...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Egyptology
»
Joseph Graves on Ancient Egypt and Afrocentrism
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Doug M: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: [qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by beyoku: [qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: [qb] @Beyoku Aye.. Before I was unsure by what you meant, but now I get where you are coming from. "Black" in the context in discussions such as these can be not only "limiting" but confusing. Because like you said there are also remains of bronze aged Europeans with "brown skin", but are they "black". They are definitely NOT African. [/qb][/QUOTE]Regardless of how I consider them I would not force MY Definition of "Black" onto a scholar and then get into a SCIENTIFIC reason why they are. Once we start talking about science "Black" ceases to exists, it is [b]descriptive[/b] but not [b]indicative[/b] of any specific ancestry. Therefore when I want to get into population affinity of an ancient people the term Black is useless, its more than useless. Its even more useless than how euroclowns use "Caucasoid" as a descriptor of ancestry. Once I (we) get passed an elementary level of Egyptology and Physical Anthropology (at the level ANY ES member SHOULD be) "Black" is pretty much useless in talking about the population affinity and genetic heterogeneity in terms of Saharan pastoralists, Red Sea Pastoralists, Western Desert Farmers, Proto AA humans, Proto NS humans, The Ethnic affinity of Aqualithic Eastward and Westward migrants, Wavy line Potters, Trans Saharan refugees and migrants, Wet Saharan migrants etc etc etc the list goes on.. When we want to discuss these populations and their affinity, how they connect and relate culturally/biologically/linguistically/ to humans today in and out of the continent : [b]"Black" simply does not cut it![/b] Telling me the populations were "Black" is the least amount of info to be gleaned. I am calling out all intellectual [URL=http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=buster]Busters[/URL] that would waste the time of scholars, not looking for them to shed any light on the groups above and how they relate to the peopling of Mesolithic/Holoscene/Neolithic Africa..............................and would instead goad scholars to concede that the amalgum of these populations in the Nile Valley carried the same skin tones as European Hunter Gatherers and nearly every population around the globe prior to 10'000 years ago. :rolleyes: [/qb][/QUOTE]Agreed 100%! "Black" is totally useless if we were to have scientific discussions like these. So its no duh that mainstream scientific scholars would refrain from using the term. Like I said using the term black would only cause confusions. Black can be used for historical discussions, for example historical discussions about the Ancient Egyptians and how there are some Greek texts referring them to black, but when it start talking in the field of science that's when terms such as "black" should be out aside. This is why I personally proposed this term. http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=009245 Again I totally get what you're saying when you say "black doesn't give us a bigger picture". [/qb][/QUOTE]Black does have validity in science when talking about biological adaptations to environments producing dark skin. Meaning skin color is part of human biological and evolutionary development and is just as scientific as the study of skeletal metrics and other metrics. The PROBLEM is white European scientists created "race science" and use skin color one of the primary metrics for their racial classification schemes. And now because of the negative stigma associated with discussions of skin color because of it some people avoid it in science. But I DISAGREE with that nonsense. European science and its hypocrisy and contradictions regarding the use of terminology and classifications in order to promote white supremacy are the problem. Humans are diverse and any study of human history and anthropology should reflect all characteristics of that diversity. To say that we should leave skin color out of it because Europeans have misused it is a cop out. Africans never did such a thing so why on earth should we be dancing around it when we should be upholding it most of all? Not saying we should be promoting black supremacy but being proud of the skin you are in is perfectly normal and natural. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
Contact Us
|
EgyptSearch!
(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3