...
EgyptSearch Forums Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply
my profile | directory login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» EgyptSearch Forums » Egyptology » Ancient Egyptian DNA from 1300BC to 426 AD (Page 21)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 25 pages: 1  2  3  ...  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25   
Author Topic: Ancient Egyptian DNA from 1300BC to 426 AD
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Tukuler   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
More primary doc from the mainstream

quote:


Speke in his journal "Fauna", had this to say
about Africans; "The true curly-haired, flat-
nosed, pouch-mouthed Negro"
.

He continues; "He works his wife, sells his
children and unless when fighting for the
property of others, contends himself with
drinking and dancing like a baboon, to drive
dull care away".
This was the inferior Negro.

Living along side this sorry "Negro" Speke
found a "superior race".

"A race of men who are unlike the natives by
virtue of their fine oval faces, large eyes and
high noses, denoting the best blood of
Abyssinia."
These were the Ethiopians.

To whit, this comment
quote:

From Philip Gourevitch (1998):

Rwanda is a small African country that has had a turbulent history, beginning with the Belgians who colonized the small country.

The division among the Hutus and Tutsis first began when an English scientist, John Hanning Speke, came to Rwanda and created the Hamitic hypothesis, in which he theorized that all culture and civilization in central Africa had been introduced by the taller, sharper-featured people who he considered to be a "Caucasoid tribe of Ethiopian origin, descended from the biblical King David, and therefore a superior race to the native Negroids." This group of people deemed superior by Speke were the Tutsis.

Speke's Hamitic Hypothesis is not in any way
shape or form hham cursed by noahh or the
bible's sons of hham.

Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Elmaestro
Moderator
Member # 22566

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Elmaestro     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
^Haven't you heard... All that is null because there was some good white folks, Helpful white folks. These white folk made sure that everyone knew that there was no such thing as "Hamiticsm" pshhht, and they should be rewarded for their "discovery".... for no one could have made the un-influenced observation that Egypt was black-African, unless these white folks told us so...if they even told us so.

This thread is trash. 60% "lets **** on Mythical ES collective intelligence" 35% Afroluncy 4.4% miscellaneous, 0.6% OP inspired discussion.

...Lets see what happens in a week or so.

in the mean time, anything on the AGVP Dataset boss?

Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
-Just Call Me Jari-
Member
Member # 14451

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for -Just Call Me Jari-     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The Problem stems from the subjectivity and shiftiness of the Term "Black"...the fact is that many of the Hamites while seen as Caucasian or Semite included clearly "Blacks" such as Beja, Somali etc. This is why I started to question the use of black way back when, esp. after reading Keita and others who were trying to warn folks who had an interest in African population studies to be careful of doing the opposite of Euro/Caucasian-Centrics, that is some Pan African fantacy via the term "Black"
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Swenet
Member
Member # 17303

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Swenet     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
The Hamite theory/explanation for African people and culture of course predates European science and exploration, as the Muslim and Arab occupiers and settlers in Africa and other parts of the world used Ham/Cannanite to group in a variety of peoples from Berbers to Nubians and Egyptians.

Check this tread out you can see this very issiue was discussed back when the serious posters still frequented the Forum...

http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=003729;p=1

I agree. The argument can be made that later Greeks (those that were close[r] to the Common Era) did the same in their own way. But people don't want to admit this because then they'd have to admit that the phenotypical differences emphasized by the Hamitic hypothesis are far older than colonialism and white supremacy. Also, they'd have to admit that such phenotypical differences are, on some level, empirical observations as opposed to a deliberately engineered conspiracy by Western Europeans. When explorers, travelers and geographers from multiple cultural backgrounds continually link certain groups in Africa on phenotypical grounds, but not other groups, you can no longer say that people who refuse to call AE black in the modern western (racial) sense are necessarily racist.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
-Just Call Me Jari-
Member
Member # 14451

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for -Just Call Me Jari-     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The Hamite Hypothesis is of course different than the Curse of Ham theory but the former was influenced and maybe even branched off the latter. Before Europeans created their racialized taxonomies Muslim and Jewish writers were classifying Africans according to Hamite, the Berbers were seen as Cannanites who migrated to North Africa for example, This influenced Europeans who used the curse to justify the enslavement of Africans who had nothing to do with any Hamites or Canaanites but were still grouped as such due to dark skin. It wasnt until the advent of Exploration and Colonization and the discovery of Ancient Egyptian, Nubian, Axumite and even Zimbabwe etc ruins in Africa that the goal post was shifted and Hamites went from being a cursed generalized black folk to a Superior Dynastic sub-branch of the Caucasoid race. Like I said the Hamites always included clear "Black" folks like Somali, Beja, Ethiopian, etc. Even with Tutsi these people were black but just better and more Caca-zoid looking.

quote:
Originally posted by Tukuler:
More primary doc from the mainstream

quote:


Speke in his journal "Fauna", had this to say
about Africans; "The true curly-haired, flat-
nosed, pouch-mouthed Negro"
.

He continues; "He works his wife, sells his
children and unless when fighting for the
property of others, contends himself with
drinking and dancing like a baboon, to drive
dull care away".
This was the inferior Negro.

Living along side this sorry "Negro" Speke
found a "superior race".

"A race of men who are unlike the natives by
virtue of their fine oval faces, large eyes and
high noses, denoting the best blood of
Abyssinia."
These were the Ethiopians.

To whit, this comment
quote:

From Philip Gourevitch (1998):

Rwanda is a small African country that has had a turbulent history, beginning with the Belgians who colonized the small country.

The division among the Hutus and Tutsis first began when an English scientist, John Hanning Speke, came to Rwanda and created the Hamitic hypothesis, in which he theorized that all culture and civilization in central Africa had been introduced by the taller, sharper-featured people who he considered to be a "Caucasoid tribe of Ethiopian origin, descended from the biblical King David, and therefore a superior race to the native Negroids." This group of people deemed superior by Speke were the Tutsis.

Speke's Hamitic Hypothesis is not in any way
shape or form hham cursed by noahh or the
bible's sons of hham.


Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BrandonP
Member
Member # 3735

Icon 1 posted      Profile for BrandonP   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You know, I would have thought the whole insistence on a non-African AE (or at least a desire not to lump AE together with "black" people) wouldn't have even come about if there weren't individuals like de Volney and Bruce pointing out that AE were African in the first place. In order to deny certain facts, you need people pointing out those facts' existence to begin with. So I can't fathom why anyone would argue that all European thinkers would be involved in the effort to de-Africanize (or de-blacken) AE, unless they wanted to portray all white people (or at least all whites at that time) as inherently evil racists. There are always going to be exceptions to the rule.

But then, I do get the sense that quite a number of people here on ES are black separatists who don't trust white people in general, even if some of them are more covert about it than Mike or Narmerthoth. I wonder if there's a correlation between the "pan-African" politics that motivate a lot of posters here with black separatist sentiments? Because the idea that all Africans form a single monophyletic clade sounds like something a black separatist would embrace.

Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
-Just Call Me Jari-
Member
Member # 14451

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for -Just Call Me Jari-     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yes and its funny because everyone who has applied such groupings from the Greeks to the Muslims and later Europeans always had a shifting and contradicting definition of who and who wasnt black, often the blackest people with sterotypical negro features were labeled black but every now and then the more "Hamitic" Egyptians et al folks would be called black as well. This is why ven though the Hamites were seen as a sub branch of the Caca-zoid race they included Beja, Somali, Hebeshi, Nubian etc...and later folks like Tutsi etc. This was a divide and conquer reaction/justification resulting from colonization.

And Yes, folks been up here for years trying to justify why Greeks and Romans and Later Muslims called this...  -

Aethiopies/Sudan consistently but not with folks like the Egytians who were occasianly equated with dark skin but not Aethiopia and Sudan...Its funny because it was fighting with trolls and other more serious opponents like Melchior7 etc that I came to see how faulty using the modern Euro-American definition of black to group folks like Moors, Egyptians etc. I fought folks showing them that many folks labeled as non black such as Egyptians, Berbers, the Bidanes of Mauritania etc. would be seen as black to Americans and that black is a shifting term that can change depending on the culture. Now it seems that the Pan-Africanists are going in the same direction as the Eurocentrics...Using black as a trojan horse to group themselves with Egyptians and claim Egypt as some Ancestral home

People can scapegoat Europeans all day, Yes the tried to De-Africanise and seperate Egypt from Black, but Keita and others who def. dont support a Hamite version of History, warned us way back when to cut the BS, folks didnt listen now chickens are coming home to roost. Phonecian7 et al are gonna have a feild day with Pan-African Afrocentrics when the results drop...

quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:
Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
The Hamite theory/explanation for African people and culture of course predates European science and exploration, as the Muslim and Arab occupiers and settlers in Africa and other parts of the world used Ham/Cannanite to group in a variety of peoples from Berbers to Nubians and Egyptians.

Check this tread out you can see this very issiue was discussed back when the serious posters still frequented the Forum...

http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=003729;p=1

I agree. The argument can be made that later Greeks (those that were close[r] to the Common Era) did the same in their own way. But people don't want to admit this because then they'd have to admit that the phenotypical differences emphasized by the Hamitic hypothesis are far older than colonialism and white supremacy. Also, they'd have to admit that such phenotypical differences are, on some level, empirical observations as opposed to a deliberately engineered conspiracy by Western Europeans. When explorers, travelers and geographers from multiple cultural backgrounds continually link certain groups in Africa on phenotypical grounds, but not others, you can no longer say that people who refuse to call AE black in the modern western (racial) sense are necessarily racist.

Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
sudanese
Member
Member # 15779

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for sudanese     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The notion that the ancient Egyptians were Niger-Congo (Bantu) is insane and stupid and there has never been any evidence for it. All the evidence points to ancient Egyptians being indigenous Northeast Africans with a common origin with North Sudanese. I hope people don't start presenting these (Northern) Abusir mummies as representative of all of ancient Egypt. We still need a similar study on Southern Egypt.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Tukuler   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:
You know, I would have thought the whole insistence on a non-African AE (or at least a desire not to lump AE together with "black" people) wouldn't have even come about if there weren't individuals like de Volney and Bruce pointing out that AE were African in the first place.


But then, I do get the sense that quite a number of people here on ES are black separatists who don't trust white people in general, even if some of them are more covert about it than Mike or Narmerthoth..

You can' muddy the water.
You can't fabricate me saying
all whites hold the same opinion
after I've posted otherwise and
also the mainstream anti-black
academic norm.

Champollion-Figeac was the script flipper.
I excuse autism for incomprehension that
C-F said the common knowledge view AE
was black was wrong. You geno-hamiticist
with your ad homina and white is right. You
lay every controversy at the feet of black and
white gets carte blanc free of any guilt or
responsibility for this mess.

If the nigras would just stay in their place
we wouldn't have this problem to start with.

I agree your liberal stance may be a cloak
for your white supremacy. So what is it?
AEs are only black in your chocolate girl
fantasies?

Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Tukuler   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by sudaniya:
The notion that the ancient Egyptians were Niger-Congo (Bantu) is insane and stupid and there has never been any evidence for it. All the evidence points to ancient Egyptians being indigenous Northeast Africans with a common origin with North Sudanese. I hope people don't start presenting these (Northern) Abusir mummies as representative of all of ancient Egypt. We still need a similar study on Southern Egypt.

But hasn't that been the whole geno-hamiticists
point since posting tear eyed Denzel? That 3rd I
to Roman Period heads from Abusir represent
AE from 1st Cataract to the Mediterranean and
from Dynasty 00 on up?

Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
-Just Call Me Jari-
Member
Member # 14451

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for -Just Call Me Jari-     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I dont think Im a Hamaticist, Ive always advocated that Egypt had similarties to cultures across the continent. The closest culture to Ancient Egypt to anything on the face of the Earth was Nubia The fact is that the Egyptians seem to be a population distinct from folks in Bantu/Niger Kongo areas etc. The difference between me, Swenet and Whites who advocated Hamitic theory is that me and Swenet are not placing Superiority complexes on Africans...

quote:
Originally posted by Tukuler:
You can' muddy the water.

Champollion-Figeac was the script flipper.
I excuse autism for incomprehension that
C-F said the common knowledge view AE
was black was wrong. You geno-hamiticist
with your ad homina and white is right. You
lay every controversy at the feet of black and
white gets carte blancan free of any guilt or
responsibility for this mess.

I agree your liberal stance may be a cloak
for your white supremacy.


Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Punos_Rey
Administrator
Member # 21929

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Punos_Rey   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
I agree. The argument can be made that later Greeks (those that were close[r] to the Common Era) did the same in their own way. But people don't want to admit this because then they'd have to admit that the phenotypical differences emphasized by the Hamitic hypothesis are far older than colonialism and white supremacy. Also, they'd have to admit that such phenotypical differences are, on some level, empirical observations as opposed to a deliberately engineered conspiracy by Western Europeans. When explorers, travelers and geographers from multiple cultural backgrounds continually link certain groups in Africa on phenotypical grounds, but not other groups, you can no longer say that people who refuse to call AE black in the modern western (racial) sense are necessarily racist. [/QB]

I see what you're saying Swenet yet I refuse to take seriously anyone who defines black in such a broad way as to include Nubians and even ancient Maghrehbians but not the Aegyptians. Nor do I take seriously someone who emphasizes phenotypic differences among Africans yet still throws "Sub-Saharan Africans" together while scrutinizing Northeast Africans down to the slightest detail possible. If that makes me an afrocentrist/black supremacist so be it.

I also refuse to take seriously people who say there was absolutely zero cultural or other impact from AE and Nubia into the rest of Africa, I have found too many "coincidences" and remnants for that to be the case.(and Sudaniya if you want to try me on this feel free to)

On a last note, I'm one of the people who absolutely am not bothered by this study. Admixture in AE, so what? Admixture in other groups like the Greeks never calls their indigeneity into question yet with the AE even the slightest drop of non-African admixture makes them a dynastic/hamitic race to some of these crackpots. Hysterical.

I have nothing but respect for several of the posters in this thread, but I'm going to hold the people I have zero respect for to the same standards they hold the "afroloon" cabal to.

Posts: 574 | From: Guinee | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
-Just Call Me Jari-
Member
Member # 14451

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for -Just Call Me Jari-     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Couldnt have said it any better...

quote:
Originally posted by Punos_Rey:
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
I agree. The argument can be made that later Greeks (those that were close[r] to the Common Era) did the same in their own way. But people don't want to admit this because then they'd have to admit that the phenotypical differences emphasized by the Hamitic hypothesis are far older than colonialism and white supremacy. Also, they'd have to admit that such phenotypical differences are, on some level, empirical observations as opposed to a deliberately engineered conspiracy by Western Europeans. When explorers, travelers and geographers from multiple cultural backgrounds continually link certain groups in Africa on phenotypical grounds, but not other groups, you can no longer say that people who refuse to call AE black in the modern western (racial) sense are necessarily racist.

I see what you're saying Swenet yet I refuse to take seriously anyone who defines black in such a broad way as to include Nubians and even ancient Maghrehbians but not the Aegyptians. Nor do I take seriously someone who emphasizes phenotypic differences among Africans yet still throws "Sub-Saharan Africans" together while scrutinizing Northeast Africans down to the slightest detail possible. If that makes me an afrocentrist/black supremacist so be it.

I also refuse to take seriously people who say there was absolutely zero cultural or other impact from AE and Nubia into the rest of Africa, I have found too many "coincidences" and remnants for that to be the case.(and Sudaniya if you want to try me on this feel free to)

On a last note, I'm one of the people who absolutely am not bothered by this study. Admixture in AE, so what? Admixture in other groups like the Greeks never calls their indigeneity into question yet with the AE even the slightest drop of non-African admixture makes them a dynastic/hamitic race to some of these crackpots. Hysterical.

I have nothing but respect for several of the posters in this thread, but I'm going to hold the people I have zero respect for to the same standards they hold the "afroloon" cabal to. [/QB]


Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Tukuler   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Jari

On this forum it's negroes who
are saying it's wrong to call AEs
black, they must be called African.

This is Champollion-Figeac rechanelled.

Here I am categorically stating the
founder and majority population of
AE were African B L A C K S

--------------------
I'm just another point of view. What's yours? Unpublished work © 2004 - 2023 YYT al~Takruri
Authentic Africana over race-serving ethnocentricisms, Afro, Euro, or whatever.

Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Swenet
Member
Member # 17303

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Swenet     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:
You know, I would have thought the whole insistence on a non-African AE (or at least a desire not to lump AE together with "black" people) wouldn't have even come about if there weren't individuals like de Volney and Bruce pointing out that AE were African in the first place. In order to deny certain facts, you need people pointing out those facts' existence to begin with. So I can't fathom why anyone would argue that all European thinkers would be involved in the effort to de-Africanize (or de-blacken) AE, unless they wanted to portray all white people (or at least all whites at that time) as inherently evil racists. There are always going to be exceptions to the rule.

But then, I do get the sense that quite a number of people here on ES are black separatists who don't trust white people in general, even if some of them are more covert about it than Mike or Narmerthoth. I wonder if there's a correlation between the "pan-African" politics that motivate a lot of posters here with black separatist sentiments? Because the idea that all Africans form a single monophyletic clade sounds like something a black separatist would embrace.

These people know they are lying. Pick up Drusilla Dunjee Houston's Wonderful Ethiopians or a JA Rodgers book and see the extensive quotes from the "non-existent European authors [Roll Eyes] " who conceded AE was African. These early Afrocentric writers quoted heavily from the Rawlinsons, Petries, and Budges of their time and before their time. And there is nothing wrong with that, especially when gatekeepers aren't going to let you in their institutions to do your own research.

But when this topic comes up on Egyptsearch, it's always the same usual suspects who become salty and defensive. This just more evidence that beneath the veneer of "learning" people are simply trying to advance narratives that no one outside of this site really supports. They are completely alone and isolated in these claims.

Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
-Just Call Me Jari-
Member
Member # 14451

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for -Just Call Me Jari-     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I prefer Tropically adapted but if you want to use black you have to deal with the fact that White Americans and Europeans, Muslims/Arabists, and hell even other Africans etc. will have a different view of black than you. Am I saying NOT to call Egypt Black?, No, Im just pointing out the problems associated with doing so. Egyptians raised High Hell when an Afro-American played Egyptian/Sudanese mixed president Anwar Sedat, The Black/Dark Skinned Bidanes in North Africa still enslaving folks they call "black" Its a cultural thing IMO, and its hard work sifting through the various cultural shifts on who is and who isnt black going back to the Greeks, Romans etc.
That said I slip up an use black out of laziness....

quote:
Originally posted by Tukuler:
Jari

On this forum it's negroes who
are saying it's wrong to call AEs
black, they must be called African.

This is Champollion-Figeac rechanelled.

Here I am categorically stating the
founder and majority population of
AE were African B L A C K S


Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Tukuler   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I use black out of precision.

Sorry I don't go for this we can't define a black.

As Champollion-Figeac lamented up until the
Napoleonic Expedition the Euro view was AEs
were just another of Africa's blacks.

Hell, the Arabic authors of the Muslim world
ranked Qubti among the blacks.

Not running their games or agendas.
Not playing anybody's only the forest
true negro is the only real black that
everyone agrees on bullshit

Not until the Nordheimers are declared the
True Blanco and we can't all agree if it's
correct to label other Euros white.


And no way do I abide the geno-hamiticists
agenda game of villifyng Pan-Africanism.
Those who do know nothing more than
Wiki about it. Geno-hamiticists posit any
thing African black people do or say is
loony hateful or inaccurate unless OKed
by the superior whites (the Simon Says
game). Guys are Jim Crowing and 2nd
citizening any black scholar who doesn't
verbatim repeat white doctrine. But oh
no whites have no agenda no doctrine
they are objective, you know, nice
clean and white.

Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Elmaestro
Moderator
Member # 22566

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Elmaestro     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Punos_Rey:
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
I agree. The argument can be made that later Greeks (those that were close[r] to the Common Era) did the same in their own way. But people don't want to admit this because then they'd have to admit that the phenotypical differences emphasized by the Hamitic hypothesis are far older than colonialism and white supremacy. Also, they'd have to admit that such phenotypical differences are, on some level, empirical observations as opposed to a deliberately engineered conspiracy by Western Europeans. When explorers, travelers and geographers from multiple cultural backgrounds continually link certain groups in Africa on phenotypical grounds, but not other groups, you can no longer say that people who refuse to call AE black in the modern western (racial) sense are necessarily racist.

I see what you're saying Swenet yet I refuse to take seriously anyone who defines black in such a broad way as to include Nubians and even ancient Maghrehbians but not the Aegyptians. Nor do I take seriously someone who emphasizes phenotypic differences among Africans yet still throws "Sub-Saharan Africans" together while scrutinizing Northeast Africans down to the slightest detail possible. If that makes me an afrocentrist/black supremacist so be it.

I also refuse to take seriously people who say there was absolutely zero cultural or other impact from AE and Nubia into the rest of Africa, I have found too many "coincidences" and remnants for that to be the case.(and Sudaniya if you want to try me on this feel free to)

On a last note, I'm one of the people who absolutely am not bothered by this study. Admixture in AE, so what? Admixture in other groups like the Greeks never calls their indigeneity into question yet with the AE even the slightest drop of non-African admixture makes them a dynastic/hamitic race to some of these crackpots. Hysterical.

I have nothing but respect for several of the posters in this thread, but I'm going to hold the people I have zero respect for to the same standards they hold the "afroloon" cabal to. [/QB]

100

Credit to you for having a mind of your own.

fam concisely sums up the point and argument from all angles...

Black-African as a geophysical descriptive term isn't as ambiguous as folks try to make it out to seem.
The problem wasn't about genomics? it was about imagery. ...how did these folks look, and act.
I don't see the logic in crediting people for stating the obvious, to their knowledge before the figurative "bleaching of Ancient Egypt", the people were Black (in any sense of the western classification) AND African.

Now if folks want to go in depth about the differences among African populations, whatever its cool... but acting as if its overstepping a boundary for another Black-African to look at another black-African in familiarity is trashy... as if a colonial slaver would Identify & pick out the Afroasiatic slaves and send them back home if auctioned in a bunch. Very disappointing mindset FMPOV.

Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Forty2Tribes
Member
Member # 21799

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Forty2Tribes   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by sudaniya:
The notion that the ancient Egyptians were Niger-Congo (Bantu) is insane and stupid and there has never been any evidence for it. All the evidence points to ancient Egyptians being indigenous Northeast Africans with a common origin with North Sudanese. I hope people don't start presenting these (Northern) Abusir mummies as representative of all of ancient Egypt. We still need a similar study on Southern Egypt. [/QB]

People have demonstrated that the Egyptians called themselves Bantu and half the royals tested so far had exclusive Bantu genes.

quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
When explorers, travelers and geographers from multiple cultural backgrounds continually link certain groups in Africa on phenotypical grounds, but not other groups, you can no longer say that people who refuse to call AE black in the modern western (racial) sense are necessarily racist. [/QB]

I can say it. They are racist.
The typical image of ancient Egyptians are of people who would be considered black by most nations and states definitions today. Most of the people who have that double standard are indeed racist.

In a world where this dude is considered black on TV...
 -

Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Swenet
Member
Member # 17303

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Swenet     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:
I can say it. They are racist.

You said in another thread that people are lying when they pretend that 'black' in the West has no racial connotations (e.g. people who deny that it's acceptable in the West to say such and such has "black facial features"). Once you admit such people are confused, you can't turn around and say it's racist to exclude people from this label who have only mild expressions of these features.

You have already concluded that, in your view, this label's connotations includes such facial features.

Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Tukuler   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Enough clap trap.

For the 5th time already step up and present your
Nea Nikomedeia / prehistoric Egypt hypothesis.

By any definition of black that's what you'll be
'til your dieing day, the same as AEs founders
were 'til their dying day. Stop being ashamed
of your blackness and everything blacks have
done for self and by our own initiative since
the Maafa.

Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:

People have demonstrated that the Egyptians called themselves Bantu


That is complete nonsense

They do that using psudeo-lingusitc wrong methodology


The word duck means to bend down but it's also a bird.
Box is something you put things in but it is also a type of fighting.
Did you know gift in German means poison ?
Moron is the Welsh word for carrots?

These are the type of things not accounted for in these improperly done comparative linguistics done by amateurs where
they find words that sound the same and disregard completely different meanings

Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Elmaestro
Moderator
Member # 22566

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Elmaestro     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
BTW though keita didn't like to use the term "black" as a pan African Identifier, he didn't **** on the Idea of a shared culture and even temporally distant common ancestor. He literally fought the Idea of a "true Negro." and as a geneticist it's perfectly fine to even communicate the fact that some Africans might be closer to Europeans for example than other Africans based on genetic distance... But are we gonna act like we don't understand the mechanisms behind why? are we also gonna dismiss the classical racist implications being made by those who see and hear this but don't fully understand? or worst, those who understand but use it to promote their harmful narrative..? gimme a break.

I know that the Abusir mummies got some people shook... (and I'm not just talking about the Afroloons only as I said before in these threads), "How do I explain these affinities while upholding my old doctrine meanwhile not setting myself up for contradiction.... Abort mission, reinforce hamaticism lowkey..." Yeah, A.Egyptians where homogenous rs1426654-A since its inception all of a sudden, I guess the paint darkened over time.

 -

Black-African = political term? ... heh, incredible observations.

IIght I'm out.

Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Swenet
Member
Member # 17303

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Swenet     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Punos_Rey:
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
I agree. The argument can be made that later Greeks (those that were close[r] to the Common Era) did the same in their own way. But people don't want to admit this because then they'd have to admit that the phenotypical differences emphasized by the Hamitic hypothesis are far older than colonialism and white supremacy. Also, they'd have to admit that such phenotypical differences are, on some level, empirical observations as opposed to a deliberately engineered conspiracy by Western Europeans. When explorers, travelers and geographers from multiple cultural backgrounds continually link certain groups in Africa on phenotypical grounds, but not other groups, you can no longer say that [b]people who refuse to call AE black in the modern western (racial) sense are necessarily racist.

I see what you're saying Swenet yet I refuse to take seriously anyone who defines black in such a broad way as to include Nubians and even ancient Maghrehbians but not the Aegyptians. Nor do I take seriously someone who emphasizes phenotypic differences among Africans yet still throws "Sub-Saharan Africans" together while scrutinizing Northeast Africans down to the slightest detail possible. If that makes me an afrocentrist/black supremacist so be it.

I also refuse to take seriously people who say there was absolutely zero cultural or other impact from AE and Nubia into the rest of Africa, I have found too many "coincidences" and remnants for that to be the case.(and Sudaniya if you want to try me on this feel free to)

On a last note, I'm one of the people who absolutely am not bothered by this study. Admixture in AE, so what? Admixture in other groups like the Greeks never calls their indigeneity into question yet with the AE even the slightest drop of non-African admixture makes them a dynastic/hamitic race to some of these crackpots. Hysterical.

I have nothing but respect for several of the posters in this thread, but I'm going to hold the people I have zero respect for to the same standards they hold the "afroloon" cabal to.

Can you name these people? Because I think you will mostly end up with a list of names of lay people, trolls and academics who pretend to know what they're talking about. In other words, the Henry Louis Gates and Zahi Hawass types. This list will not be monumental list many on Egyptsearch anticipate; it won't include most of the Eurocentrics people here would consider a serious long-term problem.

Pointing out these people are inconsistent in the way they apply the term mostly addresses lightweights and does little in terms of validating continued use of the term or even addressing the other side. Most hardcore and published Eurocentrics are evolutionists (who know skin pigmentation is mostly controlled by a handful of genes) and aren't stupid that they would set themselves up by confining "white race" to pale skin.

Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tukuler:


I use black out of precision.

Sorry I don't go for this we can't define a black.


How would you approach it scientifically?
How could you take a precise measurement and make an assessment?

Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Akachi
On Vacation
Member # 21711

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Akachi         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by beyoku: You are still here posting but cannot explain why Native Sudanese dont have any E-M2.
Beyoku...stop it! As we have noted earlier, you're playing technical games with that "Native" Sudanese ****. The sample from the study cited was from the known Nubian territory on the border of Sudan and Egypt.

 -
 -

^^^ I don't have TIME...for those types of semantics Beyoku. That bullshit is what you MUST resort to try to derail my narrative (you've been here for a DECADE and don't have narrative..something is fishy with that) shows how weak your crux is.

We all know that the bio-cultrual affinities of the Nubian population in that particular region of Upper Egypt to northern Sudan form a genetic continuum that relates the populations irregardless of 140 year old political borders.

" Genetic continuum of the Nubians with their kin in southern Egypt is indicated by comparable frequencies of E-V12 the predominant M78 subclade among southern Egyptians." [Hassan et al. Y-chromosome variation.." Am J. Phy Anthro. v137,3. 316-323 Read more:

Therefore there is no reason to believe that the noted frequency of M2 lineage (around 1/3) seen in those southern "Egypto"-Nubians is different than those in the adjacent northern Sudanese Nubians.

From a common sense prospective lets skip Sudan and YOU explain WHY the Hell is the M2 lineage is in the "creme of the crop" of the Nile which is Egypt (said by SOY to have been present in the region since the early Holocene). If you're going to try to derail the Sudanese origin of the population then you have to have an alternative as to explain how the Hell did the M2 lineage and Sickle Cell carrying Negroid populations came into Pre-Dynastic-Dynastic Kemet. you need to explain what migration from what other regios brought that E1b1a (and noted associated traits) that characterized Ramses III and the Amarna period pharaohs into the Nile Valley.

quote:
Somehow you think you know those fine detains
Beyoku what about these fine details.


" Nutter (1958) noted affinities between the Badarian and Naqada samples, a feature that Strouhal (1971) attributed to their skulls possessing “Negroid” traits. Keita (1992), using craniometrics, discovered that the Badarian series is distinctly different from the later Egyptian series, a conclusion that is mostly confirmed here. In the current analysis, the Badari sample more closely clusters with the Naqada sample and the Kerma sample. However, it also groups with the later pooled sample from Dynasties XVIII–XXV. -- Godde K. (2009) An Examination of Nubian and Egyptian biological distances: Support for biological diffusion or in situ development? Homo. 2009;60(5):389-404."

Beyoku list the other populations of the world with "true Negroid" skeletal morphologies who are not apart of the M2 lineage.

Explain whore..

quote:
You then try to school us on Haplogroup R
I recall referencing the work Dr. Winters, who routinely schools the hell out of y'all on the misconceptions of the population implications of the marker. I also recall all y'all shutting the **** up when he post those facts. [Wink]

You bitch and cackle under your breath (but never directly tackle the scholar's work) and send in your Caucasian agents to try to belittle his work (in absolute futility of course), and support your Hamitic hypothesis with your puppet shows in which you pretend to be the "go to" "Afrocentrics" against the mean Eurocentrics (again a decade long puppet show).

quote:
Furthermore you STILL haven't explain why 3000 year old mummies are less Sub Saharan than Egyptian today.
Melaninated people don't use those terms..You need to explain what in the Hell "Sub Saharan" implies with regards to race and genetics.

 -


The last time I checked the race of the ancient Kemites was decided to be a variety of Africans who are now seen residing in the "Saharo Tropical" regions of Africa. Explain how your implications of those findings changes these anthropological facts (what they actually looked like).

The peopling of ancient Kemet and the deciphering of Meroitic script Proceedings of the symposium held in Cairo from 28 January to 3 February 1974

 -

and the updated version.

" There is now a sufficient body of evidence from modern studies of skeletal remains to indicate that the ancient Egyptians, especially southern Egyptians, exhibited physical characteristics that are within the range of variation for ancient and modern indigenous peoples of the Sahara and tropical Africa.. In general, the inhabitants of Upper Egypt and Nubia had the greatest biological affinity to people of the Sahara and more southerly areas." (Nancy C. Lovell, " Egyptians, physical anthropology of," in Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt, ed. Kathryn A. Bard and Steven Blake Shubert, ( London and New York: Routledge, 1999) pp 328-332)

Negroid, Ethiopic ("Mediterranean"), and Nilotic ("European")

See..you agents in line with your revised Hamitic Hypothesis are attempting to allow one field of information (genetics) to obfuscate what has already been deciphered with earlier forms of sciences (anthropology, linguistics, archaeology). Point blank period NO ONE is buying your **** no matter much you try to equate getting down with it as "wising up" (it's the same scenario as the black political agents who promoted integration in the 1960's as "being accepted").

Then as Diop had pointed out arguing with you all on these points is playing in your court. The only thing that is needed to prove whose ancestors came from ancient Kemet or the Nile Valley is to display the cultural and linguistic ties.
 -  -

^^ That example is SOoo indisputable! They have same reverence for the backbone (relating to the Kundalini energy that ONLY NEGROES POSSESS) as sacred and perform the same ceremonies. That's only ONE example!!

Pharaonic Egyptian - Wolof; (Wolof meaning) Aku - Aku : foreigners (Creole descendants of European traders and African wives) anu - K.enou : pillar atef - ate : a crown of Osiris, judge of the soul (to judge) ba - bei : the ram-god (goat) ben ben - ben ben : overflow, flood bon - bon : evil bu - bu : place bu bon - bu bon : evil place bu nafret - bu rafet : good place da - da : child Djoob - Djob : a surname fero - fari : king itef - itef : father kau - kaou : elevated, above (heaven) kem -khem : black (burnt, burnt black) kemat - kematef : end of a period, completion, limit khekh - khekh : to fight, to wage war, war kher - ker : country (house) lebou - Lebou : those at the stream, Lebou/fishermen Senegal maat - mat : justice mer - maar : love (passionate love) mun - won : buttocks nag - nag : bull (cattle) nak - nak : ox, bull (cow) NDam - NDam : throne neb - ndab : float nen - nen : place where nothing is done (nothingness) nit - nit : citizen Ntr - Twr : protecting god, totem nwt - nit : fire of heaven (evening light) o.k. - wah keh : correct, right onef - onef : he (past tense) ones - ones : she (past tense) Read

Explain why a Wolof in Senegal and ancient Kemite would say MAMA, CHILD, AIR, WATER....(such essential everyday words) in the exact same way. The word MAAT... is in the Wolof language and has the same meaning...but that is REAL and RELEVANT for you agents to discuses. Y'all are running from those facts that logically shuts any counter argument down. That's how I know that a good chunk are participants in a puppet show to keep Caucasiancentrism in the game.

Posts: 348 | From: Atlanta | Registered: Jan 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yes but where's the E1b1a ?
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Akachi:


Explain whore..

quote:
You then try to school us on Haplogroup R
I recall referencing the work Dr. Winters, who routinely schools the hell out of y'all on the misconceptions of the population implications of the marker. I also recall all y'all shutting the **** up when he post those facts. [Wink]



 -

At the second from the right column we see R-M269
That's you bro.
Less than 1% of continental Africans carry M269 and the ones that do are berbers. I can pull out the Cruciani if pushed

Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Akachi
On Vacation
Member # 21711

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Akachi         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
[QB] The funny part is Keita(and others) warned mofos(Both Afrocentric and Eurocentric btw) to be careful with that sh@t, Keita was tying to help them out way back then but it fell on deaf ears...Ill bet Keita (and others) are look at the study like...

No obviously YOU'll did not listen to Keita's break down of interpreting various forms of data to form a narrative. Keita explains that biology, linguists, culture etc as singular pieces of evidence should NEVER be taken respectively as the end all in deciding the population history of the Hapi Valley.

In the attempt to revise the Hamitic Hypothesis that Diop shattered over 40 years ago using linguistics, anthropology, blood grouping, culture etc, the recent Caucasiansupremacist have attempted to obfuscate what was clear yet never acknowledged by the earliest generation of Caucasiansupremacist as legit (if you adhere to that then that is your prerogative). From the Caucasiansupremacist is where the ES agents get the Afro-Asiatic language family and it's implications on the African story.

Posts: 348 | From: Atlanta | Registered: Jan 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Tukuler   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
For the 6th time already step up and present your
Nea Nikomedeia / prehistoric Egypt hypothesis.


C'mon wheh de cash at?
Money talk bullshit walk.

Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Concerned member of public
Banned
Member # 22355

Rate Member
Icon 2 posted      Profile for Concerned member of public   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
@ Tuk, can you please clear your PM so I can send you a message/mod request?
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
beyoku
Member
Member # 14524

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for beyoku     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
@Akachi. Here is your problem to solve. Egyptian Nubians show DISCONTINUITY with Sudanese Nubians in regards to E-M2.

Sudanese by and large in nearly all contemporary studies show discontinuity with Egyptians as far as E-M2, A3b2, B2a, E-V32, V-65, M128,

You can go ahead and play the Euroclown role and say Egyptian Nubians are recent migrants from Sudan if you want but we know that the area where hey live has always been differentiated. They are not new migrants to the region.

You are arguing these populations come from Sudan based on a lineage that is not at all found in Sudan!

Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Geber
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Geber     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tukuler:
You keep unsuccessfully trying to ddivert
attention from African doesn't mean black.


You aren't putting up anything from mainstream
19th and 20th century Egyptology / anthropology
using B L A C K.

You agree and say AE was African, it wasn't black.

It remains an odd adversary. If Ptolemy etc. claimed there was no dark skinned people there in that region. How come ...

In 2010/11 these excavations were announced. In the upcoming years we will see more being unraveled.


Ancient Egyptian Tombs With Eye-Popping Murals Discovered In Luxor (Sheikh Abd el-Qurna (‘Tombs of the Nobles’))


 -


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/12/ancient-egypt-tombs-luxor_n_6855154.html

Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Tukuler   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cass/:
@ Tuk, can you please clear your PM so I can send you a message/mod request?

I learned my lesson well.
I will not play the mod role.
But if you ship this old
Sephardi pirate a case
of Smith & Cross and
a box of Arturo Fuentes
well I'd gladly delete a
whole thread for you.


 -

Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
beyoku
Member
Member # 14524

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for beyoku     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
@Ish Gebor ^ That guy is "Black" The images on the wall are "Black". If that is what we are talking about then the discussion is over.

If we are talking about biological affinity its a totally different ballgame. It seems like with some folks Biological affinity overrides phenotype.....I am one of them.

Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Tukuler   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What's the difference between black and 'black'?
Do the single quote marks imply a level of doubt?
Would non-L mtDNA bar a 'black' from being black?

Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Concerned member of public
Banned
Member # 22355

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Concerned member of public   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tukuler:
I learned my lesson well.
I will not play the mod role.
But if you ship this old
Sephardi pirate a case
of Smith & Cross and
a box of Arturo Fuentes
well I'd gladly delete a
whole thread for you.

thanks, but If you could clear your inbox so I can send you a message to show.
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Forty2Tribes
Member
Member # 21799

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Forty2Tribes   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:
Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:
I can say it. They are racist.

You said in another thread that people are lying when they pretend that 'black' in the West has no racial connotations (e.g. people who deny that it's acceptable in the West to say such and such has "black facial features"). Once you admit such people are confused, you can't turn around and say it's racist to exclude people from this label who have only mild expressions of these features.

You have already concluded that, in your view, this label's connotations includes such facial features.

I don't even know what facial features you are talking about. But since you said "in modern western racial sense" I can use that as a litmus.
Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Forty2Tribes
Member
Member # 21799

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Forty2Tribes   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:
Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:

People have demonstrated that the Egyptians called themselves Bantu


That is complete nonsense

They do that using psudeo-lingusitc wrong methodology


The word duck means to bend down but it's also a bird.
Box is something you put things in but it is also a type of fighting.
Did you know gift in German means poison ?
Moron is the Welsh word for carrots?

These are the type of things not accounted for in these improperly done comparative linguistics done by amateurs where
they find words that sound the same and disregard completely different meanings

Wrong response Lioness. If you really want to attain knowledge you should ask me who, how and why then examine it yourself. Remember the African school is not just demonstrating word and sound but cultural relationship therewith. That built in collaboration gives it a one up on the alternatives. The people who would argue that RMT is Bantu are prostrated for examination and have been for years now.
http://www.kaa-umati.co.uk/banturosetta.html
2003
http://www.asarimhotep.com/index.php/blog/8-articles/6-egyptian-a-bantu-nation-literally-rmt-luntu-some-notes
2015

Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Tukuler   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:
Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:
I can say it. They are racist.

You said in another thread that people are lying when they pretend that 'black' in the West has no racial connotations (e.g. people who deny that it's acceptable in the West to say such and such has "black facial features"). Once you admit such people are confused, you can't turn around and say it's racist to exclude people from this label who have only mild expressions of these features.

You have already concluded that, in your view, this label's connotations includes such facial features.

I don't even know what facial features you are talking about. But since you said "in modern western racial sense" I can use that as a litmus.
By any chance could that be
the True Negro and nothing but the True Negro
so help you god?

Man, these geno-hamiticists, they sumpin else.

Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
beyoku
Member
Member # 14524

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for beyoku     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tukuler:
What's the difference between black and 'black'?
Do the single quote marks imply a level of doubt?
Would non-L mtDNA bar a 'black' from being black?

I am quoting because i cant use the word how other folks use the word. People are using the word while arguing the First Amerindians and original Chinese were Black.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
sudanese
Member
Member # 15779

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for sudanese     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by beyoku:
@Ish Gebor ^ That guy is "Black" The images on the wall are "Black". If that is what we are talking about then the discussion is over.

If we are talking about biological affinity its a totally different ballgame. It seems like with some folks Biological affinity overrides phenotype.....I am one of them.

Would his paternal clades be mostly African or "Eurasian"?
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Elmaestro
Moderator
Member # 22566

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Elmaestro     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:
Originally posted by Tukuler:
What's the difference between black and 'black'?
Do the single quote marks imply a level of doubt?
Would non-L mtDNA bar a 'black' from being black?

I am quoting because i cant use the word how other folks use the word. People are using the word while arguing the First Amerindians and original Chinese were Black.
^We know the culprits, we know who uphold those ridiculous beliefs, but we're speaking about A.Egyptians though, who were Black.... and .....African. Relatedness is a whole different ballgame if you want to look at it from a genetic perspective. But some here would like to believe that if a typical Ancient Egyptian OR EVEN a modern day AfroAsiatic Ethiopian were included in a group of African Captives to be auctioned, that the Slavers would pluck them out like brown M&M's. ..."no no no, these are not the right black Africans, these are the more advanced and civilized black African, you can tell by their microdermal teeth & ****."

...its silly, and that's where the debates have their inception which people lost sight of. If there was no bantu expansion and Africans were brought from the same ports across the African continent as they were during colonial times do you know how biologically different we would all be?

what is the cutting off point for the biological grouping of Black Africans in your opinion?

- I actually feel like I'm pressing the wrong person here, but please understand that a faction like mentality perpetuated on ES can get readers lost as they might not completely understand the narrative. Because we have our Akachi's and clyde winters' it's like others have to overcompensate and double down on their objectiveness to the point where we might forget everything we stood for and everything you guys had to struggle and scrape together in the past being people interested in the history of Africa.

...It's disappointing on all levels.

Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
beyoku
Member
Member # 14524

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for beyoku     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
^ Who believes that though? NOT EVEN CASS...he may say he does but he is lying to himself.

Furthermore how does Black or Race vs genetic affinity help ME and help others identify the bio-history of the African continent?.....in the same way Europeans have identified the multiple lines of THEIR ancient ancestry and all type of ancient migrations it entails.

I am looking for a deeper narrative. That they were black is just so infantile. I am simply not intellectually satisfied leaving it all up to whether a population had brown skin. I knew that upon stepping off a plane in Cairo.

Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Somebody told certain brown people that they were black thus separating them from what otherwise is the vast brown majority.

Nevertheless skin color is a superficial trait and even then only differentiates the top layer of seven skin layers

Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Elmaestro
Moderator
Member # 22566

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Elmaestro     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by beyoku:
^ Who believes that though? NOT EVEN CASS...he may say he does but he is lying to himself.

Furthermore how does Black or Race vs genetic affinity help ME and help others identify the bio-history of the African continent?.....in the same way Europeans have identified the multiple lines of THEIR ancient ancestry and all type of ancient migrations it entails.

I am looking for a deeper narrative. That they were black is just so infantile. I am simply not intellectually satisfied leaving it all up to whether a population had brown skin. I knew that upon stepping off a plane in Cairo.

I added to my last post,

We WILL understand the biohistory of the continent one way or another eventually. But don't be naive, though you might not have a certain mindset, doesn't mean the people who read what you or others say are at your level. Trust me I am just as thirsty as you are for the truth, ....maybe even more since I'm younger and less "tired," lol. But sometimes I read these comments and have to say "pause, time-out."

nonetheless, Remember my first post in this thread after you opened it up?
-I didn't push my point earlier about the skin color thing because I din't want to turn the thread upside down. But I think it's a lil more important than you're giving it credit for, especially when we take into consideration the the MtDNA and those with similar profiles. I am NOT SAYING skin color determines relatedness, nor do Hgs, but they help tell a story, especially when we look at it from a genotypic perspective

Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Forty2Tribes
Member
Member # 21799

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Forty2Tribes   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:
Originally posted by Tukuler:
What's the difference between black and 'black'?
Do the single quote marks imply a level of doubt?
Would non-L mtDNA bar a 'black' from being black?

I am quoting because i cant use the word how other folks use the word. People are using the word while arguing the First Amerindians and original Chinese were Black.
I have heard people argue that Egyptians were caucasian because of this.
 -
 -

I say Ok...
The Chinese were black so and were the Greeks, Romans, Persians [Razz] .

Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Elmaestro
Moderator
Member # 22566

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Elmaestro     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
^but they aren't African nor were they closely descended from or related to Africans... 'Boom bam bing' case closed and wrap that sh!t up, Fvck bout the Chinese they're irrelevant.

To press the issue towards the OP... Folks don't forget that Geneflow OOA was presumably sex biased so a non- African or non-indigenous populations can have a decent amount of E-PN2 Y haplogroups... Keep that in mind. The Abusir sample sets up a landscape for understanding what has happened on many levels.

Beyoku Asked a question earlier, I answered. I think I'm the only one that answered... the only one besides cass/ that made a prediction before the leaked images dropped, the only one who payed much mind to the distribution of lineages based on the time period they were earthed... This thread is getting a lil frustrating not gonna lie.

Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Old thread proving Chinese ancestry of the Egyptians:

http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=004714

Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Akachi
On Vacation
Member # 21711

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Akachi         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cass/:
quote:
Originally posted by Tukuler:
I learned my lesson well.
I will not play the mod role.
But if you ship this old
Sephardi pirate a case
of Smith & Cross and
a box of Arturo Fuentes
well I'd gladly delete a
whole thread for you.

thanks, but If you could clear your inbox so I can send you a message to show.
This is the fishy **** that I'm talking about. These ES agents CLAIM to be melaninated/Africans who fight for the truth of the African melaninated story, but they are catering (by acknowledging ANYTHING in his "argument") to a Devil's bullshit. Cass should be dismissed! All of his post should be ignored if you are not counter trolling his ghosty ass! It's BULLSHIT...to keep allowing his pasty translucent kind to take ENERGY from "intellectuals". The interruption of real discussion by Caucasiansupremacist is the willing cycle/puppet show that these ES agents put on to keep Caucasainsupremacist fallacies in the game.
Posts: 348 | From: Atlanta | Registered: Jan 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 25 pages: 1  2  3  ...  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.

Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | EgyptSearch!

(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com

Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3