|
Post by deuceswild on Feb 9, 2005 13:04:43 GMT -5
Deuce you must not have gotten the Memo dodona has been changed to a strict afrocentrist vs. medicist board. No reasonable opinions needed. Apparently. It's like every second thread devolves into some sort of pissing match.
|
|
|
Post by nordicyouth on Feb 9, 2005 13:45:24 GMT -5
Truth be told, I'm not suprised. Apparently a little knowledge is dangerous, especially for certain people on this forum that have something to prove.
Dienekes may be busily refuting the historical texts of Nordicists, White Nationalists, White Supremacists, Neo-Fascists, et. al., but largely history is being taught the same as it ever was. A shot in the arm of the multi-cultural contribution to Western civilization and to global civilization in general does not an Afro-centrist curriculum make.
Note that ol' Hitler and his cadre attempted to re-write history from a German Supremacist perspective, an activity that still persists today.
Unfortunately, the vast majority of the bougeois* give little credence to either re-writes. More often than not, they concentrate on revisionist (or constructivist) history i.e. looking at the facts from a different perspective; removing biases.
Such revisions include the controversial claim that the Holocaust (a) never happened, or (b) never happened to the extent commonly believed. Nordicist? No. It's simply that concrete facts are few and far between, with one constructivist stating that the Holocaust only matters insofar as to inhibit condemnation of Israel's treatment of the Palestinians. Naturally, this was later retracted.
But revisionism and constructivism abound in the major post-secondary institutions, and as the future leaders of society are to be found there, I think that neither Nordicism or Afro-centrism carry any real weight. Todays intelligentsia are more interested in encompassing a variety of perspectives to achieve near-objectivity, than prove flawed premises.
*Noam Chomsky claimed that society consisted of (a) a ruling elite, some fraction of the populace; (b) an educated and professional middle class, some 20% of the populace; and (c) the working class (masses), some 80% of the populace. The bourgeois uphold the elite, who govern at their leave (not quite I'm simplifying things here), and function really as a bureaucracy for the elite. Note also that Orwell's text-within-a-text 'The Theory of Oligarchal Collectivism' reads similarly concerning the pyramidial class structure of societies throughout history.
NO ONE CARES WHO BUILT THE PYRAMIDS! END THIS THREAD!
And even if Afro-centrist curriculums are on the rise, there will always be a backlash, although I cannot guarantee it will be any more accurate.
|
|
|
Post by alexandrian on Feb 9, 2005 18:28:04 GMT -5
Obviously some people are offended by Afrocentrism when it seeks to steal my people's history, claim it for a people with low self-esteem, and seeks to remove me from my roots, because apparently I'm "too white" to be Egyptian.
|
|
Kame
Full Member
Posts: 122
|
Post by Kame on Feb 9, 2005 20:01:06 GMT -5
The school girls in the first picture have very frizzy hair, the one seated in front of the picture is the most mulatto-looking. To be honest they sorta look like brazilians to me. But that's just my opinion. The worshippers at the mosque are very caucosoid, but I can still see obvious black influence on some them. And if you said Egyptians are the "whitest" and fairest of all the middle-eastern groups why do so many of them appear brown-skinned? Frankly I don't but the idea that egyptians being the lightest thats absurd. They live in the desert for crying out loud. The last picture reminds me some of these brazilian children: The one in the front is actually a mulatto. What's interesting is that he looks more european than african. That look is quite common in Brazil. However the black phenotype usually dominates. Yeah thats actually what I meant. Besides anyways, "black" people come in a wide range of phenotypes, were not all "negroes-to-end-all-negroes". Tutsi's, Fulani, Masai, and other groups reach into the caucosoid range anyway. So the real question is, what is "black". Race is continually evolving as a concept. Actually, I thought it would be interesting to guage peoples reaction on this site when I said the Egyptians could have been black. Sort of like a bigotry test. Anyways I'm not an afrocentrist, I just think for the most part, egypts history has been distorted to favor a more eurocentric viewpoint. You won't see me saying absurd things like "ancient china was black" or "greeks were black" or "they came before columbus" or anything like that. But I don't think the subject of Egypt being black is afrocentrist. It is geographically, culturally and linguistically consistent with the rest of Africa, it's not such a far-fetched idea. Rather than taking your word for it, I'd rather just go there and see for myself.
|
|
Kame
Full Member
Posts: 122
|
Post by Kame on Feb 9, 2005 20:28:38 GMT -5
Wow, that is a huge departure from your "blacks have'nt created anything" rant earlier. Stop trying to appear neutral or unbiased, you are a bigot.
How do we even know you are actually egyptian? And even if you are, if you say you light-skinned and super-caucosoid you are definitely not from the original egyptian stock. You are an Arab. And who has lower self-esteem? The one who will absolutely go out of his way and vehemently deny that ancient egypt could've been black, or someone who suggest the possibility of the egyptians being more or less black, without caring either way even if they were'nt?
You my friend, have a complex. I saw in another thread titled "mediteranean pride" or something like that were you ranted about how "caucasoid" you were and how egyptians belong in the "brotherhood of mediteraneans". Nobody gives a damn if you were "caucasoid" or "mediteranean". You are desperately reaching out for some great identity to align yourself with. Those accomplishments were made by individuals who are long dead , I have repeatedly said it's stupid for modern individuals to "claim" civilizations.
Ancient egypt being black does'nt really mean shit anyway. Egypt is gone, and it's accomplishments have'nt really done much for the rest of Africa. chill out.
|
|
|
Post by alexandrian on Feb 9, 2005 20:42:18 GMT -5
The school girls in the first picture have very frizzy hair, the one seated in front of the picture is the most mulatto-looking. To be honest they sorta look like brazilians to me. But that's just my opinion. The worshippers at the mosque are very caucosoid, but I can still see obvious black influence on some them. And if you said Egyptians are the "whitest" and fairest of all the middle-eastern groups why do so many of them appear brown-skinned? Frankly I don't but the idea that egyptians being the lightest thats absurd. They live in the desert for crying out loud. The girl's hair isn't that frizzy, and you can't base race on hair alone. Irish redheads can have very frizzy hair- are they mulattoes. These are just tan girls with caucasian features and somewhat frizzy hair. I don't see negroid admixture surpassing 15% in the most mulatto-looking of all of them. I never said Egyptians were lightest in the MIddle East. I said they were on the whole lighter than southern Gulf Arabs. I know full well that Syrians and Lebanese are lighter than Egypitians. Egyptian's olive-tan-brown complexion means nothing racially. There are jet black people in India and Pakistanis and Indians are much darker than your average Egyptian, Saudi, or Syrian. Yet Pakis and Indians are not negroid. Actually, I thought it would be interesting to guage peoples reaction on this site when I said the Egyptians could have been black. Sort of like a bigotry test. Anyways I'm not an afrocentrist, I just think for the most part, egypts history has been whitewashed. you won't see me saying absurd things like "ancient china was black" or "greeks were black" or "they came before columbus" or anything like that. But I don't think the subject of Egypt being is afrocentrist. It is geographically and linguistically consistent with the rest of Africa, it's not such a far-fecthed idea. Don't make it seem like I'm the bigot and you're the sensitive, open-minded one. I know some ancient Egyptians had black admixture and were darker than many Egyptians today, but they certainly were not black in the racial sense, and portrayed themselves as completely distinct from negroids. If you visited ancient Egypt, you would not fit in as a local. You are the one with extreme ideas propagating that the ancient Egyptians were predominantly black Negroids (or are you saying they were pure black, which is even more ridiculous) Rather than taking your word for it, I'd rather just go there and see for myself. Good idea. Egypt is a very beautiful country with a warm and hospitable people. That's why so many people visit it and enjoy it every year, and it was the first tourism destination in the world. You can easily have fun if you don't let race get in the way of everything, which you probably will. Anyway, don't expect to fit in or be thought of as an Egypt, you will stand out a lot, even among predominantly European tourists.
|
|
|
Post by alexandrian on Feb 9, 2005 20:49:48 GMT -5
How do we even know you are actually egyptian? And even if you are, if you say you light-skinned and super-caucosoid you are definitely not from the original egyptian stock. You are an Arab. And who has lower self-esteem? The one who will absolutely go out of his way and vehemently deny that ancient egypt could've been black, or someone who suggest the possibility of the egyptians being more or less black, without caring either way even if they were'nt? You my friend, have a complex. I saw in another thread titled "mediteranean pride" or something like that were you ranted about how "caucasoid" you were and how egyptians belong in the "brotherhood of mediteraneans". Nobody gives a damn if you were "caucasoid" or "mediteranean". You are desperately reaching out for some great identity to align yourself with. Those accomplishments were made by individuals who are long dead , I have repeatedly said it's stupid for modern individuals to "claim" civilizations. Ancient egypt being black does'nt really mean shit anyway. Egypt is gone, and it's accomplishments have'nt really done much for the rest of Africa. chill out. I know I'm Egyptian. That's all that matters. I am not an Arab. Once again, the Arab invasion has been stastically proven to have not made a significant contribution to the egyptian genepool. Furthermore, I am an Egyptian Christian, and the few Egyptians who intermarried with Arabs had to become Muslims. I am olive-skinned with Caucasian features. I'm not trying to whitewash myself or my nation. As for Mediterranean Pride, I come from a city on the Mediterranean, once known as the "Pearl of the Mediterranean", a city that throughout history was a cosmpolitan jewel at the center of developed world. I have other Mediterranean admixture, and people often confuse me for a Greek, or Jew, or Lebanese, and my family for Persians or Arabs (just because we look like them doesn't mean we are Arabs) What's wrong with having a Mediterranean identity? Is Egypt not on the Mediterranean? Egyptians also tend to be very culturally Mediterranean, and I have a European outlook on things. I'm as much a Mediterranean, in the truest sense of the word, as a Greek, Libyan, or Turk. Egypt may not have made AFrica a better place. But that's because most black Africans were so isolated and backwards, they didn't have much interaction with other cultures. Egyptians were the first to invent the sailboat. Among the first to ferment alcohol and develop a system of writing. We had the first 365-day solar calendar. And the first to prescribe cures for fevers and have surgeries. WE were a very cosmopolitan civilization, and for that time's standards, were probably the most tolerant and open-minded society of that era. Ancient Egypt and Greco-Roman Egypt and Christian Egypt and Islamic Egypt and Medieval Egypt and Colonial Egypt and Modern Egypt have all made substantial contributions to modern civilization.
|
|
Kame
Full Member
Posts: 122
|
Post by Kame on Feb 9, 2005 21:28:10 GMT -5
Whatever.
Then we come to the definiton of who and what is "black". Are Somali's "black"? Ethiopians? Fulani? What you must understand is that "black" is not just a stereotypical phenotype, you are talking about the most phenotypically and genetically diverse people in the world. The same population that your ancestors sprang from 100,000 years ago. By that extension, pretty much everybody is "black" anyway.
When I look at ancient egyptian kings and queens and murals and statue's, and In my eye's, I see "black" people. I am not talking about West-africans, Nubians or "true negroes" . I am talking about "black" people who are physically intermediate. Try paying attention to what I am actually saying rather than just throwing out words:
No argument there, you are right. Zimbabwe did'nt do to bad for itself during the middle ages though. They built very precisely in stone, they smelted gold and had an elaborate drainage system, made beautiful ceremonial axes and jewelry, and traded with nations as far away as china.
There's also the swahili city-states, but they had good contacts with the Muslims and hindus.
Good for them. Thing is
1. No one uses a "sailboat" these days except for boating competetions.
2. Their surgery was primitive. I would'nt want them to operate on me, even if I did live in that time.
3. You neither created nor had a hand in any of the above things you named. You are a regular joe. Accomplish something yourself and stop identifying with the group.
|
|
|
Post by Springa on Feb 9, 2005 21:50:06 GMT -5
I'm Brazilian, so I know what I'm talking about. Looking at the phisical types on the pic, I'd say these kids are probably from the Northeastern interior (sertão) or the Amazon. It's not a particularly black region. Much less than the coastal region. Anyway, none of them are really mulattoes and I'd bet my life they are way more amerindian and european than African genetically speaking. Except for the little one with the Afro on the front, they're all "mestizos" (we don't use this word here) rather than mullatoes. Brazil is a vast and heterogeneous country. There are parts of it where blacks are virtrually unheard of, and parts where blacks are 80% of the population. If you wanted to depict Brazilian mulattoes, that wasn't a good picture. The school girls in the first picture have very frizzy hair, the one seated in front of the picture is the most mulatto-looking. To be honest they sorta look like brazilians to me. But that's just my opinion. The worshippers at the mosque are very caucosoid, but I can still see obvious black influence on some them. And if you said Egyptians are the "whitest" and fairest of all the middle-eastern groups why do so many of them appear brown-skinned? Frankly I don't but the idea that egyptians being the lightest thats absurd. They live in the desert for crying out loud. The last picture reminds me some of these brazilian children: The one in the front is actually a mulatto. What's interesting is that he looks more european than african. That look is quite common in Brazil. However the black phenotype usually dominates. Yeah thats actually what I meant. Besides anyways, "black" people come in a wide range of phenotypes, were not all "negroes-to-end-all-negroes". Tutsi's, Fulani, Masai, and other groups reach into the caucosoid range anyway. So the real question is, what is "black". Race is continually evolving as a concept. Actually, I thought it would be interesting to guage peoples reaction on this site when I said the Egyptians could have been black. Sort of like a bigotry test. Anyways I'm not an afrocentrist, I just think for the most part, egypts history has been distorted to favor a more eurocentric viewpoint. You won't see me saying absurd things like "ancient china was black" or "greeks were black" or "they came before columbus" or anything like that. But I don't think the subject of Egypt being black is afrocentrist. It is geographically, culturally and linguistically consistent with the rest of Africa, it's not such a far-fetched idea. Rather than taking your word for it, I'd rather just go there and see for myself.
|
|
Kame
Full Member
Posts: 122
|
Post by Kame on Feb 9, 2005 22:00:23 GMT -5
Were'nt the original natives nearly wiped out? Anyways, I was'nt talking about the other kids, I was speaking of the one in the front.
|
|
|
Post by yigal on Feb 10, 2005 0:34:03 GMT -5
ROTFLMAO no, brazil still has Indians, and some tows are in fact mestiço while others are German and yet others are black
BTW i had an egyptian neighbour, Tariq he was a copta a nice guy and he wasnt even close to black he actually looked kind of turkish or greek he had a big bushy mustache , dark monobrow ,curly med hair and a not even olive complexion, kind of pale but not pink
Kame ya 7abibi face it your not Egyptian and if you wher in misr u would be called abeed not even nubian
|
|
|
Post by nordicyouth on Feb 10, 2005 0:51:22 GMT -5
I've seen full-blooded Peruvians that I've mistaken for East Indians. And yes, Ancient Egypt being Negroid black is Afro-centrist. You're the bigot. Quit trying to be White and worry about history, go make your own.
|
|
Kame
Full Member
Posts: 122
|
Post by Kame on Feb 10, 2005 0:53:57 GMT -5
Well thats nice, even though he's only one person. Somehow amidst your garbled wording and horrific grammer, I was able to ascertain that you were in disagreement with my post. Translation: "I would not be thought of as egyptian, not even nubian". Atleast the others could type legibly, I can barely even understand you. Your post is not even worth a passing thought.
|
|
Kame
Full Member
Posts: 122
|
Post by Kame on Feb 10, 2005 1:07:29 GMT -5
"Trying to be white" WTF are you talking about? Anyways how many times do I to tell you I did'nt say the egyptians were "negroid" dumbass. I said many of them would have been classified as intermediate or east-african looking.
As for the bigot thing, you must be kidding yourself:
Your a grade A , certified, f@%king bigot, little stormfront jr..
|
|
|
Post by deuceswild on Feb 10, 2005 1:28:30 GMT -5
You know what this thread needs....a stake through the heart.
|
|