posted 26 June 2005 12:17 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by AMR1:

How about paintings of lower Egyptians. ALl the pictures presented here is from Upper Egypt, none from lower Egypt.

---

Thought Writes:

Studying the artistic renditions of the AE people may add SOME value in understanding the biological affinities of the AE's. However, we must keep in mind a few things:

1) AE people often used color in symbolic and not actual terms

2) New kingdom representations of AE elite probably don't give us good insight into what the common people of the time looked like, especially given the fact that foriegn wives were often taken into the Harem's of AE elite.

posted 26 June 2005 12:18 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
Thought Writes:

Actually the ONLY relevent issue when studying or discussing the biological origins of the Ancient Egyptians is PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY. Not ones ethnic background, not photos of modern Egyptians or anything else. Peer-reviewed, scientific anthropology indicates that the AE people derive from a East African background.

---

EXACTLY. AND TO THE POINT.

JUST LOOK AT THIS PAINTING...

posted 26 June 2005 12:25 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by fareed:
Fool, nobody said the Egyptians were Pale White, but rather like their other mediterranean neighbors, who turn quite dark during the hot summer months.

Go look at pictures of tanned Greeks, Arabs, and North Africans and you'll understand how these people can tan very easily and become quite dark, without actually burning their skin like the very pale Northern Europeans.

---

posted 26 June 2005 12:42 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by COBRA:

EXACTLY. AND TO THE POINT.

JUST LOOK AT THIS PAINTING...

NOT-WHITE O.K.

---

I have no douby that this people were not white.

But still what I see, your background is not letting you see it in the same way that background make m see it; that a non white Egypt does not mean black Egypt.

For me those are dark skinned people, but not black.

posted 26 June 2005 12:47 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by AMR1:

For me those are dark skinned people, but not black.

---

Thought Writes:

Please define what YOU mean by the term "Black"?

posted 26 June 2005 01:04 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
Thought Writes:

Please define what YOU mean by the term "Black"?

---

i agree, please define your meaning AMR...

do you mean NRGRO egypt?......then i would agree with you.

posted 26 June 2005 01:06 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by COBRA:

not all people from africa have negro features.

---

Thought Writes:

What are the "Negro features" and which people of Africa carry these features?

posted 26 June 2005 01:14 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
Thought Writes:

What are the "Negro features" and which people of Africa carry these features?

---

Negro features usually in teh center and in the West, which are big lips, small eyes , very harsh hair.

Ancient Egyptians did not have those features.

posted 26 June 2005 01:21 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by AMR1:

Queen Tiye was not an Egyptian MR. HISTORIAN, SHE WAS A NUBIAN PRINCES, MARRIED TO THE PHOROAH OF EGYPT.

---

Queen Tiye was Egyptian, not Nubian. The "Nubian" theory was developed as an explanation of her obviously strong negroid features. The irony is that you can say the same about her husband, Pharoah Amenhotep and her son, Akhenaton. They all have obviously strong negroid features. Nice guess. Try again.

posted 26 June 2005 01:37 PM            

The closest people who represent the nubians and egyptians are the upper egyptians, ethiopia, Beja, somalia and berbar.

not this....

posted 26 June 2005 01:46 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by COBRA:
Nubia and egypt did not have NEGROID features. o.k.

The closest people who represent the nubians and egyptians are the upper egyptians, ethiopia, Beja, somalia and berbar.

not this....

[This message has been edited by COBRA (edited 26 June 2005).]

---

Cobra Upper Egyptains galleries is all what you see here. Lower Egyptians were lighter skin like many lower Egyptians today

Somalis and Southern Ethiopians are very black, although their features are mostly not negroic, while upper AE were brown to light brown.

posted 26 June 2005 01:52 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by AMR1:

Negro features usually in teh center and in the West, which are big lips, small eyes , very harsh hair.

---

Thought Writes:

1) How big are the lips of the Negro? Please be specific.

2) How small are the eyes of the Negro? Please be specific.

3) What do you mean when you say "harsh" hair?

posted 26 June 2005 01:53 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by AMR1:
Cobra Upper Egyptains galleries is all what you see here. Lower Egyptians were lighter skin like many lower Egyptians today

Somalis and Southern Ethiopians are very black, although their features are mostly not negroic, while upper AE were brown to light brown.

---

YOUR STATEMENTS DONT FLOAT UP WELL. I SUGEST YOU RESEARCH ON ETHIOPIANS AND SOMALIES, BECAUSE YOU SEEM TO LACK UNDERSTANDING ON THIS POINT.
AND ANY WAY, LOWER EGYPT IS MOSTLY BEEN MIXED WITH ARABS, OTTAMANS AND EURAPEANS. DEEPLY MIXED INDEED.

MMMM...

posted 26 June 2005 02:01 PM            

WHAT ABOUT ALK WEK. THE SUPER MODEL.

posted 26 June 2005 02:15 PM            

SOTHARN SUDANISE

posted 26 June 2005 04:12 PM            

AE was not Caucasian.

posted 26 June 2005 04:30 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by AMR1:
I have no douby that this people were not white.

But still what I see, your background is not letting you see it in the same way that background make m see it; that a non white Egypt does not mean black Egypt.

For me those are dark skinned people, but not black.

---

You are obviously confused about words and refuse to see the point that is being made.

Black is a term that mainly refers to skin color and hardly ever is meant to describe features like nose shape, lip size or hair texture. Black is defined as those people with medium to dark brown skin, especially those descended from Africa. The counterpart to black is white, which also mostly refers to skin color and those having that color due to being descendants of people from northern Europe and Asia. Therefore, since the Egyptians portrayed themselves with medium to dark brown skin, it must be accepted that this is what their skin complexion was. Ancient Egyptians are mainly Africans and had medium to dark brown skin, which could not have been introduced from outside of Africa. Therefore, there is no reason why they cannot be called black.

Negroid, on the other hand, is a term that has become used quite often as a way of describing features other than skin color. When someone uses negroid, they are quite often referring to the nose shape, lip size and hair texture of the individual and not necessarily the skin color. The counterpart of negroid is caucasoid, which mainly refers to those features typical of people normally referred to as white.

The reason for terms like caucasoid and negroid is the fact that many people of the world do not always have features that are typical of others with the same skin color. Therefore you can have black people with caucasoid features in places like Somalia, North Africa and India and you can have white people with negroid features in places like North Africa, India and parts of Asia.

The whole issue of this thread is therefore whether the ancient Egyptians had dark or light skin. We all can recognize the certain unique features that the Egyptians posses from the hook nose to the small lips and other features distinct to ethnic Egyptians, if you want to consider them an ethnic group. However, such features do not determine skin color. Skin color can only be determined by looking at the skin of the person. If the person is deceased and has decayed to the point where skin color cannot be determined, then a good way to determine skin color is to look at the portraits done of them when alive. Therefore, if the ancients depicted themselves with medium to dark brown skin, then it has to be accepted that this is indeed what their skin color was.

But here is the main point AMR1, if you want to nit pick words and be so particular about the words used, then the sword goes both ways. If you want to reserve words like black for people south of the Sahara, then fine. But at the same token, stop using terms like caucasoid and leave that for people north of the Mediterranean. You only bring up such issues in order to muddy the water and keep going around in circles, especially when someone points out the errors in your thought process. By now you know that when people say black they dont mean sub-saharan, bantu, zulu or anything other than medium to dark brown skin.

posted 26 June 2005 04:40 PM            

Cut out the Negro debate. It is irrelevant to the discussion. E3b are the people of interest not the issue of subjective classification of facial features.

posted 26 June 2005 05:17 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by COBRA:
Nubia and egypt did not have NEGROID features. o.k.

The closest people who represent the nubians and egyptians are the upper egyptians, ethiopia, Beja, somalia and berbar.

not this....

[This message has been edited by COBRA (edited 26 June 2005).]

---

i can't believe what i just read,what's going on here?is something in the water?

this has been settled already.
most early egyptians had negriod features,and i will say and it is already known fact that nubians of the past sure did have negriod features and most still today,even the ones that do not are still called black.you could see it in their art and what the greeks and romans have said.it is wrong to change history and facts.

read this again and i hope i do not have to repeat it.

Contact Us | Help | Text Only





HOME

LIVING HISTORY

EARLY HISTORY

NILE VALLEY

WEST AFRICAN
KINGDOMS

THE SWAHILI

TRADITIONAL
RELIGIONS

ISLAM

CHRISTIANITY

SLAVERY

CENTRAL AFRICAN
KINGDOMS

AFRICA & EUROPE
(1800-1914)

SOUTHERN AFRICA

BETWEEN
WORLD WARS
(1914-1945)

INDEPENDENCE

PROGRAMMES

SEARCH

FORUM/
FEEDBACK




INDEX

Nubia

When discussing the civilisations of the Nile Valley, many histories focus almost exclusively on the role of Egypt.

But this approach ignores the emergence further south on the Nile of the kingdom known to the Egyptians as Kush, in the region called Nubia - the area now covered by southern Egypt and Northern Sudan.

The relationship between Egypt and Kush was a complex one, which changed depending on the political and economic climate of the time.

"Nubia was the meeting place of the Mediterranean and African civilisation. The relationship between Egypt and upper Nubia was completely different from time to time and period to period. If the Egyptian king's power is widespread it catches everything under its control and Nubia comes under Egyptian authority, but if it is weak, then upper Nubia is ruled by itself."
Osama Abdel Meguid, Director of the Nubian Museum in Aswan.

KERMA AND NAPATA
The Kushites were first based in Kerma, and then at Napata - both towns in what is now northern Sudan.

Kerma was an advanced society and archaeological evidence shows that ceramics were being produced by 8,000 BC - earlier than in Egypt. By about 1700 BC, the town had grown into a town of 10,000 people with a complex hierarchical society.

Egypt could not ignore its southern neighbour although its interest was predominantly economic. Nubia was rich with minerals such as stones needed for the building of temples and tombs, and gold, needed for jewelry. Indeed Kush was one of the major gold producers of the ancient world.

At one stage Nubia, was occupied by Egypt for about 500 years and then the tables turned. From around 850 BC, the Egyptian state fell into such decline that what became known as the twenty-fifth dynasty rose in Nubia, with authority over all of Egypt.

This dynasty based at Napata was known as the 'Ethiopian' dynasty. Although it was heavily influenced by Egyptian culture and religion, it was in many ways the first great African power.

"They dealt like Egyptians, they dressed like Egyptians, but they were still proud of their black faces."
Osama Abdel Meguid, Director of the Nubian Museum in Aswan.

In 713 BC King Shabaka came to power in Kush and brought the Nile Valley as far as the Delta under his control. The name of one of his successors, King Taharqa, is found on inscriptions throughout the Valley.

MOVING TO MEROE
The dynasty ended following a military defeat at the hands of the Assyrians and in about 600 BC the capital of the Kushite kingdom was moved from Napata to Meroe, further south along the Nile.

Listen to a dramatisation of Greek geographer Strabo's description of Meroe

This, symbolically, was a move closer to black Africa, and the kingdom that grew up around Meroe was one that very much reflected African influences. The Meroites have been given much less historical attention than the Egyptians but in many ways it was a kingdom that rivaled Egypt in material wealth and distinctive cultural development.

"From the graves and from the images painted on tombs we can see that people looked much more African than Mediterranean. The jewelry is really of an African nature - like anklets, bracelets, ear studs and earrings - and you can still find the style of the jewelry used by the Meroites on tribes of the savannah belt south of Khartoum."
Dr Salah el-Din Muhammed Ahmed, Director of Fieldwork at the National Museum in Khartoum.

Listen to Dr Salah El-Din Muhammed Ahmed, Director of Fieldwork at the National Museum, Khartoum, describing Meroite features as African

<A HREF="http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/africa/features/storyofafrica/rams/3audio4b.ramhttp://w ww.bbc" TARGET=_blank>http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/africa/features/storyofafrica/rams/3audio4b.ram[URL=http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/africa/features/storyofafrica/3chapter4.sht ml]http://www.bbc .co.uk/worldservice/africa/features/storyofafrica/3chapter4.shtml</A>

Meroe was a complex, advanced and politically stable society. It relied on elected kingship with elaborate coronation ceremonies in which the Queen mother played an important role. Excavations of the large ancient city have revealed palaces, royal baths and temples.

EXPANDING KINGDOMS
Meroe's wealth was partly based on trade and commerce, particularly after the Second Century when the camel was introduced to Africa and there was a flourishing of caravan routes across the continent. Its position gave Meroe strategic access to trading outlets on the Red Sea. Pottery, jewelry and woven cloth were all produced to a high standard of craftsmanship.

The kingdom also had the resources needed for the smelting of iron: ore, water from the Nile and wood from acacia trees to make charcoal. Iron gave the Meroites spears, arrows axes and hoes, allowing them to develop a mixed farming economy to exploit to the full the tropical summer rainfall.

Although influenced by the Egyptian state gods, such as Amun, Meroe developed its own forms of religious worship. The most important regional deity was the Lion God, Apedemek - often portrayed with a lion's head on a human body.

As Meroe became more distanced from Egypt, so too was the Egyptian language replaced as the spoken language of the court. Instead a Meroitic alphabet and script were introduced, which to this day researchers have been unable to decipher.

The Kingdom of Meroe began to fade as a power by the first or second century AD, sapped by war with Roman Egypt and the decline of its traditional industries. The iron industry had used up huge quantities of charcoal leading to deforestation and the land began to lose its fertility.

In around 350 AD, an army led by Ezana, King of the growing kingdom of Axum in what is now Ethiopia, invaded Meroe - but by then Meroites had already dispersed, replaced by a people described by the Axumites as Noba.

Listen to Osama Abdel Meguid, Director of the Nubian Museum in Aswan, discussing the Nubian love of the Nile http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/africa/features/storyofafrica/rams/3audio4a.ram
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/africa/features/storyofafrica/rams/3audio4b.ram

http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/africa/features/storyofafrica/rams/3audio4.ram



Early Settlers

Egypt

Key Events

Nubia

The People

Forces For Change

Timeline

Further Reading

Useful Links

http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/africa/features/storyofafrica/3chapter4.shtml

posted 26 June 2005 05:22 PM            

---------------------------------------------

posted 26 June 2005 06:35 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by kenndo:

this has been settled already.
most early egyptians had negriod features

---

Thought Writes:

The point is terms like "Negroid" and "Caucasoid" are outdated terms no longer accepted in MAINSTREAM anthropology. Some Chinese have broad noses, yet they are not "Negroid". Some Aborigines from Australia have very dark skin, yet they are not "Negroid". Robert Mugabe has dark skin, wooly hair and a broad nose, yet thin lips. In that he doesn't have ALL the stereotypical "Negroid" taits does that make him "Negroid" or "Dark Caucasoid". All of this is really silly because Black Africans don't fit into one single morphology that can be labeled "Negroid". Humans have lived in Africa longer than they have lived anywhere else in the world. In addition Africa is geographically huge and ecologically diverse. Both of these factors contribute to inter-African phenotypic diversity. What is important is all of these varieties of Africans have COMMON LINEAGE demonstrated by the PN2 Clade of the Y-Chromosome (E3a and E3b). "Race" is a outdated concept in biology. Racial terms such as "Negroid" and "Caucasoid" are therefore outdated and invalid as well. What is of importance is LINEAGE/ANCESTRY. Get up on game!

posted 26 June 2005 06:58 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by kenndo:
Somalis and Ethiopians are very black, although their features are mostly not negroic, while upper AE were brown to light brown.

---

NO THEY DONT IDIOT.

posted 26 June 2005 07:08 PM            

THAT is Negroid

No...!

posted 26 June 2005 07:14 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jizan:

THAT is Negroid

---

Thought Writes:

It is allways of interest to note how when the light of science is shined on a issue the trolls often resort to the oversimplification of complex issues. African people are diverse. The term and stereotype of the "Negroid" does not capture this diversity anymore than the stereotype of the "Nordic" captures the diversity in Europe. More importantly populations as diverse as Bantu, Afar and Somali all have a common, recent genetic heritage via the PN2 Clade of the Y-Chromosome.

posted 26 June 2005 07:19 PM            

Hey White Bantu,

These people below are pure Eritreans: the Kunama.
Relaxx

posted 26 June 2005 07:22 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
Thought Writes:

It is allways of interest to note how when the light of science is shined on a issue the trolls often resort to the oversimplification of complex issues. African people are diverse. The term and stereotype of the "Negroid" does not capture this diversity anymore than the stereotype of the "Nordic" captures the diversity in Europe. More importantly populations as diverse as Bantu, Afar and Somali all have a common, recent genetic heritage via the PN2 Clade of the Y-Chromosome.

---

posted 26 June 2005 07:25 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by relaxx:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jizan:
[b][b]kenndo have you ever seen a ethiopian or somali who looks like this?

Hey White Bantu,

These people below are pure Eritreans: the Kunama.
Relaxx

[/B]

---

Theyre Nilotic/Nilote. Not Aethiopids.

Compare them to this Cushitic Afar Eritrean!

posted 26 June 2005 07:29 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jizan:

So...Even Berbers have that PN2 Clade with Bantus jet they look nothing alike. Phenotype is all that mathers.

---

Thought Writes:

"Matters" for what? We use genetics to evaluate lineage and history of the ANCIENT Egyptians. Ancient Egypt is the focus of this forum. The Phenotype of Africans as diverse as Bantu to the Afar's grade into one another when we compare them with other groups in any global analysis.

posted 26 June 2005 08:11 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by kenndo:
Somalis and Ethiopians are very black, although their features are mostly not negroic, while upper AE were brown to light brown.

---

NO THEY DONT IDIOT.

[This message has been edited by Jizan (edited 26 June 2005).]

posted 26 June 2005 08:32 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jizan:
So...Even Berbers have that PN2 Clade with Bantus jet they look nothing alike. Phenotype is all that mathers.

---

Yes they do. But that is not all that Berbers have now is it?

Phenotype does not determine your origin so why use it to define race when race is supposed to define your origins? Phenotype is also subjective where as DNA is completely objective.

As for the Berbers, they have R1B, N and E3b. They have a higher degree of R1B and N than E3b and consequently they are more Caucasian. Someone that is pure E3b with almost no other Non-African influence does not look like you modern day Berber.

They look like your Borana.

Phenotype does not reveal who your closest relatives are! That would be weak science at best. DNA is the best approach.

posted 26 June 2005 08:32 PM            

How is it that you keep missing the point?

This is a picture of native ancient Egyptians showing them as brown skinned and African.

What the hell does this have to do with Africans anywhere else? The picture above is all I need to prove the point being made. You, however, keep going round and round in circles bringing up issues about what other Africans look like in other parts of Africa WHEN NOBODY IS TALKING ABOUT THEM.
You must be the stupidest person ever or just naive to think noone would see through this charade.

If you are so against portraying ancient Egyptians as being the same as other Africans WHY DO YOU KEEP BRINGING IT UP? Keep to the point, which is how this picture above is typical of ancient Egyptian depictions of themselves and how they portrayed themselves as medium to dark brown and is the most authorative evidence on how the ancients looked. We don't need a photo gallery of all African tribes to discuss this point. EXCEPT IF YOU JUST WANT TO KEEP POSTING NONSENSE THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS ISSUE.

posted 26 June 2005 08:38 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by osirion:

As for the Berbers, they have R1B, N and E3b. They have a higher degree of R1B and N than E3b and consequently they are more Caucasian. Someone that is pure E3b with almost no other Non-African influence does not look like you modern day Berber.

---

posted 26 June 2005 10:16 PM            

It has become a "War of the Terms" here! What does one mean by "negroid", "aethiopid", "nilotic", "Bantu", etc?! All these groups are variants of black Africans! No mixture just variation.

so-called "Mongoloid" asians vary also. Some have noses as wide as the "typical negroid" of West Africa, while others have narrow noses like Ethiopians or even white people. Which is why features like wide noses are not really "negroid" and narrow noses are not really "caucasoid"!!

All these people you argue about are black and unmixed, and all are much closely related to each other than non-Africans!!

And Osirion, what do you mean by "orginal Egyptian"?? The earliest remains in Nile Valley had features similar to "typical negroes" of West Africa, while later remains from the Neolithic show gracile "caucasoid" types that are really peoples like Ethiopians and Somalians. ALL are black, and there is no need to make conflict between them!!

posted 27 June 2005 12:29 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
This thread is ridiculous!!

It has become a "War of the Terms" here! What does one mean by "negroid", "aethiopid", "nilotic", "Bantu", etc?! All these groups are variants of black Africans! No mixture just variation.

so-called "Mongoloid" asians vary also. Some have noses as wide as the "typical negroid" of West Africa, while others have narrow noses like Ethiopians or even white people. Which is why features like wide noses are not really "negroid" and narrow noses are not really "caucasoid"!!

All these people you argue about are black and unmixed, and all are much closely related to each other than non-Africans!!

And Osirion, what do you mean by "orginal Egyptian"?? The earliest remains in Nile Valley had features similar to "typical negroes" of West Africa, while later remains from the Neolithic show gracile "caucasoid" types that are really peoples like Ethiopians and Somalians. ALL are black, and there is no need to make conflict between them!!

[This message has been edited by Djehuti (edited 26 June 2005).]

---

Typical Negroes? You mean like the Olmecs? What is it to be Negroid? Is it just simply a few facial features? If so aren't the Australian and many of the SouthEast Asians not also Negroid? Where do we draw the lines to distinguish? Where does one race become another based on such terms as Negroid. It is easy to define what a Caucasian is since all you have to do is trace genetic mutations back to Caucasus region (easy to argue why AE wasn't Caucasian). But Negroid is completely Phenotype based with no regional information and thus it has become an issue of great debate.

I think the term Negroid should be abandoned for something less subjective such has genetic terms or haplogroup Adams.

Thus why I wanted to talk about E3b populations and what people think of these groups.

posted 27 June 2005 12:44 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Super car:
Where can I find a peer reviewed substantiation for this claim?

---

Actually your right, the Berbers are apparently East African primarily. Therefore they cannot be regarded as Caucasian.

--------------

In the present study we have analyzed 44 Y-chromosome biallelic polymorphisms in population samples from northwestern (NW) Africa and the Iberian Peninsula, which allowed us to place each chromosome unequivocally in a phylogenetic tree based on >150 polymorphisms. The most striking results are that contemporary NW African and Iberian populations were found to have originated from distinctly different patrilineages and that the Strait of Gibraltar seems to have acted as a strong (although not complete) barrier to gene flow. In NW African populations, an Upper Paleolithic colonization that probably had its origin in eastern Africa contributed 75% of the current gene pool. In comparison, 78% of contemporary Iberian Y chromosomes originated in an Upper Paleolithic expansion from western Asia (I define this as being Caucasian), along the northern rim of the Mediterranean basin. Smaller contributions to these gene pools (constituting 13% of Y chromosomes in NW Africa and 10% of Y chromosomes in Iberia) came from the Middle East during the Neolithic and, during subsequent gene flow, from Sub-Saharan to NW Africa. Finally, bidirectional gene flow across the Strait of Gibraltar has been detected: the genetic contribution of European Y chromosomes to the NW African gene pool is estimated at 4%, and NW African populations may have contributed 7% of Iberian Y chromosomes. The Islamic rule of Spain, which began in A.D. 711 and lasted almost 8 centuries, left only a minor contribution to the current Iberian Y-chromosome pool. The high-resolution analysis of the Y chromosome allows us to separate successive migratory components and to precisely quantify each historical layer.

Am. J. Hum. Genet., 68:1019-1029, 2001
0002-9297/2001/6804-0022$02.00
© 2001 by The American Society of Human Genetics. All rights reserved.

posted 27 June 2005 12:50 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by COBRA:

same leanage......NOT NEGRO!!!

---

Define what a Negro is and at what point does one stop being one? We don't use the term Negro in the US since I think it is offensive; not sure, I don't have many Black friends to let me know what is appropriate (I also didn't know Nigger was a reference to Negro). Regardless, we would consider Horn of Africa people to be Black. In terms of having Negroid phenotypes, I am no expert on that and it is quite subjective (If you have thick lips but and narrow nose are you still Negroid? If you have a Big flat nose and thick lips but have straight hair and pale skin are you still Negroid? If you have thin lips but a Big flat nose are you still Negroid? It is a ridiculous game of words. Again, Genetic lineages are what is important since we can be objective).

All I can say is that these Cushitic people are Black people since thats the social definition I am accustomed to. In terms of genetics, they are pure African people with relative little Non-African admixture. Consequently, I call these people Black Africans. The reason for the constant debate about this is because people cannot define Negro, Negroid, Black, etc. So, lets not debate and simply call them what they genetically are: PN2 clade.

As a consequence, 55% of African American are part of this lineage. As a result, if African Americans want to align themselves with AE history they have genetic evidence to do so. So why the debate?

posted 27 June 2005 02:15 PM            

Osirion, we are discussing E3b currently on my forum. Perhaps you could share your imput:

http://phpbb-host.com/phpbb/index.php?mforum=thenile&sid=3c0ff216939a6328416d229e26825b96