quote:

---

Originally posted by Wally:
1) According to the Ancient Egyptians, which racial or ethnic group did they belong to?

a) Mediterranean
b) Libyan
c) Black
d) African

The answer is c
(The question was "according to the Ancient Egyptians," not "according to neo*geo")

Why on earth is everyone still debating???

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wally:
1) According to the Ancient Egyptians, which racial or ethnic group did they belong to?

a) Mediterranean
b) Libyan
c) Black
d) African

The answer is c
(The question was "according to the Ancient Egyptians," not "according to neo*geo")

Why on earth is everyone still debating???

---

I'm not debating anyone. Just trying to clarify my views for the closeminded.

quote:

---

Originally posted by homeylu:
It appears that the question has been answered. Although I don't believe the Egyptians were racist in the oppressive "white supremacist" sort of way, it is evident on several bas-reliefs with relation to their god they consider themselves "superior" to other races and are always placed first, followed by other blacks, with whites being in last place. Again I've only seen this "ranking" in relation to their gods, if this is the same as "social ranking" then the Egyptians definitely saw themselves as a "superior" race.

---

Thanx.....not looking to argue with any one. Just calling it how it is.

quote:

---

Originally posted by homeylu:
Wally, Wally, Wally, Wally, LMAO!!!!!
Now you knew the type of discussions this thread would lead to. (smiling from ear to ear, I love it!)

Originally posted by Neo*geo
[b]I just hate how both white and black supremacists try to misrepresent ancient Egypt.

Please tell me dear brother, or sister, exactly where do the "Black Supremacists" hold their monthly clan meetings. And also enlighten me if you will, do they wear black sheets, as opposed to white sheets, so that they dont get confused with the typical "white supremacists", and help me out here, have they ever "hung" anyone for not being black enough?

If I sound facetious, you would be correct. As your line of thought is exactly the type of "white-washing" Eurocentric individuals would like to assign to Afrocentricism. While I view Afrocentricism as a way of defining Black History from a "Black Perspective", its people like yourself and others that would like to attach some type of negative stigma to this revolutionary practice, as if a group of enlightened Black authors and followers are somehow "plotting" to overthrow the white race, with this new found knowledge that was absent, and still is absent from our hundreds of Western history books.

You would be surprised to learn that there are literally millions of Black Youth, that still think Egypt is in the "Middle East" with no connection whatsoever to Africa. The struggle has just begun, and thank God, brothers like Wally are at the forfront of eliminating the ignorance that exists in our community. We have a responsibility to future generations to learn that our history didnt began on a ship to America. And we don't need to "hang" any white people to spread that knowledge.

[/B]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
Who cares? The Egyptians surely have never been as racist as you...

---

Thought Writes:

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
I can't answer this one. It would be like saying Americans are white. Even though nearly 80% of Americans are white caucasions, it's not a factual to call Americans white.

---

Thought Writes:

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
From their paintings and statues we can assume that generally they saw themselves as darker than Asiatics and Libyans while lighter than Nubians and other Africans from below the Sahara.

---

Thought Writes:

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
Phenotypically, Egyptians varied and mixed a variety of physical characteristics as they do today.

---

Thought Writes:

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
I have no problem with the fact that ancient Egyptians looked no different than people look in Egypt today from region to region.

---

Thought Writes:

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
[B]Let's not ignore the fact that lower Egyptians since pre-dynastic times were for the most part, not black Africans. [B]

---

Thought Writes:

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
[B] Yes and there is archaeological evidence to support migrations of Syrio-Palestinian and Greek peoples to AE as early as the end of the pre-Dynastic period. [B]

---

Thought Writes:

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
[B] You don't have to convince me that there were blacks in AE or that the pre-Dynastic Egyptians were predominantly black Africans. There is no record to set straight. Egypt's population became very diverse early. [B]

---

Thought Writes:

All though AE was diverse, there is evidence that a somewhat population continuity presisted through the at least the Middle Kingdom.

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
[B] The Egyptians were different from other parts of Africa in the fact that geographically they weren't isolated from non-black populations. [B]

---

Thought Writes:

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
[B] ..... but the physical contrasts that we see today between lower and upper Egypt existed since the Old Kingdom. [B]

---

Thought Writes:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
I would expect that the Ancient Lower Egyptians would be lighter in skin than the Upper Egyptians, but just like the modern San people this can be explained without invoking Eurasian migration theories. Most non-anthropologists/lay people consider the San people "Black".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
Thought Writes:

Untrue, these contrasts did exist since the New Kingdom however.

---

For example, on this table we have 3 categories, and several sub-categories to further add to the confusion. The 3 major categories are of course Caucosoid, Negroid, and Mongoloid.

Reading the table, you can see all three major categories carry a race with "broad noses" and "narrow noses". 2 categories carry "full/thick lips", and all three categories carry "yellowish to dark brown skin" and what surprised me the most is under the "caucasian" category, ranges the "blue-eyed" nordic to the very dark "austrailian aboriginal".....and to think, they call this BS Science????????

I think the 1960 Alabama version of race is much more simpler, as I doubt an aboriginal living in America would have been marching alongside their "caucasian" cousins carrying the confederate flag.

Bones are also of course an indicator of race,that is,a group of
people having s certain set of genes that give a distinct physical
features in common. The head forms vary accordinly to the flatness of
face,the projection of the jaw <so called prognathism and the head's
overall length breath,called a cephallic index in the case of the
defleashed skull. If the head's maximum breadth is x and the maximum
length y,then it's index is

A skull index of 80 is definded as broad or shoprt headed
{brachycephallic> from 75 to 80 as intermediate <mesocephalic} and
under 75 as long or narrow headed<dolicephallic}. Those of mongoloid
type are gernally regarded as having the broadest head,those definded
as negriod the narrowest

IAN Wilson

quote:

---

Originally posted by ausar:
Thought,most modern Egyptians Fellahin look nothing like Eur-Asians. The only people in Egypt who look like Eur-Asians are the city dwellers. I suggest you visit Egypt sometime before you make such a judgement about the phenotype display of Egyptians. Even the lighter Egyptians often have non-white facial features with real olive skin.
Lots of people in Lower Egypt have ancestors that mixed and melted with Lower Egyptian Fellahin.

---

Thought Writes:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
Thought Writes:

Ausar, do you believe that MOST modern Fellahin are SUPER-TROPICAL (very Black) like the early dynastic Egyptians? If not why did their phenotype change?

---

Thought2, your safest bet would be to actually go to Egypt and see for yourself what Ausur said of Egyptians, because you apparently disagree with him. The irony in this is that he is from that country!

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
I'm not debating anyone. Just trying to clarify my views for the closeminded.

How many on this thread are African American?

---

When are you going to learn that you cannot use a personal attack on the ethnicity of other people as a substitute for sound reasoning?

You also cannot make personal claims about your own ethnic background and ask us to "trust" your opinions based on them.

And it does not matter whether we are discussing Egypt or the price of tea in Japan.

If someone says 2x2=4 and you disagree then you must dispute the mathamatics of it. Not attack their ethnicity.

If you cannot dispute their mathamatics then when you simply, forfeit the debate. Period.

This issue centers around Wally's question regarding how the Kemetians considered their own ethnicity. After 15,000 posts you have not even answered the question, much less disputed the answer.

Your approach is simply unsound.

Most historians have concluded that Egypt was a civilization of indigenous Africans so what more is there to debate? It's silly to debate over what shade of brown they or compare them to other nations. Egyptians are a very unique people and geographically the country is in a very unique location. No other country except maybe the Dominican Republic can be compared to Egypt(I've met many Egyptians who look Dominican).

quote:

---

The reason I asked how many here are black Americans is because it seems no ethnic group invests more time debating the race and ethnicity of ancient Egyptians than American blacks.

---

quote:

---

I myself am black American

---

quote:

---

Most historians have concluded that Egypt was a civilization of indigenous Africans so what more is there to debate?

---

quote:

---

Egyptians are a very unique people and geographically the country is in a very unique location.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
The reason I asked how many here are black Americans is because it seems no ethnic group invests more time debating the race and ethnicity of ancient Egyptians than American blacks. I myself am black American so I am familure with some of the issues that surround these debates.

---

This is true and why? First of all, it is because of a long history of racial division in America, and the uneven distribution of opportunity that comes along with it. Most would agree, that blacks have for a long time been underrepresented due to their color. As such, they aren't fairly represented in school curricula. This is what C.A. Diop and other prominent black scholars such as W.E.B. Dubois have worked hard to address. Their findings have given rise to debates on several issues based on school curricula, among which AE study has become a prominent subject. This is so, because more often than not, in the national curricula and in Hollywood movies, Egyptians are depicted flatly as Whites. Black Americans now debate this, because most don't believe it, as they can trace their roots directly to Africans. Why do Black Scholars and like minded people think that these curricula debates are important? For one reason: Black Americans to build a strong self-identity (as Obenga tries to point out) and encourage them to work even more diligently towards obtaining their fair place in society. But debates continue b/n black Americans themselves! The reason for this is the "one drop rule" you mentioned later on. Longer answer than I had intended, but needed to be said!

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
Most historians have concluded that Egypt was a civilization of indigenous Africans so what more is there to debate? It's silly to debate over what shade of brown they or compare them to other nations. Egyptians are a very unique people and geographically the country is in a very unique location. No other country except maybe the Dominican Republic can be compared to Egypt (I've met many Egyptians who look Dominican).

---

Again this is a correct view. As for the reason for debates, check out my previous answer! Yes, most Dominican Republican folks in some ways can be compared to Egyptians, but so can Black Americans. Coincidence! No, all these people have one thing in common: In varying degrees, these people all have "Negro" ancestry. One black scholar once said, " if you were to bring Ancient Egyptians, or modern Egyptians for that matter, to the U.S. back in the '40s, they would definitely be forced to sit at the back of the bus". If you were to go to Egypt today, you will find more similarities b/n Egyptians and Black Americans. Besides the full 'Negro' population, they too have a mulatto population that still, whatever their color, retain their 'Negro' phenotypes. So most Egyptians would be able to identify with Black Americans. This is a fact! Just go over there and see for yourself.

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
And Obenga, you can never bring a West African, an East African, a black American, and a North African together and get them all to agree on who is black. And if we are using the racist "one-drop rule" to define who is black then aren't we still letting other people define who we are?

---

I disagree with this one. In all likelihood, they would all agree with one another about being 'black', but would not agree with who is 'African' and who isn't. The West, North, and Eastern Africans will agree that they are African, but will disagree that 'Black Americans' are Africans, for the simple reason of culture and geography! A West African sees an Ethiopian as 'black' and vice versa. The same would happen b/n an Ethiopian and a Black American. As for the North African, that would depend on whether is he/she is of Mediterranean type or not! Neo, you said an African once told you that you don't look African. Well, it is because of what I said above. Moreover, it depends on which African you asked. If this person was from West Africa, if you have light color skin and curly or straight hair, along with 'Negro' phenotype, he/she is going to conclude that you are mixed. This is because most but not all, West Africans have darker color skin, kinky hair and so forth. Plus he/she knows that most black Americans originally came from the West African stock, and he/she is going to make assessment based on that. This same person is going to look at an Ethiopian, and will not mistake him/her for not being 'African'. Do you see my point! An average Egyptian, in most cases, wouldn't make the same claim as the West African, based on what he sees around him in Egypt. He is going to see you as black, as opposed to Mulatto, but not as an 'African'. Africans don't make there assessment based on the 'one drop rule' like the Americans!

In Mauritania you have populations there that are black but yet don't identify themselves as such due to the stigma attached to blackness. This is despite the fact most Mauritanian people would easily pass for ''black'' in America.

Not everybody around the world goes by American standards. In Egypt we call really dark people like Dinka or southern Sudanese iswad. We call ourselves Asmar or Samara which means brown wheater light or dark brown. Many of the people within this category might be defined such as ''black'' within America's stadanrds. What I just described in anthropology is called a folk taxtonomy meaning people have different measures to identify themselves.

Egyptians also distinguish themselves from Syrian Arabs or Arab types by reffering to them as Shamy. Usually you can easily tell an Egyptian from an Arab by their nose. One expression is ''meneghiroo shamy'' which we refer to Syrian Arabs by their phenotype.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ausar:
Actually, Africans have their own code of color seperate from American definitions. For instance ,in Western Africa my mother is a lighter skinned Tuareg women that was often called ''red skinned'' or even sometimes white. Know some people might take that to mean Tuaregs are white when most Tuaregs are light to dark brown. Western Africans have certain words to describe lighter individuals amungst them that is seperate from the notion of America's standards of blackness.

In Mauritania you have populations there that are black but yet don't identify themselves as such due to the stigma attached to blackness. This is despite the fact most Mauritanian people would easily pass for ''black'' in America.

Not everybody around the world goes by American standards. In Egypt we call really dark people like Dinka or southern Sudanese iswad. We call ourselves Asmar or Samara which means brown wheater light or dark brown. Many of the people within this category might be defined such as ''black'' within America's stadanrds. What I just described in anthropology is called a folk taxtonomy meaning people have different measures to identify themselves.

Egyptians also distinguish themselves from Syrian Arabs or Arab types by reffering to them as Shamy. Usually you can easily tell an Egyptian from an Arab by their nose. One expression is ''meneghiroo shamy'' which we refer to Syrian Arabs by their phenotype.

---

This is just a person experiance I have had from going into western Africa myself. I have personally been to Mali,Nigeria,and other regions around the Sahel. I saw Fulani herdmens men/women who were much lighter than my father and mother. Many had a yellowish pigmentation to their skin. My mother is a light brown Tuareg that looks very much like an eastern Africa. My father is a ''black'' Aswani Egyptian.

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:

And Obenga, you can never bring a West African, an East African, a black American, and a North African together and get them all to agree on who is black. And if we are using the racist "one-drop rule" to define who is black then aren't we still letting other people define who we are?

---

neo,

U have been on the site long enough i think to know I am not African American and Don't live in America any more.

I gave the example of the Australian Aborigine and the western Geneticist because of the sociological implications the Aborigine was trying to uphold for his people. It did not matter what the Geneticist was saying his research indicated about the origins of the Aborigines. The Aussie knew his origins as passed down to him from his ancestors, he was not about to allow some proffessor from Oxford or wherever to come and tell him he knew more about his people and their origins than he did.

The point is this, what was passed down to him from his ancestors was sociologically supportive for his group it was made to be, as is all culture passed down within groups it is there to support and promote the health and survival of the group.

try not to miss this point again by pointing the finger back at your own group (West,East,North africans)

Foriegn standards of Identification are not good for us or any other group. I don't care what foreign groups are found in dynastic Lower Egypt, they became part of what was there, which was Black African Society and culture....they are being used by outsiders to indicate this nation was something other than what it truly was.....

This Ethnicity of AE thing, would only happen in Africa, other groups would never allow this kind of Debate. Racism created this debate in the first place because of how outsiders felt about Black Africans. The perception of Blacks as simple savages needed to be upheld calling KMTians Black made that perception hard to uphold so they were called something else....go through the list of what they were IDentified as and u will see ridiculous attempts to reach for anything other than Black all kinds of terms not in existence before were brought into being to provide a classification for the KMTians other than Black.

This happened because outsiders decided to Identify for us who was black and who was not. This time is over, If u developed on the African continent and as a group never left u are Black and African, period.

Let all the light/dark skin or Nose/cranium size rubbish go. We can take those same standards and declare that greeks must be soemthing other than European because they are darker, have bigger noses, curly hair and the women have larger rear ends different from the Flat butt variety u will see in Denmark or Poland. However thios debate does not come about because only Europeans defined who was white or not. In fact throughout the last century they have been adding groups of people into the white Fold to bolster there numbers.

What would u say if i said that in England people often view Greeks as something other than White, in fact they are often called racist names as are Turks. yet when it's convienent they are called white. I know many north Africans from France and believe me when I tell u they are not treated as White in France reagrdless of what any anthropologist will tell them.

u are supporting a racist argument, based on White supremacy using scientific standards of classification that change when the wind blows.....there is no debate, we know who and what they were......who ever came later are not who they were, Quibbling about hair texture and Nose sizes is pure misdirection

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
[b]Most historians have concluded that Egypt was a civilization of indigenous Africans so what more is there to debate?

---

quote:

---

Again this is a correct view. As for the reason for debates, check out my previous answer!

---

The reason for debate is "Negrophobic disingenuousness", or fear of Blackness.

Thus the tortuous logic and acrobatic evasions are invoked to avoid what was after all, the simple question of what the ancient Kemetians called themselves.

Those who would deny that Kemet was Black... a staggering act of audacity to begin with when knowing full well that they called themselves Black....are also denying that it is indigenous African. The one misnomer leads logically (actually ill-logically) to the other.

Neo's basis for denial of Kemet's Blackness is the presence of Mediterranean types in the North.

But Mediterranean and African are for the purposes of this discussion ethno-geographic terms, and those called Mediterranean are named so "precisely to distinguish themselves from the Africans."

To say that the Mediterranean type contradicts Kemet's Blackness, it is first being said that it contradicts her Africanness. (ie - medit. type)

Conversely, if you admit that the Mediterranean presence does not contradict Khem's status as an indigenous African civilization....then neither can it contradict its status as a Black civilization. The concept of Kemet's Blackness and it's Africanness are inextricably intertwined, Neo's best sophestry to the contrary notwithstanding.

To admit that Kemet was an indigenous African civilization - and for the record, most current textbooks will NOT flatly admit this, is to admit that it was also Black.

Those who are trying to gain acceptance for specious arguments denying Kemet's Blackness, could just as easily reject its Africanness using the same tactics. And they will too, inevitably should they succeed in gaining acceptace for such a patently fruadulent argument.

So Neo's argument is rejected because it is illogical, unsubstantiated, and dishonest.

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
I only have one more question for you Obenga. Do you consider coastal north Africans(Tunisians, Moroccans, Libyans, Amizgh berbers, etc.) black? And do you believe that coastal north Africans are also indigenous to Egypt?

---

Do you consider coastal southern Europeans Sicilians, Maltans, Portugese, Italians and Spaniards WHITE?

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Do you consider coastal southern Europeans Sicilians, Maltans, Portugese, Italians and Spaniards WHITE?

And do you believe that coastal southern Europeans are also indigenous to Greece and Rome?

---

We're talking about Africa, not Europe. Once again you're comparing apples to oranges and inadvertently seeing things from the Eurocentric point of view. If you want to compare apples to apples try Asia, not Europe...

You do understand that Africa has far more diversity than Europe don't you?

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
We're talking about Africa, not Europe. Once again you're comparing apples to oranges and inadvertently seeing things from the Eurocentric point of view. If you want to compare apples to apples try Asia, not Europe...

You do understand that Africa has far more diversity than Europe don't you?

[This message has been edited by neo*geo (edited 24 June 2004).]

---

Actually, I only asked you a question. I didn't compare anything. And once again.... you failed to answer the question.

As for 'your' question - Africa has more genetic diversity than all the rest of the world combined...that includes indigenous skin colors ranging from yellow brown (Khoi-San) to near jet black (Dinka), and includes phenotypical features for high cheekbones and slanted eyes (so called Asian) and narrow noses and small mouths (so called cau-asian).

If indigenous African peoples choose to call themselves Black, just as the Khemetians did, I have no problem with it. So, what's your problem?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Obenga:
This Ethnicity of AE thing, would only happen in Africa, other groups would never allow this kind of Debate. Racism created this debate in the first place because of how outsiders felt about Black Africans. The perception of Blacks as simple savages needed to be upheld calling KMTians Black made that perception hard to uphold so they were called something else....go through the list of what they were IDentified as and u will see ridiculous attempts to reach for anything other than Black

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
I only have one more question for you Obenga. Do you consider coastal north Africans(Tunisians, Moroccans, Libyans, Amizgh berbers, etc.) black? And do you believe that coastal north Africans are also indigenous to Egypt?

---

Have u ever heard of a coastal southern european......or a coastal southern Asian. are they really ASIAN or EUROPEAN or a mix of something that would qualify them as something other than Asian or White.....funny how we don't see this with regard to those continents, just Africa all being defined by non-Africans.....who gave them the right to do that!!

Where did all the fancy terms come from, and why and who is applying them and why always with regard to africa.....it's misdirection again, another attempt to separate something, anything valued, from BLACK. Question that for a while.

Some peoples asiatic, whatever, migrated into northern african areas from OUTSIDE OF AFRICA and fused with the native populace to become a mix of different groups...u will find that along the north african coast....

Supercar,

That is one of my main points, it does not matter to me who wandered into KMT and decided to stay and fuse with the Africans there.

Let me just say that untill indigenous Africans get in high positions to study their culture only will the misconceptions clear.

Sometimes you have to use their methods against them. Diop did it and so can you.

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
Have u ever heard of a coastal southern european......or a coastal southern Asian.

---

lol. good catch!

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
You still didn't answer whether or not you consider Tunisians or Amizgh berbers black.

---

Since you didn't catch the sarcasm in the prior responses I will spell it out.

Some of us don't share your Imperialistic view of ethnicty.

Try to think about what's wrong with your question....
why are you trying to tell all these people what 'race' they are?????

That's for them to decide. That is Obenga's point.

Your question tells us why you think it is somehow for you, to override the Kemetians, and tell us that they were not Black, in spite of what they said.

It's an incredibly arrogant view that you have, and you don't seem to be able to grasp that fact. Sad.

What do u think that was it's an answer but hey it's not specific enough for so here lets get specific

" you still didn't answer whether or not you consider Tunisians or Amizgh berbers black. "

Show them to me and I will tell u who is black and who is not....u answered the question yourself. If u are talking about the modern era I'm sure u will find all types in tunisia and among berbers...whats the point here?

"European isn't synonymous with 'white'"

When you are talking about the devlopment and origin of European history, society and Culture there is no question we are talking white, no matter what other groups may have been walking around in Europe there will be no mention of them when it's comes to the origin of their HISTORY, SOCIETY AND CULTURE. This is what they say and NO outside (NON-WHITE)group opinions are entertained in anyway shape or form.....hence the fight of Lefkowitz and others to say there was no African or Asiatic influence with regard to the founding of Ancient Greece. Neo, u don't see that this is the case??

Neo stop playing with words, you know what the issue is here and you are reaching for any loophole u can to find a way to support a point that cannot be supported.

Criteria used to define Africans is not used any where else. Hence the "coastal European point" I made that u did not answer among many things u did not answer.

This is so because of how Africans were perceived by another group that had the power to spread their definition of who we are to the world instead of the subject group itself.

KMT was the product of Black Africans, there need be no talk of any one present in KMT at one point who were not Black, because they are not responsible for KMTian culture. KMT was not a product of wherever those outsiders came from. They are of no consequence and in a similar scenario when speaking of European Culture or Asian Culture there would be no mention of outsiders present in the continent being so involved in the formation of their Society and Culture

quote:

---

Originally posted by Obenga:

"European isn't synonymous with 'white'"

When you are talking about the devlopment and origin of European history, society and Culture there is no question we are talking white, no matter what other groups may have been walking around in Europe there will be no mention of them when it's comes to the origin of their HISTORY, SOCIETY AND CULTURE. This is what they say and NO outside (NON-WHITE)group opinions are entertained in anyway shape or form.....hence the fight of Lefkowitz and others to say there was no African or Asiatic influence with regard to the founding of Ancient Greece. Neo, u don't see that this is the case??

---

Again, I believe European ideas aren't compatible when discussing Africa and you should agree. My responses are purely scientific and non-political. While Europe has been nearly genetically homogeneous up until the past century or so, all other continents have had many different population waves and are more heterogeneous. In the past tense, European may have been synonymous with 'white' because of the low amount of phenotypical diversity but modern Europeans are no more white than Australians. DNA on Europeans shows that all their ethnic groups except the Basques came from seven Asian women. This is a stark contrast to Africa where there is more genetic diversity and phenotypical diversity.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Obenga:

Neo stop playing with words, you know what the issue is here and you are reaching for any loophole u can to find a way to support a point that cannot be supported.

---

I'm lost. What am I trying to prove?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Obenga:

Criteria used to define Africans is not used any where else. Hence the "coastal European point" I made that u did not answer among many things u did not answer.

---

There is no criteria to define Asians but a geographical one.

There is no criteria to define Americans but a geographical one.

There is no criteria to define Africans but a geographical one.

The term 'black' is not scientific, it's a racial term that most people of African descent outside the USA attach a negative stigma to. Since 'black' is a social term and not a scientific one, as Ausur pointed out, it's difficult to get all African people to agree a definition of a black person because each society defines race differently. I have had people clearly of East African descent tell me they weren't black. Sammy Sosa will tell you he isn't black. Anwar Sadat never said he was black. In my American world view, all those people are of African descent and black but they have a different world view so who am I to tell them what they are?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Obenga:

KMT was the product of Black Africans, there need be no talk of any one present in KMT at one point who were not Black, because they are not responsible for KMTian culture.

---

Who are we to say that non-black Africans didn't make any contributions to AE civilization? Several contributions even came from non-Africans rulers like the Hyksos. Saying non-black or non-African contributions to AE don't matter is like saying black American contributions to the USA don't need to be considered because the founders of the US were white Europeans. Don't you think this type of logic is a bit racist?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Obenga:

The point is NEO, that Africans are being held to standards that other groups are not being held too.

---

The Lower Egyptians definatley contributed in latter dyansties,but even most of the elites within Men-Nefer during this time period were most likley southern Upper Egyptians. I agree with Obenga that Kmt was essentially a ''black'' African product;however I disagree that Lower Egyptians were phenotypically black. Certainly,southern types have been found in pre-dyanstic Lower Egypt and even within the costal African cultures like Capsians. Yes,there were negriod types amungst early so-called Costal northern African types.

See the following:

Even going back to ancient Egyptian times in the farthest North[the Delta] compared to the South[modern Aswan] it was very disintinct phenotype between these two regions. In fact,in Egyptian text Tales of Sinhue it tells about a man from the Delta that was confused and could not reognize himself in Upper Egypt.

The ancient Egyptian population came from the cultures of Pre-dyanstic Upper Egypt and pre-dyanstic Lower Egypt. The Neolithic cultures in pre-dyanstic Egypt were: The Badarian,Naquada,Tasins, and many others. In the Northern region we have the Merimede,Maadi,Faiyum,and other Neolithic culture.

Here is some references about the people from pre-dyanstic Upper Egypt:

The existence of still earlier culture,called the Tasins,has been
claimed. This culture would have been chracterized by the pressure of
round based calic form beakers with incised designs filled with white
pigment,which are also known fropm contexts of similar date in
Nelothic Sudan. However,the exisdtanece of the Tasins as a
chronologically or culturally seperated unit has never been
demonstrated beyond beyond doubt. Although most scholars consider the
tasian to be simply part of the badarian culture,it has also been
argued that the tasian represents the continuation of Lower Egyptian
tradition,which would be the immediate predessor of the Naquda 1
culture. This however,seems rather implausible ,first because
similarities with the neolithic cultures are no
convincing,and,secondly,because of the tasins obvious ceramic links
with the sudan. If the Tasians must be considered as a specific
cultural entity,then it might represent a nomadic culture with a
Sudanese background,which interacted with the badarian culture
page 40

Ian Shaw

Oxford University of Ancient Egypt

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)

In discussing the Badari culture, for example -- Egypt's earliest predynastic
civilization (4400-4000 BC) -- Shomarka Keita writes that many researchers
have found their remains to be "fundamentally `Negroid'."

Going back even further in time, Keita states:

"...late paleolithic remains from Egypt indicate characteristics which
distinguish them clearly from their European counterparts at 30,000 and
20,000 years BP... These distinguishing characteristics, commonly called
`Negroid,' are shared with later Nile valley and more southerly groups...
Epipaleolithic `mesolithic' Nile valley remains have these characteristics
and diverge notably from their Maghreban and European counterparts in key
craniofacial characteristics."

(S.O.Y. Keita, "Studies and Comments on Ancient Egyptian Biological
Relationships", History in Africa 20 (1993), page 135).

The movement or diffusion of people out of and into Egypt during
this time span from before 4000 B.C.-2000 B.C. or later evolution of
this slightly negriod paedomorphic stock into Dyansty Upper
Egyptians was probably a local development from the unknown latest
hunters of the Lower Nile,while mixture of more massive and rugged
[and also negriod ] Nubians[Anderson,1969];Armelagos,1969] produced
some of the rugged Pre-dyanstic variants . Disease and dietary
selection would have affected the population probably more than
immigration and mixture. Lower Egypt may have had a slightly
different population,less linear in the skull variant but with
longer face,like the earliest farmers in Greece ,but also with thin
noses. But I have to use a IX Dyansty series [Woo ,1930] as a base
for this statement and almost certainly this group in the late third
milliennium B.C. shows minor effects of mixture with sea-trading
peoples from the Levant and Agean. Cyprus since the early Neolithic
[Angel,1953;Furst,1933] had both very lateral and some linear skulls
elements and could have been a source of change and there were
probably exchanges with Palestine[Korgman ,1949;Hrdlicka,1938] and
Mesopotamia [Angel ,1951],both with long [Angel,1951],both with long
headed populations with medium or low rather than linear faces and
some of the same lateral element as in early Anatolian[cf. the later
Hitties] and the Agean [Angel,1951]. The latter is supposed to have
increased in numbers [from what selective force?] in the Bronze Age
and perhaps to have affected Lower Egypt via the Hykos.
This is not enough evidence. But the intruders who appeared in
Greece at time of Indo-Europeans acceptance[Angel,1971] are fairly
robust Iranian[or Nordic Iranian] in form[Korgman,1940] with definite
short and low headed and also intermediate forms of skull: I think
that the Hykos wew probably a parallel blend and also may have had
little genetic effect in an area of high population density already.

page 310

J. Lawrence Angel

Divison of Physical Anthropology
Smithstonian Institution

Washington,D.C. 20560 ,U.S.A.
Received 18 April 1969

Biological Relations of Egyptian and Eastern Mediterranean
Populations during Pre-dynastic and Dyanstic
Time*

Lower Egypt on the other hand was probally composed of more a mixture of Africans and non-African people. We see this from evidence from burial sites in the cultures of Lower Egypt.

See the following:

There was probably a break in occupation between levels I and II at
Merimda. Level II, known as the Mittleren Merimdekultur and considered by
the by the excavator to be related to the Saharo-Sudanese cultures..."
The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt
Pg 38
======================================================================
"The Fayum Neolithic should thus be viewed as a culture at the intersection
of three routes: one from the eastern Sahara, one from the Near East and one
from the Nile Valley itself."
The Prehistory of Egypt
By Beatrix Midant-Reynes
Pg. 106
=====================================================================

Here is Midant-Reynes statement on the remains of a 40 year old
epipaleolithic woman from the Fayum Oasis in the same book:
" The body was that of a 40 year old woman with a height of 1.6 meters, who
was of a more modern racial type than the classic "Mechtoid" of the
Fakhurian culture, being generally gracile, having large teeth and thick
jaws bearing some resemblance to the modern "negroid' type."
The Prehistory of Egypt
By Beatrix Midant-Reynes
Pg. 82
======================================================================
"The prognathism observed in the skulls from Maadi south and Heliopolis may
or may not indicate the infiltration of a negroid strain into the northern
region."
Most Ancient Egypt
By William C. Hayes
======================================================================