Black skin White Skull- transforming ancient Egypt to White

[djoser-xyyman]

archive.org/details/narrative_of_the_operations_and_recent_discoveries_with_librivox

archive.org/details/narrativeofopera00belz

[kel]

Please summarize the audio books.

[kel]

This Lying that is part of the Euro culture is a dangerous thing.......and probably explains why Euro civilizations dont last that long and has these regular and periodic convulsions.

It is also one of the reasons why blacks have so much trouble dealing with whites. Blacks cannot fathom that someone would lie so incessantly about EVERYTHING all the time.........

Politics -
Economics
Arts
Sciences
Religion
Sex
Entertainment
History
Education
Law

From this we can so why so many white ideologies end up creating catastrophic results......because they are based on lies in the first place and their creators have no real intent of being truthful or truth seeking.

[djoser-xyyman]

From Dienekes

------------------------------
Quote:
R1ans still at large (or, the story of India)
Ten ago, in the pre-ancient DNA "Dark Ages" a big debate raged on about the origin of R1a men in India. The stage had been set even earlier, by the pioneering Eurasian heartland paper which was the first (to my memory) to link M17 with steppe migrations and Indo-Iranians. Yet, there was pushback as the distribution of M17 was better described, and people started using Y-STRs to try to date and place phylogeographically its migrations.

The two poles of the debate were the "Out-of-India", which relied primarily on Y-STR based time estimates that seemed very old (even Paleolithic, if one used the** wrong mutation rate**) in India, and the "Into-India" which thought that the R1a distribution pointed to its being brought into India by the Indo-Aryans in the conventional ~3,500BC time frame of the "Aryan Invasion Theory" (AIT).

AIT has been much maligned because it has been received as a Western colonialist imposition on Indian history: a way to claim that Indian civilization was not native but European in origin. Europeans were certainly guilty of misusing AIT: for British colonials it represented a precedent for their colonization of India; for German National Socialists it was evidence for the greatness of the Aryan race and its past expansions eastward. It also played into internal Indian politics, espoused by some as a means of furthering their superiority as either descendants of "Aryan conquerors" or as oppressed victims of the same.

Of course, a misuse of a theory does not mean it is wrong, and if a new preprint based on ancient and modern DNA is correct, it means that AIT was basically correct: Indo-Aryans did come to India in the Late Bronze Age(xyyman commentbased upon SNPs- WROING!!!), via the steppe, and ultimately from central Europe.

The opposing Out-of-India theory is all but dead, although failed theories often have a long half-life, especially if they are espoused for psycho-political reasons. I would argue that Out-of-India was dead for thousands of years before it was conceived, since even in Homer's time it was known that "India" was not "one thing" but was peopled by Indians in the north and "Eastern Ethiopians" in the south (which differed from their western "actual" Ethiopians of Africa by their possession of straight rather than curly hair). These were the "Ancestral North Indians" and "Ancestral South Indians" that modern science has revealed. Out-of-India is little more than a nationalistic myth functioning as an antidote to this basic dichotomy, a way to imbue India's diverse citizens with a myth of common origins.

Yet, proponents of AIT (who have a non-trivial overlap with R1an enthusiasts) are also scratching their heads because of the 27 ancient South Asian males from South Asia studied in the preprint there is exactly one R1a, who also happened to live after the time of the Buddha and not during the Bronze Age.

Both OIT enthusiasts (who expected copious and abundant R1a in India and its environs since the Paleolithic) and AIT/R1an enthusiasts (who expected to see it come in c. 3,500BC) are bound to be disappointed.

Perhaps the R1a Indo-Aryans did come to South Asia in a conventional AIT time frame and they haven't been sampled. Or, maybe they were, indeed, there, but were not R1ans. Or, maybe both sides missed the bigger story which is that the Indo-Aryans (so closely associated with India today) were simply not there as early as people have thought.
---------------------
Xyyman comment: - The claim of Steppe Bronze Age pastoralist invaders by the authors in the paper is based upon autosomal SNPs NOT uniparental markers likes R1a or R1b. In fact based upon uniparental markers ALONE the Bronze Age Steppes migration NEVER occurred. And India like EurAfrica is divided into two groups of peoples. Dark people, ones closely related to Africans in the South and Northerners closely related to ANE to the North just as Southern Europeans are closely related to Africans and North Europeans are closely related to ANE. ANE being the first and ancient wave of OOA(Khoe-San has a high frequency of ANE).

And here we have modern Europeans, again, trying to lay claim to a civilization they have no business with.

[zarahan]

Good roundup. Keita in some articles discussed how things changed in the 19th century- well
into the 20th century, like the infamous Hamitic Hypothesis" among other things. He shows movement
from a more balanced view earlier to a supremacist/Eurocentric pattern, and how even various
archaeological excavations routinely reclassified some negro specimens to "Mediterranean," and
even threw out valid data because it was "too black" or as they put it to explain exclusions--
"clear negro.."

FROM OLD ES LINK:


"Analyses of Egyptian crania are
numerous. Vercoutter (1978) notes that
ancient Egyptian crania have frequently
all been lumped (implicitly or explicitly)
as Mediterranean, although Negroid
remains are recorded in substantial
numbers by many workers... "Nutter
(1958), using the Penrose statistic,
demonstrated that Nagada I and Badari
crania, both regarded as Negroid, were
almost identical and that these were most
similar to the Negroid Nubian series from
Kerma studied by Collett (1933).
[Collett, not accepting variability,
excluded "clear negro" crania found in
the Kerma series from her analysis, as did
Morant (1925), implying that they were
foreign..."

(S. Keita (1990) Studies of Ancient Crania From Northern Africa.
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY. 83:35-48)

Martin Bernal in part, showed some of the same things- there was a more balanced outlook
and scholarship as to the key role of the NorthAfrican/Middle Eastern worlds. THis balanced
iew was replaced by a mor supremacist or distorted outlook that claimed Greece as the fount
of any important knowledge. Bernal can be criticized on some of his technical data & arguments on
various other things like language etc. Sure, and he gives extensive replies and rebuttals.

But serious European scholars such as Jack Goody in “The Theft of History” (2010)
show in detail the distortion, inaccuracy and cultural appropriation of history to fit
self-serving Eurocentric narratives. Scholars such as Tim Whitmarsh, professor
of ancient literatures at the University of Oxford, or Greg Woolf, professor of
ancient history at the University of St Andrews also support the point about the
distortion and racislism in the field. Its not "wild-eyed Afrocentrists" off the street
making such observations and critiques, as is sometimes alleged, but serious white scholars
as well.

[djoser-xyyman]

bump!

[kel]

can you post this info ?

"When I came across the papers on the early sailors/people that entered Puerto Rico I were surprised they were NOT Europeans from Spain"

[djoser-xyyman]

Bump

[asante]

This is HARD! Do you have the entire book or know where it can be purchased?

[djoser-xyyman]

'''' from OP

This was taken from ES broached by Tukuler

Anybody got the rest of this?


Read more: egyptsearchreloaded.proboards.com/thread/2715/black-white-skull-transforming-ancient?page=2#ixzz6DK95Mv2B

Just downloaded it, Can't disclose source. Did that before and sources were extinguished...Will try to load via ESR or some other means.

[djoser-xyyman]

Original Articles
Black Skin, White Skulls: The Nineteenth Century Debate over the Racial Identity of the Ancient Egyptians
Robert Bernasconi
Pages 6-20 | Published online: 22 May 2007
Download citation doi.org/10.1080/13534640701267123

[zarahan]

May 27, 2018 3:16:30 GMT -5 djoser-xyyman said:

Is he saying the IE language is of African Origin?

Is he saying the IE language is of African Origin?

Possibly. He could also be referring to earliest writing for which the Egyptians must
get part of the credit, in that their writing appears a few centuries before Mesopotamia,
and the "Semitic" alphabet in use today is based in part on modified Egyptian scripts,
and/or development by Semitic speaking Egyptians (Darnell 2003).

[asante]

May 27, 2018 3:15:16 GMT -5 djoser-xyyman said:

quote:
"I have not found much
evidence that Cuvier had a significant impact on the discussion until much later,
although already in 1821 Thomas Edward Bowdich, using the resources of Cuvier’s
personal library and his own direct knowledge of the Ashantis, wrote An Essay on the
Superstitions, Customs, and Arts, Common to the Ancient Egyptians, Abyssinians, and Ashantees, in
which he argued that Egyptian civilization was diffused via Ethiopia **to the West Coast
of Africa.** Bowdich thereby reversed the widespread belief of the time that Egypt had
received its civilization from Ethiopia. However, Bowdich’s argument seems to have
had little impact, although a similar thesis was established independently some twenty
years later. Bowdich’s observation that he found among the higher class of Ashantis the
aquiline nose and thin lips of the modern Copts and ancient Egyptians also failed to
attract attention.32
parallax"

One must asked....WHY IN THE HELL ARE SO MANY BLACKS ON EGYPTSEARCH SO SCARED TO MOVE ON THE BOLDED STATEMENTS? I've created a thread that lays that shit out with MODERN research, and even when presented to white supremacist they have no rebuttal!!! It's like some of these blacks on Egyptsearch are scared that if they make the bold proclamation that Kemet is our heritage that some white boogieman would come and take it. If that's our heritage, and folks are scared to claim it then that 'PATHETIC! It's the epitome of an inferiority complex! 

[zarahan]

Feb 14, 2020 12:24:02 GMT -5 Tukuler al~Takruri said:

- yeesh howzabout a few paragraphs per post not a darn pamphlet -


WALL OF TEXT
I think its meant to intimidate as it flits hither and yon.
I think limiting a post to a brick of the wall brick by brick.
<a 'brick' = a point or maybe up to three points, for digestion's sake>
I think with less clutter more readers could get in and participate.

If one of youze guyz is tired of the other
I suggest using Proboards blocking feature, I did for a while.
Others may want to continue points either side brought up.
All Things Considered

This is the Egyptology forum with no claimed moderator.
How do we keep it reasonable and classroom worthy?
How do we approach non-mainstream paradigms?

I heard extraordinary claims
require extraordinary proof.

Reasonable claims use mainstream against itself.

I'd like Egyptology to remain mainstream accessible not ghettoized.
Diop and Wms both were mainstream scholars, university trained.
They used mainstream against itself as did Hansberry and even Snowden.
Van Sertima allowed a train of opinion from academics in his journals.
Most times they were successful considering it was between 1950 and 1990.

It's ... 2020

If a paradigm lacks clear 2020 vision, presented all jumbled up
thus impossible to logically follow, it belongs in the Culture forum
for the time being in my opinion but very few paradigms don't deserve
a fair hearing by ESR Peers, i.e., all the contributing membership.

Problem is when ego doesn't allow for critique and criticism.
Ain't nobody right about everything everytime.
No matter how many times you declare yourself 'the winner' I'll tellya what.
Each n evry Reader can and will decide what to accept for themselves.
Writers can't take disagreement personally, are you your 'theory'?
No so don't get emotional, it's about your theory it's not about you
So don't lash out at personalities name calling and doo over a theory.

I understand the emotion drive behind presenting points of view.

I won't censor it but an intelligent adult can talk w/o profanity.
The ESR audience here includes all from hi-brow to hoodrat, from
all around the world but it's ours, black, on loan from Proboards
just remember

Owner administration management and staff set the rules and pace here


This thread was locked 18 hrs ago.
This thread will remain locked.
Think about what I wrote above.
Don't push my 'refuge for black expression' stance
into thinking anything goes because no it don't.

Agreed. Off topic/personal beef posts removed.

[Tukuler al~Takruri]

OK Mensa your thread's rolled back to strictly on topic content.