History Community ~ All Empires Homepage


This is the Archive on WORLD Historia, the old original forum.

 You cannot post here - you can only read.

 

Here is the link to the new forum:

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Calendar   Register Register  Login Login


Forum LockedZahi Hawass fed up with Racial Politics and lies

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 6>
Author
Rakasnumberone View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 14-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 179
Post Options Post Options   Quote Rakasnumberone Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Zahi Hawass fed up with Racial Politics and lies
    Posted: 27-Jun-2008 at 20:01
Originally posted by Tyranos

Being that are some modern  immigrants from the Sudan and Nubia, it isnt that amazing.Hawass against Afrocentrism video:http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/video/player?titleID=1414281487


By the way, it would be a very big mistake to assume that all the dark people one sees in Egypt are Nubians or Sudanese immigrants. The overwhelming majority of them are neither. They are simply Egyptians.
Back to Top
Bernard Woolley View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian


Joined: 11-Jun-2008
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 154
Post Options Post Options   Quote Bernard Woolley Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Jun-2008 at 03:56
I had been under the impression that concepts like "Caucasoid" and "Negroid" races had long been dispensed with. Besides being laden down with historical subjective biases, they don't fit very well with what we know about human genetics. And since genetic science provides much better methods for determining ancestry, racial classifications no longer have any use.
 
From what I know about so-called "Afrocentrists", I don't think they have much to seriously add to our understanding of history. However, their theories are so marginal that I can't help thinking that the purpose of bringing them up is to have a staw-man to beat down. There are many areas where traditional historiography has been and still has to be reconsidered, and it would be a shame if dismissal of "Afrocentrism" were to bleed over onto other, more legitimate revisionism (With regards to this particular case, although it's ridiculous to suggest that Tutankhamun looked like you're average Kenyan, it's not unreasonable to take issue with the colour chosen for the bust at the top of this thread - it's debatable, at least.
Back to Top
Rakasnumberone View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 14-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 179
Post Options Post Options   Quote Rakasnumberone Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Jun-2008 at 07:47
Originally posted by Bernard Woolley

I had been under the impression that concepts like "Caucasoid" and "Negroid" races had long been dispensed with. Besides being laden down with historical subjective biases, they don't fit very well with what we know about human genetics. And since genetic science provides much better methods for determining ancestry, racial classifications no longer have any use.
 

From what I know about so-called "Afrocentrists", I don't think they have much to seriously add to our understanding of history. However, their theories are so marginal that I can't help thinking that the purpose of bringing them up is to have a staw-man to beat down. There are many areas where traditional historiography has been and still has to be reconsidered, and it would be a shame if dismissal of "Afrocentrism" were to bleed over onto other, more legitimate revisionism (With regards to this particular case, although it's ridiculous to suggest that Tutankhamun looked like you're average Kenyan, it's not unreasonable to take issue with the colour chosen for the bust at the top of this thread - it's debatable, at least.


As a person of African the significance of the question of color with regards to Egypt, is that it dispels the old notions of White supremacy and the assumption that the darker populations are less intelligent. One thing is certain, in the Euro-centric racist paradigm of social organization, the Ancient Egyptians would not have been in the "In crowd". Based on their skin color and physical characteristics, in the United States they would have been classified as Negroes, made to sit in the back of the bus and denied service at most public facilities. Had they been in South Africa during Apartide, they would have been considered colored, meaning people of mixed African heritage and denied access to most of the benefits that society had to offer.

The Ancient Egyptians were definitely a people of color native to the continent, regardless of the degree of admixture during any certain period, no doubt about it. Therefore, the assumption that people of color are genetically incapable of any intellectual achievements is shown to be a myth. Its just pathetic that in the 21st century these things still need to be proven to a large percentage of our population. How stone age thinking can exist side by side with the technological advances we have achieved is beyond me. So I guess because of this, there is a legitimate need to place Egypt in its proper context. I don't know if I'd consider that Afrocentric.

I'm really not too certain what Afrocentrism is supposed to be. I've encountered some really bizarre characters and theories claiming to be Afrocentric, but I wonder if this isn't a case of a legitimate cultural and intellectual movement being hijacked by some fringe elements. In any case, if the issue is to foster a legitimate reevaluation of African culture, people and history, both on the continent and diaspora, honoring the complexities of these cultures, I'm for it. If all it is is just the flip side of a white supremacist coin, then I want nothing to do with it at all.

Personally though, I'm pretty sick of Egypt always getting the lion's share of attention when it comes to African history to the detriment of the rest of the continent, including other North African societies. Its like when you look on T.V. all you see of Africa is EGYPT or Lions and Zebras on a Safari in a Kenyan national park.... and then slavery and Feed the Children. Really a big need for a more accurate spectrum, with Egypt in its proper place, not crowding out the sunlight.
Back to Top
Bernard Woolley View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian


Joined: 11-Jun-2008
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 154
Post Options Post Options   Quote Bernard Woolley Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Jun-2008 at 09:07
Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

I'm really not too certain what Afrocentrism is supposed to be. I've encountered some really bizarre characters and theories claiming to be Afrocentric, but I wonder if this isn't a case of a legitimate cultural and intellectual movement being hijacked by some fringe elements. In any case, if the issue is to foster a legitimate reevaluation of African culture, people and history, both on the continent and diaspora, honoring the complexities of these cultures, I'm for it. If all it is is just the flip side of a white supremacist coin, then I want nothing to do with it at all.

Personally though, I'm pretty sick of Egypt always getting the lion's share of attention when it comes to African history to the detriment of the rest of the continent, including other North African societies. Its like when you look on T.V. all you see of Africa is EGYPT or Lions and Zebras on a Safari in a Kenyan national park.... and then slavery and Feed the Children. Really a big need for a more accurate spectrum, with Egypt in its proper place, not crowding out the sunlight.
I agree. I put "Afrocentrism" in quotes because I'm not sure the word actually has any meaning beyond what people who don't like it say it means.
 
I think there's a great deal of misunderstanding and ignorance of African history and societies that needs to be corrected - I do, however, trust that it's only a matter of time before that happens, if for no other reason than that those millions of people we don't see on TV today will eventually start having a much larger impact on our lives. Besides, considerable amounts of information are available for anyone who's genuinely interested (it's unfortunate that many people who should know better, whether in government, academia or business, still aren't).
Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor
Avatar
retired AE Moderator

Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Location: London
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8795
Post Options Post Options   Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Jun-2008 at 12:31
Whatever they were, Egyptians were not the ancestors of African Americans, sub-Saharan Africans or Europeans and had nothing in common with them culturally, not even in the slightest.  Blacks and Europeans have no rights in claiming their glory just because there was no significant ancient civilisation in sub-Saharan Africa or Northern and Central Europe.  They should get over it and accept their actual heritage instead of hijacking other people's.
Back to Top
Rakasnumberone View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 14-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 179
Post Options Post Options   Quote Rakasnumberone Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Jun-2008 at 16:45
Originally posted by Zagros

Whatever they were, Egyptians were not the ancestors of African Americans, sub-Saharan Africans or Europeans and had nothing in common with them culturally, not even in the slightest.  Blacks and Europeans have no rights in claiming their glory just because there was no significant ancient civilisation in sub-Saharan Africa or Northern and Central Europe.  They should get over it and accept their actual heritage instead of hijacking other people's.


With exception of a few fringe elements, I don't think most Afro Americans are under the delusion that they are descended from the Egyptians. As I said before, its real significance is in showing that certain ideas which were used to justify slavery and colonialism are not founded in fact but fiction. Think of it this way. I'm old enough to remember when women were prohibited from running in marathons in this country because they were told that women were not physically capable of doing such things. There was a time when women were discouraged from seeking higher education because it was believed they didn't have the mental capacity to do so and that trying would be injurious to their physical and mental health. Now, if I were a woman in the U.S. and I saw women in China who not only had higher education, they were actually heads institutions of higher learning, it would give me strength and ammunition to fight for my right to do so here. If I was told that women were too weak to run long distances and I saw that in Europe women not only run in marathons, the set records, it would give me strength and comfort in knowing that what i was told was not true. I would go about collecting as much information as I could find on the achievements of remarkable women to show that the stereotypes are nothing but cultural and political fabrications. I would feel a sense of connection to those people, not because I believed they were my actual relatives, but because like them, I too am a woman and so in a sense their success is my success, or better yet an indication as to what I can achieve. It would prove that being a woman is not a hinderance to success in any way, physically or mentally.

Likewise, those of us of African descent feel a kinship with all peoples of the diaspora not because we believe we are necessarily connected by blood, but ideologically. We were told not only that no African ever achieved anything or was even capable of doing so and that no one who was of African blood was able to do anything of significance. Therefore, when we see Egypt, and we see statues of people who look like us, who look like our family members and people in our communities, we don't believe we are looking at snap shots from a photo album. Its the exact same principle as that girl in the USA who was told women are too weak seeing a woman athlete in China setting world records. Just as women take pride in the achievements of other remarkable women, we take pride in the achievements of remarkable Africans for the same reason.

Unfortunately, there are some who have dived off the deep end. So on the White side you have those fishing to show a legitimate reason to justify their bigotry and sense of self importance and on the black side you have those who try to get as close to Egypt as they can to prove that the black race is the superior one, not the white and try to create genetic connections where there are none. Both these extremists are responsible for the inability that still exists of putting Egypt in its proper context.

As for Egypt's connections with other African societies. I'd like to point out that the division between North Africa and Sub Saharan Africa is a false one. It is based on an assumption that there is cultural uniformity across the board below the Sahara, which negates the reality that they are diverse and distinct cultures in that region. By the same token "North Africa does the same. It lumps all those people together based on superficial criteria which do not take into consideration the diversity of that region either. The fact of the matter is that Egypt was an African society and as such there is an abundance of cultural and material similarities with other societies both above and below the Sahara. Egypt did receive cultural input from many areas, least of which was the Saharan culture. This is one reason why we can observe certain cultural practices that are distributed across the continent from East to west for example, the practice of male and female circumcision which is still practiced from Egypt in the East to Mali in the West. As I said before, there is much work to be done on not only putting Egypt in its proper place, but understanding the variety of cultures on the continent and the degrees of relation between them.
Back to Top
Vorian View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 06-Dec-2007
Location: Greece/Hellas
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 566
Post Options Post Options   Quote Vorian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Jun-2008 at 17:33
African Americans and the rest shouldn't feel the need to prove that blacks are as clever as whites or anything. The only reason there were few and short-lived advanced civilisations in Africa is the harsh climate and natural environment.

Little difficult to built pyramids when you are running away from elephants. Simple as that.
Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor
Avatar
retired AE Moderator

Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Location: London
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8795
Post Options Post Options   Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Jun-2008 at 18:03
That's not the only reason.  In fact it isn't a reason at all. Civilisation thrived elsewhere because of the harsh environment.  Necessity is the mother invention (cultivation, agriculture, urbanisation). Isolated tribal societies still thrive in Africa because they have everything they need to survive they don't have to consider constant innovation.


Edited by Zagros - 28-Jun-2008 at 18:03
Back to Top
Vorian View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 06-Dec-2007
Location: Greece/Hellas
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 566
Post Options Post Options   Quote Vorian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Jun-2008 at 19:12
Originally posted by Zagros

That's not the only reason.  In fact it isn't a reason at all. Civilisation thrived elsewhere because of the harsh environment.  Necessity is the mother invention (cultivation, agriculture, urbanisation). Isolated tribal societies still thrive in Africa because they have everything they need to survive they don't have to consider constant innovation.


Eh....I disagree. Civlisation rose in the fertile plains of Egypt, Mesopotamia and China, where life was easy. Large rivers, fertile land. The Mediterranean is also  a nice region, not many  man-eating predators, good climate.
Back to Top
Rakasnumberone View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 14-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 179
Post Options Post Options   Quote Rakasnumberone Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Jun-2008 at 00:08
Originally posted by Vorian

African Americans and the rest shouldn't feel the need to prove that blacks are as clever as whites or anything. The only reason there were few and short-lived advanced civilisations in Africa is the harsh climate and natural environment. Little difficult to built pyramids when you are running away from elephants. Simple as that.


Its not a matter of trying to prove we are as smart as "white people", it was/is about showing that we are just as human as anyone else. As far as "advanced civilizations". That all depends on what your criteria are. They may not have had monumental architecture, but the fact of the matter is that most civilizations didn't either. They did show incredible competence in social organization and political management. Besides, we really have no idea what most of Africa was like in antiquity because its been largely ignored. People assumed that African was devoid of civilization and therefore did not feel the need to look for it. Had the same attitude existed with regards to India, we would never have known that Mohenjo Daro existed. The Nok culture of Nigeria may be the tip of the iceberg. Its just that with regards to Africa, the majority of attention has always been paid to the most primitive societies because it reenforced the misperception of the African as intellectually inferior. Like I said before, if you look on T.V. there are only a few images of Africa that you will see. Animals in a safari park and adds for feed the children or some other charity for starving refugees, or civil wars. Never are we shown anything of the urban societies of Africa or even images of modern societies in Africa today. This then is the idea that most people of the world have of Africa and Africans. So we really can't speak of sub Saharan civilizations because most of us know very little to next to nothing about that part of the world. Your statement about running from elephants is a perfect example. You have no idea that the majority of Africans lived in settled urban societies, not in the bush and monumental architecture has more to do with the world view of those societies than anything else.

Edited by Rakasnumberone - 29-Jun-2008 at 00:13
Back to Top
Vorian View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 06-Dec-2007
Location: Greece/Hellas
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 566
Post Options Post Options   Quote Vorian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Jun-2008 at 00:17
The running from elephants was just sarcastic/trying to make humor attempt Rolling%20Eyes
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
Editorial Staff
Editorial Staff
Avatar

Joined: 29-Sep-2006
Location: Chile
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7508
Post Options Post Options   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Jun-2008 at 00:51
Africa is divided in two large ethnic and linguistic groups: Afroasiatics and the Bantues.
 
The Afroasiatic group includes the Moors or people of the Magbreb, Egyptians, Syrians, Arabs and other Middle Easterners, Jews and even some people down to Ethiopia.
 
Egyptians belong to that group and have nothing to do with people of West Africa, the place from where African Americans descend.
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
Editorial Staff
Editorial Staff
Avatar

Joined: 29-Sep-2006
Location: Chile
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7508
Post Options Post Options   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Jun-2008 at 00:59
Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

...
Its not a matter of trying to prove we are as smart as "white people", it was/is about showing that we are just as human as anyone else. As far as "advanced civilizations". That all depends on what your criteria are. They may not have had monumental architecture, but the fact of the matter is that most civilizations didn't either. They did show incredible competence in social organization and political management. Besides, we really have no idea what most of Africa was like in antiquity because its been largely ignored. People assumed that African was devoid of civilization and therefore did not feel the need to look for it. Had the same attitude existed with regards to India, we would never have known that Mohenjo Daro existed. The Nok culture of Nigeria may be the tip of the iceberg. Its just that with regards to Africa, the majority of attention has always been paid to the most primitive societies because it reenforced the misperception of the African as intellectually inferior. Like I said before, if you look on T.V. there are only a few images of Africa that you will see. Animals in a safari park and adds for feed the children or some other charity for starving refugees, or civil wars. Never are we shown anything of the urban societies of Africa or even images of modern societies in Africa today. This then is the idea that most people of the world have of Africa and Africans. So we really can't speak of sub Saharan civilizations because most of us know very little to next to nothing about that part of the world. Your statement about running from elephants is a perfect example. You have no idea that the majority of Africans lived in settled urban societies, not in the bush and monumental architecture has more to do with the world view of those societies than anything else.
 
That's true and cosign.
 
The Africa from where the Ancestors of African Americans came from has many interesting cultures and developments. What the people in general wonders, though is why blacks focus almost exclusively in Egypt.
 
Egypt is a pretty well know culture, worldwide. Most people agrees it is not precisely nation of Whites -If for whites you mean Germanics people that looks like Paul Newman- Actually, more would think a typical Egyptian looks more like Omar Sharif or Zahi Hawass. People also knows Egyptians are not much different from others in the region, like Jews, Moors or Arabs.  Egyptians are a people with large genetic variation, but a Mediterranian rather than a Subsaharan society. Converting Egypt into another Nigeria won't convince anyone.
 
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)
Back to Top
Tyranos View Drop Down
Earl
Earl
Avatar

Joined: 01-Oct-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 246
Post Options Post Options   Quote Tyranos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Jun-2008 at 01:55
"Whites" doest mean Paul Newman, it means Caucasoid which is very clear definition, which is both a genetically and phenotypically different from Negroid or Mongoloid. Afrocentrism seeks to claim Egpt because of its fame and  influence, and then use it as spring board into Asia & especially Europe.


African-Americans, West Africans and even East Africans laying claim to Ancient Egypt and then claiming its modern inhabitants are all foreigners(ie Arabs) or "mixed-race" is wrong.   Hawass does a good job of making it known that Afrocentrism is a bad mental diesense which afflicts many Blacks here in the USA and elsewhere.
Back to Top
Bernard Woolley View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian


Joined: 11-Jun-2008
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 154
Post Options Post Options   Quote Bernard Woolley Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Jun-2008 at 02:47

Originally posted by pinguin

Africa is divided in two large ethnic and linguistic groups: Afroasiatics and the Bantues.

The Afroasiatic group includes the Moors or people of the Magbreb, Egyptians, Syrians, Arabs and other Middle Easterners, Jews and even some people down to Ethiopia.

Egyptians belong to that group and have nothing to do with people of West Africa, the place from where African Americans descend.

That's not at all accurate. The Bantu language family is the largest in Sub-Saharan Africa, but it's far from the only one. Large parts of Sub-Saharan Africa have no Bantu languages, and in most places where Bantu languages are spoken they overlap with other, unrelated languages.

Culturally (and genetically) speaking, Sub-Saharan Africa is one of the most complex places in the world, if not the most complex. Saying "Sub-Saharan Africans are all Bantus" is a blatant misrepresentation of that most-of-a-continent.

Originally posted by Tyranos

"Whites" doest mean Paul Newman, it means Caucasoid which is very clear definition, which is both a genetically and phenotypically different from Negroid or Mongoloid. Afrocentrism seeks to claim Egpt because of its fame and influence, and then use it as spring board into Asia & especially Europe.

African-Americans, West Africans and even East Africans laying claim to Ancient Egypt and then claiming its modern inhabitants are all foreigners(ie Arabs) or "mixed-race" is wrong. Hawass does a good job of making it known that Afrocentrism is a bad mental diesense which afflicts many Blacks here in the USA and elsewhere.

"Caucasoid" is actually not a very clear definition. Nor are "Negroid" or "Mongoloid". At best they were working hypotheses used before human evolution was better understood. Today they constitute an obsolete and inaccurate classification system that unfortunately still has residual influence on peoples' perceptions.

I don't know who these "Afrocentrists" are who claim that Egyptians were "black" and are apparently planning to invade Asia, but if your counter-claim is that Egyptians are clearly "Caucasoid", then you're suffering from a "bad mental disease" as well.

Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
Editorial Staff
Editorial Staff
Avatar

Joined: 29-Sep-2006
Location: Chile
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7508
Post Options Post Options   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Jun-2008 at 03:11
Originally posted by Bernard Woolley

Originally posted by pinguin

Africa is divided in two large ethnic and linguistic groups: Afroasiatics and the Bantues.

The Afroasiatic group includes the Moors or people of the Magbreb, Egyptians, Syrians, Arabs and other Middle Easterners, Jews and even some people down to Ethiopia.

Egyptians belong to that group and have nothing to do with people of West Africa, the place from where African Americans descend.

That's not at all accurate. The Bantu language family is the largest in Sub-Saharan Africa, but it's far from the only one. Large parts of Sub-Saharan Africa have no Bantu languages, and in most places where Bantu languages are spoken they overlap with other, unrelated languages.

Culturally (and genetically) speaking, Sub-Saharan Africa is one of the most complex places in the world, if not the most complex. Saying "Sub-Saharan Africans are all Bantus" is a blatant misrepresentation of that most-of-a-continent.

You are right in part. But you can divide Africa with relative easy between Afroasiatic Africa and Black Africa. Two different worlds, both with lot of diversity.
 
Look at the picture and you will realize we are talking about different groups
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)
Back to Top
Bernard Woolley View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian


Joined: 11-Jun-2008
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 154
Post Options Post Options   Quote Bernard Woolley Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Jun-2008 at 03:27
I would accept that you can identify (very roughly) an Afroasiatic zone, but I disagree with calling the remainder of the continent simply "Black Africa". The level of diversity in Sub-Saharan Africa is an order of magnitude larger than in the north - some are as different from each other as from any other group of people in in the world.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
Editorial Staff
Editorial Staff
Avatar

Joined: 29-Sep-2006
Location: Chile
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7508
Post Options Post Options   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Jun-2008 at 03:43
Yes, that's true. Afroasiatic Africa is less diverse than the South, where you find groups like the "bantues", nilotics, khoi-san, malgaches and pigmeys that are a lot more different between themselves that Egyptians and Moroccans.

Edited by pinguin - 29-Jun-2008 at 03:43
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)
Back to Top
Rakasnumberone View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 14-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 179
Post Options Post Options   Quote Rakasnumberone Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Jun-2008 at 19:31
Originally posted by pinguin

Africa is divided in two large ethnic and linguistic groups: Afroasiatics and the Bantues.
 

The Afroasiatic group includes the Moors or people of the Magbreb, Egyptians, Syrians, Arabs and other Middle Easterners, Jews and even some people down to Ethiopia.

 

Egyptians belong to that group and have nothing to do with people of West Africa, the place from where African Americans descend.


As usual you deliberately try to ignore whatever I've said and take the conversation somewhere else. I think I explained my point very well, so brining up the issue of who is related to whom is totally irrelevant.
Back to Top
Tk101 View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl
Avatar

Joined: 18-Apr-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 59
Post Options Post Options   Quote Tk101 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Jun-2008 at 19:37
hmm i think much of this is folly from the get go..but such inaccurrate terminologies such as Caucasoids, negroid mongoloid..etc should be no longer used....
i think its funny how even though its known that these terms aren't accurate you still have scientist using it...aka north African Caucasoids... predominately based on his nasal index and narrowness of his nose... but i rarely hear them mention the other terms they way they use Caucasoids... example was the so called "black" mummies found in the desert ( i think it was out in the sahara...they use black instead of what they want to say which is negroid. i can understand the similiarities between north African coastal populations and the nile valley residents but i rarely hear the of the similarities between horn african peoples and egyptians...just pointing out somethings....

there is only one truth
- Conan
[IMG]http://www.architecture.org/shop/images/402036lg.jpg[IMG]
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 6>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.063 seconds.