speaking on ideas of race. Why would "black people" get upset that a European is being used to play Michael Jackson if that European is the same skin tone as Michael Jackson?
Cognitive dissonance. SMFH.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya:
Nubians as portrayed by ancient Egyptians
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
from the " tomb of Tyanen (an Egyptian officer (d. 1410 B.C.)"
There is no evidence that these figures are not Egyptians. -complete specualtion
Scott T. Carroll assitant professor, Dept of History, Gordon College wrote an essay called Wrestling In Ancient Nubia
in it he states:
The earliest portrayal of Nubian wrestlers is found on a wall painting from thetomb of Tyanen, an Egyptian officer (d. 1410 B.C.)4 (See Figure 1). The picture shows five men marching together, with the last man carrying a standard which has two wrestlers on it. All but one of the men have Nubian physical characteristics. The contrast between the Nubian wrestlers’ girth and the trim Egyptian, is pronounced
This commentary is nonsense and does not prove any of the above figures were not Egyptian.
Below is an actual relief carving of Nubian wrestlers:
As you can see:
1) they are slim, without much "girth"
2) the characteristic hoop earring is shown
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: @DougM. Please stop lying to yourself man. It looks desperate. Black is not only about skin color. Many times it has a racial element to it.
Are you telling me he (Salif Keita) is NOT a Black man?
Once you call this man "Black" you are not talking about skin color and instead are speaking on ideas of race. Why would "black people" get upset that a European is being used to play Michael Jackson if that European is the same skin tone as Michael Jackson?
Cognitive dissonance. SMFH.
Tukuler's answer to this is that one is black or white if one belongs to a black or white group. So therefore Salif Keita is black if he has membership in a black group
But assuming there is a methodology in determining the color of a group many people have "membership" in more than one group, example, Obama, many berbers and horn Africans
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
A white woman according to Doug and the ancient writers.
I can't argue with that, she is white
Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya:
Nubians as portrayed by ancient Egyptians
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
from the " tomb of Tyanen (an Egyptian officer (d. 1410 B.C.)"
There is no evidence that these figures are not Egyptians. -complete specualtion
Scott T. Carroll assitant professor, Dept of History, Gordon College wrote an essay called Wrestling In Ancient Nubia
in it he states:
The earliest portrayal of Nubian wrestlers is found on a wall painting from thetomb of Tyanen, an Egyptian officer (d. 1410 B.C.)4 (See Figure 1). The picture shows five men marching together, with the last man carrying a standard which has two wrestlers on it. All but one of the men have Nubian physical characteristics. The contrast between the Nubian wrestlers’ girth and the trim Egyptian, is pronounced
This commentary is nonsense and does not prove any of the above figures were not Egyptian.
Below is an actual relief carving of Nubian wrestlers:
As you can see:
1) they are slim, without much "girth"
2) the characteristic hoop earring is shown
I have come across multiple sources describing them as "Nubian" mercenaries, and they do seem to have the same skin tones that the Kushites portrayed themselves.
Those wrestlers resemble the Nuba of Kordofan and are engaging in an activity that it is still so central to the lives of the Nuba to this very day.
The ancient Egyptians were closely related to the people of the immediate South and share common origins with them, so you should really just get over it. You're a disciple of that lying wretch Mathilda, aren't you?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya:
I have come across multiple sources describing them as "Nubian" mercenaries, and they do seem to have the same skin tones that the Kushites portrayed themselves.
If these are Nubians the point is irrelevant. I have already stated twice that in Egyptians art Nubians are sometimes depicted as brown. However you have not provided scholarly sources indicating these are Nubians. What you have are two sites selling the images. Show us a book reference:
you are doing a poor job of trying to get at the lioness, throwing up pictures with no information about them
___________________
I notice in Egyptian art in the New Kingdom some images that have a racists sort of quality about them, like stereotyping with exaggeration is going on with the features in some scenes
Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
I'll try to find a more authoritative source. The undeniable fact still stands... the ancient Egyptians and those to their immediate South stem from a common origin in the predynastic period and were very close. No other group of people were anywhere near as ethnically and culturally as close to the ancient Egyptians as the various "Nubians" were.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Man from Wadi Halfa, a Sudanese town close to the Egyptian border
What exactly is your point? You do realise that your fanciful dreams of a Eurasian or "mixed" Egypt have been thoroughly debunked by the disciplines? The ancient Egyptians were Northeast Africans closely related to the "Nubians" of Upper Egypt, North Sudanese, Afar, Oromo and Somalis.
The debate is OVER. Africans have a civilization of their own just as Europeans, Asians and descendants of the Meso-Americans have their own civilizations. White racists like you are opposed to this reasonable affirmation of the facts and insist that Africans [and only Africans] must allow others to lay claim to ancient Egypt as some kind of multi-racial civilization whereas others can lay exclusive claim to their own civilizations.
It's a sickness that you should address internally.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: I'll try to find a more authoritative source. The undeniable fact still stands... the ancient Egyptians and those to their immediate South stem from a common origin in the predynastic period and were very close. No other group of people were anywhere near as ethnically and culturally as close to the ancient Egyptians as the various "Nubians" were.
Maybe but xyyman says that South Africans are closer and claims that that is what the DNA Tribes analysis showed. Look at the horn matches compared to SA, Great Lakes and WA.
Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
That poor woman that pretended to be black looks nothing like those beautiful girls. Stop being so stupid. Why don't you just discuss Greek and Roman history and leave Africans to their own history?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: Why don't you just discuss Greek and Roman history and leave Africans to their own history
I'm not Greek or Roman, I don't fuks with them
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: I'll try to find a more authoritative source. The undeniable fact still stands... the ancient Egyptians and those to their immediate South stem from a common origin in the predynastic period and were very close. No other group of people were anywhere near as ethnically and culturally as close to the ancient Egyptians as the various "Nubians" were.
Maybe but xyyman says that South Africans are closer and claims that that is what the DNA Tribes analysis showed. Look at the horn matches compared to SA, Great Lakes and WA.
Xyyman is the same person who correlates a haplogroup like e1b1a to negroid features to say the negroid phenotype is recent. Yeah lets totally go by what he says.
And DNAtribes is not saying South Africans are closer, but instead the ancestors of South Africans lived in the wet Sahara along with the ancestors of the Ancient Egyptians and so they may have mixed.
Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: I'll try to find a more authoritative source. The undeniable fact still stands... the ancient Egyptians and those to their immediate South stem from a common origin in the predynastic period and were very close. No other group of people were anywhere near as ethnically and culturally as close to the ancient Egyptians as the various "Nubians" were.
Maybe but xyyman says that South Africans are closer and claims that that is what the DNA Tribes analysis showed. Look at the horn matches compared to SA, Great Lakes and WA.
Who cares what crazy people think. Mounds upon mounds of grit-edged evidence consistently affirm that the ancient Egyptians were part of the Northeast African group. No peer-reviewed publication posits that Southern Africans are closer to the ancient Egyptians.
I've wasted enough time on you. You're firmly wedded to your delusions of a Eurasian or mixed ancient Egypt.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
Lioness, what are you trying to imply? Why keep trolling, with silly excuses?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya:
That poor woman that pretended to be black looks nothing like those beautiful girls.
She is older and not as pretty looking, that's all
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol # Ish Gebor:
She almost got me fooled here, with this pic.
I wonder if she has bootay too?
Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: Why don't you just discuss Greek and Roman history and leave Africans to their own history
I'm not Greek or Roman, I don't fuks with them
You're white. Europeans collectively have ancient Greece and Rome just as Asians collectively have China, and just as Africans collectively have ancient Egypt and Kush.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: What exactly is your point? You do realise that your fanciful dreams of a Eurasian or "mixed" Egypt have been thoroughly debunked by the disciplines? The ancient Egyptians were Northeast Africans closely related to the "Nubians" of Upper Egypt, North Sudanese, Afar, Oromo and Somalis.
The debate is OVER. Africans have a civilization of their own just as Europeans, Asians and descendants of the Meso-Americans have their own civilizations. White racists like you are opposed to this reasonable affirmation of the facts and insist that Africans [and only Africans] must allow others to lay claim to ancient Egypt as some kind of multi-racial civilization whereas others can lay exclusive claim to their own civilizations.
It's a sickness that you should address internally.
Lioness, isn't going to stop this nonsense. Look at how lioness fights Mike and Clyde over Meso-America, or classic European history. But when it comes to Africa? Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: [qb]
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: Why don't you just discuss Greek and Roman history and leave Africans to their own history
I'm not Greek or Roman, I don't fuks with them
You're white.
Why are you making false allegations?
Plus Europeans have no claim to China although it's on the same land mass
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya:
That poor woman that pretended to be black looks nothing like those beautiful girls.
She is older and not as pretty looking, that's all
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol # Ish Gebor:
stop trying to move the goal posts by sneaking in a darker skinded woman
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
^ LOL @the above. What are you trying to imply?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: what are you trying to imply?
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: that is in theory the case, in practicality it's different. But yes, it's all relative.
^this
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
stop trying to move the goal posts by sneaking in a darker skinded woman
Now you try to divide darker and lighter completed black woman. As if only either of the two exists. LOL
You are a racist clown. Dear to step to them in real life with that crap. And make sure you record it, then post it. Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
stop switching the examples, Rachel Dolezal with the right styling can out-black this woman, her nose is blacker as well
Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: [qb]
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: Why don't you just discuss Greek and Roman history and leave Africans to their own history
I'm not Greek or Roman, I don't fuks with them
You're white.
Why are you making false allegations?
Plus Europeans have no claim to China although it's on the same land mass
Learn to read. I clearly said that Europeans have Greece and Rome just as Asians have China and just as Africans have ancient Egypt and Kush. Understand?
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
stop switching the examples, Rachel Dolezal with the right styling can out-black this woman
The man can speak for himself.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: Why don't you just discuss Greek and Roman history and leave Africans to their own history
I'm not Greek or Roman, I don't fuks with them
You're white. Europeans collectively have ancient Greece and Rome just as Asians collectively have China, and just as Africans collectively have ancient Egypt and Kush.
Yes, at some point it just becomes annoying.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
This man comes from a PEOPLE known to be black do of course he's black.
Do you suppose the heroine of the Aethiopica is not a black woman because her skin was lite-brite?
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: @DougM. Please stop lying to yourself man. It looks desperate. Black is not only about skin color. Many times it has a racial element to it.
Are you telling me he (Salif Keita) is NOT a Black man?
Once you call this man "Black" you are not talking about skin color and instead are speaking on ideas of race. Why would "black people" get upset that a European is being used to play Michael Jackson if that European is the same skin tone as Michael Jackson?
Cognitive dissonance. SMFH.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Although these wrestlers were covered on ES in the past, why don't we view the entire scene and discuss it again. I find revisits often more eye opening than the original take (as when including U Egy and Sudani samples proved such living folk in fact held all 8 allele pairs of certain 18th Dyn royal mummies).
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya:
Nubians as portrayed by ancient Egyptians
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
from the " tomb of Tyanen (an Egyptian officer (d. 1410 B.C.)"
There is no evidence that these figures are not Egyptians. -complete specualtion
Scott T. Carroll assitant professor, Dept of History, Gordon College wrote an essay called Wrestling In Ancient Nubia
in it he states:
The earliest portrayal of Nubian wrestlers is found on a wall painting from thetomb of Tyanen, an Egyptian officer (d. 1410 B.C.)4 (See Figure 1). The picture shows five men marching together, with the last man carrying a standard which has two wrestlers on it. All but one of the men have Nubian physical characteristics. The contrast between the Nubian wrestlers’ girth and the trim Egyptian, is pronounced
This commentary is nonsense and does not prove any of the above figures were not Egyptian.
Below is an actual relief carving of Nubian wrestlers:
As you can see:
1) they are slim, without much "girth"
2) the characteristic hoop earring is shown
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Fuller scene of controversial Egyptians in one Book of Gates rendition with text that reads RMTYW (Remetu, ie Egyptians) although the garb is NHSW (Nehesi, ie 'Nubian').
quote:Originally posted by Nodnarb:
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: The gratuitous use of the word "Nubian" for the people depicted as pitch-black in ancient Egyptian reliefs needs to be investigated and properly contextualized. The people with pitch-black skin and wide features don't even reside anywhere North of Kosti so I am genuinely perplexed.
I think that those people with pitch-black skin and wide features may have been the ancestors of the Nilotic tribes in the Gezira and the Niger-Congo "Nuba" of Kordofan.
I originally doubted this, since some of the subjects are portrayed with linen clothing that would suggest Egyptian influence like that absorbed by Kush. But then, that would be assuming Egyptian influences stopped at Kush which might not necessarily be the case. Who knows, there might very well have been communities of South Sudanese-type people further up the Nile who still had cultural and commercial ties to Egypt and Kush, and maybe those are the people depicted in the Egyptian artworks.
That said, I also believe Egyptians had a need to distinguish themselves from foreigners in art even if it meant taking creative liberties with the truth. If all those images of Sudanese were given reddish-brown skin like the Egyptian characters, would people necessarily figure out they were meant to be foreign nationals? I doubt so.
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
^^^Euronuts despise that image and acts like it doesn't exist.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: ^^^Euronuts despise that image and acts like it doesn't exist.
''What's the bug deal, it's four Kusihites mislabeled as Egyptian
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: ^^^Euronuts despise that image and acts like it doesn't exist.
''What's the bug deal, it's four Kusihites mislabeled as Egyptian
Mislabeled by whom?
They still are closets in relation, so what's the big deal?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: [qb] ^^^Euronuts despise that image and acts like it doesn't exist.
''What's the bug deal, it's four Kusihites mislabeled as Egyptian
Mislabeled by whom?
It's mislabeled by the Egyptian craftsmen who made the art/writing on that wall
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler
the garb is NHSW (Nehesi, ie 'Nubian').
This is correct. The glyph next to it which doesn't indicate Nehesi is wrong they are Nehesi ( or Nahasu aka Nubian) The Egyptian tomb artists and scribes did make occasional errors and this piece was not open for public view where someone might see it. It was sealed in the tomb.
We mustn't formulate theories based on anomalies.
Most Egyptian males in the art had dark brown skin. We don't need to go to freak mistakes and ignore context
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: I'll try to find a more authoritative source. The undeniable fact still stands... the ancient Egyptians and those to their immediate South stem from a common origin in the predynastic period and were very close. No other group of people were anywhere near as ethnically and culturally as close to the ancient Egyptians as the various "Nubians" were.
Maybe but xyyman says that South Africans are closer and claims that that is what the DNA Tribes analysis showed. Look at the horn matches compared to SA, Great Lakes and WA.
Who cares what crazy people think. Mounds upon mounds of grit-edged evidence consistently affirm that the ancient Egyptians were part of the Northeast African group. No peer-reviewed publication posits that Southern Africans are closer to the ancient Egyptians.
I've wasted enough time on you. You're firmly wedded to your delusions of a Eurasian or mixed ancient Egypt.
You say that this shows I'm firmly wedded delusions of a Eurasian or mixed ancient Egypt. That is bizarre because this very chart is often used by Amun Ra and other ES members that West Africans (and SAs and Central Africans) have the closest similarities to the AEs.
But anyway, a simple question for beyoku, to clear this up >
In plain simple English for the layman,
-Why do South Africans and Great Lakes Africans have much higher matches to the Amarna than do Horn Africans according to this analysis?
-please, let beyoku answer first
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: [qb] ^^^Euronuts despise that image and acts like it doesn't exist.
''What's the bug deal, it's four Kusihites mislabeled as Egyptian
Mislabeled by whom?
It's mislabeled by the Egyptian craftsmen who made the art/writing on that wall
How do you know the motivations and reasonings of the artist(-s)?
The supposed Nubians and Egyptians related closets, before anyone else, with the same root and origin in the South. This was posted before/ already, so I'm not going to ittirate.
Btw I rather speak of Northern and Southern cataracts.
quote:
These two reasons - navigation obstacles and restricted floodplain - are the most important reasons why this part of the Nile is thinly populated and why the historic border between Egypt in the north and Nubia or Sudan in the south is the First Cataract at Aswan.
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: I'll try to find a more authoritative source. The undeniable fact still stands... the ancient Egyptians and those to their immediate South stem from a common origin in the predynastic period and were very close. No other group of people were anywhere near as ethnically and culturally as close to the ancient Egyptians as the various "Nubians" were.
Maybe but xyyman says that South Africans are closer and claims that that is what the DNA Tribes analysis showed. Look at the horn matches compared to SA, Great Lakes and WA.
Who cares what crazy people think. Mounds upon mounds of grit-edged evidence consistently affirm that the ancient Egyptians were part of the Northeast African group. No peer-reviewed publication posits that Southern Africans are closer to the ancient Egyptians.
I've wasted enough time on you. You're firmly wedded to your delusions of a Eurasian or mixed ancient Egypt.
You say that this shows I'm firmly wedded delusions of a Eurasian or mixed ancient Egypt. That is bizarre because this very chart is often used by Amun Ra and other ES members that West Africans (and SAs and Central Africans) have the closest similarities to the AEs.
But anyway, a simple question for beyoku, to clear this up >
In plain simple English for the layman,
-Why do South Africans and Great Lakes Africans have much higher matches to the Amarna than do Horn Africans according to this analysis?
-please, let beyoku answer first
In Zulu history (mythology, and or history) they claim to have migrated from the Northern part of Africa, into the Southern parts of Africa. Known as South Africa.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: I'll try to find a more authoritative source. The undeniable fact still stands... the ancient Egyptians and those to their immediate South stem from a common origin in the predynastic period and were very close. No other group of people were anywhere near as ethnically and culturally as close to the ancient Egyptians as the various "Nubians" were.
quote:The Mahalanobis D2 analysis uncovered close affinities between Nubians and Egyptians. Table 3 lists the Mahalanobis D2 distance matrix. As there is no significance testing that is available to be applied to this form of Mahalanobis distances, the biodistance scores must be interpreted in relation to one another, rather than on a general scale. In some cases, the statistics reveal that the Egyptian samples were more similar to Nubian samples than to other Egyptian samples (e.g. Gizeh and Hesa/Biga) and vice versa (e.g. Badari and Kerma, Naqada and Christian).
These relationships are further depicted in the PCO plot (Fig. 2). Aside from these interpopulation relationships, some Nubian groups are still more similar to other Nubians and some Egyptians are more similar to other Egyptian samples. Moreover, although the Nubian and Egyptian samples formed one well-distributed group, the Egyptian samples clustered in the upper left region, while the Nubians concentrated in the lower right of the plot. One line can be drawn that would separate the closely dispersed Egyptians and Nubians. The predynastic Egyptian samples clustered together (Badari and Naqada), while Gizeh most closely groups with the Lisht sample. The first two principal coordinates from PCO account for 60% of the variation in the samples. The graph from PCO is basically a pictorial representation of the distance matrix and interpretations from the plot mirror the Mahalanobis D2 matrix.
--Godde K.
An Examination of Nubian and Egyptian biological distances: Support for biological diffusion or in situ development?
Homo. 2009;60(5):389-404. Epub 2009 Sep 19.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
When the chickens come home to roost.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: I'll try to find a more authoritative source. The undeniable fact still stands... the ancient Egyptians and those to their immediate South stem from a common origin in the predynastic period and were very close. No other group of people were anywhere near as ethnically and culturally as close to the ancient Egyptians as the various "Nubians" were.
Maybe but xyyman says that South Africans are closer and claims that that is what the DNA Tribes analysis showed. Look at the horn matches compared to SA, Great Lakes and WA.
Who cares what crazy people think. Mounds upon mounds of grit-edged evidence consistently affirm that the ancient Egyptians were part of the Northeast African group. No peer-reviewed publication posits that Southern Africans are closer to the ancient Egyptians.
I've wasted enough time on you. You're firmly wedded to your delusions of a Eurasian or mixed ancient Egypt.
You say that this shows I'm firmly wedded delusions of a Eurasian or mixed ancient Egypt. That is bizarre because this very chart is often used by Amun Ra and other ES members that West Africans (and SAs and Central Africans) have the closest similarities to the AEs.
But anyway, a simple question for beyoku, to clear this up >
In plain simple English for the layman,
-Why do South Africans and Great Lakes Africans have much higher matches to the Amarna than do Horn Africans according to this analysis?
-please, let beyoku answer first
I have no idea why you want my opinion on this. Your existence here has been to troll and not learn. In any case they match non horn Africans better because DNA tribes proprietary algorithm produces these results. I don't think it matters because the MLI scores are so low. If you want my real opinion just google my name, " DNA tribes Egypt extinct" - you will get the just of my argument.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: I don't think it matters because the MLI scores are so low. If you want my real opinion just google my name, " DNA tribes Egypt extinct" - you will get the just of my argument.
I don't see this exact phrase " DNA tribes Egypt extinct"
I'm looking for the most concise easiest to understand answer to this >
-Why do South Africans and Great Lakes Africans have much higher matches to the Amarna than do Horn Africans according to this analysis?
One of the results that came up is at Forum Biodiversity it has "Molecular Biologist" under your name. Are you a professional Molecular Biologist? It doesn't matter but that would be impressive. Anyway excerpts from what you said >
Ancient Egyptians = Somalis? - Page 4 - ForumBiodiversity.com
quote: Limited STR results from multiple mummies.....over hundreds of years......all genetically consistent yet genetically differentiated is evidence of SOMETHING.....
You dont have enough knowledge of African genetics to understand that DNA tribes is not saying the Mummies are closest to "South Africans" or come from South Africa....
Let me give you an example using non-Afroasiatic eurasian populations that are closer to you. Take Mal'ta Boy for instance (Siberia) A large portion of his DNA is seemingly "Native American", does this mean humans from the Americas back-migrated into North East Asia? How is this even possible if Mal'ta predates Amerindians by 10 thousand years? Why does Mal'ta have an affinity to Amerindians who are 10 thousand KM away yet show little affinity to modern resident East Asians?
(Parenthesis added)
So looking at Mal'ta Boy 24kya You ask:if large portion of his DNA is seemingly "Native American", does this mean humans from the Americas back-migrated into North East Asia?
That seems to be bedsides the point. If Mal'ta Boy of Siberia is ancestral to Native Americans we can say they are more genetically similar to each other than Mal'ta Boy of Siberia is to a Turk. So if Mal'ta Boy of Siberia predates occupation of the Americas it doesn't matter. Then why can't one look at these DNA Tribes results and say the average modern South African ( I think they were dealing with bantu South Africans at the time) is more similar to the Amarna Egyptians than the average Horn African is?
Can you copy and paste a concise quote of yours or write a new short one? Are your arguing that the DNA Tribes results, what they call "Match Likelihood Index (MLI)" is useless? What do you mean "so low"
It would be good to have a tight one paragraph fundamental statement of your on this so this stuff is not gone over and over
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: That is bizarre because this very chart is often used by Amun Ra and other ES members that West Africans (and SAs and Central Africans) have the closest similarities to the AEs.
Ancient Egyptian aDNA, especially the indigenous ancestry in their genomes that was there in the Upper Palaeolithic, is going to hurt a lot of folks' feelings.
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: I don't think it matters because the MLI scores are so low. If you want my real opinion just google my name, " DNA tribes Egypt extinct" - you will get the just of my argument.
I don't see this exact phrase " DNA tribes Egypt extinct"
I'm looking for the most concise easiest to understand answer to this >
-Why do South Africans and Great Lakes Africans have much higher matches to the Amarna than do Horn Africans according to this analysis?
One of the results that came up is at Forum Biodiversity it has "Molecular Biologist" under your name. Are you a professional Molecular Biologist? It doesn't matter but that would be impressive. Anyway excerpts from what you said >
Ancient Egyptians = Somalis? - Page 4 - ForumBiodiversity.com
quote: Limited STR results from multiple mummies.....over hundreds of years......all genetically consistent yet genetically differentiated is evidence of SOMETHING.....
You dont have enough knowledge of African genetics to understand that DNA tribes is not saying the Mummies are closest to "South Africans" or come from South Africa....
Let me give you an example using non-Afroasiatic eurasian populations that are closer to you. Take Mal'ta Boy for instance (Siberia) A large portion of his DNA is seemingly "Native American", does this mean humans from the Americas back-migrated into North East Asia? How is this even possible if Mal'ta predates Amerindians by 10 thousand years? Why does Mal'ta have an affinity to Amerindians who are 10 thousand KM away yet show little affinity to modern resident East Asians?
(Parenthesis added)
So looking at Mal'ta Boy 24kya You ask:if large portion of his DNA is seemingly "Native American", does this mean humans from the Americas back-migrated into North East Asia?
That seems to be bedsides the point. If Mal'ta Boy of Siberia is ancestral to Native Americans we can say they are more genetically similar to each other than Mal'ta Boy of Siberia is to a Turk. So if Mal'ta Boy of Siberia predates occupation of the Americas it doesn't matter. Then why can't one look at these DNA Tribes results and say the average modern South African ( I think they were dealing with bantu South Africans at the time) is more similar to the Amarna Egyptians than the average Horn African is?
Can you copy and paste a concise quote of yours or write a new short one? Are your arguing that the DNA Tribes results, what they call "Match Likelihood Index (MLI)" is useless? What do you mean "so low"
It would be good to have a tight one paragraph fundamental statement of your on this so this stuff is not gone over and over
The hidden part is a portion of larger post you can search for. I don't know what you are looking to do with this information.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
[/qb][/QUOTE
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya:
]Who cares what crazy people think. Mounds upon mounds of grit-edged evidence consistently affirm that the ancient Egyptians were part of the Northeast African group. No peer-reviewed publication posits that Southern Africans are closer to the ancient Egyptians.
quote:Originally posted by beyoku:
Look at the MLI scores. King Tut has the Highest score of 1519. The other scores have a AVERAGE that ranges from 326 to 14 among Sub Saharan Africans. A contemporary African American has Top MLI score with Sub Saharan Africans specific countries to the tune of 17 MILLION! This same African American sample will have an MLI score with Arabians that is twice that of these mummies average with there HIGHEST Sub Saharan group: Southern Africa. The Horn of Africa and Sahel MLI scores of the mummies top out at around 15. Compare this with this same African American MLI score with Slavic @ 11 and North Western Europeans at 13.8. Matter of fact with an MLI score 30,46,52 and 68 this African American has a genome that is twice as likely to be found in Iberian, 3 to 4 times likely to be found in Greece, and 5 times more likely to be found Mexican Mestizos than any of these mummy genomes are to be found in the Sahel or the Horn of Africa.
Lets move to Europeans and their MLI scores. This "White American" has a top match MLI score with North Western Europe at 1.4 Million. With Arabia at 5800 and a Horn of Africa MLI score of 675. Take 675 score and compare that to all the mummy scores. This European has an MLI score that is twice as likely to be found in Ethiopia than the average of all these mummies in Southern Africa.
I and probably many others don't understand the methodology in these MLI scores. Somebody could argue that each set of these figures is proportional to the set but I don't think you would agree. So would you say that these so called MLI scores DNA Tribes did on the Amarna are completely useless?
When you first look at them you are thinking that it's a percentage that everything adds up to 100 but one quickly sees that there is no total adding up to 100 at that point the only thing you notice is that SA is higher scoring than others groups. But is that totally useless information?
What is the motive behind this chart? Is it marketing to sell tests?
You look the numbers on Tut "1,519" and so on and now you are mentioning other groups with scores in the millions. At this point its seems like random widely varying numbers without context. I am starting to think this chart is entirely useless.
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
You don't understand what I wrote because you are a troll. Trolls and inherently stupid. One of those passages contained links to DNA tribes STR sample reports for African Americans and European Americans. Those numbers came from their respective reports.
From there simply compare the numbers of the contemporary humans to the ancient ones to see how rare and obscure the results are. Whatever genetic affinity that would lead to a European having a genetic profile that is likely to be found in Ethiopia NO LONGER EXISTS. The same logic applies to the finding of an African American type genome among native Iberians or Greeks. Perhaps that existed at one point....not today.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
^And I would add to that that when genetic material is too small to do detailed population affinity analysis, you're only going to be able to infer affinity at the continental level (not affinity at the population level).
As I've told lioness several thread pages ago (in this very thread), there are artifacts that come with low resolution genetic analysis. I gave examples with Sub-Saharan Africans and African Americans that reproduce some of the artefacts, indicating that the way DNA Tribes process genetic material leads to unexpected results at times. (And this is no slight to them because their reading materials tell you more than enough to come to this conclusion). Such artifacts make a literal interpretation of the results problematic. But that doesn't mean the results are willy-nilly or have no value at all.
quote:ar·ti·fact also ar·te·fact (är′tə-făkt′) n. 1. An object produced or shaped by human craft, especially a tool, weapon, or ornament of archaeological or historical interest. 2. Something viewed as a product of human conception or agency rather than an inherent element: "Morality is an artifact of human culture, devised to help us negotiate social relations" (Michael Pollan). 3. A phenomenon or feature not originally present or expected and caused by an interfering external agent, action, or process, as an unwanted feature in a microscopic specimen after fixation, in a digitally reproduced image, or in a digital audio recording. 4. An inaccurate observation, effect, or result, especially one resulting from the technology used in scientific investigation or from experimental error: The apparent pattern in the data was an artifact of the collection method.
This conversation is played out. It's a stupid conversation. The conversation keeps resurfacing because some so-called "vets" are incompetent. I'm tired of seeing the same conversations about DNA Tribes' analyses. The North African-like autosomal ancestry in Arabia, Greece, Syria and all the other regions with archaeologically proven ancient Egyptian presence probably outweighs these regions' Sub-Sahara-specific ancestry 100-1, if not more. So how could ancient Egyptian ancestry possibly be predominantly South African or Great Lakes?
You got people on this forum looking at the same papers I look at, but somehow they come to the conclusion that a literal interpretation of DNA Tribes' results somehow isn't wishful thinking.
How can you read a paper like the paper below, which tracks virtually all West/Central African population movements that have made a lasting impression on living populations in Africa, the Middle East and the Mediterranean, and come to the conclusion that Egyptians were as-is transplants from West/Central Africa?
60,000 years of interactions between Central and Eastern Africa documented by major African mitochondrial haplogroup L2 (2015) http://www.nature.com/articles/srep12526
Are these people complete looney toons, or what?
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
Looks at the MLI scores. With the two Egyptian samples they come in at 789 and 749. This is 10 to 1000 times higher than some of these mummies linking with Sub Saharan Africans....excluding King tuts high scores.
If we went with the Averages, this modern Copt's profile is 2 to 55 times more common in Modern Egypt than any of these mummies are in SSA.
Don't get mad.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
How can you read a paper like the paper below, which tracks virtually all West/Central African population movements that have made a lasting impression on living populations in Africa, the Middle East and the Mediterranean, and come to the conclusion that Egyptians were as-is transplants from West/Central Africa?
60,000 years of interactions between Central and Eastern Africa documented by major African mitochondrial haplogroup L2 (2015) http://www.nature.com/articles/srep12526
Are these people complete looney toons, or what? [/QB]
Someone could interpret it as many South/Central/West Africa are transplants from Egyptians
So just reverse the" to" and "from", that is what these people are doing
quote: STR profiles of the Amarna mummies would be most frequent in present day populations of several African regions: including the Southern African (average MLI 326.94), African Great Lakes (average MLI 323.76), and Tropical West African (average MLI 83.74) regions.
--DNA Tribes
So what is someone says the average South African has more ancient Egyptian ancestry than the average horn African
-if not the DNA Tribes report seems entirely useless to me -if not explain what of value is displayed
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Someone could interpret it as many South/Central/West Africa are transplants from Egyptians
You didn't read the paper, did you?
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: So what is someone says the average South African has more ancient Egyptian ancestry than the average horn African
DNA Tribes says the South African region as a whole has more hits with those 8 STR profiles than DNA Tribes' Sudan + Horn and North Africa regions and I'm taking their word for it. But as I've demonstrated several thread pages ago, when I do the analysis and take a relatively unmixed sample from DNA Tribes Sudan + Horn region, it turns out it has more hits with the pharaonic STR profiles than any other sample I could test, including several Sub-Saharan samples in DNA Tribes database.
This is where the artifacts I just talked about come in. Some of them are caused by the pooling of samples into DNA Tribes' broad regions (which skews the analysis because several good candidate modern Egyptian samples are pooled into DNA Tribes' Levantine region, for instance) and the low resolution of the 8 STR set genetic material:
quote:The PCA plot in Additional file 2 indicates that the whole set of SNPs in HapMap clearly separates East Asian populations CHB + CHD (Chinese) from JPT (Japanese). However, using panels of 100,000, 50,000,10,000, 1,000 and 500 rSNPs, differentiating these two populations groups becomes increasingly difficult; see e.g. the overlapping patterns of profiles in the PCAs of Additional file 2 when using 500 rSNPs. In population scenarios considering very closely related groups, the whole power of a genome-wide dataset would be needed in order to differentiate populations; e.g. see the case for European populations in Novembre et al.
^The more SNPs you have, the more you can discriminate two related samples from the same continent. Notice that the same green dot (Asian individual) can be in the red cluster in the 500 SNP test and firmly in the green cluster when you add more markers. This is because when you don't have enough markers, your matches will be at the continent level (e.g. being closely related to Asians vs Africans, etc) instead of at the population level (e.g. Teita vs Dinka, etc). When you're forced to discriminate on the continent level, it's a different ball game. What if some of the samples in that continent are NOW mixed but weren't a couple of hundred years ago? That's going to seemingly disqualify them from being closely related to the ancient Egyptians because they have preserved less of their continental African ancestry today than other samples. And this can reduce population affinity to a dubious test of which comparative samples have preserved more of their continental African ancestry. That has little to do with what you really want to know: which comparative sample is closely related to the pharaonic sample.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
^And I'm done with discussing the same DNA Tribes issues year in year out. It's only so many times you can explain the same thing without starting to feel like it's a lost cause. It's not even like there is one independent shred of evidence that can support a literal interpretation of DNA Tribes. Not even one.
Posted by Nodnarb (Member # 3735) on :
Today I would say the DNA Tribes results simply show that the tested mummies were broadly indigenous African. Notice the African regions which have the lowest MLI scores in those papers are the ones most admixed with Eurasians, which would drive their MLI affinity down. If, as Swenet says, you took a Horn or northern Sudanese population with relatively low admixture, they'd show even higher affinity with the AEs than any South or Great Lakes African population ever would. At least I think that is the case.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
^Right. Take a look at Tut's MLI score. One reason it sticks out so much with MLI scores of 1500+ and 1300+ is because he has inherited a double dose of FGA 23 AND D18S51 19 by coincidence. What does it tell you if MLI scores go through the roof relative to his parents simply because he has one extra copy whereas both of his parents have just one copy. That's inconsistent with a literal interpretation in and of itself. A child can't have more of a particular type of autosomal ancestry than its parents unless there is some artifact at work.
Secondly, in my analysis, a sample from the Sudan + Horn region has a higher frequency of FGA 23 and D18S51 19 than my other African samples from the Great Lakes and South Africa. These other African samples are not far behind, but still, it tells you that DNA Tribes' pooled regions can distort the results if you take them literally. Despite the fact that the double dose of these 2 alleles occur more in a Sudan + Horn region sample, this 'extra Africanity' expresses itself in the MLI scores as South African and Great Lakes affinity. Again, an artifact of the analysis.
As you noted, in the end it doesn't really matter where alleles occur more today because it doesn't tell you if it peaks there due to admixture with Nile Valley populations or if other regions don't have as much anymore due to admixture with non-Africans. Or some other reason. Analysis with 8 STR sets is crude and doesn't allow you to assign ancestry other than on the continental level.
At the end of the day, we're going to have to do some legwork to interpret DNA Tribes' results to understand what they mean.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ^Right. Take a look at Tut's MLI score. One reason it sticks out so much with MLI scores of 1500+ and 1300+ is because he has inherited a double dose of FGA 23 AND D18S51 19 by coincidence. What does it tell you if MLI scores go through the roof relative to his parents simply because he has one extra copy whereas both of his parents have just one copy. That's inconsistent with a literal interpretation in and of itself. A child can't have more of a particular type of autosomal ancestry than its parents unless there is some artifact at work.
Secondly, in my analysis, a sample from the Sudan + Horn region has a higher frequency of FGA 23 and D18S51 19 than my other African samples from the Great Lakes and South Africa. These other African samples are not far behind, but still, it tells you that DNA Tribes' pooled regions can distort the results if you take them literally. Despite the fact that the double dose of these 2 alleles occur more in a Sudan + Horn region sample, this 'extra Africanity' expresses itself in the MLI scores as South African and Great Lakes affinity. Again, an artifact of the analysis.
As you noted, in the end it doesn't really matter where alleles occur more today because it doesn't tell you if it peaks there due to admixture with Nile Valley populations or if other regions don't have as much anymore due to admixture with non-Africans. Or some other reason. Analysis with 8 STR sets is crude and doesn't allow you to assign ancestry other than on the continental level.
At the end of the day, we're going to have to do some legwork to interpret DNA Tribes' results to understand what they mean.
What you see on that chart is simple, the numbers for South, Central and West Africa are higher than other regions. To me if you are looking at data and can't take it literally then it's not data. DNA Tribes is a private testing company who sells tests. Their "Match Likelihood Index" is proprietary methodology. It's not peer reviewed. So after reading the above I'm ready to disregard the chart entirely.
But then you keep the thing alive by saying "At the end of the day, we're going to have to do some legwork to interpret DNA Tribes' results to understand what they mean. "
-And what about a correspondence to E1b1a ? (South African bantu-exclude khosian)
That was Rameses III group and on that basis the horn has lower frequencies of E1b1a relative to SA, CA and WA instead E1b1b is more frequent there
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: What you see on that chart is simple, the numbers for South Central and West Africa are higher than other regions.
No. What's simple is that I now sadly have to repost again what I posted several thread pages ago:
Relationships of various global samples to the Amarna 8 STR sets in descending order.
Somali sample: On average 9.01 matches with the pharaonic 8 STR set per person.
Aidama Egyptian muslim sample: On average 8.34 matches with the pharaonic 8 STR set per person.
Upper Egyptian sample: On average 8.19 matches with the pharaonic 8 STR set per person.
Namibia sample: On average 8.17 matches with the pharaonic 8 STR set per person.
Tanzania sample On average 8.07 matches with the pharaonic 8 STR set per person.
Egyptian Copt sample On average 7.99 matches with the pharaonic 8 STR set per person.
Morocco sample On average 8.07 matches with the pharaonic 8 STR set per person.
Greece sample On average 7.59 matches with the pharaonic 8 STR set per person.
Homework assignment for lioness:
Do you disagree with the relationships as outlined here? Prove me wrong. Download these samples as I did and count how often the pharaonic alleles occur in these populations. Motivate your answer.
Do you think this pattern of relationships to other samples (e.g. Somalia the closest among the available samples, followed by two modern Egyptian samples) is how Central Africans relate to the world? Motivate your answer.
Look how fragile these relationships are. The Somali sample is only marginally closer to the Amarna family than the other samples as far away as South Africa. Do you seriously think relatedness in the Amarna 8 STR isn't extremely sensitive to admixture? The Horn region has experienced admixture with Proto-Semitic speakers. Do you think that didn't affect their relationships to the pharaohs? Do you think the Iberian lineages in the Maghreb don't affect their relationships to the pharaonic samples? Motivate your answer.
Do you think the MLI score of the Aidama Egyptian sample isn't going to get dragged down and obscured when you pool it in a Levantine region as DNA Tribes has done? Motivate your answer.
A Chinese sample I used as a control has 7.11 hits with the Amarna family per person. My interpretation of this is that most of the relatedness captured by 8 STR set genetic material is NOT population affinity. Samples from all regions have the Amarna alleles at various frequencies. My interpretation of this is that 8 STR set genetic material is mostly suitable for continent level comparisons, not population level comparisons. Do you disagree? Explain why and substantiate your answer.
quote:And what about a correspondence to E1b1a?
I'm not even going to respond to that. If you read that L2 paper you would know there is room for E-V38 to be in ancient Egypt without necessitating population replacement native Egyptians with South Africans or whatever. You would also know that the link you're trying to make doesn't make sense.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
I'm dealing with the information on this chart only and how to interpret the figures on it
quote: In addition, these DNA match results in present day world regions might in part express population changes in Africa after the time of Ramesses III. In particular, DNA matches in present day populations of Southern Africa and the African Great Lakes might to some degree reflect genetic links with ancient populations (formerly living closer to New Kingdom Egypt) that have expanded southwards in the Nilotic and Bantu migrations of the past 3,000 years --DNA Tribes
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Lol. Beyoku was on to you. You want to troll. Knock yourself out.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
All I know is that you cannot make a conclusive statement on whether or not DNA Tribes Amarna table has any value or not.
You like to keep things always open ended so you can talk ad infinitum, that is your M.O.
That is why I asked beyoku these questions not you
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:That is why I asked beyoku these questions not you
What are you talking about. I stayed on the sidelines to allow Beyoku to say his piece. When Beyoku answered I talked to Beyoku and you then asked me the same question.
You have a short memory. But what else is new.
Your questions have been answered a thousand times already. The samples are pooled into DNA Tribes' regions, obscuring decent matches close to Egypt. Also, DNA Tribes' regions close to Egypt are heterogeneous, having experienced admixture. That's what contributes to the MLI scores. You just want to play dumb and troll.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
For people who are not deliberately playing dumb, see this DNA Tribes report and how they see the affinities of their North and East African STR regions:
This is how DNA tribes sees the affinities of its combined Egyptian sample:
quote:Genetic Region Estimated Contribution Levantine 57.6% North African 15.8% East African 8.8% East Asian 8.7% Arabian 8.3% Other 0.8% Table 1: Estimated genetic contributions to Egypt5
This is how DNA Tribes sees the affinities of its combined Sudanese sample:
quote:Genetic Region Estimated Contribution East African 31.6% Arabian 31.0% Levantine 29.4% Australian 5.9% Other 2.1% Table 3: Estimated genetic contributions to Sudan
This is how DNA Tribes sees the affinities of its combined Somali sample:
quote:Genetic Region Estimated Contribution East African 55.3% Arabian 23.4% Eastern India 6.2% Australian 6.1% Other 8.9% Table 4: Estimated genetic contributions to Somalia
This is how DNA Tribes sees the affinities of its combined Maghreb sample:
quote:Genetic Region Estimated Contribution Levantine 62.6% Portuguese 19.1% East African 8.2% Southern African 6.5% West African 3.6% Other 0.0% Table 7: Estimated genetic contributions to the North African genetic region.
Needless to say, these DNA Tribes regions have experienced recent admixture and can't compete with the MLI scores of Sub-Saharan regions anymore. Some individual samples in these regions still have enough remaining local ancestry to have decent matches to the Amarna family when they're not pooled.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Needless to say, these DNA Tribes regions have experienced recent admixture and can't compete with the MLI scores of Sub-Saharan regions anymore. Some individual samples in these regions still have enough remaining local ancestry to have decent matches to the Amarna family when they're not pooled.
from the above 2009 PDF link:
Somalia indicated as over 20% more East African than Sudan
Genetic Links and Language Expansions in Eastern Africa (STR and SNP) (PDF, 2,509KB)
2012
Notice West Africa component
quote:
Discussion: Results in Table 1 indicate that for both regions, the largest contribution was Tropical West African (28.4% for Horn of Africa; 55.9% for African Great Lakes). This might express contacts with West African populations migrating eastwards during the Bantu Expansion. Results also indicate Arabian contributions for both regions (27.0% for Horn of Africa; 15.8% for African Great Lakes). These genetic links might express ongoing contacts with Afro-Asiatic speaking cultures near the Red Sea, including multiple waves of Cushitic and Semitic cultures in contact with Eastern Africa since early antiquity.
A third component identified for both regions was Sahelian (16.7% for Horn of Africa; 9.4% for African Great Lakes). This might express contacts with neighboring populations of eastern and central Africa, including Nilo-Saharan speaking populations living near Sudan and Lake Chad. However, two components were not shared for these studied regions. For the Horn of Africa region, results indicated a link with the Levantine world region (23.5%) that includes populations of Egypt and the East Mediterranean. This might express links with Egyptian related cultures via the Red Sea and Nile River, such as the ancient kingdoms of Punt and Kush. For the African Great Lakes, results identified a substantial Southern African link (18.9%). This might express links with indigenous communities speaking Khoisan and isolate languages, or possibly with Bantu speaking populations that emerged in Southern Africa during the Bantu Expansion.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Yes, but do you understand why it was posted? I still don't see that aha moment in your post. Do you understand why that data is relevant in terms of why the North Africa region has a lower MLI score?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Yes, but do you understand why it was posted? I still don't see that a-ha moment in your post. Do you understand why that data is relevant in terms of why the North Africa region has a lower MLI score?
because of the bantu expansion, see additional on previous post
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
^Note that you included SNP data in your post. if you want to understand the MLI scores you have to stick to their STR articles like that 2009 article. Here is equivalent STR-specific data for Africa:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: because of the bantu expansion
Can you clarify?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ^Note that you included SNP data in your post. if you want to understand the MLI scores you have to stick to their STR articles like that 2009 article.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: because of the bantu expansion
Can you clarify?
The STRs indicate
Simple, Great Lakes has more African ancestry than the horn
quote:Originally posted by Nodnarb: Today I would say the DNA Tribes results simply show that the tested mummies were broadly indigenous African. Notice the African regions which have the lowest MLI scores in those papers are the ones most admixed with Eurasians, which would drive their MLI affinity down. If, as Swenet says, you took a Horn or northern Sudanese population with relatively low admixture, they'd show even higher affinity with the AEs than any South or Great Lakes African population ever would. At least I think that is the case.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Punctuated bursts in human male demography inferred from 1,244 worldwide Y-chromosome sequences
G David Poznik, Yali Xue, Fernando L Mendez, Thomas F Willems, Andrea Massaia, Melissa A Wilson Sayres, Qasim Ayub, Shane A McCarthy, Apurva Narechania, Seva Kashin, Yuan Chen, Ruby Banerjee, Juan L Rodriguez-Flores, Maria Cerezo, Haojing Shao, Melissa Gymrek, Ankit Malhotra, Sandra Louzada, Rob Desalle, Graham R S Ritchie, Eliza Cerveira, Tomas W Fitzgerald, Erik Garrison, Anthony Marcketta, David Mittelman et al. AffiliationsContributionsCorresponding authors Nature Genetics (2016) doi:10.1038/ng.3559 Received 08 November 2015 Accepted 01 April 2016 Published online 25 April 2016
We report the sequences of ,244 human Y chromosomes randomly ascertained from 26 worldwide populations by the 000 Genomes Project. We discovered more than 65,000 variants, including single-nucleotide variants, multiple-nucleotide variants, insertions and deletions, short tandem repeats, and copy number variants. Of these, copy number variants contribute the greatest predicted functional impact. We constructed a calibrated phylogenetic tree on the basis of binary single-nucleotide variants and projected the more complex variants onto it, estimating the number of mutations for each class. Our phylogeny shows bursts of extreme expansion in male numbers that have occurred independently among each of the five continental superpopulations examined, at times of known migrations and technological innovations.
Of the clades resulting from the four deepest branching events, all but one are exclusive to Africa, and the TMRCA of all non-African lineages (that is, the TMRCA of haplogroups DE and CF) is ~76,000 years (Fig. 1, Supplementary Figs. 18 and 19, Supplementary Table 10, and Supplementary Note). We saw a notable increase in the number of lineages outside Africa ~50–55 kya, perhaps reflecting the geographical expansion and differentiation of Eurasian popula- tions as they settled the vast expanse of these continents. Consistent with previous proposals a parsimonious interpretation of the phylogeny is that the predominant African haplogroup, haplogroup E, arose outside the continent. This model of geographical segregation within the CT clade requires just one continental haplogroup exchange (E to Africa), rather than three (D, C, and F out of Africa). Furthermore, the timing of this putative return to Africa—between the emergence of haplogroup E and its differentiation within Africa by 58 kya—is consistent with proposals, based on non–Y chro- mosome data, of abundant gene flow between Africa and nearby regions of Asia 50–80 kya15.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Simple, Great Lakes has more African ancestry than the horn
Yes. Go on. You're close.
If MLI scores are an indication of how frequent pharaonic alleles occur in DNA Tribes' regions, what is going to happen to the MLI scores of regions that have lost, say, ~10-60% of their native alleles?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Simple, Great Lakes has more African ancestry than the horn
Yes. Go on. You're close.
If MLI scores are an indication of how frequent pharaonic alleles occur in DNA Tribes' regions, what is going to happen to he MLI scores of those regions that have lost, say, ~10-60% of their native alleles?
they could get fuked up by it
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Why is that 28.4% blue West Africa component in the above horn Chart?
quote: This might express contacts with West African populations migrating eastwards during the Bantu Expansion.
--DNA Tribes
So is it possible that the bantu expansion is a substrate of Egyptian civilization?
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Why is that 28.4% blue West Africa component in the above horn Chart?
Read what that the text says on that same picture. They say they are treating the Horn region like a so-called 'unknown'. But then again, you think that all data should be taken literally, so you probably missed that.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: they could get fuked up by it
You already know the answer. So then the next question is: do DNA Tribes' results have any bearing on whether, say, Nguni speaking groups from South Africa are more related to ancient Egyptians than to ancient groups closer to the Egyptian borders?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Why is that 28.4% blue West Africa component in the above horn Chart?
Read what that the text says on that same picture. They say they are treating the Horn region like a so-called 'unknown'. But then again, you think that all data should be taken literally, so you probably missed that.
quote:they could get fuked up by it
You already know the answer. So then the next question is: do DNA Tribes' results have any bearing on whether, say, Nguni speaking groups from South Africa are more related to ancient Egyptians than to ancient groups closer to the Egyptian borders?
they only went into that specificity with the SNPs
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: they only went into that specificity with the SNPs
Really?
figure 2: genetic contributions to the Horn of Africa and African Great Lakes regions (STR), excluding local contributions from either of these two studied regions. —DNA Tribes
^What do you think it means when they say "excluding local contributions". That you should take their percentages literally?
Also, do DNA Tribes' MLI scores have any bearing on whether, say, Nguni speaking groups from South Africa are more related to the Amarna family than some of the ancestors of the people in DNA Tribes' Sudan + Horn region and Maghreb regions?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
when we are dealing with data it's all literal
figurative use is the realm of poetry
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Stop playing dumb lioness. You was on the right track when you recently criticized someone when you said that you can't always take cranio-facial relationships literally.
Maybe I should retract the props I was giving you for that. Because you're making the same mistake.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: [QB] Stop playing dumb lioness. You was on the right track when you recently criticized someone when you said that you can't always take cranio-facial relationships literally.
I have a reasonable request. Show me the quote of me saying that, I don't recall saying that
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Craniometric measurements on Paleoamerican skulls cannot prove mixture of with Khoisan and pygmies
or ANY mixture
There is overlapping similarities in the morphology between many populations but it is wrong to say that represents" mixing"
There are literally overlapping similarities in the morphology between many populations so it is wrong to say that Craniometric measurements of the forest people deep in the Amazon " show the mixture of Paleoamericans, Khoisan and pgymies with recent mongoloids" (as Clyde claimed)
A plum and an orange are both literally round but are still two different fruits. Overlapping attributes don't mean that they attributes aren't literal. If you sat plums are round and that oranges are not plums so they are not literally round. That's wrong the assumption that the attribute was limited to only a certain fruit was wrong.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: your use of the word "literally" is misleading
"literally" does not mean "on face value"
"Literally" means "actual"
There are literally overlapping similarities in the morphology between many populations so it is wrong to say that Craniometric measurements of the forest people deep in the Amazon " show the mixture of Paleoamericans, Khoisan and pgymies with recent mongoloids" (as Clyde claimed)
A plum and an orange are both literally round but are still two different fruits. Overlapping attributes don't mean that they attributes aren't literal. If you sat plums are round and that oranges are not plums so they are not literally round. That's wrong the assumption that the attribute was limited to only a certain fruit was wrong.
Bottom line, the Adaima sample is thoroughly admixed and it still performs reasonably well. (And I say "reasonably" even though it was one of the best available samples because I think there is a lot more room for better matches and MLI scores as Beyoku pointed out. The MLI scores are all in the low hundreds as opposed to the thousands or even millions). In DNA Tribes analysis this EXACT same Adaima sample is pooled into DNA Tribes' Levantine region. You've been told this over and over but you just want to play dumb and act like this doesn't affect DNA Tribes MLI picture. You just want to pretend that this doesn't obscure good matches close by.
Another bottom line: if more STR markers were added, it would never come down to who has preserved more of their continental ancestry. But that's a limitation of a low marker set. Until that is resolved you will keep getting funny MLI scores, like the MLI scores that depict African Americans as being more related to mainland Africans than fellow African Americans or the MLI scores that depict the Amarna family as unrelated to DNA Tribes regions close by. Again, you've been told how the MLI scores work. You just don't want to listen.
But don't blame me and say I "like to keep things open ended". My hypotheses about Egyptian DNA are very clearly laid out and if I'm wrong they will all be falsified in the coming years when Egyptian aDNA comes out. Nothing "open-ended" about it.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote: In the Punic burial grounds, negroid remains were not rare and there were black auxiliaries in the Carthaginian army who were certainly not Nilotics. Furthermore, if we are to believe Diodorus(XX, 57.5), a lieutenant of Agathocles in northern Tuninisa at the close of the fourth century before our era overcame a people who skin was similar to the Ethiopian'. There is much evidence of the presence of 'Ethiopians' on the southern borders of Africa Minor. Throughout the classical period, mention is also made of peoples belonging to intermediate races, the Melano-Getules, or Leuco-Ethiopians in particular in Ptolemy.
General History of Africa: Ancient civilizations of Africa By G. Mokhtar, Unesco. International Scientific Committee for the Drafting of a General History of Africa p. 427
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Swenet, check out this 2010 throwback thread, see my last word on page 3
I still did not expect this thread to get a wopping 34 page. I did not expect this thread to even have this much of a serious discussion...
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
So give us the round up, when to use black and when not to
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote: Originally posted by Nodnarb: Today I would say the DNA Tribes results simply show that the tested mummies were broadly indigenous African. Notice the African regions which have the lowest MLI scores in those papers are the ones most admixed with Eurasians, which would drive their MLI affinity down. If, as Swenet says, you took a Horn or northern Sudanese population with relatively low admixture, they'd show even higher affinity with the AEs than any South or Great Lakes African population ever would. At least I think that is the case.
Isn't this the simple solution Swenet ? The average person of the modern day horn is more mixed by relatively recent admixture with Eurasians compared to SA, CA, WA ? But if you had the right more isolated sub population in sudan/horn they might score higher than SA, CA, WA ?
Look at all the confusion DNA Tribes has produced by being too broad
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Isn't this the simple solution Swenet ? The average person of the modern day horn is more mixed by relatively recent admixture with Eurasians compared to SA, CA, WA ? But if you had the right more isolated sub population in sudan/horn they might score higher than SA, CA, WA ?
I've corresponded several times with Nodnarb on this subject in private. I'm in agreement with him. What you just quoted is the simplest answer for those who don't want a comprehensive answer.
Someone could ask why the Sahel region has the same average score as the Horn region (average MLI score of 14), with not as much Eurasian admixture as the Horn. Also, why is the North Africa region almost at the bottom with an MLI score of 4.14? That's even below some of the Eurasian samples. More explanations are needed to fully account for DNA Tribes' results and I think what I've said goes a long way.
West/Central Africa has Nile Valley haplogroups and Egypt has Niger-Congo-like haplogroups (again, see that L2 paper and compare with modern Egyptian L2 versions, especially the modern Egyptian versions of L2 that are in a Sudanese and Mediterranean subcluster to ensure you're not looking at post dynastic Egyptian L2). You asked me why this isn't consistent with a literal interpretation of DNA Tribes. Well, L2 doesn't seem to arrive in the Nile Valley before ~10.000 years ago. This is at odds with the skeletal evidence because people who look like predynastic Egyptians can already be found in the region before that. Also, modern Egyptian L2 is generally shared with regional samples (e.g. Sudan) so you have to ask yourself if it can explain a literal interpretation of DNA Tribes. If you're going to argue 'yes' then you have to explain why the Sudan-Horn region scores poorly.
Related to the same issue is the Maghreb which has much more West/Central African ancestry than the Horn at ~15%. But you can see how small the North African region's MLI score is at 4. If West/Central African ancestry in the Amarna family is what explains the MLI scores (as some here are saying) the West/Central African ancestry in Maghrebis is not helping them at all since their MLI score is worse that some Eurasians.
So you have to balance everything and come to a reasonable conclusion. And whatever conclusion you arrive at, it must be supported it by the downloadable STR genotype information of the various African and Eurasian samples.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
The FB crew still bsing and trying to spin the STR profile of the Amarnas away from what it is. "Anything but what it is".
no longer are they close to Horners, they lost that battle, then native Americans, nope, now....Copts
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
you just wont give it up.....can you?
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
You're the one who is making it into what it isn't. We have ancient genomes with with Egyptian ancestry in them and they don't have a heightened level of Sub-Saharan ancestry other than a subtle barely noticeable increase. Sorry bro. Things just haven't been working out for you. You've been taking L after L with every sequenced neolithic and Bronze Age genome. Stop embarrassing yourself.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Bronze Age Armenian RISE423 carries Egyptian ancestry as attested by its paternal haplogroup E1b1b1b2a1a (L795) which he inherited from Pre-Proto-Semitic speakers. Stereotypical African ancestry (i.e. West/Central African) is purple and Saharan ancestry can't be detected at that level. Saharan ancestry is in the yellow component along with Eurasian ancestry. Source: Allentoft et al 2015. Watch how Xyyman is going to make dumb excuses or simply ignore my post. SMH.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
"L after L"...haven't been reading other forums have you? Posters are catching on. "can't fool all the people all the time".
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
"pre-proto-semetic speakers". Did you come up with that yourself? SMH.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: So give us the round up, when to use black and when not to
Odd question for someone who claims to be an African American black woman.lol
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
^This was based on MODERN Armenian DNA. Based on modern Armenian DNA they inferred Sub-Saharan admixture with Mesopotamians 6000 years ago. A couple of months after this publication actual Bronze Age Armenians were sequenced (see Allentoft et al 2015). They had Sub-Saharan ancestry alright. About 3% or whatever that little purple component amounts to. And that's with actual ancient Egyptian ancestry among them.
But note how he keeps skirting around his Ls. Just take your Ls like a man and keep it moving.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: I still did not expect this thread to get a wopping 34 page. I did not expect this thread to even have this much of a serious discussion...
It's basically about nothing. It has degraded to, I think this fat and this is skinny. I think this is beautiful and this is ugly.
A discussion that doesn't pertain Ancient Greece, Rome etc...
Posted by tropicals redacted (Member # 21621) on :
BBHorus sez:
quote: I still did not expect this thread to get a wopping 34 page. I did not expect this thread to even have this much of a serious discussion...
Neither did I, mate!
I've tried reading this thread from page 1, and some of the nonsense is incredible. Of course, Swenet makes a significant contribution. In reply to DougM's assertion that racism was still a problem in terms of how academics handled the population affinities of the ancient Egyptians, Swenet said:
quote: 11/12/2016 ^That's the same attitude I've had for years, until I got the chance to see some of these professors' private emails and saw my own assumptions about them fall apart of front of my eyes. Flip flops, incompetence and inconsistencies, yes, but placing the blame squarely on racism? That's a hefty accusation.
To be clear to anyone not apprised of this, those e-mails he refers to are the responses I received from academics that I shared with him. Anyway, let's see what he said toward the end of the time that he was privy to the correspondence:
An Egyptologist had replied:
quote: April 17 2014 “People sometimes write books or organise exhibitions about 'black' Pharaohs. But the same people would never dare write about traditional Chinese culture under the heading 'Yellow Emperors'; and 'Red' Indians are now 'Native North Americans'. Even 'black' Americans are becoming 'Afro-Americans'. Best wishes:
Swenet, after reading the response, replied:
quote: April 20 2014
I misunderstood his comment. I thought his angle was to criticise the oft-expressed "black pharaoh" thing in reference to Nubians or a minority of Egyptian kings, where the tacit implication is that a black identity and an authentically ancient Egyptian identity are mutually exclusive. If that's what he was trying to say--that black in this context is offensive on par with yellow or red--that's indeed a very strange thing to say. Who exactly would feel discomfort with the use of black in reference to Ancient Egyptians? Certainly not the Afram community. He's projecting his own psychological discomfort with the term! Refer to ancient rulers as red and yellow and you may get backlash from Native Americans and East Asian communities. Refer to Egyptian kings as black and you upset racists who feel discomfort with allocating advanced societies to black people. He's literally window dressing his own discomfort with black as looking out for the interests of black people in the area of racial sensitivities. This is projecting of the highest order. He's not only being racist but, by putting black on par with truly offensive terms, he's framing the situation as if he's looking out for our interests. I think you've hit a sensitive spot; African is okay, just don't say black.”
It's said with a certain conviction, but it's hard to tell now the above all bullshit, or whether he was being sincere. I still don't fully understand this: "African is okay, just don't say black.” Was this irony, or was Swenet actually suggesting that I ditch "black" so as not to offend the sensibilities of an Egyptologist?
Whichever it was, Swenet, after his apparent disgruntlement and ensuing 180, would now have us believe that the criticisms made on this board and elsewhere of certain academic disciplines, are imaginary.
Whenever I come by this forum, and see Swenet making claims inconsistent with past utterances, then if I have any information that highlights his BS, I'll be certain to post it.
Posted by tropicals redacted (Member # 21621) on :
Lol! The lying pig is back. All the times I've thrashed him on this forum and exposed his lies speak for themselves. He's already posted the above and he got a reply, but he somehow thinks if he spams that April 20 statement enough there will be a different outcome.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
This is what the lying pig leaves out. When I realized how he was using the term 'black' in a way I disagree with, I told him to change his use. Around the same time I learned I was much more in agreement with Kemp's views than I realized. The lying pig is simply spamming my criticisms of Kemp from BEFORE I had all the pieces of the puzzle to judge his positions. This is no secret. This lying pig KNOWS THIS. He's deliberately leaving out a point later in the conversation when I got more familiar with Kemp's views. This happened over time. The lying pig knows this. In fact, when I got a better overview of where Kemp and I differed in our views re: ancient Egypt, I told the liar that he needed to CHANGE his use of 'black'. This is what the lying pig said when I told him he needed to adapt his use of 'black':
31-5-2014 12:11
quote:I wasn't going to adapt the term 'black' because that lies at the crux of the debate.
And note how he's now trying to make it seem like I never had a critical note with 'black'. The lying pig is trying to spam my past uses of 'black' but my use of the term is nothing like his use of the term.
I'm loving this. I hope he keeps proving how psychotic and senile he is. SMH at this psychotic 50 year old bum.. SMH. I feel sorry for his daughters.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Why doesn't the lying pig tell the forum how I lost interest in his weak gossipy crap. After I got a better understanding of his opponents' views and I saw his lack of results because of his mindless actions, I told his dumbass I wasn't convinced he had much of value in terms of "exposing" academics and he almost started crying. I told him this in MAY 2014. Note that those statements he's posting BEFORE I understood Kemp fully date to APRIL 2014.
Now he's trying to take things I said from BEFORE that to make some sort of perverted case that I'm contradicting myself. Towards the end of my conversation with him I thought he didn't have sh!t to "expose" anyone. At best I thought it had some examples of bias for internal consumption as opposed to something that's worthy of pursuing seriously. I told the lying pig this to his face and he has records of that conversation. So how am I contradicting myself?
Why doesn't the lying pig post that instead of posting statements that I moved away from later? Because he's a lying pig. That's why.
Where is the contradiction? The lying pig is going to have to post from what I said in MAY 2014. MAY 2014, lying pig. STOP LYING.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: That's the same attitude I've had for years, until I got the chance to see some of these professors' private emails and saw my own assumptions about them fall apart of front of my eyes. Flip flops, incompetence and inconsistencies, yes, but placing the blame squarely on racism? That's a hefty accusation.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Here is an example of what happened in MAY 2014 that contributed to my change in views in regards to Kemp. I'm reluctant to post Kemp's conversation but the lying pig is forcing my hand. I don't take claims questioning my honesty lightly. Especially not when it comes from a known pathological liar. A 50 year old bum who has no life. What 50 year old man spends his time emailing academics and secretly recording and publishing petty conversations, like sneaky snitch.
27-5-2014 9:38
quote:"it is, in my opinion, a mistaken question. The people of Africa show the greatest variety in physical characteristics of any region in the world, a consequence of Africa being the evolutionary origin of humanity. To lump them all together to create a single type, labelled Black Africans (presumably in contrast to White Europeans and Brown Middle Easterners) is to invent a myth. With pygmies at one end of the spectrum and Masai at the other, and Berbers, Zulus and T'Kung Bushmen somewhere in between, the range of bodily variation within Africa must be greater than exists between several of the major non-African groups. The term 'Black Africans' works at the level of popular culture, but is not scientific. Regards
Before this, Kemp never really got the chance to fully clarify his views in this area. Obviously, I don't disagree with this, AT ALL. When I read this Kemp email I immediately told the lying pig to ADAPT his use of 'black' based on this NEW information of Kemp's views. The lying pig refused to follow my advice and continued to try to race bait Kemp to get him to say 'black' against his will.
At that point there were still some minor disagreements between Kemp and me but as far as the MAIN point of contention, I was more in agreement on this issue with Kemp at this point than the pathological liar. And I still am today.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: The FB crew still bsing and trying to spin the STR profile of the Amarnas away from what it is. "Anything but what it is".
no longer are they close to Horners, they lost that battle, then native Americans, nope, now....Copts
Swenet, aren't you saying that the ancient Egyptians are closer to horners compared to South, Central and West Africans?
Isn't xyyman misunderstanding that you are criticizing DNA Tribes presentation of horners and all of their so called "match likelihood" is not on par with peer reviewed methods?
-but instead that the FB's are repping the more traditional but still recent Egyptology view that the AEs are more probably related to select more isolated populations of sudan/horn/nilotic/beja (aka let us start using the term East Africans in relation to the AEs) than to these other more far off counter-intuitive regions?
It's a no brainer. Ancient Egyptians will be more similar to select nearby sub populations than to South Africans. Tukuler dismissed the DNA Tribes proprietary methodology early on.
Therefore peer reviewed research other than DNA Tribes suggest the ancient Egyptian are closer to East Africans than they are to South and West Africans -and "Central Africans" can overlap
E-V38 aka E1b1a = East African origin = Rameses III
Not E1b1b
_________________________
And the "black" term issue is a separate matter
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
Therefore peer reviewed research other than DNA Tribes suggest the ancient Egyptian are closer to East Africans than they are to South and West Africans -and "Central Africans" can overlap
Sure. No credible long term poster on ES that I know has ever denied AEs are closer to the Africans of East Africa than to say more distant West Africans. Just the language links itself show closer relations to nearby cultures. No surprise there.,
A problem arises with hypocritical Eurocentrics or Eurocentric supporters, who attempt to deAfricanize AEs by spinning West Africans as a "true" type, and by insinuating AEs can't be "true" Africans in invidious comparison to the West African "true" type strawmen. We all know the hypocritical Eurocentric game. They do not go around similarly defining a "true" white, nor de-Europeanize Greeks for the darker shade of some or the African DNA markers that they carry. Nor do they demand that northern Europeans should not not be interested in, or celebrate Southern Europeans.
To the contrary, they valorize, indeed almost worship Greece and Rome. All is well if northern Europeans are involved. But when it comes to Africa, then the hypocrites change their tune. People of West African descent are supposed to "confine" themselves to their "proper place" - an apartheid-like zone of thought that is limited to "your own people" in West Africa. Meanwhile the Eurocentric hypocrites themselves are the biggest appropriators of things Egyptian- from art, to symbols on their money- even to consuming the dead flesh of Egyptian mummies.
^^These are some of the same people presuming to lecture black folk on "appropriating" things Egyptian..
Just language links themselves
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Am I missing something. Please, what GENETIC study(s) places Amarnas closer to "East Africans" than West or South or Great Lakes Africans, put up or shut up.
Maybe I didn't get the memo. educate me!!!
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
@lioness
I think Xyyman is a bit confused. "Native American"? I have no idea what he's talking about.
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Maybe I didn't get the memo. educate me!!!
Of course you got the memo. I made sure of it. Right here:
in Brace's study does not invalidate IN ANY WAY its results.
It's quite simple really. If East Africans were included in the study, then perhaps (although we don't know!) it would turn out that Egyptians would be closer to East Africans than to Europeans. That would not change the relative distances of Egyptians from West Africans and Europeans though! Europeans would still be closer to Egyptians than West Africans are.
It's like saying that the distance between Boston and NYC is less than the distance between Minneapolis and NYC. If we also included New Jersey, then it'd be even closer to NYC, but that wouldn't change the relative distances of NYC from Boston and Minneapolis would it?
an interesting Dienekes Pontikos quote from 2003
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Am I missing something. Please, what GENETIC study(s) places Amarnas closer to "East Africans" than West or South or Great Lakes Africans, put up or shut up.
Maybe I didn't get the memo. educate me!!!
xyyman would not have asked this question had not a private testing company with no peer review wrote an article with a chart derived from their proprietary methodology ("MLI")
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Can you people stop bsing. stop it!!! :D :D
stop making claims you can NOT prove. DNATribes is the only such report to make a comprehensive comparison. shut your mouth if you don't know what you are talking about. yes you!
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Can you people stop bsing. stop it!!!
stop making claims you can NOT prove. DNATribes is the only such report to make a comprehensive comparison. shut your mouth if you don't know what you are talking about. yes you!
Rameses III was E1b1a
where does that originate?
sorry to hurt feelings
hint: first letter "E"
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
I am going to say this one more time. Put up or shut up. You cannot con me. youngster.
At one time the argument was the close affinity the Amarnas were to Native Americans,
But, that is different discussion. That thread you cited has no relevance to your claim. I see through your BS. Why? The AEians mtDNA haplogroup was never disclosed.
Now, can you stop it.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: @lioness
I think Xyyman is a bit confused. "Native American"? I have no idea what he's talking about.
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Maybe I didn't get the memo. educate me!!!
Of course you got the memo. I made sure of it. Right here:
MODERN!!!!! Horner Africans. But yes, E1b1a has East African origins......5-11kya
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Can you people stop bsing. stop it!!! :D :D
stop making claims you can NOT prove. DNATribes is the only such report to make a comprehensive comparison. shut your mouth if you don't know what you are talking about. yes you!
Rameses III was E1b1a
where does that originate?
sorry to hurt feelings
hint: first letter "E"
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
If you're so confident that DNA Tribes' 'South Africa' or 'Great Lakes' results are valid, why do you dismiss Popaffiliator as valid software? Why don't you download the samples and prove DNA Tribes is correct?
quote:The AEians mtDNA haplogroup was never disclosed.
Who is talking about AE mtDNAs? I wasn't talking about mtDNAs.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Rameses III was E1b1a
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Am I missing something. Please, what GENETIC study(s) places Amarnas closer to "East Africans" than West or South or Great Lakes Africans, put up or shut up.
Maybe I didn't get the memo. educate me!!!
Revisiting the harem conspiracy and death of Ramesses III: anthropological, forensic, radiological, and genetic study Hawass, Zink
/close xyyman
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
yeah! yeah! I repeat. stop the red herring thing, and show me a genetic study that concludes AEians are closest to Horners. ANYONE!!!!!!!!
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: If you're so confident that DNA Tribes' 'South Africa' or 'Great Lakes' results are so valid, why do you dismiss Popaffiliator as valid software?
quote:The AEians mtDNA haplogroup was never disclosed.
Who is talking about AE mtDNAs? I wasn't talking about mtDNAs.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
For someone with a yes-man devotion to DNA Tribes, you sure have little confidence in your ability to verify their results.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
YOU GOT ME THERE. :rolleyes: wink wink. apples vs apples
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Rameses III was E1b1a
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Am I missing something. Please, what GENETIC study(s) places Amarnas closer to "East Africans" than West or South or Great Lakes Africans, put up or shut up.
Maybe I didn't get the memo. educate me!!!
Revisiting the harem conspiracy and death of Ramesses III: anthropological, forensic, radiological, and genetic study Hawass, Zink
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: [QB] yeah! yeah! I repeat. stop the red herring thing, and show me a genetic study that concludes AEians are closest to Horners. ANYONE!!!!!!!!
add Sudan to horners
But it's true E1b1a is highest in West Africa, obviously evidence of pre-bantu expansion
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
that's right. you are welcome. carry on with the "when to use black". but I get your point on when to use black. word of advice Kalonji, stop the bsing.
oH! I am reading the Allentoft paper now.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: For someone with a yes-man devotion to DNA Tribes, you sure have little confidence in verifying their results.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
cant prove it so move the goal post!? that's right needle me on supposed Bantu Expansion. you do realize E1b1a could not have come from the West with Bantus to AE? why? timeline! the timeline fits the reverse. proto- AEians migrating West. yes. I made that "proto AEians" up. lol. touch of Swenet. making shyte up.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: [QB] yeah! yeah! I repeat. stop the red herring thing, and show me a genetic study that concludes AEians are closest to Horners. ANYONE!!!!!!!!
add Sudan to horners
But it's true E1b1a is highest in West Africa, obviously evidence of pre-bantu expansion
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Remember when I put 'dummy' values to make up for the missing values a couple of thread pages ago. I consistently got a 'North Africa' assignment for Amarna family members. The reaction here was that I was 'manipulating' the results.
When I go back and put real African American values to make up for the missing values, I get the same predominantly North African result for Amenhotep III (although this time the SSA likelihood is higher IIRC).
Now what?
EDIT When I complete the form with the rest of the African American data:
So now you know why Xyyman avoids popaffiliator. Scared shitless.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: [QB] cant prove it so move the goal post!? that's right needle me on supposed Bantu Expansion. you do realize E1b1a could not have come from the West with Bantus to AE? why? timeline! the timeline fits the reverse.
yes but pre-bantu migrations of an opposite direction to West Africa are not a problem when later, during the bantu expansion the bantu moved back across and down Africa toward the East and South.
xyyman there are migration patterns of peoples inside Africa. If you have a phobia of the word "expansion" just use the word "migration"
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: [qb] Remember when I put 'dummy' values to make up for the missing values a couple of thread pages ago. I consistently got a 'North Africa' assignment for Amarna family members. The reaction here was that I was 'manipulating' the results.
When I go back and put real African American values to make up for the missing values, I get the same predominantly North African result for Amenhotep III (although this time the SSA likelihood is higher IIRC).
So was it all a marketing scam to get AAs to buy testing kits?
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: [qb] Remember when I put 'dummy' values to make up for the missing values a couple of thread pages ago. I consistently got a 'North Africa' assignment for Amarna family members. The reaction here was that I was 'manipulating' the results.
When I go back and put real African American values to make up for the missing values, I get the same predominantly North African result for Amenhotep III (although this time the SSA likelihood is higher IIRC).
So was it all a marketing scam to get AAs to buy testing kits?
I know African American women, who did tests/ bought kits via different companies. And received different outcomes.
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: [qb] Remember when I put 'dummy' values to make up for the missing values a couple of thread pages ago. I consistently got a 'North Africa' assignment for Amarna family members. The reaction here was that I was 'manipulating' the results.
When I go back and put real African American values to make up for the missing values, I get the same predominantly North African result for Amenhotep III (although this time the SSA likelihood is higher IIRC).
So was it all a marketing scam to get AAs to buy testing kits?
I know African American women, who did tests/ bought kits via different companies. And received different outcomes.
Different test give different results. This is to be expected based on SNP count, STR count, reference samples and costumer base.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: [qb] Remember when I put 'dummy' values to make up for the missing values a couple of thread pages ago. I consistently got a 'North Africa' assignment for Amarna family members. The reaction here was that I was 'manipulating' the results.
When I go back and put real African American values to make up for the missing values, I get the same predominantly North African result for Amenhotep III (although this time the SSA likelihood is higher IIRC).
So was it all a marketing scam to get AAs to buy testing kits?
I know African American women, who did tests/ bought kits via different companies. And received different outcomes.
Different test give different results. This is to be expected based on SNP count, STR count, reference samples and costumer base.
I understand that different type of tests give different results. How about differ companies who provide an autosomal test. Why and how should it be different?
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
For the record. On Allentoft et al 2015. I read so many of those papers that they all run together. That happens when you are approaching 39. Lol!!! Ok youngster I forgot I already read that paper and posted on it before. First off I am not sure what is the relevance on why you cited that paper. It has nothing to do with my thread on Armenians. As usual Swenet BSing. Pretending to be something he is not. I see through you con young man.
Second. Re-reading the paper of course there are new insights. Let us put the Steppes Yamnaya to bed once and for all. We already know that the Yamnaya are NOT related to modern West European males as is falsely believed on the racialist blog. Yamnaya are NOT on the R-L11 branch on R1b. There are similar, yes, but modern European males are NOT a subset of the Yamnaya males. It is all internet folklore and BS on the racialist sites. Third, in Allentoft et al ****Fig 4 *****has a summary that is very revealing and put that nonsense to bed. The Bronze Age Steppes males had Black eyes and Black hair. They were NOT blondes with blue eyes. Also the Bronze Age Europeans were already depigmented. The Bronze Age Steppes males were clearly DARKER than Bronze age Europeans, so, no, the Steppes males did NOT enter Europe and they were of darker complexion, with black eyes and black hair. Infact the chart clearly shows that the Neolihtic introduced light skin to Europe as I stated a thousand times.
So please would you people shut it…..
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: For the record. On Allentoft et al 2015. I read so many of those papers that they all run together. That happens when you are approaching 39. Lol!!! Ok youngster I forgot I already read that paper and posted on it before. First off I am not sure what is the relevance on why you cited that paper. It has nothing to do with my thread on Armenians. As usual Swenet BSing. Pretending to be something he is not. I see through you con young man.
Second. Re-reading the paper of course there are new insights. Let us put the Steppes Yamnaya to bed once and for all. We already know that the Yamnaya are NOT related to modern West European males as is falsely believed on the racialist blog. Yamnaya are NOT on the R-L11 branch on R1b. There are similar, yes, but modern European males are NOT a subset of the Yamnaya males. It is all internet folklore and BS on the racialist sites. Third, in Allentoft et al ****Fig 4 *****has a summary that is very revealing and put that nonsense to bed. The Bronze Age Steppes males had Black eyes and Black hair. They were NOT blondes with blue eyes. Also the Bronze Age Europeans were already depigmented. The Bronze Age Steppes males were clearly DARKER than Bronze age Europeans, so, no, the Steppes males did NOT enter Europe and they were of darker complexion, with black eyes and black hair. Infact the chart clearly shows that the Neolihtic introduced light skin to Europe as I stated a thousand times.
So please would you people shut it…..
So then what population has the right sub clade of R1b to be the ancestors of modern Europeans?
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: For the record. On Allentoft et al 2015. I read so many of those papers that they all run together. That happens when you are approaching 39. Lol!!! Ok youngster I forgot I already read that paper and posted on it before. First off I am not sure what is the relevance on why you cited that paper. It has nothing to do with my thread on Armenians. As usual Swenet BSing. Pretending to be something he is not. I see through you con young man.
Second. Re-reading the paper of course there are new insights. Let us put the Steppes Yamnaya to bed once and for all. We already know that the Yamnaya are NOT related to modern West European males as is falsely believed on the racialist blog. Yamnaya are NOT on the R-L11 branch on R1b. There are similar, yes, but modern European males are NOT a subset of the Yamnaya males. It is all internet folklore and BS on the racialist sites. Third, in Allentoft et al ****Fig 4 *****has a summary that is very revealing and put that nonsense to bed. The Bronze Age Steppes males had Black eyes and Black hair. They were NOT blondes with blue eyes. Also the Bronze Age Europeans were already depigmented. The Bronze Age Steppes males were clearly DARKER than Bronze age Europeans, so, no, the Steppes males did NOT enter Europe and they were of darker complexion, with black eyes and black hair. Infact the chart clearly shows that the Neolihtic introduced light skin to Europe as I stated a thousand times.
So please would you people shut it…..
Ok gramps. But can you please comment on the abundance of Great Lakes and South Africa ancestry in Bronze Age Armenian RISE423 with ancient Egyptian haplogroup E-M34(L795)?
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Hammer et al points to Iran or the near East. But in his study the R1bM269 from North Africa was NOT included which would have resolved that issue as to the origin of European male line.
But more telling is Busby et al. He made it clear there was ***no*** East-West cline and provided data. But stated there is no South to North cline...but did NOT provide data.
"without data you are just another person with an opinion"
the jury is still out....
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: For the record. On Allentoft et al 2015. I read so many of those papers that they all run together. That happens when you are approaching 39. Lol!!! Ok youngster I forgot I already read that paper and posted on it before. First off I am not sure what is the relevance on why you cited that paper. It has nothing to do with my thread on Armenians. As usual Swenet BSing. Pretending to be something he is not. I see through you con young man.
Second. Re-reading the paper of course there are new insights. Let us put the Steppes Yamnaya to bed once and for all. We already know that the Yamnaya are NOT related to modern West European males as is falsely believed on the racialist blog. Yamnaya are NOT on the R-L11 branch on R1b. There are similar, yes, but modern European males are NOT a subset of the Yamnaya males. It is all internet folklore and BS on the racialist sites. Third, in Allentoft et al ****Fig 4 *****has a summary that is very revealing and put that nonsense to bed. The Bronze Age Steppes males had Black eyes and Black hair. They were NOT blondes with blue eyes. Also the Bronze Age Europeans were already depigmented. The Bronze Age Steppes males were clearly DARKER than Bronze age Europeans, so, no, the Steppes males did NOT enter Europe and they were of darker complexion, with black eyes and black hair. Infact the chart clearly shows that the Neolihtic introduced light skin to Europe as I stated a thousand times.
So please would you people shut it…..
So then what population has the right sub clade of R1b to be the ancestors of modern Europeans?
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
I am still waiting on genetic proof that AEians are closer to Horners than West Africans/Great Lakes/South Africans. Chirp! Chip! from the “older vets”.
Posted by Punos_Rey (Member # 21929) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Am I missing something. Please, what GENETIC study(s) places Amarnas closer to "East Africans" than West or South or Great Lakes Africans, put up or shut up.
Maybe I didn't get the memo. educate me!!!
Would this really be surprising/controversial considering the geographic proximity xyyman?
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
That's all you're about, gramps. Hit and run. I post my interpretation of DNA Tribes. You say I'm "spinning". I provide evidence that I'm not and Xyyman decides he doesn't want it with me after all.
When you're ready to let go of your yes-man devotion to DNA Tribes, you can elaborate on the "abundance" of Great Lakes and South Africa ancestry in this Neolithic Iberian with ancient Egyptian paternal ancestry (E1b1b1a1b V13). I see a decent probability for North African ancestry, but that's about it according to popaffiliator. But maybe you can help me out, here.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
@ P-Rey. That is exactly my point. There are so many unexplained things. Who would of thought West Africans will be 3rd in the pecking order. Even Over modern North Africans/Levantines. We have FACTS and we have FICTION. Ie “make believe”.
Amarnas are closely related to SSA furthermore they carry E1b1a which has highest frequency in SSA. So the STR matches the Haplogroup ………so far. There is no fuirther debate unless more data is obtained but as it stand right now. There is no further discussion.
The question now is…what happened in the last 2-3k years!!!!!
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
...
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
On the AEians/Horners…chirp! Chirp!. I thought so! When I post sit back and take notes! I am out. Carry on with “when to use black” didn’t mean to derail the thread. When there is BS and falsehood I will step in. :D
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
This is what cognitive dissonance looks like. Gramps can't seem to make up his mind about whether he wants to run or call me out for "spinning".
But where is the abundance of blue Yoruba-like ancestry in the early Greek and Anatolian samples. You know, the same samples that everyone on this forum agreed were partly descended from migrants from the NIle Valley. Gramps?
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
See you have been following my work. You know when I posted the above chart was “when I called it’. Check mate! End of debate who the Neolithics were.
Now as to “Yoruba-blue”. Good question! Did you come up with that by yourself or was it a collaborative effort by the FB crew? I will give you a few minutes to let you figure it out the answer yourself then I will step in….tic! tic!
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: This is what cognitive dissonance looks like. Gramps can't seem to make up his mind about whether he wants to run or call me out for "spinning".
But where is the abundance of blue Yoruba-like ancestry in the early Greek and Anatolian samples. You know, the same samples that everyone on this forum agreed were partly descended from migrants from ancient Egypt. Gramps?
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
So, gramps. Explain to my why it's the ancestry that Cusitic and Ethio-Cushitic speakers share with North Africans that allows you to create a 'heat map' that correlates with ancient Egyptian ancestry in Syrio-Palestine, Anatolia and Greece. Can you create such a heatmap and simulate the migration of ancient Egyptians using Great Lakes or South African ancestry? Please clarify gramps. Shine your light on me.
And no, I don't agree with Pagani et al's conclusion that that's non-African ancestry.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
In fact you know what? I will let the newbies have first dibs on answering the question. Let them have first crack at it.
Hint; did they show the complete genome of Yorubans? Remember Lazaridis et al. “cannot disentangle Bedouins/Yorubans” in EEF/Basal Eurasian. Tic! Tic! Toc! Anyone? But good question Swenet ,…now you are thinking.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: In fact you know what? I will let the newbies have first dibs on answering the question.
Translation:
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: That's all you're about, gramps. Hit and run. I post my interpretation of DNA Tribes. You say I'm "spinning". I provide evidence that I'm not and Xyyman decides he doesn't want it with me after all.
When you're ready to let go of your yes-man devotion to DNA Tribes, you can elaborate on the "abundance" of Great Lakes and South Africa ancestry in this Neolithic Iberian with ancient Egyptian paternal ancestry (E1b1b1a1b V13). I see a decent probability for North African ancestry, but that's about it according to popaffiliator. But maybe you can help me out, here.
From what I remember E-V13 was a mutation in West Asia. And is barely found in North Africa, with a decline in Southern Egypt.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
You were given it yet again just s few days ago (Thuya's MiniFiler CODIS subset profile) and you again dogmatically refused to acknowledge it, less lone accept it, because you lack the skill and talent to do what I and one other challenged you to do -- run the damn data yourself and see by working proof what the facts are not what you cherish and believe.
Nobody don't got no time for games.
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: I am still waiting on genetic proof that AEians are closer to Horners than West Africans/Great Lakes/South Africans. Chirp! Chip! from the “older vets”.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
come on man. we went over this already. I made it clear that Horners carry similar markers like all other Africans including Amarnas. The rubber hits the road in "exclusivity". ie markers found ONLY between Amarnas and OTHER African populations.
We are going in circles
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
You are a breying ass aren't you? Arguing against a full forensic match not just individual alleles but the exact same allele pairs.
You're incompetent and dismissed because you pooh pooh anything that destroys your a priori beliefs.
Swedes haes the Shorty marker. Does that make them closer to Pygmies than they are to other Scandinavians?
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Come on Sage. Get off the “proprietary” band wagon. What DNATribes is doing is not rocket science. Anyone with a computer and a database of world populations can do what they are doing. What do you think popafflaitor is? All they are doing is taking matching STRs/SNPs from world populations and grouping them together on the world map. They are constantly updating their database and the geopolitical map. They started off with typical Eurocentric labels but notice they have evolved. You should also. If we don’t grow ……we rot. To answer Swenet question he doesn’t realize that popAfflliator has LARGE groups/classification(SSA/North Africa) rather than significant smaller(tribes) classification like DNATribes. Yes, DNATribes have it down to the actual tribes rather than generic “SSA”. What the clown do not understand or will not acknowledge is that FTDNA also classify ALL of these STRs(Amarnas) as significantly African. Is FTDNA cheating also? Using proprietary algorithms? Lol! SMH. Why do I bother? You people!!!
So BOTH DNAConsultants and DNATribes are wrong? SMH
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Look it JR I started the proprietary bandwagon
Neither those profiteering companies data is vetted where they have it from paying customers, no checks in place to eliminate relatives or assure ethnicity in the least and Consultants is really a big joke throwing anti-scienve phraseology around to wow potential suckers er um uh customers
Stop talking **** I did the hard work by hand for myself using popSTR and actual studies/reports cited by Swenet aand Beyoku for Upper Egypt Sudan and Somalia. It overturned results I got years ago and I accepted the results because I'm not a zealous dogmatic ideolog pushing a subject tive agenda who thinks he's aalways right and wants a dollar to pat his own back
You got game but this ain't demogogics.
You got no data and this is about the forensics
I couldn't give a good **** for your gobbledygook.
Do some hard work like me and present it here otherwise shut the **** up
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
What are the implications of Ramesses III belonging to Y-Haplogroup E1b1a?
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
the answer is below. Because Berbers and San are older thus has closer link to Native Americans, It is all falling into place like a puzzle.
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: [] Poznik et al 2016 Understand what I am saying. Most modern SSA are E1b1a.(not including San-120ky, Pygmy-90ky and Berbers-35ky) Many Asians are O*@~40ky. So yes. Asian lineage is older than most modern Africans. Other recent studies have confirmed E1b1a and R1b-M269-L11 is relatively young. ~6kyo and ~4kyo respectively. Berber lineage are much much older E-M35-M81. Poznik et al wasn't the only study that confirmed that. It all makes sense. That E1b1a was the new emerging dominant species in Africa occupying the Nile and spreading to West Africa morphing and displacing older Africa populations. When aDNA explodes in West Africa. Do NOT expect to find E1b1a amongst the remains. They are new to West Africa because the Bantu Expansion NEVER occurred. [/QB]
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: In fact you know what? I will let the newbies have first dibs on answering the question.
Translation:
[
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Nice try gramps. Try again. Why is there no abundance of Great Lakes and South African ancestry in early Greek and Anatolian farmers who are KNOWN to carry ancient Egyptian ancestry?
quote:Against this background of disease, movement and pedomorphic reduction of body size (Table 2, 3) one can identify Negroid (Ethiopic or Bushmanoid?) traits of nose and prognathism appearing in Natufian latest hunters (McCown, 1939) and in Anatolian and Macedonian first farmers (Angel, 1972), probably from Nubia (Anderson, 1969) via the unknown predecessors of Badarians (Morant, 1935) and Tasians . . . .
—Angel 1972
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
WTF Are you talking about? what Anatolian or Greek carrying AEian ancestry? did you make that up again? yes, EEF were Negroid we all know that. But what does that have to do with AEian ancestry. your information is all jumbled up in your head. put the goddamn bong down. come up for fresh air.
the ONLY TWO RELEASED genetic study has AEians aligning with SSA. you know something I don't?
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Nice try gramps. Try again. Why is there no abundance of Great Lakes and South African ancestry in early Greek and Anatolian farmers who are KNOWN to carry ancient Egyptian ancestry?
quote:Against this background of disease, movement and pedomorphic reduction of body size (Table 2, 3) one can identify Negroid (Ethiopic or Bushmanoid?) traits of nose and prognathism appearing in Natufian latest hunters (McCown, 1939) and in Anatolian and Macedonian first farmers (Angel, 1972), probably from Nubia (Anderson, 1969) via the unknown predecessors of Badarians (Morant, 1935) and Tasians . . . .
—Angel 1972
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
That's that cognitive dissonance talking again. Gramps is fuming right now.
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: But what does that have to do with AEian ancestry.
Uhm. You mean other than the fact that E-M78 so far is second in line as far as consistency among early EEF Y-DNA that is unambiguously NOT of regional hunter gatherer origin? Bronze Age Armenian RISE423 also has EEF-like ancestry, along with Y DNA E-M34. Where do you think E-M78 and E-M34 come from? South Africa? Jupiter?
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
:rolleyes:
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote: Indeed, Gobekli Tepe sits at the northern edge of the Fertile Crescent—an arc of mild climate and arable land from the Persian Gulf to present-day Lebanon, Israel, Jordan and Egypt—and would have attracted hunter-gatherers from Africa and the Levant.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Nice try gramps. Try again. Why is there no abundance of Great Lakes and South African ancestry in early Greek and Anatolian farmers who are KNOWN to carry ancient Egyptian ancestry?
quote:Against this background of disease, movement and pedomorphic reduction of body size (Table 2, 3) one can identify Negroid (Ethiopic or Bushmanoid?) traits of nose and prognathism appearing in Natufian latest hunters (McCown, 1939) and in Anatolian and Macedonian first farmers (Angel, 1972), probably from Nubia (Anderson, 1969) via the unknown predecessors of Badarians (Morant, 1935) and Tasians . . . .
—Angel 1972
Swenet, do you have more info on Natufian industries and assemblage.
quote:Ofer Bar-Yosef cites the microburin technique and “microlithic forms such as arched backed bladelets and La Mouillah points" as well as the parthenocarpic figs found in Natufian territory originated in the Sudan.
--Bar-Yosef O., Pleistocene connections between Africa and South West Asia: an archaeological perspective. The African Archaeological Review; Chapter 5, pg 29-38; Kislev ME, Hartmann A, Bar-Yosef O, Early domesticated fig in the Jordan Valley. Nature 312:1372–1374.
quote:Christopher Ehret noted that the intensive use of plants among the Natufians was first found in Africa, as a precursor to the development of farming in the Fertile Crescent.
--Ehret (2002) The Civilizations of Africa: A History to 1800. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia
quote:The Natufians existed in the Mediterranean region of the Levant 15,000 to 11,500 years ago. Dr. Grosman suggests this grave could point to ideological shifts that took place due to the transition to agriculture in the region at that time.
Building on and refining stone tool typologies from North Africa,21,22 the foundation for EP research in the Levant was provided by O. Bar-Yosef23 in his seminal work identifying and defining EP cultures of the southern Levant based on these tools and other site features.
[...]
Early models of culture change associated with pre-agricultural societies of the Levant focused on the sudden, late origin of settled farming villages triggered by climate change. Accompanying this new economic and living situation was durable stone-built architecture; intensified plant and animal use; a flourishing of art and decoration; new mortuary traditions, including marked graves and cemeteries; elaborate ritual and symbolic behavior— a new way of life. This new life style arguably had a slow start, but really took off during the Epipaleolithic period (EP), spanning more than 10,000 years of Levantine prehistory from c. 23,000-11,500 cal BP. The last EP phase, immediately preceding the Neolithic, is by far the best-studied in terms of its cultural and economic contributions to questions on the origins of agriculture.
[...]
Figure 2 presents globally and locally recognized climatic events from 23,000 to 11,500 cal BP and the approximate dates for major EP phases.
[...]
In 2000, McBrearty and Brooks provided compelling evidence that the origin of modern human behavior was not an Upper Palaeolithic revolution, as it has often been interpreted, but that the components of modern human behavior developed over tens or even hundreds of thousands of years of prehistory within Africa.14 In the Near East, Gordon Childe coined the term ‘‘Neolithic revolution’’ to refer to the development of human control over the reproduction and evolution of plants and animals,111 which arguably was the single most significant social, cultural, and biological transition since the origin of our species.
--LISA A. MAHER, TOBIAS RICHTER, AND JAY T. STOCK
Evolutionary Anthropology 21:69–81 (2012)
The Pre-Natufian Epipaleolithic: Long-Term Behavioral Trends in the Levant
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: This is what cognitive dissonance looks like. Gramps can't seem to make up his mind about whether he wants to run or call me out for "spinning".
But where is the abundance of blue Yoruba-like ancestry in the early Greek and Anatolian samples. You know, the same samples that everyone on this forum agreed were partly descended from migrants from the NIle Valley. Gramps?
According to Yoruba history they left the Sudan in the Predynastic age.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
Posted by Fabbeyond @ (Member # 22299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Examining STRs not SNPs 8 of the CODIS Core STRs used precisely because they point out ethnic and geographic affinity.
Numerous articles report efficacy of certain locus values and allele values as markers. No pioneering on my part there.
And the below was posted in evidence of allele discrimination power
Can you refresh that image it's not showing
Posted by Nodnarb (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Thanks to lioness' pic (which captures a good deal of UP European cranio-facial variation) I can convey the point I've been making throughout this thread, better.
UP Europeans (left) and holocene Nile Valley Africans (right)
^Based on eyeballing, the African one in the middle (in the right hand pic) shows a good degree of general resemblance to two of the UP European ones. The two other African ones also show resemblances to the UP Europeans, but more in isolated parts of their faces, mandibles and neurocrania. In the ancestors of these North Africans the relationships would be even more obvious.
Note how, every time I bring this up, Doug keeps skirting around the fact that these two sets would show a lot of general overlap to the exclusion of most Sub-Saharan populations when subjected to PCA.
Doug also keeps skirting around the fact that this EMPIRICAL FACT plays a role in Eurocentric appropriation. Doug is simply lying at this point and trying to keep his self-victimization narrative from getting blown to smithereens.
I know I am responding to an old post, but while I understand the general point you are making about the Saharan relationship to OOAs, don't OOA populations also include East Asians, Australasians, Melanesians, and other populations not generally considered "Caucasoid"? I don't know if ancestral Saharans would necessarily be biologically closer to UP Europeans than those other OOAs. Any special affinity between Saharans and "Caucasoids" that's not present in other OOAs must have come after the UP via "Basal Eurasian".
Again, I get what you are saying about Saharan affinities vis-a-vis OOA. But I wonder why you chose to single out UP Europeans for your comparison when they're not the only OOAs that descend from Saharans.
EDIT: Never mind, I see you were referencing a picture lioness posted, which made me think you simply picked what was handy in the thread to make your point. Who knows, maybe you would have used East Asian or Melanesian crania if she had posted those instead.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
East Asia, South Asia and Oceania had MSA OOA people still roaming there. That's why some of their UP remains have more affinity with MP Levant skeletal remains in some analyses than UP skeletal remains in West Eurasia do. This is the main reason why MRT took hold in the first place. You got all these UP skeletal remains and lithics east of the Iranian plateau that show more continuity with preceding groups than is the case in UP West Eurasia, where you can clearly see new groups arriving on the scene alongside Neanderthals and other archaic humans.
Posted by Nodnarb (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: East Asia, South Asia and Oceania had MSA OOA people still roaming there. That's why some of their remains have more affinity with MP Levant skeletal remains in some analyses than skeletal remains in West Eurasia do. This is the main reason why MRT took hold in the first place. You got all these UP skeletal remains and lithics east of the Iranian Plateau that show more continuity with preceding groups than is the case in UP West Eurasia, where you can clearly see new groups arriving on the scene alongside Neanderthals.
I see. Thanks for clearing that up.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Remember this rope tugging? They don't understand that they're both right. Pre-Toba modern humans are MSA OOA people, post Toba modern humans are UP (and LSA) OOA people.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Remember this rope tugging? They don't understand that they're both right. Pre-Toba modern humans are MSA OOA people, post Toba modern humans are UP (and LSA) OOA people.
Wait, wait, I am confused again. Are you saying East Asians, Oceanians etc. are descended from MSA OOAs whereas West Eurasians are sourced from later UP/LSA migrants? Because this post seems to be saying that while there were MSA people who had migrated from Africa pre-Toba, all OOAs today are descended from post-Toba.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
What part of the article says that all modern people descend from post-Toba, even in the younger theory? The way I see it, the article mentions two competing theories; they are mutually exclusive. They don't converge when it comes to placing the origin of living humans in post-Toba migrants in the region. Exponents of the younger theory downplay the importance of these new UP arrivals or even deny the migration of new UP people.
#1 "In 2005, Professor Martin Richards from the University of Huddersfield led research which used mitochondrial DNA evidence to show that anatomically modern humans dispersed from their Africa homeland via a ‘southern coastal route’ from the Horn and through Arabia, about 60,000 years ago – after the Toba eruption.
There were people in India before the Toba eruption, because there are stone tools there, but they could have been Neanderthals – or some other pre-modern population.”
#2 "However, archaeologists excavating in India then claimed to have found evidence that modern humans were there before the eruption – possibly as early as 120,000 years ago, much earlier than Europe or the Near East were colonized. These findings, based on the discovery of stone tools below a layer of Toba ash, were published in 2007."
Without the DNA of people like the Nubian complex and seemingly related MSA people further east, we don't know how much of their DNA was inherited by living humans in this region. We also don't know how much they differed from us in their autosomal ancestry.
When I said that western Eurasian UP skeletal remains as a whole seem better representatives of the first African UP OOA people I was strictly talking about AMHs, not living humans. As shown by Oase I, surprises in the DNA (and therefore, skeletal morphology) of UP individuals don't have to have implications for the living people in the same region. Some of AMHs in Australia clearly do look more like Qafzeh people and both of these differ noticeably from typical UP West Eurasians, like, say, Cro Magnon I or Mladec 5. That's why I, for instance, wouldn't use UP Australians in a picture comparison to illustrate that point I was making.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
I posted something, but nvr mind. See my uploads n posts on this subject on the FB group for more info.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nodnarb:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Remember this rope tugging? They don't understand that they're both right. Pre-Toba modern humans are MSA OOA people, post Toba modern humans are UP (and LSA) OOA people.
Wait, wait, I am confused again. Are you saying East Asians, Oceanians etc. are descended from MSA OOAs whereas West Eurasians are sourced from later UP/LSA migrants? Because this post seems to be saying that while there were MSA people who had migrated from Africa pre-Toba, all OOAs today are descended from post-Toba.
You have (re-)read this.
Jibril Hirbo, Sara Tishkoff et al.
The Episode of Genetic Drift Defining the Migration of Humans out of Africa Is Derived from a Large East African Population Size
PLoS One. 2014; 9(5): e97674. Published online 2014 May 20. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0097674
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: What part of the article says that all modern people descend from post-Toba, even in the younger theory? The way I see it, the article mentions two competing theories; they are mutually exclusive. They don't converge when it comes to placing the origin of living humans in post-Toba migrants in the region. Exponents of the younger theory downplay the importance of these new UP arrivals or even deny the migration of new UP people.
#1 "In 2005, Professor Martin Richards from the University of Huddersfield led research which used mitochondrial DNA evidence to show that anatomically modern humans dispersed from their Africa homeland via a ‘southern coastal route’ from the Horn and through Arabia, about 60,000 years ago – after the Toba eruption.
There were people in India before the Toba eruption, because there are stone tools there, but they could have been Neanderthals – or some other pre-modern population.”
#2 "However, archaeologists excavating in India then claimed to have found evidence that modern humans were there before the eruption – possibly as early as 120,000 years ago, much earlier than Europe or the Near East were colonized. These findings, based on the discovery of stone tools below a layer of Toba ash, were published in 2007."
Without the DNA of people like the Nubian complex and seemingly related MSA people further east, we don't know how much of their DNA was inherited by living humans in this region. We also don't know how much they differed from us in their autosomal ancestry.
When I said that western Eurasian UP skeletal remains as a whole seem better representatives of the first African UP OOA people I was strictly talking about AMHs, not living humans. As shown by Oase I, surprises in the DNA (and therefore, skeletal morphology) of UP individuals don't have to have implications for the living people in the same region. Some of AMHs in Australia clearly do look more like Qafzeh people and both of these differ noticeably from typical UP West Eurasians, like, say, Cro Magnon I or Mladec 5. That's why I, for instance, wouldn't use UP Australians in a picture comparison to illustrate that point I was making.
I thought that the younger theory, as paraphrased by that article, was claiming all modern OOAs are descended from a post-Toba migration out of Africa, and that the 120kya people weren't really AMHs or at least not significant in the ancestry of modern inhabitants of these regions.
But I get what you mean about the UP Europeans. Speaking of which, where would you say the modern suite of physical features (not counting skin pigmentation this time) associated with "Caucasoids" originated? Do you think the "Basal Eurasian" Saharans had anything to do with it, or would you trace its origin somewhere in Western Eurasia itself?
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
That's a good question. Because many Mesolithic Europeans would have looked 'ethnic' as some Europeans put it (see for instance Cheddar Man or Moca see link see link here). Even Coon admits that some later UP Europeans look like Amerindians. So, they start out looking like generalized and robust predynastic Egypto-Nubians and start to change in what can be called a 'Polynesian' or 'Amerindian' direction. Or at least some late UP Europeans do. So based on this you can already tell that if Europe would have remained isolated like Australia, they probably wouldn't have had the 'European' look as it exists today.
Ideally, people should refer to such derived OOA regional developments as 'Caucasian'. Because anything ancestral to that and you're going back in the (North) African direction and later than this and you get more African ancestry into Europe in the form of early farming colonists. These derived European types are the indigenous Europeans in my way of seeing things. It's when Europeans had reached their peak in terms of looking distinctive (compared to their OOA ancestors) as a result of evolutionary developments on European soil.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: [QB] That's a good question. Because many Mesolithic Europeans would have looked 'ethnic' as some Europeans put it (see for instance Cheddar Man or Moca see link see link here). Even Coon admits that some later UP Europeans look like Amerindians.
Forgot to mention Loschbour, one of the best examples of this because we actually have his DNA. Therefore, we can tell that this 'ethnic' look I'm speaking of was the evolutionary direction some European groups were heading in and not brought in from outside of Europe. Compare Loschbour to the images of 'ideal Caucasian skulls' touted by Nazi Germany and other white supremacist publications which contrasted this morphotype with the 'ideal negro'. The irony...
It would be interesting to see where a sample made up of Moča, Loschbour, Cheddar Man, Chancelade etc. would fit in PCA. I bet they wouldn't cluster far from aforementioned groups in the Pacific.
Posted by Nodnarb (Member # 3735) on :
Another question...
You've mentioned that dynastic Lower Egyptians, as per Irish and Keita, would have been physically more heterogeneous than their Upper Egyptian counterparts, almost like ancient Maghrebis. I do think some of this could represent greater Eurasian ancestry like you see in extant Horn Africans (and certainly very late dynastic Egyptians were admixed), but another factor that occurred to me is "Basal Eurasian".
Presumably these dynastic Lower Egyptians shared common descent with the "Basal Eurasian" people who contributed to Neolithic Eurasian ancestry, even more so than people down in Upper Egypt. So maybe some of the "European" or "intermediate" physiognomies in dynastic Lower Egypt might be partly descended from the immediate common ancestors of "Basal Eurasian"? To be sure, this would require the assumption that Upper Egyptians always looked slightly different from the northerners, either due to gradation between them and Nubia/Sudan or due to native diversity among Eastern Saharans. Am I making sense here?
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
There are clues about the main source of this heterogeneity in Zakrzewski 2002. I probably uploaded the paper to the FB group. If not, let me know and I'll send it to you.
Sonia Zakrzewski (2002), Exploring Migration and Population Boundaries in Ancient Egypt: A Craniometric Case Study.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Why is recommended to use caucasian but verboten to use black? SimonSez.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Why is recommended to use caucasian but verboten to use black? SimonSez.
Because of a double standard.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Why is recommended to use caucasian but verboten to use black? SimonSez.
because Negroid and Mongoloid are the similar type of terms, assuming "Caucasian" is acceptable
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Why is recommended to use caucasian but verboten to use black? SimonSez.
because Negroid and Mongoloid are the similar type of terms, assuming "Caucasian" is acceptable
Nobody was mentioning "oid", until you popped up.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Glyde uses "oid' all over the place, has no problems with it, but If you prefer to leave it out and "Caucasian" is acceptable to you then use "Caucasian, Negro, Mongol"
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Glyde uses "oid' all over the place, has no problems with it, but If you prefer to leave it out and "Caucasian" is acceptable to you then use "Caucasian, Negro, Mongol"
So, now you take Clyde as credible?
Now you claim that Tukuler used it here? lol
Tukuler used the word BLACK. Negro is Spanish for black.
The word Caucasian deals with a region called the caucasus. Best for black/ negro is to use Ethiopian or Moor.
Αἰθίοψ , οπος, ὁ, fem. Αἰθιοπίς , ίδος, ἡ （Αἰθίοψ as fem., A.Fr.328, 329): pl.
A. “Αἰθιοπῆες” Il.1.423, whence nom. “Αἰθιοπεύς” Call.Del.208: (αἴθω, ὄψ):—properly, Burnt-face, i.e. Ethiopian, negro, Hom., etc.; prov., Αἰθίοπα σμήχειν 'to wash a blackamoor white', Luc.Ind. 28.
2. a fish, Agatharch.109.
II. Adj., Ethiopian, “Αἰθιοπὶς γλῶσσα” Hdt.3.19; “γῆ” A.Fr.300, E.Fr.228.4: Subst. Αἰθιοπίς, ἡ, title of Epic poem in the Homeric cycle; also name of a plant, silver sage, Salvia argentea, Dsc.4.104:— also Αἰθιόπιος , α, ον, E.Fr.349: Αἰθιοπικός , ή, όν, Hdt., etc.; Αἰ. κύμινον, = ἄμι, Hp.Morb.3.17, Dsc. 3.62:—Subst. Αἰθιοπία , ἡ, Hdt., etc. 2. red-brown, AP7.196 (Mel.), cf. Ach. Tat.4.5.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
Tukuler used the word BLACK. Negro is Spanish for black. [/QB]
why did he use the word black?
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
Tukuler used the word BLACK. Negro is Spanish for black.
why did he use the word black?
I know you are retarded, but this is TOO MUCH!
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Why is recommended to use caucasian but verboten to use black? SimonSez.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
why would he use the term "black" that is a color in relation to the word "Caucasian" which does not solely mean "white" ?
Do you understand that the two terms are not similar enough in type?
Stop being stupid, thanks
I have noticed you don't understand lot of nuances in discussions. You miss a lot of important details, To cover this up you do tons of copy and paste
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: why would he use the term "black" that is a color in relation to the word "Caucasian" which does not solely mean "white" ?
Do you understand that the two terms are not similar enough in type?
Stop being stupid, thanks
I have noticed you don't understand lot of nuances in discussions. You miss a lot of important details, To cover this up you do tons of copy and paste
Caucasian in essence did (and does) refer to being white, yep. Stop being stupid.
I have noticed in discussions that you're not a black person, but a subliminal racist who lies a lot. When tons of copy and paste material is giving you the L, left and right, you cry out loud then go into sarcasm again, as a response, typical for a comedian. I have also noticed about you, when people ask you for nuances, you can't response respond, except for the sarcasm that is. Take AL-Jahiz in this thread for example. lol
You are so dumb that you can't grasp that the word negro means black. IT IS A COLOR YOU AS YOU SAID, YOU LOON! "OID" gives it a supposed scientific connotation. lol
Here are the nuances, you love to gloss over:
Αἰθίοψ , οπος, ὁ, fem. Αἰθιοπίς , ίδος, ἡ （Αἰθίοψ as fem., A.Fr.328, 329): pl.
A. “Αἰθιοπῆες” Il.1.423, whence nom. “Αἰθιοπεύς” Call.Del.208: (αἴθω, ὄψ):—properly, Burnt-face, i.e. Ethiopian, negro, Hom., etc.; prov., Αἰθίοπα σμήχειν 'to wash a blackamoor white', Luc.Ind. 28.
2. a fish, Agatharch.109.
II. Adj., Ethiopian, “Αἰθιοπὶς γλῶσσα” Hdt.3.19; “γῆ” A.Fr.300, E.Fr.228.4: Subst. Αἰθιοπίς, ἡ, title of Epic poem in the Homeric cycle; also name of a plant, silver sage, Salvia argentea, Dsc.4.104:— also Αἰθιόπιος , α, ον, E.Fr.349: Αἰθιοπικός , ή, όν, Hdt., etc.; Αἰ. κύμινον, = ἄμι, Hp.Morb.3.17, Dsc. 3.62:—Subst. Αἰθιοπία , ἡ, Hdt., etc. 2. red-brown, AP7.196 (Mel.), cf. Ach. Tat.4.5.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Do you understand that the two terms are not similar enough in type?
So? As if Caucasian and Negro have similar sounding patterns. lol You dumb phuck. Then you cry out loud when people call you albino. And rant how you're going to kill people as a response to that? Perhaps you should change it into albinoid vs negroid. In nuances these have closer connotations.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: You miss a lot of important details, ...
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: Caucasian in essence did (and does) refer to being white, yep.
Multi millions of Asians have skin as light as so called "white" people. Yet they are not classified as "Caucasian" so again, stop being incredibly stupid
thanks, lioness
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: Caucasian in essence did (and does) refer to being white, yep.
Multi millions of Asians have skin as light as so called "white" people. Yet they are not classified as "Caucasian" so again, stop being incredibly stupid
thanks, lioness
More derailing, when you have no credible argument. LOL
quote:chiefly North American A white person; a person of European origin:
2A person from the Caucasus: the Caucasians of Southern Russia
Usage
In the racial classification developed by 19th-century anthropologists, Caucasian (or Caucasoid) included peoples whose skin colour ranged from light (in northern Europe) to dark (in parts of North Africa and India). Although the classification is outdated and the categories are now not generally accepted as scientific (see Mongoloid (usage)), the term Caucasian has acquired a more restricted meaning. It is now used, especially in the US, as a synonym for ‘white or of European origin’, as in the police are looking for a Caucasian male in his forties.
He delineated three races: Caucasians, Ethiopians, and Mongolians.
They are being called "yellow/ Orientals/ Mongolians ". lol
quote:In their earliest encounters with Asia, Europeans almost uniformly characterized the people of China and Japan as white. This was a means of describing their wealth and sophistication, their willingness to trade with the West, and their presumed capacity to become Christianized. But by the end of the seventeenth century the category of whiteness was reserved for Europeans only. When and how did Asians become "yellow" in the Western imagination? Looking at the history of racial thinking, Becoming Yellow explores the notion of yellowness and shows that this label originated not in early travel texts or objective descriptions, but in the eighteenth- and nineteenth-century scientific discourses on race.
It was you how made light into white, not me. Stop being stupid. LOL
Thanks. You lose again. And you will never win.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Jackass, you know nothing about anthropology. "Caucasian" in anthropology does not soley mean "very light skinned" It also involves morphology and geography. You are stupid as hell
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Jackass, you know nothing about anthropology. "Caucasian" in anthropology does not soley mean "very light skinned" It also involves morphology and geography. You are stupid as hell
LOL Expose your nazi theory, please go ahead. LOL "It also involves morphology and geography. "
Until you can prove that all these regions had the exact same morphology and metrical, you have no argument.
Perhaps you meant "biological or physical anthropology", anthropology itself is a field with many subcategories. Not too fond for someone who calls others stupid as hell. lol
You seem obsessed over this caca thing, especially for a "black American woman"
quote:
The fundamental subject matter of physical (or biological) anthropology is an interest in, and an exploration of, human origins and human variation. This interest dates back to antiquity, but professional writing on such topics might be said to have begun with the Enlightenment of the eighteenth century.
The Enlightenment was also a time when the concept of ‘race’ was formalized and various racial classification systems were proposed (Brace 2005: 22ff.). ‘Race’ as a typological characterization of human variation was to become a dominant theme in physical anthropology until the mid-twentieth century. Classification, an elemental building block of all sciences, was first conducted for humans by the great Swedish taxonomist Carl von Linné (also known as Linnaeus) (1707–78).
[...]
These analyses have also shown that to compartmentalize human variation into discrete groups called “races” is incorrect (Caspari, Chapter 6). While biological anthropologists have long recognized that biological variation in humans cannot be categorized, the race concept is alive and well, both in the public sphere and in various areas of scientific investigation.
[...]
Biological anthropologists have been especially sensitive to the issue of “race” (see Caspari, Chapter 6). They are well aware of the public perceptions of the social dimensions of race, and they address this issue and the focus on the identification of ancestry. While the term “race” is not always appropriate, forensic anthropologists have contrib- uted to understanding the underlying biological variation for ancestral identification. New methods are providing important tools for the identification of geographical origins, for instance stable isotope analysis and inferences drawn about the origins of the food and water ingested by the deceased (see this application in Chapter 21).
[...]
In the latter half of the nineteenth century, physical anthropology was dominated by studies of anatomy, craniology, skeletal biology, human origins, and race. Most of the physical anthropologists were trained as physicians or anatomists, and their primary data were gathered by anthropometric and osteometric measurements and morphological observations. There was little interest in evolution; races or human varieties were seen as fixed and unchanging; typological approaches were applied to concepts of race; studies seldom applied scientific methods of hypothesis testing; and knowledge of the impact of the environment on humans was limited. Much of the scientific activity during this period was taking place in Europe, particularly in England, France, and Germany. Charles R. Darwin’s (1809–82) publication of the Origin of Species in 1859 and his ideas about evolution brought about changes within the community of ethnologists and physical anthropologists.
The National Socialist Period (1933–45), which saw the rise of Adolf Hitler and Nazism, was, of course, marked by an obsession with ‘race’ and racial purity as well as by its own atrocities.
--Bradley A. Levinson (Editor), Mica Pollock (Editor)
This is from 2012, the same year the liar Carlos Oliver Coke started approaching me for help in my PM inbox.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ^That is because most of them probably have Horner (and 'Zanj') ancestry. There have been mtDNA studies where Yemeni's cluster with Horners before they cluster with other Eurasians. Arabian Vedda populations are a good example of indigenous black Arabs that don't owe their blackness to African admixture. There are undoubtedly other dark skinned Arabian populations whose dark skin predates African admixture, but good luck proving it without genetic analysis
Notice that my past use of black was in reference to skin pigmentation and referenced groups irrespective of 'race'. It has nothing to do with creating a kumbaya my lord by the campfire 'we are family' racial club including the Obamas and Colin Powells of the world while disowning Maghrebis with roughly the same amount of African ancestry. So, again, we see that Carlos Oliver Coke is a liar when he claims:
"B-b-but y-you and Djehuti also used black in the past. B-b-but when I do it, you pick on me"
Yeah, I used it. But as you very well know, being the big fat liar that you are, it had nothing to do with your racialized and politically motivated use of the term. To the best of my ability, I've always tried to stay away from the narrow layman use and other uses of the term (though I acknowledge that they exist). And it's because of lying looney toons like you, among other reasons, that I stopped using it.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Bump in relation to the latest example of gramps being reduced to a dupe.
Shout outs to the people who do their homework beforehand and who know that Mallick et al 2016 can't be completely accurate for various reasons.
When academics disagree or when there is uncertainty, you can always see whether self-styled bs-detecting experts (i.e. xyyman) know what they're talking about because they support the wrong side.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: East Asia, South Asia and Oceania had MSA OOA people still roaming there. That's why some of their UP remains have more affinity with MP Levant skeletal remains in some analyses than UP skeletal remains in West Eurasia do. This is the main reason why MRT took hold in the first place. You got all these UP skeletal remains and lithics east of the Iranian plateau that show more continuity with preceding groups than is the case in UP West Eurasia, where you can clearly see new groups arriving on the scene alongside Neanderthals and other archaic humans.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Bump for someone.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
And no, I don't agree with Pagani et al's conclusion that that's non-African ancestry. [/QB]
This is a good visualization of what I just said. Note that the Fst values drop along the path of Europe's farming colonists for the so-called non-African ancestry only (see fig 3B). In other words, the Fst values don't drop in Syrio-Palestine, Turkey and the Aegean with the so-called African + so-called non-African ancestry in the Ethiopian genomes because this ancestry is less like the Africans that out migrated and joined with the Natufians.
So, what we see here is evidence of an outmigration of Africans whose main African component has nothing to do with SSA ancestry. ALTHOUGH, they would have had a degree of SSA ancestry in addition to this main component that is painted REDDISH in figure 3B.
Also, some SSA populations today might have this component to a degree. But as you can see in the study in question (Pagani et al 2012) and others, this ancestry is not common in SSA. It still exists in the Sahara, though, although it's nowadays mixed with the same ancestry from descendants of EEF from Europe. So, not all 'Basal Eurasian' in Africa is pure and it's not always easy to identify how much of it is African (meaning: never left Africa) and how much of is due to back migration by descendants of EEF and related Middle Eastern groups.
As has been recently noted, there were several distinct 'metapopulations' in the Sahara. But the clearly related regional eastern Saharan populations who suddenly start to pop up in a lot of sites during the mid-holocene (which includes the Badarians, Naqadans, Tenereans and other related groups) mainly had this ancestry in my way of seeing things. They might have had other ancestry components that they picked up in the Sahara, but, again, in my view, this shared ancestry was the common denominator.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
And for those who think that the so-called non-African Ethiopian component in fig 3B peaks in Syria-Palestine because this ancestry is non-African as maintained by Pagani et al, think again.
Out of the used samples in Pagani et al 2012, this component has the most affinity with Egyptians. Modern Egyptian ancestry definitely doesn't typify unmixed Eurasian ancestry. Not even close. How could it when, as we now know (see Lazaridis et al 2014), Europeans don't even qualify as pure Eurasians.
So, if you're going to offer different explanations than what I just offered for the ancestry that is captured in fig 3B, your explanation has to be consistent with its affinities. And my observation that there is a proportion of African ancestry in that so-called non-African component is consistent with its affinities.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: This is from 2012, the same year the liar Carlos Oliver Coke started approaching me for help in my PM inbox.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ^That is because most of them probably have Horner (and 'Zanj') ancestry. There have been mtDNA studies where Yemeni's cluster with Horners before they cluster with other Eurasians. Arabian Vedda populations are a good example of indigenous black Arabs that don't owe their blackness to African admixture. There are undoubtedly other dark skinned Arabian populations whose dark skin predates African admixture, but good luck proving it without genetic analysis
Notice that my past use of black was in reference to skin pigmentation and referenced groups irrespective of 'race'. It has nothing to do with creating a kumbaya my lord by the campfire 'we are family' racial club including the Obamas and Colin Powells of the world while disowning Maghrebis with roughly the same amount of African ancestry. So, again, we see that Carlos Oliver Coke is a liar when he claims:
"B-b-but y-you and Djehuti also used black in the past. B-b-but when I do it, you pick on me"
Yeah, I used it. But as you very well know, being the big fat liar that you are, it had nothing to do with your racialized and politically motivated use of the term. To the best of my ability, I've always tried to stay away from the narrow layman use and other uses of the term (though I acknowledge that they exist). And it's because of lying looney toons like you, among other reasons, that I stopped using it.
If the first Arabians came from Africa how on earth could their black skin predate African mixture, especially given that there has probably been movement back and forth between Africa and arabia for many thousands of years? See the Tihama region for an example or Southern Saudi Arabia and other regions in Arabia for example.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Where is the contradiction?
1) OOA settlers came in 2) African admixture happened with said settlers 3) OOA settlers' dark skin predates African admixture.
You see a contradiction because you're in the kumbaya-my-lord-by-the-campfire crew. Your real objection is that I didn't call these OOA settlers of Arabia 'Africans'; I treated them just like other OOA populations. Yep. We saw right through your 'dark skin only' facade when you refused prehistoric dark skinned Europeans membership in your racial dark skin club.
You realized the implications of having ancestors of Europeans in your racial club and you switched up the membership requirements after the fact.
You just can't make this up. Lol. Now he's objecting because I treat the first settlers of Arabia like other OOA populations.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Where is the contradiction?
1) OOA settlers came in 2) African admixture happened with said settlers 3) OOA settlers' dark skin predates African admixture.
You see a contradiction because you're in the kumbaya-my-lord-by-the-campfire crew. Your real objection is that I didn't call these OOA settlers of Arabia 'Africans'; I treated them just like other OOA populations. Yep. We saw right through your 'dark skin only' facade when you refused prehistoric dark skinned Europeans membership in your racial dark skin club.
You realized the implications of having ancestors of Europeans in your racial club and you switched up the membership requirements after the fact.
You just can't make this up. Lol. Now he's objecting because I treat the first settlers of Arabia like other OOA populations.
When did the OOA settlers in 1) become "different" from any later migrants into Southern Arabia? Human settlement in Southern Arabia is at least 60,000 years old. So when did they "split" from Africans and what markers are you using to denote that split, not only genetically but physically in terms of significant differences in phenotype, including skin color?
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Even if it were impossible to delineate the first settlers of Arabia and African source populations, I don't see why we even have to go there. I still don't see where the contradiction would be in stating that post-OOA admixture is not the sole cause of Arabians' dark skin. Establishing who has dark skin when and where has nothing to do with physical features or ancestry.
But, to answer your question, anytime populations split you get peculiarities in the migrants' genomes (e.g. certain new patterns in LD that prove the population is 'young(er)'), so one could easily demarcate OOA settlers from Africans. This is not at all a challenge in population genetics.
Geneticists have no trouble showing that the first settlers in the Americans are demonstrably closer to Native Americans than any living source population near the Bering Strait. But, like I said, I don't see why this has to be invoked in the first place to establish that some living Arabians don't owe their dark skin to post-OOA African admixture.
Also, re: the ease of delineating OOA populations and living Africans, the haplotype backgrounds of skin pigmentation genes show stark differences. This is no surprise and is expected.
quote:Three early diverging haplotypes, C1, C2, and C4, are rare outside of Africa and clearly originated there. In the lineage containing the majority of haplotypes, each of the three branches, containing C5, C6-C7, and C8-C11, give strong evidence of having originated in Africa. C5 reaches its greatest abundance in West Africa and is rare outside of Africa. Within the other two branches, C6 and C9, which are the most common haplotypes in Africa, are also common worldwide, whereas C7 is abundant in East Asia and much less common but widespread in Africa. Consideration of the relationships among haplotype variants (Figure 4) indicates that C6, C7, and C9 (but not C8) dispersed out of Africa and have diverse descendants present and originating in East Asia. Among these descendants is C10, which is abundant in East Asia (and the New World) but extremely rare in Africa (0.5% in LWK). Haplotype C3 represents the final early diverging lineage (Figure 4). Although the lineage containing this haplotype must have originated in Africa, C3 is rare in Africa (1.0% in MKK) but widely distributed in East Asia, the New World, and Oceania. The distributions of C3 and C10 are most consistent with origin outside of Africa and subsequent introduction into Africa by migrations such as those documented by uniparental markers (Richards et al. 2006).
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Even if it were impossible to delineate the first settlers of Arabia and African source populations, I don't see why we even have to go there. I still don't see where the contradiction would be in stating that post-OOA admixture is not the sole cause of Arabians' dark skin. Establishing who has dark skin when and where has nothing to do with physical features or ancestry.
But, to answer your question, anytime populations split you get peculiarities in the migrants' genomes (e.g. certain new patterns in LD that prove the population is 'young(er)'), so one could easily demarcate OOA settlers from Africans. This is not at all a challenge in population genetics.
Geneticists have no trouble showing that the first settlers in the Americans are demonstrably closer to Native Americans than any living source population near the Bering Strait. But, like I said, I don't see why this has to be invoked in the first place to establish that some living Arabians don't owe their dark skin to post-OOA African admixture.
Also, re: the ease of delineating OOA populations and living Africans, the haplotype backgrounds of skin pigmentation genes show stark differences. This is no surprise and is expected.
quote:Three early diverging haplotypes, C1, C2, and C4, are rare outside of Africa and clearly originated there. In the lineage containing the majority of haplotypes, each of the three branches, containing C5, C6-C7, and C8-C11, give strong evidence of having originated in Africa. C5 reaches its greatest abundance in West Africa and is rare outside of Africa. Within the other two branches, C6 and C9, which are the most common haplotypes in Africa, are also common worldwide, whereas C7 is abundant in East Asia and much less common but widespread in Africa. Consideration of the relationships among haplotype variants (Figure 4) indicates that C6, C7, and C9 (but not C8) dispersed out of Africa and have diverse descendants present and originating in East Asia. Among these descendants is C10, which is abundant in East Asia (and the New World) but extremely rare in Africa (0.5% in LWK). Haplotype C3 represents the final early diverging lineage (Figure 4). Although the lineage containing this haplotype must have originated in Africa, C3 is rare in Africa (1.0% in MKK) but widely distributed in East Asia, the New World, and Oceania. The distributions of C3 and C10 are most consistent with origin outside of Africa and subsequent introduction into Africa by migrations such as those documented by uniparental markers (Richards et al. 2006).
The point I am making is that you are over generalizing and simplifying in trying to make your point. Yes, there is mixture in all humans, as all humans are mixtures of two sets of genetic markers from parents to child. But when we talk of whole populations you have to provide the context for what you are saying. The first OOA migrants to Arabia were genetically, physically and phenotypically Africans and likely stayed that way for a very long time. So unless there was some environmental pressure in Southern Arabia to select for light skin over many generations, I doubt that any dark skin in the current arabian population appeared there separate from the in situ population that descended from the OOA migrants. In fact, many of the features in the South Arabian populations are found to this day among arguably ancestral populations still in Africa who inhabit environments near identical to that of South Arabia, straight hair included.
This is the crux of the problem of so many folks arguing over phenotype using genetics alone when genetic lineages don't tell you phenotype. The environmental factors for phenotype are the crucial factor at play here and the basis of "plasticity". And this is why all across Africa you have so much variability in features even among populations who are all VERY BlACK in complexion and having the same genetic lineages, because they have been undergoing thousands of years of random mutations in various environments resulting in a tremendous diversity in features among people with black skin. And not only was this true IN Africa but it was also true for at least 40,000 years after humans left Africa. Light skin was the last major aspect of phenotype variation among humans outside of Africa which means before that most populations still retained their African appearance. The significance here is that people like to play up the significance of labels like "Eurasian" DNA markers but downplay and ignore the fact that historically most human DNA lineages are historically African, even those first arising among OOA populations who left Africa, because they still were near indistinguishable from those in Africa. DNA lineages aren't magic light bulbs that switch from "African" to "Non African" just like that. It takes many years to change a population to the point where it is significantly different in appearance from the base population from which it originated. Case in point, Europeans in America. And given the environmental similarities between Europe and America, it is doubtful that 10,000 years from now those populations would drastically differ, even ruling out modern modes of travel. Just as many native American populations to this day still have a strong physical resemblance to the ancestral populations in Asia they originated from, regardless of complexion.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The first OOA migrants to Arabia were genetically, physically and phenotypically Africans and likely stayed that way for a very long time.
Misleading. They were close in these respects to the African source populations, not to all African populations in general. This is relevant because, again, I get the sense that you're trying to build some sort of tropically adapted racial club that doesn't exist. Even though you speak in code when you invoke it, and even though your long post confuses the point of contention, that is ultimately why you objected to my post. So let's just stay on topic.
quote:DNA lineages aren't magic light bulbs that switch from "African" to "Non African" just like that. It takes many years to change a population to the point where it is significantly different in appearance from the base population from which it originated.
First of all, again, OOA populations are not closely related to all Africans. We have their genomes now so you have no excuse to pretend to be ignorant in this regard. Secondly, OOA populations were already a transitional population before OOA, so their distinctiveness did not happen "like a light bulb switch" once they set foot out of Africa. Thirdly, genetically speaking, these settlers are typically closer to living populations in their regions than to Africans. So how would you make that work? How would you make them 'African' and neatly exclude them from their living descendants whom you don't consistently acknowledge as African in the same way? Explain in detail, please.
quote:Our findings reveal the timing of divergence of western Eurasians and East Asians to be more than 36,200 years ago and that European genomic structure today dates back to the Upper Paleolithic and derives from a metapopulation that at times stretched from Europe to central Asia.
The First Americans were Africans or Negroid People. The OoA people were not only Negroid, they were Africans direct from Africa. Mongoloids were not in the Americas until 6kya.
Dr.Nieda Guidon claims that Africans were in Brazil 100,000 years ago. The evidence that fire existed in Brazil 65kya is an indication that man was at the site 65,000 years ago, since researchers found charcoal, which is the result of fire making. The New York Times, reported that humans were Brazil 100,000 years ago .
If you would see the New York Times video you would noted that Dr.Nieda Guidon supports her dating of human population in Brazil 100,000 years ago to ancient fire and tool making. Look at the New York Times video: Human’s First Appearance in the Americas @:
If you view the video you will see that human occupation of Brazil 100,000 years ago is supported by man made fire, e.g., the charcoal, and tools.
Dr. Guidon who conducted excavation at the site notes at 2:09 the site is 100,000 years old. At 3:17 in the video scientists proved that the tools are the result of human craftsmanship . You reject this evidence because it proves that Blacks were here before the mongoloids.
It is interesting that it is becoming clear that people may have left Africa 100kya, instead of 60kya to settle the world. This may indicate that Australians made their way to America before the Khoisan.
The new evidence of anatomically modern humans (AMH) in Arabia, on Crete and now Brazil around 100,000 years ago suggest that AMH left Africa before 60kya.
We all know that humans originated in Africa over 150,000 years ago. The new evidence suggest five out of Africa (OoA) There were probably four major migration of the Africans into the Pacific. The first migration events. The first people to migrate out of Africa 100-60kya were the Australians. These people demonstrate the physical type associated with the early homo sapien sapiens.
The first researcher to claim that the PaleoAmericans were Blacks was Dr. W. A. Neves of Brazil. Neves had the PaleoAmerican from Brazil reconstructed. This Black woman is called Luzia.
Using craniometric quantitative analysis and multivariate methods, Dr. Neves determined that Paleo Americans were either Australian, African or Melenesians (Neves , Powell and Ozolins, 1998,1999a,199b; Powell, 2005). The research of Neves indicated that the ancient Americans represent two populations, paleoamericans who were phenotypically African, Australian or Melanesian and a mongoloid population that appears to have arrived in the Americas after 6000 BC. Kennewick is recognized as a PaleoAmerican therefore he has negro ancestry. The researchers claim the Kennewick man’s DNA is mainly related to Native Americans living in South America, rather than North America except for the Colville people on the West Coast. The researchers wrote
quote: “Despite this similarity, Anzick-1 and Kennewick Man have dissimilar genetic affinities to contemporary Native Americans. In particular, we find that Anzick-1 is more closely related to Central/Southern Native Americans than is Kennewick Man (Extended Data Fig. 5). The pattern observed in Kennewick Man is mirrored in the Colville, who also show a high affinity with Southern populations (Fig. 2c), but are most closely related to a neighbouring population in the data set (Stswecem’c; Extended Data Fig. 4c).”
The authors also noted that:
“However, the genetic affinities of Kennewick Man reveal additional complexity in the population history of the Northern lineage. The finding that Kennewick is more closely related to Southern than many Northern Native Americans (Extended Data Fig. 4) suggests the presence of an additional Northern lineage that diverged from the common ancestral population of Anzick-1 and Southern Native Americans (Fig. 3). This branch would include both Colville and other tribes of the Pacific Northwest such as the Stswecem’c, who also appear symmetric to Kennewick with Southern Native Americans (Extended Data Fig. 4).”
The Pacific coast were a mixture of mongoloid and Pacific Island negro Native Americans.
The Colville tribe which is related to Kennewick man is a Confederation of Indians who did not die of diseases or murdered by whites so they could take their land.
The Colville tribe is the name given to various Christian Native American tribes that lived at Fort Colville. They include Native American groups that were not exterminated by the whites. The twelve bands are the Methow, Okanogan, Arrow Lakes, Sanpoil, Colville, Nespelem, Chelan, Entiat, Moses-Columbia, Wenatchi, Nez Perce, and Palus. These remnants of Pacific coast tribes formerly mixed with the Black Native Americans this is obvious when we look at Ohlone people who lived in missions on the West Coast.
This means that the Colville tribe is admixed with the Black Native American tribes that formerly dominated the Pacific coast.
The authors like most Europeans attempt to lie about the negro origin of Kennewick man, the multivariate analysis of Kennewick man’s skull does not support their conclusion. The carniometric measurements also confirm the negro origin of Kenewick man. The researchers wrote:
quote: Although our individual-based craniometric analyses confirm that Kennewick Man tends to be more similar to Polynesian and Ainu peoples than to Native Americans, Kennewick Man’s pattern of craniometric affinity falls well within the range of affinity patterns evaluated for individual Native Americans (Supplementary Information 9). For example, the Arikara from North Dakota (the Native American tribe representing the geographically closest population in Howells’ data set to Kennewick), exhibit with high frequency closest affinities with Polynesians (Supplementary Information 9). Yet, the Arikara have typical Native-American mitochondrial DNA haplogroups30, as does Kennewick Man. We conclude that the currently available number of independent phenetic markers is too small, and within-population craniometric variation too large, to permit reliable reconstruction of the biological population affinities of Kennewick Man.
Arikara
Kennewick man carried mtDNA haplogroup X, this haplogroup is rare among United States Indians. This haplogroup is carried by Africans.
Amerindians carry the X hg. Amerindians and Europeans hg X are different (Person, 2004). Haplogroup X has also been found throughout Africa (Shimada et al,2006). Shimada et al (2006) believes that X(hX) is of African origin. Amerindian X is different from European hg X, skeletons from Brazil dating between 400-7000 BP have the transition np 16223 ( Martinez-Cruzado, 2001; Ribeiro-Dos-Santos,1996). Transition np 16223 is characteristic of African haplogroups. This suggest that Africans may have taken the X hg to the Americas in ancient times. This transference is supported by the haplogroups carried by Kennewick man.
Below are articles that say the PaleoAmericans were phenotypically Black. See:
Neves, W. A. and Pucciarelli, H. M. 1989. Extra-continental biological relationships of early South American human remains: a multivariate analysis. Cieˆncia e Cultura, 41: 566–75 Neves, W. A. and Pucciarelli, H. M. 1990. The origins of the first Americans: an analysis based onthe cranial morphology of early South American human remains. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 81: 247. Neves, W. A. and Pucciarelli, H. M. 1991. Morphological affinities of the first Americans: an exploratory analysis based on early South American human remains. Journal of Human Evolution, 21: 261–73. Neves, W. A. and Meyer, D. 1993. The contribution of the morphology of early South and Northamerican skeletal remains to the understanding of the peopling of the Americas. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 16 (Suppl): 150–1. Neves, W. A., Powell, J. F., Prous, A. and Ozolins, E. G. 1998. Lapa Vermelha IV Hominid 1: morphologial affinities or the earliest known American. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 26(Suppl): 169. Neves, W. A., Powell, J. F. and Ozolins, E. G. 1999a. Extra-continental morphological affinities of Palli Aike, southern Chile. Intercieˆncia, 24: 258–63. Neves, W. A., Powell, J. F. and Ozolins, E. G. 1999b. Modern human origins as seen from the peripheries. Journal of Human Evolution, 37: 129–33. Neves W.A . and Pucciarelli H.M. 1991. "Morphological Affinities of the First Americans: an exploratory analysis based on early South American human remains". Journal of Human Evolution 21:261-273. Neves W.A ., Powell J.F. and Ozolins E.G. 1999. "Extra-continental morphological affinities of Lapa Vermelha IV Hominid 1: A multivariate analysis with progressive numbers of variables. Homo 50:263-268 Neves W.A ., Powell J.F. and Ozolins E.G. 1999. "Extra-continental morphological affinities of Palli-Aike, Southern Chile". Interciencia 24:258-263. http://www.interciencia.org/v24_04/neves.pdf Neves, W.A., Gonza´ lez-Jose´ , R., Hubbe, M., Kipnis, R., Araujo, A.G.M., Blasi, O., 2004. Early Holocene Human Skeletal Remains form Cerca Grande, Lagoa Santa, Central Brazil, and the origins of the first Americans. World Archaeology 36, 479-501 Neves, W. A., and M. Hubbe. 2005. Cranial morphology of early Americans from Lagoa Santa, Brazil: Implications for the settlement of the New World. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 102:18,309–18,314. NYT (New York Times). (2015) Human’s First Appearance in the Americas . http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/28/world/americas/discoveries-challenge-beliefs-on-humans-arrival-in-the-americas.html?hp&_r=4
Powell,J.F. (2005). First Americans:Races, Evolution and the Origin of Native Americans. Cambridge University Press.
Many of the articles of Neves can be found at Academia edu.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
.
. There is no evidence that the PaleoAmericans are related to the mongoloid Americans.
Does not really prove that Kennewick man was mongoloid. Rasmussen et al wrote:
, “However, although recent and previous craniometric analyses have consistently concluded that Kennewick Man is unlike modern Native Americans, they disagree regarding his closest population affinities, the cause of the apparent differences between Kennewick Man and modern Native Americans, and whether the differences are historically important (for example, represent an earlier, separate migration to the Americas), or simply represent intra-population variation2, 3, 7, 10, 26, 27, 28. These inconsistencies are probably owing to the difficulties in assigning a single individual when comparing to population-mean data, without explicitly taking into account within-population variation. Reanalysis of W. W. Howells’ worldwide modern human craniometric data set29 (Supplementary Information 9) shows that biological population affinities of individual specimens cannot be resolved with any statistical certainty. While our individual-based craniometric analyses confirm that Kennewick Man tends to be more similar to Polynesian and Ainu peoples than to Native Americans, Kennewick Man’s pattern of craniometric affinity falls well within the range of affinity patterns evaluated for individual Native Americans (Supplementary Information 9). For example, the Arikara from North Dakota (the Native American tribe representing the geographically closest population in Howells’ data set to Kennewick), exhibit with high frequency closest affinities with Polynesians (Supplementary Information 9). Yet, the Arikara have typical Native-American mitochondrial DNA haplogroups30, as does Kennewick Man. We conclude that the currently available number of independent phenetic markers is too small, and within-population craniometric variation too large, to permit reliable reconstruction of the biological population affinities of Kennewick Man.”
This passage makes it clear that “While our individual-based craniometric analyses confirm that Kennewick Man tends to be more similar to Polynesian and Ainu peoples than to Native Americans “ .
If Kennewick man phenotypically is like Polynesians (e..g., Melanesian) and Ainu, populations that are recognized as negroes –not mongoloid.; and in the next line Rasmussen et al, note “We conclude that the currently available number of independent phenetic markers is too small, and within-population craniometric variation too large, to permit reliable reconstruction of the biological population affinities of Kennewick Man.”This statement confirms the fact that Kennewick man was a non-mongoloid PaleoAmerican like Naia and Luzia.
The Rasmussen et al, article is feel good science. The researchers imply that Kennewick man is related to contemporary mongoloid Indians, but is not mongoloid. They wrote “We also observe that the autosomal DNA, mitochondrial DNA and Y chromosome data all consistently show that Kennewick Man is directly related to contemporary Native Americans, and thus show genetic continuity within the Americas over at least the past 8 thousand years. Identifying which modern Native American groups are most closely related to Kennewick Man is not possible at this time, since our comparative DNA database of modern peoples is limited, particularly for Native-American groups in the United States. However, among the groups for which we have sufficient genomic data we find that the Colville, one of the Native American groups claiming Kennewick Man as ancestral, show close affinities to that individual or at least to the population to which he belonged. Additional modern descendants could be identified as more Native American groups are sequenced. Finally, it is clear that Kennewick Man differs significantly from the Anzick-1 child who is more closely related to the modern tribes of Mesoamerica and South America12, possibly suggesting an early population structure within the Americas. “
This is double speak, because Rasmussen et al conclude : “Identifying which modern Native American groups are most closely related to Kennewick Man is not possible at this time, since our comparative DNA database of modern peoples is limited, particularly for Native-American groups in the United States “. If it “ is not possible at this time” to identify which modern group Kennewick matches, indicate that they don’t match.
Blacks were in America before mongoloid Indians.
.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
.
.
Chatters said that Kennewick man , Naia and Luzia were related to Pacific Islanders, Africans and Austrailoids, these people are called Negro .
Blacks were the first Mexicans as proven by the 10,000 year old Naia skeleton.The first Mexican Naia.Dr. Chatters in the Smithsonian Magazine, noted that “The small number of early American specimens discovered so far have smaller and shorter faces and longer and narrower skulls than later Native Americans, more closely resembling the modern people of Africa, Australia, and the South Pacific.egro.] "This has led to speculation that perhaps the first Americans and Native Americans came from different homelands," Chatters continues, "or migrated from Asia at different stages in their evolution." Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dna-12000-year-old-skeleton-helps-answer-question-who-were-first-americans-180951469/#hexUIhxcwDxMkCAz.99
The Technical Report: Assessment of the genetic analyses of Rasmussen et al. (2015), by John Novembre, PhD, David Witonsky, Anna Di Rienzo, PhD April 4, 2016 support the fact the first Americans were Blacks. The primary aim of the analysis undertaken here (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St Louis District Contract #W912P9-16-P-0010) is to provide an independent validation of the genetic evidence underlying a recent publication by Morten Rasmussen and colleagues on July 23rd, 2015, in Nature (Vol 523:455–58).
Novembre et al (2016) argue that Kennewick man is related more to modern Native Americans, instead of the PaleoAmericans. In support of this hypothesis Novembre et al (2015) conclude that Kennewick man is closely related to the South American Karitiana people.
The finding by Novembre et al (2015) that genetically Kennewick man related mostly to the Karitiana falsifies their population. It is falsified because Skoglund et al (2015) found that the Karitiana and other Amazonian people in South America have an Australasian heritage. The identification of a relationship between Kennewick man and the Karitiana would continue to situate this Native American in the Paleoamerican group--not contemporary Native Americans.
It is time that researchers stop claiming the first Native Americans were not Blacks.
Black people were in America first.The academic community does recognize that the paleoindians were negroes: Australians, Africans or Melenesians, these are all negro people. Here are articles that make it clear they were not mongoloid people.
See: Neves W.A . and Pucciarelli H.M. 1991. "Morphological Affinities of the First Americans: an exploratory analysis based on early South American human remains". J Hum Evol 21:261-273.
Neves W.A ., Powell J.F. and Ozolins E.G. 1999. "Extra-continental morphological affinities of Lapa Vermelha IV Hominid 1: A multivariate analysis with progressive numbers of variables. Homo 50:263-268
Powell J.F. and Neves W.A . 1999. "Craniofacial morphology of the first Americans: pattern and process in thepeopling of the New World". Yearbook of Phy Anth 42:153-188
All of these papers are on-line. You can find them either at Academia.edu or Researchgate.
Genetic evidence for two founding populations of the Americas
Pontus Skoglund, Swapan Mallick,Maria Cátira Bortolini,Niru Chennagiri,Tábita Hünemeier, Maria Luiza Petzl-Erler,Francisco Mauro Salzano,Nick Patterson & David Reich
Genetic studies have consistently indicated a single common origin of Native American groups from Central and South America1, 2, 3, 4. However, some morphological studies have suggested a more complex picture, whereby the northeast Asian affinities of present-day Native Americans contrast with a distinctive morphology seen in some of the earliest American skeletons, which share traits with present-day Australasians (indigenous groups in Australia, Melanesia, and island Southeast Asia)5, 6, 7, 8. Here we analyse genome-wide data to show that some Amazonian Native Americans descend partly from a Native American founding population that carried ancestry more closely related to indigenous Australians, New Guineans and Andaman Islanders than to any present-day Eurasians or Native Americans. This signature is not present to the same extent, or at all, in present-day Northern and Central Americans or in a ~12,600-year-old Clovis-associated genome, suggesting a more diverse set of founding populations of the Americas than previously accepted.
The Australasian genes are carried by the Karitiana.
quote:
The oldest known photograph of a Karitiana person. Photo: member of the Carlos Chagas Expedition to Amazonia, 1912.
'
.
The presence of an Australasian heritage in Brazil is interesting because it supports an Australian OoA event from Africa into Brazil 100kya.
.Dr.Nieda Guidon claims that Africans were in Brazil 100,000 years ago. The evidence that fire existed in Brazil 65kya is an indication that man was at the site 65,000 years ago, since researchers found charcoal, which is the result of fire making. The New York Times, reported that humans were Brazil 100,000 years ago .
If you would see the New York Times video you would noted that Dr.Nieda Guidon supports her dating of human population in Brazil 100,000 years ago to ancient fire and tool making. Look at the New York Times video: Human’s First Appearance in the Americas @:
If you view the video you will see that human occupation of Brazil 100,000 years ago is supported by man made fire, e.g., the charcoal, and tools.
Dr. Guidon who conducted excavation at the site notes at 2:09 the site is 100,000 years old. At 3:17 in the video scientists proved that the tools are the result of human craftsmanship .
It is interesting that it is becoming clear that people may have left Africa 100kya, instead of 60kya to settle the world. This may indicate that Australians made their way to America before the Khoisan.
The new evidence of anatomically modern humans (AMH) in Arabia, on Crete and now Brazil around 100,000 years ago suggest that AMH left Africa before 60kya.
We all know that humans originated in Africa over 150,000 years ago. The new evidence suggest five out of Africa (OoA) There were probably four major migration of the Africans into the Pacific. The first migration events. The first people to migrate out of Africa 100-60kya were the Australians. These people demonstrate the physical type associated with the early homo sapien sapiens.
The Australians appear to have made their way to every continent.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Kennewick man's YDNA is haplogroup is Q-M3 and his mitochondrial DNA is X2a
Haplogroup Q-M3 is one of the Y-Chromosome haplogroups linked to the indigenous peoples of the Americas.(over 90% of indigenous people in Meso & South America)
______________
quote: Y-DNA haplogroup Q arose in Central Asia and migrated through the Altai/Baikal region of northern Eurasia into the Americas. Today it is found in North Eurasia, with some exemplars in European populations. The Q-M3 sub-group is almost exclusively associated with Native American populations. --ISOGG 2016
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
Yaaaawn* the problem with everyone's perception at this point since page 36 seems to be the intentional (or unintentional based on the side of the fence you're on) failure to realize time doesn't stop "below the sahara".
accepting that on a grand scale, that the rate of Mutation remains uniform globally should make these things easy to understand.
Decide what you're using to define relatedness... culture, phenotype, or genotype?
If you take the autosomal profiles of Africa and the near east from lets say 15,000ya, and exclude San, how high would the degree of variance or % membership be?
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The first OOA migrants to Arabia were genetically, physically and phenotypically Africans and likely stayed that way for a very long time.
Misleading. They were close in these respects to the African source populations, not to all African populations in general. This is relevant because, again, I get the sense that you're trying to build some sort of tropically adapted racial club that doesn't exist. Even though you speak in code when you invoke it, and even though your long post confuses the point of contention, that is ultimately why you objected to my post. So let's just stay on topic.
quote:DNA lineages aren't magic light bulbs that switch from "African" to "Non African" just like that. It takes many years to change a population to the point where it is significantly different in appearance from the base population from which it originated.
First of all, again, OOA populations are not closely related to all Africans. We have their genomes now so you have no excuse to pretend to be ignorant in this regard. Secondly, OOA populations were already a transitional population before OOA, so their distinctiveness did not happen "like a light bulb switch" once they set foot out of Africa. Thirdly, genetically speaking, these settlers are typically closer to living populations in their regions than to Africans. So how would you make that work? How would you make them 'African' and neatly exclude them from their living descendants whom you don't consistently acknowledge as African in the same way? Explain in detail, please.
quote:Our findings reveal the timing of divergence of western Eurasians and East Asians to be more than 36,200 years ago and that European genomic structure today dates back to the Upper Paleolithic and derives from a metapopulation that at times stretched from Europe to central Asia.
You didn't really answer the question. What is an OOA population? And when does OOA start and African end? Are you an OOA person as soon as you leave Africa? Or do you become an OOA population after a certain genetic mutation? Keep in mind that all humans have genetic mutations, even those that never left Africa, so what are you using to distinguish between African/Non African when speaking of migrations of populations out of Africa? Obviously if Western Eurasians split off 36,000 years ago then that leaves a long time period before then when populations were moving around outside of Africa. What were they OOA or African?
And as for South Arabians, who are right next to Africa the same question applies. When did those migrants stepping across the red sea become Non African? 2 years later? 100 years? 2,000 years? Of course all the populations in Africa at the time would have been black, but that is unless you have evidence otherwise. There is nothing about the environment in and around the horn of Africa that would select for 'non black' features in Africans, else we would see them today. So your argument of "other" types of Africans other than black 60kya makes no sense. Therefore those migrants to Arabia from Africa would have been black, therefore the origin of the black skin in said populations, which was preserved because of the environment itself not being a strong selection pressure against it since it is relatively close to the environments of Africa right across the Red Sea.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Doug, your questions don't make sense because it doesn't matter how far you go back. See the example of Native Americans I just gave. The first settlers of the Americas will always be closer to their living Native American descendants than to living Siberians (excluding some unusual scenarios). I've already explained why. I shouldn't have to explain why Obama's daughters and their children will be closer to Obama than either will be to Obama's Luo or European cousins, again, excepting some scenarios. Obama's mixed ancestry compared to his cousins doesn't change anything because you can apply this example to another family and you get the same outcome: cousins and their descendants can't be closer to a father or his children than the latter two are to each other.
You say things like "well, Old World populations on the other side of the Bering Strait who have shared ancestors with Native Americans also accumulated mutations so what makes Native Americans different" and "well, what about the first settlers of the Americas, weren't they technically Old World populations from Siberia". Maybe when I put it like this you'll realize how silly this is.
C'mon man. You don't sound like you thought this out.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Anzick-1, among the first settlers of the Americas, obviously closer to Native Americans than any other population.
C'mon Doug. Really?
quote:Here we report the genome sequence of a male infant (Anzick-1) recovered from the Anzick burial site in western Montana. The human bones date to 10,705 ± 35 14C years BP (approximately 12,707–12,556 calendar years BP) and were directly associated with Clovis tools. We sequenced the genome to an average depth of 14.4× and show that the gene flow from the Siberian Upper Palaeolithic Mal’ta population5 into Native American ancestors is also shared by the Anzick-1 individual and thus happened before 12,600 years BP. We also show that the Anzick-1 individual is more closely related to all indigenous American populations than to any other group. Our data are compatible with the hypothesis that Anzick-1 belonged to a population directly ancestral to many contemporary Native Americans. Finally, we find evidence of a deep divergence in Native American populations that predates the Anzick-1 individual.
The first Americans, like Anzick-1, are, obviously closer to the PaleoAmerican Native Americans, who were African, than contemporary mongoloid Native Americans. Researcher claim that Anzick-1, is related to Indians in South America and the West Coast, where many Pacific Island Blacks settled. The Pacific coast inhabitants were a mixture of mongoloid and Pacific Island negro Native Americans.
The Melanesians only arrived in the Americas after the spread of the Lapita culture around 1500 BC. The Pacific Island Blacks carry haplogroup D4, which the name geneticist has given to haplogroup M1, in Asia.
Skoglund and Reich (2016), claim that the Solutrean hypothesis should be rejected because the Anzick child carried mtDNA D4, which is also carried by the Australo-Melanesians.
This hypothesis is groundless because some of the the Australo-Melanesians. Especially the Fijians, claim they came from Tanzania, where , some people carry mtDNA M1, which Gonder claims cluster with peoples from Oceania. Skoglund and Reich (2016), argue that the earliest Native Americans crossed the Beringa into North America, and that this Beringian population is related more to South American Indians, instead of North American Indians .
They argue that this population 12,600 years ago, as represented by the ‘Anzick child of Montana was related to the Mal’ta population. Anzick child carried mtDNA D4h3a, and Y-chromosome Q-L54*(xM3) .
It is interesting that Anzick-1 was found in 1968. The Anzick-1 remains were returned to the Anzick family and analyzed by Sarah Anzick who discovered that the skeleton carried mtDNA D4h3a, which is also carried by Native Americans on the West Coast, of North America . Skoglund and Reich (2016) wrote: “The most surprising finding was that the Anzick individual is from a population more closely related to Central- and South Americans than to some northern North Americans (including all speakers of Algonquian languages studied to date), despite the apparent common ancestral origin of Native Americans across the continents. This suggests that the present-day population structure of the main ancestry in Native Americans [23] dates back to more than 12,600 years ago [25], and that this diversification divided the ancestry of present-day Native Americans into two main streams, one of which includes the ancestors of present-day Northern Native Americans analyzed (‘NNA’: Cree, Ojibwa, and Algonquin), and the other of which includes the Anzick individual and present-day Central- and South American groups (‘SA’: e.g. Mixe, Quechua, and Yaghan).”
It is surprising that given the fact that the Anzick skeleton was in the possession of Sarah Anzick who is a genomic research her that no one has questioned the results of Sarah Anzick. Since the Anzick skeleton’s DNA could have been contaminated while under the protection of the Anzick family, these results may not reflect the true ancestry of Anzick.
Skoglund and Reich (2016), argue that since the Andamanese and Australo-Melanesians carry D4h3a, this haplogroup had to have entered America via the Beringa around 12,000 BC. The presence of this haplogroup among the Australo-Melanesians is not supported by archaeological evidence.
The Fijians, for example claim they came from Tanzania. The archaeological evidence indicate that the Melanesians recently entered Melanesia from Africa. And that the Melanesian languages have an African substratum and the place-names are identical to West African placenames .
The archaeological evidence indicate that the Melenesians only arrived in their present habitation areas during the Lapita cultural expansion 3-4kya. As a result, the Australo-Melanesians were not in Eurasia 12kya, as assumed by Skoglund and Reich (2016).
Haplotypes with HVSI transitions defining 16129-16223-16249-16278-16311-16362; and 16129-16223- 16234-16249-16211-16362 have been found in Thailand and among the Han Chinese (Fucharon et al., 2001) , these haplotypes were originally thought to be members of Haplogroup M1. However, on the basis of currently available FGS sequences, carriers of these markers have been found to be in the D4a branch of Haplogroup D, the most widespread branch of M1 in East Asia (Fucharon et al., 2001; Gondor et al., 2006; Yao et al., 2002) .
The transitions 16129, 16189, 16249 and 16311 are known to be recurrent in various branches of Haplogroup M, especially M1 and D4. Gonder et al., (2006) for example, noted that the mtDNAs of Tanzanians belonging to haplogroup M1 cluster with peoples from Oceania .
Given the fact that the Melanesians recently entered the Pacific from Africa they can not be the source of the Paleoamerican population that carried mtDNA D4 to the Anzick child. The fact that the Anzick child carrid DNA related to Mal’ta man, who lived in Europe, supports the Solutrean hypothesis for some of the Paleoamericans . Since the Solutrean culture originated in Africa and was later taken to Europe it would explain the affinity between mtDNA D4a and the M1 carried by the Tanzanians who are the ancestors of the Fijians.
The genetic evidence like the archaeological evidence makes it clear the first Americans were Sub-Saharan Africans, like the PaleoAmericans.
It is surprising that given the fact that the Anzick skeleton was in the possession of Sarah Anzick who is a genomic researcher that no one has questioned the results of Sarah Anzick regarding Anzick-1. This is because the Anzick skeleton’s DNA could have been contaminated while under the protection of the Anzick family, these results may not reflect the true ancestry of Anzick. Looking at ancient DNA to determine ancient population origins can be misleading. Let’s look at dna of the Clovis-Anzick man as it compares to modern populations. Look at the Clovis-Anzick DNA matches to modern people.
What does this mean? It means that researchers may be reporting results that have been contaminated and that they may only be giving us results that match their expectations of how the data should look.
In relation to Anzick man Felix Immanuel noted that:
quote:
Just a quick recap, I processed the raw data for Clovis-Anzick-1 and uploaded into GEDMatch and to my surprise, there are matches as near as 3rd to 4th cousins. Now, that's a real problem because, the matches are to a DNA sample older than 12500 years. This is practically impossible and very mysterious.[/img] I will investigate step-by-step and see what are all the possibilities and failure points, which could solve the problem. But before that, we need to be absolutely sure that these matches are indeed valid. From the matches, I requested for phased kit and I indeed got one - Thanks to Mario Diaz and Veronica.
Clearly, an IBD segment of 5 cM above 500 SNPs with total IBD segments around 10+ cM cannot be 12500 years old. This is a fact and can be verified using known relationships in families and DNA companies are using these benchmarks all along for showing genetic matches. This fact is more than enough to conclude that the Clovis-Anzick-1 sample is not actually ancient. My best guess is, the infant boy's sample is just from the last century and it was wrongly labeled as 12500 years old or the sample got contaminated.
Indeed, Neanderthal and the other ancient people were Blacks.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Doug, your questions don't make sense because it doesn't matter how far you go back. See the example of Native Americans I just gave. The first settlers of the Americas will always be closer to their living Native American descendants than to living Siberians (excluding some unusual scenarios). I've already explained why. I shouldn't have to explain why Obama's daughters and their children will be closer to Obama than either will be to Obama's Luo or European cousins, again, excepting some scenarios. Obama's mixed ancestry compared to his cousins doesn't change anything because you can apply this example to another family and you get the same outcome: cousins and their descendants can't be closer to a father or his children than the latter two are to each other.
You say things like "well, Old World populations on the other side of the Bering Strait who have shared ancestors with Native Americans also accumulated mutations so what makes Native Americans different" and "well, what about the first settlers of the Americas, weren't they technically Old World populations from Siberia". Maybe when I put it like this you'll realize how silly this is.
C'mon man. You don't sound like you thought this out.
How do you jump from ancient aboriginal arabians to America? Just answer the question already. When did any of the OOA populations migrating around the world become "non African" and what genetic marker or "split" identifies this? And to go along with that, what genetic mutation or marker identifies changes to phenotype that can be called "non black". Obviously this would start closer to Africa than the Americas and in particular we were talking about Arabia.
Keep in mind I was telling Clyde that the first Americans were black aboriginal type Asians on this forum many years ago, long before he accepted it.....
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Doug. Do you understand how populations differentiate? If so, why do you keep asking me these nonsensical questions?
"And when does OOA start and African end?" "Are you an OOA person as soon as you leave Africa?" "Keep in mind that all humans have genetic mutations, even those that never left Africa, so what are you using to distinguish between African/Non African when speaking of migrations of populations out of Africa?" "When did any of the OOA populations migrating around the world become "non African" and what genetic marker or "split" identifies this?" "And to go along with that, what genetic mutation or marker identifies changes to phenotype that can be called "non black".
If you're going to ask these questions, the onus is on you to explain how they relate to the matter at hand. This is not how population differentiation works. Population differentiation isn't some sort of process that creates discrete populations. You keep asking me for information I can't give you because it doesn't exist.
I talk about objective things that can be measured and verified like the fact that OOA populations are generally closer to living populations in their respective regions. You talk about subjective things that can't be answered, like "when does a population go from African to OOA" or things like mutations, which don't really have anything to do with the matter at hand.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Doug. Do you understand how populations differentiate? If so, why do you keep asking me these nonsensical questions?
"And when does OOA start and African end?" "Are you an OOA person as soon as you leave Africa?" "Keep in mind that all humans have genetic mutations, even those that never left Africa, so what are you using to distinguish between African/Non African when speaking of migrations of populations out of Africa?" "When did any of the OOA populations migrating around the world become "non African" and what genetic marker or "split" identifies this?" "And to go along with that, what genetic mutation or marker identifies changes to phenotype that can be called "non black".
If you're going to ask these questions, the onus is on you to explain how they relate to the matter at hand. This is not how population differentiation works. Population differentiation isn't some sort of process that creates discrete populations. You keep asking me for information I can't give you because it doesn't exist.
I talk about objective things that can be measured and verified like the fact that OOA populations are generally closer to living populations in their respective regions. You talk about subjective things that can't be answered, like "when does a population go from African to OOA" or things like mutations, which don't really have anything to do with the matter at hand.
I keep asking because you are the one who is talking about "differences" in populations and "mixture" events between populations. Not to mention you claimed that the original arabians did not get their black skin from OOA Africans......
So the onus is on you to explain how all this happened, not me.
These kinds of populations in the Horn are not that much different than the black Southern Arabians. So what on earth are you talking about? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdV3PKTpMrA Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
If you knew what drives most population differentiation you wouldn't talk about mutations and get me to answer these subjective and random questions.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: These kinds of populations in the Horn are not that much different than the black Southern Arabians. So what on earth are you talking about?
Quote me. How does this contradict anything I said? Where did I rule this out? I clearly said that many Arabian populations have post-OOA Saharan and SSA ancestry in addition to traits that have continuity with the first settlers. You're just randomly throwing something out there hoping it sticks and distracts from the fact that your line of questioning is off. Stay on topic.
How do populations differentiate over time? Because of mutations?
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Doug, your questions don't make sense because it doesn't matter how far you go back. See the example of Native Americans I just gave. The first settlers of the Americas will always be closer to their living Native American descendants than to living Siberians (excluding some unusual scenarios). I've already explained why. I shouldn't have to explain why Obama's daughters and their children will be closer to Obama than either will be to Obama's Luo or European cousins, again, excepting some scenarios. Obama's mixed ancestry compared to his cousins doesn't change anything because you can apply this example to another family and you get the same outcome: cousins and their descendants can't be closer to a father or his children than the latter two are to each other.
You say things like "well, Old World populations on the other side of the Bering Strait who have shared ancestors with Native Americans also accumulated mutations so what makes Native Americans different" and "well, what about the first settlers of the Americas, weren't they technically Old World populations from Siberia". Maybe when I put it like this you'll realize how silly this is.
C'mon man. You don't sound like you thought this out.
How do you jump from ancient aboriginal arabians to America? Just answer the question already. When did any of the OOA populations migrating around the world become "non African" and what genetic marker or "split" identifies this? And to go along with that, what genetic mutation or marker identifies changes to phenotype that can be called "non black". Obviously this would start closer to Africa than the Americas and in particular we were talking about Arabia.
Keep in mind I was telling Clyde that the first Americans were black aboriginal type Asians on this forum many years ago, long before he accepted it.....
True, you were right some Blacks did come to America from Asia. yet, the PaleoAmericans because of the Ice Ages, came to the Americas from Africa, beginning 100kya.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: If you knew what drives most population differentiation you wouldn't talk about mutations and get me to answer these subjective and random questions.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: These kinds of populations in the Horn are not that much different than the black Southern Arabians. So what on earth are you talking about?
Quote me. How does this contradict anything I said? Where did I rule this out? I clearly said that many Arabian populations have post-OOA Saharan and SSA ancestry in addition to traits that have continuity with the first settlers. You're just randomly throwing something out there hoping it sticks and distracts from the fact that your line of questioning is off. Stay on topic.
How do populations differentiate over time? Because of mutations?
I asked you how do populations "mutate" over time and it is because of this mushmouth nonsense you posted:
quote: First of all, again, OOA populations are not closely related to all Africans. We have their genomes now so you have no excuse to pretend to be ignorant in this regard. Secondly, OOA populations were already a transitional population before OOA, so their distinctiveness did not happen "like a light bulb switch" once they set foot out of Africa. Thirdly, genetically speaking, these settlers are typically closer to living populations in their regions than to Africans. So how would you make that work? How would you make them 'African' and neatly exclude them from their living descendants whom you don't consistently acknowledge as African in the same way? Explain in detail, please.
Please explain how any of that nonsense you posted refutes the fact that the populations leaving Africa were black and indistinguishable from the African populations they derived from. You simply are talking in circles as usual.
First: Define "OOA population". If a family crossed into Arabia one day would they be OOA the next? Again, you haven't defined when this "split" occurs.
Second: Transitional to what? Africans weren't transitioning from an African "feature set" to an OOA "feature set" before leaving Africa. There is no transition if they hadn't left yet as OOA is defined by mutations happening OUTSIDE Africa obviously and being distinct from the mutations taking place among populations who remained in Africa.
Third: What settlers are more closely related to what populations? We are talking about the first populations leaving Africa, how could there be other populations already in place if the African settlers were the first? Obviously later descendants of the actual first persons to leave Africa and settle in Arabia underwent mutations and eventually became distinct genetically and physically in some ways, but that didn't happen two weeks after the first people left....
Come on you are making your argument convoluted because you are missing the piece which I asked for which is when did the population leaving Africa become an OOA population, as in distinct enough from the African first settlers and African resident populations to be considered distinct from Africans genetically and or physically. Obviously there was a transition over time and no it didn't happen in Africa.
Posted by Ceasar (Member # 18274) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Bump for someone.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
And no, I don't agree with Pagani et al's conclusion that that's non-African ancestry.
This is a good visualization of what I just said. Note that the Fst values drop along the path of Europe's farming colonists for the so-called non-African ancestry only (see fig 3B). In other words, the Fst values don't drop in Syrio-Palestine, Turkey and the Aegean with the so-called African + so-called non-African ancestry in the Ethiopian genomes because this ancestry is less like the Africans that out migrated and joined with the Natufians.
So, what we see here is evidence of an outmigration of Africans whose main African component has nothing to do with SSA ancestry. ALTHOUGH, they would have had a degree of SSA ancestry in addition to this main component that is painted REDDISH in figure 3B.
Also, some SSA populations today might have this component to a degree. But as you can see in the study in question (Pagani et al 2012) and others, this ancestry is not common in SSA. It still exists in the Sahara, though, although it's nowadays mixed with the same ancestry from descendants of EEF from Europe. So, not all 'Basal Eurasian' in Africa is pure and it's not always easy to identify how much of it is African (meaning: never left Africa) and how much of is due to back migration by descendants of EEF and related Middle Eastern groups.
As has been recently noted, there were several distinct 'metapopulations' in the Sahara. But the clearly related regional eastern Saharan populations who suddenly start to pop up in a lot of sites during the mid-holocene (which includes the Badarians, Naqadans, Tenereans and other related groups) mainly had this ancestry in my way of seeing things. They might have had other ancestry components that they picked up in the Sahara, but, again, in my view, this shared ancestry was the common denominator. [/QB]
Swenet,
Thanks for the bump, so based on what your saying, some of that ancestry that gets labeled as "Eurasian" is really north African and not "Eurasian". This ancestry is usually blue in admixture analysis (like all Eurasian ancestry") If people are mixing up this Eurasian and north African indigenous ancestry, it can't be all that much different? I go back to this chart again...
You are saying that this red represents "Basal Eurasian" (according to our PM) which is very closely related to north African ingenuous ancestry (based on my understanding). Would ancient Egyptian genomes be closer to Africans than the Iceman and Gokhem genomes in this picture? Like midway between Gokhem and stuggart and sub-Saharan Africans?
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: I asked you how do populations "mutate" over time and it is because of this mushmouth nonsense you posted:
Okay, expert. You got me. I posted "mushmouth nonsense". But can you answer the question and tell me how populations differentiate? Mutations or what? And can you stop lying and blaming me for the nonsense you post? Because you were talking about mutations as the cause of population differentiation before I had even made that post:
because they have been undergoing thousands of years of random mutations in various environments resulting in a tremendous diversity in features among people with black skin. —Doug M
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Please explain how any of that nonsense you posted refutes the fact that the populations leaving Africa were black and indistinguishable from the African populations they derived from. You simply are talking in circles as usual.
Lol. You say I talk in circles but you're the one using circular reasoning trying to find non-existent genes that make OOA people "mutate away" from your 'black' racial club. Stop being an intransigent sloth. How many times do I have to tell you that the things you talk about are subjective? Your 'black' category doesn't exist (unless you're talking about skin pigmentation, which is actually measurable) but you've already blown your cover because you talked about "black features" and 'race'-defining mutations that supposedly set OOA populations apart from these "blacks". You're trying to work a social construct into genetics.
How many times do I have to tell you before you get it? Stop acting like a sloth and get with the program. Your racial club doesn't exist. So stop trying to rub this "you said they weren't black" crap off on me. I don't even think in those laughable newbie terms you're stuck in. You're a victim and a prisoner of your own figments re: anthropology and population genetics. Damn you're slow. We already went over this for how many thread pages, 30? You mean to tell me you're going to start strawmanning and flip flopping between your self-contradicting uses of 'black' again? Really?
I'm not answering any of your questions until you do your part and post some data and balance this out. Because so far I've posted all the sources (which proved you wrong) and what do I get in return? A bunch of because-I-say-so rants where you're riffing off of your own presumptions and beliefs. Your posts are completely devoid of any scientific source. Posters are supposed to take your word for everything you say?
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ceasar: Swenet,
Thanks for the bump, so based on what your saying, some of that ancestry that gets labeled as "Eurasian" is really north African and not "Eurasian". This ancestry is usually blue in admixture analysis (like all Eurasian ancestry") If people are mixing up this Eurasian and north African indigenous ancestry, it can't be all that much different? I go back to this chart again...
You are saying that this red represents "Basal Eurasian" (according to our PM) which is very closely related to north African ingenuous ancestry (based on my understanding). Would ancient Egyptian genomes be closer to Africans than the Iceman and Gokhem genomes in this picture? Like midway between Gokhem and stuggart and sub-Saharan Africans? [/QB]
Nailed it.
Only one comment I should make that I didn't get into. A minority of EEF samples overlap with Africans more than most EEF samples. The reason for this is presumably because, since they hadn't yet penetrated the European interior, they had less chance to absorb local European hunter gatherers, leaving more African ancestry. There are not a lot of these samples, but one of them is the Nea Nikomedea sample from Greece. You can see their closer position to Africans (compared to the highlighted sample from Mulhausen which is typically EEF, here: link)
^Note also that the European Upper Palaeolithic sample and the Iberomaurusian sample have a position along the x axis that is identical to North Africans. Since Basal Eurasian is an early offshoot from the branch that both of these prehistoric samples derive from, you can infer that the original Basal Eurasians had a similar position along the x axis in multivariate space. That's also why EEF samples with more Basal Eurasian ancestry are pulled back more in this morphometric direction, i.e. to the righthand side where Africans are and away from the lefthand side where modern day Europeans are.
Note also the position of the Portugese Mesolithic sample (Muge) I talked about in the other thread. It's different from the other European Mesolithic samples along the y axis (French Mesolithic) and y + x axis (Franchti). In both of these dimensions it 'prefers' the predynastic Egyptian and EEF samples over contemporary Mesolithic Europeans.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Note also the position of the Portugese Mesolithic sample (Muge) I talked about in the other thread. It's different from the other European Mesolithic samples along the y axis (French Mesolithic) and y + x axis (Franchti). In both of these dimensions it 'prefers' the predynastic Egyptian and EEF samples over contemporary Mesolithic Europeans.
Correction:
It's different from the other European Mesolithic samples along the y axis (French Mesolithic) and y + x axis (Franchti). In both of these dimensions it 'prefers' the predynastic Egyptian and in some cases EEF samples over contemporary Mesolithic Europeans.
Also, to clarify, not all Muge samples cluster like this. Some have clustered with Mesolithic Europeans in other studies.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: I asked you how do populations "mutate" over time and it is because of this mushmouth nonsense you posted:
Okay, expert. You got me. I posted "mushmouth nonsense". But can you answer the question and tell me how populations differentiate? Mutations or what?
Dude. I am not attacking you. It is a straight forward question and fundamental to your argument position on genetic understanding of human evolution. Why is it so hard for you to answer the question? When did the migrants out of Africa "split", "deviate" or "mutate" and become Non African or OOA as being used here? It is fundamental to most of the stuff we debate here every day. Somebody like you should be able to put forward something fairly easily.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: And can you stop lying and blaming me for the nonsense you post? Because you were talking about mutations as the cause of population differentiation before I had even made that post:
because they have been undergoing thousands of years of random mutations in various environments resulting in a tremendous diversity in features among people with black skin. —Doug M
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Please explain how any of that nonsense you posted refutes the fact that the populations leaving Africa were black and indistinguishable from the African populations they derived from. You simply are talking in circles as usual.
Lol. You say I talk in circles but you're the one using circular reasoning trying to find non-existent genes that make OOA people "mutate away" from your 'black' racial club. Stop being an intransigent sloth. How many times do I have to tell you that the things you talk about are subjective? Your 'black' category doesn't exist (unless you're talking about skin pigmentation, which is actually measurable) but you've already blown your cover because you talked about "black features" and 'race'-defining mutations that supposedly set OOA populations apart from these "blacks". You're trying to work a social construct into genetics.
How many times do I have to tell you before you get it? Stop acting like a sloth and get with the program. Your racial club doesn't exist. So stop trying to rub this "you said they weren't black" crap off on me. I don't even think in those laughable newbie terms you're stuck in. You're a victim and a prisoner of your own figments re: anthropology and population genetics. Damn you're slow. We already went over this for how many thread pages, 30? You mean to tell me you're going to start strawmanning and flip flopping between your self-contradicting uses of 'black' again? Really?
I'm not answering any of your questions until you do your part and post some data and balance this out. Because so far I've posted all the sources (which proved you wrong) and what do I get in return? A bunch of because-I-say-so rants where you're riffing off of your own presumptions and beliefs. Your posts are completely devoid of any scientific source. Posters are supposed to take your word for everything you say?
Stop trying so hard to defend yourself and avoid answering the question. This is how you go into 50 pages. It shouldn't take 50 more for you to answer the question I asked you first, which you are now trying to ask me. And this is not really even about the Arabians per se as opposed to a general question across the board.
The problem with your responses is that in none of these responses have you been very precise and or specific on this point. Which is partly why I am asking and that is why I am calling your responses mush mouth because you are saying two or three different things at the same time and not really clarifying your position.
So again, when did migrant populations out of Africa become "non African" and OOA. Was it when the first major haplogroup split occurred? Was it prior to that or was it after? All very important and fundamental to understanding most of what we talk about here everyday.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Let me just get it over with and repost the answer you claim I never posted because I'm supposedly trying to "avoid" something. I clearly already answered your question. It may not be that "mutation" story you seem to have your hopes on for some strange reason, but I posted from the beginning what separates OOA populations from their African source populations:
"But, to answer your question, anytime populations split you get peculiarities in the migrants' genomes (e.g. certain new patterns in LD that prove the population is 'young(er)'), so one could easily demarcate OOA settlers from Africans. This is not at all a challenge in population genetics." —Swenet
I also said from the very beginning that the OOA ancestors of living Eurasians left Africa with genes that have completely different haplotype background than most Africans. In the case of skin pigmentation genes this means that dark skinned Asian populations are STILL more related overall to Europeans than to Africans. So, again, your racial club falls apart because most Africans, especially living Africans, are at best distantly related to OOA populations:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Also, re: the ease of delineating OOA populations and living Africans, the haplotype backgrounds of skin pigmentation genes show stark differences. This is no surprise and is expected.
quote:Three early diverging haplotypes, C1, C2, and C4, are rare outside of Africa and clearly originated there. In the lineage containing the majority of haplotypes, each of the three branches, containing C5, C6-C7, and C8-C11, give strong evidence of having originated in Africa. C5 reaches its greatest abundance in West Africa and is rare outside of Africa. Within the other two branches, C6 and C9, which are the most common haplotypes in Africa, are also common worldwide, whereas C7 is abundant in East Asia and much less common but widespread in Africa. Consideration of the relationships among haplotype variants (Figure 4) indicates that C6, C7, and C9 (but not C8) dispersed out of Africa and have diverse descendants present and originating in East Asia. Among these descendants is C10, which is abundant in East Asia (and the New World) but extremely rare in Africa (0.5% in LWK). Haplotype C3 represents the final early diverging lineage (Figure 4). Although the lineage containing this haplotype must have originated in Africa, C3 is rare in Africa (1.0% in MKK) but widely distributed in East Asia, the New World, and Oceania. The distributions of C3 and C10 are most consistent with origin outside of Africa and subsequent introduction into Africa by migrations such as those documented by uniparental markers (Richards et al. 2006).
There you have it. Let's see how your next step is going spin this to where OOA populations are somehow not related to their living descendants BEFORE they relate to Africans.
Posted by Ceasar (Member # 18274) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Ceasar: Swenet,
Thanks for the bump, so based on what your saying, some of that ancestry that gets labeled as "Eurasian" is really north African and not "Eurasian". This ancestry is usually blue in admixture analysis (like all Eurasian ancestry") If people are mixing up this Eurasian and north African indigenous ancestry, it can't be all that much different? I go back to this chart again...
You are saying that this red represents "Basal Eurasian" (according to our PM) which is very closely related to north African ingenuous ancestry (based on my understanding). Would ancient Egyptian genomes be closer to Africans than the Iceman and Gokhem genomes in this picture? Like midway between Gokhem and stuggart and sub-Saharan Africans?
Nailed it.
Only one comment I should make that I didn't get into. A minority of EEF samples overlap with Africans more than most EEF samples. The reason for this is presumably because, since they hadn't yet penetrated the European interior, they had less chance to absorb local European hunter gatherers, leaving more African ancestry. There are not a lot of these samples, but one of them is the Nea Nikomedea sample from Greece. You can see their closer position to Africans (compared to the highlighted sample from Mulhausen which is typically EEF, here: link)
^Note also that the European Upper Palaeolithic sample and the Iberomaurusian sample have a position along the x axis that is identical to North Africans. Since Basal Eurasian is an early offshoot from the branch that both of these prehistoric samples derive from, you can infer that the original Basal Eurasians had a similar position along the x axis in multivariate space. That's also why EEF samples with more Basal Eurasian ancestry are pulled back more in this morphometric direction, i.e. to the righthand side where Africans are and away from the lefthand side where modern day Europeans are.
Note also the position of the Portugese Mesolithic sample (Muge) I talked about in the other thread. It's different from the other European Mesolithic samples along the y axis (French Mesolithic) and y + x axis (Franchti). In both of these dimensions it 'prefers' the predynastic Egyptian and EEF samples over contemporary Mesolithic Europeans. [/QB]
Ok, that makes sense that EEF's overlapping with Africans is an anamoly because I have seen more EEF's that are closer to modern euros than Africans.
Just to clarify something, I stated that you believed that some indigenous north African ancestry gets misconstrued as "Eurasian". This would not be basal Eurasian right? Because basal Eurasian seems to be distinct from traditional ancestry that gets classified as Eurasian. The basal Eurasian ancestry is pulling the EEF's in the chart closer to the Dinka and other Africans. Obviously this ancestry can't be confused with Eurasian because it pulls genomes closer to Africans right in a way that ancestry that would get confused as Eurasian wouldn't right?
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
It's all in how one defines African and non-African ancestry.
Take another look at that graph you reposted (i.e. the one with Iceman and Gokhem). There are no living Africans on the red branch. The African populations with a pure and majority proportion of basal Eurasian are extinct. There is no living reference of Africans belonging to this ancestry, who also don't have a degree of Eurasian ancestry. So, traditionally, it has been common practice to define indigenous North African ancestry as haplotypes that have affinity with Sub-Saharan Africans. When you do this, Basal Eurasian ancestry isn't going to make the cut.
While Basal Eurasian is intermediate in that map, as you correctly point out, you can also see that basal Eurasian and Eurasians were once one and the same population for some time before they went their separate ways (this was before the OOA migration that Eurasians get most of their ancestry from). You can tell by the branch in between the Dinka node and the node where Basal Eurasian and Eurasians separate. That branch is what I and some others on this forum whose views align with mine call 'preOOA'. During this time, the ancestors of many Sub-Saharan Africans were already on their separate branch, which you can also see on that graph.
If you're an Eurocentric or Afrocentric, you'll have an interest in denying that that transitional branch ever existed or that certain Africans derive from it. Pan-Africanists tend to want to latch onto their dream that Africans, especially those with prestigious civilizations, are a single 'race' and completely detached from Eurasians (while hypocritically promoting OOA hypothesis, which predicts that some Africans do, in fact, have more recent common ancestors with Eurasians). Eurocentrics have an interest in denying the Africanity of that transitional branch because it means, among other things, that they and their neolithic ancestors have more African ancestry than they want to acknowledge.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: In the case of skin pigmentation genes this means that dark skinned Asian populations are STILL more related overall to Europeans than to Africans.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
^Yes. But wait until it sinks in with Doug what my study says.
Not all nukes are created equal. What I posted is a bomb with a whole 'nother level of ownage. He just doesn't know it yet (or pretends).
This is what that skin color gene paper says: even Doug's last hope for his racial club, i.e. that most living Africans and dark skinned Asians have the same pigmentation genes (to the exclusion of Europeans), is false. Lol. Dark Asians' 'blackness' has a completely different genetic structure and evolutionary history—one that is shared with pale Europeans.
Which brings us back to Doug's hypocritical refusal to include dark skinned Mesolithic Europeans in his racial dark skin club simply because of political reasons.
♪ I can feel it, ownage in the air tonight. Oh lordddd ♫
Posted by Ceasar (Member # 18274) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: It's all in how one defines African and non-African ancestry.
Take another look at that graph you reposted (i.e. the one with Iceman and Gokhem). There are no living Africans on the red branch. The African populations with a pure and majority proportion of basal Eurasian are extinct. There is no living reference of Africans belonging to this ancestry, who also don't have a degree of Eurasian ancestry. So, traditionally, it has been common practice to define indigenous North African ancestry as haplotypes that have affinity with Sub-Saharan Africans. When you do this, Basal Eurasian ancestry isn't going to make the cut.
While Basal Eurasian is intermediate in that map, as you correctly point out, you can also see that basal Eurasian and Eurasians were once one and the same population for some time before they went their separate ways (this was before the OOA migration that Eurasians get most of their ancestry from). You can tell by the branch in between the Dinka node and the node where Basal Eurasian and Eurasians separate. That branch is what I and some others on this forum whose views align with mine call 'preOOA'. During this time, the ancestors of many Sub-Saharan Africans were already on their separate branch, which you can also see on that graph.
If you're an Eurocentric or Afrocentric, you'll have an interest in denying that that transitional branch ever existed or that certain Africans derive from it. Pan-Africanists tend to want to latch onto their dream that Africans, especially those with prestigious civilizations, are a single 'race' and completely detached from Eurasians (while hypocritically promoting OOA hypothesis, which predicts that some Africans do, in fact, have more recent common ancestors with Eurasians). Eurocentrics have an interest in denying the Africanity of that transitional branch because it means, among other things, that they and their neolithic ancestors have more African ancestry than they want to acknowledge.
Thanks for the response,
If I am understanding you, ancient egypt ancestry would be essentialy the same as basal eurasian ancestry. Based on the chart, Gokhem and Iceman have a large blue component indigneous ancient egytians would not have. They would be alot more red or there would be no blue at all. If that is the case, then they would be closer to the sub-sharans then they would be to LaBrana (totality eurasian). Based on my knowledge, east africans and west africans are closer to each other than eurasians are to east africans when you take out the recent eurasian ancestry of east africans (I have seen studies to back that up). I was always under the assumption that the core population of egypt (before mixing) would be closer to East and Weest Africans (in that order) than to eurasians, but still being in the middle in a sense (being closer to eurasians then east and west africans are). Based on my last post you seem to disagree with this view. I know that some africans populations are very divergent like Khosian and pgymy tribes were AE's would be closer to eurasians than them but I don't think the same applies for east and west africans.
However, I am open to being wrong....
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ceasar: If I am understanding you, ancient egypt ancestry would be essentialy the same as basal eurasian ancestry.
If you're talking about the Late Palaeolithic then I think some of the ancestors of AE predominately or almost exclusively had this ancestry, yes. When people admix, the offspring inherit the ancestry proportions of their parents, so the people who came out of Egypt had the same Basal Eurasian to SSA ratio we see in these neolithic groups. This ratio may be something like 10 to 1 in EEF and somewhat more slanted to the SSA side in the recently sampled Natufians. In Satsurblia (a sample from Georgia older than all of these), the relative proportion of Basal Eurasian to SSA may be higher (meaning, less SSA).
So, for some ancestors of AE it seems that the further back you go, the more Basal Eurasian vs SSA they have. in between the early to mid holocene the % of various types of SSA ancestry increases and Basal Eurasian lowers in many populations in North Africa, including the AE of this time period.
quote:Originally posted by Ceasar: Based on my knowledge, east africans and west africans are closer to each other than eurasians are to east africans when you take out the recent eurasian ancestry of east africans (I have seen studies to back that up). I was always under the assumption that the core population of egypt (before mixing) would be closer to East and Weest Africans (in that order) than to eurasians, but still being in the middle in a sense (being closer to eurasians then east and west africans are). Based on my last post you seem to disagree with this view.
There are some things we should separate. The component that is introducing most of the intermediateness of modern northeast Africans is Eurasian, Basal Eurasian, Omotic, Nilo-Saharan, in that order. Basal Eurasian and Eurasian may be a tie according to some studies, I'm not sure. Dynastic AE who had more Nilo-Saharan and Omotic than Basal Eurasian, would be closer to Africans than to Eurasians.
The degree of closeness to Eurasians at the expense of closeness to SSA depends on the proportion of Basal Eurasian (or other divergent African ancestries in the case of Mota), not on East or West African. For instance, the Afar are East Africans but they may have already crossed the threshold of being somewhat closer to Eurasians than to many (but not all) Africans. I would have to recheck to be sure. Somalis are more to the African side. Mota is on that border also but, unlike to the Afar and Ethio-Semitic speakers, Mota has little to no Eurasian ancestry. Mota's affinity to Eurasians also depends less on Basal Eurasian and more on the fact that his ancestors departed later from Eurasians and Basal Eurasians than Nilo-Saharans and others did.
Approximate proportion of Basal Eurasian (colored magenta) in some African samples:
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
This discussion is a waste of time. There is no way that the OoA population was different from other Africans. Just about all of the dates proposed for haplogroup M and N, are to old to have had them originate outside Africa. As a result, the present haplogroups otside Africa, were first carried by Africans, and continue to be carried by Africans.
What Eurocentrists have done is give the same haplogroup different names in Africa and Eurasia. For example, Asian haplogroup D4, is nothing more than African M1.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Let me just get it over with and repost the answer you claim I never posted because I'm supposedly trying to "avoid" something. I clearly already answered your question. It may not be that "mutation" story you seem to have your hopes on for some strange reason, but I posted from the beginning what separates OOA populations from their African source populations:
"But, to answer your question, anytime populations split you get peculiarities in the migrants' genomes (e.g. certain new patterns in LD that prove the population is 'young(er)'), so one could easily demarcate OOA settlers from Africans. This is not at all a challenge in population genetics." —Swenet
I also said from the very beginning that the OOA ancestors of living Eurasians left Africa with genes that have completely different haplotype background than most Africans. In the case of skin pigmentation genes this means that dark skinned Asian populations are STILL more related overall to Europeans than to Africans. So, again, your racial club falls apart because most Africans, especially living Africans, are at best distantly related to OOA populations:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Also, re: the ease of delineating OOA populations and living Africans, the haplotype backgrounds of skin pigmentation genes show stark differences. This is no surprise and is expected.
quote:Three early diverging haplotypes, C1, C2, and C4, are rare outside of Africa and clearly originated there. In the lineage containing the majority of haplotypes, each of the three branches, containing C5, C6-C7, and C8-C11, give strong evidence of having originated in Africa. C5 reaches its greatest abundance in West Africa and is rare outside of Africa. Within the other two branches, C6 and C9, which are the most common haplotypes in Africa, are also common worldwide, whereas C7 is abundant in East Asia and much less common but widespread in Africa. Consideration of the relationships among haplotype variants (Figure 4) indicates that C6, C7, and C9 (but not C8) dispersed out of Africa and have diverse descendants present and originating in East Asia. Among these descendants is C10, which is abundant in East Asia (and the New World) but extremely rare in Africa (0.5% in LWK). Haplotype C3 represents the final early diverging lineage (Figure 4). Although the lineage containing this haplotype must have originated in Africa, C3 is rare in Africa (1.0% in MKK) but widely distributed in East Asia, the New World, and Oceania. The distributions of C3 and C10 are most consistent with origin outside of Africa and subsequent introduction into Africa by migrations such as those documented by uniparental markers (Richards et al. 2006).
There you have it. Let's see how your next step is going spin this to where OOA populations are somehow not related to their living descendants BEFORE they relate to Africans. [/QB]
Swenet, why don't you just admit you aren't answering the question? Of course there have been many splits and mutations since populations left Africa, but that was 60,000 years ago.
The point of my question was when did any specific mutation or specific split occur that would allow us to distinguish the African populations at the time from the populations who had left Africa. Keep in mind that Africans have also continued to split and mutate as much as non Africans so that isn't a shock.
The key here and what I have been getting at all along is that the labeling of genetic lineages is heavily ambiguous and misleading. If population X left Africa left at say time say 65,000 years ago, it would have taken a while before the a substanial genetic mutation would arise that would be identified today as a new genetic lineage. It didn't happen over night. Second, random mutations in and of themselves don't necessarily change outward appearance drastically. So the second part of this is when did the mutations occur that would have generated enough differences to distinguish the African base population from the now external population who left. Again, this didn't happen overnight and it didn't necessarily happen 1,000, 2,000 or 5,000 years later either. So even if we can identify a major new genetic lineage born outside Africa in a population that left Africa, it does not necessarily indicate a shift in phenotype. So again, when and where do we draw the line between the basal African population and any other population or lineage that left Africa?
I am asking a very specific question as to what the labels "African" and "OOA" or Non African mean in this context because my argument is that people use these terms vaguely and that is what leads to the debates over such topics. My point is that since African populations are basal to all others, then all populations leaving Africa were still primarily African physically and genetically for many thousands of years after leaving Africa, even with new genetic mutations that occurred. And the key "splits" that would eventually be used to distinguish later populations from African populations had not happened yet.
There is bias implicit in all of this because most of those scholars looking at the history of genetic lineages are real quick to slap a label on some ancient population of Africans who left Africa in order to imply that the distinctions that we see today in populations had already arisen at a time frame inconsistent with what we know about genetic deviation and mutations.
And your statement about Africans today not matching the lineages of Africans thousands of years ago only proves that genetic mutations and splits occur in all human populations regardless of whether they are in or outside Africa. Since Africa is a geographic reference, there is no split that could have occurred in any past African population that would have made it "Non African", and even if some population did leave Africa carrying some set of genes that were relatively rare and unique to themselves they were still equally African as any other population in Africa because they all had genetic lineages that are largely not found today. So that is a contradictory statement.
As far as Arabia is concerned, the populations in Arabia being geographically close to Africa would not have varied too far physically from the Africans across the Red Sea as both populations features are the result of adaptation to similar environmental conditions. Therefore any differences physically are likely the result of migrations and mixture events occurring over the course of time as opposed to pure "in situ" evolutionary changes in genetics. So to the original point, those black South Arabians have always been black since the day they left Africa.
Finally, this whole idea of "basal Eurasian" in West Eurasia ties all of these things together. The term comes up specifically in recent papers related to Neanderthal ancestry. Recall that Neanderthal ancestry was seen as the "marker" or "split" that identified Non African lineages from the lineages of populations that stayed in Africa(supposedly). So in reality, what they are saying is that the "basal Eurasian" gene is an African gene because of its proximity to Africa which would preclude any Neanderthal ancestry as by their own research, this supposedly happened outside of Africa somewhere. This right here just shows exactly why I asked the question and you seem to be missing the whole point. At the time of the genesis of whatever lineages that they are claiming to be "basal Eurasian" you are still primarily talking about populations physically and genetically African. And this is long before the existence of any population called Natufian. The Natufian lineages are associated with "basial Eurasian" lineages which are many years older than Natufians themselves and as I said go back to populations recently leaving Africa and settling in and around Arabia and the Red Sea.
People should stop following Euroclowns and their nonsense.
quote: We report genome-wide ancient DNA from 44 ancient Near Easterners ranging in time between ~12,000 and 1,400 bc, from Natufian hunter–gatherers to Bronze Age farmers. We show that the earliest populations of the Near East derived around half their ancestry from a ‘Basal Eurasian’ lineage that had little if any Neanderthal admixture and that separated from other non-African lineages before their separation from each other.
Therefore in genetics terms "basal" anything is almost certainly basically a synonym for African at the time depth that said lineage split occurred.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Doug, you have no idea what you're talking about. Mutations don't make populations differentiate. A mutation in a genome is just a mutation in a single person's genome. What does that have to do with collectively differentiating into a new population?
Your line of questioning is completely off. You make up these fairytales and when I don't participate you say I'm not answering your question.
What makes populations differentiate is when things like founder effect (yes, it's called FOUNDER effect for a reason) happen and the genetic material of individuals in the FOUNDING POPULATION population undergoes evolutionary forces over time while the genetic material in the parent population undergoes evolutionary forces specific to it. Mutations play a role in this but to say mutations create new populations is completely preposterous. It's wrong Doug. It's completely wrong. Go waste somebody else's time with this mutation non sense.
If you want to be in your own world, that's your prerogative. But don't waste my time asking me the same questions over and over because you can't the process the answers and scientific data I give you.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: It's all in how one defines African and non-African ancestry.
Take another look at that graph you reposted (i.e. the one with Iceman and Gokhem). There are no living Africans on the red branch. The African populations with a pure and majority proportion of basal Eurasian are extinct. There is no living reference of Africans belonging to this ancestry, who also don't have a degree of Eurasian ancestry. So, traditionally, it has been common practice to define indigenous North African ancestry as haplotypes that have affinity with Sub-Saharan Africans. When you do this, Basal Eurasian ancestry isn't going to make the cut.
While Basal Eurasian is intermediate in that map, as you correctly point out, you can also see that basal Eurasian and Eurasians were once one and the same population for some time before they went their separate ways (this was before the OOA migration that Eurasians get most of their ancestry from). You can tell by the branch in between the Dinka node and the node where Basal Eurasian and Eurasians separate. That branch is what I and some others on this forum whose views align with mine call 'preOOA'. During this time, the ancestors of many Sub-Saharan Africans were already on their separate branch, which you can also see on that graph.
If you're an Eurocentric or Afrocentric, you'll have an interest in denying that that transitional branch ever existed or that certain Africans derive from it. Pan-Africanists tend to want to latch onto their dream that Africans, especially those with prestigious civilizations, are a single 'race' and completely detached from Eurasians (while hypocritically promoting OOA hypothesis, which predicts that some Africans do, in fact, have more recent common ancestors with Eurasians). Eurocentrics have an interest in denying the Africanity of that transitional branch because it means, among other things, that they and their neolithic ancestors have more African ancestry than they want to acknowledge.
You almost got it right. Eurasians are the only ones trying to mislabel the basal lineages that gave rise to their "Eurasian" ancestors as Non African. Most Africans just call those lineages African. You on the other had have come to focus on this concept of transitional as if that even means anything. It doesn't. If it arose in Africa before the populations left, then it is African. Period.
Following the delusions of Europeans intent on misleading and twisting data are not going to help. That is the reason why I asked the question and while you obviously get it and obviously agree on the Africanity ultimately of said lineages, which was the only point I was making. But that said some of the way you choose to word it and discuss it comes across as unnecessarily convoluted.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Doug, you have no idea what you're talking about. Mutations don't make populations differentiate. A mutation in a genome is just a mutation in a single person's genome. What does that have to do with collectively differentiating into a new population?
Your line of questioning is completely off. You make up these fairytales and when I don't reciprocate in playing along you say I'm not answering your question.
What makes populations differentiate is when things like founder effect (yes, it's called FOUNDER effect for a reason) happen and the genetic material of individuals in the FOUNDING POPULATION population undergoes evolutionary forces over time while the genetic material in the parent population undergoes evolutionary forces specific to it. Mutations play a role in this but to say mutations create new populations is completely preposterous. It's wrong Doug. It's completely wrong. Go waste somebody else's time with this mutation non sense.
If you want to be in your own world, that's your prerogative. But don't waste my time asking me the same questions over and over because you can't the process the answers and scientific data I give you.
Seriously?
Did you just say mutations in human genetics aren't the basis of all genetic diversity?
Swenet your attempts to defend yourself even when there is nobody attacking you just makes you say things that are stupid because you just can't accept you may be wrong or said something incorrect even if you really believe otherwise. Or maybe your grasp of English is lacking.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
We're not talking about the basis of "all genetic diversity". We're talking about how new populations emerge. Why the sleight of hand? See what I mean? You're not serious.
I'm not interested in debating someone who will steamroll over any scientific evidence or who thinks everyone should take his word for it. Makes me have very little patience.
No one worth his salt thinks new populations form because mutations happen in isolated individuals. No one.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Nowhere does it say that mutations cause population differentiation. Mutations are simply, together with the vast majority of the rest of the human genome inherited from the first modern humans, the stuff that evolutionary forces work on. And the genes and genomes of humans are essentially the same across 'races', which rules out any claim that mutations drive population differentiation.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
As far as the title topic is concerned, the label 'black' is usually applied to heavily melanated i.e. very dark skinned individuals. This includes the ancient Egyptians by the way.
But I see some have moved on to another topic which deserves its own thread, namely genetic variation and diversity in Africa pre OOA.
Posted by Ceasar (Member # 18274) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Ceasar: If I am understanding you, ancient egypt ancestry would be essentialy the same as basal eurasian ancestry.
If you're talking about the Late Palaeolithic then I think some of the ancestors of AE predominately or almost exclusively had this ancestry, yes. When people admix, the offspring inherit the ancestry proportions of their parents, so the people who came out of Egypt had the same Basal Eurasian to SSA ratio we see in these neolithic groups. This ratio may be something like 10 to 1 in EEF and somewhat more slanted to the SSA side in the recently sampled Natufians. In Satsurblia (a sample from Georgia older than all of these), the relative proportion of Basal Eurasian to SSA may be higher (meaning, less SSA).
So, for some ancestors of AE it seems that the further back you go, the more Basal Eurasian vs SSA they have. in between the early to mid holocene the % of various types of SSA ancestry increases and Basal Eurasian lowers in many populations in North Africa, including the AE of this time period.
quote:Originally posted by Ceasar: Based on my knowledge, east africans and west africans are closer to each other than eurasians are to east africans when you take out the recent eurasian ancestry of east africans (I have seen studies to back that up). I was always under the assumption that the core population of egypt (before mixing) would be closer to East and Weest Africans (in that order) than to eurasians, but still being in the middle in a sense (being closer to eurasians then east and west africans are). Based on my last post you seem to disagree with this view.
There are some things we should separate. The component that is introducing most of the intermediateness of modern northeast Africans is Eurasian, Basal Eurasian, Omotic, Nilo-Saharan, in that order. Basal Eurasian and Eurasian may be a tie according to some studies, I'm not sure. Dynastic AE who had more Nilo-Saharan and Omotic than Basal Eurasian, would be closer to Africans than to Eurasians.
The degree of closeness to Eurasians at the expense of closeness to SSA depends on the proportion of Basal Eurasian (or other divergent African ancestries in the case of Mota), not on East or West African. For instance, the Afar are East Africans but they may have already crossed the threshold of being somewhat closer to Eurasians than to many (but not all) Africans For instance, the Afar are East Africans but they may have already crossed the threshold of being somewhat closer to Eurasians than to many (but not all) Africans. I would have to recheck to be sure. Somalis are more to the African side. Mota is on that border also but, unlike to the Afar and Ethio-Semitic speakers, Mota has little to no Eurasian ancestry. Mota's affinity to Eurasians also depends less on Basal Eurasian and more on the fact that his ancestors departed later from Eurasians and Basal Eurasians than Nilo-Saharans and others did.
Approximate proportion of Basal Eurasian (colored magenta) in some African samples:
Hi Swenet,
I don't understand why the afar would have crossed the threshold of being more related to Eurasians then most Africans. From my understanding, the graph that shows the EEF farmers (Iceman and Gokhem) pushing towards the africans (Dinka, Yoruba etc) is due to having partial Basal Eurasian ancestry. You posted this cranofacial analysis in the last page called Nea Nikomedea (an EEF), you stated that the reason that he was moving towards Africans was due to his partial Basal Eurasian ancestry. The afar don't even have a blue component like stuggart, and they have more sub-Saharan ancestry then stuggart. Why would they be on the threshold?
Also to the best of my knowledge, Mota overlaps with the Ari Cultivator and BlackSmsith. They are overwhelmingly sub-sharan african with very little eurasian ancestry.
In your opinion, was the core population of ancient egpyt in general closer to sub-sharan (nilo sharan, omotic, west african) or Eurasians?
Posted by Nodnarb (Member # 3735) on :
Welcome back, DJ!
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: As far as the title topic is concerned, the label 'black' is usually applied to heavily melanated i.e. very dark skinned individuals. This includes the ancient Egyptians by the way.
But I see some have moved on to another topic which deserves its own thread, namely genetic variation and diversity in Africa pre OOA.
This thread is basically saying using the term "black" in anthropology one has to be CAREFUL considering "black" and "white" are not biologically defined in bio-anthropology.
For example a pale looking Puerto Rican is more "African" than a very dark skinned New Guinean. Yet that New Guinean would be labeled "black" compared to that New Guinean. Of course I am addressing the racial use of black.
But I do say one does NOT have to be caution when using "black" discussing historical topics.
Again this is the thesis of this thread.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Mutation
A mutation is defined as a permanent change to the DNA sequence in a gene. This change shifts the genetic message carried by the gene and can alter the amino acid sequence of the protein the gene encodes. This means that future cells produced by the gene will only carry a certain trait.
Genetic Drift
Genetic drift, on the other hand, is the change in the genetic composition of a population over time as a result of chance or random events. In cases of genetic drift, such as natural disasters or seasons of unusual weather, the generation that survives to reproduce will not necessarily be the most fit, but the most lucky. Genetic drift does not refer to a specific change in genetic cells, rather to random occurrences that influence a population's genetic makeup.
A haplotype is a group of genes in an organism that are inherited together from a single parent. A haplogroup, is a group of similar haplotypes that share a common ancestor with a single-nucleotide polymorphism mutation.
Another specific definition of haplotype: Many human genetic testing companies use the term 'haplotype' to refer to an individual collection of specific mutations within a given genetic segment; The term 'haplogroup' refers to the SNP/unique-event polymorphism (UEP) mutations that represent the clade to which a collection of particular human haplotypes belong. When a mutation arises in a mtDNA molecule, the mutation is therefore passed in a direct female line of descent. Mutations are copying mistakes in the DNA sequence. Single mistakes are called single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs).
A human male should largely share the same Y chromosome as his father, give or take a few mutations; thus Y chromosomes tend to pass largely intact from father to son, with a small but accumulating number of mutations that can serve to differentiate male lineages. In particular, the Y-DNA represented as the numbered results of a Y-DNA genealogical DNA test should match, except for mutations.
In natural populations, genetic drift and natural selection do not act in isolation; both forces are always at play, together with mutation and migration. Neutral evolution is the product of both mutation and drift, not of drift alone. Similarly, even when selection overwhelms genetic drift, it can only act on variation that mutation provides.
After a bottleneck, inbreeding increases. This increases the damage done by recessive deleterious mutations, in a process known as inbreeding depression.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
Nowhere does it say that mutations cause population differentiation. Mutations are simply, together with the vast majority of the rest of the human genome inherited from the first modern humans, the stuff that evolutionary forces work on. And the genes and genomes of humans are essentially the same across 'races', which rules out any claim that mutations drive population differentiation.
So would it be correct to say that no genetic mutations occurred in humans after they left Africa?
Also, genetic differentiation is defined by mutations. What causes the mutation is a different matter.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nodnarb: Welcome back, DJ!
Thanks. I would have been back sooner but besides work, writing stuff for this forum, I have been having some personal issues.
Posted by Punos_Rey (Member # 21929) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: If you're an Eurocentric or Afrocentric, you'll have an interest in denying that that transitional branch ever existed or that certain Africans derive from it. Pan-Africanists tend to want to latch onto their dream that Africans, especially those with prestigious civilizations, are a single 'race' and completely detached from Eurasians (while hypocritically promoting OOA hypothesis, which predicts that some Africans do, in fact, have more recent common ancestors with Eurasians). Eurocentrics have an interest in denying the Africanity of that transitional branch because it means, among other things, that they and their neolithic ancestors have more African ancestry than they want to acknowledge.
Falling along the lines of a Pan-African orientation myself, I personally have no problems with this. What does it matter if some African populations have more recent common ancestors with Europeans? What I have a problem with is acknowledging this connection to the *neglect* or *denial* of those same Africans having ties to other African populations with more distant common ancestors with Europeans. As if those Africans are some distinct "Hamitic"/Brown Caucasian lineage with no connection to Sub-Saharan Africans. Bull.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ceasar: Hi Swenet,
I don't understand why the afar would have crossed the threshold of being more related to Eurasians then most Africans. From my understanding, the graph that shows the EEF farmers (Iceman and Gokhem) pushing towards the africans (Dinka, Yoruba etc) is due to having partial Basal Eurasian ancestry. You posted this cranofacial analysis in the last page called Nea Nikomedea (an EEF), you stated that the reason that he was moving towards Africans was due to his partial Basal Eurasian ancestry. The afar don't even have a blue component like stuggart, and they have more sub-Saharan ancestry then stuggart. Why would they be on the threshold?
Also to the best of my knowledge, Mota overlaps with the Ari Cultivator and BlackSmsith. They are overwhelmingly sub-sharan african with very little eurasian ancestry.
In your opinion, was the core population of ancient egpyt in general closer to sub-sharan (nilo sharan, omotic, west african) or Eurasians?
Actually, "Basal Eurasian" is a hypothetical population ancestral to the first farmers of the Middle-East who spread throughout the eastern Mediterranean into Asia Minor and Europe during neolithic times introducing neolithic culture i.e. agriculture and farming into Europe. This hypothetical population is based on statistical genetic components that these Neolithic forebears share. The question though is exactly how "Eurasian" is basal Eurasian? The reason for the first term "basal" is because geneticists notice that these autosomal elements are associated with Africans and therefore presumably with Eurasians whose ancestors left Africa more recently. What you have to understand is that this 'basal Eurasian' genetic element is not only found among East African Afar but also Central African Mbuti Pygmies!! So again, is 'basal Eurasian' really Eurasian??
Posted by Punos_Rey (Member # 21929) on :
^So kind of like some type of European prototype?
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ More accurately a Neolithic (first farmer) of the Middle East prototype.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ceasar: I don't understand why the afar would have crossed the threshold of being more related to Eurasians then most Africans. From my understanding, the graph that shows the EEF farmers (Iceman and Gokhem) pushing towards the africans (Dinka, Yoruba etc) is due to having partial Basal Eurasian ancestry.
In genome-wide analyses this Afar sample is intermediate and we now know that this ~50% is not entirely Eurasian, but partly Basal Eurasian. Getting clarity on this so-called Eurasian ancestry and reclassifying some of it as African ancestry doesn't change that the Afar are, and always have been, genetically intermediate in genetics papers.
BTW, I checked some of the data and articles report more or less 50% percent of so-called Eurasian ancestry in this Afar sample. So it's not consistent.
quote:Originally posted by Ceasar: You posted this cranofacial analysis in the last page called Nea Nikomedea (an EEF), you stated that the reason that he was moving towards Africans was due to his partial Basal Eurasian ancestry. The afar don't even have a blue component like stuggart, and they have more sub-Saharan ancestry then stuggart. Why would they be on the threshold?
If I'm misunderstanding you, feel free to correct me, but genome-wide data trumps morphometric data, so, one can't really use the latter to argue that there is something wrong with the former. The Afar and EEF have respectively ~50% and >50% non-Sub-Saharan African ancestry so both are on or over the threshold, genetically speaking. Like I said, I don't buy that Basal Eurasian haplotypes necessarily immediately jump out as African to the same extent that carriers of this ancestry often do in morphometric analysis. Basal Eurasians are a tropically adapted population, so of course ancestry from them is going to result in a more African morphometric position compared to cold adapted populations. But when you look at non-metric skeletal data, a gap between Basal Eurasian carriers and most Sub-Saharan Africans starts to appear again in a way that resembles the genetic data.
quote:Originally posted by Ceasar: In your opinion, was the core population of ancient egpyt in general closer to sub-sharan (nilo sharan, omotic, west african) or Eurasians?
I'm not really interested right now in getting embroiled in a contest between who is closer. Especially not in a forum where preOOA doesn't mean the same thing to me as it does to the 'race-activists' here. Sensitivities are known to go through the roof when I put ancient Egyptian and Eurasian in the same sentence, even when I make it clear that any likeness is mostly due to the Egyptian ancestry in both and the fact that OOA populations look like robust versions of ancient Egyptians, anyway.
I think that the AE can be modeled as EEF + various types of African ancestry added to it. I also think that a subset of the Natufians and the earliest EEF samples (e.g. Nea Nikomedea) have retained phenotypes that look a lot like ancient Egyptians and Nubians more so than any Africans you mentioned.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: So would it be correct to say that no genetic mutations occurred in humans after they left Africa?
Of course genetic mutations occurred in humans who left Africa.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Also, genetic differentiation is defined by mutations. What causes the mutation is a different matter.
What do you mean "what causes the mutation is another matter"? Read your own post. It states that mutations are random events. It also correctly identifies genetic drift as one of the drivers of differentiation. So how do you walk away with the interpretation that mutations drive differentiation after you've supposedly read my screenshot or you own post, hmm?
"genetic drift [...] random occurrences that influence a population's genetic makeup"
^ Did your own text? Nowhere does it state that the mere accumulation of mutations gets you from an OOA population to an East Asian or Polynesian population.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
Nowhere does it say that mutations cause population differentiation. Mutations are simply, together with the vast majority of the rest of the human genome inherited from the first modern humans, the stuff that evolutionary forces work on. And the genes and genomes of humans are essentially the same across 'races', which rules out any claim that mutations drive population differentiation. [/qb]
You have a quote up about crops, why not quote about human biology?
Mutations do indeed cause population differentiation as well as drift, Doug sent me some articles
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
Difference Between Mutation & Genetic Drift By Alicia Prince eHow Contributor
smh as if you wrote that stuff. lol
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: Mutations do indeed cause population differentiation as well as drift
Explain this process in detail. Mutations occur in all of us. Explain how they disseminate through a population on their own, without the factors I mentioned that actually drive population differentiation. Because that's what you're telling me. That random errors in an individuals genome have agency and that they can ensure their own survival by disseminating through a population and cause change outside of the cell they're in.
Posted by Punos_Rey (Member # 21929) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet
I'm not really interested right now in getting embroiled in a contest between who is closer. Especially not in a forum where preOOA doesn't mean the same thing to me as it does to the 'race-activists' here. Sensitivities are known to go through the roof when I put ancient Egyptian and Eurasian in the same sentence, even when I make it clear that any likeness is mostly due to the Egyptian ancestry in both and the fact that OOA populations look like robust versions of ancient Egyptians, anyway.
I think that the AE can be modeled as EEF + various types of African ancestry added to it. I also think that a subset of the Natufians and the earliest EEF samples (e.g. Nea Nikomedea) have retained phenotypes that look a lot like ancient Egyptians and Nubians more so than any Africans you mentioned. [/QB]
I'm curious how you came to the conclusion of EEF primacy with some African ancestry on top when their progenitors originated from SSA and the Western Desert. Shouldn't it be Various types of African ancestry with some EEF added to it? I'm not even trying to be funny here genuinely asking
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by Nodnarb: Welcome back, DJ!
Thanks. I would have been back sooner but besides work, writing stuff for this forum, I have been having some personal issues.
What's up bro. Discussing and figuring out this stuff isn't the same without you and Jari.
Posted by Nodnarb (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Punos_Rey:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet
I'm not really interested right now in getting embroiled in a contest between who is closer. Especially not in a forum where preOOA doesn't mean the same thing to me as it does to the 'race-activists' here. Sensitivities are known to go through the roof when I put ancient Egyptian and Eurasian in the same sentence, even when I make it clear that any likeness is mostly due to the Egyptian ancestry in both and the fact that OOA populations look like robust versions of ancient Egyptians, anyway.
I think that the AE can be modeled as EEF + various types of African ancestry added to it. I also think that a subset of the Natufians and the earliest EEF samples (e.g. Nea Nikomedea) have retained phenotypes that look a lot like ancient Egyptians and Nubians more so than any Africans you mentioned.
I'm curious how you came to the conclusion of EEF primacy with some African ancestry on top when their progenitors originated from SSA and the Western Desert. Shouldn't it be Various types of African ancestry with some EEF added to it? I'm not even trying to be funny here genuinely asking [/QB]
Obviously the ancestors of AE and other Saharans would have come from SSA ultimately. But you still have to account for how long their ancestors would have spent in the Saharan region after that initial dispersal. If the ancestors of the AE had arrived from SSA, say, 120,000 years ago, they could look quite different than if they had arrived a mere 10,000 years ago. The further back this initial colonization, the more time they would have had to differentiate from their forebears.
Posted by Punos_Rey (Member # 21929) on :
Which again would still have them as indigenous Africans with *local variation* to the Saharan region. At what point on the timescale do they cease being African and become EEF if they are still within the territorial bounds of Africa?
Differentation does not change origin.
Posted by Nodnarb (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Punos_Rey: Which again would still have them as indigenous Africans with *local variation* to the Saharan region. At what point on the timescale do they cease being African and become EEF if they are still within the territorial bounds of Africa?
Differentation does not change origin.
Personally (and this may not be the same opinion as Swenet, beyoku, or others talking about pre-OOA) I think there are going to be *degrees* of affinity to OOA among Africans. Obviously Northeast Africans are going to be the African population closest to OOA since OOA directly splintered off their ancestral node. But then, you could say Dinka are closer to OOA than are Yoruba, who in turn are closer to OOA than are San, and so on. It's more of a gradient than an either-or dichotomy in my own view.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Punos_Rey:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet
I'm not really interested right now in getting embroiled in a contest between who is closer. Especially not in a forum where preOOA doesn't mean the same thing to me as it does to the 'race-activists' here. Sensitivities are known to go through the roof when I put ancient Egyptian and Eurasian in the same sentence, even when I make it clear that any likeness is mostly due to the Egyptian ancestry in both and the fact that OOA populations look like robust versions of ancient Egyptians, anyway.
I think that the AE can be modeled as EEF + various types of African ancestry added to it. I also think that a subset of the Natufians and the earliest EEF samples (e.g. Nea Nikomedea) have retained phenotypes that look a lot like ancient Egyptians and Nubians more so than any Africans you mentioned.
I'm curious how you came to the conclusion of EEF primacy with some African ancestry on top when their progenitors originated from SSA and the Western Desert. Shouldn't it be Various types of African ancestry with some EEF added to it? I'm not even trying to be funny here genuinely asking [/QB]
I was asked a question and instead of going with the choices I was given I answered it on my own terms. The sentence after it gives a clarification as well: in subsets of samples like Nea Nikomedea and the Natufians I can find matches with typically predynastic Egyptian phenotypes that I can't find as easily or at all among the populations that were mentioned. And I'm not the only one:
quote:Against this background of disease, movement and pedomorphic reduction of the body size one can identify Negroid (Ethiopic or Bushmanoid?) traits of nose and prognathism appearing in Natufian latest hunters and in Anatolian and Macedonian first farmers, probably from Nubia via the unknown predecessors of Badarians and Tasians, and travelling in the opposite direction sicklemia and thalassemia (porotic hyperostotis) and hence also falciparum malaria from Greece (perhaps also Italy) and Anatolia to Mesopotamia, the Levant, Egypt and Africa.
—Angel 1972
^He hit the nail on its head as far as the source of the earliest EEF, but may have dropped the ball in the end of the quote.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Punos_Rey: Which again would still have them as indigenous Africans with *local variation* to the Saharan region. At what point on the timescale do they cease being African and become EEF if they are still within the territorial bounds of Africa?
Differentation does not change origin.
Lol. This is why I'm reluctant to discuss this topic on this forum. Now someone feels some type of way when I say that part of AE genome can be modeled as a population known to have actually had AE ancestry! Wow. I think this is a new record for sensitivity around AE population affinity. I broke the unspoken rule of evoking the partial descendants of actual Egyptians. What am I thinking?
I raised an eyebrow when you were talking about "EEF primacy". Now this? "Cease to become African and become EEF"? Do you even know what it means to be able to model a genome as partly consisting of something?
Posted by Punos_Rey (Member # 21929) on :
I don't feel any type of way, I am asking a question specifically because I do *not* know what it means to be able to model a genome as partly consisting of something. You can't embarrass or "own" me over an ignorance I freely admit to.
Edit: actually I would appreciate you giving me the same respect I gave you when I asked you the question in the first place considering you are someone I do view as having some idea of what they're talking about.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Where do you see me talking about owning you because of an ignorance. If anything I'm absolutely stunned that my post is completely taken out of context and distorted into an "EEF primacy" and "cease being African" after all this time I've spent explaining that EEF are descended from Egyptians.
Nvr mind. I see it's time to wrap things up here.
Posted by Punos_Rey (Member # 21929) on :
^clearly I misread you. I thought by you saying
"I think that the AE can be modeled as EEF + various types of African ancestry added to it. I also think that asubset of the Natufians and the earliest EEF samples (e.g. Nea Nikomedea) have retained phenotypes that look a lot like ancient Egyptians and Nubians more so than any Africans you mentioned."
You were saying the AE *were* EEF. Reading comprehension fail on my part.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Punos_Rey:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet
I'm not really interested right now in getting embroiled in a contest between who is closer. Especially not in a forum where preOOA doesn't mean the same thing to me as it does to the 'race-activists' here. Sensitivities are known to go through the roof when I put ancient Egyptian and Eurasian in the same sentence, even when I make it clear that any likeness is mostly due to the Egyptian ancestry in both and the fact that OOA populations look like robust versions of ancient Egyptians, anyway.
I think that the AE can be modeled as EEF + various types of African ancestry added to it. I also think that a subset of the Natufians and the earliest EEF samples (e.g. Nea Nikomedea) have retained phenotypes that look a lot like ancient Egyptians and Nubians more so than any Africans you mentioned.
I'm curious how you came to the conclusion of EEF primacy with some African ancestry on top when their progenitors originated from SSA and the Western Desert. Shouldn't it be Various types of African ancestry with some EEF added to it? I'm not even trying to be funny here genuinely asking
I was asked a question and instead of going with the choices I was given I answered it on my own terms. The sentence after it gives a clarification as well: in subsets of samples like Nea Nikomedea and the Natufians I can find matches with typically predynastic Egyptian phenotypes that I can't find as easily or at all among the populations that were mentioned. And I'm not the only one:
quote:Against this background of disease, movement and pedomorphic reduction of the body size one can identify Negroid (Ethiopic or Bushmanoid?) traits of nose and prognathism appearing in Natufian latest hunters and in Anatolian and Macedonian first farmers, probably from Nubia via the unknown predecessors of Badarians and Tasians, and travelling in the opposite direction sicklemia and thalassemia (porotic hyperostotis) and hence also falciparum malaria from Greece (perhaps also Italy) and Anatolia to Mesopotamia, the Levant, Egypt and Africa.
—Angel 1972
^He hit the nail on its head as far as the source of the earliest EEF, but may have dropped the ball in the end of the quote.
Perfect example of Swenet's penchant for dissembling and moving goalposts when challenged.
He said:
quote:I think that the AE can be modeled as EEF + various types of African ancestry added to it.
Now we are talking in the context of identifying populations using appropriate labels. So what does EEF imply in the context of whether a specific population is African or Non African? By its name, Early European Farmer implies a population outside of Africa. Hence the problem of using it the way it was used in the sentence. Reading that sentence it sounds like the AE base population was made up of Early European Farmers with some African mixture on top.
Yes that is what was said. Now he tries to backtrack and claim we are asking for too much when we challenge him. And this isn't necessarily about trying to insult anybody it is making sure we have clarity and understanding when we talk.
And that ties in perfectly with the overall theme of the thread, where Swenet believes that "his way" of describing populations and affinities is more clear and consistent than simple terms like black or white and African/Non African. Yet we see his way of explaining things is just as incoherent and flawed as anything. But he refuses to admit that you cant pretend that there are some clear non overlapping values that have to be clearly delineated for the sake of clarity. Calling a population African versus Non African in terms of affinities and genetic lineages is a perfect example. It establishes key markers and mileposts on the journey of human evolution. But to him he thinks this is "racial obsession". No, it is clearly delineating the process by which humans evolved on the planet and ascribing appropriate labels to intermediate populations on the way to humanity on the way we see it today. The point being that every population, in the first wave of OOA migration, even as much as 10,000 years after leaving Africa was still primarily physically African in appearance and genetic lineages, even with the random DNA variations identified with drift and natural selection. And my reason for saying this is in the fact that most of these populations stayed in tropical/subtropical areas as they migrated out. Later waves of OOA populations are the ones who eventually moved north into areas formerly covered by ice giving rise to the Eurasians we see today.
When I say genetic mutation, I am referring to random changes to DNA codes. However there is a distinction in science made between mutation and other forms of changes to the genetic code. It is more along the line of mutation indicating some kind of negative change... as in "mutant". Either way, it is still a reference to random genetic changes that occur in each and every individual born on earth. Genetic drift and founder effect exist on top of this fundamental process.
quote: In summary DNA provides the instructions for the cells that make up our body
Everyone’s DNA is somewhat different; variations in our DNA make us unique
Some DNA variations are inherited from our parent/s, some appear from birth while others are acquired throughout life
DNA variations that have no adverse effects on our cells and occur frequently in the population are called polymorphisms
DNA variations that do affect the function of the protein made from a gene and occur less often are called mutations
quote:Originally posted by Doug M; Perfect example of Swenet's penchant for dissembling and moving goalposts when challenged.
Yes, either that or you have, again, no idea what you're talking about. I'll let people decide whether you're a pretending imposter or whether I'm the goal post shifter.
As alluded to earlier, certain Africans can be modeled as EEF + various types of African ancestry:
This is a normal way of expressing certain genetic results in the circles I frequent and the papers I read. The same circles Doug doesn't frequent and the sources he's never read because the so-called 'vet' doesn't know anything, talking about "mutations making people go from African to non African".
Out of touch ol' head inserting himself aggressively in conversations he doesn't know anything about. He's fuming and looking for a way to get even because his mutations and racial club non sense fell apart.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Notice that when you go online and read about how close various modern human genomes are, people are calling it among other things "shared drift" or "shared evolutionary history". When modern human genomes differ it's often explained as due to a lack of shared drift, not because "accumulated mutations" made the two populations morph into their current genotype. This is because population affinity or a lack of it isn't measured through accumulated mutations. For instance, Fst isn't based on "accumulated mutations" or the other fantasies Doug revels in.
And this is coming from a so-called 'vet'. Talking about "accumulated mutations causing a shift from OOA to non Africans". He's spamming the same question a million times and then he has the nerve to say I never answered it because I don't play along with his confused 'mutation' fantasy. In his mind, you can only answer his question when you join him and make things up. When you answer it the way it actually is, it doesn't count and you never answered his question. That's when he's being generous. Other times he'll accuse you of avoiding things or he'll even blame you for his own non sense:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: I asked you how do populations "mutate" over time and it is because of this mushmouth nonsense you posted:
And can you stop lying and blaming me for the nonsense you post? Because you were talking about mutations as the cause of population differentiation before I had even made that post:
because they have been undergoing thousands of years of random mutations in various environments resulting in a tremendous diversity in features among people with black skin. —Doug M
That's how warped his head is. Posted by Punos_Rey (Member # 21929) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: As alluded to earlier, certain Africans can be modeled as EEF + various types of African ancestry:
That was basically my only confusion there, not sure how that equated to me being sensitive or feeling some type of way? Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
I didn't say the exact same thing, almost word for word, when it come up in our private conversation on 21 August, 2016? This is what I said:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: The Natufians and farmers are simply more Eurasian versions of ancient Nile Valley groups.
If I can go on and on since Lazaridis et al 2014 saying the same thing and it can still register in someone's mind as "EEF primacy" and "cease being African", I'm definitely wasting my time.
One time I say it, it's a silence:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by xxyman: Sergi and Coon etc. That left Africa early Holocene BEFORE the rise of AE. Still don't get it?
You're not making any sense, gramps. Sergi and Coon both thought the predynastic AE epitomized certain phenotypes among the early uropean farmers. Now we have the genomes of these European early farmers. How much Great Lakes and South African do they have?
I say the same thing another day and there is confusion like I haven't been saying the same thing over and over again since 2014 and even before that and in private conversations. Yes, when that happens I start to think people are feeling some type of way. And this happens again and again on this forum. Look how Doug feigned surprise even though I've said the same thing to him many times in this very thread.
I should have followed my own advice.
Posted by Nodnarb (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Punos_Rey:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: As alluded to earlier, certain Africans can be modeled as EEF + various types of African ancestry:
That was basically my only confusion there, not sure how that equated to me being sensitive or feeling some type of way?
He's basically using "EEF" as a synonym for Saharan African ancestry, which some Europeans have inherited from incoming migrants.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: By its name, Early European Farmer implies a population outside of Africa. Hence the problem of using it the way it was used in the sentence. Reading that sentence it sounds like the AE base population was made up of Early European Farmers with some African mixture on top.
That's exactly how you can model them. In fact, that's how you can model the entire region today. Look at this clown man. SMH. This dude is a straight up clown. "Boohoo, EEF sounds too European". A butthurt clown is what he is. And where is the alleged goal post shift? Notice that he never denied that this is accurate. All he's saying is that his feelings are hurt because of how it sounds.
I know he's secretly been salty with cropped up anger ever since I told him that the typical Lower Egyptian morphotype was adjacent to many EEF populations in morphometric analyses. He's been salty all along every time he's seen me say this earlier in this thread.
^'Eurneo' (neolithic Europeans) and 'Egypt' (late dynastic Lower Egypt) occupy the same general position. This is the same general position that that Bronze Age warrior would fall into. Doug keeps ranting on and on about the racists he claims to be against, but then parrots their Eurocentric claim that this morphospace is necessarily 'European', 'white' and 'Polish'.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Please don't hurt my feelings. I don't like the way EEF sounds. When I don't like the way something sounds I fall back on my own reality inside my head.
LBK/EEF can be used as stand ins for up to 40% in the region's ancestry. Butthurt loser.
And in Sudan you also need a population with EEF-like affinities to properly model the populations there:
quote:To formally test the results of the admixture analysis, we applied the three-population test (f 3 sta- tistics). We used all possible pairs of populations as surrogates of the ancestral populations of each ethno-linguistic group. All populations that have a complex pattern of admixture (Fig. 3) showed sta- tistically significant results: those of the North-East cluster (Beja, Ethiopians, Arabs and Nubians) and Fulani. Populations from the North-East cluster: Beja, Ethiopians, Arabs and Nubians (Table 2) may be explained as admixture products of an ancestral North African pop- ulation (similar to Copts) and an ancestral South-West population (Nuba, even if in one case Darfurians have better fit). These four populations had an intermediate position between Copts and South-West Sudanese populations both in the PC and admixture analyses.
Now watch Doug's trademark crybaby rants below with no evidence or data from any study to support him as usual.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
More Doug fails. Instead of his 'black African' racial club being the closest to OOA ancestors of living Eurasians, they're the most distant out of all populations. Not just that but the gap in affinity is way too large to be able to spin this in favour of his fabricated non sense.
Affinities of modern population to 35ky old AMH (purple and red = Sub-Saharan African):
ALL Eurasian populations with recent African ancestry are pulled back from their own ancestors because of it. Doug has maintained all this time that it is impossible that recent African ancestry to Yemen pulled them away from their ancestors:
The first OOA migrants to Arabia were genetically, physically and phenotypically Africans and likely stayed that way for a very long time. —Doug M
Now look at where southern Arabians are (see the Yemeni sample, code: Yem). They are the furthest removed from OOA populations compared to other Eurasians and in the same cluster as North Africans (Moz, Egy, etc). Again, their recent African ancestry reduces their similarity to their own Eurasian ancestors and pulls them towards recent Africans.
What a fail. Now look back to his post when I posted this earlier. He tried to spin this as being a result of "a long time period", whatever that means. What a joke. His spins are laughably weak, yet he's convinced he has a point.
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
^^Not trying to get into this but I thought this was already known? Basically the basics...
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
What is this? funk master flex night? there's some crazy spinning going on in here....
San, has recent OOA admixture... a couple of the other populations on the chart above doesn't, all of which are closer to OOA populations than San... whats Up?
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: ^^Not trying to get into this but I thought this was already known? Basically the basics...
When you have people who lack the fundamental understanding of biological functionality as it pertains to DNA, Plasticity, population genetics, etc. You will have a lot of debates on the supposedly common knowledge.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: More Doug fails. Instead of his 'black African' racial club being the closest to OOA ancestors of living Eurasians, they're the most distant out of all populations. Not just that but the gap in affinity is way too large to be able to spin this in favour of his fabricated non sense.
Affinities of modern population to 35ky old AMH (purple and red = Sub-Saharan African):
ALL Eurasian populations with recent African ancestry are pulled back from their own ancestors because of it. Doug has maintained all this time that it is impossible that recent African ancestry to Yemen pulled them away from their ancestors:
The first OOA migrants to Arabia were genetically, physically and phenotypically Africans and likely stayed that way for a very long time. —Doug M
Now look at where southern Arabians are (see the Yemeni sample, code: Yem). They are the furthest removed from OOA populations compared to other Eurasians and in the same cluster as North Africans (Moz, Egy, etc). Again, their recent African ancestry reduces their similarity to their own Eurasian ancestors and pulls them towards recent Africans.
What a fail. Now look back to his post when I posted this earlier. He tried to spin this as being a result of "a long time period", whatever that means. What a joke. His spins are laughably weak, yet he's convinced he has a point.
Come on Swenet. Give it up. You lost this one a few pages ago.
I am talking about populations 60,000 years ago and you are talking about modern Yemenis.
And certainly you aren't going to sit here and claim that the people leaving Africa weren't black 60,000 years ago or later.
GTFOH with that nonsense.
Like I asked you before when did the first populations in Arabia split and become non African. You keep dancing around it. Come on if you are so knowledgeable about DNA why don't you break it down for us.
Bottom line, Basal anything is almost always African and the basal lineage in Arabia is R0, which is African and dated to 60,000 kya. Modern Arabians have different variants of R0 based on subsequent splits and migration events that introduced other lineages into the region. So modern Arabians are not simply populations who evolved "in situ" with no outside influence. Therefore trying to compare modern Arabian lineages to the lineages of the first populations who left Africa and settled there makes no sense. You point out how modern Africans no longer carry the same lineages from populations 60kya but you don't apply the same thing to the Southern Arabians. At least be consistent with your nonsense.
Now look at the below extract and you will understand why I keep asking you this question.
quote: Analyses of the uniparental genetic systems, in particular mtDNA, have suggested much more ancient gene flow into the Horn, from both the Levant and Arabia, although the timing has not been very clearly defined. Haplogroup M1 is thought to have arrived from the Mediterranean some time since the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM). The North African haplogroup U6a is found at lower levels, and with possibly a different trajectory. Haplogroup N1a1a in the Horn also separated from Arabia in the Late Glacial3, and several African subclades of haplogroup R0a and of haplogroup HV1 have been dated to the mid-Holocene. The Y-chromosome and several genome-wide studies have recently supplied further evidence supporting the scenario of ancient migrations from the Arabian Peninsula into the Horn of Africa, well before the spread of agriculture into that region. Fernandes et al. recently estimated the combined Near Eastern/Arabian genome-wide fraction in Ethiopia at almost 40%, closely matching the West Eurasian fraction of 37% in our Ethiopian mtDNA database.
The most prominent Eurasian mitochondrial lineage that is shared across the Horn and Arabia is R0a, which is found at very low frequencies across west Eurasia, but reaches levels of up to 35% in eastern Yemen and up to 15% in some parts of the Horn of Africa facing the Red Sea. It has been thought to have originated in the Near East and to have spread into Arabia at the end of the Pleistocene, albeit with difficulties in defining a source; others have hypothesized a more ancient ancestry within Arabia. This question is of great interest because evidence in favour of deeper Arabian ancestry would imply the existence of refugial areas in Arabia spanning the Last Glacial Maximum, which have been hypothesized but never confirmed. The timing and mode of its subsequent entry into Eastern Africa also remain to be clarified as well as its history in Europe. Here we analyse 205 whole mitogenomes from R0a, and its sister clade R0b, alongside 733 R0a and R0b control-region sequences, in order to address these issues.
The earliest settlement of Arabia by modern humans and its role in modern human dispersals out of Africa remain controversial, although the consensus genetic estimate for the timing remains ~50–60ka. We have argued for a "southern-route" dispersal out of Africa via Arabia at this time, since a Levantine source for all non-Africans would imply that basal non-African mtDNA diversity should be highest in the Near East, whereas the highest diversity is rather seen in South Asia. A model of this kind – albeit, inevitably, with further complexity – is supported by the high productivity of ancient coastlines. Autosomal dating has been used to suggest an earlier date, and both qualitative arguments and simulations have been used to propose that the age of non-African mitogenomes might be older than the ~50–60ka usually estimated. However, these assertions are based on lines of reasoning that draw their estimates from inappropriately old population splits or ignore the phylogenetic and phylogeographic structure of mtDNA, where inferences are made from a hierarchy of nesting relationships, analogous to a stratigraphy, rather than simple haplogroup ages as often assumed by critics. The model of a southern-route dispersal at ~50–60ka has recently received strong support from an analysis of 104 complete genomes from Arabia. These results are congruent with the most comprehensive mitogenome analyses that also stress the complexity of Arabian demographic history, and with recent ancient DNA analyses although contrary to one rather idiosyncratic reanalysis of mitogenome data that minimises the role of Arabia. Potential earlier dispersals identified from archaeological evidence51 therefore seem unlikely to have contributed substantially to the extant gene pool of the region. However, this is a topic that clearly requires much greater discussion, beyond the scope of the present article.
The earliest non-African ancestor of R0a, the root of haplogroup R, dates to ~59ka, and may (in line with the arguments summarised in the preceding paragraph) have originated in the Gulf Oasis soon after the dispersal of modern humans from Eastern Africa3. Its more immediate ancestor, R0a’b, dates to ~40ka and its earliest branches have a relict distribution around the Mediterranean/Near East. We have identified several new minor sister subclades to the main R0a branches, and these too have a similar distribution.
Nevertheless, multiple lines of evidence suggest that the major R0a subclades had entered Arabia and begun diversifying before the Last Glacial Maximum. This is in accord with evidence from rock art in Northern Arabia that the Neolithic pastoral economy was adopted by hunter–gatherers, rather than introduced by dispersing agriculturalists from the Near East. However, there is little archaeological evidence for the presence of human populations in Arabia across the LGM, when environmental conditions were extremely poor, suggesting that they survived, if at all, in glacial refugia. Rose proposed three potential "oases" in Arabia. Most attention has been given to the Gulf Oasis in the east which, as mentioned above, may have incubated early modern humans shortly after their initial move out of Africa. However, there are two further candidates – the South Arabian refugium in the Dhofar highlands and eastern Yemen-Oman coastal zone, and the Red Sea coastal plain. It seems likely that one or both of these were refugia for early Arabian hunter-gatherer groups carrying predominantly R0a1 and R0a2’3, and from which R0a1a and R0a2, in particular, expanded after the LGM. It is tempting to speculate that R0a2’3 may have sheltered in the Red Sea refugium, given the very early postglacial dispersals of R0a2 subclades both into the Horn of Africa and into southern Europe, likely via the Levant. Further work should enable us to test this hypothesis more precisely.
So, lets get to specifics and the question again is when did R lineages split and become non African. Either it originated in Africa and moved to Arabia from whence it dispersed into multiple lineages or it arose in Arabia soon after the populations left Africa. Either way, when did this 60,000 year old population become physically and genetically primarily non African?
(Obviously according to these researchers it became non African as soon as these folks left but we know that is nonsense.)
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Doug keeps exposing himself with his nonsensical objections, talking 'bout "I am talking about populations 60,000 years ago" like it makes a difference how long ago he's talking about. Living Eurasians hadn't differentiated yet 60.000 years ago; there is no region we can look to and find the diverged ancestors of Europeans, East Asians etc. as early as 60ky ago. So it makes no sense to dismiss Kostenki's affinities on the grounds that he's too young. He's old enough to date shortly after the breakup of Eurasian populations. That's all that matters and what's relevant here.
Let's look at a genetic sample of an AMH who represents that point of when the ancestors of some modern humans had just started to break away and let's see whether this AMH is closer to recent Africans or to Eurasians. But first we need to establish that he fits this description of predating the settlers of various regions, so Doug M has no room to wiggle with his usual non sense objections:
quote:When only non-African popula- tions are analysed (Fig. 2b), the Ust’-Ishim individual falls close to zero on the two first principal component axes, suggesting that it does not share much more ancestry with any particular group of present-day humans.
quote:However, when an ,8,000-year-old genome from western Europe (La Bran˜a) 9 or a 24,000-year-old genome from Siberia (Mal’ta 1) 10 were analysed, there is no evidence that the Ust’-Ishim genome shares more derived alleles with present-day East Asians than with these prehistoric individuals(jZj , 2).This suggests that the population to which the Ust’- Ishim individual belonged diverged from the ancestors of present-day West Eurasian and East Eurasian populations before— or simultaneously with— their divergence from each other.
^There we have it. We have an AMH whose genome has all the right properties to give a good indication of what the common ancestor of all living Eurasians looked like genetically. So, is he closer to recent Africans or non-Africans? The answer is:
quote:In a principal component analysis of the Ust’-Ishim autosomal ge- nome along with genotyping data from 922 present-day individuals from 53 populations 8 (Fig. 2a), the Ust’-Ishim individual clusters with non-Africans rather than Africans.
And:
quote:About 7.7 positions per 10,000 are heterozygous in the Ust’-Ishim genome, whereas between 9.6 and 10.5 positions are heterozygous in present-day Africans and 5.5 and 7.7 inpresent-daynon-Africans (Sup- plementary Information section 12). Thus, with respect to genetic di- versity, the population to which the Ust’-Ishim individual belonged was more similar to present-day Eurasians than to present-day Africans, which probably reflects the out-of-Africa bottleneck shared by non- African populations.
Now watch Doug M repeat his crybaby rants, his spin and his weak excuses. As usual, no relevant scientific sources will be posted; we'll simply see more of his non sense, sleight of hand and steamrolling over any evidence he doesn't like.
Note also Doug's shifty flip flopping. On the one hand, he claims that settlers of southern Arabia remained African genetically until the last moment when they 'transformed' into modern day Arabians (smh) and on other the other hand he claims that I can't use a 35ky old AMH because he's not 60ky old. But note that the arbitrary and nonsensical 60ky old goalpost he keeps touting somehow doesn't apply to his Arabians, who, according to him, would have remained in his black African racial club until very late in history. (Presumably until the fantasy "mutation shift" happened that "transformed OOA populations into Eurasians"). In short: his worthless objection applies only to me, not to him.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Doug keeps exposing himself with his nonsensical objections, talking 'bout "I am talking about populations 60,000 years ago" like it makes a difference how long ago he's talking about. Living Eurasians hadn't differentiated yet 60.000 years ago; there is no region we can look to and find the diverged ancestors of Europeans, East Asians etc. as early as 60ky ago. So it makes no sense to dismiss Kostenki's affinities on the grounds that he's too young. He's old enough to date shortly after the breakup of Eurasian populations. That's all that matters and what's relevant here.
Let's look at a genetic sample of an AMH who represents that point of when the ancestors of some modern humans had just started to break away and let's see whether this AMH is closer to recent Africans or to Eurasians. But first we need to establish that he fits this description of predating the settlers of various regions, so Doug M has no room to wiggle with his usual non sense objections:
quote:When only non-African popula- tions are analysed (Fig. 2b), the Ust’-Ishim individual falls close to zero on the two first principal component axes, suggesting that it does not share much more ancestry with any particular group of present-day humans.
quote:However, when an ,8,000-year-old genome from western Europe (La Bran˜a) 9 or a 24,000-year-old genome from Siberia (Mal’ta 1) 10 were analysed, there is no evidence that the Ust’-Ishim genome shares more derived alleles with present-day East Asians than with these prehistoric individuals(jZj , 2).This suggests that the population to which the Ust’- Ishim individual belonged diverged from the ancestors of present-day West Eurasian and East Eurasian populations before— or simultaneously with— their divergence from each other.
^There we have it. We have an AMH whose genome has all the right properties to give a good indication of what the common ancestor of all living Eurasians looked like genetically. So, is he closer to recent Africans or non-Africans? The answer is:
quote:In a principal component analysis of the Ust’-Ishim autosomal ge- nome along with genotyping data from 922 present-day individuals from 53 populations 8 (Fig. 2a), the Ust’-Ishim individual clusters with non-Africans rather than Africans.
And:
quote:About 7.7 positions per 10,000 are heterozygous in the Ust’-Ishim genome, whereas between 9.6 and 10.5 positions are heterozygous in present-day Africans and 5.5 and 7.7 inpresent-daynon-Africans (Sup- plementary Information section 12). Thus, with respect to genetic di- versity, the population to which the Ust’-Ishim individual belonged was more similar to present-day Eurasians than to present-day Africans, which probably reflects the out-of-Africa bottleneck shared by non- African populations.
Now watch Doug M repeat his crybaby rants, his spin and his weak excuses. As usual, no relevant scientific sources will be posted; we'll simply see more of his non sense, sleight of hand and steamrolling over any evidence he doesn't like.
Note also Doug's shifty flip flopping. On the one hand, he claims that settlers of southern Arabia remained African genetically until the last moment when they 'transformed' into modern day Arabians (smh) and on other the other hand he claims that I can't use a 35ky old AMH because he's not 60ky old. But note that the arbitrary and nonsensical 60ky old goalpost he keeps touting somehow doesn't apply to his Arabians, who, according to him, would have remained in his black African racial club until very late in history. (Presumably until the fantasy "mutation shift" happened that "transformed OOA populations into Eurasians"). In short: his worthless objection applies only to me, not to him.
Actually all I am saying is that you talk a good game but when it comes down to it have no better way to explain how non Africans diverged from Africans than anybody else.
Note the key lineage in Arabia is R0. I posted the articles citing the Europeans flip flopping all over themselves trying to downplay and ignore the fact that BASAL R lineages are African. And yet, instead of answering WHEN any of these R lineages diverged and became distinct from Africans you jump back to some nonsense about some ancient individual from Western Siberia. We weren't talking about Siberia, I specifically asked you TWO pages ago about Arabia and specifically when they diverged from Africans. Why can't you keep to the point? Obviously Siberians aren't the same as Arabians and therefore irrelevant. Unless you are claiming that the Ancestral lineages of Arabians come from Siberia, because you know Arabians are also classified as "Eurasian".
At this point if you were serious you would have simply answered the question. I said I wasn't trying to insult you, yet here you are determined to jump around and play the same antics and games that made a simple point about the word black into a 50 page exercise in dodging the point.
Arabians do not descend from Siberians and therefore this proves that your skill with DNA and genetics is pure garbage nonsense. The point being that there have always been in situ black South Arabians since the time Africans left Africa, which is precisely what I called you out on two pages ago. And you know full dam well that Siberia is not the same as Arabia, yet you posted that as if it is somehow relevant. You like to put on antics when someone asks serious and relevant questions.
Somehow somewhere there must be a language gap here because I am full well capable of reading and speaking English. I don't understand why it seems like there is a gap in comprehension between two people on such a simple point. Seriously.
Again to refresh your memory:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Where is the contradiction?
1) OOA settlers came in 2) African admixture happened with said settlers 3) OOA settlers' dark skin predates African admixture.
You see a contradiction because you're in the kumbaya-my-lord-by-the-campfire crew. Your real objection is that I didn't call these OOA settlers of Arabia 'Africans'; I treated them just like other OOA populations. Yep. We saw right through your 'dark skin only' facade when you refused prehistoric dark skinned Europeans membership in your racial dark skin club.
You realized the implications of having ancestors of Europeans in your racial club and you switched up the membership requirements after the fact.
You just can't make this up. Lol. Now he's objecting because I treat the first settlers of Arabia like other OOA populations.
When did the OOA settlers in 1) become "different" from any later migrants into Southern Arabia? Human settlement in Southern Arabia is at least 60,000 years old. So when did they "split" from Africans and what markers are you using to denote that split, not only genetically but physically in terms of significant differences in phenotype, including skin color?
So either you are saying that there was no major change to the skin color of South Arabians as they experienced additional genetic mutations from the African base population even though other changes in features occurred or are you saying their dark skin arose separately from the African base population with no direct relationship to the original African population because of mixture with other populations in the interim which caused fluctuations in phenotype and skin color? (Obviously you aren't going to answer the question about the timing of any significant split from Africans so lets table that.)
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: By its name, Early European Farmer implies a population outside of Africa. Hence the problem of using it the way it was used in the sentence. Reading that sentence it sounds like the AE base population was made up of Early European Farmers with some African mixture on top.
That's exactly how you can model them. In fact, that's how you can model the entire region today. Look at this clown man. SMH. This dude is a straight up clown. "Boohoo, EEF sounds too European". A butthurt clown is what he is. And where is the alleged goal post shift? Notice that he never denied that this is accurate. All he's saying is that his feelings are hurt because of how it sounds.
I know he's secretly been salty with cropped up anger ever since I told him that the typical Lower Egyptian morphotype was adjacent to many EEF populations in morphometric analyses. He's been salty all along every time he's seen me say this earlier in this thread.
^'Eurneo' (neolithic Europeans) and 'Egypt' (late dynastic Lower Egypt) occupy the same general position. This is the same general position that that Bronze Age warrior would fall into. Doug keeps ranting on and on about the racists he claims to be against, but then parrots their Eurocentric claim that this morphospace is necessarily 'European', 'white' and 'Polish'.
No Swenet, Africans who never left Africa are not European. No matter how you try and say it. If the Basal population came from the Sahara and some of that same population became the base of later European farmers, that does not make the basal population a European Farmer. It is like saying my Grand Daddy is German if I moved to Germany and had kids with a German wife. You make no sense and it shows how your attempts at claiming a "superior" way to communicate population ancestry are blatantly bogus.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Incompetence speaking again when the clown says "we're not talking about Siberia". I've just explained why that's irrelevant. It's irrelevant because the settler ancestors of living Arabians come out of Ust-Ishim or a closely related population:
quote:This suggests that the population to which the Ust’- Ishim individual belonged diverged from the ancestors of present-day West Eurasian and East Eurasian populations before— or simultaneously with— their divergence from each other.
Every time Doug repeats his already answered question re: OOA differentiation, it adds to the observation that he's clown. The incompetent clown is ignoring anything that interferes with his precious fantasy that mutations drive population differentiation. That's why he can't bring himself to admit that an answer to his question was posted again, in my previous post:
quote:About 7.7 positions per 10,000 are heterozygous in the Ust’-Ishim genome, whereas between 9.6 and 10.5 positions are heterozygous in present-day Africans and 5.5 and 7.7 inpresent-daynon-Africans (Sup- plementary Information section 12). Thus, with respect to genetic di- versity, the population to which the Ust’-Ishim individual belonged was more similar to present-day Eurasians than to present-day Africans, which probably reflects the out-of-Africa bottleneck shared by non- African populations.
Clown. Keep showing how pathetic you are with every denial of what's in front of you. How pathetic do you have to be to put up a front no one buys into. Everyone can tell that you're repeating yourself and turning a blind eye to what you're told because you're desperately latching on to a dead and debunked argument. Clown.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug: No Swenet, Africans who never left Africa are not European. No matter how you try and say it
No one cares what you think. The data speaks for itself. Populations in the region can be modeled as partly consisting of EEF, whether you like or not. You can't post data to prove me wrong, that's for sure. All you can do is rant and cry like a crybaby.
We all know you know nothing about the subject. All you have to offer is fiction and speculation masquerading as fact. Not one source in your post that mirrors anything you say. You're full of sh!t 24/7. Blablabla is all you do.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Ava, a Bell Beaker (EEF-descended) woman, is an example of the subset I mentioned several times.
I challenge anyone to find me representative individuals from the three choices I was given (Nilo Saharan, Omotic, West African) that match ancient Egyptians at a higher rate than the EEF samples I've mentioned (i.e. especially Nea Nikomedea).
I know why the so-called experts who have so much to say about AE skeletal remains never post any skeletal remains of the Africans they feel are closest to the AE. We never see any comparisons. It's too painful for them to be confronted with what they might find.
So anyone who wants to challenge anything I say, here is your chance. Prove that you're not speaking from a place of speculation and fiction, but actual facts.
Watch how the butthurt clown will avoid the challenge. We all know that he knows very little about the subject. Telling people what they want to hear is how impostors like Doug avoid the suspicion that they really have no idea what they talk about all these years.
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
-Delete post-
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
Swenet, I think I understand what you are saying concerning genetic relations between African populations. The problem is that people, often Afrocentrics, underestimate the genetic diversity of African populations to the point that they assume genetic relatedness or closeness between African populations is somehow the same across the continent.
The two orders of the issue are differentiation and expansion. We see the tremendous phenotypic diversity in non-Africans, yet despite their phenotypic diversity their genotypic diversity pales in comparison to Africans who as the source population are the oldest and most diverse genotypically. Through differentiation or divergence, ancestors of OOA populations were split off from the ancestors of most modern day Sub-Saharan Africans. I noticed this difference phenotypically between the Hofmeyr skull of South Africa and the Nazlet Khater skull of Egypt. While both skulls date to about the same time period (approx. 35,000 years ago in the middle Upper Paleolthic) the former skull closer resembled Eurasians of that period while the latter skull moreso resembled modern sub-Saharans i.e. both Khoisan and so-called "negroes".
Hofmeyf
Nazlet Khater
The lack of Late Pleistocene human fossils from sub-Saharan Africa has limited paleontological testing of competing models of recent human evolution. We have dated a skull from Hofmeyr, South Africa, to 36.2 +/- 3.3 thousand years ago through a combination of optically stimulated luminescence and uranium-series dating methods. The skull is morphologically modern overall but displays some archaic features. Its strongest morphometric affinities are with Upper Paleolithic (UP) Eurasians rather than recent, geographically proximate people. The Hofmeyr cranium is consistent with the hypothesis that UP Eurasians descended from a population that emigrated from sub-Saharan Africa in the Late Pleistocene. 'Late Pleistocene Human Skull from Hofmeyr, South Africa, and Modern Human Origins' http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17218524
Both hypotheses are compatible with the hypothesis proposed by Brothwell (1963) of an East African proto-Khoisan Negro stock which migrated southwards and westwards at some time during the Upper Pleistocene, and replaced most of the local populations of South Africa. Under such circumstances, it is possible that the Nazlet Khater specimen is part of a relict population of this proto-Khoisan Negro stock which extended as far north as Nazlet Khater at least until the late part of the Late Pleistocene. 'The Position of the Nazlet Khater Specimen Among Prehistoric and Modern African and Levantine populations' Journal of Human Evolution (2000) 39, 269–288
Today's phenotypic diversity or rather lack thereof is the result of expansions of certain populations during the Holocene from which today's most common phenotypes first arose. This holds true so-called "mongoloid" types of eastern Asia as it does for so-called "caucasoid" types of Northwestern Eurasia and yes even so-called "negroid" types of Sub-Sahara.
The early Holocene deposits at Lake Besaka and Buur Heybe have provided the earliest evidence in the Horn of intentional human burial. At the site of FeJx 2 at Lake Besaka the incomplete remains of five human skeletons were found buried in Abadir Phase sediments alongside an irregular pile of stones, with the most complete specimen composed of the upper half of the body only. No evidence of carnivore activity could be observed, while many of the bones were burnt (Clark and Williams 1978). However, no cut marks or any other indication of cannibalism was discovered, while the texture of the bones indicated they were probably surrounded by flesh when buried (Dechant and Crader t982). Of particular interest was a fragment of a human long bone through which a hole approximately 6 mm in diameter had been intentionally drilled as if for suspension (McCown n.d.). Needless to say', 'some unusual burial custom' is suggested (Clark and Williams 1978:37). No evidence of grave goods was found in direct association with the burials, although two bone tubes and a cache of over thirty gastropod shells pierced as if for suspension were found next to the stone pile (ibid.). Morphological features of the crania indicate Negroid affinities and can best be compared to the Sudanese skeletons of Jebel Sahaba and Wadi Halfa (McCown rod.). 'The Upper Pleistocene and Early Holocene Prehistory of the Horn of Africa' STEVEN A. BRANDT The African Archaeological Review, 4 (I986), pp. 41-82 http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=print_topic;f=8;t=003188
Most of North Africa during the Holocene, especially the Maghreb was populated by those of so-called "mechtoid" type which again shared more features with Upper Paleolithic Eurasians than with modern Sub-Saharans, though Northeast Africa and especially the Central Sahara during the Subpluvial wet perod was a different story.
In the sum, the results obtained further strengthen the results from previous analyses. The affinities between Nazlet Khater, MSA, and Khoisan and Khoisan related groups re-emerges. In addition it is possible to detect a separation between North African and sub-saharan populations, with the Neolithic Saharan population from Hasi el Abiod and the Egyptian Badarian group being closely affiliated with modern Negroid groups. Similarly, the Epipaleolithic populations from Site 117 and Wadi Halfa are also affiliated with sub-Saharan LSA, Iron Age and modern Negroid groups rather than with contemporaneous North African populations such as Taforalt and the Ibero-maurusian. Pierre M. Vermeersch (2002) 'Palaeolithic Quarrying Sites in Upper and Middle Egypt', Volume 4 of Egyptian Prehistory Monographs
Using cranial morphology to differentiate between populations is one thing, but the DNA evidence seems to confirm these differences.
Also, one Egyptian L3f2b sequence shares an ancestor with a Chadic one at around 24,809 ± 5,935 years ago. For L3 h1a2 haplogroup, one Egyptian and one Lebanese sequences share a coalescence age of 26,281 ± 6,139 years old... One Tunisian and one Egyptian together with four individuals from Burkina, one from Guinea Bissau and two Americans share an ancestor at 14,179 ± 2,352 years ago, belonging to the haplogroup L3e2a. Harich et al 2010
As one can see from the Harich et al. study there are Egyptians who share clades with other populations that go back to the Upper Paleolithic while other clades go back more recently to the Holocene and are shared with people in modern West Africa. This fits well with the skeletal remains from the Neolithic that span the central Sahara and connects West Africans to Egyptians. However, to assume that ALL North Africans or even African derived Levantines share such a close relation to today's West Africans or say Central Africans is a mistake.
1.Are all indigenous Africans i.e. populations who never left Africa, equally African? Of course!
2.Are all indigenous Africans 'black' or be considered such? This is very likely. In fact even Mechta-type peoples of North Africa were likely dark-skinned and at least those of the Mediterranean coasts approximate the Khoisan in complexion.
3.But are all Africans equally related to each other in the same way as say siblings? The answer would be a NO for the obvious reason that members of a family would not be equally related to each other. Individuals who are siblings are much closer related to each other than cousins of one side of the family or other and the children of those cousins as they are to each other.
Again, this does not in any way erase the notion of a pan-African identity for the first two points I provided. But to say that every African population is related to each other in the same or equal way would be a false premise. The Natufians or their African predessors would not be related to today's Egyptians as would today's Sudanese anymore than early Maghrebis would be related to today's West Africans as would Central Saharans, even if they did share the same paternal PN2 clades! Some genetic relations are more distant than others.
Recall Cavalli-Sforza's joining tree based on Fst genetic distances derived from 120 allele frequencies below.
Despite the ways Euronuts try to spin and distort the above findings, note how even though the African samples are few compared to his Eurasian samples the genetic distances between some of these samples are about as great as those for samples between west Eurasia and the Pacific or the Americas. This shows that modern Africans of Sub-Sahara alone retain more heterogeneity than Eurasians. Thus, we shouldn't expect all African populations to be as closely related as siblings in a family considering how large and old the family is!
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
I agree with the vast majority of what you said Djehuti . Only one minor difference in view in regards to Nazlet and Hofmeyr that I might end up being wrong about and which is also immaterial to the topic at hand.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Recall Cavalli-Sforza's joining tree based on Fst genetic distances derived from 120 allele frequencies below.
DJ comes in and sets the record straight on how genome-wide population differentiation is measured without even trying. This is how you know Djehuti knows what he's talking about, unlike some other people. It's based on relative allele frequencies, which is a result of shared drift, or, better yet, shared evolutionary history. I've deliberately not mentioned shared allele frequencies by name in this discussion (although I did describe it tacitly several times in my own words) because that's how I know Doug M pretends he knew it all along. He will then use it against you by flip flopping to new expedient goalposts that you have to then spend another 30 thread pages to debunk.
As seen through these 38 thread pages, that's one consistent manipulation Doug employs to dupe people as dumb as him. He's playing a whack-a-mole game, continually setting up new goalposts when the older ones are too debunked to latch on to. When there is nowhere to run and hide he'll just keep repeating the same non sense knowing it's your word against his since no one will call him out for being a clown if what he says appeals to them. That's what we're seeing now when he repeatedly spams his accusation that I never answered his question.
But now we have it on record. Doug vehemently denies that OOA populations differentiated because they had an allele frequency pattern that we can still find in living Eurasians today because the most drastic changes that define OOA populations and living Eurasians already occurred before that, making them form a clade first before forming a clade with their African founding populations, before forming a clade with other somewhat more distantly related Africans and so on, until they form a clade with Khoisan who are on the other end of the human family:
quote:About 7.7 positions per 10,000 are heterozygous in the Ust’-Ishim genome, whereas between 9.6 and 10.5 positions are heterozygous in present-day Africans and 5.5 and 7.7 inpresent-daynon-Africans (Sup- plementary Information section 12). Thus, with respect to genetic di- versity, the population to which the Ust’-Ishim individual belonged was more similar to present-day Eurasians than to present-day Africans, which probably reflects the out-of-Africa bottleneck shared by non- African populations.
Now compare the above two SCIENTIFIC SOURCES with Doug's clueless claptrap fantasies about "a shift from OOA to modern Eurasians because of accumulated mutations" and "southern Arabian OOA populations didn't undergo this mutational shift away from Africans until very late". Not a SINGLE scientific source in sight whenever Doug starts pontificating like the uneducated loon that he is.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Lol. When it comes to the relatedness of OOA populations to their own descendants before their relatedness to recent Africans, Doug thinks it matters if you use 60ky old OOA genomes, 34ky old OOA genomes or 10ky old OOA genomes. Doug should have his ES 'vet' pass revoked immediately. These gaffes have happened way too often and he's way too self-confident in his nonsensical posts for it to be an accident. What's worse is that I apparently have to resort to posting cartoons like this to show why Doug is delusional since anything that requires very basic knowledge, like the textual and schematic sources I've posted, have failed.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Incompetence speaking again when the clown says "we're not talking about Siberia". I've just explained why that's irrelevant. It's irrelevant because the settler ancestors of living Arabians come out of Ust-Ishim or a closely related population:
quote:This suggests that the population to which the Ust’- Ishim individual belonged diverged from the ancestors of present-day West Eurasian and East Eurasian populations before— or simultaneously with— their divergence from each other.
Every time Doug repeats his already answered question re: OOA differentiation, it adds to the observation that he's clown. The incompetent clown is ignoring anything that interferes with his precious fantasy that mutations drive population differentiation. That's why he can't bring himself to admit that an answer to his question was posted again, in my previous post:
quote:About 7.7 positions per 10,000 are heterozygous in the Ust’-Ishim genome, whereas between 9.6 and 10.5 positions are heterozygous in present-day Africans and 5.5 and 7.7 inpresent-daynon-Africans (Sup- plementary Information section 12). Thus, with respect to genetic di- versity, the population to which the Ust’-Ishim individual belonged was more similar to present-day Eurasians than to present-day Africans, which probably reflects the out-of-Africa bottleneck shared by non- African populations.
Clown. Keep showing how pathetic you are with every denial of what's in front of you. How pathetic do you have to be to put up a front no one buys into. Everyone can tell that you're repeating yourself and turning a blind eye to what you're told because you're desperately latching on to a dead and debunked argument. Clown.
OK Swenet.
Fine.
What genetic lineages do the Arabians have that are derived from the Ust’-Ishim?
I specifically framed the question for you and gave you the citations about specific lineages in Arabia. I gave you specific time frames and asked the question WHEN these populations split from Africans IN Arabia. And what do you do? You go thousands of miles away to Siberia as if populations from Siberia somehow are relevant to populations leaving Africa and settling in Arabia 60,000 years ago.
No, this is you running from relevant points and trolling. There is absolutely no logical reason to even discuss Siberians when some of the OLDEST human settlements outside Africa are IN Arabia and Arabia is right next to Africa. According to your argument, it took migrants going all the way to Siberia to "split" from Africans physically and or genetically and then they had to migrate all the way back to Arabia to give the Arabians their "distinct" lineages.
Heres the problem. No genetic study shows this. Arabian lineages are ancestral to the Asian lineages. Arabians today do not look like Siberians. And remember we were talking about how black Arabians in South Arabia got their black skin directly from Africa.
Somehow you are simply going to do everything in your power to avoid relevant discussion points because you have shown yourself to be unable to address specific issues without ducking, dodging and trolling.
The ROOT of the R lineage lies in between Africa and Arabia not Siberia.
quote: The most prominent Eurasian mitochondrial lineage that is shared across the Horn and Arabia is R0a, which is found at very low frequencies across west Eurasia, but reaches levels of up to 35% in eastern Yemen and up to 15% in some parts of the Horn of Africa facing the Red Sea. It has been thought to have originated in the Near East and to have spread into Arabia at the end of the Pleistocene, albeit with difficulties in defining a source; others have hypothesized a more ancient ancestry within Arabia. This question is of great interest because evidence in favour of deeper Arabian ancestry would imply the existence of refugial areas in Arabia spanning the Last Glacial Maximum, which have been hypothesized but never confirmed. The timing and mode of its subsequent entry into Eastern Africa also remain to be clarified as well as its history in Europe. Here we analyse 205 whole mitogenomes from R0a, and its sister clade R0b, alongside 733 R0a and R0b control-region sequences, in order to address these issues.
The earliest settlement of Arabia by modern humans and its role in modern human dispersals out of Africa remain controversial, although the consensus genetic estimate for the timing remains ~50–60ka. We have argued for a "southern-route" dispersal out of Africa via Arabia at this time, since a Levantine source for all non-Africans would imply that basal non-African mtDNA diversity should be highest in the Near East, whereas the highest diversity is rather seen in South Asia. A model of this kind – albeit, inevitably, with further complexity – is supported by the high productivity of ancient coastlines. Autosomal dating has been used to suggest an earlier date, and both qualitative arguments and simulations have been used to propose that the age of non-African mitogenomes might be older than the ~50–60ka usually estimated. However, these assertions are based on lines of reasoning that draw their estimates from inappropriately old population splits or ignore the phylogenetic and phylogeographic structure of mtDNA, where inferences are made from a hierarchy of nesting relationships, analogous to a stratigraphy, rather than simple haplogroup ages as often assumed by critics. The model of a southern-route dispersal at ~50–60ka has recently received strong support from an analysis of 104 complete genomes from Arabia. These results are congruent with the most comprehensive mitogenome analyses that also stress the complexity of Arabian demographic history, and with recent ancient DNA analyses although contrary to one rather idiosyncratic reanalysis of mitogenome data that minimises the role of Arabia. Potential earlier dispersals identified from archaeological evidence51 therefore seem unlikely to have contributed substantially to the extant gene pool of the region. However, this is a topic that clearly requires much greater discussion, beyond the scope of the present article.
The earliest non-African ancestor of R0a, the root of haplogroup R, dates to ~59ka, and may (in line with the arguments summarised in the preceding paragraph) have originated in the Gulf Oasis soon after the dispersal of modern humans from Eastern Africa3. Its more immediate ancestor, R0a’b, dates to ~40ka and its earliest branches have a relict distribution around the Mediterranean/Near East. We have identified several new minor sister subclades to the main R0a branches, and these too have a similar distribution.
The whole discussion of the Ust Ashim remains is about using Neanderthal ancestry to distinguish between Africans and Non Africans. It is European double talk, because it contradicts the fact that the root of the R lineages lie in Africa, but they play up these remains as somehow being distinct because of Neanderthal interogression:
quote: We present a high-quality genome sequence of a ~45,000-year-old modern human male from Siberia. This individual derives from a population that lived prior to – or simultaneously with – the separation of the populations in western and eastern Eurasia and carries a similar amount of Neandertal ancestry as present-day Eurasians. However, the genomic segments of Neandertal ancestry are substantially longer than those observed in present-day individuals, indicating that Neandertal gene flow into the ancestors of this individual occurred 7,000–13,000 years before he lived. We estimate an autosomal mutation rate of 0.4–0.6×10−9/site/year and a Y chromosomal mutation rate of 0.7–0.9×10−9/site/year based on the additional substitutions that have occurred in present-day non-Africans compared to this genome, and a mitochondrial mutation rate of 1.8–3.2 × 10−8/site/year based on the age of the bone.
....
About 7.7 positions per 10,000 are heterozygous in the Ust’-Ishim genome while between 9.6 and 10.5 positions are heterozygous in present-day Africans and 5.5 and 7.7 in present-day non-Africans (SI 12). Thus, with respect to genetic diversity, the population to which the Ust’-Ishim individual belonged was more similar to present-day Eurasians than to present-day Africans, which likely reflects the out-of-Africa bottleneck shared by non-African populations. The Ust’-Ishim mtDNA sequence falls at the root of a large group of related mtDNAs (the “R haplogroup”), which occurs today across Eurasia (SI 8). The Y chromosome sequence of the Ust’-Ishim individual is similarly inferred to be ancestral to a group of related Y chromosomes (haplogroup K(xLT)) that occurs across Eurasia today 6 (SI 9). As expected, the number of mutations inferred to have occurred on the branch leading to the Ust’-Ishim mtDNA is lower than the numbers inferred to have occurred on the branches leading to related present-day mtDNAs (Fig. S8.1). Using this observation and nine directly carbon-dated ancient modern human mtDNAs as calibration points 5,7 in a relaxed molecular clock model, we estimate the age of the Ust’-Ishim bone to be ~49,000 yrs BP (95% highest posterior density: 31,000–66,000 yrs BP), consistent with the radiocarbon date.
Now going full circle this whole discussion of yours about EEF SPECIFICALLY STATED that these people had NO NEANDERTHAL ANCESTRY because of their proximity to Africa. Yet here you are contradicting yourself in order to save face.
quote: We report genome-wide ancient DNA from 44 ancient Near Easterners ranging in time between ~12,000 and 1,400 bc, from Natufian hunter–gatherers to Bronze Age farmers. We show that the earliest populations of the Near East derived around half their ancestry from a ‘Basal Eurasian’ lineage that had little if any Neanderthal admixture and that separated from other non-African lineages before their separation from each other. The first farmers of the southern Levant (Israel and Jordan) and Zagros Mountains (Iran) were strongly genetically differentiated, and each descended from local hunter–gatherers. By the time of the Bronze Age, these two populations and Anatolian-related farmers had mixed with each other and with the hunter–gatherers of Europe to greatly reduce genetic differentiation. The impact of the Near Eastern farmers extended beyond the Near East: farmers related to those of Anatolia spread westward into Europe; farmers related to those of the Levant spread southward into East Africa; farmers related to those of Iran spread northward into the Eurasian steppe; and people related to both the early farmers of Iran and to the pastoralists of the Eurasian steppe spread eastward into South Asia.
In addition to the facts contradicting you on the point of the relationship of the Siberians to the ancient populations of Arabia, the last part of this last article in bold is the key to what we are talking about concerning the using the label "Early European Farmers". What I am pointing out is according to these folks the populations leaving Africa "MIXED WITH ANATOLIANS" and developed farming. Therefore these populations were no longer the same as any African population that they derived from. So using the term EEF to refer to these populations before they left Africa is problematic for that reason. Second, they also suggest that these people then migrated BACK into East Africa. Again, this is possible, but in terms of discussing BASAL populations in the Sahara and East Africa who NEVER LEFT, there has to be a clear and unambiguous distinction between them and any possible later migrants which would have been a small minority. Get me now? The BASAL populations of Africa who settled in the Nile Valley from the Sahara from which some of these EEF populations derive from are NOT EEF in any sense of the term. Your attempts to force the issue as if it is somehow a more clear explanation and description of these populations is illogical. It is like saying that my Grandfather is German because I moved to Germany and married a German woman. Genetically it is the same analogy. Somehow you are confusing "Basal Eurasian" which I have already agreed is basically African with "EEF" which is not. EEF is the MIXTURE of "Basal Eurasian" with other NON African lineages.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
The Prehistory of the Arabian Peninsula: Deserts, Dispersals, and Demography HUW S. GROUCUTT AND MICHAEL D. PETRAGLIA 2012
excerpt:
Given the severity of environmen- tal fluctuation, which, as Figure 2 shows, is increasingly well under- stood, it is reasonable to assume that there has not been long-term popula- tion continuity in Arabia at an evolu- tionary scale. This emphasizes the need to understand the Arabian re- cord in an interregional context. For the Lower Paleolithic it is too early to make definitive statements in this regard, but Homo heidelbergensis and Homo erectus probably played a role, as possibly did early Homo. There has been little focus on this phase in recent years, as attention has focused on modern. humans, but there is clearly great potential to elucidate the Lower Paleolithic in Arabia. The key development in recent years has been the demonstration, particularly in Dhofar and at Jebel Faya,2,3 that Arabia contains African- like Middle Paleolithic assemblages dating to MIS 5. This strongly sug- gests that dispersals took place at this time, although fossil evidence would help to substantiate this hy- pothesis. For example, the archeolog- ical evidence from Dhofar suggests population dispersal from northeast Africa by MIS 5c,3 a time when baboons also seem to have dispersed into Arabia,57 and when paleoenvir- onmental evidence demonstrates a wet phase. This shows how an inter- disciplinary perspective can elucidate the Paleolithic occupation of Arabia (Fig. 2). Further excavations are needed to distinguish between differ- ent hypotheses. For instance, does the occupation at Jebel Faya repre- sent a continuous occupation of the Persian Gulf area between 125 and 40 ka, as the discoverers suggest,2 or does it rather indicate repeated dis- persals into the area? In general, indications of possible population connections to surround- ing regions remain rather specula- tive, and this is compounded by the absence of fossil evidence. We sug- gest, however, that the emerging pic- ture suggests a general lack of con- nections between Africa and Arabia after MIS 5, the last interglacial. Instead, there are perhaps indica- tions that Arabia sometimes saw connections to the Levant. The mod- ern Arabian genomic structure is dominated by lineages reflecting post-LGM population movements from the north.22,23 These dispersing populations mixed with existing pop- ulations in a manner that remains to be firmly understood. The Middle Paleolithic record is increasingly demonstrating, probably in common with other prehistoric phases, that after dispersals into the area, envi- ronmental deterioration divided pop- ulations into refugia. These include the Yemeni highlands and the Per- sian Gulf. The combination of regionalization, an arid environmen- tal setting, and small population sizes will have all played a significant role in determining the character of human adaptations. To take the lithic evidence, variability will express demographic, raw material, functional, and cultural factors. The balance between these remains to be understood. Hence, relations to sur- rounding areas and between regions within Arabia remain obscure. The key point is that advances in empiri- cal data need to be complemented by theoretical developments such as those of behavioral ecology, rather than by a simplistic or ‘‘empiricist’’ perspective that merely compares the basic morphology of lithic artifacts, for instance, while ignoring their context. To conclude, we highlight the sig- nificance of the Arabian record in casting light on the development of adaptations to extreme environ- ments. The Arabian record is, in fact, uniquely positioned to elucidate such developments, as populations dis- persed into the Arabian Peninsula from neighboring ‘‘hot spots’’ such as East Africa and were trapped by the desiccation of the routes they had originally followed. Given wide- spread public and scholarly interest in and concern about contemporary climate change, the long-term records of human occupations and environmental change in Arabia are of great importance. With recent advances, archeologists and our col- leagues in related disciplines have begun to outline the chapters of the Arabian story. Now it is time to fill in the pages.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: What genetic lineages do the Arabians have that are derived from the Ust’-Ishim?
You mean, other than the basal R lineage you just admitted Ust-Ishim carried? And what do uniparental lineages have to do with it? This just shows how your line of questioning is completely off. We're talking about the ancestors of modern day Arabians who settled Arabia. They came out of Ust-Ishim's population or a then-recently diverged sister population. This is more than enough to establish that the ancestors of Arabians couldn't have had the affinities you're ascribing to them:
quote:Now going full circle this whole discussion of yours about EEF SPECIFICALLY STATED that these people had NO NEANDERTHAL ANCESTRY because of their proximity to Africa.
Again, we see you lack a basic familiarity with the data and that this leads to absurd claims and fabrications. What paper states that EEF don't have Neanderthal? And even if this were accurate, which it isn't, what does this even have to do with anything?
quote:What I am pointing out is according to these folks the populations leaving Africa "MIXED WITH ANATOLIANS" and developed farming. Therefore these populations were no longer the same as any African population that they derived from. So using the term EEF to refer to these populations before they left Africa is problematic for that reason.
Look at this clown blow up Eurasian ancestry in the EEF populations I'm talking about and act like there was not 1% Eurasian ancestry in Egypt. You're completely delusional. Are you saying you can model dynastic Lower Egyptians without at least 1% Eurasian admixture? If the answer is that you admit you can't, then you know you need EEF to be able to fully model everything.
Never mind 1% Eurasian, let's make it even better since I know the crybabies don't want Eurasian and Egyptian in the same sentence. What are you going to use to model the Maghrebi-like ancestry we know dynastic Lower Egyptians had? Are you saying that, even though you've just been schooled on the fact that it's impossible to model the region with 100% African ancestry (even if you account for Basal Eurasian), you're still under the illusion that you can model all of Egypt's dynastic population over 3000 years with 100% African ancestry?
This is why you're a clown and lack credibility.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Note also that the expression "to model something as" in population genetics is not a geographical description. It has nothing to do with geography and, so, one cannot object to the aforementioned ancestry components on geographical grounds. So why do Doug's crybaby reactions re: EEF center around geography and Europe? Because Doug is a butthurt race activist whose interest in population genetics is subordinate to scoring racial brownie points and lashing out whenever he thinks his racial brownie points are taken from him. When he objects to something you have to look closely at what he says because, chances are, he's responding to his own emotional discomfort, not to an actual error.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^^ I don't want to attack Doug since I know where he's coming from and there is truth to what he says.
By differentiation or divergence in populations we know this process happens through genetic drift via bottlenecks. However, I forgot to mention that during the Holocene with the expansion of certain populations these expanding biologically and presumably culturally successful populations instead of totally displacing or even wiping out previous existing populations in the new areas they expanded in, simply absorbed the older populations. Again this is the reason why many modern populations in North Africa including the Egyptians share close genetic ties with sub-Saharans and it is due to recent gene-flow.
That said, not all African populations recieved such gene-flow, hence Mechta and Natufians. I will also say the same is true with Eurasians. For example, most east Asians today carry clades or lineages downstream from the earliest or initial OOA settlers in the same region. This is why I think it is just as important to find out how many waves of OOA expansions happened as it becoming more evident there was more than one OOA event. I personally think NRY hg F originated in Africa since not only do we find underived F* in modern Sudan but as early as Meroite Culture Nubia alongside E clades.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: I agree with the vast majority of what you said Djehuti . Only one minor difference in view in regards to Nazlet and Hofmeyr that I might end up being wrong about and which is also immaterial to the topic at hand.
If you are referring to Brothwell's hypothesis, I myself am not decided on the issue until we have DNA evidence confirming it.
But I should also point out that I don't think the situation in Africa during or before OOA was as simple as pre-OOA populations vs. pre-SSA populations. I really think there was more diversity than simply such a binary division. When it comes to Africans, scientists are barely scratching the surfaces as to the population origins and diversity. Acquiring intact prehistoric skulls in humid regions of the continent is next to impossible, and I can't help but to see bias in that most paleo-anthropologists still focus on the eastern part of the continent especially the Horn. That said, genetic testing of very rural and isolated populations may help.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
WT*….
What is wrong with you man?!!! If I didn’t know any better I would think you(DJ) and Sweetness was the same person. WT… are you saying here. The two tongue BS that just came out your mouth.
1. Natufians are Africans – read the fughkinh paper 2. There is no genetic evidence that Mechta is anything but African 3. Modern Egyptians ARE African although they are the most heavily admixed of all North Africans. They carry as much as 17% “foreign- Turkish” ancestry. Ask Henn 4. If Ancient Egyptians and Modern Egyptians carry SSA ancestry through simple logic we will conclude there is no RECENT migration from SSA. Cu*T! 5. Modern Egyptians although heavily admixed with Turks carry very ancient SSA lineage which matches their SNP.
So ..WT* are you spinning BS and mealy mouthing about?
Man you are such fughkin hypocrite. Swenet I understand but you….
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Djehuti: [qb] ^^ ^^ I don't want to attack Doug since I know where he's coming from and there is truth to what he says.
By differentiation or divergence in populations we know this process happens through genetic drift via bottlenecks. However, I forgot to mention that during the Holocene with the expansion of certain populations these expanding biologically and presumably culturally successful populations instead of totally displacing or even wiping out previous existing populations in the new areas they expanded in, simply absorbed the older populations. Again this is the reason why many modern populations in North Africa including the Egyptians share close genetic ties with sub-Saharans and it is due to recent gene-flow.
That said, not all African populations recieved such gene-flow, hence Mechta and***** Natufians*****. I will also say the same is true with Eurasians. For example, most east Asians today carry clades or lineages downstream from the earliest or initial OOA settlers in the same region. This is why I think it is just as important to find out how many waves of OOA expansions happened as it becoming more evident there was more than one OOA event. I personally think NRY hg F originated in Africa since not only do we find underived F* in modern Sudan but as early as Meroite Culture Nubia alongside E clades.
quote: ________________________________________ Originally posted by Swenet:
I agree with the vast majority of what you said Djehuti . Only one minor difference in view in regards to Nazlet and Hofmeyr that I might end up being wrong about and which is also immaterial to the topic at hand. ________________________________________ If you are referring to Brothwell's hypothesis, I myself am not decided on the issue until we have DNA evidence confirming it.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Lol @ gramps. C'mon man. DJ is a good poster. Once he's updated himself on all the recent papers and the exact points where people differ in opinion he will be back on his a game.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: By differentiation or divergence in populations we know this process happens through genetic drift via bottlenecks. However, I forgot to mention that during the Holocene with the expansion of certain populations these expanding biologically and presumably culturally successful populations instead of totally displacing or even wiping out previous existing populations in the new areas they expanded in, simply absorbed the older populations. Again this is the reason why many modern populations in North Africa including the Egyptians share close genetic ties with sub-Saharans and it is due to recent gene-flow.
This is why people should take the challenge. So we can get to the bottom of this for once and for all. But nobody is stepping up. Let's not act like we don't know why that is.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: WT*….
What is wrong with you man?!!! If I didn’t know any better I would think you(DJ) and Sweetness was the same person. WT… are you saying here. The two tongue BS that just came out your mouth.
1. Natufians are Africans – read the fughkinh paper 2. There is no genetic evidence that Mechta is anything but African 3. Modern Egyptians ARE African although they are the most heavily admixed of all North Africans. They carry as much as 17% “foreign- Turkish” ancestry. Ask Henn 4. If Ancient Egyptians and Modern Egyptians carry SSA ancestry through simple logic we will conclude there is no RECENT migration from SSA. Cu*T! 5. Modern Egyptians although heavily admixed with Turks carry very ancient SSA lineage which matches their SNP.
So ..WT* are you spinning BS and mealy mouthing about?
WTF is right!
I'm starting to believe Swenet that you are some senile old man. Please point out where or when have I ever stated Natufians and Mechta were NOT African??! I recently made a post saying they were!! Can you not read or are your so delusional you read things that were never written?? Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Lol @ gramps. C'mon man. DJ is a good poster. Once he's updated himself on all the recent papers and the exact points where people differ in opinion he will be back on his a game.
Yes I admit that I've been out of the loop on the bio-anthropology since I have been busy with other things including research on cultural anthropology stuff that I plan on posting here. That said, I think my greatest asset is to think for myself and properly assess the facts of the studies and not just jump to idiotic conclusions unlike someone else in this forum. LOL Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Just remember when you do start posting your research that things are not the same. This has become a place where low-on-evidence yes-men thrive. As long as you tow the party line people are going to be smiling in your face and rubbing their hands together like Birdman.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ LOL @ the Birdman comment. Well, I for one am no Lil Wayne and definitely no Young Thug. I go where the facts are care not for others biased opinions.
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: This is why people should take the challenge. So we can get to the bottom of this for once and for all. But nobody is stepping up. Let's not act like we don't know why that is.
I was actually about to take the challenge for the fun of it and to test myself, but I deleted my post due to it being completely way off. I was going to use Holiday 2013 skeleton remains for an argument but realized that the dates were WAAAAY early. Heh...
Edit: Plus the Jebal Sahabab remains weren't exactly "Egyptian", but Nubian remains.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: What genetic lineages do the Arabians have that are derived from the Ust’-Ishim?
You mean, other than the basal R lineage you just admitted Ust-Ishim carried?
Yes, the one that arrived in Arabia directly from Africa and needs no Ust'-Ishim populations to carry it. Or are you just being dumb on purpose?
Lets do basic geography and relate this to genetics. Mommy and Daddy came from Africa. Some of their children went to Arabia. Some of their grand children went into Siberia. Mommy and Daddy are African no matter where their grandchildren wound up. Similarly their children in Arabia are still Arabian no matter if their grandchildren eventually made it to Siberia. YOUR claim is that since some of the grandchildren and great grandchildren made it to Siberia that the whole family line came from Siberia.
Stop being stupid and trying debate just for the sake of arguing. Your logic is stupid and you know it.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: And what do uniparental lineages have to do with it? This just shows how your line of questioning is completely off. We're talking about the ancestors of modern day Arabians who settled Arabia. They came out of Ust-Ishim's population or a then-recently diverged sister population. This is more than enough to establish that the ancestors of Arabians couldn't have had the affinities you're ascribing to them:
No they did not. As posted in the "EEF" paper I quoted the lineages of R closer to Arabia are absent "Neanderthal" genetic markers that are a signature of Ust'-Ashim. And in addition the populations in Arabia carry R lineages that are descended from the PRE Siberian R lineages. I already posted that paper as well. So you are simply lying at this point trying to spin your way out of the fact you lost the argument. If you can't get these basic facts right, then how can anything else you spout be of any value?
Just admit it, you lost again running around in circles.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Never mind 1% Eurasian, let's make it even better since I know the crybabies don't want Eurasian and Egyptian in the same sentence. What are you going to use to model the Maghrebi-like ancestry we know dynastic Lower Egyptians had? Are you saying that, even though you've just been schooled on the fact that it's impossible to model the region with 100% African ancestry (even if you account for Basal Eurasian), you're still under the illusion that you can model all of Egypt's dynastic population over 3000 years with 100% African ancestry?
This is why you're a clown and lack credibility.
Moron, if the populations that settled Egypt PRIOR to the Neolithic are the ancestors of those who LEFT AFRICA and subsequently became "European Farmers" that does not make those populations that never left "European Farmers". You keep saying this and it is false no matter how you say it. Your grasp of logic and genetics and language is basically flawed.
Again since you are mentally challenged:
quote: The most prominent Eurasian mitochondrial lineage that is shared across the Horn and Arabia is R0a, which is found at very low frequencies across west Eurasia, but reaches levels of up to 35% in eastern Yemen and up to 15% in some parts of the Horn of Africa facing the Red Sea. It has been thought to have originated in the Near East and to have spread into Arabia at the end of the Pleistocene, albeit with difficulties in defining a source; others have hypothesized a more ancient ancestry within Arabia. This question is of great interest because evidence in favour of deeper Arabian ancestry would imply the existence of refugial areas in Arabia spanning the Last Glacial Maximum, which have been hypothesized but never confirmed. The timing and mode of its subsequent entry into Eastern Africa also remain to be clarified as well as its history in Europe. Here we analyse 205 whole mitogenomes from R0a, and its sister clade R0b, alongside 733 R0a and R0b control-region sequences, in order to address these issues.
What does it all mean? It means that as your picture shows that humans came from Africa not Siberia otherwise we would be talking about OOS humans not OOA migrations. There are no arrows from Siberia on this image.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Yes, the one that arrived in Arabia directly from Africa and needs no Ust'-Ishim populations to carry it.
After you admitted that Ust-Ishim is basal R there really is nothing left to say anymore. You admitted that basal R carriers have no special affinity to recent Africans as we've already seen from R carrying Ust-Ishim, N carrying Oase I and all other N carriers sampled so far. Stop trying to steamroll evidence. You have no point and you look like a delusional old fart. Your R carrying OOA Arabian genomes don't exist, clown, yet you've built this elaborate figment-fueled narrative about "Arabians that stayed Africans until mutations shifted them into Eurasians". You have no evidence but you're fighting an uphill battle against dozens of existing R carrying OOA genomes and you think you can win. retard. Someone please pinch my arm and tell me this low-on-evidence clown is not serious in trying to take on these facts empty-handed.
quote:Moron, if the populations that settled Egypt PRIOR to the Neolithic are the ancestors of those who LEFT AFRICA and subsequently became "European Farmers" that does not make those populations that never left "European Farmers". . . . Your grasp of logic and genetics and language is basically flawed.
Only a clown like Doug confuses being able to model a population with certain reference populations for identity with the reference populations. It takes a special type of stupid to then project this epic stupidity on someone else. Note how the clown who doesn't know what modeling means, accuses someone else of not having a grasp of genetics and language. This is pure comedy. But keep it coming, please. I find your inability to compute basic concepts hilarious. All I have to do is sit back and point out the inane claptrap in your posts.
quote:Mota - Near East Neolithic 13 Gedmatch Calculator
According to Doug's dumbass these percentages, which describe how Mota can be modeled, represent identity with these specific Eurasian reference populations. Is Doug special ed? Someone please coach Doug via PM on how to debate these points. He needs someone in his ear to advise him so he doesn't engage in this Trump-like verbal diarrhea.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: As posted in the "EEF" paper I quoted the lineages of R closer to Arabia are absent "Neanderthal" genetic markers that are a signature of Ust'-Ashim.
What the paper says is that Basal Eurasian carried no or very little Neanderthal. How does that prove that EEF didn't carry Neanderthal? Another indication of Doug's inability to grasp simple letters on his screen. Doug is a complete mess. This is how many times now we've seen Doug's faltering reading comprehension lead to absurd claims?
The below is from Doug's own source; note how it doesn't say these populations didn't have Neanderthal:
quote:However, Natufians do not have less Neanderthal ancestry (Fig. S5.1) or more Basal Eurasian ancestry (Supplementary Information, section 4) than the Neolithic of Iran, and so do not appear to be exceptional in either respect within the context of the ancient Near East.
The paper says the exact opposite of what Doug claims it says. But what else is new?
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ So what exactly are you guys arguing about?
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ So what exactly are you guys arguing about?
..they themselves don't even know, nice to formerly respond to you btw... I've heard quite a bit about you "DJ".
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ So what exactly are you guys arguing about?
In a nutshell:
1) Doug believes that the OOA ancestors of Eurasians were the same as recent Africans when they settled Eurasia, until much later, when Doug thinks they "mutated" into Eurasians. This is why it has become a point of contention that population differentiation doesn't work like this.
2) Doug thinks 'to model a population as [insert reference population]' literally means the same thing as being admixed with those exact same reference populations. According to Doug, it's a reflection of bad logic, bad use of language and a poor understanding of population genetics to say something like "African Americans can be modeled as mostly Europeans + coastal West Africans". His argument for this is that African Americans had genetic contact with 'white' Americans, not 'white' inhabitants of Europe. He really thinks it matters whether one uses 'white' American, European, 'white' Afrikaner in terms of getting a decent model of the average African American genome.
3) Doug thinks you can model all dynastic Egyptians with Basal Eurasian and other types of African ancestry which, together, add up to a 100% Eurasian-free genomes. I disagree and say you need an EEF-like genome to be able to model all possible ancestry, including ancestry that Doug and other race activists on this site are in denial about. Doug disagrees because EEf are tainted with Anatolian ancestry, unlike his precious dynastic Egyptians who supposedly didn't have a speck of foreign northern ancestry.
4) As mentioned in (1) Doug thinks population differentiation is driven by the mere accumulation of mutations without any need for actual known evolutionary forces. Doug needs this absurd notion in order to claim his Arabian settlers were the same as recent Africans up until a certain recent undefined point in their evolutionary history when they "mutated" into modern day Eurasians.
5) Doug thinks it's non sense that Arabians owe their dark skin to recent African admixture in addition to the first OOA settlers. I'm not sure why he thinks it's non sense. He's contradicted himself. On the one hand he claims it's non sense because African migration was continuous and indistinguishable from the ancestry of the OOA settlers (note that this is a complete non sequitur because it doesn't address the point of contention and simply adds a minor twist my point about the OOA settler and recent African sources of dark pigmentation genes) and on the other hand, he contradicts the aforementioned claim of continuous migration by saying that that Arabians were "genetically the same as Africans". They can't both be accurate because the recent Africans who reached Arabia over time are far from a single population themselves.
6) Doug desperately wants the Middle East and EEF to have no Neanderthal. The reason he wants this so bad (to the point of botching his own source) is that he thinks it supports his claim that Arabians are unique compared to all global populations who descend from Ust-Ishim-like populations. Doug doesn't want Arabians to descend from Ust-Ishim-like populations because Ust-Ishim doesn't have the recent African affinities he ascribes to his OOA Arabians. It's one big mess of inaccurate claim on top of inaccurate claim.
Doug can object if he thinks I misrepresent his points. Djehuti, please give your view of each point because, on the one hand you say you agree with Doug and that you understand where he's coming from, on the other hand, you say you don't know what the exact points of contention are. If you can, and are interested in commenting on each point, please:
a) keep your reply neutral and restricted to these summated points (and others Doug might want to add) as opposed to the him or me; I don't want to seem like I'm influencing your explanations or 'get help' or turn anyone against Doug. b) provide not just your view but also arguments on where you stand in relation to these points.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Didn't it used to be possible to block people on this site? I don't see the functionality anywhere? There used to be a panel for this.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Yes, the one that arrived in Arabia directly from Africa and needs no Ust'-Ishim populations to carry it.
After you admitted that Ust-Ishim is basal R there really is nothing left to say anymore.
So Swenet, are you claiming that R lineages arose first in Siberia before they arose in East Africa/ Arabia?
Seriously?
Can you please cite the scholarship you claim says this?
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: You admitted that basal R carriers have no special affinity to recent Africans as we've already seen from R carrying Ust-Ishim, N carrying Oase I and all other N carriers sampled so far.
I said no such thing. I said R lineages arose in Africa/Arabia. You are simply spinning out of control making up stuff that has nothing to do with what I said. Again, what I asked you is when OOA populations split into "Africans"/"Non Africans" as identified by physical features and or genetic lineages. AND specifically I was talking about Arabia. Somehow you have turned this into a discussion of Siberia when we all know that the settlement of Arabia by Africans is far older than any humans in Siberia. So you are making absolutely no sense.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Stop trying to steamroll evidence. You have no point and you look like a delusional old fart. Your R carrying OOA Arabian genomes don't exist, clown, yet you've built this elaborate figment-fueled narrative about "Arabians that stayed Africans until mutations shifted them into Eurasians". You have no evidence but you're fighting an uphill battle against dozens of existing R carrying OOA genomes and you think you can win. retard. Someone please pinch my arm and tell me this low-on-evidence clown is not serious in trying to take on these facts empty-handed.
The only one acting delusional here is you spewing nonsense garbage about Siberians from 45,000 years ago being indicative of whether or not there was a substantial physical or genetic difference between populations in Arabia and Africa from the time period. You are trying to use them as a proxy to claim that they represent evidence of the "split" between Africans and Non Africans but the part you fail to realize is that the Arabians 45,000 years ago that we are talking about have nothing to do with Siberians. Arabians didn't disappear in that time frame so whatever affinities the Siberians had to later populations doesn't explain the evolution of IN SITU Arabians who never left Arabia. Your claim is that later mixture with descendants of said Siberians is somehow responsible for the majority of lineages found in modern Arabians, which is blatantly BULL SH*T and you know it.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Moron, if the populations that settled Egypt PRIOR to the Neolithic are the ancestors of those who LEFT AFRICA and subsequently became "European Farmers" that does not make those populations that never left "European Farmers". . . . Your grasp of logic and genetics and language is basically flawed.
Only a clown like Doug confuses being able to model a population with certain reference populations for identity with the reference populations. It takes a special type of stupid to then project this epic stupidity on someone else. Note how the clown who doesn't know what modeling means, accuses someone else of not having a grasp of genetics and language. This is pure comedy. But keep it coming, please. I find your inability to compute basic concepts hilarious. All I have to do is sit back and point out the inane claptrap in your posts.
quote:Mota - Near East Neolithic 13 Gedmatch Calculator
According to Doug's dumbass these percentages, which describe how Mota can be modeled, represent identity with these specific Eurasian reference populations. Is Doug special ed? Someone please coach Doug via PM on how to debate these points. He needs someone in his ear to advise him so he doesn't engage in this Trump-like verbal diarrhea.
Another example of Swenet spinning out of control introducing things that have absolutely nothing to do with what is being discussed and just using tired old tactics to try and sound like he is "winning" something when he lost 2 pages ago. There is nothing about what I asked him that requires this much spamming of irrelevant data. Again, if the base population that settled the Nile Valley did not come from outside Africa why should we be calling them "European" anything? That is all that is required for you to show how the label "Early European Farmer" applies to population affinities in the Nile Valley leading to and during the Dynastic era. Otherwise, this is simply a useless and silly argument. Of course the early populations of the Nile Valley WERE NOT Europeans so your silly games of semantics are stupid. It doesn't matter how close populations OUTSIDE Egypt may have been to the early populations in the Nile Valley, especially if the populations in and around the Nile Valley are ancestral to those outside Africa. That means that those populations in the Sahara and Nile Valley are still geographically African and any label being used to describe them should reflect that.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ So what exactly are you guys arguing about?
In a nutshell:
1) Doug believes that the OOA ancestors of Eurasians were the same as recent Africans when they settled Eurasia, until much later, when Doug thinks they "mutated" into Eurasians. This is why it has become a point of contention that population differentiation doesn't work like this.
No. Again, what I asked you is when populations migrating outside of Africa split into distinct African/Non African populations specifically focusing on Arabia. The point being that the labels being used by many scientists to refer to early populations migrating around the world are misleading. Again, in most cases, Basal anything, especially going back more than 40K years ago, is basically converging on African physically and genetically, which is consistent with what we know about human evolution.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: 2) Doug thinks 'to model a population as [insert reference population]' literally means the same thing as being admixed with those exact same reference populations. According to Doug, it's a reflection of bad logic, bad use of language and a poor understanding of population genetics to say something like "African Americans can be modeled as mostly Europeans + coastal West Africans". His argument for this is that African Americans had genetic contact with 'white' Americans, not 'white' inhabitants of Europe. He really thinks it matters whether one uses 'white' American, European, 'white' Afrikaner in terms of getting a decent model of the average African American genome.
No. What I said was you are mistaking the downstream descendants of population x with the ancestors of population x. As I keep saying. If I move to Germany and marry a German wife, my Grandfather doesn't become German. Yet this is exactly how you keep spinning the data on population migration. Siberian remains from 45,000 years ago don't retroactively make their ancestors who settled in Arabia into Siberians. Similarly populations who moved out of the Sahara and Nile Valley to become part of the first wave of Farming in the Near East doesn't make the populations who never left the Sahara and Nile Valley into "Near Easterners". That is faulty logic.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: 3) Doug thinks you can model all dynastic Egyptians with Basal Eurasian and other types of African ancestry which, together, add up to a 100% Eurasian-free genomes. I disagree and say you need an EEF-like genome to be able to model all possible ancestry, including ancestry that Doug and other race activists on this site are in denial about. Doug disagrees because EEf are tainted with Anatolian ancestry, unlike his precious dynastic Egyptians who supposedly didn't have a speck of foreign northern ancestry.
No, as stated before, the basal populations that settled Egypt were AFRICANS and they were NOT FARMERS so your argument is stupid on 2 levels: they weren't farmers and they weren't Europeans. Farming is a lifestyle that arose in Europe, that is the implicit meaning of Early European Farmer. Otherwise we would be saying Early African Farmer. But you just refuse to understand English.
What you MEANT to say was that "Basal Eurasian" genes are closely related to the African lineages that birthed them and these lineages are found in early settlers of the Nile Valley. Fine. I have no problem with that. But these people in the Nile Valley were not "European Farmers". Basal Eurasian and Early European are two different things. Stop being sloppy with how you apply your terms is all I am saying.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: 4) As mentioned in (1) Doug thinks population differentiation is driven by the mere accumulation of mutations without any need for actual known evolutionary forces. Doug needs this absurd notion in order to claim his Arabian settlers were the same as recent Africans up until a certain recent undefined point in their evolutionary history when they "mutated" into modern day Eurasians.
Mutations (random changes) is a basic and fundamental part of genetics in humans. The fact that you don't understand this is not my problem. In fact the paper on the Ust'-Ashim remains makes heavy use of the term "mutation".
Again, another silly spin that has nothing to do with what we are talking about.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: 5) Doug thinks it's non sense that Arabians owe their dark skin to recent African admixture in addition to the first OOA settlers. I'm not sure why he thinks it's non sense. He's contradicted himself. On the one hand he claims it's non sense because African migration was continuous and indistinguishable from the ancestry of the OOA settlers (note that this is a complete non sequitur because it doesn't address the point of contention and simply adds a minor twist my point about the OOA settler and recent African sources of dark pigmentation genes) and on the other hand, he contradicts the aforementioned claim of continuous migration by saying that that Arabians were "genetically the same as Africans". They can't both be accurate because the recent Africans who reached Arabia over time are far from a single population themselves.
Again, no this is not what I am saying. What I said was that the populations in Arabia being so close to Africa would ALWAYS retain a physical appearance close to that of Africans because of their physical proximity and similar environmental conditions. Recent mixture from Africans is not required to explain this. Likewise, unless there was 1) some substantial selection pressure from the environment or 2) some substantial mixture from populations outside of Arabia, there is no reason that these populations would substantially diverge from Africans physically in the first place. And to even more clear I am talking about those relatively isolated populations of dark skin Arabians sometimes called "aboriginal".
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: 6) Doug desperately wants the Middle East and EEF to have no Neanderthal. The reason he wants this so bad (to the point of botching his own source) is that he thinks it supports his claim that Arabians are unique compared to all global populations who descend from Ust-Ishim-like populations. Doug doesn't want Arabians to descend from Ust-Ishim-like populations because Ust-Ishim doesn't have the recent African affinities he ascribes to his OOA Arabians. It's one big mess of inaccurate claim on top of inaccurate claim.
Nope. Again, irrelevant to the point at hand and just more spinning by Swenet. You fail to understand the question I asked and why it is relevant. As it stands it is the European scientific community that has determined that the key "marker" that distinguishes Africans from later OOA populations is Neanderthal admixture. They have determined this is that key "split" that I asked about. And their studies have indicated that populations closer to Africa have less Neanderthal admixture. Sounds like you agree that this is the key split between Africans and later OOA populations. Why don't you just say that instead of spinning. But nevertheless, Arabians especially those I am referring to have very little Neanderthal mixture compared to all others, especially your precious Ust'-Ishim remains from Siberia. Which makes your claim that Arabians are more descended from Siberia as opposed to being descended from the first waves of migrants directly out of Africa blatantly false.
quote: An open question in the history of human migration is the identity of the earliest Eurasian populations that have left contemporary descendants. The Arabian Peninsula was the initial site of the out of Africa migrations that occurred between 125,000 - 60,000 years ago, leading to the hypothesis that the first Eurasian populations were established on the Peninsula and that contemporary indigenous Arabs are direct descendants of these ancient peoples. To assess this hypothesis, we sequenced the entire genomes of 104 unrelated natives of the Arabian Peninsula at high coverage, including 56 of indigenous Arab ancestry. The indigenous Arab genomes defined a cluster distinct from other ancestral groups and these genomes showed clear hallmarks of an ancient out of Africa bottleneck. Similar to other Middle Eastern populations, the indigenous Arabs had higher levels of Neanderthal admixture compared to Africans but had lower levels than Europeans and Asians. These levels of Neanderthal admixture are consistent with an early divergence of Arab ancestors after the out of Africa bottleneck but before the major Neanderthal ad-mixture events in Europe and other regions of Eurasia.
When compared to worldwide populations sampled in the 1000 Genomes Project, while the indigenous Arabs had a signal of admixture with Europeans, they clustered in a basal, outgroup position to all 1000 Genomes non-Africans when considering pairwise similarity across the entire genome. These results place indigenous Arabs as the most distant relatives of all other contemporary non-Africans and identify these people as direct descendants of the first Eurasian populations established by the out of Africa migrations.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Doug can object if he thinks I misrepresent his points. Djehuti, please give your view of each point because, on the one hand you say you agree with Doug and that you understand where he's coming from, on the other hand, you say you don't know what the exact points of contention are. If you can, and are interested in commenting on each point, please:
a) keep your reply neutral and restricted to these summated points (and others Doug might want to add) as opposed to the him or me; I don't want to seem like I'm influencing your explanations or 'get help' or turn anyone against Doug. b) provide not just your view but also arguments on where you stand in relation to these points.
So to answer the question the reason for this thread going as long at is has is because Swenet fails to admit that his genetic and "scientific" terminology is not superior to or a replacement for terms like "black" or "white" which are valid and have their place. Swenet should just work on being more precise in his usage of terminology because when people call him out on it, like I did two pages ago he gets defensive and goes on a spinfest instead of really trying to get to the point and diffuse the situation.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Links will be added to this post, showing EXACTLY where Doug makes all these absurd comments.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ So what exactly are you guys arguing about?
In a nutshell:
1) Doug believes that the OOA ancestors of Eurasians were the same as recent Africans when they settled Eurasia, until much later, when Doug thinks they "mutated" into Eurasians. This is why it has become a point of contention that population differentiation doesn't work like this.
The first OOA migrants to Arabia were genetically, physically and phenotypically Africans and likely stayed that way for a very long time. —Doug M Source
2) Doug thinks 'to model a population as [insert reference population]' literally means the same thing as being admixed with those exact same reference populations. According to Doug, it's a reflection of bad logic, bad use of language and a poor understanding of population genetics to say something like "African Americans can be modeled as mostly Europeans + coastal West Africans". His argument for this is that African Americans had genetic contact with 'white' Americans, not 'white' inhabitants of Europe. He really thinks it matters whether one uses 'white' American, European, 'white' Afrikaner in terms of getting a decent model of the average African American genome.
By its name, Early European Farmer implies a population outside of Africa. Hence the problem of using it the way it was used in the sentence. Reading that sentence it sounds like the AE base population was made up of Early European Farmers with some African mixture on top. —Doug M Source
No, as stated before, the basal populations that settled Egypt were AFRICANS and they were NOT FARMERS so your argument is stupid on 2 levels: they weren't farmers and they weren't Europeans. Farming is a lifestyle that arose in Europe, that is the implicit meaning of Early European Farmer. Otherwise we would be saying Early African Farmer. Source
3) Doug thinks you can model all dynastic Egyptians with Basal Eurasian and other types of African ancestry which, together, add up to a 100% Eurasian-free genomes. I disagree and say you need an EEF-like genome to be able to model all possible ancestry, including ancestry that Doug and other race activists on this site are in denial about. Doug disagrees because EEf are tainted with Anatolian ancestry, unlike his precious dynastic Egyptians who supposedly didn't have a speck of foreign northern ancestry.
What I am pointing out is according to these folks the populations leaving Africa "MIXED WITH ANATOLIANS" and developed farming. Therefore these populations were no longer the same as any African population that they derived from. So using the term EEF to refer to these populations before they left Africa is problematic for that reason. Source
4) As mentioned in (1) Doug thinks population differentiation is driven by the mere accumulation of mutations without any need for actual known evolutionary forces. Doug needs this absurd notion in order to claim his Arabian settlers were the same as recent Africans up until a certain recent undefined point in their evolutionary history when they "mutated" into modern day Eurasians.
Second: Transitional to what? Africans weren't transitioning from an African "feature set" to an OOA "feature set" before leaving Africa. There is no transition if they hadn't left yet as OOA is defined by mutations happening OUTSIDE Africa obviously and being distinct from the mutations taking place among populations who remained in Africa. —Doug M Source
We are talking about the first populations leaving Africa, how could there be other populations already in place if the African settlers were the first? Obviously later descendants of the actual first persons to leave Africa and settle in Arabia underwent mutations and eventually became distinct genetically and physically in some ways, but that didn't happen two weeks after the first people left.... —Doug M Source
5) Doug thinks it's non sense that Arabians owe their dark skin to recent African admixture in addition to the first OOA settlers. I'm not sure why he thinks it's non sense. He's contradicted himself. On the one hand he claims it's non sense because African migration was continuous and indistinguishable from the ancestry of the OOA settlers (note that this is a complete non sequitur because it doesn't address the point of contention and simply adds a minor twist my point about the OOA settler and recent African sources of dark pigmentation genes) and on the other hand, he contradicts the aforementioned claim of continuous migration by saying that that Arabians were "genetically the same as Africans". They can't both be accurate because the recent Africans who reached Arabia over time are far from a single population themselves.
If the first Arabians came from Africa how on earth could their black skin predate African mixture, especially given that there has probably been movement back and forth between Africa and arabia for many thousands of years? —Doug M Source
6) Doug desperately wants the Middle East and EEF to have no Neanderthal. The reason he wants this so bad (to the point of botching his own source) is that he thinks it supports his claim that Arabians are unique compared to all global populations who descend from Ust-Ishim-like populations. Doug doesn't want Arabians to descend from Ust-Ishim-like populations because Ust-Ishim doesn't have the recent African affinities he ascribes to his OOA Arabians. It's one big mess of inaccurate claim on top of inaccurate claim.
Now going full circle this whole discussion of yours about EEF SPECIFICALLY STATED that these people had NO NEANDERTHAL ANCESTRY because of their proximity to Africa. Yet here you are contradicting yourself in order to save face. —Doug M Source
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
d.p.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: [qb]
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Yes, the one that arrived in Arabia directly from Africa and needs no Ust'-Ishim populations to carry it.
After you admitted that Ust-Ishim is basal R there really is nothing left to say anymore.
So Swenet, are you claiming that R lineages arose first in Siberia before they arose in East Africa/ Arabia?
Seriously?
Can you please cite the scholarship you claim says this?
Swenet, Doug is saying Haplogroup R arose in East Africa/Arabia but he has no peer reviewed sources that says that. And then he says "seriously" as if it is common knowledge. I have read a lot of articles not seen that claim made in scientific articles.
So doesn't he have to cite his own sources first before he asks you to cite sources if his premise is Hap R originated in East Africa/Arabia?
What is highly suggestive of the origin of a haplogroup is a) DNA of ancient human remains carrying the haplogroup b) location of highest diversity c) location of highest frequency
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
You're right. Doug has no source for that. But then again, Doug doesn't have a source for anything.
The thing is this. Doug says so much non sense that I have to be selective with what I respond to. If I don't hold back it becomes even more of a big unintelligible mess which will only benefit Doug because it buries all his blunders in his barrages of incoherent rants, goalpost shifts, false accusations, etc etc. As you can see above, Doug doesn't just secretly move goalposts one at a time. As I've documented by contrasting his last post with his early quotes, he moved the entire discussion to new goalpost at the same time. That's how dishonest this troll is.
One thing I have been wanting to confront him with is that there is little to no relic mtDNA in Arabia. The vast majority of Arabian mtDNAs originate from the outside (i.e. from Africa, Fertile Crescent, Central Asia, etc) AFTER OOA:
quote:To assess the role of the Arabian Peninsula in the southern route, we genetically analyzed 553 Saudi Arabs using partial (546) and complete mtDNA (7) sequencing, and compared the lineages obtained with those present in Africa, the Near East, central, east and southeast Asia and Australasia. The results showed that the Arabian Peninsula has received substantial gene flow from Africa (20%), detected by the presence of L, M1 and U6 lineages; that an 18% of the Arabian Peninsula lineages have a clear eastern provenance, mainly represented by U lineages; but also by Indian M lineages and rare M links with Central Asia, Indonesia and even Australia. However, the bulk (62%) of the Arabian lineages has a Northern source.
Doug is a raging lunatic and basically everything he says here is suspect or complete garbage. I'm really curious what DJ sees in Doug's posts that he agrees with as far as where Doug and I differ. I'm really, really curious at this point.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Doug thinks you are saying some of the ancestors of dynastic Egyptians were farmers from Europe
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Ol' head thinks a lot of things. But one thing Ol' head will not do is disprove anything I'm saying.
Researchers have been modeling North Africans as partly EEF since how long now? For YEARS. What do you think this is that you've posted here?
They're modeling Africans as EEF + Yoruba (and in some cases also European hunter gatherer). So what's the problem on a scientific level? There is no problem on a scientific level, only on a butthurt level.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Again, I've been pointing this out for years, most recently here, where you can see that modern North Africans can be modeled as partly, or almost entirely, EEf:
Doug is just a retarded clown no one needs to take seriously. That's why I didn't offer a new reply to address his new barrage of crap. Let him think he won if he's willing to move heaven and earth with all sorts of lies and non sense. The people who matter know he's an impostor and that he doesn't know anything about this topic.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: [QB] Ol' head thinks a lot of things. But one thing Ol' head will not do is disprove anything I'm saying.
Researchers have been modeling North Africans as partly EEF since how long now? For YEARS. What do you think this is that you've posted here?
Could the older component of that be Haplogroup H?
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Most 10ky old Iberomaursian mtDNA haplotypes have close matches with contemporary European mtDNAs, so, yes. Modern Maghrebis' mtDNA H, as well as U5, V, etc. is the first thing we would think of to explain why modern Maghrebis have more black/Loschbour in their pie charts than modern Egyptians do.
^I disagree with one Maghrebi hg assignment though, which should be L3 in my view. I've commented on this elsewhere already many times. No need to repeat myself.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Oh, and did I mention, Qatari Bedouins (Q1) and Saudis have the most Neanderthal ancestry in the Middle East, along with Turks and other Middle Easterners who have the least African ancestry.
The authors' whole thesis was to to portray the Qatari sample as uniquely basal in the region; they tried to advance the notion that living Arabians represent a special Out of Africa migration. Of course, the inflated Neanderthal percentage (compared to Iranians, Palestinians, etc.) sunk that boat completely.
But just like Doug, these clown ideologues will try to move heaven and earth before resigning in the fact that living Saudis and Qataris just aren't some sort of 'unique' Middle Eastern population as far as OOA goes. This is how they tried to spin the elevated Neanderthal level, which, to their embarrassment, wasn't low enough to make their hypothesis work:
Yet, since the Neanderthal admixture in the Q1 (Bedouin) cannot be entirely explained by admixture with Europeans, This indicates there was some admixture between Neanderthals and ancestors of the Q1 (Bedouin) in the region of the Arabian Peninsula. Source
And another bitter pill they refused to accept, namely, that their Arab sample (Q1) has no special position compared to Europeans that would jibe with a unique OOA history:
The analysis returned an overall tree for the 1000 Genomes populations that mirrored those found previously (Shriner et al. 2014) with the addition of the Q1 (Bedouin) and Q2 (Persian-South Asian) clustering on the branch that includes Europeans (Pérez-Miranda et al. 2006) and the Q3 (African) clustering with African populations (Fig. 5). Source
Followed by more spin and excuses re: why their Q1 sample did not perform as desired:
As the principal component analysis and the TreeMix population-level clusterings depend on allele frequencies, the clustering of the Q1 (Bedouin) on a common branch with European populations could be driven by the haplotypes introduced by migrants, which would be expected to shift the allele frequencies of these populations toward each other.
^Note the shameless confirmation bias-driven spin. What Neanderthals in the Arabian region? What "European migrants"? They just can't bring themselves to admit that the Qatari genomes are inconsistent with a "special OOA lineage". You'd almost think Doug co-wrote the paper with all the spin and cheap see-through arguments.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
lol! You are my dog. You are a spin master!
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
I know why you mad gramps. Let me guess. Is it Maju's map with the pre-farmer H in Europe? You can always count on gramps to rear his head when you point out that pre-neolithic Europe had H independent of North Africans.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Links will be added to this post, showing EXACTLY where Doug makes all these absurd comments.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ So what exactly are you guys arguing about?
In a nutshell:
1) Doug believes that the OOA ancestors of Eurasians were the same as recent Africans when they settled Eurasia, until much later, when Doug thinks they "mutated" into Eurasians. This is why it has become a point of contention that population differentiation doesn't work like this.
The first OOA migrants to Arabia were genetically, physically and phenotypically Africans and likely stayed that way for a very long time. —Doug M Source
2) Doug thinks 'to model a population as [insert reference population]' literally means the same thing as being admixed with those exact same reference populations. According to Doug, it's a reflection of bad logic, bad use of language and a poor understanding of population genetics to say something like "African Americans can be modeled as mostly Europeans + coastal West Africans". His argument for this is that African Americans had genetic contact with 'white' Americans, not 'white' inhabitants of Europe. He really thinks it matters whether one uses 'white' American, European, 'white' Afrikaner in terms of getting a decent model of the average African American genome.
By its name, Early European Farmer implies a population outside of Africa. Hence the problem of using it the way it was used in the sentence. Reading that sentence it sounds like the AE base population was made up of Early European Farmers with some African mixture on top. —Doug M Source
No, as stated before, the basal populations that settled Egypt were AFRICANS and they were NOT FARMERS so your argument is stupid on 2 levels: they weren't farmers and they weren't Europeans. Farming is a lifestyle that arose in Europe, that is the implicit meaning of Early European Farmer. Otherwise we would be saying Early African Farmer. Source
3) Doug thinks you can model all dynastic Egyptians with Basal Eurasian and other types of African ancestry which, together, add up to a 100% Eurasian-free genomes. I disagree and say you need an EEF-like genome to be able to model all possible ancestry, including ancestry that Doug and other race activists on this site are in denial about. Doug disagrees because EEf are tainted with Anatolian ancestry, unlike his precious dynastic Egyptians who supposedly didn't have a speck of foreign northern ancestry.
What I am pointing out is according to these folks the populations leaving Africa "MIXED WITH ANATOLIANS" and developed farming. Therefore these populations were no longer the same as any African population that they derived from. So using the term EEF to refer to these populations before they left Africa is problematic for that reason. Source
4) As mentioned in (1) Doug thinks population differentiation is driven by the mere accumulation of mutations without any need for actual known evolutionary forces. Doug needs this absurd notion in order to claim his Arabian settlers were the same as recent Africans up until a certain recent undefined point in their evolutionary history when they "mutated" into modern day Eurasians.
Second: Transitional to what? Africans weren't transitioning from an African "feature set" to an OOA "feature set" before leaving Africa. There is no transition if they hadn't left yet as OOA is defined by mutations happening OUTSIDE Africa obviously and being distinct from the mutations taking place among populations who remained in Africa. —Doug M Source
We are talking about the first populations leaving Africa, how could there be other populations already in place if the African settlers were the first? Obviously later descendants of the actual first persons to leave Africa and settle in Arabia underwent mutations and eventually became distinct genetically and physically in some ways, but that didn't happen two weeks after the first people left.... —Doug M Source
5) Doug thinks it's non sense that Arabians owe their dark skin to recent African admixture in addition to the first OOA settlers. I'm not sure why he thinks it's non sense. He's contradicted himself. On the one hand he claims it's non sense because African migration was continuous and indistinguishable from the ancestry of the OOA settlers (note that this is a complete non sequitur because it doesn't address the point of contention and simply adds a minor twist my point about the OOA settler and recent African sources of dark pigmentation genes) and on the other hand, he contradicts the aforementioned claim of continuous migration by saying that that Arabians were "genetically the same as Africans". They can't both be accurate because the recent Africans who reached Arabia over time are far from a single population themselves.
If the first Arabians came from Africa how on earth could their black skin predate African mixture, especially given that there has probably been movement back and forth between Africa and arabia for many thousands of years? —Doug M Source
6) Doug desperately wants the Middle East and EEF to have no Neanderthal. The reason he wants this so bad (to the point of botching his own source) is that he thinks it supports his claim that Arabians are unique compared to all global populations who descend from Ust-Ishim-like populations. Doug doesn't want Arabians to descend from Ust-Ishim-like populations because Ust-Ishim doesn't have the recent African affinities he ascribes to his OOA Arabians. It's one big mess of inaccurate claim on top of inaccurate claim.
Now going full circle this whole discussion of yours about EEF SPECIFICALLY STATED that these people had NO NEANDERTHAL ANCESTRY because of their proximity to Africa. Yet here you are contradicting yourself in order to save face. —Doug M Source
Swenet anybody who wants to read my points can read them for themselves. At this point this has gone beyond sanity and it just Swenet spinning in circles making up arguments and not addressing what was posted.
quote: The earliest non-African ancestor of R0a, the root of haplogroup R, dates to ~59 ka, and may (in line with the arguments summarised in the preceding paragraph) have originated in the Gulf Oasis soon after the dispersal of modern humans from Eastern Africa3. Its more immediate ancestor, R0a’b, dates to ~40 ka and its earliest branches have a relict distribution around the Mediterranean/Near East. We have identified several new minor sister subclades to the main R0a branches, and these too have a similar distribution.
But of course you will ignore this.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
He said "everyone who wants to read my points can read them for themselves".
People in the know ARE reading your points and it's one big SMH fest. This is what you said, then you denied you said it, and now you say they can read your points thinking they're not going to notice you're a flip flopping, lying old fart:
Second: Transitional to what? Africans weren't transitioning from an African "feature set" to an OOA "feature set" before leaving Africa. There is no transition if they hadn't left yet as OOA is defined by mutations happening OUTSIDE Africa obviously and being distinct from the mutations taking place among populations who remained in Africa. —Doug M
Even super duper mega trolls from Zetaboards know how OOA populations formed and are able to articulate it to a certain extent:
What are you supposed to be? A 'vet'? This clown has been active on this forum for 10+ years but still doesn't know how populations form.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Again, I've been pointing this out for years, most recently here, where you can see that modern North Africans can be modeled as partly, or almost entirely, EEf:
Doug is just a retarded clown no one needs to take seriously. That's why I didn't offer a new reply to address his new barrage of crap. Let him think he won if he's willing to move heaven and earth with all sorts of lies and non sense. The people who matter know he's an impostor and that he doesn't know anything about this topic.
The only clown here is you because if you want to get to it what you are saying is that North Africans are the result of migrations of European Farmers.
To be clear, I have no problem with the idea that Farmers from "Eurasia" made it to North Africa in the neolithic. The problem I have is that they are not "BASAL" to populations in North Africa in or prior to the Neolithic.
Again, more sloppy wording on your part. As I keep saying the BASAL populations of North Africa prior to and including the Neolithic would have been Saharans who never left Africa. But of course you will keep spinning how these Saharans can also bee Early European farmers..... LOL!
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The only clown here is you because if you want to get to it what you are saying is that North Africans are the result of migrations of European Farmers.
More filthy lies by someone who doesn't even know how populations form after 10+ of faking expertise on this forum.
"mutational shift from OOA to Eurasians" —Doug M
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: He said "everyone who wants to read my points can read them for themselves".
People in the know ARE reading your points and it's one big SMH fest. This is what you said, then you denied you said it, and now you say they can read your points thinking they're not going to notice you're a flip flopping old fart:
Second: Transitional to what? Africans weren't transitioning from an African "feature set" to an OOA "feature set" before leaving Africa. There is no transition if they hadn't left yet as OOA is defined by mutations happening OUTSIDE Africa obviously and being distinct from the mutations taking place among populations who remained in Africa. —Doug M
Even super duper mega trolls from Zetaboards know how OOA populations formed and are able to articulate it to a certain extent:
What are you supposed to be? A 'vet'? This clown has been active on this forum for 10+ years but still doesn't know how populations form.
Dude. The funny part is that it is you who claimed that Africans were "transitioning". So yes it is funny that you see how dumb it sounds since you are the one who said it.
Why is it dumb? Because ALL human populations have genetic mutation and variation no matter where they are. By claiming that they were "transitioning" what you are saying is that they developed physical and genetic changes that would later be found in populations that descended from them OUTSIDE Africa. However, before these people left whatever "changes" were occurring are still properly labelled as African.
Again, you simply make sloppy equivalences and don't want to be called out on cleaning up the terminology because it is absolutely misleading and incorrect.
And here is the exact quote from your post reflecting what I am saying is sloppy use of terminology:
quote: First of all, again, OOA populations are not closely related to all Africans. We have their genomes now so you have no excuse to pretend to be ignorant in this regard. Secondly, OOA populations were already a transitional population before OOA, so their distinctiveness did not happen "like a light bulb switch" once they set foot out of Africa. Thirdly, genetically speaking, these settlers are typically closer to living populations in their regions than to Africans. So how would you make that work? How would you make them 'African' and neatly exclude them from their living descendants whom you don't consistently acknowledge as African in the same way? Explain in detail, please.
Now before you complain, I will explain it to you. If the OOA population split and became distinct because of some unique variation in genetics or physical appearance then by virtue of it being unique to variations that arose OUTSIDE Africa, the ancestral population that never left Africa cannot be said to be "transitioning" to it. Meaning that the ancestral population in Africa, no matter what variations may have occurred before the migration out of Africa could never have produced the same variations that led to the later migrants becoming distinct. That is a contradictory statement.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The only clown here is you because if you want to get to it what you are saying is that North Africans are the result of migrations of European Farmers.
More filthy lies by someone who doesn't even know how populations form after 10+ of faking expertise on this forum.
"mutational shift from OOA to Eurasians" —Doug M
Dude. If that is not what you are saying then what the hell are you saying? Somehow as indicative of this whole thread you have a problem with words. What does Early European Farmer mean? How can a nomadic African NON farmer be a Early European Farmer. Think about it. Obviously the Saharan populations eventually met up with other settled populations who were adopting the farming lifestyle at some point. But to claim that these Saharans can be labelled as "farmers" as a way of modelling that interaction and subsequent populations descending from that interaction is nonsense, ie. settlement of the Nile Valley or the development of the Saharan Pastoral complex.
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Now before you complain, I will explain it to you. If the OOA population split and became distinct because of some unique variation in genetics or physical appearance then by virtue of it being unique to variations that arose OUTSIDE Africa, the ancestral population that never left Africa cannot be said to be "transitioning" to it. Meaning that the ancestral population in Africa, no matter what variations may have occurred before the migration out of Africa could never have produced the same variations that led to the later migrants becoming distinct. That is a contradictory statement. [/QB]
Ohoh! now you're getting somewhere ...Look actual scientific thought is being applied here ...in regards to evolutionary biology that is.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Lol. I'm going to save this page and send it to one of my correspondents. I'm going to ask him what he thinks of this Doug clown and if he can believe that Doug has been faking it for 11 years.
Notice that I made the statement below BEFORE this debate jumped off. I said that OOA populations became distinct from recent Africans because:
anytime populations split you get peculiarities in the migrants' genomes (e.g. certain new patterns in LD that prove the population is 'young(er)'), so one could easily demarcate OOA settlers from Africans. —Swenet
This clown never got the memo because he clearly can't compute what this means let alone form an intelligent response to it. He spent three thread pages circumventing this talking about mutations and other nonsense. Now he's STILL talking to me as if I didn't repeatedly say this.
Look at the incoherent mumbo jumbo he keeps posting about 'mutations' and harping on "transitional" (which he clearly doesn't understand because his comments don't follow from what I was commenting on in that instance).
Lol. 10+ years. This guy signed up on this site in 2005. I can't believe what I'm reading. Watch below how, even though I just posted this, he still won't get it and botch what I've said. Watch. Lol.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Notice that I made the statement below BEFORE this debate jumped off. I said that OOA populations acquired their specific genetic affinity because:
anytime populations split you get peculiarities in the migrants' genomes (e.g. certain new patterns in LD that prove the population is 'young(er)'), so one could easily demarcate OOA settlers from Africans. —Swenet
Now ask yourself how come an 11 year old 'vet' spent three thread pages ignoring where it's really at, to harp on non sense like "mutations that shifted OOA populations to Eurasians" if he's remotely qualified to talk about this.
quote:Northeast African populations differentiated from other sub-Saharan African populations early in African history. A small subset of this population migrated out of Africa in the past 100,000 years and rapidly expanded throughout a broad geographical region. Ancestral African populations have maintained a large and subdivided population structure throughout much of their evolutionary history, resulting in fewer sites being in linkage disequilibrium (LD) and in divergent patterns of LD, compared with non-African populations. The bottleneck event that is associated with the founding of non-African populations resulted in reduced genetic variation, greater LD in the genome and an increase in the size of haplotype blocks.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ So what exactly are you guys arguing about?
..they themselves don't even know, nice to formerly respond to you btw... I've heard quite a bit about you "DJ".
Thank you. It seems everytime I come here, very little has changed.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ So what exactly are you guys arguing about?
In a nutshell:
1) Doug believes that the OOA ancestors of Eurasians were the same as recent Africans when they settled Eurasia, until much later, when Doug thinks they "mutated" into Eurasians. This is why it has become a point of contention that population differentiation doesn't work like this.
2) Doug thinks 'to model a population as [insert reference population]' literally means the same thing as being admixed with those exact same reference populations. According to Doug, it's a reflection of bad logic, bad use of language and a poor understanding of population genetics to say something like "African Americans can be modeled as mostly Europeans + coastal West Africans". His argument for this is that African Americans had genetic contact with 'white' Americans, not 'white' inhabitants of Europe. He really thinks it matters whether one uses 'white' American, European, 'white' Afrikaner in terms of getting a decent model of the average African American genome.
3) Doug thinks you can model all dynastic Egyptians with Basal Eurasian and other types of African ancestry which, together, add up to a 100% Eurasian-free genomes. I disagree and say you need an EEF-like genome to be able to model all possible ancestry, including ancestry that Doug and other race activists on this site are in denial about. Doug disagrees because EEf are tainted with Anatolian ancestry, unlike his precious dynastic Egyptians who supposedly didn't have a speck of foreign northern ancestry.
4) As mentioned in (1) Doug thinks population differentiation is driven by the mere accumulation of mutations without any need for actual known evolutionary forces. Doug needs this absurd notion in order to claim his Arabian settlers were the same as recent Africans up until a certain recent undefined point in their evolutionary history when they "mutated" into modern day Eurasians.
5) Doug thinks it's non sense that Arabians owe their dark skin to recent African admixture in addition to the first OOA settlers. I'm not sure why he thinks it's non sense. He's contradicted himself. On the one hand he claims it's non sense because African migration was continuous and indistinguishable from the ancestry of the OOA settlers (note that this is a complete non sequitur because it doesn't address the point of contention and simply adds a minor twist my point about the OOA settler and recent African sources of dark pigmentation genes) and on the other hand, he contradicts the aforementioned claim of continuous migration by saying that that Arabians were "genetically the same as Africans". They can't both be accurate because the recent Africans who reached Arabia over time are far from a single population themselves.
6) Doug desperately wants the Middle East and EEF to have no Neanderthal. The reason he wants this so bad (to the point of botching his own source) is that he thinks it supports his claim that Arabians are unique compared to all global populations who descend from Ust-Ishim-like populations. Doug doesn't want Arabians to descend from Ust-Ishim-like populations because Ust-Ishim doesn't have the recent African affinities he ascribes to his OOA Arabians. It's one big mess of inaccurate claim on top of inaccurate claim.
Doug can object if he thinks I misrepresent his points. Djehuti, please give your view of each point because, on the one hand you say you agree with Doug and that you understand where he's coming from, on the other hand, you say you don't know what the exact points of contention are. If you can, and are interested in commenting on each point, please:
a) keep your reply neutral and restricted to these summated points (and others Doug might want to add) as opposed to the him or me; I don't want to seem like I'm influencing your explanations or 'get help' or turn anyone against Doug. b) provide not just your view but also arguments on where you stand in relation to these points.
I get where he's coming from in that for so long Euronuts have tried to distance themselves as much as possible from black Africans and even formulated a type of 'reverse Hamitic hypothesis' for more recent OOA migrations that significantly influenced SW Asia and Europe whereby these recent African emmigrants were "indigenous African Caucasoids" in the words of Dienekes Pontikos. However, whatever evidence contradicts Doug's conjectures, it certainly doesn't support Pontikos or other Euronut's "Caucasoid" claimes either. I already made a post concerning indigenous Arabians here.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Oh, and did I mention, Qatari Bedouins (Q1) and Saudis have the most Neanderthal ancestry in the Middle East, along with Turks and other Middle Easterners who have the least African ancestry.
The authors' whole thesis was to to portray the Qatari sample as uniquely basal in the region; they tried to advance the notion that living Arabians represent a special Out of Africa migration. Of course, the inflated Neanderthal percentage (compared to Iranians, Palestinians, etc.) sunk that boat completely.
But just like Doug, these clown ideologues will try to move heaven and earth before resigning in the fact that living Saudis and Qataris just aren't some sort of 'unique' Middle Eastern population as far as OOA goes. This is how they tried to spin the elevated Neanderthal level, which, to their embarrassment, wasn't low enough to make their hypothesis work:
Yet, since the Neanderthal admixture in the Q1 (Bedouin) cannot be entirely explained by admixture with Europeans, This indicates there was some admixture between Neanderthals and ancestors of the Q1 (Bedouin) in the region of the Arabian Peninsula. Source
And another bitter pill they refused to accept, namely, that their Arab sample (Q1) has no special position compared to Europeans that would jibe with a unique OOA history:
The analysis returned an overall tree for the 1000 Genomes populations that mirrored those found previously (Shriner et al. 2014) with the addition of the Q1 (Bedouin) and Q2 (Persian-South Asian) clustering on the branch that includes Europeans (Pérez-Miranda et al. 2006) and the Q3 (African) clustering with African populations (Fig. 5). Source
Followed by more spin and excuses re: why their Q1 sample did not perform as desired:
As the principal component analysis and the TreeMix population-level clusterings depend on allele frequencies, the clustering of the Q1 (Bedouin) on a common branch with European populations could be driven by the haplotypes introduced by migrants, which would be expected to shift the allele frequencies of these populations toward each other.
^Note the shameless confirmation bias-driven spin. What Neanderthals in the Arabian region? What "European migrants"? They just can't bring themselves to admit that the Qatari genomes are inconsistent with a "special OOA lineage". You'd almost think Doug co-wrote the paper with all the spin and cheap see-through arguments.
We know that Neanderthals were present in SW Asia during the time of the first OOA migrations that populated Eurasia. This may explain why many Australasians have Neanderthal-like cranial features or even soft tissue features like hairsuite bodies (?). Although Mungo man did have an unusually gracile skull and taller linear build than other first Australians.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Notice that I made the statement below BEFORE this debate jumped off. I said that OOA populations acquired their specific genetic affinity because:
anytime populations split you get peculiarities in the migrants' genomes (e.g. certain new patterns in LD that prove the population is 'young(er)'), so one could easily demarcate OOA settlers from Africans. —Swenet
Now ask yourself how come an 11 year old 'vet' spent three thread pages ignoring where it's really at, to harp on non sense like "mutations that shifted OOA populations to Eurasians" if he's remotely qualified to talk about this.
quote:Northeast African populations differentiated from other sub-Saharan African populations early in African history. A small subset of this population migrated out of Africa in the past 100,000 years and rapidly expanded throughout a broad geographical region. Ancestral African populations have maintained a large and subdivided population structure throughout much of their evolutionary history, resulting in fewer sites being in linkage disequilibrium (LD) and in divergent patterns of LD, compared with non-African populations. The bottleneck event that is associated with the founding of non-African populations resulted in reduced genetic variation, greater LD in the genome and an increase in the size of haplotype blocks.
This is how unqualified people will drag you in debates that last 30 thread pages long if you let them. And the part that trips me up is that they really think they have a point
Supposedly, OOA populations can't be distinguished from their African source populations. But according to who? Some unqualified clown on the the internet and his dupes.
Another quote that shows you can delineate Africans from OOA settlers with surgical precision, a fact that has been denied again and again by the ideologues:
quote:The larger number of sites in LD, and the extended size of haplotype blocks, in non-African populations is probably due to a founding event that occurred during the expansion of modern humans out of Africa in the past 100,000 years (REFS 27,29,30)
Nowhere is there any non sense about "mutations that make OOA settlers shift into Eurasians". Pure BS fabricated by Doug and latched onto eagerly by his dupes.
I had mentioned something that relates to this earlier in the discussion, but no surprise that Doug didn't have the frame of reference to even begin to understand its relevance. It's like casting pearls before swines; Doug just will just trample them:
quote:About 7.7 positions per 10,000 are heterozygous in the Ust’-Ishim genome, whereas between 9.6 and 10.5 positions are heterozygous in present-day Africans and 5.5 and 7.7 inpresent-daynon-Africans (Sup- plementary Information section 12). Thus, with respect to genetic di- versity, the population to which the Ust’-Ishim individual belonged was more similar to present-day Eurasians than to present-day Africans, which probably reflects the out-of-Africa bottleneck shared by non- African populations.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Lol. I'm going to save this page and send it to one of my correspondents. I'm going to ask him what he thinks of this Doug clown and if he can believe that Doug has been faking it for 11 years.
Notice that I made the statement below BEFORE this debate jumped off. I said that OOA populations became distinct from recent Africans because:
anytime populations split you get peculiarities in the migrants' genomes (e.g. certain new patterns in LD that prove the population is 'young(er)'), so one could easily demarcate OOA settlers from Africans. —Swenet
This clown never got the memo because he clearly can't compute what this means let alone form an intelligent response to it. He spent three thread pages circumventing this talking about mutations and other nonsense. Now he's STILL talking to me as if I didn't repeatedly say this.
Look at the incoherent mumbo jumbo he keeps posting about 'mutations' and harping on "transitional" (which he clearly doesn't understand because his comments don't follow from what I was commenting on in that instance).
Lol. 10+ years. This guy signed up on this site in 2005. I can't believe what I'm reading. Watch below how, even though I just posted this, he still won't get it and botch what I've said. Watch. Lol.
Swenet, you havent answered the original questions yet you keep moving on to other topics like you have "accomplished" something. Do you even follow the threads? If what I said was so easily debunked why are you moving on to other topics I never even raised? This is what I mean by spinning.
So to sum it up. I asked you why recent mixture with Africans was necessary to explain dark skin in Arabians. You obviously misunderstood the point. There is no reason that an a population in Southern Arabia needs recent African mixture to explain their dark skin. It has been in place since the first migrations out of Africa. You haven't challenged that point. I then asked when African populations migrating out of Africa "split" and became non African. And you didn't answer that either. What you did is try to claim that Siberian remains imply that the modern populations of Arabia are more descended from later migrations of folks descended from these Siberians who introduced R lineages to the region. That then spun off into about whether R lineages arose first in Arabia/Africa and then moved to elsewhere in Eurasia or did they arise somewhere else. Now obviously we know that Arabians were some of the first populations out of Africa, so according to Swenet's position, either these people rapidly vacated Arabia and were replaced by migrants from elsewhere or the populations who stayed were overrun and replaced by later "Eurasian" migrants and then experienced additional admixture from Africa "bolstering" their dark skin. Either way it is a very convoluted way of explaining how Arabia was populated. I am not saying Arabia hasn't experienced admixture scenarios. But what I am saying is that the evidence should be there among relatively isolated populations for the existence of lineages descended from the first OOA migrations consistent with Arabia being one of the first routes out of Africa and that dark skin is "indigenous" to these kinds of people even without recent African mixture.
All that becomes apparent from this discussion is the fact that it is Europeans who have come up with this idea that the split between Africans and those who left Africa can be identified by Neanderthal genes. And according to this theory it is because of a bottleneck that occurred among the migrating populations out of Africa somewhere around Arabia and the Mid East that this mixture found its way into all later descendants of these original OOA populations. Of course that wouldn't apply to more recent migrants out of Africa such as the so-called "basal Eurasian" folks who participated in the farming revolution during the Neolithic and gave rise to a number of modern European lineages. And this is where we had the last point of contention about whether the words "Early European Farmers" could be used as a label describing the BASE population that had migrated into the Nile Valley prior to and during the Neolithic...... But here is the problem. It is a purely hypothetical mind game indicative of the current state of European science on genetic history. And because of this they have gotten folks caught up in trying to explain or fit the facts to match their convoluted explanations. This is the whole problem with the current state of trying to model ancient population movements by modern DNA alone. And it is because of this kind of reliance on theoretical reconstructions that most of the models are somewhat flawed and convoluted. "Basal Eurasian" being one example and the "Ust'-Ishim" remains being another.
Suffice to say, the only problem I see is that Swenet is unable to stick to one line of argument and constantly jumps around instead of sticking to the issue at hand. Whether or not I agree with him is one thing, but this idea that in order to debate facts we have to jump all over the map is ridiculous. And seriously a lot of this is all about words and phrases, how they are used and what they imply.
And here is a good description of the issue:
quote: As I explain here; Ust-Ishim is "basal" to all Out-of-Africa groups whether modern ones like Eastern Non-Africans such as the Andamanese Onge or the East Asian-related ancestry in the Karitiana Native American population or ancient Out-of-Africa groups such as Ancient North Eurasians & European Hunter-Gatherers.
Ust-Ishim is quite literally physical evidence that these groups descend from a common ancestral clade and continued to share genetic drift with each other until a few tens of thousands of years ago where they for now supposedly diverged into two separate branches, one ancestral to the Eastern Non-Africans & another ancestral to Ancient North Eurasians & European Hunter-Gatherers.
And while this branching may eventually grow a good degree more complex with more and more ancient DNA being studied; the point to get here is that modern Europeans and West Asians (including those West Asians lacking African admixture); do not fit into this model.
They don't fit properly as a "down-stream" development from what Ust-Ishim was in the way an Andamanese islander or a Western European Hunter-Gatherer would. This in the researchers' eyes implies an element in them that preceded Ust-Ishim's genetic state and whom Ust-Ishim is not "basal" to as the diagram shared above from Haak et al. 2015 clearly stipulates.
We don't have actual ancient DNA data from West Asia or North Africa or anywhere that could truly explain what Basal Eurasian honestly is so we for now have to work with this current statistically based concept. [note]
Because the thing is; Basal Eurasian doesn't look "African" as some including I once might have implied but rather still clearly looks as though the original Out-of-Africa group that Lazaridis et al. 2013-2014 dubs the first "Non-Africans" are indeed ancestral to it, but then it clearly doesn't seem to be a downstream development from Ust-Ishim and lacks the extra shared genetic drift and ancestry between Eastern Non-Africans and groups like Ancient north Eurasians.
So I'll I say what I've said quite often; we need more ancient DNA data to truly understand what Basal Eurasian was but what I explained above is essentially the current academic view...
Lol. Clown! Lying demented loser. Your whole summary is botched.
"mutational shift from OOA to Eurasian" —Doug
^That and the whole list of other phuchups (e.g. his claim that EEF don't have Neanderthal) aren't in his version of events because he's a liar and trying to 'reset' the conversation.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Nea Nikomedea and certain Nile Valley populations are the same population with minor differences (e.g. the proportion of SSA ancestry and the proportion of Eurasian ancestry) as commented on by Angel. But these differences don't warrant lumping EEF with Eurasians and fantasizing about a big gap in between them and the Nile Valley populations under discussion as if they're completely different and wouldn't form a clade.
This is the basic truth that the lying Doug clown is trying to manipulate when he spins his lies about "Swenet thinks North Africans are European farmers". Lying buffoon. You have no credibility and you are no 'vet'. You're an IMPOSTOR with dupes in your ear telling you you have a point. And you have been an impostor for the last 11 years.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: And seriously a lot of this is all about words and phrases, how they are used and what they imply.
Stop lying. Our views are nothing alike. And our intentions are DEFINITELY nothing alike. Stop trying to wiggle over to my side after you are left with no ground to stand on and after we've seen that you're not qualified to speak on the subject.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: I then asked when African populations migrating out of Africa "split" and became non African. And you didn't answer that either.
Nobody knows the answer to that but there are people in Eurasia with haplotypes that arose outside of Africa. The greatest diversity of R1b being around eastern Anatolia and the oldest human remains carrying Haplogroup R before it split into R1 and R2 were found in Siberia.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
Now obviously we know that Arabians were some of the first populations out of Africa, so according to Swenet's position, either these people rapidly vacated Arabia and were replaced by migrants from elsewhere or the populations who stayed were overrun and replaced by later "Eurasian" migrants and then experienced additional admixture from Africa "bolstering" their dark skin.
The Arabian peninsula has had periods of lush vegetation as well as dry periods, some drier than today. So there is no reason to not think there have been many migrations, replacements and admixture since then. Any peoples who live in high UV regions will experience darkening of the skin. Also many Arabs have lighter skin underneath their clothes
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Either way it is a very convoluted way of explaining how Arabia was populated.
It's the complex reality of 60,000 years or more
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: I am not saying Arabia hasn't experienced admixture scenarios. But what I am saying is that the evidence should be there among relatively isolated populations for the existence of lineages descended from the first OOA migrations
Doug has named no such "isolated population". Unlike the Amazon rain forest the Arabian peninsula does not contain regions that have remained isolated for thousands of years.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
All that becomes apparent from this discussion is the fact that it is Europeans who have come up with this idea that the split between Africans and those who left Africa can be identified by Neanderthal genes.
^ Look at Yemen on the bottom of the chart. They have the highest frequency of Haplogroup J 82.3
If you want to talk about the predominant YDNA Haplogroup of the Arabian peninsula it's J
Since the discovery of haplogroup J-P209 it has generally been recognized that it shows signs of having originated in or near West Asia. The frequency and diversity of both its major branches, J-M267 and J-M172, in that region makes them candidates as genetic markers of the spread of farming technology during the Neolithic, which is proposed to have had a major impact upon human populations.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: I am not saying Arabia hasn't experienced admixture scenarios.
This clown started calling me out for saying that dark skin in Arabia is due to both recent Africans and the first OOA settlers and now he's parroting me talking 'bout "I have no problem with recent admixture". Flip flopping clown. He moved the entire discussion to a new goalpost several times and he will never get called out for it on this forum. Just like his unlimited supply of blunders and flip flops during the previous discussion about the term 'black', this lying clown gets away with murder. All he has to do is toe the partyline while he's lying, flip flopping, fabricating, blundering, moving goalposts, you name it.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Where is the contradiction?
1) OOA settlers came in 2) African admixture happened with said settlers 3) OOA settlers' dark skin predates African admixture.
When did the OOA settlers in 1) become "different" from any later migrants into Southern Arabia? Human settlement in Southern Arabia is at least 60,000 years old. So when did they "split" from Africans and what markers are you using to denote that split, not only genetically but physically in terms of significant differences in phenotype, including skin color?
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: There is no reason that an a population in Southern Arabia needs recent African mixture to explain their dark skin. It has been in place since the first migrations out of Africa. You haven't challenged that point.
Maybe I haven't challenged that point because I said the exact opposite. You're hallucinating as usual. Demented loser.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Where is the contradiction?
1) OOA settlers came in 2) African admixture happened with said settlers 3) OOA settlers' dark skin predates African admixture.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ^That is because most of them probably have Horner (and 'Zanj') ancestry. There have been mtDNA studies where Yemeni's cluster with Horners before they cluster with other Eurasians. Arabian Vedda populations are a good example of indigenous black Arabs that don't owe their blackness to African admixture. There are undoubtedly other dark skinned Arabian populations whose dark skin predates African admixture, but good luck proving it without genetic analysis
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Here are the demented loser's pure OOA Arabians who supposedly need no recent African ancestry to explain at least some of their dark skin:
quote:On the basis of a sample of 117 chromosomes, we have demonstrated the multicentric origin of the sickle mutation in Northern Oman. Three major haplotypes coexist: 52.1% Benin (typical and atypicals), 26.7% Arab-India, and 21.4% Bantu. These haplotypes are not autochthonous to Oman but originated elsewhere and arrived in Oman by gene flow. The distribution of haplotypes is in excellent agreement with the historical record, which establishes clear ancient contacts between Oman and sub-Sahara west Africa and explains the presence of the Benin haplotype; contacts with Iraq, Iran, present-day Pakistan, and India explain the presence of the Arab-India haplotype. More recent contacts with East Africa (Zanzibar/Mombasa) explain the presence of the Bantu haplotype. The pattern of the Arab-India haplotype in the populations of the Arabian peninsula reinforces the hypothesis that this particular mutation originated in the Harappa culture or in a nearby population and in addition reveals that the Sassanian Empire might have been the vehicle by which this Indo-European sickle mutation migrated (gene flow) to the present-day Arabian peninsula, including Oman.
More 'pure' OOA Arabians that this demented clown is hallucinating about. Of course, these migrations of early Semitic speakers don't contribute to the dark skin of Arabians today, right?
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Lost on all points now he's flip flopping and mumbling "we mostly disagree on subjective terms and how they're used". Take your meds dude.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Ancient DNA Mutations Permitted Humans To Adapt To Colder Climates, Researchers Find
Date: January 14, 2004 Source: University Of California - Irvine
Summary: How did early humans who migrated from Africa survive in the colder climates of Europe, Asia and the New World? According to a new UC Irvine study, it may be the same reason some people today are more prone to obesity, Alzheimer's disease and the effects of aging.
rvine, Calif., Jan. 12, 2004 -- How did early humans who migrated from Africa survive in the colder climates of Europe, Asia and the New World? According to a new UC Irvine study, it may be the same reason some people today are more prone to obesity, Alzheimer's disease and the effects of aging.
In the Jan. 9, 2004, issue of Science, a UCI research team reports that key mutations in the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) of human cells may have helped our migrating ancestors adapt to more northerly climates, and ultimately link people with this ancestral history to specific diseases.
Found outside the cell's nucleus, mitochondria are the power plants of cells that are responsible for burning the calories in our diet.
The cellular energy is used for two purposes: to generate heat to maintain our body temperature and to synthesize ATP (adenosine triphosphate), a chemical form of energy that permits us to do work such as exercise, think, write, and make and repair cells and tissues. The mtDNAs are the blue prints for our mitochondrial power plants and determine the proportion of the calories in our diet that are allocated to generate body heat versus work.
According to Douglas C. Wallace, the Donald Bren Professor of Biological Sciences and Molecular Medicine at UCI and one of the co-authors of the report, after early humans migrated to colder climates, their chances of survival increased when mutations in their mtDNA resulted in greater body heat production during the extreme cold of the northern winters.
"In the warm tropical and subtropical environments of Africa it was most optimal for more of the dietary calories to be allocated to ATP to do work and less to heat, thus permitting individuals to run longer, faster and to function better in hot climates," Wallace said. "In Eurasia and Siberia, however, such an allocation would have resulted in more people being killed by the cold of winter. The mtDNA mutations made it possible for individuals to survive the winter, reproduce and colonize the higher latitudes.
"This explains the striking correlation between mtDNA lineage and geographic location that we still see today in indigenous populations around the world."
It also explains why people with a certain ancestral history may be more susceptible to some diseases.
"When heat and cold are managed by technology, not metabolism, and people from warmer climates are eating the high fat and calorie diets of northern climates, there is a rise in obesity and the age-related degenerative diseases," Wallace said. "The caloric intake and local climate of many individuals are out of balance with their genetic history. Thus, our genetic history is linked to our current diseases, resulting in the new field of evolutionary medicine."
One link would be the production of oxygen radicals in cells. Created when mitochondria burn our dietary fuel, this by-product can be responsible for damaging and killing cells, leading to several age-related diseases. "When calories are unutilized for producing heat or ATP, they are redirected to generate oxygen radicals," Wallace said. "Since the mutated DNA of cold-adapted people allocates more calories to heat, there are fewer left over to generate oxygen radicals. Hence these people are less prone to aging and age-related degenerative diseases." (For more details on oxygen radicals, see below.)
In the study, Wallace and his UCI colleagues Eduardo Ruiz-Pesini, Dan Mishmar, Martin Brandon and Vincent Procaccio analyzed 1,125 human mtDNA sequences from around the world to reconstruct the mutational history of the human mtDNA back to the original mtDNA, known as the mitochondrial Eve.
Wallace is the director of the Center for Molecular and Mitochondrial Medicine and Genetics at UCI and is a faculty member in the Departments of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Biological Chemistry and Pediatrics. This study was funded by the National Institutes of Health and the Ellison Medical Foundation.
How mtDNA control the production of oxygen radicals
When mitochondria burn our dietary fuel, they generate a toxic by-product called oxygen radicals, the mitochondrial equivalent to the smoke generated by coal-burning power plants. Oxygen radicals damage the mitochondria, mtDNA and the surrounding cell. Eventually oxygen radicals can cause the cell to die when sufficient oxidative damage accumulates in the mitochondria and the cell.
Since many of the tissues of our bodies have a finite number of cells, when sufficient cells die organs malfunction, resulting in the symptoms of age-related degenerative diseases and aging. As a result, the chronic level of mitochondrial oxidative stress will determine an individual's aging rate and susceptibility to a variety of diseases such as diabetes, memory loss, forms of deafness and vision loss, cardiovascular disease, etc.
If all the calories that an individual consumes are used in generating carbon dioxide, water and energy, little fuel is left over to generate the oxygen radicals; however, if more calories are consumed than are needed to make energy, then these excess calories are stored as fat and drive a chronic increase in mitochondrial oxygen radical production.
Consider two individuals that eat the same number of calories and get the same amount of exercise. The individual with a mtDNA mutant that increases heat production will require more calories for energy production and thus will have fewer calories left over to produce oxygen radicals. This individual will be partially protected from age-related diseases and will live longer. By contrast, the individual with mitochondria that make more ATP per calorie burned will store fat and generate more oxygen radicals if he or she eats the same level of calories as the individual with the cold-adapted mitochondria.
About the University of California, Irvine: The University of California, Irvine is a top-ranked public university dedicated to research, scholarship and community. Founded in 1965, UCI is among the fastest-growing University of California campuses, with more than 23,000 undergraduate and graduate students and about 1,300 faculty members. The third-largest employer in dynamic Orange County, UCI contributes an annual economic impact of $3 billion.
Story Source:
Materials provided by University Of California - Irvine.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
And you wonder why I call this clown demented.
First he says there has been continuous geneflow back and forth between Arabia and Africa:
quote:If the first Arabians came from Africa how on earth could their black skin predate African mixture, especially given that there has probably been movement back and forth between Africa and arabia for many thousands of years? See the Tihama region for an example or Southern Saudi Arabia and other regions in Arabia for example.
Then, only a post later, he says that the only source for dark skin in Arabia is OOA and rules out recent African sources:
quote:unless there was some environmental pressure in Southern Arabia to select for light skin over many generations, I doubt that any dark skin in the current arabian population appeared there separate from the in situ population that descended from the OOA migrants.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Lol. Clown! Lying demented loser. Your whole summary is botched.
"mutational shift from OOA to Eurasian" —Doug
^That and the whole list of other phuchups (e.g. his claim that EEF don't have Neanderthal) aren't in his version of events because he's a liar and trying to 'reset' the conversation.
Trying to pretend that the word "mutational" changes your absurd argument that Africans in Africa were "transitioning" into Eurasians before leaving Africa is absurd. Like I said you are playing semantic games and trying to sound logical.
Now you are spinning trying to avoid the implication of what you said, which I already quoted and you are running from now.
Africans were not and have never "transitioned" into Eurasians. Eurasians by definition of the last few pages of this thread and YOUR OWN argument arose outside Africa. Hence it is impossible for Africans in Africa and not leaving Africa to "transition" to that.
At this point I don't understand why you keep this inane nonsense going.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Nea Nikomedea and certain Nile Valley populations are the same population with minor differences (e.g. the proportion of SSA ancestry and the proportion of Eurasian ancestry) as commented on by Angel. But these differences don't warrant lumping EEF with Eurasians and fantasizing about a big gap in between them and the Nile Valley populations under discussion as if they're completely different and wouldn't form a clade.
This is the basic truth that the lying Doug clown is trying to manipulate when he spins his lies about "Swenet thinks North Africans are European farmers". Lying buffoon. You have no credibility and you are no 'vet'. You're an IMPOSTOR with dupes in your ear telling you you have a point. And you have been an impostor for the last 11 years.
Here is the problem, they are NOT the same population. That is the fundamental problem with your logic. You claim they are the same, but then turn right around and say "but they are different". The point being that even though they may have carried similar lineages, that does not mean they are the "SAME POPULATION" physically or genetically. You keep making these absurd analogies but you are totally and fundamentally making invalid equivalences and using faulty logic to drive your words. So according to you because the Nile Valley populations have similar genes to those populations in Greece, that makes the populations in the Nile Valley "Eurasians" now? Seriously? How does that work?
This is the most obvious example of your nonsensical reasoning that your "genetics data" give you a superior form of communicating ancient population dynamics and relationships.
First, the similarities between the two populations are useful in determining population movements. So with the similarities we must infer that there must have been movement between Greece and Africa. Now the key question becomes which way was the movement and what labels do we apply to the populations involved. Obviously the two populations in question would be Africans and Europeans. Now if the Africans moved into Greece my argument is that these people become an admixed population of Africans and Europeans and a label like "Late African Mediterranean" or "Early African Farmer" or something like that would apply to those African lineages in Europe. But we don't see such labels being used. Similarly if the Europeans migrated into Africa then they become an admixed population of Europeans and Africans. And that latter scenario is the ONLY WAY that your claim of the ancient Egyptians being "EEF" makes any sense, which is if the key markers in question identifying 'EEF' arose in Europe and made their way back into Africa. However, if those key markers arose in Africa with one branch going into Europe and the other staying in Africa, then it doesn't make sense to call the branch that stayed in Africa "EUROPEAN" anything is totally invalid and absurd and does NOT properly reflect population movements and dynamics.
In fact the whole point of EEF is to identify the so called theoretical 'basal Eurasian' populations who moved into Eurasia and mixed with populations already in place in order to produce the populations and downstream lineages that eventually moved into other parts of Europe. By definition, the EEF populations are a mixture of European with some rare "hypothetical" African lineages. This mixture therefore makes them distinct from the African populations who have similar lineages to the proposed 'hypothetical' "basal Eurasian" population. Either way it would be absurd to then go on to claim that the population who never left Africa is the same genetically as those who left and later mixed with Eurasian populations. It also points out the absurdity of the whole "basal Eurasian" label itself as the neolithic is far too late for any "basal Eurasian" lineages to be created, meaning the 'basal' lineages of Europeans were already in place long before the neolithic and later migrations can not really be considered 'basal' if they arose far later and only represent a percentage of admixture on top of already in place lineages. But again this shows how badly the wording is used in these studies that you have decided to cling to without pointing out these obvious caveats.
You have no and will not address this fundamental point by substantiating why these people should be called "European Farmers" if they never left Africa, no matter HOW RELATED they may be to other populations outside Africa.
The underlying issue here is that people are quick to assign labels to populations outside Africa as anything but African, even when the lineages in question at the time frames in question are direct from Africa. See how the double standard works? And now we have the absurdity of people retroactively labeling whole genetic lineages not by the earliest ancestor (which would make it African in the case of R), but taking the downstream descendant lineages and using that to label the lineage. And by this logic, Eurasian genes are Eurasian genes no matter where they go, including "back migrating" into Africa, but African genes magically stop being African as soon as the population moves out of Africa as in the OOA populations. Again, this is why I asked for your definition of what constitutes a "split" between African and Non African in terms of OOA migrations. You claim that this is irrelevant, yet you constantly use misleading and contradictory terms and scholarly studies that are blatantly falling all over themselves with such contradictions and inconsistencies.
Now here is how you try and summarize the contradiction showing how you have fundamentally no grasp of logic or language:
quote: But these differences don't warrant lumping EEF with Eurasians and fantasizing about a big gap in between them and the Nile Valley populations under discussion as if they're completely different and wouldn't form a clade.
The key point being if the word is "Early European" that in itself lumps them with Eurasians or don't you understand English? The words "Early European" implies a population in Europe which makes them Eurasians geographically and genetically as a result of mixture. Somehow I think you just like the word European and are fixated on it because otherwise there is no reason you should not be able to use other terms to explain your argument. If these populations were made up of some amount of African mixture then why don't you just say "African Early Neolithic assemblage" to refer to that element of African mixture? That would be more accurate than what you are saying.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Trying to pretend that the word "mutational" changes your absurd argument that Africans in Africa were "transitioning" into Eurasians before leaving Africa is absurd.
More evidence that Doug is an impostor purely speculating and pontificating and doesn't know anything. The actual science says that OOA populations were already an intermediate population compared to the ancestors of most living Africans BEFORE OOA:
quote:The model estimated the initial separation from Africans at approximately 110,000 YBP. This intermediate population then underwent a long period of decreasing population size culminating in a bottleneck 50,000 YBP followed by an expansion into Asia and Europe. The split and subsequent bottleneck were thus two distinct events separated by a long intermediate period of genetic drift in the Middle East.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Trying to pretend that the word "mutational" changes your absurd argument that Africans in Africa were "transitioning" into Eurasians before leaving Africa is absurd.
More evidence that Doug is an impostor purely speculating and pontificating and doesn't know anything. The actual science says that OOA populations were already an intermediate population compared to the ancestors of most living Africans BEFORE OOA:
quote:The model estimated the initial separation from Africans at approximately 110,000 YBP. This intermediate population then underwent a long period of decreasing population size culminating in a bottleneck 50,000 YBP followed by an expansion into Asia and Europe. The split and subsequent bottleneck were thus two distinct events separated by a long intermediate period of genetic drift in the Middle East.
I don't agree with the wording of "intermediate" but that is simply European playing semantic games. The point being they have to find some way to separate Africans from later OOA populations. So if it isn't Neanderthal ancestry they will make up some other terminology to justify it. Now in this specific quote they are saying there was some "small isolated" population of Africans that left Africa and because this population ultimately disappeared in Africa it left no descendants in Africa as opposed to descendants outside of Africa who were isolated. Even if that is true, my point is that these people were still African genetically and physically even after they left Africa. There was no transitional or intermediate stage of becoming non African in order to not label these populations and early genetic lineages they carried out of Africa as African.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The key point being if the word is "Early European" that in itself lumps them with Eurasians or don't you understand English?
If that's the case than Arabian, Yemen, etc. implies Arabian and lumps them in with Eurasians and not Africans. Oh, but I get it. In the case of Arabians is different, right? You're a pathetic flip flopper.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Trying to pretend that the word "mutational" changes your absurd argument that Africans in Africa were "transitioning" into Eurasians before leaving Africa is absurd.
More evidence that Doug is an impostor purely speculating and pontificating and doesn't know anything. The actual science says that OOA populations were already an intermediate population compared to the ancestors of most living Africans BEFORE OOA:
quote:The model estimated the initial separation from Africans at approximately 110,000 YBP. This intermediate population then underwent a long period of decreasing population size culminating in a bottleneck 50,000 YBP followed by an expansion into Asia and Europe. The split and subsequent bottleneck were thus two distinct events separated by a long intermediate period of genetic drift in the Middle East.
No, I didn't "answer" your question. I debunked you thoroughly and completely throughout this thread. Stop trying to minimize how much you've been abandoning and modifying your claims and goalposts in response to incontrovertible data and evidence.
quote:I don't agree with the wording of "intermediate"
But no one cares what you think. You're not qualified to have an opinion or to pontificate. There are no sources in your posts. That's ALL you. And you don't know anything so it's all speculation and pontification.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The key point being if the word is "Early European" that in itself lumps them with Eurasians or don't you understand English?
If that's the case than Arabian, Yemen, etc. implies Arabian and lumps them in with Eurasians and not Africans. Oh, but I get it. In the case of Arabians is different, right? You're a pathetic flip flopper.
You tell me. You are the one harping on using the word. If it doesn't accurately reflect the populations and geographic regions involved then why use it? That is my point.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Answer my question. How are Horners and Arabians the same population without it implying that Horners are Eurasians, but when I say EEF are the same population as AE, with less SSA ancestry and more Eurasian ancestry, it's a problem?
What's stopping me from concluding that you're an inconsistent, flip flopping, hypocrite clown?
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Trying to pretend that the word "mutational" changes your absurd argument that Africans in Africa were "transitioning" into Eurasians before leaving Africa is absurd.
More evidence that Doug is an impostor purely speculating and pontificating and doesn't know anything. The actual science says that OOA populations were already an intermediate population compared to the ancestors of most living Africans BEFORE OOA:
quote:The model estimated the initial separation from Africans at approximately 110,000 YBP. This intermediate population then underwent a long period of decreasing population size culminating in a bottleneck 50,000 YBP followed by an expansion into Asia and Europe. The split and subsequent bottleneck were thus two distinct events separated by a long intermediate period of genetic drift in the Middle East.
No, I didn't "answer" your question. I debunked you thoroughly and completely throughout this thread. Stop trying to minimize how much you've been abandoning and modifying your claims and goalposts.
quote:I don't agree with the wording of "intermediate"
But no one cares what you think. You're not qualified to have an opinion or to pontificate. There are no sources in your posts. That's ALL you. And you don't know anything so it's all speculation and pontification.
This isn't pontificating about anything this is about clarity. I think you think everybody is attacking you when as I said earlier I am not really attacking you only questioning your use of words.
Hence my question:
quote: If the first Arabians came from Africa how on earth could their black skin predate African mixture, especially given that there has probably been movement back and forth between Africa and arabia for many thousands of years? See the Tihama region for an example or Southern Saudi Arabia and other regions in Arabia for example.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet Where is the contradiction?
1) OOA settlers came in 2) African admixture happened with said settlers 3) OOA settlers' dark skin predates African admixture.
You see a contradiction because you're in the kumbaya-my-lord-by-the-campfire crew. Your real objection is that I didn't call these OOA settlers of Arabia 'Africans'; I treated them just like other OOA populations. Yep. We saw right through your 'dark skin only' facade when you refused prehistoric dark skinned Europeans membership in your racial dark skin club.
To summarize, if the first settlers were black when did the non blackness come into play or when would black skin have arisen separately from said black African settlers?
You said:
quote: 1) OOA settlers came in 2) African admixture happened with said settlers
But between 1 and 2 there is an implied SPLIT that occurred somewhere between the original OOA Africans and later descendants. If the OOA settlers were black then 2 isn't required to explain black skin (not saying it didn't happen, just that it wasn't REQUIRED since the local population could have retained such a phenotype based on in situ adaptation similar to other South Asian populations and Oceanic populations). 2 is only required if there was some sort of substantial split and divergence of not only genetic lineages but phenotype. (Hence the 2 pages of back and forth since and really it wasn't meant to be that big of a sidebar related to how we identify splits genetically)
Anyway then you said:
quote: 3: OOA settlers' dark skin predates African admixture.
And I am saying of course it predates it because it came directly from the first African settlers and stayed in place through local adaptation to similar environmental conditions. Therefore, there may have been different lineages that arose in later Arabians but never any split or divergence in phenotype that would "separately" give rise to black skin in Arabia after the initial settlement by Africans.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
You're trying to reframe the conversation so as to not look like you've been reduced to a wobbly jelly pudding. Just give it up. You've been thoroughly debunked and the only thing you can do is damage control and muddy up what happened in the discussion. Clown.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: You're trying to reframe the conversation so as to not look like you've been reduced to a wobbly jelly pudding. Just give it up. You've been thoroughly debunked and the only thing you can do is damage control and muddy up what happened in the discussion. Clown.
Again, not addressing what was said and still just playing defensive mode.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Answer my question. How are Horners and Arabians the same population without it implying that Horners are Eurasians, but when I say EEF are the same population as AE, with less SSA ancestry and more Eurasian ancestry, it's a problem?
What's stopping me from concluding that you're an inconsistent, flip flopping, hypocrite clown?
Come on you can't be serious. Who said Horners and Arabians are the same population? How can you come to that conclusion? I never said they were the same and therefore I never said they both could be called "Eurasian". So again, the question is back on you to justify how the similarity of one African population that never left Africa to populations outside of Africa somehow makes Africans into "Early European Farmers" or "Eurasians" when as we have already posted the key markers for Eurasians are splits in genetic lineages and phenotype that differentiate them from Africans.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Come on you can't be serious. Who said Horners and Arabians are the same population?
Gelatine Doug just can't catch a break. He out here lying and flip flopping and thinks I'm going to allow him to create a new reality where all his blunders never happened:
quote: Originally posted by Doug M: These kinds of populations in the Horn are not that much different than the black Southern Arabians. So what on earth are you talking about? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdV3PKTpMrA
So, again, why is it okay for this clown to say Arabians and Horners are not "that different" but when I say it in regards to EEF and AE, this astronomical hypocrite is in his feelings. Regardless of the differences between AE and EEF, surely AE and EEF are more similar than Ethiopians and Arabian descendants of OOA. SMH. AE and EEF are like West Africans and some Afro Colombian communities. Arabian descendants of OOA and Horners are not related in any meaningful way that somehow excludes other Middle Eastern populations like Palestinians.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Swenet if AE and EEF are similar is it because EEF shares a Basal Eurasian African component that came from Africa or is it because Europeans brought European DNA into AE ?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
Anyway then you said:
quote: 3: OOA settlers' dark skin predates African admixture.
And I am saying of course it predates it because it came directly from the first African settlers and stayed in place through local adaptation to similar environmental conditions. Therefore, there may have been different lineages that arose in later Arabians but never any split or divergence in phenotype that would "separately" give rise to black skin in Arabia after the initial settlement by Africans. [/QB]
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Swenet if AE and EEF are similar is it because EEF shares a Basal Eurasian African component that came from Africa or is it because Europeans brought European DNA into AE ?
Both. When you model AE genomes as EEF + various types of SSA ancestry you can account for BOTH the Eurasian ancestry (to whatever extent it was present) and Basal Eurasian. When you try to model dynastic Egypt as Doug suggests (Basal Eurasian + various types of SSA ancestry) you will get a crappy model and the software you're using will tell you it's a crappy model. No one thinks dynastic AE were a 100% African. Not Keita, not anyone worth taking seriously. Only deluded race activists like Doug who get a kick out of these purity fantasies think this.
If people want to discuss AE when they were at their most African, they should talk about the neolithic and predynastic (or before that), not the dynastic and definitely NOT dynastic Lower Egypt. What you'll see many people here do is they'll talk about ancient Egypt and then systematically avoid dynastic Lower Egypt or only discuss thinngs like dynastic Lower Egyptian limb proportions or hide heterogeneity by using non-metric markers.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Swenet if AE and EEF are similar is it because EEF shares a Basal Eurasian African component that came from Africa or is it because Europeans brought European DNA into AE ?
Both. When you model AE genomes as EEF + various types of SSA ancestry you can account for BOTH the Eurasian ancestry (to whatever extent it was present) and Basal Eurasian. When you try to model dynastic Egypt as Doug suggests (Basal Eurasian + various types of SSA ancestry) you will get a crappy model and the software you're using will tell you it's a crappy model. No one thinks dynastic AE were a 100% African. Not Keita, not anyone worth taking seriously. Only deluded race activists like Doug who get a kick out of these purity fantasies think this.
quote: The beginning of the Neolithic culture is considered to be in the Levant (Jericho, modern-day West Bank) about 10,200 – 8,800 BCE. It developed directly from the Epipaleolithic Natufian culture in the region, whose people pioneered the use of wild cereals, which then evolved into true farming.
A modeling methodology is one thing as per how categories are named in these programs
But when discussing a topic we can be more detailed.
If we there is any Eurasian inout into Ancient Egypt it would more likely be the Levant rather than Europe because it's closer and believed to be the location origin of farming.
So putting aside what methodology you use in these modeling programs and just discussing what the most accurate term would be, in regard to possible admixture in ancient Egyptians wouldn't it be more probable to call it "Early Near Eastern Farmers" which could be abbreviated as NEF rather than "Early European Farmers" EEF?
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
You would think that the model would reflect what you're saying. But remember that some studies suggest that Sardinians and LBK (EEF) are the best fit for the non-Sub-Saharan ancestry in this region (and, again, non-Sub-Saharan African includes BOTH indigenous African Basal Eurasian and Eurasian ancestry). Not Yemeni Jews or Askhenazi Jews, etc.
But you're right, the historically accurate population the AE were in contact with to the north would be an EEF-like population from the Middle East.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
Although I didn't bother to read all the ongoing arugments, I have been skimming through the posts and this caught my eye.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Here are the demented loser's pure OOA Arabians who supposedly need no recent African ancestry to explain at least some of their dark skin:
quote:On the basis of a sample of 117 chromosomes, we have demonstrated the multicentric origin of the sickle mutation in Northern Oman. Three major haplotypes coexist: 52.1% Benin (typical and atypicals), 26.7% Arab-India, and 21.4% Bantu. These haplotypes are not autochthonous to Oman but originated elsewhere and arrived in Oman by gene flow. The distribution of haplotypes is in excellent agreement with the historical record, which establishes clear ancient contacts between Oman and sub-Sahara west Africa and explains the presence of the Benin haplotype; contacts with Iraq, Iran, present-day Pakistan, and India explain the presence of the Arab-India haplotype. More recent contacts with East Africa (Zanzibar/Mombasa) explain the presence of the Bantu haplotype. The pattern of the Arab-India haplotype in the populations of the Arabian peninsula reinforces the hypothesis that this particular mutation originated in the Harappa culture or in a nearby population and in addition reveals that the Sassanian Empire might have been the vehicle by which this Indo-European sickle mutation migrated (gene flow) to the present-day Arabian peninsula, including Oman.
Where does the above map come from, and what haplotypes do they represent? HBS? If so, I had no idea Benin HBS was that prevalent in Arabia, and what is AI??
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Anatolia also a possibility, I don't see it above
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
You're right. Anatolian farmers may prove to be a better fit. Lioness, if you want to know more, read this:
^As you can see, all the best models include the Yoruba sample, even though the Yoruba-like admixture (independent of the Yoruba-like ancestry that's already in the used Middle Eastern reference samples) is low. What does that tell you? It says that trying to model an AE genome as 100% African when it has even a couple of Eurasian percentages will result in an imperfect model.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Where does the above map come from, and what haplotypes do they represent? HBS? If so, I had no idea Benin HBS was that prevalent in Arabia, and what is AI??
The image is from the paper that was referenced. AI=Arab-Indian and the map depicts the various types of sicklemia in Arabia.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ So it is HBS. I'm actually genuinely surprised that the Benin form that prevalent in Arabia. For a while I thought the farthest east Benin HBS was prevalent in was the Nile Valley.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: You would think that the model would reflect what you're saying. But remember that some studies suggest that Sardinians and LBK (EEF) are the best fit for the non-Sub-Saharan ancestry in this region (and, again, non-Sub-Saharan African includes BOTH indigenous African Basal Eurasian and Eurasian ancestry). Not Yemeni Jews or Askhenazi Jews, etc.
But you're right, the historically accurate population the AE were in contact with to the north would be an EEF-like population from the Middle East.
I think a huge factor is the Mediterranean basin itself. The earliest evidence of modern human settlement in the Mediterranean islands dates to the Neolithic and is associated with neolithic expansion of the first farmers. Interestingly, the Biblical Table of Nations connects two islands somewhere in the eastern Mediterranean to Egypt. Not to mention the many Minoan frescoes showing very dark skinned people with long wavy hair who are also depicted in a few Egyptian murals of Levantine inhabitants. The Nile Delta is key to such connections especially in the Mediterranean coasts but archaeology this area is very hard to excavate due to the obvious issue of water-logging.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Could be.. But remember that the best fitting models aren't necessarily consistent with historical admixture. The reference populations just fit well but they weren't necessarily involved. See what I said in another thread about the Muge sample, which might turn out to be modeled well as EEF + something else (a local Maghrebi variant of Basal Eurasian?, SSA?, Aterian?), even though EEF colonists from Anatolia likely weren't literally involved in their formation:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Here is more info on what I think Basal Eurasian is. It should be kept in mind that ancient Egyptians aren't EEF or the other way around. EEF is a mix of the ancestors of ancient Egyptians more than 10.000 years ago (see below) + Eurasian elements 10.000 years ago. This mix happened over thousands of years in the eastern and northern Mediterranean Basin, until a population emerged in Europe which we know in the literature as 'EEF', or Early European Farmer. This is the mainstream story, but, as I said in the quoted post below, a similar (and independent) mix happened in the Iberian Peninsula several times in between the Mesolithic and the late Neolithic (e.g. the Muge sample and the Late Atlantic Neolithic).
See also Henn et al who said that the Luhya are the best fit for modeling the SSA ancestry in Maghrebis. But this is almost certainly not a historical admixture event. Maghrebis have mtDNAs that reflect admixture with West Africans, not with Southeast Africans. Still, the Luhya genomes are a better fit presumably because they capture additional ancestry that the Maghrebis have, that the Yoruba sample doesn't have.
quote:We use a Bantu-speaking population from Kenya as a source population for this migration, as North African individuals with sub-Saharan ancestry appeared to be closer to the Luhya than the Nigerian Yoruba (Figure 1, Figure 2 and Figure S2). However, there are likely other western African populations genetically similar to Kenyan Bantu-speakers. We do not interpret this association as an explicit migration from Kenya to southern Morocco.
—Henn et al 2012
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
As for that paper on sicklemia, credit goes to King Scorpion IIRC who posted it a long time ago. The original thread might still be up.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: [QB] Could be.. But remember that the best fitting models aren't necessarily consistent with historical admixture.
they should be consistent why aren't they?
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Come on you can't be serious. Who said Horners and Arabians are the same population?
Gelatine Doug just can't catch a break. He out here lying and flip flopping and thinks I'm going to allow him to create a new reality where all his blunders never happened:
quote: Originally posted by Doug M: These kinds of populations in the Horn are not that much different than the black Southern Arabians. So what on earth are you talking about? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdV3PKTpMrA
So, again, why is it okay for this clown to say Arabians and Horners are not "that different" but when I say it in regards to EEF and AE, this astronomical hypocrite is in his feelings. Regardless of the differences between AE and EEF, surely AE and EEF are more similar than Ethiopians and Arabian descendants of OOA. SMH. AE and EEF are like West Africans and some Afro Colombian communities. Arabian descendants of OOA and Horners are not related in any meaningful way that somehow excludes other Middle Eastern populations like Palestinians.
You are over generalizing and totally missing the point. Again, Africans first settled in Arabia thousands of years ago. We don't know for sure what lineages they carried but some evidence does suggest it was a remote ancestor of the R lineages. At some point in time, this population is theorized to have mixed with Neanderthals and at some point in time there arose distinct genetic variations that would be distinguished from the lineages in Africa. At this point in history these populations would have still been black like their African ancestors.... Much later on various waves of migration took place, including some from Africa itself that has produced admixture in Arabia. And some downstream element of those lineages from the original settlement are still in place I believe. However, in pure theoretical terms, the black skinned Arabians in South Arabia do not require any African mixture to justify their black skin. Otherwise, that would imply that any black skinned population outside Africa is black because of recent African mixture. Which is false. It is the environment that determines skin color and any population migrating out of Africa that settled in a tropical/sub tropical environment would retain black skin pigmentation over thousands of years because of that environment. Arabians would therefore cluster with Indians as early South Asians in that respect as OOA populations similarly adapted to tropical/sub tropical environments.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Swenet if AE and EEF are similar is it because EEF shares a Basal Eurasian African component that came from Africa or is it because Europeans brought European DNA into AE ?
Both. When you model AE genomes as EEF + various types of SSA ancestry you can account for BOTH the Eurasian ancestry (to whatever extent it was present) and Basal Eurasian. When you try to model dynastic Egypt as Doug suggests (Basal Eurasian + various types of SSA ancestry) you will get a crappy model and the software you're using will tell you it's a crappy model. No one thinks dynastic AE were a 100% African. Not Keita, not anyone worth taking seriously. Only deluded race activists like Doug who get a kick out of these purity fantasies think this.
If people want to discuss AE when they were at their most African, they should talk about the neolithic and predynastic (or before that), not the dynastic and definitely NOT dynastic Lower Egypt. What you'll see many people here do is they'll talk about ancient Egypt and then systematically avoid dynastic Lower Egypt or only discuss thinngs like dynastic Lower Egyptian limb proportions or hide heterogeneity by using non-metric markers.
The problem I have with your argument is that it is a contradiction in terms on multiple levels and really is not an accurate description of what is being said.
First, the main problem is this concept of "basal Eurasian". Why? Because this is a purely theoretical construct that is being used to identify a population and set of genetic lineages that arose in Africa and migrated into the Near East and participated in the rise of farming. Now the problem with it is that it is really just a name for some population of Africans or some populations in Arabia carrying a large degree of African ancestry. Therefore, if the intent is to model migrations and movements then this theoretical genetic component representing a migration and movement of African genetic markers should be labeled as such. Something like "African proto-Neolithic" or some such thing, because that more accurately describes what it represents.
Second, EEF describes populations IN EUROPE that are the populations that absorbed this African genetic component and from whom the rise of farming is attributed. Because it is compromised of a mixture between already in place ancient Eurasian lineages and new recent African derived lineages, it is impossible to separate the two back into their respective origin components. Hence, any populations labelled as 'EEF' are a representation of any European population carrying PRE-NEOLITHIC Eurasian lineages mixed with this later African component. And this assemblage of lineages went on to spread throughout Europe after the Neolithic. Therefore, the intent behind the label "EEF" is to model the migration of populations associated with the rise of farming in the Near East into Europe as identified by the unique "African Proto-Neolithic" lineages that they carried. But at the end of the day we are talking about a primarily Eurasian population with some African genetic mixture.
That said, trying to model migrations WITHIN Africa using the label 'EEF' is problematic. Primarily because if you are using "EEF" to identify the populations and lineages IN AFRICA from which the later "African Proto-Neolithic" arose you are contradicting the meaning of the term "EEF" as described previously. First, these people never left Africa. Therefore they did not participate in mixture with Eurasians and did not participate directly in the rise of farming in Europe. Therefore, these populations carrying said lineages are best described as African as their lineages were already in place prior to the rise of farming in the Neolithic and therefore the presence of said genetic lineages is not a reflection of migrations of "European farmers" during or after the neolithic. I am NOT saying that some amount of mixture with said European farmers did not exist, but what I am saying is that to lump those European populations with the African populations because they carry some component of an African lineage that remained in situ in Africa as "the same people" is ridiculous. Any population in Eurasia labeled as "EEF" is a composite of various Eurasian lineages plus the African ones. That is totally different from any populations in Africa. Any mixture with subsequent European farmers migrating back into Africa would carry other distinct Eurasian lineages in addition to whatever African "proto-neolithic" lineages they carried and thus could be modeled as Eurasian mixture, but that mixture would still be distinct from any African populations already in place carrying components of the same "African proto-neolihic" lineages. And most certainly the base population settling much of the Sahara and Nile Valley would definitely not be identified as "European farmers".
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: [QB] Could be.. But remember that the best fitting models aren't necessarily consistent with historical admixture.
they should be consistent why aren't they?
It's like cooking. When you make a soup dish you can choose to find all the individual ingredients (e.g. meat + salt + spices) or you can use ingredients that are already combined (bouillon cube). Some cooks never use bouillon cubes, but you can still replicate their soup dish better using bouillon cubes than using only salt and no spices and meat.
Just like the cook who never cooked his soup dish with with bouillon cubes, Henn et al's southeast African Bantu speakers weren't literally involved in the admixture of Maghrebi populations. But you can still replicate the SSA component in Maghrebi genomes better using southeast African Bantu speakers than by using the Yoruba (southeast African Bantu speakers combine a Yoruba component(s) + other components they share with the Maghrebis).
Southeast African Bantu speakers can be modeled as Yoruba + other SSA components they've absorbed in or en route to East Africa, making them better matches for the similarly diverse SSA components in Maghrebis (yellow, orange, red, below):
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Despite Luhya forming the better model due to the fact that they can model the overall African components in Maghrebis better, we should all know by now that this Luhya affinity is not primarily caused by historical contact between Maghrebis and Luhya. The mtDNA picture rules out strong southeast African Bantu migration to the Maghreb and instead supports West/Central African migration:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ^As you can see, over reliance on the Harich paper as a generalization of all of North Africa leads to problems as the northern Nile Valley doesn't have as many L3b'd and L3e variants as the Maghreb does. The Sub-Saharan lineages found in the Nile Valley, the Egyptian oases and parts of Libya on the one hand and the Maghreb on the other hand have their main source in respectively East Sub-Saharan Africa and West/Central Sub-Saharan Africa:
quote:"The most plausible explanation for the differences found between NW and NE Africa is the presence of a demographic corridor along the Nile Valley. This corridor might have allowed the contact between Egypt, East Africa, and the Near East; influencing only slightly the rest of NW Africa."
quote:"Unlike other North Africans, Egyptians are closer to East than to West Africans. (Note that, if Eurasian haplogroups were included, North and West Africans would be much more clearly distinguished, since, in the former, the major contribution is from European and Near Eastern mtDNAs [Rando et al. 1999].)"
This, again, indicates that the better model formed by Luhya is simply because they INCLUDE Yoruba-like ancestry anyway and can account better for the northeast African ancestry of Maghrebis that corresponds with L3f, M1, E-M78, E-M81, etc.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
That means you should be able to discuss the bioarchaeology and genetics in precise terms for a general discussion and discuss terms that lead to the best modeling methods in genetics programs separately. Otherwise people get confused when the two are mixed. Somebody wants to talk about the flavor of bay leaf that was in the made from scratch soup but that keeps getting compared to the bouillon cube. So people get concerned here which of two similar things came first. So if Asians are found to have some similarities to some Native Americans it's important indicate that the similarity is derived from some of the Native Americans descending from Asians not Asians deriving from Native Americans. So you need to talk about the historically accurate terms first and then talk about the less precise terms that produce the best modeling results - or combine the terms. for instance BlessedbyHorus has a thread up called "Major racial bias found in leading genomics databases" I think the term "Basal Eurasian" is an example. I think the term should be "Basal Eurasian African" If you switch to that it solves the problem and at the same time shows the modeling reference.
The main problem is this term EEF. If EEF are similar to Nile Valley Africans but AEs came first you can't call the Nile Valley Africans EEFs. They have to be Basal Eurasian Africans only and from that point always mentioned before discussing modeling that shows the EEF similarity to them not the Nile Valley Africans similarity to the EEF as if they came first. You can only call AEs EEF if they are primarily EEF and you can prove European Farmers historically migrated to Ancient Egypt.
So if you are having a discussion with someone who doesn't run modeling programs. You have to be able to discuss the topic in the most accurate way possible making no assumptions by terminology and no reference to terms relating to what produces the best results in modeling. Then after that separately you can discuss modeling. This is what the scientific papers do. They talk about the history first and what is probable in terms of admixture historically. Then after that in the methods section they talk in terms that relate to methodology that produce the most informative results. In the conclusion they go back to the historically accurate and this has become informed by the analysis methodology. But at Egyptsearch we can do it even more. For instance I advocate not using the term "North Africa" because it has 4-5 definitions. It's better to use Maghreb, Nile Valley or Sahel when talking about anthropology.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
I agree with a lot of what you say. But that's why I used the term MODEL. When you use this term you don't have the be historically accurate!
Would you criticize a cartographer for not having life-sized buildings on his map? C'mon man. Do I really have to explain on and on what a model is?
When I talk I assume people have a basic education. I can't do everything for everyone. I can't have a conversation and then also provide a glossary for all the terms people use in anthropology or online. People here should get off their lazy ass and read a damn book, not come on egyptsearch to rely on forum gurus or to put up guru facade and pretend they're qualified to have an opinion as in the case of Doug. People should take responsibility for their own grasp of anthro language.
To have a good model of a genome:
doesn't mean it has to involve the actual mixing populations doesn't mean it has to be geographically accurate doesn't mean the named genetic components have to be nominally accurate doesn't mean the reference populations have to be older/ancestal than the genome that is being modeled doesn't mean it has to be politically correct doesn't mean it has to spare hurt feelings
It just has to work. That's IT.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: [QB] I agree with a lot of what you say. But that's why I used the term MODEL. When you use this term you don't have the be historically accurate!
See if the person talking to you is familiar with modeling programs and are using them. If not maybe it's better to switch to not talking about them and changing to anthropological historical discussion
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
I already explained to the person I was talking to that AE aren't EEF, in this thread.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Here is more info on what I think Basal Eurasian is. It should be kept in mind that ancient Egyptians aren't EEF or the other way around. EEF is a mix of the ancestors of ancient Egyptians more than 10.000 years ago (see below) + Eurasian elements 10.000 years ago. This mix happened over thousands of years in the eastern and northern Mediterranean Basin, until a population emerged in Europe which we know in the literature as 'EEF', or Early European Farmer. This is the mainstream story, but, as I said in the quoted post below, a similar (and independent) mix happened in the Iberian Peninsula several times in between the Mesolithic and the late Neolithic (e.g. the Muge sample and the Late Atlantic Neolithic). [...] Ancient Egyptians, on the other hand, are a continuation of their 10kya eastern Saharan ancestors + other elements of uncertain origin, especially in dynastic Lower Egypt (see Keita 1992 and Zakrzewski 2002). As a whole, predynastic Egyptians north and south are more like these 10ky old eastern Saharan ancestors than dynastic Egyptians.
^And in this very thread and other threads as well as in my private conversation with the person I was talking to I've already explained that the "elements of uncertain origin" push dynastic Lower Egyptians to EEF samples in craniofacial analysis. Any confusion on the part of people who skimmed through this 40 page thread and/or who are supposedly familiar with my views over a period of years is suspect.
I also clearly said that EEF-like mixtures have independently emerged several times, so I don't see why my mention of EEF in my model should necessarily invoke historical admixture involving the EEF colonists coming from anatolia:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: a similar (and independent) mix happened in the Iberian Peninsula several times in between the Mesolithic and the late Neolithic (e.g. the Muge sample and the Late Atlantic Neolithic).
Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
Why on earth would anyone dispute that Dynastic Lower Egyptians had some Eurasian admixture? One only has to look at where the area is located. I don't think there was any civilization that was not at all admixed. Ancient Greece and Rome would have had admixture.
It doesn't matter at all. Ancient Egyptian civilization has its origins in Upper Egypt and this region would have had the least amount of admixture.
The South was supreme and Lower Egypt was just a backwater that was incredibly fortunate to have been conquered by Narmer.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
^People who insist that typically dynastic Lower Egyptians were 100% African hurt themselves because it means that modern Egyptians, who tend to overlap strongly with these dynastic Lower Egyptians, already had a strong presence in ancient Egypt since the beginning.
Plus they just look ridiculous because typically dynastic Lower Egyptian samples (again, not all samples from the north, but those that are typically Lower Egyptian) can be discriminated from samples with an Upper Egyptian affinity with 100% accuracy in some analyses. For instance:
quote:The other dramatic result seen in Table 3 is that the Late period group is easily defined morphologically, and stands as a distinct cluster apart from the other Egyptian populations studied. Other studies of Egyptian cranial variation have frequently placed this series as standing apart from other Nile Valley population clusters, but not always separate from 'Africans' as a whole (Keita 1995).
—Zakrzewski 2002
This difference is explained by Zakrzewski as based on the fact that this sample is late dynastic, but this sample (E-series) doesn't differ much from earlier typically Lower Egyptian samples, so this difference should be interpreted as due to the fact that the E series is dominated by individuals with a typically Lower Egyptian affinity.
Posted by Nodnarb (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: Why on earth would anyone dispute that Dynastic Lower Egyptians had some Eurasian admixture? One only has to look at where the area is located. I don't think there was any civilization that was not at all admixed. Ancient Greece and Rome would have had admixture.
It doesn't matter at all. Ancient Egyptian civilization has its origins in Upper Egypt and this region would have had the least amount of admixture.
The South was supreme and Lower Egypt was just a backwater that was incredibly fortunate to have been conquered by Narmer.
I wonder how true this really is. Sure, Egypt was unified from the south which was the cradle of early Egyptian civilization, and the First and Second Intermediate Periods ended with the south conquering the north as well. But then, an awful lot of the Old Kingdom monuments were built in the north of Egypt since that's where the capital Narmer established (Memphis or Men-Nefer) was located. That isn't exactly consistent with the south always having primacy in AE.
As I recall, Karl Butzer's research indicated that the two main population centers in Egypt were the far south and the Fayum/Delta region, with Middle Egypt being sparsely populated for the comparison. That must have underlay the Egyptians' own perception that their country could be divided into two "lands" in the south and north.
EDIT: See here, apparently the northern population concentration was between the Fayum and the start of the Delta:
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: Why on earth would anyone dispute that Dynastic Lower Egyptians had some Eurasian admixture? One only has to look at where the area is located. I don't think there was any civilization that was not at all admixed. Ancient Greece and Rome would have had admixture.
It doesn't matter at all. Ancient Egyptian civilization has its origins in Upper Egypt and this region would have had the least amount of admixture.
The South was supreme and Lower Egypt was just a backwater that was incredibly fortunate to have been conquered by Narmer.
I don't see the big deal here either especially with the KNOWN trade and interaction between Egypt and SW Asia in the Badarian period. That still doesn't change the predominately indigenous character of AE (by that metric no population would be indigenous as nearly every major civ had some type of admixture)
As far as your other point and what Nodnarb mentioned there were certainly times where the North exerted dominance (i.e. the Ramesside period) but even then reverence was paid to the south iirc.
@Swenet: I did go back through our private correspondence and do feel rather foolish, everyone has their off days :S
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nodnarb: I wonder how true this really is. Sure, Egypt was unified from the south which was the cradle of early Egyptian civilization, and the First and Second Intermediate Periods ended with the south conquering the north as well. But then, an awful lot of the Old Kingdom monuments were built in the north of Egypt since that's where the capital Narmer established (Memphis or Men-Nefer) was located. That isn't exactly consistent with the south always having primacy in AE.
As I recall, Karl Butzer's research indicated that the two main population centers in Egypt were the far south and the Fayum/Delta region, with Middle Egypt being sparsely populated for the comparison. That must have underlay the Egyptians' own perception that their country could be divided into two "lands" in the south and north.
EDIT: See here, apparently the northern population concentration was between the Fayum and the start of the Delta:
Yes, but you are referring to predynastic Egyptians. Even Swenet says the Egyptians were possibly 'pure' or pristinely African during the predynastic and only became admixed during the dynastic periods.
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
I believe Nodnarb was commenting on the following assertion..
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: The South was supreme and Lower Egypt was just a backwater that was incredibly fortunate to have been conquered by Narmer.
Which I don't believe is true either, for the simple fact that most capitals are the most diverse region in a nation as well as the most susceptible to an extent.
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
I'm gonna ask Tukuler/Ausar to lock this thread...
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: I believe Nodnarb was commenting on the following assertion..
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: The South was supreme and Lower Egypt was just a backwater that was incredibly fortunate to have been conquered by Narmer.
Which I don't believe is true either, for the simple fact that most capitals are the most diverse region in a nation as well as the most susceptible to an extent.
I concur. Just because Ta Mehu (Lower Egypt) was not formally organized into a polity the same as Ta Shemau (Upper Egypt), does not make the former a "backwater". Even the culture of Ta Mehu was remarkable for its time.
Posted by Ceasar (Member # 18274) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ^People who insist that typically dynastic Lower Egyptians were 100% African hurt themselves because it means that modern Egyptians, who tend to overlap strongly with these dynastic Lower Egyptians, already had a strong presence in ancient Egypt since the beginning.
Plus they just look ridiculous because typically dynastic Lower Egyptian samples (again, not all samples from the north, but those that are typically Lower Egyptian) can be discriminated from samples with an Upper Egyptian affinity with 100% accuracy in some analyses. For instance:
quote:The other dramatic result seen in Table 3 is that the Late period group is easily defined morphologically, and stands as a distinct cluster apart from the other Egyptian populations studied. Other studies of Egyptian cranial variation have frequently placed this series as standing apart from other Nile Valley population clusters, but not always separate from 'Africans' as a whole (Keita 1995).
—Zakrzewski 2002
This difference is explained by Zakrzewski as based on the fact that this sample is late dynastic, but this sample (E-series) doesn't differ much from earlier typically Lower Egyptian samples, so this difference should be interpreted as due to the fact that the E series is dominated by individuals with a typically Lower Egyptian affinity.
One thing I will add is that "Dynastic Egypt" spans many years. Based of what I have read, of course the south retained more of its "Africaness "for a lot longer time, but if pre-dyanstic lower Egyptians were like pre-dynastic southern egyptians, they just would not have not morphed overnight. Typical Lower Egyptian samples from the late Period would be different from lets say the early dynastic or old kingdom from lower egypt. I think that it safe to say that Lower egypt retained its ""Africaness" until at least the old kingdom. I know that Asiatic invasions started to happen short there after and I do think the lower eygpt became mixed alot quicker and earlier then upper egypt, it seemed to be mixed well before the start of the late period Also the intermediate position is also probably to the fact that they are closer to Eurasia.....
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ceasar: but if pre-dyanstic lower Egyptians were like pre-dynastic southern egyptians, they just would not have not morphed overnight.
Not to get into this (I'm going to stay away from this topic on this site from now on, unless I have to), but a big change did happen and Zakrzewski 2002 talks about this, as does the other paper I mentioned (i.e. Keita 1992).
Of course, there would have been northern Egyptians that didn't have this typically Lower Egyptian cranio-facial affinity. The OK Giza sample mentioned below, for instance, seems to be an example of this:
quote:Cephalometric work on Old and New Kingdom remains demonstrates variability in the ancient period, as noted in observations by Harris and Weeks (1973:123) of a Seventeenth Dynasty pharoah: "His [Seqenenre Tao] entire facial complex, in fact, is so different from other pharaohs (it is closest in fact to his son Ahmose) that he could be fitted more easily into the series of Nubian and Old Kingdom Giza skulls than into that of later Egyptian kings. Various scholars in the past have proposed a Nubian- that is, non-Egyptian-origin for Sequenre and his family, and his facial features suggest that this might indeed be true. Various scholars in the past have proposed a Nubian- that is, non-Egyptian-origin for Sequenre and his family, and his facial features suggest that this might indeed be true."
—Keita 1990
The OK sample in that Zakrzewski plot is also partly (~66%) from Giza and this sample doesn't have overlap with the late dynastic Giza sample so, again, not all dynastic northern samples had this typically dynastic Lower Egyptian affinity.
@Punos_Rey Noted.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ So when did the big change happen? I think I recall you saying it happened in the either the 2nd Intermediate period or the beginning of the New Kingdom.
Also, how do you think it relates to the classic Batrawi findings on differences between Upper and Lower Egyptians?
Posted by Nodnarb (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ So when did the big change happen? I think I recall you saying it happened in the either the 2nd Intermediate period or the beginning of the New Kingdom.
Also, how do you think it relates to the classic Batrawi findings on differences between Upper and Lower Egyptians?
If I know which papers he's citing, I believe he is talking about the early dynastic period.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: The image is from the paper that was referenced. AI=Arab-Indian and the map depicts the various types of sicklemia in Arabia.
I forgot to ask you Swenet, the map already has Arab-Indian so what is the point of having another?
Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nodnarb:
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: Why on earth would anyone dispute that Dynastic Lower Egyptians had some Eurasian admixture? One only has to look at where the area is located. I don't think there was any civilization that was not at all admixed. Ancient Greece and Rome would have had admixture.
It doesn't matter at all. Ancient Egyptian civilization has its origins in Upper Egypt and this region would have had the least amount of admixture.
The South was supreme and Lower Egypt was just a backwater that was incredibly fortunate to have been conquered by Narmer.
I wonder how true this really is. Sure, Egypt was unified from the south which was the cradle of early Egyptian civilization, and the First and Second Intermediate Periods ended with the south conquering the north as well. But then, an awful lot of the Old Kingdom monuments were built in the north of Egypt since that's where the capital Narmer established (Memphis or Men-Nefer) was located. That isn't exactly consistent with the south always having primacy in AE.
As I recall, Karl Butzer's research indicated that the two main population centers in Egypt were the far south and the Fayum/Delta region, with Middle Egypt being sparsely populated for the comparison. That must have underlay the Egyptians' own perception that their country could be divided into two "lands" in the south and north.
EDIT: See here, apparently the northern population concentration was between the Fayum and the start of the Delta:
It was unified from the South and that's precisely where most of the dynasties came from; it was the South that came up with writing and was Egypt's cultural center. Invaders were almost invariably evicted by leaders from the South.
I don't see how a Southern leader [Narmer] conquering the North and marking his conquest of the North by placing the Capital at Memphis puts Lower Egypt on equal footing with Upper Egypt.
The Tigray-Tigrinya the Amhara tribes lord over "Ethiopia" even though the Capital is at Addis Ababa -- the land of the Oromo, a people they subjugate.
The Dinka dominate the South [Sudan] but the capital is at Juba.
Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ^People who insist that typically dynastic Lower Egyptians were 100% African hurt themselves because it means that modern Egyptians, who tend to overlap strongly with these dynastic Lower Egyptians, already had a strong presence in ancient Egypt since the beginning.
Plus they just look ridiculous because typically dynastic Lower Egyptian samples (again, not all samples from the north, but those that are typically Lower Egyptian) can be discriminated from samples with an Upper Egyptian affinity with 100% accuracy in some analyses. For instance:
quote:The other dramatic result seen in Table 3 is that the Late period group is easily defined morphologically, and stands as a distinct cluster apart from the other Egyptian populations studied. Other studies of Egyptian cranial variation have frequently placed this series as standing apart from other Nile Valley population clusters, but not always separate from 'Africans' as a whole (Keita 1995).
—Zakrzewski 2002
This difference is explained by Zakrzewski as based on the fact that this sample is late dynastic, but this sample (E-series) doesn't differ much from earlier typically Lower Egyptian samples, so this difference should be interpreted as due to the fact that the E series is dominated by individuals with a typically Lower Egyptian affinity.
People like that don't seem to realise that by insisting on such racial fantasy they make it remarkably easy for their opponents to dismiss everything else of merit they may put forward.
I thought Lower Egyptians were biracial like Barack Obama and would only overlap with modern Egyptians based on their common African ancestry.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ^People who insist that typically dynastic Lower Egyptians were 100% African hurt themselves because it means that modern Egyptians, who tend to overlap strongly with these dynastic Lower Egyptians, already had a strong presence in ancient Egypt since the beginning.
Plus they just look ridiculous because typically dynastic Lower Egyptian samples (again, not all samples from the north, but those that are typically Lower Egyptian) can be discriminated from samples with an Upper Egyptian affinity with 100% accuracy in some analyses. For instance:
quote:The other dramatic result seen in Table 3 is that the Late period group is easily defined morphologically, and stands as a distinct cluster apart from the other Egyptian populations studied. Other studies of Egyptian cranial variation have frequently placed this series as standing apart from other Nile Valley population clusters, but not always separate from 'Africans' as a whole (Keita 1995).
—Zakrzewski 2002
This difference is explained by Zakrzewski as based on the fact that this sample is late dynastic, but this sample (E-series) doesn't differ much from earlier typically Lower Egyptian samples, so this difference should be interpreted as due to the fact that the E series is dominated by individuals with a typically Lower Egyptian affinity.
People like that don't seem to realise that by insisting on such racial fantasy they make it remarkably easy for their opponents to dismiss everything else of merit they may put forward.
I thought Lower Egyptians were biracial like Barack Obama and would only overlap with modern Egyptians based on their common African ancestry.
No, I don't think that it is black people or "Afrocentrics" engaging in racial fantasies at all. Remember the whole historical context. White people will tell you that these same scientific studies prove Egypt was primarily a mixed population with blacks being the lowest rung of the ladder and the lighter skinned people on top. So the problem is they like to use "weasel words" in their scientific reports to justify this perception. Hence a term like EEF becomes a way for them to de-Africanize the entire population of the Nile Valley even before the dynastic period and likewise much of the Sahara. Thereby they can claim that during the dynastic era the AE were already mixed and hence mostly light skinned mulattoes. This is the reason we should be precise in our language on the subject and not wittingly or unwittingly fall into their traps. Nobody is saying that there was "no mixture" in ancient Egypt, rather than the mixture did occur but it didn't replace the indigenous black populations, even in Lower Egypt until much later. That is absurd.
Keep in mind that if Egypt was open to mixture from Africa then why isn't Greece or the Near East open to mixture from Africa? Note the contradiction here, considering the discussion of "basal Eurasian" and "EEF". In reality as already discussed, EEF and Basal Eurasian really represent African mixture and influence leading to the development of farming in the Near east. But the terminology and wording downplays that and totally erases that influence and semantically makes it a pristine "Eurasian" phenomena. Likewise, this has been known since the analysis of Natufian remains, but they have figured out a way to erase the African element in these populations not only genetically and physically but also behaviorally. The Neolithic rise of farming is directly related to patterns of subsistence that arose in Africa including grinding wild seed and tubers that went on to lead to the farming revolution. But all of this is minimized and omitted by the words and phrases being used here. Similarly this distinctly African pattern of subsistence plays an important role in the development of the distinct African pastoral tradition which is UNLIKE Eurasian patterns of cattle raising which would become the hallmark of African Neolithic farming and sustenance across the Sahara and Nile Valley. These would truly be your populations identified as "EEF" but such a term totally obliterates that fundamental distinct African pattern of subsistence and the influence of said Africans on the development of farming in the first place. In fact I can go even further on how the images of cow jumping in Minoan art could truly be an example of this influence as this is still a tradition found in parts of the Sahara and Nile Valley and the dark skinned Minoans being an example of said ancient African mixture and influence in Europe.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The Neolithic rise of farming is directly related to patterns of subsistence that arose in Africa including grinding wild seed and tubers that went on to lead to the farming revolution.
That is an unproven theory and it pertains to Mozambique
Stone Age sorghum found in African cave Harvesting of wild grains may have begun more than 100,000 years ago.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: It was unified from the South and that's precisely where most of the dynasties came from; it was the South that came up with writing and was Egypt's cultural center. Invaders were almost invariably evicted by leaders from the South.
I don't see how a Southern leader [Narmer] conquering the North and marking his conquest of the North by placing the Capital at Memphis puts Lower Egypt on equal footing with Upper Egypt.
Nobody is arguing against the salient historical facts you brought up, however your views on cultural development seem rather imperialistic or politically bias to assume that Ta Mehu was a "backwater" as you said earlier. Just because they had no political central unity or authority does not mean Ta Mehu was any less developed or "backward" than Ta Shemau. Even archaeology shows they had a thriving culture of their own albeit very different from their southern neighbors.
quote:The Tigray-Tigrinya the Amhara tribes lord over "Ethiopia" even though the Capital is at Addis Ababa -- the land of the Oromo, a people they subjugate.
Actually the Oromo were newcomers to the area themselves as their prior home lay to the southeast.
quote:The Dinka dominate the South [Sudan] but the capital is at Juba.
The Dinka had no political central authority either as they are divided into different clans each with their own leaders. By your standards, the Shilluk further south are a better example as they formally had kingdoms under ruling monarchs called reth.
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
Some archaeological material I read did say Lower Egypt was much less developed than Upper Egypt. I don't see anything "political bias" about what sudaniya said when some materials I read said the same thing. I'll try to find the one I'm looking for.
However I agree that Lower Egypt starting in the middle dynastic period was just as or more developed than Upper Egypt.
Posted by Punos_Rey (Member # 21929) on :
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya:
I thought Lower Egyptians were biracial like Barack Obama and would only overlap with modern Egyptians based on their common African ancestry. [/QB]
That immediately brought to mind this quote from the database
"
"The question of the genetic origins of ancient Egyptians, particularly those during the Dynastic period, is relevant to the current study. Modern interpretations of Egyptian state formation propose an indigenous origin of the Dynastic civilization (Hassan, 1988). Early Egyptologists considered Upper and Lower Egyptians to be genetically distinct populations, and viewed the Dynastic period as characterized by a conquest of Upper Egypt by the Lower Egyptians. More recent interpretations contend that Egyptians from the south actually expanded into the northern regions during the Dynastic state unification (Hassan, 1988; Savage, 2001), and that the Predynastic populations of Upper and Lower Egypt are morphologically distinct from one another, but not sufficiently distinct to consider either non-indigenous (Zakrzewski, 2007). The Predynastic populations studied here, from Naqada and Badari, are both Upper Egyptian samples, while the Dynastic Egyptian sample (Tarkhan) is from Lower Egypt. The Dynastic Nubian sample is from Upper Nubia (Kerma). Previous analyses of cranial variation found the Badari and Early Predynastic Egyptians to be more similar to other African groups than to Mediterranean or European populations (Keita, 1990; Zakrzewski, 2002). In addition, the Badarians have been described as near the centroid of cranial and dental variation among Predynastic and Dynastic populations studied (Irish, 2006; Zakrzewski, 2007). This suggests that, at least through the Early Dynastic period, the inhabitants of the Nile valley were a continuous population of local origin, and no major migration or replacement events occurred during this time"
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
Doug says:
Keep in mind that if Egypt was open to mixture from Africa then why isn't Greece or the Near East open to mixture from Africa? Note the contradiction here, considering the discussion of "basal Eurasian" and "EEF". In reality as already discussed, EEF and Basal Eurasian really represent African mixture and influence leading to the development of farming in the Near east. But the terminology and wording downplays that and totally erases that influence and semantically makes it a pristine "Eurasian" phenomena. Likewise, this has been known since the analysis of Natufian remains, but they have figured out a way to erase the African element in these populations not only genetically and physically but also behaviorally. The Neolithic rise of farming is directly related to patterns of subsistence that arose in Africa including grinding wild seed and tubers that went on to lead to the farming revolution. But all of this is minimized and omitted by the words and phrases being used here. Similarly this distinctly African pattern of subsistence plays an important role in the development of the distinct African pastoral tradition which is UNLIKE Eurasian patterns of cattle raising which would become the hallmark of African Neolithic farming and sustenance across the Sahara and Nile Valley.
I concur that there has been a labeling problem and manipulation of labels to de-Africanize African people. Keita himself notes the issue. And there is a double-standard at play re Europe. If African DNA elements are found among Greeks for example why isn't there more labeling of the Greeks as "mixed"? Likewise Keita notes how assorted scholars do not hesitate to apply a "true negro" stereotype but conveniently avoid defining a "true white." EEF and "basal Eurasian" can be taken up in a specific technical sense, but at another level the old labeling games remain. The double standard issue is still very much alive.
Re the African pastoral tradition, what do you have on data showing it was unlike the Eurasian patterns of cattle raising?
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The Neolithic rise of farming is directly related to patterns of subsistence that arose in Africa including grinding wild seed and tubers that went on to lead to the farming revolution.
That is an unproven theory and it pertains to Mozambique
Indeed. I have run into people who rigidly insist on a totally pure, pristine Kemet without any outside admixture until the Greeks arrived. They set themselves up for easy defeat when they have to defend that argument in debates.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: Some archaeological material I read did say Lower Egypt was much less developed than Upper Egypt. I don't see anything "political bias" about what sudaniya said when some materials I read said the same thing. I'll try to find the one I'm looking for.
However I agree that Lower Egypt starting in the middle dynastic period was just as or more developed than Upper Egypt.
My argument really is against Sudaniya's label of Ta Mehu as a "backwater". Being less developed does not mean a total state of feckless primitivity is all I mean.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: Doug says:
Keep in mind that if Egypt was open to mixture from Africa then why isn't Greece or the Near East open to mixture from Africa? Note the contradiction here, considering the discussion of "basal Eurasian" and "EEF". In reality as already discussed, EEF and Basal Eurasian really represent African mixture and influence leading to the development of farming in the Near east. But the terminology and wording downplays that and totally erases that influence and semantically makes it a pristine "Eurasian" phenomena. Likewise, this has been known since the analysis of Natufian remains, but they have figured out a way to erase the African element in these populations not only genetically and physically but also behaviorally. The Neolithic rise of farming is directly related to patterns of subsistence that arose in Africa including grinding wild seed and tubers that went on to lead to the farming revolution. But all of this is minimized and omitted by the words and phrases being used here. Similarly this distinctly African pattern of subsistence plays an important role in the development of the distinct African pastoral tradition which is UNLIKE Eurasian patterns of cattle raising which would become the hallmark of African Neolithic farming and sustenance across the Sahara and Nile Valley.
I concur that there has been a labeling problem and manipulation of labels to de-Africanize African people. Keita himself notes the issue. And there is a double-standard at play re Europe. If African DNA elements are found among Greeks for example why isn't there more labeling of the Greeks as "mixed"? Likewise Keita notes how assorted scholars do not hesitate to apply a "true negro" stereotype but conveniently avoid defining a "true white." EEF and "basal Eurasian" can be taken up in a specific technical sense, but at another level the old labeling games remain. The double standard issue is still very much alive.
Re the African pastoral tradition, what do you have on data showing it was unlike the Eurasian patterns of cattle raising?
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The Neolithic rise of farming is directly related to patterns of subsistence that arose in Africa including grinding wild seed and tubers that went on to lead to the farming revolution.
That is an unproven theory and it pertains to Mozambique
Indeed. I have run into people who rigidly insist on a totally pure, pristine Kemet without any outside admixture until the Greeks arrived. They set themselves up for easy defeat when they have to defend that argument in debates.
Most of my references on African Pastoralism and the evolution of subsistence are based on an in situ evolution of older behavior patterns as documented in various studies focusing on early pre neolithic remains in Nabta Playa, the Upper Nile Valley and elsewhere.
quote: ntroduction
Before the advent of food production, individual hunting populations in Africa were small and spatially separated over long periods of time. Food producers, both pastoralists and farmers, began movements across the continent that transformed African societies and ultimately led to complex political groupings, usually with hunters as the lowest rung in the social hierarchy. This was due to their ability to feed larger populations, as well as to control land and store surplus food. Many African hunters were egalitarian, immediate-return foragers who tended not to store food. Early farming and pastoralism, or food production, in Africa can be separated into several categories: animals, grains, and tropical plants, all of which prevailed in different places and at different times. Animal domestication is the earliest recorded, but is highly disputed. Large cattle bones found in Egypt dated to the 10th millennium BP are deemed to be domestic on the basis that they could not have survived without human intervention and were found associated with pottery. The alternative view is that the timing is such that these cattle were wild, and that domestic cattle that arrived in the 8th millennium BP were derived from different Levantine stock. The waters are further muddied by the genetics of African cattle suggesting an independent strain, but this also has its critics. With the general drying of the Sahara around 5000 BP, herders and their cattle and small stock moved south with the tsetse belts into West and East Africa, and by 2000 BP had reached Southern Africa. The question of hunters becoming food producers without apprenticeship is debated, as is the concept of a Stone Age pastoral or agricultural “Neolithic” in Africa. Although winter rainfall crops, such as wheat and barley, were used in Dynastic Egypt, domestication of grain outside the Nile Valley was considerably later than that of animals, only occurring in the Sahel c. 3800 BP, although wild grains most probably had been collected by herders long before this. The beginnings of tropical plant domestication are more difficult to see, as preservation has made the plant residues hard to find. These plants include yams, rice, and oil-bearing trees. Often, environmental change, such as forest clearing, has to be used as a proxy for farming activities in tropical zones. In addition, the development of iron technology is closely correlated with the spread of farming societies in sub-Saharan Africa after 3000 BP. The history of food production in Africa lags somewhat behind the research done in the Near East and Europe, but genomic work on modern Africans has started in parallel with advanced linguistic work. Ancient DNA will be the next technological input now that the problems of contamination have been successfully addressed.
Cattle pastoralism is an important trait of African cultures. Ethnographic studies describe the central role played by domestic cattle within many societies, highlighting its social and ideological value well beyond its mere function as ‘walking larder’. Historical depth of this African legacy has been repeatedly assessed in an archaeological perspective, mostly emphasizing a continental vision. Nevertheless, in-depth site-specific studies, with a few exceptions, are lacking. Despite the long tradition of a multi-disciplinary approach to the analysis of pastoral systems in Africa, rarely do early and middle Holocene archaeological contexts feature in the same area the combination of settlement, ceremonial and rock art features so as to be multi-dimensionally explored: the Messak plateau in the Libyan central Sahara represents an outstanding exception. Known for its rich Pleistocene occupation and abundant Holocene rock art, the region, through our research, has also shown to preserve the material evidence of a complex ritual dated to the Middle Pastoral (6080–5120 BP or 5200–3800 BC). This was centred on the frequent deposition in stone monuments of disarticulated animal remains, mostly cattle. Animal burials are known also from other African contexts, but regional extent of the phenomenon, state of preservation of monuments, and associated rock art make the Messak case unique. GIS analysis, excavation data, radiocarbon dating, zooarchaeological and isotopic (Sr, C, O) analyses of animal remains, and botanical information are used to explore this highly formalized ritual and the lifeways of a pastoral community in the Holocene Sahara.
^ I think we are all aware of the de-Africanizing i.e. white-washing of African and extra-African (Levant & Arabian) populations. That was never the issue. The issue I think is whether such populations especially in the latter case are as closely related to modern Sub-Saharans as many think.
Swenet's website clearly shows that the Natufians were of African derivation both skeletally and genetically but that does not mean they were close siblings of say 'Great Lakes' Africans.
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ I think we are all aware of the de-Africanizing i.e. white-washing of African and extra-African (Levant & Arabian) populations. That was never the issue. The issue I think is whether such populations especially in the latter case are as closely related to modern Sub-Saharans as many think.
Swenet's website clearly shows that the Natufians were of African derivation both skeletally and genetically but that does not mean they were close siblings of say 'Great Lakes' Africans.
Interesting you consider ancient Levantine populations "extra Africans" as I believe that too.
Anyways I agree with both you and Swenet. Rhe Natufians would have had indigenous African traits but they would cluster more with neighboring Lower Egyptians than Khoisans, Bantus, Nilotics, West Africans or even Somalis.
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: Some archaeological material I read did say Lower Egypt was much less developed than Upper Egypt. I don't see anything "political bias" about what sudaniya said when some materials I read said the same thing. I'll try to find the one I'm looking for.
However I agree that Lower Egypt starting in the middle dynastic period was just as or more developed than Upper Egypt.
My argument really is against Sudaniya's label of Ta Mehu as a "backwater". Being less developed does not mean a total state of feckless primitivity is all I mean.
Sorry for the late reply. Anyways I don't think anyone is considering predynastic/early dynastic Lower Egypt "primitive" as they were a bronze age people who advanced waaaaay past hunter gatherers.
What some are just saying is that compared to Upper Egypt, Lower Egypt was less developed.
And like I said I read material that even states. I finally found the material I was talkinga bout while browsing another forum. It was Gledhill, et al.
Here are some key points it states about the early dynastic Lower Egypt:
quote: “the northern third of the Delta was reduced to a vast tract of swamp and lagoon."
It then goes on to state:
quote:"a considerable body of information can be marshaled to show that the Delta was underdeveloped"
And finally:
quote:Butzer suggests that even in Pharaonic times the Delta was under-populated when compared with Upper Egypt and that settlements were highly dispersed."
I'm just saying in general that it is not out of the norm when people say Lower Egypt was less developed than Upper Egypt. Of course they are not saying that Lower Egyptians were primitive. But basically Upper Egypt was like Union America while Lower Egypt was like Confederate America. Union America being more developed. But neither during their times were "primitive."
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
To the topic of the thread, my only issue is the idea that by using "scientific terms" you can somehow avoid the issue of skin color. Of course you can not, especially when those who have an agenda can just use other ways to reinforce the same pattern of indoctrination. Other labels, not related to skin color, can be used to support a similar purpose even if skin color is not purposely mentioned.....
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: The image is from the paper that was referenced. AI=Arab-Indian and the map depicts the various types of sicklemia in Arabia.
I forgot to ask you Swenet, the map already has Arab-Indian so what is the point of having another?
There is 'AI?' (note the question mark) in addition to Arab-Indian on that map because they weren't sure at the time how sickle cell from Afghanistan and Iran relates to the other regional forms to the south, west and east, although they suspected it's primarily Arab-Indian.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: Some archaeological material I read did say Lower Egypt was much less developed than Upper Egypt. I don't see anything "political bias" about what sudaniya said when some materials I read said the same thing. I'll try to find the one I'm looking for.
However I agree that Lower Egypt starting in the middle dynastic period was just as or more developed than Upper Egypt.
My argument really is against Sudaniya's label of Ta Mehu as a "backwater". Being less developed does not mean a total state of feckless primitivity is all I mean.
I agree with Sudaniya somewhat. Compared to contemporary Upper Egypt, the Delta during the predynastic tended to be unoriginal and unimpressive materially with little grave goods, even though it was surrounded to the north and south by mention-worthy Chalcolithic cultures. According to John Darnell the quality of pottery in the region was lower (compared to Upper Egypt) and the results of copying Upper Egyptian pottery were not flattering (he said the attempts at copying were "pathetically unsuccessful"). They somehow failed to take advantage of their proximity to advanced cultures around them. Although there is a lot we don't know due to the fact that only certain things survive in the archaeological record.
Also (not specifically directed at anyone in particular), it should be remembered that Memphis and some other northern sites important during the early dynastic weren't thought of as Lower Egypt by ancient Egyptians. I don't think the area the AE thought of as Lower Egypt (i.e. the Delta) ever had important capitals.
quote:The Name we use today derives from the Pyramid of Pepy I at Saqqara, which is Mennufer (the good place), or Coptic Menfe. Memphis is the Greek translation. But the City was originally Ineb-Hedj, meaning "The White Wall". Some sources indicate that other versions of the name may have even translated to our modern name for the country, Egypt. During the Middle Kingdom, it was Ankh-Tawy, or "That Which Binds the Two Lands". In fact, its location lies approximately between Upper and Lower Egypt, and the importance of the area is demonstrated by its persistent tendency to be the Capital of Egypt, as Cairo just to the North is today.
^Although, obviously, I'm not going by this definition either. But it's important to keep in mind because, from my understanding, the placement of capitals in the north by Upper Egyptian rulers (e.g. Narmer) was ideologically and politically driven and IMO should not be seen as evidence that Lower Egypt was culturally important (although they might have been during the dynastic, I'm not sure).
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: There is 'AI?' (note the question mark) in addition to Arab-Indian on that map because they weren't sure at the time how sickle cell from Afghanistan and Iran relates to the other regional forms to the south, west and east, although they suspected it's primarily Arab-Indian.
Fair enough. I wonder exactly how HBS originated or developed in Eurasians and if such occurred either at OOA or after.
quote:I agree with Sudaniya somewhat. Compared to contemporary Upper Egypt, the Delta during the predynastic tended to be unoriginal and unimpressive materially with little grave goods, even though it was surrounded to the north and south by mention-worthy Chalcolithic cultures. According to John Darnell the quality of pottery in the region was lower (compared to Upper Egypt) and the results of copying Upper Egyptian pottery were not flattering (he said the attempts at copying were "pathetically unsuccessful"). They somehow failed to take advantage of their proximity to advanced cultures around them. Although there is a lot we don't know due to the fact that only certain things survive in the archaeological record.
The Delta area in general is not as widely excavated as Upper Egypt but another reason why there were little grave goods is because the predynastic northerners buried their dead in their living communities even in the homesteads of the living. The theory then is that the dead did not need as many grave goods because the living would tend to them in their daily lives. While the northerners did lag behind the southerners in durable goods like pottery there are traces of much richer but perishable goods which they apparently actively traded with peoples in the Levant. They also had the earliest known domestication of goats and sheep and had the most advanced donkey breeding systems which spear headed cargo transport and caravan trading. And although they lacked central authority, some of their centers like that of Iunu (Heliopolis) and Djedu (Busiris) became assimilated by the southerners and incoporated into the state cults.
quote:Also (not specifically directed at anyone in particular), it should be remembered that Memphis and some other northern sites important during the early dynastic weren't thought of as Lower Egypt by ancient Egyptians. I don't think the area the AE thought of as Lower Egypt (i.e. the Delta) ever had important capitals.
The Name we use today derives from the Pyramid of Pepy I at Saqqara, which is Mennufer (the good place), or Coptic Menfe. Memphis is the Greek translation. But the City was originally Ineb-Hedj, meaning "The White Wall". Some sources indicate that other versions of the name may have even translated to our modern name for the country, Egypt. During the Middle Kingdom, it was Ankh-Tawy, or "That Which Binds the Two Lands". In fact, its location lies approximately between Upper and Lower Egypt, and the importance of the area is demonstrated by its persistent tendency to be the Capital of Egypt, as Cairo just to the North is today. Source
^Although, obviously, I'm not going by this definition either. But it's important to keep in mind because, from my understanding, the placement of capitals in the north by Upper Egyptian rulers (e.g. Narmer) was ideologically and politically driven and IMO should not be seen as evidence that Lower Egypt was culturally important (although they might have been during the dynastic, I'm not sure).
No one is denying that early capitals like Mennefer were built by Upper Egyptians as a center to unite both regions, but obviously Ta Mehu wasn't some backwater if Ta-Shemau wanted to not only conquer but incorporate it into a new nation.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
I don't think houses and houses with burials were common in Egypt in the predynastic. How much do you think houses account for the generally poor grave sites compared to Upper Egypt?
The last time I read on the subject (which is admittedly years ago) the consensus was that Upper Egyptians imported domesticated caprines from the Levant before Lower Egyptians had these animals. If you have evidence that predynastic Lower Egyptians domesticated these animals on their own, or that Lower Egyptians had these animals before Upper Egypt and other places had them, please share. Those other things you mention, feel free to share articles for that as well if you have the data at hand.
Posted by Real tawk (Member # 20324) on :
if people want, arbitrarily, to use skin color as a basis for race, then why can't hair type be used? And even though that would equally be valid as skin color Afrocentrists would be against it. Why? Because a majority of the world is straight haired, while kinky hair is the minority. And Afrocentrists can't have that as, quite frankly, their approach to science is from a sociological point of view; they want to appear outnumbering whites by claiming all brown skin people as black. Afrocentrists are no different than Eurocentrists, only not as clever with their game.
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
quote:Originally posted by Real tawk: if people want, arbitrarily, to use skin color as a basis for race, then why can't hair type be used? And even though that would equally be valid as skin color Afrocentrists would be against it. Why? Because a majority of the world is straight haired, while kinky hair is the minority. And Afrocentrists can't have that as, quite frankly, their approach to science is from a sociological point of view; they want to appear outnumbering whites by claiming all brown skin people as black. Afrocentrists are no different than Eurocentrists, only not as clever with their game.
Damn, this is pretty bad. 1. Hair cannot be a better indication of race because of how diverse within populations hair type can be and also because it can change dynamically based on environment and time.
2. Majority of world? indians and chinese might shift the balance being as a lot of them have straight hair, however, they aren't in the same race nor due they share a race with straight haired whites.... and if you remove them all together, curly, hyper curly, woolly and kinky hair dominates.
3. The history of science have been approached through a faulty sociological lens, which is why sites like this exists... and there's still some corners that need sweeping.
________________________________
In which world would an ancient population absorbed by a later population be more related to a peripheral population they shared an ancestor with than the former population? - For example, Natufians occupied the Levant and were absorbed by the regions inhabitants. They'll acquire unique mutations, epigenetic traits etc. being away from their southern relatives or whatever and vice versa... It is only natural that they'll be more related to their successors, period.
This is why talking about population reliability seems very very very arbitrary to me on here, I don't understand why we use polymorphisms as it relates to contemporary populations to determine ancient relatedness, its madness.
Natufians will never be more genealogically related to contemporaneous South-Central Africans than North East Africans or Near Easterners. No matter how dramatically different they might look, act, or even speak today in relation.
Posted by Real tawk (Member # 20324) on :
You're an idiot. Race is not scientifically valid. But if people want to play the race game, then hair type is equally as valid as skin color as an indicator of race. You're too short to discuss this with me.
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro:
quote:Originally posted by Real tawk: if people want, arbitrarily, to use skin color as a basis for race, then why can't hair type be used? And even though that would equally be valid as skin color Afrocentrists would be against it. Why? Because a majority of the world is straight haired, while kinky hair is the minority. And Afrocentrists can't have that as, quite frankly, their approach to science is from a sociological point of view; they want to appear outnumbering whites by claiming all brown skin people as black. Afrocentrists are no different than Eurocentrists, only not as clever with their game.
Damn, this is pretty bad. 1. Hair cannot be a better indication of race because of how diverse within populations hair type can be and also because it can change dynamically based on environment and time.
2. Majority of world? indians and chinese might shift the balance being as a lot of them have straight hair, however, they aren't in the same race nor due they share a race with straight haired whites.... and if you remove them all together, curly, hyper curly, woolly and kinky hair dominates.
3. The history of science have been approached through a faulty sociological lens, which is why sites like this exists... and there's still some corners that need sweeping.
________________________________
In which world would an ancient population absorbed by a later population be more related to a peripheral population they shared an ancestor with than the former population? - For example, Natufians occupied the Levant and were absorbed by the regions inhabitants. They'll acquire unique mutations, epigenetic traits etc. being away from their southern relatives or whatever and vice versa... It is only natural that they'll be more related to their successors, period.
This is why talking about population reliability seems very very very arbitrary to me on here, I don't understand why we use polymorphisms as it relates to contemporary populations to determine ancient relatedness, its madness.
Natufians will never be more genealogically related to contemporaneous South-Central Africans than North East Africans or Near Easterners. No matter how dramatically different they might look, act, or even speak today in relation.
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
quote:Originally posted by Real tawk: You're an idiot. Race is not scientifically valid. But if people want to play the race game, then hair type is equally as valid as skin color as an indicator of race. You're too short to discuss this with me.
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro:
quote:Originally posted by Real tawk: if people want, arbitrarily, to use skin color as a basis for race, then why can't hair type be used? And even though that would equally be valid as skin color Afrocentrists would be against it. Why? Because a majority of the world is straight haired, while kinky hair is the minority. And Afrocentrists can't have that as, quite frankly, their approach to science is from a sociological point of view; they want to appear outnumbering whites by claiming all brown skin people as black. Afrocentrists are no different than Eurocentrists, only not as clever with their game.
Damn, this is pretty bad. 1. Hair cannot be a better indication of race because of how diverse within populations hair type can be and also because it can change dynamically based on environment and time.
2. Majority of world? indians and chinese might shift the balance being as a lot of them have straight hair, however, they aren't in the same race nor due they share a race with straight haired whites.... and if you remove them all together, curly, hyper curly, woolly and kinky hair dominates.
3. The history of science have been approached through a faulty sociological lens, which is why sites like this exists... and there's still some corners that need sweeping.
________________________________
In which world would an ancient population absorbed by a later population be more related to a peripheral population they shared an ancestor with than the former population? - For example, Natufians occupied the Levant and were absorbed by the regions inhabitants. They'll acquire unique mutations, epigenetic traits etc. being away from their southern relatives or whatever and vice versa... It is only natural that they'll be more related to their successors, period.
This is why talking about population reliability seems very very very arbitrary to me on here, I don't understand why we use polymorphisms as it relates to contemporary populations to determine ancient relatedness, its madness.
Natufians will never be more genealogically related to contemporaneous South-Central Africans than North East Africans or Near Easterners. No matter how dramatically different they might look, act, or even speak today in relation.
OKAY i'll just take your word for it!!
Yes those interchangeable hydrogen bonds formed by disulfide bridges are the number one indicator of racial classification... as if simple water cannot manipulate the structural integrity of the loosely coiled Keratin molecule!!! And those straight haired Chinese men can attest to this... for they are indeed Caucasian.... or are Caucasians Asians...?? who knows but they both have straight hair so according to you they must me one in the same!!!
...see the thing is... I don't respect your opinion, and don't believe you can hold a feather too me with this scientific mumbo jumbo... Considering how Awwwweful your above statement was, but I'll give you the go ahead Victory, take it... I have faith that people who read on these boards are smart enough to see bullshit for what it is...
I'll see my way out.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Real tawk: if people want, arbitrarily, to use skin color as a basis for race, then why can't hair type be used? And even though that would equally be valid as skin color Afrocentrists would be against it. Why? Because a majority of the world is straight haired, while kinky hair is the minority. And Afrocentrists can't have that as, quite frankly, their approach to science is from a sociological point of view; they want to appear outnumbering whites by claiming all brown skin people as black. Afrocentrists are no different than Eurocentrists, only not as clever with their game.
quote:Physical variations in any given trait tend to occur gradually rather than abruptly over geographic areas. And because physical traits are inherited independently of one another, knowing the range of one trait does not predict the presence of others. For example, skin color varies largely from light in the temperate areas in the north to dark in the tropical areas in the south; its intensity is not related to nose shape or hair texture. Dark skin may be associated with frizzy or kinky hair or curly or wavy or straight hair, all of which are found among different indigenous peoples in tropical regions. These facts render any attempt to establish lines of division among biological populations both arbitrary and subjective.
quote: Unlike EDAR 1540C allele, no extended LD was observed from rs4752566-T allele of FGFR2 in CHB+JPT (Figures 1b and c), suggesting that the higher population frequency of rs4752566-T in CHB+JPT than YRI and CEU has not been attained by recent positive selection. As rs4752566-T is observed in YRI (Table 1), a mutation of rs4752566-T appears to predate the ‘out-of-Africa’ event of modern humans. Thus, high interpopulation differentiation of rs4752566 may have been caused by random genetic drift, although it is difficult to fully exclude the possibility of positive selection having acted in ancestors of East Asian origin because the extended LD, as a signature of positive selection, is difficult to be detected for a standing allele such as rs4752566-T.6
As EDAR 1540C allele is almost absent in African and European ancestors,7 the mutation is considered to have occurred in the ancestors of Asian after the split from the ancestors of European origin. Thus, the possibility of local adaptation or positive selection related to hair thickness in non-Asian populations could not be discussed in our previous study.2, 3 If thicker hair is always advantageous in humans, an allele associated with thicker hair is expected to be highly frequent in all the populations where it exists. The rs4752566-T allele, which was found to be associated with hair thickness has lower population frequency in YRI and CEU (Table 1), implying that thicker hair may have been less advantageous in the African and European than in East Asian populations or selection intensity may be different among populations.
quote:Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes: I'm not quite sure we can that those Abu Sir mummies were black in the multitude.
The Mathilda crowed would say that Herishef Hotep of Abu Sir is like 2300 BC. I dismissed this as them rolling back the Grecko-Roman dates and had no idea Abu Sir was Fayum. Remember Tut and Seti's mummies were also jet black.
From p27.
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Don't know anything about the ownership, provenance, or authenticity of that mask in particular.
There are other pasty colored cartonnages. A striking one is female, the hair is massive.
To see a full range of these from brown to cream GOOGLE
cartonnage mummy mask
switch to image search.
quote:Originally posted by Punos_Rey:
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler:
Tukuler do you have any other information about the orovenance of this mask? I've seen Eurocentrists post it several times in favor of Nordic Egypt and would like to know just where it came from if possible
quote:Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes: Most of the cartonnage mask are from the Greko-Roman period. Many are dated in the AD.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Mummy mask of Gemniemhat; 11th dynasty ( 2125-1985 BCE)
Mummy mask of Herishef-Hotep, serving at the funeral temple of Pharaoh Niuserre, Abusir, today: Egyptian Museum of the University of Leipzig(1st Intermediate Period, 2216 – 2025 B. C., Source: Krauspe, R. (Hrsg.): Das Ägyptische Museum der Universität Leipzig, Mainz 1997, image 50)
Mummy mask, Egyptian Middle Kingdom, Dynasty 11 to early Dynasty 12 2140–1926 B.C.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
Bump.
Posted by Oshun (Member # 19740) on :
Lioness, if memory serves me quite a few of those I checked and they were lower Egyptian. Quite a few from Saqqara.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Mummy mask of Gemniemhat; 11th dynasty ( 2125-1985 BCE)
Mummy mask of Herishef-Hotep, serving at the funeral temple of Pharaoh Niuserre, Abusir, today: Egyptian Museum of the University of Leipzig(1st Intermediate Period, 2216 – 2025 B. C., Source: Krauspe, R. (Hrsg.): Das Ägyptische Museum der Universität Leipzig, Mainz 1997, image 50)
Mummy mask, Egyptian Middle Kingdom, Dynasty 11 to early Dynasty 12 2140–1926 B.C.
Knowing what I know today, considering these cartonnages' era and provenance, I'd risk declaring them accurate, within reason portraits of the politically dominant members of Herakleopolitan Egypt.
Unless it's ancient propaganda, one Herakleopolitan ruler, Merykara, is buried in Saqqara's royal cemetary.
The Teachings for King Merikare shows refined Egyptian 'Wisdom' in the North too.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Mummy mask of Gemniemhat; 11th dynasty ( 2125-1985 BCE)
Mummy mask of Herishef-Hotep, serving at the funeral temple of Pharaoh Niuserre, Abusir, today: Egyptian Museum of the University of Leipzig(1st Intermediate Period, 2216 – 2025 B. C., Source: Krauspe, R. (Hrsg.): Das Ägyptische Museum der Universität Leipzig, Mainz 1997, image 50)
Mummy mask, Egyptian Middle Kingdom, Dynasty 11 to early Dynasty 12 2140–1926 B.C.
These are funeral caskets, you have to interpret them as such.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
Most of these are in the Ägyptisches Museum Leipzig Germany.
Many of the famous tomb models we know of in Egyptian art including the Nubian archers and Egyptian soldiers models and the images of weavers and other scenes come from the Middle Kingdom.
Aw man you just took me back to the old Wooden Model thread and your Image Master days.
I'm a bump it. Maybe the now lost images can get reposted if anybody cares.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Hahaha
Aw man you just took me back to the old Wooden Model thread and your Image Master days.
I'm a bump it. Maybe the now lost images can get reposted if anybody cares.
I know right. Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
It's like this DougM I'm not embarrassed by the word black. I'm not ashamed that I'm black. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9udq_pM-C08 Even though I'm a red tigger.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
I am not embarrased by anything or anybody no matter how they look.
The thing that gets me is when folks pretend that we live in a "new era" of science where everything is fact based and objective.
Please.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The thing that gets me is when folks pretend that we live in a "new era" of science where everything is fact based and objective.
Please.
Never said that. What I said is that no one's politics wins in science, regardless of who the politically-motivated people are who are professing to do science.
For instance, no one's politics wins with this:
You and other "tropically adapted"/skin colour Afrocentrics definitely lose, and Eurocentrics definitely lose.
I don't see how saying that politics have no place in science means that academics is clean now. It just means that no one's pre-conceived politics wins in science and that people like you are part of the problem and should be purged from science. You can do your political speeches in political forums and venues. That's what they're for. But you have nothing to do with science. You can pretend to be dumb in regards to this all you want and appeal to ridicule. Joke is on you.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The thing that gets me is when folks pretend that we live in a "new era" of science where everything is fact based and objective.
Please.
Never said that. What I said is that no one's politics wins in science, regardless of who the politically-motivated people are who are professing to do science.
For instance, no one's politics wins with this:
You and other "tropically adapted"/skin colour Afrocentrics definitely lose, and Eurocentrics definitely lose.
I don't see how saying that politics have no place in science means that academics is clean now. It just means that no one's pre-conceived politics wins in science and that people like you are part of the problem and should be purged from science. You can do your political speeches in political forums and venues. That's what they're for. But you have nothing to do with science. You can pretend to be dumb in regards to this all you want and appeal to ridicule. Joke is on you.
Come on Swenet. Nobody is consulting you on when t is "appropriate" to use the term black.
quote: The first modern Britons, who lived about 10,000 years ago, had “dark to black” skin, a groundbreaking DNA analysis of Britain’s oldest complete skeleton has revealed.
The fossil, known as Cheddar Man, was unearthed more than a century ago in Gough’s Cave in Somerset. Intense speculation has built up around Cheddar Man’s origins and appearance because he lived shortly after the first settlers crossed from continental Europe to Britain at the end of the last ice age. People of white British ancestry alive today are descendants of this population.
The people who created the skin color of Cheddar man weren't following your "rules of skin color discourse". They did it because they felt it was a valid term.
Yet even they addressed the POLITICS of skin color in their findings.....
quote: Tom Booth, an archaeologist at the Natural History Museum who worked on the project, said: “It really shows up that these imaginary racial categories that we have are really very modern constructions, or very recent constructions, that really are not applicable to the past at all.”
Yoan Diekmann, a computational biologist at University College London and another member of the project’s team, agreed, saying the connection often drawn between Britishness and whiteness was “not an immutable truth. It has always changed and will change”.
Yet even after all of that they STILL used the term black. So how bout that? So much for that "black is nonscientific" theory.
And if black is a valid term for "Eurasians" then how is it not valid for Africans in Africa?
Your oddball logic is ridiculous.
At the end of the day nobody is asking you for permission on when to be racist, when to be political or when to use the words they want to use.
And to be honest I thought Europeans saying their ancestors were black was a "win" for Afrocentrics.... but what do I know.
So much for blacks clustering together.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
I haven't heard Doug say Cheddar Man was black, why is that?
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: And to be honest I thought Europeans saying their ancestors were black was a "win" for Afrocentrics.... but what do I know.
I've come to the conclusion that people like you are beyond saving.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: I haven't heard Doug say Cheddar Man was black, why is that?
Because Rev. Doug M. knows the implications, even if he plays stupid.
If the whole world was equally dark as dynastic Egyptians, then Afrocentism has nothing to establish commonality anymore based on skin pigmentation. This then puts the spotlight on aDNA as the main source of follow-up answers, since it allows us to test where dark skin is linked to African ancestry (and if so, to what degree) and where it isn't. And this complicates the narrative for Rev. Doug M., because now he can't point to an Egyptian mural and say they were his kind of 'black'. Dark skin on murals become inadmissible evidence, and lose appeal, if the whole world was 'black' up until the Neolithic.
But we gon' let Rev. Doug M. figure it out. He'll get the memo in 2050. He also still thinks OOA is Afrocentric. I bet he thinks that the recently sampled Taforalt being 36% SSA-like is a win for Afrocentrism, too.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: I haven't heard Doug say Cheddar Man was black, why is that?
Because Rev. Doug M. knows the implications, even if he plays stupid.
If the whole world was equally dark as dynastic Egyptians, then Afrocentism has nothing to establish commonality anymore based on skin pigmentation. This then puts the spotlight on aDNA as the main source of follow-up answers, since it allows us to test where dark skin is linked to African ancestry (and if so, to what degree) and where it isn't. And this complicates the narrative for Rev. Doug M., because now he can't point to an Egyptian mural and say they were his kind of 'black'. Dark skin on murals become inadmissible evidence, and lose appeal, if the whole world was 'black' up until the Neolithic.
But we gon' let Rev. Doug M. figure it out. He'll get the memo in 2050. He also still thinks OOA is Afrocentric. I bet he thinks that the recently sampled Taforalt being 36% SSA-like is a win for Afrocentrism, too.
What the hell? Do you know what Afrocentric even means? It means all humans came from Africa along with culture, civilization and everything else. How does OOA disprove that? And the African scholars who first made this claim long before science actually supported it with DNA said that this disproves the lies of European history. Why don't you stop pretending to know what you are talking about? The only thing you are proving is that you HATE African scholars but love European scholars no matter how much they have lied and continue to lie and have been racist and continue to be racist I don't see you spending anywhere near the amount of time critizing and calling out them on their falsifications but you spend a whole lot of time worried about what comes out the mouths of black folks.
Obviously if THEY THEMSELVES say that Cheddar man was black, what do I have to do with it? They prove MY point which is people in the scientific community ABSOLUTELY use the term black when they feel like it and not because they are worried about being political. It also shows you don't have to cluster with West Africans genetically to be called black as well.
So again, I don't see how you are spinning this as justification NOT to use black in Africa. I mean if ancient EURASIANS can have black skin and be called black then OBVIOUSLY so can ancient Africans. So called "Eurasian" DNA has nothing to do with it.
The only ACTUAL value of this reconstruction of Cheddar man is it shows the PROCESS by which they determine the skin color of ancient remains. They weren't just being 'artistic' when they came up with this skin color, unlike what was done in other cases, like Tutankhamun. And it also shows that determining skin color is part of bioanthropology. Everything else is just Swenet spinning trying to pretend "Swenets standards of everything related to what is and isnt black" are important but they don't apply and have no relevance. Now Swenet is just being dumb just to argue. Once this team used "SCIENCE" to determine the skin color of Cheddar man everything else Swenet has been saying went out the window. But he continues despite this. Dumb meaning that black skin he still contents that black skin in ancient Europe disproves black skin in Africa. You can't even be serious on this point. Or more specifically EEF related populations in Africa couldn't have black skin. Did you even read what they said about his skin color and where it came from?
quote: The results pointed to a Middle Eastern origin for Cheddar Man, suggesting that his ancestors would have left Africa, moved into the Middle East and later headed west into Europe, before eventually crossing the ancient land bridge called Doggerland which connected Britain to continental Europe. Today, about 10% of white British ancestry can be linked to this ancient population.
Not to mention:
quote: The team homed in on genes known to be linked to skin colour, hair colour and texture, and eye colour. For skin tone, there are a handful of genetic variants linked to reduced pigmentation, including some that are very widespread in European populations today. However, Cheddar Man had “ancestral” versions of all these genes, strongly suggesting he would have had “dark to black” skin tone, but combined with blue eyes.
This is unlike what they did for Tutankhamun and Nefertiti. The same process can and should be done for those reconstructions. The mummies are there and surely have the same DNA that can be used to do the skin color determination. My point is they DONT WANT to have an accurate determination of skin color because they want the AE to be white. But surely Swenet knows this but he rather focus on "Afrocentrics" because he cant ever bring himself to say that European science and its institutions have a "political agenda" which historically includes racism..... But you are going to say something about me and Egyptian art yet have nothing to say when modern reconstructions of AE are done and they use "artistic license" to depict them as white and you have absolutely no problem with that. How is one form of art better than the other? I take the ancient artists work as more credible than some artist 4000 years later.
I asked you before what "standard" defines black in your opinion and you had no answer. But science DOES have an answer you just don't want to admit that what you are talking about has nothing to do with science.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
You know the deal. Build a strawman, knock it down.
University degreed bona fide Afrocentrics don't do much history and no genetics at all. You'd think even an ambitious 'capo' would correct the white mainstream media's deliberate fucked up application of Afrocentric to mean anything other than what the PhD Afrocentrics define their discipline.
And so, along with the new poster who asked, I await detractors to name and quote these blamed Afrocentrics.
They just use Afrocentric as a boogie man to scare folks into agreement or else be made fun of. They don't know shit about Afrocentricity. They can't tell you one major premise and back it up with a citation from a BA MS or PhD holding Afrocentric.
Equating internet eccentrics and 'its all black' rooraggers to Afrocentrics is no different than taking the Pyramidiots for Egyptologists Arkeologists for Archaelogists Creationists for Cosmologist.
But threatening children with the spook in the closet, the ogre under the bed, or the toilet monster works and people are scared stupid of these big black bad (nameless) Afrocentrics.
what on
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
Doug what does the skin color of ancient EUROPEANS have anything to do with Africans or for that matter you? You do realize that these ancient Eurasians were distinct from Africans and became modern White Europeans?
How is that a win for Afrocentrism?? These people had nothing to with Africa same way an Australian Aboriginal has nothing to do with Africa...smh
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: [QUOTE]
And to be honest I thought Europeans saying their ancestors were black was a "win" for Afrocentrics.... but what do I know.
So much for blacks clustering together.
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
Doug what do you make of these....
In line of the DNA from Abu Sier, and they date to the 11th Dynast?
Mummy mask of Gemniemhat; 11th dynasty ( 2125-1985 BCE)
Mummy mask of Herishef-Hotep, serving at the funeral temple of Pharaoh Niuserre, Abusir, today: Egyptian Museum of the University of Leipzig(1st Intermediate Period, 2216 – 2025 B. C., Source: Krauspe, R. (Hrsg.): Das Ägyptische Museum der Universität Leipzig, Mainz 1997, image 50)
Mummy mask, Egyptian Middle Kingdom, Dynasty 11 to early Dynasty 12 2140–1926 B.C.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Doug what does the skin color of ancient EUROPEANS have anything to do with Africans or for that matter you? You do realize that these ancient Eurasians were distinct from Africans and became modern White Europeans?
How is that a win for Afrocentrism?? These people had nothing to with Africa same way an Australian Aboriginal has nothing to do with Africa...smh
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: [QUOTE]
And to be honest I thought Europeans saying their ancestors were black was a "win" for Afrocentrics.... but what do I know.
So much for blacks clustering together.
Jari, that wasn't the point. To be fair this is part of a long back and forth that Swenet and I have been having on the issue on the use of the term black as "valid" in bioanthropology.
The point of Cheddar Man being a "win" for Afrocentrism is obvious. It is another line of evidence that all humans originated from Africa and one primary sign of that was black skin. Don't pretend you don't understand this. The people who did the reconstruction say this themselves. Why don't you read the article?
No need to try and put words in my mouth. I know what I am speaking to and about.
The issue was whether the word "black" is valid in bioanthropology. Period. Obviously it is valid because the people who did the Cheddar Man reconstruction used it. Stop pretending that somehow scientists avoid the term because they feel it is political. No they don't.
Any other nonsensical associations with anonymous Afrocentrics and what they said has nothing to do with it.
As for the mummy masks, already addressed. Scroll up. Read the thread.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Are these real???!! They had some suoer fine razors back then for that shave. These guys look so "modern". Nothing has changed to now. Someone needs to run done these statues. Verify they are real.I don't think they are.
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Doug what do you make of these....
In line of the DNA from Abu Sier, and they date to the 11th Dynast?
Mummy mask of Gemniemhat; 11th dynasty ( 2125-1985 BCE)
Mummy mask of Herishef-Hotep, serving at the funeral temple of Pharaoh Niuserre, Abusir, today: Egyptian Museum of the University of Leipzig(1st Intermediate Period, 2216 – 2025 B. C., Source: Krauspe, R. (Hrsg.): Das Ägyptische Museum der Universität Leipzig, Mainz 1997, image 50)
Mummy mask, Egyptian Middle Kingdom, Dynasty 11 to early Dynasty 12 2140–1926 B.C.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Are these real???!! They had some suoer fine razors back then for that shave. These guys look so "modern". Nothing has changed to now. Someone needs to run done these statues. Verify they are real.I don't think they are.
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Doug what do you make of these....
In line of the DNA from Abu Sier, and they date to the 11th Dynast?
Mummy mask of Gemniemhat; 11th dynasty ( 2125-1985 BCE)
Mummy mask of Herishef-Hotep, serving at the funeral temple of Pharaoh Niuserre, Abusir, today: Egyptian Museum of the University of Leipzig(1st Intermediate Period, 2216 – 2025 B. C., Source: Krauspe, R. (Hrsg.): Das Ägyptische Museum der Universität Leipzig, Mainz 1997, image 50)
Mummy mask, Egyptian Middle Kingdom, Dynasty 11 to early Dynasty 12 2140–1926 B.C.
Last I checked the same style of mummy cases were used in the tomb of the two brothers. A recent study described the biological affiliation of the two mummies. The mummy cases had nothing to do with how they looked. During the middle kingdom this "style" of mummy case was popular. During other periods other "styles" of cases were common.
Also, pointing out the obvious again since people keep skipping it. The significance of Cheddar man is they used actual DNA for skin color to make the reconstruction. This is totally the OPPOSITE of what they do with most reconstructions, especially in AE..
quote: Dr Campbell Price, Curator of Egypt and Sudan at Manchester Museum, said: 'The University of Manchester, and Manchester Museum in particular, has a long history of research on ancient Egyptian human remains.
'Our reconstructions will always be speculative to some extent but to be able to link these two men in this way is an exciting first.'
Now if European bioanthropologists can use DNA to determine skin color of European remains, then so too should they use it in AE. But for now mostly they use "speculation". Their words not mine.
As for this mess about "black power" politics leave me out of that nonsense. "Power" is a relative term and not "fixed" in time or space. Europeans didn't have "white power" 5,000 years ago. The concept didn't exist and neither did "black power". Those concepts have absolutely nothing to do with history and anthropology. Showing the blackness of the AE is not going to change the overall situation and position of black people in the world today. Anybody that believes that is stupid. This is no different than saying that learning the ancient history of Yorubas or Central Africa is going to suddenly change the situation of those areas today. It is an absurd point of view no matter who holds it. It is no better than believing Wakanda is going to save black folks from racism.
My study of History and anthropology is a hobby. I go where the facts lead me. This is not to score "political" points because science is not politics and I am no politician.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
The only ACTUAL value of this reconstruction of Cheddar man is it shows the PROCESS by which they determine the skin color of ancient remains. They weren't just being 'artistic' when they came up with this skin color, unlike what was done in other cases, like Tutankhamun.
The skin color of the Cheddar man reconstruction is brown.
Therefore if the scientists then use the term "black" or "white" in the article and then they lie and try to pretend actual objectively observed colors such as brown do not exist then they are then using an unscientific social constructed racial terms. These lies are very deeply ingrained in our society. Would a Japanese person who had skin color as light as the typical modern European ever be called white in an article? No because "black" like "white" is a stereotype racial color modern Europeans aren't literally white. So the fact that something is in a scientific article doesn't make it true. It is still a lie and in any other science article if they were talking about an object that was not a human being they would not call a brown object having the tone of the Cheddar man "black". The terms "black" and "white" are supported by the U.S. government in census reports and policy yet there is no way to measure if somebody fits into these categories and they go by how people self identify which is completely subjective.
As regards to the National geographic Tutankhamun reconstruction you say that the skin color was determined by the artists whim. That could be true. I'm not sure about it. But did they use DNA analysis to determine that his skin color or was none used ? I don't know
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Jari, that wasn't the point. To be fair this is part of a long back and forth that Swenet and I have been having on the issue on the use of the term black as "valid" in bioanthropology.
The point of Cheddar Man being a "win" for Afrocentrism is obvious. It is another line of evidence that all humans originated from Africa and one primary sign of that was black skin. Don't pretend you don't understand this. The people who did the reconstruction say this themselves. Why don't you read the article?
No need to try and put words in my mouth. I know what I am speaking to and about.
Any other nonsensical associations with anonymous Afrocentrics and what they said has nothing to do with it.
As for the mummy masks, already addressed. Scroll up. Read the thread.
Notice how Rev. Doug always fetishizes Europeans. When he vents about them he portrays them as omnipotent masterminds bending the course of history with everyone else just being passive figurants, and when he thinks two Europeans agree with him on the use of 'black', the words of whites are to be taken as gospel all of a sudden. Now they're beacons of truth on all things 'black' all of a sudden.
But I thought the unifying theme of Doug's sermons was to declare Europeans as conspiring to distort the 'real' meaning of 'black'. That is what Rev. Doug said throughout this thread. But now they're sources to be relied upon. As usual, Rev. Doug operates 100% in politics, and his sermons are complete with shameless flip flops. Can't even apply some consistency in whether or not to use European sources when it comes to 'black'.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The issue was whether the word "black" is valid in bioanthropology. Period. Obviously it is valid because the people who did the Cheddar Man reconstruction used it. Stop pretending that somehow scientists avoid the term because they feel it is political. No they don't.
The discussion wasn't about whether the word 'black' is valid in science. The issue was that the public widely uses 'black' in a racial sense, and that many Africans fall outside of the boat in this racial use of the term. Rev. Doug's response to this was politics as usual, in that he insisted, contrary to reality, that there was only a skin colour use of 'black', and that a racial use of 'black' doesn't exist.
Of course, I caught Rev. Doug red-handed contradicting himself on this issue. See how he contradicts himself here by admitting that there IS a racial use of the term 'black' that is divorced from skin colour:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: That is why the reconstruction has a strong "black African look" with a light skin tone.
So, let me get this right. You engaged in a 28 page discussion filled with rants, only to casually abandon everything you said you stood for? Remember what you said. You said that you acknowledge no definition of 'black' other than the one that describes a level of skin pigmentation. Someone has some 'splainin to do.
But to reiterate, at no point was it ever a point of contention whether or not 'black' is valid in bioanthropology. We never talked about that here, and if we did, I certainly never denied that a purely skin pigmentation use of the term 'black' could be scientific. But Rev. Doug is definitely not an example of using 'black' in a purely skin pigmentation way. See his cognitive dissonance-fueled tapdancing when it comes to admitting prehistoric Europeans were black in this sense. So no, Doug is definitely not using 'black' in a purely skin pigmentation-based manner. This is why his brain fries when you ask him if prehistoric Europeans were 'black'. It's also why I was able to catch him red-handed using 'black' racially.
Posted by Elite Diasporan (Member # 22000) on :
Admin:
Yeah, this thread is so getting locked. It has served its purpose since the first three pages. And ever since its been nothing but meaningless back and forth that has not gotten anywhere. As the original thread creator I am doing this since my original question has been answered.
41 pages is enough. There are much more interesting topics to be discussed on here currently.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
to the Indian People.
[/qb]
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
