Were the Vikings black or just Ancient Egyptians?

The most dishonest argument in favour of the ancient Egyptians’ blackness is the idea of African genetic diversity. No matter what you say, it is the response of some Afrocentrists.

So and so was blonde as evidenced by the mummy. "Who cares, Africans can be blonde", as if this is the usual hair colour for Africans, rather than a genetic abnormality.

(I’ve made this point before: it is no more normal for Africans to have blonde hair than it would be for a woman to have facial hair. What is normal for one race/gender, may be a disease for another.)

Even DNA evidence is responded to the same way: no matter what haplogroups the DNA may be, the answer is always: “Africans are diverse, so DNA means nothing and that proves that the Egyptians were black.”

But why does it prove that they were black? Why doesn’t it prove that they were Caucasian, Oriental or Polynesian?

If the fact that blacks have genetic diversity proves that Egyptians were black, why doesn’t it prove that the Vikings were black? Why not the Slavs? Why not the Indians? Why isn’t everyone black?!

Because Africa could not have any non-black population. Why? One can easily walk from Israel in Asia to Egypt in Africa. In fact, there are much longer treks beings made at the time, so there’s no reason to believe that people would magically stop at the place arbitrarily marked as Africa by geographers living thousands of years later. The Rome and Hannibal (alleged by Afrocentrists to be black despite contemporary art and coins showing him to be distinctly white) fought wars showing that the Mediterranean was easily crossed by the Europeans and North Africans.

The natural barrier that would keep people mostly separate at the was the Sahara desert, which would be far too treacherous for most people to cross.

It was done but usually from the north to the south, not the reverse - which explains the great black genetic diversity.

The Afrocentrists claim of genetic diversity means nothing when you understand how things work. Caucasian haplogroups occur in Caucasians only.

If one sees a Caucasian haplogroup, that means that the person is Caucasian, regardless of the fact that blacks may have more haplogroups than whites.

Consider this: Women’s breasts show much greater diversity of size and shape than men’s. That does not, however, mean that looking at this picture, we can conclude that it is a woman just because women tend to have great diversity of shape and size. We know that it is a man, diversity or not. Even when clothed, we can tell with near 100% precision if this is a man or a woman.

This is true even when a man has “man boobs” or a woman is flat.

The same applies to race. Greeks are genetically diverse from Swedes and yet both are very clearly white and very distinct from blacks, whether dark-skinned or light.

DNA evidence reflects what we can see even more clearly. Just as DNA can identify with near 100% certainty who’s the father of a child, so too can it identify the person’s race.

Whatever genetic diversity exists, it does not mean that blacks have a “universal DNA” and therefore can claim everyone as one of their own.

Blacks, like all others have their own haplogroups. It is very simple to identify blacks as blacks, whites as whites, Orientals as Orientals.

But if blacks really want to claim someone due to their genetic diversity, let us compromise: from now on, we’ll agree that Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin were black. Genetic diversity and all.