Monday, April 23, 2012
On Sharpton's Idiotic Claim that Black Africans Were the True Ancient Egyptians
I'm sorry, folks, but the real "dope" here is Sharpton himself. I mean, where in the hell did he think that the Arabs came from? Persia? Outer Space? And then they did WHAT exactly, push these sophisticated black Africans all the way to the sub-Sahara (and in a manner, no less, that caused them to completely lose their language and culture)? Where in the hell is the frigging history of this, damn it? There isn't any...................................................................................Look, I understand that history has largely been told from a Eurocentric perspective. I get it. But to replace this one set of biases for another more politically correct (and this instance, inaccurate) set accomplishes shit. What do you people say that we put EVERYTHING on the table and develop a critical thinking skill or two? I mean, don't you think that that would help a young African-America student a hell of a lot more than rah-rah-sis-boom-ba!?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
31 comments:
Still up in the air. Critical thinkers will be watching further
development in paleo DNA research.
Thus far, what evidence there is
involves the DNA results on Tut,
which indicates R1b1a2 haploid cladistics.
The info regarding the DNA on Wikipedia comes from a book titled, "Black Athena Revisited".
Regarding this book, one Amazon reviewer says, "Overrated Piece of Right-Wing Tripe".
Sounds about right, BB Idaho.............So, wd, how many reviewers did you have to go through to get one who would defend this idiocy? You can't assail my logic and so you resort to this. The ancient Egyptians weren't black and Sharpton looks like an imbecile for suggesting that they were. Live with it.
Your logic is unassailable? Where is the article that says all the other theories (regarding what race ancient Egyptians were) are now disproved? I didn't see a link in your post.
You're basing your conclusion solely on one sentence from the Wikipedia article on the subject, and as I just showed you, the author's motivations have been questioned.
I need more information regarding this supposed DNA proof before making a decision. You didn't provide it, thus I'd hardly call your "logic" unassailable.
And, honestly, I really don't give a damn if Al Sharpton is right or wrong on this issue, and I certainly do not think it makes him look like an imbecile for believing the theory. So, I'm not going to "live with it".
For the record, I'm not defending the theory. I'm saying I'm not sure.
Actually, there are learned scholars who believe the ancient Egyptians, or at least some of their Pharaohs, were Ancient Aliens.
I'm not basing my opinion on one sentence from Wikipedia. I'm basing it on the fact that there is zero, ZERO, evidence to substantiate Mr. Sharpton's stupid-assed theory. Bubkas! Nothing in any historical text which supports the mass migration of black Africans south to the sub-Sahara. And what about my question pertaining to where in the hell did the Arabs come from? You don't have a theory on that one, wd?
Boy, has the History Channel ever gone down hill, heh, Jerry?
Will: I'm basing it on the fact that there is zero, ZERO, evidence to substantiate Mr. Sharpton's stupid-assed theory.
You're mistaken Will. The theory is NOT Al Sharpton's, it is Martin Bernal's.
Jerry Critter: Actually, there are learned scholars who believe the ancient Egyptians, or at least some of their Pharaohs, were Ancient Aliens.
This was the basis of the movie "Stargate" and Television series "Stargate SG-1".
Alright, then they're BOTH idiots, wd.............As for "Stargate SG-1", all that I know is that it starred Claudia Black and she was smokin'.
Will: Alright, then they're BOTH idiots...
FYI, Martin Bernal is a White guy, so we know that when dmarks said the theory is "all a bunch of racial supremacist BS"... he didn't know what the hell he was taking about (as usual).
We also know that Will didn't know what the hell he was talking about, because he thought Al Sharpton came up with the hypothesis. And he criticizes it without even knowing what it says. How does he know it does not answer the questions he poses in his original post?
Answer: He doesn't. How could he when he didn't even know Al Sharpton didn't come up with the theory, but instead it was a White Professor Emeritus of Government and Near Eastern Studies at Cornell University?
Is he a White guy who thinks blacks are the superior race? Or maybe he's just attempting to uncover the truth and has some research to back up his conclusions?
I go with the later. And I do NOT believe Al Sharpton is a idiot for thinking the theory has merit. Bernal and Sharpton may both be wrong, but coming up with an incorrect theory (or believing it) does not (necessarily) make someone an idiot.
IMO something that makes an individual an idiot is criticizing a theory when you have no idea what the particulars behind that theory are (and go so far as to attribute it to the WRONG person).
I haven't read the book, so how would I know where the Arabs came from? I'm sure that Bernal's theory must have accounted for this. If it were so self evident that his theory is laughable "junk science" then why didn't the publishers laugh at him and tell him to get lost?
I take it you HAVE read the book? Otherwise how would you know the theory is "totally unsubstantiated"? Perhaps you used your mind reading abilities on Bernal and that's how you know he's an idiot and doesn't have a clue?
No, wait, I forgot you'd never even heard of him and thought Al Sharpton came up with the theory... so scratch that.
And where is your proof that Al Sharpton is "espousing" the theory? You make it sound like he's giving lectures around the country! As far as I know he only mentioned it once. If you can cite additional instances of him bringing this up please share
I never said that Sharpton came up with the theory. Obviously there are a lot of other cranks out there.............The fact that this fellow wrote a book? That's your defense that he knows what he's talking about? I seem to recall quite a few publications that you didn't believe.
Will: The fact that this fellow wrote a book? That's your defense that he knows what he's talking about?
No. I said I didn't know if the theory was correct, so why would I argue that?
I'm disputing your claim that it's self evident that the theory is laughably false.
Because you don't know what the particulars are, or if the questions you pose are answered. I'm guessing they are, or the publishers would have rejected the book.
Seeing as you simply don't know, I don't see how you can conclude that Al Sharpton is an idiot for believing the theory or that Martin Bernal is a "crank".
BTW, WTF does "rah-rah-sis-boom-ba" mean? Sounds racist to me.
And Claudia Black was not the "star" of Stargate SG-1. She was part of an ensemble. She wasn't a regular cast member until season 10 (the final season), and only had a reoccurring role beginning with season 8. Richard Dean Anderson (of MacGyver fame) was the star (until he left in season 8).
I don't think that you want to play the racist card with me (especially not after I defended you). "rah-rah-sis-boom-ba" refers to this fell-good intellectually lazy approach to history and self-esteem building. One of my treatises for my 6th Year was on this topic and the overwhelming evidence is that the ONLY way to build self-esteem is through the legitimate acquisition of knowledge, skills, and successes. By teaching black kids some idiotic, purely speculative nonsense so that they can simply feel better about their heritage is a total waste of time and effort.
Will: "rah-rah-sis-boom-ba" refers to this feel-good intellectually lazy approach to history and self-esteem building.
Not a saying (?) I've ever heard.
Will: By teaching black kids some idiotic, purely speculative nonsense so that they can simply feel better about their heritage is a total waste of time and effort.
What about teaching them they should feel poorly about their heritage by telling them Europeans are solely responsible for building the modern world? That's a better idea?
Also, I didn't realize this was being taught in schools. Can you provide a link that backs this claim up?
And, again, how do you know the theory is "purely speculative nonsense"? You DON'T KNOW what his research is! I'm sure, as a White guy, he didn't pull it out of his ass with the intention of producing something black kids could feel good about. That's a ridiculous accusation.
Uhm, no, wd. I thought that I made it clear that I opposed a Eurocentric approach to education as well and that I wanted everything on the table as part of an overall critical thinking approach.......I don't know if this particular theory is being taught but there are a lot self-esteem oriented curriculums out there that are just as bad.
From the Reception section of Wikipedia - "The book also ignited a debate in the academic community. While some reviewers contend that studies of the origin of Greek civilization were tainted by a foundation of 19th century racism, many have criticized Bernal for the speculative nature of his hypothesis, his unsystematic and linguistically incompetent handling of etymologies as well as his naive handling of ancient myth and historiography.[citation needed][who?] The claims made in Black Athena were heavily questioned inter alia in Black Athena Revisited (1996), a collection of essays edited by Mary Lefkowitz and her colleague Guy MacLean Rogers.[4][5]
Critics voice their strongest doubts over Bernal's approach to language and word derivations (etymologies). Cambridge Egyptologist John D. Ray has accused Bernal's work of having a confirmation bias.[6] Edith Hall compares Bernal's thesis to the myth of the Olympian gods overwhelming the Titans and Giants, which was once thought of as a historical recollection of Homo sapiens taking over from Neanderthal man. She asserts that this historical approach to myth firmly belongs in the nineteenth century.[7]
Others have challenged the lack of archaeological evidence for Bernal's thesis. Egyptologist James Weinstein points out that there is very little evidence that the ancient Egyptians were a colonizing people in the third millennium and second millennium BC.[8] Furthermore, there is no evidence for Egyptian colonies of any sort in the Aegean world. Weinstein accuses Bernal of relying primarily on his interpretations of Greek myths as well as distorted interpretations of the archaeological and historical data." Sounds like a loser, wd.
Looks like you slavishly went to the Wikipedia "Reception" section of the "Black Athena" entry to dig up dirt on the book... and copied and pasted the ENTIRE section.
Apparently only theories that receive absolutely no criticism have validity. Criticism simply existing immediately invalidates any theory. This explains why you have doubts regarding global climate change. A small number of nuts have criticisms (not valid ones, but criticisms none-the-less).
Bottom line: perhaps Sharpton heard the theory and didn't investigate but simply accepted it because he liked it. However, it was a theory by a member of academia who conducted research (which was not PURELY speculative) and had his work published... so I STILL contend your judgement of Sharpton as being an "idiot" (for believing the theory) is ridiculous.
I mean, you believe free trade is beneficial, despite how idiotic that theory is.
Will said: "Uhm, no, wd. I thought that I made it clear that I opposed a Eurocentric..."
Exactly. The "white guy"/Eurocentrism "card" was laid on the table by WD, and only by WD. And those of us concerned with accuracy and real history ignore it.
WD said: "FYI, Martin Bernal is a White guy, so we know that when dmarks said the theory is "all a bunch of racial supremacist BS"... he didn't know what the hell he was taking about (as usual)."
I do know what I am talking about, as usual. And your comment which I quote above makes absolutely no sense, as it does not matter if Bernal is a "white guy" or not.
Let's take the intellectual approach and discuss the "theories", shall we, without the ad hominems of bashing theorists for their skin color.
WD said: "I mean, you believe free trade is beneficial, despite how idiotic that theory is."
It is very beneficial to the people involved in a trade matter make decisions about it (free trade). The alternative you strongly support, having individuals in government force decisions on people, is the worst, because these individuals you support are completely ignorant of others' lives and interest and really need to butt out.
For example, say I want to buy a Hyundai car made in South Korea. This is a result of my research, and I make an informed decision about it. Washington should not have any say of in this. I respect the rights of representatives who don't like Hyundai cars to simply choose not to buy them themselves.
But they simply shouldn't have a right to force their own personal decision on this on everyone else simply because they have the might of the Federal government behind them. That's bullying. That's "might makes right": pure abuse of power.
And it is them getting involved in something they are completely ignorant about and have no business meddling in.
That's reality. Not idiotic.
And this it follows that of course 90% of economics would support free trade.
The alternative is very ignorant and very powerful individuals meddling in trade decisions they have absolutely no idea about, with always destructive consequences.
dmarks muzzily said: ...your comment... makes absolutely no sense, as it does not matter if Bernal is a "white guy" or not.
YOUR comment makes absolutely no sense. You are the one who said the theory was fabricated by Black racial supremacists. You're just upset that I called you on your BS.
You assumed those behind the theory were racist Blacks and, now that I totally destroyed your racist assumptions (by pointing out that the person behind the theory is White), you've got nothing, which is why you lie and say my comment "makes absolutely no sense".
dmarks muzzily said: That's "might makes right": [using tariffs to protect our labor market is a] pure abuse of power.
Following the Constitution is not a "pure abuse of power".
dmarks muzzily said: The alternative is very ignorant and very powerful individuals meddling in trade decisions they have absolutely no idea about, with always destructive consequences.
What you're describing isn't the "alternative" to free trade... it is an accurate description of the system we have now. Except for the "ignorant" and "they have absolutely no idea about" parts (although those descriptors do apply to you). When the wealthy elites meddle with our trade policies (and advocate in favor of free trade via their lobbyists) they know exactly what they are doing... enriching themselves.
And it is very destructive to our economy... but that is inconsequential to those who bow down to the wealthy plutocrats.
Yes, I printed the entire section BECAUSE IT WAS ALL NEGATIVE! The book was a joke, wd.
These are some of the people who wd considers to be nuts: 1) Ivar Giaever - Nobel Prize winner for physics.............2) Dr. Joanne Simpson - atmospheric scientist, first woman in the world to ever earn a PhD in meteorology.............3) Dr. Kiminon Itoh - environmental physical chemist.............4) Dr. Jarl Ahlbeck - chemical engineer Abo Akademi University of Finland.............5) Dr. Pal Brekke - solar physicist and senior adviser to the Norwegian Space Center in Oslo.............6) Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera - researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico.............7) Geoffrey Duffy - professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering University of Aukland.............8) Dr. William Briggs - climate statistician at the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee.............9) Andrei Kapista - Russian geographer and Antarctic ice-core researcher.............10) Dr. Will Happer - physicist Princeton.............11) Dr. Miklos Zagoni - Hungarian physicist.............12) Dr. David Gee - geologist Uppsala University Sweden.............13) Dr. Philip Lloyd - nuclear physicist and chemical engineer.............14) James Peden - atmospheric physicist and formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.............15) Dr. Phil Chapman - astronautical engineer and former NASA astronaut/M.I.T. physics professor.............16) Delgado Domingos - environmental scientist and founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast Group.............17) Dr. Takeda Kunihiko - vice chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research Chuba University Japan.............18) Dr. Eduardo Tonni - paleontologist at the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires.............19) Dr. Art Douglas - atmospheric scientist Creighton University.............20) D. Patrick Frank - more than 50 peer reviewed articles.............21) Jack Schmitt - astronaut (Apollo 17)/geologist and formerly of the Norwegian and U.S. geological surveys.............22) Dr. Richard Keen - climatologist University of Colorado.............23) Dr. G. LeBlanc Smith - Principal research scientist with Australia's Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization.............24) Dr. Arun Ahluwalia - geologist Purijab University India.............25) Dr. Roy Spencer - climatologist University of Alabama (formerly of NASA).............26) Dr. Richard Lindzen atmospheric physicist M.I.T. 27) Hundreds and hundreds and hundreds more.............And not all of these people are global warming deniers. Some of them think that global warming exists but that man isn't responsible. Others think that while man in fact MAY be partly responsible, they don't think that we should wreck the entire Western economy to reduce the earth's temperature .2-.4 degrees. Not that you're going to make any of these distinctions, mind you.
Will: These are some of the people who wd considers to be nuts...
Nuts in regards to this issue. They may be reasonable/intelligent people otherwise. But I think the facts are quite clear on this issue, and anyone denying them... in most cases I'd guess it's for political reasons... and that most certainly is nuts.
Regarding the "reception" section for "Black Athena", it should be re-titled "criticism". There were positive receptions. Not ALL reception was negative.
A documentary on the book refers to it as "iconoclastic". Certainly a much more positive word to use (as opposed to "joke").
How do you know that these highly acclaimed and brilliant people are nuts, wd? Are YOU a scientist? Or do you simply believe whatever it is that Thom Hartmann happens to tell you on a given day? There are a plethora of competing explanations/confounding variables out there; changes in solar output, changes in the shielding of cosmic radiation from the sun due to changes in magnetic storms, genetic changes in ocean algae, changes in the earth's magnetic field, changes in volcanic emissions, changes in particles coming from the sun, chaotic fluctuations in the atmospheric and oceanic circulation systems, etc., etc.. To say that we know WITH CERTAINTY that mankind is responsible for the current climate change situation is a significant stretch, I think (especially since we also know that greenhouse gasses are 95-99% NON man-made).
How do you know that these highly acclaimed and brilliant people are [wrong], wd?
"Smoking gun" For Human-Caused Warming.
Correlations again, wd. You can't prove causality with correlations.
So, when you find scientific findings inconvenient, your stock answer is that they don't know what the hell they're doing?
The majority of scientists agree that there is ENOUGH certainty that mankind is responsible for the current climate change situation. It isn't a stretch. What is a stretch is your assertion that the majority of scientists are dummies that don't know "you can't prove causality with correlations".
Post a Comment