Afrocentrism: Were the ancient Egyptians black?

[uptownlivin90]

The death masks and representations of those that lived in that time and place don't look "black" to me, but being truly black is quite a bit different than just skin color alone. For instance, indian women are some of the blackest womean I've known, but take that pigment away and they wouldn't share anything in common physically a with a person of African descent.

Many people of "African descent" don't have the same facial features. My own personal opinion is that the Egyptians favored the people that currently make up the population of Somalia. A more "red-brown colored" people who's skinned tone may have ranges from very light-brown to very dark in some cases. I think the evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates they were "African" in origin, and closely related to the Nubians/Cushites (who on a side note some believe to be white as well). If you watch the movie "The Prince of Egypt" I wouldn't have trouble at all believing that that movie gives an accurate depiction of the skin tone of the characters portrayed.

 

[uptownlivin90]

Modern Somalian/Eritreans:

I hate when both Afrocentrists and Eurocentrists try to pin Egyptian culture to themselves.

NEITHER American Europeans or American people of color have any racial or ethnic ties to Egypt or Nubia for that matter. If ANYBODY does it's the non-Arab people that actually live in the Nile basin. I'm convinced looking at the evidence that the people currently living in the nile region of the Sudan, Ethiopia, and Eritrea and Somalia especially are the true decendents of the Ancient Egyptians and Nubians.

 

[Madeline]

The death masks and representations of those that lived in that time and place don't look "black" to me, but being truly black is quite a bit different than just skin color alone. For instance, indian women are some of the blackest womean I've known, but take that pigment away and they wouldn't share anything in common physically a with a person of African descent.

Many people of "African descent" don't have the same facial features. My own personal opinion is that the Egyptians favored the people that currently make up the population of Somalia. A more "red-brown colored" people who's skinned tone may have ranges from very light-brown to very dark in some cases. I think the evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates they were "African" in origin, and closely related to the Nubians/Cushites (who on a side note some believe to be white as well). If you watch the movie "The Prince of Egypt" I wouldn't have trouble at all believing that that movie gives an accurate depiction of the skin tone of the characters portrayed.

All of this means what, exactly? The entire human population of Planet Earth has only about 0.010% of its DNA at variance. This is such a slight degree it scarcely matters....except for the hysteria with which we segregate ourselves and others by silly things like skin color.

While the human genome is mostly the same in all people, slight differences exist. This genetic variation, spread across many genes, makes up about one-tenth of a percent of each person's DNA. Yet these small differences are enough to create people with different appearances and different health. These differences are often inherited, so the more closely related two people are, the more similar their DNA is likely to be.

Human Genetic Variation Fact Sheet - National Institute of General Medical Sciences

 

[uptownlivin90]

how can a whole population/nation dissappear and become another race?

The Republic of Haiti, the only completely Black republic in the Western Hemisphere also happens to be the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere. It also has the lowest life expectancy, highest illiteracy, lowest per capita consumption of newsprint, lowest per capita GNP, and the lowest level of political stability.

Haiti once had a promising future. Before 1789 as a French colony under White rule, San Domingo (Haiti) was as rich or richer in productivity as all the 13 American Colonies combined. It was considered the "crown jewel" of the French colonial system, and was in fact the most prosperous colony anywhere in the world. Populated by 40,000 Whites, 27,000 freed Mulattoes, and 450,000 Black slaves and with a bountiful climate and productive soil, it supplied all of France and half of Europe with sugar, coffee, and cotton. But in 1791, the French government issued a decree ordering Haiti to give the vote to the Mulattoes, and soon after another ordering freedom for all the slaves. This resulted in a bloody civil war in which the entire White population (about 40,000 Frenchmen) was murdered, down to the last man, woman, and child. Rape, decapitation, and mutilation were committed almost universally upon their bodies.

After the Blacks massacred the last of the White population in 1804, Haiti remained a part of Santa Domingo, until 1844 when it became a separate "republic." Between 1844 and 1915 only one Haitian president completed his term in office. Fourteen were ousted by armed uprisings, one was blown up, one was poisoned and another was hacked to pieces by a mob. Between 1908 and 1915 the revolutions and assassinations increased so rapidly that a United States military occupation was needed to restore order. This lasted from 1915 to 1934. Thereafter followed twelve years of rule by a Mulatto elite which ended in the resumption of control by the Black military in 1946. Since then wholesale corruption and political murder have been the rule.

We ALL know the story white man good, black man bad. Heard it before. Didn't you post this silly shit before and get owned with your own facts for it or was that another troll? Ayiti declared it's independence from Santa Domingo in 1804 and was recognized as a sovereign state by France in 1825 not 1844. What you forgot to mention (I'm sure not purposely) is that upon France's recognition of Haiti the French through Haiti into a mountain of debt from their beginning charging them about 150 million francs, it was later reduced to 90 million.

Your little cut and paste there that I'm extremely familiar with ALSO left out a few other key points:

1. The wonderful God-fearing happy white folks that the evil tyrannical violent revolutionaries killed off, were slave owners.
2. Haiti and the Dominican Republic colonialist rule. The island was unified in 1821 by Haitian President Jean Boyer when what is now the Dominican Republic declared it's independence from spain and opted to JOIN Haiti rather than join the Gran Colombia. They later opted for independence in 1844 and became the sovereign state of the Dominican Republic.
3. The major reason why the US occupied Haiti was because of the success of German nationals living in Haiti and their business interests in the region as this was the period at the beginning of the First World War.

The majority of Haiti's issues stem from the fact that it is ruled by a small elite group of families that don't always see eye to eye. There is alot of corruption, this has alot to do however moreso with the fact that various western nations around the world have had a hand in proping up these "families" and groups in order to insure that their interests are met.

Seriously, the next time you want to talk about "history" make sure you get your facts straight, while your calling everybody else "unintelligent". One thing you won't get away with is misrepresenting the history of my people.

 

[uptownlivin90]

The death masks and representations of those that lived in that time and place don't look "black" to me, but being truly black is quite a bit different than just skin color alone. For instance, indian women are some of the blackest womean I've known, but take that pigment away and they wouldn't share anything in common physically a with a person of African descent.

Many people of "African descent" don't have the same facial features. My own personal opinion is that the Egyptians favored the people that currently make up the population of Somalia. A more "red-brown colored" people who's skinned tone may have ranges from very light-brown to very dark in some cases. I think the evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates they were "African" in origin, and closely related to the Nubians/Cushites (who on a side note some believe to be white as well). If you watch the movie "The Prince of Egypt" I wouldn't have trouble at all believing that that movie gives an accurate depiction of the skin tone of the characters portrayed.

All of this means what, exactly? The entire human population of Planet Earth has only about 0.010% of its DNA at variance. This is such a slight degree it scarcely matters....except for the hysteria with which we segregate ourselves and others by silly things like skin color.

While the human genome is mostly the same in all people, slight differences exist. This genetic variation, spread across many genes, makes up about one-tenth of a percent of each person's DNA. Yet these small differences are enough to create people with different appearances and different health. These differences are often inherited, so the more closely related two people are, the more similar their DNA is likely to be.

Human Genetic Variation Fact Sheet - National Institute of General Medical Sciences

IDK what it means? Ask the original poster, he's the one that brought it up.

 

[Madeline]

We have a few trolls, uptownliving. Ain't no biggie. Dun stress.

 

[IanC]

The death masks and representations of those that lived in that time and place don't look "black" to me, but being truly black is quite a bit different than just skin color alone. For instance, indian women are some of the blackest womean I've known, but take that pigment away and they wouldn't share anything in common physically a with a person of African descent.

Many people of "African descent" don't have the same facial features. My own personal opinion is that the Egyptians favored the people that currently make up the population of Somalia. A more "red-brown colored" people who's skinned tone may have ranges from very light-brown to very dark in some cases. I think the evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates they were "African" in origin, and closely related to the Nubians/Cushites (who on a side note some believe to be white as well). If you watch the movie "The Prince of Egypt" I wouldn't have trouble at all believing that that movie gives an accurate depiction of the skin tone of the characters portrayed.

All of this means what, exactly? The entire human population of Planet Earth has only about 0.010% of its DNA at variance. This is such a slight degree it scarcely matters....except for the hysteria with which we segregate ourselves and others by silly things like skin color.

While the human genome is mostly the same in all people, slight differences exist. This genetic variation, spread across many genes, makes up about one-tenth of a percent of each person's DNA. Yet these small differences are enough to create people with different appearances and different health. These differences are often inherited, so the more closely related two people are, the more similar their DNA is likely to be.

Human Genetic Variation Fact Sheet - National Institute of General Medical Sciences

Madeline- you can't measure differences in DNA by percentages. A single change in one position can make a huge difference. Or large differences in junk sections can show no detectable difference.

 

[Madeline]

IanC wrote:

Madeline- you can't measure differences in DNA by percentages. A single change in one position can make a huge difference. Or large differences in junk sections can show no detectable difference.

Mebbe so, IanC, but "race" as applied to homo sapiens is a purely social construct. It has no biological basis.

 

[Tank]

All of this means what, exactly? The entire human population of Planet Earth has only about 0.010% of its DNA at variance. This is such a slight degree it scarcely matters....except for the hysteria with which we segregate ourselves and others by silly things like skin color.

All of this means what, exactly? The entire human population of Planet Earth has only about 98.5% of its DNA at variance with chimpanzees. This is such a slight degree it scarcely matters....except for the hysteria with which we segregate ourselves and others by silly things like skin color

 

[IanC]

IanC wrote:

Madeline- you can't measure differences in DNA by percentages. A single change in one position can make a huge difference. Or large differences in junk sections can show no detectable difference.

Mebbe so, IanC, but "race" as applied to homo sapiens is a purely social construct. It has no biological basis.

Maddy- I think we both grew up listening to people like Lewontin and Gould, who effectively argued that race and racial differences were non-existent. But it is 2010 now and those pretty arguments that we wanted to believe have been consigned to the trash pile. Race does exist, it can be detected by DNA testing, it is correlated (and almost certainly partially causative) to differences in behaviour, intelligence and personality.

While I applaud and agree that everyone should be given an equal chance, the fact that there are racial disparities is not something that we should blindly refuse to see, rather it is an expression of the diversity that so many champion as an important benefit to society.

Sorry if it seems like I only disagree with you on this subject but I fear you are stuck in the past with an incomplete understanding of what is physically true and what is psychologically wished for.

 

[MikeK]

Kinda hard to totally dismiss Tank's point. Black countries don't seem to be able to maintain any sort of high functioning govt without outside help of either money or capable managers. That what reality seems to show anyways.

An unfortunate fact of contemporary life in America is it has become difficult to entertain certain historical questions without seeming to be a racist or being accused of racism.

The question I have is there any documentable argument against the specifics presented about Haiti in Tank's message? I know very little about Haiti but the little I do know seems to square perfectly with Tank's information.

 

[IanC]

Kinda hard to totally dismiss Tank's point. Black countries don't seem to be able to maintain any sort of high functioning govt without outside help of either money or capable managers. That what reality seems to show anyways.

An unfortunate fact of contemporary life in America is it has become difficult to entertain certain historical questions without seeming to be a racist or being accused of racism.

The question I have is there any documentable argument against the specifics presented about Haiti in Tank's message? I know very little about Haiti but the little I do know seems to square perfectly with Tank's information.

History can be presented many ways, in this case (as shown by California Girl's link) with a racist slant. I just wish people were as quick to notice racist bias when it is directed at whites.

 

[Flagwavrusa]

IanC wrote:

Madeline- you can't measure differences in DNA by percentages. A single change in one position can make a huge difference. Or large differences in junk sections can show no detectable difference.

Mebbe so, IanC, but "race" as applied to homo sapiens is a purely social construct. It has no biological basis.

This idea that race is a social construct is trotted out by liberals any time the subject of race is discussed, as if it were an established fact when that isnt true at all.

The two races evolved in very different climactic environments over a timescale of tens of thousands of years, allowing for the evolution of unique traits that distinguish the races.

Blacks and whites can easily be distinguished by physical features such as facial features, shape of skull, bone structure, hair texture, skin color, and at the dna level.

Over the past 100 years persons of african heritage have consistently underperformed whites on iq tests by a wide margin. They are also noticeably behaviorally different from whites with regard to other traits, such as proclivity for violence.

In the 25 largest metropolitan areas blacks and whites overwhelmingly choose to live apart from one another. As people prefer to live amongst those like themselves, this suggests innate behavioral differences between blacks and whites that as a general proposition lead them to avoid living in close proximity to one another.

None of this jives with the notion that we all have the same DNA and that the concept of race is a fiction. I dont think anyone is going to be able to silence the discussion of racial differences with this bogus argument, so why bother trying.

 

[Madeline]

IanC wrote:

Madeline- you can't measure differences in DNA by percentages. A single change in one position can make a huge difference. Or large differences in junk sections can show no detectable difference.

Mebbe so, IanC, but "race" as applied to homo sapiens is a purely social construct. It has no biological basis.

Maddy- I think we both grew up listening to people like Lewontin and Gould, who effectively argued that race and racial differences were non-existent. But it is 2010 now and those pretty arguments that we wanted to believe have been consigned to the trash pile. Race does exist, it can be detected by DNA testing, it is correlated (and almost certainly partially causative) to differences in behaviour, intelligence and personality.

While I applaud and agree that everyone should be given an equal chance, the fact that there are racial disparities is not something that we should blindly refuse to see, rather it is an expression of the diversity that so many champion as an important benefit to society.

Sorry if it seems like I only disagree with you on this subject but I fear you are stuck in the past with an incomplete understanding of what is physically true and what is psychologically wished for.

Ancestry can be detected by DNA testing, yes. But for purposes of the science of biology, a pair of creatures can be said to belong to two different races or species only if they cannot produce fertile offspring.

A horse is a different species than a donkey, and they can mate to produce a mule...but mules are infertile. It's pretty clear, fertility in humans is universal unless some defect impairs it. It is also pretty clear we all share the same original ancestors, and that we all share the same DNA pool. You and I are genetically distinguishable, but (assuming we are both white) as a group, predominately white humans are distinguishable from other humans who are predominately Asian, etc. only by a tiny tiny fraction of genetic material that controls certain aspects of our appearance.

Species: Encyclopedia - Species

Furthermore, since my family was Scottish and likely had not left the area in millenium, if yours is, say, Italian, you might be as much as 50% Asian or Black and I might be as little as 10%...but the odds are fairly high neither of us is "pure white". Anymore than it is easy to find "pure Asians" or "pure Africans", etc. Humans may have been less comingled in the past, but migration has always occurred and thus, intermarriage, etc.

The sentence "race is only a social construct" is not a liberal slogan. It's a scientific fact.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

IanC wrote:

Madeline- you can't measure differences in DNA by percentages. A single change in one position can make a huge difference. Or large differences in junk sections can show no detectable difference.

Mebbe so, IanC, but "race" as applied to homo sapiens is a purely social construct. It has no biological basis.

This idea that race is a social construct is trotted out by liberals any time the subject of race is discussed, as if it were an established fact when that isnt true at all.

The two races evolved in very different climactic environments over a timescale of tens of thousands of years, allowing for the evolution of unique traits that distinguish the races.

Blacks and whites can easily be distinguished by physical features such as facial features, shape of skull, bone structure, hair texture, skin color, and at the dna level.

Over the past 100 years persons of african heritage have consistently underperformed whites on iq tests by a wide margin. They are also noticeably behaviorally different from whites with regard to other traits, such as proclivity for violence.

In the 25 largest metropolitan areas blacks and whites overwhelmingly choose to live apart from one another. As people prefer to live amongst those like themselves, this suggests innate behavioral differences between blacks and whites that as a general proposition lead them to avoid living in close proximity to one another.

None of this jives with the notion that we all have the same DNA and that the concept of race is a fiction. I dont think anyone is going to be able to silence the discussion of racial differences with this bogus argument, so why bother trying.

What does any of this racist nonsense have to do with Ancient Egyptians being of North East African descent, which is supported by linguistic, anthropological, archaeological, and genetic evidence? I'm not going to waste my time refuting strawman arguments.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

The death masks and representations of those that lived in that time and place don't look "black" to me, but being truly black is quite a bit different than just skin color alone. For instance, indian women are some of the blackest womean I've known, but take that pigment away and they wouldn't share anything in common physically a with a person of African descent.

Many people of "African descent" don't have the same facial features. My own personal opinion is that the Egyptians favored the people that currently make up the population of Somalia. A more "red-brown colored" people who's skinned tone may have ranges from very light-brown to very dark in some cases. I think the evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates they were "African" in origin, and closely related to the Nubians/Cushites (who on a side note some believe to be white as well). If you watch the movie "The Prince of Egypt" I wouldn't have trouble at all believing that that movie gives an accurate depiction of the skin tone of the characters portrayed.

All of this means what, exactly? The entire human population of Planet Earth has only about 0.010% of its DNA at variance. This is such a slight degree it scarcely matters....except for the hysteria with which we segregate ourselves and others by silly things like skin color.

While the human genome is mostly the same in all people, slight differences exist. This genetic variation, spread across many genes, makes up about one-tenth of a percent of each person's DNA. Yet these small differences are enough to create people with different appearances and different health. These differences are often inherited, so the more closely related two people are, the more similar their DNA is likely to be.

Human Genetic Variation Fact Sheet - National Institute of General Medical Sciences

Africans are the most diverse group of people on the planet genetically and phenotypically , even the phenotype of North Africans in Morocco and Algeria is largely indigenous, though they did absorb lots of people from Europe and the Middle East. Another thing people must take into consideration is that Africa is the birthplace of modern humans so it shouldn't be shocking that some non-Africans and some Africans can look alike or similar. uptownlivin is right, Ancient Egyptians had biological affinities that placed them closest to Somalis, Ethiopians, Nubians and Saharans, especially the nomadic Beja people, they#re as close as you're oing to get to the original peoples in terms of phenotype.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

Modern Somalian/Eritreans:

I hate when both Afrocentrists and Eurocentrists try to pin Egyptian culture to themselves.

NEITHER American Europeans or American people of color have any racial or ethnic ties to Egypt or Nubia for that matter. If ANYBODY does it's the non-Arab people that actually live in the Nile basin. I'm convinced looking at the evidence that the people currently living in the nile region of the Sudan, Ethiopia, and Eritrea and Somalia especially are the true decendents of the Ancient Egyptians and Nubians.

You are correct, I stockpiled some information that supports your view and for the record most African Americans and Afrocentrists don't claim any descent or relationship with Ancient Egyptians other than saying they were black just like they themselves are black.

 

[code1211]

Ancient Egypt was founded and built by Mediterranean Caucasians as
far back as 4500 B.C. Egypt's period of greatness was from 3400 B.C. to 1800
B.C. and was characterized by its amazing architecture, pyramids, temples,
and mastery of mathematics and engineering, the remnants of which are still
evident today. The White Egyptians pioneered medicine, chemistry, astronomy,
and law; In many cases, their achievements remain unequalled.

But, about 3400 B.C. Egypt civilization began to spread up the
Nile River, bringing it in close contact with the black Nubians to the
south. Soon they were using Blacks for slave labor and Egypt became
history's first melting pot.

In time the infusion of Negro blood worked itself up from the
bottom of Egyptian society. The slaves were eventually freed, received
political equality, and took posts of authority in government.

By the time of King Tut (1370-1352 B.C.) even the ruling classes
had been mongrelized and Egypt began a tailspin downward. Today, the
once-mighty Egypt is very much a Third World country, having lost its art,
its medicine, its architectural ability, and its position in world affairs.


The absurd notion that Ancient Egypt was a product of Negro ingenuity is now
being widely disseminated in the schools. Though scholars know this is a
blatant lie, they justify the deception by assuming it will boost the
"self-esteem" of Black children.

Wow!

 

[code1211]

I dont think so, i think they were medium brown --> google their self-depictions they clearly distinguish themselfes from the SSA race...Greek Writers describe them as Northindian looking and Southindians as Ethiopian looking but with straight hair

I know you, why did you follow me here? This topic has been beaten to death in the other forums we posted in, Ancient Egyptians were indigenous Northeast Africans more similar to Nubians, Saharans, and Horn of Africans like Somalis and Ethiopians and looked nothing like Europeans or Arabs.

As I understand history, Alexander conquered most of the world including Egypt and it was he who created the Greek influence by instating Ptolmy in the leadership role. Anything before that time, around 300 or so BC, probably was due to native Egyptian creativity, organization and culture.

Another of my understandings in this was that the desertification of Northern Africa forced the indiginous Desert people to migrate to less arrid areas. When the desert people met the Nile people, as often happens when cultures mix, a synergy of talents followed and the Ancient Egyptian civilization rose.

It seems more logical to me to deduce from this that Africans built the Egyptian society than it is to assume that the backward, by comparisson, cultures from other areas of the Mediterranean, did so.

The Chinese and Japanese cultures rose without aid from European whites. I don't know why there are those who will torture history to make it say things that it doesn't seem willing to say on its own.

 

[code1211]

I dont think so, i think they were medium brown --> google their self-depictions they clearly distinguish themselfes from the SSA race...Greek Writers describe them as Northindian looking and Southindians as Ethiopian looking but with straight hair

I know you, why did you follow me here? This topic has been beaten to death in the other forums we posted in, Ancient Egyptians were indigenous Northeast Africans more similar to Nubians, Saharans, and Horn of Africans like Somalis and Ethiopians and looked nothing like Europeans or Arabs.

Hi Bass, cool to see you around... I think they looked like they look today, how can a whole population/nation dissappear and become another race?

In 3000 BC, Egypt was the crossroads of the world. Check out the USA today for the answer to your question.

Because of the ease of travel and the speed of communication, maintaining cultural "purity" in the future will require a concentrated effort. Mountains and oceans will no longer do the trick.