THEY WERE WHITE & THEY WERE SLAVES

[jusplay4fun]

I would rather discuss the movie Rogue One and .......I am saddened to learn that Carrie Fisher DIED,....I think I saw a thread ON THAT...

To me, most of the Egyptians in the photos are neither Black nor White, neither Neroid or Caucasian......so what is the argument REALLY about?

And I think this Thread has gotten OFF topic ("THEY WERE WHITE & THEY WERE SLAVES"), as many in these Forums do.....I wonder WHY?

JP4Fun

[Dukasaur]

To me, most of the Egyptians in the photos are neither Black nor White, neither Neroid or Caucasian......so what is the argument REALLY about?

And I think this Thread has gotten OFF topic ("THEY WERE WHITE & THEY WERE SLAVES"), as many in these Forums do.....I wonder WHY?

JP4Fun

Conversations tend to shift in real life also. These aren't moderated scholarly debates, they're basically arguments at the pub. Various people drift in and out, often the original poster himself forgets what he was talking about in between rounds.

If you think those in the photographs look like WASPy white people, perhaps you need the optometrist. They look as different to me as the "distinctive features" of aforementioned Chinese or Indians do.

Well, you see, I'm an Eastern European. To me, the WASPs are not "typical" Europeans, they're an extreme case. Most of the people in the picture from the Egyptian parliament could be distant relatives of mine. As noted above, one of them actually could be my aunt.

Would you consider the peoples of Central and South Americas to be white? They probably have more white (Spanish) heritage (with things like Y-chromosome markers) than do the Egyptians in your photos.

Yeah, absolutely. I know for political reasons you Americans are obsessed with classifying Hispanic as a "race" but it really isn't. It's a blend with (as you note) lots of European input.

If I saw any of those people in a European country or the States, i would assume they or their recent ancestors had immigrated.

Maybe you're too much of a WASP...

[mookiemcgee]

I live in California, and have alot of Mexican friends. Some have been here 3 generations, some were born here, some born in Mexico. Virtually all of them, refer to themselves as 'Brown'. They might also use latino, but I find many of my mexican friends don't use latino because they think of themselves as Mexican(or Mexican american) and don't like being grouped with other central or southern american folks. Somehow the term brown seems more acceptable and inclusive to them. While I don't know if the term 'brown' has been officially sanctioned as good or bad by the SJW Supreme court, i would posit that in discussing what color folks appear to be you might say Egyptians are largely 'brown'. Not quite 'see-through' white (like a Irishman), not quite black like much of Africa. In discussing their heritage I'd probably use the term Egyptian. It kinda saves you the trouble of fighting over were they white 3000 years ago or black (they were almost certainly brown back then too). IMO They are brown because they represent the physical juxtaposition on the globe of white-er or black-er people likely crossbreeding over the course of 100,000 years. What i mean to say is, if there is debate over what color they are (in a purely eyesight sense), they look brown to me!

[PLAYER57832]

I live in California, and have alot of Mexican friends. Some have been here 3 generations, some were born here, some born in Mexico. Virtually all of them, refer to themselves as 'Brown'. They might also use latino, but I find many of my mexican friends don't use latino because they think of themselves as Mexican(or Mexican american) and don't like being grouped with other central or southern american folks. Somehow the term brown seems more acceptable and inclusive to them. While I don't know if the term 'brown' has been officially sanctioned as good or bad by the SJW Supreme court, i would posit that in discussing what color folks appear to be you might say Egyptians are largely 'brown'. Not quite 'see-through' white (like a Irishman), not quite black like much of Africa. In discussing their heritage I'd probably use the term Egyptian. It kinda saves you the trouble of fighting over were they white 3000 years ago or black (they were almost certainly brown back then too). IMO They are brown because they represent the physical juxtaposition on the globe of white-er or black-er people likely crossbreeding over the course of 100,000 years. What i mean to say is, if there is debate over what color they are (in a purely eyesight sense), they look brown to me!

Race has no real definition. It is purely an arbitrary set of ideas put forward at various times by various groups.

One big bit of misinformation, though, is this idea that its a manufacture of white Europeans. It is true that in modern times, in the "west" -- aka "US, Canada and Europe", a definition basically putting whites in one group, and more or less referring to everyone else as "other" -- black, white, yellow/Asian and red/ native american -- and now "latino" or "brown, along with "pacific Islander" (both originally missing, which says a lot) has been predominate. Its dominance/prevalence around the world is tied to prevalence and dominance of "western" culture as a whole, BUT that in no way means that other definitions don't exist, are not popular or have not existed.

If you want to get into real and existing modern racism, look no further than Japan or China! Although "westerners" often classify them "together", they consider themselves not just distinct from each other, but with many distinct subgroups. They each look down very severely on other ethnic Asians -- the enslavement of Koreans in Japan, just as an example, is well documented, but there are many, many other such examples.

Similarly, in Africa, though we tend to refer to the "African", A Zulu and Sub saharan are quite different (and note most US slaves came from Eastern Africa, after having being conquered by not whites, but other black nations).

The REAL truth is that this whole thread is yet another example of attempts to pretend knowledge and put forward "awareness" by someone who does not seem to be really well versed in the subject to begin. (and note.. I am no expert on this, either, but I seem to know more than many posting here so far).

[PLAYER57832]

Egypt definitely did have black pharaohs at one time -- the famous 25th, or Nubian, Dynasty.
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/02/black-pharaohs/robert-draper-text/1

Still, the 25th Dynasty was notable precisely because it was unusual. It was not the norm.

consider is it really logical that the people who lived there then would really and truly be so different from those there today?

Precisely. Then, as now, Egypt had a diverse blend of people, but a clear majority are white.

Funny, but most of those pictures don't seem to show people normally considered "white" -- not that the definition of "white" really is legitimate, but since you used the term....

[mookiemcgee]

I live in California, and have alot of Mexican friends. Some have been here 3 generations, some were born here, some born in Mexico. Virtually all of them, refer to themselves as 'Brown'. They might also use latino, but I find many of my mexican friends don't use latino because they think of themselves as Mexican(or Mexican american) and don't like being grouped with other central or southern american folks. Somehow the term brown seems more acceptable and inclusive to them. While I don't know if the term 'brown' has been officially sanctioned as good or bad by the SJW Supreme court, i would posit that in discussing what color folks appear to be you might say Egyptians are largely 'brown'. Not quite 'see-through' white (like a Irishman), not quite black like much of Africa. In discussing their heritage I'd probably use the term Egyptian. It kinda saves you the trouble of fighting over were they white 3000 years ago or black (they were almost certainly brown back then too). IMO They are brown because they represent the physical juxtaposition on the globe of white-er or black-er people likely crossbreeding over the course of 100,000 years. What i mean to say is, if there is debate over what color they are (in a purely eyesight sense), they look brown to me!

Race has no real definition. It is purely an arbitrary set of ideas put forward at various times by various groups.

One big bit of misinformation, though, is this idea that its a manufacture of white Europeans. It is true that in modern times, in the "west" -- aka "US, Canada and Europe", a definition basically putting whites in one group, and more or less referring to everyone else as "other" -- black, white, yellow/Asian and red/ native american -- and now "latino" or "brown, along with "pacific Islander" (both originally missing, which says a lot) has been predominate. Its dominance/prevalence around the world is tied to prevalence and dominance of "western" culture as a whole, BUT that in no way means that other definitions don't exist, are not popular or have not existed.

If you want to get into real and existing modern racism, look no further than Japan or China! Although "westerners" often classify them "together", they consider themselves not just distinct from each other, but with many distinct subgroups. They each look down very severely on other ethnic Asians -- the enslavement of Koreans in Japan, just as an example, is well documented, but there are many, many other such examples.

Similarly, in Africa, though we tend to refer to the "African", A Zulu and Sub saharan are quite different (and note most US slaves came from Eastern Africa, after having being conquered by not whites, but other black nations).

The REAL truth is that this whole thread is yet another example of attempts to pretend knowledge and put forward "awareness" by someone who does not seem to be really well versed in the subject to begin. (and note.. I am no expert on this, either, but I seem to know more than many posting here so far).

So you agree, the people in the photos above look brown right? I mean if we put whatever race actually means aside, and just look at color they are clearly brown.

[Symmetry]

I live in California, and have alot of Mexican friends. Some have been here 3 generations, some were born here, some born in Mexico. Virtually all of them, refer to themselves as 'Brown'. They might also use latino, but I find many of my mexican friends don't use latino because they think of themselves as Mexican(or Mexican american) and don't like being grouped with other central or southern american folks. Somehow the term brown seems more acceptable and inclusive to them. While I don't know if the term 'brown' has been officially sanctioned as good or bad by the SJW Supreme court, i would posit that in discussing what color folks appear to be you might say Egyptians are largely 'brown'. Not quite 'see-through' white (like a Irishman), not quite black like much of Africa. In discussing their heritage I'd probably use the term Egyptian. It kinda saves you the trouble of fighting over were they white 3000 years ago or black (they were almost certainly brown back then too). IMO They are brown because they represent the physical juxtaposition on the globe of white-er or black-er people likely crossbreeding over the course of 100,000 years. What i mean to say is, if there is debate over what color they are (in a purely eyesight sense), they look brown to me!

Race has no real definition. It is purely an arbitrary set of ideas put forward at various times by various groups.

One big bit of misinformation, though, is this idea that its a manufacture of white Europeans. It is true that in modern times, in the "west" -- aka "US, Canada and Europe", a definition basically putting whites in one group, and more or less referring to everyone else as "other" -- black, white, yellow/Asian and red/ native american -- and now "latino" or "brown, along with "pacific Islander" (both originally missing, which says a lot) has been predominate. Its dominance/prevalence around the world is tied to prevalence and dominance of "western" culture as a whole, BUT that in no way means that other definitions don't exist, are not popular or have not existed.

If you want to get into real and existing modern racism, look no further than Japan or China! Although "westerners" often classify them "together", they consider themselves not just distinct from each other, but with many distinct subgroups. They each look down very severely on other ethnic Asians -- the enslavement of Koreans in Japan, just as an example, is well documented, but there are many, many other such examples.

Similarly, in Africa, though we tend to refer to the "African", A Zulu and Sub saharan are quite different (and note most US slaves came from Eastern Africa, after having being conquered by not whites, but other black nations).

The REAL truth is that this whole thread is yet another example of attempts to pretend knowledge and put forward "awareness" by someone who does not seem to be really well versed in the subject to begin. (and note.. I am no expert on this, either, but I seem to know more than many posting here so far).

So you agree, the people in the photos above look brown right? I mean if we put whatever race actually means aside, and just look at color they are clearly brown.

If we're taking notions of race aside, what colour is Trump supposed to be?

[mookiemcgee]

I live in California, and have alot of Mexican friends. Some have been here 3 generations, some were born here, some born in Mexico. Virtually all of them, refer to themselves as 'Brown'. They might also use latino, but I find many of my mexican friends don't use latino because they think of themselves as Mexican(or Mexican american) and don't like being grouped with other central or southern american folks. Somehow the term brown seems more acceptable and inclusive to them. While I don't know if the term 'brown' has been officially sanctioned as good or bad by the SJW Supreme court, i would posit that in discussing what color folks appear to be you might say Egyptians are largely 'brown'. Not quite 'see-through' white (like a Irishman), not quite black like much of Africa. In discussing their heritage I'd probably use the term Egyptian. It kinda saves you the trouble of fighting over were they white 3000 years ago or black (they were almost certainly brown back then too). IMO They are brown because they represent the physical juxtaposition on the globe of white-er or black-er people likely crossbreeding over the course of 100,000 years. What i mean to say is, if there is debate over what color they are (in a purely eyesight sense), they look brown to me!

Race has no real definition. It is purely an arbitrary set of ideas put forward at various times by various groups.

One big bit of misinformation, though, is this idea that its a manufacture of white Europeans. It is true that in modern times, in the "west" -- aka "US, Canada and Europe", a definition basically putting whites in one group, and more or less referring to everyone else as "other" -- black, white, yellow/Asian and red/ native american -- and now "latino" or "brown, along with "pacific Islander" (both originally missing, which says a lot) has been predominate. Its dominance/prevalence around the world is tied to prevalence and dominance of "western" culture as a whole, BUT that in no way means that other definitions don't exist, are not popular or have not existed.

If you want to get into real and existing modern racism, look no further than Japan or China! Although "westerners" often classify them "together", they consider themselves not just distinct from each other, but with many distinct subgroups. They each look down very severely on other ethnic Asians -- the enslavement of Koreans in Japan, just as an example, is well documented, but there are many, many other such examples.

Similarly, in Africa, though we tend to refer to the "African", A Zulu and Sub saharan are quite different (and note most US slaves came from Eastern Africa, after having being conquered by not whites, but other black nations).

The REAL truth is that this whole thread is yet another example of attempts to pretend knowledge and put forward "awareness" by someone who does not seem to be really well versed in the subject to begin. (and note.. I am no expert on this, either, but I seem to know more than many posting here so far).

So you agree, the people in the photos above look brown right? I mean if we put whatever race actually means aside, and just look at color they are clearly brown.

If we're taking notions of race aside, what colour is Trump supposed to be?

Oh I know this one! It's blue right? Cus he has blue hair and loads of blue makeup on and tans in a blue moon bed.

[Symmetry]

I like Charlie Brooker's description best-

A cling-filmed parcel of frankfurter meat that’s been kicked through a yellow cobweb