posted 06 December 2004 03:17 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orionix:
I believe that saying that ancient Egypt was dominated by a black race is an exaggeration. They probably looked similar to modern day Touaregs. [This message has been edited by Orionix (edited 06 December 2004).]

---

Thought Writes:

I believe that saying that ancient Greece was dominated by a white race is an exaggeration. They probably looked similar to modern day Tunisians.

posted 06 December 2004 03:55 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by blackman:
Horemheb,
First, my sincere apology for confusing you as Orionix. Now, why don't you provide us with the books and authors of egyptology that are taught in your university? I've asked before but as usual you don't answer.

Horemheb and ABAZA,
Please provide info and data to your claims. It would be interesting to show data of the AE being anything other than black Africans.

---

Blackman,

Your best evidence is the legacy of the Ancient Egyptians themselves. They left us massive volumes of recorded history to examine and look at. Any reasonable examiner would easily see that these ancient people were not Black African. Their living descendants are clearly not Black Africans.
You could actually say that many Egyptians are more European than Asian (Arab)in terms of Genetics.

We all know that Egypt is a Transitional Zone, between Africa, Europe, and Asia. Therefore, one would find as expected that there is a large variety of people who inhabit such an area. The question would be, who was the most dominant group..if there was one at all. The AE's did not see it that way at all, because they saw themselves as Unique and Successful....Try to think about this for a minute.

There is no sure positive conclusion to label all these people as Black, unless you're politically biased.

The Truth is the Ancient Egyptians can just as easily be labeled caucasian just as their
living offspring are called in the USA and many other countries in this world, today.

Sorry to tell you this, but you can only bend the Truth so much without a BackLash!!

posted 06 December 2004 04:04 PM            

As AUSAR posted at the top of this thread. the Ancient Egyptians craniums are negriod. However, if you prefer I'll use black African instead of negroid.

Quoted by AUSAR:
Prognathisms is a distinctly Negroid trait. What Massoulard's passage leaves out, is that Miss Stoessiger found the Badarian crania to all possess blurred margin (broad nasal index), just as Coon noted. Dr. S.O.Y. Keita, a well respected and noteable anthropologist did a cranial analysis of his own on various cranias, in his work "Studies of Ancient Crania From Northern Africa." His samples included predynastic Badari, predynastic early Naqqada, Kerma (Bronze Age Nubia), 1st Dynasty royal remains at Abydos, Teita East Africa, Gaboon Central-West Africa, and Romano-Britain. Through his experiments he was able to gain several observations. He found that the Badari predynastic Egyptian crania occupied, "a position closest to the Teita, Gaboon, Nubian, and Nagada series." [p. 40]

posted 06 December 2004 04:31 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by kenndo:

For the last comment above, the ancient egyptians were mostly a black race, not a brown race, but there were other races there too, like the white and brown race.

---

This is very subjective since race is nothing but a social construct.

Also i don't think the ancient Egyptians were ultra-dark brown. They were probably similar to modern day Tuareg.

posted 06 December 2004 04:38 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
Thought Writes:

I believe that saying that ancient Greece was dominated by a white race is an exaggeration. They probably looked similar to modern day Tunisians.

---

Tunisians are predominantly the same as they were once. According to genetic studies the Arabs didn't change much the population make-up in Tunisia. The Arabization wasn't a demographic replacement but mainly a cultural process.

The ancient Greeks probably looked partly Middle Eastern and partly European.

posted 06 December 2004 04:49 PM            

quote:

---

Thought Writes:

I believe that saying that ancient Greece was dominated by a white race is an exaggeration. They probably looked similar to modern day Tunisians.

---

Agreed. I don't even bother to entertain straw arguments about racial "domination". (nonesense rhetoric)

Ancient Kemet was simply an African nation. It does not require explanation or apology to the wounded ego and false pride of Eurocentrics to explain why they were dark skinned African people who referred to themselves as Black. The Kememu held Black sacred. They colored their Gods Black. They distinguished themselves in their own ideology from Semites/Asiatics and Europeans. They considered the African interior their home, their birthplace, the land of the Gods, of the ancestors and the motherland.

There is no microscope powerful enough to detect the miniscule relevance of Eurocentric sensibility to Ancient Kemet.

I leave it to Europeans to explain why they refer to themselves as whites; why they invent pseudo-scientific race and anthropological catagories, engage in blatent fraud and falsify history (from Ramesis III and the mural of races to the fake Tetisheri statues to Piltdown man) in and attempt to "dominate" other peoples and cultures with an essentially venile and racist ideology.

Ancient Africans of the Nile Valley owe no apology and no explaination to Europeans, Arabs, or even Modern Egyptians who do not "identify" with Africa. That's "their" problem, not the AE's.

posted 06 December 2004 05:00 PM            

quote:

---

ABAZA, Many of these guys are preoccupied by race.

---

quote:

---

Anytime a subject comes up they look at it through a racial lense.

---

quote:

---

Even though most of Africa is 5th world,

---

You dislike facing the reality of the African Origion of AE only because it brings you out of your happy self delusion. And then you vent your hypocritical hatred at modern Africa.

quote:

---

Because of this they will continue to pass up opportunities and stay on the losing end, where they have been for thousands of years. Think about it.

---

posted 06 December 2004 05:02 PM            

If any of your views have data you would have provided it buy now. Hoermheb is ashamed to post the title and author of the book used in his university because either he is not a professor or he know we will expose any lies if they are any.

If your views are wrong, why can't you guys come with data to disprove it?

I'll wait for you to not answer and not provide data again.

posted 06 December 2004 05:23 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by blackman:
ABAZA,
Are you reading anything or going off your emotions?

As AUSAR posted at the top of this thread. the Ancient Egyptians craniums are negriod. However, if you prefer I'll use black African instead of negroid.

Quoted by AUSAR:
[b]Prognathisms is a distinctly Negroid trait. What Massoulard's passage leaves out, is that Miss Stoessiger found the Badarian crania to all possess blurred margin (broad nasal index), just as Coon noted. Dr. S.O.Y. Keita, a well respected and noteable anthropologist did a cranial analysis of his own on various cranias, in his work "Studies of Ancient Crania From Northern Africa." His samples included predynastic Badari, predynastic early Naqqada, Kerma (Bronze Age Nubia), 1st Dynasty royal remains at Abydos, Teita East Africa, Gaboon Central-West Africa, and Romano-Britain. Through his experiments he was able to gain several observations. He found that the Badari predynastic Egyptian crania occupied, "a position closest to the Teita, Gaboon, Nubian, and Nagada series." [p. 40]

Why is it so hard for you and others to accept this fact?[/B]

---

Blackman,

The problem is that most of the evidence is biased and politically motivated. There is also a wealth of research that shows the opposite is true.

You can not just pick and choose in order to bolster your point of view.

The reason this issue is so Hotly debated, is because of the Lies and Non-Factual work put out by some Afro-Centric psuedo-historians. They picked the wrong group of people to attack, because the Ancient Egyptians left us a treasure trove of records to examine and dipute this biased point of view.

Modern genetics has allowed us to examine many of these issues and so far the majority
point out that the Ancient and Modern Egyptians are very much related and both are closely related to caucasian people, rather than Black-Africans.

This is Modern Science...without any hidden political agenda. Please feel free to read some of this new research that was done recently.

posted 06 December 2004 05:31 PM            

I leave it to Europeans to explain why they refer to themselves as whites; why they invent pseudo-scientific race and anthropological catagories, engage in blatent fraud and falsify history (from Ramesis III and the mural of races to the fake Tetisheri statues to Piltdown man) in and attempt to "dominate" other peoples and cultures with an essentially venile and racist ideology.

Hi

Rasol, as a person who can be catagorised as "white" and "European", I have to ask,when you make those charges (Of which some are justified against particular people) are you holding me and others who fall into your catagory Culpable. Its a rather broad catagory.

posted 06 December 2004 05:37 PM            

quote:

---

blackman:

Horemheb,

Ahhhhh, excuse me for yawning. The only reason threads like this come up and go on so long is because of people like you, Orionix, and ABAZA who are victims of Eurocentric views.

---

I am not a victim to Eurocentric views.

I believe that Afrocentrism is indeed a response to European racism. Though everyone is free to believe whatever he/she wishes.

Also i am very against racism (the belief that biological races really exists in humans) and ethnocentrism.

posted 06 December 2004 05:52 PM            

quote:

---

Your best evidence is the legacy of the Ancient Egyptians themselves. They left us massive volumes of recorded history to examine and look at.

---

quote:

---

Any reasonable examiner would easily see that these ancient people were not Black African.

---

Constintine De Volney - who stated the the Sphinx was "negro", and Egyptologist Alan Gardiner who said These... were long-headed-dolicocephalic is the learned term-and below even medium stature, but Negroid features are often to be observed. Whatever may be said of the northerners, it is safe to describe the dwellers in Upper Egypt as of essentially African stock,a character always retained despite alien influences brought to bear on them from time to time."

posted 06 December 2004 06:01 PM            

quote:

---

Modern genetics has allowed us to examine many of these issues and so far the majority
point out that the Ancient and Modern Egyptians are very much related and both are closely related to caucasian people, rather than Black-Africans.
This is Modern Science...without any hidden political agenda. Please feel free to read some of this new research that was done recently.

---

Please cite genetic studies that show genetic closeness of modern Egyptians with ''caucasian'' groups. Most genetic studies I have read on modern Egyptians are very selective and exclude samples from Southern Egyptians which would group more with black Africans than with Mediterranean caucasoid groups.

quote:

---

The problem is that most of the evidence is biased and politically motivated. There is also a wealth of research that shows the opposite is true.

---

Then cite the evidence without placing a strawman argument. If you have genetic or physical anthropological evidence then cite it. You are debating the issue in a political manner instead of validating your points with scientific reserch.

posted 06 December 2004 06:08 PM            

quote:

---

The reason this issue is so Hotly debated, is because of the Lies and Non-Factual work put out by some Afro-Centric psuedo-historians.

---

quote:

---

They picked the wrong group of people to attack, because the Ancient Egyptians left us a treasure trove of records to examine and dipute this biased point of view.

---

quote:

---

Modern genetics has allowed us to examine many of these issues and so far the majority point out that the Ancient and Modern Egyptians are very much related and both are closely related to caucasian people, rather than Black-Africans.

---

posted 06 December 2004 06:20 PM            

quote:

---

rasol Writes:

I leave it to Europeans to explain why they refer to themselves as whites; why they invent pseudo-scientific race and anthropological catagories, engage in blatent fraud and falsify history (from Ramesis III and the mural of races to the fake Tetisheri statues to Piltdown man) in and attempt to "dominate" other peoples and cultures with an essentially venile and racist ideology.

Hi

Rasol, as a person who can be catagorised as "white" and "European", I have to ask,when you make those charges (Of which some are justified against particular people) are you holding me and others who fall into your catagory Culpable. Its a rather broad catagory.

---

posted 06 December 2004 06:50 PM            

Also DNA says nothing about race which is a cultural concept. From the genetic perspective all humans share very much in common due to our (quite) recent African legacy.

I doubt the Egyptians even knew these racial terms as we describe them today. I believe this is merely the result of the last 400-500 years of human racist history.

What race were the ancient Egyptians?

[This message has been edited by Orionix (edited 06 December 2004).]

posted 06 December 2004 07:20 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orionix:

I doubt the Egyptians even knew these racial terms as we describe them today. I believe this is merely the result of the last 400-500 years of human racist history.
Link: What race were the ancient Egyptians?

---

Now there is something seriously wrong with an individual who makes such a statement and then proceeds to provide a link to a document which shows clearly the earliest known anthropological representation of the known human races! Religion does that...

And trust me, in your "religious zeal to believe," you really don't want to know the extent of the racial terms coined and used by the Ancient Egyptians...you really don't.

posted 06 December 2004 07:28 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wally:
Now there is something seriously wrong with an individual who makes such a statement and then proceeds to provide a link to a document which shows clearly the earliest known anthropological representation of the known human races! Religion does that...

And trust me, in your "religious zeal to believe," you really don't want to know the extent of the racial terms coined and used by the Ancient Egyptians...you really don't.

---

I do I do!

posted 06 December 2004 07:45 PM            

The fact of the matter is that the carolinas 600 years ago was populated almost exclusively by Mid Atlantic Native Americans.

When you take into account that we are discussing a geographic area (Egypt) and we are dealing with times scales greater than 6000 years you have to admit that there is at least a chance that the modern population may be different from the population that inhabited the country earlier.

posted 06 December 2004 07:46 PM            

I do note that most Egyptian Copts, especially those in the Delta look more like Greeks, and nothing like ancient Egyptians. It's obvious that those Copts are a hybrid of Graeco-Roman and Syrian ancestry. At best, they have minimal native Egyptian blood.

The average ancient Egyptian looked typically like coastal (native) Northeastern Africans, quite like most (unmixed) Upper Egyptians, Beja, Afar, Ethiopians, etc. That does not make them any less African.

The average Nubian looked like modern-day Southern Sudanese, who have not mixed with Arabs (Alek Wek, the supermodel comes to mind).

posted 06 December 2004 08:05 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Ancient Kemet was always regarded as African and Black. This fact has nothing to do with the "modern" [wst] racial concepts which are irrelevant, as are [wst] denials, backtracking, feign compromises, which only show that the game is up and that Eurocentrism is trying to reposition itself, on studier, less obviously racist grounds.
No sale.

---

Rasol,

I hate to tell you this, but this is Hogwash.
There is no White Conspiracy to steal Egypt out of Africa or change the racial origins of the Egyptians. The truth lies right in front of your Face....just look at the first hand evidence that we have. Again, any reasonable person would tell you that you Can Not label the people as Black Africans.

This same concept is what is lost on many of these biased Afro-Centric historians. By the way, all this Afro-Centric thinking is very new and has not stood the tough scrutiny of modern academia.

This biased presentation Needs to Challenged, because it is False and not fair to the Egyptian People and the rest of the world.

I would put my trust in respected Egyptologist, who have spent decades discovering and documenting AE, rather some
Afro-Centric biased studies that are politically motivated.

Egyptians are not Black Africans.....

Africa is Multi-Racial....

North Africa and East Africa have always had
non-negroid groups living in those areas.

By the way, the genetic studies also point out the Nubians carry predominantely Caucasian genes.......how is that to dispute these false arguments.....

Ask Modern Egyptians and they'll point the way for you to the Truth......for example, DR. Zahi Hawas can perhaps clear your dilemma.

posted 06 December 2004 08:06 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orionix:
Do you really believe that there is such a thing as black crania and white crania? Give me a break.

---

Orionix,
I'm going to pretend you are just ignorant and not playing dumb.

Again using AUSAR post:
The AE crainiums had a distinct negroid trait.
Prognathisms is a distinctly Negroid trait.

Do you understand what prognathism is?
Can you understand distinctly Negriod trait?
Are you actually reading the data provided?

If you want to say negriod is not black or african, that's up to you to lie to yourself and play games.

Orionix,
If you are black or part black as you stated, you need an 11th commandment.

11)LOVE THYSELF!

Think on that awhile.
If the meaning eludes you can email me.

posted 06 December 2004 08:19 PM            

quote:

---

Wally:

Now there is something seriously wrong with an individual who makes such a statement and then proceeds to provide a link to a document which shows clearly the earliest known anthropological representation of the known human races! Religion does that...

---

The physical stereotyping of cranial variations into races is absolutely a pseudo-science.

Actually early Anthropolgical methods were heavily based on skull and body measurments and racial streotyping.

The ancient Egyptians were probably similar in color to this Nubian girl:

quote:

---

Wally:

And trust me, in your "religious zeal to believe," you really don't want to know the extent of the racial terms coined and used by the Ancient Egyptians...you really don't.

---

This has nothing to do with religion, though everyone has his personal beliefs.

posted 06 December 2004 08:26 PM            

Simple questions for Abaza:

Where did the original people who settled along the Nile come from?

The black folks in southern Egypt, do they even exist as far as you are concerned? If so, how do you suppose they got there?

First major Egyptian contact with Europe, was through the Greeks, how then could they have been European? Maybe you might want to make a case that ancient Greece precedes AE, don't know...

Where can you trace the origins of the heiroglyphics, northern most Africa or the African interior?

Which tombs and pyramid structures are oldest, from south to north, or the other way around?

What does the Narmer palate entail?

These are just basic questions, before we address the full genetic and other linguistic material to support our cases.

I think it is safe to say that you are one of those Asiatic looking Egyptians, and hence your contempt towards the existance of darker Egyptians. Darn it; those dark looking Egyptians, if only they weren't around! I am sure those black Arab Sudanese, who are fighting other Africans, will make every case on how they are so racially different from those they are fighting. So you aren't a unique case.

posted 06 December 2004 08:27 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by kenndo:
For the last comment above,the ancient egyptians were mostly a black race,not a brown race,but there were other races there too,like the white and brown race.

---

Thought Writes:

posted 06 December 2004 08:30 PM            

quote:

---

Rasol,
I hate to tell you this, but this is Hogwash.
There is no White Conspiracy to steal Egypt out of Africa or change the racial origins of the Egyptians.

---

quote:

---

The truth lies right in front of your Face

---

quote:

---

This biased presentation Needs to Challenged

---

quote:

---

By the way, the genetic studies also point out the Nubians carry predominantely Caucasian genes.......how is that to dispute these false arguments.....

---

posted 06 December 2004 08:37 PM            

Thought Writes:

As far as I am aware AE records make no mention of issues related to physical anthropology?

{Any reasonable examiner would easily see that these ancient people were not Black African.}

Thought Writes:

Based upon what?

{Their living descendants are clearly not Black Africans.}

Thought Writes:

Genetically we all probably have SOME AE genetic ancestry.

{You could actually say that many Egyptians are more European than Asian (Arab)in terms of Genetics.}

Thought Writes:

Based upon the studies I have seen this is untrue. Please provide your sources?

{We all know that Egypt is a Transitional Zone, between Africa, Europe, and Asia.}

Thought Writes:

This is true, however prior to the Neolithic period population density was greater in Africa than elsewhere. SW Asia in fact was a major recipient of population flow from Africa during the Mesolithic period. Hence in one sense Neolithic SW Asian populations were congruent with NE Africans genetically.

{ The question would be, who was the most dominant group..if there was one at all.}

Thought Writes:

The evidence indicates that Sub-Saharan derived populations were dominant in Egypt up until the Late Period.

{There is no sure positive conclusion to label all these people as Black, unless you're politically biased.}

Thought Writes:

I agree. Not ALL AE were Black anymore than ALL the Ancient Greeks being white. However, the anthropological and historical record clearly state that most AE’s were derivatives of a ancestral Sub-Saharan base up to the Late Period.

{The Truth is the Ancient Egyptians can just as easily be labeled Caucasian}

Thought Writes:

Sure, but Caucasian is a obsolete term in relation to modern bio-anthropology.

posted 06 December 2004 08:45 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by ABAZA:
Rasol,

Africa is Multi-Racial....

North Africa and East Africa have always had
non-negroid groups living in those areas.

By the way, the genetic studies also point out the Nubians carry predominantely Caucasian genes.......how is that to dispute these false arguments.....

---

Will you please point out with evidence that non-Negroid have always been in East Africa? This is getting repetitive, I haven't seen any study that has made any confirmation of this. In north Africa this made be true, but not in East Africa.

Please also point out a study that says Nubians carry predominant “Caucasian” genes.

posted 06 December 2004 08:47 PM            

quote:

---

Thought:

Race is a social construct because it is a is a form of absolutism that does not capture the diversity of human populations. All human groups are diverse in a genetic sense. Suffice to say that the baseline Ancient Egyptian population derived from an ancestral tropical African population. Hence AE skin tones would mainly be congruent with other Sub-Saharan origin Africans.

---

True also genetically populations cluster by geographic origin.

All human populations have constantly been in a state of flux, therefore we are all genetically "mixed".

Considereing the fact that Ancient Egypt was a sub-tropical climate i would say that the majority ranged from brown to dark brown in complexion.

posted 06 December 2004 08:52 PM            

Thought Writes:

Please provide us with one recent example of a research paper on this subject from a peer-reviewed scientific journal that is politically motivated. Then explain why you believe it is politically motivated? Thanks.

{There is also a wealth of research that shows the opposite is true.}

Thought Writes:

Please provide us with one such example.

{The reason this issue is so Hotly debated, is because of the Lies and Non-Factual work put out by some Afro-Centric psuedo-historians.}

Thought Writes:

It is actually not a hotly debated issue in the scientific community. In fact, most are in general agreement that AE descend from Late Pleistocene Horn of Africa population in the main.

{Modern genetics has allowed us to examine many of these issues and so far the majority
point out that the Ancient and Modern Egyptians are very much related and both are closely related to caucasian people, rather than Black-Africans.}

Thought Writes:

posted 06 December 2004 08:55 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Charlie_Bass:
In north Africa this made be true, but not in East Africa.

---

Thought Writes:

posted 06 December 2004 08:57 PM            

Thought Writes:

posted 06 December 2004 10:04 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
Thought Writes:

In North Africa this was NOT true!

---

Thought, I'm going not to waste my time arguing this point, but it is well known that the peoples of coastal North Africa were and still are highly distinct morphologically speaking, than those from the Sahara and below. I'm not buying your definition of Negroid and black based on American racial definitions. If we keep it purely on anthropological terms, the people of coastal North Africa have a phenotype, metrically and non-metrically, distinct from that of Saharans and sub-Saharans. It is merely a cline and gradient of traits as one moves North to south or vice-versa. In America, people like Walter White are black but in Africa amongst Africans, north, south, east, west or wherever, he would stick out as a European based on his somatype.

posted 06 December 2004 10:14 PM            

Thought Writes:

You expect to post wild accusations like this on a internet forum and expect them to do unchecked? Get real!

{but it is well well known that the peoples of coastal North Africa were and still are highly distinct morphologically speaking}

Thought Writes:

1) No need to bring in CURRENT North Africans, that was never the point. Are you attempting to use the current North African make-up as a proxy device to obscure this issue?

2) No doubt coastal North Africans were distinct. East Africans are morphologically distinct from West Africans, Saharan from Late Stone Age South Africans, etc! The original point you were inferring is that they were somehow Caucasian. Thus far you have provided no supporting evidence for this far fetched claim. Late Pleistocene Africa had a more diverse set of morphologies than current Africa. None of this has to do with outdated racial classifications like “Negroid” and “Caucasoid”.

{I'm not buying your definition of Negroid and black based on American racial definitions.}

Thought Writes:

Incomplete sentence. What does that mean?

{If we keep it purely on anthropological terms, the people of coastal North Africa have a phenotype, metrically and non-metrically, distinct from that of Saharans and sub-Saharans.}

Thought Writes:

I reiterate, we will find diversity THROUGHOUT Africa at this time. This in now way negates the fact that genetically North, South, East and West Africans from the Neolithic period on were closely related.

posted 06 December 2004 10:30 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by ABAZA:
To those people who are biased...please try reading this website......

RACIAL REALITY

---

Thought Writes:

posted 06 December 2004 11:02 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
Thought Writes:

In that you chose to simply refer us to another site instead of expound upon the ideas contained therein I have to assume that you are a novice when it comes to this issue of AE bio-anthropology. You would serve yourself well to ask many of the able bodied teachers we have on this forum any questions you have on this matter.

---

Thought2,

What is really sad is the level of ignorance
displayed by some of these Afro-Centric people. They're trying to rewrite History
according to their Fantasy........Lets get real and examine the True Facts....

Again,Egypt is in Africa, Yes!!

Was it a Black African Society,.....NO!!

People, need to wakeup and challenge this
Fake Psuedo-Science from doing any more damage to the very people it is supposed to help...namely, the Black ( or so called, African-American ) students.

This is the worst subject in all of Academia, that is being tolerated, while it is mostly a bunch of lies and fake science.

Gladly, there is a large movement to stop this biased Afro-Centric Psuedo-History from being accepted at major colleges and Universities. Thank God!!

P.S. This movement is also supported by some African-Americans, and others.......Don't Feed Your People Lies....Let the Truth Shine!!

posted 06 December 2004 11:16 PM            

Just curious about which part of Egypt you happen to come from. BTW,what does this mean:Masr Om Il Donya and Yella emshi mean?

posted 06 December 2004 11:17 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by ABAZA:
This movement is also supported by some African-Americans, and others.......Don't Feed Your People Lies....Let the Truth Shine!!

---

Sorry, if the truth leaves a bad taste in your mouth. Stick around if you want more of that bad taste.

posted 06 December 2004 11:18 PM            

Thought Writes:

What is truly sad in my opinion is ignorance displayed by any person, expressing any worldview.

{They're trying to rewrite History}

Thought Writes:

Rewriting history in and of itself is no transgression.

{according to their Fantasy}

Thought Writes:

Every idea expressed by every person that YOU see as “Afrocentric” is fantasy? Sounds….well, fanciful. I doubt any two people anywhere have the same exact beliefs on any single issue. Hence in all probability so-called “Afrocentrists” have a range of views and ideas like anyone else.

{Lets get real and examine the True Facts}

Thought Writes:

Ok?

{Again,Egypt is in Africa, Yes!!}

Thought Writes:

I am with you so-far.

{Was it a Black African Society,.....NO!!}

Thought Writes:

Of course it was. Its people originated in Sub-Saharan Africa during the Late Pleistocene.

{People, need to wakeup and challenge this Fake Psuedo-Science}

Thought Writes:

I welcome debate on this matter. But thus far you have merely expressed your OPINION and have presented us with NO peer-reviewed scientific resources that support your position. Hence without data to analyze and reports to review all we have is your creative imagination which seems to posses a Eurasian origin for the Ancient Egyptians. This is fantasy at its best (or worst)!

posted 06 December 2004 11:33 PM            

quote:

---

The physical stereotyping of cranial variations into races is absolutely a pseudo-science.

Actually early Anthropolgical methods were heavily based on skull and body measurments and racial streotyping.

The ancient Egyptians were probably similar in color to this Nubian girl:

---

I think you might be mistaking phernology with a sciences like Forensics. Forensics is actually not a pusedo science at all being that most crime labatories across America use Forensic measurments to identify races of people that have been burned. It's a fact that difference races have different physical features. One such difference is a more curved pelvic bone in negriods than caucasoids.

See the following:

Biological difference between populations have been identified by nonmetric criteria in the cranium, as the skull has been shown to be the best indicator of race (Brues, 1990)
For forensic anthropologists the need to understand and identify individuals of mixed ancestry is necessary as secular changes occur in the United States.

This study looks at the Terry Collection, Colonial Sites, and African material in an attempt to trace the presence of admixture in Blacks through 7 nonmetric traits

http://www.nmnh.si.edu/rtp/students/2003/virtualposters/poster_other03_truesdell.html

See the following about modern Upper Egyptians:

As Kennedy notes:

"While the Upper Nile Egyptians show phenotypic features that
occur in higher frequencies in the Sudan and southward into
East Africa (namely, facial prognathism, chamaerrhiny, and
paedomorphic cranial architecture with specific modifications
of the nasal aperature), these so-called Negroid features are
not universal in the region of Thebes, Karnak, and Luxor."

Kennedy, Kenneth A.R., T. Plummer, J. Chinment, "Identification of the
Eminent Dead: Pepi, A Scribe of Egypt," In Katherine J. Reichs (ed.),
Forensic Osteology, 1986.

See the following from Corey Sparks on shape of Crania:

Study Suggests Genetics Shape Skulls
By BILL BERGSTROM
Associated Press Writer

PHILADELPHIA (AP)--Nearly a century ago, Franz Boas, the man known as
the founder of modern anthropology, launched a study of cranial
measurements of 13,000 people and concluded that skull shapes are
determined more by environment than by race.

It was a powerfully influential finding, because at the time, skull
size and shape were thought to be connected to intelligence.

Now, though, a new analysis suggests the distinguished anthropologist
got it wrong: Race--or more properly, ethnicity _ is a bigger
determinant than environment.

Whether Boas deliberately distorted his findings is not clear. But
researchers think he may have had preconceived ideas about what the
data should show.

``It's pretty clear that Boas was in the forefront of racial equality
and sex equality, and it's pretty clear that he was in the forefront
of rejecting the ideas of racial typology and scientific racism that
existed in the early century,'' University of Tennessee anthropology
professor Richard Jantz said. ``It wouldn't be hard to imagine that he
had a pretty good idea of what he wanted to get out of this study, but
I wouldn't want to say we know that's true.''

Jantz also said that Boas was ``seriously hamstrung because he
couldn't analyze all that data with the resources available to him at
the time.''

In Boas' day, the general view was that Europeans were the dominant
race, an argument often based on brain size. For decades, scholars
opposed to such notions have cited Boas' study of immigrants and their
offspring.

But Jantz and Penn State graduate student Corey Sparks used a computer
to re-crunch Boas' numbers. They reported in the Oct. 7 issue of
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that the data actually
show that race had more influence than environment on skull
dimensions.

``Unfortunately, research design was deficient, and his findings were
never critiqued in a systematic way until recently,'' Jantz and Sparks
said in their paper.

But American Anthropologist, the journal of the American
Anthropological Association--which Boas helped found in 1902 _ plans
to publish another study in March in which researchers led by Clarence
C. Gravlee of the University of Michigan conclude, ``Boas got it
right.''

Gravlee said he had not interpreted Boas' study as saying race or
genetics had no influence on head shapes, only that environment also
played some part.

``We independently find that there are differences between those born
in Europe and those born in the United States. In a single generation,
there was some change, no matter how small,'' he said.

The magazine has asked Jantz and Sparks to write a companion piece for
which they will do more research into how and why Boas reached his
conclusions.

Sparks said he and Jantz are not suggesting a return to the idea Boas
rejected--namely, that a larger cranium equals a bigger brain equals
higher intelligence.

``There still are occasional individuals that think that, but it's
pretty much been debunked. There is so much variation in brain size
that we all overlap in brain size with other population groups,''
Sparks said.

Boas, who immigrated to the United States from Germany in the 1880s,
taught at Clark University and at Columbia University and founded the
anthropology department at Barnard College. His students included
Margaret Mead.

Boas took measurements of skull length, width and the ratio between
the two in 1909 and 1910 of European-born immigrants and their
American-born children from seven population groups: Bohemians,
Central Italians, Poles, Hungarians, Scots, Sicilians, and a group of
people of Jewish ancestry from western Russia, Poland, Germany,
Austria, Switzerland and Romania.

Boas did not directly compare the study subjects' cranial volume _
that is, their brain size.

In a 1912 American Anthropologist article, Boas said the length of
exposure to the American environment had dramatic effects on cranial
form. He said this was evidence of cranial ``plasticity,'' the idea
that environment caused changes in skull dimensions and that
differences were due more to environment than heredity.

For example, he reported that Eastern European Jews tended to have
very round heads but were becoming more long-headed, while southern
Italians were exceedingly long-headed but were becoming more
short-headed.

But Jantz and Sparks said that in America, blacks and whites have not
converged toward a common skull shape, as might be expected if Boas'
theory were correct.

Jantz and Sparks said their analyses did show small differences
between the European-born and American-born members of the same
population groups, but not as great as the differences between
population groups.

``We're not sure if it was wishful thinking on his part before he even
started the whole thing, or whether he saw these very small
differences and said that was enough to prove his point,'' Sparks
said.

___

On the Net:

Jantz and Sparks article: http://www.pnas.org

Gravlee, Bernard, Leonard article: http://www.aaanet.org/aa

Nature, Not Nurture, Determines Head Shape and Size
Study challenges anthropological truism

By Adam Marcus
HealthScoutNews Reporter

<http://www.healthscoutnews.com/images/editorial/brain.jpg> MONDAY, Oct. 7 (HealthScoutNews) -- Anthropologists have long taken comfort in the notion that the shape and size of a person's head is determined not by genes but by environment.

They owe that belief to the work of Franz Boas, the famed anthropologist whose landmark 1912 study showed that skull dimensions were the product of forces such as early childhood nutrition, not racial heritage.

Alas, it seems Boas might have gotten it backwards.

Two American anthropologists have reanalyzed his data, and found the oft-cited scientist overstated the effects of environment and vastly downplayed the importance of genes.

To be sure, Boas may have been handicapped by the lack of computing power to crunch such a large pool of numbers; he collected nearly 13,000 measurements for his project. However, he was a sophisticated statistician who knew what he was doing.

"In the end, he could have ascertained that the ethnic component of variation is large in comparison to the immigration component. But that's not what he was interested in," says Richard Jantz, an anthropologist at the University of Tennessee and a co-author of the latest work. "It does appear that he knew what he wanted to get out of this study, and he was pretty determined to get it."

Jantz and his colleague, Corey Sparks, a doctoral student in anthropology at Penn State University, report their findings this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences .

At the end of the 19th century and into the early years of the 20th, racists used the mantle of science to justify their belief that blacks and immigrants were inferior to "true" Americans such as the Anglo-Saxons. One school argued that head shape and size reflected intelligence, aptitude and other traits.

Opponents of this scientific racism were more than cheered by a report from someone of Boas' stature that undercut the movement.

Boas had taken head and face measurements from people belonging to seven European nationalities and ethnic groups: Central Italians and Sicilians, Czechs, Hungarians/Slovakians, Poles, Scots and "Hebrews" from across Eastern Europe.

To assess the impact of environment on head shape -- including skull length and breadth and the breadth of the face -- Boas studied both parents born in the Old World and their American-born children. "The design was wonderful," says Jantz, who along with Sparks analyzed 8,000 of the original subjects.

Boas, Sparks says, found differences between his American-born and European-born subjects of about 2 millimeters to 3 millimeters, on average. "When you're talking about human variation, 2 to 3 millimeters isn't very much. To really support [Boas' argument] you would need to see a fairly dramatic change," he explains.

Ultimately, Jantz contends, about 99 percent of the variation in face and head shape between races that Boas found was inherited; only 1 percent could be attributed to environmental effects such as nutrition.

Jantz says he and Sparks couldn't have done their study had Boas not taken the extraordinary step of publishing his data, giving future scientists the chance to see what he'd done. "The strange thing is it took so long for that to happen," Jantz adds. Boas also measured stature, numbers Sparks is currently reviewing for a follow-up study.

George W. Stocking, Jr., an anthropologist at the University of Chicago and a leading Boas scholar, says he wasn't able to critique Jantz's paper from a technical perspective. However, he says the work is likely to roil modern-day Boasians.

"The last 10 years or so have seen a strong reassertion of biology as a significant factor in human differentiation," says Stocking. "Many anthropologists feel concerned about this, and their tendency is to be very suspicious and very critical of any argument of this sort. It's quite likely there will be a response to this."

What To Do

For more on Franz Boas, try this PBS Web site . To learn more about phrenology, the study of heads, click here .

SOURCES: Richard Jantz, Ph.D., professor, anthropology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville; Corey Sparks , M.A., Penn State University, State College, Pa.; George W. Stocking, Jr., Ph.D., professor emeritus, anthropology, University of Chicago; Oct. 5, 2002, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Copyright © 2002 ScoutNews, LLC. All rights reserved.

Disclaimer: The text presented on this page is not a substitute for professional medical advice. It is for your information only and may not represent your true individual medical situation. Do not hesitate to consult your healthcare provider if you have any questions or concerns. Do not use this information to diagnose or treat a health problem or disease without consulting a qualified healthcare professional.
Be advised that HealthDay articles are derived from various sources and may not reflect your own country regulations. The Health On the Net Foundation does not endorse opinions, products, or services that may appear in HealthDay articles.

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/99/23/14636?view=abstract

posted 06 December 2004 11:57 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by ausar:
Abaza,are you living in Egypt currently?

Just curious about which part of Egypt you happen to come from. BTW,what does this mean:Masr Om Il Donya and Yella emshi mean?

Ausar,

Thanks for asking. I am 100% Egyptian, but I don't live in Egypt at this time. Your
question is fair, but seems to be meant to divide the Egyptians into North and South.

My parents are from Beni-Suef, do you know where that is??

Currently, I reside in the USA with my family. My location has no bearing on this discussion.

If everyone on this board agreed with your ideas, there would be no discussion....and therefore it would be a monolouge. Especially, when you raise such a hotly debated issue.....Think about that for a minute.

Again, Egyptians are not Stupid, but there are some amongst us that do a great deal of harm to the majority of our people, by spreading biased information.

Even if I go away, there will be many others like me who would challenge this Psuedo-History.

FYI.....All Egyptians belong to the same Racial group. Even the Nubians, are not that distant, but rather look different.

[This message has been edited by ausar (edited 06 December 2004).]

---

posted 07 December 2004 12:14 AM            

Lefkowitz criticized one of her debating opponents by claiming he was Afrocentric, and given this label, she picked upon an informal quote of someone she claimed to have heard in a conversation of some sort and applied it as the general consensus of Afrocentrics, and therefore as a means to discredit the debating opponent. Yet she heard nothing of the sort from her debating opponent. The issue here was supposedly someone thinking that Cleopatra was black.

Well here, you are out of luck: when you say someone is wrong, you better believe that you have to address that particular person and on exactly what he/she has said, not on what some pseudo external group member may or may not have said. If you don’t, well then, you are merely discrediting yourself for not being specific about who you are supposedly rejecting, specifically what you are rejecting, and what you are able to provide as concrete evidence to the contrary. If you make casual references to a pseudo external member(s), then you aren’t really addressing anyone here!

posted 07 December 2004 12:25 AM            

What I would like to know is, what are the specific physical attributes some people look for in order to determine what is "Caucasoid" and what is "Negroid"?

Are the psychical attributes for these two, the stereotypical features? Such as to be Caucasoid, you must have a straight narrow nose, and small lips! And to be "Negroid" you must have high cheek bones, a flat wide nose, and Big lips?

And is this the reason why, people like ABAZA claim, that Black Nubians are predominately Caucasoid? I mean honestly to say Black Nubians are Caucasoid is absurd, too the highest extent!

posted 07 December 2004 12:29 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by EGyPT2005:
Which brings me back to the beginning of my question, what determines in a human being if they are Caucasoid or Negroid? Skin Tone, Physical Attributes, Genes, All of thy above, or none of thy above?

---

Thought Writes:

posted 07 December 2004 12:48 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by EGyPT2005:

I have a question?

What I would like to know is, what are the specific physical attributes some people look for in order to determine what is "Caucasoid" and what is "Negroid"?

Are the physical attributes for these two, the stereotypical features? Such as to be Caucasoid, you must have a straight narrow nose, and small lips! And to be "Negroid" you must have high cheek bones, a flat wide nose, and Big lips?

And is this the reason why, people like ABAZA claim, that Black Nubians are predominately Caucasoid? I mean honestly to say Black Nubians are Caucasoid is absurd, too the highest extent!

Which brings me back to the beginning of my question, what determines in a human being if they are Caucasoid or Negroid? Skin Tone, Physical Attributes, Genes, All of thy above, or none of thy above?

---

Egypt2005,

Your question is right on the money.

The Fact is: Skin color alone does not determine race. It is a variety of factors that combined determine what race a person most likely belongs to. Of course, there are mixed-race people, but we can not judge others by bigoted American Racial standards.

Even today, in the USA, all Egyptians are classified as Caucasian.....check that out if you get a chance......

This is not done out of Charity, but it is the Truth.....that is what they are.

I know many Ethiopian, who don't like being called Black Africans, because they are Not Wholly Black...many are Semetic people, even their language is a Semitic tongue, related to Arabic, but they have been mixed with Blacks.

There are some people who only want to look at a person's skin color, just to call them Black, but that does not always work.

Dravidian in India are very very dark, yet they don't belong to the Negroid Race....Think about that for a minute!!