This pretty much says it all.What "color" were/are they? In what way is it significant?
liberty wrote:There is a lot of dispute about this: I bet Afro-centric scholars are calling it an out and out lie. Well, science works like this: If it is true it can be proven, test it again. And if it is true it would not be a great surprise. All related people have a common ancestor. All Caucasians have a common ancestor the same as humans have a common ancestor and all members of a family have a common ancestor. The majority of ancient Egyptians were Caucasian, that is not to say white as that refers to aboriginal Europeans.
Afro-centric scholars claim that ancient Egyptians were a black people, but ancient Egyptian wall paintings and hair studies of Egyptian mummies demonstrate that they were predominately a non Negroid people.
Scientists at Zurich-based DNA genealogy center, iGENEA, have reconstructed the DNA profile of King Tut, his father Akhenaten and grandfather Amenhotep III.
Researchers discovered that King Tut belonged to a genetic profile group known as haplogroup R1b1a2. More than 50 per cent of all men in Western Europe belong to this genetic group as do up to 70 per cent of British men.
... "
... and that would be a bingo!Big RR wrote:This pretty much says it all.What "color" were/are they? In what way is it significant?
What have I said that is racist? In your mind it is racist to disagree with afrocentric scholars or proponents. Do you consider yourself a typical liberal? Is there any assertion made by any afro centric that you would disagree with?TPFKA@W wrote:The more I look back through the comments here the more I wonder why this racist POS is being cut so much slack by some of the more liberal members of this board? Why would you encourage this kind of blatant racism?
Your wig line is a good place to start.liberty wrote:What have I said that is racist? In your mind it is racist to disagree with afrocentric scholars or proponents. Do you consider yourself a typical liberal? Is there any assertion made by any afro centric that you would disagree with?TPFKA@W wrote:The more I look back through the comments here the more I wonder why this racist POS is being cut so much slack by some of the more liberal members of this board? Why would you encourage this kind of blatant racism?
Geez, that strawman again...In your mind it is racist to disagree with afrocentric scholars or proponents.
after everything that has been posted here explaining what the real issue is, as far as I'm concerned, you've pretty much eliminated the doubt I was trying to give you the benefit of...liberty wrote:What have I said that is racist? In your mind it is racist to disagree with afrocentric scholars or proponents. Do you consider yourself a typical liberal? Is there any assertion made by any afro centric that you would disagree with?TPFKA@W wrote:The more I look back through the comments here the more I wonder why this racist POS is being cut so much slack by some of the more liberal members of this board? Why would you encourage this kind of blatant racism?
This.In fact, the Egyptian civilization had its earliest origins in the Stone Age and arose as a "state" culture on the Upper Nile (Kush/Nubia) nearly 6,000 years ago. From its inception, it traded broadly (and was therefore in constant cross-cultural contact) throughout the region -- on both sides of the Red Sea, up and down the Nile and throughout the Levant and interior Africa. By the time of Tutankhamen, the Egyptian empire itself extended from what are now Ethiopia and South Sudan to Syria and Iran. Over the course of 3500+ years, the pharaohs themselves descended from many different genealogical lineages, no doubt bearing traces of many human sub-populations both within and from outside the empire.
You just pulled a rube move there wes; posting something you thought (wrongly) to be true without bothering to check your facts first:..and your statement about racial hierarchies only dating to the 1700 s is just silly, and incorrect.
If you're actually interested in learning some facts about this subject, there's a lot more here:The contemporary scholarly consensus is that the concept of race is a modern phenomenon, at least in the west (Europe, the Americas, and North Africa). Indeed, the oppression and conflict associated with racism clearly predate the biological conception of race (Zack 2002, 7). Neither the ancient Greeks and Romans nor the medieval Jews, Christians and Muslims sought to classify humans into discrete racial categories. In the ancient Greco-Roman world, phenotypical differences such as skin color and hair texture were noticed but did not ground discrete categories of biological difference.
Nor did the physical differences today associated with race connote differences in character or culture; as ethnocentric as the Greeks and Romans were, the political affiliations of citizenship were their primary human divisions (Blum 2002, 110). Even Aristotle’s famous distinction between Greek and Barbarian is thought of as a distinction based not on race but on the practical distinction between those people who organize themselves into the political communities of city-states (Greeks) and those who do not (Barbarians) (Hannaford 1996, 43–57; Simpson 1998, 19).
The Romans, in turn, differentiated themselves from other groups not through biological race but through the differing legal structures through which they organized their collective lives (Hannaford 1996, 85). For the medieval followers of occidental, monotheistic religions, the primary boundaries among humans lay between believers and non-believers, with the implicit assumption among Christians and Muslims that any human being was capable to being converted into the fold of believers. Even the Jewish distinction between goyim and Jew reflected a difference in faith, not in blood (Hannaford 1996, 88)....
...While events in the Iberian peninsula may have provided the initial stirrings of proto-racial sentiments, the philosophical concept of race did not actually emerge in its present form until the 1684 publication of “A New Division of the Earth” by Francois Bernier (1625–1688) (Bernasconi and Lott 2000, viii; Hannaford 1996, 191, 203). Based on his travels through Egypt, India, and Persia, this essay presented a division of humanity into “four or five species or races of men in particular whose difference is so remarkable that it may be properly made use of as the foundation for a new division of the earth” (Bernasconi and Lott 2000, 1–2).
First were the peoples inhabiting most of Europe and North Africa, extending eastward through Persia, northern and central India, and right up to parts of contemporary Indonesia. Despite their differing skin tones, these peoples nevertheless shared common physical characteristics, such as hair texture and bone structure. The second race was constituted by the people of Africa south of the Sahara desert, who notably possessed smooth black skin, thick noses and lips, thin beards, and wooly hair.
The peoples inhabiting lands from east Asia, through China, today’s central Asian states such as Usbekistan, and westward into Siberia and eastern Russia represented the third race, marked by their “truly white” skin, broad shoulders, flat faces, flat noses, thin beards, and long, thin eyes, while the short and squat Lapps of northern Scandanavia constituted the fourth race. Bernier considered whether the indigenous peoples of the Americas were a fifth race, but he ultimately assigned them to the first (Bernasconi and Lott 2000, 2–3).
Now, what are the odds of THAT?Lord Jim wrote: Or you can just keep posting about this, talking out your butt without any reputable sources to cite...
