Ancient and Archaeology permalink
Black Athena
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Â
Posted by Grumpyshakazulu (U6590497) on Tuesday, 14th November 2006
In searching for information regarding my earlier enquiry regarding Scotland and the Armarda I came across this term for the 1st time (Black Athena).
I can't believe so much as been debated on this subject where have I been living???
Very interesting facts and myths mixed together to completely re-write the history books of the western world.
I believe people should look at the debate and decide for themselves.
I for one like the debate that as emanated thus far but cannot commit either way yet as no one as provided conclusive evidence yet to warrant my full support.
I would really like to generate some decent discussion and argument on this topic. Bring it on.
PS Use any search engine with the term Black Athena. -
Message 2
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Tuesday, 14th November 2006
I have no problem at others tryng to view history under a different light, afterall history is nothing else than a specific perspective of seeing the events that we know that happened and people that we know that existed (cos there are others we ignore even for quite recent times).
However, the issue on black Athena is quite well known how it started (and it did not even start by black people but by white people as-if to culturally aid the black people - but this act in itself hiding a deeper racism of a worse kind... that for those who get the point!). Hence, instead of those black people who care searching the real past of subsaharan Africa (cos relating Egypt to subsaharan Africa is like relating Korea to Bretagne!...yes they both belong to the same strip of land and also look to the ocean isn't it? Oh yes, people of white colour live on them. Then it is easy to prove that Korean civilisation is nothing else but pure Celtic!).
The issue of black Athena was also overblown by writers that found a trick to sell a bit more (everybody writes on history but not everybody sells much). Hence we ended up hearing in US universities that Plato stole the knowledge of the library of Alexandria (that was built a century after his death.... well that is a minor detail!) or that Cleopatra was a black girl (she was direct descendant of Ptolemey one of Alexander's generals, a pure Macedonian so that means Macedonians were black and since Macedonians were Greek and participated in the Olympics (only Greek people could participate) that means that the race of Greeks were black like night. Am I wrong?
Ok! Can we talk now about aliens please? -
Message 3
Posted by Grumpyshakazulu (U6590497) on Tuesday, 14th November 2006
I thought DNA proved everybody came out of Africa so I don't understand the pure celtic stuff.
If this is the type of discussion it's going to provoke I am sorry I bothered. -
Message 4
Posted by ElistanOnVacation (U3933150) on Wednesday, 15th November 2006
Grumpy,
I would have to criticise Nik's overly simplistic castigation of the 'Black Athena' model. It was not intended, as best I understand it, to represent a specific sub-Saharan influence on Greek society, but rather to posit the idea that Egyptian culture had a substantive role in the birth of Greek civilisation, and it was not just the cause of Indo-European migrations coming from the north. The debate as to the racial origins of the Egyptians is not one I wish to get into here, as I believe it was covered ad nauseum previously. My own opinion, having visited Egypt and seen X amounts of artefacts and images, is that whilst Nubian culture to the south was unequivocally black within the views of the ancient Egyptians, this does not seem to have posited any difficulties of advancement for individuals of such ethnic origins within the Egyptian model. Upper Nile region, naturally, had more of a fusion of African and Mediterranean, which in turn was blended with the Lower Nile, and its semetic influences from the near East. The flow and movement of peoples and ideas would not completely rubbish the idea that elements of fusion culture, such as Egypt, were incorporated within the framework of ancient Greek society.
anthropologically speaking there is an interesting parallel within the Greek mindset of their own relationship with Egypt. Herodutus uses Egypt as a paradigmatic model of the exact opposite of Greek culture and religion. If one was to draw a line through the centre of the Med and folded the world in have, Egypt would become the mirror of Greece, and that is how it was represented. That said, it is hard to imagine a mirror image that does not share roots in common, else wise they would be perfectly unique and independent. The fact Herodutus can see the opposite of his own society and culture to such an exactitude does pose questions that the Black Athena debate seeks to address.
What was the influence of the Minoan and Mycenaean civilisations on the subsequent Greek world, and where had their influences originated? These are pertinent questions, and should not be cast aside on the altar of racial ambiguity, as Nik appears to be trying to. The term 'Black' in this context is emotive to some degree, and have drawn the criticism, for better or worse, of 'positive racism'. However, the over emphasis of the role of the northern migrators into a region already occupied by the remnants of a previous civilisation who would look south for their heritage is equally biased and racially selective. As in all things, the truth lies somewhere in the middle. Those arriving into the Mycenaean world built on what they founded and incorporated within their own cultural paradigm to create the Greek civilisation as we study it. But there was a connection, and a debt of heritage is owed from Greece to Egypt, and Herodutus admitted as much in his work.
Elistan -
Message 5
Posted by lolbeeble (U1662865) on Wednesday, 15th November 2006
It is true that Bernal's main objective in Black Athena is to challenge commentaries on Herodotus developed in Northern Europe during the nineteenth century once the idea of an Indo European language family had been identified. This can be seen in the first book's subtitle "The Afroasiatic roots of Classical Civilisation", referring as much to the groups of languages spoken in the Nile Valley and the Levant as well as the Ethiopian highlands. Greek society, regarded as the fountainhead of Western culture, had been depicted as a purely Indo European development. Bernal's work was as much influenced by the rebuttal of ideas around the location of the Celts that saw them moved further north and west and acquire volkish associations in that they were regarded as the ancestral population of Northern and Western Europeans from the nineteenth century what with the identifcation of the Hallstaat and La Tene material cultures. This had been through re-examining the texts that inspired the name in the first place. Mind his argument that the modern reading of ancient cultures has been deliberatly anti-semitic may have some basis in reality but as it stands the Greeks were not too averse to anti Semitism given the story Odysseus concocts on the shore of Ithica when he is trying to deceive Athena.
As it stands Bernal's second volume highlighted the religious developments in Minoan society and he seems reliant on specific passages of Herodotus, notably his comments that all Religious rituals stemmed from Egypt demonstrated by his assertion about the Black birds that were reputed to have been involved in the foundation of the shrine to Zeus at Dodona as well as the colonising activity of the Pharoah Sesostris. It would seem that although elements of Egyptian culture are taken as being the exact opposite of Greek customs, notably his comments on the direction and meaning of Egytpian writing as well as not having to rely on rainfall to water their crops, he still believed in cultural diffusion from a central source as opposed to divine intervention in human development after the foundation of Egypt. Note his assertion that Egypt had nearly three hundred and fifty generations since its foundation whereas the Ionian Greeks could trace their ancestry back at most sixteen before hitting a deity. One might therefore argue that it is Herodotus who created the idea that the Greeks could trace their rituals back to Egypt as opposed to being something the Greeks had always felt as he is the first to create an overarching history. There seems little doubt that he was responsible for giving the Pharoah Sesostris credit for spreading civilisation across the Eastern Mediterranean through colonising activity in the wake of conquest that he assumed reached as far as Cholcis, around modern Aremenia, as well the Greek peninsular. Even his reference to the priest of Heliopolis suggest that he was as much feeding them his theories about Greek origins as they only seem to imply that if true then it would most likely have been Sesostris. One other notable spin off from this view is the assertion about the Egyptian Priests and their discussions with Solon mentioned by Plato.
Bernal ressurects the idea of such a conquest leading to the establishment of urbanised communities across the Eastern Mediteranean during the second millennium BC and moreover seeks to suggest that the Greeks of the Classical world were aware of this but modern scholars have chosen to ignore what they said as it did not fit their racial views. Certainly Crete was recognised as an old society with great influence on mainland Greek culture, take into consideration the links identified between the Rhetra attributed to Lycourgus and Cretan law systems and indeed modern archaeology has shown the close interation between the island and the societies of the Levant and Nile valley up to the collapse at the end of the second millennium BC. This hardly suggests that the ancient authors were similarly aware of this time period however. There is certainly a tradition of placing the Rhetra in the tenth century BC as opposed to sometime after Tyrtaios was writing in the seventh century BC, suggesting the general ignorance of the historical timescale of the development of Eastern Meditreranean chronology. This view is re-enforced by Hecateus' claim to only be able to trace lineages back sixteen generations before coming upon a divine ancestor that prompted Herodotus' remarks in the first place. Even Ö÷²¥´óÐãr seems to display very little in the way of continuity from the Bronze Age into the archaic peiod in Greece other than the fact the Heroes were equiped with bronze weapons and armour. Ancient sources do not seem to have picked up the similarity bewteen the Cypriot Sylabary and Linear B as they were unaware of the latter for that matter. All of which would suggest that although Greek sources may have harked back to a more heroic age they did not have much idea about what happened. You'd think someone would have commented if Bull leaping had survived on Crete into the Classical period but as it stands the best we have is the myth of the Minotaur and it strikes me that such identfication of a link between this and the reverence of cattle in the Nile valley is a little tenuous.
Mind you Bernal's attempts to suggest Levantine influence over Greek culture might be slightly less contentiouis if he accepted that Hesiod was a late eighth century poet and broadly contemporary with the likes of Amos, in style as well as date wise, as opposed being from the tenth century BC. Even that the Phoenician alphabet is first attested in Greece from the eighth as opposed to the eitheenth century BC. Certainly the latter was something the Greeks assumed they had been heavily influenced by Phoenician practices since Herodotus, attributing its spread to colonisation from the Levant. Mind you such contact with the Phoenicians also turns up as part of the reason why Europe and Asia supposedly cannot get on as the Levantines get the blame for starting the wave of female kidnappings that would give the continent of Europe its name and lead to the Trojan war. -
Message 6
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Sunday, 19th November 2006
First lets clarify something. "Black Athena" today refers to all those writers that want to relate the ancient Egyptians to subsaharan (mainly western since fro there come the vast majority of half-caste people of USA) tribes. Ok? AS simple as that.
1) I (and not only I) but every self-respecting lover of history knows that the Egyptian civilisation had practically nothing to do with the tribes of western Africa that were living 1000s of kilometers in the east and south having possibly only occasional contact with the north (few of them) and presenting a vastly different style of culture.
2) Egypt had been a multinational and multi-racial kingdom right form the beginning as everybody wanted to set his foot on the rich terrain around the Nile. In the north you had more of a Mediterraneano-Semitic example in the south you had more of a Ethiopean-Semitic. Ethiopians have a very dark colour of skin but in no sense are related to the western african tribes. In fact they present ancient links with South Arabic pensinsula reaching to the ancient dravidian tribes of India. This link is even depicted in Greek myths (Ethiopians living in east and west).
3) One cannot say that Egyptians were "black" based on Ethiopians or "white" based on Mediterranean-Semitic as in different times and depending on leadership Egypt had a different 'taste'. The best example of how were resembling the southern Egyptians (that were different to northern ones of course) are the modern Kopts and the modern Kopts are a people of their own.
4) The term Africa is a greek term for the whole continent and in no sense relates Egyptians to Bushmen in south Africa as the greek term of Asia in no sense relates the cultures of Korea and Palestine or Kazakhstan. As clear as that.
5) The fact that the first greek cultures were heavily influenced from Egypt is no secret (Egypt was the place to be in those times) and was never questioned by anybody... that is in no sense a reason for talking such nonsense as "black athena " just to create impressions. Afterall the heavily marine culture of Greek kingdoms/states took no example from the Egyptian culture that apart 1-2 examples had no contact with the open sea. Strangely, also the people from Palestine (Phoenicians) only belatedly remembered to take it to the sea (at a time they started writing linearly rather than in cuneiform). Please try and make some disntinction of cultural characteristics.
6) You should just try to keep such theories having such titles in the margin... these are just to create impressions. If they have any good idea or perspective keep it (like for example ephasising on the Egyptian culture and the influence on Greece) but then raising such nonsense above the level it should is a mistake -
Message 7
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Sunday, 19th November 2006
Commenting on lolbeeble's interesting insight, I have to start of course be mereley saying that the mere title of "black Athena" accompagnied by descriptions such as "african" and "asiatic" reveals the low levels of Bernal's work and why anyone self-respected researcher should use it only as a yellow paper. If it has any good perspectives in it, use them but I think there must be 100s of other works of writers on this issue but these ones cared more for writing history than selling books and entitled their works as "Egyptian influence on greek cultures" or "phoenician influence on greek cultures".
It is true that ancient Greek cultures presented a short memory (and that is a standard feature of later greek cultures up to today accompagnied with their eternal divisions and frictions). But then that did not hinder their myths going back to three cataclysms (and not just one) back to pre-10,000 years. Perhaps Egyptian influence as the myth of Solon shows but then the myth of Solon gives a prevalence to Greeks and not Egyptians (as if saying that "some Egyptians" came from "Greeks" and not "Greeks" from "Egyptians") but then one may say that this twist was given by the Solon or the Athenians themselves to make them feel more important, as it is difficult to imagine cities named Athens existing in pre-cataclysmic times. S.E. Europe however is habitated as many millenia as Egypt going back to the times when supposedly (most probably according to well-established theories) humans came out of Africa and we talk about 100,000 thus no Greece no Egypt either!!!!
I am aware of Sesostris' campaigns around the Mediterranean and the myths of the foundation of Dodone (the most ancient oracle in Greece situated in Epirus) and it could be more pharaos than him. But then all these say nothing. The basis of te later cultures in the area, i.e. the Minoan-cycladic (which is virtually one and not two... and spreading in the mainland too as Minoans and Myceneans had in fact fewer cultural differences than Ionians and Dorians) presents many influences from Egypt but basically has a vastly different taste. Similarities arise from the fact that Minoans had been the main stakeholders of shipping of Egypt but then as a culture they were quite distinct and could be only recognised as a Mediterranean one.
Phoenicians on the other hand were by no means your typical Middle Eastern society. Middle Easterners including Phoenician neighbours of the city of Ugarit where writing for millenia in cuneiform and were never interested in seafaring. Minoans and Myceneans were writting in more linear forms and were always sea people. Phoenicians took it to the sea (and piracy as lolbeeble described above, well primarily commerce of course!) only after Minoan people had been well-established in the region ... i.e. the Palestinians, known in ancient testament some half a millenia later as Philistines (or directly as Cretans, later Greeks appear in their position for "uknown reasons"). These are not hints that we should exclude! Or are they accidental twists history?
There are indeed texts in various proto-sinaitic alphabets of the 17th century B.C. (note: at a time that Cretans had already colonised in the region) but that says little to me when discussing about times when writting was more of a code than an alphabet and when successive states would use these 'codes' each in his own way even within the boundaries of the same culture (e.g. the various linear alphabets in greek cultures - that continued also later with the various greek alphabets - Cypriot Greeks contintued into hellenistic times with the Linear C). On the other hand the explanation of the alphabet using semitic words is as much valid as the explanation using greek words. If Alpha means ox then why it cannot mean al-phaos (sunlight in very ancient greek?). Sorry, maybe because I am Greek/European I find much more interesting the latter as I find much more intereting the Gamma letter having to do with the word corner (greek) rather than with the semitic word for throwstick... ai ai ai (still cannot ponder on the importance of throwstick in human civilisation!!!). In fact many of the so called phoenician and protosinaitic letters were already found in alphabets ciruclating in the eastern Mediterranean before them. Hence the tree of development that many modern scholars present is simply artificial, they have chosen one beginning based on certain information but that is quite arbitrary as in that time 10s if not 100s of codes (alphabets) circulated the place and one cannot say 'it started from there or from here'.
Far from anti-semitism what I see is that for many every hint that implies a Semitic origin (to be related to Jewish by christians of course, especially those ridiculous in the US) is valid and will jump on it while every hint that shows Greek will not do for them and will wait until ....Vendris and Chadwick translates Linear B to learn that Myceaneans were a Greek culture... imagine that till then many supposed Myceneans were Egyptian or Middle Easterners just because they had kings and not democratic politicians... unimaginable!!!! Sorry but too much christianism in history makes the sauce sour for me. -
Message 8
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Sunday, 19th November 2006
And I have ti clarify: all the aforementioned are far from an attempt to paint it all Greek. But then please sit down and think logically: where could more possibly the first Mediterranean major shipping force arise? From Palestine with its plain vertical coast and one big island opposite it? From Egypt with its river? From Spain with 1-2 islands opposite it? From Italy with one island reached even by swimmers? Or from Greece with its 3000 islands? Eeeeeeee sorry it cannot be more obvious than that!
-
Message 9
Posted by ElistanOnVacation (U3933150) on Sunday, 19th November 2006
No is questioning who had the ships...but what did they bring home with them, culturally speaking?
-
Message 10
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Sunday, 19th November 2006
Yes they brought a lot, really a lot no doubt about that, that is my point of view also! But I do not see a reason why we need slogans of the style "black athena". It makes discussion so tacky.
-
Message 11
Posted by ElistanOnVacation (U3933150) on Monday, 20th November 2006
It doesn't have to be. In classical postmodernist critique it depends on what you bring to it. It could be thought-provokimg and insightful, if you chose to look at it that way.
-
Message 12
Posted by DeiWong (U4001668) on Sunday, 3rd December 2006
E_Nikolaos_E (U1777139) still at? You even refuse to believe the Kingdom of Kush is Black. Even thought everyone says so. The Ö÷²¥´óÐã even the Bible and the Quran. Even the Shpinx most are leaning to it being the face of a Black guy. But me and him talk about it in another thread. Known this he would rather die than believe Black people are somewhere other than where he thinks they should be.
-
Message 13
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Thursday, 7th December 2006
DeiWong? If according to your point of view Chinese people are white (and could possibly join the cause of "white power" like any other redneck) well then I am not surprised if you consider Kushites as black. I am Greek, am I white? Haha! No I am Mediterranean and my relation with the semi-mongolic (and whiter than me) Scandinavians or Baltics or the Siberians is not exactly clear isn't it? The world is not black and white please stop this idiocy! More than half people on the planet are either of either Mongolic influence or Indian - the rest are just the minority, keep this in mind.
If you want to know how the ancient Ethiopean tribes looked like (the ones that lived in south Egypt) please take the example of modern Kopts (why do you keep avoiding this fact? Because it does not fit with in your views? Of course! Your views are unclear and easily shaken!
If modern Kopts are black to be related to all the rest of Africa then Koreans can be proved to be pure Celtics! -
Message 14
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Thursday, 7th December 2006
Oh and do not make any effort of reminding me that modern Egyptians mixed with Arabs... no point... Kopts are christians and kept their tails out of the Aabic societies for centuries thus they are the best paradigm of how southern ancient Egyptians looked like. As siple as that! Aceept the facts or change discussion.
-
Message 15
Posted by DeiWong (U4001668) on Sunday, 17th December 2006
FOR THE VERY LAST TIME KOPTS AND KUSH ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. With part of that don't you understand? Kopts are white Kushites are black. You are the only person I know who say they are not BLACK. EVERYONE ON THE BOARD LOOK UP KINGDOM OF KUSH THEN LOOK UP KOPT YOU WILL SEE THEY HAVE NOTHING IN COMMON. THE KUSHITES ARE BLACK AFRICANS AND THE KOPTS ARE CAUCASIANS. ANY SEARCH ENGINE WILL PROVE THIS.
-
Message 16
Posted by Grumpyshakazulu (U6590497) on Tuesday, 19th December 2006
Hi guys
I can't believe this discussion is still taking place after several weeks but I am grateful for the input and feedback I have received through it.
All black people I know would say that Kushites are black and the place where the nubians came from in the bible.
Black people also feel that the pyramids and the sphinx were built by blacks and the sphinx is a depiction of blackman.
To be told something different at school is very disappointing whether this is due to a white conspiracy to keep us from the truth is unclear.
However would we know so much now, were it not for black scholers doing their research into ancient texts.
I also find it amazing and pleasing that ancient populations did not refer to colour when talking about another tribe that differed from them. This clearly indicates that it was modern society that constructed the notion of races and it is this that has caused the polarisation of euro/afro centric perspectives.
We should strive to show our kids that we are all the same just with different shades of colour and people from both camps need to learn to accept this.
I have to stress that it appears to be the euro people that seem to have problems accepting blacks were so skilled in ancient times.
Thanks again and keep up the good discussion board. -
Message 17
Posted by villamarce (U9034231) on Monday, 20th August 2007
i would suggest reading the work of Cheikh anta Diop, for links between the rest of Africa and Egypt. Your statement about the lack of a relationship between Eypt and africa is deeply inaccurate.one only has to consider the development of egypt in the context of Nubia to see this relationship.
Black Athena is a fairly discredited book and is by no means any kind of benchmark in African centred history,as it is too full of basic inaccuracies. That ,however does not mean that there was no relationship between so called black Africa and Egypt. How exactly would you account for the Sphinx or the Khufu and the other proven black pharaohs. -
Message 18
Posted by Elkstone (U3836042) on Tuesday, 21st August 2007
A great expert on Ethiopia and Egypt is an Ethiopian historian (also a falasha jew) Dr Josef Ben- Jochannan. He has written many books on the subject if you google him. Also Ivan Van Sertima, Dr John Henrik Clarke, Dr Charles Finch, Len Jeffries to name others
Another point regarding Egypt not being connected. That is a myth. The oldest pyramids and earlier designs the stepped pyramids are found in nubia, or present Ethiopia and Sudan. The more advanced flat triangular desins at Giza are in the north. This is because the Nile flows sout to north. Upper Egypt sudan/ethiopia or Nubia is in the south and Higher lands. Remember Ethiopian and east African runners benefit from high altiude.
The coastal mediteranean parts of Egypt is known as Lower Egypt in ancient times because it is at sea level and the Nile, like all rivers, flows downhill and empties in the med. Because of the Greek and Roman influence later in Europe, which is the 'ancestor' of modern 'Western civilisation', the lower part of Egypt, closer to Europe and the mediteranean was seen as being part of western or 'white' civilisation and not Africa.
This re writing took place during colonial times. Napolean famously shot off the Sphinx nose to hide its undoubtedly African or 'negroid' features. Napoleon was not alone. At that time, and centuries earlier I may add,so called historians and egyptologists systematically chopped off the lips and noses of statues to hide any black connections. If you look at undamaged statues of pharoahs, such as Tutmosis and compare it with a Nigerian, they look similar.
West African tribes have a history that they migrated from the east - Egypt. Some Wolof and hausa words have similar root origins as coptic or Ancient Egyptian words. The great ancient West African civilisations of Ghana, Mali and Songhai, did not emerge out of nothing in West Africa. They did not being on the coast but began far away in the east. Migrations from Egypt and Ehtiopia
Arabs were just as bad as later European historians. They conquered northern africa following the spread of Islam and used the continent as a source for slaves. -
Message 19
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Tuesday, 21st August 2007
I am not sure about the story of Napoleon... I think the nose fell of corosion and to be honest a european-like nose (bigger in length but smaller base) would fall more easily than a west-african (smaller but with wider base)... hahaha! Ok, so that is what is all about? Linking Egypt to Nigerians? Linking Egypt to West-africans because it was them that sold their "lesser" tribes to the english, spanish, french, portuguese and it is from these poor "lesser" tribes that modern Afro-americans (that for good or for bad have actually half of their ancestry in Europe, something quite visible not a statement of impressions).
I am sorry but I will never buy such crap since honestly I do not care if some of the half-cast people in US (or some "white" hypocrits) feel bad about their origins. Myself prefer not to refer to black and white anyway, I considering it a sign of inferior culture.
Egypt is Egypt and Egyptians are Egyptians and sorry to tell you so but myself as a Greek I can be even genetically more close to northern ancient Egyptians than any western-african can be. As simple as that.
Yes there were dark-skinned people in Egypt mainly in the south. People linked with the ethiopian tribes that of course are as similar to Nigerians as are Chinese to French (both are whites isn't it?). Ethiopians are simply on the other end of the continent which is not very small you know. However, from what mummy reconstruction (I underline that: incognito reconstruction!) also shows, some of the pharaos had more south-mediterranean anthropologic characteristics than Ethiopian. Of course one might say that Egyptian pharaos were intermixed but then I will reply what about the large number of tribes travelling from middle east to north africa since countless millenia? Egypt was inherently a multinational place and there is not even proof that these "blacks" were the bulk of population. Perhaps in the very south of Egypt (borders with ancient Ethiopia) that could be true but in the north I doubt. Now if Nubians and Ethiopians used pyramids then so did prehistoric Greeks, Gauls, Olmecs, Chinese etc. So what?
If you want to see how ancient southern Egyptians looked like you should visit Egypt and especially the Coptic communities (that did not mix with the Arabs, and not so much with the Greeks as they did not adopt Greek that was largely fashion back then). I think you will find Coptic dark-skinned (naturally) but if you relate them to Nigerians they are not going to appreciate it that much... and they will have every right to do so since equally French will not appreciate them eqsuating them to Chinese.
PS: Why on earth do we talk on such an obvious issue for so long! -
Message 20
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Tuesday, 21st August 2007
Note: In scientific anthropology Ethiopian tribes are not related to Nigerian tribes and some relate them more closely to the Indian subcontinent with which they kept always in contact via the southern Arabic peninsula (who anyway look very much Indian like).
I am also very open to see facts supporting the "black egypt" theory but other than creating impressions there is nothing else. All that thanks to "black athena" written by a "white" who could otherwise not sell a book thus he chose to join ranks with other scientists like Eric Von Daineken (in fact I find Daineken more reasonable than this guy). -
Message 21
Posted by Elkstone (U3836042) on Tuesday, 21st August 2007
Yiu have already made up your mind on this matter thinking your opinions which is what they are, is of more validity than anyone else, so you dont want to waste your time reading books by historians who have studied this. Maybe you are accusing them of having some racial/cultura axe to grind which from reading your post is precisely what you are doing.
Cheik Anta Diop wrote 'the cultural unity of black africa' and 'pre colonial africa', which addresses the points you raised.
The oldest human civilisation was said to be Ethiopia, not surprisingly because the first humans evolved in that region around around the rift valley, which is in the highlands, upstream of the nile. The culure/history or peopling of Egypt did not start from the north, or mediteranean down to the south as I stated.
Arabs, europeans and 'lighter' skinned peoples all lived in egypt, but they arrived after the civilisation began and made contact with surrounding regions. The arabs, who are the dominant group today in Egypt, (I read that it was called Kemit in ancient times to do with land of burned skin), they have helped to re write history claiming Egypt is nothing to do with 'Africa' but is part of the 'middle east'. That is nonesense. There is no such place called the 'middle east' it is just a geographic term of a region.
They claim that Egyptians painted themselves reddish brown to denote they were 'arab' or 'middle eastern' in appearance so the present day inhabitants can easily claim them. When asked about statues and paintings showing Pharoahs painted in black skin and clearly African noses and lips (which as I mentioned many were chopped off for some reason). The response was that the statues and paintings were had 'black' skin was because they came from the earth and the earth was black, so was paying tribute to it. In Egypt the earth is reddish to light brown. They also claim the sterotypical african lips and noses, was not to do with african blood but, genetic deformities of ancient times, because royals kept inter marrying with relatives. The arguments they use seem to defy as much logic as what you are saying.
Arabs were relatively recent arrivals in Africa, as they came over in large numbers following the muslim conquests, when Islam ruled spain to the far east. Gadaffi who is Arab, distances himself with Arab nationalism and said himself Arabs were immigrants in Africa. In the same way, whites were immigrants in America
Another point about Ethiopia you made is agood one. Yes some have features that appear 'Indian'. Diop explained The culture between Ethiopia and the other side of the red sea is very similar. In ancient times wasnt that landed over? Also the sahara only expanded into a desert in relatively recent times, and did not 'divide' Egypt from the rest of Africa. this leads to another theory of what is the 'natural' or original borders of Africa, if the Red sea was bridged by land. It would appear that the Arabian peninsular was at one with the continent and peoples and cultures crossed.
I dont see your point about Ethiopians not being geneticall or scientifically related to west Africa. There are Ethiopians tribes in the south and in Sudan who have features near identical to West Africa, if you cared to look. The civil war in Dafur is between 'arabs' muslims in the north and Africans in the south who are either chhristian or for traditional religions. the irony is that the so called 'arabs' are just as black as the Africans in the south.
If you look at the 'Arab league' delegates from African countries such as Somalia for example all look like 'black Africans' not Arabs as we see in Saudi or Jordan etc. The only way you would know there are blacks in Arab countries like saudi is when you see their football team, they are jet black like a west african team. Could be a sign of social inequalities.
Under Islam slavery is allowed, and it continued way after the Christian west declared it illegal on moral and religious grounds. In Mecca they had slave markets during non religious months, and there slaves came from Africa. The Arabs only stamped it out after pressure from the west in the 60s. Social inequalities and discrimination by Arabs Is not surprising based on how they are keen to deny any connection between Ancient Egypt and black Africa -
Message 22
Posted by lolbeeble (U1662865) on Tuesday, 21st August 2007
Neither Naploleon or any other French soldiers did not shoot the face of the sphynx, either for fun or to hids the true racial characteristics of the face. That seems to have been a story circulated for tourists more than a century after the battle of the Nile.
Just as a matter of interest what sites in Sudan have yeilded pyramids that predate the early dynastic period of Egypt? I have only seen examples for the first millennium BC such as the cemetry of Meroe. -
Message 23
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Thursday, 23rd August 2007
Elk, people that read often my messages, know I am sometimes abrupt in my writing style but at the end they know I really love history, not just that of Greece or Europe but of all the world (just read my messages about American natives and their development and you understand). Comming from an already "overburdened" culture, the most well known on earth, and for which there is another equal unknown things to learn, trust me I have no particular needs to attract the Egyptian entity more close to what I represent, thus honestly I will
However, permit me to be sensitive on whatever has to do with historic accuracy. My very own culture has been in the last 50 years used by totally different culture (unless someone describes Slavs as Mediterranean people) for purely political reasons and I have noticed how certain academics (at least a marginal minority) are ready to sell their "science" to oil political machinations trying to disregard the blatant truth.
Also permit me to say that I myself often in the absence of full proof I often speculate but then I say so directly "this view of mine is a speculation" or "I have a strong feeling towards that direction".
Now in the case of Egyptians the truth is all before your eyes what do you want more? I told a 1000 times here. Please go see the Copts. Copts are more or less direct descendants of southern Egyptians. It is also natural to imagine that southern Egyptians were more close to Ethiopians and interacted back then as well as later with them that in comparison to northern ones that interacted more with a lot of Semitics and some Mediterraneans.
As for the "cultural unity" of Africa I am sorry but what is that "comet"? Any of the newest Gadafi's ideologies (those who are knowledgeable about the latest in Libya will understand the joke)?
I am sorry but between Bantus and San people there is as much or even more cultural and anthropological difference as between French and Japanese while Nigerians and Ethiopians have similarly the same amount of differences.
I am very well aware of the age of the Ethiopian culture and that it dates back to times immemorial. Certain of their sites found certainly predate Egypt. Well of course they would what is so strange on that? Or am I supposed to say "oooo see finally those "blacks" were not so regressive as we thought them to be". Mercy! I was never a "white" myself and I have never considered things in that way. Nigerians on the other hand had built one of the largest structures in the world (a huge wall which though simplistic it was encircling a really vast area that shows an extended ancient empire). Trust me, african cultures need not "culture loans in history books" to make them feel proud about them. All that really comes from the need of US citizens of partially African origins to have somethign "of their own" and that was stated by those "whites" that bent science to serve that purpose.
I am sorry but myself as a Greek (we had been a slave nation for some 400 years you know living under the same conditions) I do not need all that crap in my notion of history. It is not true, well if it is not true enf of story.
Now, I am really aware of several statues of Egyptians showing negroid characteristics (negroid here used in the anthropologic original meaning I am not any little american, please!). I should correct you here and add that these show actually Ethipian characteristics. What is so strange? These were neighbours, some times fell inside the boundaries of Egypt and most possibly tribes of them were the majority in south Egypt. We also know that for some time Ethiopians had conquered a large part in the north. Now, equal nnumber of statues, artistic depictions and mummies (that have scientifically studied in 'incognito') show semitic or south-Mediteerranean characteristics. One could propose whatever really, the truth is that a base for understanding the ancient Egyptians are the modern Copts. Anyone that disagrees with that may as well propose to us his views of "why not". It is not up to me to prove anything, it is up to the other side.
So how do you view the Copts? As black? -
Message 24
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Thursday, 23rd August 2007
I think this "cultural unity of Africa" is the most racist comment I have ever heard. It is like saying that a small corner of the earth produced so many different and rich cultures and then such a large continent like Africa produced basically one main thing. It is 100% absurd. It is well known to anthropologists, those who study mankind either in terms of biology or in terms of culture that Africa actually hosted the most diverse tribes both in terms of biology as well as in terms of culture - implying that a Norwegian is both culturally and anthropologically more close to a Spanish than a Senegalese to a San. No wonder about that. Senegalese and San had many more 10s of 1000s of years been living apart than 700 A.D. christian Iberian christians and Vickings. Take a map and see the huge distances involved also and what "easy landscape" lies in between and you will understand. Equally, note down that Egypt's contact with inner Africa was minimum to non-existent apart Ethiopia which they would reach both by Nile and the Red sea. Getting more inside of course would merely mean 9 out of 10 dead from malaria - biology speaks first! Trust just that!
-
Message 25
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Thursday, 23rd August 2007
Watch out also about modern tribes in the region of Ethiopia - they are not all old habitants. Arab movements throughout eastern and western Africa caused a lot of change that came primarily via the frequent slave caravans that walked from West coast to east coast. Thus finding "similar" (similar to someone that sees them superficialy of course) tribes in suoth Sudan/Ethiopia/east Chad is not necessarily proves anything more than finding these "similar" characteristics in Brazil or Venezuela.
-
Message 26
Posted by Elkstone (U3836042) on Friday, 24th August 2007
Re the above replies, its been some time since I read Diop's books. I am no expert and recalled from memory. If you read his books Im sure your your points are addressed
-
Message 27
Posted by pumbar (U1339624) on Sunday, 26th August 2007
Are people really still discussing this book? Blimey!
-
Message 28
Posted by Asimenia (U9508929) on Monday, 27th August 2007
Agypt and Greece (or at least Crete) had cultures very much the same, in terms of belief and way of understanding life. Nothing can be unique to one culture or country. Every human being has reasons to move form one place to the other and carry ideas for others to adapt. Everything we are right now is a result of things that happen in the past and no matter how patriotics we can be seen, we should not forget that somewhere in Africa we started calling ourselves humans because we started changing and needed another way of communication, that of a language. Now...Agyptians, as well as Greeks had the right education, nothing like the one of our century, only because we progress as a machine and not as a soul.
-
Message 29
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Monday, 27th August 2007
but that is not the point of the discussion. I think it all comes down to my basic point. It is sad but true, still people divide the world into black and white despite the fact that more than 2/3 of the world's population are related to Indo-dravidian and Chino-mongolian origins who are neither black or white. Yes poor education persists and trhives today especially in America where some people ("black" and "white") cannot get hold of a simple truth: some of them derive from western Europeans who only created something close to a civilisation just 500 years ago and some who are the high mix of people violently transferred from Western Africa and mixed with the western Europeans.
I underline this: both of these have absolutely no relation to ancient Egyptians. Egyptians were neither black or white and shared absolutely no ethnical, cultural and anthropologic trait with them (well if they shared some they also shared equally with chinese or aboriginals!!!).
PS: Can anyone please describe Aboriginals as "black" and claim connection to Africa (east or west)?
PS: Please, is there anyone who can really comment on Copts? -
Message 30
Posted by Mutatis_Mutandis (U8620894) on Tuesday, 28th August 2007
My two cents --
My impression is that modern egyptologists avoid the term 'black' because this now has to carry too much historic and cultural burden, and too little scientific meaning. The historical and cultural burden seems now largely to be defined by the shared background and experience of the descendants of the slaves that were imported from Africa to work on plantations in the Americas, not even that of the Africans themselves (who have far less media power). The scientific reality is that, Africa being the cradle of humanity, the genetic diversity in sub-Saharan Africa exceeds that of the rest of the world combined, and in modern anthropology it would at best a gross simplification to lump together that entire population as 'black'. The politics of it become even trickier when it comes to classifying Afro-Americans, as nearly all Americans are likely to be of mixed ancestry; somewhere along the color spectrum there is a border where people can credibly identify themselves as 'black' but scientists prefer to steer clear of this sensitive issue.
The terms in which egyptologists prefer to discuss things is the relation between the civilization of Egypt and that of Nubia. It is beyond doubt that there was strong interaction, through trade, warfare, and colonization, with a border that shifted back and forth, culminating in the 25th dynasty in the reign of Nubian pharaohs over Egypt. Common sense says that Egyptians in the south were more likely to intermarry and have cultural links with the Nubians than the people in the Delta, who were probably exchanging genes and gods with people from the Mediterranean coast, Asia, and possibly even Europe. Egyptians could have been as diverse in skin coloration as modern Americans.
It is interesting to look at images of the royal family of the 18th dynasty, not only because it was based fairly far in the south in Thebes, but also because it saw the brief blossoming of a more naturalistic tendency in Egyptian art. For example, both queens Tiye and Nefertiti married into the royal family; and both are sometimes assumed to belong to the same family themselves, the presumed Yuya/Ay clan from Akhmim. But while Tiye's looks seem to show a Nubian heritage and her most remarkable portraits are carved in dark woods, the appearances of Yuya and Nefertiti have prompted people to look for their origins in Asia. Such diversity in appearance seems not to have been particularly remarkable to Egyptians themselves, and was certainly acceptable in this distinctly upper-class family.
That is not to say that the Egyptians were entirely 'colorblind'. Examples of ethnic and racial stereotyping can certainly be found where the enemies of Egypt are shown, for example in the portraits of black Africans and Asians that form the bottom ends of some of Tutankhamun's walking sticks. And there are other places in Egyptian art where a very clear distinction is made between the features and skin color of the pharao, and those of the Nubian enemies he is about to slay, or the Nubian subjects who are paying tribute. It is clear that Egyptians still perceived them as ethnically different and potentially hostile. -
Message 31
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Tuesday, 28th August 2007
I tend to be more "stepped" in my answers - not of course to be anything close to aggresive but to give discussion more life and interest - but then I think the above elaborate answer from Mutatis just covers expertly the issue. I am 100% along the same view.
-
Message 32
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Tuesday, 28th August 2007
Mutatis mutandis,
I join my Greek friend Nikolaos. That is the best essay I have seen on these boards about this question in the last years. I think we have had hundreds of messages about the same theme in the last five years, mostly from the Afro-American corner.
Message 4 Nov.15.2006 from ElistanOnVacation is also very interesting IMO. I hope that he one day comes back from vacation and adds again his knowledgeable contributions to these boards.
Warm regards,
Paul. -
Message 33
Posted by tamura (U2585471) on Thursday, 30th August 2007
I don't know if they would allow this reply,
but the book Black Athena is discussed in www.nomystery.blog.com -
Message 34
Posted by villamarce (U9034231) on Tuesday, 4th September 2007
i really regret that i didnt save the link,but i read a study recently that claimed that many living greeks have certain identifiably sub Saharan elements to their genetic make up. How so?
-
Message 35
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Tuesday, 4th September 2007
How so? Very simply this was ""proven"" by a """research""" that has relation to everything else apart from science!!! You are referrring to a research founded by certain circles originating from the state of F.Y.R.O.M. but of course living in US and Australia, half of the names of the researchers are slavic indicating an origin from F.Y.R.O.M. and the rest seem to be random people that (unfortunately for them) mixed their name with these leaflet called by them as a research. Their only scope was to invent a story where Macedonians were not Greeks and that Macedonians are Europeans and greeks were and are of African ancestry (all that also accompagned quite with a lot of hints of racism also into that).
The issue has been briefly dismissed by every self-respected scientist around the world and remains as yet another example of propaganda.
Now the extent of anthropologic relation between Greeks (the best example of Mediterraneans) and Sub-saharan populations (east or west Africa) can be an interesting matter of anthropology since one could imagine that if Homo Sapiens came out of Africa past Egypt and Palestine and spread throughout the Eurasia then Mediteranneans could be a bit nearer to African populations. Of course something like that cannot be established easily since migrations took a few hundreds of years while human variation was developed in 1000s of years while in the course of history Portugal, Spain, France and England had more interaction with Sub-saharan populations than Greeks who largely remained in the Mediterranean. It is natural to imagine that in the North African Greek colonies there was some interaction between Greeks and populations of which some % related to sub-saharan populations but I cannot imagine how all that could ever influence the populations back in Greece (that includes Minor Asia also for the time periods were are talking) as these colonies one oafter the other gradually faded and were integrated in later states/empires/cultures.
There has been some suggestion that for example the sometimes very curly hair that Greeks or South Italians present are a hint of Sub-saharan influence: however it is exactly the same anthropologic sub-type (within the mediterranean type) that presents also very dense body-hair. As we know dense body hair is uknown in Africa hence the whole argument is not different from saying that Baltics (the blondest populations on earth) and Aboriginals have some relation because Aboriginals often present blond hair!
Anthropology is not what people usually expect and that is why it is so fascinating. If anything, it does not fit into "anyone's" propaganda... not that of "whites" (the blondest people on earth are the Baltics who clearly are at the same time Europeanomongolic by-product, Alpics also in central europe have a small but still visible mongolian ancestry), not that of "blacks" (east africa has little relation to west africa and in fact the populations referred as "black" are not 1 but several anthropologically largely different types, not that of Indians (India certainly comprises from different anthropologic types), not that of China or Japan (modern Chinese are a mix of more ancient merges while Japanese have mixed with the non-mongolic Ainous - a mystery race that habited the islands before the arrival of Japanese). And so on... -
Message 36
Posted by tamura (U2585471) on Saturday, 29th September 2007
Villamarce , thank you,
you don't need to regret , it's still there. But you might really do if you don't give ears to the last version.
www.nomysteryiii.blog.com -
Message 37
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Monday, 1st October 2007
Thanks for suggesting another pile of crap so that dear villarmace can come here and litter the space.
We really do not need all that. -
Message 38
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Monday, 1st October 2007
I also found laughable the statement that "Phoenician-affiliated" Philistines gave maritime knowledge to Greeks. For God's shake have you ever seen a map of the world in your lifetime? Have you seen the coast of Palestine? Have you seen the Greek mainland and the Aegean? I will not say anything more, I just hope people's IQ is developed more than the one's that wrote that silly page mentioned above in order to catch the hint.
Phoenicians certainly came as panting second (at least, not to mention 3rd or 4th) in the maritime industry and they developed theirs only well after 13th century B.C only after coming in contact with Minoan and Mycenean colonies in eastern Mediteranean colonies that gave later the people called Philistines. Philistines did not originate from these lands but came from the sea, from the Greek mainland/islands, most possibly Crete ,where else? It is funny how in the Bible the terms Philistine, Cretan then Greek are interchanged throughout the books. -
Message 39
Posted by villamarce (U9034231) on Friday, 23rd November 2007
GrumpyShakaZulu. If i were you I would totally ignore what Nordmann and E Niklaus have to say on this topic. They "think" Egypt and the rest of Africa are unrelated and could not be more wrong. If you need evidence read The Black Pharaohs, They Came Before Columbus, The African Origins of Civilisation Myth or Reality?,The Early African Presence in Europe and The Destruction of Black Civilisation to name but a few sources.
-
Message 40
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Friday, 23rd November 2007
Hi Villamarce,
I've kept out of this one, but I have to say that the list of books you've given GrumpyShakaZulu do appear - at first glance - to be biased to just one side of the argument. He/she should read books from both sides of the argument and then make up their own mind on the matter. To read just the one side of a historical argument is an appalling way to learn history and apply one's critical faculties to it.
Cheers,
RF -
Message 41
Posted by villamarce (U9034231) on Friday, 23rd November 2007
Its obvious from your reply E Nikolaos that you are terrified of the idea that some Greeks may have some African (BLACK )ancestry. This is reinforced by your denial that the Ancient Greeks essentially plagiarised most of their so called "scientific" knowledge from Ancient Egypt ,some of whose scholars were black.
Pythagoras was one Greek "hero" of knowledge who did nothing except COPY Egyptian and therefore African knowledge. By the way it is Herodotus,your father of history that declared the Egyptians "black".
This fear/denial of ones own ancestry (in terms of African influence) is common across the whole of the southern mediteranean as the people are aware that being considered in any way part black/African makes them inferior in the eyes of other Europeans so they try to make out as though Africans were never part of their "blood" even though all the evidence suggests otherwise.Hence the Moors are described as "arabs" to avoid discussing whether any were black Africans and because they were technologically superior, the European psyche has to believe that the Moors werent black because how can black be superior to white?
In the same line of thinking posters like Nordmann insist that there is no uniform "blackness" across Africa and that all the "races" in Africa are separate.Oddly however Nordmann and ilk do not have the same need to make out different "races" amongst white people.
This is the remnants of colonial history and is part of the white colonial active suppression of black history i.e Egypt is not black achievment because Egyptians are a "different kind" of black/brown> or because Egypt =civilisation and black(in the European psyche = barbarian,therefore Egypt cant be black etc -
Message 42
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Friday, 23rd November 2007
Villamarce, your naivety is striking. You know if two anthropologic people are connected that is certainly obvious in their anthropologic characteristics:
However anthropologically Mediterraneans have the exact opposite characteristics with Africans having the shortest ratio of legs/arms length to overall height while Africans have the longest (and I mean ALL the very differentiated Africans). Mediterranean skull structure is as different to Africans as it is to Chinese. Mediterraneans are the most hairy tribe on earth, Africans are the least along with Chinese.... The only common characteristic I can find is the relative resistance of Mediterraneans and Africans to malaria in comparison to other anthropologic tribes but that is not a hint of connection as it can be explained by natural selectio.... however the list with the differences is is endless.
Why would I have a problem with a hypothetic origins of my tribe frmo Africa is something i do nto understand. I am not from England or France and my tribe never used African people as slaves, thus I do not have such complexes.
My disagreement is purely on a scientific basis but then it seems science is somethign from which you divorced a long time ago. What else can i say?
Bring me points to support your theory, I am really interested. -
Message 43
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Friday, 23rd November 2007
Can both of you sort out for once and for all what on earth you mean by "race" or "tribe" or "African" or "Mediterranean". It's almost embarrassing reading what you write but I'm sort of drawn to it like one is drawn against one's will to investigate after hearing a squelchy noise on the railway track while the train was passing.
You're both so intent on your respective points (Egyptians were black Africans: hairy modern Greeks have been so since time immemorial - when they were known as the Mediterraneans since no one else mattered or matters) that you don't actually see neither is contradicting the other, just talking independent, unsubstantiated, and frankly weird hypothesis. -
Message 44
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Saturday, 24th November 2007
Nordmann if I go down to Senegal and tell people that my greatgrandmother came from West Africa, people will say I am a liar. If I come to you and say I am Scandinavian you will call me a liar and you will start wondering why should I say such a lie. If I was in an international group and someone asked people where I could come from then the 90% of people would concentrate in the region from Spain up to Lebanon.
Well that is race. It is a thing that exists either we want to see it or not. But then it is nothing more than that.
Our issue here was exactly on the issue of how ancient Egyptians looked. We have people here that claim that they looked more or less like modern Nigerians or something (or close to that), all I claim is that they most likely looked like modern Copts and that modern Copts pass for Nigerians as much as I pass. As simple as that. -
Message 45
Posted by Mutatis_Mutandis (U8620894) on Sunday, 2nd December 2007
may have some African (BLACK) ancestryÂ
I think that this illustrates well enough a fundamental problem with the argument: The assumption that somehow "African" must equal "Black".
Africa is the birthplace of humanity, with a wide genetic diversity that includes a distinct North-African "white" population, the Pygmy, and the Khoi-San people, besides what we commonly think of as the sub-Saharan "black" population. Which is quite diverse itself. It is scientifically undoubted that Africa has more genetic diversity than other continents, because more humans lived there for longer times than elsewhere. And because the migrants from Africa who spread themselves over all other continents took only a small part of the genetic diversity with them, i.e. that part represented within their own numbers. So Africa's claim to the highest genetic diversity is directly linked to its claim to be the cradle of humanity and civilization.
It is true that the debate on the migrations of mankind to other continents is still ongoing; there may have been one migration wave out of Africa, or several. The diversity in appearance between people living on different continents may have been developed only as local adaptation, or may include differences that different migrating groups brought with them. As far as a I know, no reliable conclusions on this have been reached.
However, as far as I know everything indicates that the North African "non-black" population has evolved in that region since prehistoric times, and that they have just as much right to call themselves African as the "Black" population further south. If they share some common characteristics with European populations, then that is mostly because people from North Africa and the Middle East colonized Europe, not the other way around.
And whether changes in hair and skin pigmentation occured all after the migration out of Africa or partially before it, seems rather irrelevant to me, as it is primarily a debate on how fast this particular genetic adaptation occurs -- i.e. at the core, on how deadly vitamine D defiency and skin cancer are, respectively. What seems fairly certain, prehistoric times being much longer than historic times, is that it occurred in prehistoric times.
Greeks definitely have African ancestry -- we all have. Probably we all have "black" ancestry, too, simply because humanity originally evolved in regions where the sunlight is strong. However, in historical times it doesn't make sense to describe either Greeks or most Egyptians as "black". Neither probability not the historical record support that.
I think that what this actually boils down to is, bizarrely enough, an attempt by mostly the "black" populations of the Americas and Europe to invoke racial stereotype. White racists never had any problem in defining a "black race" as a caricature of the population of the West coast of Africa. And they applied this indiscriminately to the entire continent and all its people to justify its subjugation and the slavery of its people. Now some of the descendants of the former slaves, themselves mostly of West-African origin, have adopted the old racial caricature, with some modifications, as their own identity, and they seek they apply it indiscriminately to the entire continent and all its people -- this time to justify their claims to the cultural heritage of Egypt.
My own feeling on this is that distortions of the truth can only do long-term harm, whatever the purpose. It is better if people try to define their (or other people's) identity with some reference to reality. -
Message 46
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Sunday, 2nd December 2007
Re: Message 45.
Mutatis mutandis,
thank you very much for this excellent "essay". Up to now in my humble opinion it is the best I have seen on these boards about the "question".
Warm regards,
Paul. -
Message 47
Posted by Scaramunga (U4485565) on Monday, 3rd December 2007
Now some of the descendants of the former slaves, themselves mostly of West-African origin, have adopted the old racial caricature, with some modifications, as their own identity, and they seek they apply it indiscriminately to the entire continent and all its people -- this time to justify their claims to the cultural heritage of Egypt.Â
Mutatis_Mutandis,
Whilst agree with much of your previous post, I do think that it is worth pointing out that there are some startling cultural similarities between ancient Egypt and the later West African civilisations (Ife etc.).
I'm not suggesting that ancient Egypt owes it's cultural origins to West Africa, but there may be a distinct possibility that ancient Egypt may have had some cultural influence when it came to the rise of West African civilisation.
If this did occur then it would be no more controversial for Africans of West African descent to claim Egypt as part of their heritage as it would for Northern Europeans to do the same with regard to ancient Greece. -
Message 48
Posted by villamarce (U9034231) on Tuesday, 4th December 2007
Presumably you include Pygmies in this group..If you believe that "races" can be measured by leg lenght then you are preposterously naive!
i dont have time right now for a proper reply but will do so. Some points which you might consider
The composition and impact of the "Moorish" occupation of large parts of Western Europe.
The biological notion of Steatophygia (I may have mis spelled this word)and in which populations it occurs.
The commonality with which one finds names in Spain,Porugal and France such as moreno,maurus etc indicators of Moorish ancestry.
I did not say that Mediteraneans were Black. I said that in many instances there is a residual genetic presence of "African" genes. Hence the arguments about hairiness are irrelevant as the dominant strand is European in any case. As it happens i dont think Meds are particularly hairy..its just dark so you see it more!
As a side issue the people on this planet that look most like Mediteraneans are those of mixed African and European heritage..but maybe thats just a coincidence? -
Message 49
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Saturday, 8th December 2007
VIllarmace, it is obvious that this topic is not your strength, why do you struggle then?
There are many points to divide the human spiece into races and skin/hair/eye colour are secondary traits and yes leg-length and skull characteristics are primary points because they are inherited at most of times.
A mix of a European + a subsaharan African does not result in a man/woman that resembles to Mediterraneans unless you consider Bob Marley or will Smith to be almost Greek like!
If you do not find Mediterraneans very hairy well then you will find none very hairy at all.
The name Mauro means simply "black" and does not necessarily indicate any relation to the Mauritanians (Moors). Even in ancient and medieval Greek region many people had the nickname Melas (that means black) or the name Mauros (taken from latin) but that was just a nickname for their generally darker face or hair ot eyes or even their depressive mood (in the greek langauge someone "black" is someone with a psychological burden or personal/family/work problem and it is irrelevant to race/ancestry issues or physical resemblance).
What you mean by "residual African genes"? Are you referring to the 120,000 years old ancestry of all human races from South-East Africa? Well such "African residual genes" exist from the Eskimos in Canada to the Aboriginals in Australia but that is of no particular interest and adds little to our specific discussion. -
Message 50
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Saturday, 8th December 2007
In your specific question about Pygmies, I have no indication but watch out as we are talking about leg/arm to overall height ratio and not sheer leg/arm length, hence you should not be surprised if generally shorter Pygmies have a higher leg to overall height ratio than say Italians. Honestly, I have no information on Pygmies so that is a good question.
The above ratios and measurements are all a matter of anthropometry. To many people this sounds strange (to some politically correct even nazi-like) but then take it as it is, there is nothing more than raw data. Things like these are mostly of statistical nature and are simply raw data for the definition of anthropologic races, just as biologists state the percentages of blood groups in people of different ancestries. No harm in it and no further complexes.
Now even if we define 20-30 basic anthropologic races (imagine that in Europe in historic times coexisted at least 6 anthropologic races - and contrary to common belief, quite different and surprising ones with the most blond of them actually having the most of Asiatic influence), at the end of the day, one may break them into many more subgroups. If one really deals with all that complexity then really he becomes what some wish to declare in theory only (but not in practice) "colour-blind" and the terms white, black and yello mean really nothing. Well, if you come to that position you will realise why I see things the way I see.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or  to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Ö÷²¥´óÐã iD
Ö÷²¥´óÐã navigation
Ö÷²¥´óÐã links
Ö÷²¥´óÐã © 2014 The Ö÷²¥´óÐã is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.