posted
^^LMAO at AMR who does not comprehend or understand any scientific findings, let alone their implications.
The "migrations" in National Geographic's genographic project are based on genetic haplogroups. But not all of their findings are as accurate as you may think! E3b, U6, M1, and others they attribute as back migrations from Asia actually originated in Africa. The reason why they are in Asia is because *Africans migrated to Asia* at that time and not the opposite. Posts: 26586 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^^LMAO at AMR who does not comprehend or understand any scientific findings, let alone their implications.
The "migrations" in National Geographic's genographic project are based on genetic haplogroups. But not all of their findings are as accurate as you may think! E3b, U6, M1, and others they attribute as back migrations from Asia actually originated in Africa. The reason why they are in Asia is because *Africans migrated to Asia* at that time and not the opposite.
That is correct!
.
Posts: 1549 | From: California, USA | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let's see, we even have archaeological evidence of Africans migrating FROM Africa (Egypt) INTO the Asia (Levant) by the Mushabian culture which soon evolved into the Natufian culture.
We even have an idea as to how the Natufians looked like by their physical remains.
Now AMR, cite us specific archaeological and anthroplogical evidence showing a prehistoric migration of Asians into Egypt.
I doubt we will see any, and if we do it will be old and inaccurate.
Posts: 26586 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^^LMAO at AMR who does not comprehend or understand any scientific findings, let alone their implications.
The "migrations" in National Geographic's genographic project are based on genetic haplogroups. But not all of their findings are as accurate as you may think! E3b, U6, M1, and others they attribute as back migrations from Asia actually originated in Africa. The reason why they are in Asia is because *Africans migrated to Asia* at that time and not the opposite.
That is correct!
.
So you guys now claiming you know better than the national geographic.
ya right.
why don't you give it up.
Posts: 1090 | From: Merowe-Nubia | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here's a better idea, why don't YOU give up some actual data or explaination that backs up your mixed-up claims!
Again, cite information as to why National Geographic's claim is correct! Provide us with anthropological or archaeological evidence of this prehistoric back-migration!
We have already provided evidence of the opposite, and everything else which refutes your claims. Now provide us with something!!
Can you? I don't think so.
Posts: 26586 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Look man, why should I put an effort to do anything, more than what the National Geographic is saying and you are rejecting.
I am convinced you will accept no other proof, if you had rejected the Nationl geographic, no less, showing migration into Africa between 20000-5000 years ago.
Where this people went who came to Africa, from Europe and the Near East in that period vanished into space.
Why bring a picture of statue of Tut coloured black?
Are u trying to say that their colour?
You know it isn't
They were reddish brown to light brown, even Tut was right brown.
I don't agree with the picture of Tut made by the French team either. We all know the colour of Tut a dark brown , a colour that reflects his Egyptian and black grandmother Tiye's colour.
That statue we all know why it is coloured black, the colour of the fertile land of Egypt.
There was some Phoarohs coloured Green also, were the phoraohs green?
quote:Originally posted by AMR1: I don't agree with the picture of Tut made by the French team either. We all know the colour of Tut a dark brown , a colour that reflects his Egyptian and black grandmother Tiye's colour.
You just acknowledged how inaccurate and/or biased National Geographic can be. It is not a peer reviewed scientific journal citing studies. It is simply a layman's quick read of scientific endeavours with illustrations and pictures.
Nobody is claiming National Geographic to be wrong in their assertion, but currently you have been unable to provide information that supports it.
Quite possibly most of us can't comment on the general accuracy of National Geographic and it's not entirely relevant. It's a magazine, not a supplement or replacment for established renowned scientific journals.
Posts: 477 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
Why bring a picture of statue of Tut coloured black?
Are u trying to say that their colour?
You know it isn't
They were reddish brown to light brown, even Tut was right brown.
LMAO
First off, I wasn't the one who made that post that was Masonic Rebel!!
Second, no one ever said that black statue was Tut's actual skin color. The black statue represents an important Egyptian spiritual aspect called a Ba. The reason why it was depicted pitch black was because the color black was considered sacred and holy to the ancient Egyptians as was discussed here and here. Unlike today where you and other Arab-washed Africans consider the color black to be all that is bad and ugly!
quote:I don't agree with the picture of Tut made by the French team either. We all know the colour of Tut a dark brown , a colour that reflects his Egyptian and black grandmother Tiye's colour.
LOL Ironically that reconstruction by the French team was sponsored by and adverstised by non other than National Geographic!! Do you still think everything National Geographic says is correct??
quote:That statue we all know why it is coloured black, the colour of the fertile land of Egypt.
Nope! Read what I said. The black color that was used in that statue has NOTHING to do with the land. Black was a sacred color that was holy to the Egyptians. Of course your Arab-washed mixed-up mind cannot comprehend that.
quote:There was some Phoarohs coloured Green also, were the phoraohs green?
LMAO No! The only time pharaohs were colored green was when they were being identified with the god Ausar who was god of agricultural fertility and hence the green color!
quote:By the way TUT'S NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC IS BROWN or black American colour.
LOL Actually the color of National Geographic's Tut reconstruction is what you modern day Egyptians and other Arabized north Africans would call "asfar" or 'yellow'. This is the color of many Arab Egyptians today who are definitely mixed. But we all know Tut was NOT mixed but pure African as shown by his portraits.
Posts: 26586 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^LOL If you can even call the reconstruction a "caucasoid" since "caucasoid" is a false label anyway and I've seen a 'light-skinned black' Puerto-Rican who looks alot like it!
Of course Tut was not of Spanish descent nor was he of Western Asian descent. Posts: 26586 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Masonic Rebel: Sorry AMR1
I had to search for this one
The Original King Tut wasn't this light in color or a Caucasoid
They got his features right, but his colour wrong. He was dark reddish brown. I think, they coloured him like a lower Egyptian than an upper Egyptian who has Nubian blood.
Posts: 1090 | From: Merowe-Nubia | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^Irelevant, since 'Nubian' is a false label that describes no specific group and BOTH ancient Lower Egyptians and Upper Egyptians were black Africans period. No evidence of "mixture".
Posts: 26586 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^^Irelevant, since 'Nubian' is a false label that describes no specific group and BOTH ancient Lower Egyptians and Upper Egyptians were black Africans period. No evidence of "mixture".
egyptians portayed themselves brown like tut's colour and nubians as black , not the same and please don't bring this fabricated picture of the tomb of seti.
because seti's tomb is full of egyptians portrayed brown, you can check videos taken of the inside the tomb in the internet.
brown and black is not the same.
How come many in Africa, became brown, look at the national geographic showing influx of people back to Africa during and after teh ice age until 7000 years ago.
Posts: 1090 | From: Merowe-Nubia | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
northern egyptian were never black....and the south is just a tan
-------------------- Always remembering that we are nothing without His Merciful hand over us. Posts: 284 | From: gods heaven | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by crazyone: northern egyptian were never black....and the south is just a tan
Many say tut is dark brown, but why the women folk are light yellow. Was he tanned?
Posts: 1090 | From: Merowe-Nubia | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
check even their facial features, the nose and the lips they are not like afrikaan.
-------------------- Always remembering that we are nothing without His Merciful hand over us. Posts: 284 | From: gods heaven | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^this is going to be interesting...
Posts: 3423 | From: the jungle - when y'all stop playing games, call me. | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by AMR1: egyptians portayed themselves brown like tut's colour and nubians as black , not the same and please don't bring this fabricated picture of the tomb of seti.
LOL How many times do we have to tell your memory losing mixed-up self, that 'Nubians' were not a single people but consisted of various peoples, some the same color as the Egyptians!!
Also, that tomb painting from the tomb of Ramses is NOT "fabricated" but is very real and depicts an Egyptian with the same complexion as a Kushite! Can you prove that the picture was "fabricated"?? LMAO
quote:because seti's tomb is full of egyptians portrayed brown, you can check videos taken of the inside the tomb in the internet.
Again, the painting you speak of is in Ramses tomb. And you still babble nonsense.
quote:brown and black is not the same.
Of course not, but most peoples labeled 'black' in Africa are technically really brown! LOL Also, skin color in Africa varies to degrees from population to population, there IS NO division of Africans into 'races' based on skin color.
Did you know there are many Asians that are dark-skinned and have complexions similar to Mexicans. By your stupid argument, dark-skinned southeast Asians like me are a different 'race' from light-skinned 'yellow' ones! LOL
quote:How come many in Africa, became brown, look at the national geographic showing influx of people back to Africa during and after teh ice age until 7000 years ago.
How come you still babble about that inaccurate National Geographic study after WE'VE PROVEN TO YOU THAT IT'S WRONG! Not to mention the ridiculous reconstruction of Tut that National Geographic also made!!
Posts: 26586 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
This site of the National Geographic, will show you the movement of man since 60000 years ago out of Africa and the influx of some back to Africa, with Egypt its main door.
The colour of Ancient Egypt, their hair textures, eyes, and nose clearly show that they were a race of their own as a result of intermingling with groups coming out of Africa or into Africa as the site of the National geographic clearly shows.
Click on the arrows coming into and out of Egypt or across the red sea, around 20000 years ago.
Regards
stop and check this site carefully, Ancient Egypt pure race, my bottom
gir gir gir
Posts: 1090 | From: Merowe-Nubia | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^Stop and check our responses in this thread.
First of all, non of the experts in National Geographic including the head of the genographic project have said anything about "race" but state that it doesn't scientifically exist!!
Second, those migration routes are based on genetic lineages which are inacurate because those lineage originated in Africa!
National Geographic also said that Tut looked like this:
Which he doesn't. So stop using National Geographic as the perfect always reliable source, because it isn't!
Prove that the said genetic lineages were not African in origin! Prove by citing archaeological or anthroplogical remains that an immigration to Africa took place 20,000 years ago!... Posts: 26586 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course like Wells said we are all African under the skin. I am not arguing that
But from 60000-20000 years ago people have changed. They did live for 40 thousand years outside Africa. When another wave of migration moved around 20000 years ago into Africa, they were not black, and had mixed with Africans in Egypt, to make the Egyptian Race.
I trust the National geographic fully. They brought both pictures of Tut as they came out the French one and the darker American one. I think Tut was in the middle.
quote:Originally posted by AMR1: Of course like Wells said we are all African under the skin. I am not arguing that
But from 60000-20000 years ago people have changed. They did live for 40 thousand years outside Africa. When another wave of migration moved around 20000 years ago into Africa, they were not black, and had mixed with Africans in Egypt, to make the Egyptian Race.
Yet you have provided no actual evidence of such a migration, only that National Geographic "said so". And even if such a migration did take place, you have not provided any evidence as to how these people looked like, let alone that they were "not black".
quote:I trust the National geographic fully. They brought both pictures of Tut as they came out the French one and the darker American one. I think Tut was in the middle.
You trust National Geographic even though they were the ones who sponsored the French reconstruction? The American reconstruction was the only one that was not biased because they had no idea it was king Tut. Regardless, National Geographic has made many mistakes in the past and the French reconstruction is an example of mistakes they still make. Posts: 26586 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^And that dead horse would be AMR. Or should I say, braindead horse! LOLPosts: 26586 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^And that dead horse would be AMR. Or should I say, braindead horse! LOL
Go argue with the national geographic, according to their records, no way ancient egyptians were pure africans,
Posts: 1090 | From: Merowe-Nubia | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Go argue with the national geographic, according to their records, no way ancient egyptians were pure africans
If you are African, then naturally you must purely be African. Biologically, those Egyptians would be in company with the rest of the world, in terms of "purity". So now, what is next on the agenda?
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^LOL You waste your time, Supe. AMR is gone for now, likely because he was unable to answer my questions.
But you watch, he'll be back and spewing the SAME old nonsense again! He always does! Posts: 26586 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Go argue with the national geographic, according to their records, no way ancient egyptians were pure africans
If you are African, then naturally you must purely be African. Biologically, those Egyptians would be in company with the rest of the world, in terms of "purity". So now, what is next on the agenda?
ok great some one is realizing that he does not knows better than the National Geographic.
Egyptians past and prezsent were never pure race.
Thank you
Posts: 1090 | From: Merowe-Nubia | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
hi,l'm still fairly new to this site. I just wanted to comment on what Amri said earlier [ok great some one is realizing that he does not knows better than the National Geographic.
Egyptians past and prezsent were never pure race.
Thank you ]
AE were pure. Also whoever said something earlier about brown not being black obviously has not been to other parts of Africa. This stereotyping of one race is becoming stupid. There are different shades in Africa and is has nothing to do with migration in and out or whatever. You might as well say that the dark hair whites are that way because of a significant amount of admixture. Nonsense. I am African, brown in complexion,my sister is light skinned and my brother is caramel. go figure smart pants.
Posts: 38 | From: united states | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Supercar: No population ever was, past and present, and now...
Which is exactly what is documented by Wells' genome map.
So you are agreeing that Ancient Egyptians are not pure race.
But you think they were still black.
That is where the American category of what is black comes in.
In Africa, if you are not pure, you are not black, you are not white, either. That is why I called it the Egyptian race, a race on its own, as a result of specific events in that specific part of Earth, which is called Egypt.
Posts: 1090 | From: Merowe-Nubia | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: You fail to answer my questions (as usual )
*What is the basis of National Geographic's 'records'??
*How accurate is this basis??
Answer these above questions. I doubt you can
And you still ignore these question in regards to what National Geographic says!
Instead you rant about Egyptians not being black. A definition of black was already provided-- dark skin.
Also, you still have not answered anything as to how Egyptians were not 'pure' Africans. Explicitly explain what the Egyptians were 'mixed' with. 'Mixed' with who??
(Of course I will get no answers, only foolish rantings )
Posts: 26586 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
The original Egyptians were Black. But, Kemet was invaded by the Arameans(Aamu,Asiatics) in the Middle Kingdom. That's where we get the Biblical story of Abraham, Joseph and his brothers going down into the land because of famine in the Levant. Also, according to the Bible these Asiatics outnumbered the native Ancient Egyptians in the northern tipf of Mitsraim. These Asiatics did mix with the people of Kemet male and female that's how we have Abraham fathering Ishmael by the Egyptian Hagar. Joseph's wife was Egyptian.
The Hebrew women slept with the Nile river men. Perhaps this is how the E3b y Chromosome entered into the modern Jewish community.
Posts: 1115 | From: GOD Bless the USA | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by AMR1: So you are agreeing that Ancient Egyptians are not pure race.
Both Wells and I agree - there are no 'pure' 'races'.
We have challenged you over and again to produce a list of pure race people.
You never answer the challenge. Therefore you disagree with Wells and myself, but are unable to provide *any* evidence for your far-fetched opinions.
This amounts to and admission by you that you are not making any sense....and *you know it*.
quote:But you think they were still black. In Africa, if you are not pure, you are not black
For the last time, please produce your list of racially pure?
As it stands you have a null list, resulting in a null and void argument.
No answer?
Then continue to humiliate yourself.
We're waiting....
I think you don't know who I am.
I am the guy who always insisted there is no pure race since 7000 years ago in Egypt, and before not the opposite.
Posts: 1090 | From: Merowe-Nubia | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Topic Closed
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
Here's a better idea, why don't YOU give up some actual data or explaination that backs up your mixed-up claims! 
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic