Topic: Application of "Racial Purity" to ancient and modern Egypt
supercar
unregistered
posted
By now there should be consensus on the following, which nevertheless seems to be in need of repetitive clarification before it finally sinks in:
Early Kemetians were descendants of Proto-Sahara (African interior) migrants.
Ancient Egyptian culture was indigenous to Africa.
Various traditions and rituals of Kemetians originated the African interior.
The predominantly Black populations of Upper Egypt took the initiative in cultural and military development, and were responsible for the creation of the Egyptian Nation or empire.
Some Ancient Egyptian rituals, traditions and values are still alive, even if the society has undergone significant transformations through foreign influx, conflict, modernization and globalization.
Presence of foreigners in Egypt, in no way negates the African nature or origins of Ancient Egypt.
Ancient Egyptians were definitely not Arabs.
Not “all” contemporary Egyptians can be called Arab, even if politically Egypt is called an Arab Republic.
“Arab” doesn’t equate to “non-black” or “non-African”. In fact Arab origins can be traced back to West Asian and East African roots!
Half castes or mulattos cannot automatically become “Caucasian” or “non-African”.
Contemporary Egyptians are still biologically, politically and geographically African!
Bottom line: Egyptian society was heterogeneous, but so were and still are other African and European nations. Hence no need for African racial purity of Egyptians.
I have seen posters like Horemheb constantly refer to rulers like “Ramsis II” (a African mulatto) or “Cleopatra” (a European with Egyptian citizenship) as a vindication that Kemet wasn’t a racially pure “black” society, and therefore can’t be considered a black society. Others have even desperately resorted to political terms such as “Arab Republic” or “Middle East” as way to disconnect Egyptians from what they perceive as “Black Africa”, i.e., Sub-Saharan Africa. What is up with this strong focus on “Racial Purity” when comes to the events in Africa? It is never applied to Western nations or Far East nations, even though in reality many “non-White” folks and even “non-Europeans” in the West have significantly contributed to the development of their societies. We don’t hear that a particular European society is heterogeneous, and is therefore non-White! With globalization, racial purity is becoming ever more irrelevant, despite extremist/conservative elites using it as a divisive tool to maintain their privileged status. Nevertheless all this “racial purity” has no bearing on Black African origins of Ancient Egyptian, Nubian and other Ancient African civilizations, but simply an irrelevant and weak distraction. I have listed a number of points as FACTS, and those who challenge it, need to speak out, or else remain in silence and irrelevance!
quote:Originally posted by supercar: By now there should be consensus on the following, which nevertheless seems to be in need of repetitive clarification before it finally sinks in:
Early Kemetians were descendants of Proto-Sahara (African interior) migrants.
Ancient Egyptian culture was indigenous to Africa.
Various traditions and rituals of Kemetians originated the African interior.
The predominantly Black populations of Upper Egypt took the initiative in cultural and military development, and were responsible for the creation of the Egyptian Nation or empire.
Some Ancient Egyptian rituals, traditions and values are still alive, even if the society has undergone significant transformations through foreign influx, conflict, modernization and globalization.
Presence of foreigners in Egypt, in no way negates the African nature or origins of Ancient Egypt.
Ancient Egyptians were definitely not Arabs.
Not “all” contemporary Egyptians can be called Arab, even if politically Egypt is called an Arab Republic.
“Arab” doesn’t equate to “non-black” or “non-African”. In fact Arab origins can be traced back to West Asian and East African roots!
Half castes or mulattos cannot automatically become “Caucasian” or “non-African”.
Contemporary Egyptians are still biologically, politically and geographically African!
[b]Bottom line: Egyptian society was heterogeneous, but so were and still are other African and European nations. Hence no need for African racial purity of Egyptians.
I have seen posters like Horemheb constantly refer to rulers like “Ramsis II” (a African mulatto) or “Cleopatra” (a European with Egyptian citizenship) as a vindication that Kemet wasn’t a racially pure “black” society, and therefore can’t be considered a black society. Others have even desperately resorted to political terms such as “Arab Republic” or “Middle East” as way to disconnect Egyptians from what they perceive as “Black Africa”, i.e., Sub-Saharan Africa. What is up with this strong focus on “Racial Purity” when comes to the events in Africa? It is never applied to Western nations or Far East nations, even though in reality many “non-White” folks and even “non-Europeans” in the West have significantly contributed to the development of their societies. We don’t hear that a particular European society is heterogeneous, and is therefore non-White! With globalization, racial purity is becoming ever more irrelevant, despite extremist/conservative elites using it as a divisive tool to maintain their privileged status. Nevertheless all this “racial purity” has no bearing on Black African origins of Ancient Egyptian, Nubian and other Ancient African civilizations, but simply an irrelevant and weak distraction. I have listed a number of points as FACTS, and those who challenge it, need to speak out, or else remain in silence and irrelevance!
Appreciate it! This thread is actually intended for anyone, if there is anyone, who wants to challenge the points I have provided as FACTS. We have been through this road many times, but have never focused on the Eurocentric need for Africans to be RACIALLY PURE societies, in order to be called African or even "Black" African !
No one said she did, so quit trying to instigate a flame war. Since you want to say that lets NOT even consider Cleopatra when we talk about ancient native Egyptians since she has no biological relationship to the land.
[This message has been edited by S.Mohammad (edited 23 August 2004).]
quote:Originally posted by Horemheb: Cleopatra was Greek.
Indeed, Macedonian/Greek, and with no known African ancestry. And therefore of no relevance whatsoever to AE ethnicity.
In her book, Not out of Africa, Mary Lefkowitz misses the point of her own "myth-debunking".
Namely, that Cleopatra "Queen of the Nile" is a European/American myth, not an "Afrocentric" myth.
She sites a student (no scholar), who was confused over the issue, but does not honestly address the fact that the confusion stems ultimately from the Romanticized (literally) fable sustained by Western mythorians. Simply put: No African historian gives a 'fig leaf' about Cleopatra.
Why? Because.....
"From the purely historical point of view, Cleopatra is thus but an empty figure without an existence of her own, the privileged but ever subordinate partner in the lives of her contemporaries."Cleopatra: Beyond the Myth by Michel Chauveau
In short. Who cares? Elisabeth Taylor fans?
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 23 August 2004).]
posted
You are correct rasol, most Afrocentrics has veered away from that one but some have tried from time to time down through the years. They usually try to point to the missing grandmother saying that "since we don't know who she was she must have been black."
Posts: 5822 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Horemheb: You are correct rasol, most Afrocentrics has veered away from that one but some have tried from time to time down through the years. They usually try to point to the missing grandmother saying that "since we don't know who she was she must have been black."
Correct the Eurocentric myth of Cleopatra as AE and the "problem" is solved.
quote:Originally posted by Horemheb: Cleopatra was Greek, she had not a single drop of non Greek Blood in her body.
Like S. Mohammad correctly stated, no one made any such claim here. The point you seemed to have missed when I mentioned "Cleopatra", was that eventhough she was a full blooded European, nonetheless she "ruled" as a queen in Egypt. Eurocentrics use the presence of such foreign rulers in Egypt, as their vindication that the Ancient Egyptian culture was an not African one, much less related to anything considered "Black" Africa. This is a fallacy that has long been debunked archeologically and in bio-anthropological terms, and continues to be the be the case. The only problem (as is apparent from your comments) is that national curricula in America don't sufficiently reflect these changes, and Hollywood movies continue to perpetuate these 18th/19th century Western myths!
posted
My brothers and sisters, We must constantly be on the alert for the Distractor(s) in our midst. They waste your time. The original topic here was concise and very erudite. Those who cannot attack its accuracy merely resort to distractions of such inane proportions: Of what relevancy is the ethnicity of Cleopatra the Seventh to the topic at hand? I say, if it isn't relavent to the topic being discussed, it should be ignored. Just my opinion...
Posts: 3344 | From: Berkeley | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Of what relevancy is the ethnicity of Cleopatra the Seventh to the topic at hand? I say, if it isn't relavent to the topic being discussed, it should be ignored.
You are absolutely right of course. But, it's all they have Wally, so I doubt anyone will ever honestly take up SuperCar's challenge. Cleopatra wasn't black....is the best they've got.
posted
Well, since we are now on the subject of Cleopatra, I do have a question pertaining to the Ptolemaic period. Once Ptolemy I became ruler and pharaoh of AE, after the death of Alexander. Did he take a native egyptian/kemetian woman as his wife, or did he bring a Macedonian/Greek woman from Grease too be his Queen, and chief wife?
Posts: 115 | From: South Bend, Indiana, US | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Supercar...the term 'Eurocentric' is a term invented by those who have decided to make themselves victims. The term has no valid meaning. Historians seek the truth regardless of any modern ethnic connotation. I feel they resent Europens-American dominance in the modern world and since they can't deal with it head on they create all of these myths to make themselves feel less inferior. Instead of joining the system, becoming successful and wealthy they feel more comfortable creating this little fantasy world of victimization. Africa has been a horrible failure in the modern world. It trails the rest of the world in every measurable catagory. Were I black the last place I would want to be associated with is modern Africa. As bad as that sounds there is an upside....that Africa has not done well in the modern world does not mean that individual blacks cannot gain great wealth and success....I offer Condi Rice, Clarence Thomas and countless others. This phony academics that some are trying to creat is not the answer. What you can do as an individual is the answer.
Posts: 5822 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Horemheb: Supercar...the term 'Eurocentric' is a term invented by those who have decided to make themselves victims. The term has no valid meaning.
quote:Historians seek the truth regardless of any modern ethnic connotation.
Since Herodotus times and earlier, historians have generally agreed that Kemet was a Black African civilization. Beginning in the 17th century European revisionists, decided that they could not bear the truth. They invented fake ethnic concepts such as caucasian, partly to cover for the fact that Africa and Asia had advanced civilization while Europe was uniformly barbarous.
Their need to claim African civilization for whites is really little more than an embarrassed reaction to the primitive nature of ancient Europe. And now, they (you) are angry because your fallacy has been exposed.
quote: Were I black the last place I would want to be associated with is modern Africa.
The truth is, you are desparate to associate yourself with ancient African civilization. And being non-African, you are insecure about it. That is why you live in a fantasy world of revisionist history, which allows you to pretend that ancient Africa is really "European". You hate present Africans because they disabuse you of your fantasy.
But you will never rid yourself of your hate because the contradiction remains:
* you are not African * you are not Black * Ancient Kemet is not European or Asian * Ancient Kemet is not white.
Once you accept the above facts, you will no longer be angry. But that sort of awakening is said to take "years of therapy". In the meantime, enjoy venting your misery in public.
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 24 August 2004).]
posted
Rasol....you have your head in the sand my friend. Euro-Americans don't have to invent anything, for what reason. We created the modern world and we still dominate the modern world. Africa has contributed nothing to what we have today, I'm sorry...that is the way it is. Every ounce of progress brought to the third world was either brought by british Colonialism or American Coporations. You said the other day that we feel inferior, about what? We are the ones with the 3000 sq foot homes who drive BMW's. We are the ones pouring money into third world nations that is giving them what little they have. We are the ones who have the industrial capacity to produce a jet figher every five minutes when running at full capacity. We are also the ones who created the Universities that employ all these radical Africanists. We are the ones who always show up in the third world with food when something goes wrong. Why is all that I have said important? Because these radical Africanists hate it, they have created this phoney academic view to make up for the fact that their culture had little to do with the creation of the modern world. Rasol....you can leave all that baggage behind and join the mainstream, the view is good my friend.
Posts: 5822 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It just went right over your head....the issue is the phony academics Bernal and the other Africanists have created. Why they have created all this is the object of my previous post. I find it ironic that they have created all this in an academic enviorment created by the people they condem. It is an example of our 'extreme' tolerance that we have put up with it as long as we have. Africa and blacks cannot progress until they decide to JOIN the rest of us.
Posts: 5822 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Horemheb: the issue is the phony academics Bernal and the other Africanists have created.
You were earlier given the opportunity to address Martin Bernal's ideas in another thread. You declined to do so. You are not addressing his ideas here either. You are just babbling off topic so as to justify your anger and hate....as Megalomanics are prone to do.
quote:Why they have created all this is the object of my previous post.
rationalization - a defense mechanism by which facts are denied by resorting to irrelevancies....
quote:I find it ironic that they have created all this in an academic enviorment created by the people they condem.
........such as "explanations" of the motives and methods of those presenting the facts.
quote:It is an example of our 'extreme' tolerance that we have put up with it
....so as to hide from themselves an obvious frustration at their inability to dispute the facts.
Horembeb: If you ever tire of demonstrating your multi-faceted neurosis, by actually addressing the topic at issue. Let us know. We'll be here for you.
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 24 August 2004).]
posted
I'm not going to have a discussion when the sources you give me are these psuedo-academic Africanist writers. we can discuss history all day but 'historical fiction' belongs on a literature board.
Posts: 5822 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Horemheb: I'm not going to have a discussion
Because.....you can't. And in that case, stop wasting our time, with ludicrous off topic rants. Just out of common courtesy if nothing else.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Keep in mind rasol that I started the thread about Queen Tiye....only 7 people bothered to respond. This board has become obsessed with Africanist propaganda no matter what its original purpose might have been. These views are not mainstream and you know it. No matter how defensive you become you are well aware that this stuff is not legitimate. If you walk into Bob Brier's office, that of Dr hawass or others they do not want to hear all this victim nonsense about how the poor down trodden blackman is being robbed of his heritage by those evil western white people. That is where you are and it is my guess that it is so ingrained in you and people like you that you will never get past it.
Posts: 5822 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Horemheb: [B]Keep in mind rasol that I started the thread about Queen Tiye....only 7 people bothered to respond.
Irrelevant. That does not give you the right to be rude and spam other peoples threads instead of addressing the topic. But I doubt you even understand that, as apparently manners are no longer properly taught in the educational institutions of "western civilization".
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Horemheb: Keep in mind rasol that I started the thread about Queen Tiye....only 7 people bothered to respond.
Horemheb, Don't be so jealous of other people with high responses. It's hard for people to take you serious. Maybe in time you can build your creditability.
I bet if you post a topic like the findings of AE artifacts in Europe or the AE ties to Europe you will get many replies.
[This message has been edited by blackman (edited 24 August 2004).]
quote:Originally posted by Horemheb: Supercar...the term 'Eurocentric' is a term invented by those who have decided to make themselves victims. The term has no valid meaning. Historians seek the truth regardless of any modern ethnic connotation. I feel they resent Europens-American dominance in the modern world and since they can't deal with it head on they create all of these myths to make themselves feel less inferior. Instead of joining the system, becoming successful and wealthy they feel more comfortable creating this little fantasy world of victimization. Africa has been a horrible failure in the modern world. It trails the rest of the world in every measurable catagory. Were I black the last place I would want to be associated with is modern Africa. As bad as that sounds there is an upside....that Africa has not done well in the modern world does not mean that individual blacks cannot gain great wealth and success....I offer Condi Rice, Clarence Thomas and countless others. This phony academics that some are trying to creat is not the answer. What you can do as an individual is the answer.
Horemheb, your assessment of Africa clearly shows your lack of understanding of geo-politics; it is a sign of someone lacking a coherent political consciousness!
Just to show you what reminds me of your comment, here is an interesting article from a website created and operated by international independent journalists, including American journalists! http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/aug2000/afri-a04.shtml
The difference between your assessment and that of Carol Lancaster, may well be that Carol is more coherent in her political thinking and clearly has an agenda!
People such as yourself "tactically" but "unsuccessfully" deny facts such as, the so-called "lettered" Westerners having ever painted black folks as "inferior" beings, in order to justify their barbarism against Black folks and that imperialism exists, for which racism is essential! This behavior of denial is symptomatic of "Eurocentrism"! Eurocentrics will never accept reality that the very people (Africans and other coloreds) they fear/despise, are the one's responsible for the European coming out of the "dark ages" for one obvious reason: sustaining colonialism of other folks (Africans, Asians, etc) as the status quo. So, distractions become the order of the day; painting Africans and others as some "genetically" incapable beings, suffering from self-esteem, and always need of outside force for their development!
BTW, today colonialism is called "intervention", and it comes in both covert (economic and social exploitation) and overt (military actions)guises!
[This message has been edited by supercar (edited 24 August 2004).]
posted
I couldn't help but notice that Horemheb casually mentioned Martin Bernal's work, perhaps as a way to avoid directly addressing the issue at hand! For one, I haven't read Martin Bernal's book; just the excerpts. I also feel that even though Martin Bernal touched on various facts, some of his points are misleading and represent confused ideas!
My points come from extensive research using, history courses as early academic electives, books, science journals (S.O.Y Keita, Rick Kittles, etc) and multiple internet sources! I also drew my points from several common sense ideas, for example:
Egypt is in Africa and Africans were the first to inhabit it. Therefore descendants of the original Egyptians must be biologically African. This is no calculus!
Archeological findings show cultures and artifacts in Southern Egypt predate those of it's Northern Egyptian counterpart, which is understandable from the fact that African migration initiated from the African interior to the North, and that the Nile has a peculiar flow from Upper Egypt to Lower Egypt. Again, average intelligence is enough to get anyone to this point!
Egypt was a mature civilization many thousands of years before the first "European" civilization came into picture! Therefore, Europeans couldn't have in anyway, been the torch carriers of civilization, regardless of what they say today.
Evolution and migration ensure that groups in West Africa or elsewhere in Africa, have not necessarily always been in their current geographical locations. E.g., hopefully, we've all heard of Proto-Sahara!
Northern Egypt must have been more diverse than it's southern counterpart, because the "Eurasian" junction made it easier for West Asian immigrants to move primarily to Northernmost African regions. Southern Egyptians, as well as southern parts of other North African nations were still in proximity to the interior African groups. Look how easy it is, to come to that conclusion without being a rocket scientist!
These are only examples of common sense, and I don't need Bernal's work to drew these conclusions!
[This message has been edited by supercar (edited 25 August 2004).]
quote:Originally posted by Horemheb: I'm not going to have a discussion when the sources you give me are these psuedo-academic Africanist writers. we can discuss history all day but 'historical fiction' belongs on a literature board.
Are you suggesting that the works of "universally" respected bio-anthropologists like S.O.Y Keita or Rick Kittles is "psuedo-academics" and that they are "Africanists"? Are you suggesting that historians like Heredotus are mentally bankrupt, and are suffering from hallucinations? Are you suggesting that a "non" bio-anthropologist like Zahi Hawass can seriously take on lettered bio-anthropologists like Keita, on bio-anthropological issues? Are you suggesting that presenting various peer reviewed science journals and publications, which have yet to be debunked successfully, is pseudo-academics?
If your answer is "yes" to all this, then you have just confirmed closed-mindedness, which impairs healthy discussions anyway. It is symptomatic of folks who don't have a leg to stand on to begin with.!
quote:Originally posted by Horemheb: Rasol....you have your head in the sand my friend. Euro-Americans don't have to invent anything, for what reason. We created the modern world and we still dominate the modern world. Africa has contributed nothing to what we have today, I'm sorry...that is the way it is. Every ounce of progress brought to the third world was either brought by british Colonialism or American Coporations. You said the other day that we feel inferior, about what? We are the ones with the 3000 sq foot homes who drive BMW's. We are the ones pouring money into third world nations that is giving them what little they have. We are the ones who have the industrial capacity to produce a jet figher every five minutes when running at full capacity. We are also the ones who created the Universities that employ all these radical Africanists. We are the ones who always show up in the third world with food when something goes wrong. Why is all that I have said important? Because these radical Africanists hate it, they have created this phoney academic view to make up for the fact that their culture had little to do with the creation of the modern world. Rasol....you can leave all that baggage behind and join the mainstream, the view is good my friend.
Now this is what I call pseudo academics! It shows that you have scholarly missed quite a bit on history and geo-politics. Irrelevant to the topic at hand, but here goes:
Fallacy: You misrepresent economic unequality between blacks folks and white folks in America, as if it were the difference between "superior" Euro-American socialism and the "inferior" Black-American socialism.
quote Horemheb: "We are the ones with the 3000 sq foot homes who drive BMW's. We are the ones pouring money into third world nations that is giving them what little they have"
Reality: Unequality between African-Americans and Euro-Americans is the result of the slavery, and corrupt and racist strategies designed to keep Black folks exploited, and underrepresented to keep the economic competition to a minimum! This also applies to the so-called "Third World" countries, that Westerners claim to be helping.
I urge you to look at one thread "Kemetian Mathematics" where I mentioned that Nigerian-born computer genuis Emeagwali was misrepresented as a "White" man on a technology magazine cover! Many African-American contributions and ingenuity are covered up and burried in history the same way: just credit the white man for it!
"We are the ones who always show up in the third world with food when something goes wrong."
Fallacy: Claims to be helping "third world" countries through "intervention"!
Reality: You've been backing viscous dictators in their countries, exploiting their natural resources; claiming to be employing folks and advancing their lives, but really over-working them in horrible working conditions and underpayment; claiming to be promoting fair trade devoid of protectionism of home-grown industry, when in reality you were using "third world" debts to pressure them into creating free-markets (basically to impose very little or no tax on Euro-exports), but in the reverse direction you insist that their goods be heavily taxed; claiming to be pumping food and money into "third world" countries, when in reality you are providing very small concessions in return for free-market and keeping up payment on debts incurred due to weak economies, immediately after "independence"!
This so-called creation of the modern world, what is that supposed to mean?
-Industrialism? Actually not a new concept, has been there since ancient times; albeit not as developed!
-science? Well, a lot of philosophy and science used in the modern world were actually introduced in the ancient world, and have only been modified for practicality in the modern world!
-Democracy? A lot of countries will have some form of democracy, if it weren't for intervention by Westerners. For instance, Iran would have still had a democracy, had the U.S and Britain not destroyed it, when they designed a coupe in the 50s and installed their puppet Shah. The result: the 1979 revolution, ending up in extremists seizing power!
[This message has been edited by supercar (edited 25 August 2004).]
posted
Comrades: I am really not interested in how Europeans "created" the modern world. This is simply a distraction from addressing the issue at hand, i.e, the challenges I posed! Although I have addressed "off-topic" absurdities, I have yet to really see challenges to the points I have made in the introductory notes. Equating the notes to "Martin Bernel's" work, hardly challenges the points!
[This message has been edited by supercar (edited 25 August 2004).]
quote:Originally posted by supercar: Now this is what I call pseudo academics! It shows that you have scholarly missed quite a bit on history and geo-politics. Irrelevant to the topic at hand, but here goes:
Fallacy: You misrepresent economic unequality between blacks folks and white folks in America, as if it were the difference between "superior" Euro-American socialism and the "inferior" Black-American socialism.
quote Horemheb: "We are the ones with the 3000 sq foot homes who drive BMW's. We are the ones pouring money into third world nations that is giving them what little they have"
Reality: Unequality between African-Americans and Euro-Americans is the result of the slavery, and corrupt and racist strategies designed to keep Black folks exploited, and underrepresented to keep the economic competition to a minimum! This also applies to the so-called "Third World" countries, that Westerners claim to be helping.
I urge you to look at one thread "Kemetian Mathematics" where I mentioned that Nigerian-born computer genuis Emeagwali was misrepresented as a "White" man on a technology magazine cover! Many African-American contributions and ingenuity are covered up and burried in history the same way: just credit the white man for it!
"We are the ones who always show up in the third world with food when something goes wrong."
Fallacy: Claims to be helping "third world" countries through "intervention"!
Reality: You've been backing viscous dictators in their countries, exploiting their natural resources; claiming to be employing folks and advancing their lives, but really over-working them in horrible working conditions and underpayment; claiming to be promoting fair trade devoid of protectionism of home-grown industry, when in reality you were using "third world" debts to pressure them into creating free-markets (basically to impose very little or no tax on Euro-exports), but in the reverse direction you insist that their goods be heavily taxed; claiming to be pumping food and money into "third world" countries, when in reality you are providing very small concessions in return for free-market and keeping up payment on debts incurred due to weak economies, immediately after "independence"!
This so-called creation of the modern world, what is that supposed to mean?
-Industrialism? Actually not a new concept, has been there since ancient times; albeit not as developed!
-science? Well, a lot of philosophy and science used in the modern world were actually introduced in the ancient world, and have only been modified for practicality in the modern world!
-Democracy? A lot of countries will have some form of democracy, if it weren't for intervention by Westerners. For instance, Iran would have still had a democracy, had the U.S and Britain not destroyed it, when they designed a coupe in the 50s and installed their puppet Shah. The result: the 1979 revolution, ending up in extremists seizing power!
[This message has been edited by supercar (edited 25 August 2004).]
good points,and some of these eurocentrics forget,that modern africa was only free as awhole for less than 50 years,and it took the u.s. over 200 years,and when they try to get thier act together,the west screws them.
but recently africa as awhole is trying harder now,and south africa,does alot and send products to europe and africa and there is a growing middle class there and many blacks in africa like the ones west contribute to the modern world but it is in africa they are mostly trying to get on it's feet again.
There are black scientist in modern africa,like nigeria,south africa, one of the most advanced states in the world, and other places there trying to make a difference and just because the western media do not show them trying to help that does not mean blacks are not doing anything today.by the way many countries in africa would be first and second world,but mostly second world for most if you look at the PER CAPT.income TODAY,and africa recently is doing better economically now and growth rate for the past few years in many states there is around 4% to 11% a year and as awhole there is more peace,and the au is trying to do something in darfur and other places,but we should not have to explain this if folks know what is going on today,unless they have an agenda.
[This message has been edited by kenndo (edited 25 August 2004).]
quote:Originally posted by supercar: By now there should be consensus on the following, which nevertheless seems to be in need of repetitive clarification before it finally sinks in:
Early Kemetians were descendants of Proto-Sahara (African interior) migrants.
Ancient Egyptian culture was indigenous to Africa.
Various traditions and rituals of Kemetians originated the African interior.
The predominantly Black populations of Upper Egypt took the initiative in cultural and military development, and were responsible for the creation of the Egyptian Nation or empire.
Some Ancient Egyptian rituals, traditions and values are still alive, even if the society has undergone significant transformations through foreign influx, conflict, modernization and globalization.
Presence of foreigners in Egypt, in no way negates the African nature or origins of Ancient Egypt.
Ancient Egyptians were definitely not Arabs.
Not “all” contemporary Egyptians can be called Arab, even if politically Egypt is called an Arab Republic.
“Arab” doesn’t equate to “non-black” or “non-African”. In fact Arab origins can be traced back to West Asian and East African roots!
Half castes or mulattos cannot automatically become “Caucasian” or “non-African”.
Contemporary Egyptians are still biologically, politically and geographically African!
[b]Bottom line: Egyptian society was heterogeneous, but so were and still are other African and European nations. Hence no need for African racial purity of Egyptians.
I have seen posters like Horemheb constantly refer to rulers like “Ramsis II” (a African mulatto) or “Cleopatra” (a European with Egyptian citizenship) as a vindication that Kemet wasn’t a racially pure “black” society, and therefore can’t be considered a black society. Others have even desperately resorted to political terms such as “Arab Republic” or “Middle East” as way to disconnect Egyptians from what they perceive as “Black Africa”, i.e., Sub-Saharan Africa. What is up with this strong focus on “Racial Purity” when comes to the events in Africa? It is never applied to Western nations or Far East nations, even though in reality many “non-White” folks and even “non-Europeans” in the West have significantly contributed to the development of their societies. We don’t hear that a particular European society is heterogeneous, and is therefore non-White! With globalization, racial purity is becoming ever more irrelevant, despite extremist/conservative elites using it as a divisive tool to maintain their privileged status. Nevertheless all this “racial purity” has no bearing on Black African origins of Ancient Egyptian, Nubian and other Ancient African civilizations, but simply an irrelevant and weak distraction. I have listed a number of points as FACTS, and those who challenge it, need to speak out, or else remain in silence and irrelevance!
[/B]
I agree with these points,I BET 200 to 1000 years from now some would try to say mandala was white because there are some whites in south africa,and south africa is not a mostly black african country. what non-sense.
[This message has been edited by kenndo (edited 25 August 2004).]
quote:Originally posted by kenndo: good points,and some of these eurocentrics forget,that modern africa was only free as awhole for less than 50 years,and it took the u.s. over 200 years,and when they try to get thier act together,the west screws them.
but recently africa as awhole is trying harder now,and south africa,does alot and send products to europe and africa and there is a growing middle class there and many blacks in africa like the in west contribute to the modern world but it is in africa they are mostly trying to get own it's feet again.
There are black scientist in modern africa,like nigeria,south africa, one of the most advanced states in the world, and other places there trying to make a difference and just because the western media do not show them trying to help that does not mean blacks are not doing anything today.by the way many countries in africa would be first and second world,but mostly second world for most if you look at the PER CAPT.income TODAY,and africa recently is doing better economically now and growth rate for the past few years in many states there is around 4% to 11% a year and as awhole there is more peace,and the au is tring to do something in darfur and other places,but we should not have to explain this if folks know what is going on today,unless they have an agenda.
[This message has been edited by kenndo (edited 25 August 2004).]
Kenndo, you and I know, as well as many other truth seeking individuals, that in reality Black folks and other colored folks have contributed just as much as their European counterparts to the modern world, and even more so, when you consider foundations for civilization.
Briefly: The 18th industrial revolution in Europe, was accompanied by the need for cheap labor and cheap raw materials. Europeans were aware of the social explosive nature of using fellow white citizens, whom they had enslaved before "discovering" the potential of exploiting Africa and other continents. Bringing in new "free" labor from foreign lands, meant creating a political psychic among average European citizens that it was for the good of mankind: civilizing foreigner (the White man's burden). Here is an excerpt from BBC about British industrial revolution:
"This dominance was both novel and brief. It was only half a century earlier that Britain had wrested European economic and political leadership from France, at a time when Europe itself lagged far behind Asia in manufacturing output."
We can argue all day long about what Europeans contributed, and what the rest of the world contributed. But this isn't the place to do that; that is a whole another discussion. This bringing up of modern African "development" and European "contributions", is nothing but a way to derail from the issue at hand. The distracter's logic: When you can't refute the points at hand, the next move would be to turn the discussion to a whole new direction. Let's not allow ourselves to fall into that trap, but insist on focusing on the topic at hand!
If anyone has access to internet photos of the Abu Simbel relief pictorial depicting Nubian and Ethiopian prisoners being shown to the God "Amon-Ra", his wife "Mut" and son "Khonsu", I would appreciate it, if you would share it here. I saw this picture in a book, and it was interesting to note that the Ethiopians and Nubians basically had the same features, yet the Ethiopians were painted in the same reddish-brown color as the Egyptian, who was introducing the prisoners to Amon-Ra!
quote:Originally posted by supercar: INTERESTING...
If anyone has access to internet photos of the Abu Simbel relief pictorial depicting Nubian and Ethiopian prisoners being shown to the God "Amon-Ra", his wife "Mut" and son "Khonsu", I would appreciate it, if you would share it here. I saw this picture in a book, and it was interesting to note that the Ethiopians and Nubians basically had the same features, yet the Ethiopians were painted in the same reddish-brown color as the Egyptian, who was introducing the prisoners to Amon-Ra!
That maybe some of the ethiopian prisoners painted that way,but i have not seen it,or that maybe lower nubians,since lower nubians,on average were lighter,but reddish brown is still dark,but you had a few and some even later lighter than that,but more so on average in lower nubia,for various reasons,and climate is one and the major reason for most at that time in lower nubia and the only reason for the rest of nubia.The ethiopians would be the kushite nubians,or upper nubians and southern nubians of southern and southern central sudan, and on average darker than lower nubians.most nubians were and are today dark skin to very dark skin,but you had and have few and some later that are lighter,but more so today.
[This message has been edited by kenndo (edited 26 August 2004).]
quote:Originally posted by supercar: By now there should be consensus on the following, which nevertheless seems to be in need of repetitive clarification before it finally sinks in:
Early Kemetians were descendants of Proto-Sahara (African interior) migrants.
Ancient Egyptian culture was indigenous to Africa.
Various traditions and rituals of Kemetians originated the African interior.
The predominantly Black populations of Upper Egypt took the initiative in cultural and military development, and were responsible for the creation of the Egyptian Nation or empire.
Some Ancient Egyptian rituals, traditions and values are still alive, even if the society has undergone significant transformations through foreign influx, conflict, modernization and globalization.
Presence of foreigners in Egypt, in no way negates the African nature or origins of Ancient Egypt.
Ancient Egyptians were definitely not Arabs.
Not “all” contemporary Egyptians can be called Arab, even if politically Egypt is called an Arab Republic.
“Arab” doesn’t equate to “non-black” or “non-African”. In fact Arab origins can be traced back to West Asian and East African roots!
Half castes or mulattos cannot automatically become “Caucasian” or “non-African”.
Contemporary Egyptians are still biologically, politically and geographically African!
[b]Bottom line: Egyptian society was heterogeneous, but so were and still are other African and European nations. Hence no need for African racial purity of Egyptians.
I have seen posters like Horemheb constantly refer to rulers like “Ramsis II” (a African mulatto) or “Cleopatra” (a European with Egyptian citizenship) as a vindication that Kemet wasn’t a racially pure “black” society, and therefore can’t be considered a black society. Others have even desperately resorted to political terms such as “Arab Republic” or “Middle East” as way to disconnect Egyptians from what they perceive as “Black Africa”, i.e., Sub-Saharan Africa. What is up with this strong focus on “Racial Purity” when comes to the events in Africa? It is never applied to Western nations or Far East nations, even though in reality many “non-White” folks and even “non-Europeans” in the West have significantly contributed to the development of their societies. We don’t hear that a particular European society is heterogeneous, and is therefore non-White! With globalization, racial purity is becoming ever more irrelevant, despite extremist/conservative elites using it as a divisive tool to maintain their privileged status. Nevertheless all this “racial purity” has no bearing on Black African origins of Ancient Egyptian, Nubian and other Ancient African civilizations, but simply an irrelevant and weak distraction. I have listed a number of points as FACTS, and those who challenge it, need to speak out, or else remain in silence and irrelevance!
[/B]
supercar,no one could really challenge this because,it is the facts.there are alot of blacks,and others that are not white in the u.s. and western europe,but those are still basically white states,and just because one day you have a leader that happens to be black in america or britain for those two nations,that does not mean that it is not still a white nation.
For it to be less of a white nation the population would have to change alot,than it would be called something else depending on the population shift,but you have the facts above.
quote:Originally posted by kenndo: That maybe some of the ethiopian prisoners painted that way,but i have not seen it,or that maybe lower nubians,since lower nubians,on average were lighter,but reddish brown is still dark,but you had a few and some even later lighter than that,but more so on average in lower nubia,for various reasons,and climate is one and the major reason for most at that time in lower nubia and the only reason for the rest of nubia.The ethiopians would be the kushite nubians,or upper nubians and southern nubians of southern and southern central sudan, and on average darker than lower nubians.most nubians were and are today dark skin to very dark skin,but you had and have few and some later that are lighter,but more so today.
[This message has been edited by kenndo (edited 26 August 2004).]
It is an Abu Simbel relief depicting this! Photos of this seem to be rare, especially on the web. That is the reason for my desire to have it posted here, if anyone has access to it. Of course, some of the coloring is symbolic, because the Goddess Mut is painted in the blue color. So the color of the three Gods were symbolic, but it seems that, that was the extent of symbolism. Every other character of that depiction seem to be at least how the Egyptians viewed people. The focal point of this depiction is that, Egyptians were clearly observant people. They might have noticed that certain groups of Ethiopians (not to be mistaken with modern Ethiopia, which was known as Abyssinia) were lighter in skin tone than others, whom the author described as Nubians. The main thing to be taken away from the painting is that, despite the different color tones of the prisoners, their facial features are virtually the same, and even the same kind of clothing (Leopard skin color). Naturally, the artist of that painting didn't see the Nubian and Ethiopian prisoners as separate race, but as different tribal/ethnic groups. The Egyptian man presenting the prisoners to the Gods, was painted in the same skin tone as the Ethiopians!
posted
There are in fact many images showing both Kemetians and Nubians in Red-Brown, Dark Brown and Jet Black, and there are other Africans besides Nile Valley Africans who painted themselves in Red Brown, and whom the Kemetians painted in Red Brown (Puntites for example):
posted
Quote....from Robert T Carroll, Dept. of Philosophy, Sacramento State University.
"What is offensive is not that they claim that the Greeks took everything they are known for from the Egyptians, and that those Egyptians were black Africans. What is offensive is that these claims are put fourth as articles of faith. What is offensive is that these claims are not based on scholarly research, evidence and argument from evidence. Nor are they based on a sincere desire to discover historical truth. They are based on the unsubstantiated opinions of myth makers and fiction writers. They are based on the possibility that they are true. They are based on a desire for them to be true."
posted
Blackman, Sure sounds like me doesn't it. It also pretty much sounds like every Professor I have talked to about this problem since I became interested in it. Carroll goes on to imply strongly that many blacks are consumed with 'being black.' White people and Orentials don't go around thning of their race all ther time but for some reason many blacks do. They see themselves apart from the rest of society. That is one of the things that feeds this phony academic view.
Posts: 5822 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Horemheb: Quote....from Robert T Carroll, Dept. of Philosophy, Sacramento State University.
"What is offensive is not that they claim that the Greeks took everything they are known for from the Egyptians, and that those Egyptians were black Africans.
Again you use "they" as a mechanism for making straw argument. To whom are you referring? It is the Ancient Greeks who studied in Kemet and who proclaim it to be a root source of much of their knowledge.
quote: What is offensive is that these claims are put fourth as articles of faith. What is offensive is that these claims are not based on scholarly research, evidence and argument from evidence.
Many scholars...MOST OF THEM EUROPEAN WHITES, have put forth evidence of Greece's debt to Kemet.
HOWEVER: PLEASE READ THE TITLE OF THIS DISCUSSION.
It is about the identity of Kemet. It is not about the Greeks and what they owe to Kemet. If you would care to discuss the evidence for what Greece does and does not owe to Kemet then -> please start a thread dedicated to the topic, and we can discuss the evidence.
I'm sure you won't though.... Whenever we politely attempt to move the conversation beyound the level of superficial rhetoric, you invariably write back with an excuse for why you cannot discuss the issue.
Horembeb: It is rather difficult for me to believe that you are a teacher. Teachers answer questions, ask questions, stimulate discussion of issues, which requires an open mind and respect of the views of others.\
You, in contrast, dodge questions, evade the issues, and engage in off-point self indulgent monologues. Can't teach that way.
posted
The Ancient Greeks do not claim that Egypt was the source of most of their knowledge. The Classicalists in our universities, such as Mary Lefkowitz, have put that to bed a long time ago. Uneducated people have taken some quotes out of context and , as Carroll said, made up a myth. As for supercar's points....they are all wrong. Only Africanists believe AE was a black African society. That issue was settled a long time ago. They find a valid point here and there and try to expand it to the whole AE historical arena. Just because you find a kernel does not mean you have an ear of corn. It happens because they are interested in politics not history. rasol could give a hoot about AE history. He is interested in modern black politics and this is simply another tool to be used.
Posts: 5822 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:The Classicalists in our universities, such as Mary Lefkowitz, have put that to bed a long time ago. Uneducated people have taken some quotes out of context
lol. Educated people know better than to refer to classicists, as classcialist as there is no such thing.
Read: EGYPT and THE LIGHT OF THE WORLD by Gerald Masse, as a beginners discourse into this subject. Then get back to us, when you are ready. You aren't now...that's for sure. And address the subject, or stop spamming. Thank you.
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 27 August 2004).]
quote: Horemheb wrote: ...Only Africanists believe AE was a black African society. That issue was settled a long time ago.
You, seem to think, and those who think as you do, that the racial and ethnic identity of the Ancient Egyptians is some sort of a religious debate; where anyone can, in the absence of evidence, choose to believe whatever they choose to believe...
But you are correct, the issue of the identity of the Ancient Egyptians was settled a long time ago, by the Ancient Egyptians themselves. It is they who recorded for posterity who they were as a nation - a Black African nation. There is concrete evidence to support this objective reality . Can you, or anyone else on this planet, provide evidence to the contrary? It would probably be easier to provide evidence of the existence of God...
[This message has been edited by Wally (edited 27 August 2004).]
quote:Originally posted by Horemheb: As for supercar's points....they are all wrong. Only Africanists believe AE was a black African society. That issue was settled a long time ago.
Horemheb, since you said that "all" my points are wrong, can you please provide proof of the contrary with strong references "point by point", according to how I laid them down. You might want to read the points again, but "carefully", because I never said anything about AE society being black; I did mention the "Upper" Egyptian populations being predominantly black Africans!
I asked the following questions from another thread, but they are also relevant to the subject of this thread. Please, attend to those questions as well!
quote:Originally posted by Horemheb: Geopolitiaclly, AE is a West Asian civilization, there is no question about that. Even her trace and foreign policy back that up.
Egypt is in Africa, "geographically", and in terms of a "political" system, Ancient Egyptians had the Pharaonic system , with priests playing an influencial role in politics. Can you please draw the parallels of this geo-politics to West Asia, and how Egypt "isn't" in Africa?
Can you also please present the timeline of the origins of Ancient Egyptian culture, in terms of its flow from West Asia to first Lower Egypt and then to Upper Egypt, with references showing strong evidence?
quote:Originally posted by Horemheb: Further, studying the migrations of people is always complicated. Let me repeat what I said earlier...was AE influence by Africa, naturally. The US is influenced by Mexico. Was it a black African society...no, Mary did not say that.
Complicated? Not really... There is plenty of evidence, including migrations, that back up the African origins of Ancient Egyptian civilization. Surely if anyone wants to state otherwise, he/she must have had strong evidence to come up with that logic. Where is your evidence that shows that Africans simply "influenced" Ancient Egyptian culture, but didn't in fact create it?
If you can kindly answer "all" of these questions, that would be appreciated, and it will ensure the "beginning" of a debate with a direction!
[This message has been edited by supercar (edited 27 August 2004).]
quote:Complicated? Not really... There is plenty of evidence, including migrations, that back up the African origins of Ancient Egyptian civilization
Complexity and convolution is what results when faced with unpleasant facts that one needs to deny.
Example:
In Bill Manley's: 70 Mysteries of Ancient Egypt, he begins with the essential "mystery" of: "Who they were"?
* He does the basic educational work of reviewing how Europeans began asking this question in the crippled context of their own racism...and searching in vain for European and Asian origins, and finding nothing.
* He briefly notes the archeological and anthropological findings of the past several decades showing the indiginous precursors of AE.
* He never mentions or addresses the clear Kemetian statements regarding their own origins, for obvious reasons. (they were too blunt..too devastating to Eurocentrists)
* He ends by saying that "Egyptian civilization began in Egypt", which of course is a truism, and serves the function of avoiding Kemetian-like clarity regarding their Black African origins, while not exactly denying the truth either. I call this Eurocentric backtracking. It's what Mary Lefcowitz does as well.
In fact there are few remaining scholars who support idiocies about a western asian or european Kemet. Anyone who pretends otherwise misleads themselves, but by being unclear about the truth, they allow folks like Horembeb to go on being dense about it, and pretending not to hear or understand, what is known and being said.
Supercar, most of your points are grudgingly acknowledged by most scholars, within the context of occassional attempts to reframe the issue, in order to downplay truths that can't be intelligently disputed.
You called them out, and none of them stepped up to your challenge. Nicely done.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
In the meantime, enjoy venting your misery in public. 
Printer-friendly view of this topic