quote:

---

sunstorm2004:
I'm looking forward to in-depth responses from Abaza and Horemheb.

---

In-depth and constructive responsive? Sunstorm2004, that would be one heck of a wait!

I think [wst] Egyptology took this and ran with it once the mdw ntr was deciphered because of their need to revise the black/red dialectics that run throughout Kemetic culture. Black and red were polar opposites in Kemetic culture just as Black and White are in wst culture. So there were certainly plenty of examples to play with.

That's why I have quoted Champollion/Younger's remark about being shocked at the lowly regarded Tamhou. (whites)

Wst Egyptology went from shock, to a combination of denial and damage control.

Ironically the word Herodotus uses in the Histories for black (land,water,people, whatever) is Melas. He refers to the Egyptians and Ethiopians (Sudanese) as Melachrones, or Black ones, equivalent to Kemou or Kemut in mdw ntr.

As always, those who disagree are encouraged to provide alternative translations...as opposed to spam.

[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 11 January 2005).]
 

--the soil of Libya is...sandy and of a reddish hue, and that of Arabia and Syria inclines to stone and clay, Egypt has a soil that is black and crumbly. Bk II;12

--by calling the dove black, the Dodoneans indicated that the woman was an Egyptian. II;57

--the Colchians are Egyptians...on the fact that they are black-skinned and have wooly hair. II;104
-----
The Egyptian soil, the Ancient Egyptian people; Herodotus seen 'em both...

[This message has been edited by Wally (edited 11 January 2005).]
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by alTakruri:

In the below quote Allen admits a recognized meaning of KM not
KM.t, which is black in feminine senses. But he adds the definite
article which really isn’t indicated just assumed as one could also
assume the indefinite article or no article at all.

What Allen does not do is provide a single shred of evidence
that KM.t.nwt refers to soil. Allen completely ignores that for Km.t
to describe soil he needs a word or determinative for soil in
immediate proximity to the word KM.t. The determinative NWT
does not mean soil and can only mean land in the sense of
nation i.e. a national polity.

Black soil remains an unsubstantiated Eurocentric inference
of unknown origin. It rests on no known primary documentary
evidence from the Kmtyw themselves. If they had any idea of
such a concept it should be in actual ancient records where
black soil proponents can cite KM.t followed by the word or
the determinative for soil.

This will be a literal lterary philological proof meeting the
scientific requirements of replicity and falsifiability as do
the already well known terms appearing in the literature
left by the ancient Egyptians using the root KM.

The literal meaning of KM.t.nwt is not a matter of interpretation
and has nothing to do with predetermined ideaologies of any
Afro or Euro ethnocentric bias. It is pure objective linguistics.

Allen is not approaching the issue with any measure of professional
objectivity. He has merely written an antiAfrocentric polemic riddled
with self defeating arguments.

For instance his phraseology, [b]“possibly due to the color of fertile
soil“ admits that this interpretation is nothing more than uncertain
guesswork. It is not based on any ancient Egyptian records or reports
on ancient Egypt from other ancients.

He goes on to briefly explain a limited and elementary symbology
of black and red. Out of nowhere he latches onto ink of all things. He
does this only as a desperate attempt to find somehow a link between
black and red for later use in his polemic even though he firstly admits
to the dynamic opposition between black and red.

He invokes the Mertz Red Land Black Land oxymoron for T3Wiy.
But the Two Lands is a reference to Upper Egypt’s conquest and
incorporation of Lower Egypt into the one polity under one pharaoh.
The Two Lands cannot bear an interpretation that seeks to include
the whole world as Allen would have us believe, “order and chaos,
the Black Land and the Red Land.“

Neither Upper nor Lower Egypt ever represented either chaos
or the Red Land. Both Upper and Lower Egypt together were
KM.t.nwt. Only KM.t.nwt was order. On the otherhand Dshr.t.khast
and everything associated with it was chaos and foreign.

The ancient Egyptians never called their nation the Red nation.
Nowhere is there a text that calls Egypt Dshr.t.nwt. Nwt appears
to only be applicable to the Kmtw polity and its fortresses, cities,
towns, and villages. Even Kmtw owned colonies generally lack
the nwt determinative.

When it comes to Allens notion of “a significant part of their lives:
the constant opposition of two forces, the linking of two entities“
remains a fantasm of a deluded mind in terms of black and red.
The Kmtyw sought to eradicate red chaos not to embrace it in any
form. Red chaos was descriptive of the foreign Aamu and Temehu,
their residence, and the fauna inhabiting it.

Allen has failed to conjure a relationship between red and KM.t.nwt
or the Kmtyw. Therefore his conclusion, “the reference to Egypt as
’the black’ had much more to do with the cultivated land versus the
desert“ is not supported by any evidence. It remains a predetermined
point of view and is a circular argument, i.e., the sole premise is its own
derived conclusion. It is totally illogical. At best it aims at bolstering the
esteem of ethnocentrics who if they cannot still maintain the outmoded
falsehood of an angelfood Egyptian cake must still make certain that
the cake is not revealed to be devilfood.

One thing Allen said is true, "In order to determine how Egyptians
saw themselves ethnically we must use the written and artistic material
they left behind." To do exactly that may I recommend a perusal
of vignette 30 of the Book of Gates the chapter of Teka Hra shown at http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/Forum8/HTML/001098.html
the 12 December 2004 07:16 PM and 13 December 2004 07:39 PM posts.

For NWT & X3ST see also Wallys 29 December 2004 01:18 PM post at http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/Forum8/HTML/001092-2.html

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ayazid:
"In order to determine how Egyptians saw themselves ethnically we must use the written and artistic material they left behind. First, the terminology the Egyptians used to refer to themselves, their surroundings, and others, grants some insights into what was important in their identity. For example, one commonly used word for Egypt is kmt, which literally means “the black,” referring to the cultivated land of Egypt that is surrounded by desert, the red land (Allen 2001:470). To some Afrocentrists, though, the use of the term “black” in reference to Egypt must mean that the Egyptians were referring to themselves as black rather than using the color symbolism that permeated their culture (Diop 1989:20). Holders of this belief completely ignore the fact that black was, in general, a positive color in Egypt, possibly due to the color of fertile soil. If the soil was black, it could sustain life; if red, death would result. The term kmt, “black,” contrasted with dsrt, or the “red” of the desert (Allen 2001:22). These two colors were also in use for writing; a scribe’s case had space for two cakes of ink, red and black. Black was used for most writing while red was for headings (Mertz 1966:135). Although this could simply be due to the availability of the two pigments, it does indicate that the two colors were both opposing and linked. Simply claiming that the term kmt for Egypt meant that the Egyptians saw themselves as black the same way that modern populations do ignores the significance behind the colors that the Egyptians used for various purposes. It also ignores the fact that kmt is part of one of many oppositions that permeate the Egyptian worldview; for example, the most common term for Egypt, in fact, was t3wj, or “Two Lands” (Allen 2001:22). Egyptians saw their world as consisting of opposing forces: the Two Lands (Upper and Lower Egypt, which could be identified by various symbols of duality such as the bee and the sedge, the white and red crown, and so forth), order and chaos, the Black Land and the Red Land. To the Egyptians, this was a significant part of their lives: the constant opposition of two forces, the linking of two entities. Thus the reference to Egypt as “the black” had much more to do with the cultivated land versus the desert than it did to the skin color of the land’s inhabitants, which seems to have been irrelevant to the definition of an Egyptian."

http://www.focusanthro.org/essays/jackson--03-04.html

---

Thanks for the transfer, it really does belong here more
than where it was originally.
 

up

 

[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 13 March 2005).]
 

quote:

---

Djehuti:

Most Egyptians were not even black in terms of actual complexion, but brown

---

This is non sequitur. How many Africans are actually "black" in complexion?

quote:

---

Djehuti:
Which is most likely derived the very term 'Kemet' which means Black-Land.

---

This is the erroneous statement that this thread was seeking to address! What evidence do you have that it means "Black Land"?

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Super car:
This is the erroneous statement that this thread was seeking to address! What evidence do you have that it means "Black Land"?

---

You misunderstand that the association was with the divine, and black being symbolic of life ever-after. I believe the Egyptians naturally associated their land as well as themselves to this concept.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
You misunderstand that the association was with the divine, and black being symbolic of life ever-after. I believe the Egyptians naturally associated their land as well as themselves to this concept.

---

You misunderstood the question!
 

quote:

---

What I merely said was that the whole concept behind 'Kemet' may have have to do with something much more with spiritual beliefs, than something mundane as skin color.

---

The two concepts are not mutually exclusive.

Are you saying that the Kemetu referred to themselves as Black people, regarded Black as sacred....painted their ancestors and Gods Black....distinguished themselves from deshrtu Aamu [red Asiatics], but somehow had no concept that the Black was in reference to themselves? ? How would that work exactly?

And you derive this from primary text interpretation? From deductive reasoning? Spiritual channelling?

This is from Worterbuch der aegyptischen Sprache:

Are you disputing the above interpretation of km.t?

The iconography that you provide actually undermines your contention that Black was not associated with the Kemetians themselves.

We know the color Black is sacred.

We know the Kemeu depicted themselves, their divine rulers, their ancestors as Black.

We know they regarded themselves, their ancestors, their rulers as sacred.

At this point, you attempt unconvincing evasion of the inexorable conclusion that is literally written right there in the mdw ntr for all to see..... they regarded themselves as Kememu [BlackPeople].

It's amazing how anyone could post 5 pictures of Black people, and then argue that what is ultimately being referenced is not people, as shown, not people as written in mdw ntr....but rather black soil, which is neither written nor shown, and so constitutes assertion without substantiation and in blatant contradiction of your own evidence.

[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 13 March 2005).]
 

quote:

---

The Egyptians called themselves the people of the black land

---

Please produce the primary text wherein the Kememu are referred to as people of black land, as has been requested in the parent post for 3 months now.

That led me to believe that KMT was used mostly for foreigners as the name of Egypt.
 

1) What did Egyptians call their land?

2) Why are there so many hieroglyphs available on the net and in hard copy that uses Kmt? Is it possible that the tour guide is not very reliable.
 

2.I don't read Mdu Ntr so I would not know much about the following.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Roy_2k5:
Kem-Au:

1) What did Egyptians call their land?

2) Why are there so many hieroglyphs available on the net and in hard copy that uses Kmt? Is it possible that the tour guide is not very reliable.

---

1. There were many terms that have been listed here many times. Try searching some of Wally's old posts.

2. Yes, it's possible that he didn't know what he was talking about, but it was really difficult to find the word.

But please don't read too much into the post. I really just want to know if anyone else has more info on this.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kem-Au:
1. There were many terms that have been listed here many times. Try searching some of Wally's old posts.

2. Yes, it's possible that he didn't know what he was talking about, but it was really difficult to find the word.

But please don't read too much into the post. I really just want to know if anyone else has more info on this.

---

You were playing 'stump the tour guide', like asking a White House tour guide to name all the US presidents...

But seriously, if you wanted to investigate this issue, you would have had to look for any reference to Egypt by name in any of the ways it was written (ie, Kmt,Tawi,etc.), otherwise, it's pointless. You get what I mean.

Kmt is the oldest and most often used word for Egypt (along with "the Two Lands"), no one would argue with you on this...

[This message has been edited by Wally (edited 25 March 2005).]
 

quote:

---

IF YOU HAVE READ THE TEXT "ATRA HASIS" IT GIVES THE ACCOUNT OF WHEN MAN WAS CREATED ,THE FIRST BATCH OF MANKIND ACCORDING TO THIS TEXTS IS THE ONES THAT WERE CALLED THE BLACK HEADED ONES, THESE WERE CREATED BASICALLY TO BE SLAVES TO THE ANUNNAKI. IM ASSUMING YOU HAVE READ THESE STORIES.

---

Question for the true scholars here: is Akobadageth right about what this "atra hasis" document has to say? And is the document sumerian?

If so, does this suggest that the "caucasoid" conquest of the arabian peninsula had some racial "color" philosophy behind it, in the way that the conquest of the indian subcontinent by "white" "aryans" certainly did?

If so, this could suggest that the kemetans, in the face of pressure from this "racial" aggression, responded in a similar way as the dravidians -- by rallying around their "blackness", distinguishing themselves as black people, and even asserting that their land is the land of the blacks, ie. kemet.

In other threads, people ask "why would they call themselves black people"? If their aggressors came in the name of "whiteness", *this* might explain the "kemtau" identity.

...But is there other evidence that the displacement of the early inhabitants of the arabian peninsula had a "color" bias behind it?
 

quote:

---

But is there other evidence that the displacement of the early inhabitants of the arabian peninsula had a "color" bias behind it?

---

Actually, I'm just presuming there was some displacement... (I'm no scholar. ) Was there a displacement on the peninsula?
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by windstorm2005:
Actually, I'm just presuming there was some displacement... (I'm no scholar. ) Was there a displacement on the peninsula?

---

Good question!

The Atra-Hasis Epic is named after its human hero, and was composed sometime between 1800 and 1700 BCE. It contains both a creation and a flood account, and is one of only three surviving Babylonian flood stories. In its cosmology, heaven is ruled by the god Anu, earth by Enlil, and the freshwater ocean by Enki. Enlil set the lesser gods to work farming the land and maintaining the irrigation canals, but after forty years they refused to work any longer. Enki, who is also the wise counselor to the gods, proposes that humans be created to take on the work, so the goddess Mami makes humans by shaping clay mixed with saliva and the blood of the under-god We, who was slain for this purpose. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atra-Hasis

I do not read Abracadabra threads and would suggest that he be ignored whenever possible. m2c.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wally:
You were playing 'stump the tour guide', like asking a White House tour guide to name all the US presidents...

But seriously, if you wanted to investigate this issue, you would have had to look for [b]any reference to Egypt by name in any of the ways it was written (ie, Kmt,Tawi,etc.), otherwise, it's pointless. You get what I mean.

Kmt is the oldest and most often used word for Egypt (along with "the Two Lands"), no one would argue with you on this...

[This message has been edited by Wally (edited 25 March 2005).][/B]

---

Don't get me wrong. I'm not at all disputing the use of KMT. He said there was no need to write this on temples because all the people knew it. I'd tell you what I was thinking, but the trollers would be all over it, so I'll keep it to myself until I get more info.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kem-Au:
Don't get me wrong. I'm not at all disputing the use of KMT. He said there was no need to write this on temples because all the people knew it. I'd tell you what I was thinking, but the trollers would be all over it, so I'll keep it to myself until I get more info.

---

Now, just what are you thinking Kem-Au...come on. Was his explanation
that people already new the name of the country was "Black" or
already knew that they were a "Black nation"? So, c'mon, don't worry,
rasol or Super car alone can deal
very well, thank-you, with the trollers...

Again, though, I think you don't
understand my point completely.
Ex: (Now, I'm writing this from memory, so...) One of the oldest and most
sacred books in Ancient Egyptian
literature is the Papyrus of Ani,
now in this entire work, the name
of Egypt is mentioned no more than
two or three times (if memory serves).
If you read a proclamation on a wall or something, there's usually little
reference to the name of the country,
and is usually used only as part of a
title for the king, who is
usually ("king so-and-so, lord of "any name for Egypt") the subject of these texts...

But like you imply, it's not such a big deal.

[This message has been edited by Wally (edited 26 March 2005).]
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

---

So what is this TOMB OF RAMSES III mural really?

Traditionally referred to as a Table of Nations, but this is problematic because there are no nations shown, only peoples.

I think it was Diop who first called it a Table of Races, but this is also problematic.
In biological taxonomy a race is a subspecies. Subspecies in humans do not exist. Moreover, race in biology is science...not subjective. If we view this literally a km.t[rm.t] anthropological statement, then it becomes irrelevant.

Why?

Well, suppose the kmtw rendered a map of world reflecting what they knew at the time. The map would certainly be substantially wrong. It would be quite useful, possibly invaluable, as a historical document revealing Kemetic knowledge and ways of thinking. But insistance upon it's accuracy would be laughable. In Geography like Biology it is 'objective' truth that matters, not what AE 'thought' about it.

Perhaps it is more reasonable to regard this as a Table of Peoples, and with caution...ethnicities.

The notion of ethnicity is intrinsically subjective....it can consist of similarities in appearance, in nationality, in culture and langauge, as well as familial relationships, incorporating religon as freely as science....whatever is found to be most significant by those engaged in the catagorising.

Personally I consider the mural a Table of Peoples.

[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 26 March 2005).]
 

quote:

---

Well some view vignette 30 in the Gate of Teka Hra of the Book of Gates as a table of nations -- terminology borrowed from the description of Genesis
chapter 10 -- when it hardly is a picturing of all the different nations known to
19th Dynasty Egypt. In fact to compare it to Genesis 10 it would only be the
four sons of Hham: Kush, Missrayim, Fut, and Kena`an.

Others see it as the four races of man known to the AE. The problem with
that is race science was unknown to the author of the text or the artist of the
painting. At that time there were only two broad colour groupings known
anywhere in the ancient world, dark and light. And whats more important
to the ancients was the ethnicity or nationality. Belonging to a colour group
didn't automatically imply kinship relations among all the ethnies sharing
similar colour.

Another view, of those who havent seen the vignette as a whole but seen
only sections of one group, is that it portrays immigrants or mercenaries
or such. Actually everyone depicted is dead and in the Dwat or underworld.
And on top of that, they are freshly dead today so to speak since the Book
of Gates chapter by chapter is a record of the Suns travel after sunset and
before sunrise.

.....the scene is showing peoples under Re who are eligible for Osirian
resurrection.

As such, one people known to the AE are intentinally left out.
They being the Hua Nebu i.e. the northern people of the Aegean.

There's little left to free interpretation or other than an understanding that
real people complexions are shown because the painting was only made for one reason, to be an illustration of a text.

The text that it illustrates is right
above the head of Heru and four groups of peoples. In each of the tombs
where the vignette appears the skin tones may vary some from tomb to tomb but are still within the general range of colour of the ethnic group.

---

quote:

---

This is the text where in the mdw ntr above
the head of Heru the Kmtyw & Nhsw are lumped together as KM.t.nwt while the Tmhw & Aamw are dshr.t.nwt a polity not DSHr.t.x3st a piece of land.

---

[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 26 March 2005).]
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wally:
Now, just what are you thinking Kem-Au...come on. Was his explanation
that people already new the name of the country was "Black" or
already knew that they were a "Black nation"? So, c'mon, don't worry,
rasol or Super car alone can deal
very well, thank-you, with the trollers...

Again, though, I think you don't
understand my point completely.
Ex: (Now, I'm writing this from memory, so...) One of the oldest and most
sacred books in Ancient Egyptian
literature is the Papyrus of Ani,
now in this entire work, the name
of Egypt is mentioned no more than
two or three times (if memory serves).
If you read a proclamation on a wall or something, there's usually little
reference to the name of the country,
and is usually used only as part of a
title for the king, who is
usually ("king so-and-so, lord of "any name for Egypt") the subject of these texts...

But like you imply, it's not such a big deal.

[This message has been edited by Wally (edited 26 March 2005).]

---

Well you pretty much got what I was thinking. That Egyptians knew what KMT meant, and there would've been no reason to write it on a wall in Egypt. But for now I'll just say that I'm very curious to see some mdt ntr of city names south of Egypt, especially before the emergence of Kush.
 

1. KMT literally translates to "blacks". With the city determinate after it, that makes... Well you do the math. Anyway, we don't know when this word came into use, but from what I understand, it was used in some the earliest of documents.

2. Egyptians made no secret of where they came from.

3. Their first king, Ausar, wears only the crown of Upper Egypt.

4. The Ethiopians maintained that Egypt was an Ethiopian colony.

5. Ausar's body parts were scattered into the 14 Egyptian cities. Anyone know what these 14 cities were?

6. Signs of Pharonic kingship show up in "Nubia" before they show up in Lower Egypt.

7. Egyptian royalty would often flee to the south in times of crisis. And kings who would legitimately reunify Egypt would come from the south.

8. We often hear about cultural differences between Egypt and Nubia, but we know that there were cultural differences between Upper and Lower Egypt as well. In fact, from what I understand, the only gods that were worshipped throughout the whole country were Ausar, Aset and Heru.

We also know that Egypt fought wars with southern neighbors like Kush, but again there were wars against Upper and Lower Egypt. How can we be sure that one was a civil war and the other one wasn't.

The Upper country is whatI really find interesting. We've talked about this before, but I wonder if Egypt and Nubia were ever separate empires? Could they have simply been states of KMT that grew strong enough to become independant? Could it be that the foreigners we see being smited, are not always foreign? What if it were just a message to anyone who disobeyed the Pharaoh?

Before Ramses' temple at Abu Simbel was relocated, my tour guide told me that his grandfather worked there. He said that Nubians were always there at Abu Simbel, but another tour guide said that Saidi were there as well, so I'd assume that they both always lived there.

The temple was said to serve as an intimidating factor to anyone who was sailing up the Nile. While sailing up the Nile, you would see Ramses' temple on the left, and Nefertari's temple on the right. Again, this was before it was moved.

I feel like there's something we're not being told. It could be that Pharaoh was just as interested in making sure his own people didn't get out of line as he was in taking care of aggressive foreigners. Thoughts?
 

Encyclopedia: Upper and Lower Egypt

This part of the country was also divided into nomes; however, as the place was mostly undeveloped scrubland, the organisation of the nomes underwent several changes. Ultimately there were twenty nomes and the first of these was at Memphis. Taken together, the Two Kingdoms formed Kemet ('Black'). It is claimed that Kemet means 'Black soil', but the term Kmt is a noun, which does not include 'soil', and in this respect Kmt means 'Black Nation'. Deshret ("Red"), on the other hand, was used to describe a type of place, which the Kemetians/Egyptian dispised. It is usually seen as a 'Afro-centric' argument, but the meaning of Kmt was stated by Champollion the Younger's (who deciphered the Rossetta stone) document, 'Expressions et Termes Particuliers' (Expression of Particular Terms). Link to the document is provided at the bottom of this page. The Kmt = 'Black Soil' fallacy was picked up from Herodotus when he says, “Egypt is a land of black soil...We know that Libya is a redder earth.” (Herodotus, The History, Book 2:12), but in the same book he also states that, "the Colchians are Egyptians...on the fact that they are black-skinned and have wooly hair." (Herodotus, The History, Book 2:104).
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by kenndo:
these comments you made are just deeeeaad wrong you racist.read a book for a change ad not just any book.read basil davidson books if you do not know anything.

---

No, It is not dead wrong.

''Lemme tell you something ancient egyptians were not black.

And your slaved negroid west african ancestors got nothing to do with them(Ancient Egyptians) stupid afro-centric african americans with no heratige.''

hell yea!!!!!!
 

quote:

---

the meaning of Kmt was stated by Champollion the Younger's (who deciphered the Rossetta stone) document, 'Expressions et Termes Particuliers' (Expression of Particular Terms).

---

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 [Red One].... I certainly did not expect, on arriving at Biban-el-Moluk, to find sculptures that could serve as vignettes of the history of the primitive Europeans, if ever one has the courage to attempt it." - Champollian the Younger.

Kmtyw les noires, the Blacks.

Osirus Kem wer, le grand Negre', the great Black.

set kem, la femme noire', the Black lady
Princess Kemsit.

[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 18 June 2005).]
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jizan:
No, It is not dead wrong.

''[b]Lemme tell you something ancient egyptians were not black.

And your slaved negroid west african ancestors got nothing to do with them(Ancient Egyptians) stupid afro-centric african americans with no heratige.''

hell yea!!!!!![/B]

---

most egyptians were black and black americans,west africans etc have EVEERRY thing to do with them.in fact many west african kingdoms became later more advanced than egypt and there were more civilizations in west africa than any region in africa.still holds true today.these are just facts so don't shoot the reporter.

quote:

---

Originally posted by kenndo:
most egyptians were black and black americans,west africans etc have EVEERRY thing to do with them.in fact many west african kingdoms became later more advanced than egypt and there were more civilizations in west africa than any region in africa.still holds true today.these are just facts so don't shoot the reporter.

---

BLACK AMERICANS HAVE SERIOUSLY NNNNNNOOOOTTTHHHIIINNGGGG TO DO WITH THEM, EVEN DINKAS FROM SOUTH SUDAN HAVE PROBABLY 1000000000000000000 TIMES MORE ANCIENT LINKS WITH ANCIENT EGYPT THEN SOUTH WEST AND CENTRAL AFRICANS DO.

YOUR ANCESTORS WERE PEOPLE WHO LIVED IN THE DEEP JUNGLES AND SH*T AND HAD NAMES LIKE MUGANGA NGAGUGU KONGOKANGA BE PROUD OF IT YOU SAVAGE BEAST YOUR ANCESTORS GOT NOTHING TO DO WITH ANCIENT EGYPTIANS.

AND ANCIENT EGYPTIANS WERE VERY MIXED PEOPLE NOT BLACK AT ALL. LAST TIME I CHECKED MOST ANCIENT EGYPTIANS PAINTED THEMSELF REDDISH OR LIGHT BROWN AND HAD CAUCASIAN OR MIXED FEATURES.

[This message has been edited by Jizan (edited 18 June 2005).]
 

[This message has been edited by Jizan (edited 18 June 2005).]
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jizan:

BLACK AMERICANS HAVE SERIOUSLY [b]NNNNNNOOOOTTTHHHIIINNGGGG TO DO WITH THEM, EVEN DINKAS FROM SOUTH SUDAN HAVE PROBABLY 1000000000000000000 TIMES MORE ANCIENT LINKS WITH ANCIENT EGYPT THEN SOUTH WEST AND CENTRAL AFRICANS DO.

YOUR ANCESTORS WERE PEOPLE WHO LIVED IN THE DEEP JUNGLES AND SH*T AND HAD NAMES LIKE MUGANGA NGAGUGU KONGOKANGA BE PROUD OF IT YOU SAVAGE BEAST YOUR ANCESTORS GOT NOTHING TO DO WITH ANCIENT EGYPTIANS.

AND ANCIENT EGYPTIANS WERE VERY MIXED PEOPLE NOT BLACK AT ALL. LAST TIME I CHECKED MOST ANCIENT EGYPTIANS PAINTED THEMSELF REDDISH OR LIGHT BROWN AND HAD CAUCASIAN OR MIXED FEATURES.

[This message has been edited by Jizan (edited 18 June 2005).][/B]

---

YOU KNOW you are dead wrong right?and who ever said i was a black american? i never said what i was to you.any way whites do not have reddish brown skin.look carefully blind one that reddish brown still falls into the dark brown area or dark skin area and i do not know of any white person like that.

most egyptians come from the south just like all blacks so there is a connection.greeks are related to russians because they come from one core area.all blacks are related just like all whites,all asians etc etc. so the split was not that long ago in world history.egyptians did not fall out of the sky.see if you admit that they come from the south than you will see that they are related to other africans.

if dinka is related to them than other blacks are because blacks are one race not a bunch of races.family could split up you.stop with the racist incorrect crap or get the hell out of here.only civilized folks should be on this forum.

by the way most early egyptians were black africans and so was the culture.that's the facts.

[This message has been edited by kenndo (edited 18 June 2005).]
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jizan:
No, It is not dead wrong.

''[b]Lemme tell you something ancient egyptians were not black.

And your slaved negroid west african ancestors got nothing to do with them(Ancient Egyptians) stupid afro-centric african americans with no heratige.''

hell yea!!!!!![/B]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jizan:

BLACK AMERICANS HAVE SERIOUSLY [b]NNNNNNOOOOTTTHHHIIINNGGGG TO DO WITH THEM, EVEN DINKAS FROM SOUTH SUDAN HAVE PROBABLY 1000000000000000000 TIMES MORE ANCIENT LINKS WITH ANCIENT EGYPT THEN SOUTH WEST AND CENTRAL AFRICANS DO.

YOUR ANCESTORS WERE PEOPLE WHO LIVED IN THE DEEP JUNGLES AND SH*T AND HAD NAMES LIKE MUGANGA NGAGUGU KONGOKANGA BE PROUD OF IT YOU SAVAGE BEAST YOUR ANCESTORS GOT NOTHING TO DO WITH ANCIENT EGYPTIANS.

AND ANCIENT EGYPTIANS WERE VERY MIXED PEOPLE NOT BLACK AT ALL. LAST TIME I CHECKED MOST ANCIENT EGYPTIANS PAINTED THEMSELF REDDISH OR LIGHT BROWN AND HAD CAUCASIAN OR MIXED FEATURES.

[This message has been edited by Jizan (edited 18 June 2005).][/B]

---

Arab=White Bantu

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by kenndo:
YOU KNOW you are dead wrong right?and who ever said i was a black american? i never said what i was to you.any way whites do not have reddish brown skin.look carefully blind one that reddish brown still falls into the dark brown area or dark skin area and i do not know of any white person like that.

most egyptians come from the south just like all blacks so there is a connection.greeks are related to russians because they come from one core area.all blacks are related just like all whites,all asians etc etc. so the split was not that long ago in world history.egyptians did not fall out of the sky.see if you admit that they come from the south than you will see that they are related to other africans.

if dinka is related to them than other blacks are because blacks are one race not a bunch of races.family could split up you.stop with the racist incorrect crap or get the hell out of here.only civilized folks should be on this forum.

by the way most early egyptians were black africans and so was the culture.that's the facts.

---

Your ancestors were Niger-Congo Bantu speakers not Afro-Asiatics nor Nilo-Saharans. So they got nothing to do with ancient egyptians. Just because some ancient egyptians had dark skin does not mean they are related to jungle negroes(south west and central africans aka your ancestors).

quote:

---

by the way most early egyptians were black africans and so was the culture.that's the facts.

---

o please.

quote:

---

AND ANCIENT EGYPTIANS WERE VERY MIXED PEOPLE NOT BLACK. LAST TIME I CHECKED MOST ANCIENT EGYPTIANS PAINTED THEMSELF REDDISH OR LIGHT BROWN AND HAD CAUCASIAN OR MIXED FEATURES.

---

[This message has been edited by Jizan (edited 19 June 2005).]
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jizan:

BLACK AMERICANS HAVE SERIOUSLY [b]NNNNNNOOOOTTTHHHIIINNGGGG TO DO WITH THEM, EVEN DINKAS FROM SOUTH SUDAN HAVE PROBABLY 1000000000000000000 TIMES MORE ANCIENT LINKS WITH ANCIENT EGYPT THEN SOUTH WEST AND CENTRAL AFRICANS DO.

YOUR ANCESTORS WERE PEOPLE WHO LIVED IN THE DEEP JUNGLES AND SH*T AND HAD NAMES LIKE MUGANGA NGAGUGU KONGOKANGA BE PROUD OF IT YOU SAVAGE BEAST YOUR ANCESTORS GOT NOTHING TO DO WITH ANCIENT EGYPTIANS.

AND ANCIENT EGYPTIANS WERE VERY MIXED PEOPLE NOT BLACK AT ALL. LAST TIME I CHECKED MOST ANCIENT EGYPTIANS PAINTED THEMSELF REDDISH OR LIGHT BROWN AND HAD CAUCASIAN OR MIXED FEATURES.

[This message has been edited by Jizan (edited 18 June 2005).][/B]

---

People are finally having a good conversation in a legitimate thread and look what we have here? A clueless cab driver again repeating the same boring *yawn* craps all over again. If you want to convince these guys they weren't black Africans provide them with facts and evidence that proves other wise instead of being a clueless mixed fool.

You keep talking about how they are desperate for their heritage but the fact of the matter is it's the mixed one with no heritage. The first mutants the white race that were result of Asians migrating to Europe and then being mixed with Africans. The second mutants (mulatto like you ratjiz) are yet another mutation from the above races. Bottom line: You are the one desperate for your identity and heritage because you don't have one.

[This message has been edited by Atheist (edited 19 June 2005).]
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by kenndo:
YOU KNOW you are dead wrong right?and who ever said i was a black american? i never said what i was to you.any way whites do not have reddish brown skin.look carefully blind one that reddish brown still falls into the dark brown area or dark skin area and i do not know of any white person like that.

most egyptians come from the south just like all blacks so there is a connection.greeks are related to russians because they come from one core area.all blacks are related just like all whites,all asians etc etc. so the split was not that long ago in world history.egyptians did not fall out of the sky.see if you admit that they come from the south than you will see that they are related to other africans.

if dinka is related to them than other blacks are because blacks are one race not a bunch of races.family could split up you.stop with the racist incorrect crap or get the hell out of here.only civilized folks should be on this forum.

by the way most early egyptians were black africans and so was the culture.that's the facts.

---

Your ancestors were Niger-Congo Bantu speakers not Afro-Asiatics nor Nilo-Saharans. So they got nothing to do with ancient egyptians. Just because some ancient egyptians had dark skin does not mean they are related to jungle negroes(south west and central africans aka your ancestors).

quote:

---

by the way most early egyptians were black africans and so was the culture.that's the facts.

---

o please.

quote:

---

AND ANCIENT EGYPTIANS WERE VERY MIXED PEOPLE NOT BLACK. LAST TIME I CHECKED MOST ANCIENT EGYPTIANS PAINTED THEMSELF REDDISH OR LIGHT BROWN AND HAD CAUCASIAN OR MIXED FEATURES.

---

[This message has been edited by Jizan (edited 19 June 2005).]

YOU KNOW you are dead wrong right?and who ever said i was a black american? i never said what i was to you.any way whites do not have reddish brown skin.look carefully blind one that reddish brown still falls into the dark brown area or dark skin area and i do not know of any white person like that.

most egyptians come from the south just like all blacks so there is a connection.greeks are related to russians because they come from one core area.all blacks are related just like all whites,all asians etc etc. so the split was not that long ago in world history.egyptians did not fall out of the sky.see if you admit that they come from the south than you will see that they are related to other africans.

if dinka is related to them than other blacks are because blacks are one race not a bunch of races.family could split up you.stop with the racist incorrect crap or get the hell out of here.only civilized folks should be on this forum.

by the way most early egyptians were black africans and so was the culture.that's the facts.besides most west africans are not bantu speakers so get it right and if they were so what.

quote:

---

ratjizz says: BLACK AMERICANS HAVE SERIOUSLY NNNNNNOOOOTTTHHHIIINNGGGG TO DO WITH THEM, EVEN DINKAS FROM SOUTH SUDAN HAVE PROBABLY 1000000000000000000 TIMES MORE ANCIENT LINKS WITH ANCIENT EGYPT THEN SOUTH WEST AND CENTRAL AFRICANS DO.

---

quote:

---

YOUR ANCESTORS WERE PEOPLE WHO LIVED IN THE DEEP JUNGLES AND SH*T AND HAD NAMES LIKE MUGANGA NGAGUGU KONGOKANGA BE PROUD OF IT YOU SAVAGE BEAST YOUR ANCESTORS GOT NOTHING TO DO WITH ANCIENT EGYPTIANS.

---

quote:

---

AND ANCIENT EGYPTIANS WERE VERY MIXED PEOPLE NOT BLACK AT ALL. LAST TIME I CHECKED MOST ANCIENT EGYPTIANS PAINTED THEMSELF REDDISH OR LIGHT BROWN AND HAD CAUCASIAN OR MIXED FEATURES.

---

quote:

---

Your ancestors were Niger-Congo Bantu speakers not Afro-Asiatics nor Nilo-Saharans. So they got nothing to do with ancient egyptians. Just because some ancient egyptians had dark skin does not mean they are related to jungle negroes(south west and central africans aka your ancestors).

---

quote:

---

o please.

---

[This message has been edited by Djehuti (edited 19 June 2005).]
 

quote:

---

Well white Americans have nothing to do with ancient Greece, yet there are so many Americans that talk about the Greeks like they are their ancestors! It's true, Nilo-Saharan speakers like Dinka have had more contact than West Africans, but the Egyptians had many cultural traits that can be found in West Africa also!

---

Many white americans are a mix of many european ethnicities, so maybe that's why some may think the ancient greeks are their ancestors. And west africans(i mean the true ones, not afro-asiatics or nilo-saharans have nothing to do with ancient egypt).

quote:

---

Typical ignorance about African culture. Again seem to be exhibiting belief in the Tarzan myths. Many West Africans were not the savages you think. They did in fact develop forms of civilization like cities and states with kings. They were not the primitives you think. And as far as names go, the Egyptian language is monosyllabic in nature, like many other African languages including those in West Africa. I notice that ancient Egyptian names also end in vowels like Khaf-ra, or Sa-hu-re and they can also have repetitions of words or syllables like the West African word M-be-be and the Egyptian name Nefer-ti-ti. Also, many Egyptians name their children after various things, from gods, to what number child they are, to looks etc. I noticed they also do this in Africa.

---

That is just coinsidence.

quote:

---

By the way, YOUR ancestors lived in the DEEP DESERTS of Arabia, so the only connection they had to ancient Egypt (if any) were as slaves!

---

Ooh please shut up dumbass, There is TONS of proof of semites in ancient egypt.

quote:

---

And last time I checked pure African populations also come in reddish or light brown, not just jet-black!! How many times must we explain this to you? And as far as "caucasian features", we also explained many times before that the facial features you speak of are found in so many populations around the world including various parts of Africa, that they really aren't "caucasian" at all!!

---

Last time i checked, pure black negroid people don't got light brown or reddish light brown skin color and caucasian nor mixed features.

quote:

---

Actually ratjizz, there are Afro-Asiatic speakers in West Africa!! The Chadic branch of of the Afrasian family ranges from Chad to northern Nigeria with the most prominent language being Hausa. So it's not surprising that many African Americans may be descendants of Hausa. And what is it with "jungle negroes"? You know darn well that Africa is a lot more than jungle and blacks live all over.

---

Most slaves who were shipped to the US came from the south west african coastal areas. And stop misspelling my name cunt.

[This message has been edited by Jizan (edited 19 June 2005).]
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jizan:
Most slaves who were shipped to the US came from the south west african coastal areas. And stop misspelling my name cunt.

[This message has been edited by Jizan (edited 19 June 2005).]

---

you are so dumb.the hausa are true west africans that speak a afro-asian language but they come from the central and southern sahara and sudanic regions of africa just like most early egyptians and the early nubians and most west africans and many other black africans so they are all related.afro asian is a african language group.arabic,hebrew etc by the way are part african.arab culture is nothing but a version or water down version of africans culture with some of thier own twisted ideas.

nilo-saharan language is just as west african as niger-congo.in fact niger-congo comes from the nilo-saharan dummy.
and for the 100th time,there are pure blacks with light skin tones and medium skin tones and reddish brown skin tones.i know blacks from all over africa that have those skin tones and they do have negriod features and guess what they have no white or indian in them get the damn point?

by the way how the hell you think whites came about.some blacks in europe had to change to become the whites of today,so you could find blacks with certain white features before there was any white person on the earth yet.let us not forget that blacks were first on earth.read the new post i put up.

no amount of fake info you put up will change the fact that most early egyptians were pure blacks and many were dark skin.
so you comments are dead wrong.

[This message has been edited by kenndo (edited 19 June 2005).]

[This message has been edited by kenndo (edited 20 June 2005).]
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jizan:
The only blacks who can 'claim' ancestory from Ancient Egyptians are Afro-Asiatic speaking horn africans, northern sudanis and saharan africans like tuaregs. That's it.

---

you are so stupid.nobody every said that west africans came from egyptian blacks,but at least you admit that most early egyptians were black so that's a start.the black arabs of the sudan had nothing to do with egypt but thier greeeet grand folks do,because they were nilo-saharan,even the beja were nilo-saharan once but they were not beja.along time ago they were the medja-desert nubians that spoke nubian as well.
nubian is nilo-saharan.

black egyptains and west african blacks are brothers just like brits and the greeks are.

black egyptians and west africans along with other black africans lived in a core region for awhile.remember fool there were only a few people on earth many many years ago before civilizations existed and there were no other races except the black race.
things happen,folks split and move to different regions but that does not mean they stop being related.

if you move to france and have kids and they have kids they will still be related to your family in america dummy.

It seems my refuting of what it said has struck a nerve for it to resort to calling me such vile names!

quote:

---

it says: Many white americans are a mix of many european ethnicities, so maybe that's why some may think the ancient greeks are their ancestors. And west africans(i mean the true ones, not afro-asiatics or nilo-saharans have nothing to do with ancient egypt).

---

When I show it the similarities between West African languages and Egyptian it says:

quote:

---

That is just coinsidence.

---

East and Southeast Asia possess even greater linguistic diversity than Africa, yet there seem to be many similarities between the different Phyla, could this be counted as coincidence? I think not!

quote:

---

it says: Ooh please shut up dumbass, There is TONS of proof of semites in ancient egypt.

---

quote:

---

Last time i checked, pure black negroid people don't got light brown or reddish light brown skin color and caucasian nor mixed features.

---

1: Hum Biol. 2000 Oct;72(5):773-80. Related Articles, Links
Human skin color diversity is highest in sub-Saharan African populations.

Relethford JH.

Department of Anthropology, State University of New York College at Oneonta, 13820, USA.

Previous studies of genetic and craniometric traits have found higher levels of within-population diversity in sub-Saharan Africa compared to other geographic regions. This study examines regional differences in within-population diversity of human skin color. Published data on skin reflectance were collected for 98 male samples from eight geographic regions: sub-Saharan Africa, North Africa, Europe, West Asia, Southwest Asia, South Asia, Australasia, and the New World. Regional differences in local within-population diversity were examined using two measures of variability: the sample variance and the sample coefficient of variation. For both measures, the average level of within-population diversity is higher in sub-Saharan Africa than in other geographic regions. This difference persists even after adjusting for a correlation between within-population diversity and distance from the equator. Though affected by natural selection, skin color variation shows the same pattern of higher African diversity as found with other traits.

PMID: 11126724 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list _uids=11126724&dopt=Abstract

And for the thousandth time, "caucasoid" features don't exist! Most of the feautures you call "caucasoid" are found in populations around the globe that aren't even caucasoid, so how can they be called "caucasoid" features?! We have said this so many times, it seems you have very poor memory

quote:

---

Most slaves who were shipped to the US came from the south west african coastal areas. And stop misspelling my name cunt.

---

[This message has been edited by Djehuti (edited 19 June 2005).]
 

what do you think, and pleace no attacks.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by kenndo:
you are so dumb.the hausa are true west africans that speak a afro-asian language but they come from the central and southern sahara and sudanic regions of africa just like most early egyptians and the early nubians and most west africans and many other black africans so they are all related.afro asian is a african language group.arabic,hebrew etc by the way are part african.arab culture is nothing but a version or water down version of africans culture with some of thier own twisted ideas.

nilo-saharan language is just as west african as niger-congo.in fact niger-congo comes from the nilo-saharan dummy.
and for the 100th time,there are pure blacks with light skin tones and medium skin tones and reddish browm skin tones.i know blacks from all over africa that have those skin tones and they do have negriod features and guess what they have no white or indian in them get the damn point?

by the way how the hell you think whites came about.some blacks in europe had to change to become the whites of today,so you could find blacks with certain white features before there was any white person on the earth yet.let us not forget that blacks were first on earth.read the new post i put up.

no amount of fake info you put up will change the fact that most early egyptians were pure blacks and many were dark skin.
so you comments are dead wrong.

---

Abeed, what is your ethnicity.

quote:

---

Originally posted by kenndo:
you are so stupid.nobody every said that west africans came from egyptian blacks,but at least you admit that most early egyptians were black so that's a start.the black arabs of the sudan had nothing to do with egypt but thier greeeet grand folks do,because they were nilo-saharan,even the beja were nilo-saharan once but they were not beja.along time ago they were the medja-desert nubians that spoke nubian as well.
nubian is nilo-saharan.

black egyptains and west african blacks are brothers just like brits and the greeks are.

black egyptians and west africans along with other black africans lived in a core region for awhile.remember fool there were only a few people on earth many many years ago before civilizations existed and there were no other races except the black race.
things happen,folks split and move to different regions but that does not mean they stop being related.

if you move to france and have kids and they have kids they will still be related to your family in america dummy.

---

Abeed, Modern day egyptians are not black nor were the Ancient ones. And nigerians and egyptians are not brothers in racial sense, maybe if you mean religiously then yes, but racially HELL **** NO.

[This message has been edited by Jizan (edited 19 June 2005).]
 

quote:

---

odern day egyptians are not black nor were the Ancient ones. And nigerians and egyptians are not brothers in racial sense, maybe if you mean in religious then yes, but racially HELL **** NO.

---

You can't really compare all modern Egyptians to the ancient Egyptians,for there is not much racial continuity between the two groups. Cultural continuity can be proven,but racial continuity is rather speclative.

Many foreigners have came into Egypt and intermingled with the modern Egyptians;thus the current population in urban areas does not mirror the ancient ones. If you mean the rural Upper Egyptians then you might be right,but even in parts of Middle Egypt there has been foreigners settling there since the Greco-Roman period into the Islamic era.

Culturally, the ancient Egyptians did share alot of similarities to people further south in Africa. Traditions like divine Kingship,ancestor veneration,and rainmaker king. You still sometimes see these traditions amongst the Southern Sudanese groups like the Shilluk.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ausar:
You can't really compare all modern Egyptians to the ancient Egyptians,for there is not much racial continuity between the two groups. Cultural continuity can be proven,but racial continuity is rather speclative.

Many foreigners have came into Egypt and intermingled with the modern Egyptians;thus the current population in urban areas does not mirror the ancient ones. If you mean the rural Upper Egyptians then you might be right,but even in parts of Middle Egypt there has been foreigners settling there since the Greco-Roman period into the Islamic era.

Culturally, the ancient Egyptians did share alot of similarities to people further south in Africa. Traditions like divine Kingship,ancestor veneration,and rainmaker king. You still sometimes see these traditions amongst the Southern Sudanese groups like the Shilluk.

---

You can't reason with a primitive reactionary. It leads to a dead end!

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by ausar:

You can't really compare all modern Egyptians to the ancient Egyptians,for there is not much racial continuity between the two groups. Cultural continuity can be proven,but racial continuity is rather speclative.

Many foreigners have came into Egypt and intermingled with the modern Egyptians;thus the current population in urban areas does not mirror the ancient ones. If you mean the rural Upper Egyptians then you might be right,but even in parts of Middle Egypt there has been foreigners settling there since the Greco-Roman period into the Islamic era.

Culturally, the ancient Egyptians did share alot of similarities to people further south in Africa. Traditions like divine Kingship,ancestor veneration,and rainmaker king. You still sometimes see these traditions amongst the Southern Sudanese groups like the Shilluk.

---

Correct. Moreover the earliest examples of many of these traditions are found throughout Africa. Such as the Kingship iconography from Qustal Nubia, and mummification from the Western Sahara.

In many ways Kemetic culture was the opposite of Arabic and European culture.

Thus even white Egyptologists have admitted this and often quite bluntly so:

The ancient Egyptians were not a Semitic people. Ancient Egypt was African in culture, not Semitic
- Frank J. Yurco,
University of Chicago
 

quote:

---

Djehuti writes: It seems my refuting of what it said has struck a nerve for it to resort to calling me such vile names!

---

You are correct to laugh at these ignorant losers - JiZZam, Salami, Erroneous, all of whom reek of vileness of conduct meant to distract attention from their intellectual shortcomings.

Of course, It doesn't work.
 

The first tribes that inhabited Egypt, that is, the Nile Valley between the Syene cataract and the sea, came from Abyssinia to Sennar.

The ancient Egyptians belonged to a race quite similar to the Kennous or Barabras [Beja], present inhabitants of Nubia.

In the Copts of Egypt, we do not find any of the characteristic features of the ancient Egyptian population. The Copts are the result of crossbreeding with all the nations that have successively dominated Egypt.

It is wrong to seek in them the principal features of the old race.