quote:Originally posted by nur: Amr1 and kawashar...are you saying ancient egypt was a civilization established by an amalgam of ethnicities or races? Is that even possible?
Just answer this...what kind of people do you believe created the egypt civilization? It's sheer bullshit to say it was made by a multitude of ethnitcities...
I believe so.
I believe Egypt didn't have the concept of racism that exist today. I believe they were chovinists, like any people on the planet, and that they distrust foreigners. But inside Egypt is very clear that people of all color of skins live together in harmony and peace. Otherwise you would not see Pharaons that look like people of all races.
I think that is the example of Egypt. That all mankind can live together in peace and equality. And I think in that respect Egypt is more advanced than the modern world.
That's my belief, anyways. But I think is a matter to study the records to find out that is a good approximation to reality.
quote:Ancient egyptians (of the Pyramid times) weren't subsaharan peoples, but average egiptians like these :
Funny how you show how other act racialist and extremist while you strongly push forward your own agenda of your preferences by posting bias pictures of Egyptians. Maybe you can tell us how you came to the conclusion that the so-called pyramid builders looked similar as to the pics you posted in oppose to people such as non-delta Egyptians?
Sorry fellow. I have never claimed there were not Black people in Egypt. I have just said they were a multi-racial and multi-ethnic society. And that's easy to see in the modern population of Egypt.
quote:It is very clear that people of all color of skins live together in harmony and peace.
That would be a better comment about Spain under the Moors.
Good point!
The problem with Spain it was that the harmony was created in ocupied land. The local Iberians never agreed of that, and they took revenge for the invasion. However, still today you can see the descendents of the foreigners that lived in Spain. Only that now they are proud Spaniards.
quote:I have just said they were a multi-racial and multi-ethnic society. And that's easy to see in the modern population
Sounds like modern Spain or Portugal.
All the Mediterranean peoples are the result of mixture of different ethnic groups. Southern Europe, North Africa and West Asia. The Southern Europeans look lighter simple because their neighbours were the Germanic peoples that kept going on down south for thousand of years.
quote:I have just said they were a multi-racial and multi-ethnic society. And that's easy to see in the modern population
Sounds like modern Spain or Portugal.
All the Mediterranean peoples are the result of mixture of different ethnic groups. Southern Europe, North Africa and West Asia. The Southern Europeans look lighter simple because their neighbours were the Germanic peoples that kept going on down south for thousand of years.
KAWASHKAR
In fact any one who says he is pure anything any time in the last 10 thousand years, around the Mediteranean is lying to himself and to others.
Posts: 1090 | From: Merowe-Nubia | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Which is why racial purity is irrelevant.
And why both you and Kawashcar who argue 'certain' peoples are mixed-race - inherently implying others are 'racially pure'..... are liars, and hypocrites of the lowest order.
At least you finally recognise it.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by nur: Amr1 and kawashar...are you saying ancient egypt was a civilization established by an amalgam of ethnicities or races? Is that even possible?
Just answer this...what kind of people do you believe created the egypt civilization? It's sheer bullshit to say it was made by a multitude of ethnitcities...
I believe so.
I believe Egypt didn't have the concept of racism that exist today. I believe they were chovinists, like any people on the planet, and that they distrust foreigners. But inside Egypt is very clear that people of all color of skins live together in harmony and peace. Otherwise you would not see Pharaons that look like people of all races.
I think that is the example of Egypt. That all mankind can live together in peace and equality. And I think in that respect Egypt is more advanced than the modern world.
That's my belief, anyways. But I think is a matter to study the records to find out that is a good approximation to reality.
KAWASHKAR
I see, but i've never heard of any civilization consist of a multitude of ethnicities at its birth. You have to take into consideration the fact that no peoples back then were fond of outsiders so ancient egypt was most likely a homogenous place in the beginning.
The peaceful coexistence would probably be true in its later years. (certainly not in the beginning)
If what your saying was put into reality terms, ancient egypt wouldn't be known for its innovations, but for constant war among different peoples...never would they have time to fulfill their accompishments!
Posts: 214 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've only read a bit past half of the first page,
but it seems queer that kawaspkar starts to agree on contenents not being population barriers (I'm still unaware of who'm ever said that one), and the goes and mentions sub-saharan africans like they're not the same type as indigenous to the rest. \|/
And it's also funny how he accusses those of us here who are african-american, or african(, or phillipino, because you know how they love their africans !) of being ethnocentric (afrocent specifically)
cause we're sad about our history, or want to connect AE with us, or some other bull$h!t when
1st: that (once again) does nothing to prove anything about their ethnicity
2nd: If anything, we're (referring to Afro americans who usually actually buy into crap, saying they are a completely differernt race from pure african {I not being one of them}) just trying to suppress the racist view of blacks, even those of other races ,being, usually lower parts of civilizations, if they're even in any.
If there's a great civilization, at least let it be mixed, and not black
...Yes, it's funny how he accusses those of us here who are african-american, or african of being ethnocentric (afrocent specifically)...
...when ....
you look at on of his post (mentioning some semetic sounding features and red (Egyptian sounding) skin
quote:I am what I am and that's good enough for me.
And I love my red cooper colored skin, my body hairly like a chimp (very Mediterranean ), my arabic looking curly hair, and my Jewish nose, and my european features. That's real history. I have nothing to hide. Ha!
quote:I see, but i've never heard of any civilization consist of a multitude of ethnicities at its birth.
Why do you even indulge KawashKar's hypocrisy?
Is it not self evident?
This is the same guy who desparately tries to make the Moors into Spaniards in order to keep Spain untainted by Black Africans. Yet he tries to pimp multi-racialism....everywhere else.
All these Latin-South-Euro racialist grind the same axe using the same techinque.
Others must be divided and mixed....so that Europe can remain united and pure.
All their noise services this ad hoc premise.
Dienekes the Greek patented this malarkey a decade ago.
All the rest of them Evil Euro, Mike the Hellene, Kawashkar, etc.. are just pale imitations.
Pale to the point of utter transparency.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I see, but i've never heard of any civilization consist of a multitude of ethnicities at its birth.
Why do you even indulge KawashKar's hypocrisy?
Is it not self evident?
This is the same guy who desparately tries to make the Moors into Spaniards in order to keep Spain untainted by Black Africans. Yet he tries to pimp multi-racialism....everywhere else.
All these Latin-South-Euro racialist grind the same axe using the same techinque.
Others must be divided and mixed....so that Europe can remain united and pure.
All their noise services this ad hoc premise.
Dienekes the Greek patented this malarkey a decade ago.
All the rest of them Evil Euro, Mike the Hellene, Kawashkar, etc.. are just pale imitations.
Pale to the point of utter transparency.
sounds like the tone of a specialist to me.
I never really understand how people got to know all these things about populations they observed through the prism of history.
But i'm persuaded there is a part of speculation in all this.
Posts: 1473 | From: France | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, it is true there is a racist movement between Mediterraneans, that hate both the Nordics and the Africans. It is not my case. I am Latin American and I have Indigenous blood (my pride), so I would not be accepted in the Medo-centrict club
I admire Egypt, but I want to get the whole history. Yeah! I accept Egypt has important influences from the South, but I don't forget that land also has influences from east and west. That's a fact in Egypt and we should accept it.
Forcing AE to be "monoracial", or the property of one "race", I believe is distorting the truth, and is a racist attitude, indeed. Finally, I believe the past is the patrimony of peoples and nations, not races. In the case of Egypt is the patrimony of Egyptians and then of mankind.
If someone wants to love Egypt that's fine for me. In my case, I find a lot more interesting and authentic the cultures of Subsaharan Africa, because they are the ones directly related to the people of the diaspora in Latin America. Yes, to find the roots of Candomble or Santeria one does not go to Egypt but to Nigeria. And to find the roots of modern painting one does not go to egypt but, once again, to Nigeria. Do you get it?
quote: Native Americans in South America have a cooper colored skin that vary from light to dark brown.
Likewise:
Native Africans including Ancient Egyptians are melanodermic [Black] people whose skin color typically ranges from very dark brown, as in the Dinka, to reddish brown [as with some Pygme] to yellowish brown [as seen in some Khoisan].
This reality contrasts with your hypocritical and selective concept of pure vs. mixed races - as applied to, and only to...Africans.
quote:Indian skin color is distinctive of them and we inherit that.
False.
Latino's inherit their skin color from Europeans Africans AND Native Americans, to such a varying degree that it is impossible to estimate which elements are more or of lesser import.
quote:Nothing to do with Egyptians
True.
Certainly Latin America has nothing to do with Ancient Egypt, and vice versa.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:rasol: Certainly Latin America has nothing to do with Ancient Egypt, and vice versa.
quote:kawashcar: You bet.
Yes, I bet, and you lose.
quote:kawashkar: Nobody likes the idea of being a Kemetian-wannabe.
Actually the modern Arabs of the republic of Egypt do, which is why they attempt to claim Kemet, and African country and culture which the Arabs help destroy, even as they hate the very idea of Kemetian - which means Blacks.
Same way you claim the Moors, but hate and deny your own Black ancestry, perferring instead to pretend that Moor equal Latino. A lie so transparent, so pathetic, that not even you belive it. So why keep telling it?
quote:Originally posted by kawashkar: Well, it is true there is a racist movement between Mediterraneans, that hate both the Nordics and the Africans. It is not my case. I am Latin American and I have Indigenous blood (my pride), so I would not be accepted in the Medo-centrict club
I admire Egypt, but I want to get the whole history. Yeah! I accept Egypt has important influences from the South, but I don't forget that land also has influences from east and west. That's a fact in Egypt and we should accept it.
Forcing AE to be "monoracial", or the property of one "race", I believe is distorting the truth, and is a racist attitude, indeed. Finally, I believe the past is the patrimony of peoples and nations, not races. In the case of Egypt is the patrimony of Egyptians and then of mankind.
If someone wants to love Egypt that's fine for me. In my case, I find a lot more interesting and authentic the cultures of Subsaharan Africa, because they are the ones directly related to the people of the diaspora in Latin America. Yes, to find the roots of Candomble or Santeria one does not go to Egypt but to Nigeria. And to find the roots of modern painting one does not go to egypt but, once again, to Nigeria. Do you get it?
KAWASHKAR
The ancient Egyptians as a population was in many ways VERY different in physical appearance than many MODERN Egyptians. It is NOT racist to say that while modern Egyptians ARE descendents of the ancient Egyptians, that does NOT mean that they ALL look PHYSICALLY the same, nor that the population in Egypt today reflects that of ancient times. Ancient Egypt was NOT oriented towards WESTERN or EASTERN cultures. MOST of ancient Egypt's culture came from the SOUTH of Egypt, which is NOT subsaharan Africa. The impact of the East and West were as INVADERS who came in WAVES from the First Intermediate period down through to the Arab invasions and beyond. The Egyptians themselves did NOT look at these INVADERS as PART of the ancient culture that originated in the South. As time went on, more peoples from these areas came into Egypt and eventually Egypt crumbled under the force of foreign invaders. Egypt in the time of the pharoahs had about 3 million people on average. Modern Egypt has a population of almost 70 million and MOST of that population growth has been in the last 200 years or so. Therefore, you cannot call the MODERN Egyptian population, with its blend of Arab, European, Egyptian and other Africans as EXACTLY the same as the ancient population. So it is not correct to say that ALL modern Egyptians, especially those in Cairo and the North are indicative of how Egyptians looked in the past, because they arent. In ancient times, the center of Egyptian culture and commerce was in the SOUTH of the country and the rulers mostly CAME from the south. It was primarily the invaders who set up their administrations in the North, since they knew that the South would be a source of RESISTANCE to their occupation. The south was ALWAYS the source of resistence to the presence of foreign rulers in Egypt, even up to and including the Roman period.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have noted that Kawashkar's English at first was spotty--meant perhaps to throw readers off-- now it carries no English as a second language trace. Just thinking!
But his subtext is still the same: 1) to deny that the Moors in Spain were both Blackamoors and Tawnymoors. He just doesn't want to accept the fact that his "mother Spain" had dalliances and a long term relationship with those Blackamoors from Africa. So "mother Spain's" history has to be airbrushed for his own psychological peace of mind.
But he also wants to deny that Ancient Egypt was an authentic indigenous African civilization populated principally with people whom Herodotus and other Greeks described as "black-skinned and woolly haired". That would be too much to bear because it would assign--in his own mind-- to the African phenotype a cachet higher than that of either the invading and plundering(why are they called "Conquistador" if not for their love of plunder and rapine)Spaniard and the defeated and enslaved Native American.
But the bleach he is applying is just not working. However he provides some kind of soft exercise for those who are interested in the facts and truth.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rasol: ..Actually the modern Arabs of the republic of Egypt do, which is why they attempt to claim Kemet, and African country and culture which the Arabs help destroy, even as they hate the very idea of [b]Kemetian - which means Blacks.
Yes. In your world view Black Americans of New York or Atlanta has more right to claim Kemet than Egyptians. I don't know anything more crazy and lunatic than that, indeed.
"Kemet", Coptic language, and modern Egypt are all part of the heritage of Egypt. The rest is simply bull. No matter ancient "Kemetians" were red, blue, black, white or green.
quote: Same way you claim the Moors, but hate and deny your own Black ancestry, perferring instead to pretend that Moor equal Latino. A lie so transparent, so pathetic, that not even you belive it. So why keep telling it?
I repeat once again. The Moorish Spain is Islamic Spain. No matter how you twist it, the fact is Al-Andalus was not a "Black" nation in Europe, but part of the cosmopolite Islamic expansion. Do you get it. Do you want I repeat it one more time?
And I don't claim "Moors". I know that Arabs contributed to Spain, but they had to be sent out for Spain to exist.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The ancient Egyptians as a population was in many ways VERY different in physical appearance than many MODERN Egyptians. It is NOT racist to say that while modern Egyptians ARE descendents of the ancient Egyptians, that does NOT mean that they ALL look PHYSICALLY the same, nor that the population in Egypt today reflects that of ancient times. Ancient Egypt was NOT oriented towards WESTERN or EASTERN cultures. MOST of ancient Egypt's culture came from the SOUTH of Egypt, which is NOT subsaharan Africa. The impact of the East and West were as INVADERS who came in WAVES from the First Intermediate period down through to the Arab invasions and beyond. The Egyptians themselves did NOT look at these INVADERS as PART of the ancient culture that originated in the South. As time went on, more peoples from these areas came into Egypt and eventually Egypt crumbled under the force of foreign invaders. Egypt in the time of the pharoahs had about 3 million people on average. Modern Egypt has a population of almost 70 million and MOST of that population growth has been in the last 200 years or so. Therefore, you cannot call the MODERN Egyptian population, with its blend of Arab, European, Egyptian and other Africans as EXACTLY the same as the ancient population. So it is not correct to say that ALL modern Egyptians, especially those in Cairo and the North are indicative of how Egyptians looked in the past, because they arent. In ancient times, the center of Egyptian culture and commerce was in the SOUTH of the country and the rulers mostly CAME from the south. It was primarily the invaders who set up their administrations in the North, since they knew that the South would be a source of RESISTANCE to their occupation. The south was ALWAYS the source of resistence to the presence of foreign rulers in Egypt, even up to and including the Roman period.
Perhaps you are right in most of the points above. However, I do believe that cathegorizing Egyptians between one or another group, particularly when the fusion of many people happened in predinastic times, is not fair to an important fraction of the Egyptians.
It has always been know of the importance of the South in the rise of Egypt. What it should not be forgotten is that dynastic egypt was multiethnic, like any great civilization of the Mediterranean.
quote:I repeat once again. The Moorish Spain is Islamic Spain.
Repeat this:
The Moors are not of Spanish origin.
The Moors are Africans who invaded and conquered Spain.
African Moors were of Mauritanean, Libyan, Malian, Senegalese, Nigerian, Sudanese, Algerian and Egyptian orign.
Even centuries later, some Europeans and so called Latinos remain so traumatised over this, that they try to convince themselves that it never happened.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
But the bleach he is applying is just not working. However he provides some kind of soft exercise for those who are interested in the facts and truth.
Agreed. Perhaps Kawashcar should consign his personal drama to threads that are explicitly devoted to the Moors?
His nonsense has been corrected by over a dozen posters now, does he really need to repeat it in every thread only to be corrected by a dozen others?
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by lamin: I have noted that Kawashkar's English at first was spotty--meant perhaps to throw readers off-- now it carries no English as a second language trace. Just thinking!
English improves practising it. However my mother language is Spanish, and I don't use English in a regular basis.
quote: But his subtext is still the same: 1) to deny that the Moors in Spain were both Blackamoors and Tawnymoors.
I don't deny. Is just you who affirm there was ever a group of people in Europe called "Blackamoors". Where do you get that? From a third rate movie of the 50s?
quote: He just doesn't want to accept the fact that his "mother Spain" had dalliances and a long term relationship with those Blackamoors from Africa.
That's simple false. No matter how many books with a Black person dresses as moors are published these days. The long term relationship was with the Arabs, Syrians, Berbers and the Muslims in general. Do you know that Syrian immigrants populated the camps of Al-Andalus, for instance. As far as I know Syrians are not "Blackamoors" or "Tawnymoors", or whatever people you call "Moor" but Spaniards don't.
period.
quote: So "mother Spain's" history has to be airbrushed for his own psychological peace of mind.
No. History of Spain has not to be clanned but only protected from heritage robbers.
quote: But he also wants to deny that Ancient Egypt was an authentic indigenous African civilization populated principally with people whom Herodotus and other Greeks described as "black-skinned and woolly haired".
Your citation of Herodotus is one classical Afrocentric adulteration. Too much Diop's madness is going around, I guess.
Look at this. Perhaps you will realize Afrocentric pseudo-scholars has been pulling the legs of Black Americans for too long:
quote:
The Herodotus quote
Perhaps the most frequently cited Greek quote among Afrocentrists is that of Herodotus (Histories 2.104.2) describing Egyptians as well as Colchians of the Caucasus as "dark-skinned and woolly-haired." That the Egyptians were dark relative to Greeks is not surprising, considering that the same is true today. But Herodotus' description of Egyptian hair would, at first glance, appear to conflict with the physical evidence left by the Egyptians themselves – numerous mummies with hair still attached to the skulls showing more straight, wavy, or lightly curled hair types than "woolly." The only way to make the evidence consistent is to assume Herodotus spoke in a relative rather than absolute sense. That is, Egyptian hair was on average curlier than Greek hair, and the tightly-curled ("woolly") hair type was found more often in Egyptians than in Greeks – as is true today. There is no reason to assume on the basis of Herodotus' words that all or even most Egyptians had "woolly" hair, nor that such hair found in Egyptians was as "woolly" as that of tropical Africans. Indeed, Herodotus himself mentions only "Ethiopians" – not Egyptians – as having the "woolliest hair of all men" (Herodotus Histories 7.70.1). Moreover, Herodotus' explanation that being melanchroes or oulotriches "indeed counts for nothing, since other peoples are, too" suggests that these adjectives did not apply exclusively to any one "race" of people.
An analogous example of a stereotype based on relative comparison comes from the medieval Arab scholar Ibn Butlan, who noted the Greeks as having "straight blond hair" and "blue eyes." Does this mean that all medieval Greeks had a Nordic appearance? Certainly not: it merely suggests that the blond-haired, blue-eyed type is more common among Greeks than Arabs and stood out more as a salient characteristic worthy of mention. The Arabs, like the Greeks, noted characteristics that were unusual in their own population and used these traits to typify the foreigners.
Interestingly, Herodotus mentions the Colchians as another group having "dark skin and woolly hair." Considering that the Colchians inhabited what is roughly modern-day Georgia in the Caucasus, it would seem that the vast majority of Colchians were most likely – and quite literally – Caucasian. Of course Afrocentric diehards might claim that Colchians too were black Africans, but such a theory runs into trouble when one considers the observations of Hippocrates, who wrote that the Colchians in Phasis "are large and corpulent in body. Neither joint nor vein is evident. They have a yellow flesh, as if victims of jaundice" (Hippocrates, Airs, Waters, Places 15). Nothing in Hippocrates' description suggests that Colchians look anything like sub-Saharan Africans and this further weakens the Afrocentric argument that Egyptians and Colchians must have looked like "blacks" on the basis of Herodotus' words.
quote: That would be too much to bear because it would assign--in his own mind-- to the African phenotype a cachet higher than that of either the invading and plundering(why are they called "Conquistador" if not for their love of plunder and rapine)Spaniard and the defeated and enslaved Native American.
Native Americans and the Conquestators become one people: us. And we respect both people because they were couragious warriors, and people of action and values.
quote: But the bleach he is applying is just not working. However he provides some kind of soft exercise for those who are interested in the facts and truth.
What really does not work is Afrocentric scholarship that has designed the Moors the example of greatness of Black Africa... given those pseudo-scholars don't even know what the term "Moor" mean in Middle Ages' Spain.
Is a pitty pseudo-scholars have so much alienated Black Americans' historical views.
quote:Originally posted by rasol: .. African Moors were of Mauritanean, Libyan, Malian, Senegalese, Nigerian, Sudanese, Algerian and Egyptian orign. ..
Mauritaneans, Senegaleses, Nigerians, Sudaneses were not part of the civilized world when the Arabs and Berbers (the real "Moors") attacked them from the north. Muslims attacked and enslaved the pagans: the Black Africans.
They conquered the subsaharans and dominated them, and many Blacks were sent into slavery.
Do you think those slaves were the conquestators of Europe? Have you forgotten that in the armies of the Muslims, there were many soldiers that were slaves? Who do you think has the control?
Has you forgotten the Black Subsaharans were enslaved by your beloved moors.
Putting together Algerians, Moroccans and Tunisians with their former victims, the Mauritaneans, Nigerians, Malians, etc. is just wishfull thinking. Maghrebians conquered Subsaharan Africans, and exploited them to inhuman extremes.
Black Africans were the slaves of the Muslims. Have you forgotten what happened, then? Or you have not been informed?
quote:Originally posted by rasol: ..His nonsense has been corrected by over a dozen posters now, does he really need to repeat it in every thread only to be corrected by a dozen others?
Sorry fellow, but the reason we keep arguing is very simple: you are not convinced of your own arguments, because you know Afrocentric pseudo-history is ground on quicksand.
Those guys are desperate to grap Ancient Egypt for themselves. They need it badly. God help us. In the same time the descendants of Egypt, past and present, are fast asleep in Alexandria or Luxor.
quote:Kawashkar As for Black Egyptian-wannabes, something is clear: Ancient Egypt was not Afro-disney
Let me also add Kemet wasn’t a Egypt in the Near East, the Middle East, the Mediterranean or the Fertile Crescent.
Ancient Kemet was a Civilization build and once ruled by Kemetian Africans on the continent of (say it slow) Africa; therefore Africans or African Americans have a connection to Egypt it’s that simple.
The African American connection to Kemet or the East was settled a long time ago (1775)
Kawashkar
quote: What has Black Americans to do with the Moors, anyways? Besides wishful thinking, of course.
Of Course
Moving On
Posts: 567 | From: USA | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Egypt is not in Africa only, it is on the Mediteranean, and in the region we called the Near East, always that is the case, and the only way to change this.
It is to dig around Egypt and remove the whole country out of that location and put it somewhere else.
posted
This is the location of Egypt in the Map. Notice that Palestina, Saudi Arabia and Lybia are as close as Sudan. And also note that Ethiopia is as close to Egypt as Greece and Turkey. And that Zaire is far away.
Now. This is a "Moor" according to Black Muslims of the U.S.
posted
Kemet being in the Middle East or Far East is only a Political Construct or Geopolitics , it is not the Scientific fact of where Egypt is located
AMR1
quote:Egypt is not in Africa only, it is on the Mediteranean, and in the region we called the Near East
The Mediteranean is a Sea,(not a nation or country) the Fact is Africa is a continent, Kemet is a nation in Northern part of Africa not debetable
Kemet
quote:and the only way to change this. It is to dig around Egypt and remove the whole country out of that location and put it somewhere else.
Keep Dreaming
Posts: 567 | From: USA | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
You are right. Egypt heritage is Egyptian, but you better wake up your fellow countrymen about the complot Black Americans are doing to robb that heritage for them. Egyptians should fight for what is yours.
You are right. Egypt heritage is Egyptian, but you better wake up your fellow countrymen about the complot Black Americans are doing to robb that heritage for them. Egyptians should fight for what is yours.
KAWASHKAR
YES YOU ARE RIGHT. Another question people ignore is
1- why the Egyptians always targeted in their military adventures
Greater Palestine, nubia, abyssinia and Somalia, never were interested even in libya.
I think those areas is what the Egyptian race is.
2-Another point 3800 years ago the israelis walked into egypt and were not defined in any document as a different race, just as hebrews or Egyptians
quote:Egypt is not in Africa only, it is on the Mediteranean
Egypt is in Africa.
Yes the Mediterranean sea is north of Egypt.
Similarly, the Atlantic is West of Senegal and Spain.
No Egypt does not lie 'on' the Mediterranean, and nor do Senegal and Spain lie 'on' the Atlantic.
The American educational system has apparently failed the young pseudo Arab, who can't even grasp the most basic geographical concepts.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Amr1 The original Libyans were Black. Also I don't know from what you are getting your information from but the Ancient Egyptians never targeted Abyssinia or Somalia. You seem to forget that this is from where the land of punt was. The regarded this area as "Gods Land" Where is your proof that the egyptians targeted these areas? You keep saying your opinion but what about proof.
Peace
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
kawasPkar, who ever said that afro americans repped AE the best ? I grow weary of your semantics, Kawashkar. As for the Herodotus bashing, read: Black Spark, White Fire. About the hair, see this article. And anyway they probly were closer 2 us than arabs! I mean come on! Greeks were not the people who people Europe 2day, but no one denies they ...
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rasol I think the troll is trying to say that they (Egypt, North Africa, and the Middle East) are on the same latitudinal lines, while oblivious to the fact that this means nothing.
If it is skin color or race that is supposed to be connected by this line, then sorry buddy, but you know that europeans are lighter than anyone on their line, and that North Native Americans, Europeans, and East Asians were/are all situated on the same line. THE ORIGINAL PEOPLES THERE WERE BLACK. Populations move !
Ex: Ancient Egyptians moved into Egypt from the south. Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kawaskhar AND AMR1, why dont you provide some EVIDENCE to back up your claims:
1. Ancient Egyptian culture ORIGINATED in the South of Egypt.
If you DONT agree, post some SCHOLARLY research that CONTRADICTS this point.
2. Ancient Egypt was INVADED REPEATEDLY by ASIATICS (Arabs, Persians, Levantines) producing 3 "intermediate" periods in ancient Egyptian history, where FOREIGNERS were rulers. These periods were preceded and followed by the GREAT Kingdoms LED by BLACK AFRICANS from the SOUTH, who EXPELLED the foreigners. Egypt CEASED to be a empire once FOREIGNERS: namely Greeks and Romans, SHUT the temples of Egypt and forbid the worship of the ancient Gods.
Once again if you dont agree provide some EVIDENCE. One "white" pharoah does not make ancient Egypt a WHITE civilization. Just like ONE black king in Greece or Rome does not make Greece or Rome BLACK either.
Provide some evidence to support your claims that the ancient Egyptians were MULATTO, mixed color, part African, MOSTLY WHITE people from the NEAR EAST.
I am convinced that NEITHER of you understand history and DENY the RACISM of Arabs AND whites as it has played a role in DISTORTING African history. Sudan, or "the land of the Blacks", is RAPIDLY becoming LAND OF THE ARABS and at some point in the NOT TO DISTANT FUTURE, people will be arguing whether the KUSHITES were black. This NONSENSE is a DIRECT result of ARAB influence the BRAINWASHING of local BLACK Africans who have NO concept of history outside of that HISTORY imposed on them by the conqueror. If anyone does not KNOW what I mean, then read the history of Sudan where EGYPTIAN Arabs used Sudan as a SLAVE Kingdom for much of the 18th and 19th century.....
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by What Box: kawasPkar, who ever said that afro americans repped AE the best ? I grow weary of your semantics, Kawashkar. As for the Herodotus bashing, read: Black Spark, White Fire. About the hair, see this article. And anyway they probly were closer 2 us than arabs! I mean come on! Greeks were not the people who people Europe 2day, but no one denies they ...
Sudanese and Ethiopians,consider Egyptians as invaders from ancient times.
In fact Piankhy of dynasty 25 was a nubian king who wanted to crush Egypt for past humiliation in 800 B.C.
When he in fact became a Phoroah of Egypt, he changed his attitude toward Egypt.
Posts: 1090 | From: Merowe-Nubia | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by What Box: ^^So. and White Americans called the English "Invaders"
Actually the 25th Dynasty is a considered a restortion of Kemetic religous and cultural tradition.
It is essentially the last Native Nile Valley dynasty.
Granted there were some attempts to restore Native rule even post Ptolemy, but still, the 25th is the last great dynasty of the African nation of Kemet.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rasol: ...Actually the modern Arabs of the republic of Egypt do, which is why they attempt to claim Kemet, ...
Why do Black Americans like so much to assume identities of other peoples? Why they fool themselve pretending they are something they are not?
I have seen Black Americans believing they are Olmecs, and even dressing like them. There are even "Black tribes" that have formed religious association with the ridiculous claim "Black indians" existed in the Americas before the Amerindians.
I have seen Black Americans believing they are Egyptians, Moors, Ancient Chang Chineses, Polynesians, East Indians, etc.
Why you attempt to claim anything but Subsaharan Africa? Why you are so ashame of your real roots in Subsaharan Africa? I don't know why it is so. But it is.
Other ethnic groups look at Black Americans and laugh at the pretending game. They don't say so, but I believe serious African Studies have lost its value because such as exagerated claims.
quote: and African country and culture which the Arabs help destroy, even as they hate the very idea of Kemetian - which means Blacks.
Sorry fellow, but if the point is "race", it is well known "Kemetians" were lighter than Black Americans, and that there was a large population of the population that didn't look "African" at all.
quote: Same way you claim the Moors, but hate and deny your own Black ancestry, perferring instead to pretend that Moor equal Latino. A lie so transparent, so pathetic, that not even you belive it. So why keep telling it?
What "Black ancestry"? First, my country which is located far away from the Caribbean don't have a Black population. If a have one of those famous "one drops" it is by the way of
Spaniards have admixtures with Germans, Jews and Arabs. Perhaps some Berber as well. But the Berber we has always known and which is part of the story of spain is this one. No other.
The Moros are from Morocco, Tunez and Algiers. No from Mali!
Take a look. These people are real Moors (Moros):
Spaniards are not talking of Black African people when they say Moor. They are talking about Kabiles and other Imazighen groups.
quote:Originally posted by AMR1: [QB] YES YOU ARE RIGHT. Another question people ignore is
1- why the Egyptians always targeted in their military adventures
Greater Palestine, nubia, abyssinia and Somalia, never were interested even in libya.
I think those areas is what the Egyptian race is.
2-Another point 3800 years ago the israelis walked into egypt and were not defined in any document as a different race, just as hebrews or Egyptians
regards,
Educated people always know about the historical links between Palestina, Egypt, Mesopotamia, Turkey and the Mediterranean Sea.
It is just Black Americans the ones disoriented in theirs identity. They want to play Egyptian, Amerindian, Moor or Chinese. Anything but Subsaharan Africans. It is a shame they act like that.
However, Egyptian heritage belong to Egyptians. The Coptic Church, which preserves Coptic (the languaje of ancient Egypt) is also Egyptian. So, what is in risk is nothing less than Egypt's national heritage.
Topic Closed
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
,being, usually lower parts of civilizations, if they're even in any.![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
are annoying.
Printer-friendly view of this topic