Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedWerer the Egyptians white or black?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 19202122>
Poll Question: well?
Poll Choice Votes Poll Statistics
24 [43.64%]
31 [56.36%]
This topic is closed, no new votes accepted

Author
beorna View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 03-Dec-2007
Location: Germany
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 925
Direct Link To This Post Topic: Werer the Egyptians white or black?
    Posted: 10-Apr-2013 at 17:52
Originally posted by Rakasnumberone



That's not what is being said in the quote you've presented. What he is saying is that DE is one of the haplotypes that migrated out of Africa. He didn't say it wa the only one that left Africa. There were 2migrations. The 1st migration happened 70,000 years ago. The 2nd migration was the DE migration.  "....in which he implies that haplogroup DE left Africa along with Haplogroup CF.[17]"  
So right in this sentences what he is saying is that DE is African in origin. 

"However Underhill contends that with all the available information, the African origin of the YAP+ polymorphism is more parsimonious and more plausible than the Asian origin hypothesis.[9] " 

What Underhill is saying is that an African origin for haplotype E makes more sense than an Asian origin for Haplotype E.  Therefore the first diagram would make sense. DE originated in Africa, but split of in 2 directions. One went into Asia one stayed in Africa. The DE that stayed in Africa is the branch that gave birth to E. So to put in an everyday scenario again, you have the DE Family. They live in Africa. One side of the DE family moved to Asia one stayed in Africa. E is the child of the DE family that stayed in Africa.

we have to keep the change of environment as result of the changing climate. africa was extremestly dry between 60,000 and 30,000 and these process already started 70,000 BP. neanderthalians appear in the near east from 65,000 to 46,000. So this is the time, where the asiatic populations were seperated from the african populations. But if the time of 60-70ky BP the time of seperation, then it can't be hardly as well the time of migration. And we have already modern hominids in china, in liujiang (67,000 +/- 6ky or even older), sahul shall be settled from 75,00-62,000, there are findings in Arabia around 100,000 years old. so humans migrated from africa already in the early last glacial, before 70,000 BP, too early for CF or DE.
Back to Top
Rakasnumberone View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun

Suspended

Joined: 14-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 211
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Apr-2013 at 18:20
Originally posted by beorna

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone



That's not what is being said in the quote you've presented. What he is saying is that DE is one of the haplotypes that migrated out of Africa. He didn't say it wa the only one that left Africa. There were 2migrations. The 1st migration happened 70,000 years ago. The 2nd migration was the DE migration.  "....in which he implies that haplogroup DE left Africa along with Haplogroup CF.[17]"  
So right in this sentences what he is saying is that DE is African in origin. 

"However Underhill contends that with all the available information, the African origin of the YAP+ polymorphism is more parsimonious and more plausible than the Asian origin hypothesis.[9] " 

What Underhill is saying is that an African origin for haplotype E makes more sense than an Asian origin for Haplotype E.  Therefore the first diagram would make sense. DE originated in Africa, but split of in 2 directions. One went into Asia one stayed in Africa. The DE that stayed in Africa is the branch that gave birth to E. So to put in an everyday scenario again, you have the DE Family. They live in Africa. One side of the DE family moved to Asia one stayed in Africa. E is the child of the DE family that stayed in Africa.

we have to keep the change of environment as result of the changing climate. africa was extremestly dry between 60,000 and 30,000 and these process already started 70,000 BP. neanderthalians appear in the near east from 65,000 to 46,000. So this is the time, where the asiatic populations were seperated from the african populations. But if the time of 60-70ky BP the time of seperation, then it can't be hardly as well the time of migration. And we have already modern hominids in china, in liujiang (67,000 +/- 6ky or even older), sahul shall be settled from 75,00-62,000, there are findings in Arabia around 100,000 years old. so humans migrated from africa already in the early last glacial, before 70,000 BP, too early for CF or DE.

You still don't understand what the material is saying. There was more than one migration out of Africa, not just one. DE migration into Africa happend at a later period. Lets look at it this way, you want to take a trip to London to watch a football game. There are flights leaving every hour. One group of people took the first flight of the day and got to London at 7:00 in the morning. Another group of people caught a later flight. They took the flight that left later that morning and arrived at 2:00 in the afternoon. DE was on the flight that arrived later that afternoon at 2:00. They were not on the first flight that arrived in the morning. Basically that is the scenario that the recent scientific findings are showing.

Now as to Egypt and what the people actually look like. I've been going to Egypt almost every year since 1988. I work with Egyptians and I live in an Egyptian neighborhood. So yes, I know what they look like. In the north there are a lot of light complected people, but when you go to Upper Egypt they are very dark. And now because so many people migrate to Cairo and Alexandria to work, just about half the people you will see in Cairo and even Alexandria are very dark.  

As for Arab looks, there is no such thing as an Arab look. They all look different. Yemenis and Emeratis don't look like Syrians and even Saudis are very mixed with East Africans. There is quite a large diversity and if Yemini, Emerati and many Saudi Arabs were in the US 50yrs ago, they would be considered colored, black, negro and forced to sit on the back of the bus with the Afro Americans. That's just a fact.
Back to Top
beorna View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 03-Dec-2007
Location: Germany
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 925
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Apr-2013 at 12:32
Originally posted by Rakasnumberone


You still don't understand what the material is saying. There was more than one migration out of Africa, not just one. DE migration into Africa happend at a later period. Lets look at it this way, you want to take a trip to London to watch a football game. There are flights leaving every hour. One group of people took the first flight of the day and got to London at 7:00 in the morning. Another group of people caught a later flight. They took the flight that left later that morning and arrived at 2:00 in the afternoon. DE was on the flight that arrived later that afternoon at 2:00. They were not on the first flight that arrived in the morning. Basically that is the scenario that the recent scientific findings are showing.

maybe. well, i don't claim, that there was only one single migration. I say, that it was a wave before 60-70ky BP and as it seems are all non-african y-dna haplotypes based on a single group of people. There is no evidence for migrations from africa later as that date, indeed, there is evidence for a re-migration from asia to africa. So if the declining temperatures and the aridisation around 65ky ended the possibility of greater migrations, african and non-african populations seperated. If C, D, E and f are all younger than thiese date, they can't have originated in Africa. As long as there is no correction for these dates, only BT can have migrated to asia.

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

Now as to Egypt and what the people actually look like. I've been going to Egypt almost every year since 1988. I work with Egyptians and I live in an Egyptian neighborhood. So yes, I know what they look like. In the north there are a lot of light complected people, but when you go to Upper Egypt they are very dark. And now because so many people migrate to Cairo and Alexandria to work, just about half the people you will see in Cairo and even Alexandria are very dark. 

Yes, but especially the dark are immigrants and foreign workers.

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

As for Arab looks, there is no such thing as an Arab look. They all look different. Yemenis and Emeratis don't look like Syrians and even Saudis are very mixed with East Africans. There is quite a large diversity and if Yemini, Emerati and many Saudi Arabs were in the US 50yrs ago, they would be considered colored, black, negro and forced to sit on the back of the bus with the Afro Americans. That's just a fact.

Yes, arabs don't look all equal, that's correct. But the average egyptians are much closer to the average arabs, than to subsaharan populations.
And to repeat it. I really don't care what some white US racist thought 50 years ago or even today. Races do not exist, the members of such claimed races are genetically more different to each other than the genetical average between two different races.
Back to Top
Rakasnumberone View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun

Suspended

Joined: 14-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 211
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Apr-2013 at 02:08
Originally posted by beorna

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone


You still don't understand what the material is saying. There was more than one migration out of Africa, not just one. DE migration into Africa happend at a later period. Lets look at it this way, you want to take a trip to London to watch a football game. There are flights leaving every hour. One group of people took the first flight of the day and got to London at 7:00 in the morning. Another group of people caught a later flight. They took the flight that left later that morning and arrived at 2:00 in the afternoon. DE was on the flight that arrived later that afternoon at 2:00. They were not on the first flight that arrived in the morning. Basically that is the scenario that the recent scientific findings are showing.

maybe. well, i don't claim, that there was only one single migration. I say, that it was a wave before 60-70ky BP and as it seems are all non-african y-dna haplotypes based on a single group of people. There is no evidence for migrations from africa later as that date, indeed, there is evidence for a re-migration from asia to africa. So if the declining temperatures and the aridisation around 65ky ended the possibility of greater migrations, african and non-african populations seperated. If C, D, E and f are all younger than thiese date, they can't have originated in Africa. As long as there is no correction for these dates, only BT can have migrated to asia.

But this is not what the latest scientific reasearch is saying:

Origins

Underhill (2001) proposed that haplogroup E may have arisen in East Africa.[4] Some authors as Chandrasekar (2007), continue to accept the earlier position of Hammer (1997) that Haplogroup E may have originated in Asia,[5] given that:

  • E is a clade of Haplogroup DE, with the other major clade, haplogroup D, being East Asian.
  • DE is a clade within M168 with the other two major clades, C and F, considered to have a Eurasian origin.

However, several discoveries made since the Hammer articles are thought to make an Asian origin less likely:

  1. Underhill and Kivisild (2007) demonstrated that C and F have a common ancestor meaning that DE has only one sibling which is non-African.[6]
  2. DE* is found in both Asia and Africa, meaning that not only one, but several siblings of D are found in Asia and Africa.
  3. Karafet (2008), in which Hammer is a co-author, significantly rearranged time estimates leading to "new interpretations on the geographical origin of ancient sub-clades".[1]Amongst other things this article proposed a much older age for haplogroup E-M96 than had been considered previously, giving it a similar age to Haplogroup D, and DE itself, meaning that there is no longer any strong reason to see it as an offshoot of DE which must have happened long after DE came into existence and had entered Asia.[1]

Furthermore haplotype E is the dominant haplotype in Africa.

Distribution

Haplogroup E (Y-DNA)

Most members of haplogroup E-M96 belong to one of its identified subclades, and the E-M96 (xE-P147,xE-M75) lineage is rare. E1a and E-M75 are found almost exclusively in Africa. By looking at the major subclade frequencies, five broad regions of Africa can be defined: East, Central, North, Southern and West. The division can be distinguished by the prevalence of E-V38 in East, Central, Southern and West Africa, E-M78 in East Africa and E-M81 in North Africa. E-V38 is the most prevalent subclade of E in Africa. It is observed at high frequencies in all African regions except the northernmost and easternmost portions of the continent. E-M243 (especially its subclades M78 and M81) is found at high frequencies in North East Africa and North Africa and is the only subclade that is found in Europe and Asia at significant frequencies. E-M243 is common among Afro-Asiatic speakers in the Near East and North Africa as well as among some Nilo-Saharan and Niger–Congo speakers in North East Africa and Sudan. E-M243 is far less common in West, Central, and Southern Africa, though it has been observed among some Khoisan speakers[7] and amongNiger–Congo speakers in Senegambia,[8] Guinea-Bissau,[9] Burkina Faso,[10] Ghana,[8] Gabon,[11] the Democratic Republic of the Congo,[8] Rwanda,[12] Namibia,[8] and South Africa.[8]

So if the position is that haplotype E is really Asian, then the overwhelming majority of Africans are not really Africans but Asian immigrants. The science simply does not back up an Asian origin for E. If it were, then one would see that E is the dominant haplotype in Asia, which it is not as can clearly be seen in the graph. 


Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

Now as to Egypt and what the people actually look like. I've been going to Egypt almost every year since 1988. I work with Egyptians and I live in an Egyptian neighborhood. So yes, I know what they look like. In the north there are a lot of light complected people, but when you go to Upper Egypt they are very dark. And now because so many people migrate to Cairo and Alexandria to work, just about half the people you will see in Cairo and even Alexandria are very dark. 

Yes, but especially the dark are immigrants and foreign workers.

So you mean to tell me that everybody in Upper Egypt is an immigrant? Are all these people in Luxor immigrants?



Aswan:  

Nubians: 

Regardless of how dark or how light these people may be they are all of the same family group.

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

As for Arab looks, there is no such thing as an Arab look. They all look different. Yemenis and Emeratis don't look like Syrians and even Saudis are very mixed with East Africans. There is quite a large diversity and if Yemini, Emerati and many Saudi Arabs were in the US 50yrs ago, they would be considered colored, black, negro and forced to sit on the back of the bus with the Afro Americans. That's just a fact.

Yes, arabs don't look all equal, that's correct. But the average egyptians are much closer to the average arabs, than to subsaharan populations.

To reiterate, all Arabs don't look alike. If you're talking about the Arabian peninsula a great many of them are black. They come in all colors, so there is no such thing as "a typical Arab look". And  if we add genetics into the mix most Egyptians are haplotype E. Most Arabs are haplotype J. They are not the same genetic family.

As for Sub Saharan Africans, once again there is no such thing as a typical look. Somalis, Ethiopians, Chadics, Kenyans, Ugandans, Nigerians Sudanese, Nigerians Senegalese are all Sub Saharans, but none of them look alike. Furthermore, even the Sahara has black skinned people so the idea that there are light skinned people north of the Sahara and only dark skinned below is a myth.

And to repeat it. I really don't care what some white US racist thought 50 years ago or even today. Races do not exist, the members of such claimed races are genetically more different to each other than the genetical average between two different races.

Once again you're missing the point. Western colonial Europeans created a concept of racial superiority to justify the enslavement of Africans in the New World and the colonialization of Africa and Asia in the Old World. They tried to use skin color as proof of racial inferiority. So whether a person was light brown or dark brown made no diference to them. The fact that a person was not a white skinned European meant they were intelectually inferior in their minds. They said that no African people were capable of creating civilization. Egyptians are African people. They come in all colors from light brown to dark brown. 

Egyptian civilization evolved in the regions of Southern Egypt and Northern Sudan as well as the southern areas of the Sahara. The people who still live in that region are mostly dark brown, or if you like black skinned. Open any history book on the developement of Ancient Egyptian civilization they start in Sudan and Upper Egypt and the Sahara. However, those dark people are of the same family group as the lighter skinned people living in the North. The idea that dark skinned people are some how distinct and not related to darker skinned people is a myth.Its just a fact. As stated before, most Noth Africans share the same Y chromosome, the PN2 transition with over 70% of all African men. That means that the White skinned berbers of Algeria are of the same family group as the darkest skinned Sudanese.

When you look at genetics, anthropological skeletal studies, linguistics, cultural parctices all the evidence shows that these people are Africans. They don't have to be Subsaharans to be Africans. Algerian Berber are just as African and Ugandans. Africa is a continent of great genetic, physical and linguistic diversity. They don't all have to look alike to be African. To imply that Egyptians are not really Africans because they don't look like Nigerians makes as much sense as saying that East Indians are not really Asians because they don't look like Chinese. If we can accept that Persians, Kurds, Afghanis, Nepalies, Tibetans, Indians and Chinese are all Asians and none is more Asian than the other, why then is it so hard to accept that North Africans are just as African as the people below the Sahara?


Edited by Rakasnumberone - 12-Apr-2013 at 02:16
Back to Top
beorna View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 03-Dec-2007
Location: Germany
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 925
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Apr-2013 at 05:54
Originally posted by Rakasnumberone


Once again you're missing the point. Western colonial Europeans created a concept of racial superiority to justify the enslavement of Africans in the New World and the colonialization of Africa and Asia in the Old World. They tried to use skin color as proof of racial inferiority. So whether a person was light brown or dark brown made no diference to them. The fact that a person was not a white skinned European meant they were intelectually inferior in their minds.

Oh, I understand this very well. But as i said, i don't care about the ideologies of white US american racists or racists from ther parts of the world. This is a discussion completely different to ours. We talk about Old Egypt.

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

They said that no African people were capable of creating civilization. Egyptians are African people. They come in all colors from light brown to dark brown.

You are kept in the same racist theories, oly with a look from the black side. I said it above, there are no races existing, there are just a lot of different types of humans, which can be classified by skin colours, facial structure, genetics, etc. Egyptian culture evolved in the Nile valley, so it is african. No doubt. That doesn't mean, that there was no exteriour input and this doesn't mean, that neolithic populations hav't migrated after the LGM into Northeast Africa.

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

Egyptian civilization evolved in the regions of Southern Egypt and Northern Sudan as well as the southern areas of the Sahara. The people who still live in that region are mostly dark brown, or if you like black skinned. Open any history book on the developement of Ancient Egyptian civilization they start in Sudan and Upper Egypt and the Sahara. However, those dark people are of the same family group as the lighter skinned people living in the North. The idea that dark skinned people are some how distinct and not related to darker skinned people is a myth.Its just a fact. As stated before, most Noth Africans share the same Y chromosome, the PN2 transition with over 70% of all African men. That means that the White skinned berbers of Algeria are of the same family group as the darkest skinned Sudanese.

Egypt civilisation has two cores in minimum, one in the south, one in the delta. The egyptian culture is linked with the aridisation of North africa during the holocene. But who lived in these Saharah-savannah? Africans from west africa, central africa and south africa have besides E, a lot of A and B. Well, we both probably agree, that A and B a clearly african. But both are quite rare among northern africans. So this alone shows, that north africa is distinct from subsaharan africa. Now again to E. I suppose, that E devoloped in arabia, perhaps in Yemen and moved from there to africa. This happened probably during very early times. So E had a lot of time to spread across africa and these tens of thousands of years makes E for sure african as well. If we keep in mind, that anthropological certain negride findings date back not longer ago than a few tens of thousands of years, then probably the recent tropical african populations already evolved after E became frequent in Africa.

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

When you look at genetics, anthropological skeletal studies, linguistics, cultural parctices all the evidence shows that these people are Africans. They don't have to be Subsaharans to be Africans. Algerian Berber are just as African and Ugandans. Africa is a continent of great genetic, physical and linguistic diversity. They don't all have to look alike to be African. To imply that Egyptians are not really Africans because they don't look like Nigerians makes as much sense as saying that East Indians are not really Asians because they don't look like Chinese. If we can accept that Persians, Kurds, Afghanis, Nepalies, Tibetans, Indians and Chinese are all Asians and none is more Asian than the other, why then is it so hard to accept that North Africans are just as African as the people below the Sahara?

They are africans, but as africans they don't have to be black. Nobody denies Egyptians as africans, usually just afrocentrists try to occupy egyption history for black people alone.
Persians, kurds etc are indeed all asians, that doesn't mean that all are white or all yellow or green.
Back to Top
Rakasnumberone View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun

Suspended

Joined: 14-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 211
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Apr-2013 at 13:39
Originally posted by beorna

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone


Once again you're missing the point. Western colonial Europeans created a concept of racial superiority to justify the enslavement of Africans in the New World and the colonialization of Africa and Asia in the Old World. They tried to use skin color as proof of racial inferiority. So whether a person was light brown or dark brown made no diference to them. The fact that a person was not a white skinned European meant they were intelectually inferior in their minds.

Oh, I understand this very well. But as i said, i don't care about the ideologies of white US american racists or racists from ther parts of the world. This is a discussion completely different to ours. We talk about Old Egypt.

No it isn't. This is the issue that underlies he whole question. That's what you are not understanding. The question of this topic has nohing to do with science but with the remnants of th old legacy of a colonial racist mentality that still exists in the minds of many people to this day. Why else would they be asking the question? When was the last time you sa a discussion on whether or not the Greeks were white or brown? Or wether or not Indians are black or brown, or white? Egypt is the only civilization where people are obsessed with what color they were. Why is that? Its becaus there are still people who believe in these old backward ways of thinking and they feel uncomfortable with the thought of giving credit to such a civilization to African people. That is why it has to be challenged so that people, especially the younger generations can understand that these ideas are old fashioned and outdated.

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

They said that no African people were capable of creating civilization. Egyptians are African people. They come in all colors from light brown to dark brown.

You are kept in the same racist theories, oly with a look from the black side. I said it above, there are no races existing, there are just a lot of different types of humans, which can be classified by skin colours, facial structure, genetics, etc. 

I'm not looking at it from the black side but from the reality side. But don't you see, human populations can not be classified into neat categories based on skin color and features. It just doesn't work and is not scientific. As I explained before, genetic science shows that the darkest skinned Africans are genetic relatives of the lightest skinned Africans. They are of the same family, so hpw can you pu them into different groups. People who have the same haplotypes can be any color. A person who is E1b1b can have black skin like a Nubian, or medium brown skin, or light brown skin, or white skin. If you look at many Egyptian families you can't tell who is related to who based on skin color alone. The guy with the straight hair and white skin could have a brother with black skin and kinky hair. Or the Black skinned child could have straight hair and the white skinned brother is the one wih the kinky hair. If you looked at my brother and me you would never know we are related. He has black skin and wavey hair and I have light brown skin and kinky hair. So does this mean we belong to different categories? The idea of classifiying people by appearances is not scientific and does not reflect reality.

For example, here are two men who the world recognised and considers to be black men
Bob Marley

Mohamed Ali

What do these two men have in common? They have European Y haplotypes. Bob Marley's father was English and Mohamed Ali's grand father was Irish. So if we base people on scientific classification as you say, why aren't these men considered Europeans?

And here's another question, why is there a need to try to classify people into groups like this in the first place? All people on earth identify most according to culture and geography. Why is this not enough? Who created this concept of classifying people according to apperances and why was it considered neccessary to do so when throughout the thousands of years of recorded histroy it wasn't done until the 500yrs ago? Why are we still holding on to this, especially when science is showing how irrelivant it is?

Egyptian culture evolved in the Nile valley, so it is african. No doubt. That doesn't mean, that there was no exteriour input and this doesn't mean, that neolithic populations hav't migrated after the LGM into Northeast Africa.

Egyptian culture is African, that is true. Has there been Asian migrations into Africa? Of course there has and science shows this with the presence of haplotypes such as J1 being found in parts of Africa. History also shows this with the colonization of Phoenicians in various locations acoss North Africa and especially with the Islamic expansion much later. The records of the Egyptians shows that there were Asiatic migrants who came to Egypt as slaves, mercenaries and as migrant workers. So yes of course there was contact. How could there not be. But Egyptian civilization itself was not the result of a transplanted Asian culture. It was a culture that grew out of the experiences of people rigt there and was quite distinct from the cultures of Mesopotamia and Arabia in very fundamental ways. It was a native culture which over time had absorbed immigrants from the outside who over time adopted the dominant culture and became Egyptians themselves.

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

Egyptian civilization evolved in the regions of Southern Egypt and Northern Sudan as well as the southern areas of the Sahara. The people who still live in that region are mostly dark brown, or if you like black skinned. Open any history book on the developement of Ancient Egyptian civilization they start in Sudan and Upper Egypt and the Sahara. However, those dark people are of the same family group as the lighter skinned people living in the North. The idea that dark skinned people are some how distinct and not related to darker skinned people is a myth.Its just a fact. As stated before, most Noth Africans share the same Y chromosome, the PN2 transition with over 70% of all African men. That means that the White skinned berbers of Algeria are of the same family group as the darkest skinned Sudanese.

Egypt civilisation has two cores in minimum, one in the south, one in the delta. The egyptian culture is linked with the aridisation of North africa during the holocene. But who lived in these Saharah-savannah? Africans from west africa, central africa and south africa have besides E, a lot of A and B. 

And if we look in Sudan, which is also in North Africa, as well as in the Sahara, we also see A and B as well as E.

Well, we both probably agree, that A and B a clearly african. But both are quite rare among northern africans. So this alone shows, that north africa is distinct from subsaharan africa. 

Its not a question of whether or not Egyptians are related to other Africans, but which Africans they are most closely related to.  Egyptians are firstly most related to themselves. What does this mean? It means that they are more closely related to each other than they are to Moroccans. Who are their next closest relatives? The answer is the Nubians.

Now again to E. I suppose, that E devoloped in arabia, perhaps in Yemen and moved from there to africa. This happened probably during very early times. So E had a lot of time to spread across africa and these tens of thousands of years makes E for sure african as well. 

But as I demonstrated and provided the information to support it, this is not what the latest scientific genetic findings are showing. The most recent genetic findigs are showing that E evolved not in Asia but in Africa. So if you are going to base your opinion on science, then you have to go in accordance with what the most rescent findings are saying. Not holding on to outdated information that has been disproven. As it stands now the most current findings shows that E evolved in Africa, ont Asia. The only haplotypes of Asian origin to migrate back to Africa are J1 nad J2 and the R haplotype and its subclades and both of these are younger than E.

If we keep in mind, that anthropological certain negride findings date back not longer ago than a few tens of thousands of years, then probably the recent tropical african populations already evolved after E became frequent in Africa.

What is a negrid finding? There is no such thing as a negro.

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

When you look at genetics, anthropological skeletal studies, linguistics, cultural parctices all the evidence shows that these people are Africans. They don't have to be Subsaharans to be Africans. Algerian Berber are just as African and Ugandans. Africa is a continent of great genetic, physical and linguistic diversity. They don't all have to look alike to be African. To imply that Egyptians are not really Africans because they don't look like Nigerians makes as much sense as saying that East Indians are not really Asians because they don't look like Chinese. If we can accept that Persians, Kurds, Afghanis, Nepalies, Tibetans, Indians and Chinese are all Asians and none is more Asian than the other, why then is it so hard to accept that North Africans are just as African as the people below the Sahara?

They are africans, but as africans they don't have to be black. Nobody denies Egyptians as africans, usually just afrocentrists try to occupy egyption history for black people alone.

I never said all Africans are black skinned. What I've been saying is that Africans as a whole come in a variety of skin colors, not just one.  They range in color from light to dark brown and some are even white skinned. Even in Sub Saharan Africa skin tones vary. Ethiopia is in SubSaharan Africa yet you can still find light brown people there as well such as Emperor Haili Selasi: 

Look at how light some of these South African Bushmen are:

What I have also said is that skin color can't be use accurately to divide African populations. The idea that all North Africans group together and all Sub Saharans group together is a false assumtion. Even more false is the idea that Northerners and Southerners are automatically divided since genetically even some of the darkest Africans belong to the same family group as the lightest skinned Africans as demonstrated by the shared Y chomosome of the PN2. Furthermore, the Sahara itself is a zone where one can find both black skinned and light brown skinned people living within the same communities. Tuaregs:

The concept that there is only one way to look African and be African and that skin color or features alone can be used to divide people according to who is related to who is false and outdated thinking. Especially when talking about a population like Egypt where skin color, hair textures and facial features are so diverse, as the videos that I posted clearly show. 

Persians, kurds etc are indeed all asians, that doesn't mean that all are white or all yellow or green.

That is exactly the point that I'm making. What is true of Asia is also true of Africa. But what is also true of both of them is that genetics shows that the genetic relationships of Asian peoples cuts across the lines of skin color and features as well.
Back to Top
beorna View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 03-Dec-2007
Location: Germany
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 925
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Apr-2013 at 16:18
sorry for answering late. i didn' realize that you wrote in green inside the text box.
It is hard to answer this style. Perhaps you can leave it.

1) I do not be aware of european egyptologists, who deal with the question whether the Egyptians were black or white. But there is a strong tendency of afrocntrists to occupy egyptian history for themselves, especially in the United States. The strongest opponent to such thesis is Zahi Hawass, who allways called the egyptian culture african, but not black, which means tropical subsaharan african. so maybe in the USA white people trust in Hollywood's Yul brunner as Ramses, the rest of the world does not.

2) people who carry haplotype C can be found in Asia and Australia, they are typically mongolide and australide. Those people have completely different hairs and skin colours. How can this be? well, because the seperated before people in eastern Sibiria evolved a mongolide habitus and people in Australia evolved to typical Australides. my hypothesis is, that carrier of E migrated into Africa, before the recent tropical black africans evolved as type. In the Nile valley people with E remained in their north-north-eastern habitus. BTW Hitler had E, too, like many other europeans. Are they black too, just with a white skin?

3) To Cassius and Bob: I don't know about their family history and haplotypes. maybe they have "european" haplotypes. That's because the skin colour is not linked with y-haplotype. That's exactly what I am saying, people within a special population (black caribeans and americans e.g) can be genetically more different to each other, than to members of another type (western europeans e.g.)

4) who spoke of an asian transplant? new people brought new ideas. Old people incorporated new people and new ideas. That's it.
And people from western africa had probably no or marginal influence on the egyptin culture. So I really like to know, why especially Afro-Americans, who are mainly from west africa, claim these culture as theirs?

5) If you look to the niger-kongo-languages

then the Nuba are very probably later migrants. The banto itself are late migrants. In east africa they appeared just 3000 years ago, in south africa even later.

eastern africa was populated by nilotes and khoisanoides
File:Nilo-Saharan.png

so africa is very heterogenous

6) Nobody can definitely say, where a haplogroup evolved. I showed you why I think E is not originally african. Your latest research can't show it to be wrong, because the E haplogroup is till now, not old enough. If you or others can explain it, I have no problem to change my mind.

7) negride is a bit outdated term and means nothing else than tropical, black subsaharan africans. It has nothing to do with the term Nigger, if you may associated this. well, it is latin and simply means black.

8) the Bushmen, the Khoisanides, indeed. They are african as well, but completely different to tropical black africans. That is what I say. There is no one black tropical african race, there are a lot of different types, some even just far related.
Back to Top
Rakasnumberone View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun

Suspended

Joined: 14-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 211
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Apr-2013 at 18:31
1) I do not be aware of european egyptologists, who deal with the question whether the Egyptians were black or white. But there is a strong tendency of afrocntrists to occupy egyptian history for themselves, especially in the United States. 

I've already explained what the situation with regards to this question is all about. And althpugh you may not be aware of if, there still are Egyptologists out there who believe in these old ways of thinking.

As far as I am concerned the question is not about trying to prove that West Africans are Egyptians. My personal ancestors were West and Central Africans and we have our own civilizations, histories and cultures, so no, I am not trying to claim Egypt as my own. I know that there are people out there who try to do this and I disagree with them on this point all the time. Saying the Egyptians were native Africans is not the same thing as saying they were our ancestors. 

The point is that Europeans said that all Africans were incapable of creating civilization regardless of where in Africa they were. They called it "The Dark Continent", meaning it was absent of the light of civilization. Therefore, if one group of Africans has achieved civilization then the assumption of inferiority is proven as false for all Africans. If 1+1=2 in Europe, then 1+1 must = 2 in China as well. It can't be true in one place and false in another.

The strongest opponent to such thesis is Zahi Hawass, who allways called the egyptian culture african, but not black, which means tropical subsaharan african. so maybe in the USA white people trust in Hollywood's Yul brunner as Ramses, the rest of the world does not.

The U.S is not the only country that believes this. There are many in the various countries of Western Europe who would like to believe Yul Brenner as Ramses as well. As for Mr. Hawas. I'm well aware of Zahi's opinion on this matter. I've heard him speak about it. Lets just say that he doesn't sound very intelligent, which is an opinion shared by many Egyptian historians and Egyptologists and leave it at that. The fact of the matter is SubSaharans are not the only Africans that are black. So lets define black here as meaning a person with dark brown skin. As I have shown you, there are many Egyptians who do in fact have dark brown skin. They are just as dark as many people you will find in different areas of Africa below the Sahara. However, I have also shown and stated that not all Africans are dark skinned. Therefore, to say all Egyptians were dark skinned is incorrect. Egyptians were both black and brown skinned Africans. Furthermore whether they were black or brown, they all belonged to the same family group. So the correct answer to the question is that Egyptians were one family group who came in a range of colors. Many of them were of the same skin color as other Africans in the tropical areas, others were of a lighter color similar to people found in Western Asia. Their skin colors were due to local environmental adaptations as well as migrations from neighboring areas with people who were lighter skinned.

2) people who carry haplotype C can be found in Asia and Australia, they are typically mongolide and australide. Those people have completely different hairs and skin colours. How can this be? well, because the seperated before people in eastern Sibiria evolved a mongolide habitus and people in Australia evolved to typical Australides. 

We don't really know for cretain, but it is also possible that the people in the southern regions of Asia simply retained their tropical adaptations, while those who migrated farther north adapted the traits that suited their environments. 

my hypothesis is, that carrier of E migrated into Africa, before the recent tropical black africans evolved as type. In the Nile valley people with E remained in their north-north-eastern habitus.

Not neccessarily. According to genetic information the modern human species originated in East Africa which is in the sub saharan region that lies within the tropical zone. Therefore, it would stand to reason that as modern humans living in the tropics they had long developed the darker skin tones neccessary to protect them from the sun's radiation. For instance the Andaman Islanders belong to the D haplotype. This is what they look like: 
So here is no reason to believe that they already had these traits when they migrated to Asia as the area they were in was still tropical enough for them to retain their tropical traits. Other people who carry D who do not live in the tropic zone, like the Tibetans, do not have these features even though they belong to the same D subclade of M174

Therefore, the Egyptians who remained in the southern tropical latitudes of Upper Egypt and Nubia retained the dark skin their early ancestors evolved in East Africa. Those who migrated farther north into the higher latitudes where the sun's radiation is not as strong did not have to produce as much melanin and so they became lighter in complexion. 2 braches of the same family evolving in different climates. However, once the country was unified then you had northerners moving south and southerners moving north which is the process that has continued to this day. That is why there is so much diversity there.

 BTW Hitler had E, too, like many other europeans. Are they black too, just with a white skin?

As stated before, there is no such thing as a black or a white race and people within the same haplotype can and often times do have different skin tones. This is why skin color alone is not an accurate indication of who belongs to a genetic family group. Hitler belonged to the same family on his Y chromosome as the jews he was trowing in the ovens and they both belonged to the same family group as the Nubians.

3) To Cassius and Bob: I don't know about their family history and haplotypes. maybe they have "european" haplotypes. 

Well being a Jamaican who grew up in the United States I do know about their family histroies a bit. Bob Marly's father was British, therefore his Y haplotype would have to be the same as that found in England, not Africa. And Since Mohamed Ali's grandfather was Irish, his Y lineage is the same as that found in men in Irland. So are they white too just with black skin?

That's because the skin colour is not linked with y-haplotype. That's exactly what I am saying, people within a special population (black caribeans and americans e.g) can be genetically more different to each other, than to members of another type (western europeans e.g.)

And that is the point that I have been making all along.

4) who spoke of an asian transplant? new people brought new ideas. Old people incorporated new people and new ideas. That's it.
And people from western africa had probably no or marginal influence on the egyptin culture. So I really like to know, why especially Afro-Americans, who are mainly from west africa, claim these culture as theirs?

I never said that West Africans influenced Egyptian culture. I said that the culture that became pharaonic culture evolved in southern Egypt, northern Sudan and the Sahara, or south western Sahara as this is the area where the earlies examples of that culture has been found. 

As for West Africa. While there are some West African cultures that do share some common elements with cetain aspects of Egyptian culture, I think it has to do with the fact that both the Nile Valley and areas of West Africa received migrants from the Sahara when it started to dry up. But West African culture and civilization is unique to its own areas as is Egyptian culture.

5) If you look to the niger-kongo-languages

then the Nuba are very probably later migrants. The banto itself are late migrants. In east africa they appeared just 3000 years ago, in south africa even later.

eastern africa was populated by nilotes and khoisanoides
File:Nilo-Saharan.png

so africa is very heterogenous

That's the point I've been making all along.

6) Nobody can definitely say, where a haplogroup evolved. I showed you why I think E is not originally african. Your latest research can't show it to be wrong, because the E haplogroup is till now, not old enough. If you or others can explain it, I have no problem to change my mind.

The research is not mine but that of several genetic researchers. It is entirely possible and I think they proved how. As I said before D had two branches. One branch traveled into Asia and one remained in Asia. The branch that stayed in Asia is the branch from which E evolved. The graph I provided earlier clearly shows this and that is what the majority of scientists in the field believe. So until more recent research comes along to refute it, that is what they say.  That is why the overwhelming E subclades are found in Africa and not Asia. If E evolved in Asia, then Asian E must be much older than African E, meaning it would have ad much more time to disperse and to mutate subclades. But this is not the case. The frequency of E drops off th further away from Africa that one goes.

7) negride is a bit outdated term and means nothing else than tropical, black subsaharan africans. It has nothing to do with the term Nigger, if you may associated this. well, it is latin and simply means black.

Go back and look at what I said. I said there is no such thing as a negro, not nigger. And since  subsaharan Africans come in such a great range of physical types, how can they all be classified as being the same? Pygmies, Bushmen, Tutsies all look very different from each other in body structure, skin colors and facial features. So once again, the idea that all people below the Sahara are the same is a myth.

8) the Bushmen, the Khoisanides, indeed. They are african as well, but completely different to tropical black africans. That is what I say. There is no one black tropical african race, there are a lot of different types, some even just far related.

That's the point I've been making all along.

Back to Top
beorna View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 03-Dec-2007
Location: Germany
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 925
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Apr-2013 at 03:58
In my first posting in this thread I asked if somebody can explain these terms, black and white. Well, it seems, we are a lot of postings later, not closer to the answer.
The older theories, that races or great races exist is meanwhile mostly obsolete. There are neither whites nor blacks as race.
If we look to some old egyption paintings
Osiristhen it is clear, that old egyptians were not black















Nubians are clearly different to these old egyptians
http://www.ancient-egypt-priests.com/Nubier-Leopardenfell-GrabHui_18Dyn-Detail.jpg  http://www.faszination-aegypten.de/Aegyptothek/Wirtschaft/images/handel-nubier.gif

even if blacks are shown not that black, they are clearly different (see in the middle)
http://i.ebayimg.com/00/s/NzIyWDU1Mw==/$(KGrHqZHJEEFDz4)M,0fBQ+K4-2n-!~~60_35.JPG

To be fair, asians (which mean semitic people) are as well shown different to Egyptians.
File:Abydos Tempel Ramses II. 36.JPG

So if we just focus on the skin colour, egyptians are neither black nor white. But their face structure
is much more "europide" than those of black people from the south.

The DNA for the Nile populations give as well no evidence for a black or white classification. But it has a lot influence from the near east and north africa and less subsaharan dna

If black means african, well, then you may be correct, but that would be a great inflation of the term black.
Back to Top
Rakasnumberone View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun

Suspended

Joined: 14-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 211
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Apr-2013 at 14:36
Originally posted by beorna

In my first posting in this thread I asked if somebody can explain these terms, black and white. Well, it seems, we are a lot of postings later, not closer to the answer.
The older theories, that races or great races exist is meanwhile mostly obsolete. There are neither whites nor blacks as race.
If we look to some old egyption paintings
Osiristhen it is clear, that old egyptians were not black















Nubians are clearly different to these old egyptians
http://www.ancient-egypt-priests.com/Nubier-Leopardenfell-GrabHui_18Dyn-Detail.jpg  http://www.faszination-aegypten.de/Aegyptothek/Wirtschaft/images/handel-nubier.gif

even if blacks are shown not that black, they are clearly different (see in the middle)
http://i.ebayimg.com/00/s/NzIyWDU1Mw==/$(KGrHqZHJEEFDz4)M,0fBQ+K4-2n-!~~60_35.JPG

To be fair, asians (which mean semitic people) are as well shown different to Egyptians.
File:Abydos Tempel Ramses II. 36.JPG

So if we just focus on the skin colour, egyptians are neither black nor white. But their face structure
is much more "europide" than those of black people from the south.

The DNA for the Nile populations give as well no evidence for a black or white classification. But it has a lot influence from the near east and north africa and less subsaharan dna

If black means african, well, then you may be correct, but that would be a great inflation of the term black.
I gave you an answer to the question. The term black is problematic because there is no agreed definition of what that means. It's different in different palces. In the USA black means any person with any African ancestry regardless of what they actually look like. Instead of drawings I show real people.
Rosa Parks an American Blak woman:

Leena Horn an American Black woman: 

Adam Clayton Powel a Black Man:

Do any of these people have black skin? No.

In many places in the world black means to have dark brown skin. You could be African or Asian, but lets just focus on dark skinned Africans.

Southern Egyptians: 

Aren't these children much darker than the Afro American black people I just showed? 
Egyptian Nubians: 

These children are a bit darker than the Egyptians, but otherwise they look very similar to them don't they? Not that big a difference is there? 

You showed several pictures of what you say represents black people to Ancient Egyptians. #1: I'd like to point out that the Egyptians never identified any groups of people according to skin color or concepts of race. They identified them according to nationality and ethnic groups. What you have shown are some specific ethnic groups that still live in Sudan today. They have very distict fetaures. #2: Nubian was an umberella term that was used to describe all the peoples below a certain area of south Egypt and Sudan. All Nubians did not look the same. Some were allies of Egypt, some were enemies.

A linguistic lesson before we continue. The name Sudan. The name Sudan is Arabic and means Land of the Blacks. So lets see what these "black people" actually look like.

Nuba or Dinka: 


As you can see from their features, these are the pictures depicted in the drawings you showed.

Here are some other Nubian groups. The Beja: The Beja are found in the Eastern desert of southern Egypt as well as Sudan and as far south as Eritria, Somalia and Ethiopia. 
The Beja were known in the Old Kingdom of Egypt as the Medja and were employed in the police force and as soldiers. 

Sudanese Nubians:

Egyptian Nubians:
Mohamed Munir Egyptian Nubian singer:
Egyptian Nubian from Aswan:

This Egyptian Nubian man was fired from his job in the USA because he classified himself as black on his job application. The ob stated that he was being fired for lying because according to the US government North Africans as white. Here's what he has to say.
Mustapha HEnefy: 

As I keep stating, all Africans do not look the same. Even in Sudan the people do not all look the same. And as you can see, even among the Nubians there is diversity of skin color.

"So if we just focus on the skin colour, egyptians are neither black nor white."

But as I showed in previous videos, there are a lot of Egyptians who actually are black. You mean to tell me you can watch this video and tell me you don't see any black Egyptians? 


I also showed you videos of Subsaharan Africans as well as Saharan who do not have black skin either. So can we agree once and for all that a person does not neccesarily have to have dark brown or black skin to be an African? Can we agree that the skin colors of Africans ranges from dark to light brown
whether they are in the north, south or the Sahara itself?

"But their face structure
is much more "europide" than those of black people from the south."
First of all why would you use the term "Europid" to describe their features? As if to imply
that only Europeans have narrow features? This term is just as false and misleading as any
racial term. The fact that modern humans originate in Africa and disply a wide range of 
features would imply that those narrow features originated in Africa first, so why not call
it Ethiopic or African horn features? Further more it implies that naroow features are only found in North Africa, which is not true.

Rwandan president who is a Tutsi:

Afar people. Skip ahead to 1:32minutes. You will also notice that they still wear their hair
in styles that were found in Ancient Egypt:

Wodabe people of Mali:

Somali people:

The problem is that you still keep insisting on trying to divide people into stereotypical categories that do not exist in real life. All North Africans do not share the same skin color or facial feature. All Saharans do not have the same skin color or facial feature, all subsaharan Africans do not have the same skin colors or facial features. 
All Egyptians do not have the same skin colors or facial features. All Nubians do not have the same skin colors or facial feature. All Sudanese do not have the same skin color or facial features.

Egyptaians were and still are East Africans. Therefore, the groups in Africa that they are closest to are those in East Africa. 

Regardless of their skin colors or features they are all AFRICANS.

The DNA analysis shows that Egyptians are predominantly Africans. Yes there has been mixture with Semitic peoples, mostly in the north, particularly the Delta, but the amount of mixture from those areas is very small in comparison to the African.

From Lucotte 2003, which needs this Keita paper to understand it. Haplotypes V, XI and IV are all Pn2 derived (E). VII and VIII are considered Arabic, so I’m assuming J1 is VIII and VII is J2.

Northern Egyptians are 64% African and only 29% non African.   Upper Egyptians are 80% African and only about 13% non African. The fact that there is mixture there mean nothing. They are still Africans. If Afro Americans who are not even born in Africa and can have European mixture of more than 40% in many cases can still be considered Africans and even black when they have very light skins, why then is it that Egyptians, living in Africa with more than 80% African genes are considered not African and even when they have skin as dark as any subsaharan East African not considered black? If we can just accept that the people of Africa are very diverse and always have been then there is no need for confusion. All Egyptians belong to the same family whether they have black skin or brown skin or white skin. Just as all Afro Americans belong to the same family whether they have black skin, or brown skin or white skin. You can't artificially divide people according to appearances because real life just does not work that way.                                                                                                                                                                                               It his geography, history, language, culture and that determine a people's identity. No African people ever based their identity on skin color. It has always been family groupnationlanguage and a shared culture that gives them a sense of identity. All Egyptians identify with each other based on these criteriaregardless of skin color or facial features. This idea of identifying people by concepts of race is something invented by western foreigners during colonial times and does not reflect their reality. They are and always have been a people native to the continent and country where they are found and their closest relatives have always been the people closest to them. Egyptians are Egyptians and an Egyptian is an East African who may be black skinned, brown skinned or even white skinned. 


Edited by Rakasnumberone - 15-Apr-2013 at 15:20
Back to Top
Don Quixote View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar

Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 29-Dec-2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4735
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Apr-2013 at 17:24
Well, the statement that Egyptians are Africans doesn't mean that they were black /whatever the word "black" means/. And honestly, the whole afrocentrist theory rests on the statement that to say that the abovementioned weren't black is a racist theory; which is a low hit using PC as a substitute for real facts.
The population of the north Africa was mixed, not black per se, and there were migrations from Asia Minor to North Africa during the paleolithics and neolithics that provided for this mixing.

Besides, races don't exist.
Back to Top
Rakasnumberone View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun

Suspended

Joined: 14-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 211
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Apr-2013 at 17:44
Originally posted by Don Quixote

Well, the statement that Egyptians are Africans doesn't mean that they were black /whatever the word "black" means/. And honestly, the whole afrocentrist theory rests on the statement that to say that the abovementioned weren't black is a racist theory; which is a low hit using PC as a substitute for real facts.
The population of the north Africa was mixed, not black per se, and there were migrations from Asia Minor to North Africa during the paleolithics and neolithics that provided for this mixing.

Besides, races don't exist.
 In other words, you've just summed up what I've been saying if you follow the thread. Both Eurocentrism and Afrocentrism are distortions of reality that seek to project modern ideologies into antiquity where they don't belong.

Race theories are not scientific. They have no basis in reality. Africans, native Africans range in color from black to light brown. It is innaccurate to assume that you can divide populations based on external skin color and assume they are not related. Egypt itself shows this because within the country you can find black skinned individuals and much lighter skinned individual, however, genetically, they are the same people. Very often you can see this range within a single family. You can have one child who is black skinned and another who is much lighter skinned. 

The reason for this diversity is environment. While southern Egypt is tropical, northern Egypt is sub tropical, so people there over the melenia adapted a loss of the protective melanin needed in the tropics. Add to this the fact that there has been small bands of Asiatic migration into the Delta from prehistory and you add even more diversity to an area that already was diverse. And herein lies another answer to modern race politics. The assumption that people of differen't "races" are natural enemies and that race mixing produces intellectually inferior offspring.

Egypt is a zone which has always, even up t this day been attracting migrations from farther south in Africa as well as Western Asia. It is shared culture not color that defines their identity.
Back to Top
beorna View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 03-Dec-2007
Location: Germany
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 925
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Apr-2013 at 05:14
But if you refer to Africans as a single group, than you do nothing else as to replace the term "race" by another.
You write by yourself "Egypt is a zone which has always, even up t this day been attracting migrations from farther south in Africa as well as Western Asia. It is shared culture not color that defines their identity." So how can you then claim they were black? And BTW, a lot of what you quoted above I have already seen on sites of afrocentrists and especially Keita is maybe one of the most misused persons by afrocentrists.

There is no quarrel between eurocentrists and afrocentrists, because nobody claims really that Egyptians were "white". Which could bring us back to the question, "what is white?".
Those who are called eurocentrists, claim nothing else than that north africans are closer related to their western asian neighbours than to their sub-saharan neighbours. In those studies who claim a great african share of DNA and are used by afrocentrists, maghrebinian DNA is allways included in the same group as sub-saharan people and in opposite to non-african. But indeed is maghrebinian DNA quite different to those of sub-sahara.
Back to Top
Rakasnumberone View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun

Suspended

Joined: 14-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 211
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Apr-2013 at 11:33


Originally posted by beorna

But if you refer to Africans as a single group, than you do nothing else as to replace the term "race" by another.
<font ="apple-style-span"="" color="#990000">I use the term African to refer to the people who are native to the continent, stating quite clearly that they are very divers. Africa ia a continent, not a country. That is not a substitution for the concept of race in any way. In fact I have clearly said that external features can not be used to clssify people and I gave very clear expalnations as to why it does not work.
<font ="apple-style-span"="" color="#990000">You write by yourself "Egypt is a zone which has always, even up t this day been attracting
migrations from farther south in Africa as well as Western Asia. It is
shared culture not color that defines their identity
." So how can you then claim they were black? 
#1.<font ="apple-style-span"="" color="#990000"> First of all I defoined balck as being dark brown skinned. You were the one denying that there were dark skinned Egyptians. All I did was provide videographic evidence to show that there are indeeed dark brown Egyptians. #2<font ="apple-style-span"="" color="#990000">. I quite clearly stated that they were and still are diverse when it comes to color. Haven't I shown videos of the actual people that demonstrate this fact? It is not a claim, it is a fact. You seem to be hung up on the fact fact that I mention the black people in the poplulation. Why? You also totally ignore the fact that I quite clearly stated from the beginnig that not all of them are black skinned and that not all subsaharan Africans for hat matter are black skinned. You also ignore the fact that I have demonstrated that its is not skin color that shows kinship, but all the other elements. The black skinned Egyptians are the same family as the light skinned Egyptians. That is not afrocentric propaganda, it is a fact which genetic studis have shown. Or do you mean to imply that somehow I made up all those videos showing that there are indeed Egyptians who are dark skinned and that they are related to lighter skinned Egyptians?
<font ="apple-style-span"="" color="#990000">
And BTW, a lot of what you quoted above I have already seen on sites of afrocentrists and especially Keita is maybe one of the most misused persons by afrocentrists.
#1.<font ="apple-style-span"="" color="#990000"> I am not an afrocentricst. I am a dancer. I specialize in Egyptian dance, which is why I travel to Egypt so frequently and why I know them so well. So when you tell me that all Egyptians look like "Arabs", whatever that is and that the dark skinned ones are immigrants, I know that is not true because I know my friends and the people I see in the streets are not foreigners. I haven't said anything that is not true and all I have done is given evidence to support this fact. #2.<font ="apple-style-span"="" color="#990000"> All the genetic evidence I provided came directly from mainstream scientific publishings. These scientists are Americans and Western Europeans, not afrocentrics. #3.<b style="color: rgb153, 0, 0; "> <font ="apple-style-span"="" color="#990000">Keita is not an afrocentric. He is a scholar. If people misquote him or do not understand his work, that is not his fault, nor does it mean that his work is invalid. A lot of the work he does is based on other mainstream scientists in his field and as I stated before, these scientists are American and European. But why not listen to the man himself:There is no quarrel between eurocentrists and afrocentrists, because nobody claims really that Egyptians were "white". Which could bring us back to the question, "what is white?".
<font ="apple-style-span"="" color="#990000">And as stated before, this question is one that has to be understood within the context of American and European social politics. Code word for white = "caucasian". How do we know this? Because we can see that North Africa is frequently refered to as a caucasian population and Americans classify north Africas as white. When we watch the news and they describe a suspect as a caucasian male they are not looking for a Mexican, or AfroAmerican but a man of European origin. So to refer to the population of the Near East as Caucasian is saying they are white. Another example, refering to peoples of Africa as having "Europid" features. Why describe their features as belonging somehow to Europeans? Which population is older African or European? Where did modern humans originate Africa or Europe? So if African populations are the oldest, why are you using the youngest to define the oldest? What is being implied. To understand what Eurocentricity is you have to understand the history and politics in relation to European colonialism and its relationship to the rest of the worl and its peoples and that is something that, from your replies, I don't think you understand. 
<font ="apple-style-span"="" color="#990000">
<font ="apple-style-span"="" color="#990000">Furthermore, your insistance that Egyptian and all north Africa is "different" from Subsaharan Africa makes 4 assuptions #1.<font ="apple-style-span"="" color="#990000"> that all Africans below the sahara are the same in terms of genetics and physical characteristics, #2<font ="apple-style-span"="" color="#990000"> that all Africans above the sahara are the same in terms of genetics and physical characteristics and #3.<font ="apple-style-span"="" color="#990000"> that the Sahara itself is devoid of human populations. #4.<font ="apple-style-span"="" color="#990000"> that thee has not been any contact between the north and south and that these zones are unrelated. None of these assumptions is true and once again, I provided video evidence of real living and breathing people to show this. 
Those who are called eurocentrists, claim nothing else than that north africans are closer related to their western asian neighbours than to their sub-saharan neighbours. 
<font ="apple-style-span"="" color="#990000">Closer related in what ways? #1. <font ="apple-style-span"="" color="#990000">Ancient Egypt culturally was not closely related to those found in Mesopotamia, that is just historical fact. Physically they were diverse. Some segments being closer to southern East African populations, some being closer to Western Asians in other aspects. #2. <font ="apple-style-span"="" color="#990000">Genetically Western Asians belong predominantly to the J1 and J2 haplotypes Egyptians belong primarily to the African E haplotype. #3. <font ="apple-style-span"="" color="#990000">Linguistically, Egyptians didn't speak a semitic language, but an Afro Asiatic language related to other languages on the African continent. And while Semitic is also an Afro Asiatic language, it is the youngest in the family and the only one found outside of Africa. Infact, there are more Semitic languages spoken in Africa than in Asia.
In those studies who claim a great african share of DNA and are used by afrocentrists, maghrebinian DNA is allways included in the same group as sub-saharan people and in opposite to non-african. But indeed is maghrebinian DNA quite different to those of sub-sahara.

<font ="apple-style-span"="" color="#990000">That is not the case. Why are you so stuck on subsaharan Africa? And when you say Subsaharan Africa, where do you mean exactly? Are you aware of the fact that there is more to Africa than subsaharan Africa? If there is a haplotype that is specific or dominant to North East Africa, then it is Also African. Africa has diffeet zones. The haplotype dominant in north West Africa is U6. U6 is not a dominant haplotype in Egypt. In fact it is almost non existant. And I might also add that U6 is totally absent in Europe and the Middle East. Therefore it is an African specific haplotype because if shows up in the greates percentages right there in north west Africa. But if you want to speak about North West Africa, what the DNA shows it that the farther south you go the higer the frequencies of haplotypes found in other West African populations gets. Therefore, the Maghreb itself is heterogenious. 
<font ="apple-style-span"="" color="#990000">
<font ="apple-style-span"="" color="#990000">The dominant African haplotype found in Egypt is M78 or E1b1b. M78 is found as far south as Ethiopia but it originated in the area of Egypt itself. M35 is also found in high numbers in southern Egypt and originates in the Horn of Africa as does M1. So what is being shown is that genetically speaking, as I said before, the population that Egyptians are closest related to are other Egyptians.<font ="apple-style-span"="" color="#990000"> After that the next population they share the closest relation to are the Nubians who are located in the south of Egypt itself and in the north of Sudan. This should not come as a surprise since these people are neighbors and in many cases ive in the exact same territory. The genetic evidence does not show a close relationship to people living in the Congo, or in areas of West Africa such as Nigeria. I does however show relationship to populations in East Africa like the Oromo found in Ethiopia and Somalia and Eritria. That is just a fact All of these countries are located on the African continent. They are right next to each other and can be reached by walking on land. Why is this so hard to understand?




Red is a restricted color for mod-staff use only

This is well known. DONOT use it again.

You do and you can set on my bench of woes. Period.

CV
Moderator

Edited by Centrix Vigilis - 18-Apr-2013 at 18:11
Back to Top
beorna View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 03-Dec-2007
Location: Germany
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 925
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Apr-2013 at 04:45
Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

I use the term African to refer to the people who are native to the continent, stating quite clearly that they are very divers. Africa ia a continent, not a country. That is not a substitution for the concept of race in any way. In fact I have clearly said that external features can not be used to clssify people and I gave very clear expalnations as to why it does not work.

Ok, when you use the term "African" just in a geographically way, I have no problem with it.


Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

You write by yourself "Egypt is a zone which has always, even up t this day been attracting
migrations from farther south in Africa as well as Western Asia. It is
shared culture not color that defines their identity
." So how can you then claim they were black? 
First of all I defoined balck as being dark brown skinned. You were the one denying that there were dark skinned Egyptians. All I did was provide videographic evidence to show that there are indeeed dark brown Egyptians. #2. I quite clearly stated that they were and still are diverse when it comes to color. Haven't I shown videos of the actual people that demonstrate this fact? It is not a claim, it is a fact. You seem to be hung up on the fact fact that I mention the black people in the poplulation. Why? You also totally ignore the fact that I quite clearly stated from the beginnig that not all of them are black skinned and that not all subsaharan Africans for hat matter are black skinned. You also ignore the fact that I have demonstrated that its is not skin color that shows kinship, but all the other elements. The black skinned Egyptians are the same family as the light skinned Egyptians. That is not afrocentric propaganda, it is a fact which genetic studis have shown. Or do you mean to imply that somehow I made up all those videos showing that there are indeed Egyptians who are dark skinned and that they are related to lighter skinned Egyptians?

I am not denying, that there are today black and dark brown skinned Egyptians. But besides the questions how it was in ancient times or if these darker people are of later migration, they are just one part of the population of Egypt.

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

And BTW, a lot of what you quoted above I have already seen on sites of afrocentrists and especially Keita is maybe one of the most misused persons by afrocentrists.
#1.I am not an afrocentricst. I am a dancer. I specialize in Egyptian dance, which is why I travel to Egypt so frequently and why I know them so well. So when you tell me that all Egyptians look like "Arabs", whatever that is and that the dark skinned ones are immigrants, I know that is not true because I know my friends and the people I see in the streets are not foreigners. I haven't said anything that is not true and all I have done is given evidence to support this fact.

Immigrations doesn't mean necessarily recent immigration, but just immigration in later times. But again, I don't question the fact, that there is as well influence from the Nubian region or the horn at all.

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone


#2.All the genetic evidence I provided came directly from mainstream scientific publishings. These scientists are Americans and Western Europeans, not afrocentrics.

Yes, I know some of these research.  But Luis et al. e.g gives for hg K an age of 13.5-17.5ky and even the J2 is neolithic. In Lucotte's paper of the 65% and 80% only 2 and  27% are really sub-saharan DNA, but 52 and 24% north african. Arredi has 59% african DNA. Well, but we have here the same question, what is African, what does it mean? Is an early neolithic J2 or an R1 and K african cos it is more than 10ky old? What does it mean, that a majority of the African DNA is E?

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone


#3.Keita is not an afrocentric. He is a scholar. If people misquote him or do not understand his work, that is not his fault, nor does it mean that his work is invalid. A lot of the work he does is based on other mainstream scientists in his field and as I stated before, these scientists are American and European. But why not listen to the man himself:

I didn't say keita is an afrocentrist. i said he is misused by afrocentrists. And i listened to that video, more than once and to several other interviews of him. Just listen to 3:50 and later. And in the beginning he as well speaks about races. Like i said it, there are no races.

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone


And as stated before, this question is one that has to be understood within the context of American and European social politics. Code word for white = "caucasian". How do we know this? Because we can see that North Africa is frequently refered to as a caucasian population and Americans classify north Africas as white. When we watch the news and they describe a suspect as a caucasian male they are not looking for a Mexican, or AfroAmerican but a man of European origin. So to refer to the population of the Near East as Caucasian is saying they are white. Another example, refering to peoples of Africa as having "Europid" features. Why describe their features as belonging somehow to Europeans? Which population is older African or European? Where did modern humans originate Africa or Europe? So if African populations are the oldest, why are you using the youngest to define the oldest? What is being implied. To understand what Eurocentricity is you have to understand the history and politics in relation to European colonialism and its relationship to the rest of the worl and its peoples and that is something that, from your replies, I don't think you understand. 

First of all, i don't care how US citizens are classified by a race. This is an obsolete and racist classification.
The term caucasian is AFAIK theologically motivted, Noah, arch etc. Europide just means, that the facial and skeleton structure is similar to those of Europeans. It never meant white and european.
Maybe another term would be better, but it is as it is.

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone


Furthermore, your insistance that Egyptian and all north Africa is "different" from Subsaharan Africa makes 4 assuptions #1.that all Africans below the sahara are the same in terms of genetics and physical characteristics,

No, I just say, that the genes are older than different human types. Black Africans evolved in the tropical climates of west and central africa.

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

#2 that all Africans above the sahara are the same in terms of genetics and physical characteristics and

I never claimed that they are all the same, just similar.

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

#3.that the Sahara itself is devoid of human populations.

The sahara did for longer periods have no or just no significant number of people.
http://lv-twk.oekosys.tu-berlin.de/project/lv-twk/002-vegetationsgeschichte-afrikas.htm

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

#4.that thee has not been any contact between the north and south and that these zones are unrelated. None of these assumptions is true and once again, I provided video evidence of real living and breathing people to show this.

Different contacts during different times. And there was as well not only as you seem to claim a south north influence, but as well a north-south influence. That is not denied, but that doesnt mean, that Egyptians are black.

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

 
Closer related in what ways? #1. Ancient Egypt culturally was not closely related to those found in Mesopotamia, that is just historical fact. Physically they were diverse. Some segments being closer to southern East African populations, some being closer to Western Asians in other aspects.

But no western and central africans

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

#2.Genetically Western Asians belong predominantly to the J1 and J2 haplotypes Egyptians belong primarily to the African E haplotype.

E is common in western asia, even in parts of europe.

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

#3. Linguistically, Egyptians didn't speak a semitic language, but an Afro Asiatic language related to other languages on the African continent. And while Semitic is also an Afro Asiatic language, it is the youngest in the family and the only one found outside of Africa. Infact, there are more Semitic languages spoken in Africa than in Asia.

Yes, that may indicate, that afro-asiatic originated in East Africa, maybe ethiopia orr somalia, but maybe as well in Yemen. But that is not clear. And PAA is probably only 9-10.000 years old. So what does it say about Black or white?

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

In those studies who claim a great african share of DNA and are used by afrocentrists, maghrebinian DNA is allways included in the same group as sub-saharan people and in opposite to non-african. But indeed is maghrebinian DNA quite different to those of sub-sahara.

That is not the case. Why are you so stuck on subsaharan Africa? And when you say Subsaharan Africa, where do you mean exactly? Are you aware of the fact that there is more to Africa than subsaharan Africa? If there is a haplotype that is specific or dominant to North East Africa, then it is Also African. Africa has diffeet zones. The haplotype dominant in north West Africa is U6. U6 is not a dominant haplotype in Egypt. In fact it is almost non existant. And I might also add that U6 is totally absent in Europe and the Middle East. Therefore it is an African specific haplotype because if shows up in the greates percentages right there in north west Africa. But if you want to speak about North West Africa, what the DNA shows it that the farther south you go the higer the frequencies of haplotypes found in other West African populations gets. Therefore, the Maghreb itself is heterogenious. 

The dominant African haplotype found in Egypt is M78 or E1b1b. M78 is found as far south as Ethiopia but it originated in the area of Egypt itself. M35 is also found in high numbers in southern Egypt and originates in the Horn of Africa as does M1. So what is being shown is that genetically speaking, as I said before, the population that Egyptians are closest related to are other Egyptians.After that the next population they share the closest relation to are the Nubians who are located in the south of Egypt itself and in the north of Sudan. This should not come as a surprise since these people are neighbors and in many cases ive in the exact same territory. The genetic evidence does not show a close relationship to people living in the Congo, or in areas of West Africa such as Nigeria. I does however show relationship to populations in East Africa like the Oromo found in Ethiopia and Somalia and Eritria. That is just a fact All of these countries are located on the African continent. They are right next to each other and can be reached by walking on land. Why is this so hard to understand?
[/QUOTE]
well, it is you who called Egyptians black. I don't call them white. i just deny that they are black. Some are black, some quite white. They are all african. That doesn't mean, that there were no early migrations back to Africa. You claim E is originally African. I told you, that it is not old enough. You don't have to follow me here. But you cannot bring evidence that I am wrong. Therefore only A and B are typically and native African. That means, that E spread later. Maybe some is old enough to was present in central and western africa when the typical black african type evolved. But that again, doesn't mean other E carrier are black, too.
Back to Top
Rakasnumberone View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun

Suspended

Joined: 14-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 211
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Apr-2013 at 10:07
To the moderatore. As I have not been active on this forum for many years I had no way of knowing that there were color restrictions. I only used it randomly and in bold so my respose could be seen. Nothing more nothing less.
Originally posted by Rakasnumberone



Originally posted by beorna

But if you refer to Africans as a single group, than you do nothing else as to replace the term "race" by another.
<font ="apple-style-span"="" color="#990000">I use the term African to refer to the people who are native to the continent, stating quite clearly that they are very divers. Africa ia a continent, not a country. That is not a substitution for the concept of race in any way. In fact I have clearly said that external features can not be used to clssify people and I gave very clear expalnations as to why it does not work.
<font ="apple-style-span"="" color="#990000">You write by yourself "Egypt is a zone which has always, even up t this day been attracting
migrations from farther south in Africa as well as Western Asia. It is
shared culture not color that defines their identity
." So how can you then claim they were black? 
#1.<font ="apple-style-span"="" color="#990000"> First of all I defoined balck as being dark brown skinned. You were the one denying that there were dark skinned Egyptians. All I did was provide videographic evidence to show that there are indeeed dark brown Egyptians. #2<font ="apple-style-span"="" color="#990000">. I quite clearly stated that they were and still are diverse when it comes to color. Haven't I shown videos of the actual people that demonstrate this fact? It is not a claim, it is a fact. You seem to be hung up on the fact fact that I mention the black people in the poplulation. Why? You also totally ignore the fact that I quite clearly stated from the beginnig that not all of them are black skinned and that not all subsaharan Africans for hat matter are black skinned. You also ignore the fact that I have demonstrated that its is not skin color that shows kinship, but all the other elements. The black skinned Egyptians are the same family as the light skinned Egyptians. That is not afrocentric propaganda, it is a fact which genetic studis have shown. Or do you mean to imply that somehow I made up all those videos showing that there are indeed Egyptians who are dark skinned and that they are related to lighter skinned Egyptians?
<font ="apple-style-span"="" color="#990000">
And BTW, a lot of what you quoted above I have already seen on sites of afrocentrists and especially Keita is maybe one of the most misused persons by afrocentrists.
#1.<font ="apple-style-span"="" color="#990000"> I am not an afrocentricst. I am a dancer. I specialize in Egyptian dance, which is why I travel to Egypt so frequently and why I know them so well. So when you tell me that all Egyptians look like "Arabs", whatever that is and that the dark skinned ones are immigrants, I know that is not true because I know my friends and the people I see in the streets are not foreigners. I haven't said anything that is not true and all I have done is given evidence to support this fact. #2.<font ="apple-style-span"="" color="#990000"> All the genetic evidence I provided came directly from mainstream scientific publishings. These scientists are Americans and Western Europeans, not afrocentrics. #3.<b style="color: rgb153, 0, 0; "> <font ="apple-style-span"="" color="#990000">Keita is not an afrocentric. He is a scholar. If people misquote him or do not understand his work, that is not his fault, nor does it mean that his work is invalid. A lot of the work he does is based on other mainstream scientists in his field and as I stated before, these scientists are American and European. But why not listen to the man himself:There is no quarrel between eurocentrists and afrocentrists, because nobody claims really that Egyptians were "white". Which could bring us back to the question, "what is white?".
<font ="apple-style-span"="" color="#990000">And as stated before, this question is one that has to be understood within the context of American and European social politics. Code word for white = "caucasian". How do we know this? Because we can see that North Africa is frequently refered to as a caucasian population and Americans classify north Africas as white. When we watch the news and they describe a suspect as a caucasian male they are not looking for a Mexican, or AfroAmerican but a man of European origin. So to refer to the population of the Near East as Caucasian is saying they are white. Another example, refering to peoples of Africa as having "Europid" features. Why describe their features as belonging somehow to Europeans? Which population is older African or European? Where did modern humans originate Africa or Europe? So if African populations are the oldest, why are you using the youngest to define the oldest? What is being implied. To understand what Eurocentricity is you have to understand the history and politics in relation to European colonialism and its relationship to the rest of the worl and its peoples and that is something that, from your replies, I don't think you understand. 
<font ="apple-style-span"="" color="#990000">
<font ="apple-style-span"="" color="#990000">Furthermore, your insistance that Egyptian and all north Africa is "different" from Subsaharan Africa makes 4 assuptions #1.<font ="apple-style-span"="" color="#990000"> that all Africans below the sahara are the same in terms of genetics and physical characteristics, #2<font ="apple-style-span"="" color="#990000"> that all Africans above the sahara are the same in terms of genetics and physical characteristics and #3.<font ="apple-style-span"="" color="#990000"> that the Sahara itself is devoid of human populations. #4.<font ="apple-style-span"="" color="#990000"> that thee has not been any contact between the north and south and that these zones are unrelated. None of these assumptions is true and once again, I provided video evidence of real living and breathing people to show this. 
Those who are called eurocentrists, claim nothing else than that north africans are closer related to their western asian neighbours than to their sub-saharan neighbours. 
<font ="apple-style-span"="" color="#990000">Closer related in what ways? #1. <font ="apple-style-span"="" color="#990000">Ancient Egypt culturally was not closely related to those found in Mesopotamia, that is just historical fact. Physically they were diverse. Some segments being closer to southern East African populations, some being closer to Western Asians in other aspects. #2. <font ="apple-style-span"="" color="#990000">Genetically Western Asians belong predominantly to the J1 and J2 haplotypes Egyptians belong primarily to the African E haplotype. #3. <font ="apple-style-span"="" color="#990000">Linguistically, Egyptians didn't speak a semitic language, but an Afro Asiatic language related to other languages on the African continent. And while Semitic is also an Afro Asiatic language, it is the youngest in the family and the only one found outside of Africa. Infact, there are more Semitic languages spoken in Africa than in Asia.
In those studies who claim a great african share of DNA and are used by afrocentrists, maghrebinian DNA is allways included in the same group as sub-saharan people and in opposite to non-african. But indeed is maghrebinian DNA quite different to those of sub-sahara.

<font ="apple-style-span"="" color="#990000">That is not the case. Why are you so stuck on subsaharan Africa? And when you say Subsaharan Africa, where do you mean exactly? Are you aware of the fact that there is more to Africa than subsaharan Africa? If there is a haplotype that is specific or dominant to North East Africa, then it is Also African. Africa has diffeet zones. The haplotype dominant in north West Africa is U6. U6 is not a dominant haplotype in Egypt. In fact it is almost non existant. And I might also add that U6 is totally absent in Europe and the Middle East. Therefore it is an African specific haplotype because if shows up in the greates percentages right there in north west Africa. But if you want to speak about North West Africa, what the DNA shows it that the farther south you go the higer the frequencies of haplotypes found in other West African populations gets. Therefore, the Maghreb itself is heterogenious. 
<font ="apple-style-span"="" color="#990000">
<font ="apple-style-span"="" color="#990000">The dominant African haplotype found in Egypt is M78 or E1b1b. M78 is found as far south as Ethiopia but it originated in the area of Egypt itself. M35 is also found in high numbers in southern Egypt and originates in the Horn of Africa as does M1. So what is being shown is that genetically speaking, as I said before, the population that Egyptians are closest related to are other Egyptians.<font ="apple-style-span"="" color="#990000"> After that the next population they share the closest relation to are the Nubians who are located in the south of Egypt itself and in the north of Sudan. This should not come as a surprise since these people are neighbors and in many cases ive in the exact same territory. The genetic evidence does not show a close relationship to people living in the Congo, or in areas of West Africa such as Nigeria. I does however show relationship to populations in East Africa like the Oromo found in Ethiopia and Somalia and Eritria. That is just a fact All of these countries are located on the African continent. They are right next to each other and can be reached by walking on land. Why is this so hard to understand?




Red is a restricted color for mod-staff use only

This is well known. DONOT use it again.

You do and you can set on my bench of woes. Period.

CV
Moderator
Back to Top
Rakasnumberone View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun

Suspended

Joined: 14-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 211
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Apr-2013 at 12:28
Originally posted by beorna

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

I use the term African to refer to the people who are native to the continent, stating quite clearly that they are very divers. Africa ia a continent, not a country. That is not a substitution for the concept of race in any way. In fact I have clearly said that external features can not be used to clssify people and I gave very clear expalnations as to why it does not work.

Ok, when you use the term "African" just in a geographically way, I have no problem with it.

I've been very clear from the beginning as to what I mean.

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

You write by yourself "Egypt is a zone which has always, even up t this day been attracting
migrations from farther south in Africa as well as Western Asia. It is
shared culture not color that defines their identity
." So how can you then claim they were black? 
First of all I defoined balck as being dark brown skinned. You were the one denying that there were dark skinned Egyptians. All I did was provide videographic evidence to show that there are indeeed dark brown Egyptians. #2. I quite clearly stated that they were and still are diverse when it comes to color. Haven't I shown videos of the actual people that demonstrate this fact? It is not a claim, it is a fact. You seem to be hung up on the fact fact that I mention the black people in the poplulation. Why? You also totally ignore the fact that I quite clearly stated from the beginnig that not all of them are black skinned and that not all subsaharan Africans for hat matter are black skinned. You also ignore the fact that I have demonstrated that its is not skin color that shows kinship, but all the other elements. The black skinned Egyptians are the same family as the light skinned Egyptians. That is not afrocentric propaganda, it is a fact which genetic studis have shown. Or do you mean to imply that somehow I made up all those videos showing that there are indeed Egyptians who are dark skinned and that they are related to lighter skinned Egyptians?

I am not denying, that there are today black and dark brown skinned Egyptians. But besides the questions how it was in ancient times or if these darker people are of later migration, they are just one part of the population of Egypt.

You made the statement that dark people in Egypt were foreigners an immigrants. All I did was to show that that was not the case. Yes there are foreigner workers in Egypt from the other African countries, but there are also foreign workers in Egypt from Lebanon, Turkey, Russia, Palestine. During the last few hundred years there were many who came to Egypt from Greece, Italy Albania. Mohamed Ali Pasha was an Albanian. The last king of Egypt Farouk was his direct decendant. And before him were the Mameluks were originally white slaves who took control of Egypt. Why then is the color of lighter skinned Egyptians not called into question with regards to their origins? It just seems to be taken for granted that they are native?

If you look at the accounts going back to the times of the Greeks who visited Egypt, they all report that the farther south you go in Egypt the darker the population gets. If you look at the art work you will also see that there was a convntion where the women were depicted as light but the men dark, but also times when the women also were shown to be just as dark as the men. There is no reason to suppose that anything has changed.


Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

And BTW, a lot of what you quoted above I have already seen on sites of afrocentrists and especially Keita is maybe one of the most misused persons by afrocentrists.
#1.I am not an afrocentricst. I am a dancer. I specialize in Egyptian dance, which is why I travel to Egypt so frequently and why I know them so well. So when you tell me that all Egyptians look like "Arabs", whatever that is and that the dark skinned ones are immigrants, I know that is not true because I know my friends and the people I see in the streets are not foreigners. I haven't said anything that is not true and all I have done is given evidence to support this fact.

Immigrations doesn't mean necessarily recent immigration, but just immigration in later times. But again, I don't question the fact, that there is as well influence from the Nubian region or the horn at all.

You didn't specify that in your initial statement. 

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone


#2.All the genetic evidence I provided came directly from mainstream scientific publishings. These scientists are Americans and Western Europeans, not afrocentrics.
 

Yes, I know some of these research.  But Luis et al. e.g gives for hg K an age of 13.5-17.5ky and even the J2 is neolithic. In Lucotte's paper of the 65% and 80% only 2 and  27% are really sub-saharan DNA, but 52 and 24% north african. Arredi has 59% african DNA. Well, but we have here the same question, what is African, what does it mean? Is an early neolithic J2 or an R1 and K african cos it is more than 10ky old? What does it mean, that a majority of the African DNA is E?

Well first of all, they have to specify what they mean by SunSaharan. What regions are they looking at? If they are looking at West Africa I would say that doesn't make any sense. Why would they be looking at West Africa? The region they should be looking at would be the Horn of Africa. Sudan Ethiopia etc. 

As far as the fact that the E haplotype is dominant in Africa, and has the most subclades, this means it is native to the continet. It originated on the continent and has been there for for a very long time which is why it has developed so many subclades. By African what is meant is what is native to the continent, not what has arrived from a back migration. So no J would not be considered African since it originats in Western Asia. By the way the J1 is neolithic. The J2 seems to be from historic times. But this should come as no surprise since Asia is rigt next door and can be reached by walking on land. However, the percentages of J are still very low compared to E.

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone


#3.Keita is not an afrocentric. He is a scholar. If people misquote him or do not understand his work, that is not his fault, nor does it mean that his work is invalid. A lot of the work he does is based on other mainstream scientists in his field and as I stated before, these scientists are American and European. But why not listen to the man himself:

I didn't say keita is an afrocentrist. i said he is misused by afrocentrists. And i listened to that video, more than once and to several other interviews of him. Just listen to 3:50 and later. And in the beginning he as well speaks about races. Like i said it, there are no races.

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone


And as stated before, this question is one that has to be understood within the context of American and European social politics. Code word for white = "caucasian". How do we know this? Because we can see that North Africa is frequently refered to as a caucasian population and Americans classify north Africas as white. When we watch the news and they describe a suspect as a caucasian male they are not looking for a Mexican, or AfroAmerican but a man of European origin. So to refer to the population of the Near East as Caucasian is saying they are white. Another example, refering to peoples of Africa as having "Europid" features. Why describe their features as belonging somehow to Europeans? Which population is older African or European? Where did modern humans originate Africa or Europe? So if African populations are the oldest, why are you using the youngest to define the oldest? What is being implied. To understand what Eurocentricity is you have to understand the history and politics in relation to European colonialism and its relationship to the rest of the worl and its peoples and that is something that, from your replies, I don't think you understand. 

First of all, i don't care how US citizens are classified by a race. This is an obsolete and racist classification.
The term caucasian is AFAIK theologically motivted, Noah, arch etc. Europide just means, that the facial and skeleton structure is similar to those of Europeans. It never meant white and european.
Maybe another term would be better, but it is as it is.

But this forum is in the English language and therefore, as I said, the question has to be understood in the cultural and historical context of the English speaking world, that is America and England. After all, it was in America where this debate began in the first palce, so one can not ignore it since it is at the heart of the situation. The question has to be understood in the cultural, social, and historical context of its time. Now from the very begining, I addressed this issue quite clearly as well as explaining why the question of whether they were black or white is problematic to begin with.

Now as to using certain terminology like Europide, that is a perfect example of Eurocentricity and once again, if you ignore the cultural and historical context, that is something that you will not understand. Eurocentricity a world view that puts the European experience and perspective on spirituality, culture, history and politics at the center of world history. What does this mean in everyday applications? It means for example European history given the dominant share of attention in the schools with little or no mention of other cultures. In the United States it was only in the 1970's when Afro Americans and other communities of non European origin began to protest that in the Univeristy level courses were cretaed to examine the histories of Native Americans, Asian, and Africans. This was also the time when there was a big push as to why it was that Egypt was not included in African history, but instead was categorized as part of Asian history. So once again, the question of this thread has to be understood in a larger social, historical, cultural and political context.

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone


Furthermore, your insistance that Egyptian and all north Africa is "different" from Subsaharan Africa makes 4 assuptions #1.that all Africans below the sahara are the same in terms of genetics and physical characteristics,

No, I just say, that the genes are older than different human types. Black Africans evolved in the tropical climates of west and central africa.

But this statement isn't entirely accurate. First of all, genes can't tell you what a person looks like, only the geographic location where those genes are most prevelant. The tropical zone runs along the lines of latitude from east to west, not along the lines of longitude from north to south. Therefore, to restrict the tropical zone to central and west Africa is innacurate. The tropical zone of Africa begins on the coast of the red sea in East Africa and continues west into West Africa. It runs from the Red Sea to the Atlantic. (The Tropic of Cancer runs right across the southern fringe of Egypt from east to west, but more on that later). Therfore, since modern humans evolvd in East Africa, the human species evolved in the tropical zone. They would already have developed the adaptations of dark skin to cope with their environment by the time they migrated out of Africa. Not at a later date on returning back to Africa. Those who remined in Africa retained those features.

When one reads any history book on the early developement of Egyptian civilization we start out in Upper Egypt and Nubia. The latest research has found the genisis of this culture in the areas of Nabta Playa and the western Desert Southern Egypt falls within the latitude of the Tropical Zone. There was a culture in Lower Egypt, the Merimda culture, but the archeological evidence shows that before the unification of Egypt the culture of the south moved north and replaced it. Therefore, pharaonic culture is of southern not northern origin.

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

#2 that all Africans above the sahara are the same in terms of genetics and physical characteristics and

I never claimed that they are all the same, just similar.

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

#3.that the Sahara itself is devoid of human populations.

The sahara did for longer periods have no or just no significant number of people.
http://lv-twk.oekosys.tu-berlin.de/project/lv-twk/002-vegetationsgeschichte-afrikas.htm

This is true to an extent, but in terms of Egypt's prehistory and ancient history we are talking about the period of the last climate change. 12,000yrs ago the Sahara was green and at that time there were more settlements in the Sahara than there were in the Nile Valley. From looking at the pottery and tools recovered, this was a culture which ran across the whole Sahara from east to west. It was only when the Sahara began to dry up that we see the nimber of settlements in the nile Vally increase. 

I might also point out that even though it dried up the Sahara was not completely emptied of people. To this day there are settlements living in oasis throughout the Sahara ans well as nomadic groups such as the Tuaregs. The Beja have been living in the Eastern desert for thousands of years till this day.

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

#4.that thee has not been any contact between the north and south and that these zones are unrelated. None of these assumptions is true and once again, I provided video evidence of real living and breathing people to show this.

Different contacts during different times. And there was as well not only as you seem to claim a south north influence, but as well a north-south influence. That is not denied, but that doesnt mean, that Egyptians are black.

Once again, you are totally ignoring what I've been saying all along. Egyptians come in all colors and always have from the very beginning. Many of those who are still living in the tropics are in fact black if we agree that in this context by black we mean dark skinned tropically adapted Africans and not the populations of West Africa. One does not need to go to West Africa to find dark skinned Africans because there are plenty of them right there in East Africa and the Sahara and Egypt itself. They have always been there. By the same token, northern and middle Egypt is chuck full of lighter brown people. It always has been. That is why I have been saying all along there was diversity in color. Add to this the fact that small migrations of lighter peoples have always been migrating into The Delta and you add even more diversity. Not only that, but you have to take into account internal migrations. People from the south moving north and people from the north moving south. It is why you can find light brown people in tropical Aswan and dark brown people in subtropical, mediterranian Alexandria and Port Said in Egypt today. The country can not be describes on a whole as fitting into one particular color.

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

 
Closer related in what ways? #1. Ancient Egypt culturally was not closely related to those found in Mesopotamia, that is just historical fact. Physically they were diverse. Some segments being closer to southern East African populations, some being closer to Western Asians in other aspects.

But no western and central africans

While the overwhelming majority of Egyptians were closer in appearance to other East Africans, it was possible to find people who did in fact have features similar to those that you find in Central and West Africa. This you can see if you look at the statues from the Old Kingdom. So, Egypt was and still is a place where you can see many different physical types. 

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

#2.Genetically Western Asians belong predominantly to the J1 and J2 haplotypes Egyptians belong primarily to the African E haplotype.

E is common in western asia, even in parts of europe.

Yes it is, but in much lower frequencies and nowhere near the amount of diversity when it comes to the subclades. Since subclades require long periods of time to develop it only makes sense that the E clade originated in Africa and then spread to the Middle East were it then migrated into Europe, not the other way around. This is how we know that the haplotypes J and R found in Africa did not originate there. Same scientific principle.

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

#3. Linguistically, Egyptians didn't speak a semitic language, but an Afro Asiatic language related to other languages on the African continent. And while Semitic is also an Afro Asiatic language, it is the youngest in the family and the only one found outside of Africa. Infact, there are more Semitic languages spoken in Africa than in Asia.

Yes, that may indicate, that afro-asiatic originated in East Africa, maybe ethiopia orr somalia, but maybe as well in Yemen. But that is not clear. And PAA is probably only 9-10.000 years old. So what does it say about Black or white?

I've already stated adnausium that the question of black or white in innaccurate when speaking about this or any other population. You've been given an answer, so why do you keep returning to the same inaccurate question over and over again? The real question is were Egyptians native Africans or was the Nile Velley populated by non African groups who migrated into the continent. All the evidence points to the fact that the Nile Valley was populated predominantly by people who never left the continent.

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

In those studies who claim a great african share of DNA and are used by afrocentrists, maghrebinian DNA is allways included in the same group as sub-saharan people and in opposite to non-african. But indeed is maghrebinian DNA quite different to those of sub-sahara.

That is not the case. Why are you so stuck on subsaharan Africa? And when you say Subsaharan Africa, where do you mean exactly? Are you aware of the fact that there is more to Africa than subsaharan Africa? If there is a haplotype that is specific or dominant to North East Africa, then it is Also African. Africa has diffeet zones. The haplotype dominant in north West Africa is U6. U6 is not a dominant haplotype in Egypt. In fact it is almost non existant. And I might also add that U6 is totally absent in Europe and the Middle East. Therefore it is an African specific haplotype because if shows up in the greates percentages right there in north west Africa. But if you want to speak about North West Africa, what the DNA shows it that the farther south you go the higer the frequencies of haplotypes found in other West African populations gets. Therefore, the Maghreb itself is heterogenious. 

The dominant African haplotype found in Egypt is M78 or E1b1b. M78 is found as far south as Ethiopia but it originated in the area of Egypt itself. M35 is also found in high numbers in southern Egypt and originates in the Horn of Africa as does M1. So what is being shown is that genetically speaking, as I said before, the population that Egyptians are closest related to are other Egyptians.After that the next population they share the closest relation to are the Nubians who are located in the south of Egypt itself and in the north of Sudan. This should not come as a surprise since these people are neighbors and in many cases ive in the exact same territory. The genetic evidence does not show a close relationship to people living in the Congo, or in areas of West Africa such as Nigeria. I does however show relationship to populations in East Africa like the Oromo found in Ethiopia and Somalia and Eritria. That is just a fact All of these countries are located on the African continent. They are right next to each other and can be reached by walking on land. Why is this so hard to understand?

well, it is you who called Egyptians black. 

No, said and have been saying that they were diverse in color. I only showed evidence that black skin is a large percentage of that diversity because you said it didn't exist in Egypt except for non Egyptian foreigners who were immigrant workers.

I don't call them white. i just deny that they are black. Some are black, some quite white. 

That is what is meant by diversity. The root of the word meaning different. Not all Egyptians are black skinned, but a very high percentage of them are. Very few of them are white skinned if we mean by white the same color as people we find in Europe or even Turkey. Even in northern Egypt the majority of them are light brown. But all this is just to say what I have been saying from the beginning, the skin colors range from dark to light.

They are all african. That doesn't mean, that there were no early migrations back to Africa. You claim E is originally African. I told you, that it is not old enough. You don't have to follow me here. But you cannot bring evidence that I am wrong. Therefore only A and B are typically and native African. 

On the contrary, the scientist in the field have stated that E originated in Africa, not Asia. This is the most recent findings. Now if you are to be scientific and objective, you must follow what the new findings are saying, not holding on to old theories that have been disproven. Now with all due respect, I think that the geneticists who have gone to university and studied this material for a very long time and are experts in the field who have done lots of research, might actually know more bout this subject than either you or me. Therefore, unless you are a scientist and you have published data in peer reviewed scientific journals that disproves the latest sceintific data, or can at least provide me with recent scientific data, then I have to take their word over your opinion and as I have already posted several quotes of that recent work the burden of proof falls to you to disprove what the expert scientists in the field are saying.

That means, that E spread later. Maybe some is old enough to was present in central and western africa when the typical black african type evolved. But that again, doesn't mean other E carrier are black, too.
[/QUOTE]
And can you show me any scientific evidence taht shows hat Africans evolved dark skin after haplotype E returned to Africa? If not, then this is nothing more than an opinion. An opinion which is not supported by science. Not only that, but it is counter to scientific understanding. If we state that skin color is the result of climactic adaptation, wouldn't it make sense that the human species that evolved in the hottest region of the planet with the strongest radiation from the sun evolved high levels of melanin to protect itself from that radiation? That is what scientific evidence says. Does it make sense that only upo retuning to Africa the human body realized it needed protection and then became dark? And by the way, exactly what is a typical black African?

Back to Top
Rakasnumberone View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun

Suspended

Joined: 14-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 211
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Apr-2013 at 13:51
Since the discussion seems to be hung up on the quetion of what color Africans were originally I think it is neccessary to examine what the scientific evidence has to say with regards to human evolution and skin color. This video is by one of the leading experts in the field and is almost an hour long. I urge anyone who has questions regarding this issue to invest the time to watch the whole video.


Back to Top
HuCipher View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 07-Apr-2013
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Apr-2013 at 18:01

As I may have stated before Black Africans claim the legacy of Egypt and Nubia just as a Swede or Englishman claims the legacy of Greece or Rome. Greeks & Romans,Englishmen and most North Western Europeans come form differnt halpo groups but no one questions them when they claim the Greco-Roman legacy. The argument about Afro Americans being decendents of ancient Egyptians is a misunderstanding or in some case un or miseducated foolery. Having said this I will say that Egypt was founded by sub Saharan Africans. Comparing Ancient Egyptian depictions of Nubians and ther depiction of their selves  is like comapring pictures of Afro-Americans with Western or Central Africans. You see differnent types of Black people and in one case a group who has had some admixture. This is the part of the case with ancient Egypt. Until recntly only 7 royal mumies had been subjected to DNA test http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_DNA-tested_mummies

Testing so far of mummies from the Armarna period show strong groupings with Balck African peopels http://dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2012-01-01.pdf (page 3)
Testing shows Eurasian markers as well but so would my Afro American DNA
 
 


Edited by HuCipher - 19-Apr-2013 at 18:09
Back to Top
beorna View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 03-Dec-2007
Location: Germany
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 925
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Apr-2013 at 18:30
Originally posted by Rakasnumberone


I've been very clear from the beginning as to what I mean.

well, i was not that sure, but ok.

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone


You made the statement that dark people in Egypt were foreigners an immigrants. All I did was to show that that was not the case. Yes there are foreigner workers in Egypt from the other African countries, but there are also foreign workers in Egypt from Lebanon, Turkey, Russia, Palestine. During the last few hundred years there were many who came to Egypt from Greece, Italy Albania. Mohamed Ali Pasha was an Albanian. The last king of Egypt Farouk was his direct decendant. And before him were the Mameluks were originally white slaves who took control of Egypt. Why then is the color of lighter skinned Egyptians not called into question with regards to their origins? It just seems to be taken for granted that they are native?

I don't know what I wrote. Yes, there are many black immigrants in recent times, but of course did we have earlier migrations, e.g. slave trade in muslim periods, Nubian expansion etc.
Of course did not only "blacks" came. There was as well a "white" migration of Romans, greeks etc.
all in all is the egyptian population not very different to ancient times, except an increase of black people.

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

If you look at the accounts going back to the times of the Greeks who visited Egypt, they all report that the farther south you go in Egypt the darker the population gets. If you look at the art work you will also see that there was a convntion where the women were depicted as light but the men dark, but also times when the women also were shown to be just as dark as the men. There is no reason to suppose that anything has changed.
I have no problem with quite dark Egyptians, but there are as well quite white egyptians painted on the walls. The question is, were they black? And this answer is clear. Where they Africans? This question is clear as well. But the question remains, are Africans a single group? Asians diverged in so many distinct groups, allthough their divergence goes just back to 40-60,000 years. You wouldn't call israeli, Indians and Papua yellow/mongolides, just because all are Asians.

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone


You didn't specify that in your initial statement. 

I thought i did, but if not, then now.

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

Well first of all, they have to specify what they mean by SunSaharan. What regions are they looking at? If they are looking at West Africa I would say that doesn't make any sense. Why would they be looking at West Africa? The region they should be looking at would be the Horn of Africa. Sudan Ethiopia etc. 

Well, that is one of my points. Afro-Americans are mainly from western and central africa, some from down to Angola. They have probably not more common with egyptians than me. So it is interesting that especially they are so focused on black Egyptians or even those black Athena.
So you are right, that Egyptians root to the south lead to the horn. Those population have a dark skin, but there is as well a connection with arabia. And they are as well different to those western africans.

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

As far as the fact that the E haplotype is dominant in Africa, and has the most subclades, this means it is native to the continet. It originated on the continent and has been there for for a very long time which is why it has developed so many subclades. By African what is meant is what is native to the continent, not what has arrived from a back migration. So no J would not be considered African since it originats in Western Asia. By the way the J1 is neolithic. The J2 seems to be from historic times. But this should come as no surprise since Asia is rigt next door and can be reached by walking on land. However, the percentages of J are still very low compared to E.

No, it is supporting an african origin, not an evidence. I told you, that recent estimations about the age don't match with the human migration to asia. New evidence can change everything, of course, but till now we havn't. So it is my opinion, that E is an very early back-migration to Africa. It's relative D is the most far an oldest in Asia. So this speaks for a very early date. So E had a lot of time to diverge

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

But this forum is in the English language and therefore, as I said, the question has to be understood in the cultural and historical context of the English speaking world, that is America and England. After all, it was in America where this debate began in the first palce, so one can not ignore it since it is at the heart of the situation. The question has to be understood in the cultural, social, and historical context of its time. Now from the very begining, I addressed this issue quite clearly as well as explaining why the question of whether they were black or white is problematic to begin with.

So there is mayb just one solution. We don't discuss whether they are black or white, because egyptians are both NOT.

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

Now as to using certain terminology like Europide, that is a perfect example of Eurocentricity and once again, if you ignore the cultural and historical context, that is something that you will not understand. Eurocentricity a world view that puts the European experience and perspective on spirituality, culture, history and politics at the center of world history. What does this mean in everyday applications? It means for example European history given the dominant share of attention in the schools with little or no mention of other cultures. In the United States it was only in the 1970's when Afro Americans and other communities of non European origin began to protest that in the Univeristy level courses were cretaed to examine the histories of Native Americans, Asian, and Africans. This was also the time when there was a big push as to why it was that Egypt was not included in African history, but instead was categorized as part of Asian history. So once again, the question of this thread has to be understood in a larger social, historical, cultural and political context.

The term europide is going back to times where we can speak of an eurocentrism. But today it is usually a descriptive term, which doesn't mean european. Maybe you don't see it, but I understand the problematic in the USA. I wouldn't have a problem to classify Egyptian history as african history. But to be honest, I would not have a problem to put it in a group with other old cultures in the near east, with akkadians, baylonians, assyrians, sumerians or hittites. Perhaps I would not call it Asian history.

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone


But this statement isn't entirely accurate. First of all, genes can't tell you what a person looks like, only the geographic location where those genes are most prevelant. The tropical zone runs along the lines of latitude from east to west, not along the lines of longitude from north to south. Therefore, to restrict the tropical zone to central and west Africa is innacurate. The tropical zone of Africa begins on the coast of the red sea in East Africa and continues west into West Africa. It runs from the Red Sea to the Atlantic. (The Tropic of Cancer runs right across the southern fringe of Egypt from east to west, but more on that later). Therfore, since modern humans evolvd in East Africa, the human species evolved in the tropical zone. They would already have developed the adaptations of dark skin to cope with their environment by the time they migrated out of Africa. Not at a later date on returning back to Africa. Those who remined in Africa retained those features.

I do think as well, that the skin colour of early hominids was darker. But how dark is the question. Jablonski and Chaplin in 2000 argued, that white colours did not evolve from black colours, but that both are adaptions to extreme habitats and that the original skin colours of early hominids was rather brown.

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

When one reads any history book on the early developement of Egyptian civilization we start out in Upper Egypt and Nubia. The latest research has found the genisis of this culture in the areas of Nabta Playa and the western Desert Southern Egypt falls within the latitude of the Tropical Zone. There was a culture in Lower Egypt, the Merimda culture, but the archeological evidence shows that before the unification of Egypt the culture of the south moved north and replaced it. Therefore, pharaonic culture is of southern not northern origin.

Niswt bit, egypt is both.

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone


This is true to an extent, but in terms of Egypt's prehistory and ancient history we are talking about the period of the last climate change. 12,000yrs ago the Sahara was green and at that time there were more settlements in the Sahara than there were in the Nile Valley. From looking at the pottery and tools recovered, this was a culture which ran across the whole Sahara from east to west. It was only when the Sahara began to dry up that we see the nimber of settlements in the nile Vally increase. 

I might also point out that even though it dried up the Sahara was not completely emptied of people. To this day there are settlements living in oasis throughout the Sahara ans well as nomadic groups such as the Tuaregs. The Beja have been living in the Eastern desert for thousands of years till this day.

yes, the nile valley was probably too wet to settle it during the warmest periods of the Holocene and so the population of the later Nile cultures came from the Sahara savannas.

I doubt, that the sahara was significantly populated before the camel was used for transport and riding.Look to America. Even before the arrival of the horse on the plains, there were people living there. But not comparable to the times of the horse cultures and we have to keep in mind, that perhaps at those late days great numbers of native americans had perished by deseases.

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone


Once again, you are totally ignoring what I've been saying all along. Egyptians come in all colors and always have from the very beginning. Many of those who are still living in the tropics are in fact black if we agree that in this context by black we mean dark skinned tropically adapted Africans and not the populations of West Africa. One does not need to go to West Africa to find dark skinned Africans because there are plenty of them right there in East Africa and the Sahara and Egypt itself. They have always been there. By the same token, northern and middle Egypt is chuck full of lighter brown people. It always has been. That is why I have been saying all along there was diversity in color. Add to this the fact that small migrations of lighter peoples have always been migrating into The Delta and you add even more diversity. Not only that, but you have to take into account internal migrations. People from the south moving north and people from the north moving south. It is why you can find light brown people in tropical Aswan and dark brown people in subtropical, mediterranian Alexandria and Port Said in Egypt today. The country can not be describes on a whole as fitting into one particular color.

The problem is, that the term black tropical africans is more asociated with western populations like the bantu and others. I can just repeat me, and it seems you are not far away, Egyptians are neither black nor white.

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

 

While the overwhelming majority of Egyptians were closer in appearance to other East Africans, it was possible to find people who did in fact have features similar to those that you find in Central and West Africa. This you can see if you look at the statues from the Old Kingdom. So, Egypt was and still is a place where you can see many different physical types. 

We can say this as well for western asians.

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone



Yes it is, but in much lower frequencies and nowhere near the amount of diversity when it comes to the subclades. Since subclades require long periods of time to develop it only makes sense that the E clade originated in Africa and then spread to the Middle East were it then migrated into Europe, not the other way around. This is how we know that the haplotypes J and R found in Africa did not originate there. Same scientific principle.

You know my point about E

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone


I've already stated adnausium that the question of black or white in innaccurate when speaking about this or any other population. You've been given an answer, so why do you keep returning to the same inaccurate question over and over again? The real question is were Egyptians native Africans or was the Nile Velley populated by non African groups who migrated into the continent. All the evidence points to the fact that the Nile Valley was populated predominantly by people who never left the continent.

As long as there was no direct migration from asia towards the nile which founded the egyptian culture(s), I would call these culture(s) african anyway, african, not black

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone



No, said and have been saying that they were diverse in color. I only showed evidence that black skin is a large percentage of that diversity because you said it didn't exist in Egypt except for non Egyptian foreigners who were immigrant workers.

Large percentage? They seem to hide if I visit Egypt.

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

That is what is meant by diversity. The root of the word meaning different. Not all Egyptians are black skinned, but a very high percentage of them are. Very few of them are white skinned if we mean by white the same color as people we find in Europe or even Turkey. Even in northern Egypt the majority of them are light brown. But all this is just to say what I have been saying from the beginning, the skin colors range from dark to light.

we seem to have a different definition of the colour black

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

On the contrary, the scientist in the field have stated that E originated in Africa, not Asia. This is the most recent findings. Now if you are to be scientific and objective, you must follow what the new findings are saying, not holding on to old theories that have been disproven. Now with all due respect, I think that the geneticists who have gone to university and studied this material for a very long time and are experts in the field who have done lots of research, might actually know more bout this subject than either you or me. Therefore, unless you are a scientist and you have published data in peer reviewed scientific journals that disproves the latest sceintific data, or can at least provide me with recent scientific data, then I have to take their word over your opinion and as I have already posted several quotes of that recent work the burden of proof falls to you to disprove what the expert scientists in the field are saying.

argumentum ad verecundiam

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

And can you show me any scientific evidence taht shows hat Africans evolved dark skin after haplotype E returned to Africa? If not, then this is nothing more than an opinion. An opinion which is not supported by science. Not only that, but it is counter to scientific understanding. If we state that skin color is the result of climactic adaptation, wouldn't it make sense that the human species that evolved in the hottest region of the planet with the strongest radiation from the sun evolved high levels of melanin to protect itself from that radiation? That is what scientific evidence says. Does it make sense that only upo retuning to Africa the human body realized it needed protection and then became dark? And by the way, exactly what is a typical black African?

Wilson, James F.; Weale, Michael E.; Smith, Alice C.; Gratrix, Fiona; Fletcher, Benjamin; Thomas, Mark G.; Bradman, Neil; Goldstein, David B. (2001). "Population genetic structure of variable drug response". Nature Genetics 29 (3): 265–9. "62% of the Ethiopians fall in the first cluster, which encompasses the majority of the Jews, Norwegians and Armenians, indicating that placement of these individuals in a ‘Black’ cluster would be an inaccurate reflection of the genetic structure. Only 24% of the Ethiopians are placed in the cluster with the Bantu"

Perhaps i didn't express myself correct, I didn't say, that people evolved dark skin, but black skin and the typical appearence of westafrican and central african populations. See as well jablonski and Chapel, 2000.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 19202122>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.485 seconds.