posted
The modern Copts have been genetically isolated for 1400 years, due to the religious apartheid that prevailed in Islamic Egypt. For all that time Copts could only intermarry with other Egyptian Christians if they wished their children to be Christians. Despite this fact, the Copts do not have a homogenous look. Do Copts look just like ancient Egyptians? Absolutely!
EgyptianG, Meriam George, Morris Sadek and the Patriarch of Alexandria.
Although not homogenous, some general points hold true. The darkest Copt looks sufficiently different from a black African to make the Afrocentrists claims on Egypt seem nonsensical, even if they could not be called white either. Copts don't tend to have fleshy lips, wide, high-arched nostrils, flat nasal bridges or projecting lower-faces, which are all classic features of black African populations. Their noses tend to be bulbous, rather than broad. They tend to have straight, wavy or curly hair, but not frizzy. They may have some Nilotic ancestry (as all human beings apparently do) but negroid traces in them are slight at best.
Posts: 870 | From: uk | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ancient Egyptians were Caucasoid: Multi-dimensional scaling (MDS) based on pair-wise FST genetic distances of Upper Egyptian and other diverse global populations. OCE, Oceanian; ME, Middle Eastern; NAF, North African; EAS, East Asian; SSA, sub-Saharan African; UEGY, Upper Egyptian; SAS, South Asian; EUR, European. The figure shows that Oceania and American populations are very distant from Upper Egyptians (marked by a grey triangle) and other populations. The Upper Egyptian population is closer to the Middle Eastern, North African, South Asian and European populations than others.
Upper Egyptians cluster with Caucasoids and are genetically far more Caucasoid than anything else.
quote:Originally posted by Ancient Egyptians were Caucasoid: Have it your way, here is a study with Saharan and Sub-Saharan samples closer to Egyptians.
posted
As for Menes/Narmer the Palette image is more reliably identified as an image of the first pharaoh, and his features there are pronouncedly more like those of the Copts pictured above than like black Africans, even allowing for stylization and charicature. In fact Narmer's profile is closer to that of Louis IX of France than like the black African depicted in a new-kingdom Egyptian image.
posted
My point was that the king's name appears on the palette, but not on the statue, so we can't be sure who the statue is of. It's a guess.
Posts: 870 | From: uk | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Clearly there were Egyptians who looked like Huni (bless his chubby cheeks), and others that did not. Most looked as Egyptians still look.
Posts: 870 | From: uk | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged |
One of the things that immediately jumped out at me from the aforementioned article article is this:
"The mixed ancestry of basically all individuals is probably a consequence of the **limited number of markers (and of the set of markers not being particularly informative about ancestry) rather than an indication of recent admixture**
Are you unable to read Perahu? Furthermore, if you would notice, the same article only claims RECENT gene flow into the Nile Valley from Eurasia, not ancient.
Don't think I forgot about your coptic BS Rahotep. Thankfully, Perahu's article directly contradicts your claims, AGAIN:
"The low number of private alleles in the Coptic groups (0.075 ± 0.053) may be a result of the recent migration of this population from Egypt, where they may have been influenced by gene flow from Asia and Europe"
Take note, the above mentions gene flow from non-Africans to Coptics IN Egypt. From Hassan et al. 2008 we know that Copts have not been effected by their recent history in Sudan.
Also note, low number of private alleles suggests some amount of gene flow.
But what we are told of the Somali:
"The mean number of private alleles was greatest in the Somali (0.400 ± 0.171)"
However, despite this fact, the authors STILL make a mention of Somali's being of mixed origin. The corresponding citation for this claim? You guessed it, Sanchez et al. (2005). That made the erroneous suggestion that Somalis are closer to Eurasians than sub-Saharan Africans even though their results show:
1)The Somali population is almost completely African
2)The Somali population is a branch of the East Africans
3)The Somali population has been affected by RECENT gene flow from the 7th century onwards.
Therefore, Babiker et al. 2011 erroneous suggestion that the Somali population is of "mixed origin" falls flat. As this would suggest half African/Eurasian which is not the case. However they do offer an alternative explanation for the distinctiveness of the Somali cluster which is a stronger effect from the Bantu expansion. It seems more like their great diversity vs. less diversity is the cause though.
The main thing to emphasize here is that the "mixed status" of the samples IS NOT NECESSARILY FROM ADMIXTURE BUT LOW NUMBER OF GENETIC MARKERS TESTED.
Perahu, the chart you edited to suit you agenda is so laughable
Posts: 1502 | From: Dies Irae | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dahotips101: The pottiest Afrocentric claim I've heard was that the Vikings and Anglo Saxons were black (black hebrews, no less). Other amusing claims include the Greeks, the Carians, the Celts, the Elamites, William Shakespeare, Queen Charlotte, Jesus, Buddha, the Olmecs, the Indoneians, the Xia dynasty Chinese, Hannibal, Septimus Severus and Socrates.
True. Yet you fail to realize that such nutty 'Afrocentrism' is nothing more than a mere inversion of centuries of Eurocentrism. Why did you not read the very sources the author of this thread first cited about how whites were aboriginal to Polynesia and Micronesia?? You do realize that Westerners have attributed every advanced culture from Africa to India and Siberia to Peru as the work of ancient 'whites'! Some Afrocentrics today merely have twisted this around to make all these ancient populations black. So tell me which is worse? The former is worse is in that it was actually published and used in academic circles for centuries unlike the fringe Afrocentric claims of today!!
quote:If I was an Afrocentrist I think I would stick to Egypt. At least that's vaguely plausible, and if you trawl through enough Egyptian images on google it's possible to find a few to support your claim, while ignoring the many that don't. Then one can keep propagating the myth of a pan-African race and culture, and ignoring the geographical and temporal distance between Egyptian and West African cultures; and pretend to descend from pharaohs.
Well first of all, Egypt IS in Africa. As for Egyptian images on google. Apparently you haven't seen much of them since the vast majority do show black figures. No doubt you prefer those works where the paint is faded or lost and/or those that show non-stereotypical traits like narrow noses and thin lips. As for pan-Africa, we know there is no such thing as 'race' to begin with but as far as culture is concerned if you knew anything at all about indigenous African culture you would realize that there are many indeed a myriad of elements that connect the various and disperse cultures of the African continent. As far as geographical and temporal distance between the Nile Valley and West Africa, you obviously don't know that these were connected via the vast Saharan region which wasn't always desert but green and fertile as archaeology shows.
So, in other words you should try educating yourself on the matter first before making your unsubstantiated claims. Posts: 26361 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: The modern Copts have been genetically isolated for 1400 years, due to the religious apartheid that prevailed in Islamic Egypt. For all that time Copts could only intermarry with other Egyptian Christians if they wished their children to be Christians. Despite this fact, the Copts do not have a homogenous look. Do Copts look just like ancient Egyptians? Absolutely!
EgyptianG, Meriam George, Morris Sadek and the Patriarch of Alexandria.
Although not homogenous, some general points hold true. The darkest Copt looks sufficiently different from a black African to make the Afrocentrists claims on Egypt seem nonsensical, even if they could not be called white either. Copts don't tend to have fleshy lips, wide, high-arched nostrils, flat nasal bridges or projecting lower-faces, which are all classic features of black African populations. Their noses tend to be bulbous, rather than broad. They tend to have straight, wavy or curly hair, but not frizzy. They may have some Nilotic ancestry (as all human beings apparently do) but negroid traces in them are slight at best.
Copts are not an ethnic group but a RELIGIOUS DENOMINATION. You are obviously ignorant of the fact that many Copts especially in the Egyptian Delta are of GREEK ancestry. This is why the Alexandrian Church father above looks no different from a Greek Orthodox one! You also cling to stereotypes of "true negro" while ignoring the diversity of indigenous Africans. There are many blacks in Sub-Sahara who do not have fleshy lips, wide, high-arched nostrils, flat nasal bridges or projecting lower-faces and as such were once classified as "Hamitic caucasoids" you moron!
quote: As for Menes/Narmer the Palette image is more reliably identified as an image of the first pharaoh, and his features there are pronouncedly more like those of the Copts pictured above than like black Africans, even allowing for stylization and charicature. In fact Narmer's profile is closer to that of Louis IX of France than like the black African depicted in a new-kingdom Egyptian image.
quote:Originally posted by Ancient Egyptians were Caucasoid:
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: ^The above results are expected given the steady rate of migration to Egypt from the Middle east and Europe over the past 2-3,000 years.
Oh noes! the good ol' sand-crackers have been there excuse.
It isn't an excuse and even native Egyptians acknowledge this. See this post by the moderator, ausar.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ You know the jig, Sundjata. He will claim not only modern Egyptians as pristine genetic representatives of the ancients but specifically those of coastal Alexandria eastern Damietta, while at the same time dismissing the rural and isolated peoples of Luxor and Sohag (the Thebald to Egyptologists) as being due to "Sub-Saharan" influence by slaves from Sudan! LOLPosts: 26361 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ You know the jig, Sundjata. He will claim not only modern Egyptians as pristine genetic representatives of the ancients but specifically those of coastal Alexandria eastern Damietta, while at the same time dismissing the rural and isolated peoples of Luxor and Sohag (the Thebald to Egyptologists) as being due to "Sub-Saharan" influence by slaves from Sudan! LOL
Upper Egyptians are genetically almost completely Caucasoid. See where they (UEG) cluster.
Posts: 695 | From: وكان المصريون القدماء القوقازين | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ You know the jig, Sundjata. He will claim not only modern Egyptians as pristine genetic representatives of the ancients but specifically those of coastal Alexandria eastern Damietta, while at the same time dismissing the rural and isolated peoples of Luxor and Sohag (the Thebald to Egyptologists) as being due to "Sub-Saharan" influence by slaves from Sudan! LOL
Indeed. Expecting no more from Mr. "Dienekes et al." which is why he goes around posting cropped photos all day of misrepresented graphs and plots accompanied by stupid interpretations that the author of said study would never condone. Most genome-wide studies so far find modern Egyptians to be intermediate genetically between Northern Europeans and West Africans and only historical reconstruction of demographic shifts and migration over time can account for when this mixture occurred. Of course he's going to ignore Calabooz' post since it's perfectly logical. When the samples are pooled you get different results than when they are not pooled yet you get weird results (Arabs being much closer to Nilotics than Nubians, pooled Egyptians closer than Copts) when they are not pooled due to the limited number of markers used. Either way it is clearly stated that the Copts are affected by admixture and according to Peraclown's stupid image graphics the Egyptians would lie within the "zone of admixture".
Recap:
quote:The information from the living Egyptian population may not be as useful because historical records indicate substantial immigration into Egypt over the last several millennia, and it seems to have been far greater from the Near East and Europe than from areas far south of Egypt. "Substantial immigration" can actually mean a relatively small number of people in terms of population genetics theory. It has been determined that an average migration rate of one percent per generation into a region could result in a great change of the original gene frequencies in only several thousand years. (This assumes that all migrants marry natives and that all native-migrant offspring remain in the region.) It is obvious then that an ethnic group or nationality can change in average gene frequencies or physiognomy by intermarriage, unless social rules exclude the products of "mixed" unions from membership in the receiving group. More abstractly this means that geographically defined populations can undergo significant genetic change with a small percentage of steady assimilation of "foreign" genes. This is true even if natural selection does not favor the genes (and does not eliminate them).
Examples of regions that have biologically absorbed genetically different immigrants are Sicily, Portugal, and Greece, where the frequencies of various genetic markers (and historical records) indicate sub-Saharan and supra-Saharan African migrants.
This scenario is different from one in which a different population replaces another via colonization. Native Egyptians were variable. Foreigners added to this variability.
The genetic data on the recent Egyptian population is fairly sparse. There has not been systematic research on large samples from the numerous regions of Egypt. Taken collectively, the results of various analyses suggest that modern Egyptians have ties with various African regions, as well as with Near Easterners and Europeans. Egyptian gene frequencies are between those of Europeans and some sub-Saharan Africans. This is not surprising. The studies have used various kinds of data: standard blood groups and proteins, mitochondrial DNA, and the Y chromosome. The gene frequencies and variants of the "original" population, or of one of early high density, cannot be deduced without a theoretical model based on archaeological and "historical" data, including the aforementioned DNA from ancient skeletons. (It must be noted that it is not yet clear how useful ancient DNA will be in most historical genetic research.) It is not clear to what degree certain genetic systems usually interpreted as non-African may in fact be native to Africa. Much depends on how "African" is defined and the model of interpretation.[]......In summary, various kinds of data and the evolutionary approach indicate that the Nile Valley populations had greater ties with other African populations in the early ancient period. Early Nile Valley populations were primarily coextensive with indigenous African populations. Linguistic and archaeological data provide key supporting evidence for a primarily African origin.
--Keita and Boyce
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
Also you like always seem to ignore the Upper Egyptians
Here is what a native Egyptian says about Southern Egyptians and Northern Sudanese AKA Nubians....
quote:Originally posted by Caipira:
quote:Originally posted by Just call me Jari:
quote:I understand what you are saying but to me the so called Sudanese and Upper Egyptians have similar looks and variety just the N. Sudanese are Darker the Upper Egyptians are Lighter but they have the same variety. I know that the current cultures of Sudanese and Egyptians are different but duiring Pharonic times this was not the case. Upper Egypt was ruled by Nubians alot during Pharonic times.
Sudanese is a term brought by Invaders like Indians label is here in America.
Southern Upper Egyptians (I purposely wrote Southern since as far southwards as in Sohag there might be some very light skinned Lower Egyptian looking types) are not that different from Northern Sudanese, but that's logical because they live close to each other. There is a gradual change of phenotype in the Nile Valley with rather light skinned types, not much different from Palestinians or Lebanese in the Egyptian Delta and pitch black types in Southern Sudan.
As for the name "Sudanese" being of "non-indigenous" origin, I don't see any why it should be a reason for not using it. There is an internationally recognized country called Sudan with its citizens being called Sudanese and calling themselves that way. If we were to reject it on the ground of it not being of "indigenous origin", we could just as well reject the word French, because it was brought into the region by barbarian Frankish invaders. It just doesn't make any sense.
[/QB]
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: The modern Copts have been genetically isolated for 1400 years, due to the religious apartheid that prevailed in Islamic Egypt. For all that time Copts could only intermarry with other Egyptian Christians if they wished their children to be Christians. Despite this fact, the Copts do not have a homogenous look. Do Copts look just like ancient Egyptians? Absolutely!
EgyptianG, Meriam George, Morris Sadek and the Patriarch of Alexandria.
Although not homogenous, some general points hold true. The darkest Copt looks sufficiently different from a black African to make the Afrocentrists claims on Egypt seem nonsensical, even if they could not be called white either. Copts don't tend to have fleshy lips, wide, high-arched nostrils, flat nasal bridges or projecting lower-faces, which are all classic features of black African populations. Their noses tend to be bulbous, rather than broad. They tend to have straight, wavy or curly hair, but not frizzy. They may have some Nilotic ancestry (as all human beings apparently do) but negroid traces in them are slight at best.
Posts: 8812 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Parokeet of Dienekes: It is debatable whether Ausar really is Egyptian.
How so? And Asoul a.k.a. the troll of many aliases is? Ausar seems to know a lot of not only modern and recent Egyptian history but the local communities as well. Anyway as Sundjata stated it's irrelevant to the actual substantial evidence we cite.
quote: Upper Egyptians are genetically almost completely Caucasoid. See where they (UEG) cluster.
That chart was debunked countless times before and years before you showed up even. Besides where is the validity of any study that uses terms like "caucasoid".
Speaking of which...
Rat-ho-pig, why the silence to my points on your erroneous posts??
Posts: 26361 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Everything Ausar has said about Egypt has been confirmed by other Egyptians as well. Also to note your boy Abaza has been called out as a fake poser by other Egyptians.
All Upper Egyptians
quote:Originally posted by Perahu:
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: It isn't an excuse and even native Egyptians acknowledge this. See this post by the moderator, ausar.
It is debatable whether Ausar really is Egyptian.
Posts: 8812 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ancient Egyptians were Caucasoid:
quote:Originally posted by adrianne: so african americans and half white africans are caucasoid??
African Americans are ~80% Negroid, and their Negroid component is of the broadest most Negroid type of all. They are not Caucasoid.
you mean most have admixture,not all.just to clear it up or make more clear. second,the average admixture in african americans from what i read is about 10 to 13% not 20%.of course some past studies have mention the average was 20% then when down to 17-18,not more recent studies put it around around 12.5%-13% some say 10%-13%.
It's clear that african americans are not Caucasoid,at least that's clear to you.
Anyway i had a enough of this talk,moving on the next subject in my next reply.
Posts: 2688 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Puzzling ancient rock carvings found in Sudan Quote: By Owen Jarus
updated 5/16/2011 2:54:59 PM ET Share Print Font: An archaeological team in the Bayuda Desert in northern Sudan has discovered dozens of new rock art drawings, some of which were etched more than 5,000 years ago and reveal scenes that scientists can't explain. The team discovered 15 new rock art sites in an arid valley known as Wadi Abu Dom, some 18 miles from the Nile River. It’s an arid valley that flows with water only during rainy periods. Many of the drawings were carved into the rock faces — no paint was used — of small stream beds known as "khors" that flow into the valley. Some of the sites revealed just a single drawing while others have up to 30, said lead researcher Tim Karberg of the Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster in Germany. “We asked the local people about the rock art and they said that it would be very old, before their grandfathers,” Karberg told LiveScience. Knight rider A number of the images appear to date back around 1,500 years ago, to a period when Christianity was spreading in Sudan. They include depictions of crosses, a church, which may show a nearby, ancient monastery called al-Ghazali, and one remarkable picture of a knight riding an animal with horns."One is a depiction of an armed rider, with a lance and a shield, a kind of knight depiction," Karberg said, suggesting this may be an image of St. George, the legendary soldier said to have slain a dragon. Drawings of St. George are known from Sudan and texts discussing him have been found within the country. “Our texts attest to the popularity of the Saint in Christian Nubia,” wrote historian Gerald Brown, in a study he did on the subject. The team also found detailed representations of cattle at Wadi Abu Dom that, based on rock drawings found at other sites, are probably from the late Bronze Age. During this time, more than 3,000 years ago, the northern parts of the country were occupied by the Egyptian empire. Mystery carvings Another, even more mysterious, set of rock art appears to be at least 5,000 years old and shows a mix of geometric designs. The "oldest rock art we found are the spiral motifs," said Karberg, which, as their name suggests, twist up in a way that is hard to interpret. Similar drawings have been found in the Sahara Desert. They were created at a time when Africa was a wetter place, with grasslands and savannah dominating Sudan; people were moving to a lifestyle based on animal husbandry and, in some instances, farming. Understanding what these drawings mean is difficult. Some researchers connect the "spiral motifs to some astronomical or astrological forms," Karberg said, but he thinks it might have more to do with math. "The regularity of the spiral might be one of the earliest mathematical ideas the people developed."
quote:Originally posted by Ancient Egyptians were Caucasoid:
quote:Originally posted by osirion: ^ they are closer to Nubians than any other group. And Sub-Saharans in these comparisons do not include Horn Africans, Fulani, Taureg, and many other groups of people that would not support the author's position.
That is because those Africans you just mentioned are heavily Caucasoid admixed as well.
Ancient Egyptians are very distant from pure Negroids on the molecular level.
wrong again, evil villian.one example of how wrong you are is that early nubians did not have any Caucasoid admixture.second any admixture that came in happen at the end of the meroe period only in lower nubia for some.
the rest of nubia did mix with Caucasoids if you want to put it that way.
later the lower nubia population had nubians that came in from upper nubia so most of the lower nubian poulation was unmixed again.
by the time the late middle ages most lower nubians had admixture that came from arabs in recent times
now modern egypt in early modern times had most nubians that were mixed,keep in mind too that northern lower nubia is in modern egypt now.
so it's clear that most nubians in sudan are not mixed at all,but egypt may be a different story and egypt today is not so clear,but some nubians from sudan have been moving into egypt over the past decades,so most likely even today in modern egypt most nubians may not be mixed in egypt today .
The reason because in recent decades some nubians from sudan have been coming in,so most nubians of egypt today may not be mixed,but there is still a large number in modern egypt that are.
so what just said was non-sense and the other stuff too,but i am more clear about the nubian stuff then the other stuff.I AM bit clear on ancient egypt too,but not has much has nubia,But i know this for egypt,most ancient egyptians still were unmixed blacks by the time the roman came in.they may still have been before the arabs came in too.
so anyway the real original indigenous ancient egyptians were black,not Caucasoids .
LET OTHERS EXPLAIN TO YOU MORE CLEARLY THE OTHER STUFF.
I just posted the facts,get it in you head.i made it clear to you has i can. IF I HAVE TO I WILL KEEPING REPEATING THESE FACTS OVER AND OVER AGAIN UNTIL FOLKS LIKE YOU GET IT.
I hate repeating myself OVER AND OVER AGAIN,but their is no other choice.
Anyway you racist types with fake info are a big waste of time.I COME BACK after a fews weeks,and like said nothing has change with RACIST guys.
Give the them facts and they do not read it and if they do,they do not care,but i came back to give some more support abit because i was pump up and abit fresh or some left energy over from a another forum i came from.
These last two replies are just hit and run comments,so i will not be coming back to read any replies to mY replies IN THIS THREAD HAS WELL. I can't stand wasting time anymore,besides most of my time is on any blog is reading modern news on modern africa,since we all know that most of modern africa is controlled by blacks,like south africa and nigeria,and postive things are happening there too.
once in while i will read about the african past on blogs,and if i read about the african past more often it will be from books,not on the internet.
Has for the rest of you guys,keep giving those facts,has for me i think that's enough here,because like is i said i have very little patience now to debate issues like this.leaving this thread now.
quote:It is debatable whether Ausar really is Egyptian.
Its not debtable that another Egyptian poster named Masreyya validated alot of what I post. She only briefly posted here.
However, if you have discrepancies with any of my claims on modern Egypt feel free to call me out. I invite criticism contrary to what you may have heard.
Let me also clarify that I never stated that every resident of Upper Egypt was ''black'' in the classical sense. I simply stated that many people in Upper Egypt particulary around Luxor and Aswan can be considered black by western standards. Some even resemble eastern Africans. Even amongst the fellahin in the Delta there are individuals which may be considered black in western countries like America.
However, there are also Egyptians which are whiter than some western/southern Europeans. The majority of Upper Egyptians are lighter than the ones in Luxor and Aswan. Most are not white but light brown in color.
Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, those dark Egyptians must descend from invaders. Here's an ancient Egyptian (Khaemwase), and they aren't exactly the same colour as him, so they must be foreigners!
That's what I'd say if I used intelligence-insulting logic such as afrocentrists resort to on a regular basis.
The fact of the matter is that all modern Egyptians, dark or light, are likely to have substantial amounts of Ancient Egyptian blood in them. The Copts, dark or light, are essentially pure descendants of ancient Egyptians. Negroes from south of the sahara are almost guaranteed to have no ancestors who had anything to do with Egypt whatsoever. Even if they were clasified as being of the same race as the Egyptians, which they are not, they are from unconnected cultures. The black-diaspora fixation with Egypt is therefore a vain, futie & illegitimate exercise in cultural approrpriation. The attempt to disassociate modern Egyptians from the ancients, and to deny their status and legacy, is especially sordid and despicable.
As for Amenhotep III, the fact that you can find an Obama or a Colin Powell does not mean there are no Americans who look like Kennedy or Clinton.
Posts: 870 | From: uk | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dahotips101: The pottiest Afrocentric claim I've heard was that the Vikings and Anglo Saxons were black (black hebrews, no less). Other amusing claims include the Greeks, the Carians, the Celts, the Elamites, William Shakespeare, Queen Charlotte, Jesus, Buddha, the Olmecs, the Indoneians, the Xia dynasty Chinese, Hannibal, Septimus Severus and Socrates.
True. Yet you fail to realize that such nutty 'Afrocentrism' is nothing more than a mere inversion of centuries of Eurocentrism. Why did you not read the very sources the author of this thread first cited about how whites were aboriginal to Polynesia and Micronesia?? You do realize that Westerners have attributed every advanced culture from Africa to India and Siberia to Peru as the work of ancient 'whites'! Some Afrocentrics today merely have twisted this around to make all these ancient populations black. So tell me which is worse? The former is worse is in that it was actually published and used in academic circles for centuries unlike the fringe Afrocentric claims of today!!
quote:If I was an Afrocentrist I think I would stick to Egypt. At least that's vaguely plausible, and if you trawl through enough Egyptian images on google it's possible to find a few to support your claim, while ignoring the many that don't. Then one can keep propagating the myth of a pan-African race and culture, and ignoring the geographical and temporal distance between Egyptian and West African cultures; and pretend to descend from pharaohs.
Well first of all, Egypt IS in Africa. As for Egyptian images on google. Apparently you haven't seen much of them since the vast majority do show black figures. No doubt you prefer those works where the paint is faded or lost and/or those that show non-stereotypical traits like narrow noses and thin lips. As for pan-Africa, we know there is no such thing as 'race' to begin with but as far as culture is concerned if you knew anything at all about indigenous African culture you would realize that there are many indeed a myriad of elements that connect the various and disperse cultures of the African continent. As far as geographical and temporal distance between the Nile Valley and West Africa, you obviously don't know that these were connected via the vast Saharan region which wasn't always desert but green and fertile as archaeology shows.
So, in other words you should try educating yourself on the matter first before making your unsubstantiated claims.
I don't know why any European would feel the need to claim Micronesia or Polynesia. I've also heard claims about stoneage white colonization of the Americas which seems far-fetched. The evidence for ranging Caucasians in Asia as far as China is undenaiable, what with Taklamakan desert mummies such as Cherchen Man and the 'Loulan Beauty' exhibiting such obvious 'white' traits. There are Afghans, Persians, Berbers and even Egyptians, whose ancestry in their native lands goes back to prehistoric times, yet whom I would struggle to pick out form a line-up of white British people. However I would not dream of claiming the achievements of their ancestors as part of my heritage as a northern European. Colour is a very arbitrary basis for solidarity. Culturally I probably have more in common with a black Jamaican than a blue-eyed Afghan.
It is worse for Afrocentrists, because they commit the crime they accuse whites of committing in the past. They do to actual Egyptians, for instance, what they claim whites have done to them. They also implicitly admit that their own real ancestors were not worth having, since they have to fixate on cultures in other regions entirely, from Egypt to Mexico! They also promote a myth of a pan-African race, and appropriate a geographical term for a racial meaning. They ought to call themselves negrocentrists, as 9 times out of 10 they are more interested in the black race than the African continent. If they can't pretend that Egypt or Cathage were black, they don't want to know.
The Sahara was hostile desert for the best part of Egyptian history. It set in during the early Old Kingdom, at the latest. It was a far greater barrier to human movement than the Mediterranean Sea or the Indian Ocena, especially as Camels were yet to be domesticated. Egypt is not all in Africa, the Sinai is in Asia, and it was crossed in two directions many times in the past, long before the rise of dynastic Egypt. Egyptians were as much neighbours of Arabs, Phoenicians, Syrians, Anatolians, Cypriots, Cretans, and Libyans as they were of Nubians.
Posts: 870 | From: uk | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:It is debatable whether Ausar really is Egyptian.
Its not debtable that another Egyptian poster named Masreyya validated alot of what I post. She only briefly posted here.
However, if you have discrepancies with any of my claims on modern Egypt feel free to call me out. I invite criticism contrary to what you may have heard.
Let me also clarify that I never stated that every resident of Upper Egypt was ''black'' in the classical sense. I simply stated that many people in Upper Egypt particulary around Luxor and Aswan can be considered black by western standards. Some even resemble eastern Africans. Even amongst the fellahin in the Delta there are individuals which may be considered black in western countries like America.
However, there are also Egyptians which are whiter than some western/southern Europeans. The majority of Upper Egyptians are lighter than the ones in Luxor and Aswan. Most are not white but light brown in color.
Take a DNA test and post your results on this forum like Charlie Bass did .
If your result match your Egyptian ancestry, nobody will ever bother you again.
Posts: 695 | From: وكان المصريون القدماء القوقازين | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^^ You gonna pay for his DNA test sir...?
Posts: 8812 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
BTW I don't understand what this will prove everything Ausar claims is pretty much what other Egyptians claim. As a matter of fact Ausar told me majority of Egyptians are wheat colored.
The person you should be testing is the Abaza troll.
Posts: 8812 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perahu, I don't particulary care if anybody questions my Egyptian ancestry. Its not particulary relevent except if one wishes to slander someone. I just know that I have insight into modern Egypt that alot of posters here donot have. You can interpret that however you want.
One poster here is hell bent on taking me down because I donot permit their excessive spam.
As far genetic tests I donot believe there has ever been a through one done on modern Egyptians. For instance I have never seen one done to determine if the Copts and Muslim Egyptians are related to each other or distinct.
Regardless of what you believe my ancestry is I encourage you to show where I made an incorrect statement about modern or ancient Egypt.
Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
For real I cant recall where Ausar has ever said anything that other Egyptian Posters have claimed. Ausar I don't know if you recall a poster called Caip Abaza is the fake Egyptian and was called out plenty of times on it.
Here is another Egyptian that says the same thing Ausar says..
quote:Originally posted by Caipira: ]Southern Upper Egyptians (I purposely wrote Southern since as far southwards as in Sohag there might be some very light skinned Lower Egyptian looking types) are not that different from Northern Sudanese, but that's logical because they live close to each other. There is a gradual change of phenotype in the Nile Valley with rather light skinned types, not much different from Palestinians or Lebanese in the Egyptian Delta and pitch black types in Southern Sudan.
As for the name "Sudanese" being of "non-indigenous" origin, I don't see any why it should be a reason for not using it. There is an internationally recognized country called Sudan with its citizens being called Sudanese and calling themselves that way. If we were to reject it on the ground of it not being of "indigenous origin", we could just as well reject the word French, because it was brought into the region by barbarian Frankish invaders. It just doesn't make any sense.
Posts: 8812 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
It is very easy to verify your Egyptianess genetically. Get yourself a 23andme kit, like Charlie Bass did (it is only 99 dollars, don't be such a cheap bastard).
When you receive your results, send it to Dr. Dienekes Pontikos for further analysis in his state of the art Dodecad Project.
If you show excessive Northwest African, we know you are an Algerian. If you show excessive West African and North European, we know you are an African American.
Posts: 695 | From: وكان المصريون القدماء القوقازين | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
C'mon ausar, take up this challenge. Let the world know you are Egyptian. Posts: 695 | From: وكان المصريون القدماء القوقازين | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lets say Ausar is genetically "Algerian" how is that relevent to anything. He obviously grew up in Egypt which is why everything he says is verified by other Egyptians.
BTW, I thought you said you were gonna pay for the DNA test, Why should Ausar accept demands from some renegade Arab trying to question his ethnicity.
Put up the Money, buy the Kit and have it sent to Ausar, If you are so curious YOU should pay all the expenses.
Posts: 8812 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ancient Egyptians were Caucasoid: The Copts like the Ancient Egyptians are first and foremost a Caucasoid population. Genetically they cluster far away from Negroids.
What are these men?
Posts: 22246 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
It is very easy to verify your Egyptianess genetically. Get yourself a 23andme kit, like Charlie Bass did (it is only 99 dollars, don't be such a cheap bastard).
When you receive your results, send it to Dr. Dienekes Pontikos for further analysis in his state of the art Dodecad Project.
Paragroup E-M78 represents 74.5% of haplogroup E*, the highest frequencies observed in Masalit and Fur populations.
The downstreams.
Albania 27.5% Greece 27% Serbia 24% Macedonia 23% Cyprus 20% Bulgaria 16% Bosnia-Herzegovina 14.5% Portugal 12.5% Italy 11% Turkey 11% Austria 9% Belarus 9% Slovakia 9% Switzerland 9% Ukraine 8% France 7% Croatia 6% Czech Republic 6% Romania 6% Spain 6% Germany 5.5% Netherlands 4.5% Belgium 4% Poland 3.5% Slovenia 3% Denmark 2.5% Estonia 2.5% Russia 2.5% England 2% Ireland 2% Wales 2% Scotland 1.5% Finland 1% Lithuania 1% Norway 1% Sweden 1% Latvia 0.5% Iceland 0%
If you show excessive Northwest African, we know you are an Algerian. If you show excessive West African and North European, we know you are an African American.
Posts: 22246 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mostly Nubians, a few southern Egyptians, and a Nigerian albino baby, that looks like Charles Dance if he was hit in the face with a fryingpan.
Posts: 870 | From: uk | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by DaHoisDum1000: Well, those dark Egyptians must descend from invaders. Here's an ancient Egyptian (Khaemwase), and they aren't exactly the same colour as him, so they must be foreigners!
That's what I'd say if I used intelligence-insulting logic such as afrocentrists resort to on a regular basis.
And here is his father Ramses the Great
According to your broken logic he is a Mediterranean with a deep dark tan. LOL
quote:The fact of the matter is that all modern Egyptians, dark or light, are likely to have substantial amounts of Ancient Egyptian blood in them. The Copts, dark or light, are essentially pure descendants of ancient Egyptians...
Nobody is saying otherwise.
Just look at the percentage of African E lineages among 'Arab' Egyptians of northern metropolitan Egypt alone.
quote:Negroes from south of the sahara are almost guaranteed to have no ancestors who had anything to do with Egypt whatsoever. Even if they were clasified as being of the same race as the Egyptians, which they are not, they are from unconnected cultures. The black-diaspora fixation with Egypt is therefore a vain, futie & illegitimate exercise in cultural approrpriation. The attempt to disassociate modern Egyptians from the ancients, and to deny their status and legacy, is especially sordid and despicable.
Apparently you fail to understand there is no such thing as 'race' scientifically. For the very reason that the Egyptians were and in some cases still are racially classified as the same as other northeast Africans including their close neighbors the Beja and Nubians as well as Ethiopians and Somalis-- all of whom designated as "Mediterranean".
You fail to realize that the Sahara as desert did not always exist and that the prehistoric ancestors of the Egyptians and those of West Africans co-existed in the central part of the Sahara.
What exactly do these studies mean to you??
The period when sub-Saharan Africa was most influential in Egypt was a time when neither Egypt, as we understand it culturally, nor the Sahara, as we understand it geographically, existed. Populations and cultures now found south of the desert roamed far to the north. The culture of Upper Egypt, which became dynastic Egyptian civilization, could fairly be called a Sudanese transplant. Egypt rapidly found a method of disciplining the river, the land, and the people to transform the country into a titanic garden. Egypt rapidly developed detailed cultural forms that dwarfed its forebears in urbanity and elaboration. Thus, when new details arrived, they were rapidly adapted to the vast cultural superstructure already present. On the other hand, pharaonic culture was so bound to its place near the Nile that its huge, interlocked religious, administrative, and formal structures could not be readily transferred to relatively mobile cultures of the desert, savanna, and forest. The influence of the mature pharaonic civilizations of Egypt and Kush was almost confined to their sophisticated trade goods and some significant elements of technology. Nevertheless, the religious substratum of Egypt and Kush was so similar to that of many cultures in southern Sudan today that it remains possible that fundamental elements derived from the two high cultures to the north live on.--Joseph O. Vogel (1997)
"It is possible from this overview of the data to conclude that the limited conceptual vocabulary shared by the ancestors of contemporary Chadic-speakers (therefore also contemporary Cushitic-speakers), contemporary Nilotic-speakers and Ancient Egyptian-speakers suggests that the earliest speakers of the Egyptian language could be located to the south of Upper Egypt (Diakonoff 1998) or, earlier, in the Sahara (Wendorf 2004), where Takács (1999, 47) suggests their ‘long co-existence’ can be found. In addition, it is consistent with this view to suggest that the northern border of their homeland was further than the Wadi Howar proposed by Blench (1999, 2001), which is actually its southern border. Neither Chadics nor Cushitics existed at this time, but their ancestors lived in a homeland further north than the peripheral countries that they inhabited thereafter, to the south-west, in a Niger-Congo environment, and to the south-east, in a Nilo-Saharan environment, where they interacted and innovated in terms of language. From this perspective, the Upper Egyptian cultures were an ancient North East African ‘periphery at the crossroads’, as suggested by Dahl and Hjort-af-Ornas of the Beja (Dahl and Hjort-af-Ornas 2006). The most likely scenario could be this: some of these Saharo-Nubian populations spread southwards to Wadi Howar, Ennedi and Darfur; some stayed in the actual oases where they joined the inhabitants; and others moved towards the Nile, directed by two geographic obstacles, the western Great Sand Sea and the southern Rock Belt. Their slow perambulations led them from the area of Sprinkle Mountain (Gebel Uweinat) to the east – Bir Sahara, Nabta Playa, Gebel Ramlah, and Nekhen/Hierakonpolis (Upper Egypt), and to the north-east by way of Dakhla Oasis to Abydos (Middle Egypt)[/b]."--Anselin (2009)
quote:As for Amenhotep III, the fact that you can find an Obama or a Colin Powell does not mean there are no Americans who look like Kennedy or Clinton.
Irrelevant. *ALL* indigenous Egyptians i.e. those of predynastic through phraonic were 'black' by today's racial standards.
Posts: 26361 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic