U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
 
Old 09-13-2012, 04:48 PM
 
264 posts, read 218,690 times
Reputation: 108

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Motion View Post
What do your Egyptian friends look like?
Like me only little darker... Definetely not Black.

 
Old 09-13-2012, 05:00 PM
 
399 posts, read 380,022 times
Reputation: 494
I keep thinking that I'm fairly good with reading without having to resort to getting my glasses on all the time. However, when I read that "Nutria birthed Egypt," I went into full Emily Litella mode. "What kind of person would think that a rat could birth Egypt??"

Never mind..............
 
Old 09-13-2012, 09:32 PM
 
219 posts, read 693,962 times
Reputation: 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by noworneveragain View Post
I have Egyptian friends and if you called them Black they would get really offended...
Tell me do you think that these Egyptians would be offended if they were called black:









Please be aware of the fact that not all Egyptians look like the protesters in the northern Egyptian cities of Cairo and Alexandria. The one's in the rural areas and particularly in the south have much more commonality with those Egyptians of Dynastic times, because they have been less influenced by Asiatic and European migrants like people in the north.
 
Old 09-13-2012, 09:48 PM
 
264 posts, read 218,690 times
Reputation: 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Unbreakable View Post
Tell me do you think that these Egyptians would be offended if they were called black:

Please be aware of the fact that not all Egyptians look like the protesters in the northern Egyptian cities of Cairo and Alexandria. The one's in the rural areas and particularly in the south have much more commonality with those Egyptians of Dynastic times, because they have been less influenced by Asiatic and European migrants like people in the north.
Is this majority of Egyptians? Cause I could show you Black Germans if you really pressed?
None of the Egyptians I know here look like that. There is quite a few including one Coptic family. As a matter of fact they are all very racist.
 
Old 09-13-2012, 11:36 PM
 
219 posts, read 693,962 times
Reputation: 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by noworneveragain View Post
Is this majority of Egyptians? Cause I could show you Black Germans if you really pressed? None of the Egyptians I know here look like that. There is quite a few including one Coptic family. As a matter of fact they are all very racist.
It's no surprise that many modern day Arabinized North Africans (including Egyptians) are VERY racist again black Africans. This is a common problem in those societies. None the less what you are failing to realize is that these people in northern Africa who tend to look Middle Eastern are relative new comers into the region. The early Egyptian populace was black African, which gained Middle Eastern and European affinities towards the latter years:

Quote:
Actually, it was always biologically wrong to view the Broad phenotype as representative of the only authentic "African," something understood by some nineteenth century writers. Early Nile valley populations are best viewed as part of an African descent group or lineage with tropical adaptations and relationships. This group is highly variable, as would be expected. Archaeological data also support this position, which is not new.

Over time, gene flow (admixture) did occur in the Nile valley from Europe and the Near East, thus also giving "Egyptians" relationship with those groups. This admixture, if it had occurred by Dynasty I, little affected the major affinity of southern predynastic peoples as illustrated here. As indicated by the analysis of the data in the studies reviewed here, the southern predynastic peoples were Saharo-tropical variants.


SOURCE: S. O. Y. Keita, "Studies and Comments on Ancient Egyptian Biological Relationships," History in Africa 20 (1993) 129-54
link

Coptic Egyptians are no more Egyptian than their Islamic counterparts. Coptic identity did not come into existence until the Late Period. The late Period is considered to have been the period in which the Egyptian populace had absorbed so much Middle Eastern and European admixture that they were no longer representive of their earlier Egyptian forefathers who were black originally.

Last edited by The Unbreakable; 09-14-2012 at 12:13 AM..
 
Old 09-14-2012, 08:07 AM
 
14,777 posts, read 34,498,385 times
Reputation: 14278
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Unbreakable View Post
Here is the historical definition for what has traditionally been considered black in the western world (as if you have no clue what black means):
What's the rest of the quote. She was obviously saying there were two competing theories, you quoted one, nor did the one you quote necessarily equal her conclusion. BTW, the quote is from a paper in the Encylopedia you claim to supposedly not be using.

Quote:
So are you saying that the ancient Egyptians would not fit into this definition? If so why and what is your evidence? Does your evidence (likely picture spam) stand to the merit of that of which I have already presented into this thread?
You should change your name from Unbreakable to the Artful Dodger. Again, what is the definition of "black" that you want us to agree to? In general I don't have any quibbles over anything you are posting except the repetition of "black, black, black" that gets attached to everything. NO ONE KNOWS WHAT THE ANCIENT EGYPTIANS LOOKED LIKE. I have already agreed, even in the other thread that they were an indigenous African culture, but that is not good enough for you. I have to agree that they were as black as Shaka Zulu in physical apperance or you won't be satisfied and that is something no one but Afrocentrists argues.

For all we know they looked a lot like Berbers in terms of skintone and features:


Now, if you are Diop, you would call Berber's "black", perhaps over a beer Keita would as well because they are part of the same 'family' of northeast Africans. However, you want to use it in a generalized modern sense of the word to again imply this:


The whole point being you want to have a semantical argument, you want to use the "Diop definition" but have it apply in a modern social context, not a 'genetic family'. Remember Diop's argument that "white" ran from Greek to Italian to Spanish to English to German to Russian and all of the variations in between. He was arguing that the same general definition of "black" be applied to all African peoples. I have no problem admitting and agreeing that Berbers, Egyptians, Nubians, etc. are all from the same 'genetic family', but I will not agree that the physical appearance of ancient Egyptians was "black" in the way you want to imply it was which basically comes down to skin pigment, eye shape and hair texture.

Quote:
That is childish!
No, what is childish is attempting to apply modern racial categorizations and physical stereotypes to people who lived thousands of years ago. All of the genetic evidence points to admixture. In the earliest studies and tests there is Libyan group influence and Horn of Africa group influence. Chances are there were some very "black" looking and very "white" looking Egyptians at different points as the groups mixed. To say none of them were "black" is foolish, to say that all of them, the entire civilizations and its root were "black" is equally foolish.

Quote:
Now I'm about to head into work. If for whatever reason you respond and the thread is subsequently locked again don't childishly claim victory like did you with the last one.
I didn't childishly claim victory. I really don't have a dog in this fight and I was not the one who asked to have the thread locked, I was really looking forward to your response, especially to the last part. You can label me or anyone else who questions you as being ignorant, racists or children, but that doesn't prove your point in the least which is not about "proving" anything other then the physical appearance of ancient Egyptians.

NO ONE is arguing that they weren't African, not at all. What we arguing is your insistence that they were physically "black". This is simply conjecture on your part and none of the evidence out there proves that physical "blackness" of ancient Egyptians. Here's why...

Is this woman white or black?



She is Robin Wells, economist, author and wife of Paul Krugman. She is of mixed ancestory. She looks 'white' with some 'black' features. 5,000 years from now if someone dug up her skull and tried to guess what color she was, based on nothing more then her skeletal structure and cranium, what color do you think they would make her?

Now, do the same with this picture of a "dark Egyptian" that you posted.


Anyone who looks at him will say he is "black", but his features are actually more "white". When someone 5,000 years from now digs up his skull, what color do you think they will make him? Do you think he will be depicted by these future people as being darker or lighter then Robin Wells?

This is why any attempt to define or conclusively state with any authority the physical appearance of ancient Egyptians is complete bunk, we simply don't know.
 
Old 09-14-2012, 10:12 AM
 
219 posts, read 693,962 times
Reputation: 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT View Post
What's the rest of the quote. She was obviously saying there were two competing theories, you quoted one, nor did the one you quote necessarily equal her conclusion.
You made a claim earlier that when I referenced these statements I was somehow withholding other theories, and making this one out to "THE" theory. In other words you were pretending to be familiar with the encyclopedic references that I cited, and YES this is one of the two encyclopedic references that I cited in the last thread. So its safe to say that your claim that I was somehow withholding information from that encyclopedia, was simply a lie. Anywho here is the rest of the quote and the link to the full passage:

Quote:
"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)....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...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. (Nancy C. Lovell, " Egyptians, physical anthropology of," in Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt, ed. Kathryn A. Bard and Steven Blake Shubert, ( London and New York: Routledge, 1999) pp 328-332)"
link

This is the same source that I also provided on page two of this very thread. You essentially just dove head first into this discussion without familiarizing yourself with my true arguments and noting what sources that I was using. You instead make false accusations that I am somehow lying about what the author is trying to relay. As you can read her conclusion is that original ancient Egyptians had biological affinities/phenotype consistent with that which has traditionally been defined as black. How would you try to dodge this fact now?

Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT View Post
BTW, the quote is from a paper in the Encylopedia you claim to supposedly not be using.
No! You stated that the "Encyclopedia of Egyptology" was my source. You were talking as though you actually knew what you were talking about, or that you were familiar with my sources of information. You have now proven that you don't at all know have a clue as to what my sources are relaying, and that you accusation that I was withholding contrary information was nothing more than lie on your part.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT View Post
what is the definition of "black" that you want us to agree to?
Did I not just provide you with a definition that I obviously adhere to in my last post? Now you're saying that I didn't give a definition. Are you somehow frustrated because my given definition is not something that you cannot easily obfuscate? This is your main tactic in this discussion. Not to acknowledge that biological and cultural evidence ties the ancient Egyptians with the peoples of the Sudan and other parts of East Africa, but turn this into an argument of "what is black". It's pathetic, and point dodging at it's best.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT View Post
In general I don't have any quibbles over anything you are posting except the repetition of "black, black, black" that gets attached to everything. NO ONE KNOWS WHAT THE ANCIENT EGYPTIANS LOOKED LIKE.
You obviously have read up on the subject if you feel that there is still a question mark as to what these people looked like. As you can see from the statement from the anthropologist Nancy Lovell there is "sufficient" (look up that definition) evidence from their actual physical remains collected over the last couple of centuries to conclusively state that their phenotype was most consistent with that of Nubians and other black African populations further to the south. There is no longer a "question", unless you wanted to throw out the biological evidence and rely on nothing more than subjective interpretations of their stylized art (which most Egyptologist are against).

Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT View Post
I have already agreed, even in the other thread that they were an indigenous African culture, but that is not good enough for you.
You're damn skippy! If I can cite reputed Egyptologist from the most reputed academic institutes who will say without hesitation that they were black, then I am not going to listen to your hesitation to concede to that fact. That is moreso a reflection of you going through a grieving period (if you will) finally seeing that my evidence is for real and my argument is solid, and his you are wrong to deny it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT View Post
I have to agree that they were as black as Shaka Zulu in physical apperance or you won't be satisfied and that is something no one but Afrocentrists argues.
There is more than one way to be a black African, is what you and people like you are ignorant of. This region of Africa (tropical-Saharo) has the MOST indigenous physical diversity on Earth, despite all of it's natives having variations of black skin. If you really knew what you are talking about when it came to the research on this subject then you would know that certain populations of East Africa are the one's with the closest resemblance both physically AND culturally to the ancient Egyptians.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT View Post
For all we know they looked a lot like Berbers in terms of skintone and features:
This is an example wishful thing. This what you WANT to be the true, because your ignorance of African peoples and history makes you associate Berber with non black. You have not seen a shred of evidence suggesting that "Berbers" were had any close relation with the ancient Egyptians. You have instead only seen the peoples from Sudan and other parts of East Africa hold that relationship.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT View Post
Now, if you are Diop, you would call Berber's "black", perhaps over a beer Keita would as well because they are part of the same 'family' of northeast Africans.
Through your ignorance of African history you don't know that Berbers don't have a uniform phenotype. The original Berber speakers were Sub Saharan East Africans who migrated north into the Nile Valley and bi-directionally into the Middle East and west into Maghreb, this was thousands upong thousands of years before pre-dynastic Egypt. Since then Berbers have been joined by West Africans, Europeans (via Iberia) and Arabs. Hence the Berber population is a patchy genetic landscape:





Below are Egyptian Berbers of Siwa:




10a The Berbers: Masters of the Sahara - YouTube

What were you implying about Berbers and black Africans being mutually exclusive terms? Now if you want to delve into genetics then we can do that also.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT View Post
The whole point being you want to have a semantical argument, you want to use the "Diop definition" but have it apply in a modern social context, not a 'genetic family'.
You are still playing dumb as though this was not explained to you in my last response. Diop's definition recognized indigenous African diversity, which is something that other Eurocentric scholars refused to acknowledge. Diop however being from the older generation of anthropologist just used racial terms in his literature and analysis of the situation. Diop's compliance with the use of racial terminology of that time is what has came under fire by classicist who want to dismiss his work. None the less Keita uphold's his most basic ideas of indigenous African (particularly black African) diversity in a more contemporary manner, which reality deniers like yourself have tried to misconstrue even though the implications are clear.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT View Post
I have no problem admitting and agreeing that Berbers, Egyptians, Nubians, etc. are all from the same 'genetic family', but I will not agree that the physical appearance of ancient Egyptians was "black" in the way you want to imply it was which basically comes down to skin pigment, eye shape and hair texture.
This is denial of facts, and it characterizes people like yourself. You have been presented with skeletal analysis concluding that the ancient Egyptian morphology overlapped with more southerly (black) African populations, but that doesn't make them black according to YOU. As far as "eye shape" what are you talking about, show me studies analyzing Egyptian eye shape with other populations. You mention pigmentation:

Quote:
"During an excavation headed by the German Institute for Archaeology, Cairo, at the tombs of the nobles in Thebes-West, Upper Egypt, three types of tissues from different mummies were sampled to compare 13 well known rehydration methods for mummified tissue with three newly developed methods. .. Skin sections showed particularly good tissue preservation, although cellular outlines were never distinct. Although much of the epidermis had already separated from the dermis, the remaining epidermis often was preserved well (Fig. 1). The basal epithelial cells were packed with melanin as expected for specimens of Negroid origin."
--(A-M Mekota and M Vermehren. (2005) Determination of optimal rehydration, fixation and staining methods for histological and immunohistochemical analysis of mummified soft tissues. Biotechnic & Histochemistry 2005, Vol. 80, No. 1, Pages 7-13
They had black skin and the author attributes this finding based on the fact that they black people who migrated onto the Nile. You also mention hair texture, another testament to your ignorance of African people and their indigenous physical diversity:





That's like saying that the curly hair seen in Greeks and Roman populations is really indication admixture with certain African populations.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT View Post
No, what is childish is attempting to apply modern racial categorizations and physical stereotypes to people who lived thousands of years ago.
Will you call Donald Redford or the scholars at Fitzwilliam "childish" as well, because they did the same thing. They acknowledge that the evidence clearly points to the fact that these people were black Africans. It's funny though, would you have a problem if we called the ancient Nubians black? The National Geographic doesn't have a problem with that. It's only when the truth becomes uncomfortable with people like yourself do you present these types of double standards.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT View Post
All of the genetic evidence points to admixture.
Yes, OVERTIME! The evidence points to black population comprising Pre and Early Dynastic Egypt and overtime a combination of small scale migration and foreign invasion added variability into Egypt from the Middle East and Europe. It added so much variability that by the time of the late period, scholars now agree that they had become so admixed that they were not typical of earlier Egyptian samples. Do you think that I'm making this up?

Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT View Post
In the earliest studies and tests there is Libyan group influence and Horn of Africa group influence. Chances are there were some very "black" looking and very "white" looking Egyptians at different points as the groups mixed.
This is an example of wishful thinking at it's saddest. Rather than acknowledging that the evidence clearly points to a general population on the Nile that was black during early times, you try to pull the "some were and some weren't" card. Trying to balance the spectrum of white and black when it's clearly NOT balanced. This shows that you cannot accept reality in the respect. Now as far as your "white" people, are you talking about Middle Easterners or the very late European comers of the Greco-Roman era?

Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT View Post
To say none of them were "black" is foolish, to say that all of them, the entire civilizations and its root were "black" is equally foolish.
This is a straw man to distract from my true argument. The roots of Egyptian civilization were black African, there is no dispute about this. The original Egyptian populace from Pre-Dynastic to earliest Dynastic era were almost uniformly of more southerly African origin (black). As the earliest Dynastic period there is evidence of small scale migration from the Levant into the Nile Valley, most likely associated with newly established trade. As Bauval stated in the interview that I posted by the time of the Middle Kingdom there were many different people from different origins, but the general populace remained "black" until the late New Kingdom. Just think of America, prior to the last couple of decades the nation has been over 80% white for almost all of it's history. The general populace of America was and still is white, despite increasing racial diversity.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT View Post
NO ONE is arguing that they weren't African, not at all. What we arguing is your insistence that they were physically "black".
What do I base my insistence on if not peer reviewed evidence. Contrarily what in the Hell are you all basing your NAY-SAYING on? You don't present any counter evidence, let alone of the same merit of that which I have presented. When studies consistently conclude that the earliest Egyptian populace came from tropical regions further to the south and west and had "Negroid" morphologies, who in their right mind would deny that these are people that we are dealing with? Only people in denial of the facts, true point dodgers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT View Post
This is simply conjecture on your part and none of the evidence out there proves that physical "blackness" of ancient Egyptians. Here's why...
Your example nothing that certified anthropologist would not be able to catch. Mixed populations have traits of BOTH races, and anthropologist know what to look for. The black traits might be apparent in facial features, but limbs will be intermediate between tropically adapted and cold adapted populations.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT View Post
Anyone who looks at him will say he is "black", but his features are actually more "white".
No, you again show your ignorance of African peoples. The features of "white" people are more East African, because this is the region where these features ORIGINATED, not the Caucus mountains. Again anthropologist have techniques to more accurately determine closest affinities between like populations.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT View Post
This is why any attempt to define or conclusively state with any authority the physical appearance of ancient Egyptians is complete bunk, we simply don't know.
Who are you to tell the scholars at Oxford, Yale, Manchester and Fitzwilliam that they are all wrong in their analysis. Seriously, this is denial on your part, and nothing more
 
Old 09-16-2012, 10:22 PM
 
Location: America
6,979 posts, read 15,132,804 times
Reputation: 2059
Unbreakable

Just to help clarify. Whites are not nor have they ever been indigenous to Africa. My problem with Keita is, he likes to throw out genetic info and make claims for his european derived concepts on biological diversity being due to evolution. If he knew history better, I think it would help his work a lot. But given his last talk at chapel hill, he seems to be using historical facts a lot more to complement his work. Now, the idea that there were people in kemet early on that looked like some mulattos and whites is true, but why is that? It's because in the 4th dynasty or should I say starting in the 4th dynasty they started bringing in slaves from middle east and Europe and that continued well into the last dynasty.

Keita mentions in his latest lecture that 90% of north Africans have sub Saharan DNA on the x chromosome I.e. from the fathers line and European on the mothers line I.e. x chromosome. Why would that be? Again, slavery. Whites were brought into north Africa by the millions, especially from 700 a.d. To about 1700 a.d. A good book to read about this is "Muslim Masters, Christian Slaves" by Dr. Davis. This professor is white, so no need for anyone to cry "Afrocentrism" as if they actually know what that word means to begin with. In the book I just named, he only looks at 1400 to 1600 if I remember right. That is a small time span, when you consider moors were in Spain in 700 a.d. So he doesn't look at the entire picture. But just in that two year span he said a million plus whites were sold into slavery in north Africa. And again that had been going on since 700 a.d. So think about this. If its a million Europeans every two hundred years, that's 3.5 million give or take. Many of these were white women being sold as cucubines. Think on the fact that Africans generally have large families. All that is enough to change the face of any area. These supposed Arabs and supposed white Berbers in north Africa are really just descendants of these slaves and their African masters. This is long before any black man was taken as a slave to the new world.

I assume,it was Africans, Europeans got this sorta system or idea from. But my point is, these whites and mixed groups in north Africa are not indigenous to Africa. And they aren't Arabs and not true Berbers (which were and still are black Africans.). Just look up Keita's latest lecture at chapel hill, he talks about the modern DNA,you will see. Oh and also your right, the oldest kingdom in Africa and the world was in northern Sudan, not Egypt. A Swedish archeologist found it. Also remember this, not even 90% of Africa has been excavated, so who knows what else we don't know about.
 
Old 09-16-2012, 10:54 PM
 
264 posts, read 218,690 times
Reputation: 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Style View Post
Unbreakable

Just to help clarify. Whites are not nor have they ever been indigenous to Africa. My problem with Keita is, he likes to throw out genetic info and make claims for his european derived concepts on biological diversity being due to evolution. If he knew history better, I think it would help his work a lot. But given his last talk at chapel hill, he seems to be using historical facts a lot more to complement his work. Now, the idea that there were people in kemet early on that looked like some mulattos and whites is true, but why is that? It's because in the 4th dynasty or should I say starting in the 4th dynasty they started bringing in slaves from middle east and Europe and that continued well into the last dynasty.

Keita mentions in his latest lecture that 90% of north Africans have sub Saharan DNA on the x chromosome I.e. from the fathers line and European on the mothers line I.e. x chromosome. Why would that be? Again, slavery. Whites were brought into north Africa by the millions, especially from 700 a.d. To about 1700 a.d. A good book to read about this is "Muslim Masters, Christian Slaves" by Dr. Davis. This professor is white, so no need for anyone to cry "Afrocentrism" as if they actually know what that word means to begin with. In the book I just named, he only looks at 1400 to 1600 if I remember right. That is a small time span, when you consider moors were in Spain in 700 a.d. So he doesn't look at the entire picture. But just in that two year span he said a million plus whites were sold into slavery in north Africa. And again that had been going on since 700 a.d. So think about this. If its a million Europeans every two hundred years, that's 3.5 million give or take. Many of these were white women being sold as cucubines. Think on the fact that Africans generally have large families. All that is enough to change the face of any area. These supposed Arabs and supposed white Berbers in north Africa are really just descendants of these slaves and their African masters. This is long before any black man was taken as a slave to the new world.

I assume,it was Africans, Europeans got this sorta system or idea from. But my point is, these whites and mixed groups in north Africa are not indigenous to Africa. And they aren't Arabs and not true Berbers (which were and still are black Africans.). Just look up Keita's latest lecture at chapel hill, he talks about the modern DNA,you will see. Oh and also your right, the oldest kingdom in Africa and the world was in northern Sudan, not Egypt. A Swedish archeologist found it. Also remember this, not even 90% of Africa has been excavated, so who knows what else we don't know about.
Shouldn't this forum has some kind of quack filter? This is unbearable.
 
Old 09-17-2012, 02:09 AM
 
219 posts, read 693,962 times
Reputation: 153
Wildstyle I totally agree with you on Keita. I watched his lecture and Kittles. His new theory that the modern day white North Africans "could have" evolved in Africa seems to just that a theory. Given the history of the region as you've stated it makes absolutely no sense to argue against the fact that the region has absorbed these foreigners through numerous points throughout history, and that this is the reason for the extreme difference in phenotypes that it has from points south.

Noworneveragain.....You're classicist ideology on ancient Egypt has been refuted. They were black and came from the points south. Your racist Coptic friends are not a good representative of their core indigenous Egyptian ancestors, so says consistent biological research.
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.


Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, 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, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top