All great civilizations were "mutts". I don't get why Americans are in denial about this.
The memers are always going about "we were kangz" but if you ignore the black POV and you go general. Egyptians were mutts. Mediterraneans were mutts.
They were mixed men...
So.. where does this fetish about white purity comes from?
General behavior and cultural norms.
What thought provoking questions, Mr. Shekelstein.
I'm not a jewish guy but from what I've read on /pol/ I wish I were one. According to them they control everything and they have high IQ.
Egypt lacked a Negroid component though. This is proven by recent genetic tests on mummies.
I reckon they were pretty much identical with modern day Ashkenazi Jews.
Inbred?
Only the royal dynasties.
French
What is even "mixed"? For wild animals, this concept doesn't even exist. Have you ever heard of a "mixed deer" or "mixed sparrow"? People do talk about isolated populations of animals but they are more of a deviation from the norm ("mixed").
The concept of mutts does exist among domestic animals but these were all selectively bred by humans.
I think human breeding is closer to wild animals then to domestic ones (it's not controlled to serve a purpose), meaning that everyone can be considered "mixed". Or rather, this concept should be forgotten, instead the few remaining isolated groups (small tribes on islands etc.) should be seen as a deviation from the norm.
COMPELTELY FALSE YOU RETARDED IGNORANT, WILLFULY IGNROANT FUCKTARD, EGYPTIANS WERE (AND ARE) ABOUT 17-18% NIGGER ON AVERAGE
I'm using the American concept of mixed. It doesn't mean I agree with it but I'm on an American site.
Are yes, were NO.
They used to be white as snow just as Ashkenazi Jews are. This is proven through genetic studies on mummies. Afrocentrism is bunk.
...
It in't you RETARDED FUCK, and them being 18% BLACK doesn't mean they were West African NIGGERS, you retarded fuckwit
All populations descend from different population groups. So in that sense, everyone is a mutt.
>They were mixed men...
I wouldn't call them mixed in the modern sense of the term.
I don't even think that Egyptians were the same as "subsaharan africans" but to say they were white as snow just sound so ridiculous lol
The maximum I can accept is they looked like latinos.
I'm telling you, they were white like Ashkenazi Jews.
>Ancient Egyptian Mummy Genomes Suggest an Increase of Sub-Saharan African Ancestry in Post-Roman Periods
sarkoboros.net
That's just a politically correct way to phrase it. It went from negligible to 18% because of the slave trade.
Ashkenazi Jews are not "white as snow". They're even more s"eastern" than Sicilians genetically, and I think they have the same, or a tiny bit more SSA admixture than them.
So if they're white as snow then Sicilians are as well.
Who even cares? The point is that Afrocentrism is a joke. Egypt was basically a kingdom of white Semites.
You have misread that study
Are you being stupid on purpose?
It's not out yet that's just an abstract.
It makes all the sense in the world though that Ancient Egypt wouldn't have had any Negroid admixture, especially in the very beginning when the civilization was created. They were just homogenic Mediterranean people.
PLEASE REPORT THE PASSAGE WHERE IT SAYS THAT, THAT'S JUST YOUR MINDWORKING ON ITS OWN
>It makes all the sense in the world though that Ancient Egypt wouldn't have had any Negroid admixture
NO, IT DOES NOT
Funny ,that guy looks more like a Mestizo than a Sicilian
Are you an afrocentrist idiot? I think you are.
Think about it rationally for a second.
What would Negroid DNA be doing at the Mediterranean region 5000 years ago?
It doesn't belong. Egypt was homogenically Mediterranean until very late, long after they stopped progressing.
> All great civilizations were "mutts".
No, the post medieval Western civilization up til now is not only the greatest but is more magnificent than all the previous ones combined.
A single 19th century factory in England produced more than ancient Egypt and the ME put together.
That is why they are so adamant to whiteness, because, while we brownies were ahead of them before, they were the ones who launched the industrial revolution after living in backwater swamp ass for millenia, not us.
>All great civilizations were "mutts"
I agree, but it goes further than that. Not just great civilizations. We're all mutts. Go back 3000 years and you can find a common ancestor with literally anyone else on Earth, and that includes the "purest" groups like Australian aborigines, because even they were never 100% isolated for long.
Yes sure I'm an Italian afrocentrist because I want proof of all the bullshit you're spouting
>What would Negroid DNA be doing at the Mediterranean region 5000 years ago?
In the African Mediterranean it's likely to be presewnt, especially considering the huge impact Nilotic (Sub Sajharian) people had on what would become the Egyptian kindom
The English are mutts too.
But from the abstract we know it was not significant in the past. The slave trade brought it there. The genes of the land changed.
>huge impact Nilotic (Sub Sajharian) people had on what would become the Egyptian kindom
Enough with this crap. Stop spreading afrocentric propaganda Balotelli.
LEARN HISTORY AND PREHISTORY before exposing your so called ideas you dumb Nordicentrist, and "no significant" could mean anything
Easier than build on already existing foundations. Not to mention a greek of I forget right now (Hero of alexandria?) had already invented a vapor engine.
>Nordicentric
Lmao, okay then Balotelli. I'm just trying to be objective here. I'm not saying it was the Nords because that seems unlikely just like Ancient Egyptians having indigenous Negroid influence.
The leadership was almost always of Nordic stock. There is a reason why Americans were obsessed with the Nordicism movement in the 20th century as mutts started becoming more populous.
Ancient Egypt was very white/Mediterrean as this dendogram shows
Are you telling me you havnt seen the odd pigeon with brown wings?
No, the leadership was clearly Bantu.
The supreme Kemetic Blackman travelled across the world on spaceships planting the seeds of civilization.
The white colonialists destroyed these spaceships because they were jealous.
More proof of Egypt's Med greatness
I understand people saying that Egyptians weren't "black" black but saying they were white is so fucking ridiculous I think they are jokng.
>I'm an Italian afrocentrist
Are you Enrico Cardona? I think i have seen you in /pol/ for some time, making those black Egyptian threads
Much like Somalis, the Bronze Age Egyptians were WHIIIIIITE
Yes and?
>Afrocentric damage control
We go by DNA not some abstract skull measurements which don't reflect reality or tell the full story.
Egypt was a source of Caucasoid DNA into places like Ethiopia so of course there will be some Egyptian like skulls there. Nothing to do with Negroids.
Hol up... are you suggesting that.... WE WERE KANGZ N SHEIT?
WE
Egyptians were as mixed as latinos: True or false?
They were pure really as they lacked the Negroid component which Latinos often have.
WHIIIIIITE
That sounds like crazy talk. It goes against ALL common sense.
You don't quite understand what this means as Afrocentrists are not intellectually gifted for some reason.
It only means that Caucasoids from Egypt spread their seed across Eastern Africa.
>Have you ever heard of a "mixed deer" or "mixed sparrow"?
Tigon, Liger, Zorse, Zonkey, Hinny, Mule. Any of these sound familiar?
If by mixed you mean like half-white/quadroon/octoroon mixed then no. If mixed as in 'I am white but I'm 1/128th Choctaw' then yes.
AYOOO WE WUZ DA FATHERZ N SHIIET EVEN DO' WE WUZ DESCENDED FROM OUR SON AND SHIIET
Are you losing your small mind?
Egypt wasn't Negroid influenced and this is being proven through genetics. Negroids can maybe go excavate in the Congo jungles and hopefully they find something there they can be proud of.
So this man can come to Europe, yes? After all, he's not a Negroid. He's one of your Caucasoid brothers!
Somalis and Ethiopians are mixed, unlike Ancient Egyptians.
There were primitive African tribes related to the Hadza hunting and gathering fruits there before the Caucasoids came from the north and brought agriculture and technology.
If Somalis were only mixed then they would not plot so close to the Ancient Egyptians. They are far closer to them than pure Meds, Levantines or whatever else you can pull out of your ass. How do you explain that, my racist friend? Are you going to through out cranial studies even though they have stood the test of time as one of the most important methods of identifying population affinities? Are you a race denying PC libtard cuck redditor?
50% of Somalian and Ethiopian DNA comes from people closely related to Ancient Egyptians(who had nothing to do with Negroids).
>So.. where does this fetish about white purity comes from?
Only thing Scandies have going for them. After turning their countries into paradises they had to explain it by some other mean by "going to war is generally shitty".
Afrocentrism is 100% racist. It's 100% supremacist.
There's virtually no difference between it and the Hitlerian rhetoric you see on /pol/.
Only a very sick mind would support afrocentric anti-human fantasies.
Blacks are not superior and didn't create Ancient Egypt. Case closed.
>Ancient Egyptians
>White
They weren't niggers, but they weren't white either. Google "Fayum mummy portraits", stormfags.
>Easier than build on already existing foundations.
What existing foundations lol?
The industrial revolution was spawned by development in metallurgy, which happened in Europe independently.
Europeans developed blast furnaces for steel independently and further developed them without influence from the outside.
Similarly, the manufactures of the 17th century that gave rise to the modern factory is a pure European development.
Nobody apart from the pale asses had anything to do with the industrial revolution.
We were just there to enjoy the fruit of their tech jump.
A lot of bullshit being peddled in this thread. Anyway, the ancient Egyptians were even less sub-Saharan than contemporary ones (maybe except Copts), which a bit less than 20% on average.
A recent study is coming soon that will show this, based on ancient Egyptian remains from which we haven't had autosomal DNA so far:
saa.org
>Ancient Egyptian Mummy Genomes Suggest an Increase of Sub-Saharan African Ancestry in Post-Roman Periods
>Our analyses reveal that ancient Egyptians shared more Near Eastern ancestry than present-day Egyptians, who received additional Sub-Saharan admixture in more recent times.
Let's wait until we have the results but the abstract makes it clear that the ancient Egyptians, if we take those samples as representative, were
>What existing foundations
>more Near Eastern ancestry
the near east is the old name of the middle east
The only thing you showed is that Egyptians were closest to 50% West Eurasian East Africans, then Europeans and distant from most sub-Saharans.
The proof is coming though Pretty much. We'll see what they're like exactly. Still vast majority West Eurasian as expected of a North African population.
>West Eurasian
you mean caucasian?
i don't see you two disagreeing really, the guy claims they were mostly caucasians and so do you
you can be brown and be caucasian
race obsession, really
I know many Sicilians that are indeed white as snow.
Yes, "Caucasian" if you prefer. The guy sarcastically wrote "Ancient Egypt was very white/Mediterrean as this dendogram shows" and tried to imply it had significant sub-Saharan ancestry via faulty understanding of his charts.
I agree that those people should drop their obsession. The results are coming in and it seems that ancient Egypt was a north African Caucasoid civilization with some sub-Saharan admixture like modern day North Africans.
>with some sub-Saharan admixture like modern day North Africans.
Dubious. Maybe 1-3% but even then it would have been an older type of East African, very unrelated to Negroid types.
>DNA from the Third Intermediate to the Roman Period
>Having more SSA mixture or any mixture
this is expected, after the third intermediate period, nobody cares about Egypt's genetics since Ancient Egypt at this point since the civilization had long reached its high point and was on the decline and long before this Middle Easterners had been mingling and mixing with the pop
this doesn't prove that the actual civilization and culture was made by West Asians
Then they aren't ethically sicilian
This is what they look like
if black east africans aren't negroids, then egyptians can't be caucasians because you are literally applying different criteria and granularity to your races
either you have 5 races or you have >30 and that's just crap
Afrocentric lunatic spotted.
Your post is approaching the other side of the bullshit. Let's wait for the results at least but your whole "older type of East African, very unrelated to Negroid types" is just nonsense. Either way
nope
>year is 3200
>In Meximerica, University of Los Washingtanos
>"ey homes, this genetics study proves that Americans from 2200 had very high Mexican admixture, America is a Mexican civilization! aribaaaa!"
:^)
who's complaining? if you want to claim egypt, prove the pre-dynastic upper egyptians who unified to two, established the culture and most of the religion was west eurasian or w/e or else this discussion is pointless
Semantics doesn't change reality.
Niger-Congoids form a genetic, cultural and linguistic group. When people talk about Blacks they mean Niger-Congoids and groups similar to them.
I don't care to "claim" any civilization or culture, especially ancient Egypt to which I have no real connection to, I'm just stating facts that Afrocentrists need to also accept.
sometimes when people talk caucasians they don't mean brown people, but hey
it really isn't semantics, you'll find that what makes the most sense of all racial definitions is 5 races
you clutch onto your 19 century congoids though, i'm fine with that
>All great civilizations were "mutts"
That's just false. While the "one drop rule" obsession is a retarded American invention (and honestly what comes out of America that isn't retarded?) the only civilization I can think of that's "mutts" in any meaningful sense is Latin-Caribbean civilization in the Americas.
I agree with you on that. I personally don't even care about the categorization of "race".
But it's a reality that West Eurasians and North Africans are genetically closer than North Africans are to sub-Saharan Africans and ancient Egyptians seem to have belonged to the North African group and I'm glad Afrocentrist bullshit is going to collapse this year.
Hadza, Khoisan and Pygmies seem fundamentally different from the Niger-Congoids.
What if there was 1% Pygmy admixture in Egypt but 0% Negroid?
Would Niger-Congoids celebrate Pygmies as their Black brothers? Well first they would have to stop eating them...
Im so glad we can blame America on all our problems. What would we do without them.
What do you mean mixed men?
Who were the ancient greeks and romans mixed with? They were "pure" meds
There's no such thing as a 'pure' race, anyway, it's a nonsensical concept. Population genetics has shown that all contemporary populations are the result of various ancestral populations.
I have no clue what OP was specifically talking about but, as usual, it was interpreted in the whole "Afrocentric Egypt" way (which will be rendered dead soon, conclusively).
>which will be rendered dead soon
it already is
"afro"centrists will never shut up though because they don't care about facts anyway
what does afrocentric mean to you people?
niger-congo centric? north-east african centric? please define it
it's a convenient boogeyman that /pol/yps prop up to prove that niggers are stealing white heritage.
Afrocentrists can believe a lot of really insane things like Vikings, Olmecs and Chinese being originally Negroids.
But every single one seems to share the belief that Egyptian civilization originates in people as Negroid as African Americans or more.
to me it's the term used by pol-fag types (sort of an opposition to the term eurocentrism) to describe blacks who claim non-black civilizations
it's an inadequate term in this case since egypt is in africa and egyptians are a lot more african than the blacks claiming their civilization who probably haven't even been there
I prefer this a an indicator of race. Obvious these are social categories, not scientific but they match the general collective feeling of myself anyway.
Since straight out of africa, the blacks, who have no cultural identity or heritage besides slavery, are actively trying to take past accomplishments of old civilizations has theirs, specially the ones who developed close to africa
Well, the evidence coming will be conclusive. There will be little wiggle room for most reasonable people.
That would take more space than I'm willing to give right now (sorry, too lazy) but in this case let's reserve it to people who believe that ancient Egypt was mostly or significantly sub-Saharan in ancestry.
that "brown race" makes absolutely no sense. Central Asians, North Africans and South Asians together makes no sense. North Africans are closer to Europeans than either of the other two for example
Melanesians are 'black' too? they're genetically closer to East Asians than sub-Saharan Africans
I knew of this map and it was always one of the worst old physical anthropological ones I had come across. others got it much better
but if you reserve it for "social categories", we can let some of the genetic nonsense pass
It documents most common pigmination of an area. To me, the majority of Turkics, Indians, MENA's and Indonesians are Brown even though they don't share race. Thus they are, socially speaking, brown races.
>Syrians
>Lebanese
>Jews
>brown
No.
Also, South Indians are pretty much black.
Assad's skin tone is a minority. Most are brown looking.
Because of the sun or because it's their natural skin color though?
How about Jews?
>inb4 they only look white because they mixed with Europeans
They were already light Semites to begin with. Samaritans aren't brown.
The whole ethnic purity dichotomy makes for good nation states, but not for great empires or civilizations on their own.
The great Empires of history mostly had to do away with the concept of a pure homogenous state, as placing one minority group of the empire above all others sets up an unstable oligarchy in the end, and is nothing but fuel for eventual rebellion.
I believe it was written in Machiavelli's The Prince that the conquered subjects of a state should not feel alien or outcasted from the state that now rules them, but rather be integrated into the general populace to erase the concept that somehow one people is separate from the other within a state.
Even the European colonial empires had to give up ground to avoid rebellions and collapse, as all of Latin America rebelled and broke free of Spanish control because the mullatos and natives were outcasted from Spanish colonial society. This along with the Haitian Revolution caused the other empires to grant rights and positions in government to the locals and let them participate in the state, extending the life of their empires for another century.
>The great Empires of history mostly had to do away with the concept of a pure homogenous state
t. China.
>as placing one minority group of the empire above all others sets up an unstable oligarchy in the end, and is nothing but fuel for eventual rebellion.
It's the other way around. When there's a capable racial elite, e.g. the Italian soldiery and leadership caste of the Roman Republic and High Empire period, then they're strong. When universalism culminating in Caracalla's decree wewuz'ed the Empire and unhinged the Empire from any sort of strong ethnic elite holding the center together, everything started to come apart at the seams.
See: Modern day America. Just a complete fucking clusterfuck. The American national identity may as well just be a travel document at this point.
There's a bit more diversity in appearance than that.