posted
Has anyone read the Black Athena linguistic evidence of an Afro-Asiatic root to Greek civilization?
Is there any conclusive evidence on Egyptian influence on Greek culture?
I myself am not sure where to actually look to see the connection.
I read some interesting reviews about the book and I do agree with someone of the issues of Afrocentricity.
quote:I couldn't stop laughing as I kept fliping the pages of this totally ridiculous fabrication. Common sense just doesn't exist with the author nor the audience who wants to believe this pack of lies. First the obvious must be stated: 1. If Greeks/Egyptians/Romans were black then why didn't any of their sculptures or mosaics portray the negroid race? Why are they all caucasoid? 2. If Greek/Egyptian/Roman civilizations were influenced by blacks--why don't any of the former cultures possess a (sub-saharan)Afro-language/culture? 3. If Greek/Egyptian/Roman civilizations were influenced by blacks--then why don't we find 1 civilization that had it's own written language and dynasty south of the Sahara (in the black ancestral lands)? 4. If blacks were so influential in classical Europe why couldn't they even penetrate the Island of Madagascar (only 150 miles off-shore from South Africa? (To get to Europe they must cross about 500 miles of no-mans land desert plus another 150-200 miles of merciless sea ). 5. The question of slavery also has to come up too. Blacks who were relatively easy to enslave due to their un-civility would have been prime for the Greeks and Romans. No such records indicate blacks slaves (Slaves were barbarian Germans/Scythians/Sarmations/Thracian/Dacian/Armenian/Iberian-Celts/Gauls/and Slavs). 6. The most obvious one...Where are all those great sub-saharan Castles? We're still waiting on that one. Conclusion: This is just another piece of garbage trying to make blacks feel as though their ancestors had some kind of influence over Europeans and Asians. This is on par with Louis Farrakhan stating that humans were always black for millenia and a mad-scientist created whites--it's just not true. DNA, archeological, linguistic, geographical, and artistic evidences all totally disprove this ridiculous conclusion. I had a good laugh though
and....
quote:What struck me most about Black Athena is the lack of archaeological evidence. Almost all of the evidence Mr Bernal adduces in support of his thesis is linguistic. He cites very little physical (archaeological) evidence, and attempts to deny the need for such evidence by referring dismissively to "the argument from silence"---what we can find no trace of today cannot have existed in significant quantities then. The title also seems to be a misnomer, since the ancient Egyptians were not black, and his argument is the influence of Egypt, not the influence of sub-saharan Africa. Note: even the name of the continent--Africa--has a non-black etymology: the Roman Scipio Africanus!
and..
quote:"Black Athena" (BA) will tax the staying power of any reader. It is a complicated and convoluted book that has generated countless impassioned rebuttals and counter rebuttals.
The author, Martin Bernal, is an agitator of rare talent. The stated purpose of his book is "to lessen European cultural arrogance." The title suggests that the Greek God Athena, patron of the glorious city of Athens, was black-skinned. The subtitle, "The Fabrication of Ancient Greece" suggests that generations of fawning classical scholars have wrongly proclaimed Greece the fount of Western Civilization because of their racial and ethnic prejudices. (For a typical view of the classicists read Edith Hamilton's famous book, "The Greek Way." She gives the Greeks credit for inventing rational thought, humanistic philosophy, mathematics, science, drama, democracy, medicine, and the atom.)
Bernal wins the argument hands down that the scholars have underestimated the contribution of Egypt to Greek civilization. His argument in favor of Semitic influences on the Greeks is not nearly so persuasive -- although the alphabet is undeniably an invention of the Semitic Phoenicians. But Bernal's thesis that Greece was invaded by a Semitic people called the Hyksos in the second millennium B.C. is unconvincing.
What of course interests everybody about "Black Athena" is the suggestion that European civilization evolved from an African -- and possibly black -- civilization. That leads to some interesting speculation (which Bernal does not fully explore). According to the Bible, the "Children of Israel" were held captive in Egypt for several hundred years. It seems probable some racial mixing between Egyptians and the Israelites occurred during those generations. Therefore, were the Israelites black? If Hollywood remakes the movie "The Ten Commandments" should Denzel Washington be cast as Moses? What a hoot that would be!
Bernal is uncustomarily brief and unspecific when he discusses the color of the ancient Egyptians. In this volume he says only that "one can usefully call" some pharaohs "black." Now, what does "usefully black" mean? In a later volume, "Black Athena Writes Back," he explains a bit more by saying he "never suggested that the Ancient Egyptian population as a whole looked like stereotypical West Africans." Well, it seems to me that Professor Bernal wimps out on the race issue. We want Bernal to examine in detail the evidence about the skin color of the ancient Egyptians and related civilizations, including the Greeks and the Semites. Why does he brush past this subject with such haste? Can it be that the fearless Doctor, who spends hundreds of pages flagellating white and European classical scholars for their racial and ethnic prejudices, fears to offend Afro-centric scholars?
"Black Athena" is one of the most controversial books of the last two decades. However, my wife probably has the best perspective on the whole subject, "Why in the world," says she, "would anyone care what the ancient Egyptians looked like? They've been dead 3,000 years."
finally...
quote:By all reports Martin Bernal is a respected scholar. Although his professional studies have focused on China, he attacks the problems of ancient Mediterranean history, archaeology, linguistics, and modern European intellectual history with enormous verve, great erudition and amazing breadth. It's therefore fascinating to follow the thread of his argumentation and note at every turn just how wrongheaded it all is. Here is a serious scholar who seems to believe that everything written by Europeans in the 19th and 20th centuries is corrupted by their conscious or unconscious racism, but that Greek myths or the self-aggrandizing monument inscriptions of Egyptian pharaohs are to be taken as literal truth. Yes, racism played a role in the development of 19th- and 20th-century historical thinking, but so did increasing knowledge. It was possible to imagine that Greek philosophy, religion and mathematics sprang from an Egyptian source when the Egyptian language was unreadable, but with a real understanding of Egyptian writings it became clear that the content and aims of Egyptian thought and religion were just not compatible with later Greek culture. Likewise, it was easy to imagine Egyptian military dominance, and perhaps even colonization, of broad swaths of Europe and Asia until decade after decade of careful archaeological excavation failed to reveal any more evidence of Egyptian presence than could be attributed to trade. But just as Bernal claims (not entirely correctly) that conventional scholarship was tainted by racist assumptions, twisting the evidence to favor the position that Greece developed without significant Semitic or African influence, so does Bernal pick and choose his evidence to support the opposite conclusion. The problem is that in Bernal's case there just isn't a whole lot of real evidence he can use, so he's reduced to fabricating the flimsiest of etymological connections or elevating myths into reliable historical documents.
For the record, the Greek lexicon does not contain a large number of Egyptian or Semitic loan words. The fact that Egypt is situated in Africa does not make its inhabitants "black" in the modern sense (e.g., physically similar to the sub-Saharan African population) any more than living in Asia makes Syrians Chinese. There is no archaeological evidence suggesting any multi-year campaign of conquest by any Egyptian pharaoh, much less colonization of the Aegean by Egyptians or post-expulsion Hyksos. And, regardless of what Bernal seems to think, showing that something might conceivably have been so doesn't remotely begin to constitute proof that it was so.
Perhaps the saddest thing about Black Athena is the fuel it gives to the Afrocentrist movement, which seems to subsist on a feeling that people of African descent can only feel good about themselves if their ancestors can be shown to have been the real founders of European culture. In its own unfortunate way, this belief is as Eurocentric as the one Bernal imputes to 19th-century scholars. Why isn't Egyptian civilization, or more to the point that of ancient Nubia or the Mali Empire, important in and of itself Black Athena offers its readers an attractive mirage, but what will they be left with if (and when) the mirage dissolves?
In the highlighted above I very much agree with that point and wonder myself about Afrocentricity. These are very interesting views on people that actually read the book. My question to the board is; is there any archeological evidence to support his claims? Is he definitive on what race the Egyptians are? If anyone read the book, what do you feel about the linguistic connections? Is it even possible to connect Egypt to Greece?
Posts: 87 | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bottom line, Afroasiatic is the root of all European writing. This is the most obvious and easiest aspect of African Levantine influence on European culture. European written languages, including Greek, all stem from scripts developed in Egypt and the Levant, within the framework of Afro-Asiatic (African) languages. There is no guessing on this. Anyone who would deny this or turn it around and try to imply the opposite is purely making up fantasy history. Africa and cultures from Africa have played a pivotal role in the development of human civilization and culture and cannot be down played. Europe was never the origin of civilization, writing, language or culture and therefore it is an obvious statement of fact that most of those roots of civilization and culture came from somewhere else: Africa and Asia, hence Afro-Asiatic.
I don't see what is so hard to understand that thematic overview of Mr. Bernal's books. Now, certain details can be argued from a perspective of facts and evidence, but the overall flow of events is still the same and the overall gist is the same. It is only in the mind of a Eurocentric scholar that Europe is seen as the cornerstone and origin of human civilization and culture, when to everyone else it is obvious that they aren't.
As an example of the Afro-Asiatic roots of Europe's written language see here:
Ancient Sabean script (9th Century BC or earlier):
So from a linguistic perspective, there is no question where European written language originates. Also keep in mind that the stylistic convention of much early Medieval art is a straight derivation of the early 2d side view art perspective that is found in Egypt, Persia, Babylon and so forth. Again, there is no question where this side view perspective style originates.
So, given all of these undeniable facts, what is left for debate? There is no question that Egypt is one of the oldest civilizations on earth, if not the oldest. Is there a question on this? There are no facts and evidence that would lead anyone to a contrary conclusion. Likewise, all the facts and evidence says that ancient Egyptian people were primarily indigenous to the Nile Valley and Sahara. Again, there is really no question or debate about this either. And in all reality there is really no debate about whether the ancient Egyptians were primarily black Africans. Therefore, there is nothing to debate. The only question is whether people accept the facts or they don't. And most often those who don't accept the facts justify it based on politics, ideology and/or racist viewpoints, but never the facts. So from all the facts and evidence the point is clear. Mr. Bernal goes over all of these things, but on some specifics he is not quite in agreement with Afrocentrics. Therefore, he is not really an Afrocentric and he is not really a supporter or champion of Afrocentrism. That is a total straw man argument and another example of knee jerk reactionism on the part of those who care less about facts and more about ideology.
As an example of the way facts underlie Mr. Bernals books and are hardly ever debated by those who care about ideology, consider the following example. In his second volume he talks of the Egyptian influence on early Crete. He particularly talks about early Cretan palaces and the parallels between the Cretan Bull cult and the Bull cults of Egypt. He talks about the fact that the early 11th dynasty originated in the South with black kings. He talks about the fact that Min and the Bull cults of the Old Kingdom in Memphis were traditions that supposedly originated with Menes. He talks of the labrynthe like tombs and temples built by the early pharaohs and that the earliest reference to a labrynthe by the Greeks was a reference to the tomb palace of Amenhemaat of the 12th dynasty not the Minoans. He speaks of Min being an important root word for the "Min"oans, their legendary King, "Min"os and the man with the head of a bull the "Min"otaur as all being possible parallels to ancient Egyptian kings and dieties like Menes, Min and the bull cults. And this is only in 2 pages of the first chapter of Bernal's book. There are so many details that are presented in his books that it is impossible to address his work without addressing the specifics. Yet that is precisely what those who are against Mr. Bernal seek to do and no one has really approached the depth and breadth of facts that are presented in his works. Again, the facts and evidence are there for everyone to see and really aren't debatable, except by those who are more concerned with ideology not facts.
Posts: 8895 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Bottom line, Afroasiatic is the root of all European writing
Correct. Africans invented writing, and agriculture and cattle domestication.
Europeans did not, and inherit all of the above from Africa and Levantine influences and incursions - which begin in the Neolithic, and lasted thru the Moorish era.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Naga Def Wolofi: Has anyone read the Black Athena linguistic evidence of an Afro-Asiatic root to Greek civilization?
I haven't had time to read any of Bernal's books.
quote:Is there any conclusive evidence on Egyptian influence on Greek culture?
Yes, the alphabet that Greeks used was borrowed from the Phoenicians which is derived from Egyptian heiroglyphic script.
quote:I myself am not sure where to actually look to see the connection.
You can start by looking in the archives, where you can find threads like this and this.
quote:I read some interesting reviews about the book and I do agree with someone of the issues of Afrocentricity.
And what issues do you agree with?? From what I've read below, the guy who wrote it is a racist nutcase who knows nothing about Egyptian, let alone African culture!
I couldn't stop laughing as I kept fliping the pages of this totally ridiculous fabrication. Common sense just doesn't exist with the author nor the audience who wants to believe this pack of lies. First the obvious must be stated:
Yes, let us see where the common sense is missing or what the lies are.
1. If Greeks/Egyptians/Romans were black then why didn't any of their sculptures or mosaics portray the negroid race? Why are they all caucasoid?
Of course we know 'racial' terms like "negroid" and "caucasoid" are invalid, but racial terms aside if he means 'white' and 'black'. Of course Egyptian as African sculpture and mosiacs portrayed blacks while Greek and Roman as European sculpture and mosiacs portrayed whites. And?
2. If Greek/Egyptian/Roman civilizations were influenced by blacks--why don't any of the former cultures possess a (sub-saharan)Afro-language/culture?
Cultural influence need not necessarily include language also. As for Egyptian, it was not "influenced" by blacks, because they were blacks! And they did speak an African language which is related to other Sub-Saharan languages!
3. If Greek/Egyptian/Roman civilizations were influenced by blacks--then why don't we find 1 civilization that had it's own written language and dynasty south of the Sahara (in the black ancestral lands)?
LOL Naga, surely you as an African knows that there were multiple civilizations/kingdoms south of the Sahara obviously with dynasties including divine-kings just like the pharaohs of Egypt, and even some with their own written languages.
4. If blacks were so influential in classical Europe why couldn't they even penetrate the Island of Madagascar (only 150 miles off-shore from South Africa? (To get to Europe they must cross about 500 miles of no-mans land desert plus another 150-200 miles of merciless sea ).
Silly strawman that makes no sense. First of all blacks did settle or "penetrate" Madagascar, but what has that got to do with having influence on the Greeks??
5. The question of slavery also has to come up too. Blacks who were relatively easy to enslave due to their un-civility would have been prime for the Greeks and Romans. No such records indicate blacks slaves (Slaves were barbarian Germans/Scythians/Sarmations/Thracian/Dacian/Armenian/Iberian-Celts/Gauls/and Slavs).
ROTFL Yeah, his racism takes the cake here with no logic whatsoever. He equates being black to being slaves. So since all the slaves in ancient Greece were white, surely the Greeks had no contact with blacks, Even though they described the Egyptians as such! LOL It's obvious he doesn't know that the very word 'slave' is derived from Slav as in the eastern European Slavic groups!
6. The most obvious one...Where are all those great sub-saharan Castles? We're still waiting on that one.
"Castles" in the sense of Europe? Of course not, but may other buildings and structures survive.
Conclusion: This is just another piece of garbage trying to make blacks feel as though their ancestors had some kind of influence over Europeans and Asians. This is on par with Louis Farrakhan stating that humans were always black for millenia and a mad-scientist created whites--it's just not true. DNA, archeological, linguistic, geographical, and artistic evidences all totally disprove this ridiculous conclusion. I had a good laugh though
Conclusion, the guy wrote the above is a racist idiot who knows nothing about African history and culture including Egypt but only racist lies.
What struck me most about Black Athena is the lack of archaeological evidence. Almost all of the evidence Mr Bernal adduces in support of his thesis is linguistic. He cites very little physical (archaeological) evidence, and attempts to deny the need for such evidence by referring dismissively to "the argument from silence"---what we can find no trace of today cannot have existed in significant quantities then. The title also seems to be a misnomer, since the ancient Egyptians were not black, and his argument is the influence of Egypt, not the influence of sub-saharan Africa. Note: even the name of the continent--Africa--has a non-black etymology: the Roman Scipio Africanus!
Same racist rhetoric etc. etc.
Naga, you could do alot better than this. Posts: 26252 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
These were reviews taken from Amazon.com about Bernal's book. I have never read the book, but thanks for the linguistic pics Doug M.
Posts: 87 | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
First and foremost Naga, there are just as many supporters of Bernal as there are deniers. His staunchest, most racist skeptics are all found online...you figure that one out.
Secondly, yes...there's plenty of strong and assertive evidence that Egypt (and the Levant) influenced Ancient Greece. Greece came later though, you have to first look to places like Crete and Boiotia. There's so much that Bernal touches on, that it's impossible to talk about it all in one thread. I started a thread a while back on this...I'll try to find it.
Posts: 1219 | From: North Carolina, USA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The guy is a retarded, racist ignoramus who uses the ruse of limiting Africans to south of the Sahara, when in fact whites and Asians are not native to Africa. Scipio Africanus was called Africanus because the Roman province in north Africa already had such a name, which I believe according to someone on this board comes from a Berber word. It is amazing how vehemently and venomously persons such as this moron attack Bernal, sounding indignant in the process. Note that he does not address any of the issues in particular, but only generalities with irrelevant strawmen. Plus, what are his qualifications?
In order for African history to be told fully and truthfully, this false division along supposed racial lines between Africa south of the Sahara and Africa north of it must cease. This lie is used constantly to deny the Africanity of Egyptians and other North Africans.
Posts: 140 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
As I said, the facts and evidence are overwhelming and there is no debate. The only ones who see a debate are debating IDEOLOGY, ie. blacks MUST be historically inferior because whites MUST be historically SUPERIOR because of white supremacy. Therefore, they are debating the ideology of WHITE SUPREMACY and the lies and half truths that support it, not the FACTS.
It is much more important to dwell on the facts and a book like Bernal's is FULL of facts and evidences, so much so that no one who is serious about ancient Egypt would let a review like that above stop them from reading it. READ the book, look at the facts, cross reference and do some research of your own and judge it based on its own merit. Racists will claim Egypt was white even if a black ancient Egyptian was staring them in the face, so what they think does not count.
Bottom line, and I can't emphasize this enough, ALL European and a large part of Asian written language used today comes from the Afro-Asiatic scripts that originated in Egypt. There is no debating that. That is the primary evidence for Egyptian influence on Greece in linguistics and writing. But that is just the most obvious. There are many other links that require more in depth research to reveal other possible connections.
Posts: 8895 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Bottom line, Afroasiatic is the root of all European writing
Correct. Africans invented writing, and agriculture and cattle domestication.
Europeans did not, and inherit all of the above from Africa and Levantine influences and incursions - which begin in the Neolithic, and lasted thru the Moorish era.
Agreed.
The break in Eurocentrist logic is that if Greece was influenced by Africa, then African civilization should have developed similarly to Greek civilization. Given the differences in environment and unfolding of historic events, this is a very dubious and irrational way of trying to minimizeAfrican influence on Europe.
For the sake of argument let's say that the ONLY thing Africa gave to the world was its written language. I think that's quite pivotal to EVERYTHING that has transpired since. Even if that was the only thing (and we know it's not - architecture, religious influence, etc) that alone would be enough to put Africa at the heart of world history. I don't see why so many have to cry foul on such a simple fact.
Posts: 477 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I will say that I don't agree with everything Bernal says, since while most of what is says is accurate, not all of it is.
For example, in his book he claims that the Indo-European phylum is an offshoot of Afroasiatic which is definitely not true. His linguistic evidence is flimsy and is akin to Nostratic postulations.
Other that, the basic premise of the book is very well true. It is a known fact Egypt and the Levant predate Greece by several millennia, therefore it not surprising nor denied in academia that these areas influenced Greek civilization.
The issue boils down to if the Egyptians were black or not, and how much influence. Eurocentrics say either that Egyptian influence was great but Egyptians were not black, or that Egyptians were black but the influence was minimal. Basically, the same double-talk they always use to demote the black African role in history.
Posts: 26252 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: I will say that I don't agree with everything Bernal says, since while most of what is says is accurate, not all of it is.
For example, in his book he claims that the Indo-European phylum is an offshoot of Afroasiatic which is definitely not true. His linguistic evidence is flimsy and is akin to Nostratic postulations.
Other that, the basic premise of the book is very well true. It is a known fact Egypt and the Levant predate Greece by several millennia, therefore it not surprising nor denied in academia that these areas influenced Greek civilization.
The issue boils down to if the Egyptians were black or not, and how much influence. Eurocentrics say either that Egyptian influence was great but Egyptians were not black, or that Egyptians were black but the influence was minimal. Basically, the same double-talk they always use to demote the black African role in history.
I've never heard them say the Egyptians were Black. But I think it's something that crosses their mind, which is why they play down and minimalize Egypt's influence in the first place. They seem much quicker to acknowledge the Levant than they do Egypt. Possibly because the Levant wasn't a Black or African (or both) area?
Posts: 1219 | From: North Carolina, USA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Believe it or not, there are sources that acknowledge the African/black identity of the Egyptians, but usually when they do, they downplay their role.
Posts: 26252 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
It is of interest that he references the Mushabian archaeological complex and the early holocene migration out of Africa and around the fertile crescent. Yet, he does not discuss the diffusion of proto-Semitic with this migration. In fact, this concept in some ways challenges his position which is Semeitic spread to Greece during the post-Hyksos period. If Semitic was present from the neolithic phase his entire theory would be called into question.
-------------------- Black Roots. Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is counter intertuitive, considering the Eurocentric view of history, to directly accept the assertions that Western Civilization has Black roots. Such a rewrite of our a foundation premise will require systematic and non-controversial breakdown of every componential aspect of the white supremist paradigm.
One simple problem for you all to consider. Even if Egypt was a Black African society, the people of that Black African civilization were semi to non-Negroid in phenotype. Basically the assertion would be that they were Caucasoid Black people. And yes such definitions do exist. Black Caucasoids is not a new term. I have heard it said that most of our American Black female models are indeed Black Caucasoids.
Hamitic people have often been referred to as Non-Negroid. So basically unless Egyptians look like the "True Negroid" this controversy will never end.
Posts: 154 | From: Seattle Washington | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Hamitic people have often been referred to as Non-Negroid. So basically unless Egyptians look like the "True Negroid" this controversy will never end.
The hamitic people have already been discredited and it's not hard at all to find the physical features of ancient egyptians by looking at the people of todays egypt. Mostly outside the metropolitan areas. Just because modern egyptians got arabaized both culturally and linguistically doesn't make them any less egyptian genetically than greeks are less connected to ancient greeks, chinese to ancient china or iranians to ancient persians.
Posts: 1554 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course modern Egypt has been altered by migrations, but that doesn't mean modern 'Arab' Egyptians don't carry any lineages from their ancient native ancestors.
Also, the whole "Hamite/Hamitic" type has been debunked decades ago. Facial characteristics are diverse among human populations and you cannot classify people into "caucasoids" and "negroids" as Western scholars did ages. Ago, the whole premise of "black caucasoids" is as silly as "white negroids". It is nonsensical pure and simple.
quote:Evergreen Writes: It is of interest that he references the Mushabian archaeological complex and the early holocene migration out of Africa and around the fertile crescent. Yet, he does not discuss the diffusion of proto-Semitic with this migration. In fact, this concept in some ways challenges his position which is Semeitic spread to Greece during the post-Hyksos period. If Semitic was present from the neolithic phase his entire theory would be called into question.
Agreed.
Posts: 26252 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osiriun: It is counter intertuitive, considering the Eurocentric view of history, to directly accept the assertions that Western Civilization has Black roots. Such a rewrite of our a foundation premise will require systematic and non-controversial breakdown of every componential aspect of the white supremist paradigm.
One simple problem for you all to consider. Even if Egypt was a Black African society, the people of that Black African civilization were semi to non-Negroid in phenotype. Basically the assertion would be that they were Caucasoid Black people. And yes such definitions do exist. Black Caucasoids is not a new term. I have heard it said that most of our American Black female models are indeed Black Caucasoids.
Hamitic people have often been referred to as Non-Negroid. So basically unless Egyptians look like the "True Negroid" this controversy will never end.
Non-negroid as having so-called "Caucasian" features? For Chrissakes, how many times do we have to go over this? East Africans naturally have thin lips and straight noses. This is not non-Negroid because Negroid doesn't even exist. There is no such thing as black Caucasoid either.
Posts: 603 | From: Mobile, Alabama | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Eurocentric thinkers seem to be quite prone to projection, and this is only complicated when their Afrocentric mimics step on to the scene.
quote:Originally posted by Naga Def Wolofi:
quote:which seems to subsist on a feeling that people of African descent can only feel good about themselves if their ancestors can be shown to have been the real founders of European culture. In its own unfortunate way, this belief is as Eurocentric as the one Bernal imputes to 19th-century scholars. Why isn't Egyptian civilization, or more to the point that of ancient Nubia or the Mali Empire, important in and of itself
Like Eurocentrist misinformation propagators "seems to subsist on a feeling that people of [European] descent can only feel good about themselves if their ancestors can be shown to have been the real founders of [African] culture".
Seriously, Afrocentrists want to be the founder of European culture?
Perhaps those extremists who look at the world in the same Eurocentric ultra-violet rose coloured glasses that you folks where. [you->writer, not[?] Naga]
I say Europe isn't as special as it's progeny into tha scholarly now make it out to be; my eyes seek no such prize.
I will say that this confounds the Eurocentric White Supremacist 'modern' 'Western' world view though.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: The issue boils down to if the Egyptians were black or not, and how much influence. Eurocentrics say either that Egyptian influence was great but Egyptians were not black, or that Egyptians were black but the influence was minimal. Basically, the same double-talk they always use to demote the black African role in history.
LOL @ the *N*egro cannibal natufians who morph into non Negros when YT finds out the crucial role Natufians played in human history.
Now of course they are caucasoid semites or negroid white semites (the latter according to folks like Queezy E ["Dumb Euro"]). The lunacy does not stop. Guess it's just going to be forced to a slow, grinding, screeching, death I mean halt.
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Say what you want but the phenotype definition of Negroid and Caucasoid is still widely used. Can a white person have Negroid features? Will the fact is that there is less phenotype variance in Europe and as a consequence it not as likely to see people with Negroid features amongst Europeans.
Nevertheless, Negroid features are not whay Egyptians have and as such Eurocentrics latch on to their more European features and you have this controversy.
Never gonna end.
Black Caucasoids is the best you will get from them.
Posts: 154 | From: Seattle Washington | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
Unrelated populations accross the globe have similar cranial features and no anthropologist that is taken seriously by peers uses such terminology.
So regardless of how widespread it is in the lamen field, it's still irrelevant.
What you are saying is similar to just saying "nothin'll change".
quote:Originally posted by osiriun: Nevertheless, Negroid features are not whay Egyptians have and as such Eurocentrics latch on to their more European features and you have this controversy.
Now, as to the bolded, so-called "caucasian" features in a population that has NO recent RELATION to them, and had nothing to do with them is absurd.
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ The best defense against such nonsense is a good offesense-- as in active education about such racial terms to explode them.
Posts: 26252 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Yeah, his racism takes the cake here with no logic whatsoever. He equates being black to being slaves. So since all the slaves in ancient Greece were white, surely the Greeks had no contact with blacks, Even though they described the Egyptians as such! LOL It's obvious he doesn't know that the very word 'slave' is derived from Slav as in the eastern European Slavic groups!![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic