Q&A: Why Egypt is the only country whose world heritage is disputed and the origin of its founders hotly debated?
December 20th, 2012 | 
Author: Question by KiloEcho: Why Egypt is the only country whose world heritage is disputed and the origin of its founders hotly debated?
India is a diverse country with people of various skin colors, facial features, hair texture and skull shape.
The Indus Valley civilization is one of the greatest and oldest civilization on earth. No one debates about the origin of the founders of the Indus Valley civilization. The world heritage of the Indus Valley civilization is not disputed.
However, Egypt, including the Nile River Valley civilization is the subject of ugly disputes and hot debates among historians, archeologists, anthropologist event geneticists.
Arabo-centrists, Euro-centrists, Afro-centrists and many others want the lion share of the wonderful heritage of Egypt.
Arabs are the descendants of Hagar, an Egyptian and daughter of the Nile. Egypt is an Arab country. The headquarters of the Arab League is located in Cairo, Egypt.
Egypt is located in North Africa. Egyptians are North Africans. Many Egyptians are dark brown skinned particularly in the South. The Nilotes aka the people of the Nile are dark brown skinned.
Europeans have created a specific branch of archeology, called Egyptology. This reflects their fascination for Egypt. Egypt was conquered many times by Europeans (the Greeks, the Romans, the French, the English). Many Egyptians are the descendants of Europeans.
Euro-centrists argue that the Egyptian civilization was founded by White people, including some Nordics.
Arabo-centrists argue that the Egyptian civilization was founded by Semites.
Afro-centrists argue that the Egyptian civilization was founded by “racially” Black people aka people with dark brown skin.
I am so called Black and African. I am no Afrocentrist. I am not Egyptian. My ancestors were not Egyptian. I will never claim to have any historical or genetic connections with Egypt or Egyptians.
In Africa, it is highly inappropriate to assume the identity of another nation or ethnic group. Those who do are either crooks or slaves.
Europeans should do the same. They should not assume the identity of the Egyptians or even claim that some of them were Nordic or Whites. It makes them look really bad.
North Africans are only considered White by Europeans when convenient, in other words, when Europeans want to claim their brilliant civilizations or great history. Otherwise, North Africans are treated like non Whites socially, culturally and racially.
@ Holly Bolly
I am not African-American far from it. Actually, I grew up in Europe. I know what Europeans think about North Africans and how they treat them NOT like their fellow Whites.
The Sahara Desert has never been a barrier but a bridge. There are dark brown skinned Africans in North Africa and in the Saharan region. South of the Sahara is a region not an indicator of race.
The whitest Kabyle of Algeria, or Riffian of Morocco or even Guanche of the Canary Islands has at least one distant dark brown skinned ancestor from East Africa. They are all genetically related through the e1b1b haplogroup. This haplogroup originates from East Africa.
The Amazigh (even the whitest) belong to the Somalid race just like their ancestors from the Horn of Africa
Best answer:
Answer by Auroch
I have never heard of these debates about the origins of Egypt.
What do you think? Answer below!
Posted in 
Tags: 
Egypt’s origins are NOT hotly disputed.
Afro-Centric American racists are trying to hijack Egypt’s history as “black” history, but they are misguided, incorrect and, frankly, idiotic.
No Egyptian, European or educated person thinks that Afro-centricism is anything more than racist rubbish
BTW – African does not mean black. North Africans are more similar to other Mediterranean people than they are to sub-Saharan Africans.
You have never been to Europe, let alone to North Africa – if you had you wouldn’t make such crass comments. In Europe we are not as bothered about racial categorisation as Americans. You are, however, an Afro-centrist – which makes you either a pseudo-historian at best and a racist at worst.
That is not a historical debate, it’s political and it’s biased.
Those questions are irrelevant to historians. There were people living along the Nile long before “Egypt” was founded. There is no way to tell what these people looked like and it’s not important to history.
Egypt is an Arab nation nowadays, that is a fact, but the Arabs only came during the 7th century.
Europeans conquered Egypt, but they didn’t populate it with European settlers.
Probably because Egypt in one form or another has existed as country for the better part of 6,000 years. That’s longer that virtually any country on the planet, even China. Any country with origins that old are going to be disputed because there was no written record of it. Even Hieroglyphs didn’t exist then. Like Ancient Greece. Supposedly Greece has existed for at least 3800 years but who was around in 1800 BC to record it and how would they convey the knowledge, there was no written language.
“Arabs are the descendants of Hagar”. Come now. This is the sort of nonsense which scientists have been trying to get away from. This is legend, and stating it as fact only serves to complicated the picture.
“Egypt is an Arab country” True – in part – but not relevant. The fact that Egypt is Arab now has no bearing on who the people of Egypt were 5,000 years ago. There have been enrmous population shifts all over the world in that period.
“The headquarters of the Arab League is located in Cairo, Egypt”. Again, irrelevant. The HQ of OPEC is Vienna, but that doesn’t make Austria oil-rich.
“Many Egyptians are the descendants of Europeans” Again, entirely irrelevant to the question of who the ancient Egyptians were.
There are perhaps two places where actual sensible scientific research, as distinct from wild claims (from whatever source) could be directed.
1 The most obvious,a nd almost certainly the one which will be decisive, is DNA analysis. Recovering DNA from ancient mummies is a difficult, but not necessarily an impossible, task. I really don’t know how far reasearch in this area has already succeeded, but I believe that we can be confident that it will come up with pretty conclusive results within the foreseeable future.
2 Language. The ancient Egyptian language is not Semitic, which seems to rule out the Arabists claims (although wouldn’t it have been entertaining if it turned out that the ancient Egyptians were really Jewish?) It is, on the other hand, clearly an Afro-Asiatic language, and therefore related to both Berber and the Semitic languages (such as Arabic, Hebrew, Phoenician etc.) It does seem, in other words, that the ancient Egyptians had lived in or around Egypt for a long time before history got wind of them.
This is not even a debate. It’s evil propaganda in an attempt to cover up the fact that modern day Israeli’s aren’t really who they say they are. Fortunately, there are brave men such as Joel A. Freeman and Ken Biegeleisen who are telling the truth. This way people can actually understand the bible and the prophecies contained in it.