Black Egypt?

[Brivime]

Wtf ?! You really think genetic mutation itself is nonsense ?!

Where did I say that? The idea that non-blacks came to be from genetic mutation is ridiculous and racist.

[Dontfearme22]

Where did I say that? The idea that non-blacks came to be from genetic mutation is ridiculous and racist.

I would be more hesitant, would it be easier to understand that all modern globally recognized 'races' are the products of small genetic mutations(totally random)built up over time over ethnic and demographic lines.

It takes very little random change in a genome to shift someones appearance, thats why children dont always look exactly like 50/50 their parents.

Im not sure how its racist honestly, but I can see I am treading on egg-shells a bit here.

[PikeStance]

Where did I say that? The idea that non-blacks came to be from genetic mutation is ridiculous and racist.

I would be more hesitant, would it be easier to understand that all modern globally recognized 'races' are the products of small genetic mutations(totally random)built up over time over ethnic and demographic lines.

It takes very little random change in a genome to shift someones appearance, thats why children dont always look exactly like 50/50 their parents.

Im not sure how its racist honestly, but I can see I am treading on egg-shells a bit here.

I am not seeing it as racist either. All humans are 99.9% similar[1]. The genetic differences is due to environmental adaptation and natural selection.


[1] Due to the "genetic bottleneck" which DNA studies seems to support.

[Dontfearme22]

I am not seeing it as racist either. All humans are 99.9% similar[1]. The genetic differences is due to environmental adaptation and natural selection.


[1] Due to the "genetic bottleneck" which DNA studies seems to support.

and random mutation, everytime the genome is replicated something changes.

[PunitorMaximus]

Where did I say that? The idea that non-blacks came to be from genetic mutation is ridiculous and racist.

I am not seeing it as racist either. All humans are 99.9% similar[1]. The genetic differences is due to environmental adaptation and natural selection.

and random mutation, everytime the genome is replicated something changes.

i can't see how this is racist either, as different skin colour and appearance are such small genetical changes. it's not afrocentrism it's science and genetics

technically it isn't even mutation, actually this evolutionary process is called modification. albinism f.e. is a mutation, while the higher amount of melanin in darker skin is indeed a "conscious" adaption of the body to increased solar radiation. ofcourse aquired changes, like a tan, are not inherited, but up to a certain small amount modifications with advantages in a habitat are. also the organism "stores" old DNA sequences to put it to use if it's needed again.
mutation is mostly a bad thing for the organism, as the change is way too rapid and mostly caused by environmental influence such as chemicals and radioactive radiation. there are 3 major types of mutation: gene mutation (missing/extra gene sequence, e.g. my lactose intolerance due to lack of lactate sequence ), genome mutation (e.g. down syndrome, abnormal amount of chromosomes) and chromosome mutation (change in chromosome structure).
sorry for nitpicking, but i hoped to give a better understanding about that topic. it's really compliacted and i'm just scratching the surface with my knowledge (reading my 3rd book about that now^^).

[andrew881thebest]

WHY do we still talk of "black" and "white"? there is no such a thing in nature. IN nature we have infinite shades of colors which COULD be put into cathegories and scales, but this is a human job, not something natural. For what I see, there are many egiptian types, since there have been many influences, both from southern Africa and from Europe. There are guys who could be considered totally europeans (or south europeans) and guys who go more into the black african direction, and many shades in the middle. Stereotypes...oh good ol' stereotypes.

Anyway, the "africacentrist" idea that original men were black and came from Africa... it is not a theory, it is science. Going much back in time (I think that Homo erectus still lived in Africa), our ancestors were all black skinned. Since they lost body hair, they had to protect skin from hot african sun.

[PunitorMaximus]

actually it is a theory...but a theory is an extremely well investigated and reasoned scientific idea. some crationists claim that evolution is just a theory. but it's not JUST a theory it's a theory!
what they mean is actually thesis statement^^

[Dan113112]

WHY do we still talk of "black" and "white"? there is no such a thing in nature. IN nature we have infinite shades of colors which COULD be put into cathegories and scales, but this is a human job, not something natural. For what I see, there are many egiptian types, since there have been many influences, both from southern Africa and from Europe. There are guys who could be considered totally europeans (or south europeans) and guys who go more into the black african direction, and many shades in the middle. Stereotypes...oh good ol' stereotypes.

Anyway, the "africacentrist" idea that original men were black and came from Africa... it is not a theory, it is science. Going much back in time (I think that Homo erectus still lived in Africa), our ancestors were all black skinned. Since they lost body hair, they had to protect skin from hot african sun.

We use terms like black and white for simplicity's sake. It really isn't an Afrocentrist idea that humans originated from Africa. Or at least some of us did. There's pretty solid evidence backing this up. What this article is trying to address is the stuff you hear from some African-American scholars in the United States. Like Al Sharpton for example. They keep saying that blacks started all of these great civilizations when the proof isn't there to justify these claims. It's like African-Americans are trying to compensate due to Eurocentrism. The problem of course is that people believe these individuals.

[Gwyn chan r Gwyll]

That's not to say that Black civilizations did not exist prior to colonization, but those are medieval and renaissance civilizations, not bronze-age civilizations.

[Dontfearme22]

WHY do we still talk of "black" and "white"? there is no such a thing in nature.

Anyway, the "africacentrist" idea that original men were black and came from Africa... it is not a theory, it is science. Going much back in time (I think that Homo erectus still lived in Africa), our ancestors were all black skinned. Since they lost body hair, they had to protect skin from hot african sun.

[PikeStance]

actually it is a theory...but a theory is an extremely well investigated and reasoned scientific idea. some crationists claim that evolution is just a theory. but it's not JUST a theory it's a theory!
what they mean is actually thesis statement^^

The term "Theory" is often misused. It isn't a guess or an educated guess. A scientific Theory is a rational explanation based on the evidence thus far collected.
A thesis statement or a Hypothesis is not the same thing as a theory. A thesis statement informs the reader of what the paper/ article is about. A hypothesis is a question you intend to answer. You do NOT have to prove it correct.

Anyway, the "africacentrist" idea that original men were black and came from Africa... it is not a theory, it is science. Going much back in time (I think that Homo erectus still lived in Africa), our ancestors were all black skinned. Since they lost body hair, they had to protect skin from hot african sun.

Homo Erectus migrated out of Africa to at least as far as the Pacific Islands and Australia.

We use terms like black and white for simplicity's sake. It really isn't an Afrocentrist idea that humans originated from Africa. Or at least some of us did. There's pretty solid evidence backing this up. What this article is trying to address is the stuff you hear from some African-American scholars in the United States. Like Al Sharpton for example. They keep saying that blacks started all of these great civilizations when the proof isn't there to justify these claims. It's like African-Americans are trying to compensate due to Eurocentrism. The problem of course is that people believe these individuals.

That's not to say that Black civilizations did not exist prior to colonization, but those are medieval and renaissance civilizations, not bronze-age civilizations.

There are a number of African Civilizations that had existed
-The Empire Ghana
-Kingdom of Mali, including the great king Mansa Musa.
-Songhai Empire , including two great leader Sunni Ali and Askia Muhammad
-Forest Kingdom of Benin
-'Great" Zimbabwe
-Swahili East African Coast City- States

Also other fairly know civilizations should not be ignored
-Kush (Kush developed a written language based on phonetic long before the Phoenicians did)
-Nubia
-Axum

Ghana (no connection with the modern state of Ghana), Mali, and Songhai power rested in control of the Gold- Salt trade.
The Swahilli City States traded extensively with Arabia, Persia, and India (and with Spice Islands of Indonesia).
Their undoing more to do with the lack of guns than with anything else.

There are a number of factors that contributed to the development of Africa. The terrain is a mix of large Savannas and deserts. Moreover, Africa is a series of escarpments, which makes traveling through Africa difficult. It also had a lack of domesticated animals and the type of crops that could grow in Africa had less protein.

Anecdote: When I taught in the Ivory Coast, I taught a number of West Africans. While showing them a documentary (I taught African Culture's class) a scholar made a remark about Egypt and his heritage. My African students had a fit...."they are not from Egypt, they are like us, from West Africa! Why do they care about Egypt?

[Dan113112]

There are a number of African Civilizations that had existed
-The Empire Ghana
-Kingdom of Mali, including the great king Mansa Musa.
-Songhai Empire , including two great leader Sunni Ali and Askia Muhammad
-Forest Kingdom of Benin
-'Great" Zimbabwe
-Swahili East African Coast City- States

Also other fairly know civilizations should not be ignored
-Kush (Kush developed a written language based on phonetic long before the Phoenicians did)
-Nubia
-Axum

Ghana (no connection with the modern state of Ghana), Mali, and Songhai power rested in control of the Gold- Salt trade.
The Swahilli City States traded extensively with Arabia, Persia, and India (and with Spice Islands of Indonesia).
Their undoing more to do with the lack of guns than with anything else.

There are a number of factors that contributed to the development of Africa. The terrain is a mix of large Savannas and deserts. Moreover, Africa is a series of escarpments, which makes traveling through Africa difficult. It also had a lack of domesticated animals and the type of crops that could grow in Africa had less protein.

Anecdote: When I taught in the Ivory Coast, I taught a number of West Africans. While showing them a documentary (I taught African Culture's class) a scholar made a remark about Egypt and his heritage. My African students had a fit...."they are not from Egypt, they are like us, from West Africa! Why do they care about Egypt?

I'm not saying that African peoples didn't have complex civilizations. What I'm saying is that Afrocentrists tend to claim civilizations that weren't black African or didn't at least originate as such as their own for some reason. I just wish they'd go with the ones you listed.

[PunitorMaximus]

The term "Theory" is often misused. It isn't a guess or an educated guess. A scientific Theory is a rational explanation based on the evidence thus far collected.
A thesis statement or a Hypothesis is not the same thing as a theory. A thesis statement informs the reader of what the paper/ article is about. A hypothesis is a question you intend to answer. You do NOT have to prove it correct.

yup, that's what i tried to say^^