I use of the term "Multi-Racial" in a non-scientific/laymen sense to mean of multiple genetic and phenotypic origins. The record indicates that Black people are the first people of Africa, Asia, Europe and the Americas. The record indicates that these Black human beings utilized the Nile Valley as the main route to colonize the rest of the world. The record indicates that there was a more recent, mesolithic migration of Black Africans out of Africa and around the circum-mediteranean basin. The record indicates that these Black Africans were the first people to settle the Nile Valley following the Last Glacial Maximum and that they serve as the basis for the Pharonic Civilization. Instead of debating about the Blackness of Ancient Egypt I say that the onous is on the Eurocentric to prove that Greece really was not a multi-ethnic society.

1) The Sub-Saharan E3b Y chromosome lineages.

2) The Nile Valley derived micro-burin techniques that fostered the neolithic period.

3) The so-called "Negroid" cranial remains that made up 14% of the Greek neolithic population.

4) The presence of the Benin Sickle Cell variant...

All indicate that unlike Egypt which was initially a Pan-African melting pot, Greece was initially a African, Asian and European melting pot.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:

The record indicates...

---

...none of your Afronut fantasies about Blacks being something more than Sub-Saharan savages.

But in answer to your attempted hijacking of Greek Civilization . . .

Craniometry of Ancient Greeks:

Y-chromosomes of their direct descendents:

quote:

---

Craniometry of Ancient Greeks:

---

I prefer to use the term multiethnic because the Eurocentric term of race (and its usage) tends to add to many layers of inconsequential personal subjective baggage that is contentious and ugly in its manifestation.

quote:

---

Yazis, first, there is no such thing as a eurocentric. This is a term invented by wild, bug eyed black political operatives designed to create a phony alternative history. It has no credibility with the mainstream academic community.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by yazid904:

Greece was one state that described the presence of Africans without the ignorance and greed of othern founding states of the day.

---

Thought Writes:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
Thought Writes:

Your absolutely right Yazid. And amazing as it is the Greek claim of Ancient Egyptian roots has been recently substantiated via genetics, linguistics and archaeology.

---

Relates to the "excuse" that the skeletal remains of Ancient Greece studied by Larry Angel and referred to as Negroid from Nubia are Khoisan, and Khoisan are not "Black."

Khoisan are in fact Black and considered as such in Southern Africa.

More to the point, Khoisan speakers typically practice hunter/gatherer and not agricuture as the Neolithic migrants into Greece did, and Khoisan speakers almost always harbor eldest Y chromosome A lineages, in conjunction with Pn2 lineages.

To my knowledge, there is no Khoisan population harboring significat E3b1 [Borana/Oromo/Somali/Nubians/UpperEgyptians],which makes up 23% of Greek male lineages to this day.

quote:

---

Bernal might seem to be on stronger ground when he argues that Greek philosophy was "borrowed" from Egypt, because ancient writers state that famous Greeks such as Plato, the mathematician-astronomer Eudoxus, and the legendary Pythagoras studied there. Bernal and the Afrocentrists suggest that modern scholars because of their anti-African prejudices have not acknowledged fully the importance of this Egyptian "connection." That is of course possible, but there is a better explanation. Ancient historians have not taken seriously the ancient evidence about Greeks studying in Egypt because we have reason to believe that it is not literally accurate. Before the conquest of Egypt by Alexander in 323 BC, very few Greeks could travel there, since the country was under the control of their enemies, the Persians. No contemporary of Plato mentions his studying in Egypt; the legend that he did developed only centuries after his death. The ancient writers who claim that Plato and other famous Greek philosophers studied in Egypt do so in order to show their respect for Egypt and the antiquity of its civilization, but they had no direct evidence that these men ever spent time there. In effect, they created a connection because they wanted such a connection to exist -- we would now call the result myth rather than history."

Some of you will remember from my article "Ethnocentric History from Aristobulus to Bernal" (Academic Questions Spring 1993) that this type of historical myth-making was common in antiquity, particularly among subject peoples. The Jews in Hellenistic Alexandria said that Plato had studied with Moses! In making this claim, they did not concern themselves with the question of language or problems of chronology. Rather, their aim was to establish that their civilization was more ancient than that of the Greeks. For the same reason, when Egypt was under Greek domination, Egyptian priests were eager to point out to Greek tourists the houses and the names of the teachers with whom the famous Greek philosophers were supposed to have studied. This type of "reconstruction" of the past was common in antiquity, and can be found even in the authors who created the notion of serious historical writing, such as Herodotus and Thucydides. It is not hard to see why they did so. Ancient writers were often compelled to rely on guesswork or imagination. They did not have an accurate system of dating, the resources of archaeology, or libraries to turn to. Even when they had access to books, it was difficult for them to find exact references because the books were in the form of papyrus rolls.

-- Mary R. Lefkowitz. "Willful distortions of history", Vol. 8, Academic Questions, 06-01-1995, pp 28.

---

quote:

---

Another group that has been the subject of much discussion is the Khoisanid peoples (including the Hottentots, San, !Kung). The San (Bushmen) in southern Africa are a group that physically looks quite different from other Negroids. Baker (1974), and Coon (1965) among others, have argued they are as different from Negroids as Caucasoids are, and should be treated as a separate race from other Negroids. The genetic data reported here shows them to differ more from other sub-Saharan Africans than any of the sub-Saharan groups differ from each other (p. 175).

---

quote:

---

If Angel's "negroid nose and mouth traits" represent black racial admixture, then where are the other Negroid traits? Where's the Negroid hair type, skull shape, skeletal form, pigmentation etc.? Funny how these Nomadic Neolithic Niggas transmitted only two of their traits to the Levantines and Greeks. Funny also that in his more detailed analyses, Angel makes no mention of a Negroid racial strain in either Neolithic farmers or modern Greeks. Neither does Coon for that matter. Nor Brace. Any answers, Negroes?

---