posted
He says that foreign influnce on the population of the area goes as a far back as the paleolithic age. Keita does not subscribe to the Afrocentric ancient Egypt view. Unfortunately, many Afrocentrists misrepresent his work, with their sound bites and out of context quotes.
posted
He says that historical Egypt was already a heterogenous population. This is an important point because Afrocentrists try to misrepresent his words by using out of context quotes from his studies to claim that since AEians had a tropical body plan, it means they were black and that ancient Egypt only became mixed with the greeks.
-------------------- Will destroy all Black Lies Posts: 2025 | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Gigantic - Thank you for the post, I had never read or seen Keita before, though of course I had heard of him, so it was very illuminating. I had always thought that he was an African, I was very surprised to find that he is AA.
Of course being AA means that he has to tip-toe through many subjects in order to keep his income. And I must say that he seems very adept at doing that.
But to your point, what he actually said was that ancient Egypt was comprised of many phenotypes and colors. He also said that it was foolish to think that North Africans (like the Berbers) were not indigenous Africans (please note: Egyptians are also North Africans).
What he said is all quite true, But it does not mean what you want it to mean. As has been explained to exhaustion, those Blond haired, Blue eyed people calling themselves Berbers, are just typical lying Whites - the same as the current ragheaded Turks in Egypt calling themselves Egyptians. Their only real choices for ethnicity are Greek, Roman, Vandal, Alan, Visigoth, Turk, French or Italian - come to think on it, I can see why they are racially confused.
As to the many phenotypes and colors of Egypt that Keita mentioned. That is nothing new - all agree, Black and White, that Africans are the most diverse people on the Planet. As the cultural center of ancient Africa, of course representatives from all over Africa would be in Egypt.
posted
BTW - on the subject of Corn-rowed Scorpion. Many young people of today, think that their Cornrows are the latest and greatest; not so, they are as old as the Hills. Black people have been styling their hair like that since the beginning of time.
posted
Anticipating a really stupid question from the Lion - such as:
Well what about all of those tomb paintings with White Women?
As you can see, the use of White or Yellow on the female was NOT an indicator of race! Theories abound as to just what a particular color represents, but to this point, they are still just theories!Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If I say the word "God" does that mean that I am religious?
Why don't you give the quote and the context instead of asking such a stupid thing. the Lion is having a very deleterious effect on the forum. I knew that this would happen, stupidity breeds stupidity!
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Gigantic: He says that historical Egypt was already a heterogenous population. This is an important point because Afrocentrists try to misrepresent his words by using out of context quotes from his studies to claim that since AEians had a tropical body plan, it means they were black and that ancient Egypt only became mixed with the greeks.
Unfortunately for you you are totally wrong, along with your video. When Keita said "heterogeneous" he did not mean inflowing "Caucasoids", nor did he mean "mixed" in a racial sense. Heterogeneity does not mean mixed race. In fact Keita criticizes the notion of race in the clip. Your own video offered as "proof" debunks your very claim. Heterogeneous types come from WITHIN Africa as well- whether it be tall, gracile Nilotes, medium Saharans or Sudanics, or whatever in between.
And your bogus notion that "northern" Egypt had these so called "mixed race" people all along is not at all supported by the video. He said "at different moments of time" Northern Egypt had migrants. But we all know this, whether it be later period Greeks, Romans, Arabs, Hyskos or small scale Levant trade or movement. There was no mass influx to create any "mixed race" Egyptians. Where are these alleged 'Afrocentrists" you claim that say Egypt only had migrants when the Greeks appeared? Can you name even one generally recognized "Afrocentric" academic that claims this? Who? Diop? Van Sertima? WHo? Still waiting...
Your claim, and attempts to put words in the mouth of Dr. Keita is bogus.
Matter of fact Keita ran several head to head comparisons between the ancient Egyptian Badarians and the alleged Nordics, "Mediterraneans" or "Middle Easterners" claimed by you, Madilda and co.
His results debunk your claim, as they debunk other notions for the north of Egypt. Limb proportion studies of the north group the ancients closer to Africans than Europeans or Middle Easterners. In head to head studies between whites, blacks and Egyptians, the Egyptians group with the blacks.
quote by Egyptoogist Barry Kemp: "..sample populations available from northern Egypt from before the 1st Dynasty (Merimda, Maadi and Wadi Digla) turn out to be significantly different from sample populations from early Palestine and Byblos, suggesting a lack of common ancestors over a long time. If there was a south-north cline variation along the Nile valley it did not, from this limited evidence, continue smoothly on into southern Palestine. The limb-length proportions of males from the Egyptian sites group them with Africans rather than with Europeans." (Barry Kemp, "Ancient Egypt Anatomy of a Civilisation. (2005) Routledge. p. 52-60)
QUOTES BY KEITA:
Male Badarian crania were analyzed using the generalized distance of Mahalanobis in a comparative analysis with other African and European series from the Howells?s database. The study was carried out to examine the affinities of the Badarians to evaluate, in preliminary fashion, a demic diffusion hypothesis that postulates that horticulture and the Afroasiatic language family were brought ultimately from southern Europe. (The assumption was made that the southern Europeans would be more similar to the central and northern Europeans than to any indigenous African populations.) The Badarians show a greater affinity to indigenous Africans while not being identical. This suggests that the Badarians were more affiliated with local and an indigenous African population than with Europeans. (S.O.Y. Keita. "Early Nile Valley Farmers from El-Badari: Aboriginals or "European" Agro-Nostratic Immigrants? Craniometric Affinities Considered With Other Data". Journal of Black Studies, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 191-208 (2005)
"There is no need to postulate massive European settler colonization of Africa or genetic swamping and/or settler colonization by Eurasians, as is implied or stated in some contemporary genetic work (Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994), echoing the now defunct Hamitic hypothesis. Continental African variation may be interpreted largely without external mass invasions. The antiquity of modern humans in Africa means that there has been time to accumulate a large amount of random genetic variation (Cavalli-Sforza et. al. 1983), which has been shaped by great ecological diversity in the continent (Hiernaux 1975). Genetic drift would also contribute to variability due to fluctuations in population size as founder effects and population expansion events occurred throughout the continent. Therefore it is far more accurate to speak of a range of biohistorical African variants than different races of Africans. Northern Africans are more accurately conceptualized as primarily the products of differentiation than of hybridization."
( S.O.Y. Keita and R. Kittles. The Persistence of Racial Thinking and the Myth of Racial Divergence, S. O. Y. Keita, Rick A. Kittles, American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 99, No. 3 (Sep., 1997), pp. 534-544)
LOL.. so your own "evidence" video is not only NOT saying what you claim it is saying, but it directly debunks your notions. So solly...
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
It' obvious, in ancient times as is apparent some brothers had a liking for light skinnedid women. You see it over and over again in the art and there is no escaping it. But the thing goes both ways. There will always be a taste for exotic foods, you show dominance by taking the enemy's finest women. The children will also reflect this. The racism we see today is the result of long period of relatively isolated living between different races. For example the Trans Atlantic slave trade. People were separated by an ocean and had lived in relative separation for thousands of years. So when the slave masters raped our women it was a DL type of thing. But in AE all these cultures were living close to one another and were seen as competitors not savages even though they may have had harsh nationalistic things to say about certain enemies at certain times. Therefore there was not so much taboo in "mixing" or even a concept of "race" as opposed to nationality. As you can see on the map, the Levant, Arabia and Yemen are closer to Egypt than many parts of Africa. Zarahan has pointed to migrant influx into Egypt which had been going on since the earliest dynasties.
quote:Originally posted by zarahan: Mesopotamia - a tropic or arid tropic civilization linked to tropically adapted peoples
posted
Mike says: As to the many phenotypes and colors of Egypt that Keita mentioned. That is nothing new - all agree, Black and White, that Africans are the most diverse people on the Planet. As the cultural center of ancient Africa, of course representatives from all over Africa would be in Egypt.
Exactly. Hence the claim that heterogeneity means "mixed race" is bogus. Keita said no such thing. There is plenty of diversity and variability WITHIN Africa.
quote by keita:
"The living peoples of the African continent are diverse in facial characteristics, stature, skin color, hair form, genetics, and other characteristics. No one set of characteristics is more African than another. Variability is also found in "sub-Saharan" Africa, to which the word "Africa" is sometimes erroneously restricted. There is a problem with definitions. Sometimes Africa is defined using cultural factors, like language, that exclude developments that clearly arose in Africa. For example, sometimes even the Horn of Africa (Somalia, Ethiopia, Eritrea) is excluded because of geography and language and the fact that some of its peoples have narrow noses and faces.
However, the Horn is at the same latitude as Nigeria, and its languages are African. The latitude of 15 degree passes through Timbuktu, surely in "sub-Saharan Africa," as well as Khartoum in Sudan; both are north of the Horn. Another false idea is that supra-Saharan and Saharan Africa were peopled after the emergence of "Europeans" or Near Easterners by populations coming from outside Africa. Hence, the ancient Egyptians in some writings have been de-Africanized. These ideas, which limit the definition of Africa and Africans, are rooted in racism and earlier, erroneous "scientific" approaches." (S. Keita, "The Diversity of Indigenous Africans," in Egypt in Africa, Theodore Clenko, Editor (1996), pp. 104-105. [10])
So once again, the bogus video claims are: Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
replay the video and listen to it yourself.
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: If I say the word "God" does that mean that I am religious?
Why don't you give the quote and the context instead of asking such a stupid thing. the Lion is having a very deleterious effect on the forum. I knew that this would happen, stupidity breeds stupidity!
No one can say exactly what colour they were, but one might reasonably say that the typical Upper Egyptian to Nubian color would have been the modal colour in most of the country.
Eurocentrists don't seem to comprehend the difference between indigenous heterogeneity and racial diversity. Keita never said people of diverse continental origin inhabited Egypt from the beginning. In the video he makes a point to note that non-Egyptians came into the country. Those migrations were concentrated towards Northern Egypt and in literature Keita specifies that these migrations came primarily from Europe and the Near East.
So when you look at all of those statements together you should realize that Keita is not saying Ancient Egyptians were mixed in the sense of having African and non-African phenotypes but mixed in the sense of having diverse African phenotypes then gained European and Near Eastern elements over time.
Most Ancient Egyptians during the Dynastic period were dark-skinned which is a view that Keita clearly holds.
Posts: 647 | From: Atlanta | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lion: It' obvious, in ancient times as is apparent some brothers had a liking for light skinnedid women. You see it over and over again in the art and there is no escaping it. But the thing goes both ways. There will always be a taste for exotic foods, you show dominance by taking the enemy's finest women. The children will also reflect this. The racism we see today is the result of long period of relatively isolated living between different races. For example the Trans Atlantic slave trade. People were separated by an ocean and had lived in relative separation for thousands of years. So when the slave masters raped our women it was a DL type of thing. But in AE all these cultures were living close to one another and were seen as competitors not savages even though they may have had harsh nationalistic things to say about certain enemies at certain times. Therefore there was not so much taboo in "mixing" or even a concept of "race" as opposed to nationality. As you can see on the map, the Levant, Arabia and Yemen are closer to Egypt than many parts of Africa. Zarahan has pointed to migrant influx into Egypt which had been going on since the earliest dynasties.
quote:Originally posted by zarahan: Mesopotamia - a tropic or arid tropic civilization linked to tropically adapted peoples
I'm not going to reply to the former statement you made above, since it's obviously nonsense.
But to the latter...
Using your same logic, the Levant, Arabia, and Yemen are bioculturally closer to parts of Africa than they are to many other "Asian" locals.
Using your logic, Many West African nations such as Senegal, Gambia, and Mali are bioculturally closer to Spain and Portugal than they are to other African nations.
and on and on. Lets face Ancient Egypt is a predominantly African entinty and not a "mixed" or Southwest Asian development.
Posts: 341 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan: Mesopotamia - a tropic or arid tropic civilization linked to tropically adapted peoples
[/qb]
I'm not going to reply to the former statement you made above, since it's obviously nonsense.
But to the latter...
Using your same logic, the Levant, Arabia, and Yemen are bioculturally closer to parts of Africa than they are to many other "Asian" locals.
Using your logic, Many West African nations such as Senegal, Gambia, and Mali are bioculturally closer to Spain and Portugal than they are to other African nations.
and on and on. Lets face Ancient Egypt is a predominantly African entinty and not a "mixed" or Southwest Asian development. [/QUOTE]
It's not my logic it was a zarahan quote. I'm not sure about it. Do you think Mesopotamians are tropically adapted? please school me on this. For example Mindover says that the ancient Palestinians were not tropically adapted. That doesn't seem to go along with zarahan
posted
Levantines were "mixed", mostly black. There you have your "mixed" civilization you've been craving ever since you came in here. lol
Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lion: For example Mindover says that the ancient Palestinians were not tropically adapted. That doesn't seem to go along with zarahan
You dishonest troll, you're talking about what Zarahan said about the people, but this is what Zaharan said about the climate...
quote:Originally posted by zarahan: The Greater Mesopotamian area is assigned to the subtropics or the arid tropics by modern climatologists.
Zarahan is corrrect it is not in the tropics, sub-tropics means outside of the tropics, genius. Just because there were tropical peoples in an area, doesnt all of a sudden make the area tropical, like you wish to believe lol, and again for the millionth time now, Egypt itself is not in the tropics, but was populated by people who were from the tropics.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by anguishofbeing: Levantines were "mixed", mostly black. There you have your "mixed" civilization you've been craving ever since you came in here. lol
Indeed "the lion" would be better off looking towards the Levant or Greece for his/her mixed society of mulattoes. Wonder why he/she doesn't.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by anguishofbeing: Levantines were "mixed", mostly black. There you have your "mixed" civilization you've been craving ever since you came in here. lol
May we have the examples please?
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by anguishofbeing: Levantines were "mixed", mostly black. There you have your "mixed" civilization you've been craving ever since you came in here. lol
Okay, I will give the examples, all you have to do is tell us which ones were "Mixed race" or Mulattoes.
Ancient canaan:
Natufian culture (Hunter-gatherer stage)
Was the Mesolithic culture of Palestine and southern Syria dating from about 9000 B.C. They were mainly hunters, the Natufians supplemented their diet by gathering wild grain; they likely did not cultivate it.
Ghassulian culture
Was an archaeological stage dating to the Middle Chalcolithic Period in southern Palestine (3800–3350 B.C).
Its type-site, Tulaylat al-Ghassul (hence Ghassulian), is located in the Jordan Valley near the Dead Sea in modern Jordan and was excavated (1929–38) by the Jesuits. The Ghassulian stage was characterized by small settlements of farming peoples, who built mud-brick, trapezoid-shaped houses and underground dwellings, and created remarkable polychrome wall paintings.
Amorite
Member of an ancient Semitic-speaking people who dominated the history of Mesopotamia, Syria, and Palestine from about 2000 to about 1600 B.C. In the oldest cuneiform sources (2400–2000 BC), the Amorites were equated with the West, though their true place of origin is not known. They were troublesome nomads and were believed to be one of the causes of the downfall of the 3rd dynasty of Ur (2112–2004 B.C). One important city was at Mari (modern Tall al-Hariri, Syria). Farther west, the political center was Halab (Aleppo); in that area, as well as in Palestine, the newcomers were thoroughly mixed with the Hurrians.
The region then called Amurru was northern Palestine, with its center at Hazor, and the neighboring Syrian Desert. In the Dark Age between about 1600 and about 1100 B.C, the language of the Amorites disappeared from Babylonia and the mid-Euphrates; while at the same time in Syria and Palestine, it became dominant. In Assyrian inscriptions from about 1100 B.C, the term Amurru designated as an area, part of Syria and all of Phoenicia and Palestine.
In addition to the Amorites other invaders included the Egyptians and the Hyksos. The Hurrians (the Horites of the Old Testament) also came to Canaan from the north. The Late Bronze Age (1550–1200 B.C.) was mainly one of Egyptian dominance in Canaan, although their power there was contested by the Hatti of Anatolia
Philistines
One of a people of Aegean origin who settled on the southern coast of Canaan in the 12th century B.C, about the time of the arrival of the Israelites. According to biblical tradition (Deuteronomy 2:23; Jeremiah 47:4), the Philistines came from Caphtor (possibly Crete). They are mentioned in Egyptian records as prst, one of the Sea Peoples that invaded Egypt in about 1190 B.C. after ravaging Anatolia, Cyprus, and Syria, and after being repulsed by the Egyptians, they occupied the coastal plain of Canaan from Joppa (modern Tel Aviv–Yafo) southward to the Gaza Strip. The area contained the five cities (the Pentapolis) of the Philistine confederacy (Gaza, Ashkelon [Ascalon], Ashdod, Gath, and Ekron) and was known as Philistia, or the Land of the Philistines. It was from this designation, that the whole of the country was later called Palestine by the Greeks.Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You have selective hearing Morpheus. Keita said the admixture from without existed in the area all the way back to the paleolithic period. Sorry dude, but Keita was quite succinct in his statement.
quote:Originally posted by Morpheus: Keita told me this via email when I asked him what the skin color of the Ancient Egyptians was:
No one can say exactly what colour they were, but one might reasonably say that the typical Upper Egyptian to Nubian color would have been the modal colour in most of the country.
Eurocentrists don't seem to comprehend the difference between indigenous heterogeneity and racial diversity. Keita never said people of diverse continental origin inhabited Egypt from the beginning. In the video he makes a point to note that non-Egyptians came into the country. Those migrations were concentrated towards Northern Egypt and in literature Keita specifies that these migrations came primarily from Europe and the Near East.
So when you look at all of those statements together you should realize that Keita is not saying Ancient Egyptians were mixed in the sense of having African and non-African phenotypes but mixed in the sense of having diverse African phenotypes then gained European and Near Eastern elements over time.
Most Ancient Egyptians during the Dynastic period were dark-skinned which is a view that Keita clearly holds.
quote:Originally posted by Gigantic: He says that foreign influnce on the population of the area goes as a far back as the paleolithic age. Keita does not subscribe to the Afrocentric ancient Egypt view. Unfortunately, many Afrocentrists misrepresent his work, with their sound bites and out of context quotes.
Not only is reading too hard for you, but hearing as well?
Keita doesn't say foreign influences on the population goes back to the Paleolithic, instead he says that he thinks it's possible to look at the modern DNA profiles and determine what external influences are due to a more recent time depth versus a more ancient time period going back to the Paleolithic.
And to Salsassin who made that video, he is totally misinterpreting the whole video, especially when Keita speaks about Africans not only fitting a "Negroid" profile, and that north Africa is not separate from the rest of Africa.
Salsassin takes this totally out of context as Keita saying that Berber speakers, like the ones we know show outside European and/or southwest Asian lineages are fully indigenous to Africa, even though we can see the outside non African admixture in their genes.
Salsassin is a dunce grasping at straws, which is why he makes youtube videos and moderates the comments, instead of coming here and debating.
He knows he always ends of looking like a fool.
What Keita is actually saying is that the barrier Euro-centrists try to throw on Africa to divide sub-Sahara from supra, is nothing more than a mythical barrier and that indigenous Africans without non African admixture have been in north Africa for millenia.
When Keita states that we need to throw out old concepts such as the true "Negro", and that not all indigenous Africans look alike, he is not talking about the Berber speakers Salsassin wishes, since we know these Berber speakers are not fully indigenous African genetically.
Keita is talking about indigenous Africans who have adapted to a hot and dry climate which produced a narrower nose, like Tutsis, Somalians, Ethiopians, Sudanese, Fulani etc... in contrast to hot and humid environments which produces more broad features.
The man below is a perfect example of who Keita was talking about, an indigenous African who does not fit a "true Negro" profile, who was in fact in the past considered to be "Caucasians" by outdated scholars. This is what Keita means when he says to throw out the old biased data.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I posted a comment on the video directing people to this thread so that they know Salsassin is misrepresenting Keita, but it has yet to go through comment approval.
quote:Okay, I will give the examples, all you have to do is tell us which ones were "Mixed race" or Mulattoes.
I already did dummy, and you can throw in ancient Greece as well like MOM said. Oh wait, that was a black civilization until whites came much much later. LOL
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: Salsassin is a dunce grasping at straws, which is why he makes youtube videos and moderates the comments, instead of coming here and debating
posted
anguishofbeing - When you find yourself in the position of being exposed as ignorant, the best comeback is no comeback. I asked you a specific question which you have no hope of answering because you know exactly nothing on the subject, it would have been better to have just kept quiet instead of giving that asinine answer.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wonder when Mike111 will realize how much a joke he is and how ameteurish his picture spams look. his Poor unfortunate soul thinks he is academic, and is uppity too boot.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jari of Judah: I wonder when Mike111 will realize how much a joke he is and how ameteurish his picture spams look. his Poor unfortunate soul thinks he is academic, and is uppity too boot.
Jari - has it ever occurred to you, just how stupid it is for someone to try to discuss these things, and not even know what an artifact is? Worst yet, to broadcast that he doesn't know. Pull your pants up ass-hole, then go ahead and have another drag, but just do it somewhere else.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ you are a pseudo-Afrocentric sent to make real Afrocentrics look bad. You work for the American intelligence (now thats an irony!) services Mike. Admit it.
Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lion: For example Mindover says that the ancient Palestinians were not tropically adapted. That doesn't seem to go along with zarahan
You dishonest troll, you're talking about what Zarahan said about the people, but this is what Zaharan said about the climate...
quote:Originally posted by zarahan: The Greater Mesopotamian area is assigned to the subtropics or the arid tropics by modern climatologists.
Zarahan is corrrect it is not in the tropics, sub-tropics means outside of the tropics, genius. Just because there were tropical peoples in an area, doesnt all of a sudden make the area tropical, like you wish to believe lol, and again for the millionth time now, Egypt itself is not in the tropics, but was populated by people who were from the tropics.
anyway some of the things zarahan said:
quote:Originally posted by zarahan:
Mesopotamia - a tropic or arid tropic civilization linked to tropically adapted peoples.
Greater Mesopotamia (Palestine, Iraq, Syria, southwestern Iran) falls within the Subtropic/Tropic Arid Zone, NOT the cold-climate zones of Europe or Asia.
Sumerian summary:
While not being absolutely identical, several excavations and analyses link the Sumerians with tropical African types in terms of (a) resemblance to Upper Egypt predynastic specimens, (b) dolichocephalic features, and (c) resemblance to tropical peoples of the Western Desert.
The Penniman excavation of Sumerians found 8 out of 14, or 57% to be dolichocephalic, suggesting again the range of variation in the ancient Sumerians including tropical African features. Buxton and Rice found 17 out of 26 crania or 65% to be a similar tropical variant, plus another 5 'Austric'.
Early West Asians looked like Africans and tropically adapted peoples resemble each other.
posted
I dont know why you're still beating this horse. There is no evidence (and you certainly haven't come up with any) that ancient Egypt fits your "mixed" society model. You are just saving face, like you always do.
Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
lion said: anyway some of the things zarahan said:
^^Genius, the above Mesopotamian analyses were based on cranial features, not limb proportion- as ALREADY explained. Cranial features are much more variable than limb proportion. And even though there were cranial similarities and resemblances does not mean the peoples were identical, nor do resemblances mean that samples cannot be distinguished. The northern Egyptians Kemp studied were clearly distinct via limb proportions, so distinct that they grouped AWAY from the sub-tropical Palestinians. This clearly shows that their origins were from tropical Africa, as even Mary Lefkowtiz notes below, and as does Keita, whom she quotes in Not Out of Africa. His head to head comparison groups Egyptian samples not with Palestine or Byzantium but with Africans.
Another thing you fail to grasp is that Kemp made the comparison not to Iran, Iraq or Syria (parts of greater Mesopotamia) but to Palestine, around the late pre-dynastic period. The period of the sub-Saharan Natufians was a few thousand of years prior to that. How many times does this have to be explained? And the Iran data of Hanihara is from the Iranian Bronze age period, a thousand and more years AFTER Kemp's pre-dynastic sample. You have repeatedly failed to take account of the time period being measured in a desperate bid to conjure an Egyptian "mulatto mix" with someone else.
Likewise the 2008 study of Raxter and Ruff used mostly northern samples, and in limb proportion comparisons placed the ancient northerners closer to US blacks than whites, an "impossible" pattern if your desired Caucasoid influx was true. No matter how you try, your "mulattoism" theory shall we say, is STILL "out on a limb"....
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Man, this Lioness is getting a beating. If I was him I would call it a day.
He is a sucker for punishment. Probably a mosachist.
He and RAH should really hit it off
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know about Diop but Van Sertima was no Afrocentric.
quote:Originally posted by zarahan: ... Egypt only had migrants when the Greeks appeared? Can you name even one generally recognized "Afrocentric" academic that claims this? Who? Diop? Van Sertima? ...
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
just wondered the motive behind writing a piece called:
"Mesopotamia: a tropical/arid tropics civilization"
so I guess they had tropical heads on top of non tropical bodies _________________________________
The change found in body plan is suggested to be the result of the later groups having a more tropical (Nilotic) form than the preceding populations-Zakrzewski
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Get over it, southwest Asia is not tropical.
quote:Originally posted by the lion: plus the fact that the more Nilotic proportions come later, (even though I know Badarians cluster with Kerma, and pre-dynastic lower Egptyians were significantly distinct from southwest Asians according to all other studies, limb proportions included), peak in middle period and then diminish, but regardless the ancient Egyptians generally had tropical body plans, and clustered together throughout all dynasties, the raw values in Table 6 suggest that Egyptians had the “super-negroid” body plan described by Robins (1983). The values for the brachial and crural indices show that the distal segments of each limb are longer relative to the proximal segments than in many “African” populations, -according to Ms. Sonia and I can't get over it
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: I don't know about Diop but Van Sertima was no Afrocentric.
quote:Originally posted by zarahan: ... Egypt only had migrants when the Greeks appeared? Can you name even one generally recognized "Afrocentric" academic that claims this? Who? Diop? Van Sertima? ...
posted
You claim Rogers and DuBois as "Afrocentric scholars" but not Van Sertima? How do you rationalize that?
Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Neither DuBois or Rogers claimed to be Afrocentrics. Nor did Delaney and Douglas (!). And Garvey as an existentialist Afrocentrist? You are just arbitrarily applying western educational labels (perennialist, essentialist, etc) to blacks, I feel so sorry for your unsuspecting students. Anyone remotely acquainted with these labels can see through what you are doing.
Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by anguishofbeing: Neither DuBois or Rogers claimed to be Afrocentrics. Nor did Delaney and Douglas (!). And Garvey as an existentialist Afrocentrist? You are just arbitrarily applying western educational labels (perennialist, essentialist, etc) to blacks, I feel so sorry for your unsuspecting students. Anyone remotely acquainted with these labels can see through what you are doing.
anguish-of-being-fuching-stupid - Do you even know what Afrocentric means???
You dumb bastard, even Wiki has a definition:
Afrocentrism, Afrocentricity, or Africentrism is a world view which emphasizes the importance of African people, taken as a single group and often equated with "Black people", in culture, philosophy, and history. The roots of Afrocentrism lay in a reaction to the repression of Black people throughout the Western world in the 19th century and as a backlash against the scientific racism of the period, which tended to attribute any advanced civilization to the immigration of Proto-Indo-Europeans and their descendants. Part of this reaction involved reviewing history to document the contributions that Black people made to world civilization.
Even though I don't know Du Bois well, what little I do know, inclines me to the Garvey point of view.
Garvey described Du Bois as "purely and simply a white man's nigger" and "a little Dutch, a little French, a little Negro ... a mulatto ... a monstrosity.
But Du Bois did write "The Star of Ethiopia" which is unquestionably an Afrocentric work - ass-hole!
The Star of Ethiopia is an American historical pageant written by W. E. B. Du Bois.
The pageant is structured into a prologue and five scenes: 1) The Gift of Iron, 2) The Dream of Egypt, 3) The Glory of Ethiopia, 4) The Valley of Humiliation, and 5) The Vision Everlasting. Interspersed among these episodes were two selections from Giuseppe Verdi’s Aida. Du Bois wrote about the structure of the play, saying that it
“begins with the prehistoric black men who gave to the world the gift of welding iron. Ethiopia, Mother of Men, then leads the mystic procession of historic events past the glory of ancient Egypt, the splendid kingdoms of the Sudan and Zymbabwe [sic] down to the tragedy of the American slave trade. Up from slavery slowly. . . the black race writhes back to life and hope. . . on which the Star of Ethiopia gleams forever.”
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mike, STFU please. "Afrocentric" is not simply emphasizing the importance of African people. It is misleading to suggest....you know what, forget it. I forget who I was replying to. Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by anguishofbeing: Neither DuBois or Rogers claimed to be Afrocentrics. Nor did Delaney and Douglas (!). And Garvey as an existentialist Afrocentrist? You are just arbitrarily applying western educational labels (perennialist, essentialist, etc) to blacks, I feel so sorry for your unsuspecting students. Anyone remotely acquainted with these labels can see through what you are doing.
anguish-of-being-fuching-stupid - Do you even know what Afrocentric means???
You dumb bastard, even Wiki has a definition:
Afrocentrism, Afrocentricity, or Africentrism is a world view which emphasizes the importance of African people, taken as a single group and often equated with "Black people", in culture, philosophy, and history. The roots of Afrocentrism lay in a reaction to the repression of Black people throughout the Western world in the 19th century and as a backlash against the scientific racism of the period, which tended to attribute any advanced civilization to the immigration of Proto-Indo-Europeans and their descendants. Part of this reaction involved reviewing history to document the contributions that Black people made to world civilization.
Even though I don't know Du Bois well, what little I do know, inclines me to the Garvey point of view.
Garvey described Du Bois as "purely and simply a white man's nigger" and "a little Dutch, a little French, a little Negro ... a mulatto ... a monstrosity.
But Du Bois did write "The Star of Ethiopia" which is unquestionably an Afrocentric work - ass-hole!
The Star of Ethiopia is an American historical pageant written by W. E. B. Du Bois.
The pageant is structured into a prologue and five scenes: 1) The Gift of Iron, 2) The Dream of Egypt, 3) The Glory of Ethiopia, 4) The Valley of Humiliation, and 5) The Vision Everlasting. Interspersed among these episodes were two selections from Giuseppe Verdi’s Aida. Du Bois wrote about the structure of the play, saying that it
“begins with the prehistoric black men who gave to the world the gift of welding iron. Ethiopia, Mother of Men, then leads the mystic procession of historic events past the glory of ancient Egypt, the splendid kingdoms of the Sudan and Zymbabwe [sic] down to the tragedy of the American slave trade. Up from slavery slowly. . . the black race writhes back to life and hope. . . on which the Star of Ethiopia gleams forever.”
Mike I am surprised that you have not read DuBois work on the world-wide civilizations founded by Blacks. It was DuBois The Negro that led J.A, Rogers to write his work on the history of Blacks around the world. The other important work of DuBois , was Africa and the World.
You can learn more about these works and other text used to found Afrocentrism here:
posted
He, he, Clyde, don't get a swelled head, but some of your early work, is all that I have read. Early on, I tried reading from the old sources, but found them dated. At that point, I decided to rely solely on raw facts and data, thereby doing my own interpretations. Though I'm glad that I did it that way - I have missed some crucial interconnections visa vie the southern Africans.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: I decided to rely solely on raw facts and data, thereby doing my own interpretations.
Stop faking you ignorant bastard, you have no clue.
He, he, facts, Data, interpretation - what's a fact, what's data, and what's interpretation?
Hint - all that stuff is very similar to what you called "Picture Spamming" otherwise known to people with functioning Brains as "Artifacts".
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: He, he, Clyde, don't get a swelled head, but some of your early work, is all that I have read. Early on, I tried reading from the old sources, but found them dated. At that point, I decided to rely solely on raw facts and data, thereby doing my own interpretations. Though I'm glad that I did it that way - I have missed some crucial interconnections visa vie the southern Africans.
You may have missed some things but your website confirms most of there findings.
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic