Head of a black African KhM 3896f TILE; RAMESSES III/USERMAATRE-MERIAMUN ____________________________________________ Head of a black African KhM 3896g TILE; RAMESSES III/USERMAATRE-MERIAMUN
____________________________________________ Head of a Syrian KhM 3896a TILE; RAMESSES III/USERMAATRE-MERIAMUN
____________________________________________ Head of a Beduin from Syria KhM 3896b TILE; RAMESSES III/USERMAATRE-MERIAMUN
Head of a Hittite KhM 3896d TILE; RAMESSES III/USERMAATRE-MERIAMUN
Head of a Hittite KhM 3896e/3899b TILE; RAMESSES III/USERMAATRE-MERIAMUN
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
the lioness
Credit you for finding these heads of the people that the Egyptians interacted with.
What can be said is that these heads show us a glimpse of how Egyptians grouped and held people in regard.
Peace
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
thank you king
below familiar:
Faience tiles from the royal palace at Medinet Habu. Libyan________Nubian____Syrian____Shasu Bedouin____ Hittite
Shasu means nomads or Bedouin people, referring primarily to the nomadic peoples of Syria-Palestine
notice we don't have perfect matches. For example the Hittite Head, the nose appears to be large bot in the all figure tile, small. Also the Bedouin Head is dark the one in the all figure version is not. Something's fake then right? How would you know which one is fake? I don't think so and I wouldn't jump to conclusions just because I might like one more. What do we know about the Bedouin? They are nomads and highly varied people like the Berbers. Also are all Bedouins in the Egyptian perspective "Shasu"? The Head of Bedouin is not listed as "Shasu Bedouin" but instead Beduoin from Syria. Sometimes there are also more variations of types also in the larger scene then a given segment that gets detailed. For example here you have a picture of three different photo segments:
there are three types shown, each a set of two.
in the illustration below
yes, the top row and bottom row are from separate locations, but it still shows seven different looking types so we can't simplify down to three or four "races" and try to fit it into modern concepts of "race" It's the Table of Nations, "not races"
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
Head of a black African KhM 3896f TILE; RAMESSES III/USERMAATRE-MERIAMUN ____________________________________________ Head of a black African KhM 3896g TILE; RAMESSES III/USERMAATRE-MERIAMUN
That's a fantasy. The tile is not a taxonomic entity that is purportedly aiming to depict "representatives" of "black Africa". The tiles are in fact depictions of either Kushites or the Nehesu. There's a big difference.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
Head of a black African KhM 3896f
____________________________________________ Head of a black African KhM 3896g TILE; RAMESSES III/USERMAATRE-MERIAMUN
That's a fantasy. The tile is not a taxonomic entity that is purportedly aiming to depict "representatives" of "black Africa". The tiles are in fact depictions of either Kushites or the Nehesu. There's a big difference.
You are saying there's a big difference between "black Africans" and Kushites? Or are you saying there's a big difference between Kushites and Nehesu?
I listed the heads as "black African" because that was how the source listed them.
I wanted to keep the picture intact with how they listed it even though I may not agree with the categorization terms.
I didn't list the source for the heads in the initial thread until just now, but I did give catalog numbers. The original source is the KUNSTHISTORISCHES MUSEUM.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
other interesting pieces from the KUNSTHISTORISCHES MUSEUM
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
You are saying there's a big difference between "black Africans" and Kushites? Or are you saying there's a big difference between Kushites and Nehesu?
I was pretty clear about what I was saying; there is little room for any reasonable persons to bang their heads against the wall, trying to figure it out. I said your image captions are false and misleading, because they give the impression that the tile depictions were idealized Kemetic caricatures of what is supposed to be "black Africans". FACT though, is that heads depicted were not meant to portray some generic "black Africa" taxanomic group, but rather, specific folks that the AE came into direct contact with, and their neighbours: the Nehesu. The Kushites are part of the Nehesu. The last two entities are therefore not mutually exclusive of one another. Understand?
Posted by Wally (Member # 2936) on :
Book of Gates, fourth division (P)/fifth hour (H), lower register, scene 30: Syrian and Nubian, two of the "four races of mankind."
_______________________________________________
If you look up Nubian in wikipedia it says:
Nubia is a region along the Nile, since 1956 divided between southern Egypt and northern Sudan. Throughout its History, Nubia is broken into three distinct regions – “Lower Nubia”, in modern southern Egypt, which lies between the first and second cataract, and “Upper Nubia and Southern Nubia” – in modern-day northern Sudan, which existed in the area south of second cataract, along the Nile down to the sixth cataract. Lower Nubia and Upper Nubia are so called because the Nile flows north, so Upper Nubia was actually further upstream the river, even though it lies geographically south of Lower Nubia here were a number of small Nubian kingdoms. The name Nubia is derived of that of the Noba people, nomads who settled the area in the 4th century, with the collapse of the kingdom of Meroë. The Noba spoke a Nilo-Saharan language, ancestral to Old Nubian. Old Nubian was used in mostly religious texts dating from the 8th and 15th centuries AD. Before the 4th century, and throughout classical antiquity, Nubia was known as Kush, or, in Classical Greek usage, included under the name Ethiopia
NUBIA:
including:
Kerma
Kush
Meroe
_______________________________________________
the above does not say
Nubian: any black person in Africa
_____________________________________________
below is an arrangment as it appeared in an actual tomb, an odern illustartion of this arrangement:
top row: Horus, 4 Egyptians, 2 Syrians
bottom row: 2 Syrians, 4 Nubians, 4 Libyans
If you want to call the Nubians "Kushites" I don't see how it makes that much of a difference in light of the wikipedia description above.
But if you call them Nehesu I will leave it up to Explorer to define that
______________________________________________
also notice the last two figures. These are Libyans. They would probably have the traditional feathers sticking out from the top of their heads but that area is not available because there is text there. They do show the distinctive side lock of hair hanging down. They are of the same nationality as the modern illustration that are showing the feather, last figures bottom row _____________________________________________
As far as Syrians ago, Wally appears to claim that they are "Kemiou Niut" However nowhere in the mdr ntr does it call them that
Posted by Wally (Member # 2936) on :
FOR PEOPLE WHO CANNOT READ HIEROGLYPHICS, THE DISTORTERS OF AFRICAN HISTORY (Euronut/Stormfront/Matilda/etc...) DELIBERATELY MISLABEL THE CENTER FIGURES AS "NUBIAN"(SIC!); FOR THOSE RACISTS WHO CAN READ HIEROGLYPHICS, THEY ACCUSE THE ANCIENT EGYPTIANS THEMSELVES OF MISLABELING THE IMAGE!
THE FIGURES IN THE MID-PANEL ARE ANCIENT EGYPTIANS!!! 1) RT (RTH) IS MDU NTR SHORTHAND FOR ROMÉ (LOMÉ); THE 3 STROKES AT THE BOTTOM INDICATES THE PLURAL: "MEN" ("PEOPLE")
2) NTR IS THE DETERMINATIVE WHICH HERE MEANS "DIVINE"
THE ANCIENT EGYPTIANS USED "THE DIVINE MEN" TO REFER ONLY TO THEIR OWN NATIONALITY AND NOBODY ELSE'S... Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
Wally why are you getting your panties in a bunch? Nowhere in this thread did I discuss the nationality of of the two figures in the middle panel above.
But now I will. If you look Egyptian art there are times when scribes correct errors that the artists have made and other times the scribe's corrections are wrong. How could this be possible? These are royal tombs? It is possible and has been demonstrated with other art and text that have nothing to do the nationality. There are two craftsman involved, the artist and the scribe who does the text, both contracted paid labor. But they can't have made mistakes, that's impossible. They did make mistakes and it's documented, not just in this case but in others. What people fail to realize is that that these images were not on view as they are today. Any error made by a scribe or artist would go unnoticed as soon as the tomb was sealed. Even the terms "Rt" and "Ntr" are not definitively Egyptian despite what might appear in Budge's dictionary. Also he lists the word for "negro" as "nuhes" rather than KM related which is rarely pointed out.
How can we be sure of what I'm saying is correct? In other mdr ntr Kushites are not associated with KM, Kem type words. Secondly you have to look at the clothing of these figures. By all indication it's Nubian or Kushite if you prefer rather than Egyptians as shown by many other examples in different tombs. People ignore this because they find one anomaly that's different form all the other art, all the other Kushites that are clothed and adorned this way and use it to Kushites and Egyptians wore the exact same clothing and therefore were indistinguishable. This is foolishness. It is undone by noting the larger context.
Thirdly no definitive judgments can even be speculated on until more of the figures are shown in actual good quality photos not yet available on the internet.
Even of you were to take the position that the middle two figures are Egyptian we are looking at segments of more figures. For instance there are two of each type here, two Syrians, two figures of the same type in the middle, and two Libyans in the last panel. That totals three types.
Until an image showing of all four types, that is a good quality photo is posted we can't even begin to comment. And once you put it in larger context after that the truth is revealed. This is like somebody taking a photo of a person that has six fingers and saying "human beings have six fingers on each hand"
But if you want to keep believing that the below head is that of an Egyptian be my guest:
I wouldn't get to committed to that. One day somebody is going to post a photo of all the figures and you may have to update what you said.
Here's an exercise. Research Egyptian clothing, then research Kushite clothing. After you take notes come back to the case we are talking about. You will see that the "literal" interpretation is not always correct and there are such things as mistakes.
____SYRIANS__________ EGYPTIANS ________________________LIBYANS
Posted by anguishofbeing (Member # 16736) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: You are saying there's a big difference between "black Africans" and Kushites? Or are you saying there's a big difference between Kushites and Nehesu?
LOL! You jackass, if you dont understand what was said why dont you just ask instead of going off on another of your lunatic rants.
A black African with a **non-black** African nose...according to Lioness. Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
Lioness - You have a very serious case of illegitimacy that you apparently do not recognize.
Quote:
These tiles paved the floor near the window of the palace of the king. They are decorated with images of chained prisoners characterized by their ethnic attributes.
It is a selection of five captives, representing peoples involved in the political world of the New Kingdom.
The first captive is a Hittite with pale skin; his hands are tied behind his back and he wears a striped skullcap with a dotted rim. He wears a colorful short kilt and a garment tied at the shoulder.
The second is a Bedouin Shasu with his wrists held in handcuffs. He has a small beard, which connects to his moustache; he is wearing a ribbed cap with a plain headband and his dress is composed of a kilt, a tunic, and a Syrian robe, as well as a circular pendant.
The third is the traditional Asiatic with his elbows bound to shoulder height. He is most probably Syrian, recognizable by the sharp beard terminating in two points along his cheeks and his thick mass of black hair.
The fourth is Nubian with tightly curled red hair. He wears a decorated collar and a short kilt over a long pleated robe with dotted fringe and belt.
The fifth is a tattooed Libyan with his hands bound in front of him.
In the above tiles, all are "supposedly" White or very light except the Nubian.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
^But yet you are trying to reconcile those tiles with THESE tiles.
What you are missing, is that obviously one set of tiles MUST be a LIE!
But which one is it?
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
To continue:
Also what you failed to comprehend was that these two do NOT depict White or light-skinned people.
The colored glaze has simply been removed and the underlying clay repainted.
Note this one's nose.
Those sneaky Albinos will try anything!
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
the above does not say
Nubian: any black person in Africa
Wikipedia, which can be literally authored by anybody regardless of the education level, schools everything you know about African matters, and you wonder why your learning is behind.
You are busy blindly copying & pasting stuff that you hardly understand, that you fail to even notice the inconsistencies in your image captions. With the Nehesu figures, you simply applied the generic "black African" term, whereas with the other figures, your image captions pin them down to more specific ethnicities or localities.
quote:
If you want to call the Nubians "Kushites" I don't see how it makes that much of a difference in light of the wikipedia description above.
That's because, like someone already noted, you don't bother reading the hieroglyphs yourself and expect others to do your stuff for you. If you had, you would understand that it is not a matter of me or anyone else for that matter, to "want" to call those figures "Nehesu" or "Kushites". What they however were not called, any knowledgeable person would know, is "Nubians".
quote:
But if you call them Nehesu I will leave it up to Explorer to define that
The burden is your's. What else are they called by the "Egyptians", if not "Kushites" or the "Nehesu". What does the hieroglyphs on the tiles call or say about these figures? What is your evidence for coming to your conclusion. Shoot!
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
Ignoring the pathetically dumb propaganda by the foolish feline.
We know that Ancient Egyptians were ALSO black Africans etc. etc.
I am more interested in this:
quote:4) Beduoin from Syria (Shasu Bedouin ??)
^ So we have more proof of blacks in the so-called Near East even Syria. Does anyone else know of more ancient evidence.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
Djehuti - Has no one noticed that NOWHERE in Egyptology, are Egypt's "Next-door-neighbors" the Arabs mentioned. Talk about a White-mixed-race-Turk aka SNs conspiracy.
Which of the tiles is he?
Posted by Wally (Member # 2936) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Ignoring the pathetically dumb propaganda by the foolish feline.
We know that Ancient Egyptians were ALSO black Africans etc. etc.
I am more interested in this:
quote:4) Beduoin from Syria (Shasu Bedouin ??)
^ So we have more proof of blacks in the so-called Near East even Syria. Does anyone else know of more ancient evidence.
quote: Even at present they are called Leuco-Syrians, (or White Syrians,) while those without the Taurus are called Syrians. In comparison with the people within the Taurus, the latter have a burnt complexion; but the former, not having it, received the appellation of Leuco-Syrians (or White Syrians). Strabo's Geography;Book XII
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
The lioness while now give you the accurate scientific category of each face color in the following tiles:
____________________BLACK____________________________ _______MEDIUM BROWN___________________________DARK BROWN
please take a note of it, this is the official rundown
It doesn't matter what region any of the above type people would migrate to, they would remain this color until the day they died.
the lioness has spoken
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wally:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Ignoring the pathetically dumb propaganda by the foolish feline.
We know that Ancient Egyptians were ALSO black Africans etc. etc.
I am more interested in this:
quote:4) Beduoin from Syria (Shasu Bedouin ??)
^ So we have more proof of blacks in the so-called Near East even Syria. Does anyone else know of more ancient evidence.
quote: Even at present they are called Leuco-Syrians, (or White Syrians,) while those without the Taurus are called Syrians. In comparison with the people within the Taurus, the latter have a burnt complexion; but the former, not having it, received the appellation of Leuco-Syrians (or White Syrians). Strabo's Geography;Book XII
Yes, I have known about Strabo's passage above for a while now. I'm just asking for more artistic evidence. I wonder what Dana has to say.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
WALLY'S SYRIAN BREAKDOWN
quote:Originally posted by Wally:
Even at present they are called Leuco-Syrians, (or White Syrians,) while those without the Taurus are called Syrians. In comparison with the people within the Taurus, the latter have a burnt complexion; but the former, not having it, received the appellation of Leuco-Syrians (or White Syrians). Strabo's Geography;Book XII
The lack of scholarship and intellectual compilation is depressing around here.
Strabo's Geography; Book XII - "WRITTEN IN 24 A.D." Damn folks, that's the time of Jesus, Whites had LONG AGO taken the area!
Quote: Even at present they are called Leuco-Syrians, (or White Syrians,) while those without the Taurus are called Syrians. In comparison with the people within the Taurus, the latter have a burnt complexion; but the former, not having it, received the appellation of Leuco-Syrians (or White Syrians).
"The Taurus" refers to the Taurus mountains of Turkey. See map below.
The White Greek Ionians settled in Miletus (now Aydin Province, Turkey) at about 1,000 B.C.
From the time of Alexanders death in 323 B.C. From Southern Anatolia (including Taurus) to parts of India, was the satrapy of one of his generals "Seleucus" (later Seleucus I Nicator).
OF COURSE THERE WERE WHITES THERE - THEY RULED THE FRIGGIN LAND!!
So would one of you please explain to me what all of this could possibly have to do with Syrians of more than one thousand years previous? Posted by Just call me Jari (Member # 14451) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by Wally:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Ignoring the pathetically dumb propaganda by the foolish feline.
We know that Ancient Egyptians were ALSO black Africans etc. etc.
I am more interested in this:
quote:4) Beduoin from Syria (Shasu Bedouin ??)
^ So we have more proof of blacks in the so-called Near East even Syria. Does anyone else know of more ancient evidence.
quote: Even at present they are called Leuco-Syrians, (or White Syrians,) while those without the Taurus are called Syrians. In comparison with the people within the Taurus, the latter have a burnt complexion; but the former, not having it, received the appellation of Leuco-Syrians (or White Syrians). Strabo's Geography;Book XII
Yes, I have known about Strabo's passage above for a while now. I'm just asking for more artistic evidence. I wonder what Dana has to say.
Don't you undestand by Now, the faces are proof that the Hebrews were originally black and that the Current Modern Day Jews stem from Edom,
1) Nubian/ Southern Nile Valley
2) Phonecian
3) Hebrew
4) Arab/Ishmaelite
Idumean
More Judahites..
PS does anyone have the authentic relief of this Image..
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
Quote; the Current Modern Day Jews stem from Edom
Damn, anybody ever hear of Khazaria? This place is getting too loony!
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
Mike you always post the above "Arab" implying he's black. Did it ever occur to you that
________________________________________________________________________________ this guy ^^^^^^^^ and .
____________________________________________________this guy^^^^ have the same features
so you can't really tell anything? Therefore a lot of what is on your website is very speculative but you don't represent it as speculative. You might use a word like "possibly" here and there but that is after establishing categories for people which is a much stronger impression than after the fact saying "maybe" here and there if you do at all. Represent truth Mike, if you don't know you don't know and even the world's greatest experts are not sure of a lot of these things.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
You wish.
Posted by Just call me Jari (Member # 14451) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Quote; the Current Modern Day Jews stem from Edom
Damn, anybody ever hear of Khazaria? This place is getting too loony!
Mike you are too stupid, There are two types of Modern Jew, Spehardi and Askenazi. One Converted the Other(and breed with them). The Idumeans were converted by John Hycranus and proceeded to infiltrate the priesthood and were very prevelent in the "Scribes and Pharasees"...and even King Herod was Idumean.
The Modern Jew and only the Modern Jew are Idumean, Backed by Josephus, Y-shuah Christ, backed by history.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
It never fails, sooner or later, you religious wackos start with your bizarre historical connections and conspiracy's. They supplanted all the real Hebrews eh?
Posted by Just call me Jari (Member # 14451) on :
Mike I don't care what you call me, My religious beliefs have nothing to do with the Modern Jew being the Idumeans. Its a fact, and unlike your Turk obsession and "Khazar" Bullshit I can trace the Idumeans as far back as John Hycranus and prior thus the reason why the Jews were thought to be "White" rather than what they were. You have to account for the Fact that the Khazars were not converted until After the rise of Islam,
and account for the fact that the European Jew is the only Jew in the world to have a Talmud, so the Ethiopian Jews can accept Christ and Christianity but have never heard of a Talmud until the European Jew comes into contact with them??
and Lastly your Khazar theory does not account for the Sepharic Jews..
^^^^^^^Stupid Mikey says that Albinic creature is a "Jew" as he is not a turk or Khazar..
and it was a Jew who gave you the history of the Khazar conversion, was'nt does'nt your stupid ass always talk about White man Bullshit..The Khazar theory was a Half Lie.
The Jews don't want people to know the full truth, that their entire Lineage descend from the only albinic race in history, the Idumeans...
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lyingass: WALLY'S SYRIAN BREAKDOWN
quote:Originally posted by Wally:
Even at present they are called Leuco-Syrians, (or White Syrians,) while those without the Taurus are called Syrians. In comparison with the people within the Taurus, the latter have a burnt complexion; but the former, not having it, received the appellation of Leuco-Syrians (or White Syrians). Strabo's Geography;Book XII
Apparently you can't read. The 'breakdown' per say was not from Wally but from the Greek historian Strabo, which according to his passage which again you could not read properly clearly states the Syrians of the Taurus were the Leucosyrians, dummy!
To Mike. For once you are correct. Many of the light skinned peoples of the Levant do have ancestry from Anatolia (modern Turkey) as well as the Caucasus. This was discussed before on the thread about whites in the Middle East. I suggest you do research on the peoples like the Hurrians and Subarians.
Posted by Just call me Jari (Member # 14451) on :
For Mike111
If the Jews are Khazars Mike, and as you uphold the original Hebrews were black(Which you have made clear in the past) then why is the Talmud which predates the Khazar conversion so anti-black saying Blacks are Cursed..etc.
The supremacy of the Talmud over the Bible in the Israeli state may also be seen in the case of the black Ethiopian Jews. Ethiopians are very knowledgeable of the Old Testament. However, their religion is so ancient it pre-dates the Scribes' Talmud, of which the Ethiopians have no knowledge. According to the N.Y. Times of Sept. 29, 1992, p.4: Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
Jari - I have ABSOLUTELY no interest in getting into religious mumbo-jumbo with you or anybody else.
Djehuti - If you are trying to suggest that Hurrians and Subarians were Hebrews or related to Hebrews - okay, so?
Posted by Just call me Jari (Member # 14451) on :
What does Religion have to do with the fact that the Talmud has racist remarks, and the Ethiopian Jews have no trace of a Talmudic Tradition??
Just as I thought you are all talk and no walk..
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
Jari - why are you such a ditz?
The Christian Bible has antiBlack remarks.
The Muslim Koran has antiBlack remarks.
You say the Khazar Talmud has antiBlack remarks.
Think Boy!
All were originally Black religions.
All were taken over by Whites.
Guess who MUST have written the CURRENT religious books?
It's not rocket science, just damn common sense, what's your problem?
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
^Probably why sub-Saharans can't move. Always caught-up in some kind of hocus-pocus bullsh1t. Instead of trying to figure out how to make their lives better.
Posted by Just call me Jari (Member # 14451) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Jari - why are you such a ditz?
The Christian Bible has antiBlack remarks.
The Muslim Koran has antiBlack remarks.
You say the Khazar Talmud has antiBlack remarks.
Think Boy!
All were originally Black religions.
All were taken over by Whites.
Guess who MUST have written the CURRENT religious books?
It's not rocket science, just damn common sense, what's your problem?
Stupid LIl Mikey the Talmud was not "Taken" over by Whites it was written by the Albinic race of Idumeans Aka the Sepharic Jews, the "Taken Over" part was when the Sepharic Jews Took over the Preisthood and infiltrated the Scribes and Phrasees. Herod was Idumean.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Djehuti - If you are trying to suggest that Hurrians and Subarians were Hebrews or related to Hebrews - okay, so?
My point actually was to point out the origin of light-skinned peoples in the Near East in general not just Hebrews. It is fact that just as the proto-Semitic speakers in the region were of African descent, there were lighter-skinned Eurasians who adopted the Semitic languages and cultures and eventually usurped them.
Dana's theory holds that Iranians usurped the original Arab culture, but I believe it is not just Iranians but peoples from Anatolia and the Caucasus as well.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Dana's theory holds that Iranians usurped the original Arab culture, but I believe it is not just Iranians but peoples from Anatolia and the Caucasus as well.
Djehuti - Maybe it's from dealing with Jari's "this is all so mysterious" nonsense, or maybe because I'm tired. But I gotta tell you, this is getting a little old.
Djehuti - There is not one single group of people in the current era, whose movements are not documented somewhere. There is no need to guess or to have a "Theory" the documentation is there, all you have to do is find it and read it.
In the case of the transition in Iran from Elamites to Persians to Arabs to Turks: it is well documented in Britannia and other such sources, there is no need to guess or to have a "Theory."
Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
I'm not surprised that there were darker-skinned Levantines back in the day. The Levant is geographically between Africa and Arabia, so it makes sense for Levantine populations to be intergrades between black Nilotes like the Egyptians and the olive-skinned peoples of the rest of Southwest Asia.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
Truth - Where would these "olive-skinned" peoples have come from?
Understanding that "olive-skinned" is just one shade of admixed populations, with Yellow being another.
There was no opportunity for "olive-skinned" people in the area until the Greeks arrived circa 1,200 B.C.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
Truth - I don't know your race or experience with different races. So I'm posting this picture of the Moroccan royal family - here you will see all the various levels of "Advanced" admixture.
Like his Berber and Arab ancestors, this Negro has a serious Jones for White women.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
It is painfully clear that many lack the ability to intellectually imagine, how and why, the appearance of humans changes with admixture. Recent kings of Morocco provides a perfect example to demonstrate how it works.
Sultan of Morocco Moulay Azziz [in white, front right] (about 1890)
Abdelhafid of Morocco served as the Sultan of Morocco from 1908 to 1912
Sultan Yusef ben Hassan (1882–November 17, 1927) ruled the French Protectorate of Morocco from 1912 until his death in 1927.
Mohammed V (10 August 1909 – 26 February 1961) was Sultan of Morocco from 1927-53, exiled from 1953–55, where he was again recognized as Sultan upon his return, and King from 1957 to 1961.
King Hassan II was King of Morocco from 1961 until his death in 1999.
Mohammed VI (born 21 August 1963) is the present King of Morocco. He ascended to the Throne in July 1999.
How's that for some racial back and forth? And all in just over a hundred years! If you don't understand admixture by now, you never will! Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Nobody has denied there ever being admixture in North Afric or the Middle East.
In fact, many of those pictures of the Moroccan royal family remind me of those of 'Arab' royal families such as the Hashemite dynasty.
However, I believe T-rex does have a point.
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: I'm not surprised that there were darker-skinned Levantines back in the day. The Levant is geographically between Africa and Arabia, so it makes sense for Levantine populations to be intergrades between black Nilotes like the Egyptians and the olive-skinned peoples of the rest of Southwest Asia.
While some of the brown and yellow complexions in the Near East may be due to admixture not all are. We must remember that skin color grades and clines so of course some brown and yellow complexions are due to simple intermediate adaptation between black and fair skinned populations. We see this even among east Asians who also come in brown and of course yellow complexions that does not mean they are the result of admixture between blacks and fair skinned people.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
^That was for Truthcentric.
Yours follows.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike111:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Dana's theory holds that Iranians usurped the original Arab culture, but I believe it is not just Iranians but peoples from Anatolia and the Caucasus as well.
Djehuti - Maybe it's from dealing with Jari's "this is all so mysterious" nonsense, or maybe because I'm tired. But I gotta tell you, this is getting a little old.
Djehuti - There is not one single group of people in the current era, whose movements are not documented somewhere. There is no need to guess or to have a "Theory" the documentation is there, all you have to do is find it and read it.
In the case of the transition in Iran from Elamites to Persians to Arabs to Turks: it is well documented in Britannia and other such sources, there is no need to guess or to have a "Theory."
Djehuti - I would like to qualify the above statement.
The GENERAL movements are well documented, but the specifics are well hidden. Like the White Europeans, the White Turks have been very careful to falsely integrate themselves into Arab, North African, Egyptian, and Middle Eastern history. And like the European Whites, also careful to destroy or hide all documents and artifacts that would contradict their version of history.
But enough is known to ask some telling questions.
(Keeping in mind that today, all of these things are under the control of Turks and admixed Turks).
At the Battle of Yarmuk in 636, a Muslim army of 40,000 decisively defeated a Byzantine force numbering 120,000, permanently ending Byzantine rule south of Asia Minor.
How do you get a 40,000 man army out of Arabia?
In Persia, the Arab victory at Al-Qadisiyyah in 637 A.D. was followed by the sack of the Sassanian winter capital at Ctesiphon on the Tigris. The Battle of Nahavand in 642 A.D. completed the Sassanids' defeat.
Here again, where did all of these troops come from?
In 637, after a prolonged siege of Jerusalem, the Caliph Umar took the city. He was given the key to the city by the Greek Orthodox patriarch, Sophronius, and invited to pray at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.
Who was it that resisted the Muslims for so long? Was it the Hebrews? And is that why there are so many hateful antiHebrew quotes in the Koran?
It is said that Amr ibn al-As conquered Roman Egypt in 640-41, with only 4,000 men. How is that possible? Yes, after 900 years of White rule, the Egyptians were probably overjoyed to see a Black army come to liberate them, but only 4,000 men?
Why is only the Coptic (White Greeks) part in the conquest of Alexandria in 642 acknowledged?
There were millions of White Greeks in the middle east from the time of Alexander and the Seleucids, many cities were founded by these Greeks, what part did they play?
We know that after Ali's murder in 661, Muawiyah - the governor of Syria, proclaimed himself caliph and established his capital in Damascus, Syria, starting the Umayyad dynasty. We also know that he specifically recruited Greek soldiers - offering them double pay.
Was Muawiyah a Black Arab or a White Greek?
Were these Greek soldiers the discontented mawali (non-Muslim soldiers) that Umayyad Caliph Umar II (reigned 717-720) had to give "full status" to?
With all of those conquering troops, why did Samanid Caliph al-Ma'mun in Baghdad (reigned 813–833) find it necessary to start importing Turkish Slaves as troops (the Mamluks)? The Turkish pagan tribes were converted to Islam under the Samanids.
Why did the Arabs KEEP importing them until they numbered in the multitudes?
The first Turkish ruler of Persia was the Seljuq Turk Toghril I, who proclaimed himself sultan at Neyshabur in 1038.
Was it pressure from the now overwhelmingly Turkish Arab army that forced Abbasid caliph Harun ar-Rashid (ruled 786-809), to start assigning Egypt to Turks rather than to Arabs. (The first Turkish dynasty was that of Ibn Tulun who entered Egypt in 868).
Certainly the Egyptians could NOT have been happy to once again see White troops on their soil again, what was their reaction?
When the Ikhshidid dynasty was usurped by their Abyssinian slave tutor named Kafur (960) He had the sense to use Nubian troops for his army. Why did the Arabs use only White troops?
When Kafur died in 968, the Fatimids (a contending force for the Caliphate), took advantage of the disorder in Egypt to attack, the attack was successful and led to the occupation of Egypt by a Berber army led by the Fatimid general Jawhar.
The early Fatimids' reliance on Berber troops was soon replaced by the importation of Turkish, Sudanese, and Arab contingents. By the time of their decline however, the Fatimid army was under the leadership of Eurasian Armenian generals, (not Aramaean). (Seljuq Turk Toghrïl Beg, had taken Armenia in 1064 A.D.)
Once again Whites managed to take over - WHY?
In 1250 A.D. The the Turkish Mamluks dropped all pretense and established their own dynasty in Egypt.
Why didn't the Arabs resist?
With all the Black people that were in the middle east, it all sounds just too easy for the Turks. There had to have been some major massacres of Blacks for the takeover to have been so successful.
Did Greeks and Turks gang-up and destroy the Blacks of the middle east?
We know that eventually the Turks had to send troops into Arabia to put down an Arab rebellion (1811). Afterward they left Turkish Albanian troops in charge of Arabia.
There was not a repeat of this Arab rebellion - why? How many Arabs did they kill in order to maintain such total control?
SOME DIFFERENT TYPE QUESTIONS.
Why are there no statues or paintings of such important men as Muhammad and the Arab Caliphs?
There is no end to the pictures of Turkish Caliphs.
Some have, I think, falsely claimed, that there is a religious prohibition to images of these men. If there is, why does it not apply to the Turkish Caliphs or Arabs of today?
Also where are the images from those times and people that outsiders must have made?
Finally I ran across this image of the 2nd Caliph Umar ibn al-Khattāb (644).
Is it real, can anyone authenticate it?
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
BTW - As an indication of just how many Turks came into Turkey and the middle east over the centuries.
You saw that there was a powerful Seljuk Turk army ruling Persia.
You saw that there was a powerful Mamluk Turk army ruling Egypt.
Well in 1516 A.D. the Oguz Turks along with other Eastern European Turk troops (Serbs and Bosnians), defeated the Mamluks and the Seljuks to create the Ottoman Empire.
That's a LOT of Turks!!
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
the original white Turks were black
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
^Nice Lioness, I knew that you could be depended upon to troll even the most serious subjects.
For the serious people;
I was merely pointing out that when these Turk and French people, tell you that they are Persians, Egyptians, Arabs and Berbers. It is a cruel and sick joke, planted on the corpse's of untold numbers of Black people.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
This is an excellent case where African agency is removed.
Due to Eurocentric education/indoctrination the average viewer sees no anomaly in two heads being labled Black African (colour and continent) and the remaing heads being labeled by ethny/nationality.
Let's reverse the situation and the astute will immediately see what is wrong.
Head of a Kensetian
Head of an Aluan
Head of a Syrian (Yellow-Brown Asian)
Head of a Beduin from Syria (Black Asian)
Head of a White Asian
Head of a White Asian
Why is it an accepted norm to rob heads like 1 and 2 of their ethnic or national identities and why are heads like 5 and 6 never designated by color and continent?
Think. Think hard. Think harder.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Can't say much in agreement for some of what's written here and in similar posts by you above but I tend to think that the set of Jews who call themselves Yid and speak Yiddish are in fact majority descended ultimately from Esau and for the most part from his descendants the kingdom of Idumea hence Id -> Yid.
This is partially born out by Ya`aqob's summary ("blessing") of Esau's traits and future and the Torah's physical description (red and hairy).
quote:Originally posted by Just call me Jari:
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Jari - why are you such a ditz?
The Christian Bible has antiBlack remarks.
The Muslim Koran has antiBlack remarks.
You say the Khazar Talmud has antiBlack remarks.
Think Boy!
All were originally Black religions.
All were taken over by Whites.
Guess who MUST have written the CURRENT religious books?
It's not rocket science, just damn common sense, what's your problem?
Stupid LIl Mikey the Talmud was not "Taken" over by Whites it was written by the Albinic race of Idumeans Aka the Sepharic Jews, the "Taken Over" part was when the Sepharic Jews Took over the Preisthood and infiltrated the Scribes and Phrasees. Herod was Idumean.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: This is an excellent case where African agency is removed.
Due to Eurocentric education/indoctrination the average viewer sees no anomaly in two heads being labled Black African (colour and continent) and the remaing heads being labeled by ethny/nationality.
Let's reverse the situation and the astute will immediately see what is wrong.
Head of a Kensetian
Head of an Aluan
Head of a Syrian (Yellow-Brown Asian)
Head of a Beduin from Syria (Black Asian)
Head of a White Asian
Head of a White Asian
Why is it an accepted norm to rob heads like 1 and 2 of their ethnic or national identities and why are heads like 5 and 6 never designated by color and continent?
Think. Think hard. Think harder.
I agree with your pointing out the inconsistencies of terminology . I cover that topic in my
"you support the myth of Whiteness"
thread.
In the initial thread here I didn't want to taper with the captions provided by the Global Egyptian museum and the KUNSTHISTORISCHES MUSEUM so I didn't change it.
A convention that I didn't agree with is that in America people will be called "black" or "white" but a Chinese person is called "Asian" rather than by color. "Yellow" is considered derogatory and outdated yet black and white which are also not accurate descriptions are acceptable for some reason.
In the case of the first two tile heads they may have been uncertain of the exact region they represented . Then there is a problem of how to label it.
This is funny. Everbody here makes a huge effort to say the Egyptians were "black" Now all of the sudden people are upset using the same term discussing these heads.
Posted by Just call me Jari (Member # 14451) on :
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Can't say much in agreement for some of what's written here and in similar posts by you above but I tend to think that the set of Jews who call themselves Yid and speak Yiddish are in fact majority descended ultimately from Esau and for the most part from his descendants the kingdom of Idumea hence Id -> Yid.
This is partially born out by Ya`aqob's summary ("blessing") of Esau's traits and future and the Torah's physical description (red and hairy).
quote:Originally posted by Just call me Jari:
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Jari - why are you such a ditz?
The Christian Bible has antiBlack remarks.
The Muslim Koran has antiBlack remarks.
You say the Khazar Talmud has antiBlack remarks.
Think Boy!
All were originally Black religions.
All were taken over by Whites.
Guess who MUST have written the CURRENT religious books?
It's not rocket science, just damn common sense, what's your problem?
Stupid LIl Mikey the Talmud was not "Taken" over by Whites it was written by the Albinic race of Idumeans Aka the Sepharic Jews, the "Taken Over" part was when the Sepharic Jews Took over the Preisthood and infiltrated the Scribes and Phrasees. Herod was Idumean.
Thank you, Im not making this stuff up the Idumeans existed and they were converted into Judah by John Hycranus, this is attested in basic Hebrew History as we can even find this conversion and Infiltration of the Priesthood "Moses Seat" as attested by Josephus. This has nothing to do with my religion like Mike Says. When one realizes this one can understand the strife that was so central to the New Testament Stories. and Im not saying all Whites are Edom but certain Modern Jews whom I think would best fit would be the Sephardi Jews.
Had no idea about the Yiddish connection but thanks for the info.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Can't say much in agreement for some of what's written here and in similar posts by you above but I tend to think that the set of Jews who call themselves Yid and speak Yiddish are in fact majority descended ultimately from Esau and for the most part from his descendants the kingdom of Idumea hence Id -> Yid.
This is partially born out by Ya`aqob's summary ("blessing") of Esau's traits and future and the Torah's physical description (red and hairy).
quote:Originally posted by Just call me Jari: [QUOTE]
Stupid LIl Mikey the Talmud was not "Taken" over by Whites it was written by the Albinic race of Idumeans Aka the Sepharic Jews, the "Taken Over" part was when the Sepharic Jews Took over the Preisthood and infiltrated the Scribes and Phrasees. Herod was Idumean.
Interesting theory boys. But theories need evidence!
Please say or demonstrate how these people by the millions; managed to migrate from Jordan to Germany and Poland - WHEN would also be nice.
While you are at it; Please say or demonstrate how and when these people existed in Jordan in the first place.
So far, all we have is your WILD and self-serving hopes and speculations.
Posted by Just call me Jari (Member # 14451) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike111:
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Can't say much in agreement for some of what's written here and in similar posts by you above but I tend to think that the set of Jews who call themselves Yid and speak Yiddish are in fact majority descended ultimately from Esau and for the most part from his descendants the kingdom of Idumea hence Id -> Yid.
This is partially born out by Ya`aqob's summary ("blessing") of Esau's traits and future and the Torah's physical description (red and hairy).
quote:Originally posted by Just call me Jari: [QUOTE]
Stupid LIl Mikey the Talmud was not "Taken" over by Whites it was written by the Albinic race of Idumeans Aka the Sepharic Jews, the "Taken Over" part was when the Sepharic Jews Took over the Preisthood and infiltrated the Scribes and Phrasees. Herod was Idumean.
Interesting theory boys. But theories need evidence!
Please say or demonstrate how these people by the millions; managed to migrate from Jordan to Germany and Poland - WHEN would also be nice.
While you are at it; Please say or demonstrate how and when these people existed in Jordan in the first place.
So far, all we have is your WILD and self-serving hopes and speculations.
So when did they go to Germany and Poland to convert the Khazars?? Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
Jari - it is obvious that you don't actually think about what you are going to post, you simply post whatever is the first nonsense that comes to your simple mind.
How sad is it that you are arguing about Khazars, when you don't even know where they were.
Khazars were a Turkic tribe, they lived here. The different shades of blue indicate their expansion.
Posted by Just call me Jari (Member # 14451) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Jari - it is obvious that you don't actually think about what you are going to post, you simply post whatever is the first nonsense that comes to your simple mind.
How sad is it that you are arguing about Khazars, when you don't even know where they were.
Khazars were a Turkic tribe, they lived here. The different shades of blue indicate their expansion.
Mike I asked you a question When did the Jews go to Khazaria and convert the Khazars..
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
Idiot.
Can't you see from the map that the Khazars were squeezed between Christians and Muslims?
They didn't CHOOSE to take Judaism, there was no other choice. If they became Christian the Arabs would have attacked them. If they became Muslim, the Romans would have attacked them. If they remained Shamanistic, they both would have attacked them.
In the end it didn't matter because the Rus (Russians) attacked them from the east, and drove them westward into Germany and Poland.
But converting to Judaism did pay off; during the Crusades period, there could be NO normal trade between the south and Europe - Christians and Muslims were at War. EXCEPT for the now Jewish Khazars. They were the ONLY agents of trade between Europe and Muslim controlled areas for hundreds of years. THAT is how Jews built their great wealth!
Now Jari, please try discussing something that you can actually understand - like finger painting.
Posted by Just call me Jari (Member # 14451) on :
Mike you are a complete Moron, WHO CONVERTED THE F-ING KHAZARS these People Did'nt all of a sudden start Reading and Writing Hebrew, Start calling themselves Hebrew Names, Start practicing Hebrew Customs and Stories..again WHO CONVERTED THE KHAZARS and When..Stop ducking and dodging..
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
Damn you're stupid.
Posted by IronLion (Member # 16412) on :
quote:Originally posted by Just call me Jari: Mike you are a complete Moron, WHO CONVERTED THE F-ING KHAZARS these People Did'nt all of a sudden start Reading and Writing Hebrew, Start calling themselves Hebrew Names, Start practicing Hebrew Customs and Stories..again WHO CONVERTED THE KHAZARS and When..Stop ducking and dodging..
I heard it was some Jews from Persia and Iraq area... Mesopoamian Jews, most likely Persia.
quote: Persia in Western sources.
Judaism is one of the oldest religions practiced in Iran and dates back to the late biblical times. The Book of Esther contains some references to the experiences of Jews in Persia. Some material has been validated by Biblical scholars http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_Jews
Look at Persia's postion on the map Look at Khazaria...
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
Lion - I ignored Jari because I though that it was obvious that nations don't actually convert, Kings do. The rest of the population usually maintains their previous practices and slowly incorporates the new religion over many centuries.
The Romans originally persecuted Christians, but then Constantine decided that Romans should BE Christians! And that was that, Romans became Christians. Just as Constantine didn't actually have a religious conversion, his was a political decision. So too was the decision of the khazar king, a political decision for the reasons I mentioned.
It was the practice of the Assyrians to depopulate conquered territories and replace those people with Assyrians or other people, so as to avoid rebellion. That is why Hebrews were all over the place.
When Cyrus the great created Persia by conquest, one of the first things that he did was to free the Hebrews and pay for their return to Israel. Many took him up on his offer, but many chose to stay where they were.
That is how Babylon came to be a center for Hebrew scholarship. When the Romans started persecuting Hebrews in Israel, many fled to Babylon, Jesus's brother James and his crew being some of them.
It is from these Hebrew academy's in Babylon that the Khazars obtained their books and instruction. Naturally, they re-wrote the books.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
^Thought that I should make this clear in reference to the word "Books" above.
Originally Hebrew religious teaching was "ORAL". It is said that an actual Hebrew Bible existed, and served as the basis for discussion and teachings. But this may not be true, as the Dead Sea Scrolls are said to include "contemporary commentary" (aside from the religious text) which include only the period from 200 B.C. to 70 A.D.
And the actual scrolls are not dated to antiquity, thus suggesting that they were written just before they were hidden, (I would think that if an ancient Bible existed, then that is what they would have chosen as the example for future people to know about them and their religion).
When the Hebrews saw that their civilization and people were not long for the world, Hebrew scholars in Israel and Babylon began compiling their first real Bible - The Masoretic text or the Tanakh.
The Khazars claim that this was done in about 450 B.C. and has remained unchanged; (How would they know), and like I said, if they had a written bible, why wasn't THAT hidden away for future people, instead of the Dead Sea Scrolls? Of course this goes in the same column as the Khazars CLAIMING to BE Hebrews. Purely an attempt to fool the world, and to claim authenticity for themselves.
Most scholars say that this monumental work of compiling the Masoretic text, was begun around 600 A.D. and completed in 1000 A.D.
But before anyone goes out and says: so that is the authentic religion of the Hebrews - forget it! First of all, whatever those books contained is now lost, those books no longer exist.
Also, the Khazars were at the height of their power, and converted to Judaism during this same time. So it is likely that they had input into what was written. Also, is it only coincidence that the compilation of the Masoretic text was completed, at just about the same time that the Khazar kingdom ended - 965 A.D. (Hurry up and finish, we gatta go, the Russians are coming!)
It should also be noted that the Khazars had great power beyond their borders; specifically with the Romans, who would have had a keen interest in what was written in the Hebrew Bible, as that is the foundation of their own religion Christianity. (Byzantine Emperors: Justinian II and Constantine V each had a Khazar wife).
To complicate matters EVEN MORE! At the time the Hebrew Bible was completed, BOTH Israel and Babylon were under "TURKIC" MUSLIM control! The Koran is also based on the Hebrew religion. So for sure, the Turk Muslims had to approve whatever was written in the Hebrew bible.
(See how those antiBlack passages get into religious texts?). They took our religions, and then sh1t on us!
And that is why, neither Khazars, nor Christians, nor Muslims, will ever allow the contents of the Dead Sea Scrolls to be known. It would likely through a wrench into all of their religions.
BTW - Did I mention that the Khazars were a TURKIC tribe.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
A Persian nobleman. Terracotta figure from Persepolis (Archaeological museum, Tehran)
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
A Persian King
Idiot! Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
This post is intended as an enjoyment for the Black Christian kids out there.
Above I mentioned that the Assyrians had a policy of deporting conquered peoples, in order to avoid rebellion.
Well when the Chaldean kings of Babylonia (what was left of the Sumerian people, who had been forced to the southern coast) regained power, they also took up this tactic.
Thus in Canaan, when Josiah was king and he had successfully rebelled and re-taken territory from the Assyrians, who were rapidly declining in power, and then their hated capital "Nineveh", was destroyed by the Medes.
But Josiah's successful rebellion ended, when he fell in battle against pharaoh Necho (Nekau II - 26 dyn.), of Egypt. Who was intent on re-establishing Egyptian dominance in Canaan after Assyria's decline.
At the same time, the Chaldean kings of Babylonia were rapidly gaining strength. King Nabopolassar of Babylon and King Cyaxares of Media conquered, and then divided the old Assyrian empire between themselves.
After Nabopolassar's death, his son Nebuchadrezzar II, later gained control of Syria and Canaan in swift campaigns.
The Egyptians however, continued to intrigue in Canaan, whose native states were repeatedly induced to join anti-Babylonian coalitions. All of which collapsed of themselves, or were crushed by the Chaldean armies.
Jerusalem was twice besieged in 597 and again in 589 B.C. Finally in about 587/586 B.C, it was stormed and destroyed. The prophet Jeremiah, who had foreseen this tragic end, and who had repeatedly warned his people against their suicidal policy, died in Egypt. Judah was devastated and almost depopulated, with most of it's people sent off to Mesopotamia.
None of us know what changes the Greeks and then the Romans made, while rewriting Hebrew religious thought in their bibles. But we can all agree that what they produced does have value.
Psalm 137 recounts an incident of the Hebrew exile in Babylon.
Psalm 137:1-6 (King James Version)
By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down, yea, we wept, when we remembered Zion.
We hanged our harps upon the willows in the midst thereof.
For there they that carried us away captive required of us a song; and they that wasted us required of us mirth, saying, Sing us one of the songs of Zion.
How shall we sing the LORD's song in a strange land?
If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget her cunning.
If I do not remember thee, let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth; if I prefer not Jerusalem above my chief joy.
The Jamaican group "The Melodians" put the Psalm to music in 1970. I think that it is very spiritual and very beautiful.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
topic
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
