posted
Now I know which race it was! It was the chariot race!! But ben Hur got the creds (leave it to Hollywood)!!!
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ I got that also about Celt. He thinks that just because the surname (and person) is African, that they are somehow unreliable. Yet it has been shown that in the past decades even few centuries that those with European surnames in the all European academia were the ones that were mistaken.
How ironic indeed.
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: It's official. Hore offers no substantial evidence or anything of relevance that back up his claims to a 'white presence' in Egypt.
Djhuti.....You pretend to think that surrounding people and cultures to the South of Egypt were the only ones to influence Egypt. You even seem to suggest that Egypt never influenced those people and cultures to the South in the least bit. Kind of like a one way street. People and ideas flowing into Egypt from the South but nothing coming out of Egypt to influence them. The links you have provided: is that supposed to be your proof of something?
Posts: 197 | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Wally: I apologize to the veterans on this forum for posting information that they're already familiar with, but I feel it's necessary for the newbies who come here frequently and with confused or distorted notions regarding the Ancient Egyptians, and who come with the following delusions:
Self-delusion A recent post started out with "Some claim that Kemet means black people". The key word in this first statement is "claim" which is a synonym for "believe", which seeks to place a human language in the same category as religion. You can believe in or not believe in God, that's one thing; but you don't believe that "veni" in Latin means "I came"; you either KNOW or you don't. However, this delusion leads to one that has been fabricated by the distorters of Egyptology.
Assisted delusion "The Egyptians called their country "Kmt" or "Kemet" which means "Black" after the color of the soil." This is simply an absolute lie. There is nothing in the grammar, even if one were to use an electron microscope to search for an example that the soil or earth had any connection with the use of this word. The only references to the soil in the names of Ancient Egypt were the names "TaMeri and TaMere"; "Ta" meaning "earth, land, etc." This mantra is almost always repeated to "inform" the reader of why the word "Black" for Egypt and Egyptians was used, and probably using the age old philosophy that if you repeat a lie often enough, and long enough, it soon becomes accepted as the truth. NOT if one knows better...
KEMET
A comprehensive list of the structure and usages of perhaps the most significant word in the Ancient Egyptian language. All of these words can be found in "An Egyptian Hieroglyphic Dictionary" by E. A. Wallis Budge, Dover, NY
Used as an adjective
kem;kemem;kemom - black kemu - black (m) keme.t - black (f) hime.t keme.t - "black woman" (woman of Black) himu.t keme.t - "black women" (women of Black)
Used as a noun
keme.t - any black person, place, or thing
A determinative is then used to be more specific:
keme.t (woman) - "the Black woman"; ie, 'divine woman' keme.t (cow) - "a Black cow" - ie, a 'sacred cow' Keme.t (nation) - "the Black nation"
kem - a black one (m) keme.t - a black one (f) kemu - black ones (m) kemu.t - black ones (f) kemeti - two black ones
Used for Nationality
Sa Kemet - a man of Black (an Egyptian male) Sa.t Kemet - a woman of Black (an Egyptian female) Rome.t Kemet - the people of Black (Egyptians) Kemetou - Blacks (ie, 'citizens') Kememou - Black people (of the Black nation)
Other usages
Sa Kem - "Black man", a god, and son of Sa.t Kem.t - "Black woman", a goddess (page 589b) kem (papyrus) - to end, complete kem.t (papyrus) - the end, completion kemi - finished products kem khet (stick) - jet black ... kemwer - any Egyptian person, place or thing ('to be black' + 'to be great')
Kemwer - "The Great Black" - a title of Osiris - the Ancestor of the race
Kemwer (body of water) - "the Great Black sea" - the Red sea Kemwer (body of water + river bank) - a lake in the Duat (the OtherWorld) Kemwer Nteri - "the sacred great Black bulls" kemwer (fortress) - a fort or town Kemwer (water) - the god of the great Black lake
Kem Amut - a black animal goddess Kemi.t-Weri.t - "the great Black woman", a goddess Kem-Neb-Mesen.t - a lion god Kem ho - "black face", a title of the crocodile Rerek kem; kemu (shield) - buckler, shield kem (wood) - black wood kem.t (stone) - black stone or powder kem.tt (plant) - a plant kemu (seed) - seeds or fruit of the kem plant kemti - "black image", sacred image or statue
Using the causative "S"
S_kemi - white haired, grey-headed man (ie, to have lost blackness) S_kemkem - to destroy, overthrow, annihilate S_kemem - to blacken, to defile
Antonyms
S_desher - to redden, make ruddy S_desheru - red things, bloody wounds
Some interesting Homonyms (pages 770 > )
qem - to behave in a seemly manner Qemi - the south, Upper Egypt qem.t - reed, papyrus qemaa - to throw a boomerang qem_au - to overthrow qemam.t - mother, parent qemamu - workers (in metal, wood) qemqem - tambourines qemd - to weep qemati - statue, image - same as kemti qema - to create qemaiu - created beings Qemau;Qemamu - The Creator
Deshret - the opposite of Kemet
deshr.t - any red (ie, non-Black) person, place, or thing ... deshr.t (woman) - "the Red woman"; ie, 'evil woman' deshr.t (cow) - "a Red cow" - ie, the 'devil's cow' deshr - a red one (m) deshr.t - a red one (f) deshru - red ones (m) deshru.t - red ones (f) -- White or light-skinned people; devils deshreti - two red ones
posted
It is proof that Egypt had much more in common with their neighbors to the south, than with Europe or the so-called middle east. Of course, unless Celt has evidence to the contrary, while omitting blind speculation based on probability, which he does not. Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sundiata: It is proof that Egypt has much more in common with its neighbors to the south, than with Europe or the so-called middle east. Of course, unless Celt has evidence to the contrary, while omitting blind speculation or probability, which he does not.
And this proves what? That AE had a big influence upon those people? Or those people had a big influence on Egypt? Could you please present the written records those people to the South had to prove your point? I 'm kinda new at this and need some fresh insight. Posts: 197 | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
They influenced each other and yes, this mutual influence is reflected in Meroitic writing, and Nilo-Saharan loan words within the ancient Egyptian language. Not to mention that the Egyptian language its self was African.. This, accompanied by the rest of the evidence presented should make things a bit clearer for you professor. Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Celt: Any pre-dated written records to Egyptian texts will be fine.
Well, here is the written attestation from the Egyptians themselves, indicating that they came from the south. - Edfu TextPosts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sundiata: They influenced each other and yes, this mutual influence is reflected in Meroitic writing, and Nilo-Saharan loan words within the ancient Egyptian language. Not to mention that the Egyptian language its self was African.. This, accompanied by the rest of the evidence presented should make things a bit clearer for you professor.
was meroitic witting more advanced than hieroglyphs? I heard some people say that hieroglyphs were more "pictorial".
Posts: 229 | From: Atlanta | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Remember now, there were several writing systems: * hieroglyphic, * hieratic, * demotic (sesh-shet), and * Coptic scripts in Egypt in the old days. Some of them used concurrently (hieroglyphic and hieratic) for centuries.
Hope this is of some help to you.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: It's official. Hore offers no substantial evidence or anything of relevance that back up his claims to a 'white presence' in Egypt.
Djhuti.....You pretend to think that surrounding people and cultures to the South of Egypt were the only ones to influence Egypt. You even seem to suggest that Egypt never influenced those people and cultures to the South in the least bit. Kind of like a one way street. People and ideas flowing into Egypt from the South but nothing coming out of Egypt to influence them. The links you have provided: is that supposed to be your proof of something?
No Celt. YOU seem to think you can ARBITRARILY DEFINE the Egyptians as being PREDOMINATELY WHITE EUROPEANS who somehow OVERTOOK the indigenous population of the Nile Valley and created a WHITE CIVILIZATION in BLACK AFRICA. That is your WHOLE PURPOSE OF BEING HERE. It is a plainly obvious FACT that all you WANT to believe is that Egypt was some FAIRY TALE white kingdom in a sea of black faces in Africa, with WHITE EUROPEAN NORDIC LOOKING people on the top and darker skinned AFRICANS on the bottom, if they are PRESENT AT ALL. THAT NONSENSE has been refuted OVER AND OVER AND OVER by up to date scientific research, which says that dynastic Egypt was PRIMARILY an INDIGENOUS DEVELOPMENT of NILE VALLEY AFRICANS and Africans FROM THE SAHARA. Nile Valley Africans and Saharan Africans WERE NOT WHITE EUROPEANS. Therefore, there WAS NO SIGNIFICANT incursion into dynastic Egypt in the predynastic or Old Kingdom which would have produced a population of WHITE EUROPEAN LOOKING Africans along the Nile Valley. That is YOU making up NONSENSE. And yes, people from outside Africa DID try and invade and conquer the Nile Valley Africans and they WERE EXPELLED. The Hyksos, Sea People, light skinned Libyans and OTHER GROUPS had tried to conquer Egypt many times and each time they were REPULSED BY INDIGENOUS BLACK AFRICANS. So in all your arguing about FOREIGN types among Egyptians, why don't you refer to the Hyksos, The Sea People or the Asiatic peoples who entered Egypt at various times? It is obvious you are CONFUSED because you WANT those who were NOT indigenous to Egypt, like the Hyksos or the Sea people, to be treated as INDIGENOUS, when they WERE NOT INDIGENOUS and were KICKED OUT by the INDIGENOUS people, who LOOKED NOTHING LIKE THEM. YOU are making up NONSENSE and GOING AGAINST ALL THE FACTS. And, with all your talk about the Greeks and the Romans who built temples in the late period of Egyptian history? Why don't you "claim" them? THEY WERE WHITE EUROPEANS and they WERE NOT NATIVE TO EGYPT and had NOTHING to do with the DEVELOPMENT of Egyptian civilization and culture. Neither did the OTHER WHITE populations who tried to enter Egypt earlier, like the Hyksos, the Sea People and the Asiatics. So, again, yes, there WERE white people in Egypt during the dynastic period, but they were LARGELY FOREIGNERS and TREATED AS SUCH by the Egyptians.
Since you like to RUN YOUR MOUTH so much about "mixing" in the Nile Valley:
quote: With communications with the peoples of the Nile Valley already established, McDonald theorizes, the Bashendi would have migrated there, bringing with them their domesticated cattle and distinctive technologies and artifacts.
Most archeologists now agree that the Pharaonic civilization, which began some 1500 years after the Bashendi migrations, is entirely indigenous.
The same climate change also dramatically altered the flow and regular flooding of the Nile itself, changing and most likely stressing the relatively comfortable lives of the Nile-side dwellers described by Hoffman’s Hieronkopolis excavations. Traditional hunting and fishing would no longer support them—particularly with the added stress of the influx of new Bashendi peoples from the west. Together with other cultures from the east of the river, an unprecedented pooling and melding of cultures began to take place that would give rise to the Predynastic cultures.
There you have it. MOST archaeologists believe Egypt was a development of PEOPLE INDIGENOUS TO AFRICA. WHITE EUROPEANS are NOT INDIGENOUS TO AFRICA. Therefore the ancient Egyptians and those who were the INDIGENOUS PEOPLE of Egypt, were NOT WHITE EUROPEAN LOOKING PEOPLE as SUCH PEOPLE ARE NOT INDIGENOUS TO AFRICA.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sundiata: It is proof that Egypt has much more in common with its neighbors to the south, than with Europe or the so-called middle east. Of course, unless Celt has evidence to the contrary, while omitting blind speculation or probability, which he does not.
And this proves what? That AE had a big influence upon those people? Or those people had a big influence on Egypt? Could you please present the written records those people to the South had to prove your point? I 'm kinda new at this and need some fresh insight.
Why don't you pick up a book and READ IT and CATCH A CLUE and stop TALKING SO MUCH if you don't know WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT?
The EARLIEST sites of cattle domestication IN EGYPT are TO THE SOUTH OF EGYPT. The EARLIEST SITES of HUMAN HABITATION are to the SOUTH OF EGYPT. The EARLIEST SITES of agriculture, pottery, megalith building, settlement, tool making, rock art ARE TO THE SOUTH OF EGYPT. Therefore ALL of these elements that came to make UP dynastic Egypt came from the SOUTH and SOUTH WEST. THERE WERE NO WHITE EUROPEAN LOOKING NON BLACK AFRICAN LOOKING PEOPLE IN THESE AREAS. THAT is where dynastic Egyptian culture and civlization CAME FROM. THEREFORE, dynastic Egyptian culture WAS AN INDIGENOUS DEVELOPMENT that SPRANG FROM OLDER CULTURAL PATTERNS IN AFRICA. They DID NOT COME FROM ANYWHERE ELSE OUTSIDE OF AFRICA. They DID NOT GET THEIR "SMARTS" from OUTSIDE OF AFRICA. They DID NOT GET THEIR LOOKS from OUTSIDE OF AFRICA. They were AS BLACK AFRICAN AS YOU CAN GET. The OLDEST SITES of ANY SORT OF HOMINID presence ON EARTH are ALONG THE NILE and TO THE SOUTH of Egypt. The OLDEST EVIDENCE OF ANY SORT of HUMAN ACTIVITY is IN AFRICA, from BEFORE THERE WAS A WHITE EUROPEAN. Egypt was a result of THOUSANDS UPON THOUSANDS OF YEARS OF HUMAN DEVELOPMENT IN AFRICA, MUCH OF IT PRIOR to ANY SORT OF WHITE EUROPEAN POPULATION. Hunting, skinning, gathering, communication, tool making, painting, adornment, jewelry, rock art ALL EXISTED IN AFRICA FROM MANY THOUSANDS OF YEARS AGO and HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH WHITE EUROPEANS.
But because YOU ARE EUROCENTRIC there HAS to be a ROLE for WHITE EUROPEANS at the DAWN OF HISTORY, even though WHITE EUROPEANS DID NOT EXIST AT THE DAWN OF HUMAN HISTORY.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^Stupid nonsense; you deliberately leave out one crucial element. That is not Africa! It's the Americas, so who cares? Besides, they look no different than today's indigenous populations in central and south america.
quote:Originally posted by Celt: Written records from these people to the South that predate Egyptian written texts please?
^First of all, we need not adhere to your irrational demands since you haven't shown us any form of written texts to the north that predates that of Egypt's! Also, the beginnings of hieroglyphic development precedes that of Egypt its self, prior to unification anyway. In other words, there was no such thing as "Egypt" (Km.t) by the time these symbols began to evolve. However, the first true inscription in hieroglyphic writing comes from the Narmer palette in southern Egypt, which I think speaks volumes. Not to mention that we've established virtually irrefutably that the Egyptians migrated from the southern zones, therefore your plea is irrelevant. There is something maybe just as significant however, that should meet the qualifications of your irrational demands (if not, oh well). It is called the Qustul Incense Burner and comes from the early, pre-dynastic Sudan.
Pay attention:
Early tombs in the cemetery, such as L 24, contained pottery and stone vessels that had generally been dated before the First Dynasty. A group of painted bowls and a stand from slightly later tombs that belonged to the early and middle period of the cemetery also dated to the late Predynastic period. Other evidence from Tura, Beda, and elsewhere indicated that Cemetery L began well before the First Dynasty, and the scratched serekhs from the cemetery related directly, in date as well as type, to Kaiser's group of Predynastic palace facades. The cemetery was mostly earlier than the modest "Dynasty 0" tombs of Ka, Narmer, and B 1/2 (Iry-Hor) at Abydos and not contemporary with the later great monuments of the First Dynasty. The larger tombs of Cemetery L actually equaled or exceeded these in size and elaboration. Apart from other "first" in representation and art, the Qustul incense burner (cemetery L 24) stands out at this writing, not as a provincial imitation of some unknown Egyptian monument but as the first self-evident pharaonic monument from the Nile Valley, the first unequivocal representation of a pharaoh in his person, the first datable monumental-ceremonial object that compares with the slate palettes and maceheads of Egypt. - Source
^Did you take notice of my emphasis on southern Egypt as the cradle of hieroglyphic writing (and really AE civilization in general)? Well, it should be of note that on this Incense Burner, we have the first depiction of a ruler wearing the indigenous white crown of upper Egypt! Also blurred symbols resembling that of Egyptian hieroglyphics.. The earliest known example of Pharaonic kingship, according to the evidence in question, was in the Sudan! Maybe you can figure out on your own why this is extremely significant.
Some of this information however, like the dating of certain tombs at Qustul (L 24) to be older than Egypt's, is disputed because since then, one of the royal tombs at Abydos was discovered and found to actually be contemporary and just as elaborate as the Sudanese tombs. Though it is important to remain fully aware that the first nome of upper Egypt practically overlapped "Nubia" and incorporated the kingdom of Ta-Seti. Basically, the first nome of upper Egypt was as far south as one can get, which definitely alludes to their origins in the south. - Source
Interesting quote from the ancient Greek historian, Diodorus of Sicily:
The Ethiopians say that the Egyptians are one of their colonies, which was led into Egypt by Osiris. They claim that at the beginning of the world Egypt was simply a sea but that the Nile, carrying down vast quantities of loam from Ethiopia in its flood waters, finally filled it in and made it part of the continent. . . They add that the Egyptians have received from them, as from authors and their ancestors, the greater part of their laws. - Diodorus
^To take this merely with a grain of salt would be foolish since the Egyptians themselves basically say the same thing in the Edfu Text that I've provided you, except they were lead under the leadership of Horus, and not Osiris. This, in tandem with what I have just presented should leave no doubt in the mind of the non-biased spectator. Hope that helps.. Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think I've done my part though Celt, I'm going to now leave you to the sharks. Your lack of communication and evasive style of trolling stagnates any potential progress, so if you have any concerns as far as me personally, refer to my previous responses please. Good luck. Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Celt: Written records from these people to the South that predate Egyptian written texts please?
Simple enough. The earliest written records in Egypt CAME FROM THE SOUTH.
Why don't you do your OWN research and verify it and tell me if I am right or wrong, since you know so much?
You need to stop pretending that you are concerned with the TRUTH because you AREN'T. The TRUTH is that dynastic Egypt was a PRODUCT OF BLACK AFRICANS and was ruled by and populated by MOSTLY BLACK AFRICANS for almost 3000 years of its existence from 4000 B.C. to 1000 B.C. The only one who has a PROBLEM with that is YOU and OTHER Eurocentrics because THEY feel that THEY are supposed to be the originators of everything GOOD AND DECENT in world civilization and that blacks are supposed to be ignorant and dumb. Therefore, the problem is EUROCENTRISM not the facts as the facts speak clearly for themselves.
Civilization did not start in WHITE EUROPE. It started FAR TO the south and west, in Africa, Mesopotamia and India. NONE of these places were populated by WHITE EUROPEANS. NONE of the NORDIC LANDS of Europe have ANY EVIDENCE OF ANCIENT CIVILIZATIONS that were the first on earth. Therefore, they HAVE to pretend that all these other places were populated with WHITE EUROPEANS and NORDIC TYPES to GIVE THEMSELVES a FALSE SENSE OF SECURITY and PRIDE in something THEY DID NOT DO and had NOTHING TO DO WITH, so they can CLAIM to always have been FAR SUPERIOR to all other humans on earth.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Doug M: Civilization did not start in WHITE EUROPE. It started FAR TO the south and west, in Africa, Mesopotamia and India. NONE of these places were populated by WHITE EUROPEANS.
Yeah yeah we know about that, afterall you haven't been lazy reminding this to us like Gazillion times. Now why is it so important for you to always talk about europeans in relation to everything, almost as you have solved a riddle and try to convince the rest of the world that europeans are not gods afterall as if this was your previous conviction.
Posts: 1420 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sundiata: I think I've done my part though Celt, I'm going to now leave you to the sharks. Your lack of communication and evasive style of trolling stagnates any potential progress, so if you have any concerns as far as me personally, refer to my previous responses please. Good luck.
The only thing you've manage honestly is to give him a nice time of entertainment. The problem with some guys here is that you over react to simple issues way to often, almost as a venom spitting snake at guard waiting to attack everytime someone "eurocentric" pops up. Like a fleet of angry bulldozers chasing a little white mouse. Just check celts posts they are mostly only two liners based on subjective opinions, but the enormeous of replies he recieves are redicoulasly unproportional, like a whole Encyclopedia filled with emotions and stress. It's so damn easy for anyone to come here and raise the temperature with the real intent to just rile you up and laugh behind the monitor, to much of a defensive attitude only makes you look unconvincing to be honest. Sometimes ignoring is a much more powerfull tool, in particular with people such as celt who is not here to engage in any real discussion but more interested to just burn some time and pull some legs.
Posts: 1420 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Doug M: Civilization did not start in WHITE EUROPE. It started FAR TO the south and west, in Africa, Mesopotamia and India. NONE of these places were populated by WHITE EUROPEANS.
Yeah yeah we know about that, afterall you haven't been lazy reminding this to us like Gazillion times. Now why is it so important for you to always talk about europeans in relation to everything, almost as you have solved a riddle and try to convince the rest of the world that europeans are not gods afterall as if this was your previous conviction.
I say it FOR ONE REASON AND ONE REASON ONLY, because it IS THE TRUTH. TRUTH needs no justification. ONLY LIES need justification and MORE LIES to support itself. The CORE of Eurocentrism is that ALL human development and MODERN behaviors is a result of the evolution of WHITE PEOPLE in Europe. That is ULTIMATELY what they teach and what they promote ALL OVER THE WORLD.... Therefore, the TRUTH needs to be told in order to SHOCK people back into reality, because SOME PEOPLE LIKE LIVING IN FANTASY LAND.
Eurocentrism is fundamental to the growth and stability of WHITE SUPREMACY as well as European well being. It makes the fact that they have done bad things all over the world in the name of the improvement of the standard of living of WHITE EUROPEANS at the expense of everyone else seem GOOD. Their historians and anthropologists HAVE to put Europe at the center of ALL HUMAN HISTORY, so that it wont seem STRANGE how the Europeans have come to dominate so many parts of the globe where they did not EXIST 1000 years ago. Eurocentrism loves to promote human evolution as going from apes to white humans with NO BLACKS in between. It loves to display ancient humans from the dawn of time as being WHITE, even though WHITES DID NOT EXIST. It LOVES portraying "cave men" as if they FIRST EXISTED IN EUROPE and were WHITE. ALL of these IMAGES are PURPOSELY DESIGNED to promote and REINFORCE the idea of WHITE EUROPEANS being the KEY and CORNERSTONE of all human development when THEY THEMSELVES ARE ONLY A FAIRLY RECENT DEVELOPMENT IN HUMAN HISTORY.
Don't get me wrong, Europeans have done a lot in the last few hundred years, but A LOT OF IT was not GOOD and REWRITING history to put them into THE LIMELIGHT where THEY WEREN'T in the limelight is FALSIFICATION OF HISTORY.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Doug M: I say it FOR ONE REASON AND ONE REASON ONLY, because it IS THE TRUTH. TRUTH needs no justification. ONLY LIES need justification and MORE LIES to support itself. The CORE of Eurocentrism is that ALL human development and MODERN behaviors is a result of the evolution of WHITE PEOPLE in Europe. That is ULTIMATELY what they teach and what they promote ALL OVER THE WORLD.... Therefore, the TRUTH needs to be told in order to SHOCK people back into reality, because SOME PEOPLE LIKE LIVING IN FANTASY LAND.
Well it "IS THE TRUTH" we all know that, you're not here to educate some kindergaten kids, stop acting as if you've just dicovered a key to a mysterious riddle.
Most people don't think that europeans are the center of the universe since pre-memorial times, YOU do think that however (or atlest used to ) stop taking the rest of the world as fools, not everyone suffers from a severe case of inferiority complex as you do. I've noticed from your posts that you have a paternalistic attitude towards the none-western world, as if you know better and have the mission to teach them about "THE TRUTH". Just because they teached you at school Eurocentric history and issues(which is quite normal since you live in a western world afterall) doesn't mean that the rest of the world is taught this and pumped with this "european supremacy" since childhood. Quite to the contrary, most people around the world are taught that their people are the best and center of everything, despite how poor they might be. Why do you care where the evolution of the "white" people was, if they say their evolution was in antartica, who are you to feel offended by this?
If the chinese people prefer to have their evolution on the mountains of tibet rather than the lake region of Tanzania then so be it, you have no say on that issue it's the chinese wishes and preferences and should be respected. I think you need to travel more and leave this mental racial bondage you seem to be trapped in.
quote:The CORE of Eurocentrism is that ALL human development and MODERN behaviors is a result of the evolution of WHITE PEOPLE in Europe. That is ULTIMATELY what they teach and what they promote ALL OVER THE WORLD....
Is that what they teach you in United States? What a pitty, they don't promote this all over the world, i was taught that the first civilizations were from the banks of iraqi rivers and Egypt, and in china etc, not Europe. Infact swedes consider the swedish history as barbarian untill christianity arrived, even the Prime minister recently said " Only barbarism is genuinely Swedish. All further development has come from abroad." http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Fredrik_Reinfeldt
quote:Eurocentrism loves to promote human evolution as going from apes to white humans with NO BLACKS in between. It loves to display ancient humans from the dawn of time as being WHITE, even though WHITES DID NOT EXIST.
So? let that be, or you want to be inbetween the ape and the "white" man in the evolution stage?
quote:It LOVES portraying "cave men" as if they FIRST EXISTED IN EUROPE and were WHITE.
Since when did cavemen become so popular? I for sure don't want to claim them?
quote:Therefore, the TRUTH needs to be told in order to SHOCK people back into reality,
Have you ever thought about that people already know "THE TRUTH" or just don't give a damn about where the "whites" evolved or which continent the caveman used to roam in? I think you're taking these issues waaay to seriously or maybe paranoid as if someone is out there to get you " OH NO they put the caveman in europe, they are up to something, we NEED to FIGHT IT NOW, or this will mean our destruction" your fascination of europeans and obsession as it appears seems to be what drives you to get up every morning. I think you need to seak counseling, i'm serious. This might maybe help you to stop putting europeans on a high pedastal, not everyone is in a victim mode like you or concerned about european history, even though you conciously think you're telling "THE TRUTH", you're unconsciously revealing your admiration of "EUROPEANS" to such an extent that you feel threatend and terrified.
Posts: 1420 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Celt: Djhuti.....You pretend to think that surrounding people and cultures to the South of Egypt were the only ones to influence Egypt. You even seem to suggest that Egypt never influenced those people and cultures to the South in the least bit. Kind of like a one way street. People and ideas flowing into Egypt from the South but nothing coming out of Egypt to influence them. The links you have provided: is that supposed to be your proof of something?
Who said anything about "influence"? All of these threads point to the fact that Egypt was an African culture, not that they were "influenced" by African cultures. Also African cultures weren't just "to the south" as you speak. Many significant components to Egypt's culture such as mummification originated to their west, in the Western Desert to be exact and even to the easern desert. The fact of the matter is Egypt is in African and that it was African!
If I were to show you similarities between ancient Greek culture and other European cultures, would you attribute such similarities as being "influence" from Europe?
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Doug M: I say it FOR ONE REASON AND ONE REASON ONLY, because it IS THE TRUTH. TRUTH needs no justification. ONLY LIES need justification and MORE LIES to support itself. The CORE of Eurocentrism is that ALL human development and MODERN behaviors is a result of the evolution of WHITE PEOPLE in Europe. That is ULTIMATELY what they teach and what they promote ALL OVER THE WORLD.... Therefore, the TRUTH needs to be told in order to SHOCK people back into reality, because SOME PEOPLE LIKE LIVING IN FANTASY LAND.
Well it "IS THE TRUTH" we all know that, you're not here to educate some kindergaten kids, stop acting as if you've just dicovered a key to a mysterious riddle.
Most people don't think that europeans are the center of the universe since pre-memorial times, YOU do think that however (or atlest used to ) stop taking the rest of the world as fools, not everyone suffers from a severe case of inferiority complex as you do. I've noticed from your posts that you have a paternalistic attitude towards the none-western world, as if you know better and have the mission to teach them about "THE TRUTH". Just because they teached you at school Eurocentric history and issues(which is quite normal since you live in a western world afterall) doesn't mean that the rest of the world is taught this and pumped with this "european supremacy" since childhood. Quite to the contrary, most people around the world are taught that their people are the best and center of everything, despite how poor they might be. Why do you care where the evolution of the "white" people was, if they say their evolution was in antartica, who are you to feel offended by this?
If the chinese people prefer to have their evolution on the mountains of tibet rather than the lake region of Tanzania then so be it, you have no say on that issue it's the chinese wishes and preferences and should be respected. I think you need to travel more and leave this mental racial bondage you seem to be trapped in.
quote:The CORE of Eurocentrism is that ALL human development and MODERN behaviors is a result of the evolution of WHITE PEOPLE in Europe. That is ULTIMATELY what they teach and what they promote ALL OVER THE WORLD....
Is that what they teach you in United States? What a pitty, they don't promote this all over the world, i was taught that the first civilizations were from the banks of iraqi rivers and Egypt, and in china etc, not Europe. Infact swedes consider the swedish history as barbarian untill christianity arrived, even the Prime minister recently said " Only barbarism is genuinely Swedish. All further development has come from abroad." http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Fredrik_Reinfeldt
quote:Eurocentrism loves to promote human evolution as going from apes to white humans with NO BLACKS in between. It loves to display ancient humans from the dawn of time as being WHITE, even though WHITES DID NOT EXIST.
So? let that be, or you want to be inbetween the ape and the "white" man in the evolution stage?
quote:It LOVES portraying "cave men" as if they FIRST EXISTED IN EUROPE and were WHITE.
Since when did cavemen become so popular? I for sure don't want to claim them?
quote:Therefore, the TRUTH needs to be told in order to SHOCK people back into reality,
Have you ever thought about that people already know "THE TRUTH" or just don't give a damn about where the "whites" evolved or which continent the caveman used to roam in? I think you're taking these issues waaay to seriously or maybe paranoid as if someone is out there to get you " OH NO they put the caveman in europe, they are up to something, we NEED to FIGHT IT NOW, or this will mean our destruction" your fascination of europeans and obsession as it appears seems to be what drives you to get up every morning. I think you need to seak counseling, i'm serious. This might maybe help you to stop putting europeans on a high pedastal, not everyone is in a victim mode like you or concerned about european history, even though you conciously think you're telling "THE TRUTH", you're unconsciously revealing your admiration of "EUROPEANS" to such an extent that you feel threatend and terrified.
So, if you already KNOW THE TRUTH and agree that it IS THE TRUTH then what is the problem? I am certainly not suffering from an inferiority complex and stating THE TRUTH is what it is. Are you saying I am NOT supposed to TELL THE TRUTH? That is the point of this board is it not? So if everyone ALREADY KNOWS the truth and everyone KNOWS who they are, then why are we CONSTANTLY posting threads to EDUCATE PEOPLE TO THE TRUTH? Or do you think that this forum is just some opportunity for people to talk about what everyone already accepts and understands just for the sake of sounding good?
Of course I understand that everyone here is not ignorant of the truth, but some are and of course they need to be educated.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well now I feel bad that things have gotten a little emotional and I mean that with all sincerity. I just felt that a good healthy debate might bring some fresh insight into this issue since it seems that other people might have also been involved in fashioning AE from the start. Doug if you want you can have the forum back and I'll just sit idly by unless I have something to say or ask about on a non-racial issue. This isn't worth getting peoples blood pressure up over. I like a good healthy debate and this seems like an unhealthy debate for some. Posts: 197 | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sundiata: I think I've done my part though Celt, I'm going to now leave you to the sharks. Your lack of communication and evasive style of trolling stagnates any potential progress, so if you have any concerns as far as me personally, refer to my previous responses please. Good luck.
The only thing you've manage honestly is to give him a nice time of entertainment. The problem with some guys here is that you over react to simple issues way to often, almost as a venom spitting snake at guard waiting to attack everytime someone "eurocentric" pops up. Like a fleet of angry bulldozers chasing a little white mouse. Just check celts posts they are mostly only two liners based on subjective opinions, but the enormeous of replies he recieves are redicoulasly unproportional, like a whole Encyclopedia filled with emotions and stress. It's so damn easy for anyone to come here and raise the temperature with the real intent to just rile you up and laugh behind the monitor, to much of a defensive attitude only makes you look unconvincing to be honest. Sometimes ignoring is a much more powerfull tool, in particular with people such as celt who is not here to engage in any real discussion but more interested to just burn some time and pull some legs.
You're absolutely right in your observation. I actually came to that realization myself which is why I cut communications with the user. It is cyclic, and he's really not here to engage or learn anything like you say, so you're 100% correct. It is a complete and utter waste of time since his strategy is basically to mock, and I got sucked into the nonsense. Advice well taken.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am learning so much from you guys. Sundiate, Dough, Mark M, Kemson, Al etc. KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK. YOU GUYS ARE MAKING HISTORY. You are RIGHT Doug it is about telling the truth. Forget about Yonis and his fake post. I really appreciate what is being put forth here. Never knew about the forgeries or rework. Plus if you don’t see the pictures themselves then the angle chosen by the photographers may mislead people. As stated earlier, Hawass probably goes along with this to generate the tourist dollars and grants.
As I said many times Celts and Tyro etc should not be taken seriously. I seriously thinks he(celts) needs treatment. The tone of his writing tells me he is really immature or has some serious mental (psycho) issues. But he brings out the best in you guys. And the readers (newbies like me) learn a lot . Now it up to us(newbies) to take the facts, get the WHOLE story and come to a conclusion.
The only thing I will like to see, and will really improve the quality of the forum, (It is really high) is to have knowledgeable Eurocentric educators debate you guys, not the fulhs like Celts etc.
And to Yonis’s point – You may think people have an inferiority complex. But it is actions by these museums – showing apparent white Egyptians etc – is feeding a FALSE sense of superiority and that is an inferiority complex. To steal someone’s history and call it your own.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Celt: Well now I feel bad that things have gotten a little emotional and I mean that with all sincerity. I just felt that a good healthy debate might bring some fresh insight into this issue since it seems that other people might have also been involved in fashioning AE from the start. Doug if you want you can have the forum back and I'll just sit idly by unless I have something to say or ask about on a non-racial issue. This isn't worth getting peoples blood pressure up over. I like a good healthy debate and this seems like an unhealthy debate for some.
Dude, hit the road and don't let the doorknob hit you where the good lord split ya.
You never were interested in debate, because WHITE NORDIC EUROPEANS were NEVER indigenous to Egypt, NEVER built the pyramids and had NOTHING to do with the development of ancient Egyptian culture or civilization. Therefore there IS NO DEBATE because the stuff you believe in is PROVEN WRONG OVER AND OVER AND OVER, yet you stubbornly persist in believing that just saying the same WRONG information over and over is a debate. No, that is not a debate, it is called TROLLING.
So take a stroll troll and don't rush to come back.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I must agree with Celt again. Too much emotion is put forth into this argument! Why?! We have evidence and facts while Celt has non. Also, is the issue really that serious to some folks? Please don't tell me that some of you guys have been consumed with this issue to point where you end up like.. Kemson! LOLPosts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I figure if there's going to be alot of whining, whimpering,stomping of feet, screaming and crying until he gets his way, then it's time to put that crybaby to bed and let him go back to dreamland. Emotions can really be a deterent to good reasoning. And he's not the only on this board Djehuti.LOL
Posts: 197 | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
What Celt is doing is like taking a few “African” looking Greece or Roman images and say “See! the Romans/Greeks were black or at least mixed with blacks and here is the pictures to prove it” .. . buuuuut wait! . . .. the original Greek(Macedonian) were mixed black according to some studies.
It appears that most humans were black Africans or black African “type” in that part of the world up to about 1500bc. So my deduction tells me there were no Nordic white person until 4000bc. (Leucoderms appearing about 6000ya). It will take maybe another 2000yrs for they to have sizable numbers to make an impact. Another 1000yrs to learn, develop and be civil. Then first conquest and domination about 500ybc. But even they, were not completely Nordic ie the Greeks or Romans. So maybe another 1000yrs before the Spanish exploration. . . .but wait they were not Nordic either. Prior to that the Arabs ruled, they are not Nordic. So when were there Nordic domination?(scratch head) Maybe yet another 200yrs for the British. NOW YOU TALKING. First Nordic world domination about 1700s. So it took “Nordic” peoples about 5700yrs(oops!! edit from 4700yrs) to finally dominate and influence the world.
This is my take. Am I wrong???
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
Celt and others like him can play all these silly games all day. At the end of the day the only ones being emotional are those sympathetic to Eurocentrism who hate the idea of calling out racist lunatic homocidal psychopaths who fantasize of a white European nordic Egypt.
Celt is one of those people. He talks of "mixing" of "other" peoples and so forth but what he means is mostly white European looking Africans with a handful of "darkies" from the South. This nonsense needs to be confronted for what it is, which is racist propaganda in support of white supremacy. So stop the innocent "fact finding" charade you are playing, because you don't want the truth, you want lies and deception in order to reinforce and justify the absurd fantasies of the Eurocentrics.
The facts are simple and plain. Ancient Egypt was primarily derived from black Africans who had been developing and building the components of civilizations for thousands of years in Africa before a white European even existed on this planet. These people had already developed the thinking skills, communications skills and survival skills needed to have them survive for thousands of years on this planet. They also evolved the techniques that led to the birth of ancient Egyptian culture. Nothing came from Europe to develop this culture. Nobody came from Europe to give them this culture. No one came in the Egypt and gave them the technology they had. No one came from Europe and created a diverse society of white nordic types in Egypt.
The only emotionalism displayed is that of a someone spoiled by years of Eurocentric propaganda who has gotten used to being able to lie and steal other peoples history and culture without fear of being challenged.
The whole discussion in a nutshell is this:
The original Egyptians were primarily indegenous black African people born from completely from populations in Africa, who were not white European or Nordic looking people.
Now if you can calmly and without emotionalism provide some evidence to the contrary then you are free to do so. However, since you have none Celt, then consider your responses to be nothing more the emotionalist rants at the fact that you have nothing to add to the history of Egypt than rhetoric and childish behavior.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: It isn't emotional it is common sense.
Celt and others like him can play all these silly games all day.
As such, there is no need to take part in the game he plays and if so, certainly no need at all to be serious about it.
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
By the way, since Celt seems so fond of up bringing up "red-haired" mummies and claims whites can survive in the tropics, even tropical deserts, here is a little study from National Geographic:
There are many famous redheads in history, such as the bard William Shakespeare, Christopher Columbus and the Queen Elizabeth, and the more recent ones Peter Beattie, Nicole Kidman, Prince Harry and Michael Voss. But the future doesn’t look bright for the redheads according to the National Geographic article.
Red hair was created by a genetic mutation in northern Europe some thousands of years ago. The article reports that the gene had the beneficial effect of increasing the body’s ability to cope with sunlight; it helped make vitamin D from Sunlight. But now because of world wide interactions, the today’s carriers are more prone to skin cancer and are more sensitive to heat and cold related pain.
Because of smaller percentage of redheads present in the population, it has reduced the chances considerably for the redheads to get redhead partner, so their offspring may or may not be a redhead. The redhead can produce a baby from a single redhead parent; the chances become high when both the parents are redhead however.
Some experts warn redheads could be gone as early 2060, but others say the gene can be dormant in the reproductive system for generations before returning.
It is too early to predict redhead extinction, more research and analysis needs to be done if that is the case.
So the question is when and how did northern Europeans enter north Africa, specifically Egypt? How did they manage to survive the tropical desert environment to 'participate in creating Egyptian civilization'?
Or is this group of African desrt nordics a figment of the Eurocentric/white supremacist imagination?
I'd go with the latter. Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Celt: Djhuti.....You pretend to think that surrounding people and cultures to the South of Egypt were the only ones to influence Egypt. You even seem to suggest that Egypt never influenced those people and cultures to the South in the least bit. Kind of like a one way street. People and ideas flowing into Egypt from the South but nothing coming out of Egypt to influence them. The links you have provided: is that supposed to be your proof of something?
Just curious, professor. But what features do think entails "influence".
There are 3 main reasons as to why cultures share common traits or features. It is either because of as you say "influence", or common origin, or even simple coincidence.
If I were to show you similarities in say Celtic culture and Germanic, would you consider this as being due to influence, common origin, or coincidence?
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: By the way, since Celt seems so fond of up bringing up "red-haired" mummies and claims whites can survive in the tropics, even tropical deserts, here is a little study from National Geographic:
There are many famous redheads in history, such as the bard William Shakespeare, Christopher Columbus and the Queen Elizabeth, and the more recent ones Peter Beattie, Nicole Kidman, Prince Harry and Michael Voss. But the future doesn’t look bright for the redheads according to the National Geographic article.
Red hair was created by a genetic mutation in northern Europe some thousands of years ago. The article reports that the gene had the beneficial effect of increasing the body’s ability to cope with sunlight; it helped make vitamin D from Sunlight. But now because of world wide interactions, the today’s carriers are more prone to skin cancer and are more sensitive to heat and cold related pain.
Because of smaller percentage of redheads present in the population, it has reduced the chances considerably for the redheads to get redhead partner, so their offspring may or may not be a redhead. The redhead can produce a baby from a single redhead parent; the chances become high when both the parents are redhead however.
Some experts warn redheads could be gone as early 2060, but others say the gene can be dormant in the reproductive system for generations before returning.
It is too early to predict redhead extinction, more research and analysis needs to be done if that is the case.
So the question is when and how did northern Europeans enter north Africa, specifically Egypt? How did they manage to survive the tropical desert environment to 'participate in creating Egyptian civilization'?
Or is this group of African desrt nordics a figment of the Eurocentric/white supremacist imagination?
I'd go with the latter.
Since I myself am a natural redhead I reckon this should concern me. I wonder if there is anything I might be able to do that would make sure that me and my two redheaded daughters don't become extinct by as early as 2060? Posts: 197 | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ The reason why redheads are becoming extinct is that the gene for redhair is quite rare and not enough redheads or people who carry the gene are interbreeding enough.
Back to the main question though, if as you say nordic red-heads were in predynastic Egypt or had a hand in its development, how did they get there in Africa in the first place?
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ The reason why redheads are becoming extinct is that the gene for redhair is quite rare and not enough redheads or people who carry the gene are interbreeding enough.
Back to the main question though, if as you say nordic red-heads were in predynastic Egypt or had a hand in its development, how did they get there in Africa in the first place?
Djehuti....I wish not to debate this any further on this forum. But just one curious question: What makes you think they had to be Nordic? A good friend of mine has a wife that is a natural redhead and she is from Italy. She doesn't have any features that would readily assume that she is Nordic. In fact she looks to fit in very well with other Italians.
Posts: 197 | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Celt: Since I myself am a natural redhead I reckon this should concern me. I wonder if there is anything I might be able to do that would make sure that me and my two redheaded daughters don't become extinct by as early as 2060? [/QB]
Yeah. They should stay away from Egypt. Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
This is NOT designed to survive in desert tropical regions.
THIS IS DESIGNED TO LIVE IN DESERT TROPICAL REGIONS.
And I like the lady above, nice body , BUT don’t be an ignorant , delusional ARSE. People like that will not survive in the elements of AE Africa. End of story. She/they will be out of their element.
Here is one for you. Why even the Arabs (dark European or mixed afro-Euro) found mostly in coastal north Africa and not the interior of the Northern part of Africa???
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ The reason why redheads are becoming extinct is that the gene for redhair is quite rare and not enough redheads or people who carry the gene are interbreeding enough.
Back to the main question though, if as you say nordic red-heads were in predynastic Egypt or had a hand in its development, how did they get there in Africa in the first place?
Djehuti....I wish not to debate this any further on this forum. But just one curious question: What makes you think they had to be Nordic? A good friend of mine has a wife that is a natural redhead and she is from Italy. She doesn't have any features that would readily assume that she is Nordic. In fact she looks to fit in very well with other Italians.
There is no debate. What you are talking about is nonsense as usual. We already posted a scientific article that says redheads come from Northern Europe. Northern Europe IS NORDIC Europe, because NORDIC means NORTHERN. There WERE NO NORTHERN EUROPEANS in EGYPT or people that LOOKED LIKE Northern Europeans in Egypt. The people in Egypt were Nile Valley Africans who LOOKED LIKE Nile Valley Africans which means INDIGENOUS PEOPLE OF THE NILE. They were not NORDIC Europeans. Likewise, all hair color is made up of a combination of red, brown and black colors. It is just that SOME people, like those in NORTHERN EUROPE have a GREATER AMOUNT of red hair than people in other places. But that does not mean that all red hair genes originated in Europe, because it originated in Africa. Likewise, Africans have been dyeing their hair red for a VERY LONG TIME and this is not something new or unique.
But either way, there were no white European looking flaming redheads in ancient Egypt. And if there were they were a VERY RARE minority over ALL of Egypt's history and that is including MODERN DAY EGYPT.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Believe it or not I do agree somewhat with Doug on the ''getting the truth out'' simply because, relatedly, if Kemson's information on the pictures/statues are known forgeries then I can see no way to keep it from getting mishandled further other than shouting it from the rooftops. So to say it has something to do with an inferiority complex (Yonis) misses the mark quite a bit in my estimation.
Now Doug, or anyone here, what does this mean?
''The OLDEST SITES of ANY SORT OF HOMINID presence ON EARTH are ALONG THE NILE and TO THE SOUTH of Egypt. The OLDEST EVIDENCE OF ANY SORT of HUMAN ACTIVITY is IN AFRICA....''
then...
''Civilization did not start in WHITE EUROPE. It started FAR TO the south and west, in Africa, Mesopotamia and India.''
...in Mesopotamia and India?... in addition to Africa? At the same time? But I thought...
From the National Geographic article:
Red hair was created by a genetic mutation in northern Europe some thousands of years ago. The article reports that the gene had the beneficial effect of increasing the body’s ability to cope with sunlight; it helped make vitamin D from Sunlight. But now because of world wide interactions, the today’s carriers are more prone to skin cancer and are more sensitive to heat and cold related pain.
The beneficial effects of sunlight in producing vitamin D is duly noted here and elsewhere. However, some scientists have said lingering in the sun longer than 15 minutes a crack isn't a good idea. So presumably the northern Europeans stay inside most of the day, or at least some of the time, then dash outside to purchase the ''required'' amount of ''D'', since no sunlight at all will probably knock 'em off; caught between a rock and a hard place just to maintain an existence.
Now we all know Articles produced by National Geographic are dispensed by God himself so that gives it some credence supposedly. But after reading a post here, a post there, fair-skinned people are more prone to get skin cancer than the darker-skinned people in the tropics. So how, exactly, is it possible that redheads will suffer more than the blonde-haired, blue-eyed folks who, in some cases I'm sure, are more fair-skinned than the redheads, because they picked up a genetic mutation from thousands of years ago... and the pace is speeded up simply because of 'worldwide interaction', whatever this means.
The linked article also says in 100 years the redheads will be extinct. Two percent of the present population, which is roughly 6 billion people, is 120,000,000 redheads. One hundred divided by 120,000,000 is 1,200,000 deaths a year for the next 100 years.
Further, no blondes and brunettes are 'sensitve to heat and cold related pain'? What does this say for darker-skinned people who are sensitive to the same conditions?
xyyman, How can you be so sure of the weather in Ancient Egypt? I'm willing to bet, without even knowing it, that the weather then was similar to today which is 51 degrees fahrenheit in winter to 86 degrees in summer. It may get hotter when you move closer to Sudan which, in summer, can get well over a hundred; in winter it's in the 70s. Even the weather in the countries below those two don't represent a threat to white people.
Hasen't anyone ever seen the pictures of those folks in the extreme desert heat wearing clothes to protect them from the sun; the same as any other person on this planet will do? There is no need to mystify dark-skinned Africans somehow magically being able to sustain temperatures that other humans can't. To be sure some people ''acclimatize'' themselves to it but not to the degree their bodies will accept a huge increase in acceptance over the other human populations. Can't be done. We are constructed of the same materials. By the way, tell all those folks in kenya, Uganda, C.A.R. to get rid of the big AC when the temperatures in those countries hit 90, or better, just like here.
Ain't no mystery involved in this at all.
On your second picture below the blonde how can you determine what caused the wrinkles in the man's face? Would it be genetics instead of prolonged exposure to sun? If it is prolonged and life-long exposure to the sun then what does this say for some white people having the same look in non sub-Saharan countries? How about some Chinese, even Japaness, Koreans and many others with the same wrinkled skin and not living in those countries that the people are designed (your word, but nothing wrong with it I guess) to live in.
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Some experts warn redheads could be gone as early 2060, but others say the gene can be dormant in the reproductive system for generations before returning. [/QB]
This is where the article loses all credibility with me Grumman. LOL....Experts suggesting that redheads could be extinct within 53 years.LOLOLOL....Where do they grow these bananas? Who believes this kind of stuff? If redheads will be extinct in 53 years, then so will the human race.
Posts: 197 | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Grumman f6f: Believe it or not I do agree somewhat with Doug on the ''getting the truth out'' simply because, relatedly,
xyyman, How can you be so sure of the weather in Ancient Egypt? . . . . . .Can't be done. We are constructed of the same materials. By the way, tell all those folks in kenya, Uganda, C.A.R. to get rid of the big AC when the temperatures in those countries hit 90, or better, just like here.
You are asking several questions so let me try to answer one at a time. I am a physical science major not an anthropologist, linguist, archeologist, etc but I read. . . gather the facts and come to a conclusion with impartiality.
Here is what I figured out –
Wrinkled skin is not only an indication heat exposure but a natural phenomemnon of “old age”. White Europeans living in northern Europe also get wrinkled in old age.
Nordic features are designed (evolved) to live in cold temperate climates. That is why there is no blonde/redheads leucoderms naturally occurring in Egypt Sudan ie africa. Why do you think skin cancer is a big problem to Europeans, especially Nodics. Even in their own environment and with sun block it is a big problem here in the great USA.
Google on Egypt- The average annual temperature increases moving southward from the Delta to the Sudanese border, where temperatures are similar to those of the open deserts to the east and west. At Aswan, in the south, June temperatures can be as low as 10° C at night and as high as 41° C during the day when the sky is clear
If you don’t know 41° C is HOOOOOOOT! and uncomfortable even for us. Celts, the redhead , should trying spending a year there exposed to the elements without A/C.
BTW I believe the protective clothing is more for the sand not the sun.
A/C is a modern convenience and I see no problem with the bros. And sistas using it . Don’t get your point. I am not a blk chauvinist. I acknowledge that Leucoderms has made significants contributions to humanity in the last 300yrs. And I will use all of their inventions.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Didn't get your point on - If redheads will be extinct in 53 years, then so will the human race.
Are you saying somehow red-heads ARE humanity or the humanity cannot do without reheads?
If that is the case that confirms my point you are a NUT job.
No one race/ethny cannot do without another. .
quote:Originally posted by Celt:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Some experts warn redheads could be gone as early 2060, but others say the gene can be dormant in the reproductive system for generations before returning.
This is where the article loses all credibility with me Grumman. LOL....Experts suggesting that redheads could be extinct within 53 years.LOLOLOL....Where do they grow these bananas? Who believes this kind of stuff? If redheads will be extinct in 53 years, then so will the human race. [/QB]
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
xyyman...I just can't keep hush on this. There have been plenty of fair-skinned individuals spending years in the desert sun doing digs all over North Africa and the ME. They're still doing it today.
Posts: 197 | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Didn't get your point on - If redheads will be extinct in 53 years, then so will the human race.
Are you saying somehow red-heads ARE humanity or the humanity cannot do without reheads?
If that is the case that confirms my point you are a NUT job.
No one race/ethny cannot do without another. .
quote:Originally posted by Celt:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Some experts warn redheads could be gone as early 2060, but others say the gene can be dormant in the reproductive system for generations before returning.
This is where the article loses all credibility with me Grumman. LOL....Experts suggesting that redheads could be extinct within 53 years.LOLOLOL....Where do they grow these bananas? Who believes this kind of stuff? If redheads will be extinct in 53 years, then so will the human race.
[/QB]
Anyone that believes that redheads could be extinct in 53 years is a nutjob. Especially the so-called experts claiming such. Sorry you didn't get the point. Posts: 197 | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
TOLD YOU YOU ARE ARE A NUT JOB. Entire "races" have become extinct in the last couple of hundred years. Various aboriginal groups are good examples. I have no opinion on the issue but what makes you think that this could not happen with the red heads as decribed by the article. Redhead a few and far in between. Celts, get the XXXX outa here!!! Take you meds bro.
quote:Originally posted by Celt:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Didn't get your point on - If redheads will be extinct in 53 years, then so will the human race.
Are you saying somehow red-heads ARE humanity or the humanity cannot do without reheads?
If that is the case that confirms my point you are a NUT job.
No one race/ethny cannot do without another. .
quote:Originally posted by Celt:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Some experts warn redheads could be gone as early 2060, but others say the gene can be dormant in the reproductive system for generations before returning.
This is where the article loses all credibility with me Grumman. LOL....Experts suggesting that redheads could be extinct within 53 years.LOLOLOL....Where do they grow these bananas? Who believes this kind of stuff? If redheads will be extinct in 53 years, then so will the human race.
Anyone that believes that redheads could be extinct in 53 years is a nutjob. Especially the so-called experts claiming such. Sorry you didn't get the point. [/QB]
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Still don't get it . eh . .Celts!!! Humans have living in space and been to the moon.
Go figure out what I am saying .
quote:Originally posted by Celt: xyyman...I just can't keep hush on this. There have been plenty of fair-skinned individuals spending years in the desert sun doing digs all over North Africa and the ME. They're still doing it today.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
Topic Closed
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic