posted
Coming from Europe, I feel like there is a whole different approach between us and americans about what is black and what isn't. Where I live "black" is generally a label describing populations coming from Sub-Saharan Africa defined by "negroid" traits, dark skin, frizzy hair, etc even though personally I don't consider people from the Horn of Africa as exactly similar to their "bantu" or "nilotic" neighbours but more as mixed. Here we don't consider dark arabs/north africans as black nor do we see mulattoes as black but we see the latter as "métisses" "mixed" people.
Therefore such people might be seen as black in the US but not in Europe or MENA :
I also noticed (and understand why) "blacks" in america tend to all get lumped together behind this label and identify primarly with it while where I live a wolof speaking muslim senegalese will certainly not feel some kind of kinship with a lingala speaking christian congolese (let alone horners who tend to feel closer to "arabs") even though in some specific contexts they might view themselves as simply "blacks".
That is why I think many members here despite claiming not descending from ancient egyptians still fight for them being recognized as "blacks" because in the end it appears to be all reduced to a secular fight between "Whites" and the oppressed "blacks" which is kind of ridiculous because you will never see a moroccan taking pride in Iranian history or a german taking pride in yemenite History claiming it as "white civilizations".
I'm not surprised when afro-americans view ancient egyptians as black or even many modern egyptians as black when they consider people like colin kaepernick or stephen Curry as such. I've even see many of them claiming UP Europeans, Iberomaurusians or even dravidians were black simply because they had/have dark skin.
In my case, I try to keep the most neutral approach possible based on scientific/historical facts :
I try to respect Africa's inner diversity whether in terms of genetics or cultures knowing that "black" could only be meaningfull in specific contexts where two physically vastly different populations interacted with each other.
The "diversity" among afro-americans that is often emphasized here is actually the product of eurasian ancestry (and even sometimes amerindian ancestry) of mostly NW european origin same cases are also found in the old world with modern anatolians having central asian ancestry, south asians having onge-like ancestry, horners having near eastern ancestry, north africans having west african ancestry, etc etc
Some populations remained "purer" because of isolation, carry very deep ancestry and can lack mutations found among other populations. And it's such populations that I will retain as more "typically" black. In general such groups would be recognized as "negroid" in forensic anthropology but would additionally have dark pigmentation and frizzy hair. That's what I would define as "black". We're dealing with continuums not with strictly defined groups therefore I take such diversity into account and certainly won't view west africans, san people and ethiopians as simply "blacks".
If you disagree with such point of view tell me why pls or what is wrong about it ?
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
posted
But not all horn Africans have thin features set,from what I recall,there are east Africans whose features some may consider more stereotypically African even if the aren't exactly the same.
Though a bit soft, Halima Aden doesn't look so different from Jackie Aina.
posted
the Germans did take pride in Aryan history,which was suppose to be part of a language group and if I'm not mistaken,the people weren't blondes with blue eyes.
Posts: 1123 | From: New York | Registered: Feb 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Thereal: But not all horn Africans have thin features set,from what I recall,there are east Africans whose features some may consider more stereotypically African even if the aren't exactly the same.
Though a bit soft, Halima Aden doesn't look so that different from Jackie Aina.
Yes but as a whole they are quite distinct physically from most bantus or south sudanese. I can easily recognized them IRL + phenotype isn't always in phase with genotype so it wouldn't prevent them from having 30-50% eurasian ancestry unlike most niger-congo people (except fulanis who have north african ancestry)
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
The interpretation is subjective everywhere. In America it generally is applied to dark skinned people almost always with afro type hair and who are of African decent. But many on Egyptsearch think that is a racial stereotype and the instead older definition should be applied, that classically "black" would pertain to anybody with dark skin. Again this is subjective as to how dark "black" is And there is a political variation on this, black defined as non-European with skin anything darker than pale. Some people will also use more than one definition, saying "Black" is skin color alone applied to history and anthropology but in everyday conversation the social norm is accepted as pertaining to of African descent alone (with a few exceptions Andaman islanders, Negritos, etc )
Here are some of the optional definitions of "black"
Black
1) A person primarily of deep rooted African descent
2) "Black" is an obsolete social construct applied to certain brown skinned people that along with "white" should no longer be used. References to "dark skinned" are acceptable but knowing there is no standard to use it in an exact measured way
3) Any person with dark skin
4) Any person who is not primarily European and with the slightest tint of brown or darker
5) Any person who is dark skinned excluding unusual individuals in a population that is otherwise "light skinned"
6) Any person who is not of tropical or Southern hemisphere ancestry and with the slightest tint of brown or darker
7) 18th century and earlier European definition: dark skinned people including Africans and all others including Europeans who are not pale skinned with the tiniest hint of brown
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess,if you only reduce the word to a color description. The difference between the two individuals is relegated to their heads.
Posts: 1123 | From: New York | Registered: Feb 2016
| IP: Logged |
The interpretation is subjective everywhere. In America it generally is applied to dark skinned people almost always with afro type hair and who are of African decent. But many on Egyptsearch think that is a racial stereotype and the instead older definition should be applied, that classically "black" would pertain to anybody with dark skin. Again this is subjective as to how dark "black" is And there is a political variation on this, black defined as non-European with skin anything darker than pale. Some people will also use more than one definition, saying "Black" is skin color alone applied to history and anthropology but in everyday conversation the social norm is accepted as pertaining to of African descent alone (with a few exceptions Andaman islanders, Negritos, etc )
Here are some of the optional definitions of "black"
Black
1) A person primarily of deep rooted African descent
2) "Black" is an obsolete social construct applied to certain brown skinned people that along with "white" should no longer be used. References to "dark skinned" are acceptable but knowing there is no standard to use it in an exact measured way
3) Any person with dark skin
4) Any person who is not primarily European and with the slightest tint of brown or darker
5) Any person who is dark skinned excluding unusual individuals in a population that is otherwise "light skinned"
6) Any person who is not of tropical or Southern hemisphere ancestry and with the slightest tint of brown or darker
7) 18th century and earlier European definition: dark skinned people including Africans and all others including Europeans who are not pale skinned with the tiniest hint of brown
I totally agree about the subjective nature of such label but generally in discussions about ethnicity and history, when people defend the idea of ancient egyptians not being black they usually mean they didn't look like most of modern sub-saharan africans nor would they be viewed as black by most modern people if they were alive.
I feel like many members here are well aware of this but since it's not in line with their narrative they tend to go as far as possible in the History of Egypt to find any southern ambiguous type possible which they can link to sub-saharan africa and then play on the "egyptian culture was born in the south". Some even go as far as trying to redefine what "eurasian" ancestry is and pretend back migrations were actually of low impact and only medieval ones did impact significantly the area...
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
posted
South(sub.) Sahara Africa is suppose to be a geographic term,because most East Africans live below the Sahara desert. Check the link,I don't want to stretch the thread.
quote:Originally posted by Thereal: South(sub.) Sahara Africa is suppose to be a geographic term,because most East Africans live below the Sahara desert. Check the link,I don't want to stretch the thread.
I'm well aware of this and I don't understand why you mention it
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
posted
Where I live "black" is generally a label describing populations coming from Sub-Saharan Africa defined by "negroid" traits, dark skin, frizzy hair, etc even though personally I don't consider people from the Horn of Africa as exactly similar to their "bantu" or "nilotic" neighbours but more as mixed.
You are aware some Euros defined some Nilotic group as a negroes mixed with Africans from the horn?
Posts: 1123 | From: New York | Registered: Feb 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Thereal: Where I live "black" is generally a label describing populations coming from Sub-Saharan Africa defined by "negroid" traits, dark skin, frizzy hair, etc even though personally I don't consider people from the Horn of Africa as exactly similar to their "bantu" or "nilotic" neighbours but more as mixed.
You are aware some Euros defined some Nilotic group as a negroes mixed with Africans from the horn?
Anyway when I said "didn't look like sub-saharan africans" that included horners despite the fact they are mixed and genetically plot closer to eurasians.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
I totally agree about the subjective nature of such label but generally in discussions about ethnicity and history, when people defend the idea of ancient egyptians not being black they usually mean they didn't look like most of modern sub-saharan africans nor would they be viewed as black by most modern people if they were alive.
yes but in the arts some ancient Egyptians look do indeed look stereotypic Sub-Saharan and others don't. You have to be honest about that and not cherry pick to try to hide it, instead show both types (and the cherry picking can be done from either side) .
.
Amenhotep III Louvre Museum, Paris section removed from temple wall KV22, temple of Amenhotep III .
.
Ramesses II, Brooklyn Museum
.
So here we have different types depicted
So you can't say there are no stereotypic "sub-Saharan" types represented and there are ongoing examples as well as other examples that do not fit the type
But like I said at Egyptsearch many go by the what they see as the classical definition, "black" pertains to skin color alone
Thus while depictions of Ramesses II will vary the paintings are consistently this type of skin tone, to categorize as "black"
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
I totally agree about the subjective nature of such label but generally in discussions about ethnicity and history, when people defend the idea of ancient egyptians not being black they usually mean they didn't look like most of modern sub-saharan africans nor would they be viewed as black by most modern people if they were alive.
yes but in the arts some ancient Egyptians look do indeed look stereotypic Sub-Saharan and others don't. You have to be honest about that and not cherry pick to try to hide it, instead show both types (and the cherry picking can be done from either side) .
.
Amenhotep III Louvre Museum, Paris section removed from temple wall KV22, temple of Amenhotep III .
.
Ramesses II, Brooklyn Museum
.
So here we have different types depicted
So you can't say there are no stereotypic "sub-Saharan" types represented and there are ongoing examples as well as other examples that do not fit the type
But like I said at Egyptsearch many go by the what they see as the classical definition, "black" pertains to skin color alone
Thus while depictions of Ramesses II will vary the paintings are consistently this type of skin tone, to categorize as "black"
Well I've been to the louvres (got some pictures from there) and most artifacts we have rarely show SSA types which might be indicative of these SSA types being nubian since nubians have been part of Egypt's society for a long time whether in the army or even in high political sphere. When I was at the Louvres I was surprised to see that the Old kingdom artifacts actually looked more homogeneous and more "eurasian" than the later dynasties of the New kingdom.
If the classical definition is only about skin color then they definitely weren't black since most were depicted with a reddish type of tone similar to what modern egyptians have.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
Well I've been to the louvres (got some pictures from there) and most artifacts we have rarely show SSA types which might be indicative of these SSA types being nubian since nubians have been part of Egypt's society for a long time whether in the army or even in high political sphere. When I was at the Louvres I was surprised to see that the Old kingdom artifacts actually looked more homogeneous and more "eurasian" than the later dynasties of the New kingdom.
If the classical definition is only about skin color then they definitely weren't black since most were depicted with a reddish type of tone similar to what modern egyptians have.
U.N. based political map, sub-Sahara Sudan is classified as Northern Africa
Sub-Saharan Africa
If you look at a lot of the Egyptian art you see some broad stereotypic facial features but ancient Egypt was a Nile valley river civilization, a river that flows from Tanzania and another branch beginning in Ethiopia into Sudan and Egypt
It's unremarkable that we will also find in ancient Egypt some of the African-horn type features there also, some of these are darker skinned yet with thinner features, these are sub-Saharan as well and could be older than both West Africans and prior to mankind leaving Africa
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
If the classical definition is only about skin color then they definitely weren't black since most were depicted with a reddish type of tone similar to what modern egyptians have.
this term "black" is applied to dark skinned people basically types of brown including reddish brown Tutankhamun wooden bust
this is considered a skin tone not uncommon in Africa
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ty Daniels: @Antalas AKA Hotepboy AKA Nassabean
I thought you were banned????????
Why do you keep coming back to this site?
Yeah dude sounds like a troll. Nobody in 2021 is debating whether or not the ancient people of Kham or Egypt were black not. They were not mulattoes or mixed or any of that nonsense. Modern Egyptians have NOTHING to do with ancient Egypt, and modern peoples of Africa he calls the "Bantu and Nilotics" are the true descendants of ancient Kham, and as Diop stated the culture is all the evidence needed to prove this correct. East Africans such as who? This obsessive promoting of Hamitic East Africans is a clear sign of nonsense. The Somalis are nomads, so we know that they had nothing to do with building a civilizations. The Habesha of Ethiopia are known returning African migrants who have nothing to do with ancient Nubia or Egypt, which leaves for the most part Oromo (the entirely African Ethiopians) and Nilotic groups.
______________________________________
edited: no name calling please
[ 24. November 2021, 11:04 AM: Message edited by: the lioness, ]
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: Coming from Europe, I feel like there is a whole different approach between us and americans about what is black and what isn't. Where I live "black" is generally a label describing populations coming from Sub-Saharan Africa defined by "negroid" traits, dark skin, frizzy hair, etc even though personally I don't consider people from the Horn of Africa as exactly similar to their "bantu" or "nilotic" neighbours but more as mixed. Here we don't consider dark arabs/north africans as black nor do we see mulattoes as black but we see the latter as "métisses" "mixed" people.
Therefore such people might be seen as black in the US but not in Europe or MENA :
I also noticed (and understand why) "blacks" in america tend to all get lumped together behind this label and identify primarly with it while where I live a wolof speaking muslim senegalese will certainly not feel some kind of kinship with a lingala speaking christian congolese (let alone horners who tend to feel closer to "arabs") even though in some specific contexts they might view themselves as simply "blacks".
That is why I think many members here despite claiming not descending from ancient egyptians still fight for them being recognized as "blacks" because in the end it appears to be all reduced to a secular fight between "Whites" and the oppressed "blacks" which is kind of ridiculous because you will never see a moroccan taking pride in Iranian history or a german taking pride in yemenite History claiming it as "white civilizations".
I'm not surprised when afro-americans view ancient egyptians as black or even many modern egyptians as black when they consider people like colin kaepernick or stephen Curry as such. I've even see many of them claiming UP Europeans, Iberomaurusians or even dravidians were black simply because they had/have dark skin.
In my case, I try to keep the most neutral approach possible based on scientific/historical facts :
I try to respect Africa's inner diversity whether in terms of genetics or cultures knowing that "black" could only be meaningfull in specific contexts where two physically vastly different populations interacted with each other.
The "diversity" among afro-americans that is often emphasized here is actually the product of eurasian ancestry (and even sometimes amerindian ancestry) of mostly NW european origin same cases are also found in the old world with modern anatolians having central asian ancestry, south asians having onge-like ancestry, horners having near eastern ancestry, north africans having west african ancestry, etc etc
Some populations remained "purer" because of isolation, carry very deep ancestry and can lack mutations found among other populations. And it's such populations that I will retain as more "typically" black. In general such groups would be recognized as "negroid" in forensic anthropology but would additionally have dark pigmentation and frizzy hair. That's what I would define as "black". We're dealing with continuums not with strictly defined groups therefore I take such diversity into account and certainly won't view west africans, san people and ethiopians as simply "blacks".
If you disagree with such point of view tell me why pls or what is wrong about it ?
Modern Egyptians have NOTHING to do with ancient Egypt
why do you assume the people above have nothing to do with Ancient Egypt?
Why post a picture as though it's supposed to mean anything when there is genetic evidence that says what it is actually is? Modern Egyptians do not have sickle cell, but predynastic Mummies and King Tut did. Modern Egyptians and Sudanese are likely the result of the Arab invasion, since the Arabian peninsula had been originally settled by East African Hamites.
Modern Egyptians have NOTHING to do with ancient Egypt
why do you assume the people above have nothing to do with Ancient Egypt?
Why post a picture as though it's supposed to mean anything when there is genetic evidence that says what it is actually is? Modern Egyptians do not have sickle cell, but predynastic Mummies and King Tut did. Modern Egyptians and Sudanese are likely the result of the Arab invasion, since the Arabian peninsula had been originally settled by East African Hamites.
I posted the picture because you posted it in your reply
and it's a picture of modern Egyptians
Sickle cell is primarily African but also found in some places in India and Arabia and some rare cases elsewhere It its rare in modern Egypt except in some oases
The idea that Tutankhamun had sickle cell is a theory. His mummy was never genetically tested for sickle cell to prove it.
In 1999 six predynastic mummies were tested for a sickle cell genetic marker>>
Abstract We conducted a molecular investigation of the presence of sicklemia in six predynastic Egyptian mummies (about 3200 BC) from the Anthropological and Ethnographic Museum of Turin. Previous studies of these remains showed the presence of severe anemia, while histological preparations of mummified tissues revealed hemolytic disorders. DNA was extracted from dental samples with a silica-gel method specific for ancient DNA. A modification of the polymerase chain reaction (PCR), called amplification refractory mutation system (ARMS) was then applied. ARMS is based on specific priming of the PCR and it permits diagnosis of single nucleotide mutations. In this method, amplification can occur only in the presence of the specific mutation being studied. The amplified DNA was analyzed by electrophoresis. In samples of three individuals, there was a band at the level of the HbS mutated fragment, indicating that they were affected by sicklemia. On the basis of our results, we discuss the possible uses of new molecular investigation systems in paleopathological diagnoses of genetic diseases and viral, bacterial and fungal infections.
_________________________________
So since half of the mummies did not have sickle cell then sickle cell is not a requirement for human remains to be pre-dynastic Egypt
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Modern Egyptians have NOTHING to do with ancient Egypt
why do you assume the people above have nothing to do with Ancient Egypt?
Why post a picture as though it's supposed to mean anything when there is genetic evidence that says what it is actually is? Modern Egyptians do not have sickle cell, but predynastic Mummies and King Tut did. Modern Egyptians and Sudanese are likely the result of the Arab invasion, since the Arabian peninsula had been originally settled by East African Hamites.
I posted the picture because you posted it in your reply
and it's a picture of modern Egyptians
Sickle cell is primarily African but also found in some places in India and Arabia and some rare cases elsewhere It its rare in modern Egypt except in some oases
The idea that Tutankhamun had sickle cell is a theory. His mummy was never genetically tested for sickle cell to prove it.
In 1999 six predynastic mummies were tested for a sickle cell genetic marker>>
Abstract We conducted a molecular investigation of the presence of sicklemia in six predynastic Egyptian mummies (about 3200 BC) from the Anthropological and Ethnographic Museum of Turin. Previous studies of these remains showed the presence of severe anemia, while histological preparations of mummified tissues revealed hemolytic disorders. DNA was extracted from dental samples with a silica-gel method specific for ancient DNA. A modification of the polymerase chain reaction (PCR), called amplification refractory mutation system (ARMS) was then applied. ARMS is based on specific priming of the PCR and it permits diagnosis of single nucleotide mutations. In this method, amplification can occur only in the presence of the specific mutation being studied. The amplified DNA was analyzed by electrophoresis. In samples of three individuals, there was a band at the level of the HbS mutated fragment, indicating that they were affected by sicklemia. On the basis of our results, we discuss the possible uses of new molecular investigation systems in paleopathological diagnoses of genetic diseases and viral, bacterial and fungal infections.
_________________________________
So since half of the mummies did not have sickle cell then sickle cell is not a requirement for human remains to be pre-dynastic Egypt
Sickle cell is an indicator of Bantu-West African ancestry. If it is found in Asia and Europe then that logically means that Bantu people made their ways to that region as well.
"Other DNA studies also support the flow of genetic information from sub-Saharan Africa into the populations of ancient Egypt; Rameses III and his son, who came after Tutankhamum, both had a type of Y-chromosome (E1b1a) that is characteristic of black Africans. We can conclude therefore, that there is tentative evidence for the sickle cell mutation in ancient Egyptian populations and that this would have been derived by gene flow from West Africa. Under the selective pressure of malaria, which was prevalent in ancient Egypt, the mutation would have spread widely throughout the population."
Sickle cell is an indicator of Bantu-West African ancestry. If it is found in Asia and Europe then that logically means that Bantu people made their ways to that region as well.
" Rameses III and his son, who came after Tutankhamum, both had a type of Y-chromosome (E1b1a) that is characteristic of black Africans. We can conclude therefore, that there is tentative evidence for the sickle cell mutation in ancient Egyptian populations and that this would have been derived by gene flow from West Africa.
Bantu is a language group
Rameses and another mummy were tested and found to be of haplogroup E1b1a.
However, In West Africa, which is heavily dominated by E1b1a people the prevalence of the mutant gene for sickle-cell (HbS) is 5-20% the majority of people there do not have it.
and Tutankhamun, Akhenaten and Amenhotep were tested in 2020 and were found to be of haplogroup R1b Not of E1b1a
Insights from ancient DNA analysis of Egyptian human mummies: clues to disease and kinship Yehia Z Gad et al, 2020 Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Big O:
Sickle cell is an indicator of Bantu-West African ancestry. If it is found in Asia and Europe then that logically means that Bantu people made their ways to that region as well.
" Rameses III and his son, who came after Tutankhamum, both had a type of Y-chromosome (E1b1a) that is characteristic of black Africans. We can conclude therefore, that there is tentative evidence for the sickle cell mutation in ancient Egyptian populations and that this would have been derived by gene flow from West Africa.
Bantu is a language group
Rameses and another mummy were tested and found to be of haplogroup E1b1a.
quote: However, In West Africa, which is heavily dominated by E1b1a people the prevalence of the mutant gene for sickle-cell (HbS) is 5-20% the majority of people there do not have it.
This is somewhat remedial. So to prove that a mutation is characteristic of a particular group of people most people in that group must have it??? Sickle cell is found in African Americans and our greater African family, which according to research is most commonly found in the Niger Kordofanian family. Not Cushites not Nilotic Africans. A map of it's distribution clearly outlines this African family, and sickle cell's presence is proof of these Africans presence throughout the World. It's not like Indians or Southeast Asians got sickle cell statically! They could only have gotten it from their parents, and given the recent date of sickle cell's origins it must have been recent migrations that brought sickle cell around the World.
quote: and Tutankhamun, Akhenaten and Amenhotep were tested in 2020 and were found to be of haplogroup R1b Not of E1b1a
Dr. Winters has pointed out already that R1b is also a characteristic of the Niger-Kordofanian family in one of our last discussions has he not? Their STR's were also found to be exclusively that of a Bantu-Nilotic element according to DNA tribes in the Central African region. Tut was actually the most African if memory serves me right. If Tut or his family had relations with non Africans then it would show, but none of them did. Therefore trying to constantly create doubt is juvenile, and clearly indicates that your motive here is troll Black people and act as an authority.
quote:Originally posted by Big O: This is somewhat remedial. So to prove that a mutation is characteristic of a particular group of people most people in that group must have it???
● Sickle cell is most common in West Africa but most West Africans do not have the sickle cell trait or the disease.
● It is unknown if Ramesses III and his son had the sickle cell trait.
● the mummy of Ramesses III and his son were found by testing to be of the haplogroup E1b1a
● the mummies of Tutankhamun, Akhenaten and Amenhotep III were found by testing to be of the haplogroup R1b Being of the haplogroup R1b does not predict the person is black or white
quote:Originally posted by Big O: Modern Egyptians have NOTHING to do with ancient Egypt
you cannot prove this
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
It's funny how usage of the word "black" always becomes "complicated" or "confusing" when discussing whether or not prevalent ancient civilizations were indeed black.
Let's see what the scholars over at the United Nations have to say:
"It is more than probable that the African strain, black or light, is preponderant in the ancient Egyptian..."
"General History of Africa: Ancient civilizations of Africa" by G. Mokhtar, page 15 (1991) United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization, International Scientific Committee for the Drafting of a General History of Africa
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: It's funny how usage of the word "black" always becomes "complicated" or "confusing" when discussing whether or not prevalent ancient civilizations were indeed black.
"black" is not a scientific term with an agreed upon definition that is why people in this forum may not agree on who of the above is "black". Hence if you apply the same term to ancient Egypt, the same potential disagreement
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
@the lioness
Cool. I just produced a source from the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization stating that the african strain , whether black or light, was preponderant in the ancient egyptian population.
Definition of preponderant:
-- predominant in influence, number, or importance
-- having superior weight, force, or influence
-- having greater prevalence
In other words, they were "black" africans. Not caucasians, not arabs, etc.
Posts: 2542 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
Cool. I just produced a source from the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization stating that the african strain , whether black or light, was preponderant in the ancient egyptian population.
Definition of preponderant:
-- predominant in influence, number, or importance
-- having superior weight, force, or influence
-- having greater prevalence
In other words, they were "black" africans. Not caucasians, not arabs, etc.
the book says "or" black OR light therefore the color makes no difference according to this author
"whether black OR light"
He proves this my pointing out that "for those with eyes to see" , that if we have yes our eye can see this black or lightness
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
@the lioness
Did you forget the part where the author clearly says the african strain? The author is clearly saying the ancient egyptians were black africans, regardless of how dark or light their skin color was. It's clear as day. Good luck trying to do what you usually do (lie about what a source is clearly saying, and trying to convince people not to believe their own eyes).
Posts: 2542 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: [QB] @the lioness
Did you forget the part where the author clearly says the african strain? The author is clearly saying the ancient egyptians were black africans,
No I didn't forget that part, let's look at the quote again:
"It is more than probable that the African strain, black or light, is preponderant in the ancient Egyptian..."
Again it say Black OR....something not black > "light"
"light" doesn't mean black
So he's saying color is irrelevant, that if you use your eyes you can see the Egyptians were mainly African
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
@the lioness
Nowhere does it say "color is irrelevant", and africans or "black" people come in almost every shade of color, from light brown, to brown, to dark brown, to black.
That's why it says the african strain, to let you know they were africans.
In other words, they were "black" in the modern sense of the word -- they were black africans. Not caucasian, not arab, or anything else.
It also clearly says they had "black" or african physical features.
You're trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill when the text is very clear in what it says.
Posts: 2542 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
Nowhere does it say "color is irrelevant", and africans or "black" people come in almost every shade of color, from light brown, to brown, to dark brown, to black.
That's why it says the african strain, to let you know they were africans.
In other words, they were "black" in the modern sense of the word -- they were black africans. Not caucasian, not arab, or anything else.
It also clearly says they had "black" or african physical features.
You're trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill when the text is very clear in what it says.
No the problem is I have read the quote and understand what the word "OR" means
and now that I have shown you that you actually don't like the quote anymore and want to deny that the word "or" is in the quote
Now you want it to say what you want is to say not what it actually says
It's says the Egyptians were mainly African regardless of if they are black or light
Thus being either black or being light doesn't matter
You may not like that but that's what he said, not what you said
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
@the lioness
Anyone with a brain can easily see the author is saying that the egyptians were black africans whose skin complexions ranged from light-skinned to black just like how we see in "black" people today.
There's no way you can try to twist what is being said without looking like a clown.
Native africans have black skin complexions as well as lighter skin complexions as well as anything in between.
They were black africans with the typical range of "african" skin complexions.
Posts: 2542 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
Anyone with a brain can easily see the author is saying that the egyptians were black africans whose skin complexions ranged from light-skinned to black just like how we see in "black" people today.
There's no way you can try to twist what is being said without looking like a clown.
Native africans have black skin complexions as well as lighter skin complexions as well as anything in between.
They were black africans with the typical range of "african" skin complexions.
Again the quote speaks for itself, no what you hoped it says:
"It is more than probable that the African strain, black or light, is preponderant in the ancient Egyptian..."
the strain could be black
but it might also not be black
it could be light
as long as it's African
You're trying to bend and twist it now looking for an escape hatch but there is no escape. You tried to set a trap but you got distracted and fell in your own trap
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
@the lioness
It literally says african strain. That eliminates caucasians, arabs, mixed lineages, etc., anyone who is not native african.
You lost the first time you responded, because I never claimed all africans are literally black. In fact, I've been saying the exact opposite the whole entire time.
Anybody can scroll up and read what I've been saying for themselves.
What you've done is construct a strawman argument, but you're so used to doing that (and constructing other deceptions) that you don't even realize you've done it. Posts: 2542 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: [QB] @the lioness
It literally says african strain. That eliminates caucasians, arabs, mixed lineages, etc., anyone who is not native african.
yes the G. Moktar quote says "African strain"
and he says it could be the light African strain
OR
the black African strain
_______________________
but the topic is not about these two different strains of Africans
it's about which definition of "black" one chooses to use, the American definition or one of the other definitions and different posters in these forums will use different definitions:
some of the various definitions of "black"
Black
a) A person primarily of deep rooted African descent
b) "Black" is an obsolete social construct applied to certain brown skinned people that along with "white" should no longer be used. References to "dark skinned" are acceptable but knowing there is no standard to use it in an exact measured way
c) Any person with dark skin
d) Any person who is not primarily European and with the slightest tint of brown or darker
e) Any person who is dark skinned excluding unusual individuals in a population that is otherwise "light skinned"
f) Any person who is not of tropical or Southern hemisphere ancestry and with the slightest tint of brown or darker
g) 18th century and earlier European definition: dark skinned people including Africans and all others including Europeans who are not pale skinned with the tiniest hint of brown Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
@the lioness
You're trying soooo hard to obfuscate the clear point that the author has made.
The source clearly says the african strain was preponderant in the ancient egyptians. They were africans. They had black skin and they also had lighter skin complexions, just like we see in so-called "black" or african people today.
Regardless, at the end of the day they were AFRICAN.....
Not caucasian, arab, etc.
Posts: 2542 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
You're trying soooo hard to obfuscate the clear point that the author has made.
The source clearly says the african strain was preponderant in the ancient egyptians. They were africans. They had black skin and they also had lighter skin complexions, just like we see in so-called "black" or african people today.
Regardless, at the end of the day they were AFRICAN.....
Not caucasian, arab, etc.
Well it's obvious you are trying to divert the topic The topic is not the preponderance of Africaness of the Egyptians it's what the definition of "black" someone chooses to use, look at the thread title
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
@the lioness
I was not trying to divert anything. Someone mentioned the ancient egyptians and their blackness so I was posting in response to that idea.
You then did what you always do and tried to misinterpret the information in the source I posted and I repeatedly had to correct you -- that's how we got to where we are now.
Great to see that you finally put that nonsense to rest.
Posts: 2542 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
The source clearly says the african strain was preponderant in the ancient egyptians.
Which source ?
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: They were africans. They had black skin and they also had lighter skin complexions, just like we see in so-called "black" or african people today.
Regardless, at the end of the day they were AFRICAN.....
Not caucasian, arab, etc.
Africa is a diverse continent, being african doesn't necessarily prevent someone from being light skinned. Ancient egyptians simply looked like their modern descendents certainly not afro-americans of west african descent.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
I was not trying to divert anything. Someone mentioned the ancient egyptians and their blackness so I was posting in response to that idea.
You then did what you always do and tried to misinterpret the information in the source I posted and I repeatedly had to correct you -- that's how we got to where we are now.
Great to see that you finally put that nonsense to rest.
this is the first image in the thread Many members in the forum consider these to be black people who may have Ancient Egyptians ancestry
Other ES member think these people are not black people and they therefore could have no ancient Egyptian Ancestry
Still another ES member thinks these are not black people but they could have ancient Egyptians ancestry
I am aware of all these different opinions but you have not picked up on it
In my opinion it doesn't matter how somebody looks. Yo can't tell by looking who might have Ancient Egyptian ancestry. Somebody could look just like the Egyptians did but have no ancestry from them or they might look like them but have none of them as ancestors. Similarly a person might not resemble an ancient Egyptian but have some ancestry that does go back to them but mixed with other ancestry. You cannot tell any of this by looking. And even if you look at the DNA found in some of the mummies it varies, for instance Rameses III and his son's DNA is not the same as the Tutankhamun or Yuya
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
@Antalas
1. The source I posted a little earlier in the thread from UNESCO (United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organizarion).
2. Ancient egyptians did not look like modern egyptians -- there's no evidence to prove this. There is actually evidence that says the exact opposite.
And I never said being african prevents someone from being light-skinned. Clearly you aren't reading my comments and are just posting for the hell of it.
Posts: 2542 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
@the lioness
Those people look like arabs -- not africans. Nice try though.
Posts: 2542 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
Those people look like arabs -- not africans. Nice try though.
Again someone who has DNA going back to ancient Egyptians may or may not resemble them in appearance. On top of this the depictions of ancient Egyptians varies greatly in their art, despite people from one modern political position or another use cherry picked examples
And many Arabs have the same DNA as East Africans do
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
@the lioness
Strawman argument, we aren't talking about who has "DNA" going back to the ancient Egyptians. We are talking about what the ancient Egyptians looked like themselves.
And plenty of scholastic sources, old and modern, make it clear that they either were or resembled "sub-saharan africans".
Posts: 2542 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well,modern Egyptians would include the foreigners that live there today plus what remains of the ancient people and everything in between.
Posts: 1123 | From: New York | Registered: Feb 2016
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
@the lioness
I'm trying to figure out why you for some reason think any of your claims hold any water when all you do is purposely misinterpret scholastic information and construct strawman arguments?
Posts: 2542 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic