posted
As a egyptian i have talked to many egyptians from all over egypt south to the north and i am disappointed to say this but the majority of them deny the egyptians were africans because that would hint to them being african and they dont want to be african i have lived in many arab countrys Yemen,saudi arabia,Oman,Iraq and they all look down on black africans they use the term abed in arabic and it has two different meanings one for an arab the other one for a black african even with in my family because of there ignorance and there racial bigotry. In my village in Aswan there are many beja they are a bedouin tribe and they remind me of the ancient egyptians more than my own saeedi masri people not saying that the beja are not my people but they are considered as blacks not the same as we so called people of the Arab Republic of Egypt. I have been studing ancient egypt ever since i was a boy i use to go to Cairo with my grandfather and we use to stop at alot of the ancient sites especially the Great Pyramids my grandfather use to tell me that our Kingdom was Great and vast stretching from northern Egypt to Northern Ethiopia & Israel i dont really know even till this day how my grandfather had so much knowledge of ancient egypt when he never went to school he was just a peasant felleheen farmer but he had alot of knowledge of Ancient Egypt. I have kept studing till know and i have come to the conclusion that my egyptian ancestors were africans similiar in appearance to the Sudanese Eritreans Ethiopians Somalians Africans of AFrica i think that we egyptians now a days have so much admixtures Turks Greeks Arabs Europeans but we still have the ancient egyptian blood which i would say is the African blood so i am african People of Masri are African and there is no denying it there is to much evidence pointing my identity to the Africans of Africa. Even my socalled Semitic culture is derived from the African Negro culture. There is no way u can Explain the Negro Ancient Egyptian World by the socalled Semitic World. The Semitic World as we concieve of it today is too recent to Explain Ancient Egypt.
Posts: 526 | From: Aswan Egypt | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Many of the Beja people in Aswan make up false geneologies trying to connect themselves to Arab tribes. The particular Beja people in Aswan are the Ababda. Many Aswani people are black.[I don't just mean the Nubians either] Some people also known as the Gi'afra consider themselves Arabs but are really Arabized people.
Yes, there is racism in modern day Egypt towards more inner African people. You hear words like hebab or other terms that are slurs. Honestly, I have no idea where such racism came from. The influence either came from Arabs,Ottomans,or Europeans. You also see many Egyptian females bleach their skin to get a more fair complexion and be like westerners.
My ancestors are also Sa3eedi fellahin that were proud of their non-Arab origins.
Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
Welcome to the Forum. I hope to see you post on this forum more often. As for your question about the Egyptians, Yes I believe them to be Africans. I Used to think that Ancient Egyptians were Closer to Europeans or middle easterners then Africans. But after coming to this forum and reading all the good information provided by the main posters(Rasol,Supercar,Djehuti,Kenndo,Mansa Musa and Thought)I am happy to say that I also began looking at Egyptians as Africans. I have never been to a forum where all the evidence they use is up to date and not twisted to serve an agenda. I don't even visit other Ancient Egypt forums because I don't need to. This forum is the Best. It is too bad that Modern Egyptians are ashamed of their African past. But to me it is nothing to be ashamed of. They need to accept that they are Africans. I can safely speak for the rest of the posters on this forum that they like me do believe that Egyptians are Africans.
Peace
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
there is nothing to believe or disbelieve. Egypt is African and Denmark is European. No rocket science involved and it is not a stretch! If you are using modern day definition societal constructs of Africa then that is a different animal.
Posts: 1290 | From: usa | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem here is not so much the FACT of bias among modern Egyptians towards darker Africans. The problem is the DENIAL by many western Egyptologists and Egyptians that this sort of bias exists at all. But this is not strange because technically, Egyptology is mainly focused on the FIRST 3,000 years of Egypt's history, not the last 2,000. In fact they would rather ignore it, because Western Egyptology exists because of the "generosity" of the foreign rulers of Egypt in the 1700s. During the 1700s and 1800s many of the artifacts taken out of Egypt were taken with PERMISSION of the Egyptian authorities. Mohammed Ali and other European and Turkish rulers of the country wanted to DESTROY ancient Egyptian monuments either because they were against Islam, wanted to use them for building materials and other such ANTI ancient Egyptian type reasons. Not only does this show how that the foreign elites held ancient Egyptian culture in disdain and scorn, but also that Europeans benefitted from this to aqcuire many monuments for PRIVATE collections, which eventually went to museums. In the late 1700s, France, under Napoleon, and Britain fought for control of Egypt. France was defeated by the British, but then a local leader, Mohammed Ali, rose and defeated the British. Subsequently, France and Britain sent agents to Egypt secure concessions for their home countries. Among the concessions granted to these Europeans were the rights to excavate various monuments in Egypt. Now when I say rights to excavate, I mean that they had the rights to TAKE whatever they found. It was during this period of Egyptian history that MANY Egyptian monuments and artifacts were TAKEN out of Egypt. This only ACCELLERATED during the colonial period, after the British defeated the Egyptians and colonized Egypt. As a result of the resistance to British occupation and the realization of the importance of ancient Egyptian history to tourism and trade, Egypt began to clamp down on the taking of Egyptian artifacts out of Egypt. Not coincidentally, the discovery of Tut's tomb was a seminal point in this process, when Egypt REFUSED to allow the British to take Tut's artifacts out of the country (Carter felt they were HIS artifacts and that someohow it was HIS heritage). Many Europeans who were active in the freewheeling period of the late 1700s to early 1800s felt that these monuments represented their own heritage, no doubt inspired by the scorn of the Turks and Islamicists towards anything Egyptian.
Likewise, Cairo is predominantly the capital city because it was founded and built by foreigners. Therefore Cairo has a higher population of foreign derived Egyptians than other places. It was the ruling seat of foreign invaders and is still home to the descendants of these foreigners, the modern Egyptian elite.
Sure, there has been mixing between Egyptians and people of Europe and the Levant since the beginning. However, the modern populations of Cairo and places in the north are NOT the same populations that existed in 3000 B.C. Also, the NORTH of the country was sparsely populated relative to the South in ancient times. So people in the North were relatively a smaller than the population in the South. Over Egypt's long history there has ALWAYS been a struggle between South vs North. Many times it was a battle between foreign backed Northern princes against Southern African backed Southern Princes. These facts are recorded for posterity. What you have now is an Egyptian government THOROUGHLY dominated by foreign descended elites, with the MOST indigenous parts of the population at the VERY BOTTOM of the socio-economic ladder.
Egypt now wants to promote tourism for its monuments among Europeans at the same time trying to keep the antiquities from being destroyed by religious zealots. Likewise, Egypt tries to make ancient Egyptian history part of a wider pan-arab history, but in order to do so, it would have to blot out the history of ANTI ancient Egyptian sentiment by many of the Islamic Arab and European rulers of Egypt for the last 1300 years. It would also have to blot out the history of slavery in East Africa and Egypt promoted by these same European and Arab Islamists. Therefore, what you get is a distorted view of history that tries to EMPHASIZE ties between Egypt and the wider "Middle East" when there WERE NONE. Ancient Egypt REGULARLY fought against invaders from the Levant and Libya. Ancient Egypt suffered as a result of incursions from the Levant, Europea and Libya. Therefore, trying to make Egypt part of a wider "Middle East" only distorts the relationship between Egypt and the "Middle East", meaning other parts of North Africa, the Mediterranean and Levant. Sure, there were relationships and blood ties between some Egyptians and people from these areas, but Dynastic Egyptian culture AROSE from the SOUTH of Egypt, where presumably there was NOT much of any relationship with people in the Levant and other parts of Northern Africa. Therefore, this distortion of Egyptian history results in minimizing of the South of Egypt as the important player in Egypt's dynastic period as well as over emphasizing Northern Egypt. Cairo and the NOrth may be the center of power the elites in modern Egypt, but in the dynastic period it was the opposite. Therefore, just as many of today's Northern Egyptians have ties to the greater "Middle East", ancient Elites would have had ties to the South and other parts of Africa to the South.
posted
^So, I heard that most northern Sudanese, Ethiopians, and Somalians are "Arab-mixed", and that Dravidians Indians and ancient Mexican Olmecs were Africans. Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Im glad that i am not the only Egyptian in here who thinks that the real Ancient Egyptians were black. Most all of Egyptian Sudanese even the ethiopian Pakistani Eritrean Muslims always give them selves Quareshi lineage wanting to be related to Muhammed i see this among all muslims from african to Malaysians. Djehuti u are right about Northern Sudanese Ethiopians and Somalians most people consider them to have a arab admixture but that is completely wrong its the other way around Arabs have there blood not Africans there blood. Have any of u been to Yemen it is really a african/Arab country u can travel threw out the whole country and u will see so much things that will remind u of africa for instance there is Habishi Ethiopian writing everywhere very old stones with writings that are still used in Ethiopia till this day i have even been to SAudi Arabia near the Hijaz i even saw Ethiopian writings there. Most historians say that the people who Built Ethiopias great civilization came from Yemen this is a joke for me.
-------------------- Hikuptah Al-Masri Posts: 526 | From: Aswan Egypt | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Self proclaimed "Arabs" have ruled Egypt for the last 1500 years. These Islamist rulers had to sever the connection between the people and their history in order to better control them. This is why much of modern Egypt is Muslim, with Arabic cultural traits that are NOT native Egyptian. It did not get this way by choice.
Note that NOWHERE in this history of Egypt under Arabs is the practice of slavery or forced conversion even mentioned. Nowhere is the practice of sexual slavery and intermarriage mentioned. This was a WIDESPREAD practice in the Muslim domination of Africa, starting with East Africa, yet it is OMITTED from MANY history books concerning Egypt and other North African countries. In fact to GET such information you have to get SPECIAL books dedicated to the topic of Arab slavery in Africa:
posted
Dough M, what you wrote about deserves a thread of its own. I have personally studied the Medieval period from 640 A.D. down to the 1800's in Egypt's history.
I will respond to many of you comments about Medieval Egypt:
quote:Self proclaimed "Arabs" have ruled Egypt for the last 1500 years. These Islamist rulers had to sever the connection between the people and their history in order to better control them. This is why much of modern Egypt is Muslim, with Arabic cultural traits that are NOT native Egyptian. It did not get this way by choice.
This is not entierly true. The Arab rulers of Egypt were mainly the Umayyads,Abbasids and Fatimids. Egypt was also ruled by Kurds,Turks,and Mamelukes. Don't forget about the Tulunids,Ayyubids,Mamelukes,and Ottomans.
Many of the rulers like Hakim from the Fatimid had foreign origins. Such as Hakim who was born of a Greek Christian mother. Al Ma'moun was a Persian who was a Abbasid ruler.
Yes, the early Umayyad and Abbasid caliphs taxed the rural Egyptian fellahin very harshly which lead to many riots in both Upper and Lower Egypt. One of the most famous was called the Bashmur revolt where women and children were sold into slavery in the markets of Iraq.
During the date of 720 a caliph named Yazid made a decree that no non-Arabic language shall be spoken in the caliph so Arabic became the offical language.
Forced conversations to Islam is a rather contreversial subject in medieval Egyptian history. Medieval Egyptians probably both converted by will and force. We can understand this better if we used papyri from the medieval era in Egypt's history.
During the early Umayyad caliph under a pratice called Mawali non-Arab converts to Islam were treated unfairly. Mawali included Egyptians,Berbers,Persians and whoever else was non-Arabic people part of the empire.
quote:Note that NOWHERE in this history of Egypt under Arabs is the practice of slavery or forced conversion even mentioned. Nowhere is the practice of sexual slavery and intermarriage mentioned.
Depends what sources on Medieval Egyptian history you read. Many books I have read on this period mention the various revolts of the rural Egyptians. Most of the victims of slavery in medieval Egypt were primarily composed of Circassian,Turks, and Magrebians. The rural Egyptians were never a primary source for slaves because they made up the bulk of tax payers.
During the medieval period most Egyptians were rural farmers with some urban Egyptians living in places like al-Fustat and later al-Qahira.
quote:This was a WIDESPREAD practice in the Muslim domination of Africa, starting with East Africa, yet it is OMITTED from MANY history books concerning Egypt and other North African countries. In fact to GET such information you have to get SPECIAL books dedicated to the topic of Arab slavery in Africa
You cannot look at all parts of Africa as monlithic is relation to Muslims or Arabs. Areas like the Magreb[Northwestern Africa] indeed have long histories of supression of the indigenous culture. Eastern Africa is a different story where there was a equal union between indigenous Africans and Arabs. Greco-Roman texts such as the Periplus of the Red Sea mention how Arab sailors would often go into modern day Tanzania take local wives and adopt the culture of the people.
This does not exclude the atrosities done by Omani Arabs during the 1800's in areas like Central Africa. Many of the raiders in Central Africa were Omani arabs that raided Bantu and Nilotic Africans.
Islam in areas like the Horn of Africa was not forced nor was it forced on the Swahili people.
Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ausar: Dough M, what you wrote about deserves a thread of its own. I have personally studied the Medieval period from 640 A.D. down to the 1800's in Egypt's history.
I will respond to many of you comments about Medieval Egypt:
quote:Self proclaimed "Arabs" have ruled Egypt for the last 1500 years. These Islamist rulers had to sever the connection between the people and their history in order to better control them. This is why much of modern Egypt is Muslim, with Arabic cultural traits that are NOT native Egyptian. It did not get this way by choice.
This is not entierly true. The Arab rulers of Egypt were mainly the Umayyads,Abbasids and Fatimids. Egypt was also ruled by Kurds,Turks,and Mamelukes. Don't forget about the Tulunids,Ayyubids,Mamelukes,and Ottomans.
Many of the rulers like Hakim from the Fatimid had foreign origins. Such as Hakim who was born of a Greek Christian mother. Al Ma'moun was a Persian who was a Abbasid ruler.
Yes, the early Umayyad and Abbasid caliphs taxed the rural Egyptian fellahin very harshly which lead to many riots in both Upper and Lower Egypt. One of the most famous was called the Bashmur revolt where women and children were sold into slavery in the markets of Iraq.
During the date of 720 a caliph named Yazid made a decree that no non-Arabic language shall be spoken in the caliph so Arabic became the offical language.
Forced conversations to Islam is a rather contreversial subject in medieval Egyptian history. Medieval Egyptians probably both converted by will and force. We can understand this better if we used papyri from the medieval era in Egypt's history.
During the early Umayyad caliph under a pratice called Mawali non-Arab converts to Islam were treated unfairly. Mawali included Egyptians,Berbers,Persians and whoever else was non-Arabic people part of the empire.
quote:Note that NOWHERE in this history of Egypt under Arabs is the practice of slavery or forced conversion even mentioned. Nowhere is the practice of sexual slavery and intermarriage mentioned.
Depends what sources on Medieval Egyptian history you read. Many books I have read on this period mention the various revolts of the rural Egyptians. Most of the victims of slavery in medieval Egypt were primarily composed of Circassian,Turks, and Magrebians. The rural Egyptians were never a primary source for slaves because they made up the bulk of tax payers.
During the medieval period most Egyptians were rural farmers with some urban Egyptians living in places like al-Fustat and later al-Qahira.
quote:This was a WIDESPREAD practice in the Muslim domination of Africa, starting with East Africa, yet it is OMITTED from MANY history books concerning Egypt and other North African countries. In fact to GET such information you have to get SPECIAL books dedicated to the topic of Arab slavery in Africa
You cannot look at all parts of Africa as monlithic is relation to Muslims or Arabs. Areas like the Magreb[Northwestern Africa] indeed have long histories of supression of the indigenous culture. Eastern Africa is a different story where there was a equal union between indigenous Africans and Arabs. Greco-Roman texts such as the Periplus of the Red Sea mention how Arab sailors would often go into modern day Tanzania take local wives and adopt the culture of the people.
This does not exclude the atrosities done by Omani Arabs during the 1800's in areas like Central Africa. Many of the raiders in Central Africa were Omani arabs that raided Bantu and Nilotic Africans.
Islam in areas like the Horn of Africa was not forced nor was it forced on the Swahili people.
What I am saying is that the FOREIGN invaders established themselves as the ELITE class in Egyptian society. The pictures I posted show how EUROPEAN these leaders were and very UN Egyptian. Therefore, whether Egyptians were enslaved directly is one thing, but there is no doubt that the darkest Egyptians were held in contempt and at the BOTTOM of the social/economic/political ladder. Therefore, the ELITE in modern Egypt is STILL dominated by the largely northern largely foreign derived Egyptians. So I do not agree that Egypt was peacefully settled into the muslim world. Egypt was incorporated as a vassal state as part of the larger Islamic empire and the people there treated as vassals, ie fellahin. But , underlying all of this, the darker skinned Egyptians and those from the south are at the LOWEST rung of the ladder. Sure, they may not be slaves, but in general they are not high on the social pecking order either. Therefore, it is easy to see how these darker skinned people would be treated with scorn by the "elite" crowd, especially since the darker ones could be considered closer to the slaves that they DID bring from other parts of Africa. I am also thinking that the darkest Egyptians may have also been enslaved, or at least kept in a social status which was akin to menial servant and laborer.
quote: There was a well-established hierarchy of labor which constructed the work and world of the slave in Egypt in the nineteenth century, itself a construction of stereo typing about the qualities of different races and ethnicities. White Circassian women were at the top of this ladder and were welcomed into the harems of the wealthiest and most prestigious households. Ethiopian women came next, bought often as concubines for the middle class. They were not prized for their household work as were other African women, who came lower on the scale.
What I am saying is how could this heirarchy of labor based on ethnicity NOT affect dark skinned inhabitants of Egypt? Sure they may not have been ENSLAVED, but they werent going to make it into the higher rungs of society either, which would ALSO have been based on a similar sort of heirarchy based on ethnicity. Hence, the darkest of the Egyptians are kept at the bottom and are least likely to be accepted as the ANCIENT forefathers of Egypt's golden age and MORE likely to be treated as menial laborers more than anything else. That is what I was getting at, to answer the question of WHY Egyptians DONT want to identify with darker skinned Africans. Who wants to identify with SLAVES? So what we are talking about here is a socioeconomic pyramid, which would have placed the foreign born or descendants of foreign born at the top with the most indigenous and darkest at the bottom. This is similar to what happened in ALL colonial African societies, whether European or Arab and what causes such African self hate amongst those groups directly affected.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:What I am saying is that the FOREIGN invaders established themselves as the ELITE class in Egyptian society. The pictures I posted show how EUROPEAN these leaders were and very UN Egyptian. Therefore, whether Egyptians were enslaved directly is one thing, but there is no doubt that the darkest Egyptians were held in contempt and at the BOTTOM of the social/economic/political ladder. Therefore, the ELITE in modern Egypt is STILL dominated by the largely northern largely foreign derived Egyptians. So I do not agree that Egypt was peacefully settled into the muslim world. Egypt was incorporated as a vassal state as part of the larger Islamic empire and the people there treated as vassals, ie fellahin. But , underlying all of this, the darker skinned Egyptians and those from the south are at the LOWEST rung of the ladder. Sure, they may not be slaves, but in general they are not high on the social pecking order either. Therefore, it is easy to see how these darker skinned people would be treated with scorn by the "elite" crowd, especially since the darker ones could be considered closer to the slaves that they DID bring from other parts of Africa. I am also thinking that the darkest Egyptians may have also been enslaved, or at least kept in a social status which was akin to menial servant and laborer.
The following you mention is very complex and requires greater understanding of what occured in Egypt's more recent history. The elite in Egyptian society often do have foreign mixture and foreign origins. However, you forget that over the years many people have migrated into Egypt since the falle of the pharoanic era and all classes might have some foreign mixture. I tend to agree to your assertion that the lower classes in Egypt tend to be more authenic than the upper echeolns.
I asked a question earlier that went unaswered so maybe you can then answer it. Who brought the concept of colorism into Egypt? Arabs,Ottoman Turks ,or Europeans? Are you saying darker skinned Egyptians were held in contempt during what era? The Medieval era,Ottoman era or more modern era?
You do realize that slavery in the Arab world was not just restricted to ''black'' people but extended also to white eastern Europeans and many others. The Arabs did develop a hierarchy system of ''black'' Africans with Africans like the Nubians and Horn Africans on the top with the Bantu and Nilotic Africans on the bottom. Arabs prefered Abyssinian and Nubians over others as wives and would often free the children of these unions.
During the Ottoman period most of the cooks and servents within the households of the Pashas were fellahin from northern Egypt.
BTW, the lower classes of Egypt are often darker skinned than the elites but there are exceptions such as the following of Taha Hussein:
He was born a poor blind farmer in Minya,Egypt[that is Middle Egypt] and not very dark. He was born on the lowest rung of society of Egypt. See his biography:
He was blind and poor, but overcoming many obstacles, he was accepted in that university. He later stated, in Al-Ayyam (The Days) that the doors of knowledge were from that day opened wide for him.
What I am saying is how could this heirarchy of labor based on ethnicity NOT affect dark skinned inhabitants of Egypt? Sure they may not have been ENSLAVED, but they werent going to make it into the higher rungs of society either, which would ALSO have been based on a similar sort of heirarchy based on ethnicity. Hence, the darkest of the Egyptians are kept at the bottom and are least likely to be accepted as the ANCIENT forefathers of Egypt's golden age and MORE likely to be treated as menial laborers more than anything else. That is what I was getting at, to answer the question of WHY Egyptians DONT want to identify with darker skinned Africans. Who wants to identify with SLAVES? So what we are talking about here is a socioeconomic pyramid, which would have placed the foreign born or descendants of foreign born at the top with the most indigenous and darkest at the bottom. This is similar to what happened in ALL colonial African societies, whether European or Arab and what causes such African self hate amongst those groups directly affected.
Egypt has been a foreign dominated society since the era of 330 B.C. and most rural Egyptians are on the complete bottom of Egypt's hierarchy. This includes fellahin from the Delta and Sa3eedi people from southern Egypt. Yes, the more fair skinned Egyptians walk around and look down upon the darker Egyptians but this will eventually change. Dark skinned Nubian people were dsicriminated at first but have risen above even both fellahin and Sa3eedi people in Egyptian society. Most Nubians in Cairo are known professional people that tend to be very educated.
The elites in Egypt do tend to be either Egyptians with foreign admixture or foreigners that have migrated into Egypt. Fair skin in Egyptian society tends to be viewed as more beautiful than darker skin. This factor plays out most when somebody choices a mate for marriage. Women are probably the most affected by this because many try to bleach their skin to get a temporary fair complexion.
Know the question for you is if you know when such colorism came into Egypt? Did it come from Arabs,Ottoman or European influences?
Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
Many have said that the Arab dislike and disrespect of Africans started with the cultural and religious differences of Africans versus Islam and Arabs, as well as things like the Zinj rebellion and writings of people like Al-Jahiz.
2. The Ottomans. The Ottomans may not have been Arab, but they were STILL following in the footsteps of their Arab Muslim predecessors as slave holders and using slaves to build their empire.
3. The Europeans pretty much got most of their ideas of slavery and racism, albeit more against "black" Africans than whites from the Arabs and Ottomans.
Of the three, the WORST were the Arabs and Ottomans. Why? Because men were made eunuchs and women were made concubines, where if they had children, the children were killed on the spot. THAT is why there are very few mixed African descendants in the former Ottoman Empire and places like Iraq, which had large numbers of African slaves. The European system wasnt much BETTER, but the slave was a commodity no better than cattle or livestock and therefore more VALUABLE alive not only as a worker but as a producer of offspring.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Many have said that the Arab dislike and disrespect of Africans started with the cultural and religious differences of Africans versus Islam and Arabs, as well as things like the Zinj rebellion and writings of people like Al-Jahiz.
Yes, the Zanji from the modern day areas of Tanzania,Kenya and other parts were often slaves in the areas of the Abbasid Iraq. I am not excusing neither the Arab pratice of slavery nor the racism that many Arabic writers expressed for black people.
Don't forget to mention that Arabs also detested Eastern Europeans and Turkish people whom they used as slaves. The Arabian slave trade was not based upon race like the American system. Many of the enslaved people of all ethnicities could rise up and become rulers or great scholars. Some African example is the great Zaryab and also a ruler from the Abbasid caliph was of African origin.
quote:2. The Ottomans. The Ottomans may not have been Arab, but they were STILL following in the footsteps of their Arab Muslim predecessors as slave holders and using slaves to build their empire.
Slavery and slave trading existed well before both the Ottomans and Arabs. Greco-Romans had a system of chattel slavery. Most of Athens was comprised of slaves.
quote:3. The Europeans pretty much got most of their ideas of slavery and racism, albeit more against "black" Africans than whites from the Arabs and Ottomans.
Of the three, the WORST were the Arabs and Ottomans. Why? Because men were made eunuchs and women were made concubines, where if they had children, the children were killed on the spot. THAT is why there are very few mixed African descendants in the former Ottoman Empire and places like Iraq, which had large numbers of African slaves. The European system wasnt much BETTER, but the slave was a commodity no better than cattle or livestock and therefore more VALUABLE alive not only as a worker but as a producer of offspring.
The concept of eunuchs actually is something that both the Arabs and Ottomans learned from the Byzantines. Greco-Romans had this concept well before both these people ever established an empire.
The reason why there are so few desendants is because there was very little stigma mixing with desendants of slaves. Unlike America, neither the Arabs nor Ottomans had laws that restricted intermarriage between desendants of enslaved Africans. Thus most of the desendants of enslaved Africans melted in the population. The other factor being very few males were imported into the Arab world for plantation labour nor breed for such activity. The only exception was of course in Southern Iraq. The Zanji revolt put a end to plantation based slavery in the Arab world.
Many rulers in the Arab world came from concubines. A concubine who gave an Arab father a son was adopted and raised as an Arab. He could also own his father's property and become ruler if his father is in such a status.
Neither eunuchs nor concubines were restricted to just black people. Plenty of Slavic people were imported into Arabia as concubines and eunuchs.
BTW, there are still existing populations of both Afro-Iraqis and Afro-Turks. Plenty of the desendants of enslaved Africans still exist in areas like Qatar,Saudi Arabia,Bahrain,UAE and Kuwait. Plenty of Arabs from Syria down to Yemen have Mtdna lineages that trace back to even Central Africans.
Information about Afro-Turkish people from the Ottomans empire:
The Invisibility Of Turks Of African Origin And The Construction Of Turkish Cultural Identity The Need for a New Historiography Esma Durugönül
Akdeniz University
This article analyzes the formation of national/cultural identity as well as historiography and history education in Turkey, the latter elements being fundamental to a sound understanding of identity formation in any society. African Turks, whose ancestors were brought to the Ottoman Empire at that time and of whose presence many in Turkish society today are not informed at all, are taken as an example of the elements of Turkish society that have been neglected.
posted
Hello Hikupatah. If Africans are mostly people with fuller noses and mouths and woolier hair than 98% of whites and Asians, I'd say ancient Egyptians were Africans as these pictures show.
posted
And what of the people who have narrower noses and mouths and non-wooly hair, who are just as indigenous to Africa?
By your definition they are not African.
External typologies have their limits and lead to erroneous conjecture in determining who is African -- i.e., the indigenous peoples of the African continent, it's nearby, isles, and dare I add the far northeast extension of the continent aka the Arabian tectonic plate.
On top of that your definition is dependent on whites (why not call them Europeans?) and Asians (why not call them a colour?) instead of being self-determining.
But, to come around to the topic, of course the Kmtyw were Africans. This forum is dedicated to outlining that fact through more than mere typologies (as Herodotus wrote when proposing Colchidean origin from Egypt, many peoples are black with wooly hair so that means little, he went on to provide cultural similarities to support and convincingly demonstrate his point).
Oh, and before I forget, once again an excellent graphics job from you Marc. I do hope one day that we all can collaborate on producing a flash frame website like Oppenheimer and the Bradshaw Foundation, Wells and National Geographic w/IBM, and Forster and Cambridge University's McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research have done.
At that point we'll have moved beyond reactionary protest and bad mouthing Eurocentics to proactively producing something of substance in the form of a teaching aid suitable for all.
quote:Originally posted by Marc Washington: ... Africans are mostly people with fuller noses and mouths and woolier hair than 98% of whites and Asians ...
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
I follow your point. In an earlier post, I stated that with the North American ideology of classification one can see that it is abritrary and bogus.
You have: a. black b. Caucasian c. Asian
These are minimum. Why not have all colours and continue with pattern 1 as follows:
a. black b. white c. yellow We can capitalize?
Pattern II Why would a European want to be associated with fringe dwelling part of Europe regarding the location of the now Caucasian Republics, hotbed of Islamic determination: We will use continent a. European b. African c. Asian (makes better sense but logically)
Pattern III Shall each group choose which part of a continent they want to be associated with? Obviously not!
Posts: 1290 | From: usa | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Marc Washington i think u misread what i wrote but i actually noted that all the features of the world are african africans have straight nose broad nose light skin straight hair those are all features of africa from east to south to west to north it is still africa no matter who u are. Ausar from my point of view and studying slavery actually the arabs did the worst to africa actually all of North AFrica had a Black population but they wiped them all out u say that Islam entered the Horn of Africa with peace but i dont think so they actually killed millions of sudanese before they arabized it they tried ethiopia so bad but they were to independent and strong to be succumb to the Turks or the Arabs and from Colonization by the Whites. Al-Jahiz even says that the arabs and whites never conquered his people nor his land that the blacks ruled them but they can never rule the blacks he even goes as far as to say that arabs have African guards and footsoldiers because they are the mightiest and the arabs never feel secure inless there is an african as a guard. What Al-Jahiz is talking about is before the birth of Muhammed Habashi/Abyssinia ruled most of arabia but they never used racial bigotry but when the arabs gained control they used racial discrimination to say that the Africans were Kaffirs and Animals.
-------------------- Hikuptah Al-Masri Posts: 526 | From: Aswan Egypt | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
Bro. alTukruri (and thanks for the compliment on the web page) you wrote (to my quote I’ll place below): “And what of the people who have narrower noses and mouths and non-wooly hair, who are just as indigenous to Africa?” You made the point the definition was not completely inclusive. And Hikuptah, you noted that blacks have features of all races down to light skin and straight hair. Yazid. Your points are well taken. And, I surely agree with you. The definition I gave IS NOT water-proof and inclusive of every type. This is why in the web page I uploaded two days ago and here below I wrote:
“The word African is here being used with a different meaning. Some will oppose (4) who even fit the profile (4) because there is a stigma to being African (as used here); but it largely (not completely) defines one of the 3 major racial types. African here means one who has SOME combination of a mouth and nose which is fuller and hair woolier than 98% of whites and Asians.” Last week in a post I also added: “In addition to there features, steatophygia and negritoes are also Negroes.” In regards to that last sentence, I wrote something like that although it is coming out clumbsy.
The key words above here are [1] “largely (not completely)” and [2] “some combination of …” In [1] I was referring to exceptions such as the negrito (of which Ur Nammu, founder of Ur III and forerunner to Hammurabi, Nammu posting the first code of law) Ur Nammu has dainty features not full. Most negritoes are the same as well as the Andaman Islanders and a host of ancient Egyptians. I’ll make a page of them one day. In [2], I had in mind, e.g. a white-skinned person with wooly hair.
And, get this. And the irony of the “Lost Africans” web page, is that while most of those in the pictures would not be identified as African/black/Negro most of them consider themselves to be. On the other hand, Tiger Woods looks African/Negro / black but says he’s not. (So, it gets really complicated and I don’t want to get into all the nuances).
I use the term FOR VERY, VERY SPECIFIC reasons and purposes. I use the term half to have a working defintion that is mostly intelliglble; and half for my web pages which focuses almost exclusively on those features in selecting prehistoric and Bronze Age figures and in working with indigenous populations in (for instance) Northern Europe, Alaska, and Canada that have African features the way I define them. It’s true I omit hundreds of people in those pages who are African but by look can’t be claimed so. I use the term and select pictures based on it to make presentations of Africans where it can’t be claimed that they are not African and they fit the criteria for what I call African.
So, please know that I am aware of the limitations of the definition and am usually giving a brief, incomplete description of the term to save time and space. However, the points you made are all well-taken and I, on another level, take the same position as you.
Take care,
Marc Washington
-------------------- The nature of homelife is the fate of the nation. Posts: 2334 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:African here means one who has SOME combination of a mouth and nose which is fuller and hair woolier than 98% of whites and Asians
You are too Americanized! You unconsciously parrot what you think your soceity thinks of you! If America told you Pamela Anderson was black you would have most likely accepted this classifiction, and probably had a whole different strategy presented here, so to show how unique thoughts you had on "Africans" and their natural blondism. But if they thought blondism was something unnatural in Africa you would have probably gone beyond your power so to show how little light haired people are Africans
Africa is a big continent, your narrow definition of how people who have lived here for centuries should look like is false and simplistic. People in Algeria have no "combination of a mouth and nose which is fuller" than 98 percent of the European population, but they are still Africans. Maybe its high time for you to respect that, and try to see the world from a new angle!
Posts: 1420 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hello again, Yonis. Thinking more about what you said, I realize I did not address your question as to expanding my view of who is African to include the "look" of Algerians, for example.
One unspoken guideline I keep in mind, and I realize this would infuriate many, is that when I think of "African" I think mostly of the population before incursions from the Steppes began near 2000 BC which changed the character and phenotype of the original people. Today, it's sure you'll find all the types Hikuptah spoke of - a virtual rainbow defying description.
But, today's Africa (or world) is not where my sight is set. There are plenty others who do set their sights there and that is fine. There is space for diversity and difference. And in that difference is my narrow focus with its limitations.
I don't know if this answers or satisfies your question but it's an honest answer.
Respectfully yours,
Marc Washington
-------------------- The nature of homelife is the fate of the nation. Posts: 2334 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:One unspoken guideline I keep in mind, and I realize this would infuriate many, is that when I think of "African" I think mostly of the population before incursions from the Steppes began near 2000 BC which changed the character and phenotype of the original people. Today, it's sure you'll find all the types Hikuptah spoke of - a virtual rainbow defying description.
Africa is a great landmass, there is nothing that says this whole landmass should be occupied by "black" people. I personally don't believe the whole of Africa belongs to "black" people. Since Europe and Asia could have easily be totally connected with Africa(and by that be part of Africa) if nature wanted that. But because of the read sea and meditteranian sea, thats not the case.
I mean seriously is a Moroccan in Tangier closer to a Zulu in Southern Africa than a Spaniard who is just across the Gibraltar strip to Morocco just because people from Marroco and Zulu share the name of the continent, (never mind the distance)??
I personalyy think distance is what should count when it comes to calculating peoples affinity rather than name of the landmass, which can strech for million miles (in theory) and doesnt make any sense, since we interact with people closest to us, not because they live in the same unbroken landmass.
I think just because its called Africa people think it should equall "black" land, and that is totally redicoulas imo. Africa is too diverse and should be celebrated.
So your opinion of who's African and who's not is totally irrelevant, since you don't have the authority nor power to dictate such a heavy decision...
Posts: 1420 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Don't know if a continent can belong to a group of people, other than its territories being distributed and occupied by the various groups which live on the said continent. Fact though, is that Africa, a geographical term for a landmass or continent, has become a geopolitical entity; which means that, it is treated as a separate entity from other landmasses, which are also treated as geopolitical entities.
Most indigenous Africans do share lineages and close genealogical relationships, no matter how far apart from one another they may seem, in their present situations. The PN2 clade serves as a good example for this.
Whatever may be said about the notion of equating "Africa" with "black", it should be noted that...
Africa's climate and environment has influenced and continues to influence the success of various bio-evolutionary processes, that are natural to Africa; however, lack of skin pigmentation or very little of it, is not among them...
Africa is a great landmass, there is nothing that says this whole landmass should be occupied by "black" people. I personally don't believe the whole of Africa belongs to "black" people. Since Europe and Asia could have easily be totally connected with Africa (and by that be part of Africa) if nature wanted that.
Now, this can be your argument and you can say what you like. However, I mentioned not one single word about color in my definition. That was on purpose. I speak of head and facial features and I think that's enough. Color is IRRELEVANT (to me; everyone has their own opinion).
As far as the Spanish and other groups are concerned who could easily cross the borders into Africa, [give or take 300 years as I am not certain of the dates of the following] the white / Caucasian / Steppic people began to enter in trickles that turned hundreds of years later into floods for each given place:
Mesopotamia near 3100 BC
Turkey near 2100 BC
Nubia near 1500 BC
Syria near 1900 BC
The Grecian Islands near 1800 BC
Rome near 900 BC
Spain near 100 BC
Central Europe near 200 AD
Came to Britain near 200 - 400 AD
Came to Spain near 100 AD
Germany near 100 AD
Caucasians are rather new to these areas, to tell the truth. In some countries, they have not been there 1000 - 1500 years though those countries are recognized as white today. People can come from (or, go back-and-forth between) Eurasia to Africa but before these dates, all those people were "African" and after (by degrees) white.
So, I believe that to look at the settled world prior to 2000 BC would be looking at almost wholly "African" settlements and cities. And after, increasingly white until we get to the landscape of today's world.
For instance, today I was researching the Eskimo and Indian population of Northern Europe, Canada and Alaska. People have some stereotype of what these people look like. But, I have pictures and the pictures (I'll put them up one day) show that these people have lots of "Africans". And this is following years of their being "thinned-out" by incoming Europeans. The original population in those lands were "African." You'll see what I mean when I put up the pictures.
People speak of black skin as being due to climatic and environmental factors. Skulls tell us there were Africans in Upper Paleolithic Europe and photos of those same people today show them to be black skinned. I am afraid all those arguments have to be thrown out of the window as they (based on what the pictures show) are inadequately substantiated ideas and hypotheses - tantamount to a wish list.
To conclude, I believe that Africa before incursions of people from the Steppes was made of "Africans" and after the Steppe population, we saw more-and-more diversity until we arrive at today's populations that defy description and defy being neatly put into anybody's box.
All the best,
Marc Washington
-------------------- The nature of homelife is the fate of the nation. Posts: 2334 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hello Yonis. I had mentioned earlier that my focus is on Africa prior to 2000 BC before other people came leading to the end of life as it had been lived for thousands of years. Things always change, don't they? Even as we age from children to old men, we change a little every day without noticing it from one day to the next!
Here is an example of the life style and people 5000 BC and earlier. One day I will put together some pictures that I have to give a better idea of what Africans and African life was like back then. But.
I think there are over 50,000 rock art sites in Algeria alone.
quote:But, I have pictures and the pictures (I'll put them up one day) show that these people have lots of "Africans". And this is following years of their being "thinned-out" by incoming Europeans.
This is because you have a nonsensical conception of 'African' based on subjective regard of 'facial features.'
The above is the same line of argument that is used to suggest that Africa's original population was " caucasian/european" and so non-African.
Eskimo are not Africans, not recent descendants of Africans, and are among the least related people to Africans on earth.
Your opinions about their facial features is not scientific and is in fact completely irrelevant.
Here is the reality of the biological relationship of Native Americans/including Eskimo to Africans as presented by Cavelli Sforza - History/Geography of Human genes. They are in fact considerably less related to Africans than are Europeans:
^ Feel free to invalidate the above, which requires something more than photoshop.
Pseudo-science:
* fails to define it's terms. * contradicts itself on it's own terms. * fails to progress - ignores current science, and repeats the same outdated descredited concepts over and over again.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thank me by not repeating pseudoscientific racialist fallacies, especially if you intend your graphics to be teaching tool to children. Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hi Rasol. I looked back over your post and realize I did not address your question.
First, I want to say that I am impressed with your knowledge. I feel honored you'd share it with me!
As to pictures being a teaching tool to children. We are all children, aren't we? And they do say a picture is worth a thousand words!
You have asked for proof that African populations were replaced. I offer you the picture below to multiply a thousand times as the original population is there no longer. Actually, there is lots and lots written about what happened to people encountered when the Europeans-to-be expanded in the Ancient Near East, Turkey, India, Europe, Africa, America, the Pacific, China, Japan. You name it:
As to the documentation you asked me for? This is something you can easily do yourself and I am going to let you do it. Here's how. Go to your internet browser and type in GERMANIC EXPANSION ROMAN EMPIRE. And, also do a search on the Germanic ALEMANI TRIBES. That should give you all the information you are looking for.
You will see that the heart of this expansion is extremely recent and occured just from near 50 BC to 400 AD at which time (400 AD when the German Almani tribes defeated the Roman Empire - I'll one day put up a bunch of pictures for you showing that the Roman Empire was mostly African peoples) at which time those people were wiped out. I would give you more examples but it is too depressing. Here is a map of the Germanic expansion with dates:
Rasol. It is always an honor to converse with you. But, this may well be my last post or reply to you here at Egypt Search. I PROBALY WON'T REPLY TO YOU AGAIN in this or other threads.
You will have the last word. It's okay.
Take care,
Marc
-------------------- The nature of homelife is the fate of the nation. Posts: 2334 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Marc Washington: Hi Rasol. I looked back over your post and realize I did not address your question.
First, I want to say that I am impressed with your knowledge. I feel honored you'd share it with me!
As to pictures being a teaching tool to children. We are all children, aren't we?
No we aren't. But even a child would have noticed that you tried to flatter and stall, but still did not answer my question.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Marc Washington: You have asked for proof that African populations were replaced.
You post a picture of Southern Algeria from 5000 BC.
Are you saying that none of the modern populations in the sahara are descendant from the Neolithic saharans?
quote:I offer you the picture below to multiply a thousand times as the original population is there no longer
.
Fallacy extended analogy - The fallacy of the Extended Analogy often occurs when some suggested general rule is being argued over.
The fallacy is to assume that mentioning two different situations, in an argument about a general rule, constitutes a claim that those situations are analogous to each other.
^So the problem is, you can't hand pick and example and then multiple it to represent the entire world.
Your example does help to show that Black Africans lived in the sahara in the neolithic.
They still do. So what?
'Indians' still live in Mexico.
Sami still live in Finland.
Ainu still live in Japan.....none of the above are Africans.
You claimed that *virtually all* settled populations all over the world were African and then replaced 4000 years ago. Your picture does not support your claim.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
WOW! I am so glad that I joined this forum! Yes Hikuptah, I believe and know that the ancient Egyptians were Black. In third grade we studied Egypt(Only two Black people in the class, me being one of them). I remember thinking and feeling that they were Black: that was my FIRST feeling! Later on, I realized that historians tried to connect Egypt with the Middle East. I am not entirely against that, but they tried to deemphasize the fact that not only is Egypt in Africa, but that Ancient Egypt was African, i.e. Black. I would say that there were some other people there, but fo sho Egypt was Black country in times past.
Posts: 826 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
RamsesII holding some prisoners of varying ethnicities Picture showing racial differences These are a couple of pictures showing how the skin color faded, and also showing how the Egyptians used some detail in racial differences.
What I want to know is why is the nubians hair always depicted as red?
Anywayz, here is a statue of him, and also some, more accurate artwork (it identifies w/ the majority).
posted
most nubians hair are not shown as red and when it is it is a dye.now rameses 2 was not nubian but did he have red hair?we really do not know.
Posts: 2688 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Egypt is situated in Africa. Of course the Egyptians were Africans and still are, only more mixed. If you know about Tuaregs and Fulanis who look mixed many of them, you'd known Egyptians are black. Black means coming from Africa, it doesn't mean you need dark skin and curly hair or a big nose. Egypt has been the most invaded land of the world. So they must have really been dark since they are mixed today and still dark.
quote:Originally posted by tuaregwodabe: Egypt is situated in Africa. Of course the Egyptians were Africans and still are, only more mixed. If you know about Tuaregs and Fulanis who look mixed many of them, you'd known Egyptians are black. Black means coming from Africa, it doesn't mean you need dark skin and curly hair or a big nose. Egypt has been the most invaded land of the world. So they must have really been dark since they are mixed today and still dark.
Ok,We get it!!! Fulani, Egyptians, North Africans etc can be "white skinned" (whatever that means ), with long face, long nose etc and they are different from the "negroes" of west Africa etc
This girl just goes onto every single thread and says the same thing OVER AND OVER AGAIN. Do you realise you're doing that? and do you realise EVERY SINGLE POSTING YOU'VE MADE IS ABOUT RACE? WILL YOU SHUT UP ALREADY!!!???
Jeezus! you have the memory span of a gold fish!
Posts: 3423 | From: the jungle - when y'all stop playing games, call me. | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:realized that historians tried to connect Egypt with the Middle East. I am not entirely against that,
You should be. The middle-east is another example of western propaganda, repeated by Africans as if it were a self-evident 'truth'.
Even some Arabs and Europeans know that the 'middle east' is a fake construct.
In short, for a territory to be distinctive from the others, it must have some meaningful particularities or at least some common characteristics.
When considered on the basis of these criteria, there is no region called the Middle East.
The term has a function and considered from this point, the region called the “Middle East”, in fact, means Britain, and then American Zone of Interest.
The Middle East is the name given to a “zone of interest” and it implies an appetite which has no sense of getting full. The more the appetite grows, the larger the region becomes. http://www.turkishweekly.net/editorial.php?id=30Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
a note from someone who doesnt need to talk all kinds of non english big terminology to look good, face it....egypt is in africa. period.
Posts: 229 | From: philadelphia, pa, usa | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
Welcome to the Forum. I hope to see you post on this forum more often. As for your question about the Egyptians, Yes I believe them to be Africans. I Used to think that Ancient Egyptians were Closer to Europeans or middle easterners then Africans. But after coming to this forum and reading all the good information provided by the main posters(Rasol,Supercar,Djehuti,Kenndo,Mansa Musa and Thought)I am happy to say that I also began looking at Egyptians as Africans. I have never been to a forum where all the evidence they use is up to date and not twisted to serve an agenda. I don't even visit other Ancient Egypt forums because I don't need to. This forum is the Best. It is too bad that Modern Egyptians are ashamed of their African past. But to me it is nothing to be ashamed of. They need to accept that they are Africans. I can safely speak for the rest of the posters on this forum that they like me do believe that Egyptians are Africans.
Peace
This is a fantastic forum. It saddens me that people want to reject their own self history.
Posts: 477 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Egypt is at the coast of the Mediterranean Sea. To the left is North Africa. To the East, Arabia. To the North, Palestine. To the North East, Babilonia, Persia, Indian. To the North West, Crete.
Only to the South, far away, is Subsaharian Africa.
Egypt is a crossroad. A melting pot of Mediterraneans, Asians, North Africans and Subsaharians.
Saying Egypt is "African", meaning it is a Subsaharian civilization, I believe is changing the nature of multi-ethnic, multi-racial Egypt.
Above all, Egypt heritage belong to Egyptians in the first place, and to mankind in second.
quote:Originally posted by kawashkar: Egypt is at the coast of the Mediterranean Sea. To the left is North Africa. To the East, Arabia. To the North, Palestine. To the North East, Babilonia, Persia, Indian. To the North West, Crete.
Only to the South, far away, is Subsaharian Africa.
Egypt is a crossroad. A melting pot of Mediterraneans, Asians, North Africans and Subsaharians.
Saying Egypt is "African", meaning it is a Subsaharian civilization, I believe is changing the nature of multi-ethnic, multi-racial Egypt.
Above all, Egypt heritage belong to Egyptians in the first place, and to mankind in second.
KAWASHKAR
Very true indeed. HOWEVER, Egypt has a LONG history and therefore in order to do that history PROPER respect, it must be broken into pieces reflecting the various MAJOR historical eras of Egypt's history. There is predynastic, Early Dynastic, the Old Kingdom, the First Intermediate Period, the Middle Kingdom, the Second Intermediate Period, the New Kingdom, the Ramessid Period, the third Intermediate period, The Kushite Dynasty, the Persian Period, the Greek Occupation, The Roman Occupation, the Islamic period and so on. Each period had very important social and political perspectives based on Egypt's relations to its NEIGHBORS. Egypt's cultural place in the world has LONG waned and when Egypt DID exert influence over many parts of the Levant and southern Europe, Egypt did NOT identify itself as BEING OF the levant or anywhere else but AFRICA. So true, it is a crossroads, but all roads did not cross at the same time, meaning different people, different ideas and different cultures all had a time to be in control of Egypt and THAT is what makes Egyptian history such a crossroads. Therefore, putting ALL of these different historical eras, ideas, people and cultures together as ONE melting pot is to WILDLY oversimplify the facts. A TRUE melting pot means you have different people, ideas and cultures MIXING and blending like a stew, but Egypt is largely devoid of the ANCIENT cultures and populations that once occupied it and the ingredients that make up MODERN Egypt, like Christianity and Islam are FAR more important to modern Egypts "melting" pot than ancient culture and belief.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kawashkar: Egypt is at the coast of the Mediterranean Sea.
Kenya is at the west coast of the Indian Ocean.
Senegal is at the East Coast of the Atlantic Ocean.
Does this imply that Kenya and Senegal are not African but rather - Atlantic and Indian?
Are you saying that a countries geography is not defined by what continent is is located in, but rather somehow by what seas it borders on (?), or what it is supposedly 'nearby'?
Ridiculous.
You will fail and elementary geography test with that sophistry.
quote:To the left is North Africa.
To the left? lol. More sillyness.
Egypt is defined correctly in Random house dictionary as follows - An ancient kingdom in NorthEast Africa, a modern country in NorthEast AFrica
posted
No matter how much you force it, all the civilizations of the Mediterranean were conected, and also the ones of the Fertile Crescent.
Take a compass and a map. Measure distances. Find out who are the closest populations to Egypt. Remember that from Egypt you could walk to Asia, and row in a boat to all the coast of the Mediterranean.
quote:Originally posted by kawashkar: No matter how much you force it
All I did, is define Egypt, as NorthEast African, which is what it is.
Trying to "force" Ancient Egypt out of Africa and into a phony western ideological contrivance, is exactly what you're doing.
But no matter how much you force-feed yourself delusion, the fact reamains that the AE were Africans and Egypt is in Africa.
No matter how much you wish it were so, [AE] Kemetians were *not* Asiatics.
In their own words:
My wish is to save Kemet.... and to smite the Asiatic [Aa-mu]. - Kamose.
Can you show us from the primary text that the Ancient Egyptians considered themselves to be Asiatic? ?
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:All I did, is define Egypt, as NorthEast African, which is what it is.
Yes. Egypt is located in a land that TODAY is called Africa. As the matter of fact Egypt is as much African as Israel is East Asian.
quote:Trying to "force" Ancient Egypt out of Africa and into a phony western ideological contrivance, is exactly what you're doing.
Trying to picking Egyptian heritage out of Egypt for the benefit of a theoretical "Negritude" is absurd. Egypt has a heritage of its own.
quote:But no matter how much you force-feed yourself delusion, the fact reamains that the AE were Africans and Egypt is in Africa..
Actually, that's not true either. In ancient times "Africa" was the Magreb. As far as I know the pyramids of Egypt are in Egypt and not in Morocco.
quote: No matter how much you wish it were so, [AE] Kemetians were *not* Asiatics.]
Ah!! Here it goes. Kemetian religion once again. If you really love Egypt, quit Afrocentrism and get into the Coptic Church. Actually, they are the only ones that still speak Egyptian.
quote:
In their own words:
My wish is to save Kemet.... and to smite the Asiatic [Aa-mu]. - Kamose.
Can you show us from the primary text that the Ancient Egyptians considered themselves to be Asiatic? ? [/QB]
Sure. As far as I know ancient Egyptians consider themselves Egyptians. And modern Egyptians also consider themselves Egyptians, not Bantues, Mandingans or Bantues. Nor Greek, Germans or Slavs either. They knew they were Egyptians.
Why don't you ask to the Egyptian people what they think?
quote:Originally posted by kawashkar: Yes. Egypt is located in a land that TODAY is called Africa. As the matter of fact Egypt is as much African as Israel is East Asian.
LOL It doesn't matter when the land was called Africa, FACT is Egypt has always been part of the same continent that we call Africa today, that the Greeks called Libya/Ethiopia back then etc. As for your whole analogy with Isreal, that is the most absurd thing I've ever heard. Egypt is African because it's a part of the African continent. Isreal on the other hand is not East Asian because it's located in West Asia. But if you want to get right down to it, geologically West Asia is essentially part of Africa so moving on...
quote:Trying to picking Egyptian heritage out of Egypt for the benefit of a theoretical "Negritude" is absurd. Egypt has a heritage of its own.
LOL And you trying to seperate Egyptian heritage from Africa is even more absurd. Yes Egypt has a heritage of its own, but does this mean such heritage has no relation to the rest of Africa? China has a heritage of its own too, but does this mean it has no relation to the rest of West Asia?
quote:Actually, that's not true either. In ancient times "Africa" was the Magreb. As far as I know the pyramids of Egypt are in Egypt and not in Morocco.
Stupid semantics will not help you. We are talking about modern usage of the term Africa, as in the whole continent.
quote:Ah!! Here it goes. Kemetian religion once again. If you really love Egypt, quit Afrocentrism and get into the Coptic Church. Actually, they are the only ones that still speak Egyptian.
LOL And exactly where in Rasol's response does he make any reference about the Kemetian religion??! He mere made the correct statement that Egyptians do not consider themselves Asiatics.
quote:Sure. As far as I know ancient Egyptians consider themselves Egyptians. And modern Egyptians also consider themselves Egyptians, not Bantues, Mandingans or Bantues. Nor Greek, Germans or Slavs either. They knew they were Egyptians.[/qb]
Yes and how does this negate the fact that they as a people were still African?
quote:Why don't you ask to the Egyptian people what they think?
KAWASHKARK
Here's a better idea. Why don't you look up a map to see where Egypt belongs?
Here:
In your previous post:
quote:Only to the South, far away, is Subsaharian Africa.
Sub-Saharan Africa is not that far away. Besides, the Sahara wasn't always desert and populations have been crossing through it for millenia. That still doesn't change the FACT that Egypt is still Africa whether Sub-Saharan or Supra-Saharan.
quote:Egypt is a crossroad. A melting pot of Mediterraneans, Asians, North Africans and Subsaharians.
I see you subscribe to the "melting-pot" theory. Sorry, but anthropology and archaeology doesn't show this. The Egyptians as a population by and large if not all stem from an indigenous *African* stock. There has been little if any evidence of any migrations from Asia or the Mediterranean during pre-Dynastic times. On the contrary, we have evidence of the *opposite*-- Africans migrating out of the Nile Delta and INTO Asia and the Meditteranean:
quote:Saying Egypt is "African", meaning it is a Subsaharian civilization, I believe is changing the nature of multi-ethnic, multi-racial Egypt.
And saying that 'African' somehow means "Sub-Saharan" is changing, and indeed contradicting the basic geographical concept of 'continent'.
quote:Above all, Egypt heritage belong to Egyptians in the first place, and to mankind in second.
Yes, but that still does not change Egyptians being indigenous [black] Africans. Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
), with long face, long nose etc and they are different from the "negroes" of west Africa etc 
Printer-friendly view of this topic