posted 14 June 2004 09:19 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by S.Mohammad:
Arabs and Jews have low levels of sub-saharan ancestry. When I say 'sub-Saharan' I'm also talking about East Africans too. The only arabs that significant amounts of sub-Saharan ancestry are the Arabs in the Arabian Peninsula, like Yemen and Oman and part of this is due to the slave trade. I've seen the study you're referring to and it says it traces the origin of Afro-asiatic languages to east Africa from studying mtDNA. You cannot mix genetics and linguistics together, just as I pointed out with Cavalli-Sforza and his studies. Afro-asiatic speakers encompass a broad variety of racial types. We don't even need genetics to confirm that Afro-asiatic languages originated in East Africa. All one has to do is look at the diversity of Afro-asiatic in Africa vs that of Asia.

---

posted 14 June 2004 11:06 PM            

Secondly, you have grossly exaggerated (6,000 years before the events have happened) your time frames.
The time calculated for Moses writing the Old Testament is 1400 B.C.

The time calculated for the Exodus is 1450 b.c.
The time claculated for Abraham coming down to Canaan is 1875 BC (only 400 years earlier).

What other "major" events happened prior to that, in the Book of Genesis, besides an attempt at explaining when Adam and Eve were "created" and the "flood" which only the first 6 chapters of 50, in Genesis was dedicated to. This author obviously didnt dedicate a lot of time to these event, and definitely didnt give a specific date unless you consider the verse "In the beginning" to suggest the world was created 6,000 years ago. And if you're referring to quotes like "Adam lived 800 years and begat....and Seth lived 800 years and begat...." I dont think a living soul takes those accounts "literally".

And remember Moses was an Egyptian prince, surely he was literate. The old testament was translated into Aramaic is 400 BC and Greek in 200 BC, and has been the most translated book in the History of Man ever since. The oldest "surviving" text were written 800 BC, found on silver tablets, remember much of the text was destroyed during the Jewish persecution.

And to answer your question again, I dont take every single verse of the Bible literally, as it wasnt meant to be taken literally, but being the great great grandchild of a slave that founded one of the oldest African American churches in Augusta Georgia, coming from a long line of ministers "I dont take it with a grain of salt either."

Originally posted by S. Mohammad
This is a false misconception because the gene is also carried in non-Jewish Arabs
I think its common knowledge that Islam is one of the youngest religions, and most of those Muslim Arabs are descendants of Jewish converts. The study did conclude that these Palestinian Arabs and the Jews are "genetic" cousins. After all, aren't they both descendants of Abraham? (Ishmael/Israel)

posted 15 June 2004 01:35 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by homeylu:
Originally posted by Wally
[b]As anyone who is following this, it is hopeless isn't it?
LMBAO

Originally posted by S. Mohammad
I'm not hopeless, you're just blind full of extreme Afrocentrism
You say "Afrocentism" as if its a bad word. I embrace the word, and encourage more Wallys and Thoughts to take center stage.

* raising my fist

[/B]

---

Unlike you and Wally, I agree with much of what thought says and he doesn't too much disagree with what I say. On the other hand, using sources from the early 20th century certainly doesn't help neither one of your cases.(wally and you)

posted 15 June 2004 02:01 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by homeylu:
Originally posted by S. Mohammad
[b]Skin color alone does not make a person black, as there are no people with 'black' skin, just deep brown skin
LMAO, silliness, like Wally said, I dont think I need to respond to this.

---

Using your logic, African-Americans, most of them aren't black because they lack black skin. Your logic is beginining to borderline on stupidity. 'blackness' is social and not biological, how else would people like Walter White and Colin Powell identify as black? Its social. furthermore you're trying to tell me what is black, a person who is born of two African parents(Father Hausa-Fulani, mother Kanuri)? Like i said you lack logic.

quote:

---

Originally posted by S. Mohammad
You logic makes no sense whatsoever, thats why I worded my reply the way I did
Actually its your obvious inability to comprehend ANY logic, as you always have proven.

---

lets look at your logic, black people to you=people with black skin, is your skin black literally? You're a moron!

quote:

---

Originally posted by S. Mohammad
Are you saying Middle easterner Jews aren't maternally 'Semitic'? These Jews have relocated to this area from all over the world and have mixed with local populations everywhere they settled. That is why the study concluded: THERE IS NO HAPLOTYPE CONSISTENT WITH A COMMON ORIGIN OF FEMALE JEWS, "Unfortunately, in many cases, it is not possible to infer the geographic origin of the founding mtDNAs within the different Jewish groups with any confidence"

---

There is no maternally jewish haplotype because the only so-called 'jewish' gene is the CMH, which is shared by not only jews but non-jewish Arabs. I asked you are you saying that Middle Eastern jews non-SEMITIC in ancestry, this has nothing to do with Jewish genes.

quote:

---

Originally posted by S. Mohammad
All that is saying is that Jewish males mixed in with different populations
Exactly!!, now about that Lemba maternal admixture again...The Bantu wouldnt happen to have been a "different population" would they?...smh

---

The evidence indicates that a population carrying the CMH as well as Semitic genes mixed with the Lemba, it does not prove what color or race the people are as you cannot attach a race to genes. genotype and phenotype are two diffierent things.

quote:

---

Originally posted by S. Mohammad
Are you saying that blacks had there origin in Palestine? now i know you have no logic Please view my second response, in fact, let me re-quote it: "Actually its your obvious inability to comprehend ANY logic, as you always have proven"

---

Answer the question and quit trolling.

quote:

---

As my post clearly states its preposterous to even imagine the entire continent of Africa originated there
Do I need to define "preposterous" for you?
If I can prove just 1 tribe was there, which I have, this proves blacks were in Canaan.

---

The CMH does not prove blacks were in Canaan. maybe there were blacks in Canaan but it does not prove that Canaanites were originally black. There were crania found in Egypt's Lower Nile Delta with red hair, does that make AE white or Nordic originally? NO

quote:

---

Originally posted by S. Mohammad
Lemba are maternally African but have significant semitic paternal ancestry the correct observation is that 'semitic' males mixed with Lemba
And those "semitic" males were obviously the Black paternal ancestors of the Buba Clan. Which proves Blacks were in Canaan.
(You're slowly catching on)

---

You cannot read studies. The DNA study said Lemba have significant Semitic mixture which could have come from both Arab Muslims and
Jews, but the CMH showed a higher frequency in the Buba clan. When it comes to Semitic mixture geneticists cannot distinguish between Jews and Arabs and the CMH haplotype isn't limited only to Jews, so you have no proven that those who spread the CMh were black.

Further excerpts from the study conclude:
"The people closest to the Jews from a genetic point of view may be the Kurds, according to results of a new study at the Hebrew University. Scientists who participated in the research said the findings seem to indicate both peoples had common ancestors who lived in the northern half of the fertile crescent, where northern Iraq and Turkey are today. Some of them, it is assumed, wandered south in pre-historic times and settled on the eastern shores of the Mediterranean. http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=96990

My,my,my, is this not consistent with the Biblical account of Abraham from the land of Ur (Modern Iraq) wondering south to the land of Canaan. Genesis 11:31[/quote]

Only one problem with that, when Abraham wandered south there was no such thing as Judaism, much less even a priestly caste of Levi. The priestly caste wasn't determined until after Moses took charge to lead the children of Israel out of Egypt into the promised land. Now since the CMH is representative of the priestly caste, what does Abraham wandering south has anything to do with what you just said? Levites only married Levites to preserve the priestly caste and there were not Levites when Abraham wandered south. I told you lack logic.

And for the record: The Lemba don't have this Iraqi/Turkish admixture, so their ancestors must have ALREADY BEEN IN CANAAN!!

[/B][/QUOTE]

posted 15 June 2004 02:03 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by RU2religious:
There you have Mohammad, they get there black DNA from Sub-Sahara Africans. Question? Wasn't the land of Canaan inhabited by the Ethiopian Nubians? YES!

---

posted 15 June 2004 03:20 AM            

quote:

---

. There were crania found in Egypt's Lower Nile Delta with red hair, does that make AE white or Nordic originally? NO

---

Never heard this. What time period do this date to? Are you aware that salt in the sands of the Sahara can also turn hair certain colors. Certain archaeological conditions also turn hair certain colors. You are aware of this right?

posted 15 June 2004 07:55 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by ausar:
Never heard this. What time period do this date to? Are you aware that salt in the sands of the Sahara can also turn hair certain colors. Certain archaeological conditions also turn hair certain colors. You are aware of this right?

---

Late dynastic, probably of foreign origin.

posted 15 June 2004 09:35 AM            

Using your logic, African-Americans, most of them aren't black because they lack black skin. Your logic is beginining to borderline on stupidity. 'blackness' is social and not biological, how else would people like Walter White and Colin Powell identify as black? Its social. furthermore you're trying to tell me what is black, a person who is born of two African parents(Father Hausa-Fulani, mother Kanuri)? Like i said you lack logic.

posted 15 June 2004 09:35 AM            

Using your logic, African-Americans, most of them aren't black because they lack black skin. Your logic is beginining to borderline on stupidity. 'blackness' is social and not biological, how else would people like Walter White and Colin Powell identify as black? Its social. furthermore you're trying to tell me what is black, a person who is born of two African parents(Father Hausa-Fulani, mother Kanuri)? Like i said you lack logic.

posted 15 June 2004 01:21 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by RU2religious:
This is my first time posting on this site but I do have a question for you Wally.
First and for most I agree with most of what you have brought to the table up to this point but then there are something that Mohommad has brought that brings out questions.
I myself am an ""African American so when I ask this question I'm asking trying to learn.
I have heard of a Semetic race but know that Semetic is a modern day creation of a word. The word Shem is the correct word or is it?
From my understanding the ancient Israelites didn't use such vowels as 'E' or 'O' which left room for only 'I' and 'A'. If this is true (as I said I'm still learning) then that would render the name Shem to Sham. This word can also be translated to mean to different words such as 'Ham' taking away the S or 'Shama' adding the A.
The point and question that I'm asking is did someone add the name Shem to the bible when in fact the name shem could have been Sham, knowing that the ancient Hebrews didn't use vowels like 'E'?

---

posted 15 June 2004 01:30 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
Ausur, why does Wally keep making new accounts?

---

posted 15 June 2004 01:31 PM            

Firt of all when I say "Black" I dont mean it literally- so dont be ridiculous!!

Just as I dont think "white" people are literally white, Just as their complexions and features vary, so do ours.

Since you're obviusly new in here, you may not have read other posts in other Forums that I myself, agree with you that the whole concept of race is a social one, so when I hear people say things like caucasoid, negroid, blah blah blah, to try to "theorize" that the AE were not the same people as other Sub-saharan Africans, I am more inclined to inject "skin color" into the argument to show that they're not the same people as the Germans, other North Europeans either!

From an earlier post I wrote:
"Afica has thousands of tribes which separate themselves amongst cultural lines and not complexion lines.......Please get out of the racist habit of trying to box all Africans into one complexion, one hair texture/color, and one Nose size, lip size etc.. The Egyptians were clearly showing the diversity of the African race, then ,as we are today!"

So like S. Mohammad, when you clearly dont understand someone's logic, don't comment on it, just because you "assumed" I meant Black literally, damn sure doesnt mean I did!!!

You may also want to view my post on the AAPA's current position on race.

This is just a piece of it:
"These old racial categories were based on externally visible traits, primarily skin color, features of the face, and the shape and size of the head and body, and the underlying skeleton. They were often imbued with nonbiological attributes, based on social constructions of race. These categories of race are rooted in the scientific traditions of the 19th century, and in even earlier philosophical traditions which presumed that immutable visible traits can predict the measure of all other traits in an individual or a population. Such notions have often been used to support racist doctrines"

posted 15 June 2004 01:46 PM            

Scientific theory of Evolution:
The dominant evolutionary theory maintains that humans originated in Africa, and the earth was gradually populated by these AFRICAN peoples. These routes were primarily through the Arabian peninsula and also by way of CANAAN. If one accepts this theory, then the first inhabitants of Canaan had to be African! (This is not rocket science here.)

And trust me folks, DNA cannot be used to correctly identify a specific racial group.
Question - Is it possible to tell the race of a person from their DNA?

No - Dr. Francis Collins, head of the Human Genome Project, says that there
is no evidence so far that would distinguish DNA from one race as opposed to
any other.
Ellen S. Mayo
=========================================================
NO! There are more individual differences between people of the same race,
than there are differences between the races. These discoveries more than
any other, should show that race is (was) just an environmental adaptation,
and that we truly are all one species.

vanhoeck

posted 15 June 2004 02:05 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wally:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by neo*geo:
[b]Ausur, why does Wally keep making new accounts?

---

[/B][/QUOTE]

posted 15 June 2004 02:09 PM            

Browse through all the posts on AE, and you will notice that the subjects on "race" are always the hottest.

Controversy makes for good debates, and nothing more controversial than race, religion, or sex.

posted 15 June 2004 02:16 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by homeylu:
Originally posted by Supercar
[b]Yes, my comment had nothing much do with the subject, but it seems to me that race is always injected to it.

Browse through all the posts on AE, and you will notice that the subjects on "race" are always the hottest.

Controversy makes for good debates, and nothing more controversial than race, religion, or sex.

So it appears to me that until "race" is injected into these discussions, they die out more quickly.[/B]

---

posted 15 June 2004 03:07 PM            

I can assure you that although I am a fan of Wally's thought process and definitely his website-probably would have created one similar myself, and we're both fans of Diop, we are NOT the same person.

Wally, I assume is a male, I am a female, and I'm sure anyone can see that our IP addresses indicate that we live in different parts of the US. Wally and I have never even communicated outside of this post.

There are other posters like "Thought" whose idealism I share, but hopefully you will NEVER confuse me with S. Mohammad-LOL.
and definitely not Horembh! (making a frown face)

posted 15 June 2004 03:27 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by homeylu:
And further in this particular post people like S. Mohammad are trying to "theorize" Blacks right out of Biblical History. Seems to me the only people he could ever claim as Black with confidence are the Nubians/Cushites/Ethiopians

---

Idiot, you're making clais base on assumption. Ethiopiansas mentiondnthe Bibl has othing do with day Ethiopia, its talking about Nubia. You havenver proven Canaanites were black, you jumped into th whole LembaJew argument, whn it has nothing to do with whether Phoenicians were black. Ancient Egyptians certainly depicted how Syro-Palestinian looked and they didn't look black at all. As I've said and I'll say again, the Table of Nations refers to Nations not races or language. The writer of the book of Genesis wasn't a linguist, how would he know what language are what? Case in point are Elamite and the languages of the Nubians. Ela is mentioned under Shem, but Elamite is NOT a Semitic language. Cush(Nubia) is mentioned under Ham's line but Nubians speak Nilo-Saharan languages. You know very little about this, and whe have I ever said that Nubians(Cushites) were the only blacks in the Bible? Earth to 'homeylu', told you earlier in another post that it is dumb to liit black people to just the line of Ham for it falls right in with earlier racist thinking(Curse of Ham)

quote:

---

and time and time again he argues, the only way these people could have left sub-sahara Africa is if they were "slaves".

---

Do not put words in my mouth you idiot! I said the Arab Slave Trade is one reason why Middle Easterners have low levels of sub-Saharan ancestry and more often than not, that ancestry is maternal, although more studies utilizing paternal sub-Saharan ancestry need to be done. Were there black warrior who werwe in these places? Yes, but mostly from Egypt. There ere both Black Egyptian as well as Nubia soldiers in Egyptian armies so it is possible. If you're going to quote me, quote my exact words you troll.

quote:

---

Like its impossible to imagine these Blacks described in ancient times as "warriors" and "kings and queens" could have conquered and settled outside the continent in areas like Canaan and other areas outside of Africa

---

Prove it! I said egyptians did conquer parts of the Eastern Mediterranean, but that is certainly no proof that Canaanites were originally black. The evidence isn't there tha large numbers of Africans settled there, and yu have certainly presented none, except for trying to use the Bible as some irrefutable source.

quote:

---

but at the same time its not difficult to imagine that whites could come from as far as Turkey and conquer the land that borders Black Egypt.

---

How idiotic, Turks were never originally white. o to Turkey today and you will not see many white looking Turks. And it is fact that Turks did conquer lands, even Egypt(Ottoman Empire) thats historical fact supported by records. Ancient was an African civilization with darker more tropical African looking people in the south, intermediates in Middle Egypt and coastal African with sme intermediates in the North, not a whole lot different than what it is today. All the people were Africans biologically and AE origins lie in the heavily tropical African south.

quote:

---

How preposterous is that? All I keep hearing from him is that these slaves are the only Africans that contibuted to the Arabian gene pool. Not the warriors or Black Conquerors.

---

Idiot, dear idiot, I said that sub-Saharan DNA found in Arabs is partly due to the Arab Slave Trade and that is a reality. Aksumites also conquered Yemen and mixed in with Yemenis, those are about the only two routes i know plus the Zanj kingdom which was a kingdom founded by SLAVES who revolted and won. Those are all historical facts, i don't need to go talking about mythological Black warriors and blackwashing people to put blacks in the Middle East as rulers, that is preposterous.

quote:

---

And that he would have the balls to suggest that Wally and I are "black-washed" when He is clearly "white-washed" in his mode of thought.

---

Ausar and even Thought can tell you without question that I am certainly NOT 'whitewashed' in my mode of thought. In fact if you look in Richardpoe.com forum, I'm there debating a self-profssed Berber who says North Africans are white. I'm keeping her from whitewashing you idiot.

quote:

---

Have you ever heard ANY of the so-called "Afrocentrist" attempt to "diminish" contributions the white race contibuted to society-never, all I see is them "maximizing" the contributions Blacks made.
And this is what Wally and myself have a problem with![/b]

---

If contribution are going to be maximized by Afrocentrists it needs to be groundedin science and objectivity, not racial agenda, for it does more harm than good. Thats why I cannot stand Clyde Winers's with his 'Black Shang in China, Black Greeks, and Black Indians, sam with Runoko Rashidi and his Black Dalits. It takes away and does more harm to Afrocentrism than good and thats what you and Wally are doing by trying to claim that Canaanites were originally black. There is so too much in Africa, in particular west and central Africa and the Sahara that hasn't been studie, to want to go off and worry about whether Canaanites were blacks or blacks in India and China. Thats not 'African' centered at all and is just as absurd as white Europeans claiming a 'white' Aryan invasion of India and Nordic Egyptians in Egypt

posted 15 June 2004 03:38 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by supercar:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by S.Mohammad:

---

quote:

---

S. Mohammad, you said that Colin Powell isn't black but he indentifies as such. It's true that by skin color alone, he couldn't be considered black, but phenotypically, he still has features which one would associate with a negro. But then others might say that they look black, but they don't have the stereotypical negro features, in which case they are identified by their skin color and/or kinky hair. This then leaves us with lighter skin ones, who claim they don't have the negro features as well, but are nevertheless identified as being black. In this case, it would be social like you said, but they still might have some negro features, but in subtle ways. Example, they might still have that somewhat kinky haire, which is different from the full caucasian type of straight hair. The bottom line is that it's got be a combination of both the social branding and the phenotype

---

Wrong, I was pointing that homeylu's criteria for blackness(she said blacks are those with black skin) was idiotic. In America and elsewhere even blackness is socil not biological, thats why I said using her criteria for blackness Colin Powell and Walter White aren't black. Of course these two men were/are self indentified black men, but I'm 100% sure that if homeylu would have saw Walter White in person she would be calling him a white man and not a black man, that is if he didn't mention his black ancestry.

posted 15 June 2004 03:45 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wally:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by S.Mohammad:
[b]And once again, Phoenicians were not black people and it is useless and senseless to use the line of Ham to prove blackness just as it is useless to use the line of Shem to prove non-blackness. Not all those characterized as Hamites(Phoenicians) speak so-called Hamitic languages. What makes one a Hamite or Semite is language, not a Biblical story. Whatever the Bible story stories say linguistically it doesn't add up to a Hamitic language family or race. Diop simply believed Hamite/Hamitic to be synonymous with black/Negro, not a distinct ethno-linguistic group. The Table of Nations is just what it is, a table of Nations, not races. We now know today that the Table of Nations does not always specifically correlate to races.

---

A) The so-called "Table of Nations" appears first in the book of Genesis, which is the first book of the Bible and also the first book of Moses.

B) Moses, according to the biblical legend was a prince of Egypt. This means that he was a part of the privileged few in Ancient Egypt that received a formal education. (Yes, they had schools in Ancient Egypt, and they required an attendance of 20+ years!) Moses was able to write these books because he was able to both read and write.

C) According to the Ancient Egyptian ethnographic system, there existed THREE known racial groups; Black, Semitic, and White. They didn't invent races, they delineated them.
They did not document Sino-Asians, such as the Chinese or Japanese, for example,probably because they were unaware of their existence.
There is a confusion here because when people view these ethnographic documents, they see four groups. This confusion is caused by the fact that few understand the Ancient Egyptian language and ideology.

The Ancient Egyptians, while illustrating and documenting that they belonged to the Black race, considered themselves Rt_n n Rmt:
Rt = Men
_n = us, we
n = above, over, etc.,
Rmt = Man, Mankind
It literally means, "We men above Mankind"
Any "Egyptologist" would confirm this fact.
D) So to Moses, there were three great divisions of the human race. Thus, the legend of Moses has it that Noah had three sons. Why not six or just one?

E) The sons of Noah, Ham, Shem, and Japheth represented the three racial groups and the nations which they engendered.
((Ham - (in both Egyptian and Hebrew) means hot; the etymology is Khem or burnt black, etc.))
Ham's nations (the Black nations) were Egypt, Kush, Put/Punt(east Africa) and Canaan(Palestine).
And how did Canaan, a Black nation become a Semitic nation? It's called conquest. Which is exactly what occurred. And keep in mind that the Bible is replete with people predicting things long before it actually came to pass! It's called writing with the provision of hindsight:
"And they (the sons of Judah upon entering Canaan) found fat pasture and good, and the land was wide, and quiet, and peaceable; for they of Ham had dwelt there of old." ( I Chronicles 4:40
Do you think perhaps that's why the Biblical legend places a curse on Canaan?
The "sons of Judah" surely did conquer and colonize Canaan, the homeland of the Phoenicians...

F) African history is both fascinating and also habit forming, because the more information you discover the more you want to dig further. Here's my recommended starter list:

Abrams, Harry N.
- A history of art in Africa, Harry N. Abrams, NY
Note that there are both Bush(crude) and classical (Benin, Yoruba, Asante) African art forms.

Breasted, James Henry
- A history of Egypt: from the earliest times to the Persian conquest, Simon publications, TN

Budge, E. A. Wallis, Sir
- The book of the dead; the papyrus of Ani in the British museum, Dover, NY
- Egyptian language: easy lessons in Egyptian hieroglyphics, Dover, NY
- Egyptian hieroglyphic dictionary, Dover, NY

Diop, Cheikh Anta
- The African origin of civilization: myth or reality, Lawrence Hill, NY
- Civilization or barbarism: an authentic anthropology, Lawrence Hill, NY

Herodotus
- The Histories,book 2, Oxford, NY

Kebra Nagast (Ethiopian bible)
- St. Martin's Press, NY

Maspero, Gaston
- History of Egypt, Chaldea, Syria, Babylonia, and Assyria. The Grolier Society

UNESCO
- General history of Africa, vol.2, University of California-Berkeley

Volney, Constantin-Francois
- Meditation on the revolutions of empires, ECA associates

[This message has been edited by Wally (edited 05 June 2004).]

[This message has been edited by Wally (edited 05 June 2004).]

[This message has been edited by Wally (edited 05 June 2004).][/B][/QUOTE]

Raahubaat = Greeting .. Akhay Atha Antuk = How Are You ... Renee Kalun = My Name Is , OsirisEl ... Just Wondering If We Can Share Some Egiptian Knowledge Together ?

posted 15 June 2004 05:16 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by ausar:
Come on people let's try to keep things civil instead of the ad hominem attacks. The topic is starting to get off the course of AE civlization,culture,and religon. Maybe we will be arguing forever over the same topic about wheater Caanites are black or not. Can somebody please mention another topic besides ethnicity of people in antiquity.

---

posted 15 June 2004 05:19 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by homeylu:
And further S.Mohammad, a person that has identified himself as a true African, and when personal insults posted against Africans by people like Horembh have come up, has he ever responded to this by calling him "idiot".

Name calling is quite juvenile S. Mohammad, only people not secure with their intellectual abilities resort to this mode of argument. And you have surely exemplified your insecurities. And for the record, my parents didnt raise any idiots, thats why I can not be brain-washed by "The Man".

---

I'm far from being insecure,I'm just not going to let Afrocentrism be soiled by false claims. I'm very African centered but I use objective sources without bias from journals, not the Bible, Koran nor racial ideology.

posted 15 June 2004 05:22 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by homeylu:
S. Mohammad like I said you have never sucessfully used by logic, and dont try to do it here. I have never used the term Black in the literal sense, you are the one that said Colin Powell was not Black, I consider him Black, so you're the one with the ilogical mode of thinking.

And if your best defense is the resort to name calling as usual, its a clear indication of your own insecurities, as I do not have to call anyone in here an idiot to make my arguments!!!

---

I never said Powell wasn't black, I said he wasn't using your definition,ie, "being black skinned."

posted 15 June 2004 05:30 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by OsirisEl222:
E) The sons of Noah, Ham, Shem, and Japheth represented the three racial groups and the nations which they engendered.
((Ham - (in both Egyptian and Hebrew) means hot; the etymology is Khem or burnt black, etc.))
Ham's nations (the Black nations) were Egypt, Kush, Put/Punt(east Africa) and Canaan(Palestine).
And how did Canaan, a Black nation become a Semitic nation? It's called conquest. Which is exactly what occurred. And keep in mind that the Bible is replete with people predicting things long before it actually came to pass! It's called writing with the provision of hindsight:
"And they (the sons of Judah upon entering Canaan) found fat pasture and good, and the land was wide, and quiet, and peaceable; for they of Ham had dwelt there of old." ( I Chronicles 4:40
Do you think perhaps that's why the Biblical legend places a curse on Canaan?
The "sons of Judah" surely did conquer and colonize Canaan, the homeland of the Phoenicians...

---

The biological data does not match the Biblical accounts. If you look on a map and see where the kingdom of Israel was located, they took the land of Jebus(Jebusites) from whence Jerusalem comes from, but even still they don't correspond to any of the Phoenician territories. Biologically this area does not indicate that people possessing affinities, STRONG affinities to black populations exist. You don't see any evidence of it in art or archaelogy. Biblical accounts cannot be taken as fact everytime.

posted 15 June 2004 06:17 PM            

Ditto to the response posted by Wally
"The dominant evolutionary theory maintains that humans originated in Africa, and the earth was gradually populated by these AFRICAN peoples. These routes were primarily through the Arabian peninsula and also by way of CANAAN. If one accepts this theory, then the first inhabitants of Canaan had to be African! (This is not rocket science here.)"

Originally posted by S.Mohammad
I'm suck and tired on race being injected into everything
As if you're not in the middle of all of these arguments on race. The only reason you made that argument about the Wolof language is to try to discredit C. Diop, an Afrocentric thinker. Your quote "but what I found interesting is that it broke down and went in depth about Diop's proposed relationship between Wolof and Ancient Egyptian."

And then Thought responded
One of the problems across the board is the fact that there are not enough African and pan-African scholars researching these issues

And then Ozzy's response was
In particular I was looking for support, of which almost all advocates for the word Kemmau and its supposed root Kem (Black)

posted 15 June 2004 06:27 PM            

Even before 3000 B.C.E., West Semitic tribal groups speaking variations of the Canaanite tongue inhabited much of what is now the modern Middle East. Many settled in the Syria-Canaan lands of Ancient Palestine. Early Mesopotamian documents refer to both nomadic shepherds and to traders. One such group, the Habiru {or Hapiru} migrated into Palestine perhaps as early as 2000 B.C.E. from northern Mesopotamia; later elements from among them formed the ancient Hebrews. As they entered Ancient Palestine, the Phoenicians in the north and the Philistines in the south occupied definite areas. "Phoenicia" is the Greek translation of "Canaan,"--the land of purple merchants," referring perhaps to the dye they used to colour cloth. Indeed, it is from the time of Canaan that Bethlehem is believed to have derived its name, Bethlehem - Beit Lahem in Arabic ("The house of Lahman - a Canaanite God").

The Canaanites, were a Semitic people speaking a language remarkably close to Hebrew. They were farmers, some were nomads, but they were also civilized. They used the great Mesopotamian cities as their model and had built modest imitations of them. They had also learned military technology and tactics from the Mesopotamians, as well as law. Thus when the Hebrews arrived at Canaan, they began the long, painful, and disappointing process of settling the land, but being uncivilized, tribal, and nomadic, they faced a formidable enemy. Even the accounts of this period in the Hebrew bible, the books of Joshua and Judges paint a pretty dreary picture of the occupation. They are eventually driven from the coastal plains and forced to settle in the central hill country and a few places in the Jordan River valley. They also faced another looming enemy, the Philistines, who overwhelmed everyone in their path. They had chariots and iron weapons and few could stand against these new technologies.

Thus it was that the Hebrews found themselves living in the worst areas of Canaan, spread thinly across the entire region, with the balance of power constantly shifting as local kingdoms would grab and then lose territory, finding themselves first under one and then another master.

posted 15 June 2004 06:40 PM            

- The original Hebrews were not black. Despite possible mixing with Nubians during the Kushite period(Nubian mercenaries are said to have been hired by Jewish rulers and Pharoah Taharqa had an alliance with the Jews) most Jews show common genetic origins with Arabs. If anything, they looked like the Bedouins who live in the Sinai and Jordan today...

posted 15 June 2004 07:59 PM            

Originally posted by neo*geo
If anything, they looked like the Bedouins who live in the Sinai and Jordan today
Most scholars with credentials higher than yours will argue that the Bedouins are descendants of Ishmail-the son Abraham conceived with his Black Egyptian concubine.(why so many are dark skinned, as 2 whites cannot produce dark pigmentation-any scientist will confirm this).

Originally posted by Neo*geo
There were certainly some blacks in ancient Canaan but for the most part, the Canaanites weren't black
Blacks in ancient Canaan, but Cannanites were not Black........Just wanted to repeat this for emphasis
No need to refute this argument, as it refutes itself.

Lets see....so there are Blacks in Haiti, but you know what, Haitians are not Black-sounds ridiculous

posted 15 June 2004 08:24 PM            

This is folklore and not historical record. The original Arabs come from Yemen and claim to desend from Himyarites. We have no proof there was ever a person named Hagar or Abraham.

posted 15 June 2004 08:47 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by homeylu:
Sorry this is far from "concluded"
Originally posted by neo*geo
[b]most Jews show common genetic origins with Arabs.
Jews show a genetic origins with the East Indian Jews (Bene Israel) and African Lemba as well (Buba Clan). So dont think your argument will be concluded based on this.[/B]

---

How could Jews have origins with the Lemba? DNA confirms their own oral history which is that they originated from Yemeni Jews. in fact, all of the exiled jewish populations can be traced back to the Levant and share genes with Arabs.

quote:

---

Originally posted by homeylu:

Originally posted by neo*geo
[b]If anything, they looked like the Bedouins who live in the Sinai and Jordan today
Most scholars with credentials higher than yours will argue that the Bedouins are descendants of Ishmail-the son Abraham conceived with his Black Egyptian concubine.(why so many are dark skinned, as 2 whites cannot produce dark pigmentation-any scientist will confirm this).[/B]

---

Name the anthropologists that support the Bible's version of how the Arabs and Jews originated. Anyone who claims the bedouins are descended from Abraham is not a scholar of anything other than the bible.

quote:

---

Originally posted by homeylu:

Originally posted by Neo*geo
[b]There were certainly some blacks in ancient Canaan but for the most part, the Canaanites weren't black
Blacks in ancient Canaan, but Cannanites were not Black........Just wanted to repeat this for emphasis
No need to refute this argument, as it refutes itself.

Lets see....so there are Blacks in Haiti, but you know what, Haitians are not Black-sounds ridiculous
[/B]

---

No, my point is that unlike, Haiti which is 90% black, Canaan wasn't ethnically homogeneous. There were many different tribes in Canaan, few of which were black.

posted 15 June 2004 09:59 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by homeylu:
Originally posted by Supercar
[b]Using your logic, African-Americans, most of them aren't black because they lack black skin. Your logic is beginining to borderline on stupidity. 'blackness' is social and not biological, how else would people like Walter White and Colin Powell identify as black? Its social.

Firt of all when I say "Black" I dont mean it literally- so dont be ridiculous!!

Just as I dont think "white" people are literally white, Just as their complexions and features vary, so do ours.

Since you're obviusly new in here, you may not have read other posts in other Forums that I myself, agree with you that the whole concept of race is a social one, so when I hear people say things like caucasoid, negroid, blah blah blah, to try to "theorize" that the AE were not the same people as other Sub-saharan Africans, I am more inclined to inject "skin color" into the argument to show that they're not the same people as the Germans, other North Europeans either!

From an earlier post I wrote:
"Afica has thousands of tribes which separate themselves amongst cultural lines and not complexion lines.......Please get out of the racist habit of trying to box all Africans into one complexion, one hair texture/color, and one Nose size, lip size etc.. The Egyptians were clearly showing the diversity of the African race, then ,as we are today!"

So like S. Mohammad, when you clearly dont understand someone's logic, don't comment on it, just because you "assumed" I meant Black literally, damn sure doesnt mean I did!!!

You may also want to view my post on the AAPA's current position on race.

This is just a piece of it:
"These old racial categories were based on externally visible traits, primarily skin color, features of the face, and the shape and size of the head and body, and the underlying skeleton. They were often imbued with nonbiological attributes, based on social constructions of race. These categories of race are rooted in the scientific traditions of the 19th century, and in even earlier philosophical traditions which presumed that immutable visible traits can predict the measure of all other traits in an individual or a population. Such notions have often been used to support racist doctrines"

And what does this have to do with Egypt you may ask? Too many times, even up to the present---we see scientist continuously trying to separate the Marvelous contributions of the Egyptian society, from the rest of Black (sub-sahara) Africa...and I personally won't stand for it!![/B]

---

posted 15 June 2004 10:33 PM            

The CMH marker has Palestinian origins, NOT Yemen origins. The Lemba never concluded Yemen origins exclusively, according to the Center for Genetic Anthropology "They claim descent from Jews who came to Africa from "Sena." "Sena" is variously identified by them as Sanaa in Yemen, Judea, Egypt, or Ethiopia" http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10677325&dopt=Abstract

The CMH gene originate 3,000 years ago according to Scientists and Biblical Scholars who associate it with Aaron the first jewish Priest (And I can personally care less is you feel Aaron is an imaginary Biblical character- fact is the gene originated from a particular man-call him what you want to)

I dont know how elementary I can make this for you all after several attempts, but here we go again:

The CMH is supposedly the "signature marker" for jewry, more prevalent in the priestly castes. The priestly castes for the Sephardic and Ashkenazi jews is called "Kohen", for the Lemba Jews its called "Buba".

Now broken down to how this gene is dispersed amongst these 3 groups of jews is the following:

CMH gene for priestly caste
1. Sephardic jews (56%)
2. Lemba Jews (Buba) (53%)
3. Ashkenazi Jews (45%)

For NON-priestly class (general jewish population)
1.Sephardic Jews (3%)
2. Ashkenazi Jews (3%)
3. Lemba Jews (9%)

Conclusion- the Lemba jews have more of this CMH than the Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews combined. Therefore it is HIGHLY UNLIKELY that either of these Jews could have contributed to the Lemba population. And Obvious that the Lemba Jews are 3 times more likely to be a descendant(genetically linked) of Aaron, than either one of these groups.

Now you can come up with all the theories you wish, but the numbers speak for themselves!

posted 16 June 2004 12:01 AM            

Originally posted by Supercar
It was S. Mohammed's quote you are reading.
* Should have known from the "silly" logic

posted 16 June 2004 12:41 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by homeylu:
Originally posted by Neo*Geo
[b]How could Jews have origins with the Lemba? DNA confirms their own oral history which is that they originated from Yemeni Jews

The CMH marker has Palestinian origins, NOT Yemen origins. The Lemba never concluded Yemen origins exclusively, according to the Center for Genetic Anthropology "They claim descent from Jews who came to Africa from "Sena." "Sena" is variously identified by them as Sanaa in Yemen, Judea, Egypt, or Ethiopia" http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list _uids=10677325&dopt=Abstract

---

The problem is that there is no city named Sena is Judea and they many different places for its origin, the probable being that of Yemen. Although it has Palestinian origins it is exclusive to Jews only it is also found in Arabs. There is a place in Yemennamed Sena.

quote:

---

The CMH gene originate 3,000 years ago according to Scientists and Biblical Scholars who associate it with Aaron the first jewish Priest (And I can personally care less is you feel Aaron is an imaginary Biblical character- fact is the gene originated from a particular man-call him what you want to)

---

CMH may have originated 3000 years ago but it doesn't mean the Lemba had the gene 3000 years ago. embas speak a Bantu language ad bantu languages wre still dispersing at this time. You cant ignore that historical fact.

quote:

---

The CMH is supposedly the "signature marker" for jewry, more prevalent in the priestly castes. The priestly castes for the Sephardic and Ashkenazi jews is called "Kohen", for the Lemba Jews its called "Buba".

---

Incorrect, CMH is a signature of the priestly case period, not Jewry as geneticists cannot distinguish between Arab Semitic and 'Jewish Semitic' mixture. Lemba have a high amount of Semitic admixure but overall among all Lemba CMH is not present in all, meaning themajority of their Semitic mixtue came from Semitic people who did not have the CMH gene

quote:

---

CMH gene for priestly caste
1. Sephardic jews (56%)
2. Lemba Jews (Buba) (53%)
3. Ashkenazi Jews (45%)

For NON-priestly class (general jewish population)
1.Sephardic Jews (3%)
2. Ashkenazi Jews (3%)
3. Lemba Jews (9%)

Conclusion- the Lemba jews have more of this CMH than the Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews combined.

---

Wrong, combine Ashenazi and Sephardic priestly castes and you have more than the Lemba.

quote:

---

Therefore it is HIGHLY UNLIKELY that either of these Jews could have contributed to the Lemba population.

---

Wrong, you didn't read that genetic study did you? It said the Lemba have upwards of 67% Semitic admixture in their Y-Chromosones and Lemba are mostly African in origin, not Semitic. Unlike Middle eastern Jews Lemba do have a specific maternal origin that is African. So evidence looks more likely that Yemenis males mixed with Bantu females. Yemeni Jews have very low amounts of sub-Saharan ancestry, les than any other Yemen groups. In fact sub-Saharan ancestry was preferential in Arabs not Jews, thats how in another study they were able to distinguish between the two. The fact remains that even if a an ofshoot of Levites migrated int Africa, they were not black

To top it off, you still haven't refuted the linguistic and historical evidence regarding Canaanites, that they were not originally Hamitic speaking peoples. They were Semitic speakers and their language and writing script, which preceded that of any Hebrew or Jew influenced some languages and the first writing script in Europe. They were speaking Semitic languages long before there was any nation or kingdom called Israel, so the theory that Canaanites were black Hamitic speaking peoples who bcame Semitic speakers by being conquered, washed out and overran by "white" Jews(these people were dark Bedouin types, not lily white people) is false and has no foundation. Even after the kingdm of Israel was established, Phoenicians(Cananites) were still speaking their original Semitic tongue.

posted 16 June 2004 01:19 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wally:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by S.Mohammad:
[b]And once again, Phoenicians were not black people and it is useless and senseless to use the line of Ham to prove blackness just as it is useless to use the line of Shem to prove non-blackness. Not all those characterized as Hamites(Phoenicians) speak so-called Hamitic languages. What makes one a Hamite or Semite is language, not a Biblical story. Whatever the Bible story stories say linguistically it doesn't add up to a Hamitic language family or race. Diop simply believed Hamite/Hamitic to be synonymous with black/Negro, not a distinct ethno-linguistic group. The Table of Nations is just what it is, a table of Nations, not races. We now know today that the Table of Nations does not always specifically correlate to races.

---

A) The so-called "Table of Nations" appears first in the book of Genesis, which is the first book of the Bible and also the first book of Moses.

B) Moses, according to the biblical legend was a prince of Egypt. This means that he was a part of the privileged few in Ancient Egypt that received a formal education. (Yes, they had schools in Ancient Egypt, and they required an attendance of 20+ years!) Moses was able to write these books because he was able to both read and write.

C) According to the Ancient Egyptian ethnographic system, there existed THREE known racial groups; Black, Semitic, and White. They didn't invent races, they delineated them.
They did not document Sino-Asians, such as the Chinese or Japanese, for example,probably because they were unaware of their existence.
There is a confusion here because when people view these ethnographic documents, they see four groups. This confusion is caused by the fact that few understand the Ancient Egyptian language and ideology.

The Ancient Egyptians, while illustrating and documenting that they belonged to the Black race, considered themselves Rt_n n Rmt:
Rt = Men
_n = us, we
n = above, over, etc.,
Rmt = Man, Mankind
It literally means, "We men above Mankind"
Any "Egyptologist" would confirm this fact.
D) So to Moses, there were three great divisions of the human race. Thus, the legend of Moses has it that Noah had three sons. Why not six or just one?

E) The sons of Noah, Ham, Shem, and Japheth represented the three racial groups and the nations which they engendered.
((Ham - (in both Egyptian and Hebrew) means hot; the etymology is Khem or burnt black, etc.))
Ham's nations (the Black nations) were Egypt, Kush, Put/Punt(east Africa) and Canaan(Palestine).
And how did Canaan, a Black nation become a Semitic nation? It's called conquest. Which is exactly what occurred. And keep in mind that the Bible is replete with people predicting things long before it actually came to pass! It's called writing with the provision of hindsight:
"And they (the sons of Judah upon entering Canaan) found fat pasture and good, and the land was wide, and quiet, and peaceable; for they of Ham had dwelt there of old." ( I Chronicles 4:40
Do you think perhaps that's why the Biblical legend places a curse on Canaan?
The "sons of Judah" surely did conquer and colonize Canaan, the homeland of the Phoenicians...

F) African history is both fascinating and also habit forming, because the more information you discover the more you want to dig further. Here's my recommended starter list:

Abrams, Harry N.
- A history of art in Africa, Harry N. Abrams, NY
Note that there are both Bush(crude) and classical (Benin, Yoruba, Asante) African art forms.

Breasted, James Henry
- A history of Egypt: from the earliest times to the Persian conquest, Simon publications, TN

Budge, E. A. Wallis, Sir
- The book of the dead; the papyrus of Ani in the British museum, Dover, NY
- Egyptian language: easy lessons in Egyptian hieroglyphics, Dover, NY
- Egyptian hieroglyphic dictionary, Dover, NY

Diop, Cheikh Anta
- The African origin of civilization: myth or reality, Lawrence Hill, NY
- Civilization or barbarism: an authentic anthropology, Lawrence Hill, NY

Herodotus
- The Histories,book 2, Oxford, NY

Kebra Nagast (Ethiopian bible)
- St. Martin's Press, NY

Maspero, Gaston
- History of Egypt, Chaldea, Syria, Babylonia, and Assyria. The Grolier Society

UNESCO
- General history of Africa, vol.2, University of California-Berkeley

Volney, Constantin-Francois
- Meditation on the revolutions of empires, ECA associates

[This message has been edited by Wally (edited 05 June 2004).]

[This message has been edited by Wally (edited 05 June 2004).]

[This message has been edited by Wally (edited 05 June 2004).][/B][/QUOTE]

Where Did The Word < Amiyn > Come From Which They Usally End Suwratul Faatiha , They Will Have To Say It Came From The Aramic / Hebrew Word
< Awmane > Meaning '' To Have Faith '' This Is Where < Amiyn = Amen , '' Mu'minun ... Mu'minaati ... El Mu'min Etc . One Of Allah's Attributes ( 6th ) Was Stolen From , Which In Turn Was Stolen From The Great Egyptian Deity
' Amun . Amun Or Amen Combined With The Sun God < Ra > Was Represented As A Human With A Ram's Head Or A Ram Wearing A Triple Crown Or A Goose . Amen Was Known As The
A ) . God Of Life And Reproduction ( Fertility )
B ) . King Of The Gods
C ) . Patron Deity Of The Pharaohs
D ) . And Identified With The Sun God '' Re '' As Amon - Re Or Amon Ra . The Greeks Identified Their God Zeus With Amun Ra . Amun Was Also Called Jupiter By The Roman And Latins .
A Quote From A Book , Entitled Final Reformation . 1986 By Christ Koster , Question The Use Of Amen Of Amenin ( Which Is Still The Same Word ) .
( By Ending Our Prayers With Amen Instead Of Amenin One Could Very Well Ask ; Have We Been Misled To Invoke The Name Of The Egyptian Sun Deity At The End Of Our Prayers ? ...
This Would Apply To Jews , Christians And Muslims < Who Always Hideing Their TRUE Teaching > You Are All Guilty Of Paganism , Which You Consider Wrong !!!!!! And Doesn't It Say In Quraan 72 ; 18 , Wa - Anna - Al - Masaajida - Lil - Lahi - Falaa - Tad'uuw - Ma'a - Allahi - Ahadaan , Which Means '' And Surely The Masaajid , Places Of Prostration '' Are For Him , The Source ' Allah ' Alone ; So Don't Call Out To Anyone ( In Conjunction ) With Allah . '' < ALLAH ALONE NOT THE GREAT EGYPTIAN DEITY AMUN OR AMIYN !!!

posted 16 June 2004 08:38 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wally:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by S.Mohammad:
[b]And once again, Phoenicians were not black people and it is useless and senseless to use the line of Ham to prove blackness just as it is useless to use the line of Shem to prove non-blackness. Not all those characterized as Hamites(Phoenicians) speak so-called Hamitic languages. What makes one a Hamite or Semite is language, not a Biblical story. Whatever the Bible story stories say linguistically it doesn't add up to a Hamitic language family or race. Diop simply believed Hamite/Hamitic to be synonymous with black/Negro, not a distinct ethno-linguistic group. The Table of Nations is just what it is, a table of Nations, not races. We now know today that the Table of Nations does not always specifically correlate to races.

---

A) The so-called "Table of Nations" appears first in the book of Genesis, which is the first book of the Bible and also the first book of Moses.

B) Moses, according to the biblical legend was a prince of Egypt. This means that he was a part of the privileged few in Ancient Egypt that received a formal education. (Yes, they had schools in Ancient Egypt, and they required an attendance of 20+ years!) Moses was able to write these books because he was able to both read and write.

C) According to the Ancient Egyptian ethnographic system, there existed THREE known racial groups; Black, Semitic, and White. They didn't invent races, they delineated them.
They did not document Sino-Asians, such as the Chinese or Japanese, for example,probably because they were unaware of their existence.
There is a confusion here because when people view these ethnographic documents, they see four groups. This confusion is caused by the fact that few understand the Ancient Egyptian language and ideology.

The Ancient Egyptians, while illustrating and documenting that they belonged to the Black race, considered themselves Rt_n n Rmt:
Rt = Men
_n = us, we
n = above, over, etc.,
Rmt = Man, Mankind
It literally means, "We men above Mankind"
Any "Egyptologist" would confirm this fact.
D) So to Moses, there were three great divisions of the human race. Thus, the legend of Moses has it that Noah had three sons. Why not six or just one?

E) The sons of Noah, Ham, Shem, and Japheth represented the three racial groups and the nations which they engendered.
((Ham - (in both Egyptian and Hebrew) means hot; the etymology is Khem or burnt black, etc.))
Ham's nations (the Black nations) were Egypt, Kush, Put/Punt(east Africa) and Canaan(Palestine).
And how did Canaan, a Black nation become a Semitic nation? It's called conquest. Which is exactly what occurred. And keep in mind that the Bible is replete with people predicting things long before it actually came to pass! It's called writing with the provision of hindsight:
"And they (the sons of Judah upon entering Canaan) found fat pasture and good, and the land was wide, and quiet, and peaceable; for they of Ham had dwelt there of old." ( I Chronicles 4:40
Do you think perhaps that's why the Biblical legend places a curse on Canaan?
The "sons of Judah" surely did conquer and colonize Canaan, the homeland of the Phoenicians...

F) African history is both fascinating and also habit forming, because the more information you discover the more you want to dig further. Here's my recommended starter list:

Abrams, Harry N.
- A history of art in Africa, Harry N. Abrams, NY
Note that there are both Bush(crude) and classical (Benin, Yoruba, Asante) African art forms.

Breasted, James Henry
- A history of Egypt: from the earliest times to the Persian conquest, Simon publications, TN

Budge, E. A. Wallis, Sir
- The book of the dead; the papyrus of Ani in the British museum, Dover, NY
- Egyptian language: easy lessons in Egyptian hieroglyphics, Dover, NY
- Egyptian hieroglyphic dictionary, Dover, NY

Diop, Cheikh Anta
- The African origin of civilization: myth or reality, Lawrence Hill, NY
- Civilization or barbarism: an authentic anthropology, Lawrence Hill, NY

Herodotus
- The Histories,book 2, Oxford, NY

Kebra Nagast (Ethiopian bible)
- St. Martin's Press, NY

Maspero, Gaston
- History of Egypt, Chaldea, Syria, Babylonia, and Assyria. The Grolier Society

UNESCO
- General history of Africa, vol.2, University of California-Berkeley

Volney, Constantin-Francois
- Meditation on the revolutions of empires, ECA associates

[This message has been edited by Wally (edited 05 June 2004).]

[This message has been edited by Wally (edited 05 June 2004).]

[This message has been edited by Wally (edited 05 June 2004).][/B][/QUOTE]

Where Did The Caucasoids Come From? Let's Set the Record Straight
Let me give you the facts. The White Man originated from a curse that was placed on Ham's Fourth Son Canaan <Aramaic Meaning Lowlander> Genesis 9:18 the Aramic/Hebrew word used for curse in Genesis 9:25 is the root word Awrar which means to curse, curse Be He Canaan was cursed because his father Ham looked upon his father's Noah's nakedness. The story goes as follows. In Genesis 9:22 after The Ark rested on Mount Ararat, Noah planted a vineyard Genesis 9:21. Noah was one of the first farms and because the flood destroyed all life from the face of the earth, the condition of his family was very critical. They had consumed all of their food supply and were on the brink of starvation. So Noah began to plant seed and harvest the land in hope that it would provide food for then. Noah reaped the grapes. He planted and made wine and drink it in Genesis 9:21-24 .. Note: The Hebrew Word for Nakedness in Genesis 9:22 is Ervah <er - vaw> under the Strong's Hebrew Lexicon #06172. And it means shameful, or nakedness as opposed to the word Ayrom <Ay-rome> under the Strong's Hebrew Lexicon #05903 which is simply used for Nakedness or Bareness. Therefore, this could read "Ham looked upon his father's shame and told his two brothers without. Since Ham just had an argument with this wife Haliyma and was in a weak state. It made it easy for the devil <Azaazil> to take over him. Used him, and possess him. So while in his father's tent, Ham mocked his father's Nakedness or as the Hebrew states Shame - Genesis 9:22 common for them to get confused between nakedness Ervah Shameful and nakedness Ayrom Bareness. Almost all Christian ministers can only depend on the English Translation of the Bible. The King James Version of the Bible or the newer version of the Bible that are even worse transition taking you further and further from the original meaning of the Words. This was purposed done so that they won't see the right translation and the Whites that are calling themselves Jews today won't help them. And the Story continues in Genesis 9:24. Now reading this verse without knowing the Hebrew Language one would believe that Noah's younger son is Ham. However, when you look at the Hebrew word for younger, the word there is Qaton Strong's Hebrew Lexicon #06996 and means Lesser. As in less in quality unimportant, insignificant. And doesn't mean younger as in age. The same Hebrew word is used in Genesis 1:16 and we see in that verse the Hebrews word being used is also Qaton and means Lesser. As in less in quality or lesser light. It does not mean in Age or Younger as in the word Tsawowr Strong's Hebrew Lexicon #06810 which means youngest, little or small one. Why am I pointing this out to you? To show you how easy it is to misinterpret the verse is actually saying if you don't take the time to study the Original Languages that the Scripture were written in. Now Ham was not Noah's youngest son because the order in Genesis 5:32 where Noah's sons are first mentioned states: and Noah was five hundred years old; and Noah begat Shem, Ham and Japheth in that order. That would make Japheth the youngest one of the three sons because, Not Ham. The problem comes in because those who cannot translate the Hebrew can't see Genesis 9:24 ....This is not talking about Young in Age and most definitely is not talking about Ham, which has been misused for decades by Gentitles Caucasians who wish to convince you that the Hamites were cursed to become black - skinned because there was no way of getting around the fact that Ham became the Father of Egipt. But not merely Egipt because the Bible calls Egipt Mizraim. Ham is Sudan. A word meaning Black or the two blacks and includes all of North Central Africa which can bee seen on any Map of Africa today. There were many great Empire stretch from Egipt to Morocco, all the way down to Ethiopia and around which back then also included Arabia And the Sinil Peninsula. According to the Bible, an Empire stretched from the White Nile and the Blue Nile all the way to the Tigris Euphrates Valley Genesis 2:11. With these facts being known the early Caucasian Gentiles trying to find a place for themselves in the Bible and after intensive research finding that the curse on Canaan was Leprosy and was in fact the White Race. They shifted the curse to Ham as it states before, the Jehovah Witnesses admit this in their book titled Did Man Get Here by Creation or Evolution on page 407. It states that the "Black Race From Cush, not due to Curse on Canaan, whose descendants were white they are telling you right there that Canaan and the Canaanites were not The Nubians/Black or Negroes, but rather The Caucasians. In The Teachers Bible Commentary written by H. Franklin Paschall and Herschel H. Hobbs Copyright 1972 A.D. published by Broadman & Holman Publishers, located in Nashville, Tenn. This book which is registered with the Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 75-189505, on page 21 Second Column it states and I Quote Nubians/Negro/Blacks are NOT Descendants of Canaan, who was white, but are descendents from Ham, the curse was not predicated upon all Ham's descendants, but only upon the canaanites, please note that the 25 contributing Editors of this commentary are all Caucasians, thus they all agree with the contents of this book. (This has nothing to do with Racism I'm only Quoting from Books Authored by Caucasians) The curse of Canaan is on the Canaanite Race. Not the Nubians/Blacks/Negroes Race. The Editors of The Teacher Bible Commentary are as follows.
Donald F. Ackland, Author and formal editor, Nashville, Tenn, Deuteronomy through Malachi
J.P. Allen, Radio and Television Commission (SBC) Forth Worth, Texas, John
James E. Carter, First Baptist Church, Natchitoches Louisana, Isaiah 1-39
Robert L. Cate, First Baptist Church, Aiken, South Carolina Levitcus
William B. Cobble, Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary Kansas, MIssiouri, Revelation
Wayne Dehoney, Walnut St. Baptist Church, Louisville, Kentucky, Acts
Russell H. Dilday, Jr. Second - Ponce De Leon Baptist Church, Atlanta, Georgia, Esther through Psalms 41,
W.C.Fields, Executive Committe, Southern Baptist Convention, Nashville, Tenn, Galatians through James
Fred L. Fisher - Gollen Gate Baptist Theological Seminary, Mill Valley, California, Romans through 2nd Corinthians
Clyde T. Francisco, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, Kentucky, Genesis
J. Loe Green, Southern Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminiary - Wake Forest, North Carolina, Jeremiah and Lamentations.
Herschel H. HObbs, First Captist Church, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, Editor, New Testament
J. Hardee Kennedy , New Orlean Baptist Theological Seminary , New Orleans , Louisiana , Psalms 42 - 150
Landrum P. Leaveil, First Baptist Church, Wichita Falls, Texas, Mark
Peter McLeod, First Baptist Church, Waco, Texas, Isaiah 40-66
H. Franklin Pashall, First Baptist Church, Nashville, Tenn Editor, Old Testament
Ben F. Philbeck, Carson-Newman Collage, Jefferson City, Tenn, Joshua through 1 Samuel
Billy E. Simmons, East Texas Baptist College, Marshall, Texas, 1 Chronicles through Nehmiah
Jerry Falwell, D.D.D. Litt. L.L.D.D.D. Tenn Temple Theological Seminary; D. Litt California Graduate School of Theology, L.I.D. Central University (Seoul, Korea)
Wayne A. Brindle, B.A. Th. M.Th. D.B.A. Kansas University; Th. M. Th.D. Dallas Theological Seminary
Carl J. Diemer, B.S.M. Div. Th. D.B.S. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University; M Div. Th. D. Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary
Edward G . Dobson , B.A.M.A.D.D.Ed.DB.A.M.A.Bob.Jones University ; D.D. California . Graduate School . Of Theology Ed.D. University Of . Viginia ,
Paul R. Fink , B.A. M.E.d.Th.M.Th.D.B.A.Columbia Bible College ; M.E.d.University Of Southern California , Th.M.Th.D.Dallas.Theological. Seminary .
James A. Freerksen, B.A. M.D.iv, Th. M. Th. D.B.A. Pilsbury, Baptist College, M.Div. Th. M. Central Baptist Theological Seminary; Th D Grace Theological Seminary
Edward E. Hindson, B.A.M.A. Th. M. Th. D.D. Min D. Litt, Et. Phil, Fiba. B.A. William Tyndale College; M.A. Trinity Graduate School of Theology D. Min. Westminister Theological Seminary; D. Litt, Et. Phil University of South Africa Fellow of The International Biographical Association (Cambridge England
Daniel R. Mitchell B.A.B.D. Th. M.S.T.M. Th B. A. Washingtion Bible College; B.D. Th. M. Captial Bible Seminary; S.T.M. Th.D. Dallas Theological Seminary
Richard D. Patterson, A.B.M. Div. Th. M.A. Ph. D.A.B. Wheaton College, M. Div. Los Angeles Baptist Serminary Th.M.Talbot.Theological Seminary.M.A.Ph.H.University Of California . At Los Angeles ( UNCLA )
Ronald C . Sauer , B.A.Th , M.Ph.D. B.A.. Mississippi College . Th .M.Dallas Theological Seminary Ph.D.University Of Manchester ( England )
Stephen R. Schrader, B.S.M. Div. Th. M. Th. D. B.S. Evansville University M. Div. Th. M. Th. D. Grace Theological Seminary.
Elmer L. Towns, B.A. Th. M. M. R.R. D. Min. B.B. Northwestern College; M.A. Southern Methodist University; Th. M. Dallas Theological Seminary; M.R.E. Garrett Theological Seminary; D. Min. Fuller Theological Seminary.
Robert W. Yarbrough, B.A.M. A. Ph.D. B. A. Southwest Baptist College; M.A. Wheaton College Graduate School; D. University of Aberdeen (Scotland)
Jerry Falwell .. William Franklin ... “Billy Graham - Ruth Bell Graham...”
The wife of Billy Graham - Anne Graham Lotz - the daughter of Billy Graham
John Hagee, and Robert H. Schuller, They all agree that the Curse of Canaan is on the White Race because they all appear within the Nelson Catalog. Even some of their wives and children are inside the Book. Thus we see that they obviously Condone what is written in the Nelson Version of The King James Bible.
Another bible that share this same point is the Zondervan N.A.S.B. (New American Standard Bible) Study Bible on page 17
Within the Commentary in Reference to Genesis 9:25 it states Noah's Prophecy Cannot be Used to Justify the Enslavement of Black. Since those cursed here were Canaanites. Who Were CAUCASIAN this bible was edited by General Editor. Another bible that share this same point is the Zondervan N.A.S.B. (New American Standard Bible) Study Bible on page 17
Within the Commentary in Reference to Genesis 9:25 it states Noah's Prophecy Cannot be Used to Justify the Enslavement of Black. Since those cursed here were Canaanites. Who Were CAUCASIAN this bible was edited by General Editor.
Ronald Youngblood <> Genesis
Ronald Youngbloom and Walter C. Kaiser Jr. <>Exodus
R. Laired Harris and Ronald Youngblook <>Leviticus
Ronald B. Allen and Kenneth L. Barker <>Number
Earl S. Kalland and Kenneth L. Barker <>Deuteronomy
Arthur Lewis<>Joshua
John J. Davis and Herbert Woldf <>Judge
Marvin E. Wilson and John H. Stek <>Ruth
J. Robert Vannoy <>1.2.Samuel
. Robert Vannoy <>1.2.Kings
Robert Dillard <>1.2. Chronicles
Edwin Yamauchi and Ronaldd Youngblood <>Ezra & Nehemiah
Raymond Dillardd <>1.2. Chronicles
Edwin Yamauchi and Ronald Youngblood <>Ezra & Nehemiah
Raymond Dillard and Edward Yamauchi <>Esther
Elmer B. Smick and Ronald Youngblood <>Job
John H. Stek<>Psalms
Herbert Wolf <>Proverbs
Derek Kiner<>Ecclesiates
John H. Stek <> Song of Solomon
. Robert Vannoy <>1.2.Kings
Robert Dillard <>1.2. Chronicles
Edwin Yamauchi and Ronaldd Youngblood <>Ezra & Nehemiah
Raymond Dillardd <>1.2. Chronicles
Edwin Yamauchi and Ronald Youngblood <>Ezra & Nehemiah
Raymond Dillard and Edward Yamauchi <>Esther
Elmer B. Smick and Ronald Youngblood <>Job
John H. Stek<>Psalms
Herbert Wolf <>Proverbs
Derek Kiner<>Ecclesiates
John H. Stek <> Song of Solomon
Herbert Wolf and JOhn H. Stek<>Isaiah
RonaldYoungblood <> Jereiah
Roanld Youngblood <>Jeremiah & Lamentations
Mark Hilmer<>Ezekiel
Gleason L. Archer, Jr. and Ronald Youngblood <>Daniel
Jack P Lewis Hosea
Jack P. Lewis <> Joel
Allen R. Millard and John H. Stek <>Amos
John M. Zinkand <>Obadiah
Marvin R. Wilson and John H. Stek <>Jonah
Allen A. MacRae Thomas E. McComiskey <>Micah
G. Herbert Livingston and Kenneth L. Barker <>Nahum
Ronald K. Harrison and William C. Williams <>Habakkuk
Ronald K. Harrison <> Zephaniah
Herbert Wolf <>Haggai
Kenneth L. Barker and Larry L. Walker <>Zechariah
Herbert Wolf and JOhn H. Stek <>Malachi
Ralph Earle and Wlater W. Wessel <>Matthew
Walter W. Wessel and William L. Lane <>Mark
Lewis Foster <> Luke & Acts
Leon Morris <>John
Lewis Foster <> Acts
Walter W. Wessel<>Romans
W. Harold Mare <>1Corinthians
Robert Mounce<>Galatians
Walter L. Liefeld <>Ephesians
Richard B. Gaffin Jr. <>Phillippians
Gerald F. Hawthorne and Wilber B. Wallis <>Colossianss
Leon Morris <>1.2. Thessalonians
Wlater W. Wesseel and Geroge W. Knight III <>1.2. Timothy
D. Edmond Herbert <>Titus
John Werner <>Philemon
Philip E. Hughes and Donald W. Burdick <>Hebrews
Donald W. Burdick <>James
Donald W. Burden and John H. Skilton 1.2. Peter and Jude
Donald W. Burdick <>1.2.3. John
Robert Mounce <>Revelation
So you See what I'm Saying is Definitely not Racism because they are saying this themselves. Right from the horses mouth. The white man has The Curse of Canaan Not Nubians/Blacks. Who are Indeed the trut and only pure seed of the Tribe of Judah.William Franklin "Billy" Graham, and American Evangelist who conducted revivals all over the World, Ruth Bell Graham The Wife of Billy Graham ....
Anne Graham Lotz the Daughter of Billy Graham
John Hagee The Founder and Pastor of the 17,000 member Cornerstone Church in San Antonio, Taxas .Jerry Falwell A Baptist Telvision Evangelist and Head of the Moral Majority
Pat Robertson The Founder and Chairman Of the Christian Broadcasting Network Inc. Robert H. Schuller The Founder and Senior Minister of the Famed Crystal Cathedral in Garden Grove, California...Take a lQQk at the Book entitled The Bible and Race written by T.B.Maston Copyright 1959 A.D. Registered with the Library of Congress Catalong Number 59-5858 Published by Broadman Press which may be the same press that published The Teachers Bible Commentary by H. Franklin Paschall which was published by Broadman & Holman Publishers, Located in Nashville, Tennessee. Which is the same location of the Broadman Press. In the Book The Bible and Race on Page 122 it states: It is generally agreed that the Canaanites Descendant of Canaan. Were Nubian/Black. In the Main they moved into Asia Minor and at least as far East as the Tigris And Euphrates Valley. Other descendants of Ham went south into Africa.

posted 16 June 2004 10:43 AM            

Originally posted by S. Mohammad
CMH may have originated 3000 years ago but it doesn't mean the Lemba had the gene 3000 years ago
This statement is too absurd to respond to.
The Lemba did not ORIGINATE in South Africa!

Originally posted by S. Mohammad
Wrong, you didn't read that genetic study did you? It said the Lemba have upwards of 67% Semitic admixture in their Y-Chromosones and Lemba are mostly African in origin, not Semitic.
If the admixture is 67%, which is more than 50%, then they would be MOSTLY semitic...smh

Originally posted by S. Mohammad
Unlike Middle eastern Jews Lemba do have a specific maternal origin that is African.
As I pointed out before the maternal origins of Jews is Not localized, some have maternal origins in the Middle East, some in Eastern Europe, some
India, and some in Central Europe, AND 90% OF THE JEWS WORLDWIDE ARE ASHKENAZI, WITH "MATERNAL" ORIGINS IN EASTERN EUROPE-NOT THE MIDDLE EAST!!!

"Preliminary studies indicate that Jewish populations in eastern Europe and Yemen have maternal origins that contain much more non-Israelite ancestry than their paternal origins. Despite this admixture with other groups, the Jewish Judean people ultimately began their existence in an area within or nearby Kurdistan, prior to migrating southwest to Israel." http://www.barzan.com/kevin_brook.htm

SO OBVIOUSLY THE LEMBA ARE NOT THE ONLY JEWS THAT MIXED WITH LOCAL POPULATIONS!!

Which is why the Y chromosomes is more effective in determining a common origins, because OBVIOUSLY the mtDNA is INCONCLUSIVE of a maternal origin.

And you keep bringing up the Jews close relations with Middle Eastern Arabs, which is exagerated, because they are not genetically related to EVERY ARAB IN THE MIDDLE EAST.
"With their closer relationship to Jews, the Palestinian Arabs are distinctive from other Arab groups, such as Syrians, Lebanese, Saudis, and Iraqis, who have less of a connection to Jews."

So your argument is pointless. As I dont disagree that the Lemba male mixed with local popuations, all of the Jewish males mixed with local populations. The Lemba themselves have claimed they were FOUNDED BY MOSTLY MEN and where is Your evidence to prove these male founders were White?????

When the white males have less of the CMH gene than the Lemba in general, and the SAME amount for the priestly caste.

Further the study indicates
the majority of today's Jews have paternal ancestry from the northeastern Mediterranean region

And according to the Bible, "northeastern mediterranean" is where this "mythical" character Abraham came from before settling in Canaan!!!
And if you need help with geography, Canaan is in "SOUTH WESTERN MEDITERRANEAN", so as I said before, just because there are Jews and Palestinians there now, damn sure doesnt mean they were ALWAYS there since ancient times. The genes tell the true story.

And you really need to get your time frames together, because Abraham supposedly settled in Canaan over 4,000 years ago, according to Hebrew historians, he came from the land of UR, which s modern day Iraq, which is in Northern Mediterranean. So rather any of you choose to believe the Bible characters or not, Scientists have confirmed that the Jewish genetics originated in Northern Mediterranean before relocating to Israel. And in Israel, they obviously mixed with the Blacks that were already there which explains how the gene transferred to the Lemba. "Let us take their daughters, and them take our daughters," which should explain why the Palestinians have "maternal" African admixture, and the Lemba have a "paternal" semitic admixture. Because Abrahams sons, were marrying canaanite women.

posted 16 June 2004 10:53 AM            

I have contributed some non-race related topics that nobody seems to have contributed to. Why is that the people who know so much about the racial affinities of ancient people yet know nothing about their cultural achiievements?

posted 16 June 2004 01:54 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Osiris II:
This racial argument seems to go on and on! There is absolutely no conclusion--no one is able to prove, without any question, that their theory is correct. I thought this board was for discussion concerning ancient Egypt--its culture, its monuments and its achievements...

---

To which Ausar responded...

quote:

---

Originally posted by ausar:
You are right Osiris II. I have mentioned earlier that nobody contributes to messages that are non-race related. Nobody including the people who claim they know much about Egyptology .
I have contributed some non-race related topics that nobody seems to have contributed to. Why is that the people who know so much about the racial affinities of ancient people yet know nothing about their cultural achievements?

---

Ta_Seti primarily consists of Africans, Africans of the Diaspora, and others who share a genuine interest in the civilizations of the ancient Nile Valley. A current discussion is about the authenticity of the Berlin bust of Nefertiti, it is reasoned and intelligent, and refreshingly devoid of emotional outbursts from those who overtly or covertly support the "old view" of Egypt, and want to yell RACE even when it is a salient part of the current discourse. I was informed by one individual from this forum that those who held these views have "left" the forum, and thus, there are no distractions from the topics at hand.

Examples of other topics are:
Ancient Egypt - The Light of the World
Which was the first generation of Africa
Archaeologists have unearthed a 5,000-year-old necropolis