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 09-18-2012, 06:19 PM
 
5,532 posts, read 5,718,279 times
Reputation: 3146

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Unbreakable View Post
Please pay attention, as I did not quote Nygoat in that response. It was another user.
Unbreakable, I think this goat comes from NJ, not NY....

Anyway, sorry for being a pain, but could you summarize the idea you promote in one or two sentences? (If you can't, just tell me and I will not bother you again...)
I am not sure that I, and many others, understand your opinions.
Thank you.

Last edited by oberon_1; 09-18-2012 at 07:47 PM..

 
Old 09-19-2012, 12:34 AM
 
219 posts, read 694,594 times
Reputation: 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT View Post
It's always uncalled for to place a label as harsh as racist upon someone simply for raising a contrarian view or asking a question or making a statement you are uncomfortable with.
No it's not. Honest questioning surrounding the doubts of our claims were displayed by "motion" early on in this thread. Contrarian opinions in my experience debating this subject only comes from racist/classicist. These people give no logical reasoning against the evidence as to why they are against the fact that the ancient Egyptians had a phenotype consistent with the black African folks further to the south, but they keep at it. Given the history of this subject and knowing how people in our society are when it comes to "race", it most certainly is NOT "uncalled for". It's calling a spade a spade.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT View Post
I don't agree with the tone that "noworneveragain" used, it was hostile, but he raises a point mentioned in the other thread that illicited the same response from you, racism.
The man basically stated that the ancient Egyptians could not have been black, because according to his ignorance of African history black Africans aside from the Egyptians and Nubians never invented the wheel:





^^ black Saharan rock art predating Nile Valley civilization showing chariots and Ox drawn plows, which is an example of his ignorance of African history.

Now aside from the fact that he is ignorant of African history, he is essentially saying that black Africans were intellectually inferior and could not have engineered such grand civilizations. This is an example of how colonial racist ignorance continues to this very day in Western society.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT View Post
It is an interesting question in terms of what led the Egyptians to produce such an advanced culture, but that similar cultures, who I'm sure you believe benefited from this exchange with the Egpytians did not achieve similar advancement....In Africa we find essentially three written languages that predate widespread outside influence (heiroglyphics, Tifinagh and Ge'ez), all contained around Egypt and the immediate vicinity.
So according to you because nothing similar development was seen in northern or western Europe prior to the last 500-600 years, the ancient Greeks and Romans must have been of a different race or "not white"? After the fall of Rome did Europe not plunge into almost a century of cultural/intellectual nothingness (the "dark ages"), until the black and Arab Muslims (Moors) revitalized the southern fringes of the continent?

I just wanted to point that out before I educate you on some true African history. The empire of ancient Ghana created by the Mende (Soninke) dating back to around 4,000 BC and recent research confirms that they had a written language predating not only Egypt but that of Sumeria (the Middle East).:


Ancient Manding script (Proto-Mande Script) from West Africa - YouTube

This is ancient WEST Africa during a time when absolutely nothing in Europe (let alone alone Western or Northern Europe) and during the time of early ancient Egypt:











Point being you and people who think like you are ignorant of true African history, and from that ignorance spurs more ignorance on it's true history. As Wild Style has stated over 90% of Africa has not been excavated, and that is all starting to change now. Ideas that were once arrogantly wrote off as by European scholars as Afrocentric literature are now being validated by authoritative sources.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT View Post
Now, before you go off posting a bunch of pictures of Nubian pyramids and other things, understand that I have in several threads defended sub-Saharan African cultures and advancement against the "primitive tribal" stereotype that people like to imply.

African Historical Ruins - you never see on TV part 1/4 - YouTube


African Historical Ruins - you never see on TV part 2 / 4 - YouTube

Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT View Post
I am not one who believes in the stereotype that there were no civilizations in sub-Saharan Africa. However, there does remain some open questions as to what in particular retarded the progress of these civilizations who benefitted from Egyptian contact and influence.
The contacts noted between Egyptians and other Africans were cultural. The carriers of ancient Nile Valley cultures are primarily the Nilotic peoples of the Upper Nile:


5b Modern Cu****es/ Nubians (continued) - YouTube

Not everything is manifested in building large structures as many European explorers only put emphasis on.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT View Post
What deceptive tactics have I used in this thread? I provided what contrarian evidence I was aware of.
Stating that the ancient Egyptians were "African" but of a "Berber" type which you equated with monolithic "Caucasian" phenotype. Then stating that because you interpret Diops definition of black as including those types of Africans that the ancient Egyptians were black by his standards. Rather than acknowledging the fact that consistent biological evidence finds that their phenotype was essentially the same as the Sudanese Nubians adjacent to them. That is deceptive and denial.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT View Post
I will concede for the final time and not raise any additional protest that I believe and accept what Keita stated in the last paper you presented. I think they were Africans and I think they were "black" with all of the typical variety that would imply. Satisfied?
Now leave it at that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT View Post
So, what do we do with this information? What does acknowledging that Egpyt was "black" or had a "black" root do for us? What does it do for you?
It's a correction of a lie that was meant to be a slap in the face to black people. I mean how many times are you going to ask this question and how many times do I have to explain this to you. Are you looking for an answer like "this will instill pride in little Tyrone"? I mean what do you want to hear?

Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT View Post
My issue isn't with the debates over the racial classification of the Egpytians, it's what often comes next in the discussion, which I posted a quote from Clarence Walker earlier that explains it...
No one gives a damn about an ill informed uncle Tom named Clarence Walker. He is supporting a classicist ideaology which is void of the facts of the matter. One such being that he tries to distinguish Egyptians and Nubians....case and point he's a dumbass looking for a pat on the head by white classicist whom he associates with. No one in the field or dealing with this subject pays his book any mind.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT View Post
You have to admit that there are "Afrocentric" authors and researchers who have gone well beyond arguing that the Egpytians were "black".
True! I personally hated the documentary entitled "Hidden Colors" in which a host of "Afrocentrics" make several baseless claims (not all claims were false though) for that very reason. On the other hand the white Western world is reluctant to accept anything that is contrary to old notions of white supremacy and black inferiority. The popular notions are "blacks only accomplished things with the help of non blacks", "anytime there is a black presence outside of Africa it was because of slavery" (hence equate black with slave), "reverse the traditional standard for what black is when reporting on ancient history".....ect. The bible for example has been turned into Eurocentric propaganda. For some reason the default color for people in the bible is white and Western European white at that. The original Isrealites according to popular media were "white" just like the European jews who migrated to the Middle East after WWII. Despite genetic evidence that the region was settled by black people from Africa:

Quote:
"A late Pleistocene-early Holocene northward migration (from Africa to the Levant and to Anatolia) of these populations has been hypothesized from skeletal data (Angel 1972, 1973; Brace 2005) and from archaeological data, as indicated by the probable Nile Valley origin of the "Mesolithic" (epi-Paleolithic) Mushabi culture found in the Levant (Bar Yosef 1987). This migration finds some support in the presence in Mediterranean populations (Sicily, Greece, southern Turkey, etc.; Patrinos et al.; Schiliro et al. 1990) of the Benin sickle cell haplotype. This haplotype originated in West Africa and is probably associated with the spread of malaria to southern Europe through an eastern Mediterranean route (Salares et al. 2004) following the expansion of both human and mosquito populations brought about by the advent of the Neolithic transition (Hume et al 2003; Joy et al. 2003; Rich et al 1998). This northward migration of northeastern African populations carrying sub-Saharan biological elements is concordant with the morphological homogeneity of the Natufian populations (Bocquentin 2003), which present morphological affinity with sub-Saharan populations (Angel 1972; Brace et al. 2005). In addition, the Neolithic revolution was assumed to arise in the late Pleistocene Natufians and subsequently spread into Anatolia and Europe (Bar-Yosef 2002), and the first Anatolian farmers, Neolithic to Bronze Age Mediterraneans and to some degree other Neolithic-Bronze Age Europeans, show morphological affinities with the Natufians (and indirectly with sub-Saharan populations; Angel 1972; Brace et al 2005), in concordance with a process of demic diffusion accompanying the extension of the Neolithic revolution (Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994)." F. X. Ricaut, M. Waelkens. (2008). Cranial Discrete Traits in a Byzantine Population and Eastern Mediterranean Population Movements Human Biology - Volume 80, Number 5, October 2008, pp. 535-564
Just some things to note.
 
Old 09-19-2012, 09:38 AM
 
14,777 posts, read 34,525,274 times
Reputation: 14278
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Style View Post
You didn't provide me with anything, you dont know what you are talking about. We are talking about TWO totally different words. There is nothing to discuss in terms of what the word Ethiop means. You didn't provide me with ANY information in terms of what ethiop is or means. I doubt you even know that information. Either way, my information stands on its own.
You're right I didn't provide you with anything, you didn't come here to be provided with anything, engage in discussion or debate. You came here with your mind already made up and with an absolute faith in what you consider the truth.

Here is the link to the book I quoted discussing the meaning of "melanchroes" and Herodotus' use of the terms "Aithiops" and "Aigyptios"; the section begins on page 319 of the book. In the book Najovits specifically counters the claimed translations by Diop, Bernal and Assante over the use and meaning of these words.

Egypt, Trunk of the Tree - Simson Najovits - Google Books

Feel free to dismiss or ignore it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Unbreakable View Post
No it's not. Honest questioning surrounding the doubts of our claims were displayed by "motion" early on in this thread. Contrarian opinions in my experience debating this subject only comes from racist/classicist. These people give no logical reasoning against the evidence as to why they are against the fact that the ancient Egyptians had a phenotype consistent with the black African folks further to the south, but they keep at it. Given the history of this subject and knowing how people in our society are when it comes to "race", it most certainly is NOT "uncalled for". It's calling a spade a spade.
You don't think that, based on your experience, that automatically assuming that people presenting contrarian views are racist is perhaps not a positive way to invite discussion and debate to ultimately reach a consensus and have everyone share in the knowledge? Once you start tossing out labels for anyone who disagrees it shuts down the discussion. Joel Freeman of the Freeman Institute has a very interesting page on this very topic where he promotes "Truthcentrism" in finding the middle ground between the Afrocentrics and Eurocentrics acknowledging the work and contributions of both to our understanding of Egypt. I don't think you will find much to quibble with him over where he stands on these issues, but perhaps you might find his lighter approach to the topic something to consider.

Joel Freeman's Thoughts and Opinions about Ancient Egyptians (with Photo Gallery -- 230 Photos!) -- Confessions of a Budding Truthcentrist: An even-handed definition and critique of both Afrocentrism & Eurocentrism

Quote:
The man basically stated that the ancient Egyptians could not have been black, because according to his ignorance of African history black Africans aside from the Egyptians and Nubians never invented the wheel:
That was plain ignorance and hostility on his part. Not that it is an excuse, but your style is extremely assertive and overwhelming. I personally tend to type pages myself, so I take the time to read what you write, others don't and find your style to be hostile and intimidating which results in them becoming frustrated and responding on a juvenile manner. The only point again, is that you could "tone it down" and pose these topics as more exploratory questions to invite debate. It would also help to perhaps summarize your points if you are going to type endless paragraphs and not have to rely on people watching hour long YouTube videos to join the discussion.

Quote:
So according to you because nothing similar development was seen in northern or western Europe prior to the last 500-600 years, the ancient Greeks and Romans must have been of a different race or "not white"? After the fall of Rome did Europe not plunge into almost a century of cultural/intellectual nothingness (the "dark ages"), until the black and Arab Muslims (Moors) revitalized the southern fringes of the continent?

I just wanted to point that out before I educate you on some true African history. The empire of ancient Ghana created by the Mende (Soninke) dating back to around 4,000 BC and recent research confirms that they had a written language predating not only Egypt but that of Sumeria (the Middle East).:

This is ancient WEST Africa during a time when absolutely nothing in Europe (let alone alone Western or Northern Europe) and during the time of early ancient Egypt:
I'm sure we can dedicate plenty of threads to African civilizations and compare who was scribbling proto languages on rocks before anyone else...but that is a different topic.

Quote:
Point being you and people who think like you are ignorant of true African history, and from that ignorance spurs more ignorance on it's true history. As Wild Style has stated over 90% of Africa has not been excavated, and that is all starting to change now. Ideas that were once arrogantly wrote off as by European scholars as Afrocentric literature are now being validated by authoritative sources.
I love how you can turn any discussion into an "us" vs. "them" situation, it's quite the talent.

Quote:
Stating that the ancient Egyptians were "African" but of a "Berber" type which you equated with monolithic "Caucasian" phenotype. Then stating that because you interpret Diops definition of black as including those types of Africans that the ancient Egyptians were black by his standards. Rather than acknowledging the fact that consistent biological evidence finds that their phenotype was essentially the same as the Sudanese Nubians adjacent to them. That is deceptive and denial.
I never equated anyone with a "monlithic Caucasian phenotype", maybe you thought I did in your zeal, but I never did.

Quote:
It's a correction of a lie that was meant to be a slap in the face to black people. I mean how many times are you going to ask this question and how many times do I have to explain this to you. Are you looking for an answer like "this will instill pride in little Tyrone"? I mean what do you want to hear?
If that is the reason then don't be afraid to state it.

I've been thinking about why this actually bothers me to the point of posting in these threads. Honestly, it comes down to the absurdity of claiming "ownership" over an ancient race or people as a method of validating oneself or serving as group therapy. Let's be honest here; we all crawled out of the primordial ooze in Africa at some point. Human civilization is not black or white, it is human. I think what bothers me is the implication that somehow I am not "allowed" to marvel at or share in the wonders of ancient Egypt as an accomplishment of the human race on an equal level to you because you perhaps look like the ancient Egyptians.

Quote:
No one gives a damn about an ill informed uncle Tom named Clarence Walker. He is supporting a classicist ideaology which is void of the facts of the matter. One such being that he tries to distinguish Egyptians and Nubians....case and point he's a dumbass looking for a pat on the head by white classicist whom he associates with. No one in the field or dealing with this subject pays his book any mind.
You don't find it the least bit odd that your first reaction would be to call him an "Uncle Tom" working for the "white master"?

Here's his contact information, I'm sure he'd love to hear from you and educate you on his positions:
Clarence Walker

You obviously missed his macro point which ties back in to what I was getting at above. Seeking validation and pride in a 4,500 year old civilization is pointless and rather meaningless in terms of the current history of African Americans. Even more absurd is the convoluted connections made to allow African Americans to claim Egyptian civilization as their own. If the best "little Tyrone" can hope for is finding pride in that a black man built the pyramids then that leaves us in a sad place. His book was not a direct attack on Afrocentrism from a historical perspective (though he does attack some theories), but from a political and social perspective over its implications. This is the side of the debate that you consistently dodge. This is the reason you are posting these threads. It has nothing really to do with an examination of Egyptian history, but an attempt at validation and "striking back", which Walker would tell you are ridiculous notions.

I am of Leni Lenape descent on my father's side. The Lenape were a basic people as far as cultures go, sedentary planters and hunters with loosely affiliated polities built on a clan model. Those who were not forced onto reservations in the west, still live in what were our ancestral homelands. These Lenape of which I am technically a part are members of the current American culture and people. They don't validate who they are based on who their ancestors were, but that doesn't mean the ancestors can't be remembered or studied.

Of course, our ancestors don't have nearly the glorious history of some other Native American groups. Our ancestors didn't leave us a written language or great buildings. Our oral traditions have been destroyed over centuries of assimilation. What we know about our people is collected from fragments and what the European settlers wrote about us. Perhaps we should start claiming that "our people" built Uxnal and that "Mayans" are really nothing more then "Native Americans" in a collective sense. This let's us take pride that "our people" built wonderful things and developed a written language when most Europeans had barely managed to crawl out of caves. Man, that almost makes me feel better about the European conquest and how much we suffered.

Sounds ridiculous doesn't it?

Quote:
On the other hand the white Western world is reluctant to accept anything that is contrary to old notions of white supremacy and black inferiority.
Is it me or does this image show the most powerful people in the world acknolwedging the arrival of the most powerful man in the world...


The point you are missing while you go on your Crusade is that the more you focus on race as the defining issue, the more you allow the very notions you are seeking to overturn to be strengthened. The world is changing, it always does. While you are mired in seeking validation and pride in the past, the future is being shaped in the present. "Whites" don't wake up in the morning and feel better about themselves because of the Romans and Greeks...that would just be absurd. There is nothing wrong with pursuing the facts about ancient Egpyt, but don't dance around the real reasons why you are doing it, because that has nothing to do with seeking the truth.
 
Old 09-19-2012, 12:19 PM
 
Location: USA
18,560 posts, read 13,692,189 times
Reputation: 12139
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT View Post
Is it me or does this image show the most powerful people in the world acknolwedging the arrival of the most powerful man in the world...
Touche'. and don't forget he was voted into office by a diverse group of voters with the largest majority identying themselves as White.
 
Old 09-19-2012, 12:27 PM
 
219 posts, read 694,594 times
Reputation: 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT View Post
In the book Najovits specifically counters the claimed translations by Diop, Bernal and Assante over the use and meaning of these words.
You forgot to add Basil to that list. You also don't acknowledge that authoritative sources on the matter Fitzwilliam validate all of their interpretations that the ancient Greeks viewed the ancient Egyptians as black Africans who came from "Aethioia", which obviously makes their claims more valid than the counter claims of the historians whom you cite.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT View Post
You don't think that, based on your experience, that automatically assuming that people presenting contrarian views are racist is perhaps not a positive way to invite discussion and debate to ultimately reach a consensus and have everyone share in the knowledge?
No in my experience any mention of the ancient Egyptians being black triggers a knee jerk reaction by those types that I described to either ridicule you, ridicule you race, dismiss contemporary scholarship, and just keep saying no. Here is an example of a fellow starting this discussion and presenting the evidence in an "articulate" manner inviting valuable dialogue. Look how he is received.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT View Post
That was plain ignorance and hostility on his part. Not that it is an excuse, but your style is extremely assertive and overwhelming.
Well when you deal with people like you on this subject one has to be "assertive" in his position. Otherwise let you misconstrue it and the biological evidence suddenly points to the ancient Egyptians being a non black Berber, Northwest African population. Most of the time it takes one to present an overwhelming amount of sources for the less biased individuals to concede to this fact. Just look at your post, you finished with "happy now" (or something along those lines) as though it really took a lot out of you to concede to the fact that ancient Egyptians were black Africans just like the Sudanese Nubians.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT View Post
I'm sure we can dedicate plenty of threads to African civilizations and compare who was scribbling proto languages on rocks before anyone else...but that is a different topic.
More silliness and point dodging. You went on pretty heart felt rant asking why according to your ignorance "black Africa" lacks advance civilization, writing systems (not rock art) ect. You were just provided with pictures of remnants from an advanced ancient West African civilization that originated during the times of early Dynastic Egypt. This civilization is now said to have probably the oldest proto-writing system on Earth predating even that of Mesopotamia. Not to mention the videos that I posted showing a **** load of ancient and medieval and black African civilization. Yet you try to limit this presentation as merely a presentation of old rock art from Africa.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT View Post
If that is the reason then don't be afraid to state it.
That's not my reason, but as I've stated my personal experience debating this topic tells me that this is the reason that YOU want to be behind my drive of this fact. This is why you kept pressing the same tired question as it was answered over and over again, rather than simply admitting that my points were valid. Stating that the truth of the matter is my reasoning for advocating this fact was to too inconvenient for your semantic argument.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT View Post
Honestly, it comes down to the absurdity of claiming "ownership" over an ancient race or people as a method of validating oneself or serving as group therapy.
This is where all of the denial on your parties (like minded people) part comes from. Rather than acknowledging the fact that your ideas and notions surrounding this subject on this ancient African civilization comes from the Eurocentric uprooting of it out of Africa, you attempt to ridicule those who point out the fallacies of that social-political statement. You have always been taught that Egypt was yours ("Caucasian") which is why you have argued that their physical appearance was consistent with that of "Caucasian" peoples in northern Africa. When it's pointed out that this is wrong, they were black Africans in physical appearance, and that any notion otherwise is rooted in colonial racist notions of white supremacy/black inferiority, you feel as though your heritage is under attack. This why you rush into these discussions in defense of the obsolete paradigm. You can admit that the people who created these racist notions were completely wrong in their racist assertions, but seem to have a problem that it simultaneously proves that the complete opposite is correct. That my friend is Eurocentric hypocrisy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT View Post
I think what bothers me is the implication that somehow I am not "allowed" to marvel at or share in the wonders of ancient Egypt as an accomplishment of the human race on an equal level to you because you perhaps look like the ancient Egyptians.
Who in the Hell says that you can't marvel at ancient Egypt or Nubia for that matter? Contrarily let Clarence Walker tell it Africans in the new World shouldn't marvel at those African civilizations because their ancestry primarily lies in Western-Central Africa. Further below you champion this man's ill-informed notions on the subject matter, but you wouldn't dare apply the same standards to Europe. It's fine for people of Western European descent to marvel at ancient Greece and Rome though they are generally not of that biological lineage, because it is a "European heritage". Contrarily many many customs and religious relics of ancient Egypt have parallels in East, Central and yes West Africa to this very day, but let Clarence Walker tell it we have no ties with that region of the continent. For whatever reason you seem to uphold his classicist rhetoric that would have labeled him a racist if he was white simply because he is the Larry Elders of this subject.

Quote:
Here's his contact information, I'm sure he'd love to hear from you and educate you on his positions: Clarence Walker
I can email Dr. Asante again and he'll say the exact same thing to me. The difference between both are that one taught notions that were once shunned by academia and are now receiving credit for pioneering certain views, while the other is repeating the same old classicist notions that have been debunked time and time again. For one Walker's assertion that the ancient Egyptians were not black and that Nubians and Egyptians were physically distinct based on mural depictions (which something that you and I both agreed was unprofessional) has long been dismantled by over a decade of biological research (including that of S.O.Y. Keita). More recently Dr. Mario Beatty who is invited to speak at the conference of Egyptology in Greece this year (top scholars in the field) will topple this notion even based on the same sources referenced by Walker and some others:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=I6KKsbNxrfk#!

Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT View Post
You obviously missed his macro point which ties back in to what I was getting at above. Seeking validation and pride in a 4,500 year old civilization is pointless and rather meaningless in terms of the current history of African Americans.
How do you know that this is the purpose of every scholar who now see's a reason to correct a centuries old Eurocentric lie? The fact that this lie that was meant to be nothing more than a slap in the face to black Africans and their descendants in America is still being upheld by major media outlets like the National Geographic and the History Channel is reason enough to raise awareness of the facts of this matter.

Irregardless who in the Hell is Walker or anyone to tell a people what they should are shouldn't take pride in. If I as an African American feels that African history across the board is my original heritage, then who in the Hell are you or Walker to say different? You do know that S.O.Y. Keita's name is not originally S.O.Y. Keita don't you? It is an African name that he adopted in his adult life. According to Walker's logic Keita is wrong for this because the Mali Empire was so long ago that it is irrelevant to him or us now. According to Walker's logic this makes Keita an "Afrocentric" for trying to connect himself and find empowerment to an ancestry prior enslavement in the Americas.

It would also be like saying that because America is so far removed (centuries) from our British origins, that we shouldn't give a damn about the Royal family and their affairs. Instead an entire weekend was devoted by the major media outlets to the royal wedding and another event earlier this year in which the queen came for a visit. Why should this matter so much to us, or at least European Americans if they are simply American.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT View Post
Even more absurd is the convoluted connections made to allow African Americans to claim Egyptian civilization as their own. If the best "little Tyrone" can hope for is finding pride in that a black man built the pyramids then that leaves us in a sad place
For guy who admittedly and obviously (from your ill-informed statements) doesn't know jack squat about African history, peoples or cultures this is a discussion that you should try to take a stab at. The closest remnants to ancient Egyptian culture are not in modern day Egypt but in various regions across "black Africa" and most obviously the Upper Nile (South Sudan-The Great Lakes).

Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT View Post
Of course, our ancestors don't have nearly the glorious history of some other Native American groups.
Glad that your family was able to keep up with your ancestral lineage. This is not the case for African Americans who more time than not have to get a genetic analysis kit for about a thousand+ dollars. The kits vary from person to person. Morgan Freeman is of Taureg (Berber) ancestry (North-Western Africa) and Oprah is of Zulu ancestry southern Africa. My friend's maternal lineage ties him to the Eastern African populations including that of the Nile Valley. Yoruba and many other Nigerian ethnic groups have an oral tradition of a primary ancestor named Oduoduwa coming from ancient Egypt and forming his own West African kingdom. They have the culture, language and religions in the region to validate these claims, but let Walker tell it....

Hell the oral traditions of the Lemba people of southern Africa, has been confirmed by genetic analysis that they are one of the 12 lost tribes of Israel.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT View Post
Sounds ridiculous doesn't it?
Yeah for YOUR people. I don't know that has to do with the ancestors of black Americans, but keep at it.

Last edited by The Unbreakable; 09-19-2012 at 12:36 PM..
 
Old 09-19-2012, 12:49 PM
 
5,532 posts, read 5,718,279 times
Reputation: 3146
Wait, now I am struggling to decode these posts.
Correct me if I am wrong: Unbreakable supports a theory which claims ancient Egyptians came from Sudan and were dark skinned... So far, I don't have evidence for the opposite. Anyway, it seems he has a personal issue with that. Is he an Egyptian? A Sundanese? And if so, why would he be pissed off? For some reason he apparently cannot phrase his claim in few words.
Can anyone help?
 
Old 09-19-2012, 01:06 PM
 
Location: USA
18,560 posts, read 13,692,189 times
Reputation: 12139
Quote:
Originally Posted by oberon_1 View Post
Wait, now I am struggling to decode these posts.
Correct me if I am wrong: Unbreakable supports a theory which claims ancient Egyptians came from Sudan and were dark skinned... So far, I don't have evidence for the opposite. Anyway, it seems he has a personal issue with that. Is he an Egyptian? A Sundanese? And if so, why would he be pissed off? For some reason he apparently cannot phrase his claim in few words.
Can anyone help?
I'm cinfused. Since all of mankind came out of Southern or Central Africa to begin with isn't the topic moot Man came out of Africa, lightened up, then moved back a few millenia later.
 
Old 09-19-2012, 01:08 PM
 
Location: Miami, FL
8,088 posts, read 7,321,219 times
Reputation: 6650
^^^#66 According to the OP one has to be assertive due to the knee jerk reactions of the ill informed....

The problem with the OP's premise is how to define "created from" in terms of the process and what constitutes civilization and possible inputs from other peoples and cultures and how to weigh them for relevancy. If we consider the traditional route of how civilizations are created as being the civic organization formed at the confluence of peoples and trade and the slow process by which change occurred in the pre-industrial era then there are many other factors to consider.

Then we have the fallacy of projecting modern terms to what is essentially pre-history.

Last edited by Felix C; 09-19-2012 at 01:22 PM..
 
Old 09-19-2012, 01:17 PM
 
5,532 posts, read 5,718,279 times
Reputation: 3146
Quote:
Originally Posted by Felix C View Post
^^^#66 According to the OP one has to be assertive due to the knee jerk reactions of the ill informed....

The problem with the OP's premise is how to define "created from" in terms of the process and what consitutes civilization and possible inputs from other peoples and cultures and how to weigh them for relevancy. If we consider the traditional route of how civilizations are created as being the civic organization formed at the confluence of peoples and trade and the slow process by which change occurred in the pre-industrial era then there are many other factors to consider.

Then we have the fallacy of projecting modern terms to what is essentially pre-history.
Why would Unbreakable spend so much time and energy on prehistoric theories? Do you think he is Egyptian?
I got impression he is an US citizen, but maybe I got it all wrong.
Sometime in the past, there was a poster who was absolutely certain the 10 lost tribes of Israel were in Great Britain... He spent endless time and energy trying to convince people his theory was beyond doubt. Its strange how people get obsessive about such things.

Last edited by oberon_1; 09-19-2012 at 01:30 PM..
 
Old 09-19-2012, 01:30 PM
 
Location: Miami, FL
8,088 posts, read 7,321,219 times
Reputation: 6650
The article dealt with pastoral links between Nubia and Egypt at a certain spatial range. Nowhere is there Nubia birthed Egypt or similar as stated by the OP. There is where the subject becomes polemic, discourse aggressive and condescending, then well, there it is. Just politics by other means.
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