Denial of the African origins of Ancient Egypt?

[Spoonist]

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.

Nope, nope and nope.
If I just ignore the stuff between you and Z because its really not my business at this point. But....
1) Nope the personal attacks are not meant to draw attention away from anything. Its board culture, like I've pointed out to you a couple of times now including referencing the board rules. Look at other threads and topics they are all over the place especially among the longtimers of the board. Then no, when it comes to drawing away attention to useless stuff, noone does that better than vacuumbrain himself. Look at the Iman thing, pics, reposts of pics, reposts of irrelevant stuff etc. So no diversion is necessary when it comes to him. And if your allegation had any truth to it then we'd be insulting DemoFandboy and EgilitarianJay as well - but we don't. Such posters don't draw the fire as much as moronboy does. Which leads to
2) the reason for me personally to continuosly flame shitforbrains would start with his responses to me on page 1-3. I specifically pointed this out to him on p3
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 5#p3483125
Then I continued the dialog with him for several pages without me insulting him, but him always insinuating/hinting at me being a racist even while I had not so far expressed any opinion of my own. Plus him calling me a fucking idiot over Iman where it was was clearly him who was in the wrong. It's not until p7 that I start to deride him and then its not even pure insults like he did to me but rather stuff vs his arguments and not his person. Which changed when he wouldn't even acknowledge his misrepresentations and quote mining of my views. Please read this post as an example for the context of why I continuosly think he is worthy of nothing but disdain.
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 2#p3619132
Then top that off with the quote where he would have physically assaulted all of us who had disagreed with him. So don't try to insinuate that I instult him because of a lack of argument - mr instacontradiction insulted me waaaay before I returned the favor all the while claiming to not want to go there. Which brings me to
3) your continued insistance that you don't do insults when I've already pointed out to you that you do that aplenty. I've so far not insulted you and you have insulted me on a couple of occasions. Hence the reference to the passive aggressive stuff. So get off that high horse, its dead & rotten and it stinks.

With that said, back to the topic, yes I think you and I agree in the main with only semantics being left. BUT those semantics are pretty important. That is why the scientists in the field use the semantics they do - because they do matter. So when people like failedfacculty tries to summarize what the studies say it will always come out wrong, not because of a misunderstanding of the facts in them, but rather because of his subjective interpretation of the semantics used. That is why we have had to ask him repeatedly what he thinks that X means or what he means by Y. Because how he says it doesn't make any sense so he must be using a different vocabulary.
So if you and I had this as a live conversation I think that all misunderstandings would be gone and we would be in agreement in under two hours. But that is the way of internet "debates" much of it is misunderstandings due to the medium.
Oh, and I asked you if you really wanted a response like you "demanded" or if you really were quitting that part of the dialog like you said at the end? I would understand either way and would hold no grudge either way.

[matter]

*deleted*...@Spoonist why noting the history you described(and yes Big T is not particularly a saint in this respect) dont you think that it is time the vicious attacks is limited as it distracts.

Yes, you can respond to that thread esp the questions- they were straight forward and I expect a straight enough answer. Thanks

[LadyTevar]

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.

If you're not interested in the argument, I suggest you leave the thread and stop making false reports. Same for you, Zentei. Go to sit in your corners for a while until you calm down.

[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.

If you're not interested in the argument, I suggest you leave the thread and stop making false reports. Same for you, Zentei. Go to sit in your corners for a while until you calm down.

Jesus Christ. What I was saying is that I don't have any interest in one of the several subarguments going on in this thread and you're using that to tell me to get out in the smuggest way possible. You're also lying about my report, as it was not false in any way- I made it with the fullest belief that refusing to respond fairly to people based on who they were was an effective violation of the vendetta rule in principle. It may be wrong, then, but it was not false. Please don't accuse me of lying without any evidence on your part.

Well, if you're willing to actually say "stop posting unless you want to respond to one specific subargument, also my psychic powers have determined you are a liar" outright, then for sure I will do so. In fact, I probably will do so even if you aren't willing to make such a bald statement, because I will not have my participation in a thread be conditional on a set of stupid, pointless restrictions targeted solely at me and that is what you are communicating to me at this point.

[Spoonist]

Uhm, Bakustra, you are way too emotional vs LadyTevar.
Hers was an easy mistake to make and you jumping that much on her for that is just wrong. Cool off.

That said,
@LadyTevar
in that quote Bakustra was only speaking specificly about my discussion which mainly revolves around the proto-egyptians and not the demic diffusion discussion Z is having. So that quote should not necessarily be construed as an opinion vs the whole thread.

[Spoonist]

@Cluelesswonder
Sorry that I've not responeded yet, I've been a bit pressed for time lately. So I will make another post for matter before returning to our exchange. Sorry about that, even though I'm a poor substitue for Thanas when it comes getting your juices flowing, I do know how eagerly you crave my attention.

*deleted*...@Spoonist why noting the history you described(and yes Big T is not particularly a saint in this respect) dont you think that it is time the vicious attacks is limited as it distracts.

Not a saint? WTF? He acts like a rabid dog projecting malice where there is no hostility.
I don't think the insults are vicious nor that they distract. In the case of the dialog between me and shitforbrains its mostly me replacing his tag with something else and he has consistently responded to those. Same thing with his stuff vs me. So I don't really see in what way they would distract? Especially since all the tangents, copy&spam, parallell discussions and confusions about proto-dynastic-modern distracts much much more.
You could ask cluelesswonder as well but I think that he would agree that it doesn't distract from the main issue.

Yes, you can respond to that thread esp the questions- they were straight forward and I expect a straight enough answer. Thanks

Expect a straight enough answer? WTF?
Why the continued inuendos about me not responding, not responding in full or not responding in a straight way?
And yes, I do "expect" an answer about your passive aggressive bullshit by now. Do you really think that they count as less of an insult?

[Big Triece]

*deleted*...@Spoonist why noting the history you described(and yes Big T is not particularly a saint in this respect) dont you think that it is time the vicious attacks is limited as it distracts.

That is all Spoonist can do and has done throughout most of this discussion. He has however made several attempts at discrediting our arguments revolving around biological evidence (namely through dubious claims that we misinterpret Keita), but to no avail as he in every instance has ran away from a response (the same thing that you noted earlier). He then resurfaces with a long drawn out semantic post insisting that I refer to this and that page, in which I have purposely ignored a semantic point in another one of his long winded egomaniacal rants full of nothing but personal insults (Big T is stupid, Little Brain/Dick, ect ect) which are completely void of any value to overall topic (he said she said crap from page..., which has absolutely nothing to do with the biocultural affinities of the ancient Egyptians). I am moreso beginning to view him as nothing more than a troll, as he admits that we agree upon the basic principals of their origins, but continues to resurfaces with the same rants.

Yes, you can respond to that thread esp the questions- they were straight forward and I expect a straight enough answer. Thanks

He can't! Focusing solely on the relevant questions revolving around this topic, and leaving out all silly insults and petty arguments will destroy his entire purpose for being in this thread.

[Big Triece]

@Cluelesswonder,Sorry that I've not responeded yet, I've been a bit pressed for time lately. So I will make another post for matter before returning to our exchange.

Before you respond to my last response to you, please respond to my response to you earlier on the last page here. You must have forgotten about it, because you never responded and resurfaced later with another post.

[Spoonist]

That is all Spoonist can do and has done throughout most of this discussion. He has however made several attempts at discrediting our arguments revolving around biological evidence (namely through dubious claims that we misinterpret Keita), but to no avail as he in every instance has ran away from a response (the same thing that you noted earlier). He then resurfaces with a long drawn out semantic post insisting that I refer to this and that page, in which I have purposely ignored a semantic point in another one of his long winded egomaniacal rants full of nothing but personal insults (Big T is stupid, Little Brain/Dick, ect ect) which are completely void of any value to overall topic (he said she said crap from page..., which has absolutely nothing to do with the biocultural affinities of the ancient Egyptians). I am moreso beginning to view him as nothing more than a troll, as he admits that we agree upon the basic principals of their origins, but continues to resurfaces with the same rants.

Ah, the sweet smell of irony.
In our dialogs its usually you who cut out about half of my responses - hence the quote mining stuff - go follow the link I gave matter as obvious examples of this.
Then you don't understand my position at all do you? I've not in any shape or form tried to discredit the sources since I mostly agree with them. What I do discredit is your personal subjective interpretation of them. Like your interpretation of NE africa excludes Libya, while Keita mentions Libyan archeological digs. That is a problem with subjective interpretations. I'm making such subjective interpretations as well, but I'm open about them in contrast to you who try to always claim that they are congruent with your sources.
Like when I point out that Keita does not use the terms nor the meaning of the terms - then you switch to some other researcher who do. That is dishonesty right there, you can't say that you agree with Keita and then say that he says X when you base that X on some other researchers terminology.
Contrast that to my post in response to EgalitarianJay's summary of Keita, I show where I agree and where I want to add caveats. That is open and transparent.
Then to try to claim any moral high ground on insults when I clearly showed where it started and that it was you who started with them is just lame. There are no teachers around to score points of here little pet, instead we can go back and see how you have behaved from the start and it aint pretty. Do you really want me to quote the assault thingie or the nazi/fascist pic again?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I've been following this thread without really getting involved in it, because I was too busy with school, and I just want to say that I was one of the original people to go after the "Black Egypt" folks very aggressively on the first invasion here, and I don't think this thread is at all like the one before it. I also think that the basic scientific thrust of the argument is no longer really in dispute. Big Triece and the other debaters for black Egypt do have science on their side; the original population of Egypt was predominantly African. They also have modern culture on their side--there's no question that in the United States a lot of people are found to be black, who have a substantial intermix of "non-African" genetics; my roommate, who is shock, pasty white, but with dark curly hair, is but 1/64th African by her family geneaology -- which would be enough to make her black in some parts of the American South, though her family was counted as one of the whitest in her home country. So clearly how you define someone is inextricably linked to culture.

The point of that original debate, which seems to be lost on the debaters in this thread, is that the Egyptians were their own distinctive civilization with a branch of African genetics which could be radically different from other African genomes... Because there is more genetic diversity in Africa than there is in the entire rest of the world put together, and that it was wrong to generalize a particular "Africanness" across very broad expanses of incredibly genetic and culturally different people. However, in retrospect, it was the European peoples who first created this generalization and the continued persistence of mere skin colour as a determinant of identity is primarily a consequence of that. The pyramids and gods of Meroe were the same as those of Egypt; nobody questions their blackness.

In retrospect, though I stand by the facts I presented in that thread some years ago, I can see that the argument itself was based on a fallacious grounds. Never did the argument do more than suggest that the Egyptians were partially not-black; but that's entirely the point. By the commonly, popularly accepted definition of blackness in the modern world, the Egyptians were black. And there is something unsettling, in retrospect, with trying to make a great deal of fuss over this principle of science when the fact of the matter, is that Egyptians may not be black in the strictest of terms; but they are certainly black enough to be forced to use the "coloured" fountains and restrooms in the south in the 1960s, and yet we want to deny the people who were forced to use those fountains and restrooms some shared pride in them. That's ultimately wrong, and on a false basis, and is an artefact of pervasive racism. I don't think the science of Egyptian origins can be appropriately addressed outside of the end of racial classification based on skin colour generally. A sizable minority of American blacks are no more black than the Egyptians were, unquestionably; yet they are still black, and the Egyptians are not? This is disingenuous, and honestly at this point I think the only thing keeping the two sides in this debate from agreeing on all the scientific evidence is the latent impact of racism.

[Lord Zentei]

By the "latent impact of racism", you're presumably referring to the idiotic definition Americans use to determine Blackness - which has nothing to do with the Ancient Egyptian perception of themselves; much less the perception North Africans of modern times have of themselves (who would be considered "black" by that standard, including Dr. Zahi Hawass). It certainly does not mean that "black African" is an appropriate label, as that is a specific label to distinguish between different indigenous African populations, as opposed to "blacks" as it is used in America. And seriously - speaking as a non-American - who gives two shits about American racial labels?

In my pursuit of this thread I have rejected the American notion of "blackness", and it is on these grounds that I don't consider the Egyptians - whether modern or ancient - as "black". They were a heterogenous population, which means that people of all colors were present.

[Spoonist]

@matter
Thanks for the PM but I would have appreciated it more as a response in the topic instead.
I'm writing on my response to you but it's a bit longwinded as usual so depending on the family I might be finished tomorrow. So its coming.

@Cluelesswonder,Sorry that I've not responeded yet, I've been a bit pressed for time lately. So I will make another post for matter before returning to our exchange.

Before you respond to my last response to you, please respond to my response to you earlier on the last page here. You must have forgotten about it, because you never responded and resurfaced later with another post.

I did respond, it was the I'm not a racist fuckhed response.
I don't really see how I can respond to that properly. You are basically asking a "when did you last beat your wife" question. I've not expressed the racist fuckhead views you try to argue there so I have trouble seeing how it relates to me or how to adress the issues you raise without someone thinking that I'm a "wifebeater".
How does one respond to the "when did you last beat your wife" question?
Especially since I've already responded to similar things from you before, where I've explained that just because I agree with X doesn't say that I agree with X+Y where Y is bonkers. So for me to show that Y is bonkers have nothing to do with X although they are in the same discussion.
This shouldn't be hard - just like why I reject your version of black which you tried to prove with outdated dictionaries and fuckhead football fans. While I all the while still agree with fitz's statement with the 'social term used in britain' context thingie.
See? Fitz's statement would be X, yours based on Jim Crow, Wiki or football fans would be X+Y and I would like to think that in academia it's possible to agree with fitz and still disagree with racist fuckheads like Jim Crow or Lega Nord or BNP or Le Pen or wherever you think that the euro use of black comes from.

[Lord Zentei]

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.

Yes, there was indeed justification for that insult. I have answered the reason why I do not use modern American racial labels to describe ancient populations more often than I care to count, and the counter arguments that have been presented against my position have absolutely nothing to do with my position. This has been repeated ad nauseam, and I'm frankly sick to the teeth of it. Big Triece has demonstrated not one iota of willingness to acknowledge that positions contrary to his are anything but radical, and neither has he acknowledged the position that the racial labels in the social environment he grew up in have little to do with Egypt. As for you - it is my perception that you're not here to fairly consider sources that are not pleasing to you. That is why I called you a moron who is here to echo the views of Big Triece. But if that's not the case, then lets see what happens, and I withdraw the remark.

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.

It should be fairly obvious that I can't distribute studies that are member-only restricted. But what seems to escape you is that the demic diffusion model has nothing to do with the central point of my argument which was that the Egyptians were phenotypically heterogenous. My initial position was that the diversity existed in north-east Africa throughout Egyptian history, as well as before it. I never even mentioned demic diffusion until Big Triece hilariously cited articles from peer-reviewed journals mentioning it, in an attempt to counter my position that the Egyptians exhibited ethnic diversity. I just went with it from there, but truth be told, I don't really give that much of a shit about the possiblility of demic diffusion, and your harping about that particular point are only a minor point as far as I'm concerned, as you SHOULD have realized during our initial exchanges, as well as from following the thread. Incidentally, you brushed off the other sources rather casually - can it be that you can't bring yourself to face the possibility that it might be true?

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.

So what? Nether can you deny that the reason SOME Afrocentrists maintain their position is that they are racist too. Does that make their position automatically wrong? Appeals to motive are not a counter-argument to anything. More particularly, they are not a counterargument for SOMEONE ELSE'S position. I don't see what the Dynastic Race theory has to do with me or anyone else here, so this whole line of argument of yours is a huge strawman. And one that has been dealt with previously, at that.

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.

Do trolls count as a "race"? If so, then maybe you're right. But if not, feel free to get lost.

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

I was initially very forthcoming to you, but I lost interest in the discussion after you refused to acknowledge data on the grounds that you could not access a web-page that anyone can sign up for. Simply, as far as I was concerned, you came off as looking for excuses to write off data. But, see last sentence of fist point.

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.

And that is also my position, and always has been. Had you read the thread you would know this also. This, however, was not acceptable to Big Triece, who insisted that the Egyptians were "black African" and not "heterogenous". So he was quite clearly speaking of a very specific phenotype of indigenous Africans, not just generically of "people of color".

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.

No: YOU need to look at Big Triece's behavior in this thread. As for my posts with him, I invite you to start at page 16, when I fist joined this thread. I was quite cordial initially, and only after several pages of abuse hurled in my direction by the troll, including without limitation, baseless accusations of racism did I start responding in kind.

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.

It's not a "magic" abstract, it's an abstract from a peer-reviewed scientific journal, and one that is only tangentially related to my position in any case.

[Spoonist]

I've been following this thread without really getting involved in it, because I was too busy with school, and I just want to say that I was one of the original people to go after the "Black Egypt" folks very aggressively on the first invasion here, and I don't think this thread is at all like the one before it. I also think that the basic scientific thrust of the argument is no longer really in dispute. Big Triece and the other debaters for black Egypt do have science on their side; the original population of Egypt was predominantly African. They also have modern culture on their side--there's no question that in the United States a lot of people are found to be black, who have a substantial intermix of "non-African" genetics; my roommate, who is shock, pasty white, but with dark curly hair, is but 1/64th African by her family geneaology -- which would be enough to make her black in some parts of the American South, though her family was counted as one of the whitest in her home country. So clearly how you define someone is inextricably linked to culture.

Yes, we tried that angle, see for instance Simon Jester on p6-9. It has also been repeated in my dialog with Big Triece as well, my example was that if you put Rosa Parks in the black column then I would agree, but then we would have to include most of the middle east, turkey, greece and some parts of spain as well. This didn't suit Big Triece at all. So its not that he wants to include people into the term that is a problem its that he also wants to exclude people from the term.

The point of that original debate, which seems to be lost on the debaters in this thread, is that the Egyptians were their own distinctive civilization with a branch of African genetics which could be radically different from other African genomes... Because there is more genetic diversity in Africa than there is in the entire rest of the world put together, and that it was wrong to generalize a particular "Africanness" across very broad expanses of incredibly genetic and culturally different people.

We have already agreed to all of this. Most of us on page 2-5. That didn't stop him.

In retrospect, though I stand by the facts I presented in that thread some years ago, I can see that the argument itself was based on a fallacious grounds. Never did the argument do more than suggest that the Egyptians were partially not-black; but that's entirely the point. By the commonly, popularly accepted definition of blackness in the modern world, the Egyptians were black. And there is something unsettling, in retrospect, with trying to make a great deal of fuss over this principle of science when the fact of the matter, is that Egyptians may not be black in the strictest of terms; but they are certainly black enough to be forced to use the "coloured" fountains and restrooms in the south in the 1960s, and yet we want to deny the people who were forced to use those fountains and restrooms some shared pride in them. That's ultimately wrong, and on a false basis, and is an artefact of pervasive racism. I don't think the science of Egyptian origins can be appropriately addressed outside of the end of racial classification based on skin colour generally. A sizable minority of American blacks are no more black than the Egyptians were, unquestionably; yet they are still black, and the Egyptians are not? This is disingenuous, and honestly at this point I think the only thing keeping the two sides in this debate from agreeing on all the scientific evidence is the latent impact of racism.

This is a very interesting americanism, which I think is worthy of its own topic. Its something which is truly puzzling for me as non-american. Why would you call something X when its 80% non-X, why not call it Y instead?

But to answer your question in my opinion:
1) Why continue with outdated racist concepts? The one-drop idea is as offensive as they come, the context of its invention is offensive, its use back then offensive. So why should we continue such a practice? If you are 99% cherokee and 1% africanamerican, should you really be called "black" and not native american? If so where is the line?
2) People who don't find the term appropriate gets lumped into it anyway. In this case lots of modern day egyptians wouldn't appreciate you labling them arbitrarily just because americans have issues with a racist past. Or remember Tiger Woods who wanted to call himself "american" and got a lot of flack for that from some parts of the community? Or when Temuera Morrison's relatives got flack from some parts of the US for calling themselves black because they were not from africa?
3) Why use such subjective terms in an academic discussion? It really distracts from the main topic of where did they come from. If you use all inclusive terminology you really have to continue being all inclusive. As long as we are consistant and put in the proper caveats I usually have no problems with it in a social context, but when we are referencing scientific studies in the field that does not use the term 'black' then using that term can only lead to confusion on what it entails.
4) If we are looking at the diversity which is africa I don't think that one term is enough. It's too simple. We need better descriptions, like if they came from the lake chad area, or the lybian coast, or the african horn etc. Just calling them black africans doesn't help if we need to describe a skintone range. For instance, my discussion with matter, how dark are you if you have tropically adapted limbs? Does it suffice to say black then?
5) Lots of us are not americans (nor brits). In fact the majority of the world isn't. We didn't go through the civil movement etc as late as you did. Why should we have to be forced to use such outdated concepts as these deratives of the one-drop-rule?
6) In the specific discussion with Big Trierce, it was because he defined the levant as not black, but still wanted to use the Rosa Parks angle of black that things got confusing. Especially since he for a while claimed that no genetic input from the levant existed in proto-egypt. It seems that he has since then rescinded that and now claims it was some sort of typo or me being too pedantic but for a while it was very strange.
7) I have no problems with descent terms, like recent african descent would serve nicely. Or relative terms like dark skinned. I find such descriptive terms much better, than calling people with milk-chocolate skintone "black". Its very hard for me to wrap my head around - but then I'm not from the anglosphere.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Well, I'm glad that we can all agree, then, that what this ultimately comes down is how Ancient Egyptians are PERCEIVED, rather than the biological facts of their origin? Is that correct? Does anyone object to the typification that the perception of the Ancient Egyptians, both by themselves and by modern people, is what the actual issue perpetuating this debate is?

That the real argument here is between people who want to perceive the Ancient Egyptians as black and those who want to perceive them as something else (i.e., a uniquely "Egyptian" racial classification). Is that correct?

[Lord Zentei]

Well, I'm glad that we can all agree, then, that what this ultimately comes down is how Ancient Egyptians are PERCEIVED, rather than the biological facts of their origin? Is that correct? Does anyone object to the typification that the perception of the Ancient Egyptians, both by themselves and by modern people, is what the actual issue perpetuating this debate is?

That the real argument here is between people who want to perceive the Ancient Egyptians as black and those who want to perceive them as something else (i.e., a uniquely "Egyptian" racial classification). Is that correct?

Incorrect, that is not what this thread is about at all. Big Triece has consistently shown that when he calls the Ancient Egyptians "black" he is NOT talking about "people of color" who would be characterized as "black" with the fucktarded definitions used in modern America, he's talking very specifically about Black Africans, more precisely people who resemble modern East Africans, as opposed to modern Egyptians. He has consistently mocked the idea that the Egyptians were "mixed" as he calls it, as opposed to being members of a phenotype which classical definitions would label as "Negro".

The reasons for my opposition to his position is twofold: first, rejection of the idea that the Egyptians looked the way Big Triece obviously wanted them to look, and second, challenging the dishonest bait-and-switch Afrocentrists use to try and sneak in acceptance of the racial concept "black Egypt" by appealing to irrelevant modern American social constructs.

EDIT: also, I reject the idea that modern social constructs on racial perception should be used to define ancient populations. So in that regard, I think we can agree. But that's not the reason this thread has gone on for so long.

[Spoonist]

See page 1 where Big Trierce was still sane.
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 7#p3480507

African does not equal black.

True

Ancient Egyptians were indigenous to Africa in culture. So is of African origin.

Which stems from inner African cultures.

Local origin does not equal black which is where people are making the leap. 1+1 does not equal 3. It's a leap in logic.

What Keita means by 'local' is Northeast African (Ethiopian, Somali, Beja, Sudanese, ect) all of these populations tend to have light to dark reddish brown to jet black skin color. Rather or not you want to consider that "black" is entirely up to you and your standards for the meaning of the term. Keita however states in his lecture that based on ecological principals the ancient Egyptians would have been dark skinned, how dark he did not say. In an email exchange he did however states that though he cannot empiracally prove this the model skin color for early ancient Egypt would likely have been the Upper Egyptian/Nubian skin tone. This makes sense based on what the biological evidence indicates about the population.

That was back when everyone mostly agreed. Problem was the old memory of the old board invasion (which Big Trierce participated in as LouisvilleSlugger) with the misunderstandings of proto-dynastic-modern since Big Trierce used stuff from all over the place while claiming to be about proto-egypt only.


Broomy agreed to the basic premise.
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 1#p3480891
Big Trierce disagreed with her
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 7#p3482227

Akhlut agreed with the basic premise.
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 9#p3483029
Big Trierce disagreed with him like this:
"Do the Ancient Egyptians actually have close biological affinities with Berbers and Arabs (or rather your average modern Northwest African and Southwest Asian)? I don't believe Brace et al. (1993) adequately explained their position. Keita's research for instance and that of linguists and experts on African cultures doesn't seem to indicate a Multiethnic milieu in Ancient Egypt at the early formative period but rather a dominant culture with a single language colonizing the various populations along the Nile Valley and establishing the first Dynasties. These people came from the South and made their way to the Delta"

Simon agreed with the basic premise while refuting art as evidence:
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 0#p3483760
"Speaking for myself, I have never in my life doubted that the ancient Egyptians were "indigenous." From the first time I even heard of ancient Egypt, I cannot recall any other theory being seriously claimed- the Egyptians have lived in that region since the dawn of recorded history, and indeed arguably invented the practice of recording history while living in that region. I see no reason to assume that the present and former occupants of Egypt, and their prehistoric descendants, haven't lived in the Nile Valley for tens of millenia. Why would I assume anything else?
I have never in my life doubted that Egyptians are a "northeast African" population, since Egypt is located in Africa, and in the northeasternmost part of it. This obvious to anyone with a grasp of elementary geography.
On the other hand, I have no clue what color said ancient Egyptians were. I always figured they were sort of kind of brownish, because most people are, especially outside of northern Europe and the Far East, both of which are a long way from Egypt and have very different climates. This never struck me as a major point of contention, worth making grand ambitious statements about."
Big Trierce attacked him for that.

Thanas agreed like this:
"As for the genetic angle, I have been reading up on the subject a bit and have to say that unlike what Triece claimed, the evidence mainly points to ancient egyptians being largely the same as modern Egyptian, that is to say a mixture of various types. I'll write a huge post about it later on."
Big Trierce disagreed with that as well:
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 6#p3484266

See a pattern by any chance?

Here is my predictive summary from back then
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 8#p3484678

Does anyone disagree that the Ancient Egyptians were primarily dark-skinned people of African descent and that their civilization was an indigenous development?
That was the OP's point as I recall.
All of this extra stuff about Iman's skin tone etc. just seems like side arguments that add clutter to the discussion.

Hush now. I think that it will take bigT at least another 20 pages before he understands that everyone agrees. Hence the windmill comment and other like it.
Also that was not in the OP, the OP was what we thought of Keitas view on the issue.
Where there is disagreement would be to which extent the influence is southern only and to which extent there was a biotrace from levant. Both which would be a tomato tomato discussion if bigT didn't go on a personal campaign laden with prejudice.

So its not that we haven't tried to tell him that we agree, its that he has basically attacked us everytime we have said so. This is because he doesn't like the caveats that we use. But if you look above for PharaohMentuhotep (later EgilitarianJay) spots it back then and doesn't understand why it continues.
So again, just for you duchy, yes I agree that : "the Ancient Egyptians were primarily dark-skinned people of African descent and that their civilization was an indigenous development" I've agreed with that from the start and continue to do so. However I do not agree with some of Big Trierce's stuff added on top of that, nor some of the things he uses to try to prove it. Nor do I approve of his allegations nor his promise about violence.
As I said back then and repeated to matter when he showed up: DNA alone gives better proof than all of the other deviations, if you stick to that it will be better for your argument.

[Lord Zentei]

As I said back then and repeated to matter when he showed up: DNA alone gives better proof than all of the other deviations, if you stick to that it will be better for your argument.

Indeed. And to that end, here's a study that might be worth pursuing: linka.

mtDNA analysis in ancient Nubians supports the existence of gene flow between sub-Sahara and North Africa in the Nile valley

The Hpal (np3,592) mitochondrial DNA marker is a selectively neutral mutation that is very common in sub-Saharan Africa and is almost absent in North African and European populations. It has been screened in a Meroitic sample from ancient Nubia through PCR amplification and posterior enzyme digestion, to evaluate the sub-Saharan genetic influences in this population. From 29 individuals analysed, only 15 yield positive amplifications, four of them (26·7%) displaying the sub-Saharan African marker. Hpa I (np3,592) marker is present in the sub-Saharan populations at a frequency of 68·7 on average. Thus, the frequency of genes from this area in the Merotic Nubian population can be estimated at around 39% (with a confidence interval from 22% to 55%). The frequency obtained fits in a south-north decreasing gradient of Hpa I (np3,592) along the African continent. Results suggest that morphological changes observed historically in the Nubian populations are more likely to be due to the existence of south-north gene flow through the Nile Valley than to in-situ evolution.

Read More: http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10 ... 9700004952

I'm not quite sure whether I've posted this before, and I'm not trawling through 30 pages to find out, but I do know that I've posted other stuff like it. Since this study applies to the Nubians, the Upper Egyptians must have been at least as heterogenous as this, and the Lower Egyptians less dark still. But Egypt was still African, of course.

[Lord Zentei]

GHETTO EDIT:

Here's another study in the same vein (although it's not based on genetics). Again, I'm not quite sure whether I've posted this specific study before, but there's a lot of stuff I've put out). linka:

Population of Nubia up to the 16th century BC
Aleksandra Pudło
ABSTRACT The article presents anthropological characteristics (morphological features, paleodemography and paleopathology) of the population inhabiting Nubia from the end of the Upper Palaeolithic till the 16th century BC. The material basis for this work consisted of the collections of bones coming from the archaeological researches carried out in Nubia.
Aleksandra Pudło, 1999; Przegląd Antropologiczny – Anthropological Review, vol. 62, Poznań 1999, pp. 57–66, figs 3, tables 7. ISBN 83-86969-44-X, ISSN 0033-2003

Introduction
The very term Nubia was not known in the ancient times. For the first time it was mentioned by Eratosthenes (3rd century BC) and then cited by Strabo (1st century BC) who used this term to describe the Noba tribes living south of the first cataract on the Nile. The northern border of Nubia was described very precisely; it was marked by the first cataract, while to the south it extended as far as the city of Khartoum. In my article I use the term Nubia to refer only to the geographical region (Map 1).

Ancient Nubia (the historical land of Sudan) was a region of intensive human activity, and hence a scene of significant changes occurring in the physical traits of its population. Geographical location (vicinity of a powerful northern neighbour – Egypt), climatic changes, limited arable area, as well as socio-cultural factors influenced the economy of the population inhabiting this region from the Upper Palaeolithic till the 16th century BC.

<SNIPPA>

Conclusions
1. The population of ancient Nubia lived under very difficult conditions, which was reflected in its mortality characteristics with the highest death rate among infants and young women, very low frequency of cases of longevity, as well as in pathological changes typical of populations involved in hunting-gathering, cultivation of crops and livestock breeding for subsistence. Climatic factors
had a very strong impact on these changes.
2. The Nubians were hardly a homogeneous population. Neither the climate nor the specific geographic conditions in the region they inhabited were conducive of such homogeneity. The population of Nubia was shaped by several migration waves coming from Northwest Africa and from Asia through Sinai and Yemen. All those population movements gained on intensity in the Neolithic, but they did not prevent repeated contacts of the people of Nubia with Southern Africa.

[Big Triece]

I would first like to thank you Duchess of Zeon for your thoughtful post and analysis of this thread.

Big Triece and the other debaters for black Egypt do have science on their side; the original population of Egypt was predominantly African. They also have modern culture on their side--there's no question that in the United States a lot of people are found to be black, who have a substantial intermix of "non-African" genetics;

That's one of the issues Duchess. The biological evidence presented throughout this thread clearly concludes that if there was "non African" admixture it was minimal to non existent (the former for Lower Egypt). The original ancient Egyptians were a mixture of Nilotic and AfrisanAfrican populations from the south and west (Sahara). Knowing what people belonging to those various ethnic groups generally look like, and knowing that the ancient Egyptians were simply a mixture of the two groups would not lead one to believe that they wouldn't fit firmly within the social label "black"/"Negro" or somehow be on the peripheries of this grouping (like say Mariah Carey).

my roommate, who is shock, pasty white, but with dark curly hair, is but 1/64th African by her family geneaology -- which would be enough to make her black in some parts of the American South

Mixed people (namely Mulattoes) tend to identify with who accepts them (which has historically almost and exclusively been the black population) I don't think that it's really the ODR is that extreme anymore, anywhere in the U.S.. None the less the less based on the biological evidence the early ancient Egyptians would not have had the "identity crisis" if they were here in the United States. Now they might be like many other black Africans or Haitian/Jamaican immigrants who detest being grouped under the same label as African Americans for what ever reason, but this has more to do with self identity which is based on my own personal experiences. That is also not to say that the ancient Egyptians had a concept of racial identity (which they clearly did not) as we do today.

The point of that original debate, which seems to be lost on the debaters in this thread, is that the Egyptians were their own distinctive civilization with a branch of African genetics which could be radically different from other African genomes...

I think that the Eurocentric blogger Dienekes said it best when he summarized Tishkoff 2009:

What this study has found in a nutshell is that "black" Africans belong to 14 distinct clusters. Black Americans belong overwhelmingly to the Niger-Kordofanian cluster, consistent with their origin largely from Western Africa.....
The 14 clusters are: Mbugu, Chadic, Saharan Cushitic, Eastern Bantu, NiloSaharan, Saharan/Dogon, Fulani, Western Bantu, S.African Khoesan/Mbuti, Niger Kordofanian, Sandawe, Central Sudanic, Hadza, W.Pygmy.

That being said I find it very unlikely that if we were discussing the Great Zimbabwe or ancient Tanzanian civilizations in a black African context, that some people would be quick to point out they (South-Central/Eastern Africans) are genetically distinct from every other African branch and for that reason should be seen as distinct from other black Africans. Of the clusters found in Tishkoff's study, based on the evidence that we've seen the Badari population would likely have been a an overwhelming mixture of Nilo Saharan and Cushitic. The other possible traceable clusters may have been Sahara/Dogon, Niger Kordofanian and perhaps Chadic. Just a wild guess.

Never did the argument do more than suggest that the Egyptians were partially not-black; but that's entirely the point.

As stated by Robert Bauval (in the interview clip posted on the previous page) by the time of the Middle Kingdom there had been a thousand years of racial mixing, and one would expect to see mixed race individuals or people who were essentially foreigners to the Nile. He however states that the he has little to no doubt based on all available evidence that the original ethnicity of the ancient Egyptians were black Africans from the south. That being said I don't doubt that even in the earliest stages of Egypt that there were people from the Levant in Lower Egypt, but the evidence is suggesting that their presence was neglectable and admixture between the two did not characterize the region, as the population of Lower Egypt was distinct from that of the Levant both biologically and culturally and grouped with southern (African) populations.

with trying to make a great deal of fuss over this principle of science when the fact of the matter, is that Egyptians may not be black in the strictest of terms;

That's the thing though. Why would people like the Dinka, Shilluk, Beja, Tigrean, or Somali (all people who share primary biological affinities with the early ancient Egyptians), all tropical dark skinned Africans (with their own unique phenotypes) not be considered black as they have always been classified? Why would a population characterized by a mixture of groups like these Africans not be considered black Africans?

[Big Triece]

my example was that if you put Rosa Parks in the black column then I would agree, but then we would have to include most of the middle east, turkey, greece and some parts of spain as well. This didn't suit Big Triece at all. So its not that he wants to include people into the term that is a problem its that he also wants to exclude people from the term.

Spoonist you have got to be kidding me! Why would I or anyone else who has provided a sufficient amount of evidence showing which African populations the ancient Egyptians most closely resembled both culturally and phenotypically, agree with your clear attempt at obfuscating the American social term "black"? The term black during the times of yesteryear included any and all people with any known black African (all indigenous brown-black skinned inhabitants of Africa) ancestry. You then say well sure they were "black" IF, Middle Easterners Greeks, Turks, and southern Euros are as well, as though any of those people had close biological ties to the early ancient Egyptians:



That being said why even mention them? Why not make a list of people (or similar peoples) with proven biological input into the original ancient Egyptian populace like I did in my address to Dutchess above? This seems to be nothing more than dishonesty and or mere wishful thinking on your part.

[Big Triece]

See page 1 where Big Trierce was still sane.
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 7#p3480507....

This is all Spoonist contributes to this discussion. For 90% of his participation he is nothing more than a selective archive of he say she say childish bs. Nothing relevant or revealing revolving around the topic. Just a waste of space, seriously!

[Big Triece]

I did respond, it was the I'm not a racist fuckhed response.

No Spoonist that is not a proper response to my refutation of your claims in my post. You addressed absolutely nothing, and responded with a completely irrelevant post stating that your insistence that they mixed with something other than European means that you aren't racist (Oxford's Encyclopedia stated different about that argument). I believe earlier in this thread another moderator came in and stated that if you one cannot persist with his or her argument then they need to concede. You are the thread's archive, therefore I'm pretty sure that you know who I'm talking about. If you can't persist with your dubious claims in that post then you need to concede that your points are moot.

[Big Triece]

mtDNA analysis in ancient Nubians supports the existence of gene flow between sub-Sahara and North Africa in the Nile valley

The Hpal (np3,592) mitochondrial DNA marker is a selectively neutral mutation that is very common in sub-Saharan Africa and is almost absent in North African and European populations. It has been screened in a Meroitic sample from ancient Nubia through PCR amplification and posterior enzyme digestion, to evaluate the sub-Saharan genetic influences in this population. From 29 individuals analysed, only 15 yield positive amplifications, four of them (26·7%) displaying the sub-Saharan African marker. Hpa I (np3,592) marker is present in the sub-Saharan populations at a frequency of 68·7 on average. Thus, the frequency of genes from this area in the Merotic Nubian population can be estimated at around 39% (with a confidence interval from 22% to 55%). The frequency obtained fits in a south-north decreasing gradient of Hpa I (np3,592) along the African continent. Results suggest that morphological changes observed historically in the Nubian populations are more likely to be due to the existence of south-north gene flow through the Nile Valley than to in-situ evolution.

Read More: http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10 ... 9700004952

So Nubians and every Sub Saharan African are non "white" or substantially white according to this ancient and now discarded genetic analysis? Hey Spoonist, do you care to criticize his argument here? I doubt that you are objective enough to that. Anyway this is old news and has been dealt with over a decade ago.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

That's the thing though. Why would people like the Dinka, Shilluk, Beja, Tigrean, or Somali (all people who share primary biological affinities with the early ancient Egyptians), all tropical dark skinned Africans (with their own unique phenotypes) not be considered black as they have always been classified? Why would a population characterized by a mixture of groups like these Africans not be considered black Africans?

Since I'm not in disagreement with anything else you've said, I just want to address this point:

Even today, cultural distinctions in how we view race are a big deal. In Russia for instance there was a deep affinity with Orthodox Ethiopia during the colonial era--Russian officers served as volunteers in the Ethiopian Army, and guns were sold to Ethiopia. Ethiopians were seen by Russians as being ethnically superiour and different than other Africans because of this affinity--there was no real evidence for it, but they were Orthodox, Russia defended Orthodox peoples, and it goes from there. A lesser racism, that led to thinks like the acceptance of Abram Petrovich Gannibal into the high society of Russia, was probably also a factor.

So, for instance, it's entirely possible for someone from that background to look at a Tigrean and not associate that person with general black Africans. And I think it's important to keep that in mind--that both you and I would likely be barbarians to the Egyptians because we don't shave all of our body hair, don't speak Egyptian, don't read and write hieroglyphics, etc, and our skin colour wouldn't matter one whit in that determination! A white person who behaved like an Egyptian would, however, probably be accepted into a largely "black" origin Egyptian society.

Anyway, since the most likely origin for the cultural practices of ancient Egypt I've heard about is the Saharan desert before it became a desert (but of course, berbers and other white lineages were limited to the coastal littoral in that period, so these were certainly people of a black origin), it doesn't seem unreasonable to say conditions might have existed there which could have tended toward a lighter skin tone. That they subsequently influenced what would have been existing native inhabitants of the Nile valley, albeit in fairly limited genetic terms, likewise seems reasonable. The end result however is still a group that can be considered as African, and I won't even dispute that the majority of artwork depicting women in ancient Egypt tends to favour African facial features in a strict reading, but the dangers of reading art in any sense have been noted before.

There were long and traditional differences between the Delta and the upper valley, and I suspect that there might have been some ethnic distinctions there represented in the intergrade of the range of features -- look at the different ethnicities of white people grouped together in the Austro-Hungarian Empire, after all; traveling from Germans to Hungarians to Rumanians; this was probably the same level of difference as there was in traveling from the Delta to the upper valley to Nubia before the first cataract, all of whom at times shared the same sovereign Pharaoh.

Anyway, there's one really, really interesting point of evidence that isn't being discussed, because nobody has it yet--and please forgive my rambling, since I'm just throwing thoughts out on the subject, and I'm not really disagreeing with anyone, because I think the only real debate here is a perceptual one on how we view the Ancient Egyptians through the lens of modern culture. Anyway, I'd just really like to see a study done on whether or not the ancient Egyptians had any admixture of Neanderthal blood! We've found evidence of Neanderthal residence in Egypt and other parts of North Africa, and this seems to be the real dividing line between humans who wandered out of Africa and those who didn't; humans who left Africa are basically inbred Africans, except that they had sexual relations and children with Neanderthals and Denisovans, creating very long-legacy genetic markers which we have only recently discovered.

So wouldn't that really solve the issue decisively, to find out what percentage of ancient Egyptians have Neanderthal genetic markers? This basically will directly correlate into the ratio of integrate with non-black populations. Because, dare I inject some levity into this thread, the main difference between blacks and whites (and asians and all others) is that us on the white side of the spectrum inbred a lot after leaving Africa and then decided it was a good idea to fuck cavemen.