Why do white people pretend Egypt isn't in Africa

Discussion in 'IntroSpectrum' started by Flow-Joe, Jan 31, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Leila Night

    Leila Night efrain,you're my one&only

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2006
    Messages:
    7,830
    True... The Arabs and Berbers have been intermarrying for over a century to the point where the culture of NA is fairly separate from that of the ME. But... don't tell Western reporters that Arabs and Muslims aren't a homogeneous people.

    Double negative, ugh.

    Yes. In fact, Egypt isn't considered a part of the the Maghreb (west in Arabic) which is what the Arabs call the N. African region (Tunisia, Algeria, etc.).


    Afro-Asiatic. Because the people who make up the language family (a language is it's speakers) live in north and east Africa and the ME.
    test
  2. Thrilla-Ali

    Thrilla-Ali Dapper Don

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,870
    I think once upon a time egypt was a part of the maghreb .. but now the maghred is north west africa, morroco being the most notable of them all..
    test
  3. x - calli

    x - calli Guest

    word.. eastern europe is seriously neglected in history. and people forget about the islamic caliphates that stretched from the middle east, across north africa, and into spain.. which eventually helped bring knowledge into europe, fueling the rennaisance.
    and while people have heard of ghenghis khan, they arent always aware that the mongols were running most of asia in the 1200s. and the ottoman empire was huge during the time when europe was discovering the new world.
    its funny how certain sides of history are passed down more than others..


    i knew that the indo europeans made those migrations.. and i mixed that up with some theory of caucasians i read somewhere, which is probably an old theory anyway. im sure im wrong about that.
    its true that arabs/persians are descended from those peoples and places you mentioned. although i was under the impression that indo-europeans intermixed the middle eastern people.. the same way they mixed with northern indians, giving them the lighter complexion they still have, as well as indo-aryan languages. these things show a major distinction between northern indians and the dravidians to the south.

    im going to try to draw all this together...

    ive been using the word "race" a bit loosely.

    race, as defined by grouping people by common perception of physical attributes, is fallacious. its full of mistakes and inaccuracy.

    tracking the growth and spread of languages helps to disprove the common beliefs in race. the fact that basque is completely unrelated to german, which is unrelated to finnish, despite all these people being considered white/caucasian... and the fact that brown skinned bengali speak an indo european language, all points to the same thing - that race, as i defined before, is an arbitrary marker.

    as for diseases, of course theyre not only limited to those groups. but i knew that those diseases (sickle cell, tay sachs) were concentrated among certain peoples, which i believed meant that theyre more genetically predisposed somehow. it looks like im partly right, although i wasnt aware of the geographic aspect. but that goes to show that you can indeed trace population changes and movements with genetics as well.

    there are differences between peoples of different ancestry, though. for example, native americans couldnt handle alcohol when the europeans introduced it, which europeans had become very used to. and of course there were the european diseases which destroyed more native populations than guns did...
    there are different groups of people with different traits.. but the common idea of "race" is definitely fallacious and draws alot of inaccurate lines.

    word.. i dont think ill ever get enough of history
    test
  4. x - calli

    x - calli Guest

    no one can hide from the truth.

    and colonialism/imperialism are an important factor in language. its very common in history for a colonial/imperial power to impose its language on its subjects.. and with thier language, they are also imposing thier culture and worldviews.
    at first it seems like something that brings innaccuracy to tracking people by languages, but not entirely. if an empires language takes firm hold in a subject country, you can be almost sure that the invading people of that empire have mixed with the subject peoples (even if illegal in that place/time). so language can be useful even then.
    test
  5. Salar

    Salar New Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2003
    Messages:
    6,616
    arabs are semites not caucasian.
    test
  6. Ovea

    Ovea New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2008
    Messages:
    108
    this was a crazy discussion
    test
  7. scratch..

    scratch.. nothing exciting here

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2008
    Messages:
    49
    jesus wasnt black

    he was a 3ft osama bin laden looking dude with a branch for a walking stick
    test
  8. FlyChick

    FlyChick New Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2001
    Messages:
    1,305
    Theres different types of Arab. the Arabs in lebanon are different than the ones in saudi arabia or qatar. Arabs come in different shades..some are as white as europeans with the same european features. others are darker skinned with very curly hair and non-european features. can you call all arabs caucasion? no...just like how you cant refer to all arabs as non-caucasion.

    The term Caucasion originated from the caucasus mountains which are located in central asia. so it actually describes the people around that area like the turks, iraqis, armenians, georgians, iranians etc. somehow that term FALSELY became used to describe europeans or anyone with european ancestry. Its just like how europeans stole the swatsika symbol from India and made it into a racist symbol.
    test
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Users Viewing Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 0)