Talk:Hamites/Archive 1

Archive 1

General Comment

This Article is not clear and comes off as untruthful. Not only is it pushing a theory as a truth, you all refuse to change it.... Why would you want to twist the truth when so many people are telling you this information is misleading at best and completely false at worst?? (KeyTruth (talk) 14:40, 1 December 2016 (UTC))

The original article has racist, anti-black propaganda infused under the guise of scholarly expertise. The notion that one of Noah's son's (namely Ham) saw his father without clothes, and thus God cursed him and made his skin black, and that this is where dark skin (dark African, African-Americans, etc) come from is pure racism, pseudo science, etc. Wikipedia articles that are based on fantasy literature should clearly state so, and those that are both fantasy and eugenics should state so. TruthForHumanity (talk) 10:24, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree with many of the comments below. The content here has a modern ethnographic thrust which comes across as quite unbalanced.

I understand the term Hamitic to refer to the Egyptians and their culture and the Coptic language - I accept that this might be innacurate but I am certain that the thrust of this article as it is, inacurate.

There are lots of informative comments here and together they make a good reading. It's unfortunate that the main article isn't so balanced.

I would love to see a similar study on the differences between northern europeans and southern europeans,especially the pug nosed baltic populations[baltids].I'd like to see german researchers go in and study with such intensity the bringing of civilization,literacy and romanisation belonging to the lithe,long nosed,swarthier,shorter meds into the north.We could even call it aegean theory on par with hamitic theory.If an idea as absurd as this can be created for africans let's have one created for europeans.God I regret the day the ancient germanic tribes were romanized and taught to write.The havoc and geneocide they've caused in Africa is incomparable,I can see why they were considered the barbarians of the ancient world. (58.178.43.188 (talk) 07:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC))

Err, it was created for Europeans. See Nordicism. Paul B (talk) 13:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Napoleon

The text makes the following rather odd claim about Napoleon's activities in Egypt:

"With the "discovery" of Ancient Egyptian civilization European academics were faced with an uncomfortable fact: as far as they could tell, ancient egyptians had been dark skinned Africans, and yet they were still capable of great works and an advanced civilization, long before those things had existed in Europe."

Firstly, the Egyptians were credited great works long before Napoleon. There was a tradition in the 18thC of crediting Egyptians with mystical and intellectual wisdom, and graeco-roman references to Egyptian achievements were very well known. So Napoleon discovered nothing new as such, just initiated modern scientific and historical study of Egypt.

Secondly, why would Napoleon and his scholars assume the Egyptians were 'dark skinned Africans'? They had no reason to assume the Ancient Egyptians looked much different from modern Egyptians. The skin-pigmentation used in Egyptian art is not especially dark. I know of no evidence uncovered by Napoleon's forces tht suggested the Ancient Egyptians were darker than one would expect. This passage seems to be tainted with Afrocentrism. I am altering it. Paul Barlow

Yes, Egyptian accomplishments were well known in Europe before 1798, and there was some scholarly interest in the subject. Many people even speculated on the subject of Egyptian race, so you were right to clarify the article. However, the French invasion sparked a marked growth in interest and study in Egypt. According to one article I have read, in the early years of the 19th century there was an explosion of interest in the "race question" in Egypt, with most Europeans tryign to prove that Egyptians were not negroes in any way.

Ancient Egyptians were "dark skinned" in relation to white Europeans who considered themselves above all other races, and at the time considered most Africans to be more or less one of a kind. Egypt in the 19th century had a wide mix of races living in it, so any logical anaylisis would indicate that similar people lived there for many centuries. I think that "afrocentrist" might be a bit extreme in describing the article. Nonetheless, thanks for some clarifications.

Peregrine981 23:47, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"secondly, why would Napoleon and his scholars assume the Egyptians were 'dark skinned Africans'? "

I've seen vague references to a Proto-Hamitic language. Does anyone here know anything about this?

The references must have been very vague or very dated. There is no such thing as proto-Hamitic, there is proto-Semito-Hamitic, although the term proto-Afro-Asiatic is preferred. Read the Hamitic and Afro-Asiatic articles properly.

PatGallacher 13:20, 2005 Feb 27 (UTC)

I know that proto-languages tend to be known through reconstruction- which is a very hypothetical thing- so how can it be absolutely determined that there wasn't a Proto-Hamitic language? Gringo300 01:21, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

There would be a proto-Hamitic if there was a genuine "Hamitic" group that had evolved from a common ancestor-language. The point is that linguists these days do not recognise the existence of such a group. Paul B 10:13, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Because there are so many depictions of egyptians with very black skin and because the country is in Africa.I really wish Europe would start studying their Indigenous culture and history - the ostrogoths,celtic-iberians,prussians,suebi,slavs - I know they were all tribal peoples but they are the ancestors of most of the europeans currently in the west who are still spending their time trying to connect themselves to a glorious past in africa of all places,it's mind boggling.

I'm suppose to believe that northern and central europeans who had no written language till romanisation, no literacy in many areas till the 11th-16th century, no state builidings or organised states of any kind, no ancient kingdoms prior to being romanized and who are recorded in arabic, asian and roman texts as being tribal/barbaric groups,I'm suppose to believe they brought civilization to a country in africa [Egypt]. 58.178.43.188 (talk) 07:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

There are almost no depictions of Egyptians with "very black skin" and no-one has ever claimed that northern and central europeans brought 'civilisation' to North Africa. You seem to be confusing the ancient world with the Napoleonic era. Give me a break. Paul B (talk) 08:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

These people don't look black to you,that's pretty amazing. http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3158/2891312054_1e77a56673.jpg?v=0 http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3149/2891312002_56a33ff93c.jpg?v=0 http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3213/2897594077_06115f5f1d.jpg?v=0 http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3283/2897594071_11d22524c7.jpg?v=0 http://www.flickr.com/photos/11413503@N03/2894554765/in/pool-egyptology http://www.flickr.com/photos/abuaiman/2271517428/

and yes they have,north africans are still headed under the branch indo-european to this day,and are still purported to have the same origins as the mythical indo europeans,so a relationship between them has always and still is assumed via migration of some kind.Despite genetic evidence that they are halplogroup E3b an african branch. 58.178.43.188 (talk) 09:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

North africans are not "headed under the branch of Indo-Europeans". All north African languages are Afro-Asiatic ("Indo-European" is a lingustic concept, not a racial one, just like Afro-Asiatic). As for the people in your pictures, none of them have "very black skin" at all (most of them are just rather badly photographed). In any case these images would not have been known to Napoleon's troops, whose principal pictorial knowledge of Egyptians would have been from European illstrations to the bible, so your whole argument makes no sense. It's easy to find images of Egyptians of various hues from pale to dark, but the dominant portrayal was with a red ochre pigment, pretty much consistently. Paul B (talk) 10:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I am fully aware that it is a lingustic term but everybody and his mother knows it's now used as a catch all for "the original aryan european of the Urheimat" and it's frequently still used as anthropological term http://www.ancestrybydna.com/welcome/whatisancestrybydna/

Anyway this topic is very much off topic,the general gist of this wiki article is very good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.178.43.188 (talk) 14:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

additions by HV

HV has added the following:

"In Russia an equivalent to the Hamitic Theory came up: the Japhetitic [SIC] Theory by Nikolaj J. Marr, which explained the origin of the peoples of the Caucasus as descendants of Noah's son Japheth. This theory was very popular even in Soviet times and it was likewise used to establish a hierarchy of the peoples in Russia in terms of civilization."

I'm removing this because I don't think it's relevant to the topic of "Hamitic". The only simililarity is terminology derived from Noah's sons. Marr's "Japhetic theory" was never about race, and it only used the Biblical name as a label. After all it was the official 'Marxist' linguistic model in Soviet Russia until the 30s, so it's hardly based on belief in the Bible! Instead I'm creating a new page on Japhetic theory (linguistics).

I think aome of HV's other additions need a bit of tweaking too. Paul B 13:15, 20 March 2005 (UTC)

I don't think its inappropriate to mention the Japhetic theory in the article... any particular reason why it was completely removed? Peregrine981 13:13, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

As you may have noticed, I accidentally saved the page half way through writing my explanation. Sorry. See above. I don't think the two theories are at all 'equivalent' Paul B 13:20, 20 March 2005 (UTC)

Ham's children

Now if I am not mistaken Ham is the father of the black race, japhet of the white and Shem of the Semities. So why is it that in this artcle the blackness of say Cannanties and Egyptians is played down compared to say those in punt or cush. Someone here may not necessarily agree with what the bible says but thats what it says.

The Bible says nothing of the kind. It does not say anything about "black," "white," or "Semitic" races. It does not say anything about races at all. john k 06:37, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Cush literailly means "black", and, in the Bible, it is said that Ham and Cush were the fathers of the peoples of Africa. A feat that even Darwin attested to. The bible talks about the Canaanites being black, and Ham being black. This was enough to be used to subjugate black people, but as soon as it can be used to their advantage, it is disparaged sous-prétexte that they are, in some way, alleviating the "curse" from black people when, in reality, they are giving with the right hand, to then take away with the left. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.174.95 (talk) 11:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

afrocentrists

the trend here to blame everything that connotes ancient egyptians with sub saharab africans of today as mere 'afrocentrism' is disturbing. africans come in all colors and types, quite literally. namibians, congolese et al do not resemble ethiopians and people from somalia. apart from north africans and the sudanese who have mixed in with arabs throughout the centuries, there seems to be a discrepancy in physical features within africans that is not due to mass migration or intermarrying. the same with swedes and the portugese. that said, any reference to ancient egyptians being dark has nothing to do with a vast conspiracy by afrocentrists, the accusations here are nothing short of pathetic. ancient egyptians could well have resembled the abyssinians. ancient abyssianian art typified themselves as being taller, healthier with straight hair in contrast to their defeated foes, some dipicted them as being lighter as well. studying ancient drawings and validating them as a scientific fact is very undergraduate.

Yes, of course there is wide diversity in African populations. Much of that is due to migrations, of both native populations within the continent and of outsiders coming in at various times. Human populations have continuously been on the move over history. This article attempted to explain how the term 'Hamitic' has been used over time to try to make sense of these difference, and how in particular it has been deeply implicated racist assumptions. My comment above about Afrocentrism were specifically in response to an earlier version of the article which claimed that Napoleon's troops were disturbed by the fact that the Egyptians were "dark skinned Africans", as opposed, presumably to light skinned Africans. There is no evidence of this that I know. Paul B 19:06, 9 June 2005 (UTC)

Evidence to the contrary is debatable as well.--Ezeu 10:51, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

What evidence to the contrary of what? Paul B 11:16, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Definition

Would it be accurate to say that the term "Hamitic" was applied to speakers of the non-Semitic and Southern Semitic Afro-Asiatic languages, to speakers of Nilo-Saharan languages, and to those who appeared to be ethnically related to the aforementioned (like the Tutsi)? john k 15:30, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it was ever applied in toto to Nilo-Saharan speakers, but I may be wrong. Different authors used the term in different ways. In general it was as you say. The most widely accepted use was to refer to to non-Semitic A-A speakers. Some authors proposed a wider "Hamitic" family. As a "race", the term usually meant something like "black Africans who look as though they might be related to Berber or Semitic peoples" Paul B 15:45, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

This should perhaps be made clearer. Like many of our articles on outdated racialist schemes, this one spends more time explaining how the term was racist and specious than it does explaining how it was actually used. Obviously, it should be explained that it was racist and specious, but we should also have a better sense of what the actual theory was. john k 16:17, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Hamites/African ethnic groups

There are thousands of African ethnic groups. I really think the article's references to Ham and justifications for slavery are vastly oversimplified. It is not a simple subject, any way you look at it.

Gringo300 15:42, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Israel

Israel is important for the obvious reason that the whole saga in Genesis is from the point of view of Israel - it's about explaining the origins of various "nations" that have significance to ancient Israel. This whole secton is about the Iraelites. Later usages of "Hamitic" are rather more defined by European geo-ethnic perspectives, so the whole Canaanite/Phoenecian aspect just disappears. The emphasis on the notion that Hamites = South of Israel is part of the explanation for the shift between the biblical usage and the later usage. Paul B 01:12, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I see your point of view but many people don't believe that the Genesis or Torah was written by man some believe it comes from G-d therefore it has a universal point of view and would not be fair to take one particular point of view say israeli over a arab one for example. Plus Phut or Punt mean Libya or Somalia which went to algeria and tunisia which is north of Israel so not totally accurate. Also Israel was part of Canaan before the semitic people came so it can't really be south of israel considering canaan went into a bit of syria.

Just because "some people" believe it to have been written by God, does not mean that we should take that view in the article. It should describe beliefs, not endorse them. Anyway, even if true it would not alter the fact that Israel is is the central position from which other locations are described. You are right about Phut/Put being usually identified with Lybia. I was about to change that. Paul B 01:27, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Well jews believe it is written by G-d and many chrsitians don't so which view do we take? None the less describing where these are in relation to Israel doesn't help for this reason. Israel is inside Canaan before the semitic people came according to the article on wiki anyways so it is not a good way of describing everywhere. It is like describing the Roman empire in realtionship to Austria its not very helpful because it is inside of it. I don't see why we just don't use the borders. Sorry about editing didn't see your thing to come here.

Some Jews and some Chrtistians believe it was written by God, other Jews and Christians hold that it was 'inspired' by God, but is not to be understood literally. I don't really follow what you are saying in the rest of your message. I don't know what you mean when you write "Israel is inside Canaan before the semitic people came." Do you mean that the land we now call "Israel" was part of the land of "Canaan" before it was taken over by the Israelites? Well I guess that's true, but I'm not sure how it helps. The term "Israel" in phrases like "south of Israel" is just being used to define an area of land for the reader as clearly as possible. Paul B 01:51, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Phut or Punt?

Some bibles use different names so should we just put a slash.

I don't think it helps to put Punt because that leads to confusion with the Egyptian concept of the Land of Punt. It links to a disambiguation page for Punt that has no biblical connections. Phut connects with the article of that name. The only alternate spelling it gives is Put. Paul B 01:27, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you but look http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/people/A0838891.html It seems as if there is no clear cut answer

Ethiopia

The reference to Ethiopia has gone, and it had gone before you reverted. Please read the text first. In any case Wikipedia naming conventions are clear. We use the commonest names in order to make the text clear to readers. "Ethiopia" is not a "eurocentic" name, or at least it's not really relevant whether it is or not. It's just the current English language name for a particular area of Africa. Readers need a word that clearly locates the place being described. Anyway, you can edit away as much as you like from now on, since I'm going to bed! Paul B 01:51, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

NPOV issues

This article is too one-sided and biased towards conclusive thought of negativity towards the concept. Hamitic peoples are no more or less legitimate than Semitic and Japhetic peoples. Why insert POV against it, with no due equal proportion of proponents' sides? The Bible merely states that Africans are descended from Noah's son Ham. Maybe there is some racist motivation for excluding Black people from Noah's progeny, but it is clear that Noah's children are on all sides of the Mediterranean. Hasbro 08:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I understand your point. The article covers several different meanings of the term. The Biblical meaning is one, but since Ham is the "bad" son, it clearly has negative implications, which were later elaborated by theologians. The later concept of a "Hamitic race" is largely unrelated to the Bible. Paul B 08:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The tone of the article is thoroughly negative, which explains the POV dispute. There should not be any value judgement attached to the term, or its usage--that is left up to the readers. Hasbro 09:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Value judgements have always attached to the term, so that's really part of the meat of the article. Ascribing Hamitic identity to people has been suffused with value judgements. Describing those judgements and noting the opinions of critics does not make an article POV. If notable contrary views are left out there would be grounds to object. Paul B 10:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The article contends that the usage of the term has always been negative, inaccurate and that is why Hamitic is no longer widespread. The article fails to address the rise of secular revisionism. The term "Indo-European" is a secular social science interpretation of the Judeo-Christian "Japhetic". The reasons why we don't call "Negroids" Hamites today is for the same reason a White person can't call them "Niggers". That doesn't disqualify the subject addressed by the term. They just come up with new, more politically correct words and names. Hasbro 10:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Indo-European is a linguistic concept that arose completely independently of the Bible. Read Jones' paper on the subject. It's linked on his page (William Jones (philologist)) He tried to fit it into Biblical stories - hence the temporary adoption of the term Japhetic, but the basis for IE had nothing to do with the Bible. In fact it arose from contact with non-Christian Hindu culture. The article clearly states that at one time Hamitic was a positive term ("A "Hamitic race" was also identified, referring to those Africans whom Europeans considered "advanced", or most similar to themselves and to Semitic peoples."). The reason that 'Hamite' is no longer used has nothing to do with the reason why 'nigger' is considered to be pejorative. Paul B 10:49, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I wonder why you refuse to look at the term without setting a value, which is why I wrote this complaint on the talk page in the first place. Hamite, to me, is a neutral word describing the innumerable descendents of Ham. That is the literal, substance-based definition of Hamites. Anything more (value assessments on certain people postulated as Hamites) tends to step into contraversial, argumentative territory. What I meant about the Indo-European thing is that old terms with Biblical basis are now replaced, with a lot of political correctness and cultural perceptions the driving forces behind that. Hasbro 11:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I really don't understand what you are getting at. The article refers to the range of values that have attached to the term. There is one sentence about the term Hamitic being perceived as pejorative by some people. As it happens I did not add the sentence, and some people manage to find almost any term pejorative if they want to. But in this case there is a rationale for that view, since many negative connotations have been attached to sons of Ham. See curse of Ham. However, the ethnolinguistic meaning was at first either neutral or positive, as the article clearly states. The linguistic usage was specific and technical. We have to look at the history of that model and see how it was intertwined with racial hierarchies of the time. It is that specific aspect of the topic that has been characterised as the "Hamitic myth". Paul B 12:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

If you read curse of Ham, it should explain that it is really the curse of Canaan, none of the other sons was ever cursed acording to scripture. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 13:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I find the claim that "The term Hamitic itself is sometimes considered pejorative" a bit difficult to fathom. The term is not in common use any longer, and has never been in common use at all, so negative connotations notwithstanding, I doubt the term caused offence then (in a general sense), let alone today. And as Paul notes above, that is the only sentence that is reason for any POV concerns, so I've removed it. --Ezeu 19:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I haven't looked at this article for a while. It needs a rewrite - that includes the negative use of Hamitic and the more positive uses. Paul B 18:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

East African genetic cluster

1. The match to peoples known as Hamitic doesn't seem very close
2. Cavalli-Sforza does not use the word "Hamitic" and no other reference is given for identification of Cavalli-Sforza's cluster with "Hamitic"

--JWB (talk) 03:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Missing terms

The terms "Nilotic" and "Nilo-Saharan" should be at least mentioned in this article. Badagnani (talk) 22:21, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Why? Nilo-Saharan is a language group which is wholly unrelated to Hamitic in its lingustic usage. Paul B (talk) 23:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Its related - Why, because Nubians were thought to be "Hamitic" peoples and they speak Nilo-Saharan Languages. Tutsi were ALSO thought to be "Hamitic" and THEY speak Bantu - Niger Congo languages. Nilotic peoples that speak "Nilo-Saharan" languages were once too labeled as "Hamites," "Nilo-Hamites," or "Half-Hamites." Their language was also previously called "Nilo-Hamitic."

Regarding "Hamites" and your comments on Egyptians. Genetically - We could Link all PAST groups once labeled as "Hamitic" in Africa. It would basically include any populations that have Ancestry or Admixture from any downstream mutations of these AFrican Y-Chromosome Genetic Markers:

African A-M13 : Nilotic Sudanese African B-M60 : Nilotic Sudanese African E-M215/M35 : Ethiopian

Paul B - "Hamites" as a Pseudo-Scientific term was only reserved SOME populations that had "High Culture/Civilization" (Egypt,Nubia,Ethiopia) or other Groups that had FEATURES or body types that Europeans denoted as admixture from some Mysterious White "Hamites" : Tutsi, Nuer, Dinka, Masai.

The folly of it all is that These "Hamites" taken from a MODERN GENETIC VIEW are pretty Indigenous and all trace their Ancestry back to Sudan/Ethiopia: Ethiopian Generic: E-M35

Somali: E-M35>M78 Oromo: E-M35>M78 Egyptian E-M35>M78 Berber: E-M35>M81 Beja: E-M35>M78 Tutsu: E-M2, B-M60 Dinka, Nuer, Nubians: B-M60, E-M35>M78

This would of course include the Ancient Egyptians that you spoke about. These Ancients would most definitely be "Black" like other East Africans because they too owe their Genetic Ancestry to Ethiopians (E-M35). I am unsure if you study genetics or not but the science above is exactly that : Science. Egyptian Female Ancestry also clusters with Ethiopia. SO when Ancient Egyptians painted themselves brownish red we can be pretty sure thats exactly what they looked like. Ancient Egyptians were only an extension of an Ethiopian populations that traveled to Egypt. This is what the Majority and the Indigenous portion of their genetic ancestry states. -Teacher. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.82.195.227 (talk) 19:03, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

It is not at all clear from this what you are actually proposing. Everyone has black ancestors. Skin pigment, nose shape etc are adaptive. Even some influential racial theories of the early 20th century have "Hamites" originating in Africa and moving out from there. Paul B (talk) 16:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

New additions

The new additions contain two substantive sections which are almost entirely unreferenced. One says "There are, of course, a number of problems with this hypothesis: there is nothing in the Scriptures which suggests any kind curse on Ham or any kind of "marking" in reference to his son Canaan". We are, for course, not supposed to assert our own interpetation of problems with a hypothesis based on reading of primary sources. Secondly we have a long section that uses highly novelettish and sometimes ungrammatical language:

As the Scramble for Africa began European exploration moved deeper into the African continent. Europeans encountered many different African groups and were astonished to discover the advanced societies with sophisticated architecture, art, and political organizations the Africans had. Napoleon's invasion of Egypt, made European interest in that country increased dramatically. With the translation of Egyptian hieroglyphics and the rapid increase in knowledge of Ancient Egyptian civilization, European academics became increasingly interested in the origin of the Egyptians and their connection to other groups nearby. European scholars could not accept that Black Africans were able to accomplish such great deeds. This challenged the notion they had of Black Africans being uncivilized and inferior people....

The only "advanced societies" that were "discovered" were north African cultures that had been known about for centuries. Certainly Egypt had. There are things here that are basically true, and looking at the current state of the article, it seems to have been chopped down so much that it is now barely readable and often incoherent, so clearly something has to be done to turn this once more into a coherent article. Some of this material can reinserted, but it surely has to be less one-dimensional, judgemental and must also be properly referenced. Paul B (talk) 16:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

This is absolute rubbish "The only "advanced societies" that were "discovered" were north African cultures that had been known about for centuries. "...Let’s guess those Africans or "sub-saharan Africans" were savages roaming around naked in darkness before the white man brought them light right?. Paul Barlow your quote is extremely sad and if this is what you think the maybe you should study more on African civilizations and cultures. Like Ancient Ghana, Timbuktu , Great Zimbabwe, kerma, Kingdom of Mutapa and other advanced African Societies that the Europeans did not know about. The quote did not say that Europeans did not know about Egypt, they did but it was a very vague knowlege of it. It was Napoleons troops that discovered the Rosetta stone and through that European Scholars were able to decipher the hieroglyphics and got to learn more about Ancient Egypt. So in a sense Napoleons invasion of Egypt was what open their eye. Now the writings on the walls were not just writings it could be read and understood, through that they learned more about Ancient Egyptain culture. If you knew anything about this subject you are so passionate on commenting about, you would know this. It's a pity they leave it up to "educated" folk like yourself to edit these pages and inform the masses with nothing but ignorance and bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ProfXY (talk • contribs) 04:42, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

There's no need to personally attack other editors, ProfXY. What Paul Barlow writes is true; the only "advanced societies" that were "discovered" were North African cultures that had been known for centuries (such as Egypt). The edit you keep re-inserting is a highly dubious and POV spiel on Seligman. You are quite literally using his mentioning of Hamites -- whom he considers Caucasian, not "Black African" -- to comment on whatever it is you personally want readers to believe. None of this is sourced:

"As the Scramble for Africa began European exploration moved deeper into the African continent. Europeans encountered many African groups and were astonished to discover the advanced societies with sophisticated architecture, art, and political organizations the Africans had.

With Napoleon's invasion of Egypt, European interest in that country increased dramatically. With the translation of Egyptian hieroglyphics and the rapid increase in knowledge of Ancient Egyptian civilization, European academics became increasingly interested in the origin of the Egyptians and their connection to other groups nearby. European scholars could not accept that Black Africans were able to accomplish such great deeds. This challenged the notion they had of Black Africans being uncivilized and inferior people. It also contradicted the low rankings of the racial classification schemes of the time.

Out of that the Hamitic Hypothesis was born. Europeans claimed that these achievements were the result of a cultural exchange between Africa’s indigenous black tribes and a new Hamite a Caucasian one. This was an attempt to deny Black Africans any role in their own history by creating a theory of a caucasian Hamite and claiming it was them who spread civilization through Africa and not the Black Africans themselves. This hypothesis was an overt manifestation of racist ideology, not a legitimate ethnological theory.

Writers like Georg Friedrich Hegel’s The Philosophy of History (1832) wrote Africa “the land of childhood…enveloped in the dark mantle of night” and had neither “political constitution” nor “moral sentiments.” He stated that the Negros is capable of no development or culture.” Europeans used this idea of Blacks being sub-human creatures to justify their acts."

It's pure original research, as you've already been told. And Wikipedia functions according to properly used, reliable sources only:

"Articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves."

Soupforone (talk) 22:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Most of the cultures you refer to were either unknown or were 'north African cultures that had been known about for centuries', as I've already said. Timbuktu was very well known, and Great Zimbabwe was not a "society" that was discovered. It's a large dry-stoned wall enclosure: the remains of a former kingdom. There is nothing to suggest that the relevant culture was "advanced" in the sense in which this would have been understood at the time, but admittedly this is a relative term. There's no clear definition of "advanced". Actually, the deciphering of hieroglyphics did not lead to greater recognition of Egyptian achievements, since it actually weakened the claims of esotericist writers that the Egyptians had a profound knowledge that had been passed on through Hermes Tristmegistus and other ancient sages. Most Egyptian knowledge was very practical and not scientific or philosophical. In other words Egyptian achievements were visible in their art and architecture, about which the west had always known, not in its writings. Paul B (talk) 23:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

"Most of the cultures you refer to were either unknown or were 'north African".. You contradict your own statement. My point was to show that there were many cultures in Africa the Europeans did not know about until they begun to travel deeper into the continent during the slave trade and colonization and none of the cultures I mentioned were North African. In case you didn't know Timbuktu was in West Africa. Also if you say that articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. What exactly is reliable or resourceful about the excerpt you keep reverting to? The entire expert is based on an un-sourced opinion. And what is different from that expert and the one now if you claim the corrected version is an “opinion” where were the reliable sources in that one? If Wikipedia is meant to give insight on a topic and its background, how can the article just jump to history of the word after Napoleon? I mean how was the word used before and what was the reason for it? To make something clear I never said that Europeans did not know about Egypt. Neither does the article so please find something else to accuse me about, what I wrote to “Mr. Paul” was that Europeans did know about Egypt but, Napoleons invasion really helped them understand it. In case you forget the ruins were buried under sand for centuries before Napoleons men dug it up, and if you’re going to dispute that the discovery of the rosetta stone by napoleons army did not have a huge impact or open the doors for Europeans to REALLY get to understand and learn about ancient Egypt then that’s your opinion. Also I don’t see what you mean when you claim I’m speaking form personal opinions on “spiel” when it wasn’t even I who made the corrections but I stand by those corrections because it is accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ProfXY (talk • contribs) 03:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I know perfectly well where Timbuktu is, and of course there were central and south African cultures that were unknown to Europeans. No-one is disputing that. For the rest of your message, I can't even understand what you are saying. You refer to an "excerpt", which then becomes an "expert". I don't know what specific bit of text you are objecting to. Actually Napoleon's men did very little digging up at all. Most of that was done much later, by Belzoni and others, but most monuments were always visible. I've tried to explain how the decipherment of the hieroglyphs changed knowledge. It actually discredited the earlier claims of esotericists and freemasons to have inherited Egyptian wisdom. If anything it was not until the discovery of Amarna that the idea that Egyptians may have been intellectually influential resurfaced, through the claims made for Atenism. However, I'm only too willing to agree that this article needs to be improved, but it should be with solid sources and detailed argument, not sweeping assertions. Paul B (talk) 14:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

That was my mistake it was a typo, I never meant to say expert. I was referring to the excerpt; also I am very well aware of Amarna and Belzoni etc. It seem that you are still "stuck" on trying to tell me that Europeans knew about Egypt before Napoleon and I am not disputing this one bit and neither is the article. All I'm saying is his invasion brought a new interest to many scholars well at least we agree (I think) that deciphering of the hieroglyphics gave them insight into Ancient Egyptian culture. Anyway what are these assertions? And what would you consider a reliable source? Is the Hamitic Hypothesis:Its Origin and Functions in Time Perspective" By Edith Sanders one? Take a look at encyclopedia Britannica’s article on the Hamitic Hypothesis is it reliable? http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/253478/Hamitic-hypothesis or —Preceding unsigned comment added by ProfXY (talk • contribs) 02:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course the EB is reliable, though it over-simplifies like amost all tertiary sources. There are now many books that address the various meanings of "Hamitic". One of the problems with this article is that it jumps from one to the other without clarifying the distinctions. Also, sometimes the Hamitic hypothesis, or variants of it, were used by black civil rights leaders to prove that there were black civilising cultures, and Sergi's "Mediterranean race" theory was appropriated by early 20th century American black activists to prove that black Africans formed part of the superior "civilizational" race as opposed to the North European "Nordics", promoted by Madison Grant and others. There was even a Hamitic League of the World, which was an early black-pride organization - so there's actually quite a lot of complexity to this. The essential claim in the EB that the hypothesis proposed that North African pastoralists migrated into Africa bringing superior qualities with them, is of course correct. But don't forget that Grant also believed that north Europeans brought superior civilisational qualities to south Europe, and that Sergi believed that Mediterraneans radiated out both north and south with their superior qualities. There were lots of competing theories that conflicted with eachother, not a single monolithic "White supremacist" view. Paul B (talk) 11:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The white supremacist view is talked about because that is where the roots of the theory comes from. Slamming the corrections made to the article claiming it's unsourced and reverting it back to an article which is even more poorly sourced does not help the situation. It would be best if people stopped with personal bias and opinions and just stated things the way they are. The afrocentric view isn't focused on because there isn't much writing on it, however I think it would be excellent to add that to the article. This is not about what someone like or doesn’t want to see written. If Wikipedia is meant to give insight on topics then it should be allowed to cover the topic on all angles. And not bullied into accepting just what is there especial if what is there is not true or backed up with anything. Also "The essential claim in the EB that the hypothesis proposed that North African pastoralists migrated into Africa bringing superior qualities with them, is of course correct." If this claim was correct the encyclopedia Britannica would not call it claims it would be facts and the hypothesis would not be discredited and i would still be used today. This ignorance and pseudo-scientific racism was abandoned long ago by the same European scholars who invented it to justify their acts, but since you say it's of course "correct", what records do you have on these superior "Pastoral North Africans". Who supposedly brought advances into the rest of Africa. There aren’t even records of the Berber doing this and they were one of the original non Negro inhabitants of North Africa. It is humorous in a way because this is a constant theme in African History, every time there is some sort of development in Africa "someone" will arise, and try very hard to give credit to everyone other than the Black Africans themselves. Then as always there’s never any truth or any evidence to back up their claims so the theories became abandoned and discredited just like the hamitic hypothesis and the claim of this fictional caucasian north African "hamite". That notion alone challenges the entire theory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ProfXY (talk • contribs) 23:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

If you were less preoccupied with edit warring and making over-simplified, and sometimes downright wrong claims we might be able to progress. Our purpose is to describe the the theories attached to the word Hamitic - their origin, meaning and uses. It's a pity you can't understand what I said. I did not say that it is factually correct that north African pastoralists brought superior qualities with them, I said that the EB correctly describes the "Hamitic hypothesis" by summaring it in this way. That's all. It probably is factually correct that migrations of ethno-linguistic groups had such an effect, but that's better described in terms of the Bantu migration than any "Hamitic" model. Also, we must not confuse this with the various linguistic uses of the term Hamitic and the continuing use of the term simply to refer to Africans in general. Paul B (talk) 13:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The Bantu migration is about West Africans spreading north and east NOT North Africans spreading south. So I don't see how it fit into this hamitic hypothesis. Your "slamming" me claiming I'm one sided yet your repeating what I said which is "If Wikipedia is meant to give insight on topics then it should be allowed to cover the topic on all angles". Since you "know" so much on this topic, if you were really passionate about explaining this theory, it history uses etc you would not revert it back to that poor written article instead you would edit it properly and back up your claims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ProfXY (talk • contribs) 03:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but it has become evident thst it is impossible to engage in a meaningful conversation with you since you can't even grasp the basics of what is being said. Obviously the Bantu migration is does not "fit into this hamitic hypothesis". That's the whole point of what I said. Hence the sentence, "migrations of ethno-linguistic groups had such an effect, but that's better described in terms of the Bantu migration than any "Hamitic" model. And yes, I will work on this article over the weekend when I have time to look up the sources. I have to be able to source properly if I am to add to the main space rather than the talk page. That applies to you too. Paul B (talk) 09:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Very funny maybe you can’t, but it seems like you have a habit of doing the same thing to me and misinterpreting what I say so I guess I can’t have a meaningful conversation with you as well, either way this isn’t about bonding, what I care most about is improving the article. And if you are willing to do that then please by all means let us do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ProfXY (talk • contribs) 13:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I've misinterpreted anything you said. However, apologies for not getting to grips with this at the weekend. Too busy. Should be able to soon. Paul B (talk) 08:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

ProfXY, please stop wasting other editors' time. Hamitic is just a historical term for North Africans. If the Berber, Egyptian and Chad languages had turned out to be phylogenetically related, it would remain a perfectly valid linguistic term, just like "Semitic". Since the non-Semitic Afro-Asiatic languages did not turn out to form a group of their own, the term is obsolete. The Bantu migration has nothing to do with any of this. --dab (𒁳) 11:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Paul no worries

Soupforone the allegations and reports you made aganist me where discredited by wiki editors so stop vandalizing the page or this time I will be the one to report you

"Dab" you need to stop wasting my time with your opinions. Hamitic is not a historical term for North Africans if it the europeans would not use it to justify the enslavement of Black Africans.

ProfXY (talk) 13:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

indeed. please see WP:NOT. You may want to try usenet or perhaps facebook as a platform for airing your views. --dab (𒁳) 15:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

ah. I see you are consistently discussing the "Hamitic theory", not the term "Hamitic". The "Hamitic theory" or "Hamitic myth" was indeed a racialist theory, supposing that the Hamites (being Caucasoid) were "superior". Needless to say, this is racist nonsense and has long been discredited, and has nothing to do with the term "Hamitic" as such. You are flogging a dead horse. By all means, it should be discussed, but please without all the hysteria. --dab (𒁳) 15:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

"All hysteria" very very funny Mr dab, but I do see where your coming from you are talking about then hamitic language group not the racial theory I don't know if it was your idea to split the article into 2, but I totally agree with wiki that it should be split into 2 and be accessible from a disambiguation page ProfXY (talk) 21:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Proxy, it has NOT been split into two articles. Please check the facts before making such statements. If you persist with this behaviour you will simply be repeatedly reverted. That what happens whenh editors behave incompetently. Paul B (talk) 22:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Well paul your fully competent self should try reading the article before you vandalize it because the 1st thing you would see on the main page is a message from wiki stating "It has been suggested that this article be split into articles entitled Hamitic languages and Hamitic race, accessible from a disambiguation page." And I support this 100 percent because there are the hamitic lang. groups which "Dab" was refering to when he edited the article and there is the racial theory. I don't know what you expect by telling me you are going to repeatedly revert it but I will tell you this, all vandalism will be reported. have a good day ProfXY (talk) 23:04, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, genius. It says "It has been suggested", not "it has". It was also removed by you, so you are contradicting yourself. It has to be debated. No such such split has taken place. I do not think it should, since the concepts are closely related, but I can see a case for having a main article and spin-offs if there is enough material to warrant it. So your "wiki has split the articles into 2 this is about racail theory" is utterly false. Paul B (talk) 23:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I did not remove anything. Why would I remove something I agree with. The only time it was removed was when YOU vandalized it and was brought back when I reverted and has stayed on the page since, so get your facts straight before you make allegations and make yourself look even more foolish. ProfXY (talk) 23:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I have never removed it. Check. Also please do not falsely use the term vandalism for edits designed to revert your own mistakes. You removed references, destroyed wikification and introduced incoherent and naive material. You have been spoken to politely and your response is adolescent aggression. So get your facts straight before you make allegations and make yourself look even more foolish. Paul B (talk) 23:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes you did remove it when you reverted the article, because wiki posted that message right after my corrections. And I really do not care if you disagree that the article should be split you are entiled to your opinion. Also I did not remove any references I brought back the references that were removed. I honestly so not have time for time this, so if you claim I did all these things and "destroyed wikification" as you call it then please report it and stop wasting my time with this pointless nonsense ProfXY (talk) 23:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I made two reversions [1] and [2], neither of which removed the tag. But you didn't bother to check, did you? The previous version by you [3] removed the refeences. Check the red tag at the bottom. You had no idea what you were doing, and you don't even have the honesty to check the facts before repeating false assertions. You should care what others editors think because we are supposed to be working for consensus. See Wikipedia:Consensus. Paul B (talk) 23:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

On the 3rd on where you claim I removed all the refs. scroll down in you will see in red letter a messages from wikipedia thats said "Cite error: ref tags exist but no <references/ tag was found" Because of all the reverts made the citations and refernces were all over the places there were references for things that had been removed, but even before i made the correction check the edits I made and you will se that it was ME who added that long list references you are talking about I got it from an older version. And it was ME again who went back to fix it and properly cite it. so like I said it did not remove that was suppose to be there ProfXY (talk) 00:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, you deleted the ref tag and the categories, which made the inline references invisible. You are not supposed to add a list of "references" that is just a list of books and articles, since that does not justify particular assertions. Anyone can just download a list of books. They do not justify specific edits. Paul B (talk) 00:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

No I did not remove it. it was removed when the article was changed genuis, so I had to bring it back piece by piece. And that is extactly what I did I went back to the old version and got the refs from there. Check the edit history before you talk about downloaded booklists, but let me ask you this who posted the refs. you say i deleted.....oh wait I posted it, so if I posted it and went back to delete it SOME not all and Kept the rest what does that tell you? the others had no purpose. how would I know this wait it was I WHO PUT THEM THERE IN THE 1st placeProfXY (talk) 00:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

SERIOUSLY you wasting my time, I know I haven't done a thing wrong and everything I have added or taken away is to improve the article so like I said before if you claim I have "destroyed wikification" or whatever then please report it, but if this is all about you being upset that wiki wants to split the article in 2 because they saw the version I corrected and "dab's" version then thats you problem ProfXY (talk) 00:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

"No I did not remove it." Yes you did, in this edit [4]. If you were less full of yourself you would have less hassle. Not understanding wiki-code is understandable. Pretending that you do when you just cut and paste from the screen is not. Paul B (talk) 00:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

That was the ref. Dab added to the page when he reverted it to support the edit he made, if you look at the page before dab came along that "source" WAS NOT THERE so of course I removed it when I was reverting the article back it what it was, it had no place there, you are just going round and round in a circle desperately trying to find something to add to your pointless claim. Stop making yourself look foolish, because I specifically stated over and over again that I removed sources that were part of a sections that were removed because of reverts made to the article. if your point in all of this is that I removed sources then like I said over and over again report it. If you are not going to do that then spare me the BS ProfXY (talk) 01:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Boy, this is ridiculous. You removed a ref tag. That made the refs disappear. That's perfectly clear. You had clearly cut and pasted from the screen so that the references appeared as a list of books at the end (like a bibliography), not linked to to the in-text tags. This also destroyed all the wikifikation. As I say, expertise in these matters can't be expected from scratch, but your denials of the undeniable do not help. If you don't know what I am talking about, read up on references WP:REF. You have also removed all the interwikis. I will have to revert again in order to restore them, as otherwise trying to make sense of your edits is far too complex. Don't cut-and-paste the text from the screen, work in the editing pane, or cut and paste the edit-pane version, taking the code with you if you want to work with it offline. Paul B (talk) 11:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Neither the incompetence nor the ideological agenda of "prof" is under dispute, nor even deniable, but I admit that this user's intervention has drawn my attention to the difference between de:Hamitentheorie and de:Hamitische Sprachen. So, we should take the opportunity and fix things. Don't get annoyed over this, Paul - it's the internet, remember? Wikipedia is accessible to literally anybody. The 3RR will take care of it. Should the user decide to take an approach less "full of himself", there will still be time to collaborate and hold his hand. --dab (𒁳) 12:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

It has to be admitted that this article is in pretty poor shape. The two senses aspects of "Hamitic theory" are interlinked, but maybe it's impossible to keep this article coherent in its current form. Part of the problem is that its title mirrors Japhetic and Semitic, but those articles have very different content, and there are two "Japhetic languages" articles (Japhetic language and Japhetic theory). Paul B (talk) 14:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Dab, I will take that as a compliment, but you can hold your friends hand if you like I am perfectly capable on “walking” on my own.... Back to the foolish allegations about how in the corrections I made "the links where not linked to the in-text tags”. No really? It wasn’t? Was it all the corrections or just that one correction? And wait a second that “incorrect” reflist was what you accused me of removing in the 1st place so if it wasn’t correct why would it matter if I removed it? And why would I remove it after I pasted it? Oh wait a let us look back on the edit history, I did copy and paste it when I was restoring the article to what it was. I went back to LINK it to the refs that had not been moved or been out of place due the many edit and reverts that were made to the article. So again I did nothing but fix the page and restore it to what it was before it was vandalized.... When you go to the main page where it said the article should be split, one for language and one for race, click on the link it has for the hamitic language groups it takes you to the article to the article for the afro Asiatic languages, however if you click on the labeled hamitic race it brings you to THIS one. This article did not and do not need to focus on the languages because there is an entire article solely dedicated to Hamitic languages so constantly going back and changing it and making it mainly focus on the languages is pointless. This article should remain focused on the racial term. You speak of collaboration so instead of making allegations and complaining about nothing maybe you can help the article like you said you would when you mentioned you were going to add the afrocentric views about the subject. .This shouldn't be about Personal opinions or bias or whatever, personally you may not like to seperate them, but they are two diff concepts and each concept should be talked about. I am done with this back and forth nonsense. Since you deem yourselves as intellectuals and I as the incompetent “wikification” destroyer do with the article as you please ProfXY (talk) 00:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no article on Hamitic languages. Research before you write. Click on the link and see what happens. You write, "that “incorrect” reflist was what you accused me of removing in the 1st place so if it wasn’t correct why would it matter if I removed it?" This merely shows that you haven't even begun to grasp the issue. You removed the "reflist" code which made the in-line citations disappear. The only "incorrect" list of references was the cut-and-pasted strip of names of books and articles. If I am not explaining this clearly, ask someone who can explain it better. Paul B (talk) 10:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Paul, you are wasting your time. ProfXY, you want to try WP:HELP, specifically WP:AAU. --dab (𒁳) 11:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow this is a serious joke. Dab you can try “adopting” your friend. The original wasn’t removed by me the original was removed when the article was changed. How many times do I have to say that. Just spare me the bullshit seriously. I really pity you now, there is an article on Hamitic langs. maybe you should read more, that link takes you to the page on Afro-asiatic languages. The Afro-asiatic languages are the HAMITIC Languages, thank you for proving my point you make yourself look more foolish by the second you clearly don’t know what you speak of. I guess this doesn’t sound familiar to either of you “The Hamitic language group is no longer considered by most scholars to be a useful concept,[14] though the phrase "Hamito-Semitic" is a dated term for the Afro-Asiatic linguistic group”, so I guess your contradicting yourselfs now because that is part of the edits you made to the page...Seriously stop wasting my time and going around in circles if you knew more about this subject and wanted to help with the article like you said you would you would have done it a long time ago instead of constantly going back to someone else’s edits, and don’t think that it can’t be seen that you are trying to deflect the fact your basing the article on your personal opinion on what you want to see written. You’re not fooling anyone I have nothing to say to either one of you so unless you have something important to say, find a better hobby than to make foolish allegations. I am going to revert the article again and anyone that wants to improve the race topic should if not do with it as you please. I don't have time for this nonsense ProfXY (talk) 15:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Boy, you sure get confused don't you? I've already given the link to your edit in which you removed the reflist (and two categories to boot), so I don't see why you persist in denying it. For your information the statement "the Afro-Asiatic languages are the HAMITIC languages" is false. 'Hamitic' was most commonly understood as a supposed sub-group within Afro-Asiatic, but some authors such as Lepsius considered that all African laguages which had a gender system were "Hamitic". This included languages that were not within the Afro-Asiatic family. Of course you would know this if you had actually read the article you are editing! Carl Meinhof also included non-Afro-Asiatic languages within the family, notably Fula and Masai. You really need to read some books rather than cut-and-paste from websites. BTW, this is one reason why the language aspect and the ethnic/racial model should be kept together, since Meinhof was clearly influenced by the theory that Hamites were migratory pastoralists, since the languages he included were spoken by pastoralist cultures. Paul B (talk) 15:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so this concludes this discussion. With your latest revert, you are now close to violating the WP:3RR. Please note that if you continue reverting, your account will be blocked from editing. --dab (𒁳) 15:22, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Job well done to the editors (The 2 of them who seem to be going back and forth violation the 3RR) for making this sound as if racist men like Seligman and Sergi were reciting a love poems. That article is poorly written and bias. With all the reverts and edit done to the it, one would think you geniuses would have the common sense to add the modern day view about the topic. Nillarse (talk) 04:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Also it was not until after Napoleons invasion of Egypt that Europeans felt the need to shift the meaning of hamitic from “Negros” as they had used it before, to coin this fictional Caucasian hamite your article seem to focus on. If you are not going to talk about something as a whole and purposely leave some information out then don’t even bother with it at all. Nillarse (talk) 05:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Sergi and Seligman were reciting to "love poems" to their favoured groups. That's the whole point. The claims about "Napoleon's invasion of Egypt" that keep cropping up are wildly exaggerated. It was Speke who really initiated this theory half a century after Napoleon, and it was the development of scientific models of language groups combined with with mid-late 19th century typologies of race that fuelled it. In other words Napoleon is a complete red herring. As for the "modern day view about the topic", that's difficult. There is a big danger of getting into WP:SYN if we start debating what evidence there is to support or to reject various aspects of the Hamitic model(s) that existed. The situation in linguistics is fairly clear, but when it comes to models of race and of human migration things become a lot murkier, and there's a danger that we could create a mess if were start throwing in evidence about where this or that group may have originated. Still, there is is a case for a modern views section if it can be properly sourced. I initially thought of including one, but was worried that it would be a magnet for conflict between editors trying to prove or disprove models of human migration. Paul B (talk) 12:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Apparent copyvio

I checked the latest additions, found apparent copyvio from [5] dougweller (talk) 06:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I pulled a phrase at random from ProfXY's additions and Googled it. The exact text appears in numerous other locations. —Travis^talk 15:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I stand corrected (forgot the quotes {{trout}}). —Travis^talk 16:33, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

no, that phrase is fine: you need to google with quotes. It appears only on Wikipedia mirrors, and on some forum, also copy-pasted off Wikipedia. --dab (𒁳) 15:57, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Much of ProfXy's stuff comes from earlier versions of this article, which I guess he's copied from wikipedia mirror sites. Some of it does contain good material, which I remember from the misty past, but which has got chopped out by previous editors. We need to extract the good stuff. Paul B (talk) 17:37, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I've totally redone this. Sorry about the scrappy way I've done it. I'm sitting in a university library with a pile of books, using an archaic computer that will not allow me to cut and paste and which has a very sticky keyboard. I will add some more material later but now I'm going to the gym: been sitting down to long. Paul B (talk) 19:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

ProfXY is only the latest example of how trolls help the 'pedia: by annoying the good editors, they incite them to sit down and do it properly. This is the secret of Wikipedia's success. On Citizendium or some similarly fenced-away project, Paul would never have had the incentive to write this article. So cheers. --dab (𒁳) 11:04, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Image

The main point of the Maasai image in that section is that the are not "fully Hamitic" - that their language and geographical location did not correspond to the established Hamitic category but that Meinhof extended it. The image of Beja does not communicate that. However it might be appropriate to have a more "fully Hamitic" image elsewhere. Paul B (talk) 00:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I've still got no reply, nor do I understand why Soupforone persists in deleting the image of the Maasai. As stated above, the whole point of including the Maasai was that "that their language and geographical location did not correspond to the established Hamitic category but that Meinhof extended it." We now have three images of "stereotypical" Hamites, and none that represent the extended use of the term. The caption added to the image of the Afar man is also misleading. It says "Carl Meinhof and other early scholars believed that ethnic groups such as the Afar (Danakil) spoke Hamitic languages due to linguistic similarities between their language and other Hamitic languages, and because of their pastoral lifestyle and Caucasoid physiognomies." This is misleading. Afar is an unproblematically Afro-Asiatic language. The lifestyle of the Afar was not a significant factor in determining that it belonged to the Hamitic group. In so far as "Hamitic" is simply synonymous with "non-Semitic A-A" it still does belong to it, even though the term is no longer used. In other words referring to Meinhof specifically here is pointless. Rather it was the established link with such groups that allowed the extension of the term to include Tutsi (racially) and Maasai (racially and linguistically) who had similar lifestyles. I've no idea whether Meinhof's view of the Massai language is more accurately described by Ruhlen's "a mixture of Nilotic and Hamitic elements" or Hohenberger's "an ancient Hamitic language influenced by Sudanic". I suspect that Hohenberger is more likely to be accurate, since he was specialist on the subject, whereas Ruhlen's A Guide to the World's Languages is a generalist encyclopedia. However, the two statements are entirely consistent, the only difference being that Hohenberger stresses that the Nilotic/Sudanic influence was secondary. Nevertheless, it's not as important as the fact that we should have an image that represents the racial/linguistic extension of the term, not yet another image of a stereotypical Hamite, the third in a row. Paul B (talk) 11:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. I had some real world affairs to tend to. That said, I'm afraid you're mistaken. The Afar's pastoral lifestyle was only yet another commonality between themselves and other groups deemed Hamitic (this time, cultural rather than just physical and linguistic, as had already been established) that encouraged early scholars to group them with other Hamites. That's not misleading; that's fact. What's misleading was the original assertion that the Maasai's so-called "Caucasoid physiognomy" was one of the principle reasons for their inclusion among the Hamites. This definitely isn't the case. Their pastoral lifestyle and certain linguistic and social similarities with the Hamites largely were (for example, the age-set system, which they borrowed from the Oromo/Galla). In fact, many scholars scoffed at the notion that the Maasai could be considered Hamitic on a purely physical basis:

"By some authorities the Masai are included in the Hamitic group, but we have only to compare the features of a member of this tribe with those of a Galla (Fig. 21) to realise the predominance of the negro element in the former. The aspect of the pure Hamite differs altogether from those of the Bantu and Negroid races. The accompanying portrait of a Galla presents no correspondence with the conception usually formed of an African native. The forehead is high and square instead of low and receding; the nose is narrow, with the nostrils straight and not transverse; the chin is small and slightly pointed instead of massive and protruding; the hair is long and not wooly; the lips are thinner than those of the negro and not everted; the expression is intellectual, and indicates a type of mind higher than that of the simple negro. Indeed, except for the colour, it could hardly be distinguished from the face of a European. These characteristics prepare us for the fact that the Galla are not African, but immigrants from Asia."

The fact is, Meinhof did not classify Maasai as a Hamitic language, but as a Nilo-Hamitic language. The Maasai language was considered a mixture of Nilotic and Hamitic by him and by others that subscribed to his view, with the remainder for the most part considering it just a Nilotic language as it had traditionally been and again is classified. That was the standard view Ruhlen was citing. From Greenberg himself (The Languages of Africa):

"In his Die Sprachen der Hamiten, one chapter is devoted to the Maasai language as representative of the Nilo-Hamitic languages. A perusal of this chapter is sufficient to show the weakness of the case Meinhof tries to present."

That said, I find your complaint that it's somehow wrong to include images of actual Hamites on an article about Hamites most odd. That's like complaining about including images of white people dubbed "white people" on the White people article. Where else would they go? Should said "stereotypical" images be replaced by those of Australian Aborigines instead? After all, some scholars also considered the latter peoples to be white Caucasoids. Don't get me wrong. I have no problem with including the Maasai in the section of the article that directly pertains to them: the area of the text where so-called "Half-Hamites" are discussed, since that is precisely how the Maasai, when they were not considered just plain Nilotic, were most often classified. Soupforone (talk) 04:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why you are telling me things I have already stated. I know how the language was classified. You are not responding to the central issue, which is the relevance of illustrating the extended use of the concept - in particular the way it comes to encompass particular types of Sub-Saharan Africans (obviously the image cannot illustrate language, but it does show how a physical type came to be used as evidence regarding it). I find your following comment rather strange "I find your complaint that it's somehow wrong to include images of actual Hamites on an article about Hamites most odd." I added the Oromo image, so how can you imagine that I was saying any such thing? I was not the one removing images, you were. I said that we need to illustrate extended use, in addition to typical use. Why would Australian Aborigines be relevant? No-one ever considered them to be remotely related to the Hamitic concept, so your comment illustrates nothing more than theatrical rhetoric. It is not wrong to say that the Caucasoid aspect of Maasai physiognomy was relevant, since that it was indeed a factor is indicated clearly in the passage you have quoted, in which the author accepts that the Maasai were included by some 'authorities' on these grounds. Paul B (talk) 08:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Passage

Moved passage:

While some scholars accepted the idea of Sub-Saharan tribes such as the Tutsi and the Maasai as being of partly Hamitic descent, others scoffed at the notion, citing the considerable physical disparity between the ethnic groups traditionally considered Hamites and the aforementioned "Negro-Hamites":

"By some authorities the Masai are included in the Hamitic group, but we have only to compare the features of a member of this tribe with those of a Galla (Fig. 21) to realise the predominance of the negro element in the former. The aspect of the pure Hamite differs altogether from those of the Bantu and Negroid races. The accompanying portrait of a Galla presents no correspondence with the conception usually formed of an African native. The forehead is high and square instead of low and receding; the nose is narrow, with the nostrils straight and not transverse; the chin is small and slightly pointed instead of massive and protruding; the hair is long and not wooly; the lips are thinner than those of the negro and not everted; the expression is intellectual, and indicates a type of mind higher than that of the simple negro. Indeed, except for the colour, it could hardly be distinguished from the face of a European. These characteristics prepare us for the fact that the Galla are not African, but immigrants from Asia." [J. W. Gregory, The Great Rift Valley, (Routledge: 1968), p.356]

I removed this because it was stuck into a section on Seligman, who is not mentioned and it contains passages that refer to illustrations in the original text, and it is too long. This is a matter of legibility. We don't want the flow of the text to be disrupted by a seeming need hammer home the view that 'Hamites' are not 'Negroes'. I think it would be better dispersed and used at relevant points in the text. Paul B (talk) 11:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I've moved the text to its own new section on Negro-Hamites. It's no longer stuck onto the Seligman section now. It also perfectly captures the essence of the European view of Hamites vis-a-vis black Africans, right down to exact physical details which are not addressed anywhere else in the article. Soupforone (talk) 11:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Fine. I removed the reference to 'sneering', since his language seems measured, and all he is doing is emphasising the Negroid elements. Also, he does not mention Tutsi, and the image goes on the left per MoS because the figures look into the page. Paul B (talk) 11:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

There was no reference to "sneering" to remove. J.W. Gregory also talks about Negroes vs. Hamites in general in his quote, not just Maasai. The Maasai just serve to introduce his comparison and contrast. You'll have to quote for me the MoS bit about the image because on the left, it actually squishes the quote and visually confounds it with the text. Soupforone (talk) 12:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, so it was scoffing. You knew what I was referring to. Please don't be disingenuous. The MoS passage states "It is often preferable to place images of faces so that the face or eyes look toward the text. Multiple images in the same article can be staggered right-and-left (for example: Timpani). However, images should not be reversed simply to resolve a conflict between these guidelines; doing so misinforms the reader for the sake of our layout preferences." Paul B (talk) 12:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the quote. It's just like I had suspected: "However, images should not be reversed simply to resolve a conflict between these guidelines; doing so misinforms the reader for the sake of our layout preferences." Soupforone (talk) 12:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

No, the word 'reversed' means fliping the image itself to make the face look in from the right hand side. That was done with some works of art (compare the image of Anne of Brittany in the English and French wikipedias [6] [7]). Editors objected that archival images were being misrepresented by flipping them, so the wording of this part of the policy was changed. BTW, your current wording appears to contradict itself somewhat. You now have Gregory "balking" at the notion of the "partly Hamitic descent" of "Negro-Hamites". How can they be Negro-Hamites if they are not at least partly Hamitic (to provisionally accept the meaning of this distinction)? He states that the Negro element "predominates". In other words he emphasises that aspect. Paul B (talk) 12:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

No, he doesn't emphasize that aspect. What he does do is quite clearly express disbelief at the notion that people so markedly physically different (in his words "altogether different") could be labeled Hamitic at all. This is why he contrasts "the pure Hamite" with the "Bantu and Negroid races": The latter is what he considers the Maasai and all other "African natives" as opposed to the Hamitic "immigrants from Asia". And like I said, he isn't the only one. Here's another from a 1924 article titled The Lango: a Nilotic Tribe of Uganda that was featured in Nature magazine:

"But if he wishes to class the Masai as "Hamitic," what word is left for the Beja, Galla, Somali, and Danakil?"

Soupforone (talk) 12:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I've no doubt that writers in the 20s and 30s were endlessly arguing about which groups fitted into which category. That's what these race theorists do incessantly. But you are still ignoring the question of how they can be 'Negro-Hamites' at all if there is no Hamitic element. I'm sure we can find writers who run the gaumut of positions from no Hamitic elements to 20/80, or 50/50 or whatever, though listing all such disputes would be rather tedious and uninformative, since this is not a current debate. If he says there is a Negro-Hamitic group he must be saying there is some degree of ambiguity. If he isn't, then he is rejecting that concept altogether. The fact is that when he discusses the Maasai specifically he says that "the Negro element predominates". Yes, he then goes on to describe the differences between the races in familar anthropomentric terms, but that's in order to explain his view about which element predominates among the Maasai, not to assert that they are wholly one rather than the other. Paul B (talk) 12:58, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The Maasai, Tutsi, etc. are "Negro-Hamites" because that is exactly what Seligman among others refers to them as. This is plainly stated at the start of the section in question. What Walter for his part is saying is this: "If the Maasai have any Hamitic blood in them at all as some other scholars have somehow concluded, well you can be certain dear reader that it sure as hell isn't a lot because, physically speaking, actual Hamites differ altogether from Negroes. And this isn't just in terms of anatomy, but also intelligence. In fact, were it not for their darker color, you'd be hard pressed to differentiate the face of a Hamite from that of a European, myself included. These characteristics make it obvious that the Galla in question aren't "African natives"/Negroes like the Maasai et al., but immigrants from Asia." For better or worse, that's what he's saying. Soupforone (talk) 13:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Your capacity to tell me what I've already stated is impressive. He emphasises the 'Negro' element and minimises the 'Hamitic'. Yes, of course in Gregory's terms "physically speaking, actual Hamites differ altogether from Negroes", but unless you think Gregory believes them to be wholly distinct species incapable of interbreeding - which plainly he does not - then this is relevant only to the fact that this model of difference produces the idea that there can be "mixed" individuals and groups. Without these categories there would no meaningful dispute about degrees of mixing would there? In fact Gregory's position seems wholly consistent with Seligman's model of gradual dilution of Hamitic elements (along with the intelligence that both suppose to be a component of it). Paul B (talk) 14:13, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

No, Gregory's position is completely different from Seligman's since Seligman considers the Maasai et al. to be "Negro-Hamites" (his own words) whereas Gregory thinks even that is far too generous, and classifies them as Negroes period. Gregory considers the Galla and the Somali as typical representatives of the Hamitic "immigrants from Asia". This is why he profiles the latter in a chapter entitled "The Hamitic Races", and discusses the Maasai in a separate section dubbed "Negroids", which in turn is part of an earlier chapter called "The Negro Races". It's as simple as that. Soupforone (talk) 07:18, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Please try to read more carefully. I said "Gregory's position seems wholly consistent with Seligman's model of gradual dilution of Hamitic elements." That is not to say that they agree on every specific detail, but that their models are consistent. Gregory emphasises that the "Negro" element predominates, which is not the same as "Negroes period". In any case, these differences between specific authors matter far less than the fact that the Maasai were categorised as transitional, both linguistically and racially, by several authors and that was the whole point of having the image in a section which discusses that transitional identity in order for the reader to see what some of these authors had in mind when they discussed this issue. It's more important to draw attention to the nature of the debate and to clarify its terms than to try to "promote" one side of it. Paul B (talk) 12:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I read you perfectly fine, and you're still wrong. Gregory does not classify the Maasai as Negro-Hamites. He considers them Negroes with some minor, foreign (his own term) Hamitic admixture, not as people partly descended from "immigrants from Asia". The Maasai also weren't classified as "transitional", but as either a mixed race people -- the literal product of miscegenation between Hamitic male immigrants from Asia and local Sub-Saharan Negro women (Seligman) -- or as just plain Negroes with some minor foreign admixture (Gregory). The Maasai's very intermediate status was owed to miscegenation, not to nature, which the term "transitional" seems to imply (it falsely suggests a natural gradation or cline between two continuous peoples rather than miscegenation between two discontinuous races: one Caucasian and from Asia and the other Negro and indigenous to Sub-Saharan Africa). This has nothing to do with "promoting" anything (see WP:AGF). Gregory classified them point blank as Negroes in his ethnographical table! Soupforone (talk) 18:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

This is perfectly typical of you. When shown unequivocally to be mistaken, you simply shut you ears and then twist the evidence so that that you will not have to admit it. "He considers them Negroes with some minor, foreign (his own term) Hamitic admixture." That is exactly what I have been saying all along, and that is why your statement that he "classifies them as Negroes period" is simply wrong and always was wrong. See below for a more detailed explanation. For reasons best known to yourself you have a need to minimise or suppress arguments that Tutsi or Maasai are related to "Hamites". You have persistely tred to delete material in more than one article that draws attention to these views. Why you have this need is known only to yourself, but you are distorting the facts by introducing an utterly irrelevant difference between "transitional" identities and "miscegenation". The idea that something is owed "to miscegenation, not to nature", just reveals a nasty assumption that racial mixing is somehow against nature. However, this is what I wrote, in case you have forgotten: "unless you think Gregory believes them to be wholly distinct species incapable of interbreeding - which plainly he does not - then this is relevant only to the fact that this model of difference produces the idea that there can be "mixed" individuals and groups. Without these categories there would no meaningful dispute about degrees of mixing would there?". It's always been about mixing. That's what the model of Hamitic migration south was about. That's what it has always been about. That's what this discussion was about, and now you are creating a big fat red herring to sustain your misrepresentations. Gregory did not classify them "point blank as Negroes". If you looked up his definition of Negroid you'd see why that's not accurate. Paul B (talk) 10:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks like I struck a nerve! lol Believe what you want to believe, buddy boy. At the end of the day, I'm right, and you're wrong. This is why I can link to an ethnographical table where Gregory actually classifies the races to support my argument and you of course cannot (he classifies the Maasai etc. as belonging to one of the sub-groups of the Negro race; why this pains you, only heaven knows). All you can do is engage in more paranoid incivility and ad hominem (do you "have a need to [maximize or magnify] arguments that Tutsi or Maasai are related to "Hamites""?), even when asked to refrain from doing so. Why am I not surprised? To spare this talk page any more of your histrionic, neverending verbal dead-ends, I've adjusted the phrase in question. Perhaps your time "defending-the-fort" and all is not valuable, but mine for one certainly is. Soupforone (talk) 13:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

What Gregory actually says

The current text states "While some scholars accepted the idea of Sub-Saharan tribes such as the Tutsi and the Maasai as being of partly Hamitic descent, others such as John Walter Gregory balked at the notion." I had removed Tutsi, since the passage makes no mention of them. Soupforone restored the reference to Tutsi and now insists of the Maasai that Gregory "classifies them as Negroes period". In fact Gregory states "The Hamitic race which invaded Uganda has now adopted the language of the Bantu people" (p.320). This is an exact replication of Speke's view of the Tutsi. On the Maasai he says the following: "The predominent migration flow is from north to south. The ancestors of the Masai worked their way along the Nile valley and entered what is now British East Africa from the north and north west." (p.362) More specifically, he talks about "races which are mongrel between the Soudanese and Bantu". He goes on: "the first group, the Negroid, results from intermixtures between the Negro and Hamitic races. Its most important representatives are combinations of Hamites and Soudanese, such as the Nuba of the Nile valley and the Fulah of the western and Hausa of the central Soudan. Corresponding mongrels of Hamites and Bantu are common in British East Africa, and include the Waganda and Masai." (p.336) It is clear from this that the current wording completely misrepresents the source. Paul B (talk) 13:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I beg to differ. The forgoing is only a small bit of what Gregory writes, taken out of context. It completely omits, for instance, where the man actually defines who exactly a Negro is, and therefore how he personally classifies said people:

"A third use of the name, and the one which I have followed, includes under it all people with very dark-coloured skins, frizzly hair, and protruding jaws, and most of whom have broad noses and thick lips."

"According to the use of the term here adopted, the people included as Negro are divided into two groups -- the frizzly-haired Papuans of Polynesia, and the Negroes of Africa. The former may be at once dismissed, as they are unrepresented in Africa; the latter can be divided into four sub-groups:"

1. The North-Western or Soudanese

2. The Southern or Bantu

3. The Negroid

4. The Negrilloid

And from there, he classifies the Maasai as Negroes, not as Hamites:

"The number of tribes in the country is considerable, though their power has been broken and their range reduced by the invasion of the Negroid Masai, and of the Hamitic Galla and Somali."

Furthemore, in that quote above about the "Hamitic race which invaded Uganda [that] has now adopted the language of the Bantu people", Gregory is not talking about the Maasai. He discusses them later on in the book, well past p.320. The Maasai, first of all, don't even speak a Bantu language. They also have nary a presence in Uganda, and the same goes for the Central African Tutsi. In that passage you took completely out of context, Gregory is simply talking about language influence and replacement, not about racial change or admixture. He even uses some European examples to illustrate his point:

"Slaves have introduced forms and phrases into the language of their owners; helot tribes have been forced to learn the tongue of their masters; and conquerors have adopted the speech of the conquered. On the one hand, for example, the Bantu Wasania now speak a dialect of Galla, just as the Aryans of Phrygia have adopted the language of their Turkish conquerors, or as the Cels of Western Europe have in the main accepted those of their Teutonic or Latin neighbours. On the other hand, the Hamitic race which invaded Uganda has now adopted the language of the Bantu people whom it conquered, just as the Teutonic Normans and Lombards exchanged their own for a Latin tongue."

Again, Gregory only classifies the Galla, Somali, and other Northeastern Africans as Hamites; not the Maasai, not the Tutsi, and other similar "Negroes of Africa" with "very dark-coloured skins, frizzly hair, and protruding jaws, and most of whom have broad noses and thick lips." He also considers Hamites a branch of the Caucasian race in Africa, with Semitic peoples such as the Abyssinians representing the other branch. The Maasai, Hausa, Fulah, Bantu, and all the other groups that fit Gregory's aforementioned definition of a Negro all without exception are classified as Negroes by him. This is how he classifies them in his ethnographical table where he sorts the races! It's also in direct contrast to Seligman, who classifies the Maasai as one of several "Negro-Hamites", a category distinct from Negroes according to him. Soupforone (talk) 18:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

It is you who have difficulty understanding context, not I. I had hoped that it would not be necessary to explain this to you so simply, but it looks as though I will have to.

I wrote:

"The Hamitic race which invaded Uganda has now adopted the language of the Bantu people" (p.320). This is an exact replication of Speke's view of the Tutsi.

You wrote:

in that quote above about the "Hamitic race which invaded Uganda [that] has now adopted the language of the Bantu people", Gregory is not talking about the Maasai. He discusses them later on in the book, well past p.320.

So, I'm saying that Gregory is talking about the Tutsi, which there is every reason to believe that he is. They do, of course, have a presence in Uganda (don't forget that "Uganda" is a term for the general area, not the exact borders of the present nation state. Modern Rwanda is part of that area). He is writing about the same group as Speke. All secondary sources descrbe these as Tutsi. For example Stephen R. Haynes writes that "Speke surmised that the Wahuma (Tutsis) were descendents of the semi-Shem-Hamitic people of Ethiopia" (Noah's Curse, p.172)

The rest of your response is just smokescreen about his general model of of Negro and Negroid populations, which is just the standard model of the day. Do you really need to waste talk space informing me that he thinks Negroes have dark skins and "frizzly hair"? In fact you have not understood his model, as your words make clear, since you don't seem to grasp that Negro and Negroid are two different concepts for Gregory. In his model Negro is a "pure" race. Negroid is a group that are predominantly "Negro" but have an admixture of Hamites. "The first group, or the Negroid, results from intermixtures of Negro and Hamitic races." (p.336) That includes the Maasai in his model, which is what I have been saying all along and which you deny and deny and deny for your own reasons but which is completely contradicted by the bolded quotation above: "Mongrels of Hamites and Bantu are common in British East Africa, and include the Waganda and Masai". All your outpourings can't alter that fact. As I have repeatedly said "He states that the Negro element predominates." Paul B (talk) 11:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

BTW, all this would have been very easy to resolve without these pointlessly long screeds of verbiage if you were just a little less rigid and less insistant on being right about everything all of the time. Building layers of defences just wastes time. We can surely agree that Gregory does not include Tutsi in the comments you quote, so they should be removed. He thinks that there is Hamitic admixture among Maasai, but that it is (relatively) minor. In this respect his model agrees with Seligman's, but he emphasises the "Negro" elements in Maasai. This is also true of the other source you quote. These are all debates about degrees of admixture within the typological system of race used at the time. The current wording is inaccurate. The wording I proposed adequately represents Gregory's position. He "emphasised the Negroid elements in "Negro-Hamite" groups such as the Maasai, as opposed to the "pure Hamite" Oromo (Galla) peoples". However, other even more precise wording could also be used. Paul B (talk) 13:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I must agree with Paul here, Sfo. You are mostly creating smoke over a trifle. This isn't constructive, and doesn't result in better articles. --dab (𒁳) 13:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

No more confusion--this clears up the issue totally

• hamitic = anciet berbers = anciet mediterranean race =/= negroids/mulattoes..the afrocentric/ethiopanists sofisms meds with negroids and caucasoids with nords..it´s nordicism.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.114.203.15 (talk) 10:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

pure hamite = meds anciet berbers in the expansion with pioners camels for the south of saara..hamites + female slaves subsaarians = semi-hamitic mullatoe(afro-arab for example = semitic + negroe)..afro-hamitic/berber = hamitic + negroe = afro-berber/tuaregoid/saheloid/sudanoid —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.114.203.15 (talk) 10:18, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Most illuminating. My confusion has now completely vanished. Paul B (talk) 12:18, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• my english is vey bad, não me zoes..lol —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.114.203.15 (talk) 14:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Aboriginal Britons

This article makes no mention of the theory that the original inhabitants of the British Isles, that is the pre-Celtic peoples, were of Hamitic descent. This was the view of Thomas Henry Huxley, and quoted by Charles Squire in his book; Mythology Of The Celtic People. (Will Hambling 09:48, 17 October 2010 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Will.hambling (talk • contribs)

Why Hamitic is still a valid category and will remain so in the future

The current U.S. Census definition defines "white people" as "those people having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East or North Africa". This definition is also used by the Census departments of a number of other nations. "White people" are divided by Census departments and in colloquial speech into two subgroups, "Europeans" and "Middle Easterners". Middle Easterners include Afro-Asiatics, the Turkish peoples, and the Iranian peoples.

"Black people" are defined as "those people having origins in Sub-Saharan Africa". However, the peoples historically described as Hamites such as the Somalis, the Hausa, and the Tuaregs are literally in a gray area between "white people" and "black people". (The Maasai are not Hamites, they are Nilo-Saharans). Obviously, most people would classify those peoples historically called Hamites—-those Afro-Asiatic peoples who are not Semitic--as black, not white. (Hamites also include the Ancient Egyptians, which all black people regard as part of their cultural heritage.) Therefore, the category of Hamite will continue to exist because it is necessary to use the category Hamite in order to detach those Afro-Asiatic peoples generally regarded as being "black" from the "white" Semites. Keraunos (talk) 19:43, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

A section needs to be added to this article with a more neutral point of view and should include a brief discussion about the present day peoples historically considered Hamites—the Tuaregs, Hausa, Somalis, etc. in a dispassionate and objective manor. Although Hamite is obsolete as a linguistic category, in colloquial everyday speech, the term Hamite seems to be still in common use as an ethnic category, with no pejorative connotation whatsoever, to denote those Afro-Asiatic peoples who are not Semites. Also, it is still used as a scholarly category in Europe (for ethnology, not linguistics).Keraunos (talk) 19:43, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

The term "Hamitic" was indeed used to refer to the non-Semitic Afro-Asiatic groups. However, it was usually reserved for the Berber, Cushitic and Egyptian speech communities only [8]. The taxon typically did not include the Hausa and other Chadic-speaking groups because few scholars from the period when the term was most frequently in use considered the Chadic languages to be a part of the Afro-Asiatic language family. This was not primarily due to linguistic factors, but to the fact that the Chadic speakers physically resembled their Niger-Kordofanian and Nilo-Saharan speaking neighbors; in other terms, they were deemed "blacks" and therefore were believed not to have been able to speak Afro-Asiatic languages: "Just as in Africa, where the Chadic family was long excluded from Afro-Asiatic because Chadic speakers are black and the rest of the family is not" [9]. Many Tuareg and other 'clinal' peoples just south of the Maghreb and the Nile valley do inhabit a grey area. However, this grey area is today rarely described as "Hamitic". The few times the term "Hamitic" is used nowadays, its pretty much in the same way that it was used in the past. That is, to signify an Afro-Asiatic-speaking but non-Semitic 'Caucasoid' population, distinct from Black African or 'Negroid' populations. For example, USAID describes the main ethnic groups of Egypt as consisting of 'Eastern Hamitic' peoples, including the Egyptians, Bedouins and Berbers (as opposed to the Nubians, Armenians, Greeks and other Europeans) [10] and indicates that the Hamites occupy an area stretching from North Africa to Cape Guardafui in the Horn region (where the Cushitic peoples live [11]), possibly having arrived there from Asia. Perhaps a paragraph can be added indicating that the term is still occasionally used, but it has to be put in its proper context. Soupforone (talk) 20:53, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

language map

The language map does not match its caption: there is no azure, and no yellow for ancient Egytpian. Was the image recently replaced? —Tamfang (talk) 00:42, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Yup. I've reverted it to the earlier version. Paul B (talk) 19:54, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Chancellor Williams

"The Destruction of Black Civilization" by Chancellor Williams must be reviewed to correct many inaccuracies with this presentation. Additionally, "Wonderful Ethiopians of the Ancient Cushite Empire" by Druscilla Dunjee-Houston must be reviewed to correct many inaccuracies with this presentation. The "Curse of Ham" is a terrible start as the hypothesis for descriptions that justified racisim. Noah as the father carried the predominant "Hamitic" gene which carried with it "Blackness." With black being dominant (stronger melanin) Shem and Japheth displayed less color; particularly Japheth. Japheth's descendants per Chronicles, cites Ashkenaz which is consistent with the settling of his descendants within the mountain ranges of Eurasia and northern Europe; Poland, Germany, and Russia. Cush, Mizraim, Phut, and Canaan's descendants spread throughout Africa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.120.57.20 (talk • contribs)

There is no actual Curse of Ham, it's a lie told by White Supremacists

I do not think "Curse of Ham" is the most neutral title for the section about Ham son of Noah, especially when this page could be filled to several times its current length with quotes from external sources over the past 200 years, from abolitionists to moder civil rights movement leaders, specifically objecting to this term as being objectionable and as perpetuating a lie that liars tell about what the Bible really says. We should go with a more neutral route wherever this kind of documentation exists, I think. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 21:49, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a Final Solution either (it was neither), but we have a wikipedia article on it. We also have an article on Curse of Ham, in case you did not notice. Do you have n=any objections other than religious ones? --Guy Macon (talk) 01:40, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

"Other than religious ones?" Sure. Everyone from abolitionists to moder civil rights movement leaders has criticised the use of the term. Oh wait, I already mentioned that. Guess it went over your head? You are quite right that there is no such thing as a "Final Solution" either, but section titles subtly implying that there is such a thing would not really be neutral either. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 01:56, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

A section title should refer to the relevant concept. The concept here is the "Curse of Ham". Since a line of Ham's progeny were cursed, following a sin commited by Ham, it's a perfectly valid term. Ham is the one who receives the curse. Canaan is not even present. Section titles don't "subtly imply" any thing about the factual truth of a curse, which most people in the world do not believe ever even happened. To repeat, it's a concept. You may as well complain that the article on the Seven Laws of Noah or the Rule of Three (Wicca) 'subtly' implies that they have jurisdictional force. Paul B (talk) 11:13, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

You seem awful arrogant in insisting that "most people in the world" share your personal P.O.V. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:18, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Most people in the world are not fundamentalist Christians. They form a small minority of the world's population. Even Muslims are not required to believe this story. That is simply a fact, not my "personal" POV. The only arrogance is therefore your own.Paul B (talk) 15:08, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

The only people who use the term "Curse of Ham" throughout history have been White Supremacists who use it as their preferred "internal use" term because they want to convince people it is actually mentioned as such in the Bible. There is no obligation for wikipedia to adopt White Supremacist terminology. Sorry, this will go to RFC if you keep trying to force your viewpoint here. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:21, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

This is just baloney. The term "Curse of Ham" is the standard term. It has next-to nothing to do with "White Supremacism", which was just one strand of interpretation that used the story to validate a particular agenda. Were the Arabs who used the story "white supremacists"? Ham is the one who is cursed for his transgression, so the name is entirely natural and appropriate. And what viewpoint is being "forced"? No other editor has agreed with you. Paul B (talk) 15:13, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Other editors have agreed, but more important is the number of sources that have already been presented showing how widely this term has been denounced that you call a "standard term". Do we need to paste them all here again? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:21, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

No other editor agrees with your reverts on this page. They've never been pasted here (there is discussion on the Curse of Ham page). The souces you describe denounce the use to which the term has been put. But that's neither here nor there. The nature of what is a "standard term" is determined by usage not by ideological dogma. Paul B (talk) 15:31, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Could you please explain why it is the "Standard term" and who says so? I must be missing something... Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:42, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

It's called WP:NAME. Paul B (talk) 16:10, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Tags

Til has restored tags with the disgraceful edit summary "rm you removed the tag and the explanation while pretending "no explanation offered" along with other removals". There were no "other removals". I simply reverted the changes made by AcidSnow, an editor who wrote nothing on the talk page, and who added a tag demanding more references to an article that has over 30 separate sources. There was no explanation for the "clean up tag", only an utterly meaningless edit summary: "Article needs to be cleaned up. Especially in the Curse of Ham, African American view, and Hamitic hypothesis sections.". Firstly, this is a misuse of the clean up tag, which is for articles that are poorly written, structured etc. The editor seems to have a content problem. Secondly this is not an "explanation", since there is absolutely no indication whatever of what is supposed to be wrong. It is utterly valueless. Thirdly, this is a drive-by edit by an editor who has never made any contribution whatever to the article. Til has had this article on his watchlist for yearts. If he thought it needed a cleanup or more references he has had plenty of chances to say so. This just another example of Til's inflamatory battleground and point-scoring approach to editing. Paul B (talk) 11:33, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

He should know that without a discussion here that the tags were inappropriate, which is why I removed them after he reverted you. Dougweller (talk) 14:06, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any suggestions for improving the article whatsoever in this section, all I see is a gratuitous personal diatribe directly against me. This belongs somewhere else if you think you have anything to pursue here. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:17, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Speaking for myself, I wasn't trying to discuss the article, only the fact that the tags were appropriately removed and should not have been replaced. Dougweller (talk) 15:45, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

The suggestions for improving the article are supposed to come from the person contributing tags. You made false assertions. It is entirely appropriate that I should reply to them. Paul B (talk) 15:15, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Acid Snow edits

I have reverted several of these recent changes because I can see no reason for many of them. Though some are understandable, some appear to be arbitrary. The link to "Afroasiatic" languages was changed to "Afro-Asiatic", though the article is in fact called "Afroasiatic". However, that may have been to achieve consistency with other uses of the older Afro-Asiatic. Instead, I've changed all to Afroasiatic, since that's now the normative spelling on Wikipedia. I don't understand why the Beja language was, seemingly arbitrarily. cut from the account of Muller's Hamito-Semitic group, even though Muller includes it as a form of the Cushitic languages (a view still adopted). Since this accurately represents Muller's view, why was it deleted? Other sentences were rendered ungrammatical, Thus "mixed with local Negro women in East Africa and parts of Central Africa" was changed to "mixed with local Negro women from parts African Great Lakes Central Africa". A sentence about the earliest use of 'Hamitic' languages to simply mean "black African" was cut, even though it is accurate. Why? A section on etymology was added, which is potentially valid, but it just replicated information in the next section, leading to a poorly structured repetitious text. I don't have any problem with the inclusion of, for example, the etymology of the word/name "Ham", but it seems redundant in this article as it tells us nothing relevant to the topic, and it can be found in the linked article on Ham (son of Noah). The changes in the lede were generally good, I think, but I have made them more radical for clarity. The old version did not explain the Semitic/Hamitic distinction at all. Paul B (talk) 21:19, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Pseudoscience

I think it is highly inappropriate to include such POV language in the lede. I don't think it is encyclopedic. There was nothing pseudoscientific at the time about the division of humanity into various racial groups, and arttempts to map human migrations etc through these categories. It was completely mainstream science. We do not use the term 'pseudoscience' for obsolete or supplanted scientific concepts. Indeed the concept that North Africans are genetically distinct from sub-Saharans remains widespread, though the term "race" is not so often used except as a form of short-hand. Furthermore, it is unfair to lump all these writers together as "pseudoscientists". One can find the term Hamitic used in a purely descriptive way by writers who are simply using it to label ethnic groups, and who are not necessarily using it to advance a racist agenda. It does dishonour, IMO, to anthropologists who were seriously attempting to describe people according to the categories that existed at the time. It's a way of passing glib judgement on people who obviously had to use factors such as head-shape etc because they obviously could not access the genetic code. If Jacob Bryant, for example, were writing today he would be labelled a pseudoscientist, or purveyor of pseudohistory but in his own day he wasn't. Since all your edits are essentially just variations on the same thing, and you are the one adding content to a long-established text, then you can hardly accuse me of starting an edit war. Paul B (talk) 17:33, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Encyclopedias don't reflect what people thought yesterday, they reflect what people think today. Otherwise they are basically useless. Who cares if people yesterday didn't think it was pseudoscience - we don't have anyone today who says different, nobody but nobody thinks "Hamitic = Caucasian" or is trying to defend this as valid in any sense, except maybe you. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:41, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

The use of "pseudoscience" in the lede isn't really encylopedic. Hamitic indeed was mainstream science. It was a mainstay for all sorts of writers from a variety of different backgrounds. Some of the works focusing on Hamitic themes were also quite advanced for their time, given the data that was then available. The University of Vienna scholar Kenneth Howard Honea's 1958 treatise, for example, delves into paleoanthropology, lithic industries, rock art, physical anthropology, cultural elements, migration patterns, cattle breeding, botany and linguistics all at once. There were many other such sincere efforts at cross-disciplinary scholarship, though this has often been overlooked in the more recent political diatribes. Soupforone (talk) 02:52, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

It is indeed pseudoscientific, this is recognized today, and Hamitic's former status as "mainstream science" is irrelevant since encyclopedias reflect current (2014) mainstream thought, not 1914 mainstream thought. This should be noted as pseudoscience if that is what it is and claims it is "unencyclopedic" are unsubstantiated and seem rather like a rhetorical defense of a concept that is deader than a doornail. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 03:02, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

The term itself is mainly historical. However, the ideas on population affiliations that it represents are still quite mainstream. Soupforone (talk) 03:08, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, right... I'm more interested in the views found in mainstream sources themselves (regarding how totally fucking dead the "Hamitic = Caucasian" theory is nowadays). Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 03:30, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Sergi, Seligman, etc. were tenured professors. That was the mainstream science of the day, no different than Charles Darwin before them. Soupforone (talk) 02:37, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey buddy, "science" is based on testable observations, and other scientists will agree with them. In this case they do not, they say Hamitic-Caucasian is bunk. It wasn't based on real testable science, so much as it was based on some bullshit that some government 150 years ago wanted to promote. Calling it "mainstream science of the day" cannot lend it any validity (sorry) according to the scientific method of experimentation and results. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 02:59, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

No need to get defensive. It's like Paul wrote, the idea that the populations traditionally labeled "Hamitic" are biologically distinct remains widespread, though the term itself is less often used except as a kind of short-hand. Soupforone (talk) 03:12, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

If there's anything distinct about them, it's that they are by and large linguistically defined... so biological resemblances along with linguistic ones between these African groups, is supposed to tell us what about Caucasians? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 03:15, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Archaeology

I've temporarily removed the archaeology section because it seems to be "tacked on", referring to a civilisation the existence of which is mentioned nowhere else in the article. I have no objection to a discussion of the contunuing relevance of the idea that the term Hamitic covers something that has a meaningful ethnic/genetic identity, but it needs to be properly integrated, not tacked on and it has to avoid WP:SYN, which the recently added text was perilously close to. Since this has been removed= by two editors indeprndently, per WP:BRD, it should not be restored. Paul B (talk) 22:40, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

The editor who originally removed the archaeological material was blocked; it also isn't synthesis. The Stone Bowl culture has actually long been associated with Hamitic peoples (e.g. [12]). Daniel Stiles, the archaeologist and anthropologist who most recently led excavations at Stone Bowl sites, helped establish the Department of Archaeology at the University of Nairobi [13]. He reviews the Hamitic literature vis-a-vis the Stone Bowl culture in two papers, and concludes therein that "although the terminology and some details have changed, Seligman, Huntingford and Murdock each held the kernel of truth in their theories... the Azanians of the 1st to 4th century A.D. were no doubt Cushitic speakers, and their descendants and related immigrants from the north brought with them their traditions and funerary customs, some of which were passed on to the peoples living in Kenya at the time... and they were abnormally tall!" [14] [15]. Middayexpress (talk) 23:18, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

If you have no objections Paul B, I'll trim the tenuous parts from the passage and attribute the rest to Stiles' archaeological work. If you do, please specify which exact sentences you believe are problematic and why. Given Stiles' work and his stature in the field, it does not seem inaccurate to suggest that "toward the end of the millenium, Hamitic theory received renewed scholarly interest, following the discovery of ancient skeletons in areas where such old "Hamitic" remains were previously assumed to have been mythical or otherwise non-existent." Middayexpress (talk) 16:07, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't see why the fact that the editor was blocked means "it wasn't synthesis". That seems like a non sequitur. Yes, I read the passage you refer to (about the terminology). The point is that this is about the concept, so we need to make the relevant passage about that - while avoiding Syn. It would help if Stiles said that 'Hamitic' was the terminology he meant. I should add that I think it's a good thing to have such content and that the concept is now being treated seriously and sensibly without the posturing need to declare everything to be "racism" and "pseudoscience" which we saw when Til was here. Paul B (talk) 16:18, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I see that Mr. Lunt was Til. Ho hum. Paul B (talk) 16:32, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

No prob, and I appreciate where you're coming from with this. I think that's a better, more mature approach too. Stiles specifically mentions the Hamitic theory; he uses the actual term "Hamites" in both archaeological papers as one of the various names reserved for the descendants of the Stone Bowl culture makers. He writes that Charles Seligman styled them as "Hamites", G.W.B. Huntingford as "Azanians", and George Murdock as "Megalithic Cushites". What is unique about Stiles' work is that all of the skeleton remains that he excavated were buried in cairns of different kinds, and he actually managed to date each of them. Although the specimens were from different epochs, they all apparently had a similar, distinctive physiology, suggesting that they belonged to the same general population. At any rate, I'll post a draft of the passage here that we can both agree on. Cheers, Middayexpress (talk) 17:23, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay Paul B, here it is:

The Savanna Pastoral Neolithic (formerly known as the Stone Bowl Culture) is a collection of ancient societies that appeared in the Great Lakes region in East Africa, whose "Hamitic" makers are believed to have arrived from the Horn region sometime during the Neolithic period. Through archaeology and historical linguistics, they conventionally have been identified with the area's first Cushitic settlers. Traditions describe these "Hamitic" Stone Bowl peoples as having been tall, red-skinned, bearded and long-haired. [Stiles, Daniel. "The Azanian Civilisation Revisited" (PDF). Msafiri. Retrieved 4 December 2014.][Stiles, Daniel. "The Azanian Civilization and Megalithic Cushites Revisited" (PDF). Retrieved 4 December 2014.]

According to Daniel Stiles (2004), who excavated Savanna Pastoral Neolithic graves, the Stone Bowl makers were likely ancestral to the tall "Azanians" of the early Common Era. The latter peoples were described in the 1st century CE Greco-Roman travelogue the Periplus of the Erythraean Sea and in Ptolemy's Geographia as a high-statured population that inhabited the East Africa coast and traded commodities with populations in the Middle East and Southern Europe, among other areas. Credited with having erected the collosal stone monuments in the Horn and Great Lakes regions, they were identified as "Hamites" by Charles Gabriel Seligman, as "Ancient Azanians" by G.W.B. Huntingford, and as "Megalithic Cushites" by George P. Murdock.

Excavations by Daniel Stiles of Savanna Pastoral Neolithic associated cairns in Kalacha, a town in the Chalbi Desert, yielded the remains of high-statured individuals of "Caucasoid" type. The oldest such specimens were buried in mound cairns, with one of these structures dated to around 3,460 ybp. As such, it is the earliest known stone monument in the Great Lakes region. The man buried within the cairn was measured at 190 cm (6 foot 4 inches), in keeping with the traditions regarding the Stone Bowl peoples' considerable height. A characteristic stone bowl sherd was also discovered at the cairn's base, as well as goat bones and obsidian tools inside the grave itself.

Further excavations in the area by Stiles found strong evidence of population continuity during the ensuing "Azanian" period. A platform cairn dated to 1,010 ybp (~990 C.E.) yielded skeletal remains of similar physical type, with the male buried within the grave measured at a tall 185 cm (6 foot 1 inches). According to Stiles, such square-shaped, stone cairns have only been reported in southern Ethiopia. There, tradition attributes their construction to high-statured cattle herders known as the Wardai, who were an early Eastern Cushitic settler group in the Great Lakes region to the south. Stiles thus suggests that the interred man may have been a Wardai community leader. Altogether, Stiles concludes that "although the terminology and some details have changed, Seligman, Huntingford and Murdock each held the kernel of truth in their theories[...] the Azanians of the 1st to 4th century A.D. were no doubt Cushitic speakers, and their descendants and related immigrants from the north brought with them their traditions and funerary customs, some of which were passed on to the peoples living in Kenya at the time[...] and they were abnormally tall!".

Please let me know if this is satisfactory. Middayexpress (talk) 16:01, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

If you have no objections Paul B, I'll attribute the passage to Stiles' archaeological work above. If you do, please specify which exact sentences you believe are problematic and why. Middayexpress (talk) 15:02, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay Paul B, per your indication that you don't have any objections to the archaeological material, I've noted Stiles' excavations. Middayexpress (talk) 15:48, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality check

This article needs to be carefully checked for its neutrality. It is currently promoting the idea that "Hamitic theory" is viable modern science and refers to an identifiable group of people. This makes Wikipedia look like an international joke. 172.56.29.210 (talk) 11:37, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Humm, and would you be a well known medieval prankster by any chance? Paul B (talk) 13:01, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Is this about having a serious informative article or would you rather talk about the spite you feel for some already banned past editor ("Til Eulenspiegel"?) 172.56.29.210 (talk) 13:10, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

You haven't made any serious points, just moaned. Paul B (talk) 13:17, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I am inviting all serious editors of this article to carefully examine recent edits, especially the changes added by the redlinked spa Rageedi; he wrote that the Hamites themselves owned slaves etc., this is meaningless since the word Hamite does not refer to any identifiable group of people in modern science. 172.56.29.210 (talk) 13:27, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

That particular sentence was certainly problematic, since it was confusing the two usages of "Hamite": i.e. the medieval notion that all Africans are descendents of Ham as in the "Curse of Ham", and the 19th-20th century notion that a sub-population of North Africans can be labelled Hamites. The other recent sections seem to me to be generally useful additions, because they are legitimate responses to the knee-jerk charges of "racism" so typical of you (and please don't insult my intelligence by pretending that Til is some "third party") and the desire to gloss over population differences because of a simple minded desire to be anti-racist. I think the sections could do with a little work to bind them to the main text. Both the anti-Hamitism section and the Archaeology section still look a bit 'stuck on'. Paul B (talk) 14:14, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I have not accused anyone of racism nor made any knee jerk accusations, I am sorry if that is what other editors do. Are you referring to the other change pushed in by Rageedi, the removal of the link to scientific racism? This is clearly an appropriate link and anyone wishing to remove it should I think be prepared to discuss the removal. 172.56.29.210 (talk) 15:12, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I've never liked the term scientific racism because it is prejudicial. It pre-judges an entire period in the history of race research, and is deeply unfair to many sincere scholars. There were real racists in that period, for sure, but lumping all writing of that era under that label is IMO unhelpful. However, that's not what I was talking about, I was referring to the two new sections at the end of the article. Paul B (talk) 15:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay, so we can have an article on scientific racism but it cannot be linked to from this obviously related article becaus... you've never liked the term?172.56.29.210 (talk) 16:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

No-one said it cannot be linked. I expressed my own dislike of the term. Having an article does not mean it has to be linked. Paul B (talk) 17:15, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

But surely your feelings about the topic of scientific racism cannot be sufficient reason in itself? Related articles about similar topics should be linked, rather than orphaned. 172.56.29.210 (talk) 17:21, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I hardly think it is orphaned! I am just saying that I find the term deeply problematic and will not actively add a link that uses judgemental terminology. Paul B (talk) 21:39, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Because an innumerable quantity of specialists who have written on this heavily covered topic have unhesitatingly revert to it specifically with the very phrase "scientific racism", as may be easily and quickly verified, I would ask that you not substitute your personal judgment for that of the published scholars and accept that this is a very real classification that is not in dispute. 172.56.29.210 (talk) 22:09, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

As usual you speak in wild hyperbole. Many scholoars of the period dislike the term, but that's beside the point. I am just saying that I personally choose not to use that term. I don't own the article and have never either deleted it or added it. Paul B (talk) 10:25, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

As usual you are trying to score another ad hominem argument. However your assertion, that many scholars of the period dislike the term, would seem to be a controvertible claim, absent any scholars of the period who ever said they dislike the term. 172.56.29.210 (talk) 11:50, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

You apparently don't even know the meaning of ad hominem. As a matter of fact I participate in academic conferences on this very topic. The issue is not the phrase in itself, which is sometimes appropriate as I have already said, but its blanket use to cover all writing of the period, and its rhetorical deployment as a bludgeoning catch-phrase. That's an issue of how it is used in Wikipedia articles. Paul B (talk) 12:41, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

No doubt as a participant in conferences on this topic, you can recommend some lterature where these perceptions can be shown to exist in the field, right? 172.56.29.210 (talk) 13:00, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Why does this article exist? "Hamitic" is an adjective, how can you have an article about an adjective?PiCo (talk) 04:30, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

And the point of this question is what? Articles exist because of the notability of a topic. There is no doubt about the notability of the topic is there? An entire topic doesn't vanish because of some grammatical technicality. Would you prefer "Hamite"? I think "Hamitic" is much more common in the literature. Paul B (talk) 10:25, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Very briefly:

1. As 172.56.29.210 says, the article "is currently promoting the idea that "Hamitic theory" is viable modern science and refers to an identifiable group of people. This makes Wikipedia look like an international joke." Possibly this person is banned user Til Eulenspiegel, I don't know, but it doesn't matter, he's right.
2. The article takes an adjective for its subject - you can't have adjectives as subjects for articles. Adjective plus noun, yes, but adjective alone, no.
3. The article does cover three real topics, namely Hamitic race, Hamitic language, and "anti-Hamitism". There's also a section headed "archaeology" - Hamitic archaeology????

Details on these:

1. Hamitic race section has subsections on Curse of Ham, Hamitic hypothesis, and, of all things, "Afro-American Views.

• Curse of Ham - we have an article, so this is a fork.
• Hamitic hypothesis - no article on this, but it goes on and on and on - as the so-called hypothesis is now consigned to the dustbin of history, and has been for a very long time, this is far too much.
• African-American views - seems there are no such such views still current - very minor - best rolled into existing articles.

1. Hamitic language family: It's now called the Afroasiatic languages, and we have an article, so it's a fork.
2. Anti-Hamitism: You're joking.
3. Archaeology: Otherwise known as Savanna Pastoral Neolithic - we have an article (it's a fork, and pretty badly written).

So all up: this article is mostly composed of forks, with one genuine core of article-worthy-material, namely the material on the Hamitic hypothesis, but even that is worth no more than a paragraph or so. My recommendation is to rename that bit and merge the rest into the various home articles. Any objections? PiCo (talk) 11:25, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I think you completely misunderstand the concept of a "fork". There is no problem with repeating content in more than one article where it is relevant. For example, numerous articles refer to aspects of, say, the Holocaust. We do not say they are forks because there is already an article dedicated to the Holocaust. The section on the Curse of Ham is merely a short summary of aspects that are relevant to the concept of Hamitic identity, provided so that the reader can see the context. It is no different from innumerable other articles that have short sections with links to main articles. You make other erroneous arguments. The fact that a hypothesis is "consigned to the dustbin of history" is irrelevant. There are numerous concepts that were once influential on which we have articles (Phlogiston theory; luminiferous ether etc). In any case, it is only the "hard line" Hamitic model that is discredited. As for the archaeology section, I agree that it's still somewhat problematic. I originally deleted it when it was first added, and there is still an aspect of it that is close to WP:SYN. You can see that there is a debate about it in the section above. Its principal problem is linking the archaological evidence to the use of the "Hamitic" concept, which is still tenuous. This is the work of User:Middayexpress, so I think we should wait for input from that user. Paul B (talk) 13:45, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

It is indeed standard to have a WP:SUMMARY passage within the body, which links to a larger article on a related subtopic. The Savanna Pastoral Neolithic/Stone Bowl Culture is for one certainly related to "Hamitic" since its makers have traditionally been regarded as such. This isn't a newfangled association either, but an old, traditional one (e.g. [16]); only the actual excavations of the associated cairns are recent. There is no "Hamitic Hypothesis" wikipage linked to, as this page is already earmarked for it. However, there is a Curse of Ham page, which is also certainly related. Middayexpress (talk) 14:39, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Does this article need to exist?

I don't see anything notable about this article. It's waffle. PiCo (talk) 10:54, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't see anything notable about your comment. Try AfD if you wish, but your comment is patently absurd and frankly rather childish. Paul B (talk) 11:24, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

In fact the proper term for this subject in the literature is Hamitic Theory. I would see that as the most common term. 172.56.29.210 (talk) 11:56, 12 May 2015 (UTC) y

With the greatest respect Paul, I don't think this subject exists, not in terms of scholarship. When I look at the article bibliography I find three books on so-called "Hamitic theory", none of them less than three quarters of a century old, plus five more books, four of them about Rwanda and one called "History in Black: African-Americans in Search of an Ancient Past". One's confidence is not high. In the reference section there are 40 references, which sounds better, but all are of dubious relevance. And then of course there's the definition of the subject as given in the fist line: "Hamitic is a historical term for the peoples purportedly descended from Ham, the son of the Biblical figure Noah." A historical term for hypothetical people descended from a fictional character? Really!PiCo (talk) 04:36, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Really? I can't make sense of this argument "Semitic" is also a term for hypothetical people descended from a fictional character. Does that mean we should have no articles on Semitic people, Semitic languages, anti-Semitism etc etc? It's a completely bizarre line of reasoning. We have numerous sources that use the term Hamitic in two clear related ways. One is "descendents of Ham", which is related to the so-called "curse of Ham". The other is the historically more complex and detailed usage, to mean an interlinked model of race and language used to explain the expansion of peoples and technologies in Africa. This is known as the "Hamitic hypothesis" and has been extensively discussed in scholarly literature. WE have a large number of scholarly sources talking specifically about these issues. As i say, you may propose the article for deletion if you wish, but I suspect you will get short shrift if you do. Paul B (talk) 14:35, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Hamitic theory was actually the dominant paradigm for African historiography throughout much of the 20th century. Middayexpress (talk) 14:39, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I think you mean the 19th century. Events in the 20th quickly led to the consensus that it is a nonsense rationale for colonialism and consigned to the dustbin, of course it's still notable for historiographic purposes. 172.56.29.210 (talk) 15:33, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

No one proved Ham and Shem were fictional people. Your minimalist pov assumption that they must be fictional leaves no room on Wikipedia for all the religions who claim they were not fictional and their adherents. The article should therefore be neutral and not cater to a pov that is more hostile than neutral. 172.56.29.210 (talk) 15:11, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Til, this is completely irrelevant to the substantive issue. Anyway, shove off - you're blocked. Paul B (talk) 16:04, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Lead sentence?

Hamitic is a historical term for the peoples purportedly descended from Ham, the son of the Biblical figure Noah. It parallels Semitic and Japhetic, terms associated with Shem and Japheth, respectively, the two other Sons of Noah. "Hamitic" was applied to non-Semitic languages in the Afroasiatic family, which was thus formerly labelled "Hamito-Semitic".

This appears to be in contrast with what the MOS says about the opening paragraph.

"If its subject is definable, then the first sentence should give a concise definition: where possible, one that puts the article in context for the nonspecialist."

What people will first think when they read the first sentences is that this page will describe some biblical/talmudic tale about a genesis story. However, this page has been used occasionally on articles regarding ethnic and cultural structures. Despite faith, there are few people who believe an entire ethnic group descended from a single, known man. I do not think it belongs in the very early introduction. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 01:45, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that the appellation itself was derived from the biblical figure would be more accurate. Soupforone (talk) 02:43, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Semitic people which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 15:59, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Use of article by Stiles published in Kenya Airways' in-flight magazine

@Middayexpress and Paul Barlow:, Stiles' work "The Azanian Civilization Revisited"was published in Msafiri[17] so not reliably published. "The Azanian Civilization and Megalithic Cushites Revisited" was published in "Kenya Past and Present" which is published by the Kenya Museum Society.[www.kenyamuseumsociety.org/] Searches on "Stiles, Daniel. "The Azanian Civilization" which would pick up both articles show nothing on GBooks or GScholar. His excavations were in or started in 1979 according to "The Azanian Civilization and Megalithic Cushites Revisited" so might have been for his PhD, but he was also lecturing in Kenya and setting up an archaeology program starting in 1977 so it might have been part of that."In 1977, I moved to Kenya to lecture in archaeology and set up the archaeology program at the University of Nairobi."[18] I haven't yet found the subject of his PhD. He hasn't done much if any archaeological work since getting his PhD.

In other words, I don't think we should be using his work. WP:UNDUE and all that. Doug Weller talk 08:51, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Dougweller, according to Stiles' curriculum vitae, he was indeed a lecturer in 1977 at the University of Nairobi. He earned an M.A. in 1975 from the University of California, Berkeley, and later got his Ph.D. from the same institution in 1981. It seems, therefore, that he already had an M.A. when he began excavations in the late 1970s [19]. His main work on these excavations was entitled Stone cairn burials at Kokurmatakore, northern Kenya. It was apparently sponsored by the Nairobi university, funded by the Ford Foundation, and conducted with Stanley Munro-Hay and UNESCO in 1979-1980. The paper was later published in 1981 in Azania [20] [21]. All in all, it appears to have actually been a major archaeological project. Nonetheless, the emphasis on this archaeological industry is indeed undue, as it was just one of various prehistoric cultures that were traditionally associated with the spread of the ancestral Hamitic peoples. I've therefore fixed it with a table summarizing these chief industries. Soupforone (talk) 15:59, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Great Lakes

The emphasis on the late 20th century conflict between the Bantu populations in the Great Lakes region is undue. While Seligman did acknowledge some Hamitic influence in these lacustrine areas, it was as "Hamiticised Negroes" rather than as Hamites. The root cause of these tensions also long predates the arrival of European colonists, as do the local oral traditions on the establishment of the Hamitic aristocracies. The Rwandan scholar Alexis Kagame codified the latter in his Le code des institutions politiques du Rwanda précolonial (1952) [22]. Soupforone (talk) 02:35, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 12 June 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved, and Hamites -> Hamites (genus). No objections, and seems valid that it is the PTOPIC.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:48, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

---

Hamitic → Hamites – Hamitic is an adjective, so should not be the title of an article.
Other solutions (e.g. Hamitic race) are possible, but Hamites would be best as it would follow the community consensus for groups of people agreed two years ago at Talk:Belizeans, as well as be consistent with the Japhetites article.
Hamites requires disambiguation from the Hamites genus, but a quick google search shows that this article is clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Oncenawhile (talk) 11:23, 12 June 2017 (UTC)--Relisting. —  AjaxSmack  01:40, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

• Hamites is already taken by the genus of heteromorph ammonite, which has no other name. For the title to be an unitalicized Hamites, a people qualifier (viz. Hamites (people)) would therefore be required for disambiguation per WP:NATURALDIS and WP:DIFFPUNCT. Soupforone (talk) 13:59, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

It should be the other way around. A quick google search shows clearly that this (people / race) topic is the PRIMARYTOPIC for "Hamites". The heteromorph ammonite looks like a very minor usage of the word. Onceinawhile (talk) 02:23, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

That could perhaps work. The heteromorph ammonite would therefore have a genus qualifier. Soupforone (talk) 03:43, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Ta