posted
For a long time 'Nubia' i.e. the area of the Nile Valley south of Aswan was seen as inhabited by inferior "Negroids" who merely copied off Egyptian culture. But ever since the discovery of A-Group a.k.a. Qustul Culture that rivaled predynastic Egypt and anthropological data revealing the close genetic relationship between Egyptians and Nubians, the latter are now white-washed as 'Caucasoids' also.
As Yosef Ben-Jochannan put it best:
(Courtesy of Tukuler)
The false racial concept of "Caucasoid" is maintained by its polar opposite and equally false racial concept of "Negroid" or rather "True Negroid".
As Diop wrote:
The human skeletons discovered by Leakey near Elmenteita (Kenya) in the grotto called Gamble's Cave II, and which probably belonged to the same human type as the Olduvai man (northern Tanzania) of the Capsian, have caused much ink to flow. "It is certain that these are not true Negroes, in the usual sense of the word. These are men comparable to the Nilotics in the Great Lakes region, or else comparable to the lighter-skinned populations of those territories. A skeleton recently found at Naivasha (Kenya) obviously belongs to the same type."
From these discoveries, prehistorians, historians, and ethnologists draw conclusions of varying importance concerning the early peopling of Black Africa. In the Olduvai man, Cornevin sees the ancestor of the Nilotic, of the Shilluk, Dinka, Nuer, and Masai. He makes him a Caucasoid. His existence, Cornevin contends, "proves that it is useless to make the East African, improperly called Nilo-Hamitic, come from India or Arabia." Finally, referring to the Naivasha man just mentioned, on the next page he writes that archeological research reveals affinities with the Cro-Magnon race: "tall stature, low, wide face, broad forehead, rectangular sockets, thin nose, little prognathism."
There was no Cro-Magnon man in sub-Saharan Africa. At an interview that Professor Vallois was kind enough to grant me at the Paris Institute of Human Paleontology, this scientist was categorical about this. Only the Boskop man (Transvaal Province, South Africa) was, for a time, considered as a Cro-Magnoid having affinities with the Bushman. But this opinion was later abandoned by its partisans. Cornevin, unfortunately, continues to confuse Grimaldi man -- a "Negroid" with marked prognathism and broad nose -- with Cro-Magnon man, who is not at all prognathous but presents in hypertrophic fashion typical European traits: thin lips, prominent chin, narrow nose. There is reason to reexamine the documents.
The theory that makes Causcasoids of the Dinka, Nuer, Masai, etc., is the most unwarranted. Suppose an African ethnologist insisted on recognizing only blond Scandinavians as Whites and systematically refused all other Europeans -- especially Mediterraneans, French, Italians, Greeks, Spaniards, and Portuguese -- membership in the White race. Just as Scandinavians and Mediterraneans must be considered as the two poles, the two extremes of the same anthropological reality, it would be only fair to do the same for the two extremes of the reality of the Black world: Negroes of East Africa and those of West Africa. To call a Shilluk, a Dinka, or a Masai a Caucasoid is as devoid of sense and scientific validity for an African as it would be for a European to claim that a Greek or a Latin are not White. The desperate search for a non-Negro solution sometimes leads to talk about "a primitive stock that might not yet have assumed a differentiated Black or White character," or to whitening Negroes such as the Masai. All the human types found in Kenya from the Paleolithic to the end of the Neolithic, are perfectly distinguishable as Negroes.
Dr. Leakey, who has studied nearly all of them, knows this. He knows that all the skeletons that have fallen into his hands have Negritic proportions in the full sense of the word. He also is aware that the obervation by Boule and Vallois on the "floor of the nasal fossae" is applicable to all the skulls that he has studied. One can understand why anthropologists are silent on these determining points. On the contrary, they readily expand on cranial measurements, for in this domain, except in extreme cases, it is harder to distinguish a Negro from a White. They admit, for example, that from the Paleolithic to our day Kenya, East Africa, and the Upper Nile have been inhabited by the same population which has remained anthropologically unchanged, with the Masai as one of the most authentic representative types.
To the anthropologists, he is the very type of the undifferentiated Negro. Whenever they discuss the late appearance of the "true Negro," we must remember that this is because they do not consider him as such, for he has been there since the beginning of time, since the Paleolithic. All the skull specimens considered non- Negroid, following the measurements of Leakey and other anthropologists, are really those of his archeological forebears from whom he does not differ morphologically.
Dr. Leakey and all the anthropologists will confirm this. If he were not a living reality, his skull would have come out whitened or, in any case, "denegrified" by their measurements, with an orthognathous face held high, a thin nose, high forehead, etc. Even alive, he is not a Negro in the view of the so-called specialists, but the authentic type of the Nilo-Hamite. I invite the reader to verify this. He will simply find these facts confirmed.
Anthropologists have invented the ingenious, convenient, fictional notion of the "true Negro," which allows them to consider, if need be, all the real Negroes on earth as fake Negroes, more or less approaching a kind of Platonic archetype, without ever attaining it. Thus, African history is full of "Negroids," Hamites, semi-Hamites, Nilo-Hamitics, Ethiopoids, Sabaeans, even Caucasoids! Yet, if one stuck strictly to scientific data and archeological facts, the prototype of the White race would be sought in vain throughout the earliest years of present-day humanity.
The Negro has been there from the beginning; for millennia he was the only one in existence. Nevertheless, on the threshold of the historical epoch, the "scholar" turns his back on him, raises questions about his genesis, and even speculates "objectively" about his tardy appearance ...
Diop [Mercer] 1974 pp.268,273-4
These fallacious concepts of race by Western academicians and their biases and hypocritical double-standards are exposed even more in this book below:
QUEEN TIYE Posts: 26604 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not just the Nubians but many western Africans were wrote off as dark-Hamitic whites and include the following: Yoruba, Zulu, Khoisan, Azande, Tutsi, Fulani, Igbo, and Hausa. Practically, all Africans which had a vestige of civilization.
Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Oh yes. I am well aware of this Ausar. This is especially true of ancient West African kingdoms like Benin and Ille whose remarkable bronze sculptures are one of the finest examples in Africa rivaling those of ancient Egypt!!
According to the Euronuts, the West African royals depicted above were really ‘Caucasoids’! LMAOPosts: 26604 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
- As you can see, Negroids ('Blacks') are just really limited to Western Africa, but have displaced the Bushmanoids in parts of South Africa more recently during the Bantu expansion.
According to the Anglo-Idiot all the native peoples of eastern Sudan, Eritrea, northern Ethiopia, and Somalia are all "Cockasoids" just like the Egyptians and not black. Yet we all know how the peoples of these areas look like.
Considering how all the peoples above are listed as not only the same “Caucasoid” race but as the ancient Egyptians’ closest relatives by the same Euronuts, we get an idea of how the Egyptians looked like.
Posts: 26604 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
LOL, well if you Black & Asian racist Whitey haters can claim that the Celts, Vikings,Franks, Normans, all the kings & queens in Europe, etc were Black. Then by gosh we can steal your stuff as well. Don't like it when its done to you huh racist Black & Asian Whitey haters???
Posts: 3257 | From: Madisonville, KY USA | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by DHDoxies: LOL, well if you Black & Asian racist Whitey haters can claim that the Celts, Vikings,Franks, Normans, all the kings & queens in Europe, etc were Black. Then by gosh we can steal your stuff as well. Don't like it when its done to you huh racist Black & Asian Whitey haters???
I thought it was just half the Vikings and stonehenge. You mean the Franks and Normans too?
Posts: 1257 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged |
I have heard you Anti-White people, Whitey hating, Wanna kill Whitey, Wanna harm White children, Black racist, Black supremacists claim just about every White European tribe/ethnicity as your own. You have claimed, the Celts, the Vikings, the Romans, the Greeks, the Normans (Vikings), the Franks, the Anglo-Saxons, the Danes (also Vikings), heck I even heard one of you claim that even the Goths were Black. As I said if you Whitey hating Black racists can steal what is ours then by gosh we can steal what is yours. Anyhow, seriously everyone knows the Nubians were most definitely Black, only the most idiotic of Whites would believe any different.
Posts: 3257 | From: Madisonville, KY USA | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would say it has begun, but more like it's been begun! LOL
4,000 Year Old Kerma Culture DNA Body-bags Afrocentrism "Every. Single. Study. Kerma Culture individual of 2,000BC found to be half Levantine. What does this say about ancient Egyptians? What does this say about ancient Nubia?"
And even this!
Hell, what about Kadruka in Neolithic southern Sudan or Kulubnarti??
^ Or even Iron Age Kenyans?! LOL
And look how the pion 'leaking' the alleged genetic data represents Nubians.
ROTFLMAO
I can't wait for the finding of "Eurasian" ancestry in Ugandans! Oh that's right, already happened!
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26604 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
This was posted in the somalispot forum awhile ago.
Kandakes of Kush
World said:
quote: I don’t doubt the fact that at some point in history, you may have invaded North Sudan for a short time, but all genetic studies in terms of Autosomal point towards North Sudan being occupied by a population that clusters with modern day inhabitants. BTW, the Christian Nubian study you said that they were paternally African. That’s not true, none of the samples had Nilo-Saharan Y-DNA. They were majority E1b1b, and they also were not 100 % maternally Euroasian but mixed just like modern day Horners and Bejas.
Nilotic quote-
quote:
Ah, so now you no doubt we had a presence in the North? We only left the Gezira in the 13th and 15th Centuries, so our presence there was not brief.
People corresponding perfectly to the physical appearance and dimensions of the Nilotics were depicted on those walls because they were encountered; the map on ancient Sudanese kingdoms shows them extending into areas recognised as having been occupied by Nilotics until recently.
The Kasu and the Nubae (Nubians) were very much likely similar to populations in Darfur today, minus the recent Arab admixture that reach Darfur as well in the last 400 years.Kush was an empire and Nilotics played some role -- unless the depictions are somehow wrong and should (strangely) only be dismissed in relation to this specific population.
Here's what we know: The Nubians have their origins in Darfur and like Darfurian populations, they are a composite of Nilotic and indigenous North African ancestry -- marked by E-M35 lineages; Nubians experienced recent Eurasian introgression -- especially during the Arab expansion into Sudan; the specific Kulubnarti population are not ancestral to modern Nubians and have entirely different admixture composites, from a different admixture event. I don't know why you want to dismiss the genetic studies showing that the Nubians were the products of recent admixture, and why you want to present them as having always been Beja-like, when these studies say otherwise. E1b1b is African. What great authority says otherwise? Do you honestly believe that the Kasu (Kush), the Nubians and other groups (minus the Beja) were more similar to Cushitic populations in the Horn rather than other Saharan populations in Darfur prior to the Arab expansion? Nilotics and Saharans are separate but related groups, and they dominated Sudan; it wasn't the Beja type people.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic