louis vuitton handbags online casque beats maizitang tiffany jewelry cheap louis vuitton taschen online shop louis vuitton cheap handbags
Werer the Egyptians white or black? - History Forum ~ All Empires - Page 18
 

Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedWerer the Egyptians white or black?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 1617181920 22>
Poll Question: well?
Poll Choice Votes Poll Statistics
24 [43.64%]
31 [56.36%]
This topic is closed, no new votes accepted

Author
TheAlaniDragonRising View Drop Down
AE Moderator
AE Moderator
Avatar
Spam Fighter

Joined: 09-May-2011
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4536
Direct Link To This Post Topic: Werer the Egyptians white or black?
    Posted: 07-Jan-2012 at 18:15
Originally posted by Afrohistory

The Ancient Egyptians called themselves Kam-au or KM(T) for short, which meant Black People or Black God people. Their country was called Kemet which means land of the Black people and Black land. They saw themselves as black people.
That is absolutely fascinating, Afrohistory. From which ancient Egyptian texts did you get that from? I only ask because I'm surprised no one on here has brought it up already. 
What a handsome figure of a dragon. No wonder I fall madly in love with the Alani Dragon now, the avatar, it's a gorgeous dragon picture.
Back to Top
Rakasnumberone View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun
Avatar

Joined: 14-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 211
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Jan-2012 at 18:29
Originally posted by TheAlaniDragonRising

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

Originally posted by TheAlaniDragonRising

Originally posted by Fula

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

So before I put my 2 cents in I'd just like to ask, why are we even asking the question in the first place? I'll sit back and listen to whateveryone has to say. Although I do have my opinions on the issue, I am here not only to share but to learn. So even if someone else's opinion is very different from my own, I consider that a type of learning as well. So once again, Why are we even asking the question of what race the Egyptians were in the first place? You personal opinions please.


IMO...The question has been asked throughout history because the demonization of African people (savages, heathens, etc) has been quite successful and the idea of the Ancient Egyptian culture and civilization possibly coming from native black Africans is extremely inconvenient and controversial. Even offensive to some
I find that each side of the argument seems to be extremely inconvenient and controversial to the other side. I wish those who want to overturn the establish argument all the luck in the world in finding enough evidence to do so.Shift+R improves the quality of this image. Shift+A improves the quality of all images on this page.   

Yes, but what I want to know is your personal opinion o why this question is being asked in the first place. For example, what is your personal interest in the question?
Oh, I'm sorry,  Rakasnumberone, my opinion at this time is of a mixed society of one sort or another in terms of ethnicity.

God, please don't hate me!LOL What I'm looking for is not an opinion on what you think their ethnicity was/is, but why do you think the question of what their race/etnicity is being asked in the first place?
Back to Top
TheAlaniDragonRising View Drop Down
AE Moderator
AE Moderator
Avatar
Spam Fighter

Joined: 09-May-2011
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4536
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Jan-2012 at 18:37
Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

God, please don't hate me!LOL What I'm looking for is not an opinion on what you think their ethnicity was/is, but why do you think the question of what their race/etnicity is being asked in the first place?
Almost certainly because either because historical assumptions should be questions, or because there are people unhappy with how history is seen at the moment. Both are legitimate. 
What a handsome figure of a dragon. No wonder I fall madly in love with the Alani Dragon now, the avatar, it's a gorgeous dragon picture.
Back to Top
Cryptic View Drop Down
AE Moderator
AE Moderator


Joined: 05-Jul-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1958
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Jan-2012 at 18:57
Originally posted by Fula


Great comments...but I disagree on the Ethiopians and Somalians being caucasoid. Race is defined by bone structure. Native "negroid" African people have longer limbs than every other race and short curled hair dissipates heat faster. So i would think Ethiopians and Somalians are both "negroid" types
 
Thanks for the compliment and thanks for the observation about Ethiopians and Somalis.  In the past (before genetic studies), I had read that they were classified as caucasoids due their facial features and possibly their skull shape. 
 
This genetic study, however, states that Ethiopians are a mixture and average 40% caucasoid genes and 60% negroid genes.  Evidently, the ratio varies depending on the specific ethnic sub group. As you implied, Ethiopians do have a stronger african influence.
 


Edited by Cryptic - 07-Jan-2012 at 19:01
Back to Top
Nick1986 View Drop Down
AE Moderator
AE Moderator
Avatar
Mighty Slayer of Trolls

Joined: 22-Mar-2011
Location: England
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7936
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Jan-2012 at 20:29
The prevailing view is the "black land" is named after the deposits of silt that are left when the Nile floods. However, this doesn't rule out the Egyptians being black (or at least mixed race), regardless of the nationalistic claims of Egypt's modern Arab population
Handbook of Egyptian mythology
Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains!
Back to Top
Rakasnumberone View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun
Avatar

Joined: 14-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 211
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Jan-2012 at 20:46
Thank you all for your answers. Some of you may agree with my perspective, others may not. I think that this issue is a throwback to an earlier time when people were trying to look for reasons to justify slavery and colonialism. I think that this has to be taken into consideration because the whole concept of race as we conceptualize it now and trying to categorize people into neat little boxes really begins with the conquest of the Americas.

From what I can see the concept of race and attributing behavioral characteristics to physical attributes was an attempt to justify why the peoples they encountered in this process, firstly the Native Americans, then Africans, were being treated so differently, or unfairly.

The thing about human nature is that we really feel uncomfortable seeing ourselves in the light of an agressor/victimizer/wrong doer/sinner, even when we are in the wrong, we seek to justify ourselves in an attempt to convince ourselves and others that we aren't the bad guy.

Therefore, if people are being hurt by our actions, then it must be something about them that is at fault, not us. Therefore the excusses, "well, they're not like us". Their religion is different, their languages are different, they don't look like us. We attach meanings to superficial factors which have no meanings within themselves. So first, these people are not christian, then its they don't look like us, then its these physical differences must mean they are not as good, intelligent, moral, attractive etc as us. 

People who find themselves in positions of privilidge are loath to give it up. As the saying goes, absolute power corrupts absolutely. This being the case then it becomes neccessary to create a world view which places ones' self at the center of the universe. We are at the top, most favored, because we are god's chosen and most favored. It was out of this mindset that the need to maticulously categorize people based of physical characteristics became necessary, finding the most complex expression in the casta classifications in Latin America.

So what was created was a world view in which the Christian European was on top and the farther away from that standard, the lower on the totem pole. Obviously, the African was considered the lowest on the totem pole and it was considered justifyable because everyone knew that the darker the skin, the lower in intelligence, beauty, morality, civility. And so this is the idea which prevaled unchallenged for close to 500yrs in the West. It was just taken for granted. 

It was not until the turn of the last century that people, (people of African origin), began to challenge these notions. Of all the civilizations in Africa, the only one known to all people is Egypt. Its written about in the Bible and once Europeans began traveling there they were fascinated with the remains of the culture. But here's the problem, this civilization is not located in Europe where logic says it should be located, but in Africa where it shouldn't be. For Africans, especially those in the diaspora, this was huge, because if this was a civilization made by Native Africans that pulls the rug from under 500yrs of rehtoric which was used to oppress them. For Europeans the problem was how to reconcile notions of superiority with the fact that these people were NOT Europeans. The 19th and 20th century began a crusade to make science agree with previous social conventions on race, intelligence etc. 

Its out of this world view that we get the notions of "The Negro" and the "Caucasian".  Just consider that the people who created these categories came to Africa already convinced about what they would find. Therefore, they created the concept of the "true Negro" and anyone not conforming to this very limited view were, "not really African". The underlying assumption is that the African is the farthest from the European in every way. Therefore, its not possible that the two could share similar characteristics. When Africans were encountered with similar features, hair textures etc, it could be explained by ancient Europeans migrating into Africa and mixing with the natives. Of course, these Europeans brought with them higer knowledge etc.

This is why for so many people this is such an explosive question. At the heart of it is an emotional investment underpinning notions of self worth. On the part of many Europeans there are some who truely believe in this notion of "universal order", social Darwinism. Others are just sticklers for orthodoxy and they feel threatened, upset by any notion which challenges their view of the universe. Its the same type of mentality that made the church go hog wild when it was suggested that the Sun, rather than the Earth was the center of our universe. Its not that they believe themselves to be superior persay, but they believe wholehartedly that the powers that be know what they are doing and would never "lie".  Suggesting that these scholars got it wrong is like saying John Wayne was a sissy.

Okay, I'll leave it there for today lest I write a book. Actually, I think I have written a book.
Back to Top
TheAlaniDragonRising View Drop Down
AE Moderator
AE Moderator
Avatar
Spam Fighter

Joined: 09-May-2011
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4536
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Jan-2012 at 20:47
Originally posted by Nick1986

The prevailing view is the "black land" is named after the deposits of silt that are left when the Nile floods. However, this doesn't rule out the Egyptians being black (or at least mixed race), regardless of the nationalistic claims of Egypt's modern Arab population
Handbook of Egyptian mythology
Indeed, Nick, I had forgotten the floods with the silt deposits being a possibility. As we know there's an area in England refereed to as the black country, and as far as I know that wasn't a reference to the colour of the inhabitants either.
What a handsome figure of a dragon. No wonder I fall madly in love with the Alani Dragon now, the avatar, it's a gorgeous dragon picture.
Back to Top
Afrohistory View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 06-Jan-2012
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Jan-2012 at 00:45
Originally posted by Nick1986

The prevailing view is the "black land" is named after the deposits of silt that are left when the Nile floods. However, this doesn't rule out the Egyptians being black (or at least mixed race), regardless of the nationalistic claims of Egypt's modern Arab population
Handbook of Egyptian mythology
 
The Egyptians used only one world to describe themselves, and that is KM(T). This is the hieroglyphics for "KM(T)"
 
KMT stands for black in Egytian language. KM is symoblized in what looks like a little stair case, and "T" is represent by the half moon shape. KMT stands for black, with the two people is the hieroglyphics for a man and a women, or otherwise "people." The country was called Kemet(khemit/kamut) which means "the black people of the black land.'' I don't read hieroglyphics, but those who do interpreted it as such.
 
 
Back to Top
medenaywe View Drop Down
AE Moderator
AE Moderator
Avatar
Master of Meanings

Joined: 06-Nov-2010
Location: /
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5298
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Jan-2012 at 02:11
Afrohistory,read about Hubians in Egypt,it has never been disputed this presence of black people in Egypt.
They had ruled Upper Egypt,I suppose.Lower Egypt was land of lot of colors people,also white people.White pharaohs ruled Egyptian land also.This did not exclude existence of black people and others in Egypt from the beginning.
P.S.
In Bulgarian language they still use "KM" as "toward inside",it gives direction!It still sounds the same.Translated it means the same.


Edited by medenaywe - 08-Jan-2012 at 08:42
Back to Top
Rakasnumberone View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun
Avatar

Joined: 14-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 211
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Jan-2012 at 08:39
Originally posted by Cryptic

Originally posted by Fula


Great comments...but I disagree on the Ethiopians and Somalians being caucasoid. Race is defined by bone structure. Native "negroid" African people have longer limbs than every other race and short curled hair dissipates heat faster. So i would think Ethiopians and Somalians are both "negroid" types
 
Thanks for the compliment and thanks for the observation about Ethiopians and Somalis.  In the past (before genetic studies), I had read that they were classified as caucasoids due their facial features and possibly their skull shape. 
 
This genetic study, however, states that Ethiopians are a mixture and average 40% caucasoid genes and 60% negroid genes.  Evidently, the ratio varies depending on the specific ethnic sub group. As you implied, Ethiopians do have a stronger african influence.
 

I think we run into problems when we start using terms like Caucasoid and negroid. For one thing, there are no such things as caucasoid genenes or negro genes. Both these concepts are arbitrrary concepts to begin with. I think it would be better to speak of the specific hapolotypes a person has from a genetic point of view, but that in itself will not neccessarily explain a person's appearance. 

Its been estimated that most Afro Americans have a European genetic input from Europe at 35%. In fact there is a very high number of men whose paternal lines are European. However, there are significant numbers of people who have as much as 50% European ancestry or higer. Dr. Henrey Louis Gates is an example. Haplotypes can tell you a person's biological history but not neccessarily indicate what they will look like. The genes which determine physical apperances are not always dominant. This is why you can have a person who is half Euro and Afro but they look either totally Euro or totally Afro.  The genes may skip a generation or two. So a person with a European ancestor may have been born with dark skin, had dark children, but very light skinned grandchildren. Or one sibling comes out dark the other light.

While I don't doubt that there are communities in Ethiopia that have absorbed Asiatic peoples from Arabia, this is not true of Ethiopia as a whole, nor is it true of other peoples like the Massai. Therefore one does not need to have mixture to explain the physical characteristics of any African population. Narrow features occur naturally all over Africa. I've seen many Congolese, and West Africans who have narrow noses, thin lips and no prognethism. You see them randomly if you look carefully at a crowd. Its just that in East Africa there is a higher percentage in the population. Some of those people also have non African ancestry. its a coincidence, not an explanation.
Back to Top
Rakasnumberone View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun
Avatar

Joined: 14-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 211
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Jan-2012 at 08:54
Originally posted by Afrohistory

Originally posted by Nick1986

The prevailing view is the "black land" is named after the deposits of silt that are left when the Nile floods. However, this doesn't rule out the Egyptians being black (or at least mixed race), regardless of the nationalistic claims of Egypt's modern Arab population
Handbook of Egyptian mythology
 
The Egyptians used only one world to describe themselves, and that is KM(T). This is the hieroglyphics for "KM(T)"
 
KMT stands for black in Egytian language. KM is symoblized in what looks like a little stair case, and "T" is represent by the half moon shape. KMT stands for black, with the two people is the hieroglyphics for a man and a women, or otherwise "people." The country was called Kemet(khemit/kamut) which means "the black people of the black land.'' I don't read hieroglyphics, but those who do interpreted it as such.
 
 

I'm of the opinion that te term does refer to the land and not the people. The first reason is havibg been to Egypt the land is quite literally black in stark contrast to the desert. Its very dramatic how different the two are. When you go to Egypt you can literally place one foot in green lush fields and the other in dry sand.

The other reason is that in its early history, Egypt's focus was not on the Mediterranean world or even Mesopotamia. its focus was internal meaning itself and the lands to its south. Where we have a north south orientation of the world, Egypt's was south first, then north. One only makes reference to color when in contact with outsiders who are different. The people who mattered most to Egypt at their earliest beginnings were themselves and the Nubians. These were people for the most part shared the same color. So why would they find the need to distinguish themselves based on a trait that was also shared by their neighbors? No where else in Africa do we see people identifying themselves based on their color. Its always outsiders who do this as in "AL Bilad ISSudan", or "Ethiops". The terms that Egyptians used to describe their neighbors were not based on skin color, but ethnic groupand nationality. Therefore if Egyptians referred to themselves as the black people, who were the white people? Even the Lybyans who are often depicted with blue eyes and very pale skin are called Libu, Tamahu, Timahu etc. And likewise the term often translated as negro, is Nehesi, which is not a racial classification but an ethnic group.
Back to Top
TheAlaniDragonRising View Drop Down
AE Moderator
AE Moderator
Avatar
Spam Fighter

Joined: 09-May-2011
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4536
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Jan-2012 at 09:17
Originally posted by Afrohistory


 
KMT stands for black in Egytian language. KM is symoblized in what looks like a little stair case, and "T" is represent by the half moon shape. KMT stands for black, with the two people is the hieroglyphics for a man and a women, or otherwise "people." The country was called Kemet(khemit/kamut) which means "the black people of the black land.'' I don't read hieroglyphics, but those who do interpreted it as such.
KMT was the name the ancient Egyptians had for the country we know as Egypt, not the people themselves.
What a handsome figure of a dragon. No wonder I fall madly in love with the Alani Dragon now, the avatar, it's a gorgeous dragon picture.
Back to Top
Cryptic View Drop Down
AE Moderator
AE Moderator


Joined: 05-Jul-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1958
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Jan-2012 at 09:53
Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

. I think that this issue is a throwback to an earlier time when people were trying to look for reasons to justify slavery and colonialism. .
I see your point, but I think it is wrong to assume that it is a European notion.  A sense of racial and / or ethnic identity and real or preceived differences betwen groups existed long before colonialism and in all probability, long before slavery (slavery being largely associated with agriculture).  
 
Such concepts seem to be intrinsic to us as a species.  Anecdotally, I remember one day at a church (multi ethnic congregation, families do not teach ethnic identity) .  A friend picked my youngest son and said "I want him to be my baby".   Her five year old son immediatly said "But, mommy, he can't be your baby, he does not look like us".  My family is caucasoid, my friend's famuily is Asiatic.  
 
 
Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

So what was created was a world view in which the Christian European was on top and the farther away from that standard, the lower on the totem pole. 
I think it is more accurate to say, "humanity created a straified world view".  The Christian European on top was only one interpertation.  Chinese and Japanese had versions with naturally, placed them and their respective civilizations on top.
 
Even indigenous tribes have this concept.  For example, the names that some (or many) Native American tribes give themselves translate into such phrases as "The People", People of the Dawn", "People of First Fire" and more uhmmm jingoistic "True Human Beings".
 
Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

On the part of many Europeans there are some who truely believe in this notion of "universal order", social Darwinism. Others are just sticklers for orthodoxy and they feel threatened, upset by any notion which challenges their view of the universe. 
As mentioned above, such views are not unique to Europe.  The Chinese described themselves as the "Middle Kingdom"  (center of the world) and confucianism had a pretty strong view of universal order and China's place in it.  
 
The only difference between Euroepans, Chinese and tribes describing themselves as "True Human Beings" was that Europeans industrialized and could then export and apply the European version of the universal concept globally.  Chinese were so ethno centric that they concluded the rest of the world was not worth knowing.  Many tribal groups would have duplicated Europeans, had they possessed the ability.
Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

Its the same type of mentality that made the church go hog wild when it was suggested that the Sun, rather than the Earth was the center of our universe.
I agree in priciple, but as a side note, the Church suppressed Galileo not due to his science per se (he was even invited to argue his points in Rome), but because he was a better mathmatcian than a competing Cardinal, was arrogant (and yes, he was right) and then publically mocked the powerful Cardinal's intellect.  
Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

I think we run into problems when we start using terms like Caucasoid and negroid. For one thing, there are no such things as caucasoid genenes or negro genes. Both these concepts are arbitrrary concepts to begin with.
Very good points that needed to be made Smile.  It is a little disturbing how arbitary concepts still consume so much emotional and mental energy.  At the same time, there is value in the concepts. For example, applying the conncepts can show the migratory routes of the people and how the planet was settled.  
 
 


Edited by Cryptic - 08-Jan-2012 at 10:31
Back to Top
medenaywe View Drop Down
AE Moderator
AE Moderator
Avatar
Master of Meanings

Joined: 06-Nov-2010
Location: /
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5298
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Jan-2012 at 10:15
Yes,Cryptic as it looks from pictures inside this topic,they had celebrated&lived&shared all together,well dressed as members of same community!Multi color,multi ethnic and multi confessional civilization had been formula for Egyptian long and prosperous existence.
Back to Top
Fula View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 16-Dec-2011
Location: Maryland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 168
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Jan-2012 at 10:34
Originally posted by Cryptic

Originally posted by Fula


Great comments...but I disagree on the Ethiopians and Somalians being caucasoid. Race is defined by bone structure. Native "negroid" African people have longer limbs than every other race and short curled hair dissipates heat faster. So i would think Ethiopians and Somalians are both "negroid" types
 
Thanks for the compliment and thanks for the observation about Ethiopians and Somalis.  In the past (before genetic studies), I had read that they were classified as caucasoids due their facial features and possibly their skull shape. 
 
This genetic study, however, states that Ethiopians are a mixture and average 40% caucasoid genes and 60% negroid genes.  Evidently, the ratio varies depending on the specific ethnic sub group. As you implied, Ethiopians do have a stronger african influence.
 


Great info...thanks
Back to Top
TheAlaniDragonRising View Drop Down
AE Moderator
AE Moderator
Avatar
Spam Fighter

Joined: 09-May-2011
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4536
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Jan-2012 at 10:52
With what I can gather so far, things still look to be inconclusive.

Attempts to extract ancient DNA or aDNA from Ancient Egyptian remains have yielded mainly Eurasian DNA types from the Dakleh Oasis cemetery site (from Southern Egypt), and they show a considerable increase in the amount of sub Saharan mitchondrial DNA over the past 2,000 years, suggesting that within this timeframe there was more migration from Sub-Saharan Africa to the Nile Valley than from Eurasia to the latter. One successful study was performed on ancient mummies of the 12th Dynasty, by Paabo and Di Rienzo, which identified multiple lines of descent, a minority of which originated in sub-Saharan Africa. Contamination from handling and intrusion from microbes have also created obstacles to recovery of Ancient DNA. Consequently most DNA studies have been carried out on modern Egyptian populations with the intent of learning about the influences of historical migrations on the population of Egypt.
What a handsome figure of a dragon. No wonder I fall madly in love with the Alani Dragon now, the avatar, it's a gorgeous dragon picture.
Back to Top
Fula View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 16-Dec-2011
Location: Maryland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 168
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Jan-2012 at 11:28
Originally posted by TheAlaniDragonRising

With what I can gather so far, things still look to be inconclusive.

Attempts to extract ancient DNA or aDNA from Ancient Egyptian remains have yielded mainly Eurasian DNA types from the Dakleh Oasis cemetery site (from Southern Egypt), and they show a considerable increase in the amount of sub Saharan mitchondrial DNA over the past 2,000 years, suggesting that within this timeframe there was more migration from Sub-Saharan Africa to the Nile Valley than from Eurasia to the latter. One successful study was performed on ancient mummies of the 12th Dynasty, by Paabo and Di Rienzo, which identified multiple lines of descent, a minority of which originated in sub-Saharan Africa. Contamination from handling and intrusion from microbes have also created obstacles to recovery of Ancient DNA. Consequently most DNA studies have been carried out on modern Egyptian populations with the intent of learning about the influences of historical migrations on the population of Egypt.


Pharoahs/mummies tend to not represent the population very well (Foreign intermarriage and relations).

IMO...It is clear that Egypt started out as a black African civilization and then later became influenced by foreign people. This is true for just about every civilization on the planet. I can only imagine if they did a study on America 5,000 years later and concluded that it was a white civilization influenced only by white people by looking at the Presidents. Or declaring that white people built the pyramids in Mexico etc...

We have to remember that Nubia is Older than Egypt... The people and culture of Egypt began as native African people. Like I said before Hunefer states where the Egytians came from We came from the beginning of the Nile were god Hapi dwells, at the foothills of the Mountains of the Moon" [Great Lakes Region - central Africa]




Back to Top
Rakasnumberone View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun
Avatar

Joined: 14-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 211
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Jan-2012 at 12:56
Originally posted by Cryptic

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

. I think that this issue is a throwback to an earlier time when people were trying to look for reasons to justify slavery and colonialism. .
I see your point, but I think it is wrong to assume that it is a European notion.  A sense of racial and / or ethnic identity and real or preceived differences betwen groups existed long before colonialism and in all probability, long before slavery (slavery being largely associated with agriculture).  

The desire to set ourselves apart from others, i.e, we are better than those people.... is universal. People will use any excuse they can to elevate their sense of self. I was in no way suggesting this is a European tendency, but placing what we have today in a historical context that did arise out of Europes contact with the Americas and Africans.
 
Such concepts seem to be intrinsic to us as a species.  Anecdotally, I remember one day at a church (multi ethnic congregation, families do not teach ethnic identity) .  A friend picked my youngest son and said "I want him to be my baby".   Her five year old son immediatly said "But, mommy, he can't be your baby, he does not look like us".  My family is caucasoid, my friend's famuily is Asiatic.  

Agreed, but i think you make a better point later...
 
 
Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

So what was created was a world view in which the Christian European was on top and the farther away from that standard, the lower on the totem pole. 
I think it is more accurate to say, "humanity created a straified world view".  The Christian European on top was only one interpertation.  Chinese and Japanese had versions with naturally, placed them and their respective civilizations on top.

Once again its the historical context that we have to look at here. There is no doubt in my mind that had the Chinese or the Turks made it to the new world that there would have been disasterous conseqwuences for the natives. But like I said before, we are talking about a world view that was created by Europeans in a certain historical/social/economic/political and to some point religious context. It doesn't suggest they were the only ones.
 
Even indigenous tribes have this concept.  For example, the names that some (or many) Native American tribes give themselves translate into such phrases as "The People", People of the Dawn", "People of First Fire" and more uhmmm jingoistic "True Human Beings".

Agreed. And that is why every culture in the world begins with the creation of their people.
 
Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

On the part of many Europeans there are some who truely believe in this notion of "universal order", social Darwinism. Others are just sticklers for orthodoxy and they feel threatened, upset by any notion which challenges their view of the universe. 
As mentioned above, such views are not unique to Europe.  The Chinese described themselves as the "Middle Kingdom"  (center of the world) and confucianism had a pretty strong view of universal order and China's place in it.  
 
The only difference between Euroepans, Chinese and tribes describing themselves as "True Human Beings" was that Europeans industrialized and could then export and apply the European version of the universal concept globally.  


Bingo! that's my point. Even though the world is full of people who have these sort of feelings, our current world view, the way we see ourselves in relation to the rest of the world is not based on their perpectives and cultural/historical events. Its based on a western European perspective.

Chinese were so ethno centric that they concluded the rest of the world was not worth knowing.  Many tribal groups would have duplicated Europeans, had they possessed the ability.
Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

Its the same type of mentality that made the church go hog wild when it was suggested that the Sun, rather than the Earth was the center of our universe.
I agree in priciple, but as a side note, the Church suppressed Galileo not due to his science per se (he was even invited to argue his points in Rome), but because he was a better mathmatcian than a competing Cardinal, was arrogant (and yes, he was right) and then publically mocked the powerful Cardinal's intellect.  
Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

I think we run into problems when we start using terms like Caucasoid and negroid. For one thing, there are no such things as caucasoid genenes or negro genes. Both these concepts are arbitrrary concepts to begin with.
Very good points that needed to be made Smile.  It is a little disturbing how arbitary concepts still consume so much emotional and mental energy.  At the same time, there is value in the concepts. For example, applying the conncepts can show the migratory routes of the people and how the planet was settled.  
 
 

I don't think these terms serve us today at all in light of scientific evidence. What we use to determine our migration histories are DNA marker. These do not tell us necessarily what a person or people look like.  Considering that all humans spring from sub sets of Africans, we can't tell what those africans looked like, nor can we tell at what point in time they began to evolve the features we associate with them now.  For example, when I did my paternal DNA it showed that my line originated in central Africa. This confirmed stories haded down in my family that spoke of our paternal ancestor coming from a kingdom near Congo. However, I do not look Congolese and my father with almost white skin and hazel blue eyes even less so. The dna does not show at what point the complexion of the family changed, nor does it explain the fact that my father's brother is 6 shades darker than him.  

The reality is far more complex. Current race theories would like us to believe that humanity is divided into exclusive groups based on physical features, but in real life this does not hold true. Based on this model of thinking, my brother and I could not be related. His skin is significantly darker than mine, his hair texture radically different as are his facial features. Yet we are in fact siblings. This assumes that people who are phenotypical different are also genetically distant and could not possibly be related, when that is not true. Noth African Berbers and certain people in the Congo are related genetically because they share a common male ancestor, the PN2 transition. They do not look anything alike, yet the truth is they are part of the same genetic family. 
Back to Top
TheAlaniDragonRising View Drop Down
AE Moderator
AE Moderator
Avatar
Spam Fighter

Joined: 09-May-2011
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4536
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Jan-2012 at 13:28
Originally posted by Fula

 

Pharoahs/mummies tend to not represent the population very well (Foreign intermarriage and relations).

IMO...It is clear that Egypt started out as a black African civilization and then later became influenced by foreign people. This is true for just about every civilization on the planet. I can only imagine if they did a study on America 5,000 years later and concluded that it was a white civilization influenced only by white people by looking at the Presidents. Or declaring that white people built the pyramids in Mexico etc...

We have to remember that Nubia is Older than Egypt... The people and culture of Egypt began as native African people. Like I said before Hunefer states where the Egytians came from We came from the beginning of the Nile were god Hapi dwells, at the foothills of the Mountains of the Moon" [Great Lakes Region - central Africa]

If it was so clear then it wouldn't of been so hard to clear up, and as we know there still seems to be some confusion. As for origin stories, they are notoriously frail.
What a handsome figure of a dragon. No wonder I fall madly in love with the Alani Dragon now, the avatar, it's a gorgeous dragon picture.
Back to Top
Rakasnumberone View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun
Avatar

Joined: 14-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 211
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Jan-2012 at 16:36
Originally posted by TheAlaniDragonRising

Originally posted by Fula

 

Pharoahs/mummies tend to not represent the population very well (Foreign intermarriage and relations).

IMO...It is clear that Egypt started out as a black African civilization and then later became influenced by foreign people. This is true for just about every civilization on the planet. I can only imagine if they did a study on America 5,000 years later and concluded that it was a white civilization influenced only by white people by looking at the Presidents. Or declaring that white people built the pyramids in Mexico etc...

We have to remember that Nubia is Older than Egypt... The people and culture of Egypt began as native African people. Like I said before Hunefer states where the Egytians came from We came from the beginning of the Nile were god Hapi dwells, at the foothills of the Mountains of the Moon" [Great Lakes Region - central Africa]

If it was so clear then it wouldn't of been so hard to clear up, and as we know there still seems to be some confusion. As for origin stories, they are notoriously frail.

I've tried to find a copy of this text and have not been able to. Has anyone else been able to find a primary source? 

For me when considering geography, recent genetic materials and cultural practices all these things point to the fact that these were a people native to the continent who shared similarities with othese in the Sahara and East Africa as can still be observed today. Case in point  I think its laughable that certain scholars still persist in labeling people who look like this caucasian when to the average person on the street these people are clearly Africans.

Yes there is evidence that they borrowed certain ideas from their neighbors, but their language was not semetic, nor was it related to Sumerian. All their words for agricultural products etc are local to the continent not Asia.


Edited by Rakasnumberone - 08-Jan-2012 at 16:38
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 1617181920 22>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.203 seconds.