Those of you who have not yet discovered Mathilda’s anthropology blog, should certainly check it out. Though many of her posts are too scholarly for the average layman, there is plenty of material that even the average joe can appreciate. One such post concerns her discovery that afrocentric webmasters had been doctoring up images of ancient Egyptian artifacts in order to support their absurd claim that ancient Egyptians were black like themselves. Of course there were black Egyptians – but there were also red headed Egyptians with fair skin and everything in between. The majority of Egyptians were dark-skinned Caucasians of the Mediterranean type (just as they are today). Here is an excerpt from that post:
I’m not kidding. Someone sent me a hysterical comment claiming this was what they ‘really looked like’. After a bit of a laugh, I dug out the image I have of Meritaten (currently in the Louvre) to compare it.
This is Nefertiti’s daughter, Meritaten, wearing a Nubian wig. If you take a close look, you can see both statues have the same scars on the left cheek. It appears someone has stuck a dark coloured filter over the second image. If you take a look at the undoctored image you can see the patch of flesh coloured paint by her right eye, complete with eyeliner. I expanded this to cover part of her face with an art program and it’s in the same kind of skin tone range as most of the coffin and statue portraits I have, not black.
She goes on to describe other instances of this. Some afrocentrists posted comments to her blog and actually tried to justify this practice. Clearly shame and embarrassment do not figure prominently among them. I sympathize with her exasperation.
What kind of desperation would motivate people to hijack somebody else’s heritage and claim it as their own? There are even some blacks who claim that the ancient Jews (my own ancestors!) were black. Yes, we had black hair (as evidenced by the common Hebrew term for “young man”: “tishhoreth”) but certainly not black skin.
Any people, who cannot claim a civilization of their own, should seize the opportunity to create a brand new one according to their tastes. Starting from scratch is not always such a bad thing!
Jewamongyou's Blog 
This is a very common thing for Afrocentrists. When people argue in support of Afrocentrism what they tend to do is to shout about it very loud, and to repeat the same thing over and over, as if doing so gives their viewpoint viability.
I’ve encountered several of these dimwits in my time online, and let me tell you that reason and logic means nothing to them. I had one guy send me a link that actually proved H1b is a Western European gene, when he was saying it was in fact a Western African gene. When it shows that it’s occurance is 90%+ Western European, and about 10-20% Western African he took that to mean that Western Africans colonized Western Europe . . . sigh.
I’d like to actually read a logical, reasonable Afrocentrist argument for once. Yet all they do is shout about White people stealing their history!
Here’s the question that I want to ask, and which Afrocentrists never take into account:
To hear them tell it, Africa was the birthplace of civilization, ancient Egypt, even ancient Sumer and Mesoamerica (according to some more radical ones). While they were drinking wine from golden cups, Europeans were eating raw meat and crawling in caves. They gave Europeans all of their civilization, or had it “stolen” from them. They also had a far greater abundance of natural resources than resource deprived Europe.
Now then, my question is this: Since black Africans possessed this incredible head start and so many other advantages, how did they allow this cave dwelling savages to conquer them? Aren’t they admitting that they gave up the greatest head start in human history?
And doesn’t their glorification of Egypt (an empire that had slaves) show that they don’t really care about oppression or inequality, but simply the fact that they’re at the bottom?
Something to think about.
Jeyamongyou Mathilda’s site is absolutely awsome and it destroys any Afrocentric argument. But then even she doesn’t allow them on her site.
This is in her own words:
“. . . just how do you debate with an afrocentrist who claims all your artifacts are faked and that all the anthropologists are wrong?
All arguments with Afrocentrists are totally pointless as all the evidence that shows them to be talking total balls gets waved off as a fake or a conspiracy.
It’s like trying to reason with a religious fanatic.”
More:
“. . . my real gripe with Afrocentrists (other than lying their nuts off and trying to disinherit modern Egyptians) is that they repeatedly post abusive comments here, which is why I have to have an abuse filter on the comments section and approve all the comments personally every day.
My issue is not with people disagreeing in a polite informed manner (you have had all comments allowed). I’m not some evil dictator you won’t tolerate any dissent. I do let my irritation show though. You’d be annoyed if you got called a liar on a regular basis. You don’t see the stuff I delete-can be threatening as well as insulting. And have you seen the Youtube vid made about me? Oy.
I think the thing that annoys me most is that I was very careful to find as many black looking Egyptian statues/mummy cases as I could for this page, and you’ll find more black looking statues and mummy masks here than you will on most Afrocentrist sites. So getting accused of ‘cherrypicking’ and ‘tampering’ (when a large amount are official museum site images) is really insulting.”
Or one that really describes trying to debate and Afrocentrist:
“As Mary Lefkowitz has said.. Afrocentrists don’t want a scientific or academic debate, they want a streetfight.
It is not an accident that the students of Afrocentrism and catastrophism act more like disciples of a guru than students of a scientific teacher. They are on a mission, not a quest. And, as with many before them with noble goals, they believe the end justifies the means. Hence, it is nearly futile to engage them in debate. Scholars have difficulty debating opponents such as Afrocentrists, catastrophists, creationists or even anti-abortionists, because they expect their opponents to be civil and play by the rules of scholarly evidence. They mistakenly believe they have entered an arena where all sides are in quest of the same truth. What they are actually getting into is a street fight, where the goal is to defeat and humiliate your enemy. Their opponents don’t follow traditional standards of evidence in their printed arguments and diatribes, so why expect them to be any different in a public debate? If you challenge their accuracy, they will question your integrity. If you ask for evidence, they will insult you. If you challenge their sources, you will be asked to prove the absolute certainty of your sources. You think the arena is an intellectual one where the combatants use wit and intelligence to score points, but while you are looking above your opponent’s shoulders, he will kick you in the groin. You may have the evidence and the arguments on your side but your opponent doesn’t care about the evidence and is not interested in your arguments. He already knows the truth.”
Mathilda truly is a great scholar. Unfortunately, because she lives in Britain (I think) she cannot reveal any race-realist notions she might have.
Speaking of which, JAY, I think you should do a post on European hate speech laws, and if/why we should care.
Group jealousy and resentment are perennial problems in ethnically diverse societies, and egalitarian, liberal societies are poorly suited to deal with such issues. Human beings are prone to jealousy and resentment as individuals, and the same character deficiencies manifest themselves at the group level. For most people throughout history, groups of people have normally lived next to people much like themselves. Croatians and Serbs might hate each other, but they are not so different from one another compared to, say, the Japanese and the Yoruba folks from Nigeria. The larger the difference, the greater the tendency there will be toward jealousy and resentment where there is no established hierachical order in which people accept their unequal places. Ethnic diversity of such an extreme kind appears to demand a caste system for the sake of civil peace.
In the modern West where the dominant group no longer has the confidence to project itself as the hegemonic standard to which all other groups must conform, we have a bizarre multicultural circus of subpopulations, each vying for dominance or, at least, for respect and attention. Given our egalitarian dogma, it is unsettling to people when these various groups come out so unequal. Rage results. Lying results. The facts themselves become offensive to people because the facts hurt the pride of the weaker who suppose themselves equal to the stronger (in whatever aspect of life).
Thus, today, you have “Afrocentrists” who cook up fantasies that posit the origin of civilization in an area where the native people persisted in the stone age until colonialism forced them into the modern world. These folks are the history department’s mirror image of the political arena’s race hustlers, who attribute the dysfunctionality and low achievement of black Americans to white racism. Both sets result from the unbearable facts of human inequality.
These are the fruits of diversity . . . and what a strength it is!
The facts of human inequality are only “unbearable” for those who have been indoctrinated into egalitarianism. For the rest of us, inequality among humans is as natural as among any other species. Nature does not tolerate equality. It is contrary to all that is normal and good. If we were all equal, there would be no evolution, no advancement, no excellence – and no humans.
I just finished about a two week long battle with some in the closet Afrocentrist idiot. It turned out that he just wanted to bring up everything and anything including things off topic if just to have something to argue about.
Oddly enough he’s dating a White Eastern European, which I can’t imagine what their relationship is like since he’s so in the dark about White people.
What set me off, and one I probably shouldn’t have brought it up in an earlier entry a while back on Stuff Black People Don’t Like was that my wife is pregnant, and one of his comments will be how f*ed up that kid will be. So I basically went to war with him.
Call me stupid for revealing it, but regardless I sure as hell wanted to deal with this SOB. It’s a long read, and might take a while for someone to go through.
Ultimately though, when it comes down to it, I just can’t talk to that moron anymore, and this finally dawned on me when he made the statement refering to mine.
I said concerning Europeans and Americans ending slavery: “They enforced it through their superior military power, and ended up officially ending slavery world wide by the end of the century.
If not for those Europeans who ended it, slavery would be as common worldwide today as it was several centuries ago.”
He responded with: “White people and black people worked together. But we still would have freed ourselves.”
Ok . . . he actually believed that the slaves could have freed themselves. Was it not without the power of God that the Jews were freed? Could not even the thousands of freed slaves under the command of Spartacus not get out from under the thumb of the Romans? The Haitians were only able to keep the island Black because the British enforced a blockade of the island. Napolean wanted to send troops there to retake it but was unable to. Had he done so, their bloody revolution no doubt would have come to a short end.
So how the hell could he believe that Blacks could have freed themselves in the USA if White people still enforced slavery? Even if possible, where would they have gone? I should have listened to Mathilda and not even started on him. He claims not to be an Afrocentrist but anyone could tell after a while that he actually believed half the Afrocentrict theories.
The only thing that some may not like about my own personal beliefs are that I do believe in many of the things Alex Jones espouses, and I do believe there is an attempt to create a New World Order by the bankers/monarchies/secret societies.
Arguing with any Black Nationalist is a waste of time, and I recommend no one even bothers to do it. They have very limited capabilities to see the bigger picture, and will always bring up miniscule sources to back up their arguments.
Here it is for anyone who would bother to go over it:http://stuffblackpeopledontlike.blogspot.com/2010/07/wasnt-rodney-king-tape-edited-thoughts.html#comments
Oh and I forgot to mention, that Stuff Black People Don’t Like is often like a warzone when it comes to discussing Black people.
I’m not sure if the site owner allows so many of their innane comments to get more people commenting, but it sure shows a window into the Black ability to argue and conceptualize what is going on in the world. Yes often times many of them will come on and say the same tired old cliche’s but then the White commenters tend to rip into them for it.