Race & ethnicity terms in the ancient world

[Dawn2Earth]

Color around the world

Aside from the obvious (thinking in terms of different lines or lineages), I wouldn't say there is evidence any ancient thought racially with the same concepts we do today. Furthermore color terms are subjective. For instance on color terms which are subjective as they merge: in various cultures with or without words for "brown" "beige" "peachy" and "tan" people of those colors are classed as "red" or "white" or "black". Believe it or not, outside the West people of brown complection have been classed as "white", and folks of white (tan / peachy) complection classed as red. "Yellow" has been used as a descriptor: asians, light skinned Western blacks and light skinned Africans. In coastal North Africa I believe a group of mostly tan complection referred to themselves as "black". Outside of Africa, in India, the Mid-East and Europe red black and white have all also been used with white not always occupying the lightest bracket (due to peachiness, lighter skin showing the blushiness skin color). In Turkey or somewhere around there this historically may have been more alligned with environment: black, for mountain folks, red for desert (which would co-inside with how many thought Kemetians used color conceptions), and white, for snow caps people. In Russia there ethicities in the past were called black due to being predominantly of dark hair.




(Two depictions of Kemetians and Asiatic foreigners believed by some to be Hebrews.)

Ancient Egyptian View

According to the Kemetian "Table of Nations" they considered themselves and the Nehesu ("Southerners") to be children of Heru, "black ones", and the Aamu and Tamahu were children of Set, "reds". This has been tied to land too but in general they - Asiatics and Tamahu, seem depicted not as red looking though, but instead in lighter - shades from creamy -complected to caramel brownish. So one wonders if this were in reference to skin color. Noticeably while there are at times Aamu ("asiatics") and most of the time Tamehu ("libyans") with skin lighter (from what *i've seen*), Nehesu were depicted in tones Kemetian shades and darker.

Comparing wall paintings to the painted figurines implies realism on the part of the latter and figuritism and approximation on the part of the former, although the paintings can be quite detailed. In the latter even in small figurines it's common for you to see quite differing facial expressions and identifiably distinct looking faces. This would suggest the wall paintings to be more symbolic.

Some examples of depictions even jet black people exist, and these included both gods like Nut the Sky goddess as well as not yet deified and still earthly rulers depicted doing live things.

Then again Puntites, inhabitants of the Kemetians' self-proclaimed ancestral homeland Pwanit/Pwnt, were often painted in tones similar to Kemetians. Kemetians were painted in paper-bag to dark chocolate tones and Puntites are generally painted caramel toned. Nehesu were often painted brownish red to dark chocolate. And Sudanese skin tones do get quite dark in comparison to Northern Ethiopian ones (Ethiopia is Mountainous and Mountain area folk in Africa are often lighter skinned than those surrounding). One wonders about the red and yellow hair Nehesu were depicted with. And women and Asiatic foreigners were painted with more yellow to their complexion than Kemetian men.

Apparently this grouping people as red & black thing has other examples that survive to this day mostly in Africa (as far as I've heard of), whether the ethny terming people these considers themselves black or red, regardless of actual skin complection. I can think of a U.S. example: pretty light skinned blacks being known as "red bone" mainly by them Southern black folk. And to say someone is really dark you just say they're *black* only with extra emphasis to show that you're not just speaking ethnically you're talking about skin colour. Like really, all you have to say is "they black" [notice italics] in the context of describing how someone looks and it is known what you are refering to.

[Dawn2Earth]

Tigray / Amhara



One of these groups considers themselves red, I think.

Indians (Indigenous Americans) are classed as reds here:

"Modern, scientific racial classification began with Carolus Linnaeus in 1735, who classified humans into four races, based mostly on continental separation and, later, on skin color. His four groups were:

Americanus: reddish, choleric, and erect; hair black, straight, thick; wide nostrils, scanty beard; obstinate, merry, free; paints himself with fine red lines; regulated by customs.

Asiaticus: sallow, melancholy, stiff; hair black; dark eyes; severe, haughty, avaricious; covered with loose garments; ruled by opinions.

Africanus: black, phlegmatic, relaxed; hair black, frizzled; skin silky; nose flat; lips tumid; women without shame, they lactate profusely; crafty, indolent, negligent; anoints himself with grease; governed by caprice.

Europeaeus: white, sanguine, muscular; hair long, flowing; eyes blue; gentle, acute, inventive; covers himself with close vestments; governed by laws (Smedley 164).

He and others both before and after him used features that we would consider purely cultural today to define races. He held that these races were mutable varieties of man, not species, and that they reflected changes due to climate."

Taken from:

www-personal.umich.edu/~jonmorro/race.html

[Dawn2Earth]

In Nearby Cultures

There were lands that were called by the Greeks Western and Eastern AEthiopia. The word if deriving from Egyptian Etoshi (or something) means "the frontiers", but it may mean other things. It was not "anywhere outside of Greece" as it did not cover everywhere in the Middle East and Asia/Europe. Greeks compared varying skin tones of various lands Aethiopia comprised, so it could not have referred to skin tone unless being somewhat equivalent with "darkies" . Not to infer racism in the meaning of the term, for, for instance, the Greeks said of Aethiopians they were "handsome, the tallest and most pious of men" and took their Kemetian informants' word for it (as Kemetians were considered the wisest of men) that the "land of the gods" (Egyptian: "Land of the Neteru") as they both referred to it was located in this Western AEthiopia, more specifically Pwnt in Egyptian words (their Pwnt probably existed around modern Ethiopia, South Sudan and Eritrea). "West AEthiopia" refers to a region stretching from the Maghreb to the Nile Valley and Southward, and the Eastern version was home to places including ancient Sumer and "India". This idea is congruent with the early idea of Gentile distinction in Christian translations of Israelite literature. In the book of Genisis, in the Tanakh, the Isles of Japeth are mentioned thusly: "these are the nations of the gentiles" -- before there were ever any Jews (so are we to take it that out of the three he was non-religious one?). It's mentioned right before or after describing the lines of Japeth, in the same with either a colon or semi-colon being all there is to seperate it from the rest of the sentence. Perhaps translaters intentionally implied what they perceived as Shem and Ham being formative to the Israelites, or whom they perceive as having all had similar religions, or at least religions that were "Jewish enough" ;D as far as they (Christians) were concerned. Jews themselves had obviously been particularly influenced by both Canaanite and Egyptian stories and people (even if not endorsing the Egyptian practices of the time), a fact that is undeniable. Certainly not to literally imply the whole region as being Jewish to this day (as they are obviously not). Moving on, in my view this Gentile dichotomy would interestingly seem sort of analogous with how Anatolian and Greco-Roman civilization, though having their superstitions and gods (in a world full of those), pretty much pioneered secularism, atheism, and raw materialism to new levels. So, historically it makes sense that a region connected mostly with Japeth's descendants would be collectively labeled gentiles. This makes me wonder what the foreseen "times of the Gentiles" really refer to, not to imply gentile nations have ever been without racial heterogeneity. Today it is an umbrella term to refer to the non-Jewish in general though.

*

Shortly after writing the above stuff, something came back to me.

*

One time I happened across this white-supremacist write-up / version the story of Adam and Even in the garden of Eden.

In my head, my take on at the time was " ... of course. ... really [as in: seriously?]. ... right" after skimming through it and then moving on.

One cool / interesting thing I did get to take from it was the first or second time I'd come across an alternate interpretation of the snake. The Hebrew used for "serpent" they inform us could also refer to "magician" or something like that (don't remember). This vague memory I recall, it's interesting to me now, because they mention (not the only adherents to the Eden story to do so by the way) that there were people there before and besides Adam and Even [... which, is forreal like no duh when you read on to find Cain taking up a more-or-less wife in a foreign land who is not daughter to Adam and Eve] whom they claim were black, asian, and blasian, and whom the magician guy was one of. So under their view they were placed their by God and tricked out of the garden.

It's interesting to me, because in a way, it and certain W.A.S.P. related theology sort of coincide (if inadvertantly) with the classical Gentile thing I mention above.

The W.A.S.P. theology I'm mentioning is the belief that Anglo-Saxon's and their descendants are the true Chosen people, and the WASP-related stuff are those doctrines that hold the old Chosen ones were continually slippin and so now God has a general people.

So in all three versions there is one set of newbs ;D, all in a similar region of the Globe. Just lore to me, so I don't take it as what to believe (much less believe in dictating others' beliefs), just after the thought hit me I felt like posting it.

[anansi]

Jul 30, 2011 15:28:44 GMT -5 Dawn2Earth said:

Shortly after writing the above two posts, something came back to me.

*

One time I happened across this white-supremacist write-up / version the story of Adam and Even in the garden of Eden.

In my head, my take on at the time was " ... of course. ... really [as in: seriously?]. ... right" after skimming through it and then moving on.

One cool / interesting thing I did get to take from it was the first or second time I'd come across an alternate interpretation of the snake. The Hebrew used for "serpent" they inform us could also refer to "magician" or something like that (don't remember). This vague memory I recall, it's interesting to me now, because they mention (not the only adherents to the Eden story to do so by the way) that there were people there before and besides Adam and Even [... which, is forreal like no duh when you read on to find Cain taking up a more-or-less wife in a foreign land who is not daughter to Adam and Eve] whom they claim were black, asian, and blasian, and whom the magician guy was one of. So under their view they were placed their by God and tricked out of the garden.

It's interesting to me, because in a way, it and certain W.A.S.P. related theology sort of coincide (if inadvertantly) with the classical Gentile thing I mention above.

The W.A.S.P. theology I'm mentioning is the belief that Anglo-Saxon's and their descendants are the true Chosen people, and the WASP-related stuff are those doctrines that hold the old Chosen ones were continually slippin and so now there are no Chosen people.

So in all three versions there is one set of newbs ;D, all in a similar region of the Globe. Just lore to me, so I don't take it as what to believe (much less believe in dictating others' beliefs), just after the thought hit me I felt like posting it.

You know I asked this very question long ago in Sunday school and could not get a clear answer , just who were the people of the land of Nod? for as far as I knew there was only one family yet there was apparently an entire tribe or nation that sprang up out of nowhere for Cain to get a wife from.

[truthteacher2007]

Aug 2, 2011 0:03:11 GMT -5 anansi said:

Jul 30, 2011 15:28:44 GMT -5 Dawn2Earth said:

Shortly after writing the above two posts, something came back to me.

*

One time I happened across this white-supremacist write-up / version the story of Adam and Even in the garden of Eden.

In my head, my take on at the time was " ... of course. ... really [as in: seriously?]. ... right" after skimming through it and then moving on.

One cool / interesting thing I did get to take from it was the first or second time I'd come across an alternate interpretation of the snake. The Hebrew used for "serpent" they inform us could also refer to "magician" or something like that (don't remember). This vague memory I recall, it's interesting to me now, because they mention (not the only adherents to the Eden story to do so by the way) that there were people there before and besides Adam and Even [... which, is forreal like no duh when you read on to find Cain taking up a more-or-less wife in a foreign land who is not daughter to Adam and Eve] whom they claim were black, asian, and blasian, and whom the magician guy was one of. So under their view they were placed their by God and tricked out of the garden.

It's interesting to me, because in a way, it and certain W.A.S.P. related theology sort of coincide (if inadvertantly) with the classical Gentile thing I mention above.

The W.A.S.P. theology I'm mentioning is the belief that Anglo-Saxon's and their descendants are the true Chosen people, and the WASP-related stuff are those doctrines that hold the old Chosen ones were continually slippin and so now there are no Chosen people.

So in all three versions there is one set of newbs ;D, all in a similar region of the Globe. Just lore to me, so I don't take it as what to believe (much less believe in dictating others' beliefs), just after the thought hit me I felt like posting it.

You know I asked this very question long ago in Sunday school and could not get a clear answer , just who were the people of the land of Nod? for as far as I knew there was only one family yet there was apparently an entire tribe or nation that sprang up out of nowhere for Cain to get a wife from.

Well... If one looks at it from the perspective that the Bible was originally a collection of folk stories that were passed on orally around the camp fire then its easy to wrap your head around it. However, if yo start looking at it as literal history then there's all kinds of confusion. Its obvious that the story evolved over time, there were different versions being told and bits and pieces added to it by the time someone decided to write it down. I think the people who created it knew it was metaphore, not literal reality. Somewhere along the line, we forgot that fact and we've been screwed ever since.

Interesting that we automatically label the religious stories of other cultures as "myth", such as the Greeks, yet we're supposed to believe that way back when snakes could talk, virgins had babies, dead guys came back to life, had a few pints and some fish asnd chips then flew off into the sky and some guy cramed every animal into a barge and they all lived happily ever after.

[Dawn2Earth]

The tree thing is plain as day, and just conveys the raw power of temptation and you allowing yourselve not to have control over yourself but to let things (like temptation, apples, etc) take control over you, but toying around with these allegorically:

In the story, even when given the choice of all choices (all the trees in the garden, but knowledge of good&evil) we say no to that, being conscious beings, and naturally learn about good and bad ones (tree in the midst of the garden was that of "Knowledge of Good and of Evil") and so the story goes the day Adam eats that apple (learns that knowledge) he must die, and even though he lives to be hundreds of years old, I believe the initial "death" is spiritual, the old Adam either being already dead and a new one reborn, or being destined to eventually die except in his offspring (sometimes collectively referred to as "Adam" are "sons of Adam").

Maybe because Adam "killed" or cut off from his choices (disobeying God), he dies because he spiritually kills himself, that apple ruled.

Cain and Abel I find strikingly similar to Set and Ausar.

A brother kills another do to jealousy. God liked - over the vegetables Cain offered - the meat Abel did.

In the background is the fact that a harvester kills a pastoralist, and I've read this may have been a long standing rivalry. And agriculture does depend on vegetables to grow, so maybe Cain was jealous.

Then there are herbivores (goatssheeps) that eat plants and carnivores (lions humanseagles) that avenge them -- but then it's ok to eat vegetables and so herbivores are not evil.

Perhaps sedentary folk verses nomads? (Like Mali verses Tauregs?)

Another way I haven't looked at either Cain and Abel or Set and Ausar:

Both murder victims were (vain) "winners", both were "right" and more or less practically perfect or at least in comparison to their brother in tales. Did those old story-tellers allude to the vanity of winning over your brother? Ausar was King civilizer of all humankind, Set and his band of 72 marauders were jealous. Abel, God chose his food, Cain = jealous.

Only difference is in Abel vs. Cain Cain turns out to be associated with civilizing and metalsmithy. [ source (at the bottom of the top post a Jewish author goes in on Cain) ]

Movie 'bout a Lawyer and Vanity



(what a pic - ;Dlotta people probly went to see this movie just because it had Al Pacino on it)



wiki page (Spoiler -- plot)

The movie as alluded to (this isn't too much of a spoiler, it's told on the cover) is about when losing is worth more than winning.