Talk:Race of ancient Egyptians/Archive 17
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 10 | ← | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 |
race and culture
The race and culture section should hold the moderate view held by many mainstream egyptologist about the race and culture not by piting one extreme view afrocentrism and another nordicism against each other the section is way to sypmetheic toward the afrocentric leanings,i have no problem with the nordicist view or afrocentric views being in the article but in seperate sections clearly marked or in the race and culture section but with out one being favored one over the other and also it seems to be wriiten in essay form which does not jive with wiki--Wikiscribe (talk) 15:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- No, the section should hold all significant views, as long as they're properly attributed. The mainstream view should be clearly labeled as mainstream, but the other views should also be presented in accordance to their real-world prominence.--Ramdrake (talk) 15:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
that sounds good to me but the section is slanted and is being written in essay form so lets have the author re author it post it here so we can get a consenus on it --Wikiscribe (talk) 15:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- It was pretty wordy and rambly, but the cut may have been too drastic.--Woland (talk) 15:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- yes and was slanted toward one view instead of just explaining views and i will not have this page become a rambling junk pile like the origins of nilotic people article which is a atrocious article--Wikiscribe (talk) 16:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- This is exactly what I didn't want. Look at the top of this discussion page: "The Arbitration Committee has placed this article on probation. Editors making disruptive edits may be banned by an administrator from this and related articles, or other reasonably related pages." I don't have a general problem with critique, but I have a problem with people who delete first and discuss afterwards. If you disagree with my contributions, give me you point on the talk page, use the appropriate templates or reword singe sentences but don't simply delete it.
- On the actual issue. I have an academic history book on Nordic though. In this book I have an explanation why people feel the need to put forward a link between race and culture. The only thing I did when adding this to the article was to sharpen it a little. Your average "white" reader of this article apparently doesn't understand what "judge themselves" means, but he should probably understand "the claim that the ancient is not worth any serious consideration at all." I know that this is probably too sharp, but we can soften it. I am myself thinking about how to word this, but I am not getting paid for my writings here, so don't expect something instantly perfect. And on a further note: Deleting whole section is disruptive. Please consider that this is an article "on probation", Wikiscribe. Zara1709 (talk) 20:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
"Egyptian pharaos had a skin as white as the contemporary Norwegians"this statement shows your biased right now because many berbers have white skin just like the people of norway,and you are buying into the nordicist arguement that there are degrees of whiteness when modern studies done on skin tones buy jablonski showing that people of of scandinavia are the same skin complexion of other europeans and many berbers of north africa--Wikiscribe (talk) 21:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
there has not been any major write up or consideration with in the article that the ancient egyptians were from norway you are the one making it an issue so you can add afrocentric rhetoric to the page which was what you are doing in the begining i assumed good faith and still do but it is obvious what you were doing and yes it is possible that many egyptians may have been lilly white because many of the north african berbers are similar in complexion as europeans,just in the same matter that many egyptians could have been black just like the nubians are and the reality of it just to point out there is really no such thing as the nordic race is my postion so its not like im proposing that postion or pushing it all europeans are similar complexion whether you are from italy or finland--Wikiscribe (talk) 20:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
You are saying that there was no such thing as a "Nordic race" and that the ancient Egyptians obviously did look like the contemporary Norwegians. I am fine with that. I would actually add that there are not even a "white" and a "black" race and that I hope that all editors on this talk page (aside from the usual anon. IP) agree on that. The reason I did not add more about the "Nordic theory" is that this might be undue anyway, and that I don't have a source for anything about it after 1950. Of course, to link the talk page of an article in the article itself is bad style, but I don't know where some "white" readers got their idea about a "Nordic Egypt" from, and the ip-users were smart enough not to list their sources. And the sentence: "The afrocentrist view of a 'Black Egypt' is clearly better justifiable then the historic nordicist view of a "Nordic Egypt", is also a little too sharp, hey, but it's true. It is easier to argue that the ancient Egyptians were black than it is to argue that they were white. Zara1709 (talk) 21:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
zara pleas refrain from makeing snide comments about grammar it's considered a personal attack because its not the real issue at hand and if you cant read it just dont anserw than sometimes silence is golden ,but can you tell me where within the article was there nodic egypt propaganda it was mentioned as a thoery by some but not into major depth the only real issue on this page are biased editors in particular afrocentrics trying to create a propaganda page--Wikiscribe (talk) 21:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Wikiscribe, commenting disparaginly on the viewpoint of other users is also a personal attack. Please refrain from these.--Ramdrake (talk) 21:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
ramdrake why dont you try to help strive for a nuetral article?--Wikiscribe (talk) 21:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I'm striving for neutrality, by trying to see the inclusion of all significant viewpoints, and it is emphatically obvious to me that the "afrocentrist" viewpoint is significant in this matter, and shouldn't be dismissed out of hand, or relegated to a small subsection. I have reservations on Zara's additions myself, but I'd rather let her complete her modifications before I say anything. I don't think her additions deserve ouright deletion.--Ramdrake (talk) 21:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Wikiscribe, please, don't confuse "neutral" with "uncontroversial". Some white supremacists believe that the ancient Egyptians were white, Afrocentrists believe that they were black. Well in a black and white scheme I'd say that they were black, otherwise I'd say they were medium brown to dark brown, but in any case I personally don't care about the skin colour of persons who are dead for 1000s of years or about skin colour in general. But please, consider this: Facts are not the main scope of this article. This is an article about an ideological controversy. If you don't want an article about this topic, start an afd on it. Zara1709 (talk) 21:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
ramdrake so zara removes a whole ton of sourced entries to create zara's new take on things without coming to a real consenus that was okay and you seemed not to care but for some reason when i removed content you care can you still with a straight face say you are striveing for neutrality--Wikiscribe (talk) 21:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- I didn't remove anything. What I did was to move the whole lead after the first two sentences to the section on "Population characteristics". Some had pointed out that this article is intended to be about the current controversy; well, then we should have an article about the controversy and move the part one the actual ancient Egypt population somewhere else. Now, I could add a section on the reasons why people waste their time on such an issue, and I did it, partly based on the example of the Nordicists. If the article is indeed to be about the controversy we need a section like this. We can talk about the wording (and have to), but the section needs to stay. Otherwise Dbachmann has a good point: Then don't have an article about the controversy and rewrite this in the direction of an article Origin of Egyptians. Zara1709 (talk) 22:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Wikiscribe, I took the time to go through all of Zara's recent edits, and she didn't remove anything' from the already existing text, she just added a section of her own, and then edited and re-edited it. Therefore, I find your charges of lack of neutrality on my part, and your implicit charges of POV-pushing on her part unfounded.--Ramdrake (talk) 22:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
fine have it your way propagandised the whole page and to let you know when making major contributions to a controversial issue ramdrake you are suppose to gain a concesus first--Wikiscribe (talk) 22:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Again, belittling the position of other editors is a personal attack. Kindly refrain from doing this. Also, please note that you're the only editor opposed to the inclusion of a section. Your objections seem to be based on WP:TRUTH rather than WP:NPOV concerns. It would be more constructive if you could suggest ways in which the recently added section can be improved rather than outright removed.--Ramdrake (talk) 23:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
How the heck is this an ideological issue Zara? That is an odd statment it's seems as though your trying to remove fact from the disscusion and argueing for the article being a POV "ideological forum" that is only receptive to the "black" argument. There are many more ethnicities in Africa "indigidous" than "black" I prefere not to use the term afrosentric.--204.118.241.183 (talk) 08:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, but if you're still not seeing why the debate about the race of ancient Egyptians is an ideological one, this section is not yet pointed sharply enough. White supremacy ideology alleges: Only White people can create a high culture -> for white supremacy ideology the ancient Egyptians couldn't have been black. This is ideological, although it is not quite as bad as Stalin. (Only Communist States can build an underground, let's demolish the one in Warsaw.) I would need to read Hannah Arendt again, but that is the example she uses for ideology. Of course, the argument that it is ideology applies to both sides. If you trying to make the ancient Egyptians more black then they actually were it's ideology, too. But black people have been the victims of institutional racism, not white people, and theories about a "Nordic" (- or say "Hamitic") Egypt pre-date Afrocentrism. It is by all means understandable that black people are concerned about this issue. Zara1709 (talk) 17:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Zara Your attempt to validate your "ideology" about who's who and what's what in ancient egypt is well appreciated. However attempting to uttilize this page ,by changing it's dynamic and scope, as validation for further arguments in a more apporpreate setting, such as "Race and Ideology" is inappropreate.--204.118.241.183 (talk) 00:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- What, "my" ideology? The only thing that I'm saying is that the ancient Egyptians were (very) much more likely black than white, and it's ideology to claim otherwise. Obviously YOU have a problem with the FACT that the ancient Egyptians had a dark brown skin, but now you are switching the strategy of denial. First you tried to deny that this was an ideological issue at all, now you are accusing me of ideology. Well, face it: The pyramids were designed by black people, not as black as the people in central Africa, but definitely more black than the Norwegians. Zara1709 (talk) 12:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Zara1709, thank you for your well informed comments. That Egyptians were Black people, this is endeed a fact. Egyptologists know that. They are not so stupid! Only that they avoid to pronounce themselves about the subject because of the negative bias surrounding the black race in the West mostly. Nevertheless, common sense can help understand what they mean when, using euphemism, they affirm: "les Egyptiens seraient une race propre à l'Afrique (Egyptians are from an African race)" (Jean-François Champollion, Précis du système hiéroglyphique, p. 456); "Il semble que les peuples qui se rapprochent le plus des Egyptiens soient leurs voisins du sud, les Nubiens (Egyptians look the most like Nubians)(Adolf Herman and Ermann Ranke, La civilisation égyptienne, p. 46). It is true that all the Black do not not look alike, but even in Central Africa, there are brown Blacks. And in Egypt there were dark Blacks. The black race covers a good range of colors. And the color brown is part of the black race, as Joseph Ki-Zerbo stated ("bien des Noirs ont la peau brune" (Histoire de l'Afrique Noire, p. 80).--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 21:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
The negitive bias is because "the west" as you put it is a continuation of egypt from egypt to rome and beyond if you had any idea what you were talking about you would see that. But you don't see that you just show up and decide you want ancient egypt for yourself. The reason your "findings" are meet with "bias" is because they are rediculous. You just showed up in egypt and told the egyptians they aren't who they are, and that the egyptians should realize that you are the true egyptian just because it's conventiant to your vainity.--204.118.241.183 (talk) 22:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
The Spinxs
Am I alone in thinking the sphinx should be removed as possible image as refernce material? When they found and uncovered that thing 100 some odd years ago the "head" was amzingly dispropotionate to the body probbible refashioned after centuries of erosion by some happhazard chiseler centuries earlier yet after Rome. No offense to Hawas and the egyptian reconstruction team. Egyptian art simplly was not that disproportionate!--204.118.241.183 (talk) 09:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- If the Sphinx is referenced as being part of the controversy then it should stay. Otherwise it should go.--Woland (talk) 13:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Direction?
I don’t have much interest in the controversy, and indeed the controversy only arises because of missing gabs (sometimes large) of cold hard facts, and the occasional interpretation of the various fact/finds. I feel the article should be about cold hard facts, nothing else. Writing an article about the controversy is an endless screw.
My main problems with this article are;
- No direction. What is the article about? Is this about the population characteristics of Egyptians anno 3000 BC? Or a much larger frame, say 10000BC-1AD, or 3000- 1AD. Is it a controversy article or maybe a length explanation that Egyptians are Africans? (Which they are, regardless of colour).
- The sheer mishmash of evidence intermixed with each other, with just about no regards to timeframe. You got a multitude of counter arguing pre-dynastic cranial studies, mixed with 12th dynastic DNA extraction, interspread with Greek and Roman writers accounts and 16-19th century travellers take on (one) statue(s), and all of it sprinkled with modern comments like “embrace their African heritage”, by Egyptian film-maker Yusry Nasrallah (nice – and irrelevant). Packed neatly together so the reader thinks its one click of a moment and not 3000 years of history this describes. I had a nice discussion not many months ago in Aswan, with a shop keeper and a consumer (both Egyptian). The store owner was the firm believes that all Egyptians were of Nubian descent, while the other favoured a more mixed origin. Quite lengthy and interesting discussion. He was btw a guide. Surly as relevant to the origin of the Egyptians as Yusry Nasrallah embrace his African heritage – not!
- The confusing use of terms. African, African descent group, African people, black, Negro, dark skin, black Africans etc. are used almost synonymously throughout the article, regardless of timeframe and from who it is stated. These things are not the same, and surely in a “race” article one should take extra care in use of terms. Are the ancient Egyptian Africans = yes (by our current definitions of territories), are they black = probably, are they a unanimously black society from 3000 BC- 1AD = probably not.
- Constant counter arguing. Every single statement is counter argued and counter-counter argued. That might be the nature of the issue and unavoidable, but damn it is tiring. I feel almost relived when someone summarize population characteristics, yet the summarizing only demonstrate we are no closer then before – and then the summery is counter argued – nice. Population characteristics are in short one gigantic collection of colliding statements, drawn from the same or similar research.
- And my favourite section, the Sphinx. A painful exercise in selective quoting and extreme one-sided view. Bring forth those that comment on the black image, and ignore 10.000 other writers that did not. Wonderful. Of course we hear nothing the other millions of statues, and the comments on those either. Some of the are fairly large, like Colossi of Memnon, Ramesses II in the Ramesseum, in front of Luxor temple (2x) and at Memphis. A couple at Karnak and not to forget the four very large at Abu Simbel. Never mind the way writers express themselves. One normally don’t use describing words for obvious things, like you don’t go to Germany as say “what a wonderful Caucasian statue of Barbarossa”, The obvious being he is Caucasian. Now if you thought he was black, you would most definitely state it, in that it would be an unusually observation. How many times are say Washington, Hitler, Napoleon or Alexander specifically described as a Caucasian? Never? This despite an endless number of works and comments on these. Of course the term itself is fairly new (19th century) which just added to injury, in reading old works. Why is there not a great direction toward the millions of self view paintings that the Egyptians have left us on temples and other buildings? It’s about the only concrete source the Egyptians have left us for how the viewed themselves and they cover 1000 of years, superseding nearly everything else in this article in importance. Twthmoses (talk) 06:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- "I don’t have much interest in the controversy" right... I love it when people preface their comments like that before posting a ton of bytes about the intricate details and minutiae of the article and the controversy, specially after having done it on a regular basis. 128.241.42.144 (talk) 07:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- That is probably because you did not read it right, and confuse controversy with the subject itself. This article is named “Race of ancient Egyptians” and while “race” might be an old fashion term, this article is not named “Controversy over the Race of ancient Egyptians”. I have no interest in the controversy. Whether the Egyptians are black or red or white is unimportant to me, thus I do not even acknowledge that it is a controversy. I have no beef if cold hard facts says that anno 3000 BC the Egyptians was pre-dominating black or any other colour. So be it. What interest me are the cold hard facts. This article (and indeed the talk page too) seems to circle around colour and to demonstrate one or the other. I don’t care which colour they are 3000BC, 2000 BC, 1000BC or 100 BC. I find the origin itself an interesting subject, and I do acknowledge that that there is a fair amount of chance (likely indeed) that they are black people, but also with a certain influx of other people during 3000 years of history, which sheer statistic says simply is unavoidable. Twthmoses (talk) 10:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- no you're right... you don't seem obsessed at all...128.241.42.144 (talk) 22:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- That is probably because you did not read it right, and confuse controversy with the subject itself. This article is named “Race of ancient Egyptians” and while “race” might be an old fashion term, this article is not named “Controversy over the Race of ancient Egyptians”. I have no interest in the controversy. Whether the Egyptians are black or red or white is unimportant to me, thus I do not even acknowledge that it is a controversy. I have no beef if cold hard facts says that anno 3000 BC the Egyptians was pre-dominating black or any other colour. So be it. What interest me are the cold hard facts. This article (and indeed the talk page too) seems to circle around colour and to demonstrate one or the other. I don’t care which colour they are 3000BC, 2000 BC, 1000BC or 100 BC. I find the origin itself an interesting subject, and I do acknowledge that that there is a fair amount of chance (likely indeed) that they are black people, but also with a certain influx of other people during 3000 years of history, which sheer statistic says simply is unavoidable. Twthmoses (talk) 10:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- I actually think that this artciloe should beonly about the controversy (yes, I know, its a bunch of baloney) and that it should perhaps be renamed at some point to reflect this. Other wise its going to continue to be almost completely OR] since this subject is rarely, if ever addressed in egyptology or any other field. The truth is that there is a controversy put forth primarily by afrocentrists and therefore that is what this article should be about, with the inclusion of other notable points of view.--Woland (talk) 15:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
The idea that Egyptology is not concerned about the identity,origin, ethnicity, physical appearance and general phenotype of the ancient Egyptians is pure nonsense. Why else would they dig up mummies, do DNA tests, zap mummies with lasers and take so many artifacts from Egypt to Europe? Such a statement is a blatant falsehood. Anthropology IS the study of the identity, appearance and ethnicity of a people and part of Egyptology is anthropology. Not only that, but writers have been writing about the appearance and identity of the ancient Egyptians from the very beginning, starting with the Egyptians themselves, then the Greeks, Romans, Arabs and finally the Europeans who "discovered" ancient Egypt 300 years ago. All of them have given their views on how the ancient Egyptians looked and where they came from. This so-called controversy mainly came about due to the writing of European scholars who mainly viewed ancient Egyptians as being part of the "great white race", and reflected the racist attitudes of the times in which they wrote. THAT is the origin of the controversy and this is long before the word Afrocentrism even existed. Modern Egyptology knows that much of the work that is the basis of the modern study of Egypt was done by racist scholars, so they keep quiet about it, because they know it only weakens their claims to being an objective science. They also keep quiet about it because they really still push the same racist views as the cornerstone of the modern discipline of Egyptology. But facts are facts and every day they are finding more and more evidence of the African origin and identity of ancient Egypt. Again, they keep quiet about that too, because it goes against the image of ancient Egypt promoted by the European owned media companies, who try hard to maintain ancient Egypt as something separate from the rest of Africa. Big-dynamo (talk) 11:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- Whoa...dude, talk pages are for discussions relating to the improvement of the article, so please restrict your comments to said area of conversation. Unless that was supposed to mean something?--Woland (talk) 17:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
The point I am making is that there is no reason to treat the ethnic identity and physical appearance of the Ancient Egyptians as simply a "controversy". The idea that Egyptology does not care about these things or do research into it is ludicrous as an excuse for such a tabloid level article. Ethic identity and physical appearance are part of the reason for the development of anthropology. This discussion is not a controversy because of the idea that the ancient Egyptians had an ethnic identity and physical type, but because some modern scholars present views that others do not agree with. If one wants to be informative one should present facts from Egypt and avoid the controversy as the controversy has nothing to do with the facts from Egypt itself. Change is a fact of life and that is the reason why we have history, archeology and anthropology as disciplines to record the past and track the changes that have occurred over time. And the only way to get a good understanding as to how things have changed is to deal with the facts and evidence not conjecture. This article is too concerned with conjecture and not the facts, which makes it worthless as a source of education about the history and development of populations along the Nile Valley in Egypt. Big-dynamo (talk) 11:29, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
- If you're going to speak anthropologically though you must realize that the discipline views 'race' as a cultural construct. To go back thousands of years and try to ascribe a race to an entire multi-ethnic culture (as Egypt was) is at best an anachronism . Anthropologists do not study the DNA to look at race, they do study DNA to look at things like population genetics (e.g. hapolotypes, disease etc). On a side note I don't think that any but a few insane fringe groups would say that Egypt was not an African civilization. I have no idea why people keep saying this. On my map Egypt is actually in Africa so by definition it was an African civilization. We're really going to have to do an RfC for this article. I'm pretty busy right now but may get to it in a few days. --Woland (talk) 18:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I never mentioned race. What I said was that anthropology studies the physical appearance and ethnic identity of populations like the ancient Egyptians and that such a study is not controversial. I said this because people here keep claiming that the slant of the article as a "controversy" is necessary because Egyptology does not care about the appearance and ethnic identity of the ancient Egyptians, which is incorrect. The controversy is not the fact that people study and have opinions about the ethnic identity and physical appearance of the ancient Egyptians. The controversy is because some European scholars have decided that the ancient Egyptians were somehow African but not within the range of physical features normally labeled as black African. Black African in this context does not mean a race, it means a physical appearance. There is more than enough evidence to support the idea that ancient Egypt was primarily populated by Africans with features similar to other Africans along the Nile and in the Sahara who would be categorized as black. Such a debate is not about controversy but scientific facts and evidence. That is why the article, in presenting the idea that there are divergent opinions on the appearance and physical characteristics of the ancient Egyptians as simply a controversy, does not really address the issue but reinforces propaganda and rhetoric as opposed to facts and evidence. And no, there is no evidence that Egypt was a multi-cultural entity for most of its history, in the sense that it was built on and promoted multiple cultural influences and multiple ethnicities. In fact, Egypt was quite zenophobic and distrustful of foreigners and strongly rigid in maintaining a cultural framework that went largely unchanged and followed a well defined canon for over 3,000 years. No, Egypt was not multi cultural in any sense of the word. Being invaded and forced to adopt new customs and accept new people is not the definition of multi cultural. Big-dynamo (talk) 23:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- Yes the Egyptians were at times xenophobic, but not in the way that you think. To be an Egyptian one only had to adopt the customs and culture of Egypt. It certainly had nothing to do with physical appearance. Ethnicity is a slippery subject. How much does ethnicity have to do with physical appearance? In my view, not a whole lot, and though you didn't explicitly mention "race" you seem, to me, to be equating ethnicity with race. Culturally/ethnically, the Ancient Egyptians were Egyptian first, then came regional sub divisions and within those subdivisions we do see cultural variation, as with any empire. Also, if you study the history more in depth you'll find that the illusion of stability all but disappears. We can tell quite a bit about different historical figures from their names. From this info people have discovered semitic people and other groups. There exists a story as well, of a man who fled Egypt after an assassination plot. He returned years later but was mistrusted because he had adopted the customs of another culture. This is the kind of xenophobia that existed. It had nothing to do with physical appearance. I honestly dispute the idea that any but some fringe viewpoints don't recognize that if we went to Ancient Egypt right now that we would see people that we would consider "black" by our present definition. I'm not even sure what a "black African" is. Do the ?Kung fall into this category? Why or why not?
- All of this is neither here nor there however. --Woland (talk) 13:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
The Egyptians were xenophobic because their experience with foreigners was such that they were conquered numerous times, often by those foreigners who had grown very attached to the culture and customs of ancient Egypt. The Egyptians were fiercely territorial and protective of what they considered their history and culture. There is no evidence that the population of ancient Egypt during the dynastic period was made up of anything other than indigenous Nile Valley Africans. So while other foreigners from outside the Nile Valley and Africa may have become part of Egyptian culture, that does not mean that most of the population in Egypt for most of the dynastic period was anything other than native. Culturally, and ethnically the ancient Egyptians were Nile Valley Africans FIRST, then Egyptian and then came the regional sub divisions within that context. That ethnic identity within the Nile Valley context is not something that is interchangeable with "Middle Eastern", "Semitic" or "Near Eastern" because the fundamental basis of a Nile Valley ethnic identity is primarily based on a genealogy and ancestry PRIMARILY from the NILE VALLEY and thereabouts, not anywhere else. Ancient Egypt was an expression of the unique pattern of cultural and social development among Nile Valley that had been developing for thousands of years prior to the birth of the Egyptian state. There is no confusion on this matter in my mind at all. These cultural and ethnic dimensions are fundamental to understanding ancient Egypt and its culture. Those who don't care about those facts wish to blur this ethnic background to the population of Ancient Egypt, in order to lump it in with populations and ethnic groups that were not from the Nile Valley and had no relationship to it. As for race, black and white are not racial terms and therefore using them does not make it so. Again, this all boils down to facts and evidence not rhetoric. Speaking of the Kung bushmen who are NOT from the Nile Valley is an example of irrelevant rhetoric, just as speaking of what black means. The facts and evidence from ancient Egypt and the Nile Valley makes it clear that the population of Ancient Egypt was primarily indigenous to the Nile Valley and therefore African and had features and complexions VERY MUCH like other Africans, which includes dark skin. Again, this is an issue of facts and evidence, not rhetoric and not controversy. But those who don't want to address facts and evidence only want to maintain a discourse of rhetoric and controversy so as not to address the facts and evidence. Big-dynamo (talk) 23:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
- I was going to respond to your points but I've come to the conclusion that this discussion is pretty worthless. Your POV does not reflect the current scholarly understanding of Ancient Egypt. I always find it amusing when people claim that some scholars are "just going along with it," as if they don't realize that going against the grain is what makes you as a scholar. Anyway, it is still my belief that we need to setup a RfC before anything productive can get done.--Woland (talk) 15:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
It is not worthless, it is quite valuable. Your whole statement proves exactly why. Up to date and current research states almost uniquivocally that Egyptian culture is indigenous to the Nile Valley and Sahara. There are numerous recent studies that have stated this. If you need references I can give them to you. Again, you prefer to stay on the level of rhetoric not facts, because I would rather see actual publications and facts that refute the fact that ancient Egyptian culture was indigenous to the Nile Valley and developed by indigenous Nile Valley Africans. Bottom line, if you really cared about facts and evidence and not empty rhetoric you would point out which scholars do not believe that ancient Egypt was a product of the Nile Valley and indigenous Nile Valley Africans. Anything else is rhetoric, devoid of any relevant facts or evidence that could be used to provide the meat of a true debate on the topic. Examples of facts and evidences that those who are not interested in quite often ignore:
Facts and evidence:
Drying sahara gave rise to Nile Valley Civilization: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/07/060720-sahara.html
Ancient Humans followed the rains: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5192410.stm
Desert Origins of the Pharoahs: http://www.saudiaramcoworld.com/issue/200605/before.the.mummies.the.desert.origins.of.the.pharaohs.htm
Now all of these articles are based on up to date scholarly research. None of them claim that the impetus for Egyptian civilization came from anywhere other than the Sahara and along the Nile Valley itself. Which means that the people who developed the culture were primarily Africans from the Nile Valley and Sahara not Mesopotamians, not Arabs, not Mediterraneans, not Martians and not some other "mysterious" group of people.
As for the idea that the ancient Egyptians were not dark enough to be black, then why are so many images and tombs from Egypt full of dark brown people?
http://www.osirisnet.net/mastabas/merefnebef/photo/merefnebef_pl_068a.jpg
http://www.osirisnet.net/mastabas/merefnebef/photo/merefnebef_pl_046d.jpg
http://www.dkimages.com/discover/previews/937/50175611.JPG
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/143/346665385_95312b6d70_b.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2361/2517380350_b9e19d7fa9_b.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2364/2517114342_f9740e01ee_b.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2310/2248853066_7d8571976c_o.jpg
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1292/1303694918_1b281d0c58_b.jpg
http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/senn16.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2253/2135439299_136154677c_o.jpg
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/209/508456221_e7e11dbd14_o.jpg
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/168/435661050_a7013308a5.jpg?v=0
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/191/444766181_8e1bbee7fb_b.jpg
http://www.osirisnet.net/mastabas/kagemni/photo/kagemni_tb_1170.jpg
http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/irukaptaht11.jpg
http://www.hp.uab.edu/image_archive/um/mural01.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3157/2611100103_61a6ea1c19.jpg?v=0
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3207/2609906151_a9d85d81c1.jpg?v=0
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3236/2504664851_12457d280d.jpg?v=0
Big-dynamo (talk) 02:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- Uh, hold on there. I'm pretty sure that I never said that Ancient Egyptian culture did not rise from the people native to the Nile Valley. Ever. I don't think that any serious scholar would deny this. This is why this conversation is worthless. You refuse to assume good faith , instead you see some sort of hidden agenda when all we're trying to do is figure out 1) what this article should be about and 2) how we should go about executing this.
- Frankly I don't see the need to have articles like "The Race of peoplex," which is my own POV of course. The truth is (as I've stated before) that no one but a few fringe groups or people doubts that the Ancient Egyptians were dark skinned and were from Africa. I'm not sure how many times I have to say this. I also never said that they weren't "dark enough to be black," and I don't think that a discussion about what "black" means is "empty" rhetoric. I find equating ethnicity and blackness (which you are doing even if you don't realize it) problematic and anachronistic to say the least. Again, I simply feel that this conversation is worthless as we are talking past each other. You're arguing with me about things that I don't disagree with. --Woland (talk) 14:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- your mistake, Woland, is that you are trying to have a rational debate with an Afrocentrist. These people are adamantly applying the US "one drop rule" to Bronze Age Egypt. It's silly, it's surreal, it's comical, it's anachronistic, but that's what they've decided they want to do no matter how much common sense is thrown their way. We have WP:TIGERS for that. People are free to stick to their ideology, but they cannot do that and edit Wikipedia at the same time. dab (𒁳) 20:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)