EgyptKang

Today show reveals the "newly recreated" bust of Nefertiti

108 posts in this topic

LOL. The Holy Order of the Perpetually Offended have a new cause to complain about. Too funny. But if you want to really get upset, watch a few episodes of Ancient Aliens on the History Channel and see what they say about the true identity of the ancient Egyptians. That will really put some folks over the edge. :D :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do people try to recreate what ancient Egyptians might’ve looked like when we have tons of realistic artwork and Busts made by ancient Egyptians depicting how they looked?

Granted, some of the physical features in ancient Egyptian art was exaggerated by them. Kings were made to look stronger and more masculine than they were in real life.

However, the Amarna period, the era of Nefertiti and King Tut, is known to be the exception. During the Amarna period, the art was more realistic and lifelike. 

The famous Busts of Nefertiti and King Tut are likely close to their actual appearances. 

Edited by soulflower

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Papi said:

LOL. The Holy Order of the Perpetually Offended have a new cause to complain about. Too funny. But if you want to really get upset, watch a few episodes of Ancient Aliens on the History Channel and see what they say about the true identity of the ancient Egyptians. That will really put some folks over the edge. :D :P

You mean like you and your ilk complaining about statues of wicked slave owners being taken down?

I know you are not into facts after all you voted for trump and listen to Fox News, however, history is very important. How it is depicted is very important.  To allow this to go unanswered distorts history. This is why certain whites go to great lengths to distort history. They know the power of doing so. To distort history makes us in certain cases doomed to repeat it. In this case certain whites want to hide the truth so that blacks won't know who they are building on the lie that whites are superior.

Edited by EgyptKang

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, EgyptKang said:

You mean like you and your ilk complaining about statues of wicked slave owners being taken down?

I complain about over-reaction based on emotion instead of reason. I really don't care about statues of people who were only slave owners, but I do think it is an over-reaction when some people suggest that statues of Washington, Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, and other founding fathers or historical figures prominent in American history should be viewed in the same negative light as leaders of the confederacy. Just as I find it an emotional over-reaction among some posters who keep appearing to want to erase all references to the Civil War that don't live down to their preferred definition of all southerners of that era as evil slave owning traitors. History is more complicated than that, whether we like it or not. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, soulflower said:

Why do people try to recreate what ancient Egyptians might’ve looked like when we have tons of realistic artwork and Busts made by ancient Egyptians depicting how they looked?

Granted, some of the physical features in ancient Egyptian art was exaggerated by them. Kings were made to look stronger and more masculine than they were in real life.

However, the Amarna period, the era of Nefertiti and King Tut, is known to be the exception. During the Amarna period, the art was more realistic and lifelike. 

The famous Busts of Nefertiti and King Tut are likely close to their actual appearances. 

Certain whites are always trying to wipe out the history of blacks.  I mean look know further than trump's attempt to wipeout the legacy of President Obama.  It's an old trick....rinse repeat. 

There are certain whites who dismiss black people pointing out these things by using terms like "perpetually offended" rather than certain whites perpetually trying to destroy the legacy of blacks.

It's like a white woman blaming an attack by her son on a black man because the black man moved into the neighborhood. See she will blame the black man moving into the neighborhood as being the cause of the problem not her son for being a racist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Papi said:

I complain about over-reaction based on emotion instead of reason. I really don't care about statues of people who were only slave owners, but I do think it is an over-reaction when some people suggest that statues of Washington, Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, and other founding fathers or historical figures prominent in American history should be viewed in the same negative light as leaders of the confederacy. Just as I find it an emotional over-reaction among some posters who keep appearing to want to erase all references to the Civil War that don't live down to their preferred definition of all southerners of that era as evil slave owning traitors. History is more complicated than that, whether we like it or not. 

They are in HISTORY books and museums where they belong. Statues honor them they don't tell the truth of their wickedness. That is a big difference. I don't believe a bust of HITLER should be on any public grounds. Neither should a bust of Bin Laden. I am sure you and your ilk would be upset if a bust of Bin Laden was put on grounds of where the World Trade Centers stood.   The fact that you don't get that is unbelievable yet given your support of trump is believable.

Edited by EgyptKang

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This reminds me of a skit by Richard Pryor which was so spot on.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Papi said:

I complain about over-reaction based on emotion instead of reason. I really don't care about statues of people who were only slave owners, but I do think it is an over-reaction when some people suggest that statues of Washington, Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, and other founding fathers or historical figures prominent in American history should be viewed in the same negative light as leaders of the confederacy. Just as I find it an emotional over-reaction among some posters who keep appearing to want to erase all references to the Civil War that don't live down to their preferred definition of all southerners of that era as evil slave owning traitors. History is more complicated than that, whether we like it or not. 

Meh. I don’t think people should be angry about it. However it is rare that White historical figures are depicted in Pop Culture as anything other than White. 

In contrast, when it comes to non-White historical figures there tends to be an obsession in Pop Culture with reimagining them as more caucasian. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, EgyptKang said:

You mean like you and your ilk complaining about statues of wicked slave owners being taken down?

I know you are not into facts after all you voted for trump and listen to Fox News, however, history is very important. How it is depicted is very important.  To allow this to go unanswered distorts history. This is why certain whites go to great lengths to distort history. They know the power of doing so. To distort history makes us in certain cases doomed to repeat it. In this case certain whites want to hide the truth so that blacks won't know who they are building on the lie that whites are superior.

Lying because you don't seem to like me is very bad form. If you would try to pay attention to my posting history, you would recognize that I voted for neither Trump nor Hillary, and I do not watch Fox news as I think it is far from a news channel - it is no more a news channel than MSNBC, which I also do not watch. 

In my opinion, only people who are over-reacting emotionally to the newest version of what some ancient Egyptians might have looked like would even care about that new bust. That you see it as some sort of tool of a white supremacy conspiracy is truly laughable. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, soulflower said:

Meh. I don’t think people should be angry about it. However it is rare that White historical figures are depicted in Pop Culture as anything other than White. 

In contrast, when it comes to non-White historical figures there tends to be an obsession in Pop Culture with reimagining them as more caucasian. 

Exactly!!  Depicting historical black figures as white is common but not the other way around. Again it's about trying to show the whites as superior.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, EgyptKang said:

They are in HISTORY books and museums where they belong. Statues honor them they don't tell the truth of their wickedness. That is a big difference. I don't believe a bust of HITLER should be on any public grounds. Neither should a bust of Bin Laden. I am sure you and your ilk would be upset if a bust of Bin Laden was put on grounds of where the World Trade Centers stood.   The fact that you don't get that is unbelievable yet given your support of trump is believable.

Once again, please show me one post that I have ever made that is in support of Trump. I have been anti-Trump ever since he because a candidate. Check it out sport. 

And it would appear to be that your frequent reference to "my ilk" is an effort to classify me in some negative way simply because of my pale skin color. The fact that you don't get that doing so is racist on your part is very telling. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Papi said:

Once again, please show me one post that I have ever made that is in support of Trump. I have been anti-Trump ever since he because a candidate. Check it out sport. 

And it would appear to be that your frequent reference to "my ilk" is an effort to classify me in some negative way simply because of my pale skin color. The fact that you don't get that doing so is racist on your part is very telling. 

The Trump thing is a straw man. Usually, when posters throw out the "you support Trump" or you're "racist" or "bigot" or" homophobe", or any off the liberal talking points list, their goal is to change the subject. He isn't disputing your point, he's putting you on the defensive, so you have to prove a negative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, EgyptKang said:

Exactly!!  Depicting historical black figures as white is common but not the other way around. Again it's about trying to show the whites as superior.

I agree one is more common than the other. However, I believe the sculptor and painter of the bust chose the colors thousands of years ago. Which is well beyond the time frame many believe that the concept of race developed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, EgyptKang said:

 

 

Sorry Megyn, Santa Claus Is Not White

Fox News’s Megyn Kelly recently assured the children watching her program that “Santa just is white.” She was responding to Slate writer Alisha Harris’ suggestion that Santa should be an animal (like the Easter bunny) instead of a human, so that no child of any race would be uncomfortable or confused by a Santa that did not share their skin color (Harris proposed a penguin.) Megyn’s comment was meant to protect the “Santa belief” of children who might be confused regarding how there could be a debate about what color Santa “should be” if Santa really exists. “We’re just debating this because someone wrote about it kids.” But it spawned a media firestorm. Harris herself replied, along with John Stewart, SNL, Jimmy Kimmel, and MSNBC’s Toure Neblett.

Now there are all kinds of social and political issues to consider here, and this also a debate about Santa’s “race”—which could get really complicated because race really has no biological basis, and is more a social construct. But here I’m interested in one simple question, which really does seem to be at the bottom of all this: Is Santa’s skin white?

Bill O’Reilly came to Megyn’s aid, claiming that her statement was historically accurate, since the historical St. Nicholas was white. Does that settle the issue? Not really. It turns out the question of Santa’s skin color is not as easy to answer as it first appears.

 

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/plato-pop/201312/sorry-megyn-santa-claus-is-not-white

 

Waiting for Papi's head to explode.

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, mlatoman said:

I agree one is more common than the other. However, I believe the sculptor and painter of the bust chose the colors thousands of years ago. Which is well beyond the time frame many believe that the concept of race developed. 

The concept of Race in ancient times isn’t the same as how we understand it today. 

Clearly both Sub-Saharan people and Middle Eastern Caucasian people made up the population of ancient Egypt. The mixing of people from Africa and Asia is represented in their artwork. We have a pretty good idea of what Nefertiti actually looked like based on the numerous depictions of her by the Egyptians themselves. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, soulflower said:

The concept of Race in ancient times isn’t the same as how we understand it today. 

Clearly both Sub-Saharan people and Middle Eastern Caucasian people made up the population of ancient Egypt. The mixing of people from Africa and Asia is represented in their artwork. We have a pretty good idea of what Nefertiti actually looked like based on the numerous depictions of her by the Egyptians themselves. 

Exactly. Why some wish to mold Nefertiti into what they would like to see is beyond me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Papi said:

I complain about over-reaction based on emotion instead of reason. I really don't care about statues of people who were only slave owners, but I do think it is an over-reaction when some people suggest that statues of Washington, Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, and other founding fathers or historical figures prominent in American history should be viewed in the same negative light as leaders of the confederacy. Just as I find it an emotional over-reaction among some posters who keep appearing to want to erase all references to the Civil War that don't live down to their preferred definition of all southerners of that era as evil slave owning traitors. History is more complicated than that, whether we like it or not. 

I agree. I can live with and even appreciate tributes to men who where white supremacists, but accomplished something greater than their belief in it. Their words have been used for over 100 years to combat it. 

Edited by hst2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, mlatoman said:

Exactly. Why some wish to mold Nefertiti into what they would like to see is beyond me. 

E K is caught up in the "we wuz kangs" thing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't Egyptian royalty own vast amounts of slaves?

You know, that whole "Let my people go" thing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Apexbud said:

Didn't Egyptian royalty own vast amounts of slaves?

You know, that whole "Let my people go" thing?

There was a large wave or “exodus” of Middle Eastern immigrants out Egypt around the 16th or 17th Dynasty (the Hyksos). But they were foreign rulers, not slaves. Also no proof that Moses existed. 

Slaves in Egypt were more like Indentured Servants or Serfs. Some slaves were prisoners of war. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Hyksos as Hebrews theory is interesting. Even as foreign leaders, the Hyksos were known to claim Pharaoh status and hold slaves.

The Old Testament is mostly oral history finally written down. Maybe Moses didn't exist, but three major religions have him as a focal point. If he didn't exist, someone very much like him most likely did.

 

A slave is a slave is a slave.

Dress it up and call them indentured servants, serfs, prisoners, bondservant, chattel, or laborer.

A slave is a slave.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Apexbud said:

The Hyksos as Hebrews theory is interesting. Even as foreign leaders, the Hyksos were known to claim Pharaoh status and hold slaves.

The Old Testament is mostly oral history finally written down. Maybe Moses didn't exist, but three major religions have him as a focal point. If he didn't exist, someone very much like him most likely did.

 

A slave is a slave is a slave.

Dress it up and call them indentured servants, serfs, prisoners, bondservant, chattel, or laborer.

A slave is a slave.

The Hyksos were pretty cool. They were an advanced group from Canaan. They brought the Chariot to Egypt. 

Its possible that Moses existed but there’s no proof that he existed or that the Exodus as described in the Bible actually happened. 

The closest historical person to Moses may have been Nefertiti’s husband, Akhenaton. He introduced Monotheism to Egypt. 

From what I’ve read, slavery as it is known in modern times, wasn’t widely practiced in Egypt until Greco-Roman times. Prior to the Greek period, it’s difficult to distinguish between indentured servitude, serfdom, or slavery in Egypt. Anyone could be forced into Labor in ancient Egypt. Peasants, criminals, prisoners of war etc. Pharohs were pretty much dictators. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now