[Zyx]

noemon, you keep typecasting me as a doctrinaire.

I know what I quoted, and I am trying to interpret what I quoted. I'm not forwarding a position one way or another.

What I see is a people descended from East Africa being called Whites, and it's plain confusing to me.

On your request, I tried to search for the original figurine and looked into the paper where I got it from.

http://www.calumet.purdue.edu/mcnair/cynthia_research.pdf

Curiously, the source is always on the image that I showed you, but, more importantly, the paper addresses the Herodotus reference. Herodotus was from the 5th Century BC. Ancient Egypt was from 3000 BC. Intermarriages likely caused the lighter skin tone. The facial characteristics, though, were likely due to a mutation that occurred in Africa and Europe separately.

In this sense, it is unreasonable to call the Egyptians Caucasoids. Africoids would be more appropriate.

I realize that Africoid excludes Australoids, but as far as Anthropological sense is concerned, it's unreasonable to call the Egyptians Caucasoid given the Caucasoid association with the word "White" and that Caucasoid implies European origins [Caucus Mountains are in Georgia.]

The latest paper that I cite has the figure at the bottom, along with other figures of "Blackish" people. She shows images of Cleopatra and other Ancient Greek being portrayed as Anglo-Saxons, and this is her contention.

It's not so much that people want Egyptians to be Black insomuch as we know that they were not White and it is unreasonable to represent them as such.

--

But meh, I am tired of this conversation. I suppose that you, as a Greek person, would more prefer to be considered "White" than of a "Mediteranean Race" distinct from Whites. Therefore, you are attributing the Mediterranean features to Europe despite their likely origins in Africa. Whatever, to each his own.

I'm fairly certain that the Ancient Egyptians had dark, Black skin. Why? They came from East Africa and White Skin is due to a mutation in Europe. That Herodotus claims a lighter tan may be due to the different latitude or intermarriages.

Whatever, though, it's not important, really. Let's just shake hands and call it a day.

--

There is an awkward jump in predynastic Ancient Egypt from Negroes to "Mediterranean peoples" but no evidence for a mass migration. If this is just a mutation then I see no reason to not just call the Ancient Egyptians Black.

The separation between Blacks and Whites should be in the mutation that made for White skin.

[noemon]

know what I quoted, and I am trying to interpret what I quoted. I'm not forwarding a position one way or another.

What I see is a people descended from East Africa being called Whites, and it's plain confusing to me.

On your request, I tried to search for the original figurine and looked into the paper where I got it from.

http://www.calumet.purdue.edu/mcnair/cy ... search.pdf

Where is that figurine? In which tomb? From what Era? Does it even exist in archeology? Or is it just drawn?

Why is a Black-African the only valid and acceptable form of Egyptian art as your source claims? When the whole of Egyptian art has nothing to do with such a figurine?

Are you taking the piss?

Curiously, the source is always on the image that I showed you, but, more importantly, the paper addresses the Herodotus reference. Herodotus was from the 5th Century BC. Ancient Egypt was from 3000 BC. Intermarriages likely caused the lighter skin tone. The facial characteristics, though, were likely due to a mutation that occurred in Africa and Europe separately.

The source addresses the Herodotus reference? With the Black-African figurine? I believe you have entirely crossed the limits into fantasia. Mutation? Intermarriage? So Herodotus now that doesnt suit your case, is irrelevant when you yourself brought him forward. Whatever, it is obviously pointless, cause you are ready to claim whatever to stick to your guns.

I realize that Africoid excludes Australoids, but as far as Anthropological sense is concerned, it's unreasonable to call the Egyptians Caucasoid given the Caucasoid association with the word "White" and that Caucasoid implies European origins [Caucus Mountains are in Georgia.]

The latest paper that I cite has the figure at the bottom, along with other figures of "Blackish" people. She shows images of Cleopatra and other Ancient Greek being portrayed as Anglo-Saxons, and this is her contention.

It's not so much that people want Egyptians to be Black insomuch as we know that they were not White and it is unreasonable to represent them as such.

This whole thing is a straw-man that delineates your complexes towards "White". "Caucasoid includes the Middle-Easterners, the Mediterraneans, the Alpines, the Dinarics, the Nordics, the Indians. Egyptians are resembling Middle-Easterners, Medditereneans, Indians, and hence Caucasoid. They are not resembling Black-Africans.

But meh, I am tired of this conversation. I suppose that you, as a Greek person, would more prefer to be considered "White" than of a "Mediteranean Race" distinct from Whites. Therefore, you are attributing the Mediterranean features to Europe despite their likely origins in Africa. Whatever, to each his own.

That is the next step of the classic racist Afro-centrist; now Greeks were/are? Blacks as well, ofc Bernal's racist and ridiculous Black Athena has certainly taught you well, hasnt it?

And what are you rambling about myself?, I have already written that Greeks are/were predominantly Mediterraneans earlier in this debate. That Mediterraneans have anything to do with African Blacks is complete news to me.

And fyi, my concept of pride is not a racial one, we Greeks do not think in terms of "white", like the mish mash Americans do. And we draw pride only as far as our literature goes, anything outside our literature is irrelevant. We do not claim things through supra-groups, like "Europe", or "White", because we do not have to create such superficial groups to draw pride from, we only claim things Greek specifically and explicitly.

But anyhow, lets continue; so the attributes of this race:



Are Black-African? And not "White"? Am curious to see what else is Black-African which is according to you mutated Negroid. So this guy above is just a mutated Negro? Get it.

Moreover is this an admission that you are merely trying to re-invent Blackness and make the Black race feature these features so you can claim Egypt and other civilizations?

There is an awkward jump in predynastic Ancient Egypt from Negroes to "Mediterranean peoples" but no evidence for a mass migration. If this is just a mutation then I see no reason to not just call the Ancient Egyptians Black.

The separation between Blacks and Whites should be in the mutation that made for White skin.

These mutations take thousand of years, and ofc in a hot and sunny environment like the Egyptians one, if anything one will turn more dark, not whiter. Get a grip on yourself.

[Zyx]

The source is from : The painting is from the tomb of Ramses III (1200 BC) . . . (From K.R. Lepsius: Denkmaler aus Aegypten und Aethiopien, Erganzungsband, plate 48)

Why can't you just read the words underneath the image?

I am only reciting what I am reading on Herodotus. Clearly his account is late.

Moreover is this an admission that you are merely trying to re-invent Blackness and make the Black race feature these features so you can claim Egypt and other civilizations?

noemon, I have no agenda. I am merely looking at the history hidden in the states.

The Ancient Egyptians were Africans. I do not see a reason to consider them Whites.

Were the Ancient Greeks Africans as well?

:lol: These mutations take thousand of years, and ofc in a hot and sunny environment like the Egyptians one, if anything one will turn more dark, not whiter. Get a grip on yourself.

Mutations do not take thousands of years. Mutations have no timeline. Read the "White" skin, link.

[noemon]

The source is from : The painting is from the tomb of Ramses III (1200 BC) . . . (From K.R. Lepsius: Denkmaler aus Aegypten und Aethiopien, Erganzungsband, plate 48)

Why can't you just read the words underneath the image?

I am only reciting what I am reading on Herodotus. Clearly his account is late.

Why is this clearly Black-African figurine the only acceptable form of Egyptian art as your author claims? Havent you seen any Egyptian art and how rare such a figurine is? Why is this instead of "rare" in Egyptian art as it is, the most "prominent" and "representative" as your source claims? When mainstream Egyptian art has nothing to do with it?

Where is the rest of the art of the tomb? Surely this figurine does not stand on its own, there is a History in the depiction which your author neglects to mention, and hence my request for the source. The rest of the tomb, and this figurine inside it is what I request, not just a reference, ofc I saw that reference, but you clearly dont want to get what it is only logical to ask. The rest of the context, and the reason behind such ridiculous affirmations.

noemon, I have no agenda. I am merely looking at the history hidden in the states.

The Ancient Egyptians were Africans. I do not see a reason to consider them Whites.

Were the Ancient Greeks Africans as well?

The Greeks ruled Egypt for several centuries I guess that makes them African-non-whites too, according to your words. The Dutch are in South Africa, I guess that makes them African-non-whites as well. This African straw-man has been ridiculed pages ago, yet you assert at the absence of no other argument, like candy.

And dont play dum, you claimed above, that the Greeks are of the Mediterranean race, and that this race is African, that is "non-white", and that this race is merely a mutated Negroid race.

But meh, I am tired of this conversation. I suppose that you, as a Greek person, would more prefer to be considered "White" than of a "Mediteranean Race" distinct from Whites. Therefore, you are attributing the Mediterranean features to Europe despite their likely origins in Africa. Whatever, to each his own.

There is an awkward jump in predynastic Ancient Egypt from Negroes to "Mediterranean peoples" but no evidence for a mass migration. If this is just a mutation then I see no reason to not just call the Ancient Egyptians Black.

The separation between Blacks and Whites should be in the mutation that made for White skin.

So this guy:



Is just a Negroid with mutated skin? I get it, so Egyptians were just similar to this guy as you claim("dynastic era showing Egypt as Mediterraneans"), which "their original Negroid skin just mutated and their Negroid features mutated as well without any external migration, it was purely a Black-African affair". Yes, Kumatto, it all makes perfect and clear sense. Blacks went pale under the Egyptian sun, their noses contracted, and within a couple of decades, they had turned into the guy in the picture. Obviously, all the rest of us Mediterraneans are only pretending to be "white". The "hidden History" in America just doesnt let you succeed, without claiming Egyptians, and now Greeks and Romans. But you have no agenda, at the absence of any literature, nation, and ethnic-identity, pride can only come through such means. As your own source writes..."understandable"... but "not justifiable".

Mutations do not take thousands of years. Mutations have no timeline. Read the "White" skin, link.

I read the link, and it tells you exactly what I told you. That such a mutation will take place at the absence of sunlight, not at the presence as in Egypt, Greece, et al. It tells you that all our European descendants were "brown" and that 6000-12000 years ago when they migrated North, their skin paled. How does that support your argument is beyond me.

[Zyx]

noemon, just look at the appendix of the paper that I sent you. She showed more examples; I just showed that one because it's a hassle to copy and paste dozens of images when it's plain easy for you to just click the link and look at the appendix.

The Greeks ruled Egypt for several centuries I guess that makes them African-non-whites too, according to your words. The Dutch are in South Africa, I guess that makes them African-non-whites as well. This African straw-man has been ridiculed pages ago, yet you assert at the absence of no other argument, like candy.

I am basing the "Black-White" on Ancestry. I.e. all evidence points to the Egyptians as being from Africa.

But you have no agenda, at the absence of any literature, nation, and ethnic-identity, pride can only come through such means. As your own source writes..."understandable"... but "not justifiable".

Quit with the ad hominem. The Egyptians were from Africa, but were not Negroid. I just do not see how this is non-Black, is all.

It tells you that all our European descendants were "brown" and that 6000-12000 years ago when they migrated North, their skin paled. How does that support your argument is beyond me.

You misread this. The Europeans migrated out of Africa 40,000 years ago, but 12,000 years ago they began being White. That is, all Europeans were "Black" for 28,000 years. What you call "White" features are not "White" features but "Black" features given that White skin came after the facial features.

--

You keep misreading this. The Egyptians were a people from East Africa and not from Europe. "White" features are from Europe. "Black" features are from Africa. Therefore, the Egyptians were Black.

I am not pushing this for a sense of Pride. I actually like West African cultures more than I do Ancient Egyptian, I just simply can not see where this argument for Egyptians being White is coming from. Whiteness comes from Europe but the Egyptians did not.

[noemon]

noemon, just look at the appendix of the paper that I sent you. She showed more examples; I just showed that one because it's a hassle to copy and paste dozens of images when it's plain easy for you to just click the link and look at the appendix.

Listen you are getting very tiring, either answer the questions I asked you directly or dont answer at all, blathering that I simply fail to read your source, is pointless. Answer my questions, where is the rest of the tomb, what is the context, why is a Negroid Black-African figurine the most representative art form of Egyptian art, when a mere google images search on Egyptian art, will return nothing of the sort? Like Cynthia, you have crossed into fantasia of wishful thinking.

I am basing the "Black-White" on Ancestry. I.e. all evidence points to the Egyptians as being from Africa.

All evidence point to Egyptians not being Negroid Black Africans. Your Black-white straw-man is irrelevant as you are very much aware since these superficial things are American related, ie. in the US if you are from Europe you are white, if you are from Africa you are Black according to layman American street-standards. That is not an argument that applies to either ancient Egypt or to a fucking proper discussion. This is just desperate. African geography does not make one Black-African, especially when that one has not portrayed himself as such.

Quit with the ad hominem. The Egyptians were from Africa, but were not Negroid. I just do not see how this is non-Black, is all.

Oh quit the victimization, the reference is from your source which you utilized as well. And you started this game. The dynastic Egyptians were simply not African, to anything other than geography, phenotypically or racially they were not Black-African or Negroid as you have witnessed from the studies that you have posted. And from the trashing of the arguments that you have utilized.

You misread this. The Europeans migrated out of Africa 40,000 years ago, but 12,000 years ago they began being White. That is, all Europeans were "Black" for 28,000 years. What you call "White" features are not "White" features but "Black" features given that White skin came after the facial features.

You used this link to argue that Egyptians and other Mediterraneans mutated from Black to what they are in a period of a couple of decades from pre-dynasty to dynasty. The link says: "Our European ancestors were brown-skinned for tens of thousands of years, a suggestion already made 30 years ago by Cavalli-Sforza et al.." The link also says that the Northern Europeans turned pale due to the lack of Sun, while you claim that this mutation happened to Egyptians under the Egyptian sun and is what caused them to turn from Negroids to Mediterraneans.

So, now all Europeans are Africans and so you can claim all European civilizations. Get it.

You keep misreading this. The Egyptians were a people from East Africa and not from Europe. "White" features are from Europe. "Black" features are from Africa. Therefore, the Egyptians were Black.

I am not pushing this for a sense of Pride. I actually like West African cultures more than I do Ancient Egyptian, I just simply can not see where this argument for Egyptians being White is coming from. Whiteness comes from Europe but the Egyptians did not.

I am not misreading anything, obviously your desperation is irrevocable and you will parrot the straw-man about some "ancestry claimant", that is relevant in American streets to modern Americans and modern African Americans as the Holy-Grail of argument, when all the other arguments of yours have been rendered obsolete.

[Zyx]

Your use of the word layman and strawman are laughable, noemon.

I would address your separation of African Americans and Americans, and I would address your silly accusations of how I want to claim a history, but I'll let these two foolish statements slide.

I questioned a biologist today, and from what I understand the data is clear that the Egyptians were a people who migrated from East Africa to Egypt and sometime between predynasty and first dynasty a mutation occurred that changed their facial features to Mediterranean. That 'Mediterranean' is grouped under Caucasoid merely represents the arbitrary, and "Eurocentric" (of which you enjoy the 'piss'), definition of the races of which it is likely that a single mutation determines the difference. This mutation of the 'facial features' swept across Egypt but likely did not affect skin tone. If Egyptians were lighter than Ethiopians, then, it merely had to do with latitudinal selection and not different ancestry since anthropological evidence point out that there had been no external migration from either Europe or Asia to early Ancient Egypt. Not surprisingly, the Ethiopians, who the Egyptians claimed to be different from, are also, sometimes and especially today, classified as Caucasoid. So, I'd call the Egyptians Black, especially given the earlier art that likens them to the "Black" Ethiopians, but there is later art which suggests that they are more mixed. This mixture however likely occurred after the inception of Ancient Egypt and by around Herodotus' time accounted for a 'red skin tone.' This story seems flawless to me.

Your story of the initial Negroids being pushed out by another group of people is pure poppycock and worthless tripe that not only stinks of Eurocentricity but idiocy and historical irrelevancy as well.

For the last bloody time, I am not trying to claim anything here. I am just trying to learn the history of Ancient Egypt. I wonder if you would have claimed Herodotus as an Afrocentrist given his statements on Egypt and Ethiopia.

And, for the record, your request that I pull up what was in the tomb of Ramsus is plain ludicrous, and your hint of there being forged data is abominable. Look how many Ancient Egyptian sculptures were denigrated mostly for the purpose of hiding racial features and I never once accused them of being forgeries or intentional efforts as masking the truth. You (should) know as well as I do that the Eurocentric cause is quite intellectually deceitful.

Anyway, I printed the truth as far as the research here can tell. If you can not account for the lighter skin tone of Egyptians to be from Europe or Asia then you've no argument whatsoever on their lighter skin tone. Your later silliness with regards "What the Egyptian represented themselves as" is neither here nor there. If I were to represent someone darker than me as darker than me, it doesn't mean that I am "light like an Indian."

Anyway, I think that this puzzle was solved. I should ask one thing though. I hear that Imhotep is represented in Greece as a Black person. Is he "Brown" or "Black" in Greece?

[noemon]

Your use of the word layman and strawman are laughable, noemon.

I would address your separation of African Americans and Americans, and I would address your silly accusations of how I want to claim a history, but I'll let these two foolish statements slide.

No mate, your arguments are laughable. The fact is that you dont let them slide, you simply cant address them and neither are you inclined to concede, how ridiculous your argument on some European ancestry is, especially when you have agreed that the Egyptians were of the Mediterranean race.

I questioned a biologist today, and from what I understand the data is clear that the Egyptians were a people who migrated from East Africa to Egypt and sometime between predynasty and first dynasty a mutation occurred that changed their facial features to Mediterranean. That 'Mediterranean' is grouped under Caucasoid merely represents the arbitrary, and "Eurocentric" (of which you enjoy the 'piss'), definition of the races of which it is likely that a single mutation determines the difference. This mutation of the 'facial features' swept across Egypt but likely did not affect skin tone. If Egyptians were lighter than Ethiopians, then, it merely had to do with latitudinal selection and not different ancestry since anthropological evidence point out that there had been no external migration from either Europe or Asia to early Ancient Egypt. Not surprisingly, the Ethiopians, who the Egyptians claimed to be different from, are also, sometimes and especially today, classified as Caucasoid. So, I'd call the Egyptians Black, especially given the earlier art that likens them to the "Black" Ethiopians, but there is later art which suggests that they are more mixed. This mixture however likely occurred after the inception of Ancient Egypt and by around Herodotus' time accounted for a 'red skin tone.' This story seems flawless to me.

Your story of the initial Negroids being pushed out by another group of people is pure poppycock and worthless tripe that not only stinks of Eurocentricity but idiocy and historical irrelevancy as well.

Out of this whole verbiage tripe, which is the rationalization of an Afrocentrist layman in web-space, there is only one fact: That the dynastic Egyptians are factually Mediterraneans. Your mutations arguments, your Eurocentrism ad-homs of questioning as to why this is grouped under White and not Black, merely further demonstrate the desperation of your case. Fact is anthropologists have deemed dynastic Egyptians to belong to this group of phenotype. That is the only thing we both agree. Your attempt to render the guy in the link into Black-African, is laughable and ridiculous. Your whole mutation tripe is for the kindergarten. Your story seems flawless? And you claim that you are not an Afrocentrist with an agenda? You claim that a mutation occured that swept Egypt and changed their phenotypic features from Negroid to Mediterranean, sure mate whatever you say.

For the last bloody time, I am not trying to claim anything here. I am just trying to learn the history of Ancient Egypt. I wonder if you would have claimed Herodotus as an Afrocentrist given his statements on Egypt and Ethiopia.

Your omissions and misusing of Herodotus points of you being so. I caught you several times omitting important passages, or did you forget already? And Herodotus, did not call the Egyptians "black", as you witnessed already.

And, for the record, your request that I pull up what was in the tomb of Ramsus is plain ludicrous, and your hint of there being forged data is abominable. Look how many Ancient Egyptian sculptures were denigrated mostly for the purpose of hiding racial features and I never once accused them of being forgeries or intentional efforts as masking the truth. You (should) know as well as I do that the Eurocentric cause is quite intellectually deceitful.

You are being ridiculous once again, and re-translating of what I requested from you to pretend that I request "crazy stuff". Bring the rest of the context of the tomb, which is only logical. I also asked you why the heck is a Black-negroid figurine asserted as the only representative art form of Egypt, when its simply not? Oh, I get it because the Negroid art forms were intentionally defaced to steal that civilization from Black-Africans. Sure Kumatto.

And lastly, Afrocentrism is the one who blathers about Egypt by your own documents, Europeans do not claim civilizations through these definitions of "race", they claim what belongs to their ethnic-identity, not what belongs to their "race" except for Nordic neo-Nazis and mixed American laymen. I dont know of any European that claims the Egyptians as ancestors, through a racial argument, like the Afrocentrists do:

On the other hand, it is no more justifiable, however understandable it
might be, for the positions to be reversed and for people of African origins to lay
claims to status by virtue of a putative relationship with the creators of the ancient
cultural achievements in the valley of the Nile (Asante, 1990; Barringer, 1990;
Diop, 1955, 1981; Finch, 1985). In spite of his explicit denial, the most outspoken
supporter of the claim that ‘(ancient Egypt was a part of the Negro world” (Diop,
1968:24) cannot allay the suspicion that this stance may well be a case of “inverted
racism” (1968:23; and see Ortiz de Montellano, 1991, 1992).

Anyway, I printed the truth as far as the research here can tell. If you can not account for the lighter skin tone of Egyptians to be from Europe or Asia then you've no argument whatsoever on their lighter skin tone. Your later silliness with regards "What the Egyptian represented themselves as" is neither here nor there. If I were to represent someone darker than me as darker than me, it doesn't mean that I am "light like an Indian."

You are simply blathering, you are aware that dynastic Egyptians are classified under the Mediterranean race, which is a brownish Caucasoid race. You are aware that several ancient authors talk about Egyptians and Indians resembling each other both in phenotype and skin-colour. You are aware that Egyptians themselves are distinguished from Nubians. And you parrot till the end of time, about a mutation that transformed Egyptians from Negroid to Mediterraneans.

From this:



To this:



And all that happened under the Egyptian sun from pre-dynasty to dynasty. And all that was a purely Black-African affair.

Then, in turn you lay claim as Black all these people that look like the above, such as Greeks, Italians, Spanish, Southern French, etcetera.

You are completely desperate Kumatto, even more so when you explicitly recognize that the dynastic Egyptians are indeed found to be Mediterraneans, while you try to convince yourself that the Mediterraneans such as the guy above are not "White" and that it is a conspiracy and should be grouped under "Black".

There is no argument left that is going to convince a person like yourself. You have crossed the line into fantasia and the flying spaghetti monster.

Anyway, I think that this puzzle was solved. I should ask one thing though. I hear that Imhotep is represented in Greece as a Black person. Is he "Brown" or "Black" in Greece?

How the fuck should I know? Bring over what you hear, and we 'll see what it is.

[Zyx]

This is a stupid discussion to be had.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Badarian#cite_note-2

http://wysinger.homestead.com/badari.pdf

The Predynastic Egyptians comprised the Badarian (see above), Amratean and Naqada I from East Africa. These people were dissimilar to Negroids and like "Elongated Negroids." You call these people Mediterranean because your ancestors were "Elongated Negroids" who mixed with Northern Europeans and developed a whiter skin tone (hence the relation to Caucas.) This, however, does not bear on the population of Egyptians who had much less intermixing with the Europeans. These Egyptians, instead, while elongated like you, were darker because they were not mixing with Europeans or Asians.

http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0000/000060/006038EB.pdf

That's the end of the story. This discussion is over. You can not refute this and even refuse to acknowledge biology and anthropology. You do not believe in mutations, and you arbitrarily assign "elongated negroids" to "caucasoids" and it's plain stupid. I'm done.

If you want life advice, I'll tell you that, from your performance here, you do not ever need to buy a helmet. Good day, noemon!

[noemon]

This is a stupid discussion to be had.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Badarian#cite_note-2

http://wysinger.homestead.com/badari.pdf

The Predynastic Egyptians comprised the Badarian (see above), Amratean and Naqada I from East Africa. These people were dissimilar to Negroids and like "Elongated Negroids." You call these people Mediterranean because your ancestors were "Elongated Negroids" who mixed with Northern Europeans and developed a whiter skin tone (hence the relation to Caucas.) This, however, does not bear on the population of Egyptians who had much less intermixing with the Europeans. These Egyptians, instead, while elongated like you, were darker because they were not mixing with Europeans or Asians.

Nothing in what you posted, says that these pre-dynastic particular people are regarded Mediterraneans by anybody. They are regarded Africans according to your links. Get out of the trip. The straw-men and the conspiracies. The dynastic Egyptians on the other hand are regarded Mediterraneans and not Black-Africans. To argue that the Mediterraneans are mutated Black-Africans, is as ridiculous as arguing that the Nordics or the Alpines are mutated Black-Africans. To say that the mutation took place from pre-dynasty to dynasty is flat-out desperate without any external interference, being completely an "African" affair, and without any biological study saying that this is even possible, or that it might even had happened in that time and in that place. You got nothing, you ve been playing a guitar without strings, and closing your eyes due to conspiracy theories. You found a link that says tha the Caucasoid race was originally brown like the Mediterraneans, and that the Nordics turned pale very recently due to the lack of the sun, and you magically apply that to this case, when the whole thing is flat out ridiculous. It doesnt even touch the phenotype but only the skin, and the skin due to the lack of Sun, where in Egypt is abundant. Its crystal obvious that you are completely out of reality.

That's the end of the story. This discussion is over. You can not refute this and even refuse to acknowledge biology and anthropology. You do not believe in mutations, and you arbitrarily assign "elongated negroids" to "caucasoids" and it's plain stupid. I'm done.

If you want life advice, I'll tell you that, from your performance here, you do not ever need to buy a helmet. Good day, noemon!

Denying your pathetic and desperate argument that this:


Turned to this:



Is not denying "anthropology" and "biology", but defending anthropology and biology against your ludicrous and fantastic claims.

You argue that from the pre-dynasty times to the dynasty times the person in figure A simply transformed overnight to the person in figure B without anything external but from within the Black community, according to your genius. While, you do not have any whatsoever biological or anthropological argument arguing anything remotely similar. You are hallucinating. And that is definitely the end of the story.

You want to live in a world where all races are merely mutated Blacks, and as such whatever these non-Black people have achieved can be rendered Black, out of virtue. *Earth to Kumatto...wake up*. If you want to take pride in your ancestors..locate your tribe in Africa, learn its language, its history, stick to it.

[NoRapture]

Now, what the Hell kind of convoluted obscurity have you two led this thread down? Jesus.

[Zyx]

noemon, I can not see your first image, you may link it, and your second image is clearly someone who had European descent: it's irrelevant.

Furthermore, the change from 'brown' to White skin is not necessarily 'brown' as in middle eastern. There is nothing that suggests as much. All "Blacks" have "brown" skin.

You simply do not understand biology, and you can not seem to get it through your head that I do not have an agenda in this discussion. Why you insist on ad hominem and accusing me of an agenda is beyond me.

I do not take pride in history. I do not take pride in traditions. I am not trying to gain 'pride.' Also, for the record, don't call every area in Africa a 'tribe.' That's just wrong headed and stupid.

You just do not understand evolution and it's plain annoying.

You can keep repeating yourself and you can keep being wrong, but it's not important to me.

If you want to take the Whitest Mediterranean person and claim him to be most similar to the Ancient Egyptians then be my guess. You have no reason to say as much and it's plain silly that you'd waste my time in saying as much.

You just don't understand evolution. That's your problem.

And seriously, genius, quit accusing me of having an agenda. For one thing, I do not. For another thing, it's fully irrelevant if I did have one.


Again, in this conversation, I will bring the scholarship and the insight. Read the following:

--

This is from the paper on clines and clusters that you love citing (with unjustifiable and understandable--you did not even bother to read it despite citing it maybe five times to no avail), page 17-18. Read and shut up. It's evolution, and you just don't get it. Mediterranean just did not appear out of the air. The elongated nose is explained hereafter in terms of air moisture and what have you. The distinction between Negroid and Caucasoid is arbitrary and clinal.

Traits under selective force control
The most immediately obvious and visible of that set of traits is skin color, and
it is the one that classically has been used as a designation of “race.” The very term
“Negro,” for example-the Spanish word for black-was intended to indicate a
person with a visible concentration of the pigment melanin in the skin. Melanin,
however, serves as protection against the potentially damaging effects of solar
radiation (Parrish et al., 1978; Robins, 1991; and see the papers in Urbach, 1969),
and selection can lead to similar degrees of its concentration in the skin of people
in different parts of the world who, because of geographic separation, do not share
the quantity of adaptively trivial genetic features usually held in common by
relatives and neighbors.
The elongation of the distal segments of the limbs is also clearly related to the
dissipation of metabolically generated heat. Since heat stress and latitude are
clearly related, one would expect to find a correlation between the two sets of traits
that are associated with adaptation to survival in areas of great ambient temper-
ature-namely skin color and limb proportions. This is clearly the case in such
areas as equatorial Africa, the tropical portions of South Asia, and northern Aus-
tralia, although there is little covariation with other sets of inherited traits. In this
regard, it is interesting to note that the limb proportions of the Predynastic
Naqada people in Upper Egypt are reported to be “super-negroid,” meaning that
the distal segments are elongated in the fashion of tropical Africans (Robins and
Shute, 1986). It would be just as accurate to call them “super-Veddoid or “super-
Carpentarian” since skin color intensification and distal limb elongation is appar-
ent wherever people have been long-term residents of the tropics. The term “super-
tropical” would be better since it implies the results of selection associated with a
given latitude rather than the more “racially loaded” term “negroid.”
Nasal bridge elevation and elongation is also a trait influenced by the forces of
selection. These are related to the relative lack of moisture in inspired air (Glan-
ville, 1969). That in turn is only very tenuously determined by the intensity of
solar radiation. Air in tropical deserts, of course, is obviously arid, but cold air in
the less insolated parts of the world also has a notably reduced moisture carrying
capacity, and one would expect to find a discernible development of the anatomical
features associated with the moistening of inspired air in those people whose an-
cestors were long-time residents in the colder parts of the world. This is indeed the
case as is shown by the examples of the members of the European and Amerind
clusters (Brace and Hunt, 1990). We would not expect this kind of adaptation to be
selected for in the moist tropics such as West Africa and the Congo basin, and
there, as anticipated, we can note the absence of nasal elevation and elongation.
The East Horn of Africa, however, is another situation entirely. Like much of the
Arabian peninsula and the Sahara itself, it is very dry. Solar radiation is intense,
and we would expect to find an increased amount of melanin in the skin of the
long-term residents of the equatorial portion of that area. We would also expect
them to display a degree of nasal elevation and elongation unlike that of the
long-term residents at the same latitude but in the moist tropics to the west. This
in fact is the case, as we can demonstrate with our own measurements. When the
non-adaptive aspects of of craniofacial configuration are the basis for assessment,
the Somalis cluster with Europeans before showing a tie with the people of West
Africa or the Congo basin.
An earlier generation of anthropologists tried to explain face form in the Horn
of Africa as the result of admixture from hypothetical “wandering Caucasoids,”
(Adams, 1967, 1979; MacGaffey, 1966; Seligman, 1913, 1915, 19341, but that ex-
planation founders on the paradox of why that supposedly potent “Caucasoid”
people contributed a dominant quantity of genes for nose and face form but none
for skin color or limb proportions. It makes far better sense to regard the adap-
tively significant features seen in the Horn of Africa as solely an in situ response
on the part of separate adaptive traits to the selective forces present in the hot dry
tropics of eastern Africa. From the observation that 12,000 years was not a long
enough period of time to produce any noticeable variation in pigment by latitude
in the New World and that 50,000 years has been barely long enough to produce
the beginnings of a gradation in Australia (Brace, 1993a1, one would have to argue
that the inhabitants of the Upper Nile and the East Horn of Africa have been
equatorial for many tens of thousands of years. On the other hand, the residual
similarity between the craniofacial configurations of the Somalis with people far-
ther north suggests that genetic exchange has been more continuous than ex-
change with peoples farther west in sub-Saharan Africa.
Jaw and tooth size are also under selective force control and have a separate
evolutionary trajectory that has nothing whatsoever to do with either solar radi-
ation or ambient humidity. One would expect their distribution in the world to be
independent of the distribution of skin color and nose form, and this is in fact the
case (Brace, 1993a,d). Elsewhere it has been shown that dental reduction since the
end of the Middle Pleistocene is proportional to the antiquity of the technology
associated with the preparation of food (Brace, 1979; Brace et al., 1987) and that
the time depth of this is different in different parts of the world, which is why there
is a spectrum of tooth-size difference among modern human populations (Brace,
1993c; Brace et al., 1991). Most of our sub-Saharan African samples fall into the
“megadont” category used by Flower to indicate relative tooth size (Brace and
Hunt, 1990; Brace et al., 1991; Flower, 1885), but the Somalis from the Horn of
East Africa sit right on the dividing line between “mesodont” and “microdont.”
Evidently the ancestors of the Somalis had long been associated with food prepa-
ration practices that reduced the selective force intensity maintaining tooth size.
This is consistent with the possibility that the Ethiopian highlands were the locale
of one of the ancient and semi-independent centers of plant domestication (Harlan,
1969, 1971; Harlan et al., 1976; Stemler, 1980; Vavilov, 1951).
Adaptively trivial traits and regional clusters
It is essential, at this point, to make the distinction between traits whose man-
ifestation and distribution are principally determined by natural selection and
those which are simply indicators of genes that are shared because of regional
proximity (Brace, 1993a). Of the various traits assumed to be present in the “true
Negro,” skin color, lower limb attenuation, nose form, and tooth and jaw size are
certainly under selective force control. The first two, skin color and limb elonga-
tion, are adaptations to the intensity of solar radiation-the first directly so and
the second indirectly. Since this is so clearly the case, we should expect those two
traits to covary, as indeed they tend to do, throughout the world.
Evidently, traits that are distributed in conjunction with the graded intensity of
their controlling selective forces will be poor indicators of population relationships
(Darwin, 1859). This is the logic behind Livingstone’s classic phrase, “There are no
races, there are only clines” (Livingstone, 1962:279). The use of a characterization
of a single trait that is under selective force control to generalize about any par-
ticular human population can only create confusion. This then will be the inevi-
table consequence of the use of a description of skin color to say anything about the
general nature of human biological variation. The use of the designation “black” in
America today to specify a person of African ancestry is the most flagrant example.
In the first place, although human skin color may be very dark, it is never black.
Furthermore, “black” Americans almost always have a non-African genetic com-
ponent and are rarely as dark as their African ancestors. Finally, skin color in such
places as southern India, Melanesia, and the northern part of Australia is every bit
as dark as it is in “darkest Africa,” and yet the time depth of the separation of those
various “black populations may well be greater than the time of the divergence of
the ancestors of Europeans from African forebears.

Now, it's not a wonder whether the ancestors of these people were Europeans or Africans. Their ancestors were Africans. As to their skin color, it was a gradation from North to South--natural selection--so, given their lack of influences from Europe (which possessed the "White" gene--a gene present in ~100% of Whites but no Africans or Asians), I'd call the population Black (on that genetic basis) and just on the genetic basis. Not to fit an agenda. It's just proper to call people without possession of a "White" gene either Asian or Black. Here I just choose Black since their skins varied from Sub-Saharan to Equatorial which is in the "Black" range.

The skin color cline in the Nile Valley
The control of traits that are determined by the forces of selection and are of
adaptive value, however, is not simply a reflection of the frequency of genetic
exchange. In these instances, the gene flow between one region and another is
sufficient to make available the genetic potential for selection to operate and to
produce the gradients in adaptive traits that pass from one geographic region to
another without any break. The best studied example of this phenomenon is the
distribution of hemoglobin S in conjunction with the distribution of falciparum
malaria (Livingstone, 1958, 1989a,b). The covariation of skin color and the inten-
sity of the ultraviolet component of solar radiation is another such example. The
distribution of malaria, however, is not determined by the intensity of ultraviolet
radiation. Consequently the distribution of hemoglobin S is completely unrelated
to the distribution of melanin in the skin.
For these reasons, we agree with Bernal when he speaks of the “dubious” utility
of the concept of “race” and that it is based more on human mental constructs than
on biological reality (Bernal, 1987, 1989). However, we can use our data to take
issue with his claim that “it is impossible to achieve any anatomical precision on
the subject” of the biological relationships of the ancient Egyptians. Because we
had too few Neolithic Greek specimens and no recent samples from Greece or the
adjacent Balkan countries, we are not in a position to test Bernal’s suggestion that
the emergent Greek cultural phenomenon owed an important debt to the actual
movement of people from Egypt to the Aegean (Bernal, 1987), although there is no
reason why our procedures cannot be applied to provide a direct test of this ques-
tion when the relevant samples are measured and assessed. Actually, the fact that
so many European Neolithic groups in Figure 4 tie more closely to the Late Dy-
nastic Egyptians near the Mediterranean coast than they do with modern Euro-
peans provides suggestive support for an eastern Mediterranean source for the
people of the European Neolithic at an even earlier time level than Bernal sug-
gests for the Egyptian-Phoenician colonization and influence on Greece early in
the second millennium BC (Ammerman and Cavalli-Sforza, 1973, 1979; Bernal,
1987:2; Cavalli-Sforza et al., 1993; Sokal et al. 1991).
Since our data are exclusively measurements on skulls, we can say nothing
about the evidence concerning the skin color of their owners when they were alive.
Our information on that score comes from the reports of Herodotus and from the
inscriptions and pictures of the ancient Egyptians themselves (Herodotus, 1924;
Snowden, 1970,1976,1983; Vercoutter, 1976). From what we can learn from these
various sources, and taking account of the shades assigned by the artistic conven-
tions of the Egyptians to depict male and female appearance (Yurco, 1989), it
would appear that skin color in ancient Egypt was essentially the same as it is
today.
Dark skin color is an indicator of long-term residence in areas of intense solar
radiation, but it cannot help distinguish one tropical population from another.
There is the very real possibility, for example, that the darker skin pigmentation
visible in the people of the Upper Nile is not caused by the mixing of a population
that came from somewhere else. Instead, it could just be the result of selection
operating on the people who were already there, as has been suggested by those
who have argued for the continuity of human biological form through time in
Nubia (Adams, 1979; Batrawi, 1946 [in marked contrast to 19351; Berry et al.,
1967; Carlson and Van Gerven, 1977,1979; Greene, 1966,1972; Van Gerven, 1982;
Van Gerven et al., 1973). With the relatively tentative exception of the Epipaleo-
lithic at Wadi Halfa, our own data are comfortably compatible with a picture of
long-term local regional continuity. That would make the skin color gradient run-
ning from Cairo via Khartoum 1,600 km to the south and deep into the tropics an
example of a true cline (Huxley, 1938). This would lead us to agree with Trigger
that the attempt to assign the people of the Nile valley to “caucasoid” and “ne-
groid” categories is ((an act that is arbitrary and wholly devoid of historical or
biological significance” (Trigger, 1978:27).

The same paper addresses what I've been saying, and what you should have been listening to. You see, in this conversation, you were the thick headed, unscholarly and "agenda'd" one. I have pointed out that the facial features in the Egyptians originated in Africa and are not European--you insist that a mixture between northern Europeans and Northern Africans like in the Greek is a representation of the Egyptians being White but it's stupid and small-minded, to say the least. I will admit to not knowing that the facial features were a selection to moisture, but now I do. I simply wanted to know this much. You maliciously and senselessly accuse me of having an agenda but what I had is properly called an inquiring nature and scholarship. Your lack of as much should not be your basis for insulting me.

Now buzz off. We advanced the conversation from "Herodotus said" (according to this paper, Herodotus may have also said that the tombs had Negro features which is something that I am just saying to add to the knowledge bank of the thread and not to forward an agenda--I'm not biased, OK? I'm just showing what is said and what is known. SHEESH!) Into the science that says that the Egyptians were Negroids who adapted to a different climate and lattitude and eventually became what is characterized today as Mediterranean. If you can not buy this then you probably have no possessions other than gifts. Seriously, to oppose the mutation idea at this point is just idiotic to the lowest order. I was right all along (with the mutation) and you were wrong all along (saying that it was not), admit it and move on.

Now, what the Hell kind of convoluted obscurity have you two led this thread down? Jesus.

noemon was just apologizing to me and leaving the thread with his head in shame.

[noemon]

noemon, I can not see your first image, you may link it, and your second image is clearly someone who had European descent: it's irrelevant.

http://racialreality.110mb.com/racesofm ... egroid.jpg

The only thing irrelevant is your inability to understand that the person in the second picture, is the prototype upon which anthropological research is based. When anthropologists measure crania, noses, and other phenotypic features and come to the conclusion that the Egyptians were Mediterraneans, they mean that they resembled the features of the person in the picture. Your inability to understand that much is obvious and testament to either the ability of your intellectual faculties or your agenda of closing your eyes to things that dont fit your agenda, which is most likely since you ahve been caught omitting passages from studies, ancient authors, modern authors and etcetera.

Furthermore, the change from 'brown' to White skin is not necessarily 'brown' as in middle eastern. There is nothing that suggests as much. All "Blacks" have "brown" skin.

You simply do not understand biology, and you can not seem to get it through your head that I do not have an agenda in this discussion. Why you insist on ad hominem and accusing me of an agenda is beyond me.

I do not take pride in history. I do not take pride in traditions. I am not trying to gain 'pride.' Also, for the record, don't call every area in Africa a 'tribe.' That's just wrong headed and stupid.

You just do not understand evolution and it's plain annoying.

You can keep repeating yourself and you can keep being wrong, but it's not important to me.If you want to take the Whitest Mediterranean person and claim him to be most similar to the Ancient Egyptians then be my guess. You have no reason to say as much and it's plain silly that you'd waste my time in saying as much.

You just don't understand evolution. That's your problem.

And seriously, genius, quit accusing me of having an agenda. For one thing, I do not. For another thing, it's fully irrelevant if I did have one.


Again, in this conversation, I will bring the scholarship and the insight. Read the following:

What are you blathering? Will you post any biology to argue how that woman in the picture turned to the guy in the other picture through a mutation, indigenously, inside Africa and without any external interference? Or do you actually believe that your empty rhetoric resonates anywhere other your imagination?

Every area in Africa? Since when are areas, tribes? The fact that you get insulted by that merely, further demonstrates your complexes. As for me understanding evolution, get real. Your humiliation in several occasions in this thread is wondrous.

This is from the paper on clines and clusters that you love citing (with unjustifiable and understandable--you did not even bother to read it despite citing it maybe five times to no avail), page 17-18. Read and shut up. It's evolution, and you just don't get it. Mediterranean just did not appear out of the air. The elongated nose is explained hereafter in terms of air moisture and what have you. The distinction between Negroid and Caucasoid is arbitrary and clinal.

So genius, what is it exactly from that quote, that renders this:

http://racialreality.110mb.com/racesofm ... egroid.jpg
into this?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... edrace.JPG

The fact that Egyptians were the second is agreed upon, the only thing we argue is whether the entire Mediterranean race should be classified under "Black" instead of "White". And your attempt to do just that is just LULZ worthy.

Now, it's not a wonder whether the ancestors of these people were Europeans or Africans. Their ancestors were Africans. As to their skin color, it was a gradation from North to South--natural selection--so, given their lack of influences from Europe (which possessed the "White" gene--a gene present in ~100% of Whites but no Africans or Asians), I'd call the population Black (on that genetic basis) and just on the genetic basis. Not to fit an agenda. It's just proper to call people without possession of a "White" gene either Asian or Black. Here I just choose Black since their skins varied from Sub-Saharan to Equatorial which is in the "Black" range.

What a load of bollocks, first of all you change argument like candy, you are incompetent of following a line of thought, and as soon as one of your arguments is rendered obsolete you jump into an entirely different frame of reference in order to run around in circles and obfuscate as much as you can, here you have posted verbiage against the concept of race in general, that renders both white and black inappropriate yet you still stick to "Black", allegedly because of a black gene now, in the previous post it was because of some "European ancestry", in the previous because of Herodotus, in the previous because I dont know what. Your desperation is profound and laughable. The Ancient Egyptians are found to be resembling phenotypically the Mediterraneans(which is the guy in the picture as the prototype upon which measurement is based) according to anthropology, and according to genetics they are closest to the modern Egyptians as we have already seen from the previous links. Neither are Black-African or Negroid. This in normal circumstances should just be conclusive, especially when your other little arguments have been rendered obsolete as well, just as ancient references of them being Black, or artistic depiction. But we all know that Kumatto, is a special case.

In essence we have gone through the anthropological argument, the genetic argument, the art agument, and the ancient witness argument, and we have found none fitting with a Black hypothesis, except from the geography being African.

Anthropology finds them Mediterraneans which unfortunately for you and your desperate methods is classified under the "white" races. Genetics found them closer to Middle-easterners like modern Egyptians which also belong to the "white races", ancient witnesses resemble them to Northern Indians who also belong to the "white races". Their art is not Negroid, they themselves clearly separate themselves in their art from Black-Africans. You have brought forward links that tell you that the Blackness of Egyptians is modern inverse racist phenomeno of African-Americans. You have brought as evidence the man whom the Academic community laughs at for some years now, Bernal. Yet you are still here, trying to re-classify races, or if that fails deny the frame of reference of race which you 've been arguing all along.

The same paper addresses what I've been saying, and what you should have been listening to. You see, in this conversation, you were the thick headed, unscholarly and "agenda'd" one.

The same paper addresses nothing of what you ve been saying and that allegedly "I am not listening". And your accusation is flat-out ridiculous.

I have pointed out that the facial features in the Egyptians originated in Africa and are not European--you insist that a mixture between northern Europeans and Northern Africans like in the Greek is a representation of the Egyptians being White but it's stupid and small-minded, to say the least.

You are hallucinating as usual. I have said nothing of the sort, and neither have I said that Greeks are a mixture of Europeans and North Africans. You are hallucinating, mate. The Egyptians by your own admission have been found to be Mediterraneans, Mediterraneans belong to the Caucasoid race, whether you agree with it or not. Bernal has been trashed in the Academic community by Dr Mary Lefkowitz and his revisionist work is classified as "refuted" in Academia. Your Afrocentrist attempts spearheaded by Bernal to claim Greeks and Romans as well as Egyptians as Black-originated was the laughing stock as it still is of Academia.

I will admit to not knowing that the facial features were a selection to moisture, but now I do. I simply wanted to know this much. You maliciously and senselessly accuse me of having an agenda but what I had is properly called an inquiring nature and scholarship. Your lack of as much should not be your basis for insulting me.

So you stick to your ridiculous gun? That the phenotypic features of Mediterranean people are Black which have mutated? And that the Egyptians mutated from Negroids to Mediterraneans during the decades from pre-dynasty to dynasty? And that the rest of Mediterraneans are simply the offspring of these Black mutants?

And am the one, who has an agenda? Dont say any further, its crystal clear to anybody, that your situation is irrevocable.

Now buzz off. We advanced the conversation from "Herodotus said" (according to this paper, Herodotus may have also said that the tombs had Negro features which is something that I am just saying to add to the knowledge bank of the thread and not to forward an agenda--I'm not biased, OK? I'm just showing what is said and what is known. SHEESH!) Into the science that says that the Egyptians were Negroids who adapted to a different climate and lattitude and eventually became what is characterized today as Mediterranean. If you can not buy this then you probably have no possessions other than gifts. Seriously, to oppose the mutation idea at this point is just idiotic to the lowest order. I was right all along (with the mutation) and you were wrong all along (saying that it was not), admit it and move on. noemon was just apologizing to me and leaving the thread with his head in shame.

After I ridiculed you in the beginning with Herodotus and then again and again, I will continue ridiculing you, and your ludicrous ideas about mutants, and mutations which exists solely in your imagination, and that cause your attitude is just and has been since this page flat-out annoying.

[Zyx]

Are you kidding me?


noemon, seriously, what's your agenda?

I changed my 'line of argument' because I never had a 'line of argument,' I was reading the evidence and coming to conclusions thereafter. That my conclusion does not change from the dark pigmentation is due to their being no evidence against the dark pigmentation (they were after all at the same latitude for dark skin.)

I acknowledge that the facial features were changed, but I showed you why. If you can not accept the passage that I provided, then you simply do not understand 'biology.'

This conversation is over.

For the record, I still can not load your picture, the host for it is not a good one.

Nasal bridge elevation and elongation is also a trait influenced by the forces of
selection. These are related to the relative lack of moisture in inspired air (Glan-
ville, 1969). That in turn is only very tenuously determined by the intensity of
solar radiation. Air in tropical deserts, of course, is obviously arid, but cold air in
the less insolated parts of the world also has a notably reduced moisture carrying
capacity, and one would expect to find a discernible development of the anatomical
features associated with the moistening of inspired air in those people whose an-
cestors were long-time residents in the colder parts of the world. This is indeed the
case as is shown by the examples of the members of the European and Amerind
clusters (Brace and Hunt, 1990). We would not expect this kind of adaptation to be
selected for in the moist tropics such as West Africa and the Congo basin, and
there, as anticipated, we can note the absence of nasal elevation and elongation.
The East Horn of Africa, however, is another situation entirely. Like much of the
Arabian peninsula and the Sahara itself, it is very dry. Solar radiation is intense,
and we would expect to find an increased amount of melanin in the skin of the
long-term residents of the equatorial portion of that area. We would also expect
them to display a degree of nasal elevation and elongation unlike that of the
long-term residents at the same latitude but in the moist tropics to the west. This
in fact is the case, as we can demonstrate with our own measurements. When the
non-adaptive aspects of of craniofacial configuration are the basis for assessment,
the Somalis cluster with Europeans before showing a tie with the people of West
Africa or the Congo basin.

Your Mediterranean features are a selection factor to the moisture of the air. It's not unique to "Whites" but to people of arid regions. Hence why the Greek and the Egyptians have the same facial characteristics. This is not an example of similar ancestry, just similar climate. This is called mutations. This is called evolution.

Let's stop talking. You just don't understand evolution and natural selection. You're a creationist, apparently.

Yes, the original people were probably negroids who through natural selection in different climates became the diverse people that we see today.

I am not claiming pride, I am claiming history.

Call it a fantasy to think that we all are descendants from the people of Africa, but call yourself a creationist, too.

We're done. You were wrong, read what I cited instead of typing back more bollocks. Peace!

[noemon]

Are you kidding me?

noemon, seriously, what's your agenda?

Dig deeper your delusions. Its your problem.

I changed my 'line of argument' because I never had a 'line of argument,' I was reading the evidence and coming to conclusions thereafter. That my conclusion does not change from the dark pigmentation is due to their being no evidence against the dark pigmentation (they were after all at the same latitude for dark skin.)

No mate you have made a conclusion that Egyptians were Black-African Negroids, and you have been trying to prove it unsuccessfully ever since. You have utilized every possible argument, ancient authors which you misquoted, anthropological studies which told that they were not, genetics studies which also told you that much. And your last argument is that we should either re-classify races and put Mediterranean under Black or deny the concept alltogether. The reason why you change the frame of reference alltogether is because in the frame of reference that this discussion was taking place(.ie accepting mainstream anthropometric classifications as basis), you failed, and you had to change the frame(into "the classifications we 've been arguing are inapplicable, but mine is still the one") to continue posting because you are deeply convinced, and because Egypt has become part of your "being" or history as you just called it. Despite the fact that you most probably have no connection to her. Your historical connection is so superficial based not on nation, ethnic-identity, historical memory or even oral tradition, but to your "colour" which even that has been connected to ancient Egyptian skin erroneously through a modern and recent manufactured narrative.

I acknowledge that the facial features were changed, but I showed you why.

You did not show anything. Your whole argument is the argument of an Afrocentrist layman on the internet and has no basis on biology.

This conversation is over.

For the record, I still can not load your picture, the host for it is not a good one.

This conversation has been over a long time now. And for a picture use your own picture against that of the Mediterranean one.

Your Mediterranean features are a selection factor to the moisture of the air. It's not unique to "Whites" but to people of arid regions. Hence why the Greek and the Egyptians have the same facial characteristics. This is not an example of similar ancestry, just similar climate. This is called mutations. This is called evolution.

Let's stop talking. You just don't understand evolution and natural selection. You're a creationist, apparently.

This does not show that either are/were Black people. That mutation your link speaks of is as relevant to the Mediterranean as it is to the Nordic and to the Alpine. It does not support your argument that either of them were Black. You argue that this mutation occurred while the Egyptian civilization was being built and consequently the people who built it were Black who while building it mutated to Mediterraneans without anything external, which is profoundly ridiculous, and has no whatsoever basis in biology. Your quote says that Eastern African Somalis demonstrate some Caucasoid features such as an elongated nose due to natural selection over the course of many years. The problem for you is that these Somalis are not classified Mediterraneans, unlike the ancient Egyptians who are. Do you understand the weight of this statement? or do you require extra analysis?

Also, your latest allusions that all White people are Black even if the mutation occurred say 10 thousands years before Egypt was even founded, and that these people still count as Black-African Negroids is not an argument.
That mutation to occur from pre-dynasty to dynasty and change the whole population from Negroid features to Mediterranean features within the territorial borders of a State while not do the same in the surrounding territory is an argument as pathetic as pathetic can get. It doesnt go more ridiculous than that. And ofc you have no biology to back it up, and stop pretending that you do. Your fantasy is not shared. As for your recent attempt of trying to "hug" the Greeks as well in your fantasia..I can only laugh out loud. Try arguing that the Greek statues are actually Negroid mutant statues, so that the comedy can run full circle.

And as for me understanding evolution, get over yourself. You have been ridiculed profoundly. The fact that you have to re-define race as a whole to make your argument is testament of your desperation. And the fact that the Somalis are not classified Mediterraneans anthropologically like the ancient Egyptians are, despite the natural selection elongated mutation your quote speaks should be enough to tell you that, this mutation is not enough to explain the Mediterranean anthropometric classification of Egyptians.

I am not claiming pride, I am claiming history.
Call it a fantasy to think that we all are descendants from the people of Africa, but call yourself a creationist, too.
We're done. You were wrong, read what I cited instead of typing back more bollocks. Peace!

Sure since the homo-whateverus originated in Africa we are all Black-Africans Negroids that pose to be white. Its all that simple. You should have stated that from the start and save yourself the added ridiculation. Ofc such a statement bears no relevance as to what the Egyptians who founded dynastic Egypt were, just like it bears no relevance to what the Etruscans who founded Rome were, or the Germans who founded Hamburg or the Russians who founded Kiev and so on and on. Even if these people were Black African hundreds of thousands of years ago, it doesn't mean that when they founded their civilizations they were still Black-Africans. Creating fantasies is certainly "creationism" and you should look into that.

You claim History! you say....to claim history you have to have historical records of your own delineating the history of your people. Not go back in time racially and claim the whole of the planet by virtue of...what? Your colour? How pathetic. Only neo-Nazi Nordics do that, mixed modern Americans, and racist African-Americans, nobody else, because all the rest have their own individually national/ethnic/tribal histories to read and narrate to their people. Not the others just because their colour happened to be similar, which in your case with Egyptians, not even that is even the case!

[Zyx]

noemon, you're ridiculous. Quote me once for saying that the Egyptians were Negroid.

Otherwise apologize for the strawman.

Furthermore, the Ethiopians were classified as Caucasoid. Look it up.

http://carnby.altervista.org/troe/11-01.htm

That is the first source under the wikipedia entry of Caucasoid. i.e. the indiginous populations of even the Horn of Africa are considered Caucasoids.

The rest of your post is a waste of time. You do not seem to understand natural selection and even now are accounting physical features to outside influences!

You argue that this mutation occurred while the Egyptian civilization was being built and consequently the people who built it were Black who while building it mutated to Mediterraneans without anything external,

Seriously, you plainly do not understand that some physical features have natural benefits and therefore they can develop independently around the world. Just like how moles can select slender bodies and hard beaks for burrowing and humans can select lighter skin for cooler climates, the 'Mediterranean feature' does not require Mediterranean domination in order for the features to dominate, since this would require the world to already have had a Mediterranean population to dominate another type.

I am not 'debating' you, I am telling you what the answer is.

That you do not think that evolution can occur in humans is a testament of your ignorance. This conversation is over. You lost the discussion. I never claimed the Egyptians to be Negroids and I never claimed pride for the Egyptian melanin amount. I merely questioned whether the Egyptians had dark skin and I found out that they had. It's beneficial for them to have darker skin and therefore they had it.

I should remind you once more, the Ethiopians are classified as Caucasoids. The description of the Somali is at the border of Negroid and Caucasoid.

This conversation is over. You came in closeminded and only criticized my openmindedness. You've added nothing to the exploration of the Egyptian color and only lifted a useless picture--bah, I'd rather not continue wasting my time on your idiocy. You do not believe in evolution. You even mention that the Egyptians should have been dark skin given their latitude, yet refuse to imagine them as much. Your position is silly and useless. Skin color is a function of latitude. Therefore, the Egyptians were Black. I do not say "Negroid," but "Black." Also, I am not claiming the Egyptians, but correctly categorizing their complexion.

I made some errors in the beginning of the discussion, yes, but now the errors belong to you, and unlike you while I was wrong, I am right and urge you to be quiet as you have outlived your insight for the discussion.

[noemon]

noemon, you're ridiculous. Quote me once for saying that the Egyptians were Negroid.

Otherwise apologize for the strawman.

So, what are arguing all this time, that the Egyptians were not Black-African? Get real Klammato. You are a waste of time and space. Or that Negroid is not the only variety of Black-African? And that there is also Caploid? Or your personal newfound and invented race the "Mediterranean Black", encompassing Egyptians, Somalis and Ethiopians?

And me to apologize for a straw-man? your whole position is a straw-man.

Furthermore, the Ethiopians were classified as Caucasoid. Look it up.

http://carnby.altervista.org/troe/11-01.htm

That is the first source under the wikipedia entry of Caucasoid. i.e. the indiginous populations of even the Horn of Africa are considered Caucasoids.

Your source does not say that the Ethiopians are classified as Caucasoid. Are you still hallucinating? And , wikipedia says they are African hybrids. Their "white characteristics" are attributed to admixture. Not helping your case here. In fact destroying your case here.

"The present composition of the Ethiopian population is the result of a complex and extensive intermixing of different peoples of North African, Near and Middle Eastern, and south-Saharan origin. The two main groups inhabiting the country are the Amhara, descended from Arabian conquerors, and the Oromo, the most important group among the Cushitic people. ... The genetic distance analysis showed the separation between African and non-African populations, with the Amhara and Oromo located in an intermediate position."
(De Stefano et al. 2002)

Seriously, you plainly do not understand that some physical features have natural benefits and therefore they can develop independently around the world. Just like how moles can select slender bodies and hard beaks for burrowing and humans can select lighter skin for cooler climates, the 'Mediterranean feature' does not require Mediterranean domination in order for the features to dominate, since this would require the world to already have had a Mediterranean population to dominate another type.

And you clearly are not willing to get, that such a mutation requires many years and does not explain that the Black pre-dynastic inhabitants merely mutated to Mediterranean dynastic inhabitants of Egypt.

I am not 'debating' you, I am telling you what the answer is.

That you do not think that evolution can occur in humans is a testament of your ignorance. This conversation is over. You lost the discussion. I never claimed the Egyptians to be Negroids and I never claimed pride for the Egyptian melanin amount. I merely questioned whether the Egyptians had dark skin and I found out that they had. It's beneficial for them to have darker skin and therefore they had it.

I should remind you once more, the Ethiopians are classified as Caucasoids. The description of the Somali is at the border of Negroid and Caucasoid.

This conversation is over. You came in closeminded and only criticized my openmindedness. You've added nothing to the exploration of the Egyptian color and only lifted a useless picture--bah, I'd rather not continue wasting my time on your idiocy. You do not believe in evolution. You even mention that the Egyptians should have been dark skin given their latitude, yet refuse to imagine them as much. Your position is silly and useless. Skin color is a function of latitude. Therefore, the Egyptians were Black. I do not say "Negroid," but "Black." Also, I am not claiming the Egyptians, but correctly categorizing their complexion.

I made some errors in the beginning of the discussion, yes, but now the errors belong to you, and unlike you while I was wrong, I am right and urge you to be quiet as you have outlived your insight for the discussion.
noemon, you're ridiculous. Quote me once for saying that the Egyptians were Negroid.

Ridiculous, not "Negroid", but "Black"..sure...and no you did not make errors, you were doing intentional propaganda, you were nit-picking statements and hiding the context in order to argue, that the Egyptians were Black. You were doing propaganda, what you were doing was not a mistake, you were transforming the context to suit your case, intentionally. As for me denying evolution, I can only laugh out loud, I have not anywhere said that such mutations cannot occur, I have denied your generalized assumptions that such mutations pertain to this particular case and are enough to explain the divergence from pre-dynasty to dynasty due to a mutation..why? Because its ridiculous and because an Afro-centrist apologist argues so...not any scientist, get over yourself from thinking that your assumptions represent the "science" or "biology". It is plain obvious, that you will say anything to pretend that you have an argument in order to invent a straw-man.

Facts:

a) Egyptians were dark, not Black.
b) Egyptians are anthropologically categorized to the Mediterranean race.

Klammato argues:

"The Mediterraneaness of Egyptians is an evolutionary process from Black to Mediterranean. If you put Negroids in Egypt, due to natural selection, their noses will become elongated, and their skin will turn paler, and thus they will resemble due to natural selection alone the Mediterraneans." OK, dear Klammato, now prove that this is exactly what happened from pre-dynasty to dynasty to the population of Egypt and thus these are not really Mediterraneans but mutated Black-Africans.

That something like that might have happened to humans several hundred thousand years ago is possible and probable, but that this is what happened to "Black-African" Egyptians and transformed them from "Black" to Mediterranean so recently and so fast is ludicrous, unscientific and ridiculous.

This argument leaks from all sides Kumatto, and is ofc an argument of yours and not of "science", you have found that a couple of mutations can occur according to natural selection(like a paler skin and an elongated nose), but you have not found that these mutations pertain to this particular case. The time required from pre-dynasty to dynasty is insufficient to explain this phenomenon. The elongated nose is not the only Mediterranean feature distinguishing the Mediterranean race. And there is no anthropologist that argues anything similar to have happened to Egyptians. Even your latitude-skin argument is ridiculous, that a Black-African will turn paler under the Egyptian sun. And ofc, neither do you have any science to back this claim up as pertaining to this particular case, you are just throwing whatever you can come up with, up in the air.


As I ve told you numerous pages ago:

This guy attempts to allude that many of these Caucasoid features can also be Black, and not just "White" without particularizing specifically the error, he alludes that an "elongated facial feature" that is rendered as "Mediterranoid" and as "White" in Academia should not be excluded from the "Negroid traits" as particularly "White", but he does not revise those particular studies to accommodate that revision, and consequently demonstrate that even if this parameter is taken to be Black entirely, the conclusions change. In other words, he speaks on the air and is ofc "revising" mainstream academia, that is a far-cry from your claim that mainstream studies show the Egyptians to be Black, and that it is "racist" to claim otherwise.

Do you understand? You do not have any studies that merit a revision of the antropological classification.

Correctly "categorizing their complexion"? You are an Afrocentrist apologist who finds that his "History is in danger", who is keen to do propaganda, you are a refuted lad who is desperate. And if you find any errors to me, quote them. And lastly these are the mainstream academic facts:

a) Egyptians were dark, not Black.
b) Egyptians are anthropologically categorized to the Mediterranean race.
c) The Mediterranean race is a sub-division of the "white" races.

Invent whatever you like to claim the Egyptians, these facts are solid and that you will go at lengths to redefine racial categories entirely and put Mediterraneans or these particular Mediterraneans under "Black" is testament to your desperation. This whole discussion is ridiculous, when we both have agreed on par with academia that the Egyptians were Mediterraneans. That the Mediterraneans are a subdivision of the Caucasoid race, and not of any Black race is an obvious fact which only fantastic racialists like yourself are keen to dispute.

Learn when a discussion is indeed over. Now, go break another computer.

[Zyx]

You are being ridiculous noemon. Every source says that there was no migration to account for the Egyptian countenance and that the ancestors of the Egyptians was from East Africa: these people had 'caucasoid' features despite negroid ancestry.

You can say that, that makes them "White" but that is simply the use of an archaic and awkward formulation for the races. Close negroid ancestry and no admixture with Europeans should mean "Black" and not "White" but whatever. I do not care. The simple fact is, though, that there is no historical data suggesting European ancestry for the Egyptian peoples. If this doesn't make them Black Africans then I do not know what does.

[noemon]

You are being ridiculous noemon. Every source says that there was no migration to account for the Egyptian countenance and that the ancestors of the Egyptians was from East Africa: these people had 'caucasoid' features despite negroid ancestry.

You are the one who is being ridiculous. And there is no account about the ancestors of Egyptians, either from East Africa or from anywhere. The place of origin of Egyptians is a mystery. That there were before the Egyptians, black people living in a pocket of Egypt, does not make them the ancestors of Egyptians, this is mere conjecture.

You can say that, that makes them "White" but that is simply the use of an archaic and awkward formulation for the races. Close negroid ancestry and no admixture with Europeans should mean "Black" and not "White" but whatever. I do not care. The simple fact is, though, that there is no historical data suggesting European ancestry for the Egyptian peoples. If this doesn't make them Black Africans then I do not know what does.

This is wishful thinking. The fact is Egyptians are found in anthropology to be of the Mediterranean race, and that race is a sub-division of the Caucasoid race. All the rest are just conjecture and wishful thinking. In fact there is a hell of lot of evidence that the Egyptians were not Black-Africans since when the represented themselves and the Black-Africans around them, one can see a wide divergence in both colour and characteristics.

[Zyx]

I can not see how I am being unreasonable here.

IF the Egyptians had East African ancestors, a high melanin count and little to not intermarriages with Europeans, you'd still consider them White?

Yes or no?

The truth is that this is the case, but I can not tell if you are ignorant of this or if you are simply saying that they are White despite this.