posted 26 October 2004 01:33 PM            

We all have feelings, so we don't want to go on what you feel, what you think, what you believe, or what you can't believe.

If the Ancient Eygptians were not black africans, so us through their language, beliefs, re-interpet Kem, show us through other ancient historians, show us how they are not related to Ethiopians, and whatever means you can find.

People come here with feelings all the time but no data.

posted 26 October 2004 01:53 PM            

A pseudohistorical political movement that erroneously claims that African-Americans should trace their roots back to ancient Egypt because it was dominated by a "race" of black Africans.

The main purpose of Afrocentrism is to encourage black nationalism and ethnic pride as a psychological weapon against the destructive and debilitating effects of universal racism.

Some of Afrocentrism's leading proponents are Professor Molefi Kete Asante of Temple University; Professor Leonard Jeffries of City University of New York; and Martin Bernal, author of Black Athena.

Link: http://skepdic.com/afrocent.html
____________________

I have nothing against that. People believe in what they what to believe if they feel the need to.

What i’m against is of the purpose of what those texts are about - Racial weapons to foment hate against whites (most whites aren't racist except the old nazis on Stromfront).

posted 26 October 2004 02:00 PM            

We can know plenty about the commoners of ancient Egypt since the commoners would have been no different than the pharaoahs in many cases. The exceptions being the 19th dyansty and the Libyan dyansty. Other than this the pharaoahs were fairly uniform to the population.

What should be emphasized is the pre-dyanstic skeletal data leading up to the formation of ancient Egypt,and wheater it changed from the pre-dyanstic into the Dyanstic era. Most studies show the Faiyum Neolithic, Badarian,and Naqada contained people usually claimed by physical anthropologist has having negriod features like avelor prognathism. Not to mention common cultural features inheritated most likely from the pre-dyanstic predessors of the dyanstic Egyptians. Dr. Keita found that most of the remains had a tropical Africna limb ration,and this was commented on even before Keita by Critchton[Yes, the author of Jurassic Park has a degree from Harvard in physical anthropology] who found the Badari and Naqada to both cluster with Nilotic Eastern Africans known as the Teita. His series showed Naqada were very similar to Nubians. The only series that showed intermediate status was the Giza series that was later pointed out by Howell in his cluster series.

We have definate remains of sub-Saharan Africans in Dakhla Oasis and Nabta that I have pointed out. We also have evidence of cultural interaction of the Central and Eastern Sahara which was reffered to by John Sutton as the ''African Aqatic''.

posted 26 October 2004 02:00 PM            

quote:

---

What i’m against is of the purpose of what those texts are about - Racial weapons to foment hate against whites

---

lol. notice: has no problem with the term "white".

posted 26 October 2004 02:02 PM            

You have yet to provide data, answer questions, or refute data with data.

posted 26 October 2004 02:04 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
By that illogical and irrelevant standard there are few if any white people in Europe or Ameria, except for albinos.... and certainly [b]no white people in AE whatsoever except perhaps for diseased Lepers.

But of course, you're not being serious. We know that, because you do not apply your twisted two faced semantics to white people. You apply it exclusively to Kememu to avoid the reality of their being Black peoples.

Your hypocrisy is obvious judging by the replies, and so your desparate ranting is to no avail. But please do continue.....[/B]

---

Please explain how am i twisted or two-faced when i don't even believe in race is as a natural/biological/physical. It seems like you guys do.

It's not a lie by saying that...

At the end of the 4th millennium BC, kings of Egypt's 1st dynasty conquered upper Nubia south of Aswan, introducing Egyptian cultural influence to the African peoples who were scattered along the riverbank. In subsequent centuries, Nubia was subjected to successive military expeditions from Egypt in search of slaves or building materials for royal tombs, which destroyed much of the Egyptian-Nubian culture that had sprung from the initial conquests of the 1st dynasty.
________________

"Being on the continent, Egypt has always been an African civilization though it straddles two regions, Africa and the Middle East. It's fairly clear that the cultural roots of ancient Egypt lie in Africa and not in Asia. Egypt was a subtropical desert environment and its people had migrated from various ethnic groups over its history (and prehistory), thus it was something of a "melting pot," a mixture of many types of people with many skin tones, some certainly from the Sub-Saharan regions and others from more Mediterranean climes. It is impossible to categorize these people into the tidy "black" and "white" terms of today's racial distinctions."

Link: http://www.catchpenny.org/race.html

posted 26 October 2004 02:11 PM            

quote:

---

What should be emphasized is the pre-dyanstic skeletal data leading up to the formation of ancient Egypt,and wheater it changed from the pre-dyanstic into the Dyanstic era. Most studies show the Faiyum Neolithic, Badarian,and Naqada contained people usually claimed by physical anthropologist has having negriod features like avelor prognathism. Not to mention common cultural features inheritated most likely from the pre-dyanstic predessors of the dyanstic Egyptians. Dr. Keita found that most of the remains had a tropical Africna limb ration,and this was commented on even before Keita by Critchton[Yes, the author of Jurassic Park has a degree from Harvard in physical anthropology] who found the Badari and Naqada to both cluster with Nilotic Eastern Africans known as the Teita. His series showed Naqada were very similar to Nubians. The only series that showed intermediate status was the Giza series that was later pointed out by Howell in his cluster series.

We have definate remains of sub-Saharan Africans in Dakhla Oasis and Nabta that I have pointed out. We also have evidence of cultural interaction of the Central and Eastern Sahara which was reffered to by John Sutton as the ''African Aqatic''.

---

RELATED TO THIS:
Also an earlier post made and uncredited (and somewhat altered) citation of encylopedia Britanica:

quote:

---

The earliest inhabitants of what is now The Sudan can be traced to black African peoples who lived in the vicinity of Khartoum, the Sudan, in Mesolithic (Middle Stone Age) times (30,000–20,000 BC). These Africans were clearly in contact with predynastic civilizations (before c. 2925 BC) to the north in Egypt, but the arid uplands separating Egypt from Nubia appear to have discouraged the predynastic Egyptians from settling there.

---

Evidently Orionx means this to imply that Nubia and Egypt were separated by geographical barrier and means it to counter evidence of AE origins from Ta Seti.

In fact the passage merely reinforces earlier facts noted regarding the harsher clime and lesser population density in Nubia compared to the lower Nile Valley.

The uncredited citation in no way implied that Africans could not migrate down the Nile from Nubia. Indeed, it merely suggests the obvious motivation they may have had for doing so; and so contradicted the posters intended point.

posted 26 October 2004 02:15 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orionix:
[B] Please explain how am i twisted or two-faced when i don't even believe in race

---

Then explain:

What is 'white people'?

Why do you continue to use that term if you don't 'believe' in it?

posted 26 October 2004 02:17 PM            

quote:

---

At the end of the 4th millennium BC, kings of Egypt's 1st dynasty conquered upper Nubia south of Aswan, introducing Egyptian cultural influence to the African peoples who were scattered along the riverbank. In subsequent centuries, Nubia was subjected to successive military expeditions from Egypt in search of slaves or building materials for royal tombs, which destroyed much of the Egyptian-Nubian culture that had sprung from the initial conquests of the 1st dynasty.

---

This is simply not true that the A-Group Nubians persisted untill the times of Snefru around the 4th dyansty. Whatever ''Egyptian' influence into Nubia and visa versa was during the Pre-dyanstic era. Both A-Group and Naqada culture shared a common culture as the incesense burner attests at Qustal.

The region you are speaking of is Lower Nubia and the Lower Nubians were racially no different from Southern Upper Egyptians. Upper Nubia is past the second cataract was not penetrated by Egypt untill the time of the 17th and 18th dyansty.

Once again Egypt was not a slave soceity,for most of the workers in Egypt was by corvee labor that built the temples and harvested the grain. Tell me why Egyptians would have an excess of slaves when it was not required. Westerners are trying to make Egypt into the ante-bellum south.

Unification of Egypt did not occur untill around 3100 B.C. either from conquest or trade reaching from Upper Egypt into the Maadi culture in Lower Egypt.

See the following:

A possible explanation for this is that A-Group society was so similar to that in predynastic Upper Egypt that there was a kind of equilibrium between them. These Nubian people were not living in the shade of the predynastic Egyptians, nor were they subservient to them in a colonial way. They had no need to leave their home in order to find food or employment in the big city. Given the growing desire for exotic goods like the obsidian from the temple, A-Group Nubians likely came to Egypt for transactions! http://www.archaeology.org/interactive/hierakonpolis/nubian.html

posted 26 October 2004 03:32 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Then explain:

What is 'white people'?

Why do you continue to use that term if you don't 'believe' in it?

Until you can explain your highly selective double standard you will have no credibility on this issue.

---

First of all (I said it in my first post)
the Stromfront site has no reliability at all.

Race is social but if you guys want to fight Eurocentricism with Afrocentrism. You're both about to fail.

Carleton Coon's pseudo-science will all eventually die out. I don't doubt that.

posted 26 October 2004 03:35 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Well his approach is now to grab every bit of rubbish he can from storm front and throw it at us. lol. So be it.

---

What are you talking about? Stormfront is the last place i'm gonna take my sources from.

You just don't like the fact that i do not take the Afrocentric ideas to be reliable or credible whatsoever.

posted 26 October 2004 04:33 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orionix:
What are you talking about? Stormfront is the last place i'm gonna take my sources from.

You just don't like the fact that i do not take the Afrocentric ideas to be reliable or credible whatsoever.

---

This guy does not listen or read at all,we keep saying that there are some black folks with the same color that alot of ancient egyptians had,and most ancient egyptians would have been black.

posted 26 October 2004 05:09 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by blackman:
Orionix,
You say our post are afrocentric and you haven't proved any of them wrong. You also refuse to answer and avoid simple questions.

I'm about to put you in Horemheb mode.

---

Ok but actually you havn't proved what i said to be wrong.

Why does this issue upset you so much?

Because in terms of skin color saying that these anceint people were on their majority non-black and non-white is absolutely valid. Look at their artwork and at the people who inhabit the land nowadyas. Havn't changed much. These people show variable degrees of skin tones from light to the North to dark in the south.

3 things i do agree with you whatsoever:

1. The Nubians were dark brown or almost black in color

2. "Blacks" had a great influence on the ancient Egyptian culture.

3. Nubia had a great contact with the predynastic Egyptian civilizations to the North.

But we can't ignore the fact that the Nubians did not have the dominant impact on the Egyptian civilization. They were conquered by the 1th dynasy and the Egyptian culture was forced upon them.

posted 26 October 2004 05:35 PM            

quote:

---

Why does this issue upset you so much?

---

Why do you think he is upset? The only one who got upset and started hurling obscenity is you.

Frankly: Your rhetoric is lightweight, your knowledge nearly nonexistent. We have far more intense and far more substantive debates among each other all the time. Your Storm Front-ing off is run-o-the-mill ignorance and falsehood, easily dispensed with.

I would recommend that you peruse some of the older threads on this site, instead of trying to argue over a topic that you are ill informed about. You learn something, and spare the rest of us the need to repeat elementary facts already well known by knowledgeable discussants.

Or...maybe you can keep trying to make people angry, if that's all you're about. But, so far, it hasn't worked on anyone but you.

posted 26 October 2004 05:43 PM            

You have been proved wrong by the links we provided linking AE with other african people by custom, language, skeletol remains, and ancient historical facts.

My skin color is not black and is similiar to many of the painting and I'm a black man. We have told you this hundreds of times and posted a picture of Nelson Mandela with reddish/brown skin color. Again, black people come in many shades without caucasian mixing.

The only thing you are going on is the reddish/brown color of painting, so they weren't black people. I don't have to prove you wrong when you haven't proved anything right.

You still come with no data because you have none, only your feelings or what you think.

You still haven't refuted any of the ties to other black african people.

Maybe you can try to tie the AE to some other group through their language, belief and customs, ancestors, historically through the Bible or other ancient historian.

ASUAR (an egyptian himself) and others already told you the same color was used on nubians. You were also told the color on many painting prior to the 18th Dynasty is more symbolic.

Orionox,
You make the same flaw as most other whites (not calling you white). They try to seperate Nubia from Egypt and try to claim they are totally different.
Europeans went to war against each other and no one questions they aren't all Europeans. Only by white people the AE are consider something besides black africans because they fought a war against nubians.

AE were white. OOOPs that's a lie.
Okay AE were caucasian. OOOPs that's a lie.
Okay AE were mediterrian Caucasain. Lie!
Okay AE were arab or arab like. Another lie.
Okay, Okay the AE were no race. They were mixed. Another lie.

Orionix,
Just accept the ancient egyptians for who the ancient historians say they were and who the ancient egyptians say they were.

Okay, Okay, I'll settle with you.
The ancient egyptins were a no race/black african group of people.

posted 26 October 2004 06:36 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orionix:
Ok but actually you havn't proved what i said to be wrong.

---

Your messages had been proven to be bankrupt a long time ago, with data backed by evidence and other factual information. Your responses have all been filled with emotions, but content free of data on evidence. Not one comment of yours has been backed by evidence to suggest that the Kemetians think like you, that people are raceless (your one-sided concept applied to black folks) and therefore they ought to not take into account differences in foreigners as the depicted in their paintings.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orionix:
Why does this issue upset you so much?

---

quote:

---

Orionix:
Because in terms of skin color saying that these anceint people were on their majority non-black and non-white is absolutely valid.

---

So most Africans, who are actually dark to light brown in color, are also among this non-black and non-white sub-species you've concocted, right!
Many bio-anthropologist have come to the same conclusion that the Upper Egyptians Nubians, Somalians, and various Ethiopians, etc group together. Yet you have forwarded the fiction of these groups being of different races.
Here's the good old Keita quotes on that:

"Studies of crania from southern predynastic Egypt, from the formative period(4000-3100 B.C.), show them usually to be more similar to the crania of ancient Nubians, Kushites, Saharans, or modern groups from the Horn of Africa than to those of dynastic northern Egyptians or ancient or modern southern Europeans"

Source:"The Geographical Origins and Population Relationships of Early Ancient Egyptians" by S.O.Y. Keita, Department of Biological Anthropology, Oxford University

This Keita assessment unwittingly makes a mockery of your racial demarcation between Nubians and Upper Egyptians.

Another one of your condractions: Egyptians were heterogenous, yet they all belonged to one "unidentifiable" sub-species which you call non-black and non-white. The following Keita quote shows that bio-anthropologists aren't as confused, and are aware of distinctions in the racial makeup of Upper Egypt and that of Lower Egypt.

"...Early southern predynastic Egyptian crania show tropical African affinities, displaying craniometric trends that differ notably from the coastal northern African pattern. The various craniofacial patterns discernible in northern Africa are attributable to the agents of microevolution and migration."

Source: "studies of ancient crania from northern Africa" S.O.Y. Keita.

So much for the so-called vague "Arab" phenotype you've tried to imposed on all Egyptians. Once again, the above quote exposes your misguided charges.

I have provided latest scientific data to expose you, but your ensuing reply will be one of empty rhetoric!

quote:

---

Orionix:
But we can't ignore the fact that the Nubians did not have the dominant impact on the Egyptian civilization.

---

The very existence of the Incense Burner, early tombs, and pottery makes a mockery of this visibly flawed charge! I am expecting more empty rhetoric as a reply to my correct observations of your mode of thinking.

posted 26 October 2004 06:38 PM            

Hi Blackman, not that I wish to get involved with the old debate, but the above is used as an example all to often as a comparisment, and in fact if read by a "European as you call them would be laughed at if not debated.

Just as Africa, Europe is a Geographical area used to define a so called racial group. It has in many cases over many hundreds of years been used as representing a racial group. This has never realy been the case to the average inhabitant, only to the Eurocentrics, and for political and econimic benifit. this includeds the current European Union. The Europeans, although mostly of light colored skin are by no means a cohesive, unified peopele in culture, religion, polotics, arts,history, nor biology. Any more than Africa is.They never have been and most likely never will be. This is why a European constitution has failed to be accepted and fails to represent the people it intails.

I have faied to meat a person from Europe who has answered the Question, "so you are European" with the answer, Yes, without saying No, I am English, German, Swiz, Greek, French, etc first and formost, But I am from Europe.

I have also failed to meet anyone from Africa, who has so too not corrected my purposly questioned statement of so you are african!,

In this respect it is not a good example of unifieing Egypt and Nubia.

In fact to most non political Europeans it would infer a cultural difference.

And in this respect I feel the average Egyptian and Nubian would have felt they were ditinct in culture at least, If not in color, although as you know I doubt the color would have been all that different.

PS> In regards to the artistic representation, what Egyptian references does anyone have to support the symbolic.

What representations show Egyptians and Nubians depicted the same in the eyes of Egytians or Nubians?

Before the newbies get heated with me, I must point out I believe The two kingdomes of Egypt were populated by native geographical "Africans".

That bloody Dragon will just not die. Maybe that is why the heart of a dragon is often connected with wisdome and learning!

PPS> I can not spell so no **** on my spelling LOL.

posted 26 October 2004 07:01 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by blackman:
Orionix,

You haven't upset me. I'm starting to find you comical.

You have been proved wrong by the links we provided linking AE with other african people by custom, language, skeletol remains, and ancient historical facts.

My skin color is not black and is similiar to many of the painting and I'm a black man. We have told you this hundreds of times and posted a picture of Nelson Mandela with reddish/brown skin color. Again, black people come in many shades without caucasian mixing.

The only thing you are going on is the reddish/brown color of painting, so they weren't black people. I don't have to prove you wrong when you haven't proved anything right.

[b] You still come with no data because you have none, only your feelings or what you think.

You still haven't refuted any of the ties to other black african people.

Maybe you can try to tie the AE to some other group through their language, belief and customs, ancestors, historically through the Bible or other ancient historian.

ASUAR (an egyptian himself) and others already told you the same color was used on nubians. You were also told the color on many painting prior to the 18th Dynasty is more symbolic.

Orionox,

You make the same flaw as most other whites (not calling you white). They try to seperate Nubia from Egypt and try to claim they are totally different.
Europeans went to war against each other and no one questions they aren't all Europeans. Only by white people the AE are consider something besides black africans because they fought a war against nubians.

AE were white. OOOPs that's a lie.
Okay AE were caucasian. OOOPs that's a lie.
Okay AE were mediterrian Caucasain. Lie!
Okay AE were arab or arab like. Another lie.
Okay, Okay the AE were no race. They were mixed. Another lie.

Orionix,
Just accept the ancient egyptians for who the ancient historians say they were and who the ancient egyptians say they were.

Okay, Okay, I'll settle with you.
The ancient egyptins were a no race/black african group of people. [/B]

---

You havn't proved anything.

"Black" is NOT biological, it's a SOCIAL classification.

Being that "Caucasoid" and "Negroid" are ridiculously vague racial categories either, not really used even by the handful of physcial anthropologists who still think race can be useful.

But if you want to continue with your Afrocentric ideas that's fine with me, i have nothing against it and i'm not here to battle you. Just don't except that i will take anything of what you write seriously.

Face it man. Afrocentric books do not represent objective, variafiable realities, just cultural and political opinions.

Not all Africans are the same in terms of familiy-ties, hisotry, culture, language, skin color etc... Only an insane person will say otherwise.

You have been proven wrong by your desperate attempts to project the American racial classifications of "white" and "black" on people who obviously didn't share them.

Fact is that in terms of color RED and BROWN were the most famous in Egyptian artwork. Like it or not but this clearly reprensents most of the Egyptians as non-black and non-white. Their nationality was by FAR more important to them than anything else.

posted 26 October 2004 07:05 PM            

As for iconography showing similarity between Kememu and other Africans:
http://www.geocities.com/wally_mo/

...bearing in mind the argument was once made by some that the figure on the left was Nubian and not an Egyptian....nope: http://www.manuampim.com/ramesesIII.htm

posted 26 October 2004 07:05 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Why do you think he is upset? The only one who got upset and started hurling obscenity is you.

Frankly: Your rhetoric is lightweight, your knowledge nearly nonexistent. We have far more intense and far more substantive debates among each other all the time. Your Storm Front-ing off is run-o-the-mill ignorance and falsehood, easily dispensed with.

I would recommend that you peruse some of the older threads on this site, instead of trying to argue over a topic that you are ill informed about. You learn something, and spare the rest of us the need to repeat elementary facts already well known by knowledgeable discussants.

Or...maybe you can keep trying to make people angry, if that's all you're about. But, so far, it hasn't worked on anyone but you.

[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 26 October 2004).]

---

posted 26 October 2004 07:08 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orionix:
You think that you made me angry or something?

---

posted 26 October 2004 07:16 PM            

However, Rasol hit it on the head.

The core of my statemnt is the the Germans and the British had a war against each other and no one uses silly logic to try and state they are racially different because they were at war with each other.
Somehow with some people the Nubians and Egyptians are racially different because they had a war. The Nubians and Egyptians had a war the same reason the British and Germans had a war political/land/resources.

posted 26 October 2004 07:21 PM            

quote:

---

in terms of color RED and BROWN were the most famous in Egyptian artwork

---

posted 26 October 2004 07:26 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orionix:
Not all Africans are the same in terms of familiy-ties, hisotry, culture, language, skin color etc... Only an insane person will say otherwise.

---

Why are you now repeating me. I already told you black african people come an many different shades. You are starting to confuse yourself and thinking you are insane.

Horemheb mode: ON

posted 26 October 2004 07:29 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ozzy:
I have also failed to meet anyone from Africa, who has so too not corrected my purposly questioned statement of so you are african!,

In this respect it is not a good example of unifieing Egypt and Nubia.

---

Ozzy, I agree with your observation about differences among people on the same continent, but it is not the question of unifying Egypt and Nubia, simply because they are all in Africa. Ancient Egypt and Nubia shared very similar cultures with differences in detail. Nubians even ruled in Egypt and vise versa. Racially, the Lower Nubians were virtually indistinguishable from Upper Egyptians. Of course, each had their own boundaries and independent ruling systems in place. This is where a feeling of distinct belonging would have come about, and not much else! These two civilizations shared much, and it would be naive not to point these out, when talking about either civilization. There is nothing wrong about making those connections in African studies or history in general.

posted 26 October 2004 07:57 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Ozzy: Your post didn't really address what Blackman is saying. He is saying war between two entities per se cannot be used to prove racial difference.

Ok fair enough I agree with that, So maybe I have not read the full thread carfully, but I thought the statement was made regarding that Nubia was not the dominating factor in the exchange of culture and hence since Nubia and Egypt can be shown to be culturly diffent they are not one and the same, as stated earlier. I took that as true. Archeological evidance does show that Egypt and Nubia had distincly different cultures. I saw it as a comparisment of cultural difference not racial.

To defunck the staement by saying all see Europe as a cultural and ethnic unit is as incorrect as to say the same about Africa.

He had already said he believes Egypt as an African Culture and civilisation.

If one takes it one step further, the little that has been found in the Delta in contepary periods shows differences and then a dominant influence from Upper Egypt in the Delta region also. My point was the opposit, that Europe can not be used as a racial unified group anymore than Africa can. Particualrly when you are using the word race with DNA as African maintain the most diversity of any peoples on the planet. But I will accept that I maybe misinterpreted the meaning of the statement.

As for iconography showing similarity between Kememu and other Africans:
http://www.geocities.com/wally_mo/

Yep seen this one more times than I care to remember. Are you aware that this is the only representation from the book of gates that actualy shows the Egyptan and the African or Nubian depending on the translation, as the same image. There are many many representatins of these "Mural of Races" since the Book of gates was introtudesed as an evolution from the book of the dead, and all are different in style, but only one is depicted as shown by Wally and onehundred other sites. This too is a bad example of Egyptian idiology, this is why Bret weeks describes it as oroniously labled as Egyptian.

...bearing in mind the argument was once made by some that the figure on the left was Nubian and not an Egyptian....nope: http://www.manuampim.com/ramesesIII.htm

There is a practise in Egyptology of simply labeling anything which appears undeniably black "nubian"; the nubian tautology. In this case it backfired.

---

May wish to revise this, as this is not the case. This one has done more damage to the African Egypt than most.

Ozzy

posted 26 October 2004 07:59 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by blackman:
Ozzy,
Welcome back again. Sincere question or statements are always embraced and addressed in a likewise manner.

However, Rasol hit it on the head.

The core of my statemnt is the the Germans and the British had a war against each other and noe uses silly logic to try a state the are racially different because they were at war with each other.
Somehow with some people the Nubians and Egyptians are racially different because they had a war. The Nubians and Egyptians had a war the same reason the British and Germans had a war political/land/ resources.

---

Accepted!!

But not to confise the subject, race or the 19th century invented perception of race was an integral influence on the war.

Ozzy

posted 26 October 2004 08:11 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ozzy:
May wish to revise this, as this is not the case.

---

Did you read the 2nd link and look at the actual images and the mdw ntr?

If yes, then please elaborate on what you are taking issue with.

posted 26 October 2004 08:16 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by blackman:
The core of my statemnt is the the Germans and the British had a war against each other and noe uses silly logic to try a state the are racially different because they were at war with each other.

---

Of course its silly to us as outsiders to see people who physically look the same fight over racial differences. Yet we're witnessing people who look the same fight racial wars all over the tribal world from the Balkans, to the Middle East, to Sudan.

Based on the modern day examples we are witnessing today, it's silly to ASSUME that Egyptians and Nubians had in the past saw each other as part of the same race just because they looked physically similar. It's silly to project OUR definitions of race onto a completely different society.

Now don't take this the wrong way. I personally don't believe the Egyptians saw themselves as completely different racially from the Nubians however, its evident that the Pharoahs at one time treated the Nubians as inferior in the same ways the English have treated the Irish as inferior.

posted 26 October 2004 08:34 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Did you read the 2nd link and look at the actual images and the mdw ntr?

If yes, then please elaborate on what you are taking issue with.

---

Yes read it many times, and am a member of the Ta seti news group. This Image a render of the original is a good representation of the original, but it is only that as Prof. Manu Ampim says "The Ramses III "Table of Nations" scene is indeed rare" because it is, it is the only representation from the book of gates that shows the Nubian and the Egyptian as identical, or indead even alike, in color or dress, to use this image as proof that Egyptians saw themselves as identical to Nubians in color or culture(Regardless of if they were or not) is damaging as it is again as Dr Manu Ampim says Indead rare.

Most people take this image as being a common example of Egypts connection ethnicly and culturaly with Nubia, but as it is an image from the book of gates which has many many representations which do not echo this single representation and in fact contradict it, it is counterproductive to use as such.

Ozzy

posted 26 October 2004 08:39 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Common colors in much of African artwork, ancient and modern, and from the sahara to the kalahari. When you repeat a poor argument, it merely suggests that you don't have a sound one. And when you refuse to answer questions, you play the punk, and appear to be both dishonest and scared.

---

I've seen many styles of African art.

The ancient Egyptians did not want anything to do with "black" or "white". Their nationality was by far more important to them than the color of the skin. We know that the Egyptians were ethnocentric bastards.

"The most important political event in ancient Egyptian history was the unification of the two lands: the Black Land of the Delta, so-called because of the darkness of its rich soil, and the Red Land of Upper Egypt, the sun-baked land of the desert."

Link: http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/cstdy:@field(DOCID+eg0013)

posted 26 October 2004 09:00 PM            

Let get a few things straight about Nubians and Egyptians:

1. during the pre-dyanstic era Lower Nubia A-group Nubians shared a common culture with Upper Egyptians. From kingship regalia down to the falcon neteru

2. Nubians after the unification were not totally driven from Lower Nubia untill about the 4th dyansty. A similar responce also happened to Maadi culture in Lower Egypt. Maadi actually had some cultural connection to Palestine at least in terms of architecture.

3. Southern Upper Egyptians were not much different racially than Nubians. And still are not today. You find many Egyptians in Aswan that look no physically different from Lower Nubians. Southern Upper Egyptians are generally dark brown.

4. Egyptians had wars with some Nubian groups. One must remeber there were different groups of Nubian people from Ta-Seti, Yam, Wawat,and Setjau. Some were friendly while others were hostile. Around the 6th dyansty Harkhuf had peaceful trade with Nubians living in Yam.

5. The color and artwork the Egyptians presented cannot be taken 100 % literal in many cases. During the Old Kingdom Egypt was not under the concept of portraying things in Maat. Around the 18th dyansty things begin to change and people were painted in a more realistic manner. The dyansties of 5,6,7,8,9 and 10 were northern dyansties instead of Upper Egyptian ones. There are also tomb scenes in Rameses III showing Nubians and Egyptian in the same reddish brown shades,and an Egyptian depicted as black.

6. Not all Nubians are shown with the same blackish skin tone. Some like the Medijay[ancestors of the Beja] are shown with Frizzy hair found amungst the modern Beja people.

7. the table of Nations or Books of Gates should not be used as an accurate depiction of the overall ethnic composition of Egypt. What should be done is a study of sculpture from different regions of Egypt from Lower to Upper Egypt. When used accordinarly the sculpture will show the ancient Egyptian population was diverse.

8. Let's stop the personal name calling please. Everybody on this forum is over the age of 10 so lets act like it. People can have personal disagreements without calling names or belitting people. Please no profanity also. Anymore profanity and your post will be eradicated.

9. Egypt is an African civlization with an African culture. Despite it's diverse population it had more culturally in common with African than the Near-East. That included male initiation circumcision, ancestor veneration,and divine kingship.

Ozzy, I posted earlier in a thread a quote from Gay Robbins about symbolism of color in ancient Egypt. She relates that a diverse population like Egypt would not conform to the tradition reddish-brown or yellowish color. She states that it was more a national marker to guard against chasos from enemies. Meaning that many individuals in Upper Egypt were probabaly darker but they would not present them in a realistic tone due to the diversity of the population,so they chose one standard colors for males.

posted 26 October 2004 09:03 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orionix:
I've seen many styles of African art.

The ancient Egyptians did not want anything to do with "black" or "white". Their nationality was by far more important to them than the color of the skin. We know that the Egyptians were ethnocentric bastards.

---

Your number one error, "black" was viewed as sacred in Kemet. Your second mistake, is to think that we are talking about Kemetians in terms of what they thought of Nubians. We are saying that it is a *fact* that Upper Egyptians were predominently black people. That Upper Egyptians group with Nubians and folks of the Horn of Africa, has been proven scientifically, and has nothing to do with how Kemetians and Nubians might have viewed one another for one reason or the other!

posted 26 October 2004 10:04 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by supercar:
Your number one error, "black" was viewed as sacred in Kemet. Your second mistake, is to think that we are talking about Kemetians in terms of what they thought of Nubians. We are saying that it is a *fact* that Upper Egyptians were predominently black people. That Upper Egyptians group with Nubians and folks of the Horn of Africa, has been proven scientifically, and has nothing to do with how Kemetians and Nubians might have viewed one another for one reason or the other!

---

What is black? Give me a natural, objective definition of what black is.

Race is a social science. Race was made up by the subjective selction of the human eye and bears no biological meaning whatsoever.

Answering questions on race is challenging given that most anthropologists regard race as a cultural concept rather than a biological reality. In the biological sciences, the term race has historically been used to describe a distinct population in which all the members share a suite of biological traits. Today, most anthropologists agree that there is no way to divide the world's human population in the cut-and-dry manner that the definition of race traditionally requires.

Link: http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/faq/race.htm

Now in terms of color, there is a geographic varation between Egyptians like in every other population which exists on earth. The once in the south are dark brown, the ones in the north are olive to brown.

I'm not trying to seperate ancient Nubia from Upper Egypt but considering the impact or cultural influence, the Nubians did not have the dominant power.

posted 26 October 2004 10:10 PM            

quote:

---

Yes read it many times, and am a member of the Ta seti news group. This Image a render of the original is a good representation of the original,

---

quote:

---

but it is only that as Prof. Manu Ampim says "The Ramses III "Table of Nations" scene is indeed rare" because it is,

---

quote:

---

It is the only representation from the book of gates that shows the Nubian and the Egyptian as identical, or indead even alike, in color or dress,

---

Champollion the Younger's remarks, quoted earlier, are in regard to the Table of Races bas reliefs on Sesostris Tombs, NOT the Ramesis III scene. And yet, his conclusions regarding the ethnic affinity of Egyptians and other Africans might just as well have been reached by viewing the Rameses III image, or indeed other scenes. Different Table of Races scenes..similar conclusions as to their meaning, and reached by different observers.

Question: Are you saying his interpretation was wrong or invalid? If so, how so?

quote:

---

to use this image as proof that Egyptians saw themselves as identical to Nubians in color or culture

---

quote:

---

(Regardless of if they were or not) is damaging as it is again as Dr Manu Ampim says indead rare.

---

As for this comment which I did not see earlier, due to some erronenous posting on your part. .......

quote:

---

this is why Bret weeks describes it as oroniously labled as Egyptian.

---

posted 26 October 2004 10:30 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:

Based on the modern day examples we are witnessing today, it's silly to ASSUME that Egyptians and Nubians had in the past saw each other as part of the same race just because they looked physically similar. It's silly to project OUR definitions of race onto a completely different society.

Now don't take this the wrong way. I personally don't believe the Egyptians saw themselves as completely different racially from the Nubians however, its evident that the Pharoahs at one time treated the Nubians as inferior in the same ways the English have treated the Irish as inferior.

All I'm saying is that two people who look the same can sometimes see each other as part of two different races.

---

Neo,
Sorry, but I have to disagree. The Palestine/Israel war is over land, not race or preceived race we can't see. Again it gets back to my political/land/resources thing. Palestine people weren't fighting Isarel people until their land was taken after WWII.

Sudan war is over land and resources (oil in Sudan). Sudan is more of a Muslim/Christian/land/resource war than a preceived race war between blacks.

I'm not familiar with the balklans, no comment.

posted 26 October 2004 10:54 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orionix:
What is black? Give me a natural, objective definition of what black is.

---

posted 26 October 2004 10:57 PM            

quote:

---

1. during the pre-dyanstic era Lower Nubia A-group Nubians shared a common culture with Upper Egyptians. From kingship regalia down to the falcon neteru

---

quote:

---

There are also tomb scenes in Rameses III showing Nubians and Egyptian in the same reddish brown shades,and an Egyptian depicted as black.

---

quote:

---

Not all Nubians are shown with the same blackish skin tone. Some like the Medijay [ancestors of the Beja] are shown with Frizzy hair found amungst the modern Beja people.

---

quote:

---

Ozzy, I posted earlier in a thread a quote from Gay Robbins about symbolism of color in ancient Egypt.

---

posted 26 October 2004 11:09 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by supercar:
Instead of asking these silly questions, why don't you answer a mountain of questions asked of you on this thread for a change. In the process, you never know when a miracle might strike and you actually learn something!

---

Silly question? Not at all. It's a very basic question which you couldn't answer.

Black as race is a SOCIAL category, not a biological one.

posted 26 October 2004 11:25 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orionix:
Silly question? Not at all. It's a very basic question which you couldn't answer.

Black as race is a SOCIAL category, not a biological one.

[This message has been edited by Orionix (edited 26 October 2004).]

---

I am really not in a mood to the play part of a nursery school teacher. When you are ready to respond to the questions raised, only then we might get somewhere...

posted 26 October 2004 11:45 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by supercar:
I am really not in a mood to play part of a nursey school teacher. When you are ready to discuss the questions raised to you, only then we might get somewhere...

---

You're on of these Afrocentrics who can't just except the fact that race is indeed social.

You gave me old studies of skull measurements, absolutely a non-valid science today. Sorry but Anthropologists do not measure human skulls anymore.

This is what you gave me:

"Studies of crania from southern predynastic Egypt, from the formative period(4000-3100 B.C.), show them usually to be more similar to the crania of ancient Nubians, Kushites, Saharans, or modern groups from the Horn of Africa than to those of dynastic northern Egyptians or ancient or modern southern Europeans"

However according to genetics sequences, scientists at the University of Cairo tested DNA from the remains of pyramid workers from 2600 BC, and found that the DNA of ancient Egyptians matches that of modern Egyptians. That is, the people living in Egypt now are essentially the same as the people living there thousands of years ago.
http://www.geocities.com/enbp/pbs.html

posted 27 October 2004 12:07 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orionix:
You're on of these Afrocentrics who can't just except the fact that race is indeed social.

---

You only wish you had half the wit of an average Afrocentric. You and your colleagues at stormfront website have one main agenda, that can't mask reality!

quote:

---

Orionix:
You gave me old studies of skull measurements, absolutely a non-valid science today. Sorry but Anthropologists do not measure human skulls anymore.

This is what you gave me:

"Studies of crania from southern predynastic Egypt, from the formative period(4000-3100 B.C.), show them usually to be more similar to the crania of ancient Nubians, Kushites, Saharans, or modern groups from the Horn of Africa than to those of dynastic northern Egyptians or ancient or modern southern Europeans"

---

Since you aren't aware of it; the quote you are disregarding is that of bio-anthropologist S.O.Y. Keita. His findings are very much valid, and I am not aware of anyone who has been able to refute it. This piece of information you are presenting to me, has no bearing on Keita's work, in case that is the illogical conclusion you've come to!

posted 27 October 2004 12:22 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by blackman:
Neo,
Sorry, but I have to disagree. The Palestine/Israel war is over land, not race or preceived race we can't see. Again it gets back to my political/land/resources thing. Palestine people weren't fighting Isarel people until their land was taken after WWII.

---

I agree that there are territorial issues at hand in the conflict but all the years of bloodshed and tears has created a deep ethnic hatred between Arabs and Jews which is every bit as racist as the US in the 1920's. 1/3 of Israelis are Middle Eastern Jews who often look identical to Palestinians yet they hate each other.

Racism is never inherent. It usually is rooted in logical things that divide people like class, wealth, power, etc.. It can be argued that racism began in the US when free black indentured servants began buying land and marrying white women indentured servants.

quote:

---

Originally posted by blackman:

Sudan war is over land and resources (oil in Sudan). Sudan is more of a Muslim/Christian/land/resource war than a preceived race war between blacks.

---

I agree but the Sudense elite are just exploiting the perceived racial differences between Arab tribes and the rebels of Darfur for political and economic gain. The racial tensions in Sudan are quite complicated to understand. They all look black to us but if you are Christian or born in an "inferior" Muslim tribe your life will be a living hell in that country.

Could the ancient Egyptians possibly have had similar racial/ethnic tensions? It seems evident that they didn't. They were nationalistic but they weren't tribal. They seemed to believe in citizenship and allowed foriegnors of all ethnicities to become Egyptian citizens.

Rasol, do you ever sleep?

posted 27 October 2004 01:06 AM            

quote:

---

Supercar:

You only wish you had half the wit of an average Afrocentric. You and your colleagues at stormfront website have one main agenda, that can't mask reality!

---

What? No i'm not one of Stormfront and if you read my posts you would already recognize that. Thus, you probably didn't.

quote:

---

Originally posted by supercar:
Since you aren't aware of it; the quote you are disregarding is that of bio-anthropologist S.O.Y. Keita. His findings are very much valid, and I am not aware of anyone who has been able to refute it. This piece of information you are presenting to me, has no bearing on Keita's work, in case that is the illogical conclusion you've come to!

---

I don't know this man but he's definitely a racist. Biometry is dead. Sorry Supercar but modern Anthropologists do not have to measure human skulls anymore.

The point was that genetic continuity can be found among Modern Egyptians which inheritably links them to their ancient fathers. Ask any Egyptian and i'm sure he will tell you the same.

Here are the studies:

Genetics of Ancient Egyptians

1. Scientists at the University of Cairo tested DNA from the remains of pyramid workers from 2600 BC, and found that the DNA of ancient Egyptians matches that of modern Egyptians. That is, the people living in Egypt now are essentially the same as the people living there thousands of years ago.

Link: http://www.geocities.com/enbp/pbs.html

2. Borgognini-Tarli and G. Paoli, 1982.

The ABO blood type frequencies of ancient Egyptians showed no signs of differing significantly from that of present-day Egyptians. According to the authors, "the blood-group distribution obtained for Asiut, Gebelen and Aswan necropoles shows resemblances with the present leucoderm population of Egypt and particularly with its more 'conservative' fraction (the Copts, MOURANT et al., 1976)."

posted 27 October 2004 04:25 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by ausar:
Any more race threads than there already is then most will be deleated. If you are a poster posting under different names then your posts will be deleated also. No more race threads!! We have more than our fair share already,and please also comment on the non-race related topics about AE soceity. Enough is Enough!!!

---

posted 27 October 2004 06:41 PM            

Sorry but I don’t think I misinterpreted this one. Or maybe it was the word identical that you responded to. It is however the only reference I have ever seen that shows Nubians and Egyptians as Identical in both dress and color in a single representation. But correct me if I have not seen others.

Since you and others including the sites you linked to, clearly state that this is used as a reference to the likeness of Egyptians and Nubians or other Africans,

RE: Quote RASOL> As for iconography showing similarity between Kememu and other Africans: http://www.geocities.com/wally_mo/

I responded pointing out that it is by no means typical, (not wishing to use the word rare once again!) and that this image is counter productive to the positive African Egypt argument when used as Egyptians displaying their kinship and likeness to Nubians or other Africans.

To be more clear on my statement, what I mean by that is that as the mural (from the book of gates , fourth division (P)/fifth hour (H), scene 30) is called by most who post it as the MURAL OF RACES, THE FOUR RACES OF MANKIND, OR THE MURAL OF NATIONS, most refer to it as displaying the AEs perception of differences or liknesses to other nations or ethnic groups by color dress and appearance, as we do today. This can be interpreted as cultural and ethnic kinship likeness or differences, (A main argument in this thread) by the representation of identical color and dress.

This single image is damaging when used as evidence for such arguments, because it is the only one of its kind, all other representations of this scene from all tombs that I have ever seen, have shown the Nubians or Africans as distinkly different in color and dress.

An argument by anyone with any knowlage of these scenes could easily argue since this single scene from Rameses III tomb is the only such scene from the book of gates to depict identical or even like charactors in dress and color, that it is an oddity used by Africanist to support the African origin and kinship of Egyptians and other africans, and could easily argue likewise that as it is the only such depiction in two dynasties, the more common depiction of Egyptian and Nubians is the true self identity, perception, of the Egyptians as being culturly and ethnically different from other Africans. If people are going to toat this as a representation Egyptians depiction of likelness of Egyptians and other Africans, or Nubians then this argument becomes a Joke.

I have no idea why this one is different from the others and I offer no theories, but I do believe the Egyptians did have a national identity and depiced this faithfully, idealistically or sybolicly and show they distinguish themselves at lease culturally from Nubia and other Africans by their consistant images. And yes I am aware of the dark pigment used on many other images which is not supprising as they had many varied colors of black in Egypt as they do now, but they have never until the Rameses III scene depicted themselves alike with other groups before in the same scene. This makes it less than evidence of anything.

The Egyptians were however African, no doubt, a range of black to dark skinned, no doubt, but culturly akin to Nubians , I have doubt, as berial site artifacts and traditions show they had many cultural differences.

As to Yucos comments I have no idea why he made those comments regarding Rameses III tomb, and unfortunately we will now never know. He was wrong!

Quote: rasol: Champollion the Younger's remarks, quoted earlier, are in regard to the Table of Races bas reliefs on Sesostris Tombs, NOT the Ramesis III scene. And yet, his conclusions regarding the ethnic affinity of Egyptians and other Africans might just as well have been reached by viewing the Rameses III image, or indeed other scenes. Different Table of Races scenes..similar conclusions as to their meaning, and reached by different observers.

In response to this, Champollion the younger said no such thing, if you actually read the whole thing when he makes the comment (We find there Egyptians and Africans represented in the same way) he was comparing the bas-reliefs on the tomb of Sesostris I to other tomb scenes from the book of gates (The mural of races) he has seen. He no were concludes any ethnic affinity of Egyptians and other Africans. Read the letter! http://www.users.cyberone.com.au/myers/diop.html

And then view the scene for yourself. KV17 Sesostris I tomb.

1.Egyptians – Figures 1 to 4 http://www.thebanmappingproject.com/images/large/15496.jpg

2.Nubians or other Africans fugures 9 to 12
http://www.thebanmappingproject.com/images/large/15665.jpg

Its misrepresented quotes like those you have just mentioned that weaken the African Egypt.

Ozzy

PS: I sure I only used the word rare twice, but if that offends you I will endever to use a word only once in a post.