posted
Head of a black African KhM 3896f TILE; RAMESSES III/USERMAATRE-MERIAMUN ____________________________________________ Head of a black African KhM 3896g TILE; RAMESSES III/USERMAATRE-MERIAMUN
____________________________________________ Head of a Syrian KhM 3896a TILE; RAMESSES III/USERMAATRE-MERIAMUN
____________________________________________ Head of a Beduin from Syria KhM 3896b TILE; RAMESSES III/USERMAATRE-MERIAMUN
Head of a Hittite KhM 3896d TILE; RAMESSES III/USERMAATRE-MERIAMUN
Head of a Hittite KhM 3896e/3899b TILE; RAMESSES III/USERMAATRE-MERIAMUN
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Shasu means nomads or Bedouin people, referring primarily to the nomadic peoples of Syria-Palestine
notice we don't have perfect matches. For example the Hittite Head, the nose appears to be large bot in the all figure tile, small. Also the Bedouin Head is dark the one in the all figure version is not. Something's fake then right? How would you know which one is fake? I don't think so and I wouldn't jump to conclusions just because I might like one more. What do we know about the Bedouin? They are nomads and highly varied people like the Berbers. Also are all Bedouins in the Egyptian perspective "Shasu"? The Head of Bedouin is not listed as "Shasu Bedouin" but instead Beduoin from Syria. Sometimes there are also more variations of types also in the larger scene then a given segment that gets detailed. For example here you have a picture of three different photo segments:
there are three types shown, each a set of two.
in the illustration below
yes, the top row and bottom row are from separate locations, but it still shows seven different looking types so we can't simplify down to three or four "races" and try to fit it into modern concepts of "race" It's the Table of Nations, "not races"
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Head of a black African KhM 3896f TILE; RAMESSES III/USERMAATRE-MERIAMUN ____________________________________________ Head of a black African KhM 3896g TILE; RAMESSES III/USERMAATRE-MERIAMUN
That's a fantasy. The tile is not a taxonomic entity that is purportedly aiming to depict "representatives" of "black Africa". The tiles are in fact depictions of either Kushites or the Nehesu. There's a big difference.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
____________________________________________ Head of a black African KhM 3896g TILE; RAMESSES III/USERMAATRE-MERIAMUN
That's a fantasy. The tile is not a taxonomic entity that is purportedly aiming to depict "representatives" of "black Africa". The tiles are in fact depictions of either Kushites or the Nehesu. There's a big difference.
You are saying there's a big difference between "black Africans" and Kushites? Or are you saying there's a big difference between Kushites and Nehesu?
I listed the heads as "black African" because that was how the source listed them.
I wanted to keep the picture intact with how they listed it even though I may not agree with the categorization terms.
I didn't list the source for the heads in the initial thread until just now, but I did give catalog numbers. The original source is the KUNSTHISTORISCHES MUSEUM.
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
You are saying there's a big difference between "black Africans" and Kushites? Or are you saying there's a big difference between Kushites and Nehesu?
I was pretty clear about what I was saying; there is little room for any reasonable persons to bang their heads against the wall, trying to figure it out. I said your image captions are false and misleading, because they give the impression that the tile depictions were idealized Kemetic caricatures of what is supposed to be "black Africans". FACT though, is that heads depicted were not meant to portray some generic "black Africa" taxanomic group, but rather, specific folks that the AE came into direct contact with, and their neighbours: the Nehesu. The Kushites are part of the Nehesu. The last two entities are therefore not mutually exclusive of one another. Understand?
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
Book of Gates, fourth division (P)/fifth hour (H), lower register, scene 30: Syrian and Nubian, two of the "four races of mankind."
_______________________________________________
If you look up Nubian in wikipedia it says:
Nubia is a region along the Nile, since 1956 divided between southern Egypt and northern Sudan. Throughout its History, Nubia is broken into three distinct regions – “Lower Nubia”, in modern southern Egypt, which lies between the first and second cataract, and “Upper Nubia and Southern Nubia” – in modern-day northern Sudan, which existed in the area south of second cataract, along the Nile down to the sixth cataract. Lower Nubia and Upper Nubia are so called because the Nile flows north, so Upper Nubia was actually further upstream the river, even though it lies geographically south of Lower Nubia here were a number of small Nubian kingdoms. The name Nubia is derived of that of the Noba people, nomads who settled the area in the 4th century, with the collapse of the kingdom of Meroë. The Noba spoke a Nilo-Saharan language, ancestral to Old Nubian. Old Nubian was used in mostly religious texts dating from the 8th and 15th centuries AD. Before the 4th century, and throughout classical antiquity, Nubia was known as Kush, or, in Classical Greek usage, included under the name Ethiopia
NUBIA:
including:
Kerma
Kush
Meroe
_______________________________________________
the above does not say
Nubian: any black person in Africa
_____________________________________________
below is an arrangment as it appeared in an actual tomb, an odern illustartion of this arrangement:
top row: Horus, 4 Egyptians, 2 Syrians
bottom row: 2 Syrians, 4 Nubians, 4 Libyans
If you want to call the Nubians "Kushites" I don't see how it makes that much of a difference in light of the wikipedia description above.
But if you call them Nehesu I will leave it up to Explorer to define that
______________________________________________
also notice the last two figures. These are Libyans. They would probably have the traditional feathers sticking out from the top of their heads but that area is not available because there is text there. They do show the distinctive side lock of hair hanging down. They are of the same nationality as the modern illustration that are showing the feather, last figures bottom row _____________________________________________
As far as Syrians ago, Wally appears to claim that they are "Kemiou Niut" However nowhere in the mdr ntr does it call them that
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
FOR PEOPLE WHO CANNOT READ HIEROGLYPHICS, THE DISTORTERS OF AFRICAN HISTORY (Euronut/Stormfront/Matilda/etc...) DELIBERATELY MISLABEL THE CENTER FIGURES AS "NUBIAN"(SIC!); FOR THOSE RACISTS WHO CAN READ HIEROGLYPHICS, THEY ACCUSE THE ANCIENT EGYPTIANS THEMSELVES OF MISLABELING THE IMAGE!
THE FIGURES IN THE MID-PANEL ARE ANCIENT EGYPTIANS!!! 1) RT (RTH) IS MDU NTR SHORTHAND FOR ROMÉ (LOMÉ); THE 3 STROKES AT THE BOTTOM INDICATES THE PLURAL: "MEN" ("PEOPLE")
2) NTR IS THE DETERMINATIVE WHICH HERE MEANS "DIVINE"
THE ANCIENT EGYPTIANS USED "THE DIVINE MEN" TO REFER ONLY TO THEIR OWN NATIONALITY AND NOBODY ELSE'S...Posts: 3344 | From: Berkeley | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wally why are you getting your panties in a bunch? Nowhere in this thread did I discuss the nationality of of the two figures in the middle panel above.
But now I will. If you look Egyptian art there are times when scribes correct errors that the artists have made and other times the scribe's corrections are wrong. How could this be possible? These are royal tombs? It is possible and has been demonstrated with other art and text that have nothing to do the nationality. There are two craftsman involved, the artist and the scribe who does the text, both contracted paid labor. But they can't have made mistakes, that's impossible. They did make mistakes and it's documented, not just in this case but in others. What people fail to realize is that that these images were not on view as they are today. Any error made by a scribe or artist would go unnoticed as soon as the tomb was sealed. Even the terms "Rt" and "Ntr" are not definitively Egyptian despite what might appear in Budge's dictionary. Also he lists the word for "negro" as "nuhes" rather than KM related which is rarely pointed out.
How can we be sure of what I'm saying is correct? In other mdr ntr Kushites are not associated with KM, Kem type words. Secondly you have to look at the clothing of these figures. By all indication it's Nubian or Kushite if you prefer rather than Egyptians as shown by many other examples in different tombs. People ignore this because they find one anomaly that's different form all the other art, all the other Kushites that are clothed and adorned this way and use it to Kushites and Egyptians wore the exact same clothing and therefore were indistinguishable. This is foolishness. It is undone by noting the larger context.
Thirdly no definitive judgments can even be speculated on until more of the figures are shown in actual good quality photos not yet available on the internet.
Even of you were to take the position that the middle two figures are Egyptian we are looking at segments of more figures. For instance there are two of each type here, two Syrians, two figures of the same type in the middle, and two Libyans in the last panel. That totals three types.
Until an image showing of all four types, that is a good quality photo is posted we can't even begin to comment. And once you put it in larger context after that the truth is revealed. This is like somebody taking a photo of a person that has six fingers and saying "human beings have six fingers on each hand"
But if you want to keep believing that the below head is that of an Egyptian be my guest:
I wouldn't get to committed to that. One day somebody is going to post a photo of all the figures and you may have to update what you said.
Here's an exercise. Research Egyptian clothing, then research Kushite clothing. After you take notes come back to the case we are talking about. You will see that the "literal" interpretation is not always correct and there are such things as mistakes.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: You are saying there's a big difference between "black Africans" and Kushites? Or are you saying there's a big difference between Kushites and Nehesu?
LOL! You jackass, if you dont understand what was said why dont you just ask instead of going off on another of your lunatic rants.
A black African with a **non-black** African nose...according to Lioness. Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lioness - You have a very serious case of illegitimacy that you apparently do not recognize.
Quote:
These tiles paved the floor near the window of the palace of the king. They are decorated with images of chained prisoners characterized by their ethnic attributes.
It is a selection of five captives, representing peoples involved in the political world of the New Kingdom.
The first captive is a Hittite with pale skin; his hands are tied behind his back and he wears a striped skullcap with a dotted rim. He wears a colorful short kilt and a garment tied at the shoulder.
The second is a Bedouin Shasu with his wrists held in handcuffs. He has a small beard, which connects to his moustache; he is wearing a ribbed cap with a plain headband and his dress is composed of a kilt, a tunic, and a Syrian robe, as well as a circular pendant.
The third is the traditional Asiatic with his elbows bound to shoulder height. He is most probably Syrian, recognizable by the sharp beard terminating in two points along his cheeks and his thick mass of black hair.
The fourth is Nubian with tightly curled red hair. He wears a decorated collar and a short kilt over a long pleated robe with dotted fringe and belt.
The fifth is a tattooed Libyan with his hands bound in front of him.
In the above tiles, all are "supposedly" White or very light except the Nubian.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
Wikipedia, which can be literally authored by anybody regardless of the education level, schools everything you know about African matters, and you wonder why your learning is behind.
You are busy blindly copying & pasting stuff that you hardly understand, that you fail to even notice the inconsistencies in your image captions. With the Nehesu figures, you simply applied the generic "black African" term, whereas with the other figures, your image captions pin them down to more specific ethnicities or localities.
quote:
If you want to call the Nubians "Kushites" I don't see how it makes that much of a difference in light of the wikipedia description above.
That's because, like someone already noted, you don't bother reading the hieroglyphs yourself and expect others to do your stuff for you. If you had, you would understand that it is not a matter of me or anyone else for that matter, to "want" to call those figures "Nehesu" or "Kushites". What they however were not called, any knowledgeable person would know, is "Nubians".
quote:
But if you call them Nehesu I will leave it up to Explorer to define that
The burden is your's. What else are they called by the "Egyptians", if not "Kushites" or the "Nehesu". What does the hieroglyphs on the tiles call or say about these figures? What is your evidence for coming to your conclusion. Shoot!
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ignoring the pathetically dumb propaganda by the foolish feline.
We know that Ancient Egyptians were ALSO black Africans etc. etc.
I am more interested in this:
quote:4) Beduoin from Syria (Shasu Bedouin ??)
^ So we have more proof of blacks in the so-called Near East even Syria. Does anyone else know of more ancient evidence.
Posts: 26307 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Djehuti - Has no one noticed that NOWHERE in Egyptology, are Egypt's "Next-door-neighbors" the Arabs mentioned. Talk about a White-mixed-race-Turk aka SNs conspiracy.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Ignoring the pathetically dumb propaganda by the foolish feline.
We know that Ancient Egyptians were ALSO black Africans etc. etc.
I am more interested in this:
quote:4) Beduoin from Syria (Shasu Bedouin ??)
^ So we have more proof of blacks in the so-called Near East even Syria. Does anyone else know of more ancient evidence.
quote: Even at present they are called Leuco-Syrians, (or White Syrians,) while those without the Taurus are called Syrians. In comparison with the people within the Taurus, the latter have a burnt complexion; but the former, not having it, received the appellation of Leuco-Syrians (or White Syrians). Strabo's Geography;Book XII
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Ignoring the pathetically dumb propaganda by the foolish feline.
We know that Ancient Egyptians were ALSO black Africans etc. etc.
I am more interested in this:
quote:4) Beduoin from Syria (Shasu Bedouin ??)
^ So we have more proof of blacks in the so-called Near East even Syria. Does anyone else know of more ancient evidence.
quote: Even at present they are called Leuco-Syrians, (or White Syrians,) while those without the Taurus are called Syrians. In comparison with the people within the Taurus, the latter have a burnt complexion; but the former, not having it, received the appellation of Leuco-Syrians (or White Syrians). Strabo's Geography;Book XII
Yes, I have known about Strabo's passage above for a while now. I'm just asking for more artistic evidence. I wonder what Dana has to say.
Posts: 26307 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Even at present they are called Leuco-Syrians, (or White Syrians,) while those without the Taurus are called Syrians. In comparison with the people within the Taurus, the latter have a burnt complexion; but the former, not having it, received the appellation of Leuco-Syrians (or White Syrians). Strabo's Geography;Book XII
posted
The lack of scholarship and intellectual compilation is depressing around here.
Strabo's Geography; Book XII - "WRITTEN IN 24 A.D." Damn folks, that's the time of Jesus, Whites had LONG AGO taken the area!
Quote: Even at present they are called Leuco-Syrians, (or White Syrians,) while those without the Taurus are called Syrians. In comparison with the people within the Taurus, the latter have a burnt complexion; but the former, not having it, received the appellation of Leuco-Syrians (or White Syrians).
"The Taurus" refers to the Taurus mountains of Turkey. See map below.
The White Greek Ionians settled in Miletus (now Aydin Province, Turkey) at about 1,000 B.C.
From the time of Alexanders death in 323 B.C. From Southern Anatolia (including Taurus) to parts of India, was the satrapy of one of his generals "Seleucus" (later Seleucus I Nicator).
OF COURSE THERE WERE WHITES THERE - THEY RULED THE FRIGGIN LAND!!
So would one of you please explain to me what all of this could possibly have to do with Syrians of more than one thousand years previous?Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Ignoring the pathetically dumb propaganda by the foolish feline.
We know that Ancient Egyptians were ALSO black Africans etc. etc.
I am more interested in this:
quote:4) Beduoin from Syria (Shasu Bedouin ??)
^ So we have more proof of blacks in the so-called Near East even Syria. Does anyone else know of more ancient evidence.
quote: Even at present they are called Leuco-Syrians, (or White Syrians,) while those without the Taurus are called Syrians. In comparison with the people within the Taurus, the latter have a burnt complexion; but the former, not having it, received the appellation of Leuco-Syrians (or White Syrians). Strabo's Geography;Book XII
Yes, I have known about Strabo's passage above for a while now. I'm just asking for more artistic evidence. I wonder what Dana has to say.
Don't you undestand by Now, the faces are proof that the Hebrews were originally black and that the Current Modern Day Jews stem from Edom,
1) Nubian/ Southern Nile Valley
2) Phonecian
3) Hebrew
4) Arab/Ishmaelite
Idumean
More Judahites..
PS does anyone have the authentic relief of this Image..
Posts: 8805 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
Mike you always post the above "Arab" implying he's black. Did it ever occur to you that
________________________________________________________________________________ this guy ^^^^^^^^ and .
____________________________________________________this guy^^^^ have the same features
so you can't really tell anything? Therefore a lot of what is on your website is very speculative but you don't represent it as speculative. You might use a word like "possibly" here and there but that is after establishing categories for people which is a much stronger impression than after the fact saying "maybe" here and there if you do at all. Represent truth Mike, if you don't know you don't know and even the world's greatest experts are not sure of a lot of these things.
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Quote; the Current Modern Day Jews stem from Edom
Damn, anybody ever hear of Khazaria? This place is getting too loony!
Mike you are too stupid, There are two types of Modern Jew, Spehardi and Askenazi. One Converted the Other(and breed with them). The Idumeans were converted by John Hycranus and proceeded to infiltrate the priesthood and were very prevelent in the "Scribes and Pharasees"...and even King Herod was Idumean.
The Modern Jew and only the Modern Jew are Idumean, Backed by Josephus, Y-shuah Christ, backed by history.
Posts: 8805 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
It never fails, sooner or later, you religious wackos start with your bizarre historical connections and conspiracy's. They supplanted all the real Hebrews eh?
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mike I don't care what you call me, My religious beliefs have nothing to do with the Modern Jew being the Idumeans. Its a fact, and unlike your Turk obsession and "Khazar" Bullshit I can trace the Idumeans as far back as John Hycranus and prior thus the reason why the Jews were thought to be "White" rather than what they were. You have to account for the Fact that the Khazars were not converted until After the rise of Islam,
and account for the fact that the European Jew is the only Jew in the world to have a Talmud, so the Ethiopian Jews can accept Christ and Christianity but have never heard of a Talmud until the European Jew comes into contact with them??
and Lastly your Khazar theory does not account for the Sepharic Jews..
^^^^^^^Stupid Mikey says that Albinic creature is a "Jew" as he is not a turk or Khazar..
and it was a Jew who gave you the history of the Khazar conversion, was'nt does'nt your stupid ass always talk about White man Bullshit..The Khazar theory was a Half Lie.
The Jews don't want people to know the full truth, that their entire Lineage descend from the only albinic race in history, the Idumeans...
Posts: 8805 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lyingass: WALLY'S SYRIAN BREAKDOWN
quote:Originally posted by Wally:
Even at present they are called Leuco-Syrians, (or White Syrians,) while those without the Taurus are called Syrians. In comparison with the people within the Taurus, the latter have a burnt complexion; but the former, not having it, received the appellation of Leuco-Syrians (or White Syrians). Strabo's Geography;Book XII
Apparently you can't read. The 'breakdown' per say was not from Wally but from the Greek historian Strabo, which according to his passage which again you could not read properly clearly states the Syrians of the Taurus were the Leucosyrians, dummy!
To Mike. For once you are correct. Many of the light skinned peoples of the Levant do have ancestry from Anatolia (modern Turkey) as well as the Caucasus. This was discussed before on the thread about whites in the Middle East. I suggest you do research on the peoples like the Hurrians and Subarians.
Posts: 26307 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
If the Jews are Khazars Mike, and as you uphold the original Hebrews were black(Which you have made clear in the past) then why is the Talmud which predates the Khazar conversion so anti-black saying Blacks are Cursed..etc.
The supremacy of the Talmud over the Bible in the Israeli state may also be seen in the case of the black Ethiopian Jews. Ethiopians are very knowledgeable of the Old Testament. However, their religion is so ancient it pre-dates the Scribes' Talmud, of which the Ethiopians have no knowledge. According to the N.Y. Times of Sept. 29, 1992, p.4:Posts: 8805 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jari - I have ABSOLUTELY no interest in getting into religious mumbo-jumbo with you or anybody else.
Djehuti - If you are trying to suggest that Hurrians and Subarians were Hebrews or related to Hebrews - okay, so?
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
What does Religion have to do with the fact that the Talmud has racist remarks, and the Ethiopian Jews have no trace of a Talmudic Tradition??
Just as I thought you are all talk and no walk..
Posts: 8805 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Probably why sub-Saharans can't move. Always caught-up in some kind of hocus-pocus bullsh1t. Instead of trying to figure out how to make their lives better.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Jari - why are you such a ditz?
The Christian Bible has antiBlack remarks.
The Muslim Koran has antiBlack remarks.
You say the Khazar Talmud has antiBlack remarks.
Think Boy!
All were originally Black religions.
All were taken over by Whites.
Guess who MUST have written the CURRENT religious books?
It's not rocket science, just damn common sense, what's your problem?
Stupid LIl Mikey the Talmud was not "Taken" over by Whites it was written by the Albinic race of Idumeans Aka the Sepharic Jews, the "Taken Over" part was when the Sepharic Jews Took over the Preisthood and infiltrated the Scribes and Phrasees. Herod was Idumean.
Posts: 8805 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Djehuti - If you are trying to suggest that Hurrians and Subarians were Hebrews or related to Hebrews - okay, so?
My point actually was to point out the origin of light-skinned peoples in the Near East in general not just Hebrews. It is fact that just as the proto-Semitic speakers in the region were of African descent, there were lighter-skinned Eurasians who adopted the Semitic languages and cultures and eventually usurped them.
Dana's theory holds that Iranians usurped the original Arab culture, but I believe it is not just Iranians but peoples from Anatolia and the Caucasus as well.
Posts: 26307 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Dana's theory holds that Iranians usurped the original Arab culture, but I believe it is not just Iranians but peoples from Anatolia and the Caucasus as well.
Djehuti - Maybe it's from dealing with Jari's "this is all so mysterious" nonsense, or maybe because I'm tired. But I gotta tell you, this is getting a little old.
Djehuti - There is not one single group of people in the current era, whose movements are not documented somewhere. There is no need to guess or to have a "Theory" the documentation is there, all you have to do is find it and read it.
In the case of the transition in Iran from Elamites to Persians to Arabs to Turks: it is well documented in Britannia and other such sources, there is no need to guess or to have a "Theory."
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not surprised that there were darker-skinned Levantines back in the day. The Levant is geographically between Africa and Arabia, so it makes sense for Levantine populations to be intergrades between black Nilotes like the Egyptians and the olive-skinned peoples of the rest of Southwest Asia.
posted
Truth - Where would these "olive-skinned" peoples have come from?
Understanding that "olive-skinned" is just one shade of admixed populations, with Yellow being another.
There was no opportunity for "olive-skinned" people in the area until the Greeks arrived circa 1,200 B.C.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Truth - I don't know your race or experience with different races. So I'm posting this picture of the Moroccan royal family - here you will see all the various levels of "Advanced" admixture.
Like his Berber and Arab ancestors, this Negro has a serious Jones for White women.
posted
It is painfully clear that many lack the ability to intellectually imagine, how and why, the appearance of humans changes with admixture. Recent kings of Morocco provides a perfect example to demonstrate how it works.
Sultan of Morocco Moulay Azziz [in white, front right] (about 1890)
Abdelhafid of Morocco served as the Sultan of Morocco from 1908 to 1912
Sultan Yusef ben Hassan (1882–November 17, 1927) ruled the French Protectorate of Morocco from 1912 until his death in 1927.
Mohammed V (10 August 1909 – 26 February 1961) was Sultan of Morocco from 1927-53, exiled from 1953–55, where he was again recognized as Sultan upon his return, and King from 1957 to 1961.
King Hassan II was King of Morocco from 1961 until his death in 1999.
Mohammed VI (born 21 August 1963) is the present King of Morocco. He ascended to the Throne in July 1999.
How's that for some racial back and forth? And all in just over a hundred years! If you don't understand admixture by now, you never will!Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Nobody has denied there ever being admixture in North Afric or the Middle East.
In fact, many of those pictures of the Moroccan royal family remind me of those of 'Arab' royal families such as the Hashemite dynasty.
However, I believe T-rex does have a point.
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: I'm not surprised that there were darker-skinned Levantines back in the day. The Levant is geographically between Africa and Arabia, so it makes sense for Levantine populations to be intergrades between black Nilotes like the Egyptians and the olive-skinned peoples of the rest of Southwest Asia.
While some of the brown and yellow complexions in the Near East may be due to admixture not all are. We must remember that skin color grades and clines so of course some brown and yellow complexions are due to simple intermediate adaptation between black and fair skinned populations. We see this even among east Asians who also come in brown and of course yellow complexions that does not mean they are the result of admixture between blacks and fair skinned people.
Posts: 26307 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Dana's theory holds that Iranians usurped the original Arab culture, but I believe it is not just Iranians but peoples from Anatolia and the Caucasus as well.
Djehuti - Maybe it's from dealing with Jari's "this is all so mysterious" nonsense, or maybe because I'm tired. But I gotta tell you, this is getting a little old.
Djehuti - There is not one single group of people in the current era, whose movements are not documented somewhere. There is no need to guess or to have a "Theory" the documentation is there, all you have to do is find it and read it.
In the case of the transition in Iran from Elamites to Persians to Arabs to Turks: it is well documented in Britannia and other such sources, there is no need to guess or to have a "Theory."
Djehuti - I would like to qualify the above statement.
The GENERAL movements are well documented, but the specifics are well hidden. Like the White Europeans, the White Turks have been very careful to falsely integrate themselves into Arab, North African, Egyptian, and Middle Eastern history. And like the European Whites, also careful to destroy or hide all documents and artifacts that would contradict their version of history.
But enough is known to ask some telling questions.
(Keeping in mind that today, all of these things are under the control of Turks and admixed Turks).
At the Battle of Yarmuk in 636, a Muslim army of 40,000 decisively defeated a Byzantine force numbering 120,000, permanently ending Byzantine rule south of Asia Minor.
How do you get a 40,000 man army out of Arabia?
In Persia, the Arab victory at Al-Qadisiyyah in 637 A.D. was followed by the sack of the Sassanian winter capital at Ctesiphon on the Tigris. The Battle of Nahavand in 642 A.D. completed the Sassanids' defeat.
Here again, where did all of these troops come from?
In 637, after a prolonged siege of Jerusalem, the Caliph Umar took the city. He was given the key to the city by the Greek Orthodox patriarch, Sophronius, and invited to pray at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.
Who was it that resisted the Muslims for so long? Was it the Hebrews? And is that why there are so many hateful antiHebrew quotes in the Koran?
It is said that Amr ibn al-As conquered Roman Egypt in 640-41, with only 4,000 men. How is that possible? Yes, after 900 years of White rule, the Egyptians were probably overjoyed to see a Black army come to liberate them, but only 4,000 men?
Why is only the Coptic (White Greeks) part in the conquest of Alexandria in 642 acknowledged?
There were millions of White Greeks in the middle east from the time of Alexander and the Seleucids, many cities were founded by these Greeks, what part did they play?
We know that after Ali's murder in 661, Muawiyah - the governor of Syria, proclaimed himself caliph and established his capital in Damascus, Syria, starting the Umayyad dynasty. We also know that he specifically recruited Greek soldiers - offering them double pay.
Was Muawiyah a Black Arab or a White Greek?
Were these Greek soldiers the discontented mawali (non-Muslim soldiers) that Umayyad Caliph Umar II (reigned 717-720) had to give "full status" to?
With all of those conquering troops, why did Samanid Caliph al-Ma'mun in Baghdad (reigned 813–833) find it necessary to start importing Turkish Slaves as troops (the Mamluks)? The Turkish pagan tribes were converted to Islam under the Samanids.
Why did the Arabs KEEP importing them until they numbered in the multitudes?
The first Turkish ruler of Persia was the Seljuq Turk Toghril I, who proclaimed himself sultan at Neyshabur in 1038.
Was it pressure from the now overwhelmingly Turkish Arab army that forced Abbasid caliph Harun ar-Rashid (ruled 786-809), to start assigning Egypt to Turks rather than to Arabs. (The first Turkish dynasty was that of Ibn Tulun who entered Egypt in 868).
Certainly the Egyptians could NOT have been happy to once again see White troops on their soil again, what was their reaction?
When the Ikhshidid dynasty was usurped by their Abyssinian slave tutor named Kafur (960) He had the sense to use Nubian troops for his army. Why did the Arabs use only White troops?
When Kafur died in 968, the Fatimids (a contending force for the Caliphate), took advantage of the disorder in Egypt to attack, the attack was successful and led to the occupation of Egypt by a Berber army led by the Fatimid general Jawhar.
The early Fatimids' reliance on Berber troops was soon replaced by the importation of Turkish, Sudanese, and Arab contingents. By the time of their decline however, the Fatimid army was under the leadership of Eurasian Armenian generals, (not Aramaean). (Seljuq Turk Toghrïl Beg, had taken Armenia in 1064 A.D.)
Once again Whites managed to take over - WHY?
In 1250 A.D. The the Turkish Mamluks dropped all pretense and established their own dynasty in Egypt.
Why didn't the Arabs resist?
With all the Black people that were in the middle east, it all sounds just too easy for the Turks. There had to have been some major massacres of Blacks for the takeover to have been so successful.
Did Greeks and Turks gang-up and destroy the Blacks of the middle east?
We know that eventually the Turks had to send troops into Arabia to put down an Arab rebellion (1811). Afterward they left Turkish Albanian troops in charge of Arabia.
There was not a repeat of this Arab rebellion - why? How many Arabs did they kill in order to maintain such total control?
SOME DIFFERENT TYPE QUESTIONS.
Why are there no statues or paintings of such important men as Muhammad and the Arab Caliphs?
There is no end to the pictures of Turkish Caliphs.
Some have, I think, falsely claimed, that there is a religious prohibition to images of these men. If there is, why does it not apply to the Turkish Caliphs or Arabs of today?
Also where are the images from those times and people that outsiders must have made?
Finally I ran across this image of the 2nd Caliph Umar ibn al-Khattāb (644).
posted
BTW - As an indication of just how many Turks came into Turkey and the middle east over the centuries.
You saw that there was a powerful Seljuk Turk army ruling Persia.
You saw that there was a powerful Mamluk Turk army ruling Egypt.
Well in 1516 A.D. the Oguz Turks along with other Eastern European Turk troops (Serbs and Bosnians), defeated the Mamluks and the Seljuks to create the Ottoman Empire.
That's a LOT of Turks!!
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Nice Lioness, I knew that you could be depended upon to troll even the most serious subjects.
For the serious people;
I was merely pointing out that when these Turk and French people, tell you that they are Persians, Egyptians, Arabs and Berbers. It is a cruel and sick joke, planted on the corpse's of untold numbers of Black people.
posted
This is an excellent case where African agency is removed.
Due to Eurocentric education/indoctrination the average viewer sees no anomaly in two heads being labled Black African (colour and continent) and the remaing heads being labeled by ethny/nationality.
Let's reverse the situation and the astute will immediately see what is wrong.
Head of a Kensetian
Head of an Aluan
Head of a Syrian (Yellow-Brown Asian)
Head of a Beduin from Syria (Black Asian)
Head of a White Asian
Head of a White Asian
Why is it an accepted norm to rob heads like 1 and 2 of their ethnic or national identities and why are heads like 5 and 6 never designated by color and continent?
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
topic
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic