What do yall think about the Black Egyptian theory

i think only some Egyptian Pharoah's were black

Egypt had close contact to Punt (seen by some as modern day Somalia)

the Ethiopian kingdom

and Nubia (now Sudan) (bear in mind at this point Sudan was inhabited by blacks and the Arabs invaded Sudan only 5/600 hundred years ago)


now i think the reason some the Pharoahs were portrayed as black because Nubia and Egypt were constantly warring and I know Nubia invaded Egypt at least once, hence why when it was controlled by Nubians inevitably some the Nubians become Pharoahs

im no egypt expert tho

but i think that the theory counter to mine is bullshit and just misguided and largely false Pan Africanism.

if these Pan-African advocates read a bit more they would promote the Songhai/Asante empires and Nubia/Ethipian empires more.

On a religious level, I mean Ethiopia was one of the first bases of Christianity and Islam, Muhammad and his followers sought refuge there from persecution by his Qurayshi tribe and other tribes.




Timbuktu nigga

http://cache1.bdcdn.net/assets/image...1118141069.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shadow Demon

i think only some Egyptian Pharoah's were black

---

then what were the other ones ?

light to dark skinned but in a arab/mediterranean/indian context

look. it depends what period ur talking from. look at usa 300 years ago there was no black or white people only red people. now look at it. egypt is 1000s of years old and many many different races have entered the country. its very mixed. clean cut terms like white and black cant really be used to describe their colour. just like brazil.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shadow Demon

light to dark skinned but in a arab/mediterranean/indian context

---

you do know that egypt is in africa right ?

what does egypt mean according to websters dictionary ?


the highest yellow nigga in america is still called "BLACK".

arabia was considered a part of africa and to many, still is - there is no such thing as the arab race -

the greeks and romans invaded many parts of africa and mixed their seed - this is why allot of so called easterners have a yellower hue and thinner hair than those who erected those statues -


what does ethiopia mean according to websters dictionary ?

i think some excellent points i didnt necessarily account for have been raised

but i dont think egyptians can be grouped with the same crop as Bantu or lower nilotic Africans.

like europe and asia there's a wide variety of tribes and one end of africa is different to the other

and im using race as a social construction but i think in terms of genetic and dna groupings ancient egyptians were different to genetics of sub saharan africans

of course theres is too much genetic variation between communities including of Sub saharan africans anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shadow Demon

and im using race as a social construction but i think in terms of genetic and dna groupings ancient egyptians were different to genetics of sub saharan africans

of course theres is too much genetic variation between communities including of Sub saharan africans anyway.

---

and there is a reason why you think this is so -

i'm not saying that there are no differences, indeed there are, but you pointed out those differences for a reason - explore what your intentions were - and be fully honest with yourself - and if you want to share what you see, great -

i doubt that all of egypt was the same - just like the bronx and brooklyn are not the same - there are obvious differences in people who live in different projects in the same borough -

i have no intentions lol i just find this an interesting topic ??

i dont suscribe to the scientific racism of the 19/20th century that governs the theories that reject a 'Black Egypt' i just believe that pan african support of a black egypt is misguided.

i think the points made about the mixing of different cultures and ethnicities is very important when considering the topic though,


i think i need to research the topic alot more, my views are merely preliminary as i stated before.

also it depends a lot on what u consider 'black' is. theres different degrees and shades. eg people fom spain have a darker complexion than people from northern europe but i dont consider them black.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rakimkoolgrapwutang

look. it depends what period ur talking from. look at usa 300 years ago there was no black or white people only red people. now look at it. egypt is 1000s of years old and many many different races have entered the country. its very mixed. clean cut terms like white and black cant really be used to describe their colour. just like brazil.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rakimkoolgrapwutang

also it depends a lot on what u consider 'black' is. theres different degrees and shades. eg people fom spain have a darker complexion than people from northern europe but i dont consider them black.

---

good points

but some are so quick to dismiss any of these things because they refuse to see "Black People" as self sufficient, great beings

When Herodotus, the world's first recognized historian described the Egyptians, they were described as having smooth black skin. Others from Ancient Greece who were philosophers who have traveled to Egypt to learn from them, confirmed this as well.

Also, check Hieroglyphs. There are drawings mainly of blacks. The sculptures of Pharaohs, if you look at their features, they are mostly that of blacks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FMJ

When Herodotus, the world's first recognized historian described the Egyptians, they were described as having smooth black skin. Others from Ancient Greece who were philosophers who have traveled to Egypt to learn from them, confirmed this as well.

Also, check Hieroglyphs. There are drawings mainly of blacks. The sculptures of Pharaohs, if you look at their features, they are mostly that of blacks.

---

but thats opinion cuz people used to call greeks and mediterranean people black 100 years ago but not anymore. 4 those philosophers they wouldve been very black but compared to sub sahara africans the egyptians would have fairer skin. u can see this in ancient egyptian herioglyphs. the egyptians drew their skin as more brown and other africans as charcoal black.

however i cant remember what period those herioglyphs were from so its possible that b4 then egyptians mightve been a lot blacker.

i think some hispanics have what id consider black features but lots of people wont say hispanics are black.

allot of the pictures have been defaced and white washed also

http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/8...2741264221.jpg

sorry but i dont understand the picture. which races are the different people from.

Humans only began to go white once they took up residence in cold ass countries where melanin wasn't needed and the only curly hairs you required were on ya gonads!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ALPHATEK

Humans only began to go white once they took up residence in cold ass countries where melanin wasn't needed and the only curly hairs you required were on ya gonads!

---

not true - cold weather does not make people white

No shit sherlock..I was taking the piss...Here's your real answer -

Ten years ago, while at the university of Western Australia, anthropologist Nina Jablonski was asked to give a lecture on human skin. As an expert in primate evolution, she decided to discuss the evolution of skin color, but when she went through the literature on the subject she was dismayed. Some theories advanced before the 1970s tended to be racist, and others were less than convincing. White skin, for example, was reported to be more resistant to cold weather, although groups like the Inuit are both dark and particularly resistant to cold. After the 1970s, when researchers were presumably more aware of the controversy such studies could kick up, there was very little work at all. "It's one of these things everybody notices," Jablonski says, "but nobody wants to talk about."
No longer. Jablonski and her husband, George Chaplin, a geographic information systems specialist, have formulated the first comprehensive theory of skin color. Their findings, published in a recent issue of the Journal of Human Evolution, show a strong, somewhat predictable correlation between skin color and the strength of sunlight across the globe. But they also show a deeper, more surprising process at work: Skin color, they say, is largely a matter of vitamins.
Jablonski, now chairman of the anthropology department at the California Academy of Sciences, begins by assuming that our earliest ancestors had fair skin just like chimpanzees, our closest biological relatives. Between 4.5 million and 2 million years ago, early humans moved from the rain forest and onto the East African savanna. Once on the savanna, they not only had to cope with more exposure to the sun, but they also had to work harder to gather food. Mammalian brains are particularly vulnerable to overheating: A change of only five or six degrees can cause a heatstroke. So our ancestors had to develop a better cooling system.
The answer was sweat, which dissipates heat through evaporation. Early humans probably had few sweat glands, like chimpanzees, and those were mainly located on the palms of their hands and the bottoms of their feet. Occasionally, however, individuals were born with more glands than usual. The more they could sweat, the longer they could forage before the heat forced them back into the shade. The more they could forage, the better their chances of having healthy offspring and of passing on their sweat glands to future generations.
A million years of natural selection later, each human has about 2 million sweat glands spread across his or her body. Human skin, being less hairy than chimpanzee skin, "dries much quicker," says Adrienne Zihlman, an anthropologist at the University of California at Santa Cruz. "Just think how after a bath it takes much longer for wet hair to dry."
Hairless skin, however, is particularly vulnerable to damage from sunlight. Scientists long assumed that humans evolved melanin, the main determinant of skin color, to absorb or disperse ultraviolet light. But what is it about ultraviolet light that melanin protects against? Some researchers pointed to the threat of skin cancer. But cancer usually develops late in life, after a person has already reproduced. Others suggested that sunburned nipples would have hampered breast-feeding. But a slight tan is enough to protect mothers against that problem.
During her preparation for the lecture in Australia, Jablonski found a 1978 study that examined the effects of ultraviolet light on folate, a member of the vitamin B complex. An hour of intense sunlight, the study showed, is enough to cut folate levels in half if your skin is light. Jablonski made the next, crucial connection only a few weeks later. At a seminar on embryonic development, she heard that low folate levels are correlated with neural-tube defects such as spina bifida and anencephaly, in which infants are born without a full brain or spinal cord.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/li...s/l_073_04.jpg Jablonski and Chaplin predicted the skin colors of indigenous people across the globe based on how much ultraviolet light different areas receive. Graphic by Matt Zang, adapted from the data of N. Jablonski and G. Chaplin
Jablonski later came across three documented cases in which children's neural-tube defects were linked to their mothers' visits to tanning studios during early pregnancy. Moreover, she found that folate is crucial to sperm development -- so much so that a folate inhibitor was developed as a male contraceptive. ("It never got anywhere," Jablonski says. "It was so effective that it knocked out all folate in the body.") She now had some intriguing evidence that folate might be the driving force behind the evolution of darker skin. But why do some people have light skin?
As far back as the 1960s, the biochemist W. Farnsworth Loomis had suggested that skin color is determined by the body's need for vitamin D. The vitamin helps the body absorb calcium and deposit it in bones, an essential function, particularly in fast-growing embryos. (The need for vitamin D during pregnancy may explain why women around the globe tend to have lighter skin than men.) Unlike folate, vitamin D depends on ultraviolet light for its production in the body. Loomis believed that people who live in the north, where daylight is weakest, evolved fair skin to help absorb more ultraviolet light and that people in the tropics evolved dark skin to block the light, keeping the body from overdosing on vitamin D, which can be toxic at high concentrations.
By the time Jablonski did her research, Loomis's hypothesis had been partially disproved. "You can never overdose on natural amounts of vitamin D," Jablonski says. "There are only rare cases where people take too many cod-liver supplements." But Loomis's insight about fair skin held up, and it made a perfect complement for Jablonski's insight about folate and dark skin. The next step was to find some hard data correlating skin color to light levels.
Until the 1980s, researchers could only estimate how much ultraviolet radiation reaches Earth's surface. But in 1978, NASA launched the Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometer. Three years ago, Jablonski and Chaplin took the spectrometer's global ultraviolet measurements and compared them with published data on skin color in indigenous populations from more than 50 countries. To their delight, there was an unmistakable correlation: The weaker the ultraviolet light, the fairer the skin. Jablonski went on to show that people living above 50 degrees latitude have the highest risk of vitamin D deficiency. "This was one of the last barriers in the history of human settlement," Jablonski says. "Only after humans learned fishing, and therefore had access to food rich in vitamin D, could they settle these regions."
Humans have spent most of their history moving around. To do that, they've had to adapt their tools, clothes, housing, and eating habits to each new climate and landscape. But Jablonski's work indicates that our adaptations go much further. People in the tropics have developed dark skin to block out the sun and protect their body's folate reserves. People far from the equator have developed fair skin to drink in the sun and produce adequate amounts of vitamin D during the long winter months.
Jablonski hopes that her research will alert people to the importance of vitamin D and folate in their diet. It's already known, for example, that dark-skinned people who move to cloudy climes can develop conditions such as rickets from vitamin D deficiencies. More important, Jablonski hopes her work will begin to change the way people think about skin color. "We can take a topic that has caused so much disagreement, so much suffering, and so much misunderstanding," she says, "and completely disarm it."

nice

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ALPHATEK

Ten years ago, while at the university of Western Australia, anthropologist Nina Jablonski was asked to give a lecture on human skin.

---

Why ask an anthropologist?

Quote:

---

After the 1970s, when researchers were presumably more aware of the controversy such studies could kick up, there was very little work at all. "It's one of these things everybody notices," Jablonski says, "but nobody wants to talk about."

---

They are claiming that scientist limitted their research based on social taboos. Interesting

Quote:

---

her husband, George Chaplin, a geographic information systems specialist, have formulated the first comprehensive theory of skin color.

---

Once again, a geographic info systems specialist? Not a chemist, not an endocrinologist, no one with a stronger background in some sort of biology? Interesting.

Quote:

---

Jablonski, begins by assuming that our earliest ancestors had fair skin just like chimpanzees, our closest biological relatives. Between 4.5 million and 2 million years ago, early humans moved from the rain forest and onto the East African savanna. Once on the savanna, they not only had to cope with more exposure to the sun, but they also had to work harder to gather food.

---

So any of these theories about skin are predicated on their theories of evolution. Notice it says that she "begins by 'assuming'". Interesting

Quote:

---

Scientists long assumed that humans evolved melanin, the main determinant of skin color, to absorb or disperse ultraviolet light. But what is it about ultraviolet light that melanin protects against?

---

Notice the use of the word "assumed" again. Scientist hypothesize and theorize, they don't "assume". What is the basis of this "assumption" that melanin is not an original trait of man?

Quote:

---

During her preparation for the lecture in Australia, Jablonski found a 1978 study that examined the effects of ultraviolet light on folate, a member of the vitamin B complex. An hour of intense sunlight, the study showed, is enough to cut folate levels in half if your skin is light.

---

The previous quote is the only time in this whole article that the word "melanin" is ever mentioned. Not once in this article are the words "molecule" or "hormones" used, but here a vitamin complex is more directly applied to skin color. Interesting

Quote:

---

Jablonski later came across three documented cases in which children's neural-tube defects were linked to their mothers' visits to tanning studios during early pregnancy. Moreover, she found that folate is crucial to sperm development -- so much so that a folate inhibitor was developed as a male contraceptive. ("It never got anywhere," Jablonski says. "It was so effective that it knocked out all folate in the body.") She now had some intriguing evidence that folate might be the driving force behind the evolution of darker skin.

---

3 documented cases and a contraceptive that never came to fruition = "the driving force" Interesting

Quote:

---

Loomis's insight about fair skin held up, and it made a perfect complement for Jablonski's insight about folate and dark skin. The next step was to find some hard data correlating skin color to light levels.
Until the 1980s, researchers could only estimate how much ultraviolet radiation reaches Earth's surface. But in 1978, NASA launched the Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometer. Three years ago, Jablonski and Chaplin took the spectrometer's global ultraviolet measurements and compared them with published data on skin color in indigenous populations from more than 50 countries. To their delight, there was an unmistakable correlation: The weaker the ultraviolet light, the fairer the skin. Jablonski went on to show that people living above 50 degrees latitude have the highest risk of vitamin D deficiency. "This was one of the last barriers in the history of human settlement," Jablonski says. "Only after humans learned fishing, and therefore had access to food rich in vitamin D, could they settle these regions."

---

Interesting

Quote:

---

More important, Jablonski hopes her work will begin to change the way people think about skin color. "We can take a topic that has caused so much disagreement, so much suffering, and so much misunderstanding," she says, "and completely disarm it."

---

So they have a more "politically correct" set of data pertaining to skin color? Interseting

^I think anthropologists ( who have in depth knowledge of tribes and cultures) and geo info scientists ( who have knowledge of population migration and distribution) would be very well placed to study the topic.

But i think considering Alpph's reference a biologist would be more appropriate but i think they got it right on this one

@ Alph tyvm for the article its very interesting

I could go into a deep mental state to answer these pivotal questions June181972 but since you only have 367 posts in six years then you first have to explain this -

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-1_nk1N3al7...us-stuff09.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ALPHATEK

I could go into a deep mental state to answer these pivotal questions June181972 but since you only have 367 posts in six years then you first have to explain this -

---

I really wasn't asking anything. That was more like me acknowledging and respecting the fact that this Jablonski is a bonafide anthropologist.

I recognize the game she is trying to play, I've seen and heard it all before.

And I don't do that class-clown / homo thing,
so I can't explain "that" for you

the egyptians (Kemet) called themselves and their nation, black, and the most valued aspects of their culture "black" (kem/kam)

aristotle herdotus and pythagorus described them as black.

why we question that is a whole nother convo.

http://njsr.org/pics/albums/userpics/10222/Ethiopia.jpg


http://njsr.org/pics/albums/userpics/10222/Egypt.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by june181972

I really wasn't asking anything. That was more like me acknowledging and respecting the fact that this Jablonski is a bonafide anthropologist.

I recognize the game she is trying to play, I've seen and heard it all before.

And I don't do that class-clown / homo thing,
so I can't explain "that" for you

---

Awww diddums..

http://www.baby-pictures.org/wp-cont...-Baby-Face.jpg