quote: Wally wrote: All of the things we see and experience today, of which we refer to as 'modern' civilization had their origins in the ancient Nile Valley, and were ultimately refined in Kemet. Much of what we think is new is not, and not always improved...
...to which we get this response...
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver: Re: Heading of the topic. It boils down to what you mean by 'civilization'. Certainly, African 'civilization' doesn't start with the ancient Nile Valley complexes known as predynastic Egypt and dynastic Egypt. I thought you were a proponent of evolution of culture as 'processes' as opposed to being treated as single events; whatever happened to that?
There is NOTHING in what I originally wrote that doesn't imply the process of achieving civilization; our current documentations give evidence that this process of evolution attained its zenith in the ancient Nile Valley; the components of this civilization did not exclusively include Ancient Egypt; the process of achieving civilization began with the first human societies, which just happened to exist in Africa...
Then we get the rote, knee-jerk responses to the use of the term race:
quote:Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida *sigh*:
quote:Anthropology-Ethnology (identifying and labeling racial groups)
dissembling - to give a false or misleading appearance; conceal the truth, while not 'outright' lying.
...and...
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Indeed so! Wally's gives a very excellent list of innovations by the ancient Kemetians, but then he had to ruin in with his own distortion of ethnology due to his own dogma when it comes to 'race'! By the way, the true definition of ethnology is the study or analysis of different groups of people and their cultures and the relation and interactions between them.
All of this is truly sad, because it reflects a dogmatic approach to scholarship: "there is no such thing as race (biologically as defined by Europeans) so anything previously describing it is therefore null and void."
Ancient Egypt was the first society to classify humans into different races and were not confused by euphemisms such as 'ethnic', 'phenotype', and the other rubbish that passes itself off as "new science"...
First physical evidence of this Kemetou ideology
This we have from Champollion the Younger (and I will occasionally add high-lighted text to illustrate the particular observations that he made): "{p. 46} Let us start with the oldest of these theses, that of Champollion the Younger, set forth in the thirteenth letter to his brother. It concerns bas-reliefs on the tomb of Sesostris I, also visited by Rienzi. These date back to the sixteenth century B.C. (Eighteenth Dynasty) and represent the races of man known to the Egyptians. This monument is the oldest complete ethnological document available. Here is what Champollion says about it:"
quote: Right in the valley of Biban-el-Moluk, we admired, like all previous visitors, the astonishing freshness of the paintings and the fine sculptures on several tombs. I had a copy made of the peoples represented on the bas-reliefs. At first I had thought, from copies of these bas-reliefs published in England, that these peoples of different races led by the god Horus holding his shepherd's staff, were indeed nations subject to the rule of the Pharaohs. A study of the legends informed me that this tableau has a more general meaning. It portrays the third hour of the day, when the sun is beginning to turn on its burning rays, warming all the inhabited countries of our hemisphere. According to the legend itself, they wished to represent the inhabitants of Egypt and those of foreign lands. Thus we have before our eyes the image of the various races of man known to the Egyptians and we learn at the same time the great geographical or ethnographical divisions established during that early epoch. Men led by Horus, the shepherd of the peoples, belong to four distinct families. The first, the one closest to the god, has a dark red color, a well-proportioned body, kind face, nose slightly aquiline, long braided hair, and is dressed in white. The legends designate this species as Rot-en-ne-Rome, the race of men par excellence i.e., the Egyptians. There can be no uncertainty about the racial identity of the man who comes next: he belongs to the Black race, designated under the general term Nahasi. The third presents a very different aspect; his skin color borders on yellow or tan; he has a strongly aquiline nose, thick, black pointed beard, and wears a short garment of varied colors; these are called Namou. Finally, the last one is what we call flesh-colored, a white skin of the most delicate shade, a nose straight or slightly arched, blue eyes, blond or reddish beard, tall stature and very slender clad in a {p. 47} hairy ox-skin, a veritable savage tattooed on various parts of his body; he is called Tamhou. I hastened to seek the tableau corresponding to this one in the other royal tombs and, as a matter of fact, I found it in several. The variations I observed fully convinced me that they had tried to represent here the inhabitants of the four corners of the earth, according to the Egyptian system, namely: 1. the inhabitants of Egypt which, by itself, formed one part of the world ...; 2. the inhabitants of Africa proper: Blacks; 3. Asians; 4. finally (and I am ashamed to say so, since our race is the last and the most savage in the series), Europeans who, in those remote epochs, frankly did not cut too fine a figure in the world. In this category we must include all blonds and white-skinned people living not only in Europe, but Asia as well, their starting point. This manner of viewing the tableau is all the more accurate because, on the other tombs, the same generic names reappear, always in the same order. We find there Egyptians and Africans represented in the same way, which could not be otherwise; but the Namou (the Asians) and the Tamhou (Europeans) present significant and curious variants. Instead of the Arab or the Jew, dressed simply and represented on one tomb, Asia's representatives on other tombs (those of Ramses II, etc.) are three individuals, tanned complexion, aquiline nose, black eyes, and thick beard, but clad in rare splendor. In one, they are evidently Assyrians, their costume, down to the smallest detail, is identical with that of personages engraved on Assyrian cylinders. In the other, are Medes or early inhabitants of some part of Persia. Their physiognomy and dress resemble, feature for feature, those found on monuments called Persepolitan. Thus, Asia was represented indiscriminately by any one of the peoples who inhabited it. The same is true of our good old ancestors, the Tamhou. Their attire is sometimes different; their heads are more or less hairy and adorned with various ornaments; their savage dress varies somewhat in form, but their white complexion, their eyes and beard all preserve the character of a race apart. I had this strange ethnographical series copied and colored. I certainly did not expect, on arriving at Biban-el-Moluk, to find sculptures that could serve as vignettes for the history of the primitive Europeans, if ever one has the courage to attempt it. Nevertheless, there is something flattering and consoling in seeing them, since they make us appreciate the progress we have subsequently achieved.
Champollion-Figeac, Egypte ancienne. Paris: Collection l'Univers, 1839, pp. 30-31. ...
...a proper study of the actual ideology of the Kemetou would make it pointless to engage in a discussion (a long and subjective one) as to "The Race of the Ancient Egyptians." They can , subjectively, be any Race you choose them to be, unless of course, you ask them! the information is ALL there... ...
Posts: 3344 | From: Berkeley | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:All of this is truly sad, because it reflects a dogmatic approach to scholarship:
The main race dogmatist in these conversations is you.
quote: "there is no such thing as race (biologically as defined by Europeans) so anything previously describing it is therefore null and void."
The ideological dogma that you call race, is exactly what you copied from European - racists, and nothing more.
Your ideas about race were laid about by Blumenbach 200 years ago.
There is nothing more to your race-ideology than that.
That fact that you neither know nor comprehend the source of your brainwashing, and like most brainwashed persons....don't want to know either, is what keeps you imprisoned.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:First physical evidence of this Kemetou ideology
"Right in the valley of Biban-el-Moluk, we admired, like all previous visitors, the astonishing freshness of the paintings and the fine sculptures on several tombs.
Yes, I've quoted Champollion as often as you, but I don't take him literally as you do, anymore than I do Budge when he says Nehesi means Negro, and is used to distinguish the "Egyptians" from "Negroes".
There interpretation of meaning reflects European racialism, not the Kemetians themselves.
That doesn't mean they have no value, but we have to use common sense and see the textual evidence *ourselves* if we are to properly interpet.
So, I ask you again...Can you present the primary text evidence, which you preport to show the claimed racial groupings of "Negro", "Semite" and "Caucasian", and in that order demonstrating a claimed race hierarchy?
I have actually -never seen- the ordering that you proclaim but do not present evidence of.
It's important because these groups are what you claim race *is*.
If the primary text does not concord then your claim is falisified.
So, please show us your
1) Negroes on top. 2) Semites in the middle. 3) Caucasians on the bottom.
Kemetian iconography.
Consider it that your bluff has been called.
I also asked you to explain the contradiction between the Book of Gates reliefs and it's 4 ethnic groups, and your claim that it is a table of 3 races.....
as with too many questions that matters, it's a question you can't answer, and so ignore.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Wally wrote: All of the things we see and experience today, of which we refer to as 'modern' civilization had their origins in the ancient Nile Valley, and were ultimately refined in Kemet. Much of what we think is new is not, and not always improved...
...to which we get this response...
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver: Re: Heading of the topic. It boils down to what you mean by 'civilization'. Certainly, African 'civilization' doesn't start with the ancient Nile Valley complexes known as predynastic Egypt and dynastic Egypt. I thought you were a proponent of evolution of culture as 'processes' as opposed to being treated as single events; whatever happened to that?
There is NOTHING in what I originally wrote that doesn't imply the process of achieving civilization; our current documentations give evidence that this process of evolution attained its zenith in the ancient Nile Valley; the components of this civilization did not exclusively include Ancient Egypt; the process of achieving civilization began with the first human societies, which just happened to exist in Africa...
Which would be a 'legitimate' response from me. Now that you've reassured me that what you call 'civilization' is the culmination of progressive increase in complexity of human socialization, hence constituting 'processes', and that the Nile Valley is 'a' Holocene outgrowth of pre-Neolithic Saharo-tropical African socialization processes, then we are on the same page.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Wally wrote: All of the things we see and experience today, of which we refer to as 'modern' civilization had their origins in the ancient Nile Valley, and were ultimately refined in Kemet. Much of what we think is new is not, and not always improved...
...to which we get this response...
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver: Re: Heading of the topic. It boils down to what you mean by 'civilization'. Certainly, African 'civilization' doesn't start with the ancient Nile Valley complexes known as predynastic Egypt and dynastic Egypt. I thought you were a proponent of evolution of culture as 'processes' as opposed to being treated as single events; whatever happened to that?
There is NOTHING in what I originally wrote that doesn't imply the process of achieving civilization; our current documentations give evidence that this process of evolution attained its zenith in the ancient Nile Valley; the components of this civilization did not exclusively include Ancient Egypt; the process of achieving civilization began with the first human societies, which just happened to exist in Africa...
Which would be a 'legitimate' response from me. Now that you've reassured me that what you call 'civilization' is the culmination of progressive increase in complexity of human socialization, hence constituting 'processes', and that the Nile Valley is 'a' Holocene outgrowth of pre-Neolithic Saharo-tropical African socialization processes, then we are on the same page.
Yes, we are indeed on the same page... Posts: 3344 | From: Berkeley | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Perhaps on this thread page only, but metaphorically speaking I think not. And for the following reasons Rasol has pointed out.
You are merely projecting your own modern (inaccurate and false) notions of 'race' onto the Kemetians and are as guilty as the Eurocentrics who have done the same.
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Wally says - we should pay attention to what the Kemetians have to say.
Then he selectively quotes European scholars [and Diop], but completely ignores the request to produce primary text evidence specifically denoting his claims.
The reason for this is clear.....there isn't any.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
rasol, Djehuti, you are both beginning to bore me. You keep repeating the same old mantra; implying that the information that I am presenting is derived from Europeans! What nonsense...
The topic of this forum is Egypt and Egyptology, and the primary source of what I am presenting is from the Mdu Ntr:
Champollion writes, "Men led by Horus, the shepherd of the peoples, belong to four distinct families." look up the words for 'family'/'tribe'/'race' in the Mdu Ntr! I'm certainly not going to do this for you again...
Also, pay attention to the following terms; 'Ret en na Rome' - "We men above Man" - it would be no different if a modern African culture would present such a chart; that culture would place itself as superior to all other Blacks, and the other racial groups in descending order as they saw them.
'Nahasu' - "Strangers" /lit. "foreign Blacks" Budge was not entirely inaccurate when he translates this term into "Negroes"; he simply failed to complete his translation by indicating that the Kemetou, knowing that they themselves belonged to the same "Family" (Race), naturally, placed all other Negroes (Blacks...) into this category.
'Namou' - "Nomads or (Namou Sho)= "Desert Nomads"
'Tamhou' - "Red people" These terms or terminologies do not apply to Nations, but to families; of which the Kemetou divided into 3, not including themselves since they were "Men above Man!" Europeans did not invent this concept of families or races, they merely interpreted the information from their own perspective.
The Ancient Egyptians were the first civilization on record to specifically reference the study of human racial groups, ethnology, nationalities, etc.
If you would just study the Mdu Ntr (ie, words such as "Aamu") you would see this clearly. It would be a lot more productive than to continue to repeat the same old empty and pointless mantra...
Posts: 3344 | From: Berkeley | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Wally: rasol, Djehuti, you are both beginning to bore me.
^ Actually you are bore, as you start these boring race threads, but never answer any questions, because you haven't thought your dogmatic ideology through well enough to come up with any answers.
The result is a pointless, futile and silly discourse, as shown...
quote:You keep repeating the same old mantra
Boring Wally. Stop the rhetorical noisemaking and answer some questions please.
quote:implying that the information that I am presenting is derived from Europeans! What nonsense...
Are you senile? This is quoted from your post: This we have from Champollion the Younger ...by definition you are quoting a European.
Why do you bore us with denial of the obvious?
quote:The topic of this forum is Egypt and Egyptology
Judging by your posts, the topic of this thread is apparently Wally's self indulgent boring myopic dogmas, and inability to ever answer a straight question.
quote:Champollion writes,
^ And he does it again, lol -> Quotes Europeans while claiming to be quoting the Ancient Egyptians.
Are you losing your mind?
quote: "Men led by Horus, the shepherd of the peoples, belong to four distinct families."
The above is another quote from Champollion..... I've asked you 5 times how you can claim the 4 groups in the Book of Gates are 3 'races'.
4 is not 3. The contradiction between your notion of race, that those tables is fundamental.
If you insist that Book of Gates is a table of races - then you must assign each table a different race - thefore you must insist that Nehesi is *A DIFFERENT RACE* than Rm.t.
If on the other hand you claim that the groups represent differences "within a race" - then you are admitting that it is NOT a table of races., and race is just your dogma arbitrarily imposed upon the mdw ntr.
One can just easily impose upon the Km.t that all 4 groups are 4 members of 1 race [human-race].
The point, which seems to fly over your head, is that once there is a dichotomy between the number of Kemetic tables and the number of "Wally-races"....then you are relating Wally-isms and not the Km.t.
But you're so trapped in your bourgious, self limited racial view of the universe that you are incapable of recognising the obvious and drastic flaws in your own discourse.
You have allowd yourself to be reduced to a dishonest triffling, self contradicting, self deluded bore of a dogmatist, all because you refuse to provide straight answers to relevant questions, provided requested evidence or otherwise honestly engage conversation.
quote: look up the words for 'family'/'tribe'/'race' in the Mdu Ntr!
I'm certainly not going to do this for you again...
More empty posturing while you fail to answer questions or present evidence. Booorrrinnng!
quote:Also, pay attention to the following terms; 'Ret en na Rome' - "We men above Man" - it would be no different if a modern African culture would present such a chart; that culture would place itself as superior to all other Blacks,
^ Non-sequitur and contradiction -
Nonsequitur: because claimed cultural superiority of Rm.t or Masai, or Zulu, or Ashanti, or San, or Japanese, or Russians or French, or Muslims in no demonstrates or validates the concept of race, or the concept of strict racial heirarchy that you claim but fail to produce evidence of.
Contradiction: because you claim Ret 'n Rome divides the Rm.t from 'other blacks', [actually it's Rm.t as opposed to *everyone else*] yet you claim Rm.t and Neshy are all the same race....therefore even in the sense in which you are using it Ret N Rome does *not* denote racial distinctions.
Again, you fail to see the plain contradictions in your racial ideology.
I'm trying hard to maintain some respect for you.
But you are making it hard, because your diatribe is so unintelligent, well...it's just apalling.
quote:'Nahasu' - "Strangers" /lit. "foreign Blacks" Budge was not entirely inaccurate when he translates this term into "Negroes";
^ Your foolishness is beyound tiresome, you began this by protesting that you were not quoting Europeans, and then you sit there and do *nothing* but.
And the phrase "not entirely inaccurate" should earn you and award for weasel-worded attempts to justify a lie.
I must say, what a pointless and non-responsive post Wally. Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Where's the requested primary textual evidence from Wally?
quote:
So, please show us your
1) Negroes on top. 2) Semites in the middle. 3) Caucasians on the bottom.
Kemetian iconography.
^ Truth: there is no iconography from the Kemetu showing Wally's claimed 'strict race heirarchy'.
The Book of Gates iconography typically shows the Rm.t, then Aamu, then Nehesi, then Temehu, in that order from sunrise to sunset relative to the Rm.t.....
The notion of Negroes followed by Semites followed by Caucasians is a figment of a racist imagination.
And -> that's why Wally keeps quoting Budge and Champollion and not producing the requested primary text.
Can't produce what does not exist.
Isn't that right Wally?
So what will you do now?
Start a new thread and hopes of running away from the questions you failed to answer in this one? Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Interestingly enough, this is near precisely what the text does when Hor addresses the entire assembly of Rt, A3mw, Nhhsw, and Tmhhw as "the herd of Ra."
Now none of that presupposes any ideology of "race science" was known anywhere in the world in that era. "Race science" awaits the age of European expansion and their later need for hard and fast categories to justify their imperialistic conquests.
Getting back to the ancient Egyptians and their view of humanity, one can't solely rely on the Gate of Teka Hra vignette 30 because it's a religious/spiritual writing not an ethnogeographic treatise and it leaves out the Hw3 Nbw (peoples of the north Mediterranean) most of whom, but not all of them, would correspond to the old white/caucasian anthropology/forensics race.
quote:Originally posted by rasol: One can just easily impose upon the Km.t that all 4 groups are 4 members of 1 race [human-race].
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Getting back to the ancient Egyptians and their view of humanity, one can't solely rely on the Gate of Teka Hra vignette 30 because it's a religious/spiritual writing not an ethnogeographic treatise and it leaves out the Hw3 Nbw (peoples of the north Mediterranean) most of whom, but not all of them, would correspond to the old white/caucasian anthropology/forensics race.
I agree.
It's critical to this conversation to note that the ordering is Rt, A3, Nhhsw, Tmhhw and is therefore
a) not a racial heirarchy and...
b) is not in the order that Wally claims. [thus refuting his basis for assigning the ordering to race]
This is why I ask Wally for primary test reference showing the ordering that he claims.
Wally is also misquoting Champollion, which leads to another beef....
Champollion and Budge are great sources, but one has to understand that we are dealing with 19th century Europeans, who reflected their own racist culture upon their view of the other cultures.
A good example comes from Champollion considering the Tamehu as race-representers for Europe.....in fact they are no such thing.
Tamehu are Libyans.
Europeans are not involved in any of these texts.
Nor is their any European race, or concept that would even remotely relate to caucasian.
I can almost excuse Champollion and Budge...more easily than Wally, who should know better than to make these kinds of mistakes of elementary myopia.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ LOL I concur with everything you stated about Wally, Rasol.
It's unfortunate that anyoe and everyone else can see the logical flaws in his whole argument but himself, but then again that is the very result of dogma isn't it? Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
One would be incredibly naive to suppose that in all the complexity and sophistication of Ancient Egyptian society to believe that the whole concept of nationalities, races, etc., would be contained in a single text "The Book of Gates." That is what the posters here would have you believe. I am no longer debating with them, as they have no point.
Ex: for those who wish to know The term 'Aamu' in the Mdu Ntr means "servant" and was used to apply to the 'Asiatic' peoples, in fact all of the terms in the Mdu Ntr used to refer to the 'Asiatic' peoples were perjoratives. An astutute individual from Nigeria also offered the observation that 'Aamu' in Yoruba meant a clumsy servant that was always breaking things...
You will note that the ones who question my point that it is essential to understand Kemetou ideology by understanding the Mdu Ntr, essentially ignore this and continue to debate around the issue...
Posts: 3344 | From: Berkeley | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:One would be incredibly naive to suppose that in all the complexity and sophistication of Ancient Egyptian society to believe that the whole concept of nationalities, races
How sad, that you associate your superstitious, anti-scientific and pseudo-intellectual dogma of 'races' with 'complexity and sophistication'.
The word that best describes your warped view of Kemetic society is -> reductionist.
quote:The term 'Aamu' in the Mdu Ntr means "servant" and was used to apply to the 'Asiatic' peoples
So what?
quote:in fact all of the terms in the Mdu Ntr used to refer to the 'Asiatic' peoples were perjoratives.
This is from your website -> Other Africans Nahasu (pages 344a/386b) = Strangers or barbarians, a language as close to the Ancient Egyptian language as modern Egyptian, "nahas" means "good for nothing; worthless."
^ If you believe this, and if Km.t have perjorative terms for 'other Blacks' as well as non Blacks....then how can the use of perjoratives affirm the division of the world into a heirarchy of Black, Semetic, and white races?
Moreover Tamehu - which you equate with caucasian - does not, according to you, carry the same perjorative that either Nehesu [Negro/good for nothing], or Aamu [Semite/servant] does.
Indeed your warped attempt to turn Km.t into and Apartheid state, reminds me of Author Kemp and his bizarre rationalisations of Nordic/Nazi Ancient Egypt.
It's and odd comparison but what you share with Kemp is the *need* to justify your racial views thru the Ancient Egyptians, for which you will go to any lengths.
I don't expect and answer from you, because I've given up on the idea that you are capable of answering hard questions.
I'm only pointing out the obvious fallacies inherent in nearly every sentence you've written in this thread.
Disappointed as I am in you, I have accepted that you limit yourself to a certain [shallow] level, and nothing will get you beyound this limit.
And it's a shame because all you are doing is undermining your own credibility and often exquisite work with mdw ntr.
quote:You will note that the ones who question my point
That you have a point is a figment of your imagination. Anyone with a brain can see this, and easily debunk your weakly supported dogmas.
However, I certainly invite anyone who agrees with you to 'man-up' and answer the questions put to you, because you sure can't.
Here they are again.....
quote:Originally posted by rasol: ^ Where's the requested primary textual evidence from Wally?
quote:
So, please show us your
1) Negroes on top. 2) Semites in the middle. 3) Caucasians on the bottom.
Kemetian iconography.
^ Truth: there is no iconography from the Kemetu showing Wally's claimed 'strict race heirarchy'.
The Book of Gates iconography typically shows the Rm.t, then Aamu, then Nehesi, then Temehu, in that order from sunrise to sunset relative to the Rm.t.....
The notion of Negroes followed by Semites followed by Caucasians is a figment of a racist imagination.
And -> that's why Wally keeps quoting Budge and Champollion and not producing the requested primary text.
Can't produce what does not exist.
Isn't that right Wally?
So what will you do now?
Start a new thread and hopes of running away from the questions you failed to answer in this one?
quote:Wally: I am no longer debating with them, as they have no point.
translation: I can't debate them, because I have no point.
quote:Djehuti wrote: It's unfortunate that anyone and everyone else can see the logical flaws in his whole argument but himself, but then again that is the very result of dogma isn't it?
posted
My meagre research has not uncovered any such instances of the word A3mw applied by AEs to other continental African indigenees whose occupations were in the servantry. Perhaps others can point me to such documentation?
Yes they served, and did so quite well enough to attain permanent attachment to their family of service (wills requesting that they not be resold nor mistreated -- even marriages into the family) and to attain to highest ranking government posts.
The natural expectation that a non-commercial agent A3mw residing in KM.t was there for one thing; to supply their labor, or whatever talent or skills they posessed, as servants to the natives.
quote:Originally posted by Wally:
Ex: for those who wish to know The term 'Aamu' in the Mdu Ntr means "servant" and was used to apply to the 'Asiatic' peoples, in fact all of the terms in the Mdu Ntr used to refer to the 'Asiatic' peoples were perjoratives. An astutute individual from Nigeria also offered the observation that 'Aamu' in Yoruba meant a clumsy servant that was always breaking things...
You will note that the ones who question my point that it is essential to understand Kemetou ideology by understanding the Mdu Ntr, essentially ignore this and continue to debate around the issue...
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: My meager research has not uncovered any such instances of the word A3mw applied by AEs to other continental African indigenees whose occupations were in the servantry. Perhaps others can point me to such documentation?
I doubt that the etymology of the word Aamu yields servant, in mdw ntr, or that the word Nehasi means worthless.
Yes they served, and did so quite well enough to attain permanent attachment to their family of service (wills requesting that they not be resold nor mistreated -- even marriages into the family) and to attain to highest ranking government posts.
The natural expectation that a non-commercial agent A3mw residing in KM.t was there for one thing; to supply their labor, or whatever talent or skills they posessed, as servants to the natives.
Yes and also Rm.t had distinct words for servant, slave, and worthless, none of which are Aamu or Nehesu.
Just because non Rm.t ethnic groups could be associated with prejoratives doesn't imply that this is specifically or soley what those names meant.
Actually discussion of the meaning of the word Aamu is just meant to divert us from Wally's false claim that the Kemetic icongraphy showed a strict [racial] ordering, when in fact, it is complex and beautiful, spiritual text, which he reductively assigns to race.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ So the question now is how reliable are Wally's translations?
I would imagine that they are accurate in everything else besides ethnic or people labelings.
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
This thread is a lot like batting practice. You know, in the real game, the ball zips in at over 90 mph and does little dances on its way, with the objective of striking you out! But, in batting practice, it's the opposite where you are thrown pitches to hit...
The problem that dogmatic ideologues have is that whenever objective facts are presented that contradicts there view (ie, race doesn't exist and/or was invented by Europeans), they immediately try to ignore these facts or try to diminish their significance :
Champollion had the luxury of resources and time to visit the ruins of Ancient Egypt and which he made the following observations on the racial hierarchy:
quote: I hastened to seek the tableau corresponding to this one in the other royal tombs and, as a matter of fact, I found it in several...This manner of viewing the tableau is all the more accurate because, on the other tombs, the same generic names reappear, always in the same order.
Yes, Rome.t, Nahasu, Namu, and Tamhu; but this isn't enough for the dogmatists, they demand pictures!
Defining hierarchy- "A group of people, or things arranged in order of rank or grade."
The establishment of an hierarchy in the Mdu Ntr can be easily demonstrated: The Kemetou described themselves as "Ret.n na Rome.t" (Ret na Rome) or Ret.n = We men na = above; over Rome.t = man Now if this isn't the clearest indication of an hierarchy then I don't know what is! If they are below the god Hor and above the rest of humanity, what can be more clearer than that this is a hierarchy? It is the rest of humanity and their description is where the dogmatists aim their cannons; the three clearly defined groups that Champollion (please excuse him for being European) cites, and the subsequent order into which they are ranked...
Ikhnaton's hymn to Aten This being the time of egalitarianism where all races were considered equal...
quote: ...The foreign countries, Syria and Kush, The land of Egypt Thou settest every man into his place Thou suppliest their necessities Everyone has his possessions And his days are reckoned The tongues are divers in speech Their forms likewise and their skins are distinguished (For) thou makest different the strangers.
from Olumide Lucas' book
quote: The Yoruba phrase "apa amu sua", which means "an unthrifty person" is derived from three AE words: Apa - "he who belongs to the house i.e. servant" Amu - one of the Asiatic tribes engaged in domestic service in Ancient Egypt Sua (Sua-nit), a nome in AE. The phrase is a comtemptuous term which preserves the idea of the wastefulness of foreign domestic servants in AE who hardly knew the value of crockery and other articles they sometimes smashed to pieces.
And the most absurd notion that you shouldn't depend on the Mdu Ntr to understand Ancient Egyptian thought makes as much sense as "don't depend too heavily upon Chinese to understand the history, culture and thought of China!" ...I can hit these easy pitches all day long, but it is now time to start the game seriously and deal with the Kemetou's ideology, or simply move on...
Posts: 3344 | From: Berkeley | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Wally: This thread is a lot like batting practice. You know, in the real game, the ball zips in at over 90 mph and does little dances on its way, with the objective of striking you out!
You struck out long ago. You are standing at the plate arguing with the umpire, yelling, shouting and flailing your arms about, because you just can't accept the fact that you stuck out, and that is that.
But we will indulge your pointless, non question answering, noisemaking anyway...just for amusements sake....
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:The problem that dogmatic ideologues have is that whenever objective facts are presented that contradicts there view (ie, race doesn't exist and/or was invented by Europeans), they immediately try to ignore these facts or try to diminish their significance
Yes, that's exactly what you did.
Here I'll show you.
You lied, and claimed that in Egyptian text there is a strict ordering of peoples as....
rm.t nehesi aamu tamehu.
I posted the iconography - from your own website no less, and showed that the actual order is....
rm.t aamu nehesi tamehu ....
This refutes your claim of *racial* ordering.
You know this.
Caught in a lie, you try to ignore it and change the subject, like a true dogmaticist, exactly what you accuse others of being.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:The foreign countries, Syria and Kush, The land of Egypt Thou settest every man into his place Thou suppliest their necessities Everyone has his possessions And his days are reckoned The tongues are divers in speech Their forms likewise and their skins are distinguished (For) thou makest different the strangers
^ And? Are you trying to claim that ANY observation Egyptians make about Kush or Syria or some othe foreign nation proves the existence of race?
That's just pathetic.
STRIKE THREE, YOU ARE OUT. Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:The Yoruba phrase "apa amu sua", which means "an unthrifty person" is derived from three AE words
Technically, we don't need to address this, because it isn't Ancient Egyptian either, so it again underlines your failure to produce primary text - which is your claim.
However, all you have shown here is that the term Aamu can be analogised to servant.
Much like the term Negro can be analogized to slave.
But, you don't claim that Negro means slave do you?
No, instead you point out that the etymology of Negro is latin for Black.
Therefore for your claim to be valid you must do the following ->
Demonstrate that the etymology of Aamu in mdw ntr is servant.
^ If you can do this, I will give you credit for finally having made at least 1 point.
posted
Some years ago me and Manu Ampim went over the Champollion citation from Diop's English language edition African Origin of Civilization, pp. 46 - 48.
I tabulated all the readily available BG 4:5:30 paintings and descriptions to the aim of proving or disproving if the order of the peoples varied.
I found the texts never varied from the strict order:
Rt Rmt - "center of it all;"
A3mw - peoples at the Rt Rmtyw's sunrise;
Nhhsw - peoples where the sun is at midday, i.e., south of the Rt Rmtyw;
Tmhhw - peoples toward the Rt Rmtyw's sunset.
I also found that Champollion's description is the only thing that exists that's contrary to this natural sunpath ordering in this spiritual text about the path of the sun (each gate represents an hour of the sun's movement).
Manu informed me that Champollion was writing from memory. Champollion was not writing while in direct view of the paintings he inaccurately describes in what is only a personal letter to his brother not a scholarly academic work.
In this particular case, Champollion is wrong on several counts (or the translator botched the job).
He is wrong about the hour of the Herd of Ra depiction.
He is wrong about the order of the peoples.
He is wrong about the continental origin of the Tmhhw.
He is wrong about the meaning of the painting in general.
Champollion is wrong and it's wrong to rely on him if one wants to be right.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Since the CHAMPOLLION citation about Egyptians & Southerners as being depicted "in the same way" is nowadays often quoted out of context, I often wondered if "this same way" wasn't a reference to the previous description by the same author of red-brown skinned Egyptians and of the "Negroes" rather than the Ramesses III's tomb paintings where Egyptians & Southerners are depicted in the same way. Does anyone know?
Posts: 307 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ I've actually seen French reinditions of the Champollion text where he gets the order right - Rm.t, Aamu, Nehesi, and Temehu.
On this particular matter, he may have just been misquoted.
By the way, we discussed this years ago, when a guy named Ozzy was on the board and presented Champollion in French, so Wally knows he is wrong. He's just being stubborn.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rasol: ^ I've actually seen French reinditions of the Champollion text where he gets the order right - Rm.t, Aamu, Nehesi, and Temehu.
On this particular matter, he may have just been misquoted.
True!
quote: Je me hâtais de chercher le tableau correspondant à celui-ci dans les autres tombes royales, et en le retrouvant en effet dans plusieurs, les variations que j’y observais me convainquirent pleinement qu’on a voulu figurer ici les habitants des quatre parties du monde, selon l’ancien système égyptien, savoir : 1e les habitants de l’Égypte 1e les habitants de l’Égypte, qui, à elle seule, formait une partie du monde, d’après le très-modeste usage des vieux peuples ; 2e les Asiatiques; 3e les habitants propres de l’Afrique, les nègres ; 4e enfin (et j’ai honte de le dire, puisque notre race est la dernière et la plus sauvage de la série) les Européens, qui à ces époques reculées, il faut être juste, ne faisaient pas une trop belle figure dans ce monde.
posted
^ Yeah, I still remember the guy may he R.I.P.
Excellent point, by the way Takruri
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri:
Some years ago me and Manu Ampim went over the Champollion citation from Diop's English language edition African Origin of Civilization, pp. 46 - 48.
I tabulated all the readily available BG 4:5:30 paintings and descriptions to the aim of proving or disproving if the order of the peoples varied.
I found the texts never varied from the strict order:
Rt Rmt - "center of it all;"
A3mw - peoples at the Rt Rmtyw's sunrise;
Nhhsw - peoples where the sun is at midday, i.e., south of the Rt Rmtyw;
Tmhhw - peoples toward the Rt Rmtyw's sunset.
I also found that Champollion's description is the only thing that exists that's contrary to this natural sunpath ordering in this spiritual text about the path of the sun (each gate represents an hour of the sun's movement).
Manu informed me that Champollion was writing from memory. Champollion was not writing while in direct view of the paintings he inaccurately describes in what is only a personal letter to his brother not a scholarly academic work.
In this particular case, Champollion is wrong on several counts (or the translator botched the job).
He is wrong about the hour of the Herd of Ra depiction.
He is wrong about the order of the peoples.
He is wrong about the continental origin of the Tmhhw.
He is wrong about the meaning of the painting in general.
^ This order by the movement of the sun makes the most sense out of all the theories, and it is unfortunately correct that many people distort the order of these images based on their own biased and false racial notions (including Wally).
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
...ah, still evading the reality of language, I see...
But for those who wish to avoid the ideological confusion that's being pro-offered here, please refer to: http://geocities.com/wally_mo/
It's all quite simple, really;
Ret or Rome.t = "Men" or "Man" which then is above the following 3 categories (just simply disregard the 'ranking' business as it simply becomes a distraction) --using the spelling of Champollion and other Coptic scholars--
quote:Wally writes: Does the picture become clearer and in focus now?
Here's the picture I see.
You lied.
You got caught.
You are winking and trying to play it off.
Why don't you reply back, and give us one good reason why the above is not a perfectly fair assessment.?
Meanwhile, let's get back on topic:
Champollion's language and the reality of your dishonest dogma........
quote:Je me hâtais de chercher le tableau correspondant à celui-ci dans les autres tombes royales, et en le retrouvant en effet dans plusieurs, les variations que j’y observais me convainquirent pleinement qu’on a voulu figurer ici les habitants des quatre parties du monde, selon l’ancien système égyptien, savoir :
1e les habitants de l’Égypte, qui, à elle seule, formait une partie du monde, d’après le très-modeste usage des vieux peuples ;
2e les Asiatiques;
3e les habitants propres de l’Afrique, les nègres ;
4e enfin (et j’ai honte de le dire, puisque notre race est la dernière et la plus sauvage de la série) les Européens, qui à ces époques reculées, il faut être juste, ne faisaient pas une trop belle figure dans ce monde.
^
quote:Wally's dishonest dogma: First physical evidence of this Kemetou ideology......The three clearly defined groups that Champollion cites, and the order into which they are ranked...
1. the inhabitants of Egypt;
2. the inhabitants of Africa proper: Blacks;
3. Asians;
4. Europeans
followed by...
quote:Wally/shamefaced: just simply disregard the 'ranking' "business" as it simply becomes a distraction
^ Uh, Wally, without your twisted ordering, inability to count to 4, and fabricated ranking, where is the ideology - except in the things you lied about to begin with?
Wally should apologise to discusssants on Egyptsearch for trying to give us 'the business' [ie lying] to us.
Instead he asks us to *forget* his lie.
Wally, without the lie you tried to propagate your entire argument collapses into a series of half baked strawmen arguments. You know this, which is why you needed to lie in the 1st place.
Forget your lie (?), and how you got caught, in all of your smug foolishness?
"Je me hâtais de chercher le tableau correspondant à celui-ci dans les autres tombes royales, et en le retrouvant en effet dans plusieurs, les variations que j’y observais me convainquirent pleinement qu’on a voulu figurer ici les habitants des quatre parties du monde, selon l’ancien système égyptien, savoir :
1e les habitants de l’Égypte, qui, à elle seule, formait une partie du monde, d’après le très-modeste usage des vieux peuples ; 2e les Asiatiques; 3e les habitants propres de l’Afrique, les nègres ; 4e enfin (et j’ai honte de le dire, puisque notre race est la dernière et la plus sauvage de la série) les Européens, qui à ces époques reculées, il faut être juste, ne faisaient pas une trop belle figure dans ce monde."
In English:
"I hurried to search the table corresponding to this one in other royal tombs, and by finding it in effect in several, the variations which I noticed there entirely persuaded me that they [Egyptians] wanted to represent the inhabitants of the four parts of world, which according to the ancient Egyptian system here, were [to know]:
1st the inhabitants of Egypt, which, formed a part of the world of its own, according to very - modest usage of the old people; 2nd the Asians; 3rd the inhabitants of Africa proper, the Negros; 4th finally (and I am ashamed to say it, since our breed is the last and the most wild of the series) the Europeans, who in these late epochs, it is necessary to be fair, didn't make too nice of a figure (~ didn’t make a very good impression) in this world.Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^If this quote is Champollion's, and if this translation is correct, then what to make of this?....
"...they [Egyptians] wanted to represent the inhabitants of the four parts of world, which according to the ancient Egyptian system here, were [to know]:
1st the inhabitants of Egypt, which, formed a part of the world of its own, according to very - modest usage of the old people; 2nd the Asians; 3rd the inhabitants of Africa proper, the Negros; 4th finally (and I am ashamed to say it, since our breed is the last and the most wild of the series) the Europeans, who in these late epochs, it is necessary to be fair, didn't make too nice of a figure (~ didn’t make a very good impression) in this world.
^*Who's this "our breed", i.e. the "Europeans"? Could the "Tamahou" be whom Champollion was referring to here as "our breed", because I see no other candidate? Could this be what al Takruri was alluding to, when he said that Champollion was wrong about the Tamahou's continental origin? It seems so, to me.
*What about the notion of "Africa proper", representing the "Negros"? Could this be the 'Nehesou' that he is referring to? If so, "Negro" would hardly be the translation here, nor are regions south of Egypt any more "Africa proper" than Egypt.
*Last but not least, the interpretation of the ordering here seems to suggest, that the order of the groups in question is some sort of ranking that carried a weight of 'favorability of impression' of socio-ethnic status [from the ancient Egyptian viewpoint], with first being the most superior impression and going down from thereon?
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Who's this "our breed", i.e. the "Europeans"? Could the "Tamahou" be whom Champollion was referring to here as "our breed", because I see no other candidate? Could this be what al Takruri was alluding to, when he said that Champollion was wrong about the Tamahou's continental origin? It seems so, to me.
Yes, that is exactly AlTakruri's point and he is correct.
Have to understand who is doing the translating.
This is a 19th century European [Champollion].
He is looking for "himself" in Kemetic texts and reflecting his culture upon them.
This is why he manages to see Europeans where there are none.
Frankly the difference between AlTakruri's assessment and Wallys is right here:
AlTakruri writes: I tabulated all the readily available BG 4:5:30 paintings and descriptions to the aim of proving or disproving if the order of the peoples varied.
Wally does nothing but sit on his duff and mis-quote Champollion, even after knowing his citation was false.
AlTakruri was interested in learning.
Wally...only in propagandising.
He just didn't think he'd get called on it, and reasoned it useful for 'debate' as long as no one else knew.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ And Wally then compounds this error, by misquoting Champollion, and switching the orderings of the text around, in desparate gambit to give the impression that the Km.t are ordering by Wally's concept of 'race'.
The Km.t do not 'order' by race, because 'race' is not the concept the text is relating, thus Wally's argument is exposed as both fake and false.
Of course, racialism is rooted in lies and self delusion, so it's naive to expect honesty in such cases.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah. Sometime back I had wrote in this forum about what I surmised to be Champollion's/Europeans' need to find himself/their people in AE by any means.
The Tjemehhu were Africans, some of whom were very heavily intermixed with north Mediterraneans ranging from the Tyrrhenian to the Ionian to the Aegean.
I proposed this fusion's beginnings are historically first seen in Minoan art and is lastly attested to by the readiness of the "Sea Peoples" and the ancient "Libyans" to forge alliances and coalitions.
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver: ^*Who's this "our breed", i.e. the "Europeans"? Could the "Tamahou" be whom Champollion was referring to here as "our breed", because I see no other candidate? Could this be what al Takruri was alluding to, when he said that Champollion was wrong about the Tamahou's continental origin? It seems so, to me.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think Wally can be held accountable for either of Champollion's orderings. I think he's merely repeating what he found in Diop and Diop himself notes that there are at least two print versions of Champollion's letters to his brother.
Only by perusing Nations Negre et Culture in its French original can we discern who's responsible for the skewed order placing noon before dawn, Champollion (before correcting himself in a later edition for the public eye), Diop (for selecting a Champollion version placing Levantines after continental Africans), or Cook (for mistranslating, however benign or without intent to do so).
posted
^ Fair enough. But the reason I knew the quote was false is because we discussed it before on Egyptsearch, when Wally presented it, Ozzy refuted it, and then Wally sulked over it, and never brought it up again, until now.
This was years ago.
Why knowingly repeat falsified garbage, unless your aim is to deceive?
Wally is responsible because he knows no such -racial tables - as rmt, followed by nehesi, then aamu, and temehu exists.
Wally isn't dense. He tried to pull a fast one, and got caught.
End of story and end of thread.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
Indeed so! Wally's gives a very excellent list of innovations by the ancient Kemetians, but then he had to ruin in with his own distortion of ethnology due to his own dogma when it comes to 'race'! ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic