Why are Africans allowed to appropriate Egyptian history for themselves without any refutation or denial from Western...

>just as Macedonia does with ancient Macedon
>Just as Macedonia is the heir to Macedon.
Can you elaborate on this?

WE

>China claiming 3kys of history as some unified Han front.
Except they don't

They claim it's "Chinese" history. Not fucking Han. There's a reason why they didn't name the state after the race, idjit.

Totally not the same thing as black people wewuzing or pasty American-Italians pretending to have Viking heritages.

Isn't that a Nubian?

They weren't Egyptian.

Those things behind him pyramids tho?

Nubian pyramids. Pyramids as a concept aren't unique to Egyptians and the Nubians were influenced by their northern Egyptian neighbors in regards to architecture.

They wuz kangs

Why are Slavs allowed to appropriate Greek history for themselves without any refutation or denial from Western academia?

youtube.com/watch?v=KxhMiXV7814

>vid related

Upper Egyptians and Nubians in the predynastic and early dynastic influence were more influencing the lower Egyptians than the opposite.

white guilt

Same reason we let the Hapsburgs be claimed by people with Down's syndrome, why not give a mangy dog a bone so it doesn't bite you

Because it can't be academically refuted?

This video has nothing to do with African Americans. It is news covered from the protests.

Ayy

egyptians were barely even black
OP's pic is more like sub-saharan African.

FUCKING KUSHIANS

FYROM!

this, persians were even whiter.

turn the subtitles on.

because it's politically incorrect to besmirch africans in anyway

>without any refutation or denial from Western academia?
>which I know cause I am totally familiar with Egyptology
anthropology.msu.edu/anp455-fs14/2014/09/18/ancient-egyptian-race-debate/
They do refute that. They trigger you though cause they don't see history as the eternal struggle of the white race.
>There is simply no place where “black” skin ends and white “skin” begins, though many are hoping that by studying the DNA of mummies the racial background of the Ancient Egyptians will be revealed.
>Moreover, race as we know it is a modern concept. Our pattern of white supremacy, which was birthed out of economic concern, only began after African slaves had been brought to the Americas. For the ancients, nationality as we understand it was much more important than whatever shade of skin might have. The Ancient Greeks, for example, considered themselves the premier race based on culture, not color. But these racist ideals were too blinding to early archaeologists, who practically fabricated reason after reason the Ancient Egyptians could only be white. Even more desperately, the Nubians were not escape this pattern of whitewashing.

Nogs with access to twitter think they're scholars now. And African history / culture is nowhere near as interesting or documented as others, so instead of looking into their actual past, they lazily dingleberry themselves onto a more popular one. I mean, blacks saying they wuz fayroahs n sheeit is enough for a laugh, but when they start saying Europe was black until being swept clean by some random chucklefucks from the Caucuses, you're approaching /pol/ territory of tinfoil hattery.

>Why are Africans allowed to appropriate Egyptian history for themselves without any refutation or denial from Western academia?
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Egyptian_race_controversy
>155 mostly academic refrences
>hurr durr jew and black control academica and deny me of my birth right

The video has them and they are talking about Muhammad Morsi and then it says something different in the subtitles.

The funny thing is that it looks like ancient egyptians had less subsaharan admixture than today's egyptians.

>The Ancient Greeks, for example, considered themselves the premier race based on culture, not color.
Race is not color. Nobody believes this, nobody think african albions are white, nobody believes dark skinned indians are the same as africans.
Also, LMAO at calling the Greeks civic nationalists.

Threads with this pic need to be banned fucks sake Veeky Forums you still fall for gorilla posting on Veeky Forums esque threads.

>wikipedia

oh neat

>155 turds
>historical truth is a matter of consensus just like man-made climate change

ty for mentioning that.

Anyway lets see the article

>At the UNESCO "Symposium on the Peopling of Ancient Egypt and the Deciphering of the Meroitic Script" in Cairo in 1974, the Black Hypothesis met with "profound" disagreement

profound disagreement in the 70s

Lets see what they are saying currently

>Since the second half of the 20th century, most anthropologists have rejected the notion of race as having any validity in the study of human biology

oh right, race is just a social construct like sex and everything is relative, so blacks can identify as egyptian why not...
Thank you liberals.

>The Ancient Greeks, for example, considered themselves the premier race based on culture, not color.
homoaimon
homoglosson
homotropon

my dear user, the Greeks adored Egypt and tried to ascend to their level.

>historical truth is a matter of consensus
This is how science works bro. Inter-subjectivity. History is no different from others sciences in this regard. Sorry if I triggered your autism but scientific conduct means the exchange of arguments until a consensus is reached (for a time).
>oh right, race is just a social construct like sex and everything is relative, so blacks can identify as egyptian why not...
I really don't know what you expect. Do you want archeologists to pass a bill that limits the freedom of speech?

If you wanna do some heavy reading check and take it from there: englisch.gnomon-online.de/rech.FAU?sid=4B55E4C53&dm=1&auft=0 (don't know if Egyptology has it's own databases so I took the one from classics). Be disappointed though: Historians don't care really whether Egypt was black. Apparently some blacks in America do and by this they trigger /pol/.

How is this addressing anything I stated about academia refuting the black Egypt stuff? I seriously have to doubt your reading comprehension.

>This is how science works bro

no that's how liberals and "social scientists" want science to work. real science works on reproducible empirical evidence, it only takes 1 scientist to disprove a theory, no matter what the consensus says to him.

I was refuting the part I quoted, not the whole thing. We know egyptians weren't black because they had little to none subsaharan admixture.

>real science works on reproducible empirical evidence
Yeah, try to reproduce history. Or try to experiment with astro-physics.
>it only takes 1 scientist to disprove a theory,
>muh Popper
Talking about empirical evidence. Your statement is empirically wrong. Read some Kuhn or Lakatos for starters. There are countless examples of theories "surviving" falsificating evidence (e.g -aether theory) for some time. Like it or not there is a social component to history.

>to history.
*to science.

>implying that notion of science isn't an ideal type at best
>implying that 1 scientists will get the founding for his experiment
>implying he can prove causality as such
>implying he know what to measure without having a notion of how the world is like that is not based on a collection of subjective thoughts on how the world is like
>implying textbooks knowledge is the objective truth
>implying the experiment reproducibility of observations isn't the aim in social science as-well
>implying you took more than a 101 course on the history of science
>laughingnerds.tiff

>read some circle-jerking arm-chair philosophers who nitpick minor details in science because they were too stupid to actually do science themselves

What I say still stands.
WHen debating an issue you gotta appeal to evidence, not consensus. That's just lazy argumentation by any standard.

>Yeah, try to reproduce history

history has its own method, not the same as science obviously, but appeal to consensus is not how historical truth is established either.

>posts link refuting his own position

that article says the "we wuz kangz" black hypothesis was found to be profoundly incorrect, when they were studying it in the 70s.

>Because Egypt is in Africa.
So is the maghreb, does it mean black people are allowed whatever they want to do with the berber world history?

Egyptians have always been neolithic farmer in admixture, as in, mediterranean, from the very fucking start, stop being a fucking dumbass.

>Probably for the same reasons that most other academics don't waste time on other fringe conspiracy theorists.
If it's taught in high school it's not a fringe conspiracy theory

>Moreover, race as we know it is a modern concept. Our pattern of white supremacy, which was birthed out of economic concern, only began after African slaves had been brought to the Americas. For the ancients, nationality as we understand it was much more important than whatever shade of skin might have. The Ancient Greeks, for example, considered themselves the premier race based on culture, not color. But these racist ideals were too blinding to early archaeologists, who practically fabricated reason after reason the Ancient Egyptians could only be white. Even more desperately, the Nubians were not escape this pattern of whitewashing.

This is a fallacy pushed by people with no education in genetics or evolution. This position is only fashionable in the West. It's has no basis in reality, it's purely a political stance. This not the belief of people who study genetics and human evolutionary history as it contradicts all the data, and the major theories such as the "Out of Africa theory" and the many genetic clusters

therightstuff.biz/2015/05/18/the-rational-view-on-race/
Pictures used:'
Genetic Distance (fst)
>"There are many other species which have recognized subspecies that are less genetically distinct than human races are. Such species include, for example, the Canadian lynx, the African Buffalo, The Plain Zebra, and the Red Winged Black Bird. Dog breeds are more genetically distinct than most subspecies are and there is no plausible justification for using them as the standard by which to judge other species. The choice of dogs is obviously motivated entirely by the fact that dog breeds are more genetically distinct than human races. There is no other reason that RationalWiki decided to use them as their example. But if we use the same standards as we do for other species the level of genetic differentiation between human race is more than enough to justify calling them subspecies."
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19695787

The Maghreb is full of black Arab types. The line between black and Arab in that part of the world is not a sharp distinction. "Subsaharan" as a dividing race wall is a new and race based notion, not in the least bit scientific.

holy fucken stupid brits

probably because Rome had a massive empire that spanned the whole of Europe and encompassing most ethnic and cultural groups at that time. Even the Greeks had colonies across Europe and had a short but massive empire through Alexandre the great

Wrong, in antiquity, Egypt was considered a part of Asia for cultural reasons.

We are all descendant from Africans, so wouldn't this be true?

Alexandria was inhabited by blacks you fucking cracker

Let's assume that there are in fact different human races - black, white, etc. - determined by biology, and these races exhibit different levels of average aggression and average IQ.

Doesn't that necessarily imply a hierarchy of races?

Alexandria, Virginia maybe

>probably because Rome had a massive empire that spanned the whole of Europe
???
They owned NONE of Northern Europe besides Britain, and they always were like the Greeks in spirit, rather than the barbarian germans

Didn't watch the video, but your picture clearly shows Meroe pyramids, i.e. the ones that were built by Kushites in Kush. They were black.

No? There's no hierarchy of animals, for example.

Several german tribes were intergrated, yes.

>There's no hierarchy of animals, for example.
What is the food chain? What is the leader of the pride? What is biology 101?

Good thing you decided to actually ask about things you're not familiar with, instead of making stupid assumptions.

>What is the food chain?
First of all, it is not a hierarchy. Secondly, it doesn't range animals according to any qualities, it's just who eats whom. Finally, it is in no way similar to the supposed "hierarchy" that user was talking about.

>What is the leader of the pride?
I am going to assume you're talking about lions. The leader of a lion pride is the highest ranking male. Usually it is the oldest and the strongest of the males in the pride, but not necessarily. Of course, lions, like many other animals, including people even, have a hierarchy in their groups, based on their individual differences, psychology (and often culture in human groups), birth and so on. These are not hierarchies of species, or, again, hierarchies based on certain qualities.

That is his position, you guys need to improve your reading skills. OP states that there is no refutation or denial from Western academia, he points that there is lots of denial and refutation from Western Academia.

Germanic tribes being "integrated" is not the same as your original claim as Romans "owning" the *whole of Europe*. Also do you know which ethnic groups brought down the Western Roman Empire and crippled it before its fall?

Germanics.

They don't. African Americans do.

>They owned NONE of Northern Europe
many of the tribes that became part of the rome's auxiliaries where from places like Sweden.Most of these Germanic tribes where pushed into the roman empire by the huns.These tribes where used as paid mercenaries and auxiliaries at first

Point out on this map the provinces that are in northern europe. Part of Belgica and Britannia are the only ones.

oh look it crosses over modern Germany guess their where Germanics in the empire

nothing compares to the pajeet narrative tho

why are sperging out over northern Europe? it does change the fact that it spanned across Europe.and has a consequence most Europeans will have some history being a part of or contact with Rome. Northern Europe not being a part of the empire doesn't change that

>modern germany
>reflecting where ancient Germanic tribes lived
Are you retarded?

>thinks modern germany's borders are based on where germans lived 2000+ years ago

>many of the tribes that became part of rome's auxiliaries
So what?
Part of lower Germany ! = most of Northern Europe.

During the period of the Roman empire, more tribes settled in areas of the empire near the Rhine, in territories controlled by the Roman Empire. Eventually these areas came to be known as Lesser Germania, while Greater Germania (Magna Germania; it is also referred to by names referring to its being outside Roman control: Germania libera, "free Germania") formed the larger territory east of the Rhine.
>lower Germany ! = most of Northern Europe.
nobody said this

...

Earliest dyasties of the Old Kingdom could have very well had nubian rulers. All we know for certain is the 100 yr Kushite rule.

I blame the jews. I'm sure they are the ones teaching this shit

is Veeky Forums really this retarded on the early middle ages?
Rome fell in the west and the Merovingian Franks which are a Germanic tribes took over in what's now France
they were very much successors of Rome in the west
the Merovingians conquered almost all of modern day Germany and by the time the Carolingian dynasty took over this was a huge empire
the Frankish realm later split into what would become Germany, France and the low countries and all of those are successors of the Franks which are successors of the Romans in the west hence most of western Europe, including Germany can very much be said to come from Rome

>nobody said this
Uh huh.

>spanned the whole of Europe
does it not span the whole length of Europe? why the sperg out over nothern europe? doesn't change the point the post was trying to make

He said "all of Europe", you dong.

i think he meant length

WE

Doubtful.

yes i did

FYROM isn't in the historical region of macedon

Modern mudslime arab egyptians aren't ancient egyptians either

...

Then who the fuck was?

The Copts.

But Italy is located in the historically region of Italy from Roman times. Also the Italian people are the living posterity of ancient Romans.

What's a Nubian?

Something pertaining to Anubis

Anubis is the Greek way to say Anpu.

Macedon is a huge joke. At the same time they'll argue that they're heirs to Alexander and have a president called "Gjorge Ivanov"

Really fucking Greek name isn't it?

Then you are retarded. You don't say "all of Europe" and then turn around when called out on it and go "I just mean the parts they covered."