Why is so important for certain Blacks that Ancient Egyptians were Black?
Isn't there any other civilization in Africa but Egypt?
After all, Egypt has more in common with the Levante and Mesopotamia rather than with Subsaharan Africa.
After all, most Black Americans descent of people living in Subsaharan West Africa and not Egypt. Besides, there is lot of evidence that Classical Egypt has quite a few people that "look".... how to say it.... caucasian.
Omar
It's because they have an inferiority complex. West Africans whom reside in th US are baffled at the Black Amercan trying to make the cultural/ancestorial connection to Egypt. They say, "We don't claim them, so how can they (Black Americans), and most of their (Black Americans) descendants are West African!" I've heard it said exactly like that.
I don't agree with the inferiority complex, since many AA's believed like the movies told them, that the Egyptians were white.
Afrocentrics are no different from Eurocentrics, where British scientist claim connection to Etruscan/Italian people. the Roman civilization probably had just as much affect in Northern & Eastern Africa(people they considered civilized) as they did in Northern Europe(people they considered uncivilized)
Actually according to recent scientist archaeology activities, the Egyptians are tied to peoples of Western and Central Africa. I saw a program on the discovery channel of excavations in Central Africa mostly and desert regions as well as parts of West Africa that showed not only religious artifacts but cultural ones that were very similar to what we know as Ancient Egypt.
They mapped it that way because of encroaching deserts and tribal mingling of people from the centers of Africa moved upward and end up creating Egypt,
Another thing I've always considered was ancient Egyptian artwork, it tells the story. That these people were an ethnic group like Nubians, Congonese, Ethiopians, Nigerians
I don't need to look hard at Tutankhamun, to see he would be classified as 'Negroid'
And after all that for a long time I could not reconcile that the people I saw in my art books were the real Egyptians, not those European actors and actresses.
I'm not saying Egyptians were 'black' and I don't truly know how to express it, but like French people fall under Europeans, (original)Egyptians most likely fall under African, not Middle Easterners
I'm not saying Egyptians were 'black' and I don't truly know how to express it, but like French people fall under Europeans, (original)Egyptians most likely fall under African, not Middle Easterners
The disassociation of pre-Islamic Egypt with Africa always puzzled me as well. It is undoubtedly part of the African continent and influenced/was influenced by other African people in addition to other Mediterranean people. It kind of reminds me of the US tendency to consider the Spanish "Hispanic" and lump them in with Caribbean and Latin Americans. Why would their language and colonization of the New World suddenly disqualify them as Europeans? Both notions appear to have more to do with how USAmericans see race than with what make sense historically or geographically.
There's strong evidence that the original predynastic egyptian population was indigenous to Africa. Not saying this is true, just that there's evidence. If it is true, they most likely belonged to the same y-dna and mtdna macrohaplogroups as the so-called "negroids". Would that make the "black"? That's difficult to say because the term has very little meaning in an anthropological/archeological context.
I'm no afrocentrist but to me personally it makes more sense to group people according to their continent of origin, rather than superficial characteristics. If we follow eurocentric logic, then we could say that Andaman Islanders, Melanesians etc. are "really" negroid because of the way they look or that the Khoisan are "really" mongloid/negrioid "hybrids". That's clearly not the case.
Culturally and linguistically ancient Egyptians were more similar to other Nile Valley people than to anyone else. In my view they were African, period. Egypt became multicultural long after the great advances had been made. The reason "blacks" are crazy over Egypt is because it was Africa's greatest ancient civilization. The same reason "white" Americans are knowledgeable of Greece and Rome but know very little about the cultures, languages and religions of the more primitive tribes that roamed northern Europe in ancient times.
Joined: 02 May 2006 {Posts: 443 } Location: Île-de-France
Posted: Thu 03 Sep 2009 13:41 Post subject:
If you look at modern Egyptian Y DNA and mitochondrial DNA haplotypes, they are a mix of haplotypes typically found in sub-saharan Africa, those typically found in Europe/west Asia, and ones that are rarely found outside of north Africa. While certainly there has been some gene flow since the time of the ancient Egyptians, I see little reason to believe that there was a large amount. The ancient dynasties came long after the neolithic spread of agriculture west from the fertile crescent that likely brought the European/west Asian haplogroups into Europe and north Africa, there was likely continuous travel and trade up and down the Nile, and the haplogroups rarely found outside of north Africa have likely been in place for 30K years or more.
Arguing about whether Egyptians were black or white is sort of like arguing whether wine is beer or hard liquor. They were super-saharan Africans, who likely look very similar to today's super-saharan Africans, whose ancestors include those who never left Africa and at least two groups who migrated back to Africa from Eurasia.
Arguing about whether Egyptians were black or white is sort of like arguing whether wine is beer or hard liquor. They were super-saharan Africans, who likely look very similar to today's super-saharan Africans, whose ancestors include those who never left Africa and at least two groups who migrated back to Africa from Eurasia.
Thank you. Part of the confusion comes from the concept, "continent of ancestral origin."
That concept of "origin" is more-or-less valid for New World inhabitants. The Afro-Euro influx that began five centuries ago was an abrupt discontinuous recent event. So you can talk about before and after Columbus.
But the concept of "origin" cannot be applied to Eurasia or Africa because people have been milling around, migrating back and forth, and interbreeding since Toba almost killed us all. Egypt especially has been a crossroads for tens of millennia and, like it or not, everyone descends from all of his or her ancestors.
So Egyptians, even ancient classical Egyptians, just like all other Old World populations, were the result of countless migrations from other parts of Africa, from Europe, and from Asia. And all of those populations are ultimately traceable to an origin in sub-Saharan Africa. It is where our species emigrated from a mere 2600 generations ago, after all.
Detail of a wall painting from the tomb of Amenhotep-Huy, Viceroy of Kush, showing the arrival in Egypt of Nubians bringing the "tribute of Kush" during the reign of King Tutankhamen (about 1333-1323 BCE).
Last edited by gemini072 on Fri 04 Sep 2009 00:11; edited 3 times in total
The land of Nubia was located in what is now Sudan and lower Egypt. Home to what is considered to be the earliest black culture, Nubia’s waves of Central African and Asiatic inhabitants managed to transform a land notorious for its high temperatures and infrequent rainfall into a series of kingdoms that influenced, occasionally conquered and inevitably outlasted their more famous Egyptian neighbours. Nubian achievements include the world’s first Archaeoastronomy devices, conceived approximately a millennium before Stonehenge.
Below are excerpts from various historical and archeological sources that describe the progression of the Nubians from the initial organization of the “A-Group” settlers to the end of Christian domination around 1400AD. The reader is encouraged to follow the embedded links to find more information.
A-Group
A-Group is the designation for a distinct culture that arose between the First and Second Cataracts of the Nile in Nubia between the Egyptian 1st dynasty and the 3rd millennium BC. The A-Group settled on very poor land with scarce natural resources, yet they became the first Nubians to develop agriculture. This culture was one of the two important “kingdoms” in Lower Nubia. Artifacts from this culture were discovered in 1907 by Egyptologist George A. Reisner.
A-Group royal tombs were found to be two centuries older than those of the Egyptians. It is believed that the Egyptians developed their grave site customs for honoring pharaohs from Central Africa. The A-Group had strong beliefs in the afterlife. A great deal of time was put into their cemeteries and funerals.
-“A Group”. Wikipedia
C-Group
The so-called C-Group appeared in Lower Nubia about 400 years later and persisted from about 2500 to 1500BC. They likely like their cultural origins in Upper Nubia, and many of the artifacts that they left are quite different from those of their A-Group predecessors in the area. The C-Groupers traded with the Egyptians, but the Egyptians themselves wanted to exert more control over their southern neighbours. During the Middle Kingdon, they built forts near the second cataract of the Nile. During Dynasty 13, Egypt lost control of Nubia, and Nubians occupied the Egyptian formts. And toward the end of Dynasty 17, the rulers of Nubia and Hyksos rulers were treating each other as equals.
-Ryan, Donald P. The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Egypt. Penguin Group (USA), 2002. ISBN 0028642775
Kerma Culture
The Kerma culture, called Kush or Kushite by the Egyptians, was the first Nubian state, situated between the fourth and fifth cataracts of the Nile River in what is now the Sudan, between 2500 and 1500 BC. Early Kerma society was agricultural in nature and had round hut dwellings with distinctive circular tombs; later Kerma developed into a foreign trade-based society with mud-brick architecture, dealing in ivory, diorate, and gold.
-Hirst, Kris K. “Kerma Culture”. About.com: Archeology
Known as the “Land of the Yam” to the Egyptians, Kerma lay in a well-watered basin where Ethiopian nutrients desposited by the Nile supported the agricultural resources of the kingdom. They were rich in cattle for domestic use, sacrifice, and exported large numbers to Egypt. Prosperous and powerful, the kings of Kerma built a sprawling city with a white temple (deffufa) fortified by mud-brick walls and rectangular towers astride the ancient routes of trade from south to north and east to west. Their craftsmen produced exquisite black-topped pottery. The indigenous burials of their kings pre-date any Egyptian influence and were accompanied by ritual human and animal sacrifice. One Kerma royal turmulus records the slaughter of 4,00 cattle for the deceased.
-Burns, James McDonald. Africa, Sub-Saharan History. Cambridge University Press (United Kingdom), 2007. ISBN 0521867460.
At one point, Kerma came very close to conquering Egypt, with Egypt suffering a “humiliating defeat” by the hands of the Kushites. According to [the] head of the joint British Museum and Egyptian archaeological team, the attack was so devastating that, had the Kerma forces chosen to stay and occupy Egypt, they might have eliminated it for good and brought the great nation to extinction.
-“Nubia”. Wikipedia
Egyptian Domination
Egypt dominated parts of Nubia from about 1950 to 1000 BC. Forts, trading posts and Egyptian style temples were built in Kush, and the Nubian elite adopted the worship of Egyptian gods and even the Egyptian hieroglyphic writing system. The gold, ebony and ivory of Nubia contributed to the material wealth of Egypt, and many of the famed treasures of the Egyptian kings were made of products from Nubia.
The one factor that chiefly characterized Egypt’s relationship with Nubia through most of their history was exploitation. Nubia’s most important resource for Egypt was precious metal, including gold and electrum.
Nubia was also an important source of manpower and labor for the Egyptians. The Palermo Stone records that early in the 4th Dynasty, King Snefru led a military campaign into Nubia reputedly to crush a “revolt” there (the Egyptians considered all enemies, whether foreign or domestic, as “rebels” against the natural order). According to that text, he captured 200,000 head of cattle and 7,000 prisoners, all of whom were deported to Egypt as laborers on royal building projects.
-“Nubia History”. TourEgypt.net.
Napatan, Meroitic and Ballana Periods
The Napatan Period (about 700 – 300 BC) is named after the town Napata, where an Amun temple was built and where the kings were buried in small pyramids (the cemeteries are located not far at Nuri and el Kurru). Napata was the religious centre of the country.
In the visible record Napatan culture seems heavily influenced by the Egyptians. The kings were buried in small pyramids, with an Egyptian style funerary equipment (shabtis, sarcophagi with religious texts, canopic jars, funerary stelae). The Egyptian hieroglyphic script was used. The exact order of most kings of the Napatan period is still under discussion. There is a group of well attested rulers dating shortly after the the end of Napatan control of Egypt (for example: Senkamanisken and Aspelta). Some kings dating to about the 4th century BC are again well-known from long monumental inscriptions (Arikamaninote, Harsiotef).
-“Nubia: The Napatan Period”. Digital Egypt for Universities.
By 200 BC the capital had shifted yet farther south to Meroe, where the kings continued to be buried in pyramid tombs and to build temples to Nubian and Egyptian gods in a hybrid Egyptian Roman-African style. Roman historians record the skirmishes and treaties which marked the relation ship of Roman Egypt and Nubia.
By AD 250 the culture of Nubia changed radically, perhaps due to the immigration of new peoples into the Nile Valley. Pyramid tombs were replaced by the great tumulus burials of the kings of Ballana.
-“Nubia History”. TourEgypt.net.
Christian Period
Nubian Christianity developed in great isolation. Between 639 and 641, the Arabs conquered Egypt, and, from then on, Coptic Christians there were a diminishing minority in a country under Muslim rule. Despite this isolation, Nubian Christianity was to survive and, indeed, flourish for centuries.
Culturally, its Christianity was greatly influenced by Byzantium. The Nubians used the liturgy of St. Mark, and decorated the walls of their churches with murals that showed their royals dressed in Byzantine style. In 1961, Polish archaeologists excavated what appeared to be a mound of sand, and, within it, found Faras Cathedral, its walls decorated with 169 magnificent paintings of dark-skinned Nubian kings, queens and bishops, and biblical figures and saints.
The decline of Christianity in Nubia seems to have been mainly cased by a gradual process of Arab Muslim immigration. As time went on, the Nubian population became increasingly dominated by Arabs or Arabized Nubians. In 1315, the Muslim government of Egypt imposed a Nubian Muslim as the king of Makouria, and, in 1317, Dongola Cathedral officially became a mosque. However, the tiny Christian splinter kingdom of Dotawo survived in lower Nubia until the late 15th century.
-Isichei, Elizabath. A History of Christianity in Africa. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1995. ISBN 0802808433.
The Black Pharaohs
The February 2008 edition of National Geographic has an interesting article on the Black Pharaohs of Egypt. Author Robert Draper describes the invasion and control of Egypt by the Nubians under Piye, who considered himself the true ruler of Egypt. It is recommended for reading by all (as are most National Geographic articles).
Tyrone, could you please explain what was the point of your last three posts above? What thesis are you arguing? That Tutankhamen's death mask was gold? That some Egyptians have dark complexion? That Nubia once conquered Egypt (as did many other nations)? Please try to relate your posts to the rhetorical connection between A-As and ancient Egypt. If your posts have nothing to with the topic, please start a new thread.
From now on, let's take 3.3.11 seriously in clarifying the thesis of this thread and stop using the term "Black" without defining it.
As I understand it, this thread is NOT about whether ancient Egyptians were of 100 percent recent subsaharan ancestry (within a millennium, say). Obviously, they were not. And it is NOT about whether they were 100 percent inhabitants of Africa. Obviously, they were since Egypt is in Africa. And it is NOT about whether they had Nubian and other subsaharan ancestry. Obviously, they did. And it is NOT about whether they self-identified as members of the African-American ethnopolitical community. Obviously they did not.
As I understand it, this thread is meant to explore why many African Americans identify with ancient Egypt, despite their lacking any significant cultural, ethnic, political, or genetic connection to ancient Egypt.
If anyone has a different idea as to what this thread is about, please speak up now and I shall try to clarify the topic further or split it if necessary. If not, let us stick to the above (in bold).
(P.S.: If anyone replies that A-As identify with ancient Egypt because ancient Egyptians were "black," without defining "black" in light of rule 3.3.11, they will incur the wrath of the of the administrator.)
Just to clear up my previous statement, I wasn't denying that backmigrations occured, nor was I saying that ancient Egyptians were 100% sub-saharan African. I was saying that it would be difficult to determine the degree to which physical variation in Northeast Africa can be attributed to non-African admixture, by looking only at mummies and paintings.
We'll never know what the "average" ancient Egyptian looked like, or whether the current population most closely resembles the original one (by original, I mean the people who formed the Badari culture and occupied egypt before it was ruled by Persia, Greece or Arabs).
What we do know is that ancient Egyptians identified their ancestral homeland as 'The Land of Punt', which was in Africa--evidenced by the fact that it was said to have had, according to Egyptians, baboons, giraffes and cheetahs, all exlusively found in Africa. We also know that most of their ethnic/cultural traits, particularly their language and religious practices, originated in Africa.
With that said, why does it even matter if AA claim Egypt as a "black" civilization? Does it hurt anyone?
In years past, some 'scholars' attempted to white wash, or at the very least deAfricanize, ALL of Afica's ancient civilizations-everything from Ethiopia to the great Zimbabwe ruins were attributed to non-African influences by racist eurocentric scholars. No one fought as passionately or vehemently to debunk those claims as everyone does with Afrocentric claims to Egypt.
What we do know is that ancient Egyptians identified their ancestral homeland as 'The Land of Punt', which was in Africa--evidenced by the fact that it was said to have had, according to Egyptians, baboons, giraffes and cheetahs, all exlusively found in Africa. We also know that most of their ethnic/cultural traits, particularly their language and religious practices, originated in Africa.
The fact that Egypt is in Africa need not be inferred from fauna or culture. A glance at any globe shows that to be the case. Egypt is located in Africa and always has been located in Africa. That is how geography works.
BlackHaze wrote:
With that said, why does it even matter if AA claim Egypt as a "black" civilization? Does it hurt anyone?
I do not know whether identifying with ancient Egypt hurts anyone. Some people claim to descend from extraterrestrials. Besides, arguments as to goodness or badness are limited to the two advocacy forums. This thread is meant to explore the counterfactual-belief phenomenon, not to criticize it.
BlackHaze wrote:
In years past, some 'scholars' attempted to white wash, or at the very least deAfricanize, ALL of Afica's ancient civilizations-everything from Ethiopia to the great Zimbabwe ruins were attributed to non-African influences by racist eurocentric scholars.
I am not familiar with this. Could you please cite examples of such claims by "by racist eurocentric scholars", preferably within the past two centuries?
BlackHaze wrote:
No one fought as passionately or vehemently to debunk those claims as everyone does with Afrocentric claims to Egypt.
I do not believe this claim. The very fact that the consensus today is that Zimbabwe and Egypt were home-grown suggests that your claim is inaccurate.
Incidentally, why do you characterize the ruins at Great Zimbabwe as an "ancient civilization"? As far as I know, it was built from medieval to early modern times (11th-15th centuries), not ancient times, And it was a single trading center with a population of perhaps 10,000, including the surrounding region.
Egypt, of course, was a vast empire of many nations and cities. In fact, I have personally examined cave frescoes at Tassili n'Ajjer that clearly show Egyptian artistic influence. I suspect that the very existence of the Egyptian empire may have stifled the rise of competing civilizations.
Besides Egypt, what other ancient African civilizations did you have in mind when you wrote, "ALL of Afica's ancient civilizations"?
Last edited by fwsweet on Fri 04 Sep 2009 15:24; edited 1 time in total
Tyrone, could you please explain what was the point of your last three posts above? What thesis are you arguing? That Tutankhamen's death mask was gold? That some Egyptians have dark complexion? That Nubia once conquered Egypt (as did many other nations)? Please try to relate your posts to the rhetorical connection between A-As and ancient Egypt. If your posts have nothing to with the topic, please start a new thread.
From now on, let's take 3.3.11 seriously in clarifying the thesis of this thread and stop using the term "Black" without defining it.
As I understand it, this thread is NOT about whether ancient Egyptians were of 100 percent recent subsaharan ancestry (within a millennium, say). Obviously, they were not. And it is NOT about whether they were 100 percent inhabitants of Africa. Obviously, they were since Egypt is in Africa. And it is NOT about whether they had Nubian and other subsaharan ancestry. Obviously, they did. And it is NOT about whether they self-identified as members of the African-American ethnopolitical community. Obviously they did not.
As I understand it, this thread is meant to explore why many African Americans identify with ancient Egypt, despite their lacking any significant cultural, ethnic, political, or genetic connection to ancient Egypt.
If anyone has a different idea as to what this thread is about, please speak up now and I shall try to clarify the topic further or split it if necessary. If not, let us stick to the above (in bold).
(P.S.: If anyone replies that A-As identify with ancient Egypt because ancient Egyptians were "black," without defining "black" in light of rule 3.3.11, they will incur the wrath of the of the administrator.)
I think my responses did (start a new topic, I apologize), I responded according to the the most recent post as well as Oscars, Melanies & DChapman,
Some of my response tried to address the idea that AA's had no genetic connection to Egyptians, by commenting about more recent arch. research
And in no way was I refering to Egyptians in a racialized way.
But according to the article I didn't get that it was about African-Americans identifying with Egypt, the following response automatically addressed AA's & Egypt but not the topic. Especially since this in International Stories not US(which means if it's about AA's and their ideas,connections to Egypt then it probably should have been posted in another forum.
Some of my response tried to address the idea that AA's had no genetic connection to Egyptians, by commenting about more recent arch. research.
If you were suggesting that because Nubians are "black" (in some undefined sense) and A-As are also "black" (in some undefined sense), then this means that the two groups are related, you need to (1) define "black" objectively and then (2) re-think your thesis. Until then, I suggest that you drop it. Again, see rule 3.3.11.
If, on the other hand, you were suggesting that A-As have significant genetic ancestry from the populations of the upper Nile, then this is so unlikely a claim that you must cite a source that addresses either DNA or language. Here is a map of the transatlantic slave trade (the ancestral origin of most A-As). What evidence connects any of these sources to the upper Nile?
gemini072 wrote:
But according to the article I didn't get that it was about African-Americans identifying with Egypt, the following response automatically addressed AA's & Egypt but not the topic.
Charles started the thread in Nov 06 by posting an outside article without comment, thus leaving open the direction that the thread would take. Oevega immediately replied asking "Why is so important for certain Blacks that Ancient Egyptians were Black?" From then until Aug 21, 2009 the thread discussed only this point (with a brief digression to casting actors for movies based on phenotype). On 8/21/2009, Holdtight changed the subject to arguing that the ODR makes Egyptians Black per U.S. social custom, a claim which I refuted. Your post of 9/2/2009 continued the original thread by hypothesizing that A-A identification with ancient Egypt was a reaction to movies.
Unless someone has a better idea, I would like to return to the original topic. If you want to argue a real genetic connection between A-As and the populations of the upper Nile, a new thread would be appropriate.
gemini072 wrote:
Since this in International Stories not US (which means if it's about AA's and their ideas,connections to Egypt then it probably should have been posted in another forum.
I agree. If we continue pursuing the original topic, I suggest moving the thread to either "History of the Color Line" or "Ethnicity in America." (Preferably the latter, since that would put it into your moderator turf.)
I am not familiar with this. Could you please cite examples of such claims by "by racist eurocentric scholars", preferably within the past two centuries?
The following pdf file explains the "Hamitic Hypothesis" in detail. While it's not taken seriously in most academic circles today, these beliefs prevailed throughout most of the 19th century and a large part of the 20th century.
www.usfca.edu/rhetcomp/journal/sharp2004.pdf
fwsweet wrote:
I do not believe this claim. The very fact that the consensus today is that Zimbabwe and Egypt were home-grown suggests that your claim is inaccurate.
No it doesn't. Those were widely held beliefs over the past two centuries. Afrocentrism didn't gain much recognition until the 1960s. Outside of a few Black Studies departments their claims are not taken seriously and never have been by most Archeologists, Historians etc.
Regarding "The Hamitic Hypothesis," please explain just who is "Travis Sharp" and what is "WRW" (the publication in which the article appeared)? I do not suggest that my opinion of the article will depend on the credentials of its author. It should be judged on its own merits. But I do suggest that internet bloggers often invent references and citations for false claims; Wikipedia is notorious for this, for example. The value of the peer-review process is that it reduces the chance that the references and bibliography are sheer fiction. So, is "WRW" a peer-reviewed publication or not?
BlackHaze wrote:
Afrocentrism didn't gain much recognition until the 1960s. Outside of a few Black Studies departments their claims are not taken seriously and never have been by most Archeologists, Historians etc.
Regarding your latest assertion, that Afrocentrism's claims are not accepted by archaeologists or historians, please see the new thread at What Precisely are Afrocentrism's Claims?.
I really don't know who Travis Sharp is or have any other information about the publication but I'm guessing that it's not peer reviewed. You didn't state that I had post a peer reviewed source.
You didn't state that I had post a peer reviewed source.
No problem. I did not mean to suggest that you should have. I am reading the article now, and I just wanted to know if I should look up some of the author's quotes. If it was peer-reviewed, I would not bother to do this, since I would assume that the reviewers had already checked them. This would avoid some effort (I am lazy). If not, I shall check them myself.
Oddly, although Sharp offers many second-hand quotations from others who wrote about the topic, only a few paragraphs contain words actually written by presumed Eurocentrist writers. Of those paragraphs, only three quotations (so far) deal with non-African influences on African technology or art.
Based on what i've read it seems it is clear (at least to me) that Egyptians were an "intermediate" population who were mostly just looked Egyptian! Due to the narrow land area along the Nile from North to South where people lived there was a steep cline from Nubian in Upper Egypt (South) to Levant looking people in the North (Lower Egypt) and you can still see that somewhat today, most people seem to fall int he middle somewhere.
I have a friend who is in the a foreign service officer in Cairo right now, she has been there two weeks and she has put pictures on facebook. The average people don't look significantly different from these ancient pictures above.
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1829 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Mon 07 Sep 2009 15:48 Post subject:
gemini072 wrote:
fwsweet wrote:
Tyrone, could you please explain what was the point of your last three posts above? What thesis are you arguing? That Tutankhamen's death mask was gold? That some Egyptians have dark complexion? That Nubia once conquered Egypt (as did many other nations)? Please try to relate your posts to the rhetorical connection between A-As and ancient Egypt. If your posts have nothing to with the topic, please start a new thread.
From now on, let's take 3.3.11 seriously in clarifying the thesis of this thread and stop using the term "Black" without defining it.
As I understand it, this thread is NOT about whether ancient Egyptians were of 100 percent recent subsaharan ancestry (within a millennium, say). Obviously, they were not. And it is NOT about whether they were 100 percent inhabitants of Africa. Obviously, they were since Egypt is in Africa. And it is NOT about whether they had Nubian and other subsaharan ancestry. Obviously, they did. And it is NOT about whether they self-identified as members of the African-American ethnopolitical community. Obviously they did not.
As I understand it, this thread is meant to explore why many African Americans identify with ancient Egypt, despite their lacking any significant cultural, ethnic, political, or genetic connection to ancient Egypt.
If anyone has a different idea as to what this thread is about, please speak up now and I shall try to clarify the topic further or split it if necessary. If not, let us stick to the above (in bold).
(P.S.: If anyone replies that A-As identify with ancient Egypt because ancient Egyptians were "black," without defining "black" in light of rule 3.3.11, they will incur the wrath of the of the administrator.)
I think my responses did (start a new topic, I apologize), I responded according to the the most recent post as well as Oscars, Melanies & DChapman,
Some of my response tried to address the idea that AA's had no genetic connection to Egyptians, by commenting about more recent arch. research
And in no way was I refering to Egyptians in a racialized way.
But according to the article I didn't get that it was about African-Americans identifying with Egypt, the following response automatically addressed AA's & Egypt but not the topic. Especially since this in International Stories not US(which means if it's about AA's and their ideas,connections to Egypt then it probably should have been posted in another forum.
Well you can also say that most North Western Europeans, especially the Brits have no real genetic relationship to ancient Greeks, however they consider Greeks as culturally important to the West and it seems every single film representing them and Romans is portrayed by English/Scot/Welsh actors. With various accents from Britian.
I kind of look at this the same way with black and Egypt, it is not just African Americans afrocentrics who feel this way about Egypt, I have known people from Nigeria and Uganda who also feel similar.
Last edited by Dragon Horse on Mon 07 Sep 2009 15:49; edited 1 time in total
I think that it is also constructive to add that ancient Egyptian civilization lasted some 3000 years+. Such is so vast a time as to encompass numerous periods that involved many different ethnic perceptions.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
