Thank you for taking the time to give your analysis. I disagree with much of it. I ask you to bear with me as I explain myself. The subject of race is inherentl

Thank you for taking the time to give your analysis. I disagree with much of it. I ask you to bear with me as I explain myself. The subject of race is inherently political, and, specifically with regards to Egyptians, mired in decades of bad faith. Much of early Egyptology was dedicated to "proving" that Ancient Egyptians weren't "black." This is, of course, impossible; "blackness" is not a objectively-defined designation. It's a contextually-driven decision by observers and the self. So, again, the most interesting question becomes not of whether or not Egyptians were black - by the modern definition of blackness (itself predicated in part on notions of separating African populations), they weren't, nor where they white, or Middle Eastern, or Levantine. The most interesting question is why the assertion that they weren't black is so vociferous. That's the character of the parent and several of its replies, not clear-eyed curiosity. They represent a conclusion, not an investigation. It's in this light - in observing this echo chamber - that I felt the need to protest, and I feel justified in doing so. Humor me and assume, for a moment, that "Egyptians were not black," being rooted in a pre-geneology, anthropology-nascent scientific understanding, is itself a political assertion. What does the rest of this discussion look like, then? How, in your default perspective, is it not political? Because of the genetic studies cited? What do those studies actually say, and what about the model you've built around them is actually an intellectual leap? That's the conversation I want to have. Not, "Oh boy ain't my Negro Studies professor dumb?".