...
EgyptSearch Forums Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply
my profile | directory login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» EgyptSearch Forums » Egyptology » White Folks' Egyptian Madness (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   
Author Topic: White Folks' Egyptian Madness
Wally
Member
Member # 2936

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Wally   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ausar wrote:
"This issue is kind of trite and has been debated many times on this forum. My stance is that Upper Egyptians were without a doubt black,but people in Lower Egypt,although not without admixture from black people in the south,were mostly coastal type Africans seen in modern Magreb."
My response:
Ausar is, of course, absolutely correct. However, I don't agree that the issue is trite. It is white folks' reaction to this ethnic reality of Egypt (ancient and modern) that is not only trite but absurd! They actually believe (or pretend to) that the ethnology of a particular nation is a debatable issue...(150+ opinions to 'a clever controversy' and 24+ opinions to 'black skinned Egyptians.'):
For example, Horemhab, obviously white folk, since no other folks have this problem, opinion-ates:
I have it in my files somewhere. A DNA study that Egyptians are of the same group as southern Europeans. The idea that Egyptians were/are black is simply insane. Geeeeez!!!
My response:
Horemhab's response, as well as the response of many white folks on this topic is due to the disease of White folks' Egyptian Madness:
Ancient Egyptian madness began in the Western world in the 18th century. It was the result of Western 'Egyptologists' (white folks) unlocking the keys to what turned out to them to be a fantastic civilization. This civilization seemed so remarkable that Westerners (white folks) began to portray their new gods, the Egyptians, in their own (white folks) image. Everybody else in the world had long taken it for granted that Ancient Egypt was a black civilization, just as they had taken it for granted that the Greeks were white, and the Chinese were...well, Chinese. Of course, everybody else had to be shown the error of one's common sense. Alas.
One of the ironies of this madness is that when these same white folks visit Egypt today, the locals immediately recognize them as Khawaaga or foreigners. On the other hand, African Americans traveling in Egypt are very often mistaken for native Egyptians, and are usually referred to as Masri or Egyptians. That is because...
The simple truth is that Egypt is, and always has been a black African nation. Once you leave the great Arab cities of Cairo and Alexandria, and go into the Nile valley, you are in black Africa. Now, Egypt has been ruled by an Arab minority since the 9th century A.D., a minority that is extremely sensitive to race, and one which behaves in the manner chided by Ahmed Ben Bella, the late president of Algeria - "We (Arabs) have been in Africa for 1200 years, and yet we still behave as colonialists."
This Arab minority ruling class has also colluded with white folks in their Egyptian madness. For centuries Egypt made money by selling mummies to Europeans. By the 18th century there was even a thriving business in fake mummies, as powdered mummy became the rage as a medicinal cure all. The Egyptian government put heavy taxes on the export of mummies and did nothing to discourage the trade. It also banned the Egyptian language from public usage, but the natives kept it alive in the liturgy of the Coptic (Gyptic) church. It meant to Arabize the population, much as the government of the Sudan is now attempting to do in Sudan. This is partially based upon the Arab ideology that states that if the father of a child is an Arab then so too is the baby. The reality of genetics does not cloud this issue. Black Sudanese think they're Arabs too!
We are reminded of the well intended but naive appeal to the Arab Egyptian government by some African Americans to have it officially proclaim that Egypt was (is) a black nation. The Arab minority ruling class is not about to open that can of worms. Witness its hysterical reaction to the portrayal of black Anwar Sadat by the black Lou Gossett, Jr.
And all those black folks in the Nile valley are not Nubians! There are, at best, only one million Nubians on the planet and guess where they live mostly? Yep, in Nubia.
Small wager...even if it were possible to transport someone who suffers this affliction, back to the Egypt of the Pharaohs, to this vibrant black culture, you probably would still get an argument. Chances are good that the individual would declare that this must be the period of Ethiopian rule! Sad...

Posts: 3344 | From: Berkeley | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RERE
Junior Member
Member # 3065

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for RERE     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
True, true
Posts: 16 | From: ATL | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ausar
Member
Member # 1797

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for ausar   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
To understand the Western world's obcession with Egypt you must know about the long discarded ''dyanstic race'' theory once postulated by leading academics. This theory stated that the non-indigenous races of Western Asia invaded the African Egyptians;thus giving them civlization. Today's archeology show this was simply a fantasy that was manipulated by bad interpretation of Egyptian artifacts. New findings in the Sahara and places in Southern Egypt like Nabta Playa clearly demonstrate the error in the thinking of people like Sir Flinders Petrie. Not to mention the excavations at El Kab and Nekhen as well as A-group Nubian show a clearly African origin for Egyptian civlization.


Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ausar
Member
Member # 1797

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for ausar   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
While in the past many ''white'' academics have argued for a white-washed version of Egypt's history. No longer is this prevalent in the academic establishment,because every day more white academics like Frank Joseph Yurco are aknowleading the Africaness of ancietn Egyptian soceity that was once overlooked. A book published in 1996 called Egypt in Africa explores the African nature of Egyptian civlization. Some examples,although rare,was present even during the days of racialist scholarship that aknowleadged pre-dyanstic Egypt always had a African element that could still be seen amung the Egyptians in the rual countryside of Egypt. Egypt lies within the African context as well as the Western Asian and Medditerean context;which both illustrate the hetrogenity of Egyptian people as a whole. To deny neither the African or the non-African elements would be a intellectual crime to both the modern Egyptians and ancient ones,or more importnatly to structure of Maat that guided the Egyptians in their persuit.


Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kem-Au
Member
Member # 1820

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Kem-Au     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
While I agree that Egyptology has skewed the accuracy of AE history, we must be careful not to fall into the same traps. I agree that the reason we even have these discussions is because of racism, and the absurd beliefs that black people were incapable of civilizing themselves. But this issue is not black and white, so to speak.

In addition to what ausar mentioned, Martin Bernal, a white man, argued that Africans (along with Asiatics) brought civilization to Europe in his book Black Athena. He also wrote that many of AE's dynasties were black. And Wallis Budge, another white man (and nearly a century ago), wrote that the AE language was an African language, not an Asian one.

We shouldn't make the mistake of prejudging a group of people. This was the mistake that led to the confusion of AE history. I'm sure there are plenty white people who believe that AE's were black. At the same time I'm sure that there are black people who believe AE's were not black. In fact, I happen to know one.


Posts: 1038 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Horemheb
Member
Member # 3361

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Horemheb     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This is NOT one who believes that AE's were black simply because at this moment I am looking at a stack of studies six inches high that do not show that. Bosch '97 is a case in point but the list is endless.
Posts: 5822 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ausar
Member
Member # 1797

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for ausar   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Bob Brier in his book also says that ''Some Egyptians were black and some were not''. You can read his exact statements in Egyptian mummies,and on the same page he adresses the contreversey over Rameses II hair color. He concludes that is was red while stating that this was something that it was extremely rare. Bruce Trigger has also advocated that Egypt was a diverse civlization with African origins.


Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kem-Au
Member
Member # 1820

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Kem-Au     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Horemheb:
This is NOT one who believes that AE's were black simply because at this moment I am looking at a stack of studies six inches high that do not show that. Bosch '97 is a case in point but the list is endless.

Now that I look at these people, think they really look more southern European than Black. I'm officially changing my position. These people were not black, they're European:




[This message has been edited by Kem-Au (edited 30 January 2004).]


Posts: 1038 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kem-Au
Member
Member # 1820

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Kem-Au     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
ausar, I submitted this twice. Could you please delete the first one, and this too?
Posts: 1038 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Horemheb
Member
Member # 3361

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Horemheb     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Kem...Queen Tiye's father was an Asian, check out his mummy. Most of you are aware that the standard World History class in America teaches that the earliest Egyptian's came from the east and settled in what is now the middle of the Sahara desert. As the desert dried out one group went east to the Nile and the other went south. This explains the abundance of Asian markers in sub Saharian African populations. You can get a PHD in African history at many Universities and Egypt is hardly dealt with. AE is a Med. civilization with some African influence.
Posts: 5822 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ausar
Member
Member # 1797

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for ausar   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Where is your evidence that the original people in the Sahara migrated from Asia? What about the Pre-dyanstic cultures like Badarian,Naquda or Nabta Playa. The original population in the Sahara was negriod as attested to the negriod mummy dating to 5700 B.C.

Egypt was an diverse civlization with an African origin. The only Asiatic elements in Egyptian civlization was attested in Lower Egypt which pottery shows was eventually replaced.

The Chicago Oriental Insistute teaches that Egyptian civlization came from Upper Egypt from the Naquda culture.


Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Horemheb
Member
Member # 3361

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Horemheb     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Wally...have you ever been to Egypt??
This idea that 'white folks' have some sort of race based pre concieved idea about AE is absurd. If anything, it is the other way around. I don't know any serious student who contends that there is no African influence in AE but to compare northern Africa to sub saharan Africa simply will not work. I am not going to teach my students revisionist history designed to make a 21st century cultural point.

Posts: 5822 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ausar
Member
Member # 1797

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for ausar   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Contact: J. McKim Malville, (303) 492-8766
Jim Scott, 492-3114

March 31, 1998

OLDEST ASTRONOMICAL MEGALITH ALIGNMENT
DISCOVERED IN SOUTHERN EGYPT BY SCIENCE TEAM
An assembly of huge stone slabs found in Egypt’s Sahara Desert that date from about 6,500 years to 6,000 years ago has been confirmed by scientists to be the oldest known astronomical alignment of megaliths in the world.

Known as Nabta, the site consists of a stone circle, a series of flat, tomb-like stone structures and five lines of standing and toppled megaliths. Located west of the Nile River in southern Egypt, Nabta predates Stonehenge and similar prehistoric sites around the world by about 1,000 years, said University of Colorado at Boulder astronomy Professor J. McKim Malville.
The Nabta site was discovered several years ago by a team led by Southern Methodist University anthropology Professor Fred Wendorf. A 1997 GPS satellite survey by Malville, Wendorf, Ali A Mazar of the Egyptian Geological Survey and Romauld Schild of the Polish Academy of Sciences confirmed one of the megalith lines was oriented in an east-west direction.

A paper on the subject by the four researchers will appear April 2 in the weekly British science journal, Nature.

This is the oldest documented astronomical alignment of megaliths in the world, said Malville. A lot of effort went into the construction of a purely symbolic and ceremonial site The stone slabs, some of which are nine feet high, were dragged to the si te from a mile or more distant, he said.

The ruins lie on the shoreline of an ancient lake that began filling with water about 11,000 years ago when the African summer monsoon shifted north. It was used by nomads until about 4,800 years ago, when the monsoon moved southwest and the area again became hyperacid and uninhabitable
Five megalithic alignments at Nabta radiate outward from a central collection of megalithic structures. Beneath one structure was a sculptured rock resembling a cow standing upright, Malville said. The team also excavated several cattle burials at Nabt a, including an articulated skeleton buried in a roofed, clay-lined chamber.

Neolithic herders that began coming to Nabta about 10,000 years ago -- probably from central Africa -- used cattle in their rituals just as the African Massai do today, he said. No human remains have yet been found at Nabta.
The 12-foot-in-diameter stone circle contains four sets of upright slabs. Two sets were aligned in a north-south direction while the second pair of slabs provides a line of sight toward the summer solstice horizon.
Because of Nabtaís proximity to the Tropic of Cancer, the noon sun is at its zenith about three weeks before and three weeks after the summer solstice, preventing upright objects from casting shadows. These vertical sighting stones in the circle corresp ond to the zenith sun during the summer solstice said Malville, an archeoastronomer. For many cultures in the tropics, the zenith sun has been a major event for millennia
An east-west alignment also is present between one megalithic structure and two stone megaliths about a mile distant. There also are two other geometric lines involving about a dozen additional stone monuments that lead both northeast and southeast from the same megalith. We still don’t understand the significance of these lines Malville said.
During summer and fall, the individual stone monoliths would have been partially submerged in the lake and may have been ritual markers for the onset of the rainy season. The organization of these objects suggest a symbolic geometry that integrated deat h, water and the sun Malville said.

Although some believe the high culture of subsequent Egyptian dynasties was borrowed from Mesopotamia and Syria, Malville and others believe the complex and symbolic Nabta culture may have stimulated the growth of the society that eventually constructed the first pyramids along the Nile about 4,500 years ago.
The Nabta culture may have been a trigger for the development of social complexity in Egypt that later led to the Pharaonic dynasty he said. The Nabta project was funded primarily by the National Science Foundation.

The site also contains a wealth of cultural debris, including small, fire-blackened stones from ancient hearths built along the ancient lakeshore as well as manos, metates and carved and decorated ostrich eggshells.

Images of the project can be downloaded from the World Wide Web at <http://www.colorado.edu/PublicRelations/Egypt.html>

- 30 -

Office of Public Relations
354 Willard Administrative Center
Campus Box 9
Boulder, Colorado 80309-0009
(303) 492-6431 http://www.colorado.edu/PublicRelations/NewsReleases/1998/Oldest_Astronomical_Megalith_A.html


Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Horemheb
Member
Member # 3361

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Horemheb     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ausar, Nobody is arguing the point concerning the cultures you mentioned. We are talking about the cultures that evolved into those that went on to become AE. Clearly, Asiatics came through from the east is fairly large numbers and settled along the Nile.
Posts: 5822 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kem-Au
Member
Member # 1820

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Kem-Au     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Horemheb:
Wally...have you ever been to Egypt??
This idea that 'white folks' have some sort of race based pre concieved idea about AE is absurd. If anything, it is the other way around. I don't know any serious student who contends that there is no African influence in AE but to compare northern Africa to sub saharan Africa simply will not work. I am not going to teach my students revisionist history designed to make a 21st century cultural point.

You're a teacher? Where? If that's the case, this is more serious than I thought. Please take a look at modern works of Egptologists like Frank Yurco and Kent Weeks (http://www.thebanmappingproject.com) on AE origins before preparing your lesson plans. Or at least show your students some actual images of AE's when you give them your lesson.


Posts: 1038 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kem-Au
Member
Member # 1820

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Kem-Au     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Horemheb:
Ausar, Nobody is arguing the point concerning the cultures you mentioned. We are talking about the cultures that evolved into those that went on to become AE. Clearly, Asiatics came through from the east is fairly large numbers and settled along the Nile.

Show your students a picture of the bust of king Menes when you tell them that he was AE's came from Asian wanderers. Then show them the people with the afro's conquering the straight haired people on the Narmer palette. Don't forget the part about how AE's wrote that there ancestors came from the south. Another good discussion would be Wallis Budge's ideas on the origin's of the AE language (it's in his dictionary).

Just for kicks, show them this link: http://www.touregypt.net/egyptnews.htm
Go to this part - "Nubians at Hierakonpolis"

[This message has been edited by Kem-Au (edited 26 January 2004).]


Posts: 1038 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Horemheb
Member
Member # 3361

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Horemheb     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I have a great relief of Egyptians bringing back Nubian captives. It difference jumps right out at you. The artist clearly shows the difference between the two.
Posts: 5822 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ausar
Member
Member # 1797

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for ausar   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
''Ausar, Nobody is arguing the point concerning the cultures you mentioned. We are talking about the cultures that evolved into those that went on to become AE. Clearly, Asiatics came through from the east is fairly large numbers and settled along the Nile. ''

These were the cultures that developed into Ancient Egypt. The migrations from the Sahara were part of the African Aquatic culture not Asiatics. The only Asiatic pressence in Egypt is traceable to some Syro-Palestineans in Lower Egypt around the Delta;otherwise it was non-existant. You are confusing the back migration into Africa with the development of ancient Egyptian culture.

If so,the early Egyptians were a pastorial culture with affinities with the people of Nabta Playa. The genetics on the cattle show an African origin not a Asiatic origin.



Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ausar
Member
Member # 1797

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for ausar   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
''I have a great relief of Egyptians bringing back Nubian captives. It difference jumps right out at you. The artist clearly shows the difference between the two. ''
Egyptians also distinguished themselves from Asiatics,Medditerean kefitu,and other groups of people. Once a person in Egyptian soceity became Egyptized then the person would be colored reddish brown reguardless. There is also scenes in the Rameses III tomb that show a tribute scene with Nubians painted in the same reddish brown tone with a longe Egyptian colored black.

The tomb scene you are speaking of is in Saqqura showing bound captives that you presumed to be Nubians. In reality the people in these tomb scenes are Nilotic people like the Nuer,Dinka,Shilluk,and other Nilotic types. Notice the scars that the captives pocess are indetical to modern day Nilotic people.

___by the way,please post references for your claims next time.


Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Horemheb
Member
Member # 3361

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Horemheb     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ausar, We can agree that the Nubians were heavily negroid though with a heavy iflux of other genes. I believe close examination will show that Nubians live further up the river now than they did in ancient times, that would only make sense. If we were to look for a great negroid civilization we would find it in Nubia. That said, there are many great and impressive African civilizations, AE is not one of those.
Posts: 5822 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ausar
Member
Member # 1797

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for ausar   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
''Ausar, We can agree that the Nubians were heavily negroid though with a heavy iflux of other genes. I believe close examination will show that Nubians live further up the river now than they did in ancient times, that would only make sense. If we were to look for a great negroid civilization we would find it in Nubia. That said, there are many great and impressive African civilizations, AE is not one of those.''


Nubia was considered the first nome of Upper Egypt. A-group Nubia and Upper Egyptian cultures like Nabta Playa were unsepertable with Upper Egypt in Pre-dyanstic times. The original Upper Egyptian inhabitants of Lower and Upper Egypt were just as negriod as Nubians. Majority of people from Asyut to Aswan in modern times are no different either.

Badarian,Naquda,Nabta Playa,and Khartoum Mesolithic as well as the negriod Saharan cultures gave rise to Egyptian civlization. I never said that all Egyptians were black nor do I contend they were,but Upper Egyptians were. This is where the civlization started.

I also aknwoleadge the roots of Western Asian cultures around the Delta regions of Egypt,but theses cultures were not the catalyst for the formation of dyanstic Egyptian soceity. I will parapharse Bob Brier again in his book Egyptians mummies:''Some Egyptians were black and some were not'' It is really that simply. The ethnic makeup of the Egyptians was not simply mono-racial as you make it appear.

Are you aware that the 12th dyansty and 18th dyansty were all of Nubian origin. The royal mummies of Sequenere Tao and Ahmose have strong Nubian affinities.

See the following:

From Petrie onwards,it was rewguarly suggested,despite the evidence
of Pre dyanstic cultures,Egyptian civlization of the 1st dyansty
appeared suddently and must therfore have been instroduced by an
invading foreign ''race''. Since the 1970's however excavations at
bautu and nekhen have clearly ,demonstrated the indigenous Upper
Egyptian roots of early civlization in egypt. While there is
certainly evidence of foreign contact in the fourth millennium
B.C.,this was not in the form of millitary invasion

page 65

Oxford History of Ancient egypt
Ian Shaw

[This message has been edited by ausar (edited 26 January 2004).]


Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ozzy
Member
Member # 2664

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ozzy   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Removed

[This message has been edited by Ozzy (edited 28 January 2004).]


Posts: 448 | From: Australian living in Spain | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
neo*geo
Member
Member # 3466

Rate Member
Icon 13 posted      Profile for neo*geo     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This debate is getting old. To summarize a few points that may put this debate to rest:

#1 99% of the world doesn't care what color the ancient Egyptians were.

#2 There is no vast conspiracy in Egyptology to hide the fact that Egypt is an African civilization. Most people are aware of the "Africanness" of ancient Egypt and and see it as an African civilization with close ties to the ancient Near East.

#3 All ancient Egyptians were not "black."


Posts: 887 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ausar
Member
Member # 1797

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for ausar   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
''Tell me exactly what civilisations in Africa in the 18th and 19th century the "Egyptologists" should have been able to compare too? ''

Reading the works on Sir Flinders Petrie and Budge I noticed these two Egyptologist spent ample time comparing the civlizations of Egypt with other contemporary cultures like the Yoruba,Ashanti,and others in African. Of course,Petrie and others were using this as a diffusionist tool to try to postulate the outdated ''Dyanstic race theory'' Read the book ''Egypt in Africa'' by Theodore Clenko.


''Tell me what data they should have concluded on that it was a Black civilisation? Dont tell the images as they had no idea even how to traslate them then, and from what we have been told recently most of its wrong anyway!''

Well,Egypt was not technically totally a black civlization,but a good portion of Egyptians living in Upper Egypt are technically black by definitions used in America. I don't think that even Diop argued that Egypt was totally black,and even he aknowleadged some non-black people living in the Delta ie Lower Egypt,but a good portion of these people even had some ''black' admixture.

Most like Sir Grafton Smith said that the closest relative of the ancient Egyptians were the Beja tribe in the Sudan,but despite their dark skin they were classified as ''dark whites'' So we have a syndrone were some people draw the lines between ''blackness'' and the ethnicity of the ancient Egyptians. Smith on the other hand had no problem proposing that modern Egyptians were the products of racial intermixture with ''negroes'' in his exact words. So the minds of many 19th and 20th century Egyptologist were clouded with their own bias instead of scholarly reserch.

We can tell from the remain studied by various people that:

1.Badarians,Naqudans,and people of Nabta Playa have been classified as tropical African types with tropically adapted limb ration. These various cemetaries have been studied by Shomarka Keita and Larry Angel. Both have published their results in peer review anthropology journals. Dr. Keita also found that people in the Northern parts of Egypt were intermediates between Costal African type and Tropical African type. Keita calls this type Sudan-Saharo.

2. Dr. Randall MacIver,the same person who proved Great Zimbabwee was buyilt by Africans,pointed out that the earliest ceramic industry in Kharotum Sudan leads right up to the Badarian cemetaries in Middle Egypt. He admitted that more reserch into deeper into Africa would reveal the roots of Ancient Egypt.

3. The early Saharan culture often called the African Aquatic clearly has many elements that would later lead up to ancient Egyptian civlization. Once such instance is the pratice of mummifcation in 5700 B.C. by people in Fezzan Libya with an elaborate funeral rites.

4. The fact that a good portion of Upper Egyptians from Asyut to Aswan still have many African features that are desitinct. Not to mention this is where the majority of the Ancient Egyptian population was concentrated in Dyanstic times. The only other region being from Fayium to the opening of the Delta.


Here is some aknowleadgement from an early Egyptologist like Gardnier who admitted that:
The mid-twentieth Egyptologist Alan Gardiner, who was considered an
authority on the ancient civilization of Kemet, gave the following
report on the human remains of the pre-dynastic Badarians, Amratians,
and Gerzeans:

"These... were long-headed-dolicocephalic is the learned term-and
below even medium stature, but Negroid features are often to be
observed. Whatever may be said of the northerners, it is safe to
describe the dwellers in Upper Egypt as of essentially African stock,
a character always retained despite alien influences brought to bear
on them from time to time." (pg. 392; Egypt of the Pharaohs 1966)


''know that many of the conclusions that these first Egytologists came to were wrong, but I find it amazing that I have heard when refering to people like Diop, and Obenga who got some things wrong beacuse of the information available at the time, that they were mearly limited by thier access to technology at the time, but the first Egyptologists were racist Eurocentrics dead on steeling the Egyptian Identity for thier own. ''

This is true so this is why I feel that each scholar's material should be weighed on their evidence. I don't necessary agree with everything Diop or Obenga wrote but much of their material was good enough to challenge many perceptions of the ancient Egyptian soceity that deserving deserved to be so. Debate can only lead to constructive means of truth. No one person holds the absolute truth and sometimes their perception can cloud this truth.
Egyptology is a fairly young science that has much growing to mature to a complete scholary status. In the future things will progress and get better.

''I aggree there was and still is a faction of whitening of history, as there is the opposite Africanist propoganda, but to not consider the data available at the time, the people that were encountered in Egypt at the time, Most African civilisations had declined or were well in declinbe when they arrived. The only thing they had to go by was the people they encountered in the most well known areas in Lower Egypt and the known civilisations of the world then!, which were not in Africa.''

Even with this said,many old scholars did look to Africa as a source of ancient Egypt. One of the Egyptologist happened to be Budge. Adolf Erman,one of James Henery Breasted's teacher's,contended there was no ''Differences between the Egyptians in Egypt and the natives of Lake Tshad'' Both these works were written well into the late 19th century.
17th century traveled like Count Voleny called the Egyptians in Lower Egypt mulattoes. He was a white Frenchman who traveled into Egypt on the rise of the Trans-Atlantic slavetrade.

''In all the reading i have done 90% of all Eurocentric propoganda comes from USA publications, by USA authors, the same goes for the Africanist. How many white Americans call themselves Europeans.''

Good point,but people like Comete Degobineau were Frenchmen. Degobineau is considered the father of most of this racialist material. I think most Africanist litterature is many times just reactionary to what scholars have put out during the 19th century.


[This message has been edited by ausar (edited 26 January 2004).]


Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wally
Member
Member # 2936

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Wally   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think that my initial point has been admirably proven...
I wrote:
"It is white folks' reaction to this ethnic reality of Egypt (ancient and modern) that is not only trite but absurd! They actually BELIEVE (or pretend to) that the ethnology of a particular nation is a debatable issue..."

A response:
"This debate is getting old..."
What debate? The Chinese are Mongoloid Sino-Asians. The Swedes are Nordic Europeans. Ancient Egyptians were Black Africans. Modern Egyptians are Black African ethnic majorities (mainly Upper Egyptian) and various non-Black ethnic minorities (mainly Lower Egyptians.)

Another expression of Faith:
"All ancient Egyptians were not "black."
What??? All ancient Romans were not Italians, but the majority of them were. (Now, follow me) All ancient Egyptians were not Black, but the MAJORITY of them were.
No one has to accept reality, but not accepting it, certainly doesn't change it.


We must also take note that those who are reluctant to accept reality, carefully avoid consulting the Ancient Egyptians themselves on such a salient point! They usually rush to some 'experts' opinion...


Posts: 3344 | From: Berkeley | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Horemheb
Member
Member # 3361

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Horemheb     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ozzie...I suggest you have a glass of wine and relax. There is no 'white' conspiracy when it comes to history. What is Eurocentric? Any seroious historian wants the truth first and formost. What we find may not be what some groups hope we will find and that presents problems.
Posts: 5822 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Keino
unregistered


Icon 1 posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Horemheb:
Kem...Queen Tiye's father was an Asian, check out his mummy. Most of you are aware that the standard World History class in America teaches that the earliest Egyptian's came from the east and settled in what is now the middle of the Sahara desert. As the desert dried out one group went east to the Nile and the other went south. This explains the abundance of Asian markers in sub Saharian African populations. You can get a PHD in African history at many Universities and Egypt is hardly dealt with. AE is a Med. civilization with some African influence.

I think this is not sound scientific thinking....If all groups/peoples came out of africa (africans have never been one group or ethnicity/ nation of people) then we should be able to find markers of all groups still in africa...One african group can have more of "X" type marker, but little to none of "Y" while another african group can have the reverse. Some african groups have a low frequency of Hbs (sickle cell gene)while many africans and middle easterners have a high frequency of it. Obviously this shows some isolation within african group, but this does not mean they were not biodiverse. There are african groups who are alike phenotypically, but have many differences at the genetic level...A population can be very diverse yet isolated from other populations. See its seems like all scientific hypotheses are reversed when it comes to the history of the african continent and even the middle east...

------------------
Time Will Tell!- Bob Marley


IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Keino
unregistered


Icon 1 posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Horemheb:
I have a great relief of Egyptians bringing back Nubian captives. It difference jumps right out at you. The artist clearly shows the difference between the two.

If many african american were to go to countries in west africa one will be able to tell the difference immediately as well...I can even tell the phenotypic diference between different Caribbean nations. At that time in AE history they just didn't look as "black" as the nubians they depicted. However I do believe that they were called back then and would be called today some variant of "black" and not white or asian.

------------------
Time Will Tell!- Bob Marley


IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Keino
unregistered


Icon 1 posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Horemheb:
Ozzie...I suggest you have a glass of wine and relax. There is no 'white' conspiracy when it comes to history. What is Eurocentric? Any seroious historian wants the truth first and formost. What we find may not be what some groups hope we will find and that presents problems.


Come on now.... read your history books to see the views of the ruling "white" people around that time....They clearly believed that white is superior and all other is less...Lets think about the time when Egyptology got started? I think sometime around 1800's or so....At this time many whites were taught to believe that:
1) whites were superior
2) anything else is inferior
3) Negro was the most inferior
4) One Drop of "negro/black" blood made someone black/ mulatto.

With all of this general way of thinking what makes you to think the scientific arenas were uninfected by this nonsense? In fact this is where most of the nonsense was coming from to prove white supremecy. Tell me now if they described people as negro, coloured/mulatto and white,(yes europens did at this time too)why would they clearly see a mulatto/ black and describe them as white.... They had to have had an agenda...COMMON SENSE!!!

------------------
Time Will Tell!- Bob Marley


IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Horemheb
Member
Member # 3361

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Horemheb     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What you are calling 'Eurocentric' is nothing more than a historical process. I think you have bought into the whole victim mentality. European whites have dominated the world since at least 1500 and to a large degree still do today. None of it has anything to do with some 'mean white nman' theory. There is no question that in many ways Euro-American whites have had a superior culture, at least since 1500. The North American Indians were swept aside because they encountered a superior culture and lost. This has been the story of the human condition for as far back as we can see.
Did Europeans have stronger military power, you bet. In developing capitalism, which led to the Industrial revolution, they also had much more economic power. All of this led to great universities and solid social institutions. Minorities prosper today only by buying into this Euro-American culture.
All this is nothing more than 'a period of history.' Like all others it will pass in time to yet another dominant culture. That culture will seem just as over powering as this one has seemed.
I know many learned people, as you all do. I know NONE who do not seek the truth. The very word university implies 'universal knowledge' and universal includes us all. I do believe that many minorities have been taught, almost instinctly, that all their problems were created by the evil European/Ameroicans. Nothing could be further from the truth. The very fact that we are having this conversation in the first place proves that. Lets be historians, not victims.

Posts: 5822 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kem-Au
Member
Member # 1820

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Kem-Au     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Horemheb:
What you are calling 'Eurocentric' is nothing more than a historical process. I think you have bought into the whole victim mentality. European whites have dominated the world since at least 1500 and to a large degree still do today. None of it has anything to do with some 'mean white nman' theory. There is no question that in many ways Euro-American whites have had a superior culture, at least since 1500. The North American Indians were swept aside because they encountered a superior culture and lost. This has been the story of the human condition for as far back as we can see.
Did Europeans have stronger military power, you bet. In developing capitalism, which led to the Industrial revolution, they also had much more economic power. All of this led to great universities and solid social institutions. Minorities prosper today only by buying into this Euro-American culture.
All this is nothing more than 'a period of history.' Like all others it will pass in time to yet another dominant culture. That culture will seem just as over powering as this one has seemed.
I know many learned people, as you all do. I know NONE who do not seek the truth. The very word university implies 'universal knowledge' and universal includes us all. I do believe that many minorities have been taught, almost instinctly, that all their problems were created by the evil European/Ameroicans. Nothing could be further from the truth. The very fact that we are having this conversation in the first place proves that. Lets be historians, not victims.

This might be the most ignorant post I've ever read on this board. Too many people have spent too much time supporting their claims with examples of other works, links, etc. only to read nonsense like this with no definitions, support, nothing. Just opinions. Go to your local university and take a class called Logic, Reasoning and Persuasion, or something to that effect. Then explain to me how this silliness is valid.


Posts: 1038 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Neb-Ma'at-Re
Member
Member # 2050

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Neb-Ma'at-Re     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I have said in the past that I usually try to stay out discussions here involving the racial identities of the Ancient Egyptians. It seems to be the one subject that causes the most 'arguements'. No matter how diplomatic it starts out, it usually escalates to a seemingly endless bickering regardless of how much data or evidence is giving to support ones position on this subject. I said in a past post that I feel everyone here should be able to discuss any topic as long as the discussions stay within the guidelines of the site, including race. Well my friends it seems that it has started to go too far.

When I found this board I was sooooo thrilled to engage in conversation regarding Ancient Egypt and participate as well as learn from the many members on this site from around the world. I have to be honest with you. It is these types of threads that are starting to make me think twice about coming here everyday looking for topics of interest. I am in no way suggesting that the topics of discussions be constrained in any way or that the race issue shouldn't be discussed, but merely to let the good people of this board know that when these types of discussions start taking a turn in the way that this thread has, it starts to completely turn me off of wanting to visit and/or participate in this forum. I can only guess that I am not the only member here that feels this way.

------------------
Nesu.t-bi.t neb-taui Neb-Maa't-Re sa-Re Amen-hotep


Posts: 152 | From: Troy,NY,US | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Keino
unregistered


Icon 1 posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Horemheb:
What you are calling 'Eurocentric' is nothing more than a historical process. I think you have bought into the whole victim mentality. European whites have dominated the world since at least 1500 and to a large degree still do today. None of it has anything to do with some 'mean white nman' theory. There is no question that in many ways Euro-American whites have had a superior culture, at least since 1500. The North American Indians were swept aside because they encountered a superior culture and lost. This has been the story of the human condition for as far back as we can see.
Did Europeans have stronger military power, you bet. In developing capitalism, which led to the Industrial revolution, they also had much more economic power. All of this led to great universities and solid social institutions. Minorities prosper today only by buying into this Euro-American culture.
All this is nothing more than 'a period of history.' Like all others it will pass in time to yet another dominant culture. That culture will seem just as over powering as this one has seemed.
I know many learned people, as you all do. I know NONE who do not seek the truth. The very word university implies 'universal knowledge' and universal includes us all. I do believe that many minorities have been taught, almost instinctly, that all their problems were created by the evil European/Ameroicans. Nothing could be further from the truth. The very fact that we are having this conversation in the first place proves that. Lets be historians, not victims.

From you post I see you have no idea about the facts and truths that I posted. I am a man of science and sit well and honourably with the likes of research and medical doctors. You are deluded if you think I am looking to have anyone play the victum...It is what it is! There is nothing in any of these post that indicated victumization...Everyone has listed evidence as to why they believe what they believe. See you have no basis for you assult against me, but it doesn't matter because what you wrote was very ignorant and unfounded.
See you seem to have very little logic. If you did, you would know that history makes little to no sense unless we can study and understand it in the context of the social atmosphere of the people in study. My post simply set the tone for the establishment of Egyptology and why we have to evaluate all of the information, evidence and beliefs that came out of that time(historical) period. The atmosphere under which it was founded was inundated with racism and scientific agendas to prove white supremacy. This is hsitorical fact!!

[This message has been edited by Keino (edited 28 January 2004).]


IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Horemheb
Member
Member # 3361

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Horemheb     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Nonsense Keino, the historical aspects of my post were right on the money. No serious academic is going to alter information in order to up hold some racial view point. That is what you said and it is pure crap.
What you are really saying in so many words is, "I can win this argument by acusing those who do not agree of being racists."

Posts: 5822 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Osiris II
Member
Member # 3079

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Osiris II     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It seems as if this thread has deterioated from a debate of learned minds to a bickering match!
I must agree with Neb, this type of mindless argument really turns me off. This subject has been argued time and time again on this board. The logical, adult response at this time is to just agree to dis-agree and drop a subject that brings out the worst in people who responde. Get a life, all you argue-ers! top trying to prove a theory that is unprovable.

Posts: 174 | From: Long Beach, CA U.S.A. | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ausar
Member
Member # 1797

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for ausar   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
People could be helpful by posting non-race related topics to those interested in the persuit of Egyptology. I agree that the debate as esculated into arguement so it might be logical to agree to disagree. Many times these topics are subjective to the temperment and prejustice of the poster.

People posting on this site are trying to tie modern political dogma into the study of ancient Egyptian soceity. This leads no where but baseless political discussion that leads us to no further understanding of Egyptian soceity. Unless the politics correlates with ancient Egyptian soceity,then please refrain from putting modern political context in the terms of ancient Egyptian soceity.


Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Keino
unregistered


Icon 1 posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Horemheb:
Nonsense Keino, the historical aspects of my post were right on the money. No serious academic is going to alter information in order to up hold some racial view point. That is what you said and it is pure crap.
What you are really saying in so many words is, "I can win this argument by acusing those who do not agree of being racists."

You are right that history will not be changed, and should not be...because history is exactly that HISTORY! Its just up to us to understand the history and social atmosphere under which certain discoveries and theroies were founded. Then for present scientist with little biases to find truth and not rewrite history, but make our history of the historical happening more truthful and more accurate. Example: in the times to come history books will read, "Under the social biases of the era in which egyptology was founded historians of that time believed the the civilization came from asia. However with new technology and less biases scientist of today have concluded that that the origins of this civilization was indeed Group A nubians from the heart of africa itself. If sceince was to go by your logic, the west would still be acepting the world being flat as truth because some scientist at that point in time said so. My stance is logical but all you care for it to argue..Anyway I have said all I have to say to you....This "argument" is futile.


IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kem-Au
Member
Member # 1820

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Kem-Au     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm amazed at how able people are to see only what they wish to see. I've read much nonsense on this board, and replied when I felt appropriate, only to be reminded over and over again that few will actually read what is written unless they already agree.

Too many just skim and dismiss. And it's obviously doesn't end with just these topics. It doesn't take long to find someone on this board who's debating works of people, when they obviously haven't read the work. But when someone points this out, we're instructed to get a life, presumably so you people with more important things to talk about don't have to be interrupted with our mindless chit chat.

This is what I'm sick of hearing. Tired of hearing people discuss ethnicity? Do I care? Just because an issue doesn't matter to you doesn't mean it doesn't matter. I'm not going to tell anyone what to post, neither should you. If you really want to see a change, advise people to read before they post. It'll save alot of time.


Posts: 1038 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Horemheb
Member
Member # 3361

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Horemheb     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The problem is Keino that you seem to be trying to say that in the past white historians have based their viewpoints party on some racist point of view. I cannot speak for all people but I seriously doubt Howard Carter and others like him would try to distort history in that way.
Nobody has failed to give credit to the Nubians, Zulu empire and other great African civilizations.
It is fashionable today in third world countries and among any minority groups to look at Euro-American culture as an adversary, quite the opposite is true. You should not insult us by saying we adhere to some sort of 'white' historical viewpoint.

Posts: 5822 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kem-Au
Member
Member # 1820

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Kem-Au     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Horemheb, it seems we both seek the truth. At least we should be able to agree on that. Since you have only recently joined this forum, let's start from the beginning. I have no problems with you or anyone else for disagreeing with me. It normally helps me learn. I just ask that people support their opinions so I at least have something to work from.

Let me first make it clear that I do not believe that race physically exists. So, as Wally has pointed out before, it is not a debatable topic. When I say that most AE's were black, what I'm essentially saying is that they are black by the Western Euro/American definiton. Or to rephrase, they are demontratably African in their features. Now on to the issue.

You posted DNA studies earlier. I did not respond to the post because we have seen those studies before, and as Ausar stated, DNA samples are only as good as where they come from. If you took DNA samples from an American ghetto, you might find that most have African ancestry. Does that mean most Americans have African ancestry? Certainly not. Again I didn't touch on that point because of how many times we'd been over it.

One point you made that I did want to touch on was that Ramses and Seti were not black. I'm aware that they are said to came from the delta, but I made a point some time ago that this does not mean that they were not black. http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/Forum8/HTML/000272.html Support for this argument was in that post, so I will not repeat it here.

That leaves the post you made earlier:

"What you are calling 'Eurocentric' is nothing more than a historical process. I think you have bought into the whole victim mentality."

How so? Eurocentric simply means from a European perspective. There are other perspectives. And what's this whole victim mentality? Now all the effort put into the reponses people made have been narrowed down to this? Some people think the truth is important and seek to find it. None of us here have professed to know everything, but I like to think that a point is of judged on it's own merit, not just thrown into some victim mentality.

"European whites have dominated the world since at least 1500 and to a large degree still do today. None of it has anything to do with some 'mean white nman' theory. There is no question that in many ways Euro-American whites have had a superior culture, at least since 1500."

Where did you get this? There may be many people who agree with this, but that does not make it true. It sounds like you are using the fallacy of relevance, Appeal to Popularity (argumentum ad populum). That is not a valid argument. There were plenty of great civilizations circa 1500 in Africa (ie Mali,Ife and Benin), India (Mughal Empire), China (though like many African civilizations of the time, the Ming dynasty of the time was rocked by wars), etc. I don't know how you maintain that Euro-American whites had superior culture. I don't even know how you prove what superior culture is.

As far as "mean white theory", I don't know what that is. If you're refering to Egyptology, again Ausar has pointed out a number of early Egyptologists who have distorted AE history (Gaston Maspero,James Henery Breasted, George Resiner,Sir Grafton Smith) I would add to that list Champolion the Younger, and where ethnicity is concerned even Zahi Hawass. Again this has been debated on this forum before.

"There is no question that in many ways Euro-American whites have had a superior culture, at least since 1500. The North American Indians were swept aside because they encountered a superior culture and lost."

This was probably the most disturbing part to me. But as every story has two side, could there be another reason as to the disappearance of so many American Indians? I will not comment further because this is not the place. But please read these:
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=4391 http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/History/First_Thanksgiving_LMTTM.html

"Did Europeans have stronger military power"

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. http://www.aglimmerofhope.org/archive/ethiopia/history.htm

"In developing capitalism, which led to the Industrial revolution, they also had much more economic power. All of this led to great universities and solid social institutions."

I won't take anything away from any culture. I just ask that history be viewed in it's proper context. I agree that the U.S. and Eurpe have great universities, though I don't see how capitalism ties into this.

"Minorities prosper today only by buying into this Euro-American culture."

I'm not even going to comment on this.

"All this is nothing more than 'a period of history.' Like all others it will pass in time to yet another dominant culture."

Agreed.

"I do believe that many minorities have been taught, almost instinctly, that all their problems were created by the evil European/Ameroicans. Nothing could be further from the truth. The very fact that we are having this conversation in the first place proves that. Lets be historians, not victims."

Again, I appreciate debate, not having all of my work so neatly summarized. That statement was nonsense. I don't mind discussing issue, but I would appreciate some background to support your comments, not simply your opinions. And if possible, let's please keep the focus on Egypt. Hotep.


Posts: 1038 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ozzy
Member
Member # 2664

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ozzy   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
From, Topic: Black-skinned Egyptians thread.

quote:
Originally posted by Kem-Au:
Ozzy,

The sociology post that you mentioned did not reference Egypt at all. I believe that is why ausar mentioned that it could be deleted. The white folks post is focused on AE. Just my .02.

[This message has been edited by Kem-Au (edited 25 January 2004).]


Kem, If I wrote a post generalising about the thoughts actions and opinions of, "black folks" ten times in a post I have a good feeling this would be challenged and called racist. And i dare say i would recieve a few rater angry responces as well.

Wally and others have invited these debates before with simular sentiments and he has even congratulated himslf on his efforts to insite the extreems of the debate. Seldom contributing to any debate unless he can attach it to the Black debate. None of this has been challenged because it is Supported Eurocentric (white)bashing.

Please tell me that you find this acceptable and would not be offended by the above suggested post.

If the answer is it is acceptable then it is obviously time for me to find a new forum.

Its a shame as there have been some great topics recently, that have not sunk to this topic.


Ozzy


Posts: 448 | From: Australian living in Spain | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ozzy
Member
Member # 2664

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ozzy   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Neb-Ma'at-Re

Are you interested in creating a Forum, I have some web design experience.


Posts: 448 | From: Australian living in Spain | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kem-Au
Member
Member # 1820

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Kem-Au     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ozzy:
From, Topic: Black-skinned Egyptians thread.

Kem, If I wrote a post generalising about the thoughts actions and opinions of, "black folks" ten times in a post I have a good feeling this would be challenged and called racist. And i dare say i would recieve a few rater angry responces as well.

Wally and others have invited these debates before with simular sentiments and he has even congratulated himslf on his efforts to insite the extreems of the debate. Seldom contributing to any debate unless he can attach it to the Black debate. None of this has been challenged because it is Supported Eurocentric (white)bashing.

Please tell me that you find this acceptable and would not be offended by the above suggested post.

If the answer is it is acceptable then it is obviously time for me to find a new forum.

Its a shame as there have been some great topics recently, that have not sunk to this topic.


Ozzy


What is a shame is how ideas get distorted. If you are interested in my feelings, then read my posts in the contexts that I posted them. You pulled that reponse from another topic. In that topic you asked why another topic was threatened with deletion. The topic in question did no refer to Egypt one time. It was a sociology topic, an interesting one, but not an AE one.

Now this thread, whether you agree with it or not, is focused on AE. Note both ausar and I posted responses almost immediately pointing out "white folk" who do not conform to the aformentioned Egyptological views. This is important for anyone who feel that all Egyptologists can be grouped.

I understand that some people on this board do not wist to see this topic discussed. But a community discussion is community discussion and ignoring a problem helps no one. I agree with Neb about insults, however I did not insult Horemheb.


Posts: 1038 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Horemheb
Member
Member # 3361

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Horemheb     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Kem, let me try to address some of your points. By the way, I thought they were well stated. First, when I speak of 'stronger culture' I simply refer to power, nothing more, nothing less. Rome had 'superior power' in it's time much as the United States does today, much as the British did in the 19th century and the French in the 18th. Euro-America has producde more raw economic and military power in the last 500 years than has been seen in history. I'm sure you do not dispute that. I notice that it is not Cambodian or Kenyan troops in Iraq but American and British. That said, the economic power produced by these cultures has created an elobrate educational stucture. Fore the last 500 years this structure has produced some of the greatest minds in history in many area. One of these areas is history and all I contended is that these are, for the most part, dedicated men striving for the truth. They took us to the moon, they wilkl soon take us to Mars and they have acomplished many wonderous things. They are not 'white folks' promoting some racist view of history. It is simply the most absurd theory I have ever heard. The problem is that you hear it all to often from minorities and people from second and third world countries. I think they have motives that are psychological and political, not historical. Kem, there are many racists in the world and they are not all Euro-Americans.
Posts: 5822 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wally
Member
Member # 2936

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Wally   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Horemhab wrote:
"Wally and others have invited these debates before with similar sentiments and he has even congratulated himself on his efforts to incite the extremes of the debate. Seldom contributing to any debate unless he can attach it to the Black debate. None of this has been challenged because it is Supported Eurocentric (white)bashing."

My response:
I have posted certain specific items simply to illustrate the point that the only people who want to 'debate'(pervert) the ethnicity of the Ancient Egyptians are White folks. Call this observation what you will. They can believe this nonsense of a white, non-African Ancient Egypt forever. (It must make them feel good or something...) I am not profoundly concerned with either the sensibilities or the silliness of non-Africans on the subject.

What is of concern, however, is that Africans, whether they live in Africa or in the Diaspora be re-connected to their Classical African heritage. Cheikh Anta Diop dedicated his entire life to this pursuit. The point of re-attaching the head (Ancient Egypt) to the body of African history IS CRUCIAL:

"Egyptian antiquity is to African culture what Graeco-Roman antiquity is to Western culture. The building up of a corpus of African humanities should be based on this fact."
C.A. Diop - General History Of Africa; vol. II; UNESCO


Posts: 3344 | From: Berkeley | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Horemheb
Member
Member # 3361

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Horemheb     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Wally, Your post has everything to do with black racial politics and nothing to do with history. "Blacks in disporia" what kind of nonsense is that?

Posts: 5822 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wally
Member
Member # 2936

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Wally   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Horemheb:
Wally, Your post has everything to do with black racial politics and nothing to do with history. "Blacks in disporia" what kind of nonsense is that?

Boy, oh boy... I am not even about to atempt to elaborate to you the interconnectiveness of African/Black/Politics/History. You would absolutely refuse to grasp it, I'm sure. But here's the definition of the 'diaspora nonsense':

Merriam-Webster Online
Main Entry: di·as·po·ra
Pronunciation: dI-'as-p(&-)r&, dE-
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek, dispersion, from diaspeirein to scatter, from dia- + speirein to sow
1 capitalized a : the settling of scattered colonies of Jews outside Palestine after the Babylonian exile b : the area outside Palestine settled by Jews c : the Jews living outside Palestine or modern Israel
2 a : the breaking up and scattering of a people : MIGRATION <the black diaspora to northern cities> b : people settled far from their ancestral homelands <African diaspora> c : the place where these people live


Posts: 3344 | From: Berkeley | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ozzy
Member
Member # 2664

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ozzy   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Kem, you did counter the “White Folks” statement,

however I did not distort anything. I made it clear for every one I had moved it, and the response, to this tread, And I was not asking why another Topic was threatened deletion, I was making a comparisment to this tread, and I felt the response was more relevant to this thread than the other, so I responded here. Nothing distorted about it.

Wally said “My response:
I have posted certain specific items simply to illustrate the point that the only people who want to 'debate'(pervert) the ethnicity of the Ancient Egyptians are White folks. Call this observation what you will. They can believe this nonsense of a white, non-African Ancient Egypt forever. (It must make them feel good or something...) I am not profoundly concerned with either the sensibilities or the silliness of non-Africans on the subject”

1, It was my post Wally not Horemhab. It shows how much you actually read the posts.

2, Your comment “I am not profoundly concerned with either the sensibilities or the silliness of non-Africans on the subject” Says it all. You have no interest in any views other than those of the African Diaspora.

For some one who has no interest in the opinions of non Africans , I would have to ask then, WHY ARE YOU HERE?
Read the diversity of the people who are here to discus Ancient Egypt, with African, and none-Africans.

Location off Topic. http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/Forum8/HTML/000249.html

You have contributed nothing to any thread not relating to the Black issue of Egyptians, unless you have been able to remotely connect one of your cut and pasts from your own web pages. You have neither contributed, debated nor discussed any topics and have started threads only relating to the ethnic topic of Egypt.

For someone who has no interest in our opinion you spend a great deal of time using Forums such as this (and others) spamming with your cut and run posts. Most Forums call that spamming.


Wally said “What is of concern, however, is that Africans, whether they live in Africa or in the Diaspora be re-connected to their Classical African heritage. Cheikh Anta Diop dedicated his entire life to this pursuit. The point of re-attaching the head (Ancient Egypt) to the body of African history IS CRUCIAL”:

At least you have finally come out and said it, but this is not a forum for the grand standing for the pan African Diaspora, agenda, it is, I thought, a forum for the discussion of Ancient Egypt.



Posts: 448 | From: Australian living in Spain | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Horemheb
Member
Member # 3361

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Horemheb     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Wally...that term by your definition includes people of all races. My ancestors were German and migrated to texas. I guess my 'ancestral' home as you put it is Munich. Let me tell you a little secret....there is nothing German about me. They left 150 years ago and it is a non issue. Most American blacks have zero connection to Africa. They no longer even look like Africans. I guess we could say that American indians have an ancestral home in Mongolia because their ancestors came here after the last ice age. we need to concentrate on things that matter.
1. history that is not clouded by racism or some psycho/political perspective.
2. Good jobs and more education for as many people as possible through the global business community.
Africanism is a lost cause. None of those agrarian cultures can survive except in history books. The only hope that Africa has is to find a way to join the global economy and many are doing it. If you are promoting some sort of African racial nationalism (and I'm sure that is what you are trying to do) but if so, its a complete waste of time.
Most American blacks that I know spend all their time trying to educate their kids and get ahead, they don't give a hoot what is happening in Kenya.

Posts: 5822 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ozzy
Member
Member # 2664

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ozzy   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well maybe I was wrong!

topic headings from Ancient Egypt and Egyptology.

Biological Affinities NOT "Race

Afrocentrism: the Good , the Bad, and the Origin

Racism and the no "Race" policy

Any-centrism is probably not a good idea

Egypt has more in common with near easdtern huh ??

Frank Yurco says the Ancient Egyptians were NOT Black Africans

common sense I want to tell

Proof that Sumerians were Black Africans

Reconstruction and determining the skin color

The Discovery Channel pulled the plug on Nefertiti Resurrected

What race were the Egyptians? - A clever "controversy"

Biological similarities, Race, Whatever.I just went to the Metropolitan Museum of Art

where do Americans form their stereotypes

no race-related topics

Here is exactly what Mr. Yurco said

Black Mummy

Can the racist proprganda withstand the test?

The First Egyptians

The problem with Craniometrics

Mediterranean Caucasoids in esat Africa?

Ancient Egyptian Skull measurements

Ancient and Modern Egyptians are not Medditerean caucasoids

Race and Egyptians


Posts: 448 | From: Australian living in Spain | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.

Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | EgyptSearch!

(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com

Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3