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  <12345 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: 29-Jun-2008 at 19:39
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.


And this is what I mean by people who go off the deep end. The modern population is genetically diverse, they are racially mixed but so what? Regardless of their skin colors or features. Although there are people who migrated in, the majority of the population is of the same bloodline as the ancients, just as my father with his white skin and hazel blue eyes is still a descendant of Congo.   

As far as Hawas is concerned, I just wish he would also address the equally distorted white supremacist perspective as well. The sickness is not Afrocentrism, the sickness is like a virus. It contaminates everyone it touches and racism is prevalent in the Americas and growing in Europe.
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 19:50
Originally posted by pinguin

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

 


 

 

 

 

 

 


This is a map showing language groupings not classifications based on physical appearances. If you look at the map shown and you visit those countries you will see that it is an area of great diversity when it comes to physical type. Also notice that a significant portion of the Afro Asiatic distribution is well below the Sahara. Therefore many of the people in the Afro Asiatic group are indistinguishable from other peoples found in parts of Sub-Saharan Africa. No one would ever confuse a Tuareg from Mauritania with a sephardic Jew or a Syrian, nor a typical Ethiopian with an Amahzig Berber from Algeria.

Edited by Rakasnumberone - 29-Jun-2008 at 19:54
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: 30-Jun-2008 at 01:23
Of course the map is linguistic and ethnical, rather than racial.
 
The point is very simple. Egypt was an Afroasiatic civilization more, between many, as Sumer, Babilon, the Phoenicians, Carthago, the Jews, Arabs, etc.
 
On the other hand, the slaves brought to the Americas didn't came from the Afroasiatic region but from the rest of Africa.
 
In short, it is very clear the relation between Black Americans and Ancient Egypt don't exist.


Edited by pinguin - 30-Jun-2008 at 01:24
"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: 30-Jun-2008 at 06:46
Originally posted by pinguin

Of course the map is linguistic and ethnical, rather than racial.
 

The point is very simple. Egypt was an Afroasiatic civilization more, between many, as Sumer, Babilon, the Phoenicians, Carthago, the Jews, Arabs, etc.

 

On the other hand, the slaves brought to the Americas didn't came from the Afroasiatic region but from the rest of Africa.

 

In short, it is very clear the relation between Black Americans and Ancient Egypt don't exist.


So did you read anything I said previously? Obviously not. How many ways do I have to say that West Africans / Afro Americans are not blood descendants of Egyptians? I know English isn't your first language and all.... but honestly, can't you understand that? Okay, just for you, I'll say it again: WE ARE NOT BIOLOGICALLY DESCENDED FROM THE EGYPTIANS. The issue is not and never has been to try and claim that we are Egyptians or related to them biologically in any way. I stated very clearly in great detail what the issue is, so why do you insist on harping on something that has nothing to do with the issue? You aren't making sense nor are you contributing to the discussion in a logical way.
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: 30-Jun-2008 at 07:02
Originally posted by pinguin

Of course the map is linguistic and ethnical, rather than racial.
 

The point is very simple. Egypt was an Afroasiatic civilization more, between many, as Sumer, Babilon, the Phoenicians, Carthago, the Jews, Arabs, etc.

 

On the other hand, the slaves brought to the Americas didn't came from the Afroasiatic region but from the rest of Africa.

 

In short, it is very clear the relation between Black Americans and Ancient Egypt don't exist.


As for the slaves brought to the Americas. Yes indeed many of them did come from the Afro Asiatic branch as clearly shown by the map. Afro Asiatic peoples are found in most of West Africa and the northern areas of Central Africa. The Hausa, Fulani, Wodabe, Wolof all speak Afro Asiatic languages and they were all caught up in the slave trade to the Americans. In some cases Africans were shipped all the way from East Africa to Brazil and the Caribbean.

Nevertheless, as i said before, this does not indicate that Afro Asiatic speakers have anything in common one with the other. Sudanese are Afro Asiatic speakers. What did the NUBIANS have in common with Sumerians, Babylonians, Jews or Arabs? I'll tell you, NOTHING. What did Berbers have in common with Arabs? NOTHING. What did Berbers have in common with Ethiopians, past or present? Nothing, yet they are both Afro Asiatic speakers. Your premise is a false one. You try to place Egypt in Western Asia because they spoke a certain language group while failing to realize that the Afro Asiatic zone is one of incredible diversity and individuality. Now, can we stick to the actual issue, or is that too hard for you?
Back to Top
omshanti View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 02-Nov-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 429
Post Options Post Options   Quote omshanti Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Jun-2008 at 08:36
Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

Originally posted by pinguin

Of course the map is linguistic and ethnical, rather than racial.
 

The point is very simple. Egypt was an Afroasiatic civilization more, between many, as Sumer, Babilon, the Phoenicians, Carthago, the Jews, Arabs, etc.

 

On the other hand, the slaves brought to the Americas didn't came from the Afroasiatic region but from the rest of Africa.

 

In short, it is very clear the relation between Black Americans and Ancient Egypt don't exist.


As for the slaves brought to the Americas. Yes indeed many of them did come from the Afro Asiatic branch as clearly shown by the map. Afro Asiatic peoples are found in most of West Africa and the northern areas of Central Africa. The Hausa, Fulani, Wodabe, Wolof all speak Afro Asiatic languages and they were all caught up in the slave trade to the Americans. In some cases Africans were shipped all the way from East Africa to Brazil and the Caribbean.

Nevertheless, as i said before, this does not indicate that Afro Asiatic speakers have anything in common one with the other. Sudanese are Afro Asiatic speakers. What did the NUBIANS have in common with Sumerians, Babylonians, Jews or Arabs? I'll tell you, NOTHING. What did Berbers have in common with Arabs? NOTHING. What did Berbers have in common with Ethiopians, past or present? Nothing, yet they are both Afro Asiatic speakers. Your premise is a false one. You try to place Egypt in Western Asia because they spoke a certain language group while failing to realize that the Afro Asiatic zone is one of incredible diversity and individuality. Now, can we stick to the actual issue, or is that too hard for you?
Nubian languages are not Afro-Asaiatic, they are Nilo-Saharan. Sumerian isn't Afro-Asiatic either Pinguin, it is a language isolate.


Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

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.
This statement shows really well that the connection the people of African diaspora (represented by you here) feel towards Egypt is based on looks and external physical characteristics, the very elements upon which are based the classifications they (you) so furiously despise and try to deny.  Furthermore, based on physical characteristics and looks,  there are enough elements in the Egyptian population that people of Europe/west Asia (especially the Mediterranean regions and the Arabian peninsula) can connect with as well, so it would be a double standard to dismiss them by using the card of ''racism'' and considering them as ''racists who use racist classifications''.

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

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.
If the connection you (as the representative of the people of African diaspora)  feel towards Egypt is geographical (sharing a continent) or cultural, then why so much focus on blackness/whiteness, nativity/foreignness and the looks of people?
Also what is the proper place for Egypt in your mind? Based on your accusations directed at him in this thread, it is obviously very different from that of the renowned Egyptian scholar/archaeologist Dr. Zahi Hawass.


 
Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

Originally posted by Tyranos

Hawass against Afrocentrism video:http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/video/player?titleID=1414281487

The second video was better informed but still missed the boat as far as the topic is concerned. The fact of the matter is that Egypt is and always has been a crossroads. The indigenous population, as he said, was a native East African one. However, because of its proximity to Western Asia and the Mediterranean, there had been from a very early period, migrations of other peoples into the country. Which is why even today one tends to find a greater concentration of lighter complected individuals in the northern half of the country. Therefore, even though the majority of the population in the earliest periods would have been of a darker skin tone, it would not have been strange to see lighter complected peoples as well.
This is entirely different from what the person in the second video said. He never used the words 'indigenous' or 'native', and  never said that the ''indigenous population was a native east African one''. The closest sentence to this was when he said ''there is no evidence to suggest that Egypt is anything but of local origin, of north east African origin in its place and in its time''. 

I notice from your posts that while you always push the diversity of the ''modern population'' forward, your main focus underneath all is that before all the external influences, the indigenous population was ''native east African'', whose skin colour was lightened by the foreigners.

So I wondered, by ''indigenous/native east Afrian'' , which type of features are you talking about? Also the modern state of Egypt is comprised of ancient lower Egypt, upper Egypt and lower Nubia. It is quite possible that the indigenous peoples in each of these cultural regions would have looked different from each other physically before they were unified. So by ''the indigenous population was a native east African one'', which one of those regions are you talking about?

Since the topic is about the looks of people and yet it seems that when some members try to describe or suggest physical characteristics by conventionally used/understood terms, they receive very strong and negative reactions from some other members, I will post photos instead, of some people from the eastern part of the African continent. Perhaps you can tell me which one of them is the closest to the look of ''native east African'' you talk about, and maybe you can even prove that the phenotype you choose was indeed the indigenous one of whichever part of Egypt you are talking about.
I am sure many or most people are mixed and show characteristics between all those phenotypes below but since you are talking about an native/indigenous population before external influences, I picked those  pictures/phenotypes accordingly.




A Sudanese family
http://www.gba.org/templates/cusgba/details.asp?id=21323&PID=422738&Style= 


A Sudanese actor
http://theypouredfire.com/alepho_photos.htm
 

The Kenyan football team
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/africa/6483981.stm
 The%20image%20“http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42719000/jpg/_42719033_kenya203.jpg”%20cannot%20be%20displayed,%20because%20it%20contains%20errors.



An Egyptian Family
http://www.coptic-cairo.com/culture/tradition/tradition.html
family_hoch

An Egyptian actor
http://www.vh1.com/movies/person/426502/personmain.jhtml
The%20image%20“http://www.vh1.com/sitewide/flipbooks/img/movies/people/a/abdalla_khalid/71062266_10.jpg”%20cannot%20be%20displayed,%20because%20it%20contains%20errors.

The Egyptian football team
http://www.sis.gov.eg/En/Society/acup/teams/091304000000000001.htm
 The%20image%20“http://www.sis.gov.eg/Images/Society/0001/L_0992.jpg”%20cannot%20be%20displayed,%20because%20it%20contains%20errors.



A Nubian (south of Egypt~north of Sudan) family
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Egypt-Nubian_wedding.jpg The%20image%20“http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/88/Egypt-Nubian_wedding.jpg”%20cannot%20be%20displayed,%20because%20it%20contains%20errors.

Some Masai people
http://www.sfu.ca/~jld/masai.htm

http://www.jocelynwyatt.com/blog/index.php?m=05&y=07



An Ethiopian person
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Selassie.jpg http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/04/Selassie.jpg

A Somali person
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Abdiqassim_Salad_Hassan_1.jpg
 The%20image%20“http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/81/Abdiqassim_Salad_Hassan_1.jpg”%20cannot%20be%20displayed,%20because%20it%20contains%20errors.

Some Somalian girls
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Somaliland_somali_nomad_girls.jpg Image:Somaliland%20somali%20nomad%20girls.jpg




Edited by omshanti - 30-Jun-2008 at 15:24
Back to Top
Sparten View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar
Totalitarian Iconoclast

Joined: 18-Mar-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5009
Post Options Post Options   Quote Sparten Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Jun-2008 at 10:20
Omshanti, please give links for your pictures. In the meantime, this thread belongs in Alternative History.
The Germans also take vacations in Paris; especially during the periods they call "blitzkrieg".
Back to Top
omshanti View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 02-Nov-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 429
Post Options Post Options   Quote omshanti Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Jun-2008 at 11:23
Hi Sparten, as you requested, I edited my post and gave links for the pictures.

Originally posted by Bernard Woolley

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.

It is quite well known that according to population genetics based on mitochondrial DNA and y-chromosome, people in sub-Saharan Africa show greater diversity than the rest of the world. However mtDNA  and y-chromosome prove absolutely nothing about external appearance or who their carriers really were because they make up a tiny part of the entire human genome. They are simply a very good tool to trace the movements of ancient populations because they mutate in a relatively fast pace, which also means that the longer the time of human occupancy of a region, the more diverse the mutations can be in that region. Since Africa is the homeland of modern humans, we can easily see that the humans have occupied Africa longer than the rest of the world hence the bigger diversity in their (especially the Khoisans') mutations of mtDNA and y-chromosome.
Regrading externally visible physical characteristics (which the topic is about), I think  that ''sub -Saharan Africa is more diverse than the rest of the world'' is a myth.  We just have to pick a north east Asian, south east Asian, a Semang, an Indian, a European, a Papua New Guinean,  a Melanesian, an Australian aboriginal, a Polynesian, a native American..etc   person and put them all next to each other, and then also pick some people from any different parts of  sub-Saharan Africa and do the same. We can then see which group has a greater diversity in their looks.

Edited by omshanti - 30-Jun-2008 at 15:22
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: 30-Jun-2008 at 15:57
Originally posted by omshanti


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.


This statement shows really well that the
connection the people of African diaspora (represented by you here) feel
towards Egypt is based on looks and external physical characteristics,
the very elements upon which are based the classifications they (you)
so furiously despise and try to deny.  Furthermore, based on physical
characteristics and looks,  there are enough elements in the Egyptian
population that people of Europe/west Asia (especially the
Mediterranean regions and the Arabian pennisula) can connect with as well, so it would be a double
standard to dismiss them by using the card of ''racism'' and
considering them as ''racists who use racist classifications''.

You are not understanding the significance nor the context of what I'm saying. First of all understand that we did not create the system of racial classification, it was imposed on us. Secondly, as I said before, we are not 100% pure blooded Africans. Race classification was created by the elite class of the majority ethnic group for the purpose of maintaining their position of power and influence by dividing the undercalss, (both black and white) against each other. Since the majority of the underclass were of European origin, the effort was made to get them on the side of the ruling class. To do this they made servitude a life long condition for people of African origin, while at the same time giving all whites a higher status. You have to understand that a great deal of control under slavery and later colonialism was and is psychological. No people are born racist. In order to get the majority of people to support it you must convince them and likewise to get a person to accept being a slave or colonized you must convince them of their inferiority.

You don't understand just how vicious this mentality is. Even if a person had only 1 black ancestor going back 4 generations they were still considered part of the black population. Such a person may very well look no different than a European and if their maternal ancestors were slaves, they were automatically slaves. This means that there were many slaves who were just as white as their masters in appearance.
Therefore the justification of racial discrimination wasn't totally based on the way a person looked. However, what we were told by the ruling society is that no Africans anywhere on the continent made any achievements. Dark skin was a sign of mental inferiority. Since intelligence is carried in the blood, anyone with any amount of African blood is of inferior intelligence.

Now when you are told these things by the society you live in for generations, there are many people who will believe it on some level. Certainly most white people believed it because that's what they were taught and although they resented it, so did many black people. But you see, this mentality doesn't just stop at black people. It was used to justify the exploitation of all peoples around the world who were not white. The widely believed theory was that all people who were not White Europeans were inferior. That includes you, that includes me, that includes modern Egyptians today, that includes Arabs, Chinese and NAtive Americans. Everyone who was not 100% pure blooded European was believed to be racially inferior. Therefore, if skin color is believed to be a sign of mental weakness, how can you prove the theory wrong? By showing people who are the opposite of what they say.

I made the comparison with women.    If it is said that all women are too weak to be athletes, how do you prove it is wrong? By finding a woman who is a champion athlete. Its the same situation with regards to Egypt. They said NO SOCIETY IN AFRICA ever produced a civilization. Well Egypt is a society in Africa. They said that no black skinned person or a person mixed with a black, no matter how small the amount, was capable of displaying any significant amount of intelligence. Well Egyptians are a people with black admixture. Some are darker,some are lighter, so that proves the theory false as well.   Do you understand? now?


If the connection you (as the representative of the
people of African diaspora)  feel towards Egypt is geographical (sharing a
continent) or cultural, then why so much focus on blackness/whiteness,
nativity/foreignness and the looks of people?

Because of the mind games that are played by the racist establishment. It is they who have created this whole mentality in the first place. To this day we are still judged by the color of our skin, facial features or ancestral background. If you say the Egyptians were an African people, they say no they weren't, they were Western Asians who migrated into Africa. In other words what they are trying to say is that these people were white because blacks are incapable of doing anything and not Africans because no African has ever achieved anything. No matter where in Africa you find evidence of intelligence, the racist establishment will try to claim it was the result of a white population who migrated there, hence the invention of the so called CAucasian Africans, but I'll say more on that later. This is what they did with Zimbabwe, the West African Empires etc. That is why we in response spend so much time pointing out the obvious.

Also what is the proper place for Egypt in your mind? Based on your
accusations directed at him in this thread, it is obviously very
different from that of the renowned Egyptian scholar/archaeologist Dr. Zahi
Hawass.

The proper place of Egypt is an African Civilization, not a so called Middle Eastern Civilization. The whole concept of a Middle East was invented by the colonialist mind. There is no such thing as a Middle East. The Earth is a globe. So how can you point at any one section and call it the middle of something. It can only be the middle in relation to something else and for the colonialist that something was Europe. Therefore Middle East is judged according to how close or far it is to Europe. They ignore all the diversity in the region and indiscriminately lump everyone together regardless of ethnicity, language or culture. Egypt was an African civilization which because of its geographical location was a crossroads between Africa, the Mediterranean, and Western Asia. However, they try to remove it from African by placing it in the made up "MIDDLE EAST" and try to deny the African elements in the population by classifying the peoples caucasians and claiming that they migrated into Egypt from the outside.

As for Hawas, understand something. i travel to Egypt almost annually since 1988. I live with Egyptians, I work with them and I know historians in Egypt who know him and have dealt with him. He is not without bias he is the spokes person of the government, which is a military dictatorship. They control every aspect of the media and life in the country because they are very concerned with the image that the world, in particular, the west has of them. They want to be seen as being part of the Western society, not Africa. Why? Realize that Egypt is a former colony of the European colonialists, first the French then the English and so they have suffered the sting of racism and the brainwashing that happens within the educational system put in place by the colonizers. They were made painfully aware that they were regarded as a non white people who were inferior to Europeans in every way. Therefore they were aware of the way Africa was viewed in the eyes of the colonizers. Because of that and the additional stigma of the African slave trade, there are many Egyptians who try to distance themselves as far as they can from being associated with Africa, which they see as being backward and inferior. The ruling elite of Egypt today, (of which Hawas is a member) and those who aspire to be in that class, have adopted a European lifestyle and aesthetic. I have friends who went to the top Jesuit schools in Egypt and to this day they are still taught that European culture is the hallmark of sophistication and civilization, while the native customs of their country are barbaric and primitive. You have to dig a little deeper and know something about the societies in question and not take things on face value.




This is entirely different from
what the person in the second video said. He never used the words
'indigenous' or 'native', and  never said that the ''indigenous
population was a native east African one''. The closest sentence to
this was when he said ''there is no evidence to suggest that Egypt is
anything but of local origin, of north east African origin in its place
and in its time''. 

No this is EXACTLY what the speaker in the second video said. "Local origin" means the exact same thing as native or indigenous. What he is saying in effect, is that the old theory that Egypt was founded by people who migrated into Africa is false. There is evidence to show they traded with people in Mesopotamia, but no evidence to show that the population of Egypt came anywhere else except East Africa. In other words, they were Africans. A people originating in the African continent, not a people who migrated in.



I notice from your posts that while you always push the diversity of
the ''modern population'' forward, your main focus underneath all is
that before all the external influences, the indigenous population was
''native east African'', whose skin colour was lightened by the foreigners.

And so what is the problem with that? It is the truth. How else do you explain the vast variety of skin tones in the population? Who else do you explain the fact that in many families the skin tones range from light to dark? The fact that some members in a family have straight hair while others have kinky hair? Admixture. It doesn't mean that they are any less Egyptian than a person who is dark. Egypt lies at a cross roads, and so its population was drawn from many areas. Yes the oldest population was the local East African types, but over the course of its history from very archaic times, there were other people who did come into the country, either by migration or conquest. Therefore what is a real Egyptian? A real Egyptian is the total of all the forces that have impacted on the creation of the country as a whole. All the populations and the mixing of all those elements. They are all Egyptian regardless of skin color. They all share a common history culture and way of life and that is what really makes them Egyptian. Therefore a person who is light skinned is NOT a foreigner, they are Egyptian because they have been totally integrated into every aspect of the society and have been intermarrying within the society, so they are connected not only by geography, nationality but by blood as well.


So I wondered, by ''indigenous/native east Afrian'' , which type of
features are you talking about? Also the modern state of Egypt is
comprised of ancient lower Egypt, upper Egypt and lower Nubia. It is
quite possible that the indigenous peoples in each of these cultural
regions would have looked different from each other physically before
they were unified. So by ''the indigenous population was a native east
African one'', which one of those regions are you talking about?



Since the topic is about the looks of people and yet it seems that when
some members try to describe or suggest physical characteristics by
conventionally understood terms, they receive very strong and negative
reactions from some other members, I will post photos instead, of some
people from the eastern part of the African continent. Perhaps you can
tell me which one of them is the closest to the look of ''native east
African'' you talk about, and maybe you can even prove that the
phenotype you choose was indeed the indigenous one of whichever part of
Egypt you are talking about.I am sure many or most people are mixed and show characteristics
between all those phenotypes below but since you are talking about an
native/indigenous population before external influences, I picked
those  pictures/phenotypes accordingly.

You are right in that all these people are East Africans. I don't dispute this, in fact I agree with it. And it is much better to show actual photos rather than using broad terms. As you can see from the photos, because of the diversity of types in the areas, we should try to be more specific. The only problem is that the Nubian, Ethiopian and Somilis are classified as caucasians, which is misleading. They claim that only the phenotypes you showed of the Sudanese and Kenyans are Africans and that all the others are CAUCASIANS, meaning they a part of the White race, originating outside of Africa, but   What people of African descent have maintained and still do is that ALL the types you showed are native Africans. As you can see, none of those peoples would ever be mistaken for anything other than an African. They are not Europeans, they are not Asians and they would never be mistaken for Indians even though Indians are also dark.

Now with regards to the modern Egyptians you showed. I'll remind you of what I said about the fact that Afro Americans and by this I include all of Latin America and the Caribbean, not just the USA. We are not full blooded Africans, we are in fact mixed. Realize that there are many individuals in the Afro American community, in the States, Caribbean and Latin America who look just like these people. The father could be my uncle and the son looks like my cousin and little brother. Understand that had any of the Egyptians in that family been living in the United States as recent as 45 years ago, they would be classified as negroes based on appearances and denied access to most public facilities and services which were reserved for whites only. As for the actor, there are millions of Afro Americans who are even lighter than he is. However you didn't provide here enough photos of modern Egypt, why? because those are just two of many many physical types you find in the country. There is no one phenotype or skin tone that is representative of the entire population. What you encounter in Egypt are people who for the most part are a medium brown like the family, but a significant portion of the population may be a few shades darker and there are many who are much lighter. One tends to find that the percentage of lighter people are in the Delta, while in Upper Egypt the percentage of darker people is higher. It would be better if we could see up close photos of the soccer team because then you would see what I mean about the diversity of phenotypes.

So when you look at the population, you see people who reflect the mixture of all the East African types as well as characteristics of Western Asians and Mediterraneans. So its not unusual to find people who look exactly like the Ethiopians and Somalis, or a very light skinned person with straight hair who has the same nose as the Sudanese actor.

So when I say East African, I mean the Somali, nubian and ethiopian phenotypes, however, there was input from other groups as well. From the archeological evidence skulls of the Sudanese types have been found in Egypt in the earliest periods as well as types fitting the Ethiopians and Somalis. There have also been skulls that were similar to Mediterranean types found as well. So all this suggest just what I have always been saying, which is basically the population was made of peoples coming from different areas of the south, south east and south west. These were the first people there, but add to that people who did migrate in from Western Asia in the north and you have Ancient Egypt. Add to this mix all the populations of Persians, Assyrians, Greeks, Romans, Arabs etc and you get the Modern Egyptians. They are the sub total of all the historical events that have shaped the country.

If people would just simply admit that Egypt was and is what it is, there would be no controversy. But it is the continued attempts to remove it from the context of the continent by denying the darker elements that causes the problem.





A Sudanese familyhttp://www.gba.org/templates/cusgba/details.asp?id=21323&PID=422738&Style=  <span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span>

A Sudanese actorhttp://theypouredfire.com/alepho_photos.htm 

The Kenyan football teamhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/africa/6483981.stm The%20image%20“http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42719000/jpg/_42719033_kenya203.jpg”%20cannot%20be%20displayed,%20because%20it%20contains%20errors.An Egyptian Family http://www.coptic-cairo.com/culture/tradition/tradition.html family_hochAn Egyptian actor http://www.vh1.com/movies/person/426502/personmain.jhtmlThe%20image%20“http://www.vh1.com/sitewide/flipbooks/img/movies/people/a/abdalla_khalid/71062266_10.jpg”%20cannot%20be%20displayed,%20because%20it%20contains%20errors.The Egyptian football teamhttp://www.sis.gov.eg/En/Society/acup/teams/091304000000000001.htm The%20image%20“http://www.sis.gov.eg/Images/Society/0001/L_0992.jpg”%20cannot%20be%20displayed,%20because%20it%20contains%20errors.A Nubian (south of Egypt~north of Sudan) familyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Egypt-Nubian_wedding.jpg The%20image%20“http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/88/Egypt-Nubian_wedding.jpg”%20cannot%20be%20displayed,%20because%20it%20contains%20errors.Some Masai people http://www.sfu.ca/~jld/masai.htmhttp://www.jocelynwyatt.com/blog/index.php?m=05&y=07An Ethiopian personhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Selassie.jpg http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/04/Selassie.jpgA Somali personhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Abdiqassim_Salad_Hassan_1.jpg The%20image%20“http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/81/Abdiqassim_Salad_Hassan_1.jpg”%20cannot%20be%20displayed,%20because%20it%20contains%20errors.Some Somalian girlshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Somaliland_somali_nomad_girls.jpg Image:Somaliland%20somali%20nomad%20girls.jpg[/QUOTE]

Edited by Rakasnumberone - 30-Jun-2008 at 16:46
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: 30-Jun-2008 at 17:39
Originally posted by Rakasnumberone


You are not understanding the significance nor the context of what I'm saying. First of all understand that we did not create the system of racial classification, it was imposed on us.
 
 
Who is "us". As far as I know you aren't an egyptian.
 
Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

 However, what we were told by the ruling society is that no Africans anywhere on the continent made any achievements. Dark skin was a sign of mental inferiority. Since intelligence is carried in the blood, anyone with any amount of African blood is of inferior intelligence.
 
 
But that fact has nothing to do with Egypt. People ignores the cultures of West Africa. If the same effort put in showing the Egyptian connection with Black Americans (that few people believe) would have been put instead in the archeology of Nigeria, a change would have been produced already.
Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

 
 The widely believed theory was that all people who were not White Europeans were inferior. That includes you, that includes me, that includes modern Egyptians today, that includes Arabs, Chinese and NAtive Americans. Everyone who was not 100% pure blooded European was believed to be racially inferior.
 
 
Believed by whom? In other words, why to care for what ignorants think?
 
Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

 
They said NO SOCIETY IN AFRICA ever produced a civilization. Well Egypt is a society in Africa. They said that no black skinned person or a person mixed with a black, no matter how small the amount, was capable of displaying any significant amount of intelligence. Well Egyptians are a people with black admixture. Some are darker,some are lighter, so that proves the theory false as well.   Do you understand? now?
 
 
 
Nope. I don't see the conexion between self pride or fighting racism, and destroying the historical truth. Many people didn't develop civilizations: Australian Aborigines, Amazonians, Inuits, Germans for instance. That don't convert them in "inferiors" in any way. They don't pretend to descend from the Atlantis, either.
Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

 
Because of the mind games that are played by the racist establishment.
 
 
 
That doesn't allow them to falsify history.
 
Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

 
The proper place of Egypt is an African Civilization, not a so called Middle Eastern Civilization.
 
 
 
"Africa" is a recent invention, derivated from the times of European colonialism. In the ancient times, "Africa" was only the Maghreb, and didn't include the lands south of the Sahara. In other terms "Egypt" exist BEFORE "Africa". And Egypt has always been in the "known world", unlike Subsaharan Africa that was only explored in the 19th century.
 
Even more, Africa is not equivalent to Black
 
QUOTE=Rakasnumberone] 
As for Hawas, 
[/QUOTE]
 
Hawas is a Egyptian. I preffer to believe him.
 
"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: 30-Jun-2008 at 20:15
Originally posted by pinguin

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

You are not understanding the significance nor the context of what I'm saying. First of all understand that we did not create the system of racial classification, it was imposed on us.
 

 

Who is "us". As far as I know you aren't an egyptian.

 

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone


 However, what we were told by the ruling society is that no Africans anywhere on the continent made any achievements. Dark skin was a sign of mental inferiority. Since intelligence is carried in the blood, anyone with any amount of African blood is of inferior intelligence.

 

 

But that fact has nothing to do with Egypt. People ignores the cultures of West Africa. If the same effort put in showing the Egyptian connection with Black Americans (that few people believe) would have been put instead in the archeology of Nigeria, a change would have been produced already.

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

  The widely believed theory was that all people who were not White Europeans were inferior. That includes you, that includes me, that includes modern Egyptians today, that includes Arabs, Chinese and NAtive Americans. Everyone who was not 100% pure blooded European was believed to be racially inferior.

 

 

Believed by whom? In other words, why to care for what ignorants think?

 

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

 
They said NO SOCIETY IN AFRICA ever produced a civilization. Well Egypt is a society in Africa. They said that no black skinned person or a person mixed with a black, no matter how small the amount, was capable of displaying any significant amount of intelligence. Well Egyptians are a people with black admixture. Some are darker,some are lighter, so that proves the theory false as well.   Do you understand? now?

 
 

 

Nope. I don't see the conexion between self pride or fighting racism, and destroying the historical truth. Many people didn't develop civilizations: Australian Aborigines, Amazonians, Inuits, Germans for instance. That don't convert them in "inferiors" in any way. They don't pretend to descend from the Atlantis, either.

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

 Because of the mind games that are played by the racist establishment.
 
 

 

That doesn't allow them to falsify history.

 

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

 
The proper place of Egypt is an African Civilization, not a so called Middle Eastern Civilization.

 
 

 

"Africa" is a recent invention, derivated from the times of European colonialism. In the ancient times, "Africa" was only the Maghreb, and didn't include the lands south of the Sahara. In other terms "Egypt" exist BEFORE "Africa". And Egypt has always been in the "known world", unlike Subsaharan Africa that was only explored in the 19th century.

 

Even more, Africa is not equivalent to Black

 

QUOTE=Rakasnumberone] 

As for Hawas, 

 

Hawas is a Egyptian. I preffer to believe him.

 
[/QUOTE]

Originally posted by pinguin

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

You are not understanding the significance nor the context of what I'm saying. First of all understand that we did not create the system of racial classification, it was imposed on us.


Who is "us". As far as I know you aren't an egyptian.


Originally posted by Rakasnumberone


However, what we were told by the ruling society is that no Africans anywhere on the continent made any achievements. Dark skin was a sign of mental inferiority. Since intelligence is carried in the blood, anyone with any amount of African blood is of inferior intelligence.



But that fact has nothing to do with Egypt. People ignores the cultures of West Africa. If the same effort put in showing the Egyptian connection with Black Americans (that few people believe) would have been put instead in the archeology of Nigeria, a change would have been produced already.

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

The widely believed theory was that all people who were not White Europeans were inferior. That includes you, that includes me, that includes modern Egyptians today, that includes Arabs, Chinese and NAtive Americans. Everyone who was not 100% pure blooded European was believed to be racially inferior.



Believed by whom? In other words, why to care for what ignorants think?


Originally posted by Rakasnumberone


They said NO SOCIETY IN AFRICA ever produced a civilization. Well Egypt is a society in Africa. They said that no black skinned person or a person mixed with a black, no matter how small the amount, was capable of displaying any significant amount of intelligence. Well Egyptians are a people with black admixture. Some are darker,some are lighter, so that proves the theory false as well.   Do you understand? now?



Nope. I don't see the conexion between self pride or fighting racism, and destroying the historical truth. Many people didn't develop civilizations: Australian Aborigines, Amazonians, Inuits, Germans for instance. That don't convert them in "inferiors" in any way. They don't pretend to descend from the Atlantis, either.

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

Because of the mind games that are played by the racist establishment.


That doesn't allow them to falsify history.


Originally posted by Rakasnumberone


The proper place of Egypt is an African Civilization, not a so called Middle Eastern Civilization.



"Africa" is a recent invention, derivated from the times of European colonialism. In the ancient times, "Africa" was only the Maghreb, and didn't include the lands south of the Sahara. In other terms "Egypt" exist BEFORE "Africa". And Egypt has always been in the "known world", unlike Subsaharan Africa that was only explored in the 19th century.


Even more, Africa is not equivalent to Black


QUOTE=Rakasnumberone]

As for Hawas,


Hawas is a Egyptian. I preffer to believe him.

[/QUOTE]

Dear Penguin: Rather than call you an idiot as I did a few months back, I will simply ignore you. Not because you disagree with me, but because of the way in which you go out of your way to take my words out of context and twist them around. Your first question is just a reflection of the degree of ridiculousness to which I refer. No matter how many times I keep saying Afro Americans are not Egyptians, you still keep trying to twist my words and imply that I am trying to make a biological connection where none exists rather than understanding the context. Omshanti asked why the preoccupation amongst Afro Americans with the color issue. I pointed out to him that Afro Americans did not create the system colonial Europeans did. You took what I said out of context deliberately.

As for the rest of your reply...... regardless of what the landmass was called the fact is that Egypt is a part of that land mass that we now call Africa. This is just another example of one of your tactics. Using irrelevant information. No matter what the continent was called, how much of it was explored by outsiders in antiquity the fact is that Egypt is still located on that continent. The continent is now known to the world as Africa and Egypt is still located on it.

As for Hawas. Understand that there is no freedom of the press in Egypt. It is a military dictatorship. People are not free to express their opinions the way we are. Their opinions are dictated by the state. Therefore, whatever Hawas really feels has to take second place to the official government view. If you want to know more about the political situation in Egypt and how it impacts on society and free though, google search Wael Abbas and his work.

Now having said that, there is nothing more I care to say to you.
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: 01-Jul-2008 at 01:07

Originally posted by omshanti

It is quite well known that according to population genetics based on mitochondrial DNA and y-chromosome, people in sub-Saharan Africa show greater diversity than the rest of the world. However mtDNA and y-chromosome prove absolutely nothing about external appearance or who their carriers really were because they make up a tiny part of the entire human genome. They are simply a very good tool to trace the movements of ancient populations because they mutate in a relatively fast pace, which also means that the longer the time of human occupancy of a region, the more diverse the mutations can be in that region. Since Africa is the homeland of modern humans, we can easily see that the humans have occupied Africa longer than the rest of the world hence the bigger diversity in their (especially the Khoisans') mutations of mtDNA and y-chromosome.
Regrading externally visible physical characteristics (which the topic is about), I think that ''sub -Saharan Africa is more diverse than the rest of the world'' is a myth. We just have to pick a north east Asian, south east Asian, a Semang, an Indian, a European, a Papua New Guinean, a Melanesian, an Australian aboriginal, a Polynesian, a native American..etc person and put them all next to each other, and then also pick some people from any different parts of sub-Saharan Africa and do the same. We can then see which group has a greater diversity in their looks.

I agree that mtDNA and y-chromosome studies cover a very small proportion of the human genetic code, but you would have to make the case to me why you think the diversity registered in that small part of the code would not also be reflected in the other parts of the code.

It's definitely not a myth that Sub-Saharan Africans are unusually diverse. Aside from curly hair, I can think of no feature or trait that is characteristic of Sub-Saharan Africans in general. I also can't think of any feature or trait that's supposedly characteristic of any non-African population that isn't present among populations in Africa.

Fundamentally, the human species is relatively young and hasn't gone through any significant changes yet. There have been a couple of regional bottlenecks where local diversity was lost, but nothing significant has been added to the gene pool that isn't present in the source population (Africa). Whatever apparent differences there are between various populations are so superficial and mutable, and flow so gradually into each other, that any attempt to classify them has to be largely subjective.

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: 01-Jul-2008 at 01:33
As regards Dr. Hawass, the fact of the matter is that it's perfectly legitimate to debate the skin pigmentation chosen for the bust shown at the top of this thread. Although the pigment chosen is a possibility, it's definitely at the lighter end of the spectrum compared to modern-day Egyptians.
 
Dr. Hawass is a well-respected Egyptologist, but he's also a supremely media-conscious man who, as far as I can tell, has never met a camera he didn't like (countless Discovery Channel documentaries feature ridiculous b-roll of Dr. Hawass climbing in and out of caverns, and doing his very best Indiana Jones impression). He's not above courting controversy to stimulate interest in his field.
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: 01-Jul-2008 at 02:32
Originally posted by Bernard Woolley

Originally posted by omshanti

It is quite well known that according to population genetics based on mitochondrial DNA and y-chromosome, people in sub-Saharan Africa show greater diversity than the rest of the world. However mtDNA and y-chromosome prove absolutely nothing about external appearance or who their carriers really were because they make up a tiny part of the entire human genome. They are simply a very good tool to trace the movements of ancient populations because they mutate in a relatively fast pace, which also means that the longer the time of human occupancy of a region, the more diverse the mutations can be in that region. Since Africa is the homeland of modern humans, we can easily see that the humans have occupied Africa longer than the rest of the world hence the bigger diversity in their (especially the Khoisans') mutations of mtDNA and y-chromosome. Regrading externally visible physical characteristics (which the topic is about), I think that ''sub -Saharan Africa is more diverse than the rest of the world'' is a myth. We just have to pick a north east Asian, south east Asian, a Semang, an Indian, a European, a Papua New Guinean, a Melanesian, an Australian aboriginal, a Polynesian, a native American..etc person and put them all next to each other, and then also pick some people from any different parts of sub-Saharan Africa and do the same. We can then see which group has a greater diversity in their looks.

<FONT face=Arial size=2>

I agree that mtDNA and y-chromosome studies cover a very small proportion of the human genetic code, but you would have to make the case to me why you think the diversity registered in that small part of the code would not also be reflected in the other parts of the code.


It's definitely not a myth that Sub-Saharan Africans are unusually diverse. Aside from curly hair, I can think of no feature or trait that is characteristic of Sub-Saharan Africans in general. I also can't think of any feature or trait that's supposedly characteristic of any non-African population that isn't present among populations in Africa.


Fundamentally, the human species is relatively young and hasn't gone through any significant changes yet. There have been a couple of regional bottlenecks where local diversity was lost, but nothing significant has been added to the gene pool that isn't present in the source population (Africa). Whatever apparent differences there are between various populations are so superficial and mutable, and flow so gradually into each other, that any attempt to classify them has to be largely subjective.



This is exactly the point many of us have been trying to make as to why we are not comfortable with the term "negro". Its limited to one very specific physical type. The term negro and Sub-Saharan African are used interchangeably when in fact, as you mentioned there is a great range of physical types in the region. There is no one physical type that can be used to represent all of Africa below the Sahara. If we look at West Africa and choose three countries, Guine, Nigeria, and Senegal, you come up with at least 3 different physical types. If you go to Congo, Malawi and South Africa, you will find different types as well. This negro thing is another example of what I talked about of the West's attempt to homogenize people by creating imaginary regions and pretending that they are all the same in terms of language, culture and physical type. It is not true or accurate. Therefore, they come to Africa with preconceived notions of what an "African" should be and when they encounter people who do not fit their artificial model, they either pretend they don't exist or try to make them somehow a part of a non African group.

Edited by Rakasnumberone - 01-Jul-2008 at 02:34
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: 01-Jul-2008 at 02:43
Originally posted by Rakasnumberone


Dear Penguin: Rather than call you an idiot as I did a few months back, I will simply ignore you. Not because you disagree with me, but because of the way in which you go out of your way to take my words out of context and twist them around. Your first question is just a reflection of the degree of ridiculousness to which I refer. No matter how many times I keep saying Afro Americans are not Egyptians, you still keep trying to twist my words and imply that I am trying to make a biological connection where none exists rather than understanding the context. Omshanti asked why the preoccupation amongst Afro Americans with the color issue. I pointed out to him that Afro Americans did not create the system colonial Europeans did. You took what I said out of context deliberately.

I didn't cite you out of context, Dear "Rakasnumberone". I just pick up expressions that you formulate. I didn't comment your speach as a whole, because it was longer than the TV series "Dallas". 
 
The problem with the color issue is that it doesn't matter to history. Many East Indians are even darker than most Subsaharan Africans, and nobody is arguing their culture isn't their.
 
I am afraid you are the one in this debate that has shown the highest sensitivity to skin color, confussing a social phenomena (history) with a chemical effect (genes).
 
 
Originally posted by Rakasnumberone


As for the rest of your reply...... regardless of what the landmass was called the fact is that Egypt is a part of that land mass that we now call Africa. This is just another example of one of your tactics. Using irrelevant information. No matter what the continent was called, how much of it was explored by outsiders in antiquity the fact is that Egypt is still located on that continent. The continent is now known to the world as Africa and Egypt is still located on it.

No tactic at all involved. Egypt is part of Africa, but also part of the Fertile Crescent and the mediterranean coast. Egypt has historical relations with the three, and the strongest looks like to be with Mesopotamia and Palestine, rather than with the people down south the Nile.
 
Originally posted by Rakasnumberone


As for Hawas. Understand that there is no freedom of the press in Egypt. It is a military dictatorship. People are not free to express their opinions the way we are. Their opinions are dictated by the state. Therefore, whatever Hawas really feels has to take second place to the official government view. If you want to know more about the political situation in Egypt and how it impacts on society and free though, google search Wael Abbas and his work.
 
Hawas is a Egyptian, very likely descendent of the real ancient Egyptians. Besides he is a scientific that has a reputation he deserves. I respect his opinion, and understand the reason why he is upset.
Originally posted by Rakasnumberone


Now having said that, there is nothing more I care to say to you.
 
I have nothing more to say you either.
 
"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: 01-Jul-2008 at 03:12
Originally posted by Bernard Woolley

As regards Dr. Hawass, the fact of the matter is that it's perfectly legitimate to debate the skin pigmentation chosen for the bust shown at the top of this thread. Although the pigment chosen is a possibility, it's definitely at the lighter end of the spectrum compared to modern-day Egyptians.
 

Dr. Hawass is a well-respected Egyptologist, but he's also a supremely media-conscious man who, as far as I can tell, has never met a camera he didn't like (countless Discovery Channel documentaries feature ridiculous b-roll of Dr. Hawass climbing in and out of caverns, and doing his very best Indiana Jones impression). He's not above courting controversy to stimulate interest in his field.


And this is just one reason why a lot of historians and Egyptologists in Egypt don't like him. They also resent the fact that there are many people in Egypt who are far more qualified than he is, but because he knew the right people.....

I also know someone whose husband is an archeologist who had worked in Egypt. They had found evidence about certain aspects of historical events in Egypt but were prevented from publishing their findings. Hawas himself on the behalf of the government informed them that if they ever did, they would never be allowed to do another dig in Egypt so long as they lived. When it comes to Egypt, there is ALWAYS the state sanctioned version and real life reality. This even holds true for things like their "folk dance" companies, radio, television and film (all state regulated). Everything is about the image they wish the world to have of them, not the reality. Check out Dr. Henry Clark's Wonders of the African world to see how the interview with the Nubians went down.
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: 01-Jul-2008 at 04:42
Originally posted by pinguin

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

Dear Penguin: Rather than call you an idiot as I did a few months back, I will simply ignore you. Not because you disagree with me, but because of the way in which you go out of your way to take my words out of context and twist them around. Your first question is just a reflection of the degree of ridiculousness to which I refer. No matter how many times I keep saying Afro Americans are not Egyptians, you still keep trying to twist my words and imply that I am trying to make a biological connection where none exists rather than understanding the context. Omshanti asked why the preoccupation amongst Afro Americans with the color issue. I pointed out to him that Afro Americans did not create the system colonial Europeans did. You took what I said out of context deliberately.

I didn't cite you out of context, Dear "Rakasnumberone". I just pick up expressions that you formulate. I didn't comment your speach as a whole, because it was longer than the TV series "Dallas". 

 

The problem with the color issue is that it doesn't matter to history. Many East Indians are even darker than most Subsaharan Africans, and nobody is arguing their culture isn't their.

 

I am afraid you are the one in this debate that has shown the highest sensitivity to skin color, confussing a social phenomena (history) with a chemical effect (genes).

 

 

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

As for the rest of your reply...... regardless of what the landmass was called the fact is that Egypt is a part of that land mass that we now call Africa. This is just another example of one of your tactics. Using irrelevant information. No matter what the continent was called, how much of it was explored by outsiders in antiquity the fact is that Egypt is still located on that continent. The continent is now known to the world as Africa and Egypt is still located on it.

No tactic at all involved. Egypt is part of Africa, but also part of the Fertile Crescent and the mediterranean coast. Egypt has historical relations with the three, and the strongest looks like to be with Mesopotamia and Palestine, rather than with the people down south the Nile.

 

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

As for Hawas. Understand that there is no freedom of the press in Egypt. It is a military dictatorship. People are not free to express their opinions the way we are. Their opinions are dictated by the state. Therefore, whatever Hawas really feels has to take second place to the official government view. If you want to know more about the political situation in Egypt and how it impacts on society and free though, google search Wael Abbas and his work.

 

Hawas is a Egyptian, very likely descendent of the real ancient Egyptians. Besides he is a scientific that has a reputation he deserves. I respect his opinion, and understand the reason why he is upset.

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

Now having said that, there is nothing more I care to say to you.

 

I have nothing more to say you either.

 


Dear Penguin:

Those accustom to reading material over a paragraph in length are not afraid of the written word, which confirms what I suspect. You never took the time to read all of what I had to say. Rather, you read the bits and pieces that your attention span allowed you to grasp and that is why you do not understand what I've been trying to say. Had you done so, you would have seen that all I was doing was giving the cultural and historical context behind the controversy and nothing more.

I'll not waste your time nor mine trying to explain what you got wrong in your reply to me because its obvious you really don't care and don't want to know. You have made you your mind that you know all there is to know about me, the topic and all of history. So to your comments i'll simply say WHATEVER! and leave it at that.

Have a nice day

Edited by Rakasnumberone - 01-Jul-2008 at 04:52
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: 01-Jul-2008 at 05:01

OK, let's not waste time with Egypt. If you want to contribute to the thread about Subsaharan Africa, I would be glad to contribute with what I know as well. If you want to talk about about archaelogy in Subsaharan Africa, African arts influence on modern arts or the bronzes of Ife, I follow as well. Even more, if you are interested in the hot topic of fractals in native Africa... I am also interested and I have posted some things there.

But if you insist is discussing about the Black Athena (Egypt)... well you can follow the discussion by yourself.

Good night.

 



Edited by pinguin - 01-Jul-2008 at 05:03
"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: 01-Jul-2008 at 15:04
Originally posted by pinguin

OK, let's not waste time with Egypt. If you want to contribute to the thread about Subsaharan Africa, I would be glad to contribute with what I know as well. If you want to talk about about archaelogy in Subsaharan Africa, African arts influence on modern arts or the bronzes of Ife, I follow as well. Even more, if you are interested in the hot topic of fractals in native Africa... I am also interested and I have posted some things there.


But if you insist is discussing about the Black Athena (Egypt)... well you can follow the discussion by yourself.


Good night.


 



No Penguin, you don't understand, (typical). I don't want to waste my time talking to you at all. Everything that comes out of your mouth shows you are incapable and unwilling to listen and understand what I'm saying. The fact that I'm a person of African descent makes it impossible for you to see me as anything but an Afrocentrist, which if you had the ability to read and the necessary English comprehension skills, you would see that I'm not. Your stupid comment about Black Athena just shows that to you any black person is an Afrocentrist no matter what they say. Speaking to you is a waste of time because you obviously have a bias when it comes to black people. I can speak to Omshanti and even if we disagree we can have a logical conversation, the same goes for everyone else here except you. Knowing your mentality I dread to see what kind of stuff you wrote.

GOOD BYE PENGUIN.
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: 01-Jul-2008 at 20:19

Bye now.

"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
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 6>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.078 seconds.