Why do we still call Mesopotamia the "cradle of civilization"?

Feb 2017
526
Latin America
The Bronze Age mining is super shady... if I’m right it is not the mainstream consensus and is really only pushed by a couple people..


I’m betting the other historian you mentioned fits that category as well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
"In the Eastern Woodlands, indigenous copper working goes back well over 7,000 years, and has been known to archaeologists for well over 150 years (Martin 1999)." Kathleen L. Ehrhardt, Copper Working Technologies, Contexts of Use, and Social Complexity in the Eastern Woodlands of Native North America, in Archaeometallurgy in Global Perspective, page 304.

That Polynesians had been exploring the Pacific for around 10,000 years it's also an undeniable fact. We have the earliest remains of human habitation in islands in Melanesia and Micronesia from that time. Not only that, but they reached South America around the same time as people from East Asia migrated through the Bering Strait. This is pretty much academic consensus now since there are petroglyphs of almost 10,000 years in Brazil. (By the way, before anyone makes a strawman of me, I don't mean Austronesians here, I mean the people who came before the Austronesians, and said Austronesians nevertheless started migrating and exploring the Pacific around the 5th or 4th millennium BCE).
 
Feb 2017
526
Latin America
The concept of the Caucasian race (and its inclusion of near eastern peoples) doesn't come from Hegel so there's no point in mentioning his name here.
I never said that. I said that Hegel defined Hither Asia as part of the Caucasian race, hardly the same thing. I cite Hegel because of the massive influence he exerted in historical thinking, not because he originated the concept of a "Caucasian race".
 
Aug 2018
697
london
I never said that. I said that Hegel defined Hither Asia as part of the Caucasian race, hardly the same thing. I cite Hegel because of the massive influence he exerted in historical thinking, not because he originated the concept of a "Caucasian race".
'Hither Asia' is the Near East, and like I said the concept of the Caucasian race (and its inclusion of near eastern peoples) doesn't come from Hegel. So there was no point in mentioning his name at all, it was completely irrelevant.
 

specul8

Ad Honorem
Oct 2016
3,625
Australia
Again, I already pointed out that Egypt is overrated because of the Greeks. There simply wouldn't be any worship of Egypt, and Mesopotamia too, without European Greeks praising it. The Near East was also considered close enough to Europe anyway by Europeans of the colonial era. Read Hegel, who basically said that "Hither Asia" (everything west of India) is just another extension of Europe. And yes, the Greeks considered Egyptians non-Europeans, but that's not how Europeans of the colonial era saw it, and with William Jones's Aryan theory tried to do as much as they could to prove they were in fact members of the European White race. Hegel for instance said that Hither Asia belongs to the "Caucasian race", as opposed to the "Mongol race" of "Further Asia".
If one is going to use old school anthropology terms like 'Caucasians ' , then one is bound by the tings those terms defined . This includes many peoples in Central Asia through to the Pamirs and extensions north and south.

' European White race' is not an anthropological term , even old school. Caucasians where denoted by a wide range of skin , hair and eye colors - the most diverse of the types .

" . In biological anthropology, Caucasoid has been used as an umbrella term for phenotypically similar groups from these different regions, with a focus on skeletal anatomy, and especially cranial morphology, without regard to skin tone "


( my emphasis )


Of course, now it has come to mean anything ; eg, ' of Caucasian appearance ' in descriptive reports about unidentified people .
 
Feb 2017
526
Latin America
If one is going to use old school anthropology terms like 'Caucasians ' , then one is bound by the tings those terms defined . This includes many peoples in Central Asia through to the Pamirs and extensions north and south.

' European White race' is not an anthropological term , even old school. Caucasians where denoted by a wide range of skin , hair and eye colors - the most diverse of the types .

" . In biological anthropology, Caucasoid has been used as an umbrella term for phenotypically similar groups from these different regions, with a focus on skeletal anatomy, and especially cranial morphology, without regard to skin tone "


( my emphasis )


Of course, now it has come to mean anything ; eg, ' of Caucasian appearance ' in descriptive reports about unidentified people .
I'm not using old school anthropology. I'm criticising it and invoking it to show just how racist the worship of ancient Egypt and the ancient Near East is. Learn to read.
 

specul8

Ad Honorem
Oct 2016
3,625
Australia
I'm not using old school anthropology. I'm criticising it and invoking it to show just how racist the worship of ancient Egypt and the ancient Near East is. Learn to read.
I am clarifying the confusing terms ( for some ) that you cited .

YOU learn to read !
 
Jul 2019
33
Abidjan
It's the other way round, Nubia was a colony of Egypt.
Nubia has been rediscovered by egypt but before there' s already black colonies on Nile
Narmer comes from south, UPPER eGYPT he's was a black man
Diodore of sicily indicate culture coming from south
EGYPT is a black colony
Nubia is older
In ETHIOPIA THERE' S STELES TOO as in Egypt , steles culture come from south wich corroborate talkings of Diodore of Sicily
 

specul8

Ad Honorem
Oct 2016
3,625
Australia
it' s a lie to say caucasian , because people of the caucasus are not europeans they are asians, hurro urartians and hattis cousins plus avars ( mix of persians and mongoloids ) and persians and turks
caucasus is middle eastern
Agreed , they are TYPES of 'Caucasians' AS WELL . Caucasians can be modern Europeans (back then when the term was relevant ) and also be a mix of all those people you cited

You do realize that everyone is and was a mix ?

Caucasians where a designation of a mix . Modern Europeans can be Caucasians . Caucasians where said to have the greatest range of hair skin and eye color than all the other classifications that people where put into .

( Have you ever met a 'Persian' that has little Arabic admixture ? Check out the way they look, even nowadays ! One I met had dark hair with a tinge of redhead, light skin, green eyes that looked nearly Asian ... WOW ! { I say that as this Persian was a young woman :) } . Many Persians now seem 'Arabic' looking . I am sure you know why . )


But , where you following the CONTEXT that my post was given in ?

I said OLD SCHOOL anthropology ...ie defunct, no longer relevant ... perhaps even 'bogus' or, if you like ... ' a lie' .

So I know its a 'lie' to say 'white European' means Caucasian .

The reason I cited it was SOMEONE ELSE was trying to use those old terms, but their definition was wrong , even according to the old system that used it .

I was trying to clear up the idea that 'members of the white race ' (as cited above ) and 'Caucasians ' are NOT the same thing. The picture I posted , although a defunct classification system , clearly shows that even back then, within this defunct system, they never considered 'Caucasian' to be an indicator of 'white' skin .
 
Last edited: