White Conservatives Outraged Over Django Unchained

[BlandFood]

If he visited the Jim Crow South he would have had to ride in the back of the bus



Possibly, maybe not as I said he was a rather good looking man but you may be correct.



I agree that we shouldn't place modern definitions of race on ancient civilizations. It should also be emphasized that ancient Egypt was quite a melting pot of various Middle Eastern and East African ethnic groups. So asking what color they were is like asking what color are Latinos...

Write this down, we're in agreement! Lets both join the Pharaohs together.

[Joy in Mudville]

In ancient Egypt? Hell no, they had no one to answer to and certainly not slaves. Now the question you MUST ask yourself is what color were they? More Mediterranean olive might be a good guess.

Why is this important to you?

If you are trying to suggest that the ancient Egyptians were 'olive' like the Greeks and/or Phoenicians then you are wrong.

[BlandFood]

Why is this important to you?

If you are trying to suggest that the ancient Egyptians were 'olive' like the Greeks and/or Phoenicians then you are wrong.

You were there? Show me a kodachrome 8X10 picture.

[ms maggie]

Some folks make a very good living out of stoking racial animosities. Not surprisingly, they're all on the left.

Did you see the movie?

[ms maggie]

The issue of slavery in the US was somewhat unique. Slavery goes back to the beginning of recorded history. What was peculiar to US slavery post Revolution was the contention the country put forth that "all men are created equal" and yet allowed slavery. The inference was clear: slaves, and spec blacks were not fully "men" or human.

In other times and culture slavery was a function of economic conditions or the spoils of war. Meaning you were a slave due to circumstances not some inherent inferiority. May sound like a small difference bit in fact was huge.

[EmDot]

Some folks make a very good living out of stoking racial animosities. Not surprisingly, they're all on the left.

Not all of them. Meet Glenn Grothman.

I know Tarantino is considered a great director by many people, but I've never cared for his movies myself.

[Smokey 1]

Why is this important to you?

If you are trying to suggest that the ancient Egyptians were 'olive' like the Greeks and/or Phoenicians then you are wrong.

Why is it important to you to believe they were black? They didn't look black in the artwork.

[soulflower]

Why is it important to you to believe they were black? They didn't look black in the artwork.

What about King Tut?

http://www.middle-east-online.com/me...utankhamun.jpg

http://www.lessing-photo.com/dispimg...233+&cr=1&cl=1

He certainly had the profile of modern day Sudanese or Ethiopians

While most Americans would probably identify East Africans as Black, I'm sure they view themselves as distinct from West Africans and Central Africans. I don't think modern, Western definitions of race should apply when referring to people in that region of the world.

[Joy in Mudville]

Why is it important to you to believe they were black? They didn't look black in the artwork.

It's funny isn't it that I never actually said that the Egyptians were 'black'? Actually, I never gave it much thought until I saw how important it was to Bland that they were not "black".

The DNA of the ancient Egyptians is about the same as the DNA of the modern Egyptians and the civilization grew up indigenously in north east Africa. There was a mix of Nubians from the upper Nile Valley and the people of the lower Nile Valley and there was contact, and I imagine, some interbreeding with the people from the Levant.

[Joy in Mudville]

Not all of them. Meet Glenn Grothman.

I know Tarantino is considered a great director by many people, but I've never cared for his movies myself.

Beyond Pulp Fiction which I consider very good and notable primarily for it's non-linear narrative I have always felt that he was style over substance.

[BlandFood]

It's funny isn't it that I never actually said that the Egyptians were 'black'? Actually, I never gave it much thought until I saw how important it was to Bland that they were not "black".

The DNA of the ancient Egyptians is about the same as the DNA of the modern Egyptians and the civilization grew up indigenously in north east Africa. There was a mix of Nubians from the upper Nile Valley and the people of the lower Nile Valley and there was contact, and I imagine, some interbreeding with the people from the Levant.

Why? Since we're talking slavery and the ebil white debil, THAT'S why I brought it up. To say things weren't built with slave labor is ridicules. As to the question of what were they? Seems there is no definite answer, some say the DNA is all spoiled. some say it isn't.

http://www.nature.com/news/2011/1104...l/472404a.html
Sceptics, however, doubt that there was sufficient DNA left in Tutankhamun for the result to be real.

http://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2...tory-of-egypt/

This one shows a completely mixed message

Upper Egypt is ~30% Black by DNA. But even upper Egyptians are much closer to the Near East than to Africans. Modern Egyptians are ~25% Black by DNA, but studies on ancient Egyptians show them to much less Black, possibly at ~9%. Most of the Egyptian Black DNA seems to have come in via the Arab conquest and the slave trade.

Ancient Egyptian hair is like modern Egyptian hair, from straight to curly with a small minority having kinky hair. Ancient Egyptians look just like modern Egyptian on the following variables: hair, teeth and skulls.

Now Mud why did I ask? Inquiring minds want to know, that's why.

[pickles]

Beyond Pulp Fiction which I consider very good and notable primarily for it's non-linear narrative I have always felt that he was style over substance.

The funny thing is he's capable of high drama.

For instance, Dusk to Dawn was an absolute great thriller for the first hour till it reduced itself to absurdity, vampires, and Salma Hayek's tits (not that I'm complaining about the last one).

The opening scene of "Inglorious Basterds" was another example of fine drama.

But Tarantino isn't interested, unfortunately imo because he's more than capable of it, in producing nuanced drama. He wants to produce spectacle.

If you notice, his last two films are very similar: Movies in which gratuitous violence can be celebrated w no moral reservations by the audience, b/c Tarantino has picked the two least empathetic characters in American culture: Nazis and slave owners.

[demopublican]

The definition of Slavery varies from one culture to the next

A distinction that is most likely lost on the slaves themselves.

[pickles]

A distinction that is most likely lost on the slaves themselves.

The intentional destruction of the familial bonds in American slavery was fairly unique, and we continue to suffer under its ramifications today.

There are gradations to things. I don't disagree that the slaves had no conscious awareness that they were in an unusual state of servitude historically speaking. But that doesn't change the fact that they were.

[demopublican]

The intentional destruction of the familial bonds in American slavery was fairly unique, and we continue to suffer under its ramifications today.

There are gradations to things. I don't disagree that the slaves had no conscious awareness that they were in an unusual state of servitude historically speaking. But that doesn't change the fact that they were.

Brazil was pretty bad and on a much larger and longer scale.

[pickles]

Brazil was pretty bad and on a much larger and longer scale.

Fair enough. Still doesn't really change the point that American slavery, and to be more accurate we can use American in the broad sense, was quite different than slavery as practiced in other cultures.

[soulflower]

The intentional destruction of the familial bonds in American slavery was fairly unique, and we continue to suffer under its ramifications today.

There are gradations to things. I don't disagree that the slaves had no conscious awareness that they were in an unusual state of servitude historically speaking. But that doesn't change the fact that they were.

I agree. I'm not sure if humans were treated as livestock prior to the Trans-Atlantic slave trade. It was quite unique for that reason...

[soulflower]

http://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2...tory-of-egypt/

This one shows a completely mixed message

[B]Upper Egypt is ~30% Black by DNA. But even upper Egyptians are much closer to the Near East than to Africans. Modern Egyptians are ~25% Black by DNA, but studies on ancient Egyptians show them to much less Black, possibly at ~9%. Most of the Egyptian Black DNA seems to have come in via the Arab conquest and the slave trade.

No legit scientist uses terms like "Black DNA". There's no such animal.

Fact: Africa is the most genetically diverse continent in the world. meaning, there's more genetic diversity between Africans than between people from different continents.


WaPo: Study Finds Africans More Genetically Diverse Than Other Populations

Africans are more genetically diverse than the inhabitants of the rest of the world combined, according to a sweeping study that carried researchers into remote regions to sample the bloodlines of more than 100 distinct populations.

The report, published yesterday in the journal Science Express, suggests that, because of historical migrations and genetic mixing across the continent, it will be hard for African Americans to trace their ancestry in fine detail. African American genealogies are increasingly popular and commercialized, but the authors of the new study cast doubt on how precise such searches can be, given the complexity of the genetic makeup of Africans.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...043002485.html

[ms maggie]

Fair enough. Still doesn't really change the point that American slavery, and to be more accurate we can use American in the broad sense, was quite different than slavery as practiced in other cultures.

Slavery in Latin America differed from the US in that the church insisted on converting and "saving the souls" of the slaves, which deferred a kind of equality at least before God. In Brazil the indigenous population had been enslaved prior to the importation of Africans. Race mixing was much more prominent as well, inevitable due to the sheer volume of slaves. Today in Brazil it's the indigenous peoples--who maintained racial purity due to sheer remoteness--who are the object of prejudice.

[pickles]

Slavery in Latin America differed from the US in that the church insisted on converting and "saving the souls" of the slaves, which deferred a kind of equality at least before God. In Brazil the indigenous population had been enslaved prior to the importation of Africans. Race mixing was much more prominent as well, inevitable due to the sheer volume of slaves. Today in Brazil it's the indigenous peoples--who maintained racial purity due to sheer remoteness--who are the object of prejudice.

Well, there was also mandatory conversion in America as well. The large difference there was the Protestant and Catholic churches.

But yeah, race mixing was far more prevalent in S America and leads, inevitably, to less racial tensions.