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.
It's not necessary to discuss Ancient Egyptians or present-day Ethiopians in the context of contemporary American racial ideology. Above is a picture of a couple of clearly westernized Ethiopian women. Below are pictographs of Ancient Egyptians. It is not as if these people didn't paint pictures of themselves that have been preserved in full color. I don't see where the debate even comes in. Please see samples of pictures below which are easily accessible from anywhere, including everyone's favorite: Wikipedia.
Of note, Ancient Egyptians never called themselves "Egyptians" and never heard the word. By the time the Greeks overran the declining civilization of Kemet and named their new province "Aigyptos" (Aegyptus) after the figure from Greek mythology who ruled over what we now call Arabia, this pyramid-building civilization had long-since been altered and had become quite multicultural. Race does not biologically exist. It is a social construction always used as a means to satisfy an agenda.
My point exactly...For someone reason certain people including those of prominence within the scientific community choose to fight against or ignore the clear evidence Ancient Egyptians left leaving no doubt of their African origin cause it contrast with their racist preconceived notions and prejudices...As far as race existing or not is debatable but of Ancient Egyptians were living today they would be considered blacks like their most direct descendents in Upper/Southern Egypt/Northern Sudan,etc
On another note why can you post direct pictures but I can't
If you say so but taking those courses wouldn't change any of the facts I stated
And that exactly is your problem. Facts by themselves are nothing, isolated pieces of data. It is schema (that is mental framework) which takes facts and organizes them to create theories, of which you have some fringe ones.
I will level with you. This argument is just sport hunting for me. I like to debate, I like to keep my skills sharp, and if the hunt ends well, I get a nice rack of antlers to mount on my wall.
I don't really care about Egypt, or whether they are white/black/ whatever, what I care about it evaluating evidence according to the scientific method. You observe a reality, form a hypothesis to explain that data, experiment to test your hypothesis and then either disgard the hypothesis if the facts don't match or keep exploring if the results are favorable.
I am also interested in historical scholarship, literature review, etc. That means taking the wealth of opinions that exist on a subject and determining which ones are well researched, which ones are not, which ones have a obviously biased author, and which do not. Lastly once this is done you determine where the consensus in the academic community is.
That is difference BrothersKeeper between you and me.......You put the cart before the horse. You want to believe not just Egypt, but all of North Africa was black and the light skinned Caucausians replaced them. You are going to be able to find some books that support his claim. That fact that their data and conclusions have largely been debunked matters not, because you have latched on to your conclusion like a leech on a fish, and refuse to look any further.
As for me, I have learned alot during this conversation. The hieorglyphs presented do show alot of darker skined individuals than is popularly presented in modern culture. That is good to know. I now understand that Egyptian civilation was one of both the Mediterranean basin and the Nile River valley, streching deep into Africa. I also know King Tut looked pretty d*mn caucausian to me, so I don't see what makes Egyptians back then any different North Africans today that the have genetic diversity you would expect from a culture that existed on a large sea coast.
If the conference of Egyptian scholars met tomorrow and announced they had new DNA and physical evidence that showed evidence of massive population displacement of dark skinned Africans from the lower Nile valley and the rest of North Africa, I would probably believe them.
No amount of data, not the unique DNA signature of North Africans, that is not Arab, nor the DNA analysis of the pyrmamid builders from 2600BC matching the DNA of comtemporary Egyptians, nor the overwhelming number of scholars that reject the "Afro-centric" roots of Egypt are going to dissuade you.
It is a shame too, because you are obviously a smart guy, you can remember and rattle off facts and obviously understood what you read (even if it what you read was biased), but to refuse to learn how to use that data to form logical and scientific conclusions is a shortcoming that has been exposed here.
One last point, you can bash "Eurocentrism," evolution and science all you want. But my guess is that if you or a member of your family was sick and a medicine designed by gene theapy was the best cure, I bet you would take it. You obviously don't mind living in a place with electricty, the internet, interal combostion engines, fresh running water, etc. You are eating the fruits of the "Eurocentric" tree that you claim to despise.
My point exactly...For someone reason certain people including those of prominence within the scientific community choose to fight against or ignore the clear evidence Ancient Egyptians left leaving no doubt of their African origin cause it contrast with their racist preconceived notions and prejudices...As far as race existing or not is debatable but of Ancient Egyptians were living today they would be considered blacks like their most direct descendents in Upper/Southern Egypt/Northern Sudan,etc
On another note why can you post direct pictures but I can't
I'm not really following the details at all of the debate between you two.
But, they would be considered 'black' by modern day U.S. standards of racial classification. I think that's what you might be stating?
I think pretty much every culture would define in it's own way, cultures of today, or cultures of that time.
I don't know the details or reading the argument of you two on black/white/ethiopia. But I have a feeling you guys might be arguing valid points that go past each other's arguments.
And that exactly is your problem. Facts by themselves are nothing, isolated pieces of data. It is schema (that is mental framework) which takes facts and organizes them to create theories, of which you have some fringe ones.
I will level with you. This argument is just sport hunting for me. I like to debate, I like to keep my skills sharp, and if the hunt ends well, I get a nice rack of antlers to mount on my wall.
I don't really care about Egypt, or whether they are white/black/ whatever, what I care about it evaluating evidence according to the scientific method. You observe a reality, form a hypothesis to explain that data, experiment to test your hypothesis and then either disgard the hypothesis if the facts don't match or keep exploring if the results are favorable.
I am also interested in historical scholarship, literature review, etc. That means taking the wealth of opinions that exist on a subject and determining which ones are well researched, which ones are not, which ones have a obviously biased author, and which do not. Lastly once this is done you determine where the consensus in the academic community is.
That is difference BrothersKeeper between you and me.......You put the cart before the horse. You want to believe not just Egypt, but all of North Africa was black and the light skinned Caucausians replaced them. You are going to be able to find some books that support his claim. That fact that their data and conclusions have largely been debunked matters not, because you have latched on to your conclusion like a leech on a fish, and refuse to look any further.
As for me, I have learned alot during this conversation. The hieorglyphs presented do show alot of darker skined individuals than is popularly presented in modern culture. That is good to know. I now understand that Egyptian civilation was one of both the Mediterranean basin and the Nile River valley, streching deep into Africa. I also know King Tut looked pretty d*mn caucausian to me, so I don't see what makes Egyptians back then any different North Africans today that the have genetic diversity you would expect from a culture that existed on a large sea coast.
If the conference of Egyptian scholars met tomorrow and announced they had new DNA and physical evidence that showed evidence of massive population displacement of dark skinned Africans from the lower Nile valley and the rest of North Africa, I would probably believe them.
No amount of data, not the unique DNA signature of North Africans, that is not Arab, nor the DNA analysis of the pyrmamid builders from 2600BC matching the DNA of comtemporary Egyptians, nor the overwhelming number of scholars that reject the "Afro-centric" roots of Egypt are going to dissuade you.
It is a shame too, because you are obviously a smart guy, you can remember and rattle off facts and obviously understood what you read (even if it what you read was biased), but to refuse to learn how to use that data to form logical and scientific conclusions is a shortcoming that has been exposed here.
One last point, you can bash "Eurocentrism," evolution and science all you want. But my guess is that if you or a member of your family was sick and a medicine designed by gene theapy was the best cure, I bet you would take it. You obviously don't mind living in a place with electricty, the internet, interal combostion engines, fresh running water, etc. You are eating the fruits of the "Eurocentric" tree that you claim to despise.
No you problem is you can't distinguish between theory and fact.
Don't twist my words...I never said there wasn't always lighter skinned people in North Africa...My position has always been that the black tribes(some of which were lightskinned) whom still exist in North Africa(but are now minorities) are the only true natives of North Africa where as the arabs whom are now the majority of the region's population and Euro decent minorities are settlers whom came from Eurasia and colonized the region eventually outnumbering the natives...The whole North Africa didn't turn into Arab Republic by accident.
Here are some lightskinned indigenous North Africans
So you think the Ancient Egyptians portraying themselves as significantly blacker looking than most modern arab Egyptians is something that should be just disregarded Typical Eurocentric logic.
Tut..Caucasian? You gotta be kidding me..I don't know any Caucasians that look this black.
In other words you wont believe the Ancient Egyptians themselves or your own common sense till it's been confirmed by mighty whitey whom are apparently authorities on Ancient Egyptian history
Uh...Most North Africans have predominantly arab genes since the descendants arab settlers are the majority of the region's population and have been for a while now... Last time I checked Egypt has always been in Africa which makes Ancient Egypt purely an African civilization...That's stating the obvious..Hardly Afrocentric
Actually my ability to see through the BS and analyze myth from fact helped me form the thesis of argument.
Well since Africans/blacks are the mothers/fathers of civilization whom gave the world it's blueprint on most knowledge in science, philosophy governance,math,etc any invention created by Eurocentrics with knowledge rooted in Ancient African teaching whether it be the Ancient Egyptians or Moors is our's in a way by default
Last edited by brother's keeper; 03-05-2011 at 07:34 PM..
I'm not really following the details at all of the debate between you two.
But, they would be considered 'black' by modern day U.S. standards of racial classification. I think that's what you might be stating?
I think pretty much every culture would define in it's own way, cultures of today, or cultures of that time.
I don't know the details or reading the argument of you two on black/white/ethiopia. But I have a feeling you guys might be arguing valid points that go past each other's arguments.
Pretty much....But not only would they be considered blacks in the US but obviously they considered themselves blacks hense referring to themselves Kemites which has been confirmed to mean blacks by Egyptian scholars.
Pretty much....But not only would they be considered blacks in the US but obviously they considered themselves blacks hense calling themselves Kemites which has been confirmed to mean blacks by Egyptian scholars.
Identity is really about self-identity.
I think these days, based on Darfur, the arabic world separates themselves from the subsaharan world. That being said, they also intertwine in places as well.
But, back 'in the day', particularly if Egypt was darker than most of the people they seemed to be around - and I just imagine biblical Egypt. Than it makes sense they might refer to themselves as 'black'. Although I always had the impression that Ethiopians were 'blacker', and they had some biblical references as well, I think.
What makes any argument here difficult to pinpoint is the frames of references can be all over the place dependent on culture and time.
Last edited by Tiger Beer; 03-05-2011 at 08:52 PM..
Yeah, I want to call it off. We are arguing about something stupid. We all see the same pictures of both ancient and modern North Africans residents and arguing about how white or black they are. It is obvious their is a continuum between the darken skinned residents of North Africa, especially down the Nile Valley and the lighter skinned ones. Certainly their is a Arab genetic presence in North Africa, but it is just another step in the tranisition from dark skinned to light skinned. Southern Europe is the same way. They all share the same genes, just in different proportions. It is stupid to argue about who is white and who is black. I am sorry if I offended anyone.
I'm not sure how this got off on a scientific debate. Once again, there is no biological basis for race. But if there is a discussion about share DNA, the Haplogroup E (Y Chromosome DNA) is shared by most Africans. From this map below you can see that the highest concentrations of the haplogroup abruptly end in the Middle East. So yes, there is DNA that is shared by North Africans and Sub-Saharan Africans. But this is a function of Arabs acquiring this DNA upon migrating to North Africa.
But I think it is more productive to look at the cultural similarities and differences Ethiopians have with other Africans rather than DNA or race. The map is clear that Ethiopians have almost as high a concentration of the E Haplogroup Y Chromosome as West Africans from whom most African Americans are descended. So physical characteristics are not the issue. I think the cultural differences between African Americans and Ethiopians stem not from DNA but from blacks in America being so heavily "Americanized". Also, I think the fact that West Africans already had imperial ties and intermarriage to East Africa and even Europe prior to being sold into slavery is not taking into account a shared heritage.
"The Historical Encyclopedia of World Slavery" discusses these scenarios. Sub-Saharan Africans who were Muslim and slave traders purchased European concubines because they "were highly prized for beauty". In terms of an earlier comment about King Tut being Caucasian, I don't think that is correct. His father was Akhenaten. Here are a couple of pictographs below of him:
Anything is possible I'm sure, but the only "experts" I have heard make that claim were eugenicists writing prior to WWII and Zahi Hawass who is virulently racist and Anti-Semitic.
I'm just looking at the patches of Europe...kinda interesting.
Regarding cultural differences between Ethiopia and African-American. From my understanding, few if any Ethiopian descent ended up in the Americas, did they?
Certainly agree that African-Americans were 'Americanized', and a sort of structural racism that prevented African from being African, contrary to say, Brazil or Haiti, who were able to keep some traditions. That being said, I always got the impression that African culture throughout the Americas where it was able to 'come with them', was more similar to West Africa than to the Horn of Africa.
Not saying that Ethiopians aren't black, you can take one look at them and see that they are (protecting myself from side discussions on that issue). But, culturally, there are a lot of differences throughout Africa despite shared DNA. (Much like Germans and Italians are quite different despite both being white europeans). Not disagreeing with anything you are saying, just contributing to an interesting discussion.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Typical Eurocentric logic.
