King Tut

[liberty]

I went to a basketball game once (and only once) and saw all these black dudes making more money in the few minutes before the game started than I could ever make in a million years. Does that make me racist or just very jealous?

I have never been to a basketball game or a football game or baseball game or any team sport for that matter and I don’t feel like I have missed anything.

[TPFKA@W]

[Long Run]

ditto.

I saw him stand right in front of me, at half court, when I was about 6-7, and he looked at us,

So you looked him in the eye

I think meade was on the other team,

That is a funny post.

[dales]

I have never been to a basketball game or a football game or baseball game or any team sport for that matter and I don’t feel like I have missed anything.

The same might be said about your post content.

[liberty]

Liberty, I am sad to say that I know you better than you probably know yourself. I was raised by and influenced heavily by people who think exactly the way you do.
You are an absolute ignorant dickhead for continually posting this stuff and transparent as hell.

I vaguely recall Witchy who is probably as embarrassed as she could possibly be by you.

My daughter knows me well and she is not embarrassed by me at least not because anything having to do with racism, maybe lack style or fashion sense would be different story. If I was a racist it would seam that I would have taught my daughter to be a racist, but my daughter is no a racist. I did teach my daughter to be proud of who she is; of her ancestry and we have no reason to be ashamed of the fact we come from humble roots. I tried to teach her to believe in herself and that she could do anything she really wanted to do. Being a girl would not limit her unless she let it.

I find race interesting because of the cultural differences. I find differences interesting, similarities not so much. And there are differences: There is a separate black Miss America contest, but no black country music awards. But what I find most fascinating of all is that Afrocentric scholars claim things that are just not true.

A racist is one who believes that one race is superior to another. That is not me, I have worked with a couple black technician that I considered better technicians and smarter men than myself. I had no problem admitting that they were superior in ability to myself because it was so. That would be a strange kind of a racist don’t you think.

Why don't you just take it to a KKK board where they embrace this stuff? They will hug you and kiss you. No one here is buying your line of transparent racisim.

Because I would feel more uncomfortable there.

When have I ever said that I hated another race or believed that another race was inferior? I haven’t, but evidently one is a racist if one refuses to accept false statements about history. Well in that case I will repeat what you consider a racist statement and add two more: 1. Ancient Egypt was not a predominately black nation. 2. Cleopatra was not black; she was Greek. 3. Hannibal of Carthage was not a black man; he was Punic, ( a Semitic people closely related to the Phoenicians ) .

[Econoline]

well, no matter what is in liberty s heart, I think that having him here, willing to discuss his views with us is a learning opportunity and perhaps even a "teachable moment"

engagement and open discussion is a good thing, even if you despise the views of the other.

FWIW, I pretty much agree with this sentiment...even though I'm NOT a short-timer here and I DO know of his entire history here and at CSB, and even though I almost always disagree with him. Just the fact that he's stuck around this long shows that he's not completely close-minded. (Also, he's usually fairly polite to us here, even though he knows full well what most posters here think of him.)

[liberty]

well, no matter what is in liberty s heart, I think that having him here, willing to discuss his views with us is a learning opportunity and perhaps even a "teachable moment"

engagement and open discussion is a good thing, even if you despise the views of the other.

FWIW, I pretty much agree with this sentiment...even though I'm NOT a short-timer here and I DO know of his entire history here and at CSB, and even though I almost always disagree with him. Just the fact that he's stuck around this long shows that he's not completely close-minded. (Also, he's usually fairly polite to us here, even though he knows full well what most posters here think of him.)

Eccono you are a ardent liberal. I once thought that all liberals where liars and hypocrites, but because of you and some others I have changed my mind on that. There are liberal like you who are honest and fair minded. As for myself I really don’t care what people here think of me as long as it is not based on a misunderstanding, this is the one place where have nothing to loose. What I do care about is what I think of myself. My honor is so important to me that I would die for it; now to most of you that is a silly attitude, but is the way I am. So I wouldn’t lie to try to impress anyone. Hell, I have lost money because I would not lie. To tell a lie I would have sacrifice my honor and I won’t do it. If I tell you something I might be wrong, but I believe what I am saying.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Lib, perhaps you don't have any idea how a sentence like this resonates:

There are liberal like you who are honest and fair minded.

It says this:

Non-liberals are honest and fair minded.
Liberals are not honest and not fair minded.
But I do know of a liberal (or two) who is honest and fair minded
Therefore, there are a few exceptions to the rule about liberals.
Those exceptions are not at all like the usual liberal.

The statement is prejudicial in the extreme. It is the same thing as writing:

Blacks are x
But I live next door to one black and he's not x
Therefore, there are a few exceptions to the rule about blacks
But most blacks are just x

These kinds of statements telegraph a general bias - a prejudice - an identification (in your mind) of "All blacks are".... or whatever it happens to be. It is not the main text - which might well be "Ancient Egyptians were, genetically, not black skinned persons". It is a sub-text - "I need to prove blacks are unimportant".

LJ suggests you may not be overtly conscious of this kind of thing. You maintain there is no racist intent in your posts. But you do it with code words that are well known to be signs of the very racism that you reject. They sound like, "I know some black dudes and they are not all thieves and scoundrels" or "I have a black doctor who's quite intelligent"... (meaning "unlike the usual blacks"). Or "some of my best friends are Jews" (meaning "although the Jews I don't know can't be trusted" or whatever). Perhaps you genuinely just don't get it

You do seem to be rather too interested in proving that black people are NOT ..... important, genuine, significant...??? I don't know what the word is. I think your real target is more likely to be "liberal attitudes' as you believe them to be. Your approach is unfortunate, to say the least.

In case you think "pots and kettles", I struggle with my attitudes (often). Clearly, rubato thinks I'm a racist so it must be true, since he knows all

[wesw]

never attending a team sport event?

I wonder if you ever participated....

just for the record, no matter what you feel, you have missed a lot, if true.

[wesw]

and yes, liberty s grace under fire is to be commended, I wish I were able to do the same more often

[TPFKA@W]

I think that Liberty galls me in a way he does not others because he strikes a particular chord with me. I definitely have race issues of my own which I blame upon the upbringing I had. My grandparents, who had a very strong influence on me, were liberty clones. They had the same ideas I have seen him offer up here, multiple times. I now realize what ignorance this is and so it gets my back up.

I really should just put him on ignore.

[Lord Jim]

It is not the main text - which might well be "Ancient Egyptians were, genetically, not black skinned persons". It is a sub-text - "I need to prove blacks are unimportant".

or:

"Black people are not intelligent enough to have created such an advanced civilization"

Lib, I really suggest that you read Meade's post carefully, and consider what he's saying.

Let me give you a couple of other examples that relate again to how the totality of your posting is contributing to the impression many here have that you are a racist:

You have posted a lot of stories about black-on-white crime, and frequently your "main text" is that "black on white crime is not given as much media attention as white-on-black crime"....

Okay, that may be an arguable point, but when those are the only crime stories you seem to have any interest in, and you post about them repeatedly you create a sub-text:

"Black people are savages that go around attacking whites and nobody cares"

Example 2:

You also have put up a lot of posts of stories where a white person or persons, appears to have been treated in a negative discriminatory way versus the way a black person or person has been treated.

And maybe looking at any individual instance you've posted there may be a fair point to be made.

But once again, when those are the only discrimination stories you are interested in, and you post them over and over, you create a subtext:

"White people can't get a fair shake; the system favors black people"....

(Which when looking at the overall societal context is clearly false...)

What you've been building over time, (both here and before that on the CSB) based on your topic selections and areas of "interest" is an overall subtext that looks a lot like what one would expect to hear from David Duke...

If an alien visitor from another planet were to come here, and they had only your posts to go by in trying to understand the racial situation in the US, they could easily conclude:

"The United States is a place where white people are treated unfairly, and being victimized by vicious, intellectually and culturally inferior black people"....

If this is not the impression you want to convey, then again, I highly recommend you read Meade's post and take his words to heart...

[Crackpot]

I know how you feel @W. It was much are same way as me although the racism in my family was mostly more subtle. They shook their heads but never spoke up to the more overt in my family but their hearts were no different. I never thought myself racist. But the memory still pains me of the day that I realized that 100% of the "ones" I met in my life were "good ones" and perhaps my methodology was flawed. I still struggle with assumptions I make about "they" and "them" but I've gotten good at recognizing them at the onset and correcting the thought.

[TPFKA@W]

I know how you feel @W. It was much are same way as me although the racism in my family was mostly more subtle. They shook their heads but never spoke up to the more overt in my family but their hearts were no different. I never thought myself racist. But the memory still pains me of the day that I realized that 100% of the "ones" I met in my life were "good ones" and perhaps my methodology was flawed. I still struggle with assumptions I make about "they" and "them" but I've gotten good at recognizing them at the onset and correcting the thought.

Nothing was subtle about it. The interesting thing is that it was not just limited to other races, the white race was divided as well. I recall my grandmother saying that brown eyed whites had more animal in them. Of course I grew up with the deepest of lust in my heart for brown eyed men. God's sense of humor don't you know.

[Big RR]

If this is not the impression you want to convey, then again, I highly recommend you read Meade's post and take his words to heart...

Jim--I would be surprised if Liberty didn't realize what impression was being conveyed; clearly, it has been brought to his attention in many posts here at CSB so may times he would have to be stupid not to see it, and I don't think he is stupid.

Lib--like econo I encourage you to keep posting; it's an open board and all opinions are welcome. People will respond or not, as they choose, and we will go forward. You do bring a different viewpoint to the Board, one which I do not agree with, but IMHO that is the strength and benefit of an un-moderated board like this.

[liberty]

never attending a team sport event?

I wonder if you ever participated....

just for the record, no matter what you feel, you have missed a lot, if true.

Think so, The man that I thought was my father enrolled my younger brother, who actually my half brother, in little league baseball and left me at home. When ever an opportunity presented its self he bragged how good a ball player my brother was, especially his pitching ability. One day there was a neighborhood ball jam out in the vacant field in front of the houses. My brother was on the opposite team and he hit a fly ball and I made the mistake of catching it. My father made me come out of the game; he game me a rusty chain and told me drag it around in the dirt until it was shinny. I never played or watched another game.

[wesw]

sounds like it was your dad who was at fault, not baseball.

sorry man.

[liberty]

sounds like it was your dad who was at fault, not baseball.

sorry man.

It is ok now. I hated him when I was a teenager, but I got over it.

[MajGenl.Meade]

LJ - right on

CP & @w - thanks for being brave and honest

Big RR - you and Econo are both correct

wesw - whatever.

[Sue U]

The material in the OP is total horseshit and preposterous on its face -- and that's even before checking the source to see that it's a blog written by a racist, antisemitic pseudo-science charlatan who peddles fantasy "theories" about Atlantis, "subterranean breakaway civilizations" inside a hollow Earth, "Illuminati" conspiracies and space-alien origins of select human populations. Moreover, the supposed "reconstruction" of Tutankhamun's DNA profile was done essentially as a crude marketing gimmick by a company that never had access to the genetic material or even the actual data from those who did:

***

The team [of actual researchers] didn’t publish any information on the mummies’ racial or ethnic origins, saying that the data on the issue was incomplete. But that didn’t stop others from speculating. A Swiss genealogy company named IGENEA issued a press release based on a blurry screen-grab from the Discovery documentary. It claimed that the colored peaks on the computer screen proved that Tutankhamun belonged to an ancestral line, or haplogroup, called R1b1a2, that is rare in modern Egypt but common in western Europeans.

This immediately led to assertions by neo-Nazi groups that King Tutankhamun had been “white,” including YouTube videos with titles such as King Tutankhamun’s Aryan DNA Results, while others angrily condemned the entire claim as a racist hoax. It played, once again, into the long-running battle over the king’s racial origins. While some worried about a Jewish connection, the argument over whether the king was black or white has inflamed fanatics worldwide. Far-right groups have used blood group data to claim that the ancient Egyptians were in fact Nordic, while others have been desperate to define the pharaohs as black African. A 1970s show of Tutankhamun’s treasures triggered demonstrations arguing that his African heritage was being denied, while the blockbusting 2005 tour was hit by protests in Los Angeles, when demonstrators argued that the reconstruction of the king’s face built from CT scan data was not sufficiently “black.”

For IGENEA, the whole affair was linked to a marketing exercise. It appears to have had no access to the data itself except a snapshot of a computer screen in a TV show, and yet the company now advertises a Tutankhamun DNA Project, which it describes as a search for the pharaoh’s “last living relatives.” The company offers a variety of online DNA tests costing up to $1,500. The sweetener? If your profile matches that of the boy king, you get your money back. Gad refuses to even say whether IGENEA’s analysis of the DNA shown in the documentary is correct. “This is not,” he says, “how science should be conveyed.”

Is there any culture in history that so many are so keen to lay claim to, whether for financial or political gain? “Owning” the pharaohs, it seems, means establishing a privileged place in history to being the founders of civilization. No matter that the ancient Egyptians were almost certainly an ethnically mixed group. They have become a mirror for whoever looks at them, focusing and reflecting the battles and prejudices of today.

***

Source: https://medium.com/matter/tutankhamuns- ... .g0dblsny5

And liberty, you'll have to forgive my doubt as to your qualifications in genetic anthropology -- much less conventional archaeology -- when you spew crap like this around the board:

I strongly suspect the ancestors of Egyptians come from somewhere. And I suspect that place is the wide open Eurasian steppes.

History records numerous waves of invaders from the grasslands of the north, but only one from the south; the Nubians who conquered and ruled Egypt for about a hundred years before the Egyptians drove them out. So it seems much more likely to me that the ancestors of the Egyptians came from the north. I doubt these movements down from the north were prompted by the invention of writing; they where happening long before writing came along.

The Bibles provides a hint about this; Abraham and his people came from the northeast beyond the Euphrates river. Extend that line of travel to the northeast and you come to the southern steppes around the Caspian Sea. I don’t know if it was the same wave of humanity that brought the Semitic peoples south who may have also invaded the Nile valley and displaced the aboriginal Negroid people of the area. But I believe it did happen and I also believe it possible that some of their family instead of gong south went west towards Europe.

Your "belief" is not supported by any actual science in any field, but is only your fantasy whose sole purpose is to support your preconceived notion of "racial" divisions.

In fact, the Egyptian civilization had its earliest origins in the Stone Age and arose as a "state" culture on the Upper Nile (Kush/Nubia) nearly 6,000 years ago. From its inception, it traded broadly (and was therefore in constant cross-cultural contact) throughout the region -- on both sides of the Red Sea, up and down the Nile and throughout the Levant and interior Africa. By the time of Tutankhamen, the Egyptian empire itself extended from what are now Ethiopia and South Sudan to Syria and Iran. Over the course of 3500+ years, the pharaohs themselves descended from many different genealogical lineages, no doubt bearing traces of many human sub-populations both within and from outside the empire. Who then are "the Egyptians"? What "color" were/are they? In what way is it significant?

One thing genetic science has demonstrated is that your concept of "races" of humans has no scientific foundation and is wholly a (bankrupt) social construct -- and a fairly recent one at that. Variants in pigmentation and morphological features are wholly irrelevant to anything that makes us human in a biological sense.