Originally posted by truthseeka
I've thought about this for a while, but my interest recently peaked, now that I have taken an intro archaeology class. The textbooks I have focused
a lot on the ancient Greco-Roman cultures, but ancient cultures of the Near East were also covered. The very fact that Egypt was included was good,
but also a bit confusing. Nevertheless, my problem isn't with this class; it's with the trend, in both the media and academia, to separate ancient
Egypt from the rest of ancient Africa.
Sadly, the biggest reason for this I can see is racism.
Consider that ancient egypt had a lot more incommon with the civilizations of the levant and sumer than with kush or morrocco. Also, its own history,
especially in the periods that we know more about, is not centered on africa, but rather the middle east and europe.
Now, I am not saying that Egypt was a black African civilization only
Supposed Ethnic identities are irrelevant tho.
It's funny to me that it is accepted that the Greeks and Romans were a group of different people from the same region, but this view is
overlooked and scarcely mentioned when it comes to the Egyptians.
What do you mean? At a large scale, the greeks and romans were from the same region, on a smaller scale they were from very different regions.
I see it as nothing more but a means of taking away an African contribution to the world.
Its not an african contribution. Its a human contribution.
I can understand, tho, italians being proud of being italian, so why shouldn't africans be proud of being african and their history. But why should
history be taught incorrectly to satisfy that? The history of egypt doesn't have all the much to do with the history of 'the rest of africa'.
Egypt is part of africa, and people from africa can look back on egypt with pride. Its 'silly', but there's not much harm in it. Of course, 2,000
years from now, will africans look upon modern egypt with pride, as an african achievement?? Would they be entitled to? I'd say so, as much as now.
But, realistically, what do any of us have to do with those accomplishments, or failings?
Until the 60's, the archaeologists were claiming Egypt as a European civilization, and that is obviously false.
But that acknowledges precisely what you are talking about, the Egypt was influential and integral on teh formation of european civilizations (mainly
thru contacts in the eastern med and aegean). Realistically, Europeans can 'claim it'. Usually, Egypt is grouped in with the Near Eastern
The bantu are a tribe, not a nation. Actually, they're really just a linguistic group.
Africa has very few 'civilizations' native to it. Egpyt is one of them. Its simply not sub-saharan africa.
Its really rather dependant on what one considers 'enough' to count as a civilization. There were kingdoms in west africa that were rather well
advanced. Central Africa is another story, and it resembles the deep forests of europe, coexisting, but not really interacting, with the civilized
peoples of the coasts. The Zulus are supposed to have been a peoples from central Africa that migrated to the south. They're surprisingly
similar to the ancient barbaric germans (they used mainly foot soliders with spears and sheilds, they had pastoral economies, were broken up into
tribes that lived in semi-permanent structures, they'd even, in battle, snap their long spears (asagi or some such) in two and use them sort of like
short swords, just like the ancient germans are reported to have done). The real problem with africa is that it was largely invaded by islamic
peopels, who destroyed most of the native civilizations and replaced them with their own. And then when that system started failing, the europeans
came along and did the same. sub-saharan africa is sort of like Central Asia in this respects, we don't normally think of great civilizations from
there (most people don't anyways).
is a page I just found on the subject, but havent' reviewed in detail.
My bad, but that's the most ridiculous thing I've read here in a while
Byrd means, I suspect, it was a backwater in the post classical period (well, post islamic golden age too), until napolean came along and the people
there started picking up on the ideals of the French Revolution.
have to remind y'all that the early archaeologists were caught painting the faces of artwork white,
I've heard this before but haven't seen any citation for it. Is one available? Also, if these people thought that they were white, whats the harm in
'restoring' (to thier minds) the statues??
we all know that the historical African Queen Cleopatra is undoubtly caucasian, I mean who can contest that
Queen Cleopatra was not an 'african', a bantu/ku#e 'black' person. She's greek
. Her name is greek
, her family are macedonians who
came to rule the country after alexander invaded and liberated it from the persians who had been ruling it. Liz Taylor probably looks more like the
real cleopatra than the 'average black woman'. Sorry to jump all over this, but its one of my personal peeves. The ancient egyptians
weren't 'white guys', and its wrong to represent them as such, to change history to fit a modern concept. But cleopatra,
specifically, was not a 'black woman', in any sense, not bantu black or ku#e black or even north african black. Her family were recent
directly out of northern greece
This is Cleopatra, on a coin from her time. I don't particular care what fake 'race' we want to classify her as, the terms are meaningless. But
look at her and judge for yourself.
This is a marble bust supposedly of her from around her time.
are a collection of busts and portraits of the Ptolomies, and below is the
Willian Leo Hansberry, father of Afrikan studies
He studies the dutch settlers in south africa?
History is an amazing subject and worthy of learning, and is never to late to know everything or at least most of everything
off the street
If you can think of a Black African culture which left its mark on the Classical world
Simple, egypt. The egyptians were 'sufficiently black' to rank as africans.
I guess the BIGGEST question here is WHAT IS CAUCASIAN and WHAT IS BLACK AFRICAN?
Indeed, this is the biggest 'problem' here. Modern concepts of ethnicity are pretty well meaningless when appplied to populations from several
thousand years ago. I'm fairly confident that if a varied sampling of egpytians was patrolled before us, we'd mostly agree that they were all
black. But its meaningless. Egyptian civiliazation is a near eastern or mediteranean civilization. There were great cultures that flourished in
africa that had nothing to do with the rest of the world, Ghana and the like, and Kush/Nubia had some
contact with the arabian penninsula, but
are generalyl thought of as African. Just to confuse things even more, the are the Berbers; a 'caucasian' peoples native
to northern africa.
Septimius Severus was the 'African Roman Emperor", who lived in the northern province of africa (but was, what, an italian?) After the Empire fell,
, the people who were so destructive that their name was ever more
associated with wanton destruction, who had rampaged out
, set up their own kingdom in North Africa
. They never 'left', their kingdom fell apart, but they had
intermixed with the various populations that were there, including, semetic phonecian based carthaginians
and latinate italians
knows who else. Yet do we 'see' that variety 'today'? No. Why? Because these identities aren't biologically real
, they're social
(True, we can trace the movements of 'ethnicities' by tracking the spread of particular genes, but even then we're not really talking about an
ethnicity, we're just talking about a particular gene that is sometimes associated with a group, but possession of which isn't 'required' for
group membership, etc etc)
Is this what you mean?
I think he is refering to one of the pages you linked to.
james the lesser
IT ISN'T AFRICA IT IS MIDDLE EAST! They are Arab, not black. They are not black/African, but arab!
I thought you were kidding before.
Egypt is on the continent of africa
, therefore its african
. Russia is
a country in asia, ie, an asian country, its just not
completely populated by 'orientals'. Egypt is african, the arabs
are no more native to egypt than swedes are to wisconsin.
There are 5 main races.
Black Arab Hispanic White Asian Indian
This is a completely meaningless and senseless list. What are 'asians'? How are they different from 'indians'? Do you mean native american
indians or indians from india? Where are the austronesians, who are a larger group than 'arabs', a minor ethnicity? Where are australian
aborigines, who are not the same peoples that one finds in africa? What is 'black'? Are hottentots black? Or only Bantu? When an asian and indian
have kids, are the kids now magically not in either race?
All these populations you list have been interbreeding for millenia
. There is nothing that can acutally define them. They're not real groups.
They're made up of previous groups that have so thoroughly intermixed that they're not even distinguishable anymore, yet you are listing them as
Egyptians are Arab, they are not black
James, I am sorry, but you are completely wrong
. Egpytian is a nationality, the various peoples of egypt can look like anything. A few
hundred years ago, the arab peoples expanded out of the arabian penninsula and invaded lots of countries, one of which was egypt. In egpyt, they grew
to large numbers, and many of them intermixed with the people that were already there.
Guess what, those people that were already there? Some of them came from sub-saharan africa, some were from the horn of africa, others were from
north africa, others were from the medeteranan islands, others were semites from the levant, others were 'arabs' who came long before the other
arabs', and still others were certainly migrants from that Vandal Kingdom, ie scandavian/germans
, and a hell of a lot of people had come from
Italy and Greece. Now, today, we see all of that
, but can't distinguish, because the social concepts and knowledge are gone, and the ethnic
divisions, so real to the peoples of their times, had no biological reality and are thus invisible to us, since we are in a different society.
Egyptians aren't all arabs. Arabs are an invasive ethnicity to the region, just like practically everyone else in egypt
Actually most of science and art came from Italy to spain, also why spainish are roman catholic
Science and art was preserved in spain
, while the rest of europe was in the dark ages, becuase of the islamic invaders who valued it
Agent girl read a real history book.
I suggest you
read a real history book, and explain why you think you know the ethnic identity of the first humans to run around europe.
Precisely how had do you think it was for primitive man to cross the straits of gibraltar? Of get in his boats and hop from island to island in the
meditaranean? Explain, please, how exacltly north africans didn't cross into the mediteranean islands and places like spain italy, dalmatia, france,
and greece, but other africans were able to cross thru the fertile cresecent, camp out in the caucus for a couple of generations, 'become white',
go back over the mountains, into europe, and then into the mediteranean coasta and islands? Its preposterous
. Africans, from
north africa, were crossing the straits and hopping across the islands of the med as easily in the distant unregulated past as they are today
If Cubans can make trucks
into boats and sail the atlantic, why, precisely, can't africans, for thousands of generations, do exactly the same
and come into europe???
Also, they must look up the history of the Moors, those Muslim Afrikans who conquered much of Europe
obviously this is an incorrect statement. The moors were one of the peoples involved in the conquest of spain and the meditereanean. But to say that
that counts as most of of europe is silly, agreed. To not notice that spain managed to reatin a high degree of culture, art, science, and civilization
because of the islamic invaders is equally silly.
if these contibutions to egypt are african in origin why are there no such structures elsewhere in africa?
Egypt is in africa. Its de facto
an african acheivement. The people native to that region woudl be considered black if they were walking down
the streets of NYC. THe depictions of the egyptians on their own monuments and portraits, indicate that they considered themselves to be different
from the jews, greeks, libyans, ku#es, sicilians, cretans, and hittites. Nevertheless, if you transplanted an ancient Pharoah to tuscaloosa in the
20's, he'd wouldn't be able to drink from any water fountain he'd like. The egyptians had nothing
to do with continental euoprean
civilization, they had no real influences on the celts, the britons, the scands, scythians or germans. Notice, however, that the places that egypt
did influence are the most civilized
parts, and the tribes above were barbaric savages. The Greeks themselves readily, and gladly, noted that
their own civilization owed much to egypt, a civilization already ancient by the time the greeks were writting and living in cities. They were
to be able to claim a connection to that great and cultured society. Just like
everyone today wants to be able to claim some sort
of 'cultural/ethnic' descendancy from it. The Egyptians were a superpower of sorts, but not only in military strength, but in economic, scientific,
and cultural prowess. And, again, not that it makes any real difference because the lables are b/s, but if you took the average egyptian of 2,000 BC
and had him walk around manhattan, whether he was a field labourer, grand vizier, scrive, architect or pharoah, most
white people would clutch
their bags as he passed or nervously look away. He'd
recognize that you were some pale, thin haired sort of sicil, sardinian or greek. He'd
almost certainly not recognized the hasidics are hebrews, and he'd probably/i] recognize most 'dark black' people as being nubians/ku#es, but
likely not recognize any 'fellow egpytians'.