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.
As always, your viewpoint is so completely racially motivated that one is not inclined to trust your references, nor to feel it is worth while to check them. You might actually be right (personally that wouldn't bother me in and of itself), but your saying so actually detracts from the credibility of the position you espouse, because it's obvious that you approached this with one desired answer and were bound and determined to get it, thus prone to present only the evidence supporting that answer.
Frankly I am waiting for Eloy ("Crazy Ivan"), LouisvilleS. ("Mr. Contradiction"), and Kovert ("Politics Forum Guy") - the incomprehensable, the racist, and the guy that gets his history from TV to discuss this amongst themselves and get into a lively debate.
Will make for one entertaining debate. We won't learn anything. But it will be entertaining. At least until the mods shut it down.
As always, your viewpoint is so completely racially motivated that one is not inclined to trust your references, nor to feel it is worth while to check them. You might actually be right (personally that wouldn't bother me in and of itself), but your saying so actually detracts from the credibility of the position you espouse, because it's obvious that you approached this with one desired answer and were bound and determined to get it, thus prone to present only the evidence supporting that answer.
J, think you should take a look at some of the texts I linked to.
They are completely non New Age and Afrocentric free to boot.
They are the works of professionals from prestigious universities like Cambridge, Oxford and the like.
And the despite the Afro-centrist's obsession with sub-Saharan Africa, there has been so many new discoveries within the Sahara that the history books can't keep up.
As I stated before, there is no need to make false claims about the closest descendants of the ancient Egyptians to be anywhere outside of the Nile.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dd714
Frankly I am waiting for Eloy ("Crazy Ivan"), LouisvilleS. ("Mr. Contradiction"), and Kovert ("Politics Forum Guy") - the incomprehensable, the racist, and the guy that gets his history from TV to discuss this amongst themselves and get into a lively debate.
Will make for one entertaining debate. We won't learn anything. But it will be entertaining. At least until the mods shut it down.
The space aliens and obsessed with horse riding Russians guy has yet to make any meaningful contribution to this thread.
Can anyone really take seriously a guy who takes the likes of "historians"who seem to be more like writers for Stargate SG1 over the word of professional Egyptologists?
Lol You're full of it and you know it. The reason behind you refusing to accept overwhelming peer reviewed sources is due to your own damn biased in this debate. I find it amazing how it is the SAME individuals who's claims have been flatlined by my sources and argument in previous threads are the SAME ones still indenial about what is now proven as fact. Regardless of what you believe my motivations to be in this debate the fact remains that you nor any other poster opposed to my argument could not even begin to refute it, mainly because you don't have any credible sources backing you alls stance.
I don't necessarily oppose (or support) your argument, as I have told you half a dozen times. I haven't made up my mind about it. I question your motivations and evidentiary selection for it based on your obvious bias. I have told you half a dozen times that you might actually be right, but that your way of presenting it makes me question the basis. You simply do not read and learn very well in this topic area.
And as I've told you as many times, it's really too bad, because the subject interests me enough to read its threads hoping in vain for some sanity, instead of your rather poorly written and clearly racially motivated posts. I'm the customer showing up at your bakery counter with money in hand, ready to buy, but deterred by the cockroaches I see crawling on the counter, whose existence you prefer to deny outright--and tell me that if I don't buy anyway, it's my fault rather than yours.
And as I've told you as many times, it's really too bad, because the subject interests me enough to read its threads hoping in vain for some sanity, instead of your rather poorly written and clearly racially motivated posts. I'm the customer showing up at your bakery counter with money in hand, ready to buy, but deterred by the cockroaches I see crawling on the counter, whose existence you prefer to deny outright--and tell me that if I don't buy anyway, it's my fault rather than yours.
Like I said J, I linked to texts done by professionals.
There is nothing New Age or Afrocentric about any of them.
Below, I also have some recommendations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kovert
I developed an interest in the civilzations along the Nile a long time ago. As I continued pursuing this interest I learned one cannot fully begin to understand Nile valley history without understanding the histories of its African relatives particularly East Africa (Horn region) & northwestern Africa (the Sahara). Here are my recommendations.
I also highly recommend the "Black Mummy" history/discovery show channel documentary that came out a few years back.
I will give a few warnings. Avoid the afrocentric stuff like a plague. Its basically an afro-variant of 18th century race ideology.
Africana studies and their works like the ones I mentioned are of higher quality and more up to date. Now it must be admitted there are still traces of the old colonial legacy in the books I recommended and it is shown by how authors will make contradictory statements, but overall they are pretty good books IMO.
You to provide a shred of Scholarly or Scientific evidence to confirm your wandering Russian/ Alien settlement in the Nile theories, or to counter the FACT that the early ancient Egyptian biological affinity lies to the South with black Africans. lol I doubt I get anything from this lune.
no per the artifacts we have, people that worked indoors were light skinned.
however at times i think ms obama thinks she is cleopatra.
history will not remember her as favorite 1st lady fortunately for the family, mr obama has a great personality.
I think its time for me to make an important statement here.
When you're trying to understand a different culture, whether ancient or modern, its best to have enough respect for that culture that you try to understand it on its own terms.
Trying to project your own racial ideology and phobias unto a culture that would have alien to that sort of demented thinking, is the tell tale sign of pseudo-historian and a flat out liar.
Frankly from my studies of Afro-Arabian people, the race ideology of the 18th and 19th century (whose ideological variants and descendants have manifested themselves in this very thread) would be totally incompatible with them culturally. (see p. 30)
Now I'm not saying they were color blind or anything like that, but they seemed to have placed more emphasis on what language you spoke, what religion you practiced, what clan, tribe, city or town you belong to.
Color was a describing characteristicrather than a defining characteristic.
Take note of these three example here:
a. (p. 155-156, particularly about the shilluh/shellach)
Even the Andalusian Arab aristocracy would take not only native Iberian and other Euro women as concubines but also Berber and non-Berber Africans as well.
The modern day ideological descendants of the 18 & 19th century pseudo-racialist historians and scientists are not just those of Euro descent in the West. And I don't just mean the Afrocentrics. (see p. 6 and Caleb chapter p. 77 especially)
That pseudo-race ideology of the 18th and 19th centuries is a major contributing factor to severe ethnic conflicts going on in Mauritania, Sudan, and other parts of Saharan and north African peoples.
As I posted previously there are many Western and non-Western scholars that are coming up with the latest archaeological discoveries that are not only rewriting the history books but debunking damn near all the misconceptions that have been propagated over the centuries.
I'll end with this.
Anyone that consistently insists on placing the origin of the Nile Valley civilization along with the modern populations that are closest to the ancient Egyptians in terms of ancestry and culture, outside of the Nile Valley and the Sahara, is either a flat out liar and a fraud or just a know nothing know it all (like a certain New Ager who belongs on a Stargate Atlantis forum rather than a history one ).
This is why you aren't credible. You can't write, you can't even spell, you don't report past events honestly, and you engage in namecalling when someone accurately describes why you aren't credible. What you say cannot be taken at face value. I'm going to do some reading on kovert's links when I have the time, because he presents himself as credible. You do not, and thus self-dismiss as lacking useful input. The only reason even to respond to you is to watch you wreck your own credibility.
Silly guy!
Quote:
Ad Hominem- is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim).
Quote:
Denial - is a defense mechanism postulated by Sigmund Freud, in which a person is faced with a fact that is too uncomfortable to accept and rejects it instead, insisting that it is not true despite what may be overwhelming evidence.
haha. I don't need anymore shreds of evidence, I need to simply quote yourself. And "Mr. Contradiction" strikes again...
Your complete lack of knowledge on this topic and of common sense makes you believe that this statement is a contradiction. You seem to get confused by my describing a civilization spanning over two milleniums as "ancient times". Both Pre-and Late Dynastic Egypt spanning over thousands of years can be can be referred to as "Ancient times" wouldn't you think?
The fact is that the early ancient Egyptians were black Africans from the South:
Quote:
Two opposing theories for the origin of Dynastic Egyptians dominated scholarly debate over the last century: whether the ancient Egyptians were black Africans (historically referred to as Negroid) originating biologically and culturally in Saharo-Tropical Africa, or whether they originated as a Dynastic Race in the Mediterranean or western Asian regions (people historically categorized as White, or Caucasoid). Contemporary physical anthropologists recognize, however that race is not a useful biological concept when applied to humans. Although many people believe they can distinguish "races" on the basis of skin color, more of the variation in human genetic makeup can be attributed to differences between these so-called races than between them. Furthermore, the observable and unobservable (to the eye) physical variation is so great and complex that there are no criteria that can satisfactorily segregate all individuals into one race or another..[...]Unlike the classic typological approach, which interprets variation in physical form as resulting only from admixture of races, contemporary approaches to understanding variation takes into account genetic and physiological adaptations to local and regional environmental factors, such as the intensity of ultraviolet radiation, ambient temperature and humidity. Conceptually, biological affinity express a continuum of relationship that reflects genetic mixing (gene flow) from different local and regional areas in antiquity in addition to evolutionary factors, such as natural selection and genetic drift..[....]There is now a sufficient body of evidence from modern studies of skeletal remains to indicate that the ancient Egyptians, especially southern Egyptians, exhibited physical characteristics that are within the range of variation for ancient and modern indigenous peoples of the Sahara and tropical Africa. In general, the inhabitants of Upper Egypt and Nubia had the greatest biological affinity to people of the Sahara and more southerly areas..[...] Any interpretation of the biological affinities of the ancient Egyptians must be placed in the context of hypothesis informed by the archaeological, linguistic, geographic or other data. In this context the physical anthropological evidence indicates that the early Nile Valley populations can be identified as part of an African lineage, but exhibiting local variation. This variation represents the short and long term effects of evolutionary forces, such as gene flow, genetic drift, and natural selection influenced by culture and geography ("Nancy C. Lovell, " Egyptians, physical anthropology of," in Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt, ed. Kathryn A. Bard and Steven Blake Shubert, ( London and New York: Routledge, 1999). pp 328-332)
Quote:
"Zakrzewski (2007) provided a comprehensive summary of previous Egyptian craniometric studies and examined Egyptian crania from six time periods. She found that the earlier samples were relatively more homogeneous in comparison to the later groups. However, overall results indicated genetic continuity over the Egyptian Predynastic and Early Dynastic periods, albeit with a high level of genetic diversity within the population, suggesting an indigenous process of state formation. She also concluded that while the biological patterning of the Egyptian population varied across time, no consistent temporal or spatial trends are apparent. Thus, the stature estimation formulae developed here may be broadly applicable to all ancient Egyptian populations.."
("Stature estimation in ancient Egyptians: A new technique based on anatomical reconstruction of stature." Michelle H. Raxter, Christopher B. Ruff, Ayman Azab, Moushira Erfan, Muhammad Soliman, Aly El-Sawaf, (Am J Phys Anthropol. 2008, Jun;136(2):147-55
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.
).
Silly guy!