10 ms·

I think you are getting downvoted because a) you are asking to shut down a subject that is interesting to people. Talking about stuff is how people get educated

I think you are getting downvoted because a) you are asking to shut down a subject that is interesting to people. Talking about stuff is how people get educated. If you have an opinion or something to add, state it. Shutting down a topic because you judge the audience is too narrow to understand it makes... b) you come across as a snotty elitist who has an axe to grind. I don't see how understanding how ancient people looked is a political study. Yes, race is highly political, but it can be a political and historical topic. Individuals can be interested in what humans used to look like (and this is not limited to blackness) without being interested in the politics. No one is up in arms. People are just interested. The Ancient Greeks are decidedly caucasian, there is not much discussion around that because most scholars agree. We make models of what we think prehistoric humans and sapiens looked like and there is much interest in that without it being political. People just like knowing stuff about the past, about their ancestors. Just because some assholes politicize this sort of thing, just because some teachers push their politically charged racial bias on others does not mean that the whole topic is exclusively socio-political. Citing genetic studies is completely valid. Real science is non-political so I'd say that's a totally rational way to approach the question of what did the people of one of the most sophisticated ancient civilizations look like.

bsanr2 6y ago
Thank you for taking the time to give your analysis. I disagree with much of it. I ask you to bear with me as I explain myself. The subject of race is inherently political, and, specifically with regards to Egyptians, mired in decades of bad faith. Much of early Egyptology was dedicated to "proving" that Ancient Egyptians weren't "black." This is, of course, impossible; "blackness" is not a objectively-defined designation. It's a contextually-driven decision by observers and the self. So, again, the most interesting question becomes not of whether or not Egyptians were black - by the modern definition of blackness (itself predicated in part on notions of separating African populations), they weren't, nor where they white, or Middle Eastern, or Levantine. The most interesting question is why the assertion that they weren't black is so vociferous. That's the character of the parent and several of its replies, not clear-eyed curiosity. They represent a conclusion, not an investigation. It's in this light - in observing this echo chamber - that I felt the need to protest, and I feel justified in doing so. Humor me and assume, for a moment, that "Egyptians were not black," being rooted in a pre-geneology, anthropology-nascent scientific understanding, is itself a political assertion. What does the rest of this discussion look like, then? How, in your default perspective, is it not political? Because of the genetic studies cited? What do those studies actually say, and what about the model you've built around them is actually an intellectual leap? That's the conversation I want to have. Not, "Oh boy ain't my Negro Studies professor dumb?".

bsanr2 6y ago

Thank you for taking the time to give your analysis. I disagree with much of it. I ask you to bear with me as I explain myself. The subject of race is inherently political, and, specifically with regards to Egyptians, mired in decades of bad faith. Much of early Egyptology was dedicated to "proving" that Ancient Egyptians weren't "black." This is, of course, impossible; "blackness" is not a objectively-defined designation. It's a contextually-driven decision by observers and the self. So, again, the most interesting question becomes not of whether or not Egyptians were black - by the modern definition of blackness (itself predicated in part on notions of separating African populations), they weren't, nor where they white, or Middle Eastern, or Levantine. The most interesting question is why the assertion that they weren't black is so vociferous. That's the character of the parent and several of its replies, not clear-eyed curiosity. They represent a conclusion, not an investigation. It's in this light - in observing this echo chamber - that I felt the need to protest, and I feel justified in doing so. Humor me and assume, for a moment, that "Egyptians were not black," being rooted in a pre-geneology, anthropology-nascent scientific understanding, is itself a political assertion. What does the rest of this discussion look like, then? How, in your default perspective, is it not political? Because of the genetic studies cited? What do those studies actually say, and what about the model you've built around them is actually an intellectual leap? That's the conversation I want to have. Not, "Oh boy ain't my Negro Studies professor dumb?".