quote:Egypt was not a Red Sea country. This statement may look extraordinary but it is not. For the Ancient Egyptians, even the desert that is included in the modern state's territory was not part of Egypt. Egypt was the valley and the Delta of the Nile. In addition to this surface, the various oases were considered Egyptian territory with some condescension; but it went up that point only. The Mediterranean coasts or the Red Sea coasts were never accepted by the Ancient Egyptians as true Egyptian soil; this is not strange, if we take into consideration the fact that the Ancient Egyptian name for Egypt was Kemet, which means 'the Black One' (with the feminine ending –t) with reference to the black soil of Abyssinia that the Blue Nile and the Nile's affluent Atbarah pull with them further to the north mostly at the times of the Nile's annual flood. This black land was 'Egypt' for the Ancient Egyptians, not the desert ! So, certainly there were Egyptian harbours since the 2nd millennium BCE on the present Red Sea coast of Egypt, like Tshaaw ('Leukos Limen' in Ptolemaic and Roman times, today's Qusseir) but they were viewed as annexes, stations, not genuine Egyptian soil.
posted
^ Not really. The article repeats the inanity of 'black soil', which like every repetition of this fallacy, is never sourced from the mdw ntr because there is no authentic source, there is rather only assumptive [white man says black soil so it must be true] and slavish repetittion of Eurocentric lies.
The 'red sea' argument is also ultimately slavish, if well intended.
Here is why......
The Km.t actually referred to the so called 'red sea', as the 'Kem Wer', the great Black Sea.
Stop and think about the irony.
It isn't that the AE didn't consider themselves a 'red sea' country, but rather - They considered the sea as belonging to the Blacks.(!!)
The AE's 5000 year old discourse in my opinion, is far more sophisticated and devastating in rebuttal to Eurocentrism, than the modern neophyte African students.
This is because too many modern Africanists - still trying to shake the 'white supremacist' cobwebs from their minds, will repeat after 9 Eurocentric lies, in and effort to debunk a 10th.
When you read the AE directly and their reference to the GREAT BLACK SEA....you will then glance at a map, and realise that this sea has nothing to do with the "mediterreanian" anyway. It belonged to the Black Men of Nile Valley Africa - it was part of -THEIR WORLD.
^ So let's be clear then: For the AE this was the Black Sea, which belonged to the Black Nation of the Black people.
For them, there is no 'red sea' - and Aamu Asiatic contruct, and the Black Sea is not a part of the "Mediterreanean."
The modern defeated-African mind thinks of this same area as - THE ARAB WORLD, using Asiatic terms 'red sea' to describe it, and then attempts to salvage the self-negating mindset by proving that the Km.t didn't see their nation as 'belong to' the non African world of the Red Sea!
My question is, can such a defeated mind even grasp the irony?
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
* Kem wer [miri][large body of water] = The Great Black sea (The Red sea). This sea is neither black nor red, this is in reference to which nation, Black or Red, at a particular time, controlled this body of water. http://www.geocities.com/wally_mo/Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
* Kem wer [miri][large body of water] = The Great Black sea (The Red sea). This sea is neither black nor red, this is in reference to which nation, Black or Red, at a particular time, controlled this body of water. http://www.geocities.com/wally_mo/
What is the actual word for 'soil' ... I know what the word for land is but what ... is soil?
Posts: 951 | From: where rules end and freedom begins | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^"Ta" usually connotes "land" in most Kemetic terms; folks who use the term 'soil', as above [intro thread], usually interchangeably use it with 'land'.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rasol: ^ Not really. The article repeats the inanity of 'black soil', which like every repetition of this fallacy, is never sourced from the mdw ntr because there is no authentic source, there is rather only assumptive [white man says black soil so it must be true] and slavish repetittion of Eurocentric lies.
The 'red sea' argument is also ultimately slavish, if well intended.
Here is why......
The Km.t actually referred to the so called 'red sea', as the 'Kem Wer', the great Black Sea.
Stop and think about the irony.
It isn't that the AE didn't consider themselves a 'red sea' country, but rather - They considered the sea as belonging to the Blacks.(!!)
The AE's 5000 year old discourse in my opinion, is far more sophisticated and devastating in rebuttal to Eurocentrism, than the modern neophyte African students.
This is because too many modern Africanists - still trying to shake the 'white supremacist' cobwebs from their minds, will repeat after 9 Eurocentric lies, in and effort to debunk a 10th.
When you read the AE directly and their reference to the GREAT BLACK SEA....you will then glance at a map, and realise that this sea has nothing to do with the "mediterreanian" anyway. It belonged to the Black Men of Nile Valley Africa - it was part of -THEIR WORLD.
^ So let's be clear then: For the AE this was the Black Sea, which belonged to the Black Nation of the Black people.
For them, there is no 'red sea' - and Aamu Asiatic contruct, and the Black Sea is not a part of the "Mediterreanean."
The modern defeated-African mind thinks of this same area as - THE ARAB WORLD, using Asiatic terms 'red sea' to describe it, and then attempts to salvage the self-negating mindset by proving that the Km.t didn't see their nation as 'belong to' the non African world of the Red Sea!
My question is, can such a defeated mind even grasp the irony?
Rasol i'm sorry but i don't agree with this. Because I simply refuse to accept that people in most of Africa let alone during ancient times have ever designated the term "black" to refer to themselves regardless of where they have lived through out the continent.
"Black" makes sense in contrast to western or northern europeans who are very light and in the other extreme of the human spectrum, and since these people have only recently dominated the geopolitical global scene this has become popular. But there is no way anyone else could consider themselves "black" unless being seen so by others. This is essential so to understand the differrence between what the modern western world propagates (in particular the new world) and what people independent of this community identify as. That's why i can never believe that the Ancient Egyptians ever called themselves "black", since they in reality were never black, therefore would be irrational for them to consider themselves as such. This is simply a modern world construct. They ofcourse would be considered "black" if they today lived in the united states or anywhere else today where fair skinned people are the majority and dominate. My point is that it would be erroneous to impliment this simplistic racial classifications on people who never adhered to this identity that's recent and that's still not accepted or used in most of Africa, be it East, north or west. What i'm essentially saying is that for me kemet denoting black soil sounds more plausible than "black people". But this ofcourse doesn't mean that i don't believe they were dark Africans.
Posts: 1420 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Once one grasps as to what embodies "black" in the Kemetic world, the question of why Kemetians would refer to themselves 'blacks' comes as no mystery. This of course, would be in addition to familiarity with grammar [in Kemetic texts].
quote: ...Plenty more of such topics, yet still amongst the least understood issue...usually by 'choice'.
Supercar you identify yourself as "black"?
And if I do or otherwise, what bearing does that have on how it was utilized and perceived in ancient Egypt? Please elaborate.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: ...Plenty more of such topics, yet still amongst the least understood issue...usually by 'choice'.
Supercar you identify yourself as "black"?
And if I do or otherwise, what bearing does that have on how it was utilized and perceived in ancient Egypt? Please elaborate.
Why would they call themselves "black"? They were not black, and the only reason anyone would consider themselves "black" is because modern political balans requires them too.
Posts: 1420 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: ...Plenty more of such topics, yet still amongst the least understood issue...usually by 'choice'.
Supercar you identify yourself as "black"?
And if I do or otherwise, what bearing does that have on how it was utilized and perceived in ancient Egypt? Please elaborate.
Why would they call themselves "black"?
Is this the best defense you can come up with as a rationale?
"White" folks are not literally 'white'. Why would they call themselves 'white'? See, anyone can play such superficial games, in absence of substantiation.
quote: They were not black, and the only reason anyone would consider themselves "black" is because modern political balans requires them too.
You repeat yourself, and cause the discussion to not progress, precisely because you refuse to answer questions...like that above. Have you gone through the links to the discussions above, in some of which you, yourself, was a party to? Are you able to refute the substantiations given therein. If yes, please demonstrate it here. If not, then why?
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Stop always asking questions, and answer some for once. I asked you
quote:Why would they call themselves "black" they were not black?
And for why western europeans call themselves "white" is because of the same reason, it's a modern construction, never used before the 15th century. When Europeans started infiltrating the middle-east, they needed to distinguish themselves from the earlier repution of all people of western-europeans appereance such as the eastern european and ferenji/frengi which was a derogatory word derived from the franks or the french. So they created this new and clean identity as "white". And from this also "black" evolved as a racial classification, which some seem to protect as something natural and universal, and try to decieve themselves that it was even used by ancient societies like in Egypt.
Posts: 1420 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Stop always asking questions, and answer some for once.
In case you haven't noticed, I'm the one who always seems to come up with answers to questions, while you dodge questions. The answers were already given to you in two links already. Tell me why I should repeat myself on those issues ad infinitum? Goes back to my questions which you dodged with that non-answer nonsense above. Are you able to refute the answers given in those links? Yes or no?
quote: And for why western europeans call themselves white is because of the same reason, it's a modern construction, never used before the 15th century. When Europeans started infiltrating the middle-east, they needed to distinguish themselves from the earlier repution of all people of western-europeans appereance such as the eastern europeans and ferenji/frengi which was a derogatory word derived from the franks or the french. So they created this new and clean identity as "white". And from this also "black" evolved as a racial classification, which some seem to protect as something natural and universal.
So the idea of 'black' in reference to people is a 'modern' construct, and cannot be traced back to the 'remotest' historic antiquity?
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^There you go, yet another link with answers/substantiations itching to be refuted by opponents, for which so far, none has been forthcoming by dissidents.
-------------------- Truth - a liar penetrating device! Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
lol. I know. That's that point, and the pity. And since you present no data in support of your bias, nothing more need be added by way of refutation.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
Stop always asking questions, and answer some for once.
In case you haven't noticed, I'm the one who always seems to come up with answers to questions, while you dodge questions. The answers were already given to you in two links already. Tell me why I should repeat myself on those issues ad infinitum? Goes back to my questions which you dodged with that non-answer nonsense above. Are you able to refute the answers given in those links? Yes or no?
quote: And for why western europeans call themselves white is because of the same reason, it's a modern construction, never used before the 15th century. When Europeans started infiltrating the middle-east, they needed to distinguish themselves from the earlier repution of all people of western-europeans appereance such as the eastern europeans and ferenji/frengi which was a derogatory word derived from the franks or the french. So they created this new and clean identity as "white". And from this also "black" evolved as a racial classification, which some seem to protect as something natural and universal.
So the idea of 'black' in reference to people is a 'modern' construct, and cannot be traced back to the 'remotest' historic antiquity?
No it can not, and it's a consensus among egyptologist who sound more rational when it comes to this than anyone in this forum who don't seem to follow logic but rather emotions and modern political rational. Still can't answer why they would call themselves "black" since they were not black. I can't think of any region outside Europe(UK) or America where people really call themselves "black". They worshiped their fertile land which gave them life and everything they had. Kemet simply meant the black soil around the nile not the poeple, why would they call themselves black since they were NOT black (but ofcourse would be considered "black" in modern terms), and had not much contact with northern or western european who created these words(for "racial" designation) thousands years later so to have some sort of seperate and special identity. Only fools play along this charade.
Posts: 1420 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
So the idea of 'black' in reference to people is a 'modern' construct, and cannot be traced back to the 'remotest' historic antiquity? [/qb]
No it can not...
Well, it's your words against these "Modern" Ancient Greeks, in addition the Kemetian's words in the links you refused to address.
To this statement Aristobulus and his followers, who assert that the plains are not watered by rain, would not agree. But Onesicritus believes that rain-water is the cause of the distinctive differences in the animals; and he adduces as evidence that the colour of foreign cattle which drink it is changed to that of the native animals. Now in this he is correct; but no longer so when he lays the black complexion and woolly hair of the Aethiopians [Ethiopians] on merely the waters and censures Theodectes, who refers the cause to the sun itself, saving as follows: 'Nearing the borders of these people the Sun, driving his chariot, discoloured the bodies of men with a murky dark bloom, and curled their hair, fusing it by unincreasable forms of fire. - Strabo
"There are also numerous other Aithiopian tribes [i.e. besides those centered at Meroe]; some live along both sides of the river Nile and on the islands in the river, others dwell in the regions that border on Arabia [i.e. to the east], others again have settled in the interior of Libya [i.e. to the west]. The majority of these tribes, in particular those who live along the river, have black skin, snub-nosed faces, and curly hair". - Diodorus
"For the people of Colchis are evidently Egyptian, and this I perceived for myself before I heard it from others. So when I had come to consider the matter I asked them both; and the Colchians had remembrance of the Egyptians more than the Egyptians of the Colchians; but the Egyptians said they believed that the Colchians were a portion of the army of Sesostris. That this was so I conjectured myself not only because they are dark-skinned and have curly hair (this of itself amounts to nothing, for there are other races which are so), but also still more because the Colchians, Egyptians, and Ethiopians alone of all the races of men have practised circumcision from the first. The Phenicians and the Syrians who dwell in Palestine confess themselves that they have learnt it from the Egyptians, and the Syrians about the river Thermodon and the river Parthenios, and the Macronians, who are their neighbours, say that they have learnt it lately from the Colchians. These are the only races of men who practise circumcision, and these evidently practise it in the same manner as the Egyptians. Of the Egyptians themselves however and the Ethiopians, I am not able to say which learnt from the other, for undoubtedly it is a most ancient custom; but that the other nations learnt it by intercourse with the Egyptians, this among others is to me a strong proof, namely that those of the Phenicians who have intercourse with Hellas cease to follow the example of the Egyptians in this matter, and do not circumcise their children." - Herodotus
…of coastal Egyptians…
All were huge,black-skinned [not the pure black of the Indians, more as you would imagine a half-caste Ethiopian],bareheaded,light of foot but broad of body. - Achilles Tatius
quote:and it's a consensus among egyptologist who sound more rational when it comes to this than anyone in this forum who don't seem to follow logic but rather emotions and modern political rational. Still can't answer why they would call themselves "black" since they were not black. I can't think of any region outside Europe(UK) or America where people really call themselves "black". They worshiped their fertile land which gave them life and everything they had. Kemet simply meant the black soil around the nile not the poeple, why would they call themselves black since they were NOT black (but ofcourse would be considered "black" in modern terms), and had not much contact with northern or western european who created these words(for "racial" designation) thousands years later so to have some sort of seperate and special identity. Only fools play along this charade.
I think you only babble to read yourself talk but not make any sense. Well, just let me know if and when you are ready to refute/address the answers in the links provided by every other poster herein but yourself.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Yonis: why would they call themselves black since they were NOT black
As you have been shown, there can be no denial with regards to the fact that AE called themselves Blacks. The best that Eurocentrism can manage by way of confusing people such as yourself, is to offer obfuscations with regards to *their motivation* for calling themselves Blacks.
Hence your rhetoric is self defeating, as by your own inference: Why would they call themselves Blacks....unless they were?
Yonis: What is the word for Black in Ancient Egyptian
If you intend to lie and say you don't know, then why are you arguing the point?
If you do know the word for Black in mdw ntr, then why are you lying by way of pretending the AE never referred to themselves as Blacks?
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:So the idea of 'black' in reference to people is a 'modern' construct, and cannot be traced back to the 'remotest' historic antiquity?
quote:No it can not, and it's a consensus among egyptologist
A single example exposes Yonis, and reveals that ignorance as ever, the only weapon at the disposal of those who would deny the truth:
Amélineau, is credited with the discovery of the Anu and their contribution to Egyptian civilization.
It was Amélineau who designated the first black race to occupy Egypt as the Anu.
He showed how they came slowly down the Nile and founded the cities of Esneh, Erment, Qouch and Heliopolis.
The actual name is always written with three columns. He states that
"All those cities have the characteristic symbol which serves to denote the name Anu." The original name for Heliopolis is "Annu".
"Egypt's greatest Masters, Osiris, Hermes, Isis, and Horus all belonged to "the old race", the black Anu." (Chandler, 1999)
^ Yonis is now provided with and opportunity to withdraw his patently false remarks.
Listen you still don't get me, you're talking about an individuals account who lived in modern times and his interpretation. If Amélineau considered Anu the "the first black race to occupy Egypt " is totally irrelevant, the question here is did they call themselves "black"? I never questioned that they were "black" as in modern definition. But what i don't believe is that they (dynastic or pre-dynastic egyptians) called themselves "black" during their time of living. Why would they since they were obviously not black. As said this is a modern construction so to denote darkskinned people. And you guys are trying to apply modern political identity on people who obviously didn't have the same mentality.
Posts: 1420 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Yonis: Listen you still don't get me, your talking about an individuals account who lived in modern times
No, we're citing the AE who referred to themselves as Blacks in ancient times.
You're the one who:
a) avoids addressing the primary textual evidence as cited in this thread [because it refutes you, so...you run away]
b) attempts to counter the AE's own reference to themselves as Blacks, by invoking and imaginary concensus of modern Egyptologists who supposedily can lend you some support.
And even that weak delusion has now been torn to shreds, so what really is left of your argument?
You are afraid to even answer a simple question pertaining to what the Ancient Egyptian word for Black is.
This makes your every attempt to argue the point, something of a joke, does it not?
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:If Amélineau considered Anu the the first black race to occupy Egypt is totally irrelevant, the question here is did they call themselves "black"?
^ That question has already been answered for anyone who knows how to read, such as Amelieneau whose opinion is relevant for two reasons.
1stly: because he reached the conclusion that KM.t were Black because- THEY TOLD HIM SO, [ie - he read the mdw ntr] and...
2ndly because he gives the lie to your statement that Egyptologist universally deny the existence of references to Blacks in antiquity.
It is striking that the goddess Isis, according to the Egyptian legend, has precisely the *same skin color* that Nubians always have, and that the god Osiris has what seems to me an ethnic epithet indicating his Nubian origin. Apparently this observation has never before been made*.
Osirus, Kem Wer - the Great Black.
^ But you go on refusing to accept the truth, which only hurts *more* when you resist it. Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I never questioned that they were "black" as in modern definition.
^ Weasel words and nonsense such as the above are inevitable recourse of a shattered argumentation.
Fact: The Km.t [AE] originated the concept of ethnically Black.
The modern passive mentality credits white people with *inventing the ethnic concept of Black* , and then adds slavery to submission by tasking them with the right to define for the Black African who is and is not allowed to be Black.
Thus the final and tragic irony of Europeans such as Champollion the Younger who can admit the AE were Black...according to the AE themselves, vs modern Black Africans who by their own admission and in their own words: cannot accept it, and even try to hide behind and imaginery concensus of Europeans who they hope can aid them in negating their own identity/history. Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Supercar: ^"Ta" usually connotes "land" in most Kemetic terms; folks who use the term 'soil', as above [intro thread], usually interchangeably use it with 'land'.
Thank you sir ^ ...
That's what I haven't been able to get for the longest period of time... How are they coming to the conclusion that Km.t/Kamat/Kemet means 'black soil'?
wouldn't it be written as 'Ta-Kam//kem. Or do I have the wrong as well.
If they were reading it backward it would spell a different word or words. Example: Kamat reversed would be Ta.mak/mek ...??
I mean I just don't see the logical connection.
Posts: 951 | From: where rules end and freedom begins | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:If they were reading it backward it would spell a different word or words.
You underestimate the cynicism of the Eurocentric mind, and the self hatred of the defeated Black mind.
They both know exactly what Kemet means. They lie out of self interest and self hatred respectively, like any thief caught in the act, yet shouting out his innocense, for any one foolish enough to listen.
If that sounds too harsh and assessment, consider that we have taken a simple word, and pretended that is somehow extremely complicatd and hard to understand, refusing to accept what is plainly written and clearly defined, and instead conjuring convoluted meanings out of the thin air.
In the English language, let's debate what is the meaning of: up, cold, round, left.
The one side will grab a dictionary and provide clear defintions.
The other side, sits there and 'refuses to accept'. [argument by obstinence]
The one side says, ok, your turn then...you provide the definitions.
The other side never does, because they don't have any *other* definitions, because in fact...there are none. lol.
That's what these km.t "debates" [right] are like. Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I find that the terms black and red are used in Africa by Africans to describe themselves all over the continent and by every major language family. It's even used internally by the Black Americans -- black nigger vs red nigger (perhaps as an "Africanism" holdover in describing Fulani i.e., red monkeys).
quote:Originally posted by Yonis: ... I simply refuse to accept that people in most of Africa let alone during ancient times have ever designated the term "black" to refer to themselves regardless of where they have lived through out the continent.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
i am sure if any of the african americans were till this day living in africa they would not call them selves black. the term black is a consept that the Europeans created. most people in Africa dont call themselves black.I am sure most of ur ansectors before arriving in the americas did not called them selves black. So why the hell would the egyptians before 3000 years ago call them selves black. oki egypt was a black society and so on but I believe they did call them selves black.
Posts: 216 | From: london | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
In Nigeria, among the Yoruba people, there have always been 3 human colour classifications. We generally refer to ourselves as Dudu/Black, light-skinned Africans are referred to as Pupa/Red-Yellow (think 'palm oil') and Funfun/White (albinos).
People need to stop generalising about Africa.
Posts: 3423 | From: the jungle - when y'all stop playing games, call me. | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Of course. The notion that Europeans created the term Black, seems to be some desparate point of evasion for Africans who feel uncomfortable with the concept.
The only thing Europeans did is impart in them a sense of shame in their own dark skin.
Black is a native African ethnic construct.
Europeans invented nothing.
quote:We generally refer to ourselves as Dudu/Black,
The AE likewise referred themselves as Keme/Black. Perhaps the most material fact in this thread....which naturally goes unaddressed. Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yonis: Supercar you identify yourself as "black", and why?
quote:[...]Only fools play along this charade.
quote:etc.
Whoa, seems like your trolling a little, Yonis.
quote:Rasol: Yonis: What is the word for Black in Ancient Egyptian
Originally Yonis never disputed the words meaning. He still sImPly thinks it meant 'black soil', though he has no proof.
Know what, Yonis's non-response/ or clarification to the question implies that there really is something shady going on.
Something I've observed about you [Yonis] is that you seem to be attemping to counter-act stereotypes *projected* on to *us* by racists who are interested in egyptology, *appease the 'great and almighty whites'.
quote:Originally posted by rasol: ^ Of course. The notion that Europeans created the term Black, seems to be some desparate point of evasion for Africans who feel uncomfortable with the concept.
The only thing Europeans did is impart in them a sense of shame in their own dark skin.
Black is a native African ethnic construct.
Europeans invented nothing.
quote:We generally refer to ourselves as Dudu/Black,
The AE likewise referred themselves as Keme/Black. Perhaps the most material fact in this thread....which naturally goes unaddressed.
You still don't get it, i'm not talking about if modern people have a "sense of shame" about the word "black" as an identity or not, i couldn't care less. So save these irrelevant comments like "The only thing Europeans did is impart in them a sense of shame in their own dark skin". What people call themselves today does not necesserily mean that so did also those who lived 1000 years ago. It's ilogical for a people who were obviously not black to call themselves black ( when i say "not black" i mean black as the coulour black not the identity some people have today) this is a recent construction, which you beleive in and identify as, but you shouldnt apply it on people who obviously didn't call themselves that, it's to simplistic to think so.
Posts: 1420 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Technical Anomaly: Originally Yonis never disputed the words meaning. He still sImPly thinks it meant 'black soil', though he has no proof.
What do you mean i have no proof? i'm not a linguist so i can only refer to what others have decifered, i don't think that you have more proof than i do. Of the two alternatives i chose to beleive that the word "kemet" referes to the fertile soil around the nile and not the people. I chose to beleive in ythe one which sounds more logical to me, and you beleive in what you want to beleive in. But don't act as if you have "proof" because you don't.
quote:Something I've observed about you [Yonis] is that you seem to be attemping to counter-act stereotypes *projected* on to *us* by racists who are interested in egyptology, *appease the 'great and almighty whites'.
I don't know what you are trying to imply here, please elaborate?
Posts: 1420 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Km" or "Kem", which is what I believe you're trying to write, is the 'musculine' variant of "Kmt", which is the 'feminine' variant. They all mean the same thing, i.e. "black", and can be used as an adjective or a noun. Apparently, as a reference to the name of a people/nation, it would be used as a noun. None of them have anything in them that mentions 'soil' or 'land'. I told you that grammatical familiarity was in order, to know terms in the appropriate contexts.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
How can anybody who understands AEL grammar and vocabulary and who's read the Book of Gates, Gate of Teka Hra: vignette 30, be obstinate enough to deny the AE application of black (and red) to people, with black being the colour term they chose for themselves and those south of them?
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Transliteration and translation of the 1st 5 columns of the Book of Gates the Gate of Teka Hra vignette 30
Col1: å-n HRW n nn (+n+n) [(interogative) Heru to these:
Col4: k-m.tnwt d-sh-r.tnwt AKH [Black community. Red community.
Col5: (+kh)scroll n t-nplural HQA.wplural RA [Beatification to ye subjects (of) Ra!
The "four types" -- or better, the "subjects of Ra" -- scene depicts the sun in the 5th night hour with Heru addressing the dead. He verbally divides them into the blacks (Nile Valley folk, i.e., Egyptians and Nehesis) under his protection, and the reds (folk dwelling east or west of the Nile) under Sekhet's protection.
Heru is addressing all four types, first with a general intro to the entire party of the afterlife dead (who died that day) still in their shrouds. He "beatifies" them, reanimates them with "spirit" (breath/wind), and releases them from their shrouds. Then after all that he addresses each group in turn speaking of the origins of their creation and assigning their "patron" deity. First the RT RMTW and then in from sunrise to midday to sunset order the AAMW, NHHSW, and TMHHW .
The NWT ideogram means neither people nor land. This has been explained a few times already and there's a post in the archive with the subject header "KMT NWT" detailing this. The glyph depicts a crossroads indicating a village or city, i.e. a settlement or habitation. thus the use of it to mean community in its broad application for the corpus of the dead. It always appears as the determinative following the name of a city. There are other ideograms for land terms (KM.T + N18 and DSHR.T + N25) for instance. That's why I reject NWT's use in this text as "land."
Now if one wants to take black as meaning literal black skin, then go ahead. I recognize a range of skin tones among blacks and also recognize the difference as used in Africa between blacks and reds, both of whom may be African, and blacks and reds where reds means coloureds and whites. As an example, in medieval Arab writings they class themselves as reds in distinction to black Africans of Biled es Sudan but as blacks in distinction to red/white Eurasians like Persians, Slavs, etc.
So, in this sacred text is the prime example of KM.t and it's obviously not being applied to any silt/soil/dirt/land.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yonis, what is the Ancient Egyptian word for black?
quote:khem!
Then you either admit that the AE called themselves Blacks, or you are preparted to refute the following references from the primary text....
Kemet [rm.t] -> The Blacks Kemsit -> Black Lady, the lady is Black KemWer -> The Great Black Kememou -? Black people.
Please show us that the above translations of mdw ntr from Champollion, Budge, and Diop do not exist.
Or, if you claim that Diop, Budge and Champollion are wrong in their translations of mdw ntr, please explain where their linguistics are in error.
No rhetoric, only linguistic evidence please Yonis, or admit that you're wrong and end your 'denial fest'.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:He verbally divides them into the blacks (Nile Valley folk, i.e., Egyptians and Nehesis) under his protection, and the reds
Not only is the point to be gleaned from this that Rm.t and Nehesis are both 'the Blacks', but that they are also labled as 'children of Heru'.
In the ethnic mythology of the Km.t, they are both herein assigned to a common Black group.
Both are distinguished from the Tamehu and Namehou [Asiatics and Libyans] - who are portrayed as fair skinned, referred to as Red people, and assigned to a different and common lineage, namely of 'seketh'.
It's as as plain as Black and Red. Woe be to the Black man who can't see it, because he can't fathom a world of Black people who call themselves Black and could care less about what Arabs or Europeans [both of whom are existentally non existant in the Ancient Egyptian world] think.
The modern enslaved mind of too many Africans....caught in the Matrix...too scared to free their own minds. Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:i'm not a linguist so i can only refer to what others have decifered
^ Can't you think for yourself? What good is referencing if you can't analyse?
quote: i chose to beleive that the word "kemet" referes to the fertile soil around the nile and not the people
^ Incorrect, it a single word....Black, rendered as noun. That is the fact.
Your belief system, in therefore provably false, and is admittedly based on no evidence, bolstered only by and unwillingess to think....about which the following has been wisely related....
When you believe in things you don't understand, you suffer - Stevie Wonder, Superstition.
^ Perhaps instead of chosing to 'believe', you should choose to think. You may find some answers. Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
We generally refer to ourselves as Dudu/Black, light-skinned Africans are referred to as Pupa/Red-Yellow (think 'palm oil') and Funfun/White (albinos).
You forgot Akata and Eranko hehe
Posts: 271 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:i chose to beleive that the word "kemet" referes to the fertile soil around the nile and not the people. I chose to beleive in ythe one which sounds more logical to me,
My observations may seem trite but I've looked at several dozens of pictures of the Nile and its banks. The soil does not strike me as being particularly black. So the black/red land dichotomy based on soil color may not be so logical afterall.
The more obvious contrast to me seems to be the sterility of the desert against the verdant banks.
Unfortunately, I have never benefited from first hand observation of the Nile inundation so these remarks are based merely second hand evidence.
Posts: 1038 | From: Franklin Park, NJ | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
All nations based on river valley agriculture have dark soil wherever the river floods the land - Indus Valley, Mesopotamia, Missippi, etc..
This is a red hering. The issue here is what can be evidenced from the primary text in terms of what the AE actually say.
And AE reading a reference to Osirus as KemWer - and in which his SKIN is portrayed as extremely dark, can only be intepreted as a reference to Osirus, the Great Black One.
There would be no way of interpreting this as a reference to soil.
In fact, the notion that references to black in Kemetic history pertain exclusively to soil, is and invention of European Egyptologists, which exists specifically to explain away their self reference - as Blacks.
That's why 'believers' in this lie, such as Yonis, are never able to produce any actual evidence whatsover in support of their claims.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:This is a red hering. The issue here is what can be evidenced from the primary text in terms of what the AE actually say.
Yes, I do agree that there is a somewhat of a red herring quality to my observations above. The textual evidence is critical to the meaning of kem.t.
Posts: 1038 | From: Franklin Park, NJ | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dudu is an ancient Yoruba word. In fact, the way Yoruba works, we don't have NEW words. It just doesn't happen. All our new vocabulary (i.e. words that dont have an exisiting Yoruba word) are simply uttered in the language they came in i.e. English.
For example, the Yoruba word for car is "Moto", which is a twist on motor.
Dudu, kPupa & Funfun (never mind my arbitrary spellings) are very ancient words.
Posts: 3423 | From: the jungle - when y'all stop playing games, call me. | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^FYI, we have very light-skinned Yoruba people (who are not mixed race) and we refer to them as kPupa.
Posts: 3423 | From: the jungle - when y'all stop playing games, call me. | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:i'm not a linguist so i can only refer to what others have decifered
^ Can't you think for yourself? What good is referencing if you can't analyse?
quote: i chose to beleive that the word "kemet" referes to the fertile soil around the nile and not the people
^ Incorrect, it a single word....Black, rendered as noun. That is the fact.
Your belief system, in therefore provably false, and is admittedly based on no evidence, bolstered only by and unwillingess to think....about which the following has been wisely related....
When you believe in things you don't understand, you suffer - Stevie Wonder, Superstition.
^ Perhaps instead of chosing to 'believe', you should choose to think. You may find some answers.
So you're a linguist now, eh? So your telling us that everything from mdw ntr was not brought to your attention by a third person instead you went to the field and studied it by your own? I don't speak that language and neither do you, so everyhting translated from there we rely on those working on the field, period. So spare me with comments like "Can't you think for yourself? What good is referencing if you can't analyse?" Since most of those in the field are more expert than you and they have suggested that its meaning points to the black soil. Which sounds more logical to me. Not the simplistic afrocentric interpretation that it meant "black people", since why would they call themselves black while they obviously were not black, as in the colour black.
And they for sure were not affected by the recent political construct of "black" identity that you adhere to, it just doesn't sound reasonable if you think outside the box. "Black" today is to much clutterd with political sentiments, and that's why it makes some people a strong proponent of kemet meaning "black people", when such notion is clearly preposterous since they were obviously not black.
Posts: 1420 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:rasol: And AE reading a reference to Osirus as KemWer - and in which his SKIN is portrayed as extremely dark, can only be intepreted as a reference to Osirus, the Great Black One.
Thats a religious convention, and shouldn't be seen as being in accordance with reality.
Here we see tutankhamon as black, but he obviously wasn't this black if we observe other reliefs of him. this was found in his tomb and had a religious purpose for his passage to the afterlife.
Here on the otherhand is a normal shade of him, he's not black, but brown. So tell me which shade of him seems more accurate to you? The religious one or the normal one which is compatible with his other reliefs? Posts: 1420 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I doubt that, the only reason people think they called themselves black is because they see it as natural to identify as black, since they themselves call themselves black. An identity applied on them.
Posts: 1420 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
, and then adds slavery to submission by tasking them with the right to define for the Black African who is and is not allowed to be Black.![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic