Who has the better history, Africans or Europeans?

[Crimson Guard]

<<Look, there is simply no way on God's green earth that the Egyptians were fully Caucasoid (and they aren't fully Caucasoid today, either). They were predominately Caucasoid throughout most of their history, but never FULLY Caucasoid.>>

No Mike White washing is claiming they where Nordics or some Proto-Teutonic Race. The Egyptians where Caucasoid,in fact closer to Southern Euroepans than anyone esle..Thats the Proof,thats the Facts,thats the way it is.

Predominately means just that,its self explanatory,come on already,its common sense here! A 'supposed" negligible amount of Negroid DNA in modern and/or Ancient Egyptians which your talking about doesnt mean sqaut!

Now what your doing is Black and White washing Egypt,its actually much worse...

[Mike the Jedi]

Nope, I'm not whitewashing or blackwashing, I am stating my opinion. An opinion I feel is well-grounded.
I have no agenda, I only wish to clear up distortion and ideology that covers up common sense interpretations. What motivation would I have that would suggest I'm some kind of nigger-lover? None at all, I just want the truth and nothing but the truth.

The Negroid element in Egypt is not negligible. It may not have been predominate throughout most of their history, but it certainly wasn't negligible. Just look at the ratio of every Negroid bust to every Caucasoid one, every Aethiopid likeness to every Caucasoid likeness.

Like Coon said, the history of Egypt is the replacement of the Upper Egyptian type (to which Egypt owes its civilization) with the Lower Egyptian type. The Upper Egyptian type was Negroid because the Badarians were Negroid. The Badarians came from Nubia, so unless you think the Nubians were Caucasoid, then you don't have much of a case here.

Regardless, trying to peg arbitrary labels on the Egyptians does nothing to change the fact that they were intermediate between Berbers and Nubians, both geographically, and as I said to some extent racially. This is the inevitable conclusion to anyone who is familiar with them. The Wikipedia article on the Demographics of Egypt relates this:

"Many theories has been proposed on the origins of the Egyptians; however, none are conclusive, and the most widely accepted theory is that Egyptian society was the result of a mix of East African and Asiatic people who moved to the Nile Valley after the Ice Age."

So there you have it. Most people think that Egyptians were mixes of North and East Africans because that is the most likely, non-biased conclusion.

I liken them to the peoples of Sumer and the Indus Valley, while mostly Caucasoid, the Veddoid element of these people is not to be brushed aside. Same with Egypt. Saying the Egyptians were completely Caucasoid is like saying most Mexicans are completely Amerind. It just doesn't add up when you look at the way the Egyptians depicted themselves. They clearly saw themselves as their own race, very different from the fair-skinned Libyans to their west, hook-nosed Semites to their east, and dark-skinned Nubians to their south. They are the median, the golden mean of all of these peoples and it shows in their artifacts.

[Crimson Guard]

Its negligible if anything Mike. Just how and where you think otherwise is beyond me...


Cavalli-Sforza et al. (1994) compared populations from throughout the world using extensive genetic data. The North African populations grouped with West Eurasian (European, Middle East) populations rather than sub-Saharan Africans.


Bosch et al. (1997), using classical genetic markers, calculated Egyptians to be genetically very close to Mediterranean Asians and Europeans. (journal abstract)

Ancient Egyptians:

Scientists at the University of Cairo tested DNA from the remains of pyramid workers from 2600 BC, and found that the DNA of ancient Egyptians matches that of modern Egyptians. That is, the people living in Egypt now are essentially the same as the people living there thousands of years ago. (Read an excerpt from PBS's Secrets of the Pharaohs)




Of course your intitled to think what you like,but you'll always be wrong, cause what your saying is pure crap.But hey if thats your bag than so be it!

PS

Maybe you dont realize it,but your like one of those Nordicists that like saying the modern Greeks arent similiar or/the same as the Greek people living in Greece today,their a multiracial non white people!

One of these days your gonna have to realize and accept the facts,dont believe the Charlie bass version of history with his Negroid Africa mumbo jumbo,believe the Reality!

[Mike the Jedi]

And reality is more complicated than dated labels like Caucasoid and Negroid, you see. I hope one day you'll open your eyes and realize that the world is much more diverse and complex than that.

Everything I say is based on what I've seen and heard firsthand. I don't parrot from Dienekes or Racial Reality or anybody else. The "studies" you relate are deficient for all the reasons Bass has already stated. But I'm not going to argue with you. You can believe whatever you want, it doesn't change anything.

And anyway, the only poster I really confide in on this board is human2, mostly because he kicks so much ass and junk.

[mmmkay]

"The two types from Upper and Lower Egypt represent the extremes of a purely native Egyptian population, but from the beginning of dynastic times, around 3000 B.C. until Ptolemaic times, the numerous series which give an excellent picture of the progress of racial continuity and change in Egypt show the interactions of these two types. The racial history of Egypt in the course of three thousand years was simply the gradual replacement of the Upper Egyptian type by that of Lower Egypt. ... Ancient Egypt must remain the most outstanding example yet known in the world of an important, naturally isolated region in which native racial types were permitted to develop their own way for several thousand years completely uninfluenced by foreign contacts". >>

If they were both caucosoid why would he be referring to two different racial types? Logically caucasoids can't replace caucasoids. You must have left some important details out in that quote crimsonguard to suit your purposes. Just a thought....

And reality is more complicated than dated labels like Caucasoid and Negroid, you see. I hope one day you'll open your eyes and realize that the world is much more diverse and complex than that.

Everything I say is based on what I've seen and heard firsthand. I don't parrot from Dienekes or Racial Reality or anybody else. The "studies" you relate are deficient for all the reasons Bass has already stated. But I'm not going to argue with you. You can believe whatever you want, it doesn't change anything.

And anyway, the only poster I really confide in on this board is human2, mostly because he kicks so much ass and junk.

Well said gondorian dude! ;D No matter what this dude says, its still does'nt change the facts, he can have his 99% caucasoid egyptians (negligible!) if he wants to lol, everyone has the right to believe in whatever they want, and in crimsonguards case it's his own prejudices. Reality remains constant regardless of the ebbs and flows of our personal opinions. Look at aswani's and other upper egyptians even today and you'll see what I mean.

And eurocentricism does not automatically mean nordicism,
you ascribed it to nordicism to avoid the argument convieniently and to avoid being labeled like charlie for afrocentricism. Eurocentricism by its very name includes all of europe, that means southern europe as well.

Don't give terms false meanings, that is cowardly, if your a nazi, eurocentric or whatever atleast be honest about it. People can somewhat respect that.

Hey, I let everyone know off the jump that I'm a leftist!! And I''m proud and un-apologetical about it, regardless of the current socio-politcal climate for it.



P.S. Human2 pwnz!!!

[Charlie Bass]

crimsonguard said:

No Coon did not...The truth and fact is that Upper and Lower Eypgt have been always made up of Mediterrean Causasoids.

Coon stated that:

"In Lower Egypt lived another group of Mediterranean predynastic people who differed from the Upper Egyptians in certain noticeable ways. The heads were broader, the cranial indices higher, reaching a mean of 75, whereas the Upper Egyptian mean is nearly 72. The vault height is less, the face is no broader, but somewhat longer, and the nasal index is lower.

"The two types from Upper and Lower Egypt represent the extremes of a purely native Egyptian population, but from the beginning of dynastic times, around 3000 B.C. until Ptolemaic times, the numerous series which give an excellent picture of the progress of racial continuity and change in Egypt show the interactions of these two types. The racial history of Egypt in the course of three thousand years was simply the gradual replacement of the Upper Egyptian type by that of Lower Egypt. ... Ancient Egypt must remain the most outstanding example yet known in the world of an important, naturally isolated region in which native racial types were permitted to develop their own way for several thousand years completely uninfluenced by foreign contacts". >>

That citation you ripped off from racialreality's website came from Coon's older works. Later on, he took on a completely different view of Upper Egypt. I'm curious, instead on parroting people, why not reference information first-hand? Here's what Coon later said of predynastic Upper Egyptians:


"Turning to Egypt, it is reasonable to suppose that the early hunters of the jungle-covered Nile Valley postulated by Oliver and Fage (see page 89) contained a strong native African genetic component, and the Neolithic farmers who settled on the open flanks of the valley to either side were Caucasoid, having come directly from Western Asia. Before the end of the predynastic time, the two elements had probably fused. This hypothesis has recently been tested by J. M. Crichton, who made a comparison of a total of 296 predynastic Egyptian, dynastic Egyptian, and Negro skulls by means of multiple discriminant analysis using thirty-four measurements, seven indices and angles, and one computer.] This mathematical exercise indicated that the predynastic Egyptians were more like the Negroes than the dynastic Egyptians were, and that the dynastic Egyptians were more Caucasoid than their predecessors. Differences between the two sets of Egyptian skulls were more marked in the face than in the vault. The predynastic skulls have broader, flatter nasal bones and more alveolar prognathism than the dynastic skulls. The predynastic skulls have relatively flat cranial bases, as shown by the difference between the auricular and basion-bregma heights. In this sense, the predynastic skulls were more like those of Negroes. Also, the occipital bone extends higher on the back of the skulls of both predynastic Egyptians and Negroes than on dynastic Egyptians and Caucasoids in general. As Crichton did not have a large series of Bushmen skulls to use for comparison, he could not determine whether or not the African element in the predynastic Egyptian population could have been Bushmen, as suggested by R. Biasutti, rather than Negro."


p. 94, The Living Races of Man


Mike was right when he spoke about a fusion of two types and you were wrong.

[Ponto Hardbottle]

It is about time that Jean Hiernaux book was consigned to the fireplace. It is rubbish written by a forgotten man. Coon may be outdated but he had a reputation and a name that lives on, whereas Hiernaux, zippo, except in every Afrocentrist site on internetdom.
There have been other studies of Badarians and Naqadians more recent than the Hiernaux book of the 1970s. The fact you quote from that obsolete book shows your bias. Studies have placed predynastic Egyptians or the people who lived in what is now Egypt close to European and other caucasoids, and no where near any black African peoples. I am sure someone will duly oblige and reprint that often posted diagram showing this fact. And it is not thirty plus years old.
There is an expression A D, "Get a life". And your point of view has been posted over and over ad nauseum by every Afrocentrist, America can produce. You are not original or informative on anything about Egyptian history or its people.
There is no proof of any blending of any peoples or that Dynastic Egyptians can from Asia or were any less African than the immigrant Bantu.
Methinks topdog has resurfaced in another form yet again!

[mmmkay]

There is no proof of any blending of any peoples or that Dynastic Egyptians can from Asia or were any less African than the immigrant Bantu.

Hmmm I guess they just popped outta nowhere then!! yeah thats it!!

Seriously ponto, your funny sometimes, but that statement was just dumb. If they did'nt come from west asia and migrated south, where did the post-dynastic egyptians (the caucasoid ones) come from? The south? Obviously they had to have come from west asia.

Wherever two groups meet, they always mix with each other, its human nature, to say "there's no proof there was any blending of people" is not a very intelligent thing to say.

Established fact 1: Black africans come from the mid-south of africa

established fact 2: white africans come from north africa and ultimately from the middle east.

established fact 3: egypt-nubia maintained a corridoor position into the interior trading finished goods and services in exchange for raw materials, therefore, with the exchange of trade comes hte exchange of ideas, and yes genes.

[Ponto Hardbottle]

Who established these facts? I just hope not to hear Hiernaux mentioned yet again or that Senegalese or Keita. The black Africans are from tropical Africa. North and NE Africa are not tropical and cannot grow the same type of tropical plants and are not suitable for pastoralism. I suppose the Cro-Magnons who lived in North Africa came from the Middle East? With America or Australia it is fairly easy to work out human migrations as they are less than 1000 years old. The movement of humans and pre humans in Africa, West Asia is not easy to work out as there have been movements of humans and pre humans going back to tens of thousands of years. The idea that North Africans are not indigenous is based purely on the known fact that they are not black Africans. Trade does not necessarily involve genetic transfers. The British were trading extensively with India and Africa in the past yet the presence of black Africans, various Indians and other South Asians and black Caribbeans only took place in the late part of the 20th century due to immigration. The Australian Aborigines traded shells, obsidian, ochres and flints from one end of Australia to the other without breaking their strict national and tribal laws about out marrying. Out marriages only occurred after the Europeans forced Aborigines off their lands onto missions where nations were mixed and languages forbidden.

[Mike the Jedi]

No one is saying that the North African Caucasoids are not indigenous, just that most of them came out of Asia. And a few out of Iberia (the Cromagnoid ones, I assume).

[Charlie Bass]

holyjesus said:

It is about time that Jean Hiernaux book was consigned to the fireplace. It is rubbish written by a forgotten man. Coon may be outdated but he had a reputation and a name that lives on, whereas Hiernaux, zippo, except in every Afrocentrist site on internetdom.

Hiernaux, isn't a forgotten man and you can still him being referenced by anthropologists today, most notably Keita, who's ideas are considered objective. Coon has a reputation that lives on alright, but not the type that one would associate with good. Just go to any white nationalists sites and you can still see his antiquated writings still being referenced.

There have been other studies of Badarians and Naqadians more recent than the Hiernaux book of the 1970s.

Hiernaux did extensively talk about Naqadans and Badarians in his 1975 book, there was only a brief chapter on North Africans as the aim of his book was to discuss sub-Saharan populations. Basically what you're showing me is that you're talking for the hell of talking just to have something say, typical of you.

The fact you quote from that obsolete book shows your bias. Studies have placed predynastic Egyptians or the people who lived in what is now Egypt close to European and other caucasoids,

Studies done by whom? Don't mention these 'studies' out of the air, if you're referring to C. Loring Brace, the one everyone keeps trying to reference, I suggest you delve further into his views a little more and you'll see he was incorrect about a number of things. To be clear and specific, I never referenced Hiernaux's book for a citation about predynastic Egyptians; if you paid very close attention, that citation came from Coon's "The Living Races of Man"; since you're too mental challenged to comprehend that I'll let you make a even bigger fool out of yourself.

and no where near any black African peoples. I am sure someone will duly oblige and reprint that often posted diagram showing this fact. And it is not thirty plus years old.

I have referenced Keita's study to refute this which isn't even one year old, but you don't like Keita or anyone you can't see eye to eye with, but hey, I cares less.

[Ponto Hardbottle]

Actually Hiernaux is forgotten except by people like you and every Afrocentrist site from Saskatoon to Timbuktu, actually mostly by black Americans out of Motown, Washington DC or Watts. The book is just worth pulping, and show me any respectable anthropology society that has a biography of the man or an obituary. Coon has his. Margaret Mead has hers. He is unknown even in Belgium. Being referenced can be good or bad. If I was writing about propaganda in Germany during in the 1930s and 1940s, I would reference the writings, broadcasts, biographies of many nazis and it would not be because they were wonderful human beings or wunderkind. Same with Hiernaux, he is referenced in order to act as a foil.
It may only be thirty years ago but the world of 1975 cannot be compared with today. I don't care about your opinion, it is a dime a dozen and unoriginal. There have been many like you on this and other forums spreading the word.
Keita is another Afrocentrist's source. As is Diop. You are not the first to use those "experts" as sources. Lately Rightmire, Groves and Thorne have been the flavor of the month for Afrocentrists.
Keita's studies do not refute anything. I don't like or dislike him, I think he is where he is because of Affirmative Action and asskissing, and not for his intelligence or intellect or merit. He shows that so called positive discrimination like other socialistic acts only produces dross.

[Ponto Hardbottle]

xcalator1 said:

No one is saying that the North African Caucasoids are not indigenous, just that most of them came out of Asia. And a few out of Iberia (the Cromagnoid ones, I assume).

It just as well be that Cro-Magnons originated in North Africa and colonized Europe or that Iberians originated in North Africa and colonized Europe. The idea that all Europeans or caucasoids formed somewhere in Asia is rather old and stale. They could easily have formed in the temperate parts of Africa. Obviously I don't accept the theories of human or racial origins ascribed by others.

[mmmkay]

holyjesus said:

xcalator1 said:

No one is saying that the North African Caucasoids are not indigenous, just that most of them came out of Asia. And a few out of Iberia (the Cromagnoid ones, I assume).

It just as well be that Cro-Magnons originated in North Africa and colonized Europe or that Iberians originated in North Africa and colonized Europe. The idea that all Europeans or caucasoids formed somewhere in Asia is rather old and stale. They could easily have formed in the temperate parts of Africa. Obviously I don't accept the theories of human or racial origins ascribed by others.

And you have no evidence (not even a proper theory, which is based upon alot of circumstantial evidence) whatsoever to back up your claims. Your just some biased guy on the internet who does'nt like the OOA theory because it conflicts with his personal views. We all don't like things, I don't like the rain for instance, does it still happen? yes.

Don't be a biased person with no evidence!!! Thats the worst, I can atleast respect bias when theres evidence to back it up.] You have none, just rants and personal opinions.

[Charlie Bass]

holyjesus said:

Keita's studies do not refute anything. I don't like or dislike him, I think he is where he is because of Affirmative Action and asskissing, and not for his intelligence or intellect or merit. He shows that so called positive discrimination like other socialistic acts only produces dross.

Personal attacks on Keita does not amount to a refutation of his studies. The fact of the matter is what you think and personally feel means nothing. within the context on this thread.