Zahi Hawass fed up with Racial Politics and lies

I had been under the impression that concepts like "Caucasoid" and "Negroid" races had long been dispensed with. Besides being laden down with historical subjective biases, they don't fit very well with what we know about human genetics. And since genetic science provides much better methods for determining ancestry, racial classifications no longer have any use.

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone I'm really not too certain what Afrocentrism is supposed to be. I've encountered some really bizarre characters and theories claiming to be Afrocentric, but I wonder if this isn't a case of a legitimate cultural and intellectual movement being hijacked by some fringe elements. In any case, if the issue is to foster a legitimate reevaluation of African culture, people and history, both on the continent and diaspora, honoring the complexities of these cultures, I'm for it. If all it is is just the flip side of a white supremacist coin, then I want nothing to do with it at all. Personally though, I'm pretty sick of Egypt always getting the lion's share of attention when it comes to African history to the detriment of the rest of the continent, including other North African societies. Its like when you look on T.V. all you see of Africa is EGYPT or Lions and Zebras on a Safari in a Kenyan national park.... and then slavery and Feed the Children. Really a big need for a more accurate spectrum, with Egypt in its proper place, not crowding out the sunlight.

Originally posted by Zagros Whatever they were, Egyptians were not the ancestors of African Americans, sub-Saharan Africans or Europeans and had nothing in common with them culturally, not even in the slightest.  Blacks and Europeans have no rights in claiming their glory just because there was no significant ancient civilisation in sub-Saharan Africa or Northern and Central Europe.  They should get over it and accept their actual heritage instead of hijacking other people's.

With exception of a few fringe elements, I don't think most Afro Americans are under the delusion that they are descended from the Egyptians. As I said before, its real significance is in showing that certain ideas which were used to justify slavery and colonialism are not founded in fact but fiction. Think of it this way. I'm old enough to remember when women were prohibited from running in marathons in this country because they were told that women were not physically capable of doing such things. There was a time when women were discouraged from seeking higher education because it was believed they didn't have the mental capacity to do so and that trying would be injurious to their physical and mental health. Now, if I were a woman in the U.S. and I saw women in China who not only had higher education, they were actually heads institutions of higher learning, it would give me strength and ammunition to fight for my right to do so here. If I was told that women were too weak to run long distances and I saw that in Europe women not only run in marathons, the set records, it would give me strength and comfort in knowing that what i was told was not true. I would go about collecting as much information as I could find on the achievements of remarkable women to show that the stereotypes are nothing but cultural and political fabrications. I would feel a sense of connection to those people, not because I believed they were my actual relatives, but because like them, I too am a woman and so in a sense their success is my success, or better yet an indication as to what I can achieve. It would prove that being a woman is not a hinderance to success in any way, physically or mentally.

Likewise, those of us of African descent feel a kinship with all peoples of the diaspora not because we believe we are necessarily connected by blood, but ideologically. We were told not only that no African ever achieved anything or was even capable of doing so and that no one who was of African blood was able to do anything of significance. Therefore, when we see Egypt, and we see statues of people who look like us, who look like our family members and people in our communities, we don't believe we are looking at snap shots from a photo album. Its the exact same principle as that girl in the USA who was told women are too weak seeing a woman athlete in China setting world records. Just as women take pride in the achievements of other remarkable women, we take pride in the achievements of remarkable Africans for the same reason.

Unfortunately, there are some who have dived off the deep end. So on the White side you have those fishing to show a legitimate reason to justify their bigotry and sense of self importance and on the black side you have those who try to get as close to Egypt as they can to prove that the black race is the superior one, not the white and try to create genetic connections where there are none. Both these extremists are responsible for the inability that still exists of putting Egypt in its proper context.

As for Egypt's connections with other African societies. I'd like to point out that the division between North Africa and Sub Saharan Africa is a false one. It is based on an assumption that there is cultural uniformity across the board below the Sahara, which negates the reality that they are diverse and distinct cultures in that region. By the same token "North Africa does the same. It lumps all those people together based on superficial criteria which do not take into consideration the diversity of that region either. The fact of the matter is that Egypt was an African society and as such there is an abundance of cultural and material similarities with other societies both above and below the Sahara. Egypt did receive cultural input from many areas, least of which was the Saharan culture. This is one reason why we can observe certain cultural practices that are distributed across the continent from East to west for example, the practice of male and female circumcision which is still practiced from Egypt in the East to Mali in the West. As I said before, there is much work to be done on not only putting Egypt in its proper place, but understanding the variety of cultures on the continent and the degrees of relation between them.

That's not the only reason.  In fact it isn't a reason at all. Civilisation thrived elsewhere because of the harsh environment.  Necessity is the mother invention (cultivation, agriculture, urbanisation). Isolated tribal societies still thrive in Africa because they have everything they need to survive they don't have to consider constant innovation.


Edited by Zagros - 28-Jun-2008 at 18:03

Originally posted by Vorian African Americans and the rest shouldn't feel the need to prove that blacks are as clever as whites or anything. The only reason there were few and short-lived advanced civilisations in Africa is the harsh climate and natural environment. Little difficult to built pyramids when you are running away from elephants. Simple as that.

Its not a matter of trying to prove we are as smart as "white people", it was/is about showing that we are just as human as anyone else. As far as "advanced civilizations". That all depends on what your criteria are. They may not have had monumental architecture, but the fact of the matter is that most civilizations didn't either. They did show incredible competence in social organization and political management. Besides, we really have no idea what most of Africa was like in antiquity because its been largely ignored. People assumed that African was devoid of civilization and therefore did not feel the need to look for it. Had the same attitude existed with regards to India, we would never have known that Mohenjo Daro existed. The Nok culture of Nigeria may be the tip of the iceberg. Its just that with regards to Africa, the majority of attention has always been paid to the most primitive societies because it reenforced the misperception of the African as intellectually inferior. Like I said before, if you look on T.V. there are only a few images of Africa that you will see. Animals in a safari park and adds for feed the children or some other charity for starving refugees, or civil wars. Never are we shown anything of the urban societies of Africa or even images of modern societies in Africa today. This then is the idea that most people of the world have of Africa and Africans. So we really can't speak of sub Saharan civilizations because most of us know very little to next to nothing about that part of the world. Your statement about running from elephants is a perfect example. You have no idea that the majority of Africans lived in settled urban societies, not in the bush and monumental architecture has more to do with the world view of those societies than anything else.

Edited by Rakasnumberone - 29-Jun-2008 at 00:13

Africa is divided in two large ethnic and linguistic groups: Afroasiatics and the Bantues.

"Whites" doest mean Paul Newman, it means Caucasoid which is very clear definition, which is both a genetically and phenotypically different from Negroid or Mongoloid. Afrocentrism seeks to claim Egpt because of its fame and  influence, and then use it as spring board into Asia & especially Europe.


African-Americans, West Africans and even East Africans laying claim to Ancient Egypt and then claiming its modern inhabitants are all foreigners(ie Arabs) or "mixed-race" is wrong.   Hawass does a good job of making it known that Afrocentrism is a bad mental diesense which afflicts many Blacks here in the USA and elsewhere.

Originally posted by Bernard Woolley Originally posted by pinguin Africa is divided in two large ethnic and linguistic groups: Afroasiatics and the Bantues. The Afroasiatic group includes the Moors or people of the Magbreb, Egyptians, Syrians, Arabs and other Middle Easterners, Jews and even some people down to Ethiopia. Egyptians belong to that group and have nothing to do with people of West Africa, the place from where African Americans descend. That's not at all accurate. The Bantu language family is the largest in Sub-Saharan Africa, but it's far from the only one. Large parts of Sub-Saharan Africa have no Bantu languages, and in most places where Bantu languages are spoken they overlap with other, unrelated languages. Culturally (and genetically) speaking, Sub-Saharan Africa is one of the most complex places in the world, if not the most complex. Saying "Sub-Saharan Africans are all Bantus" is a blatant misrepresentation of that most-of-a-continent.

Yes, that's true. Afroasiatic Africa is less diverse than the South, where you find groups like the "bantues", nilotics, khoi-san, malgaches and pigmeys that are a lot more different between themselves that Egyptians and Moroccans.

Edited by pinguin - 29-Jun-2008 at 03:43

hmm i think much of this is folly from the get go..but such inaccurrate terminologies such as Caucasoids, negroid mongoloid..etc should be no longer used....
i think its funny how even though its known that these terms aren't accurate you still have scientist using it...aka north African Caucasoids... predominately based on his nasal index and narrowness of his nose... but i rarely hear them mention the other terms they way they use Caucasoids... example was the so called "black" mummies found in the desert ( i think it was out in the sahara...they use black instead of what they want to say which is negroid. i can understand the similiarities between north African coastal populations and the nile valley residents but i rarely hear the of the similarities between horn african peoples and egyptians...just pointing out somethings....