Cheikh Anta Diop (1923-1986), a Senegalese Egyptologist, challenged the common white view of Egyptian and African history.
Diop grew up in Senegal under French rule. He knew whites ruled not just by the gun but also by the schoolbook, brainwashing blacks through education into believing that white was right and the West was best.
Whites taught a racist view of history: Europe was the height of civilization, what history had been leading up to all along, while Africa was sadly incapable of civilization. So Africa needs whites to help them.
There was Egypt, of course, but that did not count as a true African civilization: it was off in a corner cut off from the rest of Africa by the Sahara. Many of the common people may have been dark-skinned but the rulers at least were Caucasian. Besides, even if you count Egypt as “African”, what effect did it ever have on the rest of Africa? Nothing.
Diop was spared the worst of this racist thinking by receiving a Muslim education. After the Second World War he went to Paris to study physics, but soon was drawn into the student movement to free Africa from white rule – and into questions of African history.
He found that the white view of Egypt was not “natural” at all. For one thing the ancient Greeks did not share it: they saw the Egyptians as looking the same as Ethiopians – people with black skin and woolly hair. Even the Egyptians called themselves kemet – “black”.
So for his doctoral thesis he set out to prove that the pharaohs of Egypt were black. It was much harder than he thought: he spent all of the 1950s looking for proof.
Skulls: Ancient Egyptians, roughly speaking, generally had round heads like black people but long noses like white people. White scholars said the noses proved Egyptians were mixed with white so that must be where they got their civilization from. But there are plenty of black people all throughout Africa with long noses.
White scholars had broadened “Caucasian” and narrowed “Negro” just enough to claim northern Africa. It would be like if a black scholar said that the white-skinned, blue-eyed, yellow-haired people in Sweden were the “true” whites and therefore the olive-skinned, black-haired Greeks must be part black.
Language: Diop compared Wolof, his mother tongue in Senegal, with Ancient Egyptian. They were too much alike for it to be an accident – meaning they came from some common African root way back in time.
Society: Diop noticed how Egyptian society – unlike, say, Greek society – had many general features commonly found in African society, like matriarchy and circumcision.
Diop was wrong in many particulars but his main points have proved sound:
- The first humans were black Africans.
- The roots of Ancient Egyptian language, society and culture were African.
- Ancient Egyptians were native to Africa, they did not come from outside.
Meaning that Ancient Egypt was a true African civilization. It grew out of Africa and later spread across both Europe and Africa.
– Abagond, 2010.
See also:
- Diop: The African Origin of Civilization: Myth or Reality
- Ancient Egypt
- How black was Ancient Egypt?
- Other black intellectuals who grew up under French rule:
- Leopold Sedar Senghor – also from Senegal
- Frantz Fanon – Martinique
Who did he marry? Just curious.
LikeLike
Strange you should do a post on Cheik A. Diop since I was reading something yesterday about Aime Cesaire who suggested that Diop’s book ‘Nations nègres et culture (Black Nations & Culture) challenged the White Supremacy world concept of Africans not having any civilisations etc.
What you do not mention here, a bit like Fanon was that the French education establishment refused to accept his doctoral thesis because of the far-reaching implication.
If I remember correctly this is what became the book ‘African Origins of Civilisation’.
There is one more thing :
In 1966, the First World Black Festival of Arts and Culture held in Dakar, Senegal honored Dr. Diop and Dr. W.E.B. DuBois as the scholars who exerted the greatest influence on African thought in twentieth century.
http://www.gambia.dk/antadiop.html
This book covers Diop in an excellent fashion edited by the late Van Sertima
Great African thinkers on Cheik Anta Diop, vol 1, by Ivan Van Sertima
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=lkEizT86Kq8C&printsec=frontcover&dq=great+african+thinkers+cheikh+anta+diop&source=bl&ots=HCac8U73MF&sig=67FKdbuWgCH-9jEuOBpy9SWl_-M&hl=en&ei=EP8ETLvED5KV4gb38PTLDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false
LikeLike
There was Egypt, of course, but that did not count as a true African civilization
This is the main misconception about Egypt that many people still share. Egypt is an African civilization, get over it. It is integral part of Africa. Of course, it’s not “the same” as West Africa or central Africa, because- news flash!- cultures are never uniform on such a large territory, and- news flash!- not all Africans look the same, think the same or have the same culture.
He found that the white view of Egypt was not “natural” at all.
Of course not, because race is not a bilogical fact but a cultural construct, as pretty much everything around us. Each culture has its own idea about the world. White’s ideas are just one way for looking at it; they are in no way natural, objective or the only possible.
Even the Egyptians called themselves kemet – “black”.
Strictly speaking, Egyptians called their land khemet (the black land), as the opposite of deshret, the red, infertile land.
To see Africans as “black” people and Europeans as “white” is our own cultural construct; after all, “blacks” don’t have black skin and “whites” don’t have white skin, so seeing an African as black and European as white is not more natural than seeing an African as brown and an European as pink, even if you want to use skin colour as the marker. What I’m saying, it’s not “natural” to refer to dark skinned people (Africans) as blacks- it’s just another cultural construct. So I believe “khemet” indeed meant the land and not people, especially given the fact that Egyptians were surrounded by other dark skinned peoples and they certainly didn’t see them as belonging to khemet, regardless of skin colour.
LikeLike
Another interesting thing is that although ‘Negritude’ had its uses. Diop was aginst the ‘negritude’ as espoused specifically by Senghor
LikeLike
With regard to:
“Even the Egyptians called themselves kemet – “black”.
Strictly speaking, Egyptians called their land khemet (the black land), as the opposite of deshret, the red, infertile land”.
What can be stated for sure that the word Kemet refers to ‘Black land’ or ‘Land of the Blacks’.
Diop et al contention is that Western Egyptologist has confunded the true meaning of the word. He suggest if you look at the Mdw Ntr (hieroglyphs) the term is used in reference to the ‘people’ and not the land per se.
And the argument can be seen in the youtube link on the post:
‘How Black Was Ancient Egypt’
LikeLiked by 1 person
I know about the discussion, but there’s still not enough evidence of it. The point is, it doesn’t really mater. Because:
In any case, if Egyptians were black (in today’s meaning of the word), what difference does it make whether they called themselves black or Egyptian, or km.t or anything else? Even if they didn’t call themselves black- and I believe they didn’t- that doesn’t change the fact they were black by today’s standards. Also, they could have called themselves pink and it wouldn’t change anything.
PS-In some languages, like mine, words black and white are not used to tell people’s race; etymology is the same, but the actual words “black and white” are ALWAYS used as colours, never as races. The word itself doesn’t have to mean anything, that’s all I’m saying.
LikeLike
I think with Diop et al there is enough evidence and this is why I cited it (since this a post about his ideas).
LikeLike
Diop’s challenging of the hypothesis that Europe was the center of human civilization is a gift to all historians everywhere. Unfortunately, he clung to the diffusionist concept of “cradles of civilization”, a late 19th century european social-evolutionist concept.
Diop’s mental career is somewhat tragic in the sense that it shows that even those who make a heroic effort to break free of so-called European thinking end up using it as the basis of much of their worldview.
However, Egypt is and always has been a cross-roads of the mediterranean. Civilization there – and the population for as far back as there were human beings – was never a pure “African only” affair.
Ancient Egypt received immigrants, raiders and slaves from the European “sea-peoples” to the north and west and was several times captured and dominated by the peoples to its east.
It – like all ancient Mediterranean civilizations – was very much a mixed affair.
LikeLike
Today’s afro-centrists who argue that Egypt was “black” are simply the flipside of the white supremacist crowd who argue that Germany was “white”.
Both groups believe in the 19th century European social-darwinian concept that civilization is the outgrowth of the biologically rooted genius of one or another human subspecies.
Partly due to Diop’s work in CHALLENGING that hypothesis, we know it is not true.
LikeLike
With regard to:
“Today’s afro-centrists who argue that Egypt was “black” are simply the flipside of the white supremacist crowd who argue that Germany was “white”.
This as it stands makes no sense whatsoever
and much of what you suggest on Diop – a discussion we have already elsewhere – makes little or no sense (or what you have written) ie
“he clung to the diffusionist concept of “cradles of civilization”.
LikeLike
Interesting about claimed link between Wolof and ancient Egyptian. Wolof is classified as a Niger-Congo language and Egyptian as Afro-Asiatic. So that doesn’t sound like a close relationship. Not that I know jack about either, to be honest.
Within the Afro-Asiatic family, scholars tend to place Egyptian as being closer to the Chadic subfamily than to the languages of the Middle East (Semitic subfamily). Chadic includes Hausa, spoken in Niger and surrounding countries in West Africa. Makes it more likely that the Egyptian language originated somewhere in Africa (although languages and genetics don’t necessarily have the same patterns of movement).
LikeLike
Eurasian Sensation,
This argument is very complicated because you have to go back to how the various terms were formulated.
What I would say, there is a shifting paradigm that the ‘Semetic’ language in fact probably originated in E. Africa nad moved to the ‘Middle East’.
If we being specific, and using the same type of standard ie. What is Black etc??
Then we also have to use this reasoning to suggest that there was also no ‘Middle East’ at that period of history ie. a Western interpolation into history.
With regard to similarities between Wolof and Pharaonic languages. There are even some ‘Western’ scholars who accept the contention, or at least Diop may have ‘hit’ on something and was the first to do so.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@ES
It seems pretty clear to me that immense ammounts of Egyptian culture and biological make upo came out of sub-Saharan Africa.
Diop did indeed prove that Egypt wasn’t a European construct, as generations of Aryanist scholars believed. The central argument of the Aryan supremacists was that every great civilization was built by the Aryans. Diop definitely threw a wrench into that particular wagon.
The problem is that Diop just flipped the coin over without presenting any new synthesis.
With the Aryanists, he shares the belief that “civilization” is the outgrowth of a particular, restricted set of peoples among humanity.
The view of “cradle of civilizationists” such as Diop and the Aryanists is marred by a belief that civilizations are, in fact, the work of relatively homogenous peoples.
What we know today, however, is that cities themselves attract cultural, economic and biological diversity like sugar draws flies. A “civilization” – a form of human organization based on cities – is thus by definition multi-cultural and multi-ethnic. It springs up in a space where many peoples are interacting and trading.
No “civilization” is thus the creation of any particular people.
In Egypt’s case, civilization sprung up where it did because the Nile provided a highway into the interior of Africa, linking the African and Mediterranean worlds.
Egypt – as a civilization – was always very much a mixed affair.
This is why Diop’s position is, ironically enough, is simply European diffusionist and social darwinian thought flipped on its head. Diop does not contest the idea that certain peoples have a “genius” for civilization: he simply believes that the Aryanists got those people wrong: they were sub-Saharan Africans and not Aryans.
LikeLike
There are even some ‘Western’ scholars who accept the contention, or at least Diop may have ‘hit’ on something and was the first to do so.
Name three.
LikeLike
ha ha ha is 3 your lucky number
LikeLike
@ Thad & J:
the “cradle of civilisations” idea reminds me of the way a lot of people view race.
Eg. the idea that there are about 3 races (black, white, Asian), and everyone else who doesn’t fit neatly into that category must be some kind of combination or offshoot of one of those 3.
Likewise, the idea that civilisation arose in just a few places (the Middle East, China, Central America) and everyone else just borrowed from them.
LikeLike
It reminds you of race theory, ES, because it’s based on race theory.
It’s a straight off-shoot of late-19th century social darwinist thought.
LikeLike
ha ha ha is 3 your lucky number
OK, name four, then. Heck, name two.
I only ask you to specify, J, because in the past you’ve used “Some western scholars” as a code for “some retired high school English teacher in Illinois with pet theories on archeology and a self-published book”.
So “citation needed”, please.
LikeLike
From what I can remember Yurco supports the contention
And by the way the contention is not just that Wolof is DERIVED from the Pharaonic language per se NO-ONE HAS STATED THAT, but rather the contention is that both are indigenous African languages which have been affected by the ‘same’ ‘cultural unity’.
http://kememou.com/egypt_lang.html
LikeLiked by 1 person
The white and black nationalists need to get real. The first civilizations (Sumerian, Egyptian, Phoenician, Greek, Roman) were contructed largely by swarthy brownish people, not by those of Nordic white or Bantu black complexion.
LikeLike
Diop made some pretty good points, but unfortunately he made some mistakes; he wasn’t thinking outside the box (outside his own cultural norms) when it comes to some important issues. “Fixation” on the word “black” is one of those things. Thinking about “cradle of civilization” is another.
As for mixing with Mediterranean world, Thad is correct; but that doesn’t change the fact it was an African civilization. We know Egyptians had many contacts and immigrants. In the same sense, Greece wasn’t really part of Europe- but in many other ways, it was.
So, I do believe Egyptians would be categorized as black in today’s world. (Not in their world, since our concept of race didn’t exist back then).
LikeLike
^^^
FG, I think you’re right on Sumerian and Egyptian, but you’re definitely wrong on Greek and Roman, they were white. I’m not sure either way about the “swarthiness” of Phoenicians. It’s probably a mixed bag, like Lebanese today, some of them are quite white looking and some browner.
I’m no expert on this topic though so I may be wrong.
LikeLike
The “close affinity” between Wolof and Pharaonic, if it does indeed exist, may well be one of cultural contact and influence, rather than a common root.
So to give an example: The Malay language today has plenty of words in common with English, but you wouldn’t say they were related. It’s because the English were a dominant cultural power which influenced the Malays. The English also took a few Malay words too (bamboo, ketchup, gong).
So perhaps the ancient Egyptians spread elements of their language and culture through trade and cultural diffusion to the Wolof and others. Or indeed, the reverse is possible.
LikeLike
The white and black nationalists need to get real. The first civilizations (Sumerian, Egyptian, Phoenician, Greek, Roman) were contructed largely by swarthy brownish people, not by those of Nordic white or Bantu black complexion.
But still, Greeks and Romans are seen as white, while others are not.
I think we agreed a while ago here that it’s impossible to say that any of those people were black, white or brown; we can only say whether they would be seen as black, white or brown by us, by the people of today.
LikeLike
“So, I do believe Egyptians would be categorized as black in today’s world. (Not in their world, since our concept of race didn’t exist back then).”
The US is the most important source of the binary racialism of which you speak. However, Americans tend to view Egyptians as “Arab” or “Middle Eastern.”
LikeLike
FG, I think you’re right on Sumerian and Egyptian, but you’re definitely wrong on Greek and Roman, they were white. I’m not sure either way about the “swarthiness” of Phoenicians. It’s probably a mixed bag, like Lebanese today, some of them are quite white looking and some browner.
Greek and Roman were brown too. Egyptians, I believe, would be seen as black. As for Sumerians, God knows; my guess is brown.
LikeLike
“FG, I think you’re right on Sumerian and Egyptian, but you’re definitely wrong on Greek and Roman, they were white. ”
The Ancient Greeks and Romans would probably considered white by today’s whiteness standard but probably not the one that existed 100 years ago, which excluded Italians and Greeks.
LikeLike
The US is the most important source of the binary racialism of which you speak. However, Americans tend to view Egyptians as “Arab” or “Middle Eastern.”
Egyptians weren’t Arab or Middle Eastern; both terms are anachronistic.
I don’t think they were the darkest people in Africa, but that’s not the point. There are plenty light skinned blacks, who are “unmistakably black” by US standards. Africa is a diverse continent like any other.
LikeLike
With regard to:
Diop made some pretty good points, but unfortunately he made some mistakes; he wasn’t thinking outside the box (outside his own cultural norms) when it comes to some important issues. “Fixation” on the word “black” is one of those things. Thinking about “cradle of civilization” is another.
Just to say here which academic scholar can think outside the box of the times – None!!
With regard to being fixated on ‘Black’. Rather it was the White world who was fixated on the term, created an ideology, and suggested that Blacks had NEVER contributed to civilisation.
Diop refuted this contention in a scholarly basis, with the evidence that was available to him at the time.
Again in citing Thad with regard to ‘cradles of civilisations’ I am afrid you err, since Thad does not not even understand this very issue.
LikeLike
@Mira,
I’m not sure if you’re talking about modern perceptions of modern Egyptians or ancient Egyptians. The modern perception of modern Egyptians are that they belong to a race known as “Arab” or “Middle Eastern.”
LikeLike
The Ancient Greeks and Romans would probably considered white by today’s whiteness standard but probably not the one that existed 100 years ago, which excluded Italians and Greeks.
We can only argue about it. I thought Greeks and Italians were considered Mediterranean? (whatever that means)
You see, FG, this is another proof that discussing race is a complicated matter, because there’s not way to be right or wrong, since race is not a biological fact. Each culture can have its own idea about it.
LikeLike
“There are plenty light skinned blacks, who are “unmistakably black” by US standards. ”
In American parlance, “light skinned black” is used to refer to someone who looks like Beyonce or Halle Berry. There are quite a few Egyptians who look like this actually, especially in the more southern parts of the country. However, some Egyptians can’t be distinguished from Europeans.
LikeLike
ES,
Your analogy is correct but the real difference according to Diop is that Wolof and Pharaonic languages are both indigenous to Africa, whereas the example you cite is of two different languages which ave completely different origins.
And this is the contention of showing how a language far removed from Egypt, well in theory at least can be tied to it.
LikeLike
I don’t know many people who think Egyptians are Arabs. Most think they are “not quite black,” but they don’t see them as non-black entirely. Egyptians I’ve seen look more like what Americans think of as black and some look like what Americans think of as Middle Easterner, so it’s hard to shove them into a box.
LikeLike
I’m not sure if you’re talking about modern perceptions of modern Egyptians or ancient Egyptians.
Ancient Egyptians. I thought we were talking about them the whole time.
Just to say here which academic scholar can think outside the box of the times – None!!
Lol, of course, but he DID think “outside the box” for some things.
With regard to being fixated on ‘Black’. Rather it was the White world who was fixated on the term, created an ideology, and suggested that Blacks had NEVER contributed to civilisation.
I meant, he was fixated on the word itself. You can call African people “fjsfhjk” and Europeans “yiorpri” and they would still be the same people, and the first ones would still be seen as blacks today even if their culture called them “fjsfhjk”. What I’m saying is, proving that Egyptians saw themselves as “black” says nothing; Egyptians didn’t have the same view on race as we do today, and even not all of today’s cultures and languages refer to human races using the same word as for colours (mine doesn’t).
LikeLike
The first reply was to FG, other two are replies to J.
LikeLike
Mira,
He did more than just demonstrate that Egypt is a Black civilisation. However, this is what the Western world projects and they project it because in a paradoxical way they do not want to let go off the idea of a ‘White/Caucasian Egypt’, so they suggest Diop and Afrocentrics are fixated.
Thad is very good at citing these eurocentric argument/reasoning, but not so good at critically evaluating his ideas on its merit.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Most think Egyptians are ‘Arabs’ because Arabs have been the ‘dominant group’ since about 632 AD with the advent of Islam.
By that time Egyptian civilisation was well over 2,500 years old and had been conquered by Persians, Greek, and Romans.
LikeLike
Merci, Abagond, for this excellent post. Diop is one of my idols. One of the greatest songs ever composed by Les Nubians is “Immortel Cheikh Anta Diop”, a brilliant ode to a brilliant man.
LikeLike
J,
I think you didn’t understand what I meant. I’m not talking about Cheikh’s fixation with “Blacks”, but with the word itself.
LikeLike
“Ancient Egyptians. I thought we were talking about them the whole time.”
I doubt the Ancient Egyptians collectively looked much different in the past than they do today. Going by artwork, some of the Pharoahs looked really white, others more black. This suggests that the country was quite mixed back then as well.
“We can only argue about it. I thought Greeks and Italians were considered Mediterranean? (whatever that means)”
“We can only argue about it. I thought Greeks and Italians were considered Mediterranean? (whatever that means)
You see, FG, this is another proof that discussing race is a complicated matter, because there’s not way to be right or wrong, since race is not a biological fact. Each culture can have its own idea about it.”
Well, there’s an important distinction to make. Whether the ancient Romans and Greeks were as light-skinned as the modal modern day English, German, or white Americans is a purely empirical matter not dependent on cultural perceptions. That’s what I was referring to in my initial post on this topic. I was basically trying to say that the inhabitants of these ancient civilizations were on average darker in skin tone than modern northern Europeans (who some white nationalists argue are the only true white people) and lighter than Bantu Africans. The issue of whether they would be percieved as belonging to the modern white or black ethnopolitical groupings is a different matter.
LikeLike
Points to consider yourself about Egypt:
1. Caucasians did not originate in Africa so they cannot be indigenous to Egypt, no more than white South Africans are indigenous to South Africa.
2. The Master/Dynastic Race theory never said the original inhabitants of Egypt weren’t black. They just disputed that these indigenes built the dynasties of Egypt.
3. The petroglyphs found from east-west of the Sahara proves that Egypt was an indigenous African civilization NOT founded by a superior Caucasian race.
4. Ancient Egyptian is NOT an Indo-European language and is closer to the Chadic (African) languages than Asiatic ones.
5. It doesn’t matter if they called themselves black or not, since terms like black and white are modern. They were not a separate race East Africans, who, despite the “dark-skin Caucasian theory” are black Africans.
6. The Eurocentric racial classification of blacks is so narrow that if applied to Europeans, it would divide them into 3 subraces.
7. Africans have the most diverse genetics, ethnic make-up and phenotypes in the world.
8. If Tina Turner with 40% European DNA is black, then an East African with the same is also black. Eurocentrics cannot tell Mariah Carey she’s black in America, but white in Africa. The hypocrisy won’t work.
9. East Africans are no more mixed with West Asians than West Asians are mixed with Africans. East Africans, alongside Khoisan, are the oldest people on the planet. The so-called Caucasian gene developed in East Africa.
10. The cranial measurements are misleading. If the cranial measurements were applied to Iman’s cranium, she’d be classified as white or Caucasian.
BONUS: Zahi Hawass is a well-paid idiot!
LikeLike
Again in citing Thad with regard to ‘cradles of civilisations’ I am afrid you err, since Thad does not not even understand this very issue.
I understand this issue very well, J.
Diop went for a “multiple cradles of civilization” model rather than a “Aryans created all civilizations” model.
The problem is, the very concept that “civilization” has a “cradle” or a “mother” or a “father”. The problem is using a biological metaphor (social Darwinist evolution) which traces a civilization to a given, discrete people.
We know now that civilizations in no part of the world were built by one people. We also know that civilizations which stood at important commercial crossroads (such as Egypt) became very quickly culturally and ethnically diverse. And this is indeed what we see in Egypt.
The ancient Egyptians set themselves off against the darker barbarians to the south and the lighter barbarians to the north, for all that both of these groups were also incorporated into their civilization.
To thus claim Egypt as “European” or “African” is anachronic: it applies 19th century European concepts of territory and race to a country which existed millenia ago and which emphatically set itself apart from the extremes it found to its north and south.
LikeLike
Sorry Thad,
The cradles are not really tied into civilisations and this is why I said you do not understand Diop’s theory, because that is what is, and no other scholar, came out with it before him.
You suggest it is anachronistic to refer to Egypt as being part of Africa.
On one level Egypt is in Africa, and it is more or less accepted that its civilisation is derived from within the continent of Africa and not outside.
And again, if it is anachronistic to conceive Egypt as an African civilisation on the African continent.
Then we are going to have to re-write all the history books
including Europe, which strictly speaking is not even a continent.
LikeLiked by 1 person
People need to understand Ancient Egypt (the civilization) lasted for about 2500-3000 years. THOUSAND years. There’s NO WAY for population to be uniform for such a long time. The population didn’t look the same in the year 2700 BC, 1500 BC and 600 BC, that’s for sure.
Yes, Egypt was dominated by the people from the East (who were lighter), but also from the South (who were, we assume, even darker than Egyptians).
Egyptians know of 4 races of people: Egyptians, Nubians (from south), Asians* (from the east) and Libyans (from the west).
*Asians weren’t, of course, what we today call “Asians”, they were from the Middle East.
There was some heavy mixing going on in the Egypt, nobody denies that.
Still, where is Egypt? On which continent?
LikeLike
which strictly speaking is not even a continent.
?????
Is it because it’s tied with Asia? But then Africa isn’t a continent either, well, at least it wasn’t till 1869. (Though we mustn’t forget about efforts of Egyptian rulers on building canals).
LikeLike
@SW6
Thad, how long did these periods of domination and capture last. Where the durations significant? What caused these periods to be an on-off affair?
They were of varying duration and intensity. Look up “Sea Peoples” and “hyskos”. Both of these groups had a fairly long-term presence. Think of the Sea People as Vikings and the Hyskos as Saxons, with Egypt being Ancient Britain.
The cradles are not really tied into civilisations and this is why I said you do not understand Diop’s theory, because that is what is, and no other scholar, came out with it before him.
Oh, yes they are tied into civilizations in Diop’s analysis, J. Quite clearly so. He sees Egypt as the fruit of a “southern cradle” in the same way that Aryans see Greece as the fruit of a “northern cradle”.
And again, if it is anachronistic to conceive Egypt as an African civilisation on the African continent.
Then we are going to have to re-write all the history books
including Europe, which strictly speaking is not even a continent.
[Nods]. We should.
The Aryanist and Diop’s premise follow the same, anti-scientific logic. They take today’s units of analysis as eternal and look back in history, cherry-picking their data, to find evidence for this.
LikeLike
Nobel Peace Prize is a joke, and no, I don’t think they would ever give it to him. 😀
LikeLike
Mira,
I hope I did understand your word ‘fixate’.
I still stand by what I said it is the White race that has been fixated by colour.
The Western nations built their Empires predicated upon colour of skin. Furthermore they went on to suggest that not only were they superior, but they have always been ‘superior’ and all the ancient civilisation were created by White people (Caucasoid) because POC were inferior.
In the case of Africa, there was a time when none of the civilisations were attributed to Black Africans, not even Nubia, or Monopatama (Zimbabwe) etc but always the result of ‘The Great White Man’.
And what we now see today because of the likes of Diop is the reluctant acceptance there were Blacks in Egypt and there is no such things as ‘White Hamites’ travelling building civilisation for the natives.
Inadvertently or otherwise, in the realm of the ‘political world’, Diop by revealing the falsity of such theories was in fact challenging the rationalisation of ‘White Supremacy’.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thad, but Egypt is surely in Africa. It is an African civilization, it’s certainly not an American, European or Asian.
LikeLike
J,
You are correct, and it’s all good. I just wanted to state my disagreement over the word “km.t” and whether it’s relevant to the discussion or not (I believe it’s not).
LikeLike
Thad,
Diop cradle theories
Oh, yes they are tied into civilizations in Diop’s analysis, J. Quite clearly so. He sees Egypt as the fruit of a “southern cradle” in the same way that Aryans see Greece as the fruit of a “northern cradle”.
goes way beyond you just stating this position.
LikeLike
And I should say the cradle theory also discusses other societies that are not civilizations per se. And hence my suggestion that you are wrong to connect this cradle theory to merely civilisations.
I am sure if you did a quick google search, you should be able to obtain something substantive on his theory and its implications.
LikeLike
“People need to understand Ancient Egypt (the civilization) lasted for about 2500-3000 years. THOUSAND years. There’s NO WAY for population to be uniform for such a long time. The population didn’t look the same in the year 2700 BC, 1500 BC and 600 BC, that’s for sure.
Yes, Egypt was dominated by the people from the East (who were lighter), but also from the South (who were, we assume, even darker than Egyptians).
Egyptians know of 4 races of people: Egyptians, Nubians (from south), Asians* (from the east) and Libyans (from the west).
*Asians weren’t, of course, what we today call “Asians”, they were from the Middle East.
There was some heavy mixing going on in the Egypt, nobody denies that.
Still, where is Egypt? On which continent?”
“The Aryanist and Diop’s premise follow the same, anti-scientific logic. They take today’s units of analysis as eternal and look back in history, cherry-picking their data, to find evidence for this.”
I agree with these. Egyptians were/are a mixed group of people, but what group of people is not? Plenty of “white” countries have African admixture. Egypt is an African country. But I don’t agree with Diop’s attempt to make them out out to be “black” or others’ attempts to make them out to be “white/other.” Today’s classification schemes should not be applied to the past, hell, they shouldn’t be applied as they are currently.
LikeLike
@Jefflion
Thad, but Egypt is surely in Africa. It is an African civilization, it’s certainly not an American, European or Asian.
Actually, ancient Egypt didn’t know it was in Africa and didn’t see itself as part of “Africa” in opposition to other areas of the globe.
The notion of continents is artificial and created. There is no physical reason why, for example, Europe and Asia are two continents when they are one landmass and likewise there’s no physical reason why Africa should be one continent simply because it’s on one landmass. The Sahara is easliy as imposing (or not) a natural barrier as the Urals.
Why do we divide the continents up the way we do? History. EUROPEAN history.
The Egyptians had another way of dividing up the world into geographiesd and peoples. When you say “They are Africans”, what you’re saying is “To hell with what the ancient Egyptians thought”.
And the Egyptians were quite clear on this: the barbarians were to the north, west and south. Civilized people lay to the east. The Egyptians did not understand themselves to be part of “mother Africa” anymore than they understood themselves to be a part of the “Mediterranean world”.
Those divisions would only be created by a later history.
LikeLike
Thad,
“Unless you are playing with semantics, this part of what you wrote is not true”
Actually, ancient Egypt didn’t know it was in Africa
LikeLike
I think there is a University named after this man in Senegal. Also, Nubia occupied Egypt and there are more pyramids in Sudan than Egypt.
http://www.ucad.sn/
LikeLike
My egyptian professor has a really round head and tanned skin. She looks like she could have some distant black ancestry. Her skin is actually the same color as my fathers now that I think of it. My father is mistaken for being middle eastern quite often, people think he is Saudi.
LikeLike
Her head is like a cantelope, no joke. Nice lady, this was a great post abagond, you learn something new everyday. I knew i recognized the name as soon as I saw the heading…now I know i saw his name because there is a university named after him in Dakar.
LikeLike
Thad,
I know all of that very well, and you know very well I know all of that. Of course continents are construct like anything else; but everybody seem to agree with this construct. Be it European or not. So by today’s standards, we have this continent called Africa, and Ancient Egypt was located on that continent.
Of course we discuss everything here from our own point of view, because we’re discussing about Cheikh’s work, and he shared the same view- more or less- as today’s people. We’re not talking about how Egyptians saw themselves, or how ancient peoples saw themselves.
Or am I wrong? …
LikeLike
With regard to:
“I agree with these. Egyptians were/are a mixed group of people, but what group of people is not? Plenty of “white” countries have African admixture. Egypt is an African country. But I don’t agree with Diop’s attempt to make them out out to be “black” or others’ attempts to make them out to be “white/other.” Today’s classification schemes should not be applied to the past, hell, they shouldn’t be applied as they are currently!!”
There is quite a few issue with this statement
1. There were Blacks in Greece society but it is never viewed as a mix society
2. Whether race exist or not, or even the ethnic and national classifications have changed it is still possible to work out what they were phenotypically.
To complicate matters there are people today on the African continent, who are Black and African and do not perceive themselves as such. So how people can view themselves may not get us to teh veridical representation of a people.
3. Personally the shift of leaving the race of teh Egyptian behind now is only relevant because of the shifting paradigm. As each years go by we are slowly moving away from a White/Caucasoid Egypt – but yet at the same time a reluctance to admit a Black Egypt. And the aforesaid quote misses this very vital point
4. In these situations its always Blacks who has to forfeit, as I said to thad unless we are going to see a level playing field. Blacks are the ones who will be disadvantaged again by such thinking
LikeLike
here is what kola boof writes about today’s black egyptians: http://poetwomen.50megs.com/about.html
LikeLike
J, your first point agrees with mine. The second point I don’t agree with because I don’t think it’s up to you or anyone else to force people into being “black” if they don’t see themselves that way and what is considered black is not agreed upon nor uniform within and without a population. Three and four — no comment.
LikeLike
SW6
Diop was wrong in many particulars but his main points have proved sound:
* The first humans were black Africans.
* The roots of Ancient Egyptian language, society and culture were African.
* Ancient Egyptians were native to Africa, they did not come from outside.
If Diop was instrumental in proving these ideas, then it is a shame he has not been awarded a Nobel Peace Prize.
Menelik replies:
you’ve described the very reasons why Diop would NEVER have been awarded the celebrated Nobel Peace Prize!
Menelik Charles
London England
LikeLiked by 1 person
BONUS: Zahi Hawass is a well-paid idiot!
You got that right!
LikeLike
Cheers Natasha W.
With regard to:
“The second point I don’t agree with because I don’t think it’s up to you or anyone else to force people into being “black” if they don’t see themselves that way and what is considered black is not agreed upon nor uniform within and without a population”.
The problem with having this idea is that it is far removed from what is going on the continent.
Those who are Black and African but do not identify themselves are not following the yardstick what you suggest, when you say.
‘ I don’t think it’s up to you or anyone else to force people into being [‘Arab’ my emphasis].
These ‘Africans’ are oppressing and in some instances killing the ‘indigenous Blacks’, and unfortunately the process also includes genocide.
LikeLike
J says:
“Most think Egyptians are ‘Arabs’ because Arabs have been the ‘dominant group’ since about 632 AD with the advent of Islam.”
Which is true. But also, because Arabia and Egypt are right next door to each other, I find it problematic that one region was “Caucasian” and the other “black”. The difference would certainly be one of degree rather than being clear-cut. Which I think a lot of people here agree on, but some I’m not sure.
LikeLike
@Jefflion
Of course continents are construct like anything else; but everybody seem to agree with this construct.
Everyone TODAY. Not everyone back then, which is, of course, the point, neh?
Of course we discuss everything here from our own point of view, because we’re discussing about Cheikh’s work, and he shared the same view- more or less- as today’s people. We’re not talking about how Egyptians saw themselves, or how ancient peoples saw themselves.
Again, so what “we’re” engaged in here is making up fantasies that sound nice to us to fulfill our own contemporary political agendas. And screw what the ancient Egyptians thought.
That’s not history, Jefflion: that’s myth-making. And why in God’s name would anyone want to argue whether this particular myth is more true than that one?
LikeLike
Cheers ES,
Now that you have said this. I have thought of something else.
I remember seeing this previously, but I would have to re-read it to give you a comment.
Maybe you would like to comment, if you should decide to investigate??
http://www.imninalu.net/myths-Arabs.htm
LikeLike
Wow very insightful. I usually don’t get into the Egypt: Black or not Black fight but Ancient Egypt is definitely a African/ Black civilization. The bending and reclassification Eurocentrists do to NOT see Ancient Egypt as African/Black is mind boggling.
I remember watching a Sargent Willie Pete video were we was defending the notion that Egypt was African and had black Pharaohs. He too brought up the point about black Africans having long nose and “keen” features. Many Eurocentrists love to point out the “Caucasoid” features of ancient Egyptians to prove there point yet stupidly forget about eh blacks living in the upper Nile with those same features! Its astounding what white supremacy and misinformation will do to common sense. Eurocentrists also love to point pot the Ptolemy Dynasty in latter half of the empire as “proof” that “Caucasians” ruled ancient Egypt. They, unsurprisingly, leave out the fact that Greeks came to rule Egypt during the time of Alexander and the Hellenistic period. Caucasians DID NOT rule Egypt from start to finish!
If anything ancient Egypt was a mixed race society, it was not just “Arab/Caucasian”. Hardly.
LikeLike
@ Mel
“East Africans are no more mixed with West Asians than West Asians are mixed with Africans. East Africans, alongside Khoisan, are the oldest people on the planet. The so-called Caucasian gene developed in East Africa.”
Maybe so, but there has clearly been West Asian movement back into North and East Africa which has a deeper history than the Arabs. Possibly accompanying the spread of grain agriculture from the Levant. The Nile Valley seems a logical avenue for this to happen.
LikeLike
“I remember watching a Sargent Willie Pete video were we was defending the notion that Egypt was African and had black Pharaohs. He too brought up the point about black Africans having long nose and “keen” features. Many Eurocentrists love to point out the “Caucasoid” features of ancient Egyptians to prove there point yet stupidly forget about eh blacks living in the upper Nile with those same features!”
What you’re pointing out is the weakness of the race concept. Physical features like nose shape, skin color, and hair texture vary independently of one another. You can find white skinned people with curly hair and black skinned people with thin noses.
LikeLike
Also, note that we can’t conclude anything by observing Egyptian art. How they chose to represent humans on images, sculptures and reliefs might not be the realistic representation of their population.
For example, this wasn’t an interracial coulple:
Indeed, we have cases of a same person being represented in several different ways.
One of the most popular examples:
Both sculptures represent the same man.
@Thad
No, we are talking about how Egypt is seen today. ANY discussion about whether X were black, white or brown, and whether their civilization was African, European, etc. can only work with present situation in mind.
I guess we all agree races as we know them today didn’t exist back then, nor the idea of continents. Still, if an important question of today was ancient peoples’ race and whether their civilization was African, we can discuss it considering today’s standards- and it’s the only way we can discuss it.
LikeLike
ES,
With regard to that link, I never realised or remembered it was that long. However, what I have to say I think the link is ok.
It seems also to support Diop theory of ‘semiticisation’ which occured between Black-Africoid & White-Caucasoid types. I think his date is around 50-40 00 BC
Anyhow back to the reading…
LikeLike
If anything ancient Egypt was a mixed race society, it was not just “Arab/Caucasian”. Hardly.
No doubt. But I don’t think anyone here is arguing against that view.
LikeLike
Mira,
When I say Europe is not a continent. I am referring to geography here.
Continents are very huge land mass. Europe is divided by sea and also consists of islands.
LikeLike
This whole discussion reminds me of the whole darwinian evolution controversy
All the people involved have their own agendas and in turn use date information or create their own to support whatever position they take
basically Evolution is a theory that is greatly misconstrued to support the rich and white people in general.
Survival of the fittest refers to competition between different “species” but the rich and white people in general have misconstrued it to justify their own inequitable position of wealth/power within the human species.
Furthermore, the mechanism of evolution (survival of the fittest) is now understood to be negative selecting but rich people as well as white people would rather believe that it is “positive” selecting. basically evolution has no “desire” or “master plan,” species either adapt or they die out. No species is “chosen” or more “highly evolved” than any other. Either a species “survives” changing climate or other negative changing circumstances or they get replace by another surviving species that take over that specific niche.
The bible thumpers obviously choses to use the original and flawed theory originally proposed by charles darwin to bolster their claims that “evolution” is just as flawed as the bible.
Egyptians have a general phenotype that is quite distinctive to both Europeans whites and sub-saharan blacks.
obviously Egypt is a major transcontinental country that is near its neighbors but buffered by major geographic features. The mediteranean ocean, saharan desert, and sinai desert are all major geographic barriers that serve to buffer egypt from European whites, Sub-saharan blacks, and fertile crescent peoples.
Not sure why its so difficult for whites/blacks to see how their own agendas blind them to the very simple fact that egypt is not african, european, or middle eastern but is in fact a TRANSNATIONAL state that is an amalgamation of neighboring and local peoples.
LikeLike
To Narcisco
Survival of the fittest refers to competition between different “species”..
Yes but it also refers to changes within a species which give an advantage over other members of the same species which can eventually lead to enough changes such that you would have a separate species.
LikeLike
@Narcisco
Survival of the fittest refers to competition between different “species” but the rich and white people in general have misconstrued it to justify their own inequitable position of wealth/power within the human species.
That’s properly “Social Darwinism” and it was Galton, renowned eugenicist (IIRC), who came up with “survival of the fittest”, not Darwin.
Social Darwinism has been debunked for almost a century now. It’s not a theory that any serious person, whatever their color, believes anymore.
And whatever the case with “survival of the fittest”, humanity is not internally distinguished by genetically stable subspecies.
LikeLike
To Thaddeus:
That’s properly “Social Darwinism” and it was Galton, renowned eugenicist (IIRC), who came up with “survival of the fittest”, not Darwin.
Darwin most definitely used the phrase “survival of the fittest” which he also described as Natural Selection.. albeit not in the manner that Galton used it.
http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species-6th-edition/chapter-04.html
“On the other hand, we may feel sure that any variation in the least degree injurious would be rigidly destroyed. This preservation of favourable individual differences and variations, and the destruction of those which are injurious, I have called Natural Selection, or the Survival of the Fittest. Variations neither useful nor injurious would not be affected by natural selection, and would be left either a fluctuating element, as perhaps we see in certain polymorphic species, or would ultimately become fixed, owing to the nature of the organism and the nature of the conditions.”
“Nature, if I may be allowed to personify the natural preservation or survival of the fittest, cares nothing for appearances, except in so far as they are useful to any being. ”
“Slow though the process of selection may be, if feeble man can do much by artificial selection, I can see no limit to the amount of change, to the beauty and complexity of the coadaptations between all organic beings, one with another and with their physical conditions of life, which may have been effected in the long course of time through nature’s power of selection, that is by the survival of the fittest.”
LikeLike
It was Spencer, not Galton who coined the term. I’m always getting the two mixed up!
Darwin only used it from the 5th Edition on of Origin of Species and, as you say, in a completely different way from Spencer.
In any case, it’s a term born our of social darwinism, not Darwinism.
LikeLike
Social Darwinism has been debunked for almost a century now… But only in academic circles. Your Average Joe (and his politician, employer, etc, etc) still believe in it.
Continents are very huge land mass. Europe is divided by sea and also consists of islands.
You’re right, J; I was joking. But like Thad said, what is seen as a continent is a social construct. There’s no natural reason for Africa to be considered a continent and not India. And like you said, Europe is a special case indeed.
Still, all of today’s world agree, more or less* which continents we have on our planet. Until the idea of what’s African continent is redefined, we can safely say Egypt was an African** civilization.
* More or less, because people often take geography as one thing, but politics as another. In that sense, certain parts of Africa, Europe, North America, etc. are not seen as “truly belonging” to the continent in question.
** What “African civilization” really means is not the same thing as what it meant to Ancient Egyptians, and it’s another social construct.
LikeLike
Totally agreed Mira,
However, I sense a shift in direction by Thad, referring to continent as being a ‘social construct’ to get his point over.
I had said to him previously (and elsewhere on this blog) that everything on this earth is essentially a ‘social construct’…even ‘biology’ is ‘social construct’ when it suggest there is no such thing as ‘race’ another social construct, as well as ‘science’ too with its claim of ‘higher knowledge etc).
My point and here we are in agreement if Egypt is not an African civilisation, then we need to have this level playing field also played out in the real world, for every single nation.
LikeLike
I had said to him previously (and elsewhere on this blog) that everything on this earth is essentially a ‘social construct
Well, yes… That’s the whole point.
However, unlike Thad (I believe), I can make a difference between what I believe it’s the right way to see the world and how others (and those in charge) see the world. Social construct or not, race, Africa, black people, etc. exist in our world, and are therefore real for human experience. That’s why we can discuss it.
My point and here we are in agreement if Egypt is not an African civilisation, then we need to have this level playing field also played out in the real world, for every single nation.
Of course. I’m all for it. But you and I can’t make a difference; we can write articles and maybe be known in academic circles or something. But until powers of the world decide
PS-Like I said elsewhere, J, the idea of social construct is very well applied to other civilizations, to white civilizations, for example, “the cradle of European and whole western civilization”, Ancient Greece. The problem is, the whole debate is not popular outside academic circles.
I don’t know about Thad, but I do apply this sort of thinking on every nation, etc. It’s not our problem, J, it’s not as popular as talking about Egypt.
LikeLike
I meant to say: But until powers of the world decide it’s relevant, it won’t be relevant.
LikeLike
Social Darwinism has been debunked for almost a century now… But only in academic circles. Your Average Joe (and his politician, employer, etc, etc) still believe in it.
Not in this hemisphere. Your avergae Joe here believes that behavior is carried in the blood and that races are pure because Jesus made them that way. It says so in the Bible.
LikeLike
I had said to him previously (and elsewhere on this blog) that everything on this earth is essentially a ‘social construct’…even ‘biology’ is ‘social construct’ when it suggest there is no such thing as ‘race’ another social construct, as well as ‘science’ too with its claim of ‘higher knowledge etc).
Because everything IS a social construct, it becomes even more important to understand the intellectual geneologies behind those constructs. That’s the point, J.
You seem to think “everything’s a social construct” means “I’ll just make stuff up as it suits me.”
[Best Yoda voice]:
“Logic? Reason? Proof? A Afro-centered scholar needs not these things.”
LikeLike
Not in this hemisphere. Your avergae Joe here believes that behavior is carried in the blood and that races are pure because Jesus made them that way. It says so in the Bible.
But the whole capitalism, more or less, feed itself on survival of the fittest narrative… And capitalism is pretty popular out there, isn’t it? 😀
LikeLike
@Mira:
However, unlike Thad (I believe), I can make a difference between what I believe it’s the right way to see the world and how others (and those in charge) see the world. Social construct or not, race, Africa, black people, etc. exist in our world, and are therefore real for human experience. That’s why we can discuss it.
First of all, if I didn’t believe I couldn’t make a difference, I wouldn’t be teaching.
Secondly, obviously race, Africa and black people exist in our world and we can discuss them. The point is to not project our world onto the past and presume that they thought the way we do.
I would think that an anthropologist would understand this.
Finally, if you believe that power is in the hands of “those in charge”, I suggest you read some Foucault.
LikeLike
First of all, if I didn’t believe I couldn’t make a difference, I wouldn’t be teaching.
Lol, well, I guess we’re different in that aspect. Still, I must admit I’m pretty disappointed in making a difference attempts.
Secondly, obviously race, Africa and black people exist in our world and we can discuss them. The point is to not project our world onto the past and presume that they thought the way we do.
I didn’t do that. Cheikh did it, and good for him. All I’m saying, it doesn’t matter for today’s people (average joes) whether it was “real” or not. It’s real to them. When you’re an educated man called a cocaine dealer just because you’re black, or when you’re profiled by the police, or denied a job just because you’re black, it doesn’t really matter to you whether race is a real deal or a construct. I would think that an anthropologist would understand this.
LikeLike
Sorry Thad,
If anyone reasoning is problematic it is yours.
And here is a classic example:
You seem to think “everything’s a social construct” means “I’ll just make stuff up as it suits me.”
[Best Yoda voice]:
“Logic? Reason? Proof? A Afro-centered scholar needs not these things.”
Nowhere is this suggested – expcept from your problematic further reasoning.
And this is ignoring the issue of logic, reason, proof, are problematic issues in the Philosphy of Science, a subject you said you lectured in.
Abagond’s post on David Hume touches upon these issues
LikeLike
Mira,
With regard to thepoint:
“‘My point and here we are in agreement if Egypt is not an
African civilisation, then we need to have this level playing field also played out in the real world, for every single nation’.
Of course. I’m all for it. But you and I can’t make a difference; we can write articles and maybe be known in academic circles or something. But until powers of the world decide”
This is my opinion, when it comes to African history all the ‘markers’ that are used to investigate evidence becomes ‘problematic’.
Personally I sense Thad wishes to argue that there is no such thing as ‘Africa’, ‘race’ etc so as to ‘deconstruct’ African heritage. However, I sense an unwillingness to do the same for Europe and White people.
And this is the ‘game is actually played out in the field of African studies ie the’ which is played out. The need for a ‘higher proof’ before we can say that Black Africans did this or that.
Even when it is suggested something is of African heritage etc, very rarely can it be stated unequivocally.
So this in and of itself constitutes part of the racism in academia.
LikeLike
Personally I sense Thad wishes to argue that there is no such thing as ‘Africa’, ‘race’ etc so as to ‘deconstruct’ African heritage. However, I sense an unwillingness to do the same for Europe and White people.
I don’t sense that. I do believe he’d love to do the same with Europe (as he, indeed, proved a couple of times). The problem I see with his attitude, if I may say, is that he’s forgetting he’s not in his classroom. While I am here to learn, his attitude is often patronizing. He also likes hair splitting, which often (say, in 8 cases out of 10) leads to off topics discussions and derailment.
The need for a ‘higher proof’ before we can say that Black Africans did this or that.
True, that’s the problem.
LikeLike
With regard to this comment
“Egyptian society – unlike, say, Greek society – had many general features commonly found in African society, like matriarchy and circumcision”.
It is Herodotus who informs us that the practice of circumcision originated first with the Ethiopians/Egyptians which is slightly different to the account in the bible
“For the people of Colchis are evidently Egyptian, and this I perceived for myself before I heard it from others. So when I had come to consider the matter I asked them both; and the Colchians had remembrance of the Egyptians more than the Egyptians of the Colchians; but the Egyptians said they believed that the Colchians were a portion of the army of Sesostris. That this was so I conjectured myself not only because they are dark-skinned and have curly hair (this of itself amounts to nothing, for there are other races which are so), but also still more because the Colchians, Egyptians, and Ethiopians alone of all the races of men have practised circumcision from the first.
The Phenicians and the Syrians who dwell in Palestine confess themselves that they have learnt it from the Egyptians, and the Syrians about the river Thermodon and the river Parthenios, and the Macronians, who are their neighbours, say that they have learnt it lately from the Colchians.
These are the only races of men who practise circumcision, and these evidently practise it in the same manner as the Egyptians. Of the Egyptians themselves however and the Ethiopians, I am not able to say which learnt from the other, for undoubtedly it is a most ancient custom; but that the other nations learnt it by intercourse with the Egyptians, this among others is to me a strong proof, namely that those of the Phenicians who have intercourse with Hellas cease to follow the example of the Egyptians in this matter, and do not circumcise their children.”
(Herodotus, The Histories, Book 2: 104)
http://wysinger.homestead.com/strabo.html
LikeLike
Now, if I may dare a (nearly) innocent question:
Did anyone here actually read Diop’s books?
For those interested in questioning the work of Cheikh Anta Diop (instead of “speculating about what Thad, J or whoever said that C. A. Diop said”) I found this link:
http://www.africawithin.com/diop/origin_egyptians.htm
LikeLike
I think you are being very generous Mira,
Everything that is related to something which is pro-Black. He attempts to ‘fight’ it down
LikeLike
Thanks for the link, Dahoman X. I’ll take my time to read it and post my comment.
@J
Everything that is related to something which is pro-Black. He attempts to ‘fight’ it down
In all honestly, he attempts to “fight” down pretty much everything anybody here says, even if he agrees with the person. Maybe you weren’t paying attention on comments that are not about race/blacks, but I can assure you he has the same attitude in the discussions.
LikeLike
*in all honesty
LikeLike
Thanks Dahomean X
Funnily enough I was looking for this website, which forms the basis of what Abagond has said.
Finally and without any arrogance I have all Diop’s book and I have read them on several occasion.
It is clear that many others here are not really conversant, with Diop, I humbly submit, and much of their understanding is based on eurocentricism and racist thinking.
LikeLike
People get over it Egypt or KEMET was created by people coming from Sudan. KEMET is an African and Black civilisation. Lille is the last french city before Belgium but Lille is not Belgium. Get it that Egypt is the last AFRICAN country before Eastern world. Did ancien Kemet people stated that they were mixed and they necessarly and quickly mixed with other people from outside especially before the land was ruled by people coming from Asia ? I don’t say they did not mixe but was it SO intense before invaders came ?
Yes Black people are not dumb. They have faults but they are not worse or better than other people (Eropean, Asian, American “Native” ect…). They can build things fitting their atmosphere and their land.
Why is it so difficult to agree that KEMET was at the origin a black and African land ? The more I read some comments and the more I think a lot of people who don’t think they are racists are indeed but it is very very soft. Look there is a debate to know if Kemet was ruled by Black. I don’t say Kemet was only ruled by Blacks and invaders did nothing in Kemet but did that erases things black rulers made in Kemet and their power (no matter if they did not state that the land is part of Africa) ?
LikeLike
@J
“Everything that is related to something which is pro-Black. He attempts to ‘fight’ it down”
I agree with Mira on this. Thad loves to argue, about pretty much anything, but I don’t pick up from him what I would consider any anti-black agenda.
From the way I read things, seems like you and Thad are pretty much in agreement about the main stuff, but squabble about the details.
LikeLike
ES,
Perhaps because Mira and you do not adopt a pro-black stance that is why you cannot see it, it is blatantly clear and very worring, here and if here is anything to judge by, I have to say in the external world.
LikeLike
And I’d say, perhaps because you pay most attention to discussion concerning race, J, you missed other of Thad’s arguments.
His fav subjects, apart from this one, seem to be sex and religion. He also argues equally with whites and non-whites, men and women (which is ok). What is not ok, is that he argues with equal force and hair splitting techniques even if he agrees with someone.
LikeLike
Just to say I have not missed Thad’s other arguments.
When he argues with others I can understand he is being an ‘academic troll’.
What I am discussing is when he plays an ‘academic troll’ in the role of the ‘White liberal’.
There is a difference between the two
LikeLike
With regard to the issue of Egyptologist definition of Kmt, and Diop. Citing Dahomen X link here is the latters position.
In Egyptian, words are normally followed by a determinative which indicates their exact sense, and for this particuar expression Egyptologists suggest that [heiroglyphics] km=black and that the colour qualifies the determinative which follows it and which signifies ‘country’.
Accordingly, they claim, the translation should be ‘the black earth’ from the colour of the loam, or the ‘black country’, and not ‘the country of the black men’ as we should be inclined to render it today with black Africa and white Africa in mind.
Perhaps so, but if we apply this rule rigorously to [hieroglyphics] =kmit, we are forced to ‘concede that here the adjective “black” qualifies the determinative which signifies the whole people of Egypt shown by the two symbols for “man” and “woman” and the three strokes below them which indicate the plural’.
Thus, if it is possible to voice a doubt as regards the expression [hieroglyphics] =Kme, it is not possible to do so in the case of the two adjectives of nationality [hieroglyphics] kmt and kmtjw unless one is picking one’s arguments completely at random.
It is a remarkable circumstance that the ancient Egyptians should never have had the idea of applying these qualificatives to the Nubians and other populations of Africa to distinguish them from themselves; any more than a Roman at the apogee of the empire could use a ‘colour’ adjective to distinguish himself from the Germani on the other bank of the Danube, of the same stock but still in the prehistoric age of development.
In either case both sides were of the same world in terms of physical anthropology, and accordingly the distinguishing terms used related to level of civilization or moral sense.
For the civilized Romans, the Germans, of the same stock, were barbarians. The Egyptians used the expression [hieroglyphics] =na-has to designate the Nubians; and nahas48 is the name of a people, with no colour connotation in Egyptian. it is a deliberate mistranslation to render it as negro as is done in almost all present-day publications.
LikeLike
I think he’s always an “academic troll”, so to speak. Also, you’ll have to ask him whether he’s a white liberal or not, but, as far as I know, white liberals have other beliefs outside race issues, and they often concern sexuality & gender constructs, religion, human rights… So if he is, indeed, a white liberal, he can be that in both race and other discussions.
And now I do think we (at least I) should stop talking about him while he’s not around. He knows best what he wants to say. All I wanted to point is that he did, indeed, challenge the usual view of Greece as an European civilization. He didn’t argue this much because there was nobody to argue with, I guess.
LikeLike
In the real world the ‘White liberals’ have a special place and position as it pertains solely to race – and that is to hi-jack and destroy things ‘Black’…So therefore it’s impossible for me to ask him if that is his role here
LikeLike
Ok. I just don’t know much, if anything, about white liberals. I thought it’s a political orientation like any other. You know, involving all the issues and not just race.
LikeLike
@ J:
Remember though that while someone might argue with you, or with some of Diop’s contentions, that doesn’t mean that they are arguing with “pro-black” as an idea.
LikeLike
ES,
What you say here is belittling my intelligence
LikeLike
I’ve slayed so many Afrocentrist on this very subject, I will not get into it on this blog. I will just state a few FACTS and keep it simple.
1.North Africa has never been black African.
2. As you go south in Egypt, you will find black people. Egyptians conquered the Nubians, although the Nubians returned the favor a thousand years later in the 25th Dynasty, but only for less than a hundred years.
3. No black mummies=No Black Egyptians. All mummies are caucasian. You can compare them to the Nubian mummies found and you will see the world of difference.
4. Egyptians clearly distinguished themselves from their Nubian enemies.
5. The majority of artifacts clearly show caucasians, not black africans.
6. Modern Egyptians=Ancient Egyptians. DNA Proves this.
and again NORTH AFRICA HAS NEVER BEEN BLACK AFRICAN. BLACK PEOPLE COME FROM SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA…BOTTOM LINE.
LikeLike
Eurasian Sensation,
the original Arabs (from the Arabian peninsula) are, on average, 35-40% indigenous African in their DNA make-up, yet they are classified as Caucasoid?????????
“But also, because Arabia and Egypt are right next door to each other, I find it problematic that one region was “Caucasian” and the other “black”.”
To Narciso. It’s common sense that Egypt is African. It sits on the continent of Africa. If the African continent gets destroyed by an asteroid, Egypt will collapse with it. (Egypt is not geographically in Europe or Asia). It’s in Africa, making it African.
Furthermore, Egyptian civilization started from the SOUTH (Upper Egypt) near the border of the Sudan–the petroglyphs are indicate of this. It did not start in the far east or the north where Caucasoid invaders settled.
There is no connection linking the petroglyphs (found from east to south of the Sahara) to outside of Africa.
Narciso:
“Not sure why its so difficult for whites/blacks to see how their own agendas blind them to the very simple fact that egypt is not african, european, or middle eastern but is in fact a TRANSNATIONAL state”
FURTHERMORE: saying the Egyptians did not classify themselves as blacks is irrelevant. The Greeks and Romans did not see themselves as Europeans/whites either. The Greeks referred to all non-Greeks (including Europeans) as barbarians. This does not mean the Greeks are a separate race from Italians or Germans or Brits, despite the physical differences.
The Egyptian physiognomy is very African, using the words of Anthropologists.
LikeLike
Great White,
“1.North Africa has never been black African.”
This is false, any way you dice it. If you mean genetically, there is significant sub-Saharan admixture (assuming that is what you mean by “black African”) in North Africa. A study on mtDNA sequences in Morocco shows that almost 1/3 of their ancestry is sub-Saharan in origin. And this study was done on mtDNA, which generally only accounts for recent ancestry. Here’s the abstract:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11393336?dopt=Abstract
If you’re referring to “pure blacks,” then it is also false and shows that you’ve never step foot in North Afrioa. There are indeed many there that would be considered black by American and/or Eurocentric standards.
LikeLike
Also….
All mummies are caucasian. The majority of artifacts clearly show caucasians, not black africans.
Is not correct.
This one is:
Egyptians clearly distinguished themselves from their Nubian enemies.
… but not in a way GWM means. Of course Egyptians see themselves differently than Nubians. Last time I checked, white Americans clearly distinguish themselves from Russians… despite both being white.
Mel is correct here:
FURTHERMORE: saying the Egyptians did not classify themselves as blacks is irrelevant. The Greeks and Romans did not see themselves as Europeans/whites either. The Greeks referred to all non-Greeks (including Europeans) as barbarians. This does not mean the Greeks are a separate race from Italians or Germans or Brits, despite the physical differences.
But I must add that Greeks did see babarians as “others”, as, people of different race. It had nothing to do with skin colour. Creating races based on skin colour is just one way to do it, it’s not more “natural” than making them based on any other feature. Races don’t have base in biology, so they don’t have to be made based on any physical feature, really.
LikeLike
“Secondly, obviously race, Africa and black people exist in our world and we can discuss them. The point is to not project our world onto the past and presume that they thought the way we do.
I would think that an anthropologist would understand this.”
Even an “anthropologist” who thinks Greece and Rome were discrete civilizations? I wouldn’t bet on it.
LikeLike
If you’re referring to me, FG, first of all, I am an archaeologist, and second of all, Greece and Rome were not the same civilization, no matter what we today like to think about them.
I don’t know if you’re angry because of our discussion in other posts or something. I can assure you I don’t have anything against you, and I actually like reading your posts even if I disagree with some of them, etc etc. If I’m getting the wrong feeling about this, please tell me.
LikeLike
I am not sure if I posted this elsewhere. Nevertheless an interesting article outlining the historiography battle on how Egypt (and other civilisations by extension in Africa) could no longer be classified as White-Caucasoid, because of the influence of C.A Diop.
Finally in Africa? Egypt, from Diop to Celenko
by Aaron Kamugisha
“Cheikh Anta Diop’s 1954 work Nations Negres et Culture stands out as perhaps the most brilliant condemnation of Eurocentric historiography in the anticolonial literature of the black world”
Just as Cesaire had also suggested
http://wysinger.homestead.com/finally.html
LikeLike
And from the same link:
“Yet his (Diop’s) schema of an African or black population that incorporated new elements over time, rather than a mixed-race population, is actually closer to the evidence now at our disposal from recent research in bio-anthropology.
It takes no stretch of the imagination, nor partisan reading of Diop’s work, to see clear parallels between his and Keita’s understanding of Egyptian biological relationships. That Diop reached the same conclusion, forty years previously, as Keita (that–without resorting to the race signifier–Egypt is ‘biologically African’ (95)) is a major victory for him and the Afrocentric movement in general.
Yet it is one for which the general academy has been unwilling to give any credit. While Diop may have got some of the specifics wrong, the movement of his historical project continues to be legitimised by new archaeological discoveries. A historical survey of thought on Egypt and Africa that minimises or distorts Diop’s contribution is refuted by the very ‘objective’ evidence claimed in the past to discredit him”.
LikeLike
@ J:
apologies, I didn’t express that very well and don’t mean disrespect, I realise it comes across as patronising. What I mean is that I know from previous posts that this is an issue you are very passionate about, and I hope that doesn’t overly influence the way you judge the motives of those of us who might disagree with you on it.
LikeLike
@ Mel:
the original Arabs (from the Arabian peninsula) are, on average, 35-40% indigenous African in their DNA make-up, yet they are classified as Caucasoid?????????
When I said “because Arabia and Egypt are right next door to each other, I find it problematic that one region was “Caucasian” and the other “black”, I’m taking issue with the either/or mentality. Clearly there is longstanding admixture on either side of the Red Sea (obviously tending more towards black on the African side). So to claim either population as black or Caucasian, depends on how one defines those terms. It seems that various commenters here have different ideas about what black means; ie. is a population that is 35-40% indigenous African “mixed” or “black”? For my guess is that that describes the ancient Egyptians pretty well.
LikeLike
Egyptians clearly distinguished themselves from their Nubian enemies.
Yes, just as the Germans did from the French, and other European countries, regions, did when they were at war with each other. However, I don’t hear anyone disputing their being white because of this.
LikeLike
Here is the truth you seek, my lost Afrocentric friends.
This is just a small sample of reality, please embrace it.
Until you grasp reality and stop with the revisionist fairy tales, there will always be racial problems.
Bottom Line.
LikeLike
That guy at the front of the line, looks like Michael Jackson before he got all those surgeries! What’s your point bottom line? They sure don’t look like Caucasians, none of them do, bottom line.
LikeLike
@Hernieth
They are caucasian. North Africa has never been black african.
Egpytians NOW are Egyptians THEN. This is proven by DNA evidence.
As you go south in Egypt you will find black people.
The Afrocentric, in IT’s most ignorant of beliefs, will always deal in black or white. There is not just black or white, my lost Afrocentric. Caucasian Eurasians have been in North Africa for over 30,000 years, again proven by DNA evidence.
Black people come from sub-Saharan Africa.
Please, stop with the Afrocentric nonsense, thank you.
LikeLike
–Sasgrace–
” EGYPT or KEMET WAS CREATED by PEOPLE coming FROM SUDAN…”
As i have said, whites and blacks have an agenda of trying to appropriate an indigeneous egyptian culture as their own.
Right those indigenous egyptian were too stupid to be the creators of ancient egyptian culture they needed “black” nubians to “create” their civilization for them. As you can tell this is the exact same arguments that white supremacist make about being the originators of all ancient civilizations.
“KEMET is an African and Black civilisation”
Egyptian culture is a locally developed civilization that was and heavily influenced all surrounding peoples. Egypt is a transcontinental state and as such is an amalagation of local and surrounding peoples. Calling them a Black civilization is not accurate or scientific, it is an emotional desire to appropriate a complex civilization to “prove” blacks are just as “superior” as whites. Guess what? the world is not just made up of “whites/blacks,” the world is filled with a multitude of humanity that spans various skin tones and facial features. multi-ethnic people are the rule and creating false distinctions like “Black/white” ignores that we are all the same species.
–Mel–
“To Narciso. It’s common sense that Egypt is African. It sits on the continent of Africa. If the African continent gets destroyed by an asteroid, Egypt will collapse with it. (Egypt is not geographically in Europe or Asia). It’s in Africa, making it African.”
Common sense also clearly shows that Egypt is a transcontinental state that is buffered from europe by the mediterranean ocean, from the fertile crescent by the sinai desert, and from sub-saharan africa by the Saharan desert. Its common sense that Egypt will be distinct from all three but will impact and be impacted by all three surrounding regions. Asteroids, space aliens, or gremlins will not change egypt’s transcontinental location.
“Furthermore, Egyptian civilization started from the SOUTH (Upper Egypt) near the border of the Sudan–the petroglyphs are indicate of this. It did not start in the far east or the north where Caucasoid invaders settled.”
It started in egypt not the sudan so exactly what is your point?
Seems to me that you refuse to give any credit to the local inhabitants for creating their own society. Please Its pretty obvious that Egypt has black, white, and middle eastern genetic components because of its geographic location.
“There is no connection linking the petroglyphs (found from east to south of the Sahara) to outside of Africa….”
First of all I’m not making the one pretending that egypt is not a locally developed civilization. You are the one insinuating that it was “sudan” that was the real originator of egyptian civilization.
“FURTHERMORE: saying the Egyptians did not classify themselves as blacks is irrelevant.”
Obviously you refuse to admit that people don’t fall just into the white/black dichotomy. Ancient egyptians made a clear distinction from themselves and their neighbors calling it “irrelevant” is laughable. You have white people pretending egyptians were white and you have black people pretending that they were black. Did it ever occur to you that ancient egyptians did not need either group to teach them how to write, build, or live?
LikeLike
Egyptians, Moors(Berber converts to islam), Libyans, Numidians and the Maghreb people are not black african.
As these people went south, they encountered black africans.
North Africans are people from Eurasia who migrated to North Africa during the ice age. This includes Egyptians.
Look at the GAUNCHES, these people were WHITE PEOPLE who inhabited the Canary Islands off West Africa. They were there between 10 to 6 thousand years before being discovered and assimilated by spanish explorers. These people were believed to be either shipwrecked explorers from the Magreb,Egypt or even, as outlandish as it sounds, from Atlantis.
They mummified their dead also.
Please people, stop with the Afrocentric fairy tales.
Bottom line…Anything that is brought forth as fact by an Afrocentric can and has been debunked.
Stealing history is a crime against humanity.
LikeLike
Cheers ES,
Maybe I am also guilty and could have phrased my response a little better…Well at least we are equal now
So no need for any apologises
LikeLike
Diop’s thoughts on his works:
“The work I undertook in the early 1950s was actually the work of a GENEARTION OF SCHOLARS, as I was soon to realise. What I mean is that so many disciplines had to be mastered that no one person could possibly hope to suceed on his own. For instance I had started attacking the problem of ancient Egypt and its relationship to the rest of Africa via linguistics and history. But it was soon apparent that I would have to master various other fields such as ethnology, anthropology and so on.
Consequently, I was led to tackle biochemistry, physics, mathematics, philosophy etc. I also had to learn the ancient Egyptian language to communicate with them without intermedaries, such as translators. So you see what I mean…We must stop being dilettantes…”
LikeLike
Diop on anthropology suggesting that ‘there are no races’
“The Europeans, all the Occidentals say there is no race. But they know very well what a white man is, they know very what a yellow man is. But we do not know what a Black man is…IT IS THE IDEOLOGY WHICH HAS BEEN DEVELOPED TO DESTROY THE CULTURAL CONSCIOUSNESS OF THE COLONISED, DOMINATED PEOPLE THAT WE ARE….
A racial classification is given to a group of individuals who share a number of anthropological traits, which is necessary so that they not be confused with others. There are two aspects which must be distinguished, the phenotypical and the genotypical. I have frequently elaborated on these two aspects…
Throughout history, it has always been the phenotype which has been at issue, we mustn’t lose sight of this fact.
The phenotype is a reality, physical appearance is a reality. And this appearance corresponds to something which makes us say that Europe is peopled by White people, Africa is peopled by black people, and Asia is people by yellow. It is these relationships which have played a role in history.
NOW EVERY TIME THESE RELATIONSHIPS ARE NOT FAVORABLE TO THE WESTERN CULTURES, AN EFFORT IS MADE TO UNDERMINE THE CULTURAL CONSCIOUSNESS OF AFRICANS BY TELLING THEM. ‘WE DON’T EVEN KNOW WHAT RACE IS’. What that means is that they do not know what a black man is; they do know what a white man is…If Africans fall into that trap, they’ll be going around in circles.
They must undestand the trap, understand the stakes…”
LikeLike
RE: My Evolution Analogy;
Theories are not static or completely accurate otherwise they would be a LAW. The initial theory has to be regularly edited and/or undated to account for new evidence or a better/more accurate understanding of the initial observations.
Evolution is a perfect example of a theory where several groups with “agendas” use a dated and flawed definition to further their own aims rather than to obtain a more accurate understanding of the natural world.
The whole ancient egypt being white/black controversy is based on a flawed premise that civilization is based on genetics and an inherent “superiority” of those who develop highly complex civilizations.
It completely ignores that geography, climate, ecologically, relative disease burden, religious thought, etc have a major impact on the development of highly specialized/complex civilizations.
Furthermore, labeling a society “inferior/superior” is not scientific but is instead based on bias and arbitrary “judgment calls.”
Too many nonwhites are “suckered” into accepting the white supremacist worldview that people are only as evolved as the complexity of the civilization achieved.
LikeLike
@ Narciso
Thank you! It’s been kinda like watching 1940’s American black beauty pageant where all the women are cut from the same faint brown skin/straightened hair cloth lol. Yes, call out the white lies but don’t become it.
LikeLike
Great White, you are so misinformed on North Africa that it would take me all day to correct, so I’ll just stop here.
LikeLike
FACT: Egypt is geographically in Africa. No one disputes that other people./outsiders (Caucasians) came there and mixed/mingled with the original inhabitants of the land (black/Indigenous Africans). The fact is, Egypt is no more transcontinental that Greece or Rome was, yet you wouldn’t near refer to the Ancient Greeks or Romans as “mixed” or “non-white” but here you are trying to do exactly that for Egypt. Please, hypocrisy won’t work.
Narciso: “Common sense also clearly shows that Egypt is a transcontinental state that is buffered from europe by the mediterranean ocean, from the fertile crescent by the sinai desert, and from sub-saharan africa by the Saharan desert. Its common sense that Egypt will be distinct from all three but will impact and be impacted by all three surrounding regions. Asteroids, space aliens, or gremlins will not change egypt’s transcontinental location.
“Furthermore, Egyptian civilization started from the SOUTH (Upper Egypt) near the border of the Sudan–the petroglyphs are indicate of this. It did not start in the far east or the north where Caucasoid invaders settled.”
The Sudan (a region) is separate from Sudan (the country). Egypt and Sudan were founded from the same place/source. Your problem is that you are speaking of Egyptians/Egypt as if they/it is mutually exclusive to black/Africa. Egyptian and black are not mutually exclusive terms. The original Egyptians WERE black, whether they classified themselves as such or not. Likewise, the Ancient Greeks were white/Caucasian whether they called themselves that or not. (Ps. black does not exclude mixed people either, as the case of President Obama clearly illustrates; see below for explanation of this).
Narciso: It started in egypt not the sudan so exactly what is your point?
Seems to me that you refuse to give any credit to the local inhabitants for creating their own society. Please Its pretty obvious that Egypt has black, white, and middle eastern genetic components because of its geographic location.
“There is no connection linking the petroglyphs (found from east to south of the Sahara) to outside of Africa….”
You’re the one NOT getting it. No one said Egypt came from Sudanese. Egypt and Sudan are intricately tied. Their civilization came from the same root (Upper Egypt/the Sudan (the region and not the country). They are brances of the same tree. From Narcisso: “First of all I’m not making the one pretending that egypt is not a locally developed civilization. You are the one insinuating that it was “sudan” that was the real originator of egyptian civilization.”
“FURTHERMORE: saying the Egyptians did not classify themselves as blacks is irrelevant.”
Again, you’re not getting the point. The Egyptian were not taught by blacks. The Egyptians (the original ones) WERE blacks. ” The indigenous people of Egypt (ah, those who originated on the continent of Africa (not Caucasians) were black. It’s their cultures and practices that the Egyptian civilization was founded on. The original and first Egyptians WERE blacks.
Furthermore, Eurocentrics were the ones who designated anyone with indigenous African DNA as black; therefore, by Eurocentric definition of who is black, the Egyptians, even if they were mixed, would still be classified as black.
Narciso wrote: “Obviously you refuse to admit that people don’t fall just into the white/black dichotomy. Ancient egyptians made a clear distinction from themselves and their neighbors calling it “irrelevant” is laughable. You have white people pretending egyptians were white and you have black people pretending that they were black. Did it ever occur to you that ancient egyptians did not need either group to teach them how to write, build, or
LikeLike
@Mira
Lol, well, I guess we’re different in that aspect. Still, I must admit I’m pretty disappointed in making a difference attempts.
Perhaps you’re trying too hard? Just getting across the concept that race is a social structure is enough for me, most days.
I didn’t do that. Cheikh did it, and good for him. All I’m saying, it doesn’t matter for today’s people (average joes) whether it was “real” or not. It’s real to them. When you’re an educated man called a cocaine dealer just because you’re black, or when you’re profiled by the police, or denied a job just because you’re black, it doesn’t really matter to you whether race is a real deal or a construct. I would think that an anthropologist would understand this.
We’re talking about whether or not Egypt was white or black. My comment was “According to themsleves, they were neither. They had no concept of today’s classifications.”
How does that tie into whether or not today’s racial classifications are real or not, Mira? Obviously they are real and have real effects. I have never said otherwise nor even HINTED at anything else. Given that, why are you lecturing me about their reality?
LikeLike
As for “white liberals”…
J is of the view that there are two kinds of white people: liberals and conservatives. If one isn’t the one, one needs must be the other.
Given that “conservatives”, in J’s view, seem to be whites with 19th century views of race – views I most definitely don’t share – then I needs must be a “liberal”.
However, a liberal would believe in the capitalist system. I don’t.
A liberal would believe that it all comes down to individual efforts. I don’t.
And finally, a liberal would believe that notions like “equality” or “human rights” are self-explanatory and universal. I don’t.
If anything, I am a “neo-modernist” with decided Foucaultian leanings. I believe that power is inscribed in daily micro-relations. I don’t believe than mythical, immaginary units of social activity – races, nations, states, classes – really explain much in terms of human life as it’s lived. At best, they are sort of strange attractors around which individual life trajectories revolve.
As far as I can see, J’s a neo-Garveyite with very clear fascist tendencies. He seems to believe that a revolutionary vanguard of enlightened people (such as himself) can lead the black masses to unite in one solid political block under the vanguard’s leadership. He’s authoritarian (i.e. he believes that there’re clear cut and singular “right” and “wrong” courses of action and that he is on the side of the “right”, which gives him the moral authority to cut out the “wrong”) and believes that racial identity provides the basis for unilateral and homogenous political organization based on “natural” affinities.
J and I fundamentally disagree on the value of individual human agency. I, as a foucaultian, see the daily struggle against power (which is, of course, carried out on an individual level) to be far more strategic and interesting than anything which could possibly be accomplished on the mass level. J, as a neo-fascist, understands this to be some sort of 19th century re-valorization of the individual as the ultimate focus of human sociality. He thus considers me to be a liberal.
The problem with J, from my viewpoint, is that his philosophical base hasn’t advanced beyond 1920 or so. He likes to pretend that humanity is stuck in the 19th century precisely because that makes his late-Victorian and early modern views look radical when, in fact, they are profoundly reactionary.
This is also why it’s so important for Egypt to be “black” for J: fascists always invoke supposedly milenarian notions of identity to bolster their projects of massive social reorganizations. This was the case with Hitler’s use of Aryans, Milosevic’s use of Greater Serbia and Mussolini’s use of Rome.
LikeLike
Natasha W wrote:
Great White, you are so misinformed on North Africa that it would take me all day to correct, so I’ll just stop here.
Let me qoute a phrase out of one of my earlier posts, in case you missed it
Bottom line…Anything that is brought forth as fact by an Afrocentric can and has been debunked.
I will stop right there and await your challenge.
LikeLike
“As far as I can see, J’s a neo-Garveyite with very clear fascist tendencies. He seems to believe that a revolutionary vanguard of enlightened people (such as himself) can lead the black masses to unite in one solid political block under the vanguard’s leadership. He’s authoritarian (i.e. he believes that there’re clear cut and singular “right” and “wrong” courses of action and that he is on the side of the “right”, which gives him the moral authority to cut out the “wrong”) and believes that racial identity provides the basis for unilateral and homogenous political organization based on “natural” affinities.”
What I find odd about J’s racial nationalism is that it doesn’t at all seem consistent with the social trajectory of the black British population. From what I understand, despite racial tensions, the blacks and whites in the UK marry each other at very high rates and, consequently, the populations of parts of London and other major cities are coming to resemble those of Puerto Rico or Cuba. J would do well to the come to the US because the social conditions are more consistent with his ideology.
LikeLike
Mel wrote:
“Furthermore, Eurocentrics were the ones who designated anyone with indigenous African DNA as black; therefore, by Eurocentric definition of who is black, the Egyptians, even if they were mixed, would still be classified as black.”
Here Natasha, let me show you a sample of how I debunk Afrocentrics like Ole’Mel here.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/caucasian
Main Entry: Cau·ca·sian
Pronunciation: \kȯ-ˈkā-zhən, kä- also -ˈka-zhən\
Function: adjective
Date: 1658
1 : of or relating to the Caucasus or its inhabitants
2 : of, constituting, or characteristic of a race of humankind native to Europe, North Africa, and southwest Asia and classified according to physical features —used especially in referring to persons of European descent having usually light skin pigmentation
========
DO you see North Africa in there somewhere? I think I do
I think what Mel was referring to when he mentioned Africans, he meant sub-Saharan African. Yeah thats it, Mel cannot be that ignorant of the ethnic makeup of Africa, right?
SMH
I refer you again to my phrase..Please understand it, I cannot be proven wrong when debunking Afrocentric fairy tales…bottom line.
LikeLike
GWM,
“Bottom line…Anything that is brought forth as fact by an Afrocentric can and has been debunked.
I will stop right there and await your challenge.”
I’m not an “Afrocentric,” but you’re clearly tops when it comes to red herrings.
LikeLike
GWM, like I said previously, you’ve clearly never set foot in North Africa. North Africa includes places in Chad and Mauritania and I highly doubt even you would say these people are not “black”:
LikeLike
Afrocentrics have created in their warped minds an invisible border around Africa stating “THIS IS WHERE BLACK PEOPLE COME FROM”….smh
It is very difficult to teach them simple geography, much less anthropology…
An Afrocentric is cleary a person so inflicted with self-hate, envious of other peoples history that he must embrace even the most outlandish fairy tales of history to make himself feel better…smh
I do pity them, but it’s just so dayum fun presenting them with REALITY lol
LikeLike
GWM,
“Afrocentrics have created in their warped minds an invisible border around Africa stating “THIS IS WHERE BLACK PEOPLE COME FROM”….smh”
*laughs*
Isn’t that what you’ve been doing this entire post? Come on, this is too easy.
“An Afrocentric is cleary a person so inflicted with self-hate, envious of other peoples history that he must embrace even the most outlandish fairy tales of history to make himself feel better…smh”
So according to this and the statement quoted above, you are an Afrocentric to the hilt. Congrats.
GWM, if you were really as in touch with reality as you claim, you would recognize that claiming Egypt as “white” is as preposterous as claiming it as “black,” if not moreso.
LikeLike
Natasha, those countries are on the border of North Africa. Also todays make up is very different. When the Arab and the Berber(Moors) went south to spread Islam and to teach civilization to sub-Saharan Africans, they also brought back slaves and fellow converts.
Late in Moorish Spain, Berbers and Arabs also brought forth foot soldiers of sub-Saharan Africans as the man-power was dwindling against the Christians and needed men.
That is why Afrocentrics claim the Moors were black..smh Because small minority was black, they are ALL Black to the Afrocentrist nutcase…smh
Bottom line…North Africa has never been black African.
LikeLike
GWM, if you were really as in touch with reality as you claim, you would recognize that claiming Egypt as “white” is as preposterous as claiming it as “black,” if not moreso.
Natasha, Natasha see there you go again, thinking as an Afrocentrist…smh Dealing in Black and White …smh
Egyptians, Libyans, Berbers are all EURASIANS who entered Africa about 30,000 years ago during the last Ice Age. The entire make up of Africa was different back then. In fact black africans did not have dark skin(brown) and wholly hair, except in the extreme interior closer to south Africa. It wasn’t until the end of the Ice age, that the Sahara dried up and cut off the Bantu people(Black Africans) that they started to obtain these modern features of black africans.
I think you need to do some homework….I’ve been fighting Afrocentrist for years, and I know all their tricks and distortions.
LikeLike
GWM,
“Natasha, those countries are on the border of North Africa.”
Uh, no, they are not. Mauritania is located in the Sahara (i.e. North Africa), which runs right through Chad.
Please, continue to fail at elementary geography.
LikeLike
“Egyptians, Libyans, Berbers are all EURASIANS who entered Africa about 30,000 years ago during the last Ice Age.”
Once again, no, they are all not. Saying it over and over again won’t make it true.
LikeLike
@Thad
Perhaps you’re trying too hard? Just getting across the concept that race is a social structure is enough for me, most days.
I meant on politics. But it obviously influences my other beliefs.
We’re talking about whether or not Egypt was white or black. My comment was “According to themsleves, they were neither. They had no concept of today’s classifications.”
Not in this post. That’s the subject for “how black was Ancient Egypt”. I thought we were talking about people’s views on Egypt here, in light of Diop’s work.
Also, you know very well my opinion on how black was Egypt/how white was Greece, so I don’t think we need to argue about it here.
How does that tie into whether or not today’s racial classifications are real or not, Mira? Obviously they are real and have real effects. I have never said otherwise nor even HINTED at anything else. Given that, why are you lecturing me about their reality?
Like I said, I thought we were talking about the real effects and today’s classifications.
I am lecturing you about their reality because you seem to act as if they’re not important.
Also, I can’t help noticing you dislike to be lectured. Well, guess what, we (and I’m sure I can speak for majority here) dislike it too! 😉
LikeLike
Here are the faces of North Africa
North African Footballer
Hannibal Barca
Here are Egyptians
LikeLike
The Great White Man…??????….??
You seem just a delusional as you claim the afrocentrists are…
LikeLike
“Egyptians, Libyans, Berbers are all EURASIANS who entered Africa about 30,000 years ago during the last Ice Age. The entire make up of Africa was different back then. In fact black africans did not have dark skin(brown) and wholly hair, except in the extreme interior closer to south Africa. It wasn’t until the end of the Ice age, that the Sahara dried up and cut off the Bantu people(Black Africans) that they started to obtain these modern features of black africans.”
*sighs* please tell me what are these so called features of black africans that you speak of…i don’t understand it.
LikeLike
also, they would not be eurasian, if anything they would be afroasiatic…that’s the branch their language origins are traced from…
LikeLike
Thad,
Bringing the subject back round,
Can you just say what the majority phenotype you think the ancient Egypt populace was from the old to the middle kingdom, and whether this coincides with Diop contention??
LikeLike
Still on with the quotes from Diop:
“Professor Diop’s early struggles are very revealing in the anecdotes he relates of his student days. In the early 1950’s, he jad the ‘temerity’ to register for a course in Egyptian hieroglphics in Paris. ‘I noticed,’ he says, ‘that whenever a Black showed the slightest interest in things Egyptian, Whites would actually begin to tremble.
I was sitting in the hieroglyphics class in which there was one other student, a Frenchwoman, and when the professor instructed her to goto the board to write a passage in hieroglphics, she would erase it almost as far as she wrote so that I couldn’t copy what she had written.
Not a single person in all of France ever encouraged me in my researches and the more I pursued them, the more uncomfortable and hostile they became, even issuing vague threats against my future teaching career. But I didn’t care. I was an angry young man then and the more I was resisted the more determined and stubborn I became”
LikeLike
–Mel–
–“FACT: Egypt is geographically in Africa.”–
No one is stating that egypt is not part of africa.
–“No one disputes that other people./outsiders (Caucasians) came there and mixed/mingled with THE ORIGINAL IHHABITANTS OF THE LAND (BLACK).”–
Opinion is not a fact. Bringing up a geographical fact does not make the latter part of your statement a FACT. Its intellectually dishonest to try and bundle a personal belief (ancient egyptians = Nubians) and a geographic fact and present them as mutually supporting.
Its an archelogical fact that Ancient egyptians dipicted themselves as being different from both lighter skinned europeans and darker skinned nubians. Anything else is just speculation unless you can provide archelogical evidence in support.
— “The fact is, Egypt is no more transcontinental that Greece or Rome was…”–
Greece and Rome are not transcontinental states but Egypt most certainly is. I hope that you realize that transcontinental refers to a state/country that spans more than one continent. Egypt, Turkey, Russia, and Panama are all transcontinental states because they span more than one continent. You seem to have a problem distinguishing between facts and personal beliefs.
–“…yet you wouldn’t near refer to the Ancient Greeks or Romans as “mixed” or “non-white” but here you are trying to do exactly that for Egypt. Please, hypocrisy won’t work.”–
Creating strawmen is not very persuasive or honest. You are “stuck” in a white supremacist framed world where there are only distinct and fundementally different groups of humanity with differing abilities and talents. Try to realize that we are all part of humanity and no one on this planet is inferior or superior based on whether or not their ancestors built stone structures or not.
–“The Sudan (a region) is separate from Sudan (the country). Egypt and Sudan were founded from the same place/source”. —
Sad, first Gibberish then your opinion presented as somehow being supported by the formerly stated gibberish.
–“Your problem is that you are speaking of Egyptians/Egypt as if they/it is mutually exclusive to black/Africa. Egyptian and black are not mutually exclusive terms”. —
Nor are they one and the same, Africa does not equate soley to “black.”
–“The original Egyptians WERE black, whether they classified themselves as such or not.”–
Thats your opinion based on a white supremacist framed worldview that people must fall into neat little categories that show their worth and intellecutal ability based on whether or not they build stone stuctures or not.
–“Likewise, the Ancient Greeks were white/Caucasian whether they called themselves that or not. (Ps. black does not exclude mixed people either, as the case of President Obama clearly illustrates; see below for explanation of this)”–
Right the “one drop rule” [sigh]…
–“You’re the one NOT getting it. No one said Egypt came from Sudanese. Egypt and Sudan are intricately tied. Their civilization came from the same root (Upper Egypt/the Sudan (the region and not the country). They are brances of the same tree Again, you’re not getting the point. The Egyptian were not taught by blacks. THE EGYPTIANS (THE ORIGINAL ONES) WERE BLACKS. ” The indigenous people of Egypt (ah, those who originated on the continent of Africa (not Caucasians) were black. It’s their cultures and practices that the Egyptian civilization was founded on. The original and first Egyptians WERE blacks.”–
Amazing that you cannot see how your entire premise is nothing more than white supremacy in blackface. The “Pure” stock of blacks are the true originators of ancient egyptian civilization and those other brownish mongrels are inferior imposters who have stolen the rightful “heritage” of the “black race.” pfft where have i heard that argument before? [sigh].
–“Furthermore, Eurocentrics were the ones who designated anyone with indigenous African DNA as black; therefore, by Eurocentric definition of who is black, the Egyptians, even if they were mixed, would still be classified as black.”–
ding ding ding…As i have repeatedly stated that is nothing but white supremacy in black face. Its sad that so many none white people have so much trouble escaping from the white supremacist framed worldview that we have all been taught.
As they say, ‘a colonized mind shackles the body much more firmly than any law or physical form of violence can ever hope to achieve’.
LikeLike
What is it with this classic eurocentric and at other times racist argument:
“Amazing that you cannot see how your entire premise is nothing more than white supremacy in blackface.”
that it is becoming a current theme on this blog by certain posters??
LikeLike
ES,
Not that it proves anything, but did you observe that GWM, also utilised mathildasanthropologyblog??
LikeLike
RE: J
–“What is it with this classic eurocentric and at other times RACIST ARGUMENT”
just because you have difficulty offering a rebuttal to what i have written does not somehow make my argument racist.
Sad that you seem to believe that: difficult to refute= Racist.
You are quite free to quote my post and point out the eurocentric and racist part.
If it is such a classically racist and eurocentric argument you should have no trouble finding a few quotations to back your allegations.
LikeLike
@ J:
GWM might also use the same brand toilet paper as me, what’s your point?
😉
LikeLike
I am lecturing you about their reality because you seem to act as if they’re not important.
Then you haven’t been rading what I write.
Also, I can’t help noticing you dislike to be lectured.
I don’t mind being lectured, Mira, I just have a very low bullsh17 tolerance. When someone starts yammering at me that race is real social political and historical phenomenon, something I say about, oh, 12 times a week here, it occurs to me that they haven’t the slightest fu#$ing clue as to what my position on the topic is.
Can you just say what the majority phenotype you think the ancient Egypt populace was from the old to the middle kingdom, and whether this coincides with Diop contention??
I would say darker skin and curlier hair than the folks to the north of them, more pointy features and wavier hair than the folks to the south of them.
That’s how genetic clines work, btw, J.
LikeLike
Let just add that their are plenty of artifacts depicting Egyptians that have darkend in time. In which Afrocentrist take for black skin…smh
Especially the ones made of wood.
Egyptians always paited themselves RED and the women YELLOW
Nubians were always painted pitch black. Libyans(berbers) and Semites WHITE.
Please let me refer you people to TourEgypt.com. That simple site has very good accurate info.
Stay off sites like Egyptsearch.com. That site is a Afrocentric septic tank of misinformation and lies.
LikeLike
Eurasian Sensation
@ J:
GWM might also use the same brand toilet paper as me, what’s your point?
———————
It’s either Charmin or bust for me. What about you, ES?
🙂
LikeLike
@ Great White Man:
Egyptians always paited themselves RED and the women YELLOW.
Nubians were always painted pitch black. Libyans(berbers) and Semites WHITE
Well that solves it then. Egyptians were neither black or white, they were red and yellow. We can all stop arguing now.
I use the recycled stuff, btw GWM. It’s brown in colour – you might not like it.
LikeLike
@Thad
I don’t mind being lectured, Mira, I just have a very low bullsh17 tolerance. When someone starts yammering at me that race is real social political and historical phenomenon, something I say about, oh, 12 times a week here, it occurs to me that they haven’t the slightest fu#$ing clue as to what my position on the topic is.
I wasn’t really questioning your ability to understand relativism, I am aware you know relativism really well. I was chalenging your attitude. So yes, maybe it was a bit ad hominem, but I don’t have anything against you as person. I even defentded your honour here, lol.
As for this post, I thought whether race is real biological fact or not is irrelevant; I know it’s not, you kow it’s not, J know it’s not. It’s not the point. I thought we were talking about implications of Diop’s work and what it meant for this world- its good and its bad sides.
@GWM
Egyptians always paited themselves RED and the women YELLOW
And that proves, what? – That Egyptians were heavily practicing interracial marriages? Please, don’t talk about stuff you have NO clue about.
LikeLike
GWM,
I am an archaeologist, and I do believe I know more about Egypt than you do.
You know nothing of Egypt, but what has been taught to you most likely by college professors whom have prescribed to PC and LIBERAL Agendas, not to mention white guilt…smh
So, you’re throwing ad hominem not just on me, but my professors?
Just for the record, PC is not strong in my country, and I don’t think people here have white guilt, which is besides the point, anyway.
LikeLike
GWM,
It is/was a previous discussion between ES and I with regard to ‘race’and to what I saw as the ‘political persuasion’ of Mathilda
LikeLike
With regard to:
” I would say darker skin and curlier hair than the folks to the north of them, more pointy features and wavier hair than the folks to the south of them”.
That’s how genetic clines work, btw, J.
Cheers for the response, but what you sem to say here is:
1. The Egyptians had darker skin and curlier hair than the
‘Mediterranean types’
2. The Egyptians more pointy features and wavier hair
than the Nubians to South.
However, this is exactly Diop’s point (no pun intended).
It appears as if you like much of the Western world, CANNOT account for no ‘variation’ in the African race.
All other races have their variants for instance the Native Americans being Mongoloid, in spite the colour of their skin and other subtle differences.
So in essence if someone is not a Negro – and we all know what the negro-type looks like since we have been informed by Western academia. Then these populations or groups cannot be ‘Black’ and ‘African’.
This in essence is your argument and the position of White supremacist to separate Egypt from Africa – Diop’s contention.
And this is why even today we can have conversations such as Ethiopians have Caucasian features and the like here
LikeLike
Narciso,
Dahomean X has quoted Diop work, on why the Egyptian are ‘Black/African’. So far I have not seen from you an argument to dismiss that link.
Paradoxically if anyone is caught up in utilising White supremacy argument its yourself.
This is why I found it ironic that you could suggest that Mel is using an argument on White Supremacy.
Can we get one thing clear, White supremacy ideology wants to prove that Egypt is White. AT one time in history, with regard to civilisation on the continent, ALL of Africa was White. The Negros only inhabited the villages and the fringes.
Justto conclude it is not possible to use a White supremacy argument, invert it and get that Egypt is a Black civilisation – and this is the essence of my point regarding this ‘red herring’ argument used by you and other commentators here.
LikeLike
J says to Thad:
“It appears as if you like much of the Western world, CANNOT account for no ‘variation’ in the African race.”
“And this is why even today we can have conversations such as Ethiopians have Caucasian features and the like here”
The thing is, when we talk about the features often claimed as Caucasoid in NE African people, it makes sense to look at it that way, because the Caucasoid people with similar features are right next door in north Africa and SW Asia.
I’m not necessarily dismissing the idea that the features of NE Africans could have evolved independently in Africa without Caucasoid input. However, if I was to travel from the middle east into Africa, I would notice a gradual transition from more Caucasoid-looking people to more black African types.
An Ethiopian or Somali looks more or less like a cross between a Bantu and someone from the Middle East. This may be coincidence, but it the logical conclusion to draw is that they are a blend of the two.
Check Central Asia, Eastern Indonesia or Eastern India for similar transitional zones beween racial types. I don’t see why NE Africa should be any different.
LikeLike
on Fri 4 Jun 2010 at 05:43:00 Eurasian Sensation
@ Great White Man:
I use the recycled stuff, btw GWM. It’s brown in colour – you might not like it.
You mean the cheap sandpaper stuff? Too each his own I guess lol
LikeLike
ES,
With regard to:
“the thing is, when we talk about the features often claimed as Caucasoid in NE African people, it makes sense to look at it that way, because the Caucasoid people with similar features are right next door in north Africa and SW Asia”.
I am afraid it does not.
In all probability Black skinned people were the first phenotype on earth.
All other phenotypes (ie races) are derived from there.
So in essence it makes sense as Abagond has already stated in our ‘tri-alogue’ to say Caucasians look like African, just as Mongoloids resemble the Khoi-San in the Southern belt.
This would be in keeping with the empirical evidence that we have thus far, with regard to the evolution of races
However, White people and many others will be very reluctant to accept this premise – And again why use White (Caucasian) as the ‘base’ and/or yardstick, if one is not caught up in eurocentric thinking??
LikeLike
And again with regard to:
“I’m not necessarily dismissing the idea that the features of NE Africans could have evolved independently in Africa without Caucasoid input. However, if I was to travel from the middle east into Africa, I would notice a gradual transition from more Caucasoid-looking people to more black African types.
An Ethiopian or Somali looks more or less like a cross between a Bantu and someone from the Middle East. This may be coincidence, but it the logical conclusion to draw is that they are a blend of the two”.
Just to add that if we look at the empirical evidence before us we will see that the first inhabitants of the Middle East (ie specifically Saudi Arabia) is the ‘Black African type’. I refer you to that link in this thread.
When you refer to ‘Middle East’ you are essentially caught up in what I see as eurocentric thinking.
Why do I say so??
There is ‘no middle of east’. Arabia is separated from Egypt which is in Africa by a very small space of water.
Furthermore if you go to Southern Arabia. The gap betwen there and Ethiopia across the Aden Sea(??) is approx 20 miles (??).
What your analysis in essence fails to do is to take on board the Black input in the ‘Middle East’ and then you move on to discuss African phenotype, as if ‘Africa was separate’ from the ‘Middle East’.
Herein is the source of the problem.
And to conclude, since this post is about Diop. He would argue that there is no need to account for the difference between a Bantu and an Ethiopian as due to ‘race-mixing’ but rather through ‘variation’. And as you already know it is reputed that African populations are the most ‘diverse’, which in a way you would expect if all races stem from the African type.
LikeLike
@ J:
“Just to add that if we look at the empirical evidence before us we will see that the first inhabitants of the Middle East (ie specifically Saudi Arabia) is the ‘Black African type’. I refer you to that link in this thread.”
Maybe so, but you’re splitting hairs here. You know what I mean when I talk of the typical Middle Eastern phenotype.
I don’t consider it Eurocentric at all to see NE Africans as a mix of Negroid and Caucasoid. Sure, many Eurocentrics may do so, but that doesn’t make it a Eurocentric idea.
As a parallel: I have spent a lot of time in SE Asia, which is in many ways a transitional zone between Mongoloid peoples and Negrito/Melanesian peoples. Go to Indonesia and head east from Bali, and you’ll see people get progressively darker, more curly haired and less “Asian” looking, until you hit Papua and everyone is black. Whereas head north into the Asian mainland and you’ll see the more stereotypical Mongoloid features become more prominent as you get towards China.
You’ll see the same sort of cline, with different racial types, in Eastern India, NW India, and Central Asia. So I don’t see it as strange that NE Africa should be any different.
I’m not rubbishing what you say, because I can accept that as a possibility as well. But surely you also see how what I’m telling you is a perfectly logical possibility, whether you believe it or not.
LikeLike
Cheers ES,
With regard to places like Indonesia and in other parts of Asia. It is the same ‘game’ played out once again. You have what in essence is ‘African types’. However, because the ‘Negro’ is the only true representative of the Black race. These groups in Asia are not viewed as ‘Black and African’ by ‘race’ by academia.
And I should add and this carries us back to our tri-alogue that even when you see the ‘Negro type’ in the form of Negritos across Asia, there is a reluctance to see these groups as essentially ‘Africans by race’ and then we have talk about their genes being different from African as per Mathilda’s blog.
Just one more thing all groups of people across teh world are mixed, in one way or the other. Have you not noticed that when we speak of Europe, we very rarely have this discussion about they are being mixed. Even if they are ‘mixed’, it is still concluded they are ‘White’ and ‘European civilisation’.
In a sort of way that many Blacks in US have Native American, Caucasian etc blood, yet they are still seen as ‘African American’ if tehy fall into accordance with the phenotype.
This sort of argument Diop called splitting hairs. He suggested if Africans dominated teh world and suggested that the only true Whites were the Nordic type. It would be impossible for White people to ‘prove’ that Italian, french etc could be also White bythis classification
LikeLike
Abagond strikes again lol
What was it this time, sir?
Why is it that MIRA can claim I know nothing of Egypt and that she is an “Archaeologist”, but when I make my point it’s deleted very quickly? lol
Abagond, I know the truth hurts but is it not more important than self-esteem?
The Internet…It’s serious buisness.
SMH
LikeLike
@ J:
Negritos are not seen as “Africans by race” because they diverged from Africans a very long time ago. Their appearance remained similar presumably because they live in tropical areas with the same evolutionary pressures as Africans (particularly pygmies). What about Papuans and Australian Aborigines, do you consider them African by race as well?
I agree with you that there are problems with how we regard “mixing” in terms of the Caucasian race. There is often an assumption that the Nordic type is the purest example of Caucasian-ness, when in reality the “standard” Caucasian type is more Mediterranean.
Likewise, most people do assume that variation from what they see as the “standard” black/white/Asian type must therefore be due to mixing. Most laypeople don’t really get concepts like genetic bottlenecks and all that sort of stuff. At the same time, often it is due to mixing.
As we both know there is tremendous variation amongst Africans – the Nilotes, Pygmies and Khoisan are the obvious examples. With those groups, it is obvious that this is independent genetic variation, not because of mixing with anyone else. However when it comes to NE Africa, the close proximity of Caucasian types makes it illogical to discount mixing. Turkey, Persia, the Levant all are very close to Egypt. Just as Africans were present in South Arabia, it makes sense that there were SW Asians making inroads into NE Africa. Particularly when you consider the increasing population and subsequent demand for new lands that would have occurred in the Levant after the development of agriculture.
LikeLike
@ GWM:
If Mira says she’s an archaeologist, then just accept that she’s an archaeologist. Us regular commenters here (particularly those who also link back to our own blogs which tell you about who we are) are not in the practice of making up credentials just to win arguments.
I can only guess that Mira’s comments stay because they are still relatively respectful, and yours get deleted because you pepper your arguments with obnoxious and condescending cracks at those who disagree with you.
LikeLike
@ES
All I did was state I climbed Mt. Everest with one hand behind my back and performed open heart surgery at the same time. it cannot be disproven. It’s the internet lol
I also posted credentials of a man who, without a doubt, knows Ancient Egypt more than anyone else. I think I will stick to learning Ancient Egypt from REAL SOURCES, like Zahi Hawass.
http://www.guardians.net/hawass/background.htm
“King Tut was not black, and the depiction of Ancient Egypt as a black civilization has NO element of truth to it”-Zahi Hawass.
Now if you could find someone with greater or at least equal knowledge on the subject who disagrees with Mr.Hawass.. I will gladly listen….Until then, I think this man knows what he’s talking about, don’t you?
Maybe Abagond didn’t like “Pack a Lunch” statement 🙂
LikeLike
So Negritos are not seen as racially black (Indigenous Africans) but Native Americans are racially classified with East Asians using that Eurocentric classification of “Mongoloid”?
Eurasian Sensation:
“Negritos are not seen as “Africans by race” because they diverged from Africans a very long time ago. Their appearance remained similar presumably because they live in tropical areas with the same evolutionary pressures as Africans (particularly pygmies). What about Papuans and Australian Aborigines, do you consider them African by race as well?”
LikeLike
Zahi Hawass is an Arabic joke who along with the white man lies about Egyptian history. Arabian people didnt’ show up in Egypt until the 7th century anyway. So what does he know? Libyans were white. But they sure as hell wasn’t the Egyptian. In fact, that small group of Libyans living on the edge of Libya were called Tamahu by the Egyptian. Meaning White people.
Anything great and has a huge part to do with WORLD history, white people want to put the European stamp of approval on it. Believe me, if there’s any “race” of people out there who try so hard to prove THEY contributed the most in this world, its European & European decent people. They are the ones who stole everything to get what they want in life.
Europeans destroyed more civilization then they build. Whites were and always was the most destructive people on the planet. Barbarians savages.
LikeLike
You have the nerves to refer to people as intellectually dishonest? I stated a fact that Egypt is geographically in Africa. The transcontinental theory is similar to the term Latin America. It does not refer to geography but culture. Furthermore, it’s simply a term used by Eurocentrics to further drive a wedge between Egypt and the rest of Africa.
What’s worse is that you insist on saying that I said the Egyptians were Nubians (strawman argument). No where did I say Egyptians were Nubians. You did because you’re stuck using the Eurocentric definition of what and who isn’t black. Nubians were a separate ETHNIC group from Egyptians, there were also separate ethnic groups classified as Nubians (Ethnic is not the same as racially separate). You’re coming from a Eurocentric standpoint in which you believe that black = Nubian and unless you have jet black skin, big red lips and a broad, big nose then you are not black. That’s the Eurocentric, minstel show definition of black and you know it. Using your own line of reasoning the Ancient Greeks were not Nordic so they were not white. The Egyptians don’t have to be Nubians to be black, likewise, Greeks don’t have to be Nordic to be white. Opinion is not a fact. Bringing up a geographical fact does not make the latter part of your statement a FACT. Its intellectually dishonest to try and bundle a personal belief (ancient egyptians = Nubians) and a geographic fact and present them as mutually supporting.
Um,yes it does. FACT: the cradle of humanity started from Africa. The population of the world was an out-of-Africa one. The oldest humans on the planet (Khoisan and East Africans) are indigenous Africans. FACT: Caucasian = originated around the Caucasus mountains in Eurasia. FACT: If you insist on classifying the Egyptians as Caucasians, you are essentially agreeing that they are not indigenous to Africa, since Caucasians did not originate there. Getting back to my first post on this thread: The white South Africans once claimed that South Africa is rightfully theirs because when they got there no black peoples were present. Am I to buy that when these Caucasians invaded/settled North Africa, there were no black people there, too? Like I said, and the Dynastic Race theory you subscribe to also stated this, the original inhabitants of Africa(including Egypt) are blacks (indigenous Africans) and it matters not if these blacks had narrow noses/thin lips like East Africans or button noses, prognathous jaws or broad, flat noses. Africa belongs to them because they were there FIRST and the originated on the continent. So, non-Indigenous Africans on the continent are not natives and therefore cannot claim to be more indigenous to Africa (including North Africa) than the black people who originated there.
Toe clarify for you: Are there non-black peoples in Africa today who’ve been there for thousands of years? Yes. Are they the original inhabitants? No (if you’re unsure of this, see the South African argument for a laugh).
Africa does not equate soley to “black.”
–”The original Egyptians WERE black, whether they classified themselves as such or not.”–
No one said anyone had to fall into neat categories of black and white. You’re the one (and Eurasian Sensation) who keeps using the colonial classification system (Caucasoid/mongoloid/negroid). Nothing is ever black and white, but racially speaking, the founders of Egypt and its original inhabitants were racially clustered with blacks, whose physiology they share, despite the outside Semitic and later European influences.Thats your opinion based on a white supremacist framed worldview that people must fall into neat little categories that show their worth and intellecutal ability based on whether or not they build stone stuctures or not.
No, it’s amazing that you cannot see your whole premise is coming from a Eurocentric/white supremacist worldview. You keep talking about the strawman argument, while going into extremes (Egypt is not Nubian, so it’s not black) or my fav. (Egypt is not European or African). This latter argument is the epitome of the strawman argument. Of course Egypt is not European–it’s in the continent of Africa. The language is Afro-Asiatic (Chadic) NOT Indo-European. It’s POINTLESS to even consider or entertain the possibility of a “white” Egypt. On the other hand, arguing that Egypt, a country that sits on the continent of Africa is not African is just plain stupid. And don’t get me started on that all encompassing and convenient “Caucasoid” label. Arguing that Egyptian is African is common sense. It’s in Africa and the root of its culture (see petrogylphs) are indigenous to Africa.
Amazing that you cannot see how your entire premise is nothing more than white supremacy in blackface. The “Pure” stock of blacks are the true originators of ancient Egyptian civilization and those other brownish mongrels are inferior imposters who have stolen the rightful “heritage” of the “black race.” pfft where have i heard that argument before? [sigh].
PS. There are 8 separate skin tones found among whites/Caucasians. There are 35 separate skin tones documented among Indigenous Africans. So, the Egyptians drawing themselves as a deep brown color does not make them a separate race from a black-skinned Nubian.
In other words, Alek Wek (Dinka model) and Beyonce would not be drawn with the same physical features or skin tone. Yet, everyone agrees they are the same race.
<a href="http://thetrendsetter.files.wordpress.com/2007/05/beyonce_knowles2_400-1.jpg"
<a href="http://www.poshbot.com/wp-content/fashion-pics/alek_wek_iman_bl01.jpg"
PS. Iman is also in the pic w/Alek and she’s Somalian. Would you draw these two women with the same features and skin color? Hint: they are the same race.
LikeLike
Sorry about the linking:
LikeLike
Mizraim89
Zahi Hawass is an Arabic joke who along with the white man lies about Egyptian history. Arabian people didnt’ show up in Egypt until the 7th century anyway. So what does he know? Libyans were white. But they sure as hell wasn’t the Egyptian. In fact, that small group of Libyans living on the edge of Libya were called Tamahu by the Egyptian. Meaning White people.
Anything great and has a huge part to do with WORLD history, white people want to put the European stamp of approval on it. Believe me, if there’s any “race” of people out there who try so hard to prove THEY contributed the most in this world, its European & European decent people. They are the ones who stole everything to get what they want in life.
Europeans destroyed more civilization then they build. Whites were and always was the most destructive people on the planet. Barbarians savages.
—————————————————-
SMH
Now this young lady has much envy and hate in her heart for the Great White Man and the Egyptian.
Zahi Hawass is Egyptian! Egyptians are racially the same as they were back then…DNA proves this.
Egyptians are not arabs, they are egyptians. They are only culturally ISLAMIC not ethnically.
Black people come from sub-Saharan Africa….As you go south in Egypt you will find black people.
Abagond, could we interpet her post as a racist attack? I think so. I mean if I said what she said about black people I would get the banhammer most tick….
Funny thing is, not one person on this blog will stand up to racist attacks against white people, nobody will stand up to this “Lady”. All these people claiming to be Non-Racist are indeed racist. But it’s ok, she’s is racist against white people…smh
LikeLike
Cheers ES,
With regard to the negritos who left Africa a long time ago
and
the Whites who left around the Eurasian steppe a long time ago
or
the Mongoloid who left around the same Eurasian steppes area
…It has nevertheless NOT stopped academia from classifying certain Arabs as ‘Caucasoid’.
Nor has it prevented Native American as being classified as Mongolian.
The only reason that negritos are not seen as ‘Black and African’ is because to be ‘Black and African’ means to be primitive and only located on teh African continent. Since they would not have the brain to develop boats to travel to other areas, except with the help of the Great White Man.
So what we in essence see is ‘an uneven playing field’ in the field of academia as it applies and pertains to all things Black/African
With regard to incursion and racial mixture in differing areas. As I said to Thad, then we have to apply this ‘uneven playing field to all areas including Europe’. We must also ask then at what point did Europeans like in Italy and Spain cease to become ‘Caucasoid’ and/or to what extent did their gene pool shift, when they became absorbed into the Moors??…However, this is never going to happen.
This is the crux of argument, the double standards applied in academia rather than the minutae of racial mixing.
LikeLike
Great White Man
Why is it that MIRA can claim I know nothing of Egypt and that she is an “Archaeologist”, but when I make my point it’s deleted very quickly?
I didn’t say you didn’t know anything about Egypt, but about the way they portrayed humans on images, reliefs and sculptures, namely:
Egyptians always paited themselves RED and the women YELLOW
Nubians were always painted pitch black. Libyans(berbers) and Semites WHITE.
This comment alone proves you know nothing about the subject of representing humans in art. The basic way of representing humans in Egyptian art was canonical, and colours used for painting individuals were also in canon- women were always represented as much light skinned than men, regardless of their actual appearance. They also often portrayed men as much larger than women- you sure don’t think that’s realistic portrayal?
Also, stating that you knew nothing about the subject is not the same as insulting you as a person, GWM.
Whether you believe what I write about myself here is irrelevant; your lack of knowledge about Egypt is evident, I’m afraid. If you trust Zahi Hawass, try to find some of his articles concerning Egyptian art or any other subject and read what the man says.
Furthermore, Hawass’ ideas about race are definitely different than mine and, I suspect, closer to yours. I claim it’s impossible to tell Tutankhamun’s race because race as a biological fact doesn’t exist. But that’s another story. And I bet I can find many people who agree with me. You are free to disagree, of course, and we can discuss that. No problem. But you don’t have to insult people while disagreeing with them.
LikeLike
“Black people come from sub-Saharan Africa….As you go south in Egypt you will find black people.”
no egyptians and black people and europeans and asians all come from east africa…nubians not only occupied egypt, but brought lots of innovations, as well as egyptians bringing innovations to nubia…you can’t just seperate egypt off from the rest of africa because there was continuous exchange of ideas, belief and lifestyles and the egyptians, nubians and peoples all across africa exchanged in addition to ideas, sexual contact
LikeLike
*i should say egyptians and other black people…*
LikeLike
Nubia provided Gold, ivory, animals, diorite, In 748 bc, kush occupied Egypt, Piye and Taharqo were Kush rulers of the Egyptian empire. They buit up the empire and contributed enormously to what we considerd ancient egyptian culture to this day, so you can’t just exclude the rest of africa when talking about egypt. its just absurd…
LikeLike
RE: Mel
1.” You have the nerves to refer to people as intellectually dishonest? I stated a fact that Egypt is geographically in Africa. The transcontinental theory is similar to the term Latin America. It does not refer to geography but culture. Furthermore, it’s simply a term used by Eurocentrics to further drive a wedge between Egypt and the rest of Africa.”
You stated that Egypt is no more transcontinental than Rome/Greece. Egypt links africa to the Eurasian continent; Rome and greece are peninsulas of the eurasian continent with no land link to any other continent.
Transcontinental refers to a geographical location that spans multiple continents while Latin America is a geopolitical reference that refers to a cultural region. Neither of these two things is a theory or changes the fact that Egypt is a transcontinental state.
2. “What’s worse is that you insist on saying that I said the Egyptians were Nubians (strawman argument). No where did I say Egyptians were Nubians. You did because you’re stuck using the Eurocentric definition of what and who isn’t black.Nubians were a separate ETHNIC group from Egyptians, there were also separate ethnic groups classified as Nubians (Ethnic is not the same as racially separate). You’re coming from a Eurocentric standpoint in which you believe that black = Nubian and unless you have jet black skin, big red lips and a broad, big nose then you are not black. That’s the Eurocentric, minstel show definition of black and you know it.”
You stated that the original egyptians were black and had a common root with the people in sudan (i.e. nubia) and implied that a caucasian invasion was responsible for the ancient egyptians not looking like the common root (black).
My point is simply that ancient egyptians are an amalagation of local and surrounding peoples so calling them black is nothing more than a categoric surrender to the white framed view that humanity is distinguishable by phantom “races.”
3. “Using your own line of reasoning the Ancient Greeks were not Nordic so they were not white. The Egyptians don’t have to be Nubians to be black, likewise, Greeks don’t have to be Nordic to be white.”
That is not my “line of reasoning,” i do not subscribe to the idea that humanity can be divided up into racially pure “races.” That is your viewpoint and is how white supremacist divide up the world into phantom races that have no easy to define boundaries. All humanity blends together based on geography and none of us falls into separate categories of subhumans or less evolved.
4. “Um,yes it does. FACT: the cradle of humanity started from Africa. The population of the world was an out-of-Africa one. The oldest humans on the planet (Khoisan and East Africans) are indigenous Africans. FACT: Caucasian = originated around the Caucasus mountains in Eurasia. FACT: If you insist on classifying the Egyptians as Caucasians, you are essentially agreeing that they are not indigenous to Africa, since Caucasians did not originate there.”
All of us originated from africa and we all are the same species. Calling people negroid, mongloid, cacausian is based on nothing more than arbiritray physical differences. As i have said before you are engaging in ventriliquism, I have never stated that Egyptians are caucasians. I stated that Ancient egyptians are an amalagation of local and surrounding peoples so calling them black or white is a false categorization. Do note that Caucasian did, in fact, originate in africa because they are not a separate species no matter what white supremacist or you may want to believe.
5. ” Getting back to my first post on this thread: The white South Africans once claimed that South Africa is rightfully theirs because when they got there no black peoples were present. Am I to buy that when these Caucasians invaded/settled North Africa, there were no black people there, too? Like I said, and the Dynastic Race theory you subscribe to also stated this, the original inhabitants of Africa(including Egypt) are blacks (indigenous Africans) and it matters not if these blacks had narrow noses/thin lips like East Africans or button noses, prognathous jaws or broad, flat noses. Africa belongs to them because they were there FIRST and the originated on the continent. So, non-Indigenous Africans on the continent are not natives and therefore cannot claim to be more indigenous to Africa (including North Africa) than the black people who originated there. Toe clarify for you: Are there non-black peoples in Africa today who’ve been there for thousands of years? Yes. Are they the original inhabitants? No (if you’re unsure of this, see the South African argument for a laugh).”
Put the strawman away because i have stated nothing that you have written. if you want to accuse me of believing that bs you need to back it up with quotes.; otherwise, stop with the ventriloquism.
6. “No one said anyone had to fall into neat categories of black and white. You’re the one (and Eurasian Sensation) who keeps using the colonial classification system (Caucasoid/mongoloid/negroid). Nothing is ever black and white, BUT RACIALLY SPEAKING, the founders of EGYPT AND ITS ORIGINAL INHABITANTS WERE RACIALLY CLUSTERED WITH BLACKS, whose physiology they share, despite the outside Semitic and later European influences.”
You are if fact using the colonial classification system. You are calling the “founders of Egypt and its original inhabitants” black and by default you are creating an artificial division between humanity based soley on skin color. i.e. you subscribe to the idea that there exist separate “races” that evolved independently of each other and have no relationship with each other.
6. “No, it’s amazing that you cannot see your whole premise is coming from a Eurocentric/white supremacist worldview. You keep talking about the strawman argument, while going into extremes (Egypt is not Nubian, so it’s not black) or my fav. (Egypt is not European or African). This latter argument is the epitome of the strawman argument. Of course Egypt is not European–it’s in the continent of Africa. The language is Afro-Asiatic (Chadic) NOT Indo-European. It’s POINTLESS to even consider or entertain the possibility of a “white” Egypt. On the other hand, arguing that Egypt, a country that sits on the continent of Africa is not African is just plain stupid. And don’t get me started on that all encompassing and convenient “Caucasoid” label. Arguing that Egyptian is African is common sense. It’s in Africa and the root of its culture (see petrogylphs) are indigenous to Africa.”
Egyptian culture is indigenous to the egyptians. Egyptians don’t have to be placed into any make believe racial category.
7. “PS. There are 8 separate skin tones found among whites/Caucasians. There are 35 separate skin tones documented among Indigenous Africans. So, the Egyptians drawing themselves as a deep brown color does not make them a separate race from a black-skinned Nubian…”
It just goes to show how problematic “racial categories” are in the real world. Racial categories were invented by white people to justify their plundering of the darker skinned world. subscribing to the idea that racial categories do in fact exist is a trap that too many none whites fall into. It does nothing but legitimize white people’s fantasy that they are a separate race from all us darkies.
LikeLike
Egyptian culture is indigenous to the egyptians. Egyptians don’t have to be placed into any make believe racial category.
There was a time when Khemet did not exist as a geopolitical region. The origins of Khemet lies in the same region that the origins of Nubia lies–the Sahara, among the Indigenous Africans who lived there. The borders between Egypt and Nubia did not always exist. Some of the inhabitants of the region founded Nubia and some founded Egypt: nonetheless, they were one people before they became Egyptian and Nubian, respectively. One group went north and the other went south. branches of a single tree.
Egypt links africa to the Eurasian continent; Rome and greece are peninsulas of the eurasian continent with no land link to any other continent.
You interpret things whatever way you want to interpret them, don’t you? Eurasia = Europe and Asia, understood as separate continents by most people. Eurasia, specificially refers to the divide between the two continents.
The “supercontinent” is used for “convenience” by you, which I am not suprised by, since “Eurasia” benefits your argument.
The proximity of Greece and Rome, particularly Sicily and Cyprus, to Asia and Africa means that they could not be pure anything. If you’re going to refer to Egypt, a country situated squarely in continental Africa as transcontinental, then so is Greece and Rome. That means you’re going to after call their native people mixed, too.
All of us originated from africa and we all are the same species. Calling people negroid, mongloid, cacausian is based on nothing more than arbiritray physical differences.
Cheikh Anta Diop:Diop on anthropology suggesting that ‘there are no races’
“The Europeans, all the Occidentals say there is no race. But they know very well what a white man is, they know very what a yellow man is. But we do not know what a Black man is…IT IS THE IDEOLOGY WHICH HAS BEEN DEVELOPED TO DESTROY THE CULTURAL CONSCIOUSNESS OF THE COLONISED, DOMINATED PEOPLE THAT WE ARE….
Race may not be a reality for you, but every day I am reminded that “my race” is the worse, and we are different from everyone else, so it’s very real for me. This “idealist” argument of yours is dangerous and makes you no better than people who say they see no color. These people have been proven time and again to be the most racist.
It’s nice that you’re all one for one race, but that doesn’t mean the original inhabitants of Egypt werent black/Indigenous Africans.
[you] implied that a caucasian invasion was responsible for the ancient egyptians not looking like the common root (black).
I did not in any way, shape or form imply that Caucasians were responsible for different look of Egyptians because I never said the Egyptians looked racially different. They did not. I maintain that Egyptians are a separate ethnic group and their features (which varied) were indigenous to Africa. It is you and other white people who insist that because some of the Egyptian images show them with narrow noses and thin lips, it means they’re not black. It is the same argument Caucasians use to classify East Africans as dark-skin Caucasians with no evidence for it–you know, they have narrow noses so they must be mixed. This is a Eurocentric argument not mine. The narrow noses of the East Africans and Egyptians is very much indigenous to Africa, but it does not make them Caucasians. Blacks don’t need to be mixed in order to have narrow, hooked noses or thin lips–that’s the point you’re not getting. Having lighter skin than Alek Wek doesn’t make a black person mixed. Some indigenous Africans have natural hooked, narrow noses and thin lips. It doesn’t mean they are a separate race from other Africans. The “East African” phenotype gave birth to the “west African” phenotype. They are not a separate race.
LikeLike
From Narciso:“Egyptian culture is indigenous to the egyptians. Egyptians don’t have to be placed into any make believe racial category.”
There was a time when Khemet did not exist as a geopolitical region. The origins of Khemet lies in the same region that the origins of Nubia lies–the Sahara, among the Indigenous Africans who lived there. The borders between Egypt and Nubia did not always exist. Some of the inhabitants of the region founded Nubia and some founded Egypt: nonetheless, they were one people before they became Egyptian and Nubian, respectively. One group went north and the other went south. branches of a single tree.
From Narciso:Egypt links africa to the Eurasian continent; Rome and greece are peninsulas of the eurasian continent with no land link to any other continent.”
You interpret things whatever way you want to interpret them, don’t you? Eurasia = Europe and Asia, understood as separate continents by most people. Eurasia, specificially refers to the divide between the two continents.
The “supercontinent” is used for “convenience” by you, which I am not suprised by, since “Eurasia” benefits your argument.
The proximity of Greece and Rome, particularly Sicily and Cyprus, to Asia and Africa means that they could not be pure anything. If you’re going to refer to Egypt, a country situated squarely in continental Africa as transcontinental, then so is Greece and Rome. That means you’re going to after call their native people mixed, too.
From Narciso: “All of us originated from africa and we all are the same species. Calling people negroid, mongloid, cacausian is based on nothing more than arbiritray physical differences.”
Cheikh Anta Diop:Diop on anthropology suggesting that ‘there are no races’
“The Europeans, all the Occidentals say there is no race. But they know very well what a white man is, they know very what a yellow man is. But we do not know what a Black man is…IT IS THE IDEOLOGY WHICH HAS BEEN DEVELOPED TO DESTROY THE CULTURAL CONSCIOUSNESS OF THE COLONISED, DOMINATED PEOPLE THAT WE ARE….
Race may not be a reality for you, but every day I am reminded that “my race” is the worse, and we are different from everyone else, so it’s very real for me. This “idealist” argument of yours is dangerous and makes you no better than people who say they see no color. These people have been proven time and again to be the most racist.
It’s nice that you’re all one for one race, but that doesn’t mean the original inhabitants of Egypt werent black/Indigenous Africans.
From Narciso:“[you] implied that a caucasian invasion was responsible for the ancient egyptians not looking like the common root (black).”
I did not in any way, shape or form imply that Caucasians were responsible for different look of Egyptians because I never said the Egyptians looked racially different. They did not. I maintain that Egyptians are a separate ethnic group and their features (which varied) were indigenous to Africa. It is you and other white people who insist that because some of the Egyptian images show them with narrow noses and thin lips, it means they’re not black. It is the same argument Caucasians use to classify East Africans as dark-skin Caucasians with no evidence for it–you know, they have narrow noses so they must be mixed. This is a Eurocentric argument not mine. The narrow noses of the East Africans and Egyptians is very much indigenous to Africa, but it does not make them Caucasians. Blacks don’t need to be mixed in order to have narrow, hooked noses or thin lips–that’s the point you’re not getting. Having lighter skin than Alek Wek doesn’t make a black person mixed. Some indigenous Africans have natural hooked, narrow noses and thin lips. It doesn’t mean they are a separate race from other Africans. The “East African” phenotype gave birth to the “west African” phenotype. They are not a separate race.
LikeLike
And still on with the Diopan quotes, this time on how easy it is to falsify racial classifications:
“If the city of Dakar [Senegal] became a new Pompeii following a cataclysm, in 2,000 years, on analyzing the petrified ruins of William Ponty Avenue, one could boldy affirm that Senegal [the country] of 1981 was a multiracial community whose civilisation was created by a white element heavily represented in the population and that Blacks were only the slave element.
Today Africans have become immune with regard to falsifications of this type, so common around the time of the birth of Egyptology (1800s)”
LikeLike
ES
Diop would classify Aborigines, Papuans and certain Indians from the sub-continent as being ‘Black and African’.
I should add the thought that certain Indians would be in keeping with how the Greeks saw the Indians viz. as ‘Eastern Ethiopians’ and those on the continent as ‘Western Ethiopians’
I had taken it for granted that academia already agreed on the link between the Papuan and Aborigines. I am willing to concede taht I may be wrong in this respect.
This is what I know so far:
“Dr Peter Forster, a geneticist who led the research, said: “For the first time, this evidence gives us a genetic link showing that the Australian Aboriginal and New Guinean populations are descended directly from the same specific group of people who emerged from the African migration.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1550859/Aborigines-came-out-of-Africa-study-shows.html
There are some thinkers who argue an interesting position that in essence is different from Diop’s. They suggest there is only one race and that is the Black race. So in essence humanity is Black, and teh only reason other races came about is because groups left the continent.
So Whites are just a manifestation of the colour Black, and it is also the same for ‘Yellow’.
So what in essence makes White and Yellow different and distinct from ‘Black’??
Nothing, except – perspectives, and thinking makes it so!!
So it all depends on what perspective you choose – if any of course??
LikeLike
And in case you missed this undeniable fact…..
Most of Ancient Egypt’s monuments, including the Sphinx partially, were under tons of sand prior to the French arrival.
Nobody cared about it, most didn’t know it’s existense, least of all sub-Saharan Africans and EGYPTIANS themselves.
Bottom line.
And whoever denied the fact about written history of Africa, I left out east asians on purpose btw, I don’t think you want me to post actual historical writings from actual MOORS i.e. BERBERS….You may not like it.
Reality might be too strong for this PC crowd.
LikeLike
RE: MEL
1. “…The origins of Khemet lies in the same region that the origins of Nubia lies–the Sahara, among the Indigenous Africans who lived there…Some of the inhabitants of the region founded Nubia and some founded Egypt: nonetheless, they were one people before they became Egyptian and Nubian, respectively. One group went north and the other went south. branches of a single tree.”
This is pure speculation and not fact. While it is absolutely true that sudan’s (nubia’s) history is deeply intertwined with Egypt, its a stretch to say that a “founding” people moved this way or that way, etc.
2. “You interpret things whatever way you want to interpret them, don’t you? Eurasia = Europe and Asia, understood as separate continents by most people. Eurasia, specificially refers to the divide between the two continents.”
Eurasia doesn’t divide anything it refers to a huge interconnected landmass. Europe as a continent is not a natural division but instead is a political (imaginary) line drawn on a huge common landmass. Its quite obvious that Egypt links Africa to Eurasia but if you prefer you can use whatever sematics you prefer. i.e. Egypt connect Africa to ASIA.
3. The proximity of Greece and Rome, particularly Sicily and Cyprus, to Asia and Africa means that they could not be pure anything. If you’re going to refer to Egypt, a country situated squarely in continental Africa as transcontinental, then so is Greece and Rome. That means you’re going to after call their native people mixed, too.
Look Mel, Greece and Rome are not transcontinental because they do not span multiple continents. Egypt is a transcontinental because it directly links africa to ASIA. You can literally walk from asia to africa by crossing egypt.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egypt, click the link and you see that the second sentence states, “…Thereby, Egypt is a TRANSCONTINENTAL COUNTRY, and is considered to be a major power in North Africa, Mediterranean Region, African continent, Nile Basin, Islamic World and the Red Sea…”
4. Race may not be a reality for you, but every day I am reminded that “my race” is the worse, and we are different from everyone else, so it’s very real for me. This “idealist” argument of yours is dangerous and makes you no better than people who say they see no color. These people have been proven time and again to be the most racist.
Amusing, I wasn’t aware that i was “color blind” or that race is not a reality for me.
5. It’s nice that you’re all one for one race, but that doesn’t mean the original inhabitants of Egypt werent black/Indigenous Africans.
I’m not for all one race because “races” are not biological but political/social constructs invented by white supremacist to excuse their plundering of none white peoples.
6. I did not in any way, shape or form imply that Caucasians were responsible for different look of Egyptians because I never said the Egyptians looked racially different. They did not. I maintain that Egyptians are a separate ethnic group and their features (which varied) were indigenous to Africa. IT IS YOU AND OTHER WHITE PEOPLE who insist that because some of the Egyptian images show them with narrow noses and thin lips, it means they’re not black.
Mel I hope you realize that I’m not white. Racial categorizations are problematic because they are social construct and as such ignore that humanity blends into each other the closer their geographic location.
7. It is the same argument Caucasians use to classify East Africans as dark-skin Caucasians with no evidence for it–you know, they have narrow noses so they must be mixed. This is a Eurocentric argument not mine. The narrow noses of the East Africans and Egyptians is very much indigenous to Africa, but it does not make them Caucasians. Blacks don’t need to be mixed in order to have narrow, hooked noses or thin lips–that’s the point you’re not getting. Having lighter skin than Alek Wek doesn’t make a black person mixed. Some indigenous Africans have natural hooked, narrow noses and thin lips. It doesn’t mean they are a separate race from other Africans. The “East African” phenotype gave birth to the “west African” phenotype. They are not a separate race.
As i have repeatedly stated you are a believe in the white narrative that distinct “races” exist and that only two primary races exist, white/black and that anyone group that does not “fit” into this category must be mutants or “mixed.”
What exactly constitutes the “black race” Mel and how is it different from any of other supposed “races.” It logically follows that if multiple race exist then they must be distinctive and possess unique abilities from other “races.”
LikeLike
@ Mel:
I agree the terms Caucasoid/Mongoloid/Negroid etc are outdated and problematic. However, in this context I and some others use it, because then at least they are terms that people understand. Otherwise I fear there would be confusion.
With regard to:
“So Negritos are not seen as racially black (Indigenous Africans) but Native Americans are racially classified with East Asians using that Eurocentric classification of “Mongoloid”?”
Again, I agree that it is based on a outdated classification of the races. However, there is a considerable difference between the two examples you give. Native Americans separated from East Asians less than 15,000 years ago by most measures. Negritos parted ways with Africans much much earlier – perhaps as much 80,000 years ago. They are genetically very distinct from Africans, however many of their features have remained similar to Africans in appearance, presumably due to environmental factors.
LikeLike
Yo Abagond, what’s with all the italics?
An open question to the Afrocentrists – why is Zahi Hawass a joke or a fool?
I know little about him, so I’m asking out of interest here.
I’m not sure why the reactions to him are so negative, just because his opinion differs. If he has studied this field extensively, could he not be simply expressing his honest interpretation of his findings (be they right or wrong)?
Why is he being seen as some kind of stooge for the White Man?
LikeLike
@ES
An open question to the Afrocentrists – why is Zahi Hawass a joke or a fool?
—————————————————————-
Because he speaks the truth about Ancient Egypt.
“King Tut was not black, and the depiction of Ancient Egypt as a black civilization has no element of truth to it”—Zahi Hawass
“Beyonce is an idiot”—Zahi Hawass:)
Bottom line, Afrocentrist cannot spread their fairy tales about black egypt as long as EXPERTS on the subject, like Mr.Hawass, are presenting factual evidence to the contrary.
According to Afrocentrist, Egyptians are arabs who invaded in 740 A.D….SMH
The ignorance of the Afrocentrist knows NO bounds.
LikeLike
@ GWM:
I’m familiar with your stance on the subject, which is why I wasn’t asking you.
I’m not saying Hawass is wrong, but even experts can sometimes have blinkers on, or some kind of agenda, or even just a different interpretation of findings.
LikeLike
With regard to Hawass,
If I am being ‘fair’ to him. He is doing what most individuals/people do when they ‘inherit’ a great civilisation. He tries to ‘attach’ himself or his community to it.
Hence the negative comment directed to him.
As far as I understand him he is very much against the idea of Egypt being Black whether or not Afrocentrics suggests it or scholars who are not Afrocentrics.
If anything he sees Egypt civilisation as as being ‘Arab’ and does his best to promote it as such.
I remember reading somewhere that he is a very ‘dogmatic’ scholar and he is manipulating the evidence inadvertently or otherwise to make Egypt appear ‘Arab’, through ‘control’ of artefacts, which he obviously has easy access to.
GWM is wrong to cite Zahwass because he does not believe that the ancient Egyptians were ‘Whites’ either.
LikeLike
Here is wikipedia’s collection of thoughts on the man
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zahi_Hawass
And for counterbalance, here he is in his own words:
http://www.drhawass.com/
LikeLike
@ J
You are wrong on both accounts, my afrocentric friend.
1. Hawass does not believe Egyptians are Arabs, nor does he believe Egypt was an ARAB civilization.
“Egyptians are not Arabs and are not Africans despite the fact that Egypt is in Africa,” he said, quoted by the official MENA news agency.”-Zahi Hawass
2. I never said Egyptians were white, they are caucasian but not european white.
North Africans are a caucasian people and have been in North Africa for over 30,000 years.
Black people come from sub-Saharan Africa.
Good day, sir
LikeLike
Cheers GWM,
To all intents and purposes Hawass does view the
ancient Egyptains as being ‘akin’ to Arab.
The key word here is ‘akin’. Obviously he cannot as a professor suggest that ancient Egypt civilisation was built by Arabs because of the ‘historical chronology’ – but what he can do is intimate something along the lines as I have suggested.
The problem with the term ‘Caucasian’, is that I do not think Hawass would use this term either. Caucasian develops a different perspective in Egypt to which it has in the West
I do not know if Hawass has come out and equivocally stated that the ancient Egyptian were Caucasian – I doubt if he would say such a thing.
And if he does, it will have a completely different meaning and also implication to what you are suggesting.
And this was my point that by citing Zahwass, you are not in fact using the appropriate scholar, who s that Egypt is a Caucasian civilisation.
Hope this has clarified.
LikeLike
Should read as
And this was my point that by citing Zahwass, you are not in fact using the appropriate scholar, who suggested that Egypt is a Caucasian civilisation.
LikeLike
I will post some pictures later of real egyptians. I have a meeting now.
I think what Hawass is stating is that Egyptians are not Arabs or Black Africans but they are African. Which is my position also.
LikeLike
@Mira
You know nothing of Egypt, but what has been taught to you most likely by college professors whom have prescribed to PC and LIBERAL Agendas, not to mention white guilt…smh
So, you’re throwing ad hominem not just on me, but my professors?
You might not realize this about Americans, Mira, but they are a profoundly anti-intellectual people. If you actually take ten years out of your life to deeply study a topic, according to most Americans – left or right, black or white – this makes you supremely unqualified to talk about the subject.
Most Americans believe that a wiki education or just picking up a few things scattershot from pop books and T.V. is more than enough of a dosage of “facts” to go on, no matter how complicated the topic.
If you, say, write a PhD thesis on American Indian administration which includes visits to reservations, archival research in the BIA, legal research in Congress and interviews with Congressional and Native leaders, you are “out of touch” and “living in an ivory tower” when it comes to comparing your opinion to that of some guy who watched “Pocohantas” and maybe read Dee Brown’s “Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee”.
If you study prostitution and trafficking of women by actually going into brothels and engaging with the women who work their, interviewing them, the brothel owners, the cops and clients, you know less about the topic than some woman who watched “Lilja 4ever” at a consciousness-raising session in her campus dorm. This is because, again, you are out of touch with reality and living in an ivory tower.
So you shouldn’t be surprised that GWM condemns you as a “liberal” for actually knowing something about Egyptian history. That’s American right-wing parlance for “I don’t know, I don’t want to know and I hate people who do know”.
The left wing african-american version is to accuse you of being brainwashed by whiteness.
Americans approach history and sociology from a “do it yourself” perspective and us “so-called experts” are simply people who are highly paid to maintain the conspiracy du jour.
So suck it up, you chicken-necked intellectual!
😀
LikeLiked by 1 person
GWM,
Have a look at this, wikipedia states
“Modern scholars who have studied Ancient Egyptian culture and population history have responded to the controversy over the race of the Ancient Egyptians in different ways. Dr. Zahi Hawass, the current Secretary General of the Egyptian Supreme Council of Antiquities, has stated that “The portrayal of ancient Egyptian civilization as black has no element of truth to it;” and that “Ancient Egyptians are not Arabs and are not Africans despite the fact that Egypt is in Africa.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Egyptian_race_controversy
LikeLike
Great White Man:
You continue to disregard the commenting policy by calling commenters names. You are banned.
LikeLike
Eurasian Sensation said:
“Yo Abagond, what’s with all the italics?”
It appears to be some sort of WordPress bug.
LikeLike
I take that back: Mel was doing some weird HTML that was affecting all the following comments. I fixed it.
LikeLike
Great White Man is banned?! I knew crossing my fingers and wishing would work. 😉
LikeLike
“Egyptians are not Arabs and are not Africans despite the fact that Egypt is in Africa,” he said, quoted by the official MENA news agency.”-Zahi Hawass
That doesn’t make sense.
2. I never said Egyptians were white, they are caucasian but not european white.
Huh?
North Africans are a caucasian people and have been in North Africa for over 30,000 years.
Perhaps they came from here:
White Martians
[edit] Orovars
The White Martians, known as ‘Orovars’ were rulers of Mars for 500,000 years, with an empire of sophisticated cities with advanced technology. They were white skinned, with blond or Auburn hair. They were once a seafaring race but when the oceans began to dry up, they began to cooperate with the Yellow and Black Martians to breed the Red Martians[40], foreseeing the need for hardy stock to cope with the emerging harsher environment. They became decadent and ‘overcivilized’. At the beginning of the series they are believed to be extinct, but three remaining populations, some original Orovars, Therns and Lotharians, are still living in secret and are discovered as the books progress.[7]
[edit] Lotharians
The Lotharians are a remnant population of the original White Martians, which appear only in Thuvia, Maid of Mars. There are only 1000 of them remaining, all of them male. They are skilled in telepathy, able to project images that can kill, or provide sustenance. They live a reclusive existence in a remote area of Barsoom, debating philosophy among themselves.[41]
[edit] Therns
Descendants of the original White Martians who live in a complex of caves and passages in the cliffs above the Valley Dor. This is the destination of the River Iss, on whose currents most Martians eventually travel, on a pilgrimage seeking final paradise, once tired of life or reaching 1000 years of age. The valley is actually populated by monsters, overlooked by the Therns, who control these creatures, and ransack, and eat the flesh of those who perish, enslaving those who survive. They consider themselves a unique creation, different from other Martians. They maintain the false Martian religion through a network of collaborators and spies across the planet. They are themselves raided by the Black Martians. They are white skinned and blond, bald and wear wigs.[42]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barsoom#White_Martians
‘May the white apes take us all!: Thuvia, Maid of Mars’
LikeLike
Diop on The Table of Nations (as discussed in How Black was Ancient Egypt
“Let us start with the oldest of theses that of Champollion the Younger, set forth in the thirteenth letter to his brother.
It concerns bas-reliefs on the tomb of Seostris I, also visited by Rienzi. These date back to the 16th century (18th dynasty) and represents the races of man known to the Egyptians…This is what Champollian says about it
‘Thus we ahve before our eyes the image of the various races known to the Egyptians…Men led by Horus…belong to four distinct families
1. Personage with a dark red colour (Egyptian)
2. Black Africans (Nahasi)
3. Skin borders on yellow or tan (Namou)
4. A White skinned, blue eyed blonde (TamHou)
I hastened to seek the tableau corresponding to this one in the other royal tombs and, as a matter of fact i found it in several. The variations I observed fully convinced me that they had had tried to represent here the inhabitants of the 4 corners of the earth according to the Egyptian system, viz
1. Inhabitants of Egypt which by itself formed one part of the world
2. Inhabitants of Africa proper – Blacks
3. Asians
4. Finally (and I am ashamed to say so, since our race is the last and most savage in the series) Europeans’
…
For as very good reason, I have reproduced this extract as Champollion-Figac published it, rather than take it from the new editiom of the Letters published in 1867 by the son of Champollion the Younger (Cheronnet-Champollion). The originals were addressed to Champollion-Figeac; therefore his edition is more authentic”
LikeLike
Gee, I wonder why the 1867 publication was censored.
LikeLike
ill never understand why people think black people are retarded as much as we’ve contributd to american history and history of the world…people still have issues acknowledging that civilized society existed prior to the european arrival in africa…it never ceases to amaze me…
i guess it’ll never change.
LikeLike
No, it will never change.
They don’t want to see anything good and beautiful about black people and our history. To them, we are the descendents of slaves only….that’s it!
People like Great White Man will always keep their racist views about black history and its people until the end of time. Black history has been messed up soooooo very bad by non-blacks its know wonder they want believe the truth is it jump up and bite them in the a$$.
LikeLike
Interesting fact about “Caucasian”: the term apparently is rooted in white sex slavery from the Black Sea region.
LikeLike
So Mira, I am fuzzy on this term Canonical. Do you mean (in this context) that men are/were depicted as the dominant force that contain the less dominant force, i.e. women and other feminine things?
I meant on canon in Egyptian art, that set up the rules for portraying anything, especially human figures. The most famous rule is canon of proportions, but it’s not all. There was a rule on how to portray gods (and how specific gods were portrayed), how to portray rulers, women, “ordinary people”, etc. There were also rules on how to paint the skin. For example, god Osiris was often portrayed with green skin.
One of these rules was to portray men as darker skinned than women. Namely, men were portrayed as darker skinned than women- especially if we’re talking about noble women (and not workers). Sometimes, like in Rahotep and Nofret example, the difference is noticeable. That doesn’t mean they were an interracial couple. That doesn’t even mean that’s really their true skin colour- it is canonical (sometimes said “idealized”, though I dislike the term). It’s not even about skin colour- most of them are portrayed as young, reasonably thin, etc. There are exceptions to the rule, of course, but general rule when it comes to skin colour is that women are portrayed as light-skinned and men were portrayed as brown (whatever that means for us). Also, Egyptians were portrayed as lighter skinned than Nubians.
Still, none of this proves that it was, indeed, really how they looked. In fact, when a successful foreigner (be it Nubian, Asiatic or Greek) is portrayed as an Egyptian, he was completely portrayed the Egyptian way, skin color included.
On the other hand, there might be some realism in these portrayals. Women were probably lighter than men because they didn’t go out as much, and noble people were lighter than workers, for the same reason.
But we can’t use it to prove Egyptians were black, brown or white. It’s not just case with Egyptian art, but the other as well. I’ve seen some Aegean images and early Greek portrayals with brown people. Some use it to prove Greeks were black. It’s not a good way to go, especially given the fact they (Greeks, Egyptians) were neither: they were not black, they were not white. The concept of race the way we know it today didn’t exist.
LikeLike
Mira,
Just to add
It also depend on the ‘context’ of the ‘art material’.
For instance Osiris as a statute looks different to his paintings on the wall
LikeLike
Patricia Kayden,Cheiokh Anta Diop was married to a black lady from the Sorbonne University whom he met during the time he was studying in France
LikeLike
I have greatly enjoyed reading the many knowledgeable contributors to this thread on the wonderful work of Dr. Diop , and kept waiting for a discussion to begin regarding his “Dosage Test” …
LikeLike
Yes Anta Diop has wright, the olg Egyptian wer black with rough hair, and they were African, even today you find them concentrated in Upper Egypt (Saidies) and the Copts does not mean Christians, you find this in the book of Ibn Abdelhakam the Firs Islamic Historic wrriter, he sited in Hadith from the Prophet Mohammed ” you will open Egypt , then be good to the Copts because they are the Uncles of Ismail, son of Abraham and Maria mother of Prophet’s son the Coptic was from them. In another say of the Prophet he discrip the Copts( Elodom and Elgo’od which mean the Black with wooly or curled hair” . And this was to differentiat them from the other people which were living in Egypt in the Time of the Prophet and the Opening of Egypt were the Romans and the Greeks which they were the Orthodox Christian and the Roman Catholics. Their discender are now the Christins of Egypt but to use the name Cpots for them is wrong!!! even when you see their faces and their Heads you will find them that they are Romans and Greeks and dont forget that most of the Jewes became Christin beleved in Juses Christ and most of the Cherche Fathers were Jewes. but you can say Coptic Cherche, this is wright. means the Egyptian Cherche because Copt means Dark or blak and it coms from the Greek word Aegypteuse (Prof. Dr. Mohamed N. Ismail copt moslem upper Egyptian, Email: Vetmedqena@gmail.com
LikeLike
I LOVE READ..
LikeLike
OK, this monstrous post was born because I was looking for a map of Y chromosome DNA haplogroups and found one on Wikpedia. I wanted it for other reasons but after looking it, I recalled something I’d heard in an interview with some members of the Dogon ethnic group from Mali. They said they originated in the region of what we call Ancient Egypt (which really included more Southern parts of the Nile valley as well) and migrated West.
Obviously, I believed them. I’d long noticed the similarities between what I knew of Dogon religion and the symbols of Ancient Egyptian religion. The Dogon have a supreme being called Amma and in Ancient Egypt there was a high god called Amen. (It’s interesting that the Akan people in Ghana have Nyame, which has a different prefix but the rest suggests Amen.) The Dogon also have beings called Nommo which are four pairs of amphibious, fishlike twins while the Ancient Egyptians have the Ogdoad, a Greek term meaning eightfold, which were represented as four pairs of serpent-like and frog-like beings. Unfortunately, I don’t know what the Ancient Egyptians called the group of eight because I only see Ogdoad everywhere for the same reason I only see the Greek term “Egypt” everywhere. The point is that some of the cultural connections were obvious.
So when I was looking at the map of Y DNA haplogroups in Africa I saw something interesting. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ca/World_Map_of_Y-DNA_Haplogroups.png It indicates that the E1a group associated with the Dogon population resulted from migration out of East Africa. Furthermore, the common haplogroup of West Africa and South/Central African “Bantu” people ((E1b1a) is shown as branching off from the same migration out of East Africa. That’s consistent with what the Dogon say. Many people find it so implausible that West Africans could have come from Eastern Africa millennia ago but that’s what this DNA map suggests. Would I be shocked if Wolof has words that are related to Ancient Egyptian as Diop says? Not in the least. I’m willing to believe an Egyptologist that also speaks Wolof.
Finally, I’m going to share an article (PDF file) I discovered on a site called dnatribes a few months ago: http://www.dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2012-01-01.pdf Apparently the company offers cheek-swab ancestry testing similar to Ancestry.com or 23andme. The article is about genetic testing on Ancient Egyptian mummies from the “Amarna” period which includes King Tut. The article is careful to say:
They’re not ready to say they were African but will admit that the mummies show genetic markers which are most common in PRESENT DAY indigenous African populations. In other words, some modern African groups are most like those mummies genetically. If I did a genetic test and matched African populations I could reasonably assume that I descended from them. I’m not sure why a caveat was necessary here. *halo*
Anyway, the document includes a table with a Match Likelihood Index for various populations against the seven mummies. The relative values mean more than the absolute numbers so I’ll give the top few. The top four modern populations that the mummies matched highest were Southern Africa at 326.94 (South Africa/Botswana etc.), Great Lakes Region at 323.76 (Uganda, Rwanda, Tanzania, Kenya, etc.), Tropical West Africa at 83.74 (Nigeria, Ghana, Senegal, Congo etc) and the Horn of Africa at 14.79 (Somalia, Ethiopia, Eritrea etc.). It’s nteresting that some places that are quite far from the Upper Nile Valley have the closest matches. West Africa is a much better match than the Horn! That was surprising to me. I think this supports the possibility that the people who used to inhabit the Upper Nile Valley either left…or were forced to leave. They went further South and West just as the Y DNA haplogroup map also suggests.
Also, there are a number of llittle connections across Africa that always fascinated me. I don’t want to include too many links or I’ll get moderated (I probably will anyway) but if you do a google image search for “King Tut headrest” and also for “Zulu headrest” and “Ashanti headrest” you’ll see very similar designs despite the wide separation of those groups. You may also check “Ancient Egyptian comb” and “Ashanti Comb” or “Masai Necklace” and “Ancient Egyptian Necklace”. If you look up “Watusi Traditional Hair” you’ll see styles similar to how Ancient Egypt’s pharoah’s were sometimes depicted. Eg. http://www.ancient-egypt.org/_Media/turin-statue_med_hr.png It looks like a crown but the carefully depicted spirals seem to suggest that it’s his hair or a wig made of coily hair.
I think it’s crazy how quickly some people will try to dismiss the possibility that the Ancient Egyptian civilization, which was geographically located in Africa, was also … *gasp* … AFRICAN and peopled by indigenous Africans early in its history. Of course, there are other possibilities (aliens could have built it) but I think the simplest explanation shouldn’t be treated as the one that is most farfetched. I’m glad that Chiek Anta Diop, an AFRICAN studying an African civilization, was bold enough to broach the suspect.
LikeLike
“I think it’s crazy how quickly some people will try to dismiss the possibility that the Ancient Egyptian civilization, which was geographically located in Africa, was also … *gasp* … AFRICAN and peopled by indigenous Africans early in its history.”
.
.
LOL… It wasn’t just crazy. It’s incredible!!!! The conspiracy to cover-up ancient Egypt’s Blackness is well documented. There’s so much evidence (crystal clear!) that ancient Egyptian artifacts have had their noses “broken off” and lips removed. I guess no one was supposed to ever notice this unbelievable happenstance.
Regarding ancient statues, white Egyptology “experts” tell us that as these statues fell over the nose was the first point to hit the ground. Yeah. If you looked like Pinocchio!
Were we supposed to attribute 90% of all of these curiously missing (broken off) noses, and other changes, to mere coincidence??
Indoctrinate. Brainwash. Subvert. Lie.
http://www.raceandhistory.com/manu/vanish3.htm
LikeLike
@ Origin
Right, the idea that Egypt might belong to the continent it is on is a bridge too far for some people. They are ideologically committed to African inferiority since they benefit from White racism.
LikeLike
@ Origin
Fascinating map!
LikeLike
@abagond
Yeah, I found the map fascinating too.
It’s ridiculous! It’s not even the case that the region was geographically disconnected in some way. The people simply followed the Nile in the direction it flowed because its banks were well-watered and fertile. There are many smaller pyramids further South in Meroe showing continuity of culture.
Ancient Egypt, because of its cultural influence on the (invading) Greeks and hence the so-called Western world, has a certain prestige. White scholarship will die before admitting that the people who originated it were not significantly different from other “sub-saharan Africans” whom whites today call “black”. That would mean that their civilization owes more to black African people than just our slave labour.
There are echoes of that influence to this day. For example, the word chemistry has a root meaning “black” from the Ancient Egyptian word kem. The “chem” in alchemy has the same etymology. It literally means “the black(s)” where the “al” is from Arabic. As your post said, it was no secret back in the day that the region was the home of black people. The ancient non-African historians were more frank. At that time it made no sense to deny the obvious.
There are also stories in the Bible that are strongly reminiscent of Ancient Egyptian allegory. In Egypt Isis made a basket of reeds to hide the baby Horus in the Nile while Moses’ mother did the same for him in the Bible. Nephthys watched over Horus in the Egyptian story, in the Bible it was Miriam watching Moses. In Egypt they were hiding the baby from Seth, in the Biblical story they were hiding from pharoah. Horus was destined to become a leader and so was Moses. Heck, Moses is from an Egyptian word that can be translated son. For example, pharaoh Thutmose’s name is usually taken to mean “Son of Thoth” or “Thoth is born”.
Over the centuries during which people of African descent were subject to brutal chattel slavery, colonization, and plain mean-spirited racism, white people have developed a view of us that supports their behavior. When J. Marion Simms was experimenting on black women without anestesia he reasoned that they felt less pain. Slave owners claimed that blacks needed less rest because they were overworking the slaves. When they said black women were promiscuous it is because they were raping them. Those myths helped assauge the cognitive dissonance of those church-going men so they could continue to do what they were doing. Given this context, and Ancient Egypt’s prestige within Western thought, there is, in fact, NO bridge across “deNile” of the idea that a grand ancient African civilization could belong to Africa. It is up to black people who are interested in the subject to decide for themselves.
@Fan
The missing noses and/or lips is quite a curious recurrence. Even the huge Great Sphinx has had it’s nose and lips damaged. That couldn’t have been easy.
IMO, You have to try to “cover up” or be blind on some level because if you’re open minded it’s kind of obvious who the people with cultural retentions from Ancient Egypt are. It’s various groups of the so-called Sub-Saharan Africans.
It’s fortunate that the Ancient Egyptians left so many depictions of themselves and their lives. Here’s a Ancient Egyptian priest in leopard skin:
Notice the preist’s hair too. It’s also similar to the Watusi/Tutsi traditional styles.
eg https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/32/53/bc/3253bcab3ba0655dca42ac8a4560a69e.jpg
Here’s a side-by-side picture of an Ancient Egyptian priest in leopard skin and more modern Africans doing the same.
I’m not sure exactly which ethnic group is in this picture but I know the Zulu are famous for their leopard skins.
Also compare the Masai warriors (Kenya) and how they’re adorned to the guy on the extreme left in the first picture.
They have necklace, hair piece, and bracelets in a similar multi-colored design. Some even have similar braided hairstyles.
Once I looked into this topic I realized that the identity of the Ancient Egyptians would not be a controversial matter were it not for the racism of non-Africans. Their descendants seem to be alive and well if a little bruised from European colonialism and the like.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I didn’t mean for the images to display in-line! If it’s a problem and can be edited don’t hesitate.
LikeLike
@ Origin
I agree. It is cognitive dissonance all the way. You can almost measure the racism of the West through time by how White its picture of Egypt is.
LikeLike
I was doing a little reading on the Y-DNA haplogroup designated E1b1a, given the huge swathe of Africa in which it appears in high concentrations. The link below shows another way of looking at its distribution using density shading.
http://www.thegeneticatlas.com/E1b1a_Y-DNA.htm
It is found all over “Sub-Saharan” Africa but is currently most concentrated in the West and South West. That link also says that it originated in “The Horn of Africa” which, being Eastern Africa, matches the map of migration and Y-DNA haplogroup distribution I posted before. It appears that so-called Bantu Africans settled the continent from East Africa making that region the distant ancestral home of many ethnic groups. IIRC, Diop said that this is reflected in the origin stories of many ethnic groups in West Africa.
Looking at the map, the E1b1a haplogroup should dominate among New World Africans whose ancestors most likely came from the Western regions of Africa just a few centuries ago. (Actually, if you’re male and there’s a European man at the bottom of your father’s->father’s->father’s etc. line you’ll inherit European Y-DNA even if you’re mostly of African descent. Due to the historical power dynamics of slavery in the New World that’s not an impossible scenario.) According to the link, 55% of African Americans belong to E1b1a. A map showing where most slaves were taken from would correspond very closely with the areas of 60-80% occurrence of E1b1a which stretches from Senegal to Angola. It’s almost uncanny how much it matches. Compare distribution map with: http://web.horacemann.org/academics/history/sheehy/amer10site/docs/unit2/slavetrade.gif
The reason I posted this here is that I also learned something relevant to the topic of the Ancient Egyptians. According to a paper, which I’ll link below, Pharoah Rameses III, who ruled pretty late in Egyptian history from 1186 to 1155 BC, belonged to the E1b1a Y-DNA haplogroup. http://www.bmj.com/content/345/bmj.e8268 Unfortunately, you can’t read it for free there but that’s the source that other sites linked to. Zahi Hawass is credited so I’m pretty sure that he, of all people, would not put out something like this if it weren’t irrefutably true.
What it means is that, since Rameses III’s Y-DNA haplogroup is the same as that of most “Sub-Saharan” Africans in Western and Southern Africa, he shares a RELATIVELY recent paternal ancestor with them. This is the case even though E1b1a seems to have very little representation near the mouth of the Nile today. Although the Y-DNA only speaks to part of his ancestry it is significant given the other evidence linking “Sub-Saharan” Africans to Ancient Egypt and the fact that he was royalty. In that case you know that his father and grandfather were not men off the street who just got lucky with the queens. It indicates the historical presence of people, who’re today called black Africans and relegated to “Sub-Saharan” status, in positions of power in Ancient Egypt.
LikeLike
if there was everany constructive debunking of a single theory iam yet to view such
LikeLike
Diop performed a test on the mummys and found the melanin level that the mummys had existed in black people, but not white people.
LikeLike