posted
Why is it not "natural" for them to identify as "black"???
And what is your definition of Black???
Like I said, people have ascribed "colors" to things before.
I think "black" means more you you than the color thing.
It just doesn't make sense to me that there would be no continuity in "human nature" with regard to the Egyptians identifying as Black the same way people ascribe colors to things that are not "literal" in that sense.
Why do people call cofee "Black" yet it is dark brown???
Posts: 290 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Here we see tutankhamon as black, but he obviously wasn't this black
Here we see George Washington as white, but he obviously wasn't this white:
^ How does this help you refute the fact that Europeans call themselves whites because of their light skin? How would it help you sustain a claim that 'white' in the English language can only refer to snow, and *never* function as and ethnic disignation?
The above picture of course, would not lend support to such a prepostrous claim.
Likewise, your bust of Tut refutes your core argument.
It shows a self proclaimed Km.t -> Black man painted in symbolically pitch Black SKIN, so contradicting your claim which was: -> Africans *never* designated the term 'black' to themselves.
You seem to have lost track of your own argument - [happens with especially bad arguments] making excuses for *why* Africans call themselves Black is not a refutation of the fact that they did so.
quote:if we observe other reliefs of him. this was found in his tomb and had a religious purpose for his passage to the afterlife.
Incorrect. What you are trying to relate is the dialects of color in Ancient Egypt.
Dialectics is the theory of understanding nature thru opposite often oppossing forces - Yin and Yang, Male and Female, Up and Down, Hot and Cold, Good and Evil, are all dialectic constructs.
The Km.t regarded Black as sacred, in a manner best analogised to the modern ws.t regarding white as pure.
This is why the term Black is often prefaced with the term Great. IE Osirus as the Great Black, the ws.t in contrast prefaces white with Great -> ie Great White Hunter.
Almost never in the west is 'Black' great. Wheres in mdw ntr it is Black that is Great, contrasted by Red. White is seldom even mentioned in a dialectic context.
Just as the ws.t dialect associates white with goodness, purity and fairness of skin, so did Ancient Nile Valley Africans associate black with sacredness, divinity, perfection and darkness of skin. Hence the phrase kem kem in mdw ntr = total, complete, perfect, enough said.
posted
Best to look at the heart and the psychology of the doer of the act. Why would one paint the same person black and the other red? What is the motivation of the doer, OR is it a psychic understanding of the 'divinity' (perceived or otherwise) of the poet/author? Why would the Black Madonna be a Holy Saint or a Mother to all in Poland but a miscreant or a servant to all in England or France?
Posts: 1290 | From: usa | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tee85: Why is it not "natural" for them to identify as "black"???
And what is your definition of Black???
Like I said, people have ascribed "colors" to things before.
I think "black" means more you you than the color thing.
It just doesn't make sense to me that there would be no continuity in "human nature" with regard to the Egyptians identifying as Black the same way people ascribe colors to things that are not "literal" in that sense.
Why do people call cofee "Black" yet it is dark brown???
^ this is and excellent comment which grasps the fact that color ethnic references to humans has always been 'symbolic'. in fact color references to most things are symbolic and not literal, because color is illusory at any rate but just keeping it basic.
literally, there are no black, nor red, nor yellow, nor white people..... there are 'arguably' brown people, but that depends on how you define brown. every language does not even have a word for brown. in some languages brown is only a kind of red, or a kind of black.
moreover - there is no 'objective' right or wrong regarding which color is which.
color is only the human mind translating frequences of electromagnetic spectrum.
there are millions of different frequencies, and most of them cannot even be seen at all, much less disignated a color.
the ethnic difinition of blacks exists primarily because some people have relatively dark skin.
in the nile valley context, this is relative primarily to asiatics from the north, who were designated as Red.
This is the oldest known, most basic and common ethnic definition of Black - it refers to groups of people who have predominently dark skin.
It is essentially the same definition we find for example, in the Coptic [ie - Egyptian], Bible, which uses the term Keme' and reads as....
I am Black and comely, O ye daughters of Jerusalem.
^ Yonis, you can of course, say the above is 'religious' too. But you will have to explain how the fact that the reference is from the Coptic/Egyptian Bible would help salvage your *exploded* claims, rather than just kick the rubbage around some more.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:rasol: the ethnic difinition of blacks exists primarily because some people have relatively dark skin.
in the nile valley context, this is relative primarily to asiatics from the north, who were designated as Red.
And what color did they have relative to those in soudan who werer depicted pitch black, if you claim that they defined themselves as "black" in relative to asiatics, what did they call them in sudan, blue?
Posts: 1420 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
You proclaimed earlier that you are basing your claims on 'third' person(s) who did a first hand fieldwork on Kemetic linguistics.
To that extent, show us the source that breaks it down to the grammatical structure of "kmt", which would support what you attribute to the word.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Yonis: I doubt that, the only reason people think they called themselves black is because they see it as natural to identify as black, since they themselves call themselves black. An identity applied on them.
^No.
You can't read minds, so why spew baseless claims? It makes no sense.
Most 'black' americans describe themselves as such, because america does.
However, most, even when Egypt is mentioned as being in africa, don't equate Egypt as being 'black', especially when pyramids are mentioned. Damn near NONE equate km.t with 'black' or even know what it means for that matter.
Not every one is as simple-minded as you think.
YONIS, QUESTIONs:
Did late West-Eropeans/ Americans influence the writers in Biblical times or in the time of ancient Greece?
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
But 'refusal to accept' is not a form of evidence in civil discourse. Therefore you have no argument.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
But 'refusal to accept' is not a form of evidence in civil discourse. Therefore you have no argument.
You're dodging the question, you said that they called themselves black in relative to asiatic people, but if that's the case then what did they call the sudanese who were depicted as pitch black and different too? if they were black, were the sudanese/nubians blue? Or are you telling us that they distinguished themsleves only from the asiatics but not the sudanese, who were identified as black and the same as themselves??
Posts: 1420 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Or are you telling us that they distinguished themsleves only from the asiatics but not the sudanese,
Another redundant question: There were two ethnic color catagories, Black and Red. Fair skinned Asiatics were Reds, Dark skinned Africans were Blacks. Sudan is a modern nation state, there is no 'sudanese' in Km.t.
How many paragraphs will it take you next time, to repeat a clearly answered question?
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's quite simple what they called the Nehhesi to their south whether pitch black or mellow yellow, they called them the same thing they called themselves KM.tnwt as in BG4:5v30 and pronounced KEME as spelled in Coptic the AEL successor language. There's just no escaping it.
quote: Transliteration and translation of the 1st 5 columns of the Book of Gates the Gate of Teka Hra vignette 30
Col1: å-n HRW n nn (+n+n) [(interogative) Heru to these:
Col4: k-m.tnwt d-sh-r.tnwt AKH [Black community. Red community.
Col5: (+kh)scroll n t-nplural HQA.wplural RA [Beatification to ye subjects (of) Ra!
The "four types" -- or better, the "subjects of Ra" -- scene depicts the sun in the 5th night hour with Heru addressing the dead. He verbally divides them into the blacks (Nile Valley folk, i.e., Egyptians and Nehesis) under his protection, and the reds (folk dwelling east or west of the Nile) under Sekhet's protection.
So, in this sacred text is the prime example of KM.t and it's obviously not being applied to any silt/soil/dirt/land.
Obviously you never bothered to read that post or were unable to follow the transliteration (all original work of my own mind you, not from any 2nd or 3rd parties).
Darker skinned Africans belonged to the black community. Lightest skinned Africans were of the red community (as were the Levantines).
This is in the AE's own words, not a drop of interpretation, anyone with the patience to work through a basic AEL "glyphabet" and lexicon can easily reduplicate my findings.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: Or are you telling us that they distinguished themsleves only from the asiatics but not the sudanese,
Another redundant question: There were two ethnic color catagories, Black and Red. Fair skinned Asiatics were Reds, Dark skinned Africans were Blacks. Sudan is a modern nation state, there is no 'sudanese' in Km.t.
How many paragraphs will it take you next time, to repeat a clearly answered question?
Nope the problem here is that you're trying to impose your unfounded beliefs on others that they called themselves black, which is quite preposterous considering they were not black, as black in the color black. modern political sentiments have no place on ancient societies who saw things differently. Kemet was refering to the soil around the nile which made their society flourish and possible, not some modern simplistic definiton of race, period. Ask any egyptologist and they will confirm what i'm saying.
Posts: 1420 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:rasol: Fair skinned Asiatics were Reds, Dark skinned Africans were Blacks.
Yes but they saw themselves different from both asiatics and the pitch black individuals on the wall paintings, who were painted litteraly black. So expalin how they could describe themselves as same color (black) while obviously depicting these individuals in different colour? Another case that doesn't make sense.
Posts: 1420 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Altakruri: Darker skinned Africans belonged to the black community. Lightest skinned Africans were of the red community (as were the Levantines).
quote:The "four types" -- or better, the "subjects of Ra" -- scene depicts the sun in the 5th night hour with Heru addressing the dead. He verbally divides them into the blacks (Nile Valley folk, i.e., Egyptians and Nehesis) under his protection, and the reds (folk dwelling east or west of the Nile) under Sekhet's protection.
You're a layman so "your own translation" does not add much value. You can't seriously claim that " He verbally divides them into the blacks (Nile Valley folk, i.e., Egyptians and Nehesis) under his protection, and the reds (folk dwelling east or west of the Nile) under Sekhet's protection." while painting the "blacks" in different colour. It doesn't add up, it's like me painting a blue and a green chicken but calling them both green. Do you see the zero logic in this?
Posts: 1420 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wake up and welcome back to the world of reality.
We're not talking about fantasy blue and green chickens. We're discussing reality: dark brown, medium brown, light brown, and biege coloured people.
Not only can I seriously claim but so has every translation in print. They all must be misguided too, or if not, pray tell why.
No professional has disputed my translation.
"Laymen" are speaking and translating foreign languages everyday.
Instead of remaining lazy like you have been, I challenge you to look up the words in a lexicon and disprove their meanings.
You can't. You lack the requisite skill and patience to essay this foreign language known as AEL. People are doing it everyday. Nothing exotic or esoteric about it.
But of course you'll only believe what Simon says as you are deep under his hypnotic spell.
The text accompanied by painting, to fix its visualization precisely as its authors (the AE) intended it to be conceptualized is right in your (and the world's face). Playing ostrich or emperor's new clothes won't make it go away and quite frankly it speaks louder than any lame ratinalizations to adulterate or deny it ever can.
What you're saying is: "See here, you ancient Egyptians. I see what you left on record but you must be mistaken because I don't want to understand it the way you're giving it to me because it counters my point of view of who and what you were. And my opinion is of course correct whereas the actual reality you've lived as ancient Egyptians in ancient Egypt is just wrong wrong wrong. After all, who knows more about ancient Egypt? Of course I do and you actual ancient Egyptians don't, so there!"
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let's cut through the smoke screen, and go back to this [which was dodged]:
Yonis,
Show us the source that breaks it down to the grammatical structure of "kmt", which would support what you attribute to the word.
Post the source, and demonstrate how the said source sets up the language structure, which would support your claim that 'Kmt' or "kemet" has "soil"/"land" in it.
By contrast, sources have already been cited, demonstrating how the researchers reached via the language rules, that no such thing as "soil"/"land" is invoked in "kmt" other than its denotation as 'black'.
Where is your primary research documentation that walks us through the language structure, necessary to support your version of what "Kmt" means?
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yonis: Yes but they saw themselves different from both asiatics and the pitch black individuals on the wall paintings, who were painted litteraly black.
^ Since you've already admitted that the km.t sometimes painted themselves as literally Black, this remark makes no sense.
Your entire argument makes no sense.
quote: So expalin how they could describe themselves as same color (black) while obviously depicting these individuals in different colour? Another case that doesn't make sense.
The Km.t make perfect sense,
Princess Kemsit, her name means "Black Lady":
....your argument however, makes *no sense whatsoever*.
^ That's why you can't address the evidence.
Moreover you obviously know you aren't making any sense.....and that's why you don't even try.
posted
Actually Yonis is not making an argument (logic/facts), he's professing a faith (feelings/belief).
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Keep this rare non OT topic going, members learn from these type of discussions, do not post chatroom talk or personal posts intended to bait other members
it will be deleted
Posts: 107 | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here are the proponent's statements. Note they veer from argumentive logic to faith in belief as his opponents present more and more unassailable facts of AEL use of KM (which means nothing other than black) as a noun and adjective whose application can only be discerned by the suffixed determinative or by the contextual proximty of the noun being described as black in colour.
Were logic instead of faith involved the proponent would produce a text or show in the opponents' textual examples a determinative that means unimproved land/soil/dirt/ground/etc. This, he cannot do -- nor has any professional ever done -- hence the birth of the KM.t (black feminine) equals black land/soil/silt/etc., unsubstantiable M Y T H.
quote: Gathered from Yonis' posts:
for me kemet denoting black soil sounds more plausible than "black people"
"black" evolved as a racial classification, which some seem to protect as something natural and universal, and try to decieve themselves that it was even used by ancient societies like in Egypt
No it can not, and it's a consensus among egyptologist who sound more rational when it comes to this than anyone in this forum who don't seem to follow logic but rather emotions and modern political rational. ... Kemet simply meant the black soil around the nile not the poeple
i don't believe [] that they (dynastic or pre-dynastic egyptians) called themselves "black" during their time of living
What people call themselves today does not necesserily mean that so did also those who lived 1000 years ago. It's ilogical for a people who were obviously not black to call themselves black ( when i say "not black" i mean black as the coulour black not the identity some people have today)
i chose to beleive that the word "kemet" referes to the fertile soil around the nile and not the people. I chose to beleive in ythe one which sounds more logical to me, and you beleive in what you want to beleive in. But don't act as if you have "proof" because you don't.
So your telling us that everything from mdw ntr was not brought to your attention by a third person instead you went to the field and studied it by your own? I don't speak that language and neither do you, so everyhting translated from there we rely on those working on the field, period. ... "Black" today is to much clutterd with political sentiments, and that's why it makes some people a strong proponent of kemet meaning "black people", when such notion is clearly preposterous
the only reason people think they called themselves black is because they see it as natural to identify as black, since they themselves call themselves black
if you claim that they defined themselves as "black" in relative to asiatics, what did they call them in sudan, blue?
if they were black, were the sudanese/nubians blue?
you're trying to impose your unfounded beliefs on others that they called themselves black, which is quite preposterous
Kemet was refering to the soil around the nile which made their society flourish and possible, not some modern simplistic definiton of race, period. Ask any egyptologist and they will confirm what i'm saying.
expalin how they could describe themselves as same color (black) while obviously depicting these individuals in different colour? Another case that doesn't make sense.
You're a layman so "your own translation" does not add much value. You can't seriously claim that " He verbally divides them into the blacks (Nile Valley folk, i.e., Egyptians and Nehesis) under his protection, and the reds (folk dwelling east or west of the Nile) under Sekhet's protection." while painting the "blacks" in different colour. It doesn't add up, it's like me painting a blue and a green chicken but calling them both green. Do you see the zero logic in this?
Far from being any type of chatroom talk or personal baiting, my statement, "Actually, Yonis is not making an argument (logic/facts), he's professing a faith (feelings/belief).", is an accurate conclusive assessment of his lack of supporting evidence for his "thesis" in the face of ever mounting examples that have shattered every point of belief he's mustered whether about AEL use of KM.t, or ancient notices using black as a people's descriptor, or continental African's usage of black and red as self descriptors before any outsiders came.
quote:Originally posted by Horus_Den_1: Keep this rare non OT topic going, members learn from these type of discussions, do not post chatroom talk or personal posts intended to bait other members
it will be deleted
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ the bait comment referred to a post from someone else that was subsequently deleted. i think the moderator means to explain why it was deleted. it wasn't in reference to your excellent post altakruri.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Horus-den-one you can lock this thread, i don't think its gonna lead anywhere, people are too blind to think outside politics so instead they act as linguists and attempt to "translate" while distorting stuff, or better yet just delete it.
Posts: 1420 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Get what? pleease, the authorities in the field are on my side, no serious scholar has ever claimed that kemet refers to "black identity", it's only people clouded by politics that propose this illogical theory, so try again.
And also i don't like eurocentric advocates , but in this case the only racially driven side are those claiming that people in antiquity actually identified as "black people", and even went so far to call their nation "the land of blacks", everyone can see the nonsensical and mad notion of this "fact". It's absolutly redicoulas and utterly based on modern politics.
Posts: 1420 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: the authorities in the field are on my side
^ Incorrect. We've cited authorities who directly refute your claims.
You counter with basically nothing but rhetoric and no proof, of anything really.
quote:no serious scholar has ever claimed that kemet refers to "black identity"
Wrong again. What is the point of repeating false statements that have already been refuted?
Any fool can lie, or pretend to be senile and forget the evidence presented. All that is required for such and approach is a lack of self respect.
You're better than that Yonis.
Show us that can intelligently refute any of the evidence presented and maybe then we can take you seriously, and you can begin to respect your own voice.
Begin by please explaining why Champollion who translated the Rosetta Stone, should not be regarded as a serious scholar?
It's being very polite to you to say that all of your posts on this subject are rhetorical only, utterly devoid of intelligible content, and quite worthless.
This is a last chance for redemption, don't blow it...
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yonis by continuing to reply to this thread in and immaterial fashion, while running away from the specific comment and questions of AlTakruri, Supercar and myself, you are guilty of trolling.
We are all being very patient with you on this matter, but your non-responsive behavior is characteristic of all sore losers.
Please address the specifics at hand, or admit that you are wrong and be done with it.....
quote:Originally posted by rasol: Princess Kemsit, her name means "Black Lady":
Yonis writes: Africans *never* designated the term 'black' to themselves.
^ Yonis, don't be a sore loser. Admit that this statement is false. By not admitting this statement is false, you are openly lieing.
quote:rasol: Any fool can lie, or pretend to be senile and forget the evidence presented. All that is required for such and approach is a lack of self respect.
You're better than that Yonis.
I have absolutly no issue when it comes to self respect or lack thereof, i don't identify myself as "black" and never going to identify my self as "black", that even if i live in the united states. I'm a human and second somali, period. If you identify as "black" then thats up to you, but my identity is never gonna get determined by outsiders.
Posts: 1420 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
If you identify as "black" then thats up to you, but my identity is never gonna get determined by outsiders.
Then this naturally leaves one with the question of why you, as an 'outsider', want to determine the 'identity' that the Kemetic folks, themselves, chose to associate with [by their own words and terms] to be something other than what it is?
You may not choose to identify yourself in a certain way, but others may well identify you so in that way [that you've rejected]...in the same way that you chose not to identify Kemetians by what they, themselves, chose to identify with. Do you believe that the Kemetians thought that their identity was to be determined by outsiders, or by themselves?
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think we should look at like, pre-historic, pre-dynastic Nile Valley and maybe get some clues to how Ancient Kemetians formulated identifying as "Black".
Kemetians held a strong affinity with the region south of them right???
Yonis, you said that they didpicted themselves as different color from their "pitch" Black Southern Sudanese neighbors right??
Put the pieces together.
Posts: 290 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
I think we should look at like, pre-historic, pre-dynastic Nile Valley and maybe get some clues to how Ancient Kemetians formulated identifying as "Black".
Is that not what some of us have been posting, primary texts, written by the ancients themselves? It doesn't get any better than that.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I have absolutly no issue when it comes to self respect or lack thereof, i don't identify myself as "black" and never going to identify my self as "black", that even if i live in the united states. I'm a human and second somali, period. If you identify as "black" then thats up to you, but my identity is never gonna get determined by outsiders.
Most African entities define themselves as people or the "people", it's possible that AE defined themselves as "Black Nation" then that would be an anomaly in an African context. No African nation except maybe AE defined themselves as Black Nation...anyway the bottom line is at the end of the day they were raped culturally and historically, and genetically to this day for 1000 years...Supercar and Rasol can't do anything about because it's a fact
Posts: 711 | From: Africa | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I always found the "Black people" topic to be interesting.
It's not really an issue when it comes to biological relationships but it is interesting to know how the Egyptians viewed themselves.
So far I grasp the etymology aspect. There is no evidence supporting the idea that "Kmt." means "Black Land" rather than just black. They called their *country* black but the word itself does not reference land or soil.
Where I've always been puzzled about is what they called the people south of them that are depicted as being uniformly jet black in contrast to the Egyptian's medium(red)-brown skintone.
Are the people being depicted the Kushites?
If both Egyptian and Kushite skintones fell unto the melanin level that would be grouped in their color scheme as "black", why did the Egyptians call their whole nation black and depict a people as darker than them?
Or did the usage of "Kmt." as the name of their nation have a separate meaning from black referencing their skintone?
Posts: 1203 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
People south of Kemet have been depicted from both reddish-brown to pitch black. Although the color convention for Kemetic figures is generally reddish-brown, there are instances of Kemetic figures in 'pitch' black as well, and this naturally extends to the neteru figures, wherein it also functions as a medium communicating the underlying sacredness, holiness, or purity. People don't have reservations about 'identifying' with a social-construct that is seen as being 'positive', and the natural embodiment of what is ‘good‘ and ‘pure‘. Such is the case with the Kemetic world towards the 'black' color [which btw, is something that "Africa", the so-called African can do nothing about, but make irrelevant comments about other posters]; totally opposite the attitude cultivated in the "western" and "western-influenced" world to the 'black' color.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
If you identify as "black" then thats up to you, but my identity is never gonna get determined by outsiders.
Then this naturally leaves one with the question of why you, as an 'outsider', want to determine the 'identity' that the Kemetic folks, themselves, chose to associate with [by their own words and terms] to be something other than what it is?
You may not choose to identify yourself in a certain way, but others may well identify you so in that way [that you've rejected]...in the same way that you chose not to identify Kemetians by what they, themselves, chose to identify with. Do you believe that the Kemetians thought that their identity was to be determined by outsiders, or by themselves?
???
Please don't put words in my mouth, it's quite a lowshot from your part. I have never claimed that i knew what they exactly thought of themselves or how they determined their identity. That's actually your error, you are the one who implimented modern "black" identity on them. I simply stated that i beleive in the most likely and logical alternative of the information interpreted they left behind. And also which is supported by most authority in the field who seem less clouded by modern political "racial" distortion and sound more realistic. It's easy for anyone with a clear mind to see that kemet refered to the fertile land worshiped around the nile (which afterall was the life and soul of the AE society), rather than simplistic modern racial classification as "black people". So don't try to steer me towards a path of discussion i never intended to be a part off. I never said i knew what they thought of themselves and will never know that, no living person can ever claim such of anyone who lived 100 years ago let alone thousands years unless clearly documented.
Posts: 1420 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Most African entities define themselves as people or the "people",
Ancient Egypt was the first nation-state.
The name of the country literally reads Kemet Niwset
Kemet -> is the color black, rendered as a noun.
It's not pronounced Kem - et. It's pronounced Keme or Kheme.
This is something Yonis probably doesn't want to understand.
People who want to pretend there is some difference between the word Kheme and Kemet usually rationalise that the 'et' somehow allows them to invent a different meaning.
But the '.t' at the end is and unpronounced grammatical device.
It is analgous to the difference between the words Black, Blacks, Blacks'.
In the Coptic Egyptian dictionary it is rendered as Keme' and it reads in the Song of Soloman as: I am Black that I am Black.
Every known translation concurs with this.
Which proves for the 100th time, the same, unrefuted answer to same question of the meaing of KM.t.
Niwset -> is a under the heading of community and when it is used, it can refer to any polity or organised group of humans.
It means community, city, state, village or nation.
This is why it's important to understand that Km.t is the world's 1st Nation-state, and so the application as 'nation' would have originally been specific to Km.t, the Black Nation.
But here's the real point:
No linguist disputes any of the above.
They never dispute this.
What Eurocentists do, is what Yonis is doing - they dance and dodge, stall and attempt to distract, they claim that they must be right because everyone in 'authority' agrees with them, even though they themselves cannot demonstrate that there is any truth to their claims.
[btw: this is corny from of trolling Yonis, the banned ES discussant Horemheb would troll in jus this fashion, all the time.]
Thus they combine appeal to popularity fallacy, with appeal to authority fallacy.
Yonis continues flail haplessly because he cannot address the evidence or answer any of our questions.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
Where I've always been puzzled about is what they called the people south of them that are depicted as being uniformly jet black in contrast to the Egyptian's medium(red)-brown skintone.
Can you further explain your puzzlement?
You are a Black American, no?
You call yourself Black, yes?
So...what do you call the people of Africa who are uniformly jet black in contrast to Black Americans medium (red)-brown skintone?
Your challenge is to locate the fallacies contained within the above, because by analogy - every one of them is repeated in your quoted remarks.
It is very easy for me to understand both the Km.t, their color dialectics as Black peoples, and also understand, the brainwashing of the modern white-washed Black man...who isn't free [intelletually] and so just can't get it.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
If you identify as "black" then thats up to you, but my identity is never gonna get determined by outsiders.
Then this naturally leaves one with the question of why you, as an 'outsider', want to determine the 'identity' that the Kemetic folks, themselves, chose to associate with [by their own words and terms] to be something other than what it is?
You may not choose to identify yourself in a certain way, but others may well identify you so in that way [that you've rejected]...in the same way that you chose not to identify Kemetians by what they, themselves, chose to identify with. Do you believe that the Kemetians thought that their identity was to be determined by outsiders, or by themselves?
???
Please don't put words in my mouth, it's quite a lowshot from your part.
I suggest you heed to that advice; stop putting words in other folks' mouth, as you were doing as you wrote this piece.
quote:Yonis:
I have never claimed that i knew what they exactly thought of themselves or how they determined their identity.
Who said you "knew"? Goes back to the post preceding this one. If anything, we've been trying to make you see how much you don't 'know', and basing your claim off on that premise.
quote:Yonis:
That's actually your error, you are the one who impliment modern "black" identity on them.
How? Show me how, as I presented "Kmt" via the work of researchers who had studied the primary texts first hand, is something that "I" implimented on them [Kemetians], as opposed to the 'primary' texts under study?
quote:Yonis:
I simply stated that i beleive in the most likely and logical alternative of the information interpreted they left behind.
That's the major difference between you and I. I don't merely 'believe' in what I presented, I present 'evidence' or actual 'substance' for the presentation. "Belief" here, to me, is a non-starter. And there is no alternative that you speak of, because you haven't produced a shred of any.
quote:Yonis:
And supported by most authority in the field who seem less clouded by modern political "racial" distortion and sound more realistic.
Well, where then is the long awaited 'evidential' material that every other poster has requested from you, as the person who got his sourcing from "most" authority figures but refused to produce it? Shouldn't the onus be on you, as the person who has the "most" support from the "auhorities", to easily and swiftly produce evidence as requested?
quote:Yonis:
It's easy for anyone with clear mind to see that kemetrefered to the fertile land worshiped around the nile (which afterall was the life and soul of the AE society), rather than simplistic modern racial classification as "black people".
You bet it is 'easy' for anyone to make 'baseless' claims; it is 'harder' for anyone to support it with evidential material. You are living proof of this fact.
quote:Yonis:
So don't try to steer me towards a path of discussion i never intended to be a part off.
Which would be a path of what? Demonstrate this via 'evidence', which is something you've so far shied away from in the entire body of this discussion.
quote:Yonis:
I never said i knew what they thought of themselves and will never know,
Well, my friend, when you refuse to acknowledge 'evidence' from primary texts provided, and suggest that the 'primary' terms in question mean something other than what they mean, in absence of 'evidence' against what you are counteracting, then yes, you are implicitly saying that you know what they thought of themselves.
quote:Yonis:
no living person can ever claim such of anyone who lived 100 years ago let alone thousands years ago.
"No living person" can without "evidence". However, a 'living person' can infer from 'primary evidence' left by 'anyone who lived 100 years ago, let alone thousands of years ago.'
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Yonis:. If you identify as "black" then thats up to you, but my identity is never gonna get determined by outsiders.
lol. One of the reasons you don't understand how Kemetic identity constructs work, is because you don't even understand your own.
Think about your use of the word 'outsiders', and how it pre-determines that you have a collective identity, which is defined against some other identity.
There is no 'we' without 'they', no Black without Red, and most peoples have multi-leveled, multi-faceted interdependant conceptions of identity which are in fact determined by 'we' and they'.
If you don't understand this Yonis, how can you hope to *ever* understand the Book of Gates?
In the Kemetic Book of Gates there is
"WE" Blacks, the children of Heru.
"They" Reds, the children of Seketh.
However, it's clear that you are not ready for the above yet.
Start with understanding all the external factors that go into shaping your own identity.
Learn to walk 1st, and then run.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tee85: I think we should look at like, pre-historic, pre-dynastic Nile Valley and maybe get some clues to how Ancient Kemetians formulated identifying as "Black".
Kemetians held a strong affinity with the region south of them right???
Yonis, you said that they didpicted themselves as different color from their "pitch" Black Southern Sudanese neighbors right??
Put the pieces together.
^ I'm sure he does, if only sub-conciously.
Moreover, the earliest Egyptologist to study the primary text fathomed exactly what you have:
It was Amélineau who designated the first black race to occupy Egypt as the Anu.
He showed how they came slowly down the Nile and founded the cities of Esneh, Erment, Qouch and Heliopolis.
Egypt's greatest Masters, Osiris, Hermes, Isis, and Horus all belonged to "the old race", the Black Anu[Chandler].
It is striking that the goddess Isis, according to the Egyptian legend, has precisely the *same skin color* that Nubians always have, and that the god Osiris has what seems to me an ethnic epithet indicating his Nubian origin. Apparently this observation has never before been made*.
^ Yonis, can't help but reply, even though he is helpless to actually address what he is replying to.
This is and indication of knowing the truth but "refusing to accept it", correct Yonis?
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rasol: Can you further explain your puzzlement?
You are a Black American, no?
You call yourself Black, yes?
So...what do you call the people of Africa who are uniformly jet black in contrast to Black Americans medium (red)-brown skintone?
Your challenge is to locate the fallacies contained within the above, because by analogy - every one them is repeated in your quoted remarks.
It is very easy for me to understand both the Km.t, their color dialectics as Black peoples, and brainwashing of the modern white-washed Black man...who just doesn't get it.
When I refer to "every one of them" I am referring to this image:
There is a uniform contrast in skintone between the men wearing Egyptian garb and the men with jet-black skintones wearing a different style of clothes.
I know that art can be highly stylized and that this piece should not literally be assumed to mean that there are no very dark Egyptians or that the Egyptians viewed themselves to be "mixed" Blacks and their Southern neighbors pure Blacks (which is what some people would assume if they took your Black American vs. Black African analogy literally).
I'm wondering under what context did they refer to their nation as "Kmt." and what they called the men depicted in jet-black skintones south of them.
An authoratative source would be appeciated.
So far as I understand it what is being said is that in Egyptian color dialectics, black was a sacred color symbolizing, strength and rebirth. A positive attribute and that Tut's tomb guardian statue, depicted with jet-black skin would be an example of this symbolism.
Red was ascribed to negative attributes and the Egyptians grouped lighter-skinned neighbors such as Southwest Asians and Libyans into the red category while Egyptians and those darker than them were grouped as black peoples.
Is this correct?
If so was the term "Kmt." not in reference to skin color?
Posts: 1203 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mansa Musa: When I refer to "every one of them" I am referring to this image:
Are you saying that when you look at this image you cannot visually see what the Egyptians actually wrote?
According to what is written by the km.t there are 4 groups of people
Aa-mu Nehesu Rmt and Tamehu
These groups are elligible for resurrection in the afterlife.
All 4 people have different shades of color, however their are two generalities represented in picture and discussed in writting.
There are two dark groups called Blacks.
There are two light groups called Reds.
Moreover these two catagories represent two ethnic sub-lineages - 2 children of Heru, the Blacks, and 2 children of Seketh, the Reds, all elligible for resurrection in the afterlife.
This text, and it's meaning remain essentially the same, even as the groups portrayed vary superfically;
^ This is the same story told in picture form, but from a different time period and a different tomb...and by the way, too many people don't understand the reproduction of the tombs are both by Karl Richard Lepsius.
He simply drew what he saw.
quote:I'm wondering under what context did they refer to their nation as "Kmt." and what they called the men depicted in jet-black skintones south of them.
An authoratative source would be appeciated.
You're looking at it, you just posted it.... unless you don't consider the AE and authoritative source???
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mansa Musa: There is a uniform contrast in skintone between the men wearing Egyptian garb and the men with jet-black skintones wearing a different style of clothes.
Same can be said for the Red Aamu and Temeu who are different in skintone - in that very image - to which you refer.
Are you saying that you cannot understand how both can be considered Reds?
Since there are in fact no group of people who are literally uniformly Red nor Uniformly Black, is it sensible to expect references to 'black' and 'red' peoples to uniformly portray such?
Are modern Black and White people literally Black and literally White?
Are they uniformly portrayed as such?
How can you call the 'uniformly' lighter toned Black Americans "Blacks," then portray the 'uniformly' darker Africans differently?
Does this 'uniformity' you keep referring to, even exist?
If Black Americans are Black then what color are Black Africans?
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: When you read the AE directly and their reference to the GREAT BLACK SEA....you will then glance at a map, and realise that this sea has nothing to do with the "mediterreanian" anyway. It belonged to the Black Men of Nile Valley Africa - it was part of -THEIR WORLD
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic