If a Nubian king once ruled over Egypt, then why is it stupid to assume black people didn't live in ancient Egypt and became Egyptians?
>>1145509
It's not, it's just stupid to assume that because Nubians once ruled Egypt that therefore the ancient Egyptian civilization was black.
>>1145509
Nobody denies the existance of black people in egypt but the problem is when people assume ALL egyptians were black because it's in africa.
t.egyptian
>>1145563
>Also does this mean some blacks were involved in the pyramid building?
It's possible but I don't know and I doubt anyone really knows. The Egyptian pyramids (assuming you're talking about the ones at Giza) were built almost 2000 years before the Nubians ruled Egypt, so there's no connection there assuming you were looking for one.
That said, the Kushites (Nubians) did build pyramids, several of which still exist in Sudan.
>>1145509
>black people
While Nubians are certainly dark skinned, "black people" in the American sense means Negroes, not Afroasiatics like Nubians, Egyptians, and Ethiopians.
>>1145509
There were plenty of black people in Ancient Egypt, no one disputes this except idiot stormfags. They weren't the majority or the ruling class though, except during the "Nubian" Dynasty of course.
>>1145509
If I wanted to depict egyptians for say an illustration, should I look to contemporary egyptians as reference for their faces and skin color?
>>1146491
Well.... maybe 200,000 Greeks migrated to Egypt and became part of the population.
>>1146684
The best you're going to get is Egyptian Copts.
>>1146703
The ancient greeks rarely intermarried with other cultures.
Even during Roman times they considered the Romans as vulgar and crass, judging from Plutarchs comments on the roman empire.
>>1145509
race isn't a legitimate concept it. It basically the same as phrenology.
Egyptians were black the same way Russians and British are both "white". in that they have the same skin. There are countless kinds of people in Africa.
African Americans trying to take historic credit for the Egyptians is stupid, because most African Americans were taken from West Africa. And there were countless Empires in that region.
The only difference between the Egyptian Empire and everything else is that the Egyptian Empire had their recordings survive history. Same with the Greeks. Most civilizations were just as a great, their history just didn't survive.
On the flip side, retarded /pol/ inspired people will imply Egyptians weren't black, even though Egypt was the bottleneck where all of humanity left Africa from. They were probably darker skinned than they are now, and lightened over the centuries when boating technology advanced along the Mediterranean. They were probably very dark skinned, but why does that even matter? Australian Aborigines are also dark skinned, but they aren't related to African Americans.
Africans did have self rule and Empires and civilizations, but were more isolated from the rest of the world, so a lot of tribes did not advance, or even get swept up into an Empire. African Empires south of Egypt also did not expand with the goal of holding more land. They're source of wealth were slaves (which were treated far differently than, say, European slaves).
>>1145563
Egypt didn't use slaves to build the pyramids. Slaves existed, but they weren't like the story of Moses. The story of Moses probably didn't even take place in Egypt, but Egypt was used because more people knew of Egypt throughout history than some other dead Empire.
>>1145563
Egypt is on the Mediterranean. what does mediterranean even mean? Are the Greeks the same as the Moroccans? both are Mediterranean.
Egyptians were much darker before ships advanced to the point where they could consistently travel along the Mediterranean.
>>1146684
Yes. I mean it was one of the most populous places in the world back in the 600's, arabs simply couldn't be numerous enough to change their genetic composition.
Try to pick up some people from the south of the country too to get the full picture, because they kinda vary a little across it.
>>1146720
yeah, but everyone thought that way about everyone else.
Greeks intermarried. everyone intermarried. if people are next to each other, they bang.
Just like White people thought blacks were gross and barbaric, but there are plenty of black people with white names and white genes, and vice versa, in the US. Hell, Jefferson had a bunch of babies with his slaves.
All cultures mix. only Europeans pretend there is racial purity because Europeans are radical nationalists.
>>1145563
>Do you know if blacks were treated differently than the rest of the Egyptians, I presume they were since they were enslaved by them.
If you were a Nubian cunt in Egypt, you're less likely to be a slave and more likely to be a warrior/mercenary.
Egypt tended to have shit infantry soldiers among their native conscripts, so it hired a lot of warriors from foreign lands to serve as infantry. Nubia and its ceaseless wars being the most popular recruitment ground.
Up until Kashta united the Noobs anyway.
>>1146813
>only Europeans pretend there is racial purity because Europeans are radical nationalists.
I fucking hate /leftypol/.
>>1146855
He's not wrong. Aside from black panther, what other non white nationalist, borderline jigonistic groups exist? Nationalism is a European concept.
Eejipshun
>>1146887
lol China has all sorts of crazy nationalists in it. The mutual hatred between Koreans and Japanese is legendary on this board and IRL, africa has all sorts of tribal murder fests going on.
You are fucking retarded.
>>1146913
Didn't know about China but the spats between Japan and Korea are ludicrous. Literally the same people with a very similar culture.
>>1146887
The
>racial purity
part is what got me. Han Chinese are very adamant about them being *HAN* Chinese. Japs are pretty fucking sure they're Japs and so forth. Racial purity is very far from a European concept.
As for non-white nationalist terrorist groups, off the top of my head I can give the Tamil Tigers and Tuareg militias in Libya, you have the Kurds and Chechens, Xinjiang terrorists as well (the guys wanting a Uyghurstan), of course you have the Indians vs. the Pakistanis and all the nationalist riff-raff inbetween' both countries are host to ultra-nationalists; speaking of South Asia, the breakaway of Bangladesh from Pakistan was also along ethnic/nationalist lines with the Bengalis vs. Pakistani elite. In terms of non-terrorist groups you've got Ataturk back in the 1920s and had the Chinese Nationalists during the Chinese Civil War, in the present day there are still Japanese nationalist parties all over the place, along with of course practically every single anti-colonial revolt in history, the actors of which based their resistance along nationalist, self-rule lines. I'm thinking of Sukarno specifically when I say this.
And we can throw in the nationalist anti-Japanese riots that happen from time to time in China, the nationalist anti-Han riots that happen in Xinjiang, the nationalist anti-Chinese riots and pogroms that happened in Indonesia and elsewhere, I mean this stuff is hardly a European phenomenon.
>>1146973
>Han Chinese are very adamant about them being *HAN* Chinese.
Membership to the Chinese club historically was a cultural one. Not an ethnic one.
This was due to the fact that Chinkdom was formed out of a multitude of states, in addition to the Southern Expansion, and the addition of Turkic/Nomadic Settlers during the Nanbeichao period. The identity needed to include all these foreign cunts in the empire.
The basis of this culture was Huaxia/Han of course, but cunts like An Lushan who spoke chinese and lived like a Chinese person was considered a member of Chink civilization even if he was a red haired, whiteish looking cunt from Sogdiana.
Even traditional Chink paintings reflect the multiethnic background of Chinese subjects.
>>1146949
>literally the same people
Fun fact: Korean is a language isolate and the most widely spoken such isolate in the world. And if you tell a Japanese that he's the same as a Korean or a Chinese guy or vice versa, you're liable to get slapped. It's like calling an Iranian an Arab. They flip their shit over that stuff. All their languages are extremely different, the only similarity is that Chinese characters used to be used to write and that Chinese architecture and thought influenced the others far more than vice versa, but they are still very much their own people.
>>1147005
>Membership to the Chinese club historically was a cultural one. Not an ethnic one.
Wasn't open to everyone though, only people who were within a certain sphere. During the Tang Dynasty, for example, Uighurs coming out of Mongolia into China proper were expressly forbidden from marrying or having relations with any 'Chinese' women and were required to wear their national dress at all times so as to be easily identifiable. Similarly, Tibetans were always Tibetans (including the ones hanging around in modern day Yunnan and Qinghai) and Mongols were always Mongols, Manchu were Manchu until they were bred out of existence and so on.
I'm actually quite curious to know what makes a Han a Han, I was doing some research on it a while ago and the term seemed to pop up specifically to differentiate the people living under the Han Dynasty aka the 'Han Chinese' from invading Xiongnu and other elements, and the term seemed to extend to most of China proper, but then you have guys like the Hakka who are considered separate even though they have the exact same origins, and also Zhuang/Miao are separate while Min people are considered a subgroup of Han. But Han people are pretty sure in their identity as a Han. It's fucking weird.
>>1147116
>Manchu were Manchu until they were bred out of existence and so on.
Manchu weren't bred out of existence - you can still see Chinese walking around with Manchu names and features associated with them such as the extremely vague "looking like a Korean" description of them by Han Chinese, but they're culturally absorbed into the Han Sphere.
>>1147116
It's somewhat arbitrary. Han is not a homogeneous group.
>>1146684
Yes but don't limit yourself to the big cities like Cairo.
Also it would be better if you travel across the country instead of searching for photos on google, but that's probably asking too much.
Finally, take into account that changes in clothes and fashion can make people look very different. Ancient egyptians loved depilation and make up.
>>1146684
Hard to tell,imagine asking the same question but replace egyptians with greeks,modern people rarely look similar to their ancient counter parts.
>>1147191
It's the actual opposite, ancient people often looks like their ancient counterparts. The contrary is a meme generated in the USA where there's no ancient counterpart.
>>1147202
This. Most populations today are the same as 2000 years ago.
>>1145612
Pic related is a Ptolemaic depiction of a Nubian. Looks black to me.
>>1146684
Depends on the location. If you want to depict Egyptians from the Old Kingdom with the pyramids and the sphinx and all that, look at Cairo. If you want New Kingdom Egyptians with gigantic temples and chariots, look at people from Luxor. The latter is generally much darker skinned, though not 'black'. Also look at their paintings like the Fayum mummy portraits or New Kingdom tomb frescoes. Again, the latter are darker than the former.
>>1150676
Depends on the society. Heavily populated agricultural areas like Egypt tend to stay the same. Low density populations like hunter-gatherers and pastoralists tend to change more often. Ancient Nubians and modern Sudanese look very different, for example. Also look at the varied populations of Central Asia; Asian-looking Hazara in Afghanistan and Kalmyks in Russia and Caucasian mummies in the Tarim Basin.
WE
>>1146887
Japan is probably the most racially homogenous nation on Earth, something like 98% of its population is ethnic Japanese and they fucking hate Korea.
