Talk:George Gliddon

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 16:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Evolving views on the race of the Egyptians

I've become interested in how weird 19th century racial theories can be. I welcome anyone to clean up the additions I made but read all the pages I cited you'll see what I wrote is an accurate portrayal of what they thought Markj573 (talk) 02:28, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

The word "Negroid" during this period meant "Negro like" meaning intermediate between Caucasian and Negro. knowing this will make it easier to understand this book. Markj573 (talk) 02:33, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Markj573, I added a link to the word Negroid, do you think that takes care of it? If not, a note {{efn}} could be added at the end of the sentence.

If you are up for it, it would be wonderful to have your input or edits to the article. I'm a bit over my head, but ascribe to WP:Be bold approach and worked on this article that was linked to an article that I started (Sarah Rogers Haight) - and then also started an article on Gliddon's wife and cousin Anne Gliddon. Anyway...

I removed a fair amount of uncited content, but added much more. A very interesting man. A little kooky at times (unwrapping mummies at his lecture, especially the obvious male who the audience was told was a female, giving samples of mummy wrapping materials and souvenoirs), but definitely interesting.

You seem to be the only user that is registered and has made edits recently. The offer, of course, extends to anyone who reads this and wants to look the article over and edit.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:14, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

You’ve done great work on the article. I don’t mind the link to the article on Negroid but the use of the word in the 19th century means mulatto (“negro like”). If you notice in the text they emphasize the ancient Egyptians were not negroes and then starts calling them “negroid”

Markj573, Yes, I did notice that. It seemed that they had a vision in their head and were going to stick with it until the evidence and research disputed their claims.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:48, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Kind of off topic from Gliddon but Sir Henry Johnston made the same argument in 1902 in his work on the Uganda Protectorate

“ The fifth and last amongst these main stocks is the Hamitic, which is negroid rather than Negro. This is the division of African peoples to which the modern Somali and Gala belong, and of which the basis of the population of ancient Egypt consisted”

footnote 26 of this book

https://books.google.com/books?id=YGID427CPSYC&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&printsec=frontcover&pg=PA43&dq&hl=en&source=gb_mobile_entity

if you read the whole paragraph he is very racist. Just had a morbid fascination of racists believing ancient Egyptians were “Negroid” Markj573 (talk) 20:28, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I’m not endorsing the ideas just wanted to share what they believed. I made a post in the historian forum where I called it the weirdest 19th century racial theory and said they basically calling the ancient Egyptians “Hamitisized Negroes”

the title is clickbait. I talk about “Types of Mankind” in the 2nd post

https://historum.com/t/the-myth-of-eurocentrism-neglected-aspects-of-the-hamitic-hypothesis.195772/ Markj573 (talk) 20:43, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Thanks for your reply! Is there any changes that you think are needed?–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:49, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate the great work you are doing. I didn’t do it at first because I didn't want to do original research but you could clarify that “Negroid” means “negro like” or intermediate between Negro and Caucasian.

from 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica

https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica/Negro

“It is most convenient, however, to refer to the dark-skinned inhabitants of this zone by the collective term of Negroids, and to reserve the word Negro for the tribes which are considered to exhibit in the highest degree the characteristics taken as typical of the variety” Markj573 (talk) 20:56, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Good idea. I was just reading this from Americans in Egypt, perhaps a combo of the two. I'll draft something up and add it, and feel free to edit or let me know of any changes.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:00, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I did try to explain it to readers when I wrote “intermediate Negroid Type” but the wiki article on Negroid doesn’t explain what Nott and Gliddon are trying to say Markj573 (talk) 21:04, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Okay, gotcha. I am starting to add content, but also seeing that the flow of the discussion could be improved around this section. I'll go through each of the sources you provided. If you have suggested content, I would be great with that .–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:24, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Great. General readers might be interested in knowing that Gliddon and Morton believed the Sphinx was (in their own words) a foreign “Negro”.

I didn’t add this because I was only interested in their altered views they had later in their career. You could make a decision if you wanted to add that. I don’t have specific page numbers memorized Markj573 (talk) 21:35, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I am finding myself overwhelmed at the moment about how detailed to get... and ensuring that content is taken from a reliable published source.

It seems like it's helpful to mention that racial theory at the time was based how sophisticated a group of people were, the extent to which they moved from hunter-gather to agriculture, development of technology (like Prehistoric technology), leadership, etc... based upon the degree of Caucasian ancestry and what were considered true Negroes (I cringe even writing this).

I will work on some copy edits for what's in the article right now. I am really confused what to add at this point, but perhaps I just need to percolate a bit. Funny about the Sphinx.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:49, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Take a break you aren’t even paid for this lol. I really appreciate your work

I’ve already added everything I planned on adding to the article. I just didn’t like that before I made additions the wiki article didn’t mention anything about their changing views on the ancient Egyptians. Just had a morbid fascination with it. I actually find it humorous. Might be disgusting to laugh at racism but there is a great deal of cognitive dissonance

You are not on a deadline. You can even make small changes everyday instead of doing everything all at once Markj573 (talk) 22:05, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

You added to the article “ Gliddon did not contemplate that Egyptians descended from Negro people”

From Types of Mankind it seems that they are saying they are descended from a mixture of Semites and Negroes which would make them partially descended from Negro people Markj573 (talk) 22:20, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I took that sentence out, but it seems like it would be better to reword it. There are still some flow issues - but I'll let it sit and percolate. You're so right - no worry - no hurry!–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:36, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Good I approve of changes Markj573 (talk) 22:37, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

On the illustration of the “Negroid skulls” you put Anne Gliddon not George Gliddon Markj573 (talk) 22:39, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Or was it illustrated by Anne? Lol Markj573 (talk) 22:45, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I’m sorry it looks like she did illustrate it from her wiki page Markj573 (talk) 22:49, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

“ From his studies of ancient Egyptian monuments and hieroglyphics, Gliddon concluded that the Egyptians had been white”

This quote is put under the section “evolving viewpoints”. That section should deal with his modified opinions on the ancient Egyptians. In their newer viewpoint they saw the Egyptians as neither black or white. Sorry didn’t catch earlier I was shopping. Maybe write that he previously believed they were white? Markj573 (talk) 00:46, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Just to quote from Types of Mankind

“ We read the Crania* Egyptiaca, with intense interest, so soon as it was published; and, down to the time when Lepsius's plates of the Ith, Vth, and VIth dynasties appeared, we had not ceased to regard Morton's Egyptian type as the true representative of that of the Old Empire; but the first hour's glance over those magnificent delineations of the primeval inhabitants produced an entire revolution in the authors' opinions, and enforced the conviction that the Egyptians of the earliest times did not correspond with our honored friend's description, but with a type which, although not Negro, nor akin to any Negroes, was strictly African - a type, in fact, that supplied the long-sought-for link between African and Asiatie races.

There are no portraits, yet discovered, older than the IVth dynasty, or the thirty-fifth century b. c.; and although what may be called a Negroid type preponderates at that period, yet the race, even there, is already a mixed one; and we distinguish many heads which are clearly Asiatic”

-Types of Mankind page 225 Markj573 (talk) 00:51, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I think their modified views on the ancient Egyptians should be its own section like it was previously. You can add to it if you want

like the pages under Morton and Nott

Samuel George Morton#Evolving views on race of the Egyptians

Josiah C. Nott#Evolving views on race of the Egyptians Markj573 (talk) 01:18, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Okay, done.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:27, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I also think “evolving viewpoint” should be changed to “evolving viewpoints on the ancient Egyptians” or some variant of that

Monogenesis vs Polygenesis shouldn’t be in “evolving viewpoints” on the Egyptians unless it has to deal with the Egyptians directly. On page 232 Samuel Morton in a letter to Gliddon seems to believe that the Ancient Egyptians were created in the region directly by God. Although that would belong more on the Morton page Markj573 (talk) 01:32, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I like this part you added “ Other elements, often hard to discern, were the gender, age, and whether they had sufficient food to avoid starvation to perform a meaningful study.” 👍

but should be in a different section from their modified views on ancient Egyptians Markj573 (talk) 01:45, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

Okay, regarding the section heading, after trying out several section headings, I made a change here here that changed the section heading, one or two sentences, and integrated a "Further" link into the first paragraph to "Ancient Egyptian race controversy". Please feel free to tweak it as you like.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:55, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I changed it back to “evolving views on the race of the Egyptians” because at the time I don’t think their opinions caused controversy. I’m looking at this from their viewpoint rather than ours. Their were others that used the word “negretic” to describe them Markj573 (talk) 02:03, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Gotcha. Okay.–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:21, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Just to make it clear I’m not endorsing any opinions just wanted to share what they believed. Ironically the same opinions would trigger everyone in the 21st century than in the 19th century. They would trigger both SJWs and White Nationalists at the same time Markj573 (talk) 02:06, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I understand. I have written a lot about slavery, the Underground Railroad, and Native Americans and have been stunned by earlier (and ongoing) differing perspectives - and the need to be sensitive. If what I have written isn't sensitive enough, though, please let me know (i.e., I am not sure if you are wanting somehting changed, or are just trying to level-set about historical perspectives.) I am not concerned, just wanting to be clear.–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:16, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the other changes, you are zeroing in on my concerns about the way that the information flowed. I could take a stab at it, but I think it would really help to have specific edit requests for this.

I understand that you are concerned that you may be to close to this topic and I respect your thoughtfulness. Edit requests are a really great way to manage that. You could submit a specific {{Edit request}} or just type it here. How does that sound?–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:08, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I see that the template was changed to {{edit COI}}.–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:10, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. My only request is the section on the “evolving views on the race of the Egyptians” should be about their changed opinions

You don’t have to worry about sensitivity with me Markj573 (talk) 02:32, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

In understand the goal, I am a little lost on execution - what specific sentences move where... and then what copy edits to flow correctly. I can guess what you want done, but perhaps you could tell me or do it yourself. I have a sensory processing issue where I hit a wall and my brain shuts down. That's where I am at the moment. I am sure I will regroup in a few hours or in the morning.–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:40, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

You take some rest we can see what to do tomorrow Markj573 (talk) 02:43, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Sounds great!–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:54, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I decided to revert the section to mirror Josiah C. Nott#Evolving views on race of the Egyptians|Josiah

All your additions are still available to work with and you can place elsewhere Markj573 (talk) 03:25, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Josiah C. Nott#Evolving views on race of the Egyptians Markj573 (talk) 03:31, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I’d prefer that no link is made to the “Egyptian race controversy page” since the page is about Gliddon’s beliefs (no matter how flawed they maybe) and not what 21st century people know or believe on the subject Markj573 (talk) 03:43, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Cool. Go for it. I will catch up with you tomorrow. I expected the race controversy link would go based on your earlier comment.–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:17, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! That made it so easy! I integrated the information that had been in the Evolving section to the previous section and returned sfn citations and then grouped information into subsections. I am still plugging away at copy editing, but if makes so much more sense now.–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:33, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Pretty fun to work on this project together. Looks like you made the page for Anne Gliddon Markj573 (talk) 23:29, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I think so, too! Yes, I made a page for Anne Gliddon. I wasn't sure if there was going to be enough for notability, but I think that her work on Types of Mankind really helps. How does the GG article look to you now? You've really helped polish it up!–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:16, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

It’s great. You did most work lately. I can see you’re passionate about the subject Markj573 (talk) 01:33, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Good. I definitely found both George and Anne interesting. Thanks for your help and support with the changes yesterday. I particularly like working with people with solid takes on the article - it really helps.–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:36, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I made an addition explaining the distinction between "Negro" and "Negroid". Markj573 (talk) 13:02, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Feel free to make any edits to clean it up but I believe the addition is important for people to understand what they are saying Markj573 (talk) 13:04, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I removed the link to the wiki article on "Negroid" because the article doesn't explain that the word meant intermediate between Caucasian and Negro Markj573 (talk) 13:18, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Negroid

I remember that we talked about that before but I don't remember how we decided to rectify it. Do we want to add a sentence?–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:47, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I tried googling: Ancient Egypt "Negroid" race Gliddon

But, the results make my head spin. Could I, yet again, be in too deep?–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:55, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I think it’s ok as it is I was just talking about grammar or citation. Some other people worked on the citation Markj573 (talk) 15:30, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Okay.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:46, 18 July 2023 (UTC)