posted
In Stromfront they like to say that the AEs were initally fair/light skinned people, like Meditarranean Caucasoids who become dark.
They claim that black people came on and distroyed this advanced civilization.
You might read what they have to say:
"Egypt was not built by "Whites", but it was built by light skinned caucasoids akin to todays Arabs and Berbers. North Africa has always been inhabited by people originally from the Middle East, very few West or sub-Saharan Africans made it to egypt until the Arabs started their trade routes and began the practice of importing slaves to different parts of the world. The famed King Tut had red hair, Cleopatra was said to have skin like alabaster. not many negroes that fit that bill."
"Fair skinned people built it up, darks brought it down."
"Early and high period Egyptians were white - I have personally examined many artefacts and tomb paintings. Non-whites only appear as enemies or slaves."
"Genetic similarity of the ancient Egyptians is strongest with that of the modern "leucoderm" Egyptians. Leucoderm means white-skinned(leuco=milk).
Genetic proof that contact with the Nubians made the Egyptians darker over time"
"Thus the genetic evidence lines up with the history of Egypt. Egypt conquered Nubia and this introduced more Caucasoid genes into Nubia. Then Nubians migrated to Egypt and introduced more negroid-type genes into Egypt. This means that Egypt has gotten darker over time and this correlates with the relative decline of civilization in this part of the world."
"The primary genetic imprints on the Egyptians are from the Mediterranean neolithic agriculturalists who first settled in Egypt around 10,000 years ago and to a lesser extent from the mixing with Nubians and some other Negroid peoples, which has increased as time has gone on.
"Ancient descriptions of the ancient Egyptians. They are described as being like the people of northern India, and are described as distinct from the Ethiopians" http://www.geocities.com/enbp/quotes.html
"genetic and anthropological science have shown that the modern northern Egyptians are much closer to the ancient Egyptians than are the modern southern Egyptians."
Anyway i wanted to know if this is really the truth.
If the AEs were non-black so how did they really look like?
Stormfront is a fairly silly white race myth website. They are dedicated to perpetuating ignorance, and maintain the lowest level of discourse. An elementary knowledge of AE is all that is required to debunk their race myths. But remember: You can't save a fish from drowning. Meaning, don't waste time trying to convince bigots. Just make sure you know better.
posted
Most of these theories that the white supremist are using are not new. Old Egyptologist/anatomist like Sir Grafton Smith postulated that the original Egyptians started off as white but became mixed with ''blacks'' and thus the modern Egyptians look the way they do because of this.
Of course it's all 19th/20th century garbage. Most of the genetic evidence cited on the web page is not even ancient samples. People are trying to take modern Dna samples from modern northern Egyptians and try to make them as if they are ancient in oirigin. The studies by G. Paoli and Murant infact found that through ABO blood typing the Dyanstic Egyptians matched a modern indigenous ''black'' Saharan people called the Haratin. He also found that there was no different through ABO blood typing with the modern Coptic and Muslim Egyptians. This means that just about all Egyptians have some connection to the ancient Egyptians,and not just one segment in the north.
Another lie these white supremist say is that the black populations in Egypt only began with exapnasion into Nubia or from slave trade with the Arabs. One way to dismiss this is the fact that most slaves brought into Egypt came mostly from eunchs and these populations usually had their genetalia cut preventing them from producing large amounts of offspring. Most of these slaves were confined to the cities instead of the rural Upper Egyptian countryside. The Arabs during the Middle Ages mostly imported ''white'' slaves for the harems or Abyssinian types from Ethiopia. None of these populations intermingled with the rural people. The importation of white slaves into Cairo was probabaly far greater than slaves below the Sahara.
One thing the white supremist often forget is the Sahara desert was once more fertile than in modern times. Most of the Eastern and Central Sahara had a negriod population. These Saharan people are the ancestors of both the ancient Egyptians,Nubians,and even later Western African groups. This probabaly explains why Sub-Saharan types are found in Dakhla Oasis and the Nabta Playa remains in Southern Egypt.
The earliest agritcultual centers in Egypt are in Faiyum Neolithic which dates to around 7500 B.C. and the remains are quote Negriod. Even prior to this the Upper Paeolithic population in Upper Egypt are found to have commonalities with sub-Saharan or Saharan populations. 10,000 years ago there was nobody living in the Nile Valley but this began to change as time passed.
The second oldest agritcultural communitiy in Egypt was Merimede Salma in the Delta. These skeletal remains have been poorly studied,and thisis primarily due to the Delta conditions.
Know the founding of culture of AE was the badarian,Nagada I,II,III and nearly all these people were established in Upper Egypt. The Hagada shows great simialritiy with Nubians even more so than Upper Egyptians. Archaeological evidence such as the Qustal incense burner shows that Nubians and Egyptians probabaly shared a common pharaonic culture. I have a genetic study I will post later that shows the Naqada even clustered with sub-Saharans from a burial site of Adima.
Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
First of all these people can't except the fact that human races or sub-species are a social concept.
Secondly these guys don't like the fact that the origin of ancient Egyptian civilization was the Nile Valley. Most intelligent archeologists recognize nowadays that the Nile Valley was the cradle of Egyptian culture.
Egypt was a melting pot with influences from all directions while Nubia, Lybia and Asia played a major role there.
Martin, the best known black Egyptologist sez:
1) Blacks were a major part of ancient Egyptian society.
2) Though many - perhaps most - were slaves, many were also scholars and rulers.
3) Egypt itself was ruled by a black dynasty for about 1000 of its 13000 year history.
4) There's good solid evidence that much of the knowledge the Egyptians exported across the mediterranean came from deeper in the continent.
There're so many pictorial representation of BROWN and REDDISH Egyptian rulers, but hardly any Black ones.
The Egyptian artwork clearly shows a people that's neither black NOR white, in the majority.
Most of the Egyptian art i've seen clearly shows most egyptrians as having redish-brown skin.
However, the Egyptians did not think of themselves as black or white. They made ROUTINE distinctions between "Egyptian" (which was to them "civilized"), the lighter-skinned sea people barbarians to the north and the darker-skinned Sudanese barbarians to the south. Both groups were considered to be foreign and were good for two things, mainly: mercenaries and slaves.
Furthermore, the Egyptians showed this distinction quite clearly in their artwork: Sudanese mercenaries are painted a deep dark brown; sea people mercenaries a light wheat color and BOTH are in stark opposition to reddish brown Egyptians.
After all i guess the AEs were "racially" identical to the people who inhabit Egypt nowadays.
posted
Orion X, the reddish-brown in Egyptian bas reliefs is mostly symbolic as opposed to realistic. In terms of skin tone Egyptians were diverse today as in ancient Egyptian times. People in northern Egypt tended to be lighter and gradually darkening untill you came to Luxor and Aswan area.
The ancient Egyptians also showed Nubians with the same reddish-brown skin tone as the Egyptians which signified indenity.
1. Egypt was not a slave soceity,and what slaves came into Egypt came so from captives in war. Egypt had no need for slaves in their soceity for most of the jobs was done by corvee labor
2. Most of the ancient Egyptian slaves came from Asiatic countries and not from Nubia. Nubia was never a significant source of slaves ,but Nubians around the 6th dyansty came into Egypt volutarily. Many of these Nubians intermarried peacefully with Egyptians but were very small in number.
3. Southern Upper Egypt and Nubia were hardly different in terms of phenotype and culture. Going as far back as the pre-dyanstic era you could not tell these to phenotypically not culturally prominent Egyptologist Michael Hoffman admits this much
4. Egypt exagerated the enemies and foreginers of Egypt to show differences but not really racial differences. Many Egyptians had the same skin tone as the captives shown in the bas reliefs.
5. The Sudanese types Egyptians came incontact with were Southern Sudanese who are the darkest people in Africa. Of course most Egyptians would be lighter as would even many Western Africans. Africans have lots of color diversity,and this does not come from intermixture with caucasoid races.
6. Egyptians of today are relatively the same except in some areas like Mansoura,Alexzandria ,and definatley Cairo. Lots of people in Modern Upper Egypt are definatley dark brown to black. The black people in Upper Egypt donot come from Nubians or slave imported by Arabs but from the original stock of black Upper Egyptians.
7. Most early Pharaohs came from Upper Egypt with only the 5th,6th,and 7th,8th,9th and 10th breaking away from the traditional Upper Egyptian rulers. These are relatively minor dyansties comparied to the 1,2,3,and 4 which all have southern Upper Egyptian origins.
8, The battles between Egyptians and Nubians were not racial wars as many like to point out. Some Nubians fought with Egyptians and some were trading partners. Infact, the dyansty which was the most war like with Nubians might even be Nubian origins itself.
9. Ancient Egypt had obvious African cultural links such as concept of the divine king and rainmaker king, ancestor veneration, and circumcision rites. We also know the early Egyptians had attachment to cattle and used them simialr to the Massai in modern Kenya.
BTW, see the following link from Frank Joseph Yurco:
"From predynastic times down to the New Kingdom when Egypt actually occupied the land, Lower Nubia remained a region of few social and economic distinctions and comparatively low population density. The reason for her tendency to lag behind her rich northern neighbor has sometimes been explained in terms of racial inferiority. But in physical affinity the peoples of this region cannot be differentiated consistently from those of southern Upper Egypt. An environmental explanation is more accurate." (pg.256)
("Egypt Before the Pharaohs" Michael Hoffman 1991)
[This message has been edited by ausar (edited 23 October 2004).]
Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:9. Ancient Egypt had obvious African cultural links such as concept of the divine king and rainmaker king, ancestor veneration, and circumcision rites. We also know the early Egyptians had attachment to cattle and used them simialr to the Massai in modern Kenya.
This needs to be emphasized because it's clear that some do not understand it's relevance to the point of what AE was, and who it's people were.
If AE had an European/Asiatic affinity it would be easy to prove. It would be reflected along multiple lines of evidence in their culture and history. Instead lines of evidence converage on Africa over and again, to the point where one has to be obtuse to not get the picture:
* Their language would likely show some relatedness to Indo European, and not to Cushitic languages that began in East Africa.
* The early Nile Valley culture would reflect patriarchy and other institutions common to Eurasian peoples, instead of circumcision, devine kingship and other African cultural identifiers. In short, Nile Valley Africans have an African cultural base because they are are of African stock.
They do not share a culture base with Indo EurAsians because they are not of the same stock.
Even bio-scientists such as Brace know this, which is why they attempt to use contrived regimes of skeletal affinities (usually with exaggerated emphasis on nasal indices) to get around the obvious paradox: dark skinned people, living in Africa, with an African language, practicing and African culture... yet Brace want to fabricate a European relationship.
* Their genetic affinity also shows trademark signatures such as E3b that originate in Africa. This marker is found among Europeans only at later times where it can be shown invariably to have been inherited either directly from it's African home, or indirectly from Middle Asian semites who themselves inherit it from Africa and Africans. (just as they do their African cultural traits like ritual circumcision, discussed in this thread: http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/Forum8/HTML/000935.html
from the rootsweb archives april 2004:
Per Underhill, E3b began in Sub-Saharan East Africa and expanded nto the Near East and northern Africa at the end of the Pliestocene era. The E3b lineage was imported into southern Europe during the Neolithic expansion. "Since E3b-M35 lineages appear to be confined mostly to the sub-Saharan populations, it is conceivable that the initial migrations toward North Africa from the south primarily involved derivative E3b-M35 lineages."
The authors give an estimate of 26,600 years for the date of the MRCA of all E3bs and they place its origin in eastern Africa.
The first of the E3b sub-groups discussed is E-M78. The authors give a date of 23,200 years ago for the origin of the E-78 sub-group with eastern Africa seen as the most likely place of its origin. This group is seen in eastern Africa (21.5%) and northern Africa (18.5%), the Near East (5.8%) and Europe (7.2%).
E3b is virtually nonexistant among Nordics except where they have, ultimately African admixture...because the actual root base of Europes population- aka white people- had migrated out of Africa before E3b existed.
quote: "From predynastic times down to the New Kingdom when Egypt actually occupied the land, Lower Nubia remained a region of few social and economic distinctions and comparatively low population density.
That nature of Nile Valley geology also needs to be emphasized. Nile Valley civilisation would never have thrived with large populations in Ta Seti (Nubia) because it is one of the harshest environs on Earth. Only in Kemet does the Nile Valley have a signficant flood plain, making the soil fertile and allowing for large scale agriculture.
Too few people comprehend that this is really what the boundary between so called Egypt and Nubia mark. After the 1st cataract the land in Egypt ceases to slope... it flattens out, causing the Nile river to overflow it's banks; the overwhelming majority of arable land in the Nile Valley is latitudinally contiguous with Egypt.
Now, those who are truly interested in understanding Kemetic origins need to put information from multiple lines of evidence together, and ask and answer the following:
1 where is the known geographic origin of Nile Valley population?
2 where is the known linguistic root?
3 where are the known cultural roots?
4 where are the earliest known genetic signatures?
5 what are the original physical archtypes?
6 how did AE refer to themselves and others ethnically?
quote: Orionix: Thanks, it's good to know. However i never thought of race a biological reality, rather as a historical and cultural one.
Hi, Orionix... Race is a biological reality; it's also common sense Racism is a historical and cultural reality; and it's nonsense but at the same time extremely destructive...
quote:Orionix: We can't project OUR race classification back 5000 years on a people who didn't share them. Ancient Egyptians would recognize that.
I think what you mean is that we can't or shouldn't project our racism back 5000 years on a people who didn't share them.
The Ancient Egyptians, like any sentient human society recognized racial, linguistic, cultural, etc., differences amongst human groups. In fact they were the first to establish a discipline of Ethnographic Representation; http://www.geocities.com/wally_mo
quote: Orionix: I feel that ancient Egypt had the same diversity as modern Egypt.
In a general sense, yes. However, you must remember that Egypt has been colonized by foreigners from outside of Africa (IE Asia) beginning with the decline of Pharaonic Civilization in the time of Psamanticus II (c595bce), and this colonization and settlement has grown exponentially since that time...
quote:Originally posted by Orionix: After all i guess the AEs were "racially" identical to the people who inhabit Egypt nowadays.
First of all, some of these new posters get me cracking by asking these "innocent" questions, when I think in terms of the number of threads here, that actually make it very clear that the myths in racist websites like Stormfront are just that, myths! Any thinking that goes contrary to reality, and dismisses concrete evidence in favor of wishful thinking is just a dream or a myth! Stories in such websites amount to what we call fairytales, that are as good as your Peter Pan or Goldie Locks story.
Now to address your quote: It makes a difference how you phrase your thoughts. If you were to simply say that AE was racially diverse, I can understand that to the extent of what I already know about AE and the timeframes of shifts in its population makeup, but to suggest that it has always been "identical" what you see today, is stretching reality little bit. You have to take into account that there was such a time, when there was virtually no Egypto-European contact, and that there was also a time, when there wasn't significant mixing between the newly arrived Asian imigrants and the indigenous Saharan or Nile Valley populations. After the Hyksos arrival, and much later on, during and after the Greek and Roman invasions, there were shifts in the population makeup with the ensuing foreign influx from Greece, Turkey, Britain and west Asia. Asians came into North Africa very early, but they mixed with the relatively less dense indigenous populations of those regions. As such, in Egypt the Asians were concentrated in "lower" part of Egypt, and the original tropical (to be specific; negroid) populations were more concentrated in regions below that. As the unification process began, the populations inevitably mixed more, with broader movement of people from North and South. Anyway, I hope you get the picture!
[This message has been edited by supercar (edited 23 October 2004).]
posted
I know, there is hardely any science on Stromfront, just people with a racist agenda.
However i DO believe race is cultural and not a biological phenomenon whatsoever.
The AEs were people of many color, however they did not identify as "black" or "white", just as Egyptians. Above all, the Egyptians were ethnocentric and hated most foreigners regardless of race.
quote:Originally posted by Orionix: I know, there is hardely any science on Stromfront, just people with a racist agenda.
Of course.
quote:Originally posted by Orionix: However i DO believe race is cultural and not a biological phenomenon whatsoever.[/B]
Yes, in a sense race is cultural, when you consider racism or social classifications in various nations. But again, you are missing the point that racial differences, have some biological reality to it, however *minimal*. For instance, you can't say that the kinky hair of most Africans or the blonde hair of Europeans have nothing to do with biology.
quote:Originally posted by Orionix: The AEs were people of many color, however they did not identify as "black" or "white", just as Egyptians. Above all, the Egyptians were ethnocentric and hated most foreigners regardless of race.[/B]
I think both Wally and I addressed this earlier. You can talk about the diversity of Ancient Egypt all day long, but it has no bearing on the culture as being authentically African, nor does it erase its foundation by the black populations of the Nile Valley.
quote: However i DO believe race is cultural and not a biological phenomenon whatsoever.
I agree with you, that race, as specifically defined as the Negro, Caucasian, Mongolian 3 race caste system, does not exist.
It does not exist anymore than caste (in the Hindu sense of the word) exists.
It is something that people believe in because of the useful social and political consequences of defining, manipulating and controling the identity concepts of masses of people.
The only difference between the Western racial caste system and the Hindu one, is that Hindu caste is based on religion, and Western is based on pseudo science.
As for Ancient Egypt, I beleive it is tragic that we have to discuss and debate the ethnicity of this society.
It is extremely important to understand that there was NEVER a debate about AE identity, until 17th century Europeans began attempting to:
a) separate the peoples they conquered from their own history and identity.
b) claim that the history/accomplishments of other peoples in fact, were 'their' history and belonged to them.
Europeans used 'race' as the core basis of this hateful ideology.
Europeans invented the concepts such as: 'Black Africa', 'the Hamite Myth', the 'true Negro myth', the Arayn myth, the sub sahara myth and so on....
...we are just dealing with the fallout of their tragic legacy.
The good news is, European racialist intellectualism is on it's last legs.
The fact that even 'white' scholars like Martin Bernal, Frank Yurco and Richard Poe are no longer willing to play along (at least in entiriety) is a sign of progress.
The fact that Africans are studying our own history and drawing our own conclusions based on our own insights is a more important sign.
I posted a link to an interesting essay called: Egypt, finally in Africa, by Aaron Kamugisha.
It noted that some of the nastier comments being made; attacking Egypts African identity, are starting to stink of dispair:
Such as Emily Vermuile noting the vicious warfare that existed between Kemet & Kush (Egypt/Nubia) during the 18th dynasty and implying that it must have therefore been a sign of racial hatred.
The observation is so foolish (given the overwhelming evidence of the Black African origins and affinities of the 18th dynasty), that it prompts Kamugisha to effectively note:
"such is the psychic devastation (on Eurocentrism) wrought by Diop/Bernal et all, that common sense is cast aside", in favor of ugly appeals to crude prejudice. That is essentially what Storm Front is a reaction too....the psychic devastation resultant from the downfall of racist perspectives.
Someday soon, the questioning of Kemet's African ancestory will become passe. But we're not quite there yet.
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 23 October 2004).]
quote:Originally posted by rasol: [B] I agree with you, that race, as specifically defined as the Negro, Caucasian, Mongolian 3 race caste system, does not exist.
It's very true.
Racial taxonomic classifications are not objective, biological realities. For example biodiversity is not linked in stable genetic packages called "races".
posted
I also have to chime in on the side of us who know that "race" is "b.s." Just a few thoughts:
Racial characteristics -- from skin color to kinkiness of hair to fatness of lips -- occur along a *continuum*, throughout humanity, which would suggest that "race" is just skin-deep.
What looks like "race" is just a concentration of certain features based on environmental selection, selection by beauty standards, patterns of intermixing, patterns of isolation, etc.
Personally, I can often look at an American "black" person and tell them from a Carribean black or an African black. Carribean blacks and American blacks came here on the same slave ships, and haven't been separated geographically all that long nor all that definitively, yet you already see a concentration of subtle "looks" among their populations (let alone among those populations with significant mixing, such as Dominicans). Similarly, there's an Eastern European "look" that you can tell from Western European. Different "looks" apparently happen very swiftly -- too swiftly for looks to mean very much.
This discussion also brings to mind an ad campaign in Brazil which appealed to people to more accurately note the "race" of their parents on census forms. The ad showed a child who for all the world looked like a white spaniard, sitting on the lap of her grandmother, who was clearly black. What "race" is that kid?
My own mom has grandchildren who were blonde when they were younger (my brother married a white woman). And now my nephew (who was blonde as kid) has also married a blonde. Will his children be "caucasian"?
What's more, there are 6.5 billion people on the planet today, and each of them have four grandparents, and those grandparents have four grandparents, and so on & so on... Yet there were far fewer people on earth just a few millenia ago than today...
My point? "Looks", ie."racial" physical characteristics, happen too swiftly and too easily for "race" to reflect anything more substantive than peoples' movements, intermixing, beauty standards, isolation, etc. I predict that after a while, people in California will begin to look different from people in NY. Separate races?
Are Philipinos a separate race from Japanese? Are pygmies a separate race from Masai? Are Arabs the same race as Ainu?
"Race" is a big ball of nonsense. It's good for one thing and one thing only: racism.
Racism, however, is REAL. Depending on where & when you're talking, it can affect everything from one's prospects in life as an individual to the survival of your people as a whole.
There *are* differences among groups of people, based on their values. But human beings are ultimately malleable: their potentialities aren't set by "race", which is what "race" as a "biological reality" implies.
Unless you're talking about a race of clones, race is no "biological reality".
Thank you, and have a safe drive home.
[This message has been edited by sunstorm2004 (edited 23 October 2004).]
Posts: 237 | From: New York, NY, USA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's very true that AE was a flourishing African civilization. The origin of which was the Nile Valley.
correct.
quote: However, we cannot apply OUR modern racial classifications on these ancient people who didn't use them.
yes, but you also need to understand that they referred to themselves as black peoples - literally kememu. when you deny that, you are trying to contradict their own conception of their identity and replace it with yours.
quote:Genetically speaking, The AEs clustered somewhere between the Meditarranean and sub-Saharan Africa.
see what i mean? you are contradicting your own warning against using modern concepts to define ancient people. you just did so yourself!
and genes do not cluster anyway, so attempting to create cluster groups between one thing and another can produce any contrived result that you like.
FOR EXAMPLE:
you realize that there are genetic studies that say Greeks and especially the ancient Greek founders of Western civilisation cluster with Africans and not with Europeans? Genetic distances are closer between Greeks and Ethiopian/sub-Saharan groups than to any other Mediterranean group and finally Greeks cluster with Ethiopians/sub-Saharans in both neighbour joining dendrograms and correspondence analyses. The time period when these relationships might have occurred was ancient but uncertain and might be related to the displacement of Egyptian-Ethiopian people living in pharaonic Egypt.” Danish medical journal “Tissue Antigens”, February 2001
so now what? be careful using genetic 'clusters', they can be manipulated to suggest whatever you want. (more Stormfront fodder)
and remember: the founding populations of Ancient Egypt were not necessarily any more (or less) heterogenious than Romans or Greeks, or other peoples Europeans commonly consider 'white'. They were darkskinned African people, who described themselves as such..... no need to cluster them between other things in order to describe what they themselves were. After all, they didn't see themselves as such "in between" people, so why should we?
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 23 October 2004).]
posted
I like sunstorm's observation. If only human societies can do away with racism, boy would human civilizations be far ahead than where they currently stand!
[This message has been edited by supercar (edited 23 October 2004).]
quote: Originally posted by Orionix First of all these people can't except the fact that human races or sub-species are a social concept.
I disagree, I think race is a biologically-based concept; however, the differences are too small between races to really make them subspecies (for example, there is only about a 0.032 difference between Negroes and Caucasians, and a 0.047 difference between Negroes and Mongoloids).
quote:Originally posted by those morons at Stormfront Fair skinned people built it up, darks brought it down.
According to physical analysis of remains in Upper Egypt it was the opposite of what Stromfront says. The foundations of ancient Kmt[Egypt] was within the negriod populations in Upper Egypt such as the Badarian and Nagada.
The Lower[Northern] Egyptians were probabaly more hetrogenous and did contain light and dark people. However, these populations did not contribute to the original rise of Egyptian civlization but to the reception of advacement from the south either in peaceful or warlike interaction. Either way it was from the Sahara and the Nile Valley that Egypt recieved most of it's boost. The old tired dyanstic race theory has already been thrown to the wayside of bad scholarship from early Egyptology. Archaeologist have found technological advancement occured with early Neolithic cultures such as Nabta Playa which strikinly has many rituals simialr to the Old Kingdom religious association with cattle. Yes, the cattle used in anceint Egypt was independently doemsticated in Egypt and not in Asia as once thougt.
Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ausar: [I thought it was the other way around?]
According to physical analysis of remains in Upper Egypt it was the opposite of what Stromfront says. The foundations of ancient Kmt[Egypt] was within the negriod populations in Upper Egypt such as the Badarian and Nagada.
The Lower[Northern] Egyptians were probabaly more hetrogenous and did contain light and dark people. However, these populations did not contribute to the original rise of Egyptian civlization but to the reception of advacement from the south either in peaceful or warlike interaction. Either way it was from the Sahara and the Nile Valley that Egypt recieved most of it's boost. The old tired dyanstic race theory has already been thrown to the wayside of bad scholarship from early Egyptology. Archaeologist have found technological advancement occured with early Neolithic cultures such as Nabta Playa which strikinly has many rituals simialr to the Old Kingdom religious association with cattle. Yes, the cattle used in anceint Egypt was independently doemsticated in Egypt and not in Asia as once thougt.
Even early Egyptologists some of whom developed dynastic race theories realized the pattern of Kemet's history was one of being established, advanced and refreshed from the African interior....and invaded and finally destroyed from the North.
From Allan Gardiner 1966: The Egyptians 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."
To SOY Keita, 2000: the earliest Nile Valley farmers in Upper Egypt for which there is record were locals, not immigrants and therefore the development of agriculture in this region was not due to demic diffusion from Eurasia
,,, this issue has been long resolved as a strictly intellectual matter, so the debate is about political obstinance, denial and obtuseness more than anything else.
Even Brace's methods are obtuse, such as:
* give Europeans distinct hominid ancestor, Neanderthal, and ignore the DNA evidence showing that Europeans don't actually appear to have Neanderthal DNA.
* use skulls from Gabon to represent all of Africa (true African), and ignore Africa's native skeletal diversity.
* exagerrate distinctions between (true African) and Egyptian skeletal remains, and cluster them accordingly, thereby removing Egypt from Africa
* should he be forced to do the obvious and compare Egyptian to Nubian skeletal remains....let's also remove Nubia (& Somalia, & Ethiopia) from contrived 'true' Africa disignation and so try to hide the obvious affinity.
* meanwhile avoid dealing with, Watusi, Beji, Fulani, Haratin, Oromo, Ahmhara, Tourag and others, so as not to end up with AE remains tied to a rather inconvenient and quite large and Pan-African "cluster".
note: i prefer discussing C. Loring Brace because his fallacies have to be taken seriously. StormFront is more... roll eyes & move on.
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 24 October 2004).]
Yes, but you also need to understand that they referred to themselves as black peoples - literally kememu. When you deny that, you are trying to [b]contradict their own conception of their identity and replace it with yours.
"Black" itself is a concept that didn't come into use until the 16th or 17th century at the earliest. "Black/White" is a primitive binary division of the world.
AFAIK, "Kemmet" didn't refer to the people's skin, but to the rich black earth of the lower Nile Delta.
quote:Originally posted by Wally:
The Ancient Egyptians, like any sentient human society recognized racial, linguistic, cultural, etc., differences amongst human groups. In fact they were the first to establish a discipline of Ethnographic Representation; http://www.geocities.com/wally_mo
That's some very interesting speculative linguistic work, but there's nothing in it that proves one way or another that "Kemet" refers to the color of the people's skin.
In fact, given that mural - and 99.9 percent of all ancient egyptian art dug up -we can easily see that they portrayed themselves as reddish brown IN OPPOSITION to black-skinned Africans. So why, then, would Kemmet refer to a skin color that the ancient Egyptians themselves did not see themselves as having?
[This message has been edited by Orionix (edited 24 October 2004).]
posted
Orionix, We know it's a little hard for you to stomach or accept but the ancient egyptians were black african people. Besides the modern data, the bible historically links the egyptians as black africans. The bible has Mizarim (Egypt) as the brother of Cush (Ethiopia).
Posts: 342 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
[In fact, given that mural - and 99.9 percent of all ancient egyptian art dug up -we can easily see that they portrayed themselves as reddish brown IN OPPOSITION to black-skinned Africans. So why, then, would Kemmet refer to a skin color that the ancient Egyptians themselves did not see themselves as having? ]
...Because I have pointed out before the reddish-brown skin was not realistic as people make it out to be. Even black skinned southern Upper Egyptians were portrayed as reddish brown and during the New Kingdom they were portrayed as dark brown. If you want to get technical the Khoisan are yellowish, the Fulani people in Western Africa are black Africans but often have lighter skin than the average Western African,and the pgmy people have more of a reddish tone instead of a pitch black tone.
Looking at artwork in ancient Egypt is not realistic like Greco-Roman sculpture. Lots of it is idealized,for even mummies in ancient Egypt were painted reddish brown and female mummies yellowish colors.
Realistic colors in anient Kmt is not really shown untill the 18th dyansty when the concept of Maat in artwork shows up.
See the following:
[......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
___Notice the modern Southern Upper Egyptian matches the color of the monument.
Reddish brown also sometimes served as a gender indicator:
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
quote:"Black" itself is a concept that didn't come into use until the 16th or 17th century at the earliest.
Where on earth do you get that idea? Reference to black as a physical characteristic of skin, hair, eyes, etc.. is etremely ancient and common and found in innumerable cultures.
Kemsit from the 11 dynasty, her name means - "The Lady is Black".
Black in Ancient Egyptian equals Kem, in Ancient Hebrew it is Ham. Hamite in Hebrew translates as Kememu (Kemite) in Ancient Egyptian. And yes, both terms were sometimes used as ethnic signifiers. Surely you know that?
quote:AFAIK, "Kemmet" didn't refer to the people's skin, but to the rich black earth of the lower Nile Delta.
WRONG. That is a another racist myth created by Egyptology in the 17th century. It is one of their most pernicious and oft repeated myths. Please see: http://www.tehutionline.com/newpage29.htm
quote:That's some very interesting speculative linguistic work, but there's nothing in it that proves one way or another that "Kemet" refers to the color of the people's skin.
Kemet[nu] refers to the nation. Kememu refers to the people.
Actually, it is the myth that Kmt refers to black soil that is purely speculative, and provably ridiculous.
And attempting to force interpretation that way is easily shown to be linguistically nonsensical. Try it.
Ro in Kemet[nu]: Speech of 'black soil'. Language of 'black soil'. Does that make sense? Does soil have a language?
Ro in Kemet[nu]: Speach of the 'black nation' language of the 'black nation'. Understand now?
European linguists understood this problem full well, so they attempt to interpret it as "Egyptian langauge".
This sleight of hand satisfies the layperson but a scholar recognizes the non-sequitor, and the tacit admission:
* Egypt is a Greek word and does not translate Kemet into English.
By admitting that Ro in Kemet refers to "Egypt" it is being aknowledged that this is a reference to a Nation, not to soil.
The nation is called Kemet. Kemet translates as Black, ie - the Black Nation.
That is literal translation. Any other translation is speculative, and in fact, evasive.
As for the use of skin color in Ancient Egypt as an ethnic identifier for other peoples, this was first acknowledged by Champollian the Younger when deciphered the MDW NTR,via the Rossetta Stone and was shocked at what he discovered: "Thus we have before our eyes the image of the various races of man known to the Egyptians... the last one is what we call flesh-colored, a white skin of the most delicate shade, a nose straight or slightly arched, blue eyes, blond or reddish beard, tall stature and very slender,clad in a hairy ox-skin, a veritable savage... he is called Tamhou.... I certainly did not expect, on arriving at Biban-el-Moluk, to find sculptures that could serve as vignettes of the history of the primitive Europeans, if ever one has the courage to attempt it."
Tamhou - white people. Kememu - black people.
It refers to their lighter and darker skin coloration.
It is not speculative, there is no other possible translation. It is a fact. A commonly evaded one, but a fact nonetheless.
It is not an error to refer to AE as black people. Even people who object but use the term kmt, are doing so....they just don't know it....and of course in the case of storm front types...they don't want to know.
posted
The truth about ancient Egyptians is that they were Egyptians. Alot has changed over the past 10,000 years but much has remained the same...
Posts: 887 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by blackman: Orionix, We know it's a little hard for you to stomach or accept but the ancient egyptians were black african people. Besides the modern data, the bible historically links the egyptians as black africans. The bible has Mizarim (Egypt) as the brother of Cush (Ethiopia).
The important thing to understand about the bible is that the Hebrews get their concept of ethnicity from Kemet (Egypt)
Ham (blacks) Shem (semite) Jepth (whites)
...is just the Hebrew version of
Kem (black) Nam (semite) tam (white)
In translating Hebrew to Ancient Egyptian Hamite becomes Kemite.
Ironically, the very same, rather weak thinking individuals who go on and on about the ethnic basis of Hamite, will turn right around and deny that Kemite has ethnic basis.
Meaning: the ancient Hebrews, join the ancient Egyptians, the ancient Greeks, and the brightest early European interpreters of the devine Kemetic speech on this point.
Meanwhile: Their opponents in Eurocentric Egyptology are trapped in a semantic quagmire, which they cannot themselves even make sense out of, much less explain.
quote:The truth about ancient Egyptians is that they were Egyptians. Alot has changed over the past 10,000 years but much has remained the same...
Actually they didn't become 'Egyptians' until the Greeks invaded.
Also remember between 1958 and 1971 the Nation was called the United Arab Republic, until Sadat changed the name back to Egypt. As an initial step toward creating a pan-Arab union, the republic abolished Syrian and Egyptian citizenship, termed its inhabitants Arabs, and called the country “Arab territory Less we forget (encyclopedia/infoplease).
So, in a sense, saying they were always Egyptians...is like saying they were always Arabs. Understandable and yet not quite true.
quote:Originally posted by rasol: The important thing to understand about the bible is that the Hebrews get their concept of ethnicity from Kemet (Egypt)
Ham (blacks) Shem (semite) Jepth (whites)
...is just the Hebrew version of
Kem (black) Nam (semite) tam (white)
In translating Hebrew to Ancient Egyptian Hamite becomes Kemite.
Ironically, the very same, rather weak thinking individuals who go on and on about the ethnic basis of Hamite, will turn right around and deny that Kemite has ethnic basis.
Meaning: the ancient Hebrews, join the ancient Egyptians, the ancient Greeks, and the brightest early European interpreters of the devine Kemetic speech on this point.
Meanwhile: Their opponents in Eurocentric Egyptology are trapped in a semantic quagmire, which they cannot themselves even make sense out of, much less explain.
Rasol, We agree on the same thing. We had a thread awhile back on Ham/Kam/Kem is all the same, just as Cush/Kush/Nubia/Ethiopia. All mean the same thing just used by different people.
posted
It is quite well known that the reddish-skin color was symbolic, but if you were to take it literally, then it would reflect that Egyptians saw themselves in a color similar to other Africans. In the Abu Simbel reliefs, various Nubian and Ethiopian (don't confuse this with the modern nation of Ethiopia) war captives were shown with the same reddish-brown skin color as their Egyptian captors. One specific photo shows the Pharaoh presenting these war captives to the God named Amon-Ra. I have pointed this out in an earlier thread, but unfortunately I haven't been able to find the photo of this specific relief on the internet! At any rate, we have touched this point in the following link:
If we were to look at these colors from the way you (Orionix) seem to be doing it at the moment, then we would probably have to come to the conclusion that Egyptian women were of a different race from their men!
BTW, I think Ausar has made good explanation on the usage of colors in AE paintings, and the timeframe of changes in the application of color.
[This message has been edited by supercar (edited 24 October 2004).]
quote:Orionix:That's some very interesting speculative linguistic work, but there's nothing in it that proves one way or another that "Kemet" refers to the color of the people's skin.
You're displaying an extreme case of De Nile!
But just for the sake of argument, for the moment, forget the word 'Kemet' and look at another word which the Ancient Egyptians used to describe themselves; "Kememou"
The reason why I want you to focus on this word is because we can verify its precise meaning by reference to a contemporary Egyptian language, namely the Sahidic Coptic dialect, the latest stage of the Ancient Egyptian language:
Sahidic Coptic: Kmem means 'black' 'ou' means people; ones So, in the contemporary language of Sahidic Coptic 'Kmemou' means "Black people" Now, if you were to try an convince anyone familiar with this language that Kmemou meant 'the Black soil people,' they would look at you rather strangely...
It would do no good, of course, to reference you to my website on the meanings of Kemetian colors, however, I will add that the ideology of color representation was later borrowed (and altered) by the Greeks:
quote: Aristotle Those who are too black are cowards, like for instance, the Egyptians and Ethiopians. But those who are excessively white are also cowards as can be seen from the example of women, the complexion of courage is between the two -Physiognomy, 6
[This message has been edited by Wally (edited 24 October 2004).]
posted
I assumed the reference was to Martin Bernal, who is white and Jewish.
Many people assume he is black because he wrote Black Athena and is sometimes attacked as an Afrocentric.
Bernal's Black Athena enrages Eurocentrists including Mary Lefcowitz (also Jewish) because Bernal is white, and yet has rejected much of the racially mythological dogma that passes for 'western' history. (such as the 'Greek Miracle')
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 24 October 2004).]
posted
First of all most Anthropologists understand race as a social construction or as a cultural reality, not a biological one.
"Race” is today primarily a sociological designation, identifying a class sharing some outward physical characteristics and some commonalities of culture and history.
All human populations who are alive today are extremely similar genetically. Therefore most researchers have abandoned the concept of race for the concept of the cline, a graded series of differences occurring along a line of environmental or geographical transition. A cline is a systematic variation in allele frequency across geography.
The claim that the ancient Egyptians were Caucasoid or Negroid is very primitive. These people didn't share our racial classifications.
There is no objectible description of who or what is black.
I think that from the Afrocentric point of view "black" as a linguistic term is quite expansive in terms of its meaning and affiliation with people of dark skin.
Most Egyptians were dark, that is certain but there were the fair skinned ones, like the Lybians and Syrians.
Cleopatra for example wasn't of Egyptian origin, she was Macedonian.
The Tasian culture is possibly the oldest-known cultural phase in Upper Egypt (c. 4500 BC).
Thus it's best known from evidence found on the east bank of the Nile River at al-Badari and at Deir Tasa. Tasian remains are somewhat intermingled with the materials of the subsequent Badarian stage, and, although the total absence of metal and the more primitive appearance of its pottery would seem to argue for an earlier date, it is also possible that the Tasian was contemporary with the Badarian. Archaeological remains indicate that the Tasians were settled farmers who cultivated emmer wheat and barley and raised herds of sheep and goats. Pottery vessels were reasonably well made, with open bowls and bag-shaped forms predominating. The dead were usually buried in straw coffins, with the bodies in crouching or bent positions.
Now who were the Badarians?
The Badarian structure is said to have affinity to "black" people.
Dr. Eugen Strouhal Physical Anthropologist was able to take samples of seven of the racially mixed Badarian individuals which were macroscopically curly [spirals of 10-20mm in diameter] or wavy in [25-35 mm]. They were studied microscopically by S. Tittlebacchova from the Institute of Anthropology of the Charles University, who found in five out of seven samples a change in the thickness of the hair in the course of its length, sometimes with simultaneous narrowing of the hair pitch. Strouhal summarized: "The outline of the cross-sections of the hairs was flattened, with indices ranging from 35 to 65. These peculiarities also show the black inference among the Badarians (pre-dynastic Egyptians)." (Journal of African History, 1971). Thus, this is incompatible with the theories that the black element only infiltrated into Egypt at a late stage.
quote:Originally posted by rasol: I assumed the reference was to Martin Bernal, who is white and Jewish.
Many people assume he is black because he wrote Black Athena and is sometimes attacked as an Afrocentric.
Bernal's Black Athena enrages Eurocentrists including Mary Lefcowitz (also Jewish) because Bernal is white, and yet has rejected much of the racially mythological dogma that passes for 'western' history. (such as the 'Greek Miracle')
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 24 October 2004).]
I don't know about him but his father was irish-born.
quote:Cleopatra for example wasn't of Egyptian origin, she was Macedonian.
Correct! But it's like noting that Cecil Rhodes (who Rhodesia was named after) was British and not Zimbabwean. Precisely because he was not Zimbabwean he has no bearing on the fact that the Zimbabweans were MaShona Africans....not Europeans. Same with Cleo7 who has no bearing on the discussion precisely because she was not of Egyptian origin.
quote:The claim that the ancient Egyptians were Caucasoid or Negroid is very primitive. These people didn't share our racial classifications.
Who is our? It certainly isn't my classification system and I agree with you that it is an ignorant and ugly caste system of classification.
However if we agree then we must not apply terms like caucasoid or negroid to describe anyone. Otherwise it is hypocritical and just another example of the racist use of the terminologies.
quote:There is no objectible description of who or what is black.
I assume you mean "objective"? I don't disagree but I am concerned about the implied double standard. Are you saying that there IS an objective standard of 'whiteness'?
quote:I think that from the Afrocentric point of view "black" as a linguistic term is quite expansive in terms of its meaning and affiliation with people of dark skin.
That's an ahistorical statement. In the context of the Western world it is Europeans who labeled vast amounts of people 'black', not just in Africa, but in India, Australia and elsewhere. They meant the term as being relative to themselves of course.
Frankly, the fact that some Europeans don't like the term applied particularly in one instance to Ancient Egyptians is a textbook example of Western racist hypocrisy.... and nothing more. But I find all the hand rubbing (what is black?) amusing nonetheless.
quote: Most Egyptians were dark, that is certain but there were the fair skinned ones, like the Lybians and Syrians.
True, not all AE were darkskinned. Not all Nigerians are darkskinned either. Not all French are lightskinned. Not all Ancient Greeks or Romans were lightskinned either.
As for Syrians they were called Aamu (asiatics), and sometimes deshretu red ones.
Libyans (of different ethnic groups) were called Libou, it's means "westerner" in Kemetic language and referred to anyone from west of Kemet.
Noting the above is just the same as noting that Kememu means black people. Sorry, but you cannot deny the truth of how the Kememu referred to themselves because it does not satisfy your modern ethnophobia (kemophobic fear of blackness). That is one of the many mistakes made on Storm Front, almost ritually. Don't repeat it.
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 25 October 2004).]
quote:Originally posted by rasol: I assume you mean "objective"? I don't disagree but I am concerned about the implied double standard? Are you saying that there IS an objective standard of 'whiteness'?
[QUOTE]I think that from the Afrocentric point of view "black" as a linguistic term is quite expansive in terms of its meaning and affiliation with people of dark skin.
That's an ahistorical statement. In the context of the Western world it is Europeans who labeled vast amounts of people 'black', not just in Africa, but in India, Australia and elsewhere. They meant the term as being relative to themselves of course.
Frankly, the fact that some Europeans don't like the term applied particularly in one instance to Ancient Egyptians is a textbook example of Western racist hypocrisy.... and nothing more. But I find all the hand rubbing (what is black?) amusing nonetheless.
quote: Most Egyptians were dark, that is certain but there were the fair skinned ones, like the Lybians and Syrians.
True, not all AE were darkskinned. Not all Nigerians are darkskinned either. Not all French are lightskinned. What is the point?
As for Syrians they were called Aamu (asiatics), and sometimes deshretu red ones.
Libyans (of different ethnic groups) were called Libou, it's means "westerner" in Kemetic language and referred to anyone from west of Kemet.
Noting the above is just the same as noting that Kememu means black people. Sorry, but you cannot deny the truth of how the Kememu referred to themselves because it does not satisfy your modern ethnophobia (kemophobic fear of blackness). That is one of the many mistakes made on Storm Front, almost ritually. Don't repeat it.[/QUOTE]
It appears that Orionix keeps falling into the trap of his own contradictory thoughts. It seems like he is taking the direction of making the Kemetians appear "raceless" beings, so as to dampen any commentary on Kemetians being regarded as black people or at least it's culture being referred to as a black African culture. In other words, his comments have the symptoms of a half-hearted attempt to reach a compromise. At the end of the day, the Kemetians will always be African, even if we were to leave the racial classifications out of it!
quote:The Tasian culture is possibly the oldest-known cultural phase in Upper Egypt (c. 4500 BC). Thus it's best known from evidence found on the east bank of the Nile River at al-Badari and at Deir Tasa. Tasian remains are somewhat intermingled with the materials of the subsequent Badarian stage, [/B]
"the existence however of the Tasian as a chronologically or culturally seperated unit has never been demonstrated....most scholars consider the tasians to be simply a part of Badarian culture. 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." Oxford history of Egypt, 2000.
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 24 October 2004).]
quote:It appears that Orionix keeps falling into the trap of his own contradictory thoughts. It seems like he is taking the direction of making the Kemetians appear "raceless" beings, so as to dampen any commentary on Kemetians being regarded as black people or at least it's culture being referred to as a black African culture. In other words, his comments have the symptoms of a half-hearted attempt to reach a compromise. At the end of the day, the Kemetians will always be African, even if we were to leave the racial classifications out of it!
I can appreciate the concept of someone who rejects the concept of race completely as a personal stance.....but, I am not a sucker.
I am aware that some will reject the concept of race only inasmuch as it means evading the notion of Egyptians as Black Africans, or other such inconvenient realities.
Meanwhile, they still believe themselves to be: white, caucasian, europeans, and certainly distinguish themselves from black african, asians and what not, in their own minds.
Giving the benefit of the doubt is one thing...playing the fool, quite another.
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 24 October 2004).]
posted
If Orionix has a genuine belief of the 'no race' concept, well then, I say good for him. However, his comments have something about them, that occasionally hint otherwise. Enough already; time will tell...
[This message has been edited by supercar (edited 25 October 2004).]
I am aware that some will reject the concept of race only inasmuch as it means evading the notion of Egyptians as Black Africans, or other such inconvenient realities.
Meanwhile, they still believe themselves to be: white, caucasian, europeans, and certainly distinguish themselves from black african, asians and what not, in their own minds.
Giving the benefit of the doubt is one thing...playing the fool, quite another.
Good catch Rasol, It's interesting how the ancient egyptians have gone from a definition of white, to caucasian, to mediterrian caucasian, to arab, and now finally No Race. All of this to deny the fact that they were black africans.
quote:Orionix: First of all most Anthropologists understand race as a social construction or as a cultural reality, not a biological one. "Race” is today primarily a sociological designation, identifying a class sharing some outward physical characteristics and some commonalities of culture and history. All human populations who are alive today are extremely similar genetically. Therefore most researchers have abandoned the concept of race for the concept...
If you were to assemble a group of several adults with the purpose of engaging in a rational discussion of, let's say, human sexuality and just one of the individuals involved was a sexual pervert, this would seriously compromise the discussion. The pervert, because he sees everything sexual as being perverted, would constantly distract from the discussion.
You have the same problem with racists. Because they see everything in terms of their perverted belief in racial superiority or inferiority, they cannot rationally deal with the topic of race, even going so far as to camouflage their racism with the inane declaration that "race doesn't exist." It's the same as a misogynist trying to conceal his hatred of women by proclaiming, he "doesn't see men and women, only people" (yeah, right...)
There exists, in reality, distinct human races, distinct human cultures, distinct nationalities, distinct ethnic and tribal groupings, etc. whose existence doesn't confer nor infer any superiority nor inferiority upon any of these -- they simply exist.
You don't end racism by pretending that there's no such thing as race. That's called "infantilism"...
quote:Orionix: These people didn't share our racial classifications.
Therefore, the Ancient Egyptian Ethnographic murals are henceforth null and void, irrelevant, of no consequence, doesn't agree with me...
[This message has been edited by Wally (edited 25 October 2004).]
quote:Originally posted by Wally: Therefore, the Ancient Egyptian Ethnographic murals are henceforth null and void, irrelevant, of no consequence, doesn't agree with me...
[This message has been edited by Wally (edited 25 October 2004).]
Sorry but this has nothing to do with infantilism.
Since black is not an objective discribtion i would say the Egyptians just reffered to themselves as dark people. Look there were so many pictorial representation of BROWN and REDDISH Egyptian rulers, but hardly any Black ones. The Egyptian artwork clearly shows a people that were neither black NOR white, in the majority, exactly as the Arab-Egyptians who inhabit the land nowadyas.
Race is not a biological ententity. Most scientists agree on that. Race is merely the conduct of human history and culture.
For example, there is no objective describtion of what "white" or "black" is. It varies from culture to culture.
Of course i'm not coming to deny human biological variation, however our genes are not linked in discreet, stable packages called races.
Since black is not an objective discribtion i would say the Egyptians just reffered to themselves as dark people. Look there were so many pictorial representation of BROWN and REDDISH Egyptian rulers, but hardly any Black ones. The Egyptian artwork clearly shows a people that were neither black NOR white, in the majority, exactly as the Arab-Egyptians who inhabit the land nowadyas.
Orionix, You are still missing the point. I'm not sure if it is on purpose. AUSAR already stated the painting prior to the 18th Dynasty were more symbolic. ASUAR is egyptian himself.
Also, my skin color is reddish/brown and I'm a black man. Not all black people are black. There are also black people with skin color paler than mine.
Also, the Arabs didn't arrive in eygpt until around 700 AD. The arabs have nothing to do with Ancient Eygpt.
quote:Since black is not an objective discribtion i would say the Egyptians just reffered to themselves as dark people.
wrong. and what is not objective is your thinking.
There is a theory that words have power, and one way you can tell how powerful a word is, is when someone is irrationally afraid of it.
Your denial of 'black' (which kemetians held sacred by the way) merely embues the term with more power and significance precisely because you fear it. So your by now apparent strategy of pretending not to grasp the obvioius is quite flawed I'm afraid.
What you may want to do in order to help yourself face the truth is get an mdw ntr-english translation dictionary, and look up the word black, in the Ro in Kemet and let us know what you discover. You realize that black does exist, and there is a word for it in virtually every known language. If you manage to discover that the word in the mdw ntr for black is not kem, then let us know what word 'does' mean black.
quote:Look there're so many pictorial representation of BROWN and REDDISH Egyptian rulers,
the symbolic use of color (and not just in Kemetic iconography, btw., but in other culture art as well) has been explained clearly by ausar, wally and supercar.....when you can't refute the facts, just pretend not to understand them, seems to be the tactic of the moment. (shrug)
quote:but hardly any Black ones
Actually there is an entire catagory of jet black iconography in ancient Kemet known as Kem Ho - literally Black Face, used to represent royalty and devinity. The most famous of these is KemIsis (Black Isis) and KemOsiri (Black Osirus).
This is the basis of the 'Greek' Goddess Isis and the Black Madonna in Christian mythology? check:
The worship of Isis and Horus was especially popular in ancient Rome. "Roman legions carried this figure of Black Isis holding the Black infant Horus all over Europe where shrines were established to her. So holy and venerate were these shrines that when Christianity invaded Europe, these figures of the Black Isis holding the Black Horus were not destroyed but turned into figures of the Black Madonna and Child. Today these are still the holiest shrines in Catholic Europe" - lol. now what? Maybe argue that black doesn't really mean black in English either?
Do you know what I find interesting about your posts? You shed light on a question i've always wondered about: The Black Madonnas originally all had Africoid features before most of them were destroyed by iconoclastshttp://www.saxakali.com/suzar/madonna.htm
quote:Of course i'm not coming to deny human biological variation, however our genes are not linked in discreet, stable packages called races.
This statement is true. There is no collection of genes to define a race.
quote: "The genetic legacy of current humans is PREDOMINANTLY of African origin,"
Absolutely, and this is why the 3 race labeling system: and in particular the idea of a caucasian race...is COMPLETELY PHONEY.
quote:Now the Tasians and Badarians were of Cro-Magnon stock so we can't really claim them as "black" or "white".
here, you contradict yourself. Cro-Magnon 'stock' is a racial term, and a dubious one at that. it attempts to link people who may not be genetically, geographically or culturally related, based upon questionable criterion.
which leads too....
Alan Gardiner on the Badarians:: 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."
SOY Keita on the Badarians: Badarian crania were studied with European and African series from the Howells' database, using generalized differences and cluster analysis (neighboring joining and UPGMA algorithms). Greater affinity is found with the African series
As for Black or white: The Badarians lived in tropical Africa and certainly had dark skin color. We don't know what they called themselves, but we do know what their presumed Kemetic descendants called themselves - Kememou (Black ones).
To this point, it is fair to say that you've offered us no objective reason why the AE should not be considered Kememou, besides the modern prejudices you are imposing upon them.
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 25 October 2004).]
posted
As I pointed out earlier, Orionix's real intentions will become clear over time...we are getting there. If he is really where he claims to stand on the concept of race, his comments will show it. Real thoughts have a way of coming accross one way or the other through the communication medium , whether or not one chooses to veil them.
BTW, every dark color the Egyptians have used on other Africans, the Egyptians used on themselves at some point or another in their paintings. As shown earlier, Osiris and some others have been shown in jet Black color. Orionix said earlier, that it is unfair to project modern racial bias on Kemetians, but he is guilty of that very action, when projects his own "no concept of race" on people who actually had one. The Kemetians obviously had a concept of race, and their paintings (murals showing racial types) have been explicit about this!
[This message has been edited by supercar (edited 25 October 2004).]
quote:Originally posted by blackman: Orionix, You are still missing the point. I'm not sure if it is on purpose. AUSAR already stated the painting prior to the 18th Dynasty were more symbolic. ASUAR is egyptian himself.
Also, my skin color is reddish/brown and I'm a black man. Not all black people are black. There are also black people with skin color paler than mine.
Also, the Arabs didn't arrive in eygpt until around 700 AD. The arabs have nothing to do with Ancient Eygpt.
Like i said before "black" is not objectively defined.
If you take the American terms of what is black than the anceint Egyptians were on the majority black people.
This is why most Anthropologists agree that race is a cultural and a political entity.
In genetics, race was replaced by the cline (a term which denotes selection and geographic variation or genetic distance)
Arabs as an ethnic group had nothing to do with ancient Egypt but i believe that phenotypically they were similar.
Topic Closed
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic