That's racist!

#23,152
#23,152
Dobbs 4 Heisman said:
I can post a lot of cultural continuity between Ancient Egypt and tribes living in modern day Sub-Saharan Africa. What you won't find however is any groups outside of Africa still practicing the cultural traditions of Ancient Egypt. Here's one example of many where you have Africans still doing what the Ancient Egyptians did but no Arabs or Europeans doing the same:

View attachment 741488

View attachment 741486

View attachment 741487


There are no groups outside of Africa with the same hairstyles as those practiced in Ancient Egypt. This is why I say the idea Ancient Egypt was multicultural is false. The only culture the Ancient Egyptians practiced was an African culture which is why the only place you still see the same culture that thrived in Ancient Egypt still thriving is in "Sub-Saharan Africa".

If the Ancient Egyptians were multicultural, why do no other races still practice the same cultural traditions as the Ancient Egyptians?
Click to expand...
I don't really have a dog in the fight about what the ancient egyptians were. but you have your argument backwards in regards to the hair styles. modern peoples having the same hair style like ancient people, does not prove than the ancient people were related to the modern people.

pretty much no culture looks like it did thousands of years ago. especially if its been exposed to others. and especially not when it comes to hair styles. skeletal structure is your best argument. facial features and skin tone, would be the next level down. clothing and hair styles are pretty much only recognized as snap shots in time. especially when you have people living in the same/similar conditions.

even with it being the same, co-development of the same idea has been well documented across untold numbers of cultures and times, without there being a link between the two.

at best your argument would be that the ancient egyptians, whoever they were, have influenced modern african cultures, but that doesn't require some "return home" cultural move.

again I don't particularly care who the ancient egyptians were, but that Babylonians had a similar motif. the oldest depictions of gilgamesh have pleated hair & beard, with "flatter" facial features. there is enough difference to say they aren't related, but you are taking a pretty simplistic look to jump to these conclusions.

also there is a decent bit of confirmation bias going on. The SURVIVING art we have from ancient egypt shows the flatter faces. flatter features are going to survive far better than more prominent chin lines or noses when depicted in stone. also we know that the ancient egyptians practiced the same level of "destruction" of statues of those who lost favor, as the more "middle" egyptians did to the ancient egyptians.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols and volbound1700
#23,153
#23,153
Dobbs 4 Heisman said:
The problem is the historical record doesn't support this presumption. And what I mean is the idea Ancient Egypt got some of its innovative thought from other non-black cultures along the Mediterranean. We have no evidence of any of the central ideas that made Ancient Egypt flourish coming from outside of Africa. However, what we do have records of is Ancient Egypt drawing much of its culture and innovation from the south into inner Africa. I'll provide one example to his highlight this point.

Now most people know the Ancient Egyptian writing system was hieroglyphics. What most people don't know is hieroglyphics were also used in Ancient Nubia. In fact according to Ancient Greek historian Diodorus Siculus, Ancient Egypt was nothing more than a colony of Ancient Nubia (aka Ethiopia) and that the hieroglyphic writing system we attribute to Ancient Egypt was actually of Nubian origin. Here's the source:

LacusCurtius • Diodorus Siculus — Book III Chapters 1‑14

Part of an English translation of Diodorus. Books 1‑32 are complete on this site, which contains many classical texts and related material.
penelope.uchicago.edu penelope.uchicago.edu




So in Ancient Egypt hieroglyphics were called the Medu Neter (Holy Script/Divine Words). It was only know and understood by the priests. But in Nubia (where the script originated according to the Ancient Greeks) it was understood by everyone. And for the record, we have no evidence of hieroglyphics being used outside of Egypt and Nubia. Thus showing that the Ancient Egyptian script had no innovative contributions from outside of Africa.

This is why I say the historical record doesn't support the idea that Ancient Egypt was a multicultural society. It's origins and culture were 100% indigenous to the African continent and nowhere else. The only influence Ancient Egypt got was from Nubia and inner Africa not the Mediterranean.
Click to expand...
They don't have to be a multicultural society to adopt knowledge and tech from others. You can gain it by conquering. You can gain it by trade. The fact they developed their own writing doesn't mean much to that end. There are a number of civilizations that developed their own writing and they all adopted and appropriated tech and knowledge from others.

They traded far and wide, they were not isolated. They traded with Asia, Southern Europe and Middle East. Knowledge goes both ways, others learned from them and they learned.
 
#23,154
#23,154
85SugarVol said:
So your argument for black superiority is that present Africans look and live like ancient Africans.

That is fantastic.
Click to expand...

Yes because those Ancient Africans they look and live like are the Ancient Egyptians who built the greatest civilization in antiquity.

The Ancient Egyptians walked around half naked without shirts on and also built the pyramids.
 
#23,155
#23,155
85SugarVol said:
Just for lolz…

AI Overview

Ancient Egyptian DNA testing has revealed that ancient Egyptians were most closely related to populations from the Middle East, particularly the Levant, rather than sub-Saharan Africans. This discovery, based on analysis of mummy DNA,challenges long-held assumptions about the origins and genetic makeup of ancient Egyptians.

Here's a more detailed look at the findings:
    • Contamination and Nuclear DNA:
      While researchers could obtain mitochondrial DNA (passed down from mothers) from 90 mummies, they were only able to get detailed nuclear DNA (inherited from both parents) from three mummies due to contamination.
    • Levantine Affinity:
      The DNA analysis showed that ancient Egyptians shared more genetic similarities with people from the Neolithic and Bronze Ages in the Levant (modern-day Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Jordan, and Iraq) than with modern sub-Saharan Africans.
    • Sub-Saharan African Admixture:
      The study also indicated a potential influx of sub-Saharan African DNA into Egypt roughly 700 years ago, which explains why modern Egyptians have a greater percentage of sub-Saharan African ancestry than the mummies from Abusir el-Meleq.
    • Re-evaluating History:
      The findings have prompted a re-evaluation of Egypt's history and have opened new avenues for research into the genetic history of the region.
    • Near Eastern Connections:
      The study also suggests a long history of genetic interaction and connection between Egypt and the Near East, possibly dating back to Prehistoric Egypt.
In essence, DNA analysis of ancient Egyptian mummies has provided a more precise picture of their genetic ancestry, revealing close ties to the Near East and a later admixture with sub-Saharan African populations that explains the genetic makeup of modern Egyptians.
Click to expand...

These DNA studies have been debunked for sampling bias. Essentially they only tested mummies from one location in northern Egypt that was known to be used by foreign occupiers like the Ancient Greeks during periods of non-native rule. And they didn't sample any remains from southern Egypt where the Pharaohs and Ancient Egyptian civilization as we know it originated.

It's sorta like if I tested the remains of graves in Harlem, NY during the Harlem Renaissance and said this proves that the Founding Fathers of America were of black African descent. It would be ludicrous.

Here's the AI breakdown of the study refuting the study you cited:

AI Overview

The Scheunemann et al. 2017 study, which analyzed ancient Egyptian DNA, has been criticized for its limitations in sampling methods, sample size, and the interpretation of comparative data. Specifically, concerns have been raised regarding the study's assertion that there was "no sub-Saharan genetic component" in the Egyptian population.

Here's a more detailed breakdown of the critiques:
  • Sampling Issues:
    The study focused on mummies from a single site in Middle Egypt, limiting its ability to represent earlier populations or those from Upper Egypt, which are geographically closer to Sub-Saharan Africa.

  • Small Sample Size:
    The 2017 study, while the largest on ancient Egyptians at the time, still relied on a small sample size.

  • Biased Interpretation:
    Critics argue that the study's authors may have biased their interpretation of the genetic data to fit their conclusions, particularly regarding the lack of a sub-Saharan genetic component.

  • New (Untested) Sampling Methods:
    The 2017 study employed a new, untested sampling method, raising concerns about its reliability.

  • Problematic Comparative Data:
    The comparative data used in the study were also questioned for their relevance and accuracy.
These criticisms have led some researchers to conclude that the Scheunemann et al. study's findings, while valuable, should be interpreted with caution and should not be taken as a definitive representation of the genetic history of ancient Egyptians.
 
#23,157
#23,157
LouderVol said:
modern peoples having the same hair style like ancient people, does not prove than the ancient people were related to the modern people.
Click to expand...

It does when there are racial differences in hair texture. You argument might have a point if all humans had the same hair. But we all know that one of the most distinguishing features in people of African descent is our hair texture which is much curlier and kinkier than any other group. This unique nature of our hair necessitated certain hairstyles if we wanted to keep our hair healthy and vibrant.

For example, everywhere in the world you find black people you'll see there's a culture around hair braiding. Why is hair braiding among afro peoples? Because it's the only way we can wear our hair down. Other races can braid their hair but you'll notice it's not ubiquitous because the nature of Caucasian and Asian hair is that as it grows longer it falls over your shoulders. Black peoples hair on the other hand as it grows longer just keeps growing upwards into an Afro. The only way for us to ever have our hair fall over our shoulders is to twist, braid, or lock it. This is why these hairstyles have lasted since the times of Ancient Egypt everywhere in the afro textured world.

So no you're totally wrong here with regard to black people. Our hairstyles have stood the test of time because they are solutions to unique problems given our unique texture. The fact Ancient Egyptians practiced the same hair culture as modern Africans is profound because it tells us they had the same unique hair texture that would have differentiated them for other non-black races the way modern black hairstyles differentiate us from non-black peoples.
 
#23,158
#23,158
Dobbs 4 Heisman,

I ultimately think that the argument about Egypt is never going to be proven. It is speculation on whether Egyptians in 3000 BC were black or Middle Eastern. I think it was a little of both personally. Egypt did interact with Ethiopia and Nubia which would have likely had black skinned people. They also interacted with the Levant and Mesopotamia where people looked Middle Eastern.

You are correct that there were some great African Civilizations that got ignored. Among them are Benin, classic Kingdom of Congo, Ethiopia/Axum, Nubia, Kush, Libya, Mali, Ghana, Songhai, Kilwa, and others.

Interestingly, a lot of these Civilizations were in decline or had collapsed when Colonialism started making things easier on Europeans. It didn't help that most of the Islamic West African Empires like the Mali and Songhai thrived on slavery. (Basically Africa was like anywhere else in the world where Civilized Societies would often attack and enslaved tribal societies in their region).

Not sure about Islamic culture. The Islamic "golden age" was primarily fueled by Christian Greeks and Syrians they had taken from the Byzantine Empire during the conquests of the Middle East (look it up). Islam to me, being political incorrect, was more of a blight on Africa and the Middle East. I think those regions would be more aligned and as advanced as Europe had the Byzantines and Sassanids smashed the Arabs. Then again, even the Byzantine Empire and Sassanid Persia had started to stagnate in the 6th Century.
 
#23,159
#23,159
KB5252 said:
They don't have to be a multicultural society to adopt knowledge and tech from others. You can gain it by conquering. You can gain it by trade. The fact they developed their own writing doesn't mean much to that end. There are a number of civilizations that developed their own writing and they all adopted and appropriated tech and knowledge from others.

They traded far and wide, they were not isolated. They traded with Asia, Southern Europe and Middle East. Knowledge goes both ways, others learned from them and they learned.
Click to expand...

What you're saying makes logical sense. All I'm saying is we have no evidence in the historical record. I've not come across Ancient Greek sources talking about aspects on Ancient Egyptian culture or technology they got from groups outside of the Nubians. I think the reason is because at this time Ancient Egypt was the world leader in practically everything technology and civilization wise. So it's likely the transfer of knowledge was one way if they were so far ahead of everyone else. And by the way according to the Ancient Greeks this was the case. The Ancient Greeks essentially gave the Egyptians credit for everything they knew.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KB5252 and volbound1700
#23,160
#23,160
Dobbs 4 Heisman said:
What you're saying makes logical sense. All I'm saying is we have no evidence in the historical record. I've not come across Ancient Greek sources talking about aspects on Ancient Egyptian culture or technology they got from groups outside of the Nubians. I think the reason is because at this time Ancient Egypt was the world leader in practically everything technology and civilization wise. So it's likely the transfer of knowledge was one way if they were so far ahead of everyone else. And by the way according to the Ancient Greeks this was the case. The Ancient Greeks essentially gave the Egyptians credit for everything they knew.
Click to expand...

The issue is that Greece wasn't fully writing stuff down until the Classic Age which was ~800 or so BC. The Pyramids were almost 2000 years old at that point.

By the time of Ptolemaic Rule, even the Egyptians had no concept of their ancestors and their society was already as "ancient" to them as Rome is to us today.

Crete/Minoan Civilization is believed to have gotten a lot of their ideas from Ancient Egypt.
 
#23,161
#23,161
volbound1700 said:
Dobbs 4 Heisman,

I ultimately think that the argument about Egypt is never going to be proven. It is speculation on whether Egyptians in 3000 BC were black or Middle Eastern.
Click to expand...

The thing is this. Everyone agreed Ancient Egypt was a black civilization before the 1800s. It was only after the eugenics movement and white supremacy took off in Europe that Ancient Egypt had to become non-black.

I'll give you one example. Go look up the genealogy of nations according to the Bible. In the Bible the different nations on earth are described as being descended from Noah's 3 sons: Shem, Japeth, and Ham. Shem is said to be the father of the Jews and Arabs (this where we get the term Semite from). Japeth is said to be the father of the white race (this included the Greeks and Persians). And finally Ham is said to be the father of the black race. One of Ham's sons is named Kush (this is the biblical name for Ancient Nubia). Another of Ham's sons was Mizraim (this is the biblical name for Ancient Egypt). Even today the Arab world calls Egypt "Masr" (which is the Arabic version of the biblical name.

In addition to the Bible, the Ancient Greeks similarly associated the Ancient Egyptians with only other Africans (in particular the Nubians). So despite what you might think, the idea of the race of the Ancient Egyptians being a mystery is a totally modern concept (primarily fueled by the fact Egypt is today occupied by the Arabs who conquered the country in the 7th century AD). Before the last couple of centuries everyone was in agreement it was a black African civilization.
 
#23,163
#23,163
volbound1700 said:
The issue is that Greece wasn't fully writing stuff down until the Classic Age which was ~800 or so BC. The Pyramids were almost 2000 years old at that point.

By the time of Ptolemaic Rule, even the Egyptians had no concept of their ancestors and their society was already as "ancient" to them as Rome is to us today.

Crete/Minoan Civilization is believed to have gotten a lot of their ideas from Ancient Egypt.
Click to expand...

I'm not denying others got knowledge from Egypt. All I'm saying is we have no records of a non-African transfer of knowledge into Ancient Egypt. Egypt seems to have been the first and then it spread elsewhere rather than the other way.
 
#23,164
#23,164
Dobbs 4 Heisman said:
I'm not denying others got knowledge from Egypt. All I'm saying is we have no records of a non-African transfer of knowledge into Ancient Egypt. Egypt seems to have been the first and then it spread elsewhere rather than the other way.
Click to expand...

Egypt got some ideas from Kushites, Libyans, Sumerians, etc. (Basically their neighbors, some being African).
 
#23,165
#23,165
Dobbs 4 Heisman said:
It does when there are racial differences in hair texture. You argument might have a point if all humans had the same hair. But we all know that one of the most distinguishing features in people of African descent is our hair texture which is much curlier and kinkier than any other group. This unique nature of our hair necessitated certain hairstyles if we wanted to keep our hair healthy and vibrant.

For example, everywhere in the world you find black people you'll see there's a culture around hair braiding. Why is hair braiding among afro peoples? Because it's the only way we can wear our hair down. Other races can braid their hair but you'll notice it's not ubiquitous because the nature of Caucasian and Asian hair is that as it grows longer it falls over your shoulders. Black peoples hair on the other hand as it grows longer just keeps growing upwards into an Afro. The only way for us to ever have our hair fall over our shoulders is to twist, braid, or lock it. This is why these hairstyles have lasted since the times of Ancient Egypt everywhere in the afro textured world.

So no you're totally wrong here with regard to black people. Our hairstyles have stood the test of time because they are solutions to unique problems given our unique texture. The fact Ancient Egyptians practiced the same hair culture as modern Africans is profound because it tells us they had the same unique hair texture that would have differentiated them for other non-black races the way modern black hairstyles differentiate us from non-black peoples.
Click to expand...
except that other ancients in the middle east did the same/similar brading. Gilgamesh was depicted with braided hair too. difference with him being facial hair, so again I am not claiming to know who they were, just pointing out your argument is flawed.

I haven't looked into it to know with any certainty, but I doubt there were many cultures at the time with advanced enough hair care where people were avoiding braids to say it was a uniquely African thing. yes Africans did it, but so did others, including some of their neighbors.
 
#23,166
#23,166
I feel like this debate about whether Egyptians were black or not is the same thing as the debate about Jesus. Jesus clearly didn't look fully Caucasian like pictures depict him today.

I think he was a little bit of both and that makes the ULTIMATE statement that we are all the same species.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vol since 77 and marcusluvsvols
#23,168
#23,168
Dobbs 4 Heisman said:
These DNA studies have been debunked for sampling bias. Essentially they only tested mummies from one location in northern Egypt that was known to be used by foreign occupiers like the Ancient Greeks during periods of non-native rule. And they didn't sample any remains from southern Egypt where the Pharaohs and Ancient Egyptian civilization as we know it originated.

It's sorta like if I tested the remains of graves in Harlem, NY during the Harlem Renaissance and said this proves that the Founding Fathers of America were of black African descent. It would be ludicrous.

Here's the AI breakdown of the study refuting the study you cited:

AI Overview

The Scheunemann et al. 2017 study, which analyzed ancient Egyptian DNA, has been criticized for its limitations in sampling methods, sample size, and the interpretation of comparative data. Specifically, concerns have been raised regarding the study's assertion that there was "no sub-Saharan genetic component" in the Egyptian population.

Here's a more detailed breakdown of the critiques:
  • Sampling Issues:
    The study focused on mummies from a single site in Middle Egypt, limiting its ability to represent earlier populations or those from Upper Egypt, which are geographically closer to Sub-Saharan Africa.

  • Small Sample Size:
    The 2017 study, while the largest on ancient Egyptians at the time, still relied on a small sample size.

  • Biased Interpretation:
    Critics argue that the study's authors may have biased their interpretation of the genetic data to fit their conclusions, particularly regarding the lack of a sub-Saharan genetic component.

  • New (Untested) Sampling Methods:
    The 2017 study employed a new, untested sampling method, raising concerns about its reliability.

  • Problematic Comparative Data:
    The comparative data used in the study were also questioned for their relevance and accuracy.
These criticisms have led some researchers to conclude that the Scheunemann et al. study's findings, while valuable, should be interpreted with caution and should not be taken as a definitive representation of the genetic history of ancient Egyptians.
Click to expand...
You don’t like the DNA results. That is known.

Oxford, Cambridge, CNN, Nature, and others all still have the study up.
Where is the link to it being “debunked”?

It sampled over 150 mummies - but sure… small sample size.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tbh
#23,171
#23,171
LouderVol said:
except that other ancients in the middle east did the same/similar brading. Gilgamesh was depicted with braided hair too. difference with him being facial hair, so again I am not claiming to know who they were, just pointing out your argument is flawed.

I haven't looked into it to know with any certainty, but I doubt there were many cultures at the time with advanced enough hair care where people were avoiding braids to say it was a uniquely African thing. yes Africans did it, but so did others, including some of their neighbors.
Click to expand...

I know. And those same groups were described by many as "black" including the Bible that listed Nimrod (King of Ancient Mesopotamia) as the son of Kush (biblical name for Ancient Nubia) and grandson of Ham ("father of the black race").

Also note the Ancient Greeks said the historical lands of the Ethiopians (aka black people) included the entire Arabian Peninsula as far north as Syria. So yeah the fact hair braiding was a big time in the "Middle East" back then is actually proof that you were dealing with a black people there as well. Which is attested to in ancient sources.
 
#23,172
#23,172
85SugarVol said:
You don’t like the DNA results. That is known.

Oxford, Cambridge, CNN, Nature, and others all still have the study up.
Where is the link to it being “debunked”?

It sampled over 150 mummies - but sure… small sample size.
Click to expand...

So you think because the media regurgitates a claim that makes it true? Guess you're still social distancing and wearing a mask for fear of dying.

The media likes sensationalist headlines. Also the idea of a non-black Ancient Egypt has been pushed for decades. The fact the media jumped on that faulty study makes sense. Nonetheless the counter arguments were made of the study and I don't see you responding to it.

Do you think one site in one part of Egypt from time periods when the Ancient Greeks ruled is sufficient for determining the racial makeup of 4000 years of native Egyptian rule? Also if you know anything about Ancient Egypt you would know the dynastic Egyptians originated near the south so if you wanted to actually know what the Ancient Egyptians DNA was like wouldn't it make sense to sample mummies from the south?

The thing is this. These researchers had a goal. They wanted to get the result they got. They specifically picked a sample that was not representative. That's what the other scientists criticized them for. Anyone who knows anything about Ancient Egypt knows you don't just seek a sample from one site when the Kingdom stretched across the entire country. You also don't pick a time period when we know foreigners ruled those parts and shared the graves with the native Egyptians.

If they actually sampled sites from across the entire country and during the early periods before foreigners ruled the country that would have made the study more accurate. But they didn't want to do that because if they did it might not have come back with the result they wanted.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dalton_vol
#23,175
#23,175
Dobbs 4 Heisman said:
So you think because the media regurgitates a claim that makes it true? Guess you're still social distancing and wearing a mask for fear of dying.

The media likes sensationalist headlines. Also the idea of a non-black Ancient Egypt has been pushed for decades. The fact the media jumped on that faulty study makes sense. Nonetheless the counter arguments were made of the study and I don't see you responding to it.

Do you think one site in one part of Egypt from time periods when the Ancient Greeks ruled is sufficient for determining the racial makeup of 4000 years of native Egyptian rule? Also if you know anything about Ancient Egypt you would know the dynastic Egyptians originated near the south so if you wanted to actually know what the Ancient Egyptians DNA was like wouldn't it make sense to sample mummies from the south?

The thing is this. These researchers had a goal. They wanted to get the result they got. They specifically picked a sample that was not representative. That's what the other scientists criticized them for. Anyone who knows anything about Ancient Egypt knows you don't just seek a sample from one site when the Kingdom stretched across the entire country. You also don't pick a time period when we know foreigners ruled those parts and shared the graves with the native Egyptians.

If they actually sampled sites from across the entire country and during the early periods before foreigners ruled the country that would have made the study more accurate. But they didn't want to do that because if they did it might not have come back with the result they wanted.
Click to expand...
Oxford & Cambridge are media… ok
 
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement

Back
Top