WESTERN(WHITE)CIVILIZATION IS FOUNDED ON A BLACK AFRICAN CIVILIZATION.
richa...@aol.com
In article <6fo7g9$hbn$6...@news.global.co.za>,
ale...@global.co.za.die-spam (Alex) wrote:
>
[snip]
>
> hmm....interesting, but then how do you explain all the white skinned people
> in the mural paintings of the time, as well as the many stories of fair
> skinned woman and men with long flowing blonde hair. I not saying its not
> true...just extremely hard to believe.....
>
> Alex Rodrigues
>
Are you suggesting, Alex, that Egyptian mural paintings ordinarily or
conventionally portrayed the Egyptians as having "white" skin?
Are you further suggesting that there exist stories among the writings of
ancient authors that refer to Egyptians as having fair skin and "long flowing
blonde hair"?
If so, please cite a few specific sources. I am not familiar with these
stories.
-- Richard Poe
_________________________________________________________________________
Black Spark, White Fire: Did African Explorers Civilize Ancient Europe?
By Richard Poe (Prima, 1998)
http://members.aol.com/BlackSprk/Black.html
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Errol Back-Cunningham
In <6fun02$kk$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com> richa...@aol.com writes:
>
>In article <6fo7g9$hbn$6...@news.global.co.za>,
> ale...@global.co.za.die-spam (Alex) wrote:
>>
>[snip]
>>
>> hmm....interesting, but then how do you explain all the white
skinned people
>> in the mural paintings of the time, as well as the many stories of
fair
>> skinned woman and men with long flowing blonde hair. I not saying
its not
>> true...just extremely hard to believe.....
>>
>> Alex Rodrigues
>>
>
>Are you suggesting, Alex, that Egyptian mural paintings ordinarily or
>conventionally portrayed the Egyptians as having "white" skin?
>
>Are you further suggesting that there exist stories among the writings
of
>ancient authors that refer to Egyptians as having fair skin and "long
flowing
>blonde hair"?
Sure as hell doesn't resemble anything Egyptian that I've seen in the
British Museum, New York Metropolitan Museum of Art (with a huge
Egyptian section, including a rebuilt temple), or anywhere else
for that matter - perhaps the person was colour blind??
Errrol
F. Simons
The word itself means Black!
The ancient Egyptians called themselves Kam or Kam-Au (Black people/
Black
God-people), and their country Kamit (or Khemit), both meaning land
of the
Blacks and the Black Land. The word Egypt is derived from
the Greek word
Aigyptos (or Aiguptos) which means Black! Europe's first historian,
Herodotus
said "the Egyptians, Colchians, and Ethiopians have thick lips,
broad nose,
woolly hair and they are of burnt skin." Egyptian civilization
evolved from
the Ethiopians. The Bible equates Ham (Africans) with Egypt.
(Ps. 78:51;
105:23, 27; 106:21, 22) The Black identity of Egyptian mummies
is proven by
their high melanin content. Also, Egyptians made wigs from sheep
wool to match
their woolly hair! A superb summary of the first Egyptians,
their culture &
achievements is documented in Legrand Clegg's video Egypt During
the Golden
Age. Other great works include Gerald Massey's scholarly Egypt,
Light of the
World, and James Brunson's Predynastic Egypt. A powerful synthesis
of the
esoteric sciences of ancient Egypt, India & Canaan, is presented
in Metu Neter
by Ra Un Nefer Amen.
Whites blew off the Africoid nose of the Sphinx!
-and destroyed much ancient Africoid art.
Carved from a single rock, the Sphinx was a portrait of the Black
Pharaoh
Khafre (Cephren). The blatant, undeniable evidence of Black
African
achievement, blew off the Africoid nose and part of the lips with
cannon fire!
Reporting on the "riddle" of the racial identity of the ancient
Egyptians,
Count C. Volney, a distinguished French scholar who visited Egypt
in the late
1700s, wrote with astonishment "...when I visied the Sphinx, its
appearance
gave me the key to the riddle. Beholding that head typically Negro
in all its
features..." He later added "...the Egyptians were true Negroes
of the same
type as all native-born Africans." The Sphinx's broad nose
and full lips are
evident in an early drawing of the Sphinx as it was found in the
19th century.
The willful and systematic destruction of Africoid art has also occurred
in
the Americas, Asia and India: Inscriptions and hieroglyphics
are defaced or
bleached, noses are shot off or chiseled down, confusing nomenclatures
are
pasted over the evidence, photos are tken from misleading angles
or filters,
and some evidence is outright destroyed. In temples and monuments
of beauty
and durability where destruction was less desirable than claiming
the
achievements as their own, Europeans replaced the African inscriptions
with
new ones which credited themselves for the achievement.
http://sunsite.unc.edu/nge/blacked/bl2.html
richa...@aol.com wrote:
In article <6fo7g9$hbn$6...@news.global.co.za>,
ale...@global.co.za.die-spam (Alex) wrote:
>
[snip]
>
> hmm....interesting, but then how do you explain all the white skinned people
> in the mural paintings of the time, as well as the many stories of fair
> skinned woman and men with long flowing blonde hair. I not saying its not
> true...just extremely hard to believe.....
>
> Alex Rodrigues
>
Are you suggesting, Alex, that Egyptian mural paintings ordinarily or
conventionally portrayed the Egyptians as having "white" skin?
Are you further suggesting that there exist stories among the writings of
ancient authors that refer to Egyptians as having fair skin and "long flowing
blonde hair"?
If so, please cite a few specific sources. I am not familiar with these
F. Simons
F. Simons
Alex
In article <6fuolm$t...@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>,
e...@ix.netcom.com(Errol Back-Cunningham) wrote:
>In <6fun02$kk$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com> richa...@aol.com writes:
>>
>>In article <6fo7g9$hbn$6...@news.global.co.za>,
>> ale...@global.co.za.die-spam (Alex) wrote:
>>>
>>[snip]
>>>
>>> hmm....interesting, but then how do you explain all the white
>skinned people
>>> in the mural paintings of the time, as well as the many stories of
>fair
>>> skinned woman and men with long flowing blonde hair. I not saying
>its not
>>> true...just extremely hard to believe.....
>>>
>>> Alex Rodrigues
>>>
>>
>>Are you suggesting, Alex, that Egyptian mural paintings ordinarily or
>>conventionally portrayed the Egyptians as having "white" skin?
>>
>>Are you further suggesting that there exist stories among the writings
>of
>>ancient authors that refer to Egyptians as having fair skin and "long
>flowing
>>blonde hair"?
I was actually referring to the ancient greeks....
Alex Rodrigues
Mark Richardson
richa...@aol.com wrote in article <6fun02$kk$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> Are you suggesting, Alex, that Egyptian mural paintings ordinarily or
> conventionally portrayed the Egyptians as having "white" skin?
I think that before Alex is led into an ambush. You might explain that the
ancient Egyptians had certain artistic conventions. The obvious one to the
casual observer is the unusual presentation of the human figure. It was not
that they were incapable of a more realistic presentation but that they
were bound by a prety rigid convention. Similarly colour was used to
designate the nationality of the people pictured and not necessarily in an
attempt to represent a factual situation. If one considers the features of
the people portrayed there is a wide range of physical appearance and in
all probability if they were to be re-incarnated and placed on the streets
of modern day Cairo or Alexandria they would disappear in the crowds
without a ripple.
If one considers the way that they dressed, the predominant brown/tan is
hardly surprising and as a colour would not be in any way remarkable if
applied to the majority of "white" South Africans on any beach.
The physical appearance of the dominant people may be seen to change
throughout the ages as kIngdoms and dynasties changed but ruling classes
are not necessarily, or invariably, representative of the bulk of the
population and even then, their counterparts can be seen in modern Egypt.
Throughout it's history Egypt has been host to a wide variety of people but
predominantly those of the Mediterranean littoral and it is probably pretty
safe to say that those who are there now are those who were there then.
Mark Richardson.
Norman
Alex I think you have really upset this person. He's shouting &
stuttering now, so be good, perhaps if we are very quiet he will calm
down & go away & leave South African ng's alone.
Norman
tom...@juno.com
In article <3523D369...@A2000.com>,
f.si...@A2000.com wrote:
>
>
> --------------079DBAFAA2D00793BFD5E608
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> Ancient Egypt was a Black African Civilization.
>
> The word itself means Black!
>
> The ancient Egyptians called themselves Kam or Kam-Au (Black people/ Black
> God-people), and their country Kamit (or Khemit), both meaning land of the
When is this myth going to die??? The "Black Land" is referring to the color
of the soil along Nile, it was Black, due to the constant changes in water
flow, and the resulting minerals left along the banks. The Egyptians called
this the "black land", and the deserts away from the Nile the "red land",
hence the deserts color. Why in the hell would ancient peoples of Egypt name
themselves after their skin??? Did the Vikings call Norway the "land of the
Whites"? Hell no. Your argument is nothing but outdated Afrocentric
assumptions. -=Tom=-
richa...@aol.com
In article <6g06u3$166$2...@news.global.co.za>,
ale...@global.co.za.die-spam (Alex) wrote:
>
>
> >In <6fun02$kk$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com> richa...@aol.com writes:
>
>
> >>Are you suggesting, Alex, that Egyptian mural paintings ordinarily or
> >>conventionally portrayed the Egyptians as having "white" skin?
> >>
> >>Are you further suggesting that there exist stories among the writings
> >of
> >>ancient authors that refer to Egyptians as having fair skin and "long
> >flowing
> >>blonde hair"?
>
>
> Alex Rodrigues
>
>
Still, my question remains the same, whether we are talking about Greeks or
Egyptians. Do you believe that the typical Greek of classical times had fair
skin and "long flowing blonde hair"? If so, can you cite some passages from
ancient authors to support this?
-- 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
In article <01bd5e2d$1e10d200$LocalHost@Pmarho>,
"Mark Richardson" <ma...@iafrica.com> wrote:
>
>
[snip]
>
> If one considers the way that they [the Egyptians] dressed, the predominant > brown/tan is
> hardly surprising and as a colour would not be in any way remarkable if
> applied to the majority of "white" South Africans on any beach.
>
You seem to be implying that the ancient Egyptians were white people with
suntans, indistinguishable, in complexion, from the Dutch and
English-descended sunbathers on modern South African beaches. Have I
understood you correctly, on that point?
-- Richard Poe
Doug Weller
I notice that both this guy and Duncan Craig have started to post multiple
copies of the same post. I presume on the theory 'What I tell you n times is
true'?
Doug
Ed
ke...@jps.net
In article <352547...@usa.net>,
In article <352547...@usa.net>,
Before commenting Ed you should check up on some of your own sources
like Brace, Cavalli-Sforza and Howells.
The Africa 2000 Media group maintains a website known as Eugenics Watch
that has some interesting information. W.W. Howells, whom you cited
in recent posts, was director of the American Eugenics Society (AES)from
1966-71 and a listed member in 1956 and 1974 (Source: Eugenics Quarterly
1966-68, Social Biology 1969-71 (June 1971); Osborne list; Membership list).
Howells' predecessor at the Peabody Museum, Earnest Hooten, was also a member
of the AES.
Luigi L. Cavalli-Sforza was a member of the AES in 1974 and a journal
member of Eugenics Quarterly and Social Biology, the main publications of
the AES, in 1981. He published two articles for Social Biology:
1982 "An Analysis of the Genetics of Schizophrenia" w/ K. Kidd q.v.,
Social Biology, v. 20, 3
1981 "Models of Spouse Influence and Their Application to Smoking Behavior",
Social Biology, v. 28, 1-2
He also published the following books/articles with Walter Bodmer, the
director of the AES in 1971 and a member on the 1974 Osbourne list [Source:
Social Biology 1971 (June), Eugenics Society (Britain) list]:
Genetics, Evolution and Man. 1976 w/ Luigi L. Cavalli-Sforza, San Francisco
The Genetics of Human Populations.1971 w/ Luigi L. Cavalli-Sforza, San
Francisco, Freeman
"Intelligence and Race", w/ L. L. Cavalli-Sforza q.v., Scientific American,
Oct. 1970;
"Perspectives in Genetic Demography" 1967 w/ L. Cavalli-Sforza in
Proceedings of the World Population Conference, 1965. Vol. 2, United
Nations
*C. Loring Brace*, another Harvard man, was a director/member of the AES in
1974, 1985-87, 1989 (Source: Osborne list; Social Biology 1985-87; American
Men and Women in Science 1976, 1989).
Since March 1973, the AES has been called The Society for the Study of Social
Biology.
Regards,
Paul Kekai Manansala
richa...@aol.com
In article <01bd5f04$9fcc0da0$LocalHost@Pmarho>,
"Mark Richardson" <ma...@iafrica.com> wrote:
>
>
> richa...@aol.com wrote in article <6g2n0h$l2r$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> > In article <01bd5e2d$1e10d200$LocalHost@Pmarho>,
> > "Mark Richardson" <ma...@iafrica.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > [snip]
> > >
> > > If one considers the way that they [the Egyptians] dressed, the
> predominant > brown/tan is
> > > hardly surprising and as a colour would not be in any way remarkable if
> > > applied to the majority of "white" South Africans on any beach.
> > >
> >
> > You seem to be implying that the ancient Egyptians were white people with
> > suntans, indistinguishable, in complexion, from the Dutch and
> > English-descended sunbathers on modern South African beaches. Have I
> > understood you correctly, on that point?
> -
>
> that if the Ancient Egyptians were to be resuscitated today they would be
> able to blend in with the populations of Cairo and Alexandria with no
> difficulty. Neither English nor Afrikaans South Africans could do that.
>
> Nevertheless, the average South African white after a holiday at the coast
> would be apporximately the same colour,to all intents and purposes,as the
> tan colour shown on so many of the Ancient Egyptian portraits. The same
> thing would presumably apply to white Americans and the remark,and the rest
> of the post,was intended to underline that colour, as they portrayed it,
> was not a defining feature in itself.
>
> Mark Richardson
>
Okay. So you're saying that the ancient Egyptians looked much like the
inhabitants of modern Cairo and Alexandria.
It happens that I have spent some time travelling in Egypt, from Alexandria
to Aswan. The vast majority of people whom I saw there would not be
characterized as "white", if they were to be seen walking down the street in
New York City (where I live) and wearing western clothing. A very large
proportion would be called "black" by most Americans.
The modern Egyptians, on average, are significantly darker than any
Caucasians I have ever met, whether sun-tanned or not. Negroid features are
also widespread (though not universal) among the modern Egyptians.
Since the modern Egyptians do not dress in the revealing fashion of their
ancient forebears, I presume that whatever sun tans they have managed to
acquire do not extend below the neckline. Do you suppose we would find the
fellahin to be pink-skinned, if we were to strip them of their robes?
Also, if you study the tomb paintings of Seti I and Ramesses III, you will
see that both Syro-Palestinians and Libyans were depicted with a much lighter
complexion than that of the Egyptians -- despite the fact that all three
peoples lived in desert lands, and presumably had equal opportunity to
acquire sun tans.
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
Doug Weller
On Sat, 04 Apr 1998 08:12:07 -0600, in sci.archaeology, richa...@aol.com
wrote:
>A very large
>proportion would be called "black" by most Americans.
Why in the world would anyone use this as a benchmark?
Doug
ke...@jps.net
In article <352c606b...@news.demon.co.uk>,
The situation is not any different in Europe or South Africa for
that matter.
Regards,
Paul Kekai Manansala
richa...@aol.com
In article <352c606b...@news.demon.co.uk>,
dwe...@ramtops.demon.co.uk (Doug Weller) wrote:
>
> On Sat, 04 Apr 1998 08:12:07 -0600, in sci.archaeology, richa...@aol.com
> wrote:
>
> >A very large
>
> Why in the world would anyone use this as a benchmark?
>
The main reason, Doug, that we might want to use the American standard of
"blackness", in classifying the Egyptians, would be to encourage clarity and
consistency.
When people attempt to engage in a discussion using many different
definitions of a certain word, the result can only be confusion. No
discussion can proceed in an intelligible fashion, unless the participants
first agree on terminology.
This simple rule has never been followed in the many discussions over the
"blackness" of the Egyptians. That is a large part of the reason, in my
opinion, that so much confusion continues to reign over the subject.
I propose that we use the American definition of "blackness", because it is
familiar to hundreds of millions of people, not only in America, but in every
country of the world that is exposed to American popular culture, via
television and other media.
I do not think that I would meet a great deal of opposition, in this
newsgroup, if I made the rather hum-drum observation that "Colin Powell is
the greatest black military commander in U.S. history"; that "Vanessa
Williams was the first black Miss America"; or that "Tiger Woods is the
greatest black golf champion in history."
I think that most people would accept that Colin Powell, Vanessa Williams and
Tiger Woods were black, despite their mixed ancestry, light complexion and
relatively Caucasoid features.
Why does it arouse so many tempers, when we attempt to apply the same broad
definition of "blackness" to the 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
Chris Camfield
On Sun, 05 Apr 1998 08:36:58 -0600, richa...@aol.com wrote:
[chop]
>The main reason, Doug, that we might want to use the American standard of
>"blackness", in classifying the Egyptians, would be to encourage clarity and
>consistency.
>
>When people attempt to engage in a discussion using many different
>definitions of a certain word, the result can only be confusion. No
>discussion can proceed in an intelligible fashion, unless the participants
>first agree on terminology.
>
>This simple rule has never been followed in the many discussions over the
>"blackness" of the Egyptians. That is a large part of the reason, in my
>opinion, that so much confusion continues to reign over the subject.
>
>I propose that we use the American definition of "blackness", because it is
>familiar to hundreds of millions of people, not only in America, but in every
>country of the world that is exposed to American popular culture, via
>television and other media.
I would suggest that this definition is one that should *not* be used,
simply because it is so vague. As you note:
>I think that most people would accept that Colin Powell, Vanessa Williams and
>Tiger Woods were black, despite their mixed ancestry, light complexion and
>relatively Caucasoid features.
...
>Why does it arouse so many tempers, when we attempt to apply the same broad
>definition of "blackness" to the Egyptians?
Perhaps because:
- the Egyptians didn't use the American definition of blackness?
- this definition has been used by Afrocentric works of questionable
methodology to associate Egypt with sub-Saharan Africa to a greater
extent that is supportable by the evidence?
Chris
Ed
Paul Kekai Manansala wrote:
>
> I love white people
>
APRIL FOOL! He actually wrote:
>
> Before commenting Ed you should check up on some of your own sources
> like Brace, Cavalli-Sforza and Howells.
>
Why? I talk about studies, not people. I am not responsible for anyone
else's extracurricular activities. Also, I don't know the whole story.
If the people you mention have truly participated in a so-called Society
of Social Biology, their involvement may have been as harmless as
advocating prenatal screening for cystic fibrosis or Tay-Sachs disease,
or voluntary contraception programs to curb overpopulation. If you have
any *specific* examples of anyone espousing immoral social policies,
post those. What you posted before really doesn't say much.
So I reserve my judgment for the time being, because the three men whom
you attack appear to have remained respected members of the scientific
community, and I have not yet heard of any controversy surrounding
them. Certainly I would expect to have heard something about Brace, who
works at the university I attend (U of Mich.).
P.S. Your time might be better spent worrying about eugenics programs
that have actually been instituted, such as in China
http://www.sciam.com/0397issue/0397techbus2.html
or Singapore. Or maybe you prefer to limit your criticism to, as you
say, "Euroamerikkkans"
Jame...@aol.com
In article <6g81dr$cm4$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
richa...@aol.com wrote:
>
> In article <352c606b...@news.demon.co.uk>,
> dwe...@ramtops.demon.co.uk (Doug Weller) wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 04 Apr 1998 08:12:07 -0600, in sci.archaeology, richa...@aol.com
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> "blackness", in classifying the Egyptians, would be to encourage clarity and
> consistency.
>
> When people attempt to engage in a discussion using many different
> definitions of a certain word, the result can only be confusion. No
> discussion can proceed in an intelligible fashion, unless the participants
> first agree on terminology.
>
> This simple rule has never been followed in the many discussions over the
> "blackness" of the Egyptians. That is a large part of the reason, in my
> opinion, that so much confusion continues to reign over the subject.
>
> I propose that we use the American definition of "blackness", because it is
> familiar to hundreds of millions of people, not only in America, but in every
> country of the world that is exposed to American popular culture, via
> television and other media.
>
> newsgroup, if I made the rather hum-drum observation that "Colin Powell is
> the greatest black military commander in U.S. history"; that "Vanessa
> Williams was the first black Miss America"; or that "Tiger Woods is the
> greatest black golf champion in history."
>
> Tiger Woods were black, despite their mixed ancestry, light complexion and
> relatively Caucasoid features.
>
> definition of "blackness" to the Egyptians?
>
Because it's too broad. Would you say that all of Colin Powell's ancestors
were "black?" Of course not! His "mixed" ancestry is a result of
"interracial" relationships made possible by the presence of a Multi-racial
environment. So you could say that Colin Powell is "black," but you could
not say the same for his *entire* family. Egypt is no exception.
Sincerely,
James Kalohelani
Jame...@aol.com
In article <6g5f3n$rto$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
You are confusing the term "Caucasian" with "lily-white." "Caucasians" range
in complexion from very dark, to very light, just as "Negroids" and
"Mongloids" do.
. Negroid features are
> also widespread (though not universal) among the modern Egyptians.
>
> Since the modern Egyptians do not dress in the revealing fashion of their
> ancient forebears, I presume that whatever sun tans they have managed to
> acquire do not extend below the neckline. Do you suppose we would find the
> fellahin to be pink-skinned, if we were to strip them of their robes?
>
Again, you're confusing the term "Caucasion" with "lily-white."
> Also, if you study the tomb paintings of Seti I and Ramesses III, you will
> see that both Syro-Palestinians and Libyans were depicted with a much lighter
> complexion than that of the Egyptians
>
The Egyptians depicted the Kushites as being much darker, but that does not
necessarily distinguish them racially.
Sekhem-Ka-Ra
On Mon, 06 Apr 1998 01:31:42 -0600, Jame...@aol.com wrote:
>In article <6g5f3n$rto$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> richa...@aol.com wrote:
>> The modern Egyptians, on average, are significantly darker than any
>> Caucasians I have ever met, whether sun-tanned or not
>
>You are confusing the term "Caucasian" with "lily-white." "Caucasians" range
>in complexion from very dark, to very light, just as "Negroids" and
>"Mongloids" do.
"Caucasian" actually is a term for the classification of about 40
languages spoken by varying groups of peoples living in the area
between the Black Sea and Caspian Sea, called the Caucasus area.
Georgian is the major and most ancient language of the
classification, and is derived from Aramaic, Persian and Arabic.
Because of the heavy concentration of so many languages in this area,
it was once believed to be a source for most European languages. Only
in the U.S. do you see it as an indefinite term for classifying
people.
>> Also, if you study the tomb paintings of Seti I and Ramesses III, you will
>> see that both Syro-Palestinians and Libyans were depicted with a much lighter
>> complexion than that of the Egyptians
>>
>
>The Egyptians depicted the Kushites as being much darker, but that does not
>necessarily distinguish them racially.
True. The ancient Egyptians themselves, in their art, were very
detailed in defining the skin tones of humankind, but as Wilkinson
notes, in his "Symbol and Magic in Egyptian Art", about these
depictions of skin color differences:
"While Nubians and other peoples to the south of Egypt (including the
black 'Cushite' kings of the Twenty-sixth Dynasty) were depicted as
black in contrast to the Egyptians' red-brown coloration, Libyans,
Bedouins, Syrians and Hittites were all shown with light yellow skin,
and these ethnic groups must be differentiated on the basis of
specific clothing and hairstyles. Important for the understanding of
Egyptian symbolism, however is the fact that skin color alone does not
always define ethnic or racial type." (page 115)
It is interesting to note that even the ancient Egyptians themselves
did not call foreign peoples by "color", but by location, landmark, or
compass direction (no word in Egyptian applied to a foreign group by
naming it a "color", for example). As Wilkinson said, actual
designations and distinctions of foreign people in the art came from
clothing and hairstyles.
Alan M Dunsmuir
In article <6g81dr$cm4$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, richa...@aol.com writes
>I propose that we use the American definition of "blackness", because it is
>familiar to hundreds of millions of people, not only in America, but in every
>country of the world that is exposed to American popular culture, via
>television and other media.
I am certainly totally unfamiliar with the 'American definition of
blackness', but I assume it to be another anti-scientific pseudo-concept
like the term 'caucasian' which, everywhere else in the world than the
USA has the simple and straightforward meaning of 'pertaining to the
Caucasus'. (cf. "The Caucasian Chack Circle", bu Bertold Brecht.)
If so, that definition certainly has no place in a NewsGroup with a
'sci.' prefix, which should indicate that it is to be used for only
SCIENTIFIC discussions.
--
Alan M Dunsmuir
Robin R. Langton
On Sat, 04 Apr 1998 13:42:20 -0600, ke...@jps.net wrote:
>In article <352c606b...@news.demon.co.uk>,
> dwe...@ramtops.demon.co.uk (Doug Weller) wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 04 Apr 1998 08:12:07 -0600, in sci.archaeology, richa...@aol.com
>> wrote:
>>
>> >A very large
>> >proportion would be called "black" by most Americans.
>>
>> Why in the world would anyone use this as a benchmark?
>
>The situation is not any different in Europe or South Africa for
>that matter.
I'm glad to say that I think you are being unduly pessimistic, Paul.
Where I live (English Midlands) colour is really not that much of an
issue any more, and anyone talking in terms of a benchmark to divide
into "black" and "white" would be seen as somewhat eccentric,
certainly among the majority of the younger population.
Robbie Langton For Sci-Fi Cult TV Satire see:
http://www.roblang.demon.co.uk/fangrok/index.html
Nubkhas
>The original Biblical Jews were a Black African people.
Hi, Peter--long time no see (sigh)
>The original Jews in Africa 2000 years ago were a Black African people as an
>ethnic group. (Massey: Egypt Light of the Word p501) Many of them still
>are Black, in northenrn Africa such as the Falasha Jews of Ethiopia. A
>New York Times editorial (3/2/84) described them as "a lost tribe that
>has kept it identiy for more than 2,000 years in a remote corner of
>Africa."
So much for the authority of the New York Times.
.The origin of the Falashas is unknown. One Falasha tradition claims to trace
their ancestry to Menelik, son of King Solomon of Israel, and the queen of
Sheba. Some scholars place the date of their origin before the 2nd century BC,
largely because the Falashas are unfamiliar with either the Babylonian or
Palestinian Talmud. Even the Falashas, themselves, don't claim to be the
"Original Biblical Jews" and have no tradition that goes past
the time of Solomon (BC 1015-975).
>> Abraham, ancestor of the Hebrews, was from Chaldea; the ancient
>Chaldeans were Black. In fact, Africa takes it name from Ophren, a son
>of Abraham by his wife, Keturah (Whiston: The Life and Works of Flavius
>Josephus p50)>>
This use of the term "Black" is crazy. The only people whose
skin is even close to "black" in color come from deepest Africa.
Other peoples now called "Black" seem to have skin of varying
shades of brown and tan. I assume you "are" talking about
skin color here. Otherwise, why say "Black"? A truly "Black-
colored" person would be rare in Mesopotamia even today
when the world is so much smaller and people get around a
lot better than they used to.
> Like Jesus, Mary and Joseph, the lineage of Ethiopian
>Emperor, Haile Selassie also goes back to Judah -through Solomon/Queen of
>Sheba and King David.
Haile Selassie was a descendant of Menelik II, who unified
Ethiopia in the 19th Century, but I doubt if he could trace
his ancestry as far back as the time of Solomon. Still, it
was a romantic notion and Selassie was a very interesting-
looking individual.
> Roman historian Tacitus wrote that many of his
>time believed that the Jews "were a race of Ethiopian origion."
And long after Tacitus people wrote that the earth was flat.
That still doesn't make either assumption true.
> The
>Bible classifies the Ethiopians & Jews together, "Are ye not as children
>of the Ethiopians unto me, O children of Israel? saith the Lord." (Amos
>9:7)>>
This is your interpretation, perhaps. If you read further in
this same chapter, it seems to indicate that Israel has once again been taken
captive, but that the Lord can still redeem it from
captivity as it has been redeemed before--as other nations have
also been redeemed. However, now, the Children of Israel are
as strange to the Lord of Israel as Ethiopians because they are so scattered
among the other nations.
> Black Paul is mistaken for an "Egyptian" and declares himself to be >a "Jew."
(Acts 21:37-39, 22: 2,3)
Adolf Erman: "At first glance the Copt cannot be distinguished
from the Polish Jew."
> That the Jews got their language,
>religion & culture from the Canaanites & Sumerians through Babylon, is
>well documented by historians. The original ancient Hebrew alphabet was
>identical to that of the Phoenicians.
Well, this is all Semitic stuff, having nothing to do with Africa.
> "Semitic languages" are really
>dialectical variants of African languages.
Which African languages? They differ quite a bit.
>
>The word Semite is from semi which means half. Half what? Half BLACK!
>(mulatto!) Semite refers to the descendants of Shem, one of Noah's
>sons. The word originates from the Latin prefix semi which means half.
Nope. How can a name of a son of the Biblical Noah
come from Latin? Were these people really Italians
in disguise? "Shem" IS of Semitic origin and it LITERALLY
means "name" in every Semitic dialect.
>"half Black and half white... therefore Black (since Black is genetically
>dominant)" points out Dr. Cress Welsing. Historian Cheikh Anta Diop
>also points out that the "Semitic" arises in the 4th millennia B.C. from
>crossbreeding between Black inhabitants of the holy land and white
>northern invaders. While many Semites (such as Jews & gypsies) have
>mixed so much with whites that they've forgotten or deny their African
>roots, racism (whtie supremacy) will never let them forget this no matter
>how light-skinned they become, as proved by Hitler, who mandated their
>destruction because they were classified by whites as "non-white" peple
>originating in Africa. The very word gypsy means "out of Egypt."
>http://sunsite.unc.edu/nge/blacked/bl4.html
Some very stupid white people have done some crazy
things in the history of the world. That doesn't mean you
or others have to base your anthropology and ethnology
on their delusions. "Gypsy" is a kind of slang term. It
is not what the Romany people actually call themselves in
their own language, which is an Indic language--that is
from India. Long ago in Europe, the only swarthy people
who had been heard of were the Egyptians, so the one
was mistaken for the other. Perhaps even the Gypsies had something to do with
this--who knows? Yet the origins of people are far more accurately pinpointed
by their language and
traditions than their appearance.
Doug Weller
On Tue, 07 Apr 1998 00:33:20 +0200, in sci.archaeology, F. Simons wrote:
>The original Biblical Jews were a Black African people.
And the Christian Identity people say they were lily white, quoting 'David was
ruddy'.
[SNIP]
>
>The word Semite is from semi which means half. Half what? Half BLACK!
>(mulatto!) Semite refers to the descendants of Shem, one of Noah's
>sons. The word originates from the Latin prefix semi which means half.
Oh dear. New Latin semita, Late Latin sem, back to Hebrew Shem.
That should take care of that then?
[SNIP]
Doug
Robin R. Langton
On Tue, 07 Apr 1998 00:33:20 +0200, "F. Simons" <F.Si...@A2000.com>
wrote:
[snip]
>The word Semite is from semi which means half. Half what? Half BLACK!
>(mulatto!) Semite refers to the descendants of Shem, one of Noah's
>sons. The word originates from the Latin prefix semi which means half.
>"half Black and half white... therefore Black (since Black is genetically
>dominant)" points out Dr. Cress Welsing.
Complete twaddle. The word "Semite" derives from the name "Shem" and
has nothing at all to do with any Latin prefix whatsoever. The only
thing that's "half" here, is the wits of anyone who would believe this
rubbish....
Fred Morenberg
Hi:
I certainly believe that our human predecessors came out of Africa some
million or so years ago, but that doesn't make Africa the the birth
place of modern man. For all I know it could have been China. There
are enough fossils now coming out of China to support the alternate
view. Perhaps it was those original Chinese, migrating back to Africa
that are the source of modern man.
And who said those original Africans were black???????
FRED
*********************************************
F. Simons wrote:
>
> The original Biblical Jews were a Black African people.
>
> The original Jews in Africa 2000 years ago were a Black African people
> as an
> ethnic group. (Massey: Egypt Light of the Word p501) Many of them
> still
> are Black, in northenrn Africa such as the Falasha Jews of Ethiopia.
> A
> New York Times editorial (3/2/84) described them as "a lost tribe that
>
> has kept it identiy for more than 2,000 years in a remote corner of
> Africa." Abraham, ancestor of the Hebrews, was from Chaldea; the
> ancient
> Chaldeans were Black. In fact, Africa takes it name from Ophren, a
> son
> of Abraham by his wife, Keturah (Whiston: The Life and Works of
> Flavius
> Josephus p50) Like Jesus, Mary and Joseph, the lineage of Ethiopian
> Emperor, Haile Selassie also goes back to Judah -through Solomon/Queen
> of
> Sheba and King David. Roman historian Tacitus wrote that many of his
> time believed that the Jews "were a race of Ethiopian origion." The
> Bible classifies the Ethiopians & Jews together, "Are ye not as
> children
> of the Ethiopians unto me, O children of Israel? saith the Lord."
> (Amos
> 9:7) Black Paul is mistaken for an "Egyptian" and declares himself to
> be
> a "Jew." (Acts 21:37-39, 22: 2,3) That the Jews got their language,
> religion & culture from the Canaanites & Sumerians through Babylon, is
>
> well documented by historians. The original ancient Hebrew alphabet
> was
> identical to that of the Phoenicians. "Semitic languages" are really
> dialectical variants of African languages.
>
> The word Semite is from semi which means half. Half what? Half
> BLACK!
> (mulatto!) Semite refers to the descendants of Shem, one of Noah's
> sons. The word originates from the Latin prefix semi which means
> half.
> "half Black and half white... therefore Black (since Black is
> genetically
> dominant)" points out Dr. Cress Welsing. Historian Cheikh Anta Diop
> also points out that the "Semitic" arises in the 4th millennia B.C.
> from
> crossbreeding between Black inhabitants of the holy land and white
> northern invaders. While many Semites (such as Jews & gypsies) have
> mixed so much with whites that they've forgotten or deny their African
>
> roots, racism (whtie supremacy) will never let them forget this no
> matter
> how light-skinned they become, as proved by Hitler, who mandated their
>
> destruction because they were classified by whites as "non-white"
> peple
> originating in Africa. The very word gypsy means "out of Egypt."
> http://sunsite.unc.edu/nge/blacked/bl4.html
>
>
>
> > New York City (where I live) and wearing western clothing. A very
> > large
> > proportion would be called "black" by most Americans.
> >
> > The modern Egyptians, on average, are significantly darker than any
> > Caucasians I have ever met, whether sun-tanned or not. Negroid
> > features are
> > also widespread (though not universal) among the modern Egyptians.
> >
> > Since the modern Egyptians do not dress in the revealing fashion of
> > their
> > ancient forebears, I presume that whatever sun tans they have
> > managed to
> > acquire do not extend below the neckline. Do you suppose we would
> > find the
> > fellahin to be pink-skinned, if we were to strip them of their
> > robes?
> >
> > Also, if you study the tomb paintings of Seti I and Ramesses III,
> > you will
> > see that both Syro-Palestinians and Libyans were depicted with a
> > much lighter
> > complexion than that of the Egyptians -- despite the fact that all
> > three
> > peoples lived in desert lands, and presumably had equal opportunity
> > to
> > acquire sun tans.
> >
> > 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
> >
tom...@juno.com
In article <352e3262...@news.demon.co.uk>,
dwe...@ramtops.demon.co.uk (Doug Weller) wrote:
>
> On Tue, 07 Apr 1998 00:33:20 +0200, in sci.archaeology, F. Simons wrote:
>
> >The original Biblical Jews were a Black African people.
>
> ruddy'.
Excellent point! Two extremist sides fighting for biblical ownership.
As a voice of reason, I'm pretty sure the biblical characters looked more like
the Palestinians of today. -=Tom=-
F. Simons
The original Jews in Africa 2000 years ago were a Black African people
as an
richa...@aol.com wrote:
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 Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
Alex
In article <352741...@usa.net>, Ed <674402DEL...@usa.net> wrote:
>Paul Kekai Manansala wrote:
>>
>> I love white people
Coconut :)
Alex Rodrigues
Frank Joseph Yurco
The Semitic peoples are a sub-branch of the Afroasiatic speaking peoples.
This population originated in northern Africa, sometime around 12,000
B.C and later, and spread during the Neolithic Wet Period throughout what
ius now the Sahara. As aridity began to set in after 7700 B.C. some of
the people started migrating away, and at least some crossed over into
Arabia, where they became the ancestors of the Semitic speaking peoples.
So, they originated in Northern Africa, and thus it is not surprising that
they resemble the descendants of those Afroasiatic speakers who still
reside in Egypt and across North Africa in Berber and other north African
communities.
Most sincerely,
Frank J. Yurco
University of Chicago
--
Frank Joseph Yurco fjy...@midway.uchicago.edu
tom...@juno.com
richa...@aol.com
In article <3527a2e...@news.ncf.carleton.ca>,
ab...@freenet.carleton.ca (Chris Camfield) wrote:
>
> On Sun, 05 Apr 1998 08:36:58 -0600, richa...@aol.com wrote:
>
> [chop]
>
> >Tiger Woods were black, despite their mixed ancestry, light complexion and
> >relatively Caucasoid features.
>
> >Why does it arouse so many tempers, when we attempt to apply the same broad
> >definition of "blackness" to the Egyptians?
>
>
> - the Egyptians didn't use the American definition of blackness?
>
> - this definition has been used by Afrocentric works of questionable
> methodology to associate Egypt with sub-Saharan Africa to a greater
> extent that is supportable by the evidence?
>
Sorry, but I don't understand the relevance of bringing up how the ancient
Egyptians supposedly viewed themselves. The Shang rulers of Bronze Age China
certainly did not call themselves "Chinese", but we nevertheless apply this
designation to them, in order to emphasize their historical and racial
kinship with other "Chinese" peoples who came after them.
As for the allegedly questionable claims of the Afrocentrists, I might offer
this quote from Egyptologist Ann Macy Roth:
"The nature and extent of Mediterranean connections with ancient Egypt are
worthy of further study, and may offer scope to arguments more truly
Afrocentric than those propounded by Bernal... In Africa, too, there were
certainly connections of some kind with areas beyond Nubia... All of these
areas have been receiving more attention in recent years, and it may be that
there was more contact between Egypt and the rest of Africa, or between Egypt
and Europe, than our current interpretations allow."
Anny Macy Roth, "Building Bridges to Afrocentrism: A Letter to My
Egyptological Colleagues, Part II," American Research Center in Egypt
Newsletter, December 1995, p. 14.
If more scholars would emulate Roth's humility and objectivity, I believe we
would all learn a great deal more about the kinship between Egypt and
sub-Saharan Africa than is possible in today's highly politicized academic
climate.
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
ke...@jps.net
In article <352741...@usa.net>,
>
> >
> > Before commenting Ed you should check up on some of your own sources
> > like Brace, Cavalli-Sforza and Howells.
> >
> Why? I talk about studies, not people. I am not responsible for anyone
> else's extracurricular activities. Also, I don't know the whole story.
> If the people you mention have truly participated in a so-called Society
> of Social Biology, their involvement may have been as harmless as
> advocating prenatal screening for cystic fibrosis or Tay-Sachs disease,
> or voluntary contraception programs to curb overpopulation. If you have
> any *specific* examples of anyone espousing immoral social policies,
> post those. What you posted before really doesn't say much.
>
Given some of your previous posts, it doesn't suprise me that you would
brush over this association with the American ideological equivalent
of Nazi racial hygiene societies.
Indeed, America and American eugenicists played the key role in developing
racial hygiene in Nazi Germany as Stefan Kuhl points out:
"The Rockefeller Foundation played a central role in establishing
and sponsoring major eugenics institutions in Germany, including
the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Psychiatry and the Kaiser Wilhelm
Institute for Anthropology, Eugenics, and Human Heredity."
[_The Nazi connection : eugenics, American racism, and German
national socialism_ (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994)
20]
The Rockefeller Foundation also funded Eugenics Society (Britain) in
establishing the International Planned Parenthood Federation. Thus,
America has provided much of the financial backing for practically
every major eugenics and population control program in the world.
The infamous Pioneer fund was originally organized by Frederick Osbourn
and Harry Laughlin, both officers of the American Eugenics Society,
under the sponsorship of Wycliffe Draper. Osbourn and Laughlin praised
Nazi eugenics programs and the latter received honors from the Third
Reich. These guys helped write the sterilization laws in many states earlier
this century. Barry Mehler, an expert on the history of eugenics, writes:
"The Pioneer Fund's original charter outlines a commitment to work for
'racial betterment' through studies in heredity and eugenics and to
'improve the character of the American people' by encouraging the
procreation of descendants of the original white colonial stock."
["In Genes We Trust: When Science Bows to Racism," _The Public Eye: A
Publication of Political Research Associates_ March, 1995]
Franz Kallmann, the protege of Ernst Rudin, head of Nazi Germany's Racial
Hygiene Society, was a director of the AES in 1952 and from 1954 to 1965.
Kallmann helped write Germany's racial hygiene and anti-cohabitation laws --
the latter forbidding cohabitation between Aryans and non-Aryans. His
fellow protege under Rudin, was Otmar Verschuer, who had an able assistant
by the name of Josef Mengele. Kallman had to flee to the U.S. because he
was half-Jewish and eventually he recruited a number of prominent Nazi
geneticists to help build the American medical genetics establishment. These
include Otmar Freiherr von Verschuer, Hans Nachtsheim, Fritz Lenz and Hans
Gunther.
The Human Genome Program is dominated by members of former members of the
AES including Cavalli-Sforza and Sir Walter Bodmer, head of the project in
Britain and a director of the AES in 1971. The latter was also a chair member
of the Eugenics Society in Britain.
Regarding your comment that Brace and Cavalli-Sforza are respectable members
of the academic community, that really is no big deal. However, after
the bad p.r. of Hitler's failed regime, eugenicists adopted a policy developed
by Frederick Osbourn. This policy is known as crypto-eugenics, and involves
both overt and covert eugenic efforts. Indeed, one strategy is for the
covert operators to appear as champions against racism while subtly providing
research that advances the eugenicists' goals.
And I wouldn't be too confident on all this cranial work by Euroamerikkkans
either. A lot of it, aside from being misinterpreted, is simply fradulent.
One good example is some research quoted by Thor Heyerdahl purporting to show
evidence of "Caucasoids" among Polynesians. The work, which was sponsored by
the Rockefeller Foundation, was taken up by a president of the AES. However,
later investigation found that in surveying modern Polynesian populations,
full-blooded indigenous people were turned away. Even mixed Polynesians with
too much Polynesian blood were not accepted. Most of the Polynesians surveyed
were predominantly of European admixture. So, again Dr. Ed, be careful.
Regards,
Paul Kekai Manansala
ram...@geocities.com
In article <6ge74h$99d$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
I am glad that we have, finally, a reference to Prof. Roth's very well
considered opinions. Thank you Richard. I may add that at the U Penn
African studies web site one can find another --I believe the first
"letter"-- treatment by Prof. Roth of this issue. In addition, Richard's
comment regarding the appellation applied to Egyptians is very well
considered, although I would not myself agree with the rather excessive focus
on Egyptians in what is called Afrocentrism in re the development of Africa,
or rather West Africa. (being a partisan for West Africa's historical
specificity and independant achievements) Without falling on the side of
calling Egyptian any "color" there is something to be said for a degree of
clarity in the semantics of this exchange and an awareness of how such
semantics might be compared with other historical contexts. Perhaps the
writers need to state explicetly how they intend the usages they apply.
Ramira Naka
Ross Clark
ke...@jps.net wrote:
>
> In article <352741...@usa.net>,
> 674402DEL...@usa.net wrote:
> >
> > Paul Kekai Manansala wrote:
> >
> And I wouldn't be too confident on all this cranial work by Euroamerikkkans
> either. A lot of it, aside from being misinterpreted, is simply fradulent.
> One good example is some research quoted by Thor Heyerdahl purporting to show
> evidence of "Caucasoids" among Polynesians. The work, which was sponsored by
> the Rockefeller Foundation, was taken up by a president of the AES. However,
> later investigation found that in surveying modern Polynesian populations,
> full-blooded indigenous people were turned away. Even mixed Polynesians with
> too much Polynesian blood were not accepted. Most of the Polynesians surveyed
> were predominantly of European admixture. So, again Dr. Ed, be careful.
>
Well, I'm hesitant even to enter this thread full of intrigue, duplicity
and lies. When those posing as "anti-racists" are really ravening racists
deep down, who can be sure of anybody, even such staunch anti-racists as
PKM?
But this last bit of shameless scientific fraud with the Polynesians is
just too juicy to let pass! Can we please have some references for this?
Ross Clark
J.D. HENNIGAN
ke...@jps.net wrote:
>
> dwe...@ramtops.demon.co.uk (Doug Weller) wrote:
> >
> > richa...@aol.com wrote:
> >
> > >A very large proportion would be called "black" by most Americans.
> >
> >
>
> The situation is not any different in Europe or South Africa for
> that matter.
You're being I think just a tad pessimistic there, Europeans in general
are far more obsessed with national ethnicity than they are in racial
issues by and large; try going to a 5 Nations match sometime if you can
:)
Added to this, you're forgetting that Europeans have a category of
race/ethnicity largely, it seems, overlooked by Americans; ARABIAN
(there are various names, but this is the one I'm most familiar with).
Because of this we tend to see Egypt, and indeed the entire Islamic
world in a different light than you guys.
Cheers
Joseph Hennigan
Ed
ke...@jps.net wrote:
>
>
> Given some of your previous posts, it doesn't suprise me that you would
> brush over this association with the American ideological equivalent
> of Nazi racial hygiene societies.
>
said I am reserving judgment until I get more information. I plan to
personally contact Brace, Howells, and Cavalli-Sforza.
Excuse me for being skeptical at this point; it just seems out of
character for Brace and Cavalli-Sforza, for all of their essays and
talks undermining the arguments of Rushton and his ilk, to be the
Hitlerian racists you are insinuating. As for Howells, a recent Harvard
Gazette mini-bio at
http://www.news.harvard.edu/hno.subpages/gazarch/hno.gazette.jan.22.html#gen2
is thoroughly positive, never mentioning any trace of controversy. It
doesn't make sense. I need to know more details.
>
> Regarding your comment that Brace and Cavalli-Sforza are respectable members
> of the academic community, that really is no big deal.
It *is* a big deal. If either of them condones anything remotely
Nazi-like, it is odd they would still have any reputation at all.
Catherine Law
Frank Joseph Yurco wrote:
>
> The Semitic peoples are a sub-branch of the Afroasiatic speaking peoples.
> This population originated in northern Africa, sometime around 12,000
> B.C and later, and spread during the Neolithic Wet Period throughout what
> ius now the Sahara. As aridity began to set in after 7700 B.C. some of
> the people started migrating away, and at least some crossed over into
> Arabia, where they became the ancestors of the Semitic speaking peoples.
>
> So, they originated in Northern Africa, and thus it is not surprising that
> they resemble the descendants of those Afroasiatic speakers who still
> reside in Egypt and across North Africa in Berber and other north African
> communities.
>
> Most sincerely,
>
> Frank J. Yurco
> University of Chicago
>
> Frank Joseph Yurco fjy...@midway.uchicago.edu
I don't believe there is enough evidence to say for sure that the
Semitic peoples arose in Africa 12,000 years ago. All we know for sure
is that they appeared in the area occupied by the Sumerians 5-7 thousand
years later and contributed greatly to the civilization growing in that
part of the world.
Please state what evidence exists from 12000 years ago. Beyond tools,
graves, and cave paintings what do we have from that period? There was
no written language, no sculpture.
Catherine Law
tom...@juno.com wrote:
>
> In article <3523D369...@A2000.com>,
> f.si...@A2000.com wrote:
> >
> >
> > --------------079DBAFAA2D00793BFD5E608
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> >
> > Ancient Egypt was a Black African Civilization.
> >
> > The word itself means Black!
> >
> > The ancient Egyptians called themselves Kam or Kam-Au (Black people/ Black
> > God-people), and their country Kamit (or Khemit), both meaning land of the
> > Blacks and the Black Land. ]...(a bunch of everyones stuff snipped)
>
> When is this myth going to die??? The "Black Land" is referring to the color
> of the soil along Nile, it was Black, due to the constant changes in water
> flow, and the resulting minerals left along the banks. The Egyptians called
> this the "black land", and the deserts away from the Nile the "red land",
> hence the deserts color. Why in the hell would ancient peoples of Egypt name
> themselves after their skin??? Did the Vikings call Norway the "land of the
> Whites"? Hell no. Your argument is nothing but outdated Afrocentric
> assumptions. -=Tom=-
>
> -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
There seems to be a strong desire amongst some white Americans to
separate Egyptian civilization from Black African civilization to the
south of it. It is their belief that no civilization of any worth EVER
developed south of the Nile, and that Egypt, Sumeria, Greece, Rome,
Europe was the relevant source of all we know, and think, and are.
To be sure, those on the side of black Africa have a problem showing
that the same inventiveness and glorious ingenuity of the Egyptians was
present in the succeeding 2-4 thousand years in the lands to the south.
White Americans would say that non-Egyptian Africa was peopled by races
genetically incapable of utilizing the discoveries of the civilizations
to the north, or of recreating them.
If they grant Egypt to the blacks, they would also have to grant
intellectual equality.
Personally, I believe if we were to resurrect Tuthenkammen and ask his
opinion, he would say "We Egyptians are like neither of you, blacks and
whites, and you are both inferior to us."
richa...@aol.com
In article <352BB9...@pop.enteract.com>,
kat...@pop.enteract.com wrote:
>
<snip>
>
> I don't believe there is enough evidence to say for sure that the
> Semitic peoples arose in Africa 12,000 years ago. All we know for sure
> is that they appeared in the area occupied by the Sumerians 5-7 thousand
> years later and contributed greatly to the civilization growing in that
> part of the world.
>
> Please state what evidence exists from 12000 years ago. Beyond tools,
> graves, and cave paintings what do we have from that period? There was
> no written language, no sculpture.
>
The linguist Joseph Greenberg determined, in the 1940s and 1950s, that the
Afroasiatic language family probably originated in Ethiopia. Greenberg still
holds to this theory today, as do many other linguists, including Christopher
Ehret of UCLA.
(Christopher Ehret, "Ancient Egyptian as an African Language, Egypt as an
African Culture," Egypt in Africa (ed. Theodore Celenko), Indianapolis Museum
of Art/Indiana University Press, 1996, page 25).
If Greenberg's theory is correct, both the Egyptian and the Semitic languages
descended from this Ethiopian "Mother Tongue" in prehistoric times. Working
from both linguistic and archaeological evidence, Greenberg deduced that the
Afroasiatic speakers left their homeland sometime around 6,000 BC. Ehret
thinks it happened earlier, between 12,000 and 10,000 BC.
Somehow or other, the essentially African language of the Semitic speakers
managed to spread itself very widely across what is now the Middle East,
giving rise to many of the most important languages spoken in the ancient
world, such as Assyrian, Phoenician, Hebrew, Babylonian, etc. It is
reasonable to assume that the spread of this African language family must
have been accompanied by a corresponding spread of African people.
Bioanthropologist Larry Angel of the Smithsonian Institution found skeletal
remains in the Middle East that he believed represented some of these
Semitic-speaking African migrants. But these findings remain controversial.
Best wishes,
Richard Poe
______________________________________________________________________
Black Spark, White Fire: Did African Explorers Civilize Ancient Europe?
by Richard Poe (Prima, 1998)
tom...@juno.com
In article <352BBC...@pop.enteract.com>,
kat...@pop.enteract.com wrote:
>
> There seems to be a strong desire amongst some white Americans to
> separate Egyptian civilization from Black African civilization to the
> south of it. It is their belief that no civilization of any worth EVER
> developed south of the Nile, and that Egypt, Sumeria, Greece, Rome,
> Europe was the relevant source of all we know, and think, and are.
>
> To be sure, those on the side of black Africa have a problem showing
> that the same inventiveness and glorious ingenuity of the Egyptians was
> present in the succeeding 2-4 thousand years in the lands to the south.
>
> White Americans would say that non-Egyptian Africa was peopled by races
> genetically incapable of utilizing the discoveries of the civilizations
> to the north, or of recreating them.
>
> If they grant Egypt to the blacks, they would also have to grant
> intellectual equality.
>
> Personally, I believe if we were to resurrect Tuthenkammen and ask his
> opinion, he would say "We Egyptians are like neither of you, blacks and
> whites, and you are both inferior to us."
>
I don't think whites have been "trying to separate" Egypt from the rest of
Africa until the American Afrocentric movement began to teach its kids that
the Egyptians were their ancestors and thus a part of their history. What
bugs me is the distortions. It's just as dangerous as the BS white scholars
spouted years ago (blacks inferiour, Jesus was white as snow, etc...) I have
a geography text book dated from 1898 that I found at a garage sale, and you
wouldn't believe what it contains!
I guess people could argue till they are blue about the race of the
Egyptians. Here is one more little argument from me. In the current edition
of TIME magazine (the one with the Ark shooter kids on the cover), there is a
segment on Egyptian mummies. They just found some working class mummies
dated from around Christ. The woman had longish straight hair that was a
sandy redish color, kind of strawberry blond. Could this be a decendent of
the ancients? Many of the ancient mummies also had long straight hair. I
don't know how those people could be decended from South of Egypt. -=Tom=-
ram...@geocities.com
> >
> > The Semitic peoples are a sub-branch of the Afroasiatic speaking peoples.
> > This population originated in northern Africa, sometime around 12,000
> > B.C and later, and spread during the Neolithic Wet Period throughout what
> > ius now the Sahara. As aridity began to set in after 7700 B.C. some of
> > the people started migrating away, and at least some crossed over into
> > Arabia, where they became the ancestors of the Semitic speaking peoples.
> >
> > So, they originated in Northern Africa, and thus it is not surprising that
> > they resemble the descendants of those Afroasiatic speakers who still
> > reside in Egypt and across North Africa in Berber and other north African
> > communities.
> >
> > Most sincerely,
> >
> > Frank J. Yurco
> > University of Chicago
> >
> > --
> > Frank Joseph Yurco fjy...@midway.uchicago.edu
>
> Semitic peoples arose in Africa 12,000 years ago. All we know for sure
> is that they appeared in the area occupied by the Sumerians 5-7 thousand
> years later and contributed greatly to the civilization growing in that
> part of the world.
>
> Please state what evidence exists from 12000 years ago. Beyond tools,
> graves, and cave paintings what do we have from that period? There was
> no written language, no sculpture.
Historical linguistics points in this direction, in addition to the work
cited to by Mr. Poe one can look to the recent article by Derek Nurse in the
prestigious Journal of African History "Contribution of linguistics to the
study of history in Africa." JAH 38 1997 p. 359-391. Nurse is one of the
leading historical linguists working on Africa. The evidence in this regard
is the greatest time depth and greatest linguistic diversity in Afro-Asiatic
languages is evidenced in North eastern Africa, the implication being this is
the point of origin for the group. Of course to understand the tools and
materials used in this regard you need to familiarize yourself with
linguistics.
Ramira Naka
Robert Geddings
richa...@aol.com wrote:
>
> Bioanthropologist Larry Angel of the Smithsonian Institution found skeletal
> remains in the Middle East that he believed represented some of these
> Semitic-speaking African migrants. But these findings remain controversial.
Larry Angel must be pretty good to deduce what language someone spoke by
looking at a skeleton!
Can he do the same by looking at their petrified foot prints too?
tom...@juno.com
In article <6gh31o$dci$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
ram...@geocities.com wrote:
>
>
> Historical linguistics points in this direction, in addition to the work
> cited to by Mr. Poe one can look to the recent article by Derek Nurse in the
> prestigious Journal of African History "Contribution of linguistics to the
> study of history in Africa." JAH 38 1997 p. 359-391. Nurse is one of the
> leading historical linguists working on Africa. The evidence in this regard
> is the greatest time depth and greatest linguistic diversity in Afro-Asiatic
> languages is evidenced in North eastern Africa, the implication being this is
> the point of origin for the group. Of course to understand the tools and
> materials used in this regard you need to familiarize yourself with
> linguistics.
>
> Ramira Naka
>
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
>
Let me jump in here. I'm just a bit confused...what languages are you
speaking of that came from north east Africa? Semitic? The current
teachings in todays text books point to Mesopotamia as the origion of the
modern languages, indo-Euro, etc. Specifically, the language came from the
evolution of Mesopotamian cuniform into letters. The reason for this
language evolution they say was to keep track of which peasants owe the king
how much grain (taxes), etc. The epic of Gilgamesh was eventually written in
the language that was created there.
It was also my understanding that Africa never put forth an alphabet. Could
Semitic just be an African tounge? -=Tom=-
Catherine Law
> cited to by Mr. Poe one can look to the recent article by Derek Nurse in the
> prestigious Journal of African History "Contribution of linguistics to the
> study of history in Africa." JAH 38 1997 p. 359-391. Nurse is one of the
> leading historical linguists working on Africa. The evidence in this regard
> is the greatest time depth and greatest linguistic diversity in Afro-Asiatic
> languages is evidenced in North eastern Africa, the implication being this is
> the point of origin for the group. Of course to understand the tools and
> materials used in this regard you need to familiarize yourself with
> linguistics.
>
> Ramira Naka
>
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
The use of Linguistics as an archeological tool is highly speculative in
my opinion. Making deductions about language evolution in the period of
5-12 thousand years ago BASED on its evolution during the modern period
sounds like wishful thinking. History is not straight-line, why should
language development be? I'm surprised 'historical linguistics' is
taken seriously - especially when it extends itself into pre-historic
times. Wars and migrations probably made mish-mash of the proto
languages sprouting here and there at the dawn of civilization. To say
that its known that it came from Ethiopia seems the height of folly to
me. I want to be the historical-linguist professor at a university --
who's gonna prove me wrong?
ram...@geocities.com
I think it is necessary to distinguish some points here:
> > There seems to be a strong desire amongst some white Americans to
> > separate Egyptian civilization from Black African civilization to the
> > south of it. It is their belief that no civilization of any worth EVER
> > developed south of the Nile, and that Egypt, Sumeria, Greece, Rome,
> > Europe was the relevant source of all we know, and think, and are.
To be fair and balanced, Africanist scholars, by and large white, put to
rest the idea that sub-Saharan Africa was or is devoid of civilization, in
the anglo-saxon sense. However, one has unfortunate and extensive evidence
that backward 19th c. models of historical and scientific thinking continue
to be prevalent in certain quarters.
> > To be sure, those on the side of black Africa have a problem showing
> > that the same inventiveness and glorious ingenuity of the Egyptians was
> > present in the succeeding 2-4 thousand years in the lands to the south.
And here I must take exception. Egypt, a fine civilization, was however a
bit of a stick in the mud. Iron working developed more quickly in the West
Africa sahel (beginning notably in Nigeria) and advanced farther there than
in Egypt. There is no reason to write the above at all.
> > White Americans would say that non-Egyptian Africa was peopled by races
> > genetically incapable of utilizing the discoveries of the civilizations
> > to the north, or of recreating them.
> >
> > If they grant Egypt to the blacks, they would also have to grant
> > intellectual equality.
> >
> > Personally, I believe if we were to resurrect Tuthenkammen and ask his
> > opinion, he would say "We Egyptians are like neither of you, blacks and
> > whites, and you are both inferior to us."
This racial thinking is entirely modern and without any basis for a comment
by Tuthenkammen. A silly anachronism.
> I don't think whites have been "trying to separate" Egypt from the rest of
> Africa until the American Afrocentric movement began to teach its kids that
> the Egyptians were their ancestors and thus a part of their history. What
> bugs me is the distortions. It's just as dangerous as the BS white scholars
> spouted years ago (blacks inferiour, Jesus was white as snow, etc...) I have
> a geography text book dated from 1898 that I found at a garage sale, and you
> wouldn't believe what it contains!
Try reading the anthro newsgroup. You will find a large number of posters
there whose ideas are essentially the same. Sad.
ram...@geocities.com
In article <6gh5k1$gf1$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
tom...@juno.com wrote:
>
> In article <6gh31o$dci$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> ram...@geocities.com wrote:
> >
> >
> > cited to by Mr. Poe one can look to the recent article by Derek Nurse in the
> > prestigious Journal of African History "Contribution of linguistics to the
> > study of history in Africa." JAH 38 1997 p. 359-391. Nurse is one of the
> > leading historical linguists working on Africa. The evidence in this regard
> > is the greatest time depth and greatest linguistic diversity in Afro-Asiatic
> > languages is evidenced in North eastern Africa, the implication being this is
> > the point of origin for the group. Of course to understand the tools and
> > materials used in this regard you need to familiarize yourself with
> > linguistics.
> >
> > Ramira Naka
> >
> > http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
> >
>
> speaking of that came from north east Africa? Semitic? The current
> teachings in todays text books point to Mesopotamia as the origion of the
> modern languages, indo-Euro, etc. Specifically, the language came from the
> evolution of Mesopotamian cuniform into letters. The reason for this
> language evolution they say was to keep track of which peasants owe the king
> how much grain (taxes), etc. The epic of Gilgamesh was eventually written in
> the language that was created there.
>
> It was also my understanding that Africa never put forth an alphabet. Could
> Semitic just be an African tounge? -=Tom=-
You are confusing language and writing systems here. They are not the same.
The argument in re language, and I advise you consult the article cited for a
fuller background and citations to the relevant works, is that the original
home for the Afro-Asiatic language group, we should say the mother tongue(s)
for the modern Semitic, Berbero-Cushitic etc. languages is most likely to be
found in the Horn. The basis of the analysis is current langauge
distribution, diversity, lexicostatistical reconstructions and time depth in
place. I do not recall, having not followed up on the citations whether
there is any argument that semitic developed in situe or not --I do not think
any of the scholars working on these issues would bother given the still
preliminary nature of archaeological work in Africa which would be necessary
to try to guess out better where culture distributions started from. Semitic
languages then, as their parent language group states, are Afro-Asiatic in
parentage with a probable origin point in north east Africa in pre-historic
times.
As to the origins of modern languages, you seem to be confused . The middle
east is not proposed as a homeland for Indo-European languages, as far as I
have read and I shall not propose myself as knowledgeable, if Miguel
Carresquar Vidal is reading this thread, perhaps he would care to comment on
various theories in this regard. Indo-European tongues are intruders.
In regards to alphabets and writing, that is not the same issue as the origin
of the language(s). It is in fact entirely different. Regarding African
alphabets, your understanding is not correct. Firstly, of course one can
count the Meriotic script developed in Meroe from an Egyptian hieroglyphic
base if I am not mistaken. Then there is the Eithiopic scripts with which I
do not have much familiarity, and the Tifinagh script used by the Taouareq,
apparently developed out of Punic script although apparently some would like
to explore Saharan symbolic inputs into the expression of the Tifinigh
further. Then, much later, in historical times, several Mande peoples such
as the Vai developed syllabary scripts. There has been some suggestion that
the Mande symbolic system might have been more complete and older than
documented (early 19th c.) but more work would need to be done on such things
as the Bambara symbolic system and its uses before making any statements in
this regard.
Akan Ifriqiya
In article <352C34...@pop.enteract.com>, kat...@pop.enteract.com says...
>> cited to by Mr. Poe one can look to the recent article by Derek Nurse in
the
>> prestigious Journal of African History "Contribution of linguistics to the
>> study of history in Africa." JAH 38 1997 p. 359-391. Nurse is one of the
>> leading historical linguists working on Africa. The evidence in this
regard
>> is the greatest time depth and greatest linguistic diversity in
Afro-Asiatic
>> languages is evidenced in North eastern Africa, the implication being this
is
>> the point of origin for the group. Of course to understand the tools and
>> materials used in this regard you need to familiarize yourself with
>> linguistics.
>>
>> Ramira Naka
>>
>> http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
>
>my opinion. Making deductions about language evolution in the period of
>5-12 thousand years ago BASED on its evolution during the modern period
>sounds like wishful thinking. History is not straight-line, why should
>language development be? I'm surprised 'historical linguistics' is
>taken seriously - especially when it extends itself into pre-historic
>times. Wars and migrations probably made mish-mash of the proto
>languages sprouting here and there at the dawn of civilization. To say
>that its known that it came from Ethiopia seems the height of folly to
>me. I want to be the historical-linguist professor at a university --
>who's gonna prove me wrong?
Well since your comments indicate you are unaquainted with linguistics and
historical linguistics, just about any professor of the discipline.
Ramira Naka
Ross Clark
> > http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
>
> my opinion. Making deductions about language evolution in the period of
> 5-12 thousand years ago BASED on its evolution during the modern period
> sounds like wishful thinking. History is not straight-line, why should
> language development be? I'm surprised 'historical linguistics' is
> taken seriously - especially when it extends itself into pre-historic
> times. Wars and migrations probably made mish-mash of the proto
> languages sprouting here and there at the dawn of civilization. To say
> that its known that it came from Ethiopia seems the height of folly to
> me. I want to be the historical-linguist professor at a university --
> who's gonna prove me wrong?
Ho hum. About once a month, it seems, someone new strides into this ng
and proclaims that historical linguistics is all a fraud, and how could
any intelligent person believe in it? It usually turns out that the
person in question has just heard that historical linguistics casts doubt
on his or her favourite belief about the past, and knows no more about it
than that. It used to make me mad, but now it's so predictable, we should
probably have a reception room where such people are offered a cup of tea
and a good book.
Please find an introductory book or two and read something about what
kind of evidence language can (and can't) provide about the distant past.
Here are some ideas to start with:
- Linguists don't think that language development is "straight-line", if
by that you mean following some pre-determined long-term path.
- They do, however, assume that languages spoken a few thousand years ago
were like the languages that are spoken today, in the sense that they
were the products of the same human brains and tongues that we have.
- Wars and migrations undoubtedly, as today, moved people around and
sometimes resulted in whole language communities being wiped out or
absorbed by others. If they were wiped out, they didn't become
"proto-languages" (ancestors of whole language families). Why is this a
problem?
Now you've said that to locate the Afro-Asiatic homeland in Ethiopia is
the "height of folly". Awfully strong language. Is it because you are
absolutely sure that it was somewhere else? If so, why? Or maybe you just
think the linguists are being too dogmatic. Agreed, we can't be 100%
certain about this, but Ethiopia seems the most likely place, based on
the presence of the maximum diversity of branches of the AA family within
that region. If archaeological or genetic evidence seemed to be
incompatible with this, we would have to have a rethink. Or if someone
had positive evidence of how some kind of complex migration sequence led
to the present distribution, that would provide an alternative
hypothesis. So that's "who's gonna prove you wrong". Doesn't that seem
fair?
Ross Clark
Brian M. Scott
>The use of Linguistics as an archeological tool is highly speculative in
>my opinion.
It isn't precisely an archaeological tool; historical linguistics and
archaeology are complementary fields of study. Do you know enough
about historical linguistics and archaeology for your opinion to mean
anything?
> Making deductions about language evolution in the period of
>5-12 thousand years ago BASED on its evolution during the modern period
>sounds like wishful thinking. History is not straight-line, why should
>language development be? I'm surprised 'historical linguistics' is
>taken seriously - especially when it extends itself into pre-historic
>times.
Sigh. Your surprise would mean more if you were to learn something
about the field first; but then you probably wouldn't be surprised.
> Wars and migrations probably made mish-mash of the proto
>languages sprouting here and there at the dawn of civilization.
The 'dawn of civilization' is poetic, but I think that you might have
a hard time giving it any real content.
> To say
>that its known that it came from Ethiopia seems the height of folly to
>me. I want to be the historical-linguist professor at a university --
>who's gonna prove me wrong?
Almost anyone who knows something about the subject, unless you put in
the years of study necessary to become one; it's a difficult field.
Such proofs of error are frequent occurrences in sci.archaeology and
sci.lang.
Brian M. Scott
richa...@aol.com
In article <6ghc1e$oj5$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
ram...@geocities.com wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
> Regarding African
> alphabets, your understanding is not correct. Firstly, of course one can
> count the Meriotic script developed in Meroe from an Egyptian hieroglyphic
> base if I am not mistaken. Then there is the Eithiopic scripts with which I
> do not have much familiarity, and the Tifinagh script used by the Taouareq,
> apparently developed out of Punic script although apparently some would like
> to explore Saharan symbolic inputs into the expression of the Tifinigh
> further. Then, much later, in historical times, several Mande peoples such
> as the Vai developed syllabary scripts. There has been some suggestion that
> the Mande symbolic system might have been more complete and older than
> documented (early 19th c.) but more work would need to be done on such things
> as the Bambara symbolic system and its uses before making any statements in
> this regard.
>
Well said! But let's not forget the Egyptian writing system, which is every
bit as African as the other scripts you mentioned.
Egyptian hieroglyphs do not, of course, constitute an "alphabet", but they
contain all the symbols necessary to spell out Egyptian words alphabetically.
More to the point, they are one of the oldest (perhaps THE oldest) and most
sophisticated writing systems known to the ancient world.
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 Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
M.C.Harrison
tom...@juno.com wrote:
ram...@geocities.com wrote:
> > study of history in Africa." JAH 38 1997 p. 359-391. Nurse is one of the
> > leading historical linguists working on Africa. The evidence in this regard
> Let me jump in here. I'm just a bit confused...what languages are you
> speaking of that came from north east Africa? Semitic? The current
> teachings in todays text books point to Mesopotamia as the origion of the
> modern languages, indo-Euro, etc. Specifically, the language came from the
> evolution of Mesopotamian cuniform into letters. The reason for this
> language evolution they say was to keep track of which peasants owe the king
> how much grain (taxes), etc. The epic of Gilgamesh was eventually written in
> the language that was created there.
Language predates writing, probably by a considerable period of time.
> It was also my understanding that Africa never put forth an alphabet. Could
> Semitic just be an African tounge? -=Tom=-
When someone invents an alphabet, you can (a) use theirs, (b) devise your own.
In reality, a given alphabet is copied by those who think it will be of use to
them and modified to take into account specialist additional vocalisations the
group is unwilling to lose.
It's fairly obvious that it can't really happen any other way.
Language, though, is a seriously misunderstood development.
To give a lateral view of language, consider the following aspects, which
linguists may be unaware of.
1) Vocalisation capability comes as a result of the shape and furniture of the
creatures mouth and throat. (In our case). This doesn't "just happen", it
represents a seriously long period of evolution extending way back into time.
2) Two mechanisms are perceived as causing evolution to take place in a certain
direction:
- God has a perfect design and we gradually evolve towards it, acquiring
advantages on the way such as language.
- Evolution by natural selection means that those who have better vocalisation
abilities tend to find mates, survive and pass on their genes better than those
who don't, leading to a gradually evolving capability. This specifically means
that a poor vocalisation ability prevents you from surviving or breeding, we
aren't talking about eugenics (how can such things exist without intelligent
beings?)
I'll leave it to the reader to pick one. :)
3) Hominid vocalisation capability determines the shape and "boom box"
volumetrics of fossilised examples, it's not just a case of finding words on
papyrus. In turn, the properties of the fossils are determined by dna patterns
which are passed on and not by adaptations from a non-vocalising form. These can
be studied by dna extraction (which ain't bad) and by gene feature mapping, and
by studying dna patterns of people who are alive today and working backwards.
This isn't just spotting mutations in history books, the dna you carry can be
traced across for common ancestory, and for longer periods of time the female
mitochondrian dna patterns (which don't change due to sex, and only mutate
gradually with time, hence are an exact maternal identity) can be used to cross
reference. The dna record points to modern humans in africa from at least
250,000 years ago, all of which had evolved vocalisation skills of equal
flexibility and capability as our own. This can only be because these early
people used languages of some type. There is no other use for such complexity,
so it is likely that languages share a common ancestory back to the ancient
beginnings of our species. Geographic fragmentation will, obviously, lead to
variations in meaning, but...
Similarily, other hominids before, after and contemporary with had similarily
well-developed vocalisation abilities and to that extent possessed languages of
similar complexity and capability. A lot of this will be in recognition sounds
and expressing emotions, and we can't (yet?) tell to what extent a spoken
language had abtraction rather than purely animal noises.
4) The environmental conditions during this phase of human development are
dominated with ice ages, and writing is known to have appeared at a period a few
thousand years after the last one ended. There is no evidence for writing in the
period before the last ice age, or during it, but there is equally well no valid
reason for assuming Homo sapiens did not develop writing. Since writing has to
be widespread for it to have any particular advantages, most work would be
localised, e.g. simple signs for "good place to trap reindeer" would probably be
in use for as long as the people are trapping reindeer. I don't know if this
counts as writing, as it doesn't represent conceptual notions but merely
practical assertions.
So if someone says "I have evidence of writing and symbol use from before the
last ice age", they're not necessarily blowing smoke. Agreed, it's long odds
without any evidence. But far from impossible.
M.C.Harrison
Ross Clark wrote:
> > that its known that it came from Ethiopia seems the height of folly to
> > me. I want to be the historical-linguist professor at a university --
> > who's gonna prove me wrong?
> Now you've said that to locate the Afro-Asiatic homeland in Ethiopia is
> the "height of folly". Awfully strong language. Is it because you are
> absolutely sure that it was somewhere else? If so, why? Or maybe you just
> think the linguists are being too dogmatic. Agreed, we can't be 100%
> certain about this, but Ethiopia seems the most likely place, based on
> the presence of the maximum diversity of branches of the AA family within
> that region. If archaeological or genetic evidence seemed to be
I reckon it's a little unreasonable to assume that the present-day location
of people automatically maps onto the historical location with any sort of
accuracy.
Apart from anything else, the most likely reason why a community from which
the rest of us derive would leave their ancestral homeland for some reason
or other, and so would tend to populate surrounding regions and concentrate
themselves in the more pleasant regions. The ones who go further away will
then demonstrate a much less diverse range of genetic variation, so we can
reasonably trace the movements of those travellers because of their rarities
and point to an origin in the area where genetic diversity represents 90% of
the diversity present in the human species, i.e. the origin is in Africa.
I'd tend to see the lakes as likely for the development of high genetic
diversity among a relatively small core population, as they have lots of
different environments to contend with, and so will produce lots of valid
genetic configurations that can be inherited. To say "Ethiopia" is a little
bold as there's lots of alternatives which can result in what we see. It's
surely Africa, and in the broad region around Ethiopia, but beyond that...
Errol Back-Cunningham
Firstly, this is totally pointless. Whatever it was founded on, it
has changed massively since then and has moved on. Secondly, what
was the basis of the Egyptian civilisation, and what was the basis
of the civilisation before that? All lost in the mists of time now.
Errol
ram...@geocities.com
In article <6gih17$14e$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
richa...@aol.com wrote:
>
> In article <6ghc1e$oj5$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> ram...@geocities.com wrote:
> >
> >[snip]
> >
> > alphabets, your understanding is not correct. Firstly, of course one can
> > count the Meriotic script developed in Meroe from an Egyptian hieroglyphic
> > base if I am not mistaken. Then there is the Eithiopic scripts with which I
> > do not have much familiarity, and the Tifinagh script used by the Taouareq,
> > apparently developed out of Punic script although apparently some would like
> > to explore Saharan symbolic inputs into the expression of the Tifinigh
> > further. Then, much later, in historical times, several Mande peoples such
> > as the Vai developed syllabary scripts. There has been some suggestion that
> > the Mande symbolic system might have been more complete and older than
> > documented (early 19th c.) but more work would need to be done on such things
> > as the Bambara symbolic system and its uses before making any statements in
> > this regard.
> >
>
> bit as African as the other scripts you mentioned.
>
> Egyptian hieroglyphs do not, of course, constitute an "alphabet", but they
> contain all the symbols necessary to spell out Egyptian words alphabetically.
> More to the point, they are one of the oldest (perhaps THE oldest) and most
> sophisticated writing systems known to the ancient world.
Thank you Richard:
I deliberately left out the hieroglyphics for two reasons: (1) to address
the clearly lesser known cases which the author was unaware of (2) to, with
the exception of Tifinagh, focus on soudanais, that is sub-Saharan writing
systems.
M.C.Harrison
tom...@juno.com wrote:
> of TIME magazine (the one with the Ark shooter kids on the cover), there is a
> segment on Egyptian mummies. They just found some working class mummies
> dated from around Christ. The woman had longish straight hair that was a
> sandy redish color, kind of strawberry blond. Could this be a decendent of
> the ancients?
Hardly likely, as they'd died out thousands of years before.
Egypt was conquered and ruled by greeks, such as Cleopatra, some hundreds of
years before the time of Christ. The people in the region were copts, if you
really meant working class, but this sounds much more like a greek immigrant.
> Many of the ancient mummies also had long straight hair. I
> don't know how those people could be decended from South of Egypt. -=Tom=-
Well, they'd have to have come (a) from the same place as everyone else, or (b)
from a spaceship. Wherever we all came from is irrelevant, to an extent, because
we know that that original group contained all ethnic groups both black, white,
greek and viking. Doesn't matter where you place it because we all come from the
same branch off the Homo erectus bush. The existence of more genetic diversity
among Africans by far, than there is in the rest of the world put together, tends
to point to that as the source but there's really no lesson to be learned by
anyone about that.
If anyone thinks the "White Christ" is historical, Josephus in 'Capture of
Jerusalem' reports that the 'forma' produced by Pontius' arrest-warrant-writers
describes the guy as:
"...a man of simple appearance, mature age, dark skin, small stature, three
cubits high, hunchbacked with a long face, long nose, and meeting eyebrows, so
that they who see him might be affrighted, with scanty hair with a parting in the
middle of his head, after the manner of the Nazarites, and with an undeveloped
beard."
Sounds Arabian to me. ;-)
ke...@jps.net
In article <352D26...@spammers.of.the.world.unite.etc>,
"M.C.Harrison" <nos...@spammers.of.the.world.unite.etc> wrote:
>
> tom...@juno.com wrote:
>
> > of TIME magazine (the one with the Ark shooter kids on the cover), there
is a
> > segment on Egyptian mummies. They just found some working class mummies
> > dated from around Christ. The woman had longish straight hair that was a
> > sandy redish color, kind of strawberry blond. Could this be a decendent
of
> > the ancients?
You have to be careful before judging the hair color of mummies. The mummy
of Ramses II, for example, had the hair dyed reddish blond (See Bob Brier's
book on Egyptian mummies). Polarized images of the hair revealed the likely
true color. Weathering and chemical reactions during and after mummification
can effect hair and skin color. Superficial melanin in the skin and hair is
destroyed during the Egyptian embalming process (and probably in other
mummification processes also). However, tests taken of protected melanin below
the surface can give an idea of the original color (taking in mind the age
of the subject). Hair remains from the Mesoamerican and Inca civilizations
display a wonderful array of colors, including many that do not
occur naturally.
Regards,
Paul Kekai Manansala
ram...@geocities.com
In article <352D23...@spammers.of.the.world.unite.etc>,
"M.C.Harrison" <nos...@spammers.of.the.world.unite.etc> wrote:
>
> Ross Clark wrote:
>
> > > that its known that it came from Ethiopia seems the height of folly to
> > > me. I want to be the historical-linguist professor at a university --
> > > who's gonna prove me wrong?
> > the "height of folly". Awfully strong language. Is it because you are
> > absolutely sure that it was somewhere else? If so, why? Or maybe you just
> > think the linguists are being too dogmatic. Agreed, we can't be 100%
> > certain about this, but Ethiopia seems the most likely place, based on
> > the presence of the maximum diversity of branches of the AA family within
> > that region. If archaeological or genetic evidence seemed to be
>
> of people automatically maps onto the historical location with any sort of
> accuracy.
>
> Apart from anything else, the most likely reason why a community from which
> the rest of us derive would leave their ancestral homeland for some reason
> or other, and so would tend to populate surrounding regions and concentrate
> themselves in the more pleasant regions. The ones who go further away will
> then demonstrate a much less diverse range of genetic variation, so we can
> reasonably trace the movements of those travellers because of their rarities
> and point to an origin in the area where genetic diversity represents 90% of
> the diversity present in the human species, i.e. the origin is in Africa.
>
> I'd tend to see the lakes as likely for the development of high genetic
> diversity among a relatively small core population, as they have lots of
> different environments to contend with, and so will produce lots of valid
> genetic configurations that can be inherited. To say "Ethiopia" is a little
> bold as there's lots of alternatives which can result in what we see. It's
> surely Africa, and in the broad region around Ethiopia, but beyond that...
I think Ross was using Eithiopia in a sort of broad way, and I hope he will
correct me if I a, wrong, as a sort of short-hand for saying "the broad
region around Eithiopia." In any event, the linguistic argument outlined in
Nurse's article posits just that sort of broad location, the region as it
were, while noting further archaeological work needs to be done to refine the
hypothesis. Of course, that is the refrain in African history and
archaeology! More work!
ram...@geocities.com
Which is totally pointless? The search for information about the past? Is
that not what archaeology is all about. I don't understand what you are
dismissing here.
Ramira Naka
In article <6gii1k$m...@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>,
Frank Joseph Yurco
Thanks Ramira and Richard, for your support for my post. Of course I
know about Ehret's and Greenberg's work and there is absolutely good
evidence that the Afroasiatic language family arose as the language
of the Saharans who moved out onto the Sahara with the advent of the
Neolithic Wet Period, that started around 12,000 B.C. All linguists
agree that the Semitic languages are a sub-branch of Afroasiatic. Since
the language family originated in Africa, probably in Ethiopia as the
latest research seems to point, then yes, the Semitic speakers did
originate from Africa, specifically North Africa. They migrated about
7000 B.C. into Arabia and spread thence all over the Middle East.
You also have the cattle pastoralism tradition that arose with the
Saharans still extant in Africa, and again the cultures of North Africa,
including Ancient Egypt are part and parcel of this Afroasiatic language
continuum.
Errol Back-Cunningham
In <6gj1ui$l1k$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com> ram...@geocities.com writes:
>
>Which is totally pointless? The search for information about the
past? Is
>that not what archaeology is all about. I don't understand what you
are
>dismissing here.
I'm dismissing the reason for putting a racist spin on everything.
Errol
Norman
Possibly all the crap being posted in this thread?
ram...@geocities.com wrote:
>
> Which is totally pointless? The search for information about the past? Is
> that not what archaeology is all about. I don't understand what you are
> dismissing here.
>
> Ramira Naka
>
ram...@geocities.com
Much of this thread is very very silly, including the title, but there are
interesting nuggets, such as Professor Yurco's posts, hopefully my own, but
in any event it is not without interest.
Ramira Naka
In article <352D276B...@connect.ab.ca>,
LDavis
Has anyone done any DNA work on the mummies?
I have seen photographs of the Father and I think the Mother of
Nefertiti, Aknaton's wife. Their hair is straight and as I recall at
least one mummy's hair was grey. Of course the bust of Nefertiti which
is well known shows her with very light skin.
Africa has a colorful and rich history and a lot more work needs to be
done in this area. however, trying to latch onto another culture as the
Afrocentrics are trying to do is nothing less than lying.
Ross Clark
M.C.Harrison wrote:
>
> Ross Clark wrote:
>
> > > that its known that it came from Ethiopia seems the height of folly to
> > > me. I want to be the historical-linguist professor at a university --
> > > who's gonna prove me wrong?
> > the "height of folly". Awfully strong language. Is it because you are
> > absolutely sure that it was somewhere else? If so, why? Or maybe you just
> > think the linguists are being too dogmatic. Agreed, we can't be 100%
> > certain about this, but Ethiopia seems the most likely place, based on
> > the presence of the maximum diversity of branches of the AA family within
> > that region. If archaeological or genetic evidence seemed to be
>
> of people automatically maps onto the historical location with any sort of
> accuracy.
That's not the assumption. We start with a language family with a known
distribution. Other things being equal, the hypothesis that they started
from somewhere within this area will be simpler (involve fewer moves)
than other hypotheses. Likewise the hypothesis that their point of origin
was in the area of maximum linguistic diversity is simpler. This only
gives us an order of priority for considering hypotheses. Everything
needs to be checked against archaeology, genetics, and any other evidence
we can get our hands on. But the hypothesis that Afro-Asiatic originated
in the Austrian Alps would not be high on our list, unless somebody had
extraordinary non-linguistic evidence that seemed to favour it.
>
> Apart from anything else, the most likely reason why a community from which
> the rest of us derive would leave their ancestral homeland for some reason
> or other, and so would tend to populate surrounding regions and concentrate
> themselves in the more pleasant regions. The ones who go further away will
> then demonstrate a much less diverse range of genetic variation, so we can
> reasonably trace the movements of those travellers because of their rarities
> and point to an origin in the area where genetic diversity represents 90% of
> the diversity present in the human species, i.e. the origin is in Africa.
Except that I was talking about languages and not genes, this is exactly
analogous to what I was saying.
Ross Clark
Ross Clark
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Um...Paul? Can we have the reference on that scientific fraud in
Polynesia? Please?
Ross Clark
ke...@jps.net
In article <6gk9ik$r...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>,
LDa...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>
> Has anyone done any DNA work on the mummies?
> I have seen photographs of the Father and I think the Mother of
> Nefertiti, Aknaton's wife. Their hair is straight and as I recall at
> least one mummy's hair was grey.
Again you can't go an appearance of mummies. Most mummies are pure black
in color, yet you always see the Western "scientists" rush to explain
that this is due to the embalming process. Analysis of ancient Egyptian
hair has shown it is largely similar to that of Nubians. Also, who
cares if some mummies hair is grey. Most were old when they died.
Of course the bust of Nefertiti which
> is well known shows her with very light skin.
> Africa has a colorful and rich history and a lot more work needs to be
> done in this area. however, trying to latch onto another culture as the
> Afrocentrics are trying to do is nothing less than lying.
>
>
Egypt is an African country. The Egyptian language is from Africa and its
parent language is likely from Northeast Africa. The people latching unto
ancient Egypt are Indo-Europeans.
Regards,
Paul Kekai Manansala
Ed
ke...@jps.net wrote something to the effect of:
>
>
> C Loring Brace = C Göring Brace
> L Luca Cavalli-Sforza = Il Duce Cavalli-Sforza,
> William White Howells = William "White Power"s
>
To see Paul's exact statements go back to the previous posts; basically
he suggests these well-known anthropologists/geneticists have some
association with the American ideological equivalent of Nazi racial
hygiene societies.
So far, I have sent e-mails to Cavalli-Sforza and C. L. Brace. I am
still trying to find contact information for Howells. I am asking that
they explain any connections they may have with the former American
Eugenics Society (currently Society for Study of Social Biology), and
that they do one of the following:
--respond to me so I can post the response to the newsgroup (unless they
tell me not to do so)
--respond directly, by posting to the "WESTERN(WHITE)CIVILIZATION..."
thread in this newsgroup.
Here are the responses so far:
From: C. Loring Brace <clb...@umich.edu>
> Thanks for getting in touch with me. It's curious how things can lose
> their bearings when they get let loose on the internet. Yes, I used to be
> a member of the Society for the Study of Social Biology, although it was
> years before I discovered that it had formerly been the American Eugenics
> Society. Its eugenics connections had long since disappeared and it had
> become entirely transformed by the time I joined (I was never a director)
> and the only reason I am not still a member is because of the number of
> societies I belong to and the amount of dues required. Their journal,
> Social Biology, is a worthy but benign publication but it just does not
> contain that much information that is of use to me. Social Biology does
> not espouse any social policy at all, and none of the editors or the
> officers in the Society support anything like the eugenics policies of its
> remote parent two generations ago and more. One might as well denounce
> all Americans as supporting slavery since it was legal before the Civil
> War, and we still live in the same country.
> I think I would rather avoid the discussion on "WESTERN (WHITE)
> CIVILIZATION IS FOUNDED ON A BLACK AFRICAN CIVILIZATION." My chapter in
> Mary Lefkowitz and Guy Rogers' book Black Athena Revisited (1996) makes my
> case on the matter with full documentation, and the other authors included
> in that collection handle all the other matters in question in a way with
> which I am in full agreement. Getting into a shouting match on the
> internet with people who are so willfully uninformed is just a waste of
> time.
> Thanks for getting in touch,
> C. L. Brace
>
From: Luca CAVALLI-SFORZA <cav...@lotka.stanford.edu>
> Thank you for telling me about this absurd attack. I have never written or
> thought anything in favor of eugenics. But I have written much against it.
> See for instance chapter 12: Eugenics, Euphenics and Human Welfare in the
> book: The Genetics of Human Populations by myself and Walter Bodmer ,
> Freeman, San Francisco 1971; or with the same author (in reverse order) and
> publisher , Genetics, Evolution and Man, 1976. See also The Great Human
> Diasporas, Addison Wesley 1996 (in which there is a postscript dedicated
> more specifically to IQ and race).
> I cannot take individual care of all the crazy people in the world; there
> are many, and they come up in the most varied circumstances. I believe
> people who write the things you describe are totally ignorant of the
> elements of the subject,, or unable to understand the simplest textbooks;
> my books are the basis of the subject of which they speak without
> knowledge. If they insist in their crazy attitude and erroneous statements
> I reserve to sue them. Please use this statement of mine as you see fit.
> Luca Cavalli-Sforza
>
tom...@juno.com
In article <6gligp$lr3$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
ke...@jps.net wrote:
>
> In article <6gk9ik$r...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>,
> LDa...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
> >
> > Has anyone done any DNA work on the mummies?
> > I have seen photographs of the Father and I think the Mother of
> > Nefertiti, Aknaton's wife. Their hair is straight and as I recall at
> > least one mummy's hair was grey.
>
> Again you can't go an appearance of mummies. Most mummies are pure black
> in color, yet you always see the Western "scientists" rush to explain
> that this is due to the embalming process. Analysis of ancient Egyptian
> hair has shown it is largely similar to that of Nubians. Also, who
> cares if some mummies hair is grey. Most were old when they died.
>
> Of course the bust of Nefertiti which
> > is well known shows her with very light skin.
> > Africa has a colorful and rich history and a lot more work needs to be
> > done in this area. however, trying to latch onto another culture as the
> > Afrocentrics are trying to do is nothing less than lying.
> >
> >
>
> Egypt is an African country. The Egyptian language is from Africa and its
> parent language is likely from Northeast Africa. The people latching unto
> ancient Egypt are Indo-Europeans.
>
>
like a woman of origions not of Africa. She for one, was surely not Nubian
or Ethiopian in heritage. If she was, that bust isn't Nefertiti. -=Tom=-
H.W.M.
Catherine Law wrote:
>Personally, I believe if we were to resurrect Tuthenkammen and ask his
>opinion, he would say "We Egyptians are like neither of you, blacks and
>whites, and you are both inferior to us."
The Lady has spoken. I agree totally on this. HWM
H.W.M.
tom...@juno.com wrote:
---------
> I have a geography text book dated from 1898 that I found at a garage sale, and
you >wouldn't believe what it contains!
There was as special exhibit at the zoological museum and they had a German book
portraying the world's animals...printed in 1870 or something... they had blacks
listed alongside with monkeys in it. And in Spain or Portugal there is an exhibit
of I think is a
stuffed san warrior dating from the 1700's or so.... Now if we compare ourselves
to that date and those values can't we at least agree that some improvement has
happened?
HWM
JBeacon
LDavis wrote:
>
> Has anyone done any DNA work on the mummies?
> I have seen photographs of the Father and I think the Mother of
> Nefertiti, Aknaton's wife. Their hair is straight and as I recall at
> is well known shows her with very light skin.
> Africa has a colorful and rich history and a lot more work needs to be
> done in this area. however, trying to latch onto another culture as the
> Afrocentrics are trying to do is nothing less than lying.
Now Bro we need something to brag about. Know what I mean. There is
evidence,{Josephus Flavius}, that the Pharo's , the Potolomies were
Greek.
ram...@geocities.com
In article <352E80B6...@suidpool.ys>,
Rather, resurrecting, as silly as this idea is but assuming you did,
Tutenkhamen would more likely have to respond "I have no idea what you are
talking about."
Ramira Naka
ram...@geocities.com
In article <352EA0...@fuse.net>,
The Ptolomies are the last dynasty, set up after Alexander the Great's
invasion. It is not a matter of dispute they were Greek, and foreign.
ke...@jps.net
In article <352E66...@usa.net>,
364501DEL...@usa.net wrote:
Oh come on, do you actually expect these guys to come out
and admit anything to someone who sends them an email calling
himself "Ed"?
C. Loring Brace from the University of Michigan is listed on the
back cover of Social Biology, a publication of SSSB, with the officers
and board of directors. If he was not a director then he should
take this up with Richard Osborne, the editor of Social Biology.
Osborne was a Viking Fund Pre-Doctoral Fellow from 1953-58. The
Viking Fund was endowed by Axel Wenner Gren, a man considered a
Nazi sympathizer by the American government during World War II.
He was the editor of Eugenics Quarterly from 1961-68, and of Social
Biology from 1969-77 and 1981-1995 (except 1991). He was listed
among the directors of AES from 1962-1973 when the organization was still
called the American Eugenics Society.
I am preparing a work for publication that will detail the line of research
of Cavalli-Sforza and other members of the Human Genome/Human Genetic
Diversity Project over the last few decades, and of the connection of the
American Society of Human Genetics, which was instrumental in founding
the Human Genome Project, with Nazi eugenics researchers.
Threats of lawsuits are childish. I simply relayed material that
is published elsewhere.
Regards,
Paul Kekai Manansala
Robin R. Langton
>Personally, I believe if we were to resurrect Tuthenkammen and ask his
>opinion, he would say "We Egyptians are like neither of you, blacks and
>whites, and you are both inferior to us."
I think he'd be more likely to shake his head in puzzlement and wonder
why the people asking him thought a cosmetic detail like skin colour
was so important. He'd be proud of his ancestry and of the
achievements of his country. He'd know that some foreigners looked
different, wore their hair differently, wore different clothes. He'd
know that foreigners spoke different languages, ate different food,
had different customs, worshipped different gods. He might think they
were foolish for not recognising that his gods were the only important
ones. He might dislike some foreigners because of the military or
political threat they represented. He might think some foreign customs
were quaint; might like some of them and adopt them; might see some
others as obnoxiously bloodthirsty.
I think he would be extremely surprised to see his country's history
being used as a battleground for the illogical obsessions of opposed
groups in a country far away.
Robbie Langton For Sci-Fi Cult TV Satire see:
http://www.roblang.demon.co.uk/fangrok/index.html
esm...@banet.net
LDavis wrote:
>
> Has anyone done any DNA work on the mummies?
> I have seen photographs of the Father and I think the Mother of
> Nefertiti, Aknaton's wife. Their hair is straight and as I recall at
> least one mummy's hair was grey. Of course the bust of Nefertiti which
> is well known shows her with very light skin.
> Africa has a colorful and rich history and a lot more work needs to be
> done in this area. however, trying to latch onto another culture as the
> Afrocentrics are trying to do is nothing less than lying.
Hi LDavis,
I'm coming on the tail end of your discussion, so forgive me, but I
really don't understand your last statement, "trying to lash onto
another culture as the Afrocentrics are trying to do ..." What are you
saying? That the ancient Egyptian civilization is not an ancient
African civilization? That to say that Western civilization, founded
largely on that of the Romans and Greeks, that was in turn founded on
significant elements of the ancient Egyptian civilization is a lie?
Please clarify your argument, since, my understanding is that "latching
onto another culture"--and in some instances, just outright stealing
from other cultures--is exactly what created "Western civilization"
today.
esm...@banet.net
ram...@geocities.com wrote:
>
> In article <352E80B6...@suidpool.ys>,
> clin...@orbiting.uranus wrote:
> >
> >
> > >Personally, I believe if we were to resurrect Tuthenkammen and ask his
> > >opinion, he would say "We Egyptians are like neither of you, blacks and
> > >whites, and you are both inferior to us."
> >
>
> Rather, resurrecting, as silly as this idea is but assuming you did,
> Tutenkhamen would more likely have to respond "I have no idea what you are
> talking about."
>
> Ramira Naka
>
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
You all seem to be missing some key info. about ancient Egypt, although
I am not professing to be an Egyptologist. As you may or may not know,
there were several distinct dynasties ruling Egypt. Ever heard of the
Nubians in the south? If I'm not mistaken, I believe they took over the
country and ran it for some time... If you must get into an "Egyptians
are white, No, Egyptians are white" debate, then keep in mind that there
is evidence that their darker African neighbors from the South had their
own line of Pharaohs as well...
esm...@banet.net
ram...@geocities.com wrote:
>
> In article <352E80B6...@suidpool.ys>,
> clin...@orbiting.uranus wrote:
> >
> >
> > Catherine Law wrote:
> > >Personally, I believe if we were to resurrect Tuthenkammen and ask his
> > >opinion, he would say "We Egyptians are like neither of you, blacks and
> > >whites, and you are both inferior to us."
> >
> > The Lady has spoken. I agree totally on this. HWM
>
> Rather, resurrecting, as silly as this idea is but assuming you did,
> Tutenkhamen would more likely have to respond "I have no idea what you are
> talking about."
>
> Ramira Naka
>
> -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
You all seem to be missing some key info. about ancient Egypt, although
I am not professing to be an Egyptologist. As you may or may not know,
there were several distinct dynasties ruling Egypt. Ever heard of the
Nubians in the south? If I'm not mistaken, I believe they took over the
country and ran it for some time... If you must get into an "Egyptians
are white, No, Egyptians are black" debate, then keep in mind that there
richa...@aol.com
I am a bit perplexed by the number of posts on this thread from people citing
the reddish hair of some Egyptian mummies, the light complexion of
Nefertiti's bust and other such evidence.
What exactly are you trying to prove? Do you mean to imply that fair skin and
fair hair were typical or even commonplace among the Egyptians? If so, then
your theory lies far outside the pale of conventional Egyptological belief.
Most Egyptologists attribute the small number of fair-haired people in Egypt
to intermarriage with foreigners, such as the Libyans. Are the "white
Egyptian" proponents on this thread proposing an alternate theory?
A very interesting forensic reconstruction of an Egyptian mummy can be found
at the following URL:
http://members.aol.com/BlackSprk/Black5.html
I would be interested in hearing your comments.
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
Nubkhas
>What exactly are you trying to prove? Do you mean to imply that fair skin and
>fair hair were typical or even commonplace among the Egyptians? If so, then
>your theory lies far outside the pale of conventional Egyptological belief.
>
>Most Egyptologists attribute the small number of fair-haired people in Egypt
>to intermarriage with foreigners, such as the Libyans. Are the "white
>Egyptian" proponents on this thread proposing an alternate theory?
>
>A very interesting forensic reconstruction of an Egyptian mummy can be found
>at the following URL:
>
>http://members.aol.com/BlackSprk/Black5.html
>
>I would be interested in hearing your comments.
Go look at some reconstructions of the mummies of the
pharaohs and queens at
http://website.lineone.net/~akhet
Almost all of the royal mummies have fine, straight hair,
which is a better indicator of "white vs. black" than
facial features, anyway.
ke...@jps.net
In article <6gm073$beb$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
tom...@juno.com wrote:
>
> In article <6gligp$lr3$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> ke...@jps.net wrote:
> >
> > In article <6gk9ik$r...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>,
> > >
> > > Has anyone done any DNA work on the mummies?
> > > I have seen photographs of the Father and I think the Mother of
> > > Nefertiti, Aknaton's wife. Their hair is straight and as I recall at
> > > least one mummy's hair was grey.
> >
> > in color, yet you always see the Western "scientists" rush to explain
> > that this is due to the embalming process. Analysis of ancient Egyptian
> > hair has shown it is largely similar to that of Nubians. Also, who
> > cares if some mummies hair is grey. Most were old when they died.
> >
> > > is well known shows her with very light skin.
> > > Africa has a colorful and rich history and a lot more work needs to be
> > > done in this area. however, trying to latch onto another culture as the
> > > Afrocentrics are trying to do is nothing less than lying.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > parent language is likely from Northeast Africa. The people latching unto
> > ancient Egypt are Indo-Europeans.
> >
> >
> You have to admit he has a point about Nefertiti. That bust statue looks
> like a woman of origions not of Africa. She for one, was surely not Nubian
> or Ethiopian in heritage. If she was, that bust isn't Nefertiti. -=Tom=-
>
There is one bust of Nefertiti that is fair-skinned. However there are
other representations that suggest Nubian or other African. See these
sites:
http://www.malone.org/~jrodrigu/isis/nef4.jpg
http://www.malone.org/~jrodrigu/isis/altar.jpg
http://www.malone.org/~jrodrigu/isis/nef2.jpg
Regards,
Paul Kekai manansala
EL HOMBRE MACANA
yeah, we kill each other by the tons rather than by the tens.
EL HOMBRE MACANA
It is very clear: the only straight path is "white superiority". Of
course, who is going to believe that? I can declare myself a
"professor".
Catherine Law wrote:
> The use of Linguistics as an archeological tool is highly speculative in
> my opinion. Making deductions about language evolution in the period of
> 5-12 thousand years ago BASED on its evolution during the modern period
> sounds like wishful thinking. History is not straight-line, why should
> language development be? I'm surprised 'historical linguistics' is
> taken seriously - especially when it extends itself into pre-historic
> times. Wars and migrations probably made mish-mash of the proto
> languages sprouting here and there at the dawn of civilization. To say
EL HOMBRE MACANA
Seeing people arguing about the origins of Egypt, whether is African or
not, is a living proof about the ignorance and folly in some quarters
who are still living in the psychological throes of ancient conflicts of
saracens against crusaders or perhaps in the old conflict of mongols
against europeans. It shows that humans are capable of gaining
meaningful knowledge as much as the sterile type. They are a living
proof of the scars of battle: the sychological damage inflicted upon
humans who have to kill and maim to express their identity.
richa...@aol.com wrote:
>
> I am a bit perplexed by the number of posts on this thread from people citing
> the reddish hair of some Egyptian mummies, the light complexion of
> Nefertiti's bust and other such evidence.
>
> What exactly are you trying to prove? Do you mean to imply that fair skin and
> fair hair were typical or even commonplace among the Egyptians? If so, then
> your theory lies far outside the pale of conventional Egyptological belief.
>
> Most Egyptologists attribute the small number of fair-haired people in Egypt
> to intermarriage with foreigners, such as the Libyans. Are the "white
> Egyptian" proponents on this thread proposing an alternate theory?
>
> A very interesting forensic reconstruction of an Egyptian mummy can be found
> at the following URL:
>
> http://members.aol.com/BlackSprk/Black5.html
>
> I would be interested in hearing your comments.
>
> 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
>
The Tain
Some of the logic used in beating this dead horse is tantamount to the
following:
Afirican blood is red,
Caucasian blood is red,
therefore Caucasians are African
Frankly, it is becoming boring. If you must have an identity other than being
a uniquely created individual that contributes to the good of all at least be a
bit more convincing in building an artificial reality.
Joseph E. Kerley, III (the...@aol.com)
As a man thinks in his heart, so he is.
Brother, Kuhn you paradigm?
Ed
ke...@jps.net wrote:
>
> In article <352E66...@usa.net>,
> 364501DEL...@usa.net wrote:
>
> Oh come on, do you actually expect these guys to come out
> and admit anything to someone who sends them an email calling
> himself "Ed"?
>
> C. Loring Brace from the University of Michigan is listed on the
> back cover of Social Biology, a publication of SSSB, with the officers
> and board of directors. If he was not a director then he should
> take this up with Richard Osborne, the editor of Social Biology.
>
> Osborne was a Viking Fund Pre-Doctoral Fellow from 1953-58. The
> Viking Fund was endowed by Axel Wenner Gren, a man considered a
> Nazi sympathizer by the American government during World War II.
> He was the editor of Eugenics Quarterly from 1961-68, and of Social
> Biology from 1969-77 and 1981-1995 (except 1991). He was listed
> among the directors of AES from 1962-1973 when the organization was still
> called the American Eugenics Society.
>
What you seem to be saying is that Brace shouldn't be trusted, because:
Brace was once a member of a society, which put out a publication, which
was edited by some other guy, whose graduate school research was
supported by some fund, which was endowed by yet another guy, who was
accused by the US of being a Nazi sympathizer.
Nice try.
It seems you may be taking this guilt-by-association routine a little
too far. Some students are supported by funds created by Andrew
Carnegie (who is said to have supported eugenics), or Henry Ford (said
to have been a Nazi sympathizer). Does that make these students Nazis
too? No.
Your case would be more convincing if you found *direct* evidence that
these people are supporters of racist social policies, or that they
believe race is linked with intelligence. Their writings, from what I
have read of them, suggests the opposite.
> I am preparing a work for publication that will detail the line of research
> of Cavalli-Sforza and other members of the Human Genome/Human Genetic
> Diversity Project over the last few decades, and of the connection of the
> American Society of Human Genetics, which was instrumental in founding
> the Human Genome Project, with Nazi eugenics researchers.
>
Did you make an effort to contact or interview Cavalli-Sforza or any
other members of the HGDP, to hear their views?
On second thought, why am I even bothering with this. It's not my job
to speak up for anyone. I have much, much, much better ways to spend my
time.
ke...@jps.net
In article <199804111903...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
the...@aol.com (The Tain) wrote:
>
> Some of the logic used in beating this dead horse is tantamount to the
> following:
>
> Afirican blood is red,
> Caucasian blood is red,
> therefore Caucasians are African
>
This is a poor argument, since Caucasians did originally come from
Africa. Here's a better one:
Egypt is in Africa,
Ancient Egyptians lived in Egypt,
therefore Egyptians are African.
Regards,
Paul Kekai Manansala
ke...@jps.net
In article <352FC5...@usa.net>,
264986DEL...@usa.net wrote:
>
> ke...@jps.net wrote:
> >
> > In article <352E66...@usa.net>,
> > 364501DEL...@usa.net wrote:
> >
> > Oh come on, do you actually expect these guys to come out
> > and admit anything to someone who sends them an email calling
> > himself "Ed"?
> >
> Ed is the nickname; I use my full name when I e-mail. Who cares.
>
> > C. Loring Brace from the University of Michigan is listed on the
> > back cover of Social Biology, a publication of SSSB, with the officers
> > and board of directors. If he was not a director then he should
> > take this up with Richard Osborne, the editor of Social Biology.
> >
> > Osborne was a Viking Fund Pre-Doctoral Fellow from 1953-58. The
> > Viking Fund was endowed by Axel Wenner Gren, a man considered a
> > Nazi sympathizer by the American government during World War II.
> > He was the editor of Eugenics Quarterly from 1961-68, and of Social
> > Biology from 1969-77 and 1981-1995 (except 1991). He was listed
> > among the directors of AES from 1962-1973 when the organization was still
> > called the American Eugenics Society.
> >
>
> What you seem to be saying is that Brace shouldn't be trusted, because:
>
> Brace was once a member of a society, which put out a publication, which
> was edited by some other guy, whose graduate school research was
> supported by some fund, which was endowed by yet another guy, who was
> accused by the US of being a Nazi sympathizer.
>
Brace suggested that no editors or officers of the journal or society
were supporters of eugenics. However, the editor of SB also edited the
Eugenics Quarterly and was a director of the American Eugenics Society
before it changed its name. Did this guy not know the meaning of the
word "eugenics?"
Other officers were also members before the name change and published
in the journal before its name was changed to Social Biology. A few
recent officers have received support from the Pioneer Fund, a
well-documented eugenics group.
Brace also stated that the society had undergone some sort of change
in policy around the time of his membership. However, the society's
announcement of its name change in Social Biology (1973), states
that this "does not coincide with any change of its interests or
policies."
The switch from eugenics to "crypto-eugenics" is spelled out in
official policy statements. This included avoiding use of the
term "eugenics." However, the nature of articles currently
published in Social Biology are not drastically different in subject
matter as compared to pre-WWII issues. They are much more pc, and
avoid issues like sterilization but otherwise the difference is
one only of approach.
In fact, eugenics and population control have always been intimately
connected. By the late 1950s, the membership of the American Eugenics
Society and the Population Council of the Rockefellers was almost
identical. Not surprisingly, many officers of the AES/SSSB have also
been involved in population control. Michael Teitelbaum, vice-chair of
the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform, served as president of the
society from 1984-1990. He has written extensively on the "population
threat," and was a member of a congressional population policy
development program.
Robert Retherford, pres. from 1991-93, has written much on fertility,
population and contraception. Among his interesting books are
_Demographic transition and the evolution of intelligence: theory and
evidence_, _How intelligence affects fertility_, _Fertility and
contraceptive use in Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, and Uttar Pradesh_.
Many of the publications of the government funded East-West Institute,
while Retherford was in charge, advocated increased contraception in
South and East Asia. The latter institute is associated with USAID, an
organization that ties aid programs to the Third World with the adoption
of increased population control.
Brace also stated he was not a director at SSSB, yet his name together
with his university appears on the back cover of many issues of Social
Biology, among the lists of officers and directors. Is this an error
of the editors?
Cavalli-Sforza mentions two books he authored with Sir Walter Bodmer
which included sections against eugenics. However, Bodmer was
a director of AES in 1971 before the name change. He also has printed
at least one article in Eugenics Quarterly. He was a fellow of the
Eugenics Society (Britain) and also a council member. Did he also
not know the meaning of the word "eugenics" at the time, despite
being a professor and researcher in genetics?
In fact, the tactic of framing and controlling the eugenics/population
control/genetic screening debate is very old. The battles between
conservative eugenicist Arthur Jensen and "Marxist" eugenicist, Richard
Lewontin, for example. In the United Nations debate on population
policy, it has been shown that both sides of the debate were in fact
connected with pro-eugenics societies/organizations.
Ashen Shugar
Macedonian not Greek. Ptolemy 1 was a general of Alexander the Great
JBeacon wrote in message <352EA0...@fuse.net>...
Akan Ifriqiya
On Sat, 11 Apr 1998 03:16:07 -0400, esm...@banet.net wrote:
:ram...@geocities.com wrote:
:>
:> In article <352E80B6...@suidpool.ys>,
:> clin...@orbiting.uranus wrote:
:> >
:> >
:> > Catherine Law wrote:
:> > >Personally, I believe if we were to resurrect Tuthenkammen and ask his
:> > >opinion, he would say "We Egyptians are like neither of you, blacks and
:> > >whites, and you are both inferior to us."
:> >
:> > The Lady has spoken. I agree totally on this. HWM
:>
:> Rather, resurrecting, as silly as this idea is but assuming you did,
:> Tutenkhamen would more likely have to respond "I have no idea what you are
:> talking about."
:>
:> Ramira Naka
:>
:> -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
:> http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
:
:You all seem to be missing some key info. about ancient Egypt, although
:I am not professing to be an Egyptologist. As you may or may not know,
:there were several distinct dynasties ruling Egypt. Ever heard of the
:Nubians in the south? If I'm not mistaken, I believe they took over the
:country and ran it for some time... If you must get into an "Egyptians
:are white, No, Egyptians are white" debate, then keep in mind that there
:is evidence that their darker African neighbors from the South had their
:own line of Pharaohs as well...
I am not missing any key info. I am in fact a student of African
hisotry and fairly well aquianted with the basics of ancient history,
although my own area of interest is modern. I might say there is more
than evidence of the Nubian pharoahs, it is rather an undisputed fact.
My comment was directed to the silliness of preposing that a
resurected Pharoah would even comprehend this debate over terms which
would have little meaning to him. I beleive this point was made
rather better by Robbie Langdon.
Ramira Naka
Akan Ifriqiya
It has a certain entertainment value for all that, however, no?
Ramira Naka
On Sat, 11 Apr 1998 12:12:53 -0400, EL HOMBRE MACANA <C...@HELL.COM>
wrote:
:Seeing people arguing about the origins of Egypt, whether is African or
H.W.M.
Akan Ifriqiya wrote:
> It has a certain entertainment value for all that, however, no?
>
> Ramira Naka
>
Not only that, I've been going through my books and at the library just to figure
out what and where the discussion is leading to... I was interested in egyptology
and once had an ambition to start study it at some university, might still. But the
different dynasties are giving a headache and also the fact that "history" is "his
story" , the story told by the guy who was left to tell it. The ancient Egyptians
had a habit to rewrite the history depending on the Pharaoh and his dynasty and the
rivarlies between the upper and lower kingdoms and the hyksos invasions do not help
at all--- there isn't one answer, rather a number of theories of which none
necessarily is right. None of us has been to Egypt in the time of Tutankhaten (He
became Tutankhamen only after the priests threw Atonworship out at the time of death
of Ekhnaton -wonder where Moses got the idea of monotheism? ; ) ,,, so the only
guys we can ask are the mummies, and the new forensic methods give some new wild
ideas. Just like they've found large residues of nicotine in some of the mummies.
Was this because the Egyptians grew tobacco or just because the storage room was
used by the staff of the museum as a smoking room for a few decades, before the
mummies were put on exhibit...
Just a very interesting thread!
HWM
p.s. but I don't appreciate this "we're better than you because we made the egyptian
culture" stuff...
Šick Hirtz
Is there any proof that the Egyptians were black except for some wall
paintings that clearly show tan people and even redish people (which is very
understandable being that they were in a sunny environment) but not
particularly black (dark brown)? Looking at thier art one would notice that
the light skinned and yes even white skinned people were portrayed in rolls
of leadership as Pharoes and priests yet the noticably black skinned people
(Nubians not Egyptians) along with thier face paint and bone/bead jewelry
were portrayed as slaves and servants.
richa...@aol.com wrote in message <6g81dr$cm4$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>In article <352c606b...@news.demon.co.uk>,
> dwe...@ramtops.demon.co.uk (Doug Weller) wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 04 Apr 1998 08:12:07 -0600, in sci.archaeology,
richa...@aol.com
>> wrote:
>>
>> >A very large
>> >proportion [of the modern Egyptians] would be called "black" by most
Americans.
>>
>> Why in the world would anyone use this as a benchmark?
>>
>
>The main reason, Doug, that we might want to use the American standard of
>"blackness", in classifying the Egyptians, would be to encourage clarity
and
>consistency.
>
>When people attempt to engage in a discussion using many different
>definitions of a certain word, the result can only be confusion. No
>discussion can proceed in an intelligible fashion, unless the participants
>first agree on terminology.
>
>This simple rule has never been followed in the many discussions over the
>"blackness" of the Egyptians. That is a large part of the reason, in my
>opinion, that so much confusion continues to reign over the subject.
>
>I propose that we use the American definition of "blackness", because it is
>familiar to hundreds of millions of people, not only in America, but in
every
>country of the world that is exposed to American popular culture, via
>television and other media.
>
>I do not think that I would meet a great deal of opposition, in this
>newsgroup, if I made the rather hum-drum observation that "Colin Powell is
>the greatest black military commander in U.S. history"; that "Vanessa
>Williams was the first black Miss America"; or that "Tiger Woods is the
>greatest black golf champion in history."
>
>I think that most people would accept that Colin Powell, Vanessa Williams
and
>Tiger Woods were black, despite their mixed ancestry, light complexion and
>relatively Caucasoid features.
>
>Why does it arouse so many tempers, when we attempt to apply the same broad
>definition of "blackness" to the Egyptians?
>
>Best wishes,
>Richard Poe
>
>______________________________________________________________________
>
>Black Spark, White Fire: Did African Explorers Civilize Ancient Europe?
>By Richard Poe (Prima, 1998)
richa...@aol.com
In article <199804111611...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
nub...@aol.com (Nubkhas) wrote:
>
> >What exactly are you trying to prove? Do you mean to imply that fair skin and
> >fair hair were typical or even commonplace among the Egyptians? If so, then
> >your theory lies far outside the pale of conventional Egyptological belief.
> >
> >Most Egyptologists attribute the small number of fair-haired people in Egypt
> >to intermarriage with foreigners, such as the Libyans. Are the "white
> >Egyptian" proponents on this thread proposing an alternate theory?
> >
> >A very interesting forensic reconstruction of an Egyptian mummy can be found
> >at the following URL:
> >
> >http://members.aol.com/BlackSprk/Black5.html
> >
> >I would be interested in hearing your comments.
>
> pharaohs and queens at
>
> http://website.lineone.net/~akhet
>
> Almost all of the royal mummies have fine, straight hair,
> which is a better indicator of "white vs. black" than
> facial features, anyway.
>
I'm not sure what you mean by this. Why is straight hair a better indicator
of "white vs. black" than facial features?
Quite a few Somalis and Ethiopians have straight hair, combined with
coal-black skin. Does this make them "white", by your definition?
Maybe I should ask you to define exactly what you mean by "white" and
"black", in the first place.
Best wishes,
Richard Poe
P.S. I could not find the reconstructions of pharaonic faces on the web site
you referenced. Perhaps you could provide a more direct link to the page in
question?
________________________________________________________________________
Black Spark, White Fire: Did African Explorers Civilize Ancient Europe?
by Richard Poe (Prima, 1998)
Šick Hirtz
Ramesses The Great was found to have straight redish/brown hair.
tom...@juno.com wrote in message <6ggv4k$87g$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>In article <352BBC...@pop.enteract.com>,
> kat...@pop.enteract.com wrote:
>>
>> There seems to be a strong desire amongst some white Americans to
>> separate Egyptian civilization from Black African civilization to the
>> south of it. It is their belief that no civilization of any worth EVER
>> developed south of the Nile, and that Egypt, Sumeria, Greece, Rome,
>> Europe was the relevant source of all we know, and think, and are.
>>
>> To be sure, those on the side of black Africa have a problem showing
>> that the same inventiveness and glorious ingenuity of the Egyptians was
>> present in the succeeding 2-4 thousand years in the lands to the south.
>>
>> White Americans would say that non-Egyptian Africa was peopled by races
>> genetically incapable of utilizing the discoveries of the civilizations
>> to the north, or of recreating them.
>>
>> If they grant Egypt to the blacks, they would also have to grant
>> intellectual equality.
>>
>> Personally, I believe if we were to resurrect Tuthenkammen and ask his
>> opinion, he would say "We Egyptians are like neither of you, blacks and
>> whites, and you are both inferior to us."
>>
>
>I don't think whites have been "trying to separate" Egypt from the rest of
>Africa until the American Afrocentric movement began to teach its kids that
>the Egyptians were their ancestors and thus a part of their history. What
>bugs me is the distortions. It's just as dangerous as the BS white
scholars
>spouted years ago (blacks inferiour, Jesus was white as snow, etc...) I
have
>a geography text book dated from 1898 that I found at a garage sale, and
you
>wouldn't believe what it contains!
>
>I guess people could argue till they are blue about the race of the
>Egyptians. Here is one more little argument from me. In the current
edition
>of TIME magazine (the one with the Ark shooter kids on the cover), there is
a
>segment on Egyptian mummies. They just found some working class mummies
>dated from around Christ. The woman had longish straight hair that was a
>sandy redish color, kind of strawberry blond. Could this be a decendent of
>the ancients? Many of the ancient mummies also had long straight hair. I
>don't know how those people could be decended from South of Egypt. -=Tom=-
Šick Hirtz
Hed probably wake up complaining about a serious headache :-)
ram...@geocities.com wrote in message <6gm8aa$n0r$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>In article <352E80B6...@suidpool.ys>,
> clin...@orbiting.uranus wrote:
>>
>>
>> Catherine Law wrote:
>> >Personally, I believe if we were to resurrect Tuthenkammen and ask his
>> >opinion, he would say "We Egyptians are like neither of you, blacks and
>> >whites, and you are both inferior to us."
>>
>> The Lady has spoken. I agree totally on this. HWM
>
>Rather, resurrecting, as silly as this idea is but assuming you did,
>Tutenkhamen would more likely have to respond "I have no idea what you are
>talking about."
>
>Ramira Naka
>
>