Zahi Hawass fed up with Racial Politics and lies

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

This is a map showing language groupings not classifications based on physical appearances. If you look at the map shown and you visit those countries you will see that it is an area of great diversity when it comes to physical type. Also notice that a significant portion of the Afro Asiatic distribution is well below the Sahara. Therefore many of the people in the Afro Asiatic group are indistinguishable from other peoples found in parts of Sub-Saharan Africa. No one would ever confuse a Tuareg from Mauritania with a sephardic Jew or a Syrian, nor a typical Ethiopian with an Amahzig Berber from Algeria.

Edited by Rakasnumberone - 29-Jun-2008 at 19:54

Originally posted by pinguin Of course the map is linguistic and ethnical, rather than racial.   The point is very simple. Egypt was an Afroasiatic civilization more, between many, as Sumer, Babilon, the Phoenicians, Carthago, the Jews, Arabs, etc.   On the other hand, the slaves brought to the Americas didn't came from the Afroasiatic region but from the rest of Africa.   In short, it is very clear the relation between Black Americans and Ancient Egypt don't exist.

So did you read anything I said previously? Obviously not. How many ways do I have to say that West Africans / Afro Americans are not blood descendants of Egyptians? I know English isn't your first language and all.... but honestly, can't you understand that? Okay, just for you, I'll say it again: WE ARE NOT BIOLOGICALLY DESCENDED FROM THE EGYPTIANS. The issue is not and never has been to try and claim that we are Egyptians or related to them biologically in any way. I stated very clearly in great detail what the issue is, so why do you insist on harping on something that has nothing to do with the issue? You aren't making sense nor are you contributing to the discussion in a logical way.

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone Originally posted by pinguin Of course the map is linguistic and ethnical, rather than racial.   The point is very simple. Egypt was an Afroasiatic civilization more, between many, as Sumer, Babilon, the Phoenicians, Carthago, the Jews, Arabs, etc.   On the other hand, the slaves brought to the Americas didn't came from the Afroasiatic region but from the rest of Africa.   In short, it is very clear the relation between Black Americans and Ancient Egypt don't exist. As for the slaves brought to the Americas. Yes indeed many of them did come from the Afro Asiatic branch as clearly shown by the map. Afro Asiatic peoples are found in most of West Africa and the northern areas of Central Africa. The Hausa, Fulani, Wodabe, Wolof all speak Afro Asiatic languages and they were all caught up in the slave trade to the Americans. In some cases Africans were shipped all the way from East Africa to Brazil and the Caribbean. Nevertheless, as i said before, this does not indicate that Afro Asiatic speakers have anything in common one with the other. Sudanese are Afro Asiatic speakers. What did the NUBIANS have in common with Sumerians, Babylonians, Jews or Arabs? I'll tell you, NOTHING. What did Berbers have in common with Arabs? NOTHING. What did Berbers have in common with Ethiopians, past or present? Nothing, yet they are both Afro Asiatic speakers. Your premise is a false one. You try to place Egypt in Western Asia because they spoke a certain language group while failing to realize that the Afro Asiatic zone is one of incredible diversity and individuality. Now, can we stick to the actual issue, or is that too hard for you?

Nubian languages are not Afro-Asaiatic, they are Nilo-Saharan. Sumerian isn't Afro-Asiatic either Pinguin, it is a language isolate.

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone Originally posted by Zagros Whatever they were, Egyptians were not the ancestors of African Americans, sub-Saharan Africans or Europeans and had nothing in common with them culturally, not even in the slightest.  Blacks and Europeans have no rights in claiming their glory just because there was no significant ancient civilisation in sub-Saharan Africa or Northern and Central Europe.  They should get over it and accept their actual heritage instead of hijacking other people's. With exception of a few fringe elements, I don't think most Afro Americans are under the delusion that they are descended from the Egyptians. As I said before, its real significance is in showing that certain ideas which were used to justify slavery and colonialism are not founded in fact but fiction. Think of it this way. I'm old enough to remember when women were prohibited from running in marathons in this country because they were told that women were not physically capable of doing such things. There was a time when women were discouraged from seeking higher education because it was believed they didn't have the mental capacity to do so and that trying would be injurious to their physical and mental health. Now, if I were a woman in the U.S. and I saw women in China who not only had higher education, they were actually heads institutions of higher learning, it would give me strength and ammunition to fight for my right to do so here. If I was told that women were too weak to run long distances and I saw that in Europe women not only run in marathons, the set records, it would give me strength and comfort in knowing that what i was told was not true. I would go about collecting as much information as I could find on the achievements of remarkable women to show that the stereotypes are nothing but cultural and political fabrications. I would feel a sense of connection to those people, not because I believed they were my actual relatives, but because like them, I too am a woman and so in a sense their success is my success, or better yet an indication as to what I can achieve. It would prove that being a woman is not a hinderance to success in any way, physically or mentally. Likewise, those of us of African descent feel a kinship with all peoples of the diaspora not because we believe we are necessarily connected by blood, but ideologically. We were told not only that no African ever achieved anything or was even capable of doing so and that no one who was of African blood was able to do anything of significance. Therefore, when we see Egypt, and we see statues of people who look like us, who look like our family members and people in our communities, we don't believe we are looking at snap shots from a photo album.

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 peninsula) 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''.

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone Its the exact same principle as that girl in the USA who was told women are too weak seeing a woman athlete in China setting world records. Just as women take pride in the achievements of other remarkable women, we take pride in the achievements of remarkable Africans for the same reason. Unfortunately, there are some who have dived off the deep end. So on the White side you have those fishing to show a legitimate reason to justify their bigotry and sense of self importance and on the black side you have those who try to get as close to Egypt as they can to prove that the black race is the superior one, not the white and try to create genetic connections where there are none. Both these extremists are responsible for the inability that still exists of putting Egypt in its proper context. As for Egypt's connections with other African societies. I'd like to point out that the division between North Africa and Sub Saharan Africa is a false one. It is based on an assumption that there is cultural uniformity across the board below the Sahara, which negates the reality that they are diverse and distinct cultures in that region. By the same token "North Africa does the same. It lumps all those people together based on superficial criteria which do not take into consideration the diversity of that region either. The fact of the matter is that Egypt was an African society and as such there is an abundance of cultural and material similarities with other societies both above and below the Sahara. Egypt did receive cultural input from many areas, least of which was the Saharan culture. This is one reason why we can observe certain cultural practices that are distributed across the continent from East to west for example, the practice of male and female circumcision which is still practiced from Egypt in the East to Mali in the West. As I said before, there is much work to be done on not only putting Egypt in its proper place, but understanding the variety of cultures on the continent and the degrees of relation between them.

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?
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.


 

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone Originally posted by Tyranos Hawass against Afrocentrism video:http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/video/player?titleID=1414281487 The second video was better informed but still missed the boat as far as the topic is concerned. The fact of the matter is that Egypt is and always has been a crossroads. The indigenous population, as he said, was a native East African one. However, because of its proximity to Western Asia and the Mediterranean, there had been from a very early period, migrations of other peoples into the country. Which is why even today one tends to find a greater concentration of lighter complected individuals in the northern half of the country. Therefore, even though the majority of the population in the earliest periods would have been of a darker skin tone, it would not have been strange to see lighter complected peoples as well.

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''. 

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.

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?

Since the topic is about the looks of people and yet it seems that when some members try to describe or suggest physical characteristics by conventionally used/understood terms, they receive very strong and negative reactions from some other members, I will post photos instead, of some people from the eastern part of the African continent. Perhaps you can tell me which one of them is the closest to the look of ''native east African'' you talk about, and maybe you can even prove that the phenotype you choose was indeed the indigenous one of whichever part of Egypt you are talking about.
I am sure many or most people are mixed and show characteristics between all those phenotypes below but since you are talking about an native/indigenous population before external influences, I picked those  pictures/phenotypes accordingly.




A Sudanese family
http://www.gba.org/templates/cusgba/details.asp?id=21323&PID=422738&Style= 


A Sudanese actor
http://theypouredfire.com/alepho_photos.htm
 

The Kenyan football team
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/africa/6483981.stm
 



An Egyptian Family
http://www.coptic-cairo.com/culture/tradition/tradition.html


An Egyptian actor
http://www.vh1.com/movies/person/426502/personmain.jhtml


The Egyptian football team
http://www.sis.gov.eg/En/Society/acup/teams/091304000000000001.htm
 



A Nubian (south of Egypt~north of Sudan) family
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Egypt-Nubian_wedding.jpg 

Some Masai people
http://www.sfu.ca/~jld/masai.htm

http://www.jocelynwyatt.com/blog/index.php?m=05&y=07



An Ethiopian person
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Selassie.jpg 

A Somali person
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Abdiqassim_Salad_Hassan_1.jpg
 

Some Somalian girls
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Somaliland_somali_nomad_girls.jpg 




Edited by omshanti - 30-Jun-2008 at 15:24

Hi Sparten, as you requested, I edited my post and gave links for the pictures.

Originally posted by Bernard Woolley I would accept that you can identify (very roughly) an Afroasiatic zone, but I disagree with calling the remainder of the continent simply "Black Africa". The level of diversity in Sub-Saharan Africa is an order of magnitude larger than in the north - some are as different from each other as from any other group of people in in the world.

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.

Edited by omshanti - 30-Jun-2008 at 15:22

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone You are not understanding the significance nor the context of what I'm saying. First of all understand that we did not create the system of racial classification, it was imposed on us.

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.

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.

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.

Edited by Rakasnumberone - 01-Jul-2008 at 02:34

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. Although the pigment chosen is a possibility, it's definitely at the lighter end of the spectrum compared to modern-day Egyptians.   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.

And this is just one reason why a lot of historians and Egyptologists in Egypt don't like him. They also resent the fact that there are many people in Egypt who are far more qualified than he is, but because he knew the right people.....

I also know someone whose husband is an archeologist who had worked in Egypt. They had found evidence about certain aspects of historical events in Egypt but were prevented from publishing their findings. Hawas himself on the behalf of the government informed them that if they ever did, they would never be allowed to do another dig in Egypt so long as they lived. When it comes to Egypt, there is ALWAYS the state sanctioned version and real life reality. This even holds true for things like their "folk dance" companies, radio, television and film (all state regulated). Everything is about the image they wish the world to have of them, not the reality. Check out Dr. Henry Clark's Wonders of the African world to see how the interview with the Nubians went down.

OK, let's not waste time with Egypt. If you want to contribute to the thread about Subsaharan Africa, I would be glad to contribute with what I know as well. If you want to talk about about archaelogy in Subsaharan Africa, African arts influence on modern arts or the bronzes of Ife, I follow as well. Even more, if you are interested in the hot topic of fractals in native Africa... I am also interested and I have posted some things there.

But if you insist is discussing about the Black Athena (Egypt)... well you can follow the discussion by yourself.

Good night.

 

Edited by pinguin - 01-Jul-2008 at 05:03

Bye now.