User talk:74.128.200.135

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. - BanyanTree 04:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people as you did at Kentucky, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Thank you.
John Reaves 00:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Unsigned comments

Please sign all comments you leave on article talk pages, such as this one. It's good etiquette, and it facilitates discussion by helping other users to identify the author of a particular comment, to navigate talk pages, and to address specific comments to the relevant user(s), among other things. There are two ways to sign your posts:

1. At the end of your comments, simply type four tildes (~), like this: ~~~~.

2. If you are using the edit toolbar option (which must be enabled under Special:Preferences), click the signature icon (Image:Signature_icon.png) to add the four tildes.

Your signature will appear after you have saved the changes.

The end result is the same in both cases.

Also, when you add comments to pages, please do not indent your paragraphs as you would in normal writing. Doing so stretches out the page and makes it more difficult to read what you've written.

Thank you. --Confiteordeo 14:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your Edits to Kentucky

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.
John Reaves 00:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Talk:Midwestern United States. Please be careful not to remove content from Wikipedia without a valid reason, which you should specify in the edit summary or on the article's talk page. Take a look at our welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. P.B. Pilhet / Talk 17:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Upland South

Could you be clearer about what reference/citation you'd like on the Upland South page? Your last edit summary said "source does not make specific reference to states that are apart of this region," ... if by "apart" you mean "a part", then yes, the sources both mention states, especially the book cited. So I'm not sure what the problem is, perhaps you could explain it more clearly on Talk:Upland South? Thanks. Pfly 01:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your edits to Golden Triangle (Kentucky)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Caliga10 01:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ramses

You asked: Someone who I'm debating this topic claims that "Haplogroup U6 is found in ancient Egypt" and that Ramses was Nordic anyone got a reference to shut him up.


^^^U6 is a MiddleEastern haplotype and was introduced into Egypt in bulk most likely as part of the Islamic invasion of the 7th century, obviously modern Egyptians are mixed with foreign elements (Arab), so his point is immaterial. Ancestrally through DNA analysis they trace their lineages back to Africa (check the article's genetics section and this link)http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/keita6.pdf .. Also, Ramses was not "Nordic", "Nordic" people were restricted to Northern Europe, "Lybian" would be better terminology. I will admit one thing, that he is said to have been of Lybian ethnic origin (not Egyptian), and not to mention that he gave a lot of his children non-Egyptian or semitic type names. Quote from Sopdet from raceandhistory.com..

"It is funny that the 19th dynasty, which proceeds the 18th dynasty, is heavily relied upon by Eurocentric scholars as their "proof" for ancient Egyptians being white. The very dynasty who's features and characteristics are atypical of the Egyptian populace. The 19th dynasty (unlike the other dynasties before it) were strong devotees of Seth, an Egyptian deity-demon believed to have red hair and to be a personification of all that is evil. Seth was widely worshipped by the Libyans whom commonly had red hairs and were whites. The 19th dynasty Pharaohs were tall, red-haired, and very pale-skinned (Skin color wasn't confirmed in any way, but this is possibly true if they were red headed/mixed), all characteristics atypical of most dynastic Egyptians. Considering that Ramses I, the founder of that dynasty, started off his career as a common soldier in the Egyptian army, and rose to the through the ranks up to general, and later to Pharaoh; it is no doubt Ramses was probably of Libyan origin. The Egyptian army towards the end of the 18th dynasty was predominantly foreign; Nubian and Libyan; and Egyptians mostly served as officers and generals in the army. So considering the 19th dynasty's very strong devotion to Seth, their very tall Nordic appearance, and Ramses' very obscured origins, it is more than likely they were Libyans by descent."

^Also like I stated, the fact that he gave his children non-Egyptian names and came from the Delta speaks volumes also.. Tell whoever you're debating that Ramses II will not suffice as he is only one person and most early dynastic mummies show different and more local "Africoid" characteristics (tell the debatee to read this) http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/keita-1993.pdf . Ramses was a rarity and until he can find 3 more mummies like Ramses (from previous or later dynasties), he has no case, Ramses II (if he indeed had red hair) is an exception even for today's population.

Either way, to avoid stereotyped thinking his features in no way at all indicates "whiteness" anyways.. I've heard that they did microscopy and found that he had traces of red hair, while others said brown. Whatever the case may be, he didn't look too much different than this Afar elder from Ethiopia. http://www.geocities.com/wally_mo/rameses_2.html

Quote: "...the type of certain Pharaohs, like Ramses II, appears related to the Abyssinian type." American anthropologist Carlton S. Coon, The Races of Europe, p96, Macmillan 1939


[edit] More Info

First of all, tell them that criticizing Sopdet or anyone else for his/her age is an Ad Hominem. Ad Hominem - Attacking or praising the people who make an argument, rather than discussing the argument itself. This practice is fallacious because the personal character of an individual is logically irrelevant to the truth or falseness of the argument itself.

Secondly, are they insane? Lybians were a light skinned people which is attested by the facts that they are represented as such in Royal tombs, they were referred to as sea people.. The argument was never that the Lybians were "Black", the Egyptians weren't Lybian and were settled in the area along side and contiguous to Nubians well before the acknowledgement of Lybians, they were ethnically NorthEast African, Lybians were either Amazigh Berber or Invading sea people and weren't mentioned until the Middle kingdom.


^^There were two main types of Lybians, the light skinned, light haired type, and the brown skinned, dark haired type(who were recorded as appearing first) according to Egyptian art, probably all descendants of Berbers.. Tell those fools they're using straw man arguments that have nothing to do with Egypt, the point was that Ramses was either mixed with Lybian/Semite (most likely this is the case), or was simply an atypical Egyptian, either way he did not represent the majority of the Egyptian populace as can be confirmed from cranial comparisons. Egyptians were closest ethnically to Nubians as a whole. No one claims that he was "Norid"(Northern European), he could of been mixed with Lybian or Semitic, the Lybians were to the west of them and some lived in the Delta as mercenaries (where Ramses came from) and the Hyksos were to the North, some of whom were probably left in the Delta also after their 18th Dynasty expulsion. Again, using Ramses as an example for a "white" presence in Egypt will not suffice, obviously he was a rarity if he's the only one they can cite. They know nothing about Egyptian history, Egypt has been getting invading by "Caucasoid looking" Lybians and Semites since the 12th Dynasty.. If isolated, Ramses could not of been identified as a typical ancient Egyptian, his family is of obscure origin and using him to represent the previous 1500 years and proceeding 1300 or so years of Egyptian civilization is retarded. At the end of the day, there's no evidence that he was "white", he could of been mixed and most likely was, and he definitely was not European.

Here is a thorough anthropological study of mummies from the 17th Dynasty leading up to the 19th dynasty of Ramses, including the Dynasties after him, and you'll see how the Ramses line doesn't really fit in and why he was most likely mixed with Lybian/Mediterranean populations.

Quote: "The difference between late XVII and XVIII dynasty royal mummies and contemporary Nubians is slight. During the XVIV and XX dynasties we see possibly some mixing between a Nubian element that is more similar to Mesolithic Nubians (low vaults, sloping frontal bone, etc.), with an orthognathous population. Since the Ramessides were of northern extraction, this could represent miscegenation with modern Mediterraneans of Levantine type. The projecting zygomatic arches of Seti I suggest remnants of the old Natufian/Tasian types of the Holocene period." http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Temple/9845/data7.htm


Copy and paste this article and post it for them.. http://www.forumcityusa.com/viewtopic.php?t=318&mforum=africa

and

10 reasons why the Egyptians were not "Caucasoid"..

1. The Dynastic race theory and the Hamitic Hypothesis have both fallen out of favor.. (See Ian Shaw, Oxford History Of Ancient Egypt)

2. The Egyptians therefore did not migrate from the North, and archaeological observations backs up more favored notions of mass migration from the south, due in part to a fertile Sahara and changing climatic conditions in the Nile and the Sahara. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Origin_of_...peopl ing

3. Cranial analysis found that the predynastic Badari culture stretching from 5000 - 4000 BC., had most similarities to East African Teita tribes in Kenya, while Cranial studies of Naqada II found the closest similarities with ancient Nubian Sudan, and Somalia, and the Falaheen in Israel (due most likely to possessing substantial amounts of East African specific e3b since Fellaheen do not fit into a Middle Eastern or Mediterranean Cluster).. http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/badari.pdf http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/brace_2006.pdf

Brace also established a link between these people and groups among the Congo (deep sub-Sahara).

"The Niger-Congo speakers, Congo, Dahomey and Haya, cluster closely with each other and a bit less closely with the Nubian sample � both the recent and the Bronze Age Nubians � and more remotely with the Naqada Bronze Age sample of Egypt, the modern Somalis, and the Arabic-speaking Fellaheen (farmers) of Israel. When those samples are separated and run in a single analysis as in Fig. 1, there clearly is a tie between them that is diluted the farther one gets from sub-Saharan Africa" - Brace

4. The 1rst Dynasty remains at the tombs in Abydos were assessed. What was found is that out of all the samples they clustered closest to Kerma (Nubian sample) than anyone else. http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/keita-1993.pdf


5. The Egyptians had tropical body plans, meaning their skeletal type indicates adaptation to a tropical environment. Note: Egypt is not in the tropics, so take this info as you will, but I will say that the closest tropical habitat to Egypt is sub-Saharan Africa.

"The raw values in Table 6 suggest that Egyptians had the �super-Negroid� body plan described by Robins (1983). The values for the brachial and crural indices show that the distal segments of each limb are longer relative to the proximal segments than in many �African� populations." - Zakrzewski http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/egypti...proportions.pdf


6. Ancient Egyptian language belongs to the Afro-Asiatic language phylum, which began in Africa. Also the fact that Ancient Egyptian is older than semitic (semitic is the only Afro-Asiatic language spoken outside of Africa), that makes Ancient Egyptian an African language by default. And its closest neighbor is not Semitic, there is much debate on that but most say Beja or Chadic resembles it closest based on genetic relationships in linguistics. http://www.forumcityusa.com/viewtopic.ph...9&mforum=africa


7. Continuity has been found to last from the predynastic of Egypt, well into the dynastic.. Meaning they virtually stayed the same and didn't immediately become an all out "mixed" super heterogeneous population until later. Whatever they were (Ethiopic/Eastern African) in the predynastic, they were well into the dynastic, which is later confirmed through Old Kingdom Giza remains, etc... http://wysinger.homestead.com/zakrzewski_2007.pdf


8. Mitochondrial DNA tests on modern Egyptians found an underlying ancestral lineage to East Africa. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query...t_uids=14748828


9. Y Chromosomes found Genes native to Africa specifically (Haploids V, XI, and IV) and scarce outside of it, Egyptians have these in high frequencies, left over from the past and diluted due to admixture. Haplotype V is common in Berbers and is scarce outside Africa. Meaning two things, modern North Africans are mixed with Arab and are not Arab, and that the Egyptians were not Berbers but V, XI, and IV bearers of sub/supra-Saharan genes that had little to do with anyone outside of the continent. (sources provided in the next set of links)


10. Recent studies on Egyptian Y chromosomes have found close ancestral connections even between modern Egyptians and various other supra/sub-Saharan African populations.

"A review of the recent literature indicates that there are male lineage ties between African peoples who have been traditionally labeled as being ��racially�� different, with ��racially�� implying an ontologically deep divide. The PN2 transition, a Y chromosome marker, defines a lineage (within the YAPþ derived haplogroup E or III) that emerged in Africa probably before the last glacial maximum, but after the migration of modern humans from Africa (see Semino et al., 2004) This mutation forms a clade that has two daughter subclades (defined by the biallelic markers M35/215 (or 215/M35) and M2) that unites numerous phenotypically variant African populations from the supra-Saharan, Saharan, and sub-Saharan regions based on current data (Underhill, 2001)" http://mbe.library.arizona.edu/data/1994/1105/4hamm.pdf http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/Northe...an_analysis.pdf

You can show them all of this..


^In all, the New Kingdom period was a period of admixture but as is attested from all of the major studies, before any admixture early Egyptians had closest affinities to Nubians, as did the dynasties preceding and succeeding the Ramses line..

Quote: In summation, the New Kingdom Pharaohs and Queens whose mummies have been recovered bear strong similarity to either contemporary Nubians, as with the XVII and XVIII dynasties, or with Mesolithic-Holocene Nubians, as with the XVIV and XX dynasties. The former dynasties seem to have a strong southern affinity, while the latter possessed evidence of mixing with modern Mediterranean types and also, possibly, with remnants of the old Tasian and Natufian populations. From the few sample available from the XXI Dynasty, there may have been a new infusion from the south at this period. http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Temple/9845/data7.htm

^Tell them no more Ad Hominems or appeals to authority, if they can't refute the raw data at hand, they lost.. No spin language or reasoning in logic/manipulation of historic interpretation can erase the raw data.

You need any more help simply use these sources here, go over them..

http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/badari.pdf http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/keita-1993.pdf http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/keita6.pdf http://www.africawithin.com/diop/origin_egyptians.htm http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/blackegypt101.html

[edit] Yo

I saw your concerns in Nkuka's discussion page... About those people you're arguing with you need to tell them that the Egyptians campaigning in Nubia was not a race war, but tribal war fare. The person who block entrance of Nubians in Egypt was of Nubian ancestry himself(i.e., Yurco 1988). Ask them why in the 18th Dynasty the Egyptians used fellow "Blacks" and not Asiatics to fight off and kill hundreds of Asiatic Hyksos? Medjay troops: http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/files/n07.jpg

Thutmosis III conquered all of Asia, does that make him racist? http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/tuthmosis3.htm


Tell them the burden of proof is on them to prove that it was a race war and not a regional conflict like England vs. France or something.. They have a weak argument, and the Nubians conquered Egypt also, had nothing to do with race.

Quote from "Finally In Africa: Emily VermeuleWrites: "Bernal also believes that Egypt was essentially African, and therefore black. But he does not say what we are to make of historical accounts of Egyptian pharaohs campaigning against black neighbours in the south, in the Land of Kush, as when Thutmosis I of Egypt, around 1510 B.C., annihilated a black Kushite army at the Third Cataract and came home with the body of a black Kushite prince hanging upside down from the prow of his ship. Perhaps Bernal thinks of this as African tribal warfare." (60).

Students who follow Vermeule's historical methodology in centuries to come will surely have grave difficulty in understanding twentieth-century history. Could France and Germany really have been part of the same economic union, after three wars in seventy years? The extent of a hostility that resulted in three generations of young men losing their lives on the battlefield must be the result of a deeper animosity between the two peoples; perhaps they were of different 'races' to begin with(Sarcasm).

Keita responds: "'Excusing the pejorative "tribal warfare" (in Europe it is called ethnic conflict), it is clear that she is saying that this must have been a racial war . . . [However] the antagonisms between Kush and Egypt were political and not racial' (emphasis in original)." http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/finally.html - Taharqa

[edit] Egypt and Nubia

Don't worry my friend with those people. They are making confusions between race and political entities and ethnicities. There are even books refering to Black pharaohs while speaking about Taharqa and other kings of Egypt from Nubian origin. They imply that the Egyptians were not Black people. But ancient sources contradict them. We have to speak the same language. Black Pharaohs were impeding Black Nubians. Egyptians were impeding Nubians. Hitler did a war against the French. Are not French as White as the Germans? Be calm, in the matter of ancient Egypt, truth is on the side of those who see Egyptians as Black people, because they were not something else. Egypt is in Africa. Eurocentrists are very nervous about that. Actually they know well that Africa is the homeland of the Black people. Whites invaded Africa for the first time during the second millenium BC. Egyptologists know this fact very well. Unfortunately ideologies are still around. We have to be attentive. Peace to you and to those who are dear to you! Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 23:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] June 2007

Please do not delete content from articles on Wikipedia, as you did to Southeastern United States. Your edits do not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use Wikipedia:Sandbox for test edits. Thank you. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)