PHILADELPHIA (FinalCall.com) - National Geographic magazine insulted the historical and cultural legacy of Blacks during Black History Month by distorting history and blatantly insinuating that ancient Egyptians were anything but Black, said a critic. In an exclusive interview with The Final Call, Temple University scholar Dr. Molefi Kete Asante decried the article’s entire framework, beginning with its title “The Black Pharaohs-Conquerors of Ancient Egypt.”
“If you assume that this article is about the Black pharaohs then the question that is begged is that, who were the other pharaohs?” Dr. Asante asserted.
According to the author of “The History of Africa,” a comprehensive history of the continent, National Geographic writer Robert Draper erroneously suggests the pharaohs were not Black and it didn’t matter since “the ancient world was devoid of racism. At the time of Piye’s (the Nubian monarch who reunified Ancient Egypt) historic conquest of Egypt, the fact that his skin was dark was irrelevant,” he argued.
Mr. Draper jabbed at Black scholarship stating, “Revisiting that golden age in the African desert does little to advance the case of Afrocentric Egyptologists, who argue that all Ancient Egyptians . . . were Black Africans.”
Mr. Draper added, “Tut’s own grandmother, the 18th dynasty Queen Tiye, is claimed by some to be of Nubian heritage.”
He points to a bust of Queen Tiye and asks, “Did the powerful Queen Tiye, King Tut’s grandmother, have Nubian ancestry? This bust, made of wood that has darkened with age, has inspired claims that she did.”
Dr. Asante scoffed at that notion. “Look at the lips! These days what we have to do is assume that these people will never accept it. They will never accept the truth ... that nothing like this was in Europe. Greece and Rome combined do not make Egypt.”
Referring to Septimus Severus, a Black Emperor of Rome, Mr. Asante said, it would have been better to write an article called “The Black Emperors of Rome.” “That would of made sense since most of them are White. But to say ‘The Black Pharaohs of Egypt’ where most of them were Black, that doesn’t make sense,” he said.
“I disagree with the article’s intent because the intent is to throw African people a bone. This article came as the result of the tremendous attempt on the part of Europeans to claim Egypt as not African. That was the attempt of the King Tutankhamen’s exhibit when it was first presented. So this is a long struggle.” National Geographic has a history, going back at least to the 1940s, of portraying the ancient Egyptians as anything other than Black. The June 2005 edition featured a Caucasian-looking King Tut on the cover. The same image was used on a King Tut exhibit that recently toured the country and featured on the cover of the February 2008 edition.
Seemingly anticipating some backlash, the online edition of National Geographic provides a video of Dr. Zawi Hawas, head of the Supreme Council for Egyptian Antiquities, who said the race and the origin of the ancient Egyptians are difficult to ascertain.
He attempted to explain away the Black statues. “If you look at the statues that were colored black, it doesn’t mean anything. Sometimes black can show the fertility of the land,” said Dr. Hawas.
Another video provided is of Shomarka Omar Keita, a Black geneticist who postulates that modern Egyptians look similar to ancient Egyptians, i.e., light skinned Arabs or non-Black.
“The idea that the Ancient Egyptians are like the current Egyptians is so far off that it is laughable. General Amr ibn al As was invited by the Black people of Egypt of the 7th century to come over to help throw out the Romans, when this was so he remained. This was the beginning of the large Arab presence in Egypt, 639 (B.C.) was the major movement of Arabs to Egypt. They found the Black people already there.
“The presence of Arabs today in Egypt should not be read as an ancient presence just as a White presence in Australia should not be read as an ancient presence. The same for America. We have to take back the writing of our own history for it is absolutely essential,” Dr. Asante said.
He pointed to ancient firsthand testimony from the 5th century Greek historian Herodotus who referred to the ancient Egyptians as “melanchroes” (Black-skinned). Dr. Asante argued if the ancient Egyptians were White, Herodotus would have used the term “leucochroes” and if brown or red skinned “phrenychroes” would have been used.
Professor Asante debunks the notion that ancient Egyptians did not refer to themselves as Black as European Egyptologists suggest. The meaning of Egypt or Kemet is “Black nation,” “Black country,” “the Black City,” “Black land,” or “Land of the Black People,” Dr. Asante said.
quote: Another video provided is of Shomarka Omar Keita, a Black geneticist who postulates that modern Egyptians look similar to ancient Egyptians, i.e., light skinned Arabs or non-Black.
I'd really like to see that video of S. Keita asserting that Modern and Ancient Egyptians are one and the same since that seems to contradict previous statements made by this same person, as well as his own interpretation of the skeletal and genetic data. My first impression would be that it's a distortion of what he actually said. If not, I'd have to say that I'm definitely disappointed in him.
^^I believe that they oversimplified his position, though I do see where they'd draw that from what he said, given that they be selective in what they want to hear (especially the ridiculous part about light-skinned non-blacks since Keita said no such thing). He said that the diversity in Modern Egypt would indeed probably be similar to the diversity of the past, though directly proceeding, he emphasized that northern Egypt had indeed been infiltrated by many non-Egyptian ethno-nationalities. The implication is that the diversity in the south would be a better representation. I don't disagree with this at all and the author I think took Keita out of context as he also affirms ancient Egypt's African identity within the same piece as well as criticizing pseudo-scholarship that seeks to divide Africa into north and southern regions by way of the Sahara, identifiable through skin color. Keita is a true scholar, they need to cut the crap. Glad I gave him the benefit of the doubt.
Good post btw, SEEKING. First time seeing the prof. portrayed on video. I keep checking Myra's site for any updates but the most recent paper of his that I can access is 3 years old. I wouldn't mind getting my hands on something newer from him concerning this topic.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Hawass: If you look at the statues that were colored black, it doesn’t mean anything. Sometimes black can show the fertility of the land.
^ I would love to put a lie detector on this clown when he says this while trying to keep a straight face.
Kemet, Black "Egypt"....lives, and to this day still strikes fear in the heart of imposters like Hawass.
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sundiata:
quote: Another video provided is of Shomarka Omar Keita, a Black geneticist who postulates that modern Egyptians look similar to ancient Egyptians, i.e., light skinned Arabs or non-Black.
I'd really like to see that video of S. Keita asserting that Modern and Ancient Egyptians are one and the same since that seems to contradict previous statements made by this same person, as well as his own interpretation of the skeletal and genetic data. My first impression would be that it's a distortion of what he actually said. If not, I'd have to say that I'm definitely disappointed in him.
^^I believe that they oversimplified his position, though I do see where they'd draw that from what he said, given that they be selective in what they want to hear (especially the ridiculous part about light-skinned non-blacks since Keita said no such thing). He said that the diversity in Modern Egypt would indeed probably be similar to the diversity of the past, though directly proceeding, he emphasized that northern Egypt had indeed been infiltrated by many non-Egyptian ethno-nationalities. The implication is that the diversity in the south would be a better representation. I don't disagree with this at all and the author I think took Keita out of context as he also affirms ancient Egypt's African identity within the same piece as well as criticizing pseudo-scholarship that seeks to divide Africa into north and southern regions by way of the Sahara, identifiable through skin color. Keita is a true scholar, they need to cut the crap. Glad I gave him the benefit of the doubt.
Good post btw, SEEKING. First time seeing the prof. portrayed on video. I keep checking Myra's site for any updates but the most recent paper of his that I can access is 3 years old. I wouldn't mind getting my hands on something newer from him concerning this topic.
Evergreen Writes:
The problem is not in what Dr. Keita stated. The problem is the context of the discourse. Egypt was an admixed civilization, but so was Greece, Sumeria, ancient China and every other civilization if we get rid of the racial paradigm. However, Egypt is the only civilization which has to be put through this sort of litmus test. It is naturally assumed for example that Greece is a "Western Civilization". If we are going to deconstruct the racial construct let's do so equally and apply the same racial deconstruction to Greece.
On the point of phenotype in Ancient Egypt certainly the modal phenotype in modern Egypt is more Eurasian than the modal phenotype in ancient Egypt. A proper model has not been used to assess this and I disagree with Keita on this point.
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen: [QUOTE]On the point of phenotype in Ancient Egypt certainly the modal phenotype in modern Egypt is more Eurasian than the modal phenotype in ancient Egypt. A proper model has not been used to assess this and I disagree with Keita on this point.
1. Many elements of Eurasian phenotype such as melanin level and eye color were still evolving as late as the neolithic period.
2. There is no evidence of large-scale Eurasian migration into Egypt prior to the Late Kingdom.
3. The boundaries of the civilization of Ancient Egypt waxed and wanned and often included parts of Sudan.
4. Early Palestinians were themselves of recent (holocene) African ancestry. The major shift in Palestine may have occured with the migration of populations from Central Asia circa 2,000 BC.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
Actually, there is no battle. This isn't some World Wrestling Federation tag team match where every body is getting hyped up for some big show down. It doesn't work like that. This is about serious and mature scholarship, not emotional gamesmanship.
The PROBLEM here is that BLACK African scholarship has REGRESSED, from where it was. Where are the RECENT books on Ancient Egypt, Sudan, Chad and West Africa showing UP TO DATE information on the ancient cultures on these regions? Where are the BLACK AFRICAN scholars publishing accounts of THEIR OWN history? Why are blacks BEGGING WHITES to tell the truth about black HISTORY? Why aren't blacks TELLING THEIR OWN history? Blacks shouldn't have to BEG WHITES to tell their history for them. That is ridiculous. They shouldn't have to PROTEST in order to get the TRUTH to be told. There should be DOZENS of books by BLACK AFRICAN authors on the black legacy in Ancient Egypt. Who writes MOST of the books on Ancient Egypt? And therein lies the problem. People from THOUSANDS of miles away from Egypt writing books and researching a culture THAT THEY had nothing to do with.
30 years after PROTESTING to get African/African American studies onto American University campuses, WHAT scholars have they produced? Molefi Asante is responsible for getting a PHD African Studies program at Temple University, one of the first in the country and what SCHOLARSHIP has this produced? Africans are still in PROTEST mode as opposed to PROACTIVE mode. Which means they STILL haven't achieved the ability to develop, promote and distribute THEIR OWN scholarship to DEBUNK white supremacy. Sad. Very sad and blacks LIVE in Africa, most white scholars don't.
The funny part is that MUCH of the modern scholarship shows VERY CLEARLY that Upper Egypt has ALWAYS had significant relations with the South, specifically Northern Sudan.
Cultures in Nabta Playa, Wadi Kubbaniya and elsewhere are ALL said to be precursors to dynastic Egyptian culture.
Predynastic centers as Nubt (probably would be called "nubtia/nubia" if using proper english and the closest thing to a region called Nubia by the ancient Egyptians) were very actively trading with and interacting with cultures in Northern Sudan.
Most of the most ancient settlement sites in the Nile Valley are in Northern and Central Sudan and Upper Egypt, like Nabta Playa, Wadi Kubbaniya and Arkin 8, along with the Khartoum Mesolithic.
The pattern of predynastic culture that eventually became Egyptian culture arose in the South of Egypt, sharing many similarities with the older cultures of Northern Sudan, Upper Egypt and the Sahara.
Almost all of the pharaohs from old kingdom to the late period depicted themselves in black granite from Aswan, like the kushites. This region has ancient sites of granite artifacts in the predynastic.
The early dynasties were ALL located in the South.
The First Nome of dynastic Egypt was called Ta Seti, the same name as the ancient Kingodm of Northern Sudan.
The first intermediate period and other periods had a few pharaohs named Nehesi, indicating that these were Southerners. Nehesi is the term often used for Southerners in Egypt.
The Middle Kingdom featured many pharaohs from Ta Seti and even had a hymn speaking of the rise of a Pharaoh from Ta Seti land.
The 18th dynasty arose with strong support from the South, including strong ties of religion, whereby Gebel Barkal was considered the southern Shrine of Amun and source of pharaonic power, where the 18th dynasty pharaohs proclaimed that this was the ancient original site of Amun worship.
Many of the oldest deities in the Egyptian pantheon originated in Upper Egypt and Ta Seti.
All of these things are widely documented and based on facts an evidence. Therefore, where is the battle? It is obvious that throughout the history of dynastic Egypt, there have been ties between Egypt, Northern Sudan and the Sahara. Therefore, how on earth can the 25th dynasty be the first to have a Pharoah from so-called Nubia, when there were many pharaohs from Ta Seti and the South before this.
Therefore, this battle is really just a bunch of noise making and toe squishing, trying to mash sour grapes in the smack down of bitter fruit, but not about facts and evidence.
Of course the name of the Article "The black Pharaohs", is misleading because it omits all of the facts of ties and culture between Northern Sudan and Egypt since before there was an Egyptian state. It presents Egypt as separate from Sudan when it isn't and anyone who calls that out as a non factual way of presenting Nile Valley history is quite accurate.
And as for the term black itself, given the large number of images from Egypt of undeniably black Africans from old Kindom to Late period, it is impossible to suggest that blacks Kings only arrived in Egypt during the 25th dynasty.
And many more. Compare these images from Egypt to that on the cover of National Geographic and tell me that the first black pharaohs got to Egypt in the 25th dynasty.
quote:On the point of phenotype in Ancient Egypt certainly the modal phenotype in modern Egypt is more Eurasian than the modal phenotype in ancient Egypt. A proper model has not been used to assess this and I disagree with Keita on this point.
I would think that the modal phenotype of Eurafrican in the North and African in the South. All the photos and Egyptians I have met attest to this.
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
quote:Originally posted by lamin:
quote:On the point of phenotype in Ancient Egypt certainly the modal phenotype in modern Egypt is more Eurasian than the modal phenotype in ancient Egypt. A proper model has not been used to assess this and I disagree with Keita on this point.
I would think that the modal phenotype of Eurafrican in the North and African in the South. All the photos and Egyptians I have met attest to this.
What's a Eurafrican?
Posted by Chimu (Member # 15060) on :
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen: Early Palestinians were themselves of recent (holocene) African ancestry. The major shift in Palestine may have occured with the migration of populations from Central Asia circa 2,000 BC.
Do you have a genetic study that supports your back migration theiry from Central Asia to Palestine such that it replaced local populations?
Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
quote:What's a Eurafrican?
Most North Africans--confirmed by the DNA of North African[Iberian] and the Y chromosome DNA of the males[East African E3b].
But let me correct observation above that the modal phenotype in the North of Egypt is Eurafrican. I would say rather that it is Afroasiatic. That is the original African phenotype partially modified over the millenia and centuries by invaders and migrants from West Asia and its environs--Turkey, Greece, etc.
Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
Correction above: "...DNA of North African females(Iberian--i.e. Spain, Portugal, etc.)"
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chimu:
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen: Early Palestinians were themselves of recent (holocene) African ancestry. The major shift in Palestine may have occured with the migration of populations from Central Asia circa 2,000 BC.
Do you have a genetic study that supports your back migration theiry from Central Asia to Palestine such that it replaced local populations?
Evergreen Writes:
No. Hence this is why I never claimed that Central Asians **replaced** indigenous Palestinians during the Bronze Age. What I claimed was a major **shift** in relation to genetic ancestry. This is supported in the linguistic, historic and archaeological record.
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
quote:Originally posted by lamin:
quote:What's a Eurafrican?
Most North Africans--confirmed by the DNA of North African[Iberian] and the Y chromosome DNA of the males[East African E3b].
But let me correct observation above that the modal phenotype in the North of Egypt is Eurafrican. I would say rather that it is Afroasiatic.
Evergreen Writes:
So what is the Afroasiatic phenotype? Is it best represented by the Hausa, the Sephardic Jew or the Beja? I allways thought Afroasiatic was a language and not a phenotype.
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
quote:Originally posted by Chimu:
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen: Early Palestinians were themselves of recent (holocene) African ancestry. The major shift in Palestine may have occured with the migration of populations from Central Asia circa 2,000 BC.
Do you have a genetic study that supports your back migration theiry from Central Asia to Palestine such that it replaced local populations?
Evergreen Writes:
No. Hence this is why I never claimed that Central Asians **replaced** indigenous Palestinians during the Bronze Age. What I claimed was a major **shift** in relation to genetic ancestry. This is supported in the linguistic, historic and archaeological record.
Evergreen Writes:
Here is one of the many examples of back-migration from various parts of Eurasia into the Levant since the Bronze Age that would create a tangible impact on the modal phenotype of modern Egypt.
Evergreen Posts:
Crusades, Islam Expansion Traced in Lebanon DNA Amitabh Avasthi for National Geographic News
March 28, 2008
A new study has found genetic traces of both the arrival of the Crusades and of the expansion of Islam in Lebanon.
The findings not only confirm well-documented history but also present a rare genetic trail showing the movement of two major religions into Lebanon, scientists say.
"Lebanon has always had a rich history of receiving different cultures," said the study's lead author, Pierre Zalloua, an associate professor at the Lebanese American University,
"This study tells us that some of them did not just conquer and leave behind castles. They left a subtle genetic connection as well."
Zalloua and his colleagues at the National Geographic Society's Genographic Project were conducting a broader survey of Middle Eastern populations when they stumbled upon their finding. (The National Geographic Society owns National Geographic News.)
Unlike previous studies that have relied on mitochondrial DNA—which is passed on maternally—to unlock secrets of human migration, researchers in the current study focused on the paternally provided Y chromosome, as it is thought to provide more detailed information.
The study appears in the current issue of the American Journal of Human Genetics.
Crusaders and Muslims
The distribution of genetic markers at first appeared virtually indistinguishable across the Christian, Druze, and Muslim populations of Lebanon. But a closer look at the Y chromosomes of 926 Lebanese men sampled in the study revealed something intriguing.
"We noticed some interesting lineages in the dataset. Among Lebanese Christians, in particular, we found higher frequency of a genetic marker—R1b—that we typically see only in Western Europe," said Spencer Wells, a National Geographic Explorer-in-Residence.
The study matched the western European Y-chromosome lineage against thousands of people in France, Germany, Italy, and the United Kingdom. Wells said the lineage was seen enriched to a higher frequency only in the Christian populations in Lebanon and was not seen in the Muslim population.
"It certainly doesn't undermine the similarities among the various Lebanese communities, but it does agree with oral tradition—that some Lebanese Christians are descendents of Crusaders—and points to a genetic connection to the Crusaders," he added.
"We have a correspondence between what we knew about the history of the region from written documents and what we're starting to see that in the genetic patterns as well."
The researchers noticed a similar pattern when they looked at Y-chromosome lineages in the Muslim population.
"We found that a lineage that is very common in the Arabian Peninsula—Hg J*—is found in slightly higher frequencies preferentially in the Muslim population," said Wells, who also heads the Genographic Project.
Wells said that even though the genetic matches are found only in about 2 percent of the population, they provide a detectable impact of two historical migrations into Lebanon.
"What is cool is that we found this lineage in the Lebanese Christians that we don't see elsewhere in the Middle East, or at least we haven't seen it yet," Wells said. "So it seems to have migrated from Western Europe relatively recently into the Lebanese population of Christians, but not Muslims.
"Now what historical events would have brought a substantial number—2 percent—of Y chromosomes in the Christian population in from Western Europe?" he added. "The most likely answer is the Crusades."
The Genographic researchers say their discoveries suggest, in particular, that Crusaders from the 11th to 13th centuries A.D. introduced their lineages into the Lebanese population.
The expansion of Islam from the Arabian Peninsula beginning in the seventh century A.D. likely introduced lineages into people who subsequently became Lebanese Muslims, they add.
Not Convinced
Peter Underhill is a senior research scientist at Stanford University who has previously analyzed Y chromosomes to study human migrations out of Africa.
He says the treasure trove of data from the new study will be helpful in studying historical human migrations. But he is not fully convinced about the findings.
"I must admit that I hesitate to fully embrace the assumptions and the conclusions of major historic Crusader and Muslim influences being the major forcing factors modulating the genetic landscape in Lebanon," Underhill said.
"I am always tempted to ask the question, What if the Crusaders or Muslim events never happened? Is it feasible that one would still see similar patterns?"
Christians were established and converting "locals" in the Middle East prior to the arrival of the Crusaders, Underhill pointed out. The Greeks also had a pre-Crusade presence, so the chromosome match could have come from Greece rather than France or England.
But Wells and his colleagues disagree.
"The fact that we do detect significant excesses of the lineages Hg J* and R1b in the relevant Lebanese subpopulations requires explanation," Wells said.
"The documented Muslim and Crusader migrations could, following Underhill's line of reasoning, have left no genetic impact, but in that case, other undocumented migrations of significant numbers of men from the same source regions must have taken place."
Wells said such an alternative explanation is more complicated and less plausible than the simpler explanation that the migrations known from history are responsible for the observed genetic effects.
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen: Early Palestinians were themselves of recent (holocene) African ancestry. The major shift in Palestine may have occured with the migration of populations from Central Asia circa 2,000 BC.
Do you have a genetic study that supports your back migration theiry from Central Asia to Palestine such that it replaced local populations?
Evergreen Writes:
No. Hence this is why I never claimed that Central Asians **replaced** indigenous Palestinians during the Bronze Age. What I claimed was a major **shift** in relation to genetic ancestry. This is supported in the linguistic, historic and archaeological record.
Do you have a genetic study supporting this "Shift"?
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
Here is one of the many examples of back-migration from various parts of Eurasia into the Levant since the Bronze Age that would create a tangible impact on the modal phenotype of modern Egypt.
Evergreen Posts:
Crusades, Islam Expansion Traced in Lebanon DNA Amitabh Avasthi for National Geographic News
March 28, 2008
A new study has found genetic traces of both the arrival of the Crusades and of the expansion of Islam in Lebanon.
The findings not only confirm well-documented history but also present a rare genetic trail showing the movement of two major religions into Lebanon, scientists say.
"Lebanon has always had a rich history of receiving different cultures," said the study's lead author, Pierre Zalloua, an associate professor at the Lebanese American University,
"This study tells us that some of them did not just conquer and leave behind castles. They left a subtle genetic connection as well."
Zalloua and his colleagues at the National Geographic Society's Genographic Project were conducting a broader survey of Middle Eastern populations when they stumbled upon their finding. (The National Geographic Society owns National Geographic News.)
Unlike previous studies that have relied on mitochondrial DNA—which is passed on maternally—to unlock secrets of human migration, researchers in the current study focused on the paternally provided Y chromosome, as it is thought to provide more detailed information.
The study appears in the current issue of the American Journal of Human Genetics.
Crusaders and Muslims
The distribution of genetic markers at first appeared virtually indistinguishable across the Christian, Druze, and Muslim populations of Lebanon. But a closer look at the Y chromosomes of 926 Lebanese men sampled in the study revealed something intriguing.
"We noticed some interesting lineages in the dataset. Among Lebanese Christians, in particular, we found higher frequency of a genetic marker—R1b—that we typically see only in Western Europe," said Spencer Wells, a National Geographic Explorer-in-Residence.
The study matched the western European Y-chromosome lineage against thousands of people in France, Germany, Italy, and the United Kingdom. Wells said the lineage was seen enriched to a higher frequency only in the Christian populations in Lebanon and was not seen in the Muslim population.
"It certainly doesn't undermine the similarities among the various Lebanese communities, but it does agree with oral tradition—that some Lebanese Christians are descendents of Crusaders—and points to a genetic connection to the Crusaders," he added.
"We have a correspondence between what we knew about the history of the region from written documents and what we're starting to see that in the genetic patterns as well."
The researchers noticed a similar pattern when they looked at Y-chromosome lineages in the Muslim population.
"We found that a lineage that is very common in the Arabian Peninsula—Hg J*—is found in slightly higher frequencies preferentially in the Muslim population," said Wells, who also heads the Genographic Project.
Wells said that even though the genetic matches are found only in about 2 percent of the population, they provide a detectable impact of two historical migrations into Lebanon.
"What is cool is that we found this lineage in the Lebanese Christians that we don't see elsewhere in the Middle East, or at least we haven't seen it yet," Wells said. "So it seems to have migrated from Western Europe relatively recently into the Lebanese population of Christians, but not Muslims.
"Now what historical events would have brought a substantial number—2 percent—of Y chromosomes in the Christian population in from Western Europe?" he added. "The most likely answer is the Crusades."
The Genographic researchers say their discoveries suggest, in particular, that Crusaders from the 11th to 13th centuries A.D. introduced their lineages into the Lebanese population.
The expansion of Islam from the Arabian Peninsula beginning in the seventh century A.D. likely introduced lineages into people who subsequently became Lebanese Muslims, they add.
Not Convinced
Peter Underhill is a senior research scientist at Stanford University who has previously analyzed Y chromosomes to study human migrations out of Africa.
He says the treasure trove of data from the new study will be helpful in studying historical human migrations. But he is not fully convinced about the findings.
"I must admit that I hesitate to fully embrace the assumptions and the conclusions of major historic Crusader and Muslim influences being the major forcing factors modulating the genetic landscape in Lebanon," Underhill said.
"I am always tempted to ask the question, What if the Crusaders or Muslim events never happened? Is it feasible that one would still see similar patterns?"
Christians were established and converting "locals" in the Middle East prior to the arrival of the Crusaders, Underhill pointed out. The Greeks also had a pre-Crusade presence, so the chromosome match could have come from Greece rather than France or England.
But Wells and his colleagues disagree.
"The fact that we do detect significant excesses of the lineages Hg J* and R1b in the relevant Lebanese subpopulations requires explanation," Wells said.
"The documented Muslim and Crusader migrations could, following Underhill's line of reasoning, have left no genetic impact, but in that case, other undocumented migrations of significant numbers of men from the same source regions must have taken place."
Wells said such an alternative explanation is more complicated and less plausible than the simpler explanation that the migrations known from history are responsible for the observed genetic effects.
Um, that is European influence and recent.. Not from Central Asia.
Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
quote:So what is the Afroasiatic phenotype? Is it best represented by the Hausa, the Sephardic Jew or the Beja? I allways thought Afroasiatic was a language and not a phenotype.
It would refer to those sections of the population of West Asia[Arabia and the Gulf states especially but here and there all over the Levant and places like Iraq, Iran, Turkey, etc.] and North Africa where it can be historically documented that an original African population has exchanged DNA(mixed) with an original West Asian population. Perhaps 30% of the Arabian peninsula and perhaps 30% of Northern Egypt, Lybia and Tunisia. But of course, such must be proven by DNA(Y and MtDNA) analysis.
Sure, according to Western linguists like Joseph Greenberg, who replaced "Hamito-Semitic" with "Afro-Asiatic", the latter is a "family of related languages", but I think the term is also appropriate for the obviously Africanoid populations of the Arabian peninsula and some elements of North Africa.
Note that even though Greenberg(Jewish) had no problem with "Semitic languages" he chose to throw out "Hamitic" because of its spurious racial connotations.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
^ You may be missing the point regarding Greenberg.
The idea of Hamito-Semito is rooted in two false premises.
1) That Semitic is the base of these related languages.
2) That African languages can be grouped together because they are the product of Asiatic Semites who waundered into Africa.
Greenberg was *one of* the earliest linguists to face the fact that Semitic is one of the youngest languages in this proposed family which otherwise exists entirely in Africa.
Meanwhile - never is there a Hamitic family, such that Taureg/Berber and Hausa/Chadic are somehow related to each other, but not to Tigray/Semitic.
That there is a Semitic family is not in dispute. But it's part of a broader family of African languages.
Christopher Ehret has taken Greenberg's reasoning to it's logical conclusion and replaed the term Afro-Asiatic with Afrisan.
The term Asiatic is reasoned correctly by Ehret as ultimately biased and the product of Eurocentric wishfull thinking as there are too few of this languages spoken in Asia to warrant such a designation.
It is very interesting to note the language disjunction that exists between "Africa and the Levantine", on the one hand, the southern Europe on the other.
Europes language history is disjunctive with the political-geography conception of "meditteranean", which like most Euro-geography exists as propaganda assertion aimed at falsely conflacting the role of Europeans in history.
Posted by Alive-(What Box) (Member # 10819) on :
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen: Evergreen Writes:
The problem is not in what Dr. Keita stated. The problem is the context of the discourse. Egypt was an admixed civilization, but so was Greece, Sumeria, ancient China and every other civilization if we get rid of the racial paradigm. However, Egypt is the only civilization which has to be put through this sort of litmus test. It is naturally assumed for example that Greece is a "Western Civilization". If we are going to deconstruct the racial construct let's do so equally and apply the same racial deconstruction to Greece.
On the point of phenotype in Ancient Egypt certainly the modal phenotype in modern Egypt is more Eurasian than the modal phenotype in ancient Egypt. A proper model has not been used to assess this and I disagree with Keita on this point.
^Precisely!
It seems I can never restrain myself from stressing this enough.
Posted by Chimu (Member # 15060) on :
And you guys should make that claim more. Greeks obviously had strong contact with Ethiopians and they would have been a part of their population. They were no more a "White" Civilization than Egypt was a "Black" civilization.
Posted by Mmmkay (Member # 10013) on :
^ The "ethiopians" of the ancient world was not referring to modern day ethiopia. it comes from the greek word "aitheopian" which means "burnt faces". There were usually refering to black african groups south and west of egypt.
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
Mmmkay wrote:
------------------------- The "ethiopians" of the ancient world was not referring to modern day ethiopia. it comes from the greek word "aitheopian" which means "burnt faces". There were usually refering to black african groups south and west of egypt. -------------------------
hahahaha
The peowuvian pea brain just got lampooned by his own pseudoscience.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chimu: And you guys should make that claim more. Greeks obviously had strong contact with Ethiopians
^ lol @ racist knucklehead Chimpu, still trying to sell his *mixed-up* ideology to and audience that laughs at him.
If the precense of Ethiopians in Greece makes Greece a mixed and therefore 'non white' civilisation, then it also makes Greece a mixed and thefore non European civilisation, as Ethiopians are as non European as they are non white.
And since subsequent "European" societies derive from Greece.... this means that Rome, Spain Great Britian, etc. are also non European civilisations.
All that is required to make this argument is to play the concept of Europe off against "mixture" in which case virtually nothing in Europe is -european-.
Finally, since African and Asian civilisation far predate European it follows that no European society can escape their influence, in which case there can be no European civilisation..
Chimpu, you should try arguing that, instead of focusing your racist obsessions on Africans.
As is, you only prove yourself to be a slow witted debator as well as a racist loon.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mmmkay: ^ The "ethiopians" of the ancient world was not referring to modern day ethiopia. it comes from the greek word "aitheopian" which means "burnt faces". There were usually refering to black african groups south and west of egypt.
Actually it isn't entirely clear what the term Aitheopian derives from.
It could indeed relate the notion of Aeithopes ie - burnt faces - but could equally derive from Kemetic - Eithoshi = "frontier".
The Greeks sometimes used the terms Ethiopia even to reference non Blacks and quite specifically so - "leuco Aeithiopoes" - technically 'white Ethiopian', sometimes referenced some Maghrebi. Ethiopian was also used by the Greeks as a general reference to Africans or Blacks including Egyptian and Sudanese, and sometimes as you note to specifically reference Africa south of Egypt.
Posted by Mmmkay (Member # 10013) on :
^ Just curious, in what writing(s) did the greeks refer to or call egyptians "ethiopian"? They often made comparisons between the ethiopians and egyptians but i don't remember them directly refering to egyptians *as* ethiopian. I was under the impression they refered to them as Egyptians. As I understand, ethiopian would become a "catch-all" term for non-egyptians africans the greeks came across or knew of.
Posted by Sundiata (Member # 13096) on :
^My testimony won't be as useful due to lack of detail and specific citation, but I specifically recall a particular Greco-Roman author named Virgil discussing the "Aethiopians of southern Egypt". As a matter of fact, you type in the key words "Aethiopians" and "Southern Egypt" (with in the same string) into google, and you'll even find pages referencing such. You'll also see some of the Eurocentric slant used to explain it away. Posted by Chimu (Member # 15060) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mmmkay: ^ The "ethiopians" of the ancient world was not referring to modern day ethiopia. it comes from the greek word "aitheopian" which means "burnt faces". There were usually refering to black african groups south and west of egypt.
I am well aware of this. Your point? Aethiopia usually was referring to Sudan and beyond.
Rasol explained it some of it.
quote:It could indeed relate the notion of Aeithopes ie - burnt faces - but could equally derive from Kemetic - Eithoshi = "frontier".
The Greeks sometimes used the terms Ethiopia even to reference non Blacks and quite specifically so - "leuco Aeithiopoes" - technically 'white Ethiopian', sometimes referenced some Maghrebi. Ethiopian was also used by the Greeks as a general reference to Africans or Blacks including Egyptian and Sudanese, and sometimes as you note to specifically reference Africa south of Egypt.
I doubt it came from Eithoshi, as there is no indication of a Phonetic EITHo- but always a clear aeTHIOP sound.
quote:Originally posted by rasol: ^ lol @ racist knucklehead Chimpu, still trying to sell his *mixed-up* ideology to and audience that laughs at him.
LOL. The Black racist is still trying to claim everyone else racist but himself.
quote:If the precense of Ethiopians in Greece makes Greece a mixed and therefore 'non white' civilisation, then it also makes Greece a mixed and thefore non European civilisation, as Ethiopians are as non European as they are non white.
Nice try. Culture is situational. Greece was a creolized culture taking foreign and local influences. Just like Egypt. Doesn't change that Greece was European and Egypt was African.
quote:As is, I only prove myself to be a slow witted debator as well as a racist loon.
Fixed
Posted by Sundiata (Member # 13096) on :
^^Well, as stated, there were exceptions, as in the case of Virgil who referenced the Ethiopians of southern Egypt.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
^ Correct. You really have to understand that the Greeks did not have the word -Africa-.
Aiethiopes literally does not contain the word black or the concept of black. It just doesn't.
The word for Black in Greek is Melas.
This is from whence the term "melanin" is derived.
It is the strongest, clearest and most direct Greek term for black.
In Herodotus the Histories, whenever he references black, melas, is the term that is used:
"Two black doves flew away from Egyptian Thebes, and while one directed its flight to Libya, the other came to them. She alighted on an oak, and sitting there began to speak with a human voice, and told them that on the spot where she was, there should henceforth be an oracle of Jove.
Lastly, by calling the dove black the Dodonaeans indicated that the woman was an Egyptian".
^ The word that is used for black is Melas. And in all original English translations of Herodotus the Histories, whenever he mentioned Melachrone Egyptians it is translated CORRECTLY as Black.
Eurocentrists have long recognised the "problem" here, and some try to rewrite Herodotus, but this only exposes their awareness of the devastating implications to their ideology.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Greece was a creolized culture taking foreign and local influences
^ Dissembling babblement, which might describe any country from Sweden to Japan.
quote:Just like Egypt.
^ Not.
Since Kemet is the worlds 1st Nation state, whereas Greece post dates Nile Valley Civilisation by literally thousands of years.
Greec invented almost nothing fundamental to 'civilisation', and therefore Europe invented nothing fundamental to civilisation, and therefore whites invented nothing fundamental to civilisation.
This is much *unlike* the Black AFrican founders of Kemit, who preceded Greece and Europe and whites by thousands of years, and whose seminal influence on them is therefore inescapable.
quote: Doesn't change that Greece was European and Egypt was African.
Why not? This is where your phony discourse breaks down.
If non European influences do not make Greece non European - then why would non white influence make Greece non white?
If non African influences do not make Egypt non African, then why would non Black influence [if such exist] make Egypt non Black?
Ironically - the Greeks had no word for "African" nor did they reference themselves as "European", but they did have a word for Blacks - and that is what they called Egyptians and Ethiopians.
Yet you desparately try to deny this? Why? Because you are Kemophobic racist loon.
quote:Chimpu wrote: As is, I only prove myself to be a slow witted debator as well as a racist loon.
True.
quote:Chimpu writes: Fixed
No, it's still broken.... your brain that is.
Posted by Tyrann0saurus (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by SEEKING in an alternate universe: The battle to keep ancient Scandinavia White
By Sundiata Hieglief Updated Apr 2, 2008, 11:14 pm
PHILADELPHIA (FinalCall.com) - National Geographic magazine insulted the historical and cultural legacy of Whites during White History Month by distorting history and blatantly insinuating that ancient Norse were anything but White, said a critic. In an exclusive interview with The Final Call, Temple University scholar Dr. Erik von Haraldhassen decried the article’s entire framework, beginning with its title “The White Chiefs-Conquerors of Ancient Scandinavia.”
“If you assume that this article is about the White chiefs then the question that is begged is that, who were the other chiefs?” Dr. Haraldhassen asserted.
According to the author of “The History of Europe,” a comprehensive history of the subcontinent, National Geographic writer Imhotep Pumbaa erroneously suggests the Norse chiefs were not White and it didn’t matter since “the ancient world was devoid of racism. At the time of Harald Bluetooth’s (the Danish monarch who Christianized ancient Scandinavia) historic conversion of the Norselands, the fact that his skin was light was irrelevant,” he argued.
Mr. Pumbaa jabbed at White scholarship stating, “Revisiting that golden age in the European forests does little to advance the case of Eurocentric Nordologists, who argue that all Ancient Norse. . . were White Europeans.”
Mr. Pumbaa added, “Beowulf’s own father, the 6th century King Ectheow, is claimed by some to be of Swedish heritage.”
He points to a bust of Ectheow and asks, “Did the powerful Ectheow, Beowulf's father, have Swedish ancestry? This bust, cover with paint that has lightened with age, has inspired claims that he did.”
Dr. Haraldhassen scoffed at that notion. “Look at the blue eyes! These days what we have to do is assume that these people will never accept it. They will never accept the truth ... that nothing like this was in Africa. Egypt and Songhay combined do not make the Norselands.”
Referring to Cleopatra, a Macedonian-descended Queen of Egypt, Mr. Haraldhassen said, it would have been better to write an article called “The White Rulers of Egypt.” “That would have made sense since most of them are Black. But to say ‘The White Chiefs of Scandinavia' where most of them were White, that doesn’t make sense,” he said.
“I disagree with the article’s intent because the intent is to throw European people a bone. This article came as the result of the tremendous attempt on the part of Africans to claim the Norselands as not European. That was the attempt of Beowulf’s exhibit when it was first presented. So this is a long struggle.” National Geographic has a history, going back at least to the 1940s, of portraying the ancient Vikings as anything other than White. The June 2005 edition featured a Saharatropical-looking Beowulf on the cover. The same image was used on a Beowulf exhibit that recently toured the country and featured on the cover of the February 2008 edition.
Seemingly anticipating some backlash, the online edition of National Geographic provides a video of Dr. Hawass, head of the Supreme Council for Scandinavian Antiquities, who said the race and the origin of the ancient Germanic peoples are difficult to ascertain.
He attempted to explain away the White statues. “If you look at the statues that were colored white, it doesn’t mean anything. Sometimes white can show the color of the snow,” said Dr. Hawass.
Another video provided is of Gwyndeyln Wieglief, a White geneticist who postulates that modern Scandinavians look similar to ancient Norse , i.e., brown-skinned Arabs or non-White.
“The idea that the Ancient Norse are like the current Norse is so far off that it is laughable. General Amr ibn al As was invited by the White people of Scandinavia of the 7th century to come over to help throw out the Kushites, when this was so he remained. This was the beginning of the large Arab presence in Scandinavia, 639 (B.C.) was the major movement of Arabs to the Norselands. They found the White people already there.
“The presence of Arabs today in northern Europe should not be read as an ancient presence just as a Black presence in Hawaii should not be read as an ancient presence. The same for America. We have to take back the writing of our own history for it is absolutely essential,” Dr. Haraldhassen said.
He pointed to ancient firsthand testimony from the 5th century BC Greek historian Herodotus who referred to the ancient Vikings as “leucochroes” (White-skinned). Dr. Haraldhassen argued if the Norse were Black, Herodotus would have used the term “melanchroes” and if brown or red skinned “phrenychroes” would have been used.
Professor Haraldhassen debunks the notion that ancient Norse did not refer to themselves as White as African Nordologists suggest. One pre-Christian Norse king was named "Erik the Red", referring to his red hair, a characteristic typical of White Europeans.
BTW, is anyone here familiar with Scandinavian and/or pre-Christian Germanic culture? Do any Scandinavian works describe the skin colors of any individuals?
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
"The white skinned images of ancient Europeans prove nothing. White skin images often referred to the snows of Europe. They called themselves whites, and painted their skin white, not because they considered themselves 'whites' but rather because of the snow." Posted by Wolofi (Member # 14892) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chimu: And you guys should make that claim more. Greeks obviously had strong contact with Ethiopians and they would have been a part of their population. They were no more a "White" Civilization than Egypt was a "Black" civilization.
LOL, this guy is slick..you really think you are going to get away with this statement on this board come on man lol. You are being invidious and that is considered trolling. Try not to be so overt with your agenda.
Posted by Wolofi (Member # 14892) on :
quote: quote: Doesn't change that Greece was European and Egypt was African.
Why not? This is where your phony discourse breaks down.
If non European influences do not make Greece non European - then why would non white influence make Greece non white?
If non African influences do not make Egypt non African, then why would non Black influence [if such exist] make Egypt non Black?
Excellent point and I think this exposes Chimu's agenda. Hey man I was with you on the two pics you posted of the Khoisan and the Asian, but with other claims you support they don't make a lot of sense. I will have to watch you more closely because I thought you were honestly making an objective judgment on the definition of black. Now I am seeing a lot of just plain clear racism from you
I must admit I am disappointed in anyone that exhibits this behavior and as well that I was supporting your scrutiny in the beginning because I might be associated with your racism by other members of this forum.
Thanks, but no thanks.
Posted by Tyrann0saurus (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol: "The white skinned images of ancient Europeans prove nothing. White skin images often referred to the snows of Europe. They called themselves whites, and painted their skin white, not because they considered themselves 'whites' but rather because of the snow."
Yeah, and the reason the Chinese are called "yellow" and paint their skin yellowish, is because they live around the Huang He ("Yellow") River.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
^ Exactly, it's all about symbolism. You see, symbolic use of color can refer to everything...except skin.
Color, at least the color black, must never refer to skin, symbolically or otherwise.
So when Osirus - ancestor of all Egyptians is refered to as - The Great Black one, and "he of the Black face." - it symbolizes everything *but* his skin color:
- death - fertility - land - cosmology,
...but in no way communicates the idea that he was a Black man from inner Africa, or heaven forfend that the Kemetians viewed their ancestors that way.
Posted by Tyrann0saurus (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol: ^ Correct. You really have to understand that the Greeks did not have the word -Africa-.
Aiethiopes literally does not contain the word black or the concept of black. It just doesn't.
The word for Black in Greek is Melas.
My personal theory is that the ancient Greek word "Aethiopian" does not refer to what we think of as "native Africans" in general, but specifically to the very darkest of Africans, such as the Sudanese. "Aethiopes" literally means "burnt". Most Africans, although dark by northern Eurasian standards, are not so dark as to look "burnt" (i.e. the color of ash or charcoal); they're more of a dark brown or chocolatey color, so they wouldn't be "Aethiopians" (burnt people).
Posted by Wolofi (Member # 14892) on :
I think it is more based on experience and knowledge of the Nile valley in Greek perception which is why they separate Ethiopia and Libya.
In the Herodotus claim he states that the Libyans were the darkest and most wooly haired of *Ethiopians* and that it comes down to the fact that Greeks really hadn't explored the rest of the Continent as much as the Nile Valley.
So Ethiopian seems to be a description as well as a cultural epithet to the Greeks throughout their accounts which covered centuries of writing and history. Such like "acting black(which really makes no sense but is still used)" and "being black" in modern times today.
Posted by Alive-(What Box) (Member # 10819) on :
lmao
Posted by kenndo (Member # 4846) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wolofi: I think it is more based on experience and knowledge of the Nile valley in Greek perception which is why they separate Ethiopia and Libya.
In the Herodotus claim he states that the Libyans were the darkest and most wooly haired of *Ethiopians* and that it comes down to the fact that Greeks really hadn't explored the rest of the Continent as much as the Nile Valley.
So Ethiopian seems to be a description as well as a cultural epithet to the Greeks throughout their accounts which covered centuries of writing and history. Such like "acting black(which really makes no sense but is still used)" and "being black" in modern times today.
THE ancient GREEKS mention that those in the nile valley south of egypt(kush)were the darkest and most woolly haried they knew too,not just the original or native libyans,of course there other types of libyans that were not dark and did not have woolly hair.
Posted by kenndo (Member # 4846) on :
"There are also numerous other Aithiopian tribes [i.e. besides those centered at Meroe]; some live along both sides of the river
Nile and on the islands in the river, others dwell in the regions that border on Arabia [i.e. to the east], others again have settled in
the interior of Libya [i.e. to the west]. The majority of these tribes, in particular those who live along the river, have black skin, snub-nosed faces, and curly hair". (woolly hair-same thing) See The "Ethiopians" According to Diodorus Siculus.
or from the book the kingdom of kush quote- diodorus describes the majority of the 'ethiopians',particularly those living along the nile as being black in colour,with flat noses and woolly hair.
Ethiopians Aithiopians
To the ancient Greeks, all of Africa west of Egypt was considered to be Libya.
Herodotus also mentions another aspect of the Ethiopians which would make it seem that he regarded most of the non-Egyptian Africans to be “Ethiopians;” in describing the geography of Libya, Herodotus tells of the cave-dwelling Ethiopians; they ate snakes, lizards and other reptiles; they were fleet of foot and had voices like the squeaking of bats; another tribe of Libyans, the Garamantes, hunted the Ethiopians with four-horse teams but whether the Garamantes hunted the cave-dwellers for sport or food is not clear.
Herodotus also mentions Ethiopians from Asia and their tribute to the Persian Empire; the Asian Ethiopians who fought in the army of Xerxes had straight hair and were teamed with the Indians whereas the Ethiopians who were teamed with the Arabians were from Africa and had wooly hair; other than their hair and speech, the Asian and African Ethiopians seemed to be of the same race; the nation of Cyprus had Ethiopians in its population.
Histories, book 2, chapters 11, 29, 30, 100, 104, 110, 137, 139 and 161; book 3, chapters 17-26 and 94; book 4, chapter 183; book 7, chapter 70 and 90
HERODOTUS' CONTRIBUTION TO THE "BIG" QUESTIONS Were Egyptians Africans? Herodotus believed that the Colchians (southern Black Sea area) were introduced to Asia by Egyptian expansion as far as Thrace and Scythia because "they have black skins and curly hair (not that that amounts to much, as other nations have the same)." [Herodotus, Histories, 167.] They also practised circumcision, unlike Mediterranean peoples of the time.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________ john g. jackson quote-
between Colchis (the country to the south of the Caucasus) and prehistoric Egypt. Herodotus remarked upon a series of resemblances between the Colchians and the Egyptians." (Wells' New and Revised Outline of History, p. 184, Garden City, 1931.) It would have been proper for Wells to have quoted the remarks of Herodotus, so as to give us precise information on the series of resemblances between the Cholchians and the Egyptians. Why he did not do so we shall now see. In Book II, Section-104, of his celebrated History, Herodotus states: "For my part I believe the Colchi to be a colony of Egyptians, because like them they have black skins and frizzled hair." (See any English translation of The History of Herodotus. The translation by Professor George Rawlinson is the best.
In modern geography the name Ethiopia is confined to the country known as Abyssinia, an extensive territory in East Africa. In ancient times Ethiopia extended over vast domains in both Africa and Asia. "It seems certain," declares Sir E. A. Wallis Budge, "that classical historians and geographers called the whole region from India to Egypt, both countries inclusive, by the name of Ethiopia, and in consequence they regarded all the dark-skinned and black peoples who inhabited it as Ethiopians. Mention is made of Eastern and Western Ethiopians and it is probable that the Easterners were Asiatics and the Westerners Africans." (History of Ethiopia, Vol. I., Preface, by Sir E. A. Wallis Budge.) In addition Budge notes that, "Homer and Herodotus call all the peoples of the Sudan, Egypt, Arabia, Palestine and Western Asia and India Ethiopians." (Ibid., p. 2.) Herodotus wrote in his celebrated History that both the Western Ethiopians, who lived in Africa, and the Eastern Ethiopians who dwelled in India, were black in complexion, but that the Africans had curly hair, while the Indians were straight-haired. (The aboriginal black inhabitants of India are generally referred to as the Dravidians, of whom more will be said as we proceed.) Another classical historian who wrote about the Ethiopians was Strabo, from whom we quote the following: "I assert that the ancient Greeks, in the same way as they classed all the northern nations with which they were familiar as Scythians, etc., so, I affirm, they designated as Ethiopia the whole of the southern countries toward the ocean." Strabo adds that "if the moderns have confined the appellation Ethiopians to those only who dwell near Egypt, this must not be allowed to interfere with the meaning of the ancients." Ephorus says that: "The Ethiopians were considered as occupying all the south coasts of both Asia and Africa," and adds that "this is an ancient opinion of the of the Greeks." Then we have the view of Stephanus of Byzantium, that: "Ethiopia was the first established country on earth; and the Ethiopians were the first who introduced the worship of the gods, and who established laws." The vestiges of this early civilization have been found in Nubia, the Egyptian Sudan, West Africa, Egypt,-----
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chimu: [QUOTE]Greece was a creolized culture taking foreign and local influences. Just like Egypt. Doesn't change that Greece was European and Egypt was African.
Evergreen Writes:
Chimu, can you name a culture which was not a "creolized" culture? Your relativist approach is applied in an inconsistent manner.
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol: [QUOTE]Since Kemet is the worlds 1st Nation state, whereas Greece post dates Nile Valley Civilisation by literally thousands of years.
Greec invented almost nothing fundamental to 'civilisation', and therefore Europe invented nothing fundamental to civilisation, and therefore whites invented nothing fundamental to civilisation.
This is much *unlike* the Black AFrican founders of Kemit, who preceded Greece and Europe and whites by thousands of years, and whose seminal influence on them is therefore inescapable.
Evergreen Writes:
Very strong statement. Well put!
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tyrann0saurus: My personal theory is that the ancient Greek word "Aethiopian" does not refer to what we think of as "native Africans" in general, but specifically to the very darkest of Africans,
I've already shown you why this is wrong.
"Above the tracts washed by the Libyan sea live the Leuco Ethiopians" - Pomponius. Melanoderm = Black Leucoderm = White.
The above literally translates as white Ethiopian, or in this case - whites of Africa. [not white black which makes no sense].
If the purpose of the term Ethiopians were soley to signify a skin tone, then the term Leuco Ethiopians would be and oxymoron.
Have to start by knowing what words mean. In Greek the word for black is Melas.
There is no such word Ethiopia in Greek meaning -very black-.
Effort is made to transliterate aeithien 'burnt' to Ethiopia but it is not clear that the terms are related and moreover 'burnt' is not a color and where it can be associated with a color - it can just as easily relate to 'white' [burnt ash] as to black.
And as for it referring to the 'darkest or blackest', Homer mentions Ethiopians of the far East [India] and the far West [Libya?], so again, the term can't be pinned down to only Sudan, only the darkest people, or even only Blacks..... unless you simply ignore every use of it that does not correspond to a faulty theory.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Since Kemet is the worlds 1st Nation state, whereas Greece post dates Nile Valley Civilisation by literally thousands of years.
Greece invented almost nothing fundamental to 'civilisation', and therefore Europe invented nothing fundamental to civilisation, and therefore whites invented nothing fundamental to civilisation.
This is much *unlike* the Black AFrican founders of Kemit, who preceded Greece and Europe and whites by thousands of years, and whose seminal influence on them is therefore inescapable.
Evergreen Writes:
quote:Very strong statement. Well put!
The mulatto-centric model of Frank Sweets parroted by banned troll Jamie/Chimu is ultimately racist, contrived, and as sterile as it's namesake [the mule].
Posted by Chimu (Member # 15060) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:Greece was a creolized culture taking foreign and local influences
^ Dissembling babblement, which might describe any country from Sweden to Japan.
Sorry bub, but significant presence is more than just some foreigners making aminor impact.
quote:Since Kemet is the worlds 1st Nation state, whereas Greece post dates Nile Valley Civilisation by literally thousands of years. Greec invented almost nothing fundamental to 'civilisation', and therefore Europe invented nothing fundamental to civilisation, and therefore whites invented nothing fundamental to civilisation.
LMAO. Kemet may have been the first Nation state, but not the first city states and Middle Eastern culture predates that of Africans. The same claim could be made of Egypt. Later timeline does not indicate that they learned everything from Egypt. And there were other European civilizations before Greece. Try again.
quote:If non European influences do not make Greece non European - then why would non white influence make Greece non white?
Sorry bub. Your myopia is not mine. Europe is a regional distinction. White is an ascription of race that you have yet to show.
quote:If non African influences do not make Egypt non African, then why would non Black influence [if such exist] make Egypt non Black?
Again. Africa is a region. Black is an ascription of race. And identity. That you have not shown.
quote:Ironically - the Greeks had no word for "African" nor did they reference themselves as "European", but they did have a word for Blacks - and that is what they called Egyptians and Ethiopians.
And Europe is just a descritpive term for a region. And Greeks did not call Egyptians Black.
quote:it's still broken.... my brain that is.
I guess it is still broken.
quote:Originally posted by rasol: [QB] "The white skinned images of ancient Europeans prove nothing. White skin images often referred to the snows of Europe. They called themselves whites, and painted their skin white, not because they considered themselves 'whites' but rather because of the snow."
And your evidence that they called themselves White as a people? None.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Banned troll writes: Greece was a creolized culture taking foreign and local influences
^ Dissembling babblement, which might describe any country from Sweden to Japan.
quote:Trolling embicile writes: Sorry bub, but significant presence is more than just some foreigners making aminor impact.
Minor impact? Does Japanese caligraphic writing and Buddhism originate in Japan? Is alphabetic writing and Christianity native to Sweden? Are these "minor contributions" to their cultures?
So these civilisaitons are somehow [pure] whereas others are somehow mixed?
Sorry Chimpu, your brain is still broken, and clearly clogged by racism, which is the source of your internal contradictions.
Whether your realise it or not, it is racism that is at the root of your ideology of purity vs. mixture.
That you are a racist, is the only point you've ever made on Egyptsearch.
quote:Europe is a regional distinction. White is an ascription of race.
Europe is a reference to geography. White is reference to color. Both references can be ethnic, and neither can qualify "race", and the ethnic reference to 'whites' is probably older than 'european' and predates reference to Europeans.
So your comment is just a stall which fails completely to address the question of how so called 'mixture' qualifies white, but not European?
quote:Evergreen Writes:
Chimu, can you name a culture which was not a "creolized" culture? Your relativist approach is applied in an inconsistent manner.
Obviously he can't answer, and so won't. This proves that he knows his ideology is bogus, but argues it anyway for trollings sake.
He can save time by just admitting his ideology is contradictory and utterly vapid.
Chimu's mulatoo-guru Frank Sweets is equally daft, and if he ever shows his cowards face here, he'll get a beat down just like you're getting.
quote:And your evidence that [Europeans] called themselves White as a people?
^ As a people? As opposed to what? Rocks? Trees? Snow?
Your query provides evidence that you're too dumb to understand and analogy. It's ok, everyone else understands. Don't strain your brain. Just enjoy your beatdown, which is all you're good for anyway.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
The Book of Glory of the Blacks over the Whites
"The Ethiopians, the Berbers, the Copts, the Nubians, the Zaghawa, the Moors, the islands in the seas...are full of Blacks"
--Al-Jahiz, Book of the Glory of the Blacks Over the Whites, written in 800 AD.
"My mind is filled with confustion. My head and my heart.....are full of hate and dispair. This is why I keep returning to Egyptsearch for another beatdown, even though I have been banned from this site." - Chimpu [2008]
^ Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol: The Book of Glory of the Blacks over the Whites
"The Ethiopians, the Berbers, the Copts, the Nubians, the Zaghawa, the Moors, the islands in the seas...are full of Blacks"
--Al-Jahiz, Book of the Glory of the Blacks Over the Whites, written in 800 AD.
Evergreen Writes:
Rasol, thanks for pulling this quote out. I haven't considered this quote in some time. However the observations by Al-Jahiz support the assertion that the NW African modal phenoype changed with the importation and admixture with Northern European women during and after the Moorish occupation of Iberia.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
^ This seems to be so based on mtdna and y chromosome study.
But what do you say to those who claim that the lightest Berber of Algeria - the Kabyle - descend from relatively isolated populations from the Atlas Mountain regions?
Posted by Wolofi (Member # 14892) on :
quote:Originally posted by kenndo:
quote:Originally posted by Wolofi: I think it is more based on experience and knowledge of the Nile valley in Greek perception which is why they separate Ethiopia and Libya.
In the Herodotus claim he states that the Libyans were the darkest and most wooly haired of *Ethiopians* and that it comes down to the fact that Greeks really hadn't explored the rest of the Continent as much as the Nile Valley.
So Ethiopian seems to be a description as well as a cultural epithet to the Greeks throughout their accounts which covered centuries of writing and history. Such like "acting black(which really makes no sense but is still used)" and "being black" in modern times today.
THE ancient GREEKS mention that those in the nile valley south of egypt(kush)were the darkest and most woolly haried they knew too,not just the original or native libyans,of course there other types of libyans that were not dark and did not have woolly hair.
Who said anything about original or native? All Libyans were native. Ethiopians in a Greek context are just as native as any other African so what are you talking about?
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol: ^ This seems to be so based on mtdna and y chromosome study.
But what do you say to those who claim that the lightest Berber of Algeria - the Kabyle - descend from relatively isolated populations from the Atlas Mountain regions?
Evergreen Writes;
I would say let's see what the genetics tell us. I am highly suspecious of Kabyle being primarily indigenous to Neolithic North Africa.
Posted by HistoryFacelift (Member # 14696) on :
Ramses looks another race from the others.
Posted by kenndo (Member # 4846) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wolofi:
quote:Originally posted by kenndo:
quote:Originally posted by Wolofi: I think it is more based on experience and knowledge of the Nile valley in Greek perception which is why they separate Ethiopia and Libya.
In the Herodotus claim he states that the Libyans were the darkest and most wooly haired of *Ethiopians* and that it comes down to the fact that Greeks really hadn't explored the rest of the Continent as much as the Nile Valley.
So Ethiopian seems to be a description as well as a cultural epithet to the Greeks throughout their accounts which covered centuries of writing and history. Such like "acting black(which really makes no sense but is still used)" and "being black" in modern times today.
THE ancient GREEKS mention that those in the nile valley south of egypt(kush)were the darkest and most woolly haried they knew too,not just the original or native libyans,of course there other types of libyans that were not dark and did not have woolly hair.
Who said anything about original or native? All Libyans were native. Ethiopians in a Greek context are just as native as any other African so what are you talking about?
the white libyans? i don't think so. you had white libyans and brown libyans in ancient times too,not just black ones.
WHEN i mean the original,i mean the black libyans,just like the original egyptians were blacks only.
Posted by Wolofi (Member # 14892) on :
NO NO..Libya was the name of Continental Africa in Greek times by the Greeks, not the Country today called Libya!!!
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
Right, but Libya has the same kind of flexible meaning in Ancient Greek as Ethiopia. It could mean what we call "Africa", or it could just mean Africa west of Egypt.
It is the same with Ethiopia.
One of the reasons this discussion goes in circles is that people choose and example where the meaning is what they -think- it is, but ignore other examples where the meaning is different.
Posted by Red,White, and Blue + Christian (Member # 10893) on :
Stop worrying about this. The modern day Egyptians are still Black. That's why the Giza pyramids have been taken off the 7 Wonders of the World List.
Posted by Wolofi (Member # 14892) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol: Right, but Libya has the same kind of flexible meaning in Ancient Greek as Ethiopia. It could mean what we call "Africa", or it could just mean Africa west of Egypt.
It is the same with Ethiopia.
One of the reasons this discussion goes in circles is that people choose and example where the meaning is what they -think- it is, but ignore other examples where the meaning is different.
Yeah you are right I agree it is considerably arbitrary.
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
Evergreen Writes:
One of the biggest flaws in Keita's work is he has never sampled non-royal predynastic or early dynastic northern Egyptian remains. Hence to assume that the diversity of crania found in early dynastic royal tombs is reflective of northern Egyptian influences is unsupported. Just as likely is that the Eurasian trend found in some crania reflect the fact that Egyptians had colonized Canaan by this time and that we see a back-migration of Central Asians into Palestine by this time. This back-migration is reflected in the mythology of SW Asia in the figure of Abraham and his families migration from Mesopatamia to the Palestine and it is refelected in the archaeological affinities of EBA Palestinian cities and towns.
There is no evidence of large scale Eurasian settlements in pre-dynastic Egypt. There is evidence of Egyptian settlement and colonization of Palestine during the proto-dynastic period. Egyptian common practice would have been to take wives from this colony. Hence the Eurasian trends seen in a few early dynastic royal tombs may reflect this history.
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen: Evergreen Writes:
One of the biggest flaws in Keita's work is he has never sampled non-royal predynastic or early dynastic northern Egyptian remains. Hence to assume that the diversity of crania found in early dynastic royal tombs is reflective of northern Egyptian influences is unsupported. Just as likely is that the Eurasian trend found in some crania reflect the fact that Egyptians had colonized Canaan by this time and that we see a back-migration of Central Asians into Palestine by this time. This back-migration is reflected in the mythology of SW Asia in the figure of Abraham and his families migration from Mesopatamia to the Palestine and it is refelected in the archaeological affinities of EBA Palestinian cities and towns.
There is no evidence of large scale Eurasian settlements in pre-dynastic Egypt. There is evidence of Egyptian settlement and colonization of Palestine during the proto-dynastic period. Egyptian common practice would have been to take wives from this colony. Hence the Eurasian trends seen in a few early dynastic royal tombs may reflect this history.
Evergreen Writes:
It would be interesting to see the frequencies of MH Galilee, R1a and R1b in modern Egypt.
Posted by Fine1952 (Member # 9617) on :
While I understand the need to explode myths, I think that framing ones understanding of ancient Egypt based around distortions of racist scholars only dilutes the true history of the Nile Valley.
The point is that the history of the Nile Valley in its entirety needs to be told from a perspective of the facts, which obliterate any need to focus on the distortions of European racists. If you don't tell the story in its entirety then of course the racists will fill in the gaps with garbage.
I am noticing a pattern of African scholarship being too bogged down with focusing on the idiotic perspectives of white racists as opposed to fleshing out the full story of the Nile Valley and Africa in general with details on all the various empires and cultures that flourished there. The issue is telling Africa's story in its proper context, without the need of relying on whites to stop being racist and tell the truth. Again, tell your own story and you won't have to worry about anyone else telling lies.
But then again, some of these scholars seem more interested in being protesters than serious scholars. After all these trips to Egypt, how many have actually DONE ANY RESEARCH while there, as opposed to just sight seeing? Seems to me they should be more focused on research, documentation and publishing than just being tourists. Carter Woodson, Dubois, Diop and Obenga were scholars, not protestors. It is scholarship that debunks lies, not protesting.
Also, I don't like this idea of trying to promote African Americans as the exclusive heirs to the culture and history of Egypt. That is nonsense. The culture and history of Egypt belongs to ALL AFRICANS, especially those black Africans of the Nile Valley first and foremost. What African Americans should be doing is reaching out to their fellow Africans in Egypt and Sudan to start researching, documenting and publishing THEIR OWN HISTORY AS AFRICANS, versus having FOREIGNERS telling LIES about a history that IS NOT THEIR OWN.
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
Hey DougM!
--------------------- What African Americans should be doing is reaching out to their fellow Africans in Egypt and Sudan to start researching, documenting and publishing THEIR OWN HISTORY AS AFRICANS, versus having FOREIGNERS telling LIES about a history that IS NOT THEIR OWN. ---------------------
Why doesn't your sorry ass do it?
EgyptSearch the best you can do?
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by argyle104: Hey DougM!
--------------------- What African Americans should be doing is reaching out to their fellow Africans in Egypt and Sudan to start researching, documenting and publishing THEIR OWN HISTORY AS AFRICANS, versus having FOREIGNERS telling LIES about a history that IS NOT THEIR OWN. ---------------------
Why doesn't your sorry ass do it?
EgyptSearch the best you can do?
I was waiting for you to show me the way.....
Posted by HORUS^*^ (Member # 11484) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: I am noticing a pattern of African scholarship being too bogged down with focusing on the idiotic perspectives of white racists as opposed to fleshing out the full story of the Nile Valley and Africa in general with details on all the various empires and cultures that flourished there. The issue is telling Africa's story in its proper context, without the need of relying on whites to stop being racist and tell the truth. Again, tell your own story and you won't have to worry about anyone else telling lies.
All you newbie Africana students reading this need to take these here statements from Doug, post it up on your wall and recite it first thing every morning when you wake up.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
Thanks Brother Horus. It just seems odd to me that 20 years since the so-called Afrocentric movement, there are FEWER African scholars publishing books on African history. Maybe it is just me, but that seems BACKWARDS, especially given the proliferation of African Studies departments at Universities across the U.S. in that time frame....
Posted by Obenga (Member # 1790) on :
"Al-Jahiz, Book of the Glory of the Blacks Over the Whites, written in 800 AD"
Anyone read this book?
Is it available somewhere now?
Posted by Sundiata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Obenga: "Al-Jahiz, Book of the Glory of the Blacks Over the Whites, written in 800 AD"
Anyone read this book?
Is it available somewhere now?
Here's a decent translation of the vast majority of it.
There was also a geocities link with a full translation, but I can't find it. Someone posted it on here, but there's no search function anymore and it isn't cached in google.
Thank you Sundiata
Posted by Jo Nongowa (Member # 14918) on :
Education for a New Reality in the African World By John Henrik Clarke --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part 8 of 10 The Challenge Facing the Scholar of African Descent Contrary to a misconception which still prevails, Africans were familiar with literature and art for many years before their contact with the Western World. Before the breaking-up of the social structure of the West African states of Ghana, Mali and Songhay and the internal strife and chaos that made the slave trade possible, the forefathers of the Africans who eventually became slaves in the United States, lived in a society where university life was fairly common and scholars were held in reverence. To understand fully any aspect of African American life one must realize that the African American is not without a cultural past, though he was many generations removed from it before his achievement in American literature and art commanded any appreciable attention.
That is why African and Africana history should be taught every day, not only in the schools, but also in the home and African American History Month should be every month. We need to learn about all of the African people in the world. The idea of an education for a new reality in the African world was aleady old, with me, before this decade. The serious study of the plight of African people all over the world, in all ages, conditions and geographical settings, has been the main part of my life's work. It is the all consuming passion of my existence. It is something I do, just like breathing is something I do. It is a subject which, if I were to talk directly on it for more than twenty minutes, I would have to talk on it for at least a year.
To begin, let's consider the word BLACK. Black is an honorable word and I am glad to see so many people lose their fear of using it: however, black has its limitations. Black tells you how you look without telling you who you are. A more proper word for our people, African, relates us to land, history and culture. No people can be spiritually and culturally secure until they answer to a name of their own choosing—a name that instantaneously relates that people to the past, the present, and the future. In his book, The Name "Negro": Its Origin and Evil Use, the Caribbean writer, Richard B. Moore, has said:
Slaves and dogs are named by their masters. Free men name themselves. In his book Mr. Moore expresses something that is increasingly rare in the present academic environment—a conviction based on research and reason. "Human relations," he says, "cannot be peaceful, satisfactory, and happy until placed on the basis of mutual self-respect. The proper name for people, has thus become, in this period of crucial change and rapid reformation on a world scale, a vital factor in determining basic attitudes involving how, and even whether, people will continue to live together on this shrinking planet."
Richard B. Moore gives us much to think about in a world where Europeans and white people in general went to such great lengths to distort world history. Europeans benefitted, greatly, from this distortion and it is clear that they knew more about history than they are prepared to admit. They had to know a great deal about history in order to distort it so effectively, and then use this distortion as an element of world control. They knew that history is a two-edged sword that can be used both as an instrument of liberation and a weapon of enslavement. They knew that then and they know it now that history, like a gun, is neutral; it will serve anyone who uses it effectively.
We must understand that all the world was changed to accommodate the second rise of Europe in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. Followed swiftly by the European conquest of most of mankind, this conquest was achieved by the astute use of two political instruments—the Bible and the gun. The Europeans, in addition to colonizing the world, colonized information about the world and the writing of the history of the world. They were so successful that today there is not a single book in existence with the title, "World History," that is an honest history of the world and all of its people. World history lost its broad definition and became a rationale for European conquest and control—a means for the glorification of European people at the expense of other people and nations whose civilizations were old before Europe was born.
The first European attack was on African culture. Their next move was to deny that this culture ever existed. A look at African cultures, especially in West Africa, will show us what an education for a new reality in the African world should be about. There is no way to talk about this education without looking again at the roots of world history and the interplay of the histories of various people. The scholar who knows his people's history and its relationship to the history of the world should start with the bold assertion that Africa is the basis of world history, and that African people are the mothers and fathers of mankind. Scholars the world over must be courageous enough to make this assertion and prepare themselves academically to prove it. The special role that history assigns to the scholar eludes most of us: the role is simple, therefore it is very complex. In most societies the scholar is not required to labor in the fields, to draw water, nor to bring wood for the fires. At this point you might ask what is the scholar required to do? What is his or her special mission? What is the assignment? The scholar is the clock-watcher of history and the keeper of the compass that must be used to locate his or her people on the map of human geography. The scholar will be able to tell the people where they have been and what they have been, where they are and what they are. Most importantly, the scholar should be able to prophesy and predict where his people still must go and what his people still must be. The scholar should be able to find the special clock that tells his people their historical, cultural and political time of day.
The role of scholars to us as a people is to end part of our special tragedy because for too long, figuratively speaking, we have been telling our time by our oppressor's clock. By his clock it could be midnight in December because he is losing control of the world. We, estranged in the Western World where we are neither guest nor citizen, are re-merging with hope flowing before us like a river—by our special historical clock. It is a morning in spring.
We are in an extraordinary situation so let us use our imagination to create an extraordinary way of looking at it. For the moment, let us take our crisis out of the framework of history and sociology, and instead regard it as a drama with many dimensions and with long historical roots. The drama is not pure: it is part comedy and part tragedy, sometimes it will be a satire and there are even elements of farce. It is a mystery play about the greatest crime ever contrived by the mind of man. The recurring theme of this drama is rape, the rape of a continent, the rape of its people. This rape set in motion an act of protracted genocide that lasted for five hundred years and has not completely exhausted itself today. The aftermath of this crime is the basis of the black world drama and the crisis that no black scholar can avoid.
With this said we can now, figuratively, put the players on stage.
In the unfolding of this great human drama that we are calling the "Black Crisis," the characters will play every role from saint to buffoon. The first scene in the play is pleasant and here is nothing that suggests future developments. Some sailors have arrived on the coast of West Africa. The year is 1438. The Africans with their customary hospitality to strangers have invited the sailors to dinner, a scene that will be repeated many times before it is turned into a tragic occurrence. The Africans did not know the temperament of these strangers, nor did they sense their ambitions nor the intent that was hidden behind their smiles. These sailors have come from a thawed-out icebox called Europe. A people who were as violent as the climate that produced them. A people who were reaching out from their hostile land searching for new gold, new labor, and a new supply of food. They find all of these items in Africa and they do not buy or bargain for them, they take them.
In the second scene of our play's first act, the dinner is over and the guests begin looking around the house of their hosts. They like so many of the things they see, including the wife of the house. Suddenly all expressions change. The guests take out their guns, rape the wife, enslave the both of them and force them away from their home to labor in the far reaches of the world. Thus the long night begins. The curtain falls on the first act of a long play that, in many ways, is still on the road.
My basic point is that all black scholars in the West, and most of them in Africa, have been reacting to the consequences of this play. Their dilemma is how to interpret these events and their far-reaching tragic aftermath. Their consequences are the primary content of their literary heritage and out of this material came the slave narratives, the spirituals, and the blues.
I am talking about something that is both historical and topical, which helps to explain why we can better understand the present by looking through the lenses of the past. We need both vantage points in order to understand the present. We, as a people, each time we forget that our African-ness is our rallying cry, our window on the world, and the basis of our first allegiance, fmd ourselves in serious trouble. To explain this fact I must make an admission that breaks my heart, as well as it might break yours. Throughout history we have been a politically naive people. We have never made a good alliance with another people, least of all with white people. I do not mean that we have never made alliances with other people. I am saying that the alliances that we have made have not been in our favor. In the future we should enter into only those alliances that we can control.
Africans, traditionally, have been the only people who permit other people to live in their home, or country, for hundreds of years without demanding a declaration of allegiance to their home. We have always invited our future conquerors to dinner. This misplaced humanity and hospitality to strangers is at once the strongest and the weakest aspect of our African way of life. It is the strongest because it is the basis of African humanity; it is the weakest because all too many strangers have come into Africa and have taken advantage of Africa's generosity. People who think they can trust every stranger who enters their home are politically naive. This is an aspect of the African world situation which we have not studied or fully acknowledged and it will remain so as long as we ignore it.
We need to take a global view of African people in our attempt to understand how we relate to other people. This will be the culmination of a long intellectual struggle that started in the first half of the nineteenth century. The need to analyze and interpret the place where African people in world history grew more critical during the first two decades of this century. Black Americans had entered the twentieth century searching for a new direction, politically, culturally and institutionally, a new definition and an ideology. New scholars were emerging who began to interpret the history and struggles of African people from an international point of view. This atmosphere nurtured new men and movements which gave black scholarship the real test of its existence. To establish an education for a new reality in the African world without an ideology would be merely a recitation of days, places, personalities and events, without an understanding of their place in the past, the present and their effect on the reshaping of the future.
For our liberation we should draw on the intellectual heritage of the whole world, beginning, of course, with our own intellectual heritage. If our people are cold, we should invade hell and borrow fire from the devil, and we will do this without becoming the devil's disciples. We should properly read the signs of history and remember:
What we do for ourselves depends on what we know of ourselves and what we accept about ourselves. This is what the struggle in education for a new reality in the African world is all about. An education for a new reality in the African world must be holistic. Africans must be educated to know, down to the marrow of their bones, that they must be the owners of Africa and must be responsible for the management of every part of Africa. While there are Africans in most parts of the world, the historical, political and cultural heart-beat of all Africans is in Africa itself.
--------------------- What African Americans should be doing is reaching out to their fellow Africans in Egypt and Sudan to start researching, documenting and publishing THEIR OWN HISTORY AS AFRICANS, ?
No, Egyptians and Sudanese should be researching to publish their own history, they don't need diasporans to help them.
Posted by Mmmkay (Member # 10013) on :
^ Are they doing it now?
Posted by Charlie Bass (Member # 10328) on :
quote:Originally posted by prmiddleeastern:
quote:Originally posted by argyle104: Hey DougM!
--------------------- What African Americans should be doing is reaching out to their fellow Africans in Egypt and Sudan to start researching, documenting and publishing THEIR OWN HISTORY AS AFRICANS, ?
No, Egyptians and Sudanese should be researching to publish their own history, they don't need diasporans to help them.
Shut up, this coming from the same idiot who said British men who carried the A1 West African Y-chromosone that came into the genepool of Britain 200-400 years ago are "mulattoes".
Posted by prmiddleeastern (Member # 14038) on :
quote:Originally posted by Charlie Bass:
quote:Originally posted by prmiddleeastern:
quote:Originally posted by argyle104: Hey DougM!
--------------------- What African Americans should be doing is reaching out to their fellow Africans in Egypt and Sudan to start researching, documenting and publishing THEIR OWN HISTORY AS AFRICANS, ?
No, Egyptians and Sudanese should be researching to publish their own history, they don't need diasporans to help them.
Shut up, this coming from the same idiot who said British men who carried the A1 West African Y-chromosone that came into the genepool of Britain 200-400 years ago are "mulattoes".
Yes, they are.
Posted by prmiddleeastern (Member # 14038) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mmmkay: ^ Are they doing it now?
I don't know, they should do it by themselves, it's their history.
Posted by Sundiata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by prmiddleeastern:
quote:Originally posted by Mmmkay: ^ Are they doing it now?
I don't know, they should do it by themselves, it's their history.
Don't be made because your Mullata ass has no history. Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by prmiddleeastern:
quote:Originally posted by Mmmkay: ^ Are they doing it now?
I don't know, they should do it by themselves, it's their history.
The point I was making is that foreigners have tended to treat ancient Egyptian history more as "their" than the history of the Egyptian people for the last 200 years or so. Egyptian history belongs to Egypt first, Africa second and the world third. So of course other Africans and other people can help, but the primary focus should be for the Egyptians as custodians and recorders of their own history first and foremost. And this is for all of Egyptian history, from dynastic, to Greek, to Roman and Islamic.
Posted by prmiddleeastern (Member # 14038) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sundiata:
quote:Originally posted by prmiddleeastern:
quote:Originally posted by Mmmkay: ^ Are they doing it now?
I don't know, they should do it by themselves, it's their history.
Don't be made because your Mullata ass has no history.
Yes, I have an history, who is part of the history of my nation, and documented. Posted by prmiddleeastern (Member # 14038) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:Originally posted by prmiddleeastern:
quote:Originally posted by Mmmkay: ^ Are they doing it now?
I don't know, they should do it by themselves, it's their history.
The point I was making is that foreigners have tended to treat ancient Egyptian history more as "their" than the history of the Egyptian people for the last 200 years or so. Egyptian history belongs to Egypt first, Africa second and the world third. So of course other Africans and other people can help, but the primary focus should be for the Egyptians as custodians and recorders of their own history first and foremost. And this is for all of Egyptian history, from dynastic, to Greek, to Roman and Islamic.
Understood.
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:Originally posted by Chimu: And you guys should make that claim more. Greeks obviously had strong contact with Ethiopians
^ lol @ racist knucklehead Chimpu, still trying to sell his *mixed-up* ideology to and audience that laughs at him.
If the precense of Ethiopians in Greece makes Greece a mixed and therefore 'non white' civilisation, then it also makes Greece a mixed and thefore non European civilisation, as Ethiopians are as non European as they are non white.
And since subsequent "European" societies derive from Greece.... this means that Rome, Spain Great Britian, etc. are also non European civilisations.
All that is required to make this argument is to play the concept of Europe off against "mixture" in which case virtually nothing in Europe is -european-.
Finally, since African and Asian civilisation far predate European it follows that no European society can escape their influence, in which case there can be no European civilisation..
Chimpu, you should try arguing that, instead of focusing your racist obsessions on Africans.
As is, you only prove yourself to be a slow witted debator as well as a racist loon.
This is some of the dumbest rubbish I've ever read. Try to pawn these arguments off in any institution of higher education and see how far it gets you lol.
Ancient people had their own music, and people today have music. Because of the former, the latter did not and could not have created music? lol. Everything is influenced by something else - this does not mean some influences are stronger than others nor that completely original ideas do not arise from those influences. Your arguments about civilization and race are equally bogus.
Even if one was to accept that civilization did not arise in Europe, it is only in the European derivative of civilization that universal principles of justice (freedom, equality, property rights) based on reason took hold, along with modern science and technology, and capitalism.
The civilization of ancient societies such as Egypt are far different and far inferior to modern societies like America.
All peoples, white black and yellow, have contributed to civilization.
Posted by Alive-(What Box) (Member # 10819) on :
rasol was actually showing how rediculous someone else's arguments were.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002: Even if one was to accept that civilization did not arise in Europe, it is only in the European derivative of civilization that universal principles of justice (freedom, equality, property rights) based on reason took hold, along with modern science and technology, and capitalism.
And, usual, historical revisionists such as yourself will choose to push nonsense as opposed to facts.
For the last 500 years, Europe has been in a homicidal and genocidal war AGAINST humanity. And from even before that, most of the leaders of Europe were fascist, imperial tyrants who could care less about "universal" freedom and human rights. Care to name names? Of course not. The litany of leaders who engaged in some of the most horrific and unspeakable crimes against both their own people and others is very long indeed. Europe has NEVER been about "universal" freedom and democracy. It has been about "universal" lies and hypocrisy as it furthered the interests white elite males over all other peoples on earth.
Key facts:
In the last 500 years, more wars, death and destruction have been waged, mainly at the hands of Europeans than at any other time period preceding.
More people have been killed due to ethnic cleansing and genocide at the hands of European powers over the last 500 years than any time prior.
Most presidents and rulers of European countries over the last 500 years were racist, homicidal, tyrannical fascists. Hitler was but one of many.
Therefore, before you start talking that nonsense, check your facts.
Posted by Tyrann0saurus (Member # 3735) on :
Damn, it appears that for some reason both the original article and my parody of it got snipped out. Here is the original article, below:
quote:PHILADELPHIA (FinalCall.com) - National Geographic magazine insulted the historical and cultural legacy of Blacks during Black History Month by distorting history and blatantly insinuating that ancient Egyptians were anything but Black, said a critic. In an exclusive interview with The Final Call, Temple University scholar Dr. Molefi Kete Asante decried the article’s entire framework, beginning with its title “The Black Pharaohs-Conquerors of Ancient Egypt.”
“If you assume that this article is about the Black pharaohs then the question that is begged is that, who were the other pharaohs?” Dr. Asante asserted.
According to the author of “The History of Africa,” a comprehensive history of the continent, National Geographic writer Robert Draper erroneously suggests the pharaohs were not Black and it didn’t matter since “the ancient world was devoid of racism. At the time of Piye’s (the Nubian monarch who reunified Ancient Egypt) historic conquest of Egypt, the fact that his skin was dark was irrelevant,” he argued.
Mr. Draper jabbed at Black scholarship stating, “Revisiting that golden age in the African desert does little to advance the case of Afrocentric Egyptologists, who argue that all Ancient Egyptians . . . were Black Africans.”
Mr. Draper added, “Tut’s own grandmother, the 18th dynasty Queen Tiye, is claimed by some to be of Nubian heritage.”
He points to a bust of Queen Tiye and asks, “Did the powerful Queen Tiye, King Tut’s grandmother, have Nubian ancestry? This bust, made of wood that has darkened with age, has inspired claims that she did.”
Dr. Asante scoffed at that notion. “Look at the lips! These days what we have to do is assume that these people will never accept it. They will never accept the truth ... that nothing like this was in Europe. Greece and Rome combined do not make Egypt.”
Referring to Septimus Severus, a Black Emperor of Rome, Mr. Asante said, it would have been better to write an article called “The Black Emperors of Rome.” “That would of made sense since most of them are White. But to say ‘The Black Pharaohs of Egypt’ where most of them were Black, that doesn’t make sense,” he said.
“I disagree with the article’s intent because the intent is to throw African people a bone. This article came as the result of the tremendous attempt on the part of Europeans to claim Egypt as not African. That was the attempt of the King Tutankhamen’s exhibit when it was first presented. So this is a long struggle.” National Geographic has a history, going back at least to the 1940s, of portraying the ancient Egyptians as anything other than Black. The June 2005 edition featured a Caucasian-looking King Tut on the cover. The same image was used on a King Tut exhibit that recently toured the country and featured on the cover of the February 2008 edition.
Seemingly anticipating some backlash, the online edition of National Geographic provides a video of Dr. Zawi Hawas, head of the Supreme Council for Egyptian Antiquities, who said the race and the origin of the ancient Egyptians are difficult to ascertain.
He attempted to explain away the Black statues. “If you look at the statues that were colored black, it doesn’t mean anything. Sometimes black can show the fertility of the land,” said Dr. Hawas.
Another video provided is of Shomarka Omar Keita, a Black geneticist who postulates that modern Egyptians look similar to ancient Egyptians, i.e., light skinned Arabs or non-Black.
“The idea that the Ancient Egyptians are like the current Egyptians is so far off that it is laughable. General Amr ibn al As was invited by the Black people of Egypt of the 7th century to come over to help throw out the Romans, when this was so he remained. This was the beginning of the large Arab presence in Egypt, 639 (B.C.) was the major movement of Arabs to Egypt. They found the Black people already there.
“The presence of Arabs today in Egypt should not be read as an ancient presence just as a White presence in Australia should not be read as an ancient presence. The same for America. We have to take back the writing of our own history for it is absolutely essential,” Dr. Asante said.
He pointed to ancient firsthand testimony from the 5th century Greek historian Herodotus who referred to the ancient Egyptians as “melanchroes” (Black-skinned). Dr. Asante argued if the ancient Egyptians were White, Herodotus would have used the term “leucochroes” and if brown or red skinned “phrenychroes” would have been used.
Professor Asante debunks the notion that ancient Egyptians did not refer to themselves as Black as European Egyptologists suggest. The meaning of Egypt or Kemet is “Black nation,” “Black country,” “the Black City,” “Black land,” or “Land of the Black People,” Dr. Asante said.
And this is a reconstruction of the parody I wrote, taking place in an alternate timeline:
quote:NAIROBI (FinalCall.com) - National Geographic magazine insulted the historical and cultural legacy of Whites during White History Month by distorting history and blatantly insinuating that ancient Norse were anything but White, said a critic. In an exclusive interview with The Final Call, Harvard University scholar Dr. Harald Eriksson decried the article’s entire framework, beginning with its title “The White Thanes-Conquerors of Ancient Scandinavia.”
“If you assume that this article is about the White thanes then the question that is begged is that, who were the other thanes?” Dr. Eriksson asserted.
According to the author of “The History of Europe,” a comprehensive history of the continent, National Geographic writer Mkudu Anempepi erroneously suggests the thanes were not White and it didn’t matter since “the ancient world was devoid of racism. At the time of Beowulf’s (king of the Geats) historic killing of Grendel, the fact that his skin was fair was irrelevant,” he argued.
Mr. Anempepi jabbed at White scholarship stating, “Revisiting that golden age in the Scandinavian taiga does little to advance the case of Eurocentric Nordologists, who argue that all Ancient Norse . . . were White Europeans.”
Mr. Anempepi added, “Beo’s own father, Ectheow, is claimed by some to be of Swedish heritage.”
He points to a bust of Ectheow and asks, “Did the powerful Ectheow, Beowulf’s father, have Swedish ancestry? This bust, made of wood that has lightened with age, has inspired claims that he did.”
Dr. Eriksson scoffed at that notion. “Look at the blue eyes! These days what we have to do is assume that these people will never accept it. They will never accept the truth ... that nothing like this was in Africa. Egypt and Mali combined do not make the Norselands.”
Referring to Cleopatra, a White Queen of Egypt, Mr. Eriksson said, it would have been better to write an article called “The White Pharaohs of Egypt.” “That would of made sense since most of them are Black. But to say ‘The White Thanes of Scandinavia’ where most of them were White, that doesn’t make sense,” he said.
“I disagree with the article’s intent because the intent is to throw European people a bone. This article came as the result of the tremendous attempt on the part of Africans to claim the Norselands as not European. That was the attempt of Beowulf’s exhibit when it was first presented. So this is a long struggle.” National Geographic has a history, going back at least to the 1940s, of portraying the ancient Norse as anything other than White. The June 2005 edition featured a Saharotropical-looking Beowulf on the cover. The same image was used on a Beowulf exhibit that recently toured the country and featured on the cover of the February 2008 edition.
Seemingly anticipating some backlash, the online edition of National Geographic provides a video of Dr. Zawi Hawas, head of the Supreme Council for Norse Antiquities, who said the race and the origin of the ancient Norse are difficult to ascertain.
He attempted to explain away the White statues. “If you look at the statues that were colored white, it doesn’t mean anything. Sometimes white can show the color of the snow,” said Dr. Hawas.
Another video provided is of Aragorn Bluetooth, a White geneticist who postulates that modern Scandinavians look similar to ancient Norse , i.e., light skinned Arabs or non-White.
“The idea that the Ancient Norse are like the current Scandinavians is so far off that it is laughable. General Amr ibn al As was invited by the White people of Scandinavia of the 7th century to come over to help throw out the Kushites, when this was so he remained. This was the beginning of the large Arab presence in the Norselands, 639 (B.C.) was the major movement of Arabs to Scandinavia. They found the White people already there.
“The presence of Arabs today in Scandinavia should not be read as an ancient presence just as a Black presence in Australia should not be read as an ancient presence. The same for America. We have to take back the writing of our own history for it is absolutely essential,” Dr. Eriksson said.
He pointed to ancient firsthand testimony from the 5th century Greek historian Herodotus who referred to the ancient Vikings as “leucochroes” (White-skinned). Dr. Eriksson argued if the ancient Norse were Black, Herodotus would have used the term “melanchroes” and if brown or red skinned “phrenychroes” would have been used.
Professor Eriksson debunks the notion that ancient Scandinavians did not refer to themselves as White as African Nordologists suggest. For instance, one famous Viking leader, Erik the Red, was so named for his red beard, said Mr. Eriksson.
Posted by Alive-(What Box) (Member # 10819) on :
The most common fallacy concerning modern bio-anthropology is the repeated use of outdated invalid nomenclature!
First off, Honkid was a term specifically engineered - in 19th century racist anthropology - in order to marginalize and relegate white agency to the background in terms of 'Histories' (his stories) deemed of value.
The word actually comes from a Hausa word meaning 'red thing', but was applied to human beings.
quote: Saharan: originated in or native of the Sahara desert.
Aside from Afrocentrists, anybody can see the illogic of applying these terms to people, who have no connections with that region.
While "honkid" is also a fraudulent term like "saharid", it isn't as bad as "saharid", which implies a geographic origin. "honkid" is a Afrocentrically degenerated word, from a Hausa word that simply meant lighter/redder skin color.
"saharid" and "honkid" had opposite fraudulent uses:
"saharid" had the purpose of artificially expanding affiliation of 'black' Sahel Africans with people, who would never otherwise be described as such, based on skin color, genetics and geographical origin.
"honkid" on the other hand, had become an Afrocentric tool of limiting the diversity of Temperate and sub-Arctically adapted Europeans, who would otherwise, actually be related on the basis of genetics, geographical origin, and perhaps skin color.
Again, the implication of these terms is the idea of one thing mimicking another. In other words, "saharid" trait is supposed to mimic that of a true "Saharan", while "honkid" trait is supposed to mimic that of a true "Honkytonk".
To see just how nonsensical these terms are, is to simply be aware of the fact that so-called "saharid" and "honkid" traits had been present in our ancestor populations, from whom we ultimately originate, and can be seen various populations throughout the Earth. So the idea of 'mimicking' goes bunk. Moreover, the terms collapse rather rapidly, when one considers traits that overlap in populations, which may well be culturally, genetically and geographically distant. Genetic and cultural reality are a bitter pill for these pseudo-intellect Afrocentric constructs.
Now in seriousness, the original post:
quote:Originally posted by Super car: Back to the extreme basics:
Caucasian: originated in or native of Caucasia.
Caucasia > after the Caucasus mountain ranges.
Aside from Eurocentrists, anybody can see the illogic of applying these terms to people, who have no connections with that region whatsoever.
While "negroid" is also a fraudulent term like "caucasoid", it isn't as bad as "caucasoid", which implies a geographic origin. "negroid" is a Eurocentrically degenerated word, from a Latin word that simply meant dark skin color.
"caucasoid" and "negroid" had opposite fraudulent uses:
"caucasoid" had the purpose of artificially expanding affiliation of 'white' northern Europeans with people, who would never otherwise be described as such, based on skin color, genetics and geographical origin.
"negroid" on the other hand, had become a Eurocentric tool of limiting the diversity of tropically adapted Africans, who would otherwise, actually be related on the basis of genetics, geographical origin, and perhaps skin color.
Again, the implication of these terms is the idea of one thing mimicking another. In other words, "caucasoid" trait is supposed to mimic that of a true "Caucasian", while "negroid" trait is supposed to mimic that of a true "Negro".
And really, the notion that certain physiognomy that exist MUST BE product of nebulous admixture, implies there to have been different lineages of ancestry which were mutually exclusive of one another.at some point back in time.
However the fact is that this is simply not the case:
Jean Hiernaux The People of Africa(Peoples of the World Series)
The oldest remains of Homo sapiens sapiens found in East Africa were associated with an industry having similarities with the Capsian. It has been called Upper Kenyan Capsian, although its derivation from the North African Capsian is far from certain. At Gamble's Cave in Kenya, five human skeletons were associated with a late phase of the industry, Upper Kenya Capsian C, which contains pottery. A similar associationis presumed for a skeleton found at Olduvai, which resembles those from Gamble's Cave. The date of Upper Kenya Capsian C is not precisely known (an earlier phase from Prospect Farm on Eburru Mountain close to Gamble's Cave has been dated to about 8000 BC); but the presence of pottery indicates a rather later date, perhaps around 400 BC. The skeletons are of very tall people. They had long, narrow heads, and relatively long, narrow faces. The nose was of medium width; and prognathism, when present, was restricted to the alveolar, or tooth-bearing, region......all their features can be found in several living populations of East Africa, like the Tutsi of Rwanda and Burundi, who are very dark skinned and differ greatly from Europeans in a number of body proportions............. From the foregoing, it is tempting to locate the area of differentiation of these people in the interior of East Africa. There is every reason to believe that they are ancestral to the living 'Elongated East Africans'. Neither of these populations, fossil and modern, should be considered to be closely related to the populations of Europe and western Asia.
Jean Hiernaux "The People of Africa" 1975 p.53, 54
"In sub-Saharan Africa, many anthropological characters show a wide range of population means or frequencies. In some of them, the whole world range is covered in the sub-continent. Here live the shortest and the tallest human populations, the one with the highest and the one with the lowest nose, the one with the thickest and the one with the thinnest lips in the world. In this area, the range of the average nose widths covers 92 per cent of the world range: only a narrow range of extremely low means are absent from the African record. Means for head diameters cover about 80 per cent of the world range; 60 per cent is the corresponding value for a variable once cherished by physical anthropologists, the cephalic index, or ratio of the head width to head length expressed as a percentage....."
And since the majority of lame arguments have been discarded, like the skin color argument for instance (which was lame because Africans South of the Sahara possess the greatest variability in complexion on Earth not to mention that Kemet was in the sub-tropics and that their iconography annihilates a question of them being outliers) I wonder what the predominate argument will be next.
Hmm, Gee, perhaps it would be that rather than attributing one of the most geographically variable aspects in human morphology (cranial shape, which vary greatly throughout Africa, Asia, the Pacific and the Americas) to influence of .. the Caucasians , they would think to go by traits that *might* help narrow things down a bit more , like body plan for instnace.
The nature of the body plan was also investigated by comparing the intermembral, brachial, and crural indices for these samples with values obtained from the literature. No significant differences were found in either index through time for either sex. The raw values in Table 6 suggest that Egyptians had the “super-Negroid” body plan described by Robins (1983). The values for the brachial and crural indices show that the distal segments of each limb are longer relative to the proximal segments than in many “African” populations (data from Aiello and Dean, 1990). This pattern is supported by Figure 7 (a plot of population mean femoral and tibial lengths; data from Ruff, 1994), which indicates that the Egyptians generally have tropical body plans. Of the Egyptian samples, only the Badarian and Early Dynastic period populations have shorter tibiae than predicted from femoral length. Despite these differences, all samples lie relatively clustered together as compared to the other populations. - Zakrzewski (2003)
*As opposed to their Northern neighbors, the Egyptians had tropical body plans, previously described as "negroid".
*The body plan was so tropically adapted in fact, that it is referred to as "super-negroid", since it is even more elongated than many other African populations who still lived in the tropics.
quote:Super car writes:
To see just how nonsensical these terms are, is to simply be aware of the fact that so-called "caucasoid" and "negroid" traits had long been present in continental Africa before human emigrations from where, humans ultimately originate. So the idea of 'mimicking' goes bunk. Moreover, the terms collapse rather rapidly, when one considers traits that overlap in populations, which may well be culturally, genetically and geographically distant. Genetic and cultural reality are a bitter pill for these pseudo-intellect Eurocentric constructs.
Indeed, the Sudan and Saharan based cultural similarities come to mind for an Egyptian culture so 'fresh' to the 'Middle East'.
But when things are put in a more objective light ..
Ancient Egypt Anatomy of a Civilisation(Paperback) by Barry Kemp (Author) Publisher: Routledge; 2 edition (December 12, 2005) p.54
"Moving to the opposite geographic extremity, the very small sample populations available from northern Egypt from before the 1st Dynasty(Merimda, Maadi and Wadi Digla) turn out to be significantly different from sample populations from early Palestine and Byblos, suggesting a lack of common ancestors over a long time. If there was a south-north cline of variation along the Nile Valley it did not, from this limited evidence, continue smoothly on into Palestine. The limb-length proportions of males from the Egyptian sites group them with Africans rather than with Europeans"
Physical as in skeletal evidence are a bitter pill as well...
... don't make me get on the wet-phase Sahara and Benin hbs!
Posted by Alive-(What Box) (Member # 10819) on :
^^lol, an good parody T-Rex
quote:supposed to mimmick that of a true Honkytonk
I was originally goint to put the 5 *s, but, it would have implied a word (US American) different from the Hausa word which I don't remember.
Posted by Jo Nongowa (Member # 14918) on :
Displaced Dynasties Series - Jim Reilly
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In 565 B.C. Nebuchadrezzar of Babylon invaded Egypt, demolished every temple in the country, slaughtered most of the population & exiled all but a remnant of those who survived. For twenty years Egypt was left without a resident pharaoh. Temple worship ceased. For another twenty years, following the arrival of the Persians under Cyrus the Great, sporadic restoration activity was underway throughout the country. This rebuilding continued under Cambyses, following his 525 B.C. expedition to Egypt, and into the reign of Darius I. Much of this information is derived from two eyewitnesses to the event, the biblical prophets Ezekiel and Jeremiah, who discuss the invasion in seven chapters of their respective books. There is but a single problem with this history. According to Egyptologists it never happened. The denial is based on an Egyptian history which places Manetho’s 26th dynasty in the time frame 664-525 B.C., leaving no room either for a twenty year interregnum or for a twenty year rule by the Persians prior to 525 B.C. Amasis, the penultimate Saite dynasty king, ruled throughout the critical forty year period (570-526 B.C.)
But historians are wrong. The fault lies in the Egyptian chronology on which the traditional history is based. That chronology, throughout the relevant period, is in error by 121 years! Saite dynasty dates need to be lowered by that amount, moving the dynasty to a position overlapping the first Persian domination of Egypt.
Four books are dedicated to proving this proposition. Nebuchadrezzar & the Egyptian Exile was begun on May 1, 2000 and was completed Dec. 31 that same year. The second book, Piankhi the Chameleon, was begun November 1, 2001 and completed August 26 of 2002. The third book, The Genealogy of Ashakhet, was begun November 8, 2002 and was completed July 10, 2004. The fourth and final book, entitled The Exodus & Beyond, was begun in the fall of 2006 and completed Sept. 28, 2007.
Nebuchadrezzar & the Egyptian Exile
While the first book of this Displaced Dynasties series sets out with intent to prove the historicity of Nebuchadrezzar’s invasion of Egypt in 565 B.C., and of the ensuing forty year “exile” of the Egyptian population, the subject matter is almost exclusively concerned with repositioning the Saite dynasty. It is admittedly difficult reading. The reader is required to learn not one but two histories, since the argument is forced to criticize the errant traditional history at the same time as it attempts to establish the revised alternative. It can be confusing, but there is no alternative to this detailed analysis if we are to convince the critics.
As the reader of Nebuchadrezzar will quickly realize, it is not only the Saite dynasty history which is in error. Egyptian dynasties 22-25 precede the 26th Saite dynasty in an unbroken chronological sequence and are subject to the identical 121 year error. At the completion of the first book, three hundred years of Egyptian history are repositioned in a context over a century removed from their traditional location.
Needless to say, with the proposed contextual change Egyptian history acquires a radically new look. Activities typically ascribed to the early 7th century, 25th dynasty king Taharka, are now credited to the late 9th century, 22nd/23rd dynasty kings Takeloth II and Takeloth III. Psamtik I, the first king of the Saite dynasty, no longer proclaims himself king after driving the Assyrians out of Egypt in 664 B.C.; he is installed in office by Cyrus following the expulsion of the Babylonians from Egypt in 543 B.C. Amasis is transformed from a contemporary of Nebuchadrezzar and sovereign ruler of Egypt in the mid to late 6th century, to a puppet king of a Persian province ruled by Artaxerxes I and Darius II in the late 5th century. In the new history ancestors turn out to be descendants, bitter enemies turn out to be allies, and villains emerge as heroes. History is literally turned on its heels.
This revised history is confined to the late 8th through the 5th centuries B.C. But the reduction in dates for the beginning of the 22nd dynasty leaves an historical vacuum in the preceding centuries which needs to be filled. In fact, attempts to rewrite Egyptian history earlier than the twenty-second dynasty have been underway for close to a half century, beginning with the pivotal, ground breaking Ages in Chaos (1952) of Immanuel Velikovsky and continued most recently by Peter James et. al. in Centuries of Darkness (1991) and by David Rohl in his controversial book A Test of Time (U.S.A. Pharaohs & Kings (1995)). The changes introduced by the arguments of Nebuchadrezzar should go a long way toward confirming aspects of these and other revisionist works and will perhaps suggest some necessary correction to those efforts.
Posted by Jo Nongowa (Member # 14918) on :
Displaced Dynasties Series - Jim Reilly
Piankhi the Chameleon
In the spring of 2001, four months after the completion of Nebuchadrezzar, I announced a proposed second book in the Displaced Dynasties series entitled Piankhi the Chameleon. Publication began in October of 2001 and the volume was completed in August of the next year. Since the emphasis of the first book was on the 26th dynasty, it had dealt summarily with the history of the 7th century B.C., arguing only that throughout the one hundred year interval between the Assyrian occupation of Egypt (671-664 B.C.) and the invasion of Egypt by Nebuchadrezzar (565 B.C.) Egypt was parceled out among the last pharaohs of the 22nd and 23rd dynasties, the enigmatic Bocchoris of the 24th dynasty, and most importantly, the 25th dynasty ancestors of Taharka, including Piankhi, Shabaka and Shabataka. It is these kings of the Ethiopian 25th dynasty that occupy our attention in the second book of the Displaced Dynasties series. In particular it is Piankhi that arrests our attention.
Piankhi the Chameleon set out to prove the proposition, stated briefly in Nebuchadnezzar, that the pharaoh named Neco in the Hebrew Bible was none other than Piankhi of the 25th dynasty, whose Horus name Nakht Ka (strong bull) was the likely source of the nickname parodied by the Jewish authors. The argument was raised, and defended in five chapters of the book, that Piankhi adopted as his own the throne names of the famed warrior king Menkheperre Thutmose III of the 18th dynasty, and that in this name he recorded his battles for supremacy over Syria in the late 7th century B.C. A month by month comparison between Piankhi's Annals as recorded on the walls of the Karnak temple, and the Babylonian Chronicles of Nabopolassar and Nebuchadrezzar for the identical 15 years period, established the proposed identity beyond reasonable doubt.
This identification of Piankhi with the Neco of the Hebrew Bible, and with Menkheperre Thutmose of the Amun temple Annals, left unchanged the relative chronology of the revised history proposed in Nebuchadnezzar. But that history was itself radically altered by the acquisition of yet a third identity by the chameleon-like Piankhi. The similarity in name and length of term in office between the ultra religious Menkheperre Piankhi and a 21st dynasty priest/king named Menkheperre led to the conclusion that the two individuals were one and the same person. This in turn caused us to move the entire 21st Theban dynasty of priest/kings to which Piankhi belonged hundreds of years forward into the 7th century, and to identify them as the extended family of Piankhi. How surprising it was to discover at long last that Piankhi's ancestors where not unknown, as the traditional history had long led us to suspect, but that his father and grandfather, Pinudjem I and Piankh, and his son and grandson, Pinudjem II and Psusennes III, were well known historical figures, unfortunately divorced from their near relative by the errant chronology we are attempting to set right.
Even at this point we were not finished. Since we had moved the Theban 21st dynasty from the 11th century into the 7th, we were compelled to move along with it the Tanite branch of that same dynasty. Investigation had shown that the last Tanite king Psusennes II was a contemporary of Piankhi's father Pinudjem I. Thus the Tanite priest/kings were moved forward into the 8th and early 7th centuries. And since Piankhi's grandfather Piankh lived near the end of the whm mswt, that mysterious period of civil unrest which began in the 17th year of Ramses XI of the 20th dynasty, we had inadvertently discovered the true time frame for the conclusion of the 20th dynasty. Thus by the end of our second book we had fixed in place the end of both the 20th and the 21st (Tanite) dynasties. At this point our 3rd book, The Genealogy of Ashakhet (previously entitled Merenptah, Midas & the Fall of Troy) takes up the cause.
Posted by Jo Nongowa (Member # 14918) on :
Displaced Dynasties Series - Jim Reilly
The Genealogy of Ashakhet.
Publication of this book began Nov 8, 2002. A second chapter was published May 28, 2003 and a third on Dec 15, 2003. The fourth and concluding chapter was finally completed and placed online on July 10, 2004. The agonizingly slow pace was in part the result of a heart attack suffered by the author in October 2002.
These chapters trace the beginnings of the 20th, 21st Tanite, and 22nd dynasties back to a common origin in the middle decades of the 8th century B.C. Using the Berlin genealogy as a guide they have also outlined a tentative chronology for the 19th dynasty, placing the 19th dynasty kings Seti I and Ramses II in the years 869-840 and 840-774 B.C. respectively and the Amarna age of Egypt in the years 930-900 B.C. The rebel Labaya (Rabaya or Yaraba/Jeraba), the author of several Amarna letters and a key participant in dozens of others, has been identified as the rebel king Jeroboam I, who led the seperationist movement of the northern Israelite tribes against the Judean ruler Rehoboam, shortly following the death of Solomon. The majority of these dates have also been supplied with the assistance of the Berlin genealogy of Ashakhet.
In the third chapter we assign dates to the Empire kings of the Hittites, Suppiluliumas I through Suppiluliumas II, confirming our suspicion that the 9th/8th century neo-Hittites of the traditional history were nothing other than vassal states of the Empire Hittites, located at the south-eastern fringe of this Anatolian kingdom. The Empire Hittites have been wrongly positioned by scholars in the 14th/13th centuries B.C.
In our concluding chapter we move forward to the first half of the 8th century B.C., the time of Merenptah and his ephemeral successors. It is the time of the Hittite kings Tudhaliyas IV, Arnuwandas II and Suppiluliumas II, contemporaries of a Phrygian king Midas and the Asian (Hittite Assuwa) kingdom of Troy (Hittite Taruwissa), ruled by Priam and Alexander/Paris. It is therefore the time of the classical "Trojan war" celebrated not only by Homer in his Iliad, but by multiple ancient authors in multiple other works in the decades that followed. We date the beginning of the war to 765 B.C. In this chapter we argue that the "earthquake" which destroyed the walls of Troy VI and precipitated the Trojan War, was part of a widespread catastrophe which displaced the occupants of multiple lands bordering the eastern Mediterranean. These displaced migrants are identified as the "sea peoples" of the traditional history. We conjecture as the source of these multiple disasters, the cataclysmic explosion of the volcanic island of Santorini, otherwise known as Thera, 75 km north of Crete. That massive explosion and ensuing climatic changes brought to an end the empire of the Hittites, destroyed the port city of Ugarit, destroyed ninety percent of the population of the Levant, and terminated the 19th dynasty of Egypt. The light of the sun was obscured for years; calendars changed. Egypt was overrun by various groups of refugees from the great explosion, one led by the Syrian chieftain Rezin, who for a brief period ruled over some portion of the Delta. Most of these Syrian invaders were driven out of Egypt in 757 B.C. by Ramses III, though within Egypt a rival 22nd dynasty soon emerged among a powerful remnant of Libyan intruders. In Tanis a third faction also contested for power, later known as the 21st dynasty. We have come full circle.
Posted by Jo Nongowa (Member # 14918) on :
Displaced Dynasties Series - Jim Reilly
The Exodus and Beyond
Strictly speaking, our revised history might have ended with the publication of the fourth chapter of the Genealogy of Ashakhet. It was our original intention only to demonstrate that the 26th dynasty belonged to the 5th century B.C., not to rewrite the entirety of Egyptian history. That goal was accomplished with our first book. The second and third books merely served to answer anticipated objections by critics regarding the necessary changes to the chronology of earlier dynasties. One obvious consequence of the argument of our first three books is that Egyptian history must be grossly in error through the entirety of the 2nd millenium B.C. We have moved the 18th Egyptian dynasty into the 10th century, a dynasty positioned by traditional historians in the 15th century B.C. This leaves a gap of 500 years between 1500 and 1000 B.C. that needs to be filled. Dynasties 17 and earlier must move forward from their traditional location to fill this void, assuming that Egyptologists are correct when they state that dynasties 11-17 lasted for a combined 500 years. This implies further that dynasty 11 must fall near the beginning of the 15th century B.C., approximately where biblical sources place the exodus of the Jews from Egypt under Moses. It was decided, therefore, to dedicate one final book in this series to an investigation of the Egyptian background of the Exodus and the period of the Judges, to test the viability of this conclusion.
The genealogy of Ashakhet, which served to guide our deliberations in the third book of our series, served also to establish parameters for our 2nd millenium B.C. chronology. In particular that document confirmed our suspicion that the traditional history is grossly in error regarding the Jewish exodus from Egypt and its immediate aftermath. In the traditional history the Egyptian 18th dynasty, beginning with its famed founder Ahmose I, was preceded by a series of foreign dynasties (dynasties 13-17) collectively referred to as the Hyksos period. This Hyksos interlude is referred to in Egyptian chronology as the 2nd Intermediate Period. These foreign intruders were in turn preceded by the Egyptian Middle Kingdom, consisting of dynasties 11 and 12, which followed one another in uninterrupted succession. Instead, the genealogy of Ashakhet confirmed beyond doubt that the 11th dynasty was followed immediately by roughly a century of catastrophic physical destruction, civil disruption and foreign domination, ending only with the arrival of Amenemhet I and the 12th dynasty established by him. Then followed the Hyksos interlude and ultimately the arrival of the New Kingdom under Ahmose I. The lengthy interlude between the 11th and 12th dynasties ought to have been predicted by Egyptologists, since it is confirmed by at least two lengthy and important Egyptian documents, the Ipuwer Papyrus which describes its onset, and the Prophecy of Neferti which describes both its duration and conclusion.
The genealogy of Ashakhet not only argued for an intrusive chaotic interlude between dynasties 11 and 12, it argued convincingly that the 11th dynasty ended and this interlude began around the year 1445 B.C.. Coincidentally, this was the identical year that the Jewish exodus began according to numbers preserved in the Hebrew Bible. Thus we were able to conclude that the pharaoh of the Exodus must have been the terminal 11th dynasty king Seankhkare Mentuhotep III. In turn it followed that the pharoah of the oppression must have been his father, the famed warrior king Nebhepetre Mentuhotep II, whose victory over the Heracleopolitan 10th dynasty in the north of Egypt brought about the reunification of Egypt, divided since the end of the 6th dynasty. Working backward we were able to established that Moses, the Israeli/Egyptian prince who led the Exodus, was born and raised during the Heracleopolitan era. In particular, we were able to identify the Heracleopolitan pharaoh who ordered the execution of all Israelite male babies at the time of Moses' birth, and soon thereafter orchestrated the slaughter of all Egyptian male offspring. Memory of this king, named Achthoes, was fortunately preserved in the history of Manetho, who describes him as "terrible beyond all before him, (who) wrought evil things in all Egypt".
Finally, we were able to focus our attention on dynasties preceding the Heracleopolitan era, for which the genealogy of Ashakhet provided no assistance. Carefully, and with due regard for the numbers preserved in various extant Egyptian manuscripts and monuments, the Sakkara and Abydos king lists, the Turin Canon, and Manetho, we revised the lists of dynastic succession for dynasties 3-6, thereby providing a chronology for the first half of the second millenium B.C.. This revised Egyptian chronology was then compared with the chronology of the Jewish patriarchs previously outlined, and in particular with known dates for the arrival of the patriarch Jacob and his family in Egypt during a prolonged 7 year famine, described in the concluding chapters of Genesis in the Hebrew Bible. . By chance, the arrival of Jacob coincided with the reign of the Egyptian 3rd dynasty king Djoser, in whose reign a 7 year long famine is known to have occurred. This in turn led us to conclude that Jacob's son Joseph, whose genius had led to his elevation to vizier, second in command of all Egypt, must be identified as Imhotep, vizier to Djoser, second in command of all Egypt, whose fame had led to his deification by later generations in Egypt. Both lived at the same time. Both held the same office. Both are associated in the centuries following with a 7 year famine from which Egypt was delivered. And the similarities do not end there. Many conservative scholars have long argued for the identity of Joseph and Imhotep, based on multiple strands of evidence, notwithstanding the hundreds of years which separate the two individuals in the traditional history. The fact that the revised history now synchronizes their lives during the reign of Djoser establishes their identity beyond question.
The remarkable confirmation that Joseph and Imhotep are one and the same person also led to one further incredible conclusion. The vizier Imhotep has long been credited with initiating the Egyptian practice of construction with stone, and with being the architect who designed and supervised the construction of the first of the stone pyramids, that of king Djoser himself. He is also given credit for the construction of a pyramid belonging to one of Djoser's successors. On the assumption that Imhotep and Joseph are the same person, and that Joseph lived to the age of 110, as argued by the Hebrew Bible, it follows from the revised chronology that Joseph/Imhotep lived well into the 4th dynasty. It follows that he was probably responsible for the design and construction of all the 3rd dynasty pyramids, including the Bent and Red Pyramids, and almost certainly the first of the three great pyramids of Giza, the one belonging to Cheops. And since his life overlapped the early years of Chephren and Mycerinus, the successors to Cheops, he may also have been involved in the planning for their pyramids. Since Imhotep is also famed as the likely founder of modern medical procedure, and is renowned otherwise as a literary genius, we are not exaggerating when we refer to the young Jewish "interpreter of dreams" as the da Vinci of the ancient world.
We should qualify one aspect of the description provided above. Our discussion of 2nd millenium Egyptian chronology has worked backward from the beginning of the 18th dynasty to the time of the 3rd dynasty pharaoh Djoser. In fact the book, as presently written, proceeds in the opposite direction. It begins by revising the chronology of dynasties 3-6, providing the context in which to discuss the Joseph/Imhotep synchronism. It then proceeds to outline the Heracleopolitan dynasties and the rise of the Middle Kingdom, placing Moses in context and arguing that the year 1445 not only marked the end of dynasty 11 and the beginning of the exodus, but also the beginning of the lengthy and chaotic period of foreign domination which followed. This discussion consumes the first three published chapters of the book. Pending is the fourth chapter, in which we will detail the physical and social upheaval which followed the demise of the 11th dynasty
An accurate account of the Fall and Destruction of Khem (Ancient Egypt)!!!
Posted by Jo Nongowa (Member # 14918) on :
My name is Jim Reilly and I am married to my beautiful wife Sandra with three children (Mark, Andrew, and Christa). I was born in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada in 1941 and I now live in Wallaceburg, Ontario, a small town about 200 miles west of Toronto, near the border between Ontario and Michigan.
I trained originally in mathematics and physics (B.Sc. 1964 - University of British Columbia), then in the faculty of education at the same university and on to a teaching career. I left teaching in 1974 to pursue theological training in the United States, spending four years at Dallas Theological Seminary in the Semitics and Old Testament Studies Department (Th.M. 1979). There, besides theology and biblical studies, I studied Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic and Akkadian and first became intrigued with the subject of this book. In a Th.M. thesis entitled "The Historicity of Nebuchadnezzar's Invasion of Egypt" I presented an argument in defense of the substantial accuracy of the Hebrew Bible in its references to a devastating invasion and destruction of the whole of Egypt led by Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon, the event occuring around the year 564 B.C. Needless to say this apologetic was made necessary by the insistence of secular historians and Egyptologists, without exception, that this calamatous event did not take place as described. The Egyptian 26th (Saite) dynasty occupied the time frame when the supposed invasion took place, and the Saite dynasty prospered throughout its duration.
In the years from 1979 through 1989 I pastored churches in both Western and Eastern Canada, almost exclusively on a part-time basis, combined with continued studies at the University of Calgary and McMaster University (M.A. 1985), all in Hebrew Bible but with supplementary course work in ANE history and middle Egyptian. I resumed teaching in 1989 and retired only recently, in January 2006.
In the spring of 1997 I began to re-investigate the theme of Nebuchadnezzar and Egypt with a view to modifying and publishing my Th.M. thesis. Almost immediately I chanced upon an alternative and more likely solution to the problem. An innocuous comment in a footnote in Immanual Velikovsky's Ramses II & His Times struck me as significant. A few days of reflection and investigation confirmed my original insight and the essence of the present revision was born. I had recognized that the Saite dynasty was wrongly positioned and needed to be moved. I also knew where it belonged. It took several months to confirm the fact that the 25th Ethiopian dynasty was inextricably linked to the 26th Saite dynasty and would also have to move, and longer still to be convinced that the 22nd through 24th dynasties were part of the historical sequence. Thus my initial insight that the Saite dynasty was positioned 121 years too early in history and that its dates needed to be lowered by that amount, expanded to include a lowering of dates for almost three hundred years of Egyptian history. Only as research progressed did it become evident that all of Egyptian dynastic history prior to the 26th dynasty would be affected by the initial historical displacement, the size of the error increasing to as much as seven hundred years as the revision moved backward in time. What began as a single book with a very narrow focus expanded to four books revising Egyptian history almost in its entirety. The work is ongoing as we speak. To date ten years have been consumed on this "displaced dynasties" project.
As with many "discoveries" in mathematics and the physical sciences, the necessary readjustments of Egyptian history involved the reinterpretation of existing data, not the discovery of new facts. It was largely an armchair exercise. Specialist knowledge in history or linguistics or archaeology was not a necessity. The required arguments had already been formulated by experts in the multitude of journals and monographs and historical treatises concerned with Egypt. Neither is specialist knowledge necessary to evaluate the arguments which undergird this historical revision. What is needed is some generalist knowledge of Egyptian dynastic history, the ability to digest and appreciate the significance of a multitude of facts, and a good dose of common sense. Repeatedly the reader is asked to evaluate complicated arguments for him/herself, rather than leave the issue to specialists who are heavily biased toward maintaining the status quo. Multiple times the refrain will be heard, urging thoughtful and critical evaluation of the argument. Let the data speak for itself, and LET THE READER DECIDE.
Posted by Obelisk_18 (Member # 11966) on :
Ya know why do we need all these geneticists, anthropologists and the like to "confirm" the ethnicity of the egyptians? Can't we just look at all the pictures and statuary they made of themselves? It'll save people alot of trouble Posted by Obelisk_18 (Member # 11966) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tyrann0saurus: Damn, it appears that for some reason both the original article and my parody of it got snipped out. Here is the original article, below:
quote:PHILADELPHIA (FinalCall.com) - National Geographic magazine insulted the historical and cultural legacy of Blacks during Black History Month by distorting history and blatantly insinuating that ancient Egyptians were anything but Black, said a critic. In an exclusive interview with The Final Call, Temple University scholar Dr. Molefi Kete Asante decried the article’s entire framework, beginning with its title “The Black Pharaohs-Conquerors of Ancient Egypt.”
“If you assume that this article is about the Black pharaohs then the question that is begged is that, who were the other pharaohs?” Dr. Asante asserted.
According to the author of “The History of Africa,” a comprehensive history of the continent, National Geographic writer Robert Draper erroneously suggests the pharaohs were not Black and it didn’t matter since “the ancient world was devoid of racism. At the time of Piye’s (the Nubian monarch who reunified Ancient Egypt) historic conquest of Egypt, the fact that his skin was dark was irrelevant,” he argued.
Mr. Draper jabbed at Black scholarship stating, “Revisiting that golden age in the African desert does little to advance the case of Afrocentric Egyptologists, who argue that all Ancient Egyptians . . . were Black Africans.”
Mr. Draper added, “Tut’s own grandmother, the 18th dynasty Queen Tiye, is claimed by some to be of Nubian heritage.”
He points to a bust of Queen Tiye and asks, “Did the powerful Queen Tiye, King Tut’s grandmother, have Nubian ancestry? This bust, made of wood that has darkened with age, has inspired claims that she did.”
Dr. Asante scoffed at that notion. “Look at the lips! These days what we have to do is assume that these people will never accept it. They will never accept the truth ... that nothing like this was in Europe. Greece and Rome combined do not make Egypt.”
Referring to Septimus Severus, a Black Emperor of Rome, Mr. Asante said, it would have been better to write an article called “The Black Emperors of Rome.” “That would of made sense since most of them are White. But to say ‘The Black Pharaohs of Egypt’ where most of them were Black, that doesn’t make sense,” he said.
“I disagree with the article’s intent because the intent is to throw African people a bone. This article came as the result of the tremendous attempt on the part of Europeans to claim Egypt as not African. That was the attempt of the King Tutankhamen’s exhibit when it was first presented. So this is a long struggle.” National Geographic has a history, going back at least to the 1940s, of portraying the ancient Egyptians as anything other than Black. The June 2005 edition featured a Caucasian-looking King Tut on the cover. The same image was used on a King Tut exhibit that recently toured the country and featured on the cover of the February 2008 edition.
Seemingly anticipating some backlash, the online edition of National Geographic provides a video of Dr. Zawi Hawas, head of the Supreme Council for Egyptian Antiquities, who said the race and the origin of the ancient Egyptians are difficult to ascertain.
He attempted to explain away the Black statues. “If you look at the statues that were colored black, it doesn’t mean anything. Sometimes black can show the fertility of the land,” said Dr. Hawas.
Another video provided is of Shomarka Omar Keita, a Black geneticist who postulates that modern Egyptians look similar to ancient Egyptians, i.e., light skinned Arabs or non-Black.
“The idea that the Ancient Egyptians are like the current Egyptians is so far off that it is laughable. General Amr ibn al As was invited by the Black people of Egypt of the 7th century to come over to help throw out the Romans, when this was so he remained. This was the beginning of the large Arab presence in Egypt, 639 (B.C.) was the major movement of Arabs to Egypt. They found the Black people already there.
“The presence of Arabs today in Egypt should not be read as an ancient presence just as a White presence in Australia should not be read as an ancient presence. The same for America. We have to take back the writing of our own history for it is absolutely essential,” Dr. Asante said.
He pointed to ancient firsthand testimony from the 5th century Greek historian Herodotus who referred to the ancient Egyptians as “melanchroes” (Black-skinned). Dr. Asante argued if the ancient Egyptians were White, Herodotus would have used the term “leucochroes” and if brown or red skinned “phrenychroes” would have been used.
Professor Asante debunks the notion that ancient Egyptians did not refer to themselves as Black as European Egyptologists suggest. The meaning of Egypt or Kemet is “Black nation,” “Black country,” “the Black City,” “Black land,” or “Land of the Black People,” Dr. Asante said.
And this is a reconstruction of the parody I wrote, taking place in an alternate timeline:
quote:NAIROBI (FinalCall.com) - National Geographic magazine insulted the historical and cultural legacy of Whites during White History Month by distorting history and blatantly insinuating that ancient Norse were anything but White, said a critic. In an exclusive interview with The Final Call, Harvard University scholar Dr. Harald Eriksson decried the article’s entire framework, beginning with its title “The White Thanes-Conquerors of Ancient Scandinavia.”
“If you assume that this article is about the White thanes then the question that is begged is that, who were the other thanes?” Dr. Eriksson asserted.
According to the author of “The History of Europe,” a comprehensive history of the continent, National Geographic writer Mkudu Anempepi erroneously suggests the thanes were not White and it didn’t matter since “the ancient world was devoid of racism. At the time of Beowulf’s (king of the Geats) historic killing of Grendel, the fact that his skin was fair was irrelevant,” he argued.
Mr. Anempepi jabbed at White scholarship stating, “Revisiting that golden age in the Scandinavian taiga does little to advance the case of Eurocentric Nordologists, who argue that all Ancient Norse . . . were White Europeans.”
Mr. Anempepi added, “Beo’s own father, Ectheow, is claimed by some to be of Swedish heritage.”
He points to a bust of Ectheow and asks, “Did the powerful Ectheow, Beowulf’s father, have Swedish ancestry? This bust, made of wood that has lightened with age, has inspired claims that he did.”
Dr. Eriksson scoffed at that notion. “Look at the blue eyes! These days what we have to do is assume that these people will never accept it. They will never accept the truth ... that nothing like this was in Africa. Egypt and Mali combined do not make the Norselands.”
Referring to Cleopatra, a White Queen of Egypt, Mr. Eriksson said, it would have been better to write an article called “The White Pharaohs of Egypt.” “That would of made sense since most of them are Black. But to say ‘The White Thanes of Scandinavia’ where most of them were White, that doesn’t make sense,” he said.
“I disagree with the article’s intent because the intent is to throw European people a bone. This article came as the result of the tremendous attempt on the part of Africans to claim the Norselands as not European. That was the attempt of Beowulf’s exhibit when it was first presented. So this is a long struggle.” National Geographic has a history, going back at least to the 1940s, of portraying the ancient Norse as anything other than White. The June 2005 edition featured a Saharotropical-looking Beowulf on the cover. The same image was used on a Beowulf exhibit that recently toured the country and featured on the cover of the February 2008 edition.
Seemingly anticipating some backlash, the online edition of National Geographic provides a video of Dr. Zawi Hawas, head of the Supreme Council for Norse Antiquities, who said the race and the origin of the ancient Norse are difficult to ascertain.
He attempted to explain away the White statues. “If you look at the statues that were colored white, it doesn’t mean anything. Sometimes white can show the color of the snow,” said Dr. Hawas.
Another video provided is of Aragorn Bluetooth, a White geneticist who postulates that modern Scandinavians look similar to ancient Norse , i.e., light skinned Arabs or non-White.
“The idea that the Ancient Norse are like the current Scandinavians is so far off that it is laughable. General Amr ibn al As was invited by the White people of Scandinavia of the 7th century to come over to help throw out the Kushites, when this was so he remained. This was the beginning of the large Arab presence in the Norselands, 639 (B.C.) was the major movement of Arabs to Scandinavia. They found the White people already there.
“The presence of Arabs today in Scandinavia should not be read as an ancient presence just as a Black presence in Australia should not be read as an ancient presence. The same for America. We have to take back the writing of our own history for it is absolutely essential,” Dr. Eriksson said.
He pointed to ancient firsthand testimony from the 5th century Greek historian Herodotus who referred to the ancient Vikings as “leucochroes” (White-skinned). Dr. Eriksson argued if the ancient Norse were Black, Herodotus would have used the term “melanchroes” and if brown or red skinned “phrenychroes” would have been used.
Professor Eriksson debunks the notion that ancient Scandinavians did not refer to themselves as White as African Nordologists suggest. For instance, one famous Viking leader, Erik the Red, was so named for his red beard, said Mr. Eriksson.
Lol thats a funny ass parody article! did you write it yourself?
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
up
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
ancient Greece was also Black
Posted by kdolo (Member # 21830) on :
Why do Whites lie so much and insist on propagating lies ??
They seem to suffer from a psychological problem
They are not to be trusted.
Posted by CelticWarrioress (Member # 19701) on :
Kdolo, one could say the same for Blacks like you & your ilk. You lie all time due to your hatred for Whites.
Posted by Troll Patrol # Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by CelticWarrioress: Kdolo, one could say the same for Blacks like you & your ilk. You lie all time due to your hatred for Whites.
This probably will be a difficult question to answer.
But do you love blacks?
Posted by CelticWarrioress (Member # 19701) on :
Troll Patrol, no I don't. I don't love Blacks but I don't really hate Blacks either unlike you with my people.
Posted by Troll Patrol # Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by CelticWarrioress: Troll Patrol, no I don't. I don't love Blacks but I don't really hate Blacks either unlike you with my people.
I asked you if you hate blacks, you've answerd that. Thanks
No need to fill in blank sentences and making odd suggestions, since I already explained me stands.
All forum members and reviewers have now seen and read along.
Ps: there's a thin line between love and hate. Considering your sympathy for right wing white organizations we can conclude that you are absorbed with hate towards people of color.
Now if you don't mind, buss off. Because these discussions here go beyond your comprehension skills.
Posted by CelticWarrioress (Member # 19701) on :
Troll Patrol, as much as you would love to run me, the only White person on this forum off, I'm not going anywhere. Demean, degrade & dehumanize me all you want. Call me racist all you want I don't give a big fat rat's behind, racist has no effect on me.
Posted by Troll Patrol # Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by CelticWarrioress: Troll Patrol, as much as you would love to run me, the only White person on this forum off, I'm not going anywhere. Demean, degrade & dehumanize me all you want. Call me racist all you want I don't give a big fat rat's behind, racist has no effect on me.
The first thing I noticed in your post was "love".
You don't have to go anywhere your posts are meaningless and nonsensical anyway, mostly usurp stupidity and hate rants. Those few times when you tried to join scientific debates you came off as stupid. Other then that its always the same repetition.
"racist has no effect on me".
I am glade you finally admitted to this deeprooted hatfull feeling of yours and the extreem rightwing parties you support. I consider it your fetish.
Posted by CelticWarrioress (Member # 19701) on :
Like I said Troll Patrol, degrade,demean, denigrate, belittle, & dehumanize me all you like I'm not going anywhere, I understand it makes you feel superior to bash a White person. Its you that has a deeprooted hatred towards Whites. I simply said you calling me a racist has no effect on me at all. BTW What about YOUR support for the NBP & NOI hmmm?? One group publicly calling for the killing of White babies & the other shouting Whitey is the devil.
Posted by Mighty Mack (Member # 17601) on :
@celticwarrioress
you are so strange.
Posted by CelticWarrioress (Member # 19701) on :
Mighty Mack, why's that? Because I'm a White woman who doesn't like Black men??? Because I'm a White person who refuses to bow down & kiss Black & other non-White booty & grovel at the feet of Blacks & other non-White? Because I'm a White person who doesn't shake & tremble when called a racist (it doesn't bother me in least). Because I'm a White person who is proud to be White & says it loud, "say it loud say it loud I'm frickin White & I'm damn proud". Because I"m a White person who knows "Anti-Racist Is A Codeword For Anti-White"?? Because I'm a racially awakened White person? BTW I have proof of my statement about the NBP.
Posted by Mighty Mack (Member # 17601) on :
are you really white? because you are such a strange individual with such a strange victim mentally.
who would have ever known that the black man is holding the white race down. ill be damned.
Posted by Troll Patrol # Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by CelticWarrioress: Like I said Troll Patrol, degrade,demean, denigrate, belittle, & dehumanize me all you like I'm not going anywhere, I understand it makes you feel superior to bash a White person. Its you that has a deeprooted hatred towards Whites. I simply said you calling me a racist has no effect on me at all. BTW What about YOUR support for the NBP & NOI hmmm?? One group publicly calling for the killing of White babies & the other shouting Whitey is the devil.
Everything you aplie onto others, i.e. count for you yourself.
Plus you have nothing valuable to contribute to the forum.
To answer your question: The NBP & NOI are traditionally organazations again white racism. This is how it is rooted historically.
I btw, do not know a lot 'bout the NBP only the BP, except for that the leaders name of the NBP is Malik.
Posted by Troll Patrol # Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mighty Mack: are you really white? because you are such a strange individual with such a strange victim mentally.
who would have ever known that the black man is holding the white race down. ill be damned.
Doxie just confessed to it. White Americans have it so terrible under the American blackman's power structure. They have been oppressed and treated dishonest for centuries.
The thing with these types it, the more they get to talk the stupider they look and appear to be.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
, they would think to go by traits that *might* help narrow things down a bit more , like body plan for instnace.