That's racist!

[whodeycin85]

...what does this have to do with anything

Guy claims Duke (which is apparent he lied about attending) is a racist place in a thread for racism. Seems appropriate to point out yet another racism hoax.

 

[UTFanForLife]

I'll do you one better. Here's a collection of afro picks that were recovered in the tombs of Pharoahs being shown at museums:

View attachment 741952

The one on the left is obviously a modern afro comb while the one on the right was recovered from an Ancient Egyptian tomb. The resemblance is pretty amazing showing that the design of the afro comb has more or less stayed the same for almost 6000 years.

View attachment 741953

View attachment 741954




That's Dr. Sally Ann Ashton. Curator for the University of Cambridge Museum exhibit on the history of the Afro comb. And naturally it starts in Ancient Egypt where we find the oldest Afro combs in the world. Origins of the Afro Comb

For the record, I wasn't posting random individuals. Most of those images are of Pharoahs like this guy:

View attachment 741941

That's Pharoah Amenemhat III not just a random person.

And finally, you're speaking from a position of privilege in thinking history doesn't matter. Most black people are taught nothing about their history before slavery so all they think is they were slaves. Knowing you are capable of more matters. Its gives people the confidence to accomplish more than just being athletes or rappers.

Not discounting your post, but my wife uses a pick on her hair every day and she is white, with straight hair.

 

[LouderVol]

Then explain why the Ancient Egyptians were considered the sons of Ham along with the other black races of the world like the Nubians? Why did Christians, Jews, and Muslims in later years use the story of Ham as a justification for the enslavement of black people?

The Bible is explicit in its categorization of the Ancient Egyptians with other black groups. Usually when people are siblings with the same father they tend to look similar.

except for Noah's three sons all looking very different apparently.

I gave you a reason. it could be because those sons settled in those areas. it makes sense if the father went one direction the sons would too. and as they generationally grew the family they spread into more and more regions. without being the same race as the modern occupants of that territory. as I pointed out, most peoples have families/branches that spread out into other territory, so its not like its a unique thing.

why did certain christians, jews, and muslims later use the story to justify slavery? because they are racist and/or profit from it. generally those two reasons are enough to question any of the assumptions they make. especially when it comes down to owning any human.

your argument relies more on believing the racist enslavers than it does the actual writing of the bible. how does that not give you pause?

 

[LouderVol]

Not having farmland is a BIG deal. Not having navigable rivers is a BIG deal. Having killer viruses and animals everyone is a BIG deal.

There is a reason most the first world is in Temperate Climates that are farmland rich (Eastern/Central USA, Europe, China-Japan).

Even in Africa, the areas that have traditionally been richer are the farmland heavy regions of West Africa and South Africa. Kenya, for example, has a better geography than say Chad which more resembles New Mexico.



The video above sums it up better than anyone.

Compare that to the United States:




If you want to make fun of people for being a failure, make fun of the Native Americans. They got Eastern United States and didn't do jack with it. Eastern United States is arguable the greatest single spot in the entire Earth for building a great civilization.

there were some pretty good native cultures before the europeans showed up. not as big/formal as like the aztecs but you had Cahokia, Pueblo/Chaco didn't have large individual cities, but have very interconnected society within a small area. several of the eastern tribes developed their own writing systems, the Cherokee had the most advanced.

how good they had it probably slowed their development. why develop steel tools when you can easily survive with bone and stone? why develop large cities when you can just follow the various herds?

africa is the opposite end of that spectrum, too many issues to overcome over the same timeline. the places that developed had some sort of struggle to overcome at a societal level but not the individual level. storing food for long winters, flooding rivers, small area to support themselves, issues where society had to develop to overcome. but not individual challenges, diseases, animals, clean water, reliable food sources.

 

[Dobbs 4 Heisman]

ANYONE can make their hair look like an ancient Egyptian wall painting. Anyone. It doesn't mean anything unless you want it to.

If anyone can why do only black African tribes do it TO THIS DAY?




Your argument would make sense if black hair culture wasn't so distinct given the differences in hair texture between races. So no matter how badly you want to rock short twists like the Ancient Egyptian in the first image, unless you have already tightly curled afro hair you're unlikely to get it to look as close to the image as the Afar man on the right. Similarly, afros were quite popular in Ancient Egypt as the second image shows. And most non-black people can't rock an afro that looks like that unless they already have very tightly curled kinky hair.

At the end of the day the differences in hair texture will limit the ability of non-black people to accurately copy the hairstyles of black people.

 

[PEPPERJAX]

If anyone can why do only black African tribes do it TO THIS DAY?

View attachment 742150


Your argument would make sense if black hair culture wasn't so distinct given the differences in hair texture between races. So no matter how badly you want to rock short twists like the Ancient Egyptian in the first image, unless you have already tightly curled afro hair you're unlikely to get it to look as close to the image as the Afar man on the right. Similarly, afros were quite popular in Ancient Egypt as the second image shows. And most non-black people can't rock an afro that looks like that unless they already have very tightly curled kinky hair.

At the end of the day the differences in hair texture will limit the ability of non-black people to accurately copy the hairstyles of black people.

Do you own a barbershop?

 

[Dobbs 4 Heisman]

Lol. It was you who said the mummies were “most likely” Greek.

I pointed out the mummies predated Ptolemaic rule by 1000 years.

Ha! I tricks’d you!! Hyksos… derp derp…
-D4H

Ancient Egyptian mummy genomes suggest an increase of Sub-Saharan African ancestry in post-Roman periods - PubMed

Egypt, located on the isthmus of Africa, is an ideal region to study historical population dynamics due to its geographic location and documented interactions with ancient civilizations in Africa, Asia and Europe. Particularly, in the first millennium BCE Egypt endured foreign domination leading...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

The samples recovered from Middle Egypt span around 1,300 years of ancient Egyptian history from the New Kingdom to the Roman Period.

The samples included the Ptolemaic period genius. That was before the Roman period.

This is why knowing the topic you're discussing matters. I said they most likely sampled Greek individuals because the Greeks were prolific in their colonization of Egypt and because I know everyone recognizes them versus if I had mentioned the Hyksos who are not well known.

So nice try trying to lie but this study definitely included samples from the Ptolemaic period as you can clearly see in this quote from the abstract.

 

[Dobbs 4 Heisman]

Not discounting your post, but my wife uses a pick on her hair every day and she is white, with straight hair.

If I found an Afro pick in Greece I wouldn't think the Ancient Greeks were black. These picks aren't the only proof I've presented. It's just another in a long time of proofs showing the Ancient Egyptians were a black people. The Ancient Egyptians depicted themselves with kinky afro hair. They styled their hair in twists, braids, locks, and afros like modern black people. And they also had Afro picks. It's the culmination of all these things that makes the Afro picks significant. Not the picks by themselves.

With that said, your wife could just be an outlier. And you should know exceptions don't make the rule. So just because your wife is one of the few white women with an afro pick doesn't mean that type of comb is as ubiquitous in white homes as it is in black homes.

 

[Dobbs 4 Heisman]

except for Noah's three sons all looking very different apparently.

your argument relies more on believing the racist enslavers than it does the actual writing of the bible. how does that not give you pause?

How Noah's 3 sons looked is irrelevant. The point here is about how the Ancient people from biblical times saw closeness in relations with one another. The only reason the racists latched onto the Curse of Ham is because even before that racism it was understood that Ham was the father of the black races given the fact his sons were Nubia and Egypt.

The racists weren't the ones that said the Ancient Egyptians are more closely related to the Nubians than the Arabs, Jews, Greeks, or Persians. That was the Bible which said Nubia and Egypt are sons of Ham while the others are sons of Shem and Japeth. So no matter how you want to run away from it the bible is EXPLICIT about the Ancient Egyptians and Nubians being siblings.

 

[85SugarVol]

Ancient Egyptian mummy genomes suggest an increase of Sub-Saharan African ancestry in post-Roman periods - PubMed

Egypt, located on the isthmus of Africa, is an ideal region to study historical population dynamics due to its geographic location and documented interactions with ancient civilizations in Africa, Asia and Europe. Particularly, in the first millennium BCE Egypt endured foreign domination leading...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

The samples included the Ptolemaic period genius. That was before the Roman period.

This is why knowing the topic you're discussing matters. I said they most likely sampled Greek individuals because the Greeks were prolific in their colonization of Egypt and because I know everyone recognizes them versus if I had mentioned the Hyksos who are not well known.

So nice try trying to lie but this study definitely included samples from the Ptolemaic period as you can clearly see in this quote from the abstract.

I’m not lying about anything. I’m simply pointing out what’s been written about the study by Oxford, Cambridge, CNN, Nature, etc, etc.

Where can we read about your study again?

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

A white liberal professor scumbag in life plus a totally full bag of 24/7.

 

[Wireless1]

except for Noah's three sons all looking very different apparently.

I gave you a reason. it could be because those sons settled in those areas. it makes sense if the father went one direction the sons would too. and as they generationally grew the family they spread into more and more regions. without being the same race as the modern occupants of that territory. as I pointed out, most peoples have families/branches that spread out into other territory, so its not like its a unique thing.

why did certain christians, jews, and muslims later use the story to justify slavery? because they are racist and/or profit from it. generally those two reasons are enough to question any of the assumptions they make. especially when it comes down to owning any human.

your argument relies more on believing the racist enslavers than it does the actual writing of the bible. how does that not give you pause?

I'm just speculating, but since Noah is only mentioned to have a "wife" ( his sons would have very similar DNA) in Genesis, could the different appearances of Noah's sons offspring have been from his son's "wife?"

 

[joevol24]

D4h, look at Cambodian sculptures. It looks the same. But I'm a primitive white guy living in another country. I know nothing of what I speak

 

[LouderVol]

How Noah's 3 sons looked is irrelevant. The point here is about how the Ancient people from biblical times saw closeness in relations with one another. The only reason the racists latched onto the Curse of Ham is because even before that racism it was understood that Ham was the father of the black races given the fact his sons were Nubia and Egypt.

The racists weren't the ones that said the Ancient Egyptians are more closely related to the Nubians than the Arabs, Jews, Greeks, or Persians. That was the Bible which said Nubia and Egypt are sons of Ham while the others are sons of Shem and Japeth. So no matter how you want to run away from it the bible is EXPLICIT about the Ancient Egyptians and Nubians being siblings.

the bible is explicit that the sons of Ham are siblings. yes. no one is disputing that.

what is being disputed is where it says they were black, or they were the only people in egypt/nubia. that is the leap you are making, and its a leap you are basing on a racist mindset that wasn't original to the bible.

I find it batcrap crazy that you would rather agree with racists, and use their arguments, rather than come up with an internally consistent argument.

 

[Dobbs 4 Heisman]

I’m not lying about anything. I’m simply pointing out what’s been written about the study by Oxford, Cambridge, CNN, Nature, etc, etc.

Where can we read about your study again?

Here's the link once again: Ancient Egyptian mummy genomes suggest an increase of Sub-Saharan African ancestry in post-Roman periods - PubMed

Just click where it says "full text link". Nonetheless, the abstract is pretty clear. It says explicitly that they sampled mummies from "from the New Kingdom to the Roman Period." I know Ancient Egyptian history isn't your strong suit but that includes the Ptolemaic Period which preceded the Roman Period.

You might want to study the topic you're debating before attempting to debate it. Just reading articles from news media isn't gonna cut it cause they make silly mistakes all the time cause they're not experts on the subjects they cover.

 

[Dobbs 4 Heisman]

the bible is explicit that the sons of Ham are siblings. yes. no one is disputing that.

what is being disputed is where it says they were black, or they were the only people in egypt/nubia. that is the leap you are making, and its a leap you are basing on a racist mindset that wasn't original to the bible.

Usually siblings look the same. So unless you're gonna try and argue the Nubians aren't black, the logic here is very simple. If the Nubians are black and the Ancient Egyptians are their siblings then that would make the Ancient Egyptians also black. LOL. I can't believe I have to explain something so simple in such explicit terms.

This is why Ham would later become known by Muslim, Christian, and Jewish scholars as the "father of the black race". Because it's pretty obvious that siblings tend to look the same.

 

[85SugarVol]

Here's the link once again: Ancient Egyptian mummy genomes suggest an increase of Sub-Saharan African ancestry in post-Roman periods - PubMed

Just click where it says "full text link". Nonetheless, the abstract is pretty clear. It says explicitly that they sampled mummies from "from the New Kingdom to the Roman Period." I know Ancient Egyptian history isn't your strong suit but that includes the Ptolemaic Period which preceded the Roman Period.

You might want to study the topic you're debating before attempting to debate it. Just reading articles from news media isn't gonna cut it cause they make silly mistakes all the time cause they're not experts on the subjects they cover.

Lol that’s the same link you posted last time. Just the site it’s published to. Their opinion, nothing more.

Where are the reputable research universities and media sources running it and citing it? Oh yea…

I know enough to know when Ptolemaic rule of Egypt began lol. But please, tell us more about afro picks.

 

[Dobbs 4 Heisman]

Lol that’s the same link you posted last time. Just the site it’s published to. Their opinion, nothing more.

Where are the reputable research universities and media sources running it and citing it? Oh yea…

I know enough to know when Ptolemaic rule of Egypt began lol. But please, tell us more about afro picks.

So you need me to click on the link for you to get the full paper? Well okay here you go. Here's the entire scholarly paper after clicking the full text link: Ancient Egyptian mummy genomes suggest an increase of Sub-Saharan African ancestry in post-Roman periods - PMC

No way of weaseling your way out of this. This is the entire peer reviewed paper those news sites you posted were referring to. And they explicitly say they tested mummies from the "New Kingdom to the Roman Period". There are even graphs where they compare the mitochondrial sequences from the Ptolemaic period to other periods. It's Figure 3 by the way if you want to skip ahead.

So whether you like it or not they did test mummies from the Ptolemaic period while completely avoiding mummies from time periods before foreign occupation. The exact criticism other scholars have had of this study.

 

[LouderVol]

Usually siblings look the same. So unless you're gonna try and argue the Nubians aren't black, the logic here is very simple. If the Nubians are black and the Ancient Egyptians are their siblings then that would make the Ancient Egyptians also black. LOL. I can't believe I have to explain something so simple in such explicit terms.

This is why Ham would later become known by Muslim, Christian, and Jewish scholars as the "father of the black race". Because it's pretty obvious that siblings tend to look the same.

except for the brothers who are considered the fathers of the white, asian, and black races, right?

those three guys, apparently looked completely different from each other, despite being siblings.

again, you are relying on the overly simplistic racist take, which is wrong, to have an argument. seriously you are arguing that because racists believed it, it must be true. stop and think about that. does that mean everything the racists thought MUST be true? or is it possible the racists were wrong on their racist assumptions and twisting something into something it isn't, in this case the bible, to fit their argument.

 

[85SugarVol]

So you need me to click on the link for you to get the full paper? Well okay here you go. Here's the entire scholarly paper after clicking the full text link: Ancient Egyptian mummy genomes suggest an increase of Sub-Saharan African ancestry in post-Roman periods - PMC

No way of weaseling your way out of this. This is the entire peer reviewed paper those news sites you posted were referring to. And they explicitly say they tested mummies from the "New Kingdom to the Roman Period". There are even graphs where they compare the mitochondrial sequences from the Ptolemaic period to other periods. It's Figure 3 by the way if you want to skip ahead.

So whether you like it or not they did test mummies from the Ptolemaic period while completely avoiding mummies from time periods before foreign occupation. The exact criticism other scholars have had of this study.

Again, that’s just the link to the paper. Their opinion, nothing more.

Here, let me paste my last post as I wouldn’t change a thing -

Lol that’s the same link you posted last time. Just the site it’s published to. Their opinion, nothing more.

Where are the reputable research universities and media sources running it and citing it? Oh yea…

I know enough to know when Ptolemaic rule of Egypt began lol. But please, tell us more about afro picks.

 

[FLVOL_79]

If anyone can why do only black African tribes do it TO THIS DAY?

View attachment 742150


Your argument would make sense if black hair culture wasn't so distinct given the differences in hair texture between races. So no matter how badly you want to rock short twists like the Ancient Egyptian in the first image, unless you have already tightly curled afro hair you're unlikely to get it to look as close to the image as the Afar man on the right. Similarly, afros were quite popular in Ancient Egypt as the second image shows. And most non-black people can't rock an afro that looks like that unless they already have very tightly curled kinky hair.

At the end of the day the differences in hair texture will limit the ability of non-black people to accurately copy the hairstyles of black people.

You answered your own question.. Tribes..

 

[Carl Pickens]

A white liberal professor scumbag in life plus a totally full bag of 24/7.

Wow…. I wonder if the liberals will claim he’s a nazi ?

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

Yeah it's interesting how someone calling a 5 year old a n***er is being treated as some stand-your-ground resistance hero even on this site. People aren't hiding it anymore

No, what's funny... no pathetic is how using that word is more egregious than murder. Unless you are black. Then you can call other blacks ni**ers all day long and it's all good.

 

[Dobbs 4 Heisman]

except for the brothers who are considered the fathers of the white, asian, and black races, right?

those three guys, apparently looked completely different from each other, despite being siblings.

again, you are relying on the overly simplistic racist take, which is wrong, to have an argument. seriously you are arguing that because racists believed it, it must be true. stop and think about that. does that mean everything the racists thought MUST be true? or is it possible the racists were wrong on their racist assumptions and twisting something into something it isn't, in this case the bible, to fit their argument.

So your criticism to the well understood biblical story on how the different nations on earth at the time came to be is to parse it literally? Let me guess next you're gonna question how Noah and his 3 sons could repopulate a world with no women outside of their family?

It's an allegory genius. It's not meant to be literal. It's a story meant to explain how things came to be. In particular how the different nations at that time related to one another. The biblical authors grouped the nations based on how closely they were related based on the perceptions at the time. That's why this is relevant. Not because I'm actually trying to argue that 3 brothers with no women left on earth other than their sisters and mother somehow repopulated the world through incest. But rather it's to show that despite our modern perceptions during biblical times the Ancient Egyptians were seen as being related more closest to the Nubians than any other group.

What that should tell any reasonable mind is both groups must have looked similar if they were considered to be more closely related than either was to non-African groups. This obvious allegorical biblical tale was taken by later peoples to advance their racist agendas. But just because they used the story to advance racism doesn't mean the logic of the story in how different nations were related is somehow false.

 

[Dobbs 4 Heisman]

Again, that’s just the link to the paper. Their opinion, nothing more.

Huh? Isn't that what we're arguing? The paper that alleges Ancient Egyptians are more closely related to Middle Eastern populations than Africans? By the way this isn't their "opinion", it's a peer reviewed scientific research paper with data and analysis.

I can't believe you're now trying to claim the study you originally cited in those media articles is now just an "opinion". LOL. No the "opinion" was those media articles. This is the actual scholarly paper that did the research those articles opined on. And I gave it to you in its entirety showing you exactly where you could find the graphs showing the Ptolemaic period results.

Just take your L. It's obvious you knew nothing about the study when you originally posted those media articles citing it. Unfortunately for you I've been following this story since it originated in 2017. So the criticisms about their sampling and methodology issues were well known to me. You created this trap for yourself. Next time you want to debate a topic I would suggest doing more than reading headlines from CNN.