quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
[B]Its not running away my friend. Its a refusal to have a concersation of a particular level.

---

quote:

---

Ausar presents all of his views in an academic manner.

---

quote:

---

He gets a little frustrated at times as we all do

---

quote:

---

I may not agree with everything he says but his posts are thought provoking, they cause you to examine your position.

---

quote:

---

The problem with having dialogue with Afrocentrists is that, like all extremists they want to deal in emotional terms. Emotion is very powerful but it destroys academic discourse.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
lets keep in mind that there are only three races in the world today, Caucasian, negroid and mongoloid. That said, all Caucasians do not look like they grew up in Norway. Example, Anwar Sadat would be classified as caucasian even though he has very dark skin. Caucasians in India are obviously darker than germans but they sprang from the same population pool in central asia.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
lets keep in mind that there are only three races in the world today, Caucasian, negroid and mongoloid. That said, all Caucasians do not look like they grew up in Norway. Example, Anwar Sadat would be classified as caucasian even though he has very dark skin. Caucasians in India are obviously darker than germans but they sprang from the same population pool in central asia.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
[B]lets keep in mind that there are only three races in the world today, Caucasian, negroid and mongoloid.

---

quote:

---

That said, all Caucasians do not look like they grew up in Norway.

---

I started a thread a while back, deconstructing this nonsense in depth so I won't rehash.

But the reason we are discussing the term now (like it or not), is because it has specific political use for Europe.

It allows European people to appropriate non European history, culture and identity.

As we speak, there is a theory for the caucasiod origins of:
Egypt, Nubia, Mesopotamia, India, China, Japan, Polynesia and MesoAmerica, and natch...Greece, Rome, etc.
The science...is non existent. The politics are the only thing real about it.

If you read the article on Keita and Brace (the book by Gould too) you would understand precisely how this absudity is promulgated.
If you "dismiss" them. Then you will never learn. The choice is yours.

quote:

---

Anwar Sadat would be classified as caucasian even though he has very dark skin.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
Most of what you said rasol is just nonsense. We have a terrible problem with Afrocentricism in the United States. It is so political that it closes the door to any serious discourse.

---

So tell me, which part was nonsense.

* The part where I said you were frustrated over Afrocentrism?

* The part where I suggested you were deluding yourself in thinking you could arrogantly "dismiss" their views?

Pehaps it's just me, but you seem to be working very hard to validate my "nonsense".

Makes my job easy, thanks.

Eurocentrics have bent and twisted the caucasoid label to include everything from Aboriginee,Papua new Guineans,Hottentots[Yes at one time they were called Mediterranean],Somalis,Eastern Africans, early Kenyans,Inuit[Yes I am not making this up].

What exactly defines a caucasian? We know Negriod people have certain features such as protagnism which is apparent in Egyptians[Yes,even the lighter Lower Egyptians sometimes have it],but it's non conclusive to prove ancesty.

See the following Forensic evidence on Upper Egyptians:

"While the Upper Nile Egyptians show phenotypic features that
occur in higher frequencies in the Sudan and southward into
East Africa (namely, facial prognathism, chamaerrhiny, and
paedomorphic cranial architecture with specific modifications
of the nasal aperature), these so-called Negroid features are
not universal in the region of Thebes, Karnak, and Luxor."

(Kennedy, Kenneth A.R., T. Plummer, J. Chinment, "Identification of
the Eminent Dead: Pepi, A Scribe of Egypt," In Katherine J. Reichs
(ed.), _Forensic Osteology_, 1986. )

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
lets keep in mind that there are only three races in the world today, Caucasian, negroid and mongoloid. That said, all Caucasians do not look like they grew up in Norway. Example, Anwar Sadat would be classified as caucasian even though he has very dark skin. Caucasians in India are obviously darker than germans but they sprang from the same population pool in central asia.

---

"Anwar Sadat would be classified as caucasian even though he has very dark skin" is at the height of bad science. When has anybody with black ancestory, a black mother in this case, been considered Caucasian? It is funny how folks like you, strictly follow the "one drop" rule in America to mean only "pure blooded" white folks should be white, while you reverse the rule in other countries like Egypt to mean one drop of any foreign blood (yes even of non-white folks) to mean "Caucasian". BTW what is your definition of a black person, besides the dark skin color? Does this exclude folks with light skin tone, thin high-bridged nose, thin lips, curly hair, or long face? Now we will truly find out the level of your education, or perhaps the level of your ignorance!

Egyptians, regardless of modification of their outward appearances due to foreign influences throughout the ages, are for the most part still biologically, culturally and geographically African. As such, you can't separate them from other Africans. I dare you to challenge this fact!

To say that Egyptian society is non-black due to foreign migrations, is simply a weak distraction from the fact that this has no bearing on the Black African origins and development of the Egyptian civilization.

One more thing: Labeling opponents "Afrocentrics", as a way to avoid the issues at hand, won't fly in public and scholarly debates!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb: Of the three basic races caucasians may be more diverse than the other two in terms of complection.

---

Exactly the opposite is true.
Skin color is the consequence of the ability of the body to produce the protein "melanin" particularly in response to stimulation from the sun. Africans have maximal ability to do this. It's why they have more color than Europeans. It's also why they vary in color more than Europeans.

Only pale nordic blue eyed blondes (who cannot tan, who instead turn red as their skin is damaged by sunlight) are lacking in this capability. Their condition is by definition similar to that of Albinos, and for similar genetic reasons as well.

Therefore Africans have the greatest inherent potential for skin color variation.
Europeans have the least.
Now...you can lump European peoples together with native Australians, Indians, North Africans, and call it "caucasoid" so DISGUISING the facts.

Oh, wait, caucasian ideologists already do that. Nevermind.

quote:

---

[/B]
http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/tuthmosisIII.html

[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 19 August 2004).][/B]

---

This is referring the above url
Assuming by the use of different colors on the Kings neckpiece, the AE's were not color blind and were able to distinguish different shades oof colors. That being said the King appears to be a very dark skinned man. My question would be to Horemheb: why is this? Is this not Thutmosis and does his depicted skin color give us any idea to his ethnic status?

quote:

---

Was AE a black African society...no.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
Obviously the consultants of the educational TV production companies, who are Egyptologists think so as well. Dr Hawass thinks so....just too much fire power to ignore.
I do agree that it is a complicated subject but these decendants of west African blacks here in America have zero connection to AE.

---

Mr. Hawass is no bio-anthropologist, and anyone who takes his "stories" of biology as pure fact, is deluding him/herself!
Keita, Kittles, Diop and many other bio-anthropologists, have proven that Africans are the most biologically diverse groups in the entire globe. Ancient Egyptians have more connections with West Africans than any White American. Indeed the first Egyptians came from the Proto-Saharan region; the same region where the ancestors of West Africans came from. Indeed, the only connection the Egyptians have ever had with Europeans (Southern Europeans) was through conquest and foreign influx after Egypto-Greek contact. Thus Egypt was a mature civilization by the time they came into contact with Europeans!

This subject isn't really complicated. It only becomes complicated when you tried to separate Egyptians from other Africans. To call Egyptians Caucasians, you would have to ignore the fact that they came from interior of Africa , and were tropically adapted (physically and genetically) like other Africans of the tropics. For instance, you would have to also ignore the presence of certain cells (sickle cells)unique to continent, which Europeans and so-called Caucasian groups don't exhibit! Study of Haplotypes also tie Egyptians, particularly Upper Egyptians, more to Sub-Saharan Africans than to Europeans; you would have to ignore this too. So you would have to ignore topography, genetic history, and culture to dissociate Egyptians from other Africans. Good luck in doing so, but I doubt you will prevail in any public debate, here or elsewhere!

Caucasian is political jargon that not many people use in the scientific community. You totally ignored my forensic evidence I presented in the previous post that said modern day Upper Egyptians are Luxor had prognathism. I pointed out the so-called people you consider caucasoid have non-caucasoid cranialmetric traits. I am not using pigmentation as my criteria.

There are negriod people such as the Fulani in Nigeria and other regions who have skin tones that are light brown. Sub-Saharan Africans actually have the most color variation of all people when comparied.

[ . Of the three basic races caucasians may be more diverse than the other two in terms of complection]

This is non-sense that comes from the old methdology of dividing people into sub-races. Not even Western or Central Africans are jet black,but there are variations in color within mongolids and Negriod. Lots of Japanese people actually have whiter skin than the average white person.

See the following:

1: Hum Biol. 2000 Oct;72(5):773-80. Related Articles, Links

Human skin color diversity is highest in sub-Saharan African populations.

Relethford JH.

Department of Anthropology, State University of New York College at Oneonta, 13820, USA.

Previous studies of genetic and craniometric traits have found higher levels of within-population diversity in sub-Saharan Africa compared to other geographic regions. This study examines regional differences in within-population diversity of human skin color. Published data on skin reflectance were collected for 98 male samples from eight geographic regions: sub-Saharan Africa, North Africa, Europe, West Asia, Southwest Asia, South Asia, Australasia, and the New World. Regional differences in local within-population diversity were examined using two measures of variability: the sample variance and the sample coefficient of variation. For both measures, the average level of within-population diversity is higher in sub-Saharan Africa than in other geographic regions. This difference persists even after adjusting for a correlation between within-population diversity and distance from the equator. Though affected by natural selection, skin color variation shows the same pattern of higher African diversity as found with other traits.

PMID: 11126724 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt =Abstract&list_uids=11126724

What determines race to physical anthropologist is cranialmetric traits. Most of the cranialmetric traits amungst modern and ancient Egyptians vary but many in Upper Egypt have prognathism which is a negriod trait. m

See the following:

"While the Upper Nile Egyptians show phenotypic features that
occur in higher frequencies in the Sudan and southward into
East Africa (namely, facial prognathism, chamaerrhiny, and
paedomorphic cranial architecture with specific modifications
of the nasal aperature), these so-called Negroid features are
not universal in the region of Thebes, Karnak, and Luxor."

(Kennedy, Kenneth A.R., T. Plummer, J. Chinment, "Identification of
the Eminent Dead: Pepi, A Scribe of Egypt," In Katherine J. Reichs
(ed.), _Forensic Osteology_, 1986. )

[The mainline perception of ancient egyptians is that the majority of complections were redish tan. ]

The reddish tone on tombs are symbolic. The majority of the population in Dyanstic Egypt was around modern day Luxor-Aswan,which are even to this day dark brown to black. The Delta population was light brown to even Mediterranean in apperance.

see the following:

Old Kingdom to Amarna: The Changing Use of Color as Gender Indicator in Egyptian Art

Mary Ann Eaverly, PhD

Classics Department

P.O. Box 117435

University of Florida

Gainesville, FL 32611-7435

Eaverly@classics.ufl.edu

Even casual observers of Egyptian art have commented upon the radical departure from traditional figural style found in the sculpture of the New Kingdom 'heretic' pharaoh Akhenaten (1353-1335 BCE). For example, figures are shown with elongated crania, spindly calves and broad thighs. However, little or no attention has been paid to a shift in the depiction of flesh tones during this period. While standard Egyptian practice for millennia was to show women as light-skinned (yellow, cream or white) and men as dark-skinned (reddish brown or dark brown) Akhenaten's art (called Amarna after the major site) represents a change. Elite women including Nefertiti, the pharaoh's wife, and their daughters are often shown with reddish brown or dark brown skin. This paper will examine the significance of this change as an indicator of the status of royal women in Amarna Period Egypt and place this color convention reversal within the framework of previous Old and New Kingdom depictions of women

http://www2.nau.edu/gender2000/abstracts/eaverly.htm

[......The choice of the single red-brown color to represent The
Egyptian man,rather than a more realistic range of shades ,should
also considered within a wider symbolic scheme that included the
representations of foreginers. The foreigne men to the north and west
of Egypt were depicted by yellow skin[similar to that odf traditional
Egyptian women]; men to the south of Egypt were given black skin.
Although undoubtedly some Egyptians' skin pigmentation differed
little from that of Egypt's neighboors,in the Egyptian worldview
foreigners had to be distinguished . Thus Egyptian men had to be
marked by a common skin color that contrasted with the images of non-
Egyptian men. That the Egyptian women shared their skin color with
some foreign men scarcely mattered,since the Egyptian male is primary
and formed the reference point in these two color scemes---
contrasting in one with non-Egyptian males and in the other with
Egyptian females. Within the scheme of Egyptian/non-Egyptian skin
color,black was not desirable for ordinary humans ,because it marked
out figures as foreign ,as enemies of Egypt,and ultimatley as
represenatives of chaos;black thereby contrasted with its positive
meaning elsewhere. This example helps demostrate the importance of
context for reading color symbolism.........]

[......Thus,the gender distinctionencoded for human figures was
transferred at times to the divie world. The symbolisminherant in the
skin colors used for some deities and royal figures sugest that the
colors given to human skin---although initiallyseeming to be
naturalistic -----might also be symbolic. Male and female skin colors
were probabaly not uniform among the entire population of Egypt,with
pigmentation being darker in the south[closer to sub-sahara Africans]
and lighter in the north[closer to Mediterranean Near Easteners] A
woman from the south would probabaly have had darker skin than a man
from the North. Thus,the colorations used for skin tones in the art
must have been schematic [or symbolic] rather than realistic;the
clear gender distinction encoded in that scheme may have been based
on elite ideals relating to male and female roles,in which women's
responsibilities kept them indoors,so that they spent less time in
the sun than men.Nevertheless, the signifcance of the two colors may
be even deeper,making some as yet unknown but fundamental difference
between men and women in Egyptian worldview............]

The Ancient God Speak by Donald Redford

A Guide to Egyptian Religion

Page 57-61 Color Symbolism

Gay Robins

[sine you and I have started these conversations I have had informal conversations on the subject with one ancient and one medieval historian and one anthropologist on the subject and they all give me the same answer]

non-sequitir. Show me where I can read their work in peer reviwed journals. Last time we discussed this you said that the anthropologist expert said that Upper Egyptian remains were negriod.

[. Obviously the consultants of the educational TV production companies, who are Egyptologists think so as well. Dr Hawass thinks so....just too much fire power to ignore.]

Dr. Hawass believes Dark skinned Upper Egyptians are direct desendants of the ancient Egyptians. He said it himself in a PBS interview. Hawass overeacted out of fear that people were stealing the culture of the ancient Egyptians from modern Egyptians.

See the following:

NOVA: Do most Egyptians today feel an ancestral link to the ancient Egyptians?

Hawass: Of course, because we are the descendants of the pharaohs. If you look at the faces of the people of Upper Egypt, the relationship between modern and ancient Egypt is very clear. Habits in the villages, our celebrations when we finish a project, are similar to what they had in ancient Egypt. After someone dies, we make a celebration after 40 days, just like the ancient Egyptians did during the mummification process. Everything in our lives is like ancient Egypt.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/pyramid/excavation/hawass.html

[I do agree that it is a complicated subject but these decendants of west African blacks here in America have zero connection to AE.]

But....neither do you,or white supremist who claim the ancient Egyptians were Nordics. I am an Upper Egyptian from Aswan living in America. It's my heritage and ancestry.

quote:

---

But....neither do you,or white supremist who claim the ancient Egyptians were Nordics. I am an Upper Egyptian from Aswan living in America. It's my heritage and ancestry

---

One of the most amusing examples of the root audacity of Pan European Egyptology is their indignance at West Africans (like Diop) and the ever hated "diasporans" for meddling in "their" turf. Further, the hatred of African Americans is self interested, as they, relative to most African peoples have the time/money/interest/education, in short... the WEAPONS, to challenge the incestuous/warped/inbred European monopoly of African history.

They are a direct threat. Hence the plaintiff plea: Go away, you negroes!

But such arrogance is weakness. It causes you to base your thesis on provably false arguments which are "assumed" to be self evident truths. A fallacy you maintain by "dismissing" information to the contrary. That was Horemheb's mistake in this thread.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ge Ge:
Mmm I thought I was coming into a debate about Hollywood...The ten Commandments...The Passion of Christ...Omar Sherife.....Shrek 2......How did you come from that to the different tones of black and white.I thought the ten Commandments was a great film in its time and remember it was made for Americans who only have one point of view, their own.As for the Passion I though it was more about Mel Gibson shocking the audience than a story of the crucifixtion.I agree that Arabs should play the part of Arabs the stories would be far more believable.But then we only believe what we want to anyway dont we.The cinema is entertainment and just like newspaper reporting the truth is usually twisted to make it more interesting and readable/watchable.After all people do not like happy ever after stories do they?

---

I don't know what you meant by Arabs playing the part of Arabs, but I hope you are fully aware that Ancient Egyptians were not "Arabs"! Once again, Egyptian civilization had already reached its peak by the time the language now known as "Arabic" came into being.

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
One of the most amusing examples of the root audacity of Pan European Egyptology is their indignance at West Africans (like Diop) and the ever hated "diasporans" for meddling in "their" turf. Further, the hatred of African Americans is self interested, as they, relative to most African peoples have the time/money/interest/education, in short... the WEAPONS, to challenge the incestuous/warped/inbred European monopoly of African history.

They are a direct threat. Hence the plaintiff plea: Go away, you negroes!

But such arrogance is weakness. It causes you to base your thesis on provably false arguments which are "assumed" to be self evident truths. A fallacy you maintain by "dismissing" information to the contrary. That was Horemheb's mistake in this thread.

[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 21 August 2004).]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ge Ge:
Egyptians are not Arabs?Oh that explains why my egyptian friend calls anyone from Saudi Arab.I thought that countries as far west as Libia and as far east as Iran were Arab countries.So are Tunisians arab are Iranians arab.I am british,I am also english,I am also european and I am white.So what am I.Does an egyptian man not like to be termed and Arab?

---

So as not to rehash,here is a thread discussing this issue: http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/Forum8/HTML/000781.html

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
So as not to rehash,here is a thread discussing this issue: http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/Forum8/HTML/000781.html

ps - few things make Iranians Angrier than calling them Arabs. Even linguistically the offical language is Farsi. All the countries you mentioned have many people who
are not Arab. It is a common, though understandable mistake to call them all Arabs.

---

quote:

---

In terms of the picture of Thutmisis III...as you know that is not by any means the only picture out there.

---

quote:

---

The most common bust and picture shows him looking quite different...thpical 18th dyansty acquline nose, almost semetic/jewish looking.

---

Anway, here are some pictures of Kemetic royalty that might be less "common", at least to your eyes. http://www.geocities.com/vandeelen/Afrocentric/people.htm

quote:

---

If you have seen his mummy in the Cairo museum you know that he almost looks semetic, though I don't think he is.

---

quote:

---

As you know they often protrayed men as darker and women as lighter...eg..Norfret and Rahotep. That would all be unneccessary if they were black.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Anway, here are some pictures of Kemetic royalty that might be less "common", at least to your eyes. http://www.geocities.com/vandeelen/Afrocentric/people.htm

---

BTW, there is a glaring mistake on this site.

This is described as "Head of the god Amon, 18th dynasty, around 1355, made out of quartzite."
It is actually a depiction of one of the Amarna princesses.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Artemi:
[B]
BTW, there is a glaring mistake on this site.

---

Thanks. (not my website btw, so I can't change it)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
Rasol...for every picture you post like these there are five that are different.

---

quote:

---

One of the frauds used by Afrocentricism is that they show the pictures that help their anti white andi western political cause and do not show the rest.

---

An example of fraud would be altering/creating or defacing pictures to change their appearance, and ironically the very Nofret statue that you mentioned is sometimes sited as such a possible fraud: http://www.raceandhistory.com/manu/book.htm

quote:

---

They also assert something is a fact because it might be remotely possible...faulty logic.

---

That's exactly what you did here:

quote:

---

The king was protrayed as 'non negroid'....because those were the facts.

---

You will be more effective in these discussions when (if ever) you learn to recognize your own faulty logic.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
Rasol...The Afrocentrics have no chance of pulling this off. The backlash has already begun in our universities.

---

quote:

---

I think there is a much deeper meaning to all this and it is inherent in modern black culture.

---

quote:

---

It is not the fault of Euro-Americans that from Greece to now (with one period of stagnation)that they were the driving force in creating modern civilization.

---

I will hold your hand and walk you out of self imposed darkness of your Eurocentric closet and into the bright light of day:

This shift of emphasis away from the Ancient Model - of Greece - which stated that since at least the 5th century BC, Greeks and others believed that people from Egypt, Phoenicians and other Asiatics came to Greece, built cities, established royal dynasties and introduced religion and the mysteries. Later, Greeks studied in Egypt and, to a lesser extent, the Orient importing philosophy, mathematics and science....
a drastic departure followed after 1820, in which the modern discipline of Classics was formed. In this period, young scholars dismissed the "Ancient Model" and denied the ancient traditions of massive Greek cultural borrowings from Egypt. Their dismissal was not the result of the decipherment of hieroglyphics, nor did it come from archaeological excavations of Bronze Age Greece, which were not carried out until the 1870s. The Ancient Model was dismissed for ideological reasons. It was not seemly for Greece, now seen as the cradle of Europe, to have been civilized by Africans and Asians, who were known according to the new "racial science" to be categorically inferior. In the 1840s, a new "Aryan Model" arose...

Horemheb, you were asked earlier to dispute Keita, Kittles and Herodutus and could not.

Now, we ask...can you dispute Martin Bernal?

According you him...it is you who practise a revisionist history based on a racialist pseudo-science, in which empty grandstanding (ie - Greek Miracle), is meant to bolster your racial self esteem.

It's obvious that your anger and venting about "afrocentrics" stems from the fact that the lie of Greek, and by implication "white" historical supremacy, has been exposed as just that. A lie.

Homremheb: If you ever convince, anyone, anyone at all, of the validity of the Aryan model of history, please let me know. I think you actually make Bernal's (anti-Eurocentric) argument....simply by virtue of your inability to make your own.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
[B]there is a lot of good historical fiction out there Rasol, Martin Bernal falls into that catagory. I'll defer to Mary Lefkowiz on that.

---

Lol. I wonder if you are familiar with the work of either. As wrong as she is about many things.....here is a quote from the person you say you defer to on the origins of the Kemetians:
Recent work on skeletons and DNA suggests that the people who settled in the Nile valley, , came from somewhere south of the Sahara; they were not (as some nineteenth-century scholars had supposed) invaders from the North

quote:

---

Recent work on skeletons and DNA suggests that the people who settled in the Nile valley, , came from somewhere south of the Sahara; they were not (as some nineteenth-century scholars had supposed) invaders from the North

---

Rasol, is this a quote from Lefkowitz? Where did you find it? I'd like to read the article in it's entirety.

Horemheb, back to my question. What is your view of where the AE civilization originated? Is it a civilization of indigineous african origin or not (I'm not talking race just from whence did the AE's come). Secondly what do think is the of the darkskinned man in the picture Rasol cited.
Is this a picture of Thutmosis and if so is this a stylized or accurate depiction?

I'm somewhat curious as to what in fact is the reason for the varying interpretations of the ethnicities of iconography. It appears to me many of the pictures Afrocentrists and Eurocentrists use tend to be from different periods of time. For instance do you believe that it is possible that we may have a replacement scenario going on in AE at some point where one ethnicity adopts the regalia of another after the primary cluture is destroyed. In the U.S. where native americans are effectively extinct as viable "pure" group many Americans adopt their customs.

quote:

---

Originally posted by kifaru:

Horemheb, back to my question. What is your view of where the AE civilization originated? Is it a civilization of indigineous african origin or not (I'm not talking race just from whence did the AE's come). Secondly what do think is the of the darkskinned man in the picture Rasol cited.
Is this a picture of Thutmosis and if so is this a stylized or accurate depiction?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
In the first place I never said there was no black influence in Egypt.

---

quote:

---

Recall that early on I stated that I agreed wit Ausar on many important points and that I felt that many of you were going too far with this africanists propaganda.

---

quote:

---

Geopolitiaclly, AE is a West Asian civilization, there is no question about that.

---

quote:

---

Even her trace and foreign policy back that up.

---

quote:

---

Was it a black African society...no, Mary did not say that.

---

That you pretend not to see the fundamental contradiction is evidence that you are aware that your position is intellectually bankrupt. Which is unfortunate, since it is the 1st "evidence" you have provided in this conversation.

quote:

---

Originally posted by kifaru:
Rasol, is this a quote from Lefkowitz? Where did you find it? I'd like to read the article in it's entirety.

---

Yes, it's in the book Not Out of Africa, which is itself just an overblown version of articles written for the New Republic.
The relevant passage is here: http://www.wellesley.edu/CS/Mary/contents.html

She is a Greek "Classisist" primarily interested in denial of African influence on Greece. If you understand her "angle", she is actually "required" to admit that AE was African. Hence her semantics play out like:

Cleopatra was not Black. The PROOF OF WHICH is that Cleopatra was not Egyptian. (but rather a Macedonian Greek.)

Think about that. No matter how she may evade it, the statement implicitly associates AE with Black, even as it does AG with white. It follows from this, that each time she argues for minimizing the influence of Blacks in AG, she sEts up a natural counter argument regarding the limited relevance of whites in AE. This is one of but many, tactical errors in her argument.

And the difference being of course, that AE is over a 1000 years older than AG, the first European civilization. Nothing she can say, can change that fact.

Lefkowitz is wrong for the most part, but no fool. She recognizes that anyone arguing STILL that AE is a European/West Asian society as Horembeb is....is deluding themselves. Her anti-African diatribe is 'slightly' more subtle than that.

quote:

---

In the U.S. where native americans are effectively extinct as viable "pure" group many Americans adopt their customs.

---

As an aside, a supposed academic once tried to explain away the fact of the name of the nation being Kemet, meaning the Black Nation.

He argued that names don't always mean what they seem to.

His/her example was: INDIANA. (the US mid western state). He argued that although the name translates to Land of the Indian, that there are few if any indians in Indiana.

Of course this lead right to the sarcastic reply: That there are relatively few Indians "LEFT" in Indiana for the exact same reason as there are relatively few Black People (Kememu) left in the Black Nation (Kemet)! Which led to an apparently embarrassed non reply.

Brazzil - Brazil 24/7
Since 1989 trying to understand Brazil.

www brazzil.com

Brazzil - Brazil 24/7 Forum Index

To: X4D
Posted: Mon Aug 23, 2004 11:19 pm
Subject: Re: correct info
X4D wrote:
Dr. Coon was not wrong.

Many Afrocentrics chose to ignore the fact that the Caspian people (probably the ancestors of the Lybian Egpytians) were not black, they were Meditarraneans.

At about the time of about 3000 BC the Sahara desert of Egypt dissicated completely. The arid lands of central Egypt seperated North Egypt from south Egypt. There was an isolation between the blacks in the south and the whites in he north

However, scienticists assume that there was a migration from the north to the south so some of the black population became mixed with the white population in the north

The fact is that Egypt was domiantly white in the north and darker in the Central and southern areas

Archeology

"At the end of the 4th millennium BC, kings of Egypt's 1st dynasty conquered upper Nubia south of Aswan, introducing Egyptian cultural influence to the African peoples who were scattered along the riverbank. In subsequent centuries, Nubia was subjected to successive military expeditions from Egypt in search of slaves or building materials for royal tombs, which destroyed much of the Egyptian-Nubian culture that had sprung from the initial conquests of the 1st dynasty. Throughout these few centuries (c. 2925–c. 2575 BC), the descendants of the Nubians continued to eke out an existence along the Nile River, an easy prey to Egyptian military expeditions. Although the Nubians were no match for the armies of Egypt's Old Kingdom, the interactions arising from their enslavement and colonization led to ever-increasing African influence upon the art, culture, and religion of dynastic Egypt.

Sometime after about 2181, in the period known to Egyptologists as the First Intermediate Period (c. 2130–1938), a new wave of immigrants entered Nubia from Libya, in the west, where the increasing desiccation of the Sahara drove them to settle along the Nile as cattle farmers. Other branches of these people seem to have gone beyond the Nile to the Red Sea Hills, while still others pushed south and west to Wadai and Darfur. These newcomers were able to settle on the Nile and assimilate the existing Nubians without opposition from Egypt. After the fall of the 6th dynasty (c. 2150), Egypt experienced more than a century of weakness and internal strife, giving the immigrants in Nubia time to develop their own distinct civilization with unique crafts, architecture, and social structure, virtually unhindered by the potentially more dynamic civilization to the north. With the advent of the 11th dynasty (2081), however, Egypt recovered its strength and pressed southward into Nubia, at first sending only sporadic expeditions to exact tribute, but by the 12th dynasty (1938–1756) effectively occupying Nubia as far south as Semna. The Nubians resisted the Egyptian occupation, which was maintained only by a chain of forts erected along the Nile. Egyptian military and trading expeditions, of course, penetrated beyond Semna, and Egyptian fortified trading posts were actually established to the south at Karmah in order to protect against frequent attacks upon Egyptian trading vessels by Nubian tribesmen beyond the southern frontier."

Anthropology

EGYPTIANS

One such concentration of [Paleolithic] food-gatherers is seen in the Sebilian culture of Upper Egypt. The skeletal remains from this culture, which have not yet been published, are said to anticipate in physical type the predynastic, placing a fine Mediterranean type in pre-Neolithic times.

The importance of these [early Neolithic] people is that they probably represent the prototype of the Neolithic agriculturalists who moved westward along the shore of North Africa to Morocco, and over into Spain, whence they spread the Neolithic economy, with emmer flax, and swine, to the Swiss lakes and to the Rhine. ... The skulls of these people, which consist mostly of females and infants, are all dolichocephalic and Mediterranean. There is no trace of negroid influence and the skulls are said to be larger than those of predynastic Egyptians....

The [pre-Dynastic] Badarian type represents a small branch of the Mediterranean racial group. ... The Badarian skulls are more prognathous than those of their successors, and have higher nasal indices. ... In fact, while the prognathism and nose form would suggest a negroid tendency, this cannot be established, since the hair form is definitely not negroid. ... Morant shows that the Badarian cranial type is closely similar to that of some of the modern Christians of northern Ethiopia—who incidentally do not show negroid characteristics in the skull—and also to the crania of Dravidian-speaking peoples of southern India. ... On the basis of these racial comparisons, it seems reasonable to suggest that this Badarian physical type may have come from the south, near the headwaters of the Blue Nile. It may represent an early Hamitic racial strain, which persists despite some negroid admixture in Ethiopia and Somaliland to the present day.

In Lower Egypt lived another group of Mediterranean predynastic people who differed from the Upper Egyptians in certain noticeable ways. The heads were broader, the cranial indices higher, reaching a mean of 75, whereas the Upper Egyptian mean is nearly 72. The vault height is less, the face is no broader, but somewhat longer, and the nasal index is lower.

The two types from Upper and Lower Egypt represent the extremes of a purely native Egyptian population, but from the beginning of dynastic times, around 3000 B.C. until Ptolemaic times, the numerous series which give an excellent picture of the progress of racial continuity and change in Egypt show the interactions of these two types. The racial history of Egypt in the course of three thousand years was simply the gradual replacement of the Upper Egyptian type by that of Lower Egypt. ... Ancient Egypt must remain the most outstanding example yet known in the world of an important, naturally isolated region in which native racial types were permitted to develop their own way for several thousand years completely uninfluenced by foreign contacts.

The wealth of contemporary illustrative material from Egyptian art sources may be divided into two classes, conventional representations and portraits. The former show a definite and well-recognized type; slender-bodied and wiry, with narrow hips and small hands and feet. The head and face are those of a smoothly contoured fine Mediterranean form.

The pigmentation of the Egyptians was usually a brunet white; in the conventional figures the men are represented as red, the women often as lighter, and even white. ... the hair is almost inevitably black or dark brown, and the eyes brown.... The Egyptian representation of foreigners is quite accurate; besides the Libyans, who have Nordic features as well as coloring, Asiatics, with prominent noses and curly hair, sea peoples from the Mediterranean, with lighter skins and a more pronounced facial relief than the Egyptians, are also shown, as well as negroes. ... The Mediterranean pigmentation of the Egyptians has probably not greatly changed during the last five thousand years.

(Carleton S. Coon, The Races of Europe)
* * *

NUBIANS

Starting from the Late Neolithic...similarities between the Nubians and the populations of Northeast Africa...and Asia...became even more distinct, which may prove the existence of strong ties derived probably from influx of the Caucasoids from the regions of Levant, Mesopotamia, and India. They were coming to Nubia through the Sinai Peninsula, but probably also through the south Saudi Arabia. The Kerma series from Upper Nubia shows particular similarities to the present-day Indian series.
From the Neolithic on, or possibly even earlier, the strategic location of Nubia, promoting contacts between various populations, started to bring about effects in the form of the civilizational development of this region. Finally, these two factors led to the Hamitisation process, whereby superimposition of the Caucasoids on the Negroids took place.

(Aleksandra Pudlo, Anthropological Review, 1999)

Genetics

"To assess the extent to which the Nile River Valley has been a corridor for human migrations between Egypt and sub-Saharan Africa, we analyzed mtDNA variation in 224 individuals from various locations along the river. Sequences of the first hypervariable segment (HV1) of the mtDNA control region and a polymorphic HpaI site at position 3592 allowed us to designate each mtDNA as being of "northern" or "southern" affiliation. Proportions of northern and southern mtDNA differed significantly between Egypt, Nubia, and the southern Sudan.

...we can infer that the migration of northern mtDNA types to the south is older than the migration of southern mtDNA types to the north (or that there has been less gene flow from north to south than from south to north along the Nile River Valley) and that Egypt and Nubia have had more genetic contact than either has had with the southern Sudan. Moreover, we can tentatively infer that these migrations occurred recently enough to fall within the period of the documented historical record of human populations in the Nile River Valley."

Krings et al., Am J Hum Genet, 1999)

"...the present study on the Y-chromosome haplotype shows that there are northern and southern Y-haplotypes in Egypt. The main Y-haplotype V is a northern haplotype, with a significantly different frequency in the north compared to the south of the country: frequencies of haplotype V are 51.9% in the Delta (location A), 24.2% in Upper Egypt (location B), and 17.4% in Lower Nubia (location C). On the other hand, haplotype IV is a typical southern haplotype, being almost absent in A (1.2%), and preponderant in B (27.3%) and C (39.1%). Haplotype XI also shows a preponderance in the south (in C, 30.4%; B, 28.8%) compared to the north (11.7% in A) of the country.

"It is interesting to relate this peculiar north/south differentiation, a pattern of genetic variation deriving from the two uniparentally inherited genetic systems (mtDNA and Y chromosome), to specific historic events. Since the beginning of Egyptian history (3200-3100 B.C.), the legendary king Menes united Upper and Lower Egypt. Migration from north to south may coincide with the Pharaonic colonization of Nubia, which occurred initially during the Middle Kingdom (12th Dynasty, 1991-1785 B.C.), and more permanently during the New Kingdom, from the reign of Thotmosis III (1490-1437 B.C.). The main migration from south to north may coincide with the 25th Dynasty (730-655 B.C.), when kings from Napata (in Nubia) conquered Egypt.

(Lucotte et al., Am J Phys Anthro, 2003)"

The Hpal (np3,592) mitochondrial DNA marker is a selectively neutral mutation that is very common in sub-Saharan Africa.... From 29 [Merotic Nubian] individuals analysed, only 15 yield positive amplifications, four of them (26.7%) displaying the sub-Saharan African marker. Hpa 1 (np3,592) marker is present in the sub-Saharan populations at a frequency of 68.7 on average. Thus, the frequency of genes from this area in the Merotic Nubian population can be estimated at around 39% (with a confidence interval from 22% to 55%). The frequency obtained fits in a south-north decreasing gradient of Hpa I (np3,592) along the African continent. Results suggest that morphological changes observed historically in the Nubian populations are more likely to be due to the existence of south-north gene flow through the Nile Valley than to in-situ evolution.

(C.L. Fox, Ann Hum Biol, 1997)

read my response to the racist,i was debating below.

this is a rasict website,you did get it from a website,because i read thisnon-sense before.if you look at the map of egypt the nile runs south to north,so folks could easy get to the north.if they were block how could folk get to the south.it seems you are saying white could get to the south in early times but blacks could not.
early libyans were african.
and the nubian population in ancient times still remain full blooded blacks.this site above is trash and wrongand i did not read the whole thing.
dr coon was a racist,and was wrong,and you have an agenda for a half black man.

do not write back because i would not repond or read.read my correct info,and should have write it for yourself,and stop sendin me websites.you do not want to learn anything because no matter the proof your made is made up and you just want to resist for the sake of of it.please do not give any more incorrect info.

quote:

---

Dr. Coon was not wrong.

---

Ask them what proof (support) there is in current anthropology for this idea. Coon's ideas are not even "attacked" anymore because they are not "argued" anymore by serious people.

quote:

---

Carelton Coon: "The Races of Europe"- One such concentration of [Paleolithic] food-gatherers is seen in the Sebilian culture of Upper Egypt. The skeletal remains from this culture, which have not yet been published,.....

---

Let whomever is quoting this know that Hitler lost the war as well, since it will apparently come as news to him.

quote:

---

Many Afrocentrics chose to ignore the fact that the Caspian people (probably the ancestors of the Lybian Egpytians), were medit.

---

quote:

---

At about the time of about 3000 BC the Sahara desert of Egypt dissicated completely. The arid lands of central Egypt seperated North Egypt from south Egypt.

---

quote:

---

However, scienticists assume that there was a migration from the north to the south so some of the black population became mixed with the white population in the north

---

In essence he is practising revisionist chronology, revisionist history, and mixing it to Carleton Coon's 3rd Reich era "anthropology." What a stinky mess.

Another thing it is saying is that the nubians of the meriotic or meriotic late period were 22% to 55% negriod.that study is a fraud,because it seems to say all of meriotic nubia was like that,and it would be a bit correct if they said lower nubia at that time was like that in late meriotic times,and even the nubians in late meriotic lower nubia who were not negriod in their looks are still black,and not of the brown race.

There is no such thing by the way of a brown race or white nubian,nubians are black period,even if some do not look like it today and many areas in late ancient lower nubia and some areas in the late middle ages in upper nubia.

that study does not make it clear like i said it should,and anyway it is like going to southern france and you dig up some bodies that lived in late ancient times and it is black FOLKS ,and then you write studies saying that most folks in france were non-white and southern france is the real france and not making it clear that it is a few bodies found and do not represent the whole population,but racist scholars and their followers love doing that to black folks and there lands and history.

The same study on two other websites try to make it more clear that meriotic nubians at certain time periods were,22% to 55% negriod and the rest of the nubian population was of the brown and white race,but not making it clear like i just mention above.There is no brown race and white race nubians.

Was that study done FOR late lower nubia?,because if so it would be a bit correct TO say that there were some brown raced looking black nubians,but the non negriod nubians in lower nubia would still be black,even if some in that time period in lower nubia did not look it,but they dig a few bodies and they say it represents meriotic nubia as awhole without saying it is a few places,and really it is in the northern parts.

so if they do not make it clear,it is a fraud,incorrect study,and i should not have to guess where and when,they are talking about, so it makes it clear to me it is more of a fraud, incorrect study.

Hearing thru the noise: When the Eurocentrists are reduced to arguing that Nubians are not Black, it reads as a tacit admission/awareness that Kemetic civilization comes down the Nile from Nubia. It is their intellectual equivalent of hacking noses off of statues, when nothing else can stop the facts staring them right in the face.

quote:

---

Originally posted by blackman:
kifaru,
Horemheb answered you by not answering. Horemheb won't answer as he has always done in the past with no data. Horemheb has stated the AE were a west asian people with no data.
Just enjoy Horemheb. Don't take him serious and you will have fun.

---

Well, blackman I can't really dismiss Horemheb due to the fact that I feel the need to understand his thinking. On some points of contention many afrocentrists have been wrong wrong wrong in their assertions about AE's.
The cleopatra ptolemy that some afrocentrists are trying to claim was a greco egyptian(read white person). That takes nothing away from african history. Two wrongs don't make a right and if we are to advance the academic debate and get to the truth we need to make sure that we don't buy into the same dismissive attiude of Eurocentrist egytophiles. For example have you noticed that Western Europeans(celts,and germanics) historical concept of western civilization almost always portrays celtic and germanic peoples as being civilized by the romans who they believe were civilized by the greeks. Now it is clear to anyone who has reseached the artwork, and technology of the celts upto aand including their writing system (ogham) that tbey did not need civilizing by romans. This is due to the roman idea of everybody being a barbarian but us and imposing this idea on their subject peoples. This causes an inferiority complex and causes them to want to connect to or coopt other cultures. This is also due to the fact that the the research into pre roman history in western European countries is not promoted as important. I'll give horemheb a chance to answer my questions so that he can give resonable arguments for his assertions. This helps him by advancing a logical and fact based information that is not colored by any racial agenda advancing tint if he can do so. Anybody who is objective will be able to examine his answers to my questions if he is willing to answer them.

quote:

---

Originally posted by kifaru:
[B]The cleopatra ptolemy that some afrocentrists are trying to claim was a greco egyptian(read white person).

---

quote:

---

For example have you noticed that Western Europeans(celts,and germanics) historical concept of western civilization almost always portrays celtic and germanic peoples as being civilized by the romans who they believe were civilized by the greeks. Now it is clear to anyone who has reseached the artwork, and technology of the celts upto aand including their writing system (ogham) that tbey did not need civilizing by romans.

---

quote:

---

This is due to the roman idea of everybody being a barbarian but us and imposing this idea on their subject peoples.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
[B]Supercar...they try to use a very subtle but faulty logic. first they say that if it were 'possible' it must be true.

---

quote:

---

Secondly, they say that during the last 200 years Euro racist scholars have stolen and denied their heritage.

---

quote:

---

Of course, that is pure baloney but it allows they to wipe out all of the legitimate scholarship they do not like.

---

quote:

---

They want to have a discussion using a faulty side as a place to start.

---

quote:

---

Its like having a debte about UFO's when one side has invented all the information they want to use.

---

In the favor of an indiginous African origin I can then point to massive material evidence: archeological findings, fossil data, cultural traits, linguistic origins, genetic data, historical record(!), 1st Hand (Kemetic) testimony, and more.

quote:

---

Thirdly,the academic world is on to them...you hear it more and more all the time.

---

quote:

---

Fourthly, its a disaster for blacks everywhere and continues to foster that old 'its the white guys fault' attitudethat permeates much of the black and third world community.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by supercar:
Applying pseudo-labels to people in discussion boards seems to be the norm for avoiding debate. Some so-called "Afrocentrics" have gotten things wrong in the past, but what has that to do with what is being discussed here? Like Rasol mentioned earlier, nobody here has made any comment about Cleopatra being "Black"; I have yet to hear from anyone on this board who thinks so! Instead of focusing on the questions being asked, which are relevant to the discussion, some of us seem to be concerned about the description of the workings of Afrocentric ideas.

---

I made reference to Cleopatra to describe some of the missteps overzealous afrocentrists have made and not as a rebuttal to anything stated in this thread.

Afrocentric scholarship should not be built on the subjective but the objective. Facts and good scholarship will place african history especially egyptian history in its proper context. Afrocentrists need to also start focusing on other african civillizations to be able to show the parallels to AE. Remember everybody else wasn't sitting around for the AE's to come around before they started building. Who were these people around lake chad whose civilizations rose and fell concurrent with AE? Let's go find out.

Rasol any references as to ogham being derived from latin. I haven't seen any. If you could pleas direct me I would appreciate it.

Horemheb, please answer my questions. Your nonresponse to these questions is beginning to look like avoidance or at least a lack of data to back up your responses. Even anectdottal evidence would be appreciated to put some meat on the bones of your arguments. If you have a problem with afrocentrics hijacking scholarship show us the data that proves them wrong. Many academically bankrupt ideas have been dispelled through data but you got to present it before anyone will be able to judge what you assert as fair or foul. Emotion should have little to do with scholarship. The ball is your court. I am sincerely interested in the evidence you have to present.