The Case For a Black Egypt

the greeks had as many if not more colonies on the med and black sea...

 

the writer obviously doesn't know what he's talking about...1st he uses the term "race" there is no such thing or scientific classification for race...2nd he ignores what DNA studies definitively confirm Egyptians of today are the same people who built the ancient civilization because he is fixated on "race"... their language has changed, their religion has changed, and genetically they've absorbed other ethnic groups but they are still the same people....

 

what makes you think that, all things considered?

 

Its an interesting opinion you have. Idont know how much you have studied AEgypt, generally every man and his dog likes to 'add' something. You've backed me up before so we have similar views, apart from this one. If ican change your perspective ill see it as an achievement.
If anything is worth a lifetime study then it is this nation of antiquity.

Its interesting that although ppl call it a melting pot (ppl tend to use this term when they cant exactly explain the history in detail) of ethnic groups they still maintain the demographics (if thats the right word) hasnt changed. Ifind that contradictory.

Ive read alot about AEgypt, not on the internet but books, non-fiction , so ive built up a rounded idea of the concepts be it religion, history or politics. Ifind myself coming to a very similar conclusion to that of other contemporary scholars;
Oxford History of AEgypt;

Whereas the anthropological evidence from this date was once interpreted, by bryan emery and others, as the rapid conquest of Egypt by people from the east whose remains were 'racially' (ill let this slip for now ) distinct from the indigenous Egyptians, it is now argued by some scholars that there may have been a much slower period of demographic change, probaly involving the gradual infiltration of a different physical type from syria/palestine...

All in all, these scholars agree there was a demographic shift from antiquity till now, meaning, they believe that Egypt has become 'Europeanized' and 'Arabized' over the centuries even genetically speaking. I dont even want to discuss the racism involved but that has a long sordid history too.

 

because that's what normally occurs, invading conquering armies rarely bring their entire societies with them...they may impose their language or religion on the hosts but the hosts larger numbers overwhelm them genetically in intermarriage...the norman conquest of england did not eliminate the people already there, the normans imposed themselves politically but not linguistically or genetically...the Franks conquered Gaul and the region adopted the name of the Franks (France) but not their language nor were they genetically displaced by the Franks, the Gaul far outnumbered the Franks, the Frank may have won the physical war of conquest but lost they lost the genetic war of assimilation....conquering armies were relatively small 10-40K a small number like that won't displace a population of millions...

and the same applies to eygpt, just because greeks ruled as pharaohs for nearly 300yrs they had no significant genetic impact on the greater population, the rulers were too few in numbers and the same applies to the romans and other conquering armies...

 

The Coptic people have not been Arabized. They are Christians who stayed within their own group.

Most of them are NOT black African.

 

yeah and most of em arent afrikan

 

I studied anthropology/archeology for three years in Uni until I switched career options, so I don't have degree but my daughter has two history and archeology so I've retained my interest and try stay current on new research...Egypt was always an strong interest

every situation can be slightly different, some regions are more of melting pot than others...

bryan emery died before DNA and genetic evidence became dominant...people can hypothesize all they want but if a genetic study in Egypt finds modern Egyptians are essentially the same as the ancient Egyptians all other contrary hypothesis/speculations end up in the trash bin, there is no debating hard scientific forensic evidence...
modern DNA research is turning archeology on it's head many long cherished theories are going to be tossed out....

scholars have theories but geneticists deal in hard facts...being euroeanized or arabized doesn't need to be genetic, it can also be cultural...

 

their ancestors have been in Africa for at least 2,000 years.

sorry bro, but the best evidence shows that the ancient Egyptians looked like the Copts and the Copts ain't black.

deal with it.

 

Fair enough but research from oxford university states that the ethnic make up of egyptians has slowly changed over the last few millenia with gradual but prominent immigration from the eastern syria/palestine region. Also, alluding to your idea that conquering armies dont bring their societies iwill counter with; south afrika, zimbabwe, sudan, israel, the americas, australia, england (a german name reflecting the germanic roots of east anglians) and these are just nation iknow about.

 

no they are arabized, they are Egyptians who speak arabic and are christian....no different than Egyptians who speak arabic and are Muslim, nor does speaking arabic automatically make one a muslim....arabic is a language not necessarily a people, I speak English you speak English and jonah speaks English, none of us are English...we've all adopted the language of a dominant political group but that doesn't make us english...

 

very mature.

 

If you go to the Coptic Christian websites, they say they are descended from the Pharaohs. That doesn't mean its true of course.

 

two points...1- it does happen where a indigenous is totally replaced but it's not the norm....2-we have sex with anybody and people do move around genetic purity is impossible...when empires extend themselves into new regions there will be a two way mix of genetic material...when the ottomans ruled Egypt there would have been a greater outflow of Egyptian genetics into the greater ottoman empire and an influx of genetic material into Egypt from the surrounding ottoman empire...combine trade,travel and sex and a genetic dispersal and intermingling becomes inevitable....

 

true and forensic evidence can always be tossed out by newer forensic evidence and so remains inconclusive to a degree. this is where scholars come in and combine all information available. Contemporary scholars conclude an influx of immigrants from the east determines modern day egyptians, isee no reason to disagree given my studies on the history. immigration is a natural thing isee no reason to suggest egypt was exempt from this process. we see how israel has sustained mass immigration from europe and many arab refugees going to egypt. what closer example do we need?

- - - Updated - - -

yeah, ican imagine thats what they say, could be they are descended from the paharoahs, the greek ones.

 

for the most part the Pharaohs were from lower Egypt but the Nubian Pharaohs or 25th dynasty from upper Egypt were black Africans....

 

and this is where ithink racism plays a part also. Arabs and europeans always feared Afrikans and subjected them to the bottom of the social ladder. the two biggest examples of slavery were the Arab slave trade and the atlantic slave trade. Afrikans were de-humanized for a reason. they were also removed from positions of power inevitably and in many cases transported out of the empire in mass numbers, ethnic cleansing?

 

but forensic evidence is not countering other forensic evidence, it's forensic evidence countering the musings of scholars who have no forensic evidence...bryan emery is not a contemporary scholar he's been dead since 1971...

you can't compare israel's recent migration to ancient migrations they are not at alike....

 

dehumanizing wasn't exclusive to black africans, it was done everywhere and to everyone who lost a conflict with their neighbours...I don't think the slave trade in africans was a deliberate effort to ethnically cleanse africa even though it fits our modern definition of ethnic cleansing...not that it hasn't happen in places I just don't think that was the greater master plan for africa...

 

The pharoahs were from upper and lower egypt. Dynastic Egypt spread along the flow of the nile where the first city states began on a path, beginning in upper egypt and continuing to lower. Upper Egypt had 22 administrative divisions, lower had 20. The first Division in upper egypt was elephantine, on the nubian border.

Abydos, arguably the most important archaeological site in egypt was in upper egypt.

 

read the quote again, it says 'contrary to emery's theory, contemporary scholars now say it was a steady change'
Recent immigration is the same as ancient, same problems, imperialism.

- - - Updated - - -

ido, especially from positions of power, fertile land and resources.

 

Most of the slave trade originated out of West Africa, which at the time, was fairly impossible for Europeans- the weather and the diseases made it almost impossible to exploit.

The settling of South Africa happened later.

Certainly Europeans had no qualms about 'ethnic cleansing', but the motivation for the slave trade was profit from slaves, not ethnic cleansing.

 

This is worth reading.. Its by an economist.

Slave trade: a root of contemporary African Crisis

By Tunde Obadina

"The past is what makes the present coherent," said Afro-American writer James Baldwin, and the past "will remain horrible for exactly as long as we refuse to assess it honestly."

http://www.afbis.com/analysis/slave.htm

 

idont understand what it is youre trying to state here

- - - Updated - - -

read that before from you margot and dont give it much credit tbh mainly due to it being a blog from an obscure/unknown identity; and its content.

 

She's not unknown.