Is this worth reading? It's about how classical civilization came from African, and that Greece was originally black but they were later forced out, and that the idea white Greeks invented it is a racist myth.
>inb4 WE WUZ
It's not a pop work, it's a three-volume academic work that is highly respected and meticulously researched
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
en.wikipedia.org
youtube.com
realhistoryww.com
youtube.com
www2.fiu.edu
twitter.com
>and that Greece was originally black
What? That's not what Black Athena is about it isn't some Afrocentrist garbage. The thesis is just that the Egyptian and western Asian influences on classical Greece were much greater than was previously thought.
It says that Africans were the original colonists of Greece, and the idea that Indo-Europeans were is a dated 19th Century thesis.
bump
WE
So it's a comedy?
But Western Asia and Egypt aren't ( and weren't ) black. Then why have a black figure on the cover? Shock value? Why not something from an actual Afro-Asiatic culture such as an Egyptian statue?
I don't think the Greeks were influenced much by the Hausa, Somalis or Ethiopians ( well maybe a bit Ethiopian but that was later )
The book contends that the Egyptians were black, and that they were the original inhabitants of Greece.
Disclaimer: Only read the wiki on this book
Sounds like bullshit to be honest m8. I can tell what he's getting at, but it sounds immensely overstated.
>early Greek statues look Egyptian
The large ones, yes. Greece made smaller ones before the Egyptian influence sets in. The Egyptian influence results from Ionians and some other groups of early Greeks who went to assist Egypt in battle, not were conquered by them. The Ionians craftsmen came back with Egyptian techniques to make larger statues, which then spread throughout the Greek system. However, they were not conquered by the Egyptians but served as allies. It's also not the origins of sculpture in Greece, and as they refined the technique of large free standing sculptures from the Egyptian influence, the Greek sculptures of youths started to look like the earlier palm sized sculptures of Greece, only bigger.
>Originally black
You could almost accuse him of antisemitism on this one because if the Phonecians are anything, they're semites: it refers to Canaanite origins and later spread to include port towns in north Africa as trade from the Levant spread out. As it spread, it referred less to race and more to mercantile practice.
Anatolian Greeks start as the Ionians are building up power, but it's not an Egyptian invasion of Turkey, it's a Greek invasion of Turkey. Egyptian records have the Hattics and Assuwa etc there until the Hitties, a common enemy.
While Hitties are a 19th century Western renaming according to the bible, they're not Egyptian either, and the Carians who mixed with the Greeks rebelled against them anyway if they were, thus bringing in the Greeks not the Egyptians.
The Ionian and sea people build up of defenses in the area isn't because of Egyptian colonisation, because the Egyptians had no plans to colonise the area and usually just attempted border control during all these developments. Egyptian influence to the area is more because of Ionian alliances with Egypt muddying the spread of influences rather than any occupation, so it's a second hand influence through their actual colonizers at best, and a lot of Carian culture maintained regardless even when allied to Greeks because of the Ionians build up of defenses against the Hitties.
You could make a stronger case that it was Jews than you could Egyptians because the Egyptians by their own records know the Hitties are in the areas he wants them to have colonized. It's more a case that the Ionians formed an alliance with the Egyptians because they didn't want to be colonized by the Hitties than Egypt colonized them. It's a voluntary and not complete intermingling of their armies and trade routes not a colonization.
>Alexander was interested in Egypt
I don't even know why the wikipedia article mentions this as proof of Egyptian colonization.
Sounds like complete bullshit to me OP if the wikipedia is reflective of content. You don't need three books of bullshit.
I don't understand why people believe the lies the popes and old universities told, that people who blister if in the sun for more than 60 minutes (no sunscreen back then) ruled some of the hottest countries in the world (e.g. Egypt).
This makes me believe that the history books are cooked in their (Europeans) favor. Look at all the lies Columbus told about peoples and lands, won't be surprised if this didn't happen on a large scale with the "white washing" of Egypt.
What you guys think?
Africans are more of a dark pink than a black.
Isn't Australia super hot?
Well the sun exists everywhere so you might actually be onto something that white people actually don't even exist because how could they exist since sunscreen didn't even exist and yet the sun shines on the entire world?
>t. afrimerican scholar, circa 3327 A.D.
...
>everyone who aren't negroid are white
You could read criticisms on its Wikipedia page to see that it's bullshit.
It's complete bullshit.
It will be forgotten. Read Said instead.
That is who "white scholars" portrayed it. "Whites" rules Egypt.
Just the usual cultural appropriation that Europeans have been doing for centuries. If something looks good that it took a well educated mind to make? Claim it for your people.
I think those kinds of things are fun 2bh. There's a handful of guys that contend the phoenicians were black and colonised everywhere including Ireland and Scandinavia so everyone important is originally black. I'm not massively convinced they take themselves that seriously in general, they just want to balance up some of the "we wuz ROMANGS und VIKANGS" shit that predominates a lot of this type of history shit generally.
A couple of things to point out this that iirc this covers: the Greeks were a lot darker skinned than modern Greeks (and way more than today's pasty anglos), there are writings saying they were a lot darker than the Persians (but maybe the Persians were a lot lighter skinned back then). They also did depict themselves as cert dark skinned on pottery the moment they had the techniques to do it. And they did colonise and have kids with a whole lot of northern Africa (inb4 some racist sperg starts crying about how they aren't really black or something). So in many ways while the premise is ridiculous it's probably a lot less ridiculous than the orthodox whitey wuz kangz view.
>Whites are vampires and Mediterranean people don't exist
> Hi
Besides, we know Greeks weren't white white because of quotes like Pope Gregory's "alas that the author of darkness should have men so bright of face in his grip, and that minds devoid of inward grace should best so graceful am outward form" when he saw real whites for the first time.
>Aboriginals rule Australia
lol whatever you say
>we know that Greeks were mediterraneans
wowzers, what a revelation
But mediterraneans were not white.
They were not black either.
Yet white modern day caucasians called they were white. My point stands about culture appropriation.
WE
Everyone west of the Himalayas is either a Nordic or a Negro and always has been. Classical Mediterranean peoples weren't the former so they must have been the latter. If you disagree you're racist, QED WITEBOIS BTFO.
This is where arguments with these insecure afrocentric revisionists inevitably go after you push them.
>YA WELL YOURE NOT SO GREAT EITHER
It's very clear where their deep need for a proud history comes from. It would be tragic if they weren't so obnoxious.
He's fucking right though. Mediterraneans today don't even identify as white.
>identify as white
What does this even mean though?
What does "White" identity mean?
I'm Anglo-Irish and about as "white" as you can get, but I don't feel that I have any innate commonalities with Frenchmen or Germans just because they're sort of the same colour as me.
I'm a Working Class Englisman, "White" doesn't come into it.
They portrayed themselves as white with white feature.
WE
WUZ
DISCOURSE
>This is where arguments with these insecure afrocentric revisionists inevitably go after you push them.
From what I understand that poster is saying is, current day "whites" think that anyone of note back in the day is "white". Current day "whites" call back in the day Mediterraneans, "white".
Hel,l I've seen some call the Arabics rulers of ole "white", because they don't want "black" to be associated with their "legacy".
Arabs aren't black though? Nor are Mediterraneans?
Races are fairly meaningless though
There's lots of genetic variation between "blacks"
DAS RITE
>If something looks good that it took a well educated mind to make? Claim it for your people.
Exactly
WE
WUZ
KANGZ
It's sad that some /pol/lie sat down and made that instead of reading a book.
ayo hol up
*smacks lips*
so u finna be tellin mah black ass
*grabs muh dick*
that we wuz kangz?
t. alberto barbosa
i'm from reddit and i know the epic memes XD
AYO HOL UP
U BE SAYIN
WE WUZ HOMOS N SHIT
WE WUZ ARCHONS
Greeks are "dark white" according to Huxley. Herodotus called the Egyptians "Melanchroes" meaning dark-skinned. Xenophon called Nubians black. The ancient Greek people just had a nice tan kinda like Italians. But I don't think their race really matters, the Greeks didn't, they only thought location was what mattered.
why would someone, regardless of skin colour, flash a gang sign while expressing attraction to someone
well they did for like 50,000 years you fucking muppet.
they didn't do much with the place
They did burn down entire rainforests.
>Anglo-Irish
Black Irish is a thing bruh. Irish doesn't necessarily entail being pasty, the Anglo part pretty much does tho.
I've met a Persian Jewish girl who had olive skin and she and her parents described themselves as white.
Ethiopians are semitic and very much black tho.
It's Dark Irish, not Black Irish, you Mongol
Literally KANGS
Pls don't tell me how to talk you plastic jackine fuck.
>implying imprecise language is okay
you certainly wuz kangs weren't you
It's jackeen, not jackine, you mongol
"black Irish" is an Irishman with black hair.
> it's póg you Mongols
Also doesn't change Black Irish being a thing.
Black Irish just means you tan easily. Or you're American and have Native and Irish heritage
If anything dark Irish would mean black hair because the saints Ciarán
Irish people that were or went dark skinned were often nicknamed Black-Whoever not all that long ago.
Sorry black people, you'll just never win at ethnic chauvinism. It's not even that you're not in the same league, it's that you don't even have a ball.
"black Irish" is a meme.
I'm guessing you're still sore about being pasty and English not making you Irish. How the tables turn my man, how they turn.
keked
semitic speaking because of lingua franca in phonecian-canaanite colonies, they're not canaanites genetically.
like I said, it's easier to make the argument jews were colonizers who forced their cultures on blacks if you're using phonecian colonies than it is to do the other way around.
>all these people thinking Mediterranean means only the north side of the sea
kek
>all these people thinking "black Irish" refers to more than hair color
Irish myth says they're descended from Japeth, the white one, and the rest of you are jews
The Irish term for black skin is "gorm" meaning "blue" probably because of indigo trading with tuareg tribes, who are berber.
Y'all ignorant racists, learn to racism better.
t. Ginger Irishman, while peeling potatoes for dinner
>tfw Veeky Forums gives you high compliment
:3 anonkun you're making me blush
It's a compliment being soulless?
not read many irish authors then, have you?
>alot darker
>even though they've been under continious rule by the roach and other muslims for hundreds of years until just a few decades ago
until you've found actual respectable studies, it's we-wuzism
>They also did depict themselves as cert dark skinned on pottery the moment they had the techniques to do it
Black figure pottery comes after black animal and geometric styles, and way before that you have the Minoans, who still have murals of white and red skin standing today.
Black figure pottery isn't the start of Greek pottery and comes after the orientalising style where they copied Persian etc motifs in black.
Black figure pottery spread to the Etruscans too, but they were hardly black, just copying the Attic style which copied more eastern styles again. When they're not copying the east, and before Corinthian and Ionic contact with the Egyptians' style, they painted themselves as white/red which re-emerged after the black pottery phase.
Black pottery is just when they were exporting more pottery, and it's a stylistic choice not an accurate representation, and usually chosen because it was to symbolise the dead rather than the living in the beginning.
If you're using pottery to say they were dark skinned, animals were all dark skinned before humans became black, since they were still painting white/red murals of people when they were making black animal vases.
For much later developments people try to shoehorn in to their we wuzism
>Romans
hated tanning and are too much of a backwater to have strong African linked origin. It's a sign you work outside by the stage they have African ties and no patrician would want a tan or even olive skin. Their women used shave red headed and blonde slaves to make wigs and used lead powder even though they knew it was poisonous to lighten their skin.
However, jumping from that whitening to "they were secretly black in origin" is hard when they made a point of mentioning people's skin colour; pointless too as they had a lot of black contact in later periods and even black emperors.
>Vikings
are later again, and did meet Persians etc for trade, and even tried to attack the Persians unsuccessfully once the Bulgars were less of a problem. Ingvar's the first to get that far, while the Turkic peoples have travellers about a century earlier coming the other way. (ibn Fadlan) To get from the Persians and Vikings met ~900AD to "they're both black in 900BC" is a very big stretch, especially since the Vikings didn't exist back then for them to be black.
The funny thing about the two of those is that Rome did have black emperors, once they stopped being a backwater, so you don't need a black origin story for Rome to have black kings; and just after when they're trying to shoehorn blacks into Viking culture, the richest man in the world who controlled the gold price of the entire Mediterranean was from Mali and constructed most of North African road and education systems. If these people just bothered to learn actual history instead of making it up, they'd find plenty of kings. Instead they assume there are no black kings and they have to make them up and people laughing at them are just racists.
I'll never understad how Shane looked BETTER with rotten teeth
>written by a black author
>must be 100% accurate
Mediterraneans identify as white as much as slavs do, and everyone save for stormfronters and butthurt blacks recognise that. White does not equal nordic or aryan.
it is WE WUZ
the thesis is unsupported by evidence
Uh, no. That's not what it's about at all.
Black Athena is all about analyzing possible Nubian and Ethiopian influence on Mediterranean society.
I was looking up if this guy was of Jewish ancestry just for laughs since pol always spouses on and on how revisionist academics tend to be Jewish and to my >suprise
this guy actually has Jewish ancestry...
Themoreyouknow.jpeg
this is /pol/ falseflagging. it has to be.
aboriginals had no conception of 'ruling' as they hadn't, in the 50000 years of living in terra australis incognita, yet come up with the notion of private property. a sentiment that unfortunately still resonates amongst aboriginal youth.
Never went to pol mate, I hang out in the sff containment thread. Just thought I would add my 2 cents and share what I heard. All in the hopes of being better educated of course.
>I was looking up if this guy was of Jewish ancestry
>just for laughs
Sure thing, buddy
>pointless too as they had a lot of black contact in later periods and even black emperors.
name one, and it better not be fucking Phillip
you just confirmed it, /pol/yp. We've had enough of you fucks to figure out your pathology.
What I don't understand is what afrocentrists hope to get out of claiming that historically great white civilisations had black ancestry.
Regular black people had full african ancestry yet they didn't seem to do so well, what happened?
Carracalla was Sub-Saharan
Constantine had a Sub-Saharan mother
What I don't understand is what 19th century Germans hoped to get out of claiming that all historically great civilisations had "white" ancestry
nigger what
mother and father
are you under the impression that curly hair = black or are you reading some obscure afro-centrist website like:
realhistoryww.com
because Germans are a pseudo race of backwards savages.
youtube.com
but I still don't get what afrocentrists are trying to get out of it. Could it really be something as trivial as overcompensation?
if you can't see that's an afro then holy shit
they have pretty strong features not at all consistent with africans. hmm.
must be africans though, right?
idk man. those are some pretty white statues.
>if you don't believe my bullshit then wow ur dumb
where's the fucking proofs lad? that he was from an African province? I'm not seeing any African features on those statues and his lineage doesn't give me the impression of African blood
People with pale complexion can avoid getting sun-burnned and other skin diseases by making sure that they exposed themselves to the sun steadily. A pale-person whose spent most of their days of their lives in the sun, or spend their time outdoors daily throughout all seasons of the year is going to develop a tan that resists getting sun-burned. Only those who have a very inadequate exposure (like people who work all day in the office and spend one day at the beach in the middle of summer) are those who are susceptible to getting sun-burned. But even if one does get sun-burned, the pain is temporary while they still get a tan out of it that further protects against solar rays. So it is possible for pale-people to naturally adopt to high UV areas. There's even a pun in one of Aristophanes' comedies where a bunch of Athenian women (who mostly stayed indoors) try to disguise themselves as men to get into the Assembly and vote themselves in power, and the male members of the assembly make comments about them (unknown to them that they're women) that they must be all cobblers because of their pale complexions (the joke being a jab at artisans in tradesman such as cobblers for being commonly pale from working in indoor environments). Not only that, but the Ancient Egyptians are believed to have made their own sun-screens and the Greeks had ones too.
>Look at all the lies Columbus told about peoples and lands
Columbus was prosecuted by the Spanish crown in his lifetime.
Of me being better educated you cunt, not educating you guys.
Pol doesn't want to learn, what am I doing in one of the few threads that actually read(sffg) if I didn't want to learn shit?
>ITT
> they were pale, not even olive skinned
> they used to lighten their skin artificially
Your reasoning isn't checking out right there. It's pretty clear tho that the etruscans were olive skinned as shown by their painted sculptures (sarcophagus of the spouses has the guy with pretty dark skin).
Greek pottery didn't portray everyone as black either, and the animals thing afaia was just a fashion at the same time as the transition. Shit does get pretty interesting in the ol colour schemes.