|
|
Post by anansi on Oct 4, 2014 23:08:31 GMT -5
Hello everybody I am Kaskata; I have to agree with all the posting regarding the new PBS/ Nat Geo documentary that recently aired. After a few web search, I have discovered that Nat Geo is under the same umbrella as Fox news and 21st century fox studios. This is the same studio that's behind the up coming movie, God and kings. I am sure you all remember the new face of king tut nonsense by Nat Geo, Jesus was white by Kelly M from fox news and now this upcoming movie. The studio is well aware of the criticism regarding their choice of cast. I read somewhere online, the director does not really want to be asked about the casting. The only thing he said in his defense, in his native Australia, far from the fire storm, was that he only works with his friends. And that's was my suspicion all along one feeds the other for a build-up they knew what they were doing and the reaction would be so the try to placate while still lying, I regret to say Nesben that I can't view the doc here so I am unable to comment on it directly. |
|
|
|
Post by nebsen on Oct 5, 2014 1:56:13 GMT -5
Anansi, did you try the link I provided on " Shadow & Act Inde wire" ? Or now you can go directly to the Rise of the Black Pharaoh PBS & view the who documentary .
|
|
|
|
Post by anansi on Oct 5, 2014 3:38:09 GMT -5
Anansi, did you try the link I provided on " Shadow & Act Inde wire" ? Or now you can go directly to the Rise of the Black Pharaoh PBS & view the who documentary . Yes I kliked your links but because I am outside the area I guess it said it cannot be view at my location.."sigh" |
|
karem
Craftsperson
Posts: 74 
|
Post by karem on Oct 6, 2014 5:15:32 GMT -5
I hear you Nebsen - it's hard not to feel annoyed and aggrieved by this imbalance. Although colonialism has had negative impacts, some people feel that without Napoleon invading Egypt, the country would of gone further backwards under the Ottomans and we might not have any or as much knowledge of the ancient past as we do now. On the subject regarding Black Pharaohs, I think this Tristan Samuels paper sums things up well - www.academia.edu/6242047/The_Black_Pharaohs_Fallacy_Misinterpretations_of_Kush-Kemet_Identity |
|
|
|
Post by anansi on Oct 9, 2014 11:32:23 GMT -5
OK I have found a workable link so I am better able to give a critique.
First I have received very little new info from this doc,yes the kerma pyramid was interesting would like to know more about the up coming finds and also the tomb of the unknown king or noble man,Taharka's burial spot giving him a chance to be resurrected everyday was genius as to his boost on the side of Jebel Barkal, however I was prepared to be annoyed and they didn't disappoint, Black Pharaohs this Black Pharaohs that one guy actually suggest racial profiling and implied the Kushites had to pass for Kemetians in some fux pre Black consciousness era of the United States. There is no way an African or African American trained expert would have framed it in that manner,they did all this while calling Reinser a racist not seeing the inherent racist misrepresentation of their own.
|
|
|
|
Post by nebsen on Oct 9, 2014 18:03:59 GMT -5
I hear you Nebsen - it's hard not to feel annoyed and aggrieved by this imbalance. Although colonialism has had negative impacts, some people feel that without Napoleon invading Egypt, the country would of gone further backwards under the Ottomans and we might not have any or as much knowledge of the ancient past as we do now. On the subject regarding Black Pharaohs, I think this Tristan Samuels paper sums things up well - www.academia.edu/6242047/The_Black_Pharaohs_Fallacy_Misinterpretations_of_Kush-Kemet_Identity Karem, never thought of it that way. But I do believe that the ancient Egyptians spiritual collective culture was such; that whether Napoleon or not, the voices of ancient Egypt was going to speak beyond the grave to someone, or another culture in another time, to be heard; that's how powerful our Africans ancestors were ! Thanks for the link, will check it out, it looks very interesting . |
|
|
|
Post by nebsen on Oct 9, 2014 18:54:25 GMT -5
OK I have found a workable link so I am better able to give a critique. First I have received very little new info from this doc,yes the kerma pyramid was interesting would like to know more about the up coming finds and also the tomb of the unknown king or noble man,Taharka's burial spot giving him a chance to be resurrected everyday was genius as to his boost on the side of Jebel Barkal, however I was prepared to be annoyed and they didn't disappoint, Black Pharaohs this Black Pharaohs that one guy actually suggest racial profiling and implied the Kushites had to pass for Kemetians in some fux pre Black consciousness era of the United States. There is no way an African or African American trained expert would have framed it in that manner,they did all this while calling Reinser a racist not seeing the inherent racist misrepresentation of their own. Anansi, glad you found a workable link to view this documentary. Yes, most of the info. was not new to us that have made it a mission in life to know about ancient Kush/ Egypt; but for many it probably was new esp. among whites & many Black folks. On one level, I'm glad to see the status Quo " National Geographic" finally start focusing on Kush-Nubia . They have( archeologist/ Egyptologist ) given a few..... never paid that much attention to Kush -Nubia & when they did like in this documentary, was to make a false dichotomy between the Kushites Black Africans ) & the ancient Egyptians( Not Black or Africans.) They have" jaundiced eyes" when it comes to seeing ancient Kush-Nubia on equal footing with ancient Egypt. How in the hell can you study ancient Egypt without ancient Kush ? Like I have stated that's like studying ancient China, without ancient Mongolia.My point in saying this is, that far as phenotypes both are Asians, that share much in common; had a very adversarial relationship through out their history, with Mongolia conquering China & ruling china at one point. The same as ancient Egypt & Kush- Nubia. You are very correct about them calling George Reinser a racist . I guess they felt by doing so would inoculate them( National Geographic) from being perceived as such themselves, well it did not work ! Also, when are they going to include some knowledgeable people of African descent in their programming other than a cameo appearance like with the two Sudanese archeologist in the documentary. I get so tried of all these" White Experts" that come from God knows where, which have little to add to our knowledge base, & making " stupid " comments about ancient Egyptians profiling those" Black Africans". |
|
|
|
Post by truthteacher2007 on Oct 10, 2014 13:30:26 GMT -5
I hear you Nebsen - it's hard not to feel annoyed and aggrieved by this imbalance. Although colonialism has had negative impacts, some people feel that without Napoleon invading Egypt, the country would of gone further backwards under the Ottomans and we might not have any or as much knowledge of the ancient past as we do now. On the subject regarding Black Pharaohs, I think this Tristan Samuels paper sums things up well - www.academia.edu/6242047/The_Black_Pharaohs_Fallacy_Misinterpretations_of_Kush-Kemet_IdentityIt's sad, but probably true that we would have been totally in the dark about the tuth of Egypt had it not been for the French. The truth of the matter is that most Egyptians were brainwashed a long time ago to dissasocciate themselves from their past. First the Christians demonized them and then the Muslims. In the early days of the Islamic world, they were very much open to acquiring knowledge of all kinds. They are the reason why we still have the knowledge of the Greek World. However, at some point in the Muslim world, those in power came to the conclusion that they had learned all that wa neccessary to learn and began to discourage the pursuit of new knowledge, investigation etc. This is why they eventually stagnated to the point where European powers were able to overtake them. Had this not been the case, I think they would have eventually deciphered the old writings. Europeans, despite getting the ball rolling, have had a much more negative psychological effect on the Egyptian people. Just the mere lack of self confidence, the lack of pride in their endeavors, (ever tried doing business there), speaks to this. The deep crisis of identity, hatred of blackness and Africanity and the hatred of their own blackness and Africanity. It's really sad the way they believe hook line and sinker that to be somebody, they have to be as white, or close to white as possible. When you walk into a pharmacy and see a whole wall selling hair relaxers right next to EVA B WHITE skin bleach. Egypt's been through a lot in the past 2,000yrs of colonization. Fact is the average Egyptian today hasn't got a clue about the basics of their history. They're too busy trying to survive one crisis to the next to really give deep thought such questions as who they are now and who they were. They see the pyramids, the temples and that's as far as it goes for most of them. I totally agree that there needs to be more Egyptians in the field, but if they lack confidence in themselves and only see the world through a Eurocentric lens, then what's the point. What we need are concious brothers and sisters who have the courage to think outside of the matrix, but in a society that is a police state, where all information is censored and controlled.... that may not be so easy. Just how far can an Egyptian get who acknwledges that the Egyptians were Africans, which by extention would mean Egyptians ARE Africans, in a regime that seeks to distance itself from that truth and reality? They very ones in power are the ones who would rather the world believe that Egypt is in the southeast corner of Europe rather than the North east corner of Africa. |
|
|
|
Post by nebsen on Oct 10, 2014 14:14:33 GMT -5
I hear you Nebsen - it's hard not to feel annoyed and aggrieved by this imbalance. Although colonialism has had negative impacts, some people feel that without Napoleon invading Egypt, the country would of gone further backwards under the Ottomans and we might not have any or as much knowledge of the ancient past as we do now. On the subject regarding Black Pharaohs, I think this Tristan Samuels paper sums things up well - www.academia.edu/6242047/The_Black_Pharaohs_Fallacy_Misinterpretations_of_Kush-Kemet_IdentityIt's sad, but probably true that we would have been totally in the dark about the tuth of Egypt had it not been for the French. The truth of the matter is that most Egyptians were brainwashed a long time ago to dissasocciate themselves from their past. First the Christians demonized them and then the Muslims. In the early days of the Islamic world, they were very much open to acquiring knowledge of all kinds. They are the reason why we still have the knowledge of the Greek World. However, at some point in the Muslim world, those in power came to the conclusion that they had learned all that wa neccessary to learn and began to discourage the pursuit of new knowledge, investigation etc. This is why they eventually stagnated to the point where European powers were able to overtake them. Had this not been the case, I think they would have eventually deciphered the old writings. Europeans, despite getting the ball rolling, have had a much more negative psychological effect on the Egyptian people. Just the mere lack of self confidence, the lack of pride in their endeavors, (ever tried doing business there), speaks to this. The deep crisis of identity, hatred of blackness and Africanity and the hatred of their own blackness and Africanity. It's really sad the way they believe hook line and sinker that to be somebody, they have to be as white, or close to white as possible. When you walk into a pharmacy and see a whole wall selling hair relaxers right next to EVA B WHITE skin bleach. Egypt's been through a lot in the past 2,000yrs of colonization. Fact is the average Egyptian today hasn't got a clue about the basics of their history. They're too busy trying to survive one crisis to the next to really give deep thought such questions as who they are now and who they were. They see the pyramids, the temples and that's as far as it goes for most of them. I totally agree that there needs to be more Egyptians in the field, but if they lack confidence in themselves and only see the world through a Eurocentric lens, then what's the point. What we need are concious brothers and sisters who have the courage to think outside of the matrix, but in a society that is a police state, where all information is censored and controlled.... that may not be so easy. Just how far can an Egyptian get who acknwledges that the Egyptians were Africans, which by extention would mean Egyptians ARE Africans, in a regime that seeks to distance itself from that truth and reality? They very ones in power are the ones who would rather the world believe that Egypt is in the southeast corner of Europe rather than the North east corner of Africa. I'm not sure I fallow your line of thought about Egyptians( Today are Black ) ? I know many have much Nubian ancestry But many if not most are Arab . I think we had a very live debate on the modern Egyptian today a while back. I don't want to retread that debate, but if one identifies as Arab be one Black or otherwise it's most likely that one is not going to embrace Blackness thus Africaness if one has been in cultured to believe other wise . |
|
|
|
Post by truthteacher2007 on Oct 10, 2014 18:30:55 GMT -5
It's sad, but probably true that we would have been totally in the dark about the tuth of Egypt had it not been for the French. The truth of the matter is that most Egyptians were brainwashed a long time ago to dissasocciate themselves from their past. First the Christians demonized them and then the Muslims. In the early days of the Islamic world, they were very much open to acquiring knowledge of all kinds. They are the reason why we still have the knowledge of the Greek World. However, at some point in the Muslim world, those in power came to the conclusion that they had learned all that wa neccessary to learn and began to discourage the pursuit of new knowledge, investigation etc. This is why they eventually stagnated to the point where European powers were able to overtake them. Had this not been the case, I think they would have eventually deciphered the old writings. Europeans, despite getting the ball rolling, have had a much more negative psychological effect on the Egyptian people. Just the mere lack of self confidence, the lack of pride in their endeavors, (ever tried doing business there), speaks to this. The deep crisis of identity, hatred of blackness and Africanity and the hatred of their own blackness and Africanity. It's really sad the way they believe hook line and sinker that to be somebody, they have to be as white, or close to white as possible. When you walk into a pharmacy and see a whole wall selling hair relaxers right next to EVA B WHITE skin bleach. Egypt's been through a lot in the past 2,000yrs of colonization. Fact is the average Egyptian today hasn't got a clue about the basics of their history. They're too busy trying to survive one crisis to the next to really give deep thought such questions as who they are now and who they were. They see the pyramids, the temples and that's as far as it goes for most of them. I totally agree that there needs to be more Egyptians in the field, but if they lack confidence in themselves and only see the world through a Eurocentric lens, then what's the point. What we need are concious brothers and sisters who have the courage to think outside of the matrix, but in a society that is a police state, where all information is censored and controlled.... that may not be so easy. Just how far can an Egyptian get who acknwledges that the Egyptians were Africans, which by extention would mean Egyptians ARE Africans, in a regime that seeks to distance itself from that truth and reality? They very ones in power are the ones who would rather the world believe that Egypt is in the southeast corner of Europe rather than the North east corner of Africa. I'm not sure I fallow your line of thought about Egyptians( Today are Black ) ? I know many have much Nubian ancestry But many if not most are Arab . I think we had a very live debate on the modern Egyptian today a while back. I don't want to retread that debate, but if one identifies as Arab be one Black or otherwise it's most likely that one is not going to embrace Blackness thus Africaness if one has been in cultured to believe other wise . This is a bit off topic, but I never use the term black because I find it very inaccurate. How does one dfine what blackness is? Everyone has a different ideas as to what it is. there is no universally agreed definition. If there is a definition, it has to have universal agreement and understanding. We can't have it be one thing here and another thing there. For that reason, I use the term African, or native African. As for Arab. Arabs come in all colors. Arab is a cultural identity. There are plenty of people who identify as black Arab, white Arab, whatever Arab. Then again, not all Egyptians identify as Arab. Most of the Copts I know do not identify as Arab because they associate being Arab with being Muslim. Let's put it this way, Mexicans are considered "Spanish", but everyone knows that the majority of them are actually Native Americans. Egyptians speak Arabic because it was imposed on them, not because they were overrun by Arabs. www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2t0AGfQNGs&list=UUVMYmoXz8mK7YQLIC6dkheg |
|
|
|
Post by kaskata on Oct 10, 2014 22:07:00 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by nebsen on Oct 11, 2014 2:25:34 GMT -5
I'm not sure I fallow your line of thought about Egyptians( Today are Black ) ? I know many have much Nubian ancestry But many if not most are Arab . I think we had a very live debate on the modern Egyptian today a while back. I don't want to retread that debate, but if one identifies as Arab be one Black or otherwise it's most likely that one is not going to embrace Blackness thus Africaness if one has been in cultured to believe other wise . This is a bit off topic, but I never use the term black because I find it very inaccurate. How does one dfine what blackness is? Everyone has a different ideas as to what it is. there is no universally agreed definition. If there is a definition, it has to have universal agreement and understanding. We can't have it be one thing here and another thing there. For that reason, I use the term African, or native African. As for Arab. Arabs come in all colors. Arab is a cultural identity. There are plenty of people who identify as black Arab, white Arab, whatever Arab. Then again, not all Egyptians identify as Arab. Most of the Copts I know do not identify as Arab because they associate being Arab with being Muslim. Let's put it this way, Mexicans are considered "Spanish", but everyone knows that the majority of them are actually Native Americans. Egyptians speak Arabic because it was imposed on them, not because they were overrun by Arabs. www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2t0AGfQNGs&list=UUVMYmoXz8mK7YQLIC6dkhegIt sounds like semantics here about" Black". I have heard this argument used by Egyptologist when trying to refute the ancient Egyptians were" Black "; is not the word Kemet or Khemt a term that they themselves( ancient Egyptian & they were not talking about " land") used to describe themselves ? It's strange that the word" White" means just what it is, when describing certain groups, or people, no semantics here about the word" White" ! We all know that no one is truly Black or truly White, only certain animal furs & inanimate objects can truly be" Black" or "white," not humans ; but we still use these adjectives to describe our selves, as imperfect as these terms are. I personally never use the word" Spanish" to describe people of Latino heritage for most come from North America & not Spain in Europe. If lets say,a women was a African & Black, & was raped by an Arab man, than that child lets say, a male can trace his decent from that Arab father & thus claim his Arabness & culture, because the line of decent is through the male, & not the female, thus his children children can claim their Arabness & all that that might confer. I do believe that their is such a thing as "Arab Supremacy" just as their is " White Supremacy" & many can fall pray to this as racial & cultural superiority over others & even those that have been oppressed can start to identify themselves with the Arab culture & identity as a way to overcome their" otherness". |
|
|
|
Post by truthteacher2007 on Oct 11, 2014 8:51:47 GMT -5
This is a bit off topic, but I never use the term black because I find it very inaccurate. How does one dfine what blackness is? Everyone has a different ideas as to what it is. there is no universally agreed definition. If there is a definition, it has to have universal agreement and understanding. We can't have it be one thing here and another thing there. For that reason, I use the term African, or native African. As for Arab. Arabs come in all colors. Arab is a cultural identity. There are plenty of people who identify as black Arab, white Arab, whatever Arab. Then again, not all Egyptians identify as Arab. Most of the Copts I know do not identify as Arab because they associate being Arab with being Muslim. Let's put it this way, Mexicans are considered "Spanish", but everyone knows that the majority of them are actually Native Americans. Egyptians speak Arabic because it was imposed on them, not because they were overrun by Arabs. www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2t0AGfQNGs&list=UUVMYmoXz8mK7YQLIC6dkhegIt sounds like semantics here about" Black". I have heard this argument used by Egyptologist when trying to refute the ancient Egyptians were" Black "; is not the word Kemet or Khemt a term that they themselves( ancient Egyptian & they were not talking about " land") used to describe themselves ? It's strange that the word" White" means just what it is, when describing certain groups, or people, no semantics here about the word" White" ! We all know that no one is truly Black or truly White, only certain animal furs & inanimate objects can truly be" Black" or "white," not humans ; but we still use these adjectives to describe our selves, as imperfect as these terms are. I personally never use the word" Spanish" to describe people of Latino heritage for most come from North America & not Spain in Europe. If lets say,a women was a African & Black, & was raped by an Arab man, than that child lets say, a male can trace his decent from that Arab father & thus claim his Arabness & culture, because the line of decent is through the male, & not the female, thus his children children can claim their Arabness & all that that might confer. I do believe that their is such a thing as "Arab Supremacy" just as their is " White Supremacy" & many can fall pray to this as racial & cultural superiority over others & even those that have been oppressed can start to identify themselves with the Arab culture & identity as a way to overcome their" otherness". You're absolutely right. There is such a thing as Arab supremacy. Like white supremacy or any other type of supremacy, it's a state of mind, an idea. You can see it played out in the Sudan anainst those who haven't adopted Arabic as heir first ;anguage, whether they are Muslim or Christian. You can see it in North Africa against those who maintain their Amazigh identity. You can see it on the Swahili Coast. You can see it in Northern Iraq and Syria against the Kurds. The difference is that with Arab superiority, there is an opportunity to join the club. It's based mostly on language, culture and religion. With white supremacy, membership is based on physical appearance and blood line. Most people claiming Arab identity do not actually have any Arab bloodline at all. The reason why no one disputes what whiteness is is because they get to decide what it is, but even then, there isn't universal agreement. In the United States, each state had their criteria for determining who was white or not. It was/is based on a notion of purity of blood. In Latin America a lot of times, you look white you are white. Same for South Africa. In Latin America, even within the white community there was a pecking order. Those directly from Spain or Portugal, or Europe were above those who were born in the colonies, so this is why people went to graet lengths to maintain their purity, even if it meant incest. It must be understood that racial classification is a system designed to oppress. It's meant to point out whose in the in group and who is in the out group and there is a pecking order. The whole point is to divide and conquer so that the ruling calss ca rule. Make it an exclusive club and everyone will be at each other's throats trying to join or get as close as they can. Therfore, the very notion of blackness is a whitesupremacist notion. In every case, they determine what blackness is base on their needs. Theregore, when it suits their agenda, a person with a distant African ancestor can enter the club. When it doesn't, a person is forever excluded no matter how white they may look. The rules keep changing to suit their needs. This is why the one drop rule was never universally accepted until after the Civil War. If you look at census records there were 3 main categories: white, black and mulatto. Multtos were considered a distinct racial gout. Why? Divide and rule, that's why. It wasn't till after the war when white supremacy was threatened that all people with African blood were thrown in the same black box. As for the Egyptians. I think equating KMT with the people not the land is inaccurate. This is projecting 20th century race pride into the past. Why do I say this? Because it just doesn't make sense. Every ethnic group in Africa identifies themselves based on a name a region a country an ancestral line, not a color. Why would Egyptians need to identify themselves based on color? How would that distinguish them from all the other Africans who wre the exact same color? They wre the same color as many Nubia groups, and many Lybians as well as Saharans. There was no concept of black brotherhood. The Egyptians were an extreemly xenophobic people, 9and still are). They never used the word KMT to refer to any other people but themselves. All the peoples up the Nile were refered to not on the basis of color, but by ethnic identity. To say that KMT refered to the people would be to say they considered themselves to be "blacker", than the darker skinned people up river, makes no sense. Therefore, since no one can agree on exactly what a black person is, looks like, I reject it. You have people calling Modern Egyptians Arabs and foreign invaders, and yet, you can find their exact twin somewhere in the Afro American community. You can have white skin and freckles with straight red hair in America and be black, but in Africa you see somebody like that and think there's no way in hell they can have anything to do with Africa. I reject Eurocentric and white supremacists notions of categorizing people entirely. I recognize the reality of Africa is that it encompases a wide variety of skin tones and features and that ethnic ties quite often cross boundaries of physical features. I reject notions of "purity of blood", because the reality of Africa is that it is cultural connection and nationality that trumps inclusion in the group. In Africa a person doesn't have to be a full blooded Igbo to be Igbo. As long as they have an Igbo lineage and grow up in the culture, they're good. www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRpe9MaZXuQFrom what I can gather, the same idea applied in Egypt as well. Karem shared a link in another post that spoke about the fact that once a person lived inside of Egypt and lived by its culture, they were considered Egyptian. So from what I can see, the African model is based on concepts that make room for assimilation into the society, where as the European model is based on principles to maintain exclusion. |
|
karem
Craftsperson
Posts: 74
|
Post by karem on Oct 11, 2014 11:23:25 GMT -5
It would be naive to ignore the effects of years of imperialism and colonialism on not just Egyptian identity but also that in other parts of Africa and the Middle East. However, there are Egyptians who are very proud and in the know about their roots and embrace all the layers of their heritage. Although it can seem like a contradiction given the fact Arabisation has been damaging to Africa, not all Egyptians who identify in part as being Arab are automatically denying being Egyptian, and although there might be those with inferiority complex, not all who embrace a dual heritage/heritages have a deep rooted identity crisis. You're right to point out the problems of looking at ancient and modern Egyptians through a Western (often American) racial lens. I think this article by Stephen Quirke sheds light on something many in the west seem ignorant of regarding modern Egyptians www.newstatesman.com/blogs/cultural-capital/2011/03/egypt-antiquities-archaeology |
|
|
|
Post by anansi on Oct 11, 2014 12:03:50 GMT -5
Truthteacher said. They may have well used the color black as a national Identity because it was sacred and all the good things are black this may well applied to their skin as well,for them Black is Sacred would be slightly different from us saying Black is beautiful,their color symbolism would be the opposite from our own where black is morbid,or of death for them Black is the color of life or resurrection. And sometimes they applied this to personal names as example the 11dyn Queen Khemsit  Queen Khemsit or Black Isis. The above I got from Wally Now keep in mind they were not the only ones that may have self label as Black the Sumerians literally called themselves the "Black" headed ones Saggia they were also styled as such by the Assyrians as SALMUT kAkkAD as black headed people in their language. |
|
