posted 31 October 2004 04:26 PM            

responce: Of cause its not. In this particular time in history there were numerouse civilisations arrising and existing, all a threat to Egypt. But a greater threat from the north is not a justification for the idea, the foreiners were responsible or sped up the unlimate decline. I think as I have said it can be show that their existance in the delta helped pospone it. Military and trade were at its hight in this period, the canel was built, trade was prospurouse.

Ozzy

posted 31 October 2004 04:47 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ozzy:
...Original letters: Rot-en-ne-Rome, NAMOU, NAHASI, then Tamhou, just as it is with all of them.

This makes statements like this from Wally very silly. The images of the tomb confirm the original Champollion descriptions.

Wally says: According to Jean-François Champollion the Younger, in his 13th letter to his brother, remarking about these 'mural of the races' he had seen in various tombs (and unlike the mural on my web site, the ones Champollion found were structured in a racial hierarchy; 1) Egyptians 2) Other Africans 3) Semites 4) Europeans. This blew Champollions mind:

It goes to show how misinformation is carried on without question. Again I don’t know if this was originally misquoted by Diop or if those sites which use his quotes are the ones that have misquoted, but the fact is it is misrepresented...

Ozzy

---

quote:

---

Wally
posted 22 December 2003 04:24 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I don't know what Tamhou means..."
Here are some reference sources:
Tamhu: Budge, p837a
Temhu - Libyans
Temhi - a kind of ochre(?)
Tehmit - a goddess of the Red land
Budge uses the term Libyan, but Champollion the Younger, in his 13th letter to his brother, remarking (about certain bas-reliefs he had seen in various tombs), what I refer to as the 'murals of the races' :
"According to the legend...they (the Ancient Egyptians) wished to represent the inhabitants of Egypt and those of foreign lands. Thus we have before our eyes the image of the various races of man known to the Egyptians... the last one is what we call flesh-colored, a white skin of the most delicate shade, a nose straight or slightly arched, blue eyes, blond or reddish beard, tall stature and very slender, clad in a hairy ox-skin, a veritable savage... he is called Tamhou.... I certainly did not expect, on arriving at Biban-el-Moluk, to find sculptures that could serve as vignettes of the history of the primitive Europeans, if ever one has the courage to attempt it. Nevertheless, there is something flattering and consoling in seeing them, since they make us appreciate the progress we have subsequently achieved."
Sudan: the Etymology of this can be traced back through Arabic Suud (Sooda; Soda; Sud) which means Black (i.e., Negro) - back to the Ancient Egyptian 'Suten' which means 'king' but literally means 'they who are from the south.'
The Arabs called Africa 'Biled as Suud' or 'Country of the Blacks' - Sudan came to mean not only the country of Sudan but the land mass encompassing most of west Africa and the Sahara.
It's etymology is definitely not:
Sudd n.) A floating mass of vegetation that often obstructs navigation in tropical rivers.
Etymology: Arabic, obstruction, sudd, from sadda, to obstruct.

---

What Champollion said or didn't say is not the issue, nor the reason for my website. What is important is what the Ancient Egyptians said, you deliberately evade this issue.
I refer to Champollion only to verify the accuracy of my reading of the "Ro n Kemet" (the Egyptian language)...

posted 31 October 2004 04:50 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

Note, similarities to events of the 17th & 18th dynasties....retreat of Kemetic royalty into Nubia to escape the Hyksos.

---

Ahh come on and were else could they had gone if they indead had a choice.

Here is also something to think about, Egypt was a bufffer for the rest of the Nile Valley against all threats that almost always came from the North. Of cause they are going to be receptive, even if they didnt have any cutural ties.

Thats like saying water runs down hill but its not because of gravity, but an affinity with the ground.

posted 31 October 2004 04:50 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ozzy:
Quote neo*geo
It's no coincidence that foriegn invasions always began in the north. The foriegn invasions became more numerous in the late periods...

responce: Of cause its not. In this particular time in history there were numerouse civilisations arrising and existing, all a threat to Egypt. But a greater threat from the north is not a justification for the idea, the foreiners were responsible or sped up the unlimate decline. I think as I have said it can be show that their existance in the delta helped pospone it. Military and trade were at its hight in this period, the canel was built, trade was prospurouse.

Ozzy

---

posted 31 October 2004 05:10 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ozzy:
Ahh come on and were else could they had gone if they indead had a choice.

---

posted 31 October 2004 05:10 PM            

I avoid the issue, LOL so when you try to establish the egyptians had a structured racial hierarchy by refering to a rearanged possitions of the Egyptian first and then the african second, thats not realy important.

This same Issue is taken very seroisly and to task when the same was done by Yurco regarding another important image.

Ok a simple question for you. Does Champollion place the figures Egyptian, African, and others after. If not that makes you a lier and Diop misleading. I truely hope that its the internet sights you guys get you info that are the ones editing and not Diops original text.

Now I can show the same has been done with work you guys quoote from religiously.

And you guys keep on saying that its not important what others say about the Egyptians but what the egyptians said,

But to prove this point you continue to quote.

posted 31 October 2004 05:17 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ozzy:
Ahh come on and were else could they had gone if they indead had a choice.

---

But then again, you may be right that the 17th dynasty had no other place to go.

Still, that doesn't explain why so much of the Egyptian army during the 26th dynasty went to Nubia. As soldiers they could have easily went to a large number of countries to work as mercenaries. They could have even returned to Egypt despite the fact that they deserted as we have seen from records showing that the Egyptian government made efforts to bring back deserters. Why would the soldiers who are trained to be the most trusted of the Pharoahs army defect to Nubia when they had so many other places they could have went?

posted 31 October 2004 05:23 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by supercar:
This is an opinion rather than reflecting fact. Fact is that foreigners hadn't been able to control much of upper Egypt. Not only were the priests hostile to foreign attempts to control them, but so were the locals!

---

The presence of the Greeks were esentual for the trade, and hence enhancing the prosperity of Egypt, The Military presence of the Merchs was a diterrant to invaders, who may have taken advantage if they had not existed, and invaded earleir. The navel force which may never have existed as it was without merchs was one of the greates deterents.

Greeces influence was also a significant deterant to other nations in support of Egypt as this time to some degree and they shared some of the same enimies. And Attica relied on Egypt for most of its imports, most of which they could not produce themselves and relied greatly on Egypt.

Its obviouse you guys dont think much of the 26th dynasty.

posted 31 October 2004 05:35 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
But then again, you may be right that the 17th dynasty had no other place to go.

Still, that doesn't explain why so much of the Egyptian army during the 26th dynasty went to Nubia. As soldiers they could have easily went to a large number of countries to work as mercenaries. They could have even returned to Egypt despite the fact that they deserted as we have seen from records showing that the Egyptian government made efforts to bring back deserters. Why would the soldiers who are trained to be the most trusted of the Pharoahs army defect to Nubia when they had so many other places they could have went?

[This message has been edited by neo*geo (edited 31 October 2004).]

---

I dont know the offer of your own land is a good incentive!!!, they were not offered that in Egypt. They were mal treated by the new rulers, they were threated well by their previouse rulers. They grew up with Nubians, most of them career soldiers with no real future, and land and a family looked prety good. Yes it is only my opinion, but I think human nature plays a real part in history as well. Nationalism is a strong force, but it is not infalible. And lastly maybe your right, maybe they saw Nubia as much as home at this stage as te rest of Egypt, and they did not see it as defection, which would make the offer of land even more atractive without the guilt.

posted 31 October 2004 05:40 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ozzy:
Its obviouse you guys dont think much of the 26th dynasty.

---

Neither did the Egyptian army apparently. I know that there were desertions in the army before but the 26th dynasty lacked the ability to get native Egyptians to fight for them more than any in previous history. There was even a military coup to remove one of the less successful kings of that dynasty.

posted 31 October 2004 05:53 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ozzy:
I dont know the offer of your own land is a good incentive!!!,

---

Which is pretty a pretty ironic reason when Greek mercenaries were being offered land in Egypt at the same time. Perhaps they deserted because mercenaries were being treated better than career native soldiers? They were only offered land after marching to Meroe.

posted 31 October 2004 06:28 PM            

quote:

---

Thats like saying water runs down hill but its not because of gravity, but an affinity with the ground.

---

So yes in that respect the Nile river does have an affinity with the Earth whose mass warps space, which is what causes water to move towards Earth.

quote:

---

Here is also something to think about, Egypt was a bufffer for the rest of the Nile Valley against all threats that almost always came from the North.

---

And why would the North according to you, almost always be a threat?

posted 31 October 2004 06:36 PM            

quote:

---

I don't know what Tamhou means..."
Here are some reference sources:
Tamhu: Budge, p837a
Temhu - Libyans
Temhi - a kind of ochre(?)
Tehmit - a goddess of the Red land
Budge uses the term Libyan, but Champollion the Younger, in his 13th letter to his brother, remarking (about certain bas-reliefs he had seen in various tombs), what I refer to as the 'murals of the races' :
"According to the legend...they (the Ancient Egyptians) wished to represent the inhabitants of Egypt and those of foreign lands. Thus we have before our eyes the image of the various races of man known to the Egyptians... the last one is what we call flesh-colored, a white skin of the most delicate shade, a nose straight or slightly arched, blue eyes, blond or reddish beard, tall stature and very slender, clad in a hairy ox-skin, a veritable savage... he is called Tamhou.... I certainly did not expect, on arriving at Biban-el-Moluk, to find sculptures that could serve as vignettes of the history of the primitive Europeans, if ever one has the courage to attempt it. Nevertheless, there is something flattering and consoling in seeing them, since they make us appreciate the progress we have subsequently achieved."

---

posted 09 November 2004 03:51 PM            

Nothing was refuted nor debated. (Oh and I think the second point form post, was clear enough, to avoid an excuse of not understanding my writing.)

It seems those few, who once posted here who had informed me that this forum was now the domane of "wally and his walliets" and subject to attack and belittlement and no debate, were correct.

I came back simply to see what it had become, they were correct, it took one silly post for me to be attacked, not only in the thread I had responded to, but even in another thread before my third post.

Almost nothing I had to say was debated (Regardless of if it was understood or not.

simply because they are incapable of debating it, they have never so much as read Diops references, to confirm its authentisity, "BLIND FAITH"

The only things I got, were as suggested by long gone posters, insults and bull **** .

The very same responces they love to attach to those of the opposing debate, of denial, faulse evidance, lies, and personal attack, are the very same responces they have shown here.

Its unfortunate, that so very few remain with no agenda, and a true interest in Egyptology here. My respect to Neo, Blackman, Asnar, and some others.

Your site unfortunately now has the reputation of being a platform for bias American africanists. (Not my words, those used by old members)and a site to avoid.

The rest of the world (The domane of the mythical Eurocentric homonoid)has moved on, its a shame those in America, keep this stupid debate alive.

And just so you are no longer confused Wally (Although I am sure you knew exactly what I had quoted, but intended to change the context by posting a totaly unrelated subject)your direct quote was this word for word!

Wally says: "According to Jean-François Champollion the Younger, in his 13th letter to his brother, remarking about these 'mural of the races' he had seen in various tombs (and unlike the mural on my web site, the ones Champollion found were structured in a "RACIAL HIERARCHY"; 1) Egyptians 2) Other Africans 3) Semites 4) Europeans. This blew Champollions mind:"

Simple! the position of the figures is a lie! as are most of your other qotes I could pull from the last twelve months on Champollion. You along with the others have never even read Champollion, only his twisted translation from the great Diop, your only reference.

The lies and distortion you guys continue to vomet, will only do one thing, damege those who have a true interest in the history of African Egypt.

PS: To show my point to those that were interested I emailed those sites who post these distorted translations and asked for explanations for the differences. Not one was able to say they had read the original, only Diops. Even your gods are blind followers.

I urge those who care for the truth to investigate Diops quotes, against originals, all of which are available on the net, to see for themselves.

The truth is out there!!!, unfortunatley it is not in here!!

Dont bother responding as I have no intention of returning to read them.

Osman Sekou.

posted 09 November 2004 04:32 PM            

Affinity"

1. inherent resemblance between persons or things
2. a natural attraction or feeling of kinship; "an affinity for politics"; "the mysterious affinity between them"; "James's affinity with Sam"
3. the force attracting atoms to each other and binding them together in a molecule; "basic dyes have an affinity for wool and silk"
4. (immunology) the attraction between an antigen and an antibody
5. a close connection marked by community of interests or similarity in nature or character; "found a natural affinity with the immigrants"; "felt a deep kinship with the other students"; "anthropology's kinship with the humanities"
6. (biology) state of relationship between organisms or groups of organisms resulting in resemblance in structure or structural parts; "in anatomical structure prehistoric man shows close affinity with modern humans"
7. kinship by marriage or adoption; not a blood relationship

Your connection of the words attraction to affinity are based on the definition of "affinity" - natural attraction, (I doubt you would be stupid enough to define it as atoms attraction)

If you fell that this is the case your understanding of gravity is based soly on your limited internet search. As is most of your posts.

Quote: "natural attraction" "gravitation cannot be held responsible for people falling in love"- -Albert Einstein.

nOR WATER RUNNING DOWN HILL

If you wish to debate Albert so be it.

Your word usage does not mask your ignorance you arrogance nor your education.

Bottom line, affinity is not used in relation to gravity.

Thank you for letting me finish with another example of how you use lies and misdirection to argue and distort the truth. You even seak to distort the laws of Physics.

Your not man enough son!!!!!!

Osman Sekou

posted 09 November 2004 04:53 PM            

quote:

---

I called Diop and those that quoted from his translation of Champollion the Youngers letters liers and frauds.

---

quote:

---

It seems those few, who once posted here who had informed me that this forum was now the domane of "wally and his walliets"

---

quote:

---

and subject to attack and belittlement and no debate, were correct.

---

quote:

---

I came back simply to see what it had become, they were correct, it took one silly post for me to be attacked,

---

quote:

---

Almost nothing I had to say was debated

---

quote:

---

they have never so much as read Diops references, to confirm its authentisity, "BLIND FAITH"

---

In fact you failed to dispute Champollion the Younger's conclusions regarding the origin/of the AE., as cited by Diop or anyone else. You did post a link to the original letters in French, which contained the exact passage in question:

"Les premières tribus qui peuplèrent l'ÉGYPTE, c'est-à-dire la vallée du
Nil, entre la cataracte d'Osouan et la mer, venaient de l'_Abyssinie_ ou
du _Sennaar_. Mais il est impossible de fixer l'époque de cette première
migration, excessivement antique.

Les anciens Égyptiens appartenaient à une race d'hommes tout à fait
semblables aux _Kennous_ ou _Barabras_, habitants actuels de la Nubie.
On ne retrouve dans les _Coptes_ d'Égypte aucun des traits
caractéristiques de l'ancienne population égyptienne. Les Coptes sont
le résultat du mélange confus de toutes les nations qui, successivement,
ont dominé sur l'Égypte. On a tort de vouloir retrouver chez eux les
traits principaux de la vieille race."

Which is translated accurately in Diop's African Origin of Civilisation:
The first tribes that inhabited Egypt, that is, the Nile Valley between the Syene cataract and the sea, came from Abyssinia to Sennar. The ancient Egyptians belonged to a race quite similar to the Kennous or Barabras, present inhabitants of Nubia. In the Copts of Egypt, we do not find any of the characteristic features of the ancient Egyptian population. The Copts are the result of crossbreeding with all the nations that have successively dominated Egypt. It is wrong to seek in them the principal features of the old race"

Of course the translation is correct, and you are not disputing it, but rather/simply refusing to deal with it; hence the need for all the fanfare. If you had a legimate question/issue about passage cited, your post would consist of 1 paragraph, and cut to the point....no more. lol.

quote:

---

The only things I got, were as suggested by long gone posters, insults and bull **** .

---

quote:

---

The very same responces they love to attach to those of the opposing debate, of denial, faulse evidance, lies, and personal attack, are the very same responces they have shown here.

---

quote:

---

Your site unfortunately now has the reputation of being a platform for bias American africanists. (Not my words, those used by old members)and a site to avoid.

---

quote:

---

The rest of the world (The domane of the mythical Eurocentric homonoid)has moved on, its a shame those in America, keep this stupid debate alive.

---

quote:

---

Dont bother responding as I have no intention of returning to read them.

---

ps - I left out your remarks to Wally, because they simply are not for me to respond to. As far as I'm concerned your tendency to respond to me, in terms of a 'beef' with Wally is another form of red herring.

posted 09 November 2004 05:10 PM            

quote:

---

Bottom line, affinity is not used in relation to gravity.

---

Another important property of matter is its gravitational affinity for other matter. It is believed that all matter in the universe attracts all other matter in accordance with very specific mathematically predictable behavior.

As with Champollion the Younger's letters, I do not know how it could be made any more clear, nor do I imagine that anyone other than yourself fails to comprehend.

The affinity issue was in relation to the affinity between Kemet and Nubia. You were given many good examples of this by serveral different discussants. It's sad to see that your only response is to 'obtuse' over the word 'affinity'.

It's just another red herring from you. Is this the best you can do? No wonder you are frustrated and angry.

posted 09 November 2004 06:01 PM            

Only God knows the answer to these questions.

The way i see it, Afrocentrism is merely the attempt to see Africa from coherent African-centered view point.

Egypt's African connection

posted 09 November 2004 11:07 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orionix:
Yes and how exactly was the universe created? Probably by the Big Bang... But what was before that?

Only God knows the answer to these questions.

The way i see it, Afrocentrism is merely the attempt to see Africa from coherent African-centered view point.

Egypt's African connection

---

posted 09 November 2004 11:25 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by supercar:
A red herring! Here is the truth about Egypt, the purported title of this thread: Egypt has always been African in every sense of the word, meaning that it is geographically, politically, historically, culturally, and biologically tied to Africa...try proving this wrong.

---

Listen i really don't like Afrocentricm or any other kind of this ethnocentrism. This is why i delelted part of your comment. You have a really twisted view sometimes. Where exactly did you hear me saying Egypt wasn't African? What is your problem?

Edit: Diop is an ethnocentric. He also claimed the Ancient Greek culture to be of Egyptian origin.

BTW i suspect you are the same person as rasol. You two sound incredibly similar to be different people.

posted 10 November 2004 03:16 AM            

quote:

---

BTW i suspect you are the same person as rasol. You two sound incredibly similar to be different people

---

One difference between Supercar and myself is that I actually ignored your link, until he responded to it. I then checked it out in order to see what the latest "upset" was all about, and laughed at both the very superficial article and your somewhat trite comments, neither of which are worth a bother. Most of us on this forum have read and debated Diop's works and know much more about him than the author of that article.
Your comments about Diop being 'ethnocentric' because he correctly notes the Kemetic influence on Ancient Greeks reveals that you are unfamiliar with Gerald Massey, Martin Bernal and other white scholars who essentially state the same.

I recommend you read: Diop's Civilisation and Barbarism, and African Origin of Civilisation, as well as Massey's Egypt and the Light of the World, and Martin Bernal's Black Athena. Then you will be able to formulate an opinion on all of the above based upon something substantial.

And no, I won't attempt to "convince" you that I'm not Supercar, because no one thinks that but you, and because the kind of paranoia you are fomenting means that you have officially been on the internet for "too long", and is not susceptible to logic or reason.

posted 10 November 2004 09:43 AM            

Well i didn't have time to read the whole post of yours. You and supercar are probably the same person. You write ("sound") very much alike.

In case you are supercar you should urgently get some kind of life dude. You probably spend your whole day here convincing people how black Ancient Egypt is. This is what i call an addicted person.

quote:

---

Your comments about Diop being 'ethnocentric' because he correctly notes the Kemetic influence on Ancient Greeks reveals that you are unfamiliar with Gerald Massey, Martin Bernal and other white scholars who essentially state the same.

---

Yes Diop is an Afrocentric. I read some of his work about ancient Greeks on the net, whom he actually claims to be Egyptian in origin.

The book Black Athena: The Afroasiatic roots of classical civilization written the white scholar Martin Bernal was popularized by Afrocentrism. Actually the central claims of Afrocentrism were prominently set forth in that controversial book.

Since that time, Afrocentrism has encountered significant opposition from mainstream scholars who charge it with historical inaccuracy, scholarly ineptitude, and racism - prompting countercharges of racism from some of its defenders.

[/QUOTE]And no, I won't attempt to "convince" you that I'm not Supercar, because no one thinks that but you, and because the kind of paranoia you are fomenting means that you have officially been on the internet for "too long", and is not susceptible to logic or reason.[/QUOTE]

I believe you and supercar are the same person. You're the kind of people who have too much time on their hand.

I hardely come to this board. I have life. My suggestion for you will be to get one also.

posted 10 November 2004 09:58 AM            

quote:

---

I believe you and supercar are the same person.

---

quote:

---

I hardely come to this board. I have life.

---

quote:

---

Yes Diop is an Afrocentric. I read some of his work about ancient Greeks on the net, whom he actually claims to be Egyptian in origin.

---

quote:

---

The book Black Athena: The Afroasiatic roots of classical civilization written the white scholar Martin Bernal was popularized by Afrocentrism. Actually the central claims of Afrocentrism were prominently set forth in that controversial book.

---

posted 10 November 2004 12:45 PM            

The ones who discount such straightforward facts as the testimony of Ancient Egyptians themselves regarding their origins, the testimony of contemporaneous historians, the images the AE left us, the history of ethnic influx into egypt, and even the "look" of the ancestors of indigenous Egyptians, are obviously obsessed -- obsessed with distancing AE from africa by *whatever measure they can*.

...And Orionix, why are you even still arguing? You conceded the truth in an earlier post!

--

Please cut the crap about "afrocentrism" and "American Afrocentrics". It's amazing how these underhanded types call on raw bigotry -- their most reliable weapon -- when they have nothing else to argue. Appealing to people's worst instincts (bigotry, vanity, etc.) is always their ace in the hole.

Facts are neither afrocentric nor eurocentric.

posted 10 November 2004 12:57 PM            

quote:

---

Orionix, et al -- a question: Is it "afrocentric" to believe the statement above?[/B]

---

No, it is not. This is not Afrocentric. Egypt is part of Africa exactly as Zaire and Sudan. However the fact that Egypt is African doesn't mean the people are black.

In Black Athena, Martin Bernal attempts to derive Greek civilization and language from Egypt and the Semitic Near East. Volume 1 (1987) argues that Western scholarship, operating under an "Aryan (i.e. Indo-European) Model," has excluded such contributions. Attributing this to racist impulses, Bernal countered (in kind) that the ancient Egyptians were black Africans. Maybe Bernal has a point or two but his book is considered problematic for mainstream scholars.

Many of the people of southern Sudan were killed in Darfur by the Arabs because of their darker skin.

posted 10 November 2004 01:12 PM            

quote:

---

In Black Athena, Martin Bernal attempts to derive Greek civilization and language from Egypt and the Semitic Near East. Volume 1 (1987) argues that Western scholarship, operating under an "Aryan (i.e. Indo-European) Model," has excluded such contributions. Attributing this to racist impulses, Bernal countered (in kind) that the ancient Egyptians were black Africans. Maybe Bernal has a point or two but his book is considered problematic for mainstream scholars.

---

Doesn't read books, but rather plagiarizes reviews: http://www.depts.drew.edu/classics/links/bernal.html

This is the part that is actually relevant to Orionix: "More know the book's title than its arguments." - John R. Lenz.

posted 10 November 2004 01:18 PM            

You can't really call Diop ethnocentric either becaude he argued that ''black Africans'' had nothing to do with the development of the modern world. He says this is a direct quote around the last chapter in his book. Unlike most Afrocentrics, he even says that the direct desendants of the ancient Egyptians were the modern Fellahin in Upper Egypt. Just read the mans book before you build up a strawman attaching labels like Afrocentric.

posted 10 November 2004 01:18 PM            

You can't really call Diop ethnocentric either becaude he argued that ''black Africans'' had nothing to do with the development of the modern world. He says this is a direct quote around the last chapter in his book. Unlike most Afrocentrics, he even says that the direct desendants of the ancient Egyptians were the modern Fellahin in Upper Egypt. Just read the mans book before you build up a strawman attaching labels like Afrocentric.

posted 10 November 2004 01:18 PM            

You can't really call Diop ethnocentric either becaude he argued that ''black Africans'' had nothing to do with the development of the modern world. He says this is a direct quote around the last chapter in his book. Unlike most Afrocentrics, he even says that the direct desendants of the ancient Egyptians were the modern Fellahin in Upper Egypt. Just read the mans book before you build up a strawman attaching labels like Afrocentric.

posted 10 November 2004 01:19 PM            

You can't really call Diop ethnocentric either becaude he argued that ''black Africans'' had nothing to do with the development of the modern world. He says this is a direct quote around the last chapter in his book. Unlike most Afrocentrics, he even says that the direct desendants of the ancient Egyptians were the modern Fellahin in Upper Egypt. Just read the mans book before you build up a strawman attaching labels like Afrocentric.

posted 10 November 2004 02:47 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by ausar:
[B]Although Bernal argues for a diverse Egypt, he does admit that the Upper Egyptian people that founded ancient Kmt[Egypt] were black. He does not say every Egyptian was because he admits that the Lower Egyptian population might not be. Diop was not Afrocentric because the term Afrocentric was coined by a man named Molefi Assante well before Diop's time period. Much of Diop's arguments are sound within African Civlization Myth or Reality. Read his book before you critique his entire views.

You can't really call Diop ethnocentric either becaude he argued that ''black Africans'' had nothing to do with the development of the modern world. He says this is a direct quote around the last chapter in his book. Unlike most Afrocentrics, he even says that the direct desendants of the ancient Egyptians were the modern Fellahin in Upper Egypt. Just read the mans book before you build up a strawman attaching labels like Afrocentric.

---

It's ok i read it once you don't have to post it 4 times.

First of all the Egyptians are not considered white by modern definitions of race.

Martin Bernal agrees that the black presence in Ancient Egypt was significant. I agree with him. However there are 3 other claims which need further research:

1. Predating pharaonic civilizations in Nubia and eastern Africa.

2. Nubia gave rise to the origin of subsequent dyanstic Egyptian civlization.

3. Most of the dynastic Egyptian civilization took place in Upper Egypt.

These claims need more proof than this book offers...

Edit: Another sad thing is the supposition that the racial terms like white (Caucasoid) and black (Negroid) have any anthropological (like by measuring human skulls) or genetic meaning. It does not.

posted 10 November 2004 03:11 PM            

quote:

---

Martin Bernal agrees that the black presence in Ancient Egypt was significant. I agree with him. However there are 3 other claims which need further research:

1. Predating pharaonic civilizations in Nubia.

2. Nubia gave rise to the origin of subsequent dyanstic Egyptian civlization.

3. Most of the dynastic Egyptian civilization took place in Upper Egypt.

---

Again your comments are off point and make little sense if you've actually read Black Athena.

Bernal is primarily interested in the relationship between the Kemetians, the Hyksos, the Phonecians and Mesopotamia on influencing Greece and therefore Western civilisation. He wishes to defend the classic model of civilisation which aknowledges the African and Middle Asian predecessors of Greece, as opposed to the Eurocentric triumphalism of the Aryan model, which is based on the notion of the "Greek miracle".

His book is not dedicated to proving any of 3 points you mentioned, most of which have been clearly established by scholars ranging from Diop and Obenga, to Gardner, Petrie, Champollion the Younger and Budge, to Weeks, Yurco, Keita, Kettles and many others.

posted 10 November 2004 05:18 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
The real question is: Why are you looking to a book you haven't read to prove a point that it isn't trying to make?

---

Rasol,
Orionix should be honest with himself even if he isn't honest with us. He is not looking for data or info on the 3 points he has mentioned. He is actually trying to find a way to disprove the 3 points. He won't read the data or scholars mentioned.

Orionix,
Good luck on your journey.

posted 10 November 2004 05:28 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orionix:

Many of the people of southern Sudan were killed in Darfur by the Arabs because of their darker skin.

---

Orionix, what does this have to do with ancient Egypt? First of all, Darfur is not in southern Sudan and it becomes quite illogical to claim that they (southern Sudanese) were killed because of their darker skin since some Sudanese so-called "Arabs" are just as dark! Although I think it's off-topic and a distraction from the issues at hand, please explain to us how you came by this statement? And how it's relevant to this discussion.

posted 10 November 2004 05:56 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Again your comments are off point and make little sense if you've actually read Black Athena.

Bernal is primarily interested in the relationship between the Kemetians, the Hyksos, the Phonecians and Mesopotamia on influencing Greece and therefore Western civilisation. He wishes to defend the classic model of civilisation which aknowledges the African and Middle Asian predecessors of Greece, as opposed to the Eurocentric triumphalism of the Aryan model, which is based on the notion of the "Greek miracle".

His book is not dedicated to proving any of 3 points you mentioned, most of which have been clearly established by scholars ranging from Diop and Obenga, to Gardner, Petrie, Champollion the Younger and Budge, to Weeks, Yurco, Keita, Kettles and many others.

The real question is: Why are you looking to a book you haven't read to prove a point that it isn't trying to make?

---

Bernal [Black Athena, Volume I] is right when he points out that after 1800 study of Egypt -- and also of the Semitic mid-east --was systematically denigrated for racist reasons. Some scholars reacted against this marginalization of Egypt and the Mid-East, including some black scholars (but not only them).

What is not convincing about Bernal (Volumes 1 and 2) is his derivation of Greek civilization from Egyptian colonists. However, even if it were true, it would not mean what the Afrocentrists say it means.

posted 10 November 2004 06:00 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by YuhiVII:
Orionix, what does this have to do with ancient Egypt? First of all, Darfur is not in southern Sudan and it becomes quite illogical to claim that they (southern Sudanese) were killed because of their darker skin since some Sudanese so-called "Arabs" are just as dark! Although I think it's off-topic and a distraction from the issues at hand, please explain to us how you came by this statement? And how it's relevant to this discussion.

---

My point was that thus the Egyptians were Africans, most of them were not black as the people who have always lived in southern Sudan or Zaire.

posted 10 November 2004 06:02 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by blackman:
Rasol,
Orionix should be honest with himself even if he isn't honest with us. He is not looking for data or info on the 3 points he has mentioned. He is actually trying to find a way to disprove the 3 points. He won't read the data or scholars mentioned.

Orionix,
Good luck on your journey.

---

I'm not trying to disprove anything. You guys need to give some concrete proof for what you are saying.

posted 10 November 2004 06:40 PM            

quote:

---

My point was that thus the Egyptians were Africans, most of them were not black as the people who have always lived in southern Sudan or Zaire

---

posted 10 November 2004 06:48 PM            

quote:

---

What is not convincing about Bernal (Volumes 1 and 2) is his derivation of Greek civilization from Egyptian colonists. However, even if it were true, it would not mean what the Afrocentrists say it means.

---

posted 10 November 2004 07:03 PM            

quote:

---

Rasol,
Orionix should be honest with himself even if he isn't honest with us.

---

posted 10 November 2004 07:37 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Your point makes absolutely no sense. It's like using the Nazi's of Europe who murdered several million Europeans to prove that Ancient Europeans were not as white as the Nazi's. It's one of the worst examples of broken logic i've ever read on this forum.

---

Africa is a bigger continent than Europe so the physical diversity is larger.

posted 10 November 2004 07:39 PM            

quote:

---

Rasol,
Orionix should be honest with himself even if he isn't honest with us.Indeed. The 1st step for him is to face the fact that his plagiarised responses fool no-one, even as they make him appear utterly foolish.

---

I didn't plagiarize anything. I think you are talking to yourself here. The Egyptians did not look like you imagine. Face it.

[This message has been edited by Orionix (edited 11 November 2004).]

posted 10 November 2004 07:57 PM            

quote:

---

1. Predating pharaonic civilizations in Nubia and eastern Africa.

---

In the pre-dyanstic state of Kmt there was no pharaonic civlization. The whole pharaonic concept has been shown by various reserchers to have been shared by both Nubia and Egypt in very early time periods.

As far as eastern Africa, it's one of the oldest centers of agritculture next to the Near Eastern sites of Jarmo and Natufian sites in Israel. We have evidence of eastern African objects such as obsidian and other such products.

Anthropological studies by Michael Critcion[yes he has a degree in physical anthropology] found that the Badarian samples were closely matched with the Teita population in modern Eastern Africa. Teita are Nilotic African people.

See the following of pharaonic kingship by Frank Joseph Yurco:

Dear Troy, You have analyzed the evidence regarding Qustul in depth, but you have missed two points that favor Bruce Williams' theory, and that no one has refuted. First, regarding the Qustul Incense burners, the one debated is not the only one found. It happens to be the best preserved one. Secondly, show me one single example of an inscribed, decorated incense burner from Egypt of the Naqada II-III era. There are none attested so far. Thus the inscribed, decorated incense burners are likely an A-Group tradition, and this supports Williams that Qustul had Egyptian style traditions in A-Group. Next, there is the Gebel Sheikh Suleiman rock inscription. It was shown to be A-Group, by William J. Murnane's epigraphic analysis, published in JNES in 1987. It has an uninscribed serekh, not King Djer, as earlier observers posited. Thus, as all agree, since uninscribed serekhs are earliest, the Gebel Sheikh Suleiman rock inscription is A- Group, and depicts a victory celebration, of the pharaonic cycle that Williams and Logan discussed in JNES, 1987. No amount of scholarly wriggling can make the Gebel Sheikh Suleiman rock inscription an import from Egypt. These points strongly support Williams contention that the A-Group indeed had the trappings of Egyptian tradition at least among the elite. While the Abydos evidence points to that royal cemetery being older that previously suspected, it may point to the Abydos-Naqada monarchy being far older than suspected. You may recall that Petrie recovered a black-top redware sherd from Naqada, ancient Nubt, that depicted the Red Crown. So, the Red Crown was associated originally with ancient Nubt-Naqada. That also indicates a deeper antiquity for the Nubt monarchy. Another point, there is an indisputably royal tomb at Nekhen-Hierakonpolis, the famous painted tomb. Also, Fairservice' expedition found there a monumental mud-brick serekh style entrance to a royal palace complex. Thus, here was yet another instance of a royal center in Upper Egypt with deep roots. What I consider as important, is that the later Naqada II-III periods were the stage at which chieftains began to emerge in the Naqada and A-Group sectors. Three power centers emerged, Nubt-Naqada, Nekhen-Hierakonpolis, and Ta-Seti-Qustul, with perhaps a secondary center at Sayala, where a wonderful macehead mounted on a gold covered decorated handle was recovered early in the century. The question is, how did these interact? There were incidents of war, as commemorated on decorated and inscribed palettes, knife handles, and in A-Group, the incense burners and the Gebel Sheikh Suleiman rock inscription and scene. Whatever the earlier jockeying, late in Naqada III, Nekhen seems to have triumphed, conquering Nubt, and later moving north to unify all Egypt under Nar-mer and Aha. They created the First Egyptian Dynasty, and assigned Nubt's Red Crown to the Delta, creating the unified Two Lands of the historic tradition. Why were the rulers of this line buried at Abydos? It was the royal cemetery of Nubt-Naqada. By being buried there, they signalled their royal presence in what was in effect, a conquered territory. Moving their capital to Memphis, and taking Nubt's Red Crown and assigning it to the Delta perhaps reduced Nubt Naqada in prestige to the point that it became restive. When Dynasty II shofted the royal tombs to Saqqara, eventually a rebellion broke out. Seth, with whom it was associated, was deity of Nubt-Naqada. Sekhemib-Peribsen was buried at Abydos, with Seth replacing Horus on his tomb stelae. Later, Khasekhem from Nekhen, broke the rebellion, but he too, built his tomb at Abydos, and on his serekh, Horus and Seth are depicted together, and the king's name form reads, "The two powers are content in him". That finally resolved the conflict, and Djoser went on to lead Dynasty III to new heights of achievement, that heralded the Pyramid Age. Seth was granted a role, as unifier alongside Horus, and thus Nubt-Naqada was pacified. What happened to Ta-Seti-Qustul? It seems that Aha first raided it, if a wooden label of his is so read correctly. Next, Khasekhemy probably built a fort at Buhen, if Emery was correct about the large Archaic style mudbricks in the earliest fort levels. Finally, as the Royal Annals attest, Sneferu mounted a major raid on Nubia, and brought back 7,000 captives and a huge number of pastoral animals. That crushed what- ever remained of A-Group Ta-Seti. Later levels of Buhen were unfortified, so thoroughly had Nubia been devastated. Only when C-Group peoples moved in, contemporary to Dynasty V-VI, did Lower Nubia start to recover. Sneferu's captives became the "pacified Nubians" of Old Kingdom texts. Meantime, real power in Nubia had shifted south to Napata-Kerma. As Bonnet's excavations have shown, that is where the next powerful Nubian state arose, beyond the reach of the pharaohs of the Old Kingdom. Most sincerely, Frank J. Yurco University of Chicago -- Frank Joseph Yurco fjyurco@midway.uchicago.edu

Also the early Old Kingdom religious traditions have some commonality within the archaeological sites like Nabta Playa dated to about 6,500 BP. These pastorial people in Nabta most likely came from the Central Sahara or Eastern Sahara. Growing evidence is pointing to the Sahara as the ancestral homeland of both the early Egyptians and the Nubians. Such as the mummy with religious rites being found in Southern Libya older than what was found in dyanstic Egypt.

quote:

---

2. Nubia gave rise to the origin of subsequent dyanstic Egyptian civlization. .

---

We will probabaly never know the answer to this question. Tomb 33 found by Keith C. Steele which contained the incesen burner was drowned out with the building of the Aswan dam. Similar unfortunate happenings are occuring right know in Sudan with the Meroe Dam. Most scholars agree the A-Group was a stimulus most likely for the rise of pharaonic civlization.

The A-Group tombs found were more wealthier than the tombs found in Upper Egypt.

quote:

---

3. Most of the dynastic Egyptian civilization took place in Upper Egypt.

---

This has been argeed on by most scholars. Unless you subscribe to the dyanstic race theory proposed by earlier scholars that says Mesopotamian civlizers invaded Upper Egypt thus founding Egyptian civlization.

The archaeological sites in Lower Egypt are less complex than the Upper Egyptian sites and begin to replace the material culture of Lower Egypt around the Naqada IIb period. The oldest religious temple in the Delta is Tell Ibrahim Iwad and it show conformitity with Upper Egyptian models.

See the following from Oxford History of Egypt:

From Petrie onwards,it was reguarly suggested,despite the evidence
of Pre dyanstic cultures,Egyptian civlization of the 1st dyansty
appeared suddently and must therfore have been instroduced by an
invading foreign ''race''. Since the 1970's however excavations at
bautu and nekhen have clearly ,demonstrated the indigenous Upper
Egyptian roots of early civlization in egypt. While there is
certainly evidence of foreign contact in the fourth millennium
B.C.,this was not in the form of millitary invasion

page 65

Oxford History of Ancient egypt
Ian Shaw

[Edit: Another sad thing is the supposition that the racial terms like white (Caucasoid) and black (Negroid) have any anthropological (like by measuring human skulls) or genetic meaning. It does not]

Well, this is true to some extent but there are different physilogical differences between races of people. Forensic anthropologist still use these ground for identifying burned victims for police. Statistical analysis of human remains is still used by most physical anthropologist.

[My point was that thus the Egyptians were Africans, most of them were not black as the people who have always lived in southern Sudan or Zaire.]

Maye not but definatley they shared cultural affinities with people in the south. Such as divine kingship,rain maker king, circumcision and sometimes scarification. Circumcision and scarification is still praticed by the modern Fellahin and Upper Egyptians today.

Most likely the current Zairean population did not exist because the first Bantu migrations occured around 1000-800 B.C. Before this little twa[pgmy] people lived in the forests of Central Africa. The Southern Sudanese most likely lived further northern than modern day.

Not all Southern Sudanese are ptich black like the Dinka and Nuer. Some are lighter and have different facial features such as the Shilluk. Infact, many early anthropologist tried to classify Southern Sudanese as hybrids,but this has been proven wrong.

Here are some examples of southern Sudanese not often shown in general public:

posted 10 November 2004 08:11 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orionix:
My point was that thus the Egyptians were Africans, most of them were not black as the people who have always lived in southern Sudan or Zaire.

---

Are the people in southern Sudan "black" as the people in Congo (Zaire)? What about the people in Zambia? Are they "black" as the people in Somalia? Again I think the above point is not relevant to the discussion. The real question to be asked is what your definition of "black" is.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orionix:
Africa is a bigger continent than Europe so the physical diversity is larger.

Blacks had/have a significant part in Egypt but there is no need to exaggerate.

---

I don't think the physical diversity in Africa has anything to do with the size of the continent otherwise Asia would have the most diversity but that's not the case. Other reasons can explain this diversity.

At what point does "fact" separate from "exaggeration" i.e., please explain clearly what is being exaggerated ( I assume you meant that being done by "Afrocentrists")

posted 10 November 2004 08:22 PM            

quote:

---

I didn't plagiarize anything

---

posted 10 November 2004 08:39 PM            

quote:

---

I don't think the physical diversity in Africa has anything to do with the size of the continent otherwise Asia would have the most diversity but that's not the case. Other reasons can explain this diversity.
[/b]

---

posted 10 November 2004 08:44 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orionix:
Listen i really don't like Afrocentricm or any other kind of this ethnocentrism. This is why i delelted part of your comment. You have a really twisted view sometimes. Where exactly did you hear me saying Egypt wasn't African? What is your problem?

You deleted the rest of my comment, but it was a reality check! It is naive of you to ask me where I heard you deny Egypt being African, when the obvious answer lies within everything you have thus far said here, as an attempt to downplay this African identity attached to Kemet, not to mention your tactic of applying petty labels on those who rightfully see Egypt as being African.

[quote]Orionix:
[b]Edit: Diop is an ethnocentric. He also claimed the Ancient Greek culture to be of Egyptian origin.

---

So you have decided to demote Diop to being ethnocentric. Well, is it because he said Egyptians were black, and that Kemet had ties to other Africans? Egypt indeed did help the Greeks jumpstart their civilization. Egypt was a learning center for many Greek scholars, including some of the well known names. Are you in a position to prove otherwise?

quote:

---

Orionix:
BTW i suspect you are the same person as rasol. You two sound incredibly similar to be different people.

---

Like other assessments you have made elsewhere here, this comment reflects nothing but a figment of your imagination. I wasn't aware that the idea of informed people agreeing on facts, has become euphemism for single identity. I am sorry that you feel singled out in the knowledge base.

posted 10 November 2004 09:09 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by ausar:

Here are some examples of southern Sudanese not often shown in general public:

---