posted
We don’t need Afrocentrist morons repeating the same idiotic things, such as the imbecilic idea that Africans can only be black, when clearly DNA shows that Africa north of Sahara was/is Caucasian. Now go away.
As the late Arthur M. Schlesinger recounted in his 1991 alarum about multiculturalism, “The Disuniting of America,” Mr. Hilliard urged schools to teach black students that Egypt was a black country; that they discovered America long before Columbus did; that Robert Browning and Ludwig von Beethoven were “Afro-European”; and that the Atlantic Ocean was originally named the Ethiopian Ocean.
All of these are standard black claims. Why would the Ocean be called “Ethiopian Ocean” if Ethiopia is in Eastern Africa, while the Ocean is to its West? Browning was Afro-European because his last name contained the word “brown”? What other reason is there? And Beethoven was black because…? Why is it again? Did I miss his rap singles?
If blacks reached America before Columbus, then what did they leave behind? And more importantly, where are the great African ships, or at least wrecks of ships, that were capable of crossing the Atlantic?
The most interesting claim is Egypt, however. Now take a look at Egyptian art Clearly we can see that ancient Egyptians were white, about the same as Italians. In fact, ancient Egyptians are not descendants of modern Arab Egyptians. Arabs are occupiers and colonizers. Coptic Christians are the real descendants of ancient Egyptians, though even the Copts now have significant Arab blood.
Red Hair occurs almost exclusively among people with white DNA. Egyptian Pharaoh Ramses (the nemesis of Moses) and King David of the neighboring Israel were described as having red hair by both the Bible and non-religious documents.
Adam, the alleged first man, and the ancient Egyptian God “Set” were both described as a redheads, showing that this hair color was quite normal in the ancient Middle East. This too shows that ancient Egyptians were white.
Blacks were not even present in Egypt, except as slaves. It was, in fact, illegal under many pharaohs for blacks to enter ancient Egypt as anything other than slaves, not even as diplomats.
Many Egyptian mummies are extremely well preserved to the point where you can count the number of their eye-lashes. It’s very clear while looking at the mummies that these people were similar to Italians (and probably were lighter-skinned than Greeks), and had nothing to do with sub-Saharan African.
The scintillating black logic that Egyptians were black operates like this:
1) Blacks lived in Africa; 2) Egypt was in Africa; 3) Therefore, Egyptians were black.
Never mind that blacks didn’t live in all of Africa.
This is similar to saying:
1) Persians lived in Asia; 2) China is in Asia; 3) Therefore, Persians built the Great Wall of China.
Blacks need not look at mummies, paintings or coins. They need not review literature contemporary to the times when ancient Egypt existed.
They can just take credit for others’ achievements, and if you counter them, they’ll call you racist.
Posts: 416 | From: Solar System | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
“By 6,000 to 7,000 years ago, the transition to agriculture had been completed in West Africa and these early agriculturalists were able to support much higher population densities than they had as hunter-gatherers. Inevitably, this nucleus of farming populations began to spread outward at the expense of more sparsely distributed Khoisan and pygmy peoples. By about 4,000 BP, the expansion had reached as far east as the middle Nile, when black Africans first appear in paintings from Pharaonic Egypt and in skeletal remains from Nubia (Junker, 1921). About 3,000 BP, another wave of advance began along the Nigerian-Cameroon border and spread rapidly throughout central, eastern, and southern Africa (Cavalli-Sforza, 1986c, pp. 361-362; Diamond, 1997; Oliver, 1966). By 300 AD, pioneering groups had advanced as far south as KwaZulu-Natal (see Bantu Expansion – Wikipedia).
Thus, black Africans were still absent from most of sub-Saharan Africa even within historic times. When the Egyptians began to build their pyramids, the peoples living to the south were scarcely darker in color. They were simply seen as uncivilized Egyptians. To the inhabitants of the ancient Middle East, the range of observable phenotypic differences was much narrower than it would later become, and it was this context that shaped their worldview in its early stages, including theorizing on universalism and human brotherhood. To a degree not easy to assess, we are heirs to notions of human sameness that were initially conceived ‘before Africa became black’.”
Also see… Diamond, J. 1997. “How Africa Became Black” in Guns, Germs and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies, New York: W.W. Norton.
Posts: 220 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok, I think it’s becoming rather obvious that Nigga no longer engages in debates and just makes personal attacks.
The latest example accuses me of not answering questions. You’d think that presenting art work, coins, religious and secular books from contemporaries would be proof. But it’s not. It’s refusal to answer questions and lack of knowledge. Go figure the Nigga!
I guess citing physical evidence and testimony from contemporaries is refusal to answer questions, but his repeated personal attacks should be published in the peer-reviewed “Science” journal.
This is the first and last warning to the Nigga. I have a strong suspicion he will mock it, and I will then just block him out. He’ll then go around complaining that the only reason I blocked him is that he was making very valuable contributions that disproved my statements. Yeah right! Look above to see his valuable contributions.
It was nice knowin’ ya, Nigga!
Negros will always be on some "black crap". Next thing you know alien will be black African too.
Posts: 81 | From: Holy Lands | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged |
In their efforts to paint the ancient Egyptians “black,” Afrocentrists rely heavily on misreadings of ancient Greek and Roman literature – many of which stem from a severe misunderstanding of the historical use of color terms. In many ages and many cultures, descriptions of human complexion as “white,” “brown” or “black” would correspond in modern usage to “fair,” “tan” or “swarthy.” According to the anthropologist Peter Frost (*):
This older, more relative sense has been noted in other culture areas. The Japanese once used the terms shiroi (white) and kuroi (black) to describe their skin and its gradations of color. The Ibos of Nigeria employed ocha (white) and ojii (black) in the same way, so that nwoko ocha (white man) simply meant an Ibo with a lighter complexion. In French Canada, the older generation still refers to a swarthy Canadien as noir. Vestiges of this older usage persist in family names. Mr. White, Mr. Brown, and Mr. Black were individuals within the normal color spectrum of English people. Ditto for Leblanc, Lebrun, and Lenoir among the French or Weiss and Schwartz among the Germans.
In the same vein, the Greek words melas and leukos when applied to skin color were usually equivalent to “swarthy” and “fair” rather than the racial terms “black” or “white” as Afrocentrists would prefer (see definition of melas in the online LSJ lexicon). There are numerous examples of this usage in Greek literature – one unequivocal example describes an aged Odysseus magically regaining his youth (Homer Odyssey 16.172-176):
With this, Athena touched him [Odysseus] with her golden wand. A well-washed cloak and a tunic she first of all cast about his breast, and she increased his stature and his youthful bloom. Once more he grew dark of color [melanchroiês], and his cheeks filled out, and dark grew the beard about his chin.
In describing the skin tone of Odysseus, Homer used the word melanchroiês – a form of the same word that other Greeks sometimes chose to describe Egyptians, and one that is the source of much Afrocentric misunderstanding. If taken literally, the word would mean “black-skinned”; however, it is clear from the context that Homer means “of swarthy complexion” rather than racially “black,” and intends to describe Odysseus regaining his youthful color. Otherwise we would have to assume that during the process of rejuvenation Odysseus transformed into a black African! This despite the numerous ancient artistic portrayals of Odysseus as Greek-looking and certainly not “black” in any modern racial sense.
Likewise, when the ancient writers described Egyptians as melas or melanchroes, they almost surely meant “dark-complected” rather than literally “black.” Any ambiguity in such descriptions can be resolved by noting that other classical writers such as Manilius specifically identified the Egyptians as medium in complexion rather than “black,” and that the Egyptians portrayed themselves as lighter and finer-featured than their African neighbors to the south.”
They will not adhere to the facts only state their wanna be belifs. I agree with the above posters the Blacks will do all kinds of tricks for bone.
Typical Dog in my book!
Posts: 20 | From: Nazareth, | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, speaking the truth makes the world full of hate.
If blacks didn’t lie about the race of ancient Egyptians, I would not have brought this up. But why would I let them lie when historical documents show that Pharaohs like Ramses and several others had red hair and white skin, and blacks were only allowed into Egypt as slaves? You also ask: who cares what color they were?
For one, it’s not color, it’s race. Color is just the most obvious thing about race, but hardly the only one.
Race does have biologic significance. That’s why you can look at a body of a 5,000 year old human and determine its race and gender.
In fact, even what you’ve said about skin, hair, eyes, etc proves that race isn’t a social concept, but a biological/genetic one.
But you may be right. Their race may not have been important… if blacks didn’t choose to lie about it to falsely pump themselves up.
Finally, why is it ok to point out that the Germans 70 years ago falsely attributed other cultures’ achievements to themselves, but it’s hateful to do it with blacks?
If I point out German lies, is that spreading anti-German hate? Does that make me Germanophobic? Not all all.
Im only here to spread the truth not distort it. Unlike the Blacks!
Posts: 416 | From: Solar System | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Van Sertima has been criticized by academics. A lengthy 1997 Journal of Current Anthropology article states that Van Sertima has ignored the work of Central American researchers who stated they found no evidence of a Black African influence or presence in the New World. The reviewers also wrote that the Olmec heads only superficially appear to be Black African. In addition, in this critique, they accuse Van Sertina’s cultural outlook of being disparaging to Native American achievements. Furthermore, in an earlier New York Times review of Van Sertima works, British scholar Glyn Daniel called Van Sertima’s work “ignorant rubbish”, concluding that the writings of Van Sertima (and Barry Fell, who he was also reviewing) “give us badly argued theories based on fantasies.”[2]. Van Sertima has sparred with some of his critics but he declined to respond to the 1997 Journal of Current Anthropology criticism” - Wikipedia article on Ivan Van Sertima
They have been debunked by many scholars but still they make bold claims.
Posts: 116 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged |
Modern Egyptians are not Arabs. There have been several studies of Egyptian Y chromosomes that reveal Egyptians are about 70% native North African, not Arabs (80% in upper Egypt), with most Y chromosomes derived from the PN2 mutation. The other Y chromosomes commonly found there have been in North Africa over 10,000 years (J1) and over 30,000 years (R1) and these are Eurasian in origin. Most of the mitochondrial DNA in Egyptians can be found in 12,000 year old north African bones or has been there over 30,000 years (dating of mutations). Essentially, any recent additions to Egyptians from Arabs or Europeans overall would have to be less than fifteen percent (and that’s a top estimate, les than ten is more likely), not enough to change the appearance of Egyptians. Copts are pretty typical of ancient Lower Egyptians though.
Ivan Van Sertima knew sod all about the actual history and prehistory of north Africa, and Diopi still less. Caucasoid peoples have been the norm in the coastal area of North Africa for about 12,000 years (we have typically Eurasian DNA from bones this old, along with Caucasoid skulls). I’ve flipped through a few of his books and a lot of his ‘stuff is absolute BS, and some of the ancient agriculture stuff by Fred Wendorf he published was retracted as innacurate at a later date.
To Dana who spouts her crap all over the internet, whom I have corrected before;
Anyone who feels like quoting descriptions of Egyptians or North Africans… Europeans typically called Gypsies black, and tanned Europeans brown until the Victorian era, so seeing North Africans being called black and brown in medieval texts doesn’t mean at all they were black Africans; it means that had tanned skin and black hair. In fact Black Africans are relentlessly called Ethiopians back in that era, and it’s never used to describe Egyptians or North Africans. And you like to leave out the descriptions of the Egyptians which describe them as being quite different to Ethiopians, and of North Africans-I’ve seen you touting some descriptions of some groups as being of all North Africans when I know damn well what the author wrote about North African, and that is that they were white Mediterraneans and have been there about 15,000 years.
Not that ancient descriptions matter, as we have their remains which look nothing like black Africans, but are remarkably similar to modern Egyptians, complete with Caucasian hair, typically Caucasian teeth and crania. Some you can still see the very pale skin on, and the hair of them is occasionally blond and auburn.. Afro hair is notably absent.
Most are quite stunningly not black, although about 1/7 could be called black African by European standards.
BTW, Europeans slaves into the Arab world 1.5 million. Black Africans over 14 million.
No way did the people magically transform due to white women being mass raped. If anything North Africans are a shade darker than they used to be as most of the sex slaves were black women as most DNA studies of North Africa will point out if you trouble to read them.
posted
Yes, some of those are Egyptian coins after Roman conquest. So? Your people come here and post links of Nubians who conquered parts of Egypt 2,000 years after the period most people see as “Ancient Egypt” and think that it proves that blacks rules Egypt.
I’ve already posted pictures of mummies, including Akhenaten, his wife, mother and grandmother of King Tut (both blond), Ramses (redhead), and many, many others.
I also posted DNA evidence and dental records showing that Egyptians were white.
You have nothing. As all liberals and black supremacists, you just state conclusions.
What proof do you have? None. You just come out and say things.
Go to my Ancient Egypt section and you’ll know how wrong you are.
Also keep in mind that a black supremacist blog by a teenager who’s taking “African-American studies” is not the same thing as a peer reviewed publication with articles written by PhD’s in genetics, Egyptology and related subjects.
I am sick and tired of morons who come here and think that they can disprove DNA evidence and photographs of mummies by posting some painting of an olive-skinned slave in some backwater of Egypt that the Pharaohs never visited… 2,000 years after Ramses II and other great Pharaohs.
Remember:
1. Good sources; 2. The right time period; 3. The right location.
Egypt was a great empire so it conquered other people. After they fell, other empires conquered Egypt. Neither fact proves that Persians or Romans or Nubians were the real Egyptians.
And seriously… if idiots keep on citing blogs, I will no longer allow such comments.
Just because ghettoplayer.blogspot.com wrote, “Egyptians were Ethiopians” does not make it so. It’s just not a credible source.
If he has reason to believe so based on some DNA evidence or photos of mummies (no, reproductions of paintings won’t do), then show me.
But just because “Ghetto Player” says something out of nowhere, backing up his opinion with no evidence, does not make it so.
Egypt was white peopleBlacks give it up.
Posts: 81 | From: Holy Lands | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
from my own studies, i have also determined the Egyptians were atleast partly white, I think there were a series of races in Egypt but black was surely not one of them until the fall of the true Pharonic Bloodlines. I think their may have been a South American like race in the region sort of like the Myans since Egypt did have an incredible amount of similarities to the them but its hard to say for sure. The two areas could have been founded by the Phoenicians, who i think were white celtic irish, since both Egyptians and the Myans claim there gods were white. One crux to the whole thing though is Ramses the 2nd has been proven to be a white red-head (the roots of the hair were tested) from studies in France, which haven’t been pushed into the mainstream very much for some reason, but its quite true. Last thing to all those who talk about how the statues look and what not, it doesn’t really matter because those statues were not modeled directly after the pharoahs because they were idealized as to represent them as gods. Has anyone ever seen a image of a royal person which didn’t appear to be early to mid 20′s and in perfect shape? Even still though you can see they wore black eye makeup (which by Egyptian writings was to help with the rays from the sun), why the hell would blacks need to put black make up around their eyes? I do think many blacks honestly think the egyptians were black but if they did their studies they’d know the egyptians weren’t. Last i don’t think it matters what race the egyptians were other than for historical reference because i’m an individualist and what our ancestors have done is not our accomplishments, its theirs, we’er just lucky enough to benefit from them.
Posts: 416 | From: Solar System | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Like I said in the first entry on this topic, when Time Magazine went to Egyptologists, all agreed that ancient Egyptians were white and none were willing to say so out loud.
There’s nothing you can do about DNA evidence. Nothing.
You are also confusing what words mean. Darker in some cultures is still very white.
It’s like in Soviet Russia, Trotsky was “right” and Stalin was “left”. That doesn’t mean that Trotsky was a conservative.
That they were darker meant that lighter skinned whites referred to them as brown. During the war between Russia and Georgia, I read that it is common for Russians to call Gergians “blacks”. Take a look at Georgians. They are as white as anyone. But they aren’t blond like Russians, so therefore, they are blacks.
That’s what these people meant. They even say so in several of your quotes where they say that Egyptians were not Negro.
You are an ignorant fool who should just shut up. Explain DNA or I will block you.
Posts: 416 | From: Solar System | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic