|
Post by anansi on Mar 24, 2014 20:36:45 GMT -5
No they cannot be called "tropically adapted". Egypt (excluding the extreme south) is north of the tropic of cancer - see image below. As Snowden also points out Middle and Lower Egyptians are not dark brown skinned. Their complexion is lighter since they are adapted to less intense UV and not tropical latitude. They are at the same latitude as North Indians and Chinese, who are not tropical or 'black'. It's not a matter up for debate it's a biological fact yes Egypt is not tropical which should tell you that the ancients migrated from the tropics as a matter of fact they are shown to have super tropical body plans If you are serious about answers to your query then read the literature. egyptsearchreloaded.proboards.com/thread/396/lower-upper-egyptians?page=3Here is a well put together presentation by Zarahan or if you want go do the heavy lifting yourself Variation in Ancient Egyptian Stature and BodyProportions Sonia R. Zakrzewski* Department of Archaeology, University of Southampton, Southampton SO17 1BF, UK www.academia.edu/1400127/Variation_in_Ancient_Egyptian_Stature_and_Body_ProportionsGo here to do the lifting I have already helped you out. Btw no disrespect to Snowden he was an historian and no bio-anthropologist.
|
|
|
Post by asante on Mar 24, 2014 21:10:08 GMT -5
This dude is a troll! Don't entertain Casper's low brow retarded arguments which belong on the troll invested ES forum. Ban him!
|
|
|
Post by truthteacher2007 on Mar 24, 2014 21:45:48 GMT -5
yes truthteacher you are right but anwar sadat he is a nubian his mother is nubian and so was his father is what is said although his mother of his son gamal is a half english lady it is shame he was assassinated by the NATO terrorists Anwar was not Nubian, nor was his mother. His wife Jihan however, is half British. So is Mahmoud Reda and Farida Fahmy. The point I'm making is that racial classifications are not based on science. They are based on lies and hypocracy. The same people who would say someone who looks like Gamal Sadat is a caucasian are the same people who classified this girl as a negro and held her and others like her as slaves: These people have substantial European ancestry. A great deal of Afro Americans have significantly high percentages of European ancestry. I have a lot of European ancestry. Doesn't matter. In America I'm considered as black as tar. But if you took me to Egypt and dropped me in the middle of Cairo you'd loose me, that's how fast I blend in. If I told people my name was Mohamed Farag and I was born in Egypt, the government would classify me as white. Bob Marley: Bob Marley was half British. He was still considered a negro. But someone who looks just like him from Morocco is classified by the same people as a caucasian. Do you see why I say this is all bullshit? This is not science, it's bullshit and it's hypocritical. It's time we stop treating this as if it's science. Do you understand the point I'm making?
|
|
|
Post by truthteacher2007 on Mar 24, 2014 21:47:21 GMT -5
This dude is a troll! Don't entertain Casper's low brow retarded arguments which belong on the troll invested ES forum. Ban him! It's for the sake of the young heads who are still learning. Someone has to teach them how to identify and handle bullshit.
|
|
|
Post by azrur on Mar 24, 2014 22:03:20 GMT -5
yes truthteacher you are right but anwar sadat he is a nubian his mother is nubian and so was his father is what is said although his mother of his son gamal is a half english lady it is shame he was assassinated by the NATO terrorists Anwar was not Nubian, nor was his mother. His wife Jihan however, is half British. So is Mahmoud Reda and Farida Fahmy. The point I'm making is that racial classifications are not based on science. They are based on lies and hypocracy. The same people who would say someone who looks like Gamal Sadat is a caucasian are the same people who classified this girl as a negro and held her and others like her as slaves: These people have substantial European ancestry. A great deal of Afro Americans have significantly high percentages of European ancestry. I have a lot of European ancestry. Doesn't matter. In America I'm considered as black as tar. But if you took me to Egypt and dropped me in the middle of Cairo you'd loose me, that's how fast I blend in. If I told people my name was Mohamed Farag and I was born in Egypt, the government would classify me as white. Bob Marley: Bob Marley was half British. He was still considered a negro. But someone who looks just like him from Morocco is classified by the same people as a caucasian. Do you see why I say this is all ? This is not science, it's and it's hypocritical. It's time we stop treating this as if it's science. Do you understand the point I'm making? yes i understand but i think anwar sadat is a nubian at least his mother always a nubian of sudan his father is sometime said to be a white egyptian as they called him or just arab egyptian but other times he is said to be a nubian from egypt
|
|
|
Post by truthteacher2007 on Mar 24, 2014 22:40:13 GMT -5
Truthteacher, there is no "African" genetic cluster, so I fail to see what your point is about genetic relatedness. Dear Uncle Ben: You completely ignored the point of my post, so let me put it in the simplest of laymen's terms so you can understand. This concept of dividing people into separate groups based on external appearances is bullshit that doesn't exist in the real world. There, is that clear enough for you, or do you need me to dumb it down more for you? I never said that there was one big AFRICAN genetic cluster. What I said is that you can't assume that two people are unrelated genetically just because they don't share the same external features. Once again, the Egyptians I posted, Nadia Hamdi, Aida Nour, Gamal Sadat. Do any of them look "black" to you? They don't to me. However, every single one of those individuals has either a black parent or grans parent. So are you suggesting that these people do not cluster with their parents genetically? The strange thing i've noticed about this forum is that while posters criticize "Caucasoids", "Hamites" and so forth - they themselves hold a racialist pan-African agenda to try to cluster all "Africans" together as some mono-division of humanity. No, we do not. In fact, we aregu the exact opposite. Africans are the most varied genetically and physically. Africa has the highest level of diversity than anywhere else on the planet. The point that we make is that regardless of skin color, features etc, they are still Africans. Why is this so hard to wrap your head around? Do Rumanians look like Scandanavians? Do the Irish look Italian? No! They all look different right? But aren't they all still Europeans? Do we ever see any bullshit studies trying to prove that Sicilians aren't Europeans? No. But When it comes to Africa all logic and common sense goes out the Mfkng window right? For the love of cheese wiz, look how stupid we're willing to get. You've got dark skinned people in Egypt, which is on the African continent, and people will have the nerve to imply they aren't really African because they have a reddish undertone? So why does the same logic not apply to Europe? Such a division does not exist, sorry. Africans are not a natural genetic or biological grouping. One can divide genetic continua as they please. We've never done that. But by the same token, we never created these assinine racial divisions either. Your folks did that and applied it to us. But when we apply the same rules YOU CREATED and apply them to Africa, you cry foul. If we are talking about climate and adaptation, then once again - Africans do not cluster together. There are many different ecological and climatic regions within Africa. The vast majority of Egypt belongs to what climatologists classify as 'hot desert climate' (bWh). As you can see, Africans do not cluster in terms of climatic adaptation. Adaptation and climate zones my cafe aulait mixed race black ass! I could give 2 shits! My point is that your divisions of racial classifications and physical typing is not based on science but on bullshit. It's not based on rationality but hypocracy and stupidity. What if we applied this bullshit to Europe? Well then, these people must be negroid. They aren't really Europeans now are they? Homeboy has a nose as wide as a 2 door garage Eckhart Tolle Babe Ruth: Had a nose like a friggin Hovver vacume cleaner But no one would ever suggest because of their features they aren't part of the European world. Why then are you and others of your mindset so incapable of understanding that someone who looks like this is also part of the diversity of the African world? Please explain that to me? YOU folks are the ones who created the one drop rule, not Afro Americans. You applied it to us, we didn't apply it to ourselves. So why is it not applied across the board? You all have the nerve to say this woman was black But you spend gallons of ink saying this African woman was not So can you explain to me why Leena Horne, with high yellow skin, a razor thin nose, straight hair and substantial European ancestry was black, but an African queen with the same cranial measurements was not black? Can you give me a rational explanation? Egyptians were Africans, period! They didn't have to look like the people of Cameroon to be African. Stop the stupidity and just accept the truth for what it is. They were one of the many populations native to Africa. They were physically diverse with features that ranged from broad to narrow, skin color from light to dark, hair from straight to kinky. Afro Americans come in more colors than you find in a freakin bag of M&Ms, yet when ya'll see us, some how, you're never confused. Go to Africa and see someone that looks just like us and ya'll get all confused just because they're wearing a towel on their head? Cut the bullshit! Stop trying to feed us shit by calling it sugar. At the end of the day, I don't care what the hell you want to call it, vichyssiose is still potato soup! Got it?
|
|
|
Post by zarahan on Mar 24, 2014 22:44:11 GMT -5
Yeah, his post has almost parallel signatures of certain well known ES trolls. They begin with something written in the 1990s against "the Afrocentrists", things easily debunked- then stoke up from there while dodging substantive replies. I encountered one using this exact same approach- an "Afrocen bashing" opener article by jazz critic Stanley Crouch, and then the usual, along with other stuff like huge numbers of new "race" posts Yeah.. same 1990s opener, same pattern. But we'll play along for a while before lowering the boom.
Ben/snowden says: Among the most blatant examples of methodological weakness is the claim that the inhabitants of Africa in antiquity were predominantly black - a claim not supported by linguistic, archaeological, or historical evidence.
Actually this seems along the most blatant example of logical weakness. So let's get this straight, there were no black people in Africa during antiquity? They were all Chinese? lol
Afrocentrists have assumed that the word "African" and color adjectives used by ancient writers were always the equivalents of words such as "Negroes" and "blacks" in twentieth-century usage.
^^Not so. SO-called 'Afrocentrists" knew when Herodotus referred to people from India as dark-skinned, he was not talking about "negroes" from Africa. But even if this claim of Snowden is true, said 'Afocentrists" would be quite justified in referring to Africans as such for 20th century Western racial norms would do precisely that or would use a "mixed race" formula based on "negro blood" percentages. Either way, the 20th century's race conventions and usage would sync with what the "Afrocentrics" were saying. Snowden contradicts his own argument.
But lets see what credible, mainstream Egyptologists have to say about the matter. Donald Redford is one, and he has been critical of "Afrocentrists" holding that ancient data should speak for itself without people trying to put modern spin on the. And he is right. Now lets see what this Egyptologist says about those dreaded 'Afrocentrists." Turns out he finds their use of the word "black" quite reasonable. QUOTE:
“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…..”
“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 ----------------------------------------------------
There you have it. The conservative Egyptology guy, who has himself criticized "the Afrocentrics" on certain points, finds using the word "black" quite reasonable. My, my.. imagine that...
And what does Redford says when he puts aside so-called spin and looks at the data on the ground? Turns out he finds several cultural connections between Egypt and other African cultures.. My my... QUOTE:
"The evidence also points to linkages to other northeast African peoples, not coincidentally approximating the modern range of languages closely related to Egyptian in the Afro-Asiatic group (formerly called Hamito-Semetic). These linguistic similarities place ancient Egyptian in a close relationship with languages spoken today as far west as Chad, and as far south as Somalia. Archaeological evidence also strongly supports an African origin. A widespread northeastern African cultural assemblage, including distinctive multiple barbed harpoons and pottery decorated with dotted wavy line patterns, appears during the early Neolithic (also known as the Aqualithic, a reference to the mild climate of the Sahara at this time). Saharan and Sudanese rock art from this time resembles early Egyptian iconography. Strong connections between Nubian (Sudanese) and Egyptian material culture continue in later Neolithic Badarian culture of Upper Egypt. Similarities include black-topped wares, vessels with characteristic ripple-burnished surfaces, a special tulip-shaped vessel with incised and white-filled decoration, palettes, and harpoons...
Other ancient Egyptian practices show strong similarities to modern African cultures including divine kingship, the use of headrests, body art, circumcision, and male coming-of-age rituals, all suggesting an African substratum or foundation for Egyptian civilization.."
Source: Donald Redford (2001) The Oxford encyclopedia of ancient Egypt, Volume 3. Oxford University Press
Well waddaya know- turns out that the conservative white scholar, while never in total agreement, is saying key parts of what Diop said 30 years ago about those close cultural connections.
Snowden was a classicist dealing with the humanities in antiquity, with very little expertise in anthropology, archaeology or even African or Egyptian history. And it shows big time. Aside from clear errors in logic, most of his spiel is based on obsolete, stereotypical "true negro" race models of the 1950s/1960/1970s.
---------------------------------------------
But anyway, you guys here are doing quite well in refuting the nonsense. And there is some educational value for the new hands. Can't add much more. We'll see..
|
|
|
Post by truthteacher2007 on Mar 24, 2014 22:49:49 GMT -5
Anwar was not Nubian, nor was his mother. His wife Jihan however, is half British. So is Mahmoud Reda and Farida Fahmy. The point I'm making is that racial classifications are not based on science. They are based on lies and hypocracy. The same people who would say someone who looks like Gamal Sadat is a caucasian are the same people who classified this girl as a negro and held her and others like her as slaves: These people have substantial European ancestry. A great deal of Afro Americans have significantly high percentages of European ancestry. I have a lot of European ancestry. Doesn't matter. In America I'm considered as black as tar. But if you took me to Egypt and dropped me in the middle of Cairo you'd loose me, that's how fast I blend in. If I told people my name was Mohamed Farag and I was born in Egypt, the government would classify me as white. Bob Marley: Bob Marley was half British. He was still considered a negro. But someone who looks just like him from Morocco is classified by the same people as a caucasian. Do you see why I say this is all ? This is not science, it's and it's hypocritical. It's time we stop treating this as if it's science. Do you understand the point I'm making? yes i understand but i think anwar sadat is a nubian at least his mother always a nubian of sudan his father is sometime said to be a white egyptian as they called him or just arab egyptian but other times he is said to be a nubian from egypt No, he wasn't Nubian at all, neither was his mother. People often make the mistake of assuming that any dark skinned Egyptian is a Nubian. That's not the case. Look at the calash drivers in this video. They are not Nubians. They are Saidis from the Qena/Luxor area. Even though they look Nubian, they are an entirely different ethnic group:
|
|
|
Post by zarahan on Mar 24, 2014 23:04:15 GMT -5
Anansi says: Yes Egypt is not tropical which should tell you that the ancients migrated from the tropics as a matter of fact they are shown to have super tropical body plans If you are serious about answers to your query then read the literature. egyptsearchreloaded.proboards.com/thread/396/lower-upper-egyptians?page=3Indeed. And what they don't seem to realize is that even though most of Egypt falls in sub-tropics. some 15-20% of Egypt itself, a slice of the south STILL falls in the tropic zone, making the presence of tropical Africans even more unsurprising. Its not only the migrations, but Egypt itself is partially in the tropics. new readers might check how Tropic of Cancer (dotted line) slices thru Egypt. Whether migration, or already in situ, the tropical types are there. Makes no diff.
|
|
|
Post by anansi on Mar 24, 2014 23:57:32 GMT -5
Yeah like I said in other threads hard science have already won this battle for quite sometime now concerning, who the ancient kemitians were,pop culture and general ignorance of some is admittedly a little more difficult to over come.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2014 10:01:57 GMT -5
No they cannot be called "tropically adapted". Egypt (excluding the extreme south) is north of the tropic of cancer - see image below. As Snowden also points out Middle and Lower Egyptians are not dark brown skinned. Their complexion is lighter since they are adapted to less intense UV and not tropical latitude. They are at the same latitude as North Indians and Chinese, who are not tropical or 'black'. It's not a matter up for debate it's a biological fact yes Egypt is not tropical which should tell you that the ancients migrated from the tropics as a matter of fact they are shown to have super tropical body plans If you are serious about answers to your query then read the literature. egyptsearchreloaded.proboards.com/thread/396/lower-upper-egyptians?page=3Here is a well put together presentation by Zarahan or if you want go do the heavy lifting yourself Variation in Ancient Egyptian Stature and BodyProportions Sonia R. Zakrzewski* Department of Archaeology, University of Southampton, Southampton SO17 1BF, UK www.academia.edu/1400127/Variation_in_Ancient_Egyptian_Stature_and_Body_ProportionsGo here to do the lifting I have already helped you out. Btw no disrespect to Snowden he was an historian and no bio-anthropologist. The (eastern) Sahara excluding northern Nubia was almost depopulated from about 8000 BP or the mid-Holocene during desiccation: "7,300 to 5,500 years ago: Retreating monsoonal rains initiate desiccation in the Egyptian Sahara, prompting humans to move to remaining habitable niches in Sudanese Sahara. The end of the rains and return of desert conditions throughout the Sahara after 5,500 coincides with population return to the Nile Valley and the beginning of pharaonic society." (Carey, B. [2006]. "Sahara Desert was Once Lush and Populated". Live Science.) "In northeast Africa, unlike most regions of the world, the drastic environmental changes of the Pleistocene-Holocene transition had been effectively reversed by the mid Holocene. After the virtual depopulation of the valley in the millennia before 8000 BP, the Nile began once more to aggrade. In the north, by 6,000 BP, local groups has begun to practice food production, using southwest Asian suite of domestic species." (Close, Angela E. [1996]. "Plus Ca Change: The Pleistocene-Holocene Transition in Northeast Africa," In: Humans at the End of the Ice Age, 44-57. Plenum Press: New York). Human habitation in the Sahara has been greatly influenced by climate (wet and dry phases); the region has witnessed depopulation and resettlement. Egypt was repopulated from the south (Sudanese Sahara i.e. Nubia and non-Saharan Nubia) from about 6000 years ago: "If the Nile Valley (particularly Nubia) was mostly settled during the Late Pleistocene and from the 5th millennium BC onwards, the desert was settled during the Early and Middle Holocene, when the Nile Valley was basically empty of human occupation. As a matter of fact, no or scanty evidence of human occupation dated to these periods has been found in the Egyptian Nile Valley (problems in site preservation might be a reason for this). However, this is not the case for the middle Nile Valley (corresponding to the geographical region of Nubia). In fact, for Nubia a complete occupational sequence is well attested throughout the Pleistocene and the Holocene. This makes sense if it is assumed that not only desert people were going back to the valley during arid spells, but that they also had a mobile lifestyle with seasonal movements between the two ecosystems." "To sum up, Nubia is Egypt’s African ancestor. What linked Ancient Egypt to the rest of the North African cultures is this strong tie with the Nubian pastoral nomadic lifestyle, the same pastoral background commonly shared by most of the ancient Saharan and modern sub-Saharan societies. Thus, not only did Nubiahave a prominent role in the origin of Ancient Egypt, it was also a key area for the origin of the entire African pastoral tradition." (Gatto, Maria C. [2011]. "The Nubian Pastoral Culture as Link between Egypt and Africa: A View from the Archaeological Record. In: Egypt in its African Context. Proceedings of the conference held at The Manchester Museum,University of Manchester, 2-4 October 2009.) "5th millennium BC both Tasian and Badarian cultures are strongly related to the Nubian tradition." www.britishmuseum.org/pdf/Gatto.pdfIs it therefore a surprise that most ancient Egyptians had elongated (tropical) limbs? As Holliday (1997) observes: "selective rates on body shape are such that evolution in these features is long term". Egypt was only repopulated 7,000 or 6,000 years ago, and clearly there has not been enough time for adaptive modification in post-crania. After all, some non-Arctic Native American populations have retained cold-adapted body proportions for the last 15,000 years: "Native American groups living in warm climates retain fairly cold-adapted body proportions. This suggests either that selection was weaker in New World environments or that some aspects of body form are evolutionary conservative and have not had enough time to change." (Hulse FS. 1960. "Adaptation, selection, and plasticity in ongoing human evolution". Hum Biol. 32:63–79) In that 7000 years however, the ancient Egyptians adapted to the Sahara in skin pigmentation and other physical aspects. Some adaptive traits are evidently more "plastic". If we look at non-tropical adaptations such as lighter skin, most ancient Egyptians do not pass as 'tropical' or 'black'.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2014 10:59:26 GMT -5
YOU folks are the ones who created the one drop rule, not Afro Americans. You applied it to us, we didn't apply it to ourselves. So why is it not applied across the board? You all have the nerve to say this woman was black But you spend gallons of ink saying this African woman was not So can you explain to me why Leena Horne, with high yellow skin, a razor thin nose, straight hair and substantial European ancestry was black, but an African queen with the same cranial measurements was not black? Can you give me a rational explanation? Egyptians were Africans, period! They didn't have to look like the people of Cameroon to be African. Stop the stupidity and just accept the truth for what it is. They were one of the many populations native to Africa. They were physically diverse with features that ranged from broad to narrow, skin color from light to dark, hair from straight to kinky. Afro Americans come in more colors than you find in a freakin bag of M&Ms, yet when ya'll see us, some how, you're never confused. Go to Africa and see someone that looks just like us and ya'll get all confused just because they're wearing a towel on their head? Cut the ! Stop trying to feed us ish by calling it sugar. At the end of the day, I don't care what the hell you want to call it, vichyssiose is still potato soup! Got it? I'm not interested in the social construct of "blackness". My understanding of 'black' (like Snowden) is dark skin. In an African context: 'blacks' are those that have dark brown pigmentation and are adapted to tropical latitude (i.e. Sub-Saharan Africa). As Snowden points out - 'blacks' are synonymous with aethiops ("Burnt faced", dark skinned) in Greco-Roman literature. However the ancient Egyptians were not considered to be aethiops, as most were a light brown colour. The simple fact of the matter is that most ancient egyptians were too light skinned to be considered 'black' or 'tropical' (unless you consider the southern Upper Egyptians who were darker). Even the Greeks and Romans recognized this, hence they distinguished Egyptians to the aethiops (blacks) to their south. Zaharan is also wrong with the "true negro" claim. Snowden recognized a variety of facial features among the aethiops (blacks). They didn't all have wide noses and woolly hair, however they all had dark skin. Try finding his books on Google, or I will try and provide a quote.
|
|
|
Post by asante on Mar 25, 2014 11:55:01 GMT -5
This dude is a troll! Don't entertain Casper's low brow retarded arguments which belong on the troll invested ES forum. Ban him! It's for the sake of the young heads who are still learning. Someone has to teach them how to identify and handle . Dig handle that!
|
|
|
Post by truthteacher2007 on Mar 25, 2014 12:48:36 GMT -5
YOU folks are the ones who created the one drop rule, not Afro Americans. You applied it to us, we didn't apply it to ourselves. So why is it not applied across the board? You all have the nerve to say this woman was black But you spend gallons of ink saying this African woman was not So can you explain to me why Leena Horne, with high yellow skin, a razor thin nose, straight hair and substantial European ancestry was black, but an African queen with the same cranial measurements was not black? Can you give me a rational explanation? Egyptians were Africans, period! They didn't have to look like the people of Cameroon to be African. Stop the stupidity and just accept the truth for what it is. They were one of the many populations native to Africa. They were physically diverse with features that ranged from broad to narrow, skin color from light to dark, hair from straight to kinky. Afro Americans come in more colors than you find in a freakin bag of M&Ms, yet when ya'll see us, some how, you're never confused. Go to Africa and see someone that looks just like us and ya'll get all confused just because they're wearing a towel on their head? Cut the ! Stop trying to feed us ish by calling it sugar. At the end of the day, I don't care what the hell you want to call it, vichyssiose is still potato soup! Got it? I'm not interested in the social construct of "blackness". My understanding of 'black' (like Snowden) is dark skin. In an African context: 'blacks' are those that have dark brown pigmentation and are adapted to tropical latitude (i.e. Sub-Saharan Africa). As Snowden points out - 'blacks' are synonymous with aethiops ("Burnt faced", dark skinned) in Greco-Roman literature. However the ancient Egyptians were not considered to be aethiops, as most were a light brown colour. The simple fact of the matter is that most ancient egyptians were too light skinned to be considered 'black' or 'tropical' (unless you consider the southern Upper Egyptians who were darker). Even the Greeks and Romans recognized this, hence they distinguished Egyptians to the aethiops (blacks) to their south. Zaharan is also wrong with the "true negro" claim. Snowden recognized a variety of facial features among the aethiops (blacks). They didn't all have wide noses and woolly hair, however they all had dark skin. Try finding his books on Google, or I will try and provide a quote. You're still missing the point. "You're not interested in social consructs". What crap! You are the same people who craeted these constructs, but whne applied to Africa, now you want to flip the script and change the rules? Not so fast buddy! You also miss my other point. Separating Africans according to skin color is bogus. Why? Because relationships cut across skin colors and features. A significant percetage of the population was dark skinned. It just is what it is. Were they all dark, no. Everybody knows that. But what you still can't wrap your head around is the fact that light or dark, they were and still are part of the same genetic family. Egypt was and still is full of people who look like this And like this And this Dude, open your eyes! These are dark skinned African people. Skin this dark is not a sun tan, it's a physical adaptation to a tropical environment and people who have retained this adaptation are all over Egypt from Alexandria to Aswan. They make up more than 60% of the country. I do not ascribe to describing Egyptians as black. Why? Because of the same type of flip flopping hypocritical nonsense that you're trying to defend here. I categorize Egyptians as Africans, acknowledging that Africans range in color from light brown to dark brown and exhibit a variety of features and hair forms. Therefore, Egyptians fall well into the range of African physical types. Ex emperor of Ethiopia Haili Selassi I guess they didn't leave him in the oven long enough to suit your tastes..... Somali man How is he any different in color from the dark people of Egypt ancient or modern? The other point you chose to ignore is what I said before about genetic familiarity cutting across color lines. Olympian gold medalist Karam Gaber His younger brother looks like this guy His skin is closer in color to the somali man above and his lios are thinner, but otherwise, the structure of the face is the same. They are blood brothers. Same mother and father. So how could one child be "black" and the other "caucasian"? The reality of African peoples and our families contradicts the artificial categories that Eurocentric ideology trys to construct for us. Whether we are light or dar, narrow featured or broad featured African people are still African, PERIOD! And before you try to come with you're of American blacks trying to claim relationship to Egypt, no, we don't all believe that. It's a hot topic of debate among us. My sole concern is that Egyptians are African people. They don't have to be my personal blood line to be so.
|
|
|
Post by zarahan on Mar 25, 2014 14:00:25 GMT -5
Ben/snowden says: As Holliday (1997) observes: "selective rates on body shape are such that evolution in these features is long term". Egypt was only repopulated 7,000 or 6,000 years ago, and clearly there has not been enough time for adaptive modification in post-crania. The fallacy of your notion is plain to see. Even if a 7000-6000 repopulation is accepted, (cite some evidence on this claim, but as will be seen below, it will not make much difference) then "'repopulation" would be by people from THE SOUTH or Sahara who had tropically adapted proportions. "Repopulation" would be by the very same tropical people.. lol.. And Holliday's long term observation lends no support to your notion. The tropical peoples who populated Kemet DID and for "long term" have said proportions before they came to Kemet. Taking their "long term" proportions with them, they could thus "repopulate" at will. "Native American groups living in warm climates retain fairly cold-adapted body proportions. This suggests either that selection was weaker in New World environments or that some aspects of body form are evolutionary conservative and have not had enough time to change." (Hulse FS. 1960. "Adaptation, selection, and plasticity in ongoing human evolution".This does not support your notion either, in fact you are undermining your own argument. The Native Americans came from cold Asiatic climates. Fine. They did not have enough time to develop heavier tropical proportions. Fine. BUT, the Africans who populated, or "repopulated" Kemet did. THEY had enough "long term" time to do so. lol... ---says even Mary Lefkowitz -------------- :--------------- "Recent work on skeletons and DNA suggests that the people who settled in the Nile valley, like all of humankind, came from somewhere south of the Sahara; they were not (as some nineteenth-century scholars had supposed) invaders from the North. See Bruce G. Trigger, "The Rise of Civilization in Egypt," Cambridge History of Africa (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1982), vol I, pp 489-90; S. O. Y. Keita, "Studies and Comments on Ancient Egyptian Biological Relationships," History in Africa 20 (1993) 129-54." --(Mary Lefkotitz (1997). Not Out of Africa: How Afrocentrism Became an Excuse to Teach Myth as History. Basic Books. pg 242) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- In that 7000 years however, the ancient Egyptians adapted to the Sahara in skin pigmentation and other physical aspects. Some adaptive traits are evidently more "plastic". If we look at non-tropical adaptations such as lighter skin, most ancient Egyptians do not pass as 'tropical' or 'black'. You keep waving this "7000 years" like some magic wand, but have produced precious little to support it. Says who, that Egypt was this empty zone until 7,000 years ago with no people? What's the time frame for this emptiness and what was before the "emptness?" Cite something credible. But be aware that while you do that- it won't make a dime's worth of difference. And you again undermine your own argument. If body proportions are conservative, and the peoples of Kemet show such a conservative trait, they are very definitely "tropical" or more precisely tropically adapted Africans who show clear resemblances to other sub-Saharan Africans. You just shot yourself with your own gun. You put up stuff saying tropical proportions are conservative, and lo and behold, the conservative proportions show up in Kemet, even though much of Egypt is sub-tropical. As Anansi notes credible scholars show they came from regions that generate such conservative proportions. Even Mary Lefkowitz agrees with the same. ---------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------- i371.photobucket.com/albums/oo160/brandonpilcher/keitap140.jpg[/img]---------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------- And if certain conditions like skin are more plastic, that doesn't help your case either, in fact when you bring that forward to bolster your claim it only exposes how weak it is. Your "counterpoint" actually helps my case. The people with the conservative tropical proportions could easily have acquired more "plastic" stuff like lighter skin by being in a zone with less UV radiation. That does not diminish their Africanity at all, or to use other terminology endorsed by Redford in context, their blackness at all. Africans move about at will within the continent. And who says lighter skin is somehow "not tropical"? What a laughable notion. Skin that is not jet black, but that ranges from brown through pale brown is nothing special in the tropical zone of Africa. In fact Africans have the highest skin color diversity in the world. People like the so called 'Red Igbo" are documented in West Africa with such skin for example, and the many micro climates in the tropical zone can easily produce locally based variants. Ultra pale skin in low UV radiation areas of course would be more the province of cold/artic type European and Asian areas, but Africa's tropic zone hast the most built-in skin color diversity to begin with. Finally tropical Africans are not static entities. They move around throughout the continent- unlimited by claimed climatic "apartheid" constructs. If the tropical Africans moved from southern Egypt's tropical belt and also from further south and spent more time in low UV areas, and got lighter skin- fine. But they are still tropical Africans. Their "conservative" limb proportions show it. And with said Africans having the most built-in diversity, they don't solely depend on climate for diversity. Genetically they ALREADY have the most BUILT-IN diversity.
|
|