Why do many separate the history of Egypt and the rest of Africa?

I’m in a fortunate position of having a number of highly intellectual friends of which one is a Zoologist and he once explained his theory to me with regards to the origins of western / European man that I found to be extremely feasible.
-----------------------------------
Accordingly, Man did indeed originate in central Africa and has been there for a few hundred thousand years.
The distinction between African and European, or modern man is partly due to having a lot more problems to solve over the centuries.

Let me explain:

African man, geographically, remained more or less in the central African regions where the climate had very little change all year round and as a result would always have a stable food source thus no need for experimenting with seasonal harvests or have to figure out how to store foods for the winter.

This meant that life was good and carried on irrespective of what the following day or season brought.

There was no need to herd live stock as there was an abundance of game to hunt and even clothing and housing was not an issue due to very mild climate changes between the seasons.

The down side to all of this was that the humans living here never had to adapt or improvise to be able to survive and as a result the technological skills of these peoples never advanced beyond the Stone Age.

On the other hand, European man as we know ourselves today decided back then to search for other pastures, maybe out of man's typical curiosity, over crowding populations or simply the found themselves stuck on the continents when they split millions of years before that.

To get to the point and keep in mind there are hundreds of factors I have not mentioned, European man was all of a sudden confronted with extreme seasonal changes and thus his intellectual development became his best survival skill as he had to learn how to store foods for winter, grow season specific crops and design tools to plough the lands, make clothes, build houses to keep warm and keep live stock.

Well, one thing led to another with a few hundred thousand years going by and the next thing you know man is landing on the moon.

Let’s rewind a bit to when the Dutch settlers first put foot on the southern tip of Africa in the 1500's.
The Dutch arrived in Africa to find that man was still living as he did back in the Stone Age using bow and arrows and wearing skins.
Can you imagine what the bushman must have thought of those incredible sailing ships that the Dutch arrived in?

To conclude, I’m not implying that African man has any less intellectual capacity than a European but simply that our cultures and technological advancement progressed at different rates due to geographical influences, seasons and new problems encountered.

This and many other scientific facts is hard evidence that man did originate in Africa and once we as Europeans learn how to get over ourselves and accept this then maybe we can learn to embrace different cultures and societies.

Originally posted by Trustnone
Look at the statue of nephirtiti for example, her features are not african, their caucasion, she has thin lips and a narrow nose.

This is because Nefertiti was, in all likelyhood, a wife given to Pharoah by the Hyksos...A race that came from the Middle Eastern area. Pharoah was always accepting wives from the rulers of other countries to cement treaties & alliances. Egypt didn't have a monopoly on that practice.

Originally posted by Trustnone
Ok, riddle me this, if these contibutions to egypt are african in origin why are there no such structures elsewhere in africa? why only ones in the one country with access to the mediteranean?

Mainly because the Mediteranean Sea was the most densely populated area of the time. It provided the source for widespread ability to colonize other areas & to conduct international commerce. Countries that didn't have access to the sea were the poorest & least--developed countries around because the spread of ideas & knowledge was just as slow as their commerce...Land-based routes to other nations always moved slower than sea-based routes.

Originally posted by James the Lesser
Egyptians are arab, not black. That is why it is seperated from Africa, for it is an arabic nation, not a black nation.

A little mistake here...Egyptians origins are not Arabic. Egyptians were conquered & then populated with Arabs long after the Ptolomic rulers of Greece. Egypt is so thoroughly Arabic now that no one has heard the Egyptian language spoken for over 2000 years.
Egyptian origins, at best archeological guesses, were more from west Africa as the climate was changing the area of Egypt from jungle to savanna to desert. This happened because of the contintental drift that raised the Himalaya mountains...It took thousands of years for those mountains to rob enough water from northern Africa to change it into what it is today.

Originally posted by AgentGirl
An Egyptian friend of mine who live in the USA... doesn't classify himself as white or black..
This is just one more Eygptian that has a problem with the classifications.

Actually, the ancient Egyptians also made a distinction between themselves & the coloring of other racial stocks as well. They depicted themselves as being darker than the Middle Eastern nations, like Mesopotamians, but lighter than the Africans who lived further south. The reason for this is that Egyptian artworks liked to tell a story & illustrate it as well...Sort of like reading a comic book. The Egyptians depicted themselves in different "colors" than other racial stocks because they wanted anyone reading/looking at their records to know that they were referring to foreigners compared to referring to themselves.

Originally posted by Trustnone
Actually most of science and art came from Italy to spain, also why spainish are roman catholic. Agent girl read a real history book.

Actually, only the Mesopotamians invented their system of writing (Spoken Akkadian, written Sanscrit) before the Egyptians invented their own writing...And that was only by about 100 years or so. Yet Egypt surpassed Mesopotamia by forming the first single geo-political unit: Mesopotamia remained as a variety of independant City-States.
If you really want to get right down to it, Egyptians had more advanced sciences & arts than anyone else at that time. Spain wasn't even a country yet & Greece was still in its dark ages.
Yes, I do read the history books...It seems that you're putting the accomplishments of Spain way ahead of its time.

Originally posted by marg6043
The point to discuss is as why, Blacks were never given a more center stage in the middle east culture when in fact is (Proven facts) that the Egypt in ancient history has dominance of been conquered by Nubious that were from African race, and dark skinned.

Actually, it's spelled "Nubians"...That very name is based in Egyptian roots, as "nub" was the Egyptian world for "gold". Egytians traded & even raided for gold in the more southern reaches of Africa. And yes, Nubians did rule Egypt for a time...It was during the time classified as one of the Intermediate Periods. Those Intermediate Periods marked times in ancient Egytian history as when the land was ruled by those of foreign racial stock. Even so, even all the way through the Ptolemic Rule, even foriegn rulers had adopted the basic Egyptian culture as their own. By this, it's known that Egypt is the country that retained its own indigenious culture longer than any other in history...Not even the Chinese can beat that for another 2000 years or so.

Originally posted by truthseeka
Marg, I am surprised that you have learned African history in school.

Seriously; I thought that you were supposed to learn in school. Then again, here in the US we're being dumbed down...

Personally, I would agree with the last part of your statement...What I learned about ancient Egypt is not what I was taught in school. Ancient Egypt has been my personal hobby for well over a decade.
When someone might having trouble understanding something, they might say, "It's all Greek to me," I'd use the same phrase...Because I'd have a harder time understanding Greek than I would decyphering Egyptian Heiroglyphs.

Originally posted by truthseeka
Sure, Rome conquered Egypt, no doubt; what you're leaving out is that this was well after the Egyptian empire was in decline.

And that was even after the Greeks conquered it.

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
I suggest you review www.wsu.edu:8080... ; you sill see that the Ku#es were an Egyptianized civilization who considered themselves to be Egyptian.

This is true...the Ku#es took a lot of their culture from Egypt. They even built step-pyramids similar to the Egyptians (though on a much smaller scale), scattered all over the region. Many of them still exist, if you actually bother to keep up on African archeology...

I couldn't help but to reply on some of the things that everyone has brought up with this discussion. I agree with Truthseeka, the Egyptian people are not portrayed as accurately as they should be. Trust Stone, you brought up the question as to how could a people (the africans) who apparently are unable to even build spears couldn't possibly be able to constructed such amazing buildings as the one in Egypt that require mathematical and even astrological knowledge to make.
Be enlightened and let the truth set you free,

Nubian pyramids
chronicle.uchicago.edu...

deanoman.com...

www.galen-frysinger.ws...

www.anth.ucsb.edu...

Behold the Great Nubian Pharoah Taharqa
www.maat.com.au...

www.anth.ucsb.edu...

Nubian ladies



[edit on 10-1-2007 by leira7]

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
Marge, talking about "racism" or "white supremacy" when asked for examples is a cop-out.

If you can think of a Black African culture which left its mark on the Classical world -- either because of its trading, cities, writing, inventions, literature or anything else -- then tell us what it is.

Another unique civilization that came out of Africa is that of Aksum (Axum), Ethiopia. This area is known for its ancient obelisks. These giant towers were carved with precision and had somewhat of a mysterious repeating pattern.

Another area to take note of is that of Lalibela, Ethiopia. Lalibela is not too far from the ancient site of Aksum and this area is known for the rock hewn churches. These churches were dedicated to Christianity, but what is interesting is that the symbols in the obelisks of Aksum are the same shapes that are carved to make the windows in most of the churches. This may indicate that the rulers of Aksum actually created the rock hewn temples of Lalibela and it just that those of Christendom credited Christ followers of creating them because of the cross pattern.

I do not believe that the ancient cross carved into these churches of Lalibela originated because of Christ Jesus impalement. I would likely say that the carvings are much older than that and that the carvings were intended for star worship for those from Aksum. Also notice how the doorways and windows match the shape of the image on the top of the obelisks of Aksum.

By the way, did you know that the last preserved copy of the Book of Enoch was found in Ethiopia.

whc.unesco.org...

www.galenfrysinger.com...

www.sacredsites.com...

www.galenfrysinger.com...

www.sacred-destinations.com...

www.hory.applet.cz...

Why do many separate the history of Egypt and the rest of Africa?

Because Egypt was light years ahead of the rest of the continent at a certain point in its history. In other places, Africans are still living like their primordial ancestors did.

I do not believe that the ancient cross carved into these churches of Lalibela originated because of Christ Jesus impalement

whether you believe it or not the Aksum culture converted to Christianity in 325 or 328 under King Ezana and used the cross from that point on as its symbol

Misread something.. Mod please delete

[edit on 11-1-2007 by ShiftTrio]

reply to post by truthseeka


they are african u dont have to be black to be african just like u dont have to be white to be american

[edit on 17/5/08 by Hanslune]

I am a member but I forgot to log on. The subject of Egypst has always fascinated me.

I had heard back in the 1970s that Black Americans were saying that Jesus was Black......and what I think I'm understanding from the thread is that the current belief is that Africans were the first people and from there, others nations grew.

This is a very sincere question. So, where does primitive cavemen originate? There were various skin-tones for them as well, but I have never heard of a direct relationship of their descent from Africa.

It's been a lot of years since I've read about Egypt, but it was my understanding at that time that Egypt was Mediterranian, and that Egyptians were Arab. And that it had never been considered a part of Africa.

I will investigate and research on my own in the hopes I can contribute to this great thread!

Ruby

Yep Egypt is a part of Africa. Unfortunately the term Africa is a political name for a piece of land designated by random natural action- in reality its just a continuation of the larger Asia mass.

The lastest consensus is that modern man evolved in east africa then moved out to populate the world, replacing/removing earlier hominids who had done the same.

The present day Egyptians are a mixture of people, having been populated by people from all over the region. They have little Arab background and are more Med/Greek with the original inhabitants being from North Africa with inclusions from the Sudan and elsewhere - a nice mixed up pot of people. One can see that if you travel from Alexandria down to Aswan-or just hang out at a corner in Cairo.

no one is taking away from the rest of africa, but the over whelming physical evidence over shadows ruins found in many parts of the world. I don't think it is being racist

no one is taking away from the rest of africa, but the over whelming physical evidence over shadows ruins found in many parts of the world. I don't think it is being racist

I'm not getting your point here?

Due to a lack of wood the Egyptian built a great deal of their public buildings in stone. Therefore more has survived. The Mesopotamians had more wood (but not that much) and little stone and so used mud brick unfortunately it rains more in Meso and most of the public buidling turned into mud mounds.

reply to post by MidnightDStroyer


MidnightDStroyer, most of what you've posted is as the Egyptian history I've learned:

The Egyptians didn't class themselves as being African, European or Middle Eastern. In fact, they identified themselves as Egyptian and only Egyptian. The Egyptians looked down on all other racial groups and considered the people to their south to be vastly inferior;

The Nubians (N.Sudan) emulated the Egyptians so well that they culturally became more Egyptian than the Egyptians. The Egyptians still turned-up their noses at them though (snobs!);

When the Nubians saw that Egypt had lost its way i.e was engaged in what may be considered civil war and was in danger of collapse, the Nubians invaded Egypt, administered until it was again stable, then left (I recall this to have been a 100 year period of Nubian rule);

The part of north Africa that follows the Mediterranean coastline (Algeria, Egypt, Libya, Morocco and Tunisia) has always been considered to be European in terms of population i.e Caucasian. In other words, Egypt is not the only nation of the African continent that is considered separately of the rest of Africa. Review Roman history for more evidence of this;

Black African civilizations did arise independently of European civilizations but they didn't last. One in particular (forgotten the name) in West Africa fell through an unfortunate circumstance - when the Europeans approached them for trade they were offered resources which ranged from minerals and food products to people captured from neighboring kingdoms during conflicts who were sold to be used as servants/slaves... Trade went well Europe got resources while this African Kingdom flourished through the wealth it gained. Unfortunately, one C. Columbus discovered the New World. As the Europeans scrambled to "discover" and claim the NW, trade and interest with Africa wained; and this African kingdom was destroyed by its neighbors. A tail repeated too often in Black Africa, a nation develops to a high point but tribal rivalry destroys it. I'll do some research to locate the kingdom's name and report back later.

Black African civilizations did use materials other than mud, straw and cow dung to build walls and homes just as the rest of us do outside of Africa.

Stone Ruins

The ruins of this complex of massive stone walls undulate across almost 1,800 acres of present-day southeastern Zimbabwe. Begun during the eleventh century A.D. by Bantu-speaking ancestors of the Shona, Great Zimbabwe was constructed and expanded for more than 300 years in a local style that eschewed rectilinearity for flowing curves. Neither the first nor the last of some 300 similar complexes located on the Zimbabwean plateau, Great Zimbabwe is set apart by the terrific scale of its structure. Its most formidable edifice, commonly referred to as the Great Enclosure, has walls as high as 36 feet extending approximately 820 feet, making it the largest ancient structure south of the Sahara Desert. In the 1800s, European travelers and English colonizers, stunned by Great Zimbabwe's its grandeur and cunning workmanship, attributed the architecture to foreign powers. Such attributions were dismissed when archaeological investigations conducted during the first decades of the twentieth century confirmed both the antiquity of the site and its African origins.

See Great Zimbabwe (11th–15th century)

Notice the walls were there before the Europeans arrived.

The Karanga people ruled a great inland African empire from about AD1000 to AD1600. The Karanga were great traders who smelted gold and traded it on the shores of the Indian Ocean for glass beads and porcelain from China. European explorers discovered vast stone ruins of the Karanga in 1867. The site of the ruins was called Zimbabwe, which means "stone dwelling" in the native Bantu language.

The Europeans were unwilling to believe that sub-Saharan Africans could have built Zimbabwe; they theorized that ancient Phoenicians, Arabs, Romans, or Hebrews created the structures. Excavations in 1932 proved that the indigenous Africans created the ruins, but the white colonial government of Rhodesia attempted to deny the site's African genesis. The leaders of Rhodesia said the land was empty of people and culture before they arrived. When the government allowed people of all races to vote in 1980, the black majority of the nation discarded the name of Rhodesia and, looking to the past for nobler origins, chose the name Zimbabwe.

Look here for more about Sub-Saharan Africa civilisation. Excerpt below re Zimbabwe:

I'm going to find some more information and post back, hope I've helped you OP.

For anyone wondering, I'm Caucasian (a little med, M.E and Romany plus the rest to flavour).

[edit on 18/5/08 by Rapacity]

[edit on 18/5/08 by Rapacity]

The African I referred to above was Dahomey.

OP, you might find this helpful.

reply to post by Trustnone

I believe that the perception of Cleopatra as a Caucasian is erroneous. She was a creole, like Barack Obama, a person of Africoid and Caucasoid admixture. Egypt became creolized following the Greek and Roman invasions. The name Egypt in Greek means "black peoples", so why would they name it that if it were Caucasoid.

One so-called Caucasoid people, Persia (Iran) has been a creolized nation. The Farsi language group is Indo-European but the land was inhabited by Asiatic Blacks like the Harappans and Mohenjo-Daro peoples. If Persia is creolized, you kno the Hindus have a great deal of Africoid blood.

How do people have Africoid blood so far from Africa? Because the world started out peopled by Africans who spread out across the continents. The melanin which began in Africa became distributed elsewhere. In some places, the only differentiation was like their hair flopped. This is what we find in Southern India, people like Veejay Singh. The Sinhalese are amongst the darker Hindustanis.

If Caucasians came into North Africa, the Maghreb, what was their contribution? While some people consider the Berber to be Caucasians, rather than creoles, what happens to the one drop rule? For one, it applies to white people, not Caucasians. White people go by a different, stricter definition of their "racial" identity. That is where racism enters the picture.

We can't apply the standards of whiteness to Caucasians or history before the colonial era. This makes the argument irrelevant as well, because the racists are the ones most interested in taking the color out of Africa.

To answer the first question why....
Many here have agreed that it was a matter of press coverage, and yes, the structures there are awsome. Most archeologists did not get into the type or race of people inhabiting the lands the explored. They just didn't want to tell you, because they were afraid that what they found would shake up the status quo in the well established religious world.

They did not go into detail on the strange shape of the skulls they found. They just called them dolichocephalic. So who knows or cares what that means? If you look it up you will find that it means - long from the from to the back. They had those unusual bulges at the rear.

From what I have read on this thread it seems apparent that you all are confusing "race" with skin color. Race is biologically defined by bone structure, just as the different breeds/types of dogs are. The bull dog & the greyhound differ greatly in bone structure. There are many types of people with black skin. There is also a variety of structure among white people.

As I understand it the North African Blacks do not consider themselves to be negroid. The negroid races were sub-saharan, but I don't think all of them were, as I have seen photos of central Africans with narrow noses. It is these N.Africans that were the Moors who invaded Spain.

For more on African civilizations you would have to find somthing that spells out what the early Europeans found when they first went there. It would surprize those who think they were all naked savages. They found villages with broad streets, market places and well structured buildings. And an apparent well ordered society. They had primitives living in the interior jungle areas, just as there are today in Africa and So. America, as well as in Asia and many Pacific islands.

Back to Egypt. Look at these mummies. Look very closely at their skulls.
Mummies

You do not find this type of skull in any human on Earth today. Many of these older mummies are obviously European looking in the face, and had blonde or red hair. Look at this site for more info:
Red haired mummies

The article on that site mentions the Hyksos. It seems that they arrived in Egypt and sort of took over from whoever was there before. The Hyksos were fairhaired and blue-eyed. They did mix with the Nubians and the later Pharonic dynasties became more and more Nubian. The Hyksos were banished from Egypt. (THe infamous Exodus)

Ah, but now look at these, which are found all over the world. They were tall, well built and are described by indigenous peoples as blue-eyed and fair haired. They were looked upon as gods. These particular skulls were found in and on exhibit in Peru. This race is now also no "extinct". Or did they simply leave the way they had come?
skulls

This article will add to and likely contradict much that you have previously learned, but you will find it enlightening.
Who was Abraham?

Here is an article on the Egyptian Empire. This fell to ruin during the reign of Akhenaten resulting in his Expulsion. Surprized no one has mentioned this in the 2+years this thread has been here.
Egyptian Empire

Enjoy!

Originally posted by Byrd
Okay (putting on the grad student anthropologist hat, here) -- the reason Egypt was included was two-fold... its influence was great on the Middle East (and it was a province of Rome) -- BUT -- more importantly is the impact of Napoleon and Romanticism and the Age of Reason on making it such a prominent and popular culture.
So, it was a Mediterranean country (which often translates to Middle East in many folks' minds), its culture was derived from and was a source of culture in the whole Middle East, it was an important trade center in the area, and there's a wealth of material on it. Because it was a Roman colony, you have a wealth of Roman (and Greek) material there, including important burials, coffins, libraries, and so forth.

Indeed, Alexandria was said to be more Greek than Egyptian.

So that's why... it's not "location, location, location" -- it's "location, culture, culture."

Nothing racist about it.

But Byrd, It was African, and it influenced the Middle East, you say, therefore it is more accurate to call the Middle Eastern people African.
If Rome did not introduce burials, coffins, libraries, etcetera, then the heritage of Egypt was still African, as you see it. Alexander the Great was from Greece, so his new city in Africa, named for him, would likely be Greek too. Culture imported by outsiders does not change heritage. Africa is where Egypt is, and its history is forever tied to Africa.

reply to post by Off_The_Street


actually despite popular belief most of the early afrikan civilizations were well educated. People from all over travelled to Timbuktu for their universities and books. Ethiopia(Cush) developed the seven day calandar that we still use today. Roman and Greek mythology and culture have their roots from these early afrikan nations. Most people dont know that Zeus was originally and afrikan god. Our current school curriculums fail to note that early afrikans were the first to develop an alphabet, map the stars, study mathamatics, and research the human body among other things. In fact the Moors invasion of Spain and their influence over those people is the reason why Europe began to come out of the "Dark Ages".

Actually Africa is a peninsula of the larger continent of Asia. So everthing is actually Asian, especially Europe which is just another peninsula.

There are only two continents, Asia and the Americas.