Talk:Race of ancient Egyptians/Archive 1

It's all yours -- have at it
Things that would be nice to see

- more organization. I gave subject headers a shot, but the paragraphs were intertwined somewhat, making it difficult

- timeline indicating when artifacts were created illustrating black-or-not-blackness in relevance to various egyptian historical events (pyramids built)

- any evidence that egyptians were NOT black. this came from the afrocentrism page so it provides mostly evidence egyptians were black.

- discussion of importance--why are people arguing about this?

- discussion of difficulty in ascertaining race

- names for the different factions. afrocentrists is a much different characterization than just that believing egyptians were black (I'm somewhat in the latter, but wouldn't call myself an afrocentrist). the "other" camp doesn't have a name at this point.

POV fork?
Is this article a POV fork of Afrocentrism? Friday (talk) 19:55, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


 * not sure what a POV fork is (whether that means this page is POV, or whether it was taken out to avoid too much POV-fighting on the afrocentrism page).  About 60% of the afrocentrism page was devoted to this issue, it was causing too much trouble over there and we/I moved it over here.   I expected it to be noisy over here but its been basically dead since then.   --155.91.19.73 21:09, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

DNA sequence analysis
I've removed the info about DNA sequence analysis. It's uncited -- no scientists/journals named -- and based on content on the users page and the racist undertones seems to be trolling. It posits that Ancient Egyptians were black (usually an afrocentrist statement), but also that they were and "less evolved" and more ape-like than Caucasians (likely race-baiting).

--Archier 18:37, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

original research (alveolar prognathisms) -- don't do it
Again, original research has made its way onto this page. If you can't provide a citation for a claim, please do not include it. When uncited content isnt obvious to other editors, it doesn't belong here. This is an official wiki policy. See WP:NOR for details --71.112.11.220 17:56, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

This isn't "original research." Any photo of the Great Sphinx in profile clearly shows prognathism. Saying so is no different from describing a spherical object as "round." It is what it is. deeceevoice 19:29, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

new additions -- great. they still don't mention prognathisms but otherwise verifiable, relevant, cited content. -71.112.11.220 04:19, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

This is crap. There are all kinds of anti-black-Egypt assertions included without any citation whatsoever. And you want me to provide citation from something the casual reader can actually see with thir own eyes? Bullcrap. I've reinserted the reference. The prognathism is evident from the photo. deeceevoice 11:00, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Note to self: http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/blackegypt101.html. Stopped reading at "... pharaohs and their queens." deeceevoice 11:03, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I believe this is original research. I've asked around and even in a very small survey I'm not the only one. I've removed this again, please reconsider your viewpoint and refrain from profanity. -71.112.11.220 14:19, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

You gotta be kidding. "Crap" may not be polite, but it is certianly not profanity. The toilet, after all, was named after Thomas Crapper. And it is NOT original research. Calling an object that is round "spherical" or an item of some height "tall" is no different from identifying a prognathism as such when it manifests itself. And if you don't believe your own eyes, simply google "Giza Sphinx Prognathism" and see what you come up with. It is restored. Further, if you decide to conduct a poll on something under discussion, kindly do so on the discussion page, where those involved/interested can weigh in and their comments can be SHARED. Otherwise, your poll has no credibility, validity whatsoever. Peace. deeceevoice 14:36, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

And did you take a close look at the edits I made before reverting them wholesale? The writing was sloppy, unencyclopedic (colloquial) and verbose. E.g., "... controversy revolving around" (ugh) and, "The few Ancient Egyptian corpses available are thousands of years old and do not permit the sort of I'll-know-it-when-I-see-it racial categorizations common in everyday experience." I mean really! I simply edited it the way I would edit any other piece. I think it's an improvement. At least consider the changes before reverting them wholesale. deeceevoice 14:44, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * we don't need a formal poll to determine what is original research.  if there is no citation and the first four people i ask don't think its obvious, it meets the wiki definition.  original research is not about majority rule.  "crap" is offensive, uncivil, vulgar, a four-letter word....profanity.  please be civil.  -71.112.11.220 02:23, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

As I said, google it. You'll find it repeatedly. Furthermore, four people on Wikipedia doesn't mean jack. There is no indication how your inquiry was worded, whether the respondents read the passage in context, if they even understood what prognathism is, etc., etc., etc. And, no. There is a big difference between a crude/indelicate word and "profanity". To contend that they are the same is just, er ... crap! :p Again, the prognathism of the Sphinx is an obvious and striking feature of the piece. It's what Volney and others have seen that convinced them the face of the sphinx is that of a "Negro." deeceevoice 08:31, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Copts?
I didn't bother reading the whole article, but I couldn't find the word copt in this article, as some copt friend of mine told me that copts were the decents of ancient egyptians (and he finds afrocentrist theories about ancient egyptians quite laughable actually, but I guess that's not an argument)

By the way, do we really have to leave the word race in the title? I guess that american people use it without any problem, but in other places of the world we may want to avoid talking about races.

And are links to non-english wikipedia pages on this topic just lacking or is it that only complexed american afrocentrists really care about it?

"Race itself is an unscientific concept; skin color varies over a continuous spectrum of shades, rather than the handful listed on government census forms"

What governement? Are we supposed to understand that it's the american governement? It really sounds like this article has been written in order to be read only by americans. And then I don't think it's usefull to have something in this article to tell us what "race" is or is not.

And then, how can anyone care about what Diop could say, he was an afrocentrist, he wasn't gonna do some test and find out that ancient egyptians weren't black.

And the bottom link to the white-history site contains two mispellings --SuperBleda 02:26, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * You and your friend are welcome to edit this page.  Copt information is definitely fair territory.   Non-english wikis probably have not covered this topic yet.   They are much smaller and this is a recent article, but if you see it covered in one of them please link to it!
 * This article started as a section in the afrocentrism page which became way too long and contentious. It may show remnants of its history.   Additions and rewords will eventually/hopefully minimize this effect.
 * If Diop was known for mispresenting facts that should be noted, but he seems to be held in high regard by many (in particular afrocentrists). To excise his work would not be holding to the wiki NPOV policy.
 * -71.112.11.220 04:30, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Unfortunatly, I know too few about Copts to write anything about it, and then, I've already tried writing bits of articles on wikipedia, but I can't get to write something in the style of wikipedia. Fortunatly, wikipedia has an article about them Copt so if anyone wants to get informations from it and put it here... --SuperBleda 00:14, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm only just now seeing SuperBleda's comments in this section. I actually edited out the language about government census forms -- for the very same reason, and also because it was unnecessary. And, yes, I do believe race should remain in the title. It goes to the heart of the controversy -- particularly when Zahi Hawass flat-out lies to the press and pronounces that the teams who participated in the recent reconstructions of King Tut found that he was a Caucasoid North African. Racial terminology was and is still used -- and used prominently and frequently by Hawass and his ilk to this day. It is as a result of the whitewashing of history that the issue of ancient Egyptian identity is viewed in the context of race and remains a hotly contested issue to this day. deeceevoice 18:16, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * please do not use terms such as "whitewashing", they are offensive. thanks.  -71.112.11.220 02:25, 18 October 2005 (UTC)


 * You said you edited out the language about gov. census forms, but I don't see whate dit you're talking about. anyways, dear deeceevoice, could I know why you titled your edit on the "Copts?" section as (→Copts? - ridiculous)???? what's ridiculous about talking about Copts in an article about Ancient Egyptians can you explain me? Or are you just so sure that Ancient Egyptians were black that it makes any other idea ridiculous? btw, what is whitewashing?? And by the way, "Ancient Egyptian identity" is not an issue in my country, surely only in your country and other countries were most blacks are decents of slaves --SuperBleda 00:14, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, gee, I can't help it if you're offended by the truth. Whitewashing. It's what they did. Plain and simple. If your sensibilities are so delicate, perhaps you should frequent another venue, because your objection is ridiculous. deeceevoice 08:24, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

race based on phenotype?
However, race is not based on genetics; it is based on phenotype.

race is not based on phenotype or genotype solely. according to one-drop theory, a person that does not appear (phenotype) black is still black, as long as he has a black ancestor (genotype) -71.112.11.220 02:29, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Race isn't based on genotype at all, which is what the article claimed, and which was my point. The notion of race predates genetics by several centuries. And racial categories are based on phenotype -- certainly not genetics. But you are, of course, correct that lineage is also a factor. deeceevoice 08:20, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

the article claimed no such thing. actually, it said the opposite, that no genetic test can determine race (because it is not genetic). race is a fuzzy concept -- part phenotype, part genotype, part which region of the world you live in. jason kidd wouldn't be black in sudan. it is part genotype because retarded ideas like one-drop theory posit that there is something being passed down from generation to generation. there are genes being passed down, but its a ridiculous way to classify people. -71.112.11.220 15:26, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

power behind the throne
please provide citations for additions of content.

Artistic arguments
Using observation Herodotus (5th century BC) or observations of 1783 cannot be used to determine race, because at that time Egypt was already overrun by black Nubians, that text should be removed as inaccurate. Great Sphinx represents either Khafre (http://i-cias.com/e.o/khafre.htm), who do not look negroid or sun god Harmachis, in this case Sphinx cannot be used to determine race of population. AlV 11:02, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi AlV, please read the wiki policies on NPOV.  Whether or not an editor or large group of editors agrees with something is not as important as whether it can be cited that some "notable source" outside of wikipedia does.   Apparently some afrocentrists think the Sphinx is black.  If there is any dissent on the matter or if it is not obvious to a passerby, it should not be phrased as fact "the sphinx ix black", but rather that "so-and-so believes the sphinx is black" and a citation included.
 * The other half of NPOV is that the other viewpoints deserves to be mentioned.  So if there are folks that don't believe the sphinx is black, include it (with a citation of course).   There is also some complexity about not mentioning things that are believed by only some small number of crackpots.
 * There is some debate about who the Sphinx represents, but I think th article states this reasonably.  You can get more information about it in the Great Sphinx of Giza article.
 * As far as Herodotus, many people would still consider the 5th century BC "ancient", though the pyramids were built much earlier.  Part of the difficulty with this subject is that much of the opposing evidence occurs thousands of years apart.   A timeline would be helpful.   Sportscar articles often have these (see Ferrari)
 * By the way, the term "overrun" usually has negative connotations (marauding hordes of barbarians overrun things) and is inflammatory.  Please refrain from using it here when possible. -71.112.11.220 14:58, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

AIV, The general consensus is that Giza sphinx represents Khufu. The Giza sphinx is distinctly Negroid in appearance. Here's Khafre, Khufu's son, who does look Cushite Negroid. Here's Kafre's half-brother Redejef, who is distinctly Nilotic Negroid in appearance. Further, your use of the "March of the Titans" page from the racist, white supremacist Stormfront website is hardly convincing or credible. I've deleted it. deeceevoice 13:06, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to include an link to 'reputable' site, however it is not possible because 'reputable' sources constantly avoid any race related material, doing their best to withhold race information fromn news, etc. and in some case will even lie http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=1220242, White Supremacists Riot in Toledo, Ohio, where in fact 99% of rioters were black. AlV 08:43, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * This has come up so many times -- it is not "distinctly negroid". It is very weatherworn, has been vandalized, and I just don't see what you are talking about.  If you find references to it, put them in but it is not indisputable fact.
 * The link to the 'eurocentrist' site -- which does seem racist -- was discussed less than two weeks ago both here and at the village pump.  Removing it is POV.  -155.91.28.231 00:35, 29 October 2005 (UTC)


 * deeceevoice, you've removed this again. We had this discussion two weeks ago, if you want to remove it please explain why here.   Even white supremacists have points of view.  deeceevoice, I'm not sure why you refer to "stormfront", that is not the link that you keep removing -71.112.11.220 21:19, 29 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Who are you kidding? And what is www.white-history.com?  It's Ostara Publications, a neo-Nazi, white supremacist group with links to the Klan and just about every anti-Jew, anti-black -- in fact, anti-nonwhite, white nationalist organization in existence.  deeceevoice 18:35, 30 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm trying to be reasonable here, which wiki policies are in violation here?  As I said before, I posted at the village pump and sought advice -- the consensus was that the link needs to remain.   I don't know about "stormfront" or "ostara publications".   I went to this website and there is a lot of material there.  Biased, yes.  Racist, sometimes.  Relevant to this subject?  yes.  -71.112.11.220 22:24, 30 October 2005 (UTC)




 * This has been removed again, this time by dreamguy.  What is the issue?   The site has its opinions and a lot of information.   If you haven't noticed, this page is very one-sided (it started on the afrocentrism page, which has been flagged as POV for .... ever).   deeceevoice's argument above has nothing to do with wiki policies or the relevance of the link.   Should we take this to mediation?  -71.112.11.220 15:06, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


 * added to request for mediation page Requests_for_mediation


 * You know, if you are gong to talk about the link on the talk page, it'd help to do it with a heading that isn;t misleading. "Artistic arguments"??


 * Anyway, as I have explained in many, many edit comments now, and now also on the requests for mediation page, the link very extremely violates NPOV, and if the people on Village Pump disagreed it's because they didn;t know the full situation. You can't provide a solitary link to the most extreme site out there on a topic and present it as a standard view. Plesase read the section in NPOV policy about "equal time" as in, how we don;t give it unless it is warranted. People reading this article wanting to know about the "Eurocentrists" the Afrocentrists complain about most certainly should not be directed to a racist page.


 * I would agree that this page is very one-sided and needs to be improved, but I don;t see how adding a link to a totally inappropriate website helps in the slightest. It'd be like going to an article trying to portray mainstream evolutionary theory as biased and trying to "balance" it by linking to a site in support of Nazi experiments into eugenics. Before you can add a link to a fringe white supremacists site, you need links to more respectable sites in proportion to how mainstream they are... so lots of good, solid standard sites debunking the Afrocentrist views that Ancient Egyptians were black, then some sites of leading Afrocentrists, then MAYBE a link to a white supremacist insane fringe site. DreamGuy 03:36, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Dreamguy, post at the village pump again and I expect you'll get the same response.  They don't keep stuff there forever so my post is probably gone by now.   Why do you feel compelled to come here and delete this link, which has a good amount of support (at least two editors and the village pump), but not to add any other information whatsoever?   That site is not an "insane fringe site" as far as I can tell.  -71.112.11.220 05:09, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * As I had already asked (there in talk page), please provide criteras, to tell that site is racist, so it can be applied to other sites as well. Second, this article is about controversy, so readers shold be informed about such 'controversional' views too. If you feel that links to another sites shold be provided, you are free to do so, but do not censor other peoples work. AlV 08:43, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Several editors have disagreed with you now, including on the Request for Mediation page. The fact that you had a measly two people who weren't familiar with the situation and only heard your side of the debate at the village pump agree with you does not mean you are right. There's already been twice as many editors as that telling you you're wrong. DreamGuy 20:52, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

A response

Fragment the web address, and it goes straight to Stormfront. It's a bullshyt, racist site. No credible Egyptian scholar today even remotely suggests that ancient dynastic Egypt started off Caucasian and then somehow turned Africoid. The very idea is ridiculous and smacks of the crazy reverse-evolution cosmogony of a certain fringe/kook religious cult which shall remain nameless. :p deeceevoice 09:22, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Further, you need to educate yourself. The photo is of a representation of an Oromo, or Galla, who are a Cushitic, indigenous, BLACK African people (there is no other "race" indigenous to Africa). Again, the inherent fallacy of the stereotypical, "classic" "Negroid"/Africoid phenotype is that it fails to include variations on the phenotype, when, as a race, blacks exhibit the greatest range of phenotypical diversity of all humankind. Nilotic peoples often have narrow nasal indices (as the article states). Have you ever actually seen an Oromo? A Kikuyu? A blue-black Nubian or Somali or Sudanese with an aquiline nose and straight-ish hair? Read the work of the (white, European) "Father of Egyptology," William Matthew Flinders Petrie. Here's a convenient web link to a page which describes Petrie's findings about the Oromo/Galla peoples.

IMO, any remotely educated individual who can believe dynastic Egypt started off white and then somehow became black during a period of decline has either been doin' meth, or is an inbred, redneck, racist mental-cretin, crakkka, tragically desperate to shore up warped notions of inherent black inferiority, who's been doin' meth. Not even the most respected anti-Afrocentrist scholars believe that ish. deeceevoice 09:22, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Please refrain from profanity and personal attacks, deeceevoice. It is not civil to instruct others to "educate themselves" or to imply drug addiction, incestuous origins, racist intentions, similarity to food items.  The Oromo first appeared in the 16th century...this sculpture is far older.  Thanks for wasting everyone's time with that.  Even though no one said so, you yourself recognize that the features appear, how should I put this?...not quite sub-saharan.   -155.91.28.231 23:43, 8 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I do not see anything impossible in theory that people who migrated from Europe started a civilization in closest to Europe part of Africa. Is far as I know oldest civilization known in Europe about 2000 years before Egyptian one, so they had plenty of time to get there. http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/article225357.ece. Last of your arguments seems to be typical negroid behavior. AlV 14:20, 8 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh. You really believe that crap on "March of the Titans"?  I was referring to the Klan types who maintain and frequent the Stormfront site.  So, no.  My comment about inbred, redneck mental cretins wasn't intended for you.  My bad!  But, hey, if the shoe fits.... :p  I won't respond to the "negroid" [sic] comment, a weak attempt at baiting me. I learned long ago not to take the backwardness of racists personally; it's a reflection on you -- certainly not on me or my people.


 * And don't be silly. The Oromo are an ancient people.  You should know better than to use Wikipedia as an authoritative source! I glanced at the entry and read the sentence.  It's poorly worded and obviously refers to the Oromo as a cohesive, political entity in the modern sense of the term.  There are no indigenous human beings and, as far as I know, no indigenous human tribal/cultural groupings which have emerged/developed since prehistoric times.  The very notion of an entire indigenous people somehow appearing suddenly, created out of whole cloth, in the 16th century makes no sense.  And "not quite sub-Saharan"?  What does that mean?  Sudanese peoples, probably the blackest people on earth, are North African.  So are Nubians.  Egyptians traced their ancestry to Punt, now thought to be Eritrea or Sudan, lands of the Oromo, other Cushitic peoples and, obviously Nilotic peoples, as well.  Kenyans and Ugandans are Nilotic (of the Nile River Valley), as well.  And you're gonna try to tell me they aren't black?  You really do need to educate yourself, because you're making no sense.  Use your brain!  So, obviously, "North African" does not mean non-black.  deeceevoice 09:15, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


 * When we classify mankind by color, the only one of the primary races...which has not made a creative contribution to any of our twenty-one civilizations is the black race. Arnold J. Toynbee, from afrocentrism article AlV 14:37, 8 November 2005 (UTC)


 * How's that shoe? :p deeceevoice 09:15, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Due to lack of participation by DreamGuy and Deeceevoice (apparently an edit war is preferable?) I've withdrawn the request for mediation. -155.91.28.231 19:45, 8 November 2005 (UTC)


 * No, an edit war is not preferable, but there's nothing to mediate... Mediation assumes some middle ground can be reached, but this is a black or white issue: either it is included or it isn't. It's already been very clearly spelled out to you that including the link violates several policies. Another editor on the Requests for Mediation page also told you that. The editors on this page also agree. By all the ways this site is run, it's already been decided that the link cannot be there. You just need to accept that. For the record, I am not saying Egyptians were black, nor am I saying hey were some prerfectly white culture out of some Nazi Youth Aryan wet dream, and that particular issue is separate from the question of whether this link should be here or not. It's unencyclopedic, unscholarly, unfairly associates mainstream scientists with racists, and just plain unacceptable. I wish the black power and white power sides would just back off and let the article discuss the issues nuetrally instead of trying to push some sort of racial agenda.  DreamGuy 20:52, 8 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Dreamguy,  I've adjusted the original language, you seek only to delete it ...over and over again.  You've also personally attacked me, claiming I misrepresented the state of affairs to the village pump.
 * In any case, mediation is not about middle ground -- a mediator is free to analyze a case and give his or her opinion on what would be best, whether that is left, right, or down the center of the two parties. Whoever that last person who posted on the RFM page was is misinformed.   Whether a page has "scholarly" links has never been a criteria for linking on wikipedia.   There are tens if not hundreds of thousands of links on wiki to pages which are not academic-quality publications.
 * As far as equal time/equal weight, the article is several pages long and the link text is a paltry 10 words. If you think there should be more links to balance it out, improve the section by adding some other links, don't just go around deleting.  -155.91.28.231 23:29, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The language isn't the problem, it's the link. No, the last person on RFM clearly saw both sides of your argument and looked at the site in question and rejected it. Why are you claiming the Village Pump editors were adequately informed to make an educated decision just from one side and talking in hypotheticals when the people who have seen the full controversy (and aren't anon or new users) all agree that the link does not belong here. " Whether a page has "scholarly" links has never been a criteria for linking on wikipedia." is absolutely false. You should go read the policies. "There are tens if not hundreds of thousands of links on wiki to pages which are not academic-quality publications." That may be true, but then there are tens of thousands of spelling and grammar mistakes too, and that's not an argument for saying that they are correct and should stay there. Worse than that, the link you are pushing is not only unscholarly but deceptive and racist. Including it on an article like this, as has already been explained several times, gives a false view of what scientists believe and links them to racists. We should have links to mainstream scientific sites on the topic, not what a bunch of Hitler Youth kids can pull together to try to make blacks look bad. But then I see that the person who originally added it is apparently pushing white supremacist views elsewhere here, so it appears that this is motivated out of wanting to push a racist site here instead of for the more encyclopedic-sounding but inaccurate reasons A1V and the anon account have been hiding behind.
 * Bottom line: Lots of people agree it shouldn;t be here. Only some new user and a couple anon accounts, who may all be the same person, thinks it should stay (other than a couple of people who didn't hear the full situation and only your side). The link absolutely will not be on the article, per the guidelines of consensus making and NPOV and source reliability policies. DreamGuy 08:51, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


 * What can I say?  Neither one of you is willing to enter into mediation.  What does that say about your willingness to participate in a "consesus making", rather than partake in revert wars?  -71.112.11.220 16:15, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Black Egyptians (sources for later inclusion)

 * 

Error in the intro
The introduction seems contradictory, or at least unclear. It states that Egyptology began in the mid-nineteenth century, and also that this was the era of the African slave trade. While there was still some slave trading, the era of the Atlantic slave trade was mostly over by the middle of the nineteenth century. Britain banned slave trading in 1807, and France was the last major state to completely outlaw the practice when it did so in 1848. It was after the slaving era that Hamitic theories and other such nonsense were developed. From what I've read of earlier scholars, those who did coincide with the slave trade, they didn't much consider race. It was in that era, after all, that many historians came to believe that Egyptian culture was derived from the unambiguously black Nubian empires. - SimonP 00:19, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Simon -- just edit the article.  You don't need to come and discuss this here first, though explanations for large changes are appreciated.  -155.91.28.231 01:35, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

"No genetic test can classify an individual as black or white."
This is a false statement.

"But not until February of this year did the local law enforcement task force investigating the four known murders in Baton Rouge give the killer's DNA to DNAPrint Genomics, a company in Florida that specializes in using genetic evidence to identify criminal suspects.

Within weeks the CEO of the company, Tony Frudakis, identified the race of the killer as being "85 percent Sub-Saharan African and 15 percent Native American."

http://www.vdare.com/francis/pseudo.htm

I am removing it. I wish we could lay off the "race doesn't exist" bias in this article, as well as the strongly pro-black mythology leanings.

According to the American standard
Egyptians would have been labeled as black. I find it funny how people conveniently forget about a social standards in order to make history fit their preference. You can't have everything. --Vehgah 04:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I think you accidentally put the word "American" when you should have put "Afrocentrist", otherwise I would agree with you. DreamGuy 17:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

No I mean American. According to the one drop rule, and the ideology created by the American government, and American people, the Egyptians would be black. And they were. People are only "part" black out of the convenience of the surveyor. No one would ever call Black americans part black, whatever that means. And most Black Americans are mixed to some degree, some more than others. Look at Halle Berry. She is never called part Black. It is just a problem of the illusion of purity. --Vehgah 20:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * And the many artistic depictions that show very clearly negroid Africans and very clearly NON-NEGROID Egyptians in the same ppanel demonstrate that the Egyptians knew what "black" was and that it was very different from themselves.


 * The Egyptians were about as "black" as the Polish. 05:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Negroid is a fictional term to describe dark skinned people. Egytians were black, and are surely not white. Even if they weren't black they wouldn't be white. This whole illusion that Egytians are different from other black people is just a way to take credit for the greatest ancient civilization of earth. --Vehgah 03:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * LOL! And implying they were somehow related to AMERICAN blacks is demonstrably false and another politically-correct attempt at promoting racial pride in those who have little of which to be proud.

No one ever said that they were related to american Blacks. But according to an american standard, which I had no hand in making, they would be black, regardless of what anyone would say. I didn't make these rules; the system did. It seems like society is only concerned with analyzing the race of a dark race of people when they feel that they have achieved something great. The term Black and white are merely social categories meant to assign a specific people to a specific color. You can't generalize all black people, and then turn around and segregate a certain group of them to your whim. It doesn't work that way. You must have all or nothing. The only way that Egyptians would not be considered black under the American constraint is to abolish it all together. And that isn't going to happen. --Vehgah 02:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see what American politics of the 19th and 20th century have to do with the racial identity of 3rd and 2nd millennium BC Egyptians. All this is pure anachronism. Sure, an Ancient Egyptian would likely be classified as "coloured" by US immigration? So what? Try not to see all of history through US spectacles, Wikipedia is attempting to do without US-centrism. dab (&#5839;) 00:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

If you look at the present, you will see inconsistencies on certain subjects. This is why I bring up the American standard, or should I say western standard. No one cares where your ancestors came from when you are black in America; it seems that people are concerned with that, only when they feel that person reached a certain success.

This also shows the inconsistency of the definition of race. Race is not based on genes, if that be the case, than two black people from Africa could be different races. People only apply the American standard when they want to, or use anthropological pseudoscience when it fits them in another area. What I’m saying is; black and white are western terms, which, whether you see it or not, influence sciences, and social labels.

I believe that the Egyptians may have been a separate black ethnicity. Just because they don’t fit your changing view of who’s black, doesn’t mean they aren’t black. --Vehgah 05:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Is there any question of changes to be made to the article? Is the content of both of your arguments not already in the "obstacles to ascertaining race" section?  What potential changes are being debated? --Mgreenbe 09:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that a theoretical application of modern western ideas should be at least mentioned in the article; otherwise an inconsistency in definition of race will be exposed. If race is a modern concept then it is only right if modern standards are at least recognized --Vehgah 21:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree! What changes would you propose to the first paragarph of "obstacles"?  It seems to cover the bases pretty well to me. --Mgreenbe 23:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it could mention the conclusion, or catagory that the Egyptians would fall under if they would be seen in the modern world. An analogy should be made that is void of scientific terms, but rather modern social term, because in the end, that what race is.--Vehgah 03:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Be bold...within the realm of NPOV sources, of course. I think Barry Kemp's book discusses the question briefly.  I'm fine with it as it is. --Mgreenbe 11:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

NPOV
This article is biased in the following ways:

-- strongly advocates for the "race doesn't exist" fallacy. -- strongly and pervasively tainted by a pro-"Afrocentric" and thus revisionist view of history.

The inclusion of racist crackpot Diop's psuedoscience and an admonishment that we must not "ignore" it, is too much.

I suspect the hand of black supremacist deeceevoice in this.

Zuzim 18:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

You can add me to the list of suspects. Firstly, your pre-emptive strike on Cheikh Anta Diop is not "neutral POV". You call him a racist crackpot without evidence. You have arguments against anti-fundamentalist views of race, which is in itself a discussion meant for another thread. Thirdly Afrocentricism is not "revisionism", even though there may be revisionist elements in some aspects of it. So you see Afrocentric meddling, and I see eurocentric meddling. What you want to do? The G.W.Bush route won't work here, so you can't establish by your own virtue (or your own attitude) what is fallacious, tainted, or racist. No Zuzim, only the evidence, which neither you, nor I, nor DeeCee can distort, only that can determine what is worthy of including in the article. And you, with your comments, are not evidently on track with the facts. --Zaphnathpaaneah 08:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * In a move towards NPOV, do you think you could write a paragraph explaining why Afrocentrists feel that the race of Ancient Egyptians is important? The page is quite confusing in that respect; being unfamiliar with the philosophy, I don't feel comfortable writing it. --Mgreenbe 09:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)