Why do Afrocentists try to relate themselves to Egypt rather than claim their real history? (country, life)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Bull****, Egypt is a black civilization just like Nubia and and Axum(ethiopia). I dont believe in the hemites bull****. All of Africa was originally a black continent. Forget the Euro centrist degradation of africans- we have plenty of history and civilization to be proud of.
Disagree. You seem to be caught up in a Black/White dichotomy, but while there are Black victims and White abusers, not all people in the various diasopras fall neatly into these groups. A vast amount of the Afrodescent diaspora is also of other diasporic descent. Dependning on each individual and group experience, they may identify more with one side or many, or with a new identity which is a result of mixing of old world populations. You also seem to be obsessed with categorizing Africa as Black over White. The fact remains that Africa has always been diverse and while Africans aren't European, doesn't mean they can't be light skinned like many indigenous Maghrebi people. To claim Egypt had one look, be it light skinned or dark skinned, is to fall into the same flawed logic of the Eurocentrics that preceded it.
Bull****, Egypt is a black civilization just like Nubia and and Axum(ethiopia). I dont believe in the hemites bull****. All of Africa was originally a black continent. Forget the Euro centrist degradation of africans- we have plenty of history and civilization to be proud of.
More hogwash from someone who has never taken a course in archaeology, anthropology or genetics and relies on ‘street knowledge.’
Humanity arose in Africa. They were not ‘black people’ or any other so called race. They had plesiomorphic features and would not resemble anyone alive today. Cranially, the closest match, but still quite*distant would be the Aborigines of Australia. This could be due to*retention of features or sheer polytopicity. There is only one race,
the human race. Humanity has evolved everywhere as they adapted to*different climates. This includes Africa. The claim that Africans did not continue evolving is preposterous. Basically you are claiming that*they are less evolved than the rest of humanity. What sheer stupidity.
Polytopicity has also occurred when populations are exposed to
similar environments or different environments that produce similar
needs (cold air and dry arid air both need temperature regulation and
humidity preservation, hence development of thin noses) . Features can
be replicated in many places with no close ancestral ties. That is*humanity, we are very diverse and don’t fall into mass categories.
Alkebulan is nothing but an old Arab name for the Maghreb region.
Another foolish Africentric claim.
The Dogon of Mali have not discovered any hidden sciences and the*claim is quite entertaining.
The Aeta are genetically close to their Malay neighbors, and craniometrically they can NOT even be told apart. Skin color and hair type are the only differences. Polytopicity. Like I said, take an actual course in anthropology and genetics.
And anyone with a brain would know that the Nile was not the only source of fertile land before the Sahara dried up. It was a last refuge when the Sahara Savannas disappeared.
African is only a person who is born in Africa. And indigenous
Africans are Africans whose ancestry has been in Africa since
historical records began.
Pangaean would not be a correct name because Pangaea existed 6,
million years ago. That is 5 million 8 hundred thousand years before
the appearance of humanity in its earliest form.
Bull****, Egypt is a black civilization just like Nubia and and Axum(ethiopia). I dont believe in the hemites bull****. All of Africa was originally a black continent. Forget the Euro centrist degradation of africans- we have plenty of history and civilization to be proud of.
Loads of hogwash. There are plenty of people of direct African descent (all humans are indirectly of African descent) who also have other ancestries which are equally valid. Therefore African is not an identity that trumps all.
Furthermore, while there are light skinned Africans, doesn’t mean all light skinned Afro-diasporic people have light skin because of their African ancestry. And vice versa. Each population has their own experiences and history and only by finding out about each will you know about their ancestry.
There is no such thing as Black blood. Or ancestry, for that matter. There is subtropical African ancestry of various shades as well as supra tropical. Sub Sahelian and Supra Sahelian. Humid and Arid regions etc.
African does not mean Black. Sorry to bust your delusion. Black as an identity wasn’t even common in Africa; it was mostly a foreign imposition.
Africa has always been diverse and we see it in the petrroglyphs of the Sahara. Kmt means the land of the black soil, and Ta Mry means the tilled land. Civilization did not start in Tanzania or Uganda where they were still in the Hunter Gatherer stage when the Nile Valley was settled. In fact the Saharan cultures predate that of the Nile. It was Saharan culture that would spawn both the Nubian and Egyptian cultures. The Axum cultures would come later.
Keep deluding yourself.
Regarding culture, here are some traits of the Ancient Egyptians common to other Africans:
Not to mention there is linguistic evidence of a strong African root to their language:
So there’s evidence that the earliest people speaking the ancient Egyptian language were from below Egypt, that is, the region of Sudan.
Another (though very sad) commonality is the practice of female genetic mutilation (called pharaonic circumcision in the case of Ancient Egypt). It is found primarily in sub-Saharan Africa, from west to east Africa. But Egypt has one of the highest cases as this map shows:
So we see that Ancient Egyptians came from a common pastoral society as other northeast Africans like those of Sudan, Kenya and Ethiopia. They also shared similar material culture. In essence, Ancient Egyptians descended from a common pastoral and Saharan group with other Northeastern Africans, then branched off and developed their own unique civilization, with some input from other peoples here and there over time.
Now I wrote this whole post only to balance the claims put out by cachibatches. Egypt was always a mixed society, with black African input just as important as the “Caucasoids” he talks about. No race or group was more significant than the other. At different times and different regions, the people would look different. So what I posted above, added to evidence from other studies showing important Eurasian elements gives us the following full picture:
Female genital mutilation (FGM), is practiced in many parts of North Africa, especially in Muslim areas. Not just Egypt alone. FGM is practiced in many parts of Sub Saharan Africa as well.
Bull****, Egypt is a black civilization just like Nubia and and Axum(ethiopia). I dont believe in the hemites bull****. All of Africa was originally a black continent. Forget the Euro centrist degradation of africans- we have plenty of history and civilization to be proud of.
More like, if they are in similar environments, common factors may play a role in similar attributes. For example people in the circum Sahara developed thinner noses overall because of the dryer, hotter air. In Europe the colder dryer air had a similar effect. When we see broader features, they tend to be more recent migrations to dryer regions from more humid climates. *Of course other factors can come into play as well. For example Neanderthals had wide nasal cavities but a very long nose that did a similar function to a thin nose. Clothing has played a huge role in allowing people with certain traits to migrate to regions they did not do so well in naked.
Humanity is infinitely diverse and a beautiful thing. We are playdoh to the environment. And now we change the environment to us.
I didn’t feel like responding before but I’m bored so I will now. cachibatches is basing his belief that Ancient Egyptians were “primarily Caucasoid” on incorrect understanding of genetics. He’s saying this because he thinks that using y-DNA and mtDNA from those studies he posted shows us how much racial admixture the people had. This is completely wrong!!! Genetics doesn’t work that way.
To see how much admixture there is in a population you need to look at autosomal DNA. Not mtDNA and Y-DNA. But not much autosomal studies were done yet on the Ancient Egyptians to get a clear answer.
Most researchers take a multidisciplinary approach to study a population, because more factors are involved than just genetics. Besides looking at DNA, and physical remains of people (which was done by researchers like Sonia Zakrzewski who confirmed that some ancestors of Ancient Egyptians like the group called Badarians, resembled Sudanese and people of the Horn of Africa more than anyone else), scholars also study other things like culture, migration history and language.
Another thing that wasn’t mentioned before is that there are confirmed links of West African ethnic groups to those from the Nile region. Studies of the Hausa people of Nigeria show they are most closely related to Nilo-Saharans (a group that includes Sudanese of the Nile region) than they are to typical West Africans. Their language Hausa is also a member of the great Afro-Asiatic language family (a family that many scholars believe emerged in East Africa, around the Horn) which included ancient Egyptian as well as Semitic languages. Today the Hausa are one of the largest groups in West Africa, and are famous for their medieval city-states like Kano.
The same goes for the Kanuri of Nigeria, who came to be when Kanembu migrants from Chad (related to Sudanese like those of Darfur) settled there. They intermarried with people from the Borno region of Nigeria to form the Kanuri. They both speak a Nilo-Saharan language. Their Kanem-Bornu empire of central, western and parts of northern Africa lasted more than a thousand years. They also had a huge impact on the Hausa.
The Songhay people of Mali, Niger and elsewhere in West Africa also speak a Nilo-Saharan language. The Songhay Empire was one the largest in African history.
So yes, there are West Africans who have a connection to the Sudan, through immigration, but it’s not a direct link to Egyptians obviously. Of course I’m not saying they are descended from Egyptians because that’s foolish, but it’s confirmed that some West African groups are related by ancestry and language and culture (one example: peoples of the Nile valley and West Africa believed in divine kingship and most of their early ancestors inhabited the Saharan zone before it turned to desert) to peoples of that region. Indirect influences exist. Migration from east to west Africa happened all throughout history, making this a complicated issue.
Another thing: Ancient Egyptians and Modern Egyptians are the same people and probably looked the same. There was no population replacement. We find that some ancients were like the “Eurasian Caucasoids” as cachibatches showed, and some were black, and some were mixed. As it was then and today. BUT: there were demographic changes in the population. Egypt experienced a massive population boom in the last few centuries. From the 1880s there was an increase of 600% in 100 years!
link: Egypt - Population
So a good question is if this population boom affected all areas (rural and urban), and Lower Egypt (north) and Upper Egypt (south) equally.... Which brings me to something interesting from one of the links cachibatches shared:
So if a population increase affected certain parts of the country and not others, while modern Egyptians are the same as the ancients (which they are!), the actual proportions of different segments of the population may not have increased at the same levels in modern times. Since Egypt was always a heterogenous and mixed population this is important to remember. Big cities of the north may have boomed while those of the south, not as much. (Or maybe the opposite) That’s what the quote above explains. So today we may see some types of people in larger numbers, but this may not have made up the distribution ratio in ancient times. Basically the same people, just different distributions.
Caucasoid is an arbitrary parameter created in the 19th century. It is a residue, an anachronism. Two people can be 'Caucasoid' and not be closely related. Craniofacial plasticity is much more variable than was originally thought, so racial claims on craniofacial parameters are foolish. In microcosms, you might be able to show some relationship, but in global macrocosms, there are more mistakes than accuracy. Polytopicity is when two different groups of organisms that are not related end up having similar traits.
I didn’t feel like responding before but I’m bored so I will now. cachibatches is basing his belief that Ancient Egyptians were “primarily Caucasoid” on incorrect understanding of genetics. He’s saying this because he thinks that using y-DNA and mtDNA from those studies he posted shows us how much racial admixture the people had. This is completely wrong!!! Genetics doesn’t work that way.
To see how much admixture there is in a population you need to look at autosomal DNA. Not mtDNA and Y-DNA. But not much autosomal studies were done yet on the Ancient Egyptians to get a clear answer.
Most researchers take a multidisciplinary approach to study a population, because more factors are involved than just genetics. Besides looking at DNA, and physical remains of people (which was done by researchers like Sonia Zakrzewski who confirmed that some ancestors of Ancient Egyptians like the group called Badarians, resembled Sudanese and people of the Horn of Africa more than anyone else), scholars also study other things like culture, migration history and language.
Another thing that wasn’t mentioned before is that there are confirmed links of West African ethnic groups to those from the Nile region. Studies of the Hausa people of Nigeria show they are most closely related to Nilo-Saharans (a group that includes Sudanese of the Nile region) than they are to typical West Africans. Their language Hausa is also a member of the great Afro-Asiatic language family (a family that many scholars believe emerged in East Africa, around the Horn) which included ancient Egyptian as well as Semitic languages. Today the Hausa are one of the largest groups in West Africa, and are famous for their medieval city-states like Kano.
The same goes for the Kanuri of Nigeria, who came to be when Kanembu migrants from Chad (related to Sudanese like those of Darfur) settled there. They intermarried with people from the Borno region of Nigeria to form the Kanuri. They both speak a Nilo-Saharan language. Their Kanem-Bornu empire of central, western and parts of northern Africa lasted more than a thousand years. They also had a huge impact on the Hausa.
The Songhay people of Mali, Niger and elsewhere in West Africa also speak a Nilo-Saharan language. The Songhay Empire was one the largest in African history.
So yes, there are West Africans who have a connection to the Sudan, through immigration, but it’s not a direct link to Egyptians obviously. Of course I’m not saying they are descended from Egyptians because that’s foolish, but it’s confirmed that some West African groups are related by ancestry and language and culture (one example: peoples of the Nile valley and West Africa believed in divine kingship and most of their early ancestors inhabited the Saharan zone before it turned to desert) to peoples of that region. Indirect influences exist. Migration from east to west Africa happened all throughout history, making this a complicated issue.
Another thing: Ancient Egyptians and Modern Egyptians are the same people and probably looked the same. There was no population replacement. We find that some ancients were like the “Eurasian Caucasoids” as cachibatches showed, and some were black, and some were mixed. As it was then and today. BUT: there were demographic changes in the population. Egypt experienced a massive population boom in the last few centuries. From the 1880s there was an increase of 600% in 100 years!
link: Egypt - Population
So a good question is if this population boom affected all areas (rural and urban), and Lower Egypt (north) and Upper Egypt (south) equally.... Which brings me to something interesting from one of the links cachibatches shared:
So if a population increase affected certain parts of the country and not others, while modern Egyptians are the same as the ancients (which they are!), the actual proportions of different segments of the population may not have increased at the same levels in modern times. Since Egypt was always a heterogenous and mixed population this is important to remember. Big cities of the north may have boomed while those of the south, not as much. (Or maybe the opposite) That’s what the quote above explains. So today we may see some types of people in larger numbers, but this may not have made up the distribution ratio in ancient times. Basically the same people, just different distributions.
DNA and genetics test, are testing SPECIFICALLY for geographical ancestry and geographical populations and patterns and frequencies. It is not testing for race. No such thing as race.
Part of the problem with DNA tests is that it only shows half of your ancestry. Each parent contributes half of their ancestral material and the other half is lost. And the contributions are not the same for each child. So DNA tests do not show all of your ancestors, just the ones that made it into your body.
you did not answer my question. WHY IS IT OK FOR OTHERS TO ADORE THIS ANCIENT NATION BUT YOU PEOPLE HAVE A PROBLEM WITH OUR LOVE FOR ANCIENT EGYPT? .
Because it is a non-sequitar question. We are not talking about "interest" on this thread, or even "adoration." We are talking about people claiming direct blood ties when they have none.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Obsidian Princess
HOW IS IT THAT YOU CAN ONLY BE INTERESTED IN A NATION IF YOU HAVE BLOOD TIES?
I can only repeat again and again and again: you can be interested in anything you like. We are talking about those who claim blood ties, and try to wedge modern Egyptians away from their ancestors. They are out there, their threads have been posted, and you can find at least two more extant, currently active threads on this very forum.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Obsidian Princess
THERE ARE MANY PEOPLE IN THE WORLD WHO FALSELY CLAIM DESCENT FROM ANCIENT NATIONS AND BIBLICAL STORIES: THE JEW CLAIMING HEBREW LINEAGE AND THE ETHIOPIANS CLAIMING DESCENT FROM KING DAVID AND SOLOMON....
Jews come from Hebrews and Ethiopians do have an interesting historical connection. I you disagree, make your own thread. Here we are talking about Afrocentrists trying to claim Egypt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Obsidian Princess
BUT I NEVER HEAR ANYONE BERATE THEM LIKE I HEAR FOLK BERATE US
Thank you for being the only one of the thread who is honest about who you are and what you believe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Obsidian Princess
OVER ANCIENT KEMET.
Egypt was never called "Kemet." "Kemet" was the word for the fertile, black lands. That is opposed to DSHRT, which referred to the infertile red lands. It is where our word "desert" comes from.
One of your Afrocentic colleagues who is not so honest about his belief system made the same mistake. Referring to Egypt as "Kemet" is like referring to America as "farmland."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Obsidian Princess
something else is fueling your hostilities.
I have no hostility. It is remarkable how many of your number have jumped on here and engaged in Ad Hominem for merely telling the truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Obsidian Princess
i could go on
Can you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Obsidian Princess
but im just going to say that we can claim descent from Ancient Kemet all we want.
And I can keep exposing you all I want.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Obsidian Princess
its none of your business .
It is as much my business as it is yours.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Obsidian Princess
and there is not one thing you can do about it.
I can keep exposing you, as I am doing here.
Now how did I know you weren't going to want to talk about West Africa?
DNA and genetics test, are testing SPECIFICALLY for geographical ancestry and geographical populations and patterns and frequencies. It is not testing for race. No such thing as race.
Part of the problem with DNA tests is that it only shows half of your ancestry. Each parent contributes half of their ancestral material and the other half is lost. And the contributions are not the same for each child. So DNA tests do not show all of your ancestors, just the ones that made it into your body.
It can be much worse than that- some places only to the MtDNA or YDNa which is a minuscule amount of your overall DNA picture.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
