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 34567 22>
Poll Question: well?
Poll Choice Votes Poll Statistics
24 [43.64%]
31 [56.36%]
This topic is closed, no new votes accepted

Author
  Share Topic Share Topic  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
edgewaters View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar
Snake in the Grass-Banned

Joined: 13-Mar-2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2394 		Direct Link To This Post Topic: Werer the Egyptians white or black?
    Posted: 27-Jul-2007 at 00:37
Well, migration back into Africa is an unnecessary consideration. What's important is not Neolithic migrations, but cultural ties that exist between networks of cities and towns. If Neolithic migrations were important, we'd call Romans, Greeks, Celts and Germans Middle Eastern or East Indian (Indo-European roots), but we do not.

These networks of cities and towns transcend mere national boundaries and are in fact the prerequisite for early states. The Egyptians were interconnected with a network linked by trade, that extended from the Nile clear to the Indus.

They were not substantially connected with Africa - there were local connections with Punt and Nubia but nothing more substantial than that. They may have had some origin on that continent - as we all did - but no lasting contact.

Egyptian technological development reflects its connection with Mesopotamia not Africa - adopting technologies directly from Mesopotamia, like the plough, the wheel, and so on.
Back to Top
elenos View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 13-Jun-2007
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1457 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Jul-2007 at 01:12
I cannot work out some of your points edgewaters. The Mediterranean became just a relative pond insofar as traveling about to set up new colonies for a long time before civilization. I agree with you in that Egyptian technological development does reflect the cultural ties. Perhaps you mean the interchange of technologies, the migration of ideas, as the important factor. I will go along with that. 
elenos
Back to Top
irani View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 29-Jul-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 0 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Jul-2007 at 12:37
egyptians were brown, They were mixed with black people from africa and white people from the middle east. They were very similar to current day egyptians.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-Jul-2007 at 15:40
 
Originally posted by Jugernot

The theory youre talking about is widely accepted to be false. Diamond and Bellwood are trying to give it new life. However, without enough evidence, and a mountain of evidence against the theory, I wouldnt put my faith in it.

It's perfectly possible to believe with Diamond that the Egyptian civilisation developed out of that of the Fertile Crescent, without believing that that had anything to do with either racial migration or the spread of language.
 
In fact the sheer history of the devlopment of hieroglyphics indicates to me that, while the idea of writing came from Mesopotamia to Egypt, the difference in language led to the implementation of a very different system.
 
Culture, race and language need to be kept separate unless there is good evidence to connect them. Modern Britain has plenty of people of West Indian (hence African) descent who are nonetheless totally English linguistically and culturally.
 
Racial migration can take place with or without language migration and with or without cultural migration.
 
The question of the origin of Egyptian language or Egyptian culture therefore has nothing to do with the question originally posed here, which was a racial one.
Back to Top
eaglecap View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 15-Feb-2005
Location: ArizonaUSA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3959 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Aug-2007 at 20:08
This would take a lot of space to answer and lots of sources. The leadership of the Egyptians were Caucasian but a Semitic race with olive complexion although the Egyptian society was multicultural so there were black Egyptians. There was a period after the Nubian conquest when the Pharaohs were black. This is only based on sources I have read and Egyptian paintings and recreations, I have seen, from human skulls- doesn't mean I am right.
Λοιπόν, αδελφοί και οι συμπολίτες και οι στρατιώτες, να θυμάστε αυτό ώστε μνημόσυνο σας, φήμη και ελευθερία σας θα ε
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: 14-Aug-2007 at 22:29
I think before this question can be answered one must first define what is meant by "black" or "white". Are we defining "black" by the US Governments definition, are we basing it on skin color, or are we basing it on whether or not the were a native African people?
Back to Top
Penelope View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
Alia Atreides

Joined: 26-Aug-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1042 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Aug-2007 at 23:48
It's funny that 11 people would actually choose "white", when in all actuallity, Egyptians can not even be proven to be "white" or "black". There is absolutly 0 conclusive evidence showing that they were white.
Back to Top
elenos View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 13-Jun-2007
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1457 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Aug-2007 at 04:37
The poll could be widened to say Semitic and others who are not black. Even black is a dodgy term for many types have lived in Africa. Other answers could be given but the poll is too narrow. 
elenos
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-Aug-2007 at 15:38
Originally posted by elenos

The poll could be widened to say Semitic and others who are not black. Even black is a dodgy term for many types have lived in Africa. Other answers could be given but the poll is too narrow.


I've seen this debate on many forums, but no one has ever been able to answer the one basic question that I think is central to this whole issue, which is, what is meant by "black"? And for that matter, exactly what is meant by "white"? Perhaps you can give me an answer.
Back to Top
Surmount View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian


Joined: 10-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 156 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Aug-2007 at 23:03
History has been tampered with due to racism and racial pride, and clearly as you can see this brainwashing affect has effected most people making comments. So due to this racial brainwashing which has lasted for probably centuries, most people wouldn't even think of saying they were black.
Back to Top
Surmount View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian


Joined: 10-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 156 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Aug-2007 at 23:14
There was a mixture of ethnicities there. But from what i learned the original Egyptians were black.Then through time there were others who inhabited Egypt, from different parts around that region. Due to this migration, and intermixing, they became more of a diverse group of people.
Back to Top
Aster Thrax Eupator View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended

Suspended

Joined: 18-Jul-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1929 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Aug-2007 at 23:14

These colour-oriented questions always pop-up and frankly there are ridiculous. I can see where Surmount is coming from, and I agree with him. You can't define ethnicities by colour - ethnicities are defined by ethno-lingustic traits whereas race is defined by genetics. If they were black or white - probably both - then it has no real part to play in the interpretation of their history.
Back to Top
Surmount View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian


Joined: 10-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 156 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Aug-2007 at 23:25
Please if you don't mind, explain to me what you mean in detail by.

ethnicities are defined by ethno-lingustic traits whereas race is defined by genetics

Thank you.Big%20smile
Back to Top
Aster Thrax Eupator View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended

Suspended

Joined: 18-Jul-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1929 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Aug-2007 at 00:51
"Ethnicities" (eg. English, German, Latvian, Tartar, Hungarian, Wehga, Zulu etc.) are not tied to any genetic or racial types. They are defined by Ethno-Linguistic differences which have taken place over history. For example, the English are a mix of Celts, French, Germans, Danish and Norwegans. These cultures mixed and caused a unique fusion which, in time, created a distinctly "English" culture. Despite being formed out of various other Ethnicities, nobody would regard the English as Germans, French etc. because "Ethnicity" is fluid and is essentially tribal recognition.
"Race" is a more complex concept as its' supposedly founded on genetics and not ethnicities. It doesn't matter what ethnicity one is, which is abstract, one belongs to a certain race that has some genetic differences from others due mainly to their location on the earth and how their bodies over millenia have adapted to it. "Ethnicitiy" is generally fluid, but "Race" is not.
That said, I'm only voicing the considering opinion and I for one personally believe that there is so much cultural AND genetic intermingling that the terms of "Race" cannot be applied to a single people because the gene pool is always changed by mutations and inter-breeding. The Ancient Egyptians were an Ethnicity, defined by a common culture, nationality, religion, ethnography, approach to life and language. When regarding a country like this, race is unimportant as (apart from in the modern era, which I think has serverly clouded some people's judgement about ancient history on this forum) the ancient's didn't consider "race" in the way we do - it was about common culture and politics. Naturally, since there was less interrelations and globalisation, it was more common for say, a caucasian to be a Gaul (just an ethnic group) than it was for an African to be one, but nonetheless, I can't help feeling that many people in this thread who address issues in this manner are approaching it from a 1930s theoratical view which has no relation to the ancient world whatsoever.


Edited by Aster Thrax Eupator - 16-Aug-2007 at 00:52
Back to Top
konstantinius View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 22-Aug-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 762 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Aug-2007 at 08:21
Originally posted by Surmount

Please if you don't mind, explain to me what you mean in detail by.

ethnicities are defined by ethno-lingustic traits whereas race is defined by genetics

Thank you.Big%20smile


There's absolutely NO genetic definition of race. There's isn't one trait that is particular to any one race, therefore race is not genetically defined to any extend.
" I do disagree with what you say but I'll defend to my death your right to do so."
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: 16-Aug-2007 at 11:07
Originally posted by Aster Thrax Eupator

"Ethnicities" (eg. English, German, Latvian, Tartar, Hungarian, Wehga, Zulu etc.) are not tied to any genetic or racial types. They are defined by Ethno-Linguistic differences which have taken place over history. For example, the English are a mix of Celts, French, Germans, Danish and Norwegans. These cultures mixed and caused a unique fusion which, in time, created a distinctly "English" culture. Despite being formed out of various other Ethnicities, nobody would regard the English as Germans, French etc. because "Ethnicity" is fluid and is essentially tribal recognition.


"Race" is a more complex concept as its' supposedly founded on genetics and not ethnicities. It doesn't matter what ethnicity one is, which is abstract, one belongs to a certain race that has some genetic differences from others due mainly to their location on the earth and how their bodies over millenia have adapted to it. "Ethnicitiy" is generally fluid, but "Race" is not.
That said, I'm only voicing the considering opinion and I for one personally believe that there is so much cultural AND genetic intermingling that the terms of "Race" cannot be applied to a single people because the gene pool is always changed by mutations and inter-breeding. The Ancient Egyptians were an Ethnicity, defined by a common culture, nationality, religion, ethnography, approach to life and language. When regarding a country like this, race is unimportant as (apart from in the modern era, which I think has serverly clouded some people's judgement about ancient history on this forum) the ancient's didn't consider "race" in the way we do - it was about common culture and politics. Naturally, since there was less interrelations and globalisation, it was more common for say, a caucasian to be a Gaul (just an ethnic group) than it was for an African to be one, but nonetheless, I can't help feeling that many people in this thread who address issues in this manner are approaching it from a 1930s theoratical view which has no relation to the ancient world whatsoever.


I agree with you. Nevertheless, I find it interesting that people continue to use these terms, "BLACK", "WHITE", but I have never in any forum had anyone answer the one basic question that I've been asking. WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY BLACK? The question of this thread is were the Egyptians Black or White. There's even been a poll, yet no one is willing to or able to answer this one basic question, WHAT IS BLACK?    How can one discuss a topic when no one is even able or willing to define the subject of that discussion on the most basic level?
Back to Top
calvo View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 20-May-2007
Location: Spain
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 846 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Aug-2007 at 14:19
Originally posted by Aster Thrax Eupator

"Ethnicities" (eg. English, German, Latvian, Tartar, Hungarian, Wehga, Zulu etc.) are not tied to any genetic or racial types. They are defined by Ethno-Linguistic differences which have taken place over history. For example, the English are a mix of Celts, French, Germans, Danish and Norwegans. These cultures mixed and caused a unique fusion which, in time, created a distinctly "English" culture. Despite being formed out of various other Ethnicities, nobody would regard the English as Germans, French etc. because "Ethnicity" is fluid and is essentially tribal recognition.
"Race" is a more complex concept as its' supposedly founded on genetics and not ethnicities. It doesn't matter what ethnicity one is, which is abstract, one belongs to a certain race that has some genetic differences from others due mainly to their location on the earth and how their bodies over millenia have adapted to it. "Ethnicitiy" is generally fluid, but "Race" is not.
That said, I'm only voicing the considering opinion and I for one personally believe that there is so much cultural AND genetic intermingling that the terms of "Race" cannot be applied to a single people because the gene pool is always changed by mutations and inter-breeding. The Ancient Egyptians were an Ethnicity, defined by a common culture, nationality, religion, ethnography, approach to life and language. When regarding a country like this, race is unimportant as (apart from in the modern era, which I think has serverly clouded some people's judgement about ancient history on this forum) the ancient's didn't consider "race" in the way we do - it was about common culture and politics. Naturally, since there was less interrelations and globalisation, it was more common for say, a caucasian to be a Gaul (just an ethnic group) than it was for an African to be one, but nonetheless, I can't help feeling that many people in this thread who address issues in this manner are approaching it from a 1930s theoratical view which has no relation to the ancient world whatsoever.
 
Very well summarised!!!Clap
 
The best answer to this question is to ask another question:
 
are modern  Brasilians and Cubans black or white?
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: 16-Aug-2007 at 15:30
Originally posted by calvo

Originally posted by Aster Thrax Eupator

"Ethnicities" (eg. English, German, Latvian, Tartar, Hungarian, Wehga, Zulu etc.) are not tied to any genetic or racial types. They are defined by Ethno-Linguistic differences which have taken place over history. For example, the English are a mix of Celts, French, Germans, Danish and Norwegans. These cultures mixed and caused a unique fusion which, in time, created a distinctly "English" culture. Despite being formed out of various other Ethnicities, nobody would regard the English as Germans, French etc. because "Ethnicity" is fluid and is essentially tribal recognition.


"Race" is a more complex concept as its' supposedly founded on genetics and not ethnicities. It doesn't matter what ethnicity one is, which is abstract, one belongs to a certain race that has some genetic differences from others due mainly to their location on the earth and how their bodies over millenia have adapted to it. "Ethnicitiy" is generally fluid, but "Race" is not.
That said, I'm only voicing the considering opinion and I for one personally believe that there is so much cultural AND genetic intermingling that the terms of "Race" cannot be applied to a single people because the gene pool is always changed by mutations and inter-breeding. The Ancient Egyptians were an Ethnicity, defined by a common culture, nationality, religion, ethnography, approach to life and language. When regarding a country like this, race is unimportant as (apart from in the modern era, which I think has serverly clouded some people's judgement about ancient history on this forum) the ancient's didn't consider "race" in the way we do - it was about common culture and politics. Naturally, since there was less interrelations and globalisation, it was more common for say, a caucasian to be a Gaul (just an ethnic group) than it was for an African to be one, but nonetheless, I can't help feeling that many people in this thread who address issues in this manner are approaching it from a 1930s theoratical view which has no relation to the ancient world whatsoever.


Very well summarised!!!Clap


The best answer to this question is to ask another question:


are modern Brasilians and Cubans black or white?


Again, what do you mean by black? Why are people so reluctant to answer such a basic question?
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Aug-2007 at 15:35
Well, I understand that "Black" is used in the sense of a person West African origin of Congoid phenotype, that happens to have very dark skin, and its descendents. Particularly of the ethnic groups called Bantu, Mandinga and others alike of the region of Africa. In short, it is a descriptor of a particularly group of people that lived in a small region of Africa and that were the victims of the transatlantic slave trade.
 
If that definition is applied, Egyptians were not Blacks. Simple.
 
Pinguin
 
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: 16-Aug-2007 at 23:32
Originally posted by pinguin

Well, I understand that "Black" is used in the sense of a person West African origin of Congoid phenotype, that happens to have very dark skin, and its descendents. Particularly of the ethnic groups calledBantu, Mandinga and others alike of the region of Africa.In short, it is a descriptor of a particularly group of people that lived in a small region of Africa and that were the victims of the transatlantic slave trade.

If that definition is applied, Egyptians were not Blacks. Simple.


Pinguin



Thank you for answering my question. Okay, given your definition, are you aware of the fact that this description does not apply to all the inhabitants of the continent, not even SSub Saharan Africa. How then does one classify other African peoples who do not fit this description? Many South Africans have yellowish skins and "mongoloid" features, are they black? What about East Africans like Sudanes, Nubians, Somalis and Ethiopians? And then of course what do you do with Afro Americans, a significant percentage of whom look nothing even close to this definition, but who nevertheless are considered black? might It be more accurate to have asked what African physical type rather than black?
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 34567 22>

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 0.125 seconds.