quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Diop is to Hawass as Ausar is to Horemheb.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
Like our moderator, he shows a great passion for protecting his ancestors' legacy.

---

Thought Writes:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
Thought Writes:

How do you know that Hawass had ancestors that were Ancient Egyptians? This is akin to claiming that President George Bush had Native American ancestors.

---

How do you know who your ancestors are?

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
How do you know who your ancestors are?

---

Thought Writes:

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
No, you just didn't answer the question. What other nations or ethnic groups NAME themselves as a NATION based on skin color?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:

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

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

I'm open to all points of view.

---

quote:

---

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

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

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

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by HERU:
This is a little off topic but what the hell. Recently a book called "The Mammoth Book of Eyewitness: Ancient Egypt" was released last year and in the introduction the author refers to Nubia as "The Land of the Negro". Is this correct? Was Nubia really called "The Land of the Negro"?

---

It is completely incorrect.
Simply begin by using critical thinking:

Negro is a Latin/Portugese term 1st used to describe people in the 16th century.

It means black.

In mdw ntr the word for black is kem.

nub in mdw ntr means 'gold'.

The Romans used 'nubia' to describe a region in Kemet (Ancient Egypt) where gold was mined.

The ongoing effort to turn nubian or nehasy in a euphemism for negro or black, and to hide the fact that the word AE used to describe themselves -> kememu means precisely black people, constitute related efforts to quite literally, rewrite history.

quote:

---

Originally posted by HERU:
This is a little off topic but what the hell. Recently a book called "The Mammoth Book of Eyewitness: Ancient Egypt" was released last year and in the introduction the author refers to Nubia as "The Land of the Negro". Is this correct? Was Nubia really called "The Land of the Negro"?

---

The land names that I know for what they call Nubia are
TaZeti, Land of the Bow
TaNhsyw, Land of the Nehesyw peoples.
I have only seen speculations on the meaning of
n.hh.s the root of the word NHHSW. Maybe some
one will write in with the factual dictionary
meaning.

I think calling Nubia the land of the negro is
a big anachronistic stretch of the imagination.

Negro is a loaded term that really is meaningless.
Reliable scholarship written in the English tongue
does not use the word negro except to refer to
matters related to transAtlantic slave trade.

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Wally, don't underestimate the importance of restating a sound thesis with cool patience, and tolerance of what Sunstorm calls: "underhandidness" from Eurocentrists.
What they really need is for the information you are sharing (right from the Ae's mouth) to go away, so that they can just go back to sleep "mentally" and soothe themselves with the lies that make them most comfortable.

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

Open invitation still, for anyone with linguistic evidence to show that Wally's translation of the mdw ntr is incorrect.

---

Yeah, rasol...
That's because you enjoy kicking butt!!!
And they don't even have sense enough to quit...

quote:

---

Originally posted by alTakruri:

TaNhsyw, Land of the Nehesyw peoples.
I have only seen speculations on the meaning of
n.hh.s the root of the word NHHSW. Maybe some
one will write in with the factual dictionary
meaning.

[This message has been edited by alTakruri (edited 13 December 2004).]

---

Looks like we're stuck with Nubia denoting all lands south of Egypt...

nahas in Wolof means "worthless"
nahas in Arabic means "copper"
nahas is a province in south-western Sudan

You have to extrapolate on this one, I think;

Why do the Amhara call the Oromo, Galla - a perjorative?
What in fact, is the general terminology used by virtually every African ethnic group to distinguish themselves from other Africans?
Where did the Greeks get the idea of "barbarians?"
etc...

Always have a look at the date of the translation there. (Each entry has a bibliographic credit...)

The translation of the passage you read is from the early 1900s, I think -- which explains a lot...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wally:
Looks like we're stuck with Nubia denoting all lands south of Egypt...

nahas in Wolof means "worthless"
nahas in Arabic means "copper"
nahas is a province in south-western Sudan

You have to extrapolate on this one, I think;

Why do the Amhara call the Oromo, Galla - a perjorative?
What in fact, is the general terminology used by virtually every African ethnic group to distinguish themselves from other Africans?
Where did the Greeks get the idea of "barbarians?"
etc...

---

And the name of that royal guy PaNehesy who
must of been named by his mom and the king
Hatshepsuts boyfriends whom she called My
lord Nehesy, these are pejoratives?

Whats the entry in a dictionary of the AE
language actual say for the root NHS?

The Semitic root NHS meaning copper seems
plausible because the Kmtyw did mine that
metal in Wawat amd Kesh.

quote:

---

And the name of that royal guy PaNehesy who
must of been named by his mom and the king
Hatshepsuts boyfriends whom she called My
lord Nehesy, these are pejoratives?

Whats the entry in a dictionary of the AE
language actual say for the root NHS?

The Semitic root NHS meaning copper seems
plausible because the Kmtyw did mine that
metal in Wawat amd Kesh.

---

There was also a priest of the Aten called Pa-Nehsy. In the Bible there is a a person named Phineas[the Grecianized name of Nehsy].

Btw, I sometimes go by the alias "panehesy" when posting online.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ausar:
There was also a priest of the Aten called Pa-Nehsy. In the Bible there is a a person named Phineas[the Grecianized name of Nehsy].

---

Yes, the Hebrew version of PaNehesy is the
name Piyn*hhas. It means brass mouth but it
may really be an import that just happens to
fit the Semutuc words for mouth and copper.

p344a
Nahs - singular
Nah(n)su - plural- written with the nsu glyph for 'southern'
( nahh - eternal
( nahi - to wink

p386a
Nehsi
Neh(n)su
Nehsyu
( nheh - eternal
Nehsu - Sudani tribes in the Tuat, the results of the masturbation of Ra
Nehsyu hotepu - "Friendlies" in the Sudan, Sudani police

It is still my opinion that this name is one this people or peoples gave to themselves (and most likely a boastful one), but would later be used by the Kemetians to denote 'barbarians,' 'strangers'; a typically (even stereotypical) African convention.
I also believe that the self-styled 'Pa-Nahasi' was a case of someone being purposefully ironic, or self-deprecating, by calling himself "the Barbarian"
--we'll eventually have conclusive proof...

*Modern authors repeat the mantra that Budge's dictionary is 'woefully outdated' but if you compare their limited entries to those of Budge's, you find no significant differences! Nada...except that Budge will write Ati and the 'newbies' will write jtj for the word 'Iti' -go figure...

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
At one point I would have agreed but my respect has grown for Hawass after reading 2 of his books over the past year. Like our moderator, he shows a great passion for protecting his ancestors' legacy.

---

I seriously doubt whether Hawass has ancient Egyptian ancestry. The guy is obviously Arab-looking with some possible non-Arab mixture. It could be he has some tenuous connection somewhere. Who knows?

But if he is claiming ancient Egyptian ancestry because he is a modern Egyptian, that shouldn't be a problem. I know a lot of Euro-Americans claiming Native American ancestry.

Fact is, the ancient Egyptians are ancestors of the land and, at least, some of the modern Egyptian population.

I don't think it's so much about white tourists fantasising about a white Kemet. It's more that they will be turned off by the idea of an African or black Kemet. It's the usual "anything but black" syndrome at work here.

The unspoken meaning of the ongoing debate about the ethnicity of the AE's is just this: the implicit(and not so implicit on certain websites like newnation.com and stormfront.org) ideology is that people of African descent are not as biologically evolved as those of European and Eurasian descent and proof of this--as they claim--is that Africans "have never produced civilization". This was the view of well-known historians like Arnold Toynbee, Hugh Trevor Roper, and others. There are also contemporary psychometricians others who constantly hammer on the theme that "blacks are less cognitively able than any other racial group". [See the journal "Mankind Quarterly"]The present comparative economic state of blacks in the world is supposed to confirm this hypothesis.

So any solid proof that the AE's and their Nubian kith and kin produced what the West calls "civilisation" would tend to make lots of scholars nervous about their implicitly or overtly held racial paradigm.

1. Egyptians have not changed dramatically over the past 5000 years and the black Africans of Egypt were mainly Nubians

2. Egypt's founders were black African but Egypt's population was never entirely black African

3. Egypt was entirely a black African country atleast until the 7th century AD

I fall into category #2 and I have no problem with the direction Egyptology is going in.

For those who don't approve of the current state of Egyptology, what changes would you like to see made to improve things?

quote:

---

Originally posted by kembu:
I seriously doubt whether Hawass has ancient Egyptian ancestry. The guy is obviously Arab-looking with some possible non-Arab mixture. It could be he has some tenuous connection somewhere. Who knows?

---

I can't say what Hawass' ancestry is but he definately doesn't look "Arab" if you what you are referring to is the typical Arab look and Hawass doesn't sound like an Arab name. Even if he does have recent Arab ancestry, there's still a high likelihood that he is directly descended from ancient Egyptians.

quote:

---

Originally posted by kembu:

But if he is claiming ancient Egyptian ancestry because he is a modern Egyptian, that shouldn't be a problem. I know a lot of Euro-Americans claiming Native American ancestry.

---

I claim West African ancestry even though my grandfather has blue eyes and blonde hair. I can claim European ancestry as well but I choose not to. How you look doesn't have anything to do with your distant ancestry. It only shows who your recent ancestors are.

quote:

---

Originally posted by kembu:

Of course, he realizes that acknowledging historical accuracy about the race of the ancient Egyptians could cost him his job.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wally:
In *Budge's dictionary, we have the following Kemetian terms for these people(s):

p344a
[b]Nahs - singular
Nah(n)su - plural- written with the nsu glyph for 'southern'
( nahh - eternal
( nahi - to wink

p386a
Nehsi
Neh(n)su
Nehsyu
( nheh - eternal
Nehsu - Sudani tribes in the Tuat, the results of the masturbation of Ra
Nehsyu hotepu - "Friendlies" in the Sudan, Sudani police

It is still my opinion that this name is one this people or peoples gave to themselves (and most likely a boastful one), but would later be used by the Kemetians to denote 'barbarians,' 'strangers'; a typically (even stereotypical) African convention.
I also believe that the self-styled 'Pa-Nahasi' was a case of someone being purposefully ironic, or self-deprecating, by calling himself "the Barbarian"
--we'll eventually have conclusive proof...

*Modern authors repeat the mantra that Budge's dictionary is 'woefully outdated' but if you compare their limited entries to those of Budge's, you find no significant differences! Nada...except that Budge will write Ati and the 'newbies' will write jtj for the word 'Iti' -go figure...

[This message has been edited by Wally (edited 14 December 2004).][/B]

---

Do the AE use NHS to mean barbarian or stranger
and do they apply NHS to any other peoples
than those south of them? Without a doubt
NHSW designated the class of southerners
just like TMHHW classified westerners and
AAMW was the class of easterners and
northeasterners.

Thanks for the actual dictionary entries from
Budge. Even if some consider Budge to be outdated
a good part of his work is accurate and valid.
Im not a member of the Beat Up On Budge school
but all scholarship can be challenged and
augmented over time or else its religious
dogma instead of true scholarship.

Can anyone post entries from other dictionaries
so that we have a round of sources to base
ourselves on? I'm betting no one contradicts
the accuracy of the Budge meanings.

I would say that the 1st part of your statement is true...and the second part hendges upon an ultimately irrelevant and aribitrary attempt to qualify the truth and so soften the impact.

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Neo, you appear to be saying that Kemet was founded by Black Africans, but that it does not meet your definition of 'fully black'.

I would say that the 1st part of your statement is true...and the second part hendges upon an ultimately irrelevant and aribitrary attempt to qualify the truth and so soften the impact.

---

quote:

---

It doesn't matter what you think my intention is.

---

quote:

---

It's how I percieve the data

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by supercar:
That was the whole point of a previous thread concerning the title of "racial purity".

---

When you open topics of racial purity, don't be surprised if people percieve you to be racially biased. Racial purity is one element that fueled Adolph Hitler's propaganda.

quote:

---

Originally posted by supercar:

European societies are full of mixed populations, from different continents, and yet the euphemism for these countries is that they are white societies. The heterogeneity seems to hold more power only when it comes to African states, that have anything to do with accomplishments.

---

I disagree. Most of the racial diversity in Europe is due to recent immigration. However, you do have an argument for ethnic diversity although, not a very strong one. Africa is a diverse continent to begin with. Heterogeneity applies to Africa and the Near East because most countries in those regions are "ethnically" heterogeneous and have been since antiquity.

For example. It is correct to say that the US was founded by white Europeans. It is incorrect to say Americans are a white European people. For that to be true you have to overlook millions of people of other races and ethnicities even though 70-80% of Americans are of European descent. Ancient Egypt wasn't diverse in the same way the US is but nevertheless they weren't homogeneous.

quote:

---

Originally posted by supercar:

This relates to something Lamin said earlier, about motives behind maintenance of racial hierarchies. Yes, Ancient Egypt was heterogeneous, so was Ancient Greece, and Rome. Yet that never seems to have an impact on the latter.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

However if you insist on debating the soundness of what you 'perceive' to be 'fully black' , I suppose we can. Your call.

---

I didn't use the term "fully black" and I would appreciate it if you didn't put words in my posts.

I take it that you don't have a response to my question. Just as I thought.

quote:

---

Originally posted by supercar:
That was the whole point of a previous thread concerning the title of "racial purity". European societies are full of mixed populations, from different continents, and yet the euphemism for these countries is that they are white societies. The heterogeneity seems to hold more power only when it comes to African states, that have anything to do with accomplishments. This relates to something Lamin said earlier, about motives behind maintenance of racial hierarchies. Yes, Ancient Egypt was heterogeneous, so was Ancient Greece, and Rome. Yet that never seems to have an impact on the latter.

---

Bravo! Whenever I put that out I continue by
asking the heterogenous Egypt set to devote
as much energy deconstructing Rome as a white
civilization. They suddenly become deaf dumb
and blind.

We all know why AE and no other ancient
civilization is painted heterogenous. No
that notion doesnt even come to mind
anywhere else on any continent except ...

quote:

---

For those who don't approve of the current state of Egyptology, what changes would you like to see made to improve things?

---

The concept of an 'ology', a branch of science devoted to a particular country is a bad idea. It de-normalises Kemet and subjects it to the biases of a self serving priesthood and its essentially Pan Europeanist ideology.

The best way to challenge the profane [wst] priesthood of Egyptology is to keep pressing the debate, forcing the field open, and challenging its root assumptions.

Many Egyptologists are not very knowledgable about Egypt. If you read them, it's amazing how much some of them will say, that is mere dumb repettition parroting what others have said, but having given it little actual thought. The Nile Valley and it's various nations should be studied as an integrated part of African history, and qualified 'experts' in academia should be required to have knowledge of African culture in general.

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
I think Egyptology should be gradually eliminated, and can be over time by relentless application of erudite scholarship which challenges Egyptological dogma.

The concept of an 'ology', a branch of science devoted to a particular country is a bad idea. It de-normalises Kemet and subjects it to the biases of a self serving priesthood and its essentially Pan Europeanist ideology.

The best way to challenge the profane [wst] priesthood of Egyptology is to keep pressing the debate, forcing the field open, and challenging its root assumptions.

Many Egyptologists are not very knowledgable about Egypt. If you read them, it's amazing how much some of them will say, that is mere dumb repettition parroting what others have said, but having given it little actual thought. The Nile Valley and it's various nations should be studied as an integrated part of African history, and qualified 'experts' in academia should be required to have knowledge of African culture in general.

[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 14 December 2004).]

---

Amen!
...or is it Amon, or NyAmon...Amma?

The claim that the racial diversity in Europe is due to recent immigration could be debated.

William Ripley wrote a text titled "The Races of Europe"(1899) in which he argued that there were 3 distinct races in Europe: Nordic, Alpine and Mediterranean with other permuataions here and there---Jewish, Slav, Basque, etc.

Carleton Coon also wrote a text titled "The Races of Europe"(1939)in
which a similar argument was made about the racial diversity of Europe.

The basis for this racial would seem to derive from the Sykes model: at different times different male and female lineages made their way into Europe. Sykes actually did the mtDNA part of these temporally(45KYA to 10KYA) distinct treks into Europe.

And of course there were the later Mongol incursions into Eastern Europe and the much more recent Moorish and Arab settlements in the Iberain peninsula.

In fact Cavalli-Sforza's genetic tree of 26 European populations show that the greatest genetic distances are between Dutch, Danish, and English---and Greek, Sardinian and Lapp. So what should one make of this re discussions concerning ancient Greek civilisation?

But Africa is the most genetically diverse of the continents ONLY BECAUSE PEOPLE HAVE THERE THE LONGEST--not because they happen to look different. The evenness of the environment--tropical and subtropical-saw to it though that physical surface traits remain relatively uniform.

quote:

---

neo*geo:
When you open topics of racial purity, don't be surprised if people percieve you to be racially biased. Racial purity is one element that fueled Adolph Hitler's propaganda.

---

You forget that you are the one who opened this can of worms by talking of “entirely" Black. What kind of trash is that? What you are doing is classic 18th century racist tactic: count on presence of foreign groups in Ancient Egypt to explain away why it shouldn’t be considered an African civilization, much less black. Again, Hitler was a student of the very mindset that you are adopting!

quote:

---

neo*geo:
I disagree. Most of the racial diversity in Europe is due to recent immigration. However, you do have an argument for ethnic diversity although, not a very strong one. Africa is a diverse continent to begin with. Heterogeneity applies to Africa and the Near East because most countries in those regions are "ethnically" heterogeneous and have been since antiquity.
For example. It is correct to say that the US was founded by white Europeans. It is incorrect to say Americans are a white European people. For that to be true you have to overlook millions of people of other races and ethnicities even though 70-80% of Americans are of European descent. Ancient Egypt wasn't diverse in the same way the US is but nevertheless they weren't homogeneous.

---

What difference does it make when Europe started receiving these migrants. The point was that European societies are really multi-racial societies, and yet it the euphemism of these societies being white isn’t lost on any clear headed person. Southern Europeans had mixed populations in ancient times too, yet with your double standard attitude, don’t take that into account. Plus, it’s not like in Ancient Egypt, immigrants were immediately present in great numbers, this is something that happened over specific time frames. Otherwise, they wouldn’t be called immigrants. It is time to use your head.

quote:

---

Originally posted by alTakruri:
We all know why AE and no other ancient
civilization is painted heterogenous. No
that notion doesnt even come to mind
anywhere else on any continent except ...

---

Egypt is a unique case but you make yourself sound like you've studied no other world history.

The civilizations of Mesopotamia are described as heterogeneous.

The Roman empire was heterogeneous. Governors and Roman soldiers were made up of men from local populations.

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
There seems to be 3 schools of thought:

1. Egyptians have not changed dramatically over the past 5000 years and the black Africans of Egypt were mainly Nubians

2. Egypt's founders were black African but Egypt's population was never entirely black African [/B]

3. Egypt was entirely a black African country atleast until the 7th century AD

I fall into category #2 and I have no problem with the direction Egyptology is going in.

For those who don't approve of the current state of Egyptology, what changes would you like to see made to improve things?

[This message has been edited by neo*geo (edited 14 December 2004).][/B]

---

Number 2 seems like a good choice, but in a way the 1st part somewhat disqualifies the latter.

To say that AE were founded by black africans but the population was NEVER entirely black, is to suggest that even the 1st dynasty was NEVER entirely black, and thus those others (non-black african AEs) could have been there all along and in any quantity.

From there one can go on to say that those others could have been the driving force behind the dynasties' great achievements.. So the door is left wide open there…

Now for instance, knowing what you know about the greeks exposure and subsequent influences from the africans and near by easterns, would you say that the Greek populous was NEVER entirely white europeans...and thus were a mix population of peoples throughout the Greek achievement period???? Would you say that??(not a rhetorical question)

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
For those who don't approve of the current state of Egyptology, what changes would you like to see made to improve things?

---

As for what I would like to see in the future of Egyptology is.....
credit given where credit is due.....to a once indigenous black african population--no matter how mixed they might be in today’s world.

I think this is important for the same reason it was important for...

the indigenous south african population to know that their ancestors built ancient Zimbabwe, and not the dutch or mid easterns as once was theorized.

the swahili people of the east african coast were responsible for the beautiful medieval coral towns that dotted along the east african coast and not the arabs. Also that the Swahili were responsible for the great voyages that brought goods for the African interior all the way to the far east---as established by British historians (lead by Mark Horton) on their study of the medieval Indian ocean trade..

the meso-american were responsible for the ancient american civilizations and not some lost tribe of whites or Atlantians.

Honestly, how can you truly know a people--ancient or modern--until you know what they were and where they came from????????

I mean, once upon a time it was thought that AE just sprung up, whole and complete, out of nowhere owing nothing to any outside source. But as you can see, looking towards inner africa for an AE origin has made our understanding of the AEs that much better. Imagine if blind prejudice won out and they ignored Africa and focused on the middle east for an AE origin. Where would we be?

So knowing who and what they were…ethnically, racially, etc, (like we know about the Greeks, Chinese, Meso-Americans) is important towards developing and understanding the WHOLE picture..

Just my 2cents Neo*geo

quote:

---

Originally posted by supercar:

You forget that you are the one who opened this can of worms by talking of “fully Black”. What kind of trash is that?

---

Sigh... It's trash that I did not type. Go back and find where I typed "fully black". My original statement was:

"Egypt's founders were black African but Egypt's population was never entirely black African"

quote:

---

Originally posted by supercar:

What you are doing is classic 18th century racist tactic: count on presence of foreign groups in Ancient Egypt to explain away why it shouldn’t be considered an African civilization, much less black.

---

You're no longer a newbie so you can't use ignorance as an excuse for misrepresenting my point of view. You know fully well that it is my opinion that Egyptians have always been an African people. I could just as easily repost posts from old topics but I wont waste my time.

quote:

---

Originally posted by supercar:

What difference does it make when Europe started receiving these migrants.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
Egypt is a unique case but you make yourself sound like you've studied no other world history.

The civilizations of Mesopotamia are described as heterogeneous.

The Roman empire was heterogeneous. Governors and Roman soldiers were made up of men from local populations.

---

Whachoo talkin bout? Theyre all taught as white
civilizations! Heterogenous white ethnies.
Just go try argue somewhere to anybody that
Rome was not a white civ. Quit arguing for arguments sake because you know thats all
youre doing. You make yourself look like you
dont know what society and the world at large
really thinks about civ and the history of
civs.

Like, have you even read Toynbees unrevised
list of civs by races who created them?

quote:

---

Originally posted by anacalypsis:
Number 2 seems like a good choice, but in a way the 1st part somewhat disqualifies the latter.

To say that AE were founded by black africans but the population was NEVER entirely black, is to suggest that even the 1st dynasty was NEVER entirely black, and thus those others (non-black african AEs) could have been there all along and in any quantity.

From there one can go on to say that those others could have been the driving force behind the dynasties' great achievements.. So the door is left wide open there…

---

I left it open for a reason. While it is clear that ruiling families from upper Egypt(most likely black Africans) estabilished the uniting of lower and upper Egypt, it's not a given that the populations of upper and lower Egypt were ethnically or racially the same.

quote:

---

Originally posted by anacalypsis:

Now for instance, knowing what you know about the greeks exposure and subsequent influences from the africans and near by easterns, would you say that the Greek populous was NEVER entirely white europeans...

---

=========================================

Professor Arnold J. Toynbee’s, A Study of History is considered a classic in
the field of universal history. In the first volume of that work, the author tells us
that the world up to now has produced twenty-one civilizations, and that all
branches of humanity, except the Black race have been creators of culture.

In the words of Toynbee,

”The Black race has not helped to create any civilization,
while the Polynesian white race has helped create one civilization,
the brown race, two,
the yellow race, three,
the red race and
the Nordic white race four apiece,
the Alpine white race, nine, and
the Mediterranean white race, ten.”

Arnold J. Toynbee
A Study of History, Vol. 1
London: Oxford University Press, l946
p.234

quote:

---

Originally posted by alTakruri:

Whachoo talkin bout? Theyre all taught as white
civilizations!

---

What school teaches Mesopotamian civilizations as "white?" What school or college did you attend? I was always taught that these were ethnically diverse peoples, not black, white, or yellow.

quote:

---

Originally posted by alTakruri:

Just go try argue somewhere to anybody that
Rome was not a white civ.

---

I don't like to argue. I like to discuss. Understand that the Roman empire and "Rome" are not the same. The empire was all of the nations they conqeured. Their occupying forces were not all made up of Romans.

quote:

---

Originally posted by alTakruri:

Quit arguing for arguments sake because you know thats all
youre doing. You make yourself look like you
dont know what society and the world at large
really thinks about civ and the history of
civs.

---

I'm not arguing for the sake of arguing. It seems like quite a few people have spent time debating on websites like Stormfront.com. I stay away from places like that. There's no sense in debating with people like that. To be honest I don't know what the world at large thinks of ancient civilizations outside of the classrooms I've been in. The average person get his knowledge of ancient civs from movies like "the Mummy" or "Alexander." You can't really have intellectual discussions with people who have a limited knowledge of the subject.

quote:

---

Originally posted by alTakruri:

Like, have you even read Toynbees unrevised
list of civs by races who created them?

---

quote:

---

neo*geo:
Sigh... It's trash that I did not type. Go back and find where I typed "fully black". My original statement was:
"Egypt's founders were black African but Egypt's population was never entirely black African".

---

You might want to check notes before replying. The notes were edited. But in any case if it makes you feel better: trash thinking of “entirely” black African.

quote:

---

neo*geo:
You're no longer a newbie so you can't use ignorance as an excuse for misrepresenting my point of view. You know fully well that it is my opinion that Egyptians have always been an African people. I could just as easily repost posts from old topics but I wont waste my time.

---

quote:

---

neo*geo:
Don't play dumb now. It makes a difference in terms of whether you're discussing modern-day European countries or past historical periods.

---

There were others in Toynabee's own time like Randal MacIver and V. Gordon Childe that contended the early populations of pre-dyanstic Kmt[Egypt] such as the Badarian,and Naqada cultures were negriod.

Sir Grafton Smith even believed the early Beja people were responsible,but he never considered them to be negriod but Hamitic. It's all part of the Hamitic myth.

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
I disagree. Most of the racial diversity in Europe is due to recent immigration

---

Thought Posts:
http://hpgl.stanford.edu/publications/AHG_2001_v65_p43.pdf

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
Governors and Roman soldiers were made up of men from local populations.

---

Thought Writes:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
Thought Posts:
http://hpgl.stanford.edu/publications/AHG_2001_v65_p43.pdf

"As mentioned before in relation to African NRY history, a Mesolithic population carrying Group III lineages with the M35/M215 mutation expanded northwards from Sub-Saharan to North Africa and the Levant. The Levantine population of farmers that dispersed into Europe during and after the Neolithic carried these African Group III M35/M215 lineages, together with a cluster of Group VI lineages characterized by M172 and M201 mutations."

---

This is nothing new. The population of Europe originated from about seven women of the Near East. In other words, African genes were carried to Europe via the Middle East. The "Out of Africa" theory is pretty widely accepted now.

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
There seems to be 3 schools of thought:
1. Egyptians have not changed dramatically over the past 5000 years and the black Africans of Egypt were mainly Nubians

---

Thought Writes:

The Egyptians have OBVIOUSLY change based upon the scientific data.

Thought Posts:

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
This is nothing new. The population of Europe originated from about seven women of the Near East. In other words, African genes were carried to Europe via the Middle East. The "Out of Africa" theory is pretty widely accepted now.

[This message has been edited by neo*geo (edited 14 December 2004).]

---

Thought Writes;

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
"Egypt's founders were black African but Egypt's population was never entirely black African"

---

Thought Writes: