quote:Originally posted by supercar: [b]First Egyptians, Now it's the Nubians... I thought I had to carry on this discussion from another thread because it amounts to what is the beginning of the whitewash of the Nubians. I now hear claims that Nubians weren't "Sub-Saharan" looking Negroes but 'blacks' with Mediterranean features, or flat out that Nubians are Arabs! Actually Ayazid (member of this board) sparked this, and then I surfed through the net. While I found most sites who acknowledged that Nubians were Negro, there were a few sites that claim that they were Africans with "Mediterranean" or "Arab" features. This is one whitewash that needs to perish before it blossoms!
[This message has been edited by supercar (edited 28 June 2004).][/B]
Yes i agree that now certain folks are trying to say that nubians and ancient nubians are not black or true blacks. I was on a form called freerepublic.com,and the the whitewashing is so crazy.On that website they would ban you and your comments if you just say that the nubians are black.I know alot of info. about early nubian culture is focus on the a-group nubians,but i have to correct some things here.The a-group was from 38oo b.c. to 2700 b.c. when the king of egypt invaded lower nubia.The c-group i think came in around 2400 or 2300 b.c. but just as or more importantly,new findings have found that the city of kerma went back early than 2500 b.c..nubian civilization started in upper nubia around kerma,a city that dates back to 5000 b.c. making nubia the oldest civilization on the planet.This city was found a few years ago under kerma.It is now known that a older kerma goes back to 5000 b.c. That is why some are telling lies on who the nubians are.We have to crush those lies now before they get out of control.We should not have to keep saying that the nubians are black.The reason why this is increasing is because folks realize that nubia played a major role in egypt, africa and other places and was the greatest african civilization yet,and became the most advanced in ancient times and the middle ages.Nubian civilization still exist today,and while some nubians are mix blacks because of recent mixing with arabs and others,most are still clearly black and even most are still full bloods,and the mixed nubians are blacks as well.Being a nubian means black.I seen that website,and while it does not say that nubians are, race wise something else, it does not tell you more plainly that they are blacks.If you go further on that website it does say in a way that they are blacks but says that they have been mixing with others from early times.That is misleading because the nubians in nubia did not,and some mix only in lower nubia,but the a-group disappeared.The nubians in egypt did the most mixing and the nubians in upper nubia only started mixing much,much later in small numbers in very late ancient times in the lower classes.Southern nubians started mixing in the late middle ages and maybe a little early in very small numbers in the lower classes only,and increased a little bit more in some areas in modern times.That website should have made in more clear,but it does tell you that nubians are black,but not clear enough.Other websites make it more clear.
quote:Originally posted by kenndo: Yes i agree that now certain folks are trying to say that nubians and ancient nubians are not black or true blacks. I was on a form called freerepublic.com,and the the whitewashing is so crazy.On that website they would ban you and your comments if you just say that the nubians are black.I know alot of info. about early nubian culture is focus on the a-group nubians,but i have to correct some things here.The a-group was from 38oo b.c. to 2700 b.c. when the king of egypt invaded lower nubia.The c-group i think came in around 2400 or 2300 b.c. but just as or more importantly,new findings have found that the city of kerma went back early than 2500 b.c..nubian civilization started in upper nubia around kerma,a city that dates back to 5000 b.c. making nubia the oldest civilization on the planet.This city was found a few years ago under kerma.It is now known that a older kerma goes back to 5000 b.c. That is why some are telling lies on who the nubians are.We have to crush those lies now before they get out of control.We should not have to keep saying that the nubians are black.The reason why this is increasing is because folks realize that nubia played a major role in egypt, africa and other places and was the greatest african civilization yet,and became the most advanced in ancient times and the middle ages.Nubian civilization still exist today,and while some nubians are mix blacks because of recent mixing with arabs and others,most are still clearly black and even most are still full bloods,and the mixed nubians are blacks as well.Being a nubian means black.I seen that website,and while it does not say that nubians are, race wise something else, it does not tell you more plainly that they are blacks.If you go further on that website it does say in a way that they are blacks but says that they have been mixing with others from early times.That is misleading because the nubians in nubia did not,and some mix only in lower nubia,but the a-group disappeared.The nubians in egypt did the most mixing and the nubians in upper nubia only started mixing much,much later in small numbers in very late ancient times in the lower classes.Southern nubians started mixing in the late middle ages and maybe a little early in very small numbers in the lower classes only,and increased a little bit more in some areas in modern times.That website should have made in more clear,but it does tell you that nubians are black,but not clear enough.Other websites make it more clear.
Good observation Kenndo. You have definitely shed a new light on the Nubian discussion here, particularly the dating of civilization in Upper Nubia. Archeological work in Nubia is still at its beginning stage relative to that one in Egypt. There is still much to be discovered in former Nubian regions. This applies to elsewhere in the interior of Africa. These areas for some reason have been neglected, when it comes to archeology. I also agree with you about the information on the website I provided earlier. It does maintain that Nubia was black, but not in a clear manner! You mentioned something about "freerepublic.com" forum, is that some kind of a white supremacist forum or what? Were you successful in refuting such comments, or was it like talking to a brick wall? It is just interesting!
posted
Freerepublic is a conservative news publication run by the infamous Marry Letowitz. Most of the reader base tend to be the ''white'' conservative types. The website are not racist but many of the posters try to cycle back to the likes of Sir Grafton Smith who contended that the ancient Nubians were pusedo-Brown Mediterranean people that eventually became black from mixture with so-called Negro slaves.
Nobody takes Grafton Smith very seriously except these people.
Remeber also that early anthropologist often considered people from the Horn of Africa like Somalis or Ethiopians to be the extreme of the Med race. Some even tried to argue Southern Sudanese were hybrid types. Not making this up at all.
Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Everyone knows: "oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive"
This applies as much to Eurocentric Egyptology as just about anything else I can think of. Kemet must never be Black African, but Kemet is child of Kush, Kam and Punt, so they must also not be Black African, and yet they are related to Masia, Fulani....so now the lie is too big for even 'supremacists' to believe and advance... so you retreat strategically, and that is where Eurocentricc Egyptology is today.
posted
Hi Kenndo, good to have another intelligent brother with knowledge on AE and Nubia.
originally posted by Kenndo but i have to correct some things here.The a-group was from 38oo b.c. to 2700 b.c. when the king of egypt invaded lower nubia.
This was already discussed on June 26, 12:45 pm, page 2 of this thread, by your's truly
However I don't necessarily believe the "hypothesis" of an Egyptian king "invading" Nubia, since pre-dynastic Egypt was not even UNITED yet. It's 'my opinion' that this working hypothesis formulated from discovering an incence burner depicting the Crown of Upper Egypt which was found in the NUBIAN tombs, was used to 'appease' the scholastic community who may have found it difficult to absorb that dynastic Egypt was founded by Nubians. The opposing hypothesis that the crown of Horus is indigenous to Nubia could also work, especially since the artifact was discovered in THEIR ROYAL TOMBS. Granted, Egyptian Kings were constantly conquering neighboring lands, but how often did they get BURIED in those lands. Just a thought.
Posts: 747 | From: Atlanta, GA USA | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
supercar
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by homeylu: Hi Kenndo, good to have another intelligent brother with knowledge on AE and Nubia.
originally posted by Kenndo [b]but i have to correct some things here.The a-group was from 38oo b.c. to 2700 b.c. when the king of egypt invaded lower nubia.
This was already discussed on June 26, 12:45 pm, page 2 of this thread, by your's truly
However I don't necessarily believe the "hypothesis" of an Egyptian king "invading" Nubia, since pre-dynastic Egypt was not even UNITED yet. It's 'my opinion' that this working hypothesis formulated from discovering an incence burner depicting the Crown of Upper Egypt which was found in the NUBIAN tombs, was used to 'appease' the scholastic community who may have found it difficult to absorb that dynastic Egypt was founded by Nubians. The opposing hypothesis that the crown of Horus is indigenous to Nubia could also work, especially since the artifact was discovered in THEIR ROYAL TOMBS. Granted, Egyptian Kings were constantly conquering neighboring lands, but how often did they get BURIED in those lands. Just a thought. [/B]
That last point you made about the Egyptian Pharaohs being buried in what was considered foreign territories, is an interesting one. As we know, Egyptians were wary about being buried in foreign land!
quote:Originally posted by homeylu: Hi Kenndo, good to have another intelligent brother with knowledge on AE and Nubia.
originally posted by Kenndo [b]but i have to correct some things here.The a-group was from 38oo b.c. to 2700 b.c. when the king of egypt invaded lower nubia.
This was already discussed on June 26, 12:45 pm, page 2 of this thread, by your's truly
However I don't necessarily believe the "hypothesis" of an Egyptian king "invading" Nubia, since pre-dynastic Egypt was not even UNITED yet. It's 'my opinion' that this working hypothesis formulated from discovering an incence burner depicting the Crown of Upper Egypt which was found in the NUBIAN tombs, was used to 'appease' the scholastic community who may have found it difficult to absorb that dynastic Egypt was founded by Nubians. The opposing hypothesis that the crown of Horus is indigenous to Nubia could also work, especially since the artifact was discovered in THEIR ROYAL TOMBS. Granted, Egyptian Kings were constantly conquering neighboring lands, but how often did they get BURIED in those lands. Just a thought. [/B]
Yes, excellent point. And this again cuts to the issue of what is "Egypt" what is "Nubia"? We have a Greek term for Kemet on the one hand, and a term for an ill defined region that presently overlaps the modern states of Egypt and Sudan...and that consisted of a number of different states and peoples on the other.
Egypt and Nubia as Rome and Greece (analogy), isn't quite right. It doesn't explain the history of the region. Indeed, if it were treated like a theory, and subject to rigourous proof/disproof, the evidence presented esp. recently with regard to Nubia would probably be seen as enough to discredit it by now.
But instead we go on inertia, talking about Nubian dynasty and Egypt conquering Nubia. Piankhi conquers Egypt, Ahmose liberates Egypt. According to whom? Based on what? Because "you" say so? Is this his-story actually making sense?
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 23 July 2004).]
quote:Originally posted by homeylu: Hi Kenndo, good to have another intelligent brother with knowledge on AE and Nubia.
originally posted by Kenndo [b]but i have to correct some things here.The a-group was from 38oo b.c. to 2700 b.c. when the king of egypt invaded lower nubia.[/b
This was already discussed on June 26, 12:45 pm, page 2 of this thread, by your's truly :)
However I don't necessarily believe the "hypothesis" of an Egyptian king "invading" Nubia, since pre-dynastic Egypt was not even UNITED yet. It's 'my opinion' that this working hypothesis formulated from discovering an incence burner depicting the Crown of Upper Egypt which was found in the NUBIAN tombs, was used to 'appease' the scholastic community who may have found it difficult to absorb that dynastic Egypt was founded by Nubians. The opposing hypothesis that the crown of Horus is indigenous to Nubia could also work, especially since the artifact was discovered in THEIR ROYAL TOMBS. Granted, Egyptian Kings were constantly conquering neighboring lands, but how often did they get BURIED in those lands. Just a thought. :)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by homeylu: Hi Kenndo, good to have another intelligent brother with knowledge on AE and Nubia.
originally posted by Kenndo [b]but i have to correct some things here.The a-group was from 38oo b.c. to 2700 b.c. when the king of egypt invaded lower nubia.
Thanks for the welcome.I think that freerepublic.com is run by a guy name jim robinson. I could talk about who the true ancient egyptians were and many other great african civilizations,than i would get dismiss,ban and comments taken off.yes in most cases it was like talking to a brick wall,more so with this cronos guy or gal.
He well tell me that saddam is not white but causasian,or most folks from india as well and only the true negriod type is in west africa,blacks never lived in north africa,and nubians are not true blacks,etc. etc.at one point he admits to me that he was wrong about the nubians,and others but he would say african or black americans had nothing to do with africa.I TOLD HIM that was non-sense.We talk about other related things but to make this short the talk got out of hand and his true face showed up.I realized that it is truly a waste of time talking to folks like that with incorrect info,but they really know in thier heart of hearts they are wrong,but that is thier job,to tell lies.
Anyway back to our talk.YES i agree that egypt never invaded nubia before lower and upper egypt came together,nubia invaded egypt first.The nubian pharaoh of the old kingdom of egypt,sneferu in 2730 b.c. left lower nubia a wasteland.The a-group was wiped out,but civilization in upper nubia went on.IT is amazing as well when folks try to say the nubians were not black,but the greeks and romans said they had flat noses,and kinky hair.that sounds like a true negriod to me.we have the art,and we could see the nubians today,but the true racist would say that there are whites that have black skin,and kinky or woolly hair.so you see how nuts it could get.YOU can't waste time with them,but to a certain extent you have to keep a eye out as well.
ONE other thing, when the other side says what are black folks during lately?because they say where are your todays success?I tell them there are many great things blacks are during today,but the mainstream white press like only bad news,had of course many of the black press like to only report in many cases bad news as well.The two african states i see today that are the strongest in africa,would be nigeria and south africa,but not only that, african cultures today are still the most advance in the world,despite the modern problems.look at the a.n.c. see how civilized they are to whites in south africa and many great things are happening there,despite the bad news.by the way south africa is not only the most advanced state in africa but in the world,IF you look at it's rights for women,minorities and it has the most advanced constitution in the world,and it's technology is on the level of the u.s..
THE U.S. BUYS ARMS AND PARTS FOR it's armed forces,and you have blacks filling up those postions,and jobs,that is why many whites are leaving south africa.to bad.THE blacks there are slowly getting thier land back and should get most of it back by 2015 and most of the economy,maybe early and buildind is going on and they plan to have a bullit train by next year.african economies as awhole are growing strong,but they need to still have peace,so they could be stronger.
Enough of this anti-african stuff,we must promote the good,even today in africa,and while we should beware of the bad,we should not have a main focus on that.I KNOW i went off topic a bit, but it is all related.by the way when you talk about the great african civilization,past and present,why is that afro-centric?it is just telling the truth.so one could tell the truth and the other we call afro-centric would be the truth as well but it will be political,and there is nothing wrong with both,that is what i tell the enemies of africa and black folks,and some blacks unfortunately are the enemy as well.that is all i have to say for now.
[This message has been edited by kenndo (edited 23 July 2004).]
quote:Originally posted by rasol: Yes, excellent point. And this again cuts to the issue of what is "Egypt" what is "Nubia"? We have a Greek term for Kemet on the one hand, and a term for an ill defined region that presently overlaps the modern states of Egypt and Sudan...and that consisted of a number of different states and peoples on the other. IN MY LAST POSTING IN PARAgraph FOUR IT SHOULD SAY I TELL THEM.SORRY FOR THE ERRORS,I AM STILL NEW TO this type of thing.
Egypt and Nubia as Rome and Greece (analogy), isn't quite right. It doesn't explain the history of the region. Indeed, if it were treated like a theory, and subject to rigourous proof/disproof, the evidence presented esp. recently with regard to Nubia would probably be seen as enough to discredit it by now.
But instead we go on inertia, talking about Nubian dynasty and Egypt conquering Nubia. Piankhi conquers Egypt, Ahmose liberates Egypt. According to whom? Based on what? Because "you" say so? Is this his-story actually making sense?
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 23 July 2004).]
In my last posting,paragraph 4,it sould say i should say i tell them.sorry for my error or other errors.i am still a bit new to this.I READ it before i posted but did not see some of the errors,it is amazing that i could see it after the posting.
quote:Originally posted by kenndo: [QUOTE]Originally posted by homeylu: [b]Hi Kenndo, good to have another intelligent brother with knowledge on AE and Nubia.
originally posted by Kenndo [b]but i have to correct some things here.The a-group was from 38oo b.c. to 2700 b.c. when the king of egypt invaded lower nubia.[/b
This was already discussed on June 26, 12:45 pm, page 2 of this thread, by your's truly
However I don't necessarily believe the "hypothesis" of an Egyptian king "invading" Nubia, since pre-dynastic Egypt was not even UNITED yet. It's 'my opinion' that this working hypothesis formulated from discovering an incence burner depicting the Crown of Upper Egypt which was found in the NUBIAN tombs, was used to 'appease' the scholastic community who may have found it difficult to absorb that dynastic Egypt was founded by Nubians. The opposing hypothesis that the crown of Horus is indigenous to Nubia could also work, especially since the artifact was discovered in THEIR ROYAL TOMBS. Granted, Egyptian Kings were constantly conquering neighboring lands, but how often did they get BURIED in those lands. Just a thought.
quote:Originally posted by homeylu: Hi Kenndo, good to have another intelligent brother with knowledge on AE and Nubia.
originally posted by Kenndo [b]but i have to correct some things here.The a-group was from 38oo b.c. to 2700 b.c. when the king of egypt invaded lower nubia.
Thanks for the welcome.I think that freerepublic.com is run by a guy name jim robinson. I could talk about who the true ancient egyptians were and many other great african civilizations,than i would get dismiss,ban and comments taken off.yes in most cases it was like talking to a brick wall,more so with this cronos guy or gal.
He well tell me that saddam is not white but causasian,or most folks from india as well and only the true negriod type is in west africa,blacks never lived in north africa,and nubians are not true blacks,etc. etc.at one point he admits to me that he was wrong about the nubians,and others but he would say african or black americans had nothing to do with africa.I TOLD HIM that was non-sense.We talk about other related things but to make this short the talk got out of hand and his true face showed up.I realized that it is truly a waste of time talking to folks like that with incorrect info,but they really know in thier heart of hearts they are wrong,but that is thier job,to tell lies.
Anyway back to our talk.YES i agree that egypt never invaded nubia before lower and upper egypt came together,nubia invaded egypt first.The nubian pharaoh of the old kingdom of egypt,sneferu in 2730 b.c. left lower nubia a wasteland.The a-group was wiped out,but civilization in upper nubia went on.IT is amazing as well when folks try to say the nubians were not black,but the greeks and romans said they had flat noses,and kinky hair.that sounds like a true negriod to me.we have the art,and we could see the nubians today,but the true racist would say that there are whites that have black skin,and kinky or woolly hair.so you see how nuts it could get.YOU can't waste time with them,but to a certain extent you have to keep a eye out as well.
ONE other thing, when the other side says what are black folks during lately?because they say where are your today's success?I tell them there are many great things blacks are during today,but the mainstream white press like only bad news,and of course many of the black press like to only report in many cases bad news as well.The two african states i see today that are the strongest in africa,would be nigeria and south africa,but not only that, african cultures today are still the most advance in the world,despite the modern problems.look at the a.n.c. see how civilized they are to whites in south africa and many great things are happening there,despite the bad news.by the way south africa is not only the most advanced state in africa ,but in the world,IF you look at it's rights for women,minorities and it has the most advanced constitution in the world,and it's technology is on the level of the u.s..
THE U.S. BUYS ARMS AND PARTS FOR it's armed forces,and you have blacks filling up those postions,and jobs,that is why many whites are leaving south africa.to bad.THE blacks there are slowly getting thier land back and should get most of it back by 2015 and most of the economy,maybe early and building is going on and they plan to have a bullit train by next year.african economies as awhole are growing strong,but they need to still have peace,so they could be stronger.
Enough of this anti-african stuff,we must promote the good,in africa today,and while we should beware of the bad,we should not have a main focus on that.I KNOW i went off topic a bit, but it is all related.by the way when you talk about the great african civilizations,past and present,why is that afro-centric?it is just telling the truth.so one could tell the truth and the other we call afro-centric would be the truth as well but it will be political,and there is nothing wrong with both,that is what i tell the enemies of africa and black folks,and some blacks unfortunately are the enemy as well.that is all i have to say for now.
posted
sorry i posted twice,i use the reply to edit instead of the edit page.I AM still new to your form,but i am getting the hang of it.
Posts: 2688 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Don't want to start a new thread, but wish to discuss the famous painting in the Tomb of Rameses III:
This is from Charles A. Grantham from discussion on Richard Poe's anthropology blog:
[Richard] you cite an article by Yurco titled "Two Tomb-Wall Painted Reliefs of Ramesses III and Sety I and Ancient Nile Population Diversity." In that article, Yurco argues that a painted relief from the tomb of Ramesses III that purports to show the ancient Egyptians with the same black skin color as the Nubians is based on a copy that is incorrect. He further states that the Egyptians in the tomb of Ramessess III "are depicted separately from the Nubians in their own traditional dress and coloration."
In 1999, I wrote a rebuttal to his article titled "The Unwrapping of Egyptology." Earlier this year the same essay was reprinted and now appears along with three other essays in a book that I wrote entitled, The Battle for Kemet. In the essay are photographs that I personally took in the tomb of Ramesses III which demonstrate that Yurco provided you with erroneous information as it pertains to the images that appear in this tomb. More importantly, however, are the comments made by Yurco after being confronted with evidence. This revelation certainly brings into question "the scholary integrity" of Yurco and Eric Hornung, another Egyptogist, whom Yurco relies on to bolster his argument.
quote:Originally posted by kenndo: sorry i posted twice,i use the reply to edit instead of the edit page.I AM still new to your form,but i am getting the hang of it.
You might have already come to the idea, but when your message repeats for some reason, you can always go back, and select the edit icon (small picture of paper and pencil in the middle), to delete the entire message.
[This message has been edited by supercar (edited 23 July 2004).]
quote:Originally posted by rasol: Don't want to start a new thread, but wish to discuss the famous painting in the Tomb of Rameses III:
This is from Charles A. Grantham from discussion on Richard Poe's anthropology blog:
[Richard] you cite an article by Yurco titled "Two Tomb-Wall Painted Reliefs of Ramesses III and Sety I and Ancient Nile Population Diversity." In that article, Yurco argues that a painted relief from the tomb of Ramesses III that purports to show the ancient Egyptians with the same black skin color as the Nubians is based on a copy that is incorrect. He further states that the Egyptians in the tomb of Ramessess III "are depicted separately from the Nubians in their own traditional dress and coloration."
In 1999, I wrote a rebuttal to his article titled "The Unwrapping of Egyptology." Earlier this year the same essay was reprinted and now appears along with three other essays in a book that I wrote entitled, The Battle for Kemet. In the essay are photographs that I personally took in the tomb of Ramesses III which demonstrate that Yurco provided you with erroneous information as it pertains to the images that appear in this tomb. More importantly, however, are the comments made by Yurco after being confronted with evidence. This revelation certainly brings into question "the scholary integrity" of Yurco and Eric Hornung, another Egyptogist, whom Yurco relies on to bolster his argument.
quote:Originally posted by rasol: Don't want to start a new thread, but wish to discuss the famous painting in the Tomb of Rameses III:
This is from Charles A. Grantham from discussion on Richard Poe's anthropology blog:
[Richard] you cite an article by Yurco titled "Two Tomb-Wall Painted Reliefs of Ramesses III and Sety I and Ancient Nile Population Diversity." In that article, Yurco argues that a painted relief from the tomb of Ramesses III that purports to show the ancient Egyptians with the same black skin color as the Nubians is based on a copy that is incorrect. He further states that the Egyptians in the tomb of Ramessess III "are depicted separately from the Nubians in their own traditional dress and coloration."
In 1999, I wrote a rebuttal to his article titled "The Unwrapping of Egyptology." Earlier this year the same essay was reprinted and now appears along with three other essays in a book that I wrote entitled, The Battle for Kemet. In the essay are photographs that I personally took in the tomb of Ramesses III which demonstrate that Yurco provided you with erroneous information as it pertains to the images that appear in this tomb. More importantly, however, are the comments made by Yurco after being confronted with evidence. This revelation certainly brings into question "the scholary integrity" of Yurco and Eric Hornung, another Egyptogist, whom Yurco relies on to bolster his argument.
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 23 July 2004).]
I click one of the links,and i read the hamite part.I know for some time that the term hamite is a outdated term.IT is a bible myth/or fantasy,and certain scholars of the past used it to say they are whites with dark or black skin,and we all know that is non-sense.Some scholars and others still use the term to divide blacks,like egyptians and others.I know from the bible fantasy as well that the nubians are put in as folks from ham,but they would not be hamites since they belong to the nilo-saharan group.the wolof would be in that group or the niger-congo group.BUT if you believe in the family of man coming from noah,that would be your faith believe and not real,because we know that man came from africa and not iraq.IT is still amazing as well when we have proof that civilization started in africa,many would still say it started in iraq,and we know that is not true.I blame the scholars who know the info. and do not put it out more,but it is not all thier fault.something else i do not like is that they are showing more of the nubians who do not look really black,and that is misleading.WE know there was recent mixing and some nubians that look black have some form of mixture as well,but most today are still full-bloods,and a few years ago when they show nubians living in africa today all i would see are the clear black ones,and now that nubia is getting slowly it's credit,they are showing more nubians today that do not look black.SOME THING is not right here.DO you guys agree with me?you see this is what i am talking about,the whitewashing.DO not get me wrong,many of them who do not look black,are proud to be nubian and black,but we know thier are asians from east asia that are mix,but the media does not keep showing east asians that look like something else,and what do you think about the term hamite? i think it should be not used when we talk about africans that are black,period because it is a false term and belongs in fantasy land.
[This message has been edited by kenndo (edited 23 July 2004).]
[This message has been edited by kenndo (edited 23 July 2004).]
quote:,and what do you think about the term hamite? i think it should be not used when we talk about africans that are black,period because it is a false term and belongs in fastasy land.
That is exactly the point the link you went to was trying to make.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
http://www.metimes.com/issue99-43/cultent/play_examines_the.htm Play examines the 'Nubian Issue' Hazem Azmy Special to the Middle East Times Al Talia Theater's Hekayat Nas Al Nahr (Tales of the River Dwellers), is set to reopen on October 20 with a number of modifications to the script, and will probably be one of the first Egyptian plays to deal with the so-called "Nubian issue." This issue concerns the sufferings of Nubians who were gradually forced out of their homeland in southern Egypt, and away from the Nile that defined their existence, when Nubia was flooded due to the construction and successive enlargements of the Aswan Dam. The final blow came with the construction and completion of the High Dam under Nasser's regime. Originally designed to be an adaptation of the Nubian writer hajjaj Adul's play Nas Al Nahr (The River Dwellers), the production evolved into an interrogation of Adul's world as a whole, with dramaturge Hazem Shehata and director Nasser Abdel Moneim supplementing their adaptation of the play with characters and motifs from four other non-dramatic works by the same author. Mokhtar, a thirty-something Cairene government employee, stands out as dramaturge Shehata's original addition to Adul's characters. Yet it would be wrong to read him, or any other character, as the production's "official voice." About Adul's five works, Shehata writes in the English section of the program notes, "one can trace a certain ideological voice commenting on the Nubian issue. This voice we kept intact here but also included other, conflicting ideological voices. The rationale is to allow each voice its moment of realization without favoring any particular voice over the others." As such, the production is neither an elegy for a lost Nubian paradise nor an apology for the officials who brought about the enlargement project. It is perhaps both, depending on which side of the fence one would like to come down on. In July 1999, almost halfway through the rehearsal process, Shehata traveled to the US to attend a training program. During his stay, he was repeatedly bombarded with slogans of "Free Nubia" and offers from Nubian "activists" of the "free world" to help Nubia gain independence from its Egyptian "colonizers." In the process of responding to such comments, the Egyptian director, naturally, had to speak about his latest work and the topic soon attracted attention. "Negotiations are now underway to have the play translated into English so that it may be presented in the US, in cooperation with an American troupe, as an example of the Egyptian 'black theater,'" Abdel Moneim says. Not unlike people of color in the US and elsewhere, Nubians have over the years been subjected to ideological manipulation and marginalization. This has resulted in the creation of a number of misconceptions, on both sides, that HekayatNas Al Nahr sets itself to challenge and deconstruct. Quote:
For instance, Mokhtar takes it for granted that his friend Salama cannot be Nubian because of his fair complexion, only to discover that his intellectual friend belongs to a group called the Megraab, the local term for Nubians who are of Hungarian origin (during the Mameluke period many people from Eastern Europe, the Balkans and Cacasus were brought to Egypt, some of whom assimilated with the Egyptian population in the area known as Nubia). As the southern intellectual tells his Cairene friend, the people that are lumped together as Nubians are in fact a mixture of different ethnic groups (African, Arab, Hungarian, and Turkish) united, perhaps, by a common spirit.
In this way Mokhtar stops believing in one more stereotype about Nubia - and so do we. But herein lies another challenge: "when dished out bluntly, the abundance of information included out of necessity in the play, may eventually reduce the drama to an unsolicited history lesson," says Shehata recalling the reservations of some critics who attended the production's trial run shortly before and during the Cairo International Festival for Experimental Theater. "We were particularly conscious of this pitfall while working on the revised version of the play," Abdel Moneim added without giving details.
Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
supercar
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by kenndo: I click one of the links,and i read the hamite part.I know for some time that the term hamite is a outdated term.IT is a bible myth/or fantasy,and certain scholars of the past used it to say they are whites with dark or black skin,and we all know that is non-sense.Some scholars and others still use the term to divide blacks,like egyptians and others.I know from the bible fantasy as well that the nubians are put in as folks from ham,but they would not be hamites since they belong to the nilo-saharan group.the wolof would be in that group or the niger-congo group.BUT if you believe in the family of man coming from noah,that would be your faith believe and not real,because we know that man came from africa and not iraq.IT is still amazing as well when we have proof that civilization started in africa,many would still say it started in iraq,and we know that is not true.I blame the scholars who know the info. and do not put it out more,but it is not all thier fault.something else i do not like is that the are showing more of the nubians who do not look really black,and that is misleading.WE know there was recent mixing and some nubians that look black have some form of mixture as well,but most today are still full-bloods,and a few years ago when they show nubians living in africa today all i would see are the clear black ones,and now that nubia is getting slowly it's credit,they are showing more nubians today that do not look black.SOME THING is not right here.DO you guys agree with me?you see this is what i am talking about,the whitewashing.DO not get me wrong,many of them who do not look black,are proud to be nubian and black,but we know thier are asians from east asia that are mix,but the media does not keep showing east asians that look like something else,and what do you think about the term hamite? i think it should be not used when we talk about africans that are black,period because it is a false term and belongs in fastasy land.
Kenndo, I feel you with your frustration of the whitewashing of Nubia. It is has obviously fallen victim to diffusionists like every other historical accomplishments of Africans. But like I said, Nubian archeology is still in it's beginning stage, as in many other areas in Africa, and there are yet many more things that could come out, and make it completely irrefutable in it's deeply Black African culture. Before the discovery of the incense burner in the 60s, Egyptologists nurtured the idea that Egypt influenced the political system and civilization of Nubia. But more discoveries, and detailed study of dating the artifacts found in the Nubian region, increasingly showed the origins of Egyptian civilization from the Nubian region. As for the Bible, all I can say is that, it is only good for one's faith. I for one wouldn't use it as a strong reference for historical facts. The Bible itself was written years after the events it supposedly depicts. On top of that, many translations or re-workings have taken place, which may or may not be the same as the original texts. I agree with you on the outmoded use of the term "hamite". It is just like how people continue to use "caucasoid" in determining features of certain racial groups, and how "negroid" is supposed to imply Black Africans with the so-called extreme features of broad nose, full lips, kinky hair, and very dark skin. We all know that these words are defunct, and they aren't for the most part, used in scientific circles anymore. Only layman and some scholars with an agenda, use these terms to meet their political ends.
quote:Originally posted by homeylu: Which is why I never cared much for Yurco. That's Ausar's boy.
As cynical as I sometimes am, the baldfacedness of what Yurco is accused of here is....just...well, it's almost unbelievable. I mean, that requires a twisted mind.
Here's my rhetorical question to all the eurocentric Egyptologists: What good does it do you to "successfully" claim Egyptian civilization as "western/european/medit/caucasoid/white"...when it means sacrificing the last shred of your own integrity to do so?
Before you can be proud of your ancestry you need to be able to look yourself in the mirror and know that they would be proud of you.
ok, end of sermon.
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 23 July 2004).]
posted
I have a question.how many african egyptians are in egypt today ?I know that they try to kept the numbers low,and how many are black arabs in egypt.I know there is about 2.5 to 3 million who are nubian in egypt,and notice how it is not 1 million nubians in egypt like some census counts say.how many others that are african in egypt?THE SUDAN in some census counts in and out of the country like to say the nubian group is about 1 or 2 million there ,but they do not count the more arabized nubians who still call themselves nubian AND HAVE THE BASIC NUBIAN CULTURE STILL, and not arab OR BLACK ARAB,and the numbers for the nubian group in the sudan would be higher,like close to 5 to 5.5 million,unlike the link that i click early,that said that there were only 1 million nubians in the whole world,but we know that is a lie .some of these folks need to updated the info and census,so you see i have a idea on the group break down in the sudan,but less of a idea in egypt.by the way the link i click earlier that talk about the false term hamites was more of a afro-centric website,but like i said they have certain things wrong as well.just because it is afro-centric,that does not make everything correct.AFRO-centric websites and scholars have to do the work too and not mislead.
Posts: 2688 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rasol: Don't want to start a new thread, but wish to discuss the famous painting in the Tomb of Rameses III:
This is from Charles A. Grantham from discussion on Richard Poe's anthropology blog:
[Richard] you cite an article by Yurco titled "Two Tomb-Wall Painted Reliefs of Ramesses III and Sety I and Ancient Nile Population Diversity." In that article, Yurco argues that a painted relief from the tomb of Ramesses III that purports to show the ancient Egyptians with the same black skin color as the Nubians is based on a copy that is incorrect. He further states that the Egyptians in the tomb of Ramessess III "are depicted separately from the Nubians in their own traditional dress and coloration."
In 1999, I wrote a rebuttal to his article titled "The Unwrapping of Egyptology." Earlier this year the same essay was reprinted and now appears along with three other essays in a book that I wrote entitled, The Battle for Kemet. In the essay are photographs that I personally took in the tomb of Ramesses III which demonstrate that Yurco provided you with erroneous information as it pertains to the images that appear in this tomb. More importantly, however, are the comments made by Yurco after being confronted with evidence. This revelation certainly brings into question "the scholary integrity" of Yurco and Eric Hornung, another Egyptogist, whom Yurco relies on to bolster his argument.
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 23 July 2004).]
I have a question.how many african egyptians are in egypt today ?I know that they try to kept the numbers low,and how many are black arabs in egypt.I know there is about 2.5 to 3 million who are nubian in egypt,and notice how it is not 1 million nubians in egypt like some census counts say.how many others that are african in egypt?THE SUDAN in some census counts in and out of the country like to say the nubian group is about 1 or 2 million there ,but they do not count the more arabized nubians who still call themselves nubian AND HAVE THE BASIC NUBIAN CULTURE STILL, and not arab OR BLACK ARAB,and the numbers for the nubian group in the sudan would be higher,like close to 5 to 5.5 million,unlike the link that i click early,that said that there were only 1 million nubians in the whole world,but we know that is a lie .some of these folks need to updated the info and census,so you see i have a idea on the group break down in the sudan,but less of a idea in egypt.by the way the link i click earlier that talk about the false term hamites was more of a afro-centric websites,but like i said they have certain things wrong as well.just because it is afro-centric,that does not make everything correct.AFRO-centric websites and scholars have to do the work too and not mislead.
posted
Kendo,there are many people in Upper Egypt that would be considered ''black'',but problem is you never hear from any of these people. Most are rural farmers in southern Egypt. The rural Egyptians that come into the city usually live in neighboorhoods called Balady quarters. Nobody in Egypt are truly Arabs,for most people are Arabized.
The people in southern Egypt are called Sa3eadi,and most are considerably darker than most people in Lower Egypt. Once you go past Assuit in Middle Egypt then the darker the population gets untill the darkest around Aswan.
Since Egypt does not have racial problems in America then there is really no need for a census calculation of darker skinned Egyptians in southern Egypt. I would give an estimate they probabaly make up 30% of the population though.
Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
supercar
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by ausar: Kendo,there are many people in Upper Egypt that would be considered ''black'',but problem is you never hear from any of these people. Most are rural farmers in southern Egypt. The rural Egyptians that come into the city usually live in neighboorhoods called Balady quarters. Nobody in Egypt are truly Arabs,for most people are Arabized.
The people in southern Egypt are called Sa3eadi,and most are considerably darker than most people in Lower Egypt. Once you go past Assuit in Middle Egypt then the darker the population gets untill the darkest around Aswan.
Since Egypt does not have racial problems in America then there is really no need for a census calculation of darker skinned Egyptians in southern Egypt. I would give an estimate they probabaly make up 30% of the population though.
posted
hmmm, who brought this thread back to life. Posts: 747 | From: Atlanta, GA USA | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
supercar
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by homeylu: hmmm, who brought this thread back to life.
Maybe you are just being light-hearted, but here goes: It is just one of those situations, when one finds something absurd about AE or Nubia, that he/she wants to bring to attention, he/she will put it under a heading that already addresses the subject. If the subject is related, there should not be any problem with that. It is better than starting related topics under different headings or as new threads.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic