THE PRINCE OF EGYPT: Whoa...
richa...@aol.com
<Pine.GSO.3.95qL.98122...@merhaba.cc.columbia.edu>, Regina
Alexandra Robbins <ra...@columbia.edu> wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Dec 1998 richa...@aol.com wrote:
>
[snip]
> >
> > Following this "sensitivity session", Katzenberg made ambitious changes in
> > the movie, to portray the Egyptians more sympathetically, and thus satisfy
> > Arab objections. Nobody seems to have asked, though, why the Arabs should
> > care, one way or the other. The ancient Egyptians, after all, were not Arabs!
>
> But everyone in the audience (except you, Richard) will *think* they are,
> because that's who's there now. Not necessarily an arugument for
> historical inaccuracy in motion pictures, but I can see why Arab leaders
> would be worried.
>
I too can understand why Arab leaders might be justifiably concerned.
However, judging from some of the posts on the AOL "Prince of Egypt" message
board, there are many Arabs who, quite UNjustifiably, really do believe that
the ancient Egyptians were quite literally Arabs. And, more to the point,
"Prince of Egypt" producer Jeffrey Katzenberg does not seem to have realized
that they were mistaken. At least, there has been no discussion of this
issue, in any of the press surrounding the movie. Instead, the equation of
Ancient Egyptian = Arab has been offered without comment or criticism. This
shows an ignorance of the issue, not only on Dreamworks' part, but on the
part of journalists reporting on the movie. My question is why -- in an era
when the racial identity of the ancient Egyptians has become such a hot topic
in the media -- did Katzenberg's panel of 300 "experts" fail to hammer out a
clear position on it?
Best wishes,
Richard Poe
________________________________________________________________________
Black Spark, White Fire: Did African Explorers Civilize Ancient Europe? by
Richard Poe (Prima, 1998) http://members.aol.com/BlackSprk/Black.html
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Aron
>when the racial identity of the ancient Egyptians has become such a hot
topic
>in the media -- did Katzenberg's panel of 300 "experts" fail to hammer out
a
>clear position on it?
>
Because the film was all Zionist bullshit?
richa...@aol.com
"Aron" <ar...@pommesblue.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >My question is why -- in an era
> >when the racial identity of the ancient Egyptians has become such a hot
> topic in the media -- did Katzenberg's panel of 300 "experts" fail to hammer
> > out a clear position on it?
> >
>
> Because the film was all Zionist bullshit?
>
Well, personally, I would opt for a more prosaic explanation, such as 1)
ignorance on the part of the Dreamworks people, regarding the anthropological
facts and 2) dereliction of duty, on the part of the Egyptologists and
archaeologists whom they claim to have consulted during the making of the
film.
Does anyone know, by the way, who the Egyptological and archaeological
consultants were for Prince of Egypt?
Best wishes,
Richard Poe
jdm
<76ag34$edi$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>snip<
>> > Arab objections. Nobody seems to have asked, though, why the
Arabs should
>> > care, one way or the other. The ancient Egyptians, after all,
were not Arabs!
>>
I've always assumed that the average intelligent person would just
somehow automatically know this. After all, they don't look like
Arabs. But then again, one should never underestimate determined
stupidity.
The subject does bring up another question, though. What modern
ethnic group is most closely related to the ancient Egyptians? Have
they been completely assimilated into other groups?
jdm
Aron
>consultants were for Prince of Egypt?
Apparently just Steven Spielberg and his pride of Judaism and his hatred for
all those so called antagonists.
Aron
>ethnic group is most closely related to the ancient Egyptians? Have
>they been completely assimilated into other groups?
>
It depends. The first Egyptians seem oriental/mongolian. Then after a long
period of hot weather and adaptation and the absorbtion of people who lived
nearby, they were a mixed bunch. All sorts of people could be seen. The
berber people of North African countries are descended from the ancient
Egyptians. Then towards the end of Pharoanic Egypt, it more or less became a
European state with European monarchs.
Alan M Dunsmuir
proxy.airnews.net>, jdm <jdm1intxDIE...@airmail.net> writes
>What modern
>ethnic group is most closely related to the ancient Egyptians?
Would you believe the modern Egyptians?
The Arabs didn't simply come along in the 6th century CE and ethnically
remove everything they found there. Sure there were interminglings
earlier, from the Greeks and from waves of migration from the SE and E,
but just as many Moroccans and Algerians are much more Berber than Arab,
so the Egyptians are rather more Egyptian than anything else.
--
Alan M Dunsmuir
Boyd Campbell
> >
I think it's only fair to point out that the afrocentric
argument put forth by Bernal, you and a few others has
limited support in the academic community. Many give it
as much creedence as _The Chariots of the Gods_ which is
also a book about the mysterious origins of the Egyptian
people.
There's a big difference between teaching and preaching
and untill there is a concencis of opinion in favor of
afrocentrism it might not hurt to stray away from phrases
like "anthropological facts" and "dereliction of duty",
if anyone is derilict it's you for presenting afrocentrism
as fact when it's theory.
> Well, personally, I would opt for a more prosaic explanation, such as 1)
> ignorance on the part of the Dreamworks people, regarding the anthropological
> facts and 2) dereliction of duty, on the part of the Egyptologists and
> archaeologists whom they claim to have consulted during the making of the
> film.
>
> Does anyone know, by the way, who the Egyptological and archaeological
> consultants were for Prince of Egypt?
>
> Best wishes,
> Richard Poe
richa...@aol.com
cam...@netdoor.com wrote:
>
> I think it's only fair to point out that the afrocentric
> argument put forth by Bernal, you and a few others has
> limited support in the academic community. Many give it
> also a book about the mysterious origins of the Egyptian
> people.
>
You are quite right to point out that many aspects of the Afrocentric
worldview are controversial. This does not apply, however, to any of the
specific facts relating to my critique of The Prince of Egypt.
My criticism of Prince of Egypt revolves around the portrayal of the Egyptian
characters as Arab-looking. Physical anthropology (not Afrocentrism) makes it
very clear that a large proportion of the Egyptian population would have
exhibited "negroid" features and woolly hair. An example of this type can be
seen in a forensic reconstruction of the Egyptian priest Natsef-Amun,
conducted by the University of Manchester, and viewable at the following URL:
http://members.aol.com/BlackSprk/Black5.html
We simply do not see any representatives of this type, among the Egyptian
characters in Prince of Egypt. All are portrayed as Arab-type people, similar
in their physiognomy to Moses' wife Zipporah, a Midianite from southern
Palestine.
>
> There's a big difference between teaching and preaching
> and until there is a consensus of opinion in favor of
> afrocentrism it might not hurt to stray away from phrases
> like "anthropological facts" and "dereliction of duty",
> if anyone is derelict it's you for presenting afrocentrism
> as fact when it's theory.
>
I agree wholeheartedly. Since neither my posts nor my book presents any
controversial assertions as "fact", however, I'm not sure why you are
directing these comments toward me.
Best wishes,
Richard Poe
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Black Spark, White Fire: Did African Explorers Civilize Ancient Europe? by
Richard Poe (Prima 1998) http://members.aol.com/BlackSprk.Black.html
richa...@aol.com
elu...@aol.com (ELurio) wrote:
>
[snip]
>
> And he wrote.....
> <<Black Spark, White Fire: Did African Explorers Civilize Ancient Europe? by
>
> As you can tell from the title. (I read the book) He is a racist trying to
> prove that blacks are superior to whites by trying to prove through willful
> misinterpretation of evidence that Whites are too stupid to invent anything,
> so they had to "steal" it from black supermen.
>
> yeah, right.
>
> eric l.
>
Goodness gracious! "Black supermen", of all things.
Really, Eric, I find it difficult to believe your assertion that you actually
read my book. Had you read it, you would be aware that:
1) I am not African-American. My father was of Russian-Jewish descent and my
mother of Mexican heritage. It would therefore hardly be in my interest to
preach a doctrine of black superiority.
2) I stated, right upfront, in the Introduction, that I had great admiration
for European culture, and that I completely reject the masochistic tendency
of some European-descended academics to beat up on Western civilization. And
finally
3) That I never suggested Europeans were "too stupid" to invent anything, or
that they "stole" anything from the Egyptians. On the contrary, I suggested
that the Europeans (and particularly the Greeks) were smart enough to give an
accurate account of their own history, an account which includes legends of
Egyptian kings colonizing Greece. It is modern scholars who insult the Greeks
by claiming that their legends were wrong, and that they were too "stupid" to
know the truth about their own origins.
I am forced to conclude, Eric, that you either did not really read my book,
or that you read it and, for some reason, failed to understand what you were
reading. Which is it?
Best wishes,
Richard Poe
________________________________________________________________________
Black Spark, White Fire: Did African Explorers Civilize Ancient Europe? by
Richard Poe (Prima, 1998) http://members.aol.com/BlackSprk/Black.html
ri...@kana.stanford.edu
> The subject does bring up another question, though. What modern
> ethnic group is most closely related to the ancient Egyptians? Have
> they been completely assimilated into other groups?
The current Egyptians! Especially southern Christians.
Champollian (sp.?) decipered the hieroglyphs by learning Coptic,
the old Church language of the south.
I dont know if anyone has compared DNA from desert or royal mummies
with the current population.
A fews years ago some group did that in west U.K. and found a current
resident with nearly identical mitchrondial DNA, implying the 6000 year
remains could have been a maternal ancestor.
ri...@kana.stanford.edu
versus foreign dynasties, leaning to more foreign in the Current Era.
However, the vast masses probably changed very little and are still there
lving much as they have for millennia.
Boyd Campbell
> My criticism of Prince of Egypt revolves around the portrayal of
> the Egyptian characters as Arab-looking. Physical anthropology
> (not Afrocentrism) makes it very clear that a large proportion of
> the Egyptian population would have exhibited "negroid" features and
> woolly hair. An example of this type can be seen in a forensic
> reconstruction of the Egyptian priest Natsef-Amun, conducted by
> the University of Manchester, and viewable at the following URL:
I never got the impression that the Egyptians were particularly
drawn to resemble any particular race, not even arabs. Ramses,
his father and mother all had large, broad flat noses which
certianly could be taken as negroid or arab or a number of
other races and their skin was dark enough but light enough
to go a number of different ways as well.
The only very clear racial statement made about the way they
drew the faces was that Moses' face was clearly of a different
heritage from the egyptians.
I really don't think people are letting Dreamworks win on this
one. Some people are complaining that they drew the egyptians
too negroid looking and others that they're too syrian or arab.
It's clear (to me at least) that they did their best to
incorporate all of the current theories about what these people
were like (with the exception of Chariots of the Gods) and now
people are critisizing them for not favoring the same theory
they do.
The film doesn't engage the question of whether the egyptians
were afrocentric or not for the simple reason that it's not
a part of the story. Had they gone with afrocentric egyptians
the den and cry against them for pushing a "politically correct"
agenda would have been deafening.
Let the afrocentric argument cook a while before demanding that
the world accept it as fact. It's not being swept under the
rug and it's not being ignored. Scientists of good faith all
over the world are investigating this theory and the only
reasonable thing to do is to wait for more compelling evidence--
which will come, one way or another, either supporting or
dismissing the afrocentric theory.
richa...@aol.com
"S Singh Sandhu" <s760...@np.edu.sg> wrote:
>
> richa...@aol.com wrote:
>
[snip]
> >
> >My criticism of Prince of Egypt revolves around the portrayal of the Egyptian
> >characters as Arab-looking. Physical anthropology (not Afrocentrism) makes it
> >very clear that a large proportion of the Egyptian population would have
> >exhibited "negroid" features and woolly hair. An example of this type can be
> >seen in a forensic reconstruction of the Egyptian priest Natsef-Amun,
> >conducted by the University of Manchester, and viewable at the following URL:
> >
> >
[snip]
> >
> I'm checked out the site and saw the reconstruction , i'm not expert
> but the only thing that makes the guy there remotely black is his
> skin color and lack of facial hair, give him a lighter complexion
> and he could pass for a an arab . Btw how did they know the thickness
> of the skin of an ancient egyptian?
> PS: The website say the reconstruction shows his distinct negroid features ,
> i have to say my first impression of him looked more like a south american
> indian or basically native indian even.
>
Thank you for taking the trouble to examine the link. Your subjective
judgment that Natsef-Amun looks like an "arab" or even an "Indian"
illustrates one of the key problems in this whole controversy over the race
of the ancient Egyptians. The problem is that people, even when faced with
hard, scientific evidence, usually manage to fall back on personal
interpretations that support whatever prior assumptions they favored, in the
first place. This is as true of DNA evidence as it is of skull measurements
and forensic reconstructions.
In this case, however, I am afraid that the weight of mainstream opinion is
solidly against you. The forensic artist who created this face, Richard
Neave, called it "negroid" and I am not aware that any anthropologist has
disagreed with him.
Best wishes,
Richard Poe
__________________________________________________________________________
Black Spark, White Fire: Did African Explorers Civilize Ancient Europe? by
Richard Poe (Prima, 1998) http://members.aol.com/BlackSprk/Black.html
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Alex
Alan M Dunsmuir heeft geschreven in bericht ...
>In article <8FEFDCABADFC4655.EBDADBB9F7B5FC8B.B0C4E2AEAE63200F@library-
>proxy.airnews.net>, jdm <jdm1intxDIE...@airmail.net> writes
>>ethnic group is most closely related to the ancient Egyptians?
>
>
>The Arabs didn't simply come along in the 6th century CE and ethnically
>remove everything they found there. Sure there were interminglings
>earlier, from the Greeks and from waves of migration from the SE and E,
>but just as many Moroccans and Algerians are much more Berber than Arab,
>so the Egyptians are rather more Egyptian than anything else.
And they don't look uniformly "Arab". The problem with that is that
as soon as you run into a Black Egyptian, modern Egyptologists
will classify them as "Nubian", whether they have anything to do
with Nubia or not.
Alex
Alex
jdm heeft geschreven in bericht <8FEFDCABADFC4655.EBDADBB9...@library-proxy.airnews.net>...
>The subject does bring up another question, though. What modern
>ethnic group is most closely related to the ancient Egyptians? Have
>they been completely assimilated into other groups?
I would say the Somalis and the Ethiopians.
If you take into account skin tone ("dark red"), afro (braided) hair, the variety of
facial features and the relative similarity of their languages within the
Afroasiatic language group, as well as the origin of the Egyptians as has come
down in legend, they are the ones to look to.
Alex
PS, there is also a very interesting documentary on the Hamar people
of Ethiopia (I think) from the BBC, which should give you a good example as well.
Nubkhas
>characters as Arab-looking. Physical anthropology (not Afrocentrism) makes it
>very clear that a large proportion of the Egyptian population would have
>exhibited "negroid" features and woolly hair.
Are you starting this up AGAIN? First of all, the film didn't portray
Egyptians as "Arab-looking". All the people in the film were vaguely
"Mediterranean-appearing except perhaps Zipporah. And secondly, your negroid
features and woolly hair are totally missing (except for one or two) from the
mummies we have of ancient Egyptians.
An example of this type can be
>seen in a forensic reconstruction of the Egyptian priest Natsef-Amun,
>conducted by the University of Manchester, >and viewable at the following URL:
I am generally not very happy with Richard Neaves reconstructions of the faces
of the ancients. Natsef-Amun, I'm sorry to disappoint you, was not a black
person from ANY indications.
>We simply do not see any representatives of this type, among the Egyptian
>characters in Prince of Egypt. All are portrayed as Arab-type people, similar
>in their physiognomy to Moses' wife Zipporah, a Midianite from southern
>Palestine.
Zipporah seemed to me to be modelled on the features of Whitney Houston.
Sar Draconis
>
> >The subject does bring up another question, though. What modern
> >ethnic group is most closely related to the ancient Egyptians? Have
> >they been completely assimilated into other groups?
> >
>
The modern Copts are the direct descendants of the ancient Egyptians.
The liturgical language of their Church is the same language that was
spoken by the ancient Egyptians, written in a phonetic alphabet obtained
from Greek with a few instrumental additions, called appropriately
enough, "Coptic." Yes, a form of the Egyptian language is still spoken
today by Christian Priests, and you can even attend Church services
carried on in that language.
Today, they are a persecuted minority in the land of their own
anscestors.
Alex
Boyd Campbell heeft geschreven in bericht <3689CDDA...@netdoor.com>...
>richa...@aol.com wrote:
>> >
> I think it's only fair to point out that the afrocentric
> argument put forth by Bernal, you and a few others has
> limited support in the academic community. Many give it
> also a book about the mysterious origins of the Egyptian
> people.
>
And exactly what do you base this sweeping "view" of
afrocentrism on?
I bet you've never read anything more than Mary Lefkowitz on
the subject. It's like saying you know what the civil rights
movement is about by reading Dinesh D'souza.
Alex
Aron
>>The subject does bring up another question, though. What modern
>>ethnic group is most closely related to the ancient Egyptians? Have
>>they been completely assimilated into other groups?
>
>I would say the Somalis and the Ethiopians.
I would say just about everyone that lives on and around the equator.
Alex
Nubkhas heeft geschreven in bericht <19981230183849...@ng-fa2.aol.com>...
>>My criticism of Prince of Egypt revolves around the portrayal of the Egyptian
>>characters as Arab-looking. Physical anthropology (not Afrocentrism) makes it
>>very clear that a large proportion of the Egyptian population would have
>>exhibited "negroid" features and woolly hair.
>
>Are you starting this up AGAIN? First of all, the film didn't portray
>Egyptians as "Arab-looking". All the people in the film were vaguely
>"Mediterranean-appearing except perhaps Zipporah. And secondly, your negroid
>features and woolly hair are totally missing (except for one or two) from the
>mummies we have of ancient Egyptians.
I'm surprised these mummies have any features left at all, aftern thousands
of years of dessication.
However, focusing on features alone is as misleading as focusing on skin tone
alone.
You have to take in the whole picture to see the origin of the Ancient Egyptans.
Skin tone ("dark red"), hair (braided), language (Afroasiatic, and related most
closely to Cushitic instead of Hebrew or Arabic), location (Nile Valley) and their
most plentiful neighbours (to the south, starting with Nubia).
>An example of this type can be
>>seen in a forensic reconstruction of the Egyptian priest Natsef-Amun,
>>conducted by the University of Manchester, >and viewable at the following URL:
>
>I am generally not very happy with Richard Neaves reconstructions of the faces
>of the ancients. Natsef-Amun, I'm sorry to disappoint you, was not a black
>person from ANY indications.
That's your re-interpretation of the facts. It's like saying that Stokely Carmichael
was a white man.
>>We simply do not see any representatives of this type, among the Egyptian
>>characters in Prince of Egypt. All are portrayed as Arab-type people, similar
>>in their physiognomy to Moses' wife Zipporah, a Midianite from southern
>>Palestine.
>
>Zipporah seemed to me to be modelled on the features of Whitney Houston.
Ooohhh, how daring.
Check out my site as well, at
http://www.xs4all.nl/~avdeelen/afrocentric/
Cheers,
Alex
Boyd Campbell
> Boyd Campbell heeft geschreven in bericht
> > I think it's only fair to point out that the afrocentric
> > argument put forth by Bernal, you and a few others has
> > limited support in the academic community. Many give it
> > as much creedence as _The Chariots of the Gods_ which is
> > also a book about the mysterious origins of the Egyptian
> > people.
> >
> And exactly what do you base this sweeping "view" of
> afrocentrism on?
> I bet you've never read anything more than Mary Lefkowitz on
> the subject. It's like saying you know what the civil rights
> movement is about by reading Dinesh D'souza.
Just because Lefkowitz was smart enough to capitalize on
the anti-afrocentric sentiment to sell her book doesn't
mean she's the only one with concerns about some of the
more explosive and unsubstantiated claims of the theory.
Quite Frankly, afrocentrism would go a lot farther if
it's proponents would make use of more science and less of
attitude. Maybe there's something to Bernal's (and others')
theory and maybe it's a load of crap but you're never going
to get at the truth of the matter with the attitude that
afrocentrists are the only enlightened people to come along
in the past 2000 years.
richa...@aol.com
nub...@aol.com (Nubkhas) wrote:
>
[snip]
>
> First of all, the film didn't portray Egyptians as "Arab-looking". All the
> people in the film were vaguely "Mediterranean"-appearing except perhaps
> Zipporah.
>
>
> Zipporah seemed to me to be modelled on the features of Whitney Houston.
>
I did not notice any physical difference between Zipporah and the other
characters, except for the fact that the animators gave her somewhat darker
skin. Readers may judge for themselves by viewing the pictures at the Prince
of Egypt website:
http://www.prince-of-egypt.com
As for your assertion that Zipporah was meant to resemble Whitney Houston, I
confess that I don't see it. But your claim raises an interesting question.
Do you consider Whitney Houston to have "negroid" features?
Alan M Dunsmuir
<pa...@ix.netcom.com> writes
>The modern Copts are the direct descendants of the ancient Egyptians.
>The liturgical language of their Church is the same language that was
>spoken by the ancient Egyptians, written in a phonetic alphabet obtained
>from Greek with a few instrumental additions, called appropriately
>enough, "Coptic."
The modern Copts are no more, or no less, descendants of the ancient
Egyptians than are their Moslem brothers. 'Copt' is not an ethnic
distinction at all, but a religious one. The Copts are simply those
Egyptians who embraced Christianity in its earliest days, and resisted
the proselytising drive to convert to Islam at the time of the Arab
conquest.
As non-Moslems, there was no need for them to switch to Arabic for their
liturgical requirements, although they switched to speaking Arabic
outside the Church.
--
Alan M Dunsmuir
MSta903328
Technical Supervisor: An expert hired by a movie company to be ignored.
Catbox :-)
Anthony Breaux
richa...@aol.com wrote:
>I did not notice any physical difference between Zipporah and the other
>characters, except for the fact that the animators gave her somewhat darker
>skin. Readers may judge for themselves by viewing the pictures at the
Prince
>of Egypt website:
>
>http://www.prince-of-egypt.com
>
More than the skin color, the physical difference _I_ noticed between
Zipporah and the other characters is that she's apparently had a nose job.
Was there a standard Egyptian look? From what I've seen, Egypt was a very
cosmopolitan place. Paintings show occasional blonds and redheads among the
brunetts. Many of the statues I've seen have negroid lips, caucasian noses,
and almond-shaped, oriental eyes. It would seem to me that Egypt was the
crossroads of its world, with all the gene and meme mixing that would imply.
Anthony
ameno...@my-dejanews.com
Alan M Dunsmuir <al...@moonrake.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <8FEFDCABADFC4655.EBDADBB9F7B5FC8B.B0C4E2AEAE63200F@library-
> proxy.airnews.net>, jdm <jdm1intxDIE...@airmail.net> writes
> >ethnic group is most closely related to the ancient Egyptians?
>
**NO.
>
> The Arabs didn't simply come along in the 6th century CE and ethnically
> remove everything they found there. Sure there were interminglings
> earlier, from the Greeks and from waves of migration from the SE and E,
> but just as many Moroccans and Algerians are much more Berber than Arab,
> so the Egyptians are rather more Egyptian than anything else.
> Alan M Dunsmuir
** **If one is talking about the "modern" Egyptians, then one can speak in
terms of "the Egyptians are rather more Egyptian than anything else."
If one is talking about the people who built the Great Pyramids and Sphinx,
then one is talking about the Ancient Kemetians, their original name taken
from their identification or glyph otherwise known as KMT. The ancient
Kemetians known today as the "Egyptians" were originally a Black African
civilization.
So the above by Alan Dunsmuir is one point of view, I on the other hand, know
another to be more true and correct according to documented evidence, namely
the hierogplyhs themselves.
AMENOPHIS X, Africologist
Ameno...@my-dejanews.com
Djehuti Sundaka
Boyd Campbell wrote:
Afrocentrism is not what most people choose to view it as. It is simply
a perspective applied to viewing the world as it relates to peoples of a
certain heritage. The scholars of China are no different but you don't
hear of any "Sinocentrism" being spoken of. The bad reputation of
Afrocentrism is itself based on a cultural bias which seeks to target
the nonsense promoted under a certain designation (i.e. Afrocentrism)
and then generalize such nonsense to be representative of the entire
designation. This would be like (more legitimately) denouncing Western
sholarship as Eurocentrism based on all of the whacky racist theories to
have been developed within the past 200 years without distinguishing
such nonsense from more valid Western scholarship.
Asethotep
>Kemetians known today as the "Egyptians" were originally a Black African
>civilization.
If you personally had done the DNA testing, I might respect this position. But
since you obviously haven't, there's no way anyone can just accept it. Where's
the proof, Amenophis?
> I on the other hand, know
>another to be more true and correct according to documented evidence, namely
>the hierogplyhs themselves.
Really? Pray tell, what *do* they say on this matter?
Speaking of....I have a question or two.... Why is Ani's wife portrayed as
having a very white face and rosy cheeks in the "The Book of the Dead: Book of
the Forth Coming Day" as translated by RO Faulkner if she is a Black African?
And why did the Egyptians always make a point to distinguish between the
Nubians (with literally black skin) and themselves (with dark olive skin) if
they were of the same race? And finally, why hasn't the DNA evidence ever been
published?
Blessings,
Asethotep
http://members.aol.com/iseum/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mom's comin' round to put it back the way it ought to be. -TOOL (AEnima)
Asethotep
>a perspective applied to viewing the world as it relates to peoples of a
>certain heritage.
That's fine. But they have discredited themselves by making outrageous claims
like that the Greeks were Black (I actually saw a book claiming this). It
seems to them that everyone of any significance was Black. Like if there
weren't photos to prove otherwise, anything is game. Ridiculous!
If you want someone to take your theories seriously, whatever the point of
view, you can't be outside the realm of common knowledge. Afrocentrists have
exceded this realm several times and, therefore, have completely lost any shred
of credibility for any future claim. I'm sorry, but that's the truth.
richa...@aol.com
"S Singh Sandhu" <s760...@np.edu.sg> wrote:
>
> richa...@aol.com wrote:
> >In article <368a572a.0@nsuxnews>,> "S Singh Sandhu" <s760...@np.edu.sg> wrote:
> >>
> >> richa...@aol.com wrote:
> >>
> >[snip]
> >> >
> >> >Egyptian characters as Arab-looking. Physical anthropology (not
> >> >example of this type can be seen in a forensic reconstruction of the
> >> >Egyptian priest Natsef-Amun, conducted by the University of Manchester,
> >> >
>
[snip]
>
> Seriously in your opinion what makes him look negroid? He has
> pretty normal lips , a high cheekbone , a highly un-negroid nose.
> His face is rather flat though. He could be anything actually but
> what distinctly makes the dude think it's negroid? He looks like some
> Native American guy at first glance to me.
>
[sigh] I wish that, just once, I could refer to Natsef-Amun, on the Internet,
without getting sidetracked into a silly debate over whether or not he really
looks negroid. I mean, really! Just to prove I'm a good sport, though, let me
cite you chapter and verse.
Richard Neave, the forensic artist who reconstructed Natsef-Amun, wrote:
"It was clear from the skull of Natsef-Amun that the nose would be broad and
flat and that the lips would be full. The position and spatial distribution
of the features of any face are of course determined by the bony structure of
the skull, and the features will grow and develop automatically, provided
that all the groundwork has been done correctly and that the work has adhered
to the basic principles. In the case of Natsef-Amun, a face with somewhat
negroid features emerged..."
R.A.H. Neave, "The Facial Reconstruction of Natsef-Amun," The Mummy's Tale
(Dr. A.R. David and Dr. E. Tapp, eds.), St. Martin's Press, New York, 1993,
page 166.
Elsewhere, Neave described Natsef-Amun as possessing "a broad nose,
well-developed brow ridges and high cheekbones. He had a strong,
well-developed mandible giving him what is often referred to as a wide
`square' jaw. Both the mandible and the maxilla were prognathic -- in other
words, both jaws were rather prominent... Clearly Nubian blood had once
coursed through his veins..."
John Prag and Richard Neave, Making Faces, Texas A&M University Press,
College Station, 1997, page 52.
It is worth noting that Neave's theory that Natsef-Amun had "Nubian" blood is
a pure speculation, based on nothing more than the fact that Natsef-Amun had
a "somewhat negroid" appearance. In fact, there is no reason to assume Nubian
ancestry at all, since Natsef-Amun had an Egyptian name, and belonged to a
priestly Egyptian family, through which he inherited the position of priest
of Amun, in the temple of Karnak.
Physical anthropologist Shomarka Keita has pointed out that people with
features every bit as "negroid" as those of Natsef-Amun have been present in
Egypt since prehistoric times, and that such features are in no way
indicative of non-Egyptian ancestry. So I disagree with Neave, on this point.
Nevertheless, the main points stand. They are:
1) Experts agree that Natsef-Amun was negroid,
2) Any casual, objective observer who knows what black people look like,
would also be forced to agree that he was negroid (please note the word
"objective"),
3) Estimates of the number of negroid-type individuals among the Egyptian
population range from 20-50 percent, in the published anthropological
literature,
4) Even the non-negroid or "caucasoid" element of the Egyptian population was
hardly what we would call "white". A large proportion of these so-called
"caucasoids" would have been people who looked like Iman, the Somali fashion
model. In other words, they would have been people who, despite their
"caucasoid" bony structures, possessed other genetic features that would
clearly have marked them as "black", in the sense that that word is commonly
understood today.
5) The Egyptian characters in the animated film Prince of Egypt did not
reflect the anthropological facts cited above. Instead, they all looked like
Arabs.
I hope that clarifies things for you.
Best wishes,
Richard Poe
________________________________________________________________________
Black Spark, White Fire: Did African Explorers Civilize Ancient Europe? by
Richard Poe (Prima, 1998) http://members.aol.com/BlackSprk/Black.html
ELurio
Egyptian kings colonizing Greece.>>
There was? none of my many books on mythology mention that. Sure, there are
tales of borrowings from Egypt, but there are far more tales of borrowings from
the middle east and Asia Minor.
<<I am forced to conclude, Eric, that you either did not really read my book,
or that you read it and, for some reason, failed to understand what you were
reading. Which is it?>>
Skimmed it.
Reguardless, you espoouse a hyperdiffusionism that didn't exist.
eric l.
BTW, Prince of Egypt is pretty accurate for what it is, reconstruction-wise.
The Egyptian characters have the same color as the ancient paintings. i.e. they
are not "negroid." Which is why many are complaining.
ELurio
a perspective applied to viewing the world as it relates to peoples of a
hear of any "Sinocentrism" being spoken of. >>
asserting that Blacks are superior to everyone else and that all civilization
sprang from Africa, everyone else being too stupid.
<<The bad reputation of
Afrocentrism is itself based on a cultural bias which seeks to target
the nonsense promoted under a certain designation (i.e. Afrocentrism)
and then generalize such nonsense to be representative of the entire
designation.>>
Actually it is. African-centered anthropology and history. i.e. subsaharan
Africa, is just considered history.
<<his would be like (more legitimately) denouncing Western
sholarship as Eurocentrism based on all of the whacky racist theories to
have been developed within the past 200 years without distinguishing
such nonsense from more valid Western scholarship.
>>
Something which is done all the time. I've seen "Eurocentrist" used as a term
of abuse many times.
eric l.
Aron
>If one is talking about the people who built the Great Pyramids and Sphinx,
>then one is talking about the Ancient Kemetians, their original name taken
>from their identification or glyph otherwise known as KMT. The ancient
>Kemetians known today as the "Egyptians" were originally a Black African
>civilization.
Nope, they came from the east, the evidence shows that Sumerians and
Egyptians had made a migration from the east before splitting up. Why did
they choose the lands they chose though? For Egypt it could have been an
earlier civilisation that had left a few ruins, and for the Sumerians it
could have been the land itself, flat at the bottom, had major rivers
running through it and highlands in the north. Very varied and ideal for
building a civilisation.
Alex
Sar Draconis heeft geschreven in bericht <368B2D...@ix.netcom.com>...
>Aron wrote:
>>
>> >The subject does bring up another question, though. What modern
>> >ethnic group is most closely related to the ancient Egyptians? Have
>> >they been completely assimilated into other groups?
>> >
>>
>
I remember reading somewhere that the Copts are the descendants
of the Ancient Egyptians and the Greeks?
Alex
Alex
Boyd Campbell heeft geschreven in bericht <368B4084...@netdoor.com>...
>Alex wrote:
>> Boyd Campbell heeft geschreven in bericht
>> >richa...@aol.com wrote:
>
>> > I think it's only fair to point out that the afrocentric
>> > argument put forth by Bernal, you and a few others has
>> > limited support in the academic community. Many give it
>> > as much creedence as _The Chariots of the Gods_ which is
>> > also a book about the mysterious origins of the Egyptian
>> > people.
>> >
>> And exactly what do you base this sweeping "view" of
>> afrocentrism on?
>> I bet you've never read anything more than Mary Lefkowitz on
>> the subject. It's like saying you know what the civil rights
>> movement is about by reading Dinesh D'souza.
>
> Just because Lefkowitz was smart enough to capitalize on
> the anti-afrocentric
Anti-Black....
> sentiment to sell her book doesn't
> mean she's the only one with concerns about some of the
> more explosive and unsubstantiated claims of the theory.
Of course not. Martin Bernal does a great job of showing the
swing from Egyptocentrism to Grecocentrism in Black Athena,
way back in the 18th and 19th centuries.
> Quite Frankly, afrocentrism would go a lot farther if
> it's proponents would make use of more science and less of
> attitude.
Maybe you should take into account in your judgement the
fact that many of it's main intellect, like G.G.M. James
were working in extremely repressive environments (1940s Alabama,
I think) and that everyone who joins Egyptology today is fighting a
legacy of over a hundred years of interpreting Ancient Egyptian
culture by its individual pieces which is trying to kill off any context.
They're fighting to associate Egyptian culture and civilization with
anything that happened in the Nile Valley to the south.
> Maybe there's something to Bernal's (and others')
> theory and maybe it's a load of crap but you're never going
> to get at the truth of the matter with the attitude that
> afrocentrists are the only enlightened people to come along
> in the past 2000 years.
I'm afraid that's you're words, not anyone elses.
Alex
Alex
Asethotep heeft geschreven in bericht <19981231144628...@ng155.aol.com>...
>>Afrocentrism is not what most people choose to view it as. It is simply
>>a perspective applied to viewing the world as it relates to peoples of a
>>certain heritage.
>
>like that the Greeks were Black
And since when did you hear more than one individual making such a statement
and then qualify this as "they"?
Alex
Asethotep heeft geschreven in bericht <19981231142824...@ng155.aol.com>...
>>The ancient
>>Kemetians known today as the "Egyptians" were originally a Black African
>>civilization.
>
>since you obviously haven't, there's no way anyone can just accept it. Where's
>the proof, Amenophis?
>
>> I on the other hand, know
>>another to be more true and correct according to documented evidence, namely
>>the hierogplyhs themselves.
>
>Really? Pray tell, what *do* they say on this matter?
>
>Speaking of....I have a question or two.... Why is Ani's wife portrayed as
>having a very white face and rosy cheeks in the "The Book of the Dead: Book of
>the Forth Coming Day" as translated by RO Faulkner if she is a Black African?
Why do even Black people grow pale when they stay indoors a lot?
>And why did the Egyptians always make a point to distinguish between the
>Nubians (with literally black skin) and themselves (with dark olive skin) if
>they were of the same race?
Why do the Egyptians always distinguish between themselves and the Assyrians/
Babylonians/Middle Easteners if they are the same race?
Answer: the distinction isn't about _race_ but about nationality.
And the Ancient Egyptians _did_ make distinctions (in features, in dress) when
portraying Middle Easteners.
> And finally, why hasn't the DNA evidence ever been
>published?
For your information, DNA cannot proof race, but it can proof _relatedness_.
I think there are some interesting studies on mitochondrial DNA, but I'll leave
that to Paul Manansala and his previous posts on the subject.
Cheers,
Alex
Martin Stower
> ** **If one is talking about the "modern" Egyptians, then one can speak in
> terms of "the Egyptians are rather more Egyptian than anything else."
>
> If one is talking about the people who built the Great Pyramids and Sphinx,
> then one is talking about the Ancient Kemetians, their original name taken
> from their identification or glyph otherwise known as KMT.
Last time I looked, kmt was written with several hieroglyphs.
> The ancient Kemetians known today as the "Egyptians" were originally a
> Black African civilization.
. . . asserted on the basis of . . .
> So the above by Alan Dunsmuir is one point of view, I on the other hand, know
> another to be more true and correct according to documented evidence, namely
> the hierogplyhs themselves.
Your knowledge of which is presumably exemplified above - and also below, by
your adoption of the Greek version of a pharaonic name.
> AMENOPHIS X, Africologist
> Ameno...@my-dejanews.com
See Deja News for Amen's reasoned, tactful posts on soc.culture.egyptian.
Martin Stower
Alex
Aron heeft geschreven in bericht <76ej0p$5d7$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>...
>
>
>>>The subject does bring up another question, though. What modern
>>>ethnic group is most closely related to the ancient Egyptians? Have
>>>they been completely assimilated into other groups?
>>
>
>
>I would say just about everyone that lives on and around the equator.
And I would say: re-read my previous post.
Besides, Egypt isn't "anywhere near the equator", it is in Africa, although,
of course, the Nile River runs down into and through Egypt all the way from
the equator (hint, hint).
In case you were wondering that India is also near the equator, as well
as Indo-China and central America, the _language_ of the Ancient Egyptians
doesn't come from any of those regions.
Alex
Djehuti Sundaka
Asethotep wrote:
> >Afrocentrism is not what most people choose to view it as. It is simply
> >a perspective applied to viewing the world as it relates to peoples of a
> >certain heritage.
>
> That's fine. But they have discredited themselves by making outrageous claims
> like that the Greeks were Black (I actually saw a book claiming this). It
> seems to them that everyone of any significance was Black. Like if there
> weren't photos to prove otherwise, anything is game. Ridiculous!
Like the early 1900 books on Egypt displaying Egyptians and Semites as pale skinned
Europeans as if everyone of any significance was white. Ridiculous!
>
>
> If you want someone to take your theories seriously, whatever the point of
> view, you can't be outside the realm of common knowledge. Afrocentrists have
> exceded this realm several times and, therefore, have completely lost any shred
> of credibility for any future claim. I'm sorry, but that's the truth.
Science is a history of being outside the realm of common knowledge. What did
scientists of "common knowledge" have to say about Galileo in his day?You have
demonstrated that you are a perfect example of the point I made. Everything you
have said can be validly applied to the standard Eurocentric perspective yet I
doubt if you'd be ready to discard all that European scholarship has produced
simply due to the consistent barrage of whackos with both PhDs and racial agendas.
You are ready to sanctify the results of a Eurocentric scholarship even when one
must distinguish and denounce the obviously racist scholars from the responsible
scholars but let a few people with or without credentials do the same thing from a
perspective not based in Europe and all of a sudden everyone under the common label
have to be held responsible. This is borderline racist if not actually so. I'm
Djehuti Sundaka
ELurio wrote:
> <<Afrocentrism is not what most people choose to view it as. It is simply
> a perspective applied to viewing the world as it relates to peoples of a
> certain heritage. The scholars of China are no different but you don't
> hear of any "Sinocentrism" being spoken of. >>
> No, that isn't it at all. Afrocentrism is stuff like Ivan Van Sertima,
> asserting that Blacks are superior to everyone else and that all civilization
> sprang from Africa, everyone else being too stupid.
If you're not an obvious liar, I challenge you to quote Ivan Van Sertima in one
of these assertions you claim he makes.
>
>
> <<The bad reputation of
> Afrocentrism is itself based on a cultural bias which seeks to target
> the nonsense promoted under a certain designation (i.e. Afrocentrism)
> and then generalize such nonsense to be representative of the entire
> designation.>>
> Actually it is. African-centered anthropology and history. i.e. subsaharan
> Africa, is just considered history.
>
> <<his would be like (more legitimately) denouncing Western
> sholarship as Eurocentrism based on all of the whacky racist theories to
> have been developed within the past 200 years without distinguishing
> such nonsense from more valid Western scholarship.
> >>
>
> Something which is done all the time. I've seen "Eurocentrist" used as a term
> of abuse many times.
All the time you say? What world are you living in? The whole of Western
scholarship has hardly ever been denounced as being mere Eurocentrism.
>
>
> eric l.
Djehuti Sundaka
ELurio wrote:
scholarship has hardly ever been denounced as being mere Eurocentrism. But if
you say that this is done all the time, perhaps you could produce an example or
two.
>
>
> eric l.
Aron
>>I would say just about everyone that lives on and around the equator.
>
>
>And I would say: re-read my previous post.
>Besides, Egypt isn't "anywhere near the equator",
I dont mean so close the equator that you live on the very line you know!
richa...@aol.com
cam...@netdoor.com wrote:
>
[snip]
>
> I never got the impression that the Egyptians were particularly
> drawn to resemble any particular race, not even arabs. Ramses,
> his father and mother all had large, broad flat noses which
> certainly could be taken as negroid or arab or a number of
> other races and their skin was dark enough but light enough
> to go a number of different ways as well.
>
> The only very clear racial statement made about the way they
> drew the faces was that Moses' face was clearly of a different
> heritage from the egyptians.
>
> I really don't think people are letting Dreamworks win on this
> one. Some people are complaining that they drew the egyptians
> too negroid looking and others that they're too syrian or arab.
> It's clear (to me at least) that they did their best to
> incorporate all of the current theories about what these people
> were like (with the exception of Chariots of the Gods) and now
> people are critisizing them for not favoring the same theory
> they do.
>
I think you hit the nail right on the head. In my opinion, Dreamworks
consciously pursued a policy of compromise, in their portrayal of the
Egyptians, seeking a "look" that was calculated to offend as few people as
possible. The practical result of this policy was that Dreamworks ended up
adopting the majority view, which says, in effect, "The Egyptians may not
have been white, but they weren't black either."
This vacuous mantra is repeated, robot-like, whenever the debate over ancient
Egypt's racial identity arises. But what does it really mean? Like all moral
and intellectual compromises, it obscures, rather than elucidates, the truth.
If you were to tell me that some group of people living in Malaysia or
Central America were "neither white nor black", I would be inclined to agree
with you. But were you to make this same statement about a group of people,
such as the ancient Egyptians, who live in Africa, speak an African language,
are genetically related to other Africans (according to DNA studies) and
exhibit cultural traits similar to those of other Africans, then it would be
difficult for me to escape the conclusion that you were engaging in a
strategy of deliberate evasion.
>
> The film doesn't engage the question of whether the egyptians
> were afrocentric or not for the simple reason that it's not
> a part of the story. Had they gone with afrocentric egyptians
> the den and cry against them for pushing a "politically correct"
> agenda would have been deafening.
>
Sorry, this excuse doesn't cut it. There has been a flood of publicity
surrounding the extraordinary efforts Dreamworks has gone to, in order to
appease every conceivable interest group. I even read that they hired
Egyptologists to read through all the hieroglyphic inscriptions appearing in
the movie, in order to ensure that no sacrilegious or otherwise offensive
phrases turned up, through random chance, in these inscriptions.
I think it's fair to say that random combinations of hieroglyphs are not
"part of the story". Yet, Dreamworks considered them important enough to
address. Dreamworks' corresponding decision to leave the Afrocentric issue
UN-addressed appears to have been deliberate, based on hard-nosed
calculations that the number of Afrocentrists who might be offended by
Arab-looking Egyptians would be smaller and less troublesome than the number
of people who might be offended by a more accurate portrayal of "negroid" and
Ethiopian-type "caucasoid" Egyptians.
>
> Let the afrocentric argument cook a while before demanding that
> the world accept it as fact. It's not being swept under the
> rug and it's not being ignored. Scientists of good faith all
> over the world are investigating this theory and the only
> reasonable thing to do is to wait for more compelling evidence--
> which will come, one way or another, either supporting or
> dismissing the afrocentric theory.
>
Contrary to your assertion, I have seen little evidence that scientists are
"investigating" this theory, whether in "good faith" or in any other way. On
the contrary, mainstream academics typically pronounce the Afrocentric debate
to be morally and intellectually beneath them, and not a fit subject for
"responsible" discussion.
Were people to take your advice to "let the argument cook" for awhile, this
would only result in the issue being swept under the carpet for a few more
decades, while more and more "Ten Commandments" and "Prince of Egypt" type
movies were added to the Hollywood canon.
Best wishes,
Richard Poe
_________________________________________________________________________
ELurio
one
of these assertions you claim he makes.>>
Okay, go to your copy of "They came before Columbus," go to page 105, footnote
sixteen
He comes very close many other places in the book, as well.
<<All the time you say? What world are you living in?>>
Earth, it's right between Mars and Venus.
<<The whole of Western
scholarship has hardly ever been denounced as being mere Eurocentrism.>>
Except by Afrocentrists and other quasifascistic psudoscholerly groups.
eric l.
Nubkhas
>> his father and mother all had large, broad flat noses which
>> certainly could be taken as negroid or arab or a number of
>> other races and their skin was dark enough but light enough
>> to go a number of different ways as well.
You must be kidding. The Ramesside mummies are all *hook-nosed* and are
certainly not negroid in any respect. The color of the skin cannot be deduced
from their mummies, but their hair is definitely of the fine, Caucasion
variety.
>> The only very clear racial statement made about the way they
>> drew the faces was that Moses' face was clearly of a different
>> heritage from the egyptians.
It wasn't that *clear* at all in the film and, judging from the royal mummies,
the heritage of the ancient Egyptians and the "Hebrews" is probably not
different at all.
(snip)
>I think you hit the nail right on the head. In my opinion, Dreamworks
>consciously pursued a policy of compromise, in their portrayal of the
>Egyptians, seeking a "look" that was calculated to offend as few people as
>possible. The practical result of this policy was that Dreamworks ended up
>adopting the majority view, which says, in effect, "The Egyptians may not
>have been white, but they weren't black >either."
The terms "black" and "white" are fairly meaningless as nobody as totally black
or totally white in skin color. The ancient Egyptians were Caucasion people in
the majority.
>This vacuous mantra is repeated, robot-like, >whenever the debate over ancient
>Egypt's racial identity arises. But what does it really mean? Like all moral
>and intellectual compromises, it obscures, >rather than elucidates, the truth.
The truth is a problem only if one doesn't want to see it. If one sees
"negroid" in most ancient portraits of Egyptians--then one has to have an
agenda because the mummies of these people do not tell that story at all. Why
this should upset anybody is beyond me. There are plenty of negroid peoples in
Africa. For example, the Kushite or Meroeotic culture to the south of Egypt
was a noble one, as well. Why don't Afrocentrists concentrate on that one--or
Great Zimbabwe?
>If you were to tell me that some group of people living in Malaysia or
>Central America were "neither white nor black", I would be inclined to agree
>with you. But were you to make this same statement about a group of people,
>such as the ancient Egyptians, who live in >Africa, speak an African language,
However, their language is classified as "Afro-Asiatic", making it just as
close to the Semitic of their neighbors to the east.
>are genetically related to other Africans (according to DNA studies)
What DNA studies are those? Surely not of the ancient Egyptians. If some
modern Egyptians resemble other Africans, that wouldn't be too surprising
because at some point the Nubians overran Egypt and became its rulers. After
that, the carefully guarded border between Egypt and Nubia was probably opened
and the Egyptian population no doubt changed to some degree. However, the
dynastic Egyptians were not an "African" people (it is thought they probably
migrated from Asia) and they did not think of themselves as "African" at all.
They thought of themselves as unique among the nations. Not only unique but
superior, it would seem.
>exhibit cultural traits similar to those of other >Africans,
Such as? What do you mean by "cultural traits", anyhow?
(snip)
>> The film doesn't engage the question of whether the egyptians
>> were afrocentric or not for the simple reason that it's not
>> a part of the story. Had they gone with afrocentric egyptians
>> the den and cry against them for pushing a "politically correct"
>> agenda would have been deafening.
>Sorry, this excuse doesn't cut it. There has been a flood of publicity
>surrounding the extraordinary efforts Dreamworks has gone to, in order to
>appease every conceivable interest group. I even read that they hired
>Egyptologists to read through all the hieroglyphic inscriptions appearing in
>the movie, in order to ensure that no sacrilegious or otherwise offensive
>phrases turned up, through random chance, >in these inscriptions.
That may be. But please don't confuse the efforts of some producers of a film
to be "politically correct" with the realities of ancient Egypt.
>I think it's fair to say that random combinations of hieroglyphs are not
>"part of the story". Yet, Dreamworks considered them important enough to
>address. Dreamworks' corresponding decision to leave the Afrocentric issue
>UN-addressed appears to have been deliberate, based on hard-nosed
>calculations that the number of Afrocentrists who might be offended by
>Arab-looking Egyptians would be smaller and less troublesome than the number
>of people who might be offended by a more accurate portrayal of "negroid" and
>Ethiopian-type "caucasoid" Egyptians.
However, in striving for accuracy during the period during which the "Exodus"
is thought to have taken place, the 19th Dynasty--where does one see portraits
of kings who are "Ethiopian-looking" there? Surely not Ramesses II with his
hawkish features and hair that was determined in Paris by the L'Oreal
scientists to have been originally red even though it was white by the time he
died and had been dyed with henna.
>> Let the afrocentric argument cook a while before demanding that
>> the world accept it as fact. It's not being swept under the
>> rug and it's not being ignored.
Perhaps because it is a tempest in a teapot and there is no physical evidence
to support it.
Scientists of good faith all
>> over the world are investigating this theory and the only
>> reasonable thing to do is to wait for more compelling evidence--
>> which will come, one way or another, either supporting or
>> dismissing the afrocentric theory.
What would that evidence be, in your opinion?
>Contrary to your assertion, I have seen little evidence that scientists are
>"investigating" this theory, whether in "good >faith" or in any other way.
Why would they investigate a theory for which little or no evidence exists
because some group has a strange need to claim the ancient Egyptian culture for
itself? Now look here--there were what is nowdays called "Black" people in
ancient Egypt, just as there are in various cultures today. Nobody disputes
this. But this presence does not make the entire populace "Black". The
evidence simply doesn't support this. Actually, in some of their portrayals,
the ancient Egyptians appear vaguely "oriental". Japanese Egyptologists are
doing a fine job in Egypt today, but they are not trying to claim the ancient
Egyptians as being like themselves on the strength of this artistic quirk. Yet
one can safely say that the ancient Egyptian WAS an oriental culture. Anyway,
all such labels must ultimately be misleading and might serve to obscure the
fact that the ancient Egyptians really were as unique as they saw themselves.
,On
>the contrary, mainstream academics typically pronounce the Afrocentric debate
>to be morally and intellectually beneath them, and not a fit subject for
>"responsible" discussion.
No. That is definitely not the case. But, from the statements I have seen
Afrocentrists make, THEY are not ready to debate with "mainstream academics"
because they are not ready to accept the evidence that already exists with an
unbiased eye and take it upon themselves to actually study the culture without
trying to make it fit into a preconceived agenda.
>Were people to take your advice to "let the argument cook" for awhile, this
>would only result in the issue being swept under the carpet for a few more
>decades, while more and more "Ten Commandments" and "Prince of Egypt" type
>movies were added to the Hollywood canon.
The film "Prince of Egypt" was wonderfully entertaining, but that it claims to
represent any sort of "truth" about anything to do with Egyptian history would
be a gross exaggeration, so you are worried for nothing
Aten Kaman
>Doug weller and his mother all had large flat noses which certainly
>could be taken as a sign of their all being racialist ethnic minorities.
>And please dont tell me anything about hook-nosed mummies,
>since i am a world expert on dead bodies, so i should know.
> Nubby.
Djehuti Sundaka
ELurio wrote:
> <<If you're not an obvious liar, I challenge you to quote Ivan Van Sertima in
> one
> of these assertions you claim he makes.>>
>
> Okay, go to your copy of "They came before Columbus," go to page 105, footnote
> sixteen
> He comes very close many other places in the book, as well.
I challenged you to produce a quote. You have cited a reference which you don't
show to be in support of your claim but have produced no quote. Why aren't I
surprised?
>
>
> <<All the time you say? What world are you living in?>>
>
> Earth, it's right between Mars and Venus.
>
> <<The whole of Western
> scholarship has hardly ever been denounced as being mere Eurocentrism.>>
>
> Except by Afrocentrists and other quasifascistic psudoscholerly groups.
Is the Eurocentric world abandoning European scholarship or publically perceived
to be invalid due to criticisms from outside of it? I think not. On the
contrary, "The Bell Curve" still makes its sales (except in England where reality
exposes it for what it is).
>
>
> eric l.
richa...@aol.com
elu...@aol.com (ELurio) wrote:
>
> <<an account which includes legends of Egyptian kings colonizing Greece.>>
>
> There was? none of my many books on mythology mention that. Sure, there are
> tales of borrowings from Egypt, but there are far more tales of borrowings
> from the middle east and Asia Minor.
>
Your response perfectly illustrates the problem. Despite your obvious
interest in ancient mythologies, and the wide range of your reading, you
evidently have never come in contact with the legends pertaining to Greece's
colonization by Egyptian kings.
Considering the importance of these legends to the Greeks themselves, this
omission is hard to explain -- unless we accept Martin Bernal's argument that
the legends of Egyptian colonization were deliberately downplayed by
scholars, in order to preserve the illusion of Greece's "Aryan" racial
purity.
Your textbooks have betrayed you, Eric.
Herodotos wrote: "How it happened that Egyptians came to the Peloponnese and
what they did to make themselves kings in that part of Greece, has been
chronicled by other writers; I will add nothing therefore, but proceed to
mention some points which no one else has yet touched upon."
Herodotos, The Histories, VI, 55 (Aubrey de Sélincourt, trans.), Penguin
Books, New York, 1954.
Herodotos was here referring to the legend of Danaos, an Egyptian king who
allegedly sailed to Greece with a great fleet, landed at Apobathmi, in the
Peloponnese, founded the city of Argos and conquered most of Greece,
whereupon he compelled the native Greeks to call themselves "Danaans", in his
honor.
This is why the Greeks never call themselves "Greeks" or "Hellenes" in the
earliest Greek epics, the Iliad and the Odyssey. Instead, they call
themselves Danaans.
According to the legends, which are widely attested from many sources, Danaos
founded a dynasty in Greece, whose progeny included such heroes as Perseus
and Herakles. Pausanias, who wrote around AD 174, described Danaos'
traditional landing place at Apobathmi, which was a famous tourist attraction
throughout Greco-Roman times, much as Plymouth Rock is for Americans today.
Pausanias also visited a "pyramid-like" structure near Argos, which local
legends attributed to Proetos and Akrisios, Danaos' great-grandsons
(Pausanias 9.25.7). Remains of stone pyramids have indeed been found near
Argos. Archaeologists have dated them to sometime before 2400 BC. They are
among the oldest buildings in Greece, and are regarded as mysterious in
origin. Greek archaeologist Theodore Spyropoulos, however, believes they were
built by Egyptian colonists, exactly as the legends claim.
So you see, Eric, there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt
of in your conventional textbooks.
Best wishes,
Richard Poe
_______________________________________________________________________
Black Spark, White Fire: Did African Explorers Civilize Ancient Europe, by
Kevin Daly
richa...@aol.com wrote in message <76ag34$edi$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>In article
><Pine.GSO.3.95qL.98122...@merhaba.cc.columbia.edu>,
Regina
>Alexandra Robbins <ra...@columbia.edu> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 27 Dec 1998 richa...@aol.com wrote:
>>
>[snip]
>> >
>> > Following this "sensitivity session", Katzenberg made ambitious changes
in
>> > the movie, to portray the Egyptians more sympathetically, and thus
satisfy
>> > Arab objections. Nobody seems to have asked, though, why the Arabs
should
>> > care, one way or the other. The ancient Egyptians, after all, were not
Arabs!
>>
>> But everyone in the audience (except you, Richard) will *think* they are,
>> because that's who's there now. Not necessarily an arugument for
>> historical inaccuracy in motion pictures, but I can see why Arab leaders
>> would be worried.
>>
>
>I too can understand why Arab leaders might be justifiably concerned.
>However, judging from some of the posts on the AOL "Prince of Egypt"
message
>board, there are many Arabs who, quite UNjustifiably, really do believe
that
>the ancient Egyptians were quite literally Arabs. And, more to the point,
>"Prince of Egypt" producer Jeffrey Katzenberg does not seem to have
realized
>that they were mistaken. At least, there has been no discussion of this
>issue, in any of the press surrounding the movie. Instead, the equation of
>Ancient Egyptian = Arab has been offered without comment or criticism. This
>shows an ignorance of the issue, not only on Dreamworks' part, but on the
>part of journalists reporting on the movie. My question is why -- in an era
>when the racial identity of the ancient Egyptians has become such a hot
topic
>in the media -- did Katzenberg's panel of 300 "experts" fail to hammer out
a
>clear position on it?
It's an interesting question: While the the ancient Egyptians were
unquestionably not Arabs, it is also true that they *were* the ancestors of
many modern Egyptians who would be considered by themselves and others to be
Arabs...remembering that race is essentially a cultural artifact, so what
matters is language and culture.
While the Egyptian-descended Copts have their non-Arab identity reinforced
by their Christian religion (although that doesn't apply to the many
Christian Arabs in Palestine), the Muslim Fellahin in Egypt are also largely
of indigenous Egyptian descent...Egypt was a populous country, and there was
neither opportunity nor cause for the invading Arabs to completely displace
the local population.
So we have the slightly odd situation of an Arab nation who can quite
legitimately take issue with the portrayal of a non-Arab people in
antiquity, since those people were their ancestors. Actually this does
highlight the fatuousness of the arbitrary racial classifications we dream
up for ourselves.
As regards the portrayal of the Egyptians, I'd have to say Egypt was one
of the more likeable civilisations of the time, although my personal
favourites are the Hittites: you have to love a people whose king takes time
out in his letters to complain about his sore feet.
Kevin Daly,
Dublin, Ireland
________________________________________________________________________
>
>Black Spark, White Fire: Did African Explorers Civilize Ancient Europe? by
ameno...@my-dejanews.com
richa...@aol.com wrote:
> I think you hit the nail right on the head. In my opinion, Dreamworks
> consciously pursued a policy of compromise, in their portrayal of the
> Egyptians, seeking a "look" that was calculated to offend as few people as
> possible. The practical result of this policy was that Dreamworks ended up
> adopting the majority view, which says, in effect, "The Egyptians may not
> have been white, but they weren't black either."
**
**I agree with you whole-heartedly. I purchased your book about 2-3 months ago
and I haven't had the chance to read it thoroughly, but I have browed through
and read several passages here-and-there.
> If you were to tell me that some group of people living in Malaysia or
> Central America were "neither white nor black", I would be inclined to agree
> with you. But were you to make this same statement about a group of people,
> such as the ancient Egyptians, who live in Africa, speak an African language,
> are genetically related to other Africans (according to DNA studies) and
> exhibit cultural traits similar to those of other Africans, then it would be
> difficult for me to escape the conclusion that you were engaging in a
> strategy of deliberate evasion.
** **Bingo---deliberate evasion. Not to mention the fact that the Ancient
Egyptians worshipped Black-skinned Gods. This has never been explained
thorougly or convincingly.
> I think it's fair to say that random combinations of hieroglyphs are not
> "part of the story". Yet, Dreamworks considered them important enough to
> address. Dreamworks' corresponding decision to leave the Afrocentric issue
> UN-addressed appears to have been deliberate, based on hard-nosed
> calculations that the number of Afrocentrists who might be offended by
> Arab-looking Egyptians would be smaller and less troublesome than the number
> of people who might be offended by a more accurate portrayal of "negroid" and
> Ethiopian-type "caucasoid" Egyptians.
** **As an African person, I'm DISGUSTED and SICK and tired of these
hollywood producers who find pleasure in doing this to us. They find no pain
in portraying Black people as slaves (because it was the truth) but won't
even CONSIDER what we were in our Ancestral land...and in Ancient times.
HOLLYWOOD SUCKS!!!
> > Let the afrocentric argument cook a while before demanding that
> > the world accept it as fact. It's not being swept under the
> > rug and it's not being ignored. Scientists of good faith all
> > over the world are investigating this theory
>
> Contrary to your assertion, I have seen little evidence that scientists are
> "investigating" this theory, whether in "good faith" or in any other way. On
> the contrary, mainstream academics typically pronounce the Afrocentric debate
> to be morally and intellectually beneath them, and not a fit subject for
> "responsible" discussion.
**
**Very true. I've witnessed this---first hand.
>
> Were people to take your advice to "let the argument cook" for awhile, this
> would only result in the issue being swept under the carpet for a few more
> decades, while more and more "Ten Commandments" and "Prince of Egypt" type
> movies were added to the Hollywood canon.
>
> Best wishes,
> Richard Poe
> _________________________________________________________________________
>
> Black Spark, White Fire: Did African Explorers Civilize Ancient Europe? by
> Richard Poe (Prima, 1998) http://members.aol.com/BlackSprk/Black.html
**
**P.S. Any future projects, I have some great Egyptian artwork for you. I'll
forward some gif's to you soon. Keep up the good work.
AMENOPHIS X, Africologist
ameno...@my-dejanews.com
ameno...@my-dejanews.com
aset...@aol.comLvlySpam (Asethotep) wrote:
> >Afrocentrism is not what most people choose to view it as. It is simply
> >a perspective applied to viewing the world as it relates to peoples of a
> >certain heritage.
>
> like that the Greeks were Black (I actually saw a book claiming this).It
> seems to them that everyone of any significance was Black. Like if there
> weren't photos to prove otherwise, anything is game. Ridiculous!
** **You speak of Afrocentrists as a whole, and that is wrong, first of all.
We all don't think alike, haven't you learned that much? Secondly, I've never
read that the Greeks were Black (and if you're gonna claim such, provide the
reference) but my point is: The Greeks COPIED and WORSHIPPED "BLACK-SKINNED
GODS" just like the Ancient Egyptians. Now explain that...why did the Greeks
portray their GODS on ancient artifacts dated in the 5-6th century B.C. why
did they portray them as BLACK-SKINNED? Hell, they could have painted them
White---like they do in Hollywood! Explain.
> If you want someone to take your theories seriously, whatever the point of
> view, you can't be outside the realm of common knowledge. Afrocentrists have
> exceded this realm several times and, therefore, have completely lost any
shred
> of credibility for any future claim. I'm sorry, but that's the truth.
>
> Blessings,
> Asethotep
**
**Please, don't even come for me on what email name I use, that's stupid. Are
you stupid, Asethotep???
ameno...@my-dejanews.com
> <<an account which includes legends of
> Egyptian kings colonizing Greece.>>
>
> There was? none of my many books on mythology mention that. Sure, there are
> tales of borrowings from Egypt, but there are far more tales of borrowings
from the middle east and Asia Minor. ** **I don't think you've even read one
of "my many books on mythology" as you claim. Colonization, does this
surprise you---considering the facts surrounding ancient history, people,
culture and geography???
> <<I am forced to conclude, Eric, that you either did not really read my book,
> or that you read it and, for some reason, failed to understand what you were
> reading. Which is it?>>
> Skimmed it.
>
> Reguardless, you espoouse a hyperdiffusionism that didn't exist.
>
> eric l.
**
**And you eric l. espouse ignorance. You make such stupid blanket statements
without one dust of proof.
> BTW, Prince of Egypt is pretty accurate for what it is, reconstruction-wise.
> The Egyptian characters have the same color as the ancient paintings. i.e.
they
> are not "negroid." Which is why many are complaining.
** **Stupid eric, what color is negroid??? Dumbass, Black people come in all
shades of blackness, none called negroid! Go back to school!!!!!!!!!!!
AMENOPHIS X, Africologist
ameno...@my-dejanews.com
richa...@aol.com wrote:
> In article <19981229191622...@ng01.aol.com>,
> elu...@aol.com (ELurio) wrote:
> >
> [snip]
> >
> > And he wrote.....
> > <<Black Spark, White Fire: Did African Explorers Civilize Ancient Europe? by
> > Richard Poe (Prima, 1998) >>
> >
> > As you can tell from the title. (I read the book) He is a racist trying to
> > prove that blacks are superior to whites by trying to prove through willful
> > misinterpretation of evidence that Whites are too stupid to invent anything,
> > so they had to "steal" it from black supermen.
> >
> > yeah, right.
> >
> > eric l.
> >
> Goodness gracious! "Black supermen", of all things.
>
> Really, Eric, I find it difficult to believe your assertion that you actually
> read my book. Had you read it, you would be aware that:
>
> 1) I am not African-American. My father was of Russian-Jewish descent and my
> mother of Mexican heritage. It would therefore hardly be in my interest to
> preach a doctrine of black superiority.
>
> 2) I stated, right upfront, in the Introduction, that I had great admiration
> for European culture, and that I completely reject the masochistic tendency
> of some European-descended academics to beat up on Western civilization. And
> finally
>
> 3) That I never suggested Europeans were "too stupid" to invent anything, or
> that they "stole" anything from the Egyptians. On the contrary, I suggested
> that the Europeans (and particularly the Greeks) were smart enough to give an
> accurate account of their own history, an account which includes legends of
> Egyptian kings colonizing Greece. It is modern scholars who insult the Greeks
> by claiming that their legends were wrong, and that they were too "stupid" to
> know the truth about their own origins.
>
> I am forced to conclude, Eric, that you either did not really read my book,
> or that you read it and, for some reason, failed to understand what you were
> reading. Which is it?
>
> Best wishes,
> Richard Poe
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Black Spark, White Fire: Did African Explorers Civilize Ancient Europe? by
> Richard Poe (Prima, 1998) http://members.aol.com/BlackSprk/Black.html
>
> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
**
**I commend you on your patience and tolerance for ignorance. But I THANK YOU
for providing us with so much of your knowledge and references for us to
research on our own...a true scholar's trait. Thanks R. Poe...
Asethotep
>We all don't think alike, haven't you learned that much?
No. In fact, I refuse read any book on archaeology that openly claims to be
biased by race or culture. If there is a difference between what each
Afrocentrist believes, that still does not change the fact that they are openly
biased in their findings simply because they are looking for evidence to prove
their beliefs rather than finding evidence and coming to a conclusion based on
that evidence.
>I've never
>read that the Greeks were Black (and if you're gonna claim such, provide the
>reference)
Of course, I'm not claiming that, YOU MORON! I said that I saw a book that
stated this not that I agreed with it. DUH!
> The Greeks COPIED and WORSHIPPED "BLACK-SKINNED
>GODS" just like the Ancient Egyptians. Now explain that...why did the Greeks
>portray their GODS on ancient artifacts dated in the 5-6th century B.C. why
>did they portray them as BLACK-SKINNED?
Literally black not brown skinned, Amenophis. Let's get that distinction
clear. Black was equated with the bland fertile lands of Egypt after the Nile
flooded each year. Black was therefore equated with the meaning of Fertility.
>Please, don't even come for me on what email name I use, that's stupid. Are
>you stupid, Asethotep???
Excuse me? When did I attack your name, Amenophis? I'd like to see a quote of
what I said in regards to your name. Quite frankly, I don't remember making
any remark in this area.
Aron
>certainly not negroid in any respect. The color of the skin cannot be
deduced
>from their mummies, but their hair is definitely of the fine, Caucasion
>variety.
Its true that the Ramses mummie looks like it has a hook nose, so did many
Kings prior to him, but the hair is normally a wig as many egyptians shaved
their whole body from head to toe because it was too hard to wash and
insects would infest them.
>is thought to have taken place, the 19th Dynasty--where does one see
portraits
>of kings who are "Ethiopian-looking" there?
Ahh but many Queens looked Nubian, especially when they wore those nubian
wigs.
Surely not Ramesses II with his
>hawkish features and hair that was determined in Paris by the L'Oreal
>scientists to have been originally red even though it was white by the time
he
>died and had been dyed with henna.
He was definitely Ramses Patel then.
>The film "Prince of Egypt" was wonderfully entertaining, but that it claims
to
>represent any sort of "truth" about anything to do with Egyptian history
would
>be a gross exaggeration, so you are worried for nothing
I am worried, most people actually believe it. Funny thing happened
yesterday. I was listening to a radio in a shop advertising the movie and at
that moment I shouted, 'Rubbish! It never happened.' And beside me two
gentlemen said 'What never happened?' and I told them the story of Moses
never happened. They agreed and laughed about it. As I left I said 'Happy
New Year' and they said 'Shalom'. I guess it is Shanatovah for everyone.
Asethotep
That's rather irrelevant considering where the Egyptians lived. How could they
possibly have any lack of exposure to the sun in Africa? If anything I would
assume they were darker/more tanned than normal do to where they lived.
>Why do the Egyptians always distinguish between themselves and the Assyrians/
>Babylonians/Middle Easteners if they are the same race?
They did show them as being of the same color....different clothing and hair
styles, but the same color. They only show themselves as being distinctly
different in color than the Asians and the Nubians.
I am certainly not argue that there were no Nubians in Egypt. There certainly
were. Especially once they extended their borders into Nubia. It seems that
the country was a kind of melting pot by the Ptolemic period. What I am
interested in is the origins of the Egyptian culture. Where were the people
that created the Empire from? I think they were probably Arab....similar to
what modern Egyptians look like.
ELurio
**I commend you on your patience and tolerance for ignorance. But I THANK YOU
for providing us with so much of your knowledge and references for us to
research on our own...a true scholar's trait. Thanks R. Poe...
AMENOPHIS X, Africologist
@my-dejanews.com>>
What patience. Look at Poe's book. Check the index and look up "mesopotamia"
you will find only two refrences, and when you are discussing influences on
Greece and Europe, you have to discuss the Mesopotamian and Anatolian
civilizations. He doesn't.
I also read ( I went to a bookstore today and rechecked some stuff) how he
"Egyptianizes" the entire middle east, something totally wrong.
eric l.
ameno...@my-dejanews.com
aset...@aol.comLvlySpam (Asethotep) wrote:
> >You speak of Afrocentrists as a whole, and that is wrong, first of all.
> >We all don't think alike, haven't you learned that much?
>
> No. In fact, I refuse read any book on archaeology that openly claims to be
> biased by race or culture. If there is a difference between what each
> Afrocentrist believes, that still does not change the fact that they are
> biased in their findings simply because they are looking for evidence to prove
> their beliefs rather than finding evidence and coming to a conclusion based on
> that evidence.
** **You don't know HOW they base their findings because you are not one to
speak for them...not at all. I also don't like the fact that you speak from a
pedestal that says that Europeans don't base their findings on the very
argument you claim Afrocentrist do. As a matter of fact, Europeans do this
more-so, especially given the position you speak from. You see, I believe
Europeans would go to any extent to hide the truth if they had free will to
do so. Thank GOD, and hopefully this is true, that when ANY---and I do mean
ANY, excavations that are carried out in Egypt are done with teams composed
of different ethnic persuasions and that everything is fully documented and
pictures taken.
One of the main difficulties I found with the author Kent Weeks who wrote the
book "The Lost Tomb" that just came out recently, did the most recent and
largest excavations in Egypt, yet why he and his staff couldn't provide more
"real" pictures and illustrations in his book INSTEAD OF illustrations drawn
by hand. I don't get it. He claimed that many pictures were taken, yet he
doesn't provide the lay-person a chance to judge with our own eyes what was
found. I'm very skeptical about the European teams that are excavating or
rather - grave robbing - in Egypt. Oh, I definitly can't stand their grave
robbing!!! This is ill!!!
>
> >I've never
> >read that the Greeks were Black (and if you're gonna claim such, provide the
> >reference)
>
> Of course, I'm not claiming that, YOU MORON! I said that I saw a book that
> stated this not that I agreed with it. DUH!
**
**DUH my ass, that ain't what you said originally - that you didn't agree with
it!
>
> > The Greeks COPIED and WORSHIPPED "BLACK-SKINNED
> >GODS" just like the Ancient Egyptians. Now explain that...why did the Greeks
> >portray their GODS on ancient artifacts dated in the 5-6th century B.C. why
> >did they portray them as BLACK-SKINNED?
>
> Literally black not brown skinned, Amenophis.
**
**Literally BLACK-SKINNED, not brown Asethotep. BLACK as coal. BLACK as Night.
BLACK - Black. Haven't you already seen the illustrations??? Of all the books
you've read, surely you've seen them, I have plenty.
Let's get that distinction
> clear. Black was equated with the bland fertile lands of Egypt after the Nile
> flooded each year. Black was therefore equated with the meaning of Fertility.
**
**Says you so-called wannabee Egyptologists! I'm sick of some of you who claim
what their BLACKNESS stood for, especially thousands of years after the fact!
You don't really know for sure, except for what Euro-peans have spoke
year-after-year, century-after-century. I say you're wrong. BLACK was equated
with someone much more MEANINGFUL and HONORABLE than what you wannabees wanna
claim. Not in my lifetime will I bow to such non-sense. Not from you.
>
> >Please, don't even come for me on what email name I use, that's stupid. Are
> >you stupid, Asethotep???
>
> Excuse me? When did I attack your name, Amenophis? I'd like to see a quote
of
> what I said in regards to your name. Quite frankly, I don't remember making
> any remark in this area.
>
> Blessings,
> Asethotep
**
**My apologies if I made the mistake in your name.
ELurio
GODS" just like the Ancient Egyptians. Now explain that...why did the Greeks
portray their GODS on ancient artifacts dated in the 5-6th century B.C. why
did they portray them as BLACK-SKINNED?>>
Well, the reason is simple. They didn't. The vases that portrayed "black
skinned gods" were black and white drawings. White line drawings on black
glaze, gradulally adding details like some white(okay, yellow) backgrounds and
such. They painted their statues too, of course, but they didn't paint them
black.
If you look at Greek mosaics, you will notice that all the gods are caucasian.
The males have a tan and the females are ghostly pale.
Yes, there is one Ephesian Artimis statue that has black "skin" but there are
others that have white "skin" too. So it proves nothing.
But all the evidence taken together proves that the greeks did NOT Worship
"BLACK-SKINNED GODS" just like the egyptians did.
eric l.
ELurio
Egyptians worshipped Black-skinned Gods. This has never been explained
thorougly or convincingly.>>
Then how do you explain the megaton of evidence to the contrary?
eric l.
ELurio
without one dust of proof.>>
No, I espouse knowledge. I make intellegent statements with a great deal of
proof, as you well know.
<<** **Stupid eric, what color is negroid??? Dumbass, Black people come in all
shades of blackness, none called negroid! Go back to school!!!!!!!!!!!>>
Dark brown-black skin, thick lips wooly hair, as depicted in ancient egyptain
paintings of nubians. If you look at photographs of ancient egyptian art, you
can see them and compare them to pictures of Egyptians in ancient egyptian art.
Negroid is a scientific term. All black people are negroid. This is not a term
of derision. As you know.
eric l.
Who knows Cleopatra VII was Macedonian.
ELurio
don't
show to be in support of your claim but have produced no quote. Why aren't I
surprised?>>
Because you are too damn lazy to look it up for yourself, kiddo.
eric l.<<
Is the Eurocentric world abandoning European scholarship or publically
perceived
to be invalid due to criticisms from outside of it? I think not. On the
contrary, "The Bell Curve" still makes its sales (except in England where
reality
exposes it for what it is).>>
Well, for one thing, the criticisms are invalid. The Bell Curve has nothing to
do with a Eurocentric view of history...or any view of history for that matter.
Most of the criticisms are based on the mantera "we are better than you! We are
proud of the great achievement of being born blank!!!!" which most people, many
of whom hide behind infantile psudonyms like Amenhophis XVI or something like
that, and are usually so moronic that no one but a racist would take them
seriously.
eric l.
Paul Kekai Manansala
> Dark brown-black skin, thick lips wooly hair, as depicted in ancient egyptain> paintings of nubians. If you look at photographs of ancient egyptian art, you> can see them and compare them to pictures of Egyptians in ancient egyptian art.
>
Already done this and I certainly would not agree with you. In fact, the
first modern Europeans to visit Egypt and write about their experience
also did not agree with you. They thought the ancient Egyptian art
portrayed "Negroid" people.
Regards,
Paul Kekai Manansala
http://www.he.net/~skyeagle/afro.htm
sar...@tcp.co.uk
i sure never heard of that before, yet i believe it.
Amazing how much brainwashing one inadvertently
picks up at "school" :)
>> <<an account which includes legends of Egyptian kings colonizing Greece.>>
>>
>> There was? none of my many books on mythology mention that. Sure, there are
>> tales of borrowings from Egypt, but there are far more tales of borrowings
>> from the middle east and Asia Minor.
>>
>
>Black Spark, White Fire: Did African Explorers Civilize Ancient Europe, by
>Richard Poe (Prima, 1998) http://members.aol.com/BlackSprk/Black.html
>
S Singh Sandhu
"Alex" <avde...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>>Asethotep heeft geschreven in bericht <19981231142824...@ng155.aol.com>...
>>>The ancient
>>>Kemetians known today as the "Egyptians" were originally a Black African
>>>civilization.
>>
>>If you personally had done the DNA testing, I might respect this position. But
>>since you obviously haven't, there's no way anyone can just accept it. Where's
>>the proof, Amenophis?
>>
>>> I on the other hand, know
>>>another to be more true and correct according to documented evidence, namely
>>>the hierogplyhs themselves.
>>
>>Really? Pray tell, what *do* they say on this matter?
>>
>>Speaking of....I have a question or two.... Why is Ani's wife portrayed as
>>having a very white face and rosy cheeks in the "The Book of the Dead: Book of
>>the Forth Coming Day" as translated by RO Faulkner if she is a Black African?
>
>Why do even Black people grow pale when they stay indoors a lot?
>
>>And why did the Egyptians always make a point to distinguish between the
>>Nubians (with literally black skin) and themselves (with dark olive skin) if
>>they were of the same race?
>
>Why do the Egyptians always distinguish between themselves and the Assyrians/
>Babylonians/Middle Easteners if they are the same race?
>
>Answer: the distinction isn't about _race_ but about nationality.
>
>And the Ancient Egyptians _did_ make distinctions (in features, in dress) when
>portraying Middle Easteners.
>
>> And finally, why hasn't the DNA evidence ever been
>>published?
>
>For your information, DNA cannot proof race, but it can proof _relatedness_.
>I think there are some interesting studies on mitochondrial DNA, but I'll leave
>that to Paul Manansala and his previous posts on the subject.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Alex
>
>
richa...@aol.com
"Kevin Daly" <kda...@iol.ie> wrote:
>
>
> It's an interesting question: While the the ancient Egyptians were
> unquestionably not Arabs, it is also true that they *were* the ancestors of
> many modern Egyptians who would be considered by themselves and others to be
> Arabs...
>
In fact, it is quite unknown to what extent the modern Egyptians are
genetically akin to the ancient ones. The very small amount of DNA evidence
currently available has -- like the skull measurements of decades past --
already been subjected to an extraordinary amount of massaging and personal
interpretation, with rival factions of scientists shoehorning the data into
whatever racial theories they already believed beforehand. Examples of such
shoehorning abound on the Usenet, wherever Egyptian DNA has been debated.
>
> While the Egyptian-descended Copts have their non-Arab identity reinforced
> by their Christian religion (although that doesn't apply to the many
> Christian Arabs in Palestine), the Muslim Fellahin in Egypt are also largely
> of indigenous Egyptian descent...Egypt was a populous country, and there was
> neither opportunity nor cause for the invading Arabs to completely displace
> the local population.
>
Here again, rival opinions abound. I have read, for instance, that the Copts,
were quite thoroughly intermixed with Greeks, over many centuries. There are
also strong differences of opinion, between experts, as to the degree to
which Arab and other invasions altered Egypt's gene pool.
>
> So we have the slightly odd situation of an Arab nation who can quite
> legitimately take issue with the portrayal of a non-Arab people in
> antiquity, since those people were their ancestors.
>
I'm afraid this sidesteps the question. Remember, the issue that started this
current thread is whether or not the animators correctly drew the Egyptian
characters in the movie Prince of Egypt. There was a furious debate, on this
subject, on the AOL message board, when the movie first came out. A number of
people, claiming to be Egyptians, posted messages stating, in effect, "I'm an
Egyptian, and I'm not black, so therefore the ancient Egyptians weren't black
either."
Having traveled in Egypt myself, I would have to take serious exception to
this blanket denial of "blackness" by modern Egyptians. A large proportion,
even of modern Egyptians, would pass for African-Americans, if they were
walking down 125th Street, in Western clothes. When black actor Louis
Gossett, Jr., for example, played the title role in Columbia Pictures'
mini-series Sadat, he looked exactly like the late Egyptian president.
So, even if the Dreamworks people had used the MODERN Egyptian population as
their model, they would have had to include a large proportion of "negroid"
types, among the Egyptian characters. Yet they did not. And, as some experts
have argued, there is a strong chance that the ancient Egyptians were
considerably more "black" than the modern ones, who have been heavily
intermixed with Hyksos, Libyans, Persians, Assyrians, Greeks, Romans, Arabs,
Turks, Georgian "Mamelukes" and others, over the last 3000 years.
> I'd have to say Egypt was one of the more likeable civilisations of the time.
>
I agree. I've been an Egyptomaniac since childhood.
Best wishes,
Richard Poe
________________________________________________________________________
Black Spark, White Fire: Did African Explorers Civilize Ancient Europe? by
richa...@aol.com
ameno...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <76iki6$o24$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> richa...@aol.com wrote:
>
> > In my opinion, Dreamworks consciously pursued a policy of compromise, in
> > their portrayal of the Egyptians, seeking a "look" that was calculated to
> > offend as few people as possible. The practical result of this policy was
> > that Dreamworks ended up adopting the majority view, which says, in effect, > > "The Egyptians may not have been white, but they weren't black either."
> >
> > Central America were "neither white nor black", I would be inclined to agree
> > with you. But were you to make this same statement about a group of people,
> > such as the ancient Egyptians, who live in Africa, speak an African
> > language, are genetically related to other Africans (according to DNA
> > studies) and exhibit cultural traits similar to those of other Africans,
> > then it would be difficult for me to escape the conclusion that you were
> > engaging in a strategy of deliberate evasion.
> >
> >
> > Dreamworks'...[snip]... decision to leave the Afrocentric issue
> > UN-addressed appears to have been deliberate, based on hard-nosed
> > calculations that the number of Afrocentrists who might be offended by
> > Arab-looking Egyptians would be smaller and less troublesome than the number
> > of people who might be offended by a more accurate portrayal of "negroid"
> > and Ethiopian-type "caucasoid" Egyptians.
>
>
> ** **As an African person, I'm DISGUSTED and SICK and tired of these
> hollywood producers who find pleasure in doing this to us. They find no pain
> in portraying Black people as slaves (because it was the truth) but won't
> even CONSIDER what we were in our Ancestral land...and in Ancient times.
> HOLLYWOOD SUCKS!!!
>
As a non-African person, I'm pretty sick of it too. When are movie-lovers
finally going to see some real Egyptians?
Best wishes,
Richard Poe
_________________________________________________________________________
Black Spark, White Fire: Did African Explorers Civilize Ancient Europe? by
Richard Poe (Prima 1998) http://members.aol.com/BlackSprk/Black.html
ELurio
Already done this and I certainly would not agree with you. In fact, the
first modern Europeans to visit Egypt and write about their experience
also did not agree with you. They thought the ancient Egyptian art
portrayed "Negroid" people.>>
How do you define "modern European?" Where and when did these "First Modern
Europeans" visit Egypt? Egypt has been visited by Western Europeans since the
time of Rameses III.
We know that there were many people who visited Egypt during the Crusades,
including St. Louis, who died in Cairo. After that, there were a steady stream
of visiters, though for many reasons tourism was limited. The Spanish and
Portugues sent spies there during the 15th and 16th centuries to find the route
to India. There was lots of speculation about Egypt during the 17th and 18th
centuries, as well as genuine tourism. The discovery of the source of the Blue
Nile was around the time of the American revolution, remember.
So when are you talking about, and were they talking about the Sudan?
eric l.
mana...@my-dejanews.com
"Alex" <avde...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>
> > And finally, why hasn't the DNA evidence ever been
> >published?
>
> For your information, DNA cannot proof race, but it can proof _relatedness_.
> I think there are some interesting studies on mitochondrial DNA, but I'll
leave> that to Paul Manansala and his previous posts on the subject.
>
Probably the most interesting studies so far involve Y chromosome data.
---
Genetic studies of modern Egyptians do show they possess the Y-chromosome
marker linked to the ancestral African population. Persichetti et al. (1992),
and Hammer (1994) found the African YAP+ allele in 53.1% of an Egyptian
sample of 64 persons.
The same allele occured at percentages of 98.2 for Mandenka, 100 for Wolof,
78 for Bantu, 46 for Nama/Sekele San, 50 for Ethiopians, and 59.1 for a broad
African sample.
Modern Egyptians also possess the common African blood marker profile of
high B, cDe, P and V, and low A2 and Fy^a antigens.
---
The best mtDNA data that I know of extends into ancient Meroe and connects
that civilization with "sub-Saharan" Africa. Since no one has ever denied
that there was close biological ties between Nubians and at least Southern
Egyptians, then we could extend these sub-Saharan influences to Egypt.
Be warned though, that the author of the following article skirts around
the sub-saharan influence by claiming even that the Nubians are mostly
"Caucasoid" using the false idea of a "Caucasoid" marker:
Fox CL
ADDRESS: Universitat de Barcelona, Spain.
TITLE: mtDNA analysis in ancient Nubians supports the existence of
gene flow between sub-Sahara and North Africa in the Nile
Valley.
SOURCE: Ann Hum Biol (57R), 1997 May-Jun; 24 (3): 217-27
Paul Kekai Manansala
>
> <<
> Already done this and I certainly would not agree with you. In fact, the
> first modern Europeans to visit Egypt and write about their experience
> also did not agree with you. They thought the ancient Egyptian art
> portrayed "Negroid" people.>>
>
> How do you define "modern European?" Where and when did these "First Modern
> Europeans" visit Egypt? Egypt has been visited by Western Europeans since the
> time of Rameses III.
>
I'm talking about people like K. Lepsius who conducted the first
archaeological expedition in Egypt and M. Volney, whose voyage accounts
were very popular in the late 18th century.
However, even the earliest European accounts give the same testimony.
You spoke of certain features, like kinky hair, as not present among
ancient Egyptians. But the following accounts contradict your views:
HERODOTUS:
"...several Egyptians told me that in their opinion the Colchidians
were descended from soldiers of Sesotris. I had conjectured as much
myself from two pointers, firstly because they have black skins and
kinky hair...and more reliably for the reason that alone among mankind
the Egyptians and the Ethiopian have practiced circumcision since
time immemorial." (Herodotus, Book II, 104)
ARISTOTLE:
"Those who are too black are cowards, like for instance, the Egyptians
and Ethiopians. But those who are excessively white are also cowards as
we can see from the example of women, the complexion of courage is
between the two." (?) (Aristotle, _Physiognomy_, 6)
"Why are the Ethiopians and Egyptians bandy-legged? Is it because
of that the body of itself creates, because of disturbance by heat, like
loss of wood when they become dry? The condition of their hair supports
this theory; for it is curlier than that of other nations..."
(Aristotle, _Problemata_ 909, 7)
LUCIAN:
Dialogue:
Lycinus (describing an Egyptian): 'this boy is not merely black; he
has thick lips and his legs are too thin...his hair worn in a
plait shows that he is not a freeman.'
Timolaus: 'but that is a sign of really distinguished birth in Egypt,
Lycinus. All freeborn children plait their hair until they
reach manhood...' (Lucian, _Navigations_, paras 2-3)
AMMIANUS MARCELLINUS:
"...the men of Egypt are mostly brown or black with a skinny desiccated
look." (Ammianus Marcellinus, Book XXII para 16)
Regards,
Paul Kekai Manansala
ameno...@my-dejanews.com
elu...@aol.com (ELurio) wrote:
> <<but my point is: The Greeks COPIED and WORSHIPPED "BLACK-SKINNED
> GODS" just like the Ancient Egyptians. Now explain that...why did the Greeks
> portray their GODS on ancient artifacts dated in the 5-6th century B.C. why
> did they portray them as BLACK-SKINNED?>>
>
> Well, the reason is simple. They didn't. The vases that portrayed "black
> skinned gods" were black and white drawings.
**
**According to you, no doubt. So your simple reason is not so simple at all
because the drawings I am talking about are not only black and white.
Furthermore, what difference would THAT make whether the glaze was black with
white lines (and I don't believe you on this at all, btw) the fact is, the
figures painted were OBVIOUSLY Black-skinned people. (IF) they were not, why
would they leave them BLACK colored??? You see, your simple reason, isn't.
White line drawings on black
> glaze, gradulally adding details like some white(okay, yellow) backgrounds and
> such. They painted their statues too, of course, but they didn't paint them
> black.
**
**Like I said, read above.
> Yes, there is one Ephesian Artimis statue that has black "skin" but there are
> others that have white "skin" too. So it proves nothing.
**
**The hell it doesn't! It proves what Bernal, Poe, and others have mentioned,
the colonization of Black people into Greece society. I have maintained this
strongly looking at all the artifacts dating around the 5th century with
Black-skinned people painted on the artifacts, and I hate to disturb you with
this one, they are painted on vases that are not glazed Black. Now, who are
these Black-skinned painted figures painted on artifacts??? How is it...that
Black people, of all people, could possibly be painted on artifacts? ;-)
> But all the evidence taken together proves that the greeks did NOT Worship
> "BLACK-SKINNED GODS" just like the egyptians did.
>
> eric l.
**
**Sure, according to eric l. I disagree!
AMENOPHIS X, Africologist
@my-dejanews.com
ameno...@my-dejanews.com
** **Please provide ONE (1) convincing piece of evidence, please. I'm all
ears. What about those BLACK-SKINNED Gods and figures painted in the
stones??? Please explain...
Aron
Without the heavy lighting some black actresses use, yes.
Alex
Kevin Daly heeft geschreven in bericht <76lf4e$csa$1...@news1.news.iol.ie>...
>It's an interesting question: While the the ancient Egyptians were
>unquestionably not Arabs, it is also true that they *were* the ancestors of
>many modern Egyptians
Agreed..
> who would be considered by themselves and others to be
>Arabs...remembering that race is essentially a cultural artifact, so what
>matters is language and culture.
Well, language and culture are subject to change as well...
>While the Egyptian-descended Copts have their non-Arab identity reinforced
>by their Christian religion (although that doesn't apply to the many
>Christian Arabs in Palestine), the Muslim Fellahin in Egypt are also largely
>of indigenous Egyptian descent...Egypt was a populous country, and there was
>neither opportunity nor cause for the invading Arabs to completely displace
>the local population.
Hmmm... I would say that 1300 years is a long time.
(All those pilgrimages to Mecca every year - 1300 times, as well as ordinary
travel.)
But really, we're talking about a process that begins way back in the 18th century
BC, with the putting to work of prisoners and forced labourers from all over the
Middle East and Levant (please correct me if I'm wrong on the time).
Then, the Egyptian empire starts to crumble with the invasian of the Persians in
the 7th century BC. And then there is Greek, Roman occupation after that,
the Arab invasion, the Ottoman (Turkish) empire, occupation by the French,
British, Germans (excuse me if I left anyone out).
> So we have the slightly odd situation of an Arab nation who can quite
>legitimately take issue with the portrayal of a non-Arab people in
>antiquity, since those people were their ancestors. Actually this does
>highlight the fatuousness of the arbitrary racial classifications we dream
>up for ourselves.
I would say not necessarily, because I think the Dreamworks sensitivity
stuff is more about the obvious political parallels that can be drawn between
the protagonists of the story and the modern day political situation in the Middle East,
not about ethnic inaccuracies in the portrayal of people of 3000 years ago.
In fact, it might have been more politically expedient to portray the Ancient
Egyptians as Modern day Egyptians.
If one compares the portrayal of the Ancient Egyptians in art, then it is obvious
that their portrayal in Prince Of Egypt isn't that accurate, 500 "experts" or not.
The question, for instance, is why the Egyptians were portrayed with straight
hair, when all their portrayals in art are either as short and frizzy, bald or most usually
with braids.
Or why the bible classified the Ancient Egyptians together with the Kushites
(Somalis, Ethiopians), as do modern linguists.
But then, I still have an atlas which classifies the Somalis and Ethiopians
as "Caucasians". And re-reading it, you again see the insinuation of the oficially
"deceased" Hamitic race of black whites.
And I think that is also the problem with the historical inaccuracy of Prince Of
Egypt - do they believe (as I think some if not many of the experts still do) that
the Ethiopians and the Somalis are really white people or not.
And if they do, it is obvious why they had the Ancient Egyptians portrayed the
way they did.
Cheers,
Alex
Milo D. Cooper
>> ameno...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>>> richa...@aol.com wrote:
>>>
>>> In my opinion, Dreamworks consciously pursued a policy of compromise, in
>>> their portrayal of the Egyptians, seeking a "look" that was calculated to
>>> offend as few people as possible. The practical result of this policy was
>>> that Dreamworks ended up adopting the majority view, which says, in effect,
>>> "The Egyptians may not have been white, but they weren't black either."
>>>
>>> If you were to tell me that some group of people living in Malaysia or
>>> Central America were "neither white nor black", I would be inclined to agree
>>> with you. But were you to make this same statement about a group of people,
>>> such as the ancient Egyptians, who live in Africa, speak an African
>>> language, are genetically related to other Africans (according to DNA
>>> studies) and exhibit cultural traits similar to those of other Africans,
>>> then it would be difficult for me to escape the conclusion that you were
>>> engaging in a strategy of deliberate evasion.
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>> Dreamworks'...[snip]... decision to leave the Afrocentric issue
>>> UN-addressed appears to have been deliberate, based on hard-nosed
>>> calculations that the number of Afrocentrists who might be offended by
>>> Arab-looking Egyptians would be smaller and less troublesome than the number
>>> of people who might be offended by a more accurate portrayal of "negroid"
>>> and Ethiopian-type "caucasoid" Egyptians.
>>
>> hollywood producers who find pleasure in doing this to us. They find no pain
>> in portraying Black people as slaves (because it was the truth) but won't
>> even CONSIDER what we were in our Ancestral land...and in Ancient times.
>> HOLLYWOOD SUCKS!!!
>
> As a non-African person, I'm pretty sick of it too. When are movie-lovers
> finally going to see some real Egyptians?
When there isn't a general preference for looking at white people (vs.
other races) amongst these same movie-lovers. This has been pointed out
several times, here in r.a.m.c-f. The studios exist to make money, and
they do that by giving audiences what they like.
--
/|__Milo D. Cooper__________________EverQuest character modeler__|\
\| http://www.milos-chalkboard.net/ http://www.everquest.com/ |/
Martin Stower
>
> In article <19990102212456...@ng-fa2.aol.com>,
> elu...@aol.com (ELurio) wrote:
[. . .]
> > Well, the reason is simple. They didn't. The vases that portrayed "black
> > skinned gods" were black and white drawings.
>
> According to you, no doubt.
No, according to anyone who knows anything about Greek vases.
> So your simple reason is not so simple at all
> because the drawings I am talking about are not only black and white.
> Furthermore, what difference would THAT make whether the glaze was black with
> white lines (and I don't believe you on this at all, btw) the fact is, the
> figures painted were OBVIOUSLY Black-skinned people. (IF) they were not, why
> would they leave them BLACK colored???
So the accompanying animals were also black? Obviously. If not, why did they
leave them black? Remarkable how many species were black in ancient Greece . .
.
Remarkable also how these black figures are otherwise entirely European in
appearance. As for poor old Achilles, sometimes he was white, and sometimes he
was black. How confusing for him.
[. . .]
Martin Stower
ameno...@my-dejanews.com
"Milo D. Cooper" <mi...@milos-chalkboard.net> wrote:
> > richa...@aol.com wrote:
> >> ameno...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >>> richa...@aol.com wrote:
> >>> <snip>
> >>> such as the ancient Egyptians, who live in Africa, speak an African
> >>> language, are genetically related to other Africans (according to DNA
> >>> studies) and exhibit cultural traits similar to those of other Africans,
> >>> then it would be difficult for me to escape the conclusion that you were
> >>> engaging in a strategy of deliberate evasion.
> >>>
> >>> [snip]
> >>>
> >>> Dreamworks'...[snip]... decision to leave the Afrocentric issue
> >>> UN-addressed appears to have been deliberate, based on hard-nosed
> >>> calculations that the number of Afrocentrists who might be offended by
> >>> Arab-looking Egyptians would be smaller and less troublesome than the
> >>> number of people who might be offended by a more accurate portrayal of
> >>> "negroid" and Ethiopian-type "caucasoid" Egyptians.
> >> ** **As an African person, I'm DISGUSTED and SICK and tired of these
> >> hollywood producers who find pleasure in doing this to us. They find no
pain in portraying Black people as slaves (because it was the truth) but won't
even CONSIDER what we were in our Ancestral land...and in Ancient times.
HOLLYWOOD SUCKS!!!
> >
> > As a non-African person, I'm pretty sick of it too. When are movie-lovers
> > finally going to see some real Egyptians?
>
> When there isn't a general preference for looking at white people (vs.
> other races) amongst these same movie-lovers. This has been pointed out
> several times, here in r.a.m.c-f. The studios exist to make money, and
> they do that by giving audiences what they like.
** **To me this argument is just plain ARROGANT. Hollywood is ASS-uming that
the movie-lovers (all of us) prefer looking at white people. Sadly mistaken!
I like to look at a range of people on the silver screen. Its just SAD that
HOLLYWOOD's TIRED scriptwriters seem to only write for EUROPEAN-type
characters. Hollywood racist???
YOU BET!!!
But on the point of this film, they simply did an injustice to the ancient
Egyptians. This was all done to ease the conscience of Euro-centrists,
definitly not the movie lovers.
ameno...@my-dejanews.com
Martin Stower <mst...@netcomuk.co.uk> wrote:
<snip>
> > > Well, the reason is simple. They didn't. The vases that portrayed "black
> > > skinned gods" were black and white drawings.
> >
> > According to you, no doubt.
>
> No, according to anyone who knows anything about Greek vases.
**
**Obviously this doesn't include you. The artifacts I am talking about CLEARLY
depicts BLACK-SKINNED figures alongside WHITE-SKINNED figures. As far as the
animals are concerned, I honestly didn't pay close attention to them. But the
human figures, were plain and obvious. It's man who wants to change all the
meanings of the colors used and who the people are. Man.
> > So your simple reason is not so simple at all
> > because the drawings I am talking about are not only black and white.
> > Furthermore, what difference would THAT make whether the glaze was black
with
> > white lines (and I don't believe you on this at all, btw) the fact is, the
> > figures painted were OBVIOUSLY Black-skinned people. (IF) they were not, why
> > would they leave them BLACK colored???
>
> So the accompanying animals were also black? Obviously. If not, why did they
> leave them black? Remarkable how many species were black in ancient Greece .
** **Who is talking about animals? I have already stated, I didn't pay close
attention to the animals...they are not people. But as far as I know, maybe
they were black. You know, blackness existed before everything else. It's not
impossible...
> Remarkable also how these black figures are otherwise entirely European in
> appearance. As for poor old Achilles, sometimes he was white, and sometimes
> he was black. How confusing for him.
**
**Rather, I think its more confusing for you. I've never seen him as white.
Don't tell me, it was hand-painted perhaps by a recent artist??? :-|
Before I go, this reminds me of a picture I saw in the recent KMT
publication. It's a pathetic imaginary painting of a European Egyptian king
they claim to be Menkhepre Djehutymes. HA!!!!
ELurio
ears. What about those BLACK-SKINNED Gods and figures painted in the
stones??? Please explain...
AMENOPHIS X, Africologist>>
You mean like those vase paintings from the third and second centuries BC that
show WHITE SKINNED gods? or the mythological mosaics going back well into the
sixth century BC, when the medium was invented?
full color y'know. the use of tan glaze on top of black glaze to create line
art on pots does not mean that the people and gods depicted were black. only
that they were line drawings.
but back to the subject at hand, you want ONE(1) convincing piece of evidence?
Okay, here it is. In the book the GREEK MUSEAMS, [Edokodike books, athens
greece, 1977] there is depicted on page 182 a rare painting from fifth century
greece at the Delphi museam. It shows Apollo and his skin is white.
eric l.
Alex
Asethotep heeft geschreven in bericht <19990102181202...@ng135.aol.com>...
>>You speak of Afrocentrists as a whole, and that is wrong, first of all.
>>We all don't think alike, haven't you learned that much?
>
>No. In fact, I refuse read any book on archaeology that openly claims to be
>biased by race or culture.
You only read the ones that are, but don't say they are.
Alex
>If there is a difference between what each
>Afrocentrist believes, that still does not change the fact that they are openly
>biased in their findings simply because they are looking for evidence to prove
>their beliefs rather than finding evidence and coming to a conclusion based on
>that evidence.
And noone else is? Is this the price of honousty?
Are you telling me that, for instance, the likes of Mary Lefkowitz (who'se views
you're quoting, but aren't saying you're quoting, so I guess in your logic that
means that you're not quoting them..) don't have an agenda.
And that they don't have an agenda - because they say they don't?
Wow.
Alex
Alex
Asethotep heeft geschreven in bericht <19990102184710...@ng135.aol.com>...
>>Why do even Black people grow pale when they stay indoors a lot?
>
By staying indoors.
Which might explain why the women of especially the richer Ancient Egyptians
are portrayed as lighter skinned than their menfolk.
Alex
S Singh Sandhu
Agree with u on that.. so greek men were brown skinned and not white.
S Singh Sandhu
up over a simple issue of skin color , whatever color it is , what
does he look like , negro or caucasian?.
Basing on skin color is stupid , orientals are light skinned
and sometimes white but look more negroid than caucasoid.
richa...@aol.com
elu...@aol.com (ELurio) wrote:
>
[snip]
>
> BTW, Prince of Egypt is pretty accurate for what it is, reconstruction-wise.
> The Egyptian characters have the same color as the ancient paintings. i.e. they are not "negroid." Which is why many are complaining.
>
You seem to have misunderstood the point of the argument, Eric. Let me try to
help you.
The terms "negroid" and "caucasoid" do not refer to skin color, but to
physical features, such as lip thickness, flatness of the nose and relative
degree of prognathism (the jutting forward of the jaws). As explained in
previous posts, many African people who are described anthropologically as
"caucasoid", because of their facial features, can also possess black skin,
woolly hair and other attributes, commonly associated with "blackness."
As for the reddish-brown skin color of the Egyptians in Prince of Egypt, you
are correct in saying that it matches the color that Egyptian artists usually
gave to Egyptian men, in their paintings (women were sometimes portrayed with
yellowish skin, but not always).
Most experts agree, however, that this skin color was an artistic convention,
meant to convey a sort of "average" complexion of Egyptians, just as the
black color used to portray Nubians seems to have been intended to convey an
"average" or representative complexion for the typical Nubian.
It seems reasonable to conclude from these portrayals that the average
Egyptian may have been somewhat lighter, in complexion, than his neighbors to
the south, the Nubians. However, even the Nubians are often portrayed with a
lighter brown color, and so they were probably not uniform in their
appearance. The same was undoubtedly true of the Egyptians. Their skin color
probably varied greatly, from one individual to the next.
None of this is really relevant to the question of whether or not the
Egyptians were "black," since Africans vary widely in skin color, throughout
the continent. The so-called Bushmen of the Kalahari Desert, for instance,
have yellowish skin, but are still considered "black."
The real problem with the Egyptian characters in Prince of Egypt has nothing
to do with skin color (in my opinion, at least). It is that none of them look
"negroid". This does not fit the anthropological evidence, which suggests
that a large portion of the Egyptian population would have had unmistakably
"negroid" features. Instead, Dreamworks made them look like Arabs.
I believe that Dreamworks portrayed the Egyptians as Arabs, in order to:
1) Please their Arab consultants, whose favor was so eagerly courted, that
Dreamworks invited them to a special pre-release screening of the movie (I am
not aware that Afrocentrists were invited to any similar screening),
2) Satisfy the prejudices of Prince of Egypt's predominantly white audience,
who probably would have balked at the sight of large numbers of "negroid"
Egyptians.
Best wishes,
Richard Poe
________________________________________________________________________
Black Spark, White Fire: Did African Explorers Civilize Ancient Europe? by
Richard Poe (Prima, 1998) http://members.aol.com/BlackSprk/Black.html
richa...@aol.com
ameno...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
[snip]
>
> **I commend you on your patience and tolerance for ignorance. But I THANK YOU
> for providing us with so much of your knowledge and references for us to
> research on our own...a true scholar's trait. Thanks R. Poe...
>
> AMENOPHIS X, Africologist
> @my-dejanews.com
And thank YOU, Amenophis. As you know, it can get very lonely out here, on
the Usenet, trying to defend the Afrocentric viewpoint. Your kind words are
greatly appreciated.
richa...@aol.com
elu...@aol.com (ELurio) wrote:
>
>
> Look at Poe's book. Check the index and look up "mesopotamia"
> you will find only two references, and when you are discussing influences on
> Greece and Europe, you have to discuss the Mesopotamian and Anatolian
> civilizations. He doesn't.
>
This is all getting very far afield from the original subject of whether or
not Dreamworks portrayed the Egyptian characters accurately in the movie
Prince of Egypt. Nevertheless, since you are taking issue with my book, I
suppose I do owe you the courtesy of a response.
Your criticism is puzzling to me, Eric, but not unfamiliar. I heard it many
times, from various different scholars, during the seven years that I spent
researching Black Spark, White Fire. Over and over again, I was told that one
should not discuss Egyptian influences on Greece, without balancing such
discussion with an equal emphasis on the "Semitic" or Middle Eastern
influences.
I suppose this would be true if my intent had been to write an encyclopedia
or textbook entitled "A Survey of Non-European Influences on Ancient Greece".
But, in fact, my goal was far more modest and specific. It was to explore the
EGYPTIAN influences on Greece. I do not understand why you and so many other
people believe that it is inappropriate to write a book focusing on this
particular subject. Can you explain?
Suppose I told you, for instance, that I proposed to write a book on the
British colonization of North America. Would you scold me for this, telling
me that it was utterly unacceptable to write about British colonies, unless I
included an equal number of chapters describing, in great detail, the French,
Spanish and Dutch settlements in North America? Of course not.
Even so, I did spend a considerable amount of time discussing the Phoenician
colonies in Greece. So I'm not really sure what the problem is. Perhaps, as
with your previous postings, the problem lies in the fact that you have never
actually read my book but simply skimmed it in a bookstore.
[Eric. l also wrote]
> I also read ( I went to a bookstore today and rechecked some stuff) how he
> "Egyptianizes" the entire middle east, something totally wrong.
>
Presumably, you are referring to my discussion of the Egyptian influences
over Phoenicia, a narrow strip of land corresponding roughly to modern
Lebanon, which was ruled by Egypt for many centuries. Phoenicia hardly
constitutes "the entire middle east", nor is there anything "wrong" or even
remotely controversial about my claim that this area was heavily
Egyptianized. Any specialist in Syro-Palestinian archaeology would agree with
me, on this point. So again, I'm not really sure what the problem is.
May I suggest, Eric, that we return now to the subject of Prince of Egypt?
I'd love to hear more of your views on the way Dreamworks animators portrayed
the Egyptians.
Best wishes,
Richard Poe
_________________________________________________________________________
richa...@aol.com
cyber...@aol.compostheap (CyberJohns) wrote:
>
> Any songs or cute critters in that one? (If so, I'll bet it's PG because of
> the religious pretext, and even that they pussyfooted around like that issue
> of SUPERMAN in which he went back in time to the Holocaust...)
>
As I understand it, PRINCE OF EGYPT received its PG rating because of such
disturbing scenes as the Angel of Death slaying the first-born of Egypt.
However, a friend of mine, Dana Marniche, suggests "parental guidance" on
this movie, for another reason. She is editor of New York Black Woman
magazine. In the next issue, Dana is writing a piece suggesting that
African-American parents might want to consider whether their children should
be exposed to PRINCE OF EGYPT's inaccurate portrayal of the Egyptians.
For further info, e-mail: NYblac...@excite.com
Best wishes,
Richard Poe
___________________________________________________________________________
ELurio
up over a simple issue of skin color>>
<<whatever color it is , what
does he look like , negro or caucasian?>>
caucasian. Just like all the other contemporary depictions of the greek gods.
<<Basing on skin color is stupid , orientals are light skinned
and sometimes white but look more negroid than caucasoid. >>
No they don't. The don't look "negroid" at all, they look "mongoloid," which is
perfectly fine. Actually skin color of east asians varies greatly from the
Japanese and Koreans in the north, to the Balinese in the south.
eric l.
ELurio
times, from various different scholars, during the seven years that I spent
researching Black Spark, White Fire. Over and over again, I was told that one
should not discuss Egyptian influences on Greece, without balancing such
discussion with an equal emphasis on the "Semitic" or Middle Eastern
influences.>>
Because there wasn't that much Egytian influence on Hellinistic civilization,
that's why. Also, when "real" greek civilization got going after the end of the
bronze age, the egyptians were pretty much spent and the west semites and later
hittites were all over the place.
<<I suppose this would be true if my intent had been to write an encyclopedia
or textbook entitled "A Survey of Non-European Influences on Ancient Greece".
But, in fact, my goal was far more modest and specific. It was to explore the
EGYPTIAN influences on Greece. I do not understand why you and so many other
people believe that it is inappropriate to write a book focusing on this
particular subject. Can you explain?>>
Well look at the title of your book: Black Spark, White Fire: Did African
Explorers Civilize Ancient Europe?
This doesn't say that it talks about possible Egyptian infuences on Greece, it
says you plan to explore the possibility of African [read BLACK] explorers
civilizing Ancient Europe.
Egyptian influence on WESTERN Europe prior to a thousand BC was non-existant.
There is evidence that Egyptian culture was known about in Minoan and Mycanean
Greece and we know that they bumped into the Hittites[modern turkey was an
intergral part of Europe until the time of Islam]. But were the Minoans and
Mycanians in the cultural thrall of the Egyptians during the second and third
milleniums BC? No.
eric l.
ELurio
help you.>>
Sorry, you've completely failed. The reason is of course, that we aren't
talking about skin color alone but the whole deal, or at least that's what I've
been talking about.
You've been complaining about the fact that the Egyptians depicted in the movie
don't look uniformly nubian.
That's it.
I think they did a pretty good job.
eric l.
Nubkhas
>However, a friend of mine, Dana Marniche, suggests "parental guidance" on
>this movie, for another reason. She is editor of New York Black Woman
>magazine. In the next issue, Dana is writing a piece suggesting that
>African-American parents might want to consider whether their children should
>be exposed to PRINCE OF EGYPT's inaccurate portrayal of the Egyptians.
This is getting totally absurd! Don't Black people have anything left to worry
about besides how some people in an animated feature look? You Afrocentrists
are starting to talk around in circles. First of all, nobody in the whole film
had what can be said to have a "white" skin color. Everybody looked deeply
tanned. But, when people point out to you that the ancient Egyptians painted
their women and even some of their males in a light color, you come back with
"Well, some Black folks are light-skinned". If we say, "The ancient Egyptians
seemed to have Caucasian features", you reply "Well, so do some Black people."
So why, then, couldn't you be satisfied that the characters in the film might
be light-skinned, Caucasian-featured Black folks? I'll tell you why. Because
nobody can win with you Afrocentrists. You have a complaint about everything
and a rationalization for every reasonable objection to all your complaints and
assertions. Why don't you tell your friend, Dana Marniche, that I said that as
an Afro-American, she has absolutely no business being concerned how the
ancient Egyptians looked in a film, because most likely, not being Egyptian,
she has absolutely no connection with them. They are not her people. Her
readers are not descended from them, either--unless by some chance slave
traders plucked them out of Egypt and brought them to the good old US of A. If
some Egyptians living in the States kicked up a fuss, that would be another
story entirely. Tell Dana Marniche that she could do a far greater service by
writing something about how certain Black people erroneously portray Jews,
attempting to alienate Blacks from the people from whom they have received the
most sympathy and solidarity since they arrived on this continent, especially
at the time they sought equal rights for themselves.
mana...@my-dejanews.com
You mean that you agree with Aristotle or pseudo-Aristotle. I don't
subscribe to the same views.
Also, to be precise, he doesn't specifically say that Greeks were brown.
One could argue over whether he implies such.
Regards,
Paul Kekai Manansala
>
> >"Why are the Ethiopians and Egyptians bandy-legged? Is it because
> >of that the body of itself creates, because of disturbance by heat, like
> >loss of wood when they become dry? The condition of their hair supports
> >this theory; for it is curlier than that of other nations..."
> >(Aristotle, _Problemata_ 909, 7)
> >
> >
> >LUCIAN:
> >
> >Dialogue:
> >
> >Lycinus (describing an Egyptian): 'this boy is not merely black; he
> > has thick lips and his legs are too thin...his hair worn in a
> > plait shows that he is not a freeman.'
> >
> >Timolaus: 'but that is a sign of really distinguished birth in Egypt,
> > Lycinus. All freeborn children plait their hair until they
> > reach manhood...' (Lucian, _Navigations_, paras 2-3)
> >
> >AMMIANUS MARCELLINUS:
> >
> >"...the men of Egypt are mostly brown or black with a skinny desiccated
> >look." (Ammianus Marcellinus, Book XXII para 16)
> >
> >Regards,
> >Paul Kekai Manansala
>
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Alan M Dunsmuir
>As you know, it can get very lonely out here, on
>the Usenet, trying to defend the Afrocentric viewpoint. Your kind words are
>greatly appreciated.
Any kook attempting to defend the indefensible is likely to feel lonely.
Perhaps to counteract the feeling of isolation you could try forming a
'Kooks United' club, with Archimedes Plutonium and Marx c/o Paf as
charter members?
(I know, I know, "Any club which would have me as a member ...", but
with your form of insanity you can't be too picky about club-mates.)
--
Alan M Dunsmuir
Nubkhas
>> >You spoke of certain features, like kinky hair, as not present among
>> >ancient Egyptians. But the following accounts contradict your views:
>> >
>> >HERODOTUS:
>> >
>> >"...several Egyptians told me that in their opinion the Colchidians
>> >were descended from soldiers of Sesotris. I had conjectured as much
>> >myself from two pointers, firstly because they have black skins and
>> >kinky hair...and more reliably for the reason that alone among mankind
>> >the Egyptians and the Ethiopian have practiced circumcision since
>> >time immemorial." (Herodotus, Book II, 104)
The army of Sesostris, like the army of other pharaohs were largely made up of
Nubians, so it doesn't signify too much as regards the population of Egypt.
Nubkhas
"Kooks-R-Us"
The nixtr
But on the point of this film, they simply did an injustice to the
ancient
Egyptians. This was all done to ease the conscience of Euro-centrists,
definitly not the movie lovers.
RESPONSE: And if they *did* make the Egyptians darker in color, the
political-correctness whiners would STILL whine because Hollywood would
be portraying non-whites as oppressors.
Either way, they whine.
The nixtr
However, a friend of mine, Dana Marniche, suggests "parental guidance"
on
this movie, for another reason. She is editor of New York Black Woman
magazine. In the next issue, Dana is writing a piece suggesting that
African-American parents might want to consider whether their children
should
be exposed to PRINCE OF EGYPT's inaccurate portrayal of the Egyptians.
RESPONSE: But that's only of concern for people who have nothing better
to do with their lives but look for things to offend them.
Asethotep
>are portrayed as lighter skinned than their menfolk.
If this were a society that kept women locked up, I might agreed with you. But
they didn't.
Blessings,
Asethotep
http://members.aol.com/iseum/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mom's comin' round to put it back the way it ought to be. -TOOL (AEnima)