|
Post by clydewin98 on Jul 12, 2012 8:06:21 GMT -5
The slide presentation in the video makes it clear he believes the ancient North African population was diverse. In this video Dr. Keita claims that the white Berbers are indiginous to North Africa.
In 2008, S. O. Y. Keita wrote that "There is no scientific reason to believe that the primary ancestors of the Egyptian population emerged and evolved outside of northeast Africa.... The basic overall genetic profile of the modern population is consistent with the diversity of ancient populations that would have been indigenous to northeastern Africa and subject to the range of evolutionary influences over time, although researchers vary in the details of their explanations of those influences." [135]
In the 1990's Keita made it clear the Pre-Dynastic people were negroes, and that the Badarians and others founded ancient Egypt.
Does this new video and recent statements of Keita suggest he no longer believes the Pre-dynastic and Dynastic ancient Egyptians were negroes, since he now believes that contemporary Egyptians evidence the ancient Egyptians.?
.
|
|
|
Post by beyoku on Jul 12, 2012 14:19:13 GMT -5
Where exactly do you get this impression? Lets concentrate on what he says:
The basic overall genetic profile of the modern population is consistent with the diversity of ancient populations that would have been indigenous to northeastern Africa.
In Egypt you have a mixture of nearly Every lineage that is found in Africa except those exclusive to hunter gatherers. You also have the existence of Non-African lineages, both ancient to the region as well as more recent. Keita says nothing of the FREQUENCY, simply the diversity of the ancient population is still today found in the modern people.
He also says something similar in reference to skin tone. THE DIVERSITY that you find in the country now is similar to what you would find in the past. Sure the distribution may have been different, but the diversity was there.
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Jul 12, 2012 21:14:47 GMT -5
First off, Did Keita use the word "negro"?
2nd, I agree, light skin is indigenous to certain parts of Africa. Sergi confirmed that. And based upon my knowledge on the genetics of light skin. Yes. light skin is indigenous to parts of Africa.
3rd, The recent results based on the JAMA analysis indicates that modern Egyptians are NOT similar to AEians. The Amarna are genetically similar to South Africans. If you have read enough books on what Europeans saw when they "discovered" Africa you will realize certain thinks. Many South Africans back in the they are light skin and orthnogamous. Point. Even deep within Africa "Caucasoid" features are indigenous.
Sergi and others confirmed cranomtrically the AEians are as African as the Bantus. Modern now also confirms the same Berbers and other NAfricans are PN@.
So.....what is a negro again?
|
|
|
Post by clydewin98 on Jul 15, 2012 6:34:18 GMT -5
First off, Did Keita use the word "negro"? 2nd, I agree, light skin is indigenous to certain parts of Africa. Sergi confirmed that. And based upon my knowledge on the genetics of light skin. Yes. light skin is indigenous to parts of Africa. 3rd, The recent results based on the JAMA analysis indicates that modern Egyptians are NOT similar to AEians. The Amarna are genetically similar to South Africans. If you have read enough books on what Europeans saw when they "discovered" Africa you will realize certain thinks. Many South Africans back in the they are light skin and orthnogamous. Point. Even deep within Africa "Caucasoid" features are indigenous. Sergi and others confirmed cranomtrically the AEians are as African as the Bantus. Modern now also confirms the same Berbers and other NAfricans are PN@. So.....what is a negro again? LOL. You're funny. In the past Black people were called Negro. Afro-Americans decided that they did not want to be called negro, they demanded to be called "Black". LOL Negro=Black so we are calling each other by the same term. A negro is a person with: 1) Direct African ancestry 2) Brown to yellow complexion. 3) Long limbs 4) shape of the head and face varies 5) flat to semi pointed nose ( traditionally some Negro/Black people like to pinch the noses of their children )with dark skin Here is a picture of several Wolof engaged in a conversation. Note the individuals in the picture the person in the center facing you appears to have a flat nose; whereas the person facing the center person has a nose which appears to be semi-pointed.This highlights the various nose types found among negroes. 6) curly to straight hair 7) round to slanted eyes depending on the Negro group Note the varying shape of the eyes evident in these negroes. 8) thick or thin lips Some people believe that Filipino and other Asian people can be classified as Negroes because of their dark color. But a careful examination of the two clearly demonstrates differences between both groups in facial features eventhough the shape of the eye may be the same. Tanzanian Filipino Look at differences in the form of the head, forehead and mouth. Note both have flat noses but they are clearly different in how they are established. Both children are hansome and well proportioned . Note also the color both are brown but the African has a more richer brown complexion. Europeans know that the craniometrics relating to ancient man reflect a negro heritage. Eurocentrics created the idea races don't exist because the skeletons found at centers of ancient civilization when examined to determine what race they belonged too, proved to be negroes. Since they can no longer pretend that the ancient Egyptians and Sumerians were 'whites' , by printing textbooks showing pictures of mummies dating to the Greco-Roman period and Gutians dating back to their rule of Lagash, when we have skeletal evidence proving otherwise. People who have an inferiority complex and self-hate accept this absence of race theory--so they can believe they're just one of the guys. But in reality Afro-Americans are still discriminated against. You can only have white supremacy if Blacks see Europeans as their superor. Europeans help Blacks to recognize the superiority of whites by making it appear that the Moors, Sumerians, and Egyptians were Europeans or white/light skinned Arabs. Afrocentric scholars embrace the idea of race, because its only through craniometrics that we know the history of ancient Blacks since Europeans create fake artifacts, to 'white out' the negro from history. .
|
|
|
Post by clydewin98 on Jul 15, 2012 7:00:10 GMT -5
Where exactly do you get this impression? Lets concentrate on what he says: The basic overall genetic profile of the modern population is consistent with the diversity of ancient populations that would have been indigenous to northeastern Africa. In Egypt you have a mixture of nearly Every lineage that is found in Africa except those exclusive to hunter gatherers. You also have the existence of Non-African lineages, both ancient to the region as well as more recent. Keita says nothing of the FREQUENCY, simply the diversity of the ancient population is still today found in the modern people. He also says something similar in reference to skin tone. THE DIVERSITY that you find in the country now is similar to what you would find in the past. Sure the distribution may have been different, but the diversity was there. This is the problem there were no whites in ancient Egypt. The art of ancient Egypt shows that Egyptians varied from a rich brown to red complexion. The first whites are depicted in Egyptian art after the Peoples of the Sea were defeated and deposited in the Delta. Diop in The African Origin of Civilization (pp.52-70) highligthed the fact that Eurocentrics were claiming the Berbers were indigenous to North Africa , to make it appear they influnced the rise of ancient Egypt. By Keita claiming white Berbers are ancient North Africans he is confirming the Eurocentric myth of Egypt, that Egypt has always been a multiracial society. By Keita claiming that the Berbers are native to Africa, when we don't see the 'white' Arab or European type in Egypt until the invasion of the Peoples of the Sea in 1200 BC--these whites were supplemented by 80,000 Germans when the Vandals invaded North Africa-- how can a scholar claim 'white Berbers' are native to Africa, when it is not supported by the craniometrics. The craniometrics show that these ancient people were Negroes--not whites. .
|
|
|
Post by truthteacher2007 on Jul 15, 2012 22:19:58 GMT -5
The problem is that to understand Keita you have to listen to him very carefully. He's not saying anything new at all. What he is saying is that the Eurocentric notions of race are meaningless in the context of the African reality. The fact is that regardless of their external appearances, North Africans, no matter how fair skinned they may be, belong to the same genetic family as people who look completely opposite to them. Therefore, if these people belong to the same family how can you say they belong to different races? External appearances do not give an accurate reflection of which groups of people are related to whom.
Honestly, we shouldn't need all this scientific gobbledigook to tell us this fact. All we have to do is look in our own families for god's sake. My skin color, hair type facial structure is radically different from my brother. Does this mean we belong to different races? How could that be? I have so many close relatives who look like northern Moroccan Amazigh and yet they have children and parents who often times appear sterotypically African. So how could we be different races? Yet if anthropologists with the race theory mindset dug us all up one day, they would place us all into different groups based on our craniofacial features. But the reality is that dispite our radical differences we are one family group.
Yes Egyptian civilization was founded by dark skinned native peoples from the south, that is an indisputable fact. But it is also a fact that there were lighter skinned people in Egypt, as can be attested to by mummies like "ginger" and guess what? They are just as African as anyone from Aswan or Chad. There is not one way to look African or be African. Not even mixture can change this. The fact is that Berber genetics, language, culture, their music and dance root them firmly in Africa, not Asia and not Europe.
As for basing what an entire population looked like based on what amounts to cartoons. Come on. What we see on the tombs represents their ideal, just as blonds represent the ideal in American culture. Or do you believe that there were no old or over weight people in Egypt? Every single person was dark and lovely, in perfect physical shape and eternally young?
The failure of many of us to overcome the discomfort of fairskinned people in Africa as being Africans represents our own insecurities and a Eurocentric mind set that dark skinned and light skinned people are separate and distinct and could never be related. Well the reality of Egypt, North Africa and Africa as a whole says that this mind set is a lie.
|
|
|
Post by clydewin98 on Jul 16, 2012 6:10:01 GMT -5
The problem is that to understand Keita you have to listen to him very carefully. He's not saying anything new at all. What he is saying is that the Eurocentric notions of race are meaningless in the context of the African reality. The fact is that regardless of their external appearances, North Africans, no matter how fair skinned they may be, belong to the same genetic family as people who look completely opposite to them. Therefore, if these people belong to the same family how can you say they belong to different races? External appearances do not give an accurate reflection of which groups of people are related to whom. Honestly, we shouldn't need all this scientific gobbledigook to tell us this fact. All we have to do is look in our own families for god's sake. My skin color, hair type facial structure is radically different from my brother. Does this mean we belong to different races? How could that be? I have so many close relatives who look like northern Moroccan Amazigh and yet they have children and parents who often times appear sterotypically African. So how could we be different races? Yet if anthropologists with the race theory mindset dug us all up one day, they would place us all into different groups based on our craniofacial features. But the reality is that dispite our radical differences we are one family group. Yes Egyptian civilization was founded by dark skinned native peoples from the south, that is an indisputable fact. But it is also a fact that there were lighter skinned people in Egypt, as can be attested to by mummies like "ginger" and guess what? They are just as African as anyone from Aswan or Chad. There is not one way to look African or be African. Not even mixture can change this. The fact is that Berber genetics, language, culture, their music and dance root them firmly in Africa, not Asia and not Europe. As for basing what an entire population looked like based on what amounts to cartoons. Come on. What we see on the tombs represents their ideal, just as blonds represent the ideal in American culture. Or do you believe that there were no old or over weight people in Egypt? Every single person was dark and lovely, in perfect physical shape and eternally young? The failure of many of us to overcome the discomfort of fairskinned people in Africa as being Africans represents our own insecurities and a Eurocentric mind set that dark skinned and light skinned people are separate and distinct and could never be related. Well the reality of Egypt, North Africa and Africa as a whole says that this mind set is a lie. Races exist. There is no way to get around this reality. There is too much research illustrating that there were no 'whites, in ancient Egypt. As a result for Keita to make the claim that continuity exist between the ancient Egyptian and modern Egyptian populations he is perpetuating a falsehood Diop proved years ago was untrue. Eurocentrists have long held that Egypt was built by 'whites' and the Berbers proved these 'white' Africans always existed in Africa. Diop proved that this was false. Keita's work is being used to reinvigorate long held Eurocentric myths about ancient Egypt. Also, what are the cultural features which unite ancient Egyptians and Sub-Saharan Africans? .
|
|
|
Post by clydewin98 on Jul 16, 2012 7:09:37 GMT -5
Keita knows exactly what he is doing. In 1996, he made it clear that "The information from living Egyptian population may not be as useful because historical records indicate substantial immigration into Egypt over the last several millenia and it seems to have far greater from the Near East and Europe than from areas far south of Egypt. Subtantial immigration can actually mean a relatively small number of people in terms of population genetics theory. It has been determined that an average migration rate of one generation into a region could result in a great change of the original gene frequencies in only several thousand years". Given this statement, in 2008, when S. O. Y. Keita wrote that "There is no scientific reason to believe that the primary ancestors of the Egyptian population emerged and evolved outside of northeast Africa.... The basic overall genetic profile of the modern population is consistent with the diversity of ancient populations that would have been indigenous to northeastern Africa and subject to the range of evolutionary influences over time,[ although researchers vary in the details of their explanations of those influences" (135); he was lying. Since he knows that the contemporary population has changed over time. This indicates to me that Keita has made his research concerning ancient Egypt become more in line with Eurocentric views about ancient Egypt. .
|
|
|
Post by truthteacher2007 on Jul 16, 2012 9:16:12 GMT -5
And how may I ask are you defining the term "white". You've watched the video, but you are not listening to what is being said. Those people in North Africa, regardless of what they look like ARE Africans. Why? What makes them so? #1: Genetics. They share the same common male ancestor with some of the blackest skinned people on the continent, they are of the same bloodline originating IN Africa, not Europe or Asia. #2: Their languages are African, not European or Semitic. If they originated some place else outside of Africa, they would be speaking non African languages. #3: Limb ratios. The limb ratios of even northern Egyptians and Algerians are TROPICAL and more SIMILAR to OTHER AFRICANS than they are to Europeans and western Asians. Taken as a whole then this would suggest that North Africa was settled by a people who were native to the continent. Why then do they look the way they do? Several reasons why. #1: regional environmental adaptation. Because North Africa is a sub tropical region receving less intese sunlight, the body did not need to retain as much melanin. You see the exact same adaptation among the Bushmen in Southern Africa where many of them are relatively light in comparison to other Africans living or originating in the tropical zone. #2: Keita repeatedly pointed out that Africa was not isolated from the outside world. Over the course of its history it did and still continues to absorb outsiders. Key word here is ABSORB. This meaning that a few non Africans find their way into various native African communities and are assimilated. If the rate of such interation is consistent over time, there can result changes in physical appearance as the trats for those characteristics become more common in the gene pool. Another way it can happen is that you have a small group of people who absorb a small number of outsiders. Certain traits become dominant in that community. If a population increase occours, then you have a region where certain physical characteristics are now prevalent. So what we have here is Keita stateing more clearly what he has always been saying. The Eurocentric notion of Africa is incorrect. And trying to understand Africa in basic simplistic terms is also incorrect. Genetics is not going to tell the whole story, archeology is not going to tell the whole story, anthropology is not going to tell the whole story and history as we know it so far, is not going to tell the whole story. You have to take all of the evidence from all these fiels of study as a whole and weigh them together to get a more accurate picture and even then there are going to be things that are unknowable. What you also fail to realize is that he has said point blank several times, that when you look at Egyptian civilization and culture, you are not looking at something that is Mesopotamian or from the Levant. It originated in the south. So if this civilization originated in the south amongst those dark skinned people and then moved north, what does it matter if there were light brown or even white skinned people living in the country and neighboring regions? It does not change the fact that this civilization was African in every way. And as for those "White people" you speak of. If their DNA is native to Africa, if their limb ratios are consistent with other Africans and their languages and cultures have more in common with other Africans, how "white" are they really? The problem is that to understand Keita you have to listen to him very carefully. He's not saying anything new at all. What he is saying is that the Eurocentric notions of race are meaningless in the context of the African reality. The fact is that regardless of their external appearances, North Africans, no matter how fair skinned they may be, belong to the same genetic family as people who look completely opposite to them. Therefore, if these people belong to the same family how can you say they belong to different races? External appearances do not give an accurate reflection of which groups of people are related to whom. Honestly, we shouldn't need all this scientific gobbledigook to tell us this fact. All we have to do is look in our own families for god's sake. My skin color, hair type facial structure is radically different from my brother. Does this mean we belong to different races? How could that be? I have so many close relatives who look like northern Moroccan Amazigh and yet they have children and parents who often times appear sterotypically African. So how could we be different races? Yet if anthropologists with the race theory mindset dug us all up one day, they would place us all into different groups based on our craniofacial features. But the reality is that dispite our radical differences we are one family group. Yes Egyptian civilization was founded by dark skinned native peoples from the south, that is an indisputable fact. But it is also a fact that there were lighter skinned people in Egypt, as can be attested to by mummies like "ginger" and guess what? They are just as African as anyone from Aswan or Chad. There is not one way to look African or be African. Not even mixture can change this. The fact is that Berber genetics, language, culture, their music and dance root them firmly in Africa, not Asia and not Europe. As for basing what an entire population looked like based on what amounts to cartoons. Come on. What we see on the tombs represents their ideal, just as blonds represent the ideal in American culture. Or do you believe that there were no old or over weight people in Egypt? Every single person was dark and lovely, in perfect physical shape and eternally young? The failure of many of us to overcome the discomfort of fairskinned people in Africa as being Africans represents our own insecurities and a Eurocentric mind set that dark skinned and light skinned people are separate and distinct and could never be related. Well the reality of Egypt, North Africa and Africa as a whole says that this mind set is a lie. Races exist. There is no way to get around this reality. There is too much research illustrating that there were no 'whites, in ancient Egypt. As a result for Keita to make the claim that continuity exist between the ancient Egyptian and modern Egyptian populations he is perpetuating a falsehood Diop proved years ago was untrue. Eurocentrists have long held that Egypt was built by 'whites' and the Berbers proved these 'white' Africans always existed in Africa. Diop proved that this was false. Keita's work is being used to reinvigorate long held Eurocentric myths about ancient Egypt. Also, what are the cultural features which unite ancient Egyptians and Sub-Saharan Africans? .
|
|
|
Post by beyoku on Jul 16, 2012 9:20:09 GMT -5
Where exactly do you get this impression? Lets concentrate on what he says: The basic overall genetic profile of the modern population is consistent with the diversity of ancient populations that would have been indigenous to northeastern Africa. In Egypt you have a mixture of nearly Every lineage that is found in Africa except those exclusive to hunter gatherers. You also have the existence of Non-African lineages, both ancient to the region as well as more recent. Keita says nothing of the FREQUENCY, simply the diversity of the ancient population is still today found in the modern people. He also says something similar in reference to skin tone. THE DIVERSITY that you find in the country now is similar to what you would find in the past. Sure the distribution may have been different, but the diversity was there. This is the problem there were no whites in ancient Egypt. The art of ancient Egypt shows that Egyptians varied from a rich brown to red complexion. The first whites are depicted in Egyptian art after the Peoples of the Sea were defeated and deposited in the Delta. Diop in The African Origin of Civilization (pp.52-70) highligthed the fact that Eurocentrics were claiming the Berbers were indigenous to North Africa , to make it appear they influnced the rise of ancient Egypt. By Keita claiming white Berbers are ancient North Africans he is confirming the Eurocentric myth of Egypt, that Egypt has always been a multiracial society. By Keita claiming that the Berbers are native to Africa, when we don't see the 'white' Arab or European type in Egypt until the invasion of the Peoples of the Sea in 1200 BC--these whites were supplemented by 80,000 Germans when the Vandals invaded North Africa-- how can a scholar claim 'white Berbers' are native to Africa, when it is not supported by the craniometrics. The craniometrics show that these ancient people were Negroes--not whites. . You seem to be missing the big picture. First I will state that Berbers ARE indigenous to Africa. There was no group called "Berbers" speaking the language that modern Berbers speak and having the Culture that Modern Berbers have that Entered an Empty Maghreb from someplace out of the Continent. Regardless of whether you believe Afroasiatic exists or not, their language is still African and did not come from any place else. Also their language seems to correspond with the distribution of E-M35 subclades that peak in the Maghreb at 100% in some ethnic groups. Regardless of how much in migration they may have absorbed they are still who they are. Saying Berbers are not indigenous to Africa is like saying Amerindians are not indegenous to the Americans because they have absorbed Europeans and Africans. They are indigenous regardless of whatever phenotypical changes have taken place. Moving on to Egypt . How can you say their were "No whites in Egypt" and then say they were there in 1200BC? If they were not there then they were not there. If they have a late entrance into Egypt then that is a totally separate argument. You are speaking in absolutes like you have a crystal ball. Also in Diops book he talks about Admixture early on in Egyptian civilization. There is also documented cases of Asiatics via marriage. Also Asiatics being raised in Egypt to go back to their home land to be "Egyptianized" naive administrators.
|
|
|
Post by truthteacher2007 on Jul 16, 2012 9:38:10 GMT -5
Physical diversity does exist. But race, as defined by humans belonging to separate and distinct species. Science shows that this does not exist. All humans on this planet are members of the same species, however, we have evolved different physical characteristics depending on adaptations to the environments our ancestors lived in. The genetic profile of modern Egyptians shows that they originated on the continent. The belong to the E group which is the group that most Africans belong to. Further more, many Egyptians belong to a sub group of E that is specific to Egypt itself and is found in very low frequencies outside of the region, so how could they be foreigners? As for the statement on diversity. If you go to the Museum in Cairo and you look at the statuary from the Old Kingdom, you will see that there was quite a bit of diversity already there. Skin tones ranged from light brown to dark brown, hair form from kinky to straight, noses from narrow and high, to flat and low, lips from thin to full. YOu will see in the Old kingdom faces that are consistent with the faces you still see on the street. So although there has been migration into the country, it was not enough to create a uniformity and irradicate the diversity that was always there. Lets not forget the fact also that when we speak of Ancient Egypt, we are not speaking about something that was static and isolated. We are talking about a 3,000 year period of history. Within those 3,000 years all different types of people found their way into Egypt for one reason or another. Therefore, at any give point in ints history after the formation of the unified state, it would not have been odd to see people of non Egyptian origins walking its streets. People who came there as slaves and servants, traders, dilpomats what have you. And of course some of these people would have settled amongs the native and adopted the culture and way of life, as is reflected in the Bible by the story of Joseph. All these things happened. So rather than basing your ideas on what Egypt was strictly on cartoons, the context of which you don't know because you can't read the language, broaden you min d to understand the complexity of the society. The problem is that to understand Keita you have to listen to him very carefully. He's not saying anything new at all. What he is saying is that the Eurocentric notions of race are meaningless in the context of the African reality. The fact is that regardless of their external appearances, North Africans, no matter how fair skinned they may be, belong to the same genetic family as people who look completely opposite to them. Therefore, if these people belong to the same family how can you say they belong to different races? External appearances do not give an accurate reflection of which groups of people are related to whom. Honestly, we shouldn't need all this scientific gobbledigook to tell us this fact. All we have to do is look in our own families for god's sake. My skin color, hair type facial structure is radically different from my brother. Does this mean we belong to different races? How could that be? I have so many close relatives who look like northern Moroccan Amazigh and yet they have children and parents who often times appear sterotypically African. So how could we be different races? Yet if anthropologists with the race theory mindset dug us all up one day, they would place us all into different groups based on our craniofacial features. But the reality is that dispite our radical differences we are one family group. Yes Egyptian civilization was founded by dark skinned native peoples from the south, that is an indisputable fact. But it is also a fact that there were lighter skinned people in Egypt, as can be attested to by mummies like "ginger" and guess what? They are just as African as anyone from Aswan or Chad. There is not one way to look African or be African. Not even mixture can change this. The fact is that Berber genetics, language, culture, their music and dance root them firmly in Africa, not Asia and not Europe. As for basing what an entire population looked like based on what amounts to cartoons. Come on. What we see on the tombs represents their ideal, just as blonds represent the ideal in American culture. Or do you believe that there were no old or over weight people in Egypt? Every single person was dark and lovely, in perfect physical shape and eternally young? The failure of many of us to overcome the discomfort of fairskinned people in Africa as being Africans represents our own insecurities and a Eurocentric mind set that dark skinned and light skinned people are separate and distinct and could never be related. Well the reality of Egypt, North Africa and Africa as a whole says that this mind set is a lie. Races exist. There is no way to get around this reality. There is too much research illustrating that there were no 'whites, in ancient Egypt. As a result for Keita to make the claim that continuity exist between the ancient Egyptian and modern Egyptian populations he is perpetuating a falsehood Diop proved years ago was untrue. Eurocentrists have long held that Egypt was built by 'whites' and the Berbers proved these 'white' Africans always existed in Africa. Diop proved that this was false. Keita's work is being used to reinvigorate long held Eurocentric myths about ancient Egypt. Also, what are the cultural features which unite ancient Egyptians and Sub-Saharan Africans? .
|
|
|
Post by clydewin98 on Jul 17, 2012 14:28:05 GMT -5
[quote author=beyoku board=egyto thread=1273 post=6611 time=1342448409You seem to be missing the big picture.
First I will state that Berbers ARE indigenous to Africa. There was no group called "Berbers" speaking the language that modern Berbers speak and having the Culture that Modern Berbers have that Entered an Empty Maghreb from someplace out of the Continent. Regardless of whether you believe Afroasiatic exists or not, their language is still African and did not come from any place else. Also their language seems to correspond with the distribution of E-M35 subclades that peak in the Maghreb at 100% in some ethnic groups. Regardless of how much in migration they may have absorbed they are still who they are. Saying Berbers are not indigenous to Africa is like saying Amerindians are not indegenous to the Americans because they have absorbed Europeans and Africans. They are indigenous regardless of whatever phenotypical changes have taken place.
Moving on to Egypt. How can you say their were "No whites in Egypt" and then say they were there in 1200BC? If they were not there then they were not there. If they have a late entrance into Egypt then that is a totally separate argument. You are speaking in absolutes like you have a crystal ball. Also in Diops book he talks about Admixture early on in Egyptian civilization. There is also documented cases of Asiatics via marriage. Also Asiatics being raised in Egypt to go back to their home land to be "Egyptianized" naive administrators.[/quote]
I said the first whites entered Egypt 1200 BC.
The Vandal Origin of the Berbers Cheikh Anta Diop makes it clear that the Berbers are not related to Palaeo-Africans. In Libya Antiqua, Diop explains how the original Libu and Tehenu were blacks; and that the Berbers are descended from the Peoples of the Sea who arrived in the area around 1200 BC and fought Ramses III.
He makes it clear that the majority of the Berbers are descended from the Peoples of the Sea See:Diop, C A , "Formation of the Berber Branch", In Libya Antiqua,(ed) by UNESCO ,(Paris:UNESCO 1986) page 69 and C.A. Diop Civilization or Barbarism (Lawrence Hill Com.1991, p.34).
The Berber languages support a European origin for this group. When I talk about the Berbers I am not talking about the Tuareg, I am talking about the light skinned European looking Berbers.
The Berber language is related to Germanic languages. And the Germanic languages are native to Germany.
The Vandal rule of North Africa, explains the Germanic substratum influence in Berber. This linguistic connection results from the German rule in North Africa for 400 years. The Vandal rule in North Africa explains the origin of the white speakers of this "language" family.
The Berber languages as pointed out by numerous authors is full of vocabulary from other languages. Many Berbers may be descendants of the Vandels (Germanic) speaking people who ruled North Africa and Spain for 400 years. Commenting on this reality Diop in The African Origin of Civilization noted that[B: “Careful search reveals that German feminine nouns end in t and st. Should we consider that Berbers were influenced by Germans or the reVerse? This hypothesis could not be rejected a priori, for German tribes in the fifth century overran North Africa vi Spain, and established an empire that they ruled for 400 years….Furthermore, the plural of 50 percent of Berber nouns is formed by adding en, as is the case with feminine nouns in German, while 40 percent form their plural in a, like neuter nouns in Latin.Since we know the Vandals conquered the country from the Romans, why should we not be more inclined to seek explanations for the Berbers in the direction, both linguistically and in physical appearance: blond hair, blue eyes, etc? But no! Disregarding all these facts, historians decree that there was no Vandal influence and that it would be impossible to attribute anything in Barbary to their occupation” (p.69).
The influence of European languages on the Berber languages and the grammar of the Berber languages indicate that the Berbers are probably of European, especially Vandal origin.
The experts say that the Berber languages (I am not including Tuareg) has elements from numerous European languages I have never seen any discussion of Berber relations to East African languages, Berber languages are related to the Semitic group due to the Arabic speakers that surround them.
|
|
|
Post by clydewin98 on Jul 17, 2012 14:33:06 GMT -5
Physical diversity does exist. But race, as defined by humans belonging to separate and distinct species. Science shows that this does not exist. All humans on this planet are members of the same species, however, we have evolved different physical characteristics depending on adaptations to the environments our ancestors lived in. The genetic profile of modern Egyptians shows that they originated on the continent. The belong to the E group which is the group that most Africans belong to. Further more, many Egyptians belong to a sub group of E that is specific to Egypt itself and is found in very low frequencies outside of the region, so how could they be foreigners? As for the statement on diversity. If you go to the Museum in Cairo and you look at the statuary from the Old Kingdom, you will see that there was quite a bit of diversity already there. Skin tones ranged from light brown to dark brown, hair form from kinky to straight, noses from narrow and high, to flat and low, lips from thin to full. YOu will see in the Old kingdom faces that are consistent with the faces you still see on the street. So although there has been migration into the country, it was not enough to create a uniformity and irradicate the diversity that was always there. Lets not forget the fact also that when we speak of Ancient Egypt, we are not speaking about something that was static and isolated. We are talking about a 3,000 year period of history. Within those 3,000 years all different types of people found their way into Egypt for one reason or another. Therefore, at any give point in ints history after the formation of the unified state, it would not have been odd to see people of non Egyptian origins walking its streets. People who came there as slaves and servants, traders, dilpomats what have you. And of course some of these people would have settled amongs the native and adopted the culture and way of life, as is reflected in the Bible by the story of Joseph. All these things happened. So rather than basing your ideas on what Egypt was strictly on cartoons, the context of which you don't know because you can't read the language, broaden you min d to understand the complexity of the society. Races exist. There is no way to get around this reality. There is too much research illustrating that there were no 'whites, in ancient Egypt. As a result for Keita to make the claim that continuity exist between the ancient Egyptian and modern Egyptian populations he is perpetuating a falsehood Diop proved years ago was untrue. Eurocentrists have long held that Egypt was built by 'whites' and the Berbers proved these 'white' Africans always existed in Africa. Diop proved that this was false. Keita's work is being used to reinvigorate long held Eurocentric myths about ancient Egypt. Also, what are the cultural features which unite ancient Egyptians and Sub-Saharan Africans? . If whites were so common in ancient Egypt why don't we see them depicted in Egyptian art before 1200 BC? .
|
|
|
Post by clydewin98 on Jul 17, 2012 15:16:36 GMT -5
Physical diversity does exist. But race, as defined by humans belonging to separate and distinct species. Science shows that this does not exist. All humans on this planet are members of the same species, however, we have evolved different physical characteristics depending on adaptations to the environments our ancestors lived in. The genetic profile of modern Egyptians shows that they originated on the continent. The belong to the E group which is the group that most Africans belong to. Further more, many Egyptians belong to a sub group of E that is specific to Egypt itself and is found in very low frequencies outside of the region, so how could they be foreigners? As for the statement on diversity. If you go to the Museum in Cairo and you look at the statuary from the Old Kingdom, you will see that there was quite a bit of diversity already there. Skin tones ranged from light brown to dark brown, hair form from kinky to straight, noses from narrow and high, to flat and low, lips from thin to full. YOu will see in the Old kingdom faces that are consistent with the faces you still see on the street. So although there has been migration into the country, it was not enough to create a uniformity and irradicate the diversity that was always there. Lets not forget the fact also that when we speak of Ancient Egypt, we are not speaking about something that was static and isolated. We are talking about a 3,000 year period of history. Within those 3,000 years all different types of people found their way into Egypt for one reason or another. Therefore, at any give point in ints history after the formation of the unified state, it would not have been odd to see people of non Egyptian origins walking its streets. People who came there as slaves and servants, traders, dilpomats what have you. And of course some of these people would have settled amongs the native and adopted the culture and way of life, as is reflected in the Bible by the story of Joseph. All these things happened. So rather than basing your ideas on what Egypt was strictly on cartoons, the context of which you don't know because you can't read the language, broaden you min d to understand the complexity of the society. I am basing my conclusion on Egyptian iconography not 'cartoons'. This iconography does not present any examples of Europeans in ancient Egypt. The only discussion of ancient Egyptian DNA was by DNA Tribes. This information relating to king Tut is noteworty. It shows that Egypt was a multiethnic societies made up of many different African groups. .
|
|
|
Post by clydewin98 on Jul 17, 2012 16:55:55 GMT -5
There is no difference between Keita's theory of continuity between ancient and modern Egyptian populations than that of Frank Yurco.
Here is the key Yurco statement:
"...a homogeneous African population had lived in the Nile Valley from ancient to modern times"
Here is the key Keita statement:
The basic overall genetic profile of the modern population is consistent with the diversity of ancient populations
The statement of Keita is just about the same as Yurco's.
.
Keita supports the Eurocentric view that the same population in North Africa today has characterized North Africa since pre-Egyptian times; and that Egypt was a multiracial society that contained 'white' people. This is why many trolls claim posters who support Keita can't read.
.
|
|