...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Egyptology
»
Ancient Egyptian DNA from 1300BC to 426 AD
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: [QB] Yes and its funny because everyone who has applied such groupings from the Greeks to the Muslims and later Europeans always had a shifting and contradicting definition of who and who wasnt black, often the blackest people with sterotypical negro features were labeled black but every now and then the more "Hamitic" Egyptians et al folks would be called black as well. This is why ven though the Hamites were seen as a sub branch of the Caca-zoid race they included Beja, Somali, Hebeshi, Nubian etc...and later folks like Tutsi etc. This was a divide and conquer reaction/justification resulting from colonization. And Yes, folks been up here for years trying to justify why Greeks and Romans and Later Muslims called this... [IMG]http://i36.tinypic.com/nqwtb4.jpg[/IMG] Aethiopies/Sudan consistently but not with folks like the Egytians who were occasianly equated with dark skin but not Aethiopia and Sudan...Its funny because it was fighting with trolls and other more serious opponents like Melchior7 etc that I came to see how faulty using the modern Euro-American definition of black to group folks like Moors, Egyptians etc. I fought folks showing them that many folks labeled as non black such as Egyptians, Berbers, the Bidanes of Mauritania etc. would be seen as black to Americans and that black is a shifting term that can change depending on the culture. Now it seems that the Pan-Africanists are going in the same direction as the Eurocentrics...Using black as a trojan horse to group themselves with Egyptians and claim Egypt as some Ancestral home People can scapegoat Europeans all day, Yes the tried to De-Africanise and seperate Egypt from Black, but Keita and others who def. dont support a Hamite version of History, warned us way back when to cut the BS, folks didnt listen now chickens are coming home to roost. Phonecian7 et al are gonna have a feild day with Pan-African Afrocentrics when the results drop... [QUOTE]Originally posted by Swenet: [qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: [qb] The Hamite theory/explanation for African people and culture of course predates European science and exploration, as the Muslim and Arab occupiers and settlers in Africa and other parts of the world used Ham/Cannanite to group in a variety of peoples from Berbers to Nubians and Egyptians. Check this tread out you can see this very issiue was discussed back when the serious posters still frequented the Forum... http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=003729;p=1 [/qb][/QUOTE]I agree. The argument can be made that later Greeks (those that were close[r] to the Common Era) did the same in their own way. But people don't want to admit this because then they'd have to admit that the phenotypical differences emphasized by the Hamitic hypothesis are far older than colonialism and white supremacy. Also, they'd have to admit that such phenotypical differences are, on some level, empirical observations as opposed to a deliberately engineered conspiracy by Western Europeans. When explorers, travelers and geographers from multiple cultural backgrounds continually link certain groups in Africa on phenotypical grounds, but not others, you can no longer say that people who refuse to call AE black in the modern western (racial) sense are necessarily racist. [/qb][/QUOTE] [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
Contact Us
|
EgyptSearch!
(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3