Denial of the African origins of Ancient Egypt?

[matter]

OKay got to response cos Spoonist came back(what did I say again about people leaving in the heat of arguments when they are supposed to respond to others and surfacing again later on? *scratching head*)

How varied in skin tone would you suggest an ancient population to be, which was comprised of Nilo Saharan and various Horn African populations? .

All so called afroasiatic genes are from horners. Americas, euroland, asia to australia - all horners. So within that genepool lies the potential for all human diversity we see outside of africa today. Top that of with the diversity of geography of the sahara, the atlas, the magreb, the tibesti, the bab-el-mandeb, the nile delta,etc. For you to claim that there was no diversity is contradicting Keita, your main source.

Woo! Spoonist Americas, Euroland, Asia, Australia peoples are horners? My God *laughing*. what did you really want to get at with that statement? If I didn't know you I could have said you were resurrecting the Biological Concept of 'Race' or even discarded and racist concepts like Hamitic theorem, and that might be what some might think. plz clarify cos some people who do not have as much knowledge as you in genetics, especially in African genetics, might be mislead by your statement.
But really the funny part of the above statement is your apparently linking 'genes' with skin tone cos that was what Big T was talking about. I know you know that 'Afroasiatic genes'(what the hell does this mean anyway?) is not the reason why EVERY INDIGENOUS African Afroasiatic population is dark skinned('Black' in a social sense) but it is because they have been long term residents of the hot northeast/East African environment and so have adapted to the tropical environment(developing tropical/supertropical elongated limb proportions and the accompanying skin colour intensification) and have transferred this trait to their descendants. So the point Big T was making which I also made here: post was that since the Ancient Egyptians were in the main, made up of Afrasan and Nilosaharan Northeast African populations who left a desiccating Sahara and are themselves tropically adapted,then they would be dark skinned.


I dont understand why people dont get it? See, Africa is like divided geographically into 2 trends climatically: a tropical forested and savanna centre and deserts on its 2 sides(Saharan and Namib Deserts). Then at both tips after these deserts are two sub-tropical environments('coastal' North Africa including most of Egyptian Nile and 'coastal' south African tips where they even have winters). Now, the Khoisans have been long term residents of the sub-tropical environment in southern Africa and so expectedly they have intermediate limb proportions and are the lightest(with groups such as some high Yellow Nigerians) INDIGENOUS Africans. Flip over the other side of the continent-Egypt. The early Egyptians who came into Egyptian Nile(which as Keita said in your video was almost devoid of populations) from a desiccating Sahara were tropicallly/supertropically adapted(remember most of Egyptian Nile is in a sub-tropical environment like the case of the Khoisans but they unlike them were tropically adapted). Now, since using other lines of evidences(linguistics,geographic,archaeological,biological,genetics) we know that people actually moved mainly from the tropical Sahara into the Egyptian Nile at this time should we be surprised?(the only pause is that this main group of people meant and absorb a smaller no of people already in the Nile-although again the results we have shows that they were also tropically adapted or more likely absorbed the small no of people that came from the near east where we had sub-tropically adapted populations).

Recall, we know that by ecologically principle, a tropically adapted human population would be dark skin, and that is what we have: ALL INDIGENOUS AFRICAN POPULATIONS WHO ARE TROPICALLY/SUPERTROPICALLY ADAPTED ARE DARK SKIN, I REPEAT ALL OF THEM. THE ONUS IS THEREFORE, ON THOSE THAN SAY OTHERWISE TO -i. show evidence that the ancient Egyptians defiled this trend ii. tell us WHY only the ancient Egyptians did so?

Let me conclude by making something clearer: Indigenous African skin colour is diverse and range from very light Brown/high yellow(Khoisans/Igbos) TO very dark Brown(Dinka/Akan) and usually one finds some of these variations in same population by the way. My argument is that most Ancient Egyptians would have had VARIATIONS in skin colour within this range. We dont know for sure the exact colour(s) and we may never know but since they were mainly a tropically adapted indigenous African population that were dark skin, then they can be regarded as 'Black' Africans(in a social sense). PS: My definition of a 'Black' African is any Indigenous dark-skinned African population and the majority of the ancient Egyptians would most probably meet this minimum.
As I have shown in my last post, even an article(on 'Race') of the OXFORD ENCYCLOPEDIA of ANCIENT EGYPT while rejecting the concept of Biological 'Race' says that 'it is REASONABLE' to regard the ancient Egyptians as 'Black Africans' (in a social sense) while recognizing diversity in indigenous Africans. Nancy Lovell article(Physical Anthropology )The ENCYCLOPEDIA OF THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF ANCIENT EGYPT also implied same.
NOTE: Am talking about Most, not all(and I dont know the actual proportions of course as those small no of people from the Near East that enter at various times into Egypt early on as I have maintained throughout this thread may have added additional variability to Egypt-but certainly the vast majority esp in Upper Egypt wold have been 'Black').

It is important on the other hand to consider the other alternatives that you were talking about. Keita said that it was POSSIBLE that light skinned persons(completely Africans) could have evolved this trait in coastal north Africa i.e though not likely,there is nothing in genetics that would made it impossible. I agree with Keita. But in the sciences, there is a difference bw a thing been POSSIBLE(really in science practically every thing is possible) and a thing been likely, talkless of it been the case. That is why one has to use different lines of evidences to arrive at the most likely occurrence. It is not enough to point out 'anything is possible' POSSIBILITY but you should go ahead to provide evidences why that path would be likely.
For instance, is there a histological study out there that have shown that some indigenous Egyptians were light-skinned(the 2 studies I know and that I provided in my last post-and yes this is not even extensive enough- indicates that they were dark-skinned)? Is there a study that some early Egyptians were not tropically/supertropically adapted or even is there any evidence available of a tropically/supertropically adapted African population that is not dark-skinned? Is there any evidence that a large group of intermedaite proportion peoples came into Early Egypt or that those POSSIBLE light-skinned populations became part of Egypt and were significant(Keita himself in the video you uploaded said there most of Egyptian Nile was sparsely populated and that the main population source was from the Sahara)? Did the Egyptians themselves say they were light-skinned or did they paint themselves as such? etc etc. So on what basis should your telling us that something is POSSIBLE(essentially just raising DOUBT) indicate that it is the most likely or even just likely. I have an open mind and I Know that this topic is not certain yet but I also know which of the narrative is most likely cos all available lines of evidences seems to favors it(and if you are honest you should also know) and which is less likely.

By the way, Keita in that video said that the Ancient Egyptians were in the main 'Somali-like' and 'dark skinned' because they were 'tropically adapted'. Also, in an email to EgalitarianJay he said that the skin tone of upper Egypt and Nubia was likely the modal tone for most of the ancient Egyptians based on all the evidences(he however said that we can not be sure until more extensive histological studies are done on Egyptian mummies of all periods and regions).

In which compass point would you say the sahara and the maghreb is compared to the El-Badari region?
http://egyptopia.com/Map+of+El+Badari_3 ... 54_en.html
And yes that is a rhetorical question

Yea you said it was a rhetorical question but just out of interest plz after Big T would have given an answer I would like to see your own answer cos I dont get the significance of the question.

[Spoonist]

OKay got to response cos Spoonist came back(what did I say again about people leaving in the heat of arguments when they are supposed to respond to others and surfacing again later on? *scratching head*).

If you've said any such thing about me then I'd kindly ask you to retract such bullshit. Like I told you when you first showed up since you have presented nothing new nor as controversial as shitforbrains I see little point in adressing you directly. So I've been open and honest about my intentions for you from the first moment you arrived. I've even PMd you a couple of times explaining the very same thing. You pay that in kind by badly disguised attempts at insults - way to go for someone claiming to want a more civil debate. Do that again and you will be on the same level as limpdick.
In my last post it was pretty obvious why I quit this topic for a while. Vacuumbrain couldn't even understand the relevance of Linneaus and nordic race theory, to WWII and even less so why it is relevant to the topic of egyptology. Something which is very prevalent in Keita's lectures and papers. So him showing a complete ignorance of the reasons why the history of egyptologists having shitty racist fuckhead theories just made it so much more obvious that he doesn't understand nor does he want to understand the topic or Keitas context at all. When he topped that of with showing a complete ignorance of racist fuckheads theories affecting almost the whole world during WWII that was just too much to bare.

How varied in skin tone would you suggest an ancient population to be, which was comprised of Nilo Saharan and various Horn African populations? .

All so called afroasiatic genes are from horners. Americas, euroland, asia to australia - all horners. So within that genepool lies the potential for all human diversity we see outside of africa today. Top that of with the diversity of geography of the sahara, the atlas, the magreb, the tibesti, the bab-el-mandeb, the nile delta,etc. For you to claim that there was no diversity is contradicting Keita, your main source.

Woo! Spoonist Americas, Euroland, Asia, Australia peoples are horners? My God *laughing*. what did you really want to get at with that statement? If I didn't know you I could have said you were resurrecting the Biological Concept of 'Race' or even discarded and racist concepts like Hamitic theorem, and that might be what some might think. plz clarify cos some people who do not have as much knowledge as you in genetics, especially in African genetics, might be mislead by your statement.

How could that statement even remotely be construed in the sense you are saying? That is just WTF. Is this just another passive aggressive way of trying to poison the well?
Hey, other readers, how can my use of "so called afroasiatic genes" in any way shape or form show any support of racist concepts???

But really the funny part of the above statement is your apparently linking 'genes' with skin tone cos that was what Big T was talking about. I know you know that 'Afroasiatic genes'(what the hell does this mean anyway?) is not the reason why EVERY INDIGENOUS African Afroasiatic population is dark skinned('Black' in a social sense) ...

You are taking a quote about the diversity of the horners and from that you go directly into a black black black argument? That is amazing. Right now, go and do what I said in the post you are quoting, check out the what Keita says in the vid:
http://www.fitzmuseum.cam.ac.uk/dept/an ... op2p2.html
check out the Q&A session from 38:40 onwards to 43:36 then come back here and explain how you can say that Keita supports that statement of yours?
Every indigenous african "afroasiatic" population is not dark skinned, unless you have some really weird definition of dark.

I dont understand why people dont get it? .

It's not that we don't 'get' what you are trying to say. It's the way you are trying to prove it.
I'm saying that you can't be so sure that they were all black black black EVEN IF they didn't have a drop of non-african ancestry or EVEN IF their ancestors never left the continent. As Keita says "you have to put your arms around that". So to claim that a pop migrating from the sahara and maghreb into the nile valley would all be black black black, as well as the pops from the coastal regions, is very strange and not supported by the studies you cite. Unless you, like shitforbrains, take your definitions of black from racist football fans and their ilk like Jim Crow etc. Or like fitz does and put in caveats such as ’as we use the term in Britain today’. Then I'd completely agree that all of africa at the time was black black black, but then I'd also point out that you have to include most of the middle east, india and indonesia into the same black black black statement. As evidenced by stupid chavs calling pakistanis black.

ALL INDIGENOUS AFRICAN POPULATIONS WHO ARE TROPICALLY/SUPERTROPICALLY ADAPTED ARE DARK SKIN, I REPEAT ALL OF THEM. THE ONUS IS THEREFORE, ON THOSE THAN SAY OTHERWISE TO -

No, just no. Scientists never say all of them. So no, your sources doesn't say that ALL, REPEAT ALL tropically adapted are dark skinned. Darker than non-tropically, yes, but not just 'dark' this because variation within populations exist. You are simply taking it too far.

i. show evidence that the ancient Egyptians defiled this trend ii. tell us WHY only the ancient Egyptians did so?

I've never made any such claims so why should I try to prove any such things? To parafrase someone with paranoid delusions - are you a part of a vast conspiracy of nutcases just posting to distort my position?

Let me conclude by making something clearer: Indigenous African skin colour is diverse and range from very light Brown/high yellow(Khoisans/Igbos) TO very dark Brown(Dinka/Akan) and usually one finds some of these variations in same population by the way. My argument is that most Ancient Egyptians would have had VARIATIONS in skin colour within this range. We dont know for sure the exact colour(s) and we may never know but

Here you and I are in complete agreement. I agree with all of that.

since they were mainly a tropically adapted indigenous African population that were dark skin, then they can be regarded as 'Black' Africans(in a social sense). PS: My definition of a 'Black' African is any Indigenous dark-skinned African population and the majority of the ancient Egyptians would most probably meet this minimum.

aaaand there you lost me. Here I'd disagree on the social term of black as you use it.

'it is REASONABLE' to regard the ancient Egyptians as 'Black Africans' (in a social sense) while recognizing diversity in indigenous Africans.

And there we are back to real science speak. Lots of caveats etc.

It is important on the other hand to consider the other alternatives that you were talking about. Keita said that it was POSSIBLE that light skinned persons(completely Africans) could have evolved this trait in coastal north Africa i.e though not likely,there is nothing in genetics that would made it impossible. I agree with Keita. But in the sciences, there is a difference bw a thing been POSSIBLE(really in science practically every thing is possible) and a thing been likely, talkless of it been the case. That is why one has to use different lines of evidences to arrive at the most likely occurrence. It is not enough to point out 'anything is possible' POSSIBILITY but you should go ahead to provide evidences why that path would be likely.

Nope. In context of someone saying that there was no diversity, all I have to do is point to evidence of diversity. In the context of someone saying that all scientists agree that they were all black black black, all I have to do is point to minority opinions or possibilities. That alone proves that not all scientists agree and that the scientists who do agree put in caveats all over the place -because we and they don't know for certain. It's all of those non-scientific truisms that I shoot down.
So in the context of black and white fallacies, all I have to do is point to the grayscale that is the scientific community.
For an example look at the diff between your THEY WERE ALL BLACK folly and compare that to the "it is 'REASONABLE' to regard the ancient Egyptians as 'Black Africans' (in a social sense)" line. Unless a scientist is really 100% shure, then he/she better put in some caveats. Even though they both say essentially the same thing, I would disagree with the former and agree with the latter.

So on what basis should your telling us that something is POSSIBLE(essentially just raising DOUBT) indicate that it is the most likely or even just likely.

see above
Only someone emotionally invested in a populistic and non-scientific viewpoint would have a problem with putting in the same caveats that the scientists in the field does. It betrays that your emotional opinions is more important than what the scientists are actually saying.

I have an open mind and I Know that this topic is not certain yet but I also know which of the narrative is most likely cos all available lines of evidences seems to favors it(and if you are honest you should also know) and which is less likely.

More passive aggressive inuendos.
If you gonna trow such allegations around, at least be upfront and honest about them.

By the way, Keita in that video said that the Ancient Egyptians were in the main 'Somali-like' and 'dark skinned' because they were 'tropically adapted'. Also, in an email to EgalitarianJay he said that the skin tone of upper Egypt and Nubia was likely the modal tone for most of the ancient Egyptians based on all the evidences(he however said that we can not be sure until more extensive histological studies are done on Egyptian mummies of all periods and regions)..

Yes? So? Why point out the obvious? The southern nile would have more influences from the south - wow - it's like the sky opens up and reveals new stars - not. Neighbours will be more alike than non-neighbours, again - wow - what revelations of wisdom and insight.
Why point out the obvious as if someone disagrees?
This is the same questions simon went through on p6-9.

In which compass point would you say the sahara and the maghreb is compared to the El-Badari region?
http://egyptopia.com/Map+of+El+Badari_3 ... 54_en.html
And yes that is a rhetorical question

Yea you said it was a rhetorical question but just out of interest plz after Big T would have given an answer I would like to see your own answer cos I dont get the significance of the question.

Its a rehash of an argument from 20 pages ago - don't bother. Its only significance is for those who remembers shitforbrains' distortions.


Oh and by the way I did read that

Riggs, Christina, and John Baines, 2012, Ethnicity. In Elizabeth Frood, Willeke Wendrich (eds.),
UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology, Los Angeles.
http://digital2.library.ucla.edu/viewIt ... zz002bpmfm

thingie. It was quite boring stuff about subjective ethnicity as perceived by the people throughout egypts history. So I didn't find it relevant by itself, the relevant parts which you quoted would have been better if you had gone to their sources for a cite and quote instead of using Christina's and John's paper just to get something sounding a bit more modern.

[Big Triece]

Even though your argument has already been picked apart I'd like to take a turn at it as well.

All so called afroasiatic genes are from horners. Americas, euroland, asia to australia - all horners.

As stated what in the Hell are "Afro-Asiatic genes", please explain? The last time I checked Afro-Asiatic was a group of languages that originated in Eastern Africa between 15k-13k years ago, which is funny because most evidence indicates that the primary ancestors of the rest of the world left the continent around 50k years ago. So then how is the rest of the world descended from Afro-Asiatic speakers?

Americas, euroland, asia to australia - all horners. So within that genepool lies the potential for all human diversity we see outside of africa today.

Ok, so then according to what you are saying, why has this genetic and phenotypic potential to resemble any of their descended populations been reached? I'd think that 50 thousand years would be more than enough time, wouldn't you?

Top that of with the diversity of geography of the sahara, the atlas, the magreb, the tibesti, the bab-el-mandeb, the nile delta,etc. For you to claim that there was no diversity is contradicting Keita, your main source.

You once again show your fundamental lack of understanding when it comes to this research by bringing the same sorry arguments as other simpletons. Never have I claimed (and cite if I have) that there was no "diversity" of Nile Valley. You citing the video that I posted of Keita on the first page states that it was "diversity" in the Pre-Dynastic Egypt. The "diversity" seen in the Nile Valley (as demonstrated by way of linguistics and archaeology by Christopher Ehret and Dr. Alain Anselin (presented earlier) was African, black African! The people who first migrated into the Nile from Sub Saharan East Africa were in themselves a varied population, the communities of the ancient Saharan who were primarily Nilotic, Nilo Saharans and who even had strong interaction with Niger Congo speakers in the same region represented the other segments of the diversity that would later be seen in the Nile. Perhaps if you watched and absorbed the entire four minute interview you would have seen at the end when Keita states that there is no evidence to suggest that there is no evidence to suggest that the original ancient Egyptians were anything but of Northeast African origins.

Your problem is that you are purposely misconstruing Keita's use of the word "heterogeniety" as though he is meaning it in a social way meaning "race", when he is in reality using it to describe the various African ancestry which populated the Nile. This is the entire point of Keita's honing in on indigenous African diversity and his rejection of considering all of these Africans the same simply because they are socially what we would consider "black".

For instance here, read page 200 to 203 where he talks about such diversity.
http://wysinger.homestead.com/badari.pdf

What point did he make which backs your dubious claim? Can you provide the specific text, because I am not seeing it anywhere in your citation or in any of his literature.

Tropical adaptation and skintone varied. But still, according to your version of ignorant american jargon, then yes they would still all be "black".

Spoonist what tropically adapted African population (or populations with adapted in the same manner around the world) do not have dark skin, which has been (at one time or another) labeled black? Even the Khoisan with their generally yellow brown skin tone, who are only sub tropically adapted are considered black. In the Cambridge lecture Keita clearly states that the ancient Egyptians would have been dark skinned, because they were tropically adapted. How dark we know, because their is a wide range of skin tones seen across tropical Africa, but non the less every single one of those populations are considered "black" in a social sense.

In which compass point would you say the sahara and the maghreb is compared to the El-Badari region?
http://egyptopia.com/Map+of+El+Badari_3 ... 54_en.html

More on the biological affinities of the Badarians:

In the sum, the results obtained further strengthen the results from previous analyses. The affinities between Nazlet Khater, MSA, and Khoisan and Khoisan related groups re-emerges. In addition it is possible to detect a separation between North African and sub-saharan populations, with the Neolithic Saharan population from Hasi el Abiod and the Egyptian Badarian group being closely affiliated with modern Negroid groups. Similarly, the Epipaleolithic populations from Site 117 and Wadi Halfa are also affiliated with sub-Saharan LSA, Iron Age and modern Negroid groups rather than with contemporaneous North African populations such as Taforalt and the Ibero-maurusian.---Pierre M. Vermeersch in Palaeolithic quarrying sites in Upper and Middle Egypt

on Limb proportions:

"Limb ratios are of interest because of limb ratios' general relationship to climate per Allen's rule. Mammals (including Homo sapiens sapiens) tend to have shorter distal members of the extremities in colder climates; this is viewed as being adaptive. Hence the shin (tibia)/thigh (femur) index in Europeans would on the average be expected to differ from an equatorial population. Indeed, this is one line of evidence used to support the idea that at least some, if not most, Upper Paleolithic (anatomically modern) 'Europeans" wereimmigrants from warmer areas (Trinkhaus 1981). Of course variation is expected in any region or population.

Trinkhaus (1981) provides upper and lower extremity distal/proximal member ratios for numerous populations, including a predynastic Egyptian and Mediterranean European series. The predynastic Egyptian values plotted near tropical Africans, not Mediterranean Europeans."
--S. Keita, (1993). Studies and Comments on Ancient Egyptian Biological Relationships. History in Africa. Vol. 20, (1993), pp. 129-154

Now Spoonist why would the ancient Egyptians have the same facial structure as "Negroid" populations and limb proportions like "Negroid" populations, and yet not be Negroes? What logical reason would they defy ecological principal and not have black skin like populations further south and west whom they recented descended from? Better yet if they were mixed with something else then why is that mixture not reflected in their biological affinities?

The people of the ancient Sahara during the time of dessication were almost exclusively Nilotic Nilo Saharan populations. With the exception of isolated regions in extreme North and Western coastal lining of Africa, the regions which we now know was Libya, Algeria, Tunisa and Egypt (the Sahara) were inhabitted by some Niger Congo speakers and mostly Nilo Saharans:

Ancient watercourses and biogeography
of the Sahara explain the peopling of the desert

Drakea et. al.

PNAS 2011

The Peopling of the Sahara During the Holocene

We hypothesize that the differences in animal resources between the northern and southern Sahara during the early Holocene influenced the way it was peopled by humans. The north–south contrast in Saharan species ranges are remarkably similar to some key lithic, bone tool, and linguistic spatial distributions, suggesting that the peopling of the region during the early Holocene humid phase was driven by cultural adaptations that allowed exploitation of specific fauna. The early Holocene archaeology of the Sahara is characterized by a regional distribution of specific archaeological cultures, such as those defined by barbed bone points, fishhooks, Ounanian arrow-points, and, more controversially, pottery. The Sahara today is largely populated by speakers of Afroasiatic
languages, Berber and Arabic, with some Nilo Saharan languages (Teda-Daza and Zaghawa) in the region of Northern Chad, and Songhay cluster languages scattered across Mali and Niger. However, it is clear that this situation is recent; Berberspeaking Tuareg moved into the Central Sahara ∼1500 y ago and the spread of the Hassaniya Moors into Mauritania probably dates from the 15th Century. Before this time, the central and southern Sahara are thought to have been populated by Nilo-Saharan speakers. The Nilo-Saharan language phylum is both widespread and strongly internally divided, suggesting considerable antiquity. Its greatest diversity is in the east, where a large number of small branches are found suggesting the original locus of expansion. Although fragmented into enclave populations today, the presence and pattern of relic populations in the northern desert points strongly to a much wider distribution in the past, covering the region from the Ethio-Sudan borderland to Mauritania and southwest Morocco.

So now what was that you were attempting to argue in regards to the people of the "Maghreb"? Haven't you ever heard of the "black mummy" of Libya? Gee I wonder how he got his name?

Cross reference that to my post in the link two quotes above and you can see what I was refering to back then, some 20 pages ago, which was of course completely missed by littlebrain. He's still talking like as if he agrees with the man...
Around 39-40 min he goes through the concept of some africans looking like euros,

What is your point? Are you completely oblivious to the populations history of Northern Africa? Are you not aware of the wide spread enslavement of white European Christians in northern Africa with in the last thousand years? Have I not presented evidence which even states that their was limited migration into pockets of Northern Africa from Europe during Pre-historic times? In a thousand years will someone also believe that Afrikaneers are aboriginal Africans who got their white skin from the Sub tropical enviornment of that region of Africa?

YOU were not clear enough, so HE responded to dynastic egypt, YOU then changed the meaning of the OP to pre-dynastic, then YOU tried to imply that his post was in contradiction to the OP.

Only you people can obfuscate the clear title of this thread.

It's like shitforbrains read it and simply don't grasp the contextualizing of different concepts. Or that we actually are scientifically literate in contrast to him.

Funny how the PHD's in the workshop seem to have their minds made up as to what whether they were black (in Keita's case "dark skinned" with a generally "Somali like" facial structure) or not. I think it's moreso asking the same question that I am, will petty individuals in racialized westernized societies who are presented with irrefutable evidence in support of the fact, accept that the ancient Egyptians were black Africans. Some can and some can't.

[matter]

First off Spoonist thanks for responding to most of the post- it been some time since u guys did such to opposing points. I have respected your style and consistency in this forum from the start, my frustration was the tendency of some posters not to engage consistently with opposing points to the point where specific questions and counter-questions would have been asked(believe me if we did so this debate would have much robust and fruitful).

ALL INDIGENOUS AFRICAN POPULATIONS WHO ARE TROPICALLY/SUPERTROPICALLY ADAPTED ARE DARK SKIN, I REPEAT ALL OF THEM. THE ONUS IS THEREFORE, ON THOSE THAN SAY OTHERWISE TO -

No, just no. Scientists never say all of them. So no, your sources doesn't say that ALL, REPEAT ALL tropically adapted are dark skinned. Darker than non-tropically, yes, but not just 'dark' this because variation within populations exist. You are simply taking it too far.

Okay could you give examples of tropically/supertropically adapted African populations that are not dark-skinned or that you do not consider to be dark-skinned? (PLZ directly ANSWER this question).

What my sources and scientists say is that by ecological principle a tropically adapted population would be dark-skinned cos if a population has elongated limb proportions then it suggests that the population(or its ancestors) has been long term residents of a tropical environment and so would also have skin colour intensification(dark-skinned) for protection(i mean this is Science 101). the question is do we have any example that defiled this(something like an 'exception that proves the rule' perhaps)? if so which?

Let me conclude by making something clearer: Indigenous African skin colour is diverse and range from very light Brown/high yellow(Khoisans/Igbos) TO very dark Brown(Dinka/Akan) and usually one finds some of these variations in same population by the way. My argument is that most Ancient Egyptians would have had VARIATIONS in skin colour within this range. We dont know for sure the exact colour(s) and we may never know but

Here you and I are in complete agreement. I agree with all of that.

Then WHY are we still arguing for God's sake? Wont you honestly call those Khoisans and Igbos (as well others close to their tone) 'Black' Africans? Really any disagreement bw us on this issue would just be cosmetic and semantics.
See Spoonist let me give some context here: I am an African and specifically Nigerian and I have a sister with that relatively 'light' skin high yellow skin tone that is some of the lightest amongst indigenous Africans. So do many Nigerians I know-actually such 'lighter' skinned persons(and their variations) are probably in their low millions and are especially frequent among Igbos in southern Nigeria. Yet they are completely African(autosomally, and in terms of their mtDNA and Y-Chromosome) and tropically adapted; you also have some relatively 'light' skinned Fulanis and other groups in the north .Now the question-is my sister and these other Nigerians(and their likes across Africa 'Black'?). I mean what would people regard them as? If they are(assuming that was your answer) and you agreed that most Ancient Egyptians are indigenous tropically/supertropically adapted Northeast Africans and would have been WITHIN the range above, and you also do not believe in the biological concept of race then how can they not also be regarded as 'Black' Africans in a social sense.

'it is REASONABLE' to regard the ancient Egyptians as 'Black Africans' (in a social sense) while recognizing diversity in indigenous Africans.

And there we are back to real science speak. Lots of caveats etc.

Most science uses these caveats and restraints-DOUBT is a constant in the way a scientist thinks. But the presence of mere Doubt(i.e the 'any thing is possible' POSSIBILITY) does not prevent a scientist to choose the most likely occurrence(remember the restraint 'all things been equal' in many laws), it only raises a POSSIBILITY of other paths. Now, if the lines of evidences mostly favours a narrative then until there is significant counter-evidence(not just 'anything is possible' doubt) a scientist may not change the prevailing most likely path.
Dr. Keita says that it is not impossible for Africans in coastal North Africa to develop light skin. Agreed. but he never said that there was any evidence yet that this was the case esp in Egypt or even if the lines of evidence favours it- in fact Keita favours the opposite ie that the ancient Egyptians were likely dark-skinned cos they were tropically adapted.

See Spoonist I really want to seriously consider counter-evidences(cos there is this thing in my head-maybe it is cos of my scientific background or my aversion to generalization- that reminds me to pause intermittently in my articulations of my views but the your explanations in your post on Keita's take on 'diversity' did not give enough substance as you seem to just be reminding us a POSSIBILITY).
Also, let me reiterate again that I do not believe in a pure population- i think as I have maintained through out this trend that some of the variability in ancient Egyptians came from outside Africa though remained a minority esp at Egypt's early years- how significant this minority I cant tell for now.


Am honestly drained by discussing skin colour, in fact this whole debate now seem very tiresome to me and too long. So if there is no new ideas I think we should rest this thread so that people can easily get the info and studies in the thread easily. For me I think I will take some break until any important stuff rises.

[Spoonist]

@shitforbrains
If I was a racist fuckhead claimung euro origin then your post could almost make sense. But since I'm not it doesn't make any sense at all.
Fuckin get into your brain that

Keita states that there is no evidence to suggest that there is no evidence to suggest that the original ancient Egyptians were anything but of Northeast African origins.

is not the same as this

black African

unless you define the subjective terms.
If you and I have different values of the subjective terms, which we obviously do, then we aint gonna agree on those. Its really very simple.

[Big Triece]

If I was a racist fuckhead claimung euro origin then your post could almost make sense. But since I'm not it doesn't make any sense at all.

Read here:

The race and origins of the Ancient Egyptians have been a source of considerable debate. Scholars in the late and early 20th centuries rejected any considerations of the Egyptians as black Africans by defining the Egyptians either as non-African (i.e Near Easterners or Indo-Aryan), or as members of a separate brown(as opposed to a black)race, or as a mixture of lighter-skinned peoples with black Africans. In the later half of the 20th century, Afrocentric scholars have countered this Eurocentric and often racist perspective by characterizing the Egyptians as black and African. pg27 and 28 {in Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt(ed)Donald Reyford, Oxford University Press, 2001}

I think that you like many people have strongly misguided views on the subject due exclusively to almost a century of media biased in the westernized world, who themselves (the media outlets) chose (and still choose) to accept outdated racist fallacies in regard to this subject. I question the motives of people who know that their portrayal of the ancient Egyptians is an outdated fallacy which is rooted in nothing more than racism, feel the need to defend this general notion, and conversely feeling some sort of obligation to viciously attack those who are calling it out for the bullshit that it is. While I'm not personally calling you a "racist", denying that racism is at the "core" of this debate is pure dishonesty.

Fuckin get into your brain that "Keita states that there is no evidence to suggest that there is no evidence to suggest that the original ancient Egyptians were anything but of Northeast African origins."is not the same as this black African

Spoonist, Keita is a bio-anthropologist and is obligated to remain strictly scientific in his analysis of this subject. None the less his Cambridge lecture is listed on the Fitzwilliam's official website (in the section dedicated to showing Egypt in it's proper black African context) right alongside other PhD's dealing with sociological aspects of the discussion stating that the ancient Egyptians were black Africans. Sally Ann Ashton from the Manchester segment, who gave her lecture right after Keita's directly referenced him in her lecture where she references them as black Africans. To people without hidden prejudices, his statement that the ancient Egyptians were entirely of Northeast African origin, exhibiting a general cranio morphology that was "Somali like"/over a third of the remains being broad in morphology (Nilotic), and having dark skin due to their long term residence in the tropics (indicated by limb proportions), clearly indicates that they were black Africans.

If you and I have different values of the subjective terms, which we obviously do, then we aint gonna agree on those. Its really very simple.

When all else fails, claim that you somehow have a special definition for who you consider black Africans, even when:

Physical anthropologists are increasingly concluding that racial definitions are the culturally defined product of selective perception and should be replaced in biological terms by the study of populations and clines. Consequently, any characterization of race of the ancient Egyptians depend on modern cultural definitions, not on scientific study. Thus, by modern American standards it is reasonable to characterize the Egyptians as 'blacks' [i.e in a social sense] while acknowledging the scientific evidence for the physical diversity of Africans. Source: Donald Redford (2001) The Oxford encyclopedia of ancient Egypt, Volume 3. Oxford University Press. p. 27-28

or

Two opposing theories for the origin of Dynastic Egyptians dominated scholarly debate over the last century: whether the ancient Egyptians were black Africans (historically referred to as Negroid) originating biologically and culturally in Saharo-Tropical Africa, or whether they originated as a Dynastic Race in the Mediterranean or western Asian regions (people historically categorized as White, or Caucasoid)....There is now a sufficient body of evidence from modern studies of skeletal remains to indicate that the ancient Egyptians, especially southern Egyptians, exhibited physical characteristics that are within the range of variation for ancient and modern indigenous peoples of the Sahara and tropical Africa. In general, the inhabitants of Upper Egypt and Nubia had the greatest biological affinity to people of the Sahara and more southerly areas..[...] Any interpretation of the biological affinities of the ancient Egyptians must be placed in the context of hypothesis informed by the archaeological, linguistic, geographic or other data. In this context the physical anthropological evidence indicates that the early Nile Valley populations can be identified as part of an African lineage, but exhibiting local variation. This variation represents the short and long term effects of evolutionary forces, such as gene flow, genetic drift, and natural selection influenced by culture and geography. (Nancy C. Lovell, " Egyptians, physical anthropology of," in Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt, ed. Kathryn A. Bard and Steven Blake Shubert, ( London and New York: Routledge, 1999) pp 328-332)

or



Funny how even a white modern African man doesn't have a differentiation of who all are generally considered black Africans.

[Spoonist]

Am honestly drained by discussing skin colour, in fact this whole debate now seem very tiresome to me and too long. So if there is no new ideas I think we should rest this thread so that people can easily get the info and studies in the thread easily. For me I think I will take some break until any important stuff rises.

So which is it?
Demanding responses or leaving the debate?
I am not going to do a lengthy response in case you don't want to continue.

Then I'd point out that I told you from the start that this is how the discussion goes. It's semantics and stirring up trouble where there basically is no major disagreements.

[Spoonist]

If I was a racist fuckhead claimung euro origin then your post could almost make sense. But since I'm not it doesn't make any sense at all.

I could just copy paste this into any reply to you and it would be just as valid...

I think that you like many people have strongly misguided views on the subject due exclusively to almost a century of media biased in the westernized world, who themselves (the media outlets) chose (and still choose) to accept outdated racist fallacies in regard to this subject. I question the motives of people who know that their portrayal of the ancient Egyptians is an outdated fallacy which is rooted in nothing more than racism, feel the need to defend this general notion, and conversely feeling some sort of obligation to viciously attack those who are calling it out for the bullshit that it is. While I'm not personally calling you a "racist", denying that racism is at the "core" of this debate is pure dishonesty.

What is this with the passive aggressive stuff? Is it contageos?
You think that we all think alike and that we are racists. You have said so several times. You compared us at SDN with fascists and nazis when you were still loui the slugger. Why the sudden turn to trying to hide that?

Then, you slowwittedwasteofspace, I've never said anything remotely like the position you are trying to slam there. Do I really need to quote myself again, from page 3 onwards I've mentioned active and passive racism several times as a motivating factor in egyptology. I even said so in the post you are responding to. I have also on at least two occasions pointed out to you that some of the views you are advocating is based on racism. So please exlpain specifically how you came to the conclusion that I'm denying that racism is part of this debate? Heck check out my dialog with simon regarding you on p10ish.
But please don't let me stop you from puting on your tinfoil hat and hide from the pod people, just because you are paranoid doesn't mean that we are not a hivemind coming for you after all...4

and is obligated to remain strictly scientific in his analysis of this subject.

Here you betray your views too vividly. You don't want a scientific dialog at all. You don't even realise why Keita becomes so upset at those "black africans" in the audience because of what they are trying to make him agree to.

If you and I have different values of the subjective terms, which we obviously do, then we aint gonna agree on those. Its really very simple.

When all else fails, claim that you somehow have a special definition for who you consider black Africans.

Not this shit again. Nope, it was the other way around. You got asked for your definition and I showed why that was complete bollocks. Then I showed you why northeast africa isn't as precise as you think. Simon even schooled you on the orignins being another subjective term. Now I don't think you really have asked me for my definition(s), because I distinctly remember asking for a scientific terminology instead of one based on old fuckhead racist stupid ideas. Like using DNA instead. Which is such sweet irony when you go ahead and try to agree to exactly that which you refused 20pages ago by this quote:

Physical anthropologists are increasingly concluding that racial definitions are the culturally defined product of selective perception and should be replaced in biological terms by the study of populations and clines. Consequently, any characterization of race of the ancient Egyptians depend on modern cultural definitions, not on scientific study.

Too fucking late to start supporting my view now idiot.
Do I really have to bring out the magic of quoting again to show where you refused exactly that because you wanted to use the term black instead? I've stopped quoting for your disability's sake since you didn't even understand how to click one.

Two opposing theories for the origin of Dynastic Egyptians dominated scholarly debate over the last century: whether the ancient Egyptians were black Africans (historically referred to as Negroid) originating biologically and culturally in Saharo-Tropical Africa, or whether they originated as a Dynastic Race in the Mediterranean or western Asian regions (people historically categorized as White, or Caucasoid)....

This is funny since again, none here adhere to dynastic race theory. Yet again and again you try to make it appear like we do.
Just because we think you are a deluded paranoid moron doesn't make all of us white, nor all of us racist/supremacists, nor adhere to old fuckhead racist bullshit.
This is the reason why this shit of a topic continues, because you are continously missing what we are saying.

[Big Triece]

What is this with the passive aggressive stuff?

From here on out I'm not wasting my time addressing semantic/petty arguments.

You don't even realise why Keita becomes so upset at those "black africans" in the audience because of what they are trying to make him agree to.

Keita became visibly upset at the student's insistence that Keita being the professional that he was should step out of a scientific dialogue and place the ancient Egyptians into a social categorization, in other words be unprofessional. None the less, what you seem to not want to acknowledge is that while he himself has not interpreted his data into a sociological perspective several other PhD's have done so, and have worked directly with Keita himself to come to their conclusions. The author of "Black Spark White Fire" has done so here:

Were the Ancient Egyptians black? That is entirely up to you. But were they biologically African? It would seem that they were. After considering the full range of anatomical, linguistic, cultural, archeological and genetic evidence, Shomarka Keita feels confident in concluding that the original Egyptians by which he means the pre-dynastic people of Southern Egypt, who founded Egyptian civilization evolved entirely in Africa. Both culturally and biologically, he says, they were more related to other Africans than they were to non-Africans from Europe or Asia.

Through the years, Keita believes, the Egyptians appear to have blended with many immigrants and invaders, many of whom were lighter-skinned and more Caucasoid in appearance than the original Egyptians. Libyans, Persians, Syro-Palestinians, Assyrians, Greeks, and Romans all left their imprint on the faces of Egypt. But Egyptian civilization remained profoundly African to the very end.

Keita himself rarely resorts to such crudely racial expressions as black and white. But if we might be forgiven a momentary lapse into everyday speech, it would probably not hurt to conceive of Keita's theory as the polar opposite of the Hamitic Hypothesis. Whereas the Hamitic theorists saw Egypt as a nation of white people that was gradually infiltrated by blacks, the biological evidence seems to suggest that it was more like a black nation that was gradually infiltrated by whites.

Black Spark White Fire: Did African Explorers Civilize Ancient Europe? - Chapter 77. Black, White or Biologically African? Pg. 471

This view has been validated by the more recent workshops and publications on the Fitzwilliam's museum website. Now if my views are based heavily upon what you and some others consider my "misinterpretations" of Keita then why have provided so many PhD's who have referenced the research of Keita and or others to state exactly what I am stating, in clear sociological manner? What are your thoughts of Robert Bauval's interview? Is he also a liar who consistently misinterprets biological research?

Then I showed you why northeast africa isn't as precise as you think. Simon even schooled you on the orignins being another subjective term.

Ok, as Matter has stated to you earlier, don't wuss out of a rebuttal with the same moot points, only to rehash the same refuted argument as though they are still valid. Now if you want to persist with your "Afro-Asiatic genes" argument, in some sad attempt to obscure the "blackness" of the indigenous inhabitants of Sub Saharan East Africans, Sudanese, and many modern rural and southern Egyptian people then please respond to my earlier post in full (meaning answer the questions).

Now I don't think you really have asked me for my definition(s), because I distinctly remember asking for a scientific terminology instead of one based on old fuckhead racist stupid ideas....Too fucking late to start supporting my view now idiot.Do I really have to bring out the magic of quoting again to show where you refused exactly that because you wanted to use the term black instead? I've stopped quoting for your disability's sake since you didn't even understand how to click one.

Rather or not you claim to not subscribe to the social definitions of race that people in your society do, does not make the realities associated with their definitions any less of a valid. See here:

This is the reason why this shit of a topic continues, because you are continously missing what we are saying.

Sure, lets let that be the reason.

[Lord Zentei]

From here on out I'm not wasting my time addressing semantic/petty arguments.

Holy Shit!

Keita became visibly upset at the student's insistence that Keita being the professional that he was should step out of a scientific dialogue and place the ancient Egyptians into a social categorization, in other words be unprofessional. None the less, what you seem to not want to acknowledge is that while he himself has not interpreted his data into a sociological perspective several other PhD's have done so, and have worked directly with Keita himself to come to their conclusions. The author of "Black Spark White Fire" has done so here:

So, if Keita rejects the use of racial labels to describe the Egyptians then why the fuck do you keep on doing so, and still citing him as a source for your claims? Moreover, the variation of indigenous Africans implies that it does not follow that the Egyptians were "black" initially, regardless of their indigenous origins. Something that has been pointed out to you before now, more times than I care to count (and you have never provided a satisfactory answer). In any case, why imply that the "black African" label follows from "indigenous African" (a question you have never answered satisfactorily either)?

Ok, as Matter has stated to you earlier, don't wuss out of a rebuttal with the same moot points, only to rehash the same refuted argument as though they are still valid. Now if you want to persist with your "Afro-Asiatic genes" argument, in some sad attempt to obscure the "blackness" of the indigenous inhabitants of Sub Saharan East Africans, Sudanese, and many modern rural and southern Egyptian people then please respond to my earlier post in full (meaning answer the questions).

The hypocricy is thick here. YOU are posting the same shit over and over again, including the specific shit in your post above; and matter is a moron, as you are: he hasn't contributed shit to this thread, and is basically echoing your damnfool posts.

[Big Triece]

This is funny since again, none here adhere to dynastic race theory.

You are correct, no one has specifically argued that a wave or Asiatics imposed Dynastic culture onto the local populations. What has used to somehow obscure the "blackness" of the early ancient Egyptians is the notion of a Neolithic revolution from the Middle East into Africa, which is what they used to assert a mixed race basis for the population of the Nile Valley. The same people (added with you) have also argued that the supposite mixed race ancestry of the ancient Egyptians came from their Saharan ancestry, until it was proven that the inhabitants of the Central and southern Sahara (population source for ancient Egypt) were Nilotic Africans. Those same people also argued that some sort of back migration from over 20,000 years ago of people from God knows where, were responsible for the supposite mixed race ancestry of the Nile Valley. Despite the fact that "white skin" had not even evolved during the time of this supposite back migration.

Just because we think you are a deluded paranoid moron doesn't make all of us white, nor all of us racist/supremacists, nor adhere to old fuckhead racist bullshit.

Plain and simple (and as you've somewhat stated) in the context of Western society, the notion that the ancient Egyptians were anything other than black Africans is rooted in nothing more than anti-black African racism:

The race and origins of the Ancient Egyptians have been a source of considerable debate. Scholars in the late and early 20th centuries rejected any considerations of the Egyptians as black Africans by defining the Egyptians either as non-African (i.e Near Easterners or Indo-Aryan), or as members of a separate brown(as opposed to a black) race, or as a mixture of lighter-skinned peoples with black Africans. In the later half of the 20th century, Afrocentric scholars have countered this Eurocentric and often racist perspective by characterizing the Egyptians as black and African. pg27 and 28 {in Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt(ed)Donald Reyford, Oxford University Press, 2001}

[Lord Zentei]

Plain and simple (and as you've somewhat stated) in the context of Western society, the notion that the ancient Egyptians were anything other than black Africans is rooted in nothing more than anti-black African racism:

So... since racists claimed that the Egyptians were not "black", therefore the only possible reason anyone would claim that the Egyptians were not "black" is because they are racists?

I think you need to brush up on those logical syllogism skills.

[Big Triece]

So, if Keita rejects the use of racial labels to describe the Egyptians then why the fuck do you keep on doing so, and still citing him as a source for your claims?

This has already been explained! Why do you not acknowledge the social contextualization of the research of Keita and other bio-anthropologist, by the numerous other PhD's on this very page and the last? The quote that you omitted from your response to me was of one of these PhD's who consulted with Keita about his research and put it into a social context which is the exact same thing that I am arguing.

Moreover, the variation of indigenous Africans implies that it does not follow that the Egyptians were "black" initially, regardless of their indigenous origins.

You are the epitome of the type of people whom the original post was asking this question towards. You simply will not accept any of the evidence which proves that they were black. I won't call people like Broomstick a racist, but people like you and Thanas I have absolutely no respect for as I regard you two as such. With that being said I don't think I'll waste anymore time with idiots like you.

[Lord Zentei]

This has already been explained! Why do you not acknowledge the social contextualization of the research of Keita and other bio-anthropologist, by the numerous other PhD's on this very page and the last? The quote that you omitted from your response to me was of one of these PhD's who consulted with Keita about his research and put it into a social context which is the exact same thing that I am arguing.

And I have already answered that elsewhere in this thread: social contextualization using modern social definitions of race are NOT APPROPRIATE and NOT ACCURATE. Defining ancient cultures using the context of modern culture is the very DEFINITION of ethnocentrism. In any case, if all you have is "well, they might be seen as black by such and such", then you really have nothing - since you're making specific implications about blackness, and relying on these vague generalizations to achieve that is dishonest.

You are the epitome of the type of people whom the original post was asking this question towards. You simply will not accept any of the evidence which proves that they were black. I won't call people like Broomstick a racist, but people like you and Thanas I have absolutely no respect for as I regard you two as such. With that being said I don't think I'll waste anymore time with idiots like you.

I have remarked before now that you project your failings on to others.

You have absolutely NO justification for calling either me or Thanas racists merely because we are not convinced by your bullshit - this is the epitome of narcissism, ascribing such positions to people simply because they disagree with you.

[Bakustra]

Please don't call someone else's arguments bullshit when yours relies on claiming that cultures that have passed into the zamani* lose any and all racial or ethnic identifications, using "that's ethnocentrism" to gruesomely cover up what is fairly blatantly an uneasiness with regarding Egyptians as black. Consider the beam in thy own eye before addressing the mote in another's.

So tell me, if you are able to address me seriously by this point (and I am salivating on reporting you for a vendetta if you are unable to), why do you object to saying that Egyptians are black (surely not even you would dare to suggest that they aren't Africans)? Because all your words up to this point have failed to communicate why you are arguing and it is a curious omission. I find myself wondering whether you are arguing because of some convinced belief or because of some personal dislike for Big Triece. Your lack of any sort of context for your argument has produced this, so I would like to see some of that context because I am a loving individual who wishes to see the best in everybody.

-

*zamani is a Kiswahili term for things or people that have passed outside of living memory.

[Lord Zentei]

Please don't call someone else's arguments bullshit when yours relies on claiming that cultures that have passed into the zamani* lose any and all racial or ethnic identifications, using "that's ethnocentrism" to gruesomely cover up what is fairly blatantly an uneasiness with regarding Egyptians as black. Consider the beam in thy own eye before addressing the mote in another's.

Coming back to troll some more, Bakustra?

So tell me, if you are able to address me seriously by this point (and I am salivating on reporting you for a vendetta if you are unable to),

What does not responding to you have to do with vendettas?

why do you object to saying that Egyptians are black (surely not even you would dare to suggest that they aren't Africans)? Because all your words up to this point have failed to communicate why you are arguing and it is a curious omission.

Because I think it is incorrect. What other reason do I need?

And you're assuming that "black" equals "African" too, something that Big Triece has been corrected on for some time now.

I find myself wondering whether you are arguing because of some convinced belief or because of some personal dislike for Big Triece. Your lack of any sort of context for your argument has produced this, so I would like to see some of that context because I am a loving individual who wishes to see the best in everybody.

Oh, isn't that nice. Why don't you take a gander at the board's mission statement for a bit?

zamani is a Kiswahili term for things or people that have passed outside of living memory.

Whatever.

[Bakustra]

I see that you won't bother trying to be civil or follow the spirit of the rules, which are that you are to argue with ideas not people. A shame that not even threats can get you to act reasonably. I suppose that I ought to take some pride in my ability to affect you- imagine, I have destroyed the persona of reason you put up to the world single-handedly by being who I am! A marvel!

Anyways, why is it incorrect? Are you going to engage in tautologies? It is incorrect because it is incorrect? I see that you're dumb enough (or enough of a snake) to not get that by separating "black" from "African" I am acknowledging that the two terms are separate, so I doubt that you've even thought enough to consider why it would be incorrect.

EDIT: I'm glad that you're actively dismissive of common courtesy as well, since it absolves me of feeling any guilt for mistreating you. But in order for you to be making fun of Big Triece for being stupid, you have to show why he's stupid and to do that you need to explain why his opinion is incorrect. Good luck doing that.

[Lord Zentei]

I see that you won't bother trying to be civil or follow the spirit of the rules, which are that you are to argue with ideas not people. A shame that not even threats can get you to act reasonably. I suppose that I ought to take some pride in my ability to affect you- imagine, I have destroyed the persona of reason you put up to the world single-handedly by being who I am! A marvel!

Yeah, so you're admitting that your intent was to troll.

"Spirit of the rules", "ability to affect you", "destroyed the persona of reason", LMAO.

Anyways, why is it incorrect? Are you going to engage in tautologies? It is incorrect because it is incorrect? I see that you're dumb enough (or enough of a snake) to not get that by separating "black" from "African" I am acknowledging that the two terms are separate, so I doubt that you've even thought enough to consider why it would be incorrect.

Er, how about you read the thread?

[Bakustra]

I see that you won't bother trying to be civil or follow the spirit of the rules, which are that you are to argue with ideas not people. A shame that not even threats can get you to act reasonably. I suppose that I ought to take some pride in my ability to affect you- imagine, I have destroyed the persona of reason you put up to the world single-handedly by being who I am! A marvel!

Yeah, so you're admitting that your intent was to troll.

"Spirit of the rules", "ability to affect you", "destroyed the persona of reason", LMAO.

No, it's not. That's why this is violating the principle of the vendetta rule- you are making prejudicial statements without recourse to actual content- insisting that I must be trolling because it's me. I'm glad that you think that there's nothing wrong with prejudice as long as it doesn't involve a specific group though! It's always wonderful to see how belief in vile ideologies correlates with other shitheaded opinions.

Anyways, if you're treating me exactly like you treat other people around you, I pity your friends. Hell, I pity your enemies.

Anyways, why is it incorrect? Are you going to engage in tautologies? It is incorrect because it is incorrect? I see that you're dumb enough (or enough of a snake) to not get that by separating "black" from "African" I am acknowledging that the two terms are separate, so I doubt that you've even thought enough to consider why it would be incorrect.

Er, how about you read the thread?

I have. It was not a pleasant experience, and I am asking this because I didn't get why you believe the proposition to be incorrect from your array of terrible posts! So please explain why you believe it to be incorrect to describe Egyptians as black. Admittedly, since you're pretending that my accurate criticisms of your post don't exist, I'm afraid I'm unlikely to believe you, since you've already shown that you're a dishonest snake who's unwilling to admit to any wrongdoing even when called on it. I wouldn't put it past you to invent a reason just because your real one sounds bad, or you're just arguing to argue.

[Lord Zentei]

I rather get the impression that it is YOU who are pursuing a vendetta, quite frankly, so you can quit acting so high and mighty about civility. Incidentally, if you have read the thread, you could not have missed the various studies I have posted regarding the heterogenous ethnicity of the Ancient Egyptians.

Admittedly, since you're pretending that my accurate criticisms of your post don't exist, I'm afraid I'm unlikely to believe you, since you've already shown that you're a dishonest snake who's unwilling to admit to any wrongdoing even when called on it. I wouldn't put it past you to invent a reason just because your real one sounds bad, or you're just arguing to argue.

Right, so why are you asking at all, then?

[Bakustra]

Are you seriously willing to go on the record and admit that you're a dishonest snake rather than admit that I was right about something?

But I guess that I'm too literate for you- I want you to put together a legible summary that is comprehensible to primates rather than to your ophidian kin, demonstrating exactly why you believe it is incorrect to deem Egyptians "black". Start with a definition of "black", if you don't mind my giving you hints.

PS: It appears that evil really cannot comprehend good if you are unable to understand why I might do something even with significant personal doubts about someone's honesty. A hint- hope springs _ _ _ _ _ _ _.

[Spoonist]

Uhm Bakustra, was any of that directed at me? If so care to give some specifics?

[Bakustra]

Uhm Bakustra, was any of that directed at me? If so care to give some specifics?

No, not really. I don't particularly care about the argument you're having, since it mainly hinges on physiological features I'm not overly concerned with and don't really have the time or the energy to investigate properly.

[matter]

The hypocricy is thick here. YOU are posting the same shit over and over again, including the specific shit in your post above; and matter is a moron, as you are: he hasn't contributed shit to this thread, and is basically echoing your damnfool posts.

That was stupid Zentei, I mean was there any need for that unnecessary insult. Why are you becomin so angry and franking becomin somewhat irrational in your recent posts. Is it perhaps that you cant handle the fact that your arguments are been torn apart? Cant you see how inconsistent some of your arguments of late have been? And why do you run away when you are supposed to respond to others posts? Read your recent posts, you have not provided any reasons why most of Ancient Egyptians would not be 'Black' Africans in a social sense.
You have failed woefully to even attempt to demonstrate Demic Diffusion as your only remaining source is an ABSTRACT whose full study is in a member-only Journal even when Demic Diffusion should be one of the easiest things to DEMONSTRATE(and you cant see how pitiable that is). I have even pleaded with you to send me the said study(since you indicated you were a member) or to even go ahead to post excepts from the said study so we could discuss it, yet you have failed to do so. Still you keep insisting on Demic Diffusion due to an inaccessible ABSTRACT that only YOU say demonstrates it, this is after my demonstrating the opposite by actually quoting experts and sources that not only says that many elements of the early Fayum/Merimde cultures came from the Egyptian Saharan oases but some even CLEARLY said that there was no evidence for mass migration of groups from the Near East into Egypt during the early 'neolithic'(which Demic Diffusion would have implied)- sources that you did not respond to specifically by the way.

These are all the exchanges you and I have had on Demic diffusion:

(Me) http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 5#p3652259, (you) http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 5#p3652734, (Me) http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 0#p3652882, (you) http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 0#p3653302, (me) http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 0#p3654005, then you ran away and when you resurfaced you posted this http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 5#p3662325, my response
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 5#p3662438.

Plain and simple (and as you've somewhat stated) in the context of Western society, the notion that the ancient Egyptians were anything other than black Africans is rooted in nothing more than anti-black African racism:

So... since racists claimed that the Egyptians were not "black", therefore the only possible reason anyone would claim that the Egyptians were not "black" is because they are racists.

We cannot run away from the fact that the reason for the mess that European scholars made in the early study of Egypt with concepts like Hamitic theorem, Dynastic race theorem, Asiatic Origin of Ancient Egyptians, Mediterranean Race theorem,'dark or even Black skinned African peoples who are actually White', Demic diffusion, 'civilization' coming from 'whiter' Lower Egypt to 'blacker' Upper Egypt etc, was because they could not accept that the ancient Egyptians could have been black 1.e that 'Black' peoples could have been ABLE to create such an early and sophisticated 'civilization' , SIMPLE.

Racism still exist albeit in more covert and subtle forms today- there are still a lot of ordinarily good folks who find it difficult to believe that 'Black' people could be civilized on their own. ADVICE: Search yourself Zentei if you do not have such racist beliefs in you somewhere, and considering some of your behaviour lately I will not be surprised by your findings.
By the way, not every person who do not believe that the ancient Egyptians were in the main 'Black' Africans have racist tendencies. There is for instance a difference between Spoonist's views and yours in the last 2 pages. I mean Spoonist actually responded to opposing posts(unlike you who runs away when you are supposed to respond and then show up out of the blues later on) and the point he is making is that we cannot be sure and that we have to consider the POSSIBILITY of the kind of diversity in ancient Egypt- I may disagree in certain instances with him but that caution is very legitimate and helpful; plus Spoonist writes something like this:

Let me conclude by making something clearer: Indigenous African skin colour is diverse and range from very light Brown/high yellow(Khoisans/Igbos) TO very dark Brown(Dinka/Akan) and usually one finds some of these variations in same population by the way. My argument is that most Ancient Egyptians would have had VARIATIONS in skin colour within this range. We dont know for sure the exact colour(s) and we may never know but

Here you and I are in complete agreement. I agree with all of that.

The disagreement on this issue with him would then be minor and mostly semantics.

Look at the personal attacks many of you have been having on Big T, attacks that draw attention away from the substance of the issue at stakes. When I 1st joined this thread I appealed to you guys(some of you personally through your PMs) including Big T to simmer down so we could focus on the main issues. Is the plan now to add me to the list so that I may respond in kind and play into the hands of some of you to divert attention from some of your frankly ridiculous posts lately? Well, it will not work cos like I said before I dont do insults- if we are tired lets say so and rest the thread for good.

PS: I know that you are going to attempt to insult but Plz you should ALSO try to shut me up by posting excepts from that your 'magic' ABSTRACT on demic diffusion and respond to specific questions raised in these posts: http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 5#p3672603 and http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 5#p3672747. Now Good luck with that.

[Spoonist]

Uhm Bakustra, was any of that directed at me? If so care to give some specifics?

No, not really. I don't particularly care about the argument you're having, since it mainly hinges on physiological features I'm not overly concerned with and don't really have the time or the energy to investigate properly.

OK, cool. Just checking in case I was missing something.