posted
__At least you have finally come out and said it, but this is not a forum for the grand standing for the pan African Diaspora, agenda, it is, I thought, a forum for the discussion of Ancient Egypt.
To Ozzy/Horemhab,
You are not going to get off that easily. Here's an appropiate message from C.A. Diop (Civilization or Barbarism: An Authentic Anthropology): "(We elevated)...the idea of a Black Egypt to the level of an operational scientific concept. For all the writers who preceded the ludicrous and vicious falsifications of modern Egyptology, and the contemporaries of the ancient Egyptians (Herodotus, Aristotle, Diodorus, Strabo, and others), the Black identity of the Egyptian was an evident fact that stood before their eyes, so obvious that it would have been superfluous to try to demonstrate it.
Around the 1820's, just before the birth of Egyptology, the French scholar Count Constantine de Volney, a universal and objective spirit, if ever there were one, tried to refresh the memory of humanity, who, because of the recent enslavement of Blacks, had forgotten the past of this people.
Since then, the line of ill-intentioned Egyptologists, equipped with ferocious erudition, have committed their well-known crime against science, by becoming guilty of a deliberate falsification of the history of humanity. Supported by the governing powers of all the Western countries, this ideology, based on a moral and intellectual swindle...was spread with the help of considerable publicity and taught the world over, because it alone had the material and financial means for its own propagation. Thus imperialism, like the prehistoric hunter, first killed the being spiritually and culturally, before trying to eliminate it physically. The negation of the history and intellectual accomplishments of Black Africans was cultural, mental murder, which preceded and paved the way for their genocide here and there in the world...For us, the return to Egypt in all domains is the necessary condition for reconciling African civilizations with history, in order to be able to construct a body of modern human sciences, in order to renovate African culture. Far from being a reveling in the past, a look toward the Egypt of antiquity is the best way to conceive and build our cultural future. In reconceived and renewed African culture, Egypt will play the same role that Greco-Latin antiquity plays in Western culture."
quote:Originally posted by Horemheb: Wally, Your post has everything to do with black racial politics and nothing to do with history. "Blacks in disporia" what kind of nonsense is that?
Horemheb, If you honestly seek the truth you have to fully examined both sides of the story....Read books on egypt prior to 1800s and see what they say...Read the works of the "afrocentric" as you put it, and compare it to "eurocentric" view....Look at what sceintific studies have been done, where they have been done, the sample they used and where the samples came from, the time period from where they came and the ruling class of AE at that particular time....Look at the variation of negroes/blacks throughout africa.... and the limited variation of europeans....Look at how what it is to be black has been squashed into a very small and narrow definition and changed while the definition of being white have spread/widened to include many even people with brown skin and kinky hair (ethiopians- whom I think the AE most likely resembles very much)....make a list for the congruency and contradictions of each side. Which side has the stronger argument. Take these issues in a court of law without or with little biases and see what you or one will come up with.
posted
Egypt is country in ne. Africa. Africa doesnt have black people, it simply has Africans. Black peole only applies to olive toned American ex-slaves. This is why Europeans wont except black people as a part of egyptian history. Untill black people neagate this term they are limited to slavery and degredation. There is no black flag represented any where but on a can of roacn killer. And according to science in this day and time black means death. So we must not allow this word to define us anymore .
------------------
Posts: 6 | From: albany, ny | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Check out the 'Faces of the Pharoahs'site. This site looks at the faces as they would look with modern reconstruction techniques. None of them are negroid. What you see today in upper Egypt are Nubians who have moved up river over the centuries. Kem...the picture you posted of the Ehyptian military is interesting. Those are actually Nubian troops. I have that same picture as well as an identical view of AE troops.
Posts: 5822 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Horemheb: Check out the 'Faces of the Pharoahs'site. This site looks at the faces as they would look with modern reconstruction techniques. None of them are negroid. What you see today in upper Egypt are Nubians who have moved up river over the centuries. Kem...the picture you posted of the Ehyptian military is interesting. Those are actually Nubian troops. I have that same picture as well as an identical view of AE troops.
The 'Faces of the Pharoahs' site are hand drawn renditions. They are some modern artists view of what AE looked like, not an AE view of what an AE looked like. And the image I posted was of AE troops, not Nubian. You are correct that there is a collection of Nubian troops. They look similar to the AE troops, but the Nubians are considerably darker. I have not seen the image on the web, but I have in a book. I will post it later.
The AE soldiers in the link I posted look exactly like other depictions of AE in everyday life. Check these out for now. There are countless examples of AE depicted this way. They are all over the web, in local museums, books etc. I'll post more if you wish.
[This message has been edited by Kem-Au (edited 30 January 2004).]
posted
''Check out the 'Faces of the Pharoahs'site. This site looks at the faces as they would look with modern reconstruction techniques. None of them are negroid. What you see today in upper Egypt are Nubians who have moved up river over the centuries. ''
That is incorrect because the negriod Upper Egyptians you see today have been this way since the pre-dyanstic times. I have pointed this out to you countles of times but you refuse to aknowleadge it. I also showed the earliest Upper Egyptians,the Badarian,were negriod.
I also pointed out to you that in X-raying of the Pharoahs Kent R Weeks and Edward Wente and James Harris suggest a Nubian origin of the 16th through 18th dyansties. Donald Redford even suggests that the 18th dyansty could have been Nubian.
There are only 65,000 Nubians in Upper Egypt consentrated around Aswan so there is no reason to write off dark skinned Upper Egyptians as being Nubians. To do so is to deny their existence since Pre-dyanstic times.
Nubians refuse to mix with Upper Egyptians in modern times.
Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is fun! The stretch of this forum topic really cracks me up! Everyone so busy stating THEIR opinion on who the Ancient Egyptians were, while casually, or not so casually, ignoring what the Ancient Egyptians THEMSELVES said they were! It is truly amazing indeed. It's more like a religious argument rather than a scientific one. I guess if one were to take the Egyptians at their own words, then one would be spoiled of the fun of showing selected images to support their beliefs, or arguing over mummies and such, or the ultimate arrogant-ignorant "I-THINK that the Egyptians were..." The Ancient Egyptian 'murals of the races,' official, state sponsored documents, tells us UNEQUIVOCALLY, PRECISELY just who the Ancient Egyptians said they were as a nation. You would think that nothing else need be said on that issue. However, those who wish to believe otherwise, skirt around this reality, and continue their babble...and all Ancient Egyptian records on their ethnic identity, countless of them, are routinely ignored. I mean, what do they know? Even the ethnic reality of modern Egypt is brushed aside as irrelevent! It's a total crack-up. Posts: 3344 | From: Berkeley | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Don't think Dr Hawass agrees with your negroid-AE theory. What some are trying to do here is make a case and then find things to back it up with. Nubians...yes, the great northeastern African culture.
Posts: 5822 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Don't think Dr Hawass agrees with your negroid-AE theory. What some are trying to do here is make a case and then find things to back it up with. Nubians...yes, the great northeastern African culture.
Posts: 5822 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dr. Hawass is not an anthropologist so his comments mean nothing reguards to racial affinities of the ancient Egyptians. Early anthropologist have never denied the negriod strain in Upper Egypt.
Frank Yurco agrees that the ancient Egyptian population was diverse from dark brown Southern Upper Egyptians to lighter Northern Lower Egyptians.
Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Horemheb: Kem...the picture you posted of the Ehyptian military is interesting. Those are actually Nubian troops. I have that same picture as well as an identical view of AE troops.
I've updated the other post to included the image of the Nubian bowmen also. Note these people we now call Nubian were most likely actually Egyptians all along. For more info you can check Moustafa Gadalla's Exiled Egyptians. Dr. Alsaadawis and Ausar have also posted a great deal of info on this forum. Please read it if you get a chance.
posted
Wally, there is more than one conversation going on in this thread and I don’t hold it against you for not being able to follow.
But please do not get confused, I am not! having the same conversation as Heremhab, and Kem, in fact my opinon is more than 80% in favor of Kems argument, I have never argued the point that Egypt was not an “African” civilization, nor that there was an eliment of “Black” in the population, and if you had actually read my posts you would have known that. So if you wish to address me then do so and respond to what I have directed at you.
What cracks me up is again you have responded with more cut and pasts without addressing anything.
And in regards to your statement
“I guess if one were to take the Egyptians at their own words, then one would be spoiled of the fun of showing selected images to support their beliefs, or arguing over mummies and such, or the ultimate arrogant-ignorant "I-THINK that the Egyptians were...",
I will echo Kems statement,
“Isn't this the whole priniciple behind an academic debate?”
Have a look at your prime piece of evidence, The so called Murial of Races”
Yours does not even correspond with one of your favorite quotables “Diop” whos naming of the figures is different than yours. Difference in opinion? Ohhh thought there was no room for difference in Opinion when it came this subject.
The depiction is not even an original, but a reproduction, which most here actually know.
“Those figures in the Lepsius Erganzungsband, pl. 48 are actually not Lepsius' work, but a re-edition done in 1913, as I showed in my article in Egypt in Africa (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1997). To make matters worse, the hieroglyph texts between these figures were garbled. The original scenes both in Sety I's tomb and in Ramesses III's tomb showed the Egyptians and the Kushites as distinctly different. Also, the hieroglyphs on the real walls are distributed between each of the four figures depicting each type. You can now view the real photographs of both the Sety I and Ramesses III walls in Hornung's volumes on the Valley of the Kings. I have been inside both tombs myself and have seen these scenes and their texts, and on the basis of this, the depiction in the Erganzungsband is not a real depiction of what is on the walls but rather a pastische, arranged from Lepsius' notes and garbled in the process. It is unfortunate that so many people have depended on this depiction as reality, when a look at the walls in both tombs shows that patently it is not reality.
Most sincerely,
Frank J. Yurco University of Chicago
Cracks me up!
[This message has been edited by Ozzy (edited 30 January 2004).]
Posts: 448 | From: Australian living in Spain | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Horemheb: Don't think Dr Hawass agrees with your negroid-AE theory. What some are trying to do here is make a case and then find things to back it up with. Nubians...yes, the great northeastern African culture.
The ancient Egyptians themselves through their artwork and fashions show that they had a close affinity with Saharan and sub-Saharan Africans culturally and physically to varying degrees.
From the work of authors like Herodotus and even the Holy Bible, we see that other cultures also percieved a close affinity between Egyptians and other African peoples, mainly their neighbors to the South, Nubians.
I've been trying to avoid these kinds of threads but I think anyone who looks at ancient Egyptian artwork objectively can see these affinties as clear as the writing on the temple walls.
I'm not sure why Hawass downplays this relationship but he definately isn't being unbiased. Conceding that ancient Egypt was an African culture doesn't mean you must concede that all ancient Egyptians were black Africans.
quote:Originally posted by Ozzy: Kem, in fact my opinon is more than 80% in favor of Kems argument [This message has been edited by Ozzy (edited 30 January 2004).]
Ozzy, please don't take my posts the wrong way. There is no malice intended. I am aware of your stance from your past posts. I'll be the first to admit that some disturbing posts make it to this board, but I usually just ignore them. The reason I initially responded to Horemheb's post was mainly because of American Indian comment. There are few, if any American Indians here to defend themselves, so I felt the need to make sure that if a statement is made about them, it's at least justified.
Same to you Neb. You expressed concern about insults and things and you're right to be concerned. But remember my goal is never to insult. Perhaps to get someone to re-think, but not insult. At the end of the day I think we're all just trying to get better in out understanding and we'll need dialog to get there.
The Ancient Egyptian 'murals of the races,' official, state sponsored documents, tells us UNEQUIVOCALLY, PRECISELY just who the Ancient Egyptians said they were as a nation. You would think that nothing else need be said on that issue. However, those who wish to believe otherwise, skirt around this reality, and continue their babble..."
The following is an excellent example of this phenomenon:
"Have a look at your prime piece of evidence, The so called Murial of Races” http://www.geocities.com/wally_mo/ Yours does not even correspond with one of your favorite quotables “Diop” whose naming of the figures is different than yours. Difference in opinion? Ohhh thought there was no room for difference in Opinion when it came this subject. The depiction is not even an original, but a reproduction, which most here actually know."
My response:
The mural, whether the original, a reproduction, or merely phosphorus on a computer screen, is indeed prime evidence. It needs no more elaboration than what is presented on my website.
The Egyptians did not speak of an "element" of Blacks in their country, as though they were some allowed ethnic minority. They spoke thusly: Egyptians called themselves Kmem.u (EHD 787b) and the word means Black people. It STILL means Black people in the modern Egyptian language (Kmemou). Now, unless you wish to debate the Egyptians on this, case closed...
quote:Same to you Neb. You expressed concern about insults and things and you're right to be concerned. But remember my goal is never to insult. Perhaps to get someone to re-think, but not insult. At the end of the day I think we're all just trying to get better in out understanding and we'll need dialog to get there.
Kem, Please understand, my post was not specifically directed at you, or anyone else in particular, but rather to the group. I completely understand why those who post some very important research and facts here regarding race do so. Your passion on the subject is apparant in your posts. However, when one fails to convince the other of that his view is truth it starts to become ugly. It is this ugliness that my original post was addressing. This is not to say that one should not continue their quest to enlighten others to what they feel to be truth, but to perhaps realize that when after 65 posts the arguing continues and each side is no closer to coming to an agreement than the very first post it might be time to extend your hands in peace and just respectfully disagree..............but who the hell am I, and what the hell do I know anyways!
posted
Wally, unless you can understand what is being directed at you, there is not much point debating anything with you.
I will simply try to make my words a little simpler so as to be understood .
To claim that the subject is not debatable, quoting experts such as Diop to support your argument, and at the same time being at odds with the very same expert regarding one of you prime evidance, makes your comment very week to say the least.
In other words if your translations of the Mural of races is different than that of Diop, is there not a difference of opinion? And does that not make the whole mural open to debate, and if the mural is open for debate the subject for certain is.
And lastly if you do not agree with Diop are you not "showing selected images to support your beliefs?"
phenomenon? LOL
Posts: 448 | From: Australian living in Spain | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ozzy: Wally, unless you can understand what is being directed at you, there is not much point debating anything with you.
I will simply try to make my words a little simpler so as to be understood .
To claim that the subject is not debatable, quoting experts such as Diop to support your argument, and at the same time being at odds with the very same expert regarding one of you prime evidance, makes your comment very week to say the least.
In other words if your translations of the Mural of races is different than that of Diop, is there not a difference of opinion? And does that not make the whole mural open to debate, and if the mural is open for debate the subject for certain is.
And lastly if you do not agree with Diop are you not "showing selected images to support your beliefs?"
phenomenon? LOL
You deliberately try to evade the point (i.e., the Egyptians' own self-identification) by atempting to divert the issue to what you suppose is a difference of opinion between mine and Diop's interpretation of the mural. (You know, keep the Egyptians out of the equation). So, I'll indulge you: Labler 1Black 1non-Black 2Black 2Black Diop Egyptian European Blacks Semite Wally Egyptian Semite Africans European Egypt Ret Namu Nahasu Tamhu Trans Men Nomads Strangers Red people
Diop did not translate the text on the mural, his main emphasis was to show that the Egyptians were Black Africans. The fact that I translated the Egyptian labels next to each figure merely allowed me to distinguish the Semitic Namu from the European Tamhu. The difference is in the detail, not in the principle. The essential point is that the Egyptians described themselves as a Black people--Kmem.u Play with that one...
I have avoided debating issues with you in the past because I didn't see a compelling reason. But as I read one of your statements, I couldn't help but think that it was directed at me. Since you seem willing to indulge people I must ask you this question. Here's what you said:
quote:Originally posted by Wally: [QUOTE]then one would be spoiled of the fun of showing selected images to support their beliefs
You seem to be putting a negative spin on this, though it could just be me. But how is this any different from what you have done on your website, or what Diop has done in the Afrian Origin of Civ?
[This message has been edited by Kem-Au (edited 02 February 2004).]
posted
Nice pictures. Shows the diversity of Egyptians. I can also tell that lots of mixing has been going on with Berber[Amazigh] people around the Oasis areas of Egypt. More great pictures of the Egyptian Oasis http://www.haberlah.com/galleries/siwa/index.htm __Notice the Amazigh child with reddish
Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Example of disinformation....every specialist knows that Queen Tiye's father was an Asian. That is clear from his mummy and agreed upon by every creditable specialist. Even so, Africanist like Wally will contend the Queen was black. At some point we have to inject reason into the debate. The 'Elder Lady' believed by me and many others to be the queen has red/blonde hair. Even if she is not the queen most would agree she is an Armarna female. Great work is being done in Nubia. We are finding in Nubia a great African civilization. That is where people like Wally can gain their fullfillment, not in a med civilization like AE. The more we find in Nubia the more substantial it looks.
Posts: 5822 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Horemheb,hair is bleched reddish blode by the embalming materials. Queen Tiye's mother came from Luxor which means she was a dark brown Egyptian. You can's tell somebody's racial affinitied by mummies. You cannot tell texture of hair unless you examine it under the miscroscope.
I will repeat again !!!!!!!! Egyptians were not mono-racial people!!!!!!!! You have light complexed Egyptians in the north,and more black Egyptians in the south. Get over it !!!!!
Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Horemheb,hair is bleched reddish blode by the embalming materials. Queen Tiye's mother came from Luxor which means she was a dark brown Egyptian. You can's tell somebody's racial affinitied by mummies. You cannot tell texture of hair unless you examine it under the miscroscope.
I will repeat again !!!!!!!! Egyptians were not mono-racial people!!!!!!!! You have light complexed Egyptians in the north,and more black Egyptians in the south. Get over it !!!!!
Egypt was not a Med civlization. Egyptians were Egyptians!!! Egyptian were multi-ethic with affinities with Africa.
Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not to compound the situation, but Africans frequently died their hair, especially red. This practice is still done in Africa.
Posts: 1038 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Modern and ancient Egyptians dyed their hair with henna. This is fairly popular from Somalia to Saudi Arabia.
Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
Keino
unregistered
posted
Many of us might not agree with the blunt method that wally is using to make his point, but he has a very important point none the less. Egyptians Left sufficient proof that they considered themselves a black people even though they had the minority of the people who was more "mixed" with non black than the majority of the population. It doesn't matter what we call them now, they considered themself a black people yet NATIONALLY distinct from other africans! How would we describe present day English people compared to historical times? Do you think an english person would describe themself as a people? Mixed because of the minority of black and asian that presently live there? So it is obvious that AE knew who they were and as a people. During anceint time the majority of the population resided in the south and were the ones who were most "negroid" in appearance while the north had variants of other phenotypes. Obviously if they described themself as a black people then that must have mean that those people were the people in power and who made up the majority of the people. Its that simple!!
quote:Originally posted by Horemheb: Example of disinformation....every specialist knows that Queen Tiye's father was an Asian. That is clear from his mummy and agreed upon by every creditable specialist. Even so, Africanist like Wally will contend the Queen was black. At some point we have to inject reason into the debate. The 'Elder Lady' believed by me and many others to be the queen has red/blonde hair. Even if she is not the queen most would agree she is an Armarna female. .
Horemheb, Yuya was possibly Persian but, as far as we know, Thuya was 100% Egyptian. Despite, their children's mixed ethnicities, Queen Tiye and Ay look phenotypically African as most Upper Egyptians do.
quote:Originally posted by Horemheb: Example of disinformation....every specialist knows that Queen Tiye's father was an Asian. That is clear from his mummy and agreed upon by every creditable specialist. Even so, Africanist like Wally will contend the Queen was black. At some point we have to inject reason into the debate. The 'Elder Lady' believed by me and many others to be the queen has red/blonde hair. Even if she is not the queen most would agree she is an Armarna female. Great work is being done in Nubia. We are finding in Nubia a great African civilization. That is where people like Wally can gain their fullfillment, not in a med civilization like AE. The more we find in Nubia the more substantial it looks.
I am not an "Africanist" but I am African. And nobody, not anybody can tell me which part of Africa, of my heritage, is mine and which is not. Nobody says to me in effect "I'm taking Egypt from you, so you be content with Nubia!" That kind of show closes out of town...
posted
Keino wrote: "Many of us might not agree with the blunt method that wally is using to make his point, but he has a very important point none the less. Egyptians Left sufficient proof that they considered themselves a black people even though they had the minority of the people who was more "mixed" with non black than the majority of the population. It doesn't matter what we call them now, they considered themself a black people yet NATIONALLY distinct from other Africans!"
Kudos to Keino!!! Finally, at last, someone actually gets it! The reason that I created a website in the first place and also engaged this topic was because I felt that THE ANCIENT EGYPTIANS NEEDED A FORUM TO SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES! For reasons I have previously stated, everyone had been conditioned to speak for the Ancient Egyptians as if they had nothing to say on the subject. Under these conditions anyone can postulate whatever they choose about the origins and identity of the Egyptians. So keep them out of the loop and one can, like debating the existence of God, debate (obscure) this deep into infinity. Under these circumstances, one does not finesse the truth out, one must be blunt and emphatic- THE ANCIENT EGYPTIANS ARE THE PRIMARY SOURCE REGARDING THEIR ORIGINS AND THEIR IDENTITY AS A PEOPLE AND AS A NATION (PERIOD)
posted
Wally...Just what is your heritage? I asume it is in Africa somewhere.....Egypt, Sudan, Morrocco, Kenya.? None of these would be the same heritage and just how long ago are you connected to Africa. If it is past the time of your grandparents then it is worthless and you would have little if any connection to Africa. I have German genes but I have nothing in common with any German tolday living in Europe. American blacks have zero connection to anyplace in Africa. Many of them have been here for 400 years and have nothing in common with someone in Angola. Its just emptional poppy cock.
Posts: 5822 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
THE ANCIENT EGYPTIANS ARE THE PRIMARY SOURCE REGARDING THEIR ORIGINS AND THEIR IDENTITY AS A PEOPLE AND AS A NATION (PERIOD) Posts: 3344 | From: Berkeley | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Keino
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Horemheb: Wally...Just what is your heritage? I asume it is in Africa somewhere.....Egypt, Sudan, Morrocco, Kenya.? None of these would be the same heritage and just how long ago are you connected to Africa. If it is past the time of your grandparents then it is worthless and you would have little if any connection to Africa. I have German genes but I have nothing in common with any German tolday living in Europe. American blacks have zero connection to anyplace in Africa. Many of them have been here for 400 years and have nothing in common with someone in Angola. Its just emptional poppy cock.
Horemheb you seem to have a complex and its seems your purpose to disconnect everyone from africa. You said earlier, "african american don't even look african anymore," what kinda monsense is that? Don't even try this nonsense that you don't keep track of your heritage....ask the majority of white american and they can tell you exactly where their lineage came from.... "American blacks have zero connection with anyplace in africa." What kinda pitiful statement is that? You're a big joke, really! I guess if they test the genes of the african american populace and realize that we have more they have more in common with english europeans then that would make them non black just as you view the egyptians hey? Is it just your plan to argue and divide. To be honest it just seems like you have a deep seated hatred for african americans.
[This message has been edited by Keino (edited 02 February 2004).]
quote:Originally posted by Horemheb: I have German genes but I have nothing in common with any German tolday living in Europe. American blacks have zero connection to anyplace in Africa. Many of them have been here for 400 years and have nothing in common with someone in Angola. Its just emptional poppy cock.
Come on Horemheb, We can see thru you. You may not claim to have connection to Germany. I bet you claim Greece and Rome as ancient European people.
Wally and many others here claim AE as a black African society. AUSAR and others have point out data and links to you. You have not proven the links and data wrong.
Cut it out. Please discuss in a constuctive manner.
posted
Kenio...i wondered when someone would rip out the old race card. First of all American blacks do not look like African blacks. Huxley, 'Roots' noted that American blacks have a high prercentage of both white and , to a lesser extent, Indian bllod. These people have been here for a long, long time. Secondly, most white American have so many different backgrounds running through their genes that they would have a difficult time identifying with any one culture. My granddaughter is half Mexican, part german, Irish , Italian and Dutch. Just what cultural homeland is she supposed to tag on to? My ex wife is half Italian and half Irish, what about her? This stuff is all nonsense from the standpoint of an American and the melting pot we live in. I provided at least six studies showing AE as a Med. culture and it is a majority oponion among Egyptologist. I never said there was no Nubian influence in southern Egypt. Using your point of view American Indians need to Identify with their Mongolian homeland at the end of the last Ice Age. You can get carried away with that type of thing and after a few generations it has no PRACTICAL impact. I do think some people had their racism behind it.
Posts: 5822 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Horemheb, The Greeks and the Romans were not German, Irish, French, white American and many others. So, why do white people claim ancient Greece and Rome?
Enough of this nonsense. ASUAR have already answered your post. Black Amerians are connected to Africa the same way white Americans are connected Europe.
You may not claim your German connection by saying you are German, but you don't deny it. I bet you also claim Greece and Rome as ancient white civilizations, even though you are of German blood and the Germans had nothing to do with Rome or Greece.
quote:Originally posted by Wally: [QUOTE] Diop did not translate the text on the mural, his main emphasis was to show that the Egyptians were Black Africans.
Exactly, and that my fiend is also your agenda, so dont tell me that there is no debate. If you have strong feelings about it then debate it, dont preach it!, If you wish for people to listen then show them dont slap them in the face.
I believe civilisation started on the Nile, I beleive that Egypt was founded by African people. I dont care what color they happend to be at the time. Although I would not try to argue that they would have had black skin.
So in essence I believe much of what you do. You however place every WHITE in the same racist box as you do every BLACK You have created for them, and that my friend is my problem with you aproach.
But I expect your reesponce is that you care not what my opinion is as a WHITE man as it has nothing to do with me.
The funny thing is, I have BLACK in my family and I have relitaves who are blacker than most Americans today. I have some distant reltions who can claim no mixed blood in history of 60,000 years, and you try to make me out as just another white man trying to steel the black mans connection to Africca and Egypt.
Groow up and teach if you have something to teach, dont preach!
Posts: 448 | From: Australian living in Spain | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
We must be very careful not to classify people. No one can say with any certainty what someone else's heritage is. I can trace my paternal line all the way back to Africa. In fact I have a picture of the son of the slave (my great, great, great, grandfather) who came off of the boat from Africa. There are people in my family who look like him today, so it is not accurate to say that African Americans no longer look like Africans.
Also, remember that Africa is really big, and the population diverse. The people vary greatly in appearance and many are indistinguishable from most African Americans, though African Americans vary greatly in appearance also. Take a group a African Americans to Egypt today and watch how many times they get mistaken for native Egyptians.
But! Without going into detail, I have a belief that there were back migrations, from what is now called India and possibly other places when the last Ice age forced african migrations 30,000 years before back from there new homelands, some making it back to the Nile, I feel then there was a number of large groups of African populations from Ethiopia to the Upper Nile who were the early Egyptians, they were contepary with the then migrants from the back migration who settled in the lower Nile and evetuly moved accross he Noerthern coast of Africa, mixing with smaller local populations..
Thats why I feel that the two crowns were representitve from pre historic times of two kingdoms. So although I do believe Civilisation stared on the Nile and that color of the skin was and had to be Black, I differ in that I think that their was more than one origin and that Egypt as such did not totaly spring from the Upper nile.
I think the two were contempary and the Upper Nile was the stronger who eventualy under unification combined the two.
I know you feel the Upper Nile was the origin, and that over time the influence from the lower nile and from Asia minor mixed with the population. or that is what I have got from reading your posts. I feel the contact happend much earlier. Not because I wish (As people like Wally would like to believe) for another people to be involved in the creation of Egypt, but that is what my reasearch suggests, and makes scence to me.
I also believe that Nubia had a distinct cultue and indipendetly developed there civilisation as many other African cultures developed indipendantly elswere, but was influenced by Egypt being the (As discused in this post) the dominant culture of the time, for thousands of years in fact. Ending with it influence on Atica. ( Greece).
I dont have data to back all of my feelings and beliefs so I do not always express them. I more often refrain from comment unless I feel i have a total grasp and proof of my conviction. i do not have this in regards to my total view of how and were human civilisation began. But according to wally I have no right to my opinion. This is what frustrates me with these sort of views.
If you are not totaly for him (Blacks) then you are against him. With my family tree mate I dont give a **** what color anyone is, I just like history and communication.
The two extreems tyre me!
Posts: 448 | From: Australian living in Spain | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
During the one year history of this board NO ONE who feels like HOREMHEB has ever had their mind changed about the people and Culture of Ancient Egypt by any opinion or evidence presented here on this board. I don't think history is going to be made here with HOREMHEB.
He is playing with you!
He is from the Breasted school of Egyptology and that is just fine, lets respect his opinion. He does not respond to the evidence posted by Ausar and Kem he just continues to say that AE were southern european and that it was a Med Civilization regardless of the evidence to the contrary, it's his view lets leave him with it.
Most people who have an interst in Egyptology DO NOT believe it was an african culture and DO NOT think they were Black, we all know this is the way it has been for a long time. Horemheb is part of the majority view.
Ever see the old Jack Hawkins movie LAND OF THE PHAROAHS!! Thats his view and thats ok, it was also MY VIEW until I was about 20 yrs old. The first time someone told me ancient egypt was an african culture and that a significant part of the ancient Pop would be considered Black was a comical scene My response? I laughed in his face, what the hell was he talking about Ancient Egyptians were arabs as far as I knew this idiot didn't know what he was talking about. Of course after seeing and reading a lot of evidence my opinion changed
As I have said before There is a common view of african people and culture in this world and that view is very rarely linked to ancient KMT. The old view Breasted and other egyptologists held is commonplace among most interested people unless they actually pursue the issue seriously with an open mind to the truth.
quote:Originally posted by blackman: Horemheb, The Greeks and the Romans were not German, Irish, French, white American and many others. So, why do white people claim ancient Greece and Rome?
Enough of this nonsense. ASUAR have already answered your post. Black Amerians are connected to Africa the same way white Americans are connected Europe.
You may not claim your German connection by saying you are German, but you don't deny it. I bet you also claim Greece and Rome as ancient white civilizations, even though you are of German blood and the Germans had nothing to do with Rome or Greece.
I'm through with you.
Blackman, as a white skinned person, this is a preconception i take exception to, I have absolutly no connection or wish to have a connection with Greece nor Rome on the basis that my skin is in the world judged s white, In fact most Italians do not feel a connection as such you are refering to like the Romans. Many country italians still call the ancient Romens as just that, Romans!, not Italians. The international indentity of so called white people is just not the case. Northern Europeans will and do go out of thier way to distiguish their identity from other groups of Europeans. I know of no German who would in his right mind claim a connection other than invasion and oppression under the Roman rule, the same goes for every culture that was conquered by the romans.
This is why I do not understand this total Black conection as well. I know for a fact that the majority of African cultures have and in many cases still do consider each other throughout africa as strangers and often even enemies. Recent events over the last 10 years have shown the extreems of this in the form of genoside.
It is no different in Europe, as kem has said before the black and white thing is no longer so Black and white. and in fact it has never been.
Read my family history and tell me who I am!
The "relationship" of ethnic groups should formost be established through Cultural affiliation, the were did I come from answere I feel can be answered with the aid of genetics research. The two need not conflict, unless we have a problem with a connection with BLACK AND WHITE:
The oldest question man has asked, is where did i come from.
So people will always wish to know.
Posts: 448 | From: Australian living in Spain | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ozzy, as I suspected, we do not disagree as much as you think. Now I too will often keep my thoughts to myself unless I'm very sure of my argument, but I do this only to avoid arguments. We really shouldn't need to do this. Without dialog, how do you learn? If we remember that we're all simply enthusiasts with a desire to learn, we should be able to discuss any topic. OK, enough of the philosophy.
We are in agreement that at least two distinct cultures would unify to form the two lands. When and how unification took place is beyond me, but the oldest date I've heard was 3500 BC from Van Sertima. So from this date forward is what I consider pre-dynastic. I do believe that both cultures would contribute to this new civilization. Even a subordinate culture will have influence on a dominate culture.
Where we may or may not agree is that Egypt was basically the result of the people of the south's domination over the people of the north. This idea mainly comes from the Narmer Palette and the similarities between pre-dynastic cultures in Upper Egypt and what we now call Nubia. So to put it short, I doubt early Egypt was very much different from pre-dynastic Upper Egypt and Nubia.
However I do believe that lower Egypt was more mixed from the beginning of AE history, not that it simply became mixed over time. I have always believed this, and I'd guess that many other people here do as well.
Nubia itself is another issue as I don't believe the idea of Nubia even existed at the time of unification. I'll need overwhelming proof to believe that early Egyptians and Nubians (at least lower Nubians) would have even recognized a difference between each other. I think the southern border of Egypt was considerably farther than we recognize today.
Now we know Egyptians were not the only East Africans in town. Kushites, may well have been a distinct people. I doubt it due to the ease that they were accepted as Pharaohs when the ousted the Persians. But it's possible that they were distinct peoples who adopted Egyptian culture. I can't say for sure though.
posted
And again I will have to disagree that mainstream Egyptology doeas not except Egypt as an African civilisation. All reference to the contry is based on 18th and 19th century data. Very limited research has supported 18th and 19th century data. The majority of material that has been available to me hase supported an African orgin.
Dwelling on the subject and blamming long dead authors that are no longer supported make absolutly no scence to me.
If that is wha you see in the Americas then, the problem is there, not the rest of the world. As the rest of the world has moved on.
Ozzy
Posts: 448 | From: Australian living in Spain | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Obenga, I agree that not everyone here is worth debating certain issues. But I wouldn't abandon the topic. I think some people have recently shown an open mind.
And Ozzy is correct now that a number of noted Egyptologists support an African origin of Egypt, though they may not call them "black". Don't ask me to name them all because I see some of them on TV and don't remember the names. But I do know that Kent Weeks believes AE's to be of African Origin, and that guy on the Egypt Uncovered series who excavated Nabpta Playa (for now, we'll just call him "that guy on the Egypt Uncovered series who excavated Nabpta Playa"
posted
Kem, true what you say, but I have made it a point not to an opinion till I can argue the point unless pressed, re; (Hawass and Diop topic) But it may be that many here actualy agree many points but argue the minor points, not recognising the majority in common.
My feelings on Lower Egypt are enforced by what I have read about the Geography of the area. The possibilty of monumnets or any other artifacts surviving there over thousands of years, or even hundreds of years is less that 1% of that in Upper Egypt. Records of Greek historinas of Lower Egypt just 300BC and even 200AD, show that 0% of what was described survived. Now what would could we find totay from 3500 or indead 5000BC, in this area. Nothing! The lack of evidance has always been the proof of abcense.
For a crown to be claimed I feel a desirable civilisation had to exist. The extent of the advancement is debateable, and indead the existance, and that was the point of my argument regarding Nubia ( for want of a better word)in a prevouse thread.
If art, religion, politics, cultivation, etc,ect, can be shown then a distinct civilisation can be shown, regardless of the connection geneticaly. Re: the connection of most Europeans is much closer that that of the all Africans, but the Europeans will fight tooth and nail to show their cultural differences.
Not sure if you understand what i mean, hope you do.
Posts: 448 | From: Australian living in Spain | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic