Browns sue Abercrombie for "White" Image
- Thread starter prozak
- Start date
In America, if someone is "25% Black”: if one parent is white and the other mixed (50-50), they are considered Black. In order words, if you can establish a relation to a Black you are considered Black. Colin Powell is considered Black (we shall visit this later).
Now in the world of Egyptology: Leftkowitz, et al argue that the ancient Egyptians were not Black but rather a group of people with varying pigmentation, different races, not a Black people or a white people; and that to the ancient inhabitants, race was irrelevant. BTW, Ms. Selective history Leftkowitz race was VERY relevant. Anyway, here is the heart of the issue: 'African Americans', the MOST biologically DIVERSE group in the USA, who are labeler BLACK in the USA, maintain that the inhabitants of ancient Egypt were Black. Well shit, by the definition this society gives for a Black race, OF COURSE they were and more. Leftkowitz and co. are giving a different DEFINITION of a black race when discussing ancient Egyptians and a different one when discussing modern 'African Americans'. This is bullshit, and it surprises me that this debate has gone on for so long. Well no, not surprise me--this nation is at the most basic level, the most racially polarized society on Earth.
Now back to Powell: Powell is considered Black in this country. If Letfkowitz and co maintain that the ancient Egyptians were not Black because they were mixed, had 'pointed noses
, etc then where does that leave the secretary of state. If an African America from this country argues that the ancient Egyptians were Black, they are going by THIS society's definition, for it is all they truly know. By that definition, even using Leftkowitz’s, Prozak's , etc definition, Colin Powell would be representative of an ancient Egyptian --(I believe this incorrect--to understand what 'race', peoples the Egyptians were, we should look at how OTHERS saw them in relation to themselves and then compare. This unfortunately is not being done. Maybe this will be my master’s research if for some insane reason I decide to get an MA in History) Thus far, we know from the 'Nubians’--this term must not be used, and the Greeks, that the ancients Egyptians were generally dark--darker anyway than Colin Powell. <<Herodotus, how much they all LOVE you when what you report as fact supports what they believe and how violent and brutal they attack your credibility when it does not. >>
I believe that what Leftkowitz (Guess who her biggest sponsors are), et al really want to say is that the Egyptian were not Black--as in black like West Africans. The African Americans are not arguing for West Africans, because as society has taught them, they really are one whole race. Sub-Saharan Africans do not generally link themselves to ancient Egyptian history--for it is GENERALLY irrelevant in that society. The racial dynamics does not necessitate the fermentation and growth of such ideology-- currently. Diop--a Senegalese, amongst others though have asserted their own theories---the link is to the Old Kingdom and the theory of migration from the north to sub-Saharan African. Where is the sponsorship for this kinda research? But I believe at heart, we have this: African Americans, who for centuries have been told they are inferior and who have been made sociologically—economically, educationally, etc inferior, are searching to attack the perceptions of their Black ancestors as ingrained in them by society. They need to affiliate themselves with a history/history that is ‘great’--- the chose Egypt. Most know of it, unlike the civilizations of sub-Saharan Africa. The ancient Greeks, etc actually admired the old Egyptians, etc. Some Africans (West Africans mostly) look for a link because Europeans attribute their great empires- Ghana, Mali and Songhai to the Muslims; and then there is the to lure of Egypt. Leftkowitz and co., the ‘classicists’ fight vehementally against what they consider a dangerous doctrine not because they are untrue, but mostly because of the historical implications: Athens, classical Athens descended from Egypt and Blacks??? I think some hundred odd years ago, the Egyptologists anticipated this problem. Where a millennia of scholars (Greek, Roman, Victorian era, etc) with much more information at hand---not lost through time and wars, etc attributed Greek civilization to Egypt and not Mesopotamia, modern historians have shifted the influence to Mesopotamia. One dollar to the person who can provide why this shift occurred and the reasoning. I am tired.
:m: Peace
Now in the world of Egyptology: Leftkowitz, et al argue that the ancient Egyptians were not Black but rather a group of people with varying pigmentation, different races, not a Black people or a white people; and that to the ancient inhabitants, race was irrelevant. BTW, Ms. Selective history Leftkowitz race was VERY relevant. Anyway, here is the heart of the issue: 'African Americans', the MOST biologically DIVERSE group in the USA, who are labeler BLACK in the USA, maintain that the inhabitants of ancient Egypt were Black. Well shit, by the definition this society gives for a Black race, OF COURSE they were and more. Leftkowitz and co. are giving a different DEFINITION of a black race when discussing ancient Egyptians and a different one when discussing modern 'African Americans'. This is bullshit, and it surprises me that this debate has gone on for so long. Well no, not surprise me--this nation is at the most basic level, the most racially polarized society on Earth.
Now back to Powell: Powell is considered Black in this country. If Letfkowitz and co maintain that the ancient Egyptians were not Black because they were mixed, had 'pointed noses
, etc then where does that leave the secretary of state. If an African America from this country argues that the ancient Egyptians were Black, they are going by THIS society's definition, for it is all they truly know. By that definition, even using Leftkowitz’s, Prozak's , etc definition, Colin Powell would be representative of an ancient Egyptian --(I believe this incorrect--to understand what 'race', peoples the Egyptians were, we should look at how OTHERS saw them in relation to themselves and then compare. This unfortunately is not being done. Maybe this will be my master’s research if for some insane reason I decide to get an MA in History) Thus far, we know from the 'Nubians’--this term must not be used, and the Greeks, that the ancients Egyptians were generally dark--darker anyway than Colin Powell. <<Herodotus, how much they all LOVE you when what you report as fact supports what they believe and how violent and brutal they attack your credibility when it does not. >>I believe that what Leftkowitz (Guess who her biggest sponsors are), et al really want to say is that the Egyptian were not Black--as in black like West Africans. The African Americans are not arguing for West Africans, because as society has taught them, they really are one whole race. Sub-Saharan Africans do not generally link themselves to ancient Egyptian history--for it is GENERALLY irrelevant in that society. The racial dynamics does not necessitate the fermentation and growth of such ideology-- currently. Diop--a Senegalese, amongst others though have asserted their own theories---the link is to the Old Kingdom and the theory of migration from the north to sub-Saharan African. Where is the sponsorship for this kinda research? But I believe at heart, we have this: African Americans, who for centuries have been told they are inferior and who have been made sociologically—economically, educationally, etc inferior, are searching to attack the perceptions of their Black ancestors as ingrained in them by society. They need to affiliate themselves with a history/history that is ‘great’--- the chose Egypt. Most know of it, unlike the civilizations of sub-Saharan Africa. The ancient Greeks, etc actually admired the old Egyptians, etc. Some Africans (West Africans mostly) look for a link because Europeans attribute their great empires- Ghana, Mali and Songhai to the Muslims; and then there is the to lure of Egypt. Leftkowitz and co., the ‘classicists’ fight vehementally against what they consider a dangerous doctrine not because they are untrue, but mostly because of the historical implications: Athens, classical Athens descended from Egypt and Blacks??? I think some hundred odd years ago, the Egyptologists anticipated this problem. Where a millennia of scholars (Greek, Roman, Victorian era, etc) with much more information at hand---not lost through time and wars, etc attributed Greek civilization to Egypt and not Mesopotamia, modern historians have shifted the influence to Mesopotamia. One dollar to the person who can provide why this shift occurred and the reasoning. I am tired.
:m: Peace
Great post fountainhead
Now in the world of Egyptology: Leftkowitz, et al argue that the ancient Egyptians were not Black but rather a group of people with varying pigmentation, different races, not a Black people or a white people; and that to the ancient inhabitants, race was irrelevant.
* Would such an elitist group of peoples consider non-original races (obviously Kemets origine somewhere) equal to them ? They would be like some succesfull version of America ? I am having great difficulties believing that .
* In a time where there was no such mixing and co-habiting as today , there could never have been that many racial groups . So then if their pigment differed from oneanother they must have had a few big groups , wouldnt such groups have a rather immense political impact , one that would never allow such stability ? They also had slaves (according to the Hebrews they were themselves) , wouldnt that be a path that shows different groups (although racially they wouldnt be that much diferent) manifesting in the empire ? One to be master of the other ?
* Obviously the rulers have had a specific facial structures as shown through the sculptures , what chance would there be for different races to have the same typical facial structure ? Wouldnt it be more logical if there would have been different facial structures with different skincolors ? After all other facial structures were in the surroundings .
Anyway, here is the heart of the issue: 'African Americans', the MOST biologically DIVERSE group in the USA, who are labeler BLACK in the USA, maintain that the inhabitants of ancient Egypt were Black. Well shit, by the definition this society gives for a Black race, OF COURSE they were and more.
Well African American anthropologists obviously do not call them "society-black" but go along with Ante Diop who you mention further on in your post .
Thus far, we know from the 'NubiansÂ’--this term must not be used, and the Greeks, that the ancients Egyptians were generally dark--darker anyway than Colin Powell
How do you feel about the pictures my friend posted concenring an Ethiopian line of facial structure ? Also why is Nubians misused as a term ? Isnt Nubia ancient Sudan ? What I really dont get is that Nubia is east of Egypt , and racially-logically it should be west . They resembles West-African facial structure rather than East-African (a hamitic-semitic difference ? ) , they are supposed to have been an empire together with Kemet right ? But they also have been Kemetian slaves ? Im not familliar with this element in the subject maybe you know more Im very curious to find out anyways .
Diop--a Senegalese, amongst others though have asserted their own theories---the link is to the Old Kingdom and the theory of migration from the north to sub-Saharan African.
It is a good thing to see that you are familliar with Diop , so how do you feel about his theory ? But then what about Sumer & Babylon ? Kemet & Babylon resembled in many things so Ive heard , are there any links ? Afterall it still remains in this semitic-hamitic circle of things .
Leftkowitz and co., the ‘classicists’ fight vehementally against what they consider a dangerous doctrine not because they are untrue, but mostly because of the historical implications
Do they not all follow the path of Budge ? I heard that guy called the Egyptians negro-savages .... what a credibility is shown there
He was a sucky translator with a very euro-centric view of things anyhow ....
Athens, classical Athens descended from Egypt and Blacks??? I think some hundred odd years ago, the Egyptologists anticipated this problem. Where a millennia of scholars (Greek, Roman, Victorian era, etc) with much more information at hand---not lost through time and wars, etc attributed Greek civilization to Egypt and not Mesopotamia, modern historians have shifted the influence to Mesopotamia. One dollar to the person who can provide why this shift occurred and the reasoning
Id say pure racism in contributing mesopotamia to a white peoples to keep their history clean . Question is however , how much of that is true ? After-all they were semitic , and the semitic roots lead to a dark skin not a light one .
Peace
Now in the world of Egyptology: Leftkowitz, et al argue that the ancient Egyptians were not Black but rather a group of people with varying pigmentation, different races, not a Black people or a white people; and that to the ancient inhabitants, race was irrelevant.
* Would such an elitist group of peoples consider non-original races (obviously Kemets origine somewhere) equal to them ? They would be like some succesfull version of America ? I am having great difficulties believing that .
* In a time where there was no such mixing and co-habiting as today , there could never have been that many racial groups . So then if their pigment differed from oneanother they must have had a few big groups , wouldnt such groups have a rather immense political impact , one that would never allow such stability ? They also had slaves (according to the Hebrews they were themselves) , wouldnt that be a path that shows different groups (although racially they wouldnt be that much diferent) manifesting in the empire ? One to be master of the other ?
* Obviously the rulers have had a specific facial structures as shown through the sculptures , what chance would there be for different races to have the same typical facial structure ? Wouldnt it be more logical if there would have been different facial structures with different skincolors ? After all other facial structures were in the surroundings .
Anyway, here is the heart of the issue: 'African Americans', the MOST biologically DIVERSE group in the USA, who are labeler BLACK in the USA, maintain that the inhabitants of ancient Egypt were Black. Well shit, by the definition this society gives for a Black race, OF COURSE they were and more.
Well African American anthropologists obviously do not call them "society-black" but go along with Ante Diop who you mention further on in your post .
Thus far, we know from the 'NubiansÂ’--this term must not be used, and the Greeks, that the ancients Egyptians were generally dark--darker anyway than Colin Powell
How do you feel about the pictures my friend
posted concenring an Ethiopian line of facial structure ? Also why is Nubians misused as a term ? Isnt Nubia ancient Sudan ? What I really dont get is that Nubia is east of Egypt , and racially-logically it should be west . They resembles West-African facial structure rather than East-African (a hamitic-semitic difference ? ) , they are supposed to have been an empire together with Kemet right ? But they also have been Kemetian slaves ? Im not familliar with this element in the subject maybe you know more Im very curious to find out anyways . Diop--a Senegalese, amongst others though have asserted their own theories---the link is to the Old Kingdom and the theory of migration from the north to sub-Saharan African.
It is a good thing to see that you are familliar with Diop , so how do you feel about his theory ? But then what about Sumer & Babylon ? Kemet & Babylon resembled in many things so Ive heard , are there any links ? Afterall it still remains in this semitic-hamitic circle of things .
Leftkowitz and co., the ‘classicists’ fight vehementally against what they consider a dangerous doctrine not because they are untrue, but mostly because of the historical implications
Do they not all follow the path of Budge ? I heard that guy called the Egyptians negro-savages .... what a credibility is shown there
He was a sucky translator with a very euro-centric view of things anyhow ....
Athens, classical Athens descended from Egypt and Blacks??? I think some hundred odd years ago, the Egyptologists anticipated this problem. Where a millennia of scholars (Greek, Roman, Victorian era, etc) with much more information at hand---not lost through time and wars, etc attributed Greek civilization to Egypt and not Mesopotamia, modern historians have shifted the influence to Mesopotamia. One dollar to the person who can provide why this shift occurred and the reasoning
Id say pure racism in contributing mesopotamia to a white peoples to keep their history clean . Question is however , how much of that is true ? After-all they were semitic , and the semitic roots lead to a dark skin not a light one .
Peace
Would such an elitist group of peoples consider non-original races (obviously Kemets origine somewhere) equal to them ? They would be like some succesfull version of America ? I am having great difficulties believing that .
In a time where there was no such mixing and co-habiting as today , there could never have been that many racial groups .
--> Incorrect. There was wide spread mixing in the upper nile valley as it served as the crossroads for many many cultures.
So then if their pigment differed from one another they must have had a few big groups , wouldnt such groups have a rather immense political impact , one that would never allow such stability ? They also had slaves (according to the Hebrews they were themselves) , wouldnt that be a path that shows different groups (although racially they wouldnt be that much diferent) manifesting in the empire ? One to be master of the other ?
--> Not necessarily and certainly not in the case of the ancient Egyptians. The was one stabilizing factor that allowed for such stability in a despot; religion. Their religion as it were, and the ancient Egyptians were religious, coupled with the illiteracy of the general populace, a large standing army, and relative prosperity ensured stability.
Obviously the rulers have had a specific facial structures as shown through the sculptures , what chance would there be for different races to have the same typical facial structure ? Wouldnt it be more logical if there would have been different facial structures with different skincolors ? After all other facial structures were in the surroundings .
->> Obviously we must separate the pharaohs of the old kingdom and middle kingdoms from the Greco-Roman pharaohs of later times.
Well African American anthropologists obviously do not call them "society-black" but go along with Ante Diop who you mention further on in your post.
--> ‘society-black’ is unneeded. Black refers to such a preposterously huge group iy is laughable.
How do you feel about the pictures my friend posted concerning an Ethiopian line of facial structure ?
--> Well I think the girl in the middle is hot, tell your friend thanks; if you are asking how closely they relate to that of the ancient Egyptians, I must say they are kinda close. Also 5000 years separate the two and Ethiopians today have also had some mixing that shows in the general populace.
Also why is Nubians misused as a term ? Isnt Nubia ancient Sudan ? What I really dont get is that Nubia is east of Egypt , and racially-logically it should be west .
Nubia is a term used to refer to the Kushites and Meroites who are identified as black by historiansbecause what they left leaves no question; also because save Egypt they did not get invaded. Also they written langauage has no been deciphered and quite frankly, noone is doing shit.
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/32/004.html
They resembles West-African facial structure rather than East-African (a hamitic-semitic difference ? ) , they are supposed to have been an empire together with Kemet right ? But they also have been Kemetian slaves ? Im not familliar with this element in the subject maybe you know more Im very curious to find out anyways .
--> Here is a relief from the tomb of Set1 which is painstakingly inconspicuous. This is how the Egyptians painted themselves when they wanted to distinguish themselves from the Syrians, Libyans and Europeans.
From left to right: Egyptian, Libyan, Kushite, Babylonia/Syrian
check attachment
It is a good thing to see that you are familliar with Diop , so how do you feel about his theory ? But then what about Sumer & Babylon ? Kemet & Babylon resembled in many things so Ive heard , are there any links ? Afterall it still remains in this semitic-hamitic circle of things .
“Hamitic”. LMAO. Don’t use that word too. Ancient Egyptian history has so many remnants from the past racism it is sickening. I believe his theories share the same ‘scientific’ bases that are being used to ‘refute’ them—that is the irony. I also believe he makes some valid and some outrageous points. I think it is a shame he came at a time when there was little chance of his work ever getting furthered. Babylonan and ancient Egypt were very very different.
Links? You should read his book (The African Origin of Civilization: Myth or Reality: Cheikh Anta Diop), but you can check these out:
[url]http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/diop.html [/URL]
http://www.nbufront.org/html/MastersMuseums/JHClarke/Contemporaries/CheikhAntaDiop.html
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Academy/8919/theory2.htm
peace
In a time where there was no such mixing and co-habiting as today , there could never have been that many racial groups .
--> Incorrect. There was wide spread mixing in the upper nile valley as it served as the crossroads for many many cultures.
So then if their pigment differed from one another they must have had a few big groups , wouldnt such groups have a rather immense political impact , one that would never allow such stability ? They also had slaves (according to the Hebrews they were themselves) , wouldnt that be a path that shows different groups (although racially they wouldnt be that much diferent) manifesting in the empire ? One to be master of the other ?
--> Not necessarily and certainly not in the case of the ancient Egyptians. The was one stabilizing factor that allowed for such stability in a despot; religion. Their religion as it were, and the ancient Egyptians were religious, coupled with the illiteracy of the general populace, a large standing army, and relative prosperity ensured stability.
Obviously the rulers have had a specific facial structures as shown through the sculptures , what chance would there be for different races to have the same typical facial structure ? Wouldnt it be more logical if there would have been different facial structures with different skincolors ? After all other facial structures were in the surroundings .
->> Obviously we must separate the pharaohs of the old kingdom and middle kingdoms from the Greco-Roman pharaohs of later times.
Well African American anthropologists obviously do not call them "society-black" but go along with Ante Diop who you mention further on in your post.
--> ‘society-black’ is unneeded. Black refers to such a preposterously huge group iy is laughable.
How do you feel about the pictures my friend posted concerning an Ethiopian line of facial structure ?
--> Well I think the girl in the middle is hot, tell your friend
thanks; if you are asking how closely they relate to that of the ancient Egyptians, I must say they are kinda close. Also 5000 years separate the two and Ethiopians today have also had some mixing that shows in the general populace.Also why is Nubians misused as a term ? Isnt Nubia ancient Sudan ? What I really dont get is that Nubia is east of Egypt , and racially-logically it should be west .
Nubia is a term used to refer to the Kushites and Meroites who are identified as black by historiansbecause what they left leaves no question; also because save Egypt they did not get invaded. Also they written langauage has no been deciphered and quite frankly, noone is doing shit.
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/32/004.html
They resembles West-African facial structure rather than East-African (a hamitic-semitic difference ? ) , they are supposed to have been an empire together with Kemet right ? But they also have been Kemetian slaves ? Im not familliar with this element in the subject maybe you know more Im very curious to find out anyways .
--> Here is a relief from the tomb of Set1 which is painstakingly inconspicuous. This is how the Egyptians painted themselves when they wanted to distinguish themselves from the Syrians, Libyans and Europeans.
From left to right: Egyptian, Libyan, Kushite, Babylonia/Syrian
check attachment
It is a good thing to see that you are familliar with Diop , so how do you feel about his theory ? But then what about Sumer & Babylon ? Kemet & Babylon resembled in many things so Ive heard , are there any links ? Afterall it still remains in this semitic-hamitic circle of things .
“Hamitic”. LMAO. Don’t use that word too. Ancient Egyptian history has so many remnants from the past racism it is sickening. I believe his theories share the same ‘scientific’ bases that are being used to ‘refute’ them—that is the irony. I also believe he makes some valid and some outrageous points. I think it is a shame he came at a time when there was little chance of his work ever getting furthered. Babylonan and ancient Egypt were very very different.
Links? You should read his book (The African Origin of Civilization: Myth or Reality: Cheikh Anta Diop), but you can check these out:
[url]http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/diop.html [/URL]
http://www.nbufront.org/html/MastersMuseums/JHClarke/Contemporaries/CheikhAntaDiop.html
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Academy/8919/theory2.htm
peace
Last edited:
--> Incorrect. There was wide spread mixing in the upper nile valley as it served as the crossroads for many many cultures.
The question is when did that mixing start . I say first we should determine weither the very first original Kemet society has any Caucasian mixing (we are not speaking semtic-hamitic here) .
So when did the "aryans" enter Kemet ? And how was that handled by the native population ? Was it friendly enough to intermix ? Or didnt the mixing start till the Greeks and Romans (first civilized Caucasians no ?) came along ? That would be my hunch , or at some very point near that .
Another possibility would be mesopotamian mixing as I would expect Babylon to have known a much heavier Caucasian intermixing (as reflects the ME today(well not that much but you get my point )) .
--> Not necessarily and certainly not in the case of the ancient Egyptians. The was one stabilizing factor that allowed for such stability in a despot; religion. Their religion as it were, and the ancient Egyptians were religious, coupled with the illiteracy of the general populace, a large standing army, and relative prosperity ensured stability.
Well the fact is that there were just a few groups were there not ? Assumably in that era you would then have 3 or 4 (at most)seriously racial entity's . They did not really share religion did they ? I mean Kemetian religion (Are you familliar with African-American spiritual revisionism on this subject?) .
I look at your attachements and I see 2 obvious races , a hamitic and a light semitic one . I say hamitic but you know Im not biblical I mean the more stereotypical African , perhaps its even more like Somali but the structures resemble not really a supposed "european-typed" structure . However semitic as with Hebrews if we are to take its most original form in the Falasmuri (They are direct decendants of Solomon and Sheba and have never left their Ethiopian land ) then we would see some not-so European facial structures . Heres an almost ancient picture :
And then I keep thinking about the Somali , they're shape is extraordinary , and the Sudanese have another structure but very similir in the line of Hebrew-Somalese and even Iritrean and ending in todays Ethiopia (as my former pictures showed) .
How old is that photo you attached ? Where is it from exactly ?
Anyways it obviously proves multi-raciality at one point , I do believe indeed you're right with their "religious" system they might hold together such differences . Hey they were smarter than most of us are so who knows ?
->> Obviously we must separate the pharaohs of the old kingdom and middle kingdoms from the Greco-Roman pharaohs of later times.
My point exactly the periods have not been identical . As for the Greco-Roman pharaos , Im not sure how to consider them Greco-Roman exactly , were they actually not Kemetian (I dunno?) ? Or do you point at their racial makeover or perhaps intermixing ?
--> ‘society-black’ is unneeded. Black refers to such a preposterously huge group iy is laughable.
But Ante Diop refers to the anthropological fact that is their skincolor , that is at least in their Kemetian origin . Obviously there is as much racial value in USA's black as there in Latin-American's Mullato and Mestizo , its one huge mess of multi-raciality . Nothing scientifical about that , might as well just call them coloreds .
--> Well I think the girl in the middle is hot, tell your friend thanks; if you are asking how closely they relate to that of the ancient Egyptians, I must say they are kinda close. Also 5000 years separate the two and Ethiopians today have also had some mixing that shows in the general populace.
Yes she is . I know Ethiopia has mixing but check its location its inbetween all different-racial peoples .
A simple ethnic classification of Ethiopia's population is not feasible. People categorized on the basis of one criterion, such as language, may be divided on the basis of another. Moreover, ethnicity--a people's insistence that it is distinctive and its behavior on the basis of that insistence--is a subjective response to both historical experience and current situations. A group thus distinguished may not be the same as that established on the basis of objective criteria.
Historically, entities defining themselves in ethnic terms reacted or adapted to Amhara domination in various ways. Affecting their adaptation was the degree of Amhara domination--in some areas Amhara were present in force, while in others they established a minimal administrative presence--and the extent of ethnic mixing. In some areas, historical differences and external conditions led to disaffection and attempts at secession, as in multiethnic Eritrea and in the Ogaden. In others, individuals adapted to the Amhara. Often they understood the change not so much as a process of becoming Amhara as one of taking on an Ethiopian (and urban) identity.
http://countrystudies.us/ethiopia/47.htm
But are they as variable as the Eritreans ? They are so mixed they might as well be African-Americans , lol .
However as we see in all those mixture its all mostly mixing amongst groups with very dark skin-complex , mostly pre-Caucasian .
You agree on a similar Egyptian facial structure amonsgt this group (esepcially in Eritrea they're very present) , would they be say the roots of Amahara as a peoples ?
Ante Diop is known for his linguistic methods .
But Im not getting how a semitic language like Amharic fits into all of this .
The Amhara, who form about 24% of the
population, were the historical rulers and elite of
Ethiopia.
http://www.nceltr.mq.edu.au/pdamep/factsheets/Ethiopiaprofile.pdf
In any way this picture of "Black" does not correspond with your picture , or is it perhaps that I am taking those hard-to-see facial structures to serious ? Who would those Ethiopian/Eritrean girls be , the light ones or the dark ones ? In this day they are both very dark , and there is my confusement . I dont you could get a mix as then supposed to be (in early times that is) to have todays result of the region .
Nubia is a term used to refer to the Kushites and Meroites who are identified as blackby historians as what they left leaves no question also because save Egypt they did not get invaded. Also they written langauage has no been deciphered and quite frankly, noone is doing shit.
Im not familliar with all of that , do they relate to any of the groups present in the region today ? What is modern Nubian language ? Anyhow its a shame nobody is doing shit , seems like nobody really cares about it huh ?
--> Here is a relief from the tomb of Set1 which is painstakingly inconspicuous. This is how the Egyptians painted themselves when they wanted to distinguish themselves from the Syrians, Libyans and Europeans.
From left to right: Egyptian, Libyan, Kushite, Babylonia/Syrian
Ok so nevermind my conclusions allofasudden this makes sense : I thought they were all supposed to be Egyptians .
Yep this certainly clears shit up as far as Egyptian go obviously they show difference with the Akkhadian-Arabians (Syrians/Babylonians) and they make themselves appear as similar to Nubians/Kushite , that settles my entire theory . Indeed we could then assume those girls to have very much resembled Kemetians , but then on what would we base a multi-racial society in the sense thats its multi-color ? As a matter of fact if its not Multi-colored I doubt multi-facial structure , most probably then these 2 (Kushite-Kemet) are the origins of todays Southern-Egypt/Sudan/Eritrea/Somali population .
What you say ?
That Lybian sure looks like a Chineze , lol . I dont think they generalized that much looking at their color posibilities , and they choose a very dark for them and the Nubians .
Still I think those Lybian is weird , I mean how come that turned out so light ?
“Hamitic”. LMAO. Don’t use that word too
Yes yes I know Im sorry
I believe his theories share the same ‘scientific’ bases that are being used to ‘refute’ them—that is the irony. I also believe he makes some valid and some outrageous points. I think it is a shame he came at a time when there was little chance of his work ever getting furthered. Babylonan and ancient Egypt were very very different.
So elaborate , what points did you consider outragious and what good ? I agree that the 2 empires were different as in peoples/race , but did they not have much in comon in religious perspective ? Also I wonder about Sumer , racially this would be much more logical if they resembled color with Kemet than with Babylon , or maybe something in the middle ? But again this would deal with the first Caucasian intermixing , would it have appeared before Sumer ?
You should read his book (The African Origin of Civilization: Myth or Reality: Cheikh Anta Diop), but you can check these out:
Yes I know all I have is read some articles about it but I couldnt get my hands on a e-copy , you dont happen to have or know where to find it ? I dont like Amazon , lol .
Anyways thanks for the links seems I have alot of reading to do
peace
****Moderator perhaps this should be moved to human sciences ?****
The question is when did that mixing start . I say first we should determine weither the very first original Kemet society has any Caucasian mixing (we are not speaking semtic-hamitic here) .
So when did the "aryans" enter Kemet ? And how was that handled by the native population ? Was it friendly enough to intermix ? Or didnt the mixing start till the Greeks and Romans (first civilized Caucasians no ?) came along ? That would be my hunch , or at some very point near that .
Another possibility would be mesopotamian mixing as I would expect Babylon to have known a much heavier Caucasian intermixing (as reflects the ME today(well not that much but you get my point )) .
--> Not necessarily and certainly not in the case of the ancient Egyptians. The was one stabilizing factor that allowed for such stability in a despot; religion. Their religion as it were, and the ancient Egyptians were religious, coupled with the illiteracy of the general populace, a large standing army, and relative prosperity ensured stability.
Well the fact is that there were just a few groups were there not ? Assumably in that era you would then have 3 or 4 (at most)seriously racial entity's . They did not really share religion did they ? I mean Kemetian religion (Are you familliar with African-American spiritual revisionism on this subject?) .
I look at your attachements and I see 2 obvious races , a hamitic and a light semitic one . I say hamitic but you know Im not biblical I mean the more stereotypical African , perhaps its even more like Somali but the structures resemble not really a supposed "european-typed" structure . However semitic as with Hebrews if we are to take its most original form in the Falasmuri (They are direct decendants of Solomon and Sheba and have never left their Ethiopian land ) then we would see some not-so European facial structures . Heres an almost ancient picture :
And then I keep thinking about the Somali , they're shape is extraordinary , and the Sudanese have another structure but very similir in the line of Hebrew-Somalese and even Iritrean and ending in todays Ethiopia (as my former pictures showed) .
How old is that photo you attached ? Where is it from exactly ?
Anyways it obviously proves multi-raciality at one point , I do believe indeed you're right with their "religious" system they might hold together such differences . Hey they were smarter than most of us are so who knows ?
->> Obviously we must separate the pharaohs of the old kingdom and middle kingdoms from the Greco-Roman pharaohs of later times.
My point exactly the periods have not been identical . As for the Greco-Roman pharaos , Im not sure how to consider them Greco-Roman exactly , were they actually not Kemetian (I dunno?) ? Or do you point at their racial makeover or perhaps intermixing ?
--> ‘society-black’ is unneeded. Black refers to such a preposterously huge group iy is laughable.
But Ante Diop refers to the anthropological fact that is their skincolor , that is at least in their Kemetian origin . Obviously there is as much racial value in USA's black as there in Latin-American's Mullato and Mestizo , its one huge mess of multi-raciality . Nothing scientifical about that , might as well just call them coloreds .
--> Well I think the girl in the middle is hot, tell your friend thanks; if you are asking how closely they relate to that of the ancient Egyptians, I must say they are kinda close. Also 5000 years separate the two and Ethiopians today have also had some mixing that shows in the general populace.
Yes she is . I know Ethiopia has mixing but check its location its inbetween all different-racial peoples .
A simple ethnic classification of Ethiopia's population is not feasible. People categorized on the basis of one criterion, such as language, may be divided on the basis of another. Moreover, ethnicity--a people's insistence that it is distinctive and its behavior on the basis of that insistence--is a subjective response to both historical experience and current situations. A group thus distinguished may not be the same as that established on the basis of objective criteria.
Historically, entities defining themselves in ethnic terms reacted or adapted to Amhara domination in various ways. Affecting their adaptation was the degree of Amhara domination--in some areas Amhara were present in force, while in others they established a minimal administrative presence--and the extent of ethnic mixing. In some areas, historical differences and external conditions led to disaffection and attempts at secession, as in multiethnic Eritrea and in the Ogaden. In others, individuals adapted to the Amhara. Often they understood the change not so much as a process of becoming Amhara as one of taking on an Ethiopian (and urban) identity.
http://countrystudies.us/ethiopia/47.htm
But are they as variable as the Eritreans ? They are so mixed they might as well be African-Americans , lol .
However as we see in all those mixture its all mostly mixing amongst groups with very dark skin-complex , mostly pre-Caucasian .
You agree on a similar Egyptian facial structure amonsgt this group (esepcially in Eritrea they're very present) , would they be say the roots of Amahara as a peoples ?
Ante Diop is known for his linguistic methods .
But Im not getting how a semitic language like Amharic fits into all of this .
The Amhara, who form about 24% of the
population, were the historical rulers and elite of
Ethiopia.
http://www.nceltr.mq.edu.au/pdamep/factsheets/Ethiopiaprofile.pdf
In any way this picture of "Black" does not correspond with your picture , or is it perhaps that I am taking those hard-to-see facial structures to serious ? Who would those Ethiopian/Eritrean girls be , the light ones or the dark ones ? In this day they are both very dark , and there is my confusement . I dont you could get a mix as then supposed to be (in early times that is) to have todays result of the region .
Nubia is a term used to refer to the Kushites and Meroites who are identified as blackby historians as what they left leaves no question also because save Egypt they did not get invaded. Also they written langauage has no been deciphered and quite frankly, noone is doing shit.
Im not familliar with all of that , do they relate to any of the groups present in the region today ? What is modern Nubian language ? Anyhow its a shame nobody is doing shit , seems like nobody really cares about it huh ?
--> Here is a relief from the tomb of Set1 which is painstakingly inconspicuous. This is how the Egyptians painted themselves when they wanted to distinguish themselves from the Syrians, Libyans and Europeans.
From left to right: Egyptian, Libyan, Kushite, Babylonia/Syrian
Ok so nevermind my conclusions allofasudden this makes sense : I thought they were all supposed to be Egyptians .
Yep this certainly clears shit up as far as Egyptian go obviously they show difference with the Akkhadian-Arabians (Syrians/Babylonians) and they make themselves appear as similar to Nubians/Kushite , that settles my entire theory . Indeed we could then assume those girls to have very much resembled Kemetians , but then on what would we base a multi-racial society in the sense thats its multi-color ? As a matter of fact if its not Multi-colored I doubt multi-facial structure , most probably then these 2 (Kushite-Kemet) are the origins of todays Southern-Egypt/Sudan/Eritrea/Somali population .
What you say ?
That Lybian sure looks like a Chineze , lol . I dont think they generalized that much looking at their color posibilities , and they choose a very dark for them and the Nubians .
Still I think those Lybian is weird , I mean how come that turned out so light ?
“Hamitic”. LMAO. Don’t use that word too
Yes yes I know Im sorry
I believe his theories share the same ‘scientific’ bases that are being used to ‘refute’ them—that is the irony. I also believe he makes some valid and some outrageous points. I think it is a shame he came at a time when there was little chance of his work ever getting furthered. Babylonan and ancient Egypt were very very different.
So elaborate , what points did you consider outragious and what good ? I agree that the 2 empires were different as in peoples/race , but did they not have much in comon in religious perspective ? Also I wonder about Sumer , racially this would be much more logical if they resembled color with Kemet than with Babylon , or maybe something in the middle ? But again this would deal with the first Caucasian intermixing , would it have appeared before Sumer ?
You should read his book (The African Origin of Civilization: Myth or Reality: Cheikh Anta Diop), but you can check these out:
Yes I know all I have is read some articles about it but I couldnt get my hands on a e-copy , you dont happen to have or know where to find it ? I dont like Amazon , lol .
Anyways thanks for the links seems I have alot of reading to do
peace
****Moderator perhaps this should be moved to human sciences ?****