"it's just a minority" "we don't even have the ressources to produce it" "it's all in the hands of the white devils" "it will certainly never become mainstream"
Reality:
New movie "The Book of Clarence" starring black ancient palestinians with of course a black jesus :
Europeans been doing this for decades (without any historical basis) and now you're triggered about a movie with an accurate depiction starring people who have the proper skin color.
Cry
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: "it's just a minority" "we don't even have the ressources to produce it" "it's all in the hands of the white devils" "it will certainly never become mainstream"
Reality:
New movie "The Book of Clarence" starring black ancient palestinians with of course a black jesus :
A faith based movie with an all black cast doesn't reflect any mainstream ideology. It's as culturally relevant as the passion. Judge em equally.
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: A faith based movie with an all black cast doesn't reflect any mainstream ideology. It's as culturally relevant as the passion. Judge em equally. [/QB]
Certainly, this is a widely accepted ideology within the Afro-American community. The majority of Afro-Americans wouldn't find this offensive; in fact, they would strongly support it, and you know it.
Regardless of its cultural relevance, "The Passion" achieved worldwide success and left a deep impression on Christian communities across the globe. As I mentioned before, over time, there will be an increasing presence of "blackcentric" movies in the West. This is just the initial stage of that trend.
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
Yes, Black people who pray to Jesus would very much like to believe he's black. That isn't appropriation as much as it is propaganda. There should be black centric movies where there are black people. Just like there are white centric movies where there are whites and Arab centric movies where there are Arabs, And Indocentric movies where there are indians and East Asiocentric movies where there are East Asians. all of these groups can and or have already made their depictins of historical and mythical figures of their own liking. The key word is that this is faith-based. The religion is strengthened by such portrayals by any community.
You've been complaining about blackwashing over and over again as it pertains to mainstream Ideals and cultural consciousness. It'll likely never get to a point where black-washing achieves what you're implying in our lifetimes. It's still hard to get people to believe that certain people who were visibly black were black, despite it being suggested by their artwork, contemporaneous representation in other's artwork, historical descriptions and attestations and even genes.
Complaining about this is just lazy.
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
Maybe the problem is the lazyness of certain film makers who feel that they must race swap historical figures and replace them with "black" (or "white") actors, instead of finding actors who belong to the same ethnicity as the main figures in the film (or at least look like that ethnicity). When it concerns historical films it could be appropriate to make the effort of finding ethnically representative actors.
Concerning Biblical films, film makers mostly continue an old tradition of depicting Biblical figures as belonging to the artists own ethnicity.
But overall it seems that few North African or Middle Eastern historical (or alleged historical) figures in Hollywoods films are depicted by North African or Middle Eastern actors (even if there are exceptions like Rami Malek, who is an Egyptian, who played an Egyptian Pharaoh in Night at the Museum).
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: [QB] Yes, Black people who pray to Jesus would very much like to believe he's black. That isn't appropriation as much as it is propaganda. There should be black centric movies where there are black people. Just like there are white centric movies where there are whites and Arab centric movies where there are Arabs, And Indocentric movies where there are indians and East Asiocentric movies where there are East Asians. all of these groups can and or have already made their depictins of historical and mythical figures of their own liking. The key word is that this is faith-based. The religion is strengthened by such portrayals by any community.
I disagree. There shouldn't be any -centric movies in ethnically diverse countries like the US. The optimal approach would involve casting actors who closely resemble the ancient people being portrayed, devoid of any ideological or political biases. If the storyline is set in a science fiction realm, then embracing diversity is acceptable. However, tampering with historical events is a contentious matter that should be handled with care, given its sensitivity. Whether rooted in faith or not, such initiatives can deeply alienate individuals whose ancestors are being depicted. Additionally, there's a risk that viewers might be led to believe that these depictions are a truer reflection of reality, potentially fostering misconceptions that for instance historians were merely promoting "white supremacy" by concealing the actual facts.
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: You've been complaining about blackwashing over and over again as it pertains to mainstream Ideals and cultural consciousness. It'll likely never get to a point where black-washing achieves what you're implying in our lifetimes. It's still hard to get people to believe that certain people who were visibly black were black, despite it being suggested by their artwork, contemporaneous representation in other's artwork, historical descriptions and attestations and even genes.
Complaining about this is just lazy.
The trend has already begun, and I can provide you with numerous other examples that are even more extreme (like an all black cast with evil characters being exclusively played by european actors). I won't delve into the specifics as I've addressed this matter previously, but it's evident that in Western societies, black individuals are increasingly becoming one of the most privileged minority groups, often overshadowing other minorities that, in many instances, surpass blacks in numbers. Inclusion efforts seem to be disproportionately focused on the black community. Hispanic, East Asian, or South Asian children are growing up having to grapple with this reality and accept their lack of representation. I won't even touch upon the even more pronounced case of North Africans in Europe.
Also who are the ancient people you're referring to ? (I know you won't answer this lol) It appears that you're amplifying the situation based on niche online communities.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
what about movies about Jesus and the people of Nazareth acted by Western Europeans?
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: what about movies about Jesus and the people of Nazareth acted by Western Europeans?
Depends on the casting, but generally, many Europeans can convincingly resemble individuals from the Levant. The distinction is noticeably less pronounced compared to the difference between levantines and Afro-Americans of West African heritage.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
According to Dr. Rebecca Futo Kennedy, ancient north africans were "subsaharan africans". She also says Herodotus wrote that the "Ethiopians" were indigenous to north africa.
She also goes into detail about how north africa, egypt and the middle east were all whitewashed.
Classical historians were known to write about "Ethiopians" inhabiting the ancient Levant as well.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: [qb] what about movies about Jesus and the people of Nazareth acted by Western Europeans?
Depends on the casting, but generally, many Europeans can convincingly resemble individuals from the Levant.
They don't look that Semitic
Negev Bedouin
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
Head of a Bedouin from Syria (New Kingdom, 20th dynasty, 1189 BC - 1077 BC)
Head of a Bedouin from Syria (New Kingdom, 1550 BC - 1070 BC)
Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: "it's just a minority" "we don't even have the ressources to produce it" "it's all in the hands of the white devils" "it will certainly never become mainstream"
Reality:
New movie "The Book of Clarence" starring black ancient palestinians with of course a black jesus :
Do you even bother to read the bible? Black people are all in the Old Testament. Black Judeans etc. Black Arabs.
There were black Palestinians all over southern Judah, Negev, Lacish.
Like this is tedious if you are going to comment without bothering to STUDY!
Like legit, this is a subject that requires extensive reading and understanding. so not matter what BS you put up here I will not be commenting any further because it's a waste of time.
Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: what about movies about Jesus and the people of Nazareth acted by Western Europeans?
Depends on the casting, but generally, many Europeans can convincingly resemble individuals from the Levant. The distinction is noticeably less pronounced compared to the difference between levantines and Afro-Americans of West African heritage.
There were African/Kushites/Egyptians/Nabateans in the Levant
This has NOTHING to do with Afrocentrism and you don't know anything about what the majority of Afro-Americans think
Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
Anyway, it looks like a great movie. I can't wait to see it.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
@Antalas
Genetics, shmenetics. Your kind always runs to faulty "genetics" when the historical accounts and archaeology slap you in the face. There is no ancient Israelite DNA on record.
"The most common analytical method within population genetics is deeply flawed, according to a new study from Lund University in Sweden. This may have led to incorrect results and misconceptions about ethnicity and genetic relationships. The method has been used in hundreds of thousands of studies, affecting results within medical genetics and even commercial ancestry tests. The study is published in Scientific Reports."
"The most common analytical method within population genetics is deeply flawed, according to a new study from Lund University in Sweden. This may have led to incorrect results and misconceptions about ethnicity and genetic relationships. The method has been used in hundreds of thousands of studies, affecting results within medical genetics and even commercial ancestry tests. The study is published in Scientific Reports.
The rate at which scientific data can be collected is rising exponentially, leading to massive and highly complex datasets, dubbed the "Big Data revolution." To make these data more manageable, researchers use statistical methods that aim to compact and simplify the data while still retaining most of the key information. Perhaps the most widely used method is called PCA (principal component analysis). By analogy, think of PCA as an oven with flour, sugar and eggs as the data input. The oven may always do the same thing, but the outcome, a cake, critically depends on the ingredients' ratios and how they are combined."
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: [QB] Yes, Black people who pray to Jesus would very much like to believe he's black. That isn't appropriation as much as it is propaganda. There should be black centric movies where there are black people. Just like there are white centric movies where there are whites and Arab centric movies where there are Arabs, And Indocentric movies where there are indians and East Asiocentric movies where there are East Asians. all of these groups can and or have already made their depictins of historical and mythical figures of their own liking. The key word is that this is faith-based. The religion is strengthened by such portrayals by any community.
I disagree. There shouldn't be any -centric movies in ethnically diverse countries like the US. The optimal approach would involve casting actors who closely resemble the ancient people being portrayed, devoid of any ideological or political biases. If the storyline is set in a science fiction realm, then embracing diversity is acceptable. However, tampering with historical events is a contentious matter that should be handled with care, given its sensitivity. Whether rooted in faith or not, such initiatives can deeply alienate individuals whose ancestors are being depicted. Additionally, there's a risk that viewers might be led to believe that these depictions are a truer reflection of reality, potentially fostering misconceptions that for instance historians were merely promoting "white supremacy" by concealing the actual facts.
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: You've been complaining about blackwashing over and over again as it pertains to mainstream Ideals and cultural consciousness. It'll likely never get to a point where black-washing achieves what you're implying in our lifetimes. It's still hard to get people to believe that certain people who were visibly black were black, despite it being suggested by their artwork, contemporaneous representation in other's artwork, historical descriptions and attestations and even genes.
Complaining about this is just lazy.
The trend has already begun, and I can provide you with numerous other examples that are even more extreme (like an all black cast with evil characters being exclusively played by european actors). I won't delve into the specifics as I've addressed this matter previously, but it's evident that in Western societies, black individuals are increasingly becoming one of the most privileged minority groups, often overshadowing other minorities that, in many instances, surpass blacks in numbers. Inclusion efforts seem to be disproportionately focused on the black community. Hispanic, East Asian, or South Asian children are growing up having to grapple with this reality and accept their lack of representation. I won't even touch upon the even more pronounced case of North Africans in Europe.
Also who are the ancient people you're referring to ? (I know you won't answer this lol) It appears that you're amplifying the situation based on niche online communities.
Ancient Egyptians, Numidians and attestations of Jesus himself just to list some off the top of my head.
But there's no need to go back and forth, Your response will be predictable and you'll continue to deny that you're merely upset because you're anti-black. You don't even care to look at historical record to tell the phenotype of the people at question. Your comments about the samaritans and European actors shows such.
Hollywood rarely ever do their due diligence in casting based on historical resemblance, This is just the next example. Based on Jesus' biblical description, the majority of the christian world likely got it wrong in their depictions. No one cares.
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
From what I've read online so far, it looks like this Book of Clarence movie will be a comedy. Therefore, they may not be going for historical accuracy with regards to the cast. Personally, I would have preferred Middle Eastern actors to play the ancient Judeans, but considering how many times White people have gotten to play them in the movies, a movie with Black Judeans isn't much more problematic to me.
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
Man this thread is a joke, the movie is a damn comedy, like you seriously up here whining like a little school girl about the historical accuracy of a movie about a dude named “ Clearance” living in 29 AD. Lol, and people take this dude seriously, like he is a legitimate debater interested in historical science. Lol can’t believe this nucca up here bitching about the accuracy of a god damn comedy movie
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
A video where (among other things) the film is discussed (at 27:15)
There have been other movies that depicted a black Jesus before this one so the idea of this being a new trend isn’t really accurate. Most have been comedies, Color of the Cross was one and it was told as historical accuracy.
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: A video where (among other things) the film is discussed (at 27:15)
2. As a self-identified Christian, no one even Christians themselves takes the racial depiction of Jesus seriously. If this bothers you Antalas then so should the blonde hair/blue eyed nordic depiction of Jesus also.
3. There’s already a Black comedy TV show called “Black Jesus.” No offense but this thread is more paranoia.
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: Ancient Egyptians, Numidians and attestations of Jesus himself just to list some off the top of my head.
I’m surprised you hold such extreme Afrocentric opinions. It seems that my initial judgement was correct, and you are just another Afrocentrist with simply experience in Bioinformatics. At this point it's truly pathological I don't even know what to say.
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: But there's no need to go back and forth, Your response will be predictable and you'll continue to deny that you're merely upset because you're anti-black. You don't even care to look at historical record to tell the phenotype of the people at question. Your comments about the samaritans and European actors shows such.
Hollywood rarely ever do their due diligence in casting based on historical resemblance, This is just the next example. Based on Jesus' biblical description, the majority of the christian world likely got it wrong in their depictions. No one cares.
I have yet to see any concrete evidence from you that I am "anti-black" (don't start with posts on ABF that I made when I was a teenager). It seems like anyone who disagrees with your point of view is labeled as "emotional", "upset", or "unable to stand blackness". My issue is not with skin color or ethnicity, which are trivial aspects to me. Rather, my problem is with people who disrespect my people and ancestors and who appropriate our history and culture.
Furthermore, historical records do not support your point of view, as I have demonstrated multiple times. A recent example was the "Leucosyrians" brought by Djehuti which he tried to interpret literally, implying that if there are "white Syrians", then logically the rest must be "black". However, I showed that this denomination had nothing to do with skin color but was instead linked to geography (Leuco being associated with the North as those Leucosyrians lived north of Syria in Cappadocia). Unfortunately, Djehuti could not answer as usual, and there are many other examples like this that you avoid. I have also repeatedly told you that you clearly lack a deep understanding and knowledge of such topics. While you may be good in bioinformatics, when it comes to history, you are clearly out of your element. You interpret everything literally, project American identities onto ancient people, and are unable to differentiate ethnonyms from geographic labels.
Lastly, nobody said that Hollywood always casted the best actors for these kind of roles. However, it is not much of a problem when the differences between the two populations are not stark and it is also rarely politically motivated. I would not be bothered if ancient North Africans were played by Latinos or Middle Easterners.
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
@Askia Fair enough, I didn’t know it was a comedy. However, many Afro-Americans believe that this is an accurate depiction of ancient Israelites, and you know it (just check the comment section lol). Therefore, it would be disingenuous to pretend otherwise.
Also who said I wasn't bothered by a nordic depiction of Jesus ? It's as bad as the black one.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: @Askia Fair enough, I didn’t know it was a comedy. However, many Afro-Americans believe that this is an accurate depiction of ancient Israelites, and you know it (just check the comment section lol). Therefore, it would be disingenuous to pretend otherwise.
Also who said I wasn't bothered by a nordic depiction of Jesus ? It's as bad as the black one.
how do we know what ancient Israelites looked like?
Posted by Elijah The Tishbite (Member # 10328) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: @Askia Fair enough, I didn’t know it was a comedy. However, many Afro-Americans believe that this is an accurate depiction of ancient Israelites, and you know it (just check the comment section lol). Therefore, it would be disingenuous to pretend otherwise.
Also who said I wasn't bothered by a nordic depiction of Jesus ? It's as bad as the black one.
Stop speaking on what Afro Americans think when you don't live around any of us nor know any, your anti-black bullshit is pathetic and annoying.
Posted by Elijah The Tishbite (Member # 10328) on :
Here's an Ethiopian depiction of Jesus and Mary, I guess Ethiopians are raging Afrocetrists right?
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
^^^^Years ago I posted images of Christ and Disciples from the Xtian Catacombs of Domitilla which SOME/A FEW had dark skinned depictions, Does this mean Christ was black no, but that there were probably converts who had similar features in the early Xtian communties.
Posted by Elijah The Tishbite (Member # 10328) on :
Yeah, those Ethiopians must be Afrocentrists...............
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
It's a historically recorded fact that the first images of Christ depicted him as a black man.
"Liberal Review: An Organ of the Independent Thinkers of America, Volume 3" by Mangasar Mugurditch Mangasarian, page 478 (1906) Library of the University of Michigan
Furthermore, none of the 2 black men in the OP photo posted by Antalas are supposed to be Jesus. Antalas has no idea what he is talking about as usual. If you watch the trailer, they do show Jesus but they do not show his face. Just his silhouette.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: According to Dr. Rebecca Futo Kennedy, ancient north africans were "subsaharan africans". She also says Herodotus wrote that the "Ethiopians" were indigenous to north africa.
She also goes into detail about how north africa, egypt and the middle east were all whitewashed.
Classical historians were known to write about "Ethiopians" inhabiting the ancient Levant as well.
Dr. Kennedy's assessment is correct. According to Classical Greek tradition, Thalassa (the Mediterranean Sea) was the central region of the world that divided the northern nations from the southern nations. The latter were described as dark/black skinned and this was explained by the myth of Phaethon nearly crashing the chariot of the sun to earth in the southern lands which created the deserts (the Sahara of Africa, the Syrian and Arabian of Southwest Asia, and the Thar of India) and burnt the skins of the inhabitants black. So the identification of "black" with "Sub-Sahara" is an oxymoron to the Greeks and Romans. The first reference to "Ethiopia" by the Greeks was the nation ruled by Cepheus and Cassiopia and their daughter Princess Andromeda rescued by Perseus and made his wife. Yet their capital city by the coast Joppa is identified with modern Yaffa.
And yes there were even black peoples present in the Levant as well. Here's another example in this reconstructed scene of Canaanites paying tribute to Tutankhamun.
Even Hebrew sources from both the Bible and extra-Biblical traditions like the Mishnah and Talmud claim that 'Kushi' (blacks) were natives of the southern Levant especially in areas of the Negev Desert and around Edom and the Sinai. And of course we know about the epipaleolithic Natufians being of African extraction so I don't know why it's so surprising to some.
As to the portrayal of Jesus and other Biblical figures as black men, if they could be portrayed as white European types for centuries and that's not a problem then what's the issue with black portrayals? What's good for the goose...
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
Seems many peoples who have worshipped Jesus imagined him as looking just like them, and many probably do so still today. Here are four examples
A-West European Jesus B =Ethiopian Jesus C=Chinese Jesus D=Old Swedish Jesus (from the province of Dalarna)
There is no authentic portrait of Jesus, but there are pictures of other people living in the Levant around his time or shortly after.
There are also some facial reconstructions based on skulls from around his time.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
^ false. It's historically recorded that the first pictures of Jesus depicted him as a black man. I've already shared the source.
Posted by Elijah The Tishbite (Member # 10328) on :
Antalas simply likes trolling Afro Americans with anti black vitrol, this topic itself was trolling with its "Afrocentrism strikes again" title.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: According to Dr. Rebecca Futo Kennedy, ancient north africans were "subsaharan africans". She also says Herodotus wrote that the "Ethiopians" were indigenous to north africa.
She also goes into detail about how north africa, egypt and the middle east were all whitewashed.
Classical historians were known to write about "Ethiopians" inhabiting the ancient Levant as well.
Dr. Kennedy's assessment is correct. According to Classical Greek tradition, Thalassa (the Mediterranean Sea) was the central region of the world that divided the northern nations from the southern nations. The latter were described as dark/black skinned and this was explained by the myth of Phaethon nearly crashing the chariot of the sun to earth in the southern lands which created the deserts (the Sahara of Africa, the Syrian and Arabian of Southwest Asia, and the Thar of India) and burnt the skins of the inhabitants black. So the identification of "black" with "Sub-Sahara" is an oxymoron to the Greeks and Romans. The first reference to "Ethiopia" by the Greeks was the nation ruled by Cepheus and Cassiopia and their daughter Princess Andromeda rescued by Perseus and made his wife. Yet their capital city by the coast Joppa is identified with modern Yaffa.
And yes there were even black peoples present in the Levant as well. Here's another example in this reconstructed scene of Canaanites paying tribute to Tutankhamun.
Even Hebrew sources from both the Bible and extra-Biblical traditions like the Mishnah and Talmud claim that 'Kushi' (blacks) were natives of the southern Levant especially in areas of the Negev Desert and around Edom and the Sinai. And of course we know about the epipaleolithic Natufians being of African extraction so I don't know why it's so surprising to some.
As to the portrayal of Jesus and other Biblical figures as black men, if they could be portrayed as white European types for centuries and that's not a problem then what's the issue with black portrayals? What's good for the goose...
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
Eyewitness account from the 19th century that recorded native Palestinians and Jews as resembling southern black slaves in america. So much so, that one of them refused to come to america because he feared being sold into slavery.
"Memorials of Gilbert Haven, Bishop of the Methodist Episcopal Church" page 340 (1880) University of Michigan
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: ^ false. It's historically recorded that the first pictures of Jesus depicted him as a black man. I've already shared the source.
That is not the point, the point is that many through times have imagined Jesus in different ways, and do it still today. Most people in the world did never come to Israel, and most people out in the world have still not been there, so they would of course model Jesus after people who surrounded them.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: According to Dr. Rebecca Futo Kennedy, ancient north africans were "subsaharan africans". She also says Herodotus wrote that the "Ethiopians" were indigenous to north africa.
She also goes into detail about how north africa, egypt and the middle east were all whitewashed.
Classical historians were known to write about "Ethiopians" inhabiting the ancient Levant as well.
Dr. Kennedy's assessment is correct. According to Classical Greek tradition, Thalassa (the Mediterranean Sea) was the central region of the world that divided the northern nations from the southern nations. The latter were described as dark/black skinned and this was explained by the myth of Phaethon nearly crashing the chariot of the sun to earth in the southern lands which created the deserts (the Sahara of Africa, the Syrian and Arabian of Southwest Asia, and the Thar of India) and burnt the skins of the inhabitants black. So the identification of "black" with "Sub-Sahara" is an oxymoron to the Greeks and Romans. The first reference to "Ethiopia" by the Greeks was the nation ruled by Cepheus and Cassiopia and their daughter Princess Andromeda rescued by Perseus and made his wife. Yet their capital city by the coast Joppa is identified with modern Yaffa.
And yes there were even black peoples present in the Levant as well. Here's another example in this reconstructed scene of Canaanites paying tribute to Tutankhamun.
Even Hebrew sources from both the Bible and extra-Biblical traditions like the Mishnah and Talmud claim that 'Kushi' (blacks) were natives of the southern Levant especially in areas of the Negev Desert and around Edom and the Sinai. And of course we know about the epipaleolithic Natufians being of African extraction so I don't know why it's so surprising to some.
As to the portrayal of Jesus and other Biblical figures as black men, if they could be portrayed as white European types for centuries and that's not a problem then what's the issue with black portrayals? What's good for the goose...
Thank you for this valuable information.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx:
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: ^ false. It's historically recorded that the first pictures of Jesus depicted him as a black man. I've already shared the source.
That is not the point, the point is that many through times have imagined Jesus in different ways, and do it still today. Most people in the world did never come to Israel, and most people out in the world have still not been there, so they would of course model Jesus after people who surrounded them.
I see what you are saying, but we have historical records that say the first images of Christ depicted him as a black man. And a lot of these images were found in Rome, where Christ himself walked, and where plenty of people saw him and knew what he looked like.
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
^^^You're ignoring the act that many of the earliest images(from the xtian catacombs) also depict Christ as white,like I said yes, some are dark skinned, but they are not common, at least in my research.
Back in the day there were good websites which had all the Catacomb murals...now its hard to find many in one place..
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
@-Just Call Me Jari-
A lot, if not all of the catacomb images are severely faded. And on top of that, authorities who have actually studied this topic explicitly state that the very first images of Christ portray him as a black man. I'm sure they were well aware of the catacomb imagery when they came to this conclusion.
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: how do we know what ancient Israelites looked like? [/QB]
From their DNA, forensic anthropology and depictions.
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: Seems many peoples who have worshipped Jesus imagined him as looking just like them, and many probably do so still today. Here are four examples
A-West European Jesus B =Ethiopian Jesus C=Chinese Jesus D=Old Swedish Jesus (from the province of Dalarna)
There is no authentic portrait of Jesus, but there are pictures of other people living in the Levant around his time or shortly after.
There are also some facial reconstructions based on skulls from around his time.
Exactly but that Elijah compares this to historical revisionism...
Moreover ethiopians aren't into those racial debates they can see beyond skin color :
I remember watching a documentary about christian ethiopians then you had the comment section filled with afro-americans complaining that ethiopians had white skinned icons.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: how do we know what ancient Israelites looked like?
From their DNA, forensic anthropology and depictions. [/QB]
- which DNA sampled? - what skull used for forensic analysis ?
time period around 1000 BC – 586 BC.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: Afrocentrism strikes again
I don't think the thread title reflects where this movie is coming from
At first glance I would say it was inspired by Black Hebrew Israelite ideology and these groups are no friends with Afrocentrics who usually put Egypt as the original and the biblical as a derivative somewhat copying Egyptian religion
But I'm reading this interview with Jeymes Samuel, the writer and director of the Book of Clarence and I'm not getting a vibe that he was inspired by Black Hebrew Israelite groups either. But I'm sure Jeymes Samuel, Jay Z and others involved in this movie are aware of how this movie overlaps in subject with the 'Hebrews to Negroes" movie and the Kyrie Irving controversy.
But if you read this interview, Jeymes Samuel seems to be a less serious mode and the film is a comedy "a fun-filled extravaganza" he calls it
After Jeymes Samuel Brought Diversity To The Western, He & LaKeith Stanfield Ready To Take On The Bible With ‘The Book Of Clarence’ — Cannes Disruptors
By Mike Fleming DEADLINE
Jeymes Samuel my next movie is The Book of Clarence. And LaKeith Stanfield will play Clarence. And I’m taking it all the way back to the Bible era. You remember those biblical epics, whether they were about the Bible or just taking place around it, from The Ten Commandments to The Greatest Story Ever Told, Samson and Delilah and Ben-Hur, which runs alongside all that stuff in the Bible? As will be The Book of Clarence, a full fun-filled extravaganza. It’s written and ready to go, and set in 29 AD.
I want to tell the tales that we’ve never had before. We’ve never had Black people in the Bible days of cinema. There’s not even a template for us to go, “Well, like that movie?” We’d seen a Black cowboy before. We’ve never seen… Even when Andrew Lloyd Webber made something as nuanced as Jesus Christ Superstar, there’s no Black people in it, except Judas. Judas was the Black guy. “I’m going to betray you, Jesus.” What the hell? That’s what you’re giving us? That’s the Black guy? You saw what I did with the Western. I want to give people something to talk about. Imagine when they unleash Jesus on me. I’m going to give us something we’ve never seen before. But it’s going to be so much fun. We’re deciding now where it will be made, talking to studios. I have a relationship with Netflix. That’s a big thing, but I do need this film to have a viable theatrical component as well.
Yeah. To me, Netflix is like Uber. I didn’t use to call Uber, Uber. I used to call it karma. Because in the U.K., those famous black taxis do not stop for Black people.
That’s why I say Netflix is Uber. They are the out-and-out savior to filmmakers like myself who wanted to get their films done with a high budget and a cast of Black stars.
We have talented execs out there now, and so I think we’re going to see a lot more diverse stories. But we, as Black people, can’t wait for talented execs, or studios to have a guilty conscience. We have to find a way to make what we’re going to make, and nothing can stop us. I think that as soon as we all think like that, we’re not going to be beholden to any temporary waves of guilt. We can just be the change we want to see.
This movie is closer to Black Hebrew Israelite ideology than it is to Afrocentric who are usually Egypt centered but I'm not sure even the Black Hebrew Israelite groups will whole-heartedly support this movie if it also has some irreverent to religion elements
Posted by Elijah The Tishbite (Member # 10328) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: [qb]
Exactly but that Elijah compares this to historical revisionism...
Moreover ethiopians aren't into those racial debates they can see beyond skin color :
So you just completely ignored the historical black depictions of Jesus by Ethiopians and that one pic isn't helping your case because there are still some Afro Americans who have white depictions of Jesus on their walls so that likewise invalidates your bullshit claim that all or most Afro Americans have some type of racial agenda.
[img]I remember watching a documentary about christian ethiopians then you had the comment section filled with afro-americans complaining that ethiopians had white skinned icons.
Lies, until you prove most or all Afro Americans have this obsession you need to quit trolling
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
So are you saying AAs don't have depictions of a white Jesus and Ethiopians don't have images of a black Jesus...?
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
Moreover ethiopians aren't into those racial debates they can see beyond skin color :
I remember watching a documentary about christian ethiopians then you had the comment section filled with afro-americans complaining that ethiopians had white skinned icons. [/QB]
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elijah The Tishbite:
So you just completely ignored the historical black depictions of Jesus by Ethiopians and that one pic isn't helping your case because there are still some Afro Americans who have white depictions of Jesus on their walls so that likewise invalidates your bullshit claim that all or most Afro Americans have some type of racial agenda.
Seems like you didn't get the point. Reread my previous post.
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
Funny part is the dude producing the film is not even African American but British but some how AAs are the only black diasporans in the world when people want to play their "Sh@t on AAs, Cry crocodile tears over nonsense/faux Outrage/compare their fav. token these abid blacks are good vs. bad AAs game.. Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
I would'nt use that source as valid proof, first off from what I gather the author is implying or equating Christ with Krishna, a Hindu diety that is sometime depicted as "black" literally black. Seems to be some new age Christ was a Pagan Diety gobbldy-gook.
Second he does'nt mention the Xtian Catacombs which depict the earliest images of Christ/Disciples. He mentions Italian Cathedrals & churches, and those do not contain the earliest images of Christ, again those are found in the Xtian Catacombs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catacombs_of_Rome
I know this is a religion for you but my best advice is to look at the evidence and let the chips fall where they may, like I said there was a website years ago that had all the catacomb images in a digital file, the majority were a leukoderm Christ, the black/dark skinned ones were a minority...so yes if it really means so much to you there could have(Certainly were IMO) dark skinned/ "Black" converts in the early Xtian communities..
but Dismissing the Catacombs as "faded" and using a dubious source to prove your point is sloppy brotha...just my opinion
not trying to come off as an arsehole...just want you to do better..
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: @-Just Call Me Jari-
A lot, if not all of the catacomb images are severely faded. And on top of that, authorities who have actually studied this topic explicitly state that the very first images of Christ portray him as a black man. I'm sure they were well aware of the catacomb imagery when they came to this conclusion.
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
Exactly, in my 29 or so somethingyears of being a Xtian not one time did Christ's skin color even become a factor in salvation. Hell my pastor and church staff, and my mother/aunts/grandmother all said the white Jews living in Israel...not the Palestinians but you know the mainly convert Ashkenazi (who are basically the face of a Jew Proper in America,) were "God's People"
My mom literally as a white blue eyed/blonde Jesus picture in her house and even her car...
So miss me with the BS trying to tell ME what the people I grew up with, and my own family thinks, faux outrage, whining like a lil ass gal, pearl clutching over a damn movie...
like damn, yall aint got bills to pay, a woman (or man) to spend time with, places to go, wasting yall life made over a damn movie...and a comedy at that
Wish I had that luxury
quote:Originally posted by Askia_The_Great: 1. The movie is a comedy.
2. As a self-identified Christian, no one even Christians themselves takes the racial depiction of Jesus seriously. If this bothers you Antalas then so should the blonde hair/blue eyed nordic depiction of Jesus also.
3. There’s already a Black comedy TV show called “Black Jesus.” No offense but this thread is more paranoia.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
@-Just Call Me Jari-
So now a source is "dubious" because it contradicts your personal beliefs? On what grounds is the source "dubious" and what authority do you have to dismiss it?
1. The source I presented references another scholar (Godfrey Higgins) who witnessed the first images of Christ, and he wrote that the first images of Christ found in Italy and adjoining countries portray him as a black man. I already emphasized how it's common sense that the author must have been aware of the catacombs (which are also located in Italy) yet he still wrote that the first images of Christ show him as a black man. Godfrey Higgins was a historian, among other things, so I'll gladly take his word over some random on the internet.
2. Trying to act as if the old and faded images in the catacombs can somehow give us an accurate and infallible depiction of what the people in question looked like is borderline comical. You see faded paint and say "look those people are not black". It's almost like you're pulling arguments from a childish eurocentric blog.
3. I do plenty of research and have tons of sources to substantiate everything I say. Not trying to come off as an arsehole......... but it is what it is.
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: like damn, yall aint got bills to pay, a woman (or man) to spend time with, places to go, wasting yall life made over a damn movie...and a comedy at that
It's probably verboten for me to speculate too much on another poster's personal life. However, I often do wonder what kind of people these racialist and ethno-nationalist dweebs actually are. Somehow I doubt they're all that well-adjusted or secure. They always seem like they cling to their racial or ethnic heritage as a comfort blanket to insulate them from their insecurities.
The lot of them would benefit from some serious therapy.
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
Seems there also are, shall we call them color nationalists (or color centrists) who seem mostly interested in ancient cultures if they think that they can associate those cultures with a certain skin tone. Some seem to spend a lot of time sifting through literature from all times, and old art, to find references for that specific color.
As for me, my specialty is of course Scandinavian archaeology, since that is my job, and I live here, but I can also appreciate and be interested in cultures in other parts of the world where the people have different skin tones than me.
For the color nationalists even the color of a statue can be a provocation, like in this thread.
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
I honestly did'nt want to respond because I really don't care about this issue...its pretty pointless and mundane.. but anyway..
1) My Personal Beliefs? Um...like bro your source literally mentions "Krishna" like you trying to be taken serious?
What ever man continue to with the slop.
2)The Xtian Catacombs are literally THE OLDEST IMAGES OF CHRIST/APOSTLES...point blank period. Not all are faded, you got a problem with how they look huh...
SMH
3) You do you
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: @-Just Call Me Jari-
So now a source is "dubious" because it contradicts your personal beliefs? On what grounds is the source "dubious" and what authority do you have to dismiss it?
1. The source I presented references another scholar (Godfrey Higgins) who witnessed the first images of Christ, and he wrote that the first images of Christ found in Italy and adjoining countries portray him as a black man. I already emphasized how it's common sense that the author must have been aware of the catacombs (which are also located in Italy) yet he still wrote that the first images of Christ show him as a black man. Godfrey Higgins was a historian, among other things, so I'll gladly take his word over some random on the internet.
2. Trying to act as if the old and faded images in the catacombs can somehow give us an accurate and infallible depiction of what the people in question looked like is borderline comical. You see faded paint and say "look those people are not black". It's almost like you're pulling arguments from a childish eurocentric blog.
3. I do plenty of research and have tons of sources to substantiate everything I say. Not trying to come off as an arsehole......... but it is what it is.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
^^^
What does the author's appeal to krishna have to do with the fact that he clearly references a historian who says the first images of Christ portray him as a black man? Stop with the logical fallacies. You do realize that authors expound on different ideas and cover many different topics in books, right? You're just going to focus on one word (krishna) in the book and try to negate all the rest? That's completely irrational.
It's no wonder you think the faded images in the catacombs are able to present an accurate depiction of what the people in question looked like. You're low level. You're probably the type to look at the original book of gates image and claim the paintings with all the faded skin is portraying white people.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
This issue as to how 1st century Judaeans looked was discussed many times in this forum. Tukuler even posted some images of Jesus and his apostles which in my opinion looked more ambiguous than outright "black", but definitely not the fair-skinned Euro-looking types many are used to.
Archaeopterxy is correct that Afrocentrics are as much guilty of black-painting as are Eurocentrics of white-washing though the latter has a longer history. Many peoples tend to depict their religious figures in their image. Jesus and the Bible took place in Southwest Asia so East Asians don't exactly have that luxury to portray Biblical characters in our image. That said, I find it hypocritical when the likes of Antalas speaks of "Afrocentrism strikes again" when he makes no issue of Eurocentrics whenever Jesus is portrayed as a Northwest European or when ancient Egyptians are portrayed by Euros (besides the Ptolemies). The hypocrisy is quite thick.
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: That said, I find it hypocritical when the likes of Antalas speaks of "Afrocentrism strikes again" when he makes no issue of Eurocentrics whenever Jesus is portrayed as a Northwest European or when ancient Egyptians are portrayed by Euros (besides the Ptolemies). The hypocrisy is quite thick.
I've already provided my perspective on this matter. I don't support the casting of European actors in these roles, but it's worth noting that Europeans often bear a much closer resemblance to Levantines than West Africans do. In fact, some Europeans can even convincingly portray North Africans. It's also important to highlight that the situation with Black actors is distinct because, nowadays, it's uncommon to find Europeans claiming to represent ancient Jews. On the other hand, there is a tendency among some Black Americans to engage in cultural appropriation, as exemplified by your friend Tazarah and his fellow "Hebrew Israelites".
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
Afrocentrism's whole play book is black washing, notice that 99% of the stuff they claim or obsess over(outside of Egypt) is not even in Africa.
The Catacomb art work was first posted by me, the Al contributed more, and yeah Id say 1, maybe two were "Black" probably more representative of a Tawny or Brown North African..
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: This issue as to how 1st century Judaeans looked was discussed many times in this forum. Tukuler even posted some images of Jesus and his apostles which in my opinion looked more ambiguous than outright "black", but definitely not the fair-skinned Euro-looking types many are used to.
Archaeopterxy is correct that Afrocentrics are as much guilty of black-painting as are Eurocentrics of white-washing though the latter has a longer history. Many peoples tend to depict their religious figures in their image. Jesus and the Bible took place in Southwest Asia so East Asians don't exactly have that luxury to portray Biblical characters in our image. That said, I find it hypocritical when the likes of Antalas speaks of "Afrocentrism strikes again" when he makes no issue of Eurocentrics whenever Jesus is portrayed as a Northwest European or when ancient Egyptians are portrayed by Euros (besides the Ptolemies). The hypocrisy is quite thick.
Posted by Askia_The_Great (Member # 22000) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: @Askia Fair enough, I didn’t know it was a comedy. However, many Afro-Americans believe that this is an accurate depiction of ancient Israelites, and you know it (just check the comment section lol). Therefore, it would be disingenuous to pretend otherwise.
Also who said I wasn't bothered by a nordic depiction of Jesus ? It's as bad as the black one.
You're generalizing view of Black Americans being largely "Afrocentric" stems from you not living in the USA. No offense.
Yea, there is a segment of Black Americans who believe the Ancient Hebrews were Black. However, they are a very loud minority. They seem influential/large to you because you don't live in the USA. Yes, true a good number of Black Americans would love for Jesus to be Black or even argue that he was, but its nothing more than a 1 minute "feel good moment" and then its back to life as normal. The majority of Black Americans are not desperately trying to argue Jesus was Black, as most(who again would love for Jesus would be Black) but have better things to do. Especially the "Black church."
Like I said, your problem is that you don't live in the USA. And so you come across loud minorities alone and assume thats the common mindset among all Black Americans. Black Americans when it comes to ideology are DIVERSE as any other ethnic group...
Posted by Askia_The_Great (Member # 22000) on :
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Exactly, in my 29 or so somethingyears of being a Xtian not one time did Christ's skin color even become a factor in salvation. Hell my pastor and church staff, and my mother/aunts/grandmother all said the white Jews living in Israel...not the Palestinians but you know the mainly convert Ashkenazi (who are basically the face of a Jew Proper in America,) were "God's People"
My mom literally as a white blue eyed/blonde Jesus picture in her house and even her car...
So miss me with the BS trying to tell ME what the people I grew up with, and my own family thinks, faux outrage, whining like a lil ass gal, pearl clutching over a damn movie...
like damn, yall aint got bills to pay, a woman (or man) to spend time with, places to go, wasting yall life made over a damn movie...and a comedy at that
Wish I had that luxury
quote:Originally posted by Askia_The_Great: 1. The movie is a comedy.
2. As a self-identified Christian, no one even Christians themselves takes the racial depiction of Jesus seriously. If this bothers you Antalas then so should the blonde hair/blue eyed nordic depiction of Jesus also.
3. There’s already a Black comedy TV show called “Black Jesus.” No offense but this thread is more paranoia.
Agreed.
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
This is quite telling...so there are no SSAs that can play NAs..
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: [QUOTE]In fact, some Europeans can even convincingly portray North Africans. .
Posted by Askia_The_Great (Member # 22000) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: Exactly but that Elijah compares this to historical revisionism...
Moreover ethiopians aren't into those racial debates they can see beyond skin color :
I remember watching a documentary about christian ethiopians then you had the comment section filled with afro-americans complaining that ethiopians had white skinned icons.
You can't be serious? Are you?
1. The Black church in the USA has many depictions "White Jesus" also. And "seeing past skin color"? That image of Jesus you posted is just as historically inaccurate. Like I said you never been to the USA and so its understandable.
2. I been to Ethiopia. And yea, some Coptic Christian Ethiopians have pictures of a non-Black Jesus, but there are also MANY upon MANY paintings of an African Jesus and even African angels. I can post pictures from my trip if need be... So I wouldn't dare say "unlike the greedy Black Americans, Ethiopians see beyond race" when the Ethio-Semitic speakers were the ORIGINAL "kangz" if we really wanna be real. Where's Swenet at? I remember him pointing this out on Forumnbiodiversity.
Posted by Askia_The_Great (Member # 22000) on :
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Funny part is the dude producing the film is not even African American but British but some how AAs are the only black diasporans in the world when people want to play their "Sh@t on AAs, Cry crocodile tears over nonsense/faux Outrage/compare their fav. token these abid blacks are good vs. bad AAs game..
Yea I'm really getting tired of Black Americans being scapegoated as Afrocentrics when other Black groups played large parts in the ideology also from Caribbeans, West Africans, etc. The most prominent ones were a Senegalese and Guyanese for crying out loud. And like I said if we really wanna be real the original "Afrocentrics" were Ethio-Semitics but that's another story...
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
^^^^I saw a documentary years ago about Ethiopia and its Xtian churces and they showed the inside of one, and I still remember to this day(because I honestly have never seen it before) they had a black Crucified Jesus on the cross...like as a Protestant we never had Jesus on the cross and I went to Catholic school and Jesus/Mary was always white...
I really wish I could remember what church it was/the name, or at least downloaded that documentary.
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: [QB] This is quite telling...so there are no SSAs that can play NAs..
Except for perhaps certain Saharan minorities, they cannot, and I certainly have a much greater understanding of SSA phenotypes than you do.
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
So then some SSa can play some NAs...got it.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: [QB] This is quite telling...so there are no SSAs that can play NAs..
Except for perhaps certain Saharan minorities, they cannot, and I certainly have a much greater understanding of SSA phenotypes than you do.
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by Askia_The_Great: You can't be serious? Are you?
1. The Black church in the USA has many depictions "White Jesus" also. And "seeing past skin color"? That image of Jesus you posted is just as historically inaccurate. Like I said you never been to the USA and so its understandable.
2. I been to Ethiopia. And yea, some Coptic Christian Ethiopians have pictures of a non-Black Jesus, but there are also MANY upon MANY paintings of an African Jesus and even African angels. I can post pictures from my trip if need be... So I wouldn't dare say "unlike the greedy Black Americans, Ethiopians see beyond race" when the Ethio-Semitic speakers were the ORIGINAL "kangz" if we really wanna be real. Where's Swenet at? I remember him pointing this out on Forumnbiodiversity. [/QB]
As I mentioned earlier, and as Archeo pointed out, this is not related to "Afrocentrism" as it is understood in certain groups in the United States. Naturally, people tend to depict historical figures in a way that resembles their own folks, just like many other cultures do. I'm fairly certain that if I were to ask a random Christian Ethiopian whether Jesus was "black" or resembled Ethiopians, their answer would likely be "no," despite the Ethiopian depictions of him. In contrast, I'm less certain about the perspectives of Afro-Americans. Let's be real.
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Askia_The_Great: Yea I'm really getting tired of Black Americans being scapegoated as Afrocentrics when other Black groups played large parts in the ideology also from Caribbeans, West Africans, etc. The most prominent ones were a Senegalese and Guyanese for crying out loud. And like I said if we really wanna be real the original "Afrocentrics" were Ethio-Semitics but that's another story...
FWIW, I would have thought most Black African and Afro-Diasporan people around the world, not just African-Americans, supported so-called "Afrocentrism" at least when it came to whether ancient North Africans were Black. I don't know if most of them feel the same about the Israelites though. Sure, pretty much every Christianized population around the world has tended to depict Biblical protagonists in their own image, but it doesn't necessarily follow that those artistic depictions are all meant to represent how the artists think the ancient Israelites actually looked.
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: So then some SSa can play some NAs...got it.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: [QB] This is quite telling...so there are no SSAs that can play NAs..
Except for perhaps certain Saharan minorities, they cannot, and I certainly have a much greater understanding of SSA phenotypes than you do.
It's oversimplifying things because you're relying on the official or geopolitical definition of North Africa, which is entirely arbitrary and conventional. There are individuals residing in the Sahara rn who do not share genetic similarities with Berbers living farther north. Similarly, from a racial standpoint, I wouldn't group Indians and Chinese together simply because they are both considered Asians.
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
Bruh you talking all this noise, babbling like a fool, all because you don't want to admit that some SSA can play some NAs, after admitting w/o missing a beat that Eruos can...
Like damn you really hate them negros that much huh...sheesh.
and yes keep pretending that there are only blacks in the Sahara..yeah NOONE exist further North... ...smh I could go on but Ill just leave it at that... I really need to stop messing with you, but I just cant. You're too fun...
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: So then some SSa can play some NAs...got it.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: [QB] This is quite telling...so there are no SSAs that can play NAs..
Except for perhaps certain Saharan minorities, they cannot, and I certainly have a much greater understanding of SSA phenotypes than you do.
It's oversimplifying things because you're relying on the official or geopolitical definition of North Africa, which is entirely arbitrary and conventional. There are individuals residing in the Sahara rn who do not share genetic similarities with Berbers living farther north. Similarly, from a racial standpoint, I wouldn't group Indians and Chinese together simply because they are both considered Asians.
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: [QB] Bruh you talking all this noise, babbling like a fool, all because you don't want to admit that some SSA can play some NAs, after admitting w/o missing a beat that Eruos can...
Like damn you really hate them negros that much huh...sheesh.
and yes keep pretending that there are only blacks in the Sahara..yeah NOONE exist further North... ...smh I could go on but Ill just leave it at that... I really need to stop messing with you, but I just cant. You're too fun...
So now SSAs can overlap as much with North Africans as Europeans ? Should I also post a demographic map of North Africa ?
That would be like an indian crying over chinese saying central asians overlap more with them ...smh
Btw who are the blacks living further north ?
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
^^^So there are and never were no blacks native to N.A?
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: ^^^So there are and never were no blacks native to N.A?
I'm not familiar with any population similar to SSAs that resided north of the Atlas Mountain range (there is perhaps one exception). As for today, how do we determine who is considered indigenous and who is not ? Moreover, where did the millions of West African slaves end up?
I made a straightforward general statement, and you introduced a small minority as if it were a significant portion of NA's population. Smh the degree of dishonesty..., or perhaps it's due to the fact that the NA diaspora in the US is relatively small, and you may not be well-acquainted with it.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Although this is irrelevant to ancient Nazarenes
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
Seems North Africans seldom play ancient Egyptians in Hollywood films. There are some exceptions though, iike Egyptian Rami Malek who plays Pharaoh Ahkmenra in Night at the Museum:
Or Algerian Sophia Boutella who plays princess Ahmanet in The Mummy
Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
Where did the millions of european/slavic slaves end up?
Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
quote:Haratines are clearly distinguished from black Africans and mestizos despite their proximity. In a detailed study on the population of Idélčs (500 inhabitants in 1970) and in which we participated with Dr. Ph. Lefčvre-Witier, the latter remarks that: “Contrary to what a superficial observation of the village would suggest and despite the relatively large gene flows, the probability of which we have studied, the fusion of genetic heritages still seems not very marked in Idélčs. Quite distinct entities remain: Harratines, Tuaregs, Isseqqamarenes, former Iklans /slaves/, and this appears quite clearly in the different methods of analysis used” (Ph. Lefčvre-Witier, 1996 , p. 235).
20With the spectacular evolution of genetic analysis methods in recent years (particularly concerning DNA), it is now possible to assess more and more precisely the specific and original characteristics of these populations for too long considered as a by-product of slavery whereas they are one of the oldest components of the Saharan population.
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: According to Dr. Rebecca Futo Kennedy, ancient north africans were "subsaharan africans". She also says Herodotus wrote that the "Ethiopians" were indigenous to north africa.
She also goes into detail about how north africa, egypt and the middle east were all whitewashed.
Classical historians were known to write about "Ethiopians" inhabiting the ancient Levant as well.
@Yatunde You're off topic nobody denied a "black" presence in the Sahara. Also Most black north africans aren't haratin and the latter were often less valued than slaves :
quote: Traditional forms of slavery were substantially undermined by the intrusion of colonialism and postindependence legal systems that abolished slavery in its multifarious forms. They were also known as ismkhan (singular ismakh) in Morocco and thought to have originated from bilad al-sudan. Slaves worked as domestics and shepherds. The slaves were integrated into households and tents of the families they served and usually had personal ties with their masters. For this reason, a slave had a higher standing in the eyes of a Berber or an Arab than a Haratine .
Hsain Ilahiane - Historical dictionary of the Berbers (2006, Scarecrow Press, Inc), pp. 61-62
In pre-islamic times they got submitted by Berbers and faced heavy discrimination :
quote:The claimed superiority of the Ait Atta Berbers over the Haratin was also encoded in their pre-Islamic customary laws, which contained explicit discriminatory rules such as a prohibition of selling a house or land to the Haratin. Anyone violating this law was subject to a huge monetary fine and the penalties were imposed on the seller and on the Hartani as well. The land became the basis by which a social status was defined; hence black people were excluded in order to keep them inferior.
Chouki El Hamel, Black Morocco a history of slavery, race and Islam, p. 92
This treatment persisted :
quote:René Caillié (1799–1838), a French explorer, noted racist attitudes when he visited the south of Morocco in 1828 on his way home from a journey to Timbuktu. He wrote that in the region of Tafilalt, a region with many black slaves and some freedmen, that the blacks never intermarried with the Moors (Arabs and Berbers) and that even the children of an illegal union between a black woman and a Moor had no real status and were condemned to remain in the lower levels of society without much hope for improving their social status. The late American anthropologist David Hart also confirmed and explained similar resentment toward the Haratin by the rural Berbers in the Draa region, resentments still present in the twentieth century. These Haratin tended Berber-controlled oases and were often forced into a caste system working as sharecroppers called khammasin. They paid one-fifth of what they produced to the Berber landowners
Chouki El Hamel, Black Morocco a history of slavery, race and Islam, p.92
Here an example of Blacks being separated from Haratin because of their slave origin :
quote:Cynthia Becker did extensive field work in Morocco in 1993 among the Ait Khabbash, a Berber group who coinhabit a region with another black group descended from slaves. Becker observed that the Ait Khabbash refused to intermarry with the blacks in order to preserve the imaginary purity of their lineage. The Ait Khabbash referred to their black neighbors as Ismkhan, (sing. Ismakh or Ismag), a Tamazight word for “slave,” which is interchangeable with black and also Haratin. As Becker noted, the Ismkhan formed a separate subgroup as a result of their being descended from slaves ,124 thus conflating the diversity of blacks in one category. As late as the 1990s, prejudice against blackness in the oasis of Aqqa led to racially divided mosques.
Chouki El Hamel, Black Morocco a history of slavery, race and Islam, p. 93
Haratin literally derives from a berber word meaning "dark color" because berbers themselves weren't "dark" :
quote:The ancestral form of the term Hartani derives from the Berber word ahardan, which is connected with skin color. It means “dark color,” and the earliest known usage of the term was among the Berbers of Sanhaja and Zanata before the great Arab migration of Banu Hassan in the thirteenth century. The Berber-speaking Tuareg people inhabiting the western and central Sahara and Sahel use a similar word to designate a person of both black and white parentage: achardan. Among the mountain-dwelling Berbers of Sanhaja origin, the term designates a person with a black skin, Ahardan, in contrast with white, Amazigh
Chouki El Hamel, Black Morocco a history of slavery, race and Islam, p. 110
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
Do you consider North of the Atlas mountans/the Mehgreb as NA proper?
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: ^^^So there are and never were no blacks native to N.A?
I'm not familiar with any population similar to SSAs that resided north of the Atlas Mountain range (there is perhaps one exception). As for today, how do we determine who is considered indigenous and who is not ? Moreover, where did the millions of West African slaves end up?
I made a straightforward general statement, and you introduced a small minority as if it were a significant portion of NA's population. Smh the degree of dishonesty..., or perhaps it's due to the fact that the NA diaspora in the US is relatively small, and you may not be well-acquainted with it.
Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
@antalas You are a boring racist troll... tedious to the max.
These Berbers sanhaja & zanata are just East Africans Numidians that arrived 2k years ago. not much " lighter " than the Haratians
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
Sorry but Ive been working crazy hours bro, ...
I made a straightforward general statement, and you introduced a small minority as if it were a significant portion of NA's population.
Thing is you did'nt, you barely even accept or confirm people who you consider blacks as being in the Sahara, you're not being straight forward at all.
I did'nt make or "introduce a minority", I simply asked if people you call "blacks" were ever in historical North Africa...You're the one making it complicated.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: ^^^So there are and never were no blacks native to N.A?
I'm not familiar with any population similar to SSAs that resided north of the Atlas Mountain range (there is perhaps one exception). As for today, how do we determine who is considered indigenous and who is not ? Moreover, where did the millions of West African slaves end up?
I made a straightforward general statement, and you introduced a small minority as if it were a significant portion of NA's population. Smh the degree of dishonesty..., or perhaps it's due to the fact that the NA diaspora in the US is relatively small, and you may not be well-acquainted with it.
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
What's odd is that the Berber group the Almoravids were supposedly described as "darker skinned" and uncouth by the Andalucians when they invaded...yet I have never seen the primary sources to confirm it..
The Almoravids did recruit from as far south as Tekrur though...so IDK. If anyone has the primary sources describing the Almoravids as dark skinned let me know...Ive never seen it.
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey: @antalas You are a boring racist troll... tedious to the max.
These Berbers sanhaja & zanata are just East Africans Numidians that arrived 2k years ago. not much " lighter " than the Haratians
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
That map does'nt make sense though as the "Berbers" or what we call them today have been in N/A for thousands of years, and people resembling the Leuko N/A aka "Berbers" were even depicted on the Temple walls of Km.t....I doubt they're "Invaders"
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey:
quote:Haratines are clearly distinguished from black Africans and mestizos despite their proximity. In a detailed study on the population of Idélčs (500 inhabitants in 1970) and in which we participated with Dr. Ph. Lefčvre-Witier, the latter remarks that: “Contrary to what a superficial observation of the village would suggest and despite the relatively large gene flows, the probability of which we have studied, the fusion of genetic heritages still seems not very marked in Idélčs. Quite distinct entities remain: Harratines, Tuaregs, Isseqqamarenes, former Iklans /slaves/, and this appears quite clearly in the different methods of analysis used” (Ph. Lefčvre-Witier, 1996 , p. 235).
20With the spectacular evolution of genetic analysis methods in recent years (particularly concerning DNA), it is now possible to assess more and more precisely the specific and original characteristics of these populations for too long considered as a by-product of slavery whereas they are one of the oldest components of the Saharan population.
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
Oh Please do elaborate...
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: (there is perhaps one exception).
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Alright back to Topic:
The Book of Clarence
A struggling down-on-his-luck man named Clarence living in 29 A.D. Jerusalem looks to capitalize on the rise of Jesus Christ by claiming to be a new Messiah sent by God, in an attempt to free himself of debt and start a life of glory for himself.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
2017 Movie, same title
The Book of Clarence 2017 Documentary
Clarence Fountain and Samuel Butler Jr. in The Book of Clarence (2017) We follow the life, health and career of the Grammy award winning Clarence Fountain and the Blind Boys of Alabama. This journey is woven together with "Gospel at Colonus" Morgan Freeman plays J.J. Farley, singer in the Soul Stirrers
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: @Yatunde You're off topic nobody denied a "black" presence in the Sahara. Also Most black north africans aren't haratin and the latter were often less valued than slaves :
quote: Traditional forms of slavery were substantially undermined by the intrusion of colonialism and postindependence legal systems that abolished slavery in its multifarious forms. They were also known as ismkhan (singular ismakh) in Morocco and thought to have originated from bilad al-sudan. Slaves worked as domestics and shepherds. The slaves were integrated into households and tents of the families they served and usually had personal ties with their masters. For this reason, a slave had a higher standing in the eyes of a Berber or an Arab than a Haratine .
Hsain Ilahiane - Historical dictionary of the Berbers (2006, Scarecrow Press, Inc), pp. 61-62
In pre-islamic times they got submitted by Berbers and faced heavy discrimination :
quote:The claimed superiority of the Ait Atta Berbers over the Haratin was also encoded in their pre-Islamic customary laws, which contained explicit discriminatory rules such as a prohibition of selling a house or land to the Haratin. Anyone violating this law was subject to a huge monetary fine and the penalties were imposed on the seller and on the Hartani as well. The land became the basis by which a social status was defined; hence black people were excluded in order to keep them inferior.
Chouki El Hamel, Black Morocco a history of slavery, race and Islam, p. 92
This treatment persisted :
quote:René Caillié (1799–1838), a French explorer, noted racist attitudes when he visited the south of Morocco in 1828 on his way home from a journey to Timbuktu. He wrote that in the region of Tafilalt, a region with many black slaves and some freedmen, that the blacks never intermarried with the Moors (Arabs and Berbers) and that even the children of an illegal union between a black woman and a Moor had no real status and were condemned to remain in the lower levels of society without much hope for improving their social status. The late American anthropologist David Hart also confirmed and explained similar resentment toward the Haratin by the rural Berbers in the Draa region, resentments still present in the twentieth century. These Haratin tended Berber-controlled oases and were often forced into a caste system working as sharecroppers called khammasin. They paid one-fifth of what they produced to the Berber landowners
Chouki El Hamel, Black Morocco a history of slavery, race and Islam, p.92
Here an example of Blacks being separated from Haratin because of their slave origin :
quote:Cynthia Becker did extensive field work in Morocco in 1993 among the Ait Khabbash, a Berber group who coinhabit a region with another black group descended from slaves. Becker observed that the Ait Khabbash refused to intermarry with the blacks in order to preserve the imaginary purity of their lineage. The Ait Khabbash referred to their black neighbors as Ismkhan, (sing. Ismakh or Ismag), a Tamazight word for “slave,” which is interchangeable with black and also Haratin. As Becker noted, the Ismkhan formed a separate subgroup as a result of their being descended from slaves ,124 thus conflating the diversity of blacks in one category. As late as the 1990s, prejudice against blackness in the oasis of Aqqa led to racially divided mosques.
Chouki El Hamel, Black Morocco a history of slavery, race and Islam, p. 93
Haratin literally derives from a berber word meaning "dark color" because berbers themselves weren't "dark" :
quote:The ancestral form of the term Hartani derives from the Berber word ahardan, which is connected with skin color. It means “dark color,” and the earliest known usage of the term was among the Berbers of Sanhaja and Zanata before the great Arab migration of Banu Hassan in the thirteenth century. The Berber-speaking Tuareg people inhabiting the western and central Sahara and Sahel use a similar word to designate a person of both black and white parentage: achardan. Among the mountain-dwelling Berbers of Sanhaja origin, the term designates a person with a black skin, Ahardan, in contrast with white, Amazigh
Chouki El Hamel, Black Morocco a history of slavery, race and Islam, p. 110
Again you keep promoting nonsense theories with no proof using random articles that don't address the point that people keep making to you. Black Africans have been indigenous to Northern Africa for over 200,000 years. Eurasians did not replace black North Africans 20,000 years ago and these white/light skinned Eurasian types are not the origin of Berber languages. No ancient population called themselves "Berber" 2000 years ago and the Berber languages extended across the entire Sahara from parts of West Africa to parts of Sudan. And the origin of these languages has been noted by many linguists, is in or around Sudan and/or the Horn, meaning black Africans migrating across the ancient Sahara introduced these languages and cultures to the coasts, not the other way around.
All you do is sit here and obsess over some faux French European model of Berber history that starts with Eurasian "back migrants" from Europe over 20,000 years ago as the origin of "the Berbers" when no such back migration is the origin of the language or culture. And you keep coming here spouting that nonsense even though you keep getting proven false. Yes, light skin exists Northern Africa, but a lot of that light skin is recent due to various waves of mixture over the last 3,000 years and none of that mixture is responsible for the creation of Berber as an identity, which is why they had to manufacture the idea of modern Berber identity based on Tifinagh from Tuaregs in the Sahara.
quote: Before the Arabs conquered northwest Africa in the seventh century, Ramzi Rouighi asserts, there were no Berbers. There were Moors (Mauri), Mauretanians, Africans, and many tribes and tribal federations such as the Leuathae or Musulami; and before the Arabs, no one thought that these groups shared a common ancestry, culture, or language. Certainly, there were groups considered barbarians by the Romans, but "Barbarian," or its cognate, "Berber" was not an ethnonym, nor was it exclusive to North Africa. Yet today, it is common to see studies of the Christianization or Romanization of the Berbers, or of their resistance to foreign conquerors like the Carthaginians, Vandals, or Arabs. Archaeologists and linguists routinely describe proto-Berber groups and languages in even more ancient times, while biologists look for Berber DNA markers that go back thousands of years. Taking the pervasiveness of such anachronisms as a point of departure, Inventing the Berbers examines the emergence of the Berbers as a distinct category in early Arabic texts and probes the ways in which later Arabic sources, shaped by contemporary events, imagined the Berbers as a people and the Maghrib as their home.
Key both to Rouighi's understanding of the medieval phenomenon of the "berberization" of North Africa and its reverberations in the modern world is the Kitāb al-'ibar of Ibn Khaldūn (d. 1406), the third book of which purports to provide the history of the Berbers and the dynasties that ruled in the Maghrib. As translated into French in 1858, Rouighi argues, the book served to establish a racialized conception of Berber indigenousness for the French colonial powers who erected a fundamental opposition between the two groups thought to constitute the native populations of North Africa, Arabs and Berbers. Inventing the Berbers thus demonstrates the ways in which the nineteenth-century interpretation of a medieval text has not only served as the basis for modern historical scholarship but also has had an effect on colonial and postcolonial policies and communal identities throughout Europe and North Africa.
This idea of "Berber identity" is something that primarily comes from the resistance to the spread of arabic language and culture across the coastal North Africa and the Sahel. And, not ironically, it was the French who promoted this the most during the colonial era.
quote: Berberism: An Historical Travesty in Algeria's Time of Travail By Aicha Lemsine
Looking over Western press coverage of the terrorism and violence wracking Algeria, one finds headlines announcing, "Islamism Provoking Ethnic Troubles in Algeria," and "The Berber Movement Threatens Algeria With Total War."
The unwritten subtext in such headlines is that Berbers, the autochthonous inhabitants of North Africa, are not really Algerians. Knowing that such headlines emanate from the French press, one is forced to conclude that the old demons of colonialism and colonial historiography are returning to the scene of their crimes.
Such media depictions of the Berbers reflect the colonial ambitions of France's Cardinal Lavigerie, who said in 1867, "Our mission is to take our civilization, which was that of their fathers, to the Berber populations. We cannot leave these people with their Qur'an. France must give them the Gospel or else they will roam the desert, far from the civilized world. This program of forced conversion will be coupled with the confiscation of land and the expulsion of the inhabitants to the mountainous and rocky areas, as per the injunction of Governor-General Tirman. It is necessary to instill terror in the natives!"
French colonial policy was designed to make Algeria an extension of Metropolitan France on the southern side of the Mediterranean Sea. This could be accomplished only by sowing division between Arabs and Berbers and eradicating Arab-Muslim values and civilization from Algeria. This, in turn, could only be accomplished by a rewriting of North African history.
Under the French, use of the Arabic language became the symbol of backwardness, while the status of the non-Arab Berbers was elevated. This "brainwashing" was perfected in the schools where, for 132 years of French occupation, the "little natives" were made to repeat phrases like, "The Gauls were our ancestors" and "The nomadic and warlike Arabs still live in tents." French-prepared history books described the invaders of "Romano-Christian Barbary" as the curiously "Asiatic" Muslim Arab tribe of Beni Hilal who, armed with long swords and sporting shaved heads save for one long plait of hair, menaced a terrified Berber population.
And thusly, it is no coincidence that the Berber Encyclopedia was created by a French archaeologist named Gabriel Camps. He is one of the most responsible parties responsible for the modern construction of "Berber" identity. But a lot of scholars in Northern Africa are calling out this as nothing more than mythology than reality (a unified monolithic ancient "berber" identity across thousands of square miles of North Africa).
quote: But whatever the aim of the narrative, however human diversities have been welded together, all these forgers of a nation’s identity employ elementary materials and primitive components. Besides, everywhere in the north of the African continent, there is always the Berber. Wherever you might look across Africa from east to west, there has always been the same human substratum originating from a great common past.
This is a factual reality, an indelible one, in spite of the many attempts that have been made over the centuries to negate it, and it is unmistakable in spite of the vagueness of this enigmatic name: Berber / Amazigh.
Berber as an existing being is now indisputably considered as the oldest common denominator among a multitude of peoples and nations. Nevertheless, one undeniable observation can be made: it has been impossible for all of these peoples or nations to ascribe to this common ancestor, and therefore to share it. << DM --- note this critique and notice how they go on to contradict themselves later and basically support the same thing>>
The Berber paradox throughout the ages
The mystery associated with the term Berber partly explains the centuries old difficulty in creating a Berber identity acceptable to all.
Gabriel Camps, one of the most enthusiastic specialists on the subject, explains what can be called the Berber paradox in the following manner:
"In fact, nowadays there is neither a Berber language – in the sense of being a reflection of a consciously unified community, nor a Berber people and much less a Berber race. All scientists agree on this unfortunate state of affairs … nevertheless Berbers exist. " -- Les berberes, memoires et identite – Edition Errance – 1980
The historian does not explain this paradox. Faithful to his scientific discipline, he notes that the earliest Berbers certainly did not have the use of a truly common language, but that they did, at least, have at their disposal …
" … an original system of writing which was one widespread among them from the Mediterranean to Niger." --Les berbčres, mémoires et identité – Edition Errance – 1980
This form of writing, the Libyan, is to be found in the Tifinagh alphabet of the Touareg, the Amazigh community which has preserved the cornerstones of their Berber origins better than anyone. But the Punic alphabet, and then the Latin, and then the Arab quickly took over. This linguistic Arabisation finally brought about a transformation to a socio-cultural Arabisation at such an extent that …
" … almost all the people say they are, believe they are and as a result are Arab. But it is very rare for any of them to have even a few drops of Arab blood coursing through their veins; this new blood brought by the conquerors of the 7th century or by the Bedouin invaders of the 11th century: Beni Hilal, Beni Solaďm, and Mâquil, whose numbers, according to the most optimistic estimates, did not even reach 200,000. "
--Les berbčres, mémoires et identité – Edition Errance – 1980
The paradox is palpable. In all these North African countries, Punic, Jewish, Roman, Vandal, Byzantine, Arab, Turkish and finally European impulses brought about a successive and vigorous cultural mix. Yet a local identity remained alive everywhere; valid in spite of this accumulation of external contributions, and to the extent that even very early on the question was raised about what this Berber spirit was that simultaneously assimilated the foreign newcomers and yet still retained its perpetuity.
This mystery exacerbated itself in the minds of the new arrivals, constantly leading them to believe the Berber foreign to the lands they had just discovered, and to imagine him, like themselves, as having come from elsewhere, from a distant place, and simply wanting him to be something other than indigenous.
The Berber, this other, incontrovertibly from elsewhere
In the 5th century BC, the Greek historian and geographer, Herodotus, was the first to describe the peoples living in all the countries along the coast west of Egypt. He called them Lybians and distinguished between those who lived by the sea as nomads and those who were farmers, living in houses in the middle of mountainous and wooded landscapes, (clearly the Atlas regions), and whom he referred to as Maxyes.
Several centuries later, his Roman counterpart, Sallust, would further define these indigenous people: the nomadic group was ultimately referred to as Gétules, while the sedentary group kept the name Lybian. According to Sallust, they had both been the inhabitants of these territories in prehistoric times; primitive hunter-gatherers perceived as …
...
Predictably, the Roman historian was imagining them as having been civilised by populations from the East, more precisely by the Medes and Persians, who were later to settle there.
Gabriel Camps explains that the term Maxyes is the Greek translation of the term Imazighen (plural of Amazigh) used by the indigenous groups to identify themselves as a community. And all the foreigners coming to the territories between Egypt and the Atlantic Ocean named the inhabitants according to their own grasp of the phonetics of this primitive nomenclature: Meshwesh by the Egyptians, Mazices or Madices by the Romans and Mazigh by the Arabs.
The French historian developed a theory suggesting that the ancient accounts of the Medes tribes from the East was in fact simply the result of a deformation of the Roman name Madices, the local Imazighen; this linguistic deformation being motivated by a difficulty in conceiving that non-Romanised indigenous populations could possibly have any cultural and civilisational quality of their own.
In search of a non-viable origin
Imazighen, Maxyes, Madices, Medes… this litany of terms designating the Berber was later to be synthesized under the generic name of Moors used to designate all non-Latinised North Africans. However, observers consistently attempted to give this Berber an ascendancy external to the places he actually inhabited. And they never gave up this propensity to wish to connect this mysterious Berber to distant roots, in spite of the evidence in front of them.
The Byzantine historian Procopius of Caesarea argues for a Phoenician origin. Saint Augustine, from his city of Hippo near Carthage, believed in the Canaanite roots in his compatriots. Another Greek historian, Strabo, saw the Moors as definitely being Indian. Herodotus states that the Imazighen are descended from the Trojans whilst Plutarch describes the great Greek hero, Heracles, as having led Mycenaean communities to Mauritania “Tingitana” (northern Morocco) in around 1500 BC.
In the 14th century, the famous geographer Ibn Khaldoun was more categorical:
" The Berbers are the children of Canaan, son of Ham, son of Noah. Their ancestors were called Mazîgh. The Philistines were their parents … "
--Ibn Khaldun
European historians of the 19th century continued this frenetic search for the origins of the Berbers by occasionally giving credit to the oriental or Indian theories, even claiming that the dolmens and other megalithic monuments discovered in Algeria as being of Celtic, Gallic, and thus French, or more generally Nordic origins.
This article lays out all of this history, starting by saying that there coudn't have been an ancient 'Berber' identity unified across multiple nations and territories as promoted by modern Amazigh activists. Then it goes on to explain that there is mixture from different recent migrants into North Africa, but still an ancient and indigenous heritage. But also explains that many of these foreign invaders have tried to ascribe an non African origin for these "berbers" (even if the locals didn't call themselves that). Yet at the same time rejecting this idea of non indigenous origins, they turn right around and claim that they actually were of non indigenous African origins.... but from 10,000 years ago. And this is the circular logic of most Amazigh activists who claim on one hand not to be 'mixed' or foreign, but somehow mixed or foreign from over 10,000 years ago, which makes them "native". Again, with no evidence that any kind of "berber" languages existed 10,000 years ago. Not to mention claiming the origin of these "Berbers" in the Maghreb, while contradicting their own previous assertion that the oldest form of written Berber is from Libya and more specifically Southern Libya. Again, reflecting a very circular and confused line of argument....
quote: This “stranger” – indigenous for the past 9000 years
Anthropological research paints a very different picture and one that is detached from ideological ulterior motives. Of course, a human presence in North Africa, and the Maghreb in particular, dates back to very ancient times. And it has now been proven that the different representatives of Homo Sapiens that have been identified in the Maghreb – from the Neanderthal Man (from Jebel Irhoud – Morocco) through to the Aterian Man of Dar es-Soltane (Algeria) and to the Cro-Magnon type, the Man of Mechta El- Arbi of Afalou bou Rhummel (Algeria) have all three evolved locally and in their own time without any involvement from outside, and synchronically with other human evolutions elsewhere on the planet.
We will have to wait years – until 9000 B.C – until a new type of human-being from the Near East comes to settle by the ocean in large numbers. He will be called the Proto-Mediterranean and become known through the rise of a culture called “Capsian”. This newcomer will develop various off-shoots separately displaying specific morphological characteristics, with, however, two major differentiations; on the one hand, those of a robust disposition and on the other those possessing a certain dignity, which would become the standard and all of which, as to be expected, would be expressed through infinite nuances. Over the millennia this Proto-Mediterraneans spread across a large portion of the Mediterranean, from Libya to Italy.
And so Gabriel Camps was able to confirm:
" We endorse the tenet of the Capsian Proto-Mediterraneans being the first Maghrebians, meaning that we can judiciously place them at the head of the Berber lineage from some 9000 years ago! (…) These Capsians have an Eastern origin. But their arrival was so long ago that it is unreasonable to designate their descendants as truly indigenous. "
--Les berberes, memoires et identite – Edition Errance – 1980
None of which has anything to do with the origin of "berber" languages and is primarily European pseudo-science claiming some kind of different "racial" origin of North Africans separate from the rest of Africa... Which is the core of this modern Amazigh activist mentality. All of which is focused specifically on the coastal Western "Maghreb" of Morocco and Algeria as the ancient homeland of "the Berbers", again even though the oldest Berber language scripts are in the Libyan Sahara. Again, trying to use any kind of proof of a "non African" ancestral connection in North Africa as the basis of "berber" languages without any reference to language or proof of any linguistic connection at all. It is solely to try and manufacture this idea of "berber" language as the basis of a racial identity as opposed to being a language and culture, which specifically originated in Eastern Africa.
quote: Deploying a Berber arborescence
The Berbers’ genealogical roots are thus firmly anchored in the very lands where he has evolved, in the Maghreb. And like other groups of human beings inhabiting our planet, he will radically transform the Neolithic period by becoming sedentary adopting agriculture and the breeding of live-stock.
He will unremittingly welcome and assimilate the continuous human and cultural contributions from the East, from the Sahara and from the European continent via Spain. Some of these contributions will certainly prove to be more influential than others, notably the Bedouin migrations of the 11th century which seal the Arabisation of these populations. But in each era, these Maghreb territories and their human communities function as excellent crucibles of civilisation from which peoples, cultures, kingdoms and, much later, whole nations have emerged.
And again, all these narratives of ancient "Berber" identities omit any proof of linguistic ties or affiliations in order to manufacture this fictional ancient "Berber" narrative that they themselves called out in the very beginning of the article. And this is the schizophrenic identity crisis seen among many modern Amazigh activists. And all of it is based on a fundamental denial of the African origin of berber language and culture... yes black African origin. But for them this focus on the areas closest to Europe, such as Morocco and the so-called Capsians or Iberomaurisans is the literal epitome of trying to downplay or deny African origins by trying to stay on the remotest fringes of the continent itself in the search for "Berber origins".
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: [QB] Do you consider North of the Atlas mountans/the Mehgreb as NA proper?
Well that is the region where the majority of North Africans historically resided, and it is also the location of the primary states that have played a significant role in the region's history. Additionally, Berbers from the Sahara originated from this area but eventually intermingled with the local Saharan and Sahelian populations.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: [QB] Do you consider North of the Atlas mountans/the Mehgreb as NA proper?
Well that is the region where the majority of North Africans historically resided, and it is also the location of the primary states that have played a significant role in the region's history. Additionally, Berbers from the Sahara originated from this area but eventually intermingled with the local Saharan and Sahelian populations.
Historically when? Be specific. North African human history is over 200,000 years old and didn't start with "Berbers" in any way.
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey: @antalas
These Berbers sanhaja & zanata are just East Africans Numidians that arrived 2k years ago. not much " lighter " than the Haratians
So now numidians are east africans who came during the roman era HAHAHAHAH
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
I'm, looking at the cast listing for Book of Clarence trying to figure out who might be Jesus
they have all the actors (I guess) but only some of the roles listed next to their names
'The Book of Clarence': Release Date, Cast, Plot, and Everything We Know So Far About The Upcoming Biblical Epic BY KOPAL UPDATED 4 DAYS AGO Jeymes Samuel's next film releases in September.
The website Collider has this image but I'm not sure who it is or if it's definitely from the movie
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Is this turning into yet another NA thread? Topic, Jerusalem 29 AD
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
The point that Antalas and all these Amazigh activists keep ignoring:
The “written landscape” of the central Sahara: recording and digitising the Tifinagh inscriptions in the Tadrart Acacus Mountains
quote:The archaeology of the Sahara in both historical and modern times remains, for the most part, inadequately investigated and poorly understood. However, the Fazzan in southwest Libya stands as a remarkable exception. In the last two decades, the University of Leicester1 and the Sapienza University of Rome2 have undertaken various research programmes that focus on the impressive evidence left by the Garamantian kingdom (c. 1000 BC-AD 700). These studies have provided groundbreaking data on the history of the Fazzan (Fig. 1.1), an area which was the centre of a veritable network of trans-Saharan connections that developed in Garamantian times and continued to modern times, later giving birth to the Tuareg societies.
Fig. 1.1 Map of the Tadrart Acacus and the central Saharan massifs.
armers, caravaneers and herders in this area all participated and intercepted in a variety of socio-economical exchanges that developed from the first millennium BC to the present day. In spite of its arid climate, the central Sahara has, in the last 3,000 years, seen some extremely successful human adaptations to limited resources. An intangible heritage of indigenous knowledge allowed complex societies to flourish in the largest desert in the world. That heritage has left a legacy of tangible evidence in the form of remains, such as forts, monuments, burials, and settlements, all of which have been the focus of recent archaeological studies. This paper deals with the less investigated element of the archaeological and historical landscape of the region: the Tifinagh inscriptions carved and painted on the boulders, caves and rock shelters of the Tadrart Acacus valleys. The Tadrart Acacus.
The Tadrart Acacus massif is of particular importance to the understanding of both local and trans-Saharan cultural trajectories over the past three millennia. The Acacus is set at the very centre of the Sahara, close to the oasis of Ghat and that of Al Awaynat, and about 300 kilometres from the heartland of the Garamantian kingdom, the relatively lush area of the Wadi el Ajal. It hosts a unique set of rock art sites that were added to UNESCO’s World Heritage list in 1985. These sites are often located in physical connection with archaeological deposits in caves and rock shelters. The massif is seen as a key area for studies of Africa’s past: several archaeological deposits have been tested in the past fifty years,4 and some were subjected to excavations.5 Its primary role in African prehistoric archaeology has been further confirmed by some recent discoveries of the Middle Neolithic age (c. sixth to fifth millennium before present) — such as the earliest dairying in Africa and an outstanding set of cattle burials — that received attention in the popular media as well as in academic circles.
Materials and methods
Thanks to a major grant from the British Library’s Endangered Archives Programme, the project EAP265: The Tifinagh rock inscriptions in the Tadrart Acacus Mountains (southwest Libya): An Unknown Endangered Heritage14 represented the first research focused on this peculiar type of archaeological and epigraphic evidence. The use of Tifinagh characters in North Africa may date back to the first half of the first millennium BC.15 These types of signs, still used by contemporary Tuareg, were adopted to write down different Libyco-Berber languages or idioms (Table 1.1). This explains why current Kel Tadrart Tuareg are often unable to read the ancient Tifinagh texts of the Tadrart Acacus. The origin of this African alphabet is debated and discussed on the basis of the studies carried out on the Mediterranean and the Atlantic façades of North Africa.
The Saharan texts, however, have been rarely subjected to systematic recording and publication.17 In the absence of any bilingual texts, the translation of Saharan inscriptions is extremely difficult. However, some attempts have been made, and they seem to confirm that Tifinagh was mainly used to write short personal messages, epitaphs, and “tags”.18 A further hurdle to translation is that these texts normally feature metaphors — alterations of signs and/or words — so that they become hardly readable. It has been suggested that some inscriptions have a “ludique” character whose aim was precisely to prevent the comprehension by anyone other than the author and the recipient (s) of the message.19 Tifinagh texts present interpretive problems similar to those raised by Saharan rock art, such as its interpretation, meaning, and chronology. Therefore, the EAP265 project aimed to: 1) create a database of all the available data regarding Tifinagh inscriptions noticed in the past surveys; 2) digitally record known and unknown Tifinagh sites on the ground; and 3) make available an open access dataset.
uring the fieldwork we carried out in October to December 2009 we identified 124 sites (Table 1.2; Fig. 1.2). Our landscape approach included two main field methods. The first method was geomorphologically inspired, and featured visits to the most relevant water points and other locations of interest such as passageways and what we later discovered to be crop fields. In the Tadrart Acacus, water occurs in the form of gueltas (rock pools where rainfall gathers) and wells. Gueltas have been subjected to investigation by the “Saharan Waterscapes” project, as have etaghas (empty spaces where crops can be raised after floods).20 The aqbas (passageways) that connect the western oases (Tahala, Ghat, Barkat and Fewet) to the valleys of the Tadrart Acacus, have been surveyed, since these are still to this day a key element of the Acacus landscape. Those mountain trails feature variable gradients and climb for up to 300 metres. In addition, some of the Kel Tadrart elders showed us a variety of previously unknown sites.
Tifinagh texts of the Tadrart Acacus are carved and painted onto isolated boulders, rocky flanks, and rock shelter walls, and are often characterised by uneven spatial patterns (Fig. 1.3). This raises the issue of how to define a “site” and how to digitally record sets of lines and signs distributed on several uneven stony surfaces. We designed a hierarchical system: a single Tifinagh letter or complex text featuring a clearly recognisable spatial consistency was defined as “site” and progressively labelled from 09/01 to 09/111. The whole archive was ultimately given to the largest database of African rock art, the African Rock Art Digital Archive, not only to preserve but also to foster new studies on the recorded evidence.
All this talk about "Berber" origins in North West Coastal Africa, but ignoring the actual direct evidence of the origins of the language in the central Sahara. Not coincidentally these sites overlap with the even older rock are of the Saharan Wet Phase in Tassili N'ajjer. And of course the reason this is ignored among "Berber historians" is again because they are so desperate to prove a non African origin for these "Berbers" that they avoid the Sahara precisely because it is "in Africa" and not along the coasts, making it hard to justify non african origins.
Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey: @antalas
These Berbers sanhaja & zanata are just East Africans Numidians that arrived 2k years ago. not much " lighter " than the Haratians
So now numidians are east africans who came during the roman era HAHAHAHAH
You hate black people quit using black gifs/ to express your emotions. That is called black face
Posted by Firewall (Member # 20331) on :
quote: Well that is the region where the majority of North Africans historically resided,
Most north africans live in the eastern part of north africa.
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by Firewall:
Most north africans live in the eastern part of north africa. [/QB]
We are discussing Berbers, and historically, Egyptians have been more closely linked to the Middle East.
Posted by Firewall (Member # 20331) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by Firewall:
Most north africans live in the eastern part of north africa.
We are discussing Berbers, and historically, Egyptians have been more closely linked to the Middle East. [/QB]
Pre-Dynastic and Dynastic Egypt is north northeast africa and Ancient Native egyptians(upper egypt is where most of the population of ancient egyptians lived not lower egypt)has been more closely linked with north africa and northeast east africa with influences from southwest asia but it is a african civilization,not a southwest asian one.
Posted by Firewall (Member # 20331) on :
The Garamantes. The first berber civilization/kingdom was not even in northwest africa by the way.
The first Berber kingdom/civilization(most were black africans) was in southern libya and not on the coast.
So the first berber civilization/kingdom was a black berber one.
Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: That map does'nt make sense though as the "Berbers" or what we call them today have been in N/A for thousands of years, and people resembling the Leuko N/A aka "Berbers" were even depicted on the Temple walls of Km.t....I doubt they're "Invaders"
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey:
quote:Haratines are clearly distinguished from black Africans and mestizos despite their proximity. In a detailed study on the population of Idélčs (500 inhabitants in 1970) and in which we participated with Dr. Ph. Lefčvre-Witier, the latter remarks that: “Contrary to what a superficial observation of the village would suggest and despite the relatively large gene flows, the probability of which we have studied, the fusion of genetic heritages still seems not very marked in Idélčs. Quite distinct entities remain: Harratines, Tuaregs, Isseqqamarenes, former Iklans /slaves/, and this appears quite clearly in the different methods of analysis used” (Ph. Lefčvre-Witier, 1996 , p. 235).
20With the spectacular evolution of genetic analysis methods in recent years (particularly concerning DNA), it is now possible to assess more and more precisely the specific and original characteristics of these populations for too long considered as a by-product of slavery whereas they are one of the oldest components of the Saharan population.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Alright back to Topic:
The Book of Clarence
A struggling down-on-his-luck man named Clarence living in 29 A.D. Jerusalem looks to capitalize on the rise of Jesus Christ by claiming to be a new Messiah sent by God, in an attempt to free himself of debt and start a life of glory for himself.
Was Jesus a real man or a myth?
Dr. Charles Copher breaks down all the Kushites/Midianites in Jesus ancestry per the bible
Dr Charles Copher Blacks in the Bible
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by Firewall: Pre-Dynastic and Dynastic Egypt is north northeast africa and Ancient Native egyptians(upper egypt is where most of the population of ancient egyptians lived not lower egypt)has been more closely linked with north africa and northeast east africa with influences from southwest asia,east africa and northeast africa but it's a african civilization,not a southwest asian one. [/QB]
Please focus on the conversation. Egyptians share stronger connections with Middle Eastern populations rather than Berbers. This is one of the reasons why Egypt is often regarded as part of the Middle East. :
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: Egyptians share stronger connections with Middle Eastern populations
what's a cultural example?
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by Firewall: [QB] The Garamantes. The first berber civilization/kingdom was not even in northwest africa by the way.
The first Berber kingdom/civilization(most were black africans) was in southern libya and not on the coast.
So the first berber civilization/kingdom was a black berber one.
First "berber civilization" based on what ? There has never been a unified "Berber civilization". What are you referring to ? The original Garamantes were Berbers who migrated from the North and mixed with the indigenous populations of Fezzan, as well as the slaves they brought from further south. This is why their remains display a heterogeneous nature. Additionally, the Garamantes did not play a significant role in the establishment of states further north.
Posted by Firewall (Member # 20331) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by Firewall: Pre-Dynastic and Dynastic Egypt is north northeast africa and Ancient Native egyptians(upper egypt is where most of the population of ancient egyptians lived not lower egypt)has been more closely linked with north africa and northeast east africa with influences from southwest asia,east africa and northeast africa but it's a african civilization,not a southwest asian one.
Please focus on the conversation. Egyptians share stronger connections with Middle Eastern populations rather than Berbers. This is one of the reasons why Egypt is often regarded as part of the Middle East. :
[/QB]
Most Ancient Egyptians were not from the middle east. The ancient egyptians or most of them are north africans.
A brief review of studies and comments on ancient Egyptian biological relationships
quote: A review of studies covering the biological relationship of the ancient Egyptians was undertaken. An overview of the data from the studies suggests that the major biological affinities of early southern Egyptians lay with tropical Africans. The range of indigenous tropical African phenotypes is great; and this range of variation must be considered in any discussion of the Nile Valley peoples. The early southern Egyptians belonged primarily to an African descent group which gained some Near Eastern affinity through gene flow with the passage of time.
"The ancient Egyptians were not 'white' in any European sense, nor were they 'Caucasian'... we can say that the earliest population of ancient Egypt included African people from the upper Nile, African people from the regions of the Sahara and modern Libya, and smaller numbers of people who had come from south-western Asia and perhaps the Arabian penisula."
--Robert Morkot (2005). The Egyptians: An Introduction. pp. 12-13
Posted by Firewall (Member # 20331) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by Firewall: [QB] The Garamantes. The first berber civilization/kingdom was not even in northwest africa by the way.
The first Berber kingdom/civilization(most were black africans) was in southern libya and not on the coast.
So the first berber civilization/kingdom was a black berber one.
First "berber civilization" based on what ? There has never been a unified "Berber civilization". What are you referring to ? The original Garamantes were Berbers who migrated from the North and mixed with the indigenous populations of Fezzan, as well as the slaves they brought from further south. This is why their remains display a heterogeneous nature. Additionally, the Garamantes did not play a significant role in the establishment of states further north.
Garamantes
quote:The Garamantes (Ancient Greek: Γαράμαντες, romanized: Garámantes; Latin: Garamantes) were an ancient civilisation based primarily in the southern region of Libya.They were descended from Berber tribes and Saharan pastoralists. The Garamantes settled in the Fezzan region by at least 1000 BC, and by the late 7th century AD, the Garamantian civilization had come to an end.
It says above the Garamantes came from berber tribes and Saharan pastoralists.
The original Garamantes lived in southern libya. There was no Garamantes in the northern coast of africa and the Fezzan is still north africa.
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by Firewall:
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by Firewall: [QB] The Garamantes. The first berber civilization/kingdom was not even in northwest africa by the way.
The first Berber kingdom/civilization(most were black africans) was in southern libya and not on the coast.
So the first berber civilization/kingdom was a black berber one.
First "berber civilization" based on what ? There has never been a unified "Berber civilization". What are you referring to ? The original Garamantes were Berbers who migrated from the North and mixed with the indigenous populations of Fezzan, as well as the slaves they brought from further south. This is why their remains display a heterogeneous nature. Additionally, the Garamantes did not play a significant role in the establishment of states further north.
Garamantes
quote:The Garamantes (Ancient Greek: Γαράμαντες, romanized: Garámantes; Latin: Garamantes) were an ancient civilisation based primarily in the southern region of Libya.[1] They were descended from Berber tribes and Saharan pastoralists.[1][2] The Garamantes settled in the Fezzan region by at least 1000 BC,[3] and by the late 7th century AD, the Garamantian civilization had come to an end.[4]
It says above the Garamantes came from berber tribes and Saharan pastoralists.
The original Garamantes lived in southern libya. There was no Garamantes in the northern coast of africa and the Fezzan is still north africa.
Ok thanks for showing that you have no proper arguments.
Posted by Firewall (Member # 20331) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: Ok thanks for showing that you have no proper arguments.
I do. Those berbers were black or most of them that came to the Fezzan. Most berbers were black at that time even further north.
You saying that most berbers were non black around 1000 b.c. is false. Most ethnic berbers were still black at that time.
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by Firewall: I do. Those berbers were black or most of them that came to the Fezzan. Most berbers were black at that time even further north.
You saying that most berbers were non black around 1000 b.c. is false. Most ethnic berbers were still black at that time. [/QB]
No, you haven't addressed any of the questions I posed, and there is no supporting evidence for your fancy Afrocentric claims.
Posted by Firewall (Member # 20331) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by Firewall: I do. Those berbers were black or most of them that came to the Fezzan. Most berbers were black at that time even further north.
You saying that most berbers were non black around 1000 b.c. is false. Most ethnic berbers were still black at that time.
No, you haven't addressed any of the questions I posed, and there is no supporting evidence for your fancy Afrocentric claims. [/QB]
If i said there are blacks living arabia is that Afrocentric? If i said there are were some whites that live in ancient india,is that euro-centric? What you said is just incorrect non-sense. You did not ask me any questions above by the way and i what i said is the truth.
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by Firewall: If i said there are blacks living arabia is that Afrocentric?
No, because the slave trade brought many Zanj to the Arabian Peninsula. However, if you argue that ancient Arabs were black, then that perspective could be considered Afrocentric.
quote:Originally posted by Firewall: If i said there are were some whites that live in ancient india,is that euro-centric?
That's not necessarily eurocentric because of the Indo-European/Steppe invasion, but also as a result of Alexander the Great's conquest of India.
quote:Originally posted by Firewall: What you said is just incorrect non-sense. You did not ask me any questions above by the way and i what i said is the truth.
I asked questions and you're of course unable to answer. None of your statements align with the facts, as they lack support from genetics and anthropology.
Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: Egyptians share stronger connections with Middle Eastern populations
what's a cultural example?
Arabs are not a homogeneous group Which Arabs?
quote:he Arab conquest of Egypt took place between 639 and 646 AD. The conquest was led by Amr ibn al-As and overseen by the Rashidun Caliphate. The conquest ended the seven-century-long period of Roman rule over Egypt
Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by Firewall: If i said there are blacks living arabia is that Afrocentric?
No, because the slave trade brought many Zanj to the Arabian Peninsula. However, if you argue that ancient Arabs were black, then that perspective could be considered Afrocentric.
quote:Originally posted by Firewall: If i said there are were some whites that live in ancient india,is that euro-centric?
That's not necessarily eurocentric because of the Indo-European/Steppe invasion, but also as a result of Alexander the Great's conquest of India.
quote:Originally posted by Firewall: What you said is just incorrect non-sense. You did not ask me any questions above by the way and i what i said is the truth.
I asked questions and you're of course unable to answer. None of your statements align with the facts, as they lack support from genetics and anthropology.
That is actually the ancient Greek perspective of ancient Arabs.
Posted by Firewall (Member # 20331) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by Firewall: If i said there are blacks living arabia is that Afrocentric?
No, because the slave trade brought many Zanj to the Arabian Peninsula. However, if you argue that ancient Arabs were black, then that perspective could be considered Afrocentric.
quote:Originally posted by Firewall: If i said there are were some whites that live in ancient india,is that euro-centric?
That's not necessarily eurocentric because of the Indo-European/Steppe invasion, but also as a result of Alexander the Great's conquest of India.
quote:Originally posted by Firewall: What you said is just incorrect non-sense. You did not ask me any questions above by the way and i what i said is the truth.
I asked questions and you're of course unable to answer. None of your statements align with the facts, as they lack support from genetics and anthropology.
Again If i said there are blacks living arabia is that Afrocentric? If i said there are were some whites that live in ancient india,is that euro-centric? Incorrect.
I posted facts,you did not about the berbers and like i said you did not ask me any questions. By the way i said blacks live in arabia,i never said if most were arabs or not.
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
Yeah an academic paper is calling Berbers "invaders" sure
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey:
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: That map does'nt make sense though as the "Berbers" or what we call them today have been in N/A for thousands of years, and people resembling the Leuko N/A aka "Berbers" were even depicted on the Temple walls of Km.t....I doubt they're "Invaders"
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey:
quote:Haratines are clearly distinguished from black Africans and mestizos despite their proximity. In a detailed study on the population of Idélčs (500 inhabitants in 1970) and in which we participated with Dr. Ph. Lefčvre-Witier, the latter remarks that: “Contrary to what a superficial observation of the village would suggest and despite the relatively large gene flows, the probability of which we have studied, the fusion of genetic heritages still seems not very marked in Idélčs. Quite distinct entities remain: Harratines, Tuaregs, Isseqqamarenes, former Iklans /slaves/, and this appears quite clearly in the different methods of analysis used” (Ph. Lefčvre-Witier, 1996 , p. 235).
20With the spectacular evolution of genetic analysis methods in recent years (particularly concerning DNA), it is now possible to assess more and more precisely the specific and original characteristics of these populations for too long considered as a by-product of slavery whereas they are one of the oldest components of the Saharan population.
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey: That is actually the ancient Greek perspective of ancient Arabs. [/QB]
Yes I'm sure ancient greeks had the same perspective as modern americans. There were people looking like Lebron James in ancient Yemen.
Listen to a real black scholar :
quote:Indeed, most of these passages do not even mention lips or hair but demonstrate only that adjectives denoting color in classical texts, though used to describe several peoples darker than Greeks and Romans, by no means indicate that persons so described were Ethiopians, that is, blacks or Negroes in the modern usage of such terms
Frank M. Snowden Jr., Bernal's "Blacks" and the afrocentrists,in: Black athena revisited, The university of North Carolina Press, 1996, p. 119
Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Yeah an academic paper is calling Berbers "invaders" sure
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey:
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: That map does'nt make sense though as the "Berbers" or what we call them today have been in N/A for thousands of years, and people resembling the Leuko N/A aka "Berbers" were even depicted on the Temple walls of Km.t....I doubt they're "Invaders"
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey:
quote:Haratines are clearly distinguished from black Africans and mestizos despite their proximity. In a detailed study on the population of Idélčs (500 inhabitants in 1970) and in which we participated with Dr. Ph. Lefčvre-Witier, the latter remarks that: “Contrary to what a superficial observation of the village would suggest and despite the relatively large gene flows, the probability of which we have studied, the fusion of genetic heritages still seems not very marked in Idélčs. Quite distinct entities remain: Harratines, Tuaregs, Isseqqamarenes, former Iklans /slaves/, and this appears quite clearly in the different methods of analysis used” (Ph. Lefčvre-Witier, 1996 , p. 235).
20With the spectacular evolution of genetic analysis methods in recent years (particularly concerning DNA), it is now possible to assess more and more precisely the specific and original characteristics of these populations for too long considered as a by-product of slavery whereas they are one of the oldest components of the Saharan population.
The map not the comment Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey: That is actually the ancient Greek perspective of ancient Arabs.
Yes I'm sure ancient greeks had the same perspective as modern americans. There were people looking like Lebron James in ancient Yemen.
Listen to a real black scholar :
quote:Indeed, most of these passages do not even mention lips or hair but demonstrate only that adjectives denoting color in classical texts, though used to describe several peoples darker than Greeks and Romans, by no means indicate that persons so described were Ethiopians, that is, blacks or Negroes in the modern usage of such terms
Frank M. Snowden Jr., Bernal's "Blacks" and the afrocentrists,in: Black athena revisited, The university of North Carolina Press, 1996, p. 119 [/QB]
Black people are diverse
Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey: That is actually the ancient Greek perspective of ancient Arabs.
Yes I'm sure ancient greeks had the same perspective as modern americans. There were people looking like Lebron James in ancient Yemen.
Listen to a real black scholar :
quote:Indeed, most of these passages do not even mention lips or hair but demonstrate only that adjectives denoting color in classical texts, though used to describe several peoples darker than Greeks and Romans, by no means indicate that persons so described were Ethiopians, that is, blacks or Negroes in the modern usage of such terms
Frank M. Snowden Jr., Bernal's "Blacks" and the afrocentrists,in: Black athena revisited, The university of North Carolina Press, 1996, p. 119 [/QB]
Quit using black people gifs. Its seriously offensive especially from a racist like you
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Yeah an academic paper is calling Berbers "invaders" sure
Well, I'd say I've got my fair share of laughs at academia folks, and wouldn't put anything past them.
We allegedly got an "archaeologist" on this very site, who floods the forum with his OCD-like repetitive social commentary, walks around with giant blindspots (no one really needs to hear a white person talk about injustices against Native Americans, after the genocides all over the New World) and lacks any demonstrable archaeo expertise.
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: We allegedly got an "archaeologist" on this very site, who floods the forum with his OCD-like repetitive social commentary, walks around with giant blindspots (no one really needs to hear a white person talk about injustices against Native Americans, after the genocides all over the New World) and lacks any demonstrable archaeo contributions.
Without naming names, I think I know exactly which individual you're talking about. Although, like you, I question how much archaeology they've actually done.
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Yeah an academic paper is calling Berbers "invaders" sure
I don't know if the original paper actually calls Amazigh "invaders". All I know is that it's where they got the map from.
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
Concerning Native Americans: Also a person who is not a Native American can mention different injustices that has befallen them, especially if Native Americans themselves have encouraged him to do so.
I do not know which archaeologist is referred to in some comments here, but I do not see many here who has actually worked as archaeologists, or have you?
As for me personally I have worked as an archaeologists with excavations, surveys and in museums. Not so unusual. I am hardly the only archaeologist here in Sweden. Maybe it only seems unusual for people who themselves have not worked in that field.
I have seen some armchair historians here on ES, who not worked in the field and who pretend to be experts on countries they never even visited. Sometimes they do not even know any people in those countries Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
Back to ancient times again. I saw a new facial reconstruction or approximation of a 9000 year old skull from Jericho, made by Cicero Moraes. Interesting to see his interpretation
Reconstruction of the Jericho Skull. (photo credit: Cicero Moraes et al. /CC BY 4.0 / Ortogonline)
Scans of the Jericho Skull. (credit: Cicero Moraes et al. /CC BY 4.0 / Ortogonline)
1. Ancient facial reconstructions are not infallible.
2. For arguments sake, if we accept that facial reconstruction as legitimate -- that's just some random unidentified person from Jericho. Plenty of different races/groups of people have inhabited Israel over time.
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
I’m surprised you hold such extreme Afrocentric opinions. It seems that my initial judgement was correct, and you are just another Afrocentrist with simply experience in Bioinformatics. At this point it's truly pathological I don't even know what to say.
I have yet to see any concrete evidence from you that I am "anti-black" (don't start with posts on ABF that I made when I was a teenager). It seems like anyone who disagrees with your point of view is labeled as "emotional", "upset", or "unable to stand blackness". My issue is not with skin color or ethnicity, which are trivial aspects to me. Rather, my problem is with people who disrespect my people and ancestors and who appropriate our history and culture.
Furthermore, historical records do not support your point of view, as I have demonstrated multiple times. A recent example was the "Leucosyrians" brought by Djehuti which he tried to interpret literally, implying that if there are "white Syrians", then logically the rest must be "black". However, I showed that this denomination had nothing to do with skin color but was instead linked to geography (Leuco being associated with the North as those Leucosyrians lived north of Syria in Cappadocia). Unfortunately, Djehuti could not answer as usual, and there are many other examples like this that you avoid. I have also repeatedly told you that you clearly lack a deep understanding and knowledge of such topics. While you may be good in bioinformatics, when it comes to history, you are clearly out of your element. You interpret everything literally, project American identities onto ancient people, and are unable to differentiate ethnonyms from geographic labels.
Lastly, nobody said that Hollywood always casted the best actors for these kind of roles. However, it is not much of a problem when the differences between the two populations are not stark and it is also rarely politically motivated. I would not be bothered if ancient North Africans were played by Latinos or Middle Easterners. [/qb]
Nothing I said was a personal position. It's all in your head lol. Selective processing. I claimed there were historical depictions and written atestation of Jesus being interpreted as "black" for example ..It doesn't mean I believe he was or even existed for that matter. But yes, you give a typical response of pigeon holing all opposing views (to your anti black narrative) to being some Afrocentric ideal. It's lazy and I don't think you'd make such, useless, and lazy arguments if you weren't anti-black.
Just take it as a compliment, cuz If I didn't think you were anti-black, I'd just consider you a literate idiot. Just claim the former, the evidence is in your argument and drive to even create such a thread as a topic of discussion.
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey: Quit using black people gifs. Its seriously offensive especially from a racist like you
Would it be less offensive if he used a "white" peoples GIF, or an Asian GIF?
Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx:
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey: Quit using black people gifs. Its seriously offensive especially from a racist like you
Would it be less offensive if he used a "white" peoples GIF, or an Asian GIF?
Yes! He can use all the white and asian gifs he wants since they are genetically closer to him.
quote:What is digital blackface? Digital blackface is a practice where White people co-opt online expressions of Black imagery, slang, catchphrases or culture to convey comic relief or express emotions.
These expressions, what one commentator calls racialized reactions, are mainstays in Twitter feeds, TikTok videos and Instagram reels, and are among the most popular Internet memes.
Digital blackface involves White people play-acting at being Black, says Lauren Michele Jackson, an author and cultural critic, in an essay for Teen Vogue. Jackson says the Internet thrives on White people laughing at exaggerated displays of Blackness, reflecting a tendency among some to see “Black people as walking hyperbole.”
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: Back to ancient times again. I saw a new facial reconstruction or approximation of a 9000 year old skull from Jericho, made by Cicero Moraes. Interesting to see his interpretation
Reconstruction of the Jericho Skull. (photo credit: Cicero Moraes et al. /CC BY 4.0 / Ortogonline)
Scans of the Jericho Skull. (credit: Cicero Moraes et al. /CC BY 4.0 / Ortogonline)
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey: Yes! He can use all the white and asian gifs he wants since they are genetically closer to him.
Seems you are stuck in an old racialist thinking. Dividing people after genetics. Only people who are genetically close can use pictures of each other?
Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx:
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey: Yes! He can use all the white and asian gifs he wants since they are genetically closer to him.
Seems you are stuck in an old racialist thinking. Dividing people after genetics. Only people who are genetically close can use pictures of each other?
Black face is racist! What is not to understand? Digital black face is racist. What is there not to understand?
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
But to use white or Asian or other GIFS is not racist? Hypocrisy.
Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx:
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey: Yes! He can use all the white and asian gifs he wants since they are genetically closer to him.
Seems you are stuck in an old racialist thinking. Dividing people after genetics. Only people who are genetically close can use pictures of each other?
I am 60% African, 30% European, 10% Native American, to be a racialist would be to be divided against myself as a human being. So NO... I don't do racialist thinking. However I know what and who is racist against black people and those same racist who hate black people so much and want to separate themselves from anything ' black ' should not use black gifs to express their emotions on social media. It's digital black face of the worst kind.
Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: But to use white or Asian or other GIFS is not racist? Hypocrisy.
No you are either obtuse or just missing the point on purpose
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
Seems everything is in some way worse when it affects African Americans. When similar things affect Asians or Native Americans, or other groups no one cares.
Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: Seems everything is in some way worse when it affects African Americans. When similar things affect Asians or Native Americans, or other groups no one cares.
When have you seen Antalas use a native american or asian gif? Most people on social media never use gifs from either ethnic group so whats the issue? Why is using black gifs so popular? Why do white people need gifs of African Americans to express your emotions, opinions and ideas in the first place?
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
Well, it has been and is still rather accepted to make fun of Asians and Native Americans in other contexts, if not so much in GIFS, without no one complaining. One sees no big campaigns against that.
I hope you never will use any white or Asian GIFs anytime, since they are not so genetically close to you, as you express it.
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey: Why do white people need gifs of African Americans to express your emotions, opinions and ideas in the first place?
Well, I do not need any such GIFs for anything and I do not use them either. But maybe you could ask those who do it.
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
In the future maybe whites only can joke about whites and blacks only about blacks, then no one has to bother or complain.
Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: In the future maybe whites only can joke about whites and blacks only about blacks, then no one has to bother or complain.
That is a STRAWMAN ARGUMENT
Isn't it ironic that ANTALAS who is concerned about blackwashing historical figures black washes himself with AA's gifs everyday.
IRONIC!!
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
That's because antalas is obsessed with anything/everything related to black people, especially our history.
Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: That's because antalas is obsessed with anything/everything related to black people, especially our history.
Exactly!
He even took his name from a black north african Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
Damn!!! Lol but we already know he's going to say he "wasn't really black"
Bahaha
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
. What did Jesus look like?
Back to ancient Judea and Galilee during the time of Jesus and how he and others might have looked like.
In the 2018 book What Did Jesus Look Like?, Joan Taylor, professor of Christian origins and second temple Judaism at King's College London, used ancient art, archaeological remains, historical texts and interviews with anthropologists to conclude that, like most people in Judea around the time, Jesus most likely had brown eyes, dark brown to black hair and olive-brown skin. He may have stood about 5-ft.-5-in. (166 cm) tall, the average man’s height at the time.
She also says that the people most reminiscent of 1th century Judeans today are the Jews of Iraq.
quote:.... one of the fascinating things for me was to discover that really interesting work has been done by physical anthropologists on skeletons of Jews excavated in Judea and Galilee from the first century and sometimes second century and they have really looked at the issue of ethnicity and what people correspond to ancient in terms of modern populations actually and they have said that Jews of the first century looked quite a lot like Iraqi Jews today, there's an Iraqi look about the skeletons that they have uncovered so if we're going to be thinking about Jesus ethnicity we should be looking at Iraqi Jews so I remember when I worked on the kibbutz long ago some friends of mine who were from Iraq and it's really fascinating to me to think yes they had the look of most of the Jews of first century Judea.
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: . What did Jesus look like?
She also says that the people most reminiscent of 1th century Judeans today are the Jews of Iraq.
quote:.... one of the fascinating things for me was to discover that really interesting work has been done by physical anthropologists on skeletons of Jews excavated in Judea and Galilee from the first century and sometimes second century and they have really looked at the issue of ethnicity and what people correspond to ancient in terms of modern populations actually and they have said that Jews of the first century looked quite a lot like Iraqi Jews today, there's an Iraqi look about the skeletons that they have uncovered so if we're going to be thinking about Jesus ethnicity we should be looking at Iraqi Jews so I remember when I worked on the kibbutz long ago some friends of mine who were from Iraq and it's really fascinating to me to think yes they had the look of most of the Jews of first century Judea.
From a genetic perspective, Samaritans are the closest group, but Iraqi Jews come in second place, so the book is accurate in this regard.
Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
In her Presentation, she will cover the Historical background of the Jews in Iraq, and intertwine it with her families’ stories. Hagit’s father’s family is from Bagdad, and her mother’s is from Basra
quote:If I were in Israel, Ben-Dor Benite said, it would be another story. There, Mizrahi immigrants have a decades-long history of state-level discrimination, starting with their internment in 1950s development towns and continuing with menial employment under Ashkenazim who called them “shvartze. ” By the 1970s, Mizrahim had reclaimed their “blackness” and formed the Israeli Black Panther movement to fight for social justice. Their identification with the African-American struggle for civil rights was so strong that Panther leader Charlie Biton named his daughter “Angela” — after political activist Angela Davis.
Plane of Iraqi Jews, clearly not a homogenous group.
Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
Hannah Marshall: "This is the picture of my grandfather and his family. It shows my grandfather, his mother and three brothers. The picture was taken in Basra in 1918. My grandfather is the boy standing at the back of the picture, with the black jacket and tie."
My grandfather was an Iraqi Jew, who ended up living in a North Wales seaside town. I never met him, but I've always been fascinated by this side of the family. A couple of years ago, I decided to find out more. I got in touch with distant cousins, and cousins of cousins, and friends of cousins - everyone in the Iraqi-Jewish community is linked to everyone else, somehow. The stories they shared were shocking, and revealed a deep-rooted history.
Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
For instance, Iraqi Jews are said to be descended from those exiled to Babylon after the destruction of the First Temple in 586 B.C.
Most of those founding narratives do not have strong historical support. Dr. Lawrence H. Schiffman, professor of Hebrew and Judaic studies at New York University, said the new genetic data could well explain how certain far-flung Jewish communities were formed.
quote: In a recent book, ''The Beginnings of Jewishness,'' Dr. Cohen argued that far-flung Jewish communities had adopted the rabbinic teaching of the matrilineal descent of Jewishness soon after the Islamic conquests in the seventh, eight and ninth centuries A.D.
One part of the Goldstein team's analysis, that matrilineal descent of Jewishness was practiced at or soon after the founding of each community, could fit in with this conclusion, Dr. Cohen said, if the communities were founded around this time.
/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]If the founding mothers of most Jewish communities were local, that could explain why Jews in each country tend to resemble their host community physically while the origins of their Jewish founding fathers may explain the aspects the communities have in common, Dr. Cohen said.
quote:Some scholars suspected that Jewish communities had through intermarriage or conversion become little different from their host populations. Many say they believe that even if Jews are a group definable in ethnic, as opposed to cultural or religious terms, it is either impossible or unwise to define an ethnic group genetically.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
The "The Book of Clarence" takes place 33 AD in Jerusalem. Are there any ancient studies that analyzed DNA close to that time in Israel of any of the neighboring countries?
Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: The "The Book of Clarence" takes place 33 AD in Jerusalem. Are there any ancient studies that analyzed DNA close to that time in Israel of any of the neighboring countries?
Good question
This is Avi Shalim, Iraqi Arab Jew
Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: The "The Book of Clarence" takes place 33 AD in Jerusalem. Are there any ancient studies that analyzed DNA close to that time in Israel of any of the neighboring countries?
According to our good jewish brother Tukuler
And from my own research I can concur.
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: The "The Book of Clarence" takes place 33 AD in Jerusalem. Are there any ancient studies that analyzed DNA close to that time in Israel of any of the neighboring countries?
Yes there is the study of the Tomb of the Shroud from the first century AD. It is located in Jerusalem. In it was found skeletons, textile fragments and also human hair. The skeletons mtDNA was analyzed.
quote: The Tomb of the Shroud is a first-century C.E. tomb discovered in Akeldama, Jerusalem, Israel that had been illegally entered and looted. The investigation of this tomb by an interdisciplinary team of researchers began in 2000. More than twenty stone ossuaries for collecting human bones were found, along with textiles from a burial shroud, hair and skeletal remains. The research presented here focuses on genetic analysis of the bioarchaeological remains from the tomb using mitochondrial DNA to examine familial relationships of the individuals within the tomb and molecular screening for the presence of disease. There are three mitochondrial haplotypes shared between a number of the remains analyzed suggesting a possible family tomb.
Exactly but that Elijah compares this to historical revisionism...
Moreover ethiopians aren't into those racial debates they can see beyond skin color :
I remember watching a documentary about christian ethiopians then you had the comment section filled with afro-americans complaining that ethiopians had white skinned icons.
You are fooling no one White nationalist, White supremacists and anyone period who suffer from the chronic affliction and obsession of anti-Blackness such as yourself hate to see Blacks and and none Whites in general portraying biblical icons as anything other than White the whiter the better.
I am sure that you know that Ethiopians have a tradition of depicting biblical icons as Black like themselves. You are also aware that Ethiopians and any other Blacks depicting Jesus and his mother in the likeness of people that look like they are from Norway like in the pic above benefits White nationalism and not the Ethiopians, and stroke your anti Blackness and anti African obsession which is your sole purpose on Egyptsearch
Posted by Askia_The_Great (Member # 22000) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: As I mentioned earlier, and as Archeo pointed out, this is not related to "Afrocentrism" as it is understood in certain groups in the United States. Naturally, people tend to depict historical figures in a way that resembles their own folks, just like many other cultures do. I'm fairly certain that if I were to ask a random Christian Ethiopian whether Jesus was "black" or resembled Ethiopians, their answer would likely be "no," despite the Ethiopian depictions of him. In contrast, I'm less certain about the perspectives of Afro-Americans. Let's be real.
Uh... Yea. And wouldn't this be the same exact thing for Black Americans? But lets see:
1. Abyssinians renamed their country and themselves "Ethiopian" which is a Greek word which was NOT originally meant for them but people in the area of Sudan who they had nothing to do with.
2. Believes the Lost Ark is found in Ethiopia.
3. Depictions of Black Jesus(again... How the hell is this different from Black Americans???).
4. Africanizing Queen Sheba.
But yet no smoke for your Afro-Asiatic brothers. Who are the original "Afrocentrics" if we being real.
Posted by Askia_The_Great (Member # 22000) on :
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP:
quote:Originally posted by Askia_The_Great: Yea I'm really getting tired of Black Americans being scapegoated as Afrocentrics when other Black groups played large parts in the ideology also from Caribbeans, West Africans, etc. The most prominent ones were a Senegalese and Guyanese for crying out loud. And like I said if we really wanna be real the original "Afrocentrics" were Ethio-Semitics but that's another story...
FWIW, I would have thought most Black African and Afro-Diasporan people around the world, not just African-Americans, supported so-called "Afrocentrism" at least when it came to whether ancient North Africans were Black. I don't know if most of them feel the same about the Israelites though. Sure, pretty much every Christianized population around the world has tended to depict Biblical protagonists in their own image, but it doesn't necessarily follow that those artistic depictions are all meant to represent how the artists think the ancient Israelites actually looked.
Then you also have this tribe in Zimbabwe.
Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Askia_The_Great:
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP:
quote:Originally posted by Askia_The_Great: Yea I'm really getting tired of Black Americans being scapegoated as Afrocentrics when other Black groups played large parts in the ideology also from Caribbeans, West Africans, etc. The most prominent ones were a Senegalese and Guyanese for crying out loud. And like I said if we really wanna be real the original "Afrocentrics" were Ethio-Semitics but that's another story...
FWIW, I would have thought most Black African and Afro-Diasporan people around the world, not just African-Americans, supported so-called "Afrocentrism" at least when it came to whether ancient North Africans were Black. I don't know if most of them feel the same about the Israelites though. Sure, pretty much every Christianized population around the world has tended to depict Biblical protagonists in their own image, but it doesn't necessarily follow that those artistic depictions are all meant to represent how the artists think the ancient Israelites actually looked.
Just watched Dr. Kevin Burrell's video on the Hebrew Israelites and he claims that the Igbo claims of " jewishness" go back to the 12th century. I am not sure how true that is but I find it interesting.
quote:Originally posted by Askia_The_Great: Uh... Yea. And wouldn't this be the same exact thing for Black Americans? But lets see:
1. Abyssinians renamed their country and themselves "Ethiopian" which is a Greek word which was NOT originally meant for them but people in the area of Sudan who they had nothing to do with.
2. Believes the Lost Ark is found in Ethiopia.
3. Depictions of Black Jesus(again... How the hell is this different from Black Americans???).
4. Africanizing Queen Sheba.
But yet no smoke for your Afro-Asiatic brothers. Who are the original "Afrocentrics" if we being real.
As I mentioned before, the situation is quite different when comparing Ethiopians to Black Americans. Ethiopians do not hold the belief that ancient Israelites were "black" or had a similar appearance to them. There is no appropriation, no revisionism, and no particular ideology associated with this perspective, which stands in contrast to the situation among Black Americans. In fact, I've seen many horners making fun of the we wuz claims of Black americans.
Regarding Queen Sheba, while it's likely that she originated from Yemen, there is some uncertainty surrounding this claim. In many ancient sources, there is ambiguity when it comes to distinguishing between southern Arabia and the Horn. Good examples of this uncertainty can be seen in references to the enigmatic "land of Ophir" and the "Land of Punt".
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nanny Town: You are fooling no one White nationalist, White supremacists and anyone period who suffer from the chronic affliction and obsession of anti-Blackness such as yourself hate to see Blacks and and none Whites in general portraying biblical icons as anything other than White the whiter the better.
"White nationalist" "White supremacist" while I'm not even european what are you talking about ?
quote:Originally posted by Nanny Town: I am sure that you know that Ethiopians have a tradition of depicting biblical icons as Black like themselves. You are also aware that Ethiopians and any other Blacks depicting Jesus and his mother in the likeness of people that look like they are from Norway like in the pic above benefits White nationalism and not the Ethiopians, and stroke your anti Blackness and anti African obsession which is your sole purpose on Egyptsearch
Black ? Ethiopians exhibit genetic characteristics that place them in an intermediate position. They are genetically closer to North Africans and Middle Eastern populations than to those from West, Central, or South Africa. Morphologically, they tend to cluster more closely with West Eurasians, including Europeans, rather than "blacks". So why do you put them in the same category ?
"Anti African" while I'm literally african XD
Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by Askia_The_Great: Uh... Yea. And wouldn't this be the same exact thing for Black Americans? But lets see:
1. Abyssinians renamed their country and themselves "Ethiopian" which is a Greek word which was NOT originally meant for them but people in the area of Sudan who they had nothing to do with.
2. Believes the Lost Ark is found in Ethiopia.
3. Depictions of Black Jesus(again... How the hell is this different from Black Americans???).
4. Africanizing Queen Sheba.
But yet no smoke for your Afro-Asiatic brothers. Who are the original "Afrocentrics" if we being real.
As I mentioned before, the situation is quite different when comparing Ethiopians to Black Americans. Ethiopians do not hold the belief that ancient Israelites were "black" or had a similar appearance to them. There is no appropriation, no revisionism, and no particular ideology associated with this perspective, which stands in contrast to the situation among Black Americans. In fact, I've seen many horners making fun of the we wuz claims of Black americans.
Regarding Queen Sheba, while it's likely that she originated from Yemen, there is some uncertainty surrounding this claim. In many ancient sources, there is ambiguity when it comes to distinguishing between southern Arabia and the Horn. Good examples of this uncertainty can be seen in references to the enigmatic "land of Ophir" and the "Land of Punt".
quote:The Ethiopian Empire, also known as Abyssinia, existed from approximately 1270 until 1974. The empire was established by Yekuno Amlak, who claimed descent from King Solomon and the Queen of Sheba. The empire was originally small and politically unstable, but expanded significantly during the crusades of Amda Seyon I and Dawit I. The empire reached its peak during the long reign of Emperor Zara Yaqob
The Kebra Nagast
quote:The central Solomonic narrative of the text is thought to derive from the Zagwe dynasty, who believed the Axumites were descended from Solomon.[11][12] "Makeda" might have its origins in multiple terms. Sabaean inscriptions mention mlkt (𐩣𐩡𐩫𐩩, "queen");[13] furthermore, Sabaean tribes knew the title of mqtwyt (𐩣𐩤𐩩𐩥𐩺𐩩, "high official"). Alternatively Makueda, the personal name of the queen in Ethiopian legend might be interpreted as a popular rendering of the title of mqtwyt.[14] Other historians consider parts of the Kebre Negast date to as late as the end of the sixteenth century, when Muslim incursions and contacts with the wider Christian world made the Ethiopian Church concerned with asserting its character and Jewish traditions.[15]
Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
Tafari was crowned Negusa Nagast, literally King of Kings, rendered in English as "Emperor".[42] Upon his ascension, he took as his regnal name Haile Selassie I. Haile means in Ge'ez "Power of" and Selassie means trinity—therefore Haile Selassie roughly translates to "Power of the Trinity".[43] Haile Selassie's full title in office was "By the Conquering Lion of the Tribe of Judah , His Imperial Majesty Haile Selassie I, King of Kings, Lord of Lords, Elect of God
Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: The "The Book of Clarence" takes place 33 AD in Jerusalem. Are there any ancient studies that analyzed DNA close to that time in Israel of any of the neighboring countries?
According to our good jewish brother Tukuler
And from my own research I can concur.
quote:[Ethiopian peoples and their customs]
[Physical features]
[QUOTE] But there are also a great number of descent groups (genē) among the Ethiopians, some of them dwelling in the land lying on both banks of the Nile and on the islands in the river, others inhabiting the neighbouring country of Arabia , and still others residing in the interior of Libya. (2) The majority of them, and especially those who dwell along the river, are dark-skinned and have flat noses and wooly hair.
Citation with stable link: Philip A. Harland, 'Ethiopians: Diodoros on their claims, appearance, and customs (mid-first century BCE),' Ethnic Relations and Migration in the Ancient World, last modified November 23, 2022, http://philipharland.com/Blog/?p=8036. Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey: Tafari was crowned Negusa Nagast, literally King of Kings, rendered in English as "Emperor".[42] Upon his ascension, he took as his regnal name Haile Selassie I. Haile means in Ge'ez "Power of" and Selassie means trinity—therefore Haile Selassie roughly translates to "Power of the Trinity".[43] Haile Selassie's full title in office was "By the Conquering Lion of the Tribe of Judah , His Imperial Majesty Haile Selassie I, King of Kings, Lord of Lords, Elect of God
Your point ? People can believe they descend from someone yet being aware they aren't exactly similar to their ancestor.
Also Haile Selassie didn't feel "black" and described himself as caucasian :
Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey: Tafari was crowned Negusa Nagast, literally King of Kings, rendered in English as "Emperor".[42] Upon his ascension, he took as his regnal name Haile Selassie I. Haile means in Ge'ez "Power of" and Selassie means trinity—therefore Haile Selassie roughly translates to "Power of the Trinity".[43] Haile Selassie's full title in office was "By the Conquering Lion of the Tribe of Judah , His Imperial Majesty Haile Selassie I, King of Kings, Lord of Lords, Elect of God
Your point ? People can believe they descend from someone yet being aware they aren't exactly similar to their ancestor.
Also Haile Selassie didn't feel "black" and described himself as caucasian :
Quit changing the subject. The subject was did the Abyssinian appropriate Judean/Jewish/Israelite culture.
There are only two possible answers to this.
Yes they did. or They are descendants of the true Israelite and jews.
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey: Quit changing the subject. The subject was did the Abyssinian appropriate Judean/Jewish/Israelite culture.
There are only two possible answers to this.
Yes they did. or They are descendants of the true Israelite and jews. [/QB]
They didn't. They merely asserted their dynasty had Israelite origins to legitimize their authority. What's the issue with that ? The King of Morocco openly claims descent from the Prophet Muhammad.
This is quite different from Black Americans asserting that ancient Israelites shared physical/genetic similarities with them and that they alone are the genuine Jews.
Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey: Quit changing the subject. The subject was did the Abyssinian appropriate Judean/Jewish/Israelite culture.
There are only two possible answers to this.
Yes they did. or They are descendants of the true Israelite and jews.
They didn't. They merely asserted their dynasty had Israelite origins to legitimize their authority. What's the issue with that ? The King of Morocco openly claims descent from the Prophet Muhammad.
This is quite different from Black Americans asserting that ancient Israelites shared physical/genetic similarities with them and that they alone are the genuine Jews. [/QB]
That is just not true. They believe themselves to be the true Israelites
quote:As physical descendants of Judean aristocracy of Solomon’s age, Ethiopian Christians are the real Israel of flesh. As Christians, they are the real Israel in spiritu (just as other Christians are), being thus Israel twice. And they are thrice Israel, as the only correct Christians after Chalcedon (well, together with Copts, Armenians, and Syriac Jacobites).
55. The Jews of Ethiopia to 1862 (Jewish History Lab)
6:22
Ethiopians regards themselves as Israelites.
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
quote:Originally posted by Askia_The_Great: Hell. The "Israelite" thing isn't just Black Americans either but also Caribbeans too and heck Africans! You have a loud minority of Igbos who truly believe they are the Hebrews. https://www.cnn.com/2013/02/01/world/africa/nigeria-jews-igbo/index.html
Then you also have this tribe in Zimbabwe. [/QB]
The thread is a whole troll attempt. let alone disingenuous.
-For one, Afrocentrism is poorly defined, so there nothing really to argue against as far as the Afrocentricity of the subject matter. -For two, it isn't Afrocentric to race-bend based on phenotype. Especially if you want to pigeon-hole those who claim being descendant from the Levant or Arabia in congruence with their faith. That region isn't Africa. So people who believe this aren't Afrocentric. -For three, he once again tries to bait and switch using genetic inferences to suggest kinship and in return assign phenotype. But at the same time makes the argument that people can look different from their predecessors. It's complete lack of self awareness and cognitive dissonance. Tell him his north African ancestors looked different from him and he loses his shit lol. -Four, it is a universal and non-controversial point that people pray to and/or prefer to pray to figures and gods who resemble their own people. So race bending a totem is not unique to Africans in even the slightest. In fact to get people to assimilate to a society or a religious foundation, missionaries are incentivized to conceal true defining racial characteristics or even create new gods akin to the people being assimilated. -Five, he's tone deaf about what and which Afrocentric points have been debated among Afrocentrists (true definition of the term.) For Instance; he's unaware of the fact that mostly phenotypic an morphological inferences is what facilitated claims that bantu-Africans for example, descended from A.Egyptians. And the more Eurocentric talking point at that time was that despite morphological and skin color overlap, the A.Egyptians were not akin to other Africans, moreso than they were blackened-adapted Eurasians; ie the hamitic myth/hypothesis. Same thing for ancient levantine people who shown some minor traits attributable to black people. He's unaware that they're camps of people who can acknowledge these overlaps without projecting kinship. And the reason why he lacks that awareness is because he himself uses the latter to retroactively define the former.
...This whole thing was a garbage troll attempt, or so I hope.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: ...This is quite different from Black Americans asserting that ancient Israelites shared physical/genetic similarities with them...
Uhhhhh... a firsthand eyewitness account recorded by the muslim arabs invading Egypt (7th century) describes Israelites as being indistinguishable from Ethiopians and Nubians ("black africans"). This has been explained to you before. Get over it bruh, it's historical fact.
"A Short History of the Copts and of Their Church" by The Rev. S.C. Malan, M.A., page 72 (1873) D. Nutt
The thing is though, that majority of AAs DO NOT see Jesus/ and or Ancient Israel as Black. Thats the whole reason for the BHI and one of their Gimmicks i.e that AAs pray to a white Jesus..its the same One Trick Pony critique from black Muslims like Malcolm X who said the same thing about AA Xtians.
Its so weird for this dude to not only push a thread based on faux out raged generated (Im guessing by) anti-SJW twitter trolls, but to persist DESPITE being called out on his BS by multiple AA members.
Is'nt this the behavior he accuses Afrocentrics of engaging in...how Ironic. You really can't make this stuff up.
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Askia_The_Great:
-Four, it is a universal and non-controversial point that people pray to and/or prefer to pray to figures and gods who resemble their own people.
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: -For three, he once again tries to bait and switch using genetic inferences to suggest kinship and in return assign phenotype. But at the same time makes the argument that people can look different from their predecessors. It's complete lack of self awareness and cognitive dissonance. Tell him his north African ancestors looked different from him and he loses his shit lol.
LOL, I've definitely noticed that about the OP poster. He'll make inferences about ancient people's phenotype based on where published aDNA samples plot on a PCA chart...as long as it's convenient for him (e.g. try telling him that Iberomaurusians might have looked "Aethiopid" since they happen to plot close to Horners on this PCA at least).
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
So from what I gather it appears that almost 100% of the users on this website, regardless of their personal belief system(s), largely agree that antalas is an unhinged pseudo troll.
Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: So from what I gather it appears that almost 100% of the users on this website, regardless of their personal belief system(s), largely agree that antalas is an unhinged pseudo troll.
Yes
I would say an unhinged pseudo racist troll
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
It is interesting to see that Egyptians and ancient Israelites have been played by both "white" and "black" actors. But we seldom see persons from the more southern part of Africa being portraid by "white" actors. Imagine a white Shaka Zulu, or Nelson Mandela. It would probably stir up a lot of feelings and reactions.
Even a fantasy figure like Black Panther could probably not be played by a "white" actor without a lot of reactions.
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: It is interesting to see that Egyptians and ancient Israelites have been played by both "white" and "black" actors. But we seldom see persons from the more southern part of Africa being portraid by "white" actors. Imagine a white Shaka Zulu, or Nelson Mandela. It would probably stir up a lot of feelings and reactions.
Even a fantasy figure like Black Panther could probably not be played by a "white" actor without a lot of reactions.
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: It is interesting to see that Egyptians and ancient Israelites have been played by both "white" and "black" actors. But we seldom see persons from the more southern part of Africa being portraid by "white" actors. Imagine a white Shaka Zulu, or Nelson Mandela. It would probably stir up a lot of feelings and reactions.
Even a fantasy figure like Black Panther could probably not be played by a "white" actor without a lot of reactions.
Sir Lawrence Olivier comes to mind when it comes to black face and Black/African characters
Othello the Moor of course
But the one that hits is Sir Laurence as the real life Mohammed Ahmed bin Abdullah bin Fahal was born on 12 August 1843 in Labab Island, Dongola in northern Sudan. He was born into a notable religious Arabized Nubian family Muhammad Ahmed (a Sudanese leader whose devotees proclaimed him the Mahdi) Who defeated the British & The Egyptians in the Sudan
The Mahdi's son
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
Today the opposition against such things are somewhat more pronounced. Even a meme or drawing on the net of a white Black Panther seems to have rendered some protests, so one can just imagine how such a film would be received.
In older times also Asians have been played by white actors
Like Werner Oland playing the Chinese detective Charlie Chan
Sometimes Asians have played characters who where white from the beginning like Jackie Chan playing Passepartout in Around the World in Eighty Days
Passepartout has also been played by African French actor Ibrahim Koma. It seems not have avoken too many protests.
But it seems that race swapping on film has become a somewhat more contentious issue lately.
There is no film with a white/European Black Panther yet, but I still think there would be protests if such film was made. In parts how race swapping is received depends also on which figure being race swapped and how dear that figure is to a certain people (like we saw in the case of Cleopatra, Egyptians did not care much when Aalliyah played the ancient Egyptian vampire queen Akasha).
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
One figure that has not been race swapped on film yet is Tarzan. According to some such a film would annoy both "white" and "black" audiences sine the figure Tarzan was written as a white man (many have grown up with the character), in some way symbolizing European presence in Africa. On the other hand an African Tarzan could awake old reminiscents of African people being characterized as "apes". An African ape man would not be especially well received.
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
But still today Egyptians and ancient Israelis seems to be race swapped in both directions. Hopefully we will see some Hollywood productions where ancient Egyptians are portraid by Egyptian actors, and ancient Israelites by Israeli actors.
Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
Race swapping?
Nah, that has happened too, especially with books of fiction then Hollywood actually whitewashed the character.
Only white actors have played Heathcliff until recent times, TOTAL white washing because the romance would have been interacial thus taboo
Moses! Moses was a black hebrew egyptian living in the delta around Goshen...
Has a black actor ever played Moses?
Sahih al-Bukhari 3395, 3396 Book 60, Hadith 69
The Prophet may Allah’s peace and blessings be upon him mentioned the night of his Ascension and said, “The prophet Moses was Adam ( dark brown to jet black ) , a tall as if he was from the men of the tribe of Shanu’a.
وَذَكَرَ النَّبِيُّ صلى الله عليه وسلم لَيْلَةَ أُسْرِيَ بِهِ فَقَالَ ” مُوسَى آدَمُ طُوَالٌ كَأَنَّهُ مِنْ رِجَالِ شَنُوءَةَ ”
Sahih Muslim 165 Book 1, Hadith 326
”On my night journey I passed by Musa Ibn Imraan may peace be upon him was an Adam (dark brown to jet black skinned) man, tall, kinky/woolly haired as if he was a man from Shanua tribe”
مررت ليلة أسري بي على موسى بن عمران عليه السلام . رجل آدم طوال جعد . كأنه من رجال شنوء
Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
The 2017 film features a character named Edwina, played by Kirsten Dunst. In the original 1966 novel of the same name, Edwina was biracial. The novel also included a Black female slave character who didn't appear in the film.
Stuck is sort of a bizarre film to begin with. It's about a woman who hits a man with her car, sending him flying through her windshield, where he gets stuck. Instead of helping him get out or calling 911, she drives back to her house with him still inside her windshield and parks him in her garage because she doesn't want to get in trouble.
Even stranger, it's based on the true story of Chante Jawan Mallard, a Black nursing assistant. Instead of casting a Black actor in the role, director Stuart Gordon cast Suvari, who inexplicably sports cornrows in the film.
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
Have any Israeli or North African Jews, or Yemenite Jews ever played Moses in Hollywood?
Yes I agree with Roma people, they are often played by white actors, like Noomi Rapace in the Sherlock Holmes movie Game of Shadows
Otherwise Romes can vary in skin color depending of where they live and if they are somewhat mixed. I have met Finnish Romes who are quite light skinned, Swedish Romes, Romanian Romes, a bit darker, and in Greece I also saw many Romes, they were still a bit darker.
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
And Native Americans of course have also mostly been played by white actors in older times, and still today
Johnny Depp as Tonto in the Lone Ranger Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
In a Sherlock Holmes TV series they made Dr Watson into an Asian woman portraid by Lucy Liu. So they swapped both race and sex.
Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: And Native Americans of course have also mostly been played by white actors in older times, and still today
Johnny Depp as Tonto in the Lone Ranger
This is brownface not whitewash or erasure
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
There are Native American who think that such things are both a kind of erasure and cultural appropriation. It erases the real Native cultures and replaces them with fake Hollywood Natives.
But at least films like this do not claim that the ancestors (or precursors) of Native Americans were Africans, Welsh or Israels lost tribes.
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
I came to think about the TV series Vikings Valhalla. There they race swapped and gender swapped a Viking jarl into a Black woman. It attracted some attention here in Scandinavia. I remember a couple of comments on a history forum:
quote: I was dying to see it until I saw they made a black woman a "Jarl Estrid Haakon". Then I checked out.
quote: I watched it until I saw a Black woman who came riding on a horse, then I stopped watching.
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
Arch what is your point?
I think everyone agrees that inputting black talent into unsupported roles either by race swapping or ignoring geographical and historical context for the sake of diversity is lame and lazy. It's not that controversial of an idea.
But you're tossing together a bunch of unrelated examples while posing loaded questions which have been addressed by others on this page. You're obfuscating once again.
The black panther example is a clear indication that your ideas aren't well intentioned. It doesn't take much thought to realized how raceswapping a character like that will simply destroy the character itself, it's not outrage that will be the main problem. Think about the latest Disney live action Snow White with a Mexican Actress for example. (or even the genderswapping of the lost boys in peterpan)
You're asking why they don't use Egyptians and and Israelis to portray their ancient counterparts? If this is your honest question, I can suggest honest answers. For one Hollywood, or any other film industry for that matter, never prioritized ethnic accuracy. This whole idea of accurate representation is new. More important and practical things determined whether and actor will get a roll. -Talent -availability -Aesthetic.
Do yourself a favor and go back in time and watch the old version of "Death on the nile." -1978, Examine how they had a Pakistani have the only speaking roles of an Egyptian and it worked for the time. But I want you to pay attention to all of the extras in the background in that movie. They filmed at the set location so their were nothing but native Egyptians in the background. I would like you to report what you see.
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
USA is a multicultural society, there are immigrants from nearly the whole world, so finding actors who at least have recent descent from for example Egypt would not be impossible. By doing so one can also broaden the diversity in a more natural way than just throw in, for example, a black actor at random just to create diversity for its own sake. At least in leading roles it would not take an enormous effort. It would also give more jobs for actors usually underrepresented in Hollywoods films.
I know that some effort have been done to let actual Native Americans play Native roles (even if Hollywood not always strictly adheres to it), but there are other groups that also could be better represented. How many actual Egyptians had leading roles in a film like Gods of Egypt?
One can also wonder over the thought process behind a black Viking jarl, or a black mermaid in a Danish tale. And why a black Heimdall (even if Idris Elba is a very good actor)? Maybe inclusivity can be achieved in more creative ways.
One can maybe start to tell more genuine "black" stories instead of race swapping "white" figures. How many animated films has for example Disney made set in Africa with African people as protagonists?
I can agree that a white Black Panther would probably not be a good film, just like a black Tarzan also would agree badly with the underlying story.
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
So far, has any Israeli or Palestinian, or other Middle Eastern actor played Jesus in a Hollywood film?
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
Prove that modern israelis, palestinians, etc. are the same people as the ancient Jews, then you have a valid argument.
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: USA is a multicultural society, there are immigrants from nearly the whole world, so finding actors who at least have recent descent from for example Egypt would not be impossible. By doing so one can also broaden the diversity in a more natural way than just throw in, for example, a black actor at random just to create diversity for its own sake. At least in leading roles it would not take an enormous effort. It would also give more jobs for actors usually underrepresented in Hollywoods films.
I know that some effort have been done to let actual Native Americans play Native roles (even if Hollywood not always strictly adheres to it), but there are other groups that also could be better represented. How many actual Egyptians had leading roles in a film like Gods of Egypt?
One can also wonder over the thought process behind a black Viking jarl, or a black mermaid in a Danish tale. And why a black Heimdall (even if Idris Elba is a very good actor)? Maybe inclusivity can be achieved in more creative ways.
One can maybe start to tell more genuine "black" stories instead of race swapping "white" figures. How many animated films has for example Disney made set in Africa with African people as protagonists?
I can agree that a white Black Panther would probably not be a good film, just like a black Tarzan also would agree badly with the underlying story.
No you're not going to conflate arguments and bait and switch around your talking pints on a whim.
More often than not people with genuine lineage do not portray a role in question.
No one finds it controversial that race swapping for the sake of diversity is lame and lazy. Don't try to hide your intentions behind that argument.
Let's talk about Egyptians... There are many Egyptian actors who get roles in Hollywood and etc. But casting a role for the expressed attempt at going for accuracy based solely on "relatedness" or National representation is a new idea. It is a "woke" idea. And you're pushing for it while complaining about blacks being pushed in the same form of media for the same type of agenda.
Only recently has your concerns been of any importance. Actors got their roles based on their Talent, Aestetic and availability.
Let's use your same example:
Chadwick Boseman who plays a king of a fictional East African Kingdom whom spoke an east African language, was an American, who couldn't speak a lick of Xhosa before the role. -But he was talented, he fit the aesthetic of being black and somewhat athletic and charismatic and he was available.
Marvel's Heimdal was played by an actor who was Available, popular and talented. His aesthetic could be seen as a problem, but the majority of the cast has no Scandinavian heritage and the look they were going for was mystical magical negro. So the issue is more centered around would anyone want to see a black person and not does a black person portray any accuracy. For as we can all tell, lore and accuracy as well as Scandinavian representation was not the goal of Marvel's film. So if your complaints just stop at Heimdal you have to fully explain why in that case.
I gave you a task of look into "Death on the Nile" 1978... Do you think it was or wasn't okay to have the only Egyptian with a speaking role be played by a Pakistani? And what do you think of all of the actual Egyptians who had to work in the back? Do you think you'll be able to tell them apart aesthetically from some other Nationals or ethnic groups? What reason do you think they didn't just use one of the available Egyptians on set for the speaking role?
Posted by Kimbles (Member # 23765) on :
WAHAHAHA. I came back to see the usual suspects complaining about boogeymen again. And yall keep falling for the bait, it's getting sad. Do yall not see what hes doing with posting this sh*t? Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
quote:posted by El Maestro
No you're not going to conflate arguments and bait and switch around your talking pints on a whim.
You do not decide what I write or not write, and I will not jump on some stupid task from your side, who do you think you are? Silly.
I can comment what I want in this thread as long as I do not break any forum rules.
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
But I can agree, Hollywood is a cesspool of misrepresentation, they do not care about much if they only can earn some money.
What one can do is to try to watch more films which are actually made in Egypt, or other countries in Africa and the Middle East, to at least get another view of the world than the one produced by American mass culture.
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx:
quote:posted by El Maestro
No you're not going to conflate arguments and bait and switch around your talking pints on a whim.
You do not decide what I write or not write, and I will not jump on some stupid task from your side, who do you think you are? Silly.
I can comment what I want in this thread as long as I do not break any forum rules.
You're asking dumb loaded questions I can ask one in return. You're not gonna conflate arguments and bait and switch around your talking pints on a whim. If you do I'll call it out and I urge others who read your posts to do the same.
how about you google Israeli actors and their roles and stop asking dumb questions if you can't watch a movie set in Egypt with actual Egyptians in it and think about your own position as it relates to that.
Silly
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
You can babble all you want and I can choose to ignore you.
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
Otherwise it is many times a cleaning of the mind to see other films than the American films which unfortunately flood even my country.
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: You can babble all you want and I can choose to ignore you.
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
This Clarence film seems to be a comedy. I wonder if it will be nearly as funny, but also controversial as Monthy Pythons Biblical comedy Life of Brian (1979) once was. In that time some thought it was blasphemic and in some countries it could not be shown. But during the years it has achieved somewhat of a cult status.
A somewhat silly, but funny scene, genuine British humour:
Life of Brian Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: Prove that modern israelis, palestinians, etc. are the same people as the ancient Jews, then you have a valid argument.
This!... the new testament geneology of Jesus claims have kushites/kenites as some of Jesus ancestors
So! You gotta read the book and understand that Jesus was at least mixed race...
Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
Andromeda, who was a originally depicted as a black princess from Ethiopia, has been made to be a white woman in many art pieces. She was in fact a black woman, but many artist went on believing she was white. In addition, in many paintings of the old testament the queen of Sheba is depicted as white
quote:Where are all the beautiful, powerful, black-skinned females from mythology and history? They were erased by Western art, argues Sophia Smith Galer.
quote:Anyone who watched either of the two Clash of the Titans films will know that Judi Bowker and Alexa Devalos are both white women, and anyone who has seen Andromeda in a painting – perhaps Titian’s or Poynter’s – will believe she is white too. But McGrath’s article was definitive in addressing three things: that all the Greek mythographers placed Andromeda as a princess of Ethiopia, that Ovid specifically refers to her dark skin and that artists throughout Western art history frequently omitted to depict her blackness because Andromeda was supposed to be beautiful, and blackness and beauty – for many of them – was dichotomous. There is no doubt about Andromena’s race, according to Professor McGrath.
[QUOTE] Yet Renaissance art repeatedly depicts Andromeda as white. In Piero di Cosimo’s Perseus Freeing Andromeda from the 1510s she is actually whiter than all the figures around her, including a black musician and her parents, who are considerably darker and in exotic costume. We do know that there was active debate about her skin colour, a debate that would certainly seem racist to modern eyes. McGrath references Francisco Pacheco, a Spanish artist and writer, who asks in one passage of his book Arte de la Pintura why Andromeda is so often painted as white-skinned when several of the sources say she is black./QUOTE]
Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
quote:Wolfgang Peterson’s 2004 film Troy signifies perhaps the most blatant example of Hollywood whitewashing. As part of his PR campaign, Peterson declared the film to be an accurate adaptation of Homer’s The Iliad. However, anyone acquainted with the Trojan Epics will immediately recognise the problem with this statement. Achilles does not die in The Iliad. Nor is there a wooden horse. These events only appear in other texts, such as The Aethiopis or Quintus of Smyrna’s Posthomerica. These epics also feature another major event that comes between the final scenes of The Iliad and the death of Achilles : the appearance of Memnon, the black Ethiopian king .
quote:Reading from the source texts, we learn that “Memnon, the stout of heart, at the head of countless tribes of black men from the land of Aithiopia”, came to Troy’s defence after receiving a plea for help from his uncle, King Priam (played by white Irishman Peter O’Toole).[1] It is barely worth mentioning that Memnon is not featured in the Hollywood film (but Peterson nonetheless includes the wooden horse and the death of Achilles). What is perhaps more surprising is the degree to which the Memnon episode in the Trojan saga has been all but cleansed from the contemporary cultural imagination at large . In spite of being the subject of an entire book in the Posthomerica, the character of Memnon is omitted not only in film adaptations but in most popular accounts of the story. The fact that Troy was if not an African colony then at least part of a large alliance of kingdoms stretching thousands of miles from deep inside the African interior to the periphery of Europe (and long before the dawn of the Roman Empire), has been all but eliminated from Western cultural memory.
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
About Hollywood films: One wonders where are all the Middle Eastern and North African people in these films, those with olive skin tones or tones like boxwood? They are often played by white, or sometimes black or mixed race people.
In the film 300 Xerxes is played by a Brazilian. His skin tone is perhaps in line with ancient Middle Easterners but his clothes and attire is rather ridiculous. And where is the magnificent beard of Xerxes?
The real Xerxes (left) and Rodrigo Santoro as Xerxes in the film 300 (right)
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
About Jesus: As stated before, maybe we just have to wait for some non American film to be able to see Jesus portraid by an Israeli, Palestinian or other Middle Eastern, or even a North African actor. Would be more authentic than a European or African American Jesus.
Posted by Askia_The_Great (Member # 22000) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: As I mentioned before, the situation is quite different when comparing Ethiopians to Black Americans. Ethiopians do not hold the belief that ancient Israelites were "black" or had a similar appearance to them. There is no appropriation, no revisionism, and no particular ideology associated with this perspective, which stands in contrast to the situation among Black Americans. In fact, I've seen many horners making fun of the we wuz claims of Black americans.
Regarding Queen Sheba, while it's likely that she originated from Yemen, there is some uncertainty surrounding this claim. In many ancient sources, there is ambiguity when it comes to distinguishing between southern Arabia and the Horn. Good examples of this uncertainty can be seen in references to the enigmatic "land of Ophir" and the "Land of Punt". [/QB]
Its only "different" because Ethiopians are your fellow "Afro-Asiatics." I been to Ethiopia including the Halie Selassie church. I seen Black paintings of angels, Mary, Jesus, Sheba, etc.
Anyways, I'm making the discussion to lock this thread. The discussion is going NOWHERE as always. And doesn't bring anything new.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
but some how AAs are the only black diasporans in the world when people want to play their "Sh@t on AAs, Cry crocodile tears over nonsense/faux Outrage/compare their fav. token these abid blacks are good vs. bad AAs game.. 
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
