posted 12 December 2004 03:33 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
Ok if that's your conclusion the next logical question is did the Egyptians ever use the noun form of "Kem" to describe Africans beyond Egypt's borders? Did they see themselves as the only black people on the continent?

---

We know what words the Kemetians used for soil, people & color. The examples were provided in the intro notes, in case you missed them. The question now, is do you know any other meaning to the word "Kemet", which is supported by the "scholarly" evidence you advocated earlier?

posted 12 December 2004 03:36 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by alTakruri:
I answered that in saying the AEs classified
Rm Rmt & Nhsw as blacks while classifying
Tmhw and Aamw as reds.

---

Thought Writes:

posted 12 December 2004 03:42 PM            

quote:

---

Why am I the only one who is asked to quote my sources?

---

Because you say things that aren't true, and when asked to support it, you quite naturally can't.

Your next comment is a perfect example:

quote:

---

I'm only stating what is common knowledge for anyone who's read journals and books on ancient Egypt.
There is a book abou women of ancient Egypt called "Silent Images" which discusses Khemsit. On Pepi, the 6th dynasty is a continuation of the 5th dynasty which, according to Mantheo, originated in Elephantine, Egypt's southern frontier.

---

quote:

---

You can't have it both ways so which is it fellas?

---

posted 12 December 2004 03:43 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
{Why am I the only one who is asked to quote my sources? I'm only stating what is common knowledge for anyone who's read journals and books on ancient Egypt.}

Thought Writes:

neo, I don't want you to feel picked on. I ask everyone for their sources if they make out of the norm or suspect statements. I think you make many good points, but I disagree with you on some things as well.

---

I read a lot of books from many different sources so while I may throw some things out there just to provoke objectivity. Egyptology isn't an exact science. Most of the details that we know about the ancients is speculation which is why I'm apprehensive about accepting any one conclusion over other possible conslusions. If truth is what we all are seeking then we must ask and answer all questions that might arise.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:

{There is a book abou women of ancient Egypt called "Silent Images" which discusses Khemsit.}

Thought Writes:

And in this book the author claims that she is from the Nehsi?

---

No. The author "speculates" that she may have been Nubian. Not enough is known about her to say exactly where her origins lie.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:

Thought Writes:

And this is where the Nehsi are from, Elephantine?

---

posted 12 December 2004 03:50 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
Wrong. I said that I wasn't wasn't aware of any ethnic group or nation that named itself based on skin color. You have yet to name a nation or ethnic group who's name translates to "black people". You read my question incorrectly and I still don't think you comprehend what I'm asking...

---

Oh then you didnt write the following, someone stole your id and did it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
My point is that there is no point in history where Africans called themselves "black people" prior to encounters with white Europeans

---

Some day neo*geo is going to take the good advice he as given some time ago.

posted 12 December 2004 03:56 PM            

quote:

---

And in this book the author claims that she is from the Nehsi?

---

Neo replies:

quote:

---

No.

---

posted 12 December 2004 03:56 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
Egypt's frontier is where the population of upper Egypt and lower Nubia overlap...

---

Thought Writes:

posted 12 December 2004 04:00 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by supercar:
We know what words the Kemetians used for soil, people & color. The examples were provided in the intro notes, in case you missed them. The question now, is do you know any other meaning to the word "Kemet", which is supported by the "scholarly" evidence you advocated earlier?

---

I wouldn't be the person to argue for the mainstream Egyptological opinion since I haven't really studied ancient Egyptian language.

And while I have given the Afrocentric definition of "Kemet" some thought, I'm not willing to accept a view that is almost exclusively held by one group of historians.

The "Two Lands" explanation seems like the most sensical to me. The "black land" representing the fertile soil along the Nile river and the "Red Land" representing the desert. But there is a certain amount of skepticism about this explanation as well.

I'm open to all points of view.

posted 12 December 2004 04:00 PM            

quote:

---

Yes, why would a group of people call themselves Blacks, especially when many of them were NOT Black and some were almost White.

---

The name could've been established early on, (before much diversity), and in a different context. Imagine if Kemet were under assault from Asiatics, an assault with a racist element continuing the one that cleared the Arabian peninsula of it's original inhabitants... Then the thing for AE to rally around is their roots.

Assault jews for being jewish and they'll rally around their jewishness. Assault blacks for being black and they'll rally around blackness, whatever their literal skin color. Assault short people for being short... Get it?

Not saying that this happened but I offer it up as a hypothetical scenario.

Also when Narmer conquered up from the south, perhaps he was taking land back from "reds"? Would asserting AE the "black nation" make sense in that scenario? Yes.

Distinguishing AE as "the black nation", in a community of nations that was mostly "red" would've made sense, too.

Again, I'm not saying this all happened, but offer it up just as a mental exercise to address your questions.

quote:

---

I had a chance to ask some of friends about their impression of the Ancient Egyptians, and without a hesitation, they said that the A/E's were not Black Africans. Mind you, this is not coming from a white person, but an American-Chinese and others.

---

So what?? I know of Koreans, Philipinos, Japanese and others who see the AE as black. Indeed some of these cultures see Arabs as black. In Japan, a swarthy, curly-haired Arab would be called "kukojin" just as I would. Plus, your "friends" probably know that it would break your heart (and self-esteem) to associate Egypt with any blackness.

There's also the fact that part of racist culture is to denigrate the darkies PLUS divide them against one another by any means you can -- color, culture, class, gender, generation, whatever. If your friends are in America, they know the drill and their place within it. And if they're *your* friends they're probably as racist and white-wannabee as you are. They know you, and wouldn't insult you by suggesting the AE were "black" at all.

quote:

---

All these people with a Political Agenda, should look at the Mirror and touch their Noses, because the Truth is right in front of their FACE........There is no Doubt about it, just like your nose......It will not Go Away.

---

The images, testimony and linguistics of AE are right in front of your face and never going away. Take a look at image thread. You see people painted dark and plenty of people with "black" features. Here -- right in front of YOUR face:

Pharaoh Sahure -- not a black man?

AE was probably the "New York City" of its time -- an economic and cultural center attracting lots of different people, and more diverse as time marched on. But as surely as New York was founded by the Dutch, AE was founded by people from "ta Seti", and had plenty of such people as an integral part of the society, kings and commoners.

Live with it.

quote:

---

Why would people with Light Brown to Dark Brown complexions call themselves Blacks!!

---

People in the U.S. today, light brown to dark brown, call themselves black, because it's in their interests to do so, and because they like being black. We even have "wiggers" who emulate the culture, much in the way that people came into egypt and became egyptian. It happens.

quote:

---

Outsiders, were ALL enemies of EGYPT....and BARBARIANS, Including the NUBIANS.....If You want Proof look at the picture of King Tut's Sandals, you'll see that he Steps on all the Enemies of Egypt, including the Blacks.

---

...Coming from a True Egyptian, Born and Raised in the land Of Egypt?? lol!! Learn your history. Your statement above proves it's not where you were born that gives you knowledge of history, so please -- shut up about being a "true egyptian". Your statement above is an embarassment.

quote:

---

There is still a little Hope for You, you just have to wakeup from your Dream Land....and get Back to Reality.........

---

There's NO hope for you, because your self esteem is tied to your racial "proximity" to something you are NOT. If Kemet were to rise again tomorrow, as you foretell, it still couldn't be on top in your eyes, because people like you can see no higher than "white". This is why you try to distance Kemet from any blackness, yet maintain that they were "near caucasians". You would judge the civilization by it's proximity to "whiteness", as you likely judge yourself (and everyone else). Transplantation to U.S. society has likely *traumatized* your self-esteem. Back home you were "white", but here you're not. Oh well. Grow up.

----

That all being said, I'm not completely convinced that Kemet means "black nation".

Nor am I convinced that it means "black soil" or "black land" because that evidence is WEAK. Rasol & Wally are doing a good job of showing it to be weak.

It doesn't have to mean either. And kemetans needn't be black nor white. But within the modern racial equation, they were closer to "black", especially since "whiteness" has historically been about purity. This is as clear as the way northern italians think of southern italians.

The images Kemetans left us remind me of modern people from the Dominican Republic, with the same range of skin colors.

Anyway, hopefully one day we can dispose of the racial equation.

----

quote:

---

THE TRUTH WILL SET YOU FREE!! ALWAYS LISTEN TO YOUR HEART & SOUL!! // PEACE ******* ABAZA

---

Yeah right. You don't care at all about the truth, but only about your racist dogma. You're not white and never will be, so hang it up.

[This message has been edited by sunstorm2004 (edited 12 December 2004).]

posted 12 December 2004 04:05 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Oh then you didnt write the following, someone stole your id and did it.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by neo*geo:
My point is that there is [b]no point in history where Africans called themselves "black people" prior to encounters with white Europeans

---

Mind you, it was 3am here when I had originally posted that question. I didn't frame it correctly as I've been shown. No big deal, I've repeated myself enough times today for everyone to understand what I meant...

posted 12 December 2004 04:11 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
And while I have given the Afrocentric definition of "Kemet" some thought, I'm not willing to accept a view that is almost exclusively held by one group of historians.

---

Thought Writes:

posted 12 December 2004 04:15 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
Thought Writes:

Wouldn't Eurocentrists make-up ONE GROUP OF HISTORIANS, or do you believe that Eurocentrists are "broad minded" and have a range of views while "Afrocentrists" do not?

---

posted 12 December 2004 04:19 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
I wouldn't label Zahi Hawass "Eurocentric". If anything, he is "Egyptocentric." He is just one of the authors that I have often read.

---

You mentioned Diop(s) theory earlier.

Have you read Diop's African Origin of Civilisations, or Civilisation vs. Barbarism?

posted 12 December 2004 04:21 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
I wouldn't be the person to argue for the mainstream Egyptological opinion since I haven't really studied ancient Egyptian language.

And while I have given the Afrocentric definition of "Kemet" some thought, I'm not willing to accept a view that is almost exclusively held by one group of historians.

The "Two Lands" explanation seems like the most sensical to me. The "black land" representing the fertile soil along the Nile river and the "Red Land" representing the desert. But there is a certain amount of skepticism about this explanation as well.

I'm open to all points of view.

"Egypt's African connection
By Gamal Nkrumah
There has always been something seductive about Egypt. But to Afrocentrics, the many mainly African American scholars who prefer to view history from an African-centred perspective, the fascination with Egypt is coloured by an obsession with the racial make-up of Ancient Egypt. Names can often be contentious. And none more so to today's self-styled Afrocentrics, than Egypt. Afrocentrics never refer to Ancient Egypt by the Greek derived name. They prefer Kemet, or KMT -- the 'Black Land' -- the word the Ancient Egyptians themselves used to describe their country. While the vast majority of Egyptologists would tell you that Kemet refers to the black soil of the Nile Valley, Afrocentrists claim that it refers to the colour of the inhabitants of the Nile Valley in much the same sense as contemporary Sudan refers to the colour of its people. " http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/1999/428/tr3.htm

---

posted 12 December 2004 04:24 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
You mentioned Diop(s) theory earlier.

Have you read Diop's African Origin of Civilisations, or Civilisation vs. Barbarism?

I get the impression that you haven't?

---

I haven't read Diop. The impression I get is that he is too extreme, however, I will have to read one of his books myself before making a concrete judgement about him.

posted 12 December 2004 04:26 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
I wouldn't label Zahi Hawass "Eurocentric". If anything, he is "Egyptocentric." He is just one of the authors that I have often read.

---

Thought Writes:

posted 12 December 2004 04:29 PM            

Thought Writes:

Who gave you this impression?

{The few that I had read lacked objectivity and seemed to be promoting a romanticized black supremacist view of ancient Egypt}

Thought Writes:

posted 12 December 2004 04:41 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
I haven't read Diop. The impression I get is that he is too extreme, however, I will have to read one of his books myself before making a concrete judgement about him.

Basically, I haven't read many Afrocentric books about ancient Egypt. The few that I had read lacked objectivity and seemed to be promoting a romanticized black supremacist view of ancient Egypt. This admittedly, turned me off to Afrocentrics. However, I am interested in reading books by John Henrik Clarke in the future.

---

posted 12 December 2004 04:42 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by supercar:
Well Neo, when you make statements, you had better be prepared to be loaded with something to support those assertions.

---

Not when something is widely accepted in academic circles. Do I have to prove to you the sky is blue? Or that Zebras have stripes too?

If I read something or hear something at a lecture that isn't widely accpeted, I gladly take a mental note of it so I can reference my information in the future.

quote:

---

Originally posted by supercar:

Surely, if you say there is a counter argument with "scholarly" evidence, you ought to have some clue as to what those "scholarly" evidences are.

---

Again, I'm honest enough to admit that I don't know enough about the language to argue the mainstream point of view. However, the evidence is out there, it just requires a trip to your local library.

posted 12 December 2004 04:46 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by supercar:
I didn't know that C.A. Diop was a self-proclaimed Afrocentric.

---

I didn't know he was such an authority on ancient Egypt.

posted 12 December 2004 04:48 PM            

Thought Writes:

At one time the myth of the "Hamitic Invasion" was widely accepted in academic circles. Majority rule and the truth often do not equal one another.

{My only objection is how it seems we are projecting the modern Western definition of "black people" on ancient Egyptians}

Thought Writes:

In order to communicate we have to use common terms that are understood. The Ancient Egyptians were of a East African Sub-Saharan background. People from this background are knwon as "Black" in modern social terms.

posted 12 December 2004 04:53 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:

And while I have given the Afrocentric definition of "Kemet" some thought, I'm not willing to accept a view that is almost exclusively held by one group of historians.

The "Two Lands" explanation seems like the most sensical to me. The "black land" representing the fertile soil along the Nile river and the "Red Land" representing the desert. But there is a certain amount of skepticism about this explanation as well.

I'm open to all points of view.

---

On short the dictionary definition of KM does
not come from Afrocentrist. It comes from
European Egyptologists.

The Two Lands is T3wy and means the unified
Upper and Lower lands of KM.t.nwt. Red land
black land comes from a book by Mertz that
despite revision remaind riddled with errors.

Dshrt.x3st, the red land, represented almost
everything the Kmtyw held in anathema and was
without a doubt not a part of the KM.t.nwt
polity

posted 12 December 2004 04:57 PM            

quote:

---

Psusennes I screamed!
Wally, your opening post just proves to me that you are just that- a Wally. There are multiple ways to translate any word in Egyptian Hieroglyphic. It is an incredibly vague language, and one should certainly not read as deeply as you are into a single seldom used word.

Furthermore, the feminine plural is "wt", not "t", and even with adjectival endings (even though Kmt is a noun), it could still be translated as meaning "black" singular. On top of that, Kemet is used to refer to the place, not the peoples, and you have completely ignored the inclusion of 049. [/b]
[quote]
I thought that I was the nut for the moment, so I had to go back and see what I had written:

"kem" is an adjective; it means black

"ut" makes the word a noun-adjective in the feminine plural; you know, like "s"

---

At least he's talking about the words the Ancient Egyptians used to describe themselves. But did you notice that he, like the others who have nothing valid to add - look at the nonsense neo/geo just posted, keep insisting on the reduction of the discussion to this ONE word Kmt, no mention of the many others with the kem root. The purpose is to divert attention from my original statements. That is their job...

posted 12 December 2004 04:58 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
Again, I'm honest enough to admit that I don't know enough about the language to argue the mainstream point of view. However, the evidence is out there, it just requires a trip to your local library.

My only objection is how it seems we are projecting the modern Western definition of "black people" on ancient Egyptians. It is my understanding that "Khem" means black but a lot of things can be associated with black besides people's skin color.

---

Well, then you have weak argument; actually no argument to make. In otherwords, you make wild statements, just for the sake of arguing without a basis. It is you who needs to go to the library, because you said there is something out there, which you have failed to show here. That burden is on you, not me.

quote:

---

neo*geo:
Not when something is widely accepted in academic circles. Do I have to prove to you the sky is blue? Or that Zebras have stripes too?

---

Well it depends on the time of the day, and whether you are claiming the sky is of an entirely different color. You make most pathetic silly statements. What has the sky being blue, or the color a Zebra have to do with you providing your sources against the meaning of "Kemet". If your intended approach to comparing a Zebra to the word "kemet", you have miserably failed.

quote:

---

neo*geo:
If I read something or hear something at a lecture that isn't widely accpeted, I gladly take a mental note of it so I can reference my information in the future.

---

posted 12 December 2004 04:58 PM            

You're 100% Correct, even these so called definitions are not Universal....

I you look at the Caribbean, and South America, their Definition of who is White is exactly the opposite of the American Definition. Basically, if you have caucasian Blood whatsoever, you're not considered Black or Indian.

What is so funny, is that the people who were supposedlly opressed, now have become the mental opressors. Such as the Israeli Jews have become the new Nazi's in their treatment of the Palestinians.....

I feel sorry for all these young African American students who have to listen to this
distorted view of History......God Help Them!!

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
Again, I'm honest enough to admit that I don't know enough about the language to argue the mainstream point of view. However, the evidence is out there, it just requires a trip to your local library.

My only objection is how it seems we are projecting the modern Western definition of "black people" on ancient Egyptians. It is my understanding that "Khem" means black but a lot of things can be associated with black besides people's skin color.

---

posted 12 December 2004 05:00 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by ABAZA:

Egyptians are Caucasians....just as they're classified in the U.S.A. today.......

---

posted 12 December 2004 05:00 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
{Not when something is widely accepted in academic circles. Do I have to prove to you the sky is blue? Or that Zebras have stripes too?}

Thought Writes:

At one time the myth of the "Hamitic Invasion" was widely accepted in academic circles. Majority rule and the truth often do not equal one another.

---

The Hamitic Myth collapsed in the face of overwhelming, reasonable, and rational evidence. No respectable historian or scientist would apply the "hamitic hypothesis" today.

Science isn't governed by majority rule, or tyrannical clergy today. It's governed by a jury of one's peers. Any theory must be peer reviewed and evaluated nowadays.

posted 12 December 2004 05:07 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
I haven't seen any academic journals that review Diop's work. Could you recommend any?

---

Thought Writes:

No, but his work was certainly reviewed by the academic community during UNESCO 1974. The outcome was reported as:

posted 12 December 2004 05:11 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
Thought Writes:

No, but his work was certainly reviewed by the academic community during UNESCO 1974. The outcome was reported as:

"Although
the preparatory working paper sent out by UNESCO gave particulars of what was desired, not all participants had prepared communications comparable with the painstakingly researched contributions of Professor Cheikh Anta Diop and Obenga. There was consequently a real lack of balance in the discussions."

---

The kind of peer review I'm looking for are reviews from other Egyptologists. Plus, a lot of new developments have occured in Egyptology since 1974.

posted 12 December 2004 05:12 PM            

quote:

---

The Hamitic Myth collapsed in the face of overwhelming, reasonable, and rational evidence. No respectable historian or scientist would apply the "hamitic hypothesis" today.

Science isn't governed by majority rule, or tyrannical clergy today. It's governed by a jury of one's peers. Any theory must be peer reviewed and evaluated nowadays.

I haven't seen any academic journals that review Diop's work. Could you recommend any?

---

Actually, Diop did publish his views in an academic journal named Bulletin De IFAN. Most of Diop's writings in journals are written in the French language,and are unacessiable to the general public. Unless you can read French then his writings in journals are of no use.

His books come from a journal published in France called Pressence De Africane.

posted 12 December 2004 05:14 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by ausar:
Actually, Diop did publish his views in an academic journal named Bulletin De IFAN. Most of Diop's writings in journals are written in the French language,and are unacessiable to the general public. Unless you can read French then his writings in journals are of no use.

His books come from a journal published in France called Pressence De Africane.

The work that Diop did was scholary,but the later people who followed him was unprofessional and shoady.

---

posted 12 December 2004 05:15 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
Wally -

I have explained to you why what you posted is unconvincing. You make a good argument but it's not without flaws and it grossly relies on the assumption that ancient Egyptians were homogeneous.

---

posted 12 December 2004 05:18 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
My only objection is how it seems we are projecting the modern Western definition of "black people" on ancient Egyptians. It is my understanding that "Khem" means black but a lot of things can be associated with black besides people's skin color.

---

But as much as you dont like it general
relative skin colour is one of the things
associated with KM. The modern west was not
the one who initiated the Africans into
describing themselves as black people or
as red people. They did that themselves.
You just refuse to accept the evidence.

And before you hark on the nation thing again, no western country ever named an
African ethny or polity black either. Just
as the African themselves did, they only
described the people as relatively and generally black in comlexion noting that
some were also rather light skinned too.

Dont try to project western notions of black
and white backward in time to Africa. Come
and learn the Africans own concept of red
and black.

Stop worshipping the west as bringers of
consciousness to the world. Nonwesterners
did quite well without European thought
before the 15th century when the west
finally tacked itself onto a trade network
that encompassed practically all of the Old
World.

Believe it or not Africans could see with
their eyes and think with their brains. The
Kmtyw and the Axumites have left on ancient
record the reds and the blacks.

Africa was trading carbon steel to India and
ivory to China centuries before Vasco de Gama
and Magellan floated toy boats in their wash
tubs as little boys. And Europeans were also
doing things no one else in the world was
doing.

posted 12 December 2004 05:19 PM            

quote:

---

The kind of peer review I'm looking for are reviews from other Egyptologists. Plus, a lot of new developments have occured in Egyptology since 1974.

---

The UNESCO conference was mainly Egyptologist. Some of the likes like Jean Lecant and others still exist to this day. Diop's work is mentioned and esteamed by the likes of Bruce Trigger in the American Discovery of ancient Egypt. His works are not scoffed at like some of his critics might have you to believe.

posted 12 December 2004 05:23 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by ausar:
His works are not scoffed at like some of his critics might have you to believe.

---

Nor is it often cited by his peers... He sometimes seems like a "third rail" for Egyptologists...

posted 12 December 2004 05:24 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
Plus, a lot of new developments have occured in Egyptology since 1974.

---

Thought Writes:

posted 12 December 2004 05:25 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by ABAZA:
HERU,

Wakeup from your Dream and go ask the U.S. Government about how they define Caucasian.

All Egyptians are Legally defined as Caucasians, whether you like it or Not!!

Hello, this is not a Joke, except to the few Ignorant people who don't know nothing.

----------------

---

You are right that this is beyond joking; it associated with a health hazard, and therefore needs to be seriously examined.

When someone considers the U.S. government an authority on bio-anthropology, what does that tell you about his/her state of mind?

posted 12 December 2004 05:29 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
Thought Writes:

Alot of things have changed since 1974, but the BROAD thesis of Diop seems to find more and more support each day.

---

posted 12 December 2004 06:04 PM            

quote:

---

Nor is it often cited by his peers... He sometimes seems like a "third rail" for Egyptologists...

From whom is Diop finding new support?

---

Diop is cited and supported in the following conference of Egyptology:

98.1016
CERVELLÓ AUTUORI, Joseph, Egypt, Africa and the Ancient World, in:
Proceedings 7th Int. Congress of Egyptologists, 261-272. (fig.).

The traditional contextualisation of Egypt in the 'Mediterranean' or
'Near Eastern' world has been produced by a phenomenon of western
historiography that we can classify as the 'forgotten Africa'. The
reopening of the African question in Egyptology has proceeded from the
pre- and protohistorians of the Nile Valley and of northern Africa in
general. The inclusion of late prehistoric Egypt in Africa determines
the essentially African nature of many of the central features of
Pharaonic civilisation and explains the many parallels between ancient
Egypt and both the ancient Saharan and modern black civilisations. The
author discusses examples of the iconographic-symbolic parallels
between Saharan rock art and Egyptian art, and the principal cultural
characteristics shared by ancient Egypt and modern black Africa. The
African nature of Egyptian civilisation can be seen most clearly in
the institution of Pharaonic kingship. M.W.K.

posted 12 December 2004 06:16 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
You mentioned Diop(s) theory earlier.

Have you read Diop's African Origin of Civilisations, or Civilisation vs. Barbarism?

I get the impression that you haven't?

---

Or even better, read how airtight was his and
Obengas presentation to UNESCOs symposium on
The Peopling of Ancient Egypt and the comments they elicited.

Gamal Mokhtar (ed.
General History of Africa II
London : Berkeley : Heinemann Educational Books ; University of California Press, 1981
pp. 27 78

or here but without the summary report
http://www.africawithin.com/diop/origin_egyptians.htm

FROM THE CONCLUSION OF THE REPORT: JEAN DEVISSE

Although the preparatory working paper sent out by Unesco gave particulars of what was desired, not all participants had prepared communications comparable with the painstakingly researched contributions of Professors Cheikh Anta Diop and Obenga. There was consequently real lack of balance in the discussions... The symposium also enabled specialists who had never previously had the opportunity of comparing and contrasting their points of view to discover other approaches to problems, other sources of which they were accustomed.

AN EXCERT ON ICONOGRAPHY FROM THE SUMMARY REPORT
AND MOKHTARS VIEW OF THE PHYSICAL TYE http://highculture.8m.com/IconographicInquiry.htm

posted 12 December 2004 06:26 PM            

Don't get impatient because the argument continues......you WANT it to continue.

posted 12 December 2004 06:43 PM            

Yes, may God help all the students regardless
of ehtnicity who have swilled Eurocentric
gruel as real history and especially help white supremist students spoofing Egyptian
identity and infiltrating discussion and
learning boards to promote anti black and
anti African racism and anti Jewish sentiment.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ABAZA:
Neo*Geo,

You're 100% Correct, even these so called definitions are not Universal....

I you look at the Caribbean, and South America, their Definition of who is White is exactly the opposite of the American Definition. Basically, if you have caucasian Blood whatsoever, you're not considered Black or Indian.

What is so funny, is that the people who were supposedlly opressed, now have become the mental opressors. Such as the Israeli Jews have become the new Nazi's in their treatment of the Palestinians.....

I feel sorry for all these young African American students who have to listen to this
distorted view of History......God Help Them!!

---

posted 12 December 2004 06:50 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
The kind of peer review I'm looking for are reviews from other Egyptologists. Plus, a lot of new developments have occured in Egyptology since 1974.

---

Start making sense. Every participant at the
synposium was a reknowned Egyptologist or of
a related scientific discipline.

posted 12 December 2004 07:12 PM            

quote:

---

Ive read these exact words on StormFront type
boards so many times. Why dont I see you or
your friends, or are they really just other
alter egos spoofed by you, on those boards
opposing them?
Yes, may God help all the students regardless
of ehtnicity who have swilled Eurocentric
gruel as real history and especially help white supremist students spoofing Egyptian
identity and infiltrating discussion and
learning boards to promote anti black and
anti African racism and anti Jewish sentiment.

---

Arthur Kemp does exactly this. He goes to message boards under assorted names,and fakes his idenity to make it seem he is from that country. It's very typical and appears on nearly every message board I have went to related to Egyptology.

The problem is that too many books on African Archaeology in University shelves are filled with outdated Hamitic myths or false history. Newer publications don't seem to circulate in America like many do in European countries. I have relatives living in France that tell me how behind studies on Africa and Egyptology in general are in America.

posted 12 December 2004 07:39 PM            

Come on we are talking about discussions
between serious professional specialists
not uninformed debate on a BBS on the net
between amateurs and enthusiasts.

Sorry, no kings road here. Take the time to
investigate for yourself instead of using a
crutch. Visit the two given urls and where
necessary make a printout to read examine and
analyze at your leisure. You will be well
rewarded or your money back!

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
Can someone give a brief summary of what key things were presented at the 1974 UNESCO conference?

---