Abaza, it is always a good idea to pin point exactly what you are rejecting as lies, and who you are calling ignorant. Opinions are valued, but the truth is the goal!
This is the longest myth ever in existence, which is pedaled as true scholarship and truth. Yet it is an outright myth, deliberately created from 1830 onwards, to explain away Egyptian civilization. During the 1800's there was all kinds of pseudo-sciences floating around about the genetical and inherent inferiority of peoples of African descent, and also a belief blacks are to be colonized because they are uncivilized and savage by nature. This was created to justify colonialism and also denying blacks equal rights in America. In order to moralize their mistreatment of blacks, scientific racism was created. And a part of this was in denying blacks had ever had a civilization. Since Egypt was a very impressive and marvelous civilization, and much of the heritage of the western world (such as writing and the calendar) came from ancient Egypt, it became necessary to whiten Egypt.
But the truth is, the ancient Egyptians were not white. Neither were they pure black. The ancient Egyptians were a mixed-race people, especially in Upper Egypt, where Egyptian civilization began. While the earliest inhabitants, the Tasians, are believed to have been of Cro-Magnoid stock, the predynastic Badarian period which starts at 5500 B.C. in Upper Egypt, was quite Negroid. Carleton S. Coon calls the predynastic Egyptian population of Upper Egypt during the Badarian period "Mediterrenean" and denies any black admixture, on account of their thick and wavy hair. But thin and wavy hair is Caucasion hair. Wavy hair that is thick in texture is typical of peoples with African ancestry. The hair-type Coon described can be found amongst many modern-day Nubians, as well as some Northern Ethiopians, and a number of persons of mixed ancestry in Latin America, the Caribbean, and even in the United States. And besides, he described the crania of the Badarian skulls he studied as being dolichocephalic, with short faces, blurred margin (broad noses), and prognathisms. These are distinctly Negroid traits, and are undeniable evidence of black admixture. As for the hair of predynastic Upper Egyptian of the Badarian period, recent studies of their hair, show them to be semi-frizzy, like Mulattoes and many Northeast Africans. [Keita, S.O.Y. Studies and "Comments on Ancient Egyptian Biological Relationships," History of Africa 20, p.140] Of the Badarian predynastic Egyptian population, other scholars do not hesitate to call the characteristics of the crania as Negroid and as being due to African ancestry. Dr. Childe V. Gordon, a British anthropologist, spoke of the Negroid traits in Badarian crania. Other Egyptologists and anthropologists have noted the same. Dr. Emile Massourlard, a French Egyptologist, published a work in 1949 called[ "Prehistoire et Protohistoire d'Egypt"[ in which he cites various studies on predynastic and dynastic Egyptian culture. On the Badarians, he quotes a study by Miss Stoessiger. Of her, he states:
"Badarian skulls differ very little from other less ancient predynastic skulls; they are just a bit more prognathous. Next to these, they most resemble primitive Indian skulls: Dravidians and Veddas. They also present a few affinities with Negroes, due no doubt to a very ancient admixture of Negro blood." [p. 394]
Prognathisms is a distinctly Negroid trait. What Massoulard's passage leaves out, is that Miss Stoessiger found the Badarian crania to all possess blurred margin (broad nasal index), just as Coon noted. Dr. S.O.Y. Keita, a well respected and noteable anthropologist did a cranial analysis of his own on various cranias, in his work "Studies of Ancient Crania From Northern Africa." His samples included predynastic Badari, predynastic early Naqqada, Kerma (Bronze Age Nubia), 1st Dynasty royal remains at Abydos, Teita East Africa, Gaboon Central-West Africa, and Romano-Britain. Through his experiments he was able to gain several observations. He found that the Badari predynastic Egyptian crania occupied, "a position closest to the Teita, Gaboon, Nubian, and Nagada series." [p. 40]
This is startling in the fact that he reports, "the Nagada and Kerma series are so similar that they were barely distinguishable in the territorial maps." [[p. 40] [ He reports that these series, Nagada and Kerma, "subsume the first dynasty series from Abydos." [p. 40] In other [words, the 1st Dynasty royal remains at Abydos, were similar to the Badarian and early Naqqadan series. A factor to be discussed later. But getting back to Badar predynastic Egyptian crania, Keita continues:
"The Badarian crania have a modal metric phenotype that is clearly 'southern'; most classify into the Kerma (Nubian), Gaboon, and Kenyan groups NO Badarian cranium in any analysis classified into the EUROPEAN SERIESs..." [p. 40]
[Emphasis mine] Especially notable is the fact absolutely none of the predynastic Badari crania were Caucasoid. Other anthropologists and Egyptologists whom have noted predynastic Badari and early Naqqada crania possessing "alveolar prognathisms" (protruding upper teeth case; a condition very common amongst African populations, but very rare amongst Europeans and Western Asians) and "blurred margin," as well as other distinctly Negroid affinities, include Morant (whom shall be discussed shortly), Anderson (1968), Stouhal (1971), and Chamla (1990).
It is during the Badari predynastic period which begins at 5000 B.C., that the Egyptians begin farming and domesticating animals, and cease hunting and gathering. This period is noted by distinctive pottery and the use of copper. Here we see, the basic elements which were to become Egyptian civilization being created by a population whom posses distinctive Negroid affinities.
But on to late Naqqada predynastic Egyptian. These crania have been found to more heterogenous in nature. But still, all posses Negroid affinities. This is noted by Dr. Emile Massoulard, whom cites a Miss Fawcett, whom studied a number of Naqqada crania, and found them all to posses a combination of Negroid and Europoid affinities. Of this Massoulard states:
"Miss Fawcett believes the Naqada crania to be SUFFICIANTLY HOMOGENOUS to justify speaking of a Naqada RACE. By height of the skull, the auricular height, the height and width of the face, the height of the nose, the ceohalic and facial indexes, this race PRESENTS AFFINITIES WITH NEGROES. By the nasal width, the height of the orbit, the length of the palate, and the nasal index, it presents affinities with Germans...." [Prehistoire et Protohistoire d'Egypt, p. 402-403]
[Emphasis mine] We can see here that the Naqqada series all possessed Negroid affinities. Even Loring C. Brace, whom The Ancient Egyptians weren't Black Webpage <http://www.geocities.com/enbp/physanth.html> uses as their "proof" Egyptians were white, has noted that predynastic Upper Egyptian crania of the late Naqqada period to "also show tendencies towards neighbouring African groups." [Brace et al, 36:1-31] and even Brace's evaluation of late Naqqada crania is not entirely sound.
In 1966 Michael Crichton, a brilliant pre-med student, did a thesis on the late Naqqada period crania of Upper Egypt. This is the same Michael Crichton, by the way, whom would later go on to write the book Jurassic Park! He studied crania from the exact same cemetery Brace got his samples from. But unlike Brace, rather than finding them strongly Europoid with only minor Northeast African tendencies, Crichton found the crania to posses distinctly Negroid characteristics and he found them to cluster near Africans than Europeans. [Crichton, Michael. "A Multiple Discriminate Analysis of Egyptian and African Negro Crania," Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archeology and Ethnology 57:45-67] The difference between Crichton and Brace, lay in the sameples they chose as the "standard" for Africans. Brace made all European crania equally European, while hypocritically not making all African crania equally African. He took samples from Benin, Tanzania, and Gabon (all countries where people tend to resemble the "True Negro"), and presented them as "genuine African", while assuming Northeast Africans and East Africans weren't equally African. Thus, the African sample split into two groups. True Negroes whom he labelled "Sub-Saharan" and Northeast Africans; namely Somalians, Bronze Age Nubians, and Christian Nubians. Thus his predynastic Upper Egyptian sample hovered between the Northeast African sample and the European one. Crichton on the other hand, unlike Brace, assumed Northeast Africans and East Africans to be as equally genuinely African as the True Negro. He used the Teita people of Kenya (a Nilotic peoples) as the particular cluster to compare his Naqqada crania with. He found the Naqqada sample to cluster very close to the Teita sample, and to show very strong affinities with them. Thus, Crichton found a definite strong Negroid character to the exact same Naqqada crania, Brace found very little in. Thus, we see they were definitely Negroid.
Nonetheless it is during the early part of this period (4250 B.C.) that the Egyptians begin using the 365-day Solar Calendar. The same solar calendar which is the direct ancestor of the very calendar used by us today. And during the later Naqqada period, we see Egyptian Hierogliphics in use. The Osirin religion, the Egyptian priesthood, and the institution of Pharaoh, all had their roots in predynastic Naqqada Upper Egypt. Mind you, the peoples of predynastic Lower Egypt were whites of Mediterranean and Proto-Nordic stock, having affinities with [white]Libyans to the northwest of Egypt. These were pastoralist tribes. The peoples of Upper Egypt during the predynastic period were a different stock. This is noted by G.M Morant, whom did a comprehensive study on Dynastic and Predynastic Egyptian crania. As cited by John R. Baker (whom is a very right wing anthropologist with racist leanings), in the north he [Morant] found a predominant "Mediterranean" element, in the south he discovered the same thing. Only the population sample from Upper Egypt had black admixture to varying degrees. Thus confirming that the peoples of Upper Egypt were distinctly Negroid. He also finds out that the further we get into the Dynastic period, the less distinctive the crania from Lower and Upper Egypt are, until they evidently fused together. [Baker, John R. Race, p. 519] And lastly, Sir Grafton Elliot Smith, who was a professor of Anatomy at Cairo's Egyptian Museum in the early 1900's, studied many bodies and skeletons of predynastic and Dynastic Egyptians. His findings revealed that these peoples had an "effeminate and frail build, poorly developed eyebrows, small broad noses and slight prognathism." That to anyone this sounds like typical Negroid characteristics.
As for the 1st dynasty, it is interesting to note that Dr. S.O.Y. Keita who studied their remains found a definite Sudanic cast of features among them. Of this Keita states:
"The predominant craniometric pattern in the Abydos royal tombs is 'southern' (tropical African variant), and this is consistent with what would be expected based on the literature and other results." [Studies of Ancient Crania From Northern African, p. 40]
The first dynasty was founded by Narmer-Menes, who was an Upper Egyptian king. Being that the predynastic population of Upper Egypt was distinctly Negroid in affinities, it makes sense that Narmer himself, being an Upper Egyptian, would also be Negroid. This <http://www.tarikegypthistory-site.cityslide.com/i/1/19/197/1971/19716/197168/Narmer-Menes-Palate.jpg> sketch of Narmer from his Palate, during his victory march, in which he wears the Crown of Lower Egypt, shows distinctive Negroid characteristics. The nose is wide and broad, and the lips are thick and everted. [Courtesy of Bellephorn Books] The sketch is an actual sketch of the reverse side of the Palate. The side we rarely get shown in books. A bust of an unidentified first dynasty king <http://www.tarikegypthistory-site.cityslide.com/i/2/29/294/2940/29405/narmerii.gif> found at Abydos also confirms the Negroid nature of the first dynasty. The features of the bust are distinctly Negroid, assuring us the kings of this dynasty were neither are Semitic, Aryan, or Mediterranean, but unquestionably of African descent. Contrary to Arthur Kemp's <http://www.stormfront.org/whitehistory/egypt.html> claims, the bust actually does date back to the first dynasty period. There are no inscriptions on it at all. It has been seen by many to be Narmer himself, based on the fact it was found at a first dynasty royal tomb at Abydos, and it dates back to the first dynasty period. Arthur Kemp appearantly did not do his research on this one, when he stated it comes from the 25th dynasty (Ethiopian) period. We nonetheless see the First dynasty was an African one. The same can be said about second dynasty Pharaoh Bae Neter <http://www.tarikegypthistory-site.cityslide.com/i/2/29/294/2941/29410/IIDynastyking.jpg> as well, as this image of a Pharaoh from this period, is distinctively Negroid. Also this <http://www.tarikegypthistory-site.cityslide.com/i/2/29/294/2940/29406/ZoserIII.jpg> bas-relief portriate of Pharaoh Zoser of the Third Dynasty also shows the Third Dynasty to have been Africoid. Zoser was the second king of the third dynasty, and had succeeded his older brother. And also, studies of Third Dynasty royal remains, show them too, to mostly posses Tropical African tendencies. [Keita, 1993] Thus, the Third Dynasty was African from its start!
The 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, and 10th, dynasties are more of a mystery. In some images, members appear Africoid, while in others more Europoid. They were probably of mixed origin, as were most of the Egyptian populace. But what is for certain, based on cranial analysis and their images, is they were Sudanic in ancestry. Keith W. Crawford, citing Drake and Bernal, states that the rulers of the Middle Kingdom [Dynasties 11 and 12] ; "Broad African features originated in Upper Egypt." [The Racial Identity of Ancient Egyptian Populations Based on the Analysis of Physical Remains, p. 65-66]
"These African traits are the ones usually ascribed to 'true Negroes.'" He goes on to cite the following quote of Robins and Schute's evaluation of Middle Kingdom Egyptians:
"Robins (1983) has recently analyzed Warren's data on predynastic bones and has measured photographs and X-rays of some dynastic skeletons from the Middle Kingdom. She has shown that, for males at least, plausible estimates of stature that are reasonably consistent when different long bones are used only result from negro equations, and that the most satisfactory equations are those of Trotter and Glesser (1958)." [p. 96]
This shows dynasties 11 and 12 were unquestionably Sudanic. The same has also been found of the late 17th dynasty, which was found to have distinctive maxillary or alveolar prognathisms, prognathisms, dolichochocephaly, short faces, and other Negroid ¡Øsouthern¡× affinities. And especially of Seqenenre Tao, last pharaoh of the 17th dynasty, and the father of Queen Amhose-Nefertari, first queen of the 18th dynasty, this was found. His pronounced and distinctive southern affinities have been noted by numerous experts. Professors Harris and Weeks, in their work "X-Raying the Pharaohs" stated this of Seqenenre Tao:
"His entire facial complex, in fact, is so different from other pharaohs (it is closest in fact to his son Ahmose) that he could be fitted more easily into the series of Nubian and Old Kingdom Giza skulls than into that of later Egyptian kings. Various scholars in the past have proposed a Nubian- that is, non-Egyptian-origin for Sequenre and his family, and his facial features suggest that this might indeed be true."
Please keep in mind through his son Amhose and his daughter Amhose-Nefertari, 18th dynasty kings and queens Amenhotep I, Queen Meryatamon, Queen Hatshepsut, Thutmose II, Thutmose III, Thutmose IV, Amenhotep II, Amenhotep III, Akhenaton, Queen Nefertiti, and Tutankhamen, can all trace their bloodlines back to Seqenenre Tao. The 18th dynasty was virtually a continuation of the 17th one. And upon the 18th dynasty royals, to demonstrate this even further, let's examine the works of Professors Harris and Wente on this. In 1980 Professors James Harris and Edward Wente wrote a book called "X-Ray Atlas of the Royal Mummies." In this book they examined and x-rayed various royal mummies stored at the Egyptian Museum in Cairo. The Dynasties in question were 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21. The purpose of this study, was by determining the shapes of the crania, the teeth, and length and width of the face, to deterimine how traits were passed down through the various royal members of each dynasty, and to deterimine blood relations based on those traits.
What Harris and Wente found, was that the kings and queens of the late 17th and the 18th dynasties were mostly prognathous, with maxillary prognathisms, doliochocephaly, and other traits. This is also true of the 20th and 21st dynasties. we shall be dealing with the 18th dynasty. Harris and Wente, by the way, were white Americans and not black Afrocentrics. Their interest was in familial relations through traits, not racial characteristics! And they did their studies on actual mummies. The 18th Dynasty was the very Egyptian dynasty which extended Egypt's borders into Asia and the Sudan, creating a vast empire. They also are well known for their great monument and public works buildings. Pharaoh Amenhotep III, who's children Akhenaton and Nefertiti show strong Negroid admixture in their features, built a lake for his wife Neferiti.They also built vast stretches of land, and were the first dynasty to utilize the horse, and make use of carriages. This was the strongest Egyptian dynasty ever. Even stronger than the 19th one, and greater builders. Yet this dynasty was undeniably black, as shall be irrifutably demonstrated Before we start, let's look at Negroid and Caucasoid traits. WM Krogman (The Human Skeleton in Forensic Medicine) listed traits and features associated distinctly with the Negroid and Caucasion races. I shall list them below!
Africoid: Rounded, projecting glabella; sagittal plateau; rounded forehead, prognathism; rounded occiput.
Caucasoid: Depressed glabella; rounded or arched sagittal contour; steep forehead; orthognathism; variable occiput. And according to, S Rhine ("Non-metric skull racing"):
Africoid: Slight depression of nasion; vertical zygomatic arches; prognathism; receding, vertical chin; straight mandibular edge.
Caucasoid: Depression of nasion; retreating zygomatic arches; orthognathism; prominent, bilobate chin; wavy mandibular edge.
Also, RA Drummond ("A determination of cephalometric norms for the Negro race"); TL Alexander and HP Hitchcock ("Cephalometric standards for American Negro children"); RJ Fonseca, WD Klein ("A cephalometric evaluation of American Negro women"); CJ Kowalski, CE Nasjlet and GF Walker (Differential diagnosis of adult make black and white populations); and A Jacobson ("The craniofacial skeletal pattern of the South African Negro"). Persons of African descent are distinguished by steep mandibular plane; sharp, vertical chin; protrusion of the incisors; prognathism; greater lower facial height but with less mid-facial height; upper mouth is more projecting than lower mouth (higher ANB angle). Y'edyank and Iscan ("Craniofacial Growth and Evolution"). Mesolithic Nubians had low, sloping foreheads and robust features evolving into a globular cranium with high vault. The prominence of the orbital region was reduced by the Christian era and the occipital bun much less prominent. Flattening of the lambdoid and sagittal regions also became less pronounced. (Forensic analysis of the skull : craniofacial analysis, reconstruction, and identification. [editors Mehmet Yasar Iscan and Richard P. Helmer]. (New York, N.Y.: Wiley-Liss, 1993)
Keep all of the above in mind when we examine and look at the 18th dynasty royals. Now let's look at some Caucasoid and Negroid crania. The first picture, is a Nordic Caucasion crania.
Nordic skullThe second is a Mediterrenic Caucasioon crania. <http://www.tarikegypthistory_site.cityslide.com/i/1/19/195/1958/19586/195868/Nordic.jpg?quot;>
Mediterrenic skull < 1 Mediterranean.jpg? 195870 19587 1958 195 19 i www.tarikegypthistory_site.cityslide.com http:>
The third, is an Alpine Caucasion crania. Alpine skull <http://www.tarikegypthistory_site.cityslide.com/i/1/19/195/1958/19587/195871/Alpine.jpg>
And the final, is a compter-generated x-ray scan of 19th Dynasty Pharaoh, Seti I. [Harris and Wente. X-Ray Atlas of the Royal Mummies, 1980] Pharaoh Seti I <http://www.tarikegypthistory-site.cityslide.com/i/1/19/195/1958/19587/195872/X-Rayseti.jpg>
Note the Nordic is dolichocephalic with a very and narrow and long face face. The Mediterranean crania, though dolichocephalic, is of a medium-long lenth. And for your pleasure, I added a computer-generated x-ray scan of Seti I's crania. Note he is dolichocephalic, orthognathous, with a long and narrow face. He is of the Nordic type. And the Alpine is brachycephalic with a medium long and broad face. All four are orgnathous (non-protruding chin) as opposed to prognathous (protruding chin).
Next are two Negroid crania. The first is the skull of Mesolithic Sudanese man. Note it is prognathous (chin protruding, has a receding chin, is dolichocephalic, with a short face). Next is a, x-ray of a Mesolithic Sudanese woman. Note she is slightly dolichocephalic, has a short face, and slight prognathisms. Skull of a Sudanese Mesolithic man.
A Mesolithic Sudanese man <http://www.tarikegypthistorysite.cityslide.com/i/1/19/195/1958/19586/195866/xrayhalfa.jpg>
X-ray of a Sudanese Mesolithic woman.
A Mesolithic Sudanese woman <http://www.tarikegypthistorysite.cityslide.com/i/1/19/195/1958/19586/195866/xrayhalfa.jpg>
Now that you have seen Caucasoid and Negroid crania, and have all the traits found in Caucasions and Africans, now time to look at the 18th Dynasty royalty. First is Amhose-Nefertari. Note in her x-ray scan, she has pronounced prognathisms, strong maxillary prognathisms, dolichocephaly, a broad and short face, strongly proclined incisors, rounded forehead, sagittal flattening, rounded occiput, steep mandible with squat ramus, receding chin, and somewhat forward zygomatic arches. All features found distinctly in Africans! According to Professor Leo Hansberry, who noted the features found in her mummy, she had healthy teeth, a broad nose, wide mouth, full-lips, and maxillary prognathisms. [Africa's Glorious Past, p. 37] And according to Harris and Weeks in their "X-Raying the Pharaohs", her hair was platted, like that of many modern Nubian populations. She was distinctly Negroid. Please note, Amenhotep I, Queen Meryatamon, Thutmose II, Queen Hatshepsut, Thutmose III, Amenhotep II, Thutmose IV, Amenhotep III, Akhenaton, Queen Nefertiti, and Tutankhamen, all trace their bloodlines back to her! Thus, they undeniably have black ancestry! No pseudo-evidence you present can erase the black blood in their veins from Amhose-Nefertari. Their ancestry is NOT up for debates. This is an established FACT! [Harris and Wente. X-Ray Atlas of the Royal Mummies, 1980]
Queen Amhose-Nefertari <http://www.tarikegypthistory_site.cityslide.com/i/1/19/195/1958/19587/195873/xraynefertari.jpg>
A computer-generated x-ray scan of Pharaoh Amenhotep I. His mother was Amhose-Nefertari. Note his prognathisms, rounded occiput and forehead, sagittal plateau, slightly forward zygomatic arch, moderately inclined mandible, and maxillary prognathisms. [Harris and Wente. X-Ray Atlas of the Royal Mummies, 1980]
Pharaoh Amenhotep I <http://www.tarikegypthistorysite.cityslide.com/i/1/19/195/1958/19587/195874/amenhotep_I.jpg>
This is a computer x-ray scan of Queen Meryetamon. She was the sister and wife, of Amenhotep I. Note her prognathisms, maxillary prognathisms, slightly forward zygomatic arches, moderately inclined mandible, and sitting ramus. [Harris and Wente. X-Ray Atlas of the Royal Mummies, 1980]
Queen Meryatamon <http://www.tarikegypthistory_site.cityslide.com/i/1/19/195/1958/19587/195875/meryetamon.jpg> A computer-generated x-ray scan of Thutmose I. He is the father of both Queen Hatshepsut and Pharaoh Thutmose II, and grandfather of Thutmose III. Note his globalar skull with high vault, pronounced prognathisms, maxillary prognathisms, vertically zigomatic arches, angled mandible, and squating ramus. His mummy shows him as having a broad nose, wide nostrils, full-lips, and prognathisms. [Harris and Wente. X-Ray Atlas of the Royal Mummies, 1980] Pharaoh Thutmose I <>
An x-ray of Pharaoh Thutmose II. Thutmose II is the father of Thutmose III, and a descendant of Queen Amhose-Nefertari. Note rounded glabella and forhead, high vault with sagittal plateau, rounded occiput, vertical zygomatic arches, globular cranium shape (common amongst modern Nubians), vertical chin, highly angular mandible, prognathisms, and maxillary prognathisms. Compare to the x-ray of the Mesolithic Sudanese woman above. The Pharaoh has more pronounced prognathisms than her! [Harris and Wente. X-Ray Atlas of the Royal Mummies, 1980]
Pharaoh Thutmose II <http://www.tarikegypthistory-site.cityslide.com/i/1/19/195/1959/19595/195958/xraythut2-scan.jpg>
Also compare his X-ray <http://www.tarikegypthistory-site.cityslide.com/i/1/19/195/1959/19595/195959/xraythutii.jpg> to the x-ray of the Mesolithic Sudanese woman above. The Pharaoh has more pronounced prognathisms than her!
And lastly, A computer-generated x-ray scan of Thuya, the mother of Queen Tiye. Not her Thutmose II is the father of Thutmose III, and a descendant of Queen Amhose-Nefertari. Note rounded glabella and forhead, high vault with sagittal plateau, rounded occiput, vertical zygomatic arches, globular cranium shape (common amongst modern Nubians), vertical chin, highly angular mandible, prognathisms, and maxillary prognathisms. Although she has reddish wavy hair, her crania shows clear signs of black admixture. Peoples of mixed African descent cometimes have red hair. This can be especially noted amongst many some African-Americans, like Malcom X for instance. Thuya had a wide mouth, which is a trait distinctive of Africans. Egyptologists have noted Queen Tiye's mummy shows strong resemblences to Thuya. Tiye's bust shows Negroid features, which explains her strong resemblence to her mother. Many specialists have noted how Tiye's father Yuya, who looks completely Caucasion, is atypical of Egyptians. [Harris and Wente. X-Ray Atlas of the Royal Mummies, 1980] Lady Thuya <http://www.tarikegypthistory-site.cityslide.com/i/1/19/195/1959/19596/195960/tjuya.jpg>
We can clearly see from this that the 18th Dynasty was a Mulatto dynasty. It is funny that the 19th dynasty, which proceeds the 18th dynasty, is heavily relied upon by Eurocentric scholars as their "proof" for ancient Egyptians being white. The very dynasty who's features and characteristics are atypical of the Egyptian populace. The 19th dynasty (unlike the other dynasties before it) were strong devotees of Seth, an Egyptian deity-demon believed to have red hair and to be a personification of all that is evil. Seth was widely worshipped by the Libyans whom commonly had red hairs and were whites. The 19th dynasty Pharaohs were tall, red-haired, and very pale-skinned, all characteristics atypical of most dynastic Egyptians. Considering that Ramses I, the founder of that dynasty, started off his career as a common soldier in the Egyptian army, and rose to the through the ranks up to general, and later to Pharaoh; it is no doubt Ramses was probably of Libyan origin. The Egyptian army towards the end of the 18th dynasty was predominantly foreign; Nubian and Libyan; and Egyptians mostly served as officers and generals in the army. So considering the 19th dynasty's very strong devotion to Seth, their very tall Nordic appearance, and Ramses' very obscured origins, it is more than likely they were Libyans by descent.
Speaking of mummies, it is very interesting to read reports of Egyptian mummies having Caucasian hair and features. Especially considering that studies on Egyptian mummies come from very limited and hardly random, samples in museums. The majority of over all mummies held in these museums are neither opened to the public, nor made available for scientific scrutiny. The samples studied by these "scientists" which claim Egyptian hair, teeth, and features, are Caucasian, come from a very small and limited sample. The journalist reports also fail to identify the mummies as Lower Egyptian or Upper Egyptian. As countless studies on Upper Egyptians show, they had black admixture. Studies on crania from Old Kingdom Giza tombs reveal the same thing. But what is interesting to note is that Jacques Joseph Chompollion-Figaec, the elder brother of Jean Francoid Chompollion (Chompollion the Younger), the very man who deciphered the Rosetta Stone, cites a study on a very large number of Egyptian mummies. Curiously the study found the samples to more closely match Abyssinians and Bejas, both Negroid peoples, then Europeans or Western Asians. Incidentally Chompollion-Figaec does not consider Abyssinians or Bejas to be black, even though anyone looking at an Ethiopian or Beja from a mile away, can perceive them to be distinctly Africoid. Chompollion-Figaec was following Sir Grafton Elliot Smith's belief in the "Brown Mediterranean" race, who's living representatives are the Beja, Abyssinian, Galla, Somalian, Silluk, and Massai, peoples of Northeast and East Africa. But nonetheless, of the a large sample of mummies studied Chompillion-Figaec states:
"Dr. Larry investigated this problem in Egypt; he examined a large number of mummies, studied their skulls, recognized the principle characteristics, tried to identify them in the various races living in Egypt, and succeeded in doing so. The Abyssinian seemed to him to combine them all, except for the black race. The Abyssinian has large eyes, an agreeable glance.prominent cheekbones; the cheeks form a regular triangle with prominent angles of the jawbone and mouth; the lips are thick without being everted as in Blacks; the teeth are fine, just slightly protruding [maxillary prognathisms]; finally, the complexion is merely copper-colored: such are the Abyssinians observed by Dr. Larry generally known as Berbers or Barabras, present-day inhabitants of Nubia." [Egypte Ancienne, p. 27]
The peoples in question Chompollion-Figaec is speaking of are the Bejas of Upper Egypt and northern Sudan. They are referred to sometimes as "Berbers." Copper is a dark-brown complexion, which is very interesting, in light of journals cited by Eurocentric apologists, claiming Egyptians to be purely Caucasoid. And please keep in mind that Chompollion-Figaec was himself a Eurocentric and was not the slightest bit even remotely crazy about classifying ancient Egyptians as black or even in having Negroid affinities. Yet with the rare honesty characteristic of the early Egyptologist, stated that the Egyptian mummies unearthed most closely resembled Abyssinians and Bejas, than they did Western Asians or Europeans. Which makes one wonder when reading the journals cited by Eurocentrics, where did these mummies Chompollion-Figaec spoke of, all go? The answer is obvious to anyone, the modern journals are obviously leaving out a lot of details they do not want us to know about.
DNA is the next method used by Eurocentric scholars to whiten the ancient Egyptians. The harp upon DNA studies as their evidence the ancient Egyptians were white. But what they do not tell you is that DNA studies are still young and not perfect. And also, that only a small handful of mummies have ever been tested, some of which (like an annonymous 12th dynasty king) were found to have Negroid genes.
For instance, a DNA study was done on various Jews around the world, and while finding the Ashkenazens and Sephardim to be very close genetically and therefore being of the same common Hebrew stock, the exact same was not found of Ethiopian Jews, whom were shown to be descendants of Ethiopian converts to Judaism. Another study conducted by London University found the exact different results. This study found Ethiopian Jews to share a common DNA pattern with Ashkenazens and Sephardim, and to be therefore of a common Hebrew stock with them. How is it that two separate DNA studies on the same people, yield different results? What this shows is DNA studies are imperfect and can be manipulated to suite political agendas. Could not it be the same with studies of Egyptians? In light of the physical anthropological studies cited above on this page, any study which claims ancient Egyptians had no black admixture is absolutely ludicrous. Besides, according to a DNA study by G. Paoli, the ABO typing of the ancient Egyptians was most closely matched by the Harratins <http://www.tarikegypthistorysite.cityslide.com/i/2/22/227/2270/22701/227012/haratin.jpg>, a Negroid Berber people of southern Morocco, southern Algeria, and northern Mauritania. It has been claimed by some that the Haratins are the descendants of freed Sub-Saharan slaves. But this cannot be established, since the DNA patterns of the Haratins are not found in Sub-Saharans, nor are they found in any of the "white" Berber tribes Haratins are supposed to have been owned by and mixed with. The DNA pattern of the Haratins is very unique, thus establishing them firmly as a Hamitic race. Their presence has been long recorded in the region, and their origins, a mystery. The Haratins shall be discussed in a later section.
Pictures is another means through which Eurocentrics try and "prove" Egyptians were white. But Egypt's native population was mixed, and as all mixed-race populations, you get a variation in phenotypes. While the most Caucasian or racially ambiguous images are shown to prove their point, what Eurocentrics do not show you, are images of Egyptians with clear Africoid features. Such as the following ones below.
Predynastic statue of the god Osiris found at Abydos <http://www.tarikegypthistory-site.cityslide.com/i/2/29/294/2941/29412/Osirisgod.jpg>
Old Kingdom statue of the goddess Isis suckling Horus <http://www.tarikegypthistory-site.cityslide.com/i/2/29/294/2941/29413/Isisgoddess.jpg>
Predynastic Egyptian youth <http://www.tarikegypthistory-site.cityslide.com/i/1/19/197/1971/19716/197169/NeolithicEgyptyouth.jpg>
A clear Badarian sculptour with clear Africoid features of an Egyptian woman <http://www.tarikegypthistory-site.cityslide.com/i/2/21/216/2162/21621/216216/Badarian_woman.jpg>
A bas-relief image of a predynastic Egyptian nobleman known as Lord Tera Neter[a Anu] <http://www.tarikegypthistory-site.cityslide.com/i/2/29/294/2940/29407/Teraneter.jpg>
A bas-relief image of Egyptian women making perfume <http://www.tarikegypthistory-site.cityslide.com/i/1/19/195/1956/19568/195687/Egyptianwomen.jpg>
An Old Kingdom statue of Imhotep, the great architect, poet, astronomer, doctor, and priest, during Pharaoh Zoser's reign <http://www.tarikegypthistory-site.cityslide.com/i/2/29/294/2940/29409/Imhotep.jpg>
Pharaoh Sesostris I of the 12th Dynasty <http://www.tarikegypthistory-site.cityslide.com/i/1/19/195/1956/19568/195682/sensowret.gif>
Pharaoh Akhenaton <http://www.tarikegypthistory-site.cityslide.com/i/1/19/195/1956/19568/195683/Akhenatonstatue.jpg>
Pharaoh Akhenaton and his family worshipping the Aton <http://www.tarikegypthistory-site.cityslide.com/i/1/19/195/1956/19568/195684/Akhenatonfamily.jpg>
A bas-relief of Nefertiti worshipping the Aton at her very own tomb <http://www.tarikegypthistory-site.cityslide.com/i/2/22/227/2271/22710/227103/nefjertiworship.jpg>
Two of Akhenaton and Nefertiti's daughters <http://www.tarikegypthistory-site.cityslide.com/i/1/19/195/1956/19568/195685/Akhenatondaughters.gif>
And then there is how the Egyptians saw themselves to outsiders. While Egyptians perceived themselves as lighter in complexion than Nubians to the south, what Eurocentrics do not tell you, is that the Egyptians also perceived themselves as darker than white Libyans and olive-colored Semites. As can be seen in this <http://www.tarikegypthistory-site.cityslide.com/i/1/19/195/1957/19576/195766/FourEgyptianraces.jpg> image. Here we see the first three figures are Libyans, whom the Egyptians called "Tamahua" which means "People Created white." Their nose is aquiline, their lips thin, their skin color very pale white, and their hair reddish-blond. They are followed by a Nubian, with classical African features, dark ebony skin, and black woolly hair. The figure after is a Semite with brown hair, an aquiline nose, and olive skin. The last figure to the far right is an Egyptian. Note the dark-brown skin, black curly braided hair, and the small semi-aquiline nose. The Egyptians were clearly not of the same race as the three Libyans and the one Semite. And likewise here <http://www.tarikegypthistory-site.cityslide.com/i/1/19/195/1956/19568/195686/egyptsemites.jpg> is a picture of a group of Semitic pastoralists with their animals, and two Egyptians. The two Egyptians are depicted in a much far darker color than the Semites. Which show Egyptians were not the same race as them. The only picture in which an Egyptian is painted the same complexion as a Semite or Libyan, is one of Ramses II slaughtering some Libyan, Semitic, and Nubian enemies. Considering the 19th Dynasty was a white dynasty, it ought to be expected Ramses II would be the same complexion as Semites and Libyans. But all pictured showing typical Egyptian natives, always have them as being a much darker hue than Libyans and Semites. And this is in keeping with the eye witness statements by Greek writers like Herodotus, Aristotle, Lucian, and others, whom described the ancient Egyptians as being black-skinned or "melanchroes" with curly hairs. The explaination given by Eurocentrics that "melanos" merely means dark, cannot be established, since the context in which it is used by Greek writers clearly means very dark, and not just merely dark. The term "melanos" and "melanchroes" <http://kinghorus.tripod.com/melanchroes.html>is never used on such dark-skinned races as Persians, Syrians, Phoenicians, and Arabs. Only on Egyptians, Ethiopians, and East Indians. This goes to show the context in which melanchroes was used menat black or very dark. Of course Egyptians were not as dark as Nubians, but were still much darker than Europeans and Western Asians. Even today amongst black peoples in Africa there is variation in blackness. The same is true of the ancient Egyptians.
Contrary to what Eurocentrics claim, the ancient Egyptians were a dark-skinned people with racial affinities to Black Africans. While not unmixed black, were still black enough to be considered black in the western world. They were in truth a mixed-race people. And like all peoples of mixed ancestry, their features morphed from near Negroid to near-Eurpoid, with all kinds of variations in between. The position held by Eurocentrics that the ancient Egyptians were white people is pure myth and nonsense.
Anthropologist no longer classify people into Sub-races. Modern and Ancient Egyptians were a mixture of many races including Medditerean in the extreme North,with Costal Northern African variants,and tropical Africans in the South. Egyptians have never been classified with Medditerean caucasoids,but many try to put them into the category for their agendas.
My father is an Egyptian from Aswan,my mother is from Algerria,and they most certainly are not Medditerean caucasoids.
Variations exists in Africans,as well as in Europeans.
Please look in the archives,and read what I posted above.
Also I pointed out in a earlier post that apperance from mummies cannot tell about their actual racial affilation or their origin. the terxture of mummy hair is also unreliable unless it is under a electron miscroscope.
The cranial studies by Cloring Brace and JD Irish are outdated,and must be measure with new Data. Teeth found at Nabta Playa group with Sub-saharan Africans.
The conclusion is that Modern and Ancient Egyptians are not unifromily black like Western Africans,nor are they white like Medditerean Europeans. However,to say that Medditerean caucasoids founded Egyptian civlization is ridiclous,because clearly the Egyptian civlization was founded by Upper Egyptians,which even today are dark brown with thick wavy to kinky hair.
Yuya's mummy was not an Egyptian,by the way,and his most prorable origin was foregin.
Also,in terms of reconstruction of mummies,no accurate facial thickness of Modern Egyptians has ever been used,and esepcially in the region of Upper Egyt. I believe in the reconstruction of Tutankhamun they used Modern Upper Egyptians,but in terms the people who live around Luxor,Quena,and Aswan are important to reocnstruction.
The racial type of the pre-dyanstic Egyptians most likley resembled the Beja of Northern Sudan.
''. Anyway, the information you got is from a site dedicated to afroccentrism, so I would doubt its objectivity''
The site you posted is from a Scilian who is trying to prove that he is pure Medditerean caucasoid,and believes that not only are the Egyptians pure caucasoids,but the Nubians started out as caucasoids,but got negriod as they mixed with others. The information presented uses mainstream sources.
Anyway,if I may ask,are you from Egypt?
'
quote:
Originally posted by YD:
Wow, I can't believe you deleted the post. Anyway, the information you got is from a site dedicated to afroccentrism, so I would doubt its objectivity.
The links you posted were from non-objective sources. They use misleading and outdated information to make their point. I could debunk almost every argument on those sites but I don't have the time...
Lower Egypt tends to have more Medditerean type people,while the further you go down the Nile the Darker the population gets. The people in Upper Egypt are dark brown with thick wavy hair to tightly curled[kinky] The people in the North might be Medditerean,but to say all Egyptians are Medditerean is erroenous and inaccurate. Remeber not even dark caucasoid types like Indians in India have kinky hair or pronaghtism[protrusive jaw],and this trait is very rare in caucasoids and only shows up in small amounts amung the Welsh and Irish. The trait is not pronouced though;therfore it is not avelouar prognathism.
Bruce G. Trigger, in an article entitled "Nubian, Negro, Black,
Nilotic?"
(Africa in Antiquity, The Brooklyn Museum, 1978), states:
"The Nile Valley is the only region of Africa where human settlement
stretches without a break across the Sahara from the southern shores of
the Mediterranean to the center of the continent. Physical types vary in
a gentle gradient from one end of this range, the changes being
imperceptible from village to village but evident at longer intervals.
...
On an average, between the Delta in northern Egypt and the Sudd of the
Upper Nile, skin color tends to darken from light brown to what appears
to the eye as bluish black, hair changes from wavy-straight to curly or
kinky, noses become flatter and, lips become thicker and more everted,
...."
Second,your concept of Sub-Sahara is outdated,because up untill 2000 B.C. the Sahara was mostly negriod. We have evidence of a negriod mummy found in Libya dating to 5,200 B.C.
....The programme explores the enigmatic central Saharan society which once spanned the entire north African continent. We unravel their tale through the story of the discovery of the black mummy, Uan Muhuggiag. It soon becomes obvious that these people were responsible for an extraordinary array of innovations which later became famous under the Egyptians. Their presence re-writes the history of Egypt and of the entire continent of Africa.....''
http://www.fulcrumtv.com/blackmummy.htm
In the region of Fezzan there was found the body of a negriod child
mummified by Italian archeologist F.Mori
page 44
African begginings
By Olivia Vlahos
This mummy was natural a natural mummy. The child was fully embalmed with relgious rites.
The only part of Northern Africa during the Neloithic that was remotely caucasoid was the Costal regions of places like Algeria.Morocco,and Tunisa. Populations here were called Metcha-Aflou-Talfritt,and Ibero-Mauresian.
The original Egyptians in Upper Egypt were without a doubt black. Even early Egyptoogist like Sir Alan Garndier admits this much
see references
Greenberg, what is your position on the following observations:
The mid-twentieth Egyptologist Alan Gardiner, who was considered an
authority on the ancient civilization of Kemet, gave the following
report on the human remains of the pre-dynastic Badarians, Amratians,
and Gerzeans:
"These... were long-headed-dolicocephalic is the learned term-and
below even medium stature, but Negroid features are often to be
observed. Whatever may be said of the northerners, it is safe to
describe the dwellers in Upper Egypt as of essentially African stock,
a character always retained despite alien influences brought to bear
on them from time to time." (pg. 392; Egypt of the Pharaohs 1966)
_____________________________________________
From Petrie onwards,it was rewguarly suggested,despite the evidence
of Pre dyanstic cultures,Egyptian civlization of the 1st dyansty
appeared suddently and must therfore have been instroduced by an
invading foreign ''race''. Since the 1970's however excavations at
bautu and nekhen have clearly ,demonstrated the indigenous Upper
Egyptian roots of early civlization in egypt. While there is
certainly evidence of foreign contact in the fourth millennium
B.C.,this was not in the form of millitary invasion
page 65
Oxford History of Ancient egypt
Ian Shaw
_____________________________________________
Am J Phys Anthropol. 1996 Oct;101(2):237-46.
Concordance of cranial and dental morphological traits and evidence for endogamy in ancient Egypt.
Prowse TL, Lovell NC.
Department of Anthropology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.
A biological affinities study based on frequencies of cranial nonmetric traits in skeletal samples from three cemeteries at predynastic Naqada, Egypt, confirms the results of a recent nonmetric dental morphological analysis. Both cranial and dental traits analyses indicate that the individuals buried in a cemetery characterized archaeologically as high status are significantly different from individuals buried in two other, apparently nonelite cemeteries and that the nonelite samples are not significantly different from each other. A comparison with neighbouring Nile Valley skeletal samples suggests that the high status cemetery represents an endogamous ruling or elite segment of the local population at Naqada, which is more closely related to populations in northern Nubia than to neighbouring populations in southern Egypt.
Am J Phys Anthropol. 1992 Mar;87(3):245-54.
_____________________________________________
Keita SO.
Department of Surgery, Howard University Hospital, Washington, DC 20060.
Historical sources and archaeological data predict significant population variability in mid-Holocene northern Africa. Multivariate analyses of crania demonstrate wide variation but also suggest an indigenous craniometric pattern common to both late dynastic northern Egypt and the coastal Maghreb region. Both tropical African and European metric phenotypes, as well intermediate patterns, are found in mid-Holocene Maghreb sites. Early southern predynastic Egyptian crania show tropical African affinities, displaying craniometric trends that differ notably from the coastal northern African pattern. The various craniofacial patterns discernible in northern Africa are attributable to the agents of microevolution and migration.
J Hum Evol. 2000 Sep;39(3):269-88.
________________________________________________________________________________
The position of the Nazlet Khater specimen among prehistoric and modern African and Levantine populations.
Pinhasi R, Semal P.
Department of Biological Anthropology, University of Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge, CB2 3DZ, U.K. The morphometric affinities of the 33,000 year old skeleton from Nazlet Khater, Upper Egypt are examined using multivariate statistical procedures. In the first part, principal components analysis is performed on a dataset of mandible dimensions of 220 fossils, sub-fossils and modern specimens, ranging in time from the Late Pleistocene to recent and restricted in space to the African continent and Southern Levant. In the second part, mean measurements for various prehistoric and modern African and Levantine populations are incorporated in the statistical analysis. Subsequently, differences between male and female means are examined for some of the modern and prehistoric populations. The results indicate a strong association between some of the sub-Saharan Middle Stone Age (MSA) specimens, and the Nazlet Khater mandible. Furthermore, the results suggest that variability between African populations during the Neolithic and Protohistoric periods was more pronounced than the range of variability observed among recent African and Levantine populations. Results also demonstrate a general reduction in the degree of sexual dimorphism during the Holocene. However, this pattern of reduction pattern varies by geographic location and is not uniform across the African continent.
Mapping diveristy: craniofacial affinities in the Mid-Holocene Nile Valley considered with archaeological and linguistic data.
________________________________________________________________________________
Soy Keita and A.J. Boyce April 2002)
The appearance of agriculture occurs in the Nile Valley some 2000 years after its appearance in Europe and the Near East. The major cultigens are the same in these areas. It has been hypothesized by some reasearchers that agriculture emerges in the Nile Valley cocomitant with the arrival of speakers of the Afro-Asiatic language family, both being brought after differentiation of the Nostratic macofamily speech community. In this view agriculture and(Afro-Asiatic)come from Europe, the locale of the Nostratic cradle in this model. A phenetic craniometric analysis of early farmers fromthe Nile Valley in Upper Egypt in order to explore this hypothesis. Badarian crania were studied with European and African series from the Howells' database, using generalized differences and cluster analysis(neighboring joining and UPGMA algorithms). Greater affinity is found with the African series. The results are considered with a variety of linguistic and archaeological evidence, as well as the findings of simulation studies relevant to this study. It concluded that the earliest Nile Valley farmers in Upper Egypt for which there is record were locals, not European immigrants and therefore the development of agriculture in this region was not due to demic diffusion ultimately from Europe. The problems with phenetic affinity studies considered in isolation from other evidence will be discussed, as well as the flaws of thinking in terms of absolute identity, and not relative similarity
_____________________________________________
These factors of climatic influence and structural interrelationship suggest that human face form is extremely complex,numerous varible being invovled in growth and development. Conclusions should not be drawn about relationships between two populations on the basis of a similairty in structure ,because face form[like the small statue in pgymies and Negritos discussed above] develops according to local factors of natural selction. It is not ncessary to postulate migrations and intermixtures to explain similairites between populations,as once was done for the Nilotic face form found in groups like the Nuer,Shilluk,and others in Eastern Africa. At one time their long striaght noses were believed to be due to contact and interbreeding with caucasoid groups form Western Asia. subsequent genetic studies donot borne this theory out . No doubt,over a period of thousand years,contact with Western Asia populations has taken place and some interbreeding has resulted,but people with Nilotic face are the result of local selective forces acting on the population;it is not merely a matter of interbreeding between races......."""""
Page 63-64
Race,Types,and Ethnic Groups
the problem with human variation
Stephen Molnar
Also narrow noses in Africans is variations,not developed from intermixture with caucasoids
Human skin color diversity is highest in sub-Saharan African populations.
Relethford JH.
Department of Anthropology, State University of New York College at Oneonta, 13820, USA.
Previous studies of genetic and craniometric traits have found higher levels of within-population diversity in sub-Saharan Africa compared to other geographic regions. This study examines regional differences in within-population diversity of human skin color. Published data on skin reflectance were collected for 98 male samples from eight geographic regions: sub-Saharan Africa, North Africa, Europe, West Asia, Southwest Asia, South Asia, Australasia, and the New World. Regional differences in local within-population diversity were examined using two measures of variability: the sample variance and the sample coefficient of variation. For both measures, the average level of within-population diversity is higher in sub-Saharan Africa than in other geographic regions. This difference persists even after adjusting for a correlation between within-population diversity and distance from the equator. Though affected by natural selection, skin color variation shows the same pattern of higher African diversity as found with other traits.
PMID: 11126724 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11126724&dopt=Abstract
Hum Biol. 2001 Oct;73(5):629-36. Related Articles, <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Display&dopt=pubmed_pubmed&from_uid=11758686> Links <javascript:PopUpMenu2_Set(Menu11758686,'','','','','');>
Global analysis of regional differences in craniometric diversity and population substructure.
Relethford JH.
Department of Anthropology, State University of New York College at Oneonta, USA.
Estimates of genetic diversity in major geographic regions are frequently made by pooling all individuals into regional aggregates. This method can potentially bias results if there are differences in population substructure within regions, since increased variation among local populations could inflate regional diversity. A preferred method of estimating regional diversity is to compute the mean diversity within local populations. Both methods are applied to a global sample of craniometric data consisting of 57 measurements taken on 1734 crania from 18 local populations in six geographic regions: sub-Saharan Africa, Europe, East Asia, Australasia, Polynesia, and the Americas. Each region is represented by three local populations. Both methods for estimating regional diversity show sub-Saharan Africa to have the highest levels of phenotypic variation, consistent with many genetic studies. Polynesia and the Americas both show high levels of regional diversity when regional aggregates are used, but the lowest mean local population diversity. Regional estimates of F(ST) made using quantitative genetic methods show that both Polynesia and the Americas also have the highest levels of differentiation among local populations, which inflates regional diversity. Regional differences in F(ST) are directly related to the geographic dispersion of samples within each region; higher F(ST) values occur when the local populations are geographically dispersed. These results show that geographic sampling can affect results, and suggest caution in making inferences regarding regional diversity when population substructure is ignored.
Publication Types:
Validation Studies
PMID: 11758686 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11758686&dopt=Abstract
quote:
Originally posted by Kem-Au:
i think life would be alot easier if we did away with this negro, caucasoid thing. aren't caucasians supposed to be from the caucus mountains? because if that's the case, many people who are considered caucasian today are not really caucasian.
quote:
Originally posted by Kem-Au:
i think life would be alot easier if we did away with this negro, caucasoid thing. aren't caucasians supposed to be from the caucus mountains? because if that's the case, many people who are considered caucasian today are not really caucasian.
quote:
Originally posted by Kem-Au:
i think life would be alot easier if we did away with this negro, caucasoid thing. aren't caucasians supposed to be from the caucus mountains? because if that's the case, many people who are considered caucasian today are not really caucasian.
quote:
Originally posted by Kem-Au:
i think life would be alot easier if we did away with this negro, caucasoid thing. aren't caucasians supposed to be from the caucus mountains? because if that's the case, many people who are considered caucasian today are not really caucasian.
quote:
Kem-Au:i think life would be alot easier if we did away with this negro, caucasoid thing. aren't caucasians supposed to be from the caucus mountains? because if that's the case, many people who are considered caucasian today are not really caucasian.
This is taken from a mistaken theory that all peoples of the Middle East, North Africa, and Europe (as well as those of European descent elsewhere) originated in the Caucasus Mountains.
Although physical differences obviously exist, races or exclusively distinct human types are social concept. The deviding part between humans is predominantly history, economy and culture.
The caucasian label comes from an German anthropologist named Blumeback. He was amungst the first to classify people into seperate categories. He also grouped many people who were not caucasian into a series of bogus classifications.
Why the hell would an Egyptian try to spread false information on his own people....Wakeup man and realize that you're only helping spread lies and psuedo-History.
Both the Ancient and Modern Egyptians would laugh at your senseless postings.
Modern Egyptians know who they are...and don't need someone like you telling them lies...(The same goes for the Ancient Egyptians),inorder to feed your own ego.
You claim to be an informed person, yet you quote some of the most ignorant people on the Web........
There is a current Drive in the USA to abolish this False Science of Biased Afro-Centric Teachings from the schools and universities....
Ausar, What are you trying to PROVE??
The Ancient Egyptians worked hard for their
Achievements and it is a total rip-off to try to steal them for your own benefit and that of others, who in no shape or form...had anything to do with them.
I'm a True Egyptian (100% -- Both Parents) and I know most of my people share my sentiments......Do us all a big favor and stop spreading this False Psuedo-Science.
quote:
Originally posted by ausar:The caucasian label comes from an German anthropologist named Blumeback. He was amungst the first to classify people into seperate categories. He also grouped many people who were not caucasian into a series of bogus classifications.
------------------
THE TRUTH WILL SET YOU FREE!! ALWAYS LISTEN TO YOUR HEART & SOUL!! // PEACE ******* ABAZA
quote:
Originally posted by ABAZA:
Ausar, with all due respect, I think you're NUTS. Your postings are totally biased and do a great deal of disservice to the Egyptian People.Why the hell would an Egyptian try to spread false information on his own people....Wakeup man and realize that you're only helping spread lies and psuedo-History.
Both the Ancient and Modern Egyptians would laugh at your senseless postings.
Modern Egyptians know who they are...and don't need someone like you telling them lies...(The same goes for the Ancient Egyptians),inorder to feed your own ego.
You claim to be an informed person, yet you quote some of the most ignorant people on the Web........
There is a current Drive in the USA to abolish this False Science of Biased Afro-Centric Teachings from the schools and universities....
Ausar, What are you trying to PROVE??
The Ancient Egyptians worked hard for their
Achievements and it is a total rip-off to try to steal them for your own benefit and that of others, who in no shape or form...had anything to do with them.I'm a True Egyptian (100% -- Both Parents) and I know most of my people share my sentiments......Do us all a big favor and stop spreading this False Psuedo-Science.
Abaza, it is always a good idea to pin point exactly what you are rejecting as lies, and who you are calling ignorant. Opinions are valued, but the truth is the goal!
quote:
Originally posted by ausar:
Abaza, could you please point out where I am misrepresenting the Egyptian population? Could you point out specifically where my comments are wrong without calling me names or disrespecting me.
You know he can not, as there is nothing objectively wrong with your premise. There seems to be no shortage of these emotionally immature folks...
quote:
Originally posted by ABAZA:You claim to be an informed person, yet you quote some of the most ignorant people on the Web........
Sir, I find this to be your most disturbing comment. Surely, you must not be aware of the sources that Ausar uses. Yes, some of the sources are available on the net, but almost all the source, including those on the net, are from Classical and Contemporary published works. With modern technology, many of theses sources can be retrieved online (i.e. University libraries online).
quote:
Originally posted by ABAZA:
There is a current Drive in the USA to abolish this False Science of Biased Afro-Centric Teachings from the schools and universities....
Again, you are mistaken. Although it is true that many black colleges teach Egyptian history and Egyptology from a African prospective, the professors of these colleges use references from the ancient eyewitnesses (i.e Greeks, Romans, Asians, etc.). What you do not understand is that most of the foundations of Egyptology were based on Eurocentric and blatantly racist views of that time/period. Whites (European and later American) historians of the 18th and 19th centuries vided together to interpret and explain away findings that indicated a black African origin of Ancient Kemet—instead of taking the information for what its worth. Black colleges’ uses information from ancient sources and take them on face value (i.e. Herodotus, Strabo, Diodorus, etc.) as appose to fabricating and interpreting notions of a European and Euro-Asiatic (IndoEuropean) origins where none existed.
Unfortunately, many mainstream colleges were involved in the early beginnings of Egyptology and had entire programs (foundations) based on these outdated Eurocentric (racist) interpretations of Kemetian history. Many colleges, not just black, are in direct opposition to these ill conceived theories born out of early Egyptology.
quote:
Originally posted by ABAZA:Ausar, What are you trying to PROVE??
As a neutral person, my answer would be “Truth”
quote:
Originally posted by ABAZA:The Ancient Egyptians worked hard for their
Achievements and it is a total rip-off to try to steal them for your own benefit and that of others, who in no shape or form...had anything to do with them.
Agreed, the AEs did work hard, no argument there.
Question, who had nothing to do with it?? I think Ausar was quite clear on establishing time lines for the period that he is talking about. Pre-dynastic and early dynastic Kemet was established and inhabited by indigenous black African (as the Kemetians attested themselves!). I am amazed at why this is so difficult for some people to believe, when this is the most logical.
quote:
Originally posted by ABAZA:I'm a True Egyptian (100% -- Both Parents) and I know most of my people share my sentiments......Do us all a big favor and stop spreading this False Psuedo-Science.
Okay, so what are you saying?? Many people who were born in a particular country and had parents born their, are the most ignorant about the history of the land they currently inhabit (i.e.. just because you ask a 100% Hawaiian, South African, Australian, Pilipino, African American, etc, about the ancient history of the land they currently inhabit, they MIGHT NOT know anything about it).
Therefore, just because you and your parents (and your great, great, grandparents for that fact) were born in Modern day Egypt, this does not make you an authority of Ancient Kemet. Moreover, it does not make you the same as the Kemetians (unless your ancestry/bloodlines dates back to Kemetian times unbroken and interrupted by the incursions of the Greeks/Romans, Persians, and lastly, the Arabs).
So, although you can most certainly claim to be 100% Egyptian by nationality, and by the simple fact that you live there now….please try understand that Ausar is referring to the ancient, and early dynastic Kemetians—prior to the many incursions and subsequent mixing of the indigenous stock of fore-fathering Kemetians.
So if you disagree with this….please state facts….
You have not stated any facts here.
Oh well, when one can not refute facts with facts then name-calling (i.e. simple saying you’re a lair! without backing it with facts) is only recourse left.
By the way, I do not know Ausar personally. Ausar, sorry for speaking out on something addressed to you.
quote:
Therefore, just because you and your parents (and your great, great, grandparents for that fact) were born in Modern day Egypt, this does not make you an authority of Ancient Kemet. Moreover, it does not make you the same as the Kemetians (unless your ancestry/bloodlines dates back to Kemetian times unbroken and interrupted by the incursions of the Greeks/Romans, Persians, and lastly, the Arabs).So, although you can most certainly claim to be 100% Egyptian by nationality, and by the simple fact that you live there now?.please try understand that Ausar is referring to the ancient, and early dynastic Kemetians?prior to the many incursions and subsequent mixing of the indigenous stock of fore-fathering Kemetians.
So if you disagree with this?.please state facts?.
You have not stated any facts here.
Oh well, when one can not refute facts with facts then name-calling (i.e. simple saying you?re a lair! without backing it with facts) is only recourse left.By the way, I do not know Ausar personally. Ausar, sorry for speaking out on something addressed to you.
The modern Egyptians are mostly desended from the ancient Egyptians but not everybody in Egypt is ethnically pure,nor can trace their ancestry back so far into deep antiquity. Over the years before even the Greco-Roman and Arabs came it appears that mass influxes of people arriving from Palestine and parts of Northern Africa began to settle the Delta. Egyptian texts such as the Adominations of Ipuwer and Instrutions of Meri-ke-Re speak of an intrusive element into the Delta which would probabaly later result into the infiltration of the Hykos into the Delta.
I have always contended,as do most modern Egyptologist and anthropologist, that ancient Egyptians were diverse from north to south. Meaning that Egyptians living in the northern part of Egypt probabaly since the pre-dynastic absorbed more foregin elements,and thus lighter than Upper Egyptians as it is today. In such texts as The Tales of Sinuhe it speaks of an Egyptian from the Delta cannot understand the language of an Egyptian living in Southern Upper Egypt,and what this means is that by the 12th dyansty when the text is written that both areas were as diverse as they are today.
Know what annoys me with some African-American scholars is the blatant denial of many modern Egyptians having ancestry from the ancient Egyptians. This is most likely from ignorance from the part of Egyptians who allow others to group themselves in with Arabs. Many people in Upper Egypt[Southern Egypt] have never mixed with Arabs,nor have Arab parents or even grandparents. The direct desendants of the ancient Egyptians within Egypt are the Sa3eadi,balady,and Fellahin who all come from the rural countryside. Most Egyptians live in the rural countryside which is either in the Delta or within parts of Saeed[Upper Egypt].
My suggestion is a dialogue between the two parties instead of political diatribe or name calling.
BTW, here is an article written by the late Frank Joseph Yurco aboout the ethnicity of the ancient Egyptians. See the following:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/9507/c-wh1-ane-yurco.htm
[This message has been edited by ausar (edited 05 December 2004).]
Before the spread of Islam and, with it, the Arabic language, “Arab” referred to any of the largely nomadic Semitic inhabitants of the Arabian Peninsula.
I believe it would be incorrent to seperate the Sa'idi (Upper Egyptians) from the Delta Egyptians because culturally and historically they share a lot in common.
Upper Egyptians have always been dark, i don't see what the big change is though. Aswans are the darkest Egyptians.
quote:
Today Arab is almost completely cultural, nothing racial about this. Northern Sudanese are also called Arabs.Before the spread of Islam and, with it, the Arabic language, ?Arab? referred to any of the largely nomadic Semitic inhabitants of the Arabian Peninsula.
I believe it would be incorrent to seperate the Sa'idi (Upper Egyptians) from the Delta Egyptians because culturally and historically they share a lot in common.
Upper Egyptians have always been dark, i don't see what the big change is though. Aswans are the darkest Egyptians.
Sure the Bahary are my Egyptians brothers and sisters,but foreginers have migrated to the Delta in larger numbers than to the southern areas. Arabs migrated to the Delta in larger numbers and some mixed in with the rural Delta fellahin. Before this there were Libyans and Caanites[Palestineans] who penetraited at various times. In the Egyptian texts such as Sinuhe states that a Delta man is a stranger in Yebu[Aswan] and other texts also relate that a Delta man cannot understand and Upper Egyptian in correspondence. Today in modern Egypt Sai'idi Arabic is very distinct and cannot be understood by Bahary Egyptians.
The Fellahin in Upper Egypt has preserved the ethnicity of the ancient Egyptians down to the height. Fellahin tend to be very short just like the ancient Egyptians, and have less sharp features than the Bedouin Arabs.
quote:
The ancient egyptians did not started out as as mixed raced.THE MIXING of the races started in lower egypt and than upper egypt much later.THE blacks of upper egypt remain mostly unmixed for most of ancient egypt's history and the middle ages to a certain extent.
During the New Kingdom there was a movement of high officals from Men-nefer to parts of Upper Egypt. Ramose for instance trace his ancestry to Men-nefer,but was a high offical around the Luxor area. Sennefer,another high offical, was located in his birth place of Waset[Thebes] and depictions of the royal officals match modern Egyptians from the area who tend to be dark brown in apperance.
We have other examples such as Sheikh El-Beled or Ka-aper who looks very similar to a Egyptian from the Saqqara era. Infact that is how he aquired the named Sheikh El-Beled from one of the Fellahin diggers. The statue looked just like the leader of their village.
I have talked to numerous Egyptians regarding this controversial Subject and regardless of their origin, whether from the North or the South...They do not share your point of view about this Afro-Centric historical prespective.
Honestly, all Egyptians belong to the same Ethnic Group...It is not necessary to label them as Black or White, just as Arabs do come in a variety of colors, the same goes for the Egyptians. In fact, the Modern Egyptians are a very good approximation of the Ancient Egyptians, who in turn were Unique.....such as now. Foreign gene influx has always been minimal.
The Ancient Egyptians knew this quite well, that is why they always thought that they were the best.....it was not a Racial Thing at all. Their very Greatnest came from their Diversity and not otherwise.
They were "Just Right".....just as they were
physically and intellectually.
As a matter of fact, according to the ancients, one became an Egyptian, just by living in Egypt and adopting the local customs and culture. In a way, this is similar to how the term Arab is applied to many people in the Arab world today, regardless of their racial origin. By the way, Saudi Arabia is over 15% Black, but they're still Saudis and Arabs.
What I find very offensive about this Afro-Centric argument, is that they're trying to steal our Culture away from us, i.e., The Modern Egyptians.........and give it all to others who had very little or almost nothing to do with the Great Achievements of our Ancestors.
Finally, I look forward to a dialouge and not just quotes from people with incorrect and sometimes blatant distortion of the Facts.
A question for you, how many Egyptians today consider themselves Black??
quote:
Originally posted by ausar:
Abaza, could you please point out where I am misrepresenting the Egyptian population? Could you point out specifically where my comments are wrong without calling me names or disrespecting me.
------------------
THE TRUTH WILL SET YOU FREE!! ALWAYS LISTEN TO YOUR HEART & SOUL!! // PEACE ******* ABAZA
quote:
Originally posted by Wally:
You know he can not, as there is nothing objectively wrong with your premise. There seems to be no shortage of these emotionally immature folks...
Wally,
Please, just because we do not agree...does not give you the right to call me names....
We all know quite well that almost all the Egyptologist do not agree with this False Psuedo-Science.
By the way, these folks are some of the Brightest minds in this field,,,and most of them have no political agenda.
It is just a Shame that such Great Institutes of Higher learning can be so blind as to not question this Psuedo Afro-Centric False science.
------------------
THE TRUTH WILL SET YOU FREE!! ALWAYS LISTEN TO YOUR HEART & SOUL!! // PEACE ******* ABAZA
I think also you need to seperate concepts such as Afrocentric from mainstream throught. Most modern Egyptologist don't disagree that ancient Egypt[Kmt] was culturally and ethnically African. The ancient Egyptians and modern Egyptians share many cultural traits with other African people that just happen to know live below the Sahara. Such customs as divine kingship,circumcision rites,and also ancestor veneration.
The sources I usually quote are from remains in pre-dyanstic burials in Upper Egypt. The remains from these burials have in many studies been called negriod and very similar to the Saharan type that once lived in the Sahara before it quickly dessificated. The remains show that many had a protrusive jaw. This chracteristic is still found in modern Sa3eadi people living in modern Upper Egypt.
Your comment about modern Egyptians having very little gene flow from foreginers is also incorrect,for many Egyptians have Syrian,Armenian,Circussian,Greek,and even Turkish ancestry from over the years. I can tell you this is definately the case with prominent Coptic families such as Doss. I knew a Doss,and he told me straight up that his family had mixed with the Greeks.
During the Greek occupation of Egypt,much intermarriage between the Greeks and Egyptians occured and is well documented. The unions of these people would take Egyptian names instead of Greek.
As far as how many modern Egyptians would be considered ''black'' is a matter of ones opinion. In modern Egypt the color definition is much different from say Western countries where I lived most my life. Most Egyptians would tell you they are qahmy[wheat colored] no matter how dark they appear,but I can tell you many Egyptians will also lie about their color. Myself being from Aswan I can tell you that I am dark brown,and by Western standards I would be considered black. You would call me Smr or Asmar if you say me.
The people with the phenotype of the ancient Egyptians in modern Egypt are the Fellahin and Sa3eadi people. Both these groups are less mixed than the city dwellers or even Bahary in the Delta region.
See the following pictures:
Egyptian from Luxor
Children from Luxor
http://highculture.8m.com/images/ModernEgypt/LuxorFeluccaPilot.jpg
Another Luxor Egyptian
http://mishami.image.pbase.com/u33/weirdrob/upload/21557004.P0000776A.jpg
Children from Luxor
Here are some Fellahin from Minya
http://www.metimes.com/2K4/issue2004-17/issue_metpix/healthcare_in_upper.jpg
Notice they are lighter than the average Luxor or Aswani but still darker than many Northern Egyptians.
Some people from asyut
Once again I invite you to read the following from Egyptologist Frank Joseph Yurco in his article on the ancient Kemetians[Egyptians]:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/9507/c-wh1-ane-yurco.htm
Abaza, not all modern Egyptologist have the Egyptians best in mind. Many early Egyptologist believed the early Egyptians started off as white people and then intermixed with ''black'' slaves which brought on the color of modern day Egyptians.
It's not just the Afro-centrists that bare the blame,but also to European Egyptologist who try to find blonde people and Nordic people within Egypt,and believe modern Egyptians have no claim to ancient Egypt. Westerner Egyptologist have done far more damage to modern Egyptians than a few Afro-centrists. The whole Afro-Centric movement was not started untill the early 1980's with people like Molefi Assante.
Egyptology is a soft science that requires detailed study from other disciplines such as bio-anthropology and physical anthropology. An Egyptologist opinions on the ethnicity of the ancient Egyptians should not be taken seriously,but their views on cultural origins and soceity of the ancient Egyptians should.
[This message has been edited by ausar (edited 05 December 2004).]
[This message has been edited by ausar (edited 05 December 2004).]
[This message has been edited by supercar (edited 05 December 2004).]
quote:Indeed, speaking of pseudo science. (racial purity?)
All I have thus heard from Abaza, is emotional opinions rather than an argument backed by concrete evidence. That Egypt has been a racially pure society since ancient times, is one of the most laughable statements I have yet heard.
Abaza attempts to argue by ridicule while not engaging substantive debate. When a person does that it shows that they have no confidence in their opinions.
I don't entirely agree with 'all' of Ausar's commments, but they are envariably meticulously rooted in history and bioanthropology. A person who cannot counter-argue likewise is wasting his time whining about facts he cannot refute.
quote:
Yurco writes:In summary, the peoples of the Nile Valley present a continuum, from the lighter northern Egyptians to the browner Upper Egyptians to the still browner Nubians and Kushites and to the ultra-dark brown Nilotic peoples.
(16) Millennia of slow, gradual intermingling with neighboring populations of Nubians and Libyans, and from time to time with foreigners from more distant areas, created this population. In addition, there has been some mingling with Bedoum populations of the desert regions.
Some modern Afro-Americans, particularly those with mixed racial ancestry, will find that they look like some ancient (and modern) Egyptians. Should they travel to Egypt, they may find that in terms of their complexion they resemble people of a particular region of Egypt. This is no accident; there has been racial or ethnic intermingling in both instances. For the Afro-American, it has been relatively recent; in Egypt it has been a slow process lasting thousands of years, as far back into prehistory as can be gauged.
Abaza -- are you in disagreement with Yurco's quote above? Are you in disagreement with Ausar's premise: "Ancient and Modern Egyptians are not Mediterranean caucasoids"?
So far it seems that all you're doing is casting aspersions on arguments you don't like by placing labels on them. ("Afrocentric").
...But evidence is neither Afrocentric nor Eurocentric. I think evidence supports Yurco's statement. Keep in mind that when people speak of "black" and "white" they're talking about Western racial labels specifically. We all understand that many people who would be considered "black" in the west (and "white" for that matter) don't necessarily refer to themselves by these one-dimensional labels.
---
Also -- what do you think of the following Yurco assertion?
quote:
Among the foreigners, the Nubians were closest ethnically to the Egyptians. In the late predynastic period (c. 3700-3150 B.C.E.), the Nubians shared the same culture as the Egyptians and even evolved the same pharaonic political structure.
---
quote:
Abaza writes:What I find very offensive about this Afro-Centric argument, is that they're trying to steal our Culture away from us, i.e., The Modern Egyptians.........and give it all to others who had very little or almost nothing to do with the Great Achievements of our Ancestors.
Here's another important question: who exactly are these "others" that the "Afro-centric" argument tries to "give" Egyptian history to?
You have to think it through before you get offended. What you call an "Afrocentric" argument pays closer attention to the testimony of the ancients themselves (as well as other evidence) than the Eurocentric argument ever has...
But again -- evidence is neither Afrocentric nor Eurocentric... I'm no expert, but I think Ausar's essay makes sense, as does Yurco's.
The singular lack of originality," he wrote, "and the slavish devotion to
convention, which are the outstanding features of the modern Egyptian, are
sure tokens that the former abilties of the race have been affected by fifty
centuries of negro admixture, which has more than counterbalanced the
infusion of virile northern blood that in some measure helps to explain the
greatness of Egypt's achievements in the zenith of her power and influence."
(G. Elliot Smith, "The Influence of Racial Admixture in Egypt," The Eugenics
Review, vol. 7, April 1915-January 1916, pages 177-178, 183)
Does that sound like mainstream Egyptology had the best intentions towards modern Egyptians?
You should be more insulted by these studies than by some misguided Afro-centrists.
quote:
Originally posted by ABAZA:
Wally,Please, just because we do not agree...does not give you the right to call me names....
We all know quite well that almost all the Egyptologist do not agree with this False Psuedo-Science.
By the way, these folks are some of the Brightest minds in this field,,,and most of them have no political agenda.
It is just a Shame that such Great Institutes of Higher learning can be so blind as to not question this Psuedo Afro-Centric False science.
quote:
Originally posted by ABAZA:
Both the Ancient and Modern Egyptians would laugh at your senseless postings.
As a modern day Egyptian, I guess you could speak for yourself…although, I know many that attend and teach at my University (not a black college) that do not (laugh at Ausar’s fact laced posts). Although, many 100% Arab/Asiatic type Egyptians that I know are not too fond of the new and most currently unfolding information about ancient Kemet/Egypt, but they too find the evidence extremely hard to refute. I mean, it must be very difficult for some of the modern day Asiatic Arab Egyptians—as it is for some others groups (i.e. Hawaiians, White South Africans, Australians, ect.)—to differentiate themselves from the ancients who occupied the same lands so long long ago. Egypt and the Ancient Kemetians had to endure many incursions with invading peoples displacing the indigenous peoples while encroaching on ancients’ territories.
Now, I am not saying that a good percentage of modern day Egyptians (especially those from the south) are not related to the ancients, but a good number of the ones in lower Egypt and, particularly Cairo, are decendant from Middle eastern and IndoEuropean origins, as some one tell you (and have me), if you asked.
quote:
Originally posted by ABAZA:
Ausar, with all due respect, I think you're NUTS. Your postings are totally biased and do a great deal of disservice to the Egyptian People.
Totally biased? Could you give specific examples? Ausar has shown that he is extremely knowledgeable of current and ancient historical facts in reference to Ancient Kemet.
quote:
Originally posted by ABAZA:
Why the hell would an Egyptian try to spread false information on his own people....Wakeup man and realize that you're only helping spread lies and psuedo-History.
False information?? What is the false information that you are referring to exactly? At least give Ausar a chance to debate his point(s) and argument. Also, what lies have Ausar told?? Please specify.
My question to you is….What is true information??? The topic at hand was that the “Ancient Egyptians were not white (i.e. from European Stock, but instead from an African one)”. Do you disagree? If so, please state your facts.
quote:
Originally posted by ABAZA:Modern Egyptians know who they are...and don't need someone like you telling them lies...(The same goes for the Ancient Egyptians),in order to feed your own ego.
Not fair to make such a statement, it borders on name calling.
As for Ancient Kemetians/Egyptians, they most certainly referred to themselves in the African context, which the Kemetian’s hailed “the land of the gods” (meaning they believed that most of their gods are of inner African origin—as stated by Basil Davidson British Egyptologist in his 30 plus years Studying the Egyptian and Southern African Continent).
Also, are you aware of the race chart that the Kemetians created to show the difference between themselves an the Semitics and Indo-Europeans?
This chart shows that RACIALLY, the Kemetians saw themselves as what you, and everyone else would consider black Africans. Again, look at their race chart from the tomb of Ramsese II, I believe…. It is very clear. So, please do not speak for the ancients, because you are going against their own interpretations
quote:
Originally posted by Horemheb:
The idea the AE's are black Africans is insane.
* The Kememu or AE referred to themselves as Black people, and of course they were indiginous Africans as well, they were not Europeans or Asians.
* The Kememu were also referred to as Blacks by the ancient Hebrews; in the Bible, and by the Ancient Greeks as well.
* No-one except Eurocentrics and some misguided Arab nationalists have ever claimed otherwise. And mostly, they, like you, make phoney propagandistic claims that they themselves do not actually believe in, as they know full well that the Arabs entered Kemet in 600 AD and the Kememu NEVER regarded themselves as Aamuu-deshrutu (Asiatic).
Can professor Horemheb provide evidence to the contrary or is here just to show his feathers and sing his usual swan song of empty rhetoric?
quote:...sounds to me like you are hearing the deathscreams of Eurocentrism.
the backlash is well underway in all major Universities
quote:
The idea the AE's are black Africans is insane. Its an effort on the part of silly Afrocentrics to rewrite history for political reasons. Nobody takes them seriously and the backlash is well underway in all major Universities.
Actually, the view that people that had affinities to ''black'' Africans in pre-dyanstic Kmt[Egypt] is taken very seriously. The early pre-dyanstic Egyptians in Upper Egypt had affinities with Saharan and even Nilotic type Africans according to Michael Critchion,and others such as Howells found that the Giza samples were intermediates between European and sub-Saharan Africans. Larry Angel, the professor of S.O.Y. Keita, found that Babdarian crania was what you would call negriod.
The only thing debatable is who inhabited Lower Egypt around the Delta. We don't have much crania from this region preserved like in Upper Egypt.
quote:
Originally posted by Horemheb:
The idea the AE's are black Africans is insane. Its an effort on the part of silly Afrocentrics to rewrite history for political reasons. Nobody takes them seriously and the backlash is well underway in all major Universities.
Horemheb,
This statement is probably the most factual on this thread.....We should be debating why the Egyptian People and the Respected people of Academia are so silent on this Subject.
There needs to be a Debate about the merits of allowing some respected Institutions of Higher Learning to teach this Garbage...
If you think about it, it amounts to a politcal agenda that is tolerated for stupid reasons. There is no other science or subject
allowed to be taught in such a fashion at these very same colleges and universities.
WHY SHOULD THEY ALLOW FALSE INFORMATION TO BE FED TO THEIR STUDENTS.....WE ALL NEED TO STAND UP AND EXPRESS OUR ANGER TOWARDS THESE INSTITUTES OF HIGHER LEARNING!!!
------------------
THE TRUTH WILL SET YOU FREE!! ALWAYS LISTEN TO YOUR HEART & SOUL!! // PEACE ******* ABAZA
quote:...sounds to me like you are hearing the deathscreams of Eurocentrism. [/QUOTE]
Originally posted by rasol:
[QUOTE]the backlash is well underway in all major Universities
Rasol,
I don't support either Eurocentric or Afrocentric political points of view.
What we need is a Neutral Pathway without any outside hidden political agenda....
As a matter of fact there are Black Professors in the USA who do not support this garbage science of psuedo-history.
They know that by teaching their students False information, they're making them weaker not stronger and make all Afican-American look like stupid idiots.
This should not be tolerated........
What many people forget is that African is only a geographical Term...it doen mean Black, White, or Other racial group.
The Ancient Egyptians were African, but they were not "Black Africans".
This Fact is crucial to understanding the history of AE.
They obviously had contacts with Black Africans, but the same was true with all their other neighbors from North Africa, The Arabian Peninsula,Asia and Europe.
What the Afro-Centric Psuedo-Historians try to teach as Fact is a one faceted point of view that ignores the Truth.
Sorry, but this modern Thievery should not be tolerated to make one group feel better about themselves......Let the Egyptians have their own history and let us enjoy the Egyptian Legacy with all its Glory...
------------------
THE TRUTH WILL SET YOU FREE!! ALWAYS LISTEN TO YOUR HEART & SOUL!! // PEACE ******* ABAZA
However saying that the Sa'idi (Upper Egyptians) were dark brown is not. The Ta-Seti are still the darkest Egyptians. Ta-Seti also meant "Land of the Bow".
Edit: Also i don't think there is no such a thing as "Negroid" skull.
[This message has been edited by Orionix (edited 06 December 2004).]
quote:
Originally posted by ABAZA:
Rasol,What many people forget is that African is only a geographical Term...it doen mean Black, White, or Other racial group.
The Ancient Egyptians were African, but they were not "Black Africans".
Europe is a geographical term too, isn't it?
Would you say the same about the Greeks and Romans?
That they were Europeans, but not "White Europeans" given their dark complexion compared to Germans, Anglo-Saxons, Scandinavians, and the like?
What do you mean by "Black African" by the way?
Is there a monolith concept of who is black African or white European?
I realize people have different views about the demographic make-up of ancient Egyptians based on their concepts of race, ethnicity, culture, etc. But I think it would help to clarify your comments for consistency sake.
quote:
Originally posted by Horemheb:
The idea the AE's are black Africans is insane.
Horemheb,
First, my sincere apology for confusing you as Orionix. Now, why don't you provide us with the books and authors of egyptology that are taught in your university? I've asked before but as usual you don't answer.
Horemheb and ABAZA,
Please provide info and data to your claims. It would be interesting to show data of the AE being anything other than black Africans.
quote:
Originally posted by ABAZA:
Wally,Please, just because we do not agree...does not give you the right to call me names....
We all know quite well that almost all the Egyptologist do not agree with this False Psuedo-Science.
By the way, these folks are some of the Brightest minds in this field,,,and most of them have no political agenda.
It is just a Shame that such Great Institutes of Higher learning can be so blind as to not question this Psuedo Afro-Centric False science.
quote:
Ausar, with all due respect, I think you're NUTS. Your postings are totally biased and do a great deal of disservice to the Egyptian People.
There is no need to "debate" people who think as you do because you constantly evade the bottom line - Prove the Ancient Egyptians wrong on this matter, and if you can't then simply not address the issue. (Put up or shut up! is what I'm trying to say, I think...)
Most modern day Egyptians don't realize how slanderous the early Egyptologist was towards them. Did you read the articles I posted by Sir Grafton Smith that claimed the original Egyptians were white and became darkened by ''black'' slaves.
The earliest remains in Middle Egypt around Badari all were studied during the late 60's and early 70's. Nearly all physical anthropologist agreed they match Nilotic type people such as the Teita. Larry Angel later confirmed this and his student Keita also validated it.
Egypt had lots in common with other African groups including the following: circumcision rites,divine kingship,rainmaker king,and even ancestor veneration. True not all Egyptians were ''black'' but the majority in Upper Egypt were and many still there are today. Leading Egyptologist Bob Brier in his book on Egyptian Mummies agrees with his direct quote ''Some Egyptians were black and some were not''.
Fekri Hassan,who is an Egyptian, agrees that the early people from the Sahara populated parts of Upper Egypt. Most likely these pastorialists brought their culture to the ancient Egyptians.
All these people I quoited are fairly mainstream and publish in mainstream journals. You can read most of the material in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology, The Journal of World Prehistory,and Journal of Human Evolution.
Here are the studies that back up my statements:
Robins, G. and Shute, C, "Predynastic Egyptian stature and physical
proportions," _Journal of Human Evolution_ 4, 1986
Strouhal, E. "Une contribution a la question du caratere de la population prehitorique de la haute-Egypte" Anthropolgie, 6, 1968.
__, "Evidence of the early penetration of negroes into prehistoric Egypt," Egyptian Journal of African History, 12: 1-9, 1971.
Hassan, F. (1988) The predynastic of Egypt. Journal of World Prehistory, 2, 135-185.
Gaballah, MF, El-Rakhawy MT and El-Eishi HI, " On the cranilogical study of Egyptian in various periods in various periods," Anthropologie X(2,3):29-34.
98.1016
CERVELLÓ AUTUORI, Joseph, Egypt, Africa and the Ancient World, in:
Proceedings 7th Int. Congress of Egyptologists, 261-272. (fig.).
The traditional contextualisation of Egypt in the 'Mediterranean' or
'Near Eastern' world has been produced by a phenomenon of western
historiography that we can classify as the 'forgotten Africa'. The
reopening of the African question in Egyptology has proceeded from the
pre- and protohistorians of the Nile Valley and of northern Africa in
general. The inclusion of late prehistoric Egypt in Africa determines
the essentially African nature of many of the central features of
Pharaonic civilisation and explains the many parallels between ancient
Egypt and both the ancient Saharan and modern black civilisations. The
author discusses examples of the iconographic-symbolic parallels
between Saharan rock art and Egyptian art, and the principal cultural
characteristics shared by ancient Egypt and modern black Africa. The
African nature of Egyptian civilisation can be seen most clearly in
the institution of Pharaonic kingship. M.W.K.
The movement or diffusion of people out of and into Egypt during
this time span from before 4000 B.C.-2000 B.C. or later evolution of
this slightly negriod paedomorphic stock into Dyansty Upper
Egyptians was probably a local development from the unknown latest
hunters of the Lower Nile,while mixture of more massive and rugged
[and also negriod ] Nubians[Anderson,1969];Armelagos,1969] produced
some of the rugged Pre-dyanstic variants . Disease and dietary
selection would have affected the population probably more than
immigration and mixture. Lower Egypt may have had a slightly
different population,less linear in the skull variant but with
longer face,like the earliest farmers in Greece ,but also with thin
noses. But I have to use a IX Dyansty series [Woo ,1930] as a base
for this statement and almost certainly this group in the late third
milliennium B.C. shows minor effects of mixture with sea-trading
peoples from the Levant and Agean. Cyprus since the early Neolithic
[Angel,1953;Furst,1933] had both very lateral and some linear skulls
elements and could have been a source of change and there were
probably exchanges with Palestine[Korgman ,1949;Hrdlicka,1938] and
Mesopotamia [Angel ,1951],both with long [Angel,1951],both with long
headed populations with medium or low rather than linear faces and
some of the same lateral element as in early Anatolian[cf. the later
Hitties] and the Agean [Angel,1951]. The latter is supposed to have
increased in numbers [from what selective force?] in the Bronze Age
and perhaps to have affected Lower Egypt via the Hykos.
This is not enough evidence. But the intruders who appeared in
Greece at time of Indo-Europeans acceptance[Angel,1971] are fairly
robust Iranian[or Nordic Iranian] in form[Korgman,1940] with definite
short and low headed and also intermediate forms of skull: I think
that the Hykos wew probably a parallel blend and also may have had
little genetic effect in an area of high population density already.
page 310
J. Lawrence Angel
Divison of Physical Anthropology
Smithstonian Institution
Washington,D.C. 20560 ,U.S.A.
Received 18 April 1969
Biological Relations of Egyptian and Eastern Mediterranean
Populations during Pre-dynastic and Dyanstic
Time*
There was probably a break in occupation between levels I and II at
Merimda. Level II, known as the Mittleren Merimdekultur and considered by
the by the excavator to be related to the Saharo-Sudanese cultures..."
The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt
Pg 38
======================================================================
"The Fayum Neolithic should thus be viewed as a culture at the intersection
of three routes: one from the eastern Sahara, one from the Near East and one
from the Nile Valley itself."
The Prehistory of Egypt
By Beatrix Midant-Reynes
Pg. 106
=====================================================================
Here is Midant-Reynes statement on the remains of a 40 year old
epipaleolithic woman from the Fayum Oasis in the same book:
" The body was that of a 40 year old woman with a height of 1.6 meters, who
was of a more modern racial type than the classic "Mechtoid" of the
Fakhurian culture, being generally gracile, having large teeth and thick
jaws bearing some resemblance to the modern "negroid' type."
The Prehistory of Egypt
By Beatrix Midant-Reynes
Pg. 82
======================================================================
"The prognathism observed in the skulls from Maadi south and Heliopolis may
or may not indicate the infiltration of a negroid strain into the northern
region."
Most Ancient Egypt
By William C. Hayes
======================================================================
See the following link: http://www-oi.uchicago.edu/OI/ANE/ANE-DIGEST/V02/v02.n077
[scroll down to the thread by Peter Piccone]
Finally, let it be said that the ancient Egyptians were not white=20 Caucasians, nor were they Indo-Aryans. They were African, primarily a brown race, although fair= =20 skinned and leptorhine in the north, black skinned and platyrhine in the south, and= =20 various shades in the middle. They manifested all the physical differences you=20 would expect in so large a continent as Africa. Trigger (see below) uses the term=20 "Nilotic" to refer to their heterogenous character. When all is said and done, though,= =20 this whole question of Egyptian racial identity says more about us today than it does= =20 about the ancient Egyptians.
All though we do not have many skeletal remains from pre-Dynastic Lower Egypt we certainly have skeletal remains from the adjacent regions of Upper Egypt and the Southern Levant. In addition, we have genetic, linguistic and archaeological data to develop a broad understanding of the peopling of this region. As I have demonstrated elsewhere, the genetic, linguistic and archeological data support the peopling of the Egyptian Nile from the Horn of Africa area at the onset of the Holocene. A branch of this Horn of Africa derived colonization reached into the Fertile Crescent where it was known as the Natufian. Natufian skeletal remains have affinities with modern East African types. Egyptian cranial analysis shows continuity from the Badari period down to the end of the New Kingdom. Most of the Eurasian gene frequencies found in living Upper and Lower Egyptians date to the Greco-Roman period and the Arab invasion. By the Naqada II phase Upper Egyptians had conquered parts of Southern Canaan. Mesopatamia had colonized parts of Northern Canaan at this time. It was traditional for Egyptian rulers to take minor wives from foreign provinces. Hence the broader cranial types found in the Giza graves probably indicate Canaanite concubines and /or their family. There is NO evidence of mass migration into Egypt during the Pre-Dynastic era.
quote:
Originally posted by Orionix:
I believe that saying that ancient Egypt was dominated by a black race is an exaggeration. They probably looked similar to modern day Touaregs. [This message has been edited by Orionix (edited 06 December 2004).]
Thought Writes:
I believe that saying that ancient Greece was dominated by a white race is an exaggeration. They probably looked similar to modern day Tunisians.
quote:
Originally posted by blackman:
Horemheb,
First, my sincere apology for confusing you as Orionix. Now, why don't you provide us with the books and authors of egyptology that are taught in your university? I've asked before but as usual you don't answer.Horemheb and ABAZA,
Please provide info and data to your claims. It would be interesting to show data of the AE being anything other than black Africans.
Blackman,
Your best evidence is the legacy of the Ancient Egyptians themselves. They left us massive volumes of recorded history to examine and look at. Any reasonable examiner would easily see that these ancient people were not Black African. Their living descendants are clearly not Black Africans.
You could actually say that many Egyptians are more European than Asian (Arab)in terms of Genetics.
We all know that Egypt is a Transitional Zone, between Africa, Europe, and Asia. Therefore, one would find as expected that there is a large variety of people who inhabit such an area. The question would be, who was the most dominant group..if there was one at all. The AE's did not see it that way at all, because they saw themselves as Unique and Successful....Try to think about this for a minute.
There is no sure positive conclusion to label all these people as Black, unless you're politically biased.
The Truth is the Ancient Egyptians can just as easily be labeled caucasian just as their
living offspring are called in the USA and many other countries in this world, today.
Sorry to tell you this, but you can only bend the Truth so much without a BackLash!!
------------------
THE TRUTH WILL SET YOU FREE!! ALWAYS LISTEN TO YOUR HEART & SOUL!! // PEACE ******* ABAZA
As AUSAR posted at the top of this thread. the Ancient Egyptians craniums are negriod. However, if you prefer I'll use black African instead of negroid.
Quoted by AUSAR:
Prognathisms is a distinctly Negroid trait. What Massoulard's passage leaves out, is that Miss Stoessiger found the Badarian crania to all possess blurred margin (broad nasal index), just as Coon noted. Dr. S.O.Y. Keita, a well respected and noteable anthropologist did a cranial analysis of his own on various cranias, in his work "Studies of Ancient Crania From Northern Africa." His samples included predynastic Badari, predynastic early Naqqada, Kerma (Bronze Age Nubia), 1st Dynasty royal remains at Abydos, Teita East Africa, Gaboon Central-West Africa, and Romano-Britain. Through his experiments he was able to gain several observations. He found that the Badari predynastic Egyptian crania occupied, "a position closest to the Teita, Gaboon, Nubian, and Nagada series." [p. 40]
Why is it so hard for you and others to accept this fact?
quote:
Originally posted by kenndo:For the last comment above, the ancient egyptians were mostly a black race, not a brown race, but there were other races there too, like the white and brown race.
This is very subjective since race is nothing but a social construct.
Also i don't think the ancient Egyptians were ultra-dark brown. They were probably similar to modern day Tuareg.
quote:
Originally posted by Thought2:
Thought Writes:I believe that saying that ancient Greece was dominated by a white race is an exaggeration. They probably looked similar to modern day Tunisians.
Tunisians are predominantly the same as they were once. According to genetic studies the Arabs didn't change much the population make-up in Tunisia. The Arabization wasn't a demographic replacement but mainly a cultural process.
The ancient Greeks probably looked partly Middle Eastern and partly European.
[This message has been edited by Orionix (edited 06 December 2004).]
[This message has been edited by blackman (edited 06 December 2004).]
quote:
Thought Writes:I believe that saying that ancient Greece was dominated by a white race is an exaggeration. They probably looked similar to modern day Tunisians.
Agreed. I don't even bother to entertain straw arguments about racial "domination". (nonesense rhetoric)
Ancient Kemet was simply an African nation. It does not require explanation or apology to the wounded ego and false pride of Eurocentrics to explain why they were dark skinned African people who referred to themselves as Black. The Kememu held Black sacred. They colored their Gods Black. They distinguished themselves in their own ideology from Semites/Asiatics and Europeans. They considered the African interior their home, their birthplace, the land of the Gods, of the ancestors and the motherland.
There is no microscope powerful enough to detect the miniscule relevance of Eurocentric sensibility to Ancient Kemet.
I leave it to Europeans to explain why they refer to themselves as whites; why they invent pseudo-scientific race and anthropological catagories, engage in blatent fraud and falsify history (from Ramesis III and the mural of races to the fake Tetisheri statues to Piltdown man) in and attempt to "dominate" other peoples and cultures with an essentially venile and racist ideology.
Ancient Africans of the Nile Valley owe no apology and no explaination to Europeans, Arabs, or even Modern Egyptians who do not "identify" with Africa. That's "their" problem, not the AE's.
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 06 December 2004).]
quote:And you are here out of preoccupation with.... ? ? ?
ABAZA, Many of these guys are preoccupied by race.
quote:
Anytime a subject comes up they look at it through a racial lense.
quote:...ah yes, the usual anti African ranting. Tell us then, why are you here obsessing over an ancient African culture if you are satisfied with your [wst] heritage. The phrase "Egypto-mania" I believe was invented by Europeans to describe the perverse condition you suffer from.
Even though most of Africa is 5th world,
You dislike facing the reality of the African Origion of AE only because it brings you out of your happy self delusion. And then you vent your hypocritical hatred at modern Africa.
quote:The only losing end is the one expressed in the jealous bitter rhetoric which you always relapse into whenever you have failed to address an issue in a rational and intelligent way. Your hateful posts only expose your own insecurity and anger, which you soo...need to vent. And that is why you are here. You are clearly not here to debate, because you don't know how.
Because of this they will continue to pass up opportunities and stay on the losing end, where they have been for thousands of years. Think about it.
Think about that.
If any of your views have data you would have provided it buy now. Hoermheb is ashamed to post the title and author of the book used in his university because either he is not a professor or he know we will expose any lies if they are any.
If your views are wrong, why can't you guys come with data to disprove it?
I'll wait for you to not answer and not provide data again. 
quote:
Originally posted by blackman:
ABAZA,
Are you reading anything or going off your emotions?As AUSAR posted at the top of this thread. the Ancient Egyptians craniums are negriod. However, if you prefer I'll use black African instead of negroid.
Quoted by AUSAR:
[b]Prognathisms is a distinctly Negroid trait. What Massoulard's passage leaves out, is that Miss Stoessiger found the Badarian crania to all possess blurred margin (broad nasal index), just as Coon noted. Dr. S.O.Y. Keita, a well respected and noteable anthropologist did a cranial analysis of his own on various cranias, in his work "Studies of Ancient Crania From Northern Africa." His samples included predynastic Badari, predynastic early Naqqada, Kerma (Bronze Age Nubia), 1st Dynasty royal remains at Abydos, Teita East Africa, Gaboon Central-West Africa, and Romano-Britain. Through his experiments he was able to gain several observations. He found that the Badari predynastic Egyptian crania occupied, "a position closest to the Teita, Gaboon, Nubian, and Nagada series." [p. 40]Why is it so hard for you and others to accept this fact?[/B]
Blackman,
The problem is that most of the evidence is biased and politically motivated. There is also a wealth of research that shows the opposite is true.
You can not just pick and choose in order to bolster your point of view.
The reason this issue is so Hotly debated, is because of the Lies and Non-Factual work put out by some Afro-Centric psuedo-historians. They picked the wrong group of people to attack, because the Ancient Egyptians left us a treasure trove of records to examine and dipute this biased point of view.
Modern genetics has allowed us to examine many of these issues and so far the majority
point out that the Ancient and Modern Egyptians are very much related and both are closely related to caucasian people, rather than Black-Africans.
This is Modern Science...without any hidden political agenda. Please feel free to read some of this new research that was done recently.
------------------
THE TRUTH WILL SET YOU FREE!! ALWAYS LISTEN TO YOUR HEART & SOUL!! // PEACE ******* ABAZA
I leave it to Europeans to explain why they refer to themselves as whites; why they invent pseudo-scientific race and anthropological catagories, engage in blatent fraud and falsify history (from Ramesis III and the mural of races to the fake Tetisheri statues to Piltdown man) in and attempt to "dominate" other peoples and cultures with an essentially venile and racist ideology.
Hi
Rasol, as a person who can be catagorised as "white" and "European", I have to ask,when you make those charges (Of which some are justified against particular people) are you holding me and others who fall into your catagory Culpable. Its a rather broad catagory.
[This message has been edited by Nolos (edited 06 December 2004).]
quote:
blackman:Horemheb,
Ahhhhh, excuse me for yawning. The only reason threads like this come up and go on so long is because of people like you, Orionix, and ABAZA who are victims of Eurocentric views.
I am not a victim to Eurocentric views.
I believe that Afrocentrism is indeed a response to European racism. Though everyone is free to believe whatever he/she wishes.
Also i am very against racism (the belief that biological races really exists in humans) and ethnocentrism.
[This message has been edited by Orionix (edited 06 December 2004).]
quote:
Your best evidence is the legacy of the Ancient Egyptians themselves. They left us massive volumes of recorded history to examine and look at.
quote:Oh really? This would mean that the Ancient Egyptians themselves, Herodotus, the Bible, Champollion the Younger - who said the Egyptians settled the Nile from Sudan and Ethiopia to the South and East and were ethnically related to the Nubians and NOT Asiatic Arabs and European Copts,
Any reasonable examiner would easily see that these ancient people were not Black African.
Constintine De Volney - who stated the the Sphinx was "negro", and Egyptologist Alan Gardiner who said These... were long-headed-dolicocephalic is the learned term-and below even medium stature, but Negroid features are often to be observed. Whatever may be said of the northerners, it is safe to describe the dwellers in Upper Egypt as of essentially African stock,a character always retained despite alien influences brought to bear on them from time to time."
What proof to the contrary of the above can you offer? Other than empty pronouncement that everyone else is wrong and presumably you are 'right'?
quote:
Modern genetics has allowed us to examine many of these issues and so far the majority
point out that the Ancient and Modern Egyptians are very much related and both are closely related to caucasian people, rather than Black-Africans.
This is Modern Science...without any hidden political agenda. Please feel free to read some of this new research that was done recently.
Please cite genetic studies that show genetic closeness of modern Egyptians with ''caucasian'' groups. Most genetic studies I have read on modern Egyptians are very selective and exclude samples from Southern Egyptians which would group more with black Africans than with Mediterranean caucasoid groups.
quote:
The problem is that most of the evidence is biased and politically motivated. There is also a wealth of research that shows the opposite is true.
Then cite the evidence without placing a strawman argument. If you have genetic or physical anthropological evidence then cite it. You are debating the issue in a political manner instead of validating your points with scientific reserch.
quote:
The reason this issue is so Hotly debated, is because of the Lies and Non-Factual work put out by some Afro-Centric psuedo-historians.
quote:...provide heat but shed no light. If you have a Kemetic document that supports your point of view....bring it. As is; Your approach reminds us of the saying 'an empty vessel makes a loud noise'.
They picked the wrong group of people to attack, because the Ancient Egyptians left us a treasure trove of records to examine and dipute this biased point of view.
quote:Actually there is little direct genetic evidence on the AE, but studies of modern Egyptians have documented their similarity with Nubians, and their distinction from Asiatics of the delta, so you are wrong here:
Modern genetics has allowed us to examine many of these issues and so far the majority point out that the Ancient and Modern Egyptians are very much related and both are closely related to caucasian people, rather than Black-Africans.
Also: most Geneticists do NOT describe 'genes' as caucasian or negro as that is the surest way of getting a peer reviewed genetic study dismissed as mere race propaganda. Now, you were saying?
quote:I would not catagorize you in any way other than you would choose, or hold you responsible for anything other than your own actions. The question above is specifically for people who choose to call themselves white, while denying that other peoples, such as the AE called themselves Black. If that doesn't apply to you, then...it doesn't apply to you.
rasol Writes:I leave it to Europeans to explain why they refer to themselves as whites; why they invent pseudo-scientific race and anthropological catagories, engage in blatent fraud and falsify history (from Ramesis III and the mural of races to the fake Tetisheri statues to Piltdown man) in and attempt to "dominate" other peoples and cultures with an essentially venile and racist ideology.
Hi
Rasol, as a person who can be catagorised as "white" and "European", I have to ask,when you make those charges (Of which some are justified against particular people) are you holding me and others who fall into your catagory Culpable. Its a rather broad catagory.
But I understand what you mean.
Also DNA says nothing about race which is a cultural concept. From the genetic perspective all humans share very much in common due to our (quite) recent African legacy.
I doubt the Egyptians even knew these racial terms as we describe them today. I believe this is merely the result of the last 400-500 years of human racist history.
What race were the ancient Egyptians?
[This message has been edited by Orionix (edited 06 December 2004).]
[This message has been edited by Orionix (edited 06 December 2004).]
quote:
Originally posted by Orionix:
I doubt the Egyptians even knew these racial terms as we describe them today. I believe this is merely the result of the last 400-500 years of human racist history.
Link: What race were the ancient Egyptians?
Now there is something seriously wrong with an individual who makes such a statement and then proceeds to provide a link to a document which shows clearly the earliest known anthropological representation of the known human races! Religion does that...
And trust me, in your "religious zeal to believe," you really don't want to know the extent of the racial terms coined and used by the Ancient Egyptians...you really don't.
[This message has been edited by Wally (edited 06 December 2004).]
quote:
Originally posted by Wally:
Now there is something seriously wrong with an individual who makes such a statement and then proceeds to provide a link to a document which shows clearly the earliest known anthropological representation of the known human races! Religion does that...And trust me, in your "religious zeal to believe," you really don't want to know the extent of the racial terms coined and used by the Ancient Egyptians...you really don't.
I do I do!
Seriously you should wait for Abaza first. He is going to present some Ancient Egyptian documentation proving that the Kememu were not Black people. Really...he is.
The fact of the matter is that the carolinas 600 years ago was populated almost exclusively by Mid Atlantic Native Americans.
When you take into account that we are discussing a geographic area (Egypt) and we are dealing with times scales greater than 6000 years you have to admit that there is at least a chance that the modern population may be different from the population that inhabited the country earlier.
The problem I have with many peoples arguments
is that the want to put the culture in terms of absolutes. Either they (the ancient Egyptians) were black or they were not. For the group that believes they were not I ask you to clarify. Do you mean that Black African s had no contribution to Egypt genetic or cultural when you say AE was not black? How do you account for the iconography as well as the skeletal evidence that point to what appears to be black africans? I ask the reverse to the people who believe that AE was a black civilization?
I do note that most Egyptian Copts, especially those in the Delta look more like Greeks, and nothing like ancient Egyptians. It's obvious that those Copts are a hybrid of Graeco-Roman and Syrian ancestry. At best, they have minimal native Egyptian blood.
The average ancient Egyptian looked typically like coastal (native) Northeastern Africans, quite like most (unmixed) Upper Egyptians, Beja, Afar, Ethiopians, etc. That does not make them any less African.
The average Nubian looked like modern-day Southern Sudanese, who have not mixed with Arabs (Alek Wek, the supermodel comes to mind).
So you have a dark brown complexioned African (Kemetic) and a pitch-black one (Nubian). Neither is any less African than the other. Africans are of a varied phenotype, but NO true (native) African can be characterized as caucasoid. The absurdity is obvious.
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
Ancient Kemet was always regarded as African and Black. This fact has nothing to do with the "modern" [wst] racial concepts which are irrelevant, as are [wst] denials, backtracking, feign compromises, which only show that the game is up and that Eurocentrism is trying to reposition itself, on studier, less obviously racist grounds.
No sale.
Rasol,
I hate to tell you this, but this is Hogwash.
There is no White Conspiracy to steal Egypt out of Africa or change the racial origins of the Egyptians. The truth lies right in front of your Face....just look at the first hand evidence that we have. Again, any reasonable person would tell you that you Can Not label the people as Black Africans.
This same concept is what is lost on many of these biased Afro-Centric historians. By the way, all this Afro-Centric thinking is very new and has not stood the tough scrutiny of modern academia.
This biased presentation Needs to Challenged, because it is False and not fair to the Egyptian People and the rest of the world.
I would put my trust in respected Egyptologist, who have spent decades discovering and documenting AE, rather some
Afro-Centric biased studies that are politically motivated.
Egyptians are not Black Africans.....
Africa is Multi-Racial....
North Africa and East Africa have always had
non-negroid groups living in those areas.
By the way, the genetic studies also point out the Nubians carry predominantely Caucasian genes.......how is that to dispute these false arguments.....
Ask Modern Egyptians and they'll point the way for you to the Truth......for example, DR. Zahi Hawas can perhaps clear your dilemma.
------------------
THE TRUTH WILL SET YOU FREE!! ALWAYS LISTEN TO YOUR HEART & SOUL!! // PEACE ******* ABAZA
quote:
Originally posted by Orionix:
Do you really believe that there is such a thing as black crania and white crania? Give me a break.
Orionix,
I'm going to pretend you are just ignorant and not playing dumb.
Again using AUSAR post:
The AE crainiums had a distinct negroid trait.
Prognathisms is a distinctly Negroid trait.
Do you understand what prognathism is?
Can you understand distinctly Negriod trait?
Are you actually reading the data provided?
If you want to say negriod is not black or african, that's up to you to lie to yourself and play games.
Orionix,
If you are black or part black as you stated, you need an 11th commandment.
11)LOVE THYSELF!
Think on that awhile.
If the meaning eludes you can email me.
[This message has been edited by blackman (edited 06 December 2004).]
quote:
Wally:Now there is something seriously wrong with an individual who makes such a statement and then proceeds to provide a link to a document which shows clearly the earliest known anthropological representation of the known human races! Religion does that...
The physical stereotyping of cranial variations into races is absolutely a pseudo-science.
Actually early Anthropolgical methods were heavily based on skull and body measurments and racial streotyping.
The ancient Egyptians were probably similar in color to this Nubian girl:
quote:
Wally:And trust me, in your "religious zeal to believe," you really don't want to know the extent of the racial terms coined and used by the Ancient Egyptians...you really don't.
This has nothing to do with religion, though everyone has his personal beliefs.
[This message has been edited by Orionix (edited 06 December 2004).]
Simple questions for Abaza:
Where did the original people who settled along the Nile come from?
The black folks in southern Egypt, do they even exist as far as you are concerned? If so, how do you suppose they got there?
First major Egyptian contact with Europe, was through the Greeks, how then could they have been European? Maybe you might want to make a case that ancient Greece precedes AE, don't know...
Where can you trace the origins of the heiroglyphics, northern most Africa or the African interior?
Which tombs and pyramid structures are oldest, from south to north, or the other way around?
What does the Narmer palate entail?
These are just basic questions, before we address the full genetic and other linguistic material to support our cases.
I think it is safe to say that you are one of those Asiatic looking Egyptians, and hence your contempt towards the existance of darker Egyptians. Darn it; those dark looking Egyptians, if only they weren't around! I am sure those black Arab Sudanese, who are fighting other Africans, will make every case on how they are so racially different from those they are fighting. So you aren't a unique case.
You haven't disproven anything that has been maintained here thus far, about southern origins of Egypt, and hence the initiative of dark skin or black Egyptians. We've all agreed that foreign influx occured in Egypt, and that it is racially diverse from north to south. This however, has no bearing on its origins, and who took the initiative in creating Egypt as a complex nation under one authority.
"Emotionalism" doesn't get you anywhere, at least where fact finding is concerned. Time to come out of the woods, and produce evidence for what you are insinuating! Also instead making arguments to the so-called general group Afrocentrics, it is advisable to pin point specifically what statements you are arguing against, specifically which person you are addressing, and provide evidence to the contrary.
quote:
Originally posted by kenndo:
For the last comment above,the ancient egyptians were mostly a black race,not a brown race,but there were other races there too,like the white and brown race.
Thought Writes:
Race is a social construct because it is a is a form of absolutism that does not capture the diversity of human populations. All human groups are diverse in a genetic sense. Suffice to say that the baseline Ancient Egyptian population derived from an ancestral tropical African population. Hence AE skin tones would mainly be congruent with other Sub-Saharan origin Africans.
quote:I hate to tell you this but colonialism, imperialism and racism are not conspiracy theories but facts of history in their own right. The scientific fraud committed in the service of Eurocentrism is specific and documented above. Your reply to this is to scream "hogwash", which is merely more hot air, and no rebutal.
Rasol,
I hate to tell you this, but this is Hogwash.
There is no White Conspiracy to steal Egypt out of Africa or change the racial origins of the Egyptians.
quote:....yes it does and it ccontradicts you.
The truth lies right in front of your Face
quote:...by someone other than you apparently, because you are repeating empty rhetoric and not actually challenging anything presented at all. Either you can dispute the information presented in the parent post....or not.
This biased presentation Needs to Challenged
quote:It's terrible! No study is presented by you. And the repettition of the falacy of 'caucasoid genes', a ludicrous concept, merely tells us that you know nothing about molecular genetics, and so will continue to make uneducated statements with no proof. What you are offering us is merely a weak argument, poorly made.
By the way, the genetic studies also point out the Nubians carry predominantely Caucasian genes.......how is that to dispute these false arguments.....
Thought Writes:
As far as I am aware AE records make no mention of issues related to physical anthropology?
{Any reasonable examiner would easily see that these ancient people were not Black African.}
Thought Writes:
Based upon what?
{Their living descendants are clearly not Black Africans.}
Thought Writes:
Genetically we all probably have SOME AE genetic ancestry.
{You could actually say that many Egyptians are more European than Asian (Arab)in terms of Genetics.}
Thought Writes:
Based upon the studies I have seen this is untrue. Please provide your sources?
{We all know that Egypt is a Transitional Zone, between Africa, Europe, and Asia.}
Thought Writes:
This is true, however prior to the Neolithic period population density was greater in Africa than elsewhere. SW Asia in fact was a major recipient of population flow from Africa during the Mesolithic period. Hence in one sense Neolithic SW Asian populations were congruent with NE Africans genetically.
{ The question would be, who was the most dominant group..if there was one at all.}
Thought Writes:
The evidence indicates that Sub-Saharan derived populations were dominant in Egypt up until the Late Period.
{There is no sure positive conclusion to label all these people as Black, unless you're politically biased.}
Thought Writes:
I agree. Not ALL AE were Black anymore than ALL the Ancient Greeks being white. However, the anthropological and historical record clearly state that most AE’s were derivatives of a ancestral Sub-Saharan base up to the Late Period.
{The Truth is the Ancient Egyptians can just as easily be labeled Caucasian}
Thought Writes:
Sure, but Caucasian is a obsolete term in relation to modern bio-anthropology.
quote:
Originally posted by ABAZA:
Rasol,Africa is Multi-Racial....
North Africa and East Africa have always had
non-negroid groups living in those areas.By the way, the genetic studies also point out the Nubians carry predominantely Caucasian genes.......how is that to dispute these false arguments.....
Will you please point out with evidence that non-Negroid have always been in East Africa? This is getting repetitive, I haven't seen any study that has made any confirmation of this. In north Africa this made be true, but not in East Africa.
Please also point out a study that says Nubians carry predominant “Caucasian” genes.
[This message has been edited by Charlie_Bass (edited 06 December 2004).]
quote:
Thought:Race is a social construct because it is a is a form of absolutism that does not capture the diversity of human populations. All human groups are diverse in a genetic sense. Suffice to say that the baseline Ancient Egyptian population derived from an ancestral tropical African population. Hence AE skin tones would mainly be congruent with other Sub-Saharan origin Africans.
True also genetically populations cluster by geographic origin.
All human populations have constantly been in a state of flux, therefore we are all genetically "mixed".
Considereing the fact that Ancient Egypt was a sub-tropical climate i would say that the majority ranged from brown to dark brown in complexion.
Thought Writes:
Please provide us with one recent example of a research paper on this subject from a peer-reviewed scientific journal that is politically motivated. Then explain why you believe it is politically motivated? Thanks.
{There is also a wealth of research that shows the opposite is true.}
Thought Writes:
Please provide us with one such example.
{The reason this issue is so Hotly debated, is because of the Lies and Non-Factual work put out by some Afro-Centric psuedo-historians.}
Thought Writes:
It is actually not a hotly debated issue in the scientific community. In fact, most are in general agreement that AE descend from Late Pleistocene Horn of Africa population in the main.
{Modern genetics has allowed us to examine many of these issues and so far the majority
point out that the Ancient and Modern Egyptians are very much related and both are closely related to caucasian people, rather than Black-Africans.}
Thought Writes:
I have ready many studies on this issue and never have come across anything that supports this contention. Please provide us with your sources.
quote:
Originally posted by Charlie_Bass:
In north Africa this made be true, but not in East Africa.
Thought Writes:
In North Africa this was NOT true!
Thought Writes:
Egypt did indeed have a supra-tropical climate, however the AE people were recent immigrants into the region from tropical Africa.
quote:
Originally posted by Thought2:
Thought Writes:In North Africa this was NOT true!
Thought, I'm going not to waste my time arguing this point, but it is well known that the peoples of coastal North Africa were and still are highly distinct morphologically speaking, than those from the Sahara and below. I'm not buying your definition of Negroid and black based on American racial definitions. If we keep it purely on anthropological terms, the people of coastal North Africa have a phenotype, metrically and non-metrically, distinct from that of Saharans and sub-Saharans. It is merely a cline and gradient of traits as one moves North to south or vice-versa. In America, people like Walter White are black but in Africa amongst Africans, north, south, east, west or wherever, he would stick out as a European based on his somatype.
[This message has been edited by Charlie_Bass (edited 06 December 2004).]
Thought Writes:
You expect to post wild accusations like this on a internet forum and expect them to do unchecked? Get real!
{but it is well well known that the peoples of coastal North Africa were and still are highly distinct morphologically speaking}
Thought Writes:
1) No need to bring in CURRENT North Africans, that was never the point. Are you attempting to use the current North African make-up as a proxy device to obscure this issue?
2) No doubt coastal North Africans were distinct. East Africans are morphologically distinct from West Africans, Saharan from Late Stone Age South Africans, etc! The original point you were inferring is that they were somehow Caucasian. Thus far you have provided no supporting evidence for this far fetched claim. Late Pleistocene Africa had a more diverse set of morphologies than current Africa. None of this has to do with outdated racial classifications like “Negroid” and “Caucasoid”.
{I'm not buying your definition of Negroid and black based on American racial definitions.}
Thought Writes:
Incomplete sentence. What does that mean?
{If we keep it purely on anthropological terms, the people of coastal North Africa have a phenotype, metrically and non-metrically, distinct from that of Saharans and sub-Saharans.}
Thought Writes:
I reiterate, we will find diversity THROUGHOUT Africa at this time. This in now way negates the fact that genetically North, South, East and West Africans from the Neolithic period on were closely related.
quote:
Originally posted by ABAZA:
To those people who are biased...please try reading this website......
Thought Writes:
In that you chose to simply refer us to another site instead of expound upon the ideas contained therein I have to assume that you are a novice when it comes to this issue of AE bio-anthropology. You would serve yourself well to ask many of the able bodied teachers we have on this forum any questions you have on this matter.
quote:
Originally posted by Thought2:
Thought Writes:In that you chose to simply refer us to another site instead of expound upon the ideas contained therein I have to assume that you are a novice when it comes to this issue of AE bio-anthropology. You would serve yourself well to ask many of the able bodied teachers we have on this forum any questions you have on this matter.
Thought2,
What is really sad is the level of ignorance
displayed by some of these Afro-Centric people. They're trying to rewrite History
according to their Fantasy........Lets get real and examine the True Facts....
Again,Egypt is in Africa, Yes!!
Was it a Black African Society,.....NO!!
People, need to wakeup and challenge this
Fake Psuedo-Science from doing any more damage to the very people it is supposed to help...namely, the Black ( or so called, African-American ) students.
This is the worst subject in all of Academia, that is being tolerated, while it is mostly a bunch of lies and fake science.
Gladly, there is a large movement to stop this biased Afro-Centric Psuedo-History from being accepted at major colleges and Universities. Thank God!!
P.S. This movement is also supported by some African-Americans, and others.......Don't Feed Your People Lies....Let the Truth Shine!!
------------------
THE TRUTH WILL SET YOU FREE!! ALWAYS LISTEN TO YOUR HEART & SOUL!! // PEACE ******* ABAZA
Just curious about which part of Egypt you happen to come from. BTW,what does this mean:Masr Om Il Donya and Yella emshi mean?
[This message has been edited by ausar (edited 06 December 2004).]
quote:
Originally posted by ABAZA:
This movement is also supported by some African-Americans, and others.......Don't Feed Your People Lies....Let the Truth Shine!!
Sorry, if the truth leaves a bad taste in your mouth. Stick around if you want more of that bad taste.
Thought Writes:
What is truly sad in my opinion is ignorance displayed by any person, expressing any worldview.
{They're trying to rewrite History}
Thought Writes:
Rewriting history in and of itself is no transgression.
{according to their Fantasy}
Thought Writes:
Every idea expressed by every person that YOU see as “Afrocentric” is fantasy? Sounds….well, fanciful. I doubt any two people anywhere have the same exact beliefs on any single issue. Hence in all probability so-called “Afrocentrists” have a range of views and ideas like anyone else.
{Lets get real and examine the True Facts}
Thought Writes:
Ok?
{Again,Egypt is in Africa, Yes!!}
Thought Writes:
I am with you so-far.
{Was it a Black African Society,.....NO!!}
Thought Writes:
Of course it was. Its people originated in Sub-Saharan Africa during the Late Pleistocene.
{People, need to wakeup and challenge this Fake Psuedo-Science}
Thought Writes:
I welcome debate on this matter. But thus far you have merely expressed your OPINION and have presented us with NO peer-reviewed scientific resources that support your position. Hence without data to analyze and reports to review all we have is your creative imagination which seems to posses a Eurasian origin for the Ancient Egyptians. This is fantasy at its best (or worst)!
I eagerly await your presentation of data and facts the rebut the concept of Ancient Egypt as an Indigenous African Civilization. I know that you will present this data very soon, because you are not a TROLLER!
quote:
The physical stereotyping of cranial variations into races is absolutely a pseudo-science.Actually early Anthropolgical methods were heavily based on skull and body measurments and racial streotyping.
The ancient Egyptians were probably similar in color to this Nubian girl:
I think you might be mistaking phernology with a sciences like Forensics. Forensics is actually not a pusedo science at all being that most crime labatories across America use Forensic measurments to identify races of people that have been burned. It's a fact that difference races have different physical features. One such difference is a more curved pelvic bone in negriods than caucasoids.
See the following:
Biological difference between populations have been identified by nonmetric criteria in the cranium, as the skull has been shown to be the best indicator of race (Brues, 1990)
For forensic anthropologists the need to understand and identify individuals of mixed ancestry is necessary as secular changes occur in the United States.
This study looks at the Terry Collection, Colonial Sites, and African material in an attempt to trace the presence of admixture in Blacks through 7 nonmetric traits
http://www.nmnh.si.edu/rtp/students/2003/virtualposters/poster_other03_truesdell.html
See the following about modern Upper Egyptians:
As Kennedy notes:
"While the Upper Nile Egyptians show phenotypic features that
occur in higher frequencies in the Sudan and southward into
East Africa (namely, facial prognathism, chamaerrhiny, and
paedomorphic cranial architecture with specific modifications
of the nasal aperature), these so-called Negroid features are
not universal in the region of Thebes, Karnak, and Luxor."
Kennedy, Kenneth A.R., T. Plummer, J. Chinment, "Identification of the
Eminent Dead: Pepi, A Scribe of Egypt," In Katherine J. Reichs (ed.),
Forensic Osteology, 1986.
See the following from Corey Sparks on shape of Crania:
Study Suggests Genetics Shape Skulls
By BILL BERGSTROM
Associated Press Writer
PHILADELPHIA (AP)--Nearly a century ago, Franz Boas, the man known as
the founder of modern anthropology, launched a study of cranial
measurements of 13,000 people and concluded that skull shapes are
determined more by environment than by race.
It was a powerfully influential finding, because at the time, skull
size and shape were thought to be connected to intelligence.
Now, though, a new analysis suggests the distinguished anthropologist
got it wrong: Race--or more properly, ethnicity _ is a bigger
determinant than environment.
Whether Boas deliberately distorted his findings is not clear. But
researchers think he may have had preconceived ideas about what the
data should show.
``It's pretty clear that Boas was in the forefront of racial equality
and sex equality, and it's pretty clear that he was in the forefront
of rejecting the ideas of racial typology and scientific racism that
existed in the early century,'' University of Tennessee anthropology
professor Richard Jantz said. ``It wouldn't be hard to imagine that he
had a pretty good idea of what he wanted to get out of this study, but
I wouldn't want to say we know that's true.''
Jantz also said that Boas was ``seriously hamstrung because he
couldn't analyze all that data with the resources available to him at
the time.''
In Boas' day, the general view was that Europeans were the dominant
race, an argument often based on brain size. For decades, scholars
opposed to such notions have cited Boas' study of immigrants and their
offspring.
But Jantz and Penn State graduate student Corey Sparks used a computer
to re-crunch Boas' numbers. They reported in the Oct. 7 issue of
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that the data actually
show that race had more influence than environment on skull
dimensions.
``Unfortunately, research design was deficient, and his findings were
never critiqued in a systematic way until recently,'' Jantz and Sparks
said in their paper.
But American Anthropologist, the journal of the American
Anthropological Association--which Boas helped found in 1902 _ plans
to publish another study in March in which researchers led by Clarence
C. Gravlee of the University of Michigan conclude, ``Boas got it
right.''
Gravlee said he had not interpreted Boas' study as saying race or
genetics had no influence on head shapes, only that environment also
played some part.
``We independently find that there are differences between those born
in Europe and those born in the United States. In a single generation,
there was some change, no matter how small,'' he said.
The magazine has asked Jantz and Sparks to write a companion piece for
which they will do more research into how and why Boas reached his
conclusions.
Sparks said he and Jantz are not suggesting a return to the idea Boas
rejected--namely, that a larger cranium equals a bigger brain equals
higher intelligence.
``There still are occasional individuals that think that, but it's
pretty much been debunked. There is so much variation in brain size
that we all overlap in brain size with other population groups,''
Sparks said.
Boas, who immigrated to the United States from Germany in the 1880s,
taught at Clark University and at Columbia University and founded the
anthropology department at Barnard College. His students included
Margaret Mead.
Boas took measurements of skull length, width and the ratio between
the two in 1909 and 1910 of European-born immigrants and their
American-born children from seven population groups: Bohemians,
Central Italians, Poles, Hungarians, Scots, Sicilians, and a group of
people of Jewish ancestry from western Russia, Poland, Germany,
Austria, Switzerland and Romania.
Boas did not directly compare the study subjects' cranial volume _
that is, their brain size.
In a 1912 American Anthropologist article, Boas said the length of
exposure to the American environment had dramatic effects on cranial
form. He said this was evidence of cranial ``plasticity,'' the idea
that environment caused changes in skull dimensions and that
differences were due more to environment than heredity.
For example, he reported that Eastern European Jews tended to have
very round heads but were becoming more long-headed, while southern
Italians were exceedingly long-headed but were becoming more
short-headed.
But Jantz and Sparks said that in America, blacks and whites have not
converged toward a common skull shape, as might be expected if Boas'
theory were correct.
Jantz and Sparks said their analyses did show small differences
between the European-born and American-born members of the same
population groups, but not as great as the differences between
population groups.
``We're not sure if it was wishful thinking on his part before he even
started the whole thing, or whether he saw these very small
differences and said that was enough to prove his point,'' Sparks
said.
___
On the Net:
Jantz and Sparks article: http://www.pnas.org
Gravlee, Bernard, Leonard article: http://www.aaanet.org/aa
Nature, Not Nurture, Determines Head Shape and Size
Study challenges anthropological truism
By Adam Marcus
HealthScoutNews Reporter
<http://www.healthscoutnews.com/images/editorial/brain.jpg> MONDAY, Oct. 7 (HealthScoutNews) -- Anthropologists have long taken comfort in the notion that the shape and size of a person's head is determined not by genes but by environment.
They owe that belief to the work of Franz Boas, the famed anthropologist whose landmark 1912 study showed that skull dimensions were the product of forces such as early childhood nutrition, not racial heritage.
Alas, it seems Boas might have gotten it backwards.
Two American anthropologists have reanalyzed his data, and found the oft-cited scientist overstated the effects of environment and vastly downplayed the importance of genes.
To be sure, Boas may have been handicapped by the lack of computing power to crunch such a large pool of numbers; he collected nearly 13,000 measurements for his project. However, he was a sophisticated statistician who knew what he was doing.
"In the end, he could have ascertained that the ethnic component of variation is large in comparison to the immigration component. But that's not what he was interested in," says Richard Jantz, an anthropologist at the University of Tennessee and a co-author of the latest work. "It does appear that he knew what he wanted to get out of this study, and he was pretty determined to get it."
Jantz and his colleague, Corey Sparks, a doctoral student in anthropology at Penn State University, report their findings this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences .
At the end of the 19th century and into the early years of the 20th, racists used the mantle of science to justify their belief that blacks and immigrants were inferior to "true" Americans such as the Anglo-Saxons. One school argued that head shape and size reflected intelligence, aptitude and other traits.
Opponents of this scientific racism were more than cheered by a report from someone of Boas' stature that undercut the movement.
Boas had taken head and face measurements from people belonging to seven European nationalities and ethnic groups: Central Italians and Sicilians, Czechs, Hungarians/Slovakians, Poles, Scots and "Hebrews" from across Eastern Europe.
To assess the impact of environment on head shape -- including skull length and breadth and the breadth of the face -- Boas studied both parents born in the Old World and their American-born children. "The design was wonderful," says Jantz, who along with Sparks analyzed 8,000 of the original subjects.
Boas, Sparks says, found differences between his American-born and European-born subjects of about 2 millimeters to 3 millimeters, on average. "When you're talking about human variation, 2 to 3 millimeters isn't very much. To really support [Boas' argument] you would need to see a fairly dramatic change," he explains.
Ultimately, Jantz contends, about 99 percent of the variation in face and head shape between races that Boas found was inherited; only 1 percent could be attributed to environmental effects such as nutrition.
Jantz says he and Sparks couldn't have done their study had Boas not taken the extraordinary step of publishing his data, giving future scientists the chance to see what he'd done. "The strange thing is it took so long for that to happen," Jantz adds. Boas also measured stature, numbers Sparks is currently reviewing for a follow-up study.
George W. Stocking, Jr., an anthropologist at the University of Chicago and a leading Boas scholar, says he wasn't able to critique Jantz's paper from a technical perspective. However, he says the work is likely to roil modern-day Boasians.
"The last 10 years or so have seen a strong reassertion of biology as a significant factor in human differentiation," says Stocking. "Many anthropologists feel concerned about this, and their tendency is to be very suspicious and very critical of any argument of this sort. It's quite likely there will be a response to this."
What To Do
For more on Franz Boas, try this PBS Web site . To learn more about phrenology, the study of heads, click here .
SOURCES: Richard Jantz, Ph.D., professor, anthropology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville; Corey Sparks , M.A., Penn State University, State College, Pa.; George W. Stocking, Jr., Ph.D., professor emeritus, anthropology, University of Chicago; Oct. 5, 2002, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Copyright © 2002 ScoutNews, LLC. All rights reserved.
Disclaimer: The text presented on this page is not a substitute for professional medical advice. It is for your information only and may not represent your true individual medical situation. Do not hesitate to consult your healthcare provider if you have any questions or concerns. Do not use this information to diagnose or treat a health problem or disease without consulting a qualified healthcare professional.
Be advised that HealthDay articles are derived from various sources and may not reflect your own country regulations. The Health On the Net Foundation does not endorse opinions, products, or services that may appear in HealthDay articles.
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/99/23/14636?view=abstract
quote:
Originally posted by ausar:
Abaza,are you living in Egypt currently?Just curious about which part of Egypt you happen to come from. BTW,what does this mean:Masr Om Il Donya and Yella emshi mean?
Ausar,
Thanks for asking. I am 100% Egyptian, but I don't live in Egypt at this time. Your
question is fair, but seems to be meant to divide the Egyptians into North and South.My parents are from Beni-Suef, do you know where that is??
Currently, I reside in the USA with my family. My location has no bearing on this discussion.
If everyone on this board agreed with your ideas, there would be no discussion....and therefore it would be a monolouge. Especially, when you raise such a hotly debated issue.....Think about that for a minute.
Again, Egyptians are not Stupid, but there are some amongst us that do a great deal of harm to the majority of our people, by spreading biased information.
Even if I go away, there will be many others like me who would challenge this Psuedo-History.
FYI.....All Egyptians belong to the same Racial group. Even the Nubians, are not that distant, but rather look different.
[This message has been edited by ausar (edited 06 December 2004).]
------------------
THE TRUTH WILL SET YOU FREE!! ALWAYS LISTEN TO YOUR HEART & SOUL!! // PEACE ******* ABAZA
I am still waiting Abaza?
... Well, here is an example:Lefkowitz criticized one of her debating opponents by claiming he was Afrocentric, and given this label, she picked upon an informal quote of someone she claimed to have heard in a conversation of some sort and applied it as the general consensus of Afrocentrics, and therefore as a means to discredit the debating opponent. Yet she heard nothing of the sort from her debating opponent. The issue here was supposedly someone thinking that Cleopatra was black.
Well here, you are out of luck: when you say someone is wrong, you better believe that you have to address that particular person and on exactly what he/she has said, not on what some pseudo external group member may or may not have said. If you don’t, well then, you are merely discrediting yourself for not being specific about who you are supposedly rejecting, specifically what you are rejecting, and what you are able to provide as concrete evidence to the contrary. If you make casual references to a pseudo external member(s), then you aren’t really addressing anyone here!
That aside, I agree with Thought, in that, WE ARE STILL WAITING FOR PEER-REVIEWED MATERIAL THAT SUPPORTS ABAZA’S CONTENTIONS…we aren’t getting any younger, you know!
What I would like to know is, what are the specific physical attributes some people look for in order to determine what is "Caucasoid" and what is "Negroid"?
Are the psychical attributes for these two, the stereotypical features? Such as to be Caucasoid, you must have a straight narrow nose, and small lips! And to be "Negroid" you must have high cheek bones, a flat wide nose, and Big lips?
And is this the reason why, people like ABAZA claim, that Black Nubians are predominately Caucasoid? I mean honestly to say Black Nubians are Caucasoid is absurd, too the highest extent!
Which brings me back to the beginning of my question, what determines in a human being if they are Caucasoid or Negroid? Skin Tone, Physical Attributes, Genes, All of thy above, or none of thy above?
quote:
Originally posted by EGyPT2005:
Which brings me back to the beginning of my question, what determines in a human being if they are Caucasoid or Negroid? Skin Tone, Physical Attributes, Genes, All of thy above, or none of thy above?
Thought Writes:
Good question. I generally avoid using these terms as they tend to imply phenotype only, hence the suffix -OID.
quote:
Originally posted by EGyPT2005:
I have a question?What I would like to know is, what are the specific physical attributes some people look for in order to determine what is "Caucasoid" and what is "Negroid"?
Are the physical attributes for these two, the stereotypical features? Such as to be Caucasoid, you must have a straight narrow nose, and small lips! And to be "Negroid" you must have high cheek bones, a flat wide nose, and Big lips?
And is this the reason why, people like ABAZA claim, that Black Nubians are predominately Caucasoid? I mean honestly to say Black Nubians are Caucasoid is absurd, too the highest extent!
Which brings me back to the beginning of my question, what determines in a human being if they are Caucasoid or Negroid? Skin Tone, Physical Attributes, Genes, All of thy above, or none of thy above?
Egypt2005,
Your question is right on the money.
The Fact is: Skin color alone does not determine race. It is a variety of factors that combined determine what race a person most likely belongs to. Of course, there are mixed-race people, but we can not judge others by bigoted American Racial standards.
Even today, in the USA, all Egyptians are classified as Caucasian.....check that out if you get a chance......
This is not done out of Charity, but it is the Truth.....that is what they are.
I know many Ethiopian, who don't like being called Black Africans, because they are Not Wholly Black...many are Semetic people, even their language is a Semitic tongue, related to Arabic, but they have been mixed with Blacks.
There are some people who only want to look at a person's skin color, just to call them Black, but that does not always work.
Dravidian in India are very very dark, yet they don't belong to the Negroid Race....Think about that for a minute!!
------------------
THE TRUTH WILL SET YOU FREE!! ALWAYS LISTEN TO YOUR HEART & SOUL!! // PEACE ******* ABAZA
With all due respect, it is Exactly the opposite. I'm trying to challenge this Mock-History that has no place in Academia.
Many Egyptologist will honestly tell you that the Afro-Centrist are very Silly.
They espouse Phantom ideas that don't hold up to scrutiny..........Yet some are afraid to offend them, because it is not politically correct.
quote:
Originally posted by blackman:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by ABAZA:
[b] This movement is also supported by some African-Americans, and others.......Don't Feed Your People Lies....Let the Truth Shine!!
Sorry, if the truth leaves a bad taste in your mouth. Stick around if you want more of that bad taste.
[/B][/QUOTE]
------------------
THE TRUTH WILL SET YOU FREE!! ALWAYS LISTEN TO YOUR HEART & SOUL!! // PEACE ******* ABAZA
quote:
Originally posted by ABAZA:
Rasol,I hate to tell you this, but this is Hogwash.
There is no White Conspiracy to steal Egypt out of Africa or change the racial origins of the Egyptians. The truth lies right in front of your Face....just look at the first hand evidence that we have. Again, any reasonable person would tell you that you Can Not label the people as Black Africans.This same concept is what is lost on many of these biased Afro-Centric historians. By the way, all this Afro-Centric thinking is very new and has not stood the tough scrutiny of modern academia.
This biased presentation Needs to Challenged, because it is False and not fair to the Egyptian People and the rest of the world.
I would put my trust in respected Egyptologist, who have spent decades discovering and documenting AE, rather some
Afro-Centric biased studies that are politically motivated.Egyptians are not Black Africans.....
Africa is Multi-Racial....
North Africa and East Africa have always had
non-negroid groups living in those areas.By the way, the genetic studies also point out the Nubians carry predominantely Caucasian genes.......how is that to dispute these false arguments.....
Ask Modern Egyptians and they'll point the way for you to the Truth......for example, DR. Zahi Hawas can perhaps clear your dilemma.
what study?fake ones?THAT i know.ancient nubians were unmixed black folks in upper and southern nubia,and mostly in lower nubia until outsiders started COMING in to marry lower nubians in late ancient times.intermarriage took place in a few places in northern lower nubia during the later-a group period,but not before.
Most nubians today in sudan,egypt and other places still have negriod features,and most are still unmixed full blooded black africans.
That study is most likely talking about mixed nubians in certain periods in nubian history in later TIMES,and not the unmixed nubians,BUT folks like you do not make that clear,and only you study or give studies on certain nubians.i could study some bones of some romans or greeks and say,well these folks and negriod features,so the greeks were black and romans,get the point.every normal study i seen said the nubians of the past are negriod,and if you look at kushite art and medievial nubian art you would say the same thing.every arab,greek and roman scholar has to talk about the negriod features of the nubians in earlier times when they visited the region,so most to all in the past had no white genes.
This is not a debate.guys like you are not happy just fooling around with egypt,now you got to fool around with a group that is clearly negriod,past and present.soon you will be saying that the folks of mali,the songhay etc,etc are mostly white.stop the non-sense.
quote:
Originally posted by ABAZA:
Egypt2005,Your question is right on the money.
The Fact is: Skin color alone does not determine race. It is a variety of factors that combined determine what race a person most likely belongs to. Of course, there are mixed-race people, but we can not judge others by bigoted American Racial standards.
Even today, in the USA, all Egyptians are classified as Caucasian.....check that out if you get a chance......
This is not done out of Charity, but it is the Truth.....that is what they are.
I know many Ethiopian, who don't like being called Black Africans, because they are Not Wholly Black...many are Semetic people, even their language is a Semitic tongue, related to Arabic, but they have been mixed with Blacks.
There are some people who only want to look at a person's skin color, just to call them Black, but that does not always work.
Dravidian in India are very very dark, yet they don't belong to the Negroid Race....Think about that for a minute!!
Okay then ABAZA! What in your mind constitutes someone who is "Negroid" then? Because you are right that there are many people of different colors in this world. So why should they ALL be put into just two classifications, such as "Negroid" & "Caucasoid" ???
You are also correct about Egyptians in the U.S. being classified as Caucasian. Which brings me back to a post, that ausar I think posted a while back! About an Egyptian who was trying to sue the U.S. government for classifying him as "Caucasian" Because in his mind, he did not see himself as Caucasian, and thus did not want to be affiliated with this specific label!
quote:
Originally posted by ABAZA:
Egypt2005,Even today, in the USA, all Egyptians are classified as Caucasian.....check that out if you get a chance......
Again, many recent lower delta egyptians are from greek, roman, arab invasion, or inter-marriage.
quote:
Originally posted by ABAZA:
I know many Ethiopian, who don't like being called Black Africans, because they are Not Wholly Black...
Partially because of the negative assocition with being called black today, some people want to be anything but black. They want to be called mixed race, brown, or whatever to distance themselves from black. Sad isn't it?
However, I LOVE it and embrace it.
quote:
Originally posted by ABAZA:
many are Semetic people, even their language is a Semitic tongue, related to Arabic, but they have been mixed with Blacks.
Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!
Ethiopians are black African people. It is better to call them Hamitic than Semetic. Even the Bible labels them as Hamitic. Their tongue can only be related to Arabic through the few loaned word to arabic.
What? They mixed with blacks. You must think the Ethiopians were once white. You got me laughing on that one.
Well, partially true. Black African people mixing with Black African people leaves Black African people, thus the Ethiopians.
quote:
Originally posted by ABAZA:
Dravidian in India are very very dark, yet they don't belong to the Negroid Race....Think about that for a minute!!
Strawman,
No one said the Dravidian are a negriod race.
Respect back to you when given respect.
Think on that a minute while you try to find data to support your views.
[This message has been edited by blackman (edited 07 December 2004).]
Thought Writes:
Race is a social construct.
{It is a variety of factors that combined determine what race a person most likely belongs to.}
Thought Writes:
I agree and the skeletal remains, language and genetic affinities of the Ancient Egyptians link them with Sub-Saharan Africans.
{Of course, there are mixed-race people, but we can not judge others by bigoted American Racial standards.]
Thought Writes:
Has no bearing on ANCIENT Egypt.
{Even today, in the USA, all Egyptians are classified as Caucasian.....check that out if you get a chance...…}
Thought Writes:
How does this relate to SCIENCE?
{This is not done out of Charity, but it is the Truth}
Thought Writes:
Please explain WHY it is the truth?
{I know many Ethiopian, who don't like being called Black Africans, because they are Not Wholly Black...many are Semetic people}
Thought Writes:
Semetic is a language that is rooted in the Afro-Asiatic language phylum. This language family began in Africa.
{There are some people who only want to look at a person's skin color, just to call them Black, but that does not always work}
Thought Writes:
Have you been paying attention to everything we have been saying on this forum. We have ALLREADY addressed all of the points you have raised. You have NOT refuted the evidence presented. Your post raises the fact that perhaps we need to look into standardizing rules to manage TROLLERS.
quote:
Originally posted by Orionix:
True also genetically populations cluster by geographic origin.All human populations have constantly been in a state of flux, therefore we are all genetically "mixed".
Considereing the fact that Ancient Egypt was a sub-tropical climate i would say that the majority ranged from brown to dark brown in complexion.
[This message has been edited by kenndo (edited 07 December 2004).]
Thought Writes:
When people use the term Black they are not addressing Melanin levels, they are addressing the fact that the Ancient Egyptians were Indigenous Africans derived from a Sub-Saharan substratum.
{Physically, they had multiracial features as Egyptians do today}
Thought Writes:
This is silly, race does not even exist. Cranial studies and skeletal remains indicate that Egyptians cluster with modern Horn of Africa populations like Somali. There was continuity in the general Egyptian population from the pre-Dynastic Badari down to the end of the New Kingdom. Modern Egyptians are indeed related to the indigenous Egyptian stock, however they also have substantial RECENT genetic input from the Greco-Roman period and the Arab invasion.
[This message has been edited by kenndo (edited 07 December 2004).]
quote:
There was continuity in the general Egyptian population from the pre-Dynastic Badari down to the end of the New Kingdom
Could you possibly tell me what source you cited this from? I believe you cited an earlier article published in Man by Bery and Bery.
quote:
Originally posted by ausar:
Could you possibly tell me what source you cited this from? I believe you cited an earlier article published in Man by Bery and Bery.
Thought Writes:
Good question.
Thought Posts:
"The results suggest a level of local population continuity exists within the earlier Egyptian populations"
Intra-population and temporal variation in ancient Egyptian crania.
S.R. Zakrzewski. Department of Archaeology, University of Southampton, UK.
The level of morphological variation within a population is the result of factors such as population expansion and movement. Traditionally Egyptologists have considered ancient Egypt to have a homogeneous population, with state formation occurring as a result of local processes without influence from migration. This paper tests this hypothesis by investigating the extent of biological relationships within a series of temporally successive Egyptian skeletal samples. Previous studies have compared biological relationships between Egyptians and other populations, mostly using the Howells global cranial data set. In the current study, by contrast, the biological relationships within a series of temporally-successive cranial samples are assessed.
The data consist of 55 cranio-facial variables from 418 adult Egyptian individuals, from six periods, ranging in date from c. 5000 to 1200 BC. These were compared with the 111 Late Period crania (c. 600-350 BC) from the Howells sample. Principal Component and Canonical Discriminant Function Analyses were undertaken, on both pooled and single sex samples.
The results suggest a level of local population continuity exists within the earlier Egyptian populations, but that this was in association with some change in population structure, reflecting small-scale immigration and admixture with new groups. Most dramatically, the results also indicate that the Egyptian series from Howells global data set are morphologically distinct from the Predynastic and Early Dynastic Nile Valley samples (especially in cranial vault shape and height), and thus show that this sample cannot be considered to be a typical Egyptian series.
This research was funded by the Wellcome Trust (Bioarchaeology Panel), Durham University (Addison-Wheeler Fellowship) and by University of Southampton.
quote:
Originally posted by ausar:
Could you possibly tell me what source you cited this from? I believe you cited an earlier article published in Man by Bery and Bery.
Thought Writes:
Here is a link to the Berry and Berry study.
http://highculture.8m.com/slide_show.html?show=Origins_of_the_Egyptians&picture=thumbnail.jpg&autopilot_running=
See the following:
* Morsy, S. A. (1994). Beyond the honorary "White" classification of Egyptians: Societal identity in historical context. In S. Gregory & R. Sanjek (Eds.), Race (pp. 175-198). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Black or white? Egyptian immigrant fights for black classification
[Hefny]
July 16, 1997
Web posted at: 4:22 a.m. EDT (0822 GMT)
From Correspondent Joan MacFarlane
DETROIT (CNN) -- An Egyptian immigrant is suing the U.S. government because they've told him he's white when his entire life he's been black.
Mostafa Hefny was born in Egypt and has always been proud of his Egyptian culture and his African ancestry. But when Hefny immigrated to America, the U.S. government told him he was no longer a black man.
"I was not told by Immigration that I was white until I passed the exam for citizenship and then I was told I am now white," he explains.
Hefny initially laughed when told of his new racial classification, but he's no longer chuckling. He recently filed suit against the U.S. government to get his race classification changed back from white to black.
"It hurts me. It definitely hurts me," Hefny says. "It hurts me because I am unable to reconcile my reality as a black person."
In addition to the emotional hurt, Hefny says that when the government changed his race, they also changed his social status.
"Definitely, I would've had more opportunity for advancement and even for hiring had I been considered black," he says. "I was prevented from applying and requesting positions and other benefits for minority person because I knew I was legally white."
Origin determines race
[Hefny]
One of the problems with the naturalization process, in Hefny's opinion, is that race is classified by geographic location and not ancestry. That's part of the immigration process his lawsuit hopes to change.
The lawsuit targets Directive Number 15 of the U.S. Office of Management and Budget. The directive defines black as a person having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa. A white person is defined as having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, North Africa or the Middle East.
"In the late '60s and early '70s, they found that different agencies were using different definitions for the same categories of people, and they thought it was important to have comprehensibility across federal agencies," explains Sally Katzen of the OMB.
The OMB is hoping to change the way they define races by revamping the troublesome directive.
"The principle we thought very important is self-identification," Katzen says. "I think that it is almost beyond dispute that an individual should identify himself or herself rather than have someone else do it."
Although it seems the government agrees with Hefny in principle, it refuses to respond publicly to his lawsuit. He expects that response later this year.
http://www.cnn.com/US/9707/16/racial.suit/
quote:most of africa is not 5th world,stop the nonsense.
Originally posted by Horemheb:
ABAZA, Many of these guys are preoccupied by race. It has been drilled into them since birth that they are victims and that the evil white man stoled their heritage and has held them down. Anytime a subject comes up they look at it through a racial lense. Even though most of Africa is 5th world, (thats our fault as well)they bash all the people who have created what little prosperity and education they have. Instead of joining the modern world the try to create this ALTERNATIVE world view based on distortations and crummy scholarship. very few of them have any real interest in history at all. What they really care about is black ploitics and that is all. Because of this they will continue to pass up opportunities and stay on the losing end, where they have been for thousands of years. Think about it.
Africa as awhole is making progess,despite some setbacks in some states.YOUR comment shows that you have hatred in your heart.
[This message has been edited by kenndo (edited 07 December 2004).]
quote:
Originally posted by kenndo:
YOUR comment shows that you have hatred in your heart.
Thought Writes:
I concur.
quote:
Originally posted by Thought2:
Thought Writes:I concur.
thanks,
that guy did not even mention a forth world.he had to make up a 5th one.
by the way,there is no such thing as a forth or 5th world.if any thing europe is the third world since civilization began somwhere else.this is another example of europeans giving folks made up names FOR states,and not all of africa is third world.
Some could be call second,and few could be called first,but the real third world in my mind is europe and america.
[This message has been edited by kenndo (edited 07 December 2004).]
third world-the per capt income would be from
0-$2,800 something-that is lower income to lower middle income (verypoor to poor,but poor could mean you have some money)
second world-$2,801- 9,000 something-that is middle income (near rich)
first world-$9,000 something and up-that is high income ( rich)
gnp ppp is the more correct way to go if you look it up on the internet
gnp us dollars is not really as correct.
“The original point you were inferring is that they were somehow Caucasian. Thus far you have provided no supporting evidence for this far fetched claim.”
I never made any such claim Thought, don’t create lame strawmen to beat on. I simply made a reference to Keita’s study on Holocene Maghreb Africans in the North. You constantly overstate and twist the terms “tropical” and “tropically adapted” to fit YOUR agenda. You on the other hand have no proof, skeletally speaking, that early North Africans were “Negroid” or looked like tropical Africans. You’re the one making baseless claims.
quote:
Originally posted by ausar:
Abaza, most Egyptians reject the US label of Caucasian. See the following about how Europeans have given Egyptians honary white statues to boost their own self image. Playing into this dark caucasian fantasy of Europeans only feed into racist anthropology that Blumeback started back in the early 20th century.See the following:
* Morsy, S. A. (1994). Beyond the honorary "White" classification of Egyptians: Societal identity in historical context. In S. Gregory & R. Sanjek (Eds.), Race (pp. 175-198). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Black or white? Egyptian immigrant fights for black classification
[Hefny]July 16, 1997
Web posted at: 4:22 a.m. EDT (0822 GMT)From Correspondent Joan MacFarlane
DETROIT (CNN) -- An Egyptian immigrant is suing the U.S. government because they've told him he's white when his entire life he's been black.
Mostafa Hefny was born in Egypt and has always been proud of his Egyptian culture and his African ancestry. But when Hefny immigrated to America, the U.S. government told him he was no longer a black man.
"I was not told by Immigration that I was white until I passed the exam for citizenship and then I was told I am now white," he explains.
Hefny initially laughed when told of his new racial classification, but he's no longer chuckling. He recently filed suit against the U.S. government to get his race classification changed back from white to black.
"It hurts me. It definitely hurts me," Hefny says. "It hurts me because I am unable to reconcile my reality as a black person."
In addition to the emotional hurt, Hefny says that when the government changed his race, they also changed his social status.
"Definitely, I would've had more opportunity for advancement and even for hiring had I been considered black," he says. "I was prevented from applying and requesting positions and other benefits for minority person because I knew I was legally white."
Origin determines race
[Hefny]One of the problems with the naturalization process, in Hefny's opinion, is that race is classified by geographic location and not ancestry. That's part of the immigration process his lawsuit hopes to change.
The lawsuit targets Directive Number 15 of the U.S. Office of Management and Budget. The directive defines black as a person having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa. A white person is defined as having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, North Africa or the Middle East.
"In the late '60s and early '70s, they found that different agencies were using different definitions for the same categories of people, and they thought it was important to have comprehensibility across federal agencies," explains Sally Katzen of the OMB.
The OMB is hoping to change the way they define races by revamping the troublesome directive.
"The principle we thought very important is self-identification," Katzen says. "I think that it is almost beyond dispute that an individual should identify himself or herself rather than have someone else do it."
Although it seems the government agrees with Hefny in principle, it refuses to respond publicly to his lawsuit. He expects that response later this year.
http://www.cnn.com/US/9707/16/racial.suit/
Ausar,
I hate to tell you this, but this guy is Nubian and Not a true Egyptian. Nubians live in Egypt and Sudan and they are very distinct from the average Egyptian.
Also, Egyptians are not Honorary Caucasians...They are in fact Caucasian.
The biogted U.S. immigration rules used to not allow Afghanis to become U.S. citizens, but the Egyptians were never excluded.....I wonder why that was the case???
There is no Conspiracy...there are Blind people trying to lead others into a state of self-denial of the truth......
When are we Egyptians going to Stand up and defend our history from this Savage assault..
Think about that for a minute.....
------------------
THE TRUTH WILL SET YOU FREE!! ALWAYS LISTEN TO YOUR HEART & SOUL!! // PEACE ******* ABAZA
[This message has been edited by ABAZA (edited 07 December 2004).]
[This message has been edited by kenndo (edited 07 December 2004).]
The article I posted was written by an Egyptian anthropologist named Soheir Morsy,and she explains why many modern Egyptians want the honarary ''caucasian'' status.
Truth is most modern Egyptians are not caucasians at all but a mixture of many different groups that came in and out of Egypt over and extended period of time.
Early Egyptologist like Sir Grafton Smith and Winified S. Blackman believed the early Egyptians were like the Beja people in Sudan but mixed with black slaves and became the current color which most Egyptians are today.
Also if you are Egyptian then please speak some Arabic and translate what I asked a couple lines up.
The people you should be cautious of are Egyptologist trying to claim blondes dominated the hiearchy of the early dyanstic Egyptians. Also early Egyptology totally rejected Egyptian Egyptologist. There really was a conspiracy by early Egyptologist against native Egyptologist.
Unfortunately you will probabaly write off every black Egyptian as a Nubian or Sudanese immigrant when the truth is Upper Egypt since pre-dyanstic times down to even the modern era has been full of visably black people. It's not only their skin color but many also have prognathism which is something very few caucasoids.
One thing you failed to mention also is that many Egyptians have kinky hair which is absent from so-called dark caucasoids like the Dravidians and some others you cited.
Stop being so emotional and refute people with citations and facts. No more non-sequitis or strawmen. If you disagree then refute it,and stop appealing to emotion!
The article I posted was written by an Egyptian anthropologist named Soheir Morsy,and she explains why many modern Egyptians want the honarary ''caucasian'' status.
Truth is most modern Egyptians are not caucasians at all but a mixture of many different groups that came in and out of Egypt over and extended period of time.
Early Egyptologist like Sir Grafton Smith and Winified S. Blackman believed the early Egyptians were like the Beja people in Sudan but mixed with black slaves and became the current color which most Egyptians are today.
Also if you are Egyptian then please speak some Arabic and translate what I asked a couple lines up.
The people you should be cautious of are Egyptologist trying to claim blondes dominated the hiearchy of the early dyanstic Egyptians. Also early Egyptology totally rejected Egyptian Egyptologist. There really was a conspiracy by early Egyptologist against native Egyptologist.
Unfortunately you will probabaly write off every black Egyptian as a Nubian or Sudanese immigrant when the truth is Upper Egypt since pre-dyanstic times down to even the modern era has been full of visably black people. It's not only their skin color but many also have prognathism which is something very few caucasoids.
One thing you failed to mention also is that many Egyptians have kinky hair which is absent from so-called dark caucasoids like the Dravidians and some others you cited.
Stop being so emotional and refute people with citations and facts. No more non-sequitis or strawmen. If you disagree then refute it,and stop appealing to emotion!
quote:
Originally posted by kenndo:
most modern egyptians look like the mixed race types of latinos,indians of india,etc etc.most in the past look like black africans,so stop the non-sense.
The truth is you're confusing the issue.
Modern Egyptians are one people....from Lower to Upper Egypt. There are some non-Egyptians in Egypt, such as the Nubians and the Nomadic Arabs in the desert regions.
As an Egyptian, I know my people quiet well.
Even the dark Egyptians, will tell you straight up...they're not Black Africans.
You can only cheat yourself....if you let others cheat you first.
Egyptians are Caucasians with some Admixture of Arab, Greek, Asians, Berbers, Nubians, and Black African. But, even with all this long list, the Egyptians of today are very similar to the Ancient Egyptians.
Some would even say that today's Egyptians are a little Darker than the Ancient Egyptians.......Feel free to check that out!!
------------------
THE TRUTH WILL SET YOU FREE!! ALWAYS LISTEN TO YOUR HEART & SOUL!! // PEACE ******* ABAZA
quote:Absurdity is inevitable when trying to argue something one knows is not true. Abaza has not evidence to support his claims other than to use corny American phrases like "Hogwash" in the same posts in which he refers to caucasian DNA. He professes to be 100% Egyptian who lives in the United States. One can only hope that Egypt is not paying for his American mis-education. When he returns, he will have much "hogwash" to relate to his countrymen.
And is this the reason why, people like ABAZA claim, that Black Nubians are predominately Caucasoid? I mean honestly to say Black Nubians are Caucasoid is absurd, too the highest extent!
quote:That's the problem, some people will say any thing, proving nothing....except that some people will say anything. The only point you are making in this conversation is that people who assert as you do, do so out of dogmatic delusion, not even trying to support their position with concrete evidence because deep down, they know they have none. We're not impressed Abazza.
Some would even say that today's Egyptians are a little Darker than the Ancient Egyptians.
quote:According to the themselves, and according to their contemporaries, they were Blacks.
The ancient Egyptians generally were neither black nor white.
quote:Most Africans have brown skin, most Europeans have pinkish skin.
They were mainly brown people.
quote:True
Without a doubt, they were an African people
quote:Sometimes, or sometimes heated relations. lol. Kemet was an African country founded by an African people with an African culture who had generally dark skin and considered themselves Black. They did not consider themselves white, European, Asian, caucasian or a mongrel people. You are superimposing modern western racial and racist politics onto ancient Kemet. Just try to face and accept the fact that they considered themselves Black, regardless of whether you like it or not or would wish it were otherwise. It's very difficult I know, such is the impact of [wst] racism on the modern psyche, but 'try' anyway.
that had warm relations with their neighbors to the south and west
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 07 December 2004).]
quote:
Originally posted by ausar:
Abaza,are you living in Egypt currently?Just curious about which part of Egypt you happen to come from. BTW,what does this mean:Masr Om Il Donya and Yella emshi mean?
[This message has been edited by ausar (edited 06 December 2004).]
Masr Om Il Donya = Egypt is the mother of the world.
Yella Emshi = Go away or let's go.
Just in case you did not Believe that real Egyptians do not agree with your Premise...
------------------
THE TRUTH WILL SET YOU FREE!! ALWAYS LISTEN TO YOUR HEART & SOUL!! // PEACE ******* ABAZA
quote:
Originally posted by ausar:
Abaza, are you a member of the Abaza family?Ausar,
No I'm not,,,,,My family is from Beni-Suef,
do you know where that Egyptian city is?Also, I'm would like to know if you live in Egypt or somewhere else, perhaps Europe??
------------------
THE TRUTH WILL SET YOU FREE!! ALWAYS LISTEN TO YOUR HEART & SOUL!! // PEACE ******* ABAZA
quote:Certainly you do not speak for the many Egyptians, such as Mostafa Hefny who have too much pride to be so grovelingly needy of being doubtfully honored with a fake application of a fake concept, like caucasoid.
Ask any Egyptian, no matter how dark he is, he will tell you flat out that he is not Black African.
quote:I have never met an Egyptian who did not know where Africa is, or been as hopelessly confused as you are about it.
As a matter of Fact, many modern day Egyptians have no idea where Africa is....
Think about that for a minute!!
quote:Underscores the ridiculousness of the concept of caucasian, a chimera which you cling to, because you apparently imagine it as a substitute for some kind of self esteem.
You can paint the Egyptians any color you want, but they're still Caucasian and Mediterrean.
quote:Mediteranean and caucasian ARE false labels; they function so as to mask empty arguments and are the intellectual equivalent of "shiny beads", repeated like a mantra and impressing only the uneducated.
Your False labels don't mean much.
quote:My map shows Egypt is also bounded by the Sudan and the Red Sea, just as Kenya is bounded by the Indian Ocean, but also Somalia. Your point is?
The truth is Egypt has always been a Mediterrean Nation....just look at a map
While we wait. Please answer a question: What is the meaning of "Ta Khent", and geographically to what does it refer, and why?
quote:Cough, yes...lets.
Let us stop being silly,
In which case I await your answer to this and the other questions you are attempting to evade. [This message has been edited by rasol (edited 07 December 2004).]
quote:
Originally posted by ausar:
No, I asked you if you were a member of the Abaza family? Yes, I know where Beni-Suef governate is. Just answer my question please
Ausar,
I have already answered your question. Please my previous post.
Also, what race are the Algerians??
I'm curious as to where you live, if you don't mind my asking??
Thanks!!
------------------
THE TRUTH WILL SET YOU FREE!! ALWAYS LISTEN TO YOUR HEART & SOUL!! // PEACE ******* ABAZA
quote:
Originally posted by ausar:
No, I asked you if you were a member of the Abaza family? Yes, I know where Beni-Suef governate is. Just answer my question please
Ausar,
I have already answered your question. Please read my previous post.
Also, what race are the Algerians??
I'm curious as to where you live, if you don't mind my asking??
Thanks!!
------------------
THE TRUTH WILL SET YOU FREE!! ALWAYS LISTEN TO YOUR HEART & SOUL!! // PEACE ******* ABAZA
Without asking you, I know you're not an Egyptian......and will Never Be one.
You're grasping empty straws of Psuedo-Science that should never be part of Academia.
My students deserve better and I would never teach them this Garbage of Fake History.
Whose Ego are you trying to prop....This is all self-defeating, but Blacks do not need Egypt in order to feel better about themselves. What they need is someone like Ward Connelly who understands this Dilemma and is actively trying to do something about it.
Blacks Do Not Need to trample over the Egyptians in order to feel better about themselves. Think about that for a minute!!
------------------
THE TRUTH WILL SET YOU FREE!! ALWAYS LISTEN TO YOUR HEART & SOUL!! // PEACE ******* ABAZA