5 ms·

Why would it be a crackpot theory to suggest that for Western Europeans, whose civilization as we know it starts in the late 1400s, who convinced themselves of

Why would it be a crackpot theory to suggest that for Western Europeans, whose civilization as we know it starts in the late 1400s, who convinced themselves of African inferiority for the purpose of justifying their theft, rape, and murder of those people, upon seeing Black looking people in Egypt from thousands of years before their civilization started, would want to erase signs of it? Sounds just about right to me.

aaaaaaaaaaab 8y ago
That's a very "nice" narrative. The only problem is that it isn't grounded on archeological or historical evidence, therefore it's a crackpot theory.
Kaiyou 8y ago
Because it's unnecessary. To them these people looked so much inferior, that they even put them into zoos. Now ask yourself, if you found ruins indicating that [insert animal, maybe elephants] used to have an ancient civilization would you find that incredibly interesting or would you want to destroy evidence of that because it might affect the way we think of elephants today?
- novacole 8y ago
  I think you underestimate the sickness of the people and culture of said people who would put people in zoos. If you can do that, you can’t put anything past that person/culture.
  - fromthestart 8y ago
    White man bad! I think the sickness is in our own very recent culture's push to deface historic European culture, and rationalize all sorts of interpretations of evilness by, ironically, dehumanizing Europeans, as you're doing here.
    - krapp 8y ago
      But.. Europeans did put Africans into zoos and freak shows and display them, and European culture did consider them subhuman. Just study the history of Sarah Baartman, for an example. Mentioning that is neither dehumanizing nor defacing European culture, it's a statement of literal historical and cultural fact. That said, I don't really buy into the theory being presented here. I would need to see some documentary evidence supporting it first, such as a common cultural association at the time of "broad noses" with "Africans" or an attempt to portray ancient Egypt as a Caucasian society. People knew where Egypt was. The pyramids, temples and other signs of civilization were still there. Knocking the noses off of the statues wouldn't hide anything.
    - novacole 8y ago
      Putting people in Zoos is a good thing? It dehumanizes Europeans to say that it is sick to put people in Zoos? Also, I never said anything about white people. I was talking specifically about the Western Europeans who put people in Zoos. I think your comment perfectly illustrates the lengths people will go to and the ways in which they will contort their minds in order to uphold an strange idea that is dear to their hearts, however...
      - fromthestart 8y ago
        >I think your comment perfectly illustrates the lengths people will go to and the ways in which they will contort their minds in order to uphold an strange idea that is dear to their hearts, however Ironic that I was pointing out that you're doing exactly this. >Putting people in Zoos is a good thing? It dehumanizes Europeans to say that it is sick to put people in Zoos? Are you even going to attempt to argue in good faith? >Also, I never said anything about white people. Of course you didn't! Then your racism would be overt. But your anti European narrative is an increasingly common one that has infested academia and is creeping into industry.
        dang 8y ago
        We've asked you before to stop doing flamewars on HN. If you keep doing it we're going to have to ban you, so please don't. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Edit: it looks like you've been using HN primarily for ideological and political battle. We ban accounts that do that, so please stop doing that too.
fromthestart 8y ago
>who convinced themselves of African inferiority for the purpose of justifying their theft, rape, and murder of those people The Africans they encountered had virtually no technology and no government, and looked like different creatures. It wasn't something that required rationalization. There's far less malice in this than you'd like to see. As far as I am aware, there is no credible evidence that Egyptians strongly represented south African phenotypes or had the same shade of skin. It is a modern internet meme. Lay off the propaganda.
- altern8 8y ago
  Don't waste your time, his gender studies degree did irreparable damage you cannot fix.
  - dang 8y ago
    We've banned this account for posting unsubstantive comments and flamebait to HN. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- novacole 8y ago
  >and looked like different creatures These are your words. These are your thoughts.
  - altern8 8y ago
    > These are your words. These are your thoughts. He said those words. Word by word. Word. By Word.
  - fromthestart 8y ago
    Great contribution. Allow me to expand. The known world to you consists of various tribes of humans who all share rather similar physical phenotypes (white skin, soft, slightly curly to straight hair, similar facial features), with reasonably similar technology (metalworking, beasts of burden, farming, government of some sort, written language, the wheel) and suddenly you discover a group of beings with none of these things - no written language, no cultivated land, no domesticated animals, no wheel, no metalworking, and on top of all this, they look totally different from anyone you've ever seen. It did not take evilness or malice of any kind on the part of medieval Europeans to reason that these beings, if they were human, were less human than they were. Morality is cultural and relative, you cannot demonize historic cultures through your enlightened lense. So no, these are more than just "my words," this is a rational sentiment for a medieval European in the historic context. Globalization is a modern phenomenon. Why do you think there was incentive to put these people in zoos?
Bartweiss 8y ago
It's described as a crackpot/fringe theory because it's an unsupported just-so story, and worse, it's not actually consistent with the data that inspired it. You're right that it's not hard to show motive for such a practice, but that skips past every other consideration, like motive, opportunity, or evidence. A few things that this theory falls utterly short on: - Reliefs that were never exported or even found by colonists are often defaced. - Pharaonic texts specifically reference the practice of defacement and treat it as an act distinct from general vandalism or theft. - Works show other systematic damage unrelated to racial issues (from the article, statues receiving offerings had their right hands removed, and those providing them had their left hands removed). - Single reliefs show noses removed on some figures but not others, even when the preserved noses look substantially non-European (e.g. the article's last photo). - Defacements aren't random, or tied to ethnicity; instead, politically inconvenient rulers like Hatshepsut are overwhelmingly erased while others (even close family members) are not. - Where text accompanies figures, the names of the defaced figures are also defaced. Which requires knowledge of Ancient Egyptian, a motive to target specific historical figures, and a concern with matters unrelated to appearance. - Weathering on in situ works commonly suggests noses were removed much closer to their creation than to the 1800s. (This is less clear for works brought to Europe, but that opens the question of simple fragility.) All of that is above and beyond questions of evidence for the practice, or historical context that Egyptian statues with black features were actually convenient for some racist theories like Samuel Weston's. There's basically no racist practice colonists wouldn't have been willing to engage in, certainly. But advancing specific claims that are inconsistent with huge amounts of evidence is rightly considered a fringe belief.

aaaaaaaaaaab 8y ago

That's a very "nice" narrative. The only problem is that it isn't grounded on archeological or historical evidence, therefore it's a crackpot theory.

Kaiyou 8y ago

Because it's unnecessary. To them these people looked so much inferior, that they even put them into zoos. Now ask yourself, if you found ruins indicating that [insert animal, maybe elephants] used to have an ancient civilization would you find that incredibly interesting or would you want to destroy evidence of that because it might affect the way we think of elephants today?

novacole 8y ago
I think you underestimate the sickness of the people and culture of said people who would put people in zoos. If you can do that, you can’t put anything past that person/culture.
- fromthestart 8y ago
  White man bad! I think the sickness is in our own very recent culture's push to deface historic European culture, and rationalize all sorts of interpretations of evilness by, ironically, dehumanizing Europeans, as you're doing here.
  - krapp 8y ago
    But.. Europeans did put Africans into zoos and freak shows and display them, and European culture did consider them subhuman. Just study the history of Sarah Baartman, for an example. Mentioning that is neither dehumanizing nor defacing European culture, it's a statement of literal historical and cultural fact. That said, I don't really buy into the theory being presented here. I would need to see some documentary evidence supporting it first, such as a common cultural association at the time of "broad noses" with "Africans" or an attempt to portray ancient Egypt as a Caucasian society. People knew where Egypt was. The pyramids, temples and other signs of civilization were still there. Knocking the noses off of the statues wouldn't hide anything.
  - novacole 8y ago
    Putting people in Zoos is a good thing? It dehumanizes Europeans to say that it is sick to put people in Zoos? Also, I never said anything about white people. I was talking specifically about the Western Europeans who put people in Zoos. I think your comment perfectly illustrates the lengths people will go to and the ways in which they will contort their minds in order to uphold an strange idea that is dear to their hearts, however...
    - fromthestart 8y ago
      >I think your comment perfectly illustrates the lengths people will go to and the ways in which they will contort their minds in order to uphold an strange idea that is dear to their hearts, however Ironic that I was pointing out that you're doing exactly this. >Putting people in Zoos is a good thing? It dehumanizes Europeans to say that it is sick to put people in Zoos? Are you even going to attempt to argue in good faith? >Also, I never said anything about white people. Of course you didn't! Then your racism would be overt. But your anti European narrative is an increasingly common one that has infested academia and is creeping into industry.
      - dang 8y ago
        We've asked you before to stop doing flamewars on HN. If you keep doing it we're going to have to ban you, so please don't. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Edit: it looks like you've been using HN primarily for ideological and political battle. We ban accounts that do that, so please stop doing that too.

fromthestart 8y ago

>who convinced themselves of African inferiority for the purpose of justifying their theft, rape, and murder of those people The Africans they encountered had virtually no technology and no government, and looked like different creatures. It wasn't something that required rationalization. There's far less malice in this than you'd like to see. As far as I am aware, there is no credible evidence that Egyptians strongly represented south African phenotypes or had the same shade of skin. It is a modern internet meme. Lay off the propaganda.

altern8 8y ago
Don't waste your time, his gender studies degree did irreparable damage you cannot fix.
- dang 8y ago
  We've banned this account for posting unsubstantive comments and flamebait to HN. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
novacole 8y ago
>and looked like different creatures These are your words. These are your thoughts.
- altern8 8y ago
  > These are your words. These are your thoughts. He said those words. Word by word. Word. By Word.
- fromthestart 8y ago
  Great contribution. Allow me to expand. The known world to you consists of various tribes of humans who all share rather similar physical phenotypes (white skin, soft, slightly curly to straight hair, similar facial features), with reasonably similar technology (metalworking, beasts of burden, farming, government of some sort, written language, the wheel) and suddenly you discover a group of beings with none of these things - no written language, no cultivated land, no domesticated animals, no wheel, no metalworking, and on top of all this, they look totally different from anyone you've ever seen. It did not take evilness or malice of any kind on the part of medieval Europeans to reason that these beings, if they were human, were less human than they were. Morality is cultural and relative, you cannot demonize historic cultures through your enlightened lense. So no, these are more than just "my words," this is a rational sentiment for a medieval European in the historic context. Globalization is a modern phenomenon. Why do you think there was incentive to put these people in zoos?

Bartweiss 8y ago

It's described as a crackpot/fringe theory because it's an unsupported just-so story, and worse, it's not actually consistent with the data that inspired it. You're right that it's not hard to show motive for such a practice, but that skips past every other consideration, like motive, opportunity, or evidence. A few things that this theory falls utterly short on: - Reliefs that were never exported or even found by colonists are often defaced. - Pharaonic texts specifically reference the practice of defacement and treat it as an act distinct from general vandalism or theft. - Works show other systematic damage unrelated to racial issues (from the article, statues receiving offerings had their right hands removed, and those providing them had their left hands removed). - Single reliefs show noses removed on some figures but not others, even when the preserved noses look substantially non-European (e.g. the article's last photo). - Defacements aren't random, or tied to ethnicity; instead, politically inconvenient rulers like Hatshepsut are overwhelmingly erased while others (even close family members) are not. - Where text accompanies figures, the names of the defaced figures are also defaced. Which requires knowledge of Ancient Egyptian, a motive to target specific historical figures, and a concern with matters unrelated to appearance. - Weathering on in situ works commonly suggests noses were removed much closer to their creation than to the 1800s. (This is less clear for works brought to Europe, but that opens the question of simple fragility.) All of that is above and beyond questions of evidence for the practice, or historical context that Egyptian statues with black features were actually convenient for some racist theories like Samuel Weston's. There's basically no racist practice colonists wouldn't have been willing to engage in, certainly. But advancing specific claims that are inconsistent with huge amounts of evidence is rightly considered a fringe belief.