Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:06, 12 July 2009

Race of the ancient Egyptians

Panehesy, I want to thank you very much for your contributions to the article on the race of the ancient Egyptians. You always go to what is essential. It is nice to see that you understand the way Eurocentrism fonctions: with distorted arguments.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 21:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey Panehesy.. I was wondering your motivation for those recent edits in the DNA section of the ancient egypt/race article? What is the significance of separating genetic lineage from phenotype? It seems sort of "redundant" since even discarding race, there are certain clades found among these peoples that can be identified to geographical areas, where notions of "race" have been dependent. Don't get me wrong as it is very important to emphasize this distinction, it just seems to defeat the purpose when there no elaboration. For instance, Keita writes:

"A review of the recent literature indicates that there are male lineage ties between African peoples who have been traditionally labeled as being ‘‘racially’’ different, with ‘‘racially’’ implying an ontologically deep divide. The PN2 transition, a Y chromosome marker, defines a lineage (within the YAPþ derived haplogroup E or III) that emerged in Africa probably before the last glacial maximum, but after the migration of modern humans from Africa (see Semino et al., 2004). This mutation forms a clade that has two daughter subclades (defined by the biallelic markers M35/215 (or 215/M35) and M2) that unites numerous phenotypically variant African populations from the supra-Saharan, Saharan, and sub-Saharan regions based on current data (Underhill, 2001). "

^^There needs to be more emphasis of what this involves before we insert such data as it leads people to believe that DNA evidence is not reliable in determining origins. The entire "race" thing to me (the fact that "race" keeps being injected) is a huge straw man in my opinion. It obscures who the Egyptians were as to make them ambiguous every time a caveat like this is thrown in there. I wish there was more room to simply focus on population relationships, notions of Africanity, and biogeographic origin based on numerous data.Taharqa (talk) 18:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I see where you may be going with this, but respectfully, I think that it's misguided and I will explain the significance of the above quotation. You seem to be harping on a very different issue while basing what you say on Eurocentric fallacy.

Phenotype isn't in question. Yes, people often labeled as "Black" varies, but we must destroy the notion of a "black race" and stick with the notion of Africanity. For instance, Kittles and others cite that Australians and Melanasians whom are supposedly "phenotypically" Black, are the most distant of relatives to Africans. Africans are more related to European Swedes than they are to "phenotypically Black" populations from Asia and Australia. We must point this out. There are studies by Sforza, Bowcock, Kittles, and Keita that show Europeans as intermediates, between that of ancestral African and Asian populations. DNA shows that all humans come from Africa and that the Egyptians descend from a group who never left. It narrows the field my friend. Yes, you will have people who cite papers suggesting Asian influences and then I agree it would be necessary to point out that these lineages do not come from contemporary "Asians" even if the findings are valid. Or you can point out like I would via Nebel (2002), Kittles and Norton, and Keita(2005), that a lot of the said variation is attributable to recent mirgrations associated with Islam. There is also no mention of Paabo and DiRenzo who tested for mummy DNA and found "sub-Saharan" lineages, but couldn't identify anything beyond that. These imply origins, not "race" and we can simply say that ("this however, has no bearing on racial identity"...or something). DNA in my opinion though, brings a lot to the debate. To associate it with phenotype I believe is its own straw man since scientists know this and don't normally argue for it outright.

There are more less misleading ways to make the same case against distortion on either side is what I mean basically. I'll be back later, I don't want to burden you with an endless debate on genetics but I respect your opinion. Just trying to get a feel for what was going on when you added that.Taharqa (talk) 19:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. I don't believe the ancient Egyptians were black, purely because I don't have the same definition of "black" as you do. I don't for one second believe the ancient Egyptians were European either, but I don't believe they were black by our standards. In my country (South Africa) the average African-American would not be classified as black. Blacks and whites in my country happily accept the existence of a growing population group which is officially called "Coloured", and it encompasses all mixed-race people, but black people do not consider these mixed-race people to be black. Barak Obama and Tiger Woods would not be considered black in my country if they were not rich or famous or powerful. I sympathise greatly with your comments that mixed race people get pulled back and forth as expedient, and I originally had a whole section on that point that got deleted for "irrelevance", but those folks have maybe moved on, so maybe we can reinsert it. Please stop stressing about the pictures - just put them in, and let the cookie crumble. Wdford (talk) 20:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Obviously the defintion of "Coloured" is a social construct - but so are all racial labels. It does indeed mean "not white and not black", as you say. If we can all agree on a definition of the race of the ancient Egyptians that is "not black and not white either" then I think the controversy will disappear. PS:the Chinese people are not considered black in South Africa, they are considered to fall alongside black people and others who were disadvantaged by apartheid laws, purely for the purposes of accessing affirmative action benefits. Wdford (talk) 21:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi. My Afro-Asiatic origin image comes from the book Egypt in Africa, edited by Theodore Celenko which contains essays from notable African historians. It doesn't imply that Afroasiatic was introduced to the East Africa coast from the Red Sea, it indicates that it originated somewhere between Nubia and northern Somalia (in Africa). Please read Christopher Ehret's Essay for more detail:

http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=005906

As for the ethnicity question that was directed at Wdford since he kept talking about being from Africa, visiting Egypt etc. Perhaps it was inappropriate to ask him but I felt that since he was giving details about himself I would ask for specifics.AncientObserver (talk) 13:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey, Panhesy, have you seen the draft page we are all working on? Here it is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Ancient_Egyptian_race_controversy/Draft AncientObserver (talk) 16:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Please, have a look to Ancient Egyptian race controversy. The article has been radically changed by User:Dbachmann and friends.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 12:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

POV-Pushing Admins and the Banning of regular editors

Hello Panehesy,

Check out the latest drama that has transpired over the Ancient Egypt race article. I and several other users have been banned on bogus charges and a flood of Admins are trying to take control of the article in order to suppress information and restrict its scope. You don't have to stand for this. If you like you can edit the page in order to restore the contact we worked so hard on. It will probably be reverted but someone needs to stand up to these bullies and let them know they aren't going to get aware with this. Meanwhile I'm going to try to report these Admins for abuse. AncientObserver (talk) 00:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

yes and it seems that a technique of calling everyone of a particular view a sockpuppet is in effect. I didn't notice until after I paid cloer attention that AnwarSadatFan placed me on my user page as a sockpuppet to Mutuwandi. I contribute on average once a month. I don't have more than one user name but I am seeing how their technique has worked. I didn't realize until just now how afraid I was to edit because I was afraid i'd be administered! Very clever and I am very upset about that. --Panehesy (talk) 03:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't be scared to edit the page. However, stay away from statements trying to "prove" or "show" the ancient Egyptians were black. That is not the point of the article. The point of the article is that race, race-science and racism are the basis of the controversy. The fact is that white racists in Europe and America always thought the idea that ancient Egypt was black was controversial. It was controversial because in their minds blacks were monkeys and sub humans and therefore unable to create such a civilization. That is the controversy and it is purely racist. Everything else stems from those origins. White people invented anthropology and racist pseudo-science in order to prove the Egyptians were white and that black Africans (negroes) were monkeys and sub human. White people created the concept of "race" as a form of biological determinism. They invented the study of skulls as a way of identifying "races". White people invented the terms black, white, caucasoid, negroid, mongoloid and so on as "racial" labels. All of these "sciences" were intended to prove the superiority of whites and separate them from everyone else. This is documented fact and that is the root of the controversy. That is all this article needs to focus on. As long as you try to add comments about "grudgingly accept Egyptians as blacks" and any other sort of insinuation that the Egyptians were black it becomes an article that is about the Egyptians being black or not and it lets them hide behind wikipedia to push nonsense. Stick to the facts of history and that whites always viewed the ethnic origins of the ancient Egyptians as controversial because of racism and nothing else. From there you can proceed to point out all the arguments for and against the issue, but you must point out the fundamental racist nature of the controversy in the minds of whites and the fact that Africans and many whites were vehemently opposed to such racist distortions of history as a reason for the ongoing arguments and that it did not start in the 1960s. The point being that modern Egyptology and Anthropology have their roots in the racist works of the 19th century and were FOUNDED on the very idea that whites and white "science" could never accept or support the idea that the ancient Egyptians were black. That is the controversy. Their own documented history incriminates them and all you have to do is reference the numerous works from the last 200 years that make this clear.

References: Negromania, Crania Aegyptica, Types of Mankind, Samuel George Morton, Thomas Gliddon, Josiah C. Nott and so on. Big-dynamo (talk) 12:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello Panehesy! I have been banned with other fellows from editing the article on AERC, as you know. From time to time I go reading the article. I agree with what Big-dynamo wrote to you just above about the point of the article. Otherwise, I am impressed with your arguments. You are very well informed. I don't understand why people can't be objective while dealing with facts! Actually there is no doubt that Jean-François Champollion, in his letters from Egypt and Nubia was speaking about the origin and the race of the ancient Egyptians, not only the first inhabitants, but all the ancient Egyptians. The word ancient Egyptians is in the quote. Agriculture is not the point. In his book, Précis du système hiéroglyphique des anciens Égyptiens, at pages 455-459, he gives reasons why he considers the ancient Egyptians to be Indigenous of Africa and why he thinks that they followed the Nile from south to north in order to settle in what is called Egypt. Champollion states clearly that ancient Egyptians differ in their body, their language, their costoms from the people of West Asia, their immediate neighbours. Champollion, even being the father of Egyptology, is not often quoted in Egyptology because he represents a powerful wapom against the dynastic theory, a Caucasian Egypt. Egyptolgists are now recognizing that Egypt was seen as a Caucasian civilization for racist reasons. We can read this from Maurizio Damiano-Appia in his book Egitto e Nubia, Milano: Arnoldo Mondadori Editore, 1995, p. 8: Si è molto discusso circa il popolo egizio e la sua civiltà, ma in generale nella mentalità comune, ed anche in quella di molti egittologi sino a pochi anni fa (e spesso ancor oggi) è data per scontata l'idea di un popolo de razza bianca, che creò una cultura mediterranea che poco aveva a che fare con l'Africa se non una quasi casuale collocazione geografica. A la base di tali edee si poneva la cultura occidentale, di orientamento prevalentemente anglosassone, che vedeva il Vecchio Continente al centro, o meglio ancora alla guida, della cultura mondiale. Ancor più precisamente, con mentalità razzista, la civiltà doveva essere bianca per definizione. --Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 09:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

It's ok. Apparently this has been an ongoing thing here for Misplaced Pages for a few years now. As I went through the history of some of the articles, I notice a pattern of banning black people who contribute based on inconsistently administered provocations. I was actually recruited to contribute by someone else who was recruited to contribute by another who experienced the same thing. What you and others should do is to get others interested in contributing. They can only blame sockpuppets so many times before they cause an uproar by this tactic. --Panehesy (talk) 15:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Banned

You are banned from Ancient Egyptian race controversy and its talk page, per , for a period of six months for POV-pushing, adding unsourced content, and personal attacks. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 20:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)