Lord Zentei wrote:To preempt yet more bullshit, the point is this: you are asserting consistently that Egyptians were indigenous Africans and that they did not originate due to an influx of people from beyond Africa. I am not contesting any of that, nor have I throughout this thread.
OK, so then shut the fuck up!
I am disputing the claim that "African" is synonymous with "Black".
Despite the fact that some scholars (in the studies that I've cited) do in fact equate both terms, I have not done so throughout this thread. For example in the limb proportion comparison of Pre-Dynastic Lower Egyptians to "Africans", Europeans and Middle Easterners, the author insinuates that all African populations are tropically adapted when they are not (most Northern Africans are not). None the less the fact remains that they group with tropical populations in that respect and not those who are adapted to a sub tropical environment (the Middle East and most of North Africa).
Pointing out that the Egyptians were tropically adapted has nothing to do with anything, since "tropical adaption" is not synonymous with "negroid".
The term "negroid" is based on external anatomical traits thought to only be found in a particular populations (which is suppose to indicate close affinities across the board) is more less a social description that for the most part has lost it's value in mainstream science. Older studies for example have consistently labeled ancient Egyptians specimens as "Super Negroid" based on their limb proportions in relation to other Africans. The problem with that however is that populations who are not "African" also fall within the same range for limb proportions, such as aboriginal Australians, Melanesians, and some other southeast Asian populations. The commonality that people who as super tropically adapted in this fashion is dark skin, which is proven based on ecological principals. Therefore the ancient Egyptians would have been an indigenous "dark skinned" African populations (how dark....?), which is what most in western society would label as black.
Moreover, the human population beyond Africa are all emigrants from Africa, so merely pointing out that a group originated in Africa says nothing about their "blackness".
Once again, based on the limb proportions of early Europeans, scientist were recently able to build a reconstruction what they most likely looked like:
I also questioning the relevance of such labels as "black" and "white" to the ancient Egyptians.
Many in our society (black and white) have inquired about this for centuries, is that in itself not enough relevance? Color and race issues are an integral part of our society and we (Americans) are notorious for that. Just check the link to the video of the Manchester lecture by Egyptologist Sally-Ann Ashton
Notice at around 9 minutes she runs through what is essentially hate mail by pissed off white Americans that Cleopatra was represented as half black in a reenactment on the Discovery Channel. Proving just how relevant shit like this is to our society rather you or anyone else on this wants to admit it or not.
Nothing else. So just about all your points are pretty much irrelevant.
As far as I can tell, most people in this thread have held the same view, and it was pointed out to you from page 1 of this thread. Yet you keep harping on about these same points as if that meant anything.
It's obvious by now that the white and black participants in this thread have opposing views from one another of how this thread is playing out, despite the ratio. More evidence that race plays a large part in Western (particularly American) society.