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 09-17-2012, 06:39 AM
 
264 posts, read 218,690 times
Reputation: 108

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Unbreakable View Post
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.
The value if your research matches sophistication of Nigerian email scams and does not explain how Nubia created advanced culture in the north while sub-sahara did not know the wheel.

 
Old 09-17-2012, 08:17 AM
 
14,777 posts, read 34,507,040 times
Reputation: 14278
Unbreakable,

I know from before that it is not really worth debating this with you for two reasons:

1. I am not nearly as well versed or interested in this subject as you are to continue to present anything that is simply not counter experts to your experts with little of my own thought added in.

2. You are on a mission to prove something and are absolutely convinced in your beliefs and truths. I am far more malleable in that the particular topic of the race of ancient Egpytians is not something I spend my nights pondering.

I think you have presented good evidence that the ancient Egpytians are an indigenous African population, of course, I never really debated that point. Where I draw the line is in the assumption of skin color which is something that simply cannot be proven for sure. Obviously we can assume that the ancient Egyptians had a wide variety of skin tones and most of them would be dark given the climate. My hangup tends to be that I have some exposure to Afrocentric professors and students over the years. I tend to be very defensive of these topics (and should most likely just ignore them) because of many of the more exaggerated claims made by Afrocentric authors and there are many. In your defense, you are not necessarily making the exaggerated claims in these posts. However, your rhetoric and style mirrors many of the more militant people I have heard on these topics.

With that said, I guess consider this my acquiescence, there remains a few questions that I have. Before I ask them understand that I:

a) Accept that the ancient Egyptains were an indigenous African peoples.
b) They featured a wide array of physical diversity as is typical for Africa including skin tone.

I don't think that "a and b" necessarily show an evolution of my position. My arguments with you have basically been centered around the absolute authority and conviction for which you push the absolute certainty that ancient Egpytians were "black" and I feel as if you are using the term "black African" to denote something that there is not universal agreement on in the scientific community.

My questions...

1. Almost all modern sources point to the fact that the ancient Egyptians were an indigenous African people. However, almost all of them also avoid the topic of "race" in terms of physical features. I have seen many articles where it is not just that they wish to avoid applying a modern social construct to the topic, but that they basically state we have no way to know for sure other then guessing that they most likely featured a variety of physical features as would be common for an African society. Why, in light of those kinds of statements, are you so convinced and insistent on stating with absolute certainty that they were "black" along the modern meaning of that term?

2. Building on the first, do you accept the possibility that not all ancient Egyptians would have necessarily possessed skin pigmentation or features that we would classify as "black" in a modern social context? That seems to be the question that most divides modern researchers who even want to discuss race. If that totality was so proven, I would have expected there to be less of a division on that question.

3. I understand the reason for exploring this in terms of a response to a "Eurocentric" viewpoint (which I think you have mistakenly taken to be my position), but ultimately what are we to gain through this realization? It is obvious that the Egpytians did not share our modern view on races. They viewed things as "Egyptian" and "not-Egyptian", what do we gain in terms of understanding ancient Egypt by attempting to fit their physical appearance into a modern classification?

4. Is the modern standpoint of a racially neutral exploration of ancient peoples not the better way to go? If so, why are you so intent on focusing on the "blackness" and not just the fact that they are an indigenous African people/civilization? Considering that is the position of almost all modern researchers, why is that not the best approach instead of getting muddled into the debate over physical appearance?

5. They were "black" originally and for most of the "glory days" and slowly added greater diversity over the millenia eventually ending with "foreign" domination. I think I can agree to that using my own understanding of what Diop would have considered "black". Moving past that issue now, what does that do for us? What does acknowledging that they were "black Africans" do for our understanding of who they were or their role in shaping the past? What does this do for modern blacks in terms of understanding? Why is achieving the acknolwedgement of the "blackness" of ancient Egypt such an important thing for some people, you included?
 
Old 09-17-2012, 09:56 AM
 
Location: America
6,979 posts, read 15,132,804 times
Reputation: 2059
Quote:
Originally Posted by noworneveragain View Post
Shouldn't this forum has some kind of quack filter? This is unbearable.
right,

So first up, Geneticist Shomarka Omar Keita, who works for the Smithsonian institute. Now before anyone wants to use big words that they don't know the meaning of, such as Afrocentrism lets be clear. This man has better credentials than you or anyone else on this forum. Also his publications must be peer reviewed before they will be published.

Anyway, in the video below he says that 90% of north africans have subsaharan DNA on the Y chromosome (through the fathers line) and European on the Mothers line or X Chromosome and he also talks about white slaves being brought into Africa:


Dr. Shomarka Keita - YouTube

So, if these mixed groups in North Africa are not Arabs and they aren't berber, but a mixed group of black africans and white european peoples, we clearly see it was the meeting of two groups of people that caused this. So the discussion then becomes, what circumstances brought these two groups together? We know that millions of whites were brought into north africa over CENTURIES as slaves.

First up is the Book "Christian Slaves, Muslim Masters" by Robert C. Davis link

Here is another article on the subject

link


I should add Robert C. Davis is white by the way, so again the usual eurocentric "but but he is black" tactic wont work here.

The fact of the matter is, berbers were and are black. those white and tan berbers are the result of black africans mixing with slaves (European ones). You are also going to have to get your mind around the fact that AFricans colonized and enslaved Europeans, LONG before they ever put a toe in AFrica to attempt to do the same. Once you start reading and learning history, you are going to learn that nothing is static. One minute you are on top, and the next you are on the bottom. Africa was once the center of the world in terms of political power. This was true in Kush *the oldest kingdom in the world*

Video of swiss archeologist who discovered the oldest kingdom in Africa so far, YES older than egypt, that was in Kush or northern Sudan


Nubia: The black kingdoms of the Nile 6#6 - YouTube

You should also look into Ta-seti, which was a kingdom located in Qustul, a city in Northern Sudan, which is the oldest found hieroglyphics in Africa, which means the Egyptians got it from northern Sudan

Here is a good video on the moors:


When the Moors (Muslims) Ruled Europe: Documentary (full) - YouTube

If you are interested in who the Moors were, you can look up groups like the Zenaga/Sinhaja, Lamtuna, Masmuda and Dgedula

This is a video on silversmiths amongst the Tamasheq/Toureg Amazigh people. Amazigh is what berbers call themselves. Anyway you can see the video here

Stanford News Video: Tuareg silversmiths bring Cantor Arts Center exhibit to life

^^

That is what original berbers look like.

I should add though, even to this day North Africa is still about 50% or more black.

So next time, instead of trying to belittle people on topics you have absolutely no knowledge of, other than what some supposed coptic friend told you (Coptic are not even from Egypt originally), you should try to silence your ignorance by reading books and doing research. Then we can engage in meaningful discussions.

I should add that people get confused about Moors. Just because they spoke Arabic, people think that means they were arab. That is not the case. Arabic is the liturgical language of Islam. Arabic would be the common language of all Muslims who are not of the same ethnic background. so if you have a army that are all muslims (educated muslims), they are going to know arabic. So you standardize on that language. We see the same thing happen in The Malian empire in west Africa. You can learn about that here in the documentary called "the lost libraries of Timbuktu"


The Lost Libraries of Timbuktu 1 of 5 - BBC Travel Documentary - YouTube part 1


The Lost Libraries of Timbuktu 2 of 5 - BBC Travel Documentary - YouTube part 2


The Lost Libraries of Timbuktu 3 of 5 - BBC Travel Documentary - YouTube part 3


The Lost Libraries of Timbuktu 4 of 5 - BBC Travel Documentary - YouTube part 4


The Lost Libraries of Timbuktu 5 of 5 - BBC Travel Documentary - YouTube part 5
 
Old 09-17-2012, 09:58 AM
 
219 posts, read 693,962 times
Reputation: 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by noworneveragain View Post
The value if your research matches sophistication of Nigerian email scams and does not explain how Nubia created advanced culture in the north while sub-sahara did not know the wheel.
So deny that the ancient Egyptians were black because you have an ignorance of true African history, and from that believe that black Africans are intellectually inferior? I'm not even going to get into the hypocrisy of this accusation coming from someone of Western European origins, but you're entitled to your ignorance.
 
Old 09-17-2012, 10:00 AM
 
Location: America
6,979 posts, read 15,132,804 times
Reputation: 2059
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT View Post
Unbreakable,

I know from before that it is not really worth debating this with you for two reasons:

1. I am not nearly as well versed or interested in this subject as you are to continue to present anything that is simply not counter experts to your experts with little of my own thought added in.

2. You are on a mission to prove something and are absolutely convinced in your beliefs and truths. I am far more malleable in that the particular topic of the race of ancient Egpytians is not something I spend my nights pondering.

I think you have presented good evidence that the ancient Egpytians are an indigenous African population, of course, I never really debated that point. Where I draw the line is in the assumption of skin color which is something that simply cannot be proven for sure. Obviously we can assume that the ancient Egyptians had a wide variety of skin tones and most of them would be dark given the climate. My hangup tends to be that I have some exposure to Afrocentric professors and students over the years. I tend to be very defensive of these topics (and should most likely just ignore them) because of many of the more exaggerated claims made by Afrocentric authors and there are many. In your defense, you are not necessarily making the exaggerated claims in these posts. However, your rhetoric and style mirrors many of the more militant people I have heard on these topics.

With that said, I guess consider this my acquiescence, there remains a few questions that I have. Before I ask them understand that I:

a) Accept that the ancient Egyptains were an indigenous African peoples.
b) They featured a wide array of physical diversity as is typical for Africa including skin tone.

I don't think that "a and b" necessarily show an evolution of my position. My arguments with you have basically been centered around the absolute authority and conviction for which you push the absolute certainty that ancient Egpytians were "black" and I feel as if you are using the term "black African" to denote something that there is not universal agreement on in the scientific community.

My questions...

1. Almost all modern sources point to the fact that the ancient Egyptians were an indigenous African people. However, almost all of them also avoid the topic of "race" in terms of physical features. I have seen many articles where it is not just that they wish to avoid applying a modern social construct to the topic, but that they basically state we have no way to know for sure other then guessing that they most likely featured a variety of physical features as would be common for an African society. Why, in light of those kinds of statements, are you so convinced and insistent on stating with absolute certainty that they were "black" along the modern meaning of that term?

2. Building on the first, do you accept the possibility that not all ancient Egyptians would have necessarily possessed skin pigmentation or features that we would classify as "black" in a modern social context? That seems to be the question that most divides modern researchers who even want to discuss race. If that totality was so proven, I would have expected there to be less of a division on that question.

3. I understand the reason for exploring this in terms of a response to a "Eurocentric" viewpoint (which I think you have mistakenly taken to be my position), but ultimately what are we to gain through this realization? It is obvious that the Egpytians did not share our modern view on races. They viewed things as "Egyptian" and "not-Egyptian", what do we gain in terms of understanding ancient Egypt by attempting to fit their physical appearance into a modern classification?

4. Is the modern standpoint of a racially neutral exploration of ancient peoples not the better way to go? If so, why are you so intent on focusing on the "blackness" and not just the fact that they are an indigenous African people/civilization? Considering that is the position of almost all modern researchers, why is that not the best approach instead of getting muddled into the debate over physical appearance?

5. They were "black" originally and for most of the "glory days" and slowly added greater diversity over the millenia eventually ending with "foreign" domination. I think I can agree to that using my own understanding of what Diop would have considered "black". Moving past that issue now, what does that do for us? What does acknowledging that they were "black Africans" do for our understanding of who they were or their role in shaping the past? What does this do for modern blacks in terms of understanding? Why is achieving the acknolwedgement of the "blackness" of ancient Egypt such an important thing for some people, you included?
You said you didn't know alot about the subject in point 2 I think and you should have stopped typing there. As everything else is conjecture based off of ignorance. We can know how the ancient egyptians looked, now the question is how, right? Well one they painted themselves as black men and women, you go there and you see the paintings, its very self evident. 2. Their cranial structure is inline with sub saharan africans and lastly eye witness accounts. You have classical historians like Herodotus and Strabo that classified them as "ethiops". Both of whom were in Egypt in ancient times and saw what the population looked like. The term Ethiop is what Greeks termed black people, it means a person whose skin is burned. As a side note, they also said the persians were about half ethiops (to this day Iran is about half black or so) and they classified Phoenicians as Ethiops as well, but thats for another discussion.

You claim to be flexible in your belief yet in the face of evidence that is irrefutable you come back with your conjectures based on mythical beliefs. Educate yourself on a topic first THEN form a educated opinion. Thats the best way to approach a subject. Or as you said you don't stay up nights worrying yourself on a topic, which if that were true then why such a long, drawn out post based on nothing more than imagination?
 
Old 09-17-2012, 11:03 AM
 
14,777 posts, read 34,507,040 times
Reputation: 14278
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Style View Post
You said you didn't know alot about the subject in point 2 I think and you should have stopped typing there. As everything else is conjecture based off of ignorance.
I am not dealing in conjecture and ignorance, because there obviously remains much debate over this topic in the scholarly world.

Quote:
We can know how the ancient egyptians looked, now the question is how, right? Well one they painted themselves as black men and women, you go there and you see the paintings, its very self evident.
Did they really? Based on what evidence? Everything I have ever read says that the art was stylized and that for the most part Egyptians painted themselves as a "brown" color. Here we have an image from the tomb of Seti I:


From left to right we have: Libyan, Nubian, Asiatic, Egyptian

To quote Basil Davidson:
Quote:
Whether the Ancient Egyptians were as black or as brown in skin color as other Africans may remain an issue of emotive dispute; probably, they were both. Their own artistic conventions painted them as pink, but pictures on their tombs show they often married queens shown as entirely black, being from the south.
So, we have documented evidence that show both expressions. Perhaps they were merely showing themselves as being different, the point being one cannot draw a universal conclusion out of Egyptian art which is well known to be stylized.

Quote:
2. Their cranial structure is inline with sub saharan africans...
Yes, it is. The further south you go in Egypt the more Sub-Saharan influence you see. All this proves is that they were/are related to peoples from the Horn of Africa. The bloodtyping tells the same story. There is no argument on this.

Quote:
...and lastly eye witness accounts. You have classical historians like Herodotus and Strabo that classified them as "ethiops". Both of whom were in Egypt in ancient times and saw what the population looked like. The term Ethiop is what Greeks termed black people, it means a person whose skin is burned. As a side note, they also said the persians were about half ethiops (to this day Iran is about half black or so) and they classified Phoenicians as Ethiops as well, but thats for another discussion.
You are incorrect, the classical authors, specifically Herodotus did not include the Egyptians in the "Aithiops" group. Simson Najovits disagrees heavily over the translations of the Greek words as presented by Diop. In his book Egypt, Trunk of the Tree Najovits explores the translation of the word, "melanchroes". Diop and others translate this as "black". Najovits, Goldey and Lloyd assert that the correct translation is "dark-skinned". Najovits goes on to clarify what the Greek writers meant:

Quote:
[Herodotus] made clear ethnic and national distinctions between Aigyptios (Egyptians) and the peoples whom the Greeks referred to as Aithiops (Ethiopians) ... the term Aithiops became the standard Greek designation for the black peoples whom they designated as "scorched faces".

For ancient Greek writers, the Nubians were Aithiops, "Ethiopians", as were the black African peoples. This designation excluded the Egyptians. The very use of the two standard terms – Aigyptios and Aithiops – and their etymological meanings already indicated an essential difference in the Greek perception.
So, there is ambiguity in the translation and meaning of the Greek words. There also remains the fact that the Greeks drew clear distinctions between Egyptians and others as did the Egyptians themselves.

Quote:
You claim to be flexible in your belief yet in the face of evidence that is irrefutable you come back with your conjectures based on mythical beliefs.
What irrefutable evidence has been presented? Everything presented is still listed as "theory" and has its professional Egyptologist detractors. Of course, you would paint those destractors in a very negative light. Also, what "mythical beliefs" have I put forward?

Quote:
Educate yourself on a topic first THEN form a educated opinion. Thats the best way to approach a subject. Or as you said you don't stay up nights worrying yourself on a topic, which if that were true then why such a long, drawn out post based on nothing more than imagination?
What imagination did I include in my post? The fact that we are having this conversation means that there are still some questions going on here in the academic world. I am not completely ignorant to these matters and have had classes on this topic before, from both perspectives. I have already pretty much acknowledged the entire crux of your and Unbreakable's argument in so much as it relates to the Egyptians. I acknowledged that they are an indigenous African people. I acknowledged that I can agree to call them black based on Diop's model. I don't necessarily agree with the definition of "black" you guys are implying, but that is basically a pointless argument anyway.

My position throughout all of these debates has been that the race of the ancient Egyptians really doesn't matter in that it forwards no greater understanding of them if they were black as coal or white as snow. Knowing what they looked like is interesting, but as we are seeing it is, to steal a quote, "something of emotive dispute". If the world of academia has moved beyond the petty appellations of race in terms of the Egpytians and everyone agrees they were an inter-African group/civilization...then why does it matter so much to YOU to prove that they were, "black" along the modern definition of the term?

If it can be conclusively proven that they were "black" what does that mean? What does this knowledge do for us? What does it do for you?

Ignore anything else I posted regarding art, craniums and Greek word definitions. I'm sure you already have responses that disprove anything I posted. Focus on the last couple of questions, those are the ones I really want to hear the answers to. Assume that I am no longer debating or questioning that they are "black Africans" accoridng to what ever definition you want to apply to that term. What am I supposed to do with this knowledge? What does that change? Why does it matter?
 
Old 09-17-2012, 11:13 AM
 
219 posts, read 693,962 times
Reputation: 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT View Post
Where I draw the line is in the assumption of skin color which is something that simply cannot be proven for sure.
This is what I have a problem with. What do you think that a tropically adapted indigenous African population from the south, with "Negroid" skeletal morphologies would have had if not variations of black skin like everyone else from the regions in which they came? Ecological principal tells us this indicates that these people had "dark skin" (keeping it scientific). What do we call indigenous dark skinned Africans (brown-black), if not black?

Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT View Post
Obviously we can assume that the ancient Egyptians had a wide variety of skin tones and most of them would be dark given the climate.
What evidence leads you to believe that they had a wide variety of skin tones which were not variations of that which is seen in tropically adapted African populations? Show me the biological research that convinces you so much about the presence of a significant number of non black people in early ancient Egypt.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT View Post
In your defense, you are not necessarily making the exaggerated claims in these posts. However, your rhetoric and style mirrors many of the more militant people I have heard on these topics.
"Militant"? So what do you think is the cause of this "militant" attitude that you believe characterizes people who advocate this fact? Could it be European ignorance and arrogance when it comes to subject of history when it comes to this subject and like subject? Do you not want to acknowledge that opposition to the fact that the ancient Egyptians were black, is borne out of nothing more than colonial racism?

Quote:
There has long been a discussion about the origins of the inhabitants of the ancient northem Nile valley. Probably for many reasons the discussion has focused on the “Africanity” of the ancient “Egyptian” populations. “Africanity” has been frequently inappropriately defined. Specifically, there has been a question about the degree or presence of “Negro” influence (e.g., Diop 1974; Robertson 1978; Robertson and Bradley 1979; Bemal 1987). “Negro” has been used to mean different things. Frequently earlier writers displayed a bias against “Negroes,” “Blacks,” and “Africans,” although the terms have been used in many ways—consistency has not been a strong point.
Many would deny that prejudice had any role in the extreme concem about the “origins” of the Egyptians, but Morton’s comments at least are clear: “...civilization...could not spring from Negroes, or from Berbers and never did. . .” (quoted in Nott and Gliddon 1854).
“Berbers” in this instance probably means Nubian. On the other hand Gilman (1982) reports the strong esthetic bias of Winckelmann, an eighteenth-century scholar, against Egyptians be-
cause of their phenotypic “blackness.”
Thomson and Randall-Maclver (1905:110) noted the prejudice in the early twentieth century.
link

Tell me where do you think that ignorance from the likes of noworneveragain (poster above) comes from? The opposition to the ancient Egyptians being black is nothing more than a blind (in most cases) continuation of this type of rhetoric, not objective contemporary scholarship.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT View Post
My arguments with you have basically been centered around the absolute authority and conviction for which you push the absolute certainty that ancient Egpytians were "black"
Are the scholars at Oxford, Manchester, Fitzwilliam, Cambridge, Yale, Britannica, ect somehow not authorities? These sources as you have been presented with all agree that the ancient Egyptians were black Africans. They are convinced with the sufficient amount of biological evidence (some which I've posted) clearly indicates that the ancient Egyptians were black peoples who came from the south and west. Tell me why on Earth would I put their conclusions to the side to entertain the contrarian prejudice that mars much of Western society on this subject? What you and people who have contrary opinions on this subject offer, in support of your alternate theories?

Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT View Post
and I feel as if you are using the term "black African" to denote something that there is not universal agreement on in the scientific community.
This has been thoroughly explained to you already in my last post and the one before that and the ones before that (in the last thread).

Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT View Post
1. Almost all modern sources point to the fact that the ancient Egyptians were an indigenous African people. However, almost all of them also avoid the topic of "race" in terms of physical features. I have seen many articles where it is not just that they wish to avoid applying a modern social construct to the topic, but that they basically state we have no way to know for sure other then guessing that they most likely featured a variety of physical features as would be common for an African society. Why, in light of those kinds of statements, are you so convinced and insistent on stating with absolute certainty that they were "black" along the modern meaning of that term?
Such as? Are people who you are recollecting authorities in the field? Are they bio-anthropologist, whose own work they have referenced to conclude that a general phenotype is indecisive? Are they speaking on behalf of objective scholarship or on behalf of classicist ideology? Please give examples of these scholars, rather than assuming that everyone knows who your talking about.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT View Post
2. Building on the first, do you accept the possibility that not all ancient Egyptians would have necessarily possessed skin pigmentation or features that we would classify as "black" in a modern social context?
Of course there were people who were not "black" or of African origins in ancient Egypt. Hell I speculate that there were small pockets of people from the Near East in Pre-Dynastic Lower Egypt (and visa versa) as a result of trade with the Africans of that region. The biological evidence however finds that the Pre-Dynastic and earliest Dynastic ancient Egyptians, were of continuous local (Sudanese) African origin:

Quote:
Previous analyses of cranial variation found the Badari and Early Predynastic Egyptians to be more similar to other African groups than to Mediterranean or European populations (Keita, 1990; Zakrzewski, 2002). In addition, the Badarians have been described as near the centroid of cranial and dental variation among Predynastic and Dynastic populations studied (Irish, 2006; Zakrzewski, 2007). This suggests that, at least through the Early Dynastic period, the inhabitants of the Nile valley were a continuous population of local origin, and no major migration or replacement events occurred during this time.-- AP Starling, JT Stock. (2007). Dental Indicators of Health and Stress in Early Egyptian and Nubian Agriculturalists: A Difficult Transition and Gradual Recovery. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 134:520–528
This suggest that the population was basically entirely black (or damn near imo) during earliest periods. Keita and other researchers however note that early in Dynastic Egyptian history small scale migration from the Levant as a result of trade is found. but none the less the general Egyptian populace remained of that same local Northeast African biological affinity (black) all the way up until points in the New Kingdom.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT View Post
3. I understand the reason for exploring this in terms of a response to a "Eurocentric" viewpoint (which I think you have mistakenly taken to be my position), but ultimately what are we to gain through this realization?
THE TRUTH? Is that somehow not important? As I've stated if Caesar or Herodotus were consistently portrayed on the National Geographic or History Channel as non white Semites indicating that they were Middle Eastern white people across the Western world would throw a fit. Teams of the top biologist would be assembled to dismantle such a lie. The blatant stealing and mislabeling of real black African history is now called out for the racism that it was and still continues to be in some popular media outlets.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT View Post
It is obvious that the Egpytians did not share our modern view on races. They viewed things as "Egyptian" and "not-Egyptian", what do we gain in terms of understanding ancient Egypt by attempting to fit their physical appearance into a modern classification?
Do you know how many books and documentaries have called the 25th Dynasty of ancient Egypt the "BLACK pharaohs" because they were of recent Nubian origins? Here's one:



So long as the label "black" is limited to one short period in Egyptian history, from liberal sentiments there is no issue with modern label being attached. That is hypocrisy! They tried to throw us a bone and expected us to run with. Instead their blog blew up with criticism here and here and this will also be addressed by one scholar who is invited to speak at the next Egyptology conference in Greece this year (summoned once every 4 years).

Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT View Post
If so, why are you so intent on focusing on the "blackness" and not just the fact that they are an indigenous African people/civilization?
Because they were black Africans, and this fact has been suppressed throughout the history of Egyptology for racist reasons!That's a silly question. Why can't you just accept that your notions of African history stem from nothing more than racism of the colonial era, not objective sound scholars?

Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT View Post
5. They were "black" originally and for most of the "glory days" and slowly added greater diversity over the millenia eventually ending with "foreign" domination. I think I can agree to that using my own understanding of what Diop would have considered "black".


Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT View Post
Moving past that issue now, what does that do for us? What does acknowledging that they were "black Africans" do for our understanding of who they were or their role in shaping the past? What does this do for modern blacks in terms of understanding? Why is achieving the acknolwedgement of the "blackness" of ancient Egypt such an important thing for some people, you included?
****....Just tell the damn truth and stop trying to suppress it. That's our point! Your question is again only asking WHY does the TRUTH matter? Never mind that fact that it has been suppressed for centuries due to the anti-black prejudice marring our society. Do you know how ridiculous that sounds...seriously?
 
Old 09-17-2012, 11:38 AM
 
219 posts, read 693,962 times
Reputation: 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT View Post
I am not dealing in conjecture and ignorance, because there obviously remains much debate over this topic in the scholarly world.
There is no longer a debate about what they looked like. It has not in it's present day come down to rather or not people who have always adhered to the classicist views of ancient Egypt will accept what the consistent, objective contemporary research has concluded on the matter. To the logical one's it has already been accepted, but the hold outs are still vast in number (and no I'm not talking about scholars).

Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT View Post
Did they really? Based on what evidence? Everything I have ever read says that the art was stylized and that for the most part Egyptians painted themselves as a "brown" color. Here we have an image from the tomb of Seti I:
Here's another from the tomb Ramses III





The Egyptian is labeled on the first on the left. This is yet another example of the contrast in their highly styled art, which is why it is not a reliable indicator of a population's biological affinities.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT View Post
You are incorrect, the classical authors, specifically Herodotus did not include the Egyptians in the "Aithiops" group.
That's actually incorrect. The ancient Greeks while not bio-anthropologist and relative late comers in Dynastic Egypt were advocates that the ancient Egyptians were black peoples who were originally a colony of Ethiopia (Greek word for Sudan), as both nation's history preached. Here are the words from the Fitzwilliam on their testimony:

Quote:
There are many links between ancient Egyptian and modern African culture, ranging from objects such as headrests to hairstyles such as the side lock, and this and other evidence support the idea that it was an African culture in addition to being geographically in Africa. For these reasons Egypt is seen by people of African descent as part of their cultural heritage and history. The concept of Egypt as part of Africa is not a new one. Some of the earliest travellers to Egypt came from the ancient cultures of Greece and Rome, including Greek philosophers, mathematicians, scientists, writers and poets who came to learn from the priests. To the Greeks and Romans, Egypt was an African country, and their artists depicted the Egyptians as Africans, with black skin and tightly curled hair, described by the Greek historian Herodotos in the fifth century BC as 'woolly'.
Fitzwilliam

Your source that you cited earlier Basil Davidson also adhere's to the fact that the ancient Greeks also firmly believed that the ancient Egyptians were black peoples from the south:


Origin of the ancient Egyptians - YouTube

Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT View Post
What irrefutable evidence has been presented? Everything presented is still listed as "theory" and has its professional Egyptologist detractors
Consistent biological evidence and their contextualization by reputed scholars is likely the "irrefutable" evidence that Wild Style is referring to.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT View Post
I acknowledged that I can agree to call them black based on Diop's model. I don't necessarily agree with the definition of "black" you guys are implying, but that is basically a pointless argument anyway.
What specific type of black African do you think that the ancient Egyptians most closely resembled and what biological evidence can you produce to support your claim?
 
Old 09-17-2012, 01:23 PM
 
14,777 posts, read 34,507,040 times
Reputation: 14278
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Unbreakable View Post
There is no longer a debate about what they looked like. It has not in it's present day come down to rather or not people who have always adhered to the classicist views of ancient Egypt will accept what the consistent, objective contemporary research has concluded on the matter. To the logical one's it has already been accepted, but the hold outs are still vast in number (and no I'm not talking about scholars).
SOY Keita in 2008..."There is no scientific reason to believe that the primary ancestors of the Egyptian population emerged and evolved outside of northeast Africa.... The basic overall genetic profile of the modern population is consistent with the diversity of ancient populations that would have been indigenous to northeastern Africa and subject to the range of evolutionary influences over time, although researchers vary in the details of their explanations of those influences."

Like I have been saying there is still some debate over exactly what they looked like. I agreed to Diops definition of including Egyptians into the "pantheon of black races", that however, does not mean that they were entirely Sub-Saharan in appearance. This is what remains debatable and has never been conclusively proven one way or the other. I understand your evidence and insistence on the matter and appreciate your passion, but this question of exactly what they looked like does remain open.

That understanding does not diminish the fact they were an African civilization and many of them, including the rulers were what we would called "black".

Quote:
Here's another from the tomb Ramses III

The Egyptian is labeled on the first on the left. This is yet another example of the contrast in their highly styled art, which is why it is not a reliable indicator of a population's biological affinities.
That's the infamous "plate 48", correct? That image was published by Kurth Sethe in 1913 from the notes of Richard Lepsius and never appeared in the first published work. Manu Ampim claims this plate as evidence that there is a "conspiracy" to "white wash" Egypt while simultaneously acknowledging that no other "Table of Nations" in any tomb shows a similar image. Frank Yurco pointed out that the "plate 48" is basically a 'pastiche' of Lepsius' notes and incorrectly labels the figure shown as Egpytian. Later exploration and updated photographs by Erik Hornung of the actual tomb purportedly support Yurco. However, Ampim still claims that version of "plate 48" to be authentic and accused both Yurco and Hornung of trying to obfiscate the truth and presented his own evidence.

Regardless, you are simply affirming what I said to Wild Style. Their art doesn't really mean anything.


Quote:
That's actually incorrect. The ancient Greeks while not bio-anthropologist and relative late comers in Dynastic Egypt were advocates that the ancient Egyptians were black peoples who were originally a colony of Ethiopia (Greek word for Sudan), as both nation's history preached. Here are the words from the Fitzwilliam on their testimony:

Your source that you cited earlier Basil Davidson also adhere's to the fact that the ancient Greeks also firmly believed that the ancient Egyptians were black peoples from the south:
I already presented the source that counters that assertion, Najovits and Snowden. Perhaps like the accusations against Yurco and Hornung, they are simply trying to mislead people, but then I need to ask why? Why would these modern researchers be clinging to old racial stereotypes, what purpose does it serve?

Quote:
What specific type of black African do you think that the ancient Egyptians most closely resembled and what biological evidence can you produce to support your claim?
I don't know, but either do you, at least conclusively. Regradless they were African and would have been considered a "black race" even if they didn't necessarily meet the distorted Sub-Saharn definition of black.

Quote:
"Militant"? So what do you think is the cause of this "militant" attitude that you believe characterizes people who advocate this fact? Could it be European ignorance and arrogance when it comes to subject of history when it comes to this subject and like subject? Do you not want to acknowledge that opposition to the fact that the ancient Egyptians were black, is borne out of nothing more than colonial racism?
I think the colonial racism was responsible for attempting to place Egypt as a white/Caucasoid civilization. I don't know what the supposed reason behond continuing such a lie would be. Obviously there are researchers that don't share all of the views that you and your sources do. Why is that?

Quote:
Of course there were people who were not "black" or of African origins in ancient Egypt. Hell I speculate that there were small pockets of people from the Near East in Pre-Dynastic Lower Egypt (and visa versa) as a result of trade with the Africans of that region. The biological evidence however finds that the Pre-Dynastic and earliest Dynastic ancient Egyptians, were of continuous local (Sudanese) African origin:

This suggest that the population was basically entirely black (or damn near imo) during earliest periods. Keita and other researchers however note that early in Dynastic Egyptian history small scale migration from the Levant as a result of trade is found. but none the less the general Egyptian populace remained of that same local Northeast African biological affinity (black) all the way up until points in the New Kingdom.
Why doesn't Keita simply just state they are black. Why all the dancing around with "Northeast African biological affinity"?

Quote:
THE TRUTH? Is that somehow not important? As I've stated if Caesar or Herodotus were consistently portrayed on the National Geographic or History Channel as non white Semites indicating that they were Middle Eastern white people across the Western world would throw a fit. Teams of the top biologist would be assembled to dismantle such a lie. The blatant stealing and mislabeling of real black African history is now called out for the racism that it was and still continues to be in some popular media outlets.
Of course the truth is important. However, why in 2012 are people still attempting to "rob" African history and legacy?

Quote:
So long as the label "black" is limited to one short period in Egyptian history, from liberal sentiments there is no issue with modern label being attached. That is hypocrisy! They tried to throw us a bone and expected us to run with. Instead their blog blew up with criticism here and here and this will also be addressed by one scholar who is invited to speak at the next Egyptology conference in Greece this year (summoned once every 4 years).
I assume "they" and "their" refers to National Geographic. Why does NG have an apparently vested interest on obfiscating the facts that you show to be so 'irrefutable'?

Quote:
Because they were black Africans, and this fact has been suppressed throughout the history of Egyptology for racist reasons!That's a silly question. Why can't you just accept that your notions of African history stem from nothing more than racism of the colonial era, not objective sound scholars?
Why can't you accept that perhaps I am not viewing ancient Egypt through a modern racial lens and simply consider the ancient Egyptians the ancient Egyptians?

Quote:
****....Just tell the damn truth and stop trying to suppress it. That's our point! Your question is again only asking WHY does the TRUTH matter? Never mind that fact that it has been suppressed for centuries due to the anti-black prejudice marring our society. Do you know how ridiculous that sounds...seriously?
What's the point of suppressing it? I really fail to see what the continuing suppression of the racial properties of ancient Egypt would accomplish. You DON'T need to give me a history lesson on why the Eurocentric view came into existence. I really do understand that aspect of it. What I fail to grasp is why does that same view continue to be held today if the evidence is so clear? Who is really gaining anything by suppressing this apparent fact?

To further that, what is gained in terms of modern blacks through such a realization? Clarence Walker, an African American professor of history at UC Davis had this to say on the topic...

Quote:
"Afrocentrism is a mythology that is racist, reactionary, and essentially therapeutic. It suggests that nothing important has happened in black history since the time of the pharaohs and thus trivializes the history of black Americans. Afrocentrism places an emphasis on Egypt that is, to put it bluntly, absurd...I'm an old-fashioned intellectual critic. I don't like a lot of work being done in the field. No history should be presented as an exercise in celebration...What black people really need is a usable present, not a usable past."
So, to address Walker's critique, what is the import of the focus on Egypt? Why is that central to the dialogue of Afrocentrism? I get your argument of truth for the sake of truth, but I also don't feel as if you are seeking and sharing the truth without greater purpose. So, what is the greater purpose?
 
Old 09-17-2012, 03:11 PM
 
Location: America
6,979 posts, read 15,132,804 times
Reputation: 2059
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT View Post
I am not dealing in conjecture and ignorance, because there obviously remains much debate over this topic in the scholarly world.



Did they really? Based on what evidence? Everything I have ever read says that the art was stylized and that for the most part Egyptians painted themselves as a "brown" color. Here we have an image from the tomb of Seti I:


From left to right we have: Libyan, Nubian, Asiatic, Egyptian

To quote Basil Davidson:


So, we have documented evidence that show both expressions. Perhaps they were merely showing themselves as being different, the point being one cannot draw a universal conclusion out of Egyptian art which is well known to be stylized.



Yes, it is. The further south you go in Egypt the more Sub-Saharan influence you see. All this proves is that they were/are related to peoples from the Horn of Africa. The bloodtyping tells the same story. There is no argument on this.



You are incorrect, the classical authors, specifically Herodotus did not include the Egyptians in the "Aithiops" group. Simson Najovits disagrees heavily over the translations of the Greek words as presented by Diop. In his book Egypt, Trunk of the Tree Najovits explores the translation of the word, "melanchroes". Diop and others translate this as "black". Najovits, Goldey and Lloyd assert that the correct translation is "dark-skinned". Najovits goes on to clarify what the Greek writers meant:



So, there is ambiguity in the translation and meaning of the Greek words. There also remains the fact that the Greeks drew clear distinctions between Egyptians and others as did the Egyptians themselves.



What irrefutable evidence has been presented? Everything presented is still listed as "theory" and has its professional Egyptologist detractors. Of course, you would paint those destractors in a very negative light. Also, what "mythical beliefs" have I put forward?



What imagination did I include in my post? The fact that we are having this conversation means that there are still some questions going on here in the academic world. I am not completely ignorant to these matters and have had classes on this topic before, from both perspectives. I have already pretty much acknowledged the entire crux of your and Unbreakable's argument in so much as it relates to the Egyptians. I acknowledged that they are an indigenous African people. I acknowledged that I can agree to call them black based on Diop's model. I don't necessarily agree with the definition of "black" you guys are implying, but that is basically a pointless argument anyway.

My position throughout all of these debates has been that the race of the ancient Egyptians really doesn't matter in that it forwards no greater understanding of them if they were black as coal or white as snow. Knowing what they looked like is interesting, but as we are seeing it is, to steal a quote, "something of emotive dispute". If the world of academia has moved beyond the petty appellations of race in terms of the Egpytians and everyone agrees they were an inter-African group/civilization...then why does it matter so much to YOU to prove that they were, "black" along the modern definition of the term?

If it can be conclusively proven that they were "black" what does that mean? What does this knowledge do for us? What does it do for you?

Ignore anything else I posted regarding art, craniums and Greek word definitions. I'm sure you already have responses that disprove anything I posted. Focus on the last couple of questions, those are the ones I really want to hear the answers to. Assume that I am no longer debating or questioning that they are "black Africans" accoridng to what ever definition you want to apply to that term. What am I supposed to do with this knowledge? What does that change? Why does it matter?
A lot of problems with this post, where to begin. I am going to assume you haven't read the books you quoted, but instead have googled something to try and speak intelligently about a topic, one in which you clearly don't know or understand.

1. I have the book called the histories by Herodotus, do you? In it he used the word Aethiopis interchangeably to describe ancient egyptians and other peoples of black skin. So this isn't merely a issue of a supposed mistranslations of the word melanchroes. So nice try but again, educate yourself, THEN speak. I have read almost all of diops works, and in it he does discuss melanchroes but he also discusses the issue of the word AETHIOPIS! Ethiopia is not a African word, hence a african never used that word to describe himself in antiquity. That was a word used by Greeks to describe black skinned people. They used it to describe the Egyptians, Ku****es, Phoenicians, parts of the Persian army and a group of people that many presume lived in present day Georgia (which their descendants are still there and they are black skinned.). I should add present day "Ethiopia" only got that name in the 1960 or somewhere abouts in that time period. I have my theories on why they did that, but thats for another discussion. If you find old maps of Africa prior to say 1950 you will see that they called almost ALL of africa "Aethiopia" and what is present day Ethiopia was called Abssynia and in their language Amharic they called it Habasha. I say that to drive the point home that Aethiopis describes a black skinned person, regardless of the many shades that constitutes someone of the "black" ethnic groups. Just so we are clear, greeks are darker than Irishmen and Irishmen are lighter than Italians. Yet no one would be stupid enough to argue they arent all some form of white people deriving from Europe. These are just stupid arguments eurocentrist like to reserve for high cultures in Africa lol.

So now we put this silly topic to bed, lets look at your image of the people of the world that the egyptians mentioned. What you have presented is a reproduction of the original image here is the real image in Ramsis II tomb



^^

I don't think I need to say who the two blacks are lol

Anyway, if you knew anything about egypt you would know, they did use that reddish brown color for egyptians, they also used black, and they also used the same color schemes to show people to the south of them i.e. Ku****es, the people of punt and the people of yam. They presume punt and yam were in Somalia (punt) and they think Yam was probably in modern day Chad. They can not excavate Chad because of unrest where they think Yam could be. I should also mention, less than 90% of Africa has been excavated, so while Egypt is nice, it is a baby. Kush was much older than Egypt and the progenitor of Egypt. They had the temples first, the religion first and mtu ntr (the written language) first. Not that this matters, as because the oldest written language is in the Sahara and is proto Mande, but thats another topic. Anyway check out the images below



^^

Look black and red nubians, in the same color as the egyptians depicted themselves.

Another picture of the ancient egyptians harvesting



Notice the color variation from dark brown to black.

The ancient egyptians depicted themselves in no different terms than they did any other group of blacks in Africa.

As for the symbolic coloring argument. To an extent this is true, but that was generally applied to 1. women (which is how African art across the continent did and continues to do) and 2. the neteru or the divine principles such as Ra, Amun, Tehuti, Ausar (Osiris) etc. They would color those things with the green, and black etc. But for the average persons they showed them as they were. This argument is used by eurocentrist to try and muddy the waters. For example, do they carry the same theories to european civilizations? If not, then we can not take their arguments seriously and here is what i mean. Should we believe that paintings of romans, that they did of themsleves are symbolic and that they were really black? This theory has to go both ways. I mean never mind the romans and greeks painted and sculpted themselves with straight caucasion hair and caucasion skin (usually), they must have been black! Because no where else in europe do we get things like the parthanon or really great civilizations outside of greece and rome. However in Africa we have Kush (which is older than Egypt), Punt, Yam, and Egypt just to name a few of the civilizations Africans had. Where as europe only has two. So I think the Romans must have been black. Also to muddy the waters even further



And another



^^

Look romans using black to depict themselves, how do we explain this? They had to have been black africans.

See how silly the argument becomes? The Egyptian kingdom started in the south by the hands of King Namar. We know what Southern Egyptians look like, they are black africans. This is indisputable. We also know that through thousands of years of enslaving whites in the northern parts of the country, the people became mixed. Then we further add in the influence of greeks, romans, assyrians, etc coming into the northern parts of the country and that leads to the look that the north has today. But even with ALL that mixing, they still have sub saharan DNA on the fathers side. The argument is silly and you dont know enough about the subject to really successfully argue your point.

To further illustrate my point, Senefer



Notice the black skin and by black i don't mean literally black (for those who are slow), i mean any person painted today with that skin color and a AFRO, would be known as a African or someone of the African Diaspora, its not complicated.

Also King Amenhotep III



Let me guess his skin and afro are symbolic. He only wanted to be a black man but he was really white *rolls eyes*

Again you dont know enough to really have this conversation with and googling to try and argue your point wont cut it. You said it best in your other post, you dont know enough to really argue the point, so just leave it.

As for why its important,

1. I don't need to explain to you why its important to me, it doesn't matter. What matter is, we deal with reality, something you seem to be adverse too.

2. Umm you dont seem to understand how to interpret cultures. Once you determine who the people are, then you can start to explain cultural practices under the proper context.

For example you cant explain totemism of the ancient egyptians by european or Semitic culture because guess what, Europeans and Semitic people dont engage in totemism.


You cant explain the theology of ancient Egypt by way of semites or europeans either. The reason being is the Ancient Egyptian religious practices are akin to Ife in Nigeria, Dogon theology and most other traditional african religions. Once you take something out of context its meaning becomes misconstrued. Besides, if it wasn't such a important topic then all these eurocentric writers wouldn't fill volumes with the silliest arguments to try and fool readers that they know, are not well versed in the subject.

Case in point, a lot of eurocentric writers like to say the egyptians referred to the "nubians" as "wretched". Well yeah, but they also referred to every other political opponent they had on the planet by the SAME term. It wasn't reserved for just so called "nubians". A professor by the name of Mario Betty did a presentation in Greece on this topic, which showed that this has nothing to do with racial connotations, but is a socio-political term they they used for themselves, and for outside opponents. You can see what he spoke about here

part 1


Dr. Mario Beatty on the word /Xsy/ "wretched" Part I - YouTube

part 2


Dr. Mario Beatty on the word /Xsy/ "wretched" Part II - YouTube

So lets recap

1. you said you dont know enough about the topic and this is true
2. it doesn't matter why its important to me, what is important is we deal with facts to bring about an understanding of the truth
3. This is the last reply I will be giving to you, because this isn't a intelligent discussion. This is more of a, we give you facts and you throw back uneducated conjecture. There is no growth or meeting of the minds in such a pursuit.
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