posted 06 September 2004 08:12 PM            

Does this site have any credibility or is it just rascist? I didn't really read it all, just skimmed it.

posted 06 September 2004 08:19 PM            

they site:
* Carleton S. Coon, The Races of Europe
...as usual they omit the date: 1939.
...that is done on purpose, to deceive the ill informed.

* Yurco's known falsehood with respect to the Ramses III tomb: http://manuampim.com/ramesesIII.htm

posted 06 September 2004 08:57 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Outdated racist material,

they site:
* Carleton S. Coon, The Races of Europe
...as usual they omit the date: 1939.
...that is done on purpose, to deceive the ill informed.

* Yurco's known falsehood with respect to the Ramses III tomb: http://manuampim.com/ramesesIII.htm

[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 06 September 2004).]

---

posted 06 September 2004 10:31 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by King_Scorpion:
LOL, that's what I thought. I found it funny how they tried to say Ethiopians are caucasian. Anyway, another question. How do I refute the claims of mtDNA showing that the Kemetians looked just like Egyptians today?

---

* mitochondrial dna does not show you how anyone looks.

* DNA also cannot be labeled racially, and respectable molecular geneticists do not tag DNA with Negro or Caucasian or Mongolasian labels.

we can infer that the migration of northern mtDNA types to the south is older than the migration of southern mtDNA types to the north (or that there has been less gene flow from north to south than from south to north along the Nile River Valley)
- Krings et al., Am J Hum Genet, 1999

I wouldn't argue with that, because nothing was stated that is not obvious. Yes...we agree that there has been gene flow in the Nile valley...south to north, and north to south, and between Kemet (egypt) and Ta Seti (nubia). That is consistent with the historical record given that the Kememu themselves state clearly that they come from Ta Seti.

posted 07 September 2004 04:15 PM            

Mtdna/Y-Chromsome is only as good as the samples it provides. If you sample Egyptians from Cairo depending their background you would get various haloptypes and alleles. Some allele are even Egyptian specific and others connect them with other African groups. For instance,you will find that many modern Upper Egyptian people from Middle Egypt to the southern border to Aswan have haloptypes that connect them with Eastern Africans and Western Africans namely the L2 and L3 haloptypes. Others have haloptypes connected to Western Asians and Yemani probabaly through some slight admixture with Arabs who migrated to Upper Egypt during the Middle Ages.

I can imagine you would probabaly see different results amungst more urban Cairene Egyptians where much intermingling over the years has been more rampant than in more isolated areas like Middle and Upper Egypt.

I don't necessary agree with some people on this board that have the opinion that all modern Egyptians are mixed with Arabs or that sucessive waves of foreginers eliminated the original stock. Clearly if you visit modern Southern Upper Egypt you will find people who phenotypically look much like the people on the bas reliefs and sculpture of ancient Egypt . By social definitions in America most people in Upper Egypt would be considered black. Especially in areas like Luxor to Aswan where I am from.

The problem is we have scarce genetic information about the early dwellers of the Nile,and with this data we can completely answer your questions. Most genetic studies on ancient and modern Egyptians have shown continuity between ancient and modern populations within Egypt. Most mTdna and Y-Chromsome studies about Egypt are done with modern samples as opposed to more ancient samples. Most samples taken within Egypt are done with more urban Cairene samples instead of more rural Egyptians from Upper and Middle Egypt.

The website in question does not bother to cite the full genetic study which ironically said that sub-Saharan markers are most common within Upper Egyptian populations. Read the full study and you will that it contridicts the author's agenda and intentions. The author also excludes the following study conducted on Upper Egyptians from around Gourna:

Y-chromosome Haplotypes in Egypt

to appear in American Journal of Physical Anthropology
Brief communication: Y-chromosome haplotypes in Egypt
G. Lucotte *, G. Mercier
International Institute of Anthropology, Paris, France
ABSTRACT

We analyzed Y-chromosome haplotypes in the Nile River Valley in Egypt
in 274 unrelated males, using the p49a,f TaqI polymorphism. These
individuals were born in three regions along the river: in Alexandria
(the Delta and Lower Egypt), in Upper Egypt, and in Lower Nubia.
Fifteen different p49a,f TaqI haplotypes are present in Egypt, the
three most common being haplotype V (39.4%), haplotype XI (18.9%),
and haplotype IV (13.9%). Haplotype V is a characteristic Arab
haplotype, with a northern geographic distribution in Egypt in the
Nile River Valley. Haplotype IV, characteristic of sub-Saharan
populations, shows a southern geographic distribution in Egypt. Am J
Phys Anthropol 121:000-000, 2003. © 2003 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
..
As for mtDNA (Krings et al., [1999]), the present study on the Y-
chromosome haplotype shows that there are northern and southern Y-
haplotypes in Egypt. The main Y-haplotype V is a northern haplotype,
with a significantly different frequency in the north compared to the
south of the country: frequencies of haplotype V are 51.9% in the
Delta (location A), 24.2% in Upper Egypt (location B), and 17.4% in
Lower Nubia (location C). On the other hand, haplotype IV is a
typical southern haplotype, being almost absent in A (1.2%), and
preponderant in B (27.3%) and C (39.1%). Haplotype XI also shows a
preponderance in the south (in C, 30.4%; B, 28.8%) compared to the
north (11.7% in A) of the country. In mtDNA, sequences of the first
hypervariable HpaI site at position 3592 allowed Krings et al.
([1999]) to designate each mtDNA as being of northern or southern
affiliation, and proportions of northern and southern mtDNA differed
significantly between Egypt, Nubia, and the Southern Sudan.
It is interesting to relate this peculiar north/south
differentiation, a pattern of genetic variation deriving from the two
uniparentally inherited genetic systems (mtDNA and Y chromosome), to
specific historic events. Since the beginning of Egyptian history
(3200-3100 B.C.), the legendary king Menes united Upper and Lower
Egypt. Migration from north to south may coincide with the Pharaonic
colonization of Nubia, which occurred initially during the Middle
Kingdom (12th Dynasty, 1991-1785 B.C.), and more permanently during
the New Kingdom, from the reign of Thotmosis III (1490-1437 B.C.).
The main migration from south to north may coincide with the 25th
Dynasty (730-655 B.C.), when kings from Napata (in Nubia) conquered
Egypt.
..
Concerning less frequent Y-haplotypes in Egypt, haplotype VIII is
characteristic of Semitic populations, originating in the Near East
(Lucotte et al., [1993]). For example (Lucotte et al., [1996]), the
frequency of haplotype VIII is 26.2% among North African Jews (where
it represents the majority haplotype) and 77.5% among Jews from the
island of Djerba (Tunisia), reaching 85.1% among Oriental (from Iraq,
Iran, and Syria) Jews. Similarly, haplotype VII had a general
geographical distribution fairly identical to that of haplotype VIII
(which it often accompanies as a secondary haplotype); haplotype VII
distinguishes itself by increased preponderance north of the
Mediterranean and in Eastern Europe (Lucotte et al., [1996]).
Haplotype XV is the most widespread Y-haplotype in Western Europe
(Lucotte and Hazout, [1996]), where its frequency decreases from west
to east (Semino et al., [1996]; Lucotte and Loirat, [1999]).
Haplotypes VIII, VII, and XV are less common haplotypes in Egypt
(7.3%, 6.6%, and 5.5%, respectively), and tend to be located in the
north of the country, near the Mediterranean coast. Possibly
haplotypes VIII, VII, and XV represent, respectively, Near East,
Greek, and Roman influences.
_____ noitice that VI are common southern markers.

Ann Hum Genet. 2004 Jan;68(1):23-39. Related Articles, Links

Mitochondrial DNA Sequence Diversity in a Sedentary Population from
Egypt.

The mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) diversity of 58 individuals from Upper
Egypt, more than half (34 individuals) from Gurna, whose population
has an ancient cultural history, were studied by sequencing the
control-region and screening diagnostic RFLP markers. This sedentary
population presented similarities to the Ethiopian population by the
L1 and L2 macrohaplogroup frequency (20.6%), by the West Eurasian
component (defined by haplogroups H to K and T to X) and
particularly by a high frequency (17.6%) of haplogroup M1. We
statistically and phylogenetically analysed and compared the Gurna
population with other Egyptian, Near East and sub-Saharan Africa
populations; AMOVA and Minimum Spanning Network analysis showed that
the Gurna population was not isolated from neighbouring populations.
Our results suggest that the Gurna population has conserved the
trace of an ancestral genetic structure from an ancestral East
African population, characterized by a high M1 haplogroup frequency.
The current structure of the Egyptian population may be the result
of further influence of neighbouring populations on this ancestral
population.

Some people have erroneously taken the percentage of these studies to mean how much certain sub-Saharan ancestry a person might have. The interpretation is completely bogus,for the percentage only tells the frequency of certain haloptypes appears in opposed samples. What is important about the study is what haloptypes appears in what populations. The rest is historical data sometimes interjected by the geneticist themselves. Just look at the raw data,and you will get the whole pictures

posted 07 September 2004 06:47 PM            

Also:

Predominantly Neolithic origin for Y-Chromosome DNA Variation in North Africa
Arredi,
which Greek nationalist Dienekes also cites but perhaps does not fully understand, or want to:

"Since most of the languages spoken in North Africa and in nearby parts of Asia belong to the Afro-Asiatic family (Ruhlen 1991), this expansion could have invloved people speaking a proto-Afro-Asiatic language. These people could have carried, among others, the E3b and J lineages, after which the M81 mutation arose within North Africa and expanded along with the neolithic population into an environment containing few humans"
...to the effect of implying a largely tropical African origin and east to west, south to north movement of African people and accounting to a degree for some North African peoples, including some Berbers who carry the E3b lineage.

Also, cited previously by Ausar:
Near Eastern languages came from Africa 10,000 years ago
Investigator: Ene Metspalu
Tuesday May 28th, 2002
by Laura Spinney
Analysis of thousands of mitochondrial DNA samples has led Estonian
archeogeneticists to the origins of Arabic. Ene Metspalu of the
Department of Evolutionary Biology at Tartu University and the
Estonian Biocentre in Tartu, claims to have evidence that the Arab-
Berber languages of the Near and Middle East came out of East Africa
around 10,000 years ago. She has found evidence for what may have
been the last sizeable migration out of Africa before the slave
trade.

And previously by moi :
A team of Chinese and American geneticists obtained blood samples from more than 12,000 men from across East Asia and examined characteristic DNA sequences called markers on the Y chromosome (the male chromosome). The Y chromosome is considered one of the most powerful molecular tools for tracing human evolutionary history because it remains unchanged over eons when passed from father to son. The researchers found that every one of the men could trace his ancestry to forefathers who lived in Africa over the past 35,000 to 89,000 years. They lso found absolutely no genetic evidence that modern people, Homo sapiens, mated with archaic humans, Homo erectus, that already lived in Asia, having migrated from Africa about 1 million years ago. The findings, appearing in the journal Science, appeared to confirm the out-of-Africa theory that modern people originated in Africa about 100,000 years ago and then migrated outward, replacing Homo erectus around the globe. "Our work not only provided the evidence that supports the out-of-Africa theory, but also showed that such a replacement is complete," human population geneticist Li Jin of Fudan University in Shanghai and the University of Texas in Houston, who led the study, said. Li added that the absence of any genetic signature from archaic humans in the huge sample of
men studied meant there was no support for the idea that Homo sapiens mated and produced babies with Homo erectus. Asked about any evidence of interbreeding, Li said: "Zilch. None. Nada." Japan Times 2001.

Point being: Inferences from these studies of mtdna must all be considered in the context of the reality of where these populations, languages and cultures, including archeological finds and skeletal remains, originate. Typically: In Africa.
If you put all the information together, including the Eurocentrist info, it is remarkable how LITTLE there is in the way of concrete evidence of a non-African origin of Nile Valley civilisation.

posted 07 September 2004 08:34 PM            

In practice it is possible to determine directly the skin colour and hence the ethnic affiliations of the ancient Egyptians by microscopic analysis in the laboratory; I doubt if the sagacity of the researchers who have studied the question has overlooked the possibility.

Melanin (eumelanin), the chemical body responsible for skin pigmentation, is, broadly speaking, insoluble and is preserved for millions of years in the skins of fossil animals.20 There is thus all the more reason for it to be readily recoverable in the skins of Egyptian mummies, despite a tenacious legend that the skin of mummies, tainted by the embalming material, is no longer susceptible of any analysis.21 Although the epidermis is the main site of the melanin, the melanocytes penetrating the derm at the boundary between it and the epidermis, even where the latter has mostly been destroyed by the embalming materials, show a melanin level which is non-existent in the white-skinned races. The samples I myself analyzed were taken in the physical anthropology laboratory of the Mus'ee de l'Homme in Paris off the mummies from the Marietta excavations in Egypt.22 The same method is perfectly suitable for use on the royal mummies of Thutmoses III, Seti I and Ramses II in the Cairo Museum, which are in an excel state of preservation. For two years past I have been vainly begging the curator of the Cairo Museum for similar samples to analyze. No more than a few square millimetres of skin would be required to mount a specimen, the preparations being a few um in thickness and lightened with ethyl benzoate. They can be studied by natural light or with ultra-violet lighting which renders the melanin grains fluorescent.

posted 07 September 2004 08:43 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by King_Scorpion:
One more question, does anyone know anything about this guy named Manu Ampim? Someone tried to tell me he was anti-semitic.

---

(ad hominem attack) -> attacking the individual because you can't refute the evidence.

The professor is simply documenting the REALITY of the RamsesIII -> wall of nations scene, as published 100 years ago. The painting was largely 'covered up' until African historican Cheik Anta Diop published them in 1981. You should familiarize yourself with Diop's works, including African Origin of Civilization if you have not yet done so.

posted 07 September 2004 09:02 PM            

quote:

---

Oh, and is using melanin as evidence a good idea? I'm not talking about proving that people are better or anything, just in the fact of skin solor? This is something Diop wrote...

---

Diop invented this method and it has been used successfully and scientifically to determine the skin color of burn victims as well. With mummies there are always issues such as damage done by various chemicals, and so on, but Diop was able to actually test several dozen mummies and France and they were indeed determined to generally be the remains of dark skinned people.

What else would you expect? Unless you think the Kememu (Black people) and everyone that ever met them, and noted their dark skin from Hebrew to Greek were blind.

Only 17th century Europeans and their intellectual bastard spawn in the modern day west have ever claimed otherwise. And they are blinded by their own biases.

posted 07 September 2004 09:52 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Diop invented this method and it has been used successfully and scientifically to determine the skin color of burn victims as well. With mummies there are always issues such as damage done by various chemicals, and so on, but Diop was able to actually test several dozen mummies and France and they were indeed determined to generally be the remains of dark skinned people.

What else would you expect? Unless you think the Kememu (Black people) and everyone that ever met them, and noted their dark skin from Hebrew to Greek were blind.

Only 17th century Europeans and their intellectual bastard spawn in the modern day west have ever claimed otherwise. And they are blinded by their own biases.

[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 07 September 2004).]

---

Oh no buddy, I'm on your side. I definently think they were black, I was just wondering if I could use melanin as evidence because I heard the embalming process of the mummies distorted it a bit which causes contreversy.

posted 07 September 2004 10:06 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by ausar:
Diop was never allowed to test Rameses II mummy by the labatory in France.

---

posted 07 September 2004 10:09 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by King_Scorpion:
Oh no buddy, I'm on your side.

---

posted 08 September 2004 10:05 PM            

Anyway, my opponent just used the mummy of "Ginger" as factual evidence...supported by Joann Fletcher of why the AE's were white. My counterattack is just going to be that you need to do x-rays and facial reconstruction to know for sure what the skin color was.

http://www.egyptorigins.com/ginger.htm

And this is a quote from their King Tut page...

posted 09 September 2004 03:59 AM            

In the "Fletcher" article, it isn't clear what the scientific basis is, if any, for ascribing racial affinity to mummy hair.
Cynotrichous, just means curly, wavy or straight hair, that is also a feature of some Africoid peoples.

In the early 1970s, the Czech anthropologist Eugen Strouhal examined pre-dynastic Egyptian skulls _ at Cambridge University. He sent some samples of the hair to the Institute of Anthropology at Charles University, Prague, to be analysed. The hair samples were described as varying in texture from "wavy" to "curly" and in colour from "light brown" to "black". [cynotrichous] Strouhal summarised the results of the analysis: "The outline of the cross-sections of the hairs was flattened, with indices ranging from 35 to 65. These peculiarities also show the Negroid inference among the Badarians (pre-dynastic Egyptians)." The term "Negroid influence" suggests intermixture, but as the table suggests this hair is more "Negroid" than the San and the Zulu samples, currently the most Negroid hair in existence!

It's also interesting that they site Fletcher at all, after castigating her for claiming to find the Nefertiti mummy, whose appearance was reconstructed as that of a Black African woman.

posted 09 September 2004 12:05 PM            

She was working closely with a family in Upper Egypt testing their hair to find out the supposed hair was ''caucasoid'' probabaly due to the fact it was more wavy than most African hair. Truth is that sometimes Nubian people and even Nilotic people like the Bahimba in Uganda have hair texture that is wavy,but none of these people could be called ''caucasoid'' except if you subscribed to the old Hamitic myth postulated by Seligman. From a personal email I read of Fletcher she even says herself she does not like to use the term ''caucasoid'' [If anybody wants to email statements from Fletcher than please supply your email,for I cannot post it due to copyright]

Not to mention Fletcher has no experiance nor credentials on anthropological issues. Her graduate degree is in Egyptology in the issues of wigs and hair styles in ancient Egypt,but not in bio-anthropology or even physical anthropology.

As for the ''Ginger'' mummy that many parade around as definite proof of red haired Egyptians need to consult some scientific common sense. Hair texture and color can only be determined by microscopic analysis,and not from causual observation of the naked eye. You see certain elements in the burial such as salts in the sand can change the hair colors. For more information on hair and archaeological sites adressing the specific Ginger mummy see the following:

Excavating Hierakonpolis: Nubian Cemetery: Week 3: Hair

Andrew Wilson, the "hair guy"

Photo courtesy of the Hierakonpolis Expedition. Click on image for larger version.
by Andrew Wilson

Archaeological Hair

The common misconception that all hair turns red over archaeological timescales has found its way into archaeological folklore. Whilst certain environments such as those producing bog bodies are known to yield hair of a red-brown color, in part because of the breakdown of organic matter and presence of humic acids which impart a brown color to recovered remains, it has commonly been assumed that this happens to all archaeological hair. This concept has been perpetuated by popular nicknames such as "Ginger"--affectionately given to the Predynastic burial with red hair on display in the mummy rooms at the British Museum.

Potential change to hair color can be explained more scientifically by examining the chemistry of melanin which is responsible for hair color in life. All hair contains a mixture in varying concentration of both black-brown eumelanin and red-yellow phaeomelanin pigments, which are susceptible to differential chemical change under certain extreme burial conditions (for example wet reducing conditions, or dry oxidising conditions). Importantly, phaeomelanin is much more stable to environmental conditions than eumelanin, hence the reactions occurring in the burial environment favor the preservation of phaeomelanin, revealing and enhancing the red/ yellow color of hairs containing this pigment. Color changes occur slowly under dry oxidising conditions, such as in the burials in sand at Hierakonpolis. Whether the conditions within the wood and plaster coffin contributed to accelerated color change, or whether this individual naturally had more phaeomelanin pigmentation in his hair is hard to say without further analysis.

http://www.archaeology.org/interactive/hierakonpolis/field/hair.html

Careful brushing later in the lab revealed the reddish eye lashes and eye brows, and even remnants of a 5 o'clock shadow on the chin. This is not to say that he was a true blonde. It is known that over time hair will turn blonde or reddish, but apparently only certain conditions, as our visiting hair specialist Andrew Wilson of Bradford University, UK, explains.

http://www.archaeology.org/interactive/hierakonpolis/field/2004c.html

As for the population in Egypt over 6,000 years ago being ''white skinned'' is impossible when you take in consideration not only the negriod remains found in the Badarian cemetaries but also due to Gloggers rule. Middle and Upper Egypt are closer to the equator thus the people tend to have more melanin,and no where near the white skin of Northern/Western Europeans.

See the following on remains studied by bio-anthropologist Larry Angel[S.O.y. Keita's professor]

The movement or diffusion of people out of and into Egypt during
this time span from before 4000 B.C.-2000 B.C. or later evolution of
this slightly negriod paedomorphic stock into Dyansty Upper
Egyptians was probably a local development from the unknown latest
hunters of the Lower Nile,while mixture of more massive and rugged
[and also negriod ] Nubians[Anderson,1969];Armelagos,1969] produced
some of the rugged Pre-dyanstic variants . Disease and dietary
selection would have affected the population probably more than
immigration and mixture. Lower Egypt may have had a slightly
different population,less linear in the skull variant but with
longer face,like the earliest farmers in Greece ,but also with thin
noses. But I have to use a IX Dyansty series [Woo ,1930] as a base
for this statement and almost certainly this group in the late third
milliennium B.C. shows minor effects of mixture with sea-trading
peoples from the Levant and Agean. Cyprus since the early Neolithic
[Angel,1953;Furst,1933] had both very lateral and some linear skulls
elements and could have been a source of change and there were
probably exchanges with Palestine[Korgman ,1949;Hrdlicka,1938] and
Mesopotamia [Angel ,1951],both with long [Angel,1951],both with long
headed populations with medium or low rather than linear faces and
some of the same lateral element as in early Anatolian[cf. the later
Hitties] and the Agean [Angel,1951]. The latter is supposed to have
increased in numbers [from what selective force?] in the Bronze Age
and perhaps to have affected Lower Egypt via the Hykos.
This is not enough evidence. But the intruders who appeared in
Greece at time of Indo-Europeans acceptance[Angel,1971] are fairly
robust Iranian[or Nordic Iranian] in form[Korgman,1940] with definite
short and low headed and also intermediate forms of skull: I think
that the Hykos wew probably a parallel blend and also may have had
little genetic effect in an area of high population density already.

page 310

J. Lawrence Angel

Divison of Physical Anthropology
Smithstonian Institution

Washington,D.C. 20560 ,U.S.A.
Received 18 April 1969

Biological Relations of Egyptian and Eastern Mediterranean
Populations during Pre-dynastic and Dyanstic
Time*

Here is some information on Glogger's rule:

Gloger's Rule in Human pigmentation

Gloger's Rule correlates darkness (low reflectance) with humid environments. Humans are darker in humid equatorial environments, and lighter in drier northern environments.
http://www.mun.ca/biology/scarr/Gloger%27s_Rule_in_Humans.htm

As far as the eye color of a person cannot be determined by a cadaver[remains of the dead] but would require Forensic reconstruction. See the following for this:

Rogers, Spencer Lee, _Personal identification from human
remains_ 1987,

"Hair often survives for a considerable time after death and can be
recognized as to color and to some extent texture. A study in which hair
was buried experimentally in the soil for a two year period revealed
that there was no appreciable change until after one month, but it
became streaked and brittle after one year. Two years was found to be
the maximum duration of Caucasian hair buried underground." (p.8)

On the same page it reads:

"The color of eyes during life cannot be determined from their
appearance on a cadaver since all eyes become a greenish brown shortly
after death."

As far as the blonde/red haired Dyanstic royal mummies see the following:

Like the mummy of her husband the wrappings of the mummy of Thuya had
been severly damaged by robbers. The bandages have been covered wioth
black resin,which still bear the impression of stolen jewerly.

The mummy presents some unusual features for the Period. The
emablimng incision is almost vertical and has been sewn up with a
string. No plate covers the wound,which gapes open,exposing the linen
packing filling the body cavity.

The arms are fully extended with the palms of the hand flattened
against the thighs.

The mummy is of a small old lady with typical Egyptian features who
was possibly over fifty when she died.

Thuya has scantly white hair,know turned yellow by the materials
used in the embalimng \, On the top her head the hair is very thing
much like a pony tail in photographs,are in fact,the remains of the
linen wrappings around the head and back of the neck of the mummy

page 112-113

Faces of the Pharoahs

Robert Parthiage

posted 09 September 2004 01:31 PM            

Some comments:

quote:

---

From a personal email I read of Fletcher she even says herself she does not like to use the term ''caucasoid'',

---

quote:

---

As for the ''Ginger'' mummy that many parade around as definite proof of red haired Egyptians need to consult some scientific common sense. Hair texture and color can only be determined by microscopic analysis,and not from causual observation of the naked eye.

---

quote:

---

As for the population in Egypt over 6,000 years ago being ''white skinned'' is impossible when you take in consideration not only the negriod remains found in the Badarian cemetaries but also due to Gloggers rule. Middle and Upper Egypt are closer to the equator thus the people tend to have more melanin, and no where near the white skin of Northern/Western Europeans.

---

quote:

---

But I have to use a IX Dyansty series [Woo ,1930] as a base
for this statement and almost certainly this group in the late third
milliennium B.C. shows minor effects of mixture with sea-trading
peoples from the Levant and Agean…… The latter is supposed to have
increased in numbers [from what selective force?] in the Bronze Age
and perhaps to have affected Lower Egypt via the Hyksos.

---

The reason there is no documentation of an actual Nordic, European/race diffusionist foundation for Nile Valley Civilisation…..is because it doesn’t exist. The ‘problem’ isn’t merely that the Kememu are dark skinned peoples, but additionally that they have an African archeological, anthropological, linguistic and cultural history and identity that goes back into the remotest antiquity. And this makes the very notion of speculating that these peoples are not actually from "Africa" where all the elementals that "identify" them exist, but rather from somewhere else, where none of them exist, highly improbable.

The African identity of Kemet has been proven by empirical methodology of modern science (when non biased), attested to by the Kememu themselves, and by those that knew them. In fact, none of these evidences is in contradiction.

Kememu whose ancestors came from Ta Seti- were Black Africans, and looking for bits of curly red hair in the desert is unlikely to provide evidence to the contrary.

posted 09 September 2004 02:06 PM            

Rasol,the theory that kemetians migrated from Mesopotamia into the Nile Valley supressing the Negriod autochronous population is something that Petrie postulated but has been overturned due to lack of evidence. The aleadged migrattion was during the Naqada II period,but actually through analysis of crani material shows Naqada II has strong affinities with Nubian population. Archaeological evidence according to the Oxford History of ancient Egypt by Ian Shaw admits that there is no proof of the Dyanstic race myth postulated by Sir Grafton Smith and Petrie has been overturned. Certainly there are some Mesopotamian influces in Lower Egypt and in the palace facdes in Upper Egypt,but there was no invasion.

posted 10 September 2004 04:01 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by King_Scorpion:
For those of you who want to read how I've been kicking this guys butt so far, go here...

---

most important thing is to share knowledge.
the internet is filled with people i call distortion junkies, addicted to misinforming others. counter heat, with light.

posted 10 September 2004 04:32 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Outdated racist material,

they site:
* Carleton S. Coon, The Races of Europe
...as usual they omit the date: 1939.
...that is done on purpose, to deceive the ill informed.

* Yurco's known falsehood with respect to the Ramses III tomb: http://manuampim.com/ramesesIII.htm

[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 06 September 2004).]

---

King Scorpian wrote Manu Ampim and posted Ampim's reply from his debate:

quote:

---

The person that you are referring to is *not* dealing with the question of the race of the ancient Egyptians. From what you have stated he sounds very ignorant, because my critique of the "Bernal-Davidson School" has absolutely nothing to do with "semitism."

Rather, my essay (not book) is a solid analysis of European writers (Basil Davidson, Martin Bernal, and Chris Gray) who went out of their way to try and trash Dr. Diop's pioneering research, as I was able to show. Their anti-Diop writings speak for themselves. This issue has nothing to do with 'semitism'.

The fact of the matter is that no intelligent person in the world can argue against the fact that the "Table of Nations" scene in the Tomb of Ramses III depicts ancient Egyptians as jet black in color, identified by their name "Rmt", and are shown as identical to the black-skinned Nubians in the same scene. Ask this internet jokester that you are debating with to deal with this undeniable PRIMARY EVIDENCE and stop playing games and wasting your time with nonsense.

You have done well by using my first-hand photos from the Ramses III Tomb. Don't allow yourself to be sidetracked with name-calling from a silly internet jokester who is running away from the objective primary evidence which shows the ancient Egyptians as a black people.

See: M. Ampim, "The Problem of the Bernal-Davidson School," pp. 191-204 in Egypt: Child of Africa (1994), ed. by Ivan Van Sertima.

---

I agree. The only ever serious disputation of the Ramesis III scene popularized by Diop was Yurco's, and Yurco's falsehood on this issue has been clearly demonstrated by Ampim (and others).

The approach of attacking Ampim personally is classic....blame the messenger, when you can't dispute the message.

King Scorpian: I couldn't help but notice that your "debate opponents" offer no 'counter explanation' simply because they don't have one. They simply try to move you to a different subject, or ridicule you personally hoping to get you angry and distract you. It's a sign of weakness and of their knowledge that their position is weak. But you are handling their nonsense well. The methods of deception never change.

posted 12 September 2004 01:06 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by King_Scorpion:
I thought Nefertari was part of the 19th Dynasty?

---

Nefertari Mery-en-Mut was Rameses II's wife and a part of the 19th dynasty.

There was also an Ahmose Nefertari who was I believe the royal daughter of Tao II and the founder of the 18th dynasty.

posted 15 September 2004 02:37 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by King_Scorpion:
You think we should give him the last word or what? He's an idiot.

---

Notice that in attempting to 'counter' the truth, your 'opponents' cited 'authorities' who themselves long ago conceded the African origins of Kemet. (which your untutored opponents were not aware of) That makes them 'think'.

Too, they citied authorities who admitted that Kemetians held 'Blackness' sacred, only to deny that this had anything to do with the way the Kemetians viewed themselves. But that is not logical, and contradicts the evidence before their own eyes....and also causes them to think.

Once they accept that Kemetians held blackness as sacred...and then view the pictures you(?) referenced the truth becomes apparent to them. And while you can introduce people to Mr. truth...you cannot force them to admit they met him:

posted 16 September 2004 09:46 AM            

Most sincerely,

posted 16 September 2004 09:55 AM            

Egyptologist Dr. Frank Yurco is one such person that completely misrepresents the "Table of Nations" scene in the Ramses III tomb. In a 1996 article on the Ramses III tomb reliefs, Yurco makes a number of false statements as he conveniently overlooks the actual tomb evidence.[3]

1. Yurco claims that the Sethe/Lepsius edition "is indeed a pastiche and not at all what actually is on the wall in Ramses III's tomb reliefs. ...Accordingly, all claims based upon the 1913 pastiche...rest upon a nineteenth to early twentieth century copy that is not correct!"

Yurco misrepresents the work of Sethe/Lepsius and does not explain that they simply reduced the scene from 16 figures to 4 figures, and that the image of each group of men and the accompanying texts are condensed but that the reproduction is otherwise ACCURATE, as the actual tomb photographs indicate. Yurco conveniently shows only 2 members per group and does not show ALL FOUR members of the Egyptian or Nubian groups in order to omit their name.

2. Yurco compounds his error by claiming that the "Ramses III reliefs are *exactly* like the Sety I wall reliefs." [emphasis added].

This statement is completely false. From Yurco's own photographs of the two tombs, the Ramses III and Seti I wall reliefs of the four "Table of Nations" groups are obviously different. In each case the appearance and attire of the four groups are shown differently in the two tombs. Not only are there different ethnic groups in the B and D position, but the Egyptians and Nubians are also portrayed markedly different. In fact, several of the groups in the Seti I tomb reliefs are not even wearing shirts! Anyone can compare the images in the two tombs and see that not only are the Ramses III and Seti I scenes obviously different, but that Yurco is openly making false statements.....Hornung mis-labels the black skinned Group A as "Nubians" eventhough the text clearly reads Rmt (i.e. "the Kmtjw" or "the Egyptians"). It is clear that Hornung both distorts and mislabels the scene and is not a reliable source on the Ramses III tomb scene.

Frank Yurco also misrepresents the Ramses III scene in the same ways as Hornung. Yurco presents the same 3 distortions, and he mis-labels the black skinned Group A as "Kushites," despite the textual evidence to the contrary.

By the way, I highly recommend Egypt: Child of Africa, (edited by Van Sertima) which has the essay earlier referenced by Ampim.

posted 16 September 2004 11:28 AM            

He also discusses his upcoming book on the possible Ra-hotep fake. (the statues are radically unlike all other known pictures of Ra-hotep; both he and his wife are shown with fair eyes and black hair; unusual phenotypical combination; doubly amazing to be found in both he and his wife and virtually no other Native Kemetic royalty in history; the paint from Ra-hotep's hair is dripping down into the skin, nofret has highlighted 'nipples'(!), and so on. lol.

The book also shows an X-ray of Thutmosis IV's skull. He has "extreme" prognathism.

Again, I recommend the book.

posted 16 September 2004 12:41 PM            

It's nice that in the course of these arguments we're learning not just about AE but also about the *methods* the racist camp uses in their propaganda, distraction, distortion, slander, etc. Race is nonsense, but racism is *real*, so we might as well understand its ways.

Since this sort of thing has been going on for a long time (and will likely continue for a while), I've always thought it's important to understand (and watch for) the moves they make.

posted 16 September 2004 01:23 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
Time to grow up guys.

---

It would be enjoyable if you could actually debate. Instead you just get upset and then hurl insult. Boring.

posted 16 September 2004 02:18 PM            

Nice win for us Rasol!

posted 16 September 2004 02:37 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by King_Scorpion:
But that's all they could do once they realized they couldn't make a comback against our numerous points.

Nice win for us Rasol!

[This message has been edited by King_Scorpion (edited 16 September 2004).]

---

Lol. When it's for a good cause...EVERYONE WINS.

posted 18 September 2004 07:43 PM            

Legrand H. Clegg II, Editor and Publisher, MA'AT new, I don't concur on all specifics but it summerizes nicely nonetheless:

TO: Bryan Harmon: This is a brief response to your comments. First in his book "Black Spark: White fire, Fire: Did ancient Black navigators civilize Europe?" White journalist Richard Poe devotes several chapters to the work of bioanthropologist Dr. Shomarka Keita. Dr. Keita's conclusion regarding the ancient Egyptians was that the indigenous Egyptians, who laid the foundation of civilization, were blacks.

Poe also does an excellent critique on Frank Snowden and his distorted views. For years Whites refused to publish Snowden's work, so he finally decided to compromise himself. Yes the Egyptians were lighter than the Nubians, just as the Toucouleur are lighter than the Nigerians, but they are both of the same racial stock. Why is it that White people can accept dark Sicilians and Nordics as extremes of the White race, but they can't apply this reasoning to Africans. The bust of Nefertiti has no insignia on it whatsoever. There is no evidence as to whom it belongs. On the other hand, scores of temple carvings of her and her husband in the City of Akhetaton show them both to have been very Negroid. Some carvings even show her wearing her hair in cornrows. As for the physical types of the ancient Egyptians, I recommend that you read an article, "The Biological Relationship of The Ancient Egyptians to Other Populations," by Dr. Keith Crawford of Howard University. It appears in the new Journal of Pan African Studies that can be obtained by calling: (818) 677-3311. After presenting a diversity of data, the author concludes: "Studies of linkage disequilibrium and allelic variation at a mini-satellite locus suggests that Hamitic Africoids are descended from sub-Saharan Africans, the differences in trait probably due to genetic drift and environmental selection. Ancient Egyptian populations with 'non-Negroid" facial features are most similar to these modern Hamitic (Elongated Africoid) populations of Northeast Africa. Preliminary studies with Mitochondrial DNA also suggest affiliations with sub-Sharan Africans for ancient Egyptians and some modern Egyptian groups.

Within an evolutionary paradigm, differences between Upper and Lower Egyptians once thought to be racially-influenced differences, can now be alternatively interpreted as clinal variation, an expression of environmental selection. The ancient Egyptians have limb proportions and other features of their stature that are the same as all other African populations but different from Caucasoids in Europe and Asia. These adaptations indicate a long period of evolution in tropical regions. Since Egypt is not in tropical Africa, these observations reinforce sub-Saharan Africa as the region of origin for the ancient Egyptians. Collectively, all of these data strongly support an African bio-historical affiliation for the ancient Egyptians and their closest relationships with other Africoids.

The ancient Egyptians were most similar to populations inhabiting Northeast Africa, which included variants with Broad (Negroid), Elongated (Hamitic) and Nilotic facial traits." The following statement that we posted on October 13 provides responses to some of the other issues that you raised. A more scientific response was posted here on October 19, by "Blackfacts." It would also be worth reading: To Carl and Sherry: Most of our Black colleagues refuse to respond to White people who passionately condemn our contention that the ancient Egyptians were Black Africans. They believe that to attempt a debate with Caucasians on this issue is a useless dialogue of the deaf. We, on the other hand, believe that most White people are victims of a vast conspiracy promoted by scholars, scientists and politicians who have developed a "civilization" based on fiction. Part of this fiction is that Whites have been the harbingers of civilization since time immemorial, and that Blacks and other people of color have been their subordinates throughout history. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Hence, when you come to this site with your racist views, we are certain to respond.

We believe that the falsification of history by White scientists and scholars has remained unchallenged for far too long. And we certainly will not tolerate it here. So, let's get it on! We'll start with you, CARL: It is absurd for you to claim that "no one denied Egypt is in Africa…just not Black Africa." I challenge you to find 10 books written by White Egyptologists who mention that Egypt is in Africa. They are in such denial that they cannot even tell the truth about geography. Why? Because they know that to mention Africa would suggest Blackness and the real origin of all African people, including the Egyptians. Secondly, you claim that the Egyptians "mixed with blacks" during the late period and that this was responsible for the decline of the country. This, too, is untrue. The Egyptians themselves traced their origin to the BLACK SOUTH- the land of Punt, modern day Somalia, Kenya and Uganda. Even racist white Egyptologists will admit that the early fossils and skulls of the predynastic Egyptians are "Negroid." The Black Egyptians later mixed with Assyrians, Persians, Greeks, Roman, etc.-all of whom brought nothing but destruction and desecration of monuments, traditions and human beings. Finally, if Egypt were indeed a white (you say "blonde") civilization, why did White people cross the mountains and hills of Europe, sail across the Mediterranean into Africa and then cross miles of hot desert sands to begin civilization on another continent, yet they left no evidence of their brilliant civilization in Europe! Why? Because this never happened!

The truth is that Black people founded Egypt long before Europeans even existed in the world. White journalist Richard Poe has said the following about the earliest White Egyptians: "Why is the racial identity of ancient Egypt such a sensitive issue? Perhaps because it touches on the question of who invented civilization: Whites or Blacks? When the pyramids were built, Europe was still a wilderness, peopled by cannibals and headhunters." We are not "inventing proof," Carl, White scholars and scientists have been doing so for two hundred years, and we, as Black people, are simply not going to tolerate this degradation of our people and our history any more. It must stop, now, as we enter the 21st Century.

Now, as for you, Sherry: You stated that you do not understand what White people would gain from claiming the ancient Egyptians were White, if this were not so. Why would they lie about history? White scientists and scholars would lie about history for the perpetuation of the illusion of White supremacy. White supremacy dominates everything in this society (i.e., economics, education, labor, law, politics, religion, etc.) The distortion of history is just one component of this longstanding practice and tradition. The Egyptians had many slaves, some of whom were Black people from the south-the very south to which the Egyptians traced their origin. In centuries passed Europeans enslaved other Europeans, and no one questioned the fact that some White people enslaved other Whites. But, if Egyptians enslaved Nubians they must have been of a different race. This is nonsense. Both the Egyptians and Nubians were African people. As you will see below, in my brief reference to Egyptian mummies, the remains that you make reference to are totally inconclusive. There is no proof of the true identity of the mummies of Ramesis II and Queen Hatshepsut. Furthermore, Queen Hatshepsut was the granddaughter of the unquestionably Black queen Ahmose Nefertari, co-founder of the 18th dynasty. Hatshepsut's entire family was of Nubian origin.

Moreover, have you seen the wall paintings of Queen Hatshepsut's expeditions to the African nation of Punt. The king and queen of Punt are clearly Black Africans. The peaceful relationship between the Egyptians and the Puntites resulted from the fact that the Egyptians traced their origin to Punt. We are well aware of the on again/ off again conflict between the Negroid Egyptians and the Black Nubians. Breasted, as most other racist Egyptologists, has erroneously defined the word Nahasi as "Black," when it meant no such thing. So all of that nonsense that you have quoted about "Blacks" not being able to cross into Egypt, etc. is a farce. Nahasi was a geographical name applied to certain peoples, tribes and nations south of Egypt. Remember, the people of Punt (modern day Somalia, Kenya & Uganda) were also south of Egypt and Black, but the Egyptians did not refer to them as Nahasi because they were in a different location (in East Africa and on the horn of Africa). In this vein, Cheikh Anta Diop has written: "Because of this inscription which marked off the border between the Meriotic Sudan and Egypt after the troubles of the Twelfth Dynasty, it is often concluded that this separated two distinct races, that the stela barred 'Blacks' from entering Egypt. Such a conclusion is a grievous error, for the term "Black" was never used by the Egyptians to distinguish the Meriotic Sundanese from themselves. Egyptians and Meroitic Sundanese belonged to the same race. They designated each other by tribal and regional names, never by epithets related to color, as in cases involving contact between a black race and a white race." Diop also adds: "Not one of the many modern texts is authentic that mentions the term 'Black' as if it had ever been used by the Egyptians to distinguish themselves from Negroes. Whenever these texts relate some fact reported by the Egyptians about 'Blacks' it is a distortion. They translate Nahasi by 'Blacks' in order to serve the cause. Strangely enough, the word Kushite becomes incompatible with the idea of 'Blacks' as soon as it refers to the first inhabitants who civilized Arabia before Mohammed; the land of Canaan, prior to the Jews (Phoenicia); Mesopotamia, prior to the Assyrians (Chaldean epoch); Elam; India, before the Aryans. This is one of the many contradictions that betray the specialists' fear of revealing facts they must have detected." Now the word Kemit, WHICH DOES MEAN BLACK, was used by the Egyptians to describe themselves; but the same Egyptologists who mistranslate Nahasi as Black claim that Kemit refers not to the people, but to the soil. We reject this nonsense out of hand. You mentioned Sesostris I and III and claim that they hated "the Blacks." Sherry, not only were these middle Kemit pharaohs of Nubian origin Nubia, but their sculptures depict them as unquestionably Black Africans themselves.

Even some of their queens are shown wearing "Afro" hairstyles. What we have here is Black Egyptians at war with Black Nubians. You cannot expect us to believe that these Black Pharaohs referred to the lands south of Egypt as Black lands, when they called their own country, Egypt, "the place of the Black people." Nahasi does not mean Black. In the midst of all your citations, you also mentioned the pharaoh Ahmose, brother of Ahmose-Nefertari (also his queen) as saying "The Black is helpless. Even Harris and Weeks (no friends to Africentrists), who wrote "X-Ray The Pharaohs," admit that this pharaoh and his family were "genetically influenced by people of the south." They go on to say: "Various scholars in the past have proposed a Nubian…origin for Sequenenre (Ahmose's grandfather) and his family, and his facial features suggest this might indeed be true. If it is true, the history of the family that reputedly drove the Hyksos from Egypt, and the history of the Seventeenth Dynasty, stands in need of considerable re-examination." Now here you have two White Egyptologist acknowledging that Ahmose was Nubian, and yet, you insist that he despised "the Blacks." We reject your reasoning, Sherry, because it is the same preposterous thinking that has led to the illusion of a White (blonde, you claim) Egypt in the middle of Africa. Generally, when the Egyptians painted foreigners, they depicted them true to form; but when they painted themselves, they often depicted themselves as reddish brown-the colors of life, blood and rebirth. This was a conventional color, which they used no matter what the actual color of the individual might have been. When the Egyptians chose to depict the races with which they were familiar, they depicted themselves and the Nubians with BLACK SKIN.

They depicted Europeans and Semites as white and tan respectively. If you visit the tomb of Ramesis III (1200 B.C.) you will see this firsthand. Furthermore, the most ancient monument in Egypt, the Sphinx, bears the likeness of a Black African and, during the late period, when Herodetus and other Greeks visited Egypt, they described the people as Black skinned with woolly hair: Hence, from the early date of the Sphinx, through Ramesis III and finally the late period, the Egyptians were clearly "Negroid," in spite of the gradual mixture with foreigners. As for blue-eyed Egyptians, this is clearly a fluke. As a matter of fact, it may even be fake. Not even the staunchest racist would claim that the Egyptians had blue eyes. Next, the "mummy evidence" that you mention has lost all credibility.

In a recent article in KMT magazine, it was pointed out that grave robbers stacked scores of mummies on top of one another, and later Egyptologists picked and chose at random which mummies they wanted to represent which pharaohs. Since most of the Egyptologists are blatantly negrophobic, we, as Blacks, certainly do not trust the validity of the mummies they have selected, especially when these mummies do not bear the characteristics of the corresponding sculptures and monuments. All of the monuments of Ramesis II depict him with a very broad nose and thick lips-White people have pointed noses and thin lips.

It is interesting that you would focus on King Tutankhamen (18th dynasty) to draw a distinction between the Egyptians and the Nubians. The 17th dynasty was of almost pure Nubian origin and the 18th dynasty was founded by the same family. All 18 of these pharaohs and queens were either Black, Negroid or of Black origin. Don't you understand, Sherry, where there was conflict, these were Black people fighting other Black people, just as is happening in parts of Africa today. King Tut's mother and father were Negroid. If you don't accept this from us, then, let us give you the names of a few White scholars who agree: John Wilkinson, Gerald Massey, Christian Desroches-Noblecourt and Alexander von Wuthenau. As a matter of fact, Von Wuthenau says the following about King Tut, which should clarify our position for you: "The features of this king, whose mother was of pure black stock, are almost as Negroid as the ones of his captured Nubian enemies." One of the founders of modern Egyptology was Champollion the younger. He and his Colleagues knew that the ancient Egyptians were not White people. In a letter to his brother, he described the paintings on the tomb of Sesostris I: This is what he said about the White people, who were designated last in the status of human beings: "Finally, the last one is what we call flesh-colored, a white skin of the most delicate shade, a nose straight arched, blue eyes, blond or reddish beard, tall stature and very slender, clad in a hairy ox-skin, a veritable savage tattooed on various parts of his body; he is called Tamhou…finally (and I am ashamed to say so, since our race is the last and the most savage in the series), Europeans who, in those remote epochs, frankly did not cut too fine a figure in the world. In this category we must include all blond and white-skinned people living not only in Europe, but Asia as well, their starting point." Finally, even with all of the White suppression of evidence and lies, most of the mummies on display have Negroid features; DNA tests show a genetic relationship between the Egyptians and Nubians.

Scholars like Diop and Greenberg have demonstrated that the tongue of the Pharaohs was related to other African languages. Furthermore, if the Egyptians were white and blonde, why didn't the Greeks and Romans say so. They and the Hebrews described the ancient Egyptians as Black skinned with woolly hair. You and your kinsmen may continue to perpetuate white supremacist nonsense; but we as people of African descent are no longer dependent on you for information, thank God. So we will tell our own story, whether you like it or not!!! Legrand H. Clegg II Editor & Publisher, MA'AT news

posted 20 September 2004 12:49 PM            

Since most of the Egyptologists are blatantly negrophobic, we, as Blacks, certainly do not trust the validity of the mummies they have selected, especially when these mummies do not bear the characteristics of the corresponding sculptures and monuments.

I like that!

Hope no one lets the lack of paragraph breaks discourage them from reading the essay above. It's a darn good one.

As for horemheb and his comment:

"same old PC arguments...if they don't agree with us they must be racist."

Aren't you the guy that lapses from debate about the facts regarding AE into shrill, irrelevent statements about Africa having contributed nothing to the modern world, only Europe has, blah, blah, blah?

posted 20 September 2004 02:05 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
[B]You are not dependent on our information because you have invented your own.

---

Lol. You wish, you silly man.

posted 20 September 2004 02:51 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
You are not dependent on our information because you have invented your own. Africa has made no substantial contribution to western civilization. We do have the blues and rock and roll if you choose to call those positive. Nothing has come out of Africa that has been positive for the rest of the world. The only result of all this will be to further damage black youths everywhere. As black culture slides in oblivion all over the world in the face of disease, lack of education and poverty we are faced with these silly Afrocentrics who think they can just talk it all away. Why solve problems when we can blame the white man for all of our problems. Why look to the future when we can live 5000 years in the past in a history we invented for ourselves. The clock is ticking gentlemen, if changes are not made soon it will be too late for Africa and all the lies about history will not replace the hard work that nobody is doing.

---

Hvae you ever heard of Timbuktu?

posted 20 September 2004 09:31 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
You are not dependent on our information because you have invented your own. Africa has made no substantial contribution to western civilization. We do have the blues and rock and roll if you choose to call those positive. Nothing has come out of Africa that has been positive for the rest of the world. The only result of all this will be to further damage black youths everywhere. As black culture slides in oblivion all over the world in the face of disease, lack of education and poverty we are faced with these silly Afrocentrics who think they can just talk it all away. Why solve problems when we can blame the white man for all of our problems. Why look to the future when we can live 5000 years in the past in a history we invented for ourselves. The clock is ticking gentlemen, if changes are not made soon it will be too late for Africa and all the lies about history will not replace the hard work that nobody is doing.

---

Let's take a moment to look at things from the context of AE era:
Who would have thought that many thousands of centuries later, that those savages dwelling in the thick vegetations of Europe, whom the Greeks and the Romans called "barbarians", "animals", and all sorts of other beastly names, would one day look back at land of the people who took it upon themselves (Africans) to civilize them (Europeans), and say that its people haven't contributed anything positive to the world's civilizations. Can you just imagine what Early Greco-Roman historians would have thought of such a statement? Probably would have thought that it was meant to be taken as one big joke!

posted 21 September 2004 10:03 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by supercar:
Let's take a moment to look at things from the context of AE era:
Who would have thought that many thousands of centuries later, that those savages dwelling in the thick vegetations of Europe, whom the Greeks and the Romans called "barbarians", "animals", and all sorts of other beastly names, would one day look back at land of the people who took it upon themselves (Africans) to civilize them (Europeans), and say that its people haven't contributed anything positive to the world's civilizations. Can you just imagine what Early Greco-Roman historians would have thought of such a statement? Probably would have thought that it was meant to be taken as one big joke!

---

posted 23 September 2004 03:50 PM            

quote:

---

Strangely enough, the word Kushite becomes incompatible with the idea of 'Blacks' as soon as it refers to the first inhabitants who civilized Arabia before Mohammed; the land of Canaan, prior to the Jews (Phoenicia); Mesopotamia, prior to the Assyrians (Chaldean epoch); Elam; India, before the Aryans. This is one of the many contradictions that betray the specialists' fear of revealing facts they must have detected."

---

A mark of a critical thinker is that s/he forces you to think as well, Diop was a critical thinker of the highest order....

Sub Saharan means Black, when it refers to:

* ancestors of the enslaved africans of the diaspora.

* north africans deemed honorary whites (like anwar sadat) and so, not black.

* accounts for the presence of blacks in north africa, who must be descendants of sub saharan slaves (such as the way direct descendants of the AE in modern Egypt, are sometimes insulted)

Sub Saharan does not mean Black, when it refers to:

* the origins of modern homo sapiens in the rift valley.

* the (Khentu) founders of Nile Valley civilisation who settled the Nile Valley from the South.

* the genetic markers such as E3b (Horn region East Africa), associated with eary 'agricultural revolution' populations.

* linguistic analysis which locates afro-asiatic language origins in East Africa (Sudan).

posted 23 September 2004 09:43 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Diop wrote: A mark of a critical thinker is that s/he forces you to think as well, Diop was a critical thinker of the highest order....

Sub Saharan means Black, when it refers to:

* ancestors of the enslaved africans of the diaspora.

* north africans deemed honorary whites (like anwar sadat) and so, not black.

* accounts for the presence of blacks in north africa, who [b]must be descendants of sub saharan slaves (such as the way direct descendants of the AE in modern Egypt, are sometimes insulted)

Sub Saharan does not mean Black, when it refers to:

* the origins of modern homo sapiens in the rift valley.

* the (Khentu) founders of Nile Valley civilisation who settled the Nile Valley from the South.

* the genetic markers such as E3b (Horn region East Africa), associated with eary 'agricultural revolution' populations.

* linguistic analysis which locates afro-asiatic language origins in East Africa (Sudan).

[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 23 September 2004).][/B]

---

posted 24 September 2004 12:01 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Diop wrote: A mark of a critical thinker is that s/he forces you to think as well, Diop was a critical thinker of the highest order....

Sub Saharan means Black, when it refers to:

* ancestors of the enslaved africans of the diaspora.

* north africans deemed honorary whites (like anwar sadat) and so, not black.

* accounts for the presence of blacks in north africa, who must be descendants of sub saharan slaves (such as the way direct descendants of the AE in modern Egypt, are sometimes insulted)

Sub Saharan does not mean Black, when it refers to:

* the origins of modern homo sapiens in the rift valley.

* the (Khentu) founders of Nile Valley civilisation who settled the Nile Valley from the South.

* the genetic markers such as E3b (Horn region East Africa), associated with eary 'agricultural revolution' populations.

* linguistic analysis which locates afro-asiatic language origins in East Africa (Sudan).

[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 23 September 2004).]

---

Rasol, hold onto that thought, because here we have from sneuropa...

"There are similarities and differences between all peoples. Ethiopeans are very different from central African peoples; they are generally much taller, and have facial features that are similar to Arabs. Likewise their language has more similarities with Arabic etc than with Bantu. It would seem that AE were a mix of these Northern types (there are many types here) and more Southern types too- likle the Negroes (of which again there are different types.) I thought that only the Bantu and maybe related people were Negro- the Africans of Western, South-Eastern and Central Africa,like the ones stolen for slavery. Other Africans like Ethiopeans and Khoisan are not Negro...

regards,
sneuropa"

This is from another thread, but I thought it could be used as an example to the point you were making earlier. Careful analysis of Sneuropa's comment, sheds an interesting light to Sneuropa's definition of a "negro"; "negroes" to him, are only the African groups, who were taken as slaves to the Americas and other parts of the world. Any African group, he deemed not part of 19th century European slavery, aren't considered "negro". As strange as this might sound, it seems to be the underlining logic of his awkward analysis of black Africans.

posted 24 September 2004 04:12 AM            

What I'm saying is that you can't say that all Africans are Negroes. Many are obviously far closer related to peoples of Europe and Asia than to Bantu types. Would you call someone living in Spain or Yemen a Negro? What about someone in Africa that looked just like them- say a Morrocan or an Egyptian? There are many different races in Africa- of course they've all mixed, and so have Asians and Europeans and Africans mixed in the Mediterranean and in Egypt.

From the rock paintings in the Sahara we can see Negroes. So from other art and of cause skeletal remains etc we can tell that from the most ancient times the Nile was inhabited by Negroes. I'm not saying that Negroes never started Egyptian Civilisation- I reckon they probably did. But other than saying Egyptians have Negro blood, i don't see haw we can really believe Egyptians are Negroes; many look like people outside of Egypt and they are not Negro. Egyptians today, may have the blood of their Negro ancestors- but I may have Negro ancestors at some distant past but I'm "mZungu sana" white.

And so not all KMT were Negroes- many probably were pale skinned, and Euro-Semitic type looking. Others undoubtably were black and Negro. Mixed races and many races.

regards,
sneuropa

posted 24 September 2004 07:43 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by sneuropa:
Ok, Supercar,
What I'm saying is that you can't say that all Africans are Negroes.

---