Talk:Afrocentrism/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Proposal

Can we merge Pan-Africanism with this article, and then redirect the article to here? --SqueakBox 21:19, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

Why? They are two different things. Afrocentrism is essentially a model of history and to some extent of cultural identity. Pan-Aficanism is a political ideology. --Paul B 12:15, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Which doesn't mean they can't both be in one article. My reasoning? Pan-Africanism is in such poor conditioni, and I would have thought we could merge the 2, and if we can, in my opinion we should, --SqueakBox 13:39, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

I haven't seen "Pan-Africanism", but I'll have a look. I've been away for a week, and haven't had a chance to look in, except very briefly. I'd have thought it'd be better to set Pan-Africanism to rights rather than merge into a single article what are really two distinct projects and concepts. --Paul B 15:05, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

Summary of recent changes

I've changed this entry significantly.

• I've edited Lefkowitz' critiques, as well as many of the ones in the entry.

If her book is any indication, Lefkowitz hasn't read a single piece of Afrocentric work. Not Afrocentricity. Not Kemet, Afrocentricity, & Knowledge. Not even The African Origin of Civilization. There are strong critiques to be made (the lack of serious archaeological study, the focus on theories that are 40 years old, the civilizationist bent), but these aren't found in Lefkowitz' work, or that of most "mainstream" criticism. I added a paragraph or so going over these critiques.

There was a period in early Afrocentric scholarship where scholars focused on the melanin content of the Ancients. This argument though plays a much smaller role in current scholarship. Check out abstracts of The Journal of Black Studies for the past ten years or so and you'd be hard pressed to find anyone talking about melanin content. What they do talk about is the "Africanity" of the Ancients, an argument that was probably radical 15 or so years ago...but now most scholars consider Ancient Egypt to be an African civilization. What that MEANS may be up for question, but on this point the Afrocentrists are not only right, but they are largely responsible for moving the scholarship in this area.

• I've modified the "Egypt and Black Identity" section.

The self-esteem aspect of Afrocentricity is not that important. When Afrocentrists talk about re-centering scholarship on African peoples, they are making a scholarly argument about the need to de-objectify black subjects. Instead of studying how black people were acted upon, why not study how black people ACTED? Instead of making arguments about how black Christianity was a deviant form of Christianity, why not test to see whether there are linkages between African American religious practices and West African ones? In vulgar Afrocentrists we do see the self-esteem argument privileged, but we don't make arguments about behavioralism or rational choice by using the weakest examples do we?

• I've added a couple of sentences referring to the Ancients themselves.

One argument the Afrocentrists are making is that they are actually Emending rather than Amending history. If we take the words of the Ancients as our guide, it is clear that they themselves recognize their roots in Nubia. This further supports the general straightforward argument that Egypt is an African civilization. But it also further explains why the Egyptians may have depicted themselves as being the SAME as Nubians in some places, and different from Nubians in others.

• I've removed "mainstream" as an adjective describing Toynbee and replaced it with "white supremacist."

This is probably the most contentious change. For me, anyone who argued that Africans did not have the capacity to develop civilization and were the lowest rung on the racial totem pole is a white supremacist. Now he was BOTH a mainstream scholar and a white supremacist. But it is clear to me that his status as a mainstream scholar should not privilege his ideas about African history, in juxtaposition against the arguments of the Afrocentrists. Rather, the fact that white supremacy informed his ideas should be taken into account.

Thanks!

OK, comments. I think Lefkowitz has indeed read "Afrocentricity", though I can't comment on the others. However,, this is beside the point. She was commenting on the positions articulated at the time. As for the "Africanicity" point, this can well be considered evasive, since 'Africa' is at least as much of a fiction as as is 'race'. It is only 'right' to speak of Egypt as 'African' in a very limited sense, and the limitedness of that needs to be clearly stated. To claim connections across the continent we call 'Africa' is surely spurious. Yoiu yourself constantly osciullate between the concepts of 'black' and 'African' {e.g. "When Afrocentrists talk about re-centering scholarship on African peoples, they are making a scholarly argument about the need to de-objectify black subjects.")

Thanks for commenting Paul. If Lefkowitz has read "Afrocentricity" then I am at a loss to explain why she does not seem to grapple with the fundamental claims of the work...or the claims of the work at all. Page numbers in her work would be helpful for me here. As for the Africanity argument, I don't know why it should be considered evasive. We casually AND rigorously refer to American culture, or to European culture. While you are correct to note my oscillation...note that it only oscillates when I refer to contemporary life. As the concept of race is a 17th century invention I don't as a rule refer to the Egyptians as anything other than African. In arguing against culture you'd have to make a much stronger argument as to why it doesn't apply here...and then make an argument about what a "limited African sense" looks like. Egypt has always been in what we consider to be Africa. And Egyptians have long argued that their origins were to be found in what we consider south (they considered it north)--also in Africa. (Question...if Africa is a fiction, then what about Europe? Asia?)

Lefkowitz is a classical scholar whose central concern is to assess claims being made at the time about the sources of Ancient Greek civilisation. Most of the arguments in Afrocentricity are irrelevant to that project. Of course 'Europe' and 'Asia' are as much fictions as is 'Africa' (are Russians Asian? Are Turks European?). If history had developed differently we'd probably have different models of cultural/geographical units. During the Roman empire, I doubt that people thought of a 'European' as opposed to 'African' cultural identity. If the empire had survived - say as a Christian area with a 'pagan' north and south - we'd have a no concept of 'European culture', but rather one centred on Mediterranian/non-Mediterranean identities. Relatively coherent concepts such as 'American culture' and 'European culture' are products of history. I can't see any historical reason to speak of 'African culture' in the same way. Egyptians (and everyone else) had no idea at all that they were part of a very large land mass and no knowledge of most of its populations. Egypt has not always been in 'what we consider to be Africa', for the simple reason that the continent of Africa was not known to exist in ancient times. The Roman use of the word Africa was also erratic. Egypt was a separate province (see Africa). Paul B 09:01, 25 Apr, 2005 (UTC)

Hey Paul! You are right. Most of the arguments in "Afrocentricity" are irrelevant to Lefkowtiz' project. So why cite her as an authoritative critic, when if anything she is a critic of Martin Bernal? Your comments about Europe, Asia, and Africa are on point....however the study of European, African, and Asian history extends backwards way before the moment those concepts became accepted people in the Continent. The Africa entry was interesting. But I don't see how Egypt coulkd be considered Asian if they (they WERE the Ancients) didn't consider themselves Asian. As the earlier entries recognized, when the Ancients referred to themselves in more inclusive language they used the same term as they did the Nubians to the South.

I'm not at all sure what this 'more inclusive' language was. I agree that the the assertion in the Africa entry that Egypt was considered 'part of Asia' is rather dodgy, but the main point is that "Africa" was merely a province - the area around Carthage. It did not include Egypt at that time, nor did it include the west of the landmass. This proves nothing more than the fact that the use of such labels is fluid. The Egyptians, of course, clearly distinguished themselves from the "Asiatics". The period of rule by the Hyksos was especially humiliating. That surely does not mean that they had a sense of themselves as 'African'. They like to thrash the Nubians and the Libyans too!

As for Lefkowitz, she is the principal scholarly critic of the sort of "Afrocentrism" that functions as a kind of mirror-image of an Aryanist (for want of a better word) version of "Eurocentrism". The problem here is what we mean by the term Afrocentrism itself. You seem to be saying that it should be defined in Asante's terms. True, he coined the word, but has come to cover a range of beliefs and methods that are partly defined by his thinking, but also extend beyond it. Lefkowitz addresses some of the most "mythically" powerful claims about ancient civilization. ]]).Paul B 17:41, 25 Apr, 2005 (UTC)

Leonard Jeffries is probably the perfect example of the person that Lefkowitz is trying to go after. But Jeffries has done little to NOTHING as far as Afrocentric scholarship. I believe that we should use the concept as Asante used it. This doesn't mean we can't critique it--again there are a number of scholars who have written EXCELLENT critiques of Asante's position. If Cleopatra doesn't play a significant role in Afrocentric scholarship--then someone who acts as if she DOES should be removed. If there are a number of works that constitute an Afrocentric corpus, and a contemporary critic doesn't evince some knowledge of that corpus? They should be tossed too.

There is no evdence that I know of that the Egyptians ever identified themselves intentionally as the same as Nubians. I do object very strngly to the use of the term white supremacist with reference to Toynbee. I can see very little justification for this. Even if he dids believe that Africans of his day were at the bottom of a hierarchy of human civilisation, there is no reason to conclude that he thought there was a racial reason for this, or that he held that "white" people should be supreme. User:Paul Barlow 03:49, 25 Apr, 2005 (UTC)

There is evidence that the Egyptians identified themselves as the same as Nubians. The original article referred to textual examples, and there is clear pictoral evidence. And on top of that there are links that they themselves acknowledge. When the Ancients speak of Narmer coming from the South, exactly where was he coming from? Finally, the statements of Toynbee stand on their own. I'm not sure how else to refer to someone that said that.

Could you please supply the 'evidence that Egyptians identified themselves as the same as Nubians'. The original article referred to no such textual examples. As for Narmer coming from the south - yes, he did. Why do you equate that with emerging from Nubia?

What other civilizations do we know of that arise to the south of Egypt? Where is Nubia in relation to Egypt? The research of Bruce Williams was helpful to me here, but it has been a while since I revisited it. I was under the assumption that his findings suggest a significant civilization to the south of Egypt that had a great deal in common with it linguistically and religiously. kspence 6:14, 9 May, 2005

On Toynbee, saying that "the Black race has not helped to create any civilization" does not make a person a white supremacist unless you think there are only black and white people in the world. As for 'supremacism', if Toynbee was simply describing the facts as he saw them, he is not a 'supremacist', because that is a description of someone who thinks a given race ought to be dominant, not of one who comments on de facto dominance (see black supremacy).Paul B 08:30, 25 Apr, 2005 (UTC)

But Toynbee's statement wasn't empirically accurate even for its time. His comments about Africa, about their civilization, abouit their rhythm even, indicates a bias...a strong bias against people with "black" skin. What should we attribute that bias to?--kspence 6:14, 9 May, 2005

I guess this must be a different Arnold Toynbee from the one who wrote, "It may be the black man who will give the new spiritual dynamic to Western civilization that it so desperately needs to survive.....the spiritual power ....that comes from love, understanding, good will and non-violence." Still, I think we need to look at the much-quoted phrase from the Study of History in context before we can determine its significance in his models of race and geography. I'll check it. I don't know what comments in particular you consider to demonstrate a strong bias. Paul B 017:15, 25 Apr, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure how one can say that "the Black race has not helped to create any civilization" and not be biased. He probably WAS describing the facts AS HE SAW THEM. But what we are questioning is whether the eyes he used to see were biased or not. Again, the central point here is really whether Toynbee should be used as a mainstream arbiter of truth to juxtapose the claims of Asante et al against. kspence 6:14, 9 May, 2005

I sincerely hope that the "textual example" was not the Book of Gates! You should read the discussion above. Your version has been reverted by someone else. I hope we are not going to have another edit war, so we need to sort things out if possible on this page. Paul B 10:00, 25 Apr, 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I contacted Mel before. I will to do so again. Thanks!

Mel sent me an email. He noted that I'd made some wholesale changes without talking to others, and also noted that my critique of Toynbee and Lefkowitz were overly harsh. I disagree with the last statement, but there was another way for me to go about noting this. How about we start with the critics and move outward? As I noted to Mel there are strong critiques to be made against Afrocentricity as an academic enterprise. A number of scholars who are both non-racist (that is, they aren't predisposed to think Africa is backwards), AND familiar with the works (that is, they have actually read the major works that constitute the Afrocentric canon) have weighed in. Unless we can find some textual evidence that the critics have actually read the work, I think we delete reference to them.

My point (in a message on your Talk page; I haven't e-mailed you) was not that you were too harsh, but that your edits were PoV (and, in the case of Toynbee, anachronistic and inaccurate — apparently because you're working with a very non-standard definition of 'white supremacist'). You might hold that a certain writer is deficient in many ways – and sometimes you might be absolutely right – but you can't say so; you can only cite someone else saying so (see Wikipedia:No original research). To demand, incidentally, that Toynbee have read the work of people writing long after his death is a little peculiar. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:35, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

1. Hey! I don't suggest that Toynbee come back from the dead and read anything. I suggest that if we use contemporary critics, we should refer to those that read the work. The problem with Toynbee was that his racist bias contaminates his scholarship. If he were a physicist, and we were talking about laser optics, it wouldn't matter what he thought about black people...and the term "mainstream" might be accurate and would be neutral. In this case his ideas aren't mainstream and they are not empirically accurate (scholars now recognize Egypt to be an African civilization, scholars now study a number of civilizations within Africa, and those scholars who do acknowledge race no longer consider the black race to be backwards and primitive). And by privileging a non-expert the term "mainstream" becomes non-neutral. Again I think I should have just talked about why references to Toynbee and Lefkowitz should be deleted. Thanks!

'Scholars' in the abstract do not 'now now recognize Egypt to be an African civilization'. Some scholars emphasise "Africanness", but the real issue, surely, is what do they mean by this?. To simply merge this polyvalent term with racial concepts is to beg the question. Toynbee did not, so far as I'm aware, deny that Egypt is in what we now call Africa. How could he? It's a truism, and rather meaningless in itself. Carthage was in Africa. Alexandria was in Africa. Africa is a landmass, not a race. When Toynbee spoke of "the black race" he was working with the models of race that were dominant in his day. He meant the "Negroid" race. Now we may legitimately doubt that there is any such thing as "the Negroid race", but it was a normative label in Toynbee's day, and the concept still strongly affects thinking about race today, not least among Afrocentrists themselves. In this article we have used the terms 'black', 'African', 'Negroid', 'Sub-Saharan' and so on at various different points, while trying to draw attention to the problems that attend the use of each one of them (all of which are also discussed in more detail in the articles dedicated to these terms). I think we should contine to "problematize" (as the jargon-term has it) such racial and geographical terms rather than to equivocate or blur different concepts together. Paul B 17:18, 25 Apr, 2005 (UTC)

What they mean by this, or rather what I interpret them to mean by this, is that the central contributions TO Egypt emanate from within the Continent, that there are greater similarities between various Egyptian cultural concepts and other African cultural concepts than there are between Egyptian cultural concepts and Semitic ones. The challenge here is to clear away the racial clutter. Take the phrase "Sub-Saharan Africa" for example. People lived there remember? So what is the non-arbitrary argument for using the Sahara as a divider, given this? The Atlantic Ocean represents a natural barrier such that we can easily say that people on one side of the Atlantic should be thought of as naturally distinct from people on the other side. We can't say that here. The conceptions of race we should toss as well--until we begin to deal with modern-day relationships. What is "black Africa" for example? How does that relate to ancient civilization? Cheikh Anta Diop and John Henrik Clarke (two early scholars who could be called "Afrocentric") attempted to use faulty language (the language of race) to correct what they felt was a significant error. The error they attempted to correct (the error of placing Egypt outside of Africa) was indeed an error. But the language they used was off. So how to deal with this? I think that we should recognize that early "Afrocentric" scholars used the problematic language of race--and talk about the analytical problems associated with it. But at the same time we have to recognize two things--that they were responding to a general culture of scholarship that used concepts of race to deny "black" and "African" agency, and that current scholars (on "both" sides) have moved away from these conceptions. Focusing on African contributions makes much more sense, and we can THEN talk about the problematic aspects with conceptualizing Africa (or Europe or Asia for that matter) as an undifferentiated land mass.---lks

Apologies for not replying in detail, or earlier. I will do so ASAP later in the week. But a question - when you say "people lived there remember?" Do you mean they lived in the Sahara or south of it? I assume you mean the former. Yes, but it's sparcely populated and the phrase "Sub-Saharan Africa" is simply a convenient way of identifying a useful and meaningful divide. The "non-arbitary" reasons for considering it significant are genetic studies, language distribution and cultural history. All such divide-concepts are arbitrary to some extent - like periodising labels. The question is whether they are useful. Paul B 11.28, May 3, 2005, (UTC)

I mean that people lived in the Sahara. For me the phrase "Sub-Saharan Africa" for that particular time period means as much as the phrase "Black Africa" means as far as the study of Ancient African Civilizations goes. Again, for me it serves as "racial clutter" of the type that we should move away from. Again, read the Sub-Saharan Africa entry. It argues that "sub-saharan africa" is actually short hand for "black" or "dark" Africa. If indeed the race of the Ancients is unimportant, and this term is simply another synonym for race, then why are we using it to refer to Ancient Egypt? kspence 6:14, 9 May, 2005

I apologise for my delay in replying. I don't really understand your argument. The phrase is precisely not normally used for discussing Ancient Egypt! It is used here because it is connected to debates about pan-Africanist claims, and about more specific claims made by some Afrocentrist writers about connections between West African peoples and Egyptians. In the context of discussion of these claims the use of the concept clearly makes sense.

The Sub-Saharan article does not make the claims you suggest it does (and how can a longer phrase be "shorthand"). It says that "Black Africa" and "Dark Africa" have been used in the past, but are now thought by some people to be offensive.The phrase does imply differences in population ancestry, yes, but also in cultural-historical links and language-familes. Paul B 14:05, 18 Mar, 2005 (UTC)

Now it is my turn to apologize. This is a direct quote from the article: "This division of Africa has arisen from the perception of North Africa as predominantly Arab or Berber in ethnicity and culture, and the perception of sub-Saharan Africa as predominantly black in ethnicity or culture." What does "black in ethnicity or culture" mean? kspence 11:23PM, 30 May, 2005

Well, in itself its a rather compressed pronouncement, to be sure. But the word "black" links to the article "Blacks" which contains a detailed discussion of the usage of this concept. That's how this encyclopedia works, by linking to pages that offer more detailed discussion of contested or problematic concepts. As for the central point itself, well it is historically accurate. Just look at the names of the countries on the line of the North/Sub-Saharan Africa division. Most of them actually mean "black". Niger and Nigeria come from the Latin for black. Ethiopia derives from the Greek for "burned-face". Sudan comes from the Arabic for black. In other words, there has been an historically longstanding perception, as the article says, of a dividing line between visibly distinct populations. This distinction corresponds roughly to patterns of breaks between language groups, distinct eco-systems and population histories. These distinctions are of course never absolute, but they constitute a series of separate but interlocking reasons for legitimating the North/Sub-Saharan distinction. Is "black/blacks" an adequate inclusive term for Sub-Saharan peoples? No it isn't. But apart from "Negroid" we don't have another widely used term, unless you include "Sub-Saharan" itself, of course. So until something better appears it's difficult to see how we can just wave goodbye to it, especially as it is linked to modern self-perception of race in the US and elsewhere. Paul B 15:12, 30 May, 2005 (UTC)

White Supremacist Toynbee

Well, I've been reading Toynbee's "white supremacist" book A Study of History. He discusses racial difference at the beginning, commenting that "the physical characteristic most commonly emphasised by Western advocates of racial theories is colour. It is, of course, just conceivable that spiritual and mental superiority is somehow linked up with, and therefore positively correlated with, comparable absence of skin pigmentation though this seems biologically improbable." He goes on to ridicule the theory of the superiority of the Nordic race and the Aryan race. He proceeds to use the then-dominant tripartite model of Nordic, Alpine and Mediterranean races to discuss contributions to various civilisations, and goes on to comment on the civilisations created by Oriental and Amerindian peoples. The offending sentence appears at this point - "the black races alone have not contributed positively to any civilization - as yet. The White races hold the lead, but it is to remembered that there are many White peoples that are as innocent of having made any contribution to any civilization as the Blacks themselves. If anything positive emerges from this classification it is that half our civilizations were based on contributions from more than one race." So Toynbee is very sceptical about race theories based on 'skin pigmentation' and stresses multi-race 'contributions'. Yes he says that the 'black races' have not made a contribution 'as yet', but points out that that's as true as many White peoples. He later on has a lengthy passage about African-American spirituality, which sometimes reads as though he's been overdosing on The Green Pastures, but is clearly an attempt envisage a forthcoming civilising role of black Americans. Paul B 00:04, 26 Apr, 2005 (UTC)

---I agree completely. Toynbee is really not a "white supremacist." To call him that really belittles the extreme racism of many other writers. Toynbee does not believe that race is the determining factor in history. He's not a racist. He believes that there are a certain number of civilizations, including the Indian, Chinese, Western, etc... None of his civilizations are black African unless you include the Egyptian. Of course his view is certainly that some civilizations are more advanced than others, and he believes African cultures are at an earlier stage of development. This view is certainly open to criticism, but I definitely wouldn't call it racist. It isn't motivated by hate or a political argument for white superiority. It is, however, something that Afrocentric scholars should, rationally, argue against. Just remember that Toynbee did not "hate" people of other races. His idea of cultural development is, however, dated. ---dcb11

--One of the challenges here is that I do not look at either racism or white supremacy as being driven by hatred. Remember that there was a great deal of real (as in "not faked") paternalist sentiment imbued into the slave trade. White Christians thought they were civilizing Africans and bringing God into their lives. There are several narratives (including that of [Thomas Jefferson]) that contain heartfelt sentiment towards "blacks" even as they argue that "blacks" are inferior to "whites." So while I agree that Toynbee was not a member of the KKK (or its British equivalent), and I agree that Toynbee did not evince hatred towards blacks (or non-whites), that in and of itself does not mean much. The much better argument is that Toynbee's WORK did not reflect racism or white supremacy. Again, if we take emotional content (feelings of "hatred" or "prejudice") out of the equation, and look simply at the racial/cultural hierarchy, it is clear that Toynbee puts the "white race" on top and the "black race" on bottom EVEN AS HE REJECTS THE CONCEPT OF RACIAL HIERARCHY. This reflects a significant amount of ambivalence on Toynbee's part...but still it is clear that when it comes to dealing with blacks, Toynbee argues (almost regretfully) that they have not contributed to civilization AT ALL. Toynbee is NOT a white supremacist like say a contemporary writer like Rushton. He is not even a racist like [Thomas Jefferson]. But his research findings ARE. So what does that mean for this particular entry? I argue that there are three reasons at least why Toynbee should be excluded. The first is that his findings have been shown persuasively to be false. His arguments about the "black race", his arguments about African civilization, and his arguments about Egypt, have both been soundly rejected by scholars. The second (and this is of less importance) is that his scholarship reflects a type of racism which WAS common, but led to the biases reflected in his scholarship.---lks

--The man is a racist, is known to be a racist and any attempt of vindicating his ignoble bile is unfortunate. Where was Abbyssinia in Toynbee's thesis? Did that fact that it was one of the largest and most powerful empires in the world not classify it as a civilization solely due to its populous? Pathetic. The previous poster noted that whites did not see slavery as a bad thing at all, rather they - the white christians - thought they were doing humanity a service by civilizing the backward Africans. He/she even threw in Thomas Jefferson and his sympathetic writings to the cause. How benevolent, and sad, pathetic and the worst piece of racist trash i've ever come across. If the white christians truly believed they were enlightening the blacks, why did they butcher 10 million in the process of bringing them over to enlightened America, why enslave the rest and continue to pillage half their continent if it really was about helping them? How disturbing an argument can someone possibly formulate?! advice for next time, dont throw in a known rapist to strenghten your argument.. [unsigned entry]

I'm just discovering this subhead. Missed it somehow. Boy, am I glad I entered that Toynbee quote. Still trying to claim Toynbee isn't a stark, raving, foaming-at-the-mouth white supremacist/racist? This man who essentially stated that there was no African civilization worthy of serious study, whose A Study of History is a virtual friggin' bible for Western historians and professors of history? Yeah. Right. Toynbee's racism is legend. ROTFLMBAO. :D User:deeceevoice 16:31, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Toynbee's racism may or may not be a legend. But your own racism, deeceevoice, is legendary here on wikipedia. It is quite sad that you are vocal, as you inspire little other than unpleasant sentiments and racial conflict where there was none. And, of course, you are quite clearly nothing but undeniably and unmistakably American. "Africans" (african or otherwise, even American) in general are little to nothing like you. --70.49.165.24 03:51, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Relation of Semitic Peoples to Afrocentrism

---Although early work arguing that Egypt was African did deal with race, the vast majority of scholars have moved beyond it, recognizing that racial categorization is a modern phenomenon. So it isn't about whether Egypt is "black" but rather Egypt is "African." As such Afrocentric scholars would reject the phrase "black Africa" as being either redundant (who talks about "white Europe?") or analytically incorrect. Now on at least one occasion Egypt was invaded by the Hyksos--a Semitic people. And there was a great deal of trade between Semitic peoples and Egyptians. But the central question is what contribution did these peoples make to Egyptian civilization? Did they introduce concepts into Egyptian society that did not come from her African neighbor to the South (Nubia)? Did they introduce religious concepts? Political concepts? From everything I am aware of, the only contributions that come INTO Egypt before they were taken over by the Greeks came from Nubia to the South. I think moving away from considerations of race is paramount in dealing with the connections between ancient peoples. It ends up cluttering the scholarship.---lks

---I agree that race is a man-made concept, and I think the genetic data shows this. However, it's really the concept of ancestry and history that I'm talking about here. I'm talking about Semitic people not in racial terms, but in terms of ancestry and linguistics. ---dcb11

---

I am very interested in the linguistic angle...the ancestry angle less so. But your central arguments are in line with mine...that things move OUTWARD from Africa rather than INWARD (or even in AND outward with the exception of the Hyksos invasion).---lks

I'm only just now noticing this subhead. I suppose I'll have to check the discussion history page to see when it was posted. (Why don't you sign and date your posts? It's annoying!) I find the comments a bit curious.

The nameless contributor writes:

It will be hard, of course, to come to terms with the idea that Mid-Eastern people, who aren't physically black, are in the same group as the black Africans, and not in the same group as the other "white" people. But skin color is not a good way to determine ancestry, although some Afrocentrics will maintain that people of white skin color, despite their ancestry, have not experienced the same problems as black people. Ultimately, I think incorporating the Mid-Eastern peoples into Afrocentrism in some sense would be beneficial, assuming it's done not from the negative "anti-white" viewpoint but from the "pro-African" viewpoint that affirms the beauty, complexity, and historical importance of African culture.

Okay. I'm not entirely sure I'm understanding your point, so let me say the following: I would venture to say that MOST black people, myself included, never considered Semites white. You hear black folks say constantly, "He's not white; he's Jewish." And they would never, ever refer to an Arab as white (which I'm sure must cause much chagrin and mortification among many of that rabidly racist bunch). Consider my exchange below w/Mustafaa about Berbers (And, no. That is not to say all Arabs are racist, or even that Mustafaa is. Obligatory disclaimer.) (Apparently, I have a few things to learn about the Berbers of Morocco & Algeria, but it's clear that they still aren't white, despite being classified as "Caucasian," and despite (apparently) thinking themselves so. Hell, even East Indians are classified as Caucasian, and that's simply ridiculous, 'cause they damned sure aren't white, either.)

But a lot of Semites -- Jews, for instance -- many Jews consider themselves non-white; they know their history. IMO, those who consider themselves white, apparently do not. Interestingly, I was recently watching an interview w/author Walter Mosley, whose mother is Jewish. He refuses to call himself "half-white"; he insists he is "half-Jewish." He says he knows Jews aren't white. He says his Jewish mother knows Jews aren't white. Smart people. :)

Frankly, I don't know where "Mid-Eastern people" (what does that mean, anyway? They're a pretty multi-ethnic lot) came from. I freely admit I don't know, but I suspect they did not develop in Africa, but migrated out of Africa early on, were isolated for a time by climatic changes, perhaps, developing different phenotypical characteristics (especially lighter skin) and then were part of a later migration(s)/conquests that returned and resettled certain areas and then spread across the region from east to west, intermarrying with darker peoples.

Prince Bandar of Saudi, for example is most definitely a homeboy. I mean, hell, he could walk down the streets of DeeCee any day of the week in FUBU or Sean Jean and not draw a second glance. (Ignorant, redneck GI's in the first Gulf War came home calling Iraqis and Arabs in general "sand niggers.") In ancient times, when Sheba accepted Judaism, many in her Yemenite kingdom became Jewish also. "Semitic" Jews and black Jews freely associated and intermarried. Among the Lemba Buba clan in South Africa, for example, the Kohen Haplotype appears in greater frequency than among Ashkenazim and Sephardim put together. And then there were those who, like Solomon, freely associated across religious lines, as well. I have always regarded Semitic peoples as Eurasian peoples and Afro-Semitic peoples as "blacked-up" Semites who simply express the so-called "Negroid phenotype" to a greater degree. Hell, lots of Ashkenazi (and, of course, the Sephardim), even, still have nappy hair. But I have to say I've never particularly concerned myself with the possibility that Semitic peoples actually mutated/originated on the African continent. To me, it makes no sense.

You write, "But skin color is not a good way to determine ancestry, although some Afrocentrics will maintain that people of white skin color, despite their ancestry, have not experienced the same problems as black people."

I won't even address the substance of the above statement, because it is no way in hell relevant to this discussion. I find it patronizing and wholly gratuitous. deeceevoice 18:23, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Further, I (and most black people I know) have always known Semites to be a mixture of black African and Euro-Asiatic lineages. Yes, we are "connected" to Middle Eastern peoples -- just as we are "connected" to all other ethnicities of humanity; they all started out as black Africans. As far as any feelings of kinship, yes. There are most certainly feelings of kinship on the part of many certainly leftist-leaning African Americans, at least, towards the Middle East. We tend to be far more sympathetic to Palestinians and their struggle for a homeland and far less pro-Zionist than other populations, generally. This is occasioned by our natural affinity for people struggling against occupation and degradation, as well as other factors. We keep in mind also in this regard the long-time Zionist support for Apartheid South Africa and the conspicuous silence of the majority of that nation's Jews in the anti-apartheid movement. And the same can be said for many Jews here in the U.S., with Jewish involvement in the diamond trade and their concerns about maintaining a strong pro-West alliance among South Africa, Israel and the U.S. during the days of the Cold War and Soviet involvement in Southern Africa.

No question -- Jews historically have stood with African Americans against white racism and violence and have been tremendously instrumental and helpful to black advancement here in this nation. But the historical record is clear about the degree to which many Jews themselves benefited from the trans-Atlantic slave trade and a system of world capitalism, which was built upon the profits from black bondage. The degree to which any residual good will remains, however, is tempered by Bakke and more current events: e.g., the targeting and defeat of former Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney in her reelection bid by the pro-Zionist Jewish lobby, who funded her opponent's campaign to the tune of over $1 million and applied pressure to prominent black politicians and "leaders" to withdraw their support for her. The Jewish lobby has employed similar tactics against other black officials who have spoken out against the Israeli occupation of Palestine and its treatment of Palestinians.

Most of us are also very aware of the rabid, virulent anti-black racism among Arabs, their history of conquest, exploitation and domination of portions of the African continent that weakened Africa internally and paved the way for the trans-Atlantic slave trade; the ongoing Arab involvement in the slave trade -- particularly in Sudan and and their targeting the poor of Bangladesh (Veddoid/black peoples) and elsewhere for the sex trade and other forms of exploitation. There is a big difference between supporting Palestinian self-determination and having any feelings of camaraderie or connection with the Arab World. Even black Muslims with a strong sense of racial identity don't have much good to say about Arabs. After all, despite all the rhetoric about "al-Ummah" and some sort of interracial, Islamic ūber brotherhood, the past and ongoing record of their actions vis-a-vis black Africa is pretty damned appalling. deeceevoice 17:28, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm not sure what having a "connection" to Middle Eastern peoples means to you. Nor do I fundamentally understand its pertinence to the discussion of Afrocentrism -- but I decided to respond, anyway. Peace. deeceevoice 17:34, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Further, people can't have it both ways. The rest of the world can't classify groups of generally dark-skinned peoples by race based fundamentally on phenotypical differences and lineage, claiming they are dirty, smelly, stupid, violent, child-like, depraved, inherently inferior/subhuman, have no culture, no written language, and have contributed absolutely nothing of value to human civilization; and then suddenly switch up and try to reshuffle the historical deck, re-classifying the very same people based on linguistic groupings to include lighter-/"white"-skinned people when --oops --it just so happens that the black folks among the "Afro-Asiatic" linguistic group originated one of the earliest and most powerful civilizations on earth, and, gee, wouldn't it be nice for "Semites" to be able to take credit for it? And, hell, no. The Hausa are not like Arabs; they are black African, and there is no question that when one says "Hausa," they are speaking of obviously Africanoid (read "Negroid") peoples; whereas, one one says "Arab," the usual image is of a Eurasian Semite. How easy it is to usurp the history of a people. Just switch the labels; pretend, "Hey, it's all good. We're all just one, big, kumbaya melting pot of humanity," and hope no one notices.

Black folks don't play that. We know -- and you know that in any other setting, the original and predominant peoples of ancient dynastic Egypt -- and, still, modern-day Egypt (beyond the Arabized larger cities) -- readily would be classified as black by both phenotype and lineage. But when it came to be a matter of laying claim to (usurping) a high civilization rich with archaeological treasures and objects of great intrinsic monetary value, as well, whites and Arabs routinely have sought to suddenly overturn centuries of reliable classical scholarship which clearly identified the Egyptians as black peoples and quibble inanely about who was blue-black, who was chocolate brown, and who was brown-skinned with a reddish cast to their skin! Hilarious.

Further, keep in mind that the age of archaeological exploration of ancient Egypt occurred in the early to mid 19th century, when the trans-Atlantic slave trade was still going strong. There was and is still ample and, literally, monumental archaeological proof of the blackness of ancient dynastic Egypt and the Nile Valley civilizations. There is no overlooking the obviously 'black giant head of the Great Sphinx at Giza (which is why Arguzil kept objecting to its placement in the article -- no other reason), with its extremely prominent maxillary and alveolar prognathism and big teeth, full lips (the outlines of which can still be seen, despite allegedly having been shot off; or of the giant statuary at Abu-Simbel; or of any of the innumerable Egyptian art and artifacts, some on prominent display, some hidden away in museums around the world.

But it would not do for whites or Arabs to acknowledge black African intelligence, black African power, black African sophistication in dynastic Egypt while, at the same time, perpetrating and perpetuating the lie of inherent black inferiority and bestiality. The party line was we were lazy, frightened children, at best; wanton, over-sexed, depraved, scheming, devious, potentially violent subhumans at worst, to be worked like draughthorses, bred like livestock and used to satisfy the basest sexual desires of our captors. And much the same still can be said of the situation with the racist, immoral Arab slave trade in black humanity in East Africa that is ongoing as I now write. More importantly to them, it would not do to acknowledge that many of the peoples of their beloved and much-blashemed against Bible were black, as well -- most notably, the "Pharaoh" himself.

What we have here is a classic example of so-called "scholarship" -- a compilation of the most transparent, cynical and despicable of lies -- in the service of white supremacy, racism and capitalism. And we have people who are so accustomed to such obfuscation, who are such sheep when it comes to examining the historic record because the Lie ensures to their benefit psyhically, politically and/or monetarily, that they are completely ignorant of, or utterly immune to, the truth of the matter. And then there are those, like Zahi Hawass, the self-important gatekeeper of the treasure trove of black Egyptian antiquity, who cynically manipulate the truth out of typically Arab, rabid, anti-black racism; and a desire to appropriate the history of a people -- when even Biblical history is clear that pharaohs of ancient Egypt were not of the same deeceevoice 11:59, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC) .

Afrocentricity in Hip-Hop

It would be nice to have an article, or at least a part of an article, about Afrocentricity in hip-hop music. It played a very important part in the origin and development of the music, although unfortunately this has been forgotten with the rise of gangsta rap and other forms of non-political hip-hop (not that such music isn't important or good). Specifically, I'm thinking of Afrika Bambaataa and the Zulu Nation, as well as the Native Tongues posse (which included De La Soul, Queen Latifah, Tribe Called Quest, Leaders of the New School, and many others). I think Afrocentricity may be on the rise again in popular hip-hop. Anyway, is anyone knowledgable enough to write this article? I don't think I am, but I could maybe give it a start. There are already articles on some topics, such as Native Tongues, but they are pretty basic. ---dcb11

I agree absolutely. This would be a very good idea. I don't know enough (b-all in fact) to write it, but I do think something on Afrocentrism and popular culture would be useful. I think the section on Rastas is actuallly rather out of place here, but rather than delete it, it might be better to incorporate it into a "culture" section, discussing Hip Hop, reggae etc use of Afrocentrist ideas, and bringing in that Michael Jackson video with Eddie Murphy as Akhenaton and Iman as Nefertiti. I believe there is also a film in the pipeline starring Denzel Washington as Hannibal, which sets up the Carthaginians - or at least their top man - as black-African. Paul B 13:45 Apr 25 2005 (UTC)

I've been thinking a lot more on this. Two different articles need to be written at least. One on Afrocentrism--which is an ideology, and one on Afrocentricity--which is an academic project. In as much as there are Afrocentric themes within hip-hop (themes that were much stronger in the mid eighties then at present), the link between Afrocentricity and hip-hop should probably be explored in both arenas. I could probably write the article a bit later. kspence

By all means create an article on Africentricity. However, if you wish to disuss Asante's own views in detail, I think the best thing would be to create an article on Asante himself. Currently, he doesn't have one, poor chap. Paul B 13:30, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

Tiye

Deecee, the image you have deleted was chosen to illustrate the history of Afrocentrism. Your choice does not illustrate it, it's just a selectively chosen dark-skinned-looking sculpture. We've been through this before. Anyone can selectively choose sculptures and pictures to "prove" dark or light skin. If we are to be fair about this we should have a 'light'-looking Egyptian statue to contrast with this one. What we don't want is an image-war weith proliferating "evidence" in the form of endless sculptures and pictures of Egyptians. Surely there are enough Egyptian things here already. Since you've chosen Akenaton's (half-Asian!) mum, Mrs Akhenaton would be the obvious comparison. However, I intend to restore the cover of The Crisis, since it is evidence of the debates that led to modern Afrocentrism. Paul B 15:05, 18 May, 2005 (UTC)

No. Your edit note is simply incorrect. Tiye is not dark because the artisans used dark yew wood in the making of her bust. She is dark because she was, in fact, dark-skinned in life. She was a Nubian. Further, yew wood is not naturally that dark. Take a close look at the photo. Click the image to see the full-sized photo. The light-colored band on the queen's forehead is where a portion of her headdress used to be. The light-colored band is the true color of the wood underneath. Similar lighter wood tones can be seen in the corners of Queen Tiye's eyes, where the finish is worn. Clearly, pains were taken to darken the image. Why? Because Tiye was a dark-skinned black woman. Oh. One other thing: that's an afro (or afro wig; yes, they had 'em -- big ones) she's wearing. deeceevoice 17:32, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Ah Deecee, you have surpassed youself with this example of "scholarly rigor". I don't know if she was part Nubian or not. No-one does for certain. Yes, yew-wood is not "naturally dark" when new, but all word acquires a dark patina with age. For example, the famous "English longbow" was made of yew. Compare the 400 year old examples found in the Mary Rose with new-made ones. There's a photo here of some original arrows contrasted with a new one [3] (http://www.primitivearcher.com/articles/warbow.html). I have been trying to find a catalogue with clear information about the sculpture, but all I have found is an entry that says "yew wood with inlay". I have not found anything that states it was painted. Maybe it was, but hey, I'm actually trying to find the truth of the matter, rather than just blanking any evidence I don't like and pushing everything I do. You, it seems, have identified Tut's father with certainty, despite the fact that no-one else knows who he was! It was probably Amenhotep III, but it's far from established. You also seem to be unaware of the latest facial reconstruction.

As it happens I saw Tiye scupture in Berlin, but at the time fixations with skin-pigment seemed to me one of the least interesting things to think about when confronted by Amarna culture and Art, let alone the mystical influence of late 1960s hairstyles. So I didn't make an effort to memorise its make-up. However, I am trying to get hold of catalogue, which I will trust rather more than the websites which you seem to treat as gospel. Paul B 22:54, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

About "scholarly rigor," it is widely known/accepted that Queen Tiye was Nubian -- as were many of the royals of the 18th Dynasty. Here is a link to a sculpture of King Tutankhamun with the other two layers of gesso worn away, revealing the bare wood underneath.[4] (http://www.freemaninstitute.com/Gallery/Egyp359_big_copy.jpg). Here's another.[5] (http://www.freemaninstitute.com/Gallery/Egyp349_big_copy.jpg) And another.[6] (http://www.freemaninstitute.com/Gallery/Egyp366_big_copy.jpg) And here's one with the full treatment, this time with black pigmentation, rather than brown.[7] (http://www.freemaninstitute.com/Gallery/Egyp340_big_copy.jpg) deeceevoice 10:47, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's nice to know that it is "widely known" that Tiye was from Nubia. Perhaps you have some evidence for this. I guess it may be as widely known as the ideantity of Tut's father. As it happens, Tiye's parents grave was excavated not long before Tut's. At the time it was thought that Yuya, Tiye's father, was of Semitic origin. From what I have found out about the history of this theory it seems that this was for three reasons. The first was that the inscriptions indicated that he held extensive lands in the Delta region. The second was the his skull and features were thought to look "European". The third was that Yuya was not a known Egyptian name, and was several times misspelled in the tomb inscriptions. Some linguists argued that it was a distortion of a Semitic name. Some entusiastic writers even went so far as to identify him as the biblical "Joseph".

As I understand, this last argument is no longer taken seriously, but Yuya is an unusual name, leaving the possibility of non-Egyptian origins open. As for what faces look like - we know that can be endlessly disputed. However, it is now known that part of his his family at least was based in Upper Egypt, just north of where he is buried. There is no information that I know of concerning his wife's origins. The was a temple built to Tiye in Nubia, which may be the origin of an argument that she came from there, unless it's simply based on the wooden bust, the German catalogue of which I have now obtained. It makes no mention of its being painted. Paul B 17:30, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Imbalance of neutrality

This entire article is not an unbiased exploration of afrocentrism, but an ambitious presentation whose purpose is to discredit the ideology. Every section undermines the basic precepts of afrocentrism as a mythology of wishful thinking, reacting to white racism. The author has yet to make an earnest attempt to present an objective article. (musicus 24 July 2005)

The picture (of the Nubian and Asian on a cane) is not relevant to the discussion. The counter point that the "not" black Egyptians are being used "improperly" by Afrocentricists to place them in a Black-African sphere is a faulty position.

Assertion. Do you actually have an argument? I have explained the purpose of the cane image. Can you respond? It seems to me that you don't like it because it challenges your ideology. .Paul B 22:54, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

1. The Egyptians, esp. 18th dynasty are a Black group. Finding yew-wood discoloration as an alternative to skin color is a Eurocentric method of avoiding the fact. 2. The Egyptian mummies show negroid features, from the old kingdom to the new kingdom. To "reclassify" them as "not Black" because some of their skulls are closer to a 90 degree angle than West African skulls is rediculous. The Egyptians by and large resemble Black or mixed-Black people.

What Afrocentricism challenges is the Eurocentric notion that mixed people are by default "caucasoids" and that the mixture itself between a Caucasoid and a Negroid creates primarily Caucasoid descendants is rediculous and at the very least inconsistent.

It is important to note that both the modern "one drop Black rule" AND the modern interpretation of Ancient cultures "the one drop Caucasoid rule" is socially irrelevant to the people.

The QUeen Tiye picture is an accurate representation of the Egyptians, as we see Akhenaten shows the same facial characteristics (and not due to any sickness).

"The QUeen Tiye picture is an accurate representation of the Egyptians, as we see Akhenaten shows the same facial characteristics (and not due to any sickness)." This kind of dogmatic assertion is part of the problem. Queen Tiye is probably an accurate depiction of Queen Tiye, not of 'the Egyptians'. You cannot know that Akenaton and family did not have a 'sickness'. Marfan's syndrome is often suggested. The suggestion has nothing to do with debates about race, but concerns his elongated face (as depicted in some Amarna art) and 'feminine' hips.

Why you think 18th dynasty Egyptians were especially 'black' in comparison to other periods I don't know. All woods darken with age. 'Mixed-black' is a euro-American concept arising from the history of imperialism and race-based slavery. It's difficult to see its general relevance to Egypt. No-one ever said 'mixed people are by default caucasoids'. Tell that to the Klan! Tell that to Lothrop Stoddard or Madison Grant. You yourself draw attention to the contradition between this and trhe 'one drop' concept, but seem oddly to miss the consequence. Paul B 22:16, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Rastafari

Sorry, but section is really badly written, and it seems like a kind of afterthought add-on. I removed the ridiculous statement about how they 'longed for the jungle and lions' or some such silliness, but more improvements would be greatly appreciated. deeceevoice 20:10, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

See Hip Hop discussion above. It would be good if this could be transformed. I also think the pages should not turn into a "what race were the Egyptians" page. It's seriously overweighted in that direction. It might be better to create a separate page for the (endless) discusion of this issue, with a summary here. It could be linked to othger Egypt-related pages. Paul B 20:28, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Removed from the article:

===Rastafari and Africa===

The Rastafari movement that came out of 1930's Jamaica is an African centered religion that came out of the Garveyism of Marcus Garvey, and believes that Haile Selassie is both Almighty God, and the true king of African people, who one day will return the black diaspora to Africa. In the meantime they call to be repatriated. An early member, Leonard Howell, was charged with sedition for his disloyalty to King George V of England because of his loyalty to Selassie. They adopted the red, gold and green colors of the Ethiopian flag. In a society in which blacks were considered inferior they took pride in being black and African. They believe their culture was stolen from them when they were brought to the New World in the holds of slave ships, and that they must do what they can to reclaim and recover all things African. Their music began with African drums, and has evolved into reggae, which they see as African style music. The dreadlocks signify a closeness to nature and a rejection of the artificial razor, scissors, and comb that they feel have been imposed by what they call the Babylon system.

It's still really badly done, and I don't really see its direct significance to the article, which is a discussion of a historial paradigm. The Rastafari are completely irrelevant to the discussion. deeceevoice 16:59, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

image size

Deecee, are you trying to win a place on the lamest edit wars ever page? If we make the two pictures the same px size they occupy the same horizontal space. The Nefertiti image is longer (she' got a big hat and a long neck after all), but Tiye occupies more of the pictorial space. So when they are the same size, Tiye's face is actually bigger than Nefertiti's!!! Happy? Tiye's "afro" has nothing to do with anything except in your imagination. Quite what you have against the Crisis pic is beyond me. I originally made it larger so the copy could be read. Why you feel the need to reduce its size, I've no idea. Paul B 20:23, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

The Crisis pic was unnecessarily and obviously oversized. Purely from a page layout point of view, I thought it looked out-sized, so I simply reduced it. If people want to read the text, they can click on the image to see its full size. In fact, I also reduced the cane shot. No ulterior motive at all.

About the Nefertari pic -- I can't help what the composition of the photo is or how it's shot. My overall concern is the relative size of the actual image (photo) -- and not the image field. As you know, Wikipedia sizes the entire field, which includes captions. The actual image size shrinks relative to the lengthening of the caption. If you have a photo in a 250 px image field with a five-line caption and another photo in a 250 px image field with only a 2-line caption, the second image is noticeably/considerably larger than the first. And, after all, what people see/notice is the actual image size.

Your idea of "equalising" the images was to rely solely on pixels -- which doesn't work. Adopting this approach, if I did that and reduced the caption under Queen Tiye's pic to only one line (as with the pic of Nefertari), then the Nefertari image (photo) would appear huge by comparison -- almost 20 percent longer -- and that would be unacceptable.

If you can do a better job than I have at making the two seem equal, I'm open to that, but just going on the size of the image field (including captions) will not produce anything near an equitable treatment of both subjects, which has been my goal. As it stands now, the pic of Queen Tiye is shorter and wider than that of Nefertari; Nefertari's is taller and slimmer -- but that can't be helped -- short of actually cropping the image itself and cutting off Tiye's afro. Tiye's image is boxier than Nefertari's, which is more vertical in orientation. Further, the actual vertical space occupied by both image fields is as close to identical as they're going to get -- thus optimizing the layout/physical appearance of the document page in this regard. deeceevoice 20:54, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

I can only assume you are using different display options from the one I use (which is the default option). In equal px size the two images appear identical in width, with the Nefertiti image slightly longer, because it is less square-shaped than the Tiye image, but that difference is compensated for by Tiye's longer caption, so they in fact appear to be near-identical. And the lady's name is Nefertiti not Nefertari. They are two completely different women. Paul B 22:19, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

No. I thought I made it clear that I'm comparing photo size. As far as I'm concerned, the caption is merely part of the text. Read my comments again. And, yes, I know what her name is. Sleep deprivation. deeceevoice 23:44, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

yes, you made that clear, but I still find your reasoning bizarre. To say that equalising the px size makes Nefertiti "appear huge by comparison" to Tiye seems to me to be wild exaggeration. It's a bit longer, but her actual head - which is the important thing - actually becomes smaller. I can't imagine any unbiassed person thinking there had been any attempt to give one prominence over the other. No two images are ever likely to be identical in all respects. The picture of Nefertiti is just the one that's currently used elsewhwere, not carefully chosen to trump Tiye by having some extra length! Differentiating the width disrupts symmetry across the page. Paul B 15:27, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Again, what is most noticeable with any image field is the size of the photo itself -- not the additional space taken up by the caption (which clearly is part of the text). The size of the photo is the central issue. In that respect, the images are as nearly equal in size as possible. Using your own words about Tiye's afro big-hair, let me say that, "Nefertiti's big hat and long neck have nothing to do with anything except in your imagination." Absent the ability to manipulate a photo's vertical or horizontal orientation, or the angle or vantagepoint from which a photo has been taken (close-up, mid-range or a distance shot), the most reasonable and practical thing we can do is strive for equality of image (photo) size.

And as far as the symmetry across the page goes, you seemed little concerned with the overall appearance of the page with your hideously and unnecessarily outsized photo of the cartoon-like "Crisis" cover, or with balance when you earlier deleted Tiye's photo all together. Indeed, the bias seems to have been, in the presentation of photos, to deliberately counter the afrocentric contentions of the blackness of Egypt with the silly explanation accompanying the now-expunged photo of the cane and the "whitest" image of Nefertiti known to exist. (With all the clearly black, Africanoid images of real artifacts available to choose from, what was the single item supporting afrocentricity presented? A drawing!) There are far more images of Nefertiti with a broader nose and face and a pronounced prognathism -- in short, more Negroid features. This bust, though more widely known (since the overal thrust among European "scholars" has been to whitewash ancient Egypt), is arguably the least representative of the images of the queen available anywhere. [8] (http://www.freemaninstitute.com/Gallery/RTGpix7.htm)]

Finally, as one experienced in print journalism and layout, contrary to the version with the outsized cartoonish "Crisis" cover, there is nothing jarring at all with the page as it now stands. The eye is drawn toward color. The photos are very similar and size, which gives the page the appearance of balance. If a reader were viewing this page for the first time, unaware of the ongoing back-and-forth about the two images, the two images likely would draw no notice. deeceevoice 20:37, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

"Again, what is most noticeable with any image field is the size of the photo itself." Nope, what matters is the relevant content of the image, not the size of the background, or even of the image space itself. If you were illustrating an article on different types of rose, you wouldn't compare a close-up of one rose with a photo of a garden in which a different variety of rose was visible in the background would you? That's an extreme analogy, but the point remains the same. Your argument about the big hat and neck is spurious. Reshape the Nefertiti pic by chopping off the top of her hat or her neck/shoulders! I don't care. That would make the RELEVANT PARTS of the two faces closer in size and also satisfy your photo-shape obsession.

"as far as the symmetry across the page goes, you seemed little concerned with the overall appearance of the page with your hideously and unnecessarily outsized photo of the cartoon-like "Crisis" cover". Blimey, you truly are bonkers. The Crisis was a journal edited by W.E.B. Dubois, not some anti-African publication! It is there to illustrate that these arguments about Egypt date back to the early 20th century. Yes, the image is relatively crude. I guess they couldn't afford more sophisticated ones at the time. So what? The notion that it is "hideous" and "cartoonish" probably exists in your imagination alone. Perhaps you can find someone else to support this claim. As for the view that it was "outsize", this is just assertion. It was exactly the same px size as the Tiye image as you first uploaded it here. Your double-think fair takes ones breath away!

"or with balance when you earlier deleted Tiye's photo all together". Err, when was that? Are you sure you aren't suffering from sleep deprivation again?

"the silly explanation accompanying the now-expunged photo of the cane" And what was silly about the explanation? Do you have an argument that the cane did not depict both white and black enemies of Egypt, which is what the explanation said?

"(With all the clearly black, Africanoid images of real artifacts available to choose from, what was the single item supporting afrocentricity presented? A drawing!)"

I can't really believe you are actually this dumb. It was not a drawing that was illustrating an ancient culture, but the cover of a journal illustrating the thinking in the 1900s about an ancient culture.

"There are far more images of Nefertiti with a broader nose and face and a pronounced prognathism -- in short, more Negroid features. This bust, though more widely known (since the overal thrust among European "scholars" has been to whitewash ancient Egypt), is arguably the least representative of the images of the queen available anywhere."

Twaddle. Thre are many busts of Nefertiti, all of which are very similar to this one, though others are unpainted. However, this is the most complete, painted image. It is generally accepted to be the master-sculptor's template for busts of the queen. All other earlier images are in the highly stylised early-Amarna style, far more "cartoonish" than the Crisis cover. Still, none have a 'broader nose', as far as I know. I can't imagine any unbiassed commentator who would not take the view that it is the most likely to be as naturalistic an image of Nefertiti as we are likely to have. Not that you care. You have shown over and over that the truth of history is far less important to you than ideology. Paul B 00:44, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

• No. The most relevant yardstick is the size of the photo. Your analogy of the garden is not "extreme"; it is abysmally idiotic. (And I'm "dumb? lol) Any other measure is purely subjective. Would your suggested remedy in the case of the garden photo be to enlarge the entire photo in order to show the single flower the same size relative to the shot of of the single bloom (as you have suggested with the Nefertiti photo)? If so, I'm not the one who is the mental defective here. That's even worse than your rationale for the huge photo of the ugly "Crisis" cartoon. If a photo does not show an image in appropriate detail, scale or setting -- if the content of the photo is cluttered and does not show the desired object to best advantage -- then the photo itself is the problem not its size. The sensible, logical solution? Find another!

• As I said, it was a cartoonish line drawing. And, yes. The photo of Queen Tiye may have been (I didn't check) the same size as the huge, honking "Crisis" drawing, that was simply because I felt the photo of the statue of Queen Tiye should more approximate the size of the line drawing. But note that when I went back and downsized one photo, I downsized all of them; the page looked ridiculous.

• The explanation of the cane was silly in the context in which it was presented. It's typical of the nonsensical clap-trap Eurocentrics use when they try to take Egypt out of Africa altogether. Funny how Egyptian dominion over the Nubians (who happened generally to be darker-skinned), even though, judging from the preponderance of archaeological evidence, most ancient Egyptians had essentially the same cranial structure [broad across the cheekbones, with pronounced prognathisms -- a salient and striking characteristic of Egyptian artistic renderings of the human form (and also like the Sphinx at Giza) -- and wooly/nappy/kinky hair (as was noted by Herodotus) and the same full lips of other "Negroid" peoples -- suddenly automatically suggests that they were of a different "race". I find that profoundly curious, to put it kindly. And such was the clear implication/intent of the caption. The reasoning of such an oft-repeated argument is faulty, at best; but, more accurately, a calculated lie designed to whitewash Egyptian history. This same garbage appears later on in the article in a discussion of the ethnicity/race of the ancient Egyptians. And, yes, it is abjectly silly.

• And "dumb"? Gee. I'm not the one who seemingly has failed to understand that, yes, the "illustration" is, indeed, a DRAWING -- and a crude, cartoonish one at that. In terms of the credibility and accuracy of any likeness, nothing surpasses a photo (short of the real object, of course). For the singular representation of the afrocentric viewpoint in this article to have been some crude, cartoonish line drawing -- in view of the plethora of images of Egyptian artifacts that show clearly Africanoid ("Negroid") peoples -- was completely unacceptable. The likeness on the jug in the supplied link is even more in keeping with how Nefertiti would have appeared -- given that in numerous other renderings, she is clearly Africanoid -- and not Caucasaid, or Semitic, or Asian. The photo of Queen Tiye is, indeed, far more representative (as the nameless contributor states earlier on this page) of the majority of ancient dynastic Egyptians before Roman rule -- and for even centuries thereafter, judging from mummy portraits, which show clearly that the population of even Roman-era Egypt looked more like modern-day African Americans than Caucasians or Asians -- after millennia of miscegenation. deeceevoice 01:28, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Deecee, your arguments are so idiosycratic, I don't know where to begin. Many of them are not arguments at all, just assertions. The Crisis cover was too big, you say. Why? It just obviously was. Image size is the only important consideration, you say. Why? It just is. Gosh. At least I try to provide reasons, such as I can muster. The flower analogy was perfectly sensible, and here's why. It was a reductio ad absurdam of your argument, designed to show that the size of the relevant content of images is important. Short of photographing everything ourselves we have to make do with images availible to us. The comparison of the two images was, surely, wholly legitimate. Equalling size made the page symmetrical, visualised the notion of equality and was not in any way intended to promote one over the other. Your careful differention of sizes had the opposite effect. BTW, my research into the two images has not yet resulted in definitive information about Tiye, however I have found quite a number of other wooden images which are bare wood with paint added only on the eyebrows, around the eyes and on the hair (Tiye's hair was originally gold, then blue-tiled. Seemingly, its curent appearance is simply due to the loss of the little blue tiles). When and if I get definitive information I will post it.

Yes, the image on the cover of the Crisis is relatively crude, though if we are going to be pedantic, it's a print, not a drawing. But the image is intended to illustrate the early history of afrocentrist thought, not to be pretty and it's the magazine cover as a whole that makes the point. I am astonished that somehow choose to be offended by it. Your claim that the page looked 'ridiculous' was another idiosycratic assertion. No one else has said any such thing.

Everything that I wrote in the caption to the cane image was true. I note that you have no actual argument against the facts of what was written. But in your Orwellian world Truth is Lies. There is overwhelming evidence that Egyptians considered themselves to be visually different from both Nubians and 'Asiatics' has been repeatedly presented here. That's what the caption stated and, of course, it dramatised the fact that they did not think they were "white" just as much as the fact that they did not think they were "black". I have seen hundreds, probably thousands, of Egyptian scuptures. They vary from the "European" looking at one extreme to the "Negroid" looking at the other, as one would expect. Most are in between, which is all I've been saying all along. The evidence is clear that that was also how they saw themselves, and also how other cultures saw them.

You write "And "dumb"? Gee. I'm not the one who seemingly has failed to understand that, yes, the "illustration" is, indeed, a DRAWING -- and a crude, cartoonish one at that. In terms of the credibility and accuracy of any likeness, nothing surpasses a photo (short of the real object, of course)." Well, remember that I said I can't believe you are that dumb. That wasn't just rhetoric, it was literally what I meant. What I do believe is that you are, almost literally, blinded by ideology, that you close your eyes to evidence you don't like. This comment is evidence of it. I've already explained the point to the image, and you just blank it.

And here is a classic example of that blindness: "The likeness on the jug in the supplied link is even more in keeping with how Nefertiti would have appeared -- given that in numerous other renderings, she is clearly Africanoid." I have already given reasons why the Berlin sculpture is probably the most reliable image. Since it's probably by the same artist who made the Tiye sculpture we seem to be in Orwellian territory again. More double-think. It seems that you believe that Tutmose made an accurate image of Tiye, then made a wholly false one of Neferiti, for no apparent reason. Why, I wonder, did he paint it the wrong skin-colour, having been careful to make it so realistic in other respects, even to the point that lip colour is added - very unusual in Egyptian art? The earlier images that you think are more accurate portray Nefertiti as someone with a biologically impossible long thin neck, triangular profile and massively elongated eyes. They are obviously stylised, and don't resemble any actual race of human beings. Perhaps you think she was an alien, as seen in Stargate. The Berlin bust, in contrast, presents a plausible human being, and it is compositionally identical to several other busts from the same workshop. Paul B 01:02 6 June 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but I've wasted enough of my life on this exceedingly tiresome, ad nauseam exchange about the relative size of photos, blah, blah, blah. I've neither the time nor the patience to read the above. I've seen the cropping of the Nefertiti photo. I don't particularly care for it, but if such treatment satisfies those with a problem with the size of the Queen Tiye photo, if that will end this silly matter about photo size, then that's fine with me. deeceevoice 01:45, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it's tiresome, but since you chose to make an issue of image size, then you yourself were the one who 'had a problem' and have yourself to blame. Paul B 01:02 6 June 2005 (UTC)

I merely corrected a problem: the absence of any photographic image of a black, African Egyptian -- which you reverted and which was restored. And the images are relatively equal in size. I'm happy. :D deeceevoice 02:27, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why do you say I 'reverted' the image? All I ever did was move it. You never 'restored' it because it was never made to go away. I have already pointed this out. Please do not reinvent history. Paul B 02:35 6 June 2005 (UTC)

Paul, I stand corrected on that point. (Didn't see your earlier comment in this regard.) When I visited the article and read your comment about the Queen Tiye photo and saw it missing, I likely didn't scroll down the length of the article. (By then I'd pretty much washed my hands of this piece -- for the time being, at least.) I should take this opportunity to state that your attempts at rewriting this piece have been an improvement from the Wareware edit-war period, when I left to contribute to other articles. Of course, our basic disagreements about Afrocentrism and the blackness of Egypt (in ancient times and likely now -- it's still predominantly black) means I felt/feel it still lacking in many respects, but improvement is improvement. I also have to say here that, hell, yeah. The huge, honking pic of the Crisis cover was ridiculous, taking up almost half the width of the page. I was right to downsize it. Amazing that you still defend that eyesore! Anyway, I'm off to other things for a while. I'm happy to see another Afrocentrist -- with credentials -- has joined the effort (there's hope for Wikipedia yet) and will drop in from time to time. :) deeceevoice 02:57, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Forensic reconstruction of mummified remains

I've added some very preliminary info regarding the Discovery Channel's forensic reconstructions of mummies, but I think it might be useful to include more background info on these images (and more) in a separate section on this aspect of Egyptology as it relates to Afrocentrism. Forensic reconstruction in the field of Egyptology is very controversial. Arab officials in Egypt -- who have spent considerable time, money and effort to de-Africanize ancient Egypt over the centuries -- have come out with their own forensic reconstructions. It could make for some interesting reading. deeceevoice 12:42, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks to contributor User:Agurzil for the info on the latest forensic reconstructions. I didn't have the focus to do so, and don't know when I would have gotten around to it. But as I anticipated/hoped, it helps to round out/balance the article. It also prompted me make some additional contributions on the subject that I hope readers also will find interesting/intriguing. Peace. deeceevoice 13:48, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Semitic = Son of Ham?

"Semitic" actually means "son of Shem", not son of Ham. AFAIK, "son of Shem" has never been used to refer to black people. The "son of Ham" thing is a reference to Ham's son Canaan being cursed by Noah in the Bible. — Gwalla | Talk 23:20, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Also, "Opponents of Afrocentrism often argue that Egyptians belong among the Semitic peoples of the Middle-East, pointing to the fact that Egypt is at the extreme north eastern edge of the African continent, close to both Israel and Arabia." No modern authority argues that Egyptians were Semitic, any more than the even whiter-skinned Berbers. Source? - Mustafaa 23:26, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The word Semitic is used in several different ways - to refer to a language group; to refer to biblical descendents of Shem; and to refer to a "race". These distinct usages are not wholly consistent with one another, as the Semitic article explains. Of course this looseness is also true of many other race-related terms. The sentence as originally written was intended to refer to the last - racial - usage. It was designed not as a statement of the "truth" but as a summary of what some opponents of Afrocentrism argue. See for example the discussion of Afrocentrism in the "Skeptic's Dictionary" [9] (http://skepdic.com/comments/afrocom.html). In the context of the paragraph it was set up as the opposite extreme to the argument that Egyptians were Black Africans, and was placed before a passage that articulated a more consensus view that the population of Egypt was mixed. Paul B 11:10, 13 June 2005 (UTC)

Also, "Today, a brown-skinned Mandingo is generally considered no less a black African than a very dark-skinned Nubian." I've seen Mandings, and they are very dark-skinned. It's Fulani that are less dark-skinned (though never as light as Egyptians usually are.) - Mustafaa 23:26, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

About the Sons of Ham and Chem, I stand corrected. There are, however, Semitic peoples who are sons of Ham: "... the Canaanites and Amorites also spoke a language belonging to this family, and are therefore also termed Semitic in linguistics despite being described in Genesis as sons of Ham (See Sons of Noah)." But even when I wrote the passage, I considered its usefulness to the discussion marginal and returned once to delete it altogether. But the system seems really sluggish, and I couldn't get the page to load. I lost patience.

About that passage and Egyptians being Semitic -- I didn't write it. However, that most certainly has been the general picture painted in the past -- or, even, that they were quite white.[10] (http://www.geocities.com/CollegePark/Classroom/9912/egyptians.html) Certainly, they have not been portrayed by Western historians as black. Nor are they portrayed as black by the current Arab regime there. In fact, people like that nasty, petty fool Zahi Hawass, go to great lengths to try to appropriate Egyptian culture as Arab/Semitic and not black. He fairly froths at the mouth at the mere suggestion that many ancient Egyptians were black Africans, many with nappy hair. Further, it is a common misconception that Berbers are "white." They are most certainly not -- and many of them are, in fact, quite dark -- indistinguishable physically from their black African brethren.[11] (http://www.africanbynature.com/falseimages/bewarefalseimages.html)

There are lots of brown-skinned Africans. Mandingos I've known have been brown-skinned. If that tribe/nation doesn't suite you, take your pick and substitute it for Mandingo, if it pleases you. Further, Egyptians aren't, by and large, "light." Those are Arabs, who've been in Egypt for centuries. Even in the large cities, you see lots of black Egyptians -- even after centuries of miscegenation -- who are clearly black Africans. Overall, Egyptians are more black African in phenotype than anything else. In fact, the average African-American could walk the streets of Cairo undetected as a foreigner as long as he/she didn't open his/her mouth and wore suitable clothing. The same could not be said for the average white. deeceevoice 01:58, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I spent seven years living in a small town on the edge of Kabylie. When I say Berbers are white, believe me! There are some good photos illustrating the point in Berber; Kabyles and Rifis, in particular, are whiter than many southern Europeans. As for Egypt (where I've only spent a couple of weeks) the color gradient goes from quite light in the north to quite dark in the south; however, blacks, now as in the ancient pictures, are generally Nubians. - - Mustafaa 05:00, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There are some Berbers who may be fair, but there are also lots of Berbers who are black (check out the above link). And while some may be fair they are most certainly not white -- and absolutely not "purely white." You don't know what you're talking about. Further, I just checked the link to Kabylie. It's in Algeria! The difference between the Berbers of Algeria and the (black) Berbers of East Africa today is as pronounced as night and day. And, no. There are lots of people in Egypt who are the color of, say, Anwar Sadat -- who faced color bias in his life, because he was a black Egyptian in an Egypt where a racist, Arab elite held sway -- with nappy/curlier hair than he had -- and they are not "Nubian." In my multicultural, multinational neighborhood, I myself have been mistaken for Egyptian -- and I am very cleary in this country an African-American, and I am not pale by any stretch of the imagination. The fact is an Arab elite in Egypt still does run the Egyptian government, and they control the Supreme Council of Antiquities, which regulates access to the archaeological heritage of ancient Egypt. And Arabs are notoriously racist/color-fixated -- as can be seen in what is happening in the Sudan. They have proven themselves perversely determined to usurp the black legacy of ancient Egypt. IMO, much of what they cannot usurp, obscure, or obfuscate or successfully flat-out lie about, they've obliterated. They flooded much of ancient dynastic Nubia and have that Hawass lying pathologically about the nature of ancient Egyptian history. Hell, yes, they've tried to portray the ancient Egyptians as Semitic/Arab! The campaign of lies has been nonstop.

What you have stated here is that anyone black in Egypt has to be Nubian -- which is patently and outrageously false. Look at the black, Nilotic (a term referring to the Nile River, where they originate) peoples of the Nile region -- the Yemenis, or "Yemenites," (a term which many old-country Jews still today use to refer to black people, generally); the Somalis; the Kenyans; the Sudanese; the Ethiopians; the Ugandans. They didn't just all of a sudden spring up from out of nowhere. These are the indigenous, or autochonous, peoples of the region. In some classical literature, "Nubian" was simply synonymous with "black" and did not necessarily refer to their nation-state of origin. The same can be said of the term "Ethiopian" and, as I've already noted, with "Yemenite."

Further, Sadat was typical of many Egyptians today. He came from an Egyptian-Sudanese family; he was black. Both peoples comprised, in part, the population of ancient Egypt. As a matter of fact, pure Nubians tend to have fairly straight hair (and Sadat had nappy/curly hair), like Somalis and some Ethiopians and some other Nilotic types. Further, to say Berbers (and you use the term as though you mean all Berbers, when such clearly is not the case) are whiter than some southern Europeans isn't saying much. Until the mid 19th century, Italians weren't even considered white in this nation (the U.S.). The African bloodline in Sicily and other parts of southern Europe is strong. Just take a look at actor John Turturo and his nappy hair. Same with Jews -- especially the Sephardim. They aren't white, either. deeceevoice 08:26, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Berber Kabyles in an MCB meeting Moroccan Prime Minister Driss Jettou Zinedine Zidane playing for Real Madrid Saïd Sadi

OK - I've looked at the site, and it's hopelessly mistaken.

The vast majority of Berbers (at least 14/15, possibly as much as 19/20) live in North Africa; Kabylie alone accounts for a good fifth of the world's Berbers. The Berbers of Kabylie and the Rif are emphatically "white"; within Algeria, red or blond hair and green eyes are far commoner among Berbers than among the rest of the population. (That said, if you don't consider Italians and Jews to be white, then they may still not be white by your definition. In that case, substitute Caucasoid for "white" above.) This is certainly not the result of recent mixing with Europeans; both areas were among the most isolated in North Africa until recently, and genetic analyses consistently confirm this point (see Berber.) There are no Berbers in East Africa at all; the Berbers of West Africa, numbering only about a million, are the Tuareg, who emigrated there in historic times and are, incidentally, incredibly racist against blacks. The black majority of Mali calls Tuaregs "les blancs" when speaking French.

There are, indeed, a small number of black Berbers - that is to say, black people who speak Berber. Called the haratin in the northern Sahara and the Bella or Iklan (literally "slaves") among the Tuareg, they are to be found in every area affected by the medieval trans-Saharan slave trade. In the oases of the northern Sahara, such as Ouargla or Touat, they were traditionally made to do the essential maintenance work, such as dredging canals and picking dates; among the Tuareg, they remain a distinct subgroup, and when the Songhay expelled the Tuaregs and Arabs from Timbuktu during the Tuareg Rebellion just a few years ago, they allowed the Bella to stay. These "black Berbers" are not found anywhere along the northern coast. Some may well descend from the pre-Berber population of the Sahara, the "Isebeten" that the Tuareg boast of having conquered; they certainly don't represent the original Berber appearance.

"What you have stated here is that anyone black in Egypt has to be Nubian -- " No I didn't, nor would I make such an excessive generalization after spending just two weeks. I said "blacks, now as in the ancient pictures, are generally Nubians" - and I stand by that. I wouldn't call Sadat "black"; darker than the Turkish elite families of Egypt, by all means, but just look at his picture!

It's important to bear in mind that "black" in America is used very differently from "black" in Africa. In America, it covers quite a wide range of skin tones, and I used to think sub-Saharan Africa must be the same way. But after spending three weeks in Mali and Senegal, I realized this has to be the result of "intermarriage", or rather slaveholders raping their captives. In both countries, everyone is as dark as, say, Alpha Oumar Konaré, and many African-Americans would stick out like a sore thumb. - Mustafaa 23:00, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Supply all the photos you wish. They only prove my point. Not even most Algerian or Moroccan Berbers are white -- and certainly not purely white --not by any stretch of the imagination. They are Semitic peoples -- and most of them look it! Few people in the West would argue such a point. In fact, they would laugh out loud at the notion of Berbers being "purely white." The sad fact is that because white supremacy and anti-black color bias are so rampant, there are lots of ignorant, self-loathing (or brainwashed) people in the Arab world who would love to be white, who may consider themselves so -- but who aren't. As well, there are lots of ignorant, self-loathing (or brain-washed) black folks as black as can be who will deny that they are (black) African and swear to high heaven that they are Arabs. It's a pathetic state of affairs. Further, not all miscegenation -- particularly in Saharan Africa -- is the result of rape. Just as among the Sephardim and Sicilians and Spaniards, intermarriage was common in ancient times. Further, wide variations in skin colors among blacks is in great part a result of the extraordinary biodiversity of the black "race," which is greater than that of any other. The differences in skin tone among, say, a very black, "pure" Nubian with straight hair, narrow nose and relative narrow lips; a very black "pure" Nubian with nappy hair, a broad nose and full lips; a "pure," dark brown-skinned Ibo from Nigeria with a pronounced prognathism and nappy hair; a "pure, very dark-skinned Australian aborigine with very broad nose and very Africanoid features, with straight, blond hair; a Dravidian (or Tamil) with Africanoid features and straight hair; a dark brown Somali with straight hair and aquiline features with no prognathism; a sloe-eyed San Bushman who is short of stature with reddish hair and no prognathism -- all are simply illustrations of the fact that there is more biodiversity among black people than among any other so-called "race" on the planet. And, yes, race is an artificial construct, but there you have it; it exists, and here we are discussing it in this article. (Shoot. It's thundering and lightning here. Gotta get offline. Will continue later.) deeceevoice 23:33, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Like I said above, if you want to classify "Semites" as non-white, then I'm not going to argue definitions. I merely note that Berbers and Semites look a whole lot like Italians and Armenians and other Mediterraneans, leaving pretty much no one except "Nordics" and "Alpines" to be called white. My main point is that they are quite obviously not black, by any definition.

The sad fact is that because white supremacy and anti-black color bias are so rampant, there are lots of ignorant, self-loathing (or brainwashed) people in the Arab world who would love to be white, who may consider themselves so -- but who aren't. What gives Westerners the sole right to define the term "white"? Mauritanian Moors (another group as notoriously racist as the Tuareg) were calling themselves Bidane ("whites" in Arabic) long before the first Portuguese ship landed on their shores.

As well, there are lots of ignorant, self-loathing (or brain-washed) black folks as black as can be who will deny that they are (black) African and swear to high heaven that they are Arabs. Arabness is defined by language, not by descent. I'm almost certainly genetically Berber, but I'm Arab because I speak Arabic; the same applies for many a genetically Nubian Sudanese Arab. (And again, who has a better right to define the term - Westerners or its own users?)

Further, not all miscegenation -- particularly in Saharan Africa -- is the result of rape. Of course not; you are quite right. I was referring to the historic American situation, rather than the general case.

the extraordinary biodiversity of the black "race," which is greater than that of any other - indeed so; just ask Cavalli-Sforza (though I wouldn't have considered Khoisan as "black" myself.) But that has no bearing on the question of the Berbers. - Mustafaa 00:25, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, big duh. No one here is saying Semites are black. No one here ever said such nonsense. They simply aren't white. However, there most definitely are Afro-Semitic peoples. Prince Bandar of Saudi is a perfect example. The brother's a homeboy if ever I saw one. Semitic peoples are a mixture of African, Asian and sometimes European blood; so, of course some of them easily could be considered black, depending upon their "racial" admixture and the degree to which that genetic makeup expresses itself phenotypically.

What gives Westerners the right to determine who is white and who isn't? Well, hell. I'm not even going to answer that one, given that the whole notion of race is bullcrap, anyway. But suffice it to say that, being an African-American, I've grown up with a Westernized understanding of "racial" categories. And according to my understanding of those concepts, I know that terminology changes, classifications are fluid/blurred, labels can be confusing and, therefore, often don't mean squat. But Berbers are Semitic peoples, just as Arabs and Jews are -- and there's no way a Semite is white. Interesting you can claim that Berbers are "purely white" and not Semitic -- when Tamazight, the Berber language, is classified as an Afro-Asiatic (or 'Hamito-Semitic) language. Note that:

The Berber languages (or Tamazight) are a group of closely related languages mainly spoken in Morocco and Algeria. ... Tamazight has been a written language, on and off, for almost 3000 years; however, this tradition has been frequently disrupted by various invasions. It was first written in the Tifinagh alphabet, still used by the Tuareg; the oldest dated inscription is from about 200 BC.[12] (http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Tamazight-languages)

And from another source: "Tifinagh is the alphabetic script used by the Tuareg, a Berber people of northern Africa, to write their traditional language, Tamasheq or Tamashek."

So, the indigenous Berber language originated among black folks (Tuaregs) -- but Berbers are white? The language they speak is Afro-Asiatic (Hamito-Semitic), but they are not Semites? I find that pretty damned curious. It seems there're a whole lotta undercover black folks/white wannabes in denial, the Tuaregs, especially. They're just another nonwhite people in that part of the world who also are infected with the sickness of racism and color bias, who look down upon darker black people and, indeed, still hold black slaves and treat them like shyt.

You write, "I'm almost certainly genetically Berber, but I'm Arab because I speak Arabic; the same applies for many a genetically Nubian Sudanese Arab." Gee. Not Semitic, huh? Purely white, huh? Well, take a number and get in line. LMAO.

Hey, if you say so. Forgive me, but I have to admit I find that amusing. Hell, I'm black and speak Standard American English, but that doesn't make me an Anglo-Saxon, now, does it? Reminds me of something Malcolm X (El Haj Malik el Shabaaz) said about black folks calling themselves "Americans": "Just because a cat has kittens in an oven, that doesn't make them biscuits." deeceevoice 02:52, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Interesting coincidence I feel compelled to point out: less than an hour before stumbling across this discussion, I witnessed my neighbor's cat giving birth in his oven. I can verify that no biscuits were produced. Tuf-Kat

Funny. But I have a (totally off-point and purely rhetorical) question: what the hell is it with pregnant felines and ovens? I guess the closed-in space makes them feel secure, but what if someone wants a pizza? U-uu-uuurlch! deeceevoice 20:15, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, Semites are certainly Caucasoid; if you don't consider them white, then I'm not gonna argue. Nor am I gonna speculate on the genetic origins of the Semites, though I doubt that they're all that much more mixed than most other groups. However, Berbers are not Semites, any more than Armenians or Egyptians are. That term refers to speakers of Semitic languages; Berbers are largely defined by not speaking a Semitic language. The two groups probably share a common ancestry, but even that is not certain; a lot of the geneticists and archeologists say Berbers have been in North Africa for a lot longer than their Afro-Asiatic language has. Even when people used to talk in sub-racial terms without embarrassment, they said things like this:

The Libyans or Berbers, more or less direct descendants -- and probably very mixed -- of the ancient autochthonous whites of North Africa... ...the Negroes of Africa owe very few obligations to their Berber neighbors, whereas they are considerably indebted to the Semites. (Maurice Delafosse (http://www.fortunecity.com/millenium/zebedee/67/delafosse.htm))

Using Semitic as a kind of general shorthand for "Mediterranean"-looking people leads to confusion, and suggests that the Berbers (or Egyptians, or Armenians, or what have you) descend from Semitic immigrants, when in fact it's more probably the Semites who are North African immigrants to Arabia... The Berber language, like Egyptian, used to be called Hamitic back when people believed in such a thing, but Greenberg thankfully swept that much-misused term into the dustbin of history. - Mustafaa 02:58, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So, the indigenous Berber language originated among black folks -- but the Berbers are white? It's not certain that Afro-Asiatic did actually originate among black folks, though it certainly originated in Africa; but let's suppose it did, which is fairly probable. That doesn't mean a thing. French and English certainly originated among "white folks" (well, maybe not - do you consider the French white?), but the Haitians and Jamaicans are white... It's not at all an uncommon situation, especially in Africa. Do you know not one Pygmy group has its own language? They've all adopted the languages of their stronger neighbors, sadly. (I'm assuming you didn't mean to suggest that Berber originated among the Tuareg; even a cursory examination of Tuareg oral history, let alone archeology, is enough to prove the opposite.)

The language they speak is Afro-Asiatic (Hamito-Semitic), but they are not Semites? The only Afro-Asiatic Semites are the speakers of Semitic languages. Egyptian, Chadic, Cushitic, Berber, and Omotic - some are black, and some are Caucasoid like Semites, but none are Semites.

And the Tuaregs are black -- even though they're among the many nonwhite peoples of that part of the world who also are infected with the sickness of racism and color bias, who look down upon darker black people and, indeed, still hold black slaves and treat them like shyt. If you use a sufficiently idiosyncratic definition of "black", you might call the Tuaregs black; but both black Malians and the Tuareg themselves disagree. - Mustafaa 03:06, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hell, I'm black and speak Standard American English, but that doesn't make me an Anglo-Saxon, now, does it? Being Arab isn't like being Anglo-Saxon; it's like being American. It's not an ethnicity so much as a melting pot. - Mustafaa 03:11, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've just presented text that explain that, indeed, Berbers do speak a Semitic language -- Hamito-Semitic (Afro-Asiatic) language. Hey, call yourself whatever you wish. Whatever floats your boat -- seriously. But facts are facts. deeceevoice 03:11, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You can't be serious. Semitic is one of six subfamilies of Afro-Asiatic (both of which articles I wrote most of myself, like the article you're quoting an older copy of, Berber languages.) The other five, including Egyptian and Berber as well as Cushitic and Omotic and Chadic, are not Semitic. In other words, Semitic is a subset of Afro-Asiatic; Afro-Asiatic is not a subset of Semitic. - Mustafaa 03:18, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Further, Haitians are the kittens, if you get my meaning. The difference between them and Berbers is they know they're not white. :p Here's another quote from the Internet: "The Tuareg of the Sahara are referred to in the Bible as the original 'Canaanites.' The Tuareg are descendants from an ancient race of people known as Berbers."[13] (http://www.authenticafrica.com/tuarturnec.html) The Tuareg are not some fringe element of Berbers, some exception to the rule; they are the original Berbers. The first record of Tamazight appears among the Tuaregs. Why? Because the language originated there among them, an African (black) people. They are the autochonous people of the Sahara.

But I'm done with this discussion. The edit conflicts are annoying, and I've got work to do. Besides, far be it from me to tell you what to call yourself. (White folks try to do that all the time to African Americans, and it's annoying as hell.) I'm certainly not trying to do that. But like I said, the facts are the facts. deeceevoice 03:22, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The first record of Tamazight appears among the Tuaregs. No; the Tifinagh script has been preserved by the Tuaregs, but it certainly doesn't originate there. The oldest records in Tamazight appear in Numidia, particularly in Dougga in northern Tunisia ([14] (http://www.geocities.com/lameens/tifinagh/index.html) describes this in more detail.)

"The Tuareg of the Sahara are referred to in the Bible as the original 'Canaanites.'" This medieval myth (referring in the original to the Berbers in general, not just the Tuareg) is transparent enough that even Ibn Khaldun debunked it; it's certainly not believed by any modern researcher.

The Tuareg are descendants from an ancient race of people known as Berbers. No argument there; that's my point exactly. You seem to be claiming that it was vice versa. But anyway... - Mustafaa 03:29, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A Response

You wrote:

"There are, indeed, a small number of black Berbers - that is to say, black people who speak Berber. ...These 'black Berbers' are not found anywhere along the northern coast. Some may well descend from the pre-Berber population of the Sahara, the "Isebeten" that the Tuareg boast of having conquered; they certainly don't represent the original Berber appearance."

No. The original Berbers, or "Berberi," were black and originated in Punt (Somalia, Ethiopia and Eritrea), the land to which the ancient Egyptians themselves traced their origin.

Located in the Horn of Africa, adjacent to the Arabian Peninsula, Somalia is steeped in thousands of years of history. The ancient Egyptians spoke of it as "God's Land" (the Land of Punt)[15] (http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/punt.html). Chinese merchants frequented the Somali coast in the tenth and fourteenth centuries and, according to tradition, returned home with giraffes, leopards, and tortoises to add color and variety to the imperial menagerie. Greek merchant ships and medieval Arab dhows plied the Somali coast; for them it formed the eastern fringe of Bilad as Sudan, "the Land of the Blacks." More specifically, medieval Arabs referred to the Somalis, along with related peoples, as the Berberi.[16] (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/somalia/hist-setting.htm) (Incidentally, "Berberi" is still the Italian word for "Berbers."

The earlier link I provided[17] (http://www.africanbynature.com/falseimages/bewarefalseimages.html) to photos of present-day Berbers in the Sahel is a far more accurate representation of what true Berbers look like. If anything, given the pattern of miscegenation in that part of the world over the centuries, the Berbers of the Sahel are likely fairer than they were originally -- not darker. This pattern of miscegenation clearly can be seen in the photos you've provided, but the black blood is still clearly in evidence in the faces of most of the photos you've provided. "White"? Uh-huh. Right. :p deeceevoice 16:24, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

(buries face in hands) Even Ibn Khaldun, 500 years ago, realized that the "Berbers" of East Africa had nothing to do with the Berbers of North Africa, any more than either are connected with the "barbarians" of Europe. The term "Berber" is not what the Berber call themselves (they call themselves Imazighen), and in fact many take exception to the term; it is the name the Romans gave them, for their supposed "barbarous" nature, and which the Arabs adopted. No doubt the East African term has similar origins, if it doesn't simply come from the name of the major Somali port of Berbera. This reminds me of the Magar activists in Nepal who claim Hungarian origins because their ethnic group's name sounds a little bit like "Magyar"... - Mustafaa 20:00, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If I can but in on this long dialogue! Frankly I do not know and care less about whether the ancient Egyptians were white or black or something in between, but as regards the Berbers (Imazighin, Irifin, Ishilhin etc.) I can say something. The simple fact of the matter is that the vast majority of Berber speaking peoples live in Morocco and Algeria (approximately 95%). While skin shades vary, most have a mediterranean appearance - although some, notably in the Rif mountains in Morocco and in Kabylie are extremely fair skinned with reddish or even blonde hair and green or blue eyes. As far as I can make out the Berber speaking peoples of North Africa are descendants of the Numidians/ ancient Libyans and the main centres of population go from western Egypt to the Atlantic coast of North Africa - result; whether "white" or not the Berbers, while African are not by any stretch of the imagination "black".....and as they say in French, the rest is litterature!

BTW the linguistic terms bandied around here are just that; linguistic, not racial. In addition there is no consensus amongst linguists as to the existence of an "Afro-asiatic" group of languages and the term Hamio or Chamio-Semitic is also controversial. While there is consensus about the existence of a semitic (in the linguistic sense) group of languages there is NO scientific basis on which to use these linguistic terms as regards ethnic/genetic or biological origin. Ironically what were ab originem genuine attempts at scientific linguistic classification have been so abused by politicians in the pursuit of racial politics as to render any attempt to use them a very risky business indeed. Wildbe 3 July 2005 09:50 (UTC)

Spencer Wells

Interestingly, in 2002, geneticist Spencer Wells completed a study of human out-migrations from Africa utilizing the DNA of San Bushmen of the Kalahari who, according to Wells have the oldest human DNA on earth. Wells' extensive DNA testing provided an unequivocal and direct genetic link from the San to the Tamils of India and then to the Australian Aborigines. Wells concluded from analysis of DNA specimens that the earliest human emigration from Africa of which there is definitive proof was that of San bushmen to southern India and then along coastal routes to Australia.

This is, to say the least, not a complete picture. Wells also provides "an unequivocal and direct genetic link" from the San to the people of Europe and Asia:

"Some time around 50 000- 60 000 BC, a group of Africans - a few hundred at most - started walking. In those days, sea levels were far lower than they are now and there was a virtually unbroken coastline all the way from Africa to Australia. Which is where, within a very few thousand years, their descendants ended up. Wells then explains how, at roughly the same time that the first African migrants were reaching Australia, another small group - descended from the very same African Adam - was also on the move. But these people took an inland route: up through Egypt, into the Middle East, and on to Central Asia. They settled in what is now Kazakhstan around 40 000 years ago... the world's entire non-African population must be descended from a relatively small sub-set of individuals: the San people who decided to migrate."[18] (http://www.suntimes.co.za/2002/12/29/news/news07.asp)

and "This “Adam” also lived in Africa, but only 60,000 years ago. He probably looked very much like our San Bushman, who stems from one of humanity’s oldest genetic stocks." [19] (http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:GSwrW4QP78QJ:www-1.ibm.com/industries/healthcare/doc/content/bin/Genographic_brochure.pdf%3Fg_type%3Dpspot+spencer+wells+san+aborigines&hl=en).

In short, we're all linked to the San. - Mustafaa 00:08, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

On that subject:

The accompanying map in the journal article places these "Australian" peoples in the Nile Valley, India and Australia, which is in keeping with patterns of migragtion and settlement well documented in ancient texts and oral histories, as well as supported in part by the modern DNA evidence of geneticist Spencer Wells. (See "Black-centered history and Africa" below.)

"well documented in ancient texts and oral histories"? Source? - Mustafaa 00:18, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Mustafaa. I know I've got a message from you, but I've been busy with the article. (Will respond later.) :) Yes, I know all humankind originated in Africa. What's with this new contributor who seems hell-bent on replacing a perfectly serviceable photo of Tut's death mask with the tired old standby -- claiming it's somehow "deformed"? Will dig up the other stuff you've requested later. (I've already spent way too much time on this piece.) If you'd like to remove it in the interim, that's fine. But East Indian sources trace the Dravidian origins to Punt, too. Also, take a look at the link to Punt. One source attributes the Queen's squat physique and large backside to lipodystrophy -- but her appearance doesn't fit the description of the disorder (no wasted arms or legs -- and certainly no wasted buttocks, and the disorder doesn't make someone short and squat of stature). Another obvious explanation is that she was has what was commonly referred to as a "Hottentot," or Kohoisian, body. Straight from the San Bushmen? :p Peace. deeceevoice 12:55, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Here are a few quick links. (I haven't read either thoroughly, but I've bookmarked them to return to them.)

• [20] (http://www.tamilcanadian.com/pageview.php?ID=460&SID=74) (Note that the Elamites are described herein as dolichocephalic -- classic Negroid phenotype)
• [21] (http://www.geocities.com/olmec982000/proto2.htm)
• [22] (http://geocities.com/Olmec982000/index.html) (a list of other links you may find interesting/repugnant)

More to come when I have more time. Peace. deeceevoice 15:38, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the inhabitants of East Africa are already known to have most probably been Khoisan before the Bantu invasion - see Hadza, Sandawe - so it would be quite reasonable for the Queen of Punt to have a Hottento-type body. It's when we start talking about Australian and Dravidian oral tradition that I start to get sceptical... But I'll examine the links. - Mustafaa 18:33, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ok, about those links: for the first one, all I can say is that any site that claims that apes evolved into man on "Lemuria" doesn't seem very trustworthy to me. The second link is hopeless; it doesn't even give an argument for its claims, apart from some uncited reconstructions of a proto-language most linguists don't believe ever existed. The third one might take longer to look through. - Mustafaa 18:41, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I never discount anything out of hand -- unless they start talking about spaceships and aliens. Even then, I look for threads which seem plausible. As far as I understand it, so-called "Lemuria" was simply a land bridge between India and Australia. All the other nonsense, I pay no attention to. Here's an interesting map (on a site, incidentally, that does talk about spaceships and all sorts of trollop) -- but, again, the map itself is interesting.[23] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Afrocentrism&action=edit&section=14) There certainly is ample evidence to suggest that, if not "lost islands," certainly land bridges existed at varying points in geologic history that allowed intercontinental access between India and Australia, as well as relatively easy access via watercraft. I don't get hung up with what people call it; I look for common threads in various accounts and see if anything makes sense. The land mass link between India and Australia makes sense -- would seem to be borne out by Spencer Wells' painstaking genetic research and, further, is precisely what Wells postulates in terms of the method of migration from the San to Tamil/Dravidian India to Australia.

Further w/regard to the hefty Puntite queen with the rather large backside and somewhat squat appearance, there are records of Chinese and Arab traders bringing back "pygmies" from Punt. Perhaps the queen was a pygmy/Kohoisan. deeceevoice 19:09, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Just read your earlier note about Kohoisans. Yep. Presumably, the Egyptians knew where they came from. (One would hope.) And in that context, it all makes sense -- to me, at least.

I'm reminded of an outing with a couple of white friends of mine. We were in line at the movie theater, and in front of us was a rather large black woman with what black folks jokingly refer to as a "Bantu booty" -- classic Kohoisan physique. And I mean Kohoisan -- not just someone with "back." I mean the woman's spine curved inward, and her posterior rose up, past the spinal curvature then, uh ... ballooned out. As an African-American woman, even I would have to admit it was rather remarkable. My white female friend looked at the woman with a mixture of incredulity and perverse fascination. Somewhat embarrassed, she asked me, whispering, if the woman were "deformed." I simply laughed and explained that, no, it was natural. I suppose I can't blame ignorant white folks for assuming the Puntite queen had some sort of malady, but lipodystrophy? No way, José. The depiction of the queen doesn't even fit the classic medical description. It's just like people looking at King Tut's skull and assuming genetic deformity. Now, this all would be pretty amusing, if these people weren't supposed to know better. After all, it's not as if there haven't been well-known studies of dolichocephalism among blacks since, seemingly, forever. It would be laughable if such obtuseness weren't part of a larger picture of the cynical whitewashing of ancient Egypt. But it's not at all funny, because these people who write about the ancient world should know better, if they call themselves scientists and scholars. And I'm convinced that some, like that lying, rabidly pro-Arab Hawass do. deeceevoice 19:21, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

With that in mind, I can't see how any rational individual would still believe the earliest ancient dynastic Eygptians were anything but black folks -- and that they remained so in predominant part for millennia. But then, I can't see how in hell any rational, well-informed forensic scientist could conclude that the skull of Tut was from a "Caucasoid North African," either. deeceevoice 19:21, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"I can't see how any rational individual would still believe the earliest ancient dynastic Eygptians were anything but black folks -- and that they remained so in predominant part for millennia." Since you ask - mainly, because of strikingly realistic colored statues like Rahotep and his wife (http://egyptphoto.ncf.ca/meidum13.htm) (4th dynasty) or this scribe (http://www.bluffton.edu/~sullivanm/egypt/cairo/scribe.jpg) (5th Dynasty), and because of the care they took in their paintings to distinguish their own skin color from the black skin of the Nubians, as on Ramesses III's temple (http://touregypt.net/featurestories/enemies7.jpg). Even in the unpainted sculptures, they still look the same - especially among Copts, you regularly see people who could be spitting images of the more realistic Old Kingdom sculptures, like the famous Sheikh el-Balad (http://www.eternalegypt.org/EternalEgyptWebsiteWeb/HomeServlet?ee_website_action_key=action.display.element&story_id=12&module_id=114&language_id=1&element_id=60621&ee_messages=0001.flashrequired.text). As far as I'm concerned, it's just common sense to see that Egyptians, despite a few invasions, look pretty much like they always did.

I don't know the details of this Egyptian idea that they came from Punt, but it wouldn't surprise me at all if they were wrong. People often don't know where they came from. Tuareg oral history says they came from Arabia; in reality, that story was invented by the Zirids. A lot of Gypsy groups used to think they came from Egypt; in reality, they come from India. Oral history always needs to be taken with a grain of salt. - Mustafaa 19:51, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And so, clearly, does any forensic reconstruction of King Tutankhamun which gives him fair skin and hazel eyes and describes him as a "Caucasoid North African." :p Granted, the people involved did not know whose remains they were examining, but the fact that the hazel eyes remained even after the fact, to me, speaks volumes. (See my comments to Agurzil below "Tut's noggin" and [24] (http://www.freemaninstitute.com/Gallery/Egyp340_big_copy.jpg). Look like a "Caucasoid North African to you? :p) deeceevoice 10:07, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Looks like a typical Egyptian portrait of a Nubian to me. In the absence of a caption, it doesn't mean much. - Mustafaa 18:04, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A correction. Actually, the French team did know whose skull they were working with, which makes their pale-skinned, pale-eyed version even more of a travesty. deeceevoice 18:51, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mummy portraits

Portrait of a young woman, A.D. 110–20 Encaustic on wood; 43.7 x 34 cm (17 1/4 x 13 in.) Royal Museum of Scotland, National Museums of Scotland, Edinburgh"mummy portraits of presumably highly miscegenated Egyptian subjects of the Roman era nearly 1,500 years after Tutankhamun's death reflect overall a blacker, more Afro-Semitic-looking Egyptian populace than is represented by the latest reconstruction": I disagree. None of these look remotely black, and "Afro-Semitic" is not a very meaningful term; and while the eyes are certainly never hazel, the skin color is rarely much darker, and often lighter, than in the National Geographic reconstruction. - Mustafaa 22:47, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding -- right? They've even got nappy/frizzy hair -- right down to the little girl with an Afro-puff. deeceevoice 00:46, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm not actually sure what "nappy hair" means, but their slightly curly hair is common to the point of routine in North Africa, as among many other Mediterraneans. Which girl are you saying has the Afro? - Mustafaa 19:25, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't know what 'nappy' hair is either (it seems to be one of your favourite words) but curly hair is not only common among Mediterranean peoples its also a stylistic convention found in almost all Hellenistic and Antonine period portraiture. Look at the statues depicted on these pages devoted to Antonine-period emperors Marcus Aurelius, Lucius Verus, Hadrian, Commodus. Were these guys all Africans? As Mustafaa says most of these images depict people who are paler than the Tut reconstruction. One of them is totally white! Most of the other others have a general Med look. What you say the evidence says and what we actually see seems to differ. Paul B 22:44 17 June 2005 (UTC)

You're right. It is a matter of perception. Most African-Americans, I would venture, looking at the mummy portraits I've seen would conclude the majority are clearly black or Afro-Semitic. I see a difference between this hair and the Flavian, curled hair of Roman women. And where do you suppose, all of a sudden, 25-50 years after the Romans conquered Egypt, the fad caught on among Roman women to curl, frizz and otherwise nappy up their hair into big hair? An early case of white folks' "Egyptomania," perhaps? :p deeceevoice 09:24, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Short of doing a survey, I don't know what "most African-Americans" would say about the mummy portraits. I very much doubt you are right, though. In any case, Americans do not own the concept of "black" identity. Like, Mustafaa, I don't think the term Afro-Semitic actually means anything much. As for your fad theory, you've just made that up on zero evidence! Sure, there are fads in hairstyles, but I can't see much of a connection with the conquest of Egypt, which was in 30BC. The hairstyles represented in Flavian and Antonine art are over a century later. The fact remnains that elaboately curled and coiffured hair was a trend among the upper classes in the Roman empire. Most of the people represented in the mummy-portraits are fairly pale skinned. I have never heard anyone other than you claim they were black! Paul B 16:00 22 June 2005 (UTC)

I think I have a better idea than you about how African Americans view race. The majority of black folks in this country would look at those photos and see black people with nappy, frizzy hair. You've never heard anyone other than me claim they were Afro-Semitic/black? And how many black people have you shown the photos to? :p (A rhetorical question. I'm fairly the sure answer is, if any, damned few.) idea.) deeceevoice 18:17, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

King Tut's death mask, etc.

The pic of the mask is deformed, I don't how, it could be photoshopped, taken too close, that's not the matter, the pic is deformed and I will replace, as for the sphinx, I can also post tons of pics at the beginning showing how ancient egyptians were not Black, but I consider this spamming, Just put the pic of your sphinx in the desired sub-article (Egypt and black identity), Everyone is biased, but please try to be neutral.--Agurzil 19:58, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Links to more photos of King Tut's obviously "Negroid" death mask. What? You're going to tell me these have been "Photo Shopped," too?

• [25] (http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20041115/tutmummy_zoom0.html) (from the Discovery Channel); [26] (http://encarta.msn.com/media_461517923/Death_Mask_of_Tutankhamun.html); [27] (http://touregypt.net/museum/tutl18.htm) (a side view; note prominent prognathism); [28] (http://www.forensic-psych.com/articles/artDiscoveryTut10.10.02.html); [29] (http://goinside.com/98/10/ers99a.html), [30] (http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/kingtutankhamun.html)(multiple images. Note "Tut's Mummy" and the "buckteeth" so common among, say, Somalis; click "King Tutankhamun and Queen Ankhesenamon" to see close-up of elongated crania and prominent prognasthisms; [31] (http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/kingtutankhamun5.html); [32] (http://www.hat.net/album/middle_east/004_egypt/day_48_egyptian_museum/detail045.htm); [33] (http://www.hat.net/album/middle_east/004_egypt/day_48_egyptian_museum/detail054.htm)

Sorry. Some of these are probably duplicates, but I've got to work to do. deeceevoice 23:16, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• [34] (http://www.freemaninstitute.com/Gallery/Egyp337_big_copy.jpg); [35] (http://www.freemaninstitute.com/Gallery/Egyp038_big_copy.jpg); [ttp://www.freemaninstitute.com/Gallery/Egyp343_big_copy.jpg] (prominent prognathism); [36] (http://www.freemaninstitute.com/Gallery/Egyp376_big_copy.jpg) deeceevoice 14:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

All the pics look normal, except yours. BTW, I don't see any prognatism.--Agurzil 17:37, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The photos I've provided show Tut's lips to be fuller (particularly the bottom one); he looks distinctly more Africanoid than Caucasoid in all of these photos. Certainly, the photo of the death mask I provided looks more like the other photos of the death mask (particularly the one provided by the Discovery Channel) than the one you keep inserting -- and certainly has not been altered in any way. It is not distored or deformed. You have absolutely no grounds for substituting another in its place. Further, if you see no prognathism, then it is because you don't understand what prognathism is. It is obvious. deeceevoice 18:40, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Further, you have provided absolutely no justification for the other changes you've made; I have. Stop the mindless reverts. deeceevoice 18:46, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Prognathism and Tut's noggin

Draw a plumb line from the bridge of the nose. In the classic Caucasoid phenotype, that line will be in alignment with the root of the nose (above the lip) and the root of the bottom lip, above the chin. In the classic "Negroid phenotype," there is a considerably forward-projecting profile. This is maxillary prognathism. In some Nilotic peoples, especially, there is often also an alveolar prognathism, which imparts a receding chin and, with the rather large front incisors of, again, certain Nilotic types (like Somalis, for instance) a bucktoothed appearance, as in link 30 above (see the photo of King Tut's mummy, lower left of the page). (The poor kid looks like a gerbil.) An aside. In other depictions of the king, he has rather prominent ears. Assuming he had the typical Nilotic body -- very slender arms and legs -- he probably looked rather gawkish; but did the bwoi have bling or what! :p deeceevoice 19:36, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

For the purpose of comparing the skull of Tutankhamun, open up three separate documents, minimizing them somewhat to fit side by side on the screen, of the Caucasoid schematic, King Tut's skull (link #13 in the article) and the Negroid schematic. It should be quite obvious -- from the maxillary and alveolar prognathisms and the very pronouncedly dolichocephalic skull -- that King Tut is Negroid. He has all the classic facio-cranial phenotypical characteristics. That shouldn't seem odd. Even if one were of the mistaken opinion that ancient Egyptians were predominantly nonblack, it is fairly widely accepted that in Tut's time there was an infusion of Nubian blood from the south -- as is made clear by the fact that Queen Tiye was Nubian. deeceevoice 19:56, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Here's another photo of a recumbent Tut from Egypt's Supreme Council of Antiquities, which very clearly shows Tut's elongated skull, pronathism and prominent front teeth. Classic Nilotic. (Think Somali or Sudanese.) It's about a third of the way down the page. Note the really bad forensic reconstruction at the bottom right -- showing very clearly the pathological, racist pattern of habitually whitening black dynastic Egypt.[37] (http://www.iois.net/TutInvestigation.htm) This serial killer-looking white guy looks absolutely nothing like the burial mask. LMAO (Who are they kidding?) deeceevoice 09:10, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In searching for something else on the Internet (regarding Berbers), I came across the following:

"Thought [the tag of someone in a discussion thread] is right in saying that Howell's study was flawed. Early East African remains DO show continuity with ELONGATED EAST AFRICANS [read "Nilotics"], not with Teita and Dogon who are NOT of the Elongated type, Read:

"'The oldest remains of Homo sapiens sapiens found in East Africa were associated with an industry having similarities with the Capsian. It has been called Upper Kenyan Capsian, although its derivation from the North African Capsian is far from certain. At Gamble's Cave in Kenya, five human skeletons were associated with a late phase of the industry, Upper Kenya Capsian C, which contains pottery. A similar association is presumed for a skeleton found at Olduvai, which resembles those from Gamble's Cave. The date of Upper Kenya Capsian C is not precisely known (an earlier phase from Prospect Farm on Eburru Mountain close to Gamble's Cave has been dated to about 8000 BC); but the presence of pottery indicates a rather later date, perhaps around 400 BC. The skeletons are of very tall people. They had long, narrow heads, and relatively long, narrow faces. The nose was of medium width; and prognathism, when present, was restricted to the alveolar, or tooth-bearing, region.

"'Many authors regard these people as physically akin to the Mediterraneans, hence the label of 'Caucasoids' (or European-like) generally attached to them. However, all their features can be found in several living populations of East Africa, like the Tutsi of Rwanda and Burundi, who are very dark skinned and differ greatly from Europeans in a number of body proportions....

"'From the foregoing, it is tempting to locate the area of differentiation of these people in the interior of East Africa. Now, as mentioned in Chapter 3, the fossil record tells of tall people with long and narrow heads, faces and noses who lived a few thousand years BC in East Africa at such places as Gamble's Cave in the Kenya Rift Valley and at Olduvai in northern Tanzania. There is every reason to believe that they are ancestral to the living 'Elongated East Africans.' Neither of these populations, fossil and modern, should be considered to be closely related to Caucasoids of Europe and western Asia, as they usually are in literature.

Jean Hiernaux The People of Africa (Peoples of the World Series) pgs 42-43, 62-63'"

Further support for the black-Africanness of King Tut and much of the Egyptian dynastic line. deeceevoice 18:19, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Evidence

Deeceevoice, you seem to think that you've proved something by showing a picture and saying "it's obvious". But what's "obvious" to you is not so to most other people, it seems.

The only way that you're going to convince anyone is not by saying "see" and accusing anyone who doesn't see of racism, but by doing a proper statistical analysis of BONES. Pictures and statues are art, not photographs. We have no way of knowing how much an artwork reflects a real person, and how much is convention. Facial reconstructions are similarly conjectural. But bones, and bone measurements, are harder to fudge. They CAN be, as shown by Steven J. Gould's analysis of cranial measurements in the 19th century. Fudged by scientists packing the metal beads used for measuring harder and tighter into Caucasian male skulls <g>. Current-day physical anthropologists would have a harder time getting away with anything. So what you would want to do would be to perform extensive measurements of indubitably northern Mediterranean skulls from the period, Nubian skulls of the period, establish the probabilities of such and such measurements in each population, and then demonstrate that the Egyptian skulls, on average, were closer to the Nubian average. I dunno if anyone has done this ... it seems obvious.

But I'm not at all sure that you'd get the results I think you want. Everything I know about ancient Egypt suggests that the average skin color lightened as you went north, and darkened as you went south. That is, there was no hard-and-fast dividing line between black and white. You just couldn't prove that they were all "black". They were all mulattos, quadroons, and octoroons <g>.

But does it matter, in any case? It doesn't make you any more or less of a worthy person if your ancestors did X or Y. No one "owns" the achievements of the past.

As to why there were apparently no "high civilizations" in sub-Saharan Africa, you might want to read Guns, Germs, and Steel, by Jared Diamond. He started with the observation that his friends from New Guinea were just as smart as he was, if not smarter, and then asked himself why ancient New Guinea had stayed stuck in the Stone Age. Answer applies to Africa too. Zora 09:43, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Do not patronize me. I do not seek, nor do I need, assurances or validation regarding the inherent personal worth or intelligence of either myself or the race. Further, what is regarded as a "high civilization" is often tainted by prejudice. Songhay, Mali and Timbuktu were all great, black civilizations. More to the point, however, what is clear and what is under discussion here are the facio-cranial characteristics of King Tut's skull. These characteristics are clearly replicated in the forensic reconstructions. Their obvious implications with regard to racial identity, however, have simply been purposefully ignored. Further, I am not seeking to "convince" anyone of anything. I am presenting the facts as I see them. I'll leave the rest to those open-minded enough to evaluate them properly and leave it at that. deeceevoice 10:24, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You "see" Tut as black and say that anyone who doesn't "see" that is obviously racist. It shouldn't be a matter of "seeing". You need to do quantitative studies, showing that, say, the nose opening in the skull is, ON THE AVERAGE, different in Nubians and northern Mediterraneans. Then you need to measure Tut's skull. But even that wouldn't prove anything, since race is not an either/or kind of thing, but a statistical average. The completely "average" person is actually rare. So Tut is probably not going to be "average".

One person doesn't prove anything. Race is a matter of population statistics. This is not the American folk belief, which classifies people as "white" or "black", but it's the way physical anthropologists look at things. Dang it, if you won't read Jared Diamond, at least read some physical anthropology! Zora 10:47, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I need a reading list from you about as much as I need to be patronized about inherent black intelligence or to have the contributions of the race mischaracterized/devalued. I could respond with an even longer list. Again, the forensic evidence is clear. There is absolutely nothing about the physiology of King Tut's skull that even remotely suggests he was Caucasoid -- except, of course, that he had one. deeceevoice 10:53, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I just read the above entry from Zora fully. Africa was "stuck in the Stone Age"? And Timbuktu had great stone walls that were erected without mortar. It had plumbing. It had an extensive libraries -- plural -- and a university. At the same time, Europeans were still hanging their backsides over castle walls to take a dump and was so unsanitary that 300 years later, the bubonic plague killed off nearly half of Europe within a couple of years. "Stuck in the Stone Age" my a**. And I need a reading list from someone who exhibits such ignorance. That's pretty funny. deeceevoice 13:56, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

One more thing I just caught in the above post. According to Antón, the member of the American team I've quoted in the article, the nasal cavity of the Tut skull was consistent with that of certain Nilotic peoples, the metrics of whose nasal cavities can be similar to those of some Caucasians. As you must know, however, many Ethiopians, Somalis, Sudanese, Berbers, Touaregs, etc., have relatively narrower noses than the stereotypical so-called "Negroid" phenotype -- as has already been noted in the article. The metrics of the American team's examination were not wholly consistent with the stereotypical Negroid phenotype -- but the prominent physical characteristics of the skull taken as a whole definitely grouped Tut with the Nilotic peoples of the region -- which is what led Antón to conclude the skull was clearly African and not European in origin. She simply declined to put a racial classification on her identification, because she says she doesn't use such language because of the fallacies inherent in the notion of race and because it suggests a particular skin tone which she says -- correctly -- is purely subjective. Interesting that these findings come from the team who did NOT know the identity of the subject. deeceevoice 16:25, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Everyone else is too kind to say what's on their mind, Deeceevoice.

You are a racist. Not the same kind as KKK members, but without a shred of doubt a very fanatical racist nonetheless. --70.49.165.24 04:19, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

About Berber origins

I've deleted the following passage, pending clarification here in discussion:

Afrocentrists also commonly claim that ancient coastal Northwest Africans (Libyans, Berbers, Moors, etc.) were racially black, explaining the light skin of modern Northwest Africans as the result of influxes of Vandals, Romans and Arabs. (A number of recent genetic studies have found that Northwest Africans have a predominant Neolithic ancestry [38] (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJHG/journal/issues/v75n2/41184/41184.text.html?erFrom=4317471345896084348Guest) and that recent historical invasions have had little impact; see Berber origins.)

This seems to explicitly contradict the information provided in the link referenced. My understanding of the origin of the North African populations is black African mixed with Asiatics (Arabs) in an east-west migration, with some black infusion from the south (West Africa) and European lineages from Southern Europe. There is seemingly no indication that the so-called "Caucasoid Berbers" of North Africa are indigenous to the area at all. If I am mistaken, then please provide references. I repeat my earlier assertion that the original Berbers are black and East African. Again, if I am incorrect, please cite appropriate sources. deeceevoice 17:07, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In brief, the original Berbers, like Semites and Egyptians, are white and east African. In less brief, Bosch et al. 2001 (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJHG/journal/issues/v68n4/002582/002582.html)find that:

"the historical origins of the NW African Y-chromosome pool may be summarized as follows: 75% NW African Upper Paleolithic (H35, H36, and H38), 13% Neolithic (H58 and H71), 4% historic European gene flow (group IX, H50, H52), and 8% recent sub-Saharan African (H22 and H28)"

making the Caucasian Berbers of North Africa extremely indigenous, and supporting "the interpretation of the Arabization and Islamization of NW Africa, starting during the 7th century A.D., as cultural phenomena without extensive genetic replacement." The relative blackness of the Tuareg is explained by Rando et al. 1998 (as cited by [[1] (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJHG/journal/issues/v68n4/002582/002582.html)]) who "detected female-mediated gene flow from sub-Saharan Africa to NW Africa" amounting to as much as 21.5% of the mtDNA sequences in a sample of NW African populations; the amount varied from 82% (Touaregs) to 4% (Rifains). For more details, see Berber#Origin. - Mustafaa 17:44, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Mustafaa, for your response. Will read up when I have an opportunity. Of course, I reject any notion that ancient Egyptians were not originally and predominantly black African. The Arabization of Egypt has taken place over centuries since around the 7th century A.D. Still today, the farther away one gets from the major cities, as well as the farther south one goes, the darker and the more nappy-haired the population becomes. deeceevoice 18:04, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't know what the geneticists say about Egypt, but the Ptolemaic mummy portraits - and, indeed, the older sculptures, like Rahotep or the Sheikh al-Balad - show people who look exactly like modern Egyptians, so I very much doubt Arabization had much to do with it. - Mustafaa 01:32, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ah - this link list (http://www.geocities.com/enbp/genetics.html) looks like a good start... Unfortunately, it doesn't provide links, so a trip to the library would be necessary. - Mustafaa 01:46, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mustafaa, there is absolutely no way you will convince me that the earliest dynastic Egyptians were not black Africans, so don't waste your time. IMO, it's a ridiculous debate. I've already done very extensive reading on the subject, and for me the matter is not even open to debate. I've asked you about the North African Berbers. Let's leave it at that. deeceevoice 03:05, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Fine; if your mind's made up, I won't waste our time with the facts... I find it impossible to imagine how anyone could think the Egyptians were black after looking at their own self-portraits, but whatever. I've answered your question about the Berbers above; I look forward to your reaction. - Mustafaa 22:19, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Poor dear. I could say the same of you, Mustafaa. I've presented extensive, indisputable facts. I notice no one has challenged the information provided about the structure of Tut's skull and others of Egyptian royal lineage -- and the clear implications w/regard to their and his racial identity. Gee, wonder why. Because they simply CAN'T. :p deeceevoice 22:26, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You already answered yourself, my dear... If Tiye was black - as the sculpture shows - and he was probably either her son or her grandson, then it's scarcely surprising that he should be half-black. - Mustafaa 22:43, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ya damned straight, darlin'. And was Tutankhamun's (obvious) black African lineage an exception to the rule? Judging from the considerable archaeological and forensic evidence to the contrary -- including the Great Sphinx at Giza -- heck no! :p deeceevoice 00:17, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Judging from the considerable archaeological and forensic evidence to the contrary, he certainly was an exception to the rule, and an easily explained one, since Tiye was a foreigner. For someone who thinks "the matter is not even open to debate", you seem awfully eager to debate it... - Mustafaa 00:28, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Just making what I had hoped was a final response to your post. And, no. If you read the information on the cranial examinations of the royal mummies, you will find substantial Africanoid phenotypes over the course of other dynasties, as well. Beyond that, there is ample other evidence, as well -- but you obviously are not open to it. I'm done here on this subject; I believe the article and the volumes cited therein speak eloquently and conclusively for themselves. deeceevoice 03:40, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I'm open to anything, even an idea as implausible on the face of it as black Egyptians consistently depicting themselves as reddish brown, if there's strong enough evidence. But the original topic at hand in this case was Berber origins. - Mustafaa 03:45, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

About black folks and reddish-brown skin:

"Pygmies are an unusually short people with reddish-brown skin [emphasis added]. Most adult Pygmies are from 4 feet to 4 feet 8 inches (120 to 142 centimeters) tall. About 150,000 Pygmies live in Africa, mainly in the tropical forests of the Congo River Basin in central Africa. Khoisan peoples include the San, or Bushmen, and the Khoikhoi, or Hottentots. Both groups have yellowish-brown skin and tightly coiled black hair. The San and various Khoikhoi groups once lived throughout much of the southern and eastern parts of Africa. Today, only about 50,000 San remain in Africa. They live in the Kalahari Desert of Botswana and Namibia. The only remaining Khoikhoi are the approximately 40,000 Nama people who live in Namibia."[1]

Remember the link to Punt? Go back to it. Look carefully at the depiction of the queen with the Khoisan physique. Look at her right leg. It looks like she has a, shall we say, "third leg." Presumably, it is the elongated labia minora for which Khoisan women are known. What other plausible explanation is there? (Certainly, it is far more plausible than the ridiculous assumption that she had lipodystrophy.) The detail of ancient art is amazing -- if one simply knows how to look at it with a truly critical and informed eye. (The pronounced pronathism of the ancient Egyptians is one of the defining/most striking characteristics of much of their art, the Great Sphinx being no exception. It's where "walking like an Egyptian" got that business of jutting one's face forward -- mimicking cranial prognathism.

White people tan, obviously, but they do not tan to deep reddish-brown. Black people do. And pygmies aren't the only black folks with reddish-brown skin, either. I see it all the time in the summer among my friends. Old, countrified black folks, taking note of someone's reddish skin, would often remark, "She/he must have some Indian in her/him." Further, ask any black woman or makeup artist. The red undertones in black skin are the reason that, until relatively recently, makeup and hosiery produced by white companies for black people made us look grey/taupe -- there were no red undertones in either. It is also why, when black folks first started appearing on television, on-air black personalities used to (and still do sometimes) look weird on camera. Even though the basic color of the makeup they were wearing seemed to match, under the light of the cameras, part of them looked kind of ash-grey or mud-brown, when their natural skin had a warmer, redder cast. Happily, the cosmetics and hosiery industries caught on over time. Here's something from the web site of a painter:

"Unlike African-American skin, which tends to be very reddish-brown [emphasis added], Middle Eastern skin is a balancing act between red-brown and yellow-brown...."

Another reference in the (racist) Encyclopaedia Britannica on "Negro": "The relation of the negroids of Africa to those of Asia (southern India and Malaysia) and Australasia cannot be discussed with profit, owing to lack of evidence.... It will be sufficient to say that the two groups have in common a number of well-defined characteristics of which the following are the chief: A dark skin, varying between reddish-brown, or chocolate to nearly black; dark, tightly curled hair, flat in transverse section, 1 of the 'woolly' or the 'frizzly' type; a greater or less tendency to prognathism; eyes dark brown with yellowish cornea; nose more or less broad and flat; and large teeth[emphasis added]...."[40] (http://www.criticalhistory.com/documents/document/Racism/1911encyclopediabritannica.pdf) Of course, the article goes on to speak of the "inferiority" of black folks to whites, etc., etc. -- the standard, white supremacist party line. :p

And you're right. The original topic of this section was Berbers, which is why I tried to end this particular discussion. When I said I was "done" with this, I wasn't referring to our exchange regarding Berbers. Unfortunately, I'm under rather tight time constraints at the moment and don't know when I'll get around to checking out the links you provided. (Thanks again. :) ) But I will. deeceevoice 11:18, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Interesting. But, even if we grant that this reddish quality would not be shared by Nubians, I can't see how you would fit their standard depictions of women (typically light light yellow) into this theory. - Mustafaa 22:10, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yellow was used interchangeably in Egypt with white. In this usage, it symbolized the feminine. (White often was used to depict people who had recently died.) Dieties were also depicted as yellow. It was the color of the sun, of gold, associated with spirituality and things that were infinite. (It is not uncommon for women to be associated with spirituality. This theme is echoed in the Tarot and in esoteric/metaphysical sources across cultures.) Further, the color of women -- as with men -- depended on the purpose of the object. For example, neither of the bust of Tiye nor of Nefertiti used in the article is yellow. Sometimes the art was meant to be convey symbolic or religious messages, rather than to be literal depictions.deeceevoice 22:36, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Both the Tiye and Nefertiti busts are from the Akhenaten era, which, as you probably know, is very different from other eras of Egyptian art, and seems to have a whole different set of conventions. Of course women, like men, are commonly associated with spirituality; but that doesn't seem as convincing as the usual explanation, that (upper-class) women went outside less and so were less tanned (which is still true in Egypt, now I come to think of it.) - Mustafaa 22:47, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sounds to me like a flimsy fiction, an assumption based a presumptively light-skinned Egyptian populace -- which, of course, I don't buy in the first place. Besides, one of my sisters is what black folks call "high yella" with hazel eyes. She tans, yes -- but not to the deep, reddish brown of Egyptian art. Nowhere near deeceevoice 23:09, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Negritos

There's a good article on Negritos to link to; if they are the people you're alluding to, they should be linked. (If not, then who are you referring to?) - Mustafaa 03:53, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh. And one other thing. Yes, I am referring to the so-called "Negritos." Guess I should wikify my language. . I introduced Asia, because I have some great old photos -- which, it turns out, I think should be used in Negrito, which has only a relatively poor photograph (in that it doesn't show much detail) of a sculpture. I'm awaiting permission to use them, though. deeceevoice 11:29, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Afrocentrism vs. Afrocentricity

I think of Afrocentrism in ideological terms, while I think of Afrocentricity in more academic terms...so I created an entry for Afrocentricity. Asante never actually uses the term Afrocentrism....and perhaps with one exception (Maulana Karenga)...the only people using the term have been critics. Lefkowitz for example, never refers to Afrocentricity, only to Afrocentrism. What are the differences between the two? Karenga lays out the difference in his work INTRODUCTION TO BLACK STUDIES but I don't have it in front of me.... --Lester Spence 22:32, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Anon posts

User talk:68.253.220.41 just made a whole bunch of posts, deleting part of the talk page each time. They're all copies of online articles, so I've just reverted, but they can be read at:

http://www.africanbynature.com http://www.africanbynature.com/eyes/openeyes_stilloutofafrica.html http://www.yayacanada.com/samdiary24.html http://www.world-crisis.com/analysis_comments/310_0_15_0_C32/ - Mustafaa 01:58, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And a bunch more which I haven't bothered to place here, cause it would take too long. - Mustafaa 02:15, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Afrocentrism"

About the Mediterranean and the Fertile Crescent

Removed -- again -- pending verification: "The common scholastic belief is, however, that the origin of the people of Ancient Egypt is more accurately described by study associated with the history of the Mediterranean region and Fertile Crescent. Thus...."

It's always been my understanding that the prevailing viewpoint was that Egyptian civilization and these centers developed -- at least at some points in their history -- simultaneously and not as a result of them. I acknowledge that I could be mistaken; but, again, please provide substantiation of this contention and its wide acceptance before restoring the above passage to the text. The goal is to provide an article that is as factually correct as possible. deeceevoice 14:10, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I determined the problem was in the wording of the entry. I reworked it and repositioned it so that it followed from the previous paragraph, rather than leaving it as an opener to the next thought -- that had no direct connection to it. (I think that helps.) If I've changed the contributor's original intent, then feel free to re-edit -- but don't return it to its original wording. It's confusing. deeceevoice 14:23, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I believe the prevailing belief is a combination of these - that Egyptian culture based itself on local roots dating to mid-Neolithic times, but underwent a period of significant Mesopotamian influence (including such elements as circular seals) right about 3000 BC, which played a role in inspiring the invention of their writing system, among other things. However, that says nothing about the origin of the people one way or the other. - Mustafaa 04:18, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

System glitch blanked this page

This is the first time I've seen this happen. I'd restore the text, but I don't know how without having to go back and manually delete all the clutter that comes with cutting and pasting from a diff. Help, anybody? (This was the result of a system glitch and not an intentional edit. As you can see, my entry registered twice. When this usually happens, it results in a duplication of blocks of text in the body of an article -- not a complete blanking of the piece.) deeceevoice 14:23, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Okay. I think the talk page has been restored -- except for the photos. I'm done for the night. (These system glitches are a real pain.) deeceevoice 02:57, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Susan Anton

The article states:

"However, in the words of Susan Antón, a member of the American team, "Our group did not, in fact, find Tut to be a 'Caucasoid North African.' We classified him as African based on many of the [skull's facio-cranial] features...." Antón noted that this was done regardless of the fact that the nasal cavity was relatively narrow, because the metrics were within the range of probability for the Nilotic peoples of the region. With regard to any finding of European origins, Antón commented that, in light of the cumulative evidence, she "determined the statistical association [with Europeans] was very low and, therefore, based on the nonmetric characters, was not likely to be accurate." "... it would have been less confusing," Antón added, "if that terminology ['Caucasoid North African'] had not been used." "I think his features are consistent with him being African."

Washington Post:

"Anton, in a telephone interview, described the specimen as "somewhat equivocal." The decidedly masculine jaw was the giveaway, she said, although the rounded forehead, the sharp brow and the prominent eyes suggested a woman. Age was easy, she said. The third molars were in the process of coming in, something that happens between the ages of 18 and 20. Race was "the hardest call." The shape of the cranial cavity indicated an African, while the nose opening suggested narrow nostrils — a European characteristic. The skull was a North African." http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/nation/3176462

National Geographic:

"Working "blind," Susan Antón, an associate professor of anthropology at New York University, studied the CT scan data with Bradley Adams of New York City's Chief Medical Examiner's office. At first glance Antón noted that the unusual-looking skull could have been that of a female—an observation also later made by Yale University's Anderson. Tut's skull exhibited several characteristics more commonly found on females: a cranium that is elongated toward the back, a receding chin, and an almost nonexistant browridge (the bony ridge under the eyebrows). But with further analysis, Antón and her team determined that their subject was an 18- to 19-year-old-male most likely of North African origin. " http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/05/0511_050511_kingtutface_2.html

The Guardian:

A second team led by Susan Anton of New York University, looked only at the CT data, and identified a male aged 18 to 19, of North African type with Caucasoid affinities http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/research/story/0,9865,1481258,00.html

Science Daily:

"Working “blind,” Susan Antón, associate professor of anthropology at New York University, in consultation with Bradley Adams of the chief Medical Examiner’s office, studied the CT data. She quickly described the mystery person as male, age 18 to 19 years, and of African ancestry with several Caucasian affinities, possibly of north African origin — all uncannily accurate." http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/05/050511133510.htm

Press Release:

Based on this skull, the American and French teams both concluded that the subject was Caucasoid (the type of human typically found, for example, in North Africa, Europe, and the Middle East). The American team, working blind, correctly identified the subject as North African. http://ftp2.nationalgeographic.com/pressroom/TUT_Reconstruction/Press_Materials/Egypt_Press_Release.doc

Please clarify.

Well to clarify: The French and Egyptians, knowing that they were working on Tutankhamun ended up making a representation that looks like a French-Arab. The Americans, not knowing the importance, ended up creating a more Black looking representation. Similarily so, the people that did reconstructions of the Nefertiti mummy also created a very Black looking representation.

So it seems evident that if white people know that who they are reconstructing is important to them, they will interpret the reconstruction as white as possible, while if they do not know the importance of the individual they will make a more balanced unbiased reconstruction.

Or to make it even more clear, just in case we play word games... The AMERICAN one http://images.chron.com/content/news/photos/05/05/11/tut.jpg looks more like a Black than the FRENCH one http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/05/photogalleries/tut_mummy/photo5.html

Let us even make it more clear just in case some people play dumb. The prognathism (commonly known in Black people) is redefined as a family overbite. His lips on both (moreso on the french one) does not even come close to the thickness on the famous sculptures. The profiles of both pictures as you can see show the French one which is more 90 degree perpendicular than the American one which is more slanted (characteristically like a black person). Now if you look at the actual mummy (or the CT scan itself) the angle is not perpendicular and is much more like the American version. Then finally they chose to use the lightest shade of skin possible and the most straightest nose possible. All of this done in the realm of "interpretation" to create a "caucasoid".

And for some reason this is a "legitimate" debate against Afrocentricism... I am beyond laughing.