posted 22 September 2004 07:00 PM            

quote:

---

they say Memnon was from the east and had a white person playing him.

---

posted 23 September 2004 08:18 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by kifaru:
[QUOTE]they say Memnon was from the east and had a white person playing him.

---

Dravidians are black. Elamites are sometimes put into a larger grouping "Elamo-Dravidians". Interestingly is that many people consider the Sumerians to be related to these people too. the Sumerians described themselves as "black headed folk"- probably describing their hair?- and in contrast to Armeno-Aryan types of the Tell Halaf and Samaran type cultures in the northern areas of Mesopotamia and Syria.

Iranians are quite different to the Ancient Elamites, as Iranians are desended from ancient peoples of Aryan (Indo-European) types. Think of Medes and Scythians etc.

posted 23 September 2004 10:54 AM            

quote:

---

Dravidians are black.

---

Diop understood that the Medit. myth served muliple polemical function even as it defied all logic and reason:

* Allowed Europeans to sweep their own heterogeniety under the rug. (hence they could pretend that southern europeans were a form of pure caucasian, with no mixture whatsover with non-white peoples)

* Allow Europeans to claim racial identity with any ancient people or civilisation that they covetted. (such as AE)

If you can see thru the misleading Mediterranean monstrosity with regards to the Black Asian Dravidians, you should be able to do likewise with the Black African Kemetians as well.

posted 23 September 2004 11:38 AM            

and if you view the white supremist literature you will see they believe that a Nordic race came from Scandinavia and entered the Mediterranean. It was evidently them that created Sumerian, Minoan, Hittite, Egyptian et al civilisations. They don't like the Mediterranean idea as they see modern Greeks, Lebanese etc to be "racially mixed- Mediterranean inferiors". The idea that mixed people sailing from Europe to Syria to Africa and the other way too, created much of this civilisation is an anathema to them.

ps. Dravidians are not included in the Mediterranean myth as this is not Mediterrenean but Indus. The white supremisists believe that Indian civilisation was started by the Aryan invaders. Obviously they haven't read the literature of the Aryans as it is quite clear that they are invading a civilised people who are black and live in cities. The literature is quite clear.

sneuropa

posted 23 September 2004 11:52 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
Sneuropa, Sounds like a bunch of gibberish.

---

posted 23 September 2004 11:56 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
Sneuropa, who is "they"? I am around white people every day and I have never heard those comments. Sounds like you have been reading some old Hitler material from the 30's? Sounds like a bunch of gibberish.

---

posted 23 September 2004 11:59 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by ausar:
sneuropa,I believe he is talking about people is Guillsepli Sergi who first created the Mediterranean race idea. From this you even had people trying to place modern Eastern Africans into this category. Both these ideas go hand and hand with the notions of the later Hamitic myth postulated by Seligman.

---

Ausar, are you saying that the Hamites don't exist? Do you not believe in an Afro-Asiatic language family with a related group of races? I'm interested.

posted 23 September 2004 12:36 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by ausar:
sneuropa,I don't mix linguistics and race together. The people who speak the Afro-Asiatic language are a very diverse groups from Eastern Africa to even regions as Cameroon. The Hausa people in Nigeria are as much Afro-Asiatic speakers as Semetic people. I don't believe in such labels as hamities is a dignified way to classify people. I strongly reject it as pusedo-science from the 19th century.

---

Thanks, I almost agree with you. Certainly these terms are over simplified and over used. But there are differences between Afro-Asiatic peoples like Ethiopeans, Tuareg, Hausa, Fulani (and KMT and Libu in ancient times) and more Negroid peoples of Central Africa like those of Southern Nigeria Oribo (spelt that wrong!) compared with the peoples of Northern Nigeria.

One problem though is that languages can overrun peoples. Like Egypt now speaks Arabic but that doesn't mean that Egyptians are of Arabic race. Likewise Jamaican speak English. (I don't like the term "Hamitic" either- it has distasteful origins- ie Biblical for sinners.- I won't be using it again.)

posted 23 September 2004 12:45 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by ausar:
sneuropa,I believe he is talking about people is Guillsepli Sergi who first created the Mediterranean race idea. From this you even had people trying to place modern Eastern Africans into this category. Both these ideas go hand and hand with the notions of the later Hamitic myth postulated by Seligman.

---

posted 23 September 2004 12:50 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by sneuropa:
Horemheb, I am not implying yourself. Rasol and Wally seem to think that saying Egyptians are not Negroes is racist alla Stormfront.

---

posted 23 September 2004 12:56 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by sneuropa:
But there are differences between Afro-Asiatic peoples like Ethiopeans, Tuareg, Hausa, Fulani (and KMT and Libu in ancient times) and more Negroid peoples of Central Africa like those of Southern Nigeria Oribo (spelt that wrong!) compared with the peoples of Northern Nigeria.

regards,
sneuropa

---

Sneuropa,
What are the differences between Ethiopians and people of Central Africa? Again, what defines a negro?

Is it only Bantu people are negro?

We could use your same logic and say the Greeks and Romans were different from the western europeans.

posted 23 September 2004 01:06 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by blackman:
Sneuropa,
What are the differences between Ethiopians and people of Central Africa? Again, what defines a negro?

Is it only Bantu people are negro?

We could use your same logic and say the Greeks and Romans were different from the western europeans.

---

Actually, Europeans have some of the most fundamental and genetically demonstratable differences that are to be found amongst all peoples:

Blonde hair and blue eyes and pale skin are gene specific traits, that are predominent in Northern Europeans and virtually no where else on earth.

Strictly from a biological point of view, those traits would be among the 'best' for 'singling out' a race, if one is determined to do so. Of course, the reason we do not do so, is because the political consequences (as shown by the NAZI's in Europe) are horrifying. You would split Europeans racially against one another, and stand back and watch the feather's fly, so to speak.

Of course, this is exactly what imperialist Europeans attempt with Africa and it's peoples. Divide African from African...and steal what you can, while no one is watchin.... including African history.

posted 23 September 2004 01:12 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by blackman:
Sneuropa,
What are the differences between Ethiopians and people of Central Africa? Again, what defines a negro?

Is it only Bantu people are negro?

We could use your same logic and say the Greeks and Romans were different from the western europeans.

---

There are similarities and differences between all peoples. Ethiopeans are very different from central African peoples; they are generally much taller, and have facial features that are similar to Arabs. Likewise their language has more similarities with Arabic etc than with Bantu. It would seem that AE were a mix of these Northern types (there are many types here) and more Southern types too- likle the Negroes (of which again there are different types.) I thought that only the Bantu and maybe related people were Negro- the Africans of Western, South-Eastern and Central Africa, like the ones stolen for slavery. Other Africans like Ethiopeans and Khoisan are not Negro.

Yes many peoples of Europe vary much, both in looks and languages. Some European languages like Magyar are Altaic-Turanian and so related to Mongolian. It is a comlpicated subject.

posted 23 September 2004 01:22 PM            

Here's a relevant response that I received from a recent visitor to my website commenting on my "referenced source categorization" of the Hamitic language grouping :

quote:

---

Fulbe originate from the Nile Valley, not from Northwestern Africa. There is nothing in our tradition that links us with Berbers. I don't even know how that theory cropped up. How come Fulbe are placed in the Western Hamitic group?

BTW, I don't dig the "hamitic"/"semitic" classifications. They just don't seem to make any sense. Africans are just Africans. Jim Crow laws would have applied to all of us, regardless of these hamitic/bantu classifications.

Great site, though.

Best Regards,

I...... S....... Bah

---

posted 23 September 2004 01:27 PM            

You might not know but the original people of Yemen were actually Veddoid/Negrito people that were absorbed by later types in Yemen.

Also not all the slaves brought to America were only Western Africa types. Recent genetic analysis has shown that L3 are hapotypes also found in African Americans. L3 is traditionally the Eastern African halpotype. Some were also from Southern Morocco and were also Tuaregs.

The Bantus originated in what is know southern Cameroon about 800 B.C. but some place them back as far as 1500 B.C. around the region of Gabon.

The ancestors of modern Western Africans come from the once fertile Sahara when it was once more fertile than it is today. Only when the desert desificated do we see large populations in Western Africa.

posted 23 September 2004 01:32 PM            

quote:

---

Fulbe originate from the Nile Valley, not from Northwestern Africa. There is nothing in our tradition that links us with Berbers. I don't even know how that theory cropped up. How come Fulbe are placed in the Western Hamitic group?

BTW, I don't dig the "hamitic"/"semitic" classifications. They just don't seem to make any sense. Africans are just Africans. Jim Crow laws would have applied to all of us, regardless of these hamitic/bantu classifications.

Great site, though.

Best Regards,

I...... S....... Bah

---

posted 23 September 2004 01:32 PM            

quote:

---

Fulbe originate from the Nile Valley, not from Northwestern Africa. There is nothing in our tradition that links us with Berbers. I don't even know how that theory cropped up. How come Fulbe are placed in the Western Hamitic group?

---

Actually,this theory came from a know deceased scholar named Gabriel Camps. Camps was a specialist on early Imazigh people and postulated that Fulbe[Fulani people] were desendants of a mixture between Berbers and black Africans.

We have evidence that Fulani are related to the pastorial people from the Central Saharan area. The cattle ritual found in the Central Sahara is identical to modern Fulani pratices. The Central and Southern Sahara are also the cradle of most modern Western Africans. We can see from the art wortk body painting,art sytles,hair styles,and various other motifs that are found in later Western African and Central African people.

posted 23 September 2004 01:44 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by blackman:
sneuropa,
Is this person negro?
http://www.metmuseum.org/explore/new_pyramid/PYRAMIDS/HTML/el_pyramid_head2.htm

---

No: because we can see that his colour is white! just joking!

Yes he definately seems to be Negro. Note that he has a squat sort of nose- Ethiopeans etc have pronounced ones. The art work itself is very typical of other sub-Saharan art too.

sneuropa

posted 23 September 2004 02:01 PM            

By your own definition even Kings of AE were negriod.

posted 23 September 2004 02:15 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by sneuropa:
No: because we can see that his colour is white! just joking!

Yes he definately seems to be Negro. Note that he has a squat sort of nose- Ethiopeans etc have pronounced ones. The art work itself is very typical of other sub-Saharan art too.

sneuropa

---

Ethiopia, like Nigeria, like Egypt, is a country...it is not a specific ethnic type of African. There are over 10 major ethnic groups of Ethiopians some of whom also live in neighoring African countries.

So you are misconstruing the concept of Ethiopian just as you have with Afro-Asiatic and Bantu, and other terms.

Ethiopia is not "separate" from the rest of Africa. It's people are biologically, culturally, and linguistically related to peoples who range from Mali and Mauritania, to Egypt and Tanzania.

But you will likely not undertand that as long as you continue to mix up languages, nations, phenotypes, and the like, and then filter it thru your own special witches brew of negro pseudo anthropology.

posted 23 September 2004 07:42 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

Ethiopia, like Nigeria, like Egypt, is a country...it is not a specific ethnic type of African. There are over 10 major ethnic groups of Ethiopians some of whom also live in neighoring African countries.

So you are misconstruing the concept of Ethiopian just as you have with Afro-Asiatic and Bantu, and other terms.

Ethiopia is not "separate" from the rest of Africa. It's people are biologically, culturally, and linguistically related to peoples who range from Mali and Mauritania, to Egypt and Tanzania.

But you will likely not undertand that as long as you continue to mix up languages, nations, phenotypes, and the like, and then filter it thru your own special witches brew of negro pseudo anthropology.

[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 23 September 2004).]

---

Couldn't have been put any plainer. Sneuropa's comments here and in ther "facial reconstruction" thread, definitely puzzles me about his claims to know African history.

posted 24 September 2004 07:53 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by supercar:
Couldn't have been put any plainer. Sneuropa's comments here and in ther "facial reconstruction" thread, definitely puzzles me about his claims to know African history.

---

I was puzzled for about 10 seconds. Then I decided to just sit back and enjoy the ride.

posted 24 September 2004 09:30 AM            

Oh really.... since Rahotep and Nofret are not related to any royalty. This has never been proven. Khufu and Snefru both have potraits that show a very negriod[Africoid] sculpture.

The Thumoside line are directly related to modern day Nubians according to skeletal obsevations. The whole 17th and 18th dyansty originated in Upper Egypt around modern day Luxor where people today are still very ''black''.

The fourth dyansty might have been a mixture of both Upper Egyptian and more northern Egyptian elements.

Here's your Rahotep in the flesh:

[Notice neither this man nor women look like the typical Mediterranean type!]

Here's Rahotep's brother Nefermaat

[Notice that Nefermaat is painted in realistic colors] Which means even people who looked like Rahotep could easily have relatives that could be considered ''black''

Here's some pictures of fourth dyansty pharaohs:

Believed by Egyptologist Cyril Aldred to be Snefru

Khafre

A IVth Dynasty Pharaoh, commonly identified as Shepsekaf

Khufu

posted 24 September 2004 09:31 AM            

Djedfre

I notice you keep mentioning that AE distinguished themselves from Nubians. You don't even take into consideration that Nubia consisted of many different groups of Nubians,and Egyptians never considered them all as one unified bands. Some where southern Sudanese types and others were Beja types. The Medijay people were depicted as lighter than the typical Nubians but they were still Nubians.

In the Southern Upper Egyptian area you could not tell the Egyptians there from people further further south. The ancient Egyptians also distinguished themselves both from Imazigh[Libyans],Asiatics[such as Arabs and others] and northern Mediterraneans[such as the Kefitu] Sometimes,as in the Rameses III tomb, the Nubians were painted in the same tone as the ancient Egyptians.

posted 24 September 2004 09:57 AM            

That may make them feel less insecure, but the truth is they are arguing with the likes of Herodotus and Strabo with regards to ancient Greek history, and are arguing with Petrie, Budge, Gardner, Champollion with regards to the ethnic identity of the AE.

The [negro/black] features of the protodynastic face of Tera Neter and those of the the first king to unify the valley, also prove that this is the only valid hypothesis. Similarly, the features of the Fourth Dynasty Pharaohs, the builders of the great pyramids, confirm this." William Petrie the founder of pre-dynastic Nile Valley archaeology, excavated at Nagada and Ballas in Upper Egypt nearly 100 years ago, unearth nearly 1200 pre-dynastic graves.

Thus we have before our eyes the image of the various races of man known to the Egyptians the last one is what we call flesh-colored, a white skin of the most delicate shade, a nose straight or slightly arched, blue eyes, blond or reddish beard, tall stature and very slender, clad in a hairy ox-skin, a veritable savage... he is called Tamhou. - Champollion the Younger

Petrie and Champollian knew the AE were (Kememu) Black people and considered themselves as such, and were not (Tamhou) white and did not consider themselves as such.

Modern Eurocentrists try to cover up these facts and forget them. Fortunately we are here to remind them.

posted 24 September 2004 10:04 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
Ausar, you need to let the overwhelming majority of media groups in on what you just said.

---

posted 24 September 2004 10:25 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
[B]rasol, first, if you read my post clearly you will note that I pointed to the consultants of the media groups, fhese people are historians.

---

We want to know:

* Who are these "historians" who will back up your claim that Ancient Egyptians were not Black people?

* What does this have to do with the casting in a film?

* Do these historians take responsibilty for the casting?

* They are claiming to know what Thutmose III looked like, and to have casted accordingly? ( http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/tuthmosisIII.html )

We want facts Horemheb. Not your wishful thinking.

posted 24 September 2004 11:29 AM            

quote:

---

Check the credits on the educational TV programs about AE and they will list the consultants in all cases.
That being the case your questions were not relavent.

---

posted 24 September 2004 02:41 PM            

All the scholars you mention admit that ancient Egypt was a hetrogenous soceity with black people in Upper Egypt and lighter Med types in the Delta. Infact,it's Michael Hoffman,a know deceased professor at Austin Unversity that said southern Upper Egyptians were no different from Nubians. Let's not forget that documentaries are not infalable,for Joann Fletcher has been disbarred from excavating in Egypt by none other than Zahi Hawass.

Most of the documentaries on Discovery,TlC ,and other stations are riddled with imperfections and even mistranslations of Hieroglyphs at times.

The person who found the mummified remains from the Thutmoside dyansty had affinities with Nubians was none other than Kent R. Weeks in his X-ray Atlas of Royal mummies. Kent R. Weeks holds a degree in Egyptology and Physical Anthropology.

A scholar's skin color is of little cocern for me,for I value scholarship reguradless of where it comes from.

Don't know about conpsiracy theories but early Egyptologist like Sir Grafton Smith were racist and denied modern Egyptians their ancient Egyptian heritage. He made up racial myths about modern Egyptians. Most early Egyptian Egyptologist like Selim Hassan and others were snubbed by the mainstream establishment.

Anyway,when you make statements give me journals,book titles or other assorted texts. Documentaries on television are a dime a dozen.

posted 24 September 2004 03:21 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
I have told you rasol that I am not going to get bogged down in a racist afrocentric debate with you. Check the credits on the educational TV programs about AE and they will list the consultants in all cases.
That being the case your questions were not relavent.

---

He who establishes his argument with noise and confusion shows that his reason is weak!
- Michel de Montaigne

Cursed be the social lies that wrap us from the living truth.
- Alfred, Lord Tennyson

posted 24 September 2004 03:31 PM            

quote:

---

The person who found the mummified remains from the Thutmoside dyansty had affinities with Nubians was none other than Kent R. Weeks in his X-ray Atlas of Royal mummies. Kent R. Weeks holds a degree in Egyptology and Physical Anthropology.

---

James E. Harris, Kent R. Weeks, X-raying the Pharaohs, 1973.

posted 24 September 2004 04:00 PM            

"The craniofacial skeleton reveals little similarity between
Amenhotep I and Thutmose I; as is apparent from the computerized
tracings of the craniofacial skeleton. Thutmose has a much more
rounded cranium, and prognathism of the maxilla and mandible
as well as of the dentition. His skull is most similar to that
of the Nubians from the ancient cemetaries of Gebel Adda examined
by the Michigan expedition." (p. 351)

The X-Ray Atlas of the Royal Mummies, by Wente et al (Chicago: University
of Chicago, 1980)

posted 25 September 2004 11:36 AM            

I have been in debates where people have claimed that the Egyptians were arabs. A common mistake many people make is to confuse modern day Egyptians with ancient ones. The state of Egypt is about 7 thousand years old. During this time it has been colonised - each new wave of people changing the ethnic mix of the country. A similar trend can be seen in the Americas. A modern american looks nothing like an american of
several thousand years ago. Adrianerik makes a very good point that the older Dynasties are in the South - where the first pyramids are over 5000 years old. Undoubtably the earlier dynasties were of African descent. Many detractors regarding this viewpoint concentrate on the later Dynasties which were colonies of the Greeks and Romans - by then the ethnic mix of Egypt had changed. Egypt was then colonised by Arabs,Turks,Mamalukes and Ottomans in more recent times, each wave of colonists giving rise to modern Egyptians.

Many of the Greek philosphers,Pythagoras,
Plato,Socrates,Herodotus and Hippocrates describe the Egyptians of their time as black with wooly hair. I see no reason why they should fabricate this. Furthermore I find it incredible that some Westerners are reluctant to take their word - after all the ancient greeks were actually witness to the zenith of ancient Egypt.

Others seem to be suggesting that the greatest philosophers of the the Western world cannot tell the difference between Black and Arab. If Black means Arab.What does Arab mean?-Chinese!!

Ironically by the same token many western europeans who associate themselves with the Romans and Greeks are overlooking the vast cultural differences between Ancient Greece and Rome and the Celts of western europe.

Apparently the differences in ethnicity within the various penisulas of Europe pose no problem here !!! The spread of civilization is far more complicated than Ancient Greece, Rome and then the rise of Western Europe. The role of Africa,Asia and amazingly China is completely overlooked.

I am no fan of Afrocentricity or of the old Eurocentric model. It is clear that cultures are continually borrowing from others. Very few cultures become enlightened due to their isolation as many so called experts would propose. Funnily enough when history is being taught in schools the Classic ancient works are avoided for a more censored contemporary history. Perhaps this is because in these ancient histories Western Europe is not central to any major events at that time.

posted 27 September 2004 08:37 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by ausar:

Djedfre

I notice you keep mentioning that AE distinguished themselves from Nubians. You don't even take into consideration that Nubia consisted of many different groups of Nubians,and Egyptians never considered them all as one unified bands. Some where southern Sudanese types and others were Beja types. The Medijay people were depicted as lighter than the typical Nubians but they were still Nubians.

In the Southern Upper Egyptian area you could not tell the Egyptians there from people further further south. The ancient Egyptians also distinguished themselves both from Imazigh[Libyans],Asiatics[such as Arabs and others] and northern Mediterraneans[such as the Kefitu] Sometimes,as in the Rameses III tomb, the Nubians were painted in the same tone as the ancient Egyptians.

Notice the AE depict themselves different than Western Asians who are shown to have straight hair with no wigs. AE are wearing wigs.

---

TO make this point further,some nubians during the old kingdom were beja types living in the nubian desert AND SOME WERE living in lower nubia but were wipe out but came in much later again and other nubians that were the majority were like the negriod west african and central african types but those types varied too.

southern sudan types vary,but not as much,but they are clearly negriod and most have woolly hair,broad nose and are dark skin,just like most upper ancient egyptians.