Skip to main content

sunnubian,

You're avoiding a fact with a possibility. You are placing your guess over reality. Apparently you think that to say "Why couldn't they..." has the same force of proof as an established fact. IT doesn't. It only means that this idea is one that you think might be possible or preferable.

The proof is in the genes. The Ice Age wiped out the original inhabitants long before there was an Egypt, and those who migrated in came from the east, not the south. Culture, language, adn genetics all say so.

Therefor, we can say "why couldn't they..." all we want. The fact is "They didn't."

The Egyptian empire was a Mediterranean culture, not a black African one.
Thanks for the information Prophetess.

I just find in so curious that someone (escpecially someone black) would be so obsessed with discrediting nearly any inference of Black presence or Black origin in only areas that have had profound significant effects on the entire world, the intellectual evolution of man, or the contribution to or religous concept
Puppetess,

How nice of you to drop by.

The fact that you don't know what or who I am still really bothers you, doesn't it? Because you don't have a "handle" on what I look like--and thus you cannot attack me based on that--you simply shotgun your insults around hoping to hit something.

Well, you're wrong again, as usual. Don't let that stop you from foaming, however. You're rather like a rabid-animal petting zoo. Keep it up.

I have never said that "all black scholars are liars but all proven white liars are truthful." If you can show me where I said that I'll LET you eat my underwear.

I like and admire the work of Arthur B. C. Walker and of Neil deGrasse Tyson in astronomy and Donald Edwards, Walter Massey, and John Davenport in physics. I even got to talk for a time with Dr. Davenport when he was director of the Argonne National Laboratory.

So none of this lying about me not liking the work of African-American scientists. You make up so much and then spit hate when people don't believe you.

I never said "No Jew was black." Where did I say that? Find the quote for me, OK? In fact, I believe that I have mentioned the Lemba people a few times. There are descendants of a priestly line, for they have the same frequency of unique genetic markers that most of the Cohens have.

But it's also true--since you're such a Biblical scholar you'll have no trouble remembering this--that Moses' brother and sister criticized him for marrying that Ethiopian woman. Remember?

And you have conveniently ignored the Song of Songs passage that I referred to.

Now, just where does it say that she "bore tribes"? The tribes were already established. Israel was organized into those tribes for the wilderness trek before Moses married the Cushite, and there's no record of how many children she bore nor what happened to them nor where they went, so all that you say about them is speculation.

Zipporah, by the way, was not Ethiopian. She was the sughter of Jethro, a Midianite. the Midianites were not African but Mesopotamian whose descendants had connections to Assyrian, not Africa. Midian was a son of Abraham and Keturah (Gen. 25:1-4; 1 Chron. 1:32), and his children became part of the Arab peoples. He had five sons, of which two have been found named only in a couple of inscriptions found in Arabia, and the other three are in Num. 26:5; 1 Chron. 2:47; and 1 Chron. 4:17. One of the sons, Epha, is mentioned in Assyrian texts, in the annals of Tiglath-Pileser. Habbakkuk 3:7 places them mainly in souther Arabia, but they were also spread northward from there. They also lived in the country that was later occupied by the Moabites. Num 22:4 and Gen. 36:25 place them in close relation with Moab, so their eventual replacement by the Moabites is no surprise.

But African? No. Zipporah was Midianite. A Middle Easterner.

Oh, yes, Herodotus. You mean the Herodotus who is well known to make grand statements and geological estimates that were 'way off? The Herodotus who said, "I didn't see this for myself, so I'll tell you what I was told"? Who never visited Ethiopia and so didn't know what they looked like? Who said that beyond the Scytians there was a people who wore black cloaks and ate lice? That Herodotus? Herodotus, a Greek, a people that you refuse to believe any other time because they are white demons? A people that you just called "racist"?

You see your contradictions, paranoiac?

In fact, his statements made in that "Colchis" section of his history--the section that you quoted--is well known as being the most untrustworthy part of all his history. He wrote that long before he ever visited Egypt.


Why not quote Strabo who said that the Egyptians and the Ethiopians were quite different in color? Why not show the tomb art that shows Egyptians and Africans as quite different in color? Why rely on a Roman (I thought whites were demonic?) to say that Israelites are "called" anything? Why not find out what they call themselves? Anybody can be called anything. That proves nothing.

Fact proves, and facts say that the Egyptians now are the same Egyptians that built the pyramids, and they are not black Africans.

Ah, me. Personalityless, when are you going to learn to stop trying your hand at words until you know what you're talking about?

"Ham" does not mean "black." "Shachir" means "black." "Cham" means "hot." An understandable term to denote the south lands, butit has nothing to do with the color black.

Look it up. You of course have a Brown-Driver-Briggs, right? Such an authority as you would have at least one.

The Bible does not say that they were a "mixed multitude." Those "many other people" who went with them were not Israelites. That's why they are mentioned apart from Israel.

The daughters of Jethro did not describe Moses as black. They didn't mention his color at all.

Zipporah was not black. I have dealt with that.

Your post is supposition, interpretation, guess, and a drive for acceptance. It is also hogwash.

As usual, you post someone else's thoughts with no movement of the gray matter inside your own skull at all.

I have quoted science. You have imagined and lied. I can't think who might possibly be the right one here.
sunnubian,

Do not conclude that I am "against" anything like "black presence" anywhere. I am not. I have in fact said that there were blacks in ancient Egypt. There were enough wars between Egypt and Nubia and five Nubian pharaohs (fairly early in in their history) that I would never say what you just said I would say.

What I do say is what the science shows, that the civilization that we know of a Egypt was built and enlarged by Mediterranean peoples.
There were Africans in the empire, but except for a few exceptions it was run by Mediterraneans, not Africans.

That does not make us "less." It makes us true. I would rather be true than great, for truth has a greatness greatness can never have.
"What I do say is what the science shows, that the civilization that we know of a Egypt was built and enlarged by Mediterranean peoples."

"...Built and enlarged by Mediterranean peoples." I suppose what you really mean is white people, i.e., Greeks, Italians, Macedonians and others who share close proximity to Egypt.

Melesi, many who post here are educated enough to separate out "bogus white science." For example, remember all those dumb white people that got excited when white science proclaimed the heredity and intellectual inferiority of blacks? Bogus science Melesi!
Accordingly, black scholars have long refuted the notion or idea that others outside of Egypt shaped and are responsible for its greatness. Melesi, I suggest you read the African scholar's view on Egypt's greatness. In this way you will at least have both points of view instead of the lone white Egyptology view that you stated suggest.
kraaaal,

I have read the afrocentrists' view. I tis not suppoprted by the science.

This is not "bogus white science," kraaaal. This is peer-reviewed research that is open to scrutiny and falsification (the scientific kind, where variables are changed and the experiment run again to see what differences show up) as well as verification. Remember cold fusion? It didn't take long for that to be debunked. And as for other "white science" that has been proven wrong, Blavatsky, say, or crainiometry have long been exposed as frauds. Those who agreed with them were those who did just what Propless does--intuits what she wants that then tries to find reasons to believe what she's already decided to believe.

This science is open and honest, repeated and critiqued, and it shows that Egyptians have always been mediterranean, from before the time of the pyramids forward. Not aliens, not black Africans, but just as we see them now.

I did not call them white. Everybody who says that is interpolating, not reading what I say. Please don't "suppose." If you think I might say something, then ask and I'll be glad to tell you, but don't suppose. It'll almost always be wrong.

They are Mediterranean. That's different from white. It's also different from black.

While I am more of a panafricanist, I suppose, I am not an Afrocentrist because all the sometime science that they do is tainted and bad. The outcome is presupposed and the results tailored to fit that view. Why does Bernal redate a volcano's eruption in "Black Athena" by a century or two but to fit the timeline he needs to prove his political point, a point that he declared in the book?

No, I haven't found the science in afrocentric works that points to the reality of what has happened. When Aafrican-American scientists have contributed to the advancement of knowledge, they have done so by doing science, not politics or sociopolitics. That's how the bogus white science was bogus. It makes black science bogus, too.
quote:
Originally posted by sunnubian:
Thanks for the information Prophetess.

I just find in so curious that someone (escpecially someone black) would be so obsessed with discrediting nearly any inference of Black presence or Black origin in only areas that have had profound significant effects on the entire world, the intellectual evolution of man, or the contribution to or religous concept


Hi again Sun Nubian, you're welcome. Yeah, I hear ya Sun Nubian, 'someone black' would not lift up and laud whiteness. Someone white and demon possessed would as is their nature. Here is a link to a site proving white historians were damnable liars.

http://www.wcg.org/wn/98May/black.html

As for melesi that thing is psycho incarnate. It admits that it's spawned creator is from a 'petting zoo' and quite frankly, not only did you all well expose the ilk but the ilk is so thrown off of it's 'lying, deceiving,' game that it's lamely, laughably, seeking to use 'insults' which by it's own testimony, 'is proof of not having a legitimate argument.' Big Grin Gee, it's easy to push a deceiver's buttons. Truth will do it, everytime.

Oh, did you read that oaf's confession that it fears that I will use its paleness against it, so it lies and feigns to be black. Big Grin How Christian is that? I mean none of us decent blacks fear telling the world of their beautiful black ethnic lineage. Every black body, say it loud, we're black and we're proud! Big Grin

Anyway, there is so much black/kushite intermarrying that basically what you have is black/african Nubian/Hebrews who could not be told apart from any black/african tribe on the planet today.

Oh yeah, that reminds me, Keturah was a black/African Kushite woman who Abraham married and several sons by. (Genesis 25:1-2).

As quoted Zephaniah was son of Kush (Zeph. 1:1).

Bottom line, Israel of the Bible was Black/African from day one, including Abraham who dwelt among the Kushites of Babylon and they were so intermingled that "Kush was the official African/Chaldean language" whereas, they had what would be call a 'street Semite language.'

Bottom line, Black/Kush Nubian Hebrews marrying Black/Africans are they that comprised the Israel of the Bible all the way past the days of Jesus Christ.

Oh, by the way, who is the moderator of this board? Check out my re-instituted links on the black/African Egyptian gallery....

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




posted January 19, 2004 12:56 PM
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Afroman:
So much time wasted debating theology with the conqueror!! No black man should waste his time quarrelling their ignorance but THINK for himself! What they see as the "truth" let them see it as the "truth" when everybody know it's a LIE. They can explain nothing to us Black Africans just bigotry and racism! So give it up.. I gave up debating white supremacists deguised as Africanists a long time ago.

AfroMan.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Hi Afroman, I agree wholeheartedly with your sentiments but these guys sure used this opportunity to expose what the Bible would call the 'deceits of the devil.' Let me add, not only was this deceiver recognizably so by it's racist disposition but the reason I have no respect for their vile evil is as Sun Nubian more or less stated, 'they do not come to debate their lies and deceits rather to spout them. They are as the Bible would call them the 'seed of Satan' and their entire disposition is to 'cast truth to the ground' and lift up lies and deceits in its place (Dn. 8:12,23-25).

A sincere person comes forth sincere in identity and disposition but these hatemongers hurl hateful lies at truth as it makes their demonic blood boil to hear the truth. (which does my heart good). A legion of demonic spirits lives in them and this is why they spout, denounce, and stupidly seek to explain away 'truth', be it blatant or subtle. As the Bible would say, 'they will strain at a gnat and swallow a camel' rather than admit truth as they are anti-truth, anti-christ, seeds of satan (Jn. 8:44;10:10).

Sun Nubian to put this matter to rest, below is the findings of the greatest scholar ever to live, Diop. As Kraal spoke, he is a honest, truthful man who examined those that the white's alone, (well plus their subjugated coloreds) lie and claim are the 'greatest historians, scientists' of civilization, the Greeks.

However, all of the Greek's writings point to Black/Egypt and Ethiopia. By the way Ethiopia means 'sun burnt' and is the Greek word for Cush/Kush which is defined as 'Black.' Cush/Kush is listed in the Genealogical record as a descendant of Ham/Khem who also means 'Chem...black color, warm, dark,' (Genesis 10:6-20). All the nations listed under Ham/Khem were the dominant nations of antiquity. These Black/Africans created, and inhabited, Egypt, Babylon, Phillistia, Sumeria, Ethiopia, Sudan, Mesopotamia created by NIMROD SON OF CUSH/KUSH (Genesis 10:6-8).

Previously, you more or less posed the question, 'Why would an alleged 'black' seek to denounce 'black' truth?' As said, the answer is no black with sense would, only a white, deceiver feigning or a really, really, really, stupid, self-loathing, subjugated, enslaved colored bowwed down at the feet of their white enslaver.

By the way, Diop also found that the Egyptians defined themselves as "Kmt" the strongest word they created that means 'Black.'

Now in light of their blackness, again, you picture Joseph being described as 'Black/Egyptian', marrying a Black/Egyptian, and having two sons by the Black/Egyptian woman. The two sons, Ephraim and Manassah by name became two tribes of Israel (Genesis 41:45-52). Joshua son of Nun, was a Ephraimite descendant meaning Kushite/Black/African (Joshua 1:1). Joshua is also called Hosea son of Nun (Numbers 13:8).

Again, Solomon's mother was a Black/African Kushite from the tribe of Sheba (Genesis 10:7). Her name was 'BathSheba' and Bathsheba means 'daughter of Sheba.' Sheba is listed as a descendant of Cush/Kush =Black/African (Genesis 10:7).

On and on, the list could go, as the Hebrews of Biblical era were Black/Nubian,Egyptian, in Black/African stock, color and appearance and they remain that way to this day as the dwell in Southern Africa, Israel, and other regions of the world. Some even dwell in the U.S. and know they are Israeli Black/African descendants while other blacks lost to their identity don't know it. During what the whites called their 'Crusades' they went to Israel and killed or enslaved the Black Israeli, Canaanite, Kushite factions and sent them to Europe and the U.S..


At any rate, here is what the Greeks, who whites herald as 'the founders of civilization' had to say about their EYE-WITNESS account of who the Black/African Egyptians. Remember the Greeks were white racists but did not have the gall of Satan to the extreme that their white caucasoid descendants the world over would take up, in that though the Greeks were prejudice bigots, in their prejudice they blatantly and as you will see, sometimes inadvertently admit the BLACK/AFRICAN EGYPTIAN TRUTH.

In fact, they say the same thing about the Black/African Hebrews who could not be told apart from any Black/AFrican on the planet. Note:In antiquity they were a particularly 'dark-black, blue black' of which they were 'vain about.' They felt superior to lighter skinned people and likened their blackness to holiness.

========================================
a) Herodotus white's hierarchies give him credit for being 'their' father of history (-480 to 425) wrote with regard to the Colchians:
=====================================
25. In the fifth century before our era, at a time when Herodotus visited Egypt, a black-skinned people, the Colchians, were still living in Colchis on the Armenian shore of the Black Sea, east of the ancient port of Trebizond, surrounded by white skin nations.

The scholars of antiquity wondered about this people's origin and Herodotus in 'Euterpe' , the second book of his history on Egypt, tries to prove that the Colchians were Egyptians, whence the arguments we quote. Herodotus, on the strength of commemorative stelae, erected by Sesotris in conquered countries, assert that this monarch has got as far as Thrace and Sethyia, where stelae would seem to have been still standing in his day (Book II, 103).

====================================
"It is in fact manifest that the Colchidians are Egyptian by race....several Egyptians told me that in their opinion the Colchidians were descended from soldiers of Sesostris. I had conjectured as much myself from two pointers, firstly becuase they have black skins and kinky hair (to tell the truth this proves nothing for other peoples have them too) and secondly and more reliably for the reason alone among mankind the Egyptians and the Ethiopians have practiced circumcision since time immemorial. The Phoenicians and Syrians of Palestine admit that they learnt the practice from the Egyptians while the Syrians in the river Thermodon and Pathenios region and their neighbours the Macrons say they learnt it recently from the Colchidians. These are the only races which practise circumcision and it is observable that they do it in the same way as the Egyptians. As between the Egyptians themselves and the Ethiopians I could not say which taught the oth er the practice for among them it is quite clearly a custom of antiquity. As to the custom having been learnt through their Egyptian connections, a further strong proof to my mind is that all Phoenicians trading to Greece cease to treat the pudenda after the Egyptian manner and do not subject their offspring to circumcision."
=====================================
26- Herodotus, Book II, 104. As with many peoples in black Africa, Egyptian women underwent excision of the clitoris: cf. Strabo, Geography, Book XVII, Ch. I.
=================================================================

Herodotus reverts several times to the negroid character of the Egyptians and each time uses it as a fact of observation to argue more or less complex theses. Thus to prove that the Greek oracle at Dodona in Epirus was of Egyptian origin, one of his aruments is the following: "...and when they add that the dove was black they give us to understand that the woman was Egypian." The doves in queston- actually there were two according to the text-symbolize two Egyptian women who are said to have been carried off from the Egyptian Thebes to found the oracles in Greece at Dodona and in Libya (Oasis of Jupiter Amon) respectively. Herodotus did not share the opinion of Anaxagoras that the melting of the snow on the mountains of Ethiopia was the source of the Nile floods. He relied on the fact that it neither rains nor snows in Ethiopia 'and the heat there turns men black'.

=====================================
27- Herodotus, Book II, 57.
28- Seneca, Questions of Nature. IV, 17/
29- Herodotus, Book II, 22.
=====================================

b) Aristotle, -389 to -332, scientist philosopher and tutor of Alexander the Great.

In one of his minor works, Aristotle attempts, with unexpected naivete', to establish a correlation between the physical and moral natures of living beings and leaves us evidence on the Egyptian-Ethiopian race which confirms what Herodotus says. According to him, 'Those who are too black are cowards, like for instance, the Egyptians and Ethiopians. But those who are excessively white are also cowards as we can see from the example of women, the complexion of courage is between the two.'
=====================================

30-Aristotle, Physiognomy 6
=====================================

c) Lucian Greek writer, +125 (?) to +190.
The evidence of Lucian is as explicit as that of the two previous writers. He introduces two Greeks, Lycinius and Timolaus, who start a conversation.
=====================================
31-Lucian, Navigations, paras 2-3
=====================================

Lycinus (describing a young Egyptian): 'This boy is not merely black; he has thick lips and his legs are too thin. . .his hair worn in a plait behind shows that he is not freeborn.'
Timolaus: 'But that is a sign of really distinguished birth in Egypt, Lycinus. All freeborn children plait their hair until they reach manhood. It is the exact opposite of the custom of our ancestors who thought it seemly for old men to secure their hair with a gold brooch to keep it in place.'

d) Appollodorus, first century before our era, Greek philospher. 'Aegyptos conquered the country of the black-footed ones and
called it Egypt after himself.'
=======================================
32-Appollodorus, Book II, 'The Family of Imachus' paras 3 and 4.
=====================================

e) Aeschylus, - 525 (?) to - 456, tragic poet and creator of Greek tragedy. In the Suppliants, Danoas, fleeing with his daughters, the Danaids, and pursued by his brother Aegyptos with his sons, the Aegyptiads, who seek to wed their cousins by force, climbs a hillock, looks out to sea and describes the Aegyptiads at the oars afar off in these terms: "I can see the crew with their black limbs and white tunics."

A similar description of the Egyptian type of man recurs a few lines later in verse 745.
====================================
33-Aeschylus, The Suppliants, vv. 719-20. See also v. 745.
===============================================================

f) Achilles Tatius of Alexandria. He compares the herdsmen of the Delta to the Ethiopians and explains that they are blackish, like half-castes.
====================================

g) Strabo, -58 to about +25.

Strabo visited Egypt and almost all the countries of the Roman empire. He concurs in the theory that the Egyptians and the Colchoi are of the same race but holds that the migrations to Ethiopia and Colchoi had been from Egypt only.

"Egyptians settled in Ethiopia and in Colchoi. There is no doubt whatever as to Strabo's notion of the Egyptians' race for he seeks elsewhere to explain why the Egyptians are darker than the Hindus, a circumstance which would permit the refutation, if needed, of any attempt at confusing 'the Hindu and Egyptian races'.
=====================================
34-Strabo, Geography, Book I, ch. 3, para 10.
=====================================

h) Diodorus of Silicy, about -63 to +14, Greek historian and contemporary of Caesar Augustus.

According to Diodorus it was probably Ethiopia which colonized Egypt (in the Athenian sense of the term, signifying that, with overpopulation, a proportion of the people emigrate to new territory).

=====================================
36-"Diodorus, University History, Book III. The antiquity of the Ethiopian civilization is attested by the most ancient and most venerable Greek writer, Homer in both the Iliad and the Odyssey: "Jupiter followed today by all the gods receives the sacrifices of the Ethiopians (Illiad, I, 422).
'Yesterday to visit holy Ethiopia Jupiter betook himself to the ocean shore'" (Iliad, I, 423).
====================================

The Ethiopians say that the Egyptians are one of their colonies, which was led into Egypt by Osiris. They claim that at the beginning of the world Egypt was simply a sea but that the Nile, carrying down vast quantities of loam from Ethiopia in its flood waters, finally filled it in and made it part of the continent. . .They added that the Egyptians have received from them, as from authors and their ancestors, the great part of their laws.'
======================================

i) Doigenes Laertius.
He wrote the following about Zeno, founder of the Stoic School (-333 to -261): 'Zeno son of Mnaseas or Demeas was a native of Citium in Cyprus, A Greek city which has taken in some Phoenician colonists.' In his Lives, Timotheus of Athens describes Zeno as having a twisted neck. Apollonius of Tyre says of him that he was gaunt, very tall and black, hence the fact that, according to Chrysippus in the First Book of his Proverbs certain people called him an Egyptian vine-shoot.
=====================================

37-Diogenes Laertius, Book VII, i.
======================================

j) Ammianus Marcellinus, about +33 to +100, Latin historian and friend of the Emperor Julian.

With him we reach the sunset of the Roman Empire and the end of classical antiquity. There are about nine centuries between the birth of Aeschylus and Herodotus and the dath of Ammianus Marcellinus, nine centuries during which the Egyptians, amid a sea of white races, steadily crossbred. It can be said without exaggeration that in Egypt one household in ten included a white Asiatic or Indo-European slave.
====================================
38-The Egyptian notables liked to have a Syrians or Cretan female slave in their harems.
================================================================

It is remarkable that, despite its intensity, all this crossbreeding should not ahve succeeded in upsetting the racial constants. Indeed Ammianus Marcellinus writes: ". . . the men of Egypt are mostly brown or black with a skinny and dessicated look".
===================================
39-Ammianus Maarcellinus, Book XXII, para 16 (23).

He also confirms the evidence already cited about the Colchoi: "Beyond these lands are the heartlands of the Camaritae and the Phasis with its swifter stream borders the country of the Colchoi, an ancient race of Egyptian origin.'
=====================================
40-Pirate gangs who worked from small ships called Camare.
41-Ammianus Marcellinus, Book XXII, para. 8 (24).
=====================================

This cursory review of the evidence of the ancient Graeco-Latin writers on the Egyptians' race shows that the extent of agreement between them is impressive and is an objective fact difficult to minimize or conceal, the two alternatives between which present-day Egyptology constantly oscillates.

An exception is the evidence of an honest savant, Voney, who travelled in Egypt between +1783 and +1785, i.e. at the peak period of negro slavery, and made the following observation on the true Egyptian race, the same which produced the Pharaohs, namely, the Copts:

"All of them are puffy-faced, heavy-eyed and thick-lipped, in a word, real mulatto faces. I was tempted to attribute this to the climate until, on visiting the Sphinx, the look ofit gave me the clue to the enigma. Beholding that head characteristically Negro in all its features, I recalled the well-known passage of Herodotus which reads: 'For my part I consider the Colchoi are a colny of the Egyptians because, like them, they are black-skinned and kinky-haired'. In other words the ancient Egyptians were true Negroes of the same stock as all autochtonous peoples of Africa and from that datum one sees how their race, after some centuries of mixing with the blood of Romans and Greeks, must have lost the full blackness of its original colour but retained the impress of its original mould. It is even possible t apply this observation very widely and posit in principle that physiognomy is a kind of record usuable in many cases for disputing or elucida ting the evidence of history on the origins of the peoples. . .

After illustrating this proposition citing the case of the Normans, who 900 years after the conquest of Normandy still look like Danes, Volney adds:

"but reverting to Egypt, its contributions to history afford many subjects for philosphic reflection . What a subject for mediation is the present-day barbarity and ignorance of the Copts who were considered born of the alliance of the deep genius of the Egyptians and the brilliance of the Greeks, that this race of blacks who nowadays are slaves and the objects of our scorn is the very one to which we owe our arts, our sciences and even the use of spoken word and finally recollect that it is in the midst of the peoples claiming to be the greatest friends of liberty and humanity that the most barbarous of enslavements has been sanctioned and the question raised whether black men have brains of the same quality as those of white men!
======================================
42-M.C.F. Volney, Voyages en Syrie et en Egypte. Paris, 1787, Vol. I, pp. 74-7
================================================================

To this testimony of Volney, Champollion-Figeac, brother of Champollion the Younger, was to reply in the following terms: 'The two physical traits of black skin and kinky hair are not enough to stamp a race as negro and Volney's conclusion as to the negro origin of th eancient population of Egypt is glaringly forced and inadmissible.'
====================================
43-J.J. Champollion-Figeac, 1839, pp. 26-7
==============================================================

Being black from head to foot and having kinky hair is not enough to make a man a negor! This shows us the kind of specious argumentation to which Egyptology has had to resort since its birth as a science. Some scholars maintain that Volney was seeking to shift the discussion to a philosophic plane. But we have only to re-read Volney: he is simply drawing the inferences from crude material facts forcing themselves on his eyes and his conscience as proofs.

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

Again, click on the following links to see the CLEARLY DEFINED BLACK/AFRICAN EGYPTIAN IMAGES.

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[/URL]

[This message was edited by Prophetessofrage on January 19, 2004 at 02:11 PM.]
oh, yes, propfitter,

Someone saying, "now it can be argued" certainly is proceeding from fact. Look at all the information this man gives us, the supporting texts, the extrabiblical proofs.

Not one.

I have never ysed any of this man's arguments, so all that you posted is irrelevant. I spoke of facts, of people who've been there, of genetic research, of scientific evidence that is open for anybody to prove or disprove. One book that I mentioned has taken 14 years to research. This man, this Dan Rogers, did nothing of the kind nor addressed any of the issues raised here.

I said nothing about Egyptian paintings being "stylized" and therefore unreliable. I said that they show Egyptians and Kushites as different. I showed the original paint on the statues uncovered in the tombs of the kings.

YOu posted Dan Roger's words only in the hope that they would convince someone because you agree with him--and he agrees with your point of view.

A wrong point of view.

You also merely hope that I do not have an argument. In fact, if you look at the posts made here, I have the argument. You don't. And if on the way to or through an argument I tell you what you seem like, well, that's just a little icing on the rhetorical cake. But don' tmistake it for not having an argument. Calling someone "psycho" doesn't make that person one. IT might just be projection.

You know, at least half those pictures on the Freemaninstitute board are not Negroid. I didn't check them all, but there are quite a number of them that are Mediterranean, just as i said.

Now, check the research on Egyptian genetics, will you?
profiter,

Keturah couldn't be black. Her line was the line of Midian, those Mesopotamians who had ties to Assyria, remember.

Much later, Moses, a descendant of Abraham, married Zipporah, a descendant of Midian, and therefore a descendant of Abraham the Mesopotamian, too.

Sorry. Couldn't have been a black African.

But that won't stop you from lying about her, too, apparently.
quote:
Originally posted by Melesi:
sunnubian,

Do not conclude that I am "against" anything like "black presence" anywhere. I am not. I have in fact said that there were blacks in ancient Egypt. There were enough wars between Egypt and Nubia and five Nubian pharaohs (fairly early in in their history) that I would never say what you just said I would say.

What I do say is what the science shows, that the civilization that we know of a Egypt was built and enlarged by Mediterranean peoples.
There were Africans in the empire, but except for a few exceptions it was run by Mediterraneans, not Africans.

That does not make us "less." It makes us true. I would rather be true than great, for truth has a greatness greatness can never have.

________________________________

I am sure that you are correct for the particular era that you are drawing your conclusions from. I would be correct to say that Europeans "built and enlarged" if you only look at the 400 year periods of its existence (and exclude everyone else's contributions). But it would not be correct to say the Europeans have always been in America. Your position is the equivalent to claiming that say, New York, has always been populated controlled by Europeans the entire time that Native Americans were here, and that for some strange reason (may heathen superstition), out of the entire continent, no Native Americans every lived and thrived in that one particular part of the whole of North America, at least until after the Europeans (the elites) (that were always there for some reason) captured them and made them slaves, and so if we see any ancient drawing of the Native Americans, since western writers say they were drawn by "Europeans" and that of course "some" of the Native Americans were actually Native American after the European Native Americans that only existed in New York, captured them and made them slaves, etc.,

Do you think that we do not know who we are because people want us to believe that we are who THEY say we are and not who WE say or KNOW that we are?
Do you honestly believe that we do not recognize our features, etc. on other people?

How can you know that I am placing a "guess" over reality? You would have to be psychic to know that for sure, if it were true, however it is not.
Since you phrased it that way, it would appear that that is what your sources are doing, or are forcing a different reality into the pages of history and science.
Also, for you to denounce my sources as "not being science" or "not credible", etc., without even know who or what my sources of information are says a lot.
But even if I never read a note, book, anything written by "scientists", etc., (however, I have, and plenty for years now), I would still know black features, nappy hair, etc., when I see it--when I see on a person, a painting, a drawing, whatever.
Then last but not least, wasn't it "science" that prevously, and in some instances still do, proclaim, that from their "studies" "observations" and "method", concluded that Black people, Africans, people of African descent (and all other people that were not considered "white" for that matter) where genetically mentally and intellectually inferior peoples?
Melesi

"I have read the afrocentrists' view. I tis not supported by the science." WHAT! Cheikh Anta Diop's Civilization or Barbarism, - "is not supported by the science?" Hmmm! Are you saying that this fine Senagalese scholar is not a scientist?

"This science is open and honest peer-reviewed research..." Really, open and honest like Murray and Herrnstein's The Bell Curve? Yet you regard a world-renowned scholar like Cheikh Ana Diop and the work found in his Civilization Or Barbarism as "not supported by the science?" Present your opposing evidence and arguments right now Melesi!!

You say you have read what you described as "...the afrocentrists' view." Well if you did you certainly didn't read Diop. Had you read any of Diop's work particularly his PreColonial Black Africa, - you would know that Diop asserted that thousand of years before the appearance of the white man in Africa, Bantus have migrated from the south of Africa to the North. Diop develops his migration hypotheses to show the Bantu or black African in the likes of Septimus Serverus and Saint Augustine Bishop of Hippo. Unfortunately you will not find this information in the Holy Bible. You need to spend some time reading and contemplating the scholarship of black writers on the subject of Africa, pre-colonial, colonial and post colonial Africa.
sunnubian,

You misunderstand. We cannot say that Native Americans built America, even New York. They didn't. Americans whose ancestry was from Europe did. Sure, they lived there before Europeans came to what is now called New York, but New York is not an Indian village.

Now, I do not say that those who live in Egypt now have always been there. What I do say is that they have been in Egypt long enough that all that Egypt ever was was built by these people, by the ancestors of those who live there now. When the original inhabitants of what came to be Egypt lived there, there was no Egypt. Egypt came later, much later than the end of the Ice Age. By that time, the Easterners were in the land and nobody else was.

That is not the case of North America. It is the case of Egypt. Egypt is and was a Mediterranean culture.
Oh,

How can I say that you are placing a guess over reality? I don't have to be psychic. IT was easy--you told me. In fact, I even pointed out to you before where you did that.

Look at your post of Jan. 16, 4:34 pm.

Here;s what you said:

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.

Do you see that "Why couldn't they...probably...?" That's a guess. You are preferring that guess over what is true.

It doesn't matter what we'd like to think is possible or preferable. What matters is what is fact. The genetics is the fact, and it says that the people who live there now are the direct descendants of the people who built the pyramids.
quote:
Originally posted by Melesi:
sunnubian,

You misunderstand. We cannot say that Native Americans built America, even New York. They didn't. Americans whose ancestry was from Europe did. Sure, they lived there before Europeans came to what is now called New York, but New York is not an Indian village.
_________________________
I never said they built New York, only presented the likelyhood of Europeans always being in the section of North America we now call New York for as long as the Native Americans have been in North America and the likelyhood that this one section of North America would have never have been inhabited by Native Americans until after to begining of New York until after New York has become what it is today. I think you kmpw exactly what I meant.

The more you reply, the clearer it gets what your true adgenda is.
_______________________________________


What I do say is that they have been in Egypt long enough that all that Egypt ever was was built by these people, by the ancestors of those who live there now.
_________________________ Which is the only thing that you are afraid of is not true, therefore, you in a desparate attempt to assist in the distortion of history, are trying hard to convince people that and and that all science to the contrary or that debunks or challenges what you have been lead to believe is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, is "bogus" or "not science"
_____________________________________


When the original inhabitants of what came to be Egypt lived there, there was no Egypt. Egypt came later, much later than the end of the Ice Age. By that time, the Easterners were in the land and nobody else was.
_____________________________
or so your sources say, write,conclude with their biased "science", etc., that has long been concluding history with erasers used on anything that points to African accomplishments, African superiority, African equality, Africa being the origin of medicine, science, astronomy, religous concept, the first advanced civilization, civilizations when the European was still dwelling in caves.
___________________________________


That is not the case of North America. It is the case of Egypt. Egypt is and was a Mediterranean culture.

___________________________________
Another non-truth, the truth is that the Mediterraneans learned from the Africans and carried such knowledge back with them to their countries, which eventually spread throughout Europe---to make a very long story short.
So much time wasted debating theology with the conqueror!! No black man should waste his time quarrelling their ignorance but THINK for himself! What they see as the "truth" let them see it as the "truth" when everybody know it's a LIE. They can explain nothing to us Black Africans just bigotry and racism! So give it up.. I gave up debating white supremacists deguised as Africanists a long time ago.

AfroMan.
quote:
Originally posted by Afroman:
So much time wasted debating theology with the conqueror!! No black man should waste his time quarrelling their ignorance but THINK for himself! What they see as the "truth" let them see it as the "truth" when everybody know it's a LIE. They can explain nothing to us Black Africans just bigotry and racism! So give it up.. I gave up debating white supremacists deguised as Africanists a long time ago.

AfroMan.



Hi Afroman, I agree wholeheartedly with your sentiments but these guys sure used this opportunity to expose what the Bible would call the 'deceits of the devil.' Let me add, not only was this deceiver recognizably so by it's racist disposition but the reason I have no respect for their vile evil is as Sun Nubian more or less stated, 'they do not come to debate their lies and deceits rather to spout them. They are as the Bible would call them the 'seed of Satan' and their entire disposition is to 'cast truth to the ground' and lift up lies and deceits in its place (Dn. 8:12,23-25).

A sincere person comes forth sincere in identity and disposition but these hatemongers hurl hateful lies at truth as it makes their demonic blood boil to hear the truth. (which does my heart good). A legion of demonic spirits lives in them and this is why they spout, denounce, and stupidly seek to explain away 'truth', be it blatant or subtle. As the Bible would say, 'they will strain at a gnat and swallow a camel' rather than admit truth as they are anti-truth, anti-christ, seeds of satan (Jn. 8:44;10:10).

Sun Nubian to put this matter to rest, below is the findings of the greatest scholar ever to live, Diop. As Kraal spoke, he is a honest, truthful man who examined those that the white's alone, (well plus their subjugated coloreds) lie and claim are the 'greatest historians, scientists' of civilization, the Greeks.

However, all of the Greek's writings point to Black/Egypt and Ethiopia. By the way Ethiopia means 'sun burnt' and is the Greek word for Cush/Kush which is defined as 'Black.' Cush/Kush is listed in the Genealogical record as a descendant of Ham/Khem who also means 'Chem...black color, warm, dark,' (Genesis 10:6-20). All the nations listed under Ham/Khem were the dominant nations of antiquity. These Black/Africans created, and inhabited, Egypt, Babylon, Phillistia, Sumeria, Ethiopia, Sudan, Mesopotamia created by NIMROD SON OF CUSH/KUSH (Genesis 10:6-8).

Previously, you more or less posed the question, 'Why would an alleged 'black' seek to denounce 'black' truth?' As said, the answer is no black with sense would, only a white, deceiver feigning or a really, really, really, stupid, self-loathing, subjugated, enslaved colored bowwed down at the feet of their white enslaver.

By the way, Diop also found that the Egyptians defined themselves as "Kmt" the strongest word they created that means 'Black.'

Now in light of their blackness, again, you picture Joseph being described as 'Black/Egyptian', marrying a Black/Egyptian, and having two sons by the Black/Egyptian woman. The two sons, Ephraim and Manassah by name became two tribes of Israel (Genesis 41:45-52). Joshua son of Nun, was a Ephraimite descendant meaning Kushite/Black/African (Joshua 1:1). Joshua is also called Hosea son of Nun (Numbers 13:8).

Again, Solomon's mother was a Black/African Kushite from the tribe of Sheba (Genesis 10:7). Her name was 'BathSheba' and Bathsheba means 'daughter of Sheba.' Sheba is listed as a descendant of Cush/Kush =Black/African (Genesis 10:7).

On and on, the list could go, as the Hebrews of Biblical era were Black/Nubian,Egyptian, in Black/African stock, color and appearance and they remain that way to this day as the dwell in Southern Africa, Israel, and other regions of the world. Some even dwell in the U.S. and know they are Israeli Black/African descendants while other blacks lost to their identity don't know it. During what the whites called their 'Crusades' they went to Israel and killed or enslaved the Black Israeli, Canaanite, Kushite factions and sent them to Europe and the U.S..


At any rate, here is what the Greeks, who whites herald as 'the founders of civilization' had to say about their EYE-WITNESS account of who the Black/African Egyptians. Remember the Greeks were white racists but did not have the gall of Satan to the extreme that their white caucasoid descendants the world over would take up, in that though the Greeks were prejudice bigots, in their prejudice they blatantly and as you will see, sometimes inadvertently admit the BLACK/AFRICAN EGYPTIAN TRUTH.

In fact, they say the same thing about the Black/African Hebrews who could not be told apart from any Black/AFrican on the planet. Note:In antiquity they were a particularly 'dark-black, blue black' of which they were 'vain about.' They felt superior to lighter skinned people and likened their blackness to holiness.

========================================
a) Herodotus white's hierarchies give him credit for being 'their' father of history (-480 to 425) wrote with regard to the Colchians:
=====================================
25. In the fifth century before our era, at a time when Herodotus visited Egypt, a black-skinned people, the Colchians, were still living in Colchis on the Armenian shore of the Black Sea, east of the ancient port of Trebizond, surrounded by white skin nations.

The scholars of antiquity wondered about this people's origin and Herodotus in 'Euterpe' , the second book of his history on Egypt, tries to prove that the Colchians were Egyptians, whence the arguments we quote. Herodotus, on the strength of commemorative stelae, erected by Sesotris in conquered countries, assert that this monarch has got as far as Thrace and Sethyia, where stelae would seem to have been still standing in his day (Book II, 103).

====================================
"It is in fact manifest that the Colchidians are Egyptian by race....several Egyptians told me that in their opinion the Colchidians were descended from soldiers of Sesostris. I had conjectured as much myself from two pointers, firstly becuase they have black skins and kinky hair (to tell the truth this proves nothing for other peoples have them too) and secondly and more reliably for the reason alone among mankind the Egyptians and the Ethiopians have practiced circumcision since time immemorial. The Phoenicians and Syrians of Palestine admit that they learnt the practice from the Egyptians while the Syrians in the river Thermodon and Pathenios region and their neighbours the Macrons say they learnt it recently from the Colchidians. These are the only races which practise circumcision and it is observable that they do it in the same way as the Egyptians. As between the Egyptians themselves and the Ethiopians I could not say which taught the oth er the practice for among them it is quite clearly a custom of antiquity. As to the custom having been learnt through their Egyptian connections, a further strong proof to my mind is that all Phoenicians trading to Greece cease to treat the pudenda after the Egyptian manner and do not subject their offspring to circumcision."
=====================================
26- Herodotus, Book II, 104. As with many peoples in black Africa, Egyptian women underwent excision of the clitoris: cf. Strabo, Geography, Book XVII, Ch. I.
=================================================================

Herodotus reverts several times to the negroid character of the Egyptians and each time uses it as a fact of observation to argue more or less complex theses. Thus to prove that the Greek oracle at Dodona in Epirus was of Egyptian origin, one of his aruments is the following: "...and when they add that the dove was black they give us to understand that the woman was Egypian." The doves in queston- actually there were two according to the text-symbolize two Egyptian women who are said to have been carried off from the Egyptian Thebes to found the oracles in Greece at Dodona and in Libya (Oasis of Jupiter Amon) respectively. Herodotus did not share the opinion of Anaxagoras that the melting of the snow on the mountains of Ethiopia was the source of the Nile floods. He relied on the fact that it neither rains nor snows in Ethiopia 'and the heat there turns men black'.

=====================================
27- Herodotus, Book II, 57.
28- Seneca, Questions of Nature. IV, 17/
29- Herodotus, Book II, 22.
=====================================

b) Aristotle, -389 to -332, scientist philosopher and tutor of Alexander the Great.

In one of his minor works, Aristotle attempts, with unexpected naivete', to establish a correlation between the physical and moral natures of living beings and leaves us evidence on the Egyptian-Ethiopian race which confirms what Herodotus says. According to him, 'Those who are too black are cowards, like for instance, the Egyptians and Ethiopians. But those who are excessively white are also cowards as we can see from the example of women, the complexion of courage is between the two.'
=====================================

30-Aristotle, Physiognomy 6
=====================================

c) Lucian Greek writer, +125 (?) to +190.
The evidence of Lucian is as explicit as that of the two previous writers. He introduces two Greeks, Lycinius and Timolaus, who start a conversation.
=====================================
31-Lucian, Navigations, paras 2-3
=====================================

Lycinus (describing a young Egyptian): 'This boy is not merely black; he has thick lips and his legs are too thin. . .his hair worn in a plait behind shows that he is not freeborn.'
Timolaus: 'But that is a sign of really distinguished birth in Egypt, Lycinus. All freeborn children plait their hair until they reach manhood. It is the exact opposite of the custom of our ancestors who thought it seemly for old men to secure their hair with a gold brooch to keep it in place.'

d) Appollodorus, first century before our era, Greek philospher. 'Aegyptos conquered the country of the black-footed ones and
called it Egypt after himself.'
=======================================
32-Appollodorus, Book II, 'The Family of Imachus' paras 3 and 4.
=====================================

e) Aeschylus, - 525 (?) to - 456, tragic poet and creator of Greek tragedy. In the Suppliants, Danoas, fleeing with his daughters, the Danaids, and pursued by his brother Aegyptos with his sons, the Aegyptiads, who seek to wed their cousins by force, climbs a hillock, looks out to sea and describes the Aegyptiads at the oars afar off in these terms: "I can see the crew with their black limbs and white tunics."

A similar description of the Egyptian type of man recurs a few lines later in verse 745.
====================================
33-Aeschylus, The Suppliants, vv. 719-20. See also v. 745.
===============================================================

f) Achilles Tatius of Alexandria. He compares the herdsmen of the Delta to the Ethiopians and explains that they are blackish, like half-castes.
====================================

g) Strabo, -58 to about +25.

Strabo visited Egypt and almost all the countries of the Roman empire. He concurs in the theory that the Egyptians and the Colchoi are of the same race but holds that the migrations to Ethiopia and Colchoi had been from Egypt only.

"Egyptians settled in Ethiopia and in Colchoi. There is no doubt whatever as to Strabo's notion of the Egyptians' race for he seeks elsewhere to explain why the Egyptians are darker than the Hindus, a circumstance which would permit the refutation, if needed, of any attempt at confusing 'the Hindu and Egyptian races'.
=====================================
34-Strabo, Geography, Book I, ch. 3, para 10.
=====================================

h) Diodorus of Silicy, about -63 to +14, Greek historian and contemporary of Caesar Augustus.

According to Diodorus it was probably Ethiopia which colonized Egypt (in the Athenian sense of the term, signifying that, with overpopulation, a proportion of the people emigrate to new territory).

=====================================
36-"Diodorus, University History, Book III. The antiquity of the Ethiopian civilization is attested by the most ancient and most venerable Greek writer, Homer in both the Iliad and the Odyssey: "Jupiter followed today by all the gods receives the sacrifices of the Ethiopians (Illiad, I, 422).
'Yesterday to visit holy Ethiopia Jupiter betook himself to the ocean shore'" (Iliad, I, 423).
====================================

The Ethiopians say that the Egyptians are one of their colonies, which was led into Egypt by Osiris. They claim that at the beginning of the world Egypt was simply a sea but that the Nile, carrying down vast quantities of loam from Ethiopia in its flood waters, finally filled it in and made it part of the continent. . .They added that the Egyptians have received from them, as from authors and their ancestors, the great part of their laws.'
======================================

i) Doigenes Laertius.
He wrote the following about Zeno, founder of the Stoic School (-333 to -261): 'Zeno son of Mnaseas or Demeas was a native of Citium in Cyprus, A Greek city which has taken in some Phoenician colonists.' In his Lives, Timotheus of Athens describes Zeno as having a twisted neck. Apollonius of Tyre says of him that he was gaunt, very tall and black, hence the fact that, according to Chrysippus in the First Book of his Proverbs certain people called him an Egyptian vine-shoot.
=====================================

37-Diogenes Laertius, Book VII, i.
======================================

j) Ammianus Marcellinus, about +33 to +100, Latin historian and friend of the Emperor Julian.

With him we reach the sunset of the Roman Empire and the end of classical antiquity. There are about nine centuries between the birth of Aeschylus and Herodotus and the dath of Ammianus Marcellinus, nine centuries during which the Egyptians, amid a sea of white races, steadily crossbred. It can be said without exaggeration that in Egypt one household in ten included a white Asiatic or Indo-European slave.
====================================
38-The Egyptian notables liked to have a Syrians or Cretan female slave in their harems.
================================================================

It is remarkable that, despite its intensity, all this crossbreeding should not ahve succeeded in upsetting the racial constants. Indeed Ammianus Marcellinus writes: ". . . the men of Egypt are mostly brown or black with a skinny and dessicated look".
===================================
39-Ammianus Maarcellinus, Book XXII, para 16 (23).

He also confirms the evidence already cited about the Colchoi: "Beyond these lands are the heartlands of the Camaritae and the Phasis with its swifter stream borders the country of the Colchoi, an ancient race of Egyptian origin.'
=====================================
40-Pirate gangs who worked from small ships called Camare.
41-Ammianus Marcellinus, Book XXII, para. 8 (24).
=====================================

This cursory review of the evidence of the ancient Graeco-Latin writers on the Egyptians' race shows that the extent of agreement between them is impressive and is an objective fact difficult to minimize or conceal, the two alternatives between which present-day Egyptology constantly oscillates.

An exception is the evidence of an honest savant, Voney, who travelled in Egypt between +1783 and +1785, i.e. at the peak period of negro slavery, and made the following observation on the true Egyptian race, the same which produced the Pharaohs, namely, the Copts:

"All of them are puffy-faced, heavy-eyed and thick-lipped, in a word, real mulatto faces. I was tempted to attribute this to the climate until, on visiting the Sphinx, the look ofit gave me the clue to the enigma. Beholding that head characteristically Negro in all its features, I recalled the well-known passage of Herodotus which reads: 'For my part I consider the Colchoi are a colny of the Egyptians because, like them, they are black-skinned and kinky-haired'. In other words the ancient Egyptians were true Negroes of the same stock as all autochtonous peoples of Africa and from that datum one sees how their race, after some centuries of mixing with the blood of Romans and Greeks, must have lost the full blackness of its original colour but retained the impress of its original mould. It is even possible t apply this observation very widely and posit in principle that physiognomy is a kind of record usuable in many cases for disputing or elucida ting the evidence of history on the origins of the peoples. . .

After illustrating this proposition citing the case of the Normans, who 900 years after the conquest of Normandy still look like Danes, Volney adds:

"but reverting to Egypt, its contributions to history afford many subjects for philosphic reflection . What a subject for mediation is the present-day barbarity and ignorance of the Copts who were considered born of the alliance of the deep genius of the Egyptians and the brilliance of the Greeks, that this race of blacks who nowadays are slaves and the objects of our scorn is the very one to which we owe our arts, our sciences and even the use of spoken word and finally recollect that it is in the midst of the peoples claiming to be the greatest friends of liberty and humanity that the most barbarous of enslavements has been sanctioned and the question raised whether black men have brains of the same quality as those of white men!
======================================
42-M.C.F. Volney, Voyages en Syrie et en Egypte. Paris, 1787, Vol. I, pp. 74-7
================================================================

To this testimony of Volney, Champollion-Figeac, brother of Champollion the Younger, was to reply in the following terms: 'The two physical traits of black skin and kinky hair are not enough to stamp a race as negro and Volney's conclusion as to the negro origin of th eancient population of Egypt is glaringly forced and inadmissible.'
====================================
43-J.J. Champollion-Figeac, 1839, pp. 26-7
==============================================================

Being black from head to foot and having kinky hair is not enough to make a man a negor! This shows us the kind of specious argumentation to which Egyptology has had to resort since its birth as a science. Some scholars maintain that Volney was seeking to shift the discussion to a philosophic plane. But we have only to re-read Volney: he is simply drawing the inferences from crude material facts forcing themselves on his eyes and his conscience as proofs.

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

Again, click on the following links to see the CLEARLY DEFINED BLACK/AFRICAN EGYPTIAN IMAGES.

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


================================================
Imaginate, great link, thanks for sharing.
kraaaal,

Dr. Diop was an historian, not a geneticist. In a way, he could not be, because he lived before the era of precise modern genetic research, having died in 1986.

I have read some of Dr., Diop's works, in fact. The first one was that one-volume translation of much of his first and last books, "African Origin of Civilization: Myth or Reality," that I found in one of those half-priced bookstores (it was from the estate of the original owner, I was told) and was published in 1966.

Now, Dr. Diop was not without his strong opinions. He did say in that book that the African historian who "evades" the problem of Egypt is "ignorant, cowardly, and neurotic."

Well, all right. As Martin Luther said, "Sin boldly."

This does not disqualify Dr. Diop's work by itself, but it does put the reader on alert that Dr. Diop has a point to make, and it may be more than just setting forth historical evidence. Perhaps that 's why he doesn't deal with all the history that he could.

While he deals with history pretty well, he does not deal with all of history. He does quote Herodotus, but does so a little badly in that he says that Herodotus "repeatedly" says that the Egyptians were black. Well, I have read Herodotus, and he does not say it repeatedly, but he does say that their color "approaches" the color of the Ethiopians.

He does not quote Strabo, however, who says taht the Egyptians and the Ethiopians are quite different, as different as the northern Indians and the southern Indians.

He tends to leave out the era of the "Wild Nile" even though he speaks of Stone Age settlers. He assumes that the Nile Valley was habitable during a time when we know that it wasn't.

He didn't know that the genetics of the Egyptians show a marked difference between them and the Ethiopians, and a remarkable similarity between them and the west Asians. He didn't know that the genetic structure of the modern Egyptians is very much like that of the ancient Egyptian pyramid-builders which is quite different from that of the Ethiopians. He didn't know that, while there is evidence of some migration from south to north in the genes, it was not as much as we might think. The genes are still mostly east-west in orientation, not north-south.

So while Dr. Diop is admirable, in his abilities and in his research, he is still not supported by the science.

For over 6000 years the Egyptians have been a Mediterranean people. Not white, but not black, either. Mediterranean.
Why is there so much passion expended on this subject, when in a way, it doesn't really matter?

Who would care if the Irish, say, said that they were the saviors of western civilization? There is an argument to that effect, and it's not a bad one, either. But not many people are paying attention to it. Why?

Or how about that book that came out last year about how the Scottish invented so many things that we today take for granted and use all the time? Who looks at the Scottish with greater admiration because of it? No one that I know of.

Both books are slightly interesting historical statements that pass almost unnoticed every day, and rightly so. They are minor. True, but minor.

Why? Because it doesn't matter. The Irish still fight, the Scottish still are...well, Scottish. Kilts, bagpipes, scotch, oatmeal, and throwing telephone poles are what they are best known for. Oh, and haggis.

Laying claim to an expertise that was one or two humdred years ago doesn't cut much ice today, and shouldn't. A people cannot coast and rely on what their ancestors did. We don't stand up in the presence of Chinese just because hundreds of years ago they had a marvellous civilization, built a big wall and invented gunpowder.

Just so, let's say that black Africans did create the Egyptian civilization. Now what? does that mean that we will stop killing our own? Does that mean that we will now work hard in school and flock to the universities to graduate with honors in science and law?

Probably not. It will make no difference at all. All the effort expended to produce an "Afrocentrist" consciousness has served us nothing. At most it has prompted an historical fantasy and a separatist mentality that does no one any good, not even us.

Take the argument on both sides completely away and we still have the incontrovertible truth that we are all humans together. We are all genetic brothers and sisters no matter what color we are. Who was it who said that every war is a civil war because we are all brothers? He was right.

That "white devil" that the NOI hates so much is just like they are. They just can't see it because they deliberately blind themselves with their own idealogy of superiority. Thus they can't even see themselves for who they really are.

It is a common problem. We've even seen it here.

It's about time that we started caring more about the "content of our character" instead of what color the pyramid builders and the writers of the Bible were. It doesn't really matter. What matters is that People did it. We did it. Every person has the right to wonder and admire the work of the builders of pyramids and obelisks (I wonder why Francis Cress Welsing doesn't criticize the Egyptian obelisk-builders? She only despises the American ones. Yet surely the Egyptians would have built them for the same reason?), for they were built by people just like them.

We always do more and better when we are together than when we are divided. Yet here we are dividing people along the same lines as we humans always have.

Perhaps we should spend more time reading and obeying the Bible instead of arguing what color the authors were.
quote:
Originally posted by Melesi:
AFroman,

If you didn't have the guts to prove your point, you shouldn't have started this thread.


I lack the guts to debate with you???! Big Grin Big Grin LOL!!!!!!! Big Grin Big Grin Once again you make a VERY PITIFUL statement! My BLACK brothers and Sisters here are OUTSTANDLY making all the points for the Black Race and ME! I know what they know; we are on the same page...SAME RACE SAME MIND here!! I already wrote to you that I loathe debating you because you are full of ***. In fact, you are INSANE; you stay where you are NOT WANTED! You spend MOST OF YOUR TIME, like a looser that you are, refuting anything Black anything empowering US, the FACT of OUR HISTORY. The COPIOUS FUTILITY you call knowledge don't impress me... POOR WHITE WOMAN, you have no friends, nobody like you in real life so you spend ALL OF YOUR TIME on the Internet, on Black forums trying to give a sense to your meaningfulness existence. You think, you write like a RACIST!...you're a FOOL and a PATHETIC human being, you're not worth MY PRECIOUS TIME.

*** I wonder why I bother......

AfroMan.

[This message was edited by Afroman on January 21, 2004 at 12:14 AM.]
Afroman,

As I said, you do not debate. You merely assume, assigne motives, and call names.

You can hear that on any fourth-grade playground. Grow up.

I do not refute "anything black anything empowering us." What I refute are lies. I mentioned a few of the African American scientists that I admire and respect. They "empower" us by being examples and by looking for truth.

What you are defending is indefensible, for it is a moral outrage.

All right, then, if I am so bad in what I do, show me--don't just call names, actually do some work with your head for a change--where I am wrong. Use facts. Show where the genetics is mistaken. Show how the Nile at the end of the Ice Age was not "wild." Show where the Bible says that the Hebrews were black or that they "went back to Africa."

Admit that the picture of the four races that Properless linked to is a well-known fraud made in 1913.

These facts have gone unanswered in the responding posts. What those who disagree with me have done simply is to change the subject, commit logical fallacies, and call names.

All of which says to any unbiased person that I am right and you are wrong.

You do not have the right to invent motives or situations for others, yet that's just what you have done. You say that I spend all my time on the internet, when I have manifestly spent days away from the computer (Henry38 even remarked on that once you'll remember if you have any memory at all), Which means that facts do not mean as much to you as your fantasies about someone do. YOu say that I have no friends when that is merely a stupid irrelevant comment that you hope will either hurt me or influence some other reader.

Wrong.

And you call me a fool. Projection.

My facts stand unanswered. Wehn you can produce a reasonable response to them, then you will be believed by honest thinkers. Until then, you squat in your four-hole outhouse with your friends counting toes and praising the smell you make.
quote:
Originally posted by Melesi:
Show where the Bible says that the Hebrews were black or that they "went back to Africa."

Do you know what you remind me of Melesi? The blind leading the blind. Because you don't know something is in the Bible does not mean it is not there.

It is not that we can not debate with you. It is you and your dishonest ways and outlook which is the problem. There are debates going on all the time on the board but when one starts talking to someone like you REASON seems to fly out of the window and one begins to wonder what one is dealing with. That is why some of us have left the debate and I for one have advised myself that like for like you MAY be WORSE THAN LOFTON because at least Lofton is honest but you are not. You would go as far as deny your own citizenship than admit that if a people lived somewhere for 500+ years then they are from that land. You see Melesi for you to do that either makes you totally insane or a very unpleasant dishonest person to talk to. That is why some of us got fed up talking to you.

The Hebrews went back to live in Africa alright and they NEVER LEFT. There are many African people that can trace their ancestry to them. The Bible also confirms this but as you are "Mr know it all" dig it up for yourself. Maybe if you start displaying some honest traits in your personality I would show you where it says so but until then Melesi understand that in my eyes at least you are a fake in so many areas.

_____________________________
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,

Oh, come now. First you have to show that I am blind. Since I'm the one engaging the research, I can't be "blind." But those who refuse to see it, who use the pretense that it is biased (only because it isn't what they want to hear) but never, ever show that it actually is biased--even after I've asked them to--these are the blind ones, for they have their eyes firmly shut against the truth and will not open them.

And you follow their lead. I'm not the blind one, here.

If you believe that the Hebrews (and not all of them but the ten tribes of the north) went back to Africa, and if you believe that the evidence for believing so is in the Bible, then show me where it is. It isn't because I do not see it that I say it isn't there. I say it isn't there because I firmly believe that on the basis of years of study. And for days I have been asking you to point out to me where it is--you don't even have to write out the quotes or cut-and-paste--and I'll look it up myself. Yet you will not. That's a common tactic of those who have said far more than they really knew.

And you call me a "fake."

You really cannot believe me to be a "fake," Henry if you're being honest with yourself. I have told you what I believe and why, I have pointed you to reasonable others who openly show in a public forum where they can be judged and critiqued the proofs that lead me to believe what I do.

You have not. Who's the fake? I am being honest with you. But I begin to suspect that you are not being honest with me. I think that you will not engage in a Bible study with me because you might be shown evidence that your belief is wrong. You only use the excuse that you think I'm a fake to avoid the work of thinking.

How are my ways dishonest? You have never shown me how I am, though you have said that I am more than once. I'm afraid that I cannot believe you simply on your saying so. You really must support your accusation. If you cannot, it merely means that you hvae no basis, no reason for saying what you did, and nobody needs to believe that.

"Reason seems to fly out the window" when debating with me? Where? How? Give me an example of that. Since I have supported my arguments with evidence, including Biblical passages and research from genetics, I don't think I'm the one being unreasonable here.

Where does the Bible say that the Hebrews went back to Africa?

Lofton? Why bring him up? I'm not even familiar with him. Leave him out of this and let's just talk about you and me.

I have never denied my own citizenship. I simply want to know what really happened in history and who I am and who we are. I will not live a lie however happy it may sound or make us. Truth, even hard truth, is far better than any lie. But that's not the same as denying my citizenship.

About your claim that 500 years of living in Egypt makes someone Egyptian: no. It makes them influenced by Egypt, but it doesn't necessarily make them Egyptian. Ask the Indians if they are Indian.

Israel lived in a ghetto--a reservation--from the beginning. "Tell Pharaoh that you are shepherds. The Egyptians don't like shepherds, so they'll give you your own land, Goshen, to live in," Joseph told his own brothers (Gen. 46:33f). They did, and Pharaoh did. From the very beginning they were a separate people living in the Jewish Quarter in Egypt. When "there arose another Pharaoh who knew not Joseph," they had already been recognized as a separate people and treated as such, and now worse, for they were made slaves. They were recognizably different--Moses could represent them, and there was no mistake or question about who he was representing, for Pharaoh knew who the Hebrews were and they knew who they were. When they left Egypt their identity was intact. They had a question about who God was, but they knew who they were, and so did their neighbors.

So how long does it take for a people to become assimilated when they don't want to be assimilated, and the country they're in doesn't want to assimilate them? Apparently a lot longer than 4 or 500 years, for it didn't happen then.

This I honestly believe. Since I have been honest with you, I hope you will start being honest with me. Where does the Bible say that they went back to Africa?
When and how did they get to Africa?

Let me ask you Melesi if I take a number of African Americans to another part of the world and in their new land there is war and strife, logic and common sense would dictate that those African Americans would naturally flee to their former home which is America wouldn't it? Would you expect any less of the Israelites in their new home?

The problem with the research you are doing is looking for a mass movement of Hebrews as in the case of the exodus from Egypt. If you do that you would come to the cases of exiles in Assyria, Babylon and Rome. This would NOT help you very much because you are then ignoring that the Bible talks about the Jews being scattered and living all over the place that is between Africa and Asia. It is like looking at black people in the western hemisphere and ignoring the fact that there are many more black people all over the place. How did they come to be living in all these areas is what you should be researching? Through war and the resulting REFUGEE migration of course. I don't believe you think the Jews were sitting there like dummies for the Assyrians to pack them off to exile. Majority of them fled and where they fled to is what you need to find.

To help you out I mentioned if you take a people from one place to another and there are problems they naturally flee back to their former home. That is what you should be focusing on. The Bible mentions how Israelites used to run to Egypt for whatever reasons. The most recent case was that of Jesus parents running with him to Egypt to escape certain death at the hands of Herod. So stop looking for mass exodus and look for the treacle that becomes the multitude.

I am sure if you do not know of the Hebrews in Africa you have heard of the Falasha Jews that the State of Israel repatriated to their country not many years ago. Every school child knows of this so I am sure you are aware of the event I am talking about. Now these Jews plus others like them have been living in Africa for thousands of years. Since we are talking honesty the question I am interested in is this, "Are these Falasha Jews Africans giving their 4000 years history living in Africa? If so how are they Africans but the Hebrews in Egypt were not Africans? Ignore everything else and just focus on explaining this please.

_____________________________
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

[This message was edited by henry38 on January 22, 2004 at 03:11 AM.]
Another thing Melesi. I DO want to show you where it says in The Bible the Israelites went back to live in Egypt or Africa. It is there in the Bible alright.

The problem I am having is how you understand things. I can not get away from the fact that in your eyes if I live somewhere for 500+ years I am not a native of the land. When it comes to whites you do not see a problem with them being Canadians, Autralians and Americans but with everyone else who they are and their identity or citizenship is called into question ACCORDING TO YOU

_____________________________
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,

It may be that you "can't get away from it" because you refuse to understand the situation. I have explained it at least twice.

The Egyptians did not want to assimilate the Hebrews.

The Hebrews did not want to assimilate with the Egyptians.

They lived separate lives in a separate place in Egypt.

They kept their own identity.

Therefore, they were easily recognized as "Hebrews." Pharaoh did not say, "Some of us are doing funny things and I need to enslave them." He said, "Look, the Israelites (lit., "'am beni yisrael," "The sons of Israel") have become much too numerous for us." (Ex. 1:9) "If there's a war, they might side with our enemies..."

Henry,
It doesn't matter what our intuition tells us could have been the case. The record plainly says that even after 400 or 500 years they were not Egyptian. They were easily recognized as a separate people. That's why they were never Egyptian. The case of us in America is quite different and not applicable. We wanted to be American, or at least we accepted that we were. That's not the same as living in our own land with our own identity (and that's another thing--we had more than one "identity." We came from different peoples and so were not "one people" when we came here. The Hebrews started out as one family. They had a tightly-knit identity).

And Joseph and Mary fled death for their son (and maybe for themselves, too), they were in southern Israel, Egypt was not far away, it was easy to escape over the border, so they did. It wasn't a matter of "times is hard." It was death. And they were not captured and taken north, as the ten tribes were.

This doesn't mean that the ten tribes "went" anywhere. They were taken to Assyria (the record says so) and that's the last we see of them.

which means that the Bible, including the Books of Moses--were written by Israel, not an African people. Israel was not an African people.

Now, having said that, research seems clear that everyone is African, at least ultimately. Mitochondrial DNA research has shown that everyone most likely came from northwest Africa.

So, please, don't tell me that I'm trying to deny Africa anything. If we're concerned about priority or primacy, Africa is prior to all.

This was a long time ago, however, somewhere around 50,000 years ago. We know of at least one group of mitochondrial DNA people who spread from northwest Africa through north Africa and into Eurasia. But a long itme later--about 30,000-17,000 years ago, the descendents of these people came back to north Africa. 20,000+ years is a long time, and by that time these people were different. So were the Africans, for life doesn't stand still.

The original inhabitants had been destroyed by the Ice Age and the flooding that occurred at the end of it, and the returnees were the direct ancestors of the people living there now.

They were not related to the more southern, the sub-saharan, peoples. Closer are the Ethiopians, but closer still are the Arabs and Berbers. The further east in north Africa one traces the genes, the less related the people are. This replacement of the original peoples came from the east, nad by the time that this happened, they were a different folk.

This migrating ("demic movement" is one technical term for it) left its mark on the peoples it met, including the Ethiopians, which means that they and a few others--the Lemba--would also bear some of the genetic marks of this traipsing east and west across the top of Africa, but it is clear that this is the movement, not a north-south movement, that peoples did.

Therefore, the ancestors of the Egyptians, the Arabs, and the Israelites were these people who came from the north and east.

This is the "trickle" that you say that in should look for and that I have in fact been talking about for days now. It's a trickle that took thousands of years and gave rise, not to a black African culture, but a Mediterranean one.

And we have gone over the issue of Americans and Canadians. Their case is different. This case didn't take long. They were colonists who came for a different life. Some wanted to get rich, some came for adventure, some came for religious freedom, and in the case of Australia they were sent as prisoners ("The Fatal Shore" is a very good book on the history of Australia), but for whatever the cause, they crossed a sea to have a new life, different from the one they lived before, and they displaced the native peoples in a very brief time to do so.

That's different from the natural expansion and migration that people did overland. Overland, and over thousands of years, they "grew" from one place into another.

With Israel it was not so. They moved into a specific place and lived there quite separate from the surrounding people, who did not say "Come in and be one with us and one of us."

It's not "says me." It's in the record of Exodus. And as for the spread of people from the north and east into north Africa, it's in the genes from a long time ago.
MBM please lock this thread!! Do not give the chance to this religious bigot-Christian missionary Melesi to spew her racism allegedly "scholarship" in this thread, I solely initiated for the black members of this board. This white woman, who first claimed was a man, but found out to be a woman, is thus a fraud and truly arrogant and ignorant to think she has some kind of authority to attempt to control black and African studies in black forums!! I already told her to believe what she wants; irrespective of the cultural genocide her & her Caucasoid brethren commit to Africans the world over. Still, she lingers here in a deliberate project to impose her racist beliefs, allegedly "academic scholarship" to rob our legacy once again!! No sane black man or woman should give them the chance to rob our cultural legacy in his or her own mind and community. No conscious black man or woman should fuel their fraud and intolerance!! But we must always ward off their deceit and insulting behaviors to our Souls and Humanhood. Someone please lock this thread!!

AFROMAN.
see when you deal with imposters you have to look very carefully at what they write, she tried to fuse this 19th Century white supremict Ideology of the origins of Civilization, with the European minipulated bible, to back up their illogical claim. the ancestors of the Egyptians, the Arabs, and the Israelites trying to say arabs were the original egyptians, but i do like how she unknowingly makes the african origin point when she mentioned the jews, who were black people, but modern science has admitted from the great work of Dr. Chiek Anta Diop, the black African Orgins of civilizationThey were not related to the more southern, the sub-saharan, peoplesshe wants us to believe that egyptians werent like black africans in west africa or the sudan, but lighter arab like people, Mitochondrial DNA research has shown that everyone most likely came from northwest Africa.where did she get this information, ancient egypt is in east african, and the origin is believed to be in the Sudan< but we suppose to except this bullshyt as research, you can read, peoplelike Sir Frances Bacon, a pure racist saying the exact same thing in his 19th centrury work, this is nothing more than a racist imposter trying to divide this forum like i see on every other african centered forum, i say igg the imposter!!!!!!!!

"I AM BECAUSE WE ARE"
Afroman,

And just where is this "bigotry" that so vexes you? Show me an example of it.

You can't because it doesn't exist. What I say is true. The science exists and is accepted by scientists who know the science. That does not include you, I would imagine.

Is it that we disagree that you are increasingly venemous against me, or is it that you think that I might be white--therefore you just showed yourself to be a racist bigot--and you want me off a "black" forum? What, we can't allow whites to post here, too? And what of those who are just thought to be white but really aren't?

I think it's because you can't support your beliefs that you are this angry. All you want is to spout your hatred and prejudice, and if someone has a good reason for disagreeing with you, a reason that you cannot refute, then you want to shut off debate.

You do not want debate. You do not want to think. You do not want to know the truth. You want to believe that you are superior, not by actually doing or accomplishing anything, but by merely being of a certain race. You want to take the easy way out and have someone else do your work for you. If someone can't reply to you, then you are right? You make me laugh.

Be a man, ok? Answer the arguments. Have the courage to stand up for what you believe. Have the strength of your convictions, if you have any more than "I am better than you are."

Or you can just whine because you can't fight the fight you started.
yea we suppose to buy eurocentric, bullshyt as authentic reseach huh, i must remind you , diop was a historian linguist and a scientist,but you liberal white women will do anything to be heard even if you are unknowingly aiding the White Supremist ideology, how can you get mediteranian people if they did not come from african people, how do you get arabs if they dont come from african people> I GIVE YOU CREDIT YOU SUDDENLY STAND UP FOR YOUR EUROPEANS, even though they are the most savage and violent group of people to have ever graced the earth, and with in their little 6,0000 years of existance, they have managed to almost make the world a toxic wasteland, how intelligent they are, so greedy and psychotic, they will trade air for profit!!

"I AM BECAUSE WE ARE"
Knowledgeseeker,

Careful. Afroman has been led by the nose by a rabid, small-minded, hateful "prophetessofrage" who makes up most of what she says. One of those "facts" that she made up is my color and gender. She was willing to tak with me for a short while, but after she found out that I disagreed with her she demanded to know my race and gender--which would have been easy to discover if she'd only been patient and listening instead of demanding a certain kind of answer right-this-minute. But I wanted her to deal with the issue instead of the person, so I didn't tell her. That sent her off into a--what else--rage and she threw her spittle everywhere in her anger against someone who dared not only to disagree with her but to give reasons and proofs for doing so.

Afroman simply latched onto this slavering mad dog and is repeating what he heard from her.

Don't believe him.

Now,

where do you see any evidence of "19th century white supremecist ideology" in my writings? What I have been talking about is not at all 19th-century in any form. It's modern genetics and linguistics. One does not have to be white to be able to read a genetic code or a spectrograph or a map or to know what the Ice Age and its aftermath was like. One doesn't have to be white to learn the truth or to figure out origins.

I have never said that black people don't make good scientists. I have said that not all black people are good scientists, just like not all white people can't be, either. We're human together, fallible but achieving great things. Together.

But what you have not done is to show in any way just how the science is wrong.

You were wrong about me, so why not about the science, too?

Now, just where did I say that "the arabs were the original Egyptians"? I never said that. Not once. I did say that the Egyptians are and have been in any meaningful use of the term "Egyptian" closely related to the arabs, but that's not the same. Some of those old boundaries still exist in language, in the Middle East as they do in Europe. The old boundaries of the Roman Empire still exist, you know. On one side ot he Danube and the Rhine are the Romance languages, and on the other are the Teutonic languges. Just so, in the Middle East and North Africa are major differences in language. A professor at the American University in Beirut said that after living in Egypt for twelve years and teaching Arabic in school there, his wife came home to their new house in Lebanon and said that what the Lebanese spoke sounded like Arabic but she couldn't understand them. It was a much different Arabic.

They are a different people, and nobody in the science of genetics is saying that the Egyptians and the arabs are the same. They say that they are most closely related genetically, much closer than they are to the Sudanese, for example.

And that should mean something to those who are willing to see the facts with an open mind.

So how is this "white supremecist"?

I have never said that "the Jews were black people." You haven't been reading what I've written. I said that the Jews, the Hebrews, were Mesopotamian. Not black, not white, Mesopotamian. I also have pointed out flaws in Dr. Diop's work, for he assumed that the Nile was never "wild" when we know that it was, and that the genetics show a clear relationship between the ancient Egyptians and those people to the north and east of them, but not to those to their south.

Did I ever quote "Sir Farancis Bacon"? Have I ever quoted anybody from 19th century Europe in any of this discussion? I did not. So stop building a straw man and saying that I said what I never did say. I do not agree with the 19th-century Europen atttempts at belittling the southern peoples, especially Africans. It was racism using pseudo-science to achieve its sociopolitical aims. I have never agreed with it, and I never refer to it. I certainly didn't in this thread.

Got that?

OK, let's say that everybody did come from the Sudan. That's a niggling point that doesn't matter. What is clear is that all the people that we're talking about here, people with the genetics of North Africa, came from North Africa and west Asia, not the Sudan. The genetic clades show a distribution along the coast from Iberia and the Canary Islands (remember the Moors?) to the Middle East. Not into the south, and very little drift from the south into Egypt. The genetic research into the mummies of the pyramid buildres shows that they were as the Egyptians are now. No "invaders" changed them from black to brown.

Ignore me if you wish, but if you do you ignore the truth. It's no skin off my back, but it'll make you a laughing-stock. Suit yourself.
all the words that are in bold you typed, go back and look at it, who said the the the jews were not black , who says that the Egyptians wasnt black african typical of africans all over the continent south of the saharah, what makes your research better than scientists and scholars who spent their lives researching this stuff, none you just another asshole trying to strip african people of it original place as the mothers and fathers of civilization, so i got my sources, ive researched, you have yours, so believe whatever you want to believe.The kemetic people were african , eithiopia was once the name of the whole land of the black just like the word kemet, I didnt say you quoted Sir Francis Bacon , i merely see his ideology of ancient egypt in your responses

"I AM BECAUSE WE ARE"
knowledgeseeker,

Live up to your name. You are only reacting. Think instead.

AS I said to another, it doesn't matter what we think ought to have been commonsensical. Our intuition says that Egypt ought to have been black, yes, but it wasn't. There are facts that you are not dealing with, genetics that show that Egypt was a Mediterranean people. It's not "my" research. I never said that it was "my"research. I said it was many people's research, and they all agree, including those who worked for fourteen years to research and write the book "History and Geography of Human Genes."

These are peer-reviewed publications, critiqued by the entire genetic-science community, not the work of some racist crackpots.

Dr. Diop unfortunately ignored work that he should have and could have considered. Some he ignored quite deliberately:

This is from "African Origin of Civilization":

If we speak only of the genotype, I can find a black who, at the level of his chromosomes, is closer to a Swede than Peter Botha is. But what counts in reality is the phenotype. It is the physical appearance which counts. This black, even if on the level of his cells he is closer than Peter Botha, when he is in South Africa he will live in Soweto. Throughout history, it has always been the phenotype which has been at issue; we mustn't lose sight of this fact. The phenotype is a reality, physical appearance is a reality.

It is the phenotype which as given us so much difficulty throughout history, so it is this which must be considered in these relations. It exists, is a reality and cannot be repudiated.

Now, here is scientific evidence that he says that he is willing to ignore because he says it doesn't matter. He says it doesn't matter because his aim is not strictly scientific but political. Now, I happen to agree with his political aim here, but to say that teh science "doesn't matter" is quite wrong, and it led him in the wrong direction. He decided that he would fight racism by finding evidence of ancient African superiority. The trouble is, by ignoring important science, he got his conclusions wrong. That will always happen when we refuse to use all the facts that exist.

That's what happens to all who follow in his footsteps, too. They don't know enough because he would not consider all the truth.

OK, I misunderstood your point about what I said about the Jews. But you haven't shown how the Jews could be black, so why should I think that your objection has any merit?

You know, if Egypt is so important to our self-respect, then we have a real problem. But let's take the historical status of Africa: isn't it enough that we are the fathers and mothers of all of humanity? If that's so (and it is) then why must we insist that Egypt be either black or "not ours"? Egypt is ours, just as China and Europe and Asia are.

The problem that I see is that we have decided that we must have it all. Egypt must look like us in order to be us. We must have Egypt or we have nothing. We must have the Jews or we have nothing. We must have the Bible or we have nothing.

Which is a lie.

Let the Egyptians be the close relatives to the
arabs that they were. There wouldn't have been any arabs or chinese if it wasn't for us.

And let's get on with living instead of demanding that everyone looked as we do now.

Add Reply

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