quote:Actually, yeah, the average Mexican is largely Indio in genetic heritage, with very limited Spanish or European admixture. For that matter the Indo-Europeans who are the basis of European linguistics had only a tiny genetic impact; the vast majority of Europeans are descended from the people who lived there in Paleolithic times. If the Egyptians were originally a black African people it would take wholesale population replacement to change that outside of a narrow selection of the elite. And we have evidence from Ptolmaic times at least that the Greek migrants segregated themselves from the native population and remained a distinct ethnic presence concentrated in Alexandria, rather than contributing widely to the genetic pool of the country.
Now, I wonder if your speculation is the case, why no ancient authors made any note of the distinctively black appearance of the Egyptians? Racism is relatively modern, but detailed commentary on the physical traits of foreign barbarians is commonplace in Greek and Roman histories. And how do the Egyptians, by and large, look like every other North African population if they began with a distinctively black African rather than Berber appearance? And speaking of intermarriage, the Ethiopians and Somalis have been intermarrying with Arabs for nearly as long as the Egyptians and yet remain very distinct - as do the Yemenis, who still look either largely Arab or very distinctively African after the same centuries of genetic exchange with sub-Saharan Africa.
Anyone know how to respond to this>
NO ONE INVADE THAT FORUM.
Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It requires me to register so I can't get the full picture and what is already said. For one, there are several assumptions in his post that are worth confronting
Ask him to cite sources that outsiders didn't intermarry, and tell him that not only Greeks were present in large numbers, but other foreigners too
Tell him that one doesn't have to be distinctly black in order to be African.
Point out the cranial studies that show that Southerners are [i]indistinguisible[/b] from Nubians. And >50% of the Badarians cluster with Gabonese..
Also, he makes a reckless statement where he says that ''Ethiopians and Somali's have been intermarrying as long as the Egyptians''. Ask him how he came to that and what his sources are.
Come on Truth.. Shouldn't be that hard.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
If the Egyptians were originally a black African people it would take wholesale population replacement to change that outside of a narrow selection of the elite.
no ancient authors made any note of the distinctively black appearance of the Egyptians
B is false, referrences to their outward appearance are to be found as late as Dante's Inferno "as white as [...] as black as the folks on the River Nile". There is also artwork from Greece, Christian Byzantine, etc. A is just his opinion, i have my own. Actually, i took it you were aware that of anthropologists opinion that 1% of diffusion x a few millenia can possibly change a demographics phenotype, and i think this was said by S.O.Y. Keita, but this isn't what really burries A.
This just butresses A:
quote:And how do the Egyptians, by and large, look like every other North African population if they began with a distinctively black African rather than Berber appearance? And speaking of intermarriage, the Ethiopians and Somalis have been intermarrying with Arabs for nearly as long as the Egyptians and yet remain very distinct - as do the Yemenis, who still look either largely Arab or very distinctively African after the same centuries of genetic exchange with sub-Saharan Africa.
Before dealing with A, i'd like to write a little on Northern Africa (Sahara and North).
What isn't taken into account by your aquaintence is that the mainly Eastern Sahara desert was existant by Dynastic times as being sparsely inhabited by Nomad ancestors to Berber speaking groups like the Imazighen and Tuareg, and the Maghreb's major African NRY (paternal) lineage only expanded there two millenia ago which is after native-Nile-inhabitant Dynastic times at around the time of the birth of the Christ. Most importantly, since Dynastic times there was trade and other contact with non-Africans and today the Maghreb's most densely packed populations are coastal-Northern where its big cities exist and they've traded by sea for a long time, with many places **having been set up in the first place by non-natives**. Not to mention the century or so where trafficking of slaves - mostly Southern and other Christian European sex slave girls - rivaled that of the contemporary Atlantic slave trafficking and was in practice alongside polygamy (polygyny).
For one Egypt today has over 58 million people and during Dynastic times an estimated 1-2 million before increasing to about 3-4 million under the Roman Empire and by as recently as two centuries ago in the 1800s it was occupied by a count of only 2.5 million.
Plus, in early Dynastic times the vast majority of its inhabitants were rural with the bulk of them residing in Upper Km.t [nw.t], today Egypt has around 29 times as many people and who in stark contrast are very urban and by and large mostly populating the Delta and Lower Egypt. Mostly, these humungous cities barely existed as anything if at all until post Dynastic times.
I'll present an analogy. On the West Coast in the U.S., in decades black towns and neighborhoods have turned to a complete melting pots of Samoans, Mexicans, Asians, Mexicans, and etc. Infact due to increased urbanization and industrialization, Nashville, TN. has attracted a hoard of Mexican American immigrants. Now imagine a gradual step by step 2,000 year process of this -- and alot of the time demographic shifts like this are "forgotten" in a few generations by whoever the newcomers themselves are. Many folks living in the Southern U.S.A. today forget that a big chunk of the U.S. was inhabited by folk living in Mexico and will tell us those i mention should "go back to where their ancestors came from".
This same process is compounded by the fact that during the Pharaohnic times and the ~global~ spread of urbanization and advanced agricultural & farming practices: world population was increasing at various rates with non-Africans began to not only outnumber Africans like they should geographically/mathmatically but outnumber them vastly which they today still do (maybe not for long though -- Western/European authority seems to somehow be increasing Africa's numbers at a rate disproportionate to elsewhere even while Europe's own numbers need increasing). In essence opportunity is what's responsible for the flow of populations to big cities/villages worldwide today and yesterday.
Km.t Nw.t (aka "ancient egypt") in essence being the post-Industrial Revolution era West and geopolitically the U.S.A. of the ancient world, albeit culturally inverse, i'm not inclined to believe there was no significant demographic playing of Musical Chairs over a period of 6,000 years -- this flies in the face of historical data like that on the Mammeluks, Abaza and Bedouin Arabs to name a few.
As early as Greek "Dynastic" rule foreigners (Greeks) had began comming in segregated with pre-eminence over the rebellious native Dynastic culture, which never recovered from foreigners after the Persians who preceded the Greeks, call it "Dynastic" rule if you want although the Dynastic era wouldn't endure long after. It's a big distortion to say that, over a period of 2,000 years of successive alien rule over what was formerly like the U.S.A. of the ancient world and still significant after, no significant playing of demographic Musical Chairs was supposed to have undertaken. Actually i've learned from an Egyptian source Bedouins were purposely imported into Upper Egypt, historically the regions most foreign-rule rebellious area.
The Kemetu were long annoyed with of foreign immigration from the North even though early on the ghettoes set up there were a small population (opposite of today). Yet simultaneously they allowed many "Nehesu" or Southern peoples' sons to lead them, even seeking this out during the despised rule of the Hyksos in part IMO because these Nehesi were another Savanna-Nile Valley culture and people.
Don't tell me about the Nile Valley's (or North Africa's) static demic behavior.
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:And we have evidence from Ptolmaic times at least that the Greek migrants segregated themselves from the native population and remained a distinct ethnic presence concentrated in Alexandria,
Kill two birds with one stone. African Egyptians did in fact mix with Alexandrian Greeks. Here's the proof:
quote:Cleopatra had African ancestry, skeleton suggests Cleopatra could have been part-African, according to the study of a skeleton believed to be her half sister.
quote:Now, I wonder if your speculation is the case, why no ancient authors made any note of the distinctively black appearance of the Egyptians?
When Herodotus said that the Egyptians were black did he mean they were non-distinctively black? I'm being facetious of course.
Posts: 1038 | From: Franklin Park, NJ | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Apocalypse: When Herodotus said that the Egyptians were black did he mean they were non-distinctively black? I'm being facetious of course.
You do realize that "black" didn't always mean what it means today? Sometimes swarthy Europeans were referred to as "black".
Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^I've seen a straight haired Greek girl darker than i and i'm caramel complected (more or less .. with great variance darker or esp. lighter). But everything always seems to come back to the definition of black .. at least the Western one and not that of anyone freely calling themselves black .. or ~Kem~Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:You do realize that "black" didn't always mean what it means today? Sometimes swarthy Europeans were referred to as "black".
The only black Europeans Herodotus refered to were Colchians. He attributed their blackness to Egyptian ancestry. So you have a comparative statement right there: They (Colchians) stood out because of their blackness. They weren't merely swarthy as the Greeks themselves were.
Posts: 1038 | From: Franklin Park, NJ | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The only black Europeans Herodotus refered to were Colchians. He attributed their blackness to Egyptian ancestry. So you have a comparative statement right there.
You miss my point, which is that in the past, "blackness" did not mean why it does today.
For instance, this English king was called "black" back in his day:
posted
^There was not alot of margin for the greeks to mean ''black'' as they were quite dark themselves.
I can't believe you are here longer than I am and you already have your beliefs dented.
It's fair to say that the greeks have a similar skin tone as Hawass right? So if Hawass's skin tone is representative of ancient Egypt, how come the greeks didn't compare themselves to ancient Egypt?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:You miss my point, which is that in the past, "blackness" did not mean why it does today.
For instance, this English king was called "black" back in his day:
I didn't miss your point. I showed you that there is a context in which to understand what Herodotus meant. He did not mean that the Egyptains were merely swarthy as Greeks and Italians were; or even Levantines. Your posting of an English King "called black back in his day" has no context. For further context consider Aristotle's statement (I'm paraphrasing): Those who are too black are cowards like the Egyptians and the Ethiopians.
Also consider the absurdity of "distinctively black" What does that mean? True Negro?
Posts: 1038 | From: Franklin Park, NJ | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
This boy was suppose to leave this forum a looong time ago.
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Actually, yeah, the average Mexican is largely Indio in genetic heritage, with very limited Spanish or European admixture. For that matter the Indo-Europeans who are the basis of European linguistics had only a tiny genetic impact; the vast majority of Europeans are descended from the people who lived there in Paleolithic times. If the Egyptians were originally a black African people it would take wholesale population replacement to change that outside of a narrow selection of the elite. And we have evidence from Ptolmaic times at least that the Greek migrants segregated themselves from the native population and remained a distinct ethnic presence concentrated in Alexandria, rather than contributing widely to the genetic pool of the country.
Now, I wonder if your speculation is the case, why no ancient authors made any note of the distinctively black appearance of the Egyptians? Racism is relatively modern, but detailed commentary on the physical traits of foreign barbarians is commonplace in Greek and Roman histories. And how do the Egyptians, by and large, look like every other North African population if they began with a distinctively black African rather than Berber appearance? And speaking of intermarriage, the Ethiopians and Somalis have been intermarrying with Arabs for nearly as long as the Egyptians and yet remain very distinct - as do the Yemenis, who still look either largely Arab or very distinctively African after the same centuries of genetic exchange with sub-Saharan Africa.
Anyone know how to respond to this>
What pathetic nonsense! Truthcentric - This is NOT for you, but rather for the ignorant, who may be swayed by your "White Boy Dreaming Bullsh1t"
Quote: the average Mexican is largely Indio in genetic heritage. I assume Indio is an idiots version of indigenous.
Ya right! By 1650 the Mesoamerican population had gone from 40 million before Columbus to about 4 million.
The Aztecs were described as short and stocky, the men rarely more than 5 feet 6 inches tall and the women more delicately built with an average height of about 4 feet 8 inches. Skin color varied from dark to light brown, and the typical Aztec face was broad with a prominent, and often hooked, nose. eyes were black or brown almond-shaped, and frequently with epic anthic folds at the outer corners, one indication that the ancestors of the Mexicans had migrated into the New World from Asia in the long-distant past.
Hair was coarse, black, and straight. Men usually wore it cut in a fringe over the forehead and allowed it to grow to the level of the nape of the neck at the back, but the priests had their own distinctive hair style and the warriors wore pigtails and various kinds of scalp lock. The women let their hair grow long. Normally it was allowed to hang loose, but on festival days it was braided with ribbons. A more elaborate coiffure was created by binding the hair into two plaits which were wound round the head with the ends projecting like two little horns above the eyebrows.
This is how they looked. (Of course the Aztec were just one of many tribes in Mesoamerica.)
The true natives of Mexico don't play "dress-up" for the tourists, so there are few pictures of them. These children are mixed - but close.
The fact is that most Mexicans ARE, and identify themselves as "Mestizo."
This fresco by Jose Orozco of Cortes and La Malinche is indicative of the Mestizos dilemma - "Who am I".
These guys make a good example of modern Mexicans - they don't look that much like real Mexicans to me.
quote:
Quote: The Ethiopians and Somalis have been intermarrying with Arabs for nearly as long as the Egyptians and yet remain very distinct - as do the Yemenis, who still look either largely Arab or very distinctively African after the same centuries of genetic exchange with sub-Saharan Africa.
Real Egyptian.
Real Arab.
Real Ethiopian.
Real Somali.
I don't know; maybe White Boys have better eyesight - but I can't tell much difference between the REAL people.
But that WASN'T your point, was it.Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mike, those are correct. In fact, those posing today as Native American are in fact, the result of admixture between the murderers of Native Americans and the few native American women they spared. Closer to white than the original Pre-invasion native. Most of today's native Americans receiving "Indian" reparations are 80% or more white and the smallest part, native American. Of course, this is why the government agreed to paying reparations in the first place. They know they are paying reparations to themselves.
quote:Originally posted by Hammer: Mike likes to post Sudanese pictures and pass them off as Egyptians. Are these people in your pictures 3000 years old?
No, just regular everyday REAL Egyptians of today. Here are some more.
quote:
Point being; that this image of modern Egypt below, which is portrayed in White media, is just as Bullsh1t as the lying White people, Turks, and their mixed-race mutts in general.
quote:Originally posted by MelaninKing: Mike, those are correct. In fact, those posing today as Native American are in fact, the result of admixture between the murderers of Native Americans and the few native American women they spared. Closer to white than the original Pre-invasion native. Most of today's native Americans receiving "Indian" reparations are 80% or more white and the smallest part, native American. Of course, this is why the government agreed to paying reparations in the first place. They know they are paying reparations to themselves.
SO TRUE!!!!
But it's LESS than 80%. Most tribes require only 1/8 Indian blood, that works out to about 88% White - as with everything concerning White people - it's pure bullsh1t.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just a little more on the Bullsh1t about Arabs and Saudi Arabia.
In 1972 the population of Saudi Arabia was about 2.5 million.
Today it is about 30 million with about 6 million non-nationals.
Does anyone really believe that Arabs fuch that fast???
Hell NO; Every Turk in the middle east that could don a scarf, took off and moved there - and apparently was granted citizenship!
So lets see how that worked out for the REAL Arabs.
The Gross National Product of Saudi Arabia is about $600 billion, which ranks as 23 rd. in the world.
But the Per Capita income is ranked 60 th. in the World - looks like the royals, the fake Arabs and the foreigners are getting it all.Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Actually, yeah, the average Mexican is largely Indio in genetic heritage, with very limited Spanish or European admixture. For that matter the Indo-Europeans who are the basis of European linguistics had only a tiny genetic impact; the vast majority of Europeans are descended from the people who lived there in Paleolithic times. If the Egyptians were originally a black African people it would take wholesale population replacement to change that outside of a narrow selection of the elite. And we have evidence from Ptolmaic times at least that the Greek migrants segregated themselves from the native population and remained a distinct ethnic presence concentrated in Alexandria, rather than contributing widely to the genetic pool of the country.
Now, I wonder if your speculation is the case, why no ancient authors made any note of the distinctively black appearance of the Egyptians? Racism is relatively modern, but detailed commentary on the physical traits of foreign barbarians is commonplace in Greek and Roman histories. And how do the Egyptians, by and large, look like every other North African population if they began with a distinctively black African rather than Berber appearance? And speaking of intermarriage, the Ethiopians and Somalis have been intermarrying with Arabs for nearly as long as the Egyptians and yet remain very distinct - as do the Yemenis, who still look either largely Arab or very distinctively African after the same centuries of genetic exchange with sub-Saharan Africa.
Anyone know how to respond to this>
What pathetic nonsense! Truthcentric - This is NOT for you, but rather for the ignorant, who may be swayed by your "White Boy Dreaming Bullsh1t"
Quote: the average Mexican is largely Indio in genetic heritage. I assume Indio is an idiots version of indigenous.
Ya right! By 1650 the Mesoamerican population had gone from 40 million before Columbus to about 4 million.
The Aztecs were described as short and stocky, the men rarely more than 5 feet 6 inches tall and the women more delicately built with an average height of about 4 feet 8 inches. Skin color varied from dark to light brown, and the typical Aztec face was broad with a prominent, and often hooked, nose. eyes were black or brown almond-shaped, and frequently with epic anthic folds at the outer corners, one indication that the ancestors of the Mexicans had migrated into the New World from Asia in the long-distant past.
Hair was coarse, black, and straight. Men usually wore it cut in a fringe over the forehead and allowed it to grow to the level of the nape of the neck at the back, but the priests had their own distinctive hair style and the warriors wore pigtails and various kinds of scalp lock. The women let their hair grow long. Normally it was allowed to hang loose, but on festival days it was braided with ribbons. A more elaborate coiffure was created by binding the hair into two plaits which were wound round the head with the ends projecting like two little horns above the eyebrows.
This is how they looked. (Of course the Aztec were just one of many tribes in Mesoamerica.)
The true natives of Mexico don't play "dress-up" for the tourists, so there are few pictures of them. These children are mixed - but close.
The fact is that most Mexicans ARE, and identify themselves as "Mestizo."
This fresco by Jose Orozco of Cortes and La Malinche is indicative of the Mestizos dilemma - "Who am I".
These guys make a good example of modern Mexicans - they don't look that much like real Mexicans to me.
quote:
Quote: The Ethiopians and Somalis have been intermarrying with Arabs for nearly as long as the Egyptians and yet remain very distinct - as do the Yemenis, who still look either largely Arab or very distinctively African after the same centuries of genetic exchange with sub-Saharan Africa.
Real Egyptian.
Real Arab.
Real Ethiopian.
Real Somali.
I don't know; maybe White Boys have better eyesight - but I can't tell much difference between the REAL people.
But that WASN'T your point, was it.
The Doctor Says: Mike Is "Real Stupid" - Turks Are Hated In Egypt!Posts: 43 | From: Highlands | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Of course you missed his point: he is baiting your dumbass and you fell for it. lol
Jeez, such a rush to judgement! But you may be right this time - since you wrote the book on troll methodologies. The above fits the typical pattern of your posts: no engagement; no substance; just drive-by sniping. But just as well, because, when you do take a stab at substance you end up getting a bloody beat down as you did here, near the end of the thread, on the use of the word negro:
^ you have this way of turning your defeats into victories. "mission accomplished". LOL!
This along with your bias towards obviously corrupt oil governments makes me think you are really George W posting in here. Lmao!
Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know anguish, this is holy week and, although I may not be a religious man, I would be loathe to respond in kind to your provocations and possibly offend some of our Christian and Jewish friends with the vulgar and the profane. But the Good Book tells us that He made the blind see (but you're still blind) and He made the lame to walk (but you're so lame). The Good Lord also made the ass to speak:
Balaam's Ass Numbers 22 verse 21:
quote:and Balaam's anger was kindled, and he smote the ass with a staff.
28And the LORD opened the mouth of the ass, and she said unto Balaam, What have I done unto thee, that thou hast smitten me these three times?
29And Balaam said unto the ass, Because thou hast mocked me... 30And the ass said unto Balaam, Am not I thine ass, upon which thou hast ridden ever since I was thine unto this day?
On second thought,. Don't bother. The thread is a non-starter anywho.
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic