posted 21 September 2005 04:16 PM            

THEORIES about the Negro origin of the Ancient Egyptians have been with Egyptology ever since its beginnings.1 Also, certain Negroid features can be found in the morphological appearance of the contemporary Egyptian population, more obviously in Upper Egypt than in Lower Egypt.2 Modern genetically orientated studies, e.g. of the blood groups, show the penetration of the Egyptian population by Negro genes.3 The question remains, however, whether the Negroid admixture is connected with the origin of the settled population in Egypt or whether it took place in later, that is to say, in prehistoric, historic or modern times.

In Nubia, according to the results of the analysis of physical anthropology, the original Europoid (Caucasoid) stock of the population was several times overrun by Negroid waves, flowing in from the south.4 Negroes and Negroids penetrated to Egypt only sporadically, and their frequency, uneven according to time, place and the diagnostical knowledge of the investigator, has been estimated as 1 to 5 per cent. An increase of the

Page 2

number of Negroes was observed only during the New Kingdom, in connexion with the expansion of Egyptian domination to the south.5 From that time onwards, they were pictured as symbols of the south. The perfect portrayal of their morphological features shows that Egyptian artists knew them very well.6

Is it possible to presume, therefore, that the oldest inhabitants of Egypt were free of Negro admixture and that this took place only late in historic times?7 If we exclude the new findings concerning the late palaeolithic and mesolithic nomadic population groups, whose relation to the later neolithic settlement has still to be determined, the data for the oldest reliably known culture of settled farmers and pastoralists are the two craniological series of the Badarian culture of Upper Egypt, dated to the beginning of the aeneolithic period (about 4000 years B.C.). The first series was excavated by the British School of Archaeology in 1924-58 and anthropologically elaborated by B. N. Stoessiger in 1927;9 the second series, unearthed in 1928-30,10 was measured by D. E. Derry, whose data were elaborated and compared with the results of Stoessiger by G. M. Morant.11

Both series were found to be morphologically close, so that without any doubt they represent a basically identical population. Both Stoessiger and Morant, belonging to the English biometric school of Pearson, presumed that the population was homogeneous, resulting from a mixture over several generations, so they did not try to analyse its components. Both series were studied only in their mean values and variability characteristics. They were found to have rather small absolute dimensions, especially the breadth measurements, the horizontal circumference and the cranial capacity, they were not very robust, their muscular relief was developed only slightly and their general character was described as feminine. According to the indices, they were dolichocranial, orthocranial, mesenic to leptenic and chamaerrhine (i.e. narrow, average height skull, average to narrow upper face, and rather broad nose). A rather high nasal index (men 54.8, women 55.2) together with marked prognathism distinguished them from the following Predynastic series and inclined towards the Negroid direction.

Analysing the position of the Badarians, Stoessiger realized that in

Page 3

metric features, which most clearly distinguish the Egyptians and the Negroes, the Badarian series stood nearer to the Negro than to all other, younger Egyptian series. The author did not, however, analyse the cause of this resemblance; instead, she turned her interest towards the comparison of the Badarians with some primitive Indian series (Dravidians, Vedda, Urija) by means of Pearson's coefficient of Racial Likeness, which showed a certain congruence. On the other hand, Morant stressed the evolutionary continuity from the Badarian series to the Predynastic ones, realizing that the gradual change of the morphologic types was the result of the diminishing of Negroid features. R. Mukherjee, C. R. Rao and J. C. Trevor12 tested the position of certain African series by means of the Mahalanobis General Distance Statistic (D2) and they found among other things that the Badarian series were rather close to the Teita Negroes of Kenya and to several other Negroid series of Northeastern, Eastern and Central Africa. In her Ph.D. thesis,

M. C. Nutter13 showed by means of Penrose's Shape and Size Distance Analysis, that the Badarian series resemble the series of Kerma and Naqada I (Early Predynastic period), both of which are Negroid according to the author. A. C. Berry, R. J. Berry and

P. J. Ucko14 studying non-metric (descriptive, discrete) traits found a significant difference between the first Badarian series and other Predynastic and Dynastic series. According to the analysis of African Negro skulls by H. de Villiers,15 'the prolonged Negro influence in North Africa is demonstrated by the fact that the early pre-Dynastic population . . . already showed some Negro characteristics'. We may conclude that, even by comparisons of the means and variability of the Badarian series, Negro or Negroid affinities were discerned by some of the authors.

In contrast with the biometricians' concept of the homogeneity of the Badarian series, the excavators of Badari cemeteries observed their marked morphological diversity, writing '. . . the variation in the physical features . . . imply that they were affected to some degree by actual admixture'.16 Matiegkova and Matiegka17 also expressed their opinion about racial mixture in the Badarian series. According to the cranial index and to Czekanowski's method of least differences, they distinguished three morphological groups, one hyperdolichocranial, a second dolichocranial and a third dolicho- to mesocranial. According to E. J. Baumgartel,18 the

Page 4

Badarian population was of mixed origin, which is demonstrated by the simultaneous occurrence of gracile and very robust skulls.

These opinions about the heterogeneity of the Badarians had to be checked by the individual analysis of the material. This was attempted for the second Badarian series by A. Wiercinski,19 applying his own and Michalski's typological method. He found the Europoid (Caucasoid) element in 76 per cent, the Mongoloid element in 19.4 per cent and the Negroid element in 4.6 per cent. The assumed high share of the Mongoloid element, which is not easy to distinguish from the Negroid one in the skeletal material, is rather strange, and I could not find it during my own re-examination of the same material. Neither geographical nor historical circumstances suggest the presence of a strong Mongoloid admixture in the oldest settled population of Egypt and Middle East. Wierciniski's analysis, nevertheless, shows that about one quarter of the Badarian series was found to be of non-Europoid character.

By the individual analysis of nasal measurements and indices of the first Badarian series in comparison with the mixed Europoid-Negroid series from Wadi Qitna in Nubia (fourth-fifth century A.D.), with the Europoid series from Manfalout in Upper Egypt (Ptolemaic period) and with a series of recent Nilotes, I came to the conclusion that the distribution of the Badarian skulls extends from the Europoid to the Negroid range.20

With the aim of elucidating the question of the morphological character of the Badarians, I studied both available Badarian series, the first one in the Duckworth Laboratory at Cambridge (53 skulls), and the second one in the Institute of Anatomy at Kasr El-Aini University of Cairo (64 skulls), making a total of 117 skulls of adult and juvenile individuals. Among several investigated features twelve were found, according to the literature21 and to my own results,22 to be important in the differential diagnosis of the Negroid and Europoid components. These were the total, nasal and alveolar profile angles, the nasal index, the index of the ramus mandibulae and the index of the prominence of nasal root (the height of the nasal root above the level of the anterior interorbital breadth, expressed as percentage of the anterior interorbital breadth). Besides the metric features, the shape of the forehead (front bombe, intermediate form, separate tubera frontalia), the development of the nasal spine, the outline of the apertura piriformis, the features of its lower margin, the development of the fossa

Page 5

canina and the prominence of cheek bones were also studied. The distribution of these features into several categories, together with their evaluation, is shown in extenso in the journal Anthropologie, Brno, for all individuals studied.23

Of the total of 117 skulls, 15 were found to be markedly Europoid, 9 of these were of the gracile Mediterranean type (Figs. 1a & b),

6 were of very robust structure reminiscent of the North African Cromagnon type.24 Eight skulls were clearly Negroid (Figs. 2a

and b), and were close to the Negro types occurring in East Africa. The majority of 94 skulls showed mixed Europoid-Negroid features in different combinations and with different shares of both major race components. In one third of them the Europoid, in the other third the Negroid, features were dominant. The last third showed both components, either well-balanced or with characters of the neutral range, common to both racial groups. We may conclude that the share of both components was nearly the same, with some overweight to the Europoid side.

In some of the Badarian crania hair was preserved, thanks to good conditions in the desert sand. In the first series, according to the description of the excavators, they were curly in 6 cases, wavy in 33 cases and straight in 10 cases. They were black in 16 samples, dark brown in 11, brown in 12, light brown in 1 and grey in 11 cases.25

Thanks to the courtesy of Dr. Lawrence and Dr. Garlick from the Duckworth Laboratory in Cambridge, I was able to take samples of seven of the racially mixed Badarian individuals which were macroscopically curly (spirals of 10-20 mm in diameter) or wavy (25-35 mm). They were studied microscopically by S. Tittelbachova from the Institute of Anthropology of the Charles University, who found in five out of seven samples a change in the thickness of the hair in the course of its length, sometimes with a simultaneous narrowing of the hair pith. The outline of the cross-sections of the hairs was flattened, with indices ranging from 35 to 65. These peculiarities also show the Negroid influence among the Badarians.

The naturalistic statue of a woman made of ivory (tomb 5107), one of three human statues found during the first excavation season in Badari, shows remarkable anatomical detail. Its face, however, is very crudely carved, so that it is disputable whether its thick-set and relatively broad nose, which at the same time shows a rather great prominence, can be considered as evidence of Negro race, as stated by Ch. A. Diop.26

Regardless of this, however, the Negroid component among the Badarians is anthropologically well based. Even though the share of 'pure' Negroes is small (6-8 per cent), being half that of the Europoid forms

[Footnotes on page 5]

23. E. Strouhal, 'Individual analysis of Badarian skulls', Anthropologie, Brno, 1971, in press.

Page 6

(12.9 per cent), the high majority of mixed forms (80.3 per cent) suggests a long-lasting dispersion of Negroid genes in the population. It can be interpreted by the supposition that the mixture of both components began many generations previously. A remarkably similar opinion has already been expressed by Stoessiger27 when she said that if there really were relationships between the Badarians and the Negroes, it would be necessary to go very far back in evolutionary history to account for it.

We still do not know exactly when neolithic farmers first settled in the Nile Valley, nor from whence they came. A date in the sixth millennium B.C. is most likely and the sources of the settlement may probably be found in the eastern Mediterranean area. At the same period, however, with the beginning of the Makalian wet phase, the Negro population of the Sudanic savanah belt would have started its movement towards the north, into Saharan latitudes, which then, for the last time, became open to human occupation. Maybe some of these emigrant groups penetrated down the Nile as far as Upper Egypt, thus providing one of the oldest known biological contacts between the Negroids and Europoids, the ultimate evidence of which appears some 1,000-1,500 years later in skeletons preserved in the Badarian cemeteries.

In this connexion, we have to mention that Egyptologists have found in the Badarian and other Predynastic cultures of Upper Egypt some material and ideological evidence of southern or Sudanic African elements. The Badarian pottery is connected with the pottery of the Khartoum neolithic culture, which originated probably from the ceramics of the Early Khartoum culture.28 Some authors postulate the direct derivation of Badarian pottery from the Khartoum neolithic pottery.29 While in Egypt pottery of this type was later replaced by other ceramic forms, often under the influence of the Middle East, in the Sudan this archaic pottery persisted for a long time,30 and was from there later introduced on several occasions by southern immigrants into Nubia and even (though in small quantities) into Egypt.31 Fishing hooks were also found in Badari, typo-logically similar to Khartoum neolithic hooks, but more developed, and therefore probably younger.32 To this connexion between the Khartoum neolithic and Badarian cultures it is necessary to add that, according to present — unfortunately still very poor— evidence, the population of the Khartoum neolithic was Negroid.33

Badarian flint instruments are of surprisingly poor quality. They were

[Footnotes on page 6]

Page 7

made from free-lying non-valuable boulders, regardless of the fact that in the living area of the Badarians plenty of superb flints could have been collected from the limestone layers. This provides an argument for the arrival of Badarian people from an area lacking limestones with flints, e.g. from more southern areas, where, starting with 25° N. latitude in the Eastern Desert and Esna in the Nile Valley, the limestone relief comes to an end.34

In some of the Badarian graves, conical buttons made from fine polished ceramics were found which were probably worn in the ear lobes or in the nasal wings. This is demonstrated by the finding of similar buttons made from a fair green stone in situ in the right nasal wing of the woman from tomb 3559 (not a man, as stated by Brunton and Caton-Thompson35). The custom of wearing ornaments in the nose or ears can be considered in this region also as being of African origin.

In the Predynastic cultures of Upper Egypt Aldred36 found evidence of the cult of celestial and astral deities, as well as of the idea of the leader (later the deified king) as the 'rain-maker'. This is also an old African conception, which may be connected with the original home of the Upper Egyptian population (or part of it) in a region depending more on rainfall than on the Nile floods. Ritual killing of the leaders in the time of their decreased strength, known also from Predynastic Egypt, has analogies in the historic and even in the recent Sudan.37

Even though without any doubt the basic agricultural and pastoral complex of the Badarian culture, the occurrence of the first painted pottery and the first copper, together with some important ideological conceptions (e.g. about the Great Mother or of the Procreative Power), have Middle Eastern roots, some other evidence points to African origins. This cultural duality is a very interesting parallel to the ascertained biological duality of the population. This is not to imply that these phenomena are identical, because the concrete situation was certainly more complicated. More new and complex findings about the beginnings of settled life in Upper Egypt are needed to prove the identity.

One question remains, namely, what was the later fate of the Negroid features found in the Badarian population? It will be necessary to re-examine this problem in further Predynastic series of anthropological material. According to the existing literature, some Negroid influence is also detectable there. Already the analysis of the post-cranial skeleton of the Predynastic series of Naqada showed that its mean stands somewhere between the Negroids and Europoids.38 This was confirmed by comparison with the mixed Negroid-Europoid series from Wadi Qitna in Nubia.39

[Footnotes on page 7]

Page 9

We have to take into account also the possibility that Negroid features and genes could have been eliminated by selective pressure. Biology points to the stenothermy of Negroes, who are best adapted to the hot and humid conditions of the woodland regions to the south of the savanna. In the Egyptian Nile valley they found themselves in the opposite extreme of climate, that of the dry desert with great differences between day maxima temperature and night minima. A possible demonstration of the harmful influence of the Egyptian climate on Negroes was the shocking case reported in 1824 from Aswan, where 17,000 out of 20,000 ill-clothed Sudanese soldiers died of pneumonia and other consequences of cold. Egyptian soldiers remained healthy under the same conditions.49

Negroid genes were reintroduced into the Egyptian population sporadically during Dynastic times and later, more extensively in connexion with the slave trade.

posted 21 September 2005 05:33 PM            

The key to refuting (obliterating) this article is ascertaining what the author means by "negro"! Again what we have here is that remains with more "gracile" (finer) features are classified as "caucasoid". In this board we have beaten the fallacy of the term "caucasoid" as well as its classifications-- 'fine' features, so many times!! As if these gracile types were the earliest inhabitants anyway. New evidence shows that 'broad type' features were present in the Lower Nile since late Paeolithic to Mesolithic times.

What's funny is that the article states that the earliest (at least the earliest of that time) evidence of "negroid" influence was the Badarian. Ironically, mainstream Egyptologists associate the Badarians with the "first true Egyptians", since it is during the Badarian period where many of the 'civilizing' and significant elements of Egyptian culture appear!!

As for "negro" genes, we know there is no such thing. However what they refer to as "negro" genes are no doubt the presence of E3a haplotypes, which are assoicated with West Africans and thus the label "negro". However, the other predominant haplotype of E3b is as we already know is equally as African and related to E3a.

Sorry Giza, but you are free to try again!

posted 21 September 2005 05:48 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
LOL Giza-Rider is obviously grasping in the dark for something. This article is old, for I have read it years ago upon my research into the African nature and origins of Egypt.

The key to refuting (obliterating) this article is ascertaining what the author means by "negro"! Again what we have here is that remains with more "gracile" (finer) features are classified as "caucasoid". In this board we have beaten the fallacy of the term "caucasoid" as well as its classifications-- 'fine' features, so many times!! As if these gracile types were the earliest inhabitants anyway. New evidence shows that 'broad type' features were present in the Lower Nile since late Paeolithic to Mesolithic times.

What's funny is that the article states that the earliest (at least the earliest of that time) evidence of "negroid" influence was the Badarian. Ironically, mainstream Egyptologists associate the Badarians with the "first true Egyptians", since it is during the Badarian period where many of the 'civilizing' and significant elements of Egyptian culture appear!!

As for "negro" genes, we know there is no such thing. However what they refer to as "negro" genes are no doubt the presence of E3a haplotypes, which are assoicated with West Africans and thus the label "negro". However, the other predominant haplotype of E3b is as we already know is equally as African and related to E3a.

Sorry Giza, but you are free to try again!

---

...

posted 21 September 2005 06:15 PM            

He would google up racist garbage, spam the forum with it, and ignore replies.

Gonad-rider's goal is to start straw-fires.

posted 21 September 2005 08:02 PM            

Judging, by the Art work from Ancient Egypt, one would have to say that the mixture was obvious, but usually the Art pieces represent the ruling class, and we know that the rulers are not always what an average person looks like.

Egypt, could have had more foreign rulers from early on, including Black Nubians.

The article nevertheless, is very interesting!

quote:

---

Originally posted by osirion:

Giza: What do you make of this article. Also, do you think it is accurate?

---

posted 21 September 2005 11:21 PM            

In this case (Egypt) the brown/fairskinned foreigner overtaking the brown/black masses.

posted 21 September 2005 11:42 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Giza-Rider:

.....Negro genes....

[This message has been edited by Giza-Rider (edited 21 September 2005).]

---

Thought Writes:

posted 21 September 2005 11:49 PM            

The other foreign people, actually blended in a lot better with the natives than the Black Nubians.

quote:

---

Originally posted by yazid904:
Gizae stated "we know that the rulers are not always what an average person looks like" but this usually means a foreign element has defeated the local and imposed his will on them implying pre-Arab groups as foreigners conquering the Pharoajnic masses.

In this case (Egypt) the brown/fairskinned foreigner overtaking the brown/black masses.

---

posted 21 September 2005 11:56 PM            

There are no NEGRO genes!

There is no such thing as Caucasoid People.

There are only Blacks in Africa.

IF YOU CAN BELIEVE ALL THIS B.S., THEN I'VE GOT SOME OCEAN FRONT PROPERTY IN ARIZONA FOR YOU -- LOL

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
[b]LOL Giza-Rider is obviously grasping in the dark for something. This article is old, for I have read it years ago upon my research into the African nature and origins of Egypt.

The key to refuting (obliterating) this article is ascertaining what the author means by "negro"! Again what we have here is that remains with more "gracile" (finer) features are classified as "caucasoid". In this board we have beaten the fallacy of the term "caucasoid" as well as its classifications-- 'fine' features, so many times!! As if these gracile types were the earliest inhabitants anyway. New evidence shows that 'broad type' features were present in the Lower Nile since late Paeolithic to Mesolithic times.

What's funny is that the article states that the earliest (at least the earliest of that time) evidence of "negroid" influence was the Badarian. Ironically, mainstream Egyptologists associate the Badarians with the "first true Egyptians", since it is during the Badarian period where many of the 'civilizing' and significant elements of Egyptian culture appear!!

As for "negro" genes, we know there is no such thing. However what they refer to as "negro" genes are no doubt the presence of E3a haplotypes, which are assoicated with West Africans and thus the label "negro". However, the other predominant haplotype of E3b is as we already know is equally as African and related to E3a.

Sorry Giza, but you are free to try again!

[This message has been edited by Djehuti (edited 21 September 2005).][/B]

---

posted 21 September 2005 11:57 PM            

quote:

---

This is not exactly accurate. It is well known that the "BLACK NUBIANS" ruled Egypt for a short while and they tried their best to imitate the Egyptians, but were very different from the rest of the people

---

Most pharaohs came from southern Upper Egypt. Southern Upper Egyptians during antiquity were hardly distinguisable from Nubians past the first cataract.

Ta-seti was called the first nome of Egypt and called the Nubian nome. Located in modern day Aswan.

See the following from Michael Hoffman:

"Egypt before
the Pharaohs" by Dr. Michael A. Hoffman. In reference to the ancient
peoples, region and border of Nubia he goes on to explain that the ancient
population of Nubia, (from Aswan southward) differs not from the ancient
population of Upper Egypt. Hoffman writes:

"From predynastic times down to the New Kingdom when Egypt actually
occupied the land, Lower Nubia remained a region of few social and
economic distinctions and comparatively low population density. The reason
for her tendency to lag behind her rich northern neighbor has sometimes
been explained in terms of racial inferiority. But in physical affinity
the peoples of this region cannot be differentiated consistently from
those of southern Upper Egypt. An environmental explanation is more
accurate." (pg.256

quote:

---

The other foreign people, actually blended in a lot better with the natives than the Black Nubians

---

This is not true. Nubians were not much different culturally from ancient Egyptians. Of all the foreigners that ruled Egypt,the Nubians were the onlys ones that blended in.

Both the 12th dyansty and 18th dyansties have a Nubian origin. The Assyrians,Persians,and later Ptolemic pharaohs that ruled Egypt were all bitterly hated.

Upper Egyptians actually welcomed the Nubians. Delta Egyptians even prefered their rulership over the Assyrians.

[This message has been edited by ausar (edited 22 September 2005).]

[This message has been edited by ausar (edited 22 September 2005).]

posted 22 September 2005 06:45 AM            

quote:

---

- racist garbage

- LOL! What a joke.

---

Evidence of the Early Penetration of Negroes into Prehistoric Egypt
by Eugen Strouhal, Physical Antropologist
The Journal of African History, Vol. 12, No. 1 (1971), 1-9.
Copyright © 1971 Cambridge University Press

http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/blacks-in-egypt.html

posted 22 September 2005 01:45 PM            

quote:

---

Evidence of the Early Penetration of Negroes into Prehistoric Egypt
by Eugen Strouhal, Physical Antropologist
The Journal of African History, Vol. 12, No. 1 (1971), 1-9.
Copyright © 1971 Cambridge University Press
]http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/blacks-in-egypt.html

---

LOL That is an Afrocentric site that use various sources of information that involve black Africans, even if some of these sources contradict each other.

Sounds a lot like you Stupid-Euro!

posted 22 September 2005 02:03 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Giza-Rider:
Hard to say if the article is accurate or not, but the idea of a European/African mixture from the start seems to be credible enough. It would seem that the African elements were reinforced from time to time, but so were the European/Asiatic ones.

---

Giza, did you not read anything I said about the inaccuracy of this article?!!

posted 22 September 2005 02:07 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Giza-Rider:
Let us understand this self-inflicted educational vaccum.

There are no NEGRO genes!

There is no such thing as Caucasoid People.

There are only Blacks in Africa.

IF YOU CAN BELIEVE ALL THIS B.S., THEN I'VE GOT SOME OCEAN FRONT PROPERTY IN ARIZONA FOR YOU -- LOL

---

OK, you read my post but you obviously did not understand a word of it! You obviously know nothing about genetics to speak of "negro genes" and you know nothing of anthropology to not know about the fallacy of the "caucasoid" classification!!

I suggest you go back and try to comprehend what I wrote, and if you still cannot understand then sorry I cannot help you with either your ignorance or your stupidity!

posted 22 September 2005 02:15 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
OK, you read my post but you obviously did not understand a word of it! You obviously know nothing about genetics to speak of "negro genes" and you know nothing of anthropology to not know about the fallacy of the "caucasoid" classification!!

I suggest you go back and try to comprehend what I wrote, and if you still cannot understand then sorry I cannot help you with either your ignorance or your stupidity!

---

posted 22 September 2005 02:49 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
[B] Giza, did you not read anything I said about the inaccuracy of this article?!!

---

posted 22 September 2005 03:10 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
[]Having no brain is what's defeating you, Giza.[]

---

posted 22 September 2005 03:16 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Giza-Rider:
[b]HAVING A PEA SIZED BRAIN IS YOUR AFFLICTION, ]

---

...said the insecure little man who types in all caps as classic [and futile] excercise in over-compensation.

bye now, little one.

posted 22 September 2005 03:19 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Giza-Rider:
[b]HAVING A PEA SIZED BRAIN IS YOUR AFFLICTION, BUT WHY SHOULD ANYONE BOTHER WITH YOU---

"A MIND IS A TERRIBLE THING TO WASTE--"

(Slogan of the United Negro College Fund)

BUT NOT IN YOUR CASE, NOTHING WILL BE WASTED!

[This message has been edited by Giza-Rider (edited 22 September 2005).][/B]

---

posted 22 September 2005 07:21 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Giza-Rider:
WHY WOULD ANYONE BOTHER! WE ALL KNOW WHERE YOU STAND--

HAVING AN AFRO AGENDA--IS SELF-DEFEATING FOR PEOPLE LIKE YOU....

---

LOL Shows how little you know about me, let alone the subject of your Egyptian heritage! I'm not even black!! I am Asian and I do not have an "afro agenda". My only agenda is truth! And if you don't like the truth and don't want to hear it, that is YOUR problem!!

Face it, your article is old and has been proven inaccurate! The so-called "caucasoid" classification is based solely on 'fine features' but 'fine features' are not caucasoid! Genetics also show that Egyptians have always been African and no "penetration of negroid genes"!!

Sorry, Giza

posted 23 September 2005 11:12 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
[b]LOL Shows how little you know about me, let alone the subject of your Egyptian heritage! I'm not even black!! I am Asian and I do not have an "afro agenda". My only agenda is truth! And if you don't like the truth and don't want to hear it, that is YOUR problem!!

Face it, your article is old and has been proven inaccurate! The so-called "caucasoid" classification is based solely on 'fine features' but 'fine features' are not caucasoid! Genetics also show that Egyptians have always been African and no "penetration of negroid genes"!!

Sorry, Giza

[/B]

---

posted 23 September 2005 12:16 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Giza-Rider:
COULD'VE FOOLED ME--

YOUR RACE IS THE NOT ISSUE---IT IS THE SIZE OF YOUR BRAIN THAT IS HOLDING YOU BACK FROM UNDERSTANDING THE ISSUES.

ONLY A TOTAL IDIOT WOULD STAND-UP TO A NATIVE AND TELL HIM, I KNOW MORE ABOUT YOUR COUNTRY THAN YOU DO-- A TOTAL IDIOT.

WHEN YOU LEARN TO SPEAK ARABIC (EGYPTIAN DIALECT) AND LIVE FORTY YEARS IN THE COUNTRY OF YOUR BIRTH, THEN YOU CAN SPEAK FOR THE EGYPTIANS---OTHERWISE SHUT--THE--****-UP.

---

How about Ausar and Multisphinx? They are both native Egyptians and they acknowledge their black African ancestry! Just because you don't, doesn't mean they are wrong! You are just another frustrated Afrangi from Cairo or Alexandria. Your ancestors were mostly Arab or Turkish invaders, not pharoahs! LOL

posted 23 September 2005 12:54 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
How about Ausar and Multisphinx? They are both native Egyptians and they acknowledge their black African ancestry! Just because you don't, doesn't mean they are wrong! You are just another frustrated Afrangi from Cairo or Alexandria. Your ancestors were mostly Arab or Turkish invaders, not pharoahs! [b]LOL

[This message has been edited by Djehuti (edited 23 September 2005).][/B]

---

posted 23 September 2005 01:07 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Giza-Rider:
[b]LOSING IS NO REASON TO INSULT PEOPLE, WHO KNOW A HELL OF A LOT MORE THAN YOU.
[/B]

---

posted 23 September 2005 02:58 PM            

The other side to this, is that it is pointless to argue with someone outside of the American concept of race about the racial definition of Egyptians. However, most of the debate being conducted in this forum is between people of the same society and therefore it is justifiable.

This is considered Black in American Society:

posted 23 September 2005 03:27 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by bandon19:
Giza-Rider BLACK PEOPLE RANGE IN COMPLEXIONS TO DARK SKINNED PEOPLE CAN HAVE A LIGHT BEYONCE KID. THIS IS NORMAL IN ARE FAMILIY OR TO DARK CAN HAVE A OLIVE SKIN KID. BLACK IN WHITE IS A PERSONAL ISSUE BUT IM DARK MY OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS ARE LIGHT SOME DARK BUT WHERE NOT OF DIFFRENT RACES. BUT ALSO TAKE THIS INTO CONSIDERATION HOW COME U DONT GET ON PEOPLE LIKE EIVIL EURO AND SCIENTIST WHO TRY TO SAY BROWN PEOPLE ARE CAUCSION KNOWING EUROEPEANS CANT MAKE A BROWN CHILD BUT TO DARK BROWN (BLACK PEOPLE) CAN MAKE A BROWN CHILD. HOW COULD U SIT HERE IN SAY PACKISTAN AND INDIA ARE THE SAME PEOPLE AS A RUSSIAN OR DARK SKINNED MIDDLE EASTERNERS ARE THE SAME AS AN IRISH. AS IM SAYING GIZA THERE ARE JUST AS MANY WHITE PEOPLE IN HEAR AND IN THE WORLD WHO WANT TO FEEL LIKE THERE THE OFFSPRING OF EVERYBODY.

---

^^^Multi-Racial bullshit. I bet you're African-American.

1 - Black people don't come in ''all colors''.

2 - Two very dark skin black people don't have ''light beyonce like'' children. [ unless they are Afro-American who have white ancestery due rape or slavery]

3 - People from Pakistan and Rusia both show many similar facial features and also share genes [R1a].

posted 24 September 2005 01:39 AM            

quote:

---

Aren't you East African plus white Leba?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leba:
No, I'm not, what the hell gave you that idea?

---

You did.

quote:

---

Originally posted by relaxx:
You smell like a Somali who have some Yemeni ancestry (like a rat):

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leba:
I'm not a somali you confused idiot.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by relaxx:
He can't even tell me his clan.
Relaxx

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leba: Warsangali, why do you want to know?

---

posted 24 September 2005 01:52 AM            

[This message has been edited by bandon19 (edited 24 September 2005).]

posted 24 September 2005 05:40 PM            

quote:

---

Aren't you East African plus white Leba?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leba:
No, I'm not, what the hell gave you that idea?

---

You did.

quote:

---

Originally posted by relaxx:
You smell like a Somali who have some Yemeni ancestry (like a rat):

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leba:
I'm not a somali you confused idiot.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by relaxx:
He can't even tell me his clan.
Relaxx

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leba: Warsangali, why do you want to know?

---

posted 24 September 2005 05:59 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by osirion:

First you have to know what it is to be Black before you can say what is not Black. Again, I have stated this before, the concept of race is relative since it is a social construct. African Americans have every reason based on their social perspective to consider the Ancient Egyptians to be Black. Even many of the modern day Egyptians who have undergone a significant amount of admixture with non-Africans would still be considered Black.

The other side to this, is that it is pointless to argue with someone outside of the American concept of race about the racial definition of Egyptians. However, most of the debate being conducted in this forum is between people of the same society and therefore it is justifiable.

This is considered Black in American Society:

---

posted 24 September 2005 06:14 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Giza-Rider:
[B]BTW, WHO IS THAT GIRL, YOU HAVE DISPLAYED?

---

posted 24 September 2005 06:15 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by tdogg:
Where do you live?

---