Talk:Race of ancient Egyptians/Archive 10

message: "The peopling of northern Africa appears to be conditioned by the barriers imposed to the north by the Mediterranean Sea and to the south by the Sahara Desert, which constrains human movement to an east-west direction". Urthogie, the Sahara has not been always a desert. It is actually the desertification which pushed people in west-est direction. All the contrary of what the article is saying. You better watch the 1st of 4 videos by Basil Davidson http://www.forumcityusa.com/viewtopic.php?t=34&mforum=africa. Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 18:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are saying the study is wrong.  I disagree with you, but neither of our opinions matter because we are not reliable sources.  However, I will nonetheless reply to you in regards to the sahara desert:
#After 6000 BC, the Sahara was dried out.  It is therefore valid to say (as the study does) that the Sahara presented a significant population barrier as far as seperating the Northern Africans from the Southern ones since 6000 BC.
# Even if the Sahara Desert wasn't much of a barrier from 8000 to 6000 BC, that doesn't contradict the study, which claims significant near east demographic influences, not near east origins.--Urthogie 18:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Urthogie, did you watch the 1st video of Davidson? How do you react to it? Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 19:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It crashed my FireFox but I'll watch in internet explorer when I get a chance.--Urthogie 19:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The question was about population barriers.  Sahara was one at various stretches throughout history, as the study correctly notes.--Urthogie 19:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  reply to luka 

message: Urthogie, stop your provocative behaviour. Instead of reverting, try to contribute. I don't have to ask you the reason why you reverted my last contribution on "Eurocentrism of Egyptology". Everything I wrote was documented. Just stop your joke. It doesn't please me. And if you continue being disruptive, I should report you. Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 08:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was a mistake, both of you.  I didn't mean to remove this helpful section.  In fact, I've added to it.  I hope you no longer oppose removing the Afrocentrism section, Taharqa?--Urthogie 20:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: To Urthogie

message: "Analyses of mummies, based on either CT scans or melanin tests have come up with a variety of results, some reporting "mixed racial characteristics",[12]". For supporting this view, Urthogie cites the article on Senu http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/1180000/1179698/p66-danjou.pdf?key1=1179698&key2=9496520811&coll=&dl=acm&CFID=15151515&CFTOKEN=6184618. Urthogie, you admited that you are no longer with Senu. But this quotation is still present in the introduction. Why don't you remove it instead of removing contributions by others? Try to be more objective. I agree with Taharqa who suggested to rewrite the introduction which in the present state is too long and a bit confusing. Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 09:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed Senu from the intro, and shortened the intro per your request.--Urthogie 20:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Senu presence

message: Urthogie, why do you qualify Aboubacry Moussa Lam as being Afrocentrist? "Raymond Faulkner's concise dictionary of Middle Egyptian translates it into "Egyptians", as do most sources.[38] However, Afrocentrist Aboubacry Moussa Lam translates it to "the Blacks""[39]. You are lacking respect for the African people who are the first concerned by the Egyptian civilization. I will repeat it here for you. Geographically and culturally speaking, ancient Egyptian were Africans and had customs still common today among Black Africans. I am not saying that Lam is not Afrocentric. But, as far as I know, he does not call himself like that. Here, you are making original research! If you want to be coherent with yourself, you have to call Faulkner Eurocentric. Actually he is, because "Egyptian" does not derive from "Kmt". It cannot be its litteral translation. Lam is right. As adjective, "Km" means "black". With the determinative of people, it is a collective meaning "Black people", thus "Blacks". You better call Faulkner Eurocentric, because he defined the Kmtic people from a Greek word. Besides, Lam is a Peul who are from Egyptian origin. He knows, as a Peul and as a Historian, the Egyptian traditions better than Faulkner who is a British influenced by a colonial mentality. When are we going to be humble! Please Urthogie, remove the word "Afrocentric" you added, or add to Faulkner the word "Eurocentric" to show that you are not taking part for one or the other side. Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 20:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will remove the qualifier Afrocentrist, because you insist.--Urthogie 22:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lack of objectivity

message: I removed the following piece of POV pushing:
:The ancient Egyptians considered themselves part of a distinct ethnicity, separate from their neighbors, and were not conscious of "race" in the modern sense.The Civilization Of Ancient Egypt
because none of the citations are appropriate.  The first citation leads to page that mentions neither race nor ethnicity.  The second goes to a page that uses "race" in relation to ancient Egyptions, and speculates that ethnicity may be as useful (i.e. the opposite of what this sentence claims).  The third citation goes to a paper that does not mention Egypt. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 13:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you Slrubenstein. It is good to do things openly. For me it is fine. I don't know what Taharqa and Urthogie will think of it. But if appropriate sources are provided, will you change your mind? Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 14:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Basil Davidson, who does not identify as an Afrocentrist, has also denounced what he sees as the blatant falsification of the Egyptian history by some Western scholars. He agrees that the Egyptians were Black people and originated from the south and the west .
because it is an inappropriate citation.  The link does not go to an article by Professor Davidson, it goes to a prep-sheet for some class.  This is not an appropriate source.  If someone can find a proper citation for Davidson saying this, by all means let's put it in the article. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The prep sheet for the class has links to Basil Davidson's videos if you click on the pictures.Muntuwandi 15:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  deleted sentence 

message: Such as our most recent one, where do these people come from, and why don't folx simply come to the talk page? The I lost my marbles again guy insisted on a direct website link to the 2005 study and disputes diop's study because according to him, Diop was a racialist. Ok, well we didn't need that Senu link in there and we agreed along time ago that it wasn't reliable, so I removed him and Diop from the intro and provided a link to the 2005 study. However, this vandal even when running out of excuses to blank, still insists on blanking selective material for no reason then hits me up with a message accusing me of being a "Black Afrocentric" simply for reverting, although I never gave my racial orientation or have declared to be an "Afrocentric". I could care less what anyone says, there are closet racists on wikipedia who hide behind guidelines and a lot of the times don't.Taharqa 16:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you Taharqa for writing this. I just came with the intention of inviting I lost my marbles again to the discuss his changes. Accusations against Diop are useless. What is important is to refute scientifically what he said. By the way, I think it is time to reshuffle the introduction. It is too long and contains many quotations. Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 19:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

text: This Egyptian does not know anything of ancient Egypt. From what he is saying I can conclude that he is not from indigenous Egyptians who are Blacks. Africa does not produce neither Caucasoid nor Caucasians. All those in Africa who claim being Caucasoid are foreigners. Some testimonies are needed: "French traveller Constantine de Volney, in Egypt (1783-85) 
(De Volney was a French nobleman who was much troubled by the institution of slavery. His expressed opinion that the ancient Egyptians were black Africans much departed from the typical European view of the late eighteenth century, but it gave many people cause for reflection.) 
"When I visited the Sphinx, I could not help thinking that the figure of that monster furnished the true solution to the enigma (of how the modern Egyptians came to have their Ômulatto' appearance)É(It's features) were those of the negro.. (the Egyptians therefore must have been) real negroes, of the same species of the natives of AfricaÉ..How are we astonishedÉwhen we reflect that to the race of negroes, at present our slaves, and the objects of our extreme contempt, we owe our arts, sciences, and even the very use of speech; and when we recollect that in the midst of those nations who call themselves the friends of liberty and humanity, the most barbarous of slaveries is justified, and that it is even a problem whether the understanding of negroes be of the same species with that of white men!"
M. Constantine de Volney, Travels through Syria and Egypt in the Years 1783, 1784, and 1785 (London: 1787), p. 80-83."
"2h. The German Egyptologist Adolf Erman, on the race of the ancient Egyptians (1894) 
(While the idea that the Egyptians were not really Africans was prevalent among many European and American scholars, it was not universally supported. Erman was one of the outstanding dissenters) 
"Nothing exists in the physical structure of the ancient Egyptian to distinguish him from the native AfricanÉ from the Egyptian to the negro population of tropical Africa, a series of links exist which do not admit of a break. The EgyptiansÉcannot be separatedÉ.from the Kelowi or the Tibbu, nor these again from the inhabitants around Lake Tsad; all form one race."
Adolf Erman, Life in Ancient Egypt, New York:1894 (New York: Dover Publications, 1971), p. 29"
Of cause, there are people who like you are dreaming seing in the ancient Egyptians some Caucasian or Caucasoid origin. Find these people here to better nourish your mind http://www.nubianet.org/about/about_interpret3.html Hotep! Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 12:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Your logic is so stupid.  So you are trying to say that everyone in Africa is Black. Or that everyone indigenous of Africa is Black. Africa is a continent not a race. Russia is in Asia is it not. Are they Asians? Of course not, Russians are white. People are just really ignorant because whenever they hear the word Africa they think of Black People.
"Nothing exists in the physical structure of the ancient Egyptian to distinguish him from the native AfricanÉ from the Egyptian to the negro population of tropical Africa"
WELL WHO EVER SAID THAT IS A COMPLETE JOKE. THE EGYPTIANS LOOK DISTINCTIVELY DIFFERENT IN THEIR HYROGLIFICS THAN THE NEGRO NUBIANS TO THE SOUTH. THE EGYPTIAN EMPIRE EVENTUALLY DECLINED AND THEN THE NUBIANS TOOK OVER. THE GREAT DYNASTIES WERE CAUCASOID. 
HERE IS A VIDEO I FOUND ON YOUTUBE. ITS A MUMMY. JUST LOOK AT PHARAOH SETI 1. TELL ME HOW MANY NEGROIDS LOOK LIKE THAT.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptrNxd1jbSM&mode=related&search=
MY god what is with you WN's and posting this same picture of Ramses and without any scientific analysis whatsoever assert the man was without a doubt Caucasian. As far as far as the ancient Egyptians go the earliest migration to the Nile Valley region came from the South and West . The area where they migrated from was the Sahara (before desertification) so these people were obviously black Africans in origin. 
As far as the clear racial boundary between the Egyptians and the Nubian's, that is nothing more than a flat out lie created by your Stormfront buddies to justify their current feelings towards race, which is supported by nothing more than well Stormfront LOL. If you which to undermine the findings of the most recent studies regarding the race of the ancient Egyptian, which proves that they were as black as the "Negro Nubian's" than that's on you SIR! Until then do us a favor do not spout ignorant crap is you are not going to back it up with anything but racial stormfront rederick. Better yet just glance through the studies and their findings on this article to find out how truly backwards your opinion is regarding this subject. 74.128.200.135 18:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandals 

message: I want to remove the section Eurocentrism in Egyptology, because I don't see what it is going to say not already said in the section Racial prejudice of Egyptology. The content of this last section was previoulsly written for Eurocentrism in Egyptology. Somebody came and then decided to change the title. Now the old title appear again, but without content! Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 19:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Eurocentrism in Egyptology

message: Urthogie, is it you who wrote this in the "Punt" section: "However, none of the major dictionaries of the ancient Egyptian language translate it this way.[44]"? The reference 44 says: "cf. Faulkner's concise dictionary of Middle Egyptian, for example". Have you ever seen this Dictionary? The reference is not complete. Likewise here in the section on "Racial prejudice of Egyptology", it is maybe you who wrote: "Egyptology today does not claim that the ancient Egyptians were white, and instead aims to study them without any consideration of "race" whatsoever." Where is the reference? This is original research. Please remove these sentences. Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 21:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Original research

message: Someone is stated in an interview as quoting Champollion-Figeac “black skin and wholly hair don’t make someone to belong to the Black race”, but that I think that same someone coauthored "Egypt Revisited" and printed "...black skin and kinky hair are not enough to stamp a race as negro...".  (SEWilco 04:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The interview was made in French by Cheikh Anta Diop. I translated. As you can see, the content is the same: introducing a confusion in the definition of the Black race in order to remove ancient Egyptians from the Black world. But if you want to replace my translation with the printed version I did not know before, you can do it of cause. Make sure the reference is exact and complete, so that people can check. Thank you! Hotep! Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 08:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Champollion-Figeac 

message: qué pasó?
Muntuwandi 03:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Urthogie, what kind of man are you? Stop fooling people. Please, revert to the older version before I report you. You have destroyed a work of entire months. Do you think that all those who collaborated to sections like: Ancient writers, Language, The Great Sphinx of Giza, Racial prejudice of colonial Egyptology, to name only a few, are less intelligent than you? What respect for others? That's what you call collaboration? What kind of education are you promoting? Revert to the older version as quick as possible. Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 09:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Thank you Louisvillian. But Urthogie must learn how to build a common work. Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 20:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The studies that deal with appearence should be on the appearence article.  Population history does not study appearence.--Urthogie 14:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Where's the rest of the article

message: Yom and Urthogie, please, stop reverting. And if you have some suggestions, put them down in this talk page for discussion. Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 19:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seicer as well, come first here to discuss the changes you are making. You have to respect those who worked here to improve the article. Or in exchange, no body will respect you! You are promoting the rule of arbitrary. Please, stop this joke, revert to the 74... version and explain what is going on in your mind. We can discuss for making modifications, not after, before making them! Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 07:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Invitation to both Yom and Urthogie

message: The article should avoid the subject of race or appearence.  Both of these belong to appearance of the ancient Egyptians.  No one has removed content, by the way.  Only split to two better named pages.--Urthogie 14:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Race does not exist, so it is not part of population history.  Do you agree we can remove it?  seconldy why are we keeping sections on "hair" and "body plans" and "crania."  This is appearance, not population history.  By the way Taharqa, I know by reverting I have unintentionally removed some of your good minor fixes.  But can you understand why I would revert when such sections are added back?  These sections deal with appearance, not population history.--Urthogie 21:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I am not against removing all mentions of appearance, only those which don't mention genetics in the studies.  As far as defining race, would you oppose moving that to the appearance article?  After all, it seems like mentioning "race" is only important when we're talking about what they looked like.  For example, people would see me as a European Jew and say I'm white because of my skin color (appearance) not because of my Middle Eastern roots (population history).--Urthogie 23:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  defining race? 

message: Does anyone have any suggestion pertaining to the perfection of the article? What needs to be improved, as far as grammar, content, and format? It seems good to me, but there is always room for improvement..Taharqa 23:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestions?