Serious News discussion: Why King Tut's DNA is fueling race wars

[Cresselia~~]

http://io9.com/why-king-tuts-dna-is...utm_source=io9_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

Article above.
Basically they found some white DNA in the DNA analysis for King Tut (Egyptian pharoah), and some people just decided to become very pissed off.
-------------

My opinion:
Does his race really matter? Seriously??
Would his race actually suggest that that particular race was better? I don't think so.
Everyone has to acknowledge there are clever people and stupid people in every single race.
If someone thinks that him being in a certain race would mean that race being supreme, that's blatantly wrong. That probably means that they believe in some sort of racial supremacy as well.

And seriously, some people are getting so hyped and stressed that they decide to call that scientist racist, and that King Tut's race should never be analyzed.
What if the DNA analysis is telling the truth?
Analyzing his race has nothing wrong on it's own, I think. It depends how people misuse the piece of data.
Science is important, and it's important to analyze where they original came from, and what made them so successful as an empire.

I just think that these overreacted sickos somehow just wish to have a black super-human so they could feel happy about themselves, which actually is another form of racism.
It feels to me as if the reason why they are being so upset is because the fear that they might loose this super-model, and they can't be proud of it anymore.

-------
Knowing that average Smogonites are very nice non-racists, but at the same time, very smart people who know much about science and history, I trust that you would be able to post sensible and unbiased posts, so I would like to know what you think about this incident.
In particular:
1. Do you think racial analysis is racist?
2. Do you think racial analysis is important?
3. Do you find that these people are overreacting, or do you feel that they have a valid point?
4. Does the race of ancient people affect modern people of the same race too?
5. Which is more important-- facts or being nice?

 

[Trax]

1. No. It's trying to work out who came from where and which people moved to which location at different times, which is putting history together.

2. Not especially, one might suggest that all history bar the last few hundred years is fairly irrelevant to current events.

3. Yes they're overreacting (especially given we're talking about an Egyptian king -- Egyptians are of a different ethnic group than most African Americans), but I can also see why the belief that ancient Egyptian Pharaohs were somehow northern European would be considered quite fucked up.

4. Not especially, I mean it's interesting to know, but the fact that Genghis Khan was a murdering tyrant doesn't mean that Mongols today are so inclined despite the fact it's estimated 10% of them are of direct descent from Genghis.

5. Facts. But as previously stated facts about ancestors 4000 years ago don't define a people today so it's worth considering that good or bad isn't particularly relevant to being nice.

 

[elchupo]

inflammatory/off topic

I agree, those damn blacks have too much. I'm glad his DNA was found to have "white" DNA, I just couldn't stand the thought of ancient Africans being fully black anymore.

I hope nobody takes this discussion seriously, from an OP who calls people "overreacted (?) sickos" because they take offence to a scientific study being hijacked by neo-nazi's and white supremacists to further notions of white supremacy.

 

[Cresselia~~]

5. Facts. But as previously stated facts about ancestors 4000 years ago don't define a people today so it's worth considering that good or bad isn't particularly relevant to being nice.

That's what I'm thinking as well.
Most facts (if not all?) are neutral in nature, it just depends on how people use it.
It's factual that people from different race can be immune to different diseases, but guess what, now the current trend is that people don't want to listen to these and like to pretend that we are all the same. Some people even want to mute people from saying these.
Say, nowadays, people get sensitive when you say "caucasians have noses adapted to cold whether, their noses are taller so it gives more time to warm the air before it reaches the lungs".
But in the end, no matter how much you lie or deny a fact, the fact is still there, unchanged.

 

[Shiruba]

Technically something is in fact racist if it discriminates based on race, whether it is malicious in nature or not, but one has to realize that "racism" does have its place in some contexts - mostly medical ones, like the nose issue you've just described. Of course, in a social context, racism has little to no place and should not be propagated, but it's simply fact that there are some medical differences between races, just like between sexes [no, I don't think sexism or gender roles should be prominent in a modern society, but that is a different discussion], and while you can more or less ignore them in a social context, eliminating the concept of race and sex entirely or saying it is discriminatory to conduct such research is actually quite harmful in the long run, not to mention not especially realistic.

But meh, maybe I can't say anything because I'm white. Oh well.

Oh, I have a question: does it matter which kind of white you are, or are we all just racially insensitive pigs that don't deserve an opinion? Like, is it somehow better if I'm Slavic or Mediterranean as opposed to Western European because Western Europe [mostly Britain I guess?] is teh wurst? If so, I can cash in my Mediterranean card if you'd like.

[i'm not saying anyone here has said this, but i'm curious if someone can try to justify the sentiment of it for me]

But yeah relating to the above question and this whole fiasco, it's interesting trivia but little more than that. Who the fuck cares if King Tut was white, especially when he was probably a mix of several races? That doesn't suddenly invalidate any accomplishments or make them more profound [did he even have any accomplishments aside from dying?] unless you make them so. I mean, I understand being able to identify with your heroes or whatever, but how is Tut anyone's hero? He just died, and, like I said, he was probably more than just one race - pure bloods don't really exist anymore, they didn't in Harry Potter, they sure as hell don't here.

Tl;dr, I don't see why people suddenly care so much. Just some ancient guy who seems to have Aryan blood in him.

 

[T-Bolt]

I read somewhere that Tutankhamen resurrected the old Egyptian religion after his father, Akhenaten, shunned the old gods and forced people to worship Aten, the sun disk. Tutankhamen's tomb was also one of the most complete tombs ever found, so Tutankhamen is a pretty big deal.

From the Archeological standpoint, if a significant part of Tutankhamen's DNA turns out to be European, that does raise several questions about his ancestry. But I really have no idea why the average person would be pissed off because Tutankhamen may be part white lol.

 

[whistle]

his race is important because it is a part of the archaeological history. perhaps this is a small part of a bigger puzzle that will reveal some new insights about ancient egypt. that sounds like it would be pretty interesting.

it's pretty easy for a blog style "news" source to make a story out of literally nothing. I can't tell if there's actually anything to argue about beyond some crazies yelling really loudly. also, I'm kinda curious about how a company was able to CSI the documentary, read the chromatogram, and somehow figure out the location of that sequence in the genome.

however, it's not surprising that different groups are trying to lay claim to king tut, regardless of whether doing so makes any sense objectively. unbiased facts are a rare commodity when it comes to nationalism and its ilk... similar thing happened to alexander the great's lineage in the early 90's in greece/macedonia (on a national scale). for us as external observers none of this makes any sense. but when you have a stake in the argument, of course the obvious choice is to use all of your chips

I can't take this controversy seriously

when demonstrators argued that the reconstruction of the king's face built from CT scan data was not sufficiently "black."

plus most of the comments... lomo

 

[moonbound]

Egyptians were black. Pitch black. Egypt is in Africa. It's part of the continent. Real Egyptians before being conquered by outside forces were not mixed, not Arabs, not Caucasians. They were African. Very dark skinned. Anything else saying that this was not the case is racist historical revisionism.

First off there is no historical evidence of Egyptians holding Hebrew slaves, the people who wrote that story in the bible fabricated a big fuckin lie. Also Egyptians are black. The ethnic mixes did not come until much later. Africans ruled Egypt for centuries before an Arab or a Caucasian ever laid eyes on the land.

 

[Myzozoa]

never stop lookin for dat biological basis for race.

 

[Cresselia~~]

his race is important because it is a part of the archaeological history. perhaps this is a small part of a bigger puzzle that will reveal some new insights about ancient egypt. that sounds like it would be pretty interesting.

it's pretty easy for a blog style "news" source to make a story out of literally nothing. I can't tell if there's actually anything to argue about beyond some crazies yelling really loudly. also, I'm kinda curious about how a company was able to CSI the documentary, read the chromatogram, and somehow figure out the location of that sequence in the genome.

however, it's not surprising that different groups are trying to lay claim to king tut, regardless of whether doing so makes any sense objectively. unbiased facts are a rare commodity when it comes to nationalism and its ilk... similar thing happened to alexander the great's lineage in the early 90's in greece/macedonia (on a national scale). for us as external observers none of this makes any sense. but when you have a stake in the argument, of course the obvious choice is to use all of your chips

I can't take this controversy seriously plus most of the comments... lomo

Probably not the best news article to choose from.
But it probably is a scenario that we will face soon or later.
Rulers of an empire do not have to be of the same race with the people of the empire, and it is common for empires to be mixed raced.
King Tut could be any race. I'm not going to be surprised no matter what race he is, unless it's one that's geographically very far away.

Technically something is in fact racist if it discriminates based on race, whether it is malicious in nature or not, but one has to realize that "racism" does have its place in some contexts - mostly medical ones, like the nose issue you've just described. Of course, in a social context, racism has little to no place and should not be propagated, but it's simply fact that there are some medical differences between races, just like between sexes [no, I don't think sexism or gender roles should be prominent in a modern society, but that is a different discussion], and while you can more or less ignore them in a social context, eliminating the concept of race and sex entirely or saying it is discriminatory to conduct such research is actually quite harmful in the long run, not to mention not especially realistic.

But meh, maybe I can't say anything because I'm white. Oh well.

Oh, I have a question: does it matter which kind of white you are, or are we all just racially insensitive pigs that don't deserve an opinion? Like, is it somehow better if I'm Slavic or Mediterranean as opposed to Western European because Western Europe [mostly Britain I guess?] is teh wurst? If so, I can cash in my Mediterranean card if you'd like.

[i'm not saying anyone here has said this, but i'm curious if someone can try to justify the sentiment of it for me]

But yeah relating to the above question and this whole fiasco, it's interesting trivia but little more than that. Who the fuck cares if King Tut was white, especially when he was probably a mix of several races? That doesn't suddenly invalidate any accomplishments or make them more profound [did he even have any accomplishments aside from dying?] unless you make them so. I mean, I understand being able to identify with your heroes or whatever, but how is Tut anyone's hero? He just died, and, like I said, he was probably more than just one race - pure bloods don't really exist anymore, they didn't in Harry Potter, they sure as hell don't here.

Tl;dr, I don't see why people suddenly care so much. Just some ancient guy who seems to have Aryan blood in him.

It kind of feels bad when simply pointing out facts is considered racist, but I agree with you, it is by definition racist.
It's the definition that's the problem. (And how people use existing facts)
People who think we are "all the same" needs to realize that "equality" does not mean "the same" and needs to realize how different we actually are.
Ignoring race from a medical context can mean that we aren't getting optimum treatment owing to these facts being muted, so yes, I agree, it's harmful on the long run.


But I think for King Tut, I think ancestry would be a better term compared to race. I mean, maybe not all whites are from the same ancestor, or have some diverged to some degree after living in different places.

 

[Shiruba]

I read somewhere that Tutankhamen resurrected the old Egyptian religion after his father, Akhenaten, shunned the old gods and forced people to worship Aten, the sun disk. Tutankhamen's tomb was also one of the most complete tombs ever found, so Tutankhamen is a pretty big deal.

From the Archeological standpoint, if a significant part of Tutankhamen's DNA turns out to be European, that does raise several questions about his ancestry. But I really have no idea why the average person would be pissed off because Tutankhamen may be part white lol.

Oh, it was Tut that did that? My mistake, I thought that the monotheistic ideologies of Akhenaten were stamped out along with his lineage, not with him personally.

I'm also aware of the tomb thing, but that's not something he did personally, nor something that should be credited to him, as all he did personally for his tomb was die and perhaps have it commissioned [though I doubt he got his own pyramid for that one, those took several decades to build and his rule wasn't nearly long enough for that, was he ruler after they started moving tombs underground and making them more accessible to the general population?], but not enough to be "proud" that he's a member of your race or whatever, at least in my opinion.

People who think we are "all the same" needs to realize that "equality" does not mean "the same" and needs to realize how different we actually are.

Well said. Of course that doesn't mean that you should marginalize someone or treat them in a shitty way undeservingly, but you know that, and I do personally believe that what is fair goes over what is equal - that said, both are quite subjective indeed.

 

[Myzozoa]

In the past, there were troubling medical practices based on racial categorizations, and there have been legitimate efforts to change these practices. Part of the project of 'fixing' these broken racial practices (when i say these were 'fixed' it's because research was done on the statistical efficacy of racial protocols in specific treatments and found that racial protocols were less effective in some diagnostic areas than alternative screening variables) was a self-conscious loosening of the medical definition of race in order to have a less problematic notion of racial variables. Though medical definitions of race are still debated within medicine, they tend to be offering a more contextualized understanding of race. Thus, even medicine has begun to recognize the limitations of race as a diagnostic variable, and certain practices are changing as a result (sickle-cell screening practices for example). However, the health industry is rather intractable and there is certainly a lag in adopting newer practices in certain parts of the world, including parts of the developed world as in the United States.

To call the medical profession racist is a bit simplistic in my view because medicine defines race for the purposes of crafting statistics. The racist crafts a notion of race to suit his racism, the medical profession crafts a notion of race in order to make treatment efficient. It is no surprise that they arrive at much different understandings. Still, think about the relationship between statistics and the real world. understanding race is a high risk endeavor when a doctor has a different notion of race than the one put forth in the statistics s/he will be guided by. SO the problem of mapping the loose notion of race the medical profession has come to for statistical purposes, onto the real world, requires further thought (I will maybe write some more on the problem of mapping a weirdly defined variable like race onto the world, but im in a hrry now)

 

[Cresselia~~]

In the past, there were troubling medical practices based on racial categorizations, and there have been legitimate efforts to change these practices. Part of the project of 'fixing' these broken racial practices (when i say these were 'fixed' it's because research was done on the statistical efficacy of racial protocols in specific treatments and found that racial protocols were less effective in some diagnostic areas than alternative screening variables) was a self-conscious loosening of the medical definition of race in order to have a less problematic notion of racial variables. Though medical definitions of race are still debated within medicine, they tend to be offering a more contextualized understanding of race. Thus, even medicine has begun to recognize the limitations of race as a diagnostic variable, and certain practices are changing as a result (sickle-cell screening practices for example). However, the health industry is rather intractable and there is certainly a lag in adopting newer practices in certain parts of the world, including parts of the developed world as in the United States.

To call the medical profession racist is a bit simplistic in my view because medicine defines race for the purposes of crafting statistics. The racist crafts a notion of race to suit his racism, the medical profession crafts a notion of race in order to make treatment efficient. It is no surprise that they arrive at much different understandings. Still, think about the relationship between statistics and the real world. understanding race is a high risk endeavor when a doctor has a different notion of race than the one put forth in the statistics s/he will be guided by. SO the problem of mapping the loose notion of race the medical profession has come to for statistical purposes, onto the real world, requires further thought (I will maybe write some more on the problem of mapping a weirdly defined variable like race onto the world, but im in a hrry now)

Oh? Now I'm interested.
Were those based on prejudice, or based on optimizing benefits for patients though?