Historical Argument That Was In the Wrong Forum

[Sirsquier]

Alright guys let's continue this historical and ethnic debate on the right forum

 

[The Civs 6]

That guy pulled the Egyptians were black card (a ridiculous myth that few if any Egyptologists believe), which should render his credibility moot and his agenda obvious. Honestly, he takes the kind of awfully wrong position that is rarely corrected or even vigorously contested in online debate because it aligns with the American political consensus.

Even politically it's a bizarre argument. The Egyptians by the time of Caesar were, you might call it, culturally western, thanks to the forced Hellenization of their empire. But they were not, again using these categories, ethnically Western. So all that argument does is diminish the status of an ethnicity that isn't really white. So in order to get to the Egyptians were black bolstering its advocates' bizarre ideology, you first have to get to the point where you are calling Egyptians white to create the contrast. Which itself steps on an ethnicity that is definitely distinct from the "white" Roman and Greeks, let alone the white Anglos, Germans, and Scandinavians.

Anyone who buys into this theory is a nut job, and it casts serious doubt upon any of their other beliefs.

 

[Henri Christophe]

That guy pulled the Egyptians were black card (a ridiculous myth that few if any Egyptologists believe), which should render his credibility moot and his agenda obvious. Honestly, he takes the kind of awfully wrong position that is rarely corrected or even vigorously contested in online debate because it aligns with the American political consensus.

About Egypt,
I read it in the Unesco book, General History of Africa.
https://en.unesco.org/general-history-africa
Brazilian governement put all this book in Portuguese for free download, I don't know where you can Download it for free in your language.


As this Book teach me in the old old kingdom the Egyptian was black and call they self Khmer, who means coal. White scholars said Egypt call him self Khmer because have too many coal, black historians will say Egypt call him self Khmer because they are black in old old kingdom.

I will read it again just to remember better this book argues.

Even politically it's a bizarre argument. The Egyptians by the time of Caesar were, you might call it, culturally western, thanks to the forced Hellenization of their empire. But they were not, again using these categories, ethnically Western. So all that argument does is diminish the status of an ethnicity that isn't really white. So in order to get to the Egyptians were black bolstering its advocates' bizarre ideology, you first have to get to the point where you are calling Egyptians white to create the contrast. Which itself steps on an ethnicity that is definitely distinct from the "white" Roman and Greeks, let alone the white Anglos, Germans, and Scandinavians.

Anyone who buys into this theory is a nut job, and it casts serious doubt upon any of their other beliefs.

At the time of Ceaser lifes the Egyptians as already more white
The old old kingdom was around 2686 BC – circa 2181 BC. This is the time when the Egyptians was black, after came some invasions from Middle East and start to mix race born.

 

[The Civs 6]

About Egypt,
I read it in the Unesco book, General History of Africa.
https://en.unesco.org/general-history-africa
Brazilian governement put all this book in Portuguese for free download, I don't know where you can Download it for free in your language.


As this Book teach me in the old old kingdom the Egyptian was black and call they self Khmer, who means coal. White scholars said Egypt call him self Khmer because have too many coal, black historians will say Egypt call him self Khmer because they are black in old old kingdom.

I will read it again just to remember better this book argues.

I mean this is something being published by a political organization (the UNESCO website proudly talks about how it included "artists" in this project), it really doesn't compare to the serious work that is done by academics who have to fact check, face peer review, etc. All of that weighs against the afrocentric theory of Egypt. This includes DNA analysis. This points to Egyptians being the same ("non-white") ethnicity as they are today.

Scholars have concluded that the reference to "kmt" as the name of their homeland is actually a reference to the black colored, fertile soil of the Nile.

Ultimately one scholar concludes that black Americans (in the continental sense of the word, rather than America as a country) who claim a black Egypt are creating a "therapeutic mythology" but they aren't talking about real history.

 

[Henri Christophe]

I mean this is something being published by a political organization (the UNESCO website proudly talks about how it included "artists" in this project), it really doesn't compare to the serious work that is done by academics who have to fact check, face peer review, etc.

Unesco sponsor black historians to speak about black history. I guess this Unesco book is made 60% by Africans, 30% by Black-Americans and just a few are not black.
When White Man write Africa history, they often will miss telling something, the best example is the Zimbabwe, as Guandao said, even in Civilization 6 still speaking about Zimbabwe as be maid by the queen of Sheeba, a racist version of the history made by British scholars to justify white colonialism.

All of that weighs against the afrocentric theory of Egypt. This includes DNA analysis. This points to Egyptians being the same ("non-white") ethnicity as they are today.

I don't believe in that, any DNA can survive so long to be possible to do a DNA analysis about the ethinicit of Egypt in old old kingdom. * 2686 BC – circa 2181 BC
But, I would like to see if you have a font about that.

Scholars have concluded that the reference to "kmt" as the name of their homeland is actually a reference to the black colored, fertile soil of the Nile.

In this Unesco book, they will say this interpretation is a racist interpration to justify white colonialism.

Ultimately one scholar concludes that black Americans (in the continental sense of the word, rather than America as a country) who claim a black Egypt are creating a "therapeutic mythology" but they aren't talking about real history.

Isn't a Therapeutic Mythology, all people on earth have, at least, 5 thousand years of heritage.
White man heritage is linked with Rome, Greece, Phonencia, Babylon, Persia.

Black man heritage is linked with Africa, the Egypt is formed by people who lives next to the Nile river, this people come from Upper Nile, from Ethiopia, from Uganda.
When the Saara become a desert, Egypt also receive migration people from nowadays Libia.

I agree is hard to know for sure how look like the Pharaos, but, we know they call himself KMT, who means coal (who is a black stuff), they live in Africa, the black continent. They live next to the Nile river, as Nubia, Ethiopia and Uganda. And all survive images look like africans. (And most of old old kingdom statues are in black stone)

Maybe, the therapeutic mythology is believe an African kingdom was white.

 

[The Civs 6]

You know shooting down every scholarly finding as "racist" and holding up a single source, published by a political organization, in a document that does not appear to be peer reviewed, is not a great way to develop credibility.

It's a shame because there is real history of "black" Africa out there for there to be discovered, instead of this pseudoscience.

Unesco sponsor black historians to speak about black history. I guess this Unesco book is made 60% by Africans, 30% by Black-Americans and just a few are not black.
When White Man write Africa history, they often will miss telling something, the best example is the Zimbabwe, as Guandao said, even in Civilization 6 still speaking about Zimbabwe as be maid by the queen of Sheeba, a racist version of the history made by British scholars to justify white colonialism.

By white men I assume you mean scholars who dedicate their whole lives to history, as compared to well, politicians and amateurs. I'll take them over people who are basically just making stuff up.

I don't believe in that, any DNA can survive so long to be possible to do a DNA analysis about the ethinicit of Egypt in old old kingdom. * 2686 BC – circa 2181 BC
But, I would like to see if you have a font about that.

I think when there is, you know, physical evidence that suggests ethnic continuity, the burden is now on you to prove that there was any sort of discontinuity.

In this Unesco book, they will say this interpretation is a racist interpration to justify white colonialism.

well first of all I'm not sure what white colonialism there is left to justify. there are no longer any colonies. So why are historians still using this alleged myth? For fun? Or perhaps because there has been no credible evidence to suggest otherwise?

Isn't a Therapeutic Mythology, all people on earth have, at least, 5 thousand years of heritage.
White man heritage is linked with Rome, Greece, Phonencia, Babylon, Persia.

Black man heritage is linked with Africa, the Egypt is formed by people who lives next to the Nile river, this people come from Upper Nile, from Ethiopia, from Uganda.
When the Saara become a desert, Egypt also receive migration people from nowadays Libia.

I agree is hard to know for sure how look like the Pharaos, but, we know they call himself KMT, who means coal (who is a black stuff), they live in Africa, the black continent. They live next to the Nile river, as Nubia, Ethiopia and Uganda. And all survive images look like africans. (And most of old old kingdom statues are in black stone)

Maybe, the therapeutic mythology is believe an African kingdom was white.

I have no idea what you are talking about here. I dunno if it's the language barrier, but most of this is complete nonsense to me. But if you asked me what that guy looked like, frankly I'd say he looked Middle Eastern - gee like an Egyptian man.

So you people (and by you people, I mean amateur scientists and politicians - it appears that no mainstream scientists believe these views) have to show strong evidence (stronger than "this statute vaguely resembles a black man") that there were black people in Egypt. Then you have to show why these people were ethnically replaced by the current ethnicity. Keep in mind that, in the history of the world, despite all the conquests there are very few situations of actual ethnic replacement. Even in England, conquered by the Romans, Anglo Saxons, Vikings and then the Normans, genetic analyses have found surprisingly little genetic discontinuity.

 

[Henri Christophe]

You know shooting down every scholarly finding as "racist" and holding up a single source, published by a political organization, in a document that does not appear to be peer reviewed, is not a great way to develop credibility.

Why Unesco book isn't a good source?
It have more credibility than a Britannica enciclopedia.

And Unesco was just the sponsor, the book was made by scholars.

By white men I assume you mean scholars who dedicate their whole lives to history, as compared to well, politicians and amateurs. I'll take them over people who are basically just making stuff up.

No, by White man I mean scholars who was sponsored by European governement to study Africa history.
Most by British and French governement who have colonies around the world untill today and many African countries still dependent to British and French interests.
British and French army still around Africa, Africa isn't already totally free of last century colonialism.

I think when there is, you know, physical evidence that suggests ethnic continuity, the burden is now on you to prove that there was any sort of discontinuity.

The ethinicity from the person in a territory can change in the time. Think about USA.
Around 1200 was indigenous, around 1700 is white and now it have so many Philipines XD

well first of all I'm not sure what white colonialism there is left to justify. there are no longer any colonies. So why are historians still using this alleged myth? For fun? Or perhaps because there has been no credible evidence to suggest otherwise?

Angola war of Independence just over in 2002, the colonialism is a very recent history.

I have no idea what you are talking about here. I dunno if it's the language barrier, but most of this is complete nonsense to me. But if you asked me what that guy looked like, frankly I'd say he looked Middle Eastern - gee like an Egyptian man.

So you people (and by you people, I mean amateur scientists and politicians - it appears that no mainstream scientists believe these views) have to show strong evidence (stronger than "this statute vaguely resembles a black man") that there were black people in Egypt. Then you have to show why these people were ethnically replaced by the current ethnicity. Keep in mind that, in the history of the world, despite all the conquests there are very few situations of actual ethnic replacement. Even in England, conquered by the Romans, Anglo Saxons, Vikings and then the Normans, genetic analyses have found surprisingly little genetic discontinuity.

If you don't understand me, you can read thie Unesco source. I will try find other sources to you latter.
But, I will said it again.
Egypt was black in old old kingdom, around 2686 BC – 2181 BC. After this period start migration of Semitic people to Egypt and the society start to mix up.
2000 years of mixing races when Cleoptra born, in fact, Cleoptra was white, but she born more than 2000 years after the foundation of Egypt.
Just think about USA, is the USA ethinicity the same in the last 2000 years? You don't think ethinicity can change again in the next 2000 years?



Just to finish, a image from the New Kingdom c. 1550 BC – c. 1069 BC
They are already very mixed. It is possible to see two kind of Black people, the Nilotic (very Black) and the Afro-Asiatic. Who still Black, but seems a bit more a white man, a mix race.

10 Arguments That Prove Ancient Egyptians Were Black (African)
Original URL for this article: http://atlantablackstar.com/2013/10/25/10-arguments-that-proves-ancient-egyptians-were-black

Even today, a significant number of mainstream Egyptologists, anthropologists, historians and Hollywood moviemakers continue to deny African people’s role in humankind’s first and greatest civilization in ancient Egypt. This whitewashing of history negatively impacts Black people and our image in the world. There remains a vital need to correct the misinformation of our achievements in antiquity.

Senegalese scholar Dr. Cheikh Anta Diop (1923-1986) dedicated his life to scientifically challenging Eurocentric and Arab-centric views of precolonial African culture, specifically those that suggested the ancient civilization of Egypt did not have its origins in Black Africa.

Since some people continue to ignore the overwhelming evidence that indicates ancient Egypt was built, ruled, and populated by dark-skinned African people, Atlanta Blackstar will highlight 10 of the ways Diop proved the ancient Egyptians were Black.



Physical Anthropology Evidence
Based on his review of scientific literature, Diop concluded that most of the skeletons and skulls of the ancient Egyptians clearly indicate they were Negroid people with features very similar to those of modern Black Nubians and other people of the Upper Nile and East Africa. He called attention to studies that included examinations of skulls from the predynastic period (6000 B.C.) that showed a greater percentage of Black characteristics than any other type.

From this information, Diop reasoned that a Black race existed in Egypt at that time and did not migrate at a later stage as some previous theories had suggested.



Melanin Dosage Test
Diop invented a method for determining the level of melanin in the skin of human beings. Melanin is the chemical responsible for skin pigmentation and it is preserved for millions of years in the skins of fossil animals.

Diop conducted the melanin test on Egyptian mummies at the Museum of Man in Paris, and determined the levels found in the dermis and epidermis of a small sample would classify all ancient Egyptians as “unquestionably among the Black races.”



Osteological Evidence
According to Diop, osteological measurements (analysis of bones) are perhaps the least misleading of the criteria accepted in physical anthropology for classifying the races of men. A first study of this kind was completed by a German archeologist Karl Richard Lepsius at the end of the 19th century. The Lepsius canon, which distinguishes the bodily proportions of various racial groups, categories the “ideal Egyptian” as “short-armed and of Negroid or Negrito physical type.”



Evidence From Blood Types
Diop found that even after hundreds of years of intermixing with foreign invaders, the blood type of modern Egyptians is the “same group B as the populations of Western Africa on the Atlantic seaboard and not the A2 group characteristic of the white race prior to any crossbreeding.”



The Egyptians as They Saw Themselves
Diop noted that “Egyptians had only one term to designate themselves: KMT, which literally means ‘the Blacks.’ This is the strongest term existing in the Pharaonic tongue to indicate blackness.”

He added: “The term is a collective noun which thus described the whole people of Pharaonic Egypt as a Black people.”

For further evidence, Diop focused on both the monuments and how the ancient Egyptians represented themselves in their art.



Cultural Unity of Egypt With The Rest of Africa

Diop found that in ancient Egypt there existed “African cultural commonalities” of matriarchy, totemism, divine kinship, and cosmology.”

Through a study of circumcision and totemism, he offers detailed data on the cultural unity between Egypt and the rest of Africa. He noted: “Historians are in general agreement that the Ethiopians, Egyptians, Colchians, and people of the Southern Levant were among the only people on earth practicing circumcision, which confirms their cultural affiliations, if not their ethnic affiliation.”

He added: “The Egyptian style of (adolescent) circumcision was different from how circumcision is practiced in other parts of the world, but similar to how it is practiced throughout the African continent.”



Divine Epithets
Diop also demonstrates that “Black or Negro” was a divine epithet invariably used to refer to the chief benevolent gods of Egypt, while evil spirits were depicted as red. InEurasian culture, good is described as white and evil as black.



Evidence From the Bible
Diop wrote: “The Bible tells us that ‘…the sons of Ham [were] Cush and Mizraim [i.e. Egypt], and Phut, and Canaan. And the sons of Cush; Seba, and Havilah, and Sabtah, and Raamah and Sabtechah.”

According to biblical tradition, Ham was the father of the Black race. Diop asserted that “generally speaking, all Semitic tradition (Jewish and Arab) class ancient Egypt with the countries of the Blacks.”



Linguistic Unity With Southern and Western Africa
In a detailed study of languages, Diop illustrated the strength of the cultural ties between ancient Egypt and its African neighbors by comparing the Egyptian language with Wolof, a Senegalese language spoken in West Africa near the Atlantic Ocean.

Diop clearly demonstrates that ancient Egyptian, modern Coptic of Egypt, and Wolof are related, with the latter two having their origin in the former.

“The kinship between ancient Egyptian and the languages of Africa,” Diop wrote in the General History of Africa, “is not a hypothetical but a demonstrable fact which it is impossible for modern scholarship to thrust aside.”

He believed the kinship to be genealogical, and he provided examples:

In ancient Egyptian “kef” means “to grasp, to take a strip (of something)”; in Wolof it means “to seize a prey.”

“Feh” means “go away” in ancient Egyptian; in Wolof it means “to rush off.”

To further demonstrate similarity between the two languages, Diop also examined verb forms, demonstratives, and phonemes. The results, he found, showed little difference between the two.





Testimony of Classical Greek and Roman Historians
Virtually all of the early Latin eyewitnesses described the ancient Egyptians as black-skinned with woolly hair. Several ancient Greek historians noted that Egyptians and Ethiopians had complexions that were “melanchroes,” which most scholars translate as black, while some scholars translate it as “dark” or “dark skinned.”

Some of the most-often quoted historians are Diodorus Siculus and Herodotus.

According to most translations, Herodotus wrote that a Greek oracle was known to be from Egypt because she was “black,” that the natives of the Nile region are “black with heat,’ and that Egyptians were “black skinned with woolly hair.”

Diodorus Siculus wrote that the Ethiopians considered the Egyptians their colony.

Lucian observes an Egyptian boy and notices that he is not merely black, but has thick lips.

Appollodorus called Egypt the country of the black-footed ones.

Aeschylus, a Greek poet, wrote that Egyptian seamen had “black limbs.”

Gaston Maspero states that “by the almost unanimous testimony of ancient [Greek] historians, they [ancient Egyptians] belonged to the African race, which settled in Ethiopia.”


DNA Evidence (BONUS)

DNATribes, a genomics company that specializes in tracing individuals’ ancestry to certain global populations has recently subjected the published STRs profiles (DNA samples) of Pharaoh Tutankhamen and family to analysis. They report that the closest living relatives of the mummies are sub-Saharan Africans, especially those from Southern Africa and the Great Lakes region.

The company also tested the STR profiles of Ramesses III and found that among present-day populations, Ramesses’ autosomal STR profile is most frequently found in the African Great Lakes region, where it is approximately 335.1 times as frequent as in the world as a whole.

Sources:
ORIGIN OF THE ANCIENT EGYPTIANS by Cheikh Anta Diop

 

[Sirsquier]

Um... you're both right in a way. Some of the kingdoms were black and some were white. I'm pretty sure (Don't quote me.) Old: White Middle: Black (They were Nubians) New: White (Greeks). Though I may have some of these out of order.

I feel that it's not a good practice to shoot something down as a racist source or discredit and political source. Just take out the bias of the source and you'll find the facts.

 

[The Civs 6]

10 Arguments That Prove Ancient Egyptians Were Black (African)
Original URL for this article: http://atlantablackstar.com/2013/10/25/10-arguments-that-proves-ancient-egyptians-were-black

Even today, a significant number of mainstream Egyptologists, anthropologists, historians and Hollywood moviemakers continue to deny African people’s role in humankind’s first and greatest civilization in ancient Egypt. This whitewashing of history negatively impacts Black people and our image in the world. There remains a vital need to correct the misinformation of our achievements in antiquity.

Senegalese scholar Dr. Cheikh Anta Diop (1923-1986) dedicated his life to scientifically challenging Eurocentric and Arab-centric views of precolonial African culture, specifically those that suggested the ancient civilization of Egypt did not have its origins in Black Africa.

Since some people continue to ignore the overwhelming evidence that indicates ancient Egypt was built, ruled, and populated by dark-skinned African people, Atlanta Blackstar will highlight 10 of the ways Diop proved the ancient Egyptians were Black.



Physical Anthropology Evidence
Based on his review of scientific literature, Diop concluded that most of the skeletons and skulls of the ancient Egyptians clearly indicate they were Negroid people with features very similar to those of modern Black Nubians and other people of the Upper Nile and East Africa. He called attention to studies that included examinations of skulls from the predynastic period (6000 B.C.) that showed a greater percentage of Black characteristics than any other type.

From this information, Diop reasoned that a Black race existed in Egypt at that time and did not migrate at a later stage as some previous theories had suggested.



Melanin Dosage Test
Diop invented a method for determining the level of melanin in the skin of human beings. Melanin is the chemical responsible for skin pigmentation and it is preserved for millions of years in the skins of fossil animals.

Diop conducted the melanin test on Egyptian mummies at the Museum of Man in Paris, and determined the levels found in the dermis and epidermis of a small sample would classify all ancient Egyptians as “unquestionably among the Black races.”



Osteological Evidence
According to Diop, osteological measurements (analysis of bones) are perhaps the least misleading of the criteria accepted in physical anthropology for classifying the races of men. A first study of this kind was completed by a German archeologist Karl Richard Lepsius at the end of the 19th century. The Lepsius canon, which distinguishes the bodily proportions of various racial groups, categories the “ideal Egyptian” as “short-armed and of Negroid or Negrito physical type.”



Evidence From Blood Types
Diop found that even after hundreds of years of intermixing with foreign invaders, the blood type of modern Egyptians is the “same group B as the populations of Western Africa on the Atlantic seaboard and not the A2 group characteristic of the white race prior to any crossbreeding.”



The Egyptians as They Saw Themselves
Diop noted that “Egyptians had only one term to designate themselves: KMT, which literally means ‘the Blacks.’ This is the strongest term existing in the Pharaonic tongue to indicate blackness.”

He added: “The term is a collective noun which thus described the whole people of Pharaonic Egypt as a Black people.”

For further evidence, Diop focused on both the monuments and how the ancient Egyptians represented themselves in their art.



Cultural Unity of Egypt With The Rest of Africa

Diop found that in ancient Egypt there existed “African cultural commonalities” of matriarchy, totemism, divine kinship, and cosmology.”

Through a study of circumcision and totemism, he offers detailed data on the cultural unity between Egypt and the rest of Africa. He noted: “Historians are in general agreement that the Ethiopians, Egyptians, Colchians, and people of the Southern Levant were among the only people on earth practicing circumcision, which confirms their cultural affiliations, if not their ethnic affiliation.”

He added: “The Egyptian style of (adolescent) circumcision was different from how circumcision is practiced in other parts of the world, but similar to how it is practiced throughout the African continent.”



Divine Epithets
Diop also demonstrates that “Black or Negro” was a divine epithet invariably used to refer to the chief benevolent gods of Egypt, while evil spirits were depicted as red. InEurasian culture, good is described as white and evil as black.



Evidence From the Bible
Diop wrote: “The Bible tells us that ‘…the sons of Ham [were] Cush and Mizraim [i.e. Egypt], and Phut, and Canaan. And the sons of Cush; Seba, and Havilah, and Sabtah, and Raamah and Sabtechah.”

According to biblical tradition, Ham was the father of the Black race. Diop asserted that “generally speaking, all Semitic tradition (Jewish and Arab) class ancient Egypt with the countries of the Blacks.”



Linguistic Unity With Southern and Western Africa
In a detailed study of languages, Diop illustrated the strength of the cultural ties between ancient Egypt and its African neighbors by comparing the Egyptian language with Wolof, a Senegalese language spoken in West Africa near the Atlantic Ocean.

Diop clearly demonstrates that ancient Egyptian, modern Coptic of Egypt, and Wolof are related, with the latter two having their origin in the former.

“The kinship between ancient Egyptian and the languages of Africa,” Diop wrote in the General History of Africa, “is not a hypothetical but a demonstrable fact which it is impossible for modern scholarship to thrust aside.”

He believed the kinship to be genealogical, and he provided examples:

In ancient Egyptian “kef” means “to grasp, to take a strip (of something)”; in Wolof it means “to seize a prey.”

“Feh” means “go away” in ancient Egyptian; in Wolof it means “to rush off.”

To further demonstrate similarity between the two languages, Diop also examined verb forms, demonstratives, and phonemes. The results, he found, showed little difference between the two.





Testimony of Classical Greek and Roman Historians
Virtually all of the early Latin eyewitnesses described the ancient Egyptians as black-skinned with woolly hair. Several ancient Greek historians noted that Egyptians and Ethiopians had complexions that were “melanchroes,” which most scholars translate as black, while some scholars translate it as “dark” or “dark skinned.”

Some of the most-often quoted historians are Diodorus Siculus and Herodotus.

According to most translations, Herodotus wrote that a Greek oracle was known to be from Egypt because she was “black,” that the natives of the Nile region are “black with heat,’ and that Egyptians were “black skinned with woolly hair.”

Diodorus Siculus wrote that the Ethiopians considered the Egyptians their colony.

Lucian observes an Egyptian boy and notices that he is not merely black, but has thick lips.

Appollodorus called Egypt the country of the black-footed ones.

Aeschylus, a Greek poet, wrote that Egyptian seamen had “black limbs.”

Gaston Maspero states that “by the almost unanimous testimony of ancient [Greek] historians, they [ancient Egyptians] belonged to the African race, which settled in Ethiopia.”


DNA Evidence (BONUS)

DNATribes, a genomics company that specializes in tracing individuals’ ancestry to certain global populations has recently subjected the published STRs profiles (DNA samples) of Pharaoh Tutankhamen and family to analysis. They report that the closest living relatives of the mummies are sub-Saharan Africans, especially those from Southern Africa and the Great Lakes region.

The company also tested the STR profiles of Ramesses III and found that among present-day populations, Ramesses’ autosomal STR profile is most frequently found in the African Great Lakes region, where it is approximately 335.1 times as frequent as in the world as a whole.

Sources:
ORIGIN OF THE ANCIENT EGYPTIANS by Cheikh Anta Diop

It's funny that this "melanin dosage test" was only used by this one guy and isn't brought up in any other context. It's almost like that, and the rest of the garbage you are citing, is a bunch of unscientific nonsense.

Why Unesco book isn't a good source?
It have more credibility than a Britannica enciclopedia.

And Unesco was just the sponsor, the book was made by scholars.



No, by White man I mean scholars who was sponsored by European governement to study Africa history.
Most by British and French governement who have colonies around the world untill today and many African countries still dependent to British and French interests.
British and French army still around Africa, Africa isn't already totally free of last century colonialism.




The ethinicity from the person in a territory can change in the time. Think about USA.
Around 1200 was indigenous, around 1700 is white and now it have so many Philipines XD


Angola war of Independence just over in 2002, the colonialism is a very recent history.



If you don't understand me, you can read thie Unesco source. I will try find other sources to you latter.
But, I will said it again.
Egypt was black in old old kingdom, around 2686 BC – 2181 BC. After this period start migration of Semitic people to Egypt and the society start to mix up.
2000 years of mixing races when Cleoptra born, in fact, Cleoptra was white, but she born more than 2000 years after the foundation of Egypt.
Just think about USA, is the USA ethinicity the same in the last 2000 years? You don't think ethinicity can change again in the next 2000 years?



Just to finish, a image from the New Kingdom c. 1550 BC – c. 1069 BC
They are already very mixed. It is possible to see two kind of Black people, the Nilotic (very Black) and the Afro-Asiatic. Who still Black, but seems a bit more a white man, a mix race.

Bro you are just telling yourself a bunch of lies in order to feel better about your race. Let me just say that whatever insecurity you feel about that is a you problem, not a problem that you ought to project onto historians or the study of history.

 

[Henri Christophe]

Bro you are just telling yourself a bunch of lies in order to feel better about your race. Let me just say that whatever insecurity you feel about that is a you problem, not a problem that you ought to project onto historians or the study of history.

Acctually I'm not black also, I'm a mix race brazilian (Pardo). I'm searching the truth, and I guess white man tell many lies to justify their Imperialism, but Imperialism is over and it is time to destroy any ideia of someone can be better of someone else.

A read the Unesco book again last night, just the first 100 pages of Volume II (Is this part who speak about Egypt and if they are Black or Not)
The book heavily speak about how the Egypt was occupied around -8000 years and -2000 years. And how most of human beings who came from Egypt come from Black Africa, but also can have a few who came from the Levante.

The first human beings to leave out Africa was black, not just the Egyptians. But also the Dravidians and Australian Aborigenes.
Some scholars can argue about Olmec also have a Black heritage, Mayan was a racist society who like to have distinct features in Royality, as head modification, jade in the tooths and praise blackness skin.
Bellow is a picture I shot in Cacaxtla, Tlaxcala.
He is a Olmec king who paint his body as black to be more Royal.

VERY amazing spot where a very unique society grew, they are Olmec-xicalanca society who migrated to central mexico and watch the fall of Teotihuacán and after the fall of Teotihuacán they found their city in nowadays Cacaxtla and was conquer from the Nahualt people from North. Mayans are more Black than Nahualt(Mexica) people.


We also need to think, WHAT IS BLACK?
If we are all Americans, we should think Black as a Banto, the Ethinicity of Central and West Africa who came to Americas. But have some others Black ethinciity in Africa. Egypt never was a Black Bantu-Country. But it was a Black mix of Nilo-Saharan Black and Afro Asiatic Black.

This is a modern picture, but we always need to remember the population can move and also can mix.

The Unesco book will argue in their Volume II (please take a look)

• -2750/-2200 old old kingdom, most of the Egyptian was Nilo Saharan Black but have a Afro Asiatic population.
• -2150/-1780 midle kingdom, more mix population with Bronze Age Civilizations.
• -1080/-730 New Kingdom, It is the last kingdom if we just look Egyptian sources.

When the Alexander the Great conquer Egypt around -332, Egyptian scholars will say Egypt kingdom is no more. Ptolomaic Pharaos aren't Egyptians, they are Greek.

Ps. About Afro-Asiatic. Look Haile Selassie, is he Black or White?


UNESCO book also Quote Herotodo book II about old Egyptian kingdom, as the Egyptians and Ethiopians are the same ethinicity.

 

[Sirsquier]

He looks Arabian to me.

 

[Henri Christophe]

He looks Arabian to me.

Exactly, he is neither Black or White. He is what he is. Afro-Asiatic. It seems a bit Arabic, but others can seems a bit more African.
How about the Menelik II, the Emperor of Ethiopia who won Italia at Adwa Battle.
He is also Afro-Asiatic. But in Americas, he should be White or Black?

 

[Kyriakos]

Just to finish, a image from the New Kingdom c. 1550 BC – c. 1069 BC
They are already very mixed. It is possible to see two kind of Black people, the Nilotic (very Black) and the Afro-Asiatic. Who still Black, but seems a bit more a white man, a mix race.

Paintings aren't a good argument for actual color of people depicted, cause very few pigments were available to use. So you mostly see either dark red or black in figure forms (by the way, you see the same in ancient Greek vases; the technique was called 'melanography', ie "black painting").
Going by paintings you should also argue that ancient minoans were either red or blue

I personally doubt ancient egyptians were that much darker skinned than other middle eastern people. Also, ancient Greek historians don't tend to differentiate persians or egyptians from greeks regarding skin tone, though they do have a special name for sub-saharan black people, who they call "melampsoi" or "ethiopai" (the name "Ethiopia" comes from that, though at the time it meant a whole sub-continent), which means "dark-toned'.

By the way, it is I think worth mentioning that the "the whiter you are, the better" thing is not ancient. It is pretty ridiculous to think that ancient greeks, persians, even romans, would regard north europeans as superior.

 

[Henri Christophe]

By the way, it is I think worth mentioning that the "the whiter you are, the better" thing is not ancient. It is pretty ridiculous to think that ancient greeks, persians, even romans, would regard north europeans as superior.

I Totally agree on that!!
The idea of races come after the enlightment. After the French Revolution. And become even more stronger after Darwin. It start to lose power after Nazi-Germany and Apartheid.

I have one hypothesis about that.
It is well know the idea of Nation State start after French Revolution, but I should ask, Why?
Europeans scholars would say things about French nationalism? Transform the Holy Roman Empire in the Weimar Republic? Some angry Serbians inside Austrian Empire?

I don't think so, I guess the idea of Nation born in America.
First it was the White Republic of George Washington, and just after it was the Black Empire of Jan Jak Dessalines.
We also had Tecumseh who fight to found an Indian State in today's Indiana State. It was the war of 1812, he lost, he was vanished from history until now. (History is made by the winners)

The oldest record of a Chief of State who is clear racist I ever found was when Napoleon send Leclerc to fight against L'Overture, Napoleon said - "The Black need to know their place in History".
I read it in a Biography of Alex Dumas made by Tom Reiss. The name Alex Dumas can appear in Civilization game as a Great Writter, but his father was an Haitian and faught side by side with Napoleon in North Italy and Egypt, when was betrayed by Napoleon.
Alex Dumas was by far the best soldier in French army, but Napoleon never give him creditis, in all paints of battle where Alex Dumas won against the Ottoman Egypt was painted as he was white.

Also this book argue, before Napoleon, the word American, in French, means Black people from Caribe, and just after the French Revolution they start use the word African to refers to Africans and Haitian alike.

And the son of Henri Christophe, who went to Paris to study before the 18 Brumaire, was made prisioner and died because don't accept be enslaved.

@Patine , lf you want to argue What is black, let's do it here. I don't want anyone saying I'm trolling about racial issues in wrong thread.
Please take a look what we already talk about it here.

As I understand races, even some Mayas can be understand as Black.
I start to think that when I was in State of Tlaxcala (México) and saw the Olmec-Xicalanca piramid in Cacaxtla.
Look how they draw an Olmec King in the Pos-Classic Mexico.

Some historian can argue they aren't so black as they painted, but instead they paint their skin with black colors to look like more black as possible.
Olmec-Xicalanca is a very racist society who think the Blackness of their skin make they better than Nahualt who came from north (In the other thread I used the word Mongol-ish to talk about Nahualt people as the Aztecs, but it maybe not a good word to speak about this North-America ethinicity, but I also don't know any word better to apply).

And have this historian who argue the Black heritage in Caribe can be older than Colombus Exchange.

Many Brazilian Native-Americans from North East have West-African heritage, but, as we have Slavery in Brazil it is impossible to know if this heritage come after or before Colombus Exchange.
Let's look the Pankararu nation. They have too much DNA from West African and have this ritual who look likes African.

Now the African Zangebetos from West Africa.

It isn't enought to say the Pankararu have West African heritage, but if some historian look better to this issue, it may have fantastic revelations about Human History.

Of course Dravdians, Australian Aborigenes and Olmec aren't Bantu-African. Even some Africans aren't Bantu African, as the Egyptians, Ethiopian and Khoisan. Just take a look to Nelson Mandela.
Is he the same ethinicity the US-American should understand as Black? I mean, is he a Bantu-African?
Once I read a genetic paper talking about Mandela, Jacob Zuma and Frederik Willem de Klerk heritage. (South African's president between 1989 - 2009)
This paper said the genetic distance between Mandela and Jacob Zuma is bigger than the genetic distance between Jacob Zuma and Frederik Willem.
So, I guess we need to think. What is Black, what is African? Isn't easy questions at all.

 

[Patine]

@Patine , lf you want to argue What is black, let's do it here. I don't want anyone saying I'm trolling about racial issues in wrong thread.
Please take a look what we already talk about it here.

As I understand races, even some Mayas can be understand as Black.
I start to think that when I was in State of Tlaxcala (México) and saw the Olmec-Xicalanca piramid in Cacaxtla.
Look how they draw an Olmec King in the Pos-Classic Mexico.

Some historian can argue they aren't so black as they painted, but instead they paint their skin with black colors to look like more black as possible.
Olmec-Xicalanca is a very racist society who think the Blackness of their skin make they better than Nahualt who came from north (In the other thread I used the word Mongol-ish to talk about Nahualt people as the Aztecs, but it maybe not a good word to speak about this North-America ethinicity, but I also don't know any word better to apply).

And have this historian who argue the Black heritage in Caribe can be older than Colombus Exchange.

Many Brazilian Native-Americans from North East have West-African heritage, but, as we have Slavery in Brazil it is impossible to know if this heritage come after or before Colombus Exchange.
Let's look the Pankararu nation. They have too much DNA from West African and have this ritual who look likes African.

Now the African Zangebetos from West Africa.

It isn't enought to say the Pankararu have West African heritage, but if some historian look better to this issue, it may have fantastic revelations about Human History.

Of course Dravdians, Australian Aborigenes and Olmec aren't Bantu-African. Even some Africans aren't Bantu African, as the Egyptians, Ethiopian and Khoisan. Just take a look to Nelson Mandela.
Is he the same ethinicity the US-American should understand as Black? I mean, is he a Bantu-African?
Once I read a genetic paper talking about Mandela, Jacob Zuma and Frederik Willem de Klerk heritage. (South African's president between 1989 - 2009)
This paper said the genetic distance between Mandela and Jacob Zuma is bigger than the genetic distance between Jacob Zuma and Frederik Willem.
So, I guess we need to think. What is Black, what is African? Isn't easy questions at all.

There used to be a school of logic in Antiquity (I think it may have been associated with Aristotle, but I can't quite remember now), and which the core idea was that strong comparison means, effectively, outright sameness - "a bird flies, a dragonfly flies, therefore a dragonfly IS a bird." Some people on these forums try to bend comparisons and analogs I make in argument and say I'm effectively using such logic. But the fact is, this logic was debunked and called out as unworkable tripe long ago. Olmec preferences for - and possibly availability of - certain colours of dyes in their artworks, and certain superficial similarities of Dravidians, Papuans, Melanesians, and Australian Aborigines (but definitely sharp differences otherwise - and a lack of view amongst themselves as being racial "African,") DOES NOT they are racially African, and you really need to kick the use of the outmoded and racist "three-race anthropological scheme," as much as the hostility toward it outside Brazil so "shocks and surprises," you.

 

[Henri Christophe]

C'mon guys. Here is the thread to racial issues.
Now the thread about racial equality was closed because racism.
Please @Browd , open this thread again https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/black-american-civilizations.658900/page-4#post-15801320

@Aurelesk is a guy from French Guyana who gives their opinion, I really want to speak with someone from French Guyana about their understand of the world, as he said, all nations have an especific way to understand racials issues, since Civilization is a global game, we should be open to listen this kind of people.

I guess any argue about Racial equality will fall down in racism issue, I know it can be hard to hear, but most of us are racist.
Any argue if black people deserve or not be represented in this game can be answerd with some racism, BUT, if we don't speak about, this game will still being racist, I love civilization and I just want a balanced game, where any race seems better than other of any means.

@AntSou , I draw this graph based in a Modern-Age germanic understand of races, it may be racist, but even Hitler understand the people from North India as caucasian, Chandra Gupta have Arian-Heritage, the same heritage the Nazi said Germans come from. I would appreciate if you have other understand to share with us. I live in Germany for while (2014-2015), I guess it make me understand the caucasian races as Germans do.

@Alexander's Hetaroi , the first think I though when I saw Australia Civ in Youtube was exactly that, what is comming next? Texas Republic
But after saw an Australian arguing in Youtube forum as he just want play with Australia I just understand the problem. The players just want to see him self in this game, don't matter if his nation have a "peek" or if it is independent.
As I. I just want to see more diversity in Americas Civs.
We have 4 white Americans civs. 5 Native Americans Civs. NONE Black-America Civs. NONE mix-race american civ.
What do you think as people as I, mix people, we not deserve see our self in this game as a CIV?
Maybe US-American don't think about that, but it is a important issue in Latin America. In this forum most of you should desagree with me, but if you travel to Brazil once, you will see how races can be understand very different in the south of this hemisphere.

There used to be a school of logic in Antiquity (I think it may have been associated with Aristotle, but I can't quite remember now), and which the core idea was that strong comparison means, effectively, outright sameness - "a bird flies, a dragonfly flies, therefore a dragonfly IS a bird." Some people on these forums try to bend comparisons and analogs I make in argument and say I'm effectively using such logic. But the fact is, this logic was debunked and called out as unworkable tripe long ago. Olmec preferences for - and possibly availability of - certain colours of dyes in their artworks, and certain superficial similarities of Dravidians, Papuans, Melanesians, and Australian Aborigines (but definitely sharp differences otherwise - and a lack of view amongst themselves as being racial "African,") DOES NOT they are racially African, and you really need to kick the use of the outmoded and racist "three-race anthropological scheme," as much as the hostility toward it outside Brazil so "shocks and surprises," you.

Patine, please read all I said before, please.
I never said all Black are Africans.
I understand Black as people with very dark skin, and I see Blacks not just in Africa, but also in South India, Australia, Papua-New Guinea and the Olmecs.
I think is very intersting as this people, in their respectives lands, are the first to live there, I guess it happens because live begins in Africa, the first human migration come from Africa, but any Genetic study will show how Dravidians, Australians and Olmecs, despite beeings Black skin, they aren't African at all.
Also, in the last post you quote, I'm trying to argue even some Africans nations can be more diverse than trans-continental nations.
Khoaisan is a strong example about that, they are the most isolated group on earth. Japanese and German have more genetic similarty than a Khoaisan and a Zulu. How is it possible just take this very diverse group of people and just called it African?

 

[Patine]

@AntSou , I draw this graph based in a Modern-Age germanic understand of races, it may be racist, but even Hitler understand the people from North India as caucasian, Chandra Gupta have Arian-Heritage, the same heritage the Nazi said Germans come from. I would appreciate if you have other understand to share with us. I live in Germany for while (2014-2015), I guess it make me understand the caucasian races as Germans do.

Oh, well, Hitler endorse it. Well I guess that's settled then.

Patine, please read all I said before, please.
I never said all Black are Africans.
I understand Black as people with very dark skin, and I see Blacks not just in Africa, but also in South India, Australia, Papua-New Guinea and the Olmecs.
I think is very intersting as this people, in their respectives lands, are the first to live there, I guess it happens because live begins in Africa, the first human migration come from Africa, but any Genetic study will show how Dravidians, Australians and Olmecs, despite beeings Black skin, they aren't African at all.
Also, in the last post you quote, I'm trying to argue even some Africans nations can be more diverse than trans-continental nations.
Khoaisan is a strong example about that, they are the most isolated group on earth. Japanese and German have more genetic similarty than a Khoaisan and a Zulu. How is it possible just take this very diverse group of people and just called it African?

As I pointed out in my last point, it seems obvious the "Olmec," thing is because of darker than accurate dyes in their art that you're latching onto too easily.

As for your other point, I'm afraid the vast majority of the world does not share your generous and expansive personal usage of the terms, "Black," or "Caucasian." It's something you'll have to live with, as well as other comments like mine (some of which maybe less friendly and patient) when making such bold conflations in this area.

 

[Sirsquier]

Hey Henri sorry about the forum shutting down. I know it wasn't what you meant to happen. That's why I left. Maybe next time just share a civ you want in the create your own civ 6 civ forum and it might go better. (And get more positive feedback).

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

@Alexander's Hetaroi , the first think I though when I saw Australia Civ in Youtube was exactly that, what is comming next? Texas Republic
But after saw an Australian arguing in Youtube forum as he just want play with Australia I just understand the problem. The players just want to see him self in this game, don't matter if his nation have a "peek" or if it is independent.
As I. I just want to see more diversity in Americas Civs.
We have 4 white Americans civs. 5 Native Americans Civs. NONE Black-America Civs. NONE mix-race american civ.
What do you think as people as I, mix people, we not deserve see our self in this game as a CIV?
Maybe US-American don't think about that, but it is a important issue in Latin America. In this forum most of you should desagree with me, but if you travel to Brazil once, you will see how races can be understand very different in the south of this hemisphere.

I have no issue with black or mix-race people.
My problem, and others, is that you are putting people into categories of being mix-raced which isn't true. I don't know much about the others, but the mixed race Black Seminoles people are just a small minority compared to the rest of the whole Native American Seminole tribe.

The Seminole tribe existed far before the escaped African slaves came into the picture. I was just trying to tell you that, but that basically started the whole race argument on your thread with you saying I didn't believe that mixed race people didn't exist and to not trust credible sources because they just happen to be written by white people. Of course that last statement was really judgmental, not only because apparently you see them as trustworthy when talking about non-European things, but also that Britannica article that I referred you to was last edited by a Black Woman from Chicago in the U.S.

I would have been happy to discuss the possibility of Haiti, which I do think is the most logical Civ that you mentioned getting in, though I don't see it happening for Civ 6.

 

[Henri Christophe]

I have no issue with black or mix-race people.
My problem, and others, is that you are putting people into categories of being mix-raced which isn't true. I don't know much about the others, but the mixed race Black Seminoles people are just a small minority compared to the rest of the whole Native American Seminole tribe.

The Seminole tribe existed far before the escaped African slaves came into the picture. I was just trying to tell you that, but that basically started the whole race argument on your thread with you saying I didn't believe that mixed race people didn't exist and to not trust credible sources because they just happen to be written by white people. Of course that last statement was really judgmental, not only because apparently you see them as trustworthy when talking about non-European things, but also that Britannica article that I referred you to was last edited by a Black Woman from Chicago in the U.S.

I would have been happy to discuss the possibility of Haiti, which I do think is the most logical Civ that you mentioned getting in, though I don't see it happening for Civ 6.

You are right, maybe the way I spoke about Seminole isn't the best aproach.
Of course I agree the Seminole is an Ancient Nation, as all other nations. All humans alive have at least 5000 years of heritage.
I love Indian and Black history and try to realize how astonished I was when discover about Seminole.

About nowadays Seminole, we can assume this.
Oklahoma's Seminole have more Native American heritage.
Florida's Seminole is full mix Black/Native
Mexican's Seminole have more Black Heritage.

But, Civilization isn't as Pokemon, where Fire wins Grass, Grass win Water and Water wins Fire.
Don't matter if Seminole are black or Indian or Mix. They just need a leader, an unique unit and unique improvment to be a civ.
Negro Abraham was a Florida's Seminole leader, and fight and won many battles against Andrew Jackson.



Today I was thinking in about other Native-Mix race of South America.
Paraguay is full mix between Guarani and Spaniards, and José Gaspar Rodríguez de Francia, the first president of Paraguay, forbid any people of the same race to marry!
Yes, While USA forbid interracial marriage, in Paraguay, at same time, was forbid same race marriage!

Maybe Guarani and Seminole nations can appear together in some of next Civ Expansions as "No ethnic borders"-Expansion.

About Guarani I was think in 2 approach, it can have a Solano Lópes as leader and some ancient guarani warrior as an Unique Unit or a full blood Guarani leader (as Sepé Tiaraju) with a modern Paraguayan Unique Unit as used in the War against Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay.