Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Referring to Blacks by a very outdated term shows a certain level of prejudice taking place. Why else would anyone use that term?
Maybe to define the historical and anthropological demographic that this thread is talking about?
Do you think that prejudiced people suddenly become non-prejudiced, just by complying with the day-to-day terminology changes demanded by the PC police?
Maybe to define the historical and anthropological demographic that this thread is talking about?
Do you think that prejudiced people suddenly become non-prejudiced, just by complying with the day-to-day terminology changes demanded by the PC police?
I don't see anything historical about the term being used other than it was used in those days. Today, it is just outdated and unwise to use such as term. And besides, Black people didn't get to decide if they wanted to be called that term.
Honestly, with prejudice persons, this is what I have to say. If they have nothing positive to offer, they should keep their mouths shut and stay away.
If they have nothing positive to offer, they should keep their mouths shut and stay away.
You're kidding, right? No discussion is allowed on any topic unless it strokes and cuddles? If you have nothing positive to say about the Holocaust or pedophilia or slavery or Dick Cheney or Islam or trolls or money-lenders or Somali8 pirates or TV commercials, keep your mouth shut and stay away?
Or have you compiled an approved list of subjects that it is permissible to say something negative (or neutral) about?
And, by the way, who in this thread has said anything negative about any peoples, other than to challenge the unsupported assertion that they once had a glittering empire of philosophical enlightenment, unicorns, and advanced technology, of which there is mysteriously no surviving trace except in the imaginations of the oppressed and downtrodden?
They are not Black in the American context that you are applying to them. There are plenty of people around the globe with similar hues to Black Americans or sub-Saharan Blacks who have no connection to either. That's what we mean when we say they were not Black. The USA doesn't define race for the whole world.
Dude, they were BLACK, and were from AFRICA. In America that is defined as a BLACK PERSON.
What makes them not 'black' in the American context? What, they didnt wear Nikes or gold teeth? Ancient Egyptians didnt know how to do the Dougie dance?
You're kidding, right? No discussion is allowed on any topic unless it strokes and cuddles? If you have nothing positive to say about the Holocaust or pedophilia or slavery or Dick Cheney or Islam or trolls or money-lenders or Somali8 pirates or TV commercials, keep your mouth shut and stay away?
Or have you compiled an approved list of subjects that it is permissible to say something negative (or neutral) about?
And, by the way, who in this thread has said anything negative about any peoples, other than to challenge the unsupported assertion that they once had a glittering empire of philosophical enlightenment, unicorns, and advanced technology, of which there is mysteriously no surviving trace except in the imaginations of the oppressed and downtrodden?
First of all, don't bring the Holocaust, or that other stuff into this discussion. That has nothing to do with this topic. I am specifically talking about people who are prejudice who bring nothing to a discussion but "my race is better than your race".
First of all, don't bring the Holocaust, or that other stuff into this discussion. That has nothing to do with this topic. I am specifically talking about people who are prejudice who bring nothing to a discussion but "my race is better than your race".
Nobody said that. Except all the prejudiced black posters, who came here and said "My race had a great civilization before yours did"? My race put notches in a monkey bone before yours did, to prove it.
Speaking of "the topic", which is "What pre-colonial Africa was really like". Would you like to say anything that that has something to do with the topic? Please don't tell us that one guy possibly putting notches in a bone for unknown reasons was what an entire continent was really like for thousands of years.
The question is this, basically. If you went back in a time machine to some random place in, say, Cameroon, in about 500 CE or earlier, and wandered around until you found some people, what would you expect their lives to be like? What evidence exists today to support your supposition?
Please don't say "well, we found a bone with notches in it a thousand miles away, which is proof that they worked from 9 to 5 five days a week with a half day on Saturday, and their wagers were direct deposited to their bank."
You make up something, then present it as fact, pure bs. Africa was not civilized until the Europeans arrived. "Golden Era," wasn't this a term used in white culture? Was there even a written language? No.
So many negroes like to present Egypt as "their" history, but negoes originated in sub-saharan Africa. North Africans, meaning Egypt, Libya, Tunesia, Algeria, Morocco are darker skinned caucasions.
Oh my god, haha. This dude said "darker skinned caucasians". That's even better than Jtur88's "sort of black". You guys are hilarious.
FYI, Ancient Egyptians migrated to North Africa from Sub-Saharan Africa. They say it in their own history; or maybe im just making that up also.
There is credible information regarding the population make up of Egypt. What makes it credible is the references provided and these references can be looked up and further researched. Additionally, this information correlates with the excepted information that exists at this time. With that said, here is some quick insight:
1) Egypt has experienced several invasions during its long history, including by the Canaanites, the Libyans, the Nubians, the Assyrians, the Ku****es, the Persians, the Greeks, the Romans and the Arabs. Therefore, the original histories are very hard to confirm and any archeologist and cultural scientist can tell you this.
Nubians and Ku****es are sub-Sahara peoples. When an invading force, or new king, enters power they will try to wipe out any remanence of the prior kingdom and replace it with their own. We see this to day when new presidential administrations. Additionally, even now, you have so called experts, academics and foreign people going into the tombs and pyramids destroying historical information to "replace" true and original history with their own
2) During the Paleolithic the Nile Valley was inhabited by various hunter gatherer populations. About 10,000 years ago the Sahara Desert had a wet phase. People from the surrounding areas moved from the Sahara, and evidence suggests that the populations of the Nile Valley reduced in size. About 5,000 years ago the wet phase of the Sahara came to end. Saharan population retreated to the south towards the Sahel, and East towards the Nile Valley. It was these populations, in addition to Neolithic farmers from the Near East, that played a major role in the formation of the Egyptian state as they brought their food crops, sheep, goats and cattle to the Nile Valley.
With this said and to connect with your comment that African people are form the "Sahara" the fact that the Sahara people "moved" into the location of Egypt places those people as being or as part of the "original" peoples for that area.
3) Toby Wilkinson, in his book Genesis of the Pharaohs, proposes an origin for the Egyptians somewhere in the Eastern Desert. He presents evidence that much of predynastic Egypt duplicated the traditional African cattle-culture typical of Southern Sudanese and East African pastoralists of today. Kendall agrees with Wilkinson's interpretation that ancient rock art in the region may depict the first examples of the royal crowns, while also pointing to Qustul in Nubia as a likely candidate for the origins of the white crown, being that the earliest known example of it was discovered in this area.
This tells us that the very people you state had no culture and nothing to contribute had a lot to do with the development of the ancient Egyptians. So this rejects your theory/statements.
4) Contamination from handling and intrusion from microbes create obstacles to the recovery of Ancient DNA. Consequently most DNA studies have been carried out on modern Egyptian populations with the intent of learning about the influences of historical migrations on the population of Egypt.
Whereby, more modern or post-historical Egypt is Arabic and / or of European ethnicities, so, I would assume that any DNA may seemingly show that the demographics of Egypt are closer to the Middle East and or European DNA. Again, this does not preclude "Ancient Egypt" from being African peoples nor does it mean that African peoples had not culture. Additionally, since you cannot truly confirm what the original DNA was, you cannot fully reject the influence of sub-Saharan African peoples. So, this information rejects your theory/statement. Moreover, current research supports that the Horn of African and sub-Sahara peoples played a larger role in the migration out of African and the birth of civilization in Egypt prior to Levantine (Arabic or Middle Eastern) invasion/influence. What you are "now" associating through your correlations with DNA is more about what happened after the Arabic invasion of Egypt. Therefore, you cannot preclude the influence of sub-Saharan people with the development of Egypt.
5) The language of Ancient Egyptians is classified as Nilo-Saharan: Algeria, Benin, Congo, Tanzania, and parts of Sudan. All occupied by Melinated peoples. With that said, there must be an influence of such people on Egypt if they have inherited their language accordingly.
It is also a known historical fact that the Moors actually ruled Europe and gave them "culture" showing them how to live civilized, advanced math, science, art, agriculture and a spiritual belief system. Moor actually means the hue black and often Europeans used that term to describe dark/black people and specifically people from Africa. see: The Moors: Moor Etymology, Moors Truth, Real Moors, Moor Origins, Moorish History, True Moors, Africans in Europe
There is something unique about Academic Discipline of Anthropology. They are very, very smart people who have PhD's from prestigious universities and have dedicated their entire lives to the scientific, historical and anthropological study of demographic groups of people, who often disagree with and always challenge each other. Yes, most of them are "sort of white", because those are the advanced and industrialized countries in the modern world that provide the necessary tools for gathering and evaluating objective and empirical data and circulating it for peer review.
It is easy to find sources describing the present state of knowledge about Egyptians in particular and Africans in general. I'll tell you where NOT to look: The stupid Discovery Channal and all the moronic side-shows that they put on that are produced by for-profit film producers to tittilate the gullible with all their couldas and mightas.
Watch a show on Discovery (one that does not take place in a pawn shop), and pay careful attention to the script read by the narrator. He NEVER states anything as a fact, because there are none. Every sentence begins with "Could it be that . . ." or "It is possible that . . . " or "Some speculate that . . ." or "This might have been . . ." or "Were there really . . ." or "This might have been . . ." And as the credits roll (naming all the people who profited from this PC POS), you are convinced that Egyptians were black, just like Zulus.
Thank you for showing that you have no idea what your talking about. Are there any more arrogantly misguided and inaccurate statements you would like to share with the rest of us?
Perhaps if you would consider studying history, and forget the fantasy. History is about facts, not revisionism designed to appease a certain group. The African continent would be the same today, as it was 2000 years ago if the Europeans had not arrived. Also, check your bible.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
