Egytian mummies DNA study concluded [aka Egyptsearch goes bust]

[Thanas]

I wonder then, based on the various atrocities that many different cultures (races?) suffered at the hands of others, why aren't there more descendants not demanding or expecting handouts? Is this just unique to the US? And why? Could it be due to the "everyone gets a trophy" mentality? I'm asking in earnest. I don't want to sound like I'm hastily generalizing here or worse, racist. I'm just not sure how to ask without coming off as either.

Germany is negotiating or has negotiated those things with her former colonies and is already being sued for such a thing by hereros. There were also reperations payments for WWII. Maybe you just have not been following the news? Plenty of groups demand restitution. It is just that most nations ignore most claims.

[Broomstick]

No. I mean my father's family were slaughtered like cattle, the women's hair used to make felt, the gold fillings dug out of their teeth to fund the slaughter, and their bodies burned and their ashes dumped like garbage. But that's nothing compared to slavery I suppose. Except for the whole "work them as hard as you can on a starvation diet before sending them off to the "showers"" thing.

I honestly don't know what to say to that.

S'alright - the thing is, I don't get into pissing matches about whose ancestors have been more oppressed than someone else's. Pretty much everyone has an atrocity in their background if you dig hard enough.

What happened during WWII during the Holocaust is pretty well documented, but it's understandable that many are reluctant to really delve into the details or think about what actually happened to people as individuals rather than statistics.

Yes, American slavery was brutal and horrible and another instance of people being treated like cattle - but in that case the cattle were worth more alive than dead (usually) and thus they were not subjected to systematic mass extermination (although there were times and places slaves were worked to death in the western hemisphere). Is that better or worse? Is that question even worth asking?

From my viewpoint - just because your grandfather (add as many greats as you want in front of that) was a slave doesn't in any way diminish you. Your life is about what you do. And yeah, I get that there's a knock-on effect from the slavery, poverty, and oppression but demanding a handout is not a way to correct that.

I couldn't agree with you here more.

I wonder then, based on the various atrocities that many different cultures (races?) suffered at the hands of others, why aren't there more descendants not demanding or expecting handouts?

Oppression generally doesn't end quickly.

Quite a few other groups might be able to make a case for reparations but may not have a public soapbox on which to voice their desires. The notion of reparations is also something I think took off during the 20th Century.

There are also cultural reasons - some cultures are open to the notion of "blood money" and others find offering financial compensation for this sort of thing to be insulting.

Is this just unique to the US?

I expect not, but Americans are loud and brash and obnoxious and we shout a lot in public.

And why? Could it be due to the "everyone gets a trophy" mentality? I'm asking in earnest. I don't want to sound like I'm hastily generalizing here or worse, racist. I'm just not sure how to ask without coming off as either.

My personal opinion is that some people genuinely feel that people still dealing with lingering prejudice and oppression should be compensated. Others want something for nothing. There are probably a lot of reasons people argue for (or against) reparations.

I also think there is some resentment that certain categories (like Holocaust survivors) have received compensation but certain other groups have not (American descendants of black slaves).

[cadbrowser]

Germany is negotiating or has negotiated those things with her former colonies and is already being sued for such a thing by hereros. There were also reperations payments for WWII. Maybe you just have not been following the news? Plenty of groups demand restitution. It is just that most nations ignore most claims.

I do recall reading about Germany, now that you mention it. It has been a while though.

Sure, there were reparations in WWII, that's pretty typical of the losing side isn't it? I mean they were forced to pay for a lot of things. As far as I'm aware, Germany has gone through great pains to right some of the wrongs conducted by the Nazis even after the fact.

I will be quite honest, I don't normally watch the news, like ever. Too depressing and I feel helpless to do anything about some of the horrors I hear about. What's worse is these things are being discovered and yet, nobody does much of anything REAL to do anything about it - and I mean those that have the resources TO do things. The US steps in when there is OIL to be had...shameful. There's only so much that "raising awareness" does, then you get "charities" - albeit some do good.

S'alright - the thing is, I don't get into pissing matches about whose ancestors have been more oppressed than someone else's. Pretty much everyone has an atrocity in their background if you dig hard enough.

I was embarrassed for not being considerate enough to think that there may be members on this board with ancestral atrocities committed to them. I realize how stupid my initial comment to you was. I could've commented without that opening. It was insensitive of me to assume that you couldn't possibly relate from an ancestral perspective.

What happened during WWII during the Holocaust is pretty well documented, but it's understandable that many are reluctant to really delve into the details or think about what actually happened to people as individuals rather than statistics.

I am not at all reluctant. I have spent a lot of time watching and reading about WWII and the Holocaust. It was one of my most favorite subjects all through High School in History class. I didn't have to read but the first few words of your initial reply to know what you were talking about. The bad thing though is that it was taught to me with a veneer of Right-Wing Fundamentalist mentality because of the private Christian school I went to. I've had to do a lot to flush all of that stupidity and nonsense out of my mind.

Yes, American slavery was brutal and horrible and another instance of people being treated like cattle - but in that case the cattle were worth more alive than dead (usually) and thus they were not subjected to systematic mass extermination (although there were times and places slaves were worked to death in the western hemisphere). Is that better or worse? Is that question even worth asking?

To me, no it really isn't. There is no reason why anyone should consider evaluating which is the lesser evil. Atrocities are just that, and we should learn as much as we can about them, their development, causes as to acceptance; so that eventually we can stop future ones from happening.

Oppression generally doesn't end quickly.

Quite a few other groups might be able to make a case for reparations but may not have a public soapbox on which to voice their desires. The notion of reparations is also something I think took off during the 20th Century.

There are also cultural reasons - some cultures are open to the notion of "blood money" and others find offering financial compensation for this sort of thing to be insulting.

You make an excellent point here regarding the cultural view of financial compensation being insulting. In that regard, I think if that is an issue, would these same cultural views be ok with some sort of official government claim of responsibility and sincere apology? Or would that be just as insulting?

I expect not, but Americans are loud and brash and obnoxious and we shout a lot in public.

This is so very true. After all, it is the squeaky wheel that gets the lube.

My personal opinion is that some people genuinely feel that people still dealing with lingering prejudice and oppression should be compensated. Others want something for nothing. There are probably a lot of reasons people argue for (or against) reparations.

I'm all for reparations. I, however, don't understand how $$$ = truly "making it right". In my mind, making it right would be the acknowledgment of wrongdoing, official and public government apology (head of state), and political changes (laws) to ensure that it wasn't to be repeated in the future.

Correct me if I'm wrong; but with regards to the Holocaust and the American Institution of Slavery; it seems there have been reparations as I've indicated. Although I'm not sure about the apology part of it in both cases.

I don't think the Native Americans have gotten as far.

I also think there is some resentment that certain categories (like Holocaust survivors) have received compensation but certain other groups have not (American descendants of black slaves).

That makes sense. A lot of the Jewish families during the Holocaust had their whole family fortunes stolen by the Nazis in order to fund their War Machine. Plus, in the context of what would, I think, equate to a "wrongful death suit". Compensation, monetary, seems to make sense.

Then again, it doesn't seem too far off for monetary compensation to come from a government that participated in the exploitation of free labor from captive imported people. I suppose it would make sense for those families with slave ancestors to receive fair wage compensation adjusted for inflation.

I could be talking out of my ass.

[whackadoodle]

Damn, this thread has gone of the rails.

In that vein, no Egyptology discussion on this board can be considered complete without:



Proof, Thanas, proof!

[Simon_Jester]

Wasn't that cover about that dynasty that came up from Nubia and totally did, as the subtitle says, conquer Egypt?

[Elheru Aran]

Wasn't that cover about that dynasty that came up from Nubia and totally did, as the subtitle says, conquer Egypt?

I remember reading that a few years ago, and yes, that is exactly correct. Afrocentrists tend to cling to those dynasties (I think there was more than just the one) as 'proof' that the -entirety- of ancient Egypt was black...

[Simon_Jester]

I had a student rather angrily challenge me recently on what I thought ancient Egyptians looked like, because I was talking about the pyramids in math class, and noted in passing that they were built by temp laborers, not by slaves.

She seemed very surprised by my response. Namely, that I imagine that the ancient Egyptians probably looked a lot like the modern Egyptians. I can only assume she expected me to claim the pyramids were built by white people.

[sighs]

[Thanas]

The whole debate is just fucking toxic because you got an American audience projecting their opinion of what is "black" (= not white).

[Simon_Jester]

Yeah, that's a large part of the problem.

My anecdote had it taken to extreme because with me, one member of my (overwhelmingly African-American) teenage audience actually specifically assumed "pyramids not built by slaves" equaled "pyramids not built by Africans" equaled "pyramids built by white people."

Which is fucking horrific when you think about it.

And before anyone yells about the history teachers in my building, I know them personally and they really are doing the best that can be done under the circumstances.

[RThurmont]

I wonder when the bulk of the Sub Saharan ancestry came in? Possibly by 1500 (I'm not very familiar with statistics on the Trans Saharan slave trade and other migrations).

The Ethiopian Orthodox Church was historically part of the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria, becoming self-ruling with its own Patriarch only around 100 years ago. The Ethiopian Orthodox liturgy also features Coptic and Antiochian liturgical influences. I wonder if the mass conversion of Ethiopia to Christianity under the Pope of Alexandria in the 4th century started the process of Africanization, which then accelerated with African slaves and pan-African trade during the periods of Islamic rule?

[mr friendly guy]

The whole debate is just fucking toxic because you got an American audience projecting their opinion of what is "black" (= not white).

Ok, I am going to have to ask. What do these Americans which you refer to define as "black?" Because it seems incredulous if they define Asians as "black" using the definition you gave as "not white."

[Simon_Jester]

As I'm sure you know, the US contains a large minority population called "African-Americans." The overwhelming majority of African-Americans" are descended partly or entirely from slaves imported from West Africa prior to 1808 in order to work plantations.

Due to the very specific historical pressures created by the interaction between slavery, the American Revolution and the Civil War, migration of African-Americans to urban centers and the subsequent decay of those urban centers with the rise of American automobile culture and "white flight" from the city centers to the suburbs...

The "black" identity in the US is both a racial identity,* and an ethnic identity**. To a large extent it is also a class identity.***

It is extremely easy for Americans (white, black, or otherwise) to make assumptions about 'African' racial identity based on the America-specific facts of the African-American ethnic and class identity.

This is where, for example, the anecdote I related came from. My student assumed that when a white schoolteacher said to her "the pyramids were not built by slaves," the schoolteacher meant "the pyramids were not built by blacks," because to her 'black' and 'former slave' meant the same thing.

In the history of her own specific ethnic group, that was pretty close to the truth. About the only 'black people' she encounters who are not descended from slaves would be a relative handful of West African immigrants, and they are readily distinguished from the African-American ethnic group in a variety of ways. But when she tried to generalize from the experience of her ethnic group to the racial category of 'blacks' or 'African people,' she immediately wound up making very incorrect assumptions.

Now, this turned out to be a relatively straightforward misunderstanding to clear up, in that specific case. But I hope it illustrates how weird debates on any issue remotely related to race can get, when Africa is part of the subject of discussion and when people from the United States are involved.
_____________________________________

*(In that it is easy to tell at a glance whether a given person is 'black' or 'white' as in 'overwhelmingly of European ancestry.')
**(In that nearly all African-Americans share, to one degree or another, a common ethnic experience that is very different from the experiences of, say, Africans whose ancestors remained in Nigeria, or Africans living in Kenya, or even people of African descent living in other parts of the Americas)
***(Because African-Americans have been denied access to a great many political and economic opportunities, which results in interplay between socioeconomic class dynamics and the ethnic and racial identity African-Americans share. Furthermore, this creates a situation where while poor whites are highly likely to think of themselves as middle-class citizens fallen on hard times, poor blacks are unlikely to do so and regard their condition as the normative default state for blacks in general).