WERE THE EGYPTIANS BLACK?
modera...@my-dejanews.com
WERE THE ANCIENT EGYPTIANS BLACK?
Perhaps a webpage on the subject may be pertinent to a discussion
that takes place often on the subject:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Village/5607/
I'm posting this so those who may be interested can have access to its
contents.
J. M. Duarte
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Frank Martin
Look at the nearest tomb painting!
modera...@my-dejanews.com wrote in article
<7de5n4$2e4$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
modera...@my-dejanews.com
Frank, if you bother to read the paper in that link you'll see the author
tries to go deeper than that...
In article <01be7751$d923a200$a3c00fd2@frank>,
sch...@my-dejanews.com
modera...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <01be7751$d923a200$a3c00fd2@frank>,
> "Frank Martin" <gen...@netspace.net.au> wrote:
> > Surely they were just heavily suntanned and their women were jaundiced!
> > Look at the nearest tomb painting!
> >
>
>
> Frank, if you bother to read the paper in that link you'll see the author
> tries to go deeper than that...
This topic has been beat to death in soc.history.ancient & sci.archaeology.
You can go to dejanews(www.dejanews.com), and read all the debates. There are
some current threads right now in sci.archaeology I believe discussing it
still.
--Oscar Schlaf--
"Cogito ergo non Dormio"
Frank Martin
the Egyptians themselves would have been drawn black. Asiatics were
depicted with typical characteristics (beards etc).
How did the erudite Romans &Greeks describe the Egyptians?
sch...@my-dejanews.com wrote in article
<7dh2gq$k7c$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
Katherine Griffis
wrote:
>But how did the Egyptians depict Nubians? If these were drawn black then
>the Egyptians themselves would have been drawn black.
The Egyptian almost invariably depicted Nubians as different in
characteristics than themselves, shown by a darker skin-tone, different
hairstyle, and distinctive clothing.
Since the question was about art, there are distinctions in the artistic
canon's approach in symbolic use of colors. Perhaps Dr. Richard
Wilkinson's work will elaborate:
"Egyptian men were almost invariably shown with the same russet or
red-brown skin tone which was used for many of the gods, though this
situation should be probably viewed the other way around, since the gods
of the Egyptians were, of course, created in the image of humans. The
color appears from the beginning of the dynastic period and probably
signified nothing more than a tanned, outdoor complexion in contracts to
the paler skin tone of the woman. In that sense, the color is symbolic
rather than naturalistic, yet clearly based upon objective reality.
Foreign peoples of different races were given appropriate colors, but
these were very stylized characterizations. While Nubians and other
peoples to the south of Egypt (including the "Cushite" kings of the 26th
Dynasty) were depicted as black in contrast to the Egyptians' red- brown
colorations, Libyans, Bedouin, Syrians, and Hittites were all shown with
light yellow skin, and these ethnic groups must be differentiated on the
basis of specific clothing and hair styles...
**Important for the understanding of Egyptian symbolism, however, is
the fact that skin color alone does not always define ethnic or racial
type.** (Emphasis added) For example, because black was used for
underworld deities and by extension became the color of the deceased
(the color of the pitch-covered mummy was also black), its used does not
always signify a dark complexion and can frequently be symbolic. This
can be seen in several representations of Tutankhamen. Usually, this
king is shown in canonical reddish skin used of all Egyptian males,
though occasionally he is shown in a much paler shade.
In several works found in his tomb, Tutankhamen is depicted with
completely black skin. Most striking are the two life-size "guardian
statues" that stood either side of the burial chamber entrance:
inscriptions on their kilts state that the represent the dead king's
_ka_(of Ra-Horahkty), a kind of spirit double. In the same way, all
examples in the tombs are of a funerary nature and their color is
directly attributable to the symbolism of black as an indicator of the
afterlife.
In one instance, that of a double cartouche-shaped ointment container,
the two images of the king (Tutankhamen) -- one with pale pink-tone
flesh, the other with the same pink-toned arms and feet, but with a
black face -- are shown side by side in order to portray the king in
life and death. Other variations in canonical skin tone can be
found...In the British Museum's great Harris Papyrus, which records
gifts made by Ramesses III of the 20th Dynasty to temples throughout
Egypt, the king is shown in several vignettes with startling white skin,
and a _yellow_ White Crown, which can be no more realistic than the
black representations already considered (above).
In contrast to the coloration given to men, women are usually depicted
with pale yellow skin in Egyptian art. This probably indicated the
typical indoor occupations of women...Interestingly, yellow was
occasionally used for the skin color of elderly men, probably indicating
their more sedentary and indoor lifestyle. A good deal of variation
existed in the shade and tonal value of the yellow used, however, and
some representations actually use a pale orange color to depict the skin
of Egyptian women. During the Amarna Period women were sometimes shown
in the same red tones as men which may have resulted from the sharing of
gender characteristics often seen in this period, or alternatively, the
desire to avoid the similarity with yellow portraits of goddesses (not
recognized during Aten worship - K)...
These, then, are the basic principles of the color symbolism of Egyptian
art. A vital and largely unchanging aspect of Egyptian painting and
sculpture, the significance attached to various colors seems to have
remained, overall, relatively static through the many centuries of
pharaonic history, and is largely accessible to us..."
_Symbol and Magic in Egyptian Art_, Richard Wilkinson, (London, 1994),
pp. 114-125.
One of the most well-know artistic motifs of foreign peoples in Egyptian
art is of the "four races" theme. As means of a background, the
following presentation of the "four races" in the Tomb of Seti I is from
the beginning of the Fifth Hour of Night, as inscribed from the "Book
of Gates" in Seti I's tomb. The image most used as example of the "four
races" art motif is from an 1820 painting of this scene by Heinrich
Minutoli. There are other versions of the same scene, including the
Lepsius drawings to which I alluded earlier. It is an abbreviated
version of the Minutoli painting, however, that one usually sees in most
art books on Egyptian art, such as this from _Magic and Symbol in
Egyptian Art_, by Richard Willkinson (Thomas & Hudson/London, 1994):
http://www.geocities.com/Wellesley/4914/ReschEgy/foreigners/4-races-seti-i.gif
From left to right: Libyan (as denoted by very pale skin, curled lock,
feathers in hair, tattoos, and penis sheaths), representing peoples of
the west; Nubian (as denoted by "mushroom cap" hairstyle, animal skins,
and black skin), denoting peoples to the south; Syrian/Asiatic [with
yellow skin, long beard, short patterned kilt, with fringe, and
bare-chested], representing the peoples of the east and north, and the
Egyptian on the end [with a linen kilt, short cropped beard, and
russet-brown skin]. Note the differences in these renderings.
The full version of the Minutoli painting, as found in Hornung's _The
Tomb of Pharaoh Seti I/Das Grab Sethos I_, [Zurich, 1991] can be seen
at:
http://www.geocities.com/Wellesley/4914/ReschEgy/foreigners/minutoli-full.jpg
which show the additional details of 3 of the 4 different types of
Libyans represented in the tomb, who can be distinguished by their
clothing and differing tattoos.
While the actual images in the Seti I tomb were damaged or deteriorated
subsequent to the Minutoli painting, by the time of Harry Burton's
photos of the tomb in 1921 (or 100 years later), one could still see the
Nubian [center],one of Libyans [to the right of center], and the
Egyptian [far right], as well as the Syrian images [on left]. This
indicates that while Minutoli may not have the images in actual
sequence, otherwise the renderings remained true.
The Burton 1921 photos are to be seen at
http://www.geocities.com/Wellesley/4914/ReschEgy/foreigners/burton-seti-1921.jpg,
with a commentary by Erik Hornung on the scene at:
http://www.geocities.com/Wellesley/4914/ReschEgy/foreigners/hornung-seti-5hr.html
Nubian imagery in Egyptian art appears to have remained fairly constant
throughout the New Kingdom, as can be seen from
http://www.geocities.com/Wellesley/4914/ReschEgy/foreigners/nubian2.html
which covers the images of Nubians from Thutmose IV, Amenhotep III,
Tutankhamen (via his Nubian viceroy, Huy), Horemheb, Ramses II and
Ramses III, or from the 18th through 20th Dynasties.
The images have been in chronological order, some with close-ups of some
of the scene images to show the detail which distinguish the Nubian
imagery from that of the Egyptian, as a means of artistic contrast.
There is also an attached bibliography and credits given for each image,
accessible from this website.
Regards -
Katherine Griffis-Greenberg
Member, American Research Center in Egypt
International Association of Egyptologists
University of Alabama at Birmingham
Special Studies
http://www.geocities.com/Eureka/1692/index.html
Reading mail from me in a Usenet group does not
grant you the right to send me unsolicited commercial e-mail.
All senders of unsolicited commercial e-mail will be
reported to their postmasters as Usenet abusers.
Ralph Baumfalk
do You think this is important?
Will the pyramides become smaller or bigger?
There are different kinds of racism:
The white one
The black one
The "positive" one (If You say blacks are better dancers, that is a matter
of taste)
and many more.
If You care about things like this You are really far to racism.
Please think about it.
Think about Your qualities,
not about the qualities and buildings of Your race.
Ralph
-----
KISS - Keep It Smart and Simple
Erick Wolff Despujol
> do You think this is important?
> Will the pyramides become smaller or bigger?
>
>
Exactly.
The Egyptians who built the Pyramids were Africans. Their darkness was
directly proportional to how far south they were from (i.e.: Upper / Lower
Kingdom). They interacted with the ancient Phoenicians to the east
(according to legend, that's where Osiris' body ended up), not to mention
other Africans to the west (Sahara - much more vegetation at the time) and to
the south (there are accounts as to the presence of small men from the south
with magical powers in Pharaonic courts - possibly pygmees).
I am extremely disappointed with this "Were the Egyptians Black" thing
(message to dejanews moderator - please don't think I'm referring to you - I
know you didn't start this shit). It's quite disturbing, even frightening,
to see neo-fascist messages posted. But what frightens me the most is the
indifference and apathy I feel growing inside me when I realize that, despite
the promise of Internet, there's just too many uneducated people reluctant to
embrace the HUMAN race still out there.
Burntnjall
>
>> do You think this is important?
>> Will the pyramides become smaller or bigger?
>>
Of course the pyramids built by black Egyptians would be bigger. Everyone knows
that, silly! The white egyptian pyramids are noticably smaller when at rest but
allegdedly expand somewhat. As for the yellow egyptian's pyramids, well, lets
just say that size isn't really that important.
regards,
Njall.
mary...@my-dejanews.com
q415...@bonsai.fernuni-hagen.de (Ralph Baumfalk) wrote:
> Hi all You scientists,
>
> do You think this is important?
> Will the pyramides become smaller or bigger?
>
> The white one
> The black one
> The "positive" one (If You say blacks are better dancers, that is a matter
> of taste)
> and many more.
>
> If You care about things like this You are really far to racism.
> Please think about it.
>
> Think about Your qualities,
> not about the qualities and buildings of Your race.
smelting either first began in Africa or at the same time as elsewhere,
That's not being anti-white ....As for the Egyptians, they left plenty of
paintings, and both blacks and darkly tanned but mediteranian type males are
clearly shown...However, the pharohs and civic leaders are f the mediteranian
types...So advances in their civilization would be mainly from that class.
Also, since the pharohship was inherited through the daughter of the cheif
wife of the previous pharoh, who became pharoh by marrying her, which was why
the chief wife of the pharoh was his sister, keeping the title in the family,
it's doubtful that the direct lineage f the pharoh had much black blood in
it, even though he probably had several black wives.
> Ralph
>
> -----
>
> KISS - Keep It Smart and Simple
>
>
MtLoweMan
types. For one, they seem to have had little body hair. They were Hamitic; a
dark skinned Caucasoid type. I don't think many pure Hamites are left any
more. Some of their rulers, dynasties founded by southern conquerors, were
indeed Black, but this was later in Egypt's history.
Egypt had lots of Blacks though, as adventurers, slaves, and soldiers. But
they were in the minority.
The Illiad makes note of a Black soldier on Priam's side who was the best
looking man in the Trojan War. [Memnon?] This shows that Blacks were rare,
but by no means unknown around the Meditterranean.
Chris----...@aol.Com
D
and intermingled with the Egyptians? So that may be where later kings have a
bit of a "glitch" in their lineage - some non-Egyptian blood etc. Akhnaton
is seen to have Asian-like features. Is that a result of this?
D
C theworld
>
> WERE THE ANCIENT EGYPTIANS BLACK?
>
>
Certainly. And every other color. Not much has changed between Ancient Kemet
and modern day Cairo -- every ethnicity on the planet can be found there.
"Swarthy" seems the most common, but every color is well represented.
Gordon
Wojciech Beltkiewicz
: >
: >
: > WERE THE ANCIENT EGYPTIANS BLACK?
I always thought that the blacks which resided in Egypt were referred to
as Nubians.
C theworld
>I always thought that the blacks which resided in Egypt were referred to
>as Nubians.
>
>
their writing as being from "the land of Punt", or Nubia.
That is a generalization, I think. Like calling anyone wearing a Cowboy Hat
"Tex"; it doesnt actually mean they are all from Texas. It was natural to call
very dark skinned people Nubians due to the closeness of that culture to the
South, but there is nothing in the record to suggest that people of any color
were treated any differently than anyone else in Kemet. In their art, they
portrayed most egyptians, regardless of their actual skin color, in the color
red to denote alive, and a different color to mean dead. There was no stigma
attached to other races and late in their time line, negro Pharoahs were
common. Still, in the art, guess what color those guys were painted? Red.
And they were considered Egyptian, not Nubian by the people at that time.
Jeffrey Samuel
Ursus wrote in message <371d50ab...@news.pacbell.net>...
>On Fri, 26 Mar 1999 11:57:42 GMT, modera...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
>There exists, TO THIS DAY, from the reign of Ramses II a stele at the old
>border between Egypt and Nubia with the regulation that "No Negro is to be
>allowed to enter unless 1. he's an ambassador, 2. is a Certified merchant,
or
>3. castrated [Bearstead: "History of Egypt"]
Well, well, well....Ramses II happened to rule during the 19th Dynasty. From
the Middle Kingdom to the New Kingdom there was most likely an influx of a
lighter shade of Egyptian (from both invasion and migration - Hyksos). The
lighties probably thought they were better than the darkies and so perhaps
put up this Stele.
All pun asides, I believe Egypt respected Nubia as the source not only of
Egyptian beginnings but as the source of her wealth as well. It was Nubian
man power that built and defended Egypt.
However, there was probably some animosity between Egypt and Nubia. Although
Egypt occupied part of Nubia, Nubia was probably still seen as a possible
threat. Egypt sought political ties with Nubia because of internal strifes
of their own.
The Stele (if it exists) probably refers not so much to blacks but to
Nubians. Egypt began to decline during the 20th Dynasty. And by the 8th
Century, Nubia conquered Egypt. The Stele was nothing more than a banner
promoting regional rivalry. And the excerpt attributed to moderator8954
insinuates nothing more, although 8954 might think so.
Jeffrey Samuel
Katherine Griffis
<Undergro...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>Ursus wrote in message <371d50ab...@news.pacbell.net>...
>>On Fri, 26 Mar 1999 11:57:42 GMT, modera...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>>
>>There exists, TO THIS DAY, from the reign of Ramses II a stele at the old
>>border between Egypt and Nubia with the regulation that "No Negro is to be
>>allowed to enter unless 1. he's an ambassador, 2. is a Certified merchant,
>or
>>3. castrated [Bearstead: "History of Egypt"]
<snip>
>However, there was probably some animosity between Egypt and Nubia. Although
>Egypt occupied part of Nubia, Nubia was probably still seen as a possible
>threat. Egypt sought political ties with Nubia because of internal strifes
>of their own.
>
>The Stele (if it exists) probably refers not so much to blacks but to
>Nubians. Egypt began to decline during the 20th Dynasty. And by the 8th
>Century, Nubia conquered Egypt. The Stele was nothing more than a banner
>promoting regional rivalry. And the excerpt attributed to moderator8954
>insinuates nothing more, although 8954 might think so.
>
a) the Stela exists, but it is not (if it is the stela I think Ursus is
referring) 19th Dynasty (Ramses II) or 20th Dynasty (the other
Ramessids). It is Middle Kingdom, of which the Royal House itself was
partially Nubian. The Twelfth Dynasty was of part Nubian origin as the
Prophecy of Neferti records, but they came into conflict with Kerma now
called Kush, by Senwosret [Seostris] I for the first time. This king
also expanded into Lower Nubia in force, building a number of forts. His
prospectors discovered gold in the Wady Allaqi region and then the
Egyptians decided to control Lower Nubia in force. Senwosret [Seostris]
III extended operations against Kush to the southern end of Cataract
Two, with three strong forts, Semna, Kumma, and Semna South. Yet he also
encouraged the Kushites to trade with Egypt, at Iken, now known to be
Mirgissa, a Senwosret I fortress that Senwosret III transformed into a
huge trade entrepot.
b) The stela has nothing to do with racial animosity, but with economic
dominance of the waterways of Egypt itself.
c) By the 19th and 20th Dynasties, Nubia was a vassal state of Egypt,
so your theory of 'white v. black' does not hold up. By this period,
there was a "King's Son of Kush," a viceroy who oversaw the Nubian
lands, and the Nubian were well entrenched in the military and social
structure of Egyptian society.
The stela is the Boundary Stela of Seostris III, which reads:
(This is from the Seostris Stela in the Berlin Museum, No. 14753):
"Here is the frontier to the south, which is fixed in the eighth year
of the reign of Seostris III, given life-stability-health forever. In
order that it not be permitted for any Nubian to cross it, except
those ships filled with cattle, goats and asses belonging to the
Nubians, and except that the Nubian comes to trade by barter in the
land of Aken. _To these, on the contrary, ever shall favor be
allowed_. But otherwise it shall not be permitted to any vessel of
the Nubian to touch at the land of Heh* in transit evermore."
(Emphasis _ _ mine).
* Miriam Lichtheim notes the following on the identification of "Heh"
with Semna:
(Referring to this particular Stela of Year 8): "...It says that all
Nubian traffic from the south must halt at Heh; that Nubians wishing
to trade at Iken ["Aken" in the quoted text - KGG] will be permitted
to proceed by an overland route; but no river traffic north of Heh
will be allowed. In fact, this general prohibition of movement beyond
Heh, with the specific exception of overland trading travel to Iken,
proves that Heh was south of Iken. Hence the text of the stela of
Year 8 reinforces the identification of Heh with Semna, as had
previously been understood...It goes without saying that overland
trading traffic was easy to control and presented no threat." (p.
120, _Ancient Egyptian Literature, I: Old and Middle Kingdom_).
Nicolas Grimal, in his _A History of Ancient Egypt_,1994 Edition,
particularly notes these stelae boundaries as part of economic and
sovereignty boundary issues, saying:
"The long period of military inactivity in Nubia during the two
preceding reigns [of Seostris I and Seostris II - KGG] had encouraged
the Sudanese tribes to move gradually north of the Third Cataract.
Seostris III therefore took urgent steps to deal with this threat. he
began by enlarging the canal Merenre [of the 6th Dynasty- KGG] had
built to allow boats to pass through the rapids at Aswan. Then, in
the eighth, tenth and sixteenth year of his reign, he sent military
expeditions against Kush. In the nineteenth year of his reign the
Egyptians were able to travel by boat up to the Second Cataract, for
the campaigns of the eighth and sixteenth regnal years had allowed the
southern border [of Egypt - KGG] to be established at Semna [which is
called Heh in the quoted stela, above,BTW - KGG]. This frontier was
reinforced by a chain of eight mud-brick fortresses between Semna and
Buhen (at the northern end (called Lower Nubia)..." (p.168)
The economic and sovereignty rationale for such boundary clashes seem
clear, for as Malek and Baines say in their _Atlas of Ancient Egypt_
(1990/1995):
"Between the first and second cataracts lay Lower Nubia, which was
always a prime target for incorporation into Egypt. Early dynastic
rock inscriptions and reliefs in the second cataract area show
Egyptian interest in it at that date. In the 4th and 5th Dynasties
there was almost no settled population in Lower Nubia. An Egyptian
settlement at Buhen north of the second cataract implies hegemony, if
not rule. In the 6th Dynasty the Egyptians yielded to the local
inhabitants, but control was regained in the 11th Dynasty and again at
the end of the 17th....
Lower Nubia seems to have been regarded as by Egyptian by right, and
was significant for access to raw materials, principally hard stones
and gold, in the desert to either side of the Nile. At an early
period it was used as a source of wood, but it can never have been
agriculturally important, as the cultivable area is no more than a
narrow strip on either side of the river. It was also, however, the
route through which came many of the African products prized by the
Egyptians. These included spices, ivory, ebony, ostrich feathers, and
certain species of baboon; pygmies were also traded occasionally, and
figured in the stereotyped landscape of the Nile in Classical
antiquity. It is not known what the Egyptians paid in return for all
this, as virtually no archaeological evidence for trade with Egypt has
so far been found in sub-Saharan Africa..." (p. 20).
Regards --
Jeffrey Samuel
Katherine Griffis wrote in message
<371b68c2....@news.mindspring.com>...
>On Mon, 19 Apr 1999 04:10:20 -0700, "Jeffrey Samuel"
><Undergro...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>
>>Ursus wrote in message <371d50ab...@news.pacbell.net>...
>>>On Fri, 26 Mar 1999 11:57:42 GMT, modera...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>>>
>>>There exists, TO THIS DAY, from the reign of Ramses II a stele at the old
>>>border between Egypt and Nubia with the regulation that "No Negro is to
be
>>>allowed to enter unless 1. he's an ambassador, 2. is a Certified
merchant,
>>or
>>>3. castrated [Bearstead: "History of Egypt"]
>
><snip>
>>However, there was probably some animosity between Egypt and Nubia.
Although
>>Egypt occupied part of Nubia, Nubia was probably still seen as a possible
>>threat. Egypt sought political ties with Nubia because of internal strifes
>>of their own.
>>
>>The Stele (if it exists) probably refers not so much to blacks but to
>>Nubians. Egypt began to decline during the 20th Dynasty. And by the 8th
>>Century, Nubia conquered Egypt. The Stele was nothing more than a banner
>>promoting regional rivalry. And the excerpt attributed to moderator8954
>>insinuates nothing more, although 8954 might think so.
>>
>
>b) The stela has nothing to do with racial animosity, but with economic
>dominance of the waterways of Egypt itself.
>
>c) By the 19th and 20th Dynasties, Nubia was a vassal state of Egypt,
>so your theory of 'white v. black' does not hold up. By this period,
>there was a "King's Son of Kush," a viceroy who oversaw the Nubian
>lands, and the Nubian were well entrenched in the military and social
>structure of Egyptian society.
>
Katherine,
Wow! Nice response!
Though, I hope you don't think the theory of black v. white was mine,
because it wasn't. I used the term 'regional animosity' and/or 'regional
rivalry' in which I felt the economic explanation was implicit. And I went
on to say, in so many words, it was probably not a black/white thing as much
as a Nubian (regional/economic) thing.
And you used references. Great!
Yours was a good response and a good slam, but let me deflect it towards
moderator8954.
Jeffrey
By the by, does your threat to spammers in your sig. really work. Do you
never get spam, ever.
LW
Jeffrey Samuel wrote in message <3mCS2.857$S4....@news.goodnet.com>...
>
>Ursus wrote in message <371d50ab...@news.pacbell.net>...
>>On Fri, 26 Mar 1999 11:57:42 GMT, modera...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>>
>>There exists, TO THIS DAY, from the reign of Ramses II a stele at the old
>>border between Egypt and Nubia with the regulation that "No Negro is to be
Samuel
>
Hello Jeffrey,
Thanks for your article. But I always laugh at the notions that the
Egyptians were or were-not "black." The reason why is because anyone who
has seen Egyptian art and sculpture can readily see that several of the
Egyptian pharoahs were "black" or dark-skinned Nubians. Even the great king
himself, OSIRIS was negroid.
I think the most important point, though, which is avoided, is that
regardless of the varying shades of the Egyptians, like modern blacks today
in America especially and elsewhere, there is a large range of skin colors.
And furthermore, the Egyptians were descendants of HAM, and even more
specifically CUSH. So at the very least, being Cushite, they are close
relatives to Nubians and other Ethiopians.
Obviously, the issue as to whether the Egyptians were "black" or not has to
do with some ethnocentricity of modern blacks who want a claim to fame in
the ancient world, and Egypt is certainly the glory of the ancient world.
But blacks don't need to worry about this issue since the Egyptians were
related to them and they certainly were not European. Unfortunately, the
European culture tends to claim anything of greatness as being "white" and
tries fracitionate what is glorious apart from "ethiopians." Of note, in
general, Egyptians today are considered to be "white" and are seldom
referred to as "Africans" even though Egypt is definitely a apart of Africa.
So I think the preoccupation with whether or not Egypt was "black" or not
has to do with European backlash at the greatness of the art and
architexture and science of the Egyptians which continue to fascinate us,
and that backlash goes in the face of the fact that these people were
Cushite and non-Aryans who aspired to greatness. And ultimately, in the
most general sense, if all Cushites are considered to "black", the Egyptians
certainly attest to the greatness of blacks in the ancient past.
Interestingly enough, they certainly had the reputation of "sterotypical
blacks" during the 1st century among Jews, or at least as reflected by
Josephus who said that Egyptians were "lazy" and dark. Soooo, the "black"
people of the world have always been isolated from "aspiring" socities and
there is a lot of history in that.
But the "black identity" issue has a lot more to do with Eurocentrism than
Afrocentrism. This is clearly observed during slavery times in America when
the half-white children born to slave owners were not considered as being
white or free but black. And later even those with one drop of black blood
were designated as being "black" or "negro" even most of his ancestors were
European. Therefore, in the mind of European culture, they didn't have to
deal with the humanity of blacks on any sense of equality with themselves,
but at the same time, clearly denied blacks their human heritage from their
European families. The isolation of the greatness of Egypt from being
associated with being "black:" is just part of the process of isolating
anything of greatness or value with "black". Modern blacks have
internalized this denial in some sense with respect to the Egyptians.
So the solution for them is simply to recognize and emphasize that this
great culture admired more than any other perhaps of the ancient world was a
culture which did not originate with but actually inspired the Greek culture
and that the Egyptians are ultimately non-Aryans and share the same ancestry
in their Hamitic father as does the Ethiopians and Nubians.
Best regards,
Paul Everson
Katherine Griffis
>
>Jeffrey Samuel wrote in message <3mCS2.857$S4....@news.goodnet.com>...
>>
>>Ursus wrote in message <371d50ab...@news.pacbell.net>...
>>>On Fri, 26 Mar 1999 11:57:42 GMT, modera...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>>>
>>>There exists, TO THIS DAY, from the reign of Ramses II a stele at the old
>>>border between Egypt and Nubia with the regulation that "No Negro is to be
>>>allowed to enter unless 1. he's an ambassador, 2. is a Certified >Jeffrey
>Samuel
>>
>Hello Jeffrey,
>
>Thanks for your article. But I always laugh at the notions that the
>Egyptians were or were-not "black." The reason why is because anyone who
>has seen Egyptian art and sculpture can readily see that several of the
>Egyptian pharoahs were "black" or dark-skinned Nubians. Even the great king
>himself, OSIRIS was negroid.
It is not likely that the Nubians and the Egyptians were
interchangeable. The cultures of Nubia and Egypt were very different,
with the social and religious structures developed independently of one
another, until the late New Kingdom.* The art of the Egyptian shows
distinctive differences in the rendering of the Egyptians (males as
russet brown and females as yellow), while Nubians of both sexes are
rendered either black or dark brown.
Osiris, the god of the underworld, is generally shown with a green
countenance, and only occasionally with a black features. However, in
no way would this rendering being considered "negroid", as the color
black [_km_] refers to the fertility of the black earth which
constituted the land of Egypt for the Egyptians. Hence the word for
Egypt was _kmt_, or the "black land", as opposed top _dSrt_, or the "red
land", which referred to the desert areas. Considering that Osiris is a
god of rebirth, the colors green and black associate the god with
rebirth and fertility.**
<snip>
>Obviously, the issue as to whether the Egyptians were "black" or not has to
>do with some ethnocentricity of modern blacks who want a claim to fame in
>the ancient world, and Egypt is certainly the glory of the ancient world.
>But blacks don't need to worry about this issue since the Egyptians were
>related to them and they certainly were not European. Unfortunately, the
>European culture tends to claim anything of greatness as being "white" and
>tries fracitionate what is glorious apart from "ethiopians." Of note, in
>general, Egyptians today are considered to be "white" and are seldom
>referred to as "Africans" even though Egypt is definitely a apart of Africa.
This above statement is only true if one uses the US defined terms of
"White" and "Black." AFAIK, the Egyptians themselves do not consider
themselves either, and I know of few, if any serious modern scholars in
ancient Egyptian studies that would think of referring to the ancient
Egyptians as either "European" or as "white."
Reinserted to here:
>And furthermore, the Egyptians were descendants of HAM, and even more
>specifically CUSH. So at the very least, being Cushite, they are close
>relatives to Nubians and other Ethiopians.
<...>
>So I think the preoccupation with whether or not Egypt was "black" or not
>has to do with European backlash at the greatness of the art and
>architexture and science of the Egyptians which continue to fascinate us,
>and that backlash goes in the face of the fact that these people were
>Cushite and non-Aryans who aspired to greatness. And ultimately, in the
>most general sense, if all Cushites are considered to "black", the Egyptians
>certainly attest to the greatness of blacks in the ancient past.
Genesis 10:8 states that Ham had several sons: Cush, Misraim, Put and
Canaan [American Catholic Bible. In the Revised Standard Version, they
are stated as "...The sons of Ham: Cush, Egypt, Put, and Canaan."] The
Egyptians, to this day, refer to their land as Misr and in Egyptian
colloquial Arabic, to themselves as "Masree." They have always, AFAIK,
been distinguished from the people of Cush {Ethiopia}, which is
different from the area of Upper Nubia known as Kush.
The Misraim descendants also show no relation directly to Cush, for Gen.
10:13-14 states:
13 Egypt became the father of Ludim, An'amim, Leha'bim, Naph-tu'him,
14 Pathru'sim, Caslu'him (whence came the Philistines), and Caph'torim.
while the descendants of Cush are described as follows {Gen. 10:7-12 }:
7 The sons of Cush: Seba, Hav'ilah, Sabtah, Ra'amah, and Sab'teca. The
sons of Ra'amah: Sheba and Dedan.
8 Cush became the father of Nimrod; he was the first on earth to be a
mighty man.
9 He was a mighty hunter before the LORD; therefore it is said, "Like
Nimrod a mighty hunter before the LORD."
10 The beginning of his kingdom was Ba'bel, Erech, and Accad, all of
them in the land of Shinar.
11 From that land he went into Assyria, and built Nin'eveh,
Reho'both-Ir, Calah, and
12 Resen between Nin'eveh and Calah; that is the great city.
[RSV]
* See _Nubia: Egypt's Rival in Africa_, David O'Connor, Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania/University Museum, 1993.
** For more information on the use of color in Egyptian art, see:
_Symbol and Magic in Egyptian Art_, Richard Wilkinson, London: Thames
and Hudson, 1994, pp. 106-125.
John Yohalem
ench...@herodotus.com
Wish to take issue with some of LW's points.
LW wrote
>Thanks for your article. But I always laugh at the notions that the
>Egyptians were or were-not "black." The reason why is because anyone who
>has seen Egyptian art and sculpture can readily see that several of the
>Egyptian pharoahs were "black" or dark-skinned Nubians. Even the great
king
>himself, OSIRIS was negroid.
Do we have portraits of him taken during his lifetime? I think not....
That Egypt which, after the appearance of the Sahara (which is to say, well
before the rise of what we call Egyptian civlization) was one of the few
easy routes between sub-Saharan Africa and the Mediterranean, became a site
of much racial mixing was, of course, inevitable. I don't think any
"Eurocentrists" deny it. What one might deny is the claim of Afrocentrists
(of any hue) that the population were exclusively "black" (whatever that
means) or that they invaded and conquered Greece, producing its entire
culture, as the author of "Black Athena" maintains.
>I think the most important point, though, which is avoided, is that
>regardless of the varying shades of the Egyptians, like modern blacks today
>in America especially and elsewhere, there is a large range of skin colors.
>And furthermore, the Egyptians were descendants of HAM, and even more
>specifically CUSH. So at the very least, being Cushite, they are close
>relatives to Nubians and other Ethiopians.
I have great problems with people who discuss the racial component of anyone
in the real world based on the genealogies in Genesis. Those are myths,
based on the legends culled by a small tribe in a small sheltered area of
the world; their knowledge of real ethnography was almost nill, and their
motivations were far more to fit things into a neat grid of their own
devising than to ascertain truth.
>Obviously, the issue as to whether the Egyptians were "black" or not has to
>do with some ethnocentricity of modern blacks who want a claim to fame in
>the ancient world, and Egypt is certainly the glory of the ancient world.
>But blacks don't need to worry about this issue since the Egyptians were
>related to them and they certainly were not European. Unfortunately, the
>European culture tends to claim anything of greatness as being "white" and
>tries fracitionate what is glorious apart from "ethiopians." Of note,
in
>general, Egyptians today are considered to be "white" and are seldom
>referred to as "Africans" even though Egypt is definitely a apart of
Africa.
True up to a point. I don't think the admirers of European culture today
deny greatness to non-white cultures. It strikes me as a very dated remark.
While there were always links of a sort, there was a distinct racial,
linguistic and a vast cultural difference between the cultures north of the
Sahara and south of it, from the most ancient times in human history. This
is still true. The cultures of the Mediterranean had more in common with the
cultures on the northern shore than with those of central Africa. And this
is still, to an extent, true.
>So I think the preoccupation with whether or not Egypt was "black" or not
>has to do with European backlash at the greatness of the art and
>architexture and science of the Egyptians which continue to fascinate us,
>and that backlash goes in the face of the fact that these people were
>Cushite and non-Aryans who aspired to greatness. And ultimately, in the
>most general sense, if all Cushites are considered to "black", the
Egyptians
>certainly attest to the greatness of blacks in the ancient past.
I think it has more to do with Afro-American backlash to the European focus
on Greco-Roman culture. Which is understandable, perhaps, but the society we
live in in western countries (the Americas and Europe) DOES owe vastly more,
in its origins and underlying organizational principles, to Greece, Rome and
Israel than it owes to any other ancient cultures. This is not to challenge
the greatness (or the greater age) of such cultures as Egypt, Mesopotamia,
India, China or Meso-America; just to point out that these other cultures
were not the basis of the education of the folks who set up our cultures in
the West. Greece and Rome and the Bible were.
>So the solution for them is simply to recognize and emphasize that this
>great culture admired more than any other perhaps of the ancient world was
a
>culture which did not originate with but actually inspired the Greek
culture
>and that the Egyptians are ultimately non-Aryans and share the same
ancestry
>in their Hamitic father as does the Ethiopians and Nubians.
I don't know of any classicist, be he ever so Hellenophile, who would not
agree that Egyptian culture was vastly older than the Greek, and that Greece
admired it and borrowed a great deal from it, especially in terms of the
arts and theology (and, probably, geometry). They also borrowed theology,
astronomy and other things from Mesopotamia via Phoenicia. But a great deal
of the Greek achievement, the philosopy, the theatre, and much of the
artistic development, was locally devised, and worthy of the acclaim it has
traditionally received.
Jean Coeur de Lapin
brad caffee
various Egyptian figures. In many ways Egypt was aplace of natural
convergance for Nubians and "asiatics" (who were caucasian semites')
Egypt was probably what we would call a multi-racial society. They were
racists of coarse just as most ancient people were , but like others
thier racism was ethnic in nature and did not particularly revolve
around skin color. Skin clormight indicate different ethnicity but
people of similarly colored skin might also be of different ethnic
origins - and so may recieve equal disdain. I would argue that to this
day, throughout the world, ethnic racism is the most dominant form of
racism just as it was for most ancient people. Americas racism based on
skin color alone, is rthe odd ball.
Raymond Spada
elite was black.So i have no doubt that SOME ancient egyptians were
black.
rspada@web tv.net
Nubkhas
>>a) the Stela exists, but it is not (if it is the stela I think Ursus is
referring) 19th Dynasty (Ramses II) or 20th Dynasty (the other
Ramessids). It is Middle Kingdom, of which the Royal House itself was
partially Nubian. The Twelfth Dynasty was of part Nubian origin as the
Prophecy of Neferti records,>>
It does??? At what point?
>> but they came into conflict with Kerma now
called Kush, by Senwosret [Seostris] I for the first time. This king also
expanded into Lower Nubia in force, building a number of forts. His
prospectors discovered gold in the Wady Allaqi region and then the Egyptians
decided to control Lower Nubia in force. Senwosret [Seostris]III extended
operations against Kush to the southern end of Cataract
Two, with three strong forts, Semna, Kumma, and Semna South. Yet he also
encouraged the Kushites to trade with Egypt, at Iken, now known to be
Mirgissa, a Senwosret I fortress that Senwosret III transformed into a
huge trade entrepot. >>
They look this: " " Use them!
theil...@webtv.net
>
> Genesis 10:8 states that Ham had several sons: Cush, Misraim, Put and
> Canaan [American Catholic Bible. In the Revised Standard Version, they
> are stated as "...The sons of Ham: Cush, Egypt, Put, and Canaan."] The
> Egyptians, to this day, refer to their land as Misr and in Egyptian
> colloquial Arabic, to themselves as "Masree." They have always, AFAIK,
> been distinguished from the people of Cush {Ethiopia}, which is
> different from the area of Upper Nubia known as Kush.
>
> The Misraim descendants also show no relation directly to Cush, for Gen.
> 10:13-14 states:
>
> 13 Egypt became the father of Ludim, An'amim, Leha'bim, Naph-tu'him,
> 14 Pathru'sim, Caslu'him (whence came the Philistines), and Caph'torim.
>
> while the descendants of Cush are described as follows {Gen. 10:7-12 }:
>
> 7 The sons of Cush: Seba, Hav'ilah, Sabtah, Ra'amah, and Sab'teca. The
> sons of Ra'amah: Sheba and Dedan.
> 8 Cush became the father of Nimrod; he was the first on earth to be a
> mighty man.
> 9 He was a mighty hunter before the LORD; therefore it is said, "Like
> Nimrod a mighty hunter before the LORD."
> 10 The beginning of his kingdom was Ba'bel, Erech, and Accad, all of
> them in the land of Shinar.
>
Is there any concrete evidnce that this man,who is best known as the king
of Babylon,was actually "black", or African???...
The reason I ask this is that the lands described as kingdom are
predominately semitic lands. I'm finding it awfully hard to believe that a
"black" king could rule over a predominately "caucasian" land,such as Iraq???
Something does'nt jibe...
Is there any real record of his reign???...
>
> 11 From that land he went into Assyria, and built Nin'eveh,
> Reho'both-Ir, Calah, and
> 12 Resen between Nin'eveh and Calah; that is the great city.
>
> [RSV]
>
> * See _Nubia: Egypt's Rival in Africa_, David O'Connor, Philadelphia:
> University of Pennsylvania/University Museum, 1993.
>
> ** For more information on the use of color in Epgyptian art, see:
> _Symbol and Magic in Egyptian Art_, Richard Wilkinson, London: Thames
> and Hudson, 1994, pp. 106-125.
>
> Katherine Griffis-Greenberg
>
> Member, American Research Center in Egypt
> International Association of Egyptologists
>
> University of Alabama at Birmingham
> Special Studies
>
> http://www.geocities.com/Eureka/1692/index.html
>
> Reading mail from me in a Usenet group does not
> grant you the right to send me unsolicited commercial e-mail.
> All senders of unsolicited commercial e-mail will be
> reported to their postmasters as Usenet abusers.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Katherine Griffis
>> Genesis 10:8
>> 8 Cush became the father of Nimrod; he was the first on earth to be a
>> mighty man.
>> 9 He was a mighty hunter before the LORD; therefore it is said, "Like
>> Nimrod a mighty hunter before the LORD."
>> 10 The beginning of his kingdom was Ba'bel, Erech, and Accad, all of
>> them in the land of Shinar.
> Is there any concrete evidnce that this man,who is best known as the king
>of Babylon,was actually "black", or African???...
No.
> The reason I ask this is that the lands described as kingdom are
>predominately semitic lands. I'm finding it awfully hard to believe that a
>"black" king could rule over a predominately "caucasian" land,such as Iraq???
>
> Something does'nt jibe...
>
> Is there any real record of his reign???...
No, you have a very good point here. Part of the problem is due to the
understanding of where and what "Cush" is at this point in time, which
is estimated to be about 1200 BCE. There are several "Cush" referred to
in Gen. 10, and throughout the Bible: not all are related terms. This is
due to the several sources and redactions of the Old Testament, with at
least 3 different "authors," and in the case of Gen. 10, two authors
separated by about 4 centuries. "Cush" as a descendant of Ham in 10:6
refers to Ethiopia/Upper Nubia. The New American Catholic Bible points
out that in Gen 10:8 "Cush," in this context, refers not to the "Cush"
of Ethiopia/Upper Nubia but is referring to"...the land of the
Kassites, east of Mesopotamia."
The New American Bible source identifies Nimrod as "probably
Tukulti-Ninurta I of the 13th century BCE, the first Assyrian conqueror
of Babylonia and a famous city builder at home."
Further, the NACB points out that Gen 10 is a composite chapter as
follows:
Yahwist source [from the 9th century BCE]: Verses 8-19, 21, 24-30
Priestly source [post 538 BCE]: Verses 1-7,20, 22 f., 31 f.
This is why you see the conflicting lineage of Sheba and Havilah listed
as descendants of Ham in v. 7 and as descendants of Shem in v 28.
Regards --
Katherine Griffis-Greenberg
Chang
>(of any hue) that the population were exclusively "black" (whatever that
>means) or that they invaded and conquered Greece, producing its entire
>culture, as the author of "Black Athena" maintains.
>
I think that this is a significant misrepresentation of what Bernal wrote.
I've read it; quite some time ago now but I don't remember him claiming
anything more than significant semitic influence on Greek culture, both from
Egypt and the Levant.
I also remember reading an account by him on misrepresentations of what he
did write. This may have been in the intro to Vol 2 of Black Athena.
Rudy A Carrera
people who overlorded the area?
Rudy
Raymond Spada wrote in message
<17202-37...@newsd-234.iap.bryant.webtv.net>...
Jeffrey Samuel
Chang wrote in message
<925928669.25204.0...@news.demon.co.uk>...> (snipped)
>>(of any hue) that the population were exclusively "black" (whatever that
>>means) or that they invaded and conquered Greece, producing its entire
>>culture, as the author of "Black Athena" maintains.
>>
>
>I think that this is a significant misrepresentation of what Bernal wrote.
>I've read it; quite some time ago now but I don't remember him claiming
>anything more than significant semitic influence on Greek culture, both
from
>Egypt and the Levant.
>
I agree with you about the misrepresentation of Bernal. This is done by
biased people who don't read him and are just going by a criticism written
by some Aryan based centrist stuck in his or her Aryan based Model. The term
"Aryan Model" is used by Bernal in his book to discuss the Anti-Semitic,
Anti-Egyptian and Anti-black belief that there was no Semitic, Egyptian or
Black influence on Greece.
From Bernal's book in volume I of BLACK ATHENA:
"...I believe that Egyptian civilization was fundamentally African and that
the African element was stronger in the Old and Middle Kingdoms, before the
Hyksos invasion, than it later became. Furthermore, I am convinced that many
of the most powerful Egyptian dynasties which were based in Upper Egypt -
the 1st, 11th, 12th and 18th - were made up of Pharaohs whom one can
usefully cal black."
Also in his introduction:
"Egyptian civilization is clearly based on the rich Pre-dynastic cultures of
Upper Egypt and Nubia, whose African origin is uncontested."
However, when Bernal talks about the influence on Greek civilization by
other than Greeks he mentions Egyptian influence on Greece distinctly from
Semitic influence on Greece. In his chart and map on the Diffusion on
Afroasiatic he has Egyptian and Semitic separately denoted. Egyptian on the
African continent and Semitic on the Arabian continent. He also mentions
one of the models "as Levantine, on the periphery of the Egyptian and
Semitic cultural area." This is not to say there were no ties between the
two.
The Levant or Levantine is eastern Mediterranean which includes Egypt I
believe. The Encarta Encyclopedia on the net says that the Levant
historically refers to all the land extending from Greece to Egypt.
Bernal does refer to blacks at times throughout his books, but he is more
focused on culture and ethnicity rather than racial distinctions. He is more
concerned with an Egyptian, African or Semitic connection or influence
rather than a racial one. It is the racial phobia that gets the gander of
the Euro's and Anglophiles.
It seems that the person you were responding to is suffering from a phobia
or fear of being related to or descendant of a black African. Of course that
phobia can't change the obvious. Ha, ha.
Jeffrey Samuel
Schlau
"Jeffrey Samuel" <Undergro...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>
> Chang wrote in message
> <925928669.25204.0...@news.demon.co.uk>...
> >>(of any hue) that the population were exclusively "black" (whatever
that
> >>means) or that they invaded and conquered Greece, producing its
entire
> >>culture, as the author of "Black Athena" maintains.
> >>
> >
> >I think that this is a significant misrepresentation of what Bernal
> >wrote.
> >I've read it; quite some time ago now but I don't remember him
> >claiming anything more than significant semitic influence on Greek
> >culture, both from Egypt and the Levant.
> >
>
> I agree with you about the misrepresentation of Bernal. This is done
> by biased people who don't read him and are just going by a criticism
> written by some Aryan based centrist stuck in his or her Aryan based
> Model.
Bernal clearly states that Athens & Greek culture as a whole was
founded by Black Egyptians who invaded in the 16th cen. bc. Which is
going alot farther then the normal influences upon Greece by Egypt,
which virtually every scholar today acknowledges. If that were all
Bernal were stating, his books wouldn't be so hotly debated.
> The term
> "Aryan Model" is used by Bernal in his book to discuss the
> Anti-Semitic, Anti-Egyptian and Anti-black belief that there was no
> Semitic, Egyptian or Black influence on Greece.
The Influence of Ancient Egypt & the mostly Semetic Near East isn't
something that isn't denied by any modern scholar. What is questioned
is Bernal's assertion of direct Egyptian invasions of Greece and the
degree to which Ancient Egypt influenced Greece.
(snip)
> Bernal does refer to blacks at times throughout his books, but he is
> more focused on culture and ethnicity rather than racial distinctions.
> He is more concerned with an Egyptian, African or Semitic connection
> or influence rather than a racial one.
> It is the racial phobia that
> gets the gander of the Euro's and Anglophiles.
When Molefi Kete Asante, Bernal, and other Afrocentrics call thier
critics racists, white supremacists & Aryan Nazi-esque types in additon
to the Eurocentric title, who exactly has the racial phobias here?
Thier critics aren't backwoods hicks with sheets, but professional
scholars including many non-whites. Even thier strongest critic, Mary
Lefkowitz, is jewish, not an "Aryan".
--Oscar Schlaf--
--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.---
Michael Lightfoot
>"Jeffrey Samuel" <Undergro...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>>It seems that the person you were responding to is suffering from a phobia
>>or fear of being related to or descendant of a black African. Of course that
>>phobia can't change the obvious. Ha, ha.
>
>>Jeffrey Samuel
>
>
>How about a middle eastern influence on Greece. The idea is just as
>plausable as the Egyptian. The Sumerians were just as advanced as the
>Egyptians and just as close. You should look more closely at the
>historical migration in the eastern med before you buy this myth.
>
And that's exactly where most of the external cultural influences did
come from:
1. Writing from Phoenecia and thereabouts
2. Various gods/goddesses from Anatolia, Phoenecia and Assyria
3. Language from various influences, but basically Indo-European (ie
from the East and Northeast of Greece) with only a small influence from
elsewhere.
3. Coinage and monetary system from Anatolia.
etc, etc.
As for whether ancient Greeks had any particular skin colouring, who
cares? It isn't relevant to how or why their civilisation developed.
All this waffle about whether civilisations were "black" or "white" is
basically left over from 18th, 19th and early 20th century European
imperialism and the rather extreme reaction to it from certain (mainly
US-based) pseudo-academics.
I haven't read Bernal or his ilk and am unlikely to waste my time doing
it.
Jeffrey Samuel
Schlau wrote in message <7i7vk3$js3$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>In article <kmJ13.1103$T4.2...@news.goodnet.com>,
> "Jeffrey Samuel" <Undergro...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>>
>
>> It is the racial phobia that
>> gets the gander of the Euro's and Anglophiles.
>
> When Molefi Kete Asante, Bernal, and other Afrocentrics call thier
>critics racists, white supremacists & Aryan Nazi-esque types in additon
>to the Eurocentric title, who exactly has the racial phobias here?
>Thier critics aren't backwoods hicks with sheets, but professional
>scholars including many non-whites. Even thier strongest critic, Mary
>Lefkowitz, is jewish, not an "Aryan".
>
>
He states at the end of the intro to volume two that "The political purpose
of BLACK ATHENA is, of course, to lessen European cultural arrogance." Just
because either one of them are Jewish has nothing to do with their argument.
Those former mentioned by you are also professional as well. Yet the likes
of you and others throw insults and demeaning comments about them. So you
are damned skippy straight to expect those insulting favors returned in
kind.
Jeffrey Samuel
If you don't stir the soup, it will burn.
Schlau
"Jeffrey Samuel" <Undergro...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>
> Schlau wrote in message <7i7vk3$js3$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> >In article <kmJ13.1103$T4.2...@news.goodnet.com>,
> > "Jeffrey Samuel" <Undergro...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
> >>
> >
> >> It is the racial phobia that
> >> gets the gander of the Euro's and Anglophiles.
> >
> > When Molefi Kete Asante, Bernal, and other Afrocentrics call thier
> >critics racists, white supremacists & Aryan Nazi-esque types in
> >additon to the Eurocentric title, who exactly has the racial phobias
> >here? Thier critics aren't backwoods hicks with sheets, but
> >professional scholars including many non-whites. Even thier strongest
> >critic, Mary Lefkowitz, is jewish, not an "Aryan".
> >
> >
> Let me add to that. Martin Bernal is Jewish also. And he is not
> Afrocentric.
> He states at the end of the intro to volume two that "The political
> purpose of BLACK ATHENA is, of course, to lessen European cultural
> arrogance."
The teaching of history isn't suppose to have political purposes.
> Just because either one of them are Jewish has nothing to do with
> their argument.
It shouldn't but some Afrocentrics like to talk of of Jewish
conspiracies & of White ones too. Terms like "Aryan-thinking" don't
help either. And all the Africans and African-Americans that agree with
the jewish & white "conspirators" have been brainwashed by them. The
race card is being played rather heavily by the Afrocentric scholars and
it seems partially motivated by phobia.
> Yet the likes of you and others throw insults and demeaning comments
>about them.
I don't call them racists, nor state they are out to destroy the
"white race", nor do I claim they are part of some vast conspiracy. All
claims leveled by Afrocentric scholars against thier detractors. When
Asante says Lefkowitz is part of a jewish conspiracy to keep the
Black man down, how exactly is one suppose to view him as a
serious scholar? Instead of making those claims, why doesn't directly
adress the questions raised by those critical of his work?
> So you
> are damned skippy straight to expect those insulting favors returned
> in kind.
When Asante, Bernal, Ben Joachan(sp?), Jones, and other Afrocentric
"scholars" stop talking about conspiracy theories & "Aryan" thinking and
start directly adressing the objections raised to thier viewpoints, then
people will begin to take them more seriously.
Jeffrey Samuel
Schlau wrote in message <7icflc$jbi$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> I don't call them racists, nor state they are out to destroy the
>"white race", nor do I claim they are part of some vast conspiracy. All
>claims leveled by Afrocentric scholars against thier detractors. When
>Asante says Lefkowitz is part of a jewish conspiracy to keep the
>Black man down, how exactly is one suppose to view him as a
>serious scholar? Instead of making those claims, why doesn't directly
>adress the questions raised by those critical of his work?
>
I have read some of Molefi Kete Asante, but I don't remember his tone as
being acusatory of Lefkowitz being in some kind of Jewish conspiracy. That
sounds more like Farahkan or Leonard Jefferies. Could you fill me in on the
source of Asante's accusation.
Being familiar with Farahkan and Leonard Jefferies I wouldn't feel a need
for confirmation if you suggested it came from them.
I believe the mudslinging started on the Eurocentric side, which is what
Bernal's first volume was primarily about. Vol 1 - The Fabrication of
Ancient Greece 1785-1985. It goes on to say that the Ancient Greeks knew
about and accepted the connections to and influences of the Levant and Egypt
in particular. The Nationalism that developed throughout the Greek State
suppressed this knowledge because it put Egyptian religion, philosophy, math
and science in an anterior position to that of the Greeks.
In some of the philosophy books I've read for college courses in the past,
it abnoxiously states that philosophy began with the ancient Greeks. At
most, something miniscule about Egypt and the Far East are mentioned as mere
footnotes. When Bernal talks about the "Aryan Model", he is talking about
the view that Greeks are anterior in Philosophy and much, much more. He uses
Aryan instead of Eurocentric because Eurocentric is rather an all inclusive
term. However, there were elements in Greek society and later in Europe that
still held belief in the Anterior position of Egypt. This has been referred
to as "lost Egyptian or Hermetic knowledge." But Hermetic texts do exist and
were translated in latin as Bernal mentions. So his choice of using the term
"Aryan Model" instead of Eurocentric is appropriate and the term is not
being used in relation to Hitler's Aryan ideals. Therein is where the
confusion lies when it comes to reading and understanding Bernals terms.
People are offended by being related to or called Hitler, and that is not
what Bernal is doing.
>
>> So you
>> are damned skippy straight to expect those insulting favors returned
>> in kind.
>
Good return, that was funny. Even if it was mine.
Jeffrey Samuel
Schlau
"Jeffrey Samuel" <Undergro...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>
> Schlau wrote in message <7icflc$jbi$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>
> > I don't call them racists, nor state they are out to destroy the
> >"white race", nor do I claim they are part of some vast conspiracy.
All
> >claims leveled by Afrocentric scholars against thier detractors. When
> >Asante says Lefkowitz is part of a jewish conspiracy to keep the
> >Black man down, how exactly is one suppose to view him as a
> >serious scholar? Instead of making those claims, why doesn't directly
> >adress the questions raised by those critical of his work?
> >
>
> I have read some of Molefi Kete Asante, but I don't remember his tone
> as being acusatory of Lefkowitz being in some kind of Jewish
> conspiracy. That sounds more like Farahkan or Leonard Jefferies.
In his book "Truly Out of Africa", and exerts from it in "Emerge
Magazine". Asante talked of white racism and the jewish conspiracy to
remain in control of the white power structure at the expense of
other minorities. Also Tony Martin, another AfroCentric, wrote
the book: "The Jewish Onslaught: Dispatches from the Wellesley
Battlefront". It is rather clear, that many Afrocentric "scholars"
prefer to attack individuals instead of actually directly adressing
the questions raised by the critics of thier works.
> I believe the mudslinging started on the Eurocentric side, which is
> what Bernal's first volume was primarily about. Vol 1 - The
> Fabrication of Ancient Greece 1785-1985. It goes on to say that the
> Ancient Greeks knew about and accepted the connections to and
> influences of the Levant and Egypt in particular.
No modern historian is questioning that Egypt and the Levant did
have an influence on Greece. The question is and has always been how
much. Also Martin Bernal states that the Egyptians directly invaded
Greece in the 16 cen. bc and that Athens was founded by an Egyptians,
which are rather questionable positions.
> The Nationalism that developed throughout the Greek
> State suppressed this knowledge because it put Egyptian religion,
> philosophy, math and science in an anterior position to that of the
>Greeks.
Greek religon has little to do with Egyptian religon. As for the
philosophy, math, and science all Greeks going back to Herodotus
readily acknowledge the influence of Egypt upon those. What Afrocentrics
seem to imply tho that Greek philosophy, math, and science is wholy
derived from Ancient Egypt, as if the Greeks didn't improve any of it or
come up with anything themselves, nor borrow from other sources namly
Mesopotamia.
> In some of the philosophy books I've read for college courses in the
> past, it abnoxiously states that philosophy began with the ancient
>Greeks.
Philosophy in of itself not directly tied to religon, as it was in
Egypt, Mesopotamia, and China did start in Greece and it's colonies in
Asia Minor.
> When Bernal talks about the "Aryan Model", he is talking
> about the view that Greeks are anterior in Philosophy and much, much
>more.
It's a rather misleading term since Aryan in the Nazi sense didn't
include the Greeks and in the archaeological sense Aryan only refers to
the invaders of North India around 1500 to 1200 bc.
>He uses Aryan instead of Eurocentric because Eurocentric is rather an
> all inclusive term.
He uses the term Aryan because he wants to protray the traditional
archaeological community as racists, since when most people hear aryan
nowdays they think Nazi racists.
> However, there were elements in Greek society and later in
> Europe that still held belief in the Anterior position of Egypt.
There are elements in the African American and certain segments of
the fringe archaeological community that seem to what to give Egypt all
the credit for Greece's achievments. It's eqivalent to a British person
taking credit for everything the US has achieved in the last two hundred
and twenty some years. Building a foundation isn't the same thing as
building the entire house..
> This has been referred
> to as "lost Egyptian or Hermetic knowledge." But Hermetic texts do
> exist and were translated in latin as Bernal mentions.
The majority of the "Lost Hermetic Knowledge" was made up during
the Middle Ages and survives in Masonic & Neo-Paganism. There aren't
any books of "Hermetic knowledge" in Hieroglyphics, Hieretic, Classical
Greek, or Classical Latin. I doubt Bernal mentions that fact, tho.
> So his choice of using the term
> "Aryan Model" instead of Eurocentric is appropriate and the term is
> not being used in relation to Hitler's Aryan ideals.
He wants to convey a sense of ignorant racism and that is specifically
why he uses Aryan, because the Nazis did. I'm sure if the Nazis
called themselves Hyperboreans, then Bernal would be using that
term.
> Therein is where the
> confusion lies when it comes to reading and understanding Bernals
> terms.
>
>People are offended by being related to or called Hitler, and that is
> not what Bernal is doing.
There are only two meanings of Aryans. Mythological racist view of
white, blond haired, blue eyed supermen, and the archaeological view of
Central Asians who migrated/invaded North India between 1500 & 1200 bc.
So which one exactly is Bernal implying his academic counterparts are
thinking like,when he talks about "Aryan-thinking"? Given the views of
some of his fellow Afro-centrics who also use the term, it's rather
obvious....
---Oscar Schlaf---
"Time is a great teacher, but unfortunately it kills all
its pupils". --Hector Berlioz
Jeffrey Samuel
Schlau wrote in message <7if32i$ffg$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>In article <Tau23.1349$T4.3...@news.goodnet.com>,
>> >Asante says Lefkowitz is part of a jewish conspiracy to keep the
>> >Black man down>> >
Could you give me a source in which Asante uses Lefkowitz's name in relation
to this.
>>
>> I have read some of Molefi Kete Asante, but I don't remember his tone
>> as being acusatory of Lefkowitz being in some kind of Jewish
>> conspiracy. That sounds more like Farahkan or Leonard Jefferies.
>
> In his book "Truly Out of Africa", and exerts from it in "Emerge
>Magazine". Asante talked of white racism and the jewish conspiracy to
>remain in control of the white power structure at the expense of
>other minorities. Also Tony Martin, another AfroCentric, wrote
>the book: "The Jewish Onslaught: Dispatches from the Wellesley
>Battlefront". It is rather clear, that many Afrocentric "scholars"
>prefer to attack individuals instead of actually directly adressing
>the questions raised by the critics of thier works.
Did you actually read Tony Martin's book? I somewhat remember the
controversy. Martin was teaching one or more courses, the topic of which was
Jewish involvement in the slave trade or the Jewish control of the media and
banking in this country. I may be wrong about the topics. If someone wants
to correct me, please do.
Martin was a tenured Professor and has the right to teach certain topics if
he presents them in a professional manner. I believe the book he wrote was
about how certain elements at the college he teaches at tried to prevent him
form teaching the material and maybe even tried to get him fired. And he
wrote a book about his experiences. So what. He was attacked and he wrote
about it, yet you and others see the black guy doing the attacking, which is
a typical reaction.
You and others act like black Professors don't have a right to teach
controversial subject matters. Do you not remember how courses sprung up,
recently, throughout colleges in the U.S. teaching that slavery was good for
blacks. Though controversial, the professors had a right to teach it. One of
your ancestors, J.S. Mill, stresses that such controversy is appropriate and
beneficial. You and those like you probably had little or nothing to say
about a course teaching that slavery was good for blacks. Yet you will
scream and rant and rave when a black Professor teaches controversial
subject matter.
To have Mary Lefkowitz as your hero is rather sad. Try reading Bernal's
response to Lefkowitz's book which was nothing but an attack on Bernal.
Bernal found it rather absurd to find that Lefkowitz, who had quite a number
of historical factual errors in her book, could write such piece of work
that attacked his book and books written by blacks and Afrocentrists,
arguing with his views and claiming factual errors in their material. Hers
was an emotional, phobic attack. The number of errors in her book is proof
of such phobia. I guess her being caucasian makes her immune from attacks on
her errors by her fellow caucasoids.
Lefkowitz appears to be a modern day William Styron.
>> The Nationalism that developed throughout the Greek
>> State suppressed this knowledge because it put Egyptian religion,
>> philosophy, math and science in an anterior position to that of the
>>Greeks.
>
> Greek religon has little to do with Egyptian religon.
So far, from reading Bernal's material, I cannot agree. From what I am
reading, there are relationships.
What Afrocentrics
>seem to imply tho that Greek philosophy, math, and science is wholy
>derived from Ancient Egypt, as if the Greeks didn't improve any of it or
>come up with anything themselves, nor borrow from other sources namly
>Mesopotamia.
Bernal in his book gives Mesopotamia and the Middle East area credit.
Bernal does not consider himself Afrocentric. And others who share his views
are not all Afrocentric. The Masons and radical-Masons, who you mentioned,
the Neo-Platonics and the Gnostics believed in the primacy of Egypt. The
Masons, more so. From what I get, the Masons were pro Egypt but anti black
and saw no black or African connection with Egypt.
>> In some of the philosophy books I've read for college courses in the
>> past, it abnoxiously states that philosophy began with the ancient
>>Greeks.
>
> Philosophy in of itself not directly tied to religon, as it was in
>Egypt, Mesopotamia, and China did start in Greece and it's colonies in
>Asia Minor.
That is a loaded and confusing response.
> He uses the term Aryan because he wants to protray the traditional
>archaeological community as racists, since when most people hear aryan
>nowdays they think Nazi racists.
Well, much of the traditional archaeoligical, historical, philosophical and
religious community in the past were a bunch of racisits. And Bernal is
using that definition for them and their Models. Any present day offense
taken is mere phobia.
> The majority of the "Lost Hermetic Knowledge" was made up during
>the Middle Ages and survives in Masonic & Neo-Paganism.
Neo-Platonism
There aren't
>any books of "Hermetic knowledge" in Hieroglyphics, Hieretic, Classical
>Greek, or Classical Latin. I doubt Bernal mentions that fact, tho.
>
The BOOK OF COMING FORTH BY DAY, better know as BOOK OF THE DEAD, is
believed to date back to the 17th century. These are Egyptian texts.
Actually, this is what Bernal had to say about it in the Intro to volume I:
"A few hermetic texts had been available in Latin translation throughout the
Dark and Middle Ages; many more were found in 1460 and were brought to the
court of Cosimo di Medici in Florence, where they were translated by his
leading scholar, Marsilio Ficino. These and the ideas contained in them
became central to the Neo-Platonist movement started by Ficino, which was
itself at the heart of Renaissance Humanism."
Jeffrey Samuel
Jeffrey Samuel
Jeffrey Samuel wrote in message <5%733.1143$S4....@news.goodnet.com>...
>
>
>The BOOK OF COMING FORTH BY DAY, better know as BOOK OF THE DEAD, is
>believed to date back to the 17th century. These are Egyptian texts.
>
17th Century BC, that is.
Lloyd Bogart
since you've posted it to sci.archaeology. Could you explain
*how* it's related??
In article <5%733.1143$S4....@news.goodnet.com>, "Jeffrey Samuel"
Jeffrey Samuel
Lloyd Bogart wrote in message ...
>I'm sure you regard this as somehow related to archaeology;
>since you've posted it to sci.archaeology. Could you explain
>*how* it's related??
>
Let me see here. I did not post to sci.archeology. I posted from
soc.history.ancient. Maybe through cross referencing, it got posted there on
its own. Anyway, I will check my configuration and try to remedy the
problem. Thanks for letting me know.
Jeffrey Samuel
Jeffrey Samuel
Lloyd Bogart wrote in message ...
>since you've posted it to sci.archaeology. Could you explain
>*how* it's related??
>
Actually, I have found an answer to your question. One of the persons I was
responding to in the soc.history.ancient newsgroup was also set up for the
sci.archeology newsgroup as well. So when I respond to him, I am also
responding to all the other newsgroups he has listed in his header.
This may be a technique he is using to gain allies to try to attack me. The
name he posts by is Schlau. If you go back through the postings in
soc.history.ancient between myself and Schlau, you will see that I started
out posting only to soc.history.ancient until he added sci.archeology to his
header.
I will try to remember to take it out of my header next time. Otherwise,
jump on Schlau's shit, not mine. Please.
I think this is the answer to your question. I hope I am correct and have
helped you in some way.
Paul Kekai Manansala
>
> Schlau wrote in message <7if32i$ffg$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> >In article <Tau23.1349$T4.3...@news.goodnet.com>,
>
>
> response to Lefkowitz's book which was nothing but an attack on Bernal.
> Bernal found it rather absurd to find that Lefkowitz, who had quite a number
> of historical factual errors in her book, could write such piece of work
> that attacked his book and books written by blacks and Afrocentrists,
> arguing with his views and claiming factual errors in their material. Hers
> was an emotional, phobic attack. The number of errors in her book is proof
> of such phobia. I guess her being caucasian makes her immune from attacks on
> her errors by her fellow caucasoids.
>
> Lefkowitz appears to be a modern day William Styron.
>
Lefkowitz's work has been sponsored by far right organizations like the
Olin Foundation, the political arm of a large munitions manufacturer.
Western anthropology has always been closely linked with racist
eugenics societies. Even most of the noteworthy names in the field
today have such connections in their past (or present). This
should come out to the public soon.
> >> The Nationalism that developed throughout the Greek
> >> State suppressed this knowledge because it put Egyptian religion,
> >> philosophy, math and science in an anterior position to that of the
> >>Greeks.
> >
> > Greek religon has little to do with Egyptian religon.
>
> So far, from reading Bernal's material, I cannot agree. From what I am
> reading, there are relationships.
The Greeks themselves wrote extensively on this subject and routinely
credited the Egyptians with everything from Pythagorean philosophy
to Hermeticism. No one can doubt the importance of the cult of Isis
in Greco-Roman culture.
Regards,
Paul Kekai Manansala
http://www.he.net/~skyeagle/afro.htm
Schlau
"Jeffrey Samuel" <Undergro...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>
> Schlau wrote in message <7if32i$ffg$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> >In article <Tau23.1349$T4.3...@news.goodnet.com>,
>
> >>
> >> tone as being acusatory of Lefkowitz being in some kind of Jewish
> >> conspiracy. That sounds more like Farahkan or Leonard Jefferies.
> >
> > In his book "Truly Out of Africa", and exerts from it in "Emerge
> >Magazine". Asante talked of white racism and the jewish conspiracy to
> >remain in control of the white power structure at the expense of
> >other minorities. Also Tony Martin, another AfroCentric, wrote
> >the book: "The Jewish Onslaught: Dispatches from the Wellesley
> >Battlefront". It is rather clear, that many Afrocentric "scholars"
> >prefer to attack individuals instead of actually directly adressing
> >the questions raised by the critics of thier works.
>
> Did you actually read Tony Martin's book? I somewhat remember the
> controversy. Martin was teaching one or more courses, the topic of
> which was Jewish involvement in the slave trade or the Jewish control
> of the media and banking in this country. I may be wrong about the
> topics. If someone wants to correct me, please do.
>
> Martin was a tenured Professor and has the right to teach certain
> topics if he presents them in a professional manner.
What he teaches is up to the University.
> I believe the book he wrote was
> about how certain elements at the college he teaches at tried to
> prevent him form teaching the material and maybe even tried to get him
> fired. And he wrote a book about his experiences. So what.
The problem is/was that he accused all his attackers of being in on
some Jewish Conspiracy. And what he was teaching, that Jews originated &
dominated the slave trade, is far from a proven fact.
> He was attacked and he wrote
> about it,
He attacked modern scholars as being in on some "jewish conspiracy" to
cover up the "truth" that he was teaching in his classes and writing
about. When people questioned his positions and his teachings he
responded with a book about the "Jewish Onslaught".
> yet you and others see the black guy doing the attacking,
> which is a typical reaction.
It seems a typical reaction that whenever someone questions the
scholarship of a professor that just happens to be a minority the
twin devils of racism & conspiracy are raised.
> You and others act like black Professors don't have a right to teach
> controversial subject matters.
In the realm of history, nothing should be taught as fact until it's
proven as such.
> Do you not remember how courses sprung up, recently, throughout
> colleges in the U.S. teaching that slavery was
> good for blacks.
That isn't what the courses taught. What was was the conditions in
which slaves in the American South were kept in weren't much worse then
conditions of the factory workers in the American North of the time.
It was also mentioned in the courses that a large percentage of the
factory workers were Free Blacks. The courses did not say slavery
was a good thing for blacks.
> You and those like you probably had little or nothing to
> say about a course teaching that slavery was good for blacks.
There isn't any course that I'm aware of that does teach that.
> Yet you will scream and rant and rave when a black Professor teaches
> controversial subject matter.
>
> To have Mary Lefkowitz as your hero is rather sad.
Lefkowitz isn't my hero, and I disagree with some of her conclusions.
But the responses given to her book by many Afro-centrics are rather
objectionable to say the least.
> Try reading Bernal's
> response to Lefkowitz's book which was nothing but an attack on
> Bernal.
You haven't read Lefkowitz's book have you? Or Asante's book,
"Truly Out of Africa" have you?
> Bernal found it rather absurd to find that Lefkowitz, who had quite a
> number of historical factual errors in her book, could write such
> piece of work
> that attacked his book and books written by blacks and Afrocentrists,
> arguing with his views and claiming factual errors in their material.
>Hers was an emotional, phobic attack.
She didn't label her book the "African Onslaught" or talk of
Black Conspiracies......
>The number of errors in her book is proof
> of such phobia.
Errors such as what?
> I guess her being caucasian makes her immune from
> attacks on her errors by her fellow caucasoids.
She is jewish, which isn't the same thing as a "caucasoid".
> >> The Nationalism that developed throughout the Greek
> >> State suppressed this knowledge because it put Egyptian religion,
> >> philosophy, math and science in an anterior position to that of the
> >>Greeks.
> >
> > Greek religon has little to do with Egyptian religon.
>
> So far, from reading Bernal's material, I cannot agree. From what I am
> reading, there are relationships.
Such as what?
> What Afrocentrics
> >seem to imply tho that Greek philosophy, math, and science is wholy
> >derived from Ancient Egypt, as if the Greeks didn't improve any of it
> >or come up with anything themselves, nor borrow from other sources
> >namly Mesopotamia.
>
> Bernal in his book gives Mesopotamia and the Middle East area credit.
Bernal isn't the only Afrocentric and Bernal doesn't seem to give
Greece any credit.
> Bernal does not consider himself Afrocentric. And others who share his
> views are not all Afrocentric.
> The Masons and radical-Masons, who you mentioned,
> the Neo-Platonics and the Gnostics believed in the primacy of Egypt.
The Masons aren't know for thier historical accuracy.
> The Masons, more so. From what I get, the Masons were pro Egypt but
> anti black and saw no black or African connection with Egypt.
Which is all the more reason to reject thier views reguarding Egypt.
> >> In some of the philosophy books I've read for college courses in
> >> the past, it abnoxiously states that philosophy began with the
> >>ancient Greeks.
> >
> > Philosophy in of itself not directly tied to religon, as it was in
> >Egypt, Mesopotamia, and China did start in Greece and it's colonies
> >in Asia Minor.
>
> That is a loaded and confusing response.
You may see it as such, but the development of philosophy seperate
from religon is an important step that led to all kinds of things
including communism.
> > He uses the term Aryan because he wants to protray the traditional
> >archaeological community as racists, since when most people hear
> >aryan nowdays they think Nazi racists.
>
> Well, much of the traditional archaeoligical, historical,
> philosophical and religious community in the past were a bunch of
> racisits.
Your talking 19th & early 20th cen. There hasn't been a "racist"
historian/book accepted by the mainstream archaeological community
in over fifty years.
> And Bernal is using that definition for them and their Models. Any
> present day offense taken is mere phobia.
Labeling your detractors "Aryan-minded" is a sign of a phobia or
sensationalist ploy.
> > The majority of the "Lost Hermetic Knowledge" was made up during
> >the Middle Ages and survives in Masonic & Neo-Paganism.
>
> Neo-Platonism
>
> > There aren't
> >any books of "Hermetic knowledge" in Hieroglyphics, Hieretic,
> >Classical Greek, or Classical Latin. I doubt Bernal mentions that
> > fact, tho.
>
>
> The BOOK OF COMING FORTH BY DAY, better know as BOOK OF THE DEAD, is
> believed to date back to the 17th century. These are Egyptian texts.
And how did it affect Classical Greek thought & Science? And what
evidence is there that the Greeks even knew about the book? How many
copies of it are in Classical Greek or Latin?
> Actually, this is what Bernal had to say about it in the Intro to
> volume I:
>
> "A few hermetic texts had been available in Latin translation
> throughout the Dark and Middle Ages; many more were found in 1460 and
> were brought to the court of Cosimo di Medici in Florence, where they
> were translated by his leading scholar, Marsilio Ficino. These and
> the ideas contained in them became central to the Neo-Platonist
> movement started by Ficino, which was itself at the heart of
>Renaissance Humanism."
And this statement fails to:
A.) mention any of the "hermetic texts" available throughout the
Dark & Middle Ages
B.) Show any evidence that the texts translated by Marsilio Ficino
had any direct connection to Ancient Egyptian texts.
and
C.) List any comparision between Renaissance Humanism & Ancient
Egyptian thought that would indicate an influence by one
upon the other.
--Oscar Schlaf--
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
n i n j a
Paul Kekai Manansala wrote:
>
>
> Lefkowitz's work has been sponsored by far right organizations like the
> Olin Foundation, the political arm of a large munitions manufacturer.
>
In the tried and true Manansala fashion, resort to ad hominem attacks upon
scholars whose work threatens his "crystal palace" of Afro-Centrist opium dreams.
> Western anthropology has always been closely linked with racist
> eugenics societies. Even most of the noteworthy names in the field
> today have such connections in their past (or present). This
> should come out to the public soon.
Yep. Sure. We'll just take your word on that. Coming out soon. Like the Aryan
Suntheorist conpirators as well 'eh?Maybe you should write to Steven Spielberg and
ask him to do a movie about the Factology and Tricknology of the elusive and
shadowy Eurocentrists that removed all the Negros from Egypt and replaced them
with Egyptians.
<snip drugged out crap>
you are a QUACK manansala. Never forget it. Bumbling about in a DREAM because you
have low self-esteem problems.
And don't forget, we Aryan SunTheorists still have that tracking device in
implanted in you....
thei...@my-deja.com
Paul Kekai Manansala
>
> <snip drugged out crap>
> you are a QUACK manansala. Never forget it. Bumbling about in a DREAM because you
> have low self-esteem problems.
> And don't forget, we Aryan SunTheorists still have that tracking device in
> implanted in you....
You're really an emotional little child. If I were so worried about
sun theorists I wouldn't post with my real name. What are you
frightened of?
n i n j a
thei...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <374FA729...@ninjacastle.net>,
> n i n j a <ni...@ninjacastle.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Paul Kekai Manansala wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Lefkowitz's work has been sponsored by far right organizations like the
> > > Olin Foundation, the political arm of a large munitions manufacturer.
> > >
> >
> > In the tried and true Manansala fashion, resort to ad hominem attacks upon
> > scholars whose work threatens his "crystal palace" of Afro-Centrist opium dreams.
> >
> > > Western anthropology has always been closely linked with racist
> > > eugenics societies. Even most of the noteworthy names in the field
> > > today have such connections in their past (or present). This
> > > should come out to the public soon.
> >
> > Yep. Sure. We'll just take your word on that. Coming out soon. Like the Aryan
> > Suntheorist conpirators as well 'eh?Maybe you should write to Steven Spielberg and
> > ask him to do a movie about the Factology and Tricknology of the elusive and
> > shadowy Eurocentrists that removed all the Negros from Egypt and replaced them
> > with Egyptians.
> >
> > <snip drugged out crap>
> > you are a QUACK manansala. Never forget it. Bumbling about in a DREAM because you
> > have low self-esteem problems.
> > And don't forget, we Aryan SunTheorists still have that tracking device in
> > implanted in you....
> >
> Really???...
>
you may be out of range of a trade federationist theill, but NOT for a Sith Aryan
SunTheorist.
We are watching you all! We are working closely with the shadowy and elusive
Eurocentrists to rewrite history and destroy all evidence of the Super Civilizations
that existed in Africa proper.
We MUST exist, 'cause the afro-centrists say so, and they can't be wrong now can they?
you'd be racist to think so....Manansala and truthteller and donna have provided me and
my associates with many good laughs! keep up the good work afro-retard clowns!
brad caffee
2) Afro-centric revisionism has become entangle with a skewing political
agenda.
3) Artistic representations of Egyptians made by Egyptians are the best
source in determning what race ancient Egyptians were.
Egyptian art depicts a variety of individuals that have caucasian
traits and others that have sub-saharan traits. We can see this in the
funerary masks of the Pharoes and various statues of these royals. Some
have clear sub-saharan facial traits while others are clearly caucasian.
Tutankamon's visage clearly has sub-saharan traits while Rameses the II
and III are clearly caucasian. Akenaton seems to bear traits of both.
The conclusion: Antient Egypt was a MULTI-RACIAL society. This
makes sense. Egypt was a cross-roads between deeper Africa and the Near
East. So as long as there was trade and Egypt was seen as a desireable
place to go, a continuous flow of semetic caucasians from the Near East
would converge with a continuous flow of sub-saharans out of Nubia and
Ethiopia.
In short, Egypt was wholly neither sub-saharan or caucasian, but
both in a constant state of convergence.
- TIMOLEON
"... the flames kindled on the 4th of July, 1776, have spread over too
much of the globe to be extinguished by the feeble engines of despotism;
on the contrary, they will consume these engines and all who work
them..."
Thomas Jefferson
(to John Adams, 1821)
Nubkhas
>source in determning what race ancient Egyptians were.
> Egyptian art depicts a v
I disagree. Not while we have their mummified remains!
Kamal S.
The problem is that we have very, very few of their mummified remains.
Some are badly damaged, and they tend to come from a rather distinct
social class...
--
"Only the Real is real; manifestation and its diversities are chimera.
The line between the two is razor-sharp..." -Abdal Hakim Murad
"...what we are looking at is good and evil, right and wrong..."
-George Bush spoken in an Orgy of mass hypocrasy
Kamal S.
they werte neither, they were egyptians just as berbers are berbers,
nubians are nubians. Given their location they were at the cross roads
between Black Africa and the lighter asiatic races, so quite early there
would have been some mixing too. Look at modern egyptans through all
classes, immense variaty. I have known Egyptians who were very light
skinned but with su-saharan facial features (broad softly shaped nose,
lips, somewhat more corse and curly hair) like my old Arabic professor,
Samia. I have known Egyptans who were very, very dark. Possibly darker
than Hindi Tamils and darker than many modern African Americans, but with
sharp features, some looking like dark Italians, others with rather
waspish features. Egyptans despite their variaty have a very distinctive
look completely apart from other Arabs.
Give me a crowd of 30 Arabs from many different countries and throw 3
Egyptians in there and I will prolly be able to spot them fairly quickly.
Of course if they have Nubian ancestory, or Turkish ancestory, this is
harder :-)
A mixed people in many ways but still a distinctive people without a
doubt, Egyptians despite their variaty are practically a race unto
themselves.
David O'Bedlam
Hash: SHA1
In the ancient world the social or political concept of "Africa"
as a continent was not important (if it even existed); after the
conquests of Alexander in the the 3rd century BC, for the other
Mediterranean peoples (Greeks, Romans, Jews, etc.) Egypt was part
of their world -- and whatever was on the other side of the Sahara
was not. Persia figured in Clasical history because it conquered
Asia Minor and attacked Hellas, as well as conquering Phoenecia/
Palestine which had for centuries traded with (and established
colonies among) the rest of the Meditteranean world; sub-Saharan
Africa, because of that huge-ass desert, was, for the Greeks and
other Meditteraneans, a foreign place they had almost nothing to
do with. (I say "almost" because the Egyptians even then had old
trade links with people further up the Nile -- who themselves had
trade links with peoples in such areas as modern-day Tanzania and
Congo; but the other Meditteranean peoples, to trade with these
sub-Saharan peoples, did so *indirectly* -- through Egypt.)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 5.0i for non-commercial use
Charset: noconv
iQA/AwUBN2zQbhz40he1RakNEQLdmwCgsuwFeQqQ3v5BQZZnInNs1jIZvywAoNEM
4jaJ7/nRQ+55edaq8qDndafF
=mZe3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Kathy Mccoy
needs to research the Phoenicians (it is spelled Phoenician, not
Phoenecian).
The Phoenicians were Iberian-Celts. Their 'domains' stretched not only
to the other side of 'that' desert, which at one time was one massive
sea, but clear around the world. The Iberian Celts had a plush red dye
industry going for them in Mexico in ancient times--also in the Medi-
terranean.
These super sailors also manned the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Aden
(Eden) and the Indus River valley--talk about 'Indus-trious.' How do we
know? They left their writing everywhere they went. They were educated
'Merchant Marines.'
As for the Egyptians--the same Phoen- icians started that place too!
The hiero- glphs are actually created from their alphabet, not
vice-versa. The Gulf of Aden travels Northwest
from the eastern tip of Somalia which is next to Ethiopia. The
Phoenicians shipped gold from India to 'Eden' and from there, sent it up
the Red Sea to Galilee--the land of the Gauls (French/Franks). The
'French' later migrated to Brittany (France). So here is something else
for you to 'chew' on. By the way, technically, 'Iberian Celts,' is just
plain Celts; but they lived in so many different places. With their
streamlined ocean going vessels, they colonized the whole world.
Katsscan.
Alex
>In the ancient world the social or political concept of "Africa"
>as a continent was not important (if it even existed); after the
>conquests of Alexander in the the 3rd century BC, for the other
>Mediterranean peoples (Greeks, Romans, Jews, etc.) Egypt was part
>of their world
And Egypt was part and parcel of Africa, as you would know too if
you read the Greek descriptions of it.
> -- and whatever was on the other side of the Sahara
You mean "Nubia" or "Ethiopia"?
>was not.
Nubia has always been very close to/part of Egypt. Saying otherwise
is just so much BS.
Or perhaps now Nubia is no longer part of Africa?
> Persia figured in Clasical history because it conquered
As did Egypt even more (Herodotus' "Histories").
Get with it.
Alex