Zahi Hawass fed up with Racial Politics and lies

What can I say? Afrocentrists. One of them claims that Seti's mummy was African because of the darker skin colour (so I heard)...they're not really taking into account that mummies...are...treated...extensively!

BUT MANY ANCIENTPICTURES SHOW WHO EGYPTIAN ARE DARK SKINNED AND MANY MODERN EGYPTIAN ARE VERY DARKER.

Well I have a great deal of respect for Mr. Hawass and I'm glad to see him comment on this.

Now lets try something here. They say they don't know the exact skin color but his facial features are sad to be very accurate. Give him Black skin and you can still see he isn't exactly Sub-Saharan. Give him White skin and he isn't exactly European.

The problem here is that people think that this kind of construction is flawless. I know someone who does this for a living. It is not an exact science. There are many things that can never be exactly recreated. For example, the exact shape of the nose and the shape of the tip. The exact shape of the lips, although I think you can get a general idea of the thickness. You cant tell shape of the ears, or eye, and skin color.

This is one of three reconstructions that was done. The Egyptians did one, this one was done by the French, and there was another one, I forget the country, but prior to this, there was one done by the USA. Why was THIS bust choosen over all the others? Given the fact that Tut was a Saidi, (Upper Egyptian), why wasn't a skin tone chosen that represents the average Upper Egyptian, a much darker shade of brown? Whey did they choose to give him light colored eyes? Although they said they chose a skin color to match the average Egyptian, the fact is that it is much lighter than the average Egyptian.

The American team who did the first reconstruction said of the skull that it was in some respects African, and in other respects closer to what they would expect in souther Europeans or Mediterranians. What this tells me is that we are talking about a person who was obviously of mixed race, which given Egypt's geographical location and the very old practice of foriegn political marriages, would not be unusual. The probelm here is this notion of racial purity, which doesn't exist anywhere, least of all a place like Egypt.

The issue that really burns me though is this notion of what is or is not A Negro? What the hell is that? There is no such thing as a NEGRO. It is an arbitrary concept. To the people who create these categories a Negro is a person with features the most dissimilar to Europeans. It's based on a presumtion that "real" Africans are as different ffrom "real" Europeans as the sun is from the moon. This simply is not true. Therefore, while a very wide range of physical characteristics are ascribed to "Caucasians", Negros are limited to the darkest skin, widest features and shortest kinkyest hair, as I said the farthest from Europeans as possible. The problem is that this is a physical type that does not represent the majority of African.

An African who has a facial structure similar to Europeans or Mediterranians are assumed to be "Caucasians", the assumption being they must have originated outside of Africa rather than representing one of many native physical types found in the continent. Its remarkable that these same scientists and scholars do not apply the same rules to people of African origin OUTSIDE of Africa. Therefore, in Latin America the caribbean Europe and the United States, people having the same facial structure labled Caucasian in East Africa, are categorized NEGROS no matter how narrow their facial indexes, no matter that they show no prognethism, no matter how much RECENT genetic input they have from Europeans.

The real question we should be asking ourselves is why, why do we continue to support such flawed and biased theories and persist in using these innacurate terms to identify people?

As for Zahi Hawas. He may be a very knowledgable scholar, but that does not mean that he is above the frailties of the human condition. To state that there is no truth to Egypt's African origins is simply false. If people wanted to take the wind out of the sails of Afrocentric extreemists, they would simply admit the obvious truth. The Egyptians were a people of varied origins and therefore can't be neatly placed into any one category. Their earliest origins lie in the native peoples of East Africa, as well as those who migrated into the Delta from the East as well as other part of Africa to the west. If one wants to see what an Ancient Egyptian looked like, GO TO EGYPT THEY'RE STILL THERE. Go to Luxor and you will see thousands of people of the exact same physical type as the statues and mummies.

So my conclusion, exactly what did Tut look like? We will NEVER know, that's just the honest to goodness truth. What was his exact skin color? again, we will never know. I would tend to think he was a lot darker than the bust simply because his mummy is very dark, while there are other mummies which are much lighter in complexion. Truth is the mummies are all different colors. Seti's mummy is very dark, while his son and grand children's are much lighter. Thereofre, the often stated opinion that dark mummies are that way because of embalming holds no water. If that were the case then all the mummies of the same dynasty would be the same color, but they are not. Conclusion, just like today by the New Kingdome at least, if not earlier, like today, the people came in a range of colors depending on their individual racial backgrounds and wether or not they took after the lighter or the darker parent.
It's the denial of the truth that keeps the fires of this nonsense burning.

Skin color is the least reliable way to determine ansestry.

The eyes are clearly brown, and normally the nobility wouldve stayed in doors in the shade, therefore less sun exposure, hence lighter coloration of the skin .

**As I said before, the Ancient Egyptians ain't ancient, THEY ARE STILL IN EGYPT. We are not talking about an extinct group of people, but a population that is very much still aliove today. You want to see them, go to Luxor and look at the average person in the street. Some of them are fair skinned, but the majority of them are dark, VERY dark, and I don't mean the kind of dark one gets from a sun tan. I mean the kind of dark that doesn't go away even when you live in New York or Canada in the middle of winter. I mean Hershey chocolate bar dark. They are still there, they are all over Egypt from Aleandria to Aswan and they didn't get that way hanging out in the fields. I have friends from Luxor who are fair skinned and you know what? No matter how much time they spend in the sun, they are still considerably lighter than their darker family members. So if it was a sun tan, everybody would have the same tan.**

Only certain types of East Africans display Caucasoid-like characteristics, which some anthropologist dubbed Ethiopoid, thats because they are mixed with Caucasoids to varying degree's.� If you look at the history of East Africa, you'll find, Bantu's , Berbers and Arabs there.

**Okay, since it's obvious you didn't read my previous post let me explain to you quite bluntly why this is bullshit. First of all, no one has answered my initial question, what the hell is a negroid or a caucasian and who the hell made these rules and who the hell died and gave them the authority to make such determinations? Yes there has been some migration of Asiatic peoples into certain parts of East Africa, but that does not account for the total population. Just because a person has narrow features does not neccessarily mean they are mixed. One can find people with narrow features all over Africa from the Massai in Kenya, to various peoples in West Africa. I've met many people from Guine with very narrow bird like noses. Look in a crowd of these people and you will find some with wide noses some with narow noses and some in between. this is just natural physical variety in the region. Should I then conclude that the Irish people I see with wide noses and pronounced prognethism are mixed to varrying degrees with "negroids"? Or is it just more logical that for whatever reason, prognethism and wide noses are part of the native physical diversity found in that region?

Okay, here is the heart of why this caucasian African business is bullshit. At the very same time ethnologists, ( who were all either American or European), were creating these classifications, they were very clear about what a "negro", was in Europe, America, Latin America the Carribean etc. In their native countries "negro" never implied that one was 100% pure blooded African. In fact most so called Black people in the Americas or Europe are tri hybrids. The average "Black" person is any where from 30 to 90% European, yet they were and are never considered anything other than "negros". They may have different names depending on the degree of "caucasian" ancestory, mulatto, quadroon, octoroon, creol, mestizo, but all these are just sub categories. The kind of NEGRO, they are still considered negros. However, in East Africa, they same physical type is called a caucasian because of an un proven theory of some imagined mixture in the dim unrecorded past. THIS IS BULLSHIT! Black skin wooly hair narrow nose, in America these same scientist callled people who looked like this niggers and denied them the same basic human dignities as perceived pure blooded European descandants. The famous cases of Homer Plessey, which being an American you must know since it was the deciding case that legalised segragation in the south and across the country declared that a NEGRO had no rights that a white man was bound to honor and that separate but egual was A okay. Homer Plessy was a "NEGRO", who was so mixed that you could not tell him from a white man based on observation. So what I want to know is if all that white blood wasn't enough to make white skinned European looking Plessey a caucasion, how the hell does a few drops of so called caucasion blood in east Africa at the time when God imade dirt turn a bunch of black skinned wolly haired African into Caucasians? Somebody pease explain that BULLSHIT to me, PLEASE!**

African has become a Politically Term to refer to Negroids, and also term to not upset black people whenever Caucasoid skulls are discovered in Africa, especially Pre-Historica Africa.

**Once again, we didn't make the rules. We didn't name the continent Africa, WHITE EUROPEANS DID! We were not the ones who decided that dark skinned Zulus are Africans but white skinned Kabylis aren't WHITE EUROPEANS AND AMERICANS DID. They didn't do it not to hurt our feelings. They don't give a fuXX about our feelings. If they did, they'd stop playing games and let us live life on our own terms and stop using bullshit terms like negro and caucasian. Some Africans have wide features, some have narrow features, some have dark skin some have very light skin, they are all Africans. Egypt is an area where dark skinned Africans from the south met and blended with light skinned Africans in the north and to some degree Asiatics from the East. They are what they are. And since the White man is the one who created all this racial classification business in the first place, they have no problem classifying mixed race people in one part of the world black or NEGRO, but White or caucasian in another part of the world. Here's another bullshit term, LUCODERM. When they want to prove the Egyptians were not and African people they bring out Ramses's mummy and declare he was a LUCODERM. Well guess what, let's go dig up Rosa Parks, Adam Clayton Powell and Homer Plessey, they're LUCODERMS too, except that in the latter case those LUCODERMS were called niggers and had to sit in the back of the bus, were not allowed to vote, couldn't send their children to the schools of their choice and could find themselves murdered by mods of terrorists for looking a European American in the eye.

So whatever Tut's real skin color, it's irrelavent. Had he been alive and walking around in Alabama in 1960, he would have been called a nigger and treated as such.   And that is why these terms, the theories and agendas behind their creation are BULLSHIT!**

The new term "African_American", only includes Blacks, not Whites from North Africa. T

**Like I said before, WE did not create the rules, White did and still do.**

Thats part've the reason the artists werent told where the skull came from.

**And once again I have to ask why was this one chosen? Why weren't all the reconstructions shown and given equal credit. This kind of reconstruction as I pointed out has its limitations. Some of them had much broader features, including the Egyptian reconstruction. Why couldn't they just simply be honest and admit that it's not an exact science and that these are simply possibilities. That would have been much more honest. Who decided that the French model was the one to choose?**

So Hawass is 110% correct.�

**Hawas in this respect is NOT correct nor honest. He is the spokes person for a post colonialist military dictatorship with an internalized post colonialist racist classist mentality. My friend I spend quite a lot of time in Egypt and truth and honesty have nothing to do with the burocracy that runs that country. This is a mentality that is trying to brain wash their own population into believing that the Coptic community are not REAL EGYPTAINS. If you don't believe me ask Andrew about that. So forgive me, I know collegues of Zahi in Egypt and he is not all that he's cracked up to be. He's a mouth piece for the same group of people who had a shit fit when Louis Gosset Jr portrayed Sadat in an American movie. The same people with the same mentality that has made Ahmed Zaki the only dark skinned Egyptian to play a leading role in the Egyptian cinima. I know these people very, very well.**

Ancient Egyptians and Egypt itself, was always included as part've Asia btw. Africa on Ancient maps, only corresponded to the Berber lands known as Libya and such in modern day North Africa.

**Included as part of Asia by whom? I'm sorry. I must be on the wrong planet. Maybe it was some "other Egypt" that just won the Afrca cup in soccer today. Not the ASIA cup, but the AFRICA CUP. I think the whole damn world knows where Egypt is located and it ain't in Asia. Regardless of what you want to call the land mass or where the name originated, Egypt is undeniably on the same piece of land that Zimbabwe is. Only Saini can be a toss up as to which side of the red sea it belongs. And by the way, Asia originally only refered to what we call Turkey today and so what?**

Of course scientific racism still exists, normally primarily pro-Afrocentrism which some whites and acedemia support as partve Affirmative Action acts.

**Bullshit! It's the other way around and always has been. Granted there are some ideots who are just to lazy or stupid or both. Affrimitive action my eye! What the hell does this have to do with affirmative action? NOTHING!.....**

Today we have the Roman Emperor Severus Septimus included as a Black man , just because he's "African".

Like I said, stupidity on some people's part. Was he a black man? Don't know, I'd have to see him in real life to say. Is there the possibility that he could have some distant black ancestor, yes, I suppose, but I think he was a berber. Whether he was a white Berber or a black berber or a mixed Berber, who the hell knows?

Here is Tut's skull:
[/QUOTE]

YEah and unless he was Irish, people with that degree of prognethism were called you know what and had to sit in the back of the bus. Full blodded African, most likely not. Mixed race, looking at that wooden bust and looking at the population of Egytp where he was born MOST DEFINATELY and in the good old US of A that means one thing and one thing only. When the USA declares that people like Alicia Keys, Marriah Carrey, Hale Berry, Rosa PArks Lena Horn and Adam Clayton Powell are CAUCASIAN then so too will king Tut be I suppose, till then, It's BULLSHIT!

The Egyptians, ancient and modern, are an interesting population. On the whole they, Lower Egyptians especially, look basically "Caucasoid," bust as you go up the Nile "East African" features start to show.

For some reason, race-supremacy theories and racism from people that have experienced it (Blacks, Jews etc) sound even more ridiculous to me than the usual ones. You'd expect that the victims of racism should know not to be racist themselves. Humans.....