Black People : Question on ancient Egyptians being Black

[MoorNegusNegast]

Originally Posted by SAMURAI36

Says who? Them?

These people don't even make up 9% of the current Egyptain population. In the meantime, the SAIDI Nubians comprise of nearly all of it.

That's like White Khazarians claiming that they are the "purest descendants of Israel". So what?

Show and prove.

Copts are a product of the Macedonians, not the Nubian Kemetians.

Not to mention, the term "COPTIC" is not an ethnic term, its a religious one. Ironically, the same as the word "JEW" has no bearing on ethnicity. A Jew can be lilly white (From Europe) or jet Black (from Ethiopia).



Again, make them show and prove this.



How are you able to speak on these Nubians, but in the same breath say that Kemetians were not Black?

Why would they depict themselves as such, if they were not?

Also, you do know what "Kemet" means, yes?



What needs to take place here, is redefining of what "African" actually is. At no time were African people confined to the African Continent.

Indigenous African Black people inhabited regions as far east as India.



Again, not correct.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berber

The Berbers (also called Imazighen, "free men", singular Amazigh) are an ethnic group indigenous to Northwest Africa, speaking the Berber languages of the Afroasiatic family. In actuality, Berber is a generic name given to numerous heterogeneous ethnic groups that share similar cultural, political, and economic practices. It is not a term originated by the group itself, and indeed the word may have been derived from the Latin 'barbari', the forerunner of the English word 'barbarian'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berber#Genetic_evidence

While population genetics is a young science still full of controversy, in general the genetic evidence appears to indicate that most northwest Africans (whether they consider themselves Berber or Arab) are predominantly of Berber origin, and that populations ancestral to the Berbers have been in the area since the Upper Paleolithic era. The genetically predominant ancestors of the Berbers appear to have come from East Africa, the Middle East, or both - but the details of this remain unclear. However, significant proportions of both the Berber and Arabized Berber gene pools derive from more recent migration of various Italic, Semitic, Germanic, and sub-Saharan African peoples, all of whom have left their genetic footprints in the region.

Do you consider ITALIAN (ROMAN) and GERMAN to be indigenously African?

A Berber is a MUTT, pure and simple.




You don't THINK, or you don't KNOW?

There are indigenous tribes in North Africa that are Black as pitch--The TUAREG, for instance.

The Greco-Roman/Armenian/Eurasian/Mediterranean influx of foreign peoples has changed the cultural and ethnic landscape of Africa, in no less than 1,000years.

Even Herodutus and Diodorius have spoken that the Kemetians and other Northern Africans were Black as night.

Further, it should be known that the ancient land known as Kemet was not the little jigsaw puzzle piece that you see on the North Eastern most tip of Africa.

Kemet spanded a wide and vast province; from the tip of Northern Africa, to as far south as Modern-day Tanzania, to as far west as Chad.

And these people were not Black?

Don't let modern day topography fool you. Plenty of African scholars have laid the ground work for showing just how much of the world was mothered by Black people.



People don't think about them, in the same manner that they don't think about the Askhenazim Jews that inhabit modern-day Israel---all of whom are from Poland, Germany, Russia, and Austria.

If you don't see these Europeans as being indigenous to the Middle East, then there is no reason for you to see these Greco-Roman, Maco-Byzantinian Copts as Kemetic.

HOTEP

excellant post brotha

[African_Prince]

How are they pure if there are documented invasions of lighhter peoples/races having raped and pillaged almost all Black civilizations? Your explanation of the Copts being the purest is as absurd as saying: "AA' came here Brown and Yellow skinned, because that is what we see nowadays". The first slaves to brought here were extremely dark-skinned and some Browner. Same with the Ancient Egyptians. How do you explain tomb paintings depicting PITCH BLACK Egyptians? If the Copts aren't Black; what are they?

The modern day Egyptian Copts are clearly not Black people. Most Black Americans are dark skinned,even with mixing with Whites and Native Americans (if I'm not mistaken the average Black American is 87% African descended ) there is still a Black population in the U.S and White people never assimilated them to the point where they don't look Black anymore.Not all West Africans are 'extremely dark skinned' either, plenty are brown or yellow brownish. I have no idea about the tomb paintings or the Herodtus quotes of them being Black skinned with wooly hair, what I know is the Egyptian Copts are the descendents of the ancient Egyptians and they are not Black. They look Middle Eastern. The pitch Black Egyptians in the tombs were the Nubians in comparison to the brown skinned Egyptians.

BTW just because they don't possess the typical Negroid features doesn't remove them from Blackness. Perhaps you can provide a link, I'd like to see these non-(not)Black Ancient Egyptian descendants

The Khoi-San of the Kalahari/Tanzania, the Cu****es of Ethiopia, the Nilotes and Nubians of Sudan etc. are all Black African people and they do not share the same homogenous look, by noones standards are the modern day Egyptian Copts Black. I don't know how to post pictures, if you have google, image search 'Egyptian Copts'.

[SAMURAI36]

Why do you continue to dwell on These Copts? They are Greeks, Romans, and other Eurasian Mediterranean Christians.

Further, they do not represent even a smidgeon of the present-day Egyptian population.

While you are imploring us to do a search for pictures of these people, I would implore you to look for raw datum, regarding just how many (or rather, how FEW) there are of these people in Egypt.

They are demographically insignificant, though the Egyptian government tries to hype them up (figure the irony in that).

PEACE

[African_Prince]

Says who? Them?

These people don't even make up 9% of the current Egyptain population. In the meantime, the SAIDI Nubians comprise of nearly all of it.

That's like White Khazarians claiming that they are the "purest descendants of Israel". So what?

Show and prove.

Copts are a product of the Macedonians, not the Nubian Kemetians.

To say there are mixed is one thing, but nobody can deny that the Egyptian Copts are the descendents of the ancient Egyptians. The Egyptian Coptic church still uses the final stage of the ancient Egyptian language.

I'm not deep into Egyptian history but what evidence do you have that the Egyptian Copts are a product of Macedonians? The Macedonians were from Greece and the Egyptian Copts look like light skinned Middle Eastern people. Before Islam, was there ever a mass migration of foreigners into Egypt that outnumbered the indiginous Egyptian population and assimilated them? As for the Arabs, I don't think they mixed with them either because they've kept their Christian identity for so long and I'm not even sure there was ever a mass migration of Arabs into Egypt when there's no denying they never wiped out/assimilated (physically) the Africans of North Sudan (just look at the 'Arab' Sudanese ) or even the Berbers of the Maghreb (the Berber minority in Mauritania speak Hassaniya, a Berber dialect of Arabic, about one quarter of North Africa's population speak Berbers languages and identify as Berber ).

Not to mention, the term "COPTIC" is not an ethnic term, its a religious one. Ironically, the same as the word "JEW" has no bearing on ethnicity. A Jew can be lilly white (From Europe) or jet Black (from Ethiopia).

Copt is an English word taken from the Arabic word Gibt or Gypt which just means Egyptian. The Arabs called the Egyptians that from the Greek word Egyptos. Jew comes from the Hebrew word 'Yehudi' which referred to the southern kingdom of Judah.

Again, make them show and prove this.

What does that have to do with the discussion? What religion do you think the Egyptians were practicing before St.Mark brought Christianity in the 1st century or are you blatantly denying that the Egyptians ever converted to Christianity?

How are you able to speak on these Nubians, but in the same breath say that Kemetians were not Black?

Nubians look Black and the Egyptian Copts don't.

Why would they depict themselves as such, if they were not?

Why would they depict themselves as humans with animal heads etc. I don't know, that's some evidence but what about the evidence of the Egyptian Copts today?

Also, you do know what "Kemet" means, yes?

Black Land refers to the soil, not the people. That I'm for sure.

What needs to take place here, is redefining of what "African" actually is. At no time were African people confined to the African Continent.

What proof do you have that Black people inhabited or controlled Palestine etc. The only Blacks in India are the Siddis and Negritos, I do remember reading something about an Ethiopian dynasty in India (Siddi's ).

Again, not correct.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berber

The Berbers (also called Imazighen, "free men", singular Amazigh) are an ethnic group indigenous to Northwest Africa, speaking the Berber languages of the Afroasiatic family. In actuality, Berber is a generic name given to numerous heterogeneous ethnic groups that share similar cultural, political, and economic practices. It is not a term originated by the group itself, and indeed the word may have been derived from the Latin 'barbari', the forerunner of the English word 'barbarian'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berber#Genetic_evidence

While population genetics is a young science still full of controversy, in general the genetic evidence appears to indicate that most northwest Africans (whether they consider themselves Berber or Arab) are predominantly of Berber origin, and that populations ancestral to the Berbers have been in the area since the Upper Paleolithic era. The genetically predominant ancestors of the Berbers appear to have come from East Africa, the Middle East, or both - but the details of this remain unclear. However, significant proportions of both the Berber and Arabized Berber gene pools derive from more recent migration of various Italic, Semitic, Germanic, and sub-Saharan African peoples, all of whom have left their genetic footprints in the region.

As far as I know the Tuareg are the only Black Berbers. They may have significant African, Italic, Semetic, Germanic blood but they are predominatly of Berber origin (as your quote points out ) and the Berbers of the Maghreb look nowhere near Black. Google image search a picture of the Algerian president, he looks White.

Do you consider ITALIAN (ROMAN) and GERMAN to be indigenously African?

Of course not

A Berber is a MUTT, pure and simple.

I'm no expert on population genetics and things but phenotype doesn't represent genotype. You'll find genetic similarities between groups that don't look alike. DNA studies show that Ashkenezi Jews and Palestinians have more in common genetically with each other then with fellow Europeans and Middle Easterners. They share a common origin, when people migrate for a long time they adapt to their new environment in phenotype which is why the whole world isn't Black. Somebody told me that Berbers are descendents of Ethiopians/NE Africans (like your quote says could be the case ) and if that's so they look the way they do because of the North African climate.

You don't THINK, or you don't KNOW?

As far as I know, the Berbers are indiginous to the Maghreb and they are not Black.

There are indigenous tribes in North Africa that are Black as pitch--The TUAREG, for instance.

As far as I know, the Tuareg are the only Black Berber group. There are the Haratin (West African descended slaves of the Moors who speak the Moor dialect- Hassaniya- of Arabic and are Moors culturally ), there are Nubians in Egypt, some N.African countries have large Arab Sudanese populations I read and I'm sure there are some descendents of East Africans slaves who are Black Arabs.

The Greco-Roman/Armenian/Eurasian/Mediterranean influx of foreign peoples has changed the cultural and ethnic landscape of Africa, in no less than 1,000years.

If Egypt was once all Black, how come migration from Arabs or whoever changed the face of the Egyptians (if not wiped them out ) but the Arab Sudanese still look Black, the Berbers of the Maghreb (as your quote itself claimed ) are still overwhelmingly of Berber descent whether they identify as Berber or Arab. Many people say the Islamic expanision and Arabization of North Africa and other parts of the Middle East was more of a cultural phenomenon.

Even Herodutus and Diodorius have spoken that the Kemetians and other Northern Africans were Black as night.

http://camel2.conncoll.edu/academics...rldmaps/15.gif

Herodotus thought the world looked like this (above link), from their own pictures the ancient Egyptians weren't pitch Black but brown skinned (yellow skinned for the women )

Further, it should be known that the ancient land known as Kemet was not the little jigsaw puzzle piece that you see on the North Eastern most tip of Africa.

Kemet spanded a wide and vast province; from the tip of Northern Africa, to as far south as Modern-day Tanzania, to as far west as Chad.

I have serious difficulty believing Khemet expanded all the way into Tanzania and Chad, where is the evidence or proof of this?

Don't let modern day topography fool you. Plenty of African scholars have laid the ground work for showing just how much of the world was mothered by Black people.

The world was mothered by Black people ( and I've argued with White people on this who can't distinguish between archaic homo sapiens-homo sapien idaltu, and fully modern homo sapien sapiens or were even arrogant enough to claim they were Caucasian ). Black Africans are the world's original people and the Khoi-San people of the Kalahari and Tanzania are our closest link to the early homo sapien sapiens.

People don't think about them, in the same manner that they don't think about the Askhenazim Jews that inhabit modern-day Israel---all of whom are from Poland, Germany, Russia, and Austria

.

The Ashkenezi Jews are recent settlers from Europe. The Palestinians on the other hand are NOT of original Arab descent but pre-Islamic Palestinian people conquered by Arabs who accepted their language and identity. They share a common origin with the Ashkenezi Jews ( who 'went away' for a little way and changed phenotype ) which is why the two groups have more in common genetically with each other then with other Europeans and Middle Easterners.

If you don't see these Europeans as being indigenous to the Middle East, then there is no reason for you to see these Greco-Roman, Maco-Byzantinian Copts as Kemetic.

Nobody claims the Ashkenezi Jews aren't European (they do actually have origin in the Middle East, I would have assumed they were White people who converted ), the Egyptian Copts have ALWAYS been living in Egypt, they didn't come from elsewhere. At least I'd like proof that they did.

[African_Prince]

Why do you continue to dwell on These Copts? They are Greeks, Romans, and other Eurasian Mediterranean Christians.

The Copts are the direct descendents of the ancient Egyptians. They even use the ancient Egyptian language for liturgical purposes. I have no proof that they are descended from or significantly mixed with Greeks, Romans, Arabs or any other non-Egyptian people

Further, they do not represent even a smidgeon of the present-day Egyptian population


While you are imploring us to do a search for pictures of these people, I would implore you to look for raw datum, regarding just how many (or rather, how FEW) there are of these people in Egypt.

They are demographically insignificant, though the Egyptian government tries to hype them up (figure the irony in that).

I read somewhere that they made up as high as 15% (and Egypt is almost 80 million people ), what would that have to do with them being the descendents of the ancient Egyptians? It wouldn't matter of there was 1000 of them. I was going to post some links (to pictures ) but my computers going too slow.

http://www.artres.com/LowRes2/TR3/F/W/I/B/ART22984.jpg

This is all this idiot machine will allow me and he looks darker then most I've seen

Edit: http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/image...stsafp203b.jpg

-Egyptian Copt protest

http://watch.windsofchange.net/pics/...torm_abc10.jpg

-Egyptian Copt nun

http://www.sptimes.com/News/012401/p...pin-coptic.jpg

-Egyptian Copt priests in white

http://cremesti.com/krasiva/photogra...ges/jackie.jpg

-Egyptian Copt girl

I've only seen a couple who look like they could possibly be Black

[spicybrown]

I'm sure the following passage is exhausted, but perhaps it will give some a more clear explanation as to why Black/African identities were stolen and mocked throughout history. Focus on the BOLD.

Between six and seven thousand years ago, signs of disruption began to appear throughout the ancient civilization of the Near East. For nearly a thousand years the cultures of that region underwent a change; a period of regression. As chaos and dissatisfaction grew, problems intensified and the ancient societies of the Near East slipped deeper into despair. Then about 6,000 years ago, the inevitable happened--civilization fell apart.

What caused the breakup of civilization six thousand years ago? Some historians had speculated that a natural disaster, such as an earthquake or some similar event took place, but they were unable to find any evidence to support their claims. Besides, all of the clues pointed in the direction of an event quite different from that of an earthquake - a condition that grew over an extended period of time. The picture is on of communities in turmoil, of societies collapsing and falling apart from within; of chaos, dissatisfaction and unrest. The most accurate summation would be to say that the people just began fighting and killing one another - this is the best way to describe what was happening in the Near East 6,000 years ago.

Soon after the unsettling of civilization, another interesting change began to take place. This change occurred in the area of the Caucasus Mountains. There, in West Asia, a previously unknown group of people suddenly appeared as if from out nowhere. Collectively they are known as the Indo-Europeans, Caucasians or white people. The facts show that they first entered the area around 6,000 years ago. 2,000 years later their invasions would bring them into contact with the civilized nations to the south. Because they had no fixed homes and wandered about from place to place, historians usually describe their way of life as `nomadic`.

Since they were so backward, it is very difficult to use archaeological evidence to help pin down the original home of the Indo-European tongues.

With the arrival of the Caucasians into that cold and sparsely populated area of the world, the few older communities, which earlier had been established there in Europe were either abandoned or destroyed. The evidence clearly suggests that the original inhabitants of those settlements either fled or were killed off by the newly arriving whites. After the whites showed up, drastic changes started to occur in the region north of the Caucasus.

A time period around 3500 B.C. forms a caesura between Old Europe and Indo- European Europe. It is a time when life in the large villages and townships either stops or is markedly changed. The degenerative changes in the settlements of the Old European Civilization may be assumed to indicate the beginning of the Indo-European presence.

Following the breakup of the ancient societies and the arrival of the whiteman in Europe, the people of the Near East worked to re-establish the level of peace and security they had once known. Slowly, over time, communities were rebuilt, prosperity was restored and signs of new live started to emerge.

In Africa, along the banks of the Nile River, Egypt blossomed into the Pyramid Age. In Mesopotamia, between the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers, the Sumerians too, established a civilization reknown for its high level of culture and refinement. Even as far away as India, along the tributaries of the Indus River, the Dravidians constructed the magnificent twin cities of Mohoenjo-Daro and Harrapa. Rich in arts, sciences and the necessities of life these civilizations laid the foundation for trade and finance, architecture, geometry, mathematics and astronomy, philosophy, law and government, writing and religion.

Throughout the period of reconstruction, not much attention was paid to the nomads of the north; the threat never seemed significant. From time to time, a few nomadic bands would wander down into the center of civilization, but their activities never amounted to more than occasional raids ( hence the term "raiders" {those who raid other's territory**, Vandals-{vandalizers**)or skirmishes. In the course of time small groups of the whites were abe to establish camps along the hills and deserts outside of Mesopotamia. Although such camps survived mainly by robbing and scavenging, their overall impact upon civilization remained minimal; most of the whites were at that time still beyound range up in the hills.

But the Caucasians of the north were not to remain a distant novelty forever. 2,000 years after their arrival, the nomadic tribes began to move away from what for years had been their home. As they swarmed down, out of the hills, some of them began to travel west, toward the Aegean Sea. At the same time another large group trudged southward, in the direction of the centers of civilization. "for unknown reasons,the group went into a ferment shortly before 2000 B.C. and started spilling out all over europe and western Asia.

As they moved southward, they were joined by smaller groups - members of their own who had earlier taken up positions along the hills and caravan routes ouside of Mesopotamia. As they advanced toward the centers of civilization, they began a series of violent and devastating attacks. One by one the great cities of the ancient world began to topple. So complete was the effect of the onslaught that when it was all over, nothing was left standing.

During a period of about three hundred years, beginning soon after 1700 B.C., the civilized world was overrun by barbarian conquerors. Hill peoples living north and east of Mesopotamia, tribesmen from the desert fringes of Syria, Palestine and northern Arabia, together with wide ranging war bands originating from the northern steppe combined in varying proportions to attack all existing centers of civilized life. The range of these barbarian conquests was never again equaled...At the two extremes of civilized world, in Crete and in India, little but smoking ruins remaind.



So the facts show that after the reconstruction of civilization, the whites came out of the hills and destroyed it all. Every historian agrees that the uprooting of those civilizations were the resul of attacks from white barbarians who came rushing down, out of the hills of West Asia.



In India, Mohonjo-daro was sacked and its people were enslaved or killed. The outcome was the same for those of Mesopotamia and EGYPT too.

The above passage is reference to your ignorance(respectively) and questioning of whether or not the ancient Egyptians were Black or a mixture of it. Above is an example of the pattern which whites have exhibited throughout history in dealing with Man of color. The drawing of territorial boundaries, changing of religion, amalgamation, and/or rape resulting in buffered classes, were all an overt attempt for the invaders to lay claim to historic greatness, and to bring Black reign to a naught.



Since you're not seeking a religious explanation, I wouldn't suggest you read any further, for those who do have inquiring minds.....read on.





HISTORY AND THE TEACHINGS OF ELIJAH MUHAMMAD



The disruption of the ancient civilization of the Near East, the sudden arrivial of white people in the vicinity of the Caucasus Mountains and what took place 2,000 years later are among the teachings of Elijah Muhammad.



Elijah Muhammad says that 6,000 years ago a new race of people showed up in the region of the Near East. The new race, Muhammad says that showed up 6,000 years ago, were white people. He says that the whites first appeared 6,000 years ago on the Island of Pelan, in the Aegean Sea, where they had been "made" by the process of selective breeding called "grafting". According to Muhammad, it was black people, living on the Island if Pelan who gave birth to the whites. Under their leader Yakub (Jacob), ----> the blacks of Pelan were placed under a system of laws by which marriage was based on skin color and in which only lighter complexioned babies were allowed to survive. <-----(Same song, different beat) Over a course of many generations, the population of Pelan began to grow lighter and lighter until, after 600 years of grafting,the people became very pale and white.



When some of the whites from Pelan showed un in the Near East, their presence created a calamity. As a result were driven out, away from the people and into the hills of West Asia. There they remained for the next 2,000 years.


Following the driving away of the whites, they became isolated and cut off; without proper guidance and the things to start a civilization of their own, they slipped into a life of savagery.


Since history shows that a disruption had occurred in the Near East just prior to the sudden appearance of the white people in the hills of West Asia is it possible that the teachings of Elijah Muhammad are indeed rooted in fact? Inasmuch as no other explanation has been presented to explain these occurrences, and since the evidence is consistent with what Muhammad says took place, is it reasonable to suggest that what Muhammad teaches is in fact true?



A SEARCH FOR SIMILARITIES



The most popularly known traditional account which shares similarities with the teachings of Elijah Muhammad is the Bible`s story of Adam and Eve. According to the Old Testament, Adam was made 6,000 years ago. (This date is arrived at by adding togther the ages of all of Patriachs from Adam to Abraham as they appear in the 5th and 11th chapters of the book of Genesis.) Accordingly, the time of Adam`s "creation" corresponds with the time which Muhammad says white people first appeared on the planet. Elijah Muhammad explains that the Bible`s account of Adam and Eve is in actuality a narrative of early history of the Caucasian race. A review of the traditions of the making of Man as they exist around the world shows a surprising number of them to be in full agreement with Muhammad - they relate that Adam and Eve had white complexions. Some depict the new man-made as starting out with a darker comoplexion, then later being transformed to white.

One such account has been handed down in the traditions of the Maidu Indians. Similar tradition, from India explain that the first Caucasians were made when a group of dark-skinned people gave birth to light complexioned babies who in turn gave birth to a nation of albinos from whom other whites were born. L.Bolk wrote in Origin of Racial Characteristics in Man "White skin...started from an ancestor with a black skin, in whose offspring hair and iris color were suppressed more and more. CharlesDarwin, he too expressed the opinion that selection over the course of many generations, had to have been used in bringing about what he called "the characteristic differences between the races of man" He even went on to concluded that without some form of selective breeding, such racial differences simply "cannot be accounted for in a satisfactory manner. James Cowles Prichard, concluded that the physical differences between the races of Man could only have resulted from a method comparable to "the process of artificial selection carried on by plant and animal breeders. This too is consistent with the words of Elijah Muhammad. Dr Edwin Grant Conklin The Evolution of Man wrote: "It is evident that distinct races could not have been established and perpetuated except by the aid of isolation, chiefly geographical. Dr. Ramm who admitted: "By scientific breeding we can shuffle these genes with their characteristics and breed traits in or breed them out...The laws of heredity plus principles of separation or selection operating over a period of time will produce the various races of the world."

Another ancient traditional account that shares similarities with the teachings of Muhammad is the bibical account of Jacob`s grafted flock. Genesis 30:35 says that Jacob (english translation of the name Yakub) was able to produce unusually colored flocks of sheep and goat through the use of a skillful breeding technique. According to the bible it took Jacob six years to successfully change the color of the flock (Genesis 31:41). That Bible`s story of Jacob`s grafted flock is related to the birth of white people from Black parents is attested to by the ancient book of Jewish traditions called the Midrash Rabbah.

[Sami_RaMaati]

Originally Posted by African_Prince

Black Land refers to the soil, not the people. That I'm for sure.

This statement is pure, unadulterated nonsense that egyptologists try to confuse us with while simultaneously contradicting themselves. The combination of glyphs that make up the word "Kemet" have nothing whatsoever to do with the color of the soil. Even using the crude, one dimensional understanding of metu neter (misnomered "hieroglyphics") worked out by egyptologists themselves over the past 100+ years, the word "Kemet" couldn't possibly refer to the color of the soil. It actually refers to a polity of blacks, as in "Black Nation," "Black City," Black Town", "Black Village," "Black Community," etc. Egyptologists have known this from day one, yet they continue to perpetrate this fraud about "Kemet" referring to black soil.

Here are some links which show what the word "Kemet" looks like as it appears in the original metu neter:

http://divinebynature.tripod.com/glyphs_for_kmt

Without getting into the gorey details, that combination of glyphs lined up horizontally is transliterated as "kmt" (by convention, the second "m" is excluded from the transliteration) and means "black." Egyptological convention holds that the letter "e" is to be inserted between the consonants for pronunciation purposes, thus giving us the word "Kemet". There's no controversy there.

The following little circle-which stands for a political unit such as a city, town, village, or NATION-appearing at the end of the preceding glyphs is a special type of glyph known as a determinative. It gives the reader a sense of what the preceding glyphs mean:

http://divinebynature.tripod.com/det..._city_town.gif

Therefore, the combination of these glyphs can ONLY mean "Black Nation" or "Black Community." It cannot possibly refer to the color of the soil.

The following glyph is the determinative for "soil" or "land" or "earth" and has not been found attached to the glyphs for "Kemet":

http://divinebynature.tripod.com/det...land_earth.jpg

This highlights the importance of doing PRIMARY research--in this case studying the language of Kemet in order to be able to see how "scholars" with PhD's lie and deceive in order to serve the ends of white supremacy.

Here is a much more detailed explanation as to why "Kemet" MUST mean "Black Nation" or "Black Community" and cannot possibly refer to black soil. It also shows that the Kamau (misnomered "ancient Egyptians") referred to themselves as "black people."

http://www.tehutionline.com/newpage29.htm

[Sami_RaMaati]

And anotha thang:

If you want to know whether the Kamau were "black" you're starting on the wrong end of the time scale by looking at the modern day population of egypt. That would be like looking at todays white americans and concluding that the indigenous people of North America (misnomered "American Indians") who came into america via the Bering Strait from Northeast Asia 10,000 years ago were white. It simply makes no sense.

The better approach, in addition to looking at what they called themselves and their country, would be to look at how they portrayed themselves in their art and iconography. After all, had they been Coptic, Berber, or whatever else, they would have portrayed themselves as such, since they had light colored paint and the ability to chisel those particular features on their sculptures in those days too, right? Since we don't look at ancient Greek art and wonder whether Plato and dem were Coptic or Berber or whatever, or look at ancient Chinese art and wonder whether Confucious and dem were Coptic or Berber or whatever, then let's use the same standard and some common sense when looking at the art and iconography of the Kamau, shall we? If they look Berber or Coptic, we'll call them Berber or Coptic. If they look like Martians, we'll call them Martian. If they look Chinese, we'll call them Chinese. If they look like Eskimos, we'll call them Eskimo. If they look Afrikan, we'll call them Afrikan. In other words, without getting fancy and engaging in intellectual masturbation, we'll just take a look and call 'em as we sees 'em, fair enough?

Here's but a small sample of how the Kamau portrayed themselves:

http://www.freemaninstitute.com/RTGpix.htm

Viewing this limited collection of Kemetic art, it is clear even to the most casual observer that they portrayed themselves as NBA--Nothin' But Afrikan.

[African_Prince]

Originally Posted by spicybrown

I'm sure the following passage is exhausted, but perhaps it will give some a more clear explanation as to why Black/African identities were stolen and mocked throughout history. Focus on the BOLD.

Between six and seven thousand years ago, signs of disruption began to appear throughout the ancient civilization of the Near East. For nearly a thousand years the cultures of that region underwent a change; a period of regression. As chaos and dissatisfaction grew, problems intensified and the ancient societies of the Near East slipped deeper into despair. Then about 6,000 years ago, the inevitable happened--civilization fell apart.

What caused the breakup of civilization six thousand years ago? Some historians had speculated that a natural disaster, such as an earthquake or some similar event took place, but they were unable to find any evidence to support their claims. Besides, all of the clues pointed in the direction of an event quite different from that of an earthquake - a condition that grew over an extended period of time. The picture is on of communities in turmoil, of societies collapsing and falling apart from within; of chaos, dissatisfaction and unrest. The most accurate summation would be to say that the people just began fighting and killing one another - this is the best way to describe what was happening in the Near East 6,000 years ago.

Soon after the unsettling of civilization, another interesting change began to take place. This change occurred in the area of the Caucasus Mountains. There, in West Asia, a previously unknown group of people suddenly appeared as if from out nowhere. Collectively they are known as the Indo-Europeans, Caucasians or white people. The facts show that they first entered the area around 6,000 years ago. 2,000 years later their invasions would bring them into contact with the civilized nations to the south. Because they had no fixed homes and wandered about from place to place, historians usually describe their way of life as `nomadic`.

Since they were so backward, it is very difficult to use archaeological evidence to help pin down the original home of the Indo-European tongues.

With the arrival of the Caucasians into that cold and sparsely populated area of the world, the few older communities, which earlier had been established there in Europe were either abandoned or destroyed. The evidence clearly suggests that the original inhabitants of those settlements either fled or were killed off by the newly arriving whites. After the whites showed up, drastic changes started to occur in the region north of the Caucasus.

A time period around 3500 B.C. forms a caesura between Old Europe and Indo- European Europe. It is a time when life in the large villages and townships either stops or is markedly changed. The degenerative changes in the settlements of the Old European Civilization may be assumed to indicate the beginning of the Indo-European presence.

Following the breakup of the ancient societies and the arrival of the whiteman in Europe, the people of the Near East worked to re-establish the level of peace and security they had once known. Slowly, over time, communities were rebuilt, prosperity was restored and signs of new live started to emerge.

In Africa, along the banks of the Nile River, Egypt blossomed into the Pyramid Age. In Mesopotamia, between the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers, the Sumerians too, established a civilization reknown for its high level of culture and refinement. Even as far away as India, along the tributaries of the Indus River, the Dravidians constructed the magnificent twin cities of Mohoenjo-Daro and Harrapa. Rich in arts, sciences and the necessities of life these civilizations laid the foundation for trade and finance, architecture, geometry, mathematics and astronomy, philosophy, law and government, writing and religion.

Throughout the period of reconstruction, not much attention was paid to the nomads of the north; the threat never seemed significant. From time to time, a few nomadic bands would wander down into the center of civilization, but their activities never amounted to more than occasional raids or skirmishes. In the course of time small groups of the whites were abe to establish camps along the hills and deserts outside of Mesopotamia. Although such camps survived mainly by robbing and scavenging, their overall impact upon civilization remained minimal; most of the whites were at that time still beyound range up in the hills.

But the Caucasians of the north were not to remain a distant novelty forever. 2,000 years after their arrival, the nomadic tribes began to move away from what for years had been their home. As they swarmed down, out of the hills, some of them began to travel west, toward the Aegean Sea. At the same time another large group trudged southward, in the direction of the centers of civilization. "for unknown reasons,the group went into a ferment shortly before 2000 B.C. and started spilling out all over europe and western Asia.

As they moved southward, they were joined by smaller groups - members of their own who had earlier taken up positions along the hills and caravan routes ouside of Mesopotamia. As they advanced toward the centers of civilization, they began a series of violent and devastating attacks. One by one the great cities of the ancient world began to topple. So complete was the effect of the onslaught that when it was all over, nothing was left standing.

During a period of about three hundred years, beginning soon after 1700 B.C., the civilized world was overrun by barbarian conquerors. Hill peoples living north and east of Mesopotamia, tribesmen from the desert fringes of Syria, Palestine and northern Arabia, together with wide ranging war bands originating from the northern steppe combined in varying proportions to attack all existing centers of civilized life. The range of these barbarian conquests was never again equaled...At the two extremes of civilized world, in Crete and in India, little but smoking ruins remaind.



So the facts show that after the reconstruction of civilization, the whites came out of the hills and destroyed it all. Every historian agrees that the uprooting of those civilizations were the resul of attacks from white barbarians who came rushing down, out of the hills of West Asia.



In India, Mohonjo-daro was sacked and its people were enslaved or killed. The outcome was the same for those of Mesopotamia and EGYPT too.

The above passage is reference to your ignorance(respectively) and questioning of whether or not the ancient Egyptians were Black or a mixture of it. Above is an example of the pattern which whites have exhibited throughout history in dealing with Man of color. The drawing of territorial boundaries, changing of religion, amalgamation, and/or rape resulting in buffered classes, were all an overt attempt for the invaders to lay claim to historic greatness, and to bring Black reign to a naught.



Since you're not seeking a religious explanation, I wouldn't suggest you read any further, for those who do have inquiring minds.....read on.





HISTORY AND THE TEACHINGS OF ELIJAH MUHAMMAD



The disruption of the ancient civilization of the Near East, the sudden arrivial of white people in the vicinity of the Caucasus Mountains and what took place 2,000 years later are among the teachings of Elijah Muhammad.



Elijah Muhammad says that 6,000 years ago a new race of people showed up in the region of the Near East. The new race, Muhammad says that showed up 6,000 years ago, were white people. He says that the whites first appeared 6,000 years ago on the Island of Pelan, in the Aegean Sea, where they had been "made" by the process of selective breeding called "grafting". According to Muhammad, it was black people, living on the Island if Pelan who gave birth to the whites. Under their leader Yakub, the blacks of Pelan were placed under a system of laws by which marriage was based on skin color and in which only lighter complexioned babies were allowed to survive. Over a course of many generations, the population of Pelan began to grow lighter and lighter until, after 600 years of grafting,the people became very pale and white.



When some of the whites from Pelan showed un in the Near East, their presence created a calamity. As a result were driven out, away from the people and into the hills of West Asia. There they remained for the next 2,000 years.


Following the driving away of the whites, they became isolated and cut off; without proper guidance and the things to start a civilization of their own, they slipped into a life of savagery.


Since history shows that a disruption had occurred in the Near East just prior to the sudden appearance of the white people in the hills of West Asia is it possible that the teachings of Elijah Muhammad is indeed rooted in fact? Inasmuch as no other explanation has been presented to explain these occurrences, and since the evidence is consistent with what Muhammad says took place, is it reasonable to suggest that what Muhammad teaches is in fact true?



A SEARCH FOR SIMILARITIES



The most popularly known traditional account which shares similarities with the teachings of Elijah Muhammad is the Bible`s story of Adam and Eve. According to the Old Testament, Adam was made 6,000 years ago. (This date is arrived at by adding togther the ages of all of Patriachs from Adam to Abraham as they appear in the 5th and 11th chapters of the book of Genesis.) Accordingly, the time of Adam`s "creation" corresponds with the time which Muhammad says white people first appeared on the planet. Elijah Muhammad explains that the Bible`s account of Adam and Eve is in actuality a narrative of early history of the Caucasian race. A review of the traditions of the making of Man as they exist around the world shows a surprising number of them to be in full agreement with Muhammad - they relate that Adam and Eve had white complexions. Some depict the new man-made as starting out with a darker comoplexion, then later being transformed to white.

One such account has been handed down in the traditions of the Maidu Indians. Similar tradition, from India explain that the first Caucasians were made when a group of dark-skinned people gave birth to light complexioned babies who in turn gave birth to a nation of albinos from whom other whites were born. L.Bolk wrote in Origin of Racial Characteristics in Man "White skin...started from an ancestor with a black skin, in whose offspring hair and iris color were suppressed more and more. CharlesDarwin, he too expressed the opinion that selection over the course of many generations, had to have been used in bringing about what he called "the characteristic differences between the races of man" He even went on to concluded that without some form of selective breeding, such racial differences simply "cannot be accounted for in a satisfactory manner. James Cowles Prichard, concluded that the physical differences between the races of Man could only have resulted from a method comparable to "the process of artificial selection carried on by plant and animal breeders. This too is consistent with the words of Elijah Muhammad. Dr Edwin Grant Conklin The Evolution of Man wrote: "It is evident that distinct races could not have been established and perpetuated except by the aid of isolation, chiefly geographical. Dr. Ramm who admitted: "By scientific breeding we can shuffle these genes with their characteristics and breed traits in or breed them out...The laws of heredity plus principles of separation or selection operating over a period of time will produce the various races of the world."

Another ancient traditional account that shares similarities with the teachings of Muhammad is the bibical account of Jacob`s grafted flock. Genesis 30:35 says that Jacob (english translation of the name Yakub) was able to produce unusually colored flocks of sheep and goat through the use of a skillful breeding technique. According to the bible it took Jacob six years to successfully change the color of the flock (Genesis 31:41). That Bible`s story of Jacob`s grafted flock is related to the birth of white people from Black parents is attested to by the ancient book of Jewish traditions called the Midrash Rabbah.

Where does this information come from? Indo-European doesn't refer to White people alone, it is a language family that includes the Indo-Iranian branch, the Indo-Iranian speakers are people of color in the Middle East and South Asia. And Egypt was colonized by the U.K in 1882, nominal allegiance to the Ottomon Empire remained until 1914. They received semi-independence in 1922 and became a full independent republic in 1953. I know Whites pillaged, sacked and destroyed ancient civilizations but nothing in the article proves that Romans,Assyrians, Greeks, Hyskos, Arabs, British, Turks etc. ever mass migrated into Egypt, outnumbered the indiginous population and assmiliated or genocided them. The Egyptian Copts have retained their Christian identity inspite of Arabization for 1357 years.

This statement is pure, unadulterated nonsense that egyptologists try to confuse us with while simultaneously contradicting themselves. The combination of glyphs that make up the word "Kemet" have nothing whatsoever to do with the color of the soil. Even using the crude, one dimensional understanding of metu neter (misnomered "hieroglyphics") worked out by egyptologists themselves over the past 100+ years, the word "Kemet" couldn't possibly refer to the color of the soil. It actually refers to a polity of blacks, as in "Black Nation," "Black City," Black Town", "Black Village," "Black Community," etc. Egyptologists have known this from day one, yet they continue to perpetrate this fraud about "Kemet" referring to black soil.

Here are some links which show what the word "Kemet" looks like as it appears in the original metu neter:

http://divinebynature.tripod.com/glyphs_for_kmt

Without getting into the gorey details, that combination of glyphs lined up horizontally is transliterated as "kmt" (by convention, the second "m" is excluded from the transliteration) and means "black." Egyptological convention holds that the letter "e" is to be inserted between the consonants for pronunciation purposes, thus giving us the word "Kemet". There's no controversy there.

The following little circle-which stands for a political unit such as a city, town, village, or NATION-appearing at the end of the preceding glyphs is a special type of glyph known as a determinative. It gives the reader a sense of what the preceding glyphs mean:

http://divinebynature.tripod.com/det..._city_town.gif

Therefore, the combination of these glyphs can ONLY mean "Black Nation" or "Black Community." It cannot possibly refer to the color of the soil.

The following glyph is the determinative for "soil" or "land" or "earth" and has not been found attached to the glyphs for "Kemet":

http://divinebynature.tripod.com/det...land_earth.jpg

This highlights the importance of doing PRIMARY research--in this case studying the language of Kemet in order to be able to see how "scholars" with PhD's lie and deceive in order to serve the ends of white supremacy.

Here is a much more detailed explanation as to why "Kemet" MUST mean "Black Nation" or "Black Community" and cannot possibly refer to black soil. It also shows that the Kamau (misnomered "ancient Egyptians") referred to themselves as "black people."

http://www.tehutionline.com/newpage29.htm

Khemet definatly did not mean 'Black Nation' or 'Black people'. To the Egyptians, there were 2 people : Egyptians and non-Egyptians. In the final stage of the Egyptian language (Coptic), the name was kheme.

And anotha thang:

If you want to know whether the Kamau were "black" you're starting on the wrong end of the time scale by looking at the modern day population of egypt. That would be like looking at todays white americans and concluding that the indigenous people of North America (misnomered "American Indians") who came into america via the Bering Strait from Northeast Asia 10,000 years ago were white. It simply makes no sense.

The better approach, in addition to looking at what they called themselves and their country, would be to look at how they portrayed themselves in their art and iconography. After all, had they been Coptic, Berber, or whatever else, they would have portrayed themselves as such, since they had light colored paint and the ability to chisel those particular features on their sculptures in those days too, right? Since we don't look at ancient Greek art and wonder whether Plato and dem were Coptic or Berber or whatever, or look at ancient Chinese art and wonder whether Confucious and dem were Coptic or Berber or whatever, then let's use the same standard and some common sense when looking at the art and iconography of the Kamau, shall we? If they look Berber or Coptic, we'll call them Berber or Coptic. If they look like Martians, we'll call them Martian. If they look Chinese, we'll call them Chinese. If they look like Eskimos, we'll call them Eskimo. If they look Afrikan, we'll call them Afrikan. In other words, without getting fancy and engaging in intellectual masturbation, we'll just take a look and call 'em as we sees 'em, fair enough?

Here's but a small sample of how the Kamau portrayed themselves:

http://www.freemaninstitute.com/RTGpix.htm

Viewing this limited collection of Kemetic art, it is clear even to the most casual observer that they portrayed themselves as NBA--Nothin' But Afrikan.

I don't trust that picture. The Egyptians always portrayed themselves as brown skinned next to the white skinned Hittites and Libyans and Black skinned Nubians. The women were portrayed as yellow but I'm sure they were the same complexion in real life. They did portray themselves as brown skinned people but you have to look at all the evidence. No one has proven that the Egyptian Copts aren't their purest descendents (and I'm not looking at all Egyptians and saying this, I'm looking at the Copts in particular) If I'm not mistaken, they also wore wigs and that wasn't a realistic portrayal.

http://www.egyptvoyager.com/hishamib...yptian_art.jpg

http://www.ashmolean.museum/gri/gif-files/gri-95a.gif

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaver...sandosirus.JPG

http://www.teachnet-lab.org/IS24/llangsner/mummy.jpg

[spicybrown]

Where does this information come from? I didn't write it. The same place you retrieve your info from, the internet. Indo-European doesn't refer to White people alone, it is a language family that includes the Indo-Iranian branch, the Indo-Iranian speakers are people of color in the Middle East and South Asia. Am I English, Spanish, or French because I speak the languages? Well when we mention language families such as Spanish, Chinese, Tagalog, etc.......we all know which race those languages belong to.And Egypt was colonized by the U.K in 1882,Why do you think they were colonized? nominal allegiance to the Ottomon Empire remained until 1914. They received semi-independence in 1922 and became a full independent republic in 1953.OK? I know Whites pillaged, sacked and destroyed ancient civilizations but nothing in the article proves that Romans,Assyrians, Greeks, Hyskos, Arabs, British, Turks etc. ever mass migrated into Egypt,Most of those ethnicities you mentioned are code words/titles for white. Perhaps there is confusion because those particular names hadn't been assigned to those regions during that era, just as the title "United States of America" wasn't confirmed as Christopher Columbus landed here. You have to migrate in order to pillage, sack, or destroy any civilization, as well as rape the women, and subjugate the men outnumbered the indigenous population and assmiliated or genocided themof course a few thousand barbarians cannot subdue 200,000,000 indigneous Dravidians, that is why they come under the guise of religion/God to make the opressed submit, or else they would have no chance against the indigenous folks.. The Egyptian Copts have retained their Christian identity inspite of Arabization for 1357 years.