Zahi Hawass fed up with Racial Politics and lies

First of all, I don't speak for Rakasnumberone and he (or she?) doesn't speak for me. Since we're making rather different arguments in this thread, I'd appreciate if you didn't confound Rakasnumberone's discussion of the role "race" plays in culture and historiography with my discussion of the scientific basis for "race".

 

Originally posted by omshanti Now it is time for you to make the case to me why you think the diversity visible to the eyes are only superficial and would not be reflective of or correspond to what is inside. To do this you have to show that externally visible characteristics are not controlled by internal elements such as the genome. You have to also note that genetic science is still very young and is only able to show the tip of the iceberg at its present stage.

By superficial I don't mean that outer elements are unrelated to internal ones. I mean the outer differences between humans are themselves largely insignificant. Humans the world over are amazingly unvaried in size, shape, features, behaviours, etc. compared to other species (even those with much smaller distributions). I suspect that the only reason anyone ever felt the need to sub-classify humans at all is that we're naturally attuned to dwell on the small aesthetic differences that do exist betwen each other.

Originally posted by omshanti We have to distinguish which gradual flows and which elements are due to intermixing, and which ones are due to natural gradual change. Both can be the case depending on the region and the physical element in question. If we consider humanity as a tree, there are regions where two different branches meet and create a gradual flow by merging, and regions where one branch grows different smaller branches gradually.

I have no problem thinking of the human family as a tree - although, as you noted, it's a crooked, gnarled old pine of a tree - but I'd also like to make sure we're clear on what's represented on the branches. Sexually reproducing animals don't mutate by moving to a new place - they mutate by having offspring. So, the small amount of diversity that does exist in the human genome is a factor of generational time much more than it is a factor of space - and once again, humans spent much of ther generational time exclusively in Africa. So I don't see how you could create a human family tree that isn't heavy on exclusively African lines. When species do branch into sub-species, they're just as likely to do so within a single locality (to fit into different ecological niches) as they are to adapt to new environments. I don't see this ever happening to humans, however, since we're already as adaptable to any situation as we need to be.

Originally posted by omshanti You can always find a single isolated trait or feature which happens to be common in one group, to be present in random individuals in other groups (not only in the sub-Saharan Africans) of humanity as well, however it is the combinations of certain features and traits which make the difference between groups, and make it possible to roughly recognize the origin of a person. The point is that you would never think that a Russian, a Chinese ....etc person is African or vice versa when you see one.

I agree with you that one can identify some traits that tend to have high incidences in particular regions - but there are plenty more traits that vary according to other factors than region. Additionally, there are many, many people in this world that you can't accurately place by "look", so I disagree with classifying people this way.

Originally posted by omshanti If Mr.Zahi Hawass' scholarly opinions were same as your opinions, would you still have judged his personality? Based on the impressions you get from Television?

I respect Dr. Hawass' scholarship, but I don't consider him to be above human frailties or above criticism. Incidentally, I happen to almost invariably agree with Richard Dawkins, but that doesn't prevent me from having a sneaking suspicion that the man is an ass.

Originally posted by omshanti Yes, we are a living orgasm

I'll have what you're having :)

After reading your very long reply I now remember why I spend so little time here. Although I must say, given the fact that we have spoken in private at length I am very surprised and disappointed not only in your tone, but at how impolite you are. Although I have been nothing but polite to you, you have been rude and insulting to me and repeatedly accusing me of basically being a black racist by addressing my by a term which you know I find offensive. Makes me wonder who you really are and if you and a certain person I've dismissed on more than one occasion are in fact one in the same person. Nevertheless, I will reply to your posts out of politeness. I have provided an overwhelming abundance of evidence to support my explanations, none of them being so called Afrocentric sources.

If that is the case, why is it possible to recognize a sub-Saharan African person as sub-Saharan African? When you see a sub-Saharan African person in london for example, is it only the hair that helps you recognize the sub-Saharan element in him/her? In My opinion by the way, hair is not an invalid element for a classification to be based on.
Also if sub-Saharan Africans are so diverse in looks, why is it possible for the people of African diaspora (majority of whom came from west Africa) to find a connection with another part of Africa (Egypt) based on looks, as written in Rakasnumberone's post here :
Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

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.

What he’s trying to explain to you is that the classifications are problematic because they assume that the people called Negroes do not have any of the character traits that the people called Caucasians do. For instance, Negroes only have flat wide noses and thick lips, where as Caucasians have narrow noses and thin lips. The fact is that you find populations all across Africa who have thin lips and narrow noses as well. Not all Sub Saharan populations have these so called Negroid features. They have many different facial structures. So how do we recognize them? Primarily because they tend to come in many shades of brown not found in European populations and their hair tends to be much curlier. But these are only two characteristics. You can find sun-saharans with the same shape nose as you find in Europe, or Sub Saharans who have slanted eyes like Asians, you find Sub- Saharans with the same skull shapes you find in Europe, Asia, the Americas. Its not to say that the so-called Negro type doesn’t exist, just that it is not representative of the entire Sub Saharan population.

Originally posted by Bernard Woolley

I also can't think of any feature or trait that's supposedly characteristic of any non-African population that isn't present among populations in Africa.

If this is the case, a Chinese, a Russian ....etc person can easily blend into the local population when he/she visits any part of sub-Saharan Africa or vice versa. Rakasnumberone seems to disagree with you here:

You could tell them apart because of the total sum of features. But what he’s saying is that other than the skin or hair, there are no features that are exclusive to Sub Saharans. For instance, You can find Sub Saharans with the same eye shape as a Chinese, or Mongolian. You can find a Sub Saharan that has the same head shape as a Russian, even though there is a big difference between the skin color and hair structure of the two. In other words, there are differences, but there can also be similarities as well when looking at other features.

Originally posted by Bernard Woolley

As regards Dr. Hawass, the fact of the matter is that it's perfectly legitimate to debate the skin pigmentation chosen for the bust shown at the top of this thread.
I don't think he is opposing the debate itself. He is opposing one side of the debate. That is as you wrote, perfectly legitimate, yet all kinds of accusations are directed at him because of what he says, in places where he doesn't even read, such as in this thread. Since he is Egyptian and a scholar/archaeologist while the side he is opposing to are US black activists (as written in the top article) in a subject regarding ancient Egypt, my sympathies go for him.
Originally posted by Bernard Woolley

Although the pigment chosen is a possibility, it's definitely at the lighter end of the spectrum compared to modern-day Egyptians.
That is the point, it is not beyond the spectrum, and it is as much possible that what he and his coworkers chose was based on scholarly grounds rather than what some members here accuse him of.

But you see, this is the point. Why did they choose the least likely color in the population rather than the color one is most likely to encounter? Why didn’t they base it on the average color of the people who live in Upper Egypt when Tut was in fact an Upper Egyptian? Also, why was this the only recreation that was shown? The Americans made a recreation, as did the Egyptians themselves. It is not a precise science. Why then didn’t they show all the recreations and explain the limitations of the science rather than showing only one and leading the public to believe that it is a 100% accurate representation when in fact it is not?

Originally posted by Bernard Woolley

Dr. Hawass is a well-respected Egyptologist, but he's also a supremely media-conscious man who, as far as I can tell, has never met a camera he didn't like (countless Discovery Channel documentaries feature ridiculous b-roll of Dr. Hawass climbing in and out of caverns, and doing his very best Indiana Jones impression). He's not above courting controversy to stimulate interest in his field.

If Mr.Zahi Hawass' scholarly opinions were same as your opinions, would you still have judged his personality? Based on the impressions you get from Television?

I can’t speak for Bernard, but for myself, yes I would. Simply based on what other Egyptians in his field have told me about him and what people who have dealt with him personally have told me. A person’s academic or professional credentials have nothing to do with their personal character.


To Rakasnumberone.
Originally posted by Bernard Woolley

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.

I agree. I put "Afrocentrism" in quotes because I'm not sure the word actually has any meaning beyond what people who don't like it say it means.
I used to have the same opinion as the quote above regarding Afrocentrism. However I found an article in National Geographic website which describes Afrocentrism and realized that your posts fit really well with the descriptions given in it. It is very ironic because you provided me (a person who was not sure what Afrocentrism was and if it really existed), with very good examples of Afrocentrism with your own posts.

Here is the article: http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/geopedia/Black_Pharaohs
Afrocentrism
By Marisa Larson
By Marisa Larson, National Geographic staff

Afrocentrism is a cultural, academic, and political movement that aims to focus attention on Africa’s contributions to world civilization and history. Afrocentrists view this as a paradigm shift, commonly contending that Eurocentrism led people to overlook or in some cases deny that Africa’s rich achievements existed separately from European influence.

Afrocentricity has its origins in the work of African and African-diaspora intellectuals in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Afrocentric scholars sought to counter the prevailing view that sub-Saharan Africa had contributed nothing of value to human history that was not the result of incursions by Europeans or Arabs. The Afrocentric movement grew more political during the U.S. civil rights movement in the 1960s and later was frequently seen as a tool in combating social injustice, improving economic empowerment, and bolstering self-esteem in the African-American community. It also was used in the effort to create a more multicultural, balanced approach to history and sociology.

One way Afrocentric scholars sought to draw attention to Africa’s impact was to state that ancient Egyptian culture was African and its pharaohs black. According to Egyptologist Ann Macy Roth, Afrocentric Egyptology is less a scholarly field than a political and educational movement, aimed at increasing the self-esteem and confidence of African Americans by stressing the achievements of African civilizations, principally ancient Egypt. She describes Afrocentric Egyptology as having four main points: (1) Ancient Egyptians were black, (2) ancient Egypt was superior to other ancient civilizations, (3) Egyptian culture had tremendous influence on the later cultures of Africa and Europe, and (4) there has been a vast racist conspiracy to prevent the dissemination of the evidence for these assertions.

Ancient Egyptians didn’t think in terms of race as we do today. While the Egyptians regularly differentiated themselves from foreigners living around them, they did so in political and cultural terms rather than in racial ones. Foreigners were labeled by their regional or political names, and they were always depicted with distinctive features and dress. Though artwork did differentiate among populations by color, the distinction seems to have been merely descriptive, with no preference ascribed to any particular skin tone.

To describe ancient Egyptians as either “white” or “black” is inaccurate—they were of varying complexions and features. Scientific testing indicates that, just as today, they ranged from the light Mediterranean type to the darkest shade of brown around Aswan and farther south into Nubia. The likely mixing with neighbors due to intermarriage and political alliances created a heterogeneous population. Egypt’s relationships with its neighbors were also based on political concerns, not race or ethnicity.


Okay, here’s the thing, there is very little here that I believe. : “(1) Ancient Egyptians were black”. I believe that using the term “BLACK” is too simplistic a term. I think you are confusing my explanation for what is considered Black in the U.S. context, for what I believe they were or were not. When I look at Egypt I look at it from the perspective of it’s 3,000 yr history as a whole. Therefore, even though I do believe that the first population in the region was a dark skinned one, I don’t believe they were 100% uniform or pure throughout their entire 3,000 yr history. I recognize the fact that racial identification the way we think of it today did not exist back then. I also recognize that the U.S. definition of blackness is not one that is universally shared or understood in other parts of the world. It is certainly not the case with Egypt today where each individual decides for themselves what is or is not Black. It’s not uncommon to hear an Egyptian say “I’m white but my brother is black”. Or a person who is dark skinned with kinky hair, who we would call black to say “I’m not Black”. This is why I don’t use the term, especially on international forums. All I did was explain to you what the term means in our American cultural context.

, (2) ancient Egypt was superior to other ancient civilizations,

Although they were impressive, I don’t believe they were “superior” to any other civilization. I don’t believe in such concepts. Yes they had a very developed material culture, but there are other things that make a culture than the ability to make big buildings. What about their philosophy, world-view, social structure and organization, government, rights of their citizens and quality of life of their citizens? Therefore, while Egypt may have been superior in terms of its material culture and technology, it may have been behind other societies in the other qualities I mentioned.

(3) Egyptian culture had tremendous influence on the later cultures of Africa and Europe, and

There is no evidence to suggest that this is true. Yes, there was an exchange of ideas with the Greeks, Phoenicians, but there was not a major influence in their basic social and cultural structures. Likewise, there is no evidence that Egypt had any significant influences on other African societies other than Nubia which was its closest neighbor.

As for point #4. Yes, I do believe that because it is true. There has been a concerted effort to classify Egypt as a non African civilization. There has been an effort to deny the achievements of Africans in other parts of the continent, Great Zimbabwe being the most dramatic example. That has nothing to do with me. These are documented well know historical facts.
Originally posted by Rakasnumberone


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.

Originally posted by omshanti

This statement shows really well that the
connection the people of African diaspora (represented by you here) feel
towards Egypt is based on looks and external physical characteristics,
the very elements upon which are based the classifications they (you)
so furiously despise and try to deny. Furthermore, based on physical
characteristics and looks, there are enough elements in the Egyptian
population that people of Europe/west Asia (especially the
Mediterranean regions and the Arabian pennisula) can connect with as well, so it would be a double
standard to dismiss them by using the card of ''racism'' and
considering them as ''racists who use racist classifications''.

No its not a double standard because I do not nor have I ever denied that those elements are found in the population because they are. The problem that I have is with people who say that Egypt was only represented by the physical types found in Western Asia and the Mediterranean and that the types we would recognize as African today, whether East African as represented by the Horn of Africa populations, or other types did not exist, except in those people brought to Egypt as slaves. What I’m saying is that it is historically incorrect to say that Egyptians didn’t have people with physical characteristics found in neighboring African regions, or that there were no cultural similarities between Egypt and its other African neighbors. To do so is racist and these ideas that would deny the obvious connections were created by people who had a racist mentality. This is a well known fact in academic circles. Listen, when we are talking about American and European scholars in the 19th and early 20th centuries, we have to realize that they were products of the prevailing culture of the time and at the time, the prevailing notion was that the White Anglo Saxon was superior to all other races. They had a bias which was reflected in their work, sometimes consciously sometimes unconsciously. If you find the remains of a civilization in a certain location, why would you believe that they must have come from somewhere else? Yet this is one of the major theories that was presented as fact and many times, still is today. In collage I took a class in Ancient Egyptian art. The professor started the class by talking about the origins of the Egyptians. He stated that the Egyptians originated in Arabia and migrated into the country by crossing the Red Sea. Someone, (A white person) asked him if it wasn’t more probable that they migrated north from the south. He said no it wasn’t. Someone else asked him what race they were. He said they had no race. So although he didn’t say they were white, he implies it by giving them an Arabian origin and declaring that the possibility of a southern connection didn’t exist. When I pressed him, he admitted that there was no evidence that the Egyptians originated in Arabia, it was just a theory. My question to him, was that if it was just a theory, why didn’t he say so and why then is it so hard to believe that there could have been a southern connection?

You are not understanding the significance nor the context of what I'm saying.

The fact that you expect me to understand the significance and the context of the black and white issue in the US, the Slavery of African people in modern times, abuse of racial classifications, ''how racist the whole society controlled by the whites is'', viciousness of the ''racist'' mentality in the US, how the white world is downplaying the blacks......etc when the topic at hand is about ancient Egypt, shows your stance regarding ancient Egypt, which fits really well with the description given in the article about Afrocentrism. The subject is about ancient Egypt and should be scholarly, and not tied with the sociopolitical issues of the black people in America.

You still don’t understand. I’m trying to explain to you what is behind the controversy regarding this issue of the racial identity of the Egyptians. To do so, I have to explain the cultural, historical and political context in which the concept of race as it exists in America originated. I do not expect Modern day Egyptians or anyone else to adopt the American label which, is based on an American social and historical experience. I only want you and others to understand what is meant by BLACK in our context. By the same token, on other forums I quite often have to explain to Americans both black and white, why the term Black is not understood outside of the United States. Racially identity is a societal construct and therefore different people mean different things when they use terms of description. The idea that one African ancestor makes a person 100% African is not based on science now is it? Pointing this out does not make me an Afrocentricist.

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

First of all understand that we did not create the system of racial classification, it was imposed on us.

The point is not who imposed what on whom or who created what first. This is not a children's argument. The point is that you (as the voluntary representative of all the people of African diaspora) are basing your connections with ancient Egypt on the same principles as the people you call ''racist''. So I pointed out that it is double standard.

First of all I don’t know what you mean by “connection with Egypt”, since I have pointed out repeatedly that we are not descended from Egyptians. I understand what you mean by appearances, but understand that the whole argument as to whether or not Egyptians are Africans is based on an assumption as to what an African looks like. All I am doing is using the logic of the other side to show a point. If they say that Egyptians, Ethiopians and Somalis are not “negroes” and therefore, not Africans based on their craniofacial measurements, meaning thin noses, thin lips, then why are Africans in other parts of the continent and the diaspora whith the same features considered ‘negroes’? Shouldn’t they be Caucasians as well? The fact is that a high percentage of Afro Americans are in fact blended. Egyptians were also a blend. So if you are going to say that one group of blended people are black because they have at least one “black” African ancestor, why then does the same rule not apply to Ancient Egyptians who also have a black African component to their background as well.

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

Secondly, as I said before, we are not 100% pure blooded Africans. Race classification was created by the elite class of the majority ethnic group for the purpose of maintaining their position of power and influence by dividing the undercalss, (both black and white) against each other. Since the majority of the underclass were of European origin, the effort was made to get them on the side of the ruling class. To do this they made servitude a life long condition for people of African origin, while at the same time giving all whites a higher status. You have to understand that a great deal of control under slavery and later colonialism was and is psychological. No people are born racist. In order to get the majority of people to support it you must convince them and likewise to get a person to accept being a slave or colonized you must convince them of their inferiority.

You don't understand just how vicious this mentality is. Even if a person had only 1 black ancestor going back 4 generations they were still considered part of the black population. Such a person may very well look no different than a European and if their maternal ancestors were slaves, they were automatically slaves. This means that there were many slaves who were just as white as their masters in appearance.
Therefore the justification of racial discrimination wasn't totally based on the way a person looked. However, what we were told by the ruling society is that no Africans anywhere on the continent made any achievements. Dark skin was a sign of mental inferiority. Since intelligence is carried in the blood, anyone with any amount of African blood is of inferior intelligence.

Now when you are told these things by the society you live in for generations, there are many people who will believe it on some level. Certainly most white people believed it because that's what they were taught and although they resented it, so did many black people. But you see, this mentality doesn't just stop at black people. It was used to justify the exploitation of all peoples around the world who were not white. The widely believed theory was that all people who were not White Europeans were inferior. That includes you, that includes me, that includes modern Egyptians today, that includes Arabs, Chinese and NAtive Americans. Everyone who was not 100% pure blooded European was believed to be racially inferior. Therefore, if skin color is believed to be a sign of mental weakness, how can you prove the theory wrong? By showing people who are the opposite of what they say.

I made the comparison with women.    If it is said that all women are too weak to be athletes, how do you prove it is wrong? By finding a woman who is a champion athlete. Its the same situation with regards to Egypt. They said NO SOCIETY IN AFRICA ever produced a civilization. Well Egypt is a society in Africa. They said that no black skinned person or a person mixed with a black, no matter how small the amount, was capable of displaying any significant amount of intelligence. Well Egyptians are a people with black admixture. Some are darker,some are lighter, so that proves the theory false as well.   Do you understand? now?

So basically you are using ancient Egypt as a tool to increase the self esteem of the people of African diaspora and to prove the intelligence of black people. This is exactly what was written in the article about Afrocentrism.

No. I am not saying that. Remember, I started out by saying that we pay far too much attention to Egypt. It has a place in Africa, but not to the exclusion of all the other societies. It is useful only because it proves that the idea that there was never a civilization indigenous to Africa, (whatever you choose to call them ) is false. It also shows that the idea that Dark skinned African, (and racially mixed people especially if mixed with dark skinned Africans) are intellectually inferior and incapable of achievement is also false. That’s it really.

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

Originally posted by omshanti

If the connection you (as the representative of the
people of African diaspora) feel towards Egypt is geographical (sharing a
continent) or cultural, then why so much focus on blackness/whiteness,
nativity/foreignness and the looks of people?


Because of the mind games that are played by the racist establishment. It is they who have created this whole mentality in the first place. To this day we are still judged by the color of our skin, facial features or ancestral background. If you say the Egyptians were an African people, they say no they weren't, they were Western Asians who migrated into Africa. In other words what they are trying to say is that these people were white because blacks are incapable of doing anything and not Africans because no African has ever achieved anything. No matter where in Africa you find evidence of intelligence, the racist establishment will try to claim it was the result of a white population who migrated there, hence the invention of the so called CAucasian Africans, but I'll say more on that later. This is what they did with Zimbabwe, the West African Empires etc. That is why we in response spend so much time pointing out the obvious.


What you wrote here is a very good example of the main point No.4 of Afrocentrism described in the article.

Not really. There is nothing I have said here that has not been said by White European archeologists, historians and scholars. Neither of us are Afrocentricists. There is a very big difference between telling the truth of a situation and fabricating history to make people feel good.

I’ve provided you with three video clips. I hope you will take the time to watch them. They explain the very mentality I describe that was so prevalent and still exists in some circles today.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBbMxJuAQY0&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9jlPNVnKWA&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAS3iBN9QsI

To state that there was racism is not to be Afrocentric. It is real, and it did and still to some extent influences the opinions of people with regards to how they perceive Africa and Africans. The opinions these videos reflect show this. Therefore, ask yourself, if this was the mentality that existed could they have possibly viewed Egypt with any sort of objectivity? How could they? They saw Africa and Africans only in terms of the primitive. Therefore, if this is what you have been taught to believe, when you see evidence of any achievement in Africa, it must be the result of outside influences.

The thing to do here is not pretend that prejudice doesn’t exist because it clearly does. The thing we must do is ask ourselves, why did it exist in regards to the way they viewed Africa and Africans?

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

Originally posted by omshanti

Also what is the proper place for Egypt in your mind? Based on your
accusations directed at him in this thread, it is obviously very
different from that of the renowned Egyptian scholar/archaeologist Dr. Zahi
Hawass.


The proper place of Egypt is an African Civilization, not a so called Middle Eastern Civilization. The whole concept of a Middle East was invented by the colonialist mind. There is no such thing as a Middle East.
There is such a thing as the middle east. It just happens to be a sociopolitical concept rather than geographical/continental.

This is a concept that has been created by the Colonial powers which is still in use today. The people of the region did not invent it. I have no problem with using the term, but when it is used to place Egypt outside of the context of the continent, that is a problem because it is inaccurate. The Middle East is a region that includes Africa, Asia and Europe. Why then not say that it is located in the African section of the Middle East? It is always used as a way to fit it in more closely with Western Asia in order to deny any connection to Africa. So to be accurate, why can’t we say that Egypt is an African civilization located in the South West corner of the Middle East. Or we could say its located in the African section of the Middle East. Either statement would be true.

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

The Earth is a globe. So how can you point at any one section and call it the middle of something. It can only be the middle in relation to something else and for the colonialist that something was Europe. Therefore Middle East is judged according to how close or far it is to Europe.

It is not judged, it is named in relation to west Europe, which is natural because it was named by west Europeans. Naming and judging are too different things. If you have problems with the name, then create a new name for it and make it the convention. Whatever you name it, the sociopolitical zone is there.

Judged, named, it all means the same thing in this context. As I said, I can accept the term as long as we recognize that it is not some mystical zone but a region that covers several continents and the section where Egypt is located is on the African continent.

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

They ignore all the diversity in the region and indiscriminately lump everyone together regardless of ethnicity, language or culture.
You always talk about how diverse Africa is, so wouldn't it be ''ignoring all the diversity in the continent and indiscriminately lumping everyone together regardless of the ethnicity, language or culture'' to call them all African?

When I use the term African I always explain that it is a continent that is marked by diversity. Both terms are problematic because they lead people to believe that all Africans are the same and all “Middle Easterners” are the same. I think when we use these terms we must first explain that these are generalizations. When I say Egypt was an African civilization, what I mean is that it was one of many distinct and unique civilizations found on the continent, not that it represents the continent as a whole. Egypt was not Zimbabwe, Zimbabwe was not Nok and Nok was not Ghana. It’s the same problem that causes most westerners to assume that Chinese, Japanese and Koreans are all the same people speaking the same language and having the same culture. So I don’t mind using any term so long as these facts are understood.

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

Egypt was an African civilization which because of its geographical location was a crossroads between Africa, the Mediterranean, and Western Asia. However, they try to remove it from African by placing it in the made up "MIDDLE EAST" and try to deny the African elements in the population by classifying the peoples caucasians and claiming that they migrated into Egypt from the outside.

Egypt is geographically located in the African continent but it is also in a sociopolitical zone named the middle east. It is not a matter of choosing one at the expense of the other. They are both right. Similarly, many Egyptians do exhibit physical characteristics classified as Caucasoid by the method of craniology used in biological anthropology, but this does not necessarily mean that they migrated from the outside. They can be indigenous and be classified as Caucasoid. One does not contradict the other.

I agree with what you say here for the most part, but you have to understand that many of the people using this term do not have the same understanding that you do and that is why I have a problem with its usage. This is what we call a loaded term, therefore, if we use it, we should be clear as to what it does or does not imply and not assume that people understand the context that we do.

Nevertheless, from what you have been writing, I can see that you have difficulty accepting that a group of people classified as Caucasoids can be indigenous to the African continent. You basically have a very restricted notion of which physical type can be native to Africa and which can not, despite the fact that you always state how diverse the people in Africa are.

No I don’t and if you re-read my statements you will see that I only disagree with the notion that if you see a person in Africa with these feature it means always means they originated outside of Africa. In some cases, such as the Arab migrations or other Western Asians, this is true, but in other cases, what we see are people who are not migrants but people originating from within the continent.

Like I said, you understand the difference, many people do not and are confused by it because of the way its used in lay language. First of all the term was created by an anthropologist whose basic theory was that the Caucasian race originated in the region of the Caucus Mountains and then migrated to other parts of the world. So based on this model African peoples who have those features did not originate in Africa but migrated in. My view is that we should not be talking about a negro race or Caucasian race because the entomology is flawed.

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

As for Hawas, understand something. i travel to Egypt almost annually since 1988. I live with Egyptians, I work with them and I know historians in Egypt who know him and have dealt with him. He is not without bias he is the spokes person of the government, which is a military dictatorship. They control every aspect of the media and life in the country because they are very concerned with the image that the world, in particular, the west has of them. They want to be seen as being part of the Western society, not Africa. Why? Realize that Egypt is a former colony of the European colonialists, first the French then the English and so they have suffered the sting of racism and the brainwashing that happens within the educational system put in place by the colonizers. They were made painfully aware that they were regarded as a non white people who were inferior to Europeans in every way. Therefore they were aware of the way Africa was viewed in the eyes of the colonizers. Because of that and the additional stigma of the African slave trade, there are many Egyptians who try to distance themselves as far as they can from being associated with Africa, which they see as being backward and inferior. The ruling elite of Egypt today, (of which Hawas is a member) and those who aspire to be in that class, have adopted a European lifestyle and aesthetic. I have friends who went to the top Jesuit schools in Egypt and to this day they are still taught that European culture is the hallmark of sophistication and civilization, while the native customs of their country are barbaric and primitive. You have to dig a little deeper and know something about the societies in question and not take things on face value.

This also fits the main point No.4 in the article. It is always the society or someone who disagrees with you that has a ''racist bias''. Are you yourself free of bias regarding Egypt?

Anyone who has spent significant time in Egypt or amongst Egyptians knows that what I am saying is true. I’d like to point out that what I’ve said about Egyptian society is based not only on personal observation and experience, but what has been told to me by Egyptians themselves. As I said my friends, who are Egyptians, went to these schools and this was what they experienced. As for the colorism in the society, it’s real. The question we have to ask ourselves is what contributes to the situation. We have to understand it why it exists, not deny its existence.

I’ve provided you with the following video which pretty much sums up what I and anyone who has spent time within Egyptian society know from experience and observation. Just incase the video link doesn’t work, I’ve provided you the transcript and website.
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/international/2007/07/08/amin.iaf.egypt.north.africa.cnn?iref=videosearch

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0707/07/i_if.01.html


”(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) 

SHAHIRA AMIN, CNN CORRESPONDNT (voice-over): Africa, surrounded by the Atlantic and Indian oceans, the Mediterranean and Red Seas, it is a continent awash in culture, religion, and languages. It also is rich in contradictions. And when it comes to African identity, the vast Sahara Desert draws a very distinct line.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The Sahara has been one main marker which actually divided the north and the south. And on that basis people can argue that North Africa, with a particular kind of history with regard to world historical events, are very different from sub-Saharan Africa.

AMIN: We took to the streets of Cairo to find out just what that difference is. 

Most of the many people we asked said they did not consider themselves African. In fact, many of them looked shocked that we would ask such a question.

So why the disparity?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: As a Mediterranean country, Egypt is much more attached to Europe on one hand, and as a country of the Red Sea, it is attached to the (INAUDIBLE) or Arabia in general. 

And in most history that is where the interaction with Egypt in terms of invasions or trade or investment or migration were all related to these two areas.

AMIN: And it is not just Egypt. The Mediterranean Sea has brought foreign influences ashore in North Africa for centuries, impacting not only culture, but also one of the continent's main religion, Islam.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Sufi orders are very common in countries south of the Sahara. The trend now in North Africa is the Wahhabi, Saudi Arabian influenced Islam has become prevalent in much of North Africa.

AMIN: It is not just natural influences at play.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Egyptians are racists to call us "unga-bunga (ph)" or "cunga-bunga (ph)."

AMIN: Historian Jill Kamil says this type of discrimination is partly a product of years of foreign rule, with it, an association between fair skin and the elite. 

JILL KAMIL, HISTORIAN: We have had the Greeks and the Romans, the Ottoman Turks and the Arabs, the British and the French, all have left their mark on Egypt. 

AMIN (on camera): So popular is the notion here that white is beautiful, that more and more women are girls are resorting to the use of these skin-whitening creams, which TV ads promise will make your skin fairer within a matter of weeks.

(voice-over): Add to this, the overall image of Africa as a continent of poverty, conflict and disease. And, say, experts, you have a picture of why some North Africans try to distance themselves from the continent that, like it or not, is their home.

Shahira Amin, CNN, Cairo.


Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

Originally posted by omshanti

This is entirely different from
what the person in the second video said. He never used the words
'indigenous' or 'native', and never said that the ''indigenous
population was a native east African one''. The closest sentence to
this was when he said ''there is no evidence to suggest that Egypt is
anything but of local origin, of north east African origin in its place
and in its time''.


No this is EXACTLY what the speaker in the second video said. "Local origin" means the exact same thing as native or indigenous. What he is saying in effect, is that the old theory that Egypt was founded by people who migrated into Africa is false. There is evidence to show they traded with people in Mesopotamia, but no evidence to show that the population of Egypt came anywhere else except East Africa. In other words, they were Africans. A people originating in the African continent, not a people who migrated in.
You said it yourself without even realizing. By ''Egypt'' the speaker was addressing the civilization, that ''there is no evidence to suggest that Egypt is anything but of local origin, of north east African origin in its place and in its time'', yet you took it to mean the population.

But civilizations do not make themselves they are made by people and a population is made up of many people living in an area. You can’t separate the two things. Therefore, if Egypt was a civilization of local East African origin, it stands to reason that the people who created it were or local origin also.


Regarding the population, he did say : '' I do think its possible to look at modern DNA profiles and in essence determine what most likely are due to external influences of more recent time depths vs more ancient influences perhaps even going back to the paleolithic times.''. This statement shows that he does not know any study yet that shows who is indigenous. So how could he have said that ''the indigenous population was a native east African one'' as you claim him to have.

Read his statement again carefully. He said I do think it IS POSSIBLE at modern DNA profiles and in essence determine what most likely ARE due to EXTERNAL influences of more recent depth VS more ancient influences going back to the Paleolithic times. In other words, you can make a distinction between the native indigenous populations that were originally there and you can also tell which influences came into the country more recently. Therefore, what he is saying is what I am saying, the population of Egypt is made up not only of a local East African element, but elements that came into the country from other areas as well. The historical record is very clear as to who those people are and the various areas they came from and the time they arrived.



Edited by Rakasnumberone - 04-Jul-2008 at 08:46

On the subject of light complected Africans, the only population fitting this description are some of the Berber populations of North West and North Africa. These people were depicted by the Ancient Egyptians as being white skinned, far lighter than themselves, who were generally depicted as being brown in color.

All modern scientific information indicates that these people are of Eurasian origin migrating along along the southern coast of the Mediterranean in the remotest period of prehistory, yet when I say it, I'm called a racist and delusional. Well this is what mainstream science has to say about it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berber_people#Genetic_evidence

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2005/04/lactose-tolerance-gene-supports.html

http://mathildasanthropologyblog.wordpress.com/2008/05/02/eurasian-origins-of-the-berbers/

As I said before, and as everyone with at least some education knows by now, pale skin is not an adaptation found in tropical and subtropical environments. When found in Africa it is always the result of backward migrations into Africa.

I'll be on vacation and (hopefully) far from any keyboards for the next two weeks. I'm thoroughly enjoying this discussion, however, and I'll have responses to post when I'm back in town.

Originally posted by omshanti Rakasnumberone.  I was thoroughly entertained by your emotional post.I have already provided the article describing Afrocentrism and explained point by point as to why your posts fit its descriptions so well and since you could not handle it well (I thought I was being nice by actually pointing out to you the reasons why other members consider you Afrocentric rather then just labeling you without explanation) and have resorted to petty bickering  and insults throughout your post, I will skip most of your post trusting the readers to decide (I would really appreciate it if you could at least make it clear as to who wrote what in your quotes so other members could tell the difference between what I wrote, Bernard Wolley wrote and you wrote)  and will directly address the main issue between us. The indigenous people of Egypt. Who was the first modern human in Egypt?  The oldest indigenous North African mtDNA line is dated to have arrived from the Levant around 50,000~30.000 years ago (upper Paleolithic era). About 1/8 of maternal gene lines in North Africa come from more recent migrations from sub-Saharan Africa and over half are recent movements south from Europe and west from west Asia. This adds up to a view of north Africa as a recipient of ancient migrations from further east as it is the case with Europe, rather than from the south through the Sahara desert. In other words, there is no evidence of a exodus from sub-Saharan Africa into north Africa, but rather of an exodus out of Africa through the southern end of the red sea from the horn of Africa, to the near east and north Africa.  This is also supported by the article you posted from wikipedia.Berbers are the indigenous peoples of North Africa west of the Nile Valley.<span ="mw-line"><span style="font-weight: bold;"></span>Genetic evidence</span> In general, genetic evidence appears to indicate that most North Africans (whether they consider themselves Berber or Arab) are predominantly of Berber origin and that populations ancestral to the Berbers have been in the area since the Upper Paleolithic era. Berbers appear to be largely descended from a group or groups of people who expanded west from an eastern origin, along the southern rim of the Mediterranean sea, beginning perhaps as much as 50 000 years ago. Significant proportions of both the Berber and Arabized Berber gene pools also derive from more recent migration of various groups who have left their genetic footprints to varying degrees throughout the region. The unique patchwork of savannah and forest that is sub-Saharan Africa is effectively separated from the rest of the world by two sets of gates and corridors. For the last couple of million years these corridors have acted like huge livestock corral, with several gateways alternatively open and closed. One gate led to the north over the Sahara, while the other led east, across the mouth of the red sea. Which gate was open depended on the glacial cycle and determined whether mammals including humans went north or east. Normally an unforgiving desert, the potential route to the north opens only when variations in the earth's orbit and the tilt of its polar axis produce a brief episode of of warming. This fleeting event in geological time happens only once every 100,000 years or so. When the Sun's heat causes a polar meltdown and a warm and humid global climate ensues. The Sahara, Sinai and the deserts of Australia grow lakes, become green, and flower in the short geological spring. But because this warm interlude is so brief the north African weather gate can act as a deadly trap to migrants. The most recent interglacial optimum was only about 8000 years ago. For perhaps a couple of thousand years the Sahara was grassland, and all kinds of game from the south spread throughout north Africa. The earlier interglacial known as the Eemian or Ipswichian, came 125,000 years ago. The southern route however opened 80,000~70,000 years ago at the threshold of a prolonged glaciation when huge volumes of water were locked up in ice sheets and when the sea level fell sufficiently for the normal water exchange between the Indian ocean and the red sea to almost stop. This means that since the appearance of modern humans, they had only two chances to go directly from sub-Saharan Africa to north Africa, the first of which at about 125,000 years ago is too early since the rapid distinction of the parent of modern humans Homo helmei is just around this time, which marks the completion of the birth of the modern humans. This leaves the second chance at around 8 thousand year ago, which is long after the humans had colonized north Africa from the other route through the horn of Africa and the near east. Around 8 thousand years ago and a couple thousand years after it when the Sahara turned into desert again from grassland, the indigenous north African people who had colonized the lands 50,000 years ago and the migrants from the sub-Saharan Africa who had entered the region when the desert had turned into a grassland, settled along the Nile river and mixed with each other. This explains as why there are no Berbers to the east of the Nile valley despite the fact that they came from the east, because they mixed with the migrants from the south along the Nile and formed the basis for the Egyptians. <a name="Y-chromosome_DNA" id="Y-chromosome_DNA"></a> <h4><span ="editsection"></span> <span ="mw-line"></span></h4>

The tone of your post was quite clear and since you know that I don't like being accused of being called what amounts to being a black supremacist you were fully aware of what you were doing. You know full well that I was only explaining something from a cultural perspective, yet you twisted what I had to say around to make me fit your perception. This just tells me that that is your opinion of me all along. Had it been otherwise you would have worded things differently.

I went through the definition point by point. There was nothing in anything that I wrote previously to indicate I was Afrocentric. POINT 1 the Egyptians were black. I explained previously why this is a problematic term, however, I explained why from the point of view of what is considered Black in the USA, the Egyptians would fit that description, as well as why Afro Americans in particular perceive them that way based on physical characteristics, that is all.

POINT 2 Egypt was superior to all other civilizations: I pointedly stated several times that I think Egypt too often dominates African history. How then could you conclude that I am Afrocentric based on this?

POINT 3 Egypt has influenced other cultures in Africa and Europe: Where did I ever say anything like that??

POINT 4 There has been a conspiracy to suppress all of the above. Stating the historical truth that racism effected every aspect of life in this country is true. The ideology of white supremacy is real and did effect domestic and international policies, that it was the driving justification behind colonialism is TRUE. Stating an unpleasant fact does not make me a racist.

So you deliberately went out of your way to contort my words, to take the conversation in a direction that I never intended it to go and you wonder why I was upset? Then have the nerve to act like you were doing me a favor. If your actions were well intentioned, you would have said something along the lines of, "the reason why people think you are Afrocentric is because..." Rather than stating blatantly as you did, "YOU ARE AFROCENTRIC".

So now that i answered you and did not hide my anger, you take that as the opportunity to ignore all the valid points that I did make. Now you quote an article to me that says basically the same thing that I was saying all along. The fair skinned peoples in North Africa migrated in from Western Asia, they did not evolve there.

It doesn't matter when the back migration happened 50,000 yrs ago or 5,000,000. The fact is that as I said the population in Egypt was made up of native East Africans who never left the continent and were therefore tropically adapted, as well as lighter skinned people from the north. You took this conversation all over the place being bent out of shape over nothing, now you are showing me articles that I read and sent to you in the first place to prove what?

Egyptian culture and civilization is not the result outside influences, but local cultures from the Southern, South East and West that stretched from Mali in the West to Egypt and Sudan in the East. The population in the country was diverse, but the culture itself was one that originated in the continent and migrated north to become the dominant unified culture of the country. End of story.

Originally posted by pinguin Egyptian civilization was heavely influenced by the civilizations of the Middle East, long before other civilizations existed in Africa. You purposedly forget that.

Penguin, you and your other personality Omshanti, (I'm quite certain you are both the same person), are fishing for a debate. I have no intention of having a debate. I only joined the discussion to share some information not to argue about Egypt this Egypt that. You came in and took the conversation somewhere i had no intention of going.

Penguin/Omshanti You are a racist plain and simple. That's why you feel the need to use and defend outdated terms like negro. I have one more reason why its distasteful. Because when you start to categorize people in such a fashion it dehumanizes them. They are no longer unique individuals but things to be put in neat little boxes. this is the reason these categories were made in the first place.

I already told you I have nothing to say to you, now I'm telling your other personality Omshanti the same thing. If you think I sit around the house worrying about Egypt, I don't. To be perfectly honest, I could give a shit about it. They are all dead and I'm alive and even if they were all as black as shoe polish, it doesn't make a difference in my life. Why I do and the person I become in life is totally dependent on what I do TODAY. As I said, the only significance Egypt has is that it proves the idea that intelligence is linked to race or skin color is false. That was my basic premise all along, but rather than seeing that, you try to drag me into a debate, which you are still trying to do now, and further instigate trouble by calling me an Afrocentricist. Disgusting mind set.

I think you are the absolute scum of the earth and beneath my contempt. And lest i be tempted to answer you, I discontinue my affiliation with this site. So by the time you read this, i'll be gone. Whatever you have to say in reply...... you can choke on it because I wont be reading it. I should have left months ago, but I let myself be suckered into staying by you, pretending to be Omshanti, begging me to stay, just so you could bate me into having more meaningless debates with you. you have a problem where black people and Africans are concerned and everyone here with any honesty knows it.
I have neither the intention time nor the energy to waste on bullshit any longer.

Edited by Rakasnumberone - 05-Jul-2008 at 06:05

Originally posted by pinguin   Crying racism is a tactic that doesn't work in here. A black person don't have the right to falsify history at all, just because its skin is darker. We don't allow whites to falsify history (nazis and communists, for example), why should we allow black activists to do the same because they are blacks? Nonsense.   The fact is you are a charlatan, I am afraid, that insist in forgeting the influence of the Middle East into Egypt. You forget it because it doesn't fit in your model of the world and the idealized Africa of your dreams!   Recognizing that the Middle East tought most of its civilization to Egypt is not racism, but common sense. The Middle East started long time before than Egypt. YOU are the racist when you forget that fact and try to build a history that fits your wishes. However facts stand: (1) Egyptian civilization was heavely influenced by the civilizations of the Middle East, long before other civilizations existed in Africa. You purposedly forget that. And second,   (2) Ancient Egypt is the heritage of modern Egyptians, not of Zimbabwians or African Americans.

Amen.

As I said, the only significance Egypt has is that it proves the idea that intelligence is linked to race or skin color is false.

There is no need to prove that sun is warm. Get over of your complex.

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone Originally posted by omshanti Also what is the proper place for Egypt in your mind? Based on your accusations directed at him in this thread, it is obviously very different from that of the renowned Egyptian scholar/archaeologist Dr. Zahi Hawass. The proper place of Egypt is an African Civilization, not a so called Middle Eastern Civilization. The whole concept of a Middle East was invented by the colonialist mind. There is no such thing as a Middle East. Originally posted by omshanti There is such a thing as the middle east. It just happens to be a sociopolitical concept rather than geographical/continental. This is a concept that has been created by the Colonial powers which is still in use today. The people of the region did not invent it.

Whether you accept it or not, there is a sociopolitical unity in the zone called the middle east from Morroco in the west to Afghanistan in the east. The zone was not invented. It was simply named.

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone I have no problem with using the term, but when it is used to place Egypt outside of the context of the continent, that is a problem because it is inaccurate. The Middle East is a region that includes Africa, Asia and Europe. Why then not say that it is located in the African section of the Middle East? It is always used as a way to fit it in more closely with Western Asia in order to deny any connection to Africa. So to be accurate, why can’t we say that Egypt is an African civilization located in the South West corner of the Middle East. Or we could say its located in the African section of the Middle East. Either statement would be true.

Why mention such an obvious fact? Only people who have some kind of issues or who are hung up would require such an obvious fact to be mentioned. As I wrote before, being in the middle east does not contradict with being in Africa because 'the middle east' as you can see from the fact that it includes parts of Europe, west Asia and Africa, is not a continental naming as it is the case with 'Africa'.

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone The Earth is a globe. So how can you point at any one section and call it the middle of something. It can only be the middle in relation to something else and for the colonialist that something was Europe. Therefore Middle East is judged according to how close or far it is to Europe. Originally posted by omshanti It is not judged, it is named in relation to west Europe, which is natural because it was named by west Europeans. Naming and judging are too different things. If you have problems with the name, then create a new name for it and make it the convention. Whatever you name it, the sociopolitical zone is there. Judged, named, it all means the same thing in this context.

No, it is not. 'Judged' and 'named' are two different words with two different meanings. Don't confuse them to suit your argument. Or perhaps you just judge matters based on names and superficial factors and therefore can not separate the two meanings.

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone As I said, I can accept the term as long as we recognize that it is not some mystical zone but a region that covers several continents and the section where Egypt is located is on the African continent.

Who are you talking to? Yourself again?  As Vorian wrote in his last post, there is no need to prove/recognize that sun is warm, unless you yourself think that it is cold and therefore need to prove otherwise to yourself.

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone They ignore all the diversity in the region and indiscriminately lump everyone together regardless of ethnicity, language or culture. Originally posted by omshanti You always talk about how diverse Africa is, so wouldn't it be ''ignoring all the diversity in the continent and indiscriminately lumping everyone together regardless of the ethnicity, language or culture'' to call them all African? When I use the term African I always explain that it is a continent that is marked by diversity. Both terms are problematic because they lead people to believe that all Africans are the same and all “Middle Easterners” are the same. I think when we use these terms we must first explain that these are generalizations.

You bring up the diversity of Africa only when it suits your argument of that particular context. When you use generalizations, you actually never explain that they are generalizations.  The fact that it is possible to generalize means that there are shared elements.  Anything from a family name, a national identity, a regional identity, a continental identity......etc   can be generalization.  Do you explain to people that actually there are different individuals in your family, when people use your family name? You are also forgetting the fact that your whole argument is based on generalizations, otherwise how is it possible for you, a non-Egyptian, to feel/establish a connection with Egypt? 

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone When I say Egypt was an African civilization, what I mean is that it was one of many distinct and unique civilizations found on the continent, not that it represents the continent as a whole. Egypt was not Zimbabwe, Zimbabwe was not Nok and Nok was not Ghana

It is interesting that above was written by a person who keeps bringing Zimbabwe in a discussion about Egypt. Also if you consider 'African' to be just a generalization which pigeonholes societies/peoples that are unique and different from each other, then why are you so hung up on it to a degree where you get angry when people don't use it the way you like them to?  

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone It’s the same problem that causes most westerners to assume that Chinese, Japanese and Koreans are all the same people speaking the same language and having the same culture. So I don’t mind using any term so long as these facts are understood.

Ok, so 'middle eastern' and 'African' must be on the same ground for you, and you shouldn't have a problem with  'middle eastern'' as long as you don't have a problem with 'African' .

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone Egypt was an African civilization which because of its geographical location was a crossroads between Africa, the Mediterranean, and Western Asia. However, they try to remove it from African by placing it in the made up "MIDDLE EAST" and try to deny the African elements in the population by classifying the peoples caucasians and claiming that they migrated into Egypt from the outside. Originally posted by omshanti Egypt is geographically located in the African continent but it is also in a sociopolitical zone named the middle east. It is not a matter of choosing one at the expense of the other. They are both right. Similarly, many Egyptians do exhibit physical characteristics classified as Caucasoid by the method of craniology used in biological anthropology, but this does not necessarily mean that they migrated from the outside. They can be indigenous and be classified as Caucasoid. One does not contradict the other. I agree with what you say here for the most part, but you have to understand that many of the people using this term do not have the same understanding that you do and that is why I have a problem with its usage. This is what we call a loaded term, therefore, if we use it, we should be clear as to what it does or does not imply and not assume that people understand the context that we do.

The point is that I never used the word 'the middle east' until you brought it into the discussion, and now you also say that you agree with my reply to you. This means that the word or its usage by other people is irrelevant to the discussion you and I are having. Yet you keep bringing it in. I am not ''many of the people using this term''.  Furthermore, You can not control what people say and what people think, you know? You can not just make the world to use a word in a certain way  because you have issues with it.

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone Originally posted by omshanti Nevertheless, from what you have been writing, I can see that you have difficulty accepting that a group of people classified as Caucasoids can be indigenous to the African continent. You basically have a very restricted notion of which physical type can be native to Africa and which can not, despite the fact that you always state how diverse the people in Africa are. No I don’t and if you re-read my statements you will see that I only disagree with the notion that if you see a person in Africa with these feature it means always means they originated outside of Africa. In some cases, such as the Arab migrations or other Western Asians, this is true, but in other cases, what we see are people who are not migrants but people originating from within the continent.

Your posts say otherwise. You always  write that ''cold-adapted'' people can not be indigenous to Africa or that any peoples other than the ''native east Africans'' are external influences who came later to Egypt. You also  wrote this ;

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone Egypt was an African civilization which because of its geographical location was a crossroads between Africa, the Mediterranean, and Western Asia. However, they try to remove it from African by placing it in the made up "MIDDLE EAST" and try to deny the African elements in the population by classifying the peoples caucasians and claiming that they migrated into Egypt from the outside.

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone Like I said, you understand the difference, many people do not and are confused by it because of the way its used in lay language. First of all the term was created by an anthropologist whose basic theory was that the Caucasian race originated in the region of the Caucus Mountains and then migrated to other parts of the world. So based on this model African peoples who have those features did not originate in Africa but migrated in. My view is that we should not be talking about a negro race or Caucasian race because the entomology is flawed.

First of all, you are the one who is talking about them. I took my time and posted pictures so I would not need to use any descriptive terms, yet you kept bringing them up based on what ''they'' say.  The fact that you keep bringing them up into this discussion that you and I are having in spite of the fact that I did not mention them, shows your excessive obsession with them. Nevertheless , my opinion is that  craniology is a very valid method and as long as you are not excessively obsessed with them they have no problems. In fact excessive obsessions will cause problems in any thing.

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone As for Hawas, understand something. i travel to Egypt almost annually since 1988. I live with Egyptians, I work with them and I know historians in Egypt who know him and have dealt with him. He is not without bias he is the spokes person of the government, which is a military dictatorship. They control every aspect of the media and life in the country because they are very concerned with the image that the world, in particular, the west has of them. They want to be seen as being part of the Western society, not Africa. Why? Realize that Egypt is a former colony of the European colonialists, first the French then the English and so they have suffered the sting of racism and the brainwashing that happens within the educational system put in place by the colonizers. They were made painfully aware that they were regarded as a non white people who were inferior to Europeans in every way. Therefore they were aware of the way Africa was viewed in the eyes of the colonizers. Because of that and the additional stigma of the African slave trade, there are many Egyptians who try to distance themselves as far as they can from being associated with Africa, which they see as being backward and inferior. The ruling elite of Egypt today, (of which Hawas is a member) and those who aspire to be in that class, have adopted a European lifestyle and aesthetic. I have friends who went to the top Jesuit schools in Egypt and to this day they are still taught that European culture is the hallmark of sophistication and civilization, while the native customs of their country are barbaric and primitive. You have to dig a little deeper and know something about the societies in question and not take things on face value. Originally posted by omshanti This also fits the main point No.4 in the article. It is always the society or someone who disagrees with you that has a ''racist bias''. Are you yourself free of bias regarding Egypt? Anyone who has spent significant time in Egypt or amongst Egyptians knows that what I am saying is true. I’d like to point out that what I’ve said about Egyptian society is based not only on personal observation and experience, but what has been told to me by Egyptians themselves. As I said my friends, who are Egyptians, went to these schools and this was what they experienced. As for the colorism in the society, it’s real. The question we have to ask ourselves is what contributes to the situation. We have to understand it why it exists, not deny its existence. I’ve provided you with the following video which pretty much sums up what I and anyone who has spent time within Egyptian society know from experience and observation. Just incase the video link doesn’t work, I’ve provided you the transcript and website. http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/international/2007/07/08/amin.iaf.egypt.north.africa.cnn?iref=videosearch http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0707/07/i_if.01.html ”(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) SHAHIRA AMIN, CNN CORRESPONDNT (voice-over): Africa, surrounded by the Atlantic and Indian oceans, the Mediterranean and Red Seas, it is a continent awash in culture, religion, and languages. It also is rich in contradictions. And when it comes to African identity, the vast Sahara Desert draws a very distinct line. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The Sahara has been one main marker which actually divided the north and the south. And on that basis people can argue that North Africa, with a particular kind of history with regard to world historical events, are very different from sub-Saharan Africa. AMIN: We took to the streets of Cairo to find out just what that difference is. Most of the many people we asked said they did not consider themselves African. In fact, many of them looked shocked that we would ask such a question. So why the disparity? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: As a Mediterranean country, Egypt is much more attached to Europe on one hand, and as a country of the Red Sea, it is attached to the (INAUDIBLE) or Arabia in general. And in most history that is where the interaction with Egypt in terms of invasions or trade or investment or migration were all related to these two areas. AMIN: And it is not just Egypt. The Mediterranean Sea has brought foreign influences ashore in North Africa for centuries, impacting not only culture, but also one of the continent's main religion, Islam. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Sufi orders are very common in countries south of the Sahara. The trend now in North Africa is the Wahhabi, Saudi Arabian influenced Islam has become prevalent in much of North Africa. AMIN: It is not just natural influences at play. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Egyptians are racists to call us "unga-bunga (ph)" or "cunga-bunga (ph)." AMIN: Historian Jill Kamil says this type of discrimination is partly a product of years of foreign rule, with it, an association between fair skin and the elite. JILL KAMIL, HISTORIAN: We have had the Greeks and the Romans, the Ottoman Turks and the Arabs, the British and the French, all have left their mark on Egypt. AMIN (on camera): So popular is the notion here that white is beautiful, that more and more women are girls are resorting to the use of these skin-whitening creams, which TV ads promise will make your skin fairer within a matter of weeks. (voice-over): Add to this, the overall image of Africa as a continent of poverty, conflict and disease. And, say, experts, you have a picture of why some North Africans try to distance themselves from the continent that, like it or not, is their home. Shahira Amin, CNN, Cairo.

You can always find this kind of situations in any society in the world.  It completely depends on what you focus on. Mr, Zahi Hawass is a scholar/archaeologist, not a teenage girl who wants to whiten her skin. You have to also note that the Sahara was mentioned in the conversation as a marker that divided the north and the south. This is against your own argument.
You also did not answer my question and just kept on with your blaming of others as usual. My question was,  are you yourself free of bias?

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone Originally posted by omshanti This is entirely different from what the person in the second video said. He never used the words 'indigenous' or 'native', and never said that the ''indigenous population was a native east African one''. The closest sentence to this was when he said ''there is no evidence to suggest that Egypt is anything but of local origin, of north east African origin in its place and in its time''. No this is EXACTLY what the speaker in the second video said. "Local origin" means the exact same thing as native or indigenous. What he is saying in effect, is that the old theory that Egypt was founded by people who migrated into Africa is false. There is evidence to show they traded with people in Mesopotamia, but no evidence to show that the population of Egypt came anywhere else except East Africa. In other words, they were Africans. A people originating in the African continent, not a people who migrated in. Originally posted by omshanti You said it yourself without even realizing. By ''Egypt'' the speaker was addressing the civilization, that ''there is no evidence to suggest that Egypt is anything but of local origin, of north east African origin in its place and in its time'', yet you took it to mean the population. But civilizations do not make themselves they are made by people and a population is made up of many people living in an area. You can’t separate the two things. Therefore, if Egypt was a civilization of local East African origin, it stands to reason that the people who created it were or local origin also.

No.  A civilization/culture can rise locally in a region by a group of people who are not indigenous to the region. Saying that a civilization has local origins and saying that a population is indigenous are completely different from each other. Take a look at Japan for example. The Yayoi culture originated in Japan but the Yayoi people are not the Indigenous people of the Japanese isles.

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone Originally posted by omshanti Regarding the population, he did say : '' I do think its possible to look at modern DNA profiles and in essence determine what most likely are due to external influences of more recent time depths vs more ancient influences perhaps even going back to the paleolithic times.''. This statement shows that he does not know any study yet that shows who is indigenous. So how could he have said that ''the indigenous population was a native east African one'' as you claim him to have. Read his statement again carefully. He said I do think it IS POSSIBLE at modern DNA profiles and in essence determine what most likely ARE due to EXTERNAL influences of more recent depth VS more ancient influences going back to the Paleolithic times. In other words, you can make a distinction between the native indigenous populations that were originally there and you can also tell which influences came into the country more recently. Therefore, what he is saying is what I am saying, the population of Egypt is made up not only of a local East African element, but elements that came into the country from other areas as well. The historical record is very clear as to who those people are and the various areas they came from and the time they arrived.

It is quite amazing how you have such a hard time figuring such an easy thing out. The speaker says that there were indigenous elements who had settled there first and external influences who came later, while saying that he thinks it is possible to determine who was which. Nowhere does he state who was which.  In short, he states that he thinks it is possible to determine, but he never actually gives the determined result.  From this, you are jumping to your own conclusions.
I think the problem is that you think humans actually evolved and originated in Egypt just because Egypt is in the African continent, and that ''native east Africans'' were the ones who came into being and evolved in Egypt therefore were there all the time. That is why,  to you, even just to mention that there were external influences, directly proves the existence of ''native east Africans''  and that they were always there. You are basically putting  conclusions before the questions, and thinking that the questions themselves prove the conclusions.   No.  As it is obvious from the fact that the speaker says : '' I thinks it is possible to determine'', either the first group of humans (indigenous people) in Egypt have not been determined yet  as far as he knows, or he is saying that to support his own conclusions and methods about it .

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone Originally posted by omshanti Both Mr.Zahi Hawass and the second speaker admit that it is very hard to determine the make up of the ancient population. So how can you state so surely who is indigenous and who is not when even scholars can not? What they are not sure of is exactly what percentage of the population was indigenous African, South West Asian, or a blend of the two. Neither do I. All I do know is that all these elements were there. Exactly what percentage of the population was “pure blooded” and what was mixed I can’t say, nor do I try to.

No, they don't know what percentage of the population of ancient Egypt had settled there earlier or later. In short they don't know what percentage of the population at the time of the civilization was indigenous or not. Nowhere do they ever state the identities of the peoples  as you are doing here by saying ''indigenous African'', ''west Asian'', ''blend of the two''. You also put 'pure blooded' in quotes as if it was mentioned by someone else, but don't forget, you are the one who mentioned it.

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone I don’t know exactly at what point people started migrating there from Asia, but I do think it must have been very early.

They started 50,000 years ago, much earlier than people started migrating from sub-Saharan Africa through the Sahara.

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone The reason, Egypt is connected to Asia by land. In prehistoric times all the peoples of East Africa, the Sahara as well as Asia were pastoralists or hunter gatherers. In any case, they depended on the animal and plant resources of an area. When they were used up or became scarce, people moved to areas of more abundance, so why would people from Western Asia have wandered in and out of Egypt? What was there to stop them? Especially when the Sahara was still green. On the other side, according to the most recent science, all humanity originated in East Africa.

You are completely missing/ ignoring the fact that humans did not evolve in north Africa (which includes Egypt) and had to migrate from equatorial Africa to the region and settle in it. They either had to come through the near east or directly through the Sahara. Geological and genetic evidence suggest that the people who came through the near east had come and settled in the region 50,000 years ago and earlier than  the people who came directly through the Sahara 8000 years ago when it was green.

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone These people were dark skinned because they were tropically adapted to the climate. Eventually, people started to migrate out of Africa into other areas. One route of exit was across the Red Sea, when, due to the Ice Age, the sea levels were much lower. African and Arabia may even have been connected by land in certain places. Another route of exit, was the Nile Valley and Delta. There is no reason to suggest that southern populations didn’t migrate into the Nile Valley. Okay, so now I'll tell you what my best friend, who is Egyptian, who is a biochemist, who was educated in the top Jesuit School in Cairo said to tell you. YOU ARE NOT GOING TO FIND COLD ADAPTED PEOPLE EVOLVING IN AFRICA. EGYPT IS IN AFRICA AND ALTHOUGH IT IS FARTHER NORTH AND COOLER, IT IS NOT SIGNIFICANTLY COOLER TO CAUSE A DECREASE IN THE AMOUNT OF MELANIN IN THE BODY. EVERY ONE WITH AN EDUCATION KNOWS THAT THE FIST HUMAN POPULATION WAS A DRAK SKINNED ONE WHICH THEN MIGRATED OUT OF AFRICA. THE PRESENCE OF LIGHT SKINNED PEOPLES ANYWHERE IN AFRICA IS THE RESULT OF BACKWARD MIGRATION. THESE ARE PEOPLE WHOSE SKINS ADAPTED TO COOLER CLIMATES WHO MIGRATED BACK INTO AFRICA. ANY OTHER LIGHT COMPLECTED PEOPLE ARE THE RESULTS OF RECENT MIGRATION, LIKE THE PEOPLE IN MANSURA WHO ARE DESCENDED FROM THE FRENCH TROPS LEFT THERE BY NAPOLEON. EVERY EGYPTIAN KNOWS THIS. Now since you need the education, watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8edyoZFW-Lg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1EyeNi6qsfs SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT WHILE WATCHING THIS PART: Is Egypt located in a cool zone? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LzGM1nv_oow&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCDcl9s9Vh4

This is all irrelevant since geological and genetic (mitochondrial DNA) evidence suggest that the indigenous people of north Africa were the ones who had left Africa once through the mouth of the red sea and entered north Africa through the near east.
Nevertheless, let's go through them.
The first video only presents one theory out of many conflicting out of Africa theories. If you had problems with the fact that only one of the Tutankhamun's facial reconstructions were presented by the national geographic, then why not also have problems with presenting only one theory out of many out of Africa theories?  Even if we assume that the theory presented in this video is right and that the main exodus of modern humans went through the Sahara and the Nile, what makes you think that migrating humans stayed the same in their appearance all the way, from the equatorial areas where they originated, to north Africa across the Sahara, and then suddenly changed out of the blue the moment they stepped into another continent?  The Video does say however that farming first appeared in Mesopotamia and then spread to the Nile valley which actually contradicts your argument and supports Pinguin's argument regarding the founding basis of the Egyptian civilization.

Regarading the skin colour, the second, third and fourth videos actually say completely different things from what your biochemist friend says. The videos say that  the amount of melanin in the skin is influenced by Ultra Violet light, while your friend is saying it is down to the temperature (cold or warm). As far as I know the former is right, and UV and temperature are two different things . No matter how hot or cold Egypt is, the amount of UV in Egypt is different from the amount in east African countries such as Kenya, Ethiopia...etc which are closer to the equator than Egypt.

The second, third and forth videos which were from the same TV program,  were
1)  more appropriate to the discussion I was having with Bernard Wolley than the discussion I am having with you.
2)  very preachy. Of course humans are similar to each other, because obviously they are one species, this doesn't mean that there are no distinguishable differences within humans. How about Chimpanzees? They share 98.5% of their genes with humans. Should we then not recognize the difference between them and humans?  It is like saying you should not recognize the difference between a mountain, a valley , and a flat land because they are all earth.  It just shows how hung up some people and some societies are on this issue, and the fact that you chose these videos to ''educate'' me, tells a lot about your views too.

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone Originally posted by omshanti You also seem to have the tendency to always miss the word 'north' before 'east African'. Originally posted by omshanti I notice from your posts that while you always push the diversity of the ''modern population'' forward, your main focus underneath all is that before all the external influences, the indigenous population was ''native east African'', whose skin colour was lightened by the foreigners. And so what is the problem with that? It is the truth. Originally posted by omshanti So you are 100% sure that the Indigenous people in Egypt looked like the Nubians, Somalis or Ethiopeans before the external influences? The truth is that even the scholars have difficulty determining how ancient people looked like, yet you are so sure about it and have convinced yourself that this is the truth. And yet you don’t seem to be as outraged by those who suggest that the Egyptian population was a light skinned one and all the dark peoples are immigrants. Now why is that?

1) Most people as well as myself are acknowledging the mixture in Egypt rather than denying one at the cost of the other as you do.
2) you are the one who is hung up on ''native east Africans''  and  ''immigrants'',  and is trying to connect one's self to Egyptians in order to use them for one's own needs. 

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone You continue to argue for the presence of a fair skinned people how evolved in Africa, while at the same time using a term to describe them which implies that they originated outside of Africa.

As I wrote before, I only used the term in response to you when you used it. As for my own presentations, I took my time and posted pictures instead of using any descriptive terms, because I knew that you are hung up on them.  

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone Don’t know about you, but all my maps show the Caucasus to be in Asia, not far from Russia. If you are so insistent on the presence of such a population in Africa, then its even more reason to stop calling them Caucasians.

They were named after the Caucasus mountains because of the fascination Europeans had with Caucasus at the time of the naming and also because of biblical reasons and the location of Mount Ararat in Caucasus. The naming has nothing to do with the origin. Further more, anybody from anywhere can be the first settler of a region. The first settler is what 'indigenous' means when you use it in the context of the past 120.000 years of human evolution.  So I see nothing wrong in a people who originated outside of Africa being indigenous to a region in Africa, especially when the region in question is north Africa which is connected and is very near to parts of other continents. There is absolutely nothing wrong in people who have been categorized as Caucasoid by craniology to have been originated in Africa either.

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone As for “convincing myself”. It’s not a matter of convincing but being familiar with the latest scientific information on human origins, evolution and migration.

People can always jump into conclusions regardless of them being ''familiar with the latest scientific information on human origins, evolution and migration'' or not. Your posts are a very good example of this. That is, if we assume that you are familiar with them.

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone According to our information all humanity is descended from one maternal and one paternal family line that originated in East Africa. Its also accepted scientific knowledge that all the physical difference that we see, which we call race, are the result of climactic adaptations.

No. It is not only down to climatic adaptations. Natural selection, sexual selection, genetic bottleneck, genetic drift, isolation, extinction or survival of certain peoples with certain characteristics, pure chance as to who with which characteristics migrated where,............ etc. There are numerous factors. What you wrote here, and the fact that you advocate the idea of skin colour being influenced by temperature, actually show your familiarity with ''the latest information on human origins, evolution and migration''

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone East Africa is a very hot environment. The area where the pharaonic culture originated is located in Upper Egypt and Sudan. It’s extremely hot there. It took me two years to get rid of the sun burn scars I got in Upper Egypt. The first humans were dark skinned Africans, the melanin being produced to protect the body from UV radiation.

So you know it is UV that affects the amount of Melanin. Then why do you keep going on about the temperature?  

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone As people moved to areas where the sun’s rays were weaker, the body produced less melanin so that it could better absorb vitamin B.

It is vitamin D, not B.

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone The suns rays are weaker in northern latitudes where it is colder than Africa.

Africa is the world's second largest continent. What makes you think that all of Africa is in the same latitude and therefore receives the same amount of UV light? North Africa is on the same latitude as north of the Arabian peninsula, south of Iran, Pakistan, north of India, south of China and Mexico. 

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone Therefore, pale skin is not a tropical adaptation. So if the population in Egypt was a native one, it stands to reason they were tropically adapted to deal with the hot climate.

Let's see if Egypt is considered tropical or not. This is a link to the Wikipedia article about the tropics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropical. Do you see Egypt in the tropics or out of it?  

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone This is not Afrocentric rhetoric but current academic knowledge.

Is advocating false information and notions based on one's own needs and desires , ''current academic knowledge''? Wow. 

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone So can light skinned people be native Africans?

Yes, and I have already explained why. It also depends on what you mean by ''light skinned''.

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone Well if they migrated there and have been living in the area for hundreds and thousands of years,

You are forgetting the fact that every group had to migrate into Egypt, as humanity did not come into being in Egypt. So migration into Egypt is not something that only some did. Every group did it.

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone well of course they become native. Where else would they live? Regardless of where their distant ancestors may have come from, the only place they know as home is where they live now and have adapted their culture and way of life to deal with the environment. As I said before, light skinned Egytpains were just as Egyptian as anyone else because they all shared the same language and culture.

This can be said about the Sub-Saharan Africans or your ''native east Africans'' as well, not only about the ''light skinned Egyptians''.  When are going to stop implying, underneath all this superficial welcoming, that ''light skinned Egyptians'' were foreigners who came later?

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone How else do you explain the vast variety of skin tones in the population? Who else do you explain the fact that in many families the skin tones range from light to dark? The fact that some members in a family have straight hair while others have kinky hair? Admixture. Originally posted by omshanti Yes, admixture, but this answer is completely different from ''the indigenous population was a native east African one who looked like the Nubians, Somalis or Ethiopians''. The historical record shows that the first humans were dark skinned individuals who migrated out of East African into the other parts of the continent and the world. So if the first humans were dark skinned Africans why is it so hard to believe that the first people in Egypt were in fact dark skinned Africans????

1) because it is very much likely that the first humans who set foot in north Africa had left Africa through the red sea and had entered north Africa through the near east rather than directly through the Sahara. 2) Even if they had come directly through the Sahara, it is very unlikely that their physical characteristics stayed the same all the way through as when they left the equatorial Africa. As I asked before, what makes you think that humans stayed the same all the way until the edge of the African continent and then suddenly changed in appearance out of the blue the moment they set foot in another continent.  Evolution does not have the concept of continents as humans,  you know? So you can not just draw a line between Africa and the rest of the world and say that at this side of the line people did not change and remained the same, but at the other side people changed and developed new characteristics.

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone Furthermore Egyptian culture evolved in the South in the area stretching from Upper Egypt into the Sudan and that at one time Nubian and Egyptian culture were one in the same. Upper Egypt was more densely populated than Northern Egypt. The culture of the south dominated the North. Southern kings unified the country. So if the population was a local one and the first humans were Africans, who were dark, why is it so hard for you to accept logic? Its far more logical to conclude that they were the same color as the people living in that part of the world today.

You write about culture in the first half of this paragraph and then suddenly jump into population and people. It is interesting that when it suits your argument you confuse people and culture, but when it doesn't suit your argument you distinguish them as you are doing here: 

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone A very good article, which you fail to understand, so let me explain it to you. It is not saying that the Nubians migrated into the area 2,500 years ago. What it is saying is that there are the languages spoken by the Nubians in the Nile Valley that originated farther south in Sudan. It is saying that the Nile language spoken now splintered off from the Nuba language in Kordofan 2,500 years ago. Its like saying that the Spanish language spoken in Spain today started to develop in a different direction than Latin at a certain date.

  Any way, we were both in agreement that by the time the Egyptian culture/civilization rose many different peoples had already settled in the region, so bringing up the population of Egypt at the time of the civilization is neither here nor there. 

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone So if the population was a local one and the first humans were Africans, who were dark, why is it so hard for you to accept logic?

As I wrote many times, 1) it is very likely that the first population did not come through Africa. 2) even if they had, it is very unlikely that they had the same colour or physical characteristics as the peoples of the equatorial African countries, as you are claiming. East Africa and north (east) Africa are different regions, and just because they are on the same continent (which happens to be the second largest in the world) does not mean that they are the same.

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone Its far more logical to conclude that they were the same color as the people living in that part of the world today.

Who is ''they'' and where is ''that part of the world''?  Is they the ''local'' Egyptians and ''that part of the world''  the African continent? If that is the case I have already explained enough.



Edited by omshanti - 12-Jul-2008 at 22:20

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone One of these people is an Ancient Egyptian and one is a modern East African person form the Horn of Africa. Can you tell which is which?  Notice the high degree of similarity between them.

Of course I can tell the difference, It is written under them. As with the similarity, they don't look especially similar to each other in comparison to all the mummies and peoples in the world. The mummy looks like any old person in the world. I have seen plenty of old Japanese people looking like that mummy. Not to mention that it also looks similar to the Peruvian mummies, mummies of Urumuchi or even a mummified monkey at the cairo museum. The point is that you can't compare a simple picture of a mummy with a simple picture of a living person and make conclusions the way you are doing.

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone Originally posted by omshnati You also did not answer my second question which was : the modern state of Egypt is comprised of ancient lower Egypt, upper Egypt and lower Nubia. It is quite possible that the indigenous peoples in each of these cultural regions would have looked different from each other physically before they were unified. So by ''the indigenous population was a native east African one'', which one of those regions are you talking about? I did answer you when I said all of the East African types with the excetion of the Modern Egyptians who a re a blend of all the types you showed as well as people migrating in from the north.

Do you not get it? I am asking the indigenous population of which region in Egypt are you talking about? Lower Egypt or upper Egypt or lower nubia? I asked which phenotypes in my first question. This was my second question. Let me quote it so you can remember :

Originally posted by omshanti So I wondered, by ''indigenous/native east Afrian'' , which type of features are you talking about? Also the modern state of Egypt is comprised of ancient lower Egypt, upper Egypt and lower Nubia. It is quite possible that the indigenous peoples in each of these cultural regions would have looked different from each other physically before they were unified. So by ''the indigenous population was a native east African one'', which one of those regions are you talking about?

Do you remember now?

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone If people would just simply admit that Egypt was and is what it is, there would be no controversy. But it is the continued attempts to remove it from the context of the continent by denying the darker elements that causes the problem. Originally posted by omshanti As far as I can see from your posts, you are in denial of a lot of elements as well. The fact that every time you write about Egypt, comparisons with Afro-Americans or the African diaspora pop up show that you are not viewing Egypt from an objective stance either, which is exactly the reason you are called Afrocentric. You know what the problem is? Although you speak English very well, it’s clearly not your first language and therefore there is a lot that flies over your head when it comes to basic comprehension.

Really? what about my question above, which took you so long and so much explanation to understand? You can't just insult my English ability just because I disagree with you or consider many of your arguments irrelevant to the issue we are discussing.  The point is that I understand what you are trying to say when you bring up your comparisons of ancient Egyptians with Afro-Americans, or when you blame everything and everybody apart from yourself. But I just don't agree with them and also consider them irrelevant. Not to mention that you keep bringing them up very persistently and become very angry when other members don't apply your standards to their views.  

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone I’m not trying to insult you, just stating a fact which I’ve made abundantly clear in the reply which at this pint is 34 pages long. As I have said from the beginning, I am only explaining the cultural and historical point of view of these people. What the term black means in an American context and why Afro Americans perceive them to be Black when they see them. That does not make me Afrocentric.

You are not just explaining, you are using them to justify your standards and are trying to make others to also use those standards.

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone   I think it is extremely closed minded of you to not be able to objectively understand the perspective of a group of people just because it makes you feel insecure on some level.

I understand their perspective. I just don't consider it to be appropriate and refuse to switch my perspective to theirs as you expect me too.  

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone As I have repeatedly said on more than one occasion, race is a cultural construct. Do you even understand what I mean by that I wonder?

Yes. I just don't agree with it.

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone Each society has a different way of defining who is what. In order to have any discussion about an issue of race, you have got to understand what the perception of race is in the context of that particular society.

I agree with this. Remember, I am the one who wrote this post : http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=21537&PID=397215#397215. However the society in question here is ancient Egypt, not the Afro-American society in modern times nor the victimhood of the African diaspora. To be objective, we should consider ancient Egypt from a universal point of view, rather than the perspective of one group. You on the other hand keep getting angry when people don't just switch to the Afro-American perspective.  

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone The original comments were with regards to Zahi Hawas’s statements. All I am doing is showing where the truths lay and where they do not.

No, all you are doing is to expect Zahi Hawass to see through the Afro-American perspective, and call him a ''racist'' when he does not. All you are doing is to go on and on about the victimhood of Afro-Americans and to blame the rest of the world of ''racist bias'' or ''racist conspirasy'' when their views don't agree with your ideals. 

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone   The African origins of this civilization made by Afro Americans is a valid one.

Yes, if their claim is about Egypt being in the African continent, it is valid, but it has no point because it is so obvious. If not, then the validity completely depends on what it is meant by ''African''.  

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone   The claims that it was superior to all other civilizations is not, nor is the claim that the Egyptians had influences all over Africa and Europe that are not substantiated by historical record.

Nor is their usage of  Egypt as a tool to prove the intelligence and to raise the self-esteem  of black people. 

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone The claim of racism in the sciences….. for god’s sake anyone with even a high school education knows that. Look at the second video tape again. What do you think he means by “THE MISTAKES MADE IN THE PAST”? He’s politely referring to RACIST ATTITUDES.

The point is the amount of the focus given to this racism in science. As your video says they are in the past, yet  Afro-Americans need to keep focusing on them because they need to be the victim. The victimhood is part of their identity, therefore when people don't agree with their views, they blame it on the ''racist attitudes'' in science even today.  

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone The original comments were with regards to Zahi Hawas’s statements. All I am doing is showing where the truths lay and where they do not. The African origins of this civilization made by Afro Americans is a valid one. The claims that it was superior to all other civilizations is not, nor is the claim that the Egyptians had influences all over Africa and Europe that are not substantiated by historical record. The claim of racism in the sciences….. for god’s sake anyone with even a high school education knows that. Look at the second video tape again. What do you think he means by “THE MISTAKES MADE IN THE PAST”? He’s politely referring to RACIST ATTITUDES.

  Those claims that you are talking about were the 4 points given in the article I posted about Afrocentrism, and apart from the first one have nothing to do with ''the original comments with regards to Zahi Hawass' statements''. The fact that you say that all  you are doing is to point things out with regards to Zahi hawass' statements and then bring up points that have nothing to do with his statements, shows that you are not doing what you say you are doing.

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone Originally posted by Bernard Woolley Originally posted by omshanti It is quite well known that according to population genetics based on mitochondrial DNA and y-chromosome, people in sub-Saharan Africa show greater diversity than the rest of the world. However mtDNA and y-chromosome prove absolutely nothing about external appearance or who their carriers really were because they make up a tiny part of the entire human genome. They are simply a very good tool to trace the movements of ancient populations because they mutate in a relatively fast pace, which also means that the longer the time of human occupancy of a region, the more diverse the mutations can be in that region. Since Africa is the homeland of modern humans, we can easily see that the humans have occupied Africa longer than the rest of the world hence the bigger diversity in their (especially the Khoisans') mutations of mtDNA and y-chromosome. Regrading externally visible physical characteristics (which the topic is about), I think that ''sub -Saharan Africa is more diverse than the rest of the world'' is a myth. We just have to pick a north east Asian, south east Asian, a Semang, an Indian, a European, a Papua New Guinean, a Melanesian, an Australian aboriginal, a Polynesian, a native American..etc person and put them all next to each other, and then also pick some people from any different parts of sub-Saharan Africa and do the same. We can then see which group has a greater diversity in their looks. <FONT face=Arial size=2>I agree that mtDNA and y-chromosome studies cover a very small proportion of the human genetic code, but you would have to make the case to me why you think the diversity registered in that small part of the code would not also be reflected in the other parts of the code.It's definitely not a myth that Sub-Saharan Africans are unusually diverse. Aside from curly hair, I can think of no feature or trait that is characteristic of Sub-Saharan Africans in general. I also can't think of any feature or trait that's supposedly characteristic of any non-African population that isn't present among populations in Africa.Fundamentally, the human species is relatively young and hasn't gone through any significant changes yet. There have been a couple of regional bottlenecks where local diversity was lost, but nothing significant has been added to the gene pool that isn't present in the source population (Africa). Whatever apparent differences there are between various populations are so superficial and mutable, and flow so gradually into each other, that any attempt to classify them has to be largely subjective. This is exactly the point many of us have been trying to make as to why we are not comfortable with the term "negro". Its limited to one very specific physical type. The term negro and Sub-Saharan African are used interchangeably when in fact, as you mentioned there is a great range of physical types in the region. There is no one physical type that can be used to represent all of Africa below the Sahara. If we look at West Africa and choose three countries, Guine, Nigeria, and Senegal, you come up with at least 3 different physical types. If you go to Congo, Malawi and South Africa, you will find different types as well. This negro thing is another example of what I talked about of the West's attempt to homogenize people by creating imaginary regions and pretending that they are all the same in terms of language, culture and physical type. It is not true or accurate. Therefore, they come to Africa with preconceived notions of what an "African" should be and when they encounter people who do not fit their artificial model, they either pretend they don't exist or try to make them somehow a part of a non African group. Originally posted by omshanti If the sub-Saharan African people are so diverse, how can you (as a voluntary representative of the people of African diaspora) connect with Egyptians based on looks. If it is possible for you to connect with Egyptians the way you do, then it means that there is a certain unity between the looks of sub-Saharan African people, which consequently supports the classifications you despise and deny. So which one is it? Are the sub-Saharan Africans so diverse or do you support the classifications by connecting yourself with Egyptians? I guess your basic lack of English comprehension has also contributed to the fact that you failed to notice that I mentioned that African Americans are in fact the products of racial mixing as well. We are not racially pure.

I did not fail to notice it at all. Otherwise how could I have written this :

Originally posted by omshanti Originally posted by Rakasnumberone Now with regards to the modern Egyptians you showed. I'll remind you of what I said about the fact that Afro Americans and by this I include all of Latin America and the Caribbean, not just the USA. We are not full blooded Africans, we are in fact mixed. Realize that there are many individuals in the Afro American community, in the States, Caribbean and Latin America who look just like these people. The fact that the people of African diaspora who are mainly a mix of west Europeans and west Africans, look so similar to modern Egyptians who have none of these in their mixture, actually supports the classifications based on craniology, because according to the classifications, both can be considered mixes of  Caucasoids and Negroids. You are supporting the classifications you so despise without realizing.

as this quote shows, you are the one who failed to notice what was written. So now, what does this prove about your basic English comprehension, despite the fact that it is your first language?

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone Seeing as how you, are also a racial hybrid, half Persian and Japanese right, I would have expected that you of all people would understand that racial mixing between two or more groups results in a variety of physical types.

Racial mixing does result in variety of physical types but it does not result in any variety of physical types without any rules. Otherwise you can find the same variety of physical types in any mixed group regardless of the components in the mixture. The variation of physical types within a mixed group does not extend beyond the original physical types of each component involved. In short, a mix of Australian Aboriginal and a Chinese would not look like a British person, or a mix of European and sub-Saharan African would not look like an east Asian person. This means that  if two mixed groups have similar varieties, it is very likely that they have similar components.  Furthermore you seem to have no problem with using the word 'race' here. I thought that you disagreed with it.

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone The Egyptians were a people of African admixture. They were a mixture of several African physical types with several non African physical types. When you have mixture like this the result is going to by heterogeneity, (do you know what that word means? It means a variety of looks not just one). Some individuals will show characteristics found in the different African groups, others will show non African traits, most will be a blend of all the above.

No matter how diverse the Egyptians are, they would not show the characteristics of a component that is not present in their mixture. Since Egyptians do not have west sub-Saharan African components (which are the main components that contributed to the mixture of Afro-Americans) in them, but yet still Afro-Americans can claim to have similarities in their looks to Egyptians, there must be a certain uniformity between the looks of west sub-Saharan Africans and the ''Africans'' who contributed to the mixture of Egyptians. I am saying that this contradicts your statement that sub-Saharan Africans are very diverse in their looks, and that it supports the classifications based on craniology. 

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone   So why is it so hard to believe that another group of people also of African admixture will have a high amount of people who have a similar look to the other group of Mixed Africans?

As I have written countless times, this completely depends on what is included in 'African'. I do not have difficulty believing. I neither believe nor disbelieve, and am open and neutral as long as everything fits well.  Here, I am only pointing out to you the contradiction between talking about the diversity of ''Africans'' in one place and pushing a theory which is based on all ''Africans'' having  similar looks, in another place.

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone You don’t honestly think that I’m trying to say that the two are the same people do you,

No, but I can see that you need to have a connection with Egypt, and by connection I am not meaning direct descent or being the same people. 

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone because that would be very stupid. What I am saying is that in the United States, people who look like this, who have this type of genetic makes up, are considered BLACK. Therefore, from this cultural perspective, the Egyptians, because they are of similar extraction are considered BLACK as well.

See this is a very good example of you trying to justify your ideals by pushing your own standards, which are irrelevant, to other people.  

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone Not the same group, but a similar group.

Similar in that they share the same components according to the classifications based on craniology.  This is why I am saying that you are supporting the classifications you despise.   

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone The burden of proof now falls to you to turn academic and scientific knowledge upside down to show the existence of people evolving traits adapted to cold climates like pale skin in an arid sub-tropical environment like East Africa, or as you would say, NORTH East Africa. Which I would just like to once again point out, is not that significantly cooler than the tropical areas further south.

As I wrote so many times, skin colour is not affected by temperature but by UV light which changes according to latitude not climate. 'East Africa' which seems to be your favorite term does not normally include Egypt, nevertheless if you are just meaning the east side of the African continent, then the latitude completely depends on each country and region on it and you can't just generalize them with regards to latitude.  North Africa which includes Egypt is on the same latitude as north of the Arabian peninsula, South of Iran, Pakistan, northern India, southern China and Mexico. Now, are the people in these regions included in ''cold-adapted'' for you? As far as I can see, it is perfectly natural for the people of Egypt to have similar characteristics (especially the skin colour)  as the people of the Arabian peninsula, because they are both connected by land and are on the same latitude. The burden is not on me to prove anything but on you to let go of your ideal image of Africa, which seems to be the cause of the confusing usages of terms such as 'east Africa'.   

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone I've also provided you with a map.

A very good map. I like it. It is the one which was on the video you had posted earlier and I addressed it then too. Would you like to put a link for it so I can see it better? Anyway, let me point some things out for you again. 1) This is one out of many 'out of Africa' theories. there are scientists who say that humans migrated out of Africa through two roots, there are some who say the exodus only went through the Sahara and some who say it only went through the mouth of the Red sea. There is no agreement what so ever regarding how many times the exodus happened either. Some say it was only once, some say twice and some say many times. There is no agreement about the amount of humans who participated in the exodus too. Basically, there are numerous theories and they all differ from each other depending on the scientist. The map you copied must be Dr. Spencer wells' map since it is taken from the National geographic. So what I would like to say is, when you had such a huge issue and disagreed profoundly with the fact that only one out of the three Tutankhamun's facial reconstructions was presented on National Geographic, why not also oppose the fact that only one map out of many theories is presented on National Geographic?  Isn't this double standard?  2) We have to note that all out of Africa theory maps show the roots the very first migrants travelled, not where they settled, this means that these migrants did not necessarily settle evenly in every single region that the lines showing their roots passed through. This is why physical characteristics of humans the world over are not distributed evenly according to geographic relations and sometimes there are dramatic differences between the looks of the people of neighbouring regions or regions with similar evolutionary effects (such as the latitude). This happens because different groups of people who had evolved elsewhere according to where ever they were isolated, go and settle later in regions where the first migrants had not settled. Having this in mind, it is more likely that  people only settled in the Nile valley when the Sahara dried up, which is much later than the initial migration of the first peoples, which in turn means that you can not just say that certain peoples have always been there just because the lines of the first migrations passed through them.  3)  Even If we assume that this map is correct and also that the Nile valley was settled by the first migrants, it does not necessarily mean that these first migrants whose migration must have spanned over many thousand years, did not evolve and change in their physical characteristics as they migrated and settled in different regions. If we look at the map, the origin of modern humans is not even on the map because it comes from further south than the map shows. The map only locates the oldest common ancestors of all humans named Adam and eve around lake Victoria. This does not mean that humanity originated here.  According to archaeological data, humans might have originated in south Africa which might be where the lines come from in this map. Now if we think about this, and the size of the African continent, and the fact that the initial migrations took thousands of years, it is very unreasonable to think that humans did not evolve and remained unchanged all the way from South Africa to the Nile valley. If we look at the map, we can see that the line that goes through the Nile valley goes directly to the levant and to Europe. So my question is, what makes you think that humans remained unchanged in their appearance all the way from lake Victoria (if we consider Adam and Eve as the origin) to the Nile valley, and then suddenly changed out of the blue when they set foot in the Levant?4) How do you know that Adam and Eve looked like the people of the horn of Africa or east Africans of today? This idea is based on the assumption that people who stayed did not change at all.    

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone Perhaps those terrible Afrocentrics at NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC are all delusional as well.

I never called anyone delusional, so why do you bring the word 'delusional' as if I used it somewhere to call you? A Freudian slip perhaps?

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone On the subject of light complected Africans, the only population fitting this description are some of the Berber populations of North West and North Africa.

I have seen so many Egyptians or non-Berber north Africans who were as light coloured as the Berber people. So if the Berber people are your standard for ''light complected'', then your statement here is incorrect.

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone These people were depicted by the Ancient Egyptians as being white skinned, far lighter than themselves, who were generally depicted as being brown in color.

Why not also state the fact that they depicted the Nubians as black skinned, far darker the themselves.

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone All modern scientific information indicates that these people are of Eurasian origin migrating along along the southern coast of the Mediterranean in the remotest period of prehistory,

Whether they are of Eurasian origin or not is irrelevant if they were the first peoples who settled in and populated North Africa, which makes them the indigenous population of the region. 

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone yet when I say it, I'm called a racist and delusional. Well this is what mainstream science has to say about it.

Who called you a racist and delusional? I never did. Another Freudian slip?

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berber_people#Genetic_evidencehttp://dienekes.blogspot.com/2005/04/lactose-tolerance-gene-supports.htmlhttp://mathildasanthropologyblog.wordpress.com/2008/05/02/eurasian-origins-of-the-berbers/

The first link says that most north Africans regardless of their ethnicity, are predominantly of Berber origin. Egyptians are north Africans aren't they? The second and the third are the same article and in it was written ''We found that the frequency of the –13910T allele predicts the frequency of lactose tolerance in several Eurasian and North African Berber populations but not in most sub-Saharan African populations. '' Why do you think that they say that they did not find the frequency in most sub-Saharan African populations? Why did they not mention the other north Africans who are not ethnically Berbers?  The three links combined together indicate the story that the oldest population which settled in north Africa came from the near east 50,000 years ago, and then later another wave came from the near east which brought pastoralism, agriculture and the lactose tolerant genes, and blended with the older population.

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone As I said before, and as everyone with at least some education knows by now, pale skin is not an adaptation found in tropical and subtropical environments. When found in Africa it is always the result of backward migrations into Africa.

As I wrote many times, that if there were no settlers in the region already and the people who came from the near east were the first people to populate north Africa, this makes them the indigenous population of the region and therefore where they came from becomes irrelevant. Also calling their migration ''backward migration'' is odd because as you can see from the map you yourself copied, they left the horn of Africa through the mouth of the Red sea and entered north Africa through the Sinai. They never actually migrated ''backwards''. So to call their  migration ''backward'' would be ignoring the size of the African continent. which is not surprising since you seem to have an idealized notion of this uniform Africa.

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone Originally posted by omshanti Rakasnumberone.  I was thoroughly entertained by your emotional post.I have already provided the article describing Afrocentrism and explained point by point as to why your posts fit its descriptions so well and since you could not handle it well (I thought I was being nice by actually pointing out to you the reasons why other members consider you Afrocentric rather then just labeling you without explanation) and have resorted to petty bickering  and insults throughout your post, I will skip most of your post trusting the readers to decide (I would really appreciate it if you could at least make it clear as to who wrote what in your quotes so other members could tell the difference between what I wrote, Bernard Wolley wrote and you wrote)  and will directly address the main issue between us. The indigenous people of Egypt. Who was the first modern human in Egypt?  The oldest indigenous North African mtDNA line is dated to have arrived from the Levant around 50,000~30.000 years ago (upper Paleolithic era). About 1/8 of maternal gene lines in North Africa come from more recent migrations from sub-Saharan Africa and over half are recent movements south from Europe and west from west Asia. This adds up to a view of north Africa as a recipient of ancient migrations from further east as it is the case with Europe, rather than from the south through the Sahara desert. In other words, there is no evidence of a exodus from sub-Saharan Africa into north Africa, but rather of an exodus out of Africa through the southern end of the red sea from the horn of Africa, to the near east and north Africa.  This is also supported by the article you posted from wikipedia.Berbers are the indigenous peoples of North Africa west of the Nile Valley.<span ="mw-line"><span style="font-weight: bold;"></span>Genetic evidence</span>In general, genetic evidence appears to indicate that most North Africans (whether they consider themselves Berber or Arab) are predominantly of Berber origin and that populations ancestral to the Berbers have been in the area since the Upper Paleolithicera. Berbers appear to be largely descended from a group or groups ofpeople who expanded west from an eastern origin, along the southern rimof the Mediterranean sea, beginning perhaps as much as 50 000 years ago. Significant proportions of both the Berber and Arabized Berber gene pools also derive from more recent migration of various groups who have left their genetic footprints to varying degrees throughout the region.The unique patchwork of savannah and forest that is sub-Saharan Africa is effectively separated from the rest of the world by two sets of gates and corridors. For the last couple of million years these corridors have acted like huge livestock corral, with several gateways alternatively open and closed. One gate led to the north over the Sahara, while the other led east, across the mouth of the red sea. Which gate was open depended on the glacial cycle and determined whether mammals including humans went north or east. Normally an unforgiving desert, the potential route to the north opens only when variations in the earth's orbit and the tilt of its polar axis produce a brief episode of of warming. This fleeting event in geological time happens only once every 100,000 years or so. When the Sun's heat causes a polar meltdown and a warm and humid global climate ensues. The Sahara, Sinai and the deserts of Australia grow lakes, become green, and flower in the short geological spring. But because this warm interlude is so brief the north African weather gate can act as a deadly trap to migrants. The most recent interglacial optimum was only about 8000 years ago. For perhaps a couple of thousand years the Sahara was grassland, and all kinds of game from the south spread throughout north Africa. The earlier interglacial known as the Eemian or Ipswichian, came 125,000 years ago. The southern route however opened 80,000~70,000 years ago at the threshold of a prolonged glaciation when huge volumes of water were locked up in ice sheets and when the sea level fell sufficiently for the normal water exchange between the Indian ocean and the red sea to almost stop. This means that since the appearance of modern humans, they had only two chances to go directly from sub-Saharan Africa to north Africa, the first of which at about 125,000 years ago is too early since the rapid distinction of the parent of modern humans Homo helmei is just around this time, which marks the completion of the birth of the modern humans. This leaves the second chance at around 8 thousand year ago, which is long after the humans had colonized north Africa from the other route through the horn of Africa and the near east. Around 8 thousand years ago and a couple thousand years after it when the Sahara turned into desert again from grassland, the indigenous north African people who had colonized the lands 50,000 years ago and the migrants from the sub-Saharan Africa who had entered the region when the desert had turned into a grassland, settled along the Nile river and mixed with each other. This explains as why there are no Berbers to the east of the Nile valley despite the fact that they came from the east, because they mixed with the migrants from the south along the Nile and formed the basis for the Egyptians.<a name="Y-chromosome_DNA" id="Y-chromosome_DNA"></a><h4><span ="editsection"></span> <span ="mw-line"></span></h4> The tone of your post was quite clear

The tone of my post was exactly the same as my first post with which you had no problem

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone and since you know that I don't like being accused of being called what amounts to being a black supremacist you were fully aware of what you were doing.

I did not accuse you without a reason, your posts do fit the description in the article and I simply pointed that out.

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone You know full well that I was only explaining something from a cultural perspective,

No, because from your posts it is obvious that you were not just explaining a cultural perspective. You were pushing it and forcing it. Not to mention all the irrelevant victim mentality and paranoia which are apparent in your posts. 

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone yet you twisted what I had to say around to make me fit your perception.

No I did not. As you can see in my post, I simply pointed things out from your post as they were, and they did fit the description.

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone This just tells me that that is your opinion of me all along.

No, otherwise I wouldn't have written this :

Originally posted by omshanti Originally posted by Bernard Woolley 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. I agree. I put "Afrocentrism" in quotes because I'm not sure the word actually has any meaning beyond what people who don't like it say it means. I used to have the same opinion as the quote above regarding Afrocentrism. However I found an article in National Geographic website which describes Afrocentrism and realized that your posts fit really well with the descriptions given in it.  It is very ironic because you provided me (who was not sure what Afrocentrism was and if it really existed), with very good examples of Afrocentrism with your own posts.

 

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone Had it been otherwise you would have worded things differently.

I did word things differently from what you are making them to be.

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone I went through the definition point by point. There was nothing in anything that I wrote previously to indicate I was Afrocentric. POINT 1 the Egyptians were black. I explained previously why this is a problematic term, however, I explained why from the point of view of what is considered Black in the USA, the Egyptians would fit that description, as well as why Afro Americans in particular perceive them that way based on physical characteristics, that is all.POINT 2 Egypt was superior to all other civilizations: I pointedly stated several times that I think Egypt too often dominates African history. How then could you conclude that I am Afrocentric based on this?POINT 3 Egypt has influenced other cultures in Africa and Europe: Where did I ever say anything like that??POINT 4 There has been a conspiracy to suppress all of the above. Stating the historical truth that racism effected every aspect of life in this country is true. The ideology of white supremacy is real and did effect domestic and international policies, that it was the driving justification behind colonialism is TRUE. Stating an unpleasant fact does not make me a racist.

I already went through this earlier in this post, and also if you read my original post, it is apparent that your post fits the description. So read it back calmly with an open mind.

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone So you deliberately went out of your way to contort my words,

No, I took my time to straighten the discussion because you kept twisting it by irrelevant things and your paranoia. Although I can see that from your contorted point of you, a straight view can look contorted.

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone to take the conversation in a direction that I never intended it to go and you wonder why I was upset?

You are always upset when people disagree with you.

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone Then have the nerve to act like you were doing me a favor. If your actions were well intentioned, you would have said something along the lines of, "the reason why people think you are Afrocentric is because..." Rather than stating blatantly as you did, "YOU ARE AFROCENTRIC".

Ok, below are quotes from the parts in my post where I used the word 'Afrocentrism'.

Originally posted by omshanti I used to have the same opinion as the quote above regarding Afrocentrism. However I found an article in National Geographic website which describes Afrocentrism and realized that your posts fit really well with the descriptions given in it.  It is very ironic because you provided me (who was not sure what Afrocentrism was and if it really existed), with very good examples of Afrocentrism with your own posts.

Originally posted by omshanti The fact that you expect me to understand the significance and the context of the black and white issue in the US, the Slavery of African people in modern times, abuse of racial classifications, ''how racist the whole society controlled by the whites is'', viciousness of the  ''racist'' mentality in the US, how the white world is downplaying the blacks......etc when the topic at hand is about ancient Egypt, shows your stance regarding ancient Egypt, which fits really well with the description given in the article about Afrocentrism. The subject is about ancient Egypt and should be scholarly, and not tied with the sociopolitical issues of the black people in America.

Originally posted by omshanti So basically you are using ancient Egypt as a tool to increase the self esteem of the people of African diaspora and to prove the intelligence of black people. This is exactly what was written in the article about Afrocentrism.

Originally posted by omshanti What you wrote here is a very good example of the main point No.4 of Afrocentrism described in the article.

Originally posted by omshanti This also fits the main point No.4 in the article. It is always the society or someone who disagrees with you that has a ''racist bias''. Are you yourself free of bias regarding Egypt?

Originally posted by omshanti I am sure that there are so many Mediterranean people (such as Italians or Spaniards) who are darker than the Egyptian actor. Nonetheless, when are you going to be done with comparing Egyptians with Afro-Americans? And how long are you going to classify people based on who would have had access to which public facility, who would have been escorted to the back of the bus ...etc in the united states 45 years ago. Would you mind showing the validity of the methods you are using to classify people, in the context of ancient Egypt? This part of your post fits the main point No.1 of Afrocentrism described in the article I provided.

Originally posted by omshanti As far as I can see from your posts, you are in denial of a lot of elements as well. The fact that every time you write about Egypt, comparisons with Afro-Americans or the African diaspora pop up show that you are not viewing Egypt from an objective stance either,  which is exactly the reason you are called Afrocentric.

As you can see, I actually did write something along the line of what you yourself consider well intentioned.

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone So now that i answered you and did not hide my anger, you take that as the opportunity to ignore all the valid points that I did make.

As you can see, I did not ignore them.

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone Now you quote an article to me that says basically the same thing that I was saying all along. The fair skinned peoples in North Africa migrated in from Western Asia, they did not evolve there.

I think your are misunderstanding the meaning of the word 'indigenous'. We are discussing the origin of modern humans, therefore in this context which spans 125,000 years of modern human evolution and migration to the world , 'indigenous' means the first people who settled in a region.

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone It doesn't matter when the back migration happened 50,000 yrs ago or 5,000,000. The fact is that as I said the population in Egypt was made up of native East Africans who never left the continent and were therefore tropically adapted, as well as lighter skinned people from the north. You took this conversation all over the place being bent out of shape over nothing, now you are showing me articles that I read and sent to you in the first place to prove what?

You are completely missing the point. According to what I wrote which was based on the book Out of Eden written by the world renowned geneticist Stephen Oppenheimer, and supported by your own links,  the people who entered north Africa through the near east were the first to populate the region, therefore were the indigenous peoples of the region.

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone Egyptian culture and civilization is not the result outside influences, but local cultures from the Southern, South East and West that stretched from Mali in the West to Egypt and Sudan in the East. The population in the country was diverse, but the culture itself was one that originated in the continent and migrated north to become the dominant unified culture of the country. End of story.

Now you have switched back into not separating culture from populations, after discrediting what I presented by saying that languages travel without human movements, and separating culture and people. Nevertheless, how about the spread of farming and agriculture from Mesopotamia to Egypt 10,000 years ago. This was also mentioned in one of your own videos. Would the Egyptian civilization/culture have risen without farming and agriculture? 

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone Originally posted by pinguin Egyptian civilization was heavely influenced by the civilizations of the Middle East, long before other civilizations existed in Africa. You purposedly forget that. Penguin, you and your other personality Omshanti, (I'm quite certain you are both the same person), are fishing for a debate. I have no intention of having a debate. I only joined the discussion to share some information not to argue about Egypt this Egypt that. You came in and took the conversation somewhere i had no intention of going.Penguin/Omshanti You are a racist plain and simple. That's why you feel the need to use and defend outdated terms like negro. I have one more reason why its distasteful. Because when you start to categorize people in such a fashion it dehumanizes them. They are no longer unique individuals but things to be put in neat little boxes. this is the reason these categories were made in the first place.I already told you I have nothing to say to you, now I'm telling your other personality Omshanti the same thing. If you think I sit around the house worrying about Egypt, I don't. To be perfectly honest, I could give a shit about it. They are all dead and I'm alive and even if they were all as black as shoe polish, it doesn't make a difference in my life. Why I do and the person I become in life is totally dependent on what I do TODAY. As I said, the only significance Egypt has is that it proves the idea that intelligence is linked to race or skin color is false. That was my basic premise all along, but rather than seeing that, you try to drag me into a debate, which you are still trying to do now, and further instigate trouble by calling me an Afrocentricist. Disgusting mind set.I think you are the absolute scum of the earth and beneath my contempt. And lest i be tempted to answer you, I discontinue my affiliation with this site. So by the time you read this, i'll be gone. Whatever you have to say in reply...... you can choke on it because I wont be reading it. I should have left months ago, but I let myself be suckered into staying by you, pretending to be Omshanti, begging me to stay, just so you could bate me into having more meaningless debates with you. you have a problem where black people and Africans are concerned and everyone here with any honesty knows it.I have neither the intention time nor the energy to waste on bullshit any longer.

This is the most ridiculous post I have ever seen on AE. Just for the record, I am not Pinguin. and this is the post you are referring to when you wrote ''pretending to be omshanti, begging me to stay'': http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=21537&PID=397529#397529 Let me explain the situation in which I wrote this post. You and I were having discussions in a few threads. I disagreed with your views and you fell in a fit of anger and started saying that you are going to leave the forum. Since you were a new member then and I didn't know that this is simply your tendency, I thought it must have been my fault, so I apologized and asked you to stay in the forum, after which I simply beat around the bush and never disagreed with you openly.  

Edited by omshanti - 12-Jul-2008 at 08:38