User talk:2603:9001:301:3600:45B:B73E:65B4:844E

Blocked by sysop for "trolling"
Again, I am not trolling. Its pretty unfair to block me because you assume that I am acting in bad faith. I'm not. I genuinely am interested in discussing whether or not its better to let African American people think that the Ancient Egyptians were black. Its also not that unmainstream either. A BBC producer said of showing black people in Victorian England that his version of history is a better history, not entirely, meant to be authentic. Similiar arguments have come forth perhaps fringe yet from the African American community about other topics. I am interested in discussing this topic. To be clear I'm not actually saying that the wiki should stop covering the topic, its more of a discussion generator since I don't think I will cause any change in policy. I think that you should stop censoring me and allow me to have free speech. I am engaging in good faith, your mere suspicion I'm not is a poor reason for blocking me. I request that you unblock me and stop censoring me. I know the idea may sound somewhat ridiculous or like a caricature of "falsifying" history. I'm not suggesting to falsify it deliberately, but perhaps that it is beneficial and more harmful than good to correct in general this misconception. Regardless, even if you think I might be a troll, I think you should give me the benefit of the doubt and not censor me. I know that African people who were less Caucasoid did build great empires in Kush, Nubia, and Ethiopia. I am roughly half of subsaharan descent but I'm not making this argument because of that. The article is the "Egyptian race controversy" article which speaks about the "race hypothesis", and there are several similar articles about this one topic including EgyptSearch and about Diop etc. At the very least I should be allowed to have a silly or controversial opinion without being blocked. I wasn't excessively editing, I made a post, then another post in which I removed the collapse troll and I fixed the format in the third post. 2603:9001:301:3600:45B:B73E:65B4:844E (talk) 01:16, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Uh huh... 01:20, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Your comment on the Saloon Bar didn't make much sense. You were upset with me for saying Egyptians weren't black apparently. However do you realize that is what your own articles are saying? The article on the Ancient Egyptian Hypothesis, Diop, Egyptsearch etc refer to black "revisionism" and afrocentrism in the context of black claims of Egyptians being black. So why do you sarcastically deride me but not take issues with those articles, if you genuinely believe that they were black? You are attacking the wrong target dude. The articles literally say that the Egyptians weren't black and attack the idea that they were. They deride scientists like Diop as "afrocentrist" for claiming the melanin makes them black. I am honestly confused with you man. 2603:9001:301:3600:45B:B73E:65B4:844E (talk) 01:28, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not upset at all. I'm mocking you. Duh. 01:33, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * So why are you mocking me? If you're wondering why I agree with your own articles that the Egyptians werent black, its because the Egyptians don't really fall into the category of "black" to most people. Yes the ones closer to Sudan would likely be considered black, but even the dudes in the south such as Answan stand out pretty clearly from "black" Africans. Whats black is pretty subjective. For example many people see Obama as black. I heard Indian people described as black in the UK, in Israel Jews of Morrocon descent (lighter than some southern Europeans) are called "black" as well. But I and those articles are saying they werent kinky-haired, thick-lipped, big-nosed "black" people whom the Greeks would describe as "scorch faced" Ethiopians. However I don't really want to debate this with you. Brazilians consider themself not black, nor do modern Egyptians, but many of them would be considered black in other places. Spain called moors blackamoors (black moors) and the moors were certainly lighter than many Arabs. I am interested in discussing whether or not letting Black Americans think that they were "negroid" perhaps Nubian phenotype typically which is more classically black in America (I emphasized an American context) would be beneficial. Its not technically true but it serves as a counter to Eurocentrist stuff and empowers many Black people. 2603:9001:301:3600:45B:B73E:65B4:844E (talk) 01:43, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * They aren't my articles. Yes, race is a social construct with completely arbitrary lines. I'm mocking you because you're an obvious troll and I'm bored. 01:44, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not a troll though dude I really just felt like discussing whether it was a good idea to let African Americans call the Egyptian dudes black in what would be phenotypically considered Black in USA. I'm not trolling about shit. I am simply tryna have a discussion on a generally left leaning side on whether its better to kinda let it slide than rigorously focus about this topic so much. Thats a serious discussion topic. I'm a real person behind the screen being treated in my view not fairly mainly because of how harshly you are attacking this simple prospect. Its not that rare either. I'm not going to the extent of loons who promote "melanin magic" shit because it gives confidence. I'm just asking if you guys think that attacking a disenfranchised group over a kinda silly think is better avoided. 2603:9001:301:3600:45B:B73E:65B4:844E (talk) 01:48, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Harshly? AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Trolls are real people, they're just disingenuous. Most of them are boring too. 01:50, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The scholarly view is that thinking of ancient Egypt in terms of black or white is 19th century poppycock, and if you actually read the Egyptian race controversy article or also the article in Wikipedia you'd know that. You seem to be mistaken that this site doesn't criticize fringe ideas from the left. The Black Egypt hypothesis is fringe. The are people that push it are not acting within scholarly consensus. Why would there be any benefit to people believing in 19th century race poppycock? Some Conservapedia trolls, after all, believe in Dixiecrat revisionist history poppycock. It's just as fringe, and all it does is make them look like an idiot. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 02:00, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Fine like I said I'm not really looking to change the wiki policy since I'm just one dude its more of a discussion topic. Do you think that its better to allow something technically false if it brings a sense of empowerment to the black community, or to be technically right and have multiple articles attacking it when it seems relatively harmless. I would argue against it if black people were dominant over whites and were teaching afrocentrist stuff. Basically my argument is that it seems harmless enough, why should we invest in challenging it? Melanin theory stuff is pretty dangerous along with their views about medicine, but this seems harmless enough. Obviously its still ridiculous. But doesnt it seem pretty harmless? I said I'm open to other ideas and discussion. If you can show why you think itd be worse than I might change my mind. I used to be debate this with many black centrists myself. I guess I should've framed it better and been more explanatory especially since this is a new IP address, but I wasn't trying to troll anyone. 2603:9001:301:3600:45B:B73E:65B4:844E (talk)
 * I've read both articles. The "controversy" kind of silly since it's mainly just dicking around the realization that race is arbitrary without actually engaging with it. And I know this site criticizes the left, I give criticism and commentary on those articles after all. As for Afronationalism being left-wing... Where in their ideology do they call for the workers, the proletariat, to seize the means of production and overcome the class interests of the bourgeoisie? 02:10, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not anti-capitalist leftist but the original left meant sitting on the left side of the assembly in France, so anyone who wasn't a monarchist was basically a leftist. And in the USA most "liberal" types tend to identify as leftist. In our socialist discourse left is mainly anticapitalism but to most people I think its basically just "progressive" positions, at least here in the states. 2603:9001:301:3600:45B:B73E:65B4:844E (talk) 02:15, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Given the shifts in political dynamics since the advent of the industrial revolution and the ascent of Modernist thought, drawing your classification system from the 1700s hardly seems is wise. 02:19, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * To put this into perspective, it would be like me drawing primarily on Marx's work in criticizing capitalism and ignoring more recent thinkers whose contributions radically alter how one approaches the discussion. 02:21, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * And that's without going into how environment and technology shaped all of those thinkers to begin with. 02:24, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I am a marxist leninist maoist, former ancom, so I know about how us anticapitalists can be annoyed by the word leftist being used by others but I don't really care. To me its kinda elitist since technically opposing reactionaryism and the quo seems leftist. Anti traditionalism would be left, I mean the left hand is less commonly used, left kinda means deviation from mainstream. But to use it in a socialist context is difference. I don't really feel like using only the communist version unless I'm talking to other socialists. It isn't something I find important. Most liberals here identify as leftist but perhaps in Europe they consider themselves centrist. Whatever the case I am basically one of those guys that is an annoying nerd and debates people about history. I debate white centrists on Mesopotamia and such people and their "race" and I also would debate black centrist types about Egypt. But I feel like perhaps from a "lib" (not neolib) view its better to let it go as it challenges eurocentrism. I am interested in if you guys think its a harmful ideology worth challenging or just pretty dumb. I used to debate it with them but now I think it might serve racial equality better to just ignore it. [Special:Contributions/2603:9001:301:3600:45B:B73E:65B4:844E|2603:9001:301:3600:45B:B73E:65B4:844E]] (talk) 02:33, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * As I said before, the debate is pointless since it tacitly accepts the flimsy premise that "black" and "white" are valid social groupings, rather than challenging that premise and exposing its aforementioned flimsiness. To put this another way, it would be like capitalists debating whether Gates or Bezos gave enough to a charity rather than criticizing the capitalist structure itself. The Egyptian "race" controversy is thusly rather shallow when you factor in all the surrounding context. 02:41, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The lack of relevance is part of why I think that its not so important for us to discuss. But I know that it empowers many black people in USA. Yes it may be not so important, biologically, but socially white people have taught that black dudes cant invent things and have inferior civilizations to Europeans. The black hypothesis Egypt shit is basically a counter to that. Whether you think attacking the idea of race altogether is more important, theres still a conflict between people fighting over whether they would fall into "black" and therefore prove that racism eurocentrism is bullshit and black people are very capable, or whether they were not "black" and its a distortion of history that must be challenged therefore alone. I think that the RW articles take the latter view. My newfound skepticism views it as an attack on a pillar against white supremacy, regardless of whether race is biologically important or whether it's true. I hope I explained my view sensibly. Thanks. I know that as a "person of color" so called I feel happy that non"European" civilizations exist, not because I think I am biologically superior to white people, but because it stands as a testament against biological racism advocated by white nationalists and western society. But I also understand the idea that history is important and the truth is important, and that depicting a mainly northeast African society as more subsaharan or tropical isnt very accurate. But I think I've changed my views and I think from a anti racist perspective it might be better to let this one go. Although of course your view is more ideal, the truth is that this isn't a postracial society, so regardless of whether or not we should even be "discussing race" ideally the fact is that it does serve as an empowerment for at least a segment of african americans. later 2603:9001:301:3600:45B:B73E:65B4:844E (talk) 03:02, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Lies, even noble ones, rarely end well. That being said, I don't think you're getting my point. Ultimately the ancient Egyptians were primarily comprised of indigenous Africans who intermingled with other groups, because we're talking pre-racialized societies here. Again, the "debate" is silly when you take all the surrounding factors into account. 03:27, 14 June 2021 (UTC)