|
Post by humantag on May 20, 2005 4:40:09 GMT -5
Charlie wrote: "Ad-hominem attacking Ehret with an article from racist Frontpage mag huh? Despite that Ehret is correct in stating that Afro-Asistic languages spread from Africa to Asia so it doesn't refute Ancient Egyptian being an African language. "
You continue to evidence a flawed understanding of the term 'adhominem'. I gave specific reasons why I am not impressed by the Ehret reference, and the Frontpage link is relevant as it provides some historical perspective into the nature of 'Black Studies' departments in general and the one at UCLA in particular.
Can you explain coherently how Frontpage Magazine is 'racist'? Are you one of these guys who dismisses as 'racist' anything that doesn't pander to black nationalism and identity politics? Come on Charlie, I thought you were more sophisticated than that. If you want to be taken seriously you shouldn't throw the R word around so casually.
|
|
|
Post by humantag on May 20, 2005 5:00:01 GMT -5
Charlie wrote: "...Ehret is correct in stating that Afro-Asistic languages spread from Africa to Asia so it doesn't refute Ancient Egyptian being an African language..."
I'm not ideologically pre-committed to a position regarding the racial character of Ancient Egyptians. As with anything else I say let the best available evidence speak for itself and follow the data wherever it leads.
It seems to me that the preponderance of the evidence suggests that ancient Egypt was predominately populated by people of a sort traditionally classified as caucasian. I think there is compelling evidence of a black African element in ancient Egypt as well, particuarly with respect to Upper Egypt. I do however think many blacks tend to try to make AE blacker than the evidence suggests.
It strikes me as curious that American blacks should invest so much energy in this question, as it seems to me they don't really have a dog in this hunt. They hail overwhelmingly from the west coast of Africa, and so even if the AE's were all uniformly black, most American blacks would be about as justified in citing the achievements of AE as a source of pride as an Irishman would in talking about the achievements of ancient Rome or Greece. I think it really has more to do with shame of their Sub Saharan origins - they'd rather identify with the Mediterranean or the Middle East - or even the horn of Africa for that matter- in short, ANYTHING but where they are actually from. It's really incredibly sad.
|
|
|
Post by topdog on May 20, 2005 6:00:40 GMT -5
I wouldn't most of AE was Caucasian, I would say they were mixed with a cline that runs from Middle Eastern looking in the north to sub-Saharan looking in the south[of the elongated type]. In between you have mixtures of mixtures in differing degrees.
As for Ehret, one could make the same argument to attack the AAPA for the ridiculous claims that Coon made regarding East Africans and his involvement with white supremacists, but that would be an ad-hominem because Coon was wrong, not the AAPA; likewise with UCLAs's black studies department, attacking it and not Ehret's work does little to debunk Ehret.
|
|
|
Post by topdog on May 20, 2005 6:06:17 GMT -5
Frontpage magaine is politically slanted against blacks, in particular those blacks who don't hold conservative views.
|
|
|
Post by eufrenio on May 20, 2005 7:28:05 GMT -5
I wouldn't most of AE was Caucasian, I would say they were mixed with a cline that runs from Middle Eastern looking in the north to sub-Saharan looking in the south[of the elongated type]. In between you have mixtures of mixtures in differing degrees. As for Ehret, one could make the same argument to attack the AAPA for the ridiculous claims that Coon made regarding East Africans and his involvement with white supremacists, but that would be an ad-hominem because Coon was wrong, not the AAPA; likewise with UCLAs's black studies department, attacking it and not Ehret's work does little to debunk Ehret. Can you prove that Coon was involved with white supremacists? His work is quite objective.
|
|
|
Post by mike2 on May 20, 2005 7:32:46 GMT -5
Coon was not a white supremacist. If he was I would have surely have known about it by now. He didn't do anything to combat segregation or to socially minimize the racial differences he hypothesized, but that hardly makes him a supremacist.
|
|
Berter
Junior Member
Evil Ass Kicker!
Posts: 65
|
Post by Berter on May 20, 2005 14:26:25 GMT -5
Since it has been proven that predynastic Upper Egyptians were sub-Saharan in appearance that now makes them not the real Egyptians? I guess thats the new line of argument now, to run away from what cannot be refuted right? I do not deny that there might have been some black groups in ancient Upper Egypt, ...Now prove to me that they contributed substantially to the formation of the egyptian civilisation, other than by serving as manpower to Lower Egyptians!. And please, no idiotic links from the Net.
|
|
|
Post by humantag on May 20, 2005 14:52:10 GMT -5
I do not deny that there might have been some black groups in ancient Upper Egypt, ...Now prove to me that they contributed substantially to the formation of the egyptian civilisation, other than by serving as manpower to Lower Egyptians!. And please, no idiotic links from the Net. Of course, the notion that blacks from Upper Egypt served only as a source of manpower to Lower Egypt requires proof as well.
|
|
Baladi
Junior Member
Posts: 63
|
Post by Baladi on May 20, 2005 15:10:44 GMT -5
Upper Egypt is where the civilization of ancient Egypt sprang from. Lower Egypt was the people absorbed into the Upper Egyptians who unified the two lands.
The seat of the early formation of dyanstic Egyptian civlization is deep in el-kab located in modern day southern Upper Egypt:
From Petrie onwards,it was reguarly suggested,despite the evidence of Pre dyanstic cultures,Egyptian civlization of the 1st dyansty appeared suddently and must therfore have been instroduced by an invading foreign ''race''. Since the 1970's however excavations at Abutu[Abydos] and nekhen[el-Kab] have clearly ,demonstrated the indigenous Upper Egyptian roots of early civlization in egypt. While there is certainly evidence of foreign contact in the fourth millennium B.C.,this was not in the form of millitary invasion
page 65
Oxford History of Ancient egypt Ian Shaw
|
|
|
Post by topdog on May 20, 2005 15:25:11 GMT -5
I do not deny that there might have been some black groups in ancient Upper Egypt, ...Now prove to me that they contributed substantially to the formation of the egyptian civilisation, other than by serving as manpower to Lower Egyptians!. And please, no idiotic links from the Net. Berter, quit trolling: Kathryn A. Bard The Egyptian Predynastic: A Review of the Evidence Journal of Field Archaeology 21 (1994) 265--288 In the 4th millennium B.C. two different Predynastic cultures, both of which practiced agriculture, evolved in Egypt: the Nagada culture in the south and the Maadi culture in the north. Settlement sites of the latter are much better preserved, but in the south, where most of the archaeological evidence is from cemeteries, there is much greater evidence for the evolution of social hierarchies and complex societies. A review of the archaeological evidence for the Predynastic suggests that the early state had its cultural origins in the south, although the processes involved in the emergence of the state of Egypt can only be hypothesized at this time. Now post your rpoof that Upper egyptians were nothing more than slaves to Lower Egyptians.
|
|
|
Post by topdog on May 20, 2005 15:32:22 GMT -5
I think it really has more to do with shame of their Sub Saharan origins - they'd rather identify with the Mediterranean or the Middle East - or even the horn of Africa for that matter- in short, ANYTHING but where they are actually from. It's really incredibly sad. What shame are you talking about about? Don't make stupid statements like that, American blacks don't care anything about Egypt or the rest of Africa for that matter, in the context in which we are speaking now. As I and Minstrel have tried to point and have presented on numerous occasions, there is much more to Africa than just Egypt, the only one here who's doing all of the chest-pounding about Egypt and claiming things is Alexandrian; none of the American blacks have laid claim to anything in or about Egypt. Since when do American blacks identify more with the Mediterranean, Middle east or Horn of Africa? Don't repeat the same ad-hominem nonsense that opponents of Afrocentrism exclaim. No one says anything about white Americans identifying with Greeks and Romans so why single out American blacks with stupid lies?
|
|
|
Post by topdog on May 20, 2005 15:46:36 GMT -5
|
|
Berter
Junior Member
Evil Ass Kicker!
Posts: 65
|
Post by Berter on May 20, 2005 16:26:01 GMT -5
I do not deny that there might have been some black groups in ancient Upper Egypt, ... This statement of mine doesnt imply that I believe Upper Egypt was initially a totally 'black' land. I tend to believe that whole Egypt was inhabited by a population of the same type as the one of Lower Egypt (coastal egyptians) AND that Blacks were brought/came later to U.E. This view is consistent with the one I hold for North West Africa (Berberia) -- Blacks are not indigenous to north africa, be it NWA or Egypt.Humantag, this notion is easy to 'accept' than the one believed by Charlie Bass, given the history of Blacks every where in the world.
|
|
|
Post by humantag on May 20, 2005 16:33:07 GMT -5
What shame are you talking about about? Don't make stupid statements like that, American blacks don't care anything about Egypt or the rest of Africa for that matter, in the context in which we are speaking now. As I and Minstrel have tried to point and have presented on numerous occasions, there is much more to Africa than just Egypt, the only one here who's doing all of the chest-pounding about Egypt and claiming things is Alexandrian; none of the American blacks have laid claim to anything in or about Egypt. Since when do American blacks identify more with the Mediterranean, Middle east or Horn of Africa? Don't repeat the same ad-hominem nonsense that opponents of Afrocentrism exclaim. No one says anything about white Americans identifying with Greeks and Romans so why single out American blacks with stupid lies? Come on Charlie - be honest. Blacks in America routinely lay claim to Ancient Egypt. You haven't heard blacks in America refer to themselves as "the people who built the Pyramids"? Again, as most American blacks are West African, even if AE was 100% black this would be like Irishmen referring to themselves as "the people who built the Acropolis" or Swedes referring to themselves as "the people who built the Colliseum". It seems to me 99% of the talk here is about blacks in Ancient Egypt . I almost never see anything about Sub Saharan Africa. I seem to recall one recent post by Minstrel. There have undoubtedy been others, but most of the posts are about blacks in Egypt. If I saw a group of Irish or Swedes who talked ceaselessly of the accomplishments of Greece and Rome - never of Ireland or Sweden - and of the genetic and/or cultural overlap between the peoples of Ireland and Sweden and the peoples of Greece and Rome, I'd definitely get the impression they were looking for pride outside of their heritage. It's the same sense I get when I see black Americans so preoccupied with Ancient Egypt. You seem to be saying that in your case, you're simply responding to others. OK - I'll accept that. But my observation that American blacks generally seem to want to identify with Egypt (and surrounding environs) rather than the west coast of Sub Saharan Africa is not invalidated by the fact that it does not necessarily apply to you or to all black Americans.
|
|
Berter
Junior Member
Evil Ass Kicker!
Posts: 65
|
Post by Berter on May 20, 2005 16:51:17 GMT -5
Well, I beforehand know that I am discussing with the same man --- Charlie!?. Chrlie, do you know what the word Baladi means!? ;D Upper Egypt is where the civilization of ancient Egypt sprang from. Lower Egypt was the people absorbed into the Upper Egyptians who unified the two lands. The seat of the early formation of dyanstic Egyptian civlization is deep in el-kab located in modern day southern Upper Egypt: From Petrie onwards,it was reguarly suggested,despite the evidence of Pre dyanstic cultures,Egyptian civlization of the 1st dyansty appeared suddently and must therfore have been instroduced by an invading foreign ''race''. Since the 1970's however excavations at Abutu[Abydos] and nekhen[el-Kab] have clearly ,demonstrated the indigenous Upper Egyptian roots of early civlization in egypt. Well, those archeological excavations just prove that UE was the home where A.E civilisation started. I said above that this region was originally inhabited by the same human type as the one that dominated in Lower Egypt. I believe that those southern 'lower egyptians' are the one responsible of the earliest forms of civilisation in Ancient Egypt. Here, one can notice also the 'similarity' with NWA: all the earliest berber civilisations (f.e : Capsa) or dynasties (almoravids, almohads, etc.) started in the southern regions. Must be some southern balck genetical impact, heh!? Foreign contact between which groups!?
|
|