This is topic Egypt: A Problem in African History in forum Egyptology at EgyptSearch Forums.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=006729

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
It is a well established fact that the ancient Egyptians were black Africans, and we all know this fact is supported by virtually all the scientific disciplines one can use on the study of a people-- from the many skeletal including cranial analyses of physical remains, to genetic studies of Egyptian populations, to melanin tests of skin, linguistics, and even all the ethnological examinations and cultural comparisons one can make from the archaeological record. It is clear that the ancient Egyptians were indigenous to the African continent and that as such they would indeed be black and are closely related to other black Africans especially other northeast Africans in their vicinity. The issue then is not really their identity nor is it history itself, much as historiography that is how history is written. And we know that most of this history is and has been dominated for quite some time by the West. The book below is an excellent reading for anyone interested in the historiography of the African continent especially the problems and challenges Western historiography poses.









 

---

Posted by King_Scorpion (Member # 4818) on :
 
I think the entirety of African historiography needs a major revision. This does not just include Egypt either. There are too many misconceptions and long-standing assumptions that have yet to be corrected and are still out there polluting the dialogue. The debate over the Moors and the persistance that the Sahara was an impenetrable barrier where the only Blacks that got through were slaves and mercenaries is still trumpeted as the only way to view Black Africa. I can even envision a scenario where the Timbuktu manuscripts are accredited to outside forces and not the natives that have preserved them. The manuscripts aren't prompting a re-imagining of Mali's influence on the medieval world like they should. As a matter of fact, the manuscripts are just getting people to talk about Timbuktu, not Mali which was the African state that controlled Timbuktu for a time.
 

---

Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
 
Imperialism has two characters which I term as "hot imperialism" and "cold imperialism". "Hot imperialism" covers overt military aggression and plunder, while "cold imperialism" is more of the covert and subtle face that runs parallel to the overt face--one which on instance, is inclined to be evasive in character to the average observer. There are folks who simply don't get it that rewriting history by an aspiring imperialist state is part and parcel of imperialism. Foreign policy designs, usually an extension of domestic policy, seep through to academia & mass media, and are channeled through those means, so as to subtly but systematically condition people with world perceptions that encourage them to not speak out and act out against the destructive features of said foreign policy designs. I call it a form of desensitization. I'd given several examples of how these things usually work out [the at times, somewhat symbiotic relationships between imperialism and academia] on my blog, with regards to historiography of the western Sudan: Link
 

---

Posted by King_Scorpion (Member # 4818) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Explorer:
Imperialism has two characters which I term as "hot imperialism" and "cold imperialism". "Hot imperialism" covers overt military aggression and plunder, while "cold imperialism" is more of the covert and subtle face that runs parallel to the overt face--one which on instance, is inclined to be evasive in character to the average observer. There are folks who simply don't get it that rewriting history by an aspiring imperialist state is part and parcel of imperialism. Foreign policy designs, usually an extension of domestic policy, seep through to academia & mass media, and are channeled through those means, so as to subtly but systematically condition people with world perceptions that encourage them to not speak out and act out against the destructive features of said foreign policy designs. I call it a form of desensitization. I'd given several examples of how these things usually work out [the at times, somewhat symbiotic relationships between imperialism and academia] on my blog, with regards to historiography of the western Sudan: Link

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Explorer:

Imperialism has two characters which I term as "hot imperialism" and "cold imperialism". "Hot imperialism" covers overt military aggression and plunder, while "cold imperialism" is more of the covert and subtle face that runs parallel to the overt face--one which on instance, is inclined to be evasive in character to the average observer. There are folks who simply don't get it that rewriting history by an aspiring imperialist state is part and parcel of imperialism. Foreign policy designs, usually an extension of domestic policy, seep through to academia & mass media, and are channeled through those means, so as to subtly but systematically condition people with world perceptions that encourage them to not speak out and act out against the destructive features of said foreign policy designs. I call it a form of desensitization. I'd given several examples of how these things usually work out [the at times, somewhat symbiotic relationships between imperialism and academia] on my blog, with regards to historiography of the western Sudan: Link

---

LOL Nice phrases, Explorer. This is kind of like the 'Cold War' where instead of overt aggression through actual head on conflict, it was more like behind-the-scenes aggression. A striking similarity that Western scholars had with communists is the use of historical revisionism as a primary means of propaganda. They would hide the historical reality in favor of the falsity they needed to legitimate their cause, whether it be communism or in this case Western imperialism and the right to rule Africa since Africans were "uncivilized heathens" with supposedly no history.

By the way, there is more to come.
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 





As you can see in the paper above, Seligman was one of the first scholars to openly acknowledge an undeniably strong connection between Egypt and black Africa especially in regards to spiritual beliefs and religious institutions such as divine kingship; however, he attributes all of this to "caucasian" Hamites! Suffice to say, such traditions are to be found nowhere else but in Africa, not even in the adjacent area of Southwest Asia. Not surprisingly there are some as the book calls "charlatans" today who peddle this nonsense of African 'cuacasians' being the founders of complex culture in Africa despite this notion having been debunked long ago.
 

---

Posted by AswaniAswad (Member # 16742) on :
 
What similarities did Seligman see with Ancient Egyptians and Monophysite Abyssinia. I can see he still claims that Hamite Miracle which is not suprising.

What Similarities and connection do the monopysites have with Ancient Kemet.

Did u see that false door to Amenta that they found in Egypt the First thing i thought of was the False door of the Axum Amenta i heard that it was the same thing
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ I believe Seligman was in reference to certain traditions or practices of the Monophysites as well as their central belief that Jesus had a total divine nature with only seemingly mortal traits which may be akin to African beliefs of divine kingship. The churches and other monuments dedicated to Jesus like the obelisks and such can be akin to those dedicated to divine kings.
 

---

Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
 
Seligman was one of the biggest boosters of the
Hamitic hypothesis. See his book Races of Africa.

Right there in the first few lines of the posting
he establishes the AEs as straight up Caucasian
and say they pushed into the African interior
spreading all knowledge to the "negroes."

That's not what I call showing connections between
Egypt and the rest of Africa. It's a unidirectional
diffusion hypothesis that doesn't acknowledge any
input from Africans to Egypt nor any African
capabilities in any of the arts or sciences.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:

... Seligman was one of the first scholars to openly acknowledge an undeniably strong connection between Egypt and black Africa
. . . .
however, he attributes all of this to "caucasian" Hamites!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:

^ Of course Seligman demonstrates a connection to Africa albeit in a perverted way. The guy notices similarities between ancient Egyptian culture that of other African cultures but instead of attributing this to an African commonality, he instead attributes this to a "caucasian" commonality from outside of Africa. He still acknowledges a connection, yet like so many white Western scholars of his time refuses to believe that such was indigenous to Africa.

This is comical especially since he provides no evidence of such cultural features outside of Africa not even in Southwest Asia, and even in many of these cultures where he sees such similarities, the populations display very stereotypical "negroid" features and just assumes cultural borrowing from "caucasians". I don't know if you recall, but it was either Seligman or Coon that would even point out a hint of "caucasian" features among the "negro" elites like royalty. This was even suggested of the Benin Bronzes! LOL

---

Still, this would be different from the man "openly" acknowledging "strong connection between Egypt and black Africa", would it not? In fact, he is denying, even according to your own observation, that said "common features" are indigenous to Africa. He is saying that the only reason other Africans came to have it, was presumably by diffusion from the Nile Valley. This is the furthest thing from an "open" acknowledgment.
 

---

Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
 
^^What one can only do is fill in the gaps. I.e., are the cultural connections really there.

Indeed, Seligman notes cultural connections throughout Africa, albeit attribution of said connections are noted to be due to influences from the ol' Hamitic strain of non Africans.

But....., since we now know these supposed Hamites are actually indigenous Africans I.e., the Sudanese, Somalis, Fulanis, Tutsis, Kenyans, Eritreans etc...who were being distinguished due to their cranio-facial profiles, and aren't result of non African admixture.

All one can do is analyze the connections Seligman recognized between these cultures in Africa, and if the connections hold any water under this scrutiny.

No doubt we already know there to be a sharing of culture throughout parts of Africa already, since this is what Diop proves, and he read between the lines of these old outdated anthropologists using their works to his (Diop) advantage.

Nowadays, bio-anthropology simply proves everything that Diop said about ancient Egypt, despite a few wrongs here and there from Diop about other things in history, to be right.

Being that Diop was a product of his time, pre-genetic era, of course we know one would expect some errors. Wish Keita would be as motivated as Diop was, perhaps the fear of being viewed as Afro-centric dis-encourages him.

But yea, the connections seem to be there, the only segue seems to be outdated terminology used by Seligman.
 

---

Posted by Hammer (Member # 17003) on :
 
Djehuti, You do not even know what historiography is.
 

---

Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
Being that Diop was a product of his time, pre-genetic era, of course we know one would expect some errors. Wish Keita would be as motivated as Diop was, perhaps the fear of being viewed as Afro-centric dis-encourages him.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brada-Anansi:
According to page 8 he believed that influence went from Kemet to the Congo and then to the Niger..but what do you make of the Twa being brought back from the Kongo to Kemet for the dances of the gods..that would go towards a Kongo or a Great Lakes influence with the possibility of Bes wouldn't it?

Btw Djehuti I-am posting on this particular thread only because you took the time to prepare it and I said I would.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
^^What one can only do is fill in the gaps. I.e., are the cultural connections really there.

Indeed, Seligman notes cultural connections throughout Africa, albeit attribution of said connections are noted to be due to influences from the ol' Hamitic strain of non Africans.

But....., since we now know these supposed Hamites are actually indigenous Africans I.e., the Sudanese, Somalis, Fulanis, Tutsis, Kenyans, Eritreans etc...who were being distinguished due to their cranio-facial profiles, and aren't result of non African admixture.

All one can do is analyze the connections Seligman recognized between these cultures in Africa, and if the connections hold any water under this scrutiny.

No doubt we already know there to be a sharing of culture throughout parts of Africa already, since this is what Diop proves, and he read between the lines of these old outdated anthropologists using their works to his (Diop) advantage.

Nowadays, bio-anthropology simply proves everything that Diop said about ancient Egypt, despite a few wrongs here and there from Diop about other things in history, to be right.

Being that Diop was a product of his time, pre-genetic era, of course we know one would expect some errors. Wish Keita would be as motivated as Diop was, perhaps the fear of being viewed as Afro-centric dis-encourages him.

But yea, the connections seem to be there, the only segue seems to be outdated terminology used by Seligman.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:

quote:

---

Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
Being that Diop was a product of his time, pre-genetic era, of course we know one would expect some errors. Wish Keita would be as motivated as Diop was, perhaps the fear of being viewed as Afro-centric dis-encourages him.

---

What do you mean? Keita doesn't strike me as being tentative.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Explorer:

Still, this would be different from the man "openly" acknowledging "strong connection between Egypt and black Africa", would it not? In fact, he is denying, even according to your own observation, that said "common features" are indigenous to Africa. He is saying that the only reason other Africans came to have it, was presumably by diffusion from the Nile Valley. This is the furthest thing from an "open" acknowledgment.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by King_Scorpion:

That's a strange route. If Niger was influenced by Egypt, you would think it went through Chad and the Yamites first. But let's also not forget that recent discoveries show that influence moved back and forth. The Saharans weren't the only ones being influenced, Egypt was also heavily influenced by them. Someone should start a thread on the Great Lakes Origins. There are two possible routes in my eyes for Great Lakes diffusion. Up through the Sahara via Chad and along Nile in East Africa. At first glance, I don't know how realistic it is to think that a region so far away had a direct link to the growth of Pharoanic civilization without going through some other groups first.

---

quote:

---

Let's be clear, we attack a lot of these early scholars but those guys weren't stupid. They created things like the Hamitic hypothesis for a reason. I believe someone should go behind Seligman today to build on his theory, as crazy as that sounds. Because nowadays no one believes in the Hamitic hypothesis (which may be why no one also believes Africans were influenced by or even themselves influenced Ancient Egypt). Robert Bauval's book MAY begin to break that train of thought...but we have to see. So by building on and updating Seligman's work we could prove that Africa was much more connected and "in tune" with one another than previously believed. Right now, people act as if it's impossible for East Africans to be connected to West Africans or vice versa. And whatever movement or communication did occur took thousands of years. This of course ignores things like trade, but let's not forget that it takes a certain advancement of civilization for trading to be really effective and productive. Up until recently, scholars even played down this aspect of African society and if there was trade it was local and didn't cross vast distances. Now of course we know this is not true. For example, the book trade in Mali went all across the Sahara and even to al-Andalus. The gold trade in Mali is still not fully understood and is somewhat underrated but is believed to have effected the medieval world in a major way. That requires MAJOR interaction and trade. The list goes on...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ Of course Seligman demonstrates a connection to Africa albeit in a perverted way. The guy notices similarities between ancient Egyptian culture that of other African cultures but instead of attributing this to an African commonality, he instead attributes this to a "caucasian" commonality from outside of Africa. He still acknowledges a connection, yet like so many white Western scholars of his time refuses to believe that such was indigenous to Africa.

This is comical especially since he provides no evidence of such cultural features outside of Africa not even in Southwest Asia, and even in many of these cultures where he sees such similarities, the populations display very stereotypical "negroid" features and just assumes cultural borrowing from "caucasians". I don't know if you recall, but it was either Seligman or Coon that would even point out a hint of "caucasian" features among the "negro" elites like royalty. This was even suggested of the Benin Bronzes! LOL

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by King_Scorpion:

quote:

---

Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
^^What one can only do is fill in the gaps. I.e., are the cultural connections really there.

Indeed, Seligman notes cultural connections throughout Africa, albeit attribution of said connections are noted to be due to influences from the ol' Hamitic strain of non Africans.

But....., since we now know these supposed Hamites are actually indigenous Africans I.e., the Sudanese, Somalis, Fulanis, Tutsis, Kenyans, Eritreans etc...who were being distinguished due to their cranio-facial profiles, and aren't result of non African admixture.

All one can do is analyze the connections Seligman recognized between these cultures in Africa, and if the connections hold any water under this scrutiny.

No doubt we already know there to be a sharing of culture throughout parts of Africa already, since this is what Diop proves, and he read between the lines of these old outdated anthropologists using their works to his (Diop) advantage.

Nowadays, bio-anthropology simply proves everything that Diop said about ancient Egypt, despite a few wrongs here and there from Diop about other things in history, to be right.

Being that Diop was a product of his time, pre-genetic era, of course we know one would expect some errors. Wish Keita would be as motivated as Diop was, perhaps the fear of being viewed as Afro-centric dis-encourages him.

But yea, the connections seem to be there, the only segue seems to be outdated terminology used by Seligman.

---

Let's be clear, we attack a lot of these early scholars but those guys weren't stupid. They created things like the Hamitic hypothesis for a reason. I believe someone should go behind Seligman today to build on his theory, as crazy as that sounds. Because nowadays no one believes in the Hamitic hypothesis (which may be why no one also believes Africans were influenced by or even themselves influenced Ancient Egypt). Robert Bauval's book MAY begin to break that train of thought...but we have to see. So by building on and updating Seligman's work we could prove that Africa was much more connected and "in tune" with one another than previously believed. Right now, people act as if it's impossible for East Africans to be connected to West Africans or vice versa. And whatever movement or communication did occur took thousands of years. This of course ignores things like trade, but let's not forget that it takes a certain advancement of civilization for trading to be really effective and productive. Up until recently, scholars even played down this aspect of African society and if there was trade it was local and didn't cross vast distances. Now of course we know this is not true. For example, the book trade in Mali went all across the Sahara and even to al-Andalus. The gold trade in Mali is still not fully understood and is somewhat underrated but is believed to have effected the medieval world in a major way. That requires MAJOR interaction and trade. The list goes on...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by alTakruri:
Tell me you're joking?

Have you read Races of Africa?

If you haven't read that book
you need to read several of
his smaller papers to understand
where he's coming from.

Once you do that you may see
why current African studies
ignores Seligman's "works."

And, yeah, they weren't stupid.
And, yeah, they created the
Hamitic hypothesis for a reason.
And we know what that reason was

"The incoming Hamites were
pastoral ‘Europeans’
–arriving wave after wave–
better armed as well
as quicker witted than
the dark agricultural Negroes."

Can it be any plainer than that?

But it seems so-called Afrocentric
historians like to use Eurocentric
methodology giving it a black face.

quote:

---

Originally posted by King_Scorpion:

quote:

---

Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
^^What one can only do is fill in the gaps. I.e., are the cultural connections really there.

Indeed, Seligman notes cultural connections throughout Africa, albeit attribution of said connections are noted to be due to influences from the ol' Hamitic strain of non Africans.

But....., since we now know these supposed Hamites are actually indigenous Africans I.e., the Sudanese, Somalis, Fulanis, Tutsis, Kenyans, Eritreans etc...who were being distinguished due to their cranio-facial profiles, and aren't result of non African admixture.

All one can do is analyze the connections Seligman recognized between these cultures in Africa, and if the connections hold any water under this scrutiny.

No doubt we already know there to be a sharing of culture throughout parts of Africa already, since this is what Diop proves, and he read between the lines of these old outdated anthropologists using their works to his (Diop) advantage.

Nowadays, bio-anthropology simply proves everything that Diop said about ancient Egypt, despite a few wrongs here and there from Diop about other things in history, to be right.

Being that Diop was a product of his time, pre-genetic era, of course we know one would expect some errors. Wish Keita would be as motivated as Diop was, perhaps the fear of being viewed as Afro-centric dis-encourages him.

But yea, the connections seem to be there, the only segue seems to be outdated terminology used by Seligman.

---

Let's be clear, we attack a lot of these early scholars but those guys weren't stupid. They created things like the Hamitic hypothesis for a reason. I believe someone should go behind Seligman today to build on his theory, as crazy as that sounds. Because nowadays no one believes in the Hamitic hypothesis (which may be why no one also believes Africans were influenced by or even themselves influenced Ancient Egypt). Robert Bauval's book MAY begin to break that train of thought...but we have to see. So by building on and updating Seligman's work we could prove that Africa was much more connected and "in tune" with one another than previously believed. Right now, people act as if it's impossible for East Africans to be connected to West Africans or vice versa. And whatever movement or communication did occur took thousands of years. This of course ignores things like trade, but let's not forget that it takes a certain advancement of civilization for trading to be really effective and productive. Up until recently, scholars even played down this aspect of African society and if there was trade it was local and didn't cross vast distances. Now of course we know this is not true. For example, the book trade in Mali went all across the Sahara and even to al-Andalus. The gold trade in Mali is still not fully understood and is somewhat underrated but is believed to have effected the medieval world in a major way. That requires MAJOR interaction and trade. The list goes on...

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:

A cultural connection is a connection.

---

quote:

---

Where the origin of that connection was and what 'racial' group it is attributed to is a different story.

---

quote:

---

But yes, I believe Seligman was being genuinely open about these cultural studies despite how wrong he was.

---

quote:

---

It is exactly this denial that Seligman and his peers had that is now being pointed out in academia. By the way, you are wrong about what you said about Egyptologists and other Western scholars. There are in fact Egyptologists who acknowledge Egypt's African identity and many well known Western scholars and historians on African culture like Christopher Ehret, Graham Connah, Marq de Villiers, etc

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ It is exactly this denial that Seligman and his peers had that is now being pointed out in academia. By the way, you are wrong about what you said about Egyptologists and other Western scholars. There are in fact Egyptologists who acknowledge Egypt's African identity and many well known Western scholars and historians on African culture like Christopher Ehret, Graham Connah, Marq de Villiers, etc.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by AswaniAswad:
Well i acknowledge that Gerald Massey was right when he claimed that Ancient Egypt is looked at different from the rest of the World and African in general.

From reading some of Seligmans stuff he is totally not in agreement with Egypts African connection well actual down plays it as merely Hamitic influence well that is not surprising since he is in the same school of thought as these other idiots.

Most of these historians and egyptologist would never ever dare to compare Ancient egypt to modern africans which is why we will never get any further in African History written by Europeans who think that Ethiopians are pretty hamites and the Bantu is ugly with nothing civilized about him.

Seligman doesnt even want to touch upon the subject of egypts africaness u can tell in his use of words.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by alTakruri:
Yeah, really.

If people want to check out writings on Egypt's
connection to the rest of Africa they need to
go earlier than Seligman and to author's free
of negrophobia.

In this sense, Churchward, Higgins, and Massey
are the holy trinity.

And for somebody contemporary with Seligman
there's always Eva Meyerowitz whose view of
blacks nowhere near approaches Seligman's
negrophobia.

Of course Joseph Olumide Lucas is the African
scholar of Seligman's and Meyerwitz'a time to
look into for a positive approach to connections.

quote:

---

Originally posted by AswaniAswad:
Well i acknowledge that Gerald Massey was right when he claimed that Ancient Egypt is looked at different from the rest of the World and African in general.

From reading some of Seligmans stuff he is totally not in agreement with Egypts African connection well actual down plays it as merely Hamitic influence well that is not surprising since he is in the same school of thought as these other idiots.

Most of these historians and egyptologist would never ever dare to compare Ancient egypt to modern africans which is why we will never get any further in African History written by Europeans who think that Ethiopians are pretty hamites and the Bantu is ugly with nothing civilized about him.

Seligman doesnt even want to touch upon the subject of egypts africaness u can tell in his use of words.

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brada-Anansi:

But the problem is they were the ones who set the standard and the distortion last till this very hour..yes other are just now trying to un-do the damage not unlike the Pelt Down Man hoax that lasted nearly a hundred years.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by King_Scorpion:

I haven't read Connah's books, but one reviewer on Amazon (the only review by the way) says he excludes Egypt and the Magreb from African history. This is in reference to his book he released through the Cambridge Press called African Civilizations. Or maybe you're talking about his more recent book called Forgotten Africa?

I know people are tired of me mentioning this book, but the reason I'm so pumped for Black Genesis is because someone is finally tackling the issue head on with new evidence. Sitting on the sidelines saying you think Egypt had an African origin is one thing, going public and writing a book about it is something totally different. I think the academic community has done a good job in scaring people from challenging them on this. I agree Djehuti, there are probably more scholars that agree with us than we know, but they don't want to risk their careers by being labeled an afrocentrist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by alTakruri:

Yeah, really.

If people want to check out writings on Egypt's
connection to the rest of Africa they need to
go earlier than Seligman and to author's free
of negrophobia.

In this sense, Churchward, Higgins, and Massey
are the holy trinity.

And for somebody contemporary with Seligman
there's always Eva Meyerowitz whose view of
blacks nowhere near approaches Seligman's
negrophobia.

Of course Joseph Olumide Lucas is the African
scholar of Seligman's and Meyerwitz'a time to
look into for a positive approach to connections

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by alTakruri:
Seligman was one of the biggest boosters of the
Hamitic hypothesis. See his book Races of Africa.

Right there in the first few lines of the posting
he establishes the AEs as straight up Caucasian
and say they pushed into the African interior
spreading all knowledge to the "negroes."

That's not what I call showing connections between
Egypt and the rest of Africa. It's a unidirectional
diffusion hypothesis that doesn't acknowledge any
input from Africans to Egypt nor any African
capabilities in any of the arts or sciences.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by anguishofbeingbuggered:

quote:

---

Originally posted by alTakruri:
Seligman was one of the biggest boosters of the
Hamitic hypothesis. See his book Races of Africa.

Right there in the first few lines of the posting
he establishes the AEs as straight up Caucasian
and say they pushed into the African interior
spreading all knowledge to the "negroes."

That's not what I call showing connections between
Egypt and the rest of Africa. It's a unidirectional
diffusion hypothesis that doesn't acknowledge any
input from Africans to Egypt nor any African
capabilities in any of the arts or sciences.

---

Yes, and any attempt to spin otherwise is pure dishonesty.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:

quote:

---

Originally posted by anguishofbeing:
Yes, and any attempt to spin otherwise is pure dishonesty.

---

Nobody is "spinning" anything.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Whatbox:

Seligman couldn't deny the connections, so he had to spin things.

---

Correct. The 'Hamitic Hypothesis' was formulated not only to explain ancient Egyptian civilization and other advanced cultures in Africa but to attribute any connection between them as being due to "caucasoids".

As such here is the next piece...
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 








 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 



 

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
Of course the real value of the Hamitic hypothesis is that supports the Bible as literal documentation of the origin of humanity and of course therefore the progenitor of all humans from some sort of Eurasian father figure.

So the reality of Africa as birthplace of mankind makes such nonsense irrelevant, yet some cling to it regardless.
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ Of course the Bible like any other religious text is mythology with some historical accounts albeit obscured by said mythological motifs, especially the farther one goes back in time. That said, the whole story of Noah as a patriarch or founding father that survived the alleged deluge only to repopulate the earth with his offspring is a popular folk myth. Though as Dana and others pointed out, one must look back to ante-diluvian (pre-flood) records to find an at least more accurate picture of human origins. The story of Noah's sons was an attempt to explain how the various peoples and nationalities known to the Hebrews came about if the 'great flood' allegedly destroyed the lands.

But getting back to the topic, it is interesting to see how of all Noah's sons it is Ham and his progeny who get racialized because they represent peoples of African or African derived nations. It is even further interesting to see how this racialization eventually changes to "caucasian" when Western scholars realize the sophistication of these African cultures. What I find hilarious are the writings of white scholars in their pathetic attempts at spinning the obvious black identity of the Egyptians and other Africans!
 

---

Posted by anguishofbeing (Member # 16736) on :
 
"Ham" is racialized in the Babylonian Talmud as cursed with blackness and "shamefully elongated" penis because of the racism on the part of white "Jews" at the time.
 

---

Posted by Yonis2 (Member # 11348) on :
 

quote:

---

alTakruri wrote:

If people want to check out writings on Egypt's
connection to the rest of Africa they need to
go earlier than Seligman and to author's free
of negrophobia.

In this sense, Churchward , Higgins, and Massey
are the holy trinity.

---

quote:

---

"AGE AND ORIGIN OF PRIMARY MAN

PALÆOLITHIC
(c. 2.5 million - 10,000 years BC)
Original or Primary Man

The Non-Totemic group or Pre-Totemic people.

The Pygmy Group (which includes all the so-called Negrillos or Negritos).

> They have no Totems or Totemic ceremonies.
> They believe in a Great Spirit.
> They propitiate Elementary Powers and Departed Spirits.
> Although they have dances, as Sign Language, they have no Totemic
Ceremonies.
> They have no written language, but speak a monosyllabic language,
and have a Sign and Gesture Language.
> They have no Mythology or Folk-lore Tales.
> They have no Magic.
> They have no Initiatory rites.
> They have no Tribal markings.
> They have limited primitive implements.



The Second or Sub-Group, Descendents of the Pygmies are:—

1. The Bushmen, and the Hottentots who descended from them.
2. The Masaba Negroes who were evolved from a highly developed
Pygmy.
These sub-classes are not found outside Africa - past or present.

> All these have no Totems or Totemic Ceremonies.
> No Mythology.
> No Folk-lore Tales.
> No Magic.
> They speak a monosyllabic language, have no written language but can
draw pictures - Signs and Symbols like the Pigmy.
> They believe in a Great Spirit.
> They propitiate Elementary Powers, or Spirits, and the Spirits of their
Ancestors.
> They have dances - Sign and Gesture Language. Sign Language includes
the Gesture Signs to which the Mysteries were, and are still, danced or
otherwise dramatised in Africa by the Pigmy and Bushmen.
> Their implements are the same as the Pigmy - primitive.


The Bushman (1) developed from the Pigmy and travelled South and never came North again, and the Hottentot developed from the Bushman and also never came North. These types are only found in South Africa.
The Masaba Negro (2) developed from the Pigmy North, East and West.
None of these are or ever were Anthropophagous.
The Masabas are the connecting links between the Pigmy and:

The Third Group - The Totemic People.

All these have Totams and Totemic Ceremonies and are, or were at one time, Anthropophagous. They are divided into two distinct groups:

1. The True Negroes.
These were developed from the Masaba in the West, and have distinct anatomical features from the Nilotic Negroes - they never left Africa except as slaves.

2. The Nilotic Negroes.
They can be divided into two distinct classes; a lower type, and a higher type, the latter developed by evolution from the former, each being identified thus:

a) The Lower Class.
They have no Mythology.
They have no Hero Cult.
They have no Tattoo.
They raise, however, marks on the skin - Cicatrices.

b) The Higher Class.
They have Mythology.
They have Hero Cult.
They have Tattoo.

Both have Magic, Totems and Totemic Ceremonies.

The descendants of former exodes of these Nilotic Negroes can still be found in many countries. They followed the Pigmy, exterminated him in some places and drove him into more inaccesible spots in others. But the osteo remains of both are found in many parts of the world in different strata, and types of both are still extant in various countries. All the above may be classed as Palæolithic.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by anguishofbeing:

"Ham" is racialized in the Babylonian Talmud as cursed with blackness and "shamefully elongated" penis because of the racism on the part of white "Jews" at the time.

---

quote:

---

Yet the authority of any Talmud does not hold up to the authority of the Torah itself

---

quote:

---

Then there is the question. How can Ham be of one skin color but his brothers have different skin colors?

---

quote:

---

There is no 'shamefully elongated penis' in the
Talmud Babli. That phrase appears in a post trans
Atlantic trade edition of the Tanhuma.

---

quote:

---

"There is no denying that the [Jewish] Babylonian Talmud was the first source to read a Negrophobic content into the episode by stressing Canaan's fraternal connection with Cush." The Jewish scholars, he said, advanced two explanations for Ham and his children being turned black. According to Brackman, "The more important version of the myth, however, ingeniously ties in the origins of blackness - and of other, real and imagined Negroid traits - with Noah's Curse itself. According to it, Ham is told by his outraged father that, because you have abused me in the darkness of the night, your children shall be born black and ugly; because you have twisted your head to cause me embarrassment, they shall have kinky hair and red eyes; because your lips jested at my exposure, theirs shall swell; and because you neglected my nakedness, they shall go naked with their shamefully elongated male members exposed for all to see..."

---

quote:

---

From this, racist European imperialists begin to call all blacks of Africa inferior and fair game for slavery due to "Ham's curse"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by anguishofbeing:
According to Brackman:

quote:

---

"There is no denying that the [Jewish] Babylonian Talmud was the first source to read a Negrophobic content into the episode by stressing Canaan's fraternal connection with Cush." The Jewish scholars, he said, advanced two explanations for Ham and his children being turned black. According to Brackman, "The more important version of the myth, however, ingeniously ties in the origins of blackness - and of other, real and imagined Negroid traits - with Noah's Curse itself. According to it, Ham is told by his outraged father that, because you have abused me in the darkness of the night, your children shall be born black and ugly; because you have twisted your head to cause me embarrassment, they shall have kinky hair and red eyes; because your lips jested at my exposure, theirs shall swell; and because you neglected my nakedness, they shall go naked with their shamefully elongated male members exposed for all to see..."

---

---

quote:

---

Gaurantee you, if the NOI scholars failed
to publish the talmudic tractate and daf
for the above then it does not exist.

---

quote:

---

[The Eternal] blessed Noahh and his sons -- as is written: "And Elohiym
blessed them" (cf. GE 9:1) -- with their gfts, and he apportioned the entire
earth to them as an inheritance. He especially blessed Shem and his sons
black and beautiful and he gave them the habitable earth. He blessed Hham
and his sons black like the raven and he gave them the coast of the sea. He
blessed Yapheth and his sons white all over and he gave them the desert and fields.

Pirqei de Ribbi Eli`ezer 55b

---

The above is attributed to Ribbi Eli`ezer ben Hyrkanus
of the 1st century common era of whom a voice from
heaven said R' Eli`ezer is always correct, but the first
time it's written down is by 8th century Palestine Jews.
 

---

Posted by anguishofbeing (Member # 16736) on :
 
There is no "objective" interpretation of text [no "Jewish opinion"] that exists for "Jews". Its a religion, with many different "races" as adherents; its full of contradictions and versions, and versions of versions; and books to nullify books. The Ethiopians, for example, don't have the Talmud and they were for a long time shunned because of this. The above quote and alternative cosmology by you does not take away from the fact that there were some "Jews", like authors of the Babylonian Talmud, that had anti-black racism as a guiding principle.

Text is nothing more than a free flow of meanings, a dance of interpretations. The subject does not exist, only text...


 

---

Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
 
Produce the tractate and daf with such a quote.
Put up or shut up (we know you won't shut up and
we know you can't put up).

Who said it was made out of thin air, pay attention.

Again, that quote is from a post transAtlantic
trade edition of the Tanhuma it's not from the
Talmudh Babli. Anybody can go to Tanhuma Noahh
13 and read either the original or the later
revision pending on what edition of Tanhuma
is used.

Do so to cover your ignorance while others do
so to see it's you who's the deceitful liar.

What's this dude stuff? You sound like a white boy.

Oh, now I see.

quote:

---

Originally posted by anguishofbeing:
And we are to believe that Brackman et al. made it all up out of thin air because they are self-hating Jews who want to advance NOI agenda? Dude, your pro-Jewish apologia has no shame.

quote:

---

Gaurantee you, if the NOI scholars failed
to publish the talmudic tractate and daf
for the above then it does not exist.

---

Not really, since we know you Jews are deceptive when it comes to Talmud covering up.

"The response of the orthodox rabbis to documentation regarding the racism and hatred in their sacred texts is simply to brazenly lie, in keeping with the Talmud's Baba Kamma 113a which states that Jews may use lies ("subterfuge") to circumvent a Gentile."

Jewish Deception and Dissimulation

---

quote:

---

There is no 'shamefully elongated penis' in the
Talmud Babli. That phrase appears in a post trans
Atlantic trade edition of the Tanhuma.....Again, that quote is from a post transAtlantic
trade edition of the Tanhuma it's not from the
Talmudh Babli.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by anguishofbeing:
There is no "objective" interpretation of text [no "Jewish opinion"] that exists for "Jews". Its a religion, with many different "races" as adherents; its full of contradictions and versions, and versions of versions; and books to nullify books. The Ethiopians, for example, don't have the Talmud and they were for a long time shunned because of this. The above quote and alternative cosmology by you does not take away from the fact that there were some "Jews", like authors of the Babylonian Talmud, that had anti-black racism as a guiding principle.

Text is nothing more than a free flow of meanings, a dance of interpretations. The subject does not exist, only text...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by alTakruri:
Yeah, good old Pirqei de Ribbi Eli`ezer gets 'em
everytime. They read it but can't see, to invert
your logic, "there were the most Jews knowing R'
Eli`ezer was always right and who were pro-black
humanist" noting that Shem was black and beautiful.

How about that? Black and beautiful more than
2000 years before the Black Americans say it!

Rage on in your self-consumptive Jew hatred, boy.

---

Other than your gloating over Jews stating the obvious "2000 years before the Black Americans" (whats the point really?) I really don't get your erotic excitement over the Noah myth...lol
 

---

Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
 
Hahahahaha! You can't do it. It's not just the
penis part you love so well (hmmm) it's that
entire quote. It just isn't there because it's
in the Tanhuma. Get it, it's Tanhuma not Talmudh.

All you can do is go to web sources by folk who
hates Blacks as bad or worse than they hate Jews
and bring back their lies and distortions. And
what things do these folks say Blacks are the
most professional at doing?

quote:

---

Originally posted by anguishofbeing:

quote:

---

There is no 'shamefully elongated penis' in the
Talmud Babli. That phrase appears in a post trans
Atlantic trade edition of the Tanhuma.....Again, that quote is from a post transAtlantic
trade edition of the Tanhuma it's not from the
Talmudh Babli.

---

As I said before, it is a minor point. The Babylonian Talmud does in fact contain anti-black racism but just not the quote 'shamefully elongated penis'. So f!cking what? Although. whether or not its a 'post trans Atlantic trade edition of the Tanhuma' is still up for debate since, Hoffman demonstrates, you Jews are professional liars and deceivers. In the end, the Babylonian Talmud is an anti-black book, but whatever the truth of that specific quote.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by alTakruri:
Hahahahaha! You can't do it. It's not just the
penis part you love so well (hmmm) it's that
entire quote.

---

quote:

---

All you can do is go to web sources by folk who
hates Blacks as bad or worse than they hate Jews
and bring back their lies and distortions.

---

Where are his "distortions"? The part where he quotes Talmud showing Jews hate gentiles and use lies to cover up their "texts"? Where?
 

---

Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
 
The point is both Shem and Hham were BLESSED with blackness.

Black Americans got black and beautiful from the very people
you say are all stark raving anti-black racists.

Tsk, tsk. Still haven't cited a book and page of Talmudh yet.

Hate on hayta!
I know you've basked in my attention but no more time to be
distracted from worthwhile topics and discussion by a nutjob.

quote:

---

Originally posted by anguishofbeing:

quote:

---

Originally posted by alTakruri:
Yeah, good old Pirqei de Ribbi Eli`ezer gets 'em
everytime. They read it but can't see, to invert
your logic, "there were the most Jews knowing R'
Eli`ezer was always right and who were pro-black
humanist" noting that Shem was black and beautiful.

How about that? Black and beautiful more than
2000 years before the Black Americans say it!

Rage on in your self-consumptive Jew hatred, boy.

---

Other than your gloating over Jews stating the obvious "2000 years before the Black Americans" (whats the point really?) I really don't get your erotic excitement over the Noah myth...lol

---

quote:

---

The point is both Shem and Hham were BLESSED with blackness.

---

quote:

---

Black Americans got black and beautiful from the very people
you say are all stark raving anti-black racists.

---

quote:

---

Still haven't cited a book and page of Talmudh yet.

---

quote:

---

I know you've basked in my attention but no more time to be
distracted from worthwhile topics and discussion by a nutjob.

---

Predictable Jew. lol

1. Are you saying the Babylonian Tamlud does not connect the curse of "Ham" with blackness? Was not "the first source to read a Negrophobic content into the episode"?
2. Where are his "distortions"? The part where he quotes Talmud showing Jews hate gentiles and use lies to cover up their "texts"? Where?
 

---

Posted by anguishofbeing (Member # 16736) on :
 
I'm still waiting just in case you change your mind...

Hamitic curse a post-Trans Atlantic Slavery myth?

quote:

---

the Hamitic Myth (that is, the association of the African with the supposed curse of Noah), was invented by Jewish Talmudic scholars **over a thousand years before the transatlantic slave trade began**. ...“There is no denying,” said Brackman, discussing the Jewish invention of the Hamitic Myth, “that the Babylonian Talmud was the first source to read a Negrophobic content into the episode by stressing Canaan’s fraternal connection with Cush.” Brackman pointed out further that two third century Jewish “Sages” provided homosexual embellishments for the biblical story as well – “Rab maintained that [Ham] had unmanned Noah, while Samuel claimed that he had buggered him as well.”...Evidence we have provided below locates the origin of these racist elaborations with the Jewish Babylonian Talmud. Dr. Harold Brackman is the strongest proponent of this theme but one finds a morass of argumentation centering around authenticity of sources, accuracy of translations, the use of pun, allegory, literalism, paucity of documentation, "ambiguities and complexities" of midrashic texts, etc., etc...But even the most vociferous of the defenders of rabbinical honor, like David M. Goldenberg (in Cornel West's book), admit that the Talmudic rabbis had a "preference" for light skin and that their stories "see dark skin as a form of divine punishment".... The Hamitic Myth itself has also taken on at least one other form in relation to Blackness (other versions have made Ham into a white man). Once Europeans saw evidence of the great African civilizations, they hastened to reinterpret the Hamitic Myth to suggest that the Hamites were in fact Europeans [!] who went into Africa bringing this civilization with them. This version of the Myth satisfied their academic needs--and was used when necessary by Jewish academics like C.G. Seligman among others. But, for the most part, their economic, social, religious, and political needs were met in the global promotion of the original rabbinical version... Scholar St. Clair Drake hypothesizes that "special conditions in **Mesopotamia** generated rabbinic stories associating Negroidness with excessive and aberrant sexuality and Noah's curse."… These negative features were not found in the Jerusalem Talmud where Black slavery was not a feature (See the work of Dr. Charsee McIntyre). [for white Jews - The superiority of the Babylonian Talmud is so great, that "...when people now talk about the Talmud, they always mean the Babylonian Talmud. The authority of the Babylonian Talmud is also **greater** than that of the Jerusalem Talmud. In cases of doubt the former is decisive." (pg. 40, From Torah to Kabbalah, by R.C. Musaph-Andriesse, New York, Oxford University Press, 1982, emphasis in original text).link]... In contrast [to early Christian texts] the approximately **contemporaneous** Talmudic and Midrashic sources contained such suggestions as that "Ham was smitten in his skin," that Noah told Ham "your seed will be ugly and dark-skinned," and that Ham was father "of Canaan who brought curses into the world, of Canaan who was cursed, of Canaan who darkened the faces of mankind," of Canaan "the notorious world-darkener."...Both the Christian and Judaic text identified servitude with Canaan. But the justification for the enslavement of Black people came from the Jewish interpretation of the Hamitic Myth from "the Talmudic **and** Midrashic sources," link

---

 

---

Posted by anguishofbeing (Member # 16736) on :
 
Interestingly enough, in the book Struggles in the promised land: toward a history of Black-Jewish relations Talmudic apologist David M. Goldenberg sites both the Talmud and Midrash as examples of Jewish anti-black sentiments, particularly blackness as a curse, even though he advances bizarre justifications for it, says it reflects the "somatic norm" of the authors of antiquity. This contradicts the argument/apologia that it was non-Talmudic "post Slavery" editions that contain anti-black sentiments.

As I said, I'm still waiting in case you decide to come clean and tell us which white Talmudic school you are working for, apologist.
 

---

Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:

^ I've heard this popular theory too, but I have also heard that it does not stand up to linguistics. The Hebrew 'Ham' and the Egyptian 'Kem' have two very different etymologies as well as phonetic structures with the first letter in particular not being a good consonant shift. 'K' in Semitic and in Afrasian in general would usually shift to 'ch' while 'h' is almost always shifted to 's', which makes me wonder if the Hebrew 'Ham' is synonymous with the Arabic 'Sam'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Explorer:

I see. I was well aware of the condition of the "k" in Kemetic "km" having the phonological effect of "h" [although, you claim that it is "ch"], as I had pointed out here before; it is this feature of the word, and that along with the seeming parallelism in the meanings of the words that made the above-mentioned case about the possible relationship between "km" and "Ham" interesting to me. Going with what you've given above, if the "h" in the term "Ham" has the phonological effect of "S", and hence, akin to "Sam", then what phonological effect does "S" in "Sam" have in Semitic tongue?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:

In the case of consonant shifts, usually Grimm's Law is applied and although it is primarily used for Indo-European languages it can also be used for non IE languages though with some exceptions. One of those exceptions would be in Afrasian languages. Where normally k is interchangeable with g, in Afrasian k is interchangeable with ch. Also, where s is interchangeable with h in Afrasian it sh. Many linguists have pointed out that sh is more commonly used in Semitic languages than in any other branch of Afrasian and many suspect this may be due to some Eurasian influence as many adjacent non-Afrasian languages of the ancient Near-East particularly the agglutinative languages of Sumerian and Urarto-Hurrian use a lot of sh's. Interestingly, the Semitic languages that use the most sh's are also found in the northern peripheries close to these agglutinative languages. It is very likely especially through Arab folk genealogies that the Arabian 'Sam' is identical with the Biblical 'Shem'; however, what of Ham?? Does Ham figure in Arab traditions and if so how? I hope someone knowledgeable in this like Dana or Tariq Berry could tell us.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:

^ I thought your question was answered?-- The h-s shift was a personal theory of mine but this was if Grimm's Law strictly applied.

---

quote:

---

In Afrasian Grimm's Law does not. Though the only way to be sure is to know the etymology. I only know about the etymologies for Hebrew names and Arabic ones are totally unfamiliar. Shem is Sam in Arabic but then Joktan becomes Qahtan. Now one part of Grimm's Law that does indeed apply to Afrasian is the shift between j and y. So how does the name Joktan become Qahtan unless these are two totally different terms with different etymology. So basically my question is kind of the same as yours. I'll have to look up sources on Arabic language names and their etymologies to be sure.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by anguishofbeing:
The image of blacks in the Jewish Talmud is related to the so-called 'Hamitic Hypthesis', see post 18 April, 2010 03:30 AM

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
... but then Joktan becomes Qahtan. Now one part of Grimm's Law that does indeed apply to Afrasian is the shift between j and y. So how does the name Joktan become Qahtan unless these are two totally different terms with different etymology.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dana marniche:

quote:

---

Originally posted by anguishofbeing:
The image of blacks in the Jewish Talmud is related to the so-called 'Hamitic Hypthesis', see post 18 April, 2010 03:30 AM

---

A black man born in Israel whose parents were originally Yemeni Jews told me that he had not heard of the Babylonian Talmud having racist things in it.

He did not like the fact that white Israelis consider themselves more Jewish than he is and particularly disliked them because his parents were shot and killed in Israel during some war that lasted for several days (I forget what its called) because they were thought to be Arab (obviously due to their color).

I'm not sure, but this has made me think that the original Talmud may not have had certain parts that are found in later European translations.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by alTakruri:
With apologies to DJ

The Talmudh is vast. Only a select few have read
through all of it. I don't know about racism in
Talmudh but for sure there are instances of bias
in it in regard to colour (a honey or camwood /
boxwood complexion being the preferred one).

Like all people Israel makes jibes at other people
and have stereotypes about varius ethnies (Persians
are bears for instance).

quote:

---

Originally posted by dana marniche:

quote:

---

Originally posted by anguishofbeing:
The image of blacks in the Jewish Talmud is related to the so-called 'Hamitic Hypthesis', see post 18 April, 2010 03:30 AM

---

A black man born in Israel whose parents were originally Yemeni Jews told me that he had not heard of the Babylonian Talmud having racist things in it.

He did not like the fact that white Israelis consider themselves more Jewish than he is and particularly disliked them because his parents were shot and killed in Israel during some war that lasted for several days (I forget what its called) because they were thought to be Arab (obviously due to their color).

I'm not sure, but this has made me think that the original Talmud may not have had certain parts that are found in later European translations.

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by alTakruri:
The Talmudh is vast. Only a select few have read
through all of it. I don't know about racism in
Talmudh but for sure there are instances of bias
in it in regard to colour (a honey or camwood /
boxwood complexion being the preferred one).

Like all people Israel makes jibes at other people
and have stereotypes about varius ethnies (Persians
are bears for instance).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dana marniche:
... judging from modern Israelite talk and some of my friends that have visited Israel honey is definitely not the preferred complexion today and especially not honey brown.

---

quote:

---

Racialism can birth racism.
Racialism doesn't always birth racism.

---

Semantics to cover up Jewish racism?

Ok, you're right, the (satanic)Talmudic verses reflected racial prejudice (racialism) while Talmudic Jews today who are in positions of power (whether in US or Israel) and discriminate against blacks are engaging in racism. How's that?

Anti-black racism did lead to a denial of Jewish blacks like Ethiopians, and other non-Jews. Israel is an Apartheid state.

Maimonides was an anti-black racist too. What did he have to say about Jews engaging in the trade?

I'm glad you realize that there is no "monolithic thinking among Jews" as before you spoke about "Jewish opinion" re the problackness of Ribbi Eliezer.

quote:

---

Anyone can become a Jew but one can only
be born as an Israel.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dana marniche:

quote:

---

Originally posted by anguishofbeing:
The image of blacks in the Jewish Talmud is related to the so-called 'Hamitic Hypthesis', see post 18 April, 2010 03:30 AM

---

A black man born in Israel whose parents were originally Yemeni Jews told me that he had not heard of the Babylonian Talmud having racist things in it.

He did not like the fact that white Israelis consider themselves more Jewish than he is and particularly disliked them because his parents were shot and killed in Israel during some war that lasted for several days (I forget what its called) because they were thought to be Arab (obviously due to their color).

I'm not sure, but this has made me think that the original Talmud may not have had certain parts that are found in later European translations.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ The topic is about the 'Hamitic hypothesis' or how 'Hamites' have figured through history and NOT white Jewish racism.

Speaking of which, I recently spoke with a son of an imam and he told me that the Biblical Ham is still called Ham in Arab/Islamic belief. Actually according to the Muslim version, Nuh (Noah) had four sons: Sam (Shem), Ham, Yafith (Yapeth), and Kanan. The last son was of one of the idolators who died in the deluge. Interestingly, he does mention there being many Hadiths or variations thereof that speak of a curse against Ham and his descendants. Some of which is also racist because it mentions 'blackness' as being part of this curse. Of course no such thing is said in the Quran though.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jari-Ankhamun:

That is becuase the Curse of Ham was not part of the Torah which Muhamed plagerized. The Curse of Ham was a result of Jewish/Arab racism toward the Habesha who Occupied Mecca and campaigned against "Jews".

---

quote:

---

The Curse was a curse on Cannnan to justify the dustruction of the land of Canaan by the Exiled Hebrews leaving Egypt. Had nothing to do with Ham, Mizriam, Cush or Phut.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by anguishofbeing:

He gets all upset about a discussion on white Jewish racism in religious texts yet he couldn't help himself from engaging in one re the Hadith. lol

---

LOL Who is "upset"?? I am merely annoyed by your complaints of Jews all the time. Of course there are racist Jews and racist Jewish texts. But right now I want to discuss Hamites. I merely brought up the fact that like Jews, there are also Muslims that have racist notions in their literature. Perhaps YOU are upset about that?? By the way, when 'Jewish texts' were brought up, it was inevitable your Jew-phobic self would show up to complain as usual.

Frankly most of what I know about 'Ham' or other Biblical figures comes from the Bible and other Jewish texts and yes I am well aware of the racist ones. The Muslim suff however is new to me or I'm rather not as familiar.

Perhaps Dana or Tariq can knowledgeable in the area shed more light on how Ham figured in Islamic beliefs? I find it interesting how one Jewish author claims that both Shem and Ham were black, and that the southern Arab tribes claiming descent from Sam (Shem) are also black.
 

---

Posted by anguishofbeing (Member # 16736) on :
 
LOL! There is no "suppose to" in religion. There are interpretations and interpretations of interpretations. Who has the "right" interpretation of Judaism, Yahweh adherents or El/goddess worshipers? Which is the "right" church, Paul or Magdalene? Its all subjective, no objective reality exists where MYTHS are concerned.
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ LOL Obviously your jew-hatred has blinded you from the obvious and commonly known fact of religion. Almost all religions go by certain doctrines and this is especially true of major religions like Judaism. Judaism has many texts, but the main one that holds the most authority is the Torah. The Torah or "Law" as Jews call it, is the very basis of Jewish belief and tradition. Secondary or tertiary texts like Talmud, Midrash, Mishnah, etc. are all based on the Torah. It is the same with the Quran and Muslims with texts like Hadiths, and Sunnahs, all being based off the former. Those Jews or Muslims who hold other texts in more authority than their original doctrinal texts are not practicing their religions correctly then.

Now, can you please discuss something about the topic of Hamites. Anything from what Christians or in YOUR case Jews said about Hamites during the era of slavery would be appreciated.
 

---

Posted by Jari-Ankhamun (Member # 14451) on :
 
Anguish is Right the Ashkinazi see the Talmud as supreme due to the fact that Christians "Stole" the Torah and made it part of the Bible. They contend that Moses told Orally to Arron certain things and so it is thus superior to the Torah.

Also DJ the Talmud is seperate from Torah at is a collection of Oral sayings.

Many Hebrew cultures that became isolated shortly after or prior to 70 A.D have no Talmud. The Ethiopian Jews are a perfect example.
 

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
In reality the tradition of Christianity, Islam and Judaism is that word means law or is law. The word of course being symbolic of the divine will and authority of a supreme creator. This tradition manifests itself as the word of Mohammed being interpreted or passed down as Hadith and as the Christian gospels. But beyond those purely ritualistic and religious meanings, it also means the traditions of a community as the basis of the law of the land. Hence, Judaism and the "law" of Moses, Islam and the "law" of Jurisprudence and Christianity with its usage of Ecclesiastical law as a fundamental cornerstone of common or civil law. All of this traces back to the symbolism of Moses as law giver who descended from the mountain with the "divine law" or word of god. And the importance of this is he who has the divine law has the right to rule the people as ordained by god. Hence Moses was sent by god to lead the people and given the word as a symbol of this right to rule. Therefore in Christianity Christ is the lawgiver as symbolized by sitting on a throne and holding the bible, in essence the King of Kings and basis of royal authority in the Roman Catholic or Holy Roman system. In Islam the word of Mohammed was received by god and passed down by word of mouth from one ruler to the next as messengers to the faithful and hence the leaders of the people whose words are the law.

Of course all of this tradition of the word as law goes back to ancient Egypt and elsewhere as symbolized by Ptah as the divine will that created the universe through the word and who granted the power of authority through the word, hence the word as law, to the Pharaoh.

Or in a nutshell all these religions have a tradition of supporting the right to rule of the elites.

And as far as these religions go, the seed always comes from an eponymous ancestor and gives rise to the "races" or types of mankind. But of course the true seed of mankind came from Africa so in that respect the symbolic function of the black seed and phallus in Egyptian art and the genetic code it contains is closer to reality than the nonsense of the seed of Noah being the basis of mankind and hence the tradition of the Ham, Shem and Japeth. But again the purpose of this is to elevate certain people above others and their leaders above all else in gods creation. So not only does the curse of Ham hurt Africans and their true identity but just the concept of humans being descended from someone named Noah also hurts. Especially since Africans are so spiritual and religious and therefore more susceptible to believing in the divinity in others and not their own divinity. Even more so since most forms of religion originated in Africa to begin with, from processions, to festivals, to sacrifices, to sacred oral and written traditions, to altars, to symbolism, to beliefs in spirits, to fetishes, to ancestor worship, to trance, to song, to dance, to magic, to incense and so on.

quote:

---

At least half of all Christians in sub-Saharan Africa believe Jesus will return to Earth in their lifetime -- part of a pattern that indicates the region is among the most religious places in the world, according to a huge new study.

It's not only Christians in Africa who experience their religion passionately, either. Nearly one in three Muslims in the region expect to see the re-establishment of the caliphate -- Islam's golden age -- before they die.

At least three out of 10 people across much of Africa said they have experienced divine healing, seen the devil being driven out of a person or received a direct revelation from God, according to the study by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life in Washington.

"In many countries across the continent, roughly nine in 10 people say religion is very important in their lives," the study found.

That puts even the least religious countries in the region ahead of the United States, which is among the most religious of advanced industrial countries, the study's authors wrote.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
In reality the tradition of Christianity, Islam and Judaism is that word means law or is law. The word of course being symbolic of the divine will and authority of a supreme creator. This tradition manifests itself as the word of Mohammed being interpreted or passed down as Hadith and as the Christian gospels. But beyond those purely ritualistic and religious meanings, it also means the traditions of a community as the basis of the law of the land. Hence, Judaism and the "law" of Moses, Islam and the "law" of Jurisprudence and Christianity with its usage of Ecclesiastical law as a fundamental cornerstone of common or civil law. All of this traces back to the symbolism of Moses as law giver who descended from the mountain with the "divine law" or word of god. And the importance of this is he who has the divine law has the right to rule the people as ordained by god. Hence Moses was sent by god to lead the people and given the word as a symbol of this right to rule. Therefore in Christianity Christ is the lawgiver as symbolized by sitting on a throne and holding the bible, in essence the King of Kings and basis of royal authority in the Roman Catholic or Holy Roman system. In Islam the word of Mohammed was received by god and passed down by word of mouth from one ruler to the next as messengers to the faithful and hence the leaders of the people whose words are the law.

Of course all of this tradition of the word as law goes back to ancient Egypt and elsewhere as symbolized by Ptah as the divine will that created the universe through the word and who granted the power of authority through the word, hence the word as law, to the Pharaoh.

Or in a nutshell all these religions have a tradition of supporting the right to rule of the elites.

And as far as these religions go, the seed always comes from an eponymous ancestor and gives rise to the "races" or types of mankind. But of course the true seed of mankind came from Africa so in that respect the symbolic function of the black seed and phallus in Egyptian art and the genetic code it contains is closer to reality than the nonsense of the seed of Noah being the basis of mankind and hence the tradition of the Ham, Shem and Japeth. But again the purpose of this is to elevate certain people above others and their leaders above all else in gods creation. So not only does the curse of Ham hurt Africans and their true identity but just the concept of humans being descended from someone named Noah also hurts. Especially since Africans are so spiritual and religious and therefore more susceptible to believing in the divinity in others and not their own divinity. Even more so since most forms of religion originated in Africa to begin with, from processions, to festivals, to sacrifices, to sacred oral and written traditions, to altars, to symbolism, to beliefs in spirits, to fetishes, to ancestor worship, to trance, to song, to dance, to magic, to incense and so on.

quote:

---

At least half of all Christians in sub-Saharan Africa believe Jesus will return to Earth in their lifetime -- part of a pattern that indicates the region is among the most religious places in the world, according to a huge new study.

It's not only Christians in Africa who experience their religion passionately, either. Nearly one in three Muslims in the region expect to see the re-establishment of the caliphate -- Islam's golden age -- before they die.

At least three out of 10 people across much of Africa said they have experienced divine healing, seen the devil being driven out of a person or received a direct revelation from God, according to the study by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life in Washington.

"In many countries across the continent, roughly nine in 10 people say religion is very important in their lives," the study found.

That puts even the least religious countries in the region ahead of the United States, which is among the most religious of advanced industrial countries, the study's authors wrote.

---

From: http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/africa/04/15/africa.religion/index.html

---

The Roman Catholic Church came 400 yrs after Christ and does not represent Christianity.
 

---

Posted by anguishofbeing (Member # 16736) on :
 
LOL Exactly!
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
The topic that was up for discussion was 'Hamites' NOT religion or religious issues! If you want to discuss that there is a section of the forum you can go here!

Since no one was up for discussion I might as well move on to the next chapter.








 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 





 

---

Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
 
Djehuti

From reading your first post, I really enjoy what I read. Keep it up.

Peace
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ Thankyou. Well I hope the other intelligent posters (if there are any left in this forum) would make more posts in this thread, and ones that actually pertain to the topic.

The book chapter I just recently posted above actually discusses issues discussed in recent threads such as the relation African groups like Bantus and Nilotes have with Egypt.
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
The passage above is a must for many in this forum, especially a few individuals (Asar Imhotep and Wally, I suggest you read the passage very carefully especially in pages 23-24 and 28).
 

---

Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
 
Well the notion that West African iron metallurgy
came from North Africa that I read there is most
certainly outdated. Nor did it come from anywhere
else.

The kilning and the product show the originality
of all inner African iron smelting/steel sintering.
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ Yes, that part of the theory is definitely refuted. The other stuff on the origins of statehood and kingship is the main focus here. That Nilo-Saharan influence is seen among the kingdoms of Buganda, but that such social institutions were in place before said Nilo-Saharan influence and that there is a very ancient common fundamentally African substratum present not only in Buganda but in many African cultures including Egyptian is the conclusion of the author.
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
...
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
So no one wants to discuss actual scholarship as opposed to refuting simpleton troll nonsense or a few trolls indulging themselves in me metaphorically speaking?
 

---

Posted by dana marniche (Member # 13149) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jari-Ankhamun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ The topic is about the 'Hamitic hypothesis' or how 'Hamites' have figured through history and NOT white Jewish racism.

Speaking of which, I recently spoke with a son of an imam and he told me that the Biblical Ham is still called Ham in Arab/Islamic belief. Actually according to the Muslim version, Nuh (Noah) had four sons: Sam (Shem), Ham, Yafith (Yapeth), and Kanan. The last son was of one of the idolators who died in the deluge. Interestingly, he does mention there being many Hadiths or variations thereof that speak of a curse against Ham and his descendants. Some of which is also racist because it mentions 'blackness' as being part of this curse. Of course no such thing is said in the Quran though.

---

That is becuase the Curse of Ham was not part of the Torah which Muhamed plagerized. The Curse of Ham was a result of Jewish/Arab racism toward the Habesha who Occupied Mecca and campaigned against "Jews".

The Curse was a curse on Cannnan to justify the dustruction of the land of Canaan by the Exiled Hebrews leaving Egypt. Had nothing to do with Ham, Mizriam, Cush or Phut.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by anguishofbeing:
Ashkenazim see Talmud as supreme. Authority of text depends on who acknowledges it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dana marniche:
And since Judaized people from Eastern Europe have little to do with early Jews or people that wrote the Talmud - why bring them up?

---

quote:

---

Sanskrit = bharami = "I carry"
Greek = phero
Armenian = berem
Gothic = baira

Sanskrit = nabhah (cloud)
Greek = nephos
Germanic = nebal

The following correspondences are as follows:
(Skr) bh = (Grk) ph = (Arm) b = (Germ) b

---

quote:

---

Skr.
hanti (he hits)
ghananti (they hit)

Hittite = kuenzi, Greek = theino (i hit), Latin = fendo

Skr.
harah (heat), gharmah (heat)

Greek = thermos, Latin = formus, Armenian = jerm

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
Takruri and Anguished, the topic you should be discussing is the 'Hamitic Hypthesis' and NOT Jewish scripture. As for the trolls, they and their nonsense will be dealt with in due time. I will not allow fools with idiotic agenda to distract ruin my thread!

In the case of consonant shifts, usually Grimm's Law is applied and although it is primarily used for Indo-European languages it can also be used for non IE languages though with some exceptions. One of those exceptions would be in Afrasian languages. Where normally k is interchangeable with g, in Afrasian k is interchangeable with ch. Also, where s is interchangeable with h in Afrasian it sh. Many linguists have pointed out that sh is more commonly used in Semitic languages than in any other branch of Afrasian and many suspect this may be due to some Eurasian influence as many adjacent non-Afrasian languages of the ancient Near-East particularly the agglutinative languages of Sumerian and Urarto-Hurrian use a lot of sh's. Interestingly, the Semitic languages that use the most sh's are also found in the northern peripheries close to these agglutinative languages. It is very likely especially through Arab folk genealogies that the Arabian 'Sam' is identical with the Biblical 'Shem'; however, what of Ham?? Does Ham figure in Arab traditions and if so how? I hope someone knowledgeable in this like Dana or Tariq Berry could tell us.

As for Kem, I don't know of any Egyptian stories tracing the Kemtwy to an ancesral eponymous Kem. I have heard of people like the Beja who do trace ancestry to a Cham or Chem but I'm not sure if this is an actual tradition or something fabricated later on.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
The passage above is a must for many in this forum, especially a few individuals (Asar Imhotep and Wally, I suggest you read the passage very carefully especially in pages 23-24 and 28).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Asar Imhotep:
I actually have this book and much of it is poor scholarship.

---

Which is probably why she posted it. It is important to note that the driving force of his argument is that Africa (specifically the Nile Valley) is not the source of SW Asian cosmology.
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ Off-topic whining let alone ad-hominem insults based on loser frustrations will not be tolerated and will be deleted.
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Asar Imhotep:

I actually have this book and much of it is poor scholarship. You may be an asset one day when you learn how to analyze information based on the principle of method, rather than authoritative perception.

---

This coming from the guy who calls Egyptian "Bantu"! LOL I would say the same about you being an asset to scholarship. By the way, the purpose of this thread is not to say that all the articles written are 100% accurate nor do I agree with everything the authors expressed. As Takruri pointed out, the author is wrong to assume that iron-working in Africa all originated in the Nile Valley is as ridiculous as say all Afrasian religions of Southwest Asia originated in the the Nile Valley.

quote:

---

For instance on pg 30 it asked, "what were the circumstances or factors....which produced the attitude of mind which regards kingship as divine?" Then the author goes to assume it had something to do with economic, military and political factors. This is far from the truth and is just anthropologists guessing at African traditions as usual.

Anyone who knows anything about African kingships is that an African king is ALWAYS a high priest. You cannot become king without initiation into the priesthood. With him being a priest, he has the knowledge of how to use the knowledge of God and power of God (ashe in Yoruba) to administer the kingdom.

The Igbo priest have a saying: "Chukwu Welu. O lu Dibia," After God, next is Dibia (the priest). Among the Yoruba they say, "Oba alashe ekeji orisha," The king, as master of ashe, becomes the second of the Gods.

This is found all over Africa when it comes to kings. As Robert Farris Thompson notes in Flash of the Spirit pg 9, notes that the king rules by mastering and participating in the divine command personifiied by them. If you don't understand a king as a priest FIRST, everything else will not make sense and we come up with silly guesses like that which you quoted.

---

quote:

---

q[b]African kings don't think of themselves as divine for "political or military" reasons. It is because they have demonstrated to the elders that they possess the necessary nzambi, simbi, ashe, ugwu, etc. to protect the country. They still have vitality test for kings in central and west Africa and bulls. It's too much to go into here.

When you engage with living systems you get your correct answers. Trying to make arguments based on anthropologic interpretations, without having an insider's voice to explain and verify is a methodological flaw which will render your answers wrong and that is precisely what happens more often than not in Egypt and Africa.

You have yet to answer the linguistic questions posed to you. So until you can reconcile this, I will need you to cease speaking on it until you have gotten up to date with modern scholarship.
[/QB]

---

quote:

---

Evergreen Writes:

The comment above demonstrates a profound ignorance about ancient NE African civilization. The ancient "Jews" were a branch of the ancient Canaanites. The ancient Canaanites in turn were subjects of the Ancient Egyptians and contained a genetic affinity with them as well.

The writing system we now use is based upon the evolution of Ancient Egyptian writing to Canaanite writing to the Latin Alphabet, etc. The Judeo-Christian religions are Eurasian psychographic modifications of the more complex, symmetrical Ancient African cosmology - Maat.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
As Takruri pointed out, the author is wrong to assume that iron-working in Africa all originated in the Nile Valley is as ridiculous as say all Afrasian religions of Southwest Asia originated in the the Nile Valley.

---

SW Asia? I thought you said they were African?

"I also know that the Arabian peninsula and Levant all the way of to the Zagros is geologically part of the African plate"
 

---

Posted by dana marniche (Member # 13149) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by anguishofbeing:

quote:

---

Originally posted by dana marniche:
And since Judaized people from Eastern Europe have little to do with early Jews or people that wrote the Talmud - why bring them up?

---

Because the claim was made that the authority of any Talmud cannot compare with the Torah. This is false. There are Jews that do see it as superior. It doesn't matter of they are largely European converts and have little to do with "original" Jews; the Indian and Ethiopians are also "converts". In fact I dare say ALL Jews are converts. We tend to forget that "Jew" is just an invention, no "blood" Jew out there. Its just an identity construct based on synthesized myths borrowed from surrounding civilizations, mainly AE.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ Dana, what have you to say about the paper on the Hamitic Hypothesis or the last one about divine kingship in Uganda?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dana marniche:
I have to disagree with your theory that "Jew" is an invention. It is no more of an invention than the term Egyptian. Where is your source for that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by anguishofbeing:

quote:

---

Originally posted by dana marniche:
I have to disagree with your theory that "Jew" is an invention. It is no more of an invention than the term Egyptian. Where is your source for that.

---

Where is your source for existence of Abraham?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by anguishofbeing:
I know it doesn't come from the word Abraham, however, the term "Jew" connotes a specific history or certain historical claims, none of which has been proven. It is an invention as a result of cultural theft, nothing more. Like you said, there is little proof for the existence of most early Prophets. Well that's what the identity is built on. No foundational proof, everything falls apart and it looses it power over minds. But that's the precarious nature of all myths/religions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dana marniche:

Actually it seemed like they are saying a lot of what already been discussed previously in older books. I would agree divine kingship was not neceassarily derived directly from ancient Egypt but they obviously could have been derived from the same neolithic culture complex that was once spread throughout the Sahara. People in east Africa "Elmenteitans" show connections to the later stone bowl cultures of the southern Sahara.

Of course, the Amratian and Naqqada culture on which ancient dynastic Egyptian and other cultures in Nubia were largely founded was partly derived from the Saharan bovidian neolithic cultures and previous Sudanic culture there. These were also linked after a time to cultures further east as in the Red Sea Hills and the Horn and also to cultures further North.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ Last time I checked 'Abraham', 'Moses' etc. were not deities by human patriarchs or ancestral figures. Then again the same can be said about many ancestral figures for many cultures even in Africa proper.

---

quote:

---

But I agree that there is a close correlation between Afrasian speakers and Nilo-Saharan speakers who cohabited in the same areas around the Sahara and Nile.

---