Skip to main content

Where was Isreal before there was as so called "Middle East?"

Where was Egypt before there was a so called "Middle East?"

If African had intermarried with whites during the past 400 years of Africans being in America, what would African Americans look like?

Just because the majority of people in America now are and/or look white now, does that automatically mean that there were predominately white people here thousands of years ago, as in like the majority of people in Eygpt now do not like African (or pure African) now, does that mean that they were always there?
Melesi I get a feeling you are waiting in ambush. I need to know where we are so far, I don't want to continue until I know we have cleared up who the originators of the Bible were, i.e Africans. I don't want a situation when I continue and you spring on me every unrelated article or information to mess up this discussion. If I don't hear from you after today I would take it we are in agreement and I would then continue.

_____________________________
Is it just talk or are you for solutions? If you are GENUINELY interested in solving black problems? Then join us at http://www.theguidedog.com/BlackNation.html
Henry,

Yes, I know that we are talking about who the Israelites were. You are, so am I. They were genetically Mesopotamians with some others mixed in with them, no doubt some African, but they were not predominately genetically African. That's why I say that they were "cultural Egyptians." They were not Egyptians. They were slaves in a ghetto. When our ancestors were slaves here, they didn't become white over all those years. Neither did the Israelites become Egyptian just because they were in Egypt for a long time. The Egyptians didn't particularly like them.

About the Canadians and Australians--you know who colonized those lands, right? They were white from the outset. When did they become Canadians or Australians? How did we become Americans (and, yes, I am a cultural American)? This is a little different from the case of the Hebrews who were kept separate from the rest of the population. Americans, Australians, and Canadians all decided when they became those people. During the time of the Revolution, there were those known as Loyalists or Tories, who maintained their allegiance to the Crown. Thus, they were American-born British. But when America became America, then those content to live in this country became Americans. The rest went mainly to Canada and lived there as British subjects for rather a long time.

So you see there is a definite difference between Hebrew slaves in Egypt and Canadians. Hebrews were never Egyptians. Both peoples said so.

Now, instead of stating that if the Israelites were said to be white I'd "accept it and never bat an eyelid," why don't you ask me if that's the case--which it is not. Please don't speak for me. I have enough trouble doing that for myself.

Antics? What "antics"?

Depending on your definition of Nation, it could be said that they became a nation in Egypt, but that doesn't mean that they were a nation of Egyptians. They were bound by blood, language, history, and after a time separation. They started out as a separate people, remember (which may qualify them as a natioin on their arriving in Egypt) who were given their own place in Egypt to live. There was enough difference between them and the Egyptians that the Egyptians could point them out and say, "They must be our slaves." So they were not considered Egyptian by the Egyptians. Therefore they had to be someone else.

Perhaps they were Hebrews.

Hammurabbi's Code is in many ways similar to the Law of Moses. Babylon is a neighbor to ancient Israel, and bigger. Hammurabbi's Code influenced the Mosaic Law. I don't see the problem, unless you wish to refuse what is true to uphold a dubious thesis.

If I wrote a book very similar to, oh, "The Adventures of Esplandian" after having read it or at least having heard about its story, would it not be safe to say that I was influenced by that book? And if it is true, how can it be morally wrong to say it? In order to write in English, I have to learn English, which means that I have to read English which means that I have to be influenced by it. Therefore whatever I may write is as much white as it is black. I have no problem with that, since I am convinced that all of us, no matter our color, are all equally human.

To try to be anything else is to try to become a fantasy. I may be one race and everybody else be another, but I cannot pretend that I am of that other race. If I learn that other race's language I will beinfluenced by that language's (and race's) thoughts. Language that we shape then shapes us. You cannot help thinking in English modes and patterns and concepts, for you speak English. Therefore everything that you write is influenced by whites. By blacks, too, but also by whites. You can't help it, and you won't be able to help it for the rest of your life.

There's nothing wrong with that. It's just the way things are.

Remember, the Mosaic Law was not just written in the days of Moses. It was originally written then, but it has been edited--apparently by several peole--into a coherent whole. WHile the slaves were not reading the Code of Hammurabbi, they would have been exposed to it not long after they came out of Egypt. It influenced the whole Middle East.

Sure, the writers mentioned Egypt. But they didn't mention the Book of Coming Forth By Day, either, did they? So they didn't mention the literary influences on them. You don't acknowledge the books you have read in your postings, right? But when Babylon impinged on their history, they mentioned it. "Many times." So your argument is not a good one. It's built on speculation and on your saying that they would have behaved in a way satisfactory to your common sense. Perhaps they would have, but I think that history is full of exaples of people not doing what others expected them to.

Because I do not think that the Hebrews were African except culturally does not mean that I have any sort of desire for a certain outcome or belief. What is, is. I am willing to accept it. But the history--all of it--seems to point in this direction and not the one you seem to wish so fervently. The Hebrews were not Egyptian--the Egyptians said so, and I would think that they would know something about that. They were not African, for Abraham came from Mesopotamia, not Ethiopia, and the children of Israel were his direct descendants, for the most part kept as a line separate from any African one.

I don't see the problem with that. Just because that means that "Africans" (whatever any speaker means by that, and usually it's more than just the historical happenstance of a particular people) did not write the Bible doesn't mean that Africans are less worthy or less loved by God than others. God loves all. Even whites. Even blacks.

It was the Land of Canaan that was promised to Abraham and to his descendants. That was to be their home. That was where they wnet when they left Egypt. They didn't see themselves as Egyptians, but as Hebrews in slavery by another people.

So the Bible was written by Hebrews and not Egyptians or Africans. We still need to obey it.
Henry,

Treebeard would say that we sholdn't be so hasty. My schedule is such that I do not always have the leisure to respond to posts in a time that even gentle impatience might think is appropriate. That does not mean that we agree or disagree. It means that life happens even away from the computer. Hope my answer was helpful if not satisfactory.
You know, I REAAAAAAAAAAAAALLY couldn't give a $#** what color the WRITERS were, GOD THE FATHER HAS NO COLOR.

Semites tend to be darker skinned than white people. I'll give you that. But I won't stand for this BULL$#** that Egyptian RELIGION is the source of the Bible.

GOD PUNISHED THE EGYPTIANS!!! READ F***ING GENESIS N EXODUS. Does it SOUND like the Egyptians wrote that some strange God landed in there and dumped a buncha plagues on em? HMMMMM?

HOW would the Egyptians be able to write about Pharaoh's demise in the Red Sea, considering the ONLY Egyptians that were there were either PURSUING the Israelites (and all of them DIED), or WENT WITH the Israelites cuz they freakin' married them?

That "scholar" sucks.

"You liberals with your conspiracy theories are starting to sound like your own version of the John Birch Society"-Rush Limbaugh
Sheba,

Of course it doesn't matter to the truth of the Bible. For some reason or other it matters to some people, though. For that reason I am willing to discuss the issue. What is important to other people we have to at least take seriously for their sake. They may even be right.

You hit on an important point, though. If Egyptians wrote the Books of Moses, then why are they portrayed in them in such a negative light?

And Henry, I still do not see just where Israel went "back" to Egypt and spent more time there. From what I see, after Israel got to Canaan they stayed there until conquered by Assyria and Babylon, and by that time Egypt was no longer a dominant power. So I'd be interested in knowing what you see as evidence that Israel did go "back" to Egypt.
quote:
Originally posted by Melesi:
And Henry, I still do not see just where Israel went "back" to Egypt and spent more time there. From what I see, after Israel got to Canaan they stayed there until conquered by Assyria and Babylon, and by that time Egypt was no longer a dominant power. So I'd be interested in knowing what you see as evidence that Israel did go "back" to Egypt.
I NEVER said they went back to Egypt I said the 10 tribe kingdom went back to Africa AND THEY HAVE LIVED THERE TILL TODAY. If you know the Bible you would find it where says so.

From how you were dragging other issues like Hammurabbi into the discussion knowing that God punished the Iraelites any time they did something remotely close to what you were suggesting I found exasperating as it was becomming painfully obvious you don't know the scriptures as you pretend to. To make matters worse you go as far as denying your own citizenship to uphold your flawed outlook.
At this it dawned on me you would do any dance or jig to deny what is the truth let alone what is in the Bible so personally I adviced myself to leave the discussion. Maybe if I come across a more honest minded person who is GENUINELY interested in the truth I would discuss the subject again.

_____________________________
Is it just talk or are you for solutions? If you are GENUINELY interested in solving black problems? Then join us at http://www.theguidedog.com/BlackNation.html
Henry,

You give up too easily. How can anyone learn better if others will not tell them?

Forgive me if I have misunderstood you about Egypt/Africa, but since Israel was in Egypt (and Egypt's in Africa, right?), and since we have no Biblical record of their being anywhere else in Africa other than Egypt, for them to go "back" to Africa would seem to mean--to a reasonable person, anyway--that they went back to Egypt. And you hadn't said anything contrary to this before.

If you know where this is in the Bible, would you kindly tell me?

I mentioned the Code of Hammurabbi because it is part of the argument about the origin of the Bible made from internal evidence. If you'll read my posts again you'll see that the subject really is relevant. From what the Bible itself says, there is just as much Mesopotamian influence in it as there is Egyptian influence, so by that criterion we'd have to say about the African origin of the Books of Moses, "Not proven" at the very least and then cease to be dogmatic about what we cannot prove.

You see, it really is to the point.

No, God did not punish Israel whenever they came "remotely close" to this. There is such an abundance of literary types in the Bible (history, poetry, wisdom literature, love letters) that it doesn't seem to matter to God if people write like Egyptians or Sumerians or the Irish, as long as they uphold the truth about God himself and obey what he says, instead of worrying about the style in which it is said.

Henry, how cheap and easy it is to blame your impatience adn unwillingness to answer on the other person's argument. I answer your arguments on your terms because it's important to you. I believe that you deserve that much respect, anyway. A pity that you cannot return such a good deed by doing such yourself. That's not Christian.
Henry,

Please tell me that your absence is not a case of, "If you don't know it by now I'm not going to be the one to tell you."

I would think that if there really was Biblical evidence of Israel going back to Africa someone would have pointed it out by now, including you.

I have found, however, that many people, so loud in their statements of generalities, become very quiet when asked to give specifics.

Which means that they didn't have much of an argument to begin with. I hope that that isn't the case with you.
Melesi I am a bit puzzled for someone who pulled every trick to deny the fact that Israelites being in Egypt for 500+ years in Egypt NEVER made them Egyptians or Africans. What does it matter to you if they have been in Africa for 4500 years? Wouldn't it be the same thing to you all over? 500 years or 4500 years if they were NOT citizens in your eyes any length of time should make no difference, should it? Or you just want to know so that you can look for ways to rubbish it. That is what happened to me recently when I showed that the Bible had talked about the earth was round and it hanged in Space long before scientists or learned people in the past got to know this truth.

About this thing about the Israelites being in Africa, I hope you know there was twelve tribes that got divided into two. The majority ten tribe kingdom and the minority two tribe kingdom. The majority ten tribe kingdom was destroyed, where are they? Did I hear you say earlier that if they were in Egypt before becoming Israel and they were destroyed common sense would dictate they would go back to Egypt? I would follow the common sense and if the Bible were to back it up that would be a bonus.

Let me know this and I would get back to you. If the Israelites from the ten tribe are in Africa till today would you say they are Africans? If you say yes explain to me how do you see them as Africans but when they lived in Egypt for 500+ years they were not Africans?

_____________________________
Is it just talk or are you for solutions? If you are GENUINELY interested in solving black problems? Then join us at http://www.theguidedog.com/BlackNation.html
Well, since we've been on the subject of the origin of the Bible, we might ask, "Just where did the Egyptians come from?" Since they are not an eternal people, they had to come from somewhere.

Our best research so far has shown that the
ancient Egyptians were not an African people. Now, in the sense that we all came from Africa originally, we cold say that everyone is, however distantly related we might be now. But even the predynastic Egyptians were not like Africans farther south.

The genetics of modern Egyptians and of ancient Egyptians is remarkably similar, says the National Library of Medicine:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=9164042&dopt=abstract

and it shows greatest similarity with the west Asian (Mediterranean and Berber) peoples instead of the African peoples. Which means that one of our favorite ideas, that Egypt started out black African and became lighter through northerners invading Egypt, is a legend and a myth. A comfortable one, for those of us who cannot live without thinking that we have the absolute preeminence over everyone else through history, but it is a myth nonetheless.

This is not the only indication of Egypt's stronger asociation with the Middle East and the Mediterranean than with sub-Saharan Africa. Back in 1997, a genetic study of both nuclear DNA markers and mitochondrial DNA markers (you can find the work in the American Journal of Human Genetics, 1997:

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJHG/journal/issues/v61n5/970152/970152.html

showed that, as the language goes, so goes the genes, which means that there hasn't been a great deal of invading going on, changing the genetics of Egypt from black to tan.

The language of Egypt is more Mediterranean--Sumerian and such--than it is African. So are its genetics, and it always was.

There is a natural trade route from Egypt to Syria and Mesopotamia or to Turkey (Port Said was a port from the beginning of Egypt and has proved to be quite fertile in the predynastic remains of life and trade), where there was none--or at least not always--between Egypt and Sudan. The Cataracts were hard to navigate then.

Take a look at "The History and Geography of Human Genes" by Cavalli-Sforza and Piazzi. You'll have to get it from a library because it's a very expensive book, about $200. But this work, which took 14 years of research to complete, also shows that genetically the peoples of Egypt are and were Mediterranean. Couple that with the studies of ancient Egyptian DNA which shows that it is very similar to today's Egyptian DNA, and you'll find that the Chiop/Bernal thesis of "somebody stole our history" is false. It wasn't stolen. It never existed.

It's hard to face this, I know, but there it is. Remember that Egypt for many centuries was effectively cut off from the rest of Africa by the melting of the great glaciers to the south and the deserts to the side. During the time of what archeologists and paleontologists have called the "wild Nile," when the seasonal floods were much greater and more violent than they have been for the past few thousand years, migration up the Nile Valley was blocked by the raging waters which we have found destroyed any attempt at settlement. Many paleolithic villages have been found that were destroyed by the flooding waters, their people killed.

So the trade and the travel was back and forth across the top of the continent and not up and down the Nile.

The language of Egypt is Mediterranean, the genetics of Egypt is and as far as we know always has been Mediterranean--with some mixing, but that mixing was much more north to south in the early centuries than south to north.

I know, I know--this is going to anger several of you, but I would ask you to check the science first before you begin flaming me and accusing me of seeking ways to "deny my heritage" or somesuch. It's been said before and it was wrong then.

You wold be more convincing if you would check the scientific literature and speak on that and not just on what you might want others to tell you.

The science is clear--Egypt was not an African kingdom. It was a Mediterranean kingdom, and it still is MEditerranean. As you see it now is as it always has been since the beginning of anything that we might be able to call Egypt.

Which means that the Bible was written by Mediterranean people, not African people.

Does this mean that Africans are not as "important" as Mediterranean or European or Asian peoples? Of course not. Different, yes, in the same way that all other peoples are, and there's plenty of reason to be glad for African heritage and thought and community. But let's not base any pride that we search for on a fantasy. Let's not depend on people of thousands of years ago to make us proud today. Let's be proud of who we are today, of the beauty of Africa today, and make of ourselves a people who accomplish and create and succeed today.
Henry,

That is not Biblical proof. Should I conclude then that there is no Biblical proof that Israel "went back" to Africa?

What is Biblical is that the Ten tribes were in the north of Israel (this the result of the Rehoboam-Jeroboam split after the death of Solomon)--1 Kings 11:26ff. Jeroboam, you'll remember, then turned the two ancient sanctuaries of Dan and Bethel into shrines, competitive with Jerusalem and dead against the command of God. Every king of the north was not a good one, for none of them "sought the Lord." There were frequent palace revolts and coups against the king in Israel, and except for Jerboam II, times were hard in the northern kingdom Israel.

So when Assyria marched in against them, they were in no shape to resist the behemoth. Hoshea was the last king of Israel (2 Kings 17), and he was captured in the war and sent off to Asssyria along with--according to Assyrian records--27,290 Israelites.

That's where the "lost ten tribes" went. They weren't lost, and they didn't go to Africa. They were captured and sent off to Assyria where they assimilated and disappeared as a people. It was long past any time that they would think about going to Africa, anyway. It had been centuries since they'd been there, and Africa was fast becoming a political backwater. It was a local power but it could no longer project its power anywhere. Later, Egypt tried to stand up against Nebudchadnezzar but couldn't. Charchemish and Hamath were disastrous campaigns for Egypt. and when Babylon conquered the whole of the Middle East, the captives were taken to Babylon, not to Africa (2 Kings 24).

So the armies that conquered them did not take them to Africa. They took them in the opposite direction.

This is why I simply do not see where you can say that Israel went back to Africa. They never did. Can you show me, can you quote the passages that show this?
quote:
Originally posted by Melesi:
Henry,

That is not Biblical proof. Should I conclude then that there is no Biblical proof that Israel "went back" to Africa?

I DID NOT OFFER YOU ANY BIBLICAL PROOF I SIMPLY ASKED QUESTIONS and anyway your long posts have confirmed my suspicions about you. See ya Big Grin

_____________________________
Is it just talk or are you for solutions? If you are GENUINELY interested in solving black problems? Then join us at http://www.theguidedog.com/BlackNation.html
Oh yes your previous post was long and I would not read it as I knew it would be offering nothing from the Bible. If it did it would not be so long as it would be heavy on quotes.

About the Israelites being in Africa you know from previous experience with me I would not say something if it's not in the Bible. Follow my signature and go to the BibleGuidebook by clicking on main home while on the homepage. I am sure the Q&A section would help with your quest.

_____________________________
Is it just talk or are you for solutions? If you are GENUINELY interested in solving black problems? Then join us at http://www.theguidedog.com/BlackNation.html
Blacked out Through Whitewash
by S. E. Suzar

The original Biblical Jews were a Black African people.


The original Jews in Africa 2000 years ago were a Black African people as an
ethnic group. (Massey: Egypt Light of the Word p501) Many of them still
are Black, in northenrn Africa such as the Falasha Jews of Ethiopia. A
New York Times editorial (3/2/84) described them as "a lost tribe that
has kept it identiy for more than 2,000 years in a remote corner of
Africa." Abraham, ancestor of the Hebrews, was from Chaldea; the ancient
Chaldeans were Black. In fact, Africa takes it name from Ophren, a son
of Abraham by his wife, Keturah (Whiston: The Life and Works of Flavius
Josephus p50) Like Jesus, Mary and Joseph, the lineage of Ethiopian
Emperor, Haile Selassie also goes back to Judah -through Solomon/Queen of
Sheba and King David. Roman historian Tacitus wrote that many of his
time believed that the Jews "were a race of Ethiopian origion." The
Bible classifies the Ethiopians & Jews together, "Are ye not as children
of the Ethiopians unto me, O children of Israel? saith the Lord." (Amos
9:7) Black Paul is mistaken for an "Egyptian" and declares himself to be
a "Jew." (Acts 21:37-39, 22: 2,3) That the Jews got their language,
religion & culture from the Canaanites & Sumerians through Babylon, is
well documented by historians. The original ancient Hebrew alphabet was
identical to that of the Phoenicians. "Semitic languages" are really
dialectical variants of African languages.


The word Semite is from semi which means half. Half what? Half BLACK!
(mulatto!) Semite refers to the descendants of Shem, one of Noah's
sons. The word originates from the Latin prefix semi which means half.
"half Black and half white... therefore Black (since Black is genetically
dominant)" points out Dr. Cress Welsing. Historian Cheikh Anta Diop
also points out that the "Semitic" arises in the 4th millennia B.C. from
crossbreeding between Black inhabitants of the holy land and white
northern invaders. While many Semites (such as Jews & gypsies) have
mixed so much with whites that they've forgotten or deny their African
roots, racism (whtie supremacy) will never let them forget this no matter
how light-skinned they become, as proved by Hitler, who mandated their
destruction because they were classified by whites as "non-white" peple
originating in Africa. The very word gypsy means "out of Egypt."


http://www.gravitygroove.com/Knowledge/Africa/Archives/00000003.htm
Unfortunately, the "Blacked out Through Whitewash" is an extremely prejudiced and bigoted site, full of half-truths and twisted perceptions, supposedly in the service of making African Americans feel better about themselves. It has a goal unrelated to truth, and therefore it is happy to spread falsehoods to achieve its aim.

An example of this is its proclamation that Jesus was black, and to "prove" it it shows a bad gif file of a copy of a 6th century Byzantine coin that it says shows Jesus with tight curly hair. Well, not only do we have to take the site's word about the coin, even if it were all true, a coin minted in the 500s can't possibly be an accurate depiction of somebody of whom there were no photos or even drawings made five centuries earlier.

Besides, one does not have to go far in Greco-Roman art to find perfectly Caucasian people with tight, curly hair sculpted or painted. But of course, "BOTWW" doesn't say anything about this. It would destroy their angry and distorted view of the world in which we are all victims of "them."

Take also this tired old claim that "semite" comes from "semi." That's as laughable a lie as exists on the earth. A Hebrew term does not come from the Latin language, since Hebrew is much older than Latin, and "Shem" is a name that existed before the Latins ever thought about Romulus or Remus or did anything with the Tiber except fish out of it. "Semite" comes from the Hebrew name "Shem," not the later Latin word "semi."

Francis Cress Welsing is another example of a crank with a racist axe to grind, and she grinds it with all her might. She says, in her excrable volume "Black Athena," that she despises Freudianism (which she was taught in the university), and then she spends most of her book using Freud's symbolism and imagery to try to prove her point. Trying to be a Rumplestiltskin spinning gold out of straw, she takes the straw of everyday life and maanages only to spin fool's gold out of it. Somehow, whites are so devious that they hide the truth, but they are so stupid that they manifest it everywhere. Apparently she knows about conflicted selves from personal experience.

It's why she is ignored by everybody reputable except to correct her flawed methods. And not much at that, because she's not worth the effort.

The word "gypsy," by the way, is not a name that the people themselves took or used, It was given to them by the British who believed that they were of Egyptian origin (not something that they would do if Egyptians were black). The people themselves can be traced back to Hindu origins, and they called theimselves and their language Romany. Hence the name of the country Romania, which tried to keep Roman laws and ways and language (that's why they have the Latin alphabet, and the Russians not far away have the Cyrillic alphabet).

I'm sorry, sunnubian, but your last post was all wrong. Jews have never been black. Studies of history, culture, language, and genetics all have proven that they are and always have been Mediterranean.

There is a drawing in some texts of four figures, two of which are black, and the two black figures are labeled "Kushite" and "Egyptian." This drawing, supposedly from a tomb of Seti 1, is often adduced as proving that Egyptians were black. The trouble is, it is a well-known 20th-century forgery. About that drawing, here is University of Chicago Egyptologist Frank Joseph Yurco (I have tried to transfer the drawing to here, but I was not able to. My apologies):


Dear Paul,

Those figures in the Lepsius Erganzungsband, pl. 48 are actually not
Lepsius' work, but a re-edition done in 1913, as I showed in my article
in Egypt in Africa (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1997).
To make matters worse, the hieroglyph texts between these figures were
garbled. The original scenes both in Sety I's tomb and in Ramesses III's
tomb showed the Egyptians and the Kushites as distinctly different.
Also, the hieroglyphs on the real walls are distributed between each
of the four figures depicting each type. You can now view the real
photographs of both the Sety I and Ramesses III walls in Hornung's volumes
on the Valley of the Kings. I have been inside both tombs myself and have
seen these scenes and their texts, and on the basis of this, the depiction
in the Erganzungsband is not a real depiction of what is on the walls but
rather a pastische, arranged from Lepsius' notes and garbled in the
process. It is unfortunate that so many people have depended on this
depiction as reality, when a look at the walls in both tombs shows that
patently it is not reality.

Most sincerely,

Frank J. Yurco
University of Chicago

"The original scenes...showed the Egyptians and the Kushites as distinctly different" is an important finding.

As I said, Egyptians were never black. We don't need them to be black. We are good enough with just the truth. Let's stick with that.
Maybe this link is not taking me to the same place that it is taking you, but what I was were very vague pictures that actually do look like black people.

You keep assuming that in the history of the world people of different races did not encounter one another until whenever whatever book that some white "scholar" wrote or "white" archeologist wrote.

Also, as far as what "Egyptians" look like, like I have said before, what the majority of people look like that are there now does not mean that it is what the majority of people looked like that were there thousands of years ago. Just as what the majority of people in North America are now white, it is not because people that look like who the majority of people here now have always looked white; at one time in North America the majority of people were and looked Native American; now that is not the case, and it does not mean that in the past, centuries ago, the majority of people in North America were white then. It is the same with "Egypt," a country in Africa.

Besides, even today a lot of Egyptians that I have see look black to me, in fact I know one man that I see nearly every day that looks like one of my uncles. But then, I really don't know what you believe all black people look like or are supposed to look like. Some people make the mistake of believing that there were no distinct differences in the appearences of different peoples of Africa before interracial relationships and that is not true.

Also, it seems strange to me that you or anyone else would in the first place believe that out of an entire countinent of black people, somehow there were always this one group of people that were not black and that this one group of not black people have been there just as long as the black people. If this is true, then there should be an entire country of black people in Europe, China, North America, South America, etc., that are black and that have been there for as long as the white Europeans, the Chinese, the Native Americans, etc.
_______________________________________

Also,

"I'm sorry, sunnubian, but your last post was all wrong. Jews have never been black. Studies of history, culture, language, and genetics all have proven that they are and always have been Mediterranean."

Well, I guess I should opologize to, but what I have read of the "studies" of history, culture, language, and genetics, have said basically what I posted before. But again, you may be drawing from much later times that I am, you know, because now the majority of Jew "look" white, however, after intermarrying with Europeans for the last 800 years. Side Note: In fact I am much older than you I am sure, and when I was a child Jews were not considered white at all, they were allow to claim to be whites in this country only after the civil rights movement opened doors that forced and end to discrimination also in religon, and to put it brief, from then on Jew began to claim and propagandize that they were being discriminated against because of their "religon" and purposely leaving out race; with America so preoccupied with Blacks and the civil rights movement (and other minorities) and because most of the Civil Rights battles for Jews was waged in the North, before you know it when all is said and done, you could no longer discriminate against anyone in this country because of their religous beliefs as well, and Jews were free fight discrimination on the basis of religon while at the same time, after 800 years of intermarriage/mingling with white Europeans before most of them came here, could check "white" on their applications, etc. and no one would be the wiser, you know kind of like how Black/White mulattos of America that "look" could pass, but in reality where not exactly who the claimed that they were, you in order to survive and thrive in a racist society/world.
sunnubian why don't you ask Melesi to confront the FACTS on the ground which is the reality of several African people in East, Central and West Africa have oral plus traditional history about them being Israelites. My own tribe people go as far as ALWAYS having known the name of God Yahweh which has recently been discovered because the name was deemed to be lost. For many years most Bible Scholars did not know what the name of God was and substituted it as Jehovah. Now it is accepted the real name is Yahweh. How did these Africans know this name? They even associate the name with the thunder and lightening that happened when God descended on Mt. Sinai. You have to ask yourself how would these Africans have known this unless their ancestors were the Israelites that were present when the event took place and the information has been handed down orally over time. What about the fact that they based the PLAN of their shrines on the design of the temple that Solomon built? These Africans who have this history also practiced circumcision as their tradition and other Africans did not just as the Bible describes the difference between the Israelites and the Gentiles.

After considering these facts the interesting thing is the features of these people. They are black and negroid. They look just like the captives in the relief of your link Melesi. Since the relief does not tell us what is actually happening the captives could be israelites. The interesting thing about these Africans is the Israelites were forbidden to marry non Israelites which means that the way they looked is preserved. How they looked then is how they look today. The only thing that could have prevented the preservation is if they suffered a tragedy like slavery which which would rendered them helpless to uphold the taboo of not marrying the Gentiles. We can ALSO say that if they suffered slavery they would have lost their oral history and traditions as we noticed from observing descendants of the people that underwent the triangular slave trade between Africa Europe and the Americas. Because these Africans have maintained their oral and traditional history we can safely conclude they did not suffer the kind of calamity like slavery that would have resulted in them losing their traditions and oral history. That being the case this means they are the same people as their ancestors because they maintained the taboo of not marrying outside of themselves especially the Gentiles who were uncircumcised. Therefore because these Africans with the history are Negroid in their features it helps us to know that the ancient Israelites looked like these descendants we see today in Africa

Incase you find this hard to believe the Songs of Solomon starts with an Israelite woman saying she is a black woman, elsewhere in the Bible she is described as the most beautiful woman in Israel and Solomon killed his own brother for just taking a fancy to her. Knowing you Melesi I would not be surprised that you would say she was one black person and everybody else around her was Mediterranean in appearance by quoting some spurious history.
Most reasonable people however would conclude if she she was the most beautiful woman in Israel according to the Bible account, most beautiful is usually what is seen as beautiful in the community which is usually the general complexion and feature of the people in the community which means most of her people enjoyed the same features as her as well as shared her complexion. In case you fail to understand the logic most races see their own as more beautiful than people of another race or skin complexion.

To make the case worse for you Melesi the Bible talks in other areas talks of the complexion of powerful Angels. These verses are in the Books of Daniel and Revelation. According to the translation you might be using the complexion of these Angels is described as burnished copper or brass which in other words is the colour of a black man.

Based on the FACT that black skin is mentioned regularly in the Bible and every other skin colour IS IGNORED, if you add this to the other fact that the FEATURES of Africans that have history that traces all the way back to ancient Israel, the evidence is overwhelmingly to the conclusion that the Semite Israelites were black people and black people wrote the Bible.

_____________________________
Is it just talk or are you for solutions? If you are GENUINELY interested in solving black problems? Then join us at http://www.theguidedog.com/BlackNation.html
quote:
As I said, Egyptians were never black. We don't need them to be black. We are good enough with just the truth. Let's stick with that.
MELESI,

Back away from the ILLogic!

Unfortunately a lot of this link is under construction but you can find the obvious theme of Egyptians = Black in the forum comments about this book. Perhaps you may want to re-evaluate what you regard as the "TRUTH" on this matter.

Also, would you care to give your opinion on the motivation of this author (like you did about "Blacked out Through Whitewash")??

I would be very interested in your response.
quote:
Egyptians were never black.
BTW, is that statement about making you (and/or) WHITES feel good about themselves?

It certainly seems so... especially when there is such a great body of historical works that contradict your foolishly sweeping statement. "NEVER"?

I guess you have a chronological expose' that shows the racial makeup of Ancient Egypt for all the period noted in 'establish' history that conclusively proves beyond a shadow-of-a-doubt that none of the occupants, official, citizens, elites, laborers, farmers, merchants, etc. were NEVER Black/African.

It's a very simple thing, MELESI.
EGYPT IS IN AFRICA! Not in Europe or the Asian/Eurasian so-called Middle East. It's in Africa. It's just utterly ridiculous to say categorically as you have that Black/Africans have "NEVER" been a part of, much less a significant population - whether social or politically - within an African land.

To speak to SUNNUBIAN'S point about 'racial' population change... Comparatively, we can document significant change here in "America" within say 500 years (to give it a nice round figure) - From Native American dominant.... TO .... European American dominant .... TO .... what will be a mixed society as they predict in 2050 or so when a WHITE majority will cease to be - whereas when it comes to Ancient Egypt you want us to believe that at no time of several thousands of years that a Black/African presence was not significant either as the dominant population in terms of the overall aggregate if not dominant in the governing of the society or a significant 'integrated' population within...

Beyond the "TRUTH" and facts opposed to your view... your implicit logic via your statement, "NEVER", is of course hard to maintain.
sunnubian,

I'm not sure that you're actually reading the posts you're answering. One of the links that I provided is to a medical report that shows that teh genetics of people haven't changed that quickly in our history. Genetic studies in Egypt have shown that, from the time of the predynastic times to today, gene structures have remained very stable, and so far, gene structure and language are closely coupled.

So your thought, that I am relying on information much "later" than yours is wrong. The studies of Egyptian DNA go 'way back to predynastic times.

You appear to be trying to see what you hope to see in pictures. The tomb art definitely shows Egyptians and Africans as different. However, try this:

http://touregypt.net/featurestories/picture04072003.htm

or this, with its picture of Nefretari:

http://touregypt.net/featurestories/picture04072003.htm

Or this one, which looks very much like Rahotep:

http://touregypt.net/featurestories/picture05022003.htm

Or this:

http://web.ukonline.co.uk/gavin.egypt/index.htm

or this:

http://213.9.4.90/shop/

Only one of the three looks like the person could have been black African.

Or this:

http://academic.memphis.edu/egypt/9.htm

Or this:

http://www.hermitagemuseum.org/html_En/03/hm3_5_2b.html

Were there black Africans in Egypt? Of course there were--farther south, and some in the north. But the genetics of ancient Egyptians and the genetics of, say, Nubians and Ethiopians was sufficiently different to make them different peoples.

The two kingdoms of Upper and Lower Egypt were united by war and conquest (so even if they were black African, we still were a warlike people from the first) by Narmer. Before that they were, well, different places with different people in them. Even their technology was different. The boats that each used were different, for example. Boats of the south had low bows and were partly made of wood. The boats of the north had high bows--like those of the Sumerians (a connection? Or just the best way to build a papyrus boat?)--and were made of papyrus. After the uniting of the kingdoms, the styles more or less melded, but never completely, and for many centuries the dialects, customs, interests, and religious symbols of Lower Egypt were different from that of southern Egypt.

Try this:

http://www.kilidavid.com/Ancient_Civ/Pages/Ancient_Egypt.htm

This is a timeline not quite easy to read, but if you do it will show that, while people lived in Egypt from 100,000 years ago, the post-Ice Age floods of the Nile wiped just about everybody out and kept people in the south from entering the land. Those who did enter the land came in from the north and east. By the time that we get to a tamer Nile and the possibility of trafficking between Upper and Lower Egypt (between 7000 and 12,000 years ago), it was already settled by a Middle Eastern people who are teh Egyptians of the high civilization that we find so fascinating today.

This link,

http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/prehistory/egypt/dailylife/nubiaandegypt.html

says that Nubia and Kush were separate from Egypt in that time. These southerners were darker than the northerners, and there was war between Egypt and Kushand Egypt and Nubia from time to time.

Now, this does not mean that Egypt did not have black Africans in it. Especially after the uniting of the two kingdoms into Upper and Lower Egypt there were black Africans in Egypt. But the majority of the ruling and educated classes, and the majority of the people in the north, were Mediterranean.
Henry,

Please do not be too dogmatic about tentative conclusions, or at least conclusions that have a range of possible, even probable meanings.

That passage in the Song of Solomon does not necessarily say what you seem to want it to say. Song 1:5,6 (you have to read both verses) says,

"I am black and beautiful" or just as easily, "black but beautiful." In fact, teh latter reading is probably preferred because of the next verse: "Do not stare at me because I am black," which means that she is not the common color of women in Israel. Do not quote too little in your exegesis. It'll be wrong every time, as it most likely was there.

Your treatment of angels' color is not good, either, for you cannot use a vision--as you apparently referred to even though you still do not show the references that you keep saying are easy to find and abundant--as teaching a physical truth. The description of angels in Daniel and Revelation are descriptions, not of angels, but of visions of angels, and the appearance of them in visions is symbolic, not real. The symbol is of light and power, not color.

Just how often is skin color mentioned in the Bible? Such a scholar as yourself should not have any trouble with that question. I can tell you how often the owrd "black" is used in the Bible: 17 times. It doesn't appear in Jer. 14:2. The King James has Jer 14:2 as using the word "black" but that was an interpolation on the part of the translators to describe the effects of a drought. Of those 17 times, four of them use the word to describe skin color, and of those four, two of them describe an unnatural skin condition, brought on by strees and calamity: Job 30:30 and Lamentations 5:10. The NIV uses the word "hot" here in Lam. instead of "black," and the meaning is right, but the actual word used is "black."

So twice does the Bible speak of black skin, nad both times it's in the Song of Solomon. This is "regularly"?

Where else?

So, no, your argument is flawed through misunderstanding. You do not come anywhere close to proving that the Bible shows that Israel was originally black. You can't even show that it was probable.
Like implyed before, you drawing all of you conclusions on information, history and books (including now, the Bible) on what has been written and so called concluded by racially biased "Western" writers of what people usually rely on for their sources of information and truth.
There are actually "Egyptian" Egyptian Scholars that give a view of Ancient Egypt that reflects what I have inferred.
And last, but not least, don't even you think it strange that out of all of the continents in the world, until inter-continental travels by any so called race of people, that each and every one of them only had there perspective race of people populating their continent, except Africa; that anyone would believe that Africa, unlike any other continent, would be the only continent to have always been inhabited by a totally separate race of people? That is where lies the lies.
I know that at one time in history other races of people migrated to Africa and that these people settled and populated specific parts, such as Egypt and how it came that out of all of the "countries" in Africa, only "Egypt" and the so called "Middle East" and "Isreal" would come to be populated by peoples other than Africans, to the point of EVENTUALLY BECOMING the dominant population.
And still you look to the very people who are responsible for the world's negative, ignorant and racist misonceptions of the Africans as your only source(s) of reference.

And, I have to add that at first I thought you a person who merely wanted intellectual debate on conflicting view points, but now I must say that you appear to me to be a young white person with tunnel vison when it comes to how you will and will ever perceive Africans throughout the world, the Achievements of Africans throught the world, and last but surely not least the TRUE HISTORY OF ARICA AND AFRICAN IN AFRICA AND THROUGH OUT THE WORLD; you can't help it, you cannot see it any other way. So, as in if a person is color blind and they never will be able to see the brillance of color red, I, on the other hand being a person that is not color blind, and can not only see the brillance of the color red, but the many varying shades, should not expect you the have what it take, the ability, to see the TRUTH ABOUT THE COLOR RED
Also, do you honestly believe that I or no other black person has seen Egypt, or Egyptians, or Egyptian Hierogyphics, Mummies, Art, Artifacts, Statutes, and on and on?
I have and what I see is black faces, black bone structure, full lips, wide noses, brown to black skin, nappy hair, braids, the same as what Africans and African American do today, even down to statues and drawing of little girls (or boys) with the two little nappy pig tails that you often see on little black girls today that have short hair.
So, I am also drawing from what I have seen with my own eyes and information that I have studied written by unbiased Egyptian, African and Western writers.
quote:
Sunnubian addresses MELESI:

"... at first I thought you a person who merely wanted intellectual debate on conflicting view points, but now I must say that you appear to me to be a young white person with tunnel vision when it comes to how you will and will ever perceive Africans throughout the world, the Achievements of Africans throught the world, and last but surely not least the TRUE HISTORY OF ARICA AND AFRICAN IN AFRICA AND THROUGH OUT THE WORLD; you can't help it, you cannot see it any other way."
Sunnubian, that's exactly Melesi's *pretense*. Try to *act* like he's about honest, truthful debate (much less try to pretend to be Black) when he has no intention on doing anything but advancing his view as "gospel".

You will notice that he apparently will no longer respond to any of my posts. I guess he doesn't like my style! winkgrin

See, I have no time for BS *pretenses*.
[1] If you are not Black then don't pretend to be Black. That is to say you identify yourself and your biases.
[2] Closely related... the *pretense* of offering and unbiased opinion or "facts" when one is forwarding one's own personal opinion.

I could go down the line... Suffice it to say that Melesi is "Mr. Pretense". He pretends to be objective, when he is not. He pretends to be logical when he is not. etc. etc. Worse of all, he thinks that by a certain tenor or tone of his post that he is cloaking those obvious Pink Elephant PRETENSES...

If you want to respond, Melesi...

Look at my {{ www.richardpoe.com }}... oh and stop selectively picking from selectively picked pictures... I could go to a number of "Afrocentric" websites and find plenty of Africoid pictures.
sunnubian,

OK, show me one instance of a racially-based conclusion about Egypt from the links or the sources that I gave you.

If you can't do so, then you have no right to accuse them of racism or prejudice. You're simply calling them racist because they don't agree with you. That's a cheap shot and false on its face.

So show me where they are racist.

It is not true that the only continent that has had different peoples on it is Africa. This shows that you have much to learn. If you had been a student of history you'd know that the ancients knew that other continents had different peoples on them. In fact, Strabo (often misquoted to say that Egyptians were black) says that the peoples of India were as different as the "Ethiopians" and the "Egyptians."

You'll find that comment in section 14 of this website:

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/strabo-geog-book15-india.html

And just where is the dividing line between the slavs and the asians across northern Eurasia? The peoples change gradually from the very fair and slavic gradually to the darker and more Mongolian as you travel eastward. There, too, is a continent with different peoples on it.

Even before the white man came to America the peoples were different from North America to South, and there was no line between them. They were all Indians, but they were very different Indians.

You are too short-sighted in your history and geography. Look around you more and you'll see more. What did Yogi Berra say? "You can see a lot just by lookin'"

If you had paid attention to what I said, you'd know that the rise of different peoples on the African continent was caused by catastrophe. The Ice Age changed habitat and therefore habitation, the melting of the glaciers killed a lot of the people in Lower Egypt and kept Upper Egypt peoples from moving back into the delta area, but it didn't block people from the north and east from moving in, so they did.

That's how that happened. It's all quite natural and understandable.

Now, instead of committing the genetic fallacy (they are white, so don't listen to them)--and doing it in a racially prejudiced way, to boot--why don't you say something constructive and point out where the information that I gave you is wrong?
Sorry, the quote from Strabo is in section 13 of that webpage, not section 14.

And, sunnubian, I, too have seen mummies, and I have seen quite a number of them that were not black. I have spoken with archeologists who have performed microscopic tests on their hair and found that the elites tended to have hair that was straight or wavy, not curly or nappy.

It wasn't black African hair.

What you "saw" was one thing--and I agree with you, there are black mummies, I've seen them, too--but what has been found by examination has been quite another. Most of the royals and priests were not black. They were Mediterranean.
You are basically proving my point with some of your response. What I am trying to say is exactly that, that people did migrate to Africa that were not African at one point in history and remained, however, that they were never always there; So, you are drawing all of your conclusions from the period of "Egyptian" history/archeology after and when it had become predominately the race of peoples that are there now; I, on the other hand, am drawing my conclusions from before that time, before it had became predominately the race that is there now, but was still predominately Black.
And I know that the "Egyptians" there NOW predominately are NOT black, or at least pure black predominately; however, they are the result of the racial mix of African/Asian/European, i.e., a race of mulattos.
quote:
Originally posted by Melesi:
Sorry, the quote from Strabo is in section 13 of that webpage, not section 14.

"And, sunnubian, I, too have seen mummies, and I have seen quite a number of them that were not black. I have spoken with archeologists who have performed microscopic tests on their hair and found that the elites tended to have hair that was straight or wavy, not curly or nappy."


It wasn't black African hair."
____________________________
But it is funney how a large percentage of them living today have exactly that type of hair. Also, I doubt that you really even know exactly what "black" hair is, consists of and the many textures of it (with or without racial mixtures).
And, those were the archeologists that you spoke with and if that is what you were told, then they can only go by what they have uncovered, actually seen, etc., maybe those particular archeologists did not uncover, study, or experiment on mummies, etc. from any other Egyptian era(s) other than the era(s) of when that may have been true because the era of their research, etc. is when Egypt is no longer predominately black.
___________________________________________
What you "saw" was one thing--and I agree with you, there are black mummies, I've seen them, too--but what has been found by examination has been quite another. Most of the royals and priests were not black. They were Mediterranean.




The above statement and statements like, "the elites tended to have hair that was straight or wavy, not curly or nappy", really lets one know exactly where you are truly coming from. You are merely one of the many whites in this world, particularly in America that constantly try to discredit any evidence of Black Africa being the cradle of civilization, science, medicine, religon; just cannot deal with the fact that Africa was never always and/or totally the backwards, uncivilized continent of heathens until "other races" of people came there and "taught" them something.
Other peoples/races migrated to Africa and learned something, many, many things and spread civilization throughout the rest of the world, and racists do not want the world to know the truth and other people just are ignorant to the truth.
"statements like, "the elites tended to have hair that was straight or wavy, not curly or nappy"
___________________________ You keep obviously implying that only the Black African were on the botton of the totem pole-always in this country and that is not true.
Further proof of what you are really trying to do; why you are trying so diligently to disprove any evidence of Black African contribution to the world and/or to the most magnificent accomplishments of man or era long past.
Nmaginate,

"Sunnubian, that's exactly Melesi's *pretense*. Try to *act* like he's about honest, truthful debate (much less try to pretend to be Black) when he has no intention on doing anything but advancing his view as "gospel".
________________________________


This is exactly what I am getting from Melesi's post. It seems that the only time Melesi's posts is to dispute any evidence of African greatness or presence or any evidence of the whitewash of history and/or the Bible.
Why? Because it's true, and there are plenty of people who are trying to get us to beleive what isn't true. It doesn't matter if the person is a white or a black, if he's trying to gt us to believe a lie, then he's no better than a KKK racist. That's what they did. That's what Darkwa, Cressing, Farrakhan and their ilk are doing.

If we rely on lies for our place and our pride, we are a ptiful laughing-stock and not a proud people. A proud, secure people doesn't need lies. They rely on the truth and are satisfied with that.

This just happens to be the truth. I'm not trying to disprove anything except that which is not true.

Read this. It's from the PBS series, "Secrets of the Pharaohs," the second episode:

"NARRATOR: But in order to figure out the significance of the pyramids to later generations, the archaeologists still had to find out who the builders had been. Zahi turned back to the tombs, looking for the missing links that would definitively establish who these people were, where they were from, and what had motivated them to take part in this massive project. These questions hold great cultural significance for modern Egyptians, who have had to endure many bizarre theories about who built their most precious national treasures.

DR. ZAHI HAWASS (EGYPTIAN UNDERSECRETARY, GIZA MONUMENTS): It's very important to know that they were Egyptians. They were not people who came out of the space. They were not came from lost civilizations as we hear these days many stories that do not really have any truth in them at all.

NARRATOR: But would the bones support Zahi's contention that the workforce was Egyptian? Before the discoveries at Giza, scientists in Cairo had been analyzing the DNA of modern Egyptians. Now, they had managed to successfully extract DNA from the ancient bones. A genetic comparison would be able to establish whether a relationship existed. The results were definitive.

DR. MOAMENA KAMEL (IMMUNOLOGIST, CAIRO UNIVERSITY): People who are living here, they are the same as the people who had been living 6000 years ago. OK? And now the moderns are the descendants of these ancient Egyptians.

NARRATOR: The DNA confirmed a close relationship between the modern Egyptians living in the Nile Valley and the ancient workers who had been buried there. For Zahi, this was an extremely significant find.

ZAHI HAWASS: It proves -- for no doubt -- that the builders of the pyramids were Egyptians. And you know, if they were not Egyptians, they would not have been buried here. They would never be buried in the same method of the ancient Egyptians. You do not have any doubt to tell us that those people are Egyptians at all. They were Egyptian by blood."

Didn't you say that there are "Egyptian" Egyptian scholars who support your argument? Well, here is one who does not, and the science supports him.

Ergo, it seems resonable to conclude that the people who built the pyramids were a Mediterranean people. That's not a biased opinion. It is a conclusion founded on fact.

This is not your point. You say that Egypt was African, but Egypt in any meaningful use of the term was Mediterranean. Long before there was an "Egypt" the original African inhabitants of the land were wiped out by flood. Those who replaced them were Mediterranean and they are the ones who built the civilization that we know today as Egypt. By blood and by culture they were Mediterranean, starting from about 10,000 years ago. Before then the people could be considered African, but that was long before anything like an Egyptian civilization was built.

Therefore, Egypt has never been African.

Sunnubian, will you stop it with the racial attacks already? YOu tend to assume on the basis of very scanty evidence, and the evidence that you use to assign to me a color is only our disagreement. 'You do not support'--whatever that means--black pride and our version of history, therefore you are not black" is what you say to me. That's not logic, reason, or true.

Stick with what you know, ok, and not with what you wish to be true.

Ancient Egypt was a heavily centralized and rigidly classed system and society. There were elites. The pharaohs married their sisters, for pete's sake. The knowledge of writing was jealously guarded by the priests and leaders, for writing was power, and they did not want to share their power. Don't blame me for mentioning the "elites" of Egypt. They're the ones who structured their society like that.

They had slaves, and they used not just foreigners as slaves but their own people, too. They could build those monumental tombs because they had really cheap labor. They used their people as machines. This you want to see as good? You'd think with our history in this country that we'd be a little more sensitive to our ancestors being slaves, but maybe since it's several thousand years ago and one of the greatest civilizations on earth, that that makes it OK? I don't think so. So wake up and see them for what they were: humans, and Mediterranean humans at that.

To disprove a lie does not belittle any people who live by the truth. I would rather be green and unknown and live by the truth than to manufacture a legend about being related to Egyptians--which everybody who bothers to check will find out isn't true--and live a lie.
They are not racial attacks, in order for me to mean it as a "racial attack," first, I would have to believe that there is something wrong with being a "young white person," which I do not.

This last post prove nothing; that the people living today have the same or closely the same DNA as the people that were there 6,000 years ago? So, why wouldn't they since they DNA probable tested positive to be a mixture of African/Asian/European coming about in the 6000 years tested.
And like I said, Africa could not possibly be the only continent in the world to have always had an entirely separate race of people ALWAYS living there side by side for as long as Black Africans have live there in Africa---its rediculous to even believe that. To believe that Egypt was never all Black, is like believing that Puerto Rico was never at one time all Puerto Ricon or that or that China, at one time was never all Chinese or that that the ocean at one time never was void of boats.
Hi Sun Nubian, just stopped by to post a article and boy was I surprised at how you all flushed out that white deceiver and showed it up for what it is.

This is hiliarious. Big Grin You all worked this white maggot till it forgot to hide it's obvious white racist deceiver nature. 'They're not black, they're not black' screeches this effeminate he/bitch which has no trace of masculinity to it's lying, deceiving, CAUGHT BIG-TIME CARCASS. Big Grin

Whoa! Glad I came back for a visit......a white maggot deceiver got passionately loss in presenting white demon propaganda and decrying Black that it forgot to feign blackness. The cheap, filthy, black man lusting, he/bitch. Melesi slither your andronicus caught ass on back over to your white male lover and skeedaddle for you have been played.


Hat's off to the Black with the power to break the maggot deceiving, lying NO ACCOUNT FOOL MELESI... "Man?!" Ha! This he/bitch got more feminine hormones in it than women. Man?! Yeah, right, what kidders you guys are.....that's a good one! Big Grin

Oh, oh, oh, I loved how the ilk swore with paw raised to its true god satan that 'ALL BLACK SCHOLARS ARE LYING BUT ALL WHITE PROVEN LIARS ARE TRUTHFUL'....lmbao!

Oh, people you worked that slime and lo and behold but little old me, come a visiting get to be eyewitness to a sizzled, white demon liar like melesi BUSTED BIG TIME.


This is all so sidesplitting funny 'NO JEW WAS BLACK? Oh really? Not even MOSES AND ZIPPORAH THE ETHIOPIAN WOMAN'S DESCENDANTS who bore tribes of black/african hebrew descendants that were of the Levitical/priesthood? (Numbers 12; 1 Chronicle 24:7). What about the ones married to PHILISTINES OF ASHDOD, ETHIOPIANS, CANAANITES all listed as BLACK DESCENDANTS OF HAM/KAM (Nehemiah 13:3; Ezra 2:7)? Oh, yeah, right, that was a kicker that one was.....whew!

Sun Nubian, by the way, here's what the RACIST GREEKS who were eyewitnesses to the BLAAAAAAAAACK, SO BEAUTIFULLLLY BLAAAAAAACK EGYPTIANS wrote about EGYPTIANS BLACK APPEARANCE.


"The Colchians, Ethiopians and Egyptians have thick lips,
broad nose, woolly hair and they are burnt of skin."
-- Herodotus, 450 BC

http://www.freemaninstitute.com/RTGhistory.htm

Oh, and let us not forget what TACITUS THAT ROMAN HISTORIAN wrote, 'The JEWS OF 90 AD and abounding in EUROPE were called ETHIOPIANS.' Now mind you, that's 90 years after the death of Black Jesus. If they were Black after his death it's for darn sure they were ETHIOPIAN/BLACK LOOKING PRIOR to his death. Well, that's obvious to those with common sense of which WHITE BUSTED MELE MOUSE has repeatedly shown 'IT's' WHITE CAUGHT DECEIVING CARCASS does not possess.
================================================

The Ethnicity of the Egyptians is the key to understanding the Blackness of the Hebrews and surrounding nations.

The genealogical chart in Genesis 10 lists Ham/Khem as the father of Africans and from Africans came Egypt, Babylon, Persia, Kushites/Nubians. The proper word Khem/Kam means Black. These intermarried with the Hebrews and so produce the Hebrew nation of Israel.

That is the Jewish line itself was that of Black/African Canaanite woman named Tamar (Genesis 38:1-5),

The Canaanites were descendants of Ham/Khem (Gen. 10:6). Again, the word means Black.

Abraham beget the Arab line through an Egyptian woman Hagar. She then picked a Egyptian wife for her son Ishmael who would father the original Black/African Arabs (Genesis 16; 21:21). The original arabs were Black/African.

The Egyptians are identified in the Bible as Hamites/Khemites (Psalm 106:21-22; 78:51; 105:27).

Scripture states, "Israel sojourned in Egypt the land of HAM/KHEM' Psalm 78:51.

The establishment of the Hebrew nation is told in the Pentateuch or first five books of the Bible also called the Torah. Throughout the first five books we see Hebrews intermarrying with Black/African Egyptians, Canaanites, Kushites all listed under descendants of HAM/KHEM (Genesis 10:6).

The Israelites went down into Black/Egypt a total of 70 and came out a MIXED MULTITUDE OF OVER 600.000 (Ex. 1:5; 12:37-38).

That mixed multitude consisted of marrying the Black/Egyptians and other Hamite/Khemite blacks that dwelt amidst them. Leviticus verifies that Black/Egyptians were they who the Hebrews married in that we have a black Hebrew woman married to a Egyptian man (Leviticus 24:10).

So verifying that the Hebrews were African/Kushite in stock, color, appearance.

The Hebrews were commanded 'not to abhor the Black/Egyptians' and of course Moses was trained in the wisdom of the Egyptians (Deut. 23:7; Acts 7:22).
Also, you have Joseph marrying the High an Egyptian woman by the name of Zaphenath-paneah. Her father was high priest of the Egyptian city On. His name was Poti-phera (Gen. 41:45).

These had 2 sons, Ephraim and Mannasah (Gen. 41:50-52). These became two tribes of Israel. So again showing Black/African Hamite/Khemite stock in color and appearance.

Okay, this leads to the crucial key to the identity of the BLACK HEBREWS. Joseph is the KEY FACTOR. Joseph, is sold out by his brothers and through a series of events becomes governer over Egypt (Genesis 41). His brothers come to by grain and they do not recognize their brother and describe him as a BLACK/AFRICAN EGYPTIAN by reason of their inability to recognize him as their brother. Now, if they were any other color but BLACK/AFRICAN Joseph would have stood out like a beacon light. Indeed, it is the Bible that tells us that his brothers had to examine him closely to see that he was not a BLACK/AFRICAN EGYPTAIN but a BLACK/AFRICAN HEBREW (Gensis 45:1-7).

As well, Moses was described by the intelligent daughters of Jethro as a 'BLACK/EGYPTIAN (Ex. 2:19). The Midianites were also Ethiopians (Numbers 12:1). Zipporah the BLACK/ETHIOPIAN WOMAN had 2 sons by Moses Gershom and Eliezer (Ex. 2:21; 18:4). These were incorporated in the Levitical line and they were Black/AFrican Khemite/Semite which as shown one had to examine closely to know the difference (1 Chr. 23:15).

Now, the sons of Japheth of whom whites identify themselves as and the dictionary defines as rising up and establishing Greece, Rome, and part of Mede were scattered and besides that only 2 of the 7 sons had descendants, that totaled 7 (Gen. 10:2-5) History tells us these were separated from Ham and Shem and went to dwell in the Caucasas mountains. They were the original barbarian and savage, isolated and non-productive.

Whereas, as shown Ham and Shem were intermarrying and the Hamites were dominant above Shem and Japheth. The Hamites created and inhabited Egypt, Sumeria, Babylon, Persia, Nubia and a host of Canaanite lands (Genesis 10:5-20).

David married the Black/African Kushite woman Bath sheba. Bath Sheba means Daughter of Sheba. Sheba is listed under the Hamites/Khemites i(Genesis 10:7).

Oh, JOSHUA SON OF NUN was a descendant of EPHRAIM who was Joseph's son by his Black/African wife Asenath (2 Sam. 11:3-12:24). BATHSHEBA was the AFRICAN/KUSHITE MOTHER OF SOLOMON THE WISEST MAN TO EVER LIVE ( 2 Sam. 12:24). She also had a still born son of David.

Solomon married a Pharoah of his era's Black/AFrican Egyptian daughter and built her a grand palace (1 Ki. 3:1;7:8).

In fact, the Bible tells us that the Black/Israelites continue to marry Black/AFrican Phillistines, Egyptians, Ethiopians, Kushites, Nubians, all throughout their history (Neh. 13:23; Ezra 2:4-7).

So we see, there is Biblical proof of the Black origin of the Hebrews/Israelite/Jews of the Bible.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The Colchians, Ethiopians and Egyptians have thick lips,
broad nose, woolly hair and they are burnt of skin."
-- Herodotus, 450 BC

http://www.freemaninstitute.com/RTGhistory.htm

Oh, and let us not forget that TACITUS THAT ROMAN HISTORIAN wrote, 'The JEWS OF 90 AD and abounding in EUROPE were called ETHIOPIANS' Now mind you, that's 90 years after the death of Black Jesus. If they were Black after his death it's for darn sure they were ETHIOPIAN/BLACK LOOKING PRIOR to his death. Well, that's obvious to those with common sense of which WHITE BUSTED MELE MOUSE has repeatedly shown 'IT's' WHITE CAUGHT DECEIVING CARCASS does not possess.



Return To Glory: The Powerful Stirring of the Black Man

In many sectors there seems to be some controversy about the racial make-up of the Egyptian people, i.e. whether they were White or Black. This is a simplistic approach to a much more complicated set of circumstances since Egypt's strategic location brought people in from the south with Nubian and equatorial African influence and from the northern coast of Africa and the Middle East with Afro-Mediterranean and Semitic influences. The Biblical record places Egypt among the "Black" countries. Melanin dosage tests of mummified remains (controversial due to damage caused by the embalming process) seem to indicate a level of melanocytes consistent with a people of a semi tropical to temperate climate zone.

Egypt continues to dominate the focus of our African oriented studies. These studies have clearly demonstrated that not only were early Egypt's origins African, but that through the whole of Egypt's Dynastic Era (the age of the Pharaohs), and during all of her many periods of national splendor, men and women with black skin complexions, broad noses, full lips, and tightly curled hair, were dominant in both the general population and governing elite.

In the intense and unrelenting struggle to establish scientifically the African foundations of Egyptian civilization, the late Senegalese scholar Dr. Cheikh Anta Diop remains a most fierce and ardent champion. Dr. Diop (1923-1986) was without a doubt one of the world's leading Egyptologist and held the position of Director of the Radiocarbon Laboratory at the Fundamental Institute of Black Africa in Dakar, Senegal. In stating the importance of the work, Diop noted emphatically and early on that, "The history of Black Africa will remain suspended in air and cannot be written correctly until African historians dare to connect it with the history of Egypt."

The solid range of methodologies employed by Dr. Diop in the course of his extensive Afro-Egyptian labors included: examinations of the epidermis of the mummies of Egyptian kings for verification of their melanin content; precise osteological measurements and meticulous studies in the various relevant areas of anatomy and physical anthropology; careful examinations and comparisons of modern Upper Egyptian and West African blood-types; detailed Afro-Egyptian linguistic studies and the corroboration of distinct Afro-Egyptian cultural traits; documents of racial designations employed by the early Africans themselves; Biblical testimonies and references that address the ancient Egyptian's ethnicity, race and culture; and the writings of early Greek and Roman travelers and scholars describing the physical characteristics of the ancient Egyptians.

The original Egyptians were unmixed pure black folks. When they were at the pinnacle of their glory they were not a mixed group by any means. During the middle dynasties especially (and later) when people migrated to this great land there was some intermarrying. This is natural and doesn't need to be debated. It was even done within royalty lines at times to solidify alliances, which was a common practice between powers during that period of history. Chancellor Williams refers to this phenomenon in his book "The Destruction of Black Civilization." And frankly, he theorizes that this mixing was part of the reason for the fall of Black Civilization. Nevertheless, there was never so much of this that at any time the ancient Egyptians could ever be classified as other than a black people.

It's reasonable to say that Egypt was a gateway for the meeting and interchange of goods, ideas, and people; and that the Egyptians were themselves a unique __expression of human strength, beauty, intelligence and diversification. Ancient Egypt was an African civilization. It is also interesting to note that the Biblical record states "Israel also came into Egypt...the land of Ham." (Psalm 105: 23).

Plus we need to be reminded that Egypt is in Africa (not the Middle East) and that all of the Pharaohs (up to and including the 25th Dynasty) would have been required to "sit at the back of a bus" in the 1940s in Montgomery Alabama. Let's allow the pictures to speak for themselves...Ready?
================================================

Oh, and just so we can get a PEEK SEE at the TRUTH click on the following links to see the un-mistakably, CLEARLY DEFINED BLACK/AFRICAN/EGYPTIAN IMAGES...Enjoy and tootaloo now

http://www.freemaninstitute.com/Gallery/RTGpix1.htm

http://www.freemaninstitute.com/Gallery/RTGpix2.htm

http://www.freemaninstitute.com/Gallery/RTGpix3.htm

http://www.freemaninstitute.com/Gallery/RTGpix4.htm

http://www.freemaninstitute.com/Gallery/RTGpix5.htm

http://www.freemaninstitute.com/Gallery/RTGpix6.htm

http://www.freemaninstitute.com/Gallery/RTGpix7.htm

http://www.freemaninstitute.com/Gallery/RTGpix8.htm



=================================================================

The Lemba: The Black Jews of Southern Africa
Badagry, Nigeria -- Slave Trade History

Historical Introduction

Over 2,700 years ago, the Assyrians exiled the ten tribes of the Kingdom of Israel. "In the ninth year of Hoshea, the king of Assyria captured Samaria and he carried them away to Assyria and placed them in Halah, and on the Habor, the river of Gozan, and in the cities of Medes." In the years 722-721 BC (over 2700 years ago), the Ten Tribes who comprised the northern Kingdom of Israel disappeared. Conquered by the Assyrian King Shalmaneser V, they were exiled to upper Mesopotamia and Medes, today modern Syria and Iraq. The Ten Tribes of Israel have never been seen since. Or have they?

*****************************************

Tudor Parfitt, the protagonist of the NOVA documentary "Lost Tribes of Israel," made a journey through southern Africa to study the unusual traditions of a black African tribe called the Lemba. This Bantu-speaking group claimed Jewish ancestry and observed many Semitic traditions such as kosher-like dietary restrictions and slaughter practices, male circumcision rites, strict rules against intermarriage, and Semitic-sounding clan names.

Once described as "a sort of British Indiana Jones," Parfitt spent many months with the Lemba, meeting their tribal and religious leaders and observing some of their most sacred rituals. He came to the conclusion that the origin of many of the Lemba traditions was indeed Semitic, not African. But whether these traditions came from Islamic or Jewish sources was impossible to discern from the historical and anthropological evidence available. It would take Y-chromosome studies to delve deeper into this question of origin.

A few years after his travels, Parfitt teamed up with a group from The Center for Genetic Anthropology at University College London to look for a genetic counterpart to the Lemba's oral tradition of Jewish descent. Using a relatively new technique in genetic studies, the team identified a particular series of genetic markers on the Y chromosome of Lemba males. They then compared these markers to other groups with whom the Lemba might have shared a common ancestor long ago.

The team collected DNA samples from Bantu (African), Yemeni (Arab), and Sephardic Jews and Azhkenazi Jews (including Cohanim from both communities) to compare the amount of similarity that existed between each of these groups. As we've seen, the more similar the Y chromosome, the more closely related are some individuals in the different groups to a common paternal ancestor. As a consequence, one can establish links between populations.



In an interview with NOVA, team member Dr. David Goldstein commented on the team's findings: "The first striking thing about the Y chromosomes of the Lemba is that you find this particular chromosomal type (Cohen modal haplotype) that is characteristic of the Jewish priesthood in a frequency that is similar to what you see in major Jewish populations. Something just under one out of every 10 Lemba that we looked at had this particular Y chromosomal type that appears to be a signature of Jewish ancestry. Perhaps even more striking is the fact that this Cohen genetic signature is strongly associated with a particular clan in the Lemba. Most of the Cohen modal haplotypes that we observe are carried by individuals of the Buba clan which, in Lemba oral tradition, had a leadership role in bringing the Lemba out of Israel."

What this study shows is that the Lemba, and more specifically some members of the Buba sub-clan, seem to have an ancestral connection to Judaic populations. Like an oral history, but written in the letters of their DNA, the Lemba Y chromosome hands from father to son a living record of the past.


================================================
B L A C K B L O O D I N I S R A E L?

* Genesis 12:16 – Not only Hagar, but many of Abraham's servants were gifts from
Pharaoh and in this period it is fairly likely that many were Nubians. (approx. 1921 BC)
* Genesis 13: 6-8 – Abraham had a large number of herdsmen and 318 male servants who
were born into his house.
* Genesis 25 – Isaac, Abraham's son and then Jacob inherited everything.
* Genesis41:50 – Joseph fathered two tribes, Ephraim and Manasseh, by an Egyptian wife,
automatically making Israel nearly 10 percent Egyptian. Joshua was from one of these
half-African tribes, Ephraim; in later years this tribe became so dominant that the
northern tribes of Israel were sometimes simply called "Ephraim". When the Israelites
were subjected to slavery under the Egyptians, they and their former servants were now
all defined as Israel together; this means that much intermarriage must have taken
place.

* Exodus 12:38 – After 400 years, a "mixed multitude" left Egypt during the Exodus.


================================================
http://www.freemaninstitute.com/Gallery/lemba.htm
===================================================================
PROPRIEITY: Black History for Buddhists, Christians & Muslims

by John L. Ellis, M.B.A.

Part 1: Fraud

The contributions of black people as a whole to modern and ancient civilization are so profound and fundamental that a very strong case could be made in favor of their proprietorship In regards to all of the worlds sciences, arts and philosophies, One reason this is not a widely known fact is the long held tradition among modern western scholars which distort the facts with racist, anti"‘Black interpretation. In order to perpetrate these falsifications, they are obliged to ignore the ancient historical Greek scholars such as Pliny, Erastothenes, Plutarch, Diadorus and Herodotus. In fact nearly all ancient Greek and Roman historians give a record that is quite at odds with the falsifications of western scholars of today. They have to ignore the archaeological and anthropological evidence of the Sphinx and the pyramids in addition to the works of Dr. Leaky and Dr, Diop. In addition, whenever advantageous to do so, they confuse the ethnicity of ancient peoples, for example; promoting that ancient Egyptians are white and that Egypt is in the Middle East as opposed to being in Africa, Objective observation of all the evidence indicates that we are dealing with the most monstrous falsification in the history all humanity which leads to the single most tragic event in history, the destruction of Black civilization, Continued misrepresentation regarding true African history will eventually plummet, et the entire planet into a conflict between the races. This is because it is out right slanderous for anyone to think of Blacks the ancestral source of all humanity, as inferior in any way.



Archaeologists have found the oldest form of writing known to man in Africa. Throughout the ancient city of Meroe, all of the temples, pyramids and monuments are covered with African languages older than anything extant. However, based on groundless assertions, modern scholars give credit to Asians for the invention of writing.



If you start history of the fall of the Roman Empire, you eliminate 4,000 years of the greatest parts of Black civilization. If you name each period after the invading occupants of Africa, then you obliterate blackness as being of any significant historical import. These and other policies are utilized by the American Historical Association and similar such organizations, For example: They list Period I. as 700 A.D. to 1500 A.D. (what happened to pre 700?), Period II becomes Islamic Civilization, Period III becomes European Civilization and Period IV is Colonialism, in other words, according to them, there is no Black Civilization in African History.



Throughout the western scholastic world; black Pharaohs become white or Asiatic, the Black population of Egypt is never counted as Egyptian, white kings of lower are presented as Pharaohs of all Egypt, African names are replaced with European, Arab or Asian and Hammites and Cushites are presented as white, when they are obviously Black. Millions of blacks become non African and Egypt becomes white with the stroke of a pen. An additional tactic involved strategically occupying the coastal locations in order to isolate the blacks from the rest of the world. Non"‘Blacks were then able to effectively claim all great black achievements as their own. The fact is, Egypt was a civilized slate for over 10,000 years when the Persians first invaded in 525 B.C. followed by the Macedonians, the Romans, the Arabs, the Turks, and England. All of these people were barbarians when they entered Africa as compared to the heights of civilization African cultures had already attained.
Part II. Ethnicity

A very important point to remember is that Asians are not native to ancient Africa, The appearance of Arab-Asian people in Africa is due to their role as invaders, plunderers and usurpers. In this context, Asian imperialism was for mare devastating in Africa than either that of Europe or America. There is an enormous amount of evidence which shows that ancient Egypt was owned, ruled and inhabited by blacks. In an attempt to deny the Black origins of humanity, modern scholars try to attribute the high level of civilization of ancient Egypt to the "external influence" represented by contact with Asians! This is racist propaganda at the highest level because there is absolutely no foundation what so ever to indicate that African civilization came from Asia.



These types of falsifications abound in modern culture and literature but not in ancient sources. The fact that western scholars have always put a white face on black greatness is attested to by several historical deceptions which have become institutionalized by western society. For example, most people are ignorant of the fact that there are two types of black Africans. This is important to understand because it is a fact that is conveniently ignored by modern historians in their white"‘washing of the world's oldest culture. It can be observed that one type of Black has wooly hair and thick features while the other (which is probably more ancient) has straight hair and fine features, Examples of blacks with straight hair and fine features would include the Dravidians of India and the Nubians of Africa, Therefore, it is a mistake to assume that Blacks with straight hair have white or Asian ancestry the way that western historians are prone to do.

Distortions regarding the ethnicity of key historical figures cause people to become deluded in regards to the debt of gratitude that they owe to the ancient ancestors of all mankind. One type of world"‘wide delusion involves the ethnicity of Buddha, Jesus and Mohammed. All of these men would be considered as black people if we go by today's standards, The some is true with ancient biblical people like Moses and the Israelites, There is no way that 70 Jews are going to, live 'in an all Black world (Egypt) and grow to 600,000 within 400 years of intermarriage with Africans and not turn black itself! Here is a list of some of the Black people (by today's standards) in biblical literature: Moses and his Medianite wife, Joseph and his brothers, Abraham and all Medianites, Cushites, Canaanites, Hittites, etcetera.

Simply put, there is more evidence for a black .Jesus than a white one and in order to be politically correct you must be historically correct. Matthew chapter 1, verses 1"‘17 names at least three Black women in Jesus' ancestry. In addition, descriptions of Jesus are found in Revelations 1, verses 14"‘15 and Daniel 7, verse 9, are at the very least of a non"‘white man. In fact, the Roman Emperor, Justinian the Great minted a gold coin that carried a depiction of Jesus as a wooIy"‘hoired Black man. It Is a matter of historical record that all early statues, paintings and other depictions of Jesus and Mary were black throughout Europe until around 400 A,D. (i.e, Black Madonna). To this very day, the Black Madonna is being held at the Vatican in Rome, Worship of the Black Madonna and the Egyptian goddess Isis were both well established in Europe by 1450 A.D. . However, RA become politically expedient to change the color of Black Jesus to a white Christ it) order to continue the enslavement of Blacks world"‘wide.



When the historical Buddha, Shakyamuni or Gautama Siddhartha was born, the ancient Hindu peoples were mostly Black Cushites and Black Dravidians . This would account for, the many portrayals of Buddha with wooly hair and references to him as the "Peppercorn God", Contrary to what is generally taught about the caste system in ancient India, social standing had nothing to do with color. Thus, a black Dravidian or black Cushite could occupy the highest place in society and frequently did, In any event, Shakyamuni, being born into the Black world of ancient Indio was definitely non"‘white and most probably Black. In his "Historie du Japan", Koempfer states that the Buddha was on Egyptian priest who was chased from Memphis by the persecutions of Corribyses. This is strong evidence for positing an African origin for Buddhist thought. Buddhist concepts such a karma, reincarnation and ancestor reverence all were in existence in Africa thousands of years before the historical Buddha was born. The same can be said for Christianity and Islam to the extent that their religious ideas were borrowed from ancient African principles, The belief in one supreme god was also in existence in Africa long before the advent of Jesus or Muhammad. The entire pantheon of Catholic pantheon originated as African sub"‘deities of so"‘called "pagan" blacks.



All of this can best be put in proper perspective if you observe modern world"‘wide practices concerning ethnicity, One such practice is to classify people in the United States who have any amount of Black blood in their ancestry as being Black while conversely, in the African and the Arab worlds, any amount of Caucasian blood in someone's ancestry classifies them as white, This type of double talk is typical when encountering the racist interpretations of modern western historical scholarship. What this tactic does is create enough confusion so that the blackest people on earth can become Caucasian, if that is what is politically desirable. And conversely, people with very light skin are called black, if that is convenient to do so politically. This double"‘standard is being perpetrated world"‘wide, yet most are not even aware of it because is has become so institutionalized in modern cultures.



The blackness of ancient Egyptian civilization is undisputable, It is also a very critical factor in understanding how the world has been mislead by western scholars in regards to the great contributions these people have made to the world. After due credit is given to these original peoples, one has to wonder what is left for others to claim if anything is left at all, The evidence is conclusive, In 1961, Dr. C.A, Diop author of the book " African Origin of Civilization" was able to determine the Black Ethnicity of several mummies stared in French Museums, One of the things he discovered was that the skin of theses mummies contained the same type of melanin pigmentation found in the skin of all other Africans, This discovery confirms ages old data given by the ancient Greeks. In fact, Herodotus refers to the ancient Egyptians as "Melanchroes" meaning Black"‘skinned people. Nearly all of the ancient Greek and Roman historians give similar accounts which are totally at odds with the picture being pointed today as if Blacks have no history or culture of their own.



The melanin molecule is not just a pigmentation element. It is a very powerful and versatile chemical that is found in almost all of the internal organs of humans. It is also found in the eyes, skin and hair. The word melanin is a Greek word that means black, The purest form of this substance is called eumelanin and it ranges in color from dark brown to very Black.



The major purpose of this molecule seems to be to act as a shield from harmful radiation. So, as our so"‘called "advanced" technology" destroys the ozone layers, melanin becomes a critical element' for survival on this planet. Therefore, the strongest melanin provides the best protection. Other properties include conductivity, insulation, antiviral and neurotransmitter. Bullet train technology is based upon the super conductivity of artificial melanin molecules. The synthetic melanin of Dr. Barnes is being used to coat the circuits of all NASA space vehicles. 1990 AIDS researchers proved that [he virus is unable to survive in the presence of fully functional melanin molecules. Pheo-melanin or psuedo-melanin is a weaker form of melanin that is lighter in color than eumelanin. These two forms of melanin and various combinations thereof, in turn produce the six basic types of melanated peoples in the world today .

Part III: Origins

To repeat, the interpretations of African History given by modern western scholars is a form of white supremacy racist propaganda, pure and simple . In contrast to this, the whites of the ancient world did not question the fact that Africa (Ethiopia) was the principle center of learning in the entire world. This is attested to by their accounts of the ancient African city of Thebes (Nowe), which was also known as the "University City". According to them this was the oldest city or) the planet at that time. The early Greek and Roman scholars unanimously proclaim that their western culture was copied from the architectural and religious knowledge of African civilization, For example, Herodotus refers to studying in Ethiopia with pride and confirms that key elements of Greek civilization were borrowed from Egypt, the "cradle of civilization". He and Diodorus also confirm that the ancient Egyptians were Black people and that these Thebans were "the first men on earth", Diodorus also cites the ancient blacks as the original source of Greek philosophy, astrology and astronomy.



It is estimated that Herodotus went to Egypt around 625 B.C. in order to study at the, world famous "University City" of Thebes, he, Monetho, Plutcrach and nearly all of the other Greek scholars estimate at or around 17,000 B.C. as the beginning of Egyptian civilization, In addition, even modern scholars have to admit that 'the calendar was invented in Egypt as early a 4,245 B.C.



One of the main purposes of this work is to show that all theories of inherent black inferiority are bogus. These slanderous policies and practices stemmed from a need to justify confining slavery to Blacks alone. In essence, the prisoner of war slavery that all peoples were subject to, become open season on blacks primarily because of the Marmeluke Rebellion (1300 A.D,). The Marmelukes were enslaved white mercenaries and soldiers who staged such a bloody, shocking and ruthless rebellion, that slave"‘traders world"‘wide never again hunted whites for enslavement. With the demand for Black slaves increasing and that for white slaves decreasing thus began the moss migrations to escape the slave ­hunters. Millions of blacks were forced to take refuge in swamps and coves only to be forced out by people already hiding there. The partitioning of African and the enslavement of its people has led to a primitive form of existence for many. These unfortunate souls are always used, as examples of African cultures. Therefore, the rationale for the inferiorization of Blacks for political purposes is re"‘enforced.



In 2,600 B~ C., the Black Bantu Pharaoh Chephren, built the great Sphinx in his own image. In addition he also built the Great Pyramid of Giza . Today, the nose of the Sphinx, a monument to Black greatness, has been disfigured in a vain attempt to hide the African features. However the European scholar Count Constantinde Volney (1757"‘1820 A,D,), not only confirms that the model for the Sphinx is black, he also asserts that Blacks are the primary source of the worlds arts, sciences and languages. In fact, the latest archeological! findings of Dr. Louis Leakey and others shows overwhelmingly that the first Homo"‘Sapiens of 40,000 B,C, are black people (Upper Paleolithis (Potassium 40/Argon dating these and other facts are attested to in objective works such as "Fossil Men" by Boule & Vallois, where they document their examinations of ancient ruins and human remains. Additionally, Leakey cites blacks as the ancestral source of all the other races of mankind in his "Monogenetic Thesis of Humanity".

Part IV: Evidence

There is strong evidence that white skin is a form of albinism. Both conditions Caucasians and albinism, are genetically recessive traits and microscopically, there is no difference between the two types of skin, This lack of melanin was serious taboo to ancient Africans, so the albino populations become isolated. Furthermore, they could no longer withstand the strong equatorial sun and had to migrate north to cooler climes, These people become the early European and Asian races and 20,000 B.C. is the estimated time-line of their appearance as a group, the result of a process coiled "depigmentation", as described by Dr. C. A. Diop & Dr, F. C. Welsing, Interestingly, Diop also postulates the possibility of Asians as being Mulattoes with the cold and windy Asian weather accounting for their facial and eye s(ructure. The incidence of indigenous blacks 'in early Asian histories is backed up by the existence of the Ainu and Negrito Black populations in ancient Japan, "For a samurai to be brave, he must have a bit of black blood. ("Ancient Japanese proverb), Ancient blacks in southern China are also a testimony to an ancient world populated by blacks, producing whites and then eventually the Mulatto"‘like Asians.


In his lost major work, "Moses and Monotheism", Sigmund Freud illustrates how the Judeo"‘Christian belief in one supreme god is actually derived from ancient African religions, Monotheism in Africa antedated the Jews by several thousand years before Abraham. In addition, the roles various African sub"‘deities are exactly the same as those of the patron saints of the Christian world. The fact that Africans are a very religious people was not ignored by the invading plunderers of "The continent, Islam and Christianity become the leading weapons in the rope and pillage of ancient Africa. This has been accomplished by first sending in missions of brotherhood and peace. After establishing themselves among the Africans the conversion process begins, Africans who refused peaceful conversion were either killed of exiled .

It was around 1,400 B,C, when , as I mentioned earlier, 70 Sheppard's folk from Palestine, fleeing famine and upon coming to Egypt found the paradise of the Nile Valley. However, the Egyptians were fearful of the growing numbers of Jews among them and decided to take genocidal precautions to control the population growth. In other words, the Jews were severely oppressed by the Black Egyptians. All male children were eliminated and stringent restrictions were in place to limit the number of pregnancies among the Jews. Thus, when early Hebrew biblical literature was written, it reflected contempt that for the Blacks that had enslaved and oppressed them. This is the main reason behind the so"‘called "curse" on Ham (Genesis 9;25"‘27). It natural to curse your enemies and so blackness became a curse in all biblical literature and therefore all of western culture.



The predynastic times of 4,500 B.C. shows Africa with the most advanced civilization at that time in history, Africans had a real system of self government based upon a Constitutional representation by a Council of Elders, This advanced system of government was based upon a Constitution that is universal throughout all African culture. The earliest form of democracy known to man has been misinterpreted by western scholars as "chiefless", "kingless" and "stateless", Fortunately, because of the African belief in reincarnation, ancient Pharaohs hove immortalized the greatness of ancient black civilizations on such a grand and colossal scale that the truth is there for all who honestly seek it.



As the worlds oldest known city, Thebes (Nowe) also had the greatest number of temples, which were also centers of learning or universities. To this very day, the evidence and artifacts from this great legendary city can be found in the various "museums" world"‘wide. One thing to keep in mind is that this plunder was stolen by people who were barbarians compared to the proprietors of the artifacts and treasures of ancient Africa. All of the ancient obelisks, pyramids and stone masonry that existed in Thebes was for beyond anything the invading hordes had ever seen before.



The fight for the wealthiest continent on earth was in the works as the Eurasian countries began dividing the long coveted "promised land" 'into the portioned principalities observed in present times. Historically, a list of invaders would begin with Babylon in 2,1100 B.C., the Jerusalem in 1,400 B.C., followed by Athens, Rome and Antioch at 1,200, 1,000 & 400 B.C. respectively. The practice of attributing the high level of civilization attained by the ancient Egyptians to some type of external influence is very common among modern western scholars. What is interesting is that they have very little evidence for such absurd assumptions. There is however a substantial amount of information that testifies to the fact that all of the primitive nomadic invaders eventually based their entire civilizations upon what they learned originally from Africa.


http://www.proudblackbuddhist.org/NichirenShoshu/John%20Ellis%20Black%20History%20I.htm

================================================

[This message was edited by Prophetessofrage on January 17, 2004 at 03:55 PM.]


[This message was edited by Prophetessofrage on January 17, 2004 at 04:19 PM.]

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×