posted 03 November 2004 04:15 PM            

quote:

---

Man you should get your head out of your ass.

---

The forum moderator has warned you earlier against this kind of vulgarity. It does you no credit, and in fact exposes you, as an angry and insecure person, in addition to being an apparent amateur distortion junkie.

posted 03 November 2004 04:23 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
That's called quoting out of context. We are going to cure you of sophomoric debating tactics yet.

The full quote from Ausar:

The problem is we have scarce genetic information about the early dwellers of the Nile,and with this data we can completely answer your questions. Most genetic studies on ancient and modern Egyptians have shown continuity between ancient and modern populations within Egypt. Most mTdna and Y-Chromsome studies about Egypt are done with modern samples as opposed to more ancient samples. Most samples taken within Egypt are done with more urban Cairene samples instead of more rural Egyptians from Upper and Middle Egypt.

The website in question does not bother to cite the full genetic study which ironically said that sub-Saharan markers are most common within Upper Egyptian populations. Read the full study and you will that it contridicts the author's agenda and intentions. The author also excludes the following study conducted on Upper Egyptians from around Gourna.

The question is, do you even possess the subtlety of mind to comprehend the difference between what he is saying, and what you said?

It's rhetorical, please don't answer.

---

I repeat...

The problem is we have scarce genetic information about the early dwellers of the Nile,and with this data we can completely answer your questions. Most genetic studies on ancient and modern Egyptians have shown continuity between ancient and modern populations within Egypt.

^^^ End of story.

I hope you can recognize texts in bold. Now stop philosophizing and being a pain in the ass.

posted 03 November 2004 04:26 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
The forum moderator has warned you earlier against this kind of vulgarity. It does you no credit, and in fact exposes you, as an angry and insecure person, in addition to being an apparent amateur distortion junkie.

[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 03 November 2004).]

---

No actually he warned you because you were using extreme profanity in the last thread, like an immature crackhead.

Now take a hike because you are really looking for hairs in eggs.

posted 03 November 2004 04:38 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
The "pain" you feel is the pain of awareness of just how ridiculous your ranting, which you have failed to support in any way, is.

---

Thanks yet again you have demonstrated your psychotic tensions.

posted 03 November 2004 04:47 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orionix:
Thanks yet again you have demonstrated your psychotic tensions.

American Afrocentrics are very very loud people.

---

(read Ausar's comments on the Copts in said thread for example, to better understand some of the issues on which you are misinformed.)

posted 03 November 2004 05:01 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

Not being American I wouldn't know. When you calm down and are finished licking your wounds via clowning, and ad hominem attacks (all the usual loser's laments) you may want to read thru some of the older threads, and learn something about the studies you cite, but do not in any way actually comprehend.

(read Ausar's comments on the Copts in said thread for example, to better understand some of the issues on which you are misinformed.) [/B]

---

So if you're not American, you probably speak Arabic or/and Cushitic.

Thanks anyway but i rather read books insteed of the Afrocentric perversion of history.

posted 03 November 2004 05:14 PM            

While I agree the bulk of the modern Egyptian population is fairly uniform to the ancient population, I don't necessarily agree there has been little admixture with other people. In the city areas and certain parts of Middle Egypt there was gradual infiltration of foreginers in these regions. People like Greeks,Syrians,and others settled in some parts of Middle Egypt. The mixture between Greek and Egyptian unions existed,and occured more in the populations in these areas.

Other times during the Third Intermediate Period many costal Northern Africans[Libyans] moved into the Delta. This had been occuring since time immortal between the Delta and costal populations of nomadic Libyans. Plus documented in Egyptian texts is migration of Asiatics that settled in the Delta around the 12 dyansty,and others were forcefully brought there by Sensuret I.

Also remeber the mass of the dyanstic Egyptian population was mostly settled in Upper Egypt particulary around the Luxor and Aswan area. In modern Egypt the population is more towards the Lower Egyptian region instead of the Upper Egyptian region.

I do,however, agree that phenotype,genetic,and cultural differences have always existed between Lower and Upper Egypt. Archaeological evidence seems to confirm this notion,and so do the skeletal remains found. Although the skeletal remains from the Delta are poorly preserved due to climate conditions.

What happens is how to you account for modern intermixing in the Egyptian gene pool. Many modern Egyptian Muslims and Christians

have mixed with different foregin groups very

recently. The Muslims have mixed with

Jordnians, Gulf Arabs,Syrians, Albanians, and

even Turkish people. Even Nubians in Northern

Sudan have some admixture from Turkish and

Albanian troops who were settled there during

the Ottoman times.

During the Middle Ages the bulk of the urban population of Egypt was Christian up to the Mameluke period. Many Christian migrants from Syria, Armenia, and Greece came and intermingled with these Christian populations within Cairo.For the Arabs to intermingle with these populations was forbidden because a Christian man could not marry a Muslim women,but that does not mean they did not intermingle with the Syrian, Armenian or Greek Christians who came in.

The majority of the Egyptian population lived in the rural countryside commonly called Fellahin. These Fellahin were hated by the city dwellers,and often revolted against the Arabic rule due to harsh taxes. Very little mixing between the Arabs and Fellahin occured despite that the Arabian Caliphates sent hoardes of Arabic tribes to regions like Asyut and Suhaj. Know today in these regions there are some Arabic tribes known as Hawaara that keep the Fellahin subservent to them.

During the 1950's many people from Sa3eed [Upper Egypt] migrated to the city areas often bringing customs and habits of the villages with them. These people were then reffered to as Balady meaning ''country'' in Arabic. Lots of neighboorhoods in Cairo have Upper Egyptian people in them but most are rundown slums. Not only are Sai'idi people living here but also Bahrawi[Delta Egyptians] also lived in these communities. Some mixing occured between these populations, but most Bahrawi and Sai'idi don't get along very well,so street fighting is very common esepcially in Boulaq Abu Ella.

Some problems I have with you post though is mainly your citation of halpotypes amungst Northern Africans. U6 is found mostly in Costal Northern African regions like Morocco,Tunisa,Algeria and amungst the Mzabi in the northern Sahara. U6 occurs in very small frequencies of the Egyptian population at a rate of %16. It's nearlly non-existence within the Sudanese populations.

The Neolithic population of the Nile valley was very different than the Costal region of Northern Africa. Neolithic Morocco shares some chracteristics with some Neolithic European cultures. The Neolithic cultures of costal northern Africa is mostly Capsians, Metcha-Aflou, and the Pebble culture also in Morocco.

The Nile Valley during the Neolithic was largely was not very populated except the Oasis areas. We don't see significant repopulation of the Nile Valley untill 7500 B.C. with the Faiyum Neolithic with is contemporary with the Khartoum Neolithic in Sudan. Some scholars have noted the similarities. { My reference for this claim is Oxford History of Ancient Egypt by Ian Shaw].

posted 03 November 2004 05:25 PM            

The Christian "Copts" of Egypt
Copt is derived from the Greek rendering for an Egyptian. The Arabs, after 640 CE, used that general term to label the non-Moslems. As a result, the term Copt took on a different meaning by the 7th century.

Researchers of Ancient Egypt assumed WRONGLY that the Christians in Egypt (so-called "Copts") are the link between Ancient Egypt and our present time. On the contrary, the Christians in Egypt are NOT natives of Egypt, but a foreign minority. This situation is explained herein.

When Alexander died in 323 BCE, one of his generals, Ptolemy, son of Lagus, took charge under the nominal rulership of Alexander’s brother Philip Arrhidaeus. Upon Philip’s death, Ptolemy declared himself the ruler. His actions initiated a Ptolemaic Dynasty. Their new settlement, along the Mediterranean coast, was predominantly Greek, which was officially described as being ad Aegyptum, not in Aegypto, i.e. it was an intrusion into an alien country.
In Alexandria, Greeks formed the bulk of the population, followed in number by the Jews.

Greek became the mother tongue of the Jews in Egypt. Many Jews had been imported as soldiers, even before the arrival of the Ptolemies. For example, the Persians had established a Jewish garrison, as far south as the island of Philae, which had left behind some records in Aramaic.

When Palestine fell under the control of Ptolemy I in 301 BCE, he brought back Jewish mercenaries, who joined the already-established communities in Egypt. Unable to speak their native tongue, Jews, living in Alexandria, soon felt a need to translate their sacred books into Greek. They persuaded King Ptolemy II (285-247 BCE), to order a Greek translation of the Bible. The High Priest of Jerusalem sent 72 elders to Alexandria, six representatives from each of the twelve tribes of Israel, together with an official copy of the Pentateuch. They worked for 72 days to produce the final copy of the Pentateuch in Greek. Later, the other books of the Old Testament were also translated into Greek by others, and the whole work became known as the Septuagint, which means The Seventy. Since the Greek text is older than the Hebrew text, it was therefore adopted as the Bible of the early Church.

Ptolemy compensated his mercenary troops (Syrians, Greeks, Macedonians, Persians and Hellenized Asiatics) by giving them tracts of land among the Egyptian population in towns near the capitals of the provinces, into which Egypt was divided.

These pockets of foreign settlements are exactly where the Christian population is concentrated in present-day Egypt.

Romans & Early Christians in Egypt

When the Romans arrived in Alexandria, they gave preferred treatment to the Jews. Augustus granted self-government to the Hellenized Jews of Alexandria. This caused great consternation among the Greeks, who had lived there for a longer period of time. The Romans reinforced foreign settlement, by bringing in more foreigners. The Jewish colony in Alexandria is said to have had a population of 1 million in the 1st century CE.

Christianity arrived early in Alexandria, from Judaea and Syria. After all, Christianity is basically a Judean offshoot. The Romans encouraged and facilitated more immigration from Syria to Egypt.

Christian Rampage

In 312 CE, Christianity was made the official and only religion of the Roman Empire. A short time later, the Roman Empire split. Egypt became part of the Eastern (or Byzantine) Empire in 323 CE.

The decree that there be only one religious system (Christianity), and that anything else is untrue, is dictatorial. It allowed Christian fanatics to destroy the native Egyptian religious rights, properties, and temples.

When Theophilus was made Patriarch of Alexandria in 391 CE, he displayed tremendous zeal in destroying ancient Egyptian temples. A wave of destruction swept over the land of Egypt. Tombs were ravaged, walls of ancient monuments scraped, and statues toppled. In Alexandria, the famous statue of Serapis was burned and the Serapeum destroyed, along with its library.
When Theophilus attempted to convert a temple of Dionysus in Alexandria into a church, rioting between non-Christians and Christians ensued, the former occupying the great Serapeum. The subsequent destruction of the temple was shamelessly advertised by Christians as symbolic of a great victory. It was a folly of fanaticism in the name of orthodoxy.

The same year (391 CE) saw the beginning of legislation that aimed to outlaw ancient Egyptian rites and to close the temples. The laws helped the fanatic Christians destroy other temples.

No rational mind can accept that such destructive behavior led to "convince" people to convert to any religion (Christianity), as advertised by the fanatics, no matter how rational it (Christianity) may appear to anyone.

The fanatic early Christians went on appropriating ancient Egyptian temples. In the 4th and 5th centuries, many ancient temples on the west bank of Ta-Apet(Thebes) were converted into monastic centers.
Hatshepsut’s Commemorative Temple was converted into Deir (monastery) el Bahari.
Ptolemy III Temple was converted into Deir el Medina.
The Commemorative Temple of Ramses III was given the Christian name, “Medinat Habu”.
The Court of Amenhotep III in Luxor Temple, on the east bank of Ta-Apet(Thebes) was similarly violated.

In 415 CE under Theodosius II, Patriarch Cyril expelled the Jews of Alexandria from the city; and Hypatia, the learned and beautiful Neoplatonist, was cruelly murdered.

Christian mobs forcefully took a part of the Temple of Het-Heru(Hathor) at Dendera in the middle of the 6th century CE, and built a new church, which was constructed between the Birth House and the Coronation House, using some of the blocks from the Birth House.

Similarly, in Khmunu(Hermopolis) a Temple of Amon was occupied by Christians and had part of its interior turned into a chapel.

In addition to the violation of Ancient Egyptian temples, the fanatic Christians adopted a new script called the Coptic language — basically demotic Egyptian written in Greek characters with a few additional letters — from about 300 CE. A non-Egyptian alphabet was intended for the use of those non-Egyptians who were schooled in the Greek language. This move had the effect of re-emphasizing the cultural divide between them and the true native Egyptians.

The Greek characters are not any easier than the Egyptian demotic script, which is yet another indication that the Church emphasis was on the Greek-speaking population of Alexandria, Fayoum, and a few other colonies of foreigners.

Egyptian Demotic Script

Greek Script

There is no archaeological evidence, outside Alexandria, to substantiate the Christians’ overly exaggerated popularity claims.
Accepting Christianity is to accept the Bible, which condemns ancient Egypt and establishes the Jews as God’s "chosen people". It is totally incompatible with Egyptian history, nature, and traditions.

Christian Family Feud

The history of the political and doctrinal struggles within the Church during and after the 4th century has largely been written in terms of the disputes over the nature of God and Christ and the relationship between them. A good deal of the turbulent history of Egypt in the 4th, 5th, and 6th centuries can be understood in terms of the struggles of the successive (or, after 570 CE, co-existing) patriarchs of Alexandria to maintain their position both within their patriarchy and outside it, in relation to Constantinople.

Monophysites had, from the first, espoused a doctrine of Christ, which placed the greatest possible emphasis on his divinity, and came near to denying that he had a human nature. In 449 CE, Dioscurus, the patriarch of Alexandria, refused to accept the Byzantine Christian doctrine. He believed that Christ is totally divine, and that it is blasphemous to consider Him human. And so, when the orthodox theologians of Rome and Constantinople agreed at the Council of Chalcedon, in 451 CE, that Christ was to be worshipped "in two natures inseparably united", the Monophysite opposition contended that though Christ could be "out of two natures", he could not be in two natures. The depth of feeling involved is perhaps best conveyed in the slogan of the Monophysite bishops at Chalcedon, which said, "Throw out the Nestorians. Christ is God". As a result, in 451 CE, during the reign of the patriarch Dioscorus, the Monophysite Church in Egypt broke away from the Orthodox Church, and elected its own patriarch.

Since the Council of Chalcedon in 451 CE, each of the two Churches had its own separate patriarch and administration. These parties were distinguished by the familiar names Jacobite and Melkite or Royalist. The Jacobites were by creed Monophysites, by race mainly, though not exclusively people born in Egypt, but of foreign descent (mistakenly thought of as native Egyptians); while the Melkites were orthodox followers of Chalcedon and for the most part of Greek or European origin.

The term Melkite, as employed in Egypt, is of a Syriac origin, and there is no anachronism in using it before the Arab conquest. This is an additional piece of evidence that the early Christians were using Syriac language and names, indicating their origin to be Syria/Palestine and not Egypt.
Syrian migration to Alexandria constituted the bulk of the early Christians in Egypt. They — the Christians in Egypt — continue to maintain physical and personal traits that are very Syrian. It is easy for native Egyptians, to this date, to distinguish a Christian (so-called ‘Copt’), just based on his/her body language and features, which reflects peculiar Syrian (non-Egyptian) traits.

The Persian Interlude (616-629 CE)

The spread of Persian power throughout Syria culminated in the conquest of Jerusalem (615 CE) and Persian hostility to Christians, which thrust more Syrian Christian refugees westward to Alexandria.
The total chaos in Egypt eased the path of the Persian conquerors to Egypt in 616 CE. It took the Persians three years to control Egypt and Pentapolis.
The period of occupation was concluded by a peace treaty and Persian withdrawal in 628 CE, and the return to Byzantine rule.

Cyrus: A Taste of their Own Medicine (631-642 CE)

After the death of the Melkite Patriarch George, Cyrus was sent as Imperial Patriarch to Alexandria in 631 CE. He was given both religious and civil authority.
The double succession of pontiffs was maintained, and it was the early policy of Heraclius to bring about a reconcilement between the two Christian factions.

Cyrus first tried a compromise between the two factions (Melkites and Monophysites). The proposed compromise backfired from both stubborn groups.
Cyrus had to restore order, on behalf of his Emperor, for the Monophysites had terrorized and destroyed those who merely didn’t agree with their fanatic interpretations. Cyrus forcefully imposed the 451 Council of Chalcedon decree.

Did Cyrus prosecute the Monophysites, or did they ask for his actions by rejecting him and his authority? By extension, they had been prosecuting the land and people of Egypt (their host) for several centuries, and ironically, Cyrus, the Christian, gave them a taste of their own medicine.

Christians’ Gift to Mohammed

In 627 CE, when Mohammed, the Islam founder, consolidated his power in the Arab Peninsula, and felt himself strong enough to challenge the submission of the rulers of the world to Islam, his new religion, he caused letters to be written to several neighboring rulers, including letters to George, wrongly called the Mukaukas, governor of Alexandria and the Melkite Viceroy of Egypt (621-631); to Chosroes, King of Persia; and to Heraclius, Emperor of the Romans. All contained the same claim of allegiance to Islam and to the Arabian prophet as Vicegerent of the Most High.

The Monophysites, who never had any loyalty to their host country of Egypt, manifested such disloyalty when the Christian Viceroy of Egypt promised to consider the message, and treated Mohammed’s envoy, Hatib, with all honor. The Christian Viceroy sent back with his reply some valuable presents, which included two Christian maidens (Mary and Shirin), the mule Duldul, the ass Nafur, and a bag of money.

Mohammed, who already had nine wives, fell in love with Mary. The Christian Mary became Mohammed’s sweetheart and bore him a son. The baby died under suspicious circumstances. Mary died in 636 CE.

In December 639 CE, Amr ibn el-As set out to conquer Egypt with a few thousand men. His task was relatively simple, because of the active support of the Christian Monophysites, the so-called Copts.

After less than two years of fights and political maneuvering between the Arab invaders and the Byzantines, Cyrus went to meet the Arab commander at Babylon near Cairo, and both signed a treaty on November 8, 641, which called for the total withdrawal of Roman soldiers, imposing a tribute of two dinars a head on all able-bodied males, and a tax on all landowners. The only parties to the treaty were the Moslem Arabs and the Christians, who passed along a country that was not theirs.

History books end the glorious era of Ancient Egypt at 640 CE, when the Christians in Egypt sold it out to the Moslem Arabs.

posted 03 November 2004 06:33 PM            

However genetic studies confirm that there is a regional variation between Northern Egypt and Southern Egypt.

The question is whether the ancient Egyptain civilization took place in the south or in the north?

I don't doubt that Northern Sudan and Upper Egypt were very similar. The Nubians also had contact with the Nuer of southern Sudan.

Today most of the population is concentrated: A. Along the Nille Vally. B. In Cairo and Alexandria.

However the Ancient Egyptian population was predominantly brown. In Latin American racial definitions the majority of these people were mulattos (half black/half white):

(notice brown and olive-skinned people are distinguished...)

posted 03 November 2004 06:46 PM            

quote:

---

However the question is whether the ancient Egyptain civilization took place in the south or in the north?

---

quote:

---

However the Ancient Egyptian population was predominantly brown.

---

quote:

---

In Latin American racial definitions the majority of these people were mulattos (half black/half white):

---

The bottom line is that your ethnic ideas contain and anti-Black, double standard, which is by definition racist, and also make no sense.

posted 03 November 2004 07:27 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Question for whom? This question has long ago been answered. I gather that you have given up on the assertion that the entire population of Egypt is genetically 'the same' as in ancient times, very well then...

---

I see you're still constant with this **** . Genetically most of the population remained very similar.

quote:

---

This plays like a broken record from you. You make no point. The modern population of Africa is also predominently brown.
[IMG]http://www.neutralbay-p.schools.nsw.edu.au/Believers/Images/nelson+mandela.jpg

---

No the modern population of Africa is dominantly black. Afro-Americans are dominantly brown.

quote:

---

That is also simplistic as many pure blooded Indians also have brown skin. Brown skin does not = mulatto. Basically you are retreating into redundancy.

The bottom line is that your ethnic ideas contain and anti-Black, double standard, which is by definition racist, and also make no sense.

This thread is really about your scrambling around looking for a rationale upon which to base a non-sensical view. This can go on indifinitely unless you change your biased root assumptions. That's up to you.

---

First of all there is not biological race or no purity at all so cut this **** . Race is nothing but a social concept.

Sorry to dissapoint you but i'm not retreating at all. There was a foreign contribution to the Egyptian gene pool but these hasn't changed much.

posted 03 November 2004 08:03 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orionix:
American Afrocentrics are very very loud people.

---

Thought Writes:

posted 03 November 2004 08:04 PM            

quote:

---

Orionix:
Genetically most of the population remained very similar.

---

Can you explain how a population that at one point in time had no contact with any Europeans, could be the same with a population that now has some Europeans mixed with indigenous population?

quote:

---

Orionix:
No the modern population of Africa is dominantly black. Afro-Americans are dominantly brown.

---

Brown, and light toned skin sub-Saharan Africans would no longer be black? Mandela is black or not? What about the pinkish skin color Europeans, are they not part of the pink race?

quote:

---

Orionix:
First of all there is not biological race or no purity at all so cut this **** . Race is nothing but a social concept.

---

…but Africans being the Exception of this. The mainly brown skin Africans are now appropriately “black”, while the same stock in Egypt, is somehow a no race sub-species. This is a philosophy alright…it’s called racism!

quote:

---

Orionix:
There was a foreign contribution to the Egyptian gene pool but these hasn't changed much.

---

If there was “foreign” contribution to Egyptian gene pool, but no change, why bother calling the contributor “foreign”? Are you sure you have fully grasped the meaning of the word? Why bother with such question, when it is obvious that you have a problem of not understanding folks you purport to be quoting!

posted 03 November 2004 08:08 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
Thought Writes:

How can one be LOUD via the internet. LOL!

---

When people are using profanity in order to win a political argument, this is called being "loud". And both Eurocentrics and Afrocentrics become very angry when you don't agree with their world views.

posted 03 November 2004 08:13 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orionix:
The people who inhabit North Africa (including Egypt) since paleolithic times were obviously non-black and non-white, saying otherwise is insane.

---

Thought Writes:

That would depend on how YOU define "Black".

posted 03 November 2004 08:20 PM            

quote:

---

No the modern population of Africa is dominantly black. Afro-Americans are dominantly brown.

---

quote:

---

First of all there is not biological race or no purity at all

---

quote:

---

Race is nothing but a social concept.

---

quote:

---

Sorry to dissapoint you but i'm not retreating at all. There was a foreign contribution to the Egyptian gene pool

---

quote:

---

but these hasn't changed much.

---

quote:

---

The Egyptians were/are African

---

quote:

---

but the majority was/is not black.

---

And proven as a social concept by the Kememou (AE) who referred to themselves as Black people, as well as their Hebrew and Ancient Greek contemporaries who also referred to them as Black.

The fact that you cannot accept that the AE were Black and are obsessed with trying to disprove a fact attested to by multiple cultures and for thousands of years; merely proves that you are a victim of the specific social contruct that is 20th century racism.

posted 03 November 2004 08:21 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orionix:
Most genetic studies on ancient and modern Egyptians have shown continuity between ancient and modern populations within Egypt

---

Thought Writes:

Really, where can I find these studies on ANCIENT Egyptians?

posted 03 November 2004 08:27 PM            

quote:

---

…but Africans being the Exception of this. The mainly brown skin Africans are now appropriately “black”, while the same stock in Egypt, is somehow a no race sub-species. This is a philosophy alright…it’s called racism!

---

"The persistence of racist fallacy in modern [wst] 'thinking'".

posted 03 November 2004 08:30 PM            

quote:

---

Thanks anyway but i rather read books insteed of the Afrocentric perversion of history.

---

Thought writes:

posted 03 November 2004 08:40 PM            

{While I agree the bulk of the modern Egyptian population is fairly uniform to the ancient population}

Thought Writes:

Yes, the Late period.

{I do,however, agree that phenotype,genetic,and cultural differences have always existed between Lower and Upper Egypt.}

Thought Writes:

Differences have existed WITHIN these regions as well. Lower Egypt and Upper Egypt were BOTH populated from TROPICAL Africa beginning in the early Holocene.

{The Neolithic population of the Nile valley was very different than the Costal region of Northern Africa.}

Thought Writes:

The populations of coastal Northern Africa were different from each other as well.

{The Neolithic cultures of costal northern Africa is mostly Capsians, Metcha-Aflou, and the Pebble culture also in Morocco.}

Afalou crania were found to be very similar to crania from the modern Dogon. Genetics indicates gene flow from the Sub-Saharan Africa to NW Africa during the early Holocene. But none of this has anything to do with Lower Egypt.

posted 03 November 2004 08:47 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
Thought Writes:

That would depend on how YOU define "Black".

---

We define "black" differently. I define black in latin terms, he defines it in American terms. Black in latin terms ranges from dark brown to black in skin color. With the one drop rule in the United States it's a completely different cultural meaning.

However i know that there are many brown-skinned Africans within "SS Africa" but the majority ranges from dark brown to black. Mulattos are a minority in Africa.

For example most East Africans look like these guys... Wavy hair and dark brown skin.

posted 03 November 2004 08:50 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
Thought writes:

Let's stay away from the labeling and focus our energy on debating REAL issues and facts. The label "Afrocentrism" is often used to avoid the facts.

---

posted 03 November 2004 09:05 PM            

quote:

---

We define "black" differently. I define black in latin terms, he defines it in American terms.

---

Where the subject is Ancient Egypt both of the above are irrelevant.

Of relevance:

posted 03 November 2004 09:09 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Where the subject is Ancient Egypt both of the above are irrelevant.

Of relevance:

Kem = black
ou = ones, people
kememou = black people (Ancient Egyptians)

---

posted 03 November 2004 09:17 PM            

quote:

---

Ok i agree but we have no solid evidence that Kemet reffered to people's skin color.

---

Kememu is the term at hand. It refers precisely to dark skinned people still today in some languages.

quote:

---

They could have been on the majority brown people who identified as black.

---

But keep finding ways to not understand, you just give us an excuse to explain over and over again. We don't mind if you don't mind.

posted 03 November 2004 09:20 PM            

{We define "black" differently. I define black in latin terms, he defines it in American terms.}

Sight Writes:

That is the problem. Your attempt to translate the term Black (which is a Anglophone term) is faulty. There is no Latin term for Black.

(Black in latin terms ranges from dark brown to black in skin color.}

Sight Writes:

Latin’s define African people differently than African-Americans because they are not people of African ancestry. African-Americans use the term Black within the context of a Afrocentric worldview. Hence, the basis of the term “Black” is not based on skin color, genetics, facial morphology, culture or language isolate. It encompasses all the above. This view is supported by modern biological anthropology and archaelogy.

{With the one drop rule in the United States it's a completely different cultural meaning.}

Sight Writes:

The One Drop Rule has very little to do with the term “Black”. Black people were known as Negro at this time. Blacks began to redefine themselves using the term Black during the 1960’s. They realized the diversity of African people on the continent and in the diaspora.

{However i know that there are many brown-skinned Africans within "SS Africa" but the majority ranges from dark brown to black.}

Sight Writes:

Really, do you have any data to support this contention?

{Mulattos are a minority in Africa.}

Sight Writes:

What is a mulatto? Sounds like the jargon used in the 1950’s. LOL!

posted 03 November 2004 09:25 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Kememu is the term at hand. It refers precisely to dark skinned people still today in some languages.

That is exactly what it meant and why it was said, by the AE, by the Ancient Greeks, by the Ancient Hebrews. lol. Exactly as is true of "Blacks" such as Nelson Mandela in Africa today.

But keep finding ways to not understand, you just give us an excuse to explain over and over again. We don't mind if you don't mind.

---

Kemet was the name the ancient Egyptians gave to their country.

The name means "the black [country]", referring to the colour of the fertile soil of the Nile valley.

Scholars of Ancient Egypt have come to adopt the name in lieu of 'Ancient Egypt' which is much longer and, in a way, less evocative.

"Kmt" doesn't mean "black", it's "km-t" and it stands for "black land". "Km" is used frequently as "black" - using it as a female adjective results in "kmt" but then it is written differently. And frankly it was never the name of the nation and has never been used like this. In foreign documents we find the name of "misr" - probably being derived from "ta-meri" as "land of the plough" - which has been handed down through history in what is now the official name of Arab Egypt. "Kmt" on the other hand is only used in documents regarding the fertility of the Nile valley and its crops. It's just a catchy name, but not the most important one.

Kemet (black soil)
Ta-meri (land of the plough)
Tawy (the two countries), meaning
* Upper-Egypt - Ta-sjemaoe (land of the South)
* Lower-Egypt - Ta-mehoe (land of the North)

posted 03 November 2004 09:30 PM            

quote:

---

Sight Writes:
What is a mulatto? Sounds like the jargon used in the 1950’s.

---

One of the many errors in the thinking of non racial 'racialists' is that by using concepts like 'mulatto' or 'mixed' race they are somehow sidestepping the issue of their own racism.

They are not.

By definition to believe in the concept of mixed race, or mulatto, you are also ascribing to the notion of a pure race.

If there are no pure races, then there are no discrete races to mix, and so there can be no mixed races.

This is a common fallacy of people like Orioinix and one reason why for all their squirming they end up back at sqaure one, repeating musty white race myths and fallacies.

posted 03 November 2004 09:42 PM            

km = black = adjective
km.t = black = noun
that's all the .t does, changes adjective to noun, which is true of any adjective in mdw ntr.

posted 03 November 2004 09:49 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
One of the many errors in the thinking of non racial 'racialists' is that by using concepts like 'mulatto' or 'mixed' race they are somehow sidestepping the issue of their own racism.

They are not.

By definition to beleive in the concept of mixed race, or mulatto you are also ascribing to the notion of a pure race.

If there are no races, then there are no discrete races to mix, and so there can be no mixed races.

This is a common fallacy of people like Orioinix and one reason why for all their squirming they end up back and sqaure one, repeating white race myths and fallacies.

---

You're an bigot. A mulatto (in Latin America) is a guy who has a white European father and a black African mother. This produces a child who has the physical features of both.

All you guys know is to label people as racists. Actually i think you do not know what racism really means.

And yes race exists just not biologically or anything. It's cultural and in the last 500 years it's part of human life. Geneticially race is non-existent.

quote:

---

October 27, 2004

Gene tests prove that we are all the same under the skin
By Mark Henderson
Racists' central argument and theories linking intelligence to ethnic origin have been destroyed

THE popular notion that skin colour can indicate physical or mental differences between groups of people has been demolished by a new analysis of the human genome, which declares race to be a biologically meaningless concept.

Every human being shares more than 99.9 per cent of their DNA with everybody else, and the tiny variations that remain differ more within ethnic groups than between them, a major review of the evidence says.

It is impossible to look at people’s genetic code and deduce whether they are black, Caucasian or Asian, and there is no human population that fits the biological definition of a race, the study found.

Ethnicity is almost entirely socially and culturally constructed, and even the trait used most commonly to define it — skin colour — varies widely among people of similar ancestry.

The findings destroy the central argument of white supremacists and other racist groups, and refute controversial theories that attempt to link intelligence or criminality to ethnic origin.

Standard concepts of race, indeed, are so misleading that they are undermining efforts to untangle the true contribution that genetics make to individuality, and ought to be abandoned by science, the researchers said.

In medicine, for example, race is often used to predict whether patients will respond to particular drugs. While this can be true on average, it leads to generalisations that deny useful medicines to millions who do not meet ethnic stereotypes.

The results have emerged from a comprehensive survey of the science of human variation published today in a special issue of the prestigious journal Nature Genetics.

The research was organised by Howard University in Washington DC, a historically black college where most of the students and academics are African-American, and other contributors included Francis Collins, a leading architect of the Human Genome Project.

Charmaine Royal and Georgia Dunston of Howard University, who led the study, said that the mapping of the human genetic code had forced a “paradigm shift” on the science of race, in which old concepts and definitions were no longer up to the job.

“Existing biological models or paradigms of ‘racial’ and ‘ethnic’ categorisations cannot accommodate the uniqueness of the individual and universality of humankind that is evident in new knowledge emerging from human genome sequence variation research,” they said.

“The term ‘race’, as applied to humans, is incorrectly used. Traditional ‘racial’ designations in humans are not bounded, discrete categories but are fluid, socially defined constructs.”

The human genome map has shown that if two people of any ethnic origin are selected at random, only between 1 in 1,000 and 1 in 1,500 of their genes will differ. This makes our species among the most homogeneous known to science: populations of chimpanzees and fruit flies differ much more from one another in genetic terms. A typical Caucasian’s genes will be as similar — and as different — to those of another Caucasian as they will be to a black African or a Chinese person.

About 90 per cent of genetic variation occurs within ethnic groups, rather than between them. Two Africans, though both superficially “black”, will differ more from one another than from other races. This reflects the course of evolution.

Most scientists now accept that Homo sapiens emerged first in Africa, before a small group, perhaps numbering just a couple of hundred people, left about 40,000 years ago and spread through the rest of the world.

There has not been enough time for human races to diverge much in genetic terms, even before interbreeding is taken into account. “Of special importance to discussions of race, our species has a recent, common origin,” said Charles Rotimi of Howard University. “Race” was a legitimate taxonomic concept that worked for chimpanzees, but not for humans. Dr Collins said race was particularly misleading when applied to medicine.

Some ethnic groups have higher rates of certain diseases or respond less well to certain medicines. These effects, however, are true only on average, and it is individual genetic makeup that really matters. Doctors who take a race-based approach risk misdiagnosing disease or ruling out medicines that would do individual patients good.

Nature Genetics said in its editorial: “The use of race as a proxy is inhibiting scientists from doing their job of separating and identifying the real environmental and genetic causes of disease.”

Research has also shown that when scientists try to guess a person’s ethnic origin by looking at genes, they get it wrong between a third and two thirds of the time.

Another study in the project showed that skin pigmentation is also a poor marker of genetic origin, with significant overlap between populations that society classifies as different races.

Lynn Jorde and Stephen Wooding of the University of Utah said: “Race remains an inflammatory issue, both socially and scientifically. Fortunately, modern human genetics can deliver the salutary message that human populations share most of their genetic variation and that there is no scientific support for the concept that human populations are discrete, non-overlapping entitites.”

WE SEEM TO HAVE RATHER A LOT IN COMMON

Human Genome Project and rival company Celera both completed draft maps of the human genetic code in 2001, which showed that humans have about 30,000 genes — many fewer than the 100,000 once thought
Research published last week claimed that the number of genes was even lower, about 22,300 — fewer than the plant Arabidopsis
People share about 99.9 per cent of their DNA with each other, 98.5 per cent with chimpanzees, three quarters with dogs, half with fruit flies and a third with daffodils
Spin-off projects include the Cancer Genome Project — to find tumour-causing genes — and the Haplotype Map — to find the genetic variants involved in other diseases.

---

Link to this

Well here's a thread from a different board you might find interesting. The board is run by an American-Brazilian:
http://www.brazzil.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=16779

posted 03 November 2004 10:12 PM            

quote:

---

mulatto (in Latin America) is a guy who has a white European father and a black African mother

---

posted 03 November 2004 10:16 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Actually the term is inherently Latin from mulus or mule: a sterile hybrid between a horse and a donkey: and is rightly considered to be offensive by many Latinos.

---

It could be interpreted this way by racists but it's not.

posted 03 November 2004 11:53 PM            

quote:

---

Rasol writes:
One of the many errors in the thinking of non racial 'racialists' is that by using concepts like 'mulatto' or 'mixed' race they are somehow sidestepping the issue of their own racism.
They are not.
By definition to beleive in the concept of mixed race, or mulatto you are also ascribing to the notion of a pure race.
If there are no races, then there are no discrete races to mix, and so there can be no mixed races.
This is a common fallacy of people like Orioinix and one reason why for all their squirming they end up back and sqaure one, repeating white race myths and fallacies.

---

quote:

---

Then Orionix replies:
You're an bigot.

---

Needless to say that, while Orionix would naturally disagree with my earlier assessment of his exchange with Rasol, here are facts he cannot deny in his deep conscious, if he can otherwise do so in an outwardly expression.

Rasol shows the deep flaws and contradictions, that find expression in Orionix’s purported stance of being mentally devoid of the concept of race, from the mere fact that he steadily acknowledges the mixed race or mulatto. Orionix’s response to this, as seen in the above quote, can only be described as a disconnect in communication!
He does so, only to then say the following:

quote:

---

Orionix:
A mulatto (in Latin America) is a guy who has a white European father and a black African mother. This produces a child who has the physical features of both.

---

What is a person who is mentally devoid of the ‘concept of race’ doing, talking about a white European and a black African?
What would Orionix call a child whose father is “Black” African, and mother is “White” European? Hopefully, his answer to this question will reflect some coherency with his aforementioned one, something we’ve been at pains to deduce from his comments made thus far!

posted 04 November 2004 12:09 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by supercar:
I look at the exchange between Rasol and Orionix, and it can’t be helped but notice the gap between their individual expressions of intellect. Needless to say, here Rasol clearly has a handle on what is being talked about, and what he is trying to convey, while the same cannot be said for Orionix. In this instance, Orionix ought to find it beneficial to follow Rasol’s example!

---

Rasol said that mulatto is a hybrid (applied to animals) or a mule. That's why i said he's a bigot (ignorant). You havn't even understood what he said so why do you even respond?

And i didn't follow Rasol's example, i rejected it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

What is a person who is mentally devoid of the ‘concept of race’ doing, talking about a white European and a black African?
What would Orionix call a child whose father is “Black” African, and mother is “White” European? Hopefully, his answer to this question will reflect some coherency with his aforementioned one, something we’ve been at pains to deduce from his comments made thus far!

---

A "black" African is black, a "white" European is white. A person who has both white European and black African (western African) ancestors is a mulatto (in Latin America). Just except it. It's our culture.

And yes i do not believe race exists naturally. Race is just the product of human history, society and culture.

“Race” is today primarily a sociological designation, identifying a class sharing some outward physical characteristics and some commonalities of culture and history.

posted 04 November 2004 01:34 AM            

quote:

---

Ausar U6 is the dominant haplotype in all of North Africa (except maybe Egypt).

---

I actually know this. U6 most claim came into north-western Africa about 30,000 years ago. The ethnic group in north-western Africa with the higest percentage is the Mzabi located around the northern Sahara in Algeria. Mzabi were originally coastal northern Africans but settled as Islamic hermits in the Sahara desert.

quote:

---

However genetic studies confirm that there is a regional variation between Northern Egypt and Southern Egypt.

---

The problem with this analysis is the samples presented are small and not exactly ancient samples. This has probabaly persisted from deep antiquity but to be sure of this we need samples from older material. Plus we need genetic samples from each governate in Egypt meaning the rural areas and urban rural population living in ''Balady'' quarters who have recently arrived to Cairo and Alexzandria. My only critcism with genetic studies are that many don't give a good description of what living populations were obtained from.

quote:

---

The question is whether the ancient Egyptain civilization took place in the south or in the north?

---

The impetus for early Egyptian civlization came from the Eastern/Central Sahara and the Nile Valley itself. Early sites in Upper Egypt in Nabta Playa show complexity developed in Upper Egypt and spread into Lower Egypt. Excavations from sites in Tell Awad Ibrahim prove this. See also Oxford History of Ancinet Egypt by Ian Shaw who says the formation of the Egyptian nation state came from Upper Egypt[Southern Egypt].

quote:

---

I don't doubt that Northern Sudan and Upper Egypt were very similar. The Nubians also had contact with the Nuer of southern Sudan

---

The Khartoum Mesolithic/Neolithic praticed filing of teeth which is a common pratice in southern Sudan. Similar cultural habits has been found in Faiyum Neolithic populations

.

quote:

---

Today most of the population is concentrated: A. Along the Nille Vally. B. In Cairo and Alexandria.

---

Cairo has about 16 million people in it. The total Egyptian population is about 80 million or lower. Upper Egypt makes up about %30 of the total population. The reason why Lower Egypt has more total population has also to do with foregin immigrants from Palestine,Lebanon, Somalia,and other people. The other reason is mainly because of increased birth rates of Lower Egyptians comparied to Upper Egypt.

Know understand since the 1950's many Upper Egyptians coming from all regions of Middle and Upper Egypt have been migrating to urban centers. Along with Upper Egyptians Fellahin from the Delta have also been migrating. Often these people live in slum areas called ''balai '' or Sha'abi districts.

[/QUOTE]
However the Ancient Egyptian population was predominantly brown. In Latin American racial definitions the majority of these people were mulattos (half black/half white):[QUOTE]

Most likely the population varied from light to dark brown. The bulk of the population according to Karl Butzer in Hydraulic Civilization of the Nile was around Luxor and Aswan which today is still very much dark brown.

posted 04 November 2004 02:55 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orionix:
Rasol said that mulatto is a hybrid (applied to animals) or a mule. That's why i said he's a bigot (ignorant). You havn't even understood what he said so why do you even respond?

And i didn't follow Rasol's example, i rejected it.

---

Not only didn't you have a clue as to what Rasol was saying, and hence reflected in your response to him, but you also failed to understand the quotes you have presented so far, and now my comments that you are purportedly responding to.
If you had the remotest idea as to what I was saying earlier, you would have known that the implication of the comment is precisely that you didn't follow the more sensible and logical discourse method of Rasol's. Moreover, you can't even seem to read the comments carefully enough, to point out specifically which earlier comments are being referenced or what not. I had made no reference to your exchange with Rasol, concerning your similarly mismatched discourse about the Brazilian terminology! And yes, you have once again fell short in the department of comprehending, much less appropriately responding to what was said.

posted 04 November 2004 06:59 AM            

quote:

---

Not only didn't you have a clue as to what Rasol was saying, and hence reflected in your response to him, but you also failed to understand the quotes you have presented so far, and now my comments that you are purportedly responding to.

---

He is just a 3rd rate distortion junkie. Many of Orionix comments are apparently cut & pasted from other peoples remarks, all unattributed of course.

In some cases the falsehood contained therein is pointed out and aknowledged on the very webpages where he gets his garbage. But he ignores that and pastes it anyway. The part that I find offensive is that he thinks we are too stupid to notice.

posted 04 November 2004 08:33 AM            

People like these would be considered "asmar"(sumr) in Egypt. It means "dark".

posted 04 November 2004 09:29 AM            

Such people would be considered "qamhey" or "qamhawy" = the coulour of wheat = light brown or tanned. This colour is prevalent in Delta,but there are still some people in Delta who are sumr and even some who could be considered "abyad"(beed)=white. Upper Egyptians are mostly asmar,often qamhey. Egyptians would never call themselves "aswad" = black and only sometimes "abyad".

posted 04 November 2004 09:57 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ayazid:
Well ... what about modern Egyptian "racial" clasification?

---

Black is a prejorative in most of the modern Islamic world, and has been that way since the Moors [also means black] were ousted from Europe. By contrast Black was regarded as an apositive and specifically black skin color in Ancient Egypt was regarded as sacred. As the Kemetic tradition of Black God images such as KemOsiri and KemIsi later translated by European culture as the Black Madonna demonstrate. Don't apply/justify modern racism to AE:

"The worship of Isis and Horus was especially popular in ancient Rome. "Roman legions carried this figure of Black Isis holding the Black infant Horus all over Europe where shrines were established to her. So holy and venerate were these shrines that when Christianity invaded Europe, these figures of the Black Isis holding the Black Horus were not destroyed but turned into figures of the Black Madonna and Child. Today these are still the holiest shrines in Catholic Europe."

http://suzar.com/BOTW/BOTW-ch1b-pages3-4.html
http://community-2.webtv.net/BARNUBIANEMPIRE/BLACKPEOPLEBLACK/page2.html

posted 04 November 2004 10:30 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
He is just a 3rd rate distortion junkie. Many of Orionix comments are apparently cut & pasted from other peoples remarks, all unattributed of course.

In some cases the falsehood contained therein is pointed out and aknowledged on the very webpages where he gets his garbage. But he ignores that and pastes it anyway. The part that I find offensive is that he thinks we are too stupid to notice.

It's one thing to steal from other people...it's quite another to steal other peoples ignorance and pass it off as your own. How lame is that?

---

posted 04 November 2004 11:02 AM            

Samara is also applied to Sudanese people. The Nubians in Egypt are not called Iswadi either except for ones that look like southern Sudanese. Southern Sudanese are the darkest people on the earth and darker than most southern Egyptians and Northern Sudanese. Some Egyptians around Aswan look liike Western African.

The Nubians in northern Sudan only mixing with themselves. They never mix with us Sai'idi people. Infact, the Nubians have Sai'idi people working in their fields in northern Sudan. The Nubians hired them as migrant labor.

The Sai'idi people over the years have only mixed with their cousins which is why so many probabaly look alike. Especially around deep Sa3eed.

There are some Arab tribes around Suhaj, Asyut,and Minya and even Aswan known as Ja'afra, Hawaara, and Ashraf. Ashraf are people who claim desendant of Mohammed. Most likely they are bedouins. Most people in this region are Fellahin and of the original stock of the ancient Egyptians. There is a type of caste system in this region probabaly brought there by the bedouins that were brought to Egypt in the 700's and later in 1300's by Mamelukes.

posted 04 November 2004 12:02 PM            

quote:

---

America doesn't have a one drop rule.

---

posted 04 November 2004 12:05 PM            

quote:

---

mulatto (in Latin America) is a guy who has a white European father and a black African mother.

---

Supercar:

quote:

---

What is a person who is mentally devoid of the ‘concept of race’ doing, talking about a white European and a black African?
What would Orionix call a child whose father is “Black” African, and mother is “White” European?

---

lol, I caught that too. Interesting how many of Orionix social prejudices he exposes publicly, and so easily, especially when flustered.

posted 04 November 2004 12:13 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
America doesn't have a 'one drop rule.' What nonsense.

---

posted 04 November 2004 02:47 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orionix:
Yes they do. I believe most Afro-Americans still follow the softened version of the law. The one-drop-rule impies that every person who has at least 25% (a quarter) of west African ancestry is black.

---

Thought Writes:

This discourse is anti-intellectual and unscientific. Let us continue to raise the standards of excellence and schoalrship on EgyptSearch.com.