Debate- Does Migration Make One Indigenous? (Part II)

We’ll pick up where we left off and continue with the engagements between YahwehSaves and Dr. Ismail.

I can’t just laugh enough to read from you all these claims you are making. Well let us deal with each points you made. I’m always happy exposing your lies

You claim (Dr. Ismail)

(1) If you can NOT prove that the negro where the first to inhabit Africa from its inception, THEN you claim of who came to where becomes INVALID !!!!

Arabia being close to Africa and accessible via land route is a good reason to postulate that being African is NOT necessarily being negro !!!!

And this is my whole point !!!

My response (YahwehSaves)

1. Africa’s Indigenous Populations:

Foremost, You have shifted the focus away from the original discussion, which was centered on the Arabization of Egypt and the distinction between Africans and Arabs, not on whether the “Negro” was the first to inhabit Africa. This shift in focus is a classic straw man fallacy, as you are now arguing about a point that wasn’t initially central to the discussion.

Secondly, You seems to misunderstand the historical and anthropological record regarding the origins of human populations in Africa.

Historically and anthropologically, Africans (particularly sub-Saharan Africans) have been the original and indigenous populations of the African continent. Numerous archaeological, genetic, and historical studies confirm that.

a) The genetic evidence, supported by studies from evolutionary biology, shows that Africans were the first inhabitants of the continent. The fossil record, especially from places like Ethiopia, confirms Africa’s role as the “cradle of humanity.”

For example, Homo sapiens fossils found in sites such as Omo Kibish and Jebel Irhoud (Morocco) date back to between 200,000 and 300,000 years ago.

You may like to read a book by the title “The Genetic Structure and History of Africans and African Americans” by Sarah Tishkoff et al. (2009), published in Science, outlines how sub-Saharan Africans are the most ancient human populations.

Thirdly, Arabs, as an ethnic group, originated from the Arabian Peninsula, not Africa. The migration of Arabs into Africa occurred much later in history, primarily after the spread of Islam in the 7th century. Before that time, the peoples of North Africa were Berber and other indigenous groups, not Arabs.

Arabization of Africa was a result of the Islamic conquests, and Arab identity in parts of Africa is a product of cultural diffusion and intermarriage following these conquests. This is a far cry from saying Arabs were the original inhabitants of Africa.

Scholarly Reference: Historian Ibn Khaldun (14th century) discusses the presence of Berbers and other indigenous populations in North Africa long before the arrival of Arabs.

Firstly, Arabs and Africans are ethnically and geographically distinct groups. While proximity between the Arabian Peninsula and Africa enabled migration and cultural exchange, this does not make Arabs the indigenous inhabitants of Africa. So you are wrong.

The Berber peoples of North Africa (indigenous inhabitants of the Maghreb) are often confused with Arabs due to Arabization, but they have a separate ethnic and historical lineage.

For Example, The Berbers (Amazigh) have lived in North Africa for thousands of years, long before the Arab conquests of the 7th century.

I won’t go without add this part.

From a biblical perspective based on the Table of Nations in Genesis 10, African nations are traditionally understood to have descended from Ham, one of Noah’s sons. The Hamitic people are associated with Africa, including Egypt, Cush (modern-day Sudan/Ethiopia), Put (Libya), and Canaan. This supports the notion that the Africans (descendants of Ham) were the original inhabitants of the African continent, not Arabs or other ethnic groups.

Arab nations, according to the same biblical tradition, are descendants of Shem, Noah’s other son, thus placing them in a different ethnic and geographical origin.

If you are reader like me you may like to read this book: The Table of Nations: A Look at the Genealogies in Genesis (2004).

It highlights the biblical understanding of the early descendants of Noah’s sons, associating Africans with Ham and Middle Eastern peoples (including Arabs) with Shem.

You made mistake of equating geographical location (Africa) with ethnicity (or Arab). Just because some Arabs later migrated into Africa does not make them indigenous Africans. Ethnicity is based on shared ancestry, culture, and historical origins, not merely geography.

Arabs are not native to Africa, but they entered parts of Africa much later through trade routes, Islamic conquests, and intermarriage, particularly in North Africa.

Again, let me emphasize my point and let it ring well in your head that – the original inhabitants of Africa were indigenous African populations, as proven by archaeology, anthropology, and genetics. Arabs, on the other hand, migrated into Africa much later in history. Arabization of Africa occurred through Islamic conquests and did not involve the displacement of indigenous Africans as the continent’s original inhabitants.

Your reliance on proximity to justify Arab habitation from “inception” is flawed. The indigenous ethnic identity of Africans has been well-established long before any significant Arab presence in Africa, whether via geographical, biblical, or anthropological evidence.

Claim (Dr. Ismail)

Confused man, go and ask you colleague I was initially discussing with.
My point is that an Egyptian Arab girl (as we understand today) is NOT a negro !!!
So you have derailed from the crux of the argument and are now wallowing in mud of fallacies of equivocation of negro with Africa

My response (YahwehSaves)

1. You are engaging in fallacies of equivocation by conflating ethnicity with skin color and misrepresenting the original point of the discussion. The initial debate was about ethnicity and race, particularly the distinction between Arab identity and African identity, not about skin color.

Let us deal with the difference between the Ethnicity vs. Skin Color.
Ethnicity refers to a shared cultural heritage, language, religion, or common ancestry, while race is a socially constructed classification based on physical traits like skin color.
Egyptians are primarily identified by their geographic and ethnic origins, not by their skin color.

Your attempt to define Egyptian Arabs solely by skin color is an oversimplification. Arabs and Africans are distinct ethnic groups, and while there are light-skinned and dark-skinned Africans, ethnicity and geographic origin are more relevant to the argument than skin color and to make clear again, skin color is not a deterministic factor for ethnicity.

2. My colleague’s original question was clearly focused on racial and ethnic discrimination within the Muslim community, specifically how Arab Muslims perceive and treat black Muslims or Africans. The discussion had nothing to do with the color of the skin but rather with race and ethnicity as determinants in marriage and social status.

Your statement that you were talking about an “Egyptian Arab girl” with regard to skin color is a red herring, distracting from the core issue of race-based discrimination. The original point was about the ethnic and racial identity of Arabs versus Africans, and not about physical traits such as skin color.

You shift to skin color is a deviation from the original argument, which centered on ethnic and racial identity within the Arab world. Thus, your claim is based on a misunderstanding of what was being discussed.

3. Egyptians are NOT ARABS by ethnicity but have been Arabized.
Your use of “Egyptian Arab girl” reflects their belief that Egyptians are ethnically Arab, which is incorrect. Egyptians were originally Africans, and Arabization occurred through the spread of Islam and Arabic culture beginning in the 7th century.

Historian Bernard Lewis in his work “The Arabs in History” explains that Arabization involved the spread of the Arabic language, religion, and cultural practices, but did not change the ethnic origin of the native Egyptians
(The Arabs in History, 2002).

Before the Arab conquest, Egypt was home to native Africans, and it has only been through centuries of Arabization that Egyptians adopted Arabic as their language and Islam as their religion. This does not change the fact that ethnically, Egyptians are Africans.
Contradiction in the Critic’s Argument
Your statement about an “Egyptian Arab girl” implies that Egyptians are Arabs, when in reality, the Arab identity in Egypt came later through cultural assimilation. Thus, my response correctly identifies your fallacy of false equivalence, equating Arab identity with Egyptian ethnicity. Egyptians remain Africans by origin and Generically, regardless of their cultural or religious affiliations.
4. Arabization vs. Indigenous African Identity
You also failed to recognize that Arabization did not replace the indigenous identity of Egyptians as Africans. While Arab culture and language became dominant in parts of North Africa, the people there are still ethnically African.

As Edward Said points out,

“Arabization did not erase the native African ethnic identities of people in North Africa, but rather added a layer of linguistic and religious identity”
(Orientalism, 1978).

Therefore, claiming that Egyptians are Arabs by ethnicity and using that to distinguish them from Africans is historically and anthropologically inaccurate.

5. Again you misuse the term negro. The term “Negro” historically refers to people of Sub-Saharan African descent. However, its usage has evolved, and it is not a definitive term for all Africans. You reliance on this outdated term to describe race and skin color is problematic and irrelevant to the discussion about Egyptians and Arabs.

Historian David Eltis clarifies that

“Negro” was often used in colonial contexts to describe Sub-Saharan Africans, but its use today is considered outdated and reductive
(The Rise of African Slavery in the Americas, 2000).

Your emphasis on the term Negro as a racial descriptor is both anachronistic and irrelevant to the argument about African ethnicity and Arab identity.

You have been the one who has derailed the argument by shifting the focus to skin color and the term Negro, which were not the core of the original discussion. The initial point was about ethnic identity—specifically how Arab Muslims differentiate between Africans and Arabs.
I have correctly pointed out that Egyptians were originally Africans and that their Arab identity is a result of cultural and linguistic Arabization, not their ethnic origins.
Your argument also contains several fallacies, including the straw man, false equivalence, and red herring. These your rhetorical tactics distract from the real issue: the Arab-Muslim world’s racial and ethnic biases.
Your attempt to equate Arab identity with ethnic identity is inaccurate and fails to address the original question about racial discrimination in the Arab world.

My argument emphasized that Africans have historically been the original inhabitants of the land known as Africa since the earliest times, particularly following the events described in the flood narratives.

You claim (Dr. Ismail)
This is a fact you can NOT dispute !!!! The Egyptian Arabs can see themselves as white (and NOT negros) by race and African by location

You can not change this even if you cry a river !!!!

My response (YahwehSaves)
Your claim that Egyptian Arabs can see themselves as white by race is deeply flawed because “whiteness” as a racial classification is a social construct that doesn’t necessarily correlate with geographical, ethnic, or national identity. Simply having lighter skin does not redefine an individual’s ethnicity or cultural heritage. Let’s break this down:

<<<<Race vs. Ethnicity>>>>
Race is often defined based on physical attributes, such as skin color, while ethnicity refers to shared cultural traits like language, religion, and heritage.

You are conflating skin color (white) with race and ethnicity, which are distinct concepts.

Historically, Egyptians are Africans. The idea of Egypt being “Arab” is a result of Arabization, a process that occurred following the Muslim conquests in the 7th century. This didn’t fundamentally change the ethnic origins of native Egyptians. Egyptian Arabs, therefore, are primarily Africans by heritage and share a deep cultural, historical, and geographical connection to Africa.

Skin color is influenced by genetics and environment. Lighter-skinned Egyptians, like light-skinned Nigerians or other Africans, do not become part of the white race simply because of their complexion. Race cannot be determined by appearance alone. Ethnicity and cultural heritage go far beyond superficial features like skin color. Consider my example of a light-skinned Nigerian still being African for it underscores this perfectly.

2. You created a false notion of “Seeing Themselves as White”. The notion that Egyptians can “see themselves as white” is baseless and relies on the flawed idea that individuals can choose or “see themselves” as belonging to a particular racial category, independent of their actual heritage and ethnic background.

Here’s why this is incorrect:

a) Egyptians have historically identified as part of the broader African civilization, long before the Arab conquests. They are not racially “white.”

b) Identity is deeply tied to heritage, language, and culture. The light skin of some Egyptians does not erase their African roots. Their identity as Africans is tied to thousands of years of history on the continent. Seeing themselves as “white” ignores this heritage and simplifies their identity to a Western racial construct that doesn’t fit the Egyptian context. And for one more fact, who will because of his light skin see himself as part of white race? we have a lot of whitish skinned people and none of them have claimed they are white in terms of racial identity.

3. Your claim ignores that Egyptians—whether they are “Arab” by linguistic or cultural association—are still indigenous to Africa. Arab identity is a result of cultural imposition, not an original ethnic identity of Egypt.

Before the Arab conquests, Egyptians were part of the Coptic Christian civilization, which itself was a continuation of the ancient Pharaonic culture. These were African civilizations.

Historian David Wengrow points out in his work that

“Egypt’s cultural and historical identity is deeply rooted in Africa, not the Middle East”
(The Origins of the Civilization of Egypt, 2006).

So, “Whiteness” is not an ethnicity or a cultural identity—it’s a superficial racial classification that doesn’t relate to Egyptian heritage. Ethnicity is determined by ancestry, culture, and language and genetics, not the shade of someone’s skin. Therefore, claiming “whiteness” as an identity is a flawed and irrelevant point when discussing Egyptians, who are, by history and geography, African.

Also body color is determined by melanin and environmental factors, not heritage. Heritage is linked to ancestral origins, and Egyptians, no matter their skin tone, are of African origin. To claim that someone’s race changes because of their skin tone is to misunderstand the basic concepts of ethnicity and identity.

Could answer these questions below?

Q1: How can someone see themselves as “white” when we are talking about ethnicity and indigeneity of a person?

Q2: How can body color determine ethnicity or heritage?

Answer this question (I know you don’t have answer but I will give you a trial)

In summary, your argument that Egyptian Arabs can see themselves as white by race is fundamentally flawed. Skin color alone does not define one’s racial identity or ethnicity. Egyptians, regardless of lighter or darker skin tones, are historically and geographically African. The Arabization of Egypt was a cultural shift, not a racial one, and Egyptians’ African roots remain intact. Equating skin color with race is an oversimplification that ignores the complex reality of ethnic and cultural identity.

You claim (Dr. Ismail)

To claim that African is ethnicity rather than location is NOT only laughable but unprovable !!!
Africa is a continent (hence a location) like I already rightly said.

The word Africa does NOT specify an ethnicity or race (even though many of its inhabitants today are predominantly negros/blacks).

My response (YahwehSaves)

1. While Africa is a geographical continent, but you failed to understand the deeper cultural and ethnic identity that arises from living on and being indigenous to that land. Here’s why your claim is flawed:

Ethnicity refers to a group of people who share a common cultural background, ancestry, language, and often, genetic heritage. The term encompasses social practices, shared history, and ancestral origins. For instance, Africans have unique ethnic groups like the Yoruba, Zulu, Maasai, and Berber. These ethnic groups originate from specific geographical locations within the continent and have distinctive ancestral DNA tied to the African landmass.

Numerous genetic studies have shown that indigenous populations of Africa share specific genetic markers that tie them to the continent. DNA analysis confirms that individuals of African descent possess distinct markers that define their ethnic and genetic origins. According to the Human Genome Project, African ethnicities have a vast and diverse genetic makeup, reflecting the continent’s role as the cradle of humanity. This means that an African individual’s DNA is inseparably tied to their ethnicity and land, and no external factors can change their ethnic classification.

You may like to read from Geneticists like Sarah Tishkoff who mapped Africa’s genetic diversity, showing that the continent has more genetic variation than any other. You can reach out to her study – “The Genetic Structure and History of Africans and African Americans,” Science, 2009) which reveals that African populations, by DNA, carry unique lineages that differentiate them from non-African populations.

Therefore, to claim that African is not an ethnicity disregards the fact that genetics, shared ancestry, and cultural practices make African identity an ethnic one as much as a geographical one.

2. Your assertion that Africa is “just a location” ignores the fact that geography influences ethnicity. Ethnic groups arise from the land they inhabit, and over generations, they develop a shared identity tied to that land. Here’s why your claim about Africa being “only a location” is incorrect:

A) Many ethnicities around the world are tied to specific geographical regions. For example:

Native Americans (e.g., Navajo, Cherokee) are indigenous to North America, and their ethnicity is deeply tied to the land.
Aboriginal Australians are tied to the Australian continent, and their ethnicity is inseparable from their land.

Similarly, Africans (e.g., Ethiopians, Ashanti, Xhosa) are tied to their geographical landmass. The geographical location – Africa – has shaped the culture, language, social structures, and genetics of African ethnic groups.

Another scholar, an historian John Iliffe, who you can read from in his work Africann, “The History of a Continent (1995)” in which he emphasized that African identities, while diverse, are deeply tied to the continent’s geography and have been for millennia.

Thus, the land is inseparable from African ethnic identity. Geography and ethnicity are not mutually exclusive but interconnected.

While Africa as a continent contains multiple ethnic groups, to say it does not specify ethnicity is false. You failed to recognize that Africa contains the oldest ethnic groups in the world. These groups share cultural and genetic ties that originate from the continent. Being African, therefore, does specify ethnicity when discussing the indigenous groups that have lived on the continent for thousands of years. Scholars agree that sub-Saharan Africa in particular is home to some of the earliest human populations, and those populations developed distinct ethnic identities, which they passed down through generations.

The field of genetics, as seen in the works of scholars like Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza (The History and Geography of Human Genes, 1994), proves that African ethnicities are uniquely identified through specific DNA markers, confirming African identity as deeply tied to ethnicity.

Your statement oversimplifies the diversity within the continent by reducing African identity to blackness, which ignores North Africa’s indigenous populations, such as the Berbers, and even early influences from external civilizations.

Anthropologist Bruce Trigger, in Nubia Under the Pharaohs (1976), notes that Africa has always been home to a rich variety of ethnicities, from black Nubians in the South to lighter-skinned Berber populations in the North. Africans are diverse, both genetically and culturally, which you oversimplifies.

Here question that could help you understand,
“Why don’t you change from being African to Chinese or Arab by DNA?”.

Ethnicity cannot be changed by external factors like nationality or geographic relocation. For example, someone born in the U.S. might become an American citizen, but their ethnic heritage remains tied to their ancestral roots, such as African, European, or Asian.

Ethnic identity is a combination of ancestry, culture, language, and shared history.

Also Paul Gilroy argued in his work The Black Atlantic: Modernity and Double Consciousness (1993), ethnic identities are not malleable in the way nationalities are.

You cannot “become” ethnically African or Chinese by simply adopting a nationality.

Conclusion. Your claims are based on a misunderstanding of ethnicity, genetics, and identity. Africa is indeed a continent, but its inhabitants. Africans are identified not only by location but also by ethnicity and DNA. To say that Africa is “just a location” denies the cultural and genetic history that defines African identity. The idea that Africans cannot be classified ethnically is demonstrably false, and scholarly work in anthropology, history, and genetics confirms this.

By understanding ethnicity as a combination of culture, history, and genetics, I have confidently refute your oversimplified and incorrect arguments. African identity is deeply rooted in both geography and ethnicity.

Period!!!

Later Dr. Ismail responded back to YahwehSaves. The next line featured Ismail responses to YahwehSaves claims

________________________________________________________________________________

Your response (YahwehSaves)

1. Africa’s Indigenous Populations:

My response (Dr Ismail):

The original crux of the discussion was about interracial marriage. And my point is that “the Egyptian Arab girl” (as we all know today) is NOT negro/black by race but can be considered an African (since being African is NOT necessarily being negro or black, as I am going to be sufficiently demonstrating).

So you are the one who shifted the crux of the discussion to the question of whether or not the Egyptians today are Africans (to which I said they are racially Arabs and geographically Africans).

Probably, you are confused about the difference between race and ethnicity/nationality.

But because you hate the Arabs (obviously because majority of them are Muslims), you are attempting to dissociate their link from “Africa” as if the word “Africa” is same as negro or black race (which is also factually flaw).

Nobody is saying that the Arabs were originally in ancient Egypt just like you can NOT also prove that the negro or blacks were originally in ancient Egypt as the inhabitants.

All the Biblical record of Egypt (even before the pharaohs) and hieroglyphics of Egypt, mummies etc did NOT point to a single negro or black African empire !!!! WHY ? On the other hand, we have records of negro empire or black empires on other places in Africa outside of Egypt. Why is this the case !!???