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 202122
Poll Question: well?
Poll Choice Votes Poll Statistics
24 [43.64%]
31 [56.36%]
This topic is closed, no new votes accepted

Author
Rakasnumberone View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun

Suspended

Joined: 14-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 211
Direct Link To This Post Topic: Werer the Egyptians white or black?
    Posted: 20-Apr-2013 at 01:47
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.

During the Islamic period there were also slaves from Eastern Europe coming into Egypt as well. There is absolutely no proof that there was an increase in the number of black people in Egypt since many Egyptians are just as dark as their neighbors in Sudan and East Africa. They are not new, they were always there. The East African haplotypes found in Egypt are very old M1 and M35. They didn't just arrive. They have always been there from the period of Egypt's prehistory. And as I said before, the Greeks visiting Egypt in antiquity made mention of the fact that generally speking they were dark skinned. Lighter in the north and darker as one went south. Many were of the opinion that Egypt was a colony of Ethiopia.

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. 

Quite dark Egyptians. Just as dark as other Africans found in East Africa and northern Sudan. Call it whatever you like..... As for white Egyptians... I've seen them paint women as being yellow, but never white. If you can show me depictions, I'd like to see it.

The question is, were they black? And this answer is clear. 

Yes, the aswer is clear. Egyptians were and still are a variety of colors. They range in color from black to very light brown and always have.

Where they Africans? This question is clear as well.

Yes, they were Africans.

 But the question remains, are Africans a single group? 

The Masai are not the same as the Tutsi. The Tutsi are not the same as the San, The San are not the same as the Zulu, the Zulu are not the same as the Yoruba, the Yoruba are not the same as the Bambara, the Bambara are not the same as Manding, the Manding are not the same as Songhai, the Songhai are not the same as the Housa, the Housa are not the same as the Dinka, the Dinka are not the same as the Egyptians and the Egyptians are not the same as the Kabylis, the Kabilis are not the same as the Tuaregs. They are all AFRICANS and your point is?...... What exactly?

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.

Dude, I'm going to say it again and maybe, just maybe you'll understand it this time. Not all subsaharan Africans have black skin. Not all North Africans have light brown or white skin. Native Africans come in all colors from black, to brown, to light brown to yellowish brown to white. How many times do I have to say it before you understand?

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

Well first of all, they have to specify what they mean by SubSaharan. 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. 

And why are we talikng about Afro Americans? What part of EAST AFRICANS not WEST OR CENTRAL AFRICAN are you still not understanding?

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.

I already explained this to you. I know English isn't your first language, but work with me a little here. Okay, here we go again. Racist Europeans said that NO AFRICANS WERE CAPABLE OF CREATING CIVILIZATION. Racist Europeans said THAT DARK SKIN WAS A SIGN OF MENTAL INFERIORITY. 

Or let me put it this way. People in the USA, Carribean and Latin America who looked like this

Or this

Or this

Or this

Or this

Or this

Or this


Were told that we were too stupid to have created a civilization. In LAtin America we were called mulattos=mules, niggers, etc. And were prevented from having the same social, political and economic equality as Europeans
In the USA people who looked like all the Egyptians, Saudi Arabs, Berbers, light and dark skinned Afro Americans I've shown in all the videos above were called niggers. We were not given the same rights to do anything as Europeans and were routinely killed if we so much as tried to live like normal humans.

Therefore the fact that dark skinned, medium skinned and light brown skinned  people in Egypt created such a vibrant civilization proved that what we were told about human ability and history by them was a lie. If it was a lie for one group of dark Africans, no matter how light or dark or which part of Africa, then it must be a lie for all Africans. Its like if someone says women are not allowed to run a marathon because they aren't strong enough. Now if a woman in China not only runs a marathon, but brakes a record, then guess what? Women in Europe, Africa, Latin America, the USA are going to stand up and say you know what, what they told us was bullshit! We are strong enough and you know what, we have a right to run marathons if we want to as well. Do you understand now? Please say yes because I can't make it any simpler than this. I think a 1st grader could understand and I'm willing to bet that at your age, you're much smarter than a 1st grader. By the way for everyone the bold print isn't me yelling, its just there for emphasis.

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. 

What more evidence do you want? You want a hand written note saying we haplotype E people originated in Africa?

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

With all due respect, English is not your first language, you are not a scientist and therefore, it is you who do not understand the science, not them making a mistake about the age. As I expalined already, according to the evidence D originated in Africa. Now pay attention because this is the important part. One part of D migrated into Africa. The other part of D stayed IN Africa. The D that stayed in Africa gave birth to E in Africa. Now untill you get your degree in genetics, that proves otherwise, myself and the rest of the world will go with the scientists who actually studied this stuff and have degrees from well known Universities. So if there is a question of the age of E, dear I say that it is you, who is not a genetic scientist, nor who holds a degree in genetics, who does not understand the material, rather than the educated scholars not knowing how to tell time.... I'm just saying.. it's something to consider...

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.

No. We tell the truth. Egyptians were a native African people who had a variety of skin tones ranging in color from black, like other peoples in tropical Africa to very light brown like people in other parts of North Africa and Western Asia. They had hair that ranged from very kinky to very straight and features that ranged from very broad to very fine, just as we can still see today. 

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. 

It is incorrect and unscientific and has no place in modern science.

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.

Or, you could, as I did when I was a teacher, expalin that the earliest recorded civilizations were found in Africa and Western Asia. You could also group it with the civilizations of Kush and Aksum as well, since they were contemporary with the others you mentioned in the Near East.

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.
 
If you're going to quote Jablonski could you do me the favor of quoting her correctly? Why don't you watch the video of this lecture that Jablonski herself gives and see what she says about the evolution of human skin colors?


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.

Egypt as a country has a northern half and a southern half. The culture that unified the two lands originated in Southern Egypt. This is basic Egyptian history, not opinion.

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.

As stated before, the archeological findings shows from the remains of pottery and tools that there was a culture that stretched across the Sahara from the Nile to the Atlantic. Add to this the abundance of rock paintings and carvings and settlement sites. The green Sahara was very well traveled. All they had to do was walk. They were semi nomadic pastorialists.

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.

Dude, English is my native language and I thinnk I speak it very well. Black tropical African refers to the dark skinned Africans who are found in the tropical zone which stretches from the Red Sea to the Atlantic. And if you watched the video of Jablonski that I posted for the second time, you'll see scientist consider it as such as well. In case you're wondering I also taught geography...

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.

To some degree, but not in the same percentages as you find in North or East Africa. It is far more diverse than Western Asia.

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

You mean you're unscientific opinion based on a misinterpritation of the information? Yes I am aware...

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

As stated, Egyptians were black and brown, as are many other African peoples, call it ham and eggs if you want, it is what it is.

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.

They were right there in front of your eyes. It's not my fault that you thought they were all immigrant workers. And all you have to do is look back at all the videos of real life Egyptians I showed in this discussion to see that its fact and not opinion. It is what it is.

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

Whatever. This is really getting to be rediculous, since I could show you videos of West Africans who are also lighter yellowish brown from Niger and Nigeria. I already showed you a video of Mali. Once again dude it is what it is. If you are so stuck on your unrealistic definition, what did you ask for  definition in the first place?

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

In other words you have no evidence to support your opinion. I get it.

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"

Does these look like a Norwegians, or Armenians to you or Africans?


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.
[/QUOTE]

Once again, if you are going to quote someone, the least you can do is get it right. Once again, why don't you watch Jablonki's lecture and see what she says. Its an hour long and filled with information.
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: 20-Apr-2013 at 01:51
Thank you for taking the time to post factual scientific information rather than baseless opinions and for making some very good social, historical and cultural points of consideration. I trust that you've understood all the points I've been making.... even if others can't.

Originally posted by HuCipher

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
 
 
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: 20-Apr-2013 at 19:53
Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

Quite dark Egyptians. Just as dark as other Africans found in East Africa and northern Sudan. Call it whatever you like..... As for white Egyptians... I've seen them paint women as being yellow, but never white. If you can show me depictions, I'd like to see it.
I don't call egyptians white. All I deny is, that they are or were black. So I don't need to show you white Egyptians. But you have till now not explained, why Egyptians had painted theselves so clearly different to Nubians and other black Africans.

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

 But the question remains, are Africans a single group? 

The Masai are not the same as the Tutsi. The Tutsi are not the same as the San, The San are not the same as the Zulu, the Zulu are not the same as the Yoruba, the Yoruba are not the same as the Bambara, the Bambara are not the same as Manding, the Manding are not the same as Songhai, the Songhai are not the same as the Housa, the Housa are not the same as the Dinka, the Dinka are not the same as the Egyptians and the Egyptians are not the same as the Kabylis, the Kabilis are not the same as the Tuaregs. They are all AFRICANS and your point is?...... What exactly?

If we look to Europe, which was settled in the last 20-40ky, with even a neolithic migration, then we can see different haplotypes and different types of people. If we look to Asia, which was populated perhaps already 120ky ago and even in the east 70ky ago, we can see even more very different populations. But Africa, which had a modern human history for more than 200ky, yes where some y-DNA is probably older than modern humans, with so different groups as Khoisanoides, Pygmides, west and central African and North Africans, they are all Africans for you? That Egyptians are Africans is not disputed, especially not today, but in a geographical definition. Ethnically, there are several African groups, very different to each other.

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

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.

Dude, I'm going to say it again and maybe, just maybe you'll understand it this time. Not all subsaharan Africans have black skin. Not all North Africans have light brown or white skin. Native Africans come in all colors from black, to brown, to light brown to yellowish brown to white. How many times do I have to say it before you understand?

Dude? After the argumentum ad verecundiam now you call me dude? I do understand, that people in Africa have different skin colours. What you don't understand is, that Africans are not one single black family, with different skin colours.

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

And why are we talikng about Afro Americans? What part of EAST AFRICANS not WEST OR CENTRAL AFRICAN are you still not understanding?

east Africans are very different to western and central africans. I am talking about Afro-Americans, because their connection with egyptian culture is as big or as less strong  as my connection with Egypt. But due to the racist politics of the USA they now occupy the egyptian high culture for themselves to show, that the former slaves are related with such high cultures like those of Egypt.

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone



I already explained this to you. I know English isn't your first language, but work with me a little here. Okay, here we go again. Racist Europeans said that NO AFRICANS WERE CAPABLE OF CREATING CIVILIZATION. Racist Europeans said THAT DARK SKIN WAS A SIGN OF MENTAL INFERIORITY. 


And after the argumentum ad verecundiam and the dude, you now add that english is not my native language and seem to insinuate that I am not capable to understand.
It is absolutely not relevant, what racist thought 50 or hundred years ago, even not what some think today. That doesn't give you the right to hijack the Egyptian culture.

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone


Or let me put it this way. People in the USA, Carribean and Latin America who looked like this...

Were told that we were too stupid to have created a civilization. In LAtin America we were called mulattos=mules, niggers, etc. And were prevented from having the same social, political and economic equality as Europeans
In the USA people who looked like all the Egyptians, Saudi Arabs, Berbers, light and dark skinned Afro Americans I've shown in all the videos above were called niggers. We were not given the same rights to do anything as Europeans and were routinely killed if we so much as tried to live like normal humans.

I just saw two Afro-Americans and even Alicia keys is half of european descent. Nobody of the Egyptians or arabs above would jutify the term nigger or black.

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone


Therefore the fact that dark skinned, medium skinned and light brown skinned  people in Egypt created such a vibrant civilization proved that what we were told about human ability and history by them was a lie. If it was a lie for one group of dark Africans, no matter how light or dark or which part of Africa, then it must be a lie for all Africans. Its like if someone says women are not allowed to run a marathon because they aren't strong enough. Now if a woman in China not only runs a marathon, but brakes a record, then guess what? Women in Europe, Africa, Latin America, the USA are going to stand up and say you know what, what they told us was bullshit! We are strong enough and you know what, we have a right to run marathons if we want to as well. Do you understand now? Please say yes because I can't make it any simpler than this. I think a 1st grader could understand and I'm willing to bet that at your age, you're much smarter than a 1st grader. By the way for everyone the bold print isn't me yelling, its just there for emphasis.

Is that an inferiority complex? And another insult?
And BTW chinese runners are probably just record holder by one single reason, excessive doping. But of course they are not the only ones, as the Armstrong case has shown. This is the same for the black sprinters and long distance athletes. It is excessive doping, which makes them so succesful.

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

What more evidence do you want? You want a hand written note saying we haplotype E people originated in Africa?

If E or DE and CF are all younger than the time of human migration from Africa, well, even an 1st grader should spend some time to question the claim, that they evolved in Africa.

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone


With all due respect, English is not your first language, you are not a scientist and therefore, it is you who do not understand the science, not them making a mistake about the age. As I expalined already, according to the evidence D originated in Africa. Now pay attention because this is the important part. One part of D migrated into Africa. The other part of D stayed IN Africa. The D that stayed in Africa gave birth to E in Africa. Now untill you get your degree in genetics, that proves otherwise, myself and the rest of the world will go with the scientists who actually studied this stuff and have degrees from well known Universities. So if there is a question of the age of E, dear I say that it is you, who is not a genetic scientist, nor who holds a degree in genetics, who does not understand the material, rather than the educated scholars not knowing how to tell time.... I'm just saying.. it's something to consider...

More insults? You should not complain about my inferiour understanding of the english language and write expalined then, instead of explained.
And D is not the ancestor of E.

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

No. We tell the truth. Egyptians were a native African people who had a variety of skin tones ranging in color from black, like other peoples in tropical Africa to very light brown like people in other parts of North Africa and Western Asia. They had hair that ranged from very kinky to very straight and features that ranged from very broad to very fine, just as we can still see today. 

There is no one single African type or race.

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone


As stated before, the archeological findings shows from the remains of pottery and tools that there was a culture that stretched across the Sahara from the Nile to the Atlantic. Add to this the abundance of rock paintings and carvings and settlement sites. The green Sahara was very well traveled. All they had to do was walk. They were semi nomadic pastorialists.

Yes, for the sahara savannas this is true. But we spoke about the hyperaride sahara. There were for long periods no passages thru the sahar, but along the mediterranian coast.

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone


Dude, English is my native language and I thinnk I speak it very well. Black tropical African refers to the dark skinned Africans who are found in the tropical zone which stretches from the Red Sea to the Atlantic. And if you watched the video of Jablonski that I posted for the second time, you'll see scientist consider it as such as well. In case you're wondering I also taught geography...

Again, i am not your dude. And if you had taught (BTW taught, but not studied?) geography, you should know, that Egypt i not tropical



Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

They were right there in front of your eyes. It's not my fault that you thought they were all immigrant workers. And all you have to do is look back at all the videos of real life Egyptians I showed in this discussion to see that its fact and not opinion. It is what it is.

you mean like the "black" egyptians you have shown above?

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

Does these look like a Norwegians, or Armenians to you or Africans?


Well, discuss this with the scientists of the report.


It seems this discussion goes the way all those discussions with afrocentrists go and you can convince me you are no afrocentrist. At a special point of discussion they start with insults.
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: 21-Apr-2013 at 09:19
Originally posted by beorna

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

Quite dark Egyptians. Just as dark as other Africans found in East Africa and northern Sudan. Call it whatever you like..... As for white Egyptians... I've seen them paint women as being yellow, but never white. If you can show me depictions, I'd like to see it.
I don't call egyptians white. All I deny is, that they are or were black. So I don't need to show you white Egyptians. But you have till now not explained, why Egyptians had painted theselves so clearly different to Nubians and other black Africans.

I've already explained to you that this was an artistic convention.  A convention means a style. The style they showed themselves was their standard of beauty. Just as in advertising in European magazines they show mostly very slim blond women. Does it mean that every single woman in Europe is a slim blond? No. It just means that is the physical type in their culture that they consider the most beautiful, so what's wrong with that? Nothing.I've already explained to you that all African groups are different... that's what the word diverse means. Different. I've already shown you that that the Nubians they painted were of very specific ethnic groups that had very different features and even showed real life videos of those people. AND YOU STILL DON'T understand why they depicted them looking different? Okay.... since you really are that simple.. let me put it this way. They dipicted them as looking different, BECAUSE FOR THE MOST PART, THEY LOOKED DIFFERENT! Hellooooo.... Isin't that obvious?

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

 But the question remains, are Africans a single group? 

The Masai are not the same as the Tutsi. The Tutsi are not the same as the San, The San are not the same as the Zulu, the Zulu are not the same as the Yoruba, the Yoruba are not the same as the Bambara, the Bambara are not the same as Manding, the Manding are not the same as Songhai, the Songhai are not the same as the Housa, the Housa are not the same as the Dinka, the Dinka are not the same as the Egyptians and the Egyptians are not the same as the Kabylis, the Kabilis are not the same as the Tuaregs. They are all AFRICANS and your point is?...... What exactly?

If we look to Europe, which was settled in the last 20-40ky, with even a neolithic migration, then we can see different haplotypes and different types of people. If we look to Asia, which was populated perhaps already 120ky ago and even in the east 70ky ago, we can see even more very different populations. But Africa, which had a modern human history for more than 200ky, yes where some y-DNA is probably older than modern humans, with so different groups as Khoisanoides, Pygmides, west and central African and North Africans, they are all Africans for you? That Egyptians are Africans is not disputed, especially not today, but in a geographical definition. Ethnically, there are several African groups, very different to each other.

Dude...... There is no such thing as one African ethnic group, that is the point I've been making from the begining, even in the comment above. African is just a geographic term that applies to all the different people who people live on the continent, ok? The key word is DIFFERENT, meaning this is one big piece of land with many people living on it and all those people are NOT THE SAME. THEY DON'T ALL LOOK THE SAME, THEY DON'T all speak THE SAME LANGUAGES, or have the SAME CULTURES, or THE SAME COLOR. THEY ARE ALL DIFFERENT. You really don't understnd? ALL AFRICANS DO NOT LOOK THE SAME, THEY ARE ALL DIFFERENT. I don't know how else to say it for you to understand.

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

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.

Dude, I'm going to say it again and maybe, just maybe you'll understand it this time. Not all subsaharan Africans have black skin. Not all North Africans have light brown or white skin. Native Africans come in all colors from black, to brown, to light brown to yellowish brown to white. How many times do I have to say it before you understand?

Dude? After the argumentum ad verecundiam now you call me dude? I do understand, that people in Africa have different skin colours. What you don't understand is, that Africans are not one single black family, with different skin colours.

I never said they were all one group of people. That is why I'm losing respect for you. Because I feel like I'm speaking to a 2 year old. The only thing that makes them the same, is that they all live on the same continent.
Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

And why are we talikng about Afro Americans? What part of EAST AFRICANS not WEST OR CENTRAL AFRICAN are you still not understanding?

east Africans are very different to western and central africans. I am talking about Afro-Americans, because their connection with egyptian culture is as big or as less strong  as my connection with Egypt. But due to the racist politics of the USA they now occupy the egyptian high culture for themselves to show, that the former slaves are related with such high cultures like those of Egypt.

And I've already expalined to you that this is not a scientific, but a social and political context that developed in the context of American and colonial European experience. It was they who called treated us as if we were all the same and who treated Africa as if it were one big country with only one group of people. I've already explained that for me, personally, I do not see myself as being a decendant of Egyptians, BECAUSE I'M NOT. Those people who do ARE MISTAKEN. However, you received a reply from another forum member who explained why all African people look to Egypt even though they are not genetically related to them. I'll repeat what he said. Its no different than the way British or Russians or any other people look to Greece as a source of pride and inspiration even though historically, genetically and geogrphically they are not related to Greeks. What do you still not understand?

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone



I already explained this to you. I know English isn't your first language, but work with me a little here. Okay, here we go again. Racist Europeans said that NO AFRICANS WERE CAPABLE OF CREATING CIVILIZATION. Racist Europeans said THAT DARK SKIN WAS A SIGN OF MENTAL INFERIORITY. 


And after the argumentum ad verecundiam and the dude, you now add that english is not my native language and seem to insinuate that I am not capable to understand.
It is absolutely not relevant, what racist thought 50 or hundred years ago, even not what some think today. That doesn't give you the right to hijack the Egyptian culture.

I AM NOT HIJAKING THEIR CULTURE. This is the problem with you why this discussion is going nowhere. Because you have a sterotypical view of who I am based on the fact that I just happen to be a person of African descent. Therefore, no matter what I say, or no matter how I say it, in the back of your mind you think I'm an Afrocentric American black who is trying to show that I am somehow related to Ancient Egyptians. The only conclusion, I could come to before you showed your true self was to assume you had a language problem. Now I understand that I've been wasting my time speaking to someone who has a cultural problem that renders them incapable of hearing anything that I say objectively, so let me say it plain as day for you since simplicity is what you need. 

You are not speacking to evry single Afrocentric idiot that you've encountered in cyberspace. You are speaking here to only one person, me. For this conversation to have been constructive, you would have had to understand that. You are only speaking TO ME. I am a former histroy teacher, currently a dancer and choreographer. I live in the USA. I am a person of African descent, but I am not technically speaking from an ethnic point of view an AfroAmerican. I am a multiracial person, meaning that my ancestry background is made up of many different people from different parts of the globe, many from Europe, some from Asia. In the US where I live nobody cares about that. They just consider me black. My African ancestors came from West Africa and Central Africa. I have my own very unique and distinct history and culture and therefore, I do not feel the need, nor do I want to have any genetic or historic connection to Ancient Egypt. Not because I have anything against Egypt. There are things I like about Egypt a lot, which is why I go there so often. For one thing, I think they'e nice people. But I am happy with who I am. OK? Or do you still see me as the big black boogyman trying to stel Egyptian culture for myself?

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone


Or let me put it this way. People in the USA, Carribean and Latin America who looked like this...

Were told that we were too stupid to have created a civilization. In LAtin America we were called mulattos=mules, niggers, etc. And were prevented from having the same social, political and economic equality as Europeans
In the USA people who looked like all the Egyptians, Saudi Arabs, Berbers, light and dark skinned Afro Americans I've shown in all the videos above were called niggers. We were not given the same rights to do anything as Europeans and were routinely killed if we so much as tried to live like normal humans.

I just saw two Afro-Americans and even Alicia keys is half of european descent. Nobody of the Egyptians or arabs above would jutify the term nigger or black.

And once again, you fail to understan the complexity of the cultural context that this question and questions like it are based in. Its because the racist mindset that we live in does not see or care that we are all different. They view us all the same. So if you look a certain way, they only consider you to be one thing and unfortunately they still treat us all the same way. They don't see our differences, nor do they care.
Originally posted by Rakasnumberone


Therefore the fact that dark skinned, medium skinned and light brown skinned  people in Egypt created such a vibrant civilization proved that what we were told about human ability and history by them was a lie. If it was a lie for one group of dark Africans, no matter how light or dark or which part of Africa, then it must be a lie for all Africans. Its like if someone says women are not allowed to run a marathon because they aren't strong enough. Now if a woman in China not only runs a marathon, but brakes a record, then guess what? Women in Europe, Africa, Latin America, the USA are going to stand up and say you know what, what they told us was bullshit! We are strong enough and you know what, we have a right to run marathons if we want to as well. Do you understand now? Please say yes because I can't make it any simpler than this. I think a 1st grader could understand and I'm willing to bet that at your age, you're much smarter than a 1st grader. By the way for everyone the bold print isn't me yelling, its just there for emphasis.

Is that an inferiority complex? And another insult?
And BTW chinese runners are probably just record holder by one single reason, excessive doping. But of course they are not the only ones, as the Armstrong case has shown. This is the same for the black sprinters and long distance athletes. It is excessive doping, which makes them so succesful.

I see, you really are that simple. No, It's not an insult. Its just the truth. If you don't understand that I used a chinese woman as an analogy for all women feeling a sense of solidarity with another woman, that if all women are told something about women, and a woman, regardless of where she is proves it to be wrong, then it what was said about all women must not be true then you really are an idiot and speaking with you really has been a total waste of time.
Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

What more evidence do you want? You want a hand written note saying we haplotype E people originated in Africa?

If E or DE and CF are all younger than the time of human migration from Africa, well, even an 1st grader should spend some time to question the claim, that they evolved in Africa.

If you are not smart enough to understand that there were many migrations out of Africanat different times not just one, then you really are not going to understand anything where genetics are concerned. You think there was only one migration from Africa. The truth is there was more than one migration and that they happened at different times.

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone


With all due respect, English is not your first language, you are not a scientist and therefore, it is you who do not understand the science, not them making a mistake about the age. As I expalined already, according to the evidence D originated in Africa. Now pay attention because this is the important part. One part of D migrated into Africa. The other part of D stayed IN Africa. The D that stayed in Africa gave birth to E in Africa. Now untill you get your degree in genetics, that proves otherwise, myself and the rest of the world will go with the scientists who actually studied this stuff and have degrees from well known Universities. So if there is a question of the age of E, dear I say that it is you, who is not a genetic scientist, nor who holds a degree in genetics, who does not understand the material, rather than the educated scholars not knowing how to tell time.... I'm just saying.. it's something to consider...

More insults? You should not complain about my inferiour understanding of the english language and write expalined then, instead of explained.
And D is not the ancestor of E.

I think I've said enough. You're not going to get it.....
Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

No. We tell the truth. Egyptians were a native African people who had a variety of skin tones ranging in color from black, like other peoples in tropical Africa to very light brown like people in other parts of North Africa and Western Asia. They had hair that ranged from very kinky to very straight and features that ranged from very broad to very fine, just as we can still see today. 

There is no one single African type or race.

No shit? Really? Oh wait... isn't that the exact same point that I've ben making since I started this hopeless conversation with you? There is only one race. the human race. What we see as racial differences are just climactic adaptations. As much as it pains me to have to admit this, you and I belong to the same race, homo saipian.....

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone


As stated before, the archeological findings shows from the remains of pottery and tools that there was a culture that stretched across the Sahara from the Nile to the Atlantic. Add to this the abundance of rock paintings and carvings and settlement sites. The green Sahara was very well traveled. All they had to do was walk. They were semi nomadic pastorialists.

Yes, for the sahara savannas this is true. But we spoke about the hyperaride sahara. There were for long periods no passages thru the sahar, but along the mediterranian coast.

That is not true. there always were trade routes across the Sahara and there always were small bands of people living in different araes of the sahara. Its not all sand. Many areas of it is stony ground. Look it up.
Originally posted by Rakasnumberone


Dude, English is my native language and I thinnk I speak it very well. Black tropical African refers to the dark skinned Africans who are found in the tropical zone which stretches from the Red Sea to the Atlantic. And if you watched the video of Jablonski that I posted for the second time, you'll see scientist consider it as such as well. In case you're wondering I also taught geography...

Again, i am not your dude. And if you had taught (BTW taught, but not studied?) geography, you should know, that Egypt i not tropical


No you are not MY dude, you are just a dude and a simple minded one at that. Wasn't I the one who told you that only the southern part of Egypt was in the tropical zone? Okay, let me say it again, and you can look it up on a map for yourself. But you will need to understand some basic geography first The tropical zone is located between 2 lines of latitude. Latitudanal lines are imaginary lines that were created by geographers. They don't exist in real life, only on maps. When you look at a geographical map, you will see lines that run from east to west around the Earth and from north to south. The lines that run east to west are call lines of latitude. 

The Earth is divided into a northern half and a southern half. The latitude line in the middle is called the Equator. Geographers give the lines numbers called degrees. The Equator is degree 0. Every thing above zero is north and everything below is south. Are you with me?

The Equator is the hootest place on earth because it receieves constant sun radiation all year long. The area on the Earth that is hot all year long is called the Tropical zone. The tropical zone starts at the line of latitude called the Tropic of Cancer wich is numbered  20 degrees north latitude. Or 20 degrees north of the Eguator. The tropical zone continues south past the equator to the line of latitude called The tropic of Capricorn, which is 20 degrees south latitude.

Where is Egypt: Egypt is located in 2 climate zones. The tropic of Cancer runs right through the southernmost part of Egypt. The oldest artifacts of prehistoric Egypt were found in Southern Egypt and Northern Sudan, which is the country south of Egypt. This area is between 10 degrees north latitude and 20 degrees north latitude. This means that the earliest remains of the culture that would later develope into pharaonic culture began in the Tropical Zone. The majority of Egypt though is not in the tropical zone. The farther away from the tropical zone you get, the cooler the environment is. The Areas norh of the Tropical Zone are called the SUB TROPICAL ZONE. So for todays's lesson, the closer you get to the tropical zone, the hotter the weather is. The farther you go from the Tropical Zone the cooler the weather becomes. Why? Because the Sub Tropical zone does not receive as much of the sun's radiation.

How manyclimate  zones does the country of Egypt have?
A. One
B. Two
C. Three

If you picked B, you are correct! :-) Egypt has 2 climate zones!

Did I lose you? .... Are you still there? Was that too much for you to handle?  OH GOD SOME BODY GET A DOCTOR QUICK HE"S GOING INTO SHOCK!

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

They were right there in front of your eyes. It's not my fault that you thought they were all immigrant workers. And all you have to do is look back at all the videos of real life Egyptians I showed in this discussion to see that its fact and not opinion. It is what it is.

you mean like the "black" egyptians you have shown above?

Yes, the videos I showed you all had examples of dark brown people. Black is a term often used by many people to describe the dark brown peoples found in the different parts of Africa and other places in the world. But just remember, that when you go to Egypt, you will also see many people who are not dark brown in color. Therefore, Egypt is a country that has people of many different colors. See, that wasn't so hard. I'm going to give you a smily face AND a star :-) * Well done!
Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

Does these look like a Norwegians, or Armenians to you or Africans?


Well, discuss this with the scientists of the report.

This wasn't a matter of scientific report. I asked you what did they look like to you. Do they look Norwegian, Armenian or do they look like people you would expect to find in Africa? If you didn't answer, that means you got the answer wrong. I'll have to give you a frowny face for that :-(

It seems this discussion goes the way all those discussions with afrocentrists go and you can convince me you are no afrocentrist. At a special point of discussion they start with insults.

No this discussion just reminded me why I signed off from this forum so many years ago. Because I too often encounter stupid people such as yourself. When an inteligent person who happens to be of African descent encounters a moron, it doesn't mean he is Afrocentric. It just means that he's telling the truth. The person he is talking to is a moron incapabl of inteligent thought or converstation.

I was quite happy forgetting that this forum existed until for some ungodly reason I started getting notifications again. I saw the level of stupidity, general georaphich, historical and cultural ignorance I often encounter on forums such as this. I only started participating because you asked a question and I thought that you really wanted an honest aswer. I should have known better. 

Just to be fair, I find the Afrocentric forums to be chuck full of equally stupid and morinic imbiciles as this one. With adsolutely no knowledge of the basic history, culture, or geography of the people they are talking about. In effect, you are all a bunch of insecure dumb twats. I find that most of these people, people such as yourself, (dumb twats), whether Afrocentric, or Eurocentric are a complete waste of space on plant Earth and my general consensus is that the world, (at least from an academic point of view), would be better off if you were all locked in a jug, thrown into the sea and forgotten. I'm trying very hard here to brake every rule of decorum in the hopes that I will be permanently kicked off this site, banned by the moderators and not receieve any further notifications alerting me to its existance. I only hope that this time it works for f**k's sake. f**k f**k f**k. Please put me out of my misery sign me off send me no notifications PLEASE! 

Moderators, is this a bright enough shade of red? please say yes!
Back to Top
Centrix Vigilis View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor
Avatar

Joined: 18-Aug-2006
Location: The Llano
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7392
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Apr-2013 at 09:34
Not a problem. Your explicit and deliberate rudeness, your overbearing tone directed to another member and insulting remarks, in general, coupled with unnecessary cursing; and your failure to adhere to guidance I already gave you, does indeed 'make it simple'.

You have succeeded in your effort. Your gone.

As for whether the admin owner deletes your registration etc. is his decision not yours.

Suspended.
Indefinitely.

Edited by Centrix Vigilis - 21-Apr-2013 at 09:39
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

S. T. Friedman


Pilger's law: 'If it's been officially denied, then it's probably true'

Back to Top
red clay View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar
Tomato Master Emeritus

Joined: 14-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 10111
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Apr-2013 at 10:11
Yes, we wouldn't want to keep him surrounded by those of lesser intelligence here.  But after reading his last bit of spew, I realize it would be hard to surround someone with 1 or 2 folks.
 
Rakas is like the cousin you haven't seen in years.  You had forgotten him, then he shows up after a few years, and you then remember why you forgot about him.
 
So, you are intellectually superior to us here.  Then why did you resort to profanity?  Couldn't process the information, or just couldn't produce the words to  express yourself without it? 
 
Goodbye, good luck and good riddance.
 
 
"Arguing with someone who hates you or your ideas, is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what move you make, your opponent will walk all over the board and scramble the pieces".
Unknown.
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: 21-Apr-2013 at 10:29
Ah, you know him as it seems. I already thought I stroke a nerve.
Back to Top
medenaywe View Drop Down
AE Moderator
AE Moderator
Avatar
Master of Meanings

Joined: 06-Nov-2010
Location: /
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 14847
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Apr-2013 at 10:34
Better preserve your nerves for your wife&kids!Wink
Back to Top
red clay View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar
Tomato Master Emeritus

Joined: 14-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 10111
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Apr-2013 at 12:02
Originally posted by beorna

Ah, you know him as it seems. I already thought I stroke a nerve.
 
 
Oh yeah, we know him.  Actually if you think back, so do you.  He joined a few months before you did. 
Don't know for certain who he is, but his rhetoric fits the other site that split off from us here.  I suppose that's where he'll go back to.
 
He fits in fine there.  Pinguin is on one of his blatantly racist rants, Rakas will love it.
 
 
"Arguing with someone who hates you or your ideas, is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what move you make, your opponent will walk all over the board and scramble the pieces".
Unknown.
Back to Top
TheAlaniDragonRising View Drop Down
AE Moderator
AE Moderator
Avatar
Spam Fighter

Joined: 09-May-2011
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6072
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Apr-2013 at 12:52
Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

.........................my general consensus is that the world, (at least from an academic point of view), would be better off if you were all locked in a jug, thrown into the sea and forgotten. I'm trying very hard here to brake every rule of decorum in the hopes that I will be permanently kicked off this site, banned by the moderators and not receieve any further notifications alerting me to its existance..........

Mmmmmm, if anyone, for even a second mistakenly equates this joker with any modicum of intelligence, think again. Firstly, members are able to turn off notifications, but even if there are special circumstances when the person finds difficulties with such things, a PM to admin or Mods would have resolved the issue. Secondly, unless you have a disorder involving multiple personalities you can't state, "my general consensus ", as it makes no sense.
What a handsome figure of a dragon. No wonder I fall madly in love with the Alani Dragon now, the avatar, it's a gorgeous dragon picture.
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: 21-Apr-2013 at 14:56
I just found an interesting report in dieneken's anthropology blog

http://dienekes.blogspot.de/2012/09/a-slower-mutation-rate-has-implications.html

"Finally, a pre-100ka divergence of Africans and Eurasians agrees well with the first appearance of modern humans in Asia (the Qafzeh/Skhul hominins from the Levant), as well as the appearance of the Nubian complex in south Arabia. I have proposed a theory that seems to match the evidence: the "two deserts" theory that derives Eurasians from an Out-of-Sahara/North Africa migration prior to 100 thousand years when modern humans first settled in the Levant and Arabia. However, they remained "bottled up" there by the Nearndertals to their north before eventually venturing out to populate the rest of  Eurasia.

At c. 70ka, the drying up of the Sahara and Arabia and/or the Toba eruption, became responsible for the Great  Eurasian Bottleneck that is so often detected in genetic data. This event led some modern humans (Y-haplogroup: CF) to expand north Out-of-Arabia, where they intermixed with Neandertals and eventually "broke through" the Neandertal barrier to populate the rest of Eurasia. A second group of humans (Y-haplogroup: DE) expanded southwest (back-migrants into Africa, carrying Y-haplogroup E), or southeast (Y-haplogroup D, now having a relic distribution in Asia)."

This is based on Scally and Durbin from 2012. German scientists of the max-Planck Intitute refute the results of Scally and Durbin who estimated a time of divergence back to 130,000 years and give a date of 62-95ky.

Well, it seems there will be a lot of research in the next years. Let us wait what comes. Together with archaeological evidence it seems that modern humans migrated already during the Eem. But maybe their lines are lost and the recent non-african populations go back to people who migrated 95ky ago. Extreme glacial periods, especially those after 74ky BP, made the contact between the african and non-african populations impossible or reduced it to a minimum. Exact this was my point for hg E. As long as it is younger than the time of migration, it can't be of african origin. Maybe new research will show, that E is older. Then we have to think about it again.
Back to Top
red clay View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar
Tomato Master Emeritus

Joined: 14-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 10111
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Apr-2013 at 16:26
I'll argue the bit about the bottleneck.  All evidence points to something global, not just eurasian.  The entire population of the planet was reduced to less than 10,000 folks.
 
What I find interesting are the number of geneticists and other scholars who seem to trivialize that event.
Ladies and gents!! The human race nearly bought the farm!  We were reduced to pockets here and there.
How does this effect the "Out of Africa theory"?
"Arguing with someone who hates you or your ideas, is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what move you make, your opponent will walk all over the board and scramble the pieces".
Unknown.
Back to Top
Mountain Man View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 16-Aug-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 873
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Apr-2013 at 17:13
They were neither.  They were, in fact, "brown" and unrelated to the black negroid races of Africa as much as they were unrelated to the whites of Rome.

I am curious, however, to know what difference it makes to history or anything else?
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Back to Top
red clay View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar
Tomato Master Emeritus

Joined: 14-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 10111
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Apr-2013 at 10:16
Originally posted by Mountain Man

They were neither.  They were, in fact, "brown" and unrelated to the black negroid races of Africa as much as they were unrelated to the whites of Rome.

I am curious, however, to know what difference it makes to history or anything else?
 
 
As am I.  This discussion has been going on for as long as I've been here.  No resolution, no one on either side has any give.
 
Can someone give me a reason why this thread should continue?  I mean a solid historical purpose.
 
 
"Arguing with someone who hates you or your ideas, is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what move you make, your opponent will walk all over the board and scramble the pieces".
Unknown.
Back to Top
medenaywe View Drop Down
AE Moderator
AE Moderator
Avatar
Master of Meanings

Joined: 06-Nov-2010
Location: /
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 14847
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Apr-2013 at 10:30
On picture all colors are included.I believe some are religious marks more than skin color!(That includes all
colors also!Clayey&Soil&Earth color!)Egypt was multicultural community.Religion?!?Pyramid says one official
which did not deny existence of others!Big smile
Back to Top
TheAlaniDragonRising View Drop Down
AE Moderator
AE Moderator
Avatar
Spam Fighter

Joined: 09-May-2011
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6072
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Apr-2013 at 13:00
Originally posted by red clay

Originally posted by Mountain Man

They were neither.  They were, in fact, "brown" and unrelated to the black negroid races of Africa as much as they were unrelated to the whites of Rome.

I am curious, however, to know what difference it makes to history or anything else?
 
 
As am I.  This discussion has been going on for as long as I've been here.  No resolution, no one on either side has any give.
 
Can someone give me a reason why this thread should continue?  I mean a solid historical purpose.
 
 
I can give a reason why this thread should not continue. I am an advocate in the belief that there is only one race, the human race, and this thread advocates differentiating between people, and calling these differences races. In my opinion this is the root to racism. 
What a handsome figure of a dragon. No wonder I fall madly in love with the Alani Dragon now, the avatar, it's a gorgeous dragon picture.
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: 22-Apr-2013 at 14:59
For me the question about the egyptian origins is absolutely interesting and fascinating. But I gree, that the question of the thread is already wrong. Egyptians are both NOT, neither black nor white.
Back to Top
TITAN_ View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 21-Jun-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 480
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Apr-2013 at 08:06
Originally posted by TheAlaniDragonRising

Originally posted by red clay

Originally posted by Mountain Man

They were neither.  They were, in fact, "brown" and unrelated to the black negroid races of Africa as much as they were unrelated to the whites of Rome.

I am curious, however, to know what difference it makes to history or anything else?
 
 
As am I.  This discussion has been going on for as long as I've been here.  No resolution, no one on either side has any give.
 
Can someone give me a reason why this thread should continue?  I mean a solid historical purpose.
 
 
I can give a reason why this thread should not continue. I am an advocate in the belief that there is only one race, the human race, and this thread advocates differentiating between people, and calling these differences races. In my opinion this is the root to racism. 

We both know there are two human races.... 1) Saoirse Ronan Heart   and 2) everyone else... 
Embarrassed
 


αἰὲν ἀριστεύειν
Een aristevin
“Ever to Excel“
From Homer's Iliad (8th century BC).
Motto of the University of St Andrews (founded 1410), the Edinburgh Academy (founded 1824) and others.
Back to Top
red clay View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar
Tomato Master Emeritus

Joined: 14-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 10111
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Apr-2013 at 10:59
Originally posted by TheAlaniDragonRising

Originally posted by red clay

Originally posted by Mountain Man

They were neither.  They were, in fact, "brown" and unrelated to the black negroid races of Africa as much as they were unrelated to the whites of Rome.

I am curious, however, to know what difference it makes to history or anything else?
 
 
As am I.  This discussion has been going on for as long as I've been here.  No resolution, no one on either side has any give.
 
Can someone give me a reason why this thread should continue?  I mean a solid historical purpose.
 
 
I can give a reason why this thread should not continue. I am an advocate in the belief that there is only one race, the human race, and this thread advocates differentiating between people, and calling these differences races. In my opinion this is the root to racism. 
 
 
I was hoping someone would bring this up. I agree and also advocate one race.
Thread closed.
"Arguing with someone who hates you or your ideas, is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what move you make, your opponent will walk all over the board and scramble the pieces".
Unknown.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 202122

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 0.266 seconds.