From Christina Riggs's "Unwrapping Ancient Egypt" (2014):
“Afrocentrism and mainstream Egyptology rarely meet and when they do, tensions can flare. I once spoke to a group of students, alumni, and community members at Manchester Metropolitan University [England], many of whom self-described as Afrocentrists. I was surprised at first to be heckled by the audience, but over the course of the discussion after my talk, it transpired that this was not because of anything I had said, but instead due to long-festering anger with the museum where I then worked. According to some of the audience members, a previous curator had also addressed the group, and, they said, described Diop’s work as “no better than pornography”” (p162).
You can disagree with Diop, but that sort of open contempt is unhinged. However, not that surprised.
Posted by capra (Member # 22737) on :
i certainly wouldn't trust some third-hand report from hecklers to be accurate at all, much less in context.
presumably meaning "unrealistic pandering to audience's wish-fulfillment fantasies" which certainly fits a lot of Afrocentric output. Diop seems sincere in the fine tradition of crankish scholarship though. but again who knows what context was or whether remotely accurate.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Crankish scholarship?
Outdated, yes, in a few places as is all work from the 1950's and 1960's.
How many of Diop's books have you read keeping in mind when they were written and what was accepted science at the time.
Remember his last work is nearly 40 years old. It only hints about molecular biology but puts us on notice it's just a tool and relies on interpretation. Interpretation is fed on worldview.
No, the cranks are geneticists who fall back on Arab Islamic and European Judeo- Christian purchases of enslaved Africans to explain even markers going back to the Neolithic.
Why? Because of their worldview. The worldview of the mainstream since the inseption of the science of anthropology which was conceived to prove a human hierarchy with white NE Europeans at the top.
Without the scholarship of Cheikh Anta Diop we would still have the Jewish Hollywood Egypt of today's cinema screen. He paved the way for those of us of African descent who dare reconnect our people to our collective histories, archaeology, cultures, religions, technologies, etc. instead of atomizing us into disporate admixed fragments.
The ingredients go back as far as the AfrAm writers in the 1800's but the Cheikh baked the cake. Obenga put the sprinkles on the icing.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
I don't think it's fair to call Diop's work "crankish" . He was pointing out undermined African roots in Egypt and used a lot of references.
quote: In 1946, at the age of 23, Diop went to Paris to study. He initially enrolled to study higher mathematics, but then enrolled to study philosophy in the Faculty of Arts of the Sorbonne. He gained his first degree (licence) in philosophy in 1948, then enrolled in the Faculty of Sciences, receiving two diplomas in chemistry in 1950.
In 1949, Diop registered a proposed title for a Doctor of Letters thesis, "The Cultural Future of African thought," under the direction of Professor Gaston Bachelard. In 1951 he registered a second thesis title "Who were the pre-dynastic Egyptians" under Professor Marcel Griaule. He completed his thesis on pre-dynastic Egypt in 1954 but could not find a jury of examiners for it: he later published many of his ideas as the book Nations nègres et culture. In 1956 he re-registered a new proposed thesis for Doctor of Letters with the title "The areas of matriarchy and patriarchy in ancient times." From 1956, he taught physics and chemistry in two Paris lycees as an assistant master, before moving to the College de France. In 1957 he registered his new thesis title "Comparative study of political and social systems of Europe and Africa, from Antiquity to the formation of modern states." The new topics did not relate to ancient Egypt but were concerned with the forms of organisation of African and European societies and how they evolved. He obtained his doctorate in 1960.[9]
In 1953, he first met Frédéric Joliot-Curie, Marie Curie's son-in-law, and in 1957 Diop began specializing in nuclear physics at the Laboratory of Nuclear Chemistry of the College de France which Frederic Joliot-Curie ran until his death in 1958, and the Institut Pierre et Marie Curie in Paris. He ultimately translated parts of Einstein's Theory of Relativity into his native Wolof.[10]
According to Diop's own account, his education in Paris included History, Egyptology, Physics, Linguistics, Anthropology, Economics, and Sociology.[4][11] In Paris, Diop studied under André Aymard, professor of History and later Dean of the Faculty of Letters at the University of Paris and he said that he had "gained an understanding of the Greco-Latin world as a student of Gaston Bachelard, Frédéric Joliot-Curie, André Leroi-Gourhan, and others". Diop said that he "acquired proficiency in such diverse disciplines as rationalism, dialectics, modern scientific techniques, prehistoric archeology and so on." Diop also claimed to be "the only Black African of his generation to have received training as an Egyptologist" and "more importantly" he "applied this encyclopedic knowledge to his researches on African history."[12]
In 1948 Diop edited with Madeleine Rousseau, a professor of art history, a special edition of the journal Musée vivant, published by the Association populaire des amis des musées (APAM). APAM had been set up in 1936 by people on the political left wing to bring culture to wider audiences. The special edition of the journal was on the occasion of the centenary of the abolition of slavery in the French colonies and aimed to present an overview of issues in contemporary African culture and society. Diop contributed an article to the journal: "Quand pourra-t-on parler d’une renaissance africaine" (When we will be able to speak of an African Renaissance?). He examined various fields of artistic creation, with a discussion of African languages, which, he said, would be the sources of regeneration in African culture. He proposed that African culture should be rebuilt on the basis of ancient Egypt, in the same way that European culture was built upon the legacies of ancient Greece and Rome.[13] In his 1954 thesis, Diop argued that ancient Egypt had been populated by Black people. He specified that he used the terms "negro", "black", "white" and "race" as "immediate givens" in the Bergsonian sense, and went on to suggest operational definitions of these terms.[14] He said that the Egyptian language and culture had later been spread to West Africa. When he published many of his ideas as the book Nations nègres et culture (Negro Nations and C
Diop had since his early days in Paris been politically active in the Rassemblement Démocratique Africain (RDA), an African nationalist organisation led by Félix Houphouët-Boigny. He was general secretary of the RDA students in Paris from 1950 to 1953.[17] Under his leadership the first post-war pan-African student congress was organized in 1951. Importantly it included not only francophone Africans, but English-speaking ones as well. The RDA students continued to be highly active in politicizing the anti-colonial struggle and popularized the slogan "National independence from the Sahara to the Cape, and from the Indian Ocean to the Atlantic."[18] The movement identified as a key task restoring the African national consciousness, which they argued had been warped by slavery and colonialism. Diop, inspired by the efforts of Aimé Césaire toward these ends, but not being a literary man himself, took up the call to rebuild the African personality from a strictly scientific, socio-historical perspective. He was keenly aware of the difficulties that such a scientific effort would entail and warned that "It was particularly necessary to avoid the pitfall of facility. It could seem to tempting to delude the masses engaged in a struggle for national independence by taking liberties with scientific truth, by unveiling a mythical, embellished past. Those who have followed us in our efforts for more than 20 years know now that this was not the case and that this fear remained unfounded."[19] Diop was highly critical of "the most brilliant pseudo-revolutionary eloquence that ignores the need" for rebuilding the African national consciousness "which must be met if our people are to be reborn culturally and politically."[20]
Diop believed that the political struggle for African independence would not succeed without acknowledging the civilizing role of the African, dating from ancient Egypt.[20] He singled out the contradiction of "the African historian who evades the problem of Egypt".[20]
In 1960, upon his return to Senegal, he continued what would be a lifelong political struggle. Diop would in the course of over 25 years found three political parties that formed the major opposition in Senegal. The first, "Le Bloc des Masses Sénégalaises" (BMS), was formed in 1961. By 1962 Diop's party working on the ideas enumerated in Black Africa: the economic and cultural basis for a federated state became a serious threat to the regime of then President Léopold Senghor. Diop was subsequently arrested and thrown in jail where he nearly died. The party was shortly thereafter banned for opposing Senghor's efforts to consolidate power in his own hands
Posted by capra (Member # 22737) on :
i have not read most of Diop's work. i am thinking of some of his linguistic stuff which i have gone through and is classic crank linguistics. which many many scholars have engaged in mind you.
not saying all of his work was wrong - i'd have no capacity to judge most of it even if i'd read it - scholars can be sound or even brilliant in one field and go off the rails in another. that is part of the tradition of crank scholarship i was referring to.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
You have the UNESCO link. Linguists are on the panel. What do they and the report author say?
Of course you're right Diop was wrong on several things but what counts is where he's right and his advice to scholars on awareness and methodologies.
Hey, if you wanna see Diop as a crank that's your right to your opinion. I have to accept your personal linguistic exam led your conclusion.
Posted by Elite Diasporan (Member # 22000) on :
Yea, a lot of Diop's work is outdated and he has made some unrealistic claims that sometimes goes against Africana(such as Berber is European). However... To say his overall work is "crankish" is a bit unfair. Heck some of his works was way ahead mainstream anthropology at the time.
Posted by Frankly Kemet (Member # 22882) on :
I find it quite perplexing people still cite Mr. Diop in their scholarship. In fact, it puzzles me Afrocentric circles like the Black Conscious community yet reference outmoded and no-longer-valid scholarly work. Who still cites "They came before Columbus" which by the way is unpeered work?
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
No one has illustrated his work is outdated. And his linguistic studies have stood the test of time. Cite the papers where his work has been disputed with actual counter evidence.
Posted by Frankly Kemet (Member # 22882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: No one has illustrated his work is outdated. And his linguistic studies have stood the test of time. Cite the papers where his work has been disputed with actual counter evidence.
Wikipedia provides several scholarly sources.
Posted by Tyrannohotep (Member # 3735) on :
I don't agree with many of Diop's ideas (like others said, he is outdated), but I respect him for stimulating greater academic interest in Egypt's African heritage and connections from an Afrocentric perspective. Of course, the whole conversation predates him by over two centuries, but you could say he reawakened it. The same for Martin Bernal and maybe van Sertima (although the latter is better known for his claims about African ties with the Olmecs). If nothing else, these individuals have been good at grabbing both academic and public attention and directing them to our point of view. But yes, one can't limit their reading to these few authors.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote: Cheikh Anta Diop:
If we speak only of the genotype, I can find a black who, at the level of his chromosomes, is closer to a Swede than Peter Botha is. But what counts in reality is the phenotype. It is the physical appearance which counts. This black, even if on the level of his cells he is closer than Peter Botha, when he is in South Africa he will live in Soweto. Throughout history, it has always been the phenotype which has been at issue; we mustn’t lose sight of this fact. The phenotype is a reality, physical appearance is a reality.
Now, every time these relationships are not favorable to the Western cultures, an effort is made to undermine the cultural consciousness of Africans by telling them, `We don’t even know what a race is.’ What that means is, they do know what a yellow man is, they do know what a white man is. Despite the fact that the white race and the yellow race are derivatives of the black which, itself, was the first to exist as a human race, now we do not want know what it is. If Africans fall into that trap, they’ll be going around in circles. They must understand the trap, understand the stakes.
It is the phenotype which as given us so much difficulty throughout history, so it is this which must be considered in these relations. It exists, is a reality and cannot be repudiated.
-- Interview with Diop conducted by Charles Finch III in Dakar, 1986 .
This is an interesting quote he is arguing that Africans have been exploited on the basis of phenotype so that Africans must not discard the concept of race
because if the concept of race has been proven to be an effective weapon used against people then the people that it was used against should have the right to use that same weapon.
Therefore if someone in the oppressor class who used the concept of race to achieve their position but then has that same weapon used on them they should not be able to take refuge in genotype and then race doesn't matter
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by Frankly Kemet:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: No one has illustrated his work is outdated. And his linguistic studies have stood the test of time. Cite the papers where his work has been disputed with actual counter evidence.
Wikipedia provides several scholarly sources.
They attack Diop's work but they are never specific. people accept this hogwash because they have not studied Diop's work and therefore fail to present counter evidence disputing his work.
A good example is the work of Schuh The paper by R.G. Schuh web page has not disconfirmed the work of Diop. Diop presented almost 400 wolof-Egyptian cognates and Schuh only presents a handful of examples in which he claims Diop is wrong. No one except a novice who had not read
Diop,C.A. (1977). Parentè gènètique de l'Egyptien Pharaonique et des languues Negro-Africaines. Dakar: Institut Fondamental d'Afrique Noire.
Diop,C.A. (1983). Nouvelles recherches sur l'egyptien ancien et les langues Negro-Africaine Modernes.
The material in these books is explained in detail and Diop presents many examples in support of his proposition.
If you read the Schuh article seriously you discover that he maintains that there may be "vague cultural or physical world connection[s]" (p.9), but Diop was wrong overall. Either there were connections or there were no connections. You can't ride the fence on this issue if you are calling a researcher's work false.
Schuh's article was just a bias view on the part of the author regarding Diop's work.
Dr. Schuh recommends that Diop would have been able to confirm his view of a African connection to Egyptian by first studying the sound resemblances in Niger-Kordofanian through reconstruction. This is ludicrious.
The Indo-European language connection was not confirmed as a result of reconstructing proto-languages and then comparing them to proto- Greek and proto-Sanskrit. In fact when this language family was proposed the ideas of constructing proto-languages was unknown.
Schuh ends this piece discussing the fact that the only relationship between an African language and Egyptian was Chadic. This was an interesting view, given the fact that the reference list indicates that his only published works are related to the Chadic people.
This is also interesting because he did not present any Chadic reconstructions to support his theory, the requirement he demanded Diop present before Diop's views could find acceptance by Schuh and the linguistic community.
I am sure that if Schuh would have wrote on any other topic his paper would not have been published.
Publishers are quick to publish articles attacking Afrocentric studies because it is popular for liberals and conservatives alike to attack this group. I recommend you read the books below:
Diop,C.A. (1977). Parentè gènètique de l'Egyptien Pharaonique et des languues Negro-Africaines. Dakar: Institut Fondamental d'Afrique Noire.
Diop,C.A. (1983). Nouvelles recherches sur l'egyptien ancien et les langues Negro-Africaine Modernes.
Read the books yourself instead of taking the word of Schuh.
Today the anti-Diop cabal believe that genetics has proven much of Diop's work to be false. This view is unfounded. Everyday it is becoming clear that the Egyptians shared many haplogroups with West Africans, especially Y-chromosomes E and R1, and mtDNA H, M and U.
.
Posted by Akachi (Member # 21711) on :
In the mid 90's Keita published a piece defending Diop's work.
Posted by tropicals redacted (Member # 21621) on :
@capra
quote:but again who knows what context was or whether remotely accurate.
The comparison with pornography in the quote I provided is specific. In what context would such a reference be acceptable?
With regards to Diop being crankish, the comments above from other posters suffice. I would however cite issues with the scholarship of those academics who have written papers ‘critiquing’ Diop, such as Juan Castilllos (Egyptologist) and Alain Froment (physical anthropologist). Both were evasive when I contacted them directly.
Posted by Tehutimes (Member # 21712) on :
WTF??????? These clowns attacking Dr.Cheikh Anta Diop,whether so-called museum experts or folks who chant outdated as a mantra for not having read any of Diop's works need to actually read books not just web No better than porn and crankish! Hell on this site the Amazigh or Berbers often have posters thinking becuse some of them are pale skinned its due 2 Eurasian admixture. a lot of whites were sent their as slaves and some whites invaded and stayed in Morocco,Tunisia,Algeria etc. Just being African does not mean your skin is black as crude oil.I thought posters here were brighter than that at least more than forum biodiversity posters. Attacking Diop's work without reading any of it is inane & preposterous.
Posted by Akachi (Member # 21711) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tehutimes: WTF??????? These clowns attacking Dr.Cheikh Anta Diop,whether so-called museum experts or folks who chant outdated as a mantra for not having read any of Diop's works need to actually read books not just web No better than porn and crankish! Hell on this site the Amazigh or Berbers often have posters thinking becuse some of them are pale skinned its due 2 Eurasian admixture. a lot of whites were sent their as slaves and some whites invaded and stayed in Morocco,Tunisia,Algeria etc. Just being African does not mean your skin is black as crude oil.I thought posters here were brighter than that at least more than forum biodiversity posters. Attacking Diop's work without reading any of it is inane & preposterous.
Sad I know! France also honored him after he passed.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
We know why folks would call him crankish. They cant stand the idea that Africans should and would dare to study and write about their own history without European "authorization" and "approval"......
And as Turkuler rightly said this is all about world view. Africans telling their history as Africans is not the same as Europeans going around the entire planet and pretending to tell everybody else about their history: (which Europeans in many cases destroyed).
Posted by capra (Member # 22737) on :
quote:With regards to Diop being crankish, the comments above from other posters suffice. I would however cite issues with the scholarship of those academics who have written papers ‘critiquing’ Diop, such as Juan Castilllos (Egyptologist) and Alain Froment (physical anthropologist). Both were evasive when I contacted them directly.
yeah, they don't want to explain their field of scholarship to you in detail and then have you ignore it anyway. while doing the same thing with the ancient aliens guy and the white gods guy and the lost tribes of israel guy who are also emailing them.
try going over to some forum that has nothing to do with Africa and debating people with alternative views, especially about language. try going to Eupedia and refuting the Albanian guy who is claiming that there's no such thing as Indo-European and in fact all those words come from Albanian. find one of those guys who thinks that Sumerian is Turkish, or Mayan is Chinese, or Cherokee is Greek, and see how that goes. and maybe you will get a strange sense of deja vu as you are told that the mainstream scholars are ignoring this obvious truth because of their bias against insert ethnic group and how they are suppressing the true glorious history of insert ethnic group.
Posted by Fourty2Tribes (Member # 21799) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: This is an interesting quote he is arguing that Africans have been exploited on the basis of phenotype so that Africans must not discard the concept of race
because if the concept of race has been proven to be an effective weapon used against people then the people that it was used against should have the right to use that same weapon.
Therefore if someone in the oppressor class who used the concept of race to achieve their position but then has that same weapon used on them they should not be able to take refuge in genotype and then race doesn't matter
This is an example of where Diop was and will remain ahead of his time. Perfect example in play here. Find a black man in the Sphinx and it's 'lets define black'. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kM_NQebQLkQ&t=37s Posted by Oshun (Member # 19740) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: [QUOTE] This is an interesting quote he is arguing that Africans have been exploited on the basis of phenotype so that Africans must not discard the concept of race
because if the concept of race has been proven to be an effective weapon used against people then the people that it was used against should have the right to use that same weapon.
Therefore if someone in the oppressor class who used the concept of race to achieve their position but then has that same weapon used on them they should not be able to take refuge in genotype and then race doesn't matter
Agreed. Genetics seems to be the last fragile frontier for "white Egypt." Just when you thought it'd die... But don't tell them that the genotypes of Neolithic Europeans, Euros making stone henge, had nothing to do with their genetic ancestors, nor were they white. Oh they're then "olive" and still count as part "white history"
quote:Originally posted by tropicals redacted: “The creators of Stonehenge appeared Mediterranean, with olive-hued skin, dark hair and eyes.”
quote:With regards to Diop being crankish, the comments above from other posters suffice. I would however cite issues with the scholarship of those academics who have written papers ‘critiquing’ Diop, such as Juan Castilllos (Egyptologist) and Alain Froment (physical anthropologist). Both were evasive when I contacted them directly.
yeah, they don't want to explain their field of scholarship to you in detail and then have you ignore it anyway. while doing the same thing with the ancient aliens guy and the white gods guy and the lost tribes of israel guy who are also emailing them.
try going over to some forum that has nothing to do with Africa and debating people with alternative views, especially about language. try going to Eupedia and refuting the Albanian guy who is claiming that there's no such thing as Indo-European and in fact all those words come from Albanian. find one of those guys who thinks that Sumerian is Turkish, or Mayan is Chinese, or Cherokee is Greek, and see how that goes. and maybe you will get a strange sense of deja vu as you are told that the mainstream scholars are ignoring this obvious truth because of their bias against insert ethnic group and how they are suppressing the true glorious history of insert ethnic group.
You are fixated on his linguistics and that is not by far his main influence.
His main influence was making the argument that Egypt was primarily black African
The more influential afrocentric scholar in regard to linguistics is Théophile Obenga who is alive today and is professor emeritus in the Africana Studies Center at San Francisco State University
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Oshun:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
This is an interesting quote he is arguing that Africans have been exploited on the basis of phenotype so that Africans must not discard the concept of race
because if the concept of race has been proven to be an effective weapon used against people then the people that it was used against should have the right to use that same weapon.
Therefore if someone in the oppressor class who used the concept of race to achieve their position but then has that same weapon used on them they should not be able to take refuge in genotype and then race doesn't matter
Agreed. Genetics seems to be the last fragile frontier for "white Egypt." Just when you thought it'd die... But don't tell them that the genotypes of Neolithic Europeans, Euros making stone henge, had nothing to do with their genetic ancestors, nor were they white. Oh they're then "olive" and still count as part "white history"
I disagree with Diop and you. Genetics is not a is fragile frontier. It is the future and will gradually replace older skin deep phenotypical racial paradigms. While people might try to manipulate the interpretation of DNA test results (Planck Institute disregarding YDNA) , genetics is cutting edge science and goes much deeper into human biology than phenotype and also includes phenotype. The analysis of Cheddar man is a prime example of how genetics is not fragile, it is the opposite, able to overturn assumptions about what the early Europeans looked like.
Genetics methods are also constantly improving.
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: Genetics seems to be the last fragile frontier for "white Egypt."
Not at all. Ramesses III's YDNA was predicted to be of the African haplogroup E which is also the most common African American haplogroup. DNATribes, while not a peer reviewed journal did their own analysis of Amarna DNA based on JAMA data form Hawas and stated that the Amarna were of vastly African ancestry
However the DNA doesn't care about politics. So when you start looking at it you can't expect it to take sides and make one side happy all the time
Posted by capra (Member # 22737) on :
sure, lioness. i have no opinion about that part, i haven't read what Diop has to say (beyond the occasional quote) and trying to sort out the physical anthropology gives me a headache. linguistic crankery on the other hand is in abundant supply and easy to find for purposes of comparison.
Posted by capra (Member # 22737) on :
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: But don't tell them that the genotypes of Neolithic Europeans, Euros making stone henge, had nothing to do with their genetic ancestors, nor were they white.
huh? Neolithic Europeans are a big part of modern European ancestry, even in Northern Europe. and sure they were 'white', unless you mean strictly North European type pale.
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
African Linguistics is a fucking mess in general... It's quite obvious when one remembers when Ehret and Obnga met and exchanged Crankish Ideas. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) ...lol
Posted by Fourty2Tribes (Member # 21799) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: African Linguistics is a fucking mess in general... It's quite obvious when one remembers when Ehret and Obnga met and exchanged Crankish Ideas. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) ...lol
Posted by Oshun (Member # 19740) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: I disagree with Diop and you. Genetics is not a is fragile frontier. It is the future and will gradually replace older skin deep phenotypical racial paradigms. While people might try to manipulate the interpretation of DNA test results (Planck Institute disregarding YDNA) , genetics is cutting edge science and goes much deeper into human biology than phenotype and also includes phenotype.
Yes but "race" isn't decided by that. Your phenotyope determines how you are treated more than anything. IDK how you're interpreting his comments but he's talking about "race" as far as I can see.
Posted by capra (Member # 22737) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: African Linguistics is a fucking mess in general... It's quite obvious when one remembers when Ehret and Obnga met and exchanged Crankish Ideas. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) ...lol
lol, yeah, from the POV of linguists who study Eurasian languages it's like all Altaic and Nostratic at the higher levels of grouping and everyone is kind of airily throwing around these classifications without even being able to distinguish a cognate from a loan. which they totally admit (well not Ehret) but do it anyway.
but nitty-gritty lower level stuff seems basically fine AFAICT.
Posted by Oshun (Member # 19740) on :
quote:Originally posted by capra:
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: But don't tell them that the genotypes of Neolithic Europeans, Euros making stone henge, had nothing to do with their genetic ancestors, nor were they white.
huh? Neolithic Europeans are a big part of modern European ancestry, even in Northern Europe. and sure they were 'white', unless you mean strictly North European type pale.
Were they?
quote:Originally posted by tropicals redacted: In The Independent:
"Around 90 per cent of Britain’s population was replaced 4,400 years ago by an influx of Beaker Practitioners, shortly after Stonehenge was constructed. This genetic shift brought in genes for pale skin and lighter eyes.
“The Neolithic people who built Stonehenge – and who had a greater genetic similarity with Neolithic Iberians than with those from Central Europe – almost disappear and are replaced by the populations from the Beaker Culture from the Netherlands and Germany,” said Dr Carles Lalueza-Fox, a palaeogenomics expert at Barcelona’s Institut de Biologia Evolutiva, who co-authored one of the studies."
"Professor Barry Cunliffe, an archaeologist at the University of Oxford and co-author of one of the studies, said ancient DNA analysis was poised to revolutionise the field of archaeology, and described their results as “mind-blowing”.
“They are going to upset people, but that is part of the excitement of it,” he said."
yes. modern *British* are mostly not descended from Neolithic *British*, but they *do* have a large proportion of ancestry from Neolithic farmers on the mainland.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Oshun:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: I disagree with Diop and you. Genetics is not a is fragile frontier. It is the future and will gradually replace older skin deep phenotypical racial paradigms. While people might try to manipulate the interpretation of DNA test results (Planck Institute disregarding YDNA) , genetics is cutting edge science and goes much deeper into human biology than phenotype and also includes phenotype.
Yes but "race" isn't decided by that. Your phenotyope determines how you are treated more than anything. IDK how you're interpreting his comments but he's talking about "race" as far as I can see.
how a person is treated should not be combined with biology
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by capra:
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: But don't tell them that the genotypes of Neolithic Europeans, Euros making stone henge, had nothing to do with their genetic ancestors, nor were they white.
huh? Neolithic Europeans are a big part of modern European ancestry, even in Northern Europe. and sure they were 'white', unless you mean strictly North European type pale.
Cheddar man was white?
quote:Originally posted by capra: yes. modern *British* are mostly not descended from Neolithic *British*, but they *do* have a large proportion of ancestry from Neolithic farmers on the mainland.
10% is large?
Posted by capra (Member # 22737) on :
Cheddar Man is not Neolithic he is WHG, the 10% is for *British* Neolithic not all Neolithic. and there's a hundred other places to discuss this in great detail if you like.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Yes, right, mesolithic, WHG before the Neolithic
Posted by Oshun (Member # 19740) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Oshun:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: I disagree with Diop and you. Genetics is not a is fragile frontier. It is the future and will gradually replace older skin deep phenotypical racial paradigms. While people might try to manipulate the interpretation of DNA test results (Planck Institute disregarding YDNA) , genetics is cutting edge science and goes much deeper into human biology than phenotype and also includes phenotype.
Yes but "race" isn't decided by that. Your phenotyope determines how you are treated more than anything. IDK how you're interpreting his comments but he's talking about "race" as far as I can see.
how a person is treated should not be combined with biology
True, but Diop is talking about race. He's arguing against using genetics when making a racial evaluation because it's possible for people to be genetically more related to people of other races. He predicted that many racists try to combine biology/genetics and race, even when people's genetics don't decide over their phenotype how they are treated.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Oshun:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Oshun:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: I disagree with Diop and you. Genetics is not a is fragile frontier. It is the future and will gradually replace older skin deep phenotypical racial paradigms. While people might try to manipulate the interpretation of DNA test results (Planck Institute disregarding YDNA) , genetics is cutting edge science and goes much deeper into human biology than phenotype and also includes phenotype.
Yes but "race" isn't decided by that. Your phenotyope determines how you are treated more than anything. IDK how you're interpreting his comments but he's talking about "race" as far as I can see.
how a person is treated should not be combined with biology
True, but Diop is talking about race. He's arguing against using genetics when making a racial evaluation because it's possible for people to be genetically more related to people of other races. He predicted that many racists try to combine biology/genetics and race, even when people's genetics don't decide over their phenotype how they are treated.
The idea he is endorsing is that people should be treated according to their phenotype, so don't discard the use of race but a particular treatment should be correlated to the proper race and it has not been
Posted by Oshun (Member # 19740) on :
No he is saying that people ARE treated according to their phenotype, that it's not an ideal but a reality. Diop was arguing that when it is not convenient for whites to discuss race whites will often resort to proclaiming their colorblindness in scientific research. But then we get "true negroes," and discussing blackness under the table with coded language. It avoids dealing with Diop's interest in directly discussing the race of the Egyptians, paints researchers who do so negatively but allows those who want to talk about it the ability to speak in a "safe space."
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
People make this complex. There would be no William Leakey in East Africa without British colonization. There would be no Rosetta Stone without the French INVASION of Egypt. There would be no King Tut without British imperialism in Egypt. And there would be no Benin Bronzes in the British Museums if not for British imperialism in West Africa.
This isn't simply an issue of "scholarship". It is an issue of colonization and conquest which gave rise to scholarship around the planet.
This is why most of the artifacts and images of "dead" cultures are in European museums around the world....
Diop was living in French Colonized West Africa. He had to go to French Universities and at the time having Africans in French Universities was probably rare. Not only did he study Egypt but he studied pre-colonial West Africa. He had to fight against the grain to gain his education and then use it to tell a history of Africa that went against the OVERT colonial/racist narrative of the time.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Diop was a credentialed scientist. Produce a quote where he argued against using molecular biology.
Fact of the matter, Diop himself used the mb available in his day pre-1981.
It's the interpretation not the tool.
Independent thinking African and Black researchers accept the tools and use them but our interpretation and discussion of investigative results will be wary of the same old time honored institutional racialism of the white supremacist founders of anthropology; i.e., • out of the East always light • we can't define black • black skinned whites • Hamitic Hypothesis • true negro • negroids (admixed true negroes) no matter how new, bright, and shiny the wrapper.
Arabs are text book whites. They are commonly called niggers. Indians are textbook whites. In day to day Western world life nobody regards them white.
A generation without struggle (no overt colonialism, apartheid, Jim Crow) imagines the playing field is level and we can forget the white supremacist origins of these sciences and the ramifications of 5 generations of it in university studies. Of course it impacted every student who's now out there conducting research. And they don't even know it or why for instance they rely on slavery to explain true negro genetics anywhere outside Negroland.
Posted by Oshun (Member # 19740) on :
Tukuler who are you asking your initial question to? I can't speak for everyone but I wasn't saying that Diop was against the use of molecular biology in science. What he did say, was that molecular biology does. not. prove. racial affiliation. Not over other data, anyway. He already states you have people that are black that are genetically closer to Swedes than Peter Botha. So if he's saying black people can at the level of their genes be more closely related to non blacks than other blacks, trying to use genetics to prove racial affiliations makes no sense. Diop says the phenotype is the most important aspect of proving racial identity not the genotype.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Yes. One particular Zulu may be closer to a Boer but by no means will the Zulu population be close to the population of the Netherlands.
Per Diop (1981/1991) p36 predominantly the former are Sutter and the latter are Kel by hemotypological data.
At the least he trusted those biological markers.
And you're absolutely right.
He doesn't use mb himself (I didn't check in Great African Thinkers 1986). He went by what the eye can see. Even his science of counting melanin granules is an extension of visual impression quantified.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Cheikh Anta Diop:
If we speak only of the genotype, I can find a black who, at the level of his chromosomes, is closer to a Swede than Peter Botha is. But what counts in reality is the phenotype. It is the physical appearance which counts. This black, even if on the level of his cells he is closer than Peter Botha, when he is in South Africa he will live in Soweto. Throughout history, it has always been the phenotype which has been at issue; we mustn’t lose sight of this fact. The phenotype is a reality, physical appearance is a reality.
Mr. Diop, I know this is 2018 and you haven't been on the scene for about 30 years but now that your back are you sure you can find a black person who, is closer to a Swede than Peter Botha? Peter Botha was of Dutch extraction and the highest YDNA frequency there is R-M269. The highest frequency YDNA for Swedes is haplogroup I1, that is believed to have originated in Northern Europe. The ancestor is I-M170. That's big in Norway, the Caucases, Croatia. It's one of the most European haplogroups. The Dutch, your Peter Botha types are also heavy with the Hap I . That haplogroup is virtually unknown in indigenous Africans.
Your example is not working for me. I'm trying to think of a different example that would fit your intent but it's not that easy.
Genetics in a historical context often leads us in more of a geographically oriented outcome as per a person's ancestors than strictly a phenotypical profile.
Look at how many people are getting their DNA tested these days. There is probably going to be more emphasis on that even on the layman's social level than we are seeing now. We watch youtube videos now where people get excited about there DNA test results and their complexities rather than just going by these simplistic color based racial categories "black" or "white".
And there is going to be more and more improved transportation therefore more so called "mixing" going on and these "do you consider yourself black or white" type of questions will become increasing over-simplified socially.
You say physical appearance is a reality but so what? It's a reality as to how people are socially categorized but it doesn't mean biologists have to classify people according to social conventions and ignore DNA. It's better in my opinion that an effort is made to keep racial politics out of bio-anthropological analysis.
And even more so when we take into account that form an historical perspective the social conventions as per categorizing people ethnically were different and always highly subjective
Posted by Oshun (Member # 19740) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Mr. Diop, I know this is 2018 and you haven't been on the scene for about 30 years but now that your back are you sure you can find a black person who, is closer to a Swede than Peter Botha? Peter Botha was of Dutch extraction and the highest YDNA frequency there is R-M269. The highest frequency YDNA for Swedes is haplogroup I1, that is believed to have originated in Northern Europe. The ancestor is I-M170. That's big in Norway, the Caucases, Croatia. It's one of the most European haplogroups. The Dutch, your Peter Botha types are also heavy with the Hap I . That haplogroup is virtually unknown in indigenous Africans.
I think you're taking what he says way too literally. What he means is that people can be more closely related genetically, to people of other races and that genetics and race aren't the same thing. Weren't the Egyptian samples peppered with haplogroup I? Even if they were northern Egyptians that had faced Levanite immigration, the mainstream media releases are implying the data is representative of all of Egypt by excluding needed qualifiers to describe the results. So if we're to assume this data is representative of the south, how does that compare against the morphological data that shows physical features that many associate with "blackness." The situation is either: The southern Egyptians are genetically akin to (some) other Africans and are morphologically "black" or they're exactly what Diop is saying in this situation. Same with say an Adamanese. An Adamanese is going to be seen as black by people who see them. That doesn't mean they're closely related to African blacks.
quote: Genetics in a historical context often leads us in more of a geographically oriented outcome as per a person's ancestors than strictly a phenotypical profile.
But identifying with sex, ancestry, race, is all subjective in it's importance. All can be argued to have a history too. What I mean by that is that people with the same haplogroups have a history and people with certain features have a history. Both groups have had people who preceded them that'd fit under the same category of similar genes and features that did stuff.
quote:Look at how many people are getting their DNA tested these days. There is probably going to be more emphasis on that even on the layman's social level than we are seeing now.
True but people don't need a DNA test to tell them what race they are, so why would it make them excited? They can personally experience treatment based on their appearance for that. He's not denying anyone the right to find out other aspects of human beings. So I really don't know what's with the false dichotomy. You don't have to look at morphological data and say that because you know someone's race, knowing other parts of who they are physically is not relevant.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: We watch youtube videos now where people get excited about there DNA test results and their complexities rather than just going by these simplistic color based racial categories "black" or "white".
Well yes, because most people learn their race early in life. That's not going to be "new" for individuals, but it can be new when it comes to discussing ancient people who we never got the chance to meet.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: And there is going to be more and more improved transportation therefore more so called "mixing" going on and these "do you consider yourself black or white" type of questions will become increasing over-simplified socially.
When women were being called witches because their eyes turned red, scientists showed and explained to people that it was because of how people cooked in their houses which changed the color, not demonic possession. A scientist interested in historical accuracy of the behavior and achievements of people with a certain morphological types, which is at the foundation of anti black discrimination is not "wrong." Anyone else putting together data on race is not wrong either, simply because we may one day get over race. Why don't you complain about how useless a review of race is when people put together data on unarmed black shootings, educational outcomes,health etc? After all you're saying soon there will be so much mixing no one will care. But while everyone's waiting for your racial utopia, what do human beings do in the meantime? Accept foul treatment on historical falsehood because someday maybe people will stop believing in it? And whose going to take the first step in showing it's false using science if they're heckled at every turn with this "soon it'll be over anyway" talk. If a scientist wants to tackle that, then there's nothing wrong with that. Diop is not demanding for every scientist to drop what they're doing to focus on race.
quote: You say physical appearance is a reality but so what? It's a reality as to how people are socially categorized but it doesn't mean biologists have to classify people according to social conventions and ignore DNA. It's better in my opinion that an effort is made to keep racial politics out of bio-anthropological analysis.
There you go again: Diop's NOT telling anyone they cannot classify people some other way. You can be a woman, black, etc at the same time. What he's talking about is DNA being used to determine race. DNA being used to understand humanity outside of racial categorization is fine, using DNA to try to prove races against morphological data is not. The only reason why we're even seeing genetic data in race debates is because racists want to hold onto blacks being defective genetically, since their religious appeals harbor no interest to the public anymore.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Oshun, in every comment you've made above you have failed to realize that most posters in Egyptology do not even believe in race
Posted by Oshun (Member # 19740) on :
Diop wasn't talking race as a biological construct, just that people can review the morphology of ancient humans to make social (racial) determinations the way they do with today's people. I'm talking about what the man said and the validity of his statements. I couldn't care less whether or not most posters agree. Most mainstream scientists don't believe in race as a valid biological construct but it is a very real social construct. What you are saying is that when racists say that people with certain morphologies haven't done anything besides be slaves and eat each other, science is incapable of determining whether or not that's true. I don't agree with that. Science is very capable of answering that question.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: Most mainstream scientists don't believe in race as a valid biological construct but it is a very real social construct.
Social constructs are not real
If a group of people say someone is a possessed by the devil and they attack the person it's a social construct but it isn't real.
Something isn't real because a group of people say it is and take action
Posted by Oshun (Member # 19740) on :
No one was saying social constructs are real biological constructs. Otherwise we'd call them biological constructs, not social constructs. However social constructs often rest on beliefs about the tangible environment and there are many ways scientists can test those belief systems. Science can test the validity of the beliefs we hold about nature of mankind that shapes the way our society moves.
If a scientist can prove that a woman who has red eyes from cooking in her home all day is not demonically possessed through showing how the eyes change color because of how she cooks, why not use science to demonstrate this, rather than say "oh well social constructs aren't real" while she endures hell being branded a witch? While it's not always possible for belief systems to face scientific scrutiny, some can be tested. Creating socoieconomic systems that are partial against people with certain features because of the belief they cannot create a civilization CAN be studied. You CAN review remains of ancient people, you CAN find people who had black features creating civilizations, you CAN prove false the assumption that certain features mean you cannot achieve civilization. I don't see anything wrong with Diop being interested in doing so, he's not trying to force other people to do it.
Posted by Snakepit1 (Member # 21736) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: Most mainstream scientists don't believe in race as a valid biological construct but it is a very real social construct.
Social constructs are not real
If a group of people say someone is a possessed by the devil and they attack the person it's a social construct but it isn't real.
Something isn't real because a group of people say it is and take action
Social constructs are real for all intents & purposes. Thinking otherwise makes you look as if you're living in a playworld of your own construction.
Posted by JMT2 (Member # 16951) on :
quote:Originally posted by Frankly Kemet:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: No one has illustrated his work is outdated. And his linguistic studies have stood the test of time. Cite the papers where his work has been disputed with actual counter evidence.
Wikipedia provides several scholarly sources.
You know damn well any moron can edit or delete content on Wkipedia. Saying wiki provides sources doesn’t annswr the question.
Posted by JMT2 (Member # 16951) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tyrannohotep: I don't agree with many of Diop's ideas (like others said, he is outdated), but I respect him for stimulating greater academic interest in Egypt's African heritage and connections from an Afrocentric perspective. Of course, the whole conversation predates him by over two centuries, but you could say he reawakened it. The same for Martin Bernal and maybe van Sertima (although the latter is better known for his claims about African ties with the Olmecs). If nothing else, these individuals have been good at grabbing both academic and public attention and directing them to our point of view. But yes, one can't limit their reading to these few authors.
Who are you and what scholarly publications have you produced to counter Dr. Diop?
Admin:
Take this somewhere else... Offer a civil/rational counter instead of lame ad hominem. Or take this somewhere else. First warning.
[ 01. March 2018, 11:49 PM: Message edited by: Elite Diasporan ]
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by JMT2:
quote:Originally posted by Frankly Kemet:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: No one has illustrated his work is outdated. And his linguistic studies have stood the test of time. Cite the papers where his work has been disputed with actual counter evidence.
Wikipedia provides several scholarly sources.
You know damn well any moron can edit or delete content on Wkipedia. Saying wiki provides sources doesn’t annswr the question.
This is a valid point. Plus, most Americans can not read French so they have not read his major works on the relationship between Wolof and ancient Egyptian. These works confirms his linguistic theories.
Posted by Frankly Kemet (Member # 22882) on :
I thought most people were familiar with wikipedia. The citations are furnished on the reference page and easily can be verified. There should be no reason to call into question a wikipedia entry when sources are provided that bolster it. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, fyi, just like an Encyclopedia.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:Originally posted by JMT2:
quote:Originally posted by Frankly Kemet:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: No one has illustrated his work is outdated. And his linguistic studies have stood the test of time. Cite the papers where his work has been disputed with actual counter evidence.
Wikipedia provides several scholarly sources.
You know damn well any moron can edit or delete content on Wkipedia. Saying wiki provides sources doesn’t annswr the question.
This is a valid point. Plus, most Americans can not read French so they have not read his major works on the relationship between Wolof and ancient Egyptian. These works confirms his linguistic theories.
Posted by Oshun (Member # 19740) on :
Wiki editors don't always accurately describe what authors say, though they cite them. ES has come across that problem many times in AE related wiki pages. So please post the references and if possible a direct quote of the disputes from scholars that shows what supports their disagreements.
Posted by Frankly Kemet (Member # 22882) on :
The purpose of citations is for verification. If one is reading a secondary or tertiary source document without verifying its original source then that person deserves to be misled. When I consult Wikipedia, I read the entry then hit those references.
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: Wiki editors don't always accurately describe what authors say, though they cite them. ES has come across that problem many times in AE related wiki pages. So please post the references and if possible a direct quote of the disputes from scholars that shows what supports their disagreements.
Posted by Oshun (Member # 19740) on :
Meaning that sources that haven't been verified are suspicious until verified and if they cannot be verified shouldn't be believed. Why do you believe in a wiki article, yet you cannot when asked demonstrate you've verified anything? Put shortly you probably have no sources you've verified but believe the article and are requesting for people to believe in alleged counters to Diop. I'm sure that's going to end well.
Posted by tropicals redacted (Member # 21621) on :
I’ve heard academics say they tell their students not to use Wikipedia as a source.
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
quote:Originally posted by tropicals redacted: I’ve heard academics say they tell their students not to use Wikipedia as a source.
Yes, that's the quickest way to get an F. Or at minimum a letter grade knocked down cuz you have to rewrite your paper.
...anyways let's try to get back on topic.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by tropicals redacted: From Christina Riggs's "Unwrapping Ancient Egypt" (2014):
“Afrocentrism and mainstream Egyptology rarely meet and when they do, tensions can flare. I once spoke to a group of students, alumni, and community members at Manchester Metropolitan University [England], many of whom self-described as Afrocentrists. I was surprised at first to be heckled by the audience, but over the course of the discussion after my talk, it transpired that this was not because of anything I had said, but instead due to long-festering anger with the museum where I then worked. According to some of the audience members, a previous curator had also addressed the group, and, they said, described Diop’s work as “no better than pornography”” (p162).
You can disagree with Diop, but that sort of open contempt is unhinged. However, not that surprised.
Diop is no longer amongst us to defend himself. And on that note, I might add; this happened with a lot of black scholars. Being attacked after they passed away.
This is all lovely, but objects do not have gender in English. One of first things I teach students @ART_UEA, to get them thinking more analytically about art and it’s many roles.
A wonderful piece in @EgyptianMuseumC. Here she is when discovered by @TheEES at #Amarna in 1933 with her find card, and a shot of John Pendlebury with a replica during our annual exhibition later that year. #Nefertiti #Egypt #Archaeology #Archives
Speaking of porn oozing graphics. It’s all about perspective people.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Akachi: In the mid 90's Keita published a piece defending Diop's work.
About 2 years ago I explained to you that this generation can’t keep thriving on old work like that, going back 40 years. It has to be kept updated with new findings based on validated science.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Cheikh Anta Diop:
If we speak only of the genotype, I can find a black who, at the level of his chromosomes, is closer to a Swede than Peter Botha is. But what counts in reality is the phenotype. It is the physical appearance which counts. This black, even if on the level of his cells he is closer than Peter Botha, when he is in South Africa he will live in Soweto. Throughout history, it has always been the phenotype which has been at issue; we mustn’t lose sight of this fact. The phenotype is a reality, physical appearance is a reality.
Mr. Diop, I know this is 2018 and you haven't been on the scene for about 30 years but now that your back are you sure you can find a black person who, is closer to a Swede than Peter Botha? Peter Botha was of Dutch extraction and the highest YDNA frequency there is R-M269. The highest frequency YDNA for Swedes is haplogroup I1, that is believed to have originated in Northern Europe. The ancestor is I-M170. That's big in Norway, the Caucases, Croatia. It's one of the most European haplogroups. The Dutch, your Peter Botha types are also heavy with the Hap I . That haplogroup is virtually unknown in indigenous Africans.
Your example is not working for me. I'm trying to think of a different example that would fit your intent but it's not that easy.
Genetics in a historical context often leads us in more of a geographically oriented outcome as per a person's ancestors than strictly a phenotypical profile.
Look at how many people are getting their DNA tested these days. There is probably going to be more emphasis on that even on the layman's social level than we are seeing now. We watch youtube videos now where people get excited about there DNA test results and their complexities rather than just going by these simplistic color based racial categories "black" or "white".
And there is going to be more and more improved transportation therefore more so called "mixing" going on and these "do you consider yourself black or white" type of questions will become increasing over-simplified socially.
You say physical appearance is a reality but so what? It's a reality as to how people are socially categorized but it doesn't mean biologists have to classify people according to social conventions and ignore DNA. It's better in my opinion that an effort is made to keep racial politics out of bio-anthropological analysis.
And even more so when we take into account that form an historical perspective the social conventions as per categorizing people ethnically were different and always highly subjective
This is typically to be expected from you.
While you make fun, from a metaphysical point of view you will get answered. And it will be harsh. You are still a intellectual midget, till this day compared to Sheikh Anta Diop.
“It's better in my opinion that an effort is made to keep racial politics out of bio-anthropological analysis.”.
You must be kidding.
quote:These important differences have lead some, such as James Watson (1996), codiscoverer of the structure of DNA, to endorse eugenics, when free of bias and of state compulsion.
—Thomas C. Leonard
Retrospectives Eugenics and Economics in the Progressive Era
Journal of Economic Perspectives—Volume 19, Number 4—Fall 2005—Pages 207–224
Note: Watson, James D. 1996. “President’s Essay.” Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. Annual Report, pp. 1–20.
Your stupidity as no beginning and no ending, it’s just a endless cycle.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Let us no when you formulate an argument as opposed to blowing wind
Posted by Thereal (Member # 22452) on :
I don't see why wiki can't be used if one of the benefits about the internet is condensed and easy access to information, what's a bit disturbing is how a group can control information especially with regards to other groups in their country or the general population so if information is built upon but its built upon distortion and lies then how do you get accurate understanding of stuff if you can be penalized for telling the truth or destroyed for questioning "authority".
Posted by Oshun (Member # 19740) on :
Wiki can be used but the idea is you go there, verify things it says and share the verified information. It should direct you to legitimate sources. If you can't verify, there's no evidence the source is really saying what wiki is saying it is.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: [QB] Wiki editors don't always accurately describe what authors say, though they cite them.
Let's see one example on a wikipedia page
Posted by Oshun (Member # 19740) on :
Let's see one example on a wikipedia page not a link to a topic on Egyptsearch
Posted by Oshun (Member # 19740) on :
The topic goes into specific instances.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: The topic goes into specific instances.
Let's see one example on a wikipedia page not a link to a topic on Egyptsearch
Posted by Oshun (Member # 19740) on :
This sounds so odd coming from "you" because "you" were in the thread. I guess there really is more than one of you on that account. Well its not unheard of . From the link:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: This is what wikipedia said:
[4] Frank Yurco, chapter from Black Athena Revisited. Press, 1996. pp. 62–100
______________________________
this is what Yurco said
^^^^ Here is the key Yurco statement:
"...a homogeneous African population had lived in the Nile Valley from ancient to modern times"
the key wiki statement:
"Recent DNA studies have indicated that ancient Egyptians had an approximate 90% genetic commonality with modern Egyptians, which would make the current population largely representative of the ancient inhabitants[4]"
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Let's look at the full lioness quote which was actually a criticism of you in that thread not wikipedia, your old remark at near the bottom
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: This is what wikipedia said:
[4] Frank Yurco, chapter from Black Athena Revisited. Press, 1996. pp. 62–100
______________________________
this is what Yurco said
^^^^ Here is the key Yurco statement:
"...a homogeneous African population had lived in the Nile Valley from ancient to modern times"
the key wiki statement:
"Recent DNA studies have indicated that ancient Egyptians had an approximate 90% genetic commonality with modern Egyptians, which would make the current population largely representative of the ancient inhabitants[4]"
Oshun interprets the wikipedia as saying:
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: Browsin through Wikipedia and its sayin Yurco said somewhere between pages 62-100 that DNA studies prove modern Egyptians are 90% the same as AE and that inflow from Turks, Greeks and other groups only changed the genetic composition of Egyptians by 10%. Is there any literature on this? Wikipedia cites Black Athena revisited so I cant really tell if he said it or not..
Wikipedia says nothing about Turks and Greeks. Although Turks and Greeks had taken over Egypt Oshun has not provided evidence that modern Egypt therefore has large percentages of people with Turkish or Greek ancestry
So what we see here is consistency between the wikipedia and the reference but you inserting " Turks and Greeks"
So no, this is not an example of a wikipedia problem with being inconsistent with the reference , wikipedia said 90% indigenous and Yurco said "some foreign admixture but basically a homogeneous African population had lived in the Nile Valley from ancient to modern times". That means the same thing
Once again you have no URL Link example to a wikipedia page in 2018 in which they are misrepresenting a reference, the above wiki quote doesn't even exist anymore
Posted by Oshun (Member # 19740) on :
Wow are you for real? I removed it because your counter was complaining over something irrelevant. Whether Turks and Greeks taking over Egypt had any significant impact to Egypt (genetically), that has nothing to with the wiki claiming Yurco insisted genetic continuity at a rate of 90% but as you pointed out, there's no evidence of him using such numbers. Now that you've put your foot in your mouth, you're trying to backtrack. Whether the page in that form still exists or not is irrelevant. There is a historical precedent on Egypt related wiki pages for summaries on the posted sources to be flat out wrong. Many ES posters have had enough drama with wiki on this and other related issue. So you guys either WILL post verified counters to Diop or you WILL be ignored. You can be mad and complain all you want, but no one's going to listen here.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: Wow are you for real? I removed it because your counter was complaining over something irrelevant. Whether Turks and Greeks taking over Egypt had any significant impact to Egypt (genetically), that has nothing to with the wiki claiming Yurco insisted genetic continuity at a rate of 90% but as you pointed out, there's no evidence of him using such numbers. Now that you've put your foot in your mouth, you're trying to backtrack. Whether the page in that form still exists or not is irrelevant. There is a historical precedent on Egypt related wiki pages for summaries on the posted sources to be flat out wrong. Many ES posters have had enough drama with wiki on this and other related issue. So you guys either WILL post verified counters to Diop or you WILL be ignored. You can be mad and complain all you want, but no one's going to listen here.
quote: "Recent DNA studies have indicated that ancient Egyptians had an approximate 90% genetic commonality with modern Egyptians, which would make the current population largely representative of the ancient inhabitants[4]"
There are two statements here
Recent DNA studies have indicated that ancient Egyptians had an approximate 90% genetic commonality with modern Egyptians,
notice the comma at the end ^^^
and
which would make the current population largely representative of the ancient inhabitants[4]
^^ the reference applies to the second part of the sentence which is consistent with: "some foreign admixture but basically a homogeneous African population had lived in the Nile Valley from ancient to modern times".
However you are right if you were to say it's bad form according to APA guidelines but my dude, you misrepresented yourself by adding in Turks, did the same thing
quote: When you summarize or paraphrase someone else's information in several sentences or more, it feels awkward to put in a citation at the end of each sentence you write. It is also awkward to read! However, technically, APA demands that your reader knows exactly what information you got from someone else and when you start using it. Thus, an end-of-paragraph citation does not meet that requirement.
APA Style is a writing style and format for academic documents such as scholarly journal articles and books, and is commonly used for citing sources within the field of social sciences. It is described in the style guide of the American Psychological Association (APA), which is titled the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association. The guidelines were developed to aid reading comprehension in the social and behavioral sciences, for clarity of communication, and for "word choice that best reduces bias in language".[1][2]
APA style is widely used, either entirely or with modifications, by hundreds of other scientific journals (including medical and other public health journals), in many textbooks, and in academia (for papers written in classes). Along with AMA Style and CSE Style, it is one of the major styles for such work.
more here about APA following and non-APA following examples of references:
The part about DNA studies have indicated that ancient Egyptians had an approximate 90% genetic commonality with modern Egyptians is not sourced, thanks to the old me for reading that chapter and not seeing that alleged 90% DNA study. Another bad thing about that reference is that there were too many pages cited "62-100"
The thing about a regular encyclopedia is that if they say something wrong what can you do?
With wikipedia there are a lot of people watching. So if you say something wrong or unsupported people get alerted to it and they can delete it and say it's unsupported This case is an example
However on wikipedia what can happen is that people can have battles about what they think is proper and they keep changing the entry back and forth. It can be endless until an arbitration comes in and in some cases they even lock the page so you can't change it again.
When you Google the question "How accurate is Wikipedia?" the highest-ranking result is, as you might expect, a Wikipedia article on the topic ("Reliability of Wikipedia").
That page contains a comprehensive list of studies undertaken to assess the accuracy of the crowd-sourced encyclopedia since its founding 10 years ago. Of course, if you find yourself on this page, you might worry that the list itself may not be trustworthy. Well, the good news is that almost all those studies tell us that it probably is.
In 2005, the peer-reviewed journal Nature asked scientists to compare Wikipedia's scientific articles to those in Encyclopaedia Britannica—"the most scholarly of encyclopedias," according to its own Wiki page. The comparison resulted in a tie; both references contained four serious errors among the 42 articles analyzed by experts.
And last year, a study published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology found that Wikipedia had the same level of accuracy and depth in its articles about 10 types of cancer as the Physician Data Query, a professionally edited database maintained by the National Cancer Institute.
The self-described "free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" has fared similarly well in most other studies comparing its accuracy to conventional encyclopedias, including studies by The Guardian, PC Pro, Library Journal, the Canadian Library Association, and several peer-reviewed academic studies.
Still, because anyone can edit Wikipedia entries, they "can easily be undermined through malice or ignorance," noted BBC technology commentator Bill Thompson. Vandalism of Wiki entries is common in the realm of politics. In 2006, for example, slanderous comments were added to U.S. Sen. Bill Frist's biography page; the IP addresses of the computers used to make the edits traced back to some of his political rivals' staffers. To counter such activity, Wikipedia places editing restrictions on articles that are prone to vandalism.
A Small Study of Our Own
To add to the debate, Life's Little Mysteries carried out its own, albeit small, test of Wikipedia's accuracy by consulting experts from two very different walks of life: theoretical physics and pop music.
Life's Little Mysteries asked Adam Riess, professor of astronomy and physics at Johns Hopkins University and one of the scientists credited with proposing the existence of dark energy , to rate Wikipedia's "dark energy" entry.
This is not true, however, of the page about the indie pop band "Passion Pit," according to its drummer, Nate Donmoyer. Donmoyer found 10 factual errors on his band's page ranging from subtle to significant. Some information even appeared to have been added to the page by companies or organizations in search of publicity.
"It's kind of crazy," Donmoyer told LLM. "I don't think I can trust Wikipedia again. The littlest white lies can throw its whole validity off."
It may make sense that Wikipedia would have more reliable articles about academic topics than pop culture ones, considering that the latter are more prone to rumors and hearsay. On the other hand, there's no Passion Pit entry at all in Encyclopaedia Britannica. With more than three million English-language entries, Wikipedia very often wins our preference by default.
Posted by Oshun (Member # 19740) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote: "Recent DNA studies have indicated that ancient Egyptians had an approximate 90% genetic commonality with modern Egyptians, which would make the current population largely representative of the ancient inhabitants[4]"
There are two statements here
Recent DNA studies have indicated that ancient Egyptians had an approximate 90% genetic commonality with modern Egyptians,
notice the comma at the end ^^^
and
which would make the current population largely representative of the ancient inhabitants[4]
Guess you missed the word "which." Meaning that the conclusion of modern Egyptians being representative was based on the initial claim Yurco found 90 percent continuity. "Which" means that the latter claim is dependent on the former.
quote:With wikipedia there are a lot of people watching. So if you say something wrong or unsupported people get alerted to it and they can delete it and say it's unsupported This case is an example
And thats's okay if that's what you wanna do, but you still can't go to your professor and throw wikipedia as a source (unless you want an F, then go ahead). You can vet sources on wikipedia, give that to your professor and that works. This is what you're being asked to do.
Wikipedia is a place you go to when you're willing to vet sources. You guys haven't vetted any sources and then demand that the people in the negative position go do it for you. No. No way. Not doing that. The person making the claim should have the verified research that backs it up. We shouldn't have to get up and do that for you. I'm not going through a bunch of sources on a site that has a precedent for putting out faulty information to screen every last one of the sources that's attempting to prove a point that isn't even mine. You wanna go find sources on wiki that go in on Diop do it yourselves. All that text and reading you pumped out here about wiki, you could've spent to verify something they said about Diop by now. I guess you haven't a single verified source and how long has it been already? I mean if you had some, all this back and fourth to defend not doing so would be a great waste of time. If you can't be bothered to verify your own points on wiki then this isn't a discussion worth having.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by Akachi: In the mid 90's Keita published a piece defending Diop's work.
About 2 years ago I explained to you that this generation can’t keep thriving on old work like that, going back 40 years. It has to be kept updated with new findings based on validated science.
Amazing! Every other people on Earth thrive by building on the foundation of earlier generations but we're supposed to throw the man who academically restored Egypt to Black (not Saharan) Africa under the bus in favor of the latest European, Asian, and Arab works we must use in lieu of near non-existant current African works.
Grounding in Diop keeps ancient Egypt's peopling and culture what it actually was, a Sudanese transplant rooted in Early Khartoum cultural industry budding in pre-dynastic Naqada I with nothing but mid to lower Nile Valley people and culture in between.
Not that you don't know this but others need to realize Bir Kiseiba and Nabta Playa aren't way out in the middle of the Sahara somewhere. Bir Kiseiba and Nabta Playa are a mere 62 miles west of Abu Simbel. Bir Kiseiba and Nabta Playa are much closer to the river than Farafra, Bahariya, Dakhla, or Kharga though some speak of it like it's Sahara. Siwa's 348 miles away.
With background from African Origin chapts 4 & 8 I can see through any sideways tries at making anybodies from the west culture bearers to Neolithic - pre-Dynastic Egypt. Without I might of succumbed to the okeydoke.
Groundation effects perspective. Perspective is everything.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Let us no when you formulate an argument as opposed to blowing wind
The only blowing wind you get is a fart in your face, right there where it belongs. That wind was in the form of the post prior, which you rather ignore than confront. The harsh reality of exposing white supremacy. When you can't win a debate with a proper argument, you always go into childish mode, nothing new here.
In your view there is no prejudice in genetics? Although you have very basic understanding of the topic as a whole.
"The scientist is crying poverty and selling his Nobel prize medal, but why should anyone be interested in his racist, sexist views?"
Let us no when you stop farthing
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Let us no when you stop farthing
It's an endless fart, because that is what you deserve, you know you're special. So, there is no "us" post, it's just for you and you only.
"James Watson and eugenics"
Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory issued a statement from its board of trustees that addressed remarks by James Watson that were reported in The Sunday Times U.K. in which he claims that blacks are inferior in intelligence to whites: The statement reads, in part:…
The problem is that we're not genetically equal, and that mutation is an, been an essential feature of life because it gives you the new variability which allows you to evolve. So we're constantly creating new forms of humans, many of whom just because it's by chance it's creating it, there's no design, these humans have no chance of really competing with most other humans. So what do you do with the unfit? You can give them charity, you can try and cure their diseases, there are a variety of things you can do, or Hitler's solution was just kill them. But of course it wouldn't have created the perfect race because a new unfit would have been created. And so it's a constant problem that we have to deal with.
It's amusing to see how you want to detach one but not the other, with that blithered post.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Recent DNA studies have indicated that ancient Egyptians had an approximate 90% genetic commonality with modern Egyptians,
Recent studies indicate they applied filters to take out DNA remains. Recent studies also never showed these remains to the public.
There has to be something dramatically off with those recent "studies".
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.
It is highly amusing to see how you always try to twist the narrative.
So, we have data telling us the South was most populated, yet a "genetic paper", from a place which has been invaded time after time. What kind of logic is that? Is the white population in America now all of a sudden the foundation of ancient Mesoamerica as well?
According to physical anthology these can't be discriminated. And this is by multiple studies.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: [qb] Let us no when you stop farthing
It's an endless fart,
we know
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] Let us no when you stop farthing
It's an endless fart,
we know
Good, love it and accept it. You must have a split personalty, with that "WE" appliance. Mentally ill?
Now the funny part is that in the South it was most populated, yet you and your ilk try to convince the world that people from the South weren't the people who live there now. Even though physical anthropology tells us they do. But magically 1200 years ago, all of sudden all over Northeast Africa this "sub Saharan" spread came into the region of Northeast Africa "as slaves".
quote:"It is nonetheless probable that settlements were far more dispersed than they were in Upper Egypt, that overall population density was significantly lower, and that the northernmost one-third of the Delta was ALMOST UNDERPOPULATED in Old Kingdom times. In effect , a considerable body of information can be marshalled to show that the Delta was UNDERDEVELOPED and that internal colonization continued for some three millennia, until the late Ptolemaic era."
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)
And also culture patterns were exported from the far South, upstream the Nile. But magically there was supposedly no indigenous people in the South in that region. According to that "recent study".
quote:"The elaborate process of burial, which would become profoundly important in pharaonic society for 3,000 years, is much more pronounced in the Neolithic Badarian culture of Middle Egypt than in the earlier Saharan Neolithic or the Neolithic in northern Egypt.
[…]
Cultural differences went well beyond pottery types, however: the Naqada burials may symbolize increasing social complexity through time as the graves became more differentiated, in size and numbers of grave goods, whereas at Buto-Ma’adi sites burials are of a fairly simple type and seem to have had much less socio-cultural significance.
Occupation at Ma’adi came to an end in the later 4th millennium bc (equivalent to the Naqada IIc phase), when the site was abandoned. At Buto, the stratigraphic evidence suggests the assimilation of the Lower Egyptian Predynastic Buto-Ma’adi culture in Layer III, and the continuation into Dynastic times of a material culture that had its roots in the Predynastic Naqada culture of Upper Egypt."
[…]
What may be seen at the Badarian sites is the earliest evidence in Egypt of pronounced ceremonialism surrounding burials, which become much more elaborate in the 4thmillennium bc Naqada culture. Brunton excavated about 750 Badarian burials, most of which were contracted ones in shallow oval pits. Most burials were placed on the left side, facing west with the head to the south. This later became the standard orientation of Naqada culture burials. Although the Badarian burials had few grave goods, there was usually one pot in a grave. Some burials also had jewelry, made of beads of seashell, stone, bone, and ivory. A few burials contained stone cosmetic palettes orchert tools.
[...]
Burials such as the Badarian ones represent the material expression of important beliefs and practices in a society concerning the transition from life to death (see Box 5-B).
Burial evidence may symbolize roles and social status of the dead and commemoration of this by the living, expressions of grief by the living, and possibly also concepts of an afterlife.
--Kathryn A. Bard - (2015) An Introduction to the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt
See, my hobby is to ridicule you.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
wake up fool this is the Diop thread I didn't say anything about South Egypt, you are talking to yourself
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler:
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by Akachi: In the mid 90's Keita published a piece defending Diop's work.
About 2 years ago I explained to you that this generation can’t keep thriving on old work like that, going back 40 years. It has to be kept updated with new findings based on validated science.
Amazing! Every other people on Earth thrive by building on the foundation of earlier generations but we're supposed to throw the man who academically restored Egypt to Black (not Saharan) Africa under the bus in favor of the latest European, Asian, and Arab works we must use in lieu of near non-existant current African works.
Grounding in Diop keeps ancient Egypt's peopling and culture what it actually was, a Sudanese transplant rooted in Early Khartoum cultural industry budding in pre-dynastic Naqada I with nothing but mid to lower Nile Valley people and culture in between.
Not that you don't know this but others need to realize Bir Kiseiba and Nabta Playa aren't way out in the middle of the Sahara somewhere. Bir Kiseiba and Nabta Playa are a mere 62 miles west of Abu Simbel. Bir Kiseiba and Nabta Playa are much closer to the river than Farafra, Bahariya, Dakhla, or Kharga though some speak of it like it's Sahara. Siwa's 348 miles away.
With background from African Origin chapts 4 & 8 I can see through any sideways tries at making anybodies from the west culture bearers to Neolithic - pre-Dynastic Egypt. Without I might of succumbed to the okeydoke.
Groundation effects perspective. Perspective is everything.
Of course nothing is thrown under the bus when we keep updating his foundation with new findings. In fact he is being thrown under the bus when we don't update and expand on his works with new findings to validate his works. Technology has changed and will keep changing. Anta Diop used to lead, now we follow?
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: wake up fool this is the Diop thread I didn't say anything about South Egypt, you are talking to yourself
This post proves that your comprehension skill is very low, because what I posted completely debunks what is being claimed by you and Christina Riggs. Yet I am the fool?
You and your false narratives. Of course you didn't say anything about the South, because it completely tackles you and Christina Riggs.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Again you are talking to your imaginary friends again. I have not mentioned Christina Riggs. You have severe reading comprehension issues. I said on page 1 >
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: I don't think it's fair to call Diop's work "crankish" . He was pointing out undermined African roots in Egypt and used a lot of references.
I also put up a large quote on Diop's academic credentials.
So go back to playing hopscotch with cass aliases.
You are doubly lacking in reading comprehension skills because Christina Riggs was not quoted as to her opinion she was quoted exposing a curator previous to her who made a vulgar remark which like the "crankish" accusation I do not agree with.
Apart for that quote I don't know anything about Christina Riggs.
Is it possible to respect Diop and not agree with everything he said? yes ,
quote:Originally posted by Tyrannohotep: I don't agree with many of Diop's ideas (like others said, he is outdated), but I respect him for stimulating greater academic interest in Egypt's African heritage and connections from an Afrocentric perspective.
^ this is my point of view take note of it
look elsewhere for a scapegoat
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Again you are talking to your imaginary friends again. I have not mentioned Christina Riggs. You have severe reading comprehension issues. I said on page 1 >
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: I don't think it's fair to call Diop's work "crankish" . He was pointing out undermined African roots in Egypt and used a lot of references.
I also put up a large quote on Diop's academic credentials.
So go back to playing hopscotch with cass aliases.
You are doubly lacking in reading comprehension skills because Christina Riggs was not quoted as to her opinion she was quoted exposing a curator previous to her who made a vulgar remark which like the "crankish" accusation I do not agree with.
Apart for that quote I don't know anything about Christina Riggs.
Is it possible to respect Diop and not agree with everything he said? yes ,
quote:Originally posted by Tyrannohotep: I don't agree with many of Diop's ideas (like others said, he is outdated), but I respect him for stimulating greater academic interest in Egypt's African heritage and connections from an Afrocentric perspective.
^ this is my point of view take note of it
look elsewhere for a scapegoat
Nowhere did I say you mentioned Christina Riggs, what I said is that you vented on Sheik Anta Diop as Christina Riggs did. Every time you’re failing more and more. You are make the scapegoat yourself. There is no need for me to do that.
quote:Mr. Diop, I know this is 2018 and you haven't been on the scene for about 30 years but now that your back are you sure you can find a black person who, is closer to a Swede than Peter Botha? [...]
“Ancient Egyptians, if they had been alive in say the 1950s American south would not have been allowed to sit at the front of a bus and it’s a big problem I think if we don’t start to have more intelligent conversations about the kinds of racial bias that gets built into thinking about different ancient cultures, having this 'us and them' mentality. Again in the 19th century a lot of that was a way of trying to claim ancient Egypt for Europe, while presenting modern Egypt as this really backwards place, you know, "they couldn’t possibly govern themselves". And that’s a real problem I think still today in the way that we think about Egypt, and the relationship between ancient and modern Egypt."
quote:Originally posted by tropicals redacted: Just to note, Christina Riggs has said:
“Ancient Egyptians, if they had been alive in say the 1950s American south would not have been allowed to sit at the front of a bus and it’s a big problem I think if we don’t start to have more intelligent conversations about the kinds of racial bias that gets built into thinking about different ancient cultures, having this 'us and them' mentality. Again in the 19th century a lot of that was a way of trying to claim ancient Egypt for Europe, while presenting modern Egypt as this really backwards place, you know, "they couldn’t possibly govern themselves". And that’s a real problem I think still today in the way that we think about Egypt, and the relationship between ancient and modern Egypt."
Once people start to realize that a 4000 thousand year old culture, without counting in the proto-history, is one if not the longest standing ones. We can get into a more realistic and objective discussion. And I have nothing against what she stated here, it’s more on how she approached her disagreement with the long gone and well respected Sheik Anta Diop.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Ish Gebore, busted
Ish, why have you gone back to the old knee-jerk emotional style Ish Gebor? I liked the more recent Ish Gebor. You seem to have gone backwards
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Ish Gebore, busted
Ish, why have you gone back to the old knee-jerk emotional style Ish Gebor? I liked the more recent Ish Gebor. You seem to have gone backwards
Lionass, I am not emotional I am rational, and the only thing that was busted here was your skull. By no means have I redacted anything on her disrespectful rant over Sheik Anta Diop. My critic is over her slur and disrespect of the Great Sheik Anta Diop. Thus I have posted peer reviewed works that back up his older works, when YOU tried to down play it. Was he right 100%. No, he was not always right. But his work gave a solid foundation that is still relevant till this day and time, so by that logic there is nothing I have posted that goes backwards. So to attack the man the way was done is utterly disgusting, since he can’t defend himself any longer, which made this a cowardish act. And that is something you know all about, being cowardish! Your main title always has been a troll. So I see no reason why you ever would be objective when it comes to African history. And on that note you’ve been busted countless of times!!!
quote: For long the history of mankind had been tilted to suit the malicious machinations of the white people. The story of Africa was neglected, the origins of Africa were grossly distorted. and that Egypt and modern day Africans descended from the same ancestors, in other words, were the same people. Cheik Anta Diop came and changed these strange perceptions.
[...]
He suggests that the peoples of the Nile Valley were one regionalized population, sharing a number of genetic and cultural traits. Diop argued that there was a shared cultural continuity across African peoples that was more important than the varied development of different ethnic groups shown by differences among languages and cultures over time.
quote:Originally posted by tropicals redacted: From Christina Riggs's "Unwrapping Ancient Egypt" (2014):
“Afrocentrism and mainstream Egyptology rarely meet and when they do, tensions can flare. I once spoke to a group of students, alumni, and community members at Manchester Metropolitan University [England], many of whom self-described as Afrocentrists. I was surprised at first to be heckled by the audience, but over the course of the discussion after my talk, it transpired that this was not because of anything I had said, but instead due to long-festering anger with the museum where I then worked. According to some of the audience members, a previous curator had also addressed the group, and, they said, described Diop’s work as “no better than pornography”” (p162).
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: By no means have I redacted anything on her disrespectful rant over Sheik Anta Diop. My critic is over her slur and disrespect of the Great Sheik Anta Diop.
please stop disrespecting the man's name
It's spelled Cheikh Anta Diop
Is this another of your loose screws?
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by tropicals redacted: From Christina Riggs's "Unwrapping Ancient Egypt" (2014):
“Afrocentrism and mainstream Egyptology rarely meet and when they do, tensions can flare. I once spoke to a group of students, alumni, and community members at Manchester Metropolitan University [England], many of whom self-described as Afrocentrists. I was surprised at first to be heckled by the audience, but over the course of the discussion after my talk, it transpired that this was not because of anything I had said, but instead due to long-festering anger with the museum where I then worked. According to some of the audience members, a previous curator had also addressed the group, and, they said, described Diop’s work as “no better than pornography”” (p162).
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: By no means have I redacted anything on her disrespectful rant over Sheik Anta Diop. My critic is over her slur and disrespect of the Great Sheik Anta Diop.
please stop disrespecting the man's name
It's spelled Cheikh Anta Diop Is this another of your loose screws?
Werther I wrote Sheik or Cheikh doesn’t chance the narrative, it’s simple a Dutch derivative of the word Cheikh, which means “teacher”, you fly catcher. The facts I posted remain the same. As for your “loose screws” bigotry argument, Lyinass. Nope, you are the one with the consensus on being the troll and liar loaded with contradictions.
quote:Peter Botha was of Dutch extraction and the highest YDNA frequency there is R-M269. The highest frequency YDNA for Swedes is haplogroup I1, that is believed to have originated in Northern Europe. The ancestor is I-M170. That's big in Norway, the Caucases, Croatia. It's one of the most European haplogroups. The Dutch, your Peter Botha types are also heavy with the Hap I . That haplogroup is virtually unknown in indigenous Africans.
And Dutch don’t carry YAP DE, CT etc. but it’s a good thing you mentioned the Caucasus (or Caucases as you wrote). Virtually means not all by defenition.
The "shared by chromosomes of haplogroups C and R [16], were also found to be present in one DE sample (sample 33 in Table S1), and positioned at the root of macro-haplogroup CT" Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
Cheikh Anta Diop:
If we speak only of the genotype, I can find a black who, at the level of his chromosomes, is closer to a Swede than Peter Botha is. But what counts in reality is the phenotype. It is the physical appearance which counts. -- Interview with Diop conducted by Charles Finch III in Dakar, 1986 .
Should it count, that is the question.
He made the above statement over 30 years ago, if he is right, with all the DNA that has been tested since then, we should not have trouble finding a black who at the level of his chromosomes, is closer to a Swede than Peter Botha.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
Cheikh Anta Diop:
If we speak only of the genotype, I can find a black who, at the level of his chromosomes, is closer to a Swede than Peter Botha is. But what counts in reality is the phenotype. It is the physical appearance which counts. -- Interview with Diop conducted by Charles Finch III in Dakar, 1986 .
Should it count, that is the question.
He made the above statement over 30 years ago, if he is right, with all the DNA that has been tested since then we should not have trouble finding a black who, at the level of his chromosomes, is closer to a Swede than Peter Botha
Basal.
quote: Forty two cases of malignant melanomas in Egyptian patients are presented and a review was made of 165 cases previously reported in the literature. The mean age was 48 years and males slightly predominated. Of the entire series studied, 67% of melanomas were cutaneous, 22% extracutaneous and 11% of unknown primary site. Lentigo maligna and superficial spreading melanomas are exceedingly rare. The foot was the most common site (43%) of cutaneous melanomas, followed by the head and neck region (26%). The frequency of foot involvement is higher than that reported on other fair skinned caucasians, but it is much lower than that observed in negroid races. The factors possibly responsible for this regional variation of melanomas among different races are discussed.
Why are you switching? You were all about the phenotype determining race. Now that you understand black scholars have discredited genetics decades ago, you're focused on the strict comparison to blacks with Swedes specifically so you don't have to deal with the greater picture of what he was trying to say. If we took Sandra Liang and sorted her DNA, who is she going to genetically resemble most? What about an Adamanese? Certainly not a SSA. And what will those people they are genetically closest to typically be categorized as racially? Diop's point was that these examples would not be racially categorized with other people they're genetically closer to than black Africans because of their differences in phenotypes. That's why he (and YOU) said phenotype was most important.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
. From the link:
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
