U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 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.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
 
 
Old 05-31-2012, 02:46 PM
 
Location: South Central Los Angeles
4,362 posts, read 1,424,817 times
Reputation: 1101

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by hornet67 View Post
This guy's "theories" are laughingly ridiculous, and a pathetic attempt to rewrite history.
What part do you disagree with? Please be specific..

 
Old 05-31-2012, 02:55 PM
Status: "The Union forever! Down with the traitors." (set 19 days ago)
 
13,671 posts, read 17,539,874 times
Reputation: 11857
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Unbreakable View Post
I'm noticing that some people are opting to discredit the man's entire lecture by only focusing on 5 minutes or so of one video segment in which he brings up the possibility of African interaction with Pre-Columbus America, but saying nothing else about the other 70+ minutes of his lecture.

He didn't say anything about the Sphinx's nose being shot off, but he did illustrate brilliantly earlier on for a considerable chunk of the lecture the outright refusal of early white academia to acknowledge the black African origins of ancient Egypt. Today such bias and irrationality on the part of the Egyptologist of UNESCO 1974 and points earlier have been called out for the bs that it was:

link

Point 1 for Sertima. I highly doubt however that any of the people above ridiculing him will concede to this proven fact though.

Sertima also went on to show to explain the hypocrisy that Europeans have used to explain or explain away African achievements and contributions to the world.
First, I won't pretend to be an expert in this area or knowledgable beyond simply knowing the conversation has been going on for a while. On one side we have what you would term the "traditionalists" while on the other we have the "Afrocentrists". Overall the Afrocentrists represent a very small yet vocal minority in the overall discussion. I can only refer back to what I have learned about Afrocentrism.

It took it's first roots among black intellectuals in the 18th and 19th century and primarily in the United States. It grew out of a desperation for blacks in America to discover their heritage and offer something different from the mainstream Eurocentric philosophies at the time. It grew most rapidly during the Civil Rights movement and became most mainstreamed during the 70's and 80's during a time of extreme interest in the black community for rediscovering their African roots.

The problem is that areas of Afrocentric study and many of its eminent authors and researchers have made some astounding claims. They do not limit their focus to ancient Egypt. There are claims backed with "research" that claim the some of Greek culture and western philosophy is African based and that the Olmecs and even the Chinese Xia were influenced and directed by African root cultures. These claims, which are often based on nothing but observational research, lead to most dismissing anything these people put forward as being "black washing" of the historical record. For instance, I'm sure the Native American and Chinese cultures would be rather surprised and offended by the assertion that the sum of their cultures accomplishments are essentially attributed to Africans.

To me, it is the insistence upon observational analysis alone that makes me a hard skeptic when these conversations are brought up. Read through the article you quoted. The "evidence" presented basically says that artifacts from this place, look like artifacts from this other place. If I simply changed the text around them, I could easily make a case for ancient Egypts great influence on the other cultures around them and paint a very different picture then the one you presented. Essentially the evidence just as strongly points to Nubian and African culture being heavily influenced by what was going on in Egypt. Of course, that reading doesn't fit with the Afrocentric agenda.

I mentioned the book written by Sertima (despite the 'lecture' being about something else), because it is considered his seminal work and one that has been thoroughly debunked and ridiculed. There is no greater evidence to me then the fact he went back and "re-analyzed" his timelines for Nubian influence on the Olmec when it was discovered through actual scientific analysis that the Omec statues he cited among his strongest evidence predated his original thesis by centuries. A thesis based almost entirely on the fact that Olmec statues "look African".

The theory wasn't even his to begin with. Jose Melgar in 1862 first proposed it based, again, on the fact that the faces looked "negro". Leo Wiener later championed the cause again and his research was used as a basis for Sertima's "research". I focus on this because the major crux of their argument (remember based solely on the fact that the heads and writing looked 'similar') was defeated over the past two decades based on extensive genetic and immunological testing that has shown absolutely no link between the two cultures.

This is happening again and again and each theory is being blown apart in the face of modern testing to prove or disprove a link, yet the theories are continually championed. Afrocentric "research" is almost as bad as the the series on the History Channel "Ancient Aliens" which bases everything on observation and coincidence. The sad part is that this "fringe" belief has otherwise tainted many of the excellent works by Afrocentric researchers on the actual accomplishments and technological advances of Africans over the years. They have a great story to tell about Africa, but their insistence on making Africa the cradle and inspiration for global civilization despite any evidence keeps them sidelined in the real discussions.
 
Old 05-31-2012, 10:33 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles area
9,325 posts, read 7,278,055 times
Reputation: 16496
Excellent post by NJGoat above. If I would dare to reduce it to one sentence, I would say that history should be (ideally) a dispassionate search for truth and not self-esteem therapy. In the case of the latter, people hear what they want to hear (what makes them feel good) and embrace it as the "truth". It is indeed a kind of truth, but an emotional one as opposed to a factual one.
 
Old 06-01-2012, 04:37 AM
 
219 posts, read 314,878 times
Reputation: 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT View Post
Overall the Afrocentrists represent a very small yet vocal minority in the overall discussion.
Let me start off by saying that Afrocentrism is nothing more than viewing the world and it's history from an African perspective. It is the reaction of 300 + years of Europeans REWRITING history to intentionally leave black Africans out of relevant world history as anything other than slaves. What was common knowledge in ancient times (as attested by ancient writings), became unfounded because of a lack of documentation in some cases. We in the Western world are only thought about World History as it relates to Europe and ultimately America. Much of it is irrelevant to billions of Africans alive today.

As Shabazz asked earlier on, what are the specific assertions being made by Sertima (other than the Africans in America one) is really in dispute? The man gave a lecture for over an hour and covered a wide range of subjects. It's kind of baseless in my opinion to label everything in the lecture "Afrocentric" and from that call it baseless.

Quote:
They do not limit their focus to ancient Egypt.
Would you be willing to admit that the "Afrocentric" view of ancient Egypt (that it was black African) is for the most part the correct theory? Would you also acknowledge the fact that there was a history of blatant racist distortions of Africa's grandest ancient civilization?

Quote:
There are claims backed with "research" that claim the some of Greek culture and western philosophy is African based
Is that somehow a lie? Did the ancient Greeks themselves not make it clear that they gained a significant amount of knowledge from the Egyptians? Did the Greeks not show the utmost respect to ancient Egyptians and "Ethiopians" (non Egyptian Africans), considering their culture to be equated with prestige? Did the Greeks (and subsequently other Europeans) not worship Egyptian/African Gods? Why did the Greeks who controlled Late Dynastic Egypt adopt Egyptian culture rather than impose their own onto the populace?

The only people who deny that Greece learned substantially from these ancient Africans are modern Western Europeans, and certainly not the ancient Greeks.

Quote:
and that the Olmecs and even the Chinese Xia were influenced and directed by African root cultures
I just find it sort of hypocritical, how Europeans can run with the exact same theories like this and this and it is seen as "fascinating"? But when different forms of evidence are presented suggesting that Africans did the same it's "insulting" or "history stealing"? Not at all saying that the latter is correct, but it just makes you think.

Quote:
To me, it is the insistence upon observational analysis alone that makes me a hard skeptic when these conversations are brought up.
Please provide specific points made by the "raving Afrocentric" Sertima (besides the Olmec theory) in his lecture that rooted in the faultiness that you cite above. No where in that lecture was anything uttered about ancient Chinese or sort of nonsense. Instead what he brilliantly conveyed was the systematic downplaying of black African contribution to world culture and indigenous ingenuity. This is what comprised 90+% of his lecture. What problems do you see with any of that and please be specific.

Quote:
The "evidence" presented basically says that artifacts from this place, look like artifacts from this other place.
Is that somehow a different method from what is used to trace the origins of Indo Europeans or Native American culture? I cited the Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt, and what it's editors stated based on consistent archaeological and cultural analysis was that Egyptian culture was essentially descended of the Saharan Nilotic genesis.

Quote:
If I simply changed the text around them, I could easily make a case for ancient Egypts great influence on the other cultures around them and paint a very different picture then the one you presented.
What you are doing is exactly what Sertima was putting on blast in his lecture.

Why are you trying to twist the words of respected scholars to reflect your insecurities of a clear fact? What evidence do you have to merit changing the text around? I can present many more scholars who concur with and likely influenced the statements Ian Shaw in this passage.

Quote:
Essentially the evidence just as strongly points to Nubian and African culture being heavily influenced by what was going on in Egypt. Of course, that reading doesn't fit with the Afrocentric agenda.
While it is true that Egyptians did have extensive contact with other African cultures (even West Africa), it doesn't prove what you are trying to twist around. For example mummification, something thought to have originated in Egypt was proven in 1950's to have not. It practice was observed when a team of Italian archaeologist dug up a Uan M. or "the black mummy" in the ancient Sahara (what a coincidence):


Video

The mummy was carbon dated and found to have been much older than the earliest mummies of Egypt. Just one piece of evidence confirming the Saharan Nilotic origins of ancient Egypt. Basil Davidson details alot more clearly:


here

Quote:
I mentioned the book written by Sertima (despite the 'lecture' being about something else), because it is considered his seminal work and one that has been thoroughly debunked and ridiculed.
Why are you obsessing over the Olmec theory? The man did not mention Olmecs one time in the lecture, and only spent about 5 minutes (out of over an hour) illustrating how unwilling Western scholars were to even consider the possibility of African sailing to America. Why don't you address any of his other points that he made? Better yet did you even have the decency to watch the entire lecture, before you came out trying to criticize this respected professor scholar? I highly doubt you did, because you cannot point out any specific point that you have issue with.

Quote:
They have a great story to tell about Africa, but their insistence on making Africa the cradle and inspiration for global civilization despite any evidence keeps them sidelined in the real discussions.
Well please inform us of the "true" cradle of civilization. Before you answer that question I would advise you to read this book:



and listen to words of the author:

Video

and

Video
 
Old 06-01-2012, 08:19 AM
 
1,020 posts, read 851,064 times
Reputation: 740
Quote:
Originally Posted by SHABAZZ310 View Post
What part do you disagree with? Please be specific..
Everything.
 
Old 06-01-2012, 10:42 AM
Status: "The Union forever! Down with the traitors." (set 19 days ago)
 
13,671 posts, read 17,539,874 times
Reputation: 11857
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Unbreakable View Post
Let me start off by saying that Afrocentrism is nothing more than viewing the world and it's history from an African perspective. It is the reaction of 300 + years of Europeans REWRITING history to intentionally leave black Africans out of relevant world history as anything other than slaves. What was common knowledge in ancient times (as attested by ancient writings), became unfounded because of a lack of documentation in some cases. We in the Western world are only thought about World History as it relates to Europe and ultimately America. Much of it is irrelevant to billions of Africans alive today.
Let me respond by saying that ANY study of history that begins with viewing things from a certain perspective in order to validate that perspective is flawed. In that vain, Afrocentric thought is as flawed as the countless theories floated before that regarding the ancient Egyptians being white, being from Asia or being from India. The desire to prove the sole position that Egyptians were "black" is just as wrong a starting place as previous "scholars" who have tried to prove they were white.

Quote:
Would you be willing to admit that the "Afrocentric" view of ancient Egypt (that it was black African) is for the most part the correct theory?
No. Simply because you and others say it is true does not make it true. The sum of research and the vast majority of Egyptologists do not share this view. Since neither of us is an expert conducting our own research and reaching our own conclusions and we are entirely dependent upon which 'experts' we choose to believe I cannot affirmatively state which 'theory' is correct...and either can you.

What I can say is that the focus of modern reserach including extensive genetic testing shows the Nile Valley in ancient times to be quite the mixing of races and civilizations. The modern theory would be that ancient Egypt was not "black" or "arab" or anything else, it was Egyptian. The modern theories revolve around peoples from the Levant settling in the northern Nile Valley (lower Egypt) and peoples from Africa (following the drying of the Sahara and natural northern migration) settled into the southern Nile Valley (upper Egypt).

I find it far more plausible and acceptable to think of the Egyptians as a unique civilization, blended from the inputs of several 'feed' groups that borrowing from each of these roots, created a unique culture. It does not matter to me what color the ancient Egyptians were. They were not "Nubian", they were not "Arab", etc. they were Egyptian. The fact that modern Egyptians are virtually identical genetically to the ancient Egyptians one can easily conclude that in terms of 'color' the Ancient Egyptians were just as varied in pigment as modern ones.

Quote:
Would you also acknowledge the fact that there was a history of blatant racist distortions of Africa's grandest ancient civilization?
Yes, of course there were. However, the vast majority of the scientific community have moved far beyond these theories and outright dismissed them. Why do you think that an "Afrocentrist" view of Egypt is not also a "blatant racial distortion".

Ultimately, why does it matter what color their skin was? Does the ancient Egyptians being black matter in the overall study and discourse of ancient Egypt? I don't think it does. I think Afrocentrists want them to be black for their own validation. In that way they are no better then the "experts" from the 19th century that attempted to assert that the upper-caste of Egypt were white caucasians that lorded over the black negroid lower-castes.

Quote:
Is that somehow a lie? Did the ancient Greeks themselves not make it clear that they gained a significant amount of knowledge from the Egyptians?
Considering Greece and Egypt had close ties in terms of trade and the Greeks were very interested in Egypt, then no, I am not surprised that they "gained" a significant amount of knowledge from the Egyptians. Something tells me that the Egyptians equally learned from this cultural exchange as well. What I dismiss is that the sum of Greek culture was rooted in Egyptian culture.

Quote:
Did the Greeks not show the utmost respect to ancient Egyptians and "Ethiopians" (non Egyptian Africans), considering their culture to be equated with prestige?
Of course they did, but the Greeks did so with most people. You mentioned the concept of "Ethiopian" and "Egyptian", these definitions are often cited in the works of Afrocentrists as evidence of Egyptians being black. My own reading for the dispute of that theory shows that such a connection is rooted in a distortion of Greek words and the taking of "dark" to equal black. In the actual accepted translation of the ancient Greek, the Egyptians were seen as "dark" skinned, meaning darker then the Greeks and kissed by the sun. However, they also referred to the Ehtiopians (non-Egyptian Africans) as "being of scorched face". Given that reading, there was obviously one they considered "black" and one that was darker then them, but lighter then the other.

Quote:
Did the Greeks (and subsequently other Europeans) not worship Egyptian/African Gods?
No. This is another Afrocentric distortion of Greek writing. The Greeks believed that the Egyptians worshipped the same Gods that they did, but used different names. The Greeks then drew parallels to understand this, for instance considering Zeus as being equal to the Egyptian Sun God. However, there were many differences in the way these God's were worshipped and the forms they would take. For example, while Greek God's took the form of animals, they were never depicted to actually be animal human hybrids. As the Hellenestic religion spread and was adopted by the Romans, many Gods, including Egyptian ones such as Isis and Serapis were included in the 'pantheon'.

Quote:
Why did the Greeks who controlled Late Dynastic Egypt adopt Egyptian culture rather than impose their own onto the populace?
Control. The customs were not all that different and the people of Egypt accepted the notion that the Ptolemaic dynasty were the proper successors to the pharoahs. They assumed this role and even adopted the custom of being seen as god-kings similar to the other pharoahs. What they did do was introduce the Hellenistic Gods to Egypt to be venerated alongside the Egyptian ones. So, there were major culturaly impacts.

Quote:
I just find it sort of hypocritical, how Europeans can run with the exact same theories like this and this and it is seen as "fascinating"? But when different forms of evidence are presented suggesting that Africans did the same it's "insulting" or "history stealing"? Not at all saying that the latter is correct, but it just makes you think.
When one person puts forward a theory it is "fascinating" until it is disproven. The vast majority of scholars do not share in the theories you posted. Just as the vast majority do not share in the beliefs of the Afrocentrists. What then is the difference between what those isolated people are proposing and what the Afrocentrists are proposing? I would venture that for you the difference is that you want to believe in what the Afrocentrists are saying.

Quote:
Why are you trying to twist the words of respected scholars to reflect your insecurities of a clear fact?
What 'clear' fact? Why are your "respected scholars" better then my "respected scholars"?

Quote:
What evidence do you have to merit changing the text around?
I was simply trying to prove the point that the evidence was observational at best and ones interpretation of said observational evidence could be easily manipulated depending on what one was trying to prove.

Quote:
I can present many more scholars who concur with and likely influenced the statements Ian Shaw in this passage.
...and I can present MANY MORE scholars then you can that say this whole theory is bunk. Of course, my scholars are all racists trying to wipe out centuries of revisionist history to suppress the accomplishments of blacks; while yours are attempting to right the wrongs of centuries of oppression.

Quote:
Well please inform us of the "true" cradle of civilization. Before you answer that question I would advise you to read this book:
I snipped the rest, because I either covered my reasoning for mentioning it in the previous post or covered the topic in my responses above. FWIW, no, I did not listen to the entire lecture. I was responding to what I knew about Sertima and what the bulk of his work is focused on. In your response you brought up specific theories of regarding Egypt and I responded to them. Additionally, if we are going to talk about forum etiquette it is rather poor form to post a string of videos comprising an hour long lecture and then asking people to respond. You should have summarize the speaking points if you wanted a more targeted conversation that wouldn't just deal with the lecturer you were framing as a content expert.

When it comes to the "true" cradle of civilization, how about this theory...

Civilizations as we have known them grew up in various places drawing influence from the people around them to be formed. While the discovery of what those influences are is interesting and can help further understanding, they do not change the study of the civilization itself, because as civilizations are formed they assume a unique identity all their own. In this way, as I stated above, the Egyptian civilization was a synthesis or "ancient melting pot" of peoples and cultures. At some point, however, it became it's own unique identity.

Ultimately this conversation will go nowhere as you believe what you believe to be true regardless of anything presented to the contrary.
 
Old 06-01-2012, 12:32 PM
 
1,020 posts, read 851,064 times
Reputation: 740
Let's be frank; all of this " afro-centric" pseudo -history is a historically invalid , desperate attempt to attach some sort of veneer of civilization to sub-saharan Africa, vs. the actual "cradles" of civilzation in the Near East, China, etc.
Since there are no historically significant cultures in sub-saharan Africa, like Egypt, Greece, Rome, Babylon, Assyria, etc., why, we'll just say that they depended upon influence from Africans for their historic achievements, and, of course, supressed their reliance on African "civilization" lo these many years.
 
Old 06-01-2012, 01:28 PM
 
Location: South Central Los Angeles
4,362 posts, read 1,424,817 times
Reputation: 1101
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT View Post
Let me respond by saying that ANY study of history that begins with viewing things from a certain perspective in order to validate that perspective is flawed.
Ok let me start out by saying that all sciences based off observation are biased. Anthropology is probably the most biased science of them all. Most people including you refuse to see any other view other than a Eurocentric viewpoint. That is what has lead to highly contrasted and polarized opinions. Not the inclusion of new or conflicting information.
 
Old 06-01-2012, 01:46 PM
 
Location: South Central Los Angeles
4,362 posts, read 1,424,817 times
Reputation: 1101
Quote:
Originally Posted by hornet67 View Post
Let's be frank; all of this " afro-centric" pseudo -history is a historically invalid , desperate attempt to attach some sort of veneer of civilization to sub-saharan Africa, vs. the actual "cradles" of civilzation in the Near East, China, etc.
Since there are no historically significant cultures in sub-saharan Africa, like Egypt, Greece, Rome, Babylon, Assyria, etc., why, we'll just say that they depended upon influence from Africans for their historic achievements, and, of course, supressed their reliance on African "civilization" lo these many years.
Hornet67, I’ll be frank with you. All history is told from a perspective. You have just chosen to only be receptive to one in particular (and I wonder why ). The way most sciences work is by introducing a theory, that theory is then scrutinized and from there it is proven, discredited or inconclusive. The approach you seem to be taking is trying to discredit, marginalize and undervalue an entire prospective. Your technique is part of the foundation of the Eurocentric approach to analysis. This approach is what has lead us down this road, it is what justified colonialism, genocide, slavery, manifest destiny and intolerance. What I suggest you do is be receptive to new ideas and approaches and tackle each new theory as they are presented instead of having your mind made up before you even hear the information.
 
Old 06-01-2012, 02:21 PM
 
219 posts, read 314,878 times
Reputation: 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT View Post
In that vain, Afrocentric thought is as flawed as the countless theories floated before that regarding the ancient Egyptians being white, being from Asia or being from India.
The "Afrocentric" view of ancient Egypt is the one which places Egypt back into it's proper African context, whereas the Eurocentric view was one that was notably distorting the facts of the matter for racial social political motives:

Quote:
'It is not a question of "African" "influence"; ancient Egypt was organically African. Studying early Egypt in its African context is not "Afrocentric," but simply correct' (emphasis added). - S.O.Y. Keita
With that being said the so-called "Afrocentric" view of ancient Egypt is the one which today has the most scholastic support. Trying to label all of these mainstream scholars (across all racial lines) who have essentially stated that the ancient Egyptians were "black" as Afrocentric in an attempt to discredit their points is quite baseless and juvenile.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT View Post
The desire to prove the sole position that Egyptians were "black" is just as wrong a starting place as previous "scholars" who have tried to prove they were white.
How is the desire for those to debunk a widespread lie about a major part of African history "wrong". Imagine if the popular media stresses the importance and impact that ancient Greece had the world, yet persistently portrayed it as a product of East Asia. Would it be "wrong" for people to say "hey, that's not correct"? Would Greeks and some other Europeans not be offended at the mislabeling of their history?

Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT View Post
No. Simply because you and others say it is true does not make it true. The sum of research and the vast majority of Egyptologists do not share this view.
So even in the face of the Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt stating that the mainstream body of anthropological and cultural research indicates that the ancient Egyptians were what we would consider "black Africans", you would still dispute the fact? What motivation would the authors of such an authoritative reference have to distort this fact? Why would they present views on the issue which are disputed by "the vast majority of Egyptologist"? Can you even cite five Egyptologist within the last 15 years who have disputed this fact?

Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT View Post
Since neither of us is an expert conducting our own research and reaching our own conclusions and we are entirely dependent upon which 'experts' we choose to believe I cannot affirmatively state which 'theory' is correct...and either can you.
You are correct in that neither one of us are "experts" in the field, however I can cite an uncountable number of authorities who verify my stance that they were black. As a matter of fact, this view that the ancient Egyptians were "black Africans" was even validated in the mid 90's by other authorities:

Quote:
[SIZE=2]Two opposing theories for the origin of Dynastic Egyptians dominated scholarly debate over the last century: whether the ancient Egyptians were black Africans (historically referred to as Negroid) originating biologically and culturally in Saharo-Tropical Africa, or whether they originated as a Dynastic Race in the Mediterranean or western Asian regions (people historically categorized as White, or Caucasoid)....[/SIZE][SIZE=2]There is now a sufficient body of evidence from modern studies of skeletal remains to indicate that the ancient Egyptians, especially southern Egyptians, exhibited physical characteristics that are within the range of variation for ancient and modern indigenous peoples of the Sahara and tropical Africa. In general, the inhabitants of Upper Egypt and Nubia had the greatest biological affinity to people of the Sahara and more southerly areas...[/SIZE][SIZE=2]Any interpretation of the biological affinities of the ancient Egyptians must be placed in the context of hypothesis informed by the archaeological, linguistic, geographic or other data. In this context the physical anthropological evidence indicates that the early Nile Valley populations can be identified as part of an African lineage, but exhibiting local variation. This variation represents the short and long term effects of evolutionary forces, such as gene flow, genetic drift, and natural selection influenced by culture and geography[/SIZE]
link

So apparently the ancient Egyptians had physical remains consistent with those which are found in modern and ancient black African populations, and also that their culture and language was clearly that which came from other regions of inner Africa. What authorities can you cite to dispute this fact?

Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT View Post
What I can say is that the focus of modern reserach including extensive genetic testing shows the Nile Valley in ancient times to be quite the mixing of races and civilizations. The modern theory would be that ancient Egypt was not "black" or "arab" or anything else, it was Egyptian.
Hey did you totally discount what the OEAA had to say about your stance?

Quote:
"The race and origins of the Ancient Egyptians have been a source of considerable debate. Scholars in the late and early 20th centuries rejected any considerations of the Egyptians as black Africans by defining the Egyptians either as non-African (i.e Near Easterners or Indo-Aryan), or as members of a separate brown (as opposed to a black) race, or as a mixture of lighter-skinned peoples with black Africans. In the later half of the 20th century, Afrocentric scholars have countered this Eurocentric and often racist perspective by characterizing the Egyptians as black and African....."
Link

The view that they started out as a mixture of races is one which has been abandoned decades ago. The populations that created Egypt were to Africa and specifically came from the Nilotic peoples after the dessication of the ancient Sahara as shown to you clearly by Basil Davidson in his documentary that I presented in my last post.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT View Post
The modern theories revolve around peoples from the Levant settling in the northern Nile Valley (lower Egypt)
This is false:

Quote:
"..sample populations available from northern Egypt from before the 1st Dynasty (Merimda, Maadi and Wadi Digla) turn out to be significantly different from sample populations from early Palestine and Byblos, suggesting a lack of common ancestors over a long time. If there was a south-north cline variation along the Nile valley it did not, from this limited evidence, continue smoothly on into southern Palestine. The limb-length proportions of males from the Egyptian sites group them with Africans rather than with Europeans." (Barry Kemp, "Ancient Egypt Anatomy of a Civilisation. (2005) Routledge. p. 52-60)
Ancient lower Egyptians like those in the south were also tropically adapted like the African populations further to the south and unlike the sub tropically adapted people in the neighboring Levant. This could only mean that their primary ancestors were tropical African populations from the south (likely Saharan). Their culture was also a testament to this fact.

Quote:
Later, stimulated by mid-Holocene droughts, migration from the Sahara contributed population to the Nile Valley (Hassan 1988, Kobusiewicz 1992, Wendorf and Schild 1980, 2001); the predynastic of upper Egypt and later Neolithic in lower Egypt show clear Saharan affinities. A striking increase of pastoralists’ hearths are found in the Nile valley dating to between 5000-4000 BCE (Hassan 1988). Saharan Nilo-Saharan speakers may have been initial domesticators of African cattle found in the Sahara (see Ehret 2000, Wendorf et. Al. 1987). Hence there was a Saharan “Neolithic” with evidence for domesticated cattle before they appear in the Nile valley (Wendorf et al. 2001). (S.O.Y. Keita, A.J. Boyce, "Interpreting Geographical Patterns of Y Chromosome Variation1," History in Africa 32 (2005) 221-246 )
Their culture and pottery was that which shows clear descent from those earlier populations in the Sahara and was distinct from that which was seen in the Levant. Now that's not to say that early Lower Egyptians did not interact or trade with those neighboring Middle Easterners, but they as a culture and people were clearly apart of an African continuum. This 2012 genetic study of A-Group Nubians also confirm that it was the Nilotic peoples of the Sahara who dominated (coupled with other Africans):

Quote:
Accordingly, through limited on number of aDNA samples, there is enough data to suggest and to tally with the historical evidence of the dominance by Nilotic elements during the early state formation in the Nile Valley, and as the states thrived there was a dominance by other elements particularly Nuba / Nubians. In Y-chromosome terms this mean in simplest terms introgression of the YAP insertion (haplogroups E and D), and Eurasian Haplogroups which are defined by F-M89 against a background of haplogroup A-M13.
study

Of course you are aware that A-Group Nubians and Pre-Dynastic Egyptians were essentially the same people biologically and culturally aren't you?

Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT View Post
and peoples from Africa (following the drying of the Sahara and natural northern migration) settled into the southern Nile Valley (upper Egypt).
No, the peoples of the Sahara settled the entire Nubia-Egyptian area as clearly displayed above. The Lower Egyptians became a more divergent population (biologically) from those seen in Upper Egypt-Sudan, but were non the less indigenous. Another fact to take into consideration when discussing this that the vast majority of Egypt's populations all the way up into the Late Periods resided and originated in Upper Egypt (the south). It is the south (Upper Egypt-Sudan) where Dynastic culture originated and spread northward into Lower Egypt to unify the two:

Quote:
"Present evidence suggests that the state which emerged by the First Dynasty had its roots in the Nagada culture of Upper Egypt, where grave types, pottery and artifacts demonstrate an evolution of form from the Predynastic to the First Dynasty, This cannot be demonstrated for the material culture of Lower Egypt, which was eventually displaced by that which originated in Upper Egypt. Hierarchical society with much social and economic differentiation, as symbolized in the Nagada II cemeteries of Upper Egypt, does not seem to have been present, then, in Lower Egypt, a fact which supports an Upper Egyptian origin for the unified state. Thus archaeological evidence cannot support earlier theories that the founders of Egyptian civilization were an invading Dynastic race from the east.." (Bard, Kathryn A. 1994 The Egyptian Predynastic: A Review of the Evidence. Journal of Field Archaeology 21(3):265-288.)
and

Quote:
[SIZE=3]"From Petrie onwards, it was regularly suggested that despite the evidence of Predynastic cultures, Egyptian civilization of the 1st Dynasty appeared suddenly and must therefore have been introduced by an invading foreign 'race'. Since the 1970s however, excavations at Abydos and Hierakonpolis have clearly demonstrated the indigenous, Upper Egyptian roots of early civilization in Egypt.[/SIZE] (Ian Shaw ed. (2003) The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt By Ian Shaw. Oxford University Press, page 40-63)
Not at all to discount the cultures of the north, but that which originated in the south was simply the one in which became "Egyptian" (as we know it) culture.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT View Post
I find it far more plausible and acceptable to think of the Egyptians as a unique civilization, blended from the inputs of several 'feed' groups that borrowing from each of these roots, created a unique culture.
Here's what Basil Davidson had to say about your assertion:



Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT View Post
They were not "Nubian", they were not "Arab", etc. they were Egyptian.
The Songhai were not Congolese, not Axumite, not Ghanian but Songhai. Does that statement somehow change the fact that they were also black Africans?

Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT View Post
The fact that modern Egyptians are virtually identical genetically to the ancient Egyptians one can easily conclude that in terms of 'color' the Ancient Egyptians were just as varied in pigment as modern ones.
What study can you cite to back that assertion? In fact I have several studies which prove that modern Egyptians (especially urban northerners) are not a good representative of their earliest Egyptian ancestors because of the shear amount of admixture that they have absorbed within the last 3,000 years:

Quote:
"However, in some of the studies, only individuals from northern Egypt are sampled, and this could theoretically give a false impression of Egyptian variability (contrast Lucotte and Mercier 2003a with Manni et al. 2002), because this region has received more foreign settlers (and is nearer the Near East). Possible sample bias should be integrated into the discussion of results." (S.O.Y. Keita, A.J. Boyce, "Interpreting Geographical Patterns of Y Chromosome Variation1," History in Africa 32 (2005) 221-246 )
and subsequently



Quote:
[SIZE=2]"Cosmopolitan northern Egypt is less likely to have a population representative of the core indigenous population of the most ancient times".[/SIZE][SIZE=2]- Keita (2005), pp. 564[/SIZE]
link


Modern Coptic Egyptians whom many false claim to be the splitting image of the ancient Egyptians, have also been noted to have a diluted lineage to ancient Egyptians:


Quote:
[SIZE=3]"In Libya, which is mostly desert and oasis, there is a visible Negroid element in the sedentary populations, and at the same is true of the Fellahin of Egypt, whether Copt or Muslim. Osteological studies have shown that the Negroid element was stronger in predynastic times than at present, reflecting an early movement northward along the banks of the Nile, which were then heavily forested." [/SIZE][SIZE=3](Encyclopedia Britannica 1984 ed. "Populations, Human")[/SIZE]
The above quote has been further verified by more recent research:



Notice that the early ancient Egyptians at the top of the denodrogram overlap with ancient Nubians and modern northern African populations. It is not until the Late period when you start to see biological affinities towards Middle Easterners. Finally when you get out of the purple box you see modern Egyptians distantly grouping with Greeks before they do their own Egyptian ancestors. Which could suggest that modern Egyptians have clearly been affected by the numerous later foreign invasions and occupations of Egypt.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT View Post
Why do you think that an "Afrocentrist" view of Egypt is not also a "blatant racial distortion".
If you actually watched even the first three segments of the lecture by Ivan Van Sertima then it would be clear why the "Afrocentric" position of ancient Egypt is indeed that of the truth.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT View Post
Ultimately, why does it matter what color their skin was?
Because, a blatant lie was to what they looked like is what many in popular culture believe to be the truth. If all European historical figures were shown as black or mixed race in history channel or national geographic documentaries would you still be impartial to their skin color? I highly doubt that you will. It's only OK to distort the truth when it comes to African history.

Quote:
Something tells me that the Egyptians equally learned from this cultural exchange as well.
Egyptian knowledge predates anything Greek by thousands of years, so why would you think that the idea exchange was mutually equal? Conversely I believe based on more recent research that much of what the Egyptians knew and believed was heavily transplanted from the ancient Saharans. In fact recently archeologist have found a miniature Sphinx in pyramid in the Niger region of the Sahara which predates anything seen in Egypt. Then again if you watched the demonstration by Basil Davidson it should be all that surprising.

Quote:
Of course they did, but the Greeks did so with most people.
The Greeks did not show any other peoples that they conquered the amount of respect that they did for the Egyptians, clearly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT View Post
You mentioned the concept of "Ethiopian" and "Egyptian", these definitions are often cited in the works of Afrocentrists as evidence of Egyptians being black.
If you've watched the documentary above from Basil Davidson he starts out that segment by stating that the, "The Greeks firmly believed that the original Egyptians were black peoples who had come from the south to settle the Nile." Is this renown African historian also an "Afrocentric" for stating this fact which is made perfectly clear by the writing of the Greeks themselves?:

Quote:
[SIZE=2]Those who are too black are cowards, like for instance the Egyptians and the Ethiopians, but those who are excessively white are also cowards as we can see from the example of women, the complexion of courage is between the two”.-[/SIZE][SIZE=2]Herodotus[/SIZE]
How can anyone possibly obfuscate this statement, especially against the background of evidence which confirms an inner African origin for ancient Egypt? In fact some early Western scholars even admitted this based on said writings, until of course the importance to dehumanize black Africans outweighed that to tell the truth:

Quote:
"mixture of the early population with white nomadic elements, conquerors or merchants, became increasingly important as the end of Egyptian history approached. According to Cornelius de Pauw, in the low epoch Egypt was almost saturated with foreign white colonies: Arabs in Coptos, Libyans on the future site of Alexandria, Jews around the city of Hercules (Avaris?), Babylonians (or Persians) below Memphis, "fugitive Trojans" in the area of the great stone quarries east of the Nile, Carians and Ionians over by the Pelusiac branch. Psammetichus (end of seventh century) capped this peaceful invasion by entrusting the defense of Egypt to Greek mercenaries. "An enormous mistake of Pharaoh Psammetichus was to commit the defense of Egypt to foreign troops and to introduce various colonies made up of the dregs of the nations." {endnote 14: Cornelius de Pauw, Recherches philosophiques sur les Egyptiens et les Chinois. Berlin, 1773, II, 337.}
Was this also a lie?

Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT View Post
My own reading for the dispute of that theory shows that such a connection is rooted in a distortion of Greek words and the taking of "dark" to equal black.....Given that reading, there was obviously one they considered "black" and one that was darker then them, but lighter then the other.
Wrong, see the quote from Herodotus above. They used the term "black" to describe both the Egyptians and Ethiopians in a non differentiated manner.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT View Post
No. This is another Afrocentric distortion of Greek writing.
No it is not and here is why:

Quote:
Heracles is originally an Egyptian god and part of their pantheon of twelve, not a Greek hero (43). Hdt.'s researches on Heracles took him to Phoenician Tyre and to Thasos, where he was able to confirm that Heracles qua Olympian god predates Heracles qua Greek hero (44). Why do the Egyptians of Mendes not sacrifice goats? Because they regard Pan as a major deity. The Egyptians carry images with movable phalluses in their processions for Dionysus, rather than just phalluses as the Greeks do (48). The phallic procession for Dionysus was introduced to Greece by Melampus via Cadmus and Phoenician Tyre (49). Most Greek gods are borrowed from Egypt; exceptions are Poseidon, the Dioscuri, Hera, Hestia, Themis, the Graces and the Nereids. Poseidon is of Libyan origin (50). The Herms, statues with erect phalluses, were introduced to Greece by the Pelasgians. The Pelasgians introduced the "names" (i.e. the functions) of the Greek gods from Egypt as well (51-52). The Greek gods are relatively recent. Their pantheon was shaped by Homer and Hesiod, whom Hdt. dates not earlier than 850-825 BC (53). The Egyptians say that the oracles at Dodona and at Ammon were first staffed by priestesses kidnaped from Egyptian Thebes (54). But the priestesses at Ammon say that their oracle and the one at Dodona were founded on instructions from a black dove which flew there from Thebes (55). Hdt. explains that the second story is merely a distorted version of the first one: the Pelasgians called the Egyptian woman a dove because of her strange speech, and black because of her ethnicity (56-57). The Egyptians originated Greek divination and religious assemblies. List of Egyptian festivals at various cities (58-59). The procession and festival in honor of Artemis at Bubastis (60). The ritual laments at the festival of Isis at Busiris (61). The festival of lamps for Athena at Saďs (62). The mock battle at the festival of the war god at Papremis (63). The Egyptians also originated the Greek custom of ritual cleansing before entering a sacred precinct after having sex (64).
Quote:
What then is the difference between what those isolated people are proposing and what the Afrocentrists are proposing?
It first becomes an issue of what you are defining as "Afrocentric" and secondly the amount of solid evidence that is presented to support any of the said theories. By the way I've asked you several times in my last response to elaborate on what specific points in Sertima's lecture that you took issue with. So far you have only given a generic response to the problems of what you perceive of as "Afrocentrism". I will ask again what specifically did Sertima argue (besides the possibility of African contact with ancient America) or state that you take issue with?

Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT View Post
What 'clear' fact? Why are your "respected scholars" better then my "respected scholars"?
Well for one you have yet to present any "respected scholars" to support your stances. Take your dispute with the early Egyptians being black for instance. I've cited several reputed scholars who have supported my stance, while you have only made mention of an unspecified "vast majority" who oppose it. Who are these scholars who have discredited any of Sertima's points?

Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT View Post
I was simply trying to prove the point that the evidence was observational at best and ones interpretation of said observational evidence could be easily manipulated depending on what one was trying to prove.
So in essence you attempted to disregard what consistent archaeological evidence has pinpointed as the cultural and biological source of ancient Egypt by baselessly stating that you could somehow flip the words of scholars around. It makes no logical sense to do so, and shows your unwillingness to accept clear mainstream research.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT View Post
...and I can present MANY MORE scholars then you can that say this whole theory is bunk.
Discredited, pre WW2 scholars perhaps, but modern scholars within the past the 15-20 years NO YOU CAN'T. If you can than do so, PLEASE INFORM ME of this gross distortion of mainstream research that I am supporting. Also please provide a counter source (of equal merit obviously) to the Fitzwilliam's museum newly added "Black to Kemet" exhibit. Let me also know what you think about the lectures by the three reputed PhD's who speak on the matter of the "blackness" of the original Egyptians. Sarcasim taken away, there has been a major push within the last five years in particular to correct the white washing of ancient Egypt and putting it back into it's proper black African context by mainstream academia (as you can see).

Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT View Post
Of course, my scholars are all racists trying to wipe out centuries of revisionist history to suppress the accomplishments of blacks;
Who are "your scholars"? I think that when you finally get around to doing some actual research on the subject, you will see how petty and irrational those who are unwilling (or were) to accept this fact truly are.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT View Post
while yours are attempting to right the wrongs of centuries of oppression.
Exactly!

Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT View Post
I snipped the rest, because I either covered my reasoning for mentioning it in the previous post or covered the topic in my responses above. FWIW, no, I did not listen to the entire lecture. I was responding to what I knew about Sertima and what the bulk of his work is focused on.
My point exactly! Your only gripe with Sertima was about the Olmec theory, which was never specifically mentioned in that 70 minute lecture, yet for reason you wish to equate it with "the bulk" of his research. From that you went on a tangent about Afrocentrism, and how anything that you perceive as such is without merit. Please watch the entire video (which the thread was created about) before you continue to post in this thread, to keep it on track. Stop talking about the Olmecs and "black Chinese" (strawman arguments) and focus on what is actually said in the lecture.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT View Post
When it comes to the "true" cradle of civilization, how about this theory...
First you didn't comment on what I presented from Robert Bauval about the prehistoric Saharan culture and civilizations. This common (yet unspoken) knowledge of where civilization arose and is the basis for the "African origins of Civilization" argument.
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.


 
Over $84,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top