Thread: Cable TV racism

Formorian wrote:

tiredofapathy wrote:
What I'm still trying to figure out is how this discussion relates to illegal immigration in the first place . I try to spend what little available free time I have researching the issue most threatening to the survival of this nation, and by my own personal assessment that is indeed illegal immigration. That's why this forum exists and why it thrives. Sometimes it gives me pause to see posts like this carrying regulars and visitors down a totally different trail unrelated to the forum.

I won't comment on the intent

I might have short changed myself but I literally stopped reading where the quote ended.
Precision...
I am in the correct forum for the subject matter of this post.

I agree, you may have short-changed yourself. I tend to read a person's complete post before I respond. I guess I need to work on that "Precision" you mentioned. Of course if I cared little for the other persons point of view and only was interested in advancing my own agenda then "Precision" would drive me directly to my point.

I suppose that said, you won't mind me asking a couple of direct and "precise" questions of you.

First, how do you see illegal immigration as a discussion of race and why?
(After all, you do seem to be putting forth a discussion on how one race allegedly portrays another historically, even though you don't spell it out for the reader in those terms. Hence my question about being suitable for this forum.)

Second, is your intent to agitate others on this site and be disruptive to our efforts or are you genuinely interested in working with us to secure our borders and turn back the illegal invasion. I don't think I can be any plainer than that!

To my knowledge not one person here ever asked about your race, your faith, or your political affiliation. They never asked me about mine either and I never felt the need to put it out there or advance the cause of either with the possible exception (regarding "putting it out there") of faith, which I share as an expression of my character and identity. I do not refer to it in the forum in an attempt to garner support for my religious beliefs or to rally others to a cause. If someone objects I accept their comments and try to accept their differing point of view. I don't think you can honestly make the same statement. Let me be blunt...if you have issues with race relations, european culture, or just feel the need to use this forum as a platform to advance your own personal agenda, please find another cause to "support" and let the rest of us get on with the business at hand!

Sam I Am wrote:

tiredofapathy wrote:
What I'm still trying to figure out is how this discussion relates to illegal immigration in the first place .


Fomorian posted this to OTHER TOPICS AND ISSUES!

My bad Sam! I see you are correct and my mistake! I pulled it off the
Illegal Immigration - Americans for Legal Immigration PAC Forums hyperlink and didn't notice where it took me.

My general assertion remains however that regardless of where on this site you post it, the desire of all of us coming here is to learn what we can about illegal immigration and avoid letting race creep into the conversation, however it gets presented. Every OBL and pro-illegal immigrant troll on the internet is tracking this site and it's posters just looking for an opening to use the race issue to attack us. I submit that even discussion of race is a negative and not desirable here. All the discussion is what keeps the issue an issue and the protagonists darn well know it! Like I said a couple of weeks ago, just let it be! We will all be the better for it.

Originally Posted by TheFomorian

Originally Posted by Sam-I-am

I've heard about this controversy before about two years ago w/the National Geographic coverage of Egypt. What I had heard back then was that they were depicting Egyptians as caucasian, which doesn't seem to make sense to me, since Egypt is in Africa. All I remember back then was that National Geographic was being accused of racism. Couldn't it have been an honest mistake? I don't remember what the outcome of it all was though.

I don't know if I could call this an honest mistake. This is a channel that prides itself in accuracy.

Another thing left out of the National Geographic coverage however, was the fact Egypt practiced slavery on a huge scale. Egypt was probably the first major civilization to do so.

If you will, and I'm not being disrespectful, but this is not on the subject of the video.

It is hard to believe that National Geographic could make mistakes like this. I never did hear what their official explanation was for this (if they ever had one). Deliberate racism is something that should have to be proved rather than assumed. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

You're right about the last point, but I was referring to the National Geographic coverage of Egypt not the video.

Here's some info on the National Geographic controversy

http://kingtutankhamen.blogspot.com/200 ... chief.html

In 2005, three teams of scientists (Egyptian, French and American), in partnership with the National Geographic Society, developed a new facial likeness of Tutankhamun. The Egyptian team worked from 1,700 three-dimensional CT scans of the pharaoh's skull. The French and American teams worked plastic molds created from these—but the Americans were never told whom they were reconstructing.[10] All three teams created silicone busts of their interpretation of what the young monarch looked like.

Skin tone

Though modern technology can reconstruct Tutankhamun's facial structure with a high degree of accuracy based on CT data from his mummy, correctly determining his skin tone is impossible. The problem is not a lack of skill on the part of Ancient Egyptians. Egyptian artisans distinguished accurately among different ethnicities, but sometimes depicted their subjects in totally unreal colors, the purposes for which aren't completely understood. Thus no absolute consensus on King Tut's skin tone is possible.

Terry Garcia, National Geographic's executive vice president for mission programs, said, in response to some protesters of the King Tut reconstruction—

The big variable is skin tone. North Africans, we know today, had a range of skin tones, from light to dark. In this case, we selected a medium skin tone, and we say, quite up front, 'This is midrange.' We'll never know for sure what his exact skin tone was or the color of his eyes with 100 percent certainty. … Maybe in the future, people will come to a different conclusion.[11]

These last quotesf comes from wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tutankhamun

more disputed wikipedia info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_cha ... _Egyptians

I say who cares what color they were does it really matter and I also say who ever makes the movie or documentary can make them any color they like if you don't like it make your own verson Doesn't really bother me if they are red white and blue!!




-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACTION ALERT REQUESTS!!
Please activists leave comments,at below link
http://www.alipac.us/modules.php?name=F ... ic&t=79828
ALIPAC AUGUST FUND RAISER
PLEASE help ALIPAC stay in the fight against illegal immigration!!This has been extended to 9/11 ALIPAC's anniversary date, we have fallen short of the goal and have so many fights ahead of us, remember all small donations add up .
http://www.alipac.us/modules.php?name=F ... ic&t=75673
FOOD FOR THOUGHT
WHAT WOULD WE DO WITHOUT ALIPAC???
__________________________________________________ __________-
THE FERN AND THE BAMBOO
http://www.alipac.us/modules.php?name=F ... ic&t=80573

Originally Posted by tiredofapathy

I agree, you may have short-changed yourself. I tend to read a person's complete post before I respond. I guess I need to work on that "Precision" you mentioned. Of course if I cared little for the other persons point of view and only was interested in advancing my own agenda then "Precision" would drive me directly to my point.

One of the basic ingredients to human communication is the subject.
I posted a video and wanted thoughts on that video. What is so hard to
understand about that?

I suppose that said, you won't mind me asking a couple of direct and "precise" questions of you.

I don't mind answering questions at all, as long as they have somethng to do with the subject.

First, how do you see illegal immigration as a discussion of race and why?
(After all, you do seem to be putting forth a discussion on how one race allegedly portrays another historically, even though you don't spell it out for the reader in those terms. Hence my question about being suitable for this forum.)

Second, is your intent to agitate others on this site and be disruptive to our efforts or are you genuinely interested in working with us to secure our borders and turn back the illegal invasion. I don't think I can be any plainer than that!

To my knowledge not one person here ever asked about your race, your faith, or your political affiliation. They never asked me about mine either and I never felt the need to put it out there or advance the cause of either with the possible exception (regarding "putting it out there") of faith, which I share as an expression of my character and identity. I do not refer to it in the forum in an attempt to garner support for my religious beliefs or to rally others to a cause. If someone objects I accept their comments and try to accept their differing point of view. I don't think you can honestly make the same statement. Let me be blunt...if you have issues with race relations, european culture, or just feel the need to use this forum as a platform to advance your own personal agenda, please find another cause to "support" and let the rest of us get on with the business at hand!

This has nothing to do with the video I posted.

Originally Posted by Sam-I-am

Deliberate racism is something that should have to be proved rather than assumed. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

Practicing the art of racism today has evolved in to a high stakes societal poker match. Furthermore charging racism needn't have the clause, innocent until proven guilty. We are not holding a criminal proceeding.

You're right about the last point, but I was referring to the National Geographic coverage of Egypt not the video.

Here's some info on the National Geographic controversy

http://kingtutankhamen.blogspot.com/200 ... chief.html

In 2005, three teams of scientists (Egyptian, French and American), in partnership with the National Geographic Society, developed a new facial likeness of Tutankhamun. The Egyptian team worked from 1,700 three-dimensional CT scans of the pharaoh's skull. The French and American teams worked plastic molds created from these—but the Americans were never told whom they were reconstructing.[10] All three teams created silicone busts of their interpretation of what the young monarch looked like.

Skin tone

Though modern technology can reconstruct Tutankhamun's facial structure with a high degree of accuracy based on CT data from his mummy, correctly determining his skin tone is impossible. The problem is not a lack of skill on the part of Ancient Egyptians. Egyptian artisans distinguished accurately among different ethnicities, but sometimes depicted their subjects in totally unreal colors, the purposes for which aren't completely understood. Thus no absolute consensus on King Tut's skin tone is possible.

Terry Garcia, National Geographic's executive vice president for mission programs, said, in response to some protesters of the King Tut reconstruction—

The big variable is skin tone. North Africans, we know today, had a range of skin tones, from light to dark. In this case, we selected a medium skin tone, and we say, quite up front, 'This is midrange.' We'll never know for sure what his exact skin tone was or the color of his eyes with 100 percent certainty. … Maybe in the future, people will come to a different conclusion.[11]

These last quotesf comes from wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tutankhamun

more disputed wikipedia info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_cha ... _Egyptians

Great information Sam. So basically the scientists said up front that that can't be certain about skin tone, one of the major gripes of the video, but they can with certainty reconstruct facial features.
My question now is on the highlighted text. Do they not think people have migrated thoughout the centuries? In my opinion, and not to discredit the
scientists, but aren't they supposed to dig for the hard-to-answer- questions to complete their assertion that they are scientifically reconstructing King Tut? If I were to be reconstructed, shouldn't my skin tone play a very big part?

Originally Posted by TheFomorian

Originally Posted by Dixie

My quote removed to save space:

Dixie

Good observation Dixie. But I found a recent "photo" of Nefertiti by National Geo and they used their fancy computers and calculations to come up with this photo:
http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb28 ... ertiti.jpg
As you can see, this is a vast difference to the bust of old.

If you look at this movie: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0281534/
You will see that there are "pure" Africans with the bluest of blue coloured eyes. My own mother has red hair.
My major contention, keeping with the subject of the video, is how can they depict Egyptians that way and not be called on that point?
I've said it before and I'll continue:
Precision is the key!

You believe “precision is keyâ€

[quote="Dixie"]You believe “precision is keyâ€

Dixie Read you PMs!!!!