Why is there a huge rise of Afrocentrism in history?

[Roma_Victrix]

This exercise may be as subjective as their artistic style, but I got the two from the same photoshoot to minimize lighting differences:



I guess these two got less sun:



There's a realism to their depictions I think, but they also seem to be ideological in their uniformity when it comes to different types of people.

Now we've got a problem here:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

How did that guy of mixed Aegean and Levantine ancestry get to be that color?

EDIT: Getting even stranger, now Rameses II is the same color as a Canaanite:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The Hittite is lighter at least.

Early on Egyptians only had three pigments suitable for painting skin colors - carbon black, red ochre, yellow ochre, and limestone white. Although you'd think they could get a good brown color by mixing the red and yellow ochre, it seems like they usually didn't for some reason. Looking at the art, it's pretty easy to see which pigment was used in each case.

They also used these pigments as body paints and make-up. People in parts of Africa still paint their own skin with red and yellow ochre for aesthetic reasons and also because it protects the skin from drying out. I think I read somewhere that Beja people used to paint themselves with red ochre, but I can't find the source. Here's a Tuareg girl with yellow ochre face paint:

I always laugh when I see that statue, the Egyptian nobleman with the carefully cropped pencil mustache, and realize that it is indeed ancient, and not a depiction of a sleazy Hollywood director from the 1950s who has his shirt off at the beach.

[saxdude]

I did't pay heed to that part TBH. Of course nobody can say what the future will bring (or more to the point, what is not going to happen). I believe somebody already said at some point in this thread that nobody in the ancient world would have believed it if they'd heard that the "savages" of Northern Europe would become the culturally (and otherwise) dominant force in the world.

Another point is that while Eurocentrism is on the retreat (except for some bizarre variation that sees white Europeans as the greatest villains ever, regardless of time period, and everyone else as hapless victims), Afrocentrism has the potential to do huge damage, should it catch on, given the African expansion of our days.

I skipped the rest of the thread because quite frankly it's tiring, I don't have the energy to discuss controverial topics like this all the time. Still, as it stands Eurocentrism, if it's on the retreat, is because centrisms are beggining to level out, at least in the scientific field. Afrocentrism isn't threatning to catch on, nor does it do more damage than eurocentrism did and does in our age. It gets the press that it does because black (african) minorities in the western world are and continue to be the groups with most public conflict with the white (european) majority, so it gets out their more.
I'm pretty sure it will level out as well, at least insofar as tensions reduce between the two groups at grand social level.

[|Sith|Galvanized Iron]

I've recently noticed cheery picking old pictures and theories and claim that whites "whitewashed history". By their logic they invented everything, we are Albino Turks, and everything we ever do or have done against them is racist. Has any academic or a legitimate historian ever debunked their theories?

Not among any serious historians. You would have to throw away 99.9% of all historical evidence and basicly base everything on some dubious annecdotes to make such a world view work. So it doesn't really need to be debunked since history itself debunks it. Anyway where have you seen such claims? Only read such nonsense on the home pages of some black hate groups like the Black Hebrew Israelites and in the occasional comment on a news article. Seems to mostly be an American phenomena among blacks there, never heard an actual African say such nonsense.

Still it is fascinating how they claim that blacks where always on top and ruled empires like the Romans, then suddenly Whites rule everything and erase history according to them. How do they imagine that could just suddenly happend if they had everything under control? There's a huge missing link in their theories.

[|Sith|Galvanized Iron]

The point is that the foundations of these arguments against the ancient Egyptians as "black Africans" is rooted in the racist scholarship of 200 years ago. This is simply denying the obvious as every single argument given is the same argument given 200 years ago. I have quoted the scholars and what they said then is no different from what folks are saying now: ancient brown whites, negroes were only slaves from 'Sub saharan' Africa and black folks are simply jealous because supposedly black Africa had no civilization and so forth and so on. There is no 'science' behind any of this just nonsense rhetoric posing as science. Yet people want to sit here and claim that what they are saying is so different than that of the old racists when it is not. Suffice to say this is why this topic draws the debate because the racism has always been the fundamental issue and simply put like I said earlier, Europeans who try to pass themselves off as 'objective authorities' don't like being called out on their NON SENSE. And it really gets me upset when people slander Africans when Africans DON'T have 400 years of racism in literature and 'science' trying to prove to the world why 'black' people are superior, while those who ACTUALLY DO have a history of this are trying to pass themselves off as innocent....

Not to mention you completely ignored all the full tombs from the dynastic period of Egypt with images UNLIKE those of the Roman Era. So I guess you only care about Egyptian art if you can claim it as representing 'Eurasian brown' people huh?

And my point about slavery was that it was a weak response to my point that the ONLY people who are closest to the ancients are the people in Upper Egypt to this day who are still black in many cases. But somebody threw in slavery as a way of saying this is 'recent' mixture from the Islamic era..... Sure black folks just got to Upper Egypt from slavery in the Islamic era.





I knew I shouldn't have gone there because this is typical of the nonsense that gets debated on this topic. Unless you can show me a black African anywhere on the planet that IS NOT a shade of brown, then can we agree you are blowing absolute nonsense on this thread? Seriously? Brown is brown and black Africans are shades of brown. The point is that it is racists who have historically twisted themselves into knots trying to 'make up' new racial categories in order to separate Egypt from Africa when it is smack dab on the African continent. And now you have people arguing the same thing claiming it is 'new' science when it isn't and it is nonsense. Now we are going to debate what brown is when brown is in the dictionary:


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/brown
According to that definition all black Africans are shades of brown. Please cease with the nonsense semantics.

If black people as defined by Europeans racists is based on 'black blood' from Africa then how on earth can you claim a population IN AFRICA is brown but that brown didn't come from some 'black' Ancestor? It is hypocrisy at its finest.

Again, to sit here and say that this is the 'bullet proof' logic that is above all reproach and debate is insane.

Because in all reality you don't really mean brown you mean some shade of 'tan' or off white or beige and even olive which is not even what is considered the definition of 'brown' as a standard color reference as in crayon colors or paint colors.

This is the same garbage from 100 years ago.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giuseppe_Sergi

Speaking of brown the ancient Egyptians always used red ochre which produces brown colors for themselves and that is truly BROWN in any color palette and that color brown is not like any of these modern brown folks you claim they looked like. As in that image of tut that looks NOTHING like the mummy or any of the art that actually IS BROWN. But that is just the Egyptians not knowing their colors and the real mummy not knowing the facts. Don't you find it odd that with all the artifacts you have from Egypt including all the art work, you have folks doing reconstructions and paintings of King Tut every few years or so? Why? Why isn't the golden mummy mask and the dam mummy not enough? WTF is that about? You have more information on Egyptians than most Greeks or Romans yet how often do you see modern reconstructions displayed in museums with the ancient artifacts from Rome or Greece?

Oh there is one of you here, how fun. Do you claim the Romans, Greeks and Hebrews were all black or do you settle for the Egyptians?

Anyway it doesn't really matter because if you are claiming that the Egyptians were black you are clearly wrong aswell. If the Egyptians were black then how do you explain the numerous blond mumies found?

Or even better, how do you explain that King Tut of Egypt was 99.6% Western European according to his DNA test?
http://www.therightperspective.org/2....G8KoQM7Z.dpbs

Oh look I found a black supremacist forum. This forum is gold mine for looking up stupidity:
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ul...ubb=forum;f=15
I have no idea why they are masquerading it as a travel forum.

[Wu Guo]

I wasn't referring to the Ainu when I said modern Japanese, obviously the Ainu are a population isolate which is more representative of the ancient inhabitants. As far as the Papuan reference, that's what I get for trying to use an example outside my area of expertise without reading the whole paper. I don't know that much about East Asian population genetics, but anyway, so it's not as dramatic of an example as the Iberian one, but it's still demonstrates the same population replacement principle. EDIT: Significant but not complete replacement, so that the bulk of the modern population is descended from the ancient population, but not most similar.

While the contents of this post may be suitable for another thread I agree with the premise that ancient and modern day populations exhibit significant differences though the later may be partially derived from the former.

While the Ainu may have the largest Jomon component additional Siberian/Japanese admixture shouldn't be discounted,the point being that no modern day population should be used as a substitute for the Jomon. I have read erroneous posts that Jomon populations are Melanesian/Polynesian/South Asian based on craniofacial measurements while in reality that are an extinct group that branched off East Eurasians after the East Eurasian/Melanesian split but prior to Northern East Eurasian/Southern East Eurasians.

While textual and archaeological sources may be tainted by nationalism,genetics show that Japanese from Kyushu cluster with southwestern South Koreans(former territory of Baekje) while O2b*SRY465 expansion into Japan was of continental not indigenous origin.("High frequencies of Y-chromosome haplogroup O2b-SRY465 lineages in Korea: a genetic perspective on the peopling of Korea",The Peopling of Korea Revealed by Analyses of Mitochondrial DNA and Y-Chromosomal Markers").


As far as East Asian population dynamics I recall that craniometric studies from neolithic Banpo and Yangshao sites show that residents resemble modern day Zhuang people(graphs from Ranhaer)

Bronze age samples show that Shang(Xicha,Inner Mongolia) and western Zhou sites(Wayaopu,Shaanxi) clustered with ancient Qiang?(Xindian,Qinghai) groups.("The Population History of China and Mongolia from the Bronze Age to the Medieval Period(2500 BC-AD 1500)")

Iron age samples such as Zhao(Tuchengzi,Inner Mongolia) and Qin(Longxian,Shaanxi) clustered with Eastern Han/Western Jin(Taojiazhai,Qinghai) and Han(Upper Sunjiazhai,Qinghai) samples("Xiongnu population history in relation to China and the Western Regions"),though other sites such as Zhou-Han(Luzhongnan,Shandong) and Han(Zhengzhou,Henan) cluster towards southern Han(Fujian?).(鄭州漢唐宋墓葬出土人骨研究,山東魯中南地區周—漢代人骨研究 etc.)

As for the Xiongnu they are unrelated to Upper Xiajiadian(ancestral to Xianbei) and are speculated to originate outside Inner Mongolia,Central Plains and Manchurian regions.("Xiongnu population history in relation to China and the Western Regions")

I'm beginning to wonder if there was a heavy population replacement from neolithic China to bronze age China as Qin and Han era terracotta statues look quite different from modern day Zhuang and the recent expansion of O3a1c* IMS-JST002611/ O3a2c1* M134 and their subclades.

[ArmoredCore]

Oh there is one of you here, how fun. Do you claim the Romans, Greeks and Hebrews were all black or do you settle for the Egyptians?

Anyway it doesn't really matter because if you are claiming that the Egyptians were black you are clearly wrong aswell. If the Egyptians were black then how do you explain the numerous blond mumies found?

Or even better, how do you explain that King Tut of Egypt was 99.6% Western European according to his DNA test?
http://www.therightperspective.org/2....G8KoQM7Z.dpbs

Oh look I found a black supremacist forum. This forum is gold mine for looking up stupidity:
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ul...ubb=forum;f=15
I have no idea why they are masquerading it as a travel forum.

Here are some modern videos of Archaeologists in Egypt. Even now, with all the "mixture' in Egypt, the native Egyptians are still often black and the only whites are the European archaeologists. And certainly there are no 'white blonds' anywhere to be found among these natives. So whatever science you believe is going to transform the ancestors of these people who were on average darker than those today into white Europeans and blondes is total fictional made up nonsense from Europeans who are desperate to put themselves into something they have nothing to do with. This isn't an issue of Afrocentrism it is an issue of facts.





https://vimeo.com/54481850


Travel videos luxor:




Older videos


So what you have always had is Europeans totally ignoring the local populations on these digs and focusing on skulls and artifacts trying to 'magically' turn them into Europeans.

And trying to convince everyone that this nonsense is science. And rather than admit it is nonsense these folks are trying to pretend the problem started with the Africans.....

[sumskilz]

Here are some modern videos of Archaeologists in Egypt. Even now, with all the "mixture' in Egypt, the native Egyptians are still often black and the only whites are the European archaeologists. And certainly there are no 'white blonds' anywhere to be found among these natives. So whatever science you believe is going to transform the ancestors of these people who were on average darker than those today into white Europeans and blondes is total fictional made up nonsense from Europeans who are desperate to put themselves into something they have nothing to do with. This isn't an issue of Afrocentrism it is an issue of facts.

According to genetic evidence Egyptian and Northern Sudanese Copts appear to the only population predominantly descended from the ancient Egyptians. Most have dark hair, some have lighter hair. Your posts only demonstrate your ability create strawman arguments, and your counter evidence is on this level: the majority of North Americans are of European ancestry today, therefore ancient Native Americans were white... Do you see how absurd that is?

Your nonsense has been answered:

I see ArmoredCore has come up with another pile of logical fallacies.

The Afrocentrist arguments are ridiculously slippery as they swing between biological and social definitions - whichever suits them in the moment. Their perspective is a mythology that’s as rooted in 19th Century and early 20th perceptions as Nordicism is, with a little bit of postmodernist jargon thrown in to allow an extra level of tacking, weaving, and obfuscation. ArmoredCore uses terms like “back Africans” while refusing to define them. If “black” is simply an issue of identity or a social construct, then the label doesn’t apply to ancient Egyptians – transhistorical black identity is a myth; even pan-Africanism is relatively new.

If by “black”, one means something based in biology, then the only objective scientific reality that can correspond to it is the distinction between descendants of out-of-Africa populations versus sub-Saharan African populations which is easily detected in autosomal DNA analysis. It appears this was caused by a long period of isolation (at least a much reduced gene flow) starting at about 40,000 years ago.

In modern Egypt and Sudan, there are four major genetic components present that represent prehistoric population divergences, the names used for them are just for the sake of convenience, but they represent biological realities. They are:

1) North African, this is the result of an out-of-Africa back migration about 12,000 years ago.

2) Middle Eastern, this could have already been present in the predynastic period, especially in the delta, it certainly was present to some degree prior to the Arab conquest, but it seems that a large portion of it arrived after the Arab conquest.

3) Nilo-Saharan, this is sub-Saharan, it is predominate in Nuba and Dafurian people.

4) West African, this is sub-Saharan, it is predominate in Yoruba people.

These four genetic components are distributed among modern populations as follows:

Copts from Khartoum - ~88% North African, ~12% Middle Eastern

Muslim Egyptians - ~80% Middle Eastern, ~6% North African, ~7% Nilo-Saharan, ~7% West African

Beja - ~70% North African, ~30% Nilo-Saharan

Two Coptic individuals in the study I posted were ~2% Nilo-Saharan, one was ~9% Nilo-Saharan. People like the Nuba and Dafurians are almost 100% Nilo-Saharan. If the Copts of Khartoum are representative of ancient Egyptians, then ancient Egyptians weren’t very sub-Saharan African at all, but the low level sub-Saharan admixture in some individuals probably represents the role that Nubians played in ancient Egypt society. Based on ancient depictions and the lack of significant ancient autosomal DNA samples from Upper Egypt, I’m willing to accept (as I said earlier) that it is possible that Upper Egyptians were at least initially a bit more Beja-like, which in genetics terms is ~30% sub-Saharan African at most, but not of the West African sort, so I don’t really see much truth within the Afrocentric mythology either way.

EDIT: Actually I can't find any Egyptian individual, in any of the studies, who has more than ~23% Sub-Saharan African ancestry, and these are the people ArmoredCore says look just like the ancient portraits. Hmm...

Upper Egypt may have been more Beja-like at some point, without more ancient DNA samples it's hard to know for certain. However, even Beja people still have much more genetically in common with Copts than with Sub-Saharan Africans, despite whatever subjective impression you have based on a few phenotypes.

[ArmoredCore]

According to genetic evidence Egyptian and Northern Sudanese Copts appear to the only population predominantly descended from the ancient Egyptians. Most have dark hair, some have lighter hair. Your posts only demonstrate your ability create strawman arguments, and your counter evidence is on this level: the majority of North Americans are of European ancestry today, therefore ancient Native Americans were white... Do you see how absurd that is?

Your nonsense has been answered:

Upper Egypt may have been more Beja-like at some point, without more ancient DNA samples it's hard to know for certain. However, even Beja people still have much more genetically in common with Copts than with Sub-Saharan Africans, despite whatever subjective impression you have based on a few phenotypes.

The facts are that the ancient Egyptians were not "white European" in any sense of the word, genetically, biologically, culturally or physically. The population today which you see in the videos I posted look like a base black African population overlaid with waves of admixture scenarios over many years. It does not look like a population that was "white Eurasian" in ancient times and now somehow turned into a bunch of Africans with non African admixture. If you seriously think your "genetics data" says these people were ancient white Eurasians who got mixed with black Africans over time you are delusional. But I guess since the videos aren't facts enough you will choose whatever "dataz" you can pull out of wherever you found it to try and turn facts upside down, which is what this whole issue has been about since Napoleon invaded Egypt. And even with that most of the artists and travellers who went to Egypt during and since have depicted the natives of Egypt as having a strong black African presence. To claim that this is not present and has not always been present or something Africans just "made up" is B.S. So please if you want to live in fantasy world then fine but don't engage me with it. Because what you just said is these populations which showed in the video are not really connected to the ancient populations in the same areas who built the monuments of Luxor. As if to say the white European explorers and invaders are more connected to the ancient population than the people in Egypt are. Yet you sit here and claim that Africans are trying to steal history? Seriously?

And I know this isn't simply an issue of people on this forum but an issue with the institution of Egyptology itself which is founded on racism and turning ancient Egypt into a land of white Eurasian or tan Eurasian looking people. The current population of Luxor does not in any way look anything like these people in the the reconstruction of the ancient Egyptians in this video. They even showed a statue of Amenhophis the III with strong black African features and then put on a reconstruction of somebody looking nothing like any of the art of the people or any of the people in Luxor to this day.

[sumskilz]

More strawman nonsense.

EDIT: Although your edit suffers from the same flawed reasoning, here is more evidence to throw on the pile:

Autosomal DNA from pre-Islamic Northern Sudan:

Principal component analysis was performed for sample KulR17 using 523 SNPs referenced against the Human Genome Diversity Project dataset. From this analysis, the geographic ancestry of this individual was estimated to be closer to Middle Eastern/and Central and South Asian populations than to any African population.

In other words, a sample from early medieval northern Sudan shares the same affinities as modern Copts from Khartoum. The fact that only 523 SNPs were recovered from this individual causes the populations to sort of blur together in the analysis since many SNPs that could further refine the clusters are missing. Even so, this individual was obviously quite distinct from sub-Saharan Africans, which is further reinforced by osteological analysis.

[ArmoredCore]

More strawman nonsense.

EDIT: Although your edit suffers from the same flawed reasoning, here is more evidence to throw on the pile:

Autosomal DNA from pre-Islamic Northern Sudan:



In other words, a sample from early medieval northern Sudan shares the same affinities as modern Copts from Khartoum. The fact that only 523 SNPs were recovered from this individual causes the populations to sort of blur together in the analysis since many SNPs that could further refine the clusters are missing. Even so, this individual was obviously quite distinct from sub-Saharan Africans, which is further reinforced by osteological analysis.

So am I to take this to mean that northern Sudanese aren't/weren't black Africans now? Really?

[+Marius+]

The facts are that the ancient Egyptians were not "white European" in any sense of the word, genetically, biologically, culturally or physically.

Get this through your skull;

White people do not exist, it is a modern construct.
Caucasians however do, and all of them from Ireland to India share the same racial epithet.

Skin color means nothing but human skin going "Gee, it sure was sunny/cloudy for the past *insert timeline*, I better adapt".

[sumskilz]

So am I to take this to mean that northern Sudanese aren't/weren't black Africans now? Really?

That individual was from Wadi Halfa from near the 2nd Cataract. The people who live in that area today that you consider to be Black Africans have only about 40% sub-Saharan ancestry. The particular individual in the analysis appears to be about the same as modern Copts who live in the area, most of whom don't have any sub-Saharan ancestry. However the DNA sample's coverage is light so he could have a bit of sub-Saharan ancestry that didn't show up by chance. There are several more DNA samples taken from individuals from the same site, so I will be able to say more when those are published. There is both osteological and genetic evidence to suggest that these individuals are at least partly descended from people who came from further down the Nile and so are probably more representative of ancient Egyptians than ancient Nubians.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

No one is claiming that Egyptians were white, not in the sense of European standards even. You however are going in the opposite direction and saying that Egyptians were black and giving a few bits and pieces of evidence from gaps and then throwing it all together then saying here is the undeniable proof. Surely you must see the flaw in your reasoning? Look at all of the other evidence stacked against you and even then not all of your evidence necessarily proves your theory.

I'm really not sure why anyone would believe in this stuff unless they themselves were black. So out of curiosity Armored Core are you an Afrocentrist and are you a black person? I'm not going to discredit you for saying yes to either of those things (Afrocentrism has already been discredited and being black isn't a crime this side of Mauretania) but I genuinely want to know now. Or are you say a white person who just happens to believe that Egyptians were black? Or perhaps you are a white (or Asian) person that is also an Afrocentrist?

[Thorn777]

Im White and quite sure Yusuf created me as a result of a faulty Experiment to clone super-soldiers on the isle of Cyprus. All because(to make a Long Story short)the king of Mekka didnt want to listen to Yusuf and so Yusuf had to Resort to desperate measures. Now the planet is haunted by White People like me and all their shady dealings. Which include making fun of afro-centrists.

Luckily a Samoan guy came to Detroit way back to unveil that Aliens one day will pick the Asiatic-Black Hebrew up. Though shall overcome. Amen.

[ArmoredCore]

No one is claiming that Egyptians were white, not in the sense of European standards even. You however are going in the opposite direction and saying that Egyptians were black and giving a few bits and pieces of evidence from gaps and then throwing it all together then saying here is the undeniable proof. Surely you must see the flaw in your reasoning? Look at all of the other evidence stacked against you and even then not all of your evidence necessarily proves your theory.

I'm really not sure why anyone would believe in this stuff unless they themselves were black. So out of curiosity Armored Core are you an Afrocentrist and are you a black person? I'm not going to discredit you for saying yes to either of those things (Afrocentrism has already been discredited and being black isn't a crime this side of Mauretania) but I genuinely want to know now. Or are you say a white person who just happens to believe that Egyptians were black? Or perhaps you are a white (or Asian) person that is also an Afrocentrist?

What I did is post videos and pictures of people in Egypt to this day who are black. To sit here and claim that somehow I or anybody else is "making this up" is your attempt at creating a strawman. Only NON Africans have a problem with Africans being black and Egypt is 100% in Africa. Or are you saying that 100% indigenous populations like the Beja or other folks from Upper Egypt are not black? The hypocrisy lies with Europeans and nobody else on this issue as the use of the term "black" to refer to Africans, especially as opposed to whites is purely a European social construct. To sit here and claim that Africans in America are black because they are Africans yet Africans IN Africa CANT be black is simply nonsense on your part and only someone desperate to change history would claim otherwise.

Anthropology is not an either or issue. Anthropology means studying populations present and past based on as much data as possible on the ground. Europeans historically have decided that the facts on the ground don't count and only their precious "race theories" are important, which is why over the last 200 years there have been so many European theories about what "races" were in Egypt from those distant times. This is not an African obsession. It is in fact an obsession coming squarely from the European scientific community who has historically been motivated by race (and racism). That is not something originating with or coming from Africans. Looking at the populations of Egypt and especially Upper Egypt you will see black people who look no different from any other black African anywhere else in Africa among other various blends of populations. And even with that blending the closest people to the ancient population are these people and no other, even with thousands of years of changes in the population. And nothing would suggest that the farther back you go in Egyptian Nile Valley African history that these people were LESS black instead of the opposite.

So I guess all those ancient paintings of the Egyptians as black people were an "Afrocentric conspiracy" huh?


https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/F...klynMuseum.png

or this as well: Thutmosis IV tomb:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:VdR_TIV9.jpg

[Dromikaites]

Using the phenotype (the looks) as an argument for the "blackness" of the Egyptians is as scientific as phrenology.

That being said, guess what? The evil white supremacist Europeans have already won in the academic circles the fight you are so valiantly fighting on this Internet forum. They have even brainwashed the Asian academics into rejecting the Afrocentrism. No doubt that was easy, given how short the Asian penises are compared to the black ones, and how resentful are the Asians because of that.

[Condottiere 40K]

The real b(l)acklash comes from the fact that the Germans used to claim everything important came from Aryans, so when this Afrocentrism movement came up based on the need to claim past achievements in order to find something to strengthen some nominal identity in multi-racial America, you can imagine how suspect any motivations and conclusions supporting it are viewed.

[ArmoredCore]

This "fight" isn't about skin color it is about what population introduced an obsession with "race" into the study of history.
To sit here and hear people complain Afrocentrism is about stealing African history from Africans is retarded.
It is also equally absurd to have folks claim that Africans introduced the concept of skin color or phenotype as being "race".
And then to compare that to 300 years of European racism and Eugenics is simply lies and slander against African scholarship.
Europeans introduced scientific racism into the world. Europeans introduced eugenics into the world. These are not "African" or "Afrocentric".
Countering European distortion in history is not an "ism" as in making up new distortions to counter old distortions (at least it shouldn't be).

But even if there are some distortions, to sit here and claim that African scholarship on history is based on wanting to promote "feel good" history based on distortions of "race", while at the same time claiming that European scholarship is only based on objective science and reason is simply a bold face lie.

[sumskilz]

What I did is post videos and pictures of people in Egypt to this day who are black... And nothing would suggest that the farther back you go in Egyptian Nile Valley African history that these people were LESS black instead of the opposite.

Except that with regard to historical time that is a false assumption on your part, and I have piled on the counter evidence in this thread. While there is no doubt that modern Muslim Egyptians are partially descended from ancient Egyptians, they are not representative of the ancient Egyptian population which had much closer affinities to modern Copts. Modern Egyptians were significantly affected by recent gene flow from Middle East and sub-Saharan Africa. Even so, those people from the Nile Valley on the Egyptian side of the border who you characterize as Black Africans have less than 23% sub-Saharan ancestry. A portion of their sub-Saharan ancestry is West African and Southeast African in origin and so almost certainly arrived via the slave trade. I have presented the evidence for this in posts #49, #52, #106, #108, #120, #152, and #169. As Dromikaites pointed out, the methodology employed in your arguments is absurdly unscientific. Even if we were to accept the subjective assessments of someone who refers to people with very little sub-Saharan ancestry as Black Africans while offering no definition of the term, the images you choose suffer from selection bias and ignore starkly contrasting depictions such as this:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

If we consider that a broad sampling of modern Egyptian autosomal DNA found no one with more than 23% sub-Saharan African ancestry and assess it in light of the fact that 18% of that ancestry can be identified via IBD segment length as having arrived since antiquity (Hellenthal et al 2014), then we can assume that some individuals in late antiquity had 5% or less sub-Saharan ancestry. This is consistent with both pre-Islamic DNA samples and those from the Coptic community in Khartoum.

That's not to say parts of the Nile Valley weren't different at some point in prehistory. Look at how the Egyptian colonization of Wadi Halfa in Lower Nubia changed the local morphology (MXCH = Christian Nubia):



This same change is supported by genetic evidence from Yousif et al 2009:

Haplogroups A-M13 was found at high frequencies among Neolithic samples. Haplogroup F-M89 and YAP appeared to be more frequent among Meroitic, Post-Meroitic and Christian periods. Haplogroup B-M60 was not observed in the sample analyze.

In other words, sub-Saharan African genetic patrilineages were replaced by back-migrant patrilineages.

Which is further consistent with dental morphology:


(Irish 1998)

Note that Pharonic dental morphology is is closest to Carthaginian and modern Bedouin morphology. Hanihara and Ishida 2005 also found pre-Dynastic and Pharonic dental morphology most closely resembled Middle Eastern, South Asian, and Southeast European dental morphology. The list could go on...

But even if there are some distortions, to sit here and claim that African scholarship on history is based on wanting to promote "feel good" history based on distortions of "race", while at the same time claiming that European scholarship is only based on objective science and reason is simply a bold face lie.

Plenty of Africans have been involved in the scientific studies I've posted as were many other non-Europeans. Some of the genetic studies were headed by Africans. Maybe you think Adebowale Adeyemo, Ali Al-Meeri, Gershim Asiki, Endashaw Bekele, Kalifa Bojang, Karima Fadhlaoui-Zid, Ayo Doumatey, Deepti Gurdasani, Li Hao, Muminatou Jallow, Ephrem Mekonnen, Priya Moorjani, Tamiru Oljira, Fatoumatta Sisay-Joof, Fasil Tekola-Ayele, Wei Wang and Yali Xue are all Nordicists? Maybe Japanese scholars like Hanihara and Ishida have some racist agenda to make ancient Egyptians seem more like Middle Easterners.

EDIT: A bit more on morphology...

The skull of a Roman Period Egyptian man next to his death mask:



Which is similar to 12th Dynasty skulls from Aswan in Upper Egypt:



A typical skull from Lower Nubia 7000-9000 BCE:



The dental morphology of Late Pleistocene Nubia was closest to West Africa, whereas back-migration and most significantly colonization by Egyptians brought Nubia progressively much closer to the dental morphology of the ancient Levant, particularly samples from En Gedi in modern Israel:


(Turner 2008)

[Roma_Victrix]

Except that with regard to historical time that is a false assumption on your part, and I have piled on the counter evidence in this thread. While there is no doubt that modern Muslim Egyptians are partially descended from ancient Egyptians, they are not representative of the ancient Egyptian population which had much closer affinities to modern Copts. Modern Egyptians were significantly affected by recent gene flow from Middle East and sub-Saharan Africa. Even so, those people from the Nile Valley on the Egyptian side of the border who you characterize as Black Africans have less than 23% sub-Saharan ancestry. A portion of their sub-Saharan ancestry is West African and Southeast African in origin and so almost certainly arrived via the slave trade. I have presented the evidence for this in posts #49, #52, #106, #108, #120, #152, and #169. As Dromikaites pointed out, the methodology employed in your arguments is absurdly unscientific. Even if we were to accept the subjective assessments of someone who refers to people with very little sub-Saharan ancestry as Black Africans while offering no definition of the term, the images you choose suffer from selection bias and ignore starkly contrasting depictions such as this:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

If we consider that a broad sampling of modern Egyptian autosomal DNA found no one with more than 23% sub-Saharan African ancestry and assess it in light of the fact that 18% of that ancestry can be identified via IBD segment length as having arrived since antiquity (Hellenthal et al 2014), then we can assume that some individuals in late antiquity had 5% or less sub-Saharan ancestry. This is consistent with both pre-Islamic DNA samples and those from the Coptic community in Khartoum.

That's not to say parts of the Nile Valley weren't different at some point in prehistory. Look at how the Egyptian colonization of Wadi Halfa in Lower Nubia changed the local morphology (MXCH = Christian Nubia):



This same change is supported by genetic evidence from Yousif et al 2009:

In other words, sub-Saharan African genetic patrilineages were replaced by back-migrant patrilineages.

Which is further consistent with dental morphology:


(Irish 1998)

Note that Pharonic dental morphology is is closest to Carthaginian and modern Bedouin morphology. Hanihara and Ishida 2005 also found pre-Dynastic and Pharonic dental morphology most closely resembled Middle Eastern, South Asian, and Southeast European dental morphology. The list could go on...

Plenty of Africans have been involved in the scientific studies I've posted as were many other non-Europeans. Some of the genetic studies were headed by Africans. Maybe you think Adebowale Adeyemo, Ali Al-Meeri, Gershim Asiki, Endashaw Bekele, Kalifa Bojang, Karima Fadhlaoui-Zid, Ayo Doumatey, Deepti Gurdasani, Li Hao, Muminatou Jallow, Ephrem Mekonnen, Priya Moorjani, Tamiru Oljira, Fatoumatta Sisay-Joof, Fasil Tekola-Ayele, Wei Wang and Yali Xue are all Nordicists? Maybe Japanese scholars like Hanihara and Ishida have some racist agenda to make ancient Egyptians seem more like Middle Easterners.

EDIT: A bit more on morphology...

The skull of a Roman Period Egyptian man next to his death mask:



Which is similar to 12th Dynasty skulls from Aswan in Upper Egypt:



A typical skull from Lower Nubia 7000-9000 BCE:



The dental morphology of Late Pleistocene Nubia was closest to West Africa, whereas back-migration and most significantly colonization by Egyptians brought Nubia progressively much closer to the dental morphology of the ancient Levant, particularly samples from En Gedi in modern Israel:


(Turner 2008)

Goddamn this post was thorough!

I'm assuming those guys (Nubians?) sitting on the floor in the spoiler picture are prisoners of war being accounted for by recorded number (i.e. there's an Egyptian guy standing above them who seems to be writing on a piece of wood or ceramic ostraca)? Look at their distinctive sub-Saharan features plus those big ass earrings! Very cool pic, thanks for sharing.