posted 27 December 2004 02:44 PM            

quote:

---

S.Mohammad:

I know that and I never said all Mesolithic Northwest Africans are biologically akin to sub-Saharans, I only mentioned Types A and B. Learn to read what I post and quit knocking down cheap strawman arguments.

---

Do you really believe that there are only 4 distinct types of northwest African faces?

There is something flawed with your theory. I think these are rough generalisations and there is much more variation.

quote:

---

S.Mohammad:

Who mentioned anything about the Haratin? There is some certitude because Haratin are biologically the closest to ancient Egyptians on the basis of blood groups, so it isn't to far fetched

---

Yes but there is great overlapping in blood groups between populatons. The distribution is mostly individual. E.g a Swede and an Kenyan may share the same blood group.

quote:

---

S.Muhammad:

I never said the Kenyan Capsian and North African Capsian were the same. I said there was a such thing as the Kenyan Capsian(though it was wrongfully named). Don't words in my mouth.

---

The modern name is Eburran. The industry was found in a small area near lake Nakuru.

[This message has been edited by Orionix (edited 27 December 2004).]

posted 27 December 2004 02:59 PM            

quote:

---

rasol:

Not that you have the foggiest clue about Capsian, since.... when we first educated you on the Kenyan Capsian you repeatedly denied that it even existed.

---

There is no evidence for any relationship between the Eburran culture of Kenya and the Gafsan culture of Tunisia.

quote:

---

rasol:

Your 'non-racial' racial agenda was to somehow 'prove' the 'causasian' basis of Capsian, which you failed to do then, and are pitiably reduced to denying even having tried to do now.

---

I have no agenda but when i would have it will be more reliable than yours that is for sure.

quote:

---

rasol:

And...actually yes, there are some scholars who link Paleolithic Black Africans of the Maghreb to those of other parts of Africa including Kenya...both in terms of anatomy and culture.

---

posted 27 December 2004 03:13 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orionix:
There is no evidence for any relationship between the Eburran culture of Kenya and the Gafsan culture of Tunisia.

---

Thought Posts:

The Origins Of Afroasiatic
Chrsitopher Ehret, S.O.Y. Keita, Paul Newman
Science
Letters Section
Vol 306
December 3, 2004

"A critical reading of genetic data analysis, specifically those of Y Chromosome phylogeography and TaqI 49a,f haplotypes, supports the hypothesis of populations moving FROM the Horn or Southeastern Sahara NORTHWARD to the Nile Valley, NORTHWEST AFRICA, the Levant, and Aegean. The geography of the M35/215 (or 215/M35) lineage, which is of Horn/East African origin, is largely concordant with the range of Afroasiatic languages."

posted 27 December 2004 03:14 PM            

quote:

---

I have no agenda but when i would have it will be more reliable than yours that is for sure

---

I am sure we can all continue to rely on Lyin-ix for plagiarisations, backtracking, far fetched claims, vulgarity and lies. In other words...laughs-o-plenty.

posted 27 December 2004 03:17 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orionix:
What is so insightful by claiming that NW African Cro-Magnons were black which is clearly a scientific no-no. [This message has been edited by Orionix (edited 27 December 2004).]
[This message has been edited by Orionix (edited 27 December 2004).]

---

Thought Writes:

posted 27 December 2004 03:26 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:

Please tell us SPECIFICALLY why the term "Black", in and of itself is a scientific "no-no"?

---

Because race is SOCIAL.

posted 27 December 2004 03:27 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orionix:
What is so insightful by claiming that NW African Cro-Magnons were black which is clearly a scientific no-no..]

---

quote:

---

Thought Writes:
Please tell us SPECIFICALLY why the term "Black", in and of itself is a scientific "no-no"?

---

posted 27 December 2004 03:29 PM            

quote:

---

Thought Posts:

The Origins Of Afroasiatic
Chrsitopher Ehret, S.O.Y. Keita, Paul Newman
Science
Letters Section
Vol 306
December 3, 2004

"A critical reading of genetic data analysis, specifically those of Y Chromosome phylogeography and TaqI 49a,f haplotypes, supports the hypothesis of populations moving FROM the Horn or Southeastern Sahara NORTHWARD to the Nile Valley, NORTHWEST AFRICA, the Levant, and Aegean. The geography of the M35/215 (or 215/M35) lineage, which is of Horn/East African origin, is largely concordant with the range of Afroasiatic languages."

"The same archaeological pattern occurs west of Egypt, where domestic animals and, later, grains were GRADUALLY adopted after 8000 yr B.P. into the established pre-agricultural Capsian culture, present across the northern Sahara since 10,000 yr B.P. From this continuity, it has been argued that the pre-food-production Capsian peoples spoke languages ancestral to the Berber and/or Chadic branches of afroasiatic, placing the porot-Afroasiatic period distinctly before 10,000 yr B.P."

---

posted 27 December 2004 03:40 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:

Please tell us SPECIFICALLY why the term "Black", in and of itself is a scientific "no-no"?

---

quote:

---

Because race is SOCIAL.

---

You confuse all things: craniometry and phrenology; race and racism; Capsian and Caucasian; Black and race.

quote:

---

Also if a Caucasian race does not exist than a black race does not exist either.

---

posted 27 December 2004 03:47 PM            

quote:

---

Thought Posts:

The Origins Of Afroasiatic
Chrsitopher Ehret, S.O.Y. Keita, Paul Newman
Science
Letters Section
Vol 306
December 3, 2004

"A critical reading of genetic data analysis, specifically those of Y Chromosome phylogeography and TaqI 49a,f haplotypes, supports the hypothesis of populations moving FROM the Horn or Southeastern Sahara NORTHWARD to the Nile Valley, NORTHWEST AFRICA, the Levant, and Aegean. The geography of the M35/215 (or 215/M35) lineage, which is of Horn/East African origin, is largely concordant with the range of Afroasiatic languages."

"The same archaeological pattern occurs west of Egypt, where domestic animals and, later, grains were GRADUALLY adopted after 8000 yr B.P. into the established pre-agricultural Capsian culture, present across the northern Sahara since 10,000 yr B.P. From this continuity, it has been argued that the pre-food-production Capsian peoples spoke languages ancestral to the Berber and/or Chadic branches of afroasiatic, placing the porot-Afroasiatic period distinctly before 10,000 yr B.P."

---

The idea of the stone age whites of NorthWest Africa origins of Berber is shown to be a holdover from pre molecular genetics era anthropology and outdated semito-hamitic linguistics. Modern linguistics and genetics have decimated this notion.

posted 27 December 2004 03:47 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orionix:
Because race is SOCIAL.

Also if a Caucasian race does not exist than a black race does not exist either. Otherwise you're a two trick pony.

---

X4Dumbass, biological affinity, NOT race is whats really being discussed. Racial terms like Black, white, Negroid, and Caucasoid are arbitrary, but biological affinities outweighs all of this.

posted 27 December 2004 03:53 PM            

quote:

---

rasol:

Black is a phenotypical feature which like 'blonde', or prognathous, or aqualine, or mesomorphic, or diminuative....exists, regardless of what one thinks about race.

---

We had discussed this already. Black is a social and cultural category.

I think that only in the USA blacks means predominantly African descended and white means predominantly European descended.

quote:

---

rasol:

You confuse all things: craniometry and phrenology; race and racism; Capsian and Caucasian; Black and race.

---

Phrenology is a branch of craniometry and race goes with racism. Everything is true except Capsian and Caucaians.

quote:

---

rasol:

If A ! = C then therefore B! = C. Broken logic.

---

According to you Caucasian is meaningless and rejected but black African is still valid. Only the white race does not exist. Broken logic.

posted 27 December 2004 03:58 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orionix:

According to you Caucasian is meaningless and rejected but black African is still valid. Only the white race does not exist. Broken logic.

---

Caucasian wasn't just used to identify the white race, its also used(erroneously) for North Africans and South Indians along with Middle eastern people.

posted 27 December 2004 04:05 PM            

quote:

---

According to you Caucasian is meaningless and rejected but black African is still valid. Only the white race does not exist.

---

As for for the erstwhile caucasianists...they nonsensically speak of 'black caucasians' who are neither
white, nor european, nor asian nor descendant from peoples of the caucacus mountains, so you aren't describing their nonsense correctly either, but merely piling yours on top of it.

That is why the concept of Caucasian is dieing. It is simply, a far fetched notion stretched to the breaking point and now forced to backtrack in the face of overwhelming evidence. It is the hyperdiffusionist Eurocentrists who have overreached with their concept of Caucasian and so rendered the term little more than oxymoron, that continues on today more out of zombie/inertia....much like you are in this thread.

And that is why your prior argument about the caucasian caveman origins of Berber was such a fallacious disaster, as S. Mohammad's parent post succenctly shows, and you cannot dispute in the least...for all your ill informed ranting.

posted 27 December 2004 04:06 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by S.Mohammad:

X4Dumbass, biological affinity, NOT race is whats really being discussed. Racial terms like Black, white, Negroid, and Caucasoid are arbitrary, but biological affinities outweighs all of this.

---

In the book you posted the author makes the same mistake.

He is trying to divide northwestern Africans according to 4 facial types (Type A, Type B, Type C and Type D). Also why do you think the book was called Stone Age races of Northwest Africa

This is exactly what the concept of biological racial taxonomy is all about: generalization.

Basically there could be 10,000 (just throwing a number) recognisable northwest African faces but the author chose only four for his own purpose

posted 27 December 2004 04:14 PM            

quote:

---

Basically there could be 10,000 (just throwing a number) recognisable northwest African faces but the author chose only four

---

All clustering is based ultimately on generalisation. You supported the notion of clustering as long as you thought you could cluster NorthWest Africans with Europeans; now when the results expose the fallacious nature of your preferred caucasoid delusions....you reject the methodology; classic example of bias.

posted 27 December 2004 04:23 PM            

quote:

---

Caucasian wasn't just used to identify the white race, its also used(erroneously) for North Africans and South Indians along with Middle eastern people.

---

posted 27 December 2004 04:27 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

All clustering is based ultimately on generalisation. You supported the notion of clustering as long as you thought you could cluster NorthWest Africans with Europeans;

---

The clustering of populations by geography is supported in molecular genetics but the human genome project analysing thousands of DNA polymorphisms found out that the biological variations are 85-90% individual.

quote:

---

rasol:

now that the results expose the fallacious nature of your preferred caucasoid delusions....you reject the methodology; classic example of bias.

---

What preferred caucasoid delusions are you talking about?

You are the kind who sees the world in terms of black and white. I think it's quite sad actually.

posted 27 December 2004 04:32 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by S.Mohammad:

Caucasian wasn't just used to identify the white race, its also used (erroneously) for North Africans and South Indians along with Middle eastern people.

---

Caucasian means white race. I believe the term should have referred to Europeans and Anatolians for all its purposes.

posted 27 December 2004 04:35 PM            

quote:

---

The clustering of populations by geography is supported in molecular genetics but the human genome project (analysing thousands of DNA polymorphisms found out that the biological variations are 85-90% individual.

---

quote:

---

What caucasoid delusions are you talking about

---

posted 27 December 2004 04:36 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

Truth. And Polynesian, and Native Australian, and Chinese, and Native American and Zulu, and....

---

No the term Caucasoid (white) was used for Europe (first place; except the Finns and Laps), the Middle East and the predominant part of North Africa. The rest were not considered Caucasoid.

posted 27 December 2004 04:44 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orionix:
[b] Do you have access to the full study?

---

Thought Writes:

posted 27 December 2004 04:44 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orionix:
No the term Caucasoid (white) was used for Europe (first place; except the Finns and Laps), the Middle East and the predominant part of North Africa. The rest were not considered Caucasoid.

---

And no, I won't supply you with more information. Your tactic of begging by way of belligerent ignorance has limited charms as far as i'm concerned.

posted 27 December 2004 04:48 PM            

Thought Writes:

I have never stated that the terms Black OR White equate with a racial paradigm. Where is this coming from?

{I think that only in the USA blacks means predominantly African descended and white means predominantly European descended.}

Thought Writes:

If you recognize the fact that Americans use the term Black as an equivalent to indigenous African what are really challenging? Are you saying there is no such thing as indigenous African?

posted 27 December 2004 04:49 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orionix:
Caucasian means white race. I believe the term should have referred to Europeans and Anatolians for all its purposes.

---

Thought Writes:

posted 27 December 2004 04:52 PM            

quote:

---

Thought Writes:

I have never stated that the terms Black OR White equate with a racial paradigm. Where is this coming from?

---

posted 27 December 2004 05:13 PM            

quote:

---

Thought:

If you recognize the fact that Americans use the term Black as an equivalent to indigenous African what are really challenging? Are you saying there is no such thing as indigenous African?

---

According to the American definitions indigenous African means black and indigenous European means white.

But i don't care about the American definitions. Each nation or culture have their own.

posted 27 December 2004 05:17 PM            

quote:

---

Thought Writes:

Why do you believe the term should have referred to Europeans and Anatolians for all its purposes?

---

Because geographically they are relatively close to eachother.

posted 27 December 2004 05:32 PM            

Thought Writes:

Ok, but your point was that “Black” was somehow a racial term. Please provide evidence to support these two seemingly contradictory positions?

posted 27 December 2004 05:34 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orionix:
Because geographically they are relatively close to eachother.

If race had any use at all in the biological sciences is to distinguish between geographic groups of people.

---

Thought Writes:

posted 27 December 2004 06:27 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orionix:
Do you really believe that there are only 4 distinct types of northwest African faces?

[This message has been edited by Orionix (edited 27 December 2004).]

---

The beautiful thing about Briggs works is that beside its
unquestionable academic merit he spent time among his subject.
Field work outside the ivory tower is how one become an
athoritative specialist.

In a broadside, not under discussion, Briggs does us the
inestimable favor of including 157 photographs with clear view
of the faces of The Living Races Of The Sahara Desert.

posted 28 December 2004 12:33 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:

Thought Writes:

Ok, but your point was that “Black” was somehow a racial term. Please provide evidence to support these two seemingly contradictory positions?

---

posted 28 December 2004 12:48 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orionix:
[b] My point was that if black is a social pile for indigenous African than white is indigenous European.

---

Thought Writes:

posted 29 December 2004 10:01 AM            

Berbers live throughout North Africa, but nowhere has denial of their identity been more systematic than in Morocco, ethnically the most Berber of the regions countries.

Although 60 percent of the its population claim Berber descent and nearly 40 percent speak 1 of 3 Berber languages, Morocco's constitution delcares the country part of "Arab" North Africa, and makes no mention of the Berber.

posted 29 December 2004 11:34 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
From January National Geographic:

Berbers live throughout North Africa, but nowhere has denial of their identity been more systematic than in Morocco, ethnically the most Berber of the regions countries.

Although 60 percent of the its population claim Berber descent and nearly 40 percent speak 1 of 3 Berber languages, Morocco's constitution delcares the country part of "Arab" North Africa, and makes no mention of the Berber.

[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 29 December 2004).]

---

The Maghreb is plagued with unrest as its people grapple with
their identity crisis split between Imazighen, Berber, and Arab
stirrings.

Whats interesting is I find elements among the "Arab" camp who
recognize Maghrebi connections with the rest of Africa whereas
Amazigh activists have a tendency to deny any relationship to
Sahara Sudanese culture or lineage.

posted 11 January 2005 12:02 AM            

ok, so i've actually been following this thread--all 3 pages (mostly)--and i have a question to ask you all. this may not seem important to you, depending on where you live, but it is actually an issue i need to deal with. well, i don't need to deal w/it--i already have--but i fear that there are otehrs around me who have yet to deal w/it and i would like to know what your perceptions are based on your knowledge on this topic:

as a modern-day egyptian, would i be considered "african-american" or of african origin?

i already have an idea from some around me, and based on my very limited knowledge, i get the impression that studies on modern-day egyptians shows that they are closely related to ancient egyptians; but was wondering what you all thought about it.

[[me personally? i have come to the conclusion--and i accept it w/o hesitation--that i am of african descent/african origin; i have no qualms w/this, but i just don't "look" the part. my sister looks more mulatto, but i'm wondering about me.]]

posted 11 January 2005 12:10 AM            

quote:

---

shereens:
hi, there, and happy belated new year!

ok, so i've actually been following this thread--all 3 pages (mostly)--and i have a question to ask you all. this may not seem important to you, depending on where you live, but it is actually an issue i need to deal with. well, i don't need to deal w/it--i already have--but i fear that there are otehrs around me who have yet to deal w/it and i would like to know what your perceptions are based on your knowledge on this topic:

as a modern-day egyptian, would i be considered "african-american" or of african origin?

i already have an idea from some around me, and based on my very limited knowledge, i get the impression that studies on modern-day egyptians shows that they are closely related to ancient egyptians; but was wondering what you all thought about it.

[[me personally? i have come to the conclusion--and i accept it w/o hesitation--that i am of african descent/african origin; i have no qualms w/this, but i just don't "look" the part. my sister looks more mulatto, but i'm wondering about me.]]

thanx!! in advance.

---

posted 11 January 2005 12:13 AM            

Other Africans who migrated to the USA of their own free will
are best described as Egyptian American, Senegalese American, etc.

posted 11 January 2005 12:15 AM            

See the following:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/9507/c-wh1-ane-yurco.htm

Modern Egyptians are closely related to the ancient Egyptians,but there has been admixture from the Middle Kingdom period down to the Greco-Roman period. The muslim population has slight admixture from Turks,and the Christian population have mixed slightly to heavily with Syrian and Greek populations.

Still in many regions of Egypt we have retained a good portion of our culture intact despite various invasions by various foreigners.

posted 11 January 2005 12:17 AM            

quote:

---

I think African American describes those whose ancestors experienced
the middle passage.

Other Africans who migrated to the USA of their own free will
are best described as Egyptian American, Senegalese American, etc

---

posted 11 January 2005 04:26 PM            

#2. i guess after writing my post, i realize my question is probably more political than not. this issue means nothing to me, really, except when it comes to checking that minority box and if i'm eligible for certain programs.

in the u.s., there is the "one-drop rule": if a person has one drop of negro/african in them, then they are considered black. there are folks who are half black/half white, but do not look african who are still considered african-american. others have two very black african parents, but b/c somewhere up the line they had one white ancestor, they then happen to exhibit the european features very much; yet they are black/african-american. i know for a fact that other black africans consider me to be african-american as well.

yes, it's true that u.s. society is trying to level the playing field for those africans who were viciously discriminated against institutionally; however, even modern-day africans who migrate freely to the u.s. are still considered "african-american". there are no separate nationalities listed, unless you are talking about far east asians (then that group gets broken down further into vietnamese, filipino, etc).

even modern-day latinos/hispanics, no matter from what social class, who travel from south america or central america to the u.s. are eligible as "latinos/hispanics".

that is my real question...

ultimately, i have always considered myself to be a "mutt", and proud of it (i do get the sense, though, that arabic-speaking middle-easterners have a more difficult time thinking of egypt as african...)

posted 11 January 2005 08:08 PM            

Thought Writes:

How does a mulatto look?

{in the u.s., there is the "one-drop rule"}

Thought Writes:

A rule is a law. All laws have some authority behind them. Who enforces the so-called “One-Drop Law”? And if you say SOCIETY please tell us specifically HOW society enforces this law?

{if a person has one drop of negro/african in them}

Thought Writes:

How does one have a drop of Negro in them? And aren’t all human genes subsets of African genes anyway?

{there are folks who are half black/half white, but do not look African}

Thought Writes:

My understanding of the principles of physics is that two things can’t exist at the same place, at the same time, without one thing being dominant and the other thing recessive. Furthermore how would you know that these folks are actually HALF Black and HALF white? How does the TYPICAL African LOOK?

{i have always considered myself to be a "mutt”}

Isn’t the term “mutt” short for Muttonhead, which is a dog? African HUMANS have a much nobler heritage!

posted 11 January 2005 08:55 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
Isn’t the term “mutt” short for Muttonhead, which is a dog? African HUMANS have a much nobler heritage!

---

mutt (DOG)
noun MAINLY US
(UK) a mongrel

mongrel (DOG)
noun (US INFORMAL ALSO mutt) MAINLY DISAPPROVING
a dog whose parents are of different breeds

mutt (PERSON)
noun MAINLY US INFORMAL
a person who behaves in a silly or careless way

posted 11 January 2005 09:00 PM            

quote:

---

Thought Writes:

How does one have a drop of Negro in them? And aren’t all human genes subsets of African genes anyway?
[/B]

---

So much harm has been done effecting the way African people see themselves thru the eyes and mindset of others, who often have had ill intent towards us.

posted 11 January 2005 09:23 PM            

Sight Writes:

I to agree that how one chooses to classify ones self is indeed personal. But in keeping with the topic of this forum, which is Ancient Egypt, one has to look at the issue within the context of Egyptology and hence biological anthropology. Within the realm of science and biological anthropology almost ALL humans on earth are “mixed”. So when we study the modern Egyptian population as a tool to ascertain the origins of Ancient Egyptians we should study these origins NOT within the framework of a absolutist paradigm, but within a more careful and fluid context. The question is really a matter of PRIMARY origins, not simply admixture.

posted 11 January 2005 11:02 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:

Sight Writes:

I to agree that how one chooses to classify ones self is indeed personal. But in keeping with the topic of this forum, which is Ancient Egypt, one has to look at the issue within the context of Egyptology and hence biological anthropology. Within the realm of science and biological anthropology almost ALL humans on earth are “mixed”. So when we study the modern Egyptian population as a tool to ascertain the origins of Ancient Egyptians we should study these origins NOT within the framework of a absolutist paradigm, but within a more careful and fluid context. The question is really a matter of PRIMARY origins, not simply admixture.

---

posted 11 January 2005 11:05 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by ABAZA:
Shereens,

The U.S. government has already solved your problem.

ALL EGYPTIANS ARE CLASSIFIED AS CAUCASIANS.

The Definition for Caucasians in the U.S. is anyone whose ancestors came from Europe, North Africa, and the Middle-East.

The majority of Modern Day Egyptians, look Caucasian, with a slight Admixture of other racial types. Even the Nubians, are not all Dark skinned as some would have you think!!

The term African American, can not be used by people from Egypt or other North African Natives, becasue here in the U.S., the Blacks, have hijacked the Term for themselves only.

Therefore, if you call yourself African-American, people would think you're Black.

As a matter of fact, if you attempt to label yourself as such, African=American on Government Forms, your choice will be deleted and changed to Caucasian.

The U.S. government is not stupid, they knew quite well what they're doing.

Egyptians, Arabs, North Africans, and Other Non-Europeans are also Caucasians, and not only just the people in Europe.

By the way, there is no such thing as a European Continent, it is called Eurasia, one big land mass, that holds very white people, as well as very dark people, such as the Dravidians in India.

The term African, does not mean Black.
It is only a Geographical Term, as as Eurasian is a Geographic term.

There are people in Italy, Spain, Greece, and other European countries who are actually darker than some Egyptians, yet they're still Caucasians.

Shereens, the problem is not you, it is the Afrocentrics, who have been trying to hijack the Egyptian Culture and Civilization for Decades, but we must not let them steal our Heritage. They just can't find any other worthy African heritage to latch on to.

Be a proud Egyptian, because, we are alot better than all of them!!

.

[This message has been edited by ABAZA (edited 11 January 2005).]

---

Thought Writes:

Troller!

posted 11 January 2005 11:15 PM            

quote:

---

ALL EGYPTIANS ARE CLASSIFIED AS CAUCASIANS.

---

lol that doesn't mean darn thing, it doesn't matter what you are classified as in the U.S. People will look at Egyptians as an Arabs thats all.

quote:

---

Therefore, if you call yourself African-American, people would think you're Black.

---

Actually I have to inform you that their are many African-Americans lighter than their Egyptian counterparts.

posted 11 January 2005 11:19 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by efe_adodo:
Abaza, Actually I have to inform you that their are many African-Americans lighter than their Egyptian counterparts.

What I find strange about your above statement is that you desperately try to connect yourself with the "white" people (if I may say that). In the U.S no white person would ever see themselves as equals with Egyptians or anybody else.

---