a) find Budge's dictionary and turn to page 1045; go over to the 'b' column ; you are looking for the geographical expression for "Egypt"

b) you found it, good. Notice there are several words for Egypt. You are looking for the one with the little quail chick in it...

c) got it, ok. This word is written Kemwt(nw) or Kemut (nu)

Egyptian 101
"kem" is an adjective; it means black

"ut" makes the word a noun-adjective in the feminine plural; you know, like "s"

Now, there is only one way, I repeat, absolutely only one way to correctly translate this word.

You got it - Blacks
This is what Ancient Egyptians called themselves, you know like America;Americans, well Black;Blacks.

You may now continue with the nonsense...

[This message has been edited by Wally (edited 10 December 2004).]
 

c) got it, ok. This word is written Kemwt(nw) or Kemut (nu)

Egyptian 101
"kem" is an adjective; it means black

Yes, Black soil, not black people ! Black soil meant fertile soil.
although it doesn@t make a difference what colour are my people-
As a former Egyptologist, I assure you that Egyptians colour-wise did not change, they are the same light brown in the north and a little darker in the south.
Remember that there was no Africa as we know it now, but there were plenty of tribes, each of them had its own art, but few who survived sadly, so we do not really know the degree of the true wealth.
My Nigerian friends claim that Egyptians are originally from Nigeria, just like the American African here who claim the same thing- of course,it is a hush hush talks- Nigeria is a new phenomenun, and so are Afro-Americans, Egypt is many, many 1000's years old.But it gives me great pleasure to see the world around me claim to belong to my people

quote:

---

Egyptian 101
"kem" is an adjective; it means black

Yes, Black soil, not black people !

---

Nope. kem (km) is just the 'black' as an adjective as Wally pointed it. You can't presumptively add a specific noun on to a general adjective.

quote:

---

As a former Egyptologist

---

quote:

---

I assure you that Egyptians colour-wise did not change, they are the same light brown in the north and a little darker in the south.

---

quote:

---

Remember that there was no Africa as we know it now, but there were plenty of tribes, each of them had its own art, but few who survived sadly, so we do not really know the degree of the true wealth.

---

Thought Writes:

Of course they have changed since the conquests of Greeks and Arabs, just as the modern Mexicans have changed since the conquest of the Spanish only five hundred years ago. These conquests changed the gene frequency and phenotype of the indigenous Egyptians but does not negate the relationship between the ancient and modern Egyptians.

{My Nigerian friends claim that Egyptians are originally from Nigeria, just like the American African here who claim the same thing- of course,it is a hush hush talks- Nigeria is a new phenomenun, and so are Afro-Americans, Egypt is many, many 1000's years old.}

Thought Writes:

I know few African-Americans that claim AE came from Nigeria. However, genetic and linguistic evidence indicates that Egyptians and Nigerians have a recent (as in early Holocene) common origin.
 

quote:

---

salama writes:

My Nigerian friends claim that Egyptians are originally from Nigeria, just like the American African here who claim the same thing- of course,it is a hush hush talks- Nigeria is a new phenomenun, and so are Afro-Americans, Egypt is many, many 1000's years old.But it gives me great pleasure to see the world around me claim to belong to my people

---

You're missing the point. What you're talking about above is an altogether separate debate.

Don't try to discredit one idea with another. That's underhanded.

---

Whatever the truth may be, the Eurocentrics make such weak, desperate and illogical arguments! That's telling.

C'mon guys, the world is lurking here, waiting for you to come up with something substantive... But you're just getting thrashed.

Maybe the strategy is simply to tire everyone out... But even *that's* not working.

Eurocentric egyptology is even more bankrupt than I thought it was...

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by salama:
My Nigerian friends claim that Egyptians are originally from Nigeria, just like the American African here who claim the same thing- of course,it is a hush hush talks- Nigeria is a new phenomenun, and so are Afro-Americans, Egypt is many, many 1000's years old.But it gives me great pleasure to see the world around me claim to belong to my people

---

Actually, I think you misunderstand. No one believes the nations of West Africa are older than Egypt. What a growing number of people believe, including myself, is that West Africans and Egyptians have a relationship that goes back 8-10,000 years.

As far as the meaning of "Kmt" goes, the key word is "interpretation". Since no one on Earth is an expert on the language of the ancient Egyptians, I don't see how anyone can imply that one meaning is correct. There certainly is a lot of evidence on both sides of the debate...
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:

As far as the meaning of "Kmt" goes, the key word is "interpretation". Since no one on Earth is an expert on the language of the ancient Egyptians, I don't see how anyone can imply that one meaning is correct. There certainly is a lot of evidence on both sides of the debate...

---

Like I said, You may now continue with the nonsense...
Interpretation??? Expert???
Do you have to be a "Spanishologist" to be able to "interpret" the meaning of "Madre de Dios?"
How about "Le Bon Temps" or "moshi-moshi"
How about a "debate" on the meaning of "se la vie" perhaps. Egypt, I guess, exists on another plane of reality.
Such nonsense...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wally:
Like I said, You may now continue with the nonsense...
Interpretation??? Expert???
Do you have to be a "Spanishologist" to be able to "interpret" the meaning of "Madre de Dios?"
How about "Le Bon Temps" or "moshi-moshi"
How about a "debate" on the meaning of "se la vie" perhaps. Egypt, I guess, exists on another plane of reality.
Such nonsense...

---

No, you live on another plane of reality. The ancient Egyptian language hasn't even been completely deciphered. It's a dead language that hasn't been spoken in about 2000-2500 years. It's intellectually dishonest for anyone to claim that one interpretation is correct.

And why can't we live and let die? If people choose to accept a different interpetation, so be it. It's not as if there isn't scholarly evidence for both sides of the debate.
 

quote:

---

Yes, Black soil, not black people ! Black soil meant fertile soil.
although it doesn@t make a difference what colour are my people-
As a former Egyptologist, I assure you that Egyptians colour-wise did not change, they are the same light brown in the north and a little darker in the south.
Remember that there was no Africa as we know it now, but there were plenty of tribes, each of them had its own art, but few who survived sadly, so we do not really know the degree of the true wealth.
My Nigerian friends claim that Egyptians are originally from Nigeria, just like the American African here who claim the same thing- of course,it is a hush hush talks- Nigeria is a new phenomenun, and so are Afro-Americans, Egypt is many, many 1000's years old.But it gives me great pleasure to see the world around me claim to belong to my people

---

Salama, understand that the ancient Egyptians themselves started off as tribal commmunities in deep pre-history. Archaeological evidence shows that early populations of Egypt came from the Eastern and Central Sahara when it was once more moist. The majority of the Western African populations also come from this Neolithic population around the pre-dyanstic. This explains why there are many cultural similarities between the dyanstic Egyptians and Western African groups.

The interior of Africa during the dyanstic period of ancient Egypt was not nearly as populated as it is today. The migrating Western Africans from the Central and Southern Sahara displaced the original inhabitants of that region. The oldest agritcultural center in Western Africa is dated to around 1500 B.C.

Might sound weird but many African groups oral history connect them with people from a great river in the East. Some of these oral legends were fabricated by missionaries but others might be legitmate.

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
No, you live on another plane of reality. The ancient Egyptian language hasn't even been completely deciphered. It's a dead language that hasn't been spoken in about 2000-2500 years. It's intellectually dishonest for anyone to claim that one interpretation is correct.

And why can't we live and let die? If people choose to accept a different interpetation, so be it. It's not as if there isn't scholarly evidence for both sides of the debate.

---

Alright, let's start with your scholarly evidence for the other side of the debate:Black "soil".

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
No, you live on another plane of reality. The ancient Egyptian language hasn't even been completely deciphered. It's a dead language that hasn't been spoken in about 2000-2500 years. It's intellectually dishonest for anyone to claim that one interpretation is correct.

And why can't we live and let die? If people choose to accept a different interpetation, so be it. It's not as if there isn't scholarly evidence for both sides of the debate.

---

For the sake of discussion, I won't even go into Sahidi; the local dialects (especially in Upper Egypt)of Egyptian Arabic with you on this one, I'll simply concede that ancient Egyptian is "dead" in the same sense that Latin is.

I'll bet you a dollar and a dime that nobody "debates" the Latin meanings of 'populi,' 'populus,' or 'publicus.'

How many different interpretations will you get for the Latin word 'Niger?'

And you missed the point completely by replicating the reduction of the names of Egypt to the singular and repeated simplicity used by "Egyptologist" (Kmt) to confuse people! Do you know how many names there were for Memphis, Denderah, or Thebes?
Well, for the entire Egyptian nationality you had:

Kmt (Kemet) - which anyone can play fast and loose with
Kmwt (Kemut) - which nobody can
Kmmw (Kememou;Kememu) - ditto
Kmmtjw (Kemetiu)
T3wj (Tawi)
T3merj (Tameri)
etc., etc,

Like Latin, Korean, or Swahili, the Ancient Egyptian language was governed by specific and fixed rules that were in no way arbitrary or vague...

I think much of what is Kemetic (ie - Egyptian) civilisation began further south in Ta Seti: Group A Nubia, and earlier. The Edfu text, later texts from dynastic Kemet, linguistic and archeological evidence, all suggests that Group A culture moved into Ta Shemu (Upper Egypt) FROM Ta Seti (Nubia), perhaps the pre-dynastic Kings conqured Ta Shemu from Ta Seti, and moving the capital there. Since archeology shows the people shared a culture, and skeletal anthropology shows affinity that border's on "identity" (Keita,Weeks) this is really a geographic issue: ie where is the culture centrally located, and not ethnic.

Indeed, I do not think there was ANY ethnic difference between Upper Egypt and Lower Nubia (concepts MEANINGLESS IN 3800 bc!) at that time.

By the time of Narmer the culture of the Nile Valley was centered in Ta Shemu.

Namer conquers the delta, cira 3200(~) and again 'moves' the capital, beginning the history of dynastic Kemet, or Egypt as we call it.

Although I think the Group A Nubians of Ta Seti and the pre dynastic "Egyptians" are essentially, the same people. Lower Nubia was never as heavily populated as Upper Egypt in antiquity because the Nile Valley is very narrow there. It is in fact a hot dry mostly wasteland that was famous for much of Pre Kush history mostly for its "Nub" (ie, gold), and not for agricultural produce.

I think various African ethnic groups moved into and out of both regions, and the political boundaries also changed constantly.

For example, the 1st ruling class of Kemetic history (Narmer's people), the Annu, may be a distinct African ethnic group from the 2nd or 3rd ruling classes. Similarly the later Kushites may be a distinct African ethnic group from Group A Nubia.

In sumation:

* Nubia is derived from a Kemetic word meaning gold.

* It is a geographic area also since Roman times.

* Treating it as geography we may say that much of Nubia was a part of Kemet for most of it's dynastic history.

* And we may also say that "Egyptian" history originates largely in Nubia, and that is not a paradox either, since a part of Nubia was generally a part of Egypt, and still is to this day.

* Nubia is a part of Egypt in the sense that Manchuria is a part of China, Wales is a part of Great Britain, Natal is a part of South Africa and California is a part of the United States. .
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
No, you live on another plane of reality. The ancient Egyptian language hasn't even been completely deciphered. It's a dead language that hasn't been spoken in about 2000-2500 years. It's intellectually dishonest for anyone to claim that one interpretation is correct.

And why can't we live and let die? If people choose to accept a different interpetation, so be it. It's not as if there isn't scholarly evidence for both sides of the debate.

---

quote:

---

Alright, let's start with your scholarly evidence for the other side of the debate:Black "soil".

---

Indeed, the argument that we can't know about the language because the Kemet is "dead" is somewhat of a copout.

After all. If you believe that then it would apply to any aspect of history. It would apply moreso to every other aspect of history besides the language in fact. Why? Because it is the written record that survives through time.

Finally the argument is ironic, because Kemetic language does live on in somewhat Grecified form as Sahdic Coptic.

In this langauge the word for black people is still kemmou, the irony is that this term would now apply only to dark skinned African types, and would not generally apply to the Christian Copts, many of whom (though not all) are largely of Syro-Greek origin.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wally:
I'll simply concede that ancient Egyptian is "dead" in the same sense that Latin is.

---

It's not dead in the same sense that Latin is. It doesn't compare to Latin. Ancient Egyptian wasn't written for 2000 years while Latin was still written and spoken long after the fall of the Roman empire. We have thousands of ancient documents written in Latin to help us fully understand the meanings and complexities of the language.

Without the Rosetta stone would we know what Kmt means? We know everything about Latin wheras we still have much to learn about ancient Egyptian.

I personally don't have an opinion as to which interpretation is correct.

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
It's not dead in the same sense that Latin is. It doesn't compare to Latin. Ancient Egyptian wasn't written for 2000 years while Latin was still written and spoken long after the fall of the Roman empire. We have thousands of ancient documents written in Latin to help us fully understand the meanings and complexities of the language.

Without the Rosetta stone would we know what Kmt means? We know everything about Latin wheras we still have much to learn about ancient Egyptian.

I personally don't have an opinion as to which interpretation is correct.

---

neo*geo, my brother...
Every Egyptologist on the planet, alive or dead will tell you that the word kmwt (kemut - a name for Ancient Egypt) means 'blacks', every one of them!
That is why they refrain from using it. With the word Kemet or Black (singular), ignoring the determinative, you can freely make black mean anything you choose; people, soil, cow dung... Do you see the distinction now between kemet and kemut, and why one is used and the other, equally valid, is never used?

[This message has been edited by Wally (edited 11 December 2004).]
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wally:
neo*geo, my brother...
[b]Every Egyptologist on the planet, alive or dead will tell you that the word kmwt (kemut - a name for Ancient Egypt) means 'blacks', every one of them!
[/B]

---

Keep in mind that even Queen Cleopatra was sometimes referred to as "Kemut" despite the fact that she was of Macedonian ethnicity.

Based on Egypt's diversity, it's a big leap in interpretation to say that they called themselves "black people". Even if ancient Egyptians were predominantly "black-skinned" Africans it would be unusal for a nation to identify itself by a physical characteristic that isn't the least bit an exclusive one.

Did the ancient Chinese feel the need to call themselves "yellow people"? Did the Britons call themselves "white people"?

If you want to stick to African cultures, what other ancient African people called themselves "black people"?

I understand that Egyptians are a unique people in a unique geographic location which is the only reason why people can still debate over this stuff.

There is no vast conspiracy to hide the "true" meaning of the name. Take yourself out of the 21st century and put yourself in their time. This is the era before the definition of a "black person" was "anyone with sub-Saharan African ancestry."

Before going any further, answer these questions:

With their knowledge of the interior of Africa and the other continents around them, why would they choose to label themselves "black people" as if they were the only black peoples in Africa?

With Egypt's physical diversity from north to south, why would skin color play a role in how they chose to indentify themselves as a nation?

The Nubians were the most literally black-skinned people known in their time, is there a reference to Egyptians calling Nubians Kemut or Kammau?

Thought Writes:

I assume you mean phenotyic diversity, not physical diversity. I agree that Ancient Egypt phenotypically diverse, however modern science indicates that the bulk of this diversity originates within Inner Africa.

{The Nubians were the most literally black-skinned people known in their time, is there a reference to Egyptians calling Nubians Kemut or Kammau?}

Thought Writes:

There is no evidence to support "Nubians" being darker or lighter than Egyptians prior to the New Kingdom.

[/B][/QUOTE]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:

There is no evidence to support "Nubians" being darker or lighter than Egyptians prior to the New Kingdom.

---

There is written evidence of lower and upper Egyptians being phenotypically different(as in, not having as many physical affinities with Nubians) as early as the Old Kingdom and physical evidence from pre-dynastic times...

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
There is written evidence of lower and upper Egyptians being phenotypically different(as in, not having as many physical affinities with Nubians) as early as the Old Kingdom and physical evidence from pre-dynastic times...

---

Thought Writes:

Please provide me with your sources or recant this false statement.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
Thought Writes:

Please provide me with your sources or recant this false statement.

---

You can start with the "tales of Sinhue"

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
Keep in mind that even Queen Cleopatra was sometimes referred to as "Kemut" despite the fact that she was of Macedonian ethnicity.

Based on Egypt's diversity, it's a big leap in interpretation to say that they called themselves "black people". Even if ancient Egyptians were predominantly "black-skinned" Africans it would be unusal for a nation to identify itself by a physical characteristic that isn't the least bit an exclusive one.

Did the ancient Chinese feel the need to call themselves "yellow people"? Did the Britons call themselves "white people"?

If you want to stick to African cultures, what other ancient African people called themselves "black people"?

I understand that Egyptians are a unique people in a unique geographic location which is the only reason why people can still debate over this stuff.

There is no vast conspiracy to hide the "true" meaning of the name. Take yourself out of the 21st century and put yourself in their time. This is the era before the definition of a "black person" was "anyone with sub-Saharan African ancestry."

Before going any further, answer these questions:

With their knowledge of the interior of Africa and the other continents around them, why would they choose to label themselves "black people" as if they were the only black peoples in Africa?

With Egypt's physical diversity from north to south, why would skin color play a role in how they chose to indentify themselves as a nation?

The Nubians were the most literally black-skinned people known in their time, is there a reference to Egyptians calling Nubians Kemut or Kammau?

---

--Cleopatra would not be referred to as kemut (blacks) because that would be grammatically incorrect; she would be called kemit (black woman);sat kemet(woman of black -which wouldn't necessarily mean she was black; merely a citizen);

--The fact that the Kememu called themselves kememu was never predicated upon what other peoples called themselves.

and I am so exhausted by people who can only respond to evidence presented with empty rhetoric as to what they believe to be true.
No, you tell us what these words describing Egypt and Egyptians really mean...

[This message has been edited by Wally (edited 11 December 2004).]

[This message has been edited by Wally (edited 11 December 2004).]
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
You can start with the "tales of Sinhue"

---

How do the tales of Sinhue support your claims? Please post it and mark where it supports:

From neo...
"evidence of lower and upper Egyptians being phenotypically different(as in, not having as many physical affinities with Nubians) as early as the Old Kingdom and physical evidence from pre-dynastic times..."
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
You can start with the "tales of Sinhue"

---

Thought Writes:

The differences in melanin between Nile Valley populations is an issue which is best addressed within the scientific realm of physical anthropology, not Ancient Egyptian mythology. Please tell us specifically what part of the "tales of Sinhue" scientifically addresses this issue? Thanks.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kem-Au:
How do the tales of Sinhue support your claims? Please post it and mark where it supports:

From neo...
"evidence of lower and upper Egyptians being phenotypically different(as in, not having as many physical affinities with Nubians) as early as the Old Kingdom and physical evidence from pre-dynastic times..."

---

No, enough already of all this 'phenotype,''cranial type,''physical affinities' rhetoric. First, let him tell us what the Egyptian words describing Egypt and Egyptians really mean.

Otherwise we'll be circling the wagons for days...

[This message has been edited by Wally (edited 11 December 2004).]
 

Neo: I never thought of the tales of Sinhue as documenting differences in appearance, although I'm open to the idea that the delta inhabitants were more heterogenious than the south from very early times.

Your comment about Cleopatra being referred to as Kemut; is that based on something you can document? If not, it would appear that you are making a false argument about an issue you claim to have no opinion on.
 

The Thebans[Wasetans] of the 11th dyansty fought bitter wars with the people in Middle Egypt. Around the second dyansty we have battles between Khasekhemwy and the northern populations. Pictures of on the base of his statue show captives from the north. Don't forget also that the Narmer palette shows people bound up and pictures of bulls trampling people of the Delta.

The Lapwings[rehkyt] of the Narmer palaette are shown hanging from ropes symbolizing the subjigation of the people who lived in the Delta.

The physical remains from the Delta are very slim,but we do have some remains from Maadi and the Omari culture from Lower Egypt.I have not seen many published reports on these findings,so I guess this would be an area that S.O Keita would have to study more.

With interpretation of the word Kmt you might be putting all your eggs in one basket. My recommendation to prove the Africaness of Egypt is by it's cultural and archaeological remains. Findings at Nabta Playa and Dakhla Oasis are begging to unveil the roots of ancient Kemetian[Egyptian] civlization. You must have more than on discipline besides just linguistics.

neo*geo,don't get wrapped up in the Nubian question either. Nubians were painted in various colors and even hairstyles. Look at some pictures of the Medijay are shown in bas reliefs like the modern Beja people in Sudan. The really dark Nubians are shown similar to the tones of the Southern Sudanese in modern Sudan. You can tell by their hairstyles and scarification that many match the modern southern Sudanese. The names for Nubia were as follows:Wawat,Irtjet,Irem,Yam,Ta-Seti,Medijay and Kush. Kush was around the 3rd to 5th cataract. Wawat and Ta-seti was south of modern day Aswan the first catract. Ta-Seti was traditionally called the 'First of the First' in literature like the Famine Stela.

Understand that Sinuhe was written at a time when Asiatics had swarmed the Delta region. Earlier texts like the Adominations of Ipuwer[some date to 8th dyansty] and Instructions of Mer--ka-re date to around the 9/10 dyansties. These texts also record an Asiatic pressence.

No matter how much I disagree with you, I respect the fact that you keep the discussions academic. While it appears that you have invested a lot of time and research into reaching the conclusions you posted, in order to convince skeptics you have to respond to legitimate objections.

So again I ask:

- What precedent is there for a nation to name themselves based on something as non-exclusive as skin color? If you lived in a household with other people of similar or equal height, would it make sense for them to nickname you "shorty"?

- Did the Egyptians ever call Nubians or any other peoples from the interior of Africa "Kemut" or "Kammau"?

Forget about the other questions. Atlest answer the two above...
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

Neo: I never thought of the tales of Sinhue as documenting differences in appearance, although I'm open to the idea that the delta inhabitants were more heterogenious than the south from very early times.

---

I wasn't referencing the tales of sinhue as physical evidence. The physical evidence is well documented that in pre-dynastic periods, lower Egyptians had a distinct culture and were not phenotypically homogeneous as early upper Egyptians were. Some have observed that they were taller and more robust than upper Egyptians. I'm not saying they weren't indigenous Africans. They may have been related to the diverse berber populations of north Africa.

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

Your comment about Cleopatra being referred to as Kemut; is that based on something you can document?

---

Can't document everything I know unfortuantely. There are a lot of books on ancient Egypt that are out of print now.

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

If not, it would appear that you are making a false argument about an issue you claim to have no opinion on.

---

I just need clarification on a unanswered questions. I'm not arguing for the sake of arguing this time. While I haven't concluded one way or the other on the issue I will admit that I feel the evidence for "Kemet" meaning black people is not as strong as the more widely accepted translation. I'm open to any evidence that will lower my degree of skepticism towards Wally/Diop's theory.

I have studied the history of racism in the West and I have seen no examples of African people's calling themselves "blacks" before the British applied the term to West African immigrants in Europe(yes, there were some black Africans who had settled in the British Isles prior to the opening of the trans-Atlantic slave trade).

 

quote:

---

I wasn't referencing the tales of sinhue as physical evidence.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
There is written evidence of lower and upper Egyptians being phenotypically different(as in, not having as many physical affinities with Nubians) as early as the Old Kingdom and physical evidence from pre-dynastic times...

---

quote:

---

Thought Writes:
Please provide me with your sources or recant this false statement.

---

quote:

---

Neo writes: You can start with the "tales of Sinhue"

---

quote:

---

The physical evidence is well documented that in pre-dynastic periods, lower Egyptians had a distinct culture and were not phenotypically homogeneous as early upper Egyptians were.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

Your comment about Cleopatra being referred to as Kemut; is that based on something you can document?

---

quote:

---

Can't document everything I know unfortuantely. There are a lot of books on ancient Egypt that are out of print now.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

If not, it would appear that you are making a false argument about an issue you claim to have no opinion on.

---

quote:

---

I'm not arguing for the sake of arguing this time. While I haven't concluded one way or the other on the issue I will admit that I feel the evidence for "Kemet" meaning black people is not as strong as the more widely accepted translation.

---

quote:

---

I'm open to any evidence that will lower my degree of skepticism towards Wally/Diop's theory.

---

* You are not addressing the evidence.

* You seem to be attempting to provide counter evidence that does not actually exist.

quote:

---

I have studied the history of racism in the West and I have seen no examples of African people's calling themselves "blacks" before the British applied the term to West African immigrants in Europe

---

That is a 'non sequitor' as black is a British (English) word that merely translates earlier references to dark skinned Africans ->including Negro, Moor, Sudan, Hamite, Ethiopian, Melas and Kem.

Specific example:The Black Madonna of Europe, is derived from the African Goddess KemIsi (Black Mother) of Kemet.

Are you saying the concept of the Black Madonna was somehow invented by the British to apply to West Africans?

Are you saying that the Black Madonna does not derived from KemIsi? ?

Are you saying that the Black Madonna is a reference to 'soil' and does not in any way reference the fact that she is 'black'? ? ?

Are you denying that KemIsi constitutes and authentic African reference to Black as phenotype? ? ? ?

""Roman legions carried this figure of Black Isis holding the Black infant Horus all over Europe where shrines were established to her. So holy and venerate were these shrines that when Christianity invaded Europe, these figures of the Black Isis holding the Black Horus were not destroyed but turned into figures of the Black Madonna and Child. Today these are still the holiest shrines in Catholic Europe"...in all the Romish countries of Europe, in France, Italy, Germany, etc., the God Christ, as well as his mother, are described in their old pictures and statues to be black. The infant God in the arms of his black mother, his eyes and drapery white, is himself perfectly black."
- The worship of the Virgin Mother - T.W. Doane, also see Gerald Massey: Egypt and the light of the World.

Let's be clear on this: Kem Isis is an original "Egyptian" reference to Egyptians as phenotypical kemet - black people, that is translated as such by the [wst].

Neo: just because you study the history of European racism does not mean that Black history begins with Europe. Quite often, precisely the opposite is true.

[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 12 December 2004).]
 

quote:

---

sunstorm wrote:

A question though: How old is the term "kemet"? Does it reach back to unification? And what would be the historical context of calling oneself the "black nation"?

---

quote:

---

rasol responded:

Specific references to Kem (black) as it pertains to skin color go back to the old kingdom and are probably older than the term Kemet[niwt], as applied to the nation.

I know of two specific examples of cultures that made specific and sanctified references to dark skin.

* Nile Valley. (Kem)

and....

* Indus Valley. (Kali)

Ask yourself what do these civilisations have in common, (besides Black peoples).

---

...So what do these civilizations have in common?

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
That is a 'non sequitor' as black is a British (English) word that merely translates earlier references to dark skinned Africans ->including Negro, Moor, Sudan, Hamite, Ethiopian, Melas and Kem.

---

The problem with what you are saying is that all of these titles don't have varying meanings at all times in history. Sudan doesn't mean "black people" in Arabic; Moor is a reference to Muslims from Morocco and western Sudan, not skin color; Hamite is a racist term that in earlier times meant "dark caucasion"; Melas means dark skin but not black skin; and yes, Kem has been used to describe skin color in ancient Egypt. I will address this issue with Kem in my next post.

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

Specific example:The Black Madonna of Europe, is derived from the African Goddess KemIsi (Black Mother) of Kemet.

Are you saying the concept of the Black Madonna was somehow invented by the British to apply to West Africans?

---

No. Now your confusing meaning and time periods. I would like to see a reference or a photo showing the Kemisi you speak of.

The God of the afterworld, Osiris was often depicted with jet black, blue, or green skin. Other Gods and Goddesses were similarly depicted with black, blue, or green skin for symbolic reasons.

It's not very strong to use myths and allegories for examples of the application of the word Kem. Myths and allegories are very symbolic and colors can and often do represent something other than what you are implying.

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

Are you saying that the Black Madonna does not derived from KemIsi? ?

---

It's possible but it's irrelevant to the topic at hand.

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

Are you denying that KemIsi constitutes and authentic African reference to Black as phenotype? ? ? ?

---

Yes because it's a reference to a religious symbol(a symbol that has been depicted in a wide variety of ways) and not an actual person. But why stop there?

Are you saying we should reference the depictions of Seth as an example of red hair as an Egyptian phenotype?

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

Let's be clear on this: Kem Isis is an original "Egyptian" reference to Egyptians as phenotypical kemet - black people, that is translated as such by the [wst].

---

So let me get this straight. You're whole conclusion hinges on a symbol that never actually lived? That's weak rasol.

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

Neo: just because you study the history of European racism does not mean that Black history begins with Europe.

---

And African history doesn't begin or end with Egypt.

My point is that there is no point in history where Africans called themselves "black people" prior to encounters with white Europeans. And let me add that "black-skinned" and "black people" do not mean the same thing in antiquity as they do today.
 

quote:

---

It doesn't mean black people. It is the word black as a noun adjective.

---

Finally, we found a point at which we agree. Kem can be applied to skin color, soil color, paint color, hair color, etc..

quote:

---

There is no disputing the fact that the word black was used in reference to phenotype as no alternative translation has ever been offered for words such as Kemset, Pepi the Black, KemIsi or it's Greek derivitive the Black Madonna.

---

But this is a major flaw in your argument.

I'll give you the same example I gave Wally: if you lived amongst a group of people with similar or equal height why would you be nicknamed "shorty"? If you aren't significantly shorter than most other people around you it wouldn't make sense for you to be called shorty. There would have to be a symbolic or inner meaning that outsiders may not understand.

This is why when you reference ancient Egyptians like Kemsit or Pepi the black you are hurting your Kemet means "black people" statement. Kemsit and "Pepi the black" were of Nubian ancestry and they must have had significantly darker skin color than most Egyptians for them to be nicknamed "black". For one to be named based on a physical attribution that attribute must be something that makes them stand out from most other people...

Words can change meanings over time but human nature doesn't change...
 

Thought Writes:

Yet, you have not provided us with ANY sources to date! Both Upper and Lower Egyptians were diverse. Both Upper and Lower Egyptians descended from a early Holocene East African ancestral stock.

{Some have observed that they were taller and more robust than upper Egyptians. I'm not saying they weren't indigenous Africans. They may have been related to the diverse berber populations of north Africa.}

Thought Writes:

Again, current anthropological data indicate that Berbers and Egyptians BOTH descend from a early Holocene East African ancestral stock.

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
My point is that there is no point in history where Africans called themselves "black people" prior to encounters with white Europeans.

---

This is a mistaken notion. African self definition into a
two coloured scheme of red and black is an old thing
not introduced by anyone from anywhere else. It originally
did not include whites but later, once they were encountered,
whites were sometimes added to the red class or else a new
category of white was made for them.

In first appears in writing in Kmt where Nile Valley folk
RM RMT & NHSW are classed together as blacks
apposed to Libyan TMHW & Asiatic AAMW who are
classed together as reds. The Axumites record their
conflict in Meroe against the Red Noba and the Black
Noba.

Across the Red Sea in Arabia the distinction between
reds and blacks continues today and is noted in a 1200
year old essay by al Jahiz.

Further south, in East Africa, Byrk noted the red/black
distinction among the Nandi when he queried a youth
about a pretty girl standing nearby. He was told: “Don't
you see that I'm red and she's black?”

In southern Africa the baNtu see themselves as black
the Khoi, San, & Twa as red, whom they call the little red
men .

Then in the western Sudan, Maurs, Tuareg, Bela, & Fulani
are the reds among the other Africans living there who call
them red.

It is only unfamiliarity wuth Africa on its own terms that allows
colour consciousness to be beyond the internal cognizant
ability of Africans. What whites introduced to the world is the
idea of a natural hierarchy of inferior and superior races by
colour.

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
This is why when you reference ancient Egyptians like Kemsit or Pepi the black you are hurting your Kemet means "black people" statement. Kemsit and "Pepi the black" were of Nubian ancestry and they must have had significantly darker skin color than most Egyptians for them to be nicknamed "black". For one to be named based on a physical attribution that attribute must be something that makes them stand out from most other people...

---

Doing it again; painting Nubians as a homogeneous entity, racially seperate from Kemetians. In this regard, I wonder how you are any different from 18th century racist Egyptologists. It appears that it has to be countless times repeated that Nubians weren't a homogenous group themselves, in that, lower Nubians were generally less dark than those found in upper Nubia. It also has to be repeated that in Kemet's southern Nubian region or lower Nubia, the folks there weren't racially different from other upper Egyptian regions. Lower Nubia has throughout much of history, been a part of Egypt, and called a variety of names by Kemetians. If you have any peer-reviewed science journal(s) that comes to the conclusion that upper Egyptians were racially distinct from lower Nubians, I'll be happy to take a look at it.

[This message has been edited by supercar (edited 12 December 2004).]
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:

But this is a major flaw in your argument.

I'll give you the same example I gave Wally: if you lived amongst a group of people with similar or equal height why would you be nicknamed "shorty"? If you aren't significantly shorter than most other people around you it wouldn't make sense for you to be called shorty. There would have to be a symbolic or inner meaning that outsiders may not understand.

This is why when you reference ancient Egyptians like Kemsit or Pepi the black you are hurting your Kemet means "black people" statement. Kemsit and "Pepi the black" were of Nubian ancestry and they must have had significantly darker skin color than most Egyptians for them to be nicknamed "black". For one to be named based on a physical attribution that attribute must be something that makes them stand out from most other people...

Words can change meanings over time but human nature doesn't change...

---

This argument seems to ignore that the Kmtyw did not live in a vacuum and knew of people
in and beyond the deserts to their east and west who in general were much lighter than
they wereand that both of these were in the Delta.

Also both white and black people often nickname
a person whose complexion is extreme as
whitey among whites, blackie or redboy among blacks.

None of this, or the argument of what nations have ever named themselves after a
colour, have anything to do with the fact that the AE did chose KM as the root of their
word for their nation.

We have AE records that use KM in association with people determinatives.
Are there AE records that use KM with
determinatives indicating soil, ground, earth,
etc? KM as an adjective can describe most anything physical or metaphysical.

[This message has been edited by alTakruri (edited 12 December 2004).]

[This message has been edited by alTakruri (edited 12 December 2004).]
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by alTakruri:

This is a mistaken notion. African self definition into a
two coloured scheme of red and black is an old thing
not introduced by anyone from anywhere else.

---

I'm aware of this but we're not talking about self-definition, we're talking about defining an entire ethnic group or nation. The African self-conciousness about skin color is one of the main reasons I am skeptical about the whole kemet=black people idea.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
I'm aware of this but we're not talking about self-definition, we're talking about defining an entire ethnic group or nation. The African self-conciousness about skin color is one of the main reasons I am skeptical about the whole kemet=black people idea.

---

Yes we are talking self definition. The AE self definition of KM.t.nwt, their own
home made self defined national appellative.

You made the statement
<<My point is that there is no point in history where Africans called themselves "black people" prior to encounters with white Europeans. And let me add that "black-skinned" and "black people" do not mean the same thing in antiquity as they do today.>>

I showed that to be inaccurate.

[This message has been edited by alTakruri (edited 12 December 2004).]
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
Keep in mind that even Queen Cleopatra was sometimes referred to as "Kemut" despite the fact that she was of Macedonian ethnicity.

Based on Egypt's diversity, it's a big leap in interpretation to say that they called themselves "black people". Even if ancient Egyptians were predominantly "black-skinned" Africans it would be unusal for a nation to identify itself by a physical characteristic that isn't the least bit an exclusive one.

Did the ancient Chinese feel the need to call themselves "yellow people"? Did the Britons call themselves "white people"?

If you want to stick to African cultures, what other ancient African people called themselves "black people"?

I understand that Egyptians are a unique people in a unique geographic location which is the only reason why people can still debate over this stuff.

There is no vast conspiracy to hide the "true" meaning of the name. Take yourself out of the 21st century and put yourself in their time. This is the era before the definition of a "black person" was "anyone with sub-Saharan African ancestry."

Before going any further, answer these questions:

With their knowledge of the interior of Africa and the other continents around them, why would they choose to label themselves "black people" as if they were the only black peoples in Africa?

With Egypt's physical diversity from north to south, why would skin color play a role in how they chose to indentify themselves as a nation?

The Nubians were the most literally black-skinned people known in their time, is there a reference to Egyptians calling Nubians Kemut or Kammau?

---

----------------------------

Brother Neo*Geo and Others,

Your argument holds a lot of validity.

Yes, why would a group of people call themselves Blacks, especially when many of them were NOT Black and some were almost White.

It would be PUZZLING to name a society after their their SKIN COLOR, when they're surrounded by people who are REALLY Black and deserve the name a lot more than them, the Egyptians.

I think you have Turned the Tables on many of these Afro-Centric Psuedo_Historians, by pointing out the obvious.

I had a chance to ask some of friends about their impression of the Ancient Egyptians, and without a hesitation, they said that the A/E's were not Black Africans. Mind you, this is not coming from a white person, but an American-Chinese and others.

All these people with a Political Agenda, should look at the Mirror and touch their Noses, because the Truth is right in front of their FACE........There is no Doubt about it, just like your nose......It will not Go Away.

Please Wakeup from your Afro-Centric Dream, and come back to the REAL World. Your arguments are FULL of Holes, that large Trucks can pass through.

Black Land, as the Color of the annual Flood and the Fertile Delta. Black Land, Yes. Black People, NO...that is the Truth!

There is still a little Hope for You, you just have to wakeup from your Dream Land....and get Back to Reality.........

Egyptians are Egyptians and Egyptians ONLY!!

Outsiders, were ALL enemies of EGYPT....and BARBARIANS, Including the NUBIANS.....If You want Proof look at the picture of King Tut's Sandals, you'll see that he Steps on all the Enemies of Egypt, including the Blacks.

Why would people with Light Brown to Dark Brown complexions call themselves Blacks!!

Were they that Stupid....and Why would they Paint their Women a very Pale Color (almost White), when not exposed to the Sun as the Men....

Guys, please let's get Real and try to think a little Outside of this Empty Afro-Centric BOX.

Just my two cents for now.....Coming to you from a True Egyptian, Born and Raised in the land Of Egypt!!

------------------
THE TRUTH WILL SET YOU FREE!! ALWAYS LISTEN TO YOUR HEART & SOUL!! // PEACE ******* ABAZA
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by supercar:
Doing it again; painting Nubians as a homogeneous entity, racially seperate from Kemetians.

---

You guys need to seek psychiatric help. Every argument on ancient Egypt doesn't have to turn into a racial one. How many times do we have to repeat the same simple understanding? Race is not the same as skin color and race in ancient times is not the same as race today. I am in no way saying that Nubians were not diverse just as Egyptians were. What I'm saying is that we KNOW that Kemsit was a Nubian woman and we KNOW that the 6th dynasty royal family may have been a Nubian one. Nubians varied in skin color but generally, they were literally the color "black" as their descendants around Sudan are today.

quote:

---

Originally posted by supercar:

In this regard, I wonder how you are any different from 18th century racist Egyptologists.

---

And I wonder how you are any different from Adolph Hitler... Not to be so blunt but I take offense to being compared to racists simply because you fail to understand my point of view due to either lack of reading comprehension or reading my old posts on the subject...

quote:

---

Originally posted by supercar:

It appears that it has to be countless times repeated that Nubians weren't a homogenous group themselves, in that, lower Nubians were generally less dark than those found in upper Nubia.

---

This is a questionable generalization. Indeed, there are lower Nubians in Egypt and Sudan like the Beja who have had "red" skin since antiquity. However, Nubians from Aswan, Egypt to Khartoum, Sudan are generally black complexioned.

quote:

---

Originally posted by supercar:

It also has to be repeated that in Kemet's southern Nubian region or lower Nubia, the folks there weren't racially different from other upper Egyptian regions.

---

What is racially different? Once again, you're mixing the modern definition of race with the ancient one. In the fact that lower Nubia has always in some way shape or form been within Egypt's borders you are right but that's been my point all along.

 

quote:

---

Neo writes: This is why when you reference ancient Egyptians like Kemsit or Pepi the black you are hurting your Kemet means "black people" statement. Kemsit and "Pepi the black" were of Nubian ancestry

---

Now, did you not just ask........

quote:

---

The Nubians were the most literally black-skinned people known in their time, is there a reference to Egyptians calling Nubians Kemut or Kammau.

---

You just just answered that question yourself, and on your own terms. However, you need to check yourself on the use of the word "nubian", as that is the term that was not ever used to describe Kememu. You are engaged in a classic 'nubian obfuscation', in which the word nubian is used to generate confusion over the precense of black people in Kemet.

Or, to throw your nonsense back in your face: Osirus, Isis, Narmer and the Khentu shown conquering the delta on the Narmer palette were 'ALL' of 'Nubian ancestry.' Kemet...is largey of Nubian ancestry.
With t hat out of the way, perhaps you can explain what this has to do with questioning the meaning of the word kem?

 

I know a Filipino who says of course the AE
were a black people. He has devoted considerable time and energy in freeing the mind of the mentally paralyzed who can look
at painting, sculpture, or written document and deny what their eyes are seeing.

There is hor if only you want to thrust off this mental illness and leave the asylim and come back to the world of the mentally healthy.

Overcome emotional outburst and rationally examine documentation to free your mind from
the chains of leftover colonial domination.

Why eschew your supposed proud born and raised
Egyptian identity. With so much natioanalistic chauvinism why not once again become a true Egyptian citizen and live in Egypt and contribute to your nation of people?

quote:

---

Originally posted by ABAZA:

---

[This message has been edited by alTakruri (edited 12 December 2004).]
 

quote:

---

If you aren't significantly shorter than most other people around you it wouldn't make sense for you to be called shorty. There would have to be a symbolic or inner meaning that outsiders may not understand.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by alTakruri:

I showed that to be inaccurate.

---

You have not shown it to be innaccurate because you haven't named an entire nation or ethnic group that named itself based on skin color.

We can argue all day about what individuals choose to identify themselves as but it's irrelevant. The political name for a nation is not a decision made by an individual, it's something agreed upon by a group of individuals over a period of time...

 

quote:

---

noe*geo writes:
You guys need to seek psychiatric help. Every argument on ancient Egypt doesn't have to turn into a racial one. How many times do we have to repeat the same simple understanding? Race is not the same as skin color and race in ancient times is not the same as race today. I am in no way saying that Nubians were not diverse just as Egyptians were. What I'm saying is that we KNOW that Kemsit was a Nubian woman and we KNOW that the 6th dynasty royal family may have been a Nubian one. Nubians varied in skin color but generally, they were literally the color "black" as their descendants around Sudan are today.

---

You don’t only need psychiatric help, but with they way you are communicating your thoughts, you need to be locked in a mental institution. You said that the Nubians had significantly darker skin than most Egyptians. Hence, you put the Nubians in a homogeneous entity, which is supposedly different from Egyptians racially. Here are your own words, which it appears you are incapable of remembering:

quote:

---

neo*geo:
"Pepi the black" were of Nubian ancestry and they must have had significantly darker skin color than most Egyptians for them to be nicknamed "black". For one to be named based on a physical attribution that attribute must be something that makes them stand out from most other people…

---

quote:

---

neo*geo:
And I wonder how you are any different from Adolph Hitler... Not to be so blunt but I take offense to being compared to racists simply because you fail to understand my point of view due to either lack of reading comprehension or reading my old posts on the subject…

---

Adolph Hitler simply capitalized on the racist ideology, that 18th century racist Egyptologists and so-called anthropologists claimed to have confirmed through their twisted findings. Early European bio-anthropologists did the same thing you are unsuccessfully trying to do here; making a clear cut racial demarcation between “Nubians” and Kemetians. I certainly understood what you said, as I have pointed above, but it appears that you clearly don’t have your thought process straight!

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
[QUOTE]If you aren't significantly shorter than most other people around you it wouldn't make sense for you to be called shorty. There would have to be a symbolic or inner meaning that outsiders may not understand.

---

It does exist in the US due in part to the fact that natural blondes are not as common here...

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
You have not shown it to be innaccurate because you haven't named an entire nation or ethnic group that named itself based on skin color.

We can argue all day about what individuals choose to identify themselves as but it's irrelevant. The political name for a nation is not a decision made by an individual, it's something agreed upon by a group of individuals over a period of time...

---

Qyite to the contray I have shown a few.

If you refuse to comprehend the examples of groups of Africans classifying other groups of Africans as either red or black in distinction to themselves in turn as either red or black thats your choice. You have been shown but you do not have to accept what you have been shown.

The African peoples themselves created the terminology, accepted it, and continue to apply it.

Answer me this,

True or False(not an open ended question)

- Nubians typically have dark brown to black skin

quote:

---

Originally posted by alTakruri:

Qyite to the contray I have shown a few.

If you refuse to comprehend the examples of groups of Africans classifying other groups of Africans as either red or black in distinction to themselves in turn as either red or black thats your choice. You have been shown but you do not have to accept what you have been shown.

---

I don't need examples. I'm well aware of African people describing themselves as "reds". I live in Maryland and we have lots of Ethiopians here.

I will accept your cop-out as proof that you can't name a single nation or ethnic group to answer my question.

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by ABAZA:
[B]Yes, why would a group of people call themselves Blacks,

---

quote:

---

some were almost White

---

they wished to represent the inhabitants of Egypt and those of foreign lands. Thus we have before our eyes the image of the various races of man known to the Egyptians... the last one is whatwe call flesh-colored, a white skin of the most delicate shade, a nose straight or slightly arched, blue eyes, blond or reddish beard,he is called Tamhou

Tamhou is the phenotypical opposite of Kemmou. Tam ->reddish yellow, aple ou -> ones...red ones. Champollion the Yonger understood this Abazza and you do to. The only difference is, he admitted it.
 

Are there any nations or peoples who named themselves after the colour of the surrounding soil or ecology?
 

If your only interests in Ancient Egypt lie in whether you are related to them in skin colour then I question whether any of you should even advertise yourselves as being interested in the subject. I don't care if the Egyptians were black, or white. I don't care if they are related to me- the amount of melanin in their epidermis does not in the least concern me.

Wally, your opening post just proves to me that you are just that- a Wally. There are multiple ways to translate any word in Egyptian Hieroglyphic. It is an incredibly vague language, and one should certainly not read as deeply as you are into a single seldom used word.

Furthermore, the feminine plural is "wt", not "t", and even with adjectival endings (even though Kmt is a noun), it could still be translated as meaning "black" singular. On top of that, Kemet is used to refer to the place, not the peoples, and you have completely ignored the inclusion of 049.

If that isn't enough, the adjective "kem" is used to describe the colour of not just pitch black, but also mud and soil (See Papyrus of Ipuwer for examples). As soil can range in colour from light tan to dark black, the word "kem" by no means limits the object to which it refers in colour to a dark black. It is soil-coloured. Egyptian soil, as you should know, can be found in all shades of brown.

Your translation is flawed, your ideals are sick, and I question your authority.

 

I had a chance to ask some of friends about their impression of the Ancient Egyptians, and without a hesitation, they said that the A/E's were not Black Africans. }

Thought Writes:

Abaza the TROLLER is back! He continues to kae these wild statements without supporting evidence.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

Repeat: Kemet does not mean black people. It is a noun/adj. Black = any black thing, per Budge.

---

It seems you're moving the goal posts again. My original question had to do with why Kemet would mean "black people" or "land of he blacks". Now we are down to Kemet simply meaning "any black thing". I'm not sure if this is progress but I'm glad the discussion is making you think.

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

You just just answered that question yourself, and on your own terms. However, you need to check yourself on the use of the word "nubian", as that is the term that was not ever used to describe Kememu.

---

"Nubian" is a blanket term. There are too many ethnic groups to name each one individually. I don't need to be schooled on the Nubians and you know this from my posts on the topic in the past.

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

Or, to throw your nonsense back in your face: Osirus, Isis, Narmer and the Khentu shown conquering the delta on the Narmer palette were 'ALL' of 'Nubian ancestry.'

---

Isis, and Osiris never existed. I agree with you on Narmer...

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

Kemet...is largey of Nubian ancestry.

---

I question the truth in that statement. While there is cultural continuity between Nubians and pre-dynastic Egyptians, each nation somehow developed similar but distinct languages and cultures.

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

With t hat out of the way, perhaps you can explain what this has to do with questioning the meaning of the word kem?

---

I thought you would never ask. For one, I'm searching for an answer on whether the ancient Egyptians ever called any group of Nubians Kemut or Kammau. Since you know so much about Nubians maybe you have an answer...

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
[QUOTE]If you aren't significantly shorter than most other people around you it wouldn't make sense for you to be called shorty. There would have to be a symbolic or inner meaning that outsiders may not understand.

---

quote:

---

It does exist in the US due in part to the fact that natural blondes are not as common here...

---

There is nothing odd in the way that Kemetians used the word black.

Neo, everthing you know is not all there is to know. Your questions reflect an extremely myopic [wst] view of the world, which you are trying to force impose back onto km.t. In your world view, white and the litany of references to it are presumed to be 'natural' and go without questioning.

Blackness on the other hand is so unfathamable to you, that you cannot even conceive of it outside of the blinders of [wst] racism as an 'apositive self reference'

The reason you cannot accept the Kemetic dialects of blackness, is simply due to the fact that their world view was a contradiction of yours. What you accept is entirely up to you of course. We are only interested in whether or not you have a coherent alternative view of the linguistics in question. It is clear that you do not.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Psusennes I:
For goodness sakes! I pity you if all you care about is the consequesnce of one word which will never be fully understood.

If your only interests in Ancient Egypt lie in whether you are related to them in skin colour then I question whether any of you should even advertise yourselves as being interested in the subject. I don't care if the Egyptians were black, or white. I don't care if they are related to me- the amount of melanin in their epidermis does not in the least concern me.

---

THANK YOU

 

quote:

---

Supercar -
Answer me this,
True or False(not an open ended question)
- Nubians typically have dark brown to black skin

---

False; actual literal black skin is rare, as is literal white skin.

And what's a Nubian, exactly?

quote:

---

Originally posted by ABAZA:

---

------------------
THE TRUTH WILL SET YOU FREE!! ALWAYS LISTEN TO YOUR HEART & SOUL!! // PEACE ******* ABAZA
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Psusennes I:
For goodness sakes! I pity you if all you care about is the consequesnce of one word which will never be fully understood.

If your only interests in Ancient Egypt lie in whether you are related to them in skin colour then I question whether any of you should even advertise yourselves as being interested in the subject. I don't care if the Egyptians were black, or white. I don't care if they are related to me- the amount of melanin in their epidermis does not in the least concern me.

---

quote:

---

THANK YOU

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Psusennes I:
For goodness sakes! I pity you if all you care about is the consequesnce of one word which will never be fully understood.

If your only interests in Ancient Egypt lie in whether you are related to them in skin colour then I question whether any of you should even advertise yourselves as being interested in the subject. I don't care if the Egyptians were black, or white. I don't care if they are related to me- the amount of melanin in their epidermis does not in the least concern me.

Wally, your opening post just proves to me that you are just that- a Wally. There are multiple ways to translate any word in Egyptian Hieroglyphic. It is an incredibly vague language, and one should certainly not read as deeply as you are into a single seldom used word.

Furthermore, the feminine plural is "wt", not "t", and even with adjectival endings (even though Kmt is a noun), it could still be translated as meaning "black" singular. On top of that, Kemet is used to refer to the place, not the peoples, and you have completely ignored the inclusion of 049.

If that isn't enough, the adjective "kem" is used to describe the colour of not just pitch black, but also mud and soil (See Papyrus of Ipuwer for examples). As soil can range in colour from light tan to dark black, the word "kem" by no means limits the object to which it refers in colour to a dark black. It is soil-coloured. Egyptian soil, as you should know, can be found in all shades of brown.

Your translation is flawed, your ideals are sick, and I question your authority.

---

----------------------

Thank God, we have a few More Reasonable People on Forum............

I second, Neo*Geo's opinion and that of other Objective Thinkers on this Panel.

Please, Let's Step out of this One Dimensional Afro-Centric Box and look at the Big Picture.....

------------------
THE TRUTH WILL SET YOU FREE!! ALWAYS LISTEN TO YOUR HEART & SOUL!! // PEACE ******* ABAZA
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
{I think you have Turned the Tables on many of these Afro-Centric Psuedo_Historians, by pointing out the obvious.

I had a chance to ask some of friends about their impression of the Ancient Egyptians, and without a hesitation, they said that the A/E's were not Black Africans. }

Thought Writes:

Abaza the TROLLER is back! He continues to kae these wild statements without supporting evidence.

---

-------------------

What your're Afraid of is an Honest Debate....Let's Get Real and Debunk this Afro-Centric Thinking...Once and for All.

------------------
THE TRUTH WILL SET YOU FREE!! ALWAYS LISTEN TO YOUR HEART & SOUL!! // PEACE ******* ABAZA
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
[QUOTE]THANK YOU

---

If that were true you would not be here reading this now (that goes for both of you).

I thought for a chnage I would give some of you the benefit of the doubt. I thought maybe we could have a discussion about the meaning of the term "kemet" without being disrespectful to each other or accusing people of being racists. I was wrong.

Thought Writes:

This is a ruse. The issue is not as SIMPLE as what skin color the Ancinet Egyptians had. The REAL issue the fact that Egyptology from its inception was/is rooted in a White Supremacist ideaology. Egypt was one of the earliest Complex Societies and had a definitive role in influencing Ancient Greece. Ancient Greece is viewed as the font of "Western Civilization". "Western Civilization" is a euphemism for White Culture. At the time that Egyptology was being concieved as a science "Western" nations were in the process of colonizing "people of color" all around the globe. The justification for this colonization process was that it was Manifest Destiny for Europeans to be saviors of the les civilized races. Hence the myth that Europeans were saviors and the fact that Egypt was an indigenous African civilization that influenced Greece were in contrast to each other. Over the years those who support this Western Myth have used ruse after ruse and foil after foil to stretch out the life-span of this falsehood. Virtually every ruse that they have used has been demolished, except two. One is to posit "Caucasoids" in East Africa during the Upper Paloelithic and the other is to try and sell us on a multi-racial Egypt. Both of these ruses are false as well. Egypt was peopled from Sub-Saharan East Africa after the early holocene.

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
I don't need examples. I'm well aware of African people describing themselves as "reds". I live in Maryland and we have lots of Ethiopians here.

I will accept your cop-out as proof that you can't name a single nation or ethnic group to answer my question.

---

Look, even you have contradicted your own statement. <<I'm well aware of African people describing themselves as "reds".>>
Do you even comprehend what you yourself have just written, that the Amhara type
Ethiopians classify themselves as red in distinction to the Shangalla types?

Again you simply refuse to comprehend the ones I have already given. Your non response of me copping out does not excuse your inability to comprehend that
I have given groups from all over the continent who classify themselves as either red or black and some of their neighbors as the same or opposite.

Quote my post and anybody can show you the peoples I mentioned since you yourself refuse to see them.

You however can produce nothing from anywhere remotely resembling a statement like
"We African have never called ourselves either black or red. It was the white Europeans who introduced us to that concept."

quote:

---

It seems you're moving the goal posts again. My original question had to do with why Kemet would mean "black people" or "land of he blacks".

---

Nope the goal post is not moving. Rather the offical is explaining the same instructions over and over again and some of the players are not listening.

quote:

---

Now we are down to Kemet simply meaning "any black thing".

---

quote:

---

I'm not sure if this is progress but I'm glad the discussion is making you think.

---

quote:

---

Nubian" is a blanket term.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Psusennes I:
Can I suggest that you just ban anyone who turns this forum into a racial battle-ground. Racial discrimination is illegal under both the E.U Human Rights bill and the U.S constitution, and surely you do not wish to home criminals?

---

Thought Writes:

Troller!
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by alTakruri:

Look, even you have contradicted your own statement. <<I'm well aware of African people describing themselves as "reds".>>
Do you even comprehend what you yourself have just written, that the Amhara type
Ethiopians classify themselves as red in distinction to the Shangalla types?

---

No, you just didn't answer the question. What other nations or ethnic groups NAME themselves as a NATION based on skin color?

Amhara doesn't mean "the red people" and Shangalla doesn't mean "the black people". The fact that both "red" and "black" people exist within the same nation proves my point even further.

How about Eritrea and Somalia? Do the names of those countries mean "the black people" or "the red people"?

 

quote:

---

Isis, and Osiris never existed. I agree with you on Narmer...

---

Actually uou don't know that, since Kemetic religion is based on worship of ancestors and Isis and Osirus are considerd the Great Black Mother and Black Father original ancestors of the Kememu. Whether they existed as specific individuals or only as relgious metahors for the kememu ancestors is completely irrelevant...what is releveant is that they document the fact that the kememu referred to the ancestors as Blacks.
 

Neo*Geo, Pepi the black and Kemsit have never been proven to be Nubians from ta-seti. Infact, southern Upper Egypt particulary around Luxor-Aswan was not significally different from the Lower Nubians. Frank J. Yurco even admits that Pepi the black had the typical look of a Southern Upper Egyptian.

Typically, Egyptians painted themselves reddish-brown and women yellowish colors for symbolism instead of ethnic idenity. After the Old Kingdom this color scheme broke down and people began to become painted in their own natural colors. You can see this on the tomb of the officals in modern day Luxor area the same as the people who live there today. Most ancient Egyptian artwork is symbolic anyway,and you will even find people painted blue,green,and assorted colors.

You have to understand the Nile Valley has the lightest people in the Delta and also the darkest people in Southern Sudan. Southern Sudanese people,as I learned, call Egyptians and Nubians hyenna droppings in their own native language. Ask a southern Sudanese this question and see what he says. Southern Sudanese are about the darkest people in all of Africa. Ironically, they also have facial features distinct from Bantus and Western Africans. Dinka,Nuer,and Shilluk often have traits that are distinct. Luo,Masai,and even Tutsi are in this category.

When Egyptians depicted enemies as in the case of the sandals of Tut-ankh-amun they depicted them more realistically than themselves. There were plenty of Egyptians around Aswan that looked no different than the so-called enemies on the sandals but as a conterbalance to isforet[chasos] which the enemies represented the Egyptians depicted themselves in contrast or a neutral color.

See the following from Gay Robbins an expert on artwork in Egyptology:

[......The choice of the single red-brown color to represent The
Egyptian man,rather than a more realistic range of shades ,should
also considered within a wider symbolic scheme that included the
representations of foreginers. The foreigne men to the north and west
of Egypt were depicted by yellow skin[similar to that odf traditional
Egyptian women]; men to the south of Egypt were given black skin.
Although undoubtedly some Egyptians' skin pigmentation differed
little from that of Egypt's neighboors,in the Egyptian worldview
foreigners had to be distinguished . Thus Egyptian men had to be
marked by a common skin color that contrasted with the images of non-
Egyptian men. That the Egyptian women shared their skin color with
some foreign men scarcely mattered,since the Egyptian male is primary
and formed the reference point in these two color scemes---
contrasting in one with non-Egyptian males and in the other with
Egyptian females. Within the scheme of Egyptian/non-Egyptian skin
color,black was not desirable for ordinary humans ,because it marked
out figures as foreign ,as enemies of Egypt,and ultimatley as
represenatives of chaos;black thereby contrasted with its positive
meaning elsewhere. This example helps demostrate the importance of
context for reading color symbolism.........]

[......Thus,the gender distinctionencoded for human figures was
transferred at times to the divie world. The symbolisminherant in the
skin colors used for some deities and royal figures sugest that the
colors given to human skin---although initiallyseeming to be
naturalistic -----might also be symbolic. Male and female skin colors
were probabaly not uniform among the entire population of Egypt,with
pigmentation being darker in the south[closer to sub-sahara Africans]
and lighter in the north[closer to Mediterranean Near Easteners] A
woman from the south would probabaly have had darker skin than a man
from the North. Thus,the colorations used for skin tones in the art
must have been schematic [or symbolic] rather than realistic;the
clear gender distinction encoded in that scheme may have been based
on elite ideals relating to male and female roles,in which women's
responsibilities kept them indoors,so that they spent less time in
the sun than men.Nevertheless, the signifcance of the two colors may
be even deeper,making some as yet unknown but fundamental difference
between men and women in Egyptian worldview............]

The Ancient God Speak by Donald Redford

A Guide to Egyptian Religion

Page 57-61 Color Symbolism

Gay Robins

quote:

---

Originally posted by ausar:
There were plenty of Egyptians around Aswan that looked no different than the so-called enemies on the sandals

---

Thought Writes:

There were plenty of Egyptians that looked the same and lived in the Delta as well. Why do so many people make statements that cannot be supported with hard science!
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
{If your only interests in Ancient Egypt lie in whether you are related to them in skin colour then I question whether any of you should even advertise yourselves as being interested in the subject. I don't care if the Egyptians were black, or white. I don't care if they are related to me- the amount of melanin in their epidermis does not in the least concern me.}

Thought Writes:

This is a ruse. The issue is not as SIMPLE as what skin color the Ancinet Egyptians had. The REAL issue the fact that Egyptology from its inception was/is rooted in a White Supremacist ideaology. Egypt was one of the earliest Complex Societies and had a definitive role in influencing Ancient Greece. Ancient Greece is viewed as the font of "Western Civilization". "Western Civilization" is a euphemism for White Culture. At the time that Egyptology was being concieved as a science "Western" nations were in the process of colonizing "people of color" all around the globe. The justification for this colonization process was that it was Manifest Destiny for Europeans to be saviors of the les civilized races. Hence the myth that Europeans were saviors and the fact that Egypt was an indigenous African civilization that influenced Greece were in contrast to each other. Over the years those who support this Western Myth have used ruse after ruse and foil after foil to stretch out the life-span of this falsehood. Virtually every ruse that they have used has been demolished, except two. One is to posit "Caucasoids" in East Africa during the Upper Paloelithic and the other is to try and sell us on a multi-racial Egypt. Both of these ruses are false as well. Egypt was peopled from Sub-Saharan East Africa after the early holocene.

---

---------------------

This posting is about the most Thoughtless, I have ever seen.

Why can't people think like God intended us to and Notice the Obvious.......

Egyptians did not want to be Nubians, as they very accurately depict.

They knew who they were, and did not need Whites or Blacks telling them otherwise.

They looked down on Both the Whites and the Blacks....as can be clearly seen from their drawings and King Tut's Sandals.

Let the Egyptians be Egyptians.....Don't try to corral them into your Pigment of Imagination, because it will not work!!

Egypt is for the Egyptians, and the Egyptians only.....Ausar is Included, but with some reservation.

Come to Egypt and Enjoy the Legacy of the Pharoes, But leave your Hatred and Bias at Home!!

Thanks!!

------------------
THE TRUTH WILL SET YOU FREE!! ALWAYS LISTEN TO YOUR HEART & SOUL!! // PEACE ******* ABAZA

[This message has been edited by ABAZA (edited 12 December 2004).]
 

quote:

---

I thought for a chnage I would give some of you the benefit of the doubt. I thought maybe we could have a discussion about the meaning of the term "kemet without being disrespectful to each other or accusing people of being racists. I was wrong.

---

I did not accuse you of being a racist, and you are not debating the meaning of km.t.
However, you wrongly acussed altakruri of copping-out (even though he answered your question but you were too busy firing back poor responses to take notice), which is exactly what the ad hominem post above does.
Anyway, you've given yourself the excuse you need to retire from a debate, which you claim to not be interested on, and have no evidence with regards to.

ps - if you ever find that Cleopatra Kemut reference; or the Nubian physical evidence you earlier claimed, let us know....until then.

 

quote:

---

Can I suggest that you just ban anyone who turns this forum into a racial battle-ground. Racial discrimination is illegal under both the E.U Human Rights bill and the U.S constitution, and surely you do not wish to home criminals?

---

I wish I could ban people,but this is not a function that is avaiable on this forum.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Psusennes I:

If your only interests in Ancient Egypt lie in whether you are related to them in skin colour then I question whether any of you should even advertise yourselves as being interested in the subject.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
THANK YOU

---

But wasnt it Orionix who spilt the hot coffee in our laps when he broached a
thread titled LINGUISTICS when all it
really was was an attack on KM.t.nwt as
refering to the AE relative skin colour?

Everytime someone posts a true Egyptology
topic along comes some Eurocentric minded
individual disrupting the discourse in
favor of a political social Eurocentric
agenda. Then when the individual is given
some rational material to consider, a
Eurocentric nutcase will shout Afrocentrism without
even so much as evaluating the material in
its own light for its weight and worth.

When a good presentation is made the group
gets distracted by Eurocentrists pushing their
socio political agenda and sometimes even
outright anti black or anti African hatred.

[This message has been edited by alTakruri (edited 12 December 2004).]
 

Thought Writes:

Avoidance is a troller tactic. If you disagree with something that I have stated responded specifically. I know that you won't because your purpose is not to get to the truth, but to disrupt as TROLLERS do.

{Why can't people think like God intended us to and Notice the Obvious.......}

Thought Writes:

What relevence does this comment have to my post?

{Egyptians did not want to be Nubians, as they very acuratelly depict.}

Thought writes;

Nubians and Ancient Egyptains were essentially the same people.

{They new who they were, and did not need Whites or Blacks telling them otherwise.}

Thought Writes:

Unless we used some sort of crystal ball I would not be able to tell an Ancient Egyptian anything. LOL!

{They looked down on Both the Whites and the Blacks....as can be clearly seen from their drawings.}

Thought Writes:

Please post one of those clear examples.

[Let the Egyptians be Egyptians.....Don't try to corral them into your Pigment of Imagination, because it will not work!!}

Thought Writes:

The above statement makes no sense.

{Egypt is for the Egyptians, and the Egyptians only.....Ausar is Included, but with some reservation.}

Thought Writes:

Egypt like most Ancient Civilizations are gifts for all of humanity.

{Come to Egypt and Enjoy the Legacy of the Pharos, But leave your Hatred and Bias at Home!!}

Thought Writes:

I have no hate or bias. I simply dislike TROLLERS!

quote:

---

Neo*Geo, Pepi the black and Kemsit have never been proven to be Nubians from ta-seti. Infact, southern Upper Egypt particulary around Luxor-Aswan was not significally different from the Lower Nubians. Frank J. Yurco even admits that Pepi the black had the typical look of a Southern Upper Egyptian.

---

quote:

---

Why do so many people make statements that cannot be supported with hard science!

---

Of course the question is rhetorical. How else can you make a bad argument, except by ignoring the facts?

Thought and Wally: the hard science and linguistics concur. No objection to your data has been offerred in this thread that is not essentially emotional politics.

That means that this thread is likely on the countdown to being another flame posts...nothing left to debate...only insults left to unfurl. lol.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by ausar:

Neo*Geo, Pepi the black and Kemsit have never been proven to be Nubians from ta-seti.

---

Kemsit may not have been Nubian by nationality but she likely was Nubian by ethnicity since many Egyptians of the southern frontier were ethnically Nubian. The same can be said of Pepi since the 6th dynasty is thought to possibly have been of Nubian origin.

The 6th dynasty royal family was Aswani but they had built their capitol(Memphis) in lower Egypt where the very dark-skinned Egyptians weren't as numerous. The typical look of upper Egyptians was not so typical in lower Egypt.

Be aware of the fact that Egyptians never had hyphenated ethnicities as Americans do(black-American, Irish-American, Asian-American, etc.). Ethnically Nubian or Libyan people who lived in Egypt as citizens were simply Egyptian.

 

quote:

---

You have to understand the Nile Valley has the lightest people in the Delta and also the darkest people in Southern Sudan. Southern Sudanese people,as I learned, call Egyptians and Nubians hyenna droppings in their own native language.

---

Yes, I recently heard about that, as a product of the Arabisation conflict going on in Sudan right now. For those who don't get it -> hyenna droppings are pale almost white; also note that Arab Sudanese (some of whom look typically black african) have their own choice list of physical insults to unfurl at the South Sudanese.

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
The 6th dynasty royal family was Aswani but they had built their capitol(Memphis) in lower Egypt where the very dark-skinned Egyptians weren't as numerous.

---

Thought Writes:

Where is the evidence that supports this wild claim?

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
No, you just didn't answer the question. What other nations or ethnic groups NAME themselves as a NATION based on skin color?

Amhara doesn't mean "the red people" and Shangalla doesn't mean "the black people". The fact that both "red" and "black" people exist within the same nation proves my point even further.

How about Eritrea and Somalia? Do the names of those countries mean "the black people" or "the red people"?

---

What the flock of seagulls are you talking
about homey? You said no Africans described
themselves as blacks until white Europeans
introduced the concept and you have been
shown wrong in depths of time and throughout
the continent.

Im still waiting for any evidence from African
sources where they say "We Africans never knew
we were either red or black" as you have explicitly
written and I know quote as you seem to have forgotten and try to change.

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
My point is that there is no point in history where Africans called themselves "black people" prior to encounters with white Europeans. And let me add that "black-skinned" and "black people" do not mean the same thing in antiquity as they do today.

---

I have conclusively shown that to be false.

By sneakily subtlely altering your statement
I deduce you are just arguing for arguments
sake and not at all interested in the fact that some

quote:

---

Africans called themselves "black people" prior to encounters with white Europeans

---

the
significance of Africas own notions of colour
consciousness, reds and blacks.

Thus the AE broad categories of blacks i.e.
RM RMT & NHHSW and reds TMHHW and AAMW, the
first historical notation of this very age
old and continent wide African reality.

[This message has been edited by alTakruri (edited 12 December 2004).]
 

quote:

---

Kemsit may not have been Nubian by nationality but she likely was Nubian by ethnicity since many Egyptians [/b]

---

[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 12 December 2004).]
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Neo writes: [QUOTE]Kemsit may not have been Nubian by nationality but she likely was Nubian by ethnicity since many Egyptians

---

It's immature to argue over semantics. So if you insist on being a smart-ass, replace the word "Nubian" with "Nehesy" and answer the question I asked or please don't respond to my posts with more BS.
 

"Kem" means black (adjective form), and "Kemet" means the blacks (noun form).

Goal post hasn't changed. This is still the point that has been made in the introductory notes and continues to be made by many, for which we have yet to see a counter argument supported by "scholarly" evidence, as Neo initially put it.

On the other hand, we have seen Nubians being tossed into this issue, precisely because of the menatality of playing on their skin color, and paint them as some entirely distinct people. Forget the fact that Egyptians had called people in the "Nubian" region, a variety of names, and that lower Nubia has throughout much of history been part of Egypt. This brings me to fallacious claim that Egyptians didn't want to have anything to do with Nubia, when in fact, even as we speak, the former Lower Nubian region is still part of Egypt.

This is not merely about melanin levels as someone carelessly stated. Biohistory tells us plenty about Kemetian roots, and add culture and linguistics to this (the topic at hand).

The "Black soil" people; please give me a break!
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
The 6th dynasty royal family was Aswani but they had built their capitol(Memphis) in lower Egypt where the very dark-skinned Egyptians weren't as numerous.

---

quote:

---

Thought Writes:

Where is the evidence that supports this wild claim?

---

lol. I was just saying.
I like Neo but he goes on these wild tangents where statements:
* are unsupported
* contract previous statements.

I'm still laughing at how he asked me to prove that Kem was ever used to the describe "nubians"yptians as well as Egyptians; and then turned around and attempted to reject example of kem being applied to people because he says...they were Nubians!

Recalling Wally's parent post, let it be known that this thread has now offered specific examples of kem being used by dark skinned nile valley africans to describe their own skin color. No contradictory evidence has been offered, non sequitors and trolling (Abaza) are dismissed and do not weigh as evidence in a debate.

In spite of all the noise, the 'other side', has yet to show up.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by alTakruri:

What the flock of seagulls are you talking
about homey? You said no Africans described
themselves as blacks until white Europeans
introduced the concept.

---

Wrong. I said that I wasn't wasn't aware of any ethnic group or nation that named itself based on skin color. You have yet to name a nation or ethnic group who's name translates to "black people". You read my question incorrectly and I still don't think you comprehend what I'm asking...

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by supercar:
To reiterate the point of the thread:

"Kem" means black (adjective form), and "Kemet" means the blacks (noun form).

---

Ok if that's your conclusion the next logical question is did the Egyptians ever use the noun form of "Kem" to describe Africans beyond Egypt's borders? Did they see themselves as the only black people on the continent?

This is one of my original questions which no one seems to have taken a shot at answering.

 

quote:

---

No. Nubian did not even exist as a word for a specific ethnic group at that time.

---

quote:

---

It's immature to argue over semantics.

---

quote:

---

So if you insist on being a smart-ass, replace the word "Nubian" with "Nehesy"

---

ps - thread topic is about semantics, btw.

[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 12 December 2004).]
 

quote:

---

Thus the AE broad categories of blacks i.e.
RM RMT & NHHSW and reds TMHHW and AAMW, the
first historical notation of this very age
old and continent wide African reality.

---

Indeed Kemetic color dialectics used black and red keme/deshr in a way similar to the use in english language of black and white, only black/kem is the more 'positive' term in mdw ntr.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
You have a reference to Kemset and Pepi Kem as Nehesy? [This message has been edited by rasol (edited 12 December 2004).]

---

Thought Writes:

Man, you beat me to the draw with this question. I eagerly await Neo's answer....
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
Wrong. I said that I wasn't wasn't aware of any ethnic group or nation that named itself based on skin color. You have yet to name a nation or ethnic group who's name translates to "black people". You read my question incorrectly and I still don't think you comprehend what I'm asking...

---

Oh then you didnt write the following, someone stole your id and did it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
My point is that there is no point in history where Africans called themselves "black people" prior to encounters with white Europeans

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

So if you insist on being a smart-ass, replace the word "Nubian" with "Nehesy"

---

Why am I the only one who is asked to quote my sources? I'm only stating what is common knowledge for anyone who's read journals and books on ancient Egypt.

There is a book abou women of ancient Egypt called "Silent Images" which discusses Khemsit.

On Pepi, the 6th dynasty is a continuation of the 5th dynasty which, according to Mantheo, originated in Elephantine, Egypt's southern frontier.

You can't have it both ways so which is it fellas? Were ancient upper Egyptians prior to the New Kingdom phenetypically Nubians or phenotypically distinct?

quote:

---

Originally posted by alTakruri:
Oh then you didnt write the following, someone stole your id and did it.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by neo*geo:
My point is that there is [b]no point in history where Africans called themselves "black people" prior to encounters with white Europeans

---

[/B][/QUOTE]

Ok, so I wasn't clear enough in my original question. i apologize for the confusion.

However, as I've already stated, I',m aware of Africans calling themselves "red". My question is based on the political name of a country not what individual Africans choose to identify themselves as.

Thought Writes:

neo, I don't want you to feel picked on. I ask everyone for their sources if they make out of the norm or suspect statements. I think you make many good points, but I disagree with you on some things as well.

{There is a book abou women of ancient Egypt called "Silent Images" which discusses Khemsit.}

Thought Writes:

And in this book the author claims that she is from the Nehsi?

{On Pepi, the 6th dynasty is a continuation of the 5th dynasty which, according to Mantheo, originated in Elephantine, Egypt's southern frontier.}

Thought Writes:

And this is where the Nehsi are from, Elephantine?

{Were ancient upper Egyptians prior to the New Kingdom phenetypically Nubians or phenotypically distinct?}

Thought Writes:

Prior to the New Kingdom most Upper and Lower Egyptians and probably some Palestinian groups were of an ancestral Sub-Saharan East African background primarily.

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
...the next logical question is did the Egyptians ever use the noun form of "Kem" to describe Africans beyond Egypt's borders? Did they see themselves as the only black people on the continent?

This is one of my original questions which no one seems to have taken a shot at answering.

---

How many more times need I answer this?

I answered that in saying the AEs classified
Rm Rmt & Nhsw as blacks while classifying
Tmhw and Aamw as reds. I guess you are not familiar with the term RM RMT?

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
Ok if that's your conclusion the next logical question is did the Egyptians ever use the noun form of "Kem" to describe Africans beyond Egypt's borders? Did they see themselves as the only black people on the continent?

---

We know what words the Kemetians used for soil, people & color. The examples were provided in the intro notes, in case you missed them. The question now, is do you know any other meaning to the word "Kemet", which is supported by the "scholarly" evidence you advocated earlier?

quote:

---

Originally posted by alTakruri:
I answered that in saying the AEs classified
Rm Rmt & Nhsw as blacks while classifying
Tmhw and Aamw as reds.

---

Thought Writes:

It is tempting to associate the Rm Rmt with the E-M78 haplotype carrying East Africans and Nhsw with the E-M2 haplotype Central Africans that BOTH populated Ancient Egypt.
 

quote:

---

Why am I the only one who is asked to quote my sources?

---

Because you say things that aren't true, and when asked to support it, you quite naturally can't.

Your next comment is a perfect example:

quote:

---

I'm only stating what is common knowledge for anyone who's read journals and books on ancient Egypt.
There is a book abou women of ancient Egypt called "Silent Images" which discusses Khemsit. On Pepi, the 6th dynasty is a continuation of the 5th dynasty which, according to Mantheo, originated in Elephantine, Egypt's southern frontier.

---

quote:

---

You can't have it both ways so which is it fellas?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
{Why am I the only one who is asked to quote my sources? I'm only stating what is common knowledge for anyone who's read journals and books on ancient Egypt.}

Thought Writes:

neo, I don't want you to feel picked on. I ask everyone for their sources if they make out of the norm or suspect statements. I think you make many good points, but I disagree with you on some things as well.

---

I read a lot of books from many different sources so while I may throw some things out there just to provoke objectivity. Egyptology isn't an exact science. Most of the details that we know about the ancients is speculation which is why I'm apprehensive about accepting any one conclusion over other possible conslusions. If truth is what we all are seeking then we must ask and answer all questions that might arise.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:

{There is a book abou women of ancient Egypt called "Silent Images" which discusses Khemsit.}

Thought Writes:

And in this book the author claims that she is from the Nehsi?

---

No. The author "speculates" that she may have been Nubian. Not enough is known about her to say exactly where her origins lie.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:

Thought Writes:

And this is where the Nehsi are from, Elephantine?

---

Egypt's frontier is where the population of upper Egypt and lower Nubia overlap...

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
Wrong. I said that I wasn't wasn't aware of any ethnic group or nation that named itself based on skin color. You have yet to name a nation or ethnic group who's name translates to "black people". You read my question incorrectly and I still don't think you comprehend what I'm asking...

---

Oh then you didnt write the following, someone stole your id and did it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
My point is that there is no point in history where Africans called themselves "black people" prior to encounters with white Europeans

---

Some day neo*geo is going to take the good advice he as given some time ago.

Never trick yourself into arguing out of personal frustration. When you do that, the contradictions just make you appear to look foolish, which causes you to get even more frustrated....and leap at any argument that you think may save face, but will likely just contradict something you wrote earlier.
And don't underestimate others and think they won't notice. They do, whether they call you on it or not.
 

quote:

---

And in this book the author claims that she is from the Nehsi?

---

Neo replies:

quote:

---

No.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
Egypt's frontier is where the population of upper Egypt and lower Nubia overlap...

---

Thought Writes:

My understanding of Egypt's border is that it waxed and wanned. For example during the Naqada II phase the Egyptian Kingdoms and Culture were restricted to Upper Egypt and Lower Nubia. During Second Intermediate period it was restricted to Upper Egypt. During the New Kingdom Egypt's border reached the fourth cataract.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by supercar:
We know what words the Kemetians used for soil, people & color. The examples were provided in the intro notes, in case you missed them. The question now, is do you know any other meaning to the word "Kemet", which is supported by the "scholarly" evidence you advocated earlier?

---

I wouldn't be the person to argue for the mainstream Egyptological opinion since I haven't really studied ancient Egyptian language.

And while I have given the Afrocentric definition of "Kemet" some thought, I'm not willing to accept a view that is almost exclusively held by one group of historians.

The "Two Lands" explanation seems like the most sensical to me. The "black land" representing the fertile soil along the Nile river and the "Red Land" representing the desert. But there is a certain amount of skepticism about this explanation as well.

I'm open to all points of view.

"Egypt's African connection
By Gamal Nkrumah
There has always been something seductive about Egypt. But to Afrocentrics, the many mainly African American scholars who prefer to view history from an African-centred perspective, the fascination with Egypt is coloured by an obsession with the racial make-up of Ancient Egypt. Names can often be contentious. And none more so to today's self-styled Afrocentrics, than Egypt. Afrocentrics never refer to Ancient Egypt by the Greek derived name. They prefer Kemet, or KMT -- the 'Black Land' -- the word the Ancient Egyptians themselves used to describe their country. While the vast majority of Egyptologists would tell you that Kemet refers to the black soil of the Nile Valley, Afrocentrists claim that it refers to the colour of the inhabitants of the Nile Valley in much the same sense as contemporary Sudan refers to the colour of its people. " http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/1999/428/tr3.htm
 

quote:

---

Yes, why would a group of people call themselves Blacks, especially when many of them were NOT Black and some were almost White.

---

The name could've been established early on, (before much diversity), and in a different context. Imagine if Kemet were under assault from Asiatics, an assault with a racist element continuing the one that cleared the Arabian peninsula of it's original inhabitants... Then the thing for AE to rally around is their roots.

Assault jews for being jewish and they'll rally around their jewishness. Assault blacks for being black and they'll rally around blackness, whatever their literal skin color. Assault short people for being short... Get it?

Not saying that this happened but I offer it up as a hypothetical scenario.

Also when Narmer conquered up from the south, perhaps he was taking land back from "reds"? Would asserting AE the "black nation" make sense in that scenario? Yes.

Distinguishing AE as "the black nation", in a community of nations that was mostly "red" would've made sense, too.

Again, I'm not saying this all happened, but offer it up just as a mental exercise to address your questions.

quote:

---

I had a chance to ask some of friends about their impression of the Ancient Egyptians, and without a hesitation, they said that the A/E's were not Black Africans. Mind you, this is not coming from a white person, but an American-Chinese and others.

---

So what?? I know of Koreans, Philipinos, Japanese and others who see the AE as black. Indeed some of these cultures see Arabs as black. In Japan, a swarthy, curly-haired Arab would be called "kukojin" just as I would. Plus, your "friends" probably know that it would break your heart (and self-esteem) to associate Egypt with any blackness.

There's also the fact that part of racist culture is to denigrate the darkies PLUS divide them against one another by any means you can -- color, culture, class, gender, generation, whatever. If your friends are in America, they know the drill and their place within it. And if they're *your* friends they're probably as racist and white-wannabee as you are. They know you, and wouldn't insult you by suggesting the AE were "black" at all.

quote:

---

All these people with a Political Agenda, should look at the Mirror and touch their Noses, because the Truth is right in front of their FACE........There is no Doubt about it, just like your nose......It will not Go Away.

---

The images, testimony and linguistics of AE are right in front of your face and never going away. Take a look at image thread. You see people painted dark and plenty of people with "black" features. Here -- right in front of YOUR face:

Pharaoh Sahure -- not a black man?

AE was probably the "New York City" of its time -- an economic and cultural center attracting lots of different people, and more diverse as time marched on. But as surely as New York was founded by the Dutch, AE was founded by people from "ta Seti", and had plenty of such people as an integral part of the society, kings and commoners.

Live with it.

quote:

---

Why would people with Light Brown to Dark Brown complexions call themselves Blacks!!

---

People in the U.S. today, light brown to dark brown, call themselves black, because it's in their interests to do so, and because they like being black. We even have "wiggers" who emulate the culture, much in the way that people came into egypt and became egyptian. It happens.

quote:

---

Outsiders, were ALL enemies of EGYPT....and BARBARIANS, Including the NUBIANS.....If You want Proof look at the picture of King Tut's Sandals, you'll see that he Steps on all the Enemies of Egypt, including the Blacks.

---

...Coming from a True Egyptian, Born and Raised in the land Of Egypt?? lol!! Learn your history. Your statement above proves it's not where you were born that gives you knowledge of history, so please -- shut up about being a "true egyptian". Your statement above is an embarassment.

quote:

---

There is still a little Hope for You, you just have to wakeup from your Dream Land....and get Back to Reality.........

---

There's NO hope for you, because your self esteem is tied to your racial "proximity" to something you are NOT. If Kemet were to rise again tomorrow, as you foretell, it still couldn't be on top in your eyes, because people like you can see no higher than "white". This is why you try to distance Kemet from any blackness, yet maintain that they were "near caucasians". You would judge the civilization by it's proximity to "whiteness", as you likely judge yourself (and everyone else). Transplantation to U.S. society has likely *traumatized* your self-esteem. Back home you were "white", but here you're not. Oh well. Grow up.

----

That all being said, I'm not completely convinced that Kemet means "black nation".

Nor am I convinced that it means "black soil" or "black land" because that evidence is WEAK. Rasol & Wally are doing a good job of showing it to be weak.

It doesn't have to mean either. And kemetans needn't be black nor white. But within the modern racial equation, they were closer to "black", especially since "whiteness" has historically been about purity. This is as clear as the way northern italians think of southern italians.

The images Kemetans left us remind me of modern people from the Dominican Republic, with the same range of skin colors.

Anyway, hopefully one day we can dispose of the racial equation.

----

quote:

---

THE TRUTH WILL SET YOU FREE!! ALWAYS LISTEN TO YOUR HEART & SOUL!! // PEACE ******* ABAZA

---

Yeah right. You don't care at all about the truth, but only about your racist dogma. You're not white and never will be, so hang it up.

[This message has been edited by sunstorm2004 (edited 12 December 2004).]

[This message has been edited by sunstorm2004 (edited 12 December 2004).]
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Oh then you didnt write the following, someone stole your id and did it.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by neo*geo:
My point is that there is [b]no point in history where Africans called themselves "black people" prior to encounters with white Europeans

---

Mind you, it was 3am here when I had originally posted that question. I didn't frame it correctly as I've been shown. No big deal, I've repeated myself enough times today for everyone to understand what I meant...

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
And while I have given the Afrocentric definition of "Kemet" some thought, I'm not willing to accept a view that is almost exclusively held by one group of historians.

---

Thought Writes:

Wouldn't Eurocentrists make-up ONE GROUP OF HISTORIANS, or do you believe that Eurocentrists are "broad minded" and have a range of views while "Afrocentrists" do not?
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
Thought Writes:

Wouldn't Eurocentrists make-up ONE GROUP OF HISTORIANS, or do you believe that Eurocentrists are "broad minded" and have a range of views while "Afrocentrists" do not?

---

I wouldn't label Zahi Hawass "Eurocentric". If anything, he is "Egyptocentric." He is just one of the authors that I have often read.

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
I wouldn't label Zahi Hawass "Eurocentric". If anything, he is "Egyptocentric." He is just one of the authors that I have often read.

---

You mentioned Diop(s) theory earlier.

Have you read Diop's African Origin of Civilisations, or Civilisation vs. Barbarism?

I get the impression that you haven't?
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
I wouldn't be the person to argue for the mainstream Egyptological opinion since I haven't really studied ancient Egyptian language.

And while I have given the Afrocentric definition of "Kemet" some thought, I'm not willing to accept a view that is almost exclusively held by one group of historians.

The "Two Lands" explanation seems like the most sensical to me. The "black land" representing the fertile soil along the Nile river and the "Red Land" representing the desert. But there is a certain amount of skepticism about this explanation as well.

I'm open to all points of view.

"Egypt's African connection
By Gamal Nkrumah
There has always been something seductive about Egypt. But to Afrocentrics, the many mainly African American scholars who prefer to view history from an African-centred perspective, the fascination with Egypt is coloured by an obsession with the racial make-up of Ancient Egypt. Names can often be contentious. And none more so to today's self-styled Afrocentrics, than Egypt. Afrocentrics never refer to Ancient Egypt by the Greek derived name. They prefer Kemet, or KMT -- the 'Black Land' -- the word the Ancient Egyptians themselves used to describe their country. While the vast majority of Egyptologists would tell you that Kemet refers to the black soil of the Nile Valley, Afrocentrists claim that it refers to the colour of the inhabitants of the Nile Valley in much the same sense as contemporary Sudan refers to the colour of its people. " http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/1999/428/tr3.htm

---

Well Neo, when you make statements, you had better be prepared to be loaded with something to support those assertions. You claimed earlier that "both" sides of the debate have "scholarly" evidence to support their position, but I have yet to see the one you were supposedly referring to for the counter argument to what was said in the intro notes. Surely, if you say there is a counter argument with "scholarly" evidence, you ought to have some clue as to what those "scholarly" evidences are. This Orionix-tactic of posting stuff critical about so-called homogeneous group of Afrocentrics, in no way helps your yet-to be-made argument here. Once again, the post has no relevance to whom you are debating here, and what your obligations are, as far as providing supporting material for your position!

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
You mentioned Diop(s) theory earlier.

Have you read Diop's African Origin of Civilisations, or Civilisation vs. Barbarism?

I get the impression that you haven't?

---

I haven't read Diop. The impression I get is that he is too extreme, however, I will have to read one of his books myself before making a concrete judgement about him.

Basically, I haven't read many Afrocentric books about ancient Egypt. The few that I had read lacked objectivity and seemed to be promoting a romanticized black supremacist view of ancient Egypt. This admittedly, turned me off to Afrocentrics. However, I am interested in reading books by John Henrik Clarke in the future.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
I wouldn't label Zahi Hawass "Eurocentric". If anything, he is "Egyptocentric." He is just one of the authors that I have often read.

---

Thought Writes:

Please tell us SPECIFICALLY why you would label someone "Afrocentric"?
 

Thought Writes:

Who gave you this impression?

{The few that I had read lacked objectivity and seemed to be promoting a romanticized black supremacist view of ancient Egypt}

Thought Writes:

Please give us one such example.

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
I haven't read Diop. The impression I get is that he is too extreme, however, I will have to read one of his books myself before making a concrete judgement about him.

Basically, I haven't read many Afrocentric books about ancient Egypt. The few that I had read lacked objectivity and seemed to be promoting a romanticized black supremacist view of ancient Egypt. This admittedly, turned me off to Afrocentrics. However, I am interested in reading books by John Henrik Clarke in the future.

---

I didn't know that C.A. Diop was a self-proclaimed Afrocentric. Where and when did he say this? I'd love to see the source. It is quite obvious that, that is what you are implying here.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by supercar:
Well Neo, when you make statements, you had better be prepared to be loaded with something to support those assertions.

---

Not when something is widely accepted in academic circles. Do I have to prove to you the sky is blue? Or that Zebras have stripes too?

If I read something or hear something at a lecture that isn't widely accpeted, I gladly take a mental note of it so I can reference my information in the future.

quote:

---

Originally posted by supercar:

Surely, if you say there is a counter argument with "scholarly" evidence, you ought to have some clue as to what those "scholarly" evidences are.

---

Again, I'm honest enough to admit that I don't know enough about the language to argue the mainstream point of view. However, the evidence is out there, it just requires a trip to your local library.

My only objection is how it seems we are projecting the modern Western definition of "black people" on ancient Egyptians. It is my understanding that "Khem" means black but a lot of things can be associated with black besides people's skin color.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by supercar:
I didn't know that C.A. Diop was a self-proclaimed Afrocentric.

---

I didn't know he was such an authority on ancient Egypt.

I don't know if he ever claimed to be an Afrocentric but his work is often cited by Afrocentrics and rarely cited by other Egyptologists...

 

Thought Writes:

At one time the myth of the "Hamitic Invasion" was widely accepted in academic circles. Majority rule and the truth often do not equal one another.

{My only objection is how it seems we are projecting the modern Western definition of "black people" on ancient Egyptians}

Thought Writes:

In order to communicate we have to use common terms that are understood. The Ancient Egyptians were of a East African Sub-Saharan background. People from this background are knwon as "Black" in modern social terms.

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:

And while I have given the Afrocentric definition of "Kemet" some thought, I'm not willing to accept a view that is almost exclusively held by one group of historians.

The "Two Lands" explanation seems like the most sensical to me. The "black land" representing the fertile soil along the Nile river and the "Red Land" representing the desert. But there is a certain amount of skepticism about this explanation as well.

I'm open to all points of view.

---

On short the dictionary definition of KM does
not come from Afrocentrist. It comes from
European Egyptologists.

The Two Lands is T3wy and means the unified
Upper and Lower lands of KM.t.nwt. Red land
black land comes from a book by Mertz that
despite revision remaind riddled with errors.

Dshrt.x3st, the red land, represented almost
everything the Kmtyw held in anathema and was
without a doubt not a part of the KM.t.nwt
polity

quote:

---

Psusennes I screamed!
Wally, your opening post just proves to me that you are just that- a Wally. There are multiple ways to translate any word in Egyptian Hieroglyphic. It is an incredibly vague language, and one should certainly not read as deeply as you are into a single seldom used word.

Furthermore, the feminine plural is "wt", not "t", and even with adjectival endings (even though Kmt is a noun), it could still be translated as meaning "black" singular. On top of that, Kemet is used to refer to the place, not the peoples, and you have completely ignored the inclusion of 049. [/b]
[quote]
I thought that I was the nut for the moment, so I had to go back and see what I had written:

"kem" is an adjective; it means black

"ut" makes the word a noun-adjective in the feminine plural; you know, like "s"

---

At least he's talking about the words the Ancient Egyptians used to describe themselves. But did you notice that he, like the others who have nothing valid to add - look at the nonsense neo/geo just posted, keep insisting on the reduction of the discussion to this ONE word Kmt, no mention of the many others with the kem root. The purpose is to divert attention from my original statements. That is their job...

[This message has been edited by Wally (edited 12 December 2004).]
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
Again, I'm honest enough to admit that I don't know enough about the language to argue the mainstream point of view. However, the evidence is out there, it just requires a trip to your local library.

My only objection is how it seems we are projecting the modern Western definition of "black people" on ancient Egyptians. It is my understanding that "Khem" means black but a lot of things can be associated with black besides people's skin color.

---

Well, then you have weak argument; actually no argument to make. In otherwords, you make wild statements, just for the sake of arguing without a basis. It is you who needs to go to the library, because you said there is something out there, which you have failed to show here. That burden is on you, not me.

quote:

---

neo*geo:
Not when something is widely accepted in academic circles. Do I have to prove to you the sky is blue? Or that Zebras have stripes too?

---

Well it depends on the time of the day, and whether you are claiming the sky is of an entirely different color. You make most pathetic silly statements. What has the sky being blue, or the color a Zebra have to do with you providing your sources against the meaning of "Kemet". If your intended approach to comparing a Zebra to the word "kemet", you have miserably failed.

quote:

---

neo*geo:
If I read something or hear something at a lecture that isn't widely accpeted, I gladly take a mental note of it so I can reference my information in the future.

---

You're 100% Correct, even these so called definitions are not Universal....

I you look at the Caribbean, and South America, their Definition of who is White is exactly the opposite of the American Definition. Basically, if you have caucasian Blood whatsoever, you're not considered Black or Indian.

What is so funny, is that the people who were supposedlly opressed, now have become the mental opressors. Such as the Israeli Jews have become the new Nazi's in their treatment of the Palestinians.....

I feel sorry for all these young African American students who have to listen to this
distorted view of History......God Help Them!!

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
Again, I'm honest enough to admit that I don't know enough about the language to argue the mainstream point of view. However, the evidence is out there, it just requires a trip to your local library.

My only objection is how it seems we are projecting the modern Western definition of "black people" on ancient Egyptians. It is my understanding that "Khem" means black but a lot of things can be associated with black besides people's skin color.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ABAZA:

Egyptians are Caucasians....just as they're classified in the U.S.A. today.......

---

You're joking, right?
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
{Not when something is widely accepted in academic circles. Do I have to prove to you the sky is blue? Or that Zebras have stripes too?}

Thought Writes:

At one time the myth of the "Hamitic Invasion" was widely accepted in academic circles. Majority rule and the truth often do not equal one another.

---

The Hamitic Myth collapsed in the face of overwhelming, reasonable, and rational evidence. No respectable historian or scientist would apply the "hamitic hypothesis" today.

Science isn't governed by majority rule, or tyrannical clergy today. It's governed by a jury of one's peers. Any theory must be peer reviewed and evaluated nowadays.

I haven't seen any academic journals that review Diop's work. Could you recommend any?

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
I haven't seen any academic journals that review Diop's work. Could you recommend any?

---

Thought Writes:

No, but his work was certainly reviewed by the academic community during UNESCO 1974. The outcome was reported as:

"Although
the preparatory working paper sent out by UNESCO gave particulars of what was desired, not all participants had prepared communications comparable with the painstakingly researched contributions of Professor Cheikh Anta Diop and Obenga. There was consequently a real lack of balance in the discussions."

 

I have explained to you why what you posted is unconvincing. You make a good argument but it's not without flaws and it grossly relies on the assumption that ancient Egyptians were homogeneous.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
Thought Writes:

No, but his work was certainly reviewed by the academic community during UNESCO 1974. The outcome was reported as:

"Although
the preparatory working paper sent out by UNESCO gave particulars of what was desired, not all participants had prepared communications comparable with the painstakingly researched contributions of Professor Cheikh Anta Diop and Obenga. There was consequently a real lack of balance in the discussions."

---

The kind of peer review I'm looking for are reviews from other Egyptologists. Plus, a lot of new developments have occured in Egyptology since 1974.

quote:

---

The Hamitic Myth collapsed in the face of overwhelming, reasonable, and rational evidence. No respectable historian or scientist would apply the "hamitic hypothesis" today.

Science isn't governed by majority rule, or tyrannical clergy today. It's governed by a jury of one's peers. Any theory must be peer reviewed and evaluated nowadays.

I haven't seen any academic journals that review Diop's work. Could you recommend any?

---

Actually, Diop did publish his views in an academic journal named Bulletin De IFAN. Most of Diop's writings in journals are written in the French language,and are unacessiable to the general public. Unless you can read French then his writings in journals are of no use.

His books come from a journal published in France called Pressence De Africane.

The work that Diop did was scholary,but the later people who followed him was unprofessional and shoady.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by ausar:
Actually, Diop did publish his views in an academic journal named Bulletin De IFAN. Most of Diop's writings in journals are written in the French language,and are unacessiable to the general public. Unless you can read French then his writings in journals are of no use.

His books come from a journal published in France called Pressence De Africane.

The work that Diop did was scholary,but the later people who followed him was unprofessional and shoady.

---

My French is a little rusty but I will look for whatever titles I can find next time I visit my library...

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
Wally -

I have explained to you why what you posted is unconvincing. You make a good argument but it's not without flaws and it grossly relies on the assumption that ancient Egyptians were homogeneous.

---

This sounds like a face-saving plea from defeat.

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
My only objection is how it seems we are projecting the modern Western definition of "black people" on ancient Egyptians. It is my understanding that "Khem" means black but a lot of things can be associated with black besides people's skin color.

---

But as much as you dont like it general
relative skin colour is one of the things
associated with KM. The modern west was not
the one who initiated the Africans into
describing themselves as black people or
as red people. They did that themselves.
You just refuse to accept the evidence.

And before you hark on the nation thing again, no western country ever named an
African ethny or polity black either. Just
as the African themselves did, they only
described the people as relatively and generally black in comlexion noting that
some were also rather light skinned too.

Dont try to project western notions of black
and white backward in time to Africa. Come
and learn the Africans own concept of red
and black.

Stop worshipping the west as bringers of
consciousness to the world. Nonwesterners
did quite well without European thought
before the 15th century when the west
finally tacked itself onto a trade network
that encompassed practically all of the Old
World.

Believe it or not Africans could see with
their eyes and think with their brains. The
Kmtyw and the Axumites have left on ancient
record the reds and the blacks.

Africa was trading carbon steel to India and
ivory to China centuries before Vasco de Gama
and Magellan floated toy boats in their wash
tubs as little boys. And Europeans were also
doing things no one else in the world was
doing.

quote:

---

The kind of peer review I'm looking for are reviews from other Egyptologists. Plus, a lot of new developments have occured in Egyptology since 1974.

---

The UNESCO conference was mainly Egyptologist. Some of the likes like Jean Lecant and others still exist to this day. Diop's work is mentioned and esteamed by the likes of Bruce Trigger in the American Discovery of ancient Egypt. His works are not scoffed at like some of his critics might have you to believe.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ausar:
His works are not scoffed at like some of his critics might have you to believe.

---

Nor is it often cited by his peers... He sometimes seems like a "third rail" for Egyptologists...

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
Plus, a lot of new developments have occured in Egyptology since 1974.

---

Thought Writes:

Alot of things have changed since 1974, but the BROAD thesis of Diop seems to find more and more support each day.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by ABAZA:
HERU,

Wakeup from your Dream and go ask the U.S. Government about how they define Caucasian.

All Egyptians are Legally defined as Caucasians, whether you like it or Not!!

Hello, this is not a Joke, except to the few Ignorant people who don't know nothing.

----------------

---

You are right that this is beyond joking; it associated with a health hazard, and therefore needs to be seriously examined.

When someone considers the U.S. government an authority on bio-anthropology, what does that tell you about his/her state of mind?

[This message has been edited by supercar (edited 12 December 2004).]
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
Thought Writes:

Alot of things have changed since 1974, but the BROAD thesis of Diop seems to find more and more support each day.

---

From whom is Diop finding new support?

 

quote:

---

Nor is it often cited by his peers... He sometimes seems like a "third rail" for Egyptologists...

From whom is Diop finding new support?

---

Diop is cited and supported in the following conference of Egyptology:

98.1016
CERVELLÓ AUTUORI, Joseph, Egypt, Africa and the Ancient World, in:
Proceedings 7th Int. Congress of Egyptologists, 261-272. (fig.).

The traditional contextualisation of Egypt in the 'Mediterranean' or
'Near Eastern' world has been produced by a phenomenon of western
historiography that we can classify as the 'forgotten Africa'. The
reopening of the African question in Egyptology has proceeded from the
pre- and protohistorians of the Nile Valley and of northern Africa in
general. The inclusion of late prehistoric Egypt in Africa determines
the essentially African nature of many of the central features of
Pharaonic civilisation and explains the many parallels between ancient
Egypt and both the ancient Saharan and modern black civilisations. The
author discusses examples of the iconographic-symbolic parallels
between Saharan rock art and Egyptian art, and the principal cultural
characteristics shared by ancient Egypt and modern black Africa. The
African nature of Egyptian civilisation can be seen most clearly in
the institution of Pharaonic kingship. M.W.K.

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
You mentioned Diop(s) theory earlier.

Have you read Diop's African Origin of Civilisations, or Civilisation vs. Barbarism?

I get the impression that you haven't?

---

Or even better, read how airtight was his and
Obengas presentation to UNESCOs symposium on
The Peopling of Ancient Egypt and the comments they elicited.

Gamal Mokhtar (ed.
General History of Africa II
London : Berkeley : Heinemann Educational Books ; University of California Press, 1981
pp. 27 78

or here but without the summary report
http://www.africawithin.com/diop/origin_egyptians.htm

FROM THE CONCLUSION OF THE REPORT: JEAN DEVISSE

Although the preparatory working paper sent out by Unesco gave particulars of what was desired, not all participants had prepared communications comparable with the painstakingly researched contributions of Professors Cheikh Anta Diop and Obenga. There was consequently real lack of balance in the discussions... The symposium also enabled specialists who had never previously had the opportunity of comparing and contrasting their points of view to discover other approaches to problems, other sources of which they were accustomed.

AN EXCERT ON ICONOGRAPHY FROM THE SUMMARY REPORT
AND MOKHTARS VIEW OF THE PHYSICAL TYE http://highculture.8m.com/IconographicInquiry.htm

Don't get impatient because the argument continues......you WANT it to continue.

Open invitation still, for anyone with linguistic evidence to show that Wally's translation of the mdw ntr is incorrect.

 

Yes, may God help all the students regardless
of ehtnicity who have swilled Eurocentric
gruel as real history and especially help white supremist students spoofing Egyptian
identity and infiltrating discussion and
learning boards to promote anti black and
anti African racism and anti Jewish sentiment.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ABAZA:
Neo*Geo,

You're 100% Correct, even these so called definitions are not Universal....

I you look at the Caribbean, and South America, their Definition of who is White is exactly the opposite of the American Definition. Basically, if you have caucasian Blood whatsoever, you're not considered Black or Indian.

What is so funny, is that the people who were supposedlly opressed, now have become the mental opressors. Such as the Israeli Jews have become the new Nazi's in their treatment of the Palestinians.....

I feel sorry for all these young African American students who have to listen to this
distorted view of History......God Help Them!!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
The kind of peer review I'm looking for are reviews from other Egyptologists. Plus, a lot of new developments have occured in Egyptology since 1974.

---

Start making sense. Every participant at the
synposium was a reknowned Egyptologist or of
a related scientific discipline.

quote:

---

Ive read these exact words on StormFront type
boards so many times. Why dont I see you or
your friends, or are they really just other
alter egos spoofed by you, on those boards
opposing them?
Yes, may God help all the students regardless
of ehtnicity who have swilled Eurocentric
gruel as real history and especially help white supremist students spoofing Egyptian
identity and infiltrating discussion and
learning boards to promote anti black and
anti African racism and anti Jewish sentiment.

---

Arthur Kemp does exactly this. He goes to message boards under assorted names,and fakes his idenity to make it seem he is from that country. It's very typical and appears on nearly every message board I have went to related to Egyptology.

The problem is that too many books on African Archaeology in University shelves are filled with outdated Hamitic myths or false history. Newer publications don't seem to circulate in America like many do in European countries. I have relatives living in France that tell me how behind studies on Africa and Egyptology in general are in America.

Ok, I'll stop now.
 

Come on we are talking about discussions
between serious professional specialists
not uninformed debate on a BBS on the net
between amateurs and enthusiasts.

Sorry, no kings road here. Take the time to
investigate for yourself instead of using a
crutch. Visit the two given urls and where
necessary make a printout to read examine and
analyze at your leisure. You will be well
rewarded or your money back!

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
Can someone give a brief summary of what key things were presented at the 1974 UNESCO conference?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Diop is to Hawass as Ausar is to Horemheb.

---

At one point I would have agreed but my respect has grown for Hawass after reading 2 of his books over the past year. Like our moderator, he shows a great passion for protecting his ancestors' legacy.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
Like our moderator, he shows a great passion for protecting his ancestors' legacy.

---

Thought Writes:

How do you know that Hawass had ancestors that were Ancient Egyptians? This is akin to claiming that President George Bush had Native American ancestors.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
Thought Writes:

How do you know that Hawass had ancestors that were Ancient Egyptians? This is akin to claiming that President George Bush had Native American ancestors.

---

How do you know who your ancestors are?

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
How do you know who your ancestors are?

---

Thought Writes:

I do not know where my ancestry stretches over 2,000 years ago. Genetics would be the only tool to help us with that. One should never assume.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
No, you just didn't answer the question. What other nations or ethnic groups NAME themselves as a NATION based on skin color?

---

neo*geo,
Who about the country CUSH in the Bible. You can look up CUSH in a concordance for it's meaning.

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:

And while I have given the Afrocentric definition of "Kemet" some thought, I'm not willing to accept a view that is almost exclusively held by one group of historians.

The "Two Lands" explanation seems like the most sensical to me. The "black land" representing the fertile soil along the Nile river and the "Red Land" representing the desert. But there is a certain amount of skepticism about this explanation as well.

I'm open to all points of view.

---

quote:

---

On short the dictionary definition of KM does
not come from Afrocentrist. It comes from
European Egyptologists.

The Two Lands is T3wy and means the unified
Upper and Lower lands of KM.t.nwt. Red land
black land comes from a book by Mertz that
despite revision remaind riddled with errors.

Dshrt.x3st, the red land, represented almost
everything the Kmtyw held in anathema and was
without a doubt not a part of the KM.t.nwt
polity

---

[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 12 December 2004).]
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by HERU:
This is a little off topic but what the hell. Recently a book called "The Mammoth Book of Eyewitness: Ancient Egypt" was released last year and in the introduction the author refers to Nubia as "The Land of the Negro". Is this correct? Was Nubia really called "The Land of the Negro"?

---

It is completely incorrect.
Simply begin by using critical thinking:

Negro is a Latin/Portugese term 1st used to describe people in the 16th century.

It means black.

In mdw ntr the word for black is kem.

nub in mdw ntr means 'gold'.

The Romans used 'nubia' to describe a region in Kemet (Ancient Egypt) where gold was mined.

The ongoing effort to turn nubian or nehasy in a euphemism for negro or black, and to hide the fact that the word AE used to describe themselves -> kememu means precisely black people, constitute related efforts to quite literally, rewrite history.

[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 13 December 2004).]
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by HERU:
This is a little off topic but what the hell. Recently a book called "The Mammoth Book of Eyewitness: Ancient Egypt" was released last year and in the introduction the author refers to Nubia as "The Land of the Negro". Is this correct? Was Nubia really called "The Land of the Negro"?

---

The land names that I know for what they call Nubia are
TaZeti, Land of the Bow
TaNhsyw, Land of the Nehesyw peoples.
I have only seen speculations on the meaning of
n.hh.s the root of the word NHHSW. Maybe some
one will write in with the factual dictionary
meaning.

I think calling Nubia the land of the negro is
a big anachronistic stretch of the imagination.

Negro is a loaded term that really is meaningless.
Reliable scholarship written in the English tongue
does not use the word negro except to refer to
matters related to transAtlantic slave trade.

[This message has been edited by alTakruri (edited 13 December 2004).]
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Wally, don't underestimate the importance of restating a sound thesis with cool patience, and tolerance of what Sunstorm calls: "underhandidness" from Eurocentrists.
What they really need is for the information you are sharing (right from the Ae's mouth) to go away, so that they can just go back to sleep "mentally" and soothe themselves with the lies that make them most comfortable.

Don't get impatient because the argument continues......you WANT it to continue.

Open invitation still, for anyone with linguistic evidence to show that Wally's translation of the mdw ntr is incorrect.

---

Yeah, rasol...
That's because you enjoy kicking butt!!!
And they don't even have sense enough to quit...

quote:

---

Originally posted by alTakruri:

TaNhsyw, Land of the Nehesyw peoples.
I have only seen speculations on the meaning of
n.hh.s the root of the word NHHSW. Maybe some
one will write in with the factual dictionary
meaning.

[This message has been edited by alTakruri (edited 13 December 2004).]

---

Looks like we're stuck with Nubia denoting all lands south of Egypt...

nahas in Wolof means "worthless"
nahas in Arabic means "copper"
nahas is a province in south-western Sudan

You have to extrapolate on this one, I think;

Why do the Amhara call the Oromo, Galla - a perjorative?
What in fact, is the general terminology used by virtually every African ethnic group to distinguish themselves from other Africans?
Where did the Greeks get the idea of "barbarians?"
etc...

[This message has been edited by Wally (edited 13 December 2004).]
 

Always have a look at the date of the translation there. (Each entry has a bibliographic credit...)

The translation of the passage you read is from the early 1900s, I think -- which explains a lot...

A lot of the translations in that book are from that era.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wally:
Looks like we're stuck with Nubia denoting all lands south of Egypt...

nahas in Wolof means "worthless"
nahas in Arabic means "copper"
nahas is a province in south-western Sudan

You have to extrapolate on this one, I think;

Why do the Amhara call the Oromo, Galla - a perjorative?
What in fact, is the general terminology used by virtually every African ethnic group to distinguish themselves from other Africans?
Where did the Greeks get the idea of "barbarians?"
etc...

---

And the name of that royal guy PaNehesy who
must of been named by his mom and the king
Hatshepsuts boyfriends whom she called My
lord Nehesy, these are pejoratives?

Whats the entry in a dictionary of the AE
language actual say for the root NHS?

The Semitic root NHS meaning copper seems
plausible because the Kmtyw did mine that
metal in Wawat amd Kesh.

quote:

---

And the name of that royal guy PaNehesy who
must of been named by his mom and the king
Hatshepsuts boyfriends whom she called My
lord Nehesy, these are pejoratives?

Whats the entry in a dictionary of the AE
language actual say for the root NHS?

The Semitic root NHS meaning copper seems
plausible because the Kmtyw did mine that
metal in Wawat amd Kesh.

---

There was also a priest of the Aten called Pa-Nehsy. In the Bible there is a a person named Phineas[the Grecianized name of Nehsy].

Btw, I sometimes go by the alias "panehesy" when posting online.

[This message has been edited by neo*geo (edited 13 December 2004).]
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by ausar:
There was also a priest of the Aten called Pa-Nehsy. In the Bible there is a a person named Phineas[the Grecianized name of Nehsy].

---

Yes, the Hebrew version of PaNehesy is the
name Piyn*hhas. It means brass mouth but it
may really be an import that just happens to
fit the Semutuc words for mouth and copper.

p344a
Nahs - singular
Nah(n)su - plural- written with the nsu glyph for 'southern'
( nahh - eternal
( nahi - to wink

p386a
Nehsi
Neh(n)su
Nehsyu
( nheh - eternal
Nehsu - Sudani tribes in the Tuat, the results of the masturbation of Ra
Nehsyu hotepu - "Friendlies" in the Sudan, Sudani police

It is still my opinion that this name is one this people or peoples gave to themselves (and most likely a boastful one), but would later be used by the Kemetians to denote 'barbarians,' 'strangers'; a typically (even stereotypical) African convention.
I also believe that the self-styled 'Pa-Nahasi' was a case of someone being purposefully ironic, or self-deprecating, by calling himself "the Barbarian"
--we'll eventually have conclusive proof...

*Modern authors repeat the mantra that Budge's dictionary is 'woefully outdated' but if you compare their limited entries to those of Budge's, you find no significant differences! Nada...except that Budge will write Ati and the 'newbies' will write jtj for the word 'Iti' -go figure...

[This message has been edited by Wally (edited 14 December 2004).]
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
At one point I would have agreed but my respect has grown for Hawass after reading 2 of his books over the past year. Like our moderator, he shows a great passion for protecting his ancestors' legacy.

---

I seriously doubt whether Hawass has ancient Egyptian ancestry. The guy is obviously Arab-looking with some possible non-Arab mixture. It could be he has some tenuous connection somewhere. Who knows?

But if he is claiming ancient Egyptian ancestry because he is a modern Egyptian, that shouldn't be a problem. I know a lot of Euro-Americans claiming Native American ancestry.

Fact is, the ancient Egyptians are ancestors of the land and, at least, some of the modern Egyptian population.

The only problem I have with Hawass is his obvious parlaying to Eurocentrism. Who could blame him. He would like to have the fat paycheck from Western white tourists fantasizing about a white Kemet (no pun intended). Of course, he realizes that acknowledging historical accuracy about the race of the ancient Egyptians could cost him his job.
 

I don't think it's so much about white tourists fantasising about a white Kemet. It's more that they will be turned off by the idea of an African or black Kemet. It's the usual "anything but black" syndrome at work here.

The unspoken meaning of the ongoing debate about the ethnicity of the AE's is just this: the implicit(and not so implicit on certain websites like newnation.com and stormfront.org) ideology is that people of African descent are not as biologically evolved as those of European and Eurasian descent and proof of this--as they claim--is that Africans "have never produced civilization". This was the view of well-known historians like Arnold Toynbee, Hugh Trevor Roper, and others. There are also contemporary psychometricians others who constantly hammer on the theme that "blacks are less cognitively able than any other racial group". [See the journal "Mankind Quarterly"]The present comparative economic state of blacks in the world is supposed to confirm this hypothesis.

So any solid proof that the AE's and their Nubian kith and kin produced what the West calls "civilisation" would tend to make lots of scholars nervous about their implicitly or overtly held racial paradigm.

Yet it is a relatively easy thing psychologically to argue that the extent of any group's mastery of its environment is a function of that environment itself. The AE's/Nubians produced impressive technical civilizations because of their environment. The fact that this simple theory of human achievment is not accepted by many is proof that they would want to maintain the idea of racial hierarchies and all the self-ascribed privileges that go with such.
 

1. Egyptians have not changed dramatically over the past 5000 years and the black Africans of Egypt were mainly Nubians

2. Egypt's founders were black African but Egypt's population was never entirely black African

3. Egypt was entirely a black African country atleast until the 7th century AD

I fall into category #2 and I have no problem with the direction Egyptology is going in.

For those who don't approve of the current state of Egyptology, what changes would you like to see made to improve things?

[This message has been edited by neo*geo (edited 14 December 2004).]
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by kembu:
I seriously doubt whether Hawass has ancient Egyptian ancestry. The guy is obviously Arab-looking with some possible non-Arab mixture. It could be he has some tenuous connection somewhere. Who knows?

---

I can't say what Hawass' ancestry is but he definately doesn't look "Arab" if you what you are referring to is the typical Arab look and Hawass doesn't sound like an Arab name. Even if he does have recent Arab ancestry, there's still a high likelihood that he is directly descended from ancient Egyptians.

quote:

---

Originally posted by kembu:

But if he is claiming ancient Egyptian ancestry because he is a modern Egyptian, that shouldn't be a problem. I know a lot of Euro-Americans claiming Native American ancestry.

---

I claim West African ancestry even though my grandfather has blue eyes and blonde hair. I can claim European ancestry as well but I choose not to. How you look doesn't have anything to do with your distant ancestry. It only shows who your recent ancestors are.

quote:

---

Originally posted by kembu:

Of course, he realizes that acknowledging historical accuracy about the race of the ancient Egyptians could cost him his job.

---

Perhaps it doesn't matter to him. As it shouldn't be a major concern to anyone who is genuinely interested in ancient Egypt.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wally:
In *Budge's dictionary, we have the following Kemetian terms for these people(s):

p344a
[b]Nahs - singular
Nah(n)su - plural- written with the nsu glyph for 'southern'
( nahh - eternal
( nahi - to wink

p386a
Nehsi
Neh(n)su
Nehsyu
( nheh - eternal
Nehsu - Sudani tribes in the Tuat, the results of the masturbation of Ra
Nehsyu hotepu - "Friendlies" in the Sudan, Sudani police

It is still my opinion that this name is one this people or peoples gave to themselves (and most likely a boastful one), but would later be used by the Kemetians to denote 'barbarians,' 'strangers'; a typically (even stereotypical) African convention.
I also believe that the self-styled 'Pa-Nahasi' was a case of someone being purposefully ironic, or self-deprecating, by calling himself "the Barbarian"
--we'll eventually have conclusive proof...

*Modern authors repeat the mantra that Budge's dictionary is 'woefully outdated' but if you compare their limited entries to those of Budge's, you find no significant differences! Nada...except that Budge will write Ati and the 'newbies' will write jtj for the word 'Iti' -go figure...

[This message has been edited by Wally (edited 14 December 2004).][/B]

---

Do the AE use NHS to mean barbarian or stranger
and do they apply NHS to any other peoples
than those south of them? Without a doubt
NHSW designated the class of southerners
just like TMHHW classified westerners and
AAMW was the class of easterners and
northeasterners.

Thanks for the actual dictionary entries from
Budge. Even if some consider Budge to be outdated
a good part of his work is accurate and valid.
Im not a member of the Beat Up On Budge school
but all scholarship can be challenged and
augmented over time or else its religious
dogma instead of true scholarship.

Can anyone post entries from other dictionaries
so that we have a round of sources to base
ourselves on? I'm betting no one contradicts
the accuracy of the Budge meanings.

I would say that the 1st part of your statement is true...and the second part hendges upon an ultimately irrelevant and aribitrary attempt to qualify the truth and so soften the impact.

I would argue the point, except that I know that the end result would be to make the truth more unpleasant to you, and so...leave you with no choice emotionally but to reject it. So, I'll leave well enought alone.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Neo, you appear to be saying that Kemet was founded by Black Africans, but that it does not meet your definition of 'fully black'.

I would say that the 1st part of your statement is true...and the second part hendges upon an ultimately irrelevant and aribitrary attempt to qualify the truth and so soften the impact.

---

It doesn't matter what you think my intention is. It's how I percieve the data and history I observed to be. You are free to percieve something otherwise. The internet is a free market of ideas...

 

quote:

---

It doesn't matter what you think my intention is.

---

quote:

---

It's how I percieve the data

---

However if you insist on debating the soundness of what you 'perceive' to be 'fully black' , I suppose we can. Your call.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by supercar:
That was the whole point of a previous thread concerning the title of "racial purity".

---

When you open topics of racial purity, don't be surprised if people percieve you to be racially biased. Racial purity is one element that fueled Adolph Hitler's propaganda.

quote:

---

Originally posted by supercar:

European societies are full of mixed populations, from different continents, and yet the euphemism for these countries is that they are white societies. The heterogeneity seems to hold more power only when it comes to African states, that have anything to do with accomplishments.

---

I disagree. Most of the racial diversity in Europe is due to recent immigration. However, you do have an argument for ethnic diversity although, not a very strong one. Africa is a diverse continent to begin with. Heterogeneity applies to Africa and the Near East because most countries in those regions are "ethnically" heterogeneous and have been since antiquity.

For example. It is correct to say that the US was founded by white Europeans. It is incorrect to say Americans are a white European people. For that to be true you have to overlook millions of people of other races and ethnicities even though 70-80% of Americans are of European descent. Ancient Egypt wasn't diverse in the same way the US is but nevertheless they weren't homogeneous.

quote:

---

Originally posted by supercar:

This relates to something Lamin said earlier, about motives behind maintenance of racial hierarchies. Yes, Ancient Egypt was heterogeneous, so was Ancient Greece, and Rome. Yet that never seems to have an impact on the latter.

---

Once again, you're comparing apples to oranges to prove a point.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

However if you insist on debating the soundness of what you 'perceive' to be 'fully black' , I suppose we can. Your call.

---

I didn't use the term "fully black" and I would appreciate it if you didn't put words in my posts.

I take it that you don't have a response to my question. Just as I thought.

quote:

---

Originally posted by supercar:
That was the whole point of a previous thread concerning the title of "racial purity". European societies are full of mixed populations, from different continents, and yet the euphemism for these countries is that they are white societies. The heterogeneity seems to hold more power only when it comes to African states, that have anything to do with accomplishments. This relates to something Lamin said earlier, about motives behind maintenance of racial hierarchies. Yes, Ancient Egypt was heterogeneous, so was Ancient Greece, and Rome. Yet that never seems to have an impact on the latter.

---

Bravo! Whenever I put that out I continue by
asking the heterogenous Egypt set to devote
as much energy deconstructing Rome as a white
civilization. They suddenly become deaf dumb
and blind.

We all know why AE and no other ancient
civilization is painted heterogenous. No
that notion doesnt even come to mind
anywhere else on any continent except ...

quote:

---

For those who don't approve of the current state of Egyptology, what changes would you like to see made to improve things?

---

The concept of an 'ology', a branch of science devoted to a particular country is a bad idea. It de-normalises Kemet and subjects it to the biases of a self serving priesthood and its essentially Pan Europeanist ideology.

The best way to challenge the profane [wst] priesthood of Egyptology is to keep pressing the debate, forcing the field open, and challenging its root assumptions.

Many Egyptologists are not very knowledgable about Egypt. If you read them, it's amazing how much some of them will say, that is mere dumb repettition parroting what others have said, but having given it little actual thought. The Nile Valley and it's various nations should be studied as an integrated part of African history, and qualified 'experts' in academia should be required to have knowledge of African culture in general.

[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 14 December 2004).]
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
I think Egyptology should be gradually eliminated, and can be over time by relentless application of erudite scholarship which challenges Egyptological dogma.

The concept of an 'ology', a branch of science devoted to a particular country is a bad idea. It de-normalises Kemet and subjects it to the biases of a self serving priesthood and its essentially Pan Europeanist ideology.

The best way to challenge the profane [wst] priesthood of Egyptology is to keep pressing the debate, forcing the field open, and challenging its root assumptions.

Many Egyptologists are not very knowledgable about Egypt. If you read them, it's amazing how much some of them will say, that is mere dumb repettition parroting what others have said, but having given it little actual thought. The Nile Valley and it's various nations should be studied as an integrated part of African history, and qualified 'experts' in academia should be required to have knowledge of African culture in general.

[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 14 December 2004).]

---

Amen!
...or is it Amon, or NyAmon...Amma?

[This message has been edited by Wally (edited 14 December 2004).]
 

The claim that the racial diversity in Europe is due to recent immigration could be debated.

William Ripley wrote a text titled "The Races of Europe"(1899) in which he argued that there were 3 distinct races in Europe: Nordic, Alpine and Mediterranean with other permuataions here and there---Jewish, Slav, Basque, etc.

Carleton Coon also wrote a text titled "The Races of Europe"(1939)in
which a similar argument was made about the racial diversity of Europe.

The basis for this racial would seem to derive from the Sykes model: at different times different male and female lineages made their way into Europe. Sykes actually did the mtDNA part of these temporally(45KYA to 10KYA) distinct treks into Europe.

And of course there were the later Mongol incursions into Eastern Europe and the much more recent Moorish and Arab settlements in the Iberain peninsula.

In fact Cavalli-Sforza's genetic tree of 26 European populations show that the greatest genetic distances are between Dutch, Danish, and English---and Greek, Sardinian and Lapp. So what should one make of this re discussions concerning ancient Greek civilisation?

But Africa is the most genetically diverse of the continents ONLY BECAUSE PEOPLE HAVE THERE THE LONGEST--not because they happen to look different. The evenness of the environment--tropical and subtropical-saw to it though that physical surface traits remain relatively uniform.

This means that the genetic diversity of Africa is not something one discovers mascroscopically but mainly by DNA analysis.
 

quote:

---

neo*geo:
When you open topics of racial purity, don't be surprised if people percieve you to be racially biased. Racial purity is one element that fueled Adolph Hitler's propaganda.

---

You forget that you are the one who opened this can of worms by talking of “entirely" Black. What kind of trash is that? What you are doing is classic 18th century racist tactic: count on presence of foreign groups in Ancient Egypt to explain away why it shouldn’t be considered an African civilization, much less black. Again, Hitler was a student of the very mindset that you are adopting!

quote:

---

neo*geo:
I disagree. Most of the racial diversity in Europe is due to recent immigration. However, you do have an argument for ethnic diversity although, not a very strong one. Africa is a diverse continent to begin with. Heterogeneity applies to Africa and the Near East because most countries in those regions are "ethnically" heterogeneous and have been since antiquity.
For example. It is correct to say that the US was founded by white Europeans. It is incorrect to say Americans are a white European people. For that to be true you have to overlook millions of people of other races and ethnicities even though 70-80% of Americans are of European descent. Ancient Egypt wasn't diverse in the same way the US is but nevertheless they weren't homogeneous.

---

What difference does it make when Europe started receiving these migrants. The point was that European societies are really multi-racial societies, and yet it the euphemism of these societies being white isn’t lost on any clear headed person. Southern Europeans had mixed populations in ancient times too, yet with your double standard attitude, don’t take that into account. Plus, it’s not like in Ancient Egypt, immigrants were immediately present in great numbers, this is something that happened over specific time frames. Otherwise, they wouldn’t be called immigrants. It is time to use your head.

[This message has been edited by supercar (edited 14 December 2004).]
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by alTakruri:
We all know why AE and no other ancient
civilization is painted heterogenous. No
that notion doesnt even come to mind
anywhere else on any continent except ...

---

Egypt is a unique case but you make yourself sound like you've studied no other world history.

The civilizations of Mesopotamia are described as heterogeneous.

The Roman empire was heterogeneous. Governors and Roman soldiers were made up of men from local populations.

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
There seems to be 3 schools of thought:

1. Egyptians have not changed dramatically over the past 5000 years and the black Africans of Egypt were mainly Nubians

2. Egypt's founders were black African but Egypt's population was never entirely black African [/B]

3. Egypt was entirely a black African country atleast until the 7th century AD

I fall into category #2 and I have no problem with the direction Egyptology is going in.

For those who don't approve of the current state of Egyptology, what changes would you like to see made to improve things?

[This message has been edited by neo*geo (edited 14 December 2004).][/B]

---

Number 2 seems like a good choice, but in a way the 1st part somewhat disqualifies the latter.

To say that AE were founded by black africans but the population was NEVER entirely black, is to suggest that even the 1st dynasty was NEVER entirely black, and thus those others (non-black african AEs) could have been there all along and in any quantity.

From there one can go on to say that those others could have been the driving force behind the dynasties' great achievements.. So the door is left wide open there…

Now for instance, knowing what you know about the greeks exposure and subsequent influences from the africans and near by easterns, would you say that the Greek populous was NEVER entirely white europeans...and thus were a mix population of peoples throughout the Greek achievement period???? Would you say that??(not a rhetorical question)

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
For those who don't approve of the current state of Egyptology, what changes would you like to see made to improve things?

---

As for what I would like to see in the future of Egyptology is.....
credit given where credit is due.....to a once indigenous black african population--no matter how mixed they might be in today’s world.

I think this is important for the same reason it was important for...

the indigenous south african population to know that their ancestors built ancient Zimbabwe, and not the dutch or mid easterns as once was theorized.

the swahili people of the east african coast were responsible for the beautiful medieval coral towns that dotted along the east african coast and not the arabs. Also that the Swahili were responsible for the great voyages that brought goods for the African interior all the way to the far east---as established by British historians (lead by Mark Horton) on their study of the medieval Indian ocean trade..

the meso-american were responsible for the ancient american civilizations and not some lost tribe of whites or Atlantians.

Honestly, how can you truly know a people--ancient or modern--until you know what they were and where they came from????????

I mean, once upon a time it was thought that AE just sprung up, whole and complete, out of nowhere owing nothing to any outside source. But as you can see, looking towards inner africa for an AE origin has made our understanding of the AEs that much better. Imagine if blind prejudice won out and they ignored Africa and focused on the middle east for an AE origin. Where would we be?

So knowing who and what they were…ethnically, racially, etc, (like we know about the Greeks, Chinese, Meso-Americans) is important towards developing and understanding the WHOLE picture..

Just my 2cents Neo*geo

quote:

---

Originally posted by supercar:

You forget that you are the one who opened this can of worms by talking of “fully Black”. What kind of trash is that?

---

Sigh... It's trash that I did not type. Go back and find where I typed "fully black". My original statement was:

"Egypt's founders were black African but Egypt's population was never entirely black African"

quote:

---

Originally posted by supercar:

What you are doing is classic 18th century racist tactic: count on presence of foreign groups in Ancient Egypt to explain away why it shouldn’t be considered an African civilization, much less black.

---

You're no longer a newbie so you can't use ignorance as an excuse for misrepresenting my point of view. You know fully well that it is my opinion that Egyptians have always been an African people. I could just as easily repost posts from old topics but I wont waste my time.

quote:

---

Originally posted by supercar:

What difference does it make when Europe started receiving these migrants.

---

Don't play dumb now. It makes a difference in terms of whether you're discussing modern-day European countries or past historical periods.

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
Egypt is a unique case but you make yourself sound like you've studied no other world history.

The civilizations of Mesopotamia are described as heterogeneous.

The Roman empire was heterogeneous. Governors and Roman soldiers were made up of men from local populations.

---

Whachoo talkin bout? Theyre all taught as white
civilizations! Heterogenous white ethnies.
Just go try argue somewhere to anybody that
Rome was not a white civ. Quit arguing for arguments sake because you know thats all
youre doing. You make yourself look like you
dont know what society and the world at large
really thinks about civ and the history of
civs.

Like, have you even read Toynbees unrevised
list of civs by races who created them?

quote:

---

Originally posted by anacalypsis:
Number 2 seems like a good choice, but in a way the 1st part somewhat disqualifies the latter.

To say that AE were founded by black africans but the population was NEVER entirely black, is to suggest that even the 1st dynasty was NEVER entirely black, and thus those others (non-black african AEs) could have been there all along and in any quantity.

From there one can go on to say that those others could have been the driving force behind the dynasties' great achievements.. So the door is left wide open there…

---

I left it open for a reason. While it is clear that ruiling families from upper Egypt(most likely black Africans) estabilished the uniting of lower and upper Egypt, it's not a given that the populations of upper and lower Egypt were ethnically or racially the same.

quote:

---

Originally posted by anacalypsis:

Now for instance, knowing what you know about the greeks exposure and subsequent influences from the africans and near by easterns, would you say that the Greek populous was NEVER entirely white europeans...

---

I don't buy the African colonization theory for ancient Greece and neither does most of academia. Greece doesn't compare to Egypt in terms of phenotypical diversity. Where it's clear from the inconsistency of phenotypes in Egypt that the population has been affected by centuries of foeirn immigration, there is more consistency in Greece. Egyptians get mistaken for people of other ethnicities often. You can't say the same for Greek people.

 

=========================================

Professor Arnold J. Toynbee’s, A Study of History is considered a classic in
the field of universal history. In the first volume of that work, the author tells us
that the world up to now has produced twenty-one civilizations, and that all
branches of humanity, except the Black race have been creators of culture.

In the words of Toynbee,

”The Black race has not helped to create any civilization,
while the Polynesian white race has helped create one civilization,
the brown race, two,
the yellow race, three,
the red race and
the Nordic white race four apiece,
the Alpine white race, nine, and
the Mediterranean white race, ten.”

Arnold J. Toynbee
A Study of History, Vol. 1
London: Oxford University Press, l946
p.234

quote:

---

Originally posted by alTakruri:

Whachoo talkin bout? Theyre all taught as white
civilizations!

---

What school teaches Mesopotamian civilizations as "white?" What school or college did you attend? I was always taught that these were ethnically diverse peoples, not black, white, or yellow.

quote:

---

Originally posted by alTakruri:

Just go try argue somewhere to anybody that
Rome was not a white civ.

---

I don't like to argue. I like to discuss. Understand that the Roman empire and "Rome" are not the same. The empire was all of the nations they conqeured. Their occupying forces were not all made up of Romans.

quote:

---

Originally posted by alTakruri:

Quit arguing for arguments sake because you know thats all
youre doing. You make yourself look like you
dont know what society and the world at large
really thinks about civ and the history of
civs.

---

I'm not arguing for the sake of arguing. It seems like quite a few people have spent time debating on websites like Stormfront.com. I stay away from places like that. There's no sense in debating with people like that. To be honest I don't know what the world at large thinks of ancient civilizations outside of the classrooms I've been in. The average person get his knowledge of ancient civs from movies like "the Mummy" or "Alexander." You can't really have intellectual discussions with people who have a limited knowledge of the subject.

quote:

---

Originally posted by alTakruri:

Like, have you even read Toynbees unrevised
list of civs by races who created them?

---

No I haven't but I may read it in the future...

 

quote:

---

neo*geo:
Sigh... It's trash that I did not type. Go back and find where I typed "fully black". My original statement was:
"Egypt's founders were black African but Egypt's population was never entirely black African".

---

You might want to check notes before replying. The notes were edited. But in any case if it makes you feel better: trash thinking of “entirely” black African.

quote:

---

neo*geo:
You're no longer a newbie so you can't use ignorance as an excuse for misrepresenting my point of view. You know fully well that it is my opinion that Egyptians have always been an African people. I could just as easily repost posts from old topics but I wont waste my time.

---

quote:

---

neo*geo:
Don't play dumb now. It makes a difference in terms of whether you're discussing modern-day European countries or past historical periods.

---

You aren’t playing dumb; it is a natural thing for you. So, I am not sure that if I played dumb for you, it would enhance your comprehension ability . But hopefully repetition would make some headway: European societies are multi-racial. However, those societies being considered “white” has become a euphemism. Moreover, European societies, particularly southern European ones, were heterogeneous in ancient times; something you are not familiar with, as evidenced by your earlier claim.

 

There were others in Toynabee's own time like Randal MacIver and V. Gordon Childe that contended the early populations of pre-dyanstic Kmt[Egypt] such as the Badarian,and Naqada cultures were negriod.

Sir Grafton Smith even believed the early Beja people were responsible,but he never considered them to be negriod but Hamitic. It's all part of the Hamitic myth.

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
I disagree. Most of the racial diversity in Europe is due to recent immigration

---

Thought Posts:
http://hpgl.stanford.edu/publications/AHG_2001_v65_p43.pdf

"As mentioned before in relation to African NRY history, a Mesolithic population carrying Group III lineages with the M35/M215 mutation expanded northwards from Sub-Saharan to North Africa and the Levant. The Levantine population of farmers that dispersed into Europe during and after the Neolithic carried these African Group III M35/M215 lineages, together with a cluster of Group VI lineages characterized by M172 and M201 mutations."
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
Governors and Roman soldiers were made up of men from local populations.

---

Thought Writes:

The "local" populations were heterogenous as well.

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
Thought Posts:
http://hpgl.stanford.edu/publications/AHG_2001_v65_p43.pdf

"As mentioned before in relation to African NRY history, a Mesolithic population carrying Group III lineages with the M35/M215 mutation expanded northwards from Sub-Saharan to North Africa and the Levant. The Levantine population of farmers that dispersed into Europe during and after the Neolithic carried these African Group III M35/M215 lineages, together with a cluster of Group VI lineages characterized by M172 and M201 mutations."

---

This is nothing new. The population of Europe originated from about seven women of the Near East. In other words, African genes were carried to Europe via the Middle East. The "Out of Africa" theory is pretty widely accepted now.

[This message has been edited by neo*geo (edited 14 December 2004).]
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
There seems to be 3 schools of thought:
1. Egyptians have not changed dramatically over the past 5000 years and the black Africans of Egypt were mainly Nubians

---

Thought Writes:

The Egyptians have OBVIOUSLY change based upon the scientific data.

Thought Posts:

Intra-population and temporal variation in ancient Egyptian crania.
S.R. Zakrzewski. Department of Archaeology, University of Southampton, UK.
The level of morphological variation within a population is the result of factors such as population expansion and movement. Traditionally Egyptologists have considered ancient Egypt to have a homogeneous population, with state formation occurring as a result of local processes without influence from migration. This paper tests this hypothesis by investigating the extent of biological relationships within a series of temporally successive Egyptian skeletal samples. Previous studies have compared biological relationships between Egyptians and other populations, mostly using the Howells global cranial data set. In the current study, by contrast, the biological relationships within a series of temporally-successive cranial samples are assessed.
The data consist of 55 cranio-facial variables from 418 adult Egyptian individuals, from six periods, ranging in date from c. 5000 to 1200 BC. These were compared with the 111 Late Period crania (c. 600-350 BC) from the Howells sample. Principal Component and Canonical Discriminant Function Analyses were undertaken, on both pooled and single sex samples.
The results suggest a level of local population continuity exists within the earlier Egyptian populations, but that this was in association with some change in population structure, reflecting small-scale immigration and admixture with new groups. Most dramatically, the results also indicate that the Egyptian series from Howells global data set are morphologically distinct from the Predynastic and Early Dynastic Nile Valley samples (especially in cranial vault shape and height), and thus show that this sample cannot be considered to be a typical Egyptian series.
This research was funded by the Wellcome Trust (Bioarchaeology Panel), Durham University (Addison-Wheeler Fellowship) and by University of Southampton.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
This is nothing new. The population of Europe originated from about seven women of the Near East. In other words, African genes were carried to Europe via the Middle East. The "Out of Africa" theory is pretty widely accepted now.

[This message has been edited by neo*geo (edited 14 December 2004).]

---

Thought Writes;

This is a good example of why when one does not know, one should seek teachers. The Out-Of-Africa migration refers to the movement of humans out out Africa during the Early Glacial (50,000 ky) period. The spread of E3b or M35 linages relates to the MESOLITHIC (10,000 ky) movement of East Africans around the circum-mediterranean basin. The Out-Of-Africa migration was responsable for the peopling of the entire globe. The spread of M35 lineages mainly relates to the colonization of the Fertile Crescent and Mediterranean region during the early Holocene (recent epoch).
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
"Egypt's founders were black African but Egypt's population was never entirely black African"

---

Thought Writes:

Greece has been diverse since the early Neolithic period. In fact, the Greek Neolithic was introduced from the Levant by populations that had physical affinities with modern East African groups.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
Thought Writes:
Greece has been diverse since the early Neolithic period. In fact, the Greek Neolithic was introduced from the Levant by populations that had physical affinities with modern East African groups.

---

Thought Posts:

Journal Of Human Evolution
#1
1972
J. Lawrence Angel
"Biological Relations of Egyptian and Eastern Mediterranean Populations during Pre-dynastic and Dynastic Times"

"...one can identify Negroid (Ethiopic or Bushmanoid?) traits of nose and prognathism apprearing in Natufian latest hunters (McCown, 1939) and in Anatolian and Macedonian first farmers (Angel, 1972), probably from Nubia (Anderson, 1969) via the unknown predecessors of Badarians..."

 

Thought Writes:

What scientific study are you basing this wild claim on?

{Egyptians get mistaken for people of other ethnicities often. You can't say the same for Greek people}

Thought Writes:

Are we discussing ANCIENT Egyptians and Greeks or MODERN Egyptians and Greeks?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
{Greece doesn't compare to Egypt in terms of phenotypical diversity. Where it's clear from the inconsistency of phenotypes in Egypt that the population has been affected by centuries of foeirn immigration, there is more consistency in Greece.}

Thought Writes:

What scientific study are you basing this wild claim on?

{Egyptians get mistaken for people of other ethnicities often. You can't say the same for Greek people}

Thought Writes:

Are we discussing ANCIENT Egyptians and Greeks or MODERN Egyptians and Greeks?

---

Good questions, which I am sure we will be getting answers to shortly.

=============================

"The formerly unknown history of the indigenous civilizations
of Africa to the south of the Sahara has been given its due
place side by side with the other regional civilizations. In 1927,
the year in which I started making my notes for the first ten
volumes of the book, it was supposed that Tropical and
Southern Africa had been a region that had had no history
before the arrival of the Arabs and the West Europeans ..."

===============================

I own the revised abridgement and as hinted above with the phrase
south of the Sahara he still didnt think of Egypt in terms of any black
contribution. He gives no clear cut list of civs by race but mentions
whites as creators of over half the worlds civs. Then he mentions
yellow civ. AE is one of his five unaffiliated civs. Thus AE is not
affiliated to even African civ less lone to black cultures. He sees
AE as having a dominant minority and a proletariat but leaves
it to the reader to assume what they were.

The problem is these texts are not easily avaiable in most laymen's libraries,and so old myths about the continent of Africa continue to plague academia.

Since 1975 many new discoveries were made in the continent of Africa including areas south of Egypt. The findings of Djenne in Sahelian Africa and the work of Felix Chambi putting away the myth of Arab foundations of Swahili culture.

How Egypt[Kmt] plays into this is that it was used as a diffusionist tool by academics to sweep up any high culture they found within Africa. Basil Davidson in his books makes this comment about how diffusionist work and still try to rob Africa of it's cultural history. Even using other African civlizations such as Egypt[Kmt] to do this. The essay in the Ancient Egypt in Africa book explains how Europeans founder sophisticated civilizations in Uganda but invented a myth of a great white founder. The Hamitic myth was also used in other parts of Africa notably upon the Yoruba people. Yes, the historians said the Yoruba people started off as Hamites but began to misegenate with imaginary ''negriod'' slaves. This is all nonsense,but I bet many of these old books are still to be found on college library shelves.

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
I don't buy the African colonization theory for ancient Greece and neither does most of academia. Greece doesn't compare to Egypt in terms of phenotypical diversity. Where it's clear from the inconsistency of phenotypes in Egypt that the population has been affected by centuries of foeirn immigration, there is more consistency in Greece. Egyptians get mistaken for people of other ethnicities often. You can't say the same for Greek people.

---

Wow...so you don't believe in what the Ancient Greeks themselves attested too...which was that Aethiopes played an active role in establishing their civilisation (the ancient model)??

If we can't take it from the ancients, then we'll know what to believe.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
My point is that there is no point in history where Africans called themselves "black people" prior to encounters with white Europeans.

---

alTakruri wrote

This is a mistaken notion. African self definition into a
two coloured scheme of red and black is an old thing
not introduced by anyone from anywhere else. It originally
did not include whites but later, once they were encountered,
whites were sometimes added to the red class or else a new
category of white was made for them.

In first appears in writing in Kmt where Nile Valley folk
RM RMT & NHSW are classed together as blacks
apposed to Libyan TMHW & Asiatic AAMW who are
classed together as reds. The Axumites record their
conflict in Meroe against the Red Noba and the Black
Noba.

Across the Red Sea in Arabia the distinction between
reds and blacks continues today and is noted in a 1200
year old essay by al Jahiz.

Further south, in East Africa, Byrk noted the red/black
distinction among the Nandi when he queried a youth
about a pretty girl standing nearby. He was told: “Don't
you see that I'm red and she's black?”

In southern Africa the baNtu see themselves as black
the Khoi, San, & Twa as red, whom they call the little red
men .

Then in the western Sudan, Maurs, Tuareg, Bela, & Fulani
are the reds among the other Africans living there who call
them red.

It is only unfamiliarity wuth Africa on its own terms that allows
colour consciousness to be beyond the internal cognizant
ability of Africans. What whites introduced to the world is the
idea of a natural hierarchy of inferior and superior races by
colour.

now that was the wisdom.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by ABAZA:

---

Thanks for your post. Have to strongly disagree with you. I'm Yoruba from Nigeria and therefore a descendant of Ancient Egyptians. I'm surrounded by daily reminders in my language and traditional customs. Same goes for most peoples of West Africa.

Examples of AE survivals in Yoruba:

Yoruba.......AE
======.......==
Inoki........Noki-t "fabulous beast"
A-gu-ta(n)...Ha-khu-ptah
O-ni.........Au-nu "Crocodile"
Saluga.......Salug "god of wealth"
ibatan.......Bahtan "compatriot"
amon.........amon "to hide/concealed"
Wu...........Uu "swell"
Miri.........Miri "water" dazzle(of water)
Riri.........Ririt "dirty (like a hippo)"
Ade..........Ade-f "crown/plumes"
Ako..........Ak "male"
Abo..........Ab "female"
Ala..........Ala "boundary - Obatala==King of Nile"
A-ke.........qe-h "axe"
a-dua........dua or tua "prayer"
a-ru-gbo.....ru-ba "evening of ba i.e. later stage of life"
Sadu.........Zaddu "abode of the dead"
I-re.........Re "That whis is good, goodness"
Ko...........Qo-t "build"
Wombia.......nubia "you, a Nubian" - derogatory - "a covetous person"

Note:
=====
(O-ni is pronouced with an 'Or' sound)
The sacred animal of the city of On (Aunu) survives in the word O-ni, "crocodile", a name used as the title of the paramount King in Yorubaland, i.e., the Oni of Ife.

The Yoruba phrase "apa amu sua", which means "an unthrifty person" is derived from three AE words:

Apa - "he who belongs to the house i.e. servant"

Amu - one of the Asiatic tribes engaged in domestic service in Ancient Egypt

Sua (Sua-nit), a nome in AE. The phrase is a comtemptuous term which preserves the idea of the wastefulness of foreign domestic servants in AE who hardly knew the value of crockery and other articles they sometimes smashed to pieces.

The word "bu" in AE means "place". This word survives in Yoruba vocabulary:

"ki bu e e" means "what place are you going?"

"ibudo" means "a place to settle"

"ibusun" means "a place to sleep"

"ibu-joko" means "a place to sit"

"ibu-so" means "a station"

"a-bu-le" means "premises"

The connection bewteen the two languages is so close that it is quite possible for one to help in determining the siginifcance of words whose meanings have not yet been definitely ascertained or have become obscure in the other!

There is a survival of customs
==============================
- Religious beliefs. Most of the prinicpal gods are well known: Osiris, Isis, Horus, Shu, Sut, Thoth, Kepera, Amon, Anu, Khonsu, Khnum, Khopri, Hathor, Sokaris, Ra, Seb, the 4 elmental deities etc.

-- Ra survives in name only, but the words Irawo (star), rara (swear by Ra), rara (dwarfs - AE mythological Danga dwarfs that hailed the daily arrival of the sun-god) preserve the idea.

-- The idea of a future life and that of judgement after death
-- The deification of Kings.
-- The importance attached to names. A man's name is supposed to have a real force in determining his character. Names are not given haphazardly, but acording to prevailing circumstances at the time of birth.
-- Strong belief in a future life. The AE and Yoruba ideas are identical. The Yoruba word for the verb "too die" is Ku, i.e. to become a luminous spirit. The Egyptian word Khu, or the luminous part of a man, "is a spark of that divine intelligence which pervades the world and to which it must return"

- Polygamy - similarity in the position of the first wife and her rights and privileges

- Burial customs. Previous to burial the corpse in Yorubaland is dressed like the Egyptian mummy. In the case of the burial of the king, the king slaves must be buried with him, and his Chief Officers and wives must die on the day of the burial. The king will require the services of his dependents in the next world. The British influence has put an end to such practices. Ushebti figures are now substitued for living persons.

[This message has been edited by Ade (edited 08 January 2005).]

[This message has been edited by Ade (edited 08 January 2005).]

[This message has been edited by Ade (edited 08 January 2005).]
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by ABAZA:

---

-Herodotus (484 - 425 B.C.) sees the differences in human phenotype as a result
of adaptation to differing environments.

History clearly reveals Herodotus labelng black-skinned people as "Aethiopian"
or "Ethiopian", which means "burnt-faced" in Greek. He often made of descriptions
about other peoples as in the case with the Colchis:

"There can be no doubt that the Colchians are an Egyptian race. Before I heard any
mention of the fact from others, I had remarked it myself. After the thought
had struck me, I made inquiries on the subject both in Colchis and in Egypt, and
I found that the Colchians had a more distinct recollection of the Egyptians,
than the Egyptians had of them. Still the Egyptians said that they believed the
Colchians to be descended from the army of Sesostris. My own conjectures were
founded, first, on the fact that they are black-skinned and have woolly hair,
which certainly amounts to but little, since several other nations are so too; but
further and more especially, on the circumstance that the Colchians, the Egyptians,
and the Ethiopians, are the only nations who have practised circumcision
from the earliest times. The Phoenicians and the Syrians of Palestine themselves
confess that they learnt the custom of the Egyptians..."
[Herodotus, Book 3]

-Aristotle (384-322 B.C.): "Historia Animalium" describes similarities between
man, apes, and monkeys, as related to the great chain of being. Like Herodotus,
Aristotle argued for environmental causes of variation. For example, he concluded
that the hot, dry climate caused the hair of Aethiopians (Africans) to be
wooly, while the moist air climate caused the hair of to be straight.

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Ade: Thank you. Good post. Do you recommend any books/reference for study of Yoruban relationship with Kemet?

---

Thanks rasol, glad you like the post.

I recommend:

"Religions in West Africa and Ancient Egypt" by J. O. Lucas

"The Religion of the Yorubas" by J. Olumide Lucas ISBN 0-9638787-8-6

Dr. Lucas was Yoruba.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ade:
[B] Thanks for your post. Have to strongly disagree with you. I'm Yoruba from Nigeria and therefore a descendant of Ancient Egyptians. I'm surrounded by daily reminders in my language and traditional customs. Same goes for most peoples of West Africa.

---

Should have mentioned similarities in works of art. Disregard the dates given for the objects - accurate dating has not been established for these pieces.

The first ruler of Ife was from Egypt, he founded the Yoruba and neighboring language groups.

http://www.numibia.net/fiche_objet.asp?p_N_ordre=8
http://sorrel.humboldt.edu/~rwj1/AFR/afr882.html
http://www.kimbellart.org/database/index.cfm?detail=yes&ID=AP%201994.04
http://baobab.harvard.edu/narratives/ife/Brass%20Casting.html
http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/ifet/hd_ifet.htm
http://www.africans-art.com/index.php3?action=page&id_art=28340
http://www.smb.spk-berlin.de/mv/afrika/e/kunst1g.htm
http://www.louisville.edu/a-s/finearts/VRC/images/1115196.jpg
http://baobab.harvard.edu/narratives/ife/Portrait%20Heads.html

[This message has been edited by Ade (edited 08 January 2005).]

[This message has been edited by Ade (edited 09 January 2005).]
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ade:
Thanks for your post. Have to strongly disagree with you. I'm Yoruba from Nigeria and therefore a descendant of Ancient Egyptians. I'm surrounded by daily reminders in my language and traditional customs. Same goes for most peoples of West Africa.

---

Links to research material on the origins of peoples of southern Nigeria:

"The original collective names for the ancestors of the Ijos were “Kumoni” and “Oru”, survivals of the ancient terms of “Khem-Anu” or “Khem-Onu”, and “Horu” of the ancient Nile valley civilisations of Khem or Kemetu (ancient Egypt) and Kush (ancient Sudan). The Kumoni-oru derived from ancient Egypt via Ife, while the Oru derived from ancient Sudan."
http://www.ijaw-naa.org/ijaw/home.htm

"For our research topic we have singled out four distinct ancient peoples whose names have come down to us through tradition, who combined and came together in various ways to give birth to the kingdoms of Southern Nigeria. These ancient people have been identified as:

1. The ORU or KUMONI (also known as the ONU or ANU people) they were an aquatic based culture, settling the banks of rivers and watersides. They were indigenous to the Nile Valley and Lake Chad regions before moving south (an exhaustive comparison between the ancient religious and cultural system of the twin Nile-Valley civilisations of Egypt and Sudan, plus language studies enables us to conclude that the ANU or ONU were ethnically the same as the ORU.

2. The IGBO or UGBO (also known as OOYELAGBO) a branch of the Kwa, they were land based. They were originally situated in East Africa, before migrating to the north of the Niger/Benue confluence region in antiquity.

3. The EFA, they were also land based. The EFA & IGBO seem to have descended from a people once known as the KWA or KWARA people, who inhabited the Middle Niger/Benue confluence region (hence its original name of Kwara river).

4. The BANTU & SEMI BANTU of unknown names, from east and central Africa."
http://www.greentax.net/nigeria/history.html