Afrocentrism
Kent L. Shephard
th...@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
>In article <caHm02O...@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> kl...@cd.amdahl.com
>(Kent L. Shephard) writes:
>>Please note that the Libraries oif Alexandria were in Alexandria,
>Egypt.
>
>Built by Greeks and Macedonians.
Oh, please.
I guess the first university was not at Timbuktu either. The libraries were
*NOT* built by the Greeks. Burned yes, built no.
>
>>Also note that Homer wrote of Egypt along with Socrates.
>
>More details, please.
Read the Illiad and Oddesy by Homer.
>
>>Also note that Atilla The Hun was
Check your history books. The Huns were a group of black folks.
>>black. The Babalonian Empire was black. On, and on, and on.
Again check the lineage as described in the Bible. Babalon was a black
empire.
>
>More details, please.
>--
>ted frank | "The Mets team is full of players who were great
>th...@ellis.uchicago.edu | ten years ago. The Expos team is full of players
>the u of c law school | who will be on the Mets in ten years."
>standard disclaimers | -- David M. Nieporent
--
/* What me, speak for Amdahl? Get real. These opinions and statements */
/* belong to me and me only. If something I said offends you, it's */
/* either you got a thin skin or that I'm just offensive. Who cares. */
/* */
/* "I'm not going to sit at your table and watch you eat, with nothing */
/* on my plate, and call myself a diner. Sitting at the table doesn't */
/* make you a diner. Being here in America doesn't make you an */
/* American." */
/* --Malcolm X */
/* */
/* Work - kl...@cd.amdahl.com - Don't send NeXTmail!! */
/* Play - ke...@infoserv.com - NeXTmail welcome */
Kent L. Shephard
th...@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
>In article <caHm02O...@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> kl...@cd.amdahl.com
>(Kent L. Shephard) writes:
>>Please note that the Libraries oif Alexandria were in Alexandria,
>Egypt.
>
>Built by Greeks and Macedonians.
>
>
>More details, please.
>
Also note that Aesop was a black man.
Barney Taylor
|>
|> Built by Greeks and Macedonians.
That statement by itself is absurb. So no Romiti teachers taught in Alexandria then?
No Romiti citizens help build the temples? Just this pleasant peace loving group
of white folks walk up into Kemet, and made themselves a city and institutions of
learning. An none of this was influenced by the nearly 3000 year old dynastic culture
or the 100,000 year old predynastic culture already there. i.e. the Romiti
(Egyptians) just stood back and watch and were not asked or forced to assist?
How is it Aristotle wrote in heiroglyphics? If he and his students never studied
under African teachers?
Hmmmm, I realize this line of arguing could go on and on to no end. So I must re-
member the point I was originally trying to make. How can Greece be the beginning
of civilization, when so many civilizations were thriving when Greece showed up?
The answer is obvious, Greece is not the beginning of anything..... It can
be considered a change, a new approach, different, but by no means the beginning.
Also keep this in mind. Alkebulanians (Africans) have a much more difficult task
of proving the Alkebulan origination of these disciplines. Why? Because higher
knowledge or advance knowledge was considered secret in Kemet. When a student
entered the educational system of Kemet as an initiate, they swore to keep secret
the things they would learn. Therefore, it would not be difficult for foreigners
to steal such knowledge and claim it as their own, because no one knew about
the original papyrus anyway. Once these documents were destroyed, there was no
way of proving easily, that the originators were Alkebulanians.
This original secrecy, as well as, eventual racism has made it difficult to
reclaim Alkebulanian history and antiquity.
Remember, 20 years ago, there was a missing link in man's evolution, because
no historian, and anthropologist thought that Alkebulan (Africa) had anything
to do with man's evolution, especially civilization. Now, there is no more
missing link since the leakey's findings. There is only now the need to determine
to what influence did theses early Alkebulanians have on world civilization.
Daniel A Ashlock
Shephard) writes:
> Check your history books. The Huns were a group of black folks.
I did. We must be using different history books. Mine say the Huns were a
germanic group. Which history books were you using? The same ones that didn't
know where Greece was or who colonized Ionia? The ones that are unaware of the
Macedonian conquest of Egypt? The ones that are unaware of the history of
Alexandria? The ones that seem unaware of the Hyksos?
Please give titles and authors for a representative cross section of your
history books. I want to compare them with mine. I'm using the Cambridge
History of the World.
Kenn Barry
>Check your history books. The Huns were a group of black folks.
>
>empire.
I think I'm starting to Get It. Humanity comes in two sorts:
blacks and Scandinavians. Ergo, if you ain't Scandinavian, you're black.
Yes, it all makes perfect sense to me now. And, hey, this makes me half
black! Anybody know of some good AA programs I can cash in on?
Kayembee
James Rice
[nonsense deleted...]
How is it Aristotle wrote in heiroglyphics? If he and his
students never studied under African teachers?
Because he didn't write in heiroglyphics.
Have you stopped beating your wife yet?
[more crap...]
Robert Parson
> In article <04Hh020...@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>, kl...@cd.amdahl.com (Kent L.
> Shephard) writes:
>> Check your history books. The Huns were a group of black folks.
>
> I did. We must be using different history books. Mine say the Huns were a
> germanic group.
No, turkic (or possibly mongolian).
Actually, we probably know more about Attila's appearance than about many
other ancient figures, because we have an eyewitness account. I'll dig out
my copy and post tomorrow.
This is the first time I've _ever_ caught Dan Ashlock in an error :)
Robert
Michael Siemon
>In article <04Hh020...@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>, kl...@cd.amdahl.com (Kent L.
>Shephard) writes:
>> Check your history books. The Huns were a group of black folks.
>
> I did. We must be using different history books.
> Mine say the Huns were a germanic group.
Oh, I *do* truly hope not! They weren't you know, though the Hunnic
empire rolled up and thereafter included a goodly number of the more
easterly Germanic tribes that were milling all over the place in those
days. Hunnic was *not* a Germanic language; modern Hungarians claim
a (distant) affinity with them, I don't know off hand with what validity.
They emerged from the Central Asian steppes, and may (*may*) have been
related to tribes that were moving westward in response to a newly re-
consolidating Chinese Empire. Not much is (or was a generation ago)
known about them -- it would take a rather major upheaval of historio-
graphy for them to have been converted into Germans.
Speculation (which may have been rejected or buttressed by now) used to
associate *some* Hunnic tribes with the outlier Tocharian Indo-European
language(s) of Central Asia; I don't know if this is still a legitimate
speculation (if so, it makes the Hungarian claim a bit of tribal PR,
with the Magyars trying to steal some ancient terror from the earlier
wave out of the steppe.)
>I'm using the Cambridge History of the World.
Please check it again -- unless things really *have* changed drastically
in the last generation, I can't believe that they categorize the (central)
Hunnic tribe as German. (Of course they were not "black" in anything
like the sense that word is used today of a "racial" group, either.)
(And again as a disclaimer, this is not to deny that a good part of the
manpower and generalship in Atilla's forces *was* allied/tributary/etc.
Germans.)
--
Michael L. Siemon "We honour founders of these starving cities
m...@panix.com Whose honour is the image of our sorrow ...
They built by rivers and at night the water
Running past the windows comforted their sorrow."
eugene veklerov
>In article <caHm02O...@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> kl...@cd.amdahl.com (Kent L. Shephard) writes:
>
>>Also note that Atilla The Hun was
>>black. The Babalonian Empire was black. On, and on, and on.
>
I was under the impression that Atilla the Hun was a forefather
of the Hungarian nation and the modern Armenians, Iranians and
Azeris are in the best position to claim to be descendants of
ancient Babilonians. But then again, they may not be.
There are several revisionist theories that the events in ancient
history did not actually occur the way modern historians believe they
did. According to one of them, the entire chronology is wrong, because
it was reconstructed much later on the basis of incomplete data.
There is a Russian mathematician who has even calculated the errors.
For example, he could tell you that an event that is believed to have
taken place in the 3rd century in Rome actually occurred, say, in the
9th century. Sounds pretty weird to me.
Eugene Veklerov
no one of consequence
]In article <1993Feb...@IASTATE.EDU> dan...@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock) writes:
]>In article <04Hh020...@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>, kl...@cd.amdahl.com (Kent L.
]>Shephard) writes:
]>> Check your history books. The Huns were a group of black folks.
]>
]> I did. We must be using different history books. Mine say the Huns were a
]>germanic group. Which history books were you using? The same ones that didn't
]>Dan...@IASTATE.EDU
]
]Well Dan,
]
] If you would obtain a copy of "A History of Civilization" by Dr.
]Wolff, Professor of History, Harvard Univ., Published by Prentice Hall, Inc.
]and turn to page 107, the last sentence of paragraph 4 reads:
]"In the 4th century, conditions in central Asia which we still know almost
]nothing about, precipitated a fierce Asian people know as the Huns into the
]territory of the Goth, who after living on horseback for days, traveling
]swiftly, and reveling in cruelty, started a panic among the Goths and other
]Germanic tribes."
]
]I don't think you accurately read your "source".
]
]Arthur
]
It seems that Kent also misread his sources. Tribes of Asian origin were
not black. So Attila was most likely an Asian.
I looked up the Huns in the UTCAT Encyclopedia w/gopher. They were "..a Mongol
people who originated in Central Asia.." and a warrior people. Pretty much
confirms what you have above, Arthur.
--
/----------------------------------------------------------------------\
|Patrick Chester wol...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu|
|"If the Earth is our Cradle, then why are we still here?" |
|Everything your side says is Truth. All else is Propaganda.... |
|I only speak for myself. If I *did* speak for UT, would anyone listen?|
\----------------------------------------------------------------------/
Arthur Scribner
Well Dan,
If you would obtain a copy of "A History of Civilization" by Dr.
Wolff, Professor of History, Harvard Univ., Published by Prentice Hall, Inc.
and turn to page 107, the last sentence of paragraph 4 reads:
"In the 4th century, conditions in central Asia which we still know almost
nothing about, precipitated a fierce Asian people know as the Huns into the
territory of the Goth, who after living on horseback for days, traveling
swiftly, and reveling in cruelty, started a panic among the Goths and other
Germanic tribes."
I don't think you accurately read your "source".
Arthur
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/_/ ||
_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ || "THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE!"
_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ || THE HIGHLANDER
ed_...@milkwy.enet.dec.com
In article <04Hh020...@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>,
kl...@cd.amdahl.com (Kent L. Shephard) writes...
[...]
>
>Check your history books. The Huns were a group of black folks.
>
[...]
I have a copy of _The Age of Atilla_ by C.D. Gordon, which is a
collection of the fragments of histories from the later Roman
empire (most written by historians from the Eastern Empire).
One historian, Piscus, who was a contemporary of Atilla, describes
the Huns and Atilla himself as being (among other less flattering
things) "swarthy" and "with a broad nose" as well as having a scanty
beard (perhaps shaved, perhaps stunted by tribal facial scars, perhaps
genetic) Atilla himself had a sparse beard and deep set, piercing eyes.
Gibbons quotes an unnamed "Goth historian" (maybe named in the unabridged
edition? Maybe Piscus again?) as repeating "swarthy" and "broad nose."
(BTW, are you saying "Egyptian" = "Rom" (= "Gypsy")? That might surprise a
few Hungarians.)
Bill Riggs
>Shephard) writes:
>> Check your history books. The Huns were a group of black folks.
>
> I did. We must be using different history books. Mine say the Huns were
>a germanic group. Which history books were you using?
Incorrect - the Huns were more closely related to the Turks and Mongols
than the Germans. It was not until WWI that the Germans became "Huns".
It is true that Attila had some Germanic tribes - such as the
Ostrogoths - in his short lived empire. But the Huns themselves were not
"Germans".
> Please give titles and authors for a representative cross section of your
>history books. I want to compare them with mine. I'm using the Cambridge
>History of the World.
Reference or quote here, please. The court is still out as to
whether the Huns were, indeed, "people of color".
Bill R.
--
"When up a dangerous faction starts, "My opinions do not represent
With wrath and vengeance in their hearts; those of my employer or
By solemn League and Cov'nant bound, any government agency."
To ruin, slaughter, and confound; - Bill Riggs (1992)
To turn religion to a fable,
And turn the Government to a Babel;
Pervert the law, disgrace the gown,
Corrupt the senate, rob the crown;
To sacrifice old England's glory,
And make her infamous in story.
When such a tempest shook the land,
How could unguarded virtue stand ?"
- Jonathan Swift (1732)
Ken Lehner
>Also keep this in mind. Alkebulanians (Africans) have a much more
>difficult task of proving the Alkebulan origination of these disciplines.
>Why? Because higher knowledge or advance knowledge was considered secret
>in Kemet. When a student entered the educational system of Kemet as an
>initiate, they swore to keep secret the things they would learn.
>Therefore, it would not be difficult for foreigners to steal such
>knowledge and claim it as their own, because no one knew about the
>original papyrus anyway. Once these documents were destroyed, there was no
>way of proving easily, that the originators were Alkebulanians.
>
>This original secrecy, as well as, eventual racism has made it difficult to
>reclaim Alkebulanian history and antiquity.
>
If a) anyone who legitimately came by the knowledge ("initiates") was
sworn to secrecy, b) those who came by it by theft would claim it to be
their own, and c) the [original] documents were destroyed, then what
evidence is there that the knowledge ever existed? There must be some
documents (or copies thereof) in existence, or some independent accounts or
descriptions of the knowledge. What convinced Mr. Taylor of the existence
of this advanced (for its time) knowledge? I'd suggest, since this is
sci.skeptic, that Mr. Taylor present such evidence; I personally believe
that he will receive a fair but rigorous evaluation of said evidence.
>years in Kemet. Yet he is accredited with mathematics that were in use
>thousands of years before he was born. I am arguing that these people were
>not, and are not the first to do anything.... Yet that is what is taught in
>the American public and higher educational systems. I know because I went
>through them.
You explicitly state that the Greeks did nothing original. Are you saying
that they got EVERYTHING from other cultures, especially from Egypt
(sorry, that's my culture's term for the region)? Can I safely assume
that Asian cultures, specifically in China, were the first to do some
things (like paper, gunpowder, to name some well-known "beliefs"), or at
least developed them independently? If the Chinese could do so, then why
couldn't the Greeks? Were they that unoriginal?
In an article, someone from Bellcore who calls him/herself "Me" (and whose
email address I couldn't find in our directory) wrote
>I would consider the claims attributed to Welsing as exaggerated. However,
>the idea of psycho-pineal telemetry to ascertain the orbit and character
>of Sirius B (the invisible white dwarf companion to Sirius A) is just as
>plausible as the suggestion by respected astronomers that the Dogon
>acquired the information from contact with extraterrestrials from Sirius B!
You would get no disagreement in sci.skeptic as to that statement; just
realize that the agreement would be that both are entirely implausible.
I wonder who those respected astronomers are, by the way.
>The fact remains that the Dogon somehow acquired accurate and advanced
>knowledge about Sirius B centuries before anyone else and presumably without
>the aid of telescopes.
As has been pointed out before, there is no concrete evidence that the
Dogon acquired this knowledge before anyone else; it is suggested that
they learned this from earlier contacts with missionaries.
>>Is the concentration of melanin in the substantia nigra higher for people of
>>darker-skinned native African ancestry than for lighter-skinned people?
>
>Perhaps.
And, of course, perhaps not. No help.
>>What about hyper-coordinated non-Africans?
>Their skills are said to be "calculated, scientific, or learned" as
>opposed to being "naturally endowed". [I call this the "Larry Bird
>effect"]. I used to take exception to such descriptions by sports
>commentators, but perhaps they have been made privy to melanin studies?
>Or perhaps hyper-coordination among the "melanin-challenged" is due to
>equally high melanin concentrations in the substantia nigra? Or perhaps
>some other mechanism is at work? I don't pretend to have the answers.
I assume that this is, despite the smiley deficiency, a joke. Michael
Jordan gets annoyed when it is suggested that he is so natural; in fact,
he is one of the hardest working basketball players, and got to be great
through a combination of natural talents and a tremendous work ethic. The
former Soviet Union has produced some of the finest ballet dancers ever,
not to mention some of the palest (;^). I assume that you believe that
this is not natural, but learned. Frankly, your attitude appears racist.
>Okay, perhaps I'm guilty of hyperbole this time. Don't take the word
>"flawless" so literally. In any case, the oral traditions of Africa are
>well documented in many places, and even though one poster correctly
>pointed out that oral traditions existed in all cultures before the
>advent of writing, I still assert that the level reached in Africa was
>unmatched and extended beyond the advent of scripts.
Did they have contests in those days to see who was unmatched? I recall
that Homer's Iliad and Odyssey were passed down orally; hard to imagine
any oral tradition that can surpass THAT feat. Jewish law was certainly
an oral tradition for centuries, if not millenia. Don't be so quick to
say how superior one tradition is over any other.
[many references, of whose relevance to these particular aspects of
physiology is unknown, deleted]
Janis Maria Cortese
|>
|> Built by Greeks and Macedonians.
Get real. Every warm body in the entire circum-Mediterranean area had a
hand in building and contributing to that library.
Regards,
Janis C.
Robert Parson
>
>
> I have a copy of _The Age of Atilla_ by C.D. Gordon, which is a
> collection of the fragments of histories from the later Roman
> empire (most written by historians from the Eastern Empire).
> One historian, Piscus, who was a contemporary of Atilla, describes
> the Huns and Atilla himself as being (among other less flattering
> things) "swarthy" and "with a broad nose" as well as having a scanty
> beard (perhaps shaved, perhaps stunted by tribal facial scars, perhaps
> genetic) Atilla himself had a sparse beard and deep set, piercing eyes.
>
That's "Priscus". He was not only a contemporary, he actually met Attila.
He was part of a diplomatic mission from Emperor Theodosius II in 448.
> Gibbons quotes an unnamed "Goth historian" (maybe named in the unabridged
> edition? Maybe Piscus again?) as repeating "swarthy" and "broad nose."
No, that's Jordanes, author of "History of the Goths", sixth century.
Priscus is probably Jordanes' source, however (only fragments of Priscus
survive). Jordanes writes:
"He was short of stature, with a broad chest and a large head; his eyes were
small, his beard thin and sprinkled with gray; and he had a flat nose and
a swarthy complexion"
Sounds Central Asian to me.
Ammianus Marcellinus, greatest of the later Roman Historians (pre-Attila,
however), writes of the Huns:
"The people of the Huns ... who dwell beyond Palus Maeotis [Sea of Azov]
near the frozen ocean, are quite abnormally savage...They have squat bodies,
strong limbs, and thick necks, and are so prodigiously ugly and bent that
they might be two-legged animals..."
There does not seem to be a consensus about which Central Asian group
the Huns belonged to. (Their language has not survived.) In any
event they are not the ancestors of the modern Hungarians, who are
descended from the 9th Century Magyars, although they might be very
distant cousins.
Robert
Bob Ingria
In article <1993Feb3.0...@midway.uchicago.edu>,
th...@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
>In article <caHm02O...@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> kl...@cd.amdahl.com
>(Kent L. Shephard) writes:
>>Please note that the Libraries oif Alexandria were in Alexandria,
>Egypt.
>
>Built by Greeks and Macedonians.
Oh, please.
I guess the first university was not at Timbuktu either. The libraries were
*NOT* built by the Greeks. Burned yes, built no.
Please provide PRIMARY sources for your claim that there was a library
at the site of Alexandria before Alexander the Great conquered Egypt.
``Oh, please.'' is not an argument. And, as far as the rest of the
world knows, the Library at Alexandria was burnt during the
post-classical period.
>>Also note that Homer wrote of Egypt along with Socrates.
>
>More details, please.
Read the Illiad and Oddesy by Homer.
Normally I think spelling flames are silly, but given your snotty,
condescending attitude (with utterly no justification) I have to insist:
That's Iliad and Odyssey; if you're going to cite them, at least spell
them correctly. But, you never said what Homer said about Egypt. You
made some unspecified claim and are now passing off the necessity of
figuring out what you mean on others. Lazy, aincha?
>>black. The Babalonian Empire was black. On, and on, and on.
Again check the lineage as described in the Bible. Babalon was a black
empire.
That's Babylon.
Jesus, you can't even pretend that you have any interest in any of
these ancient cultures, can you? You're just gonna throw down their
names, claim them, and puff yourself up. You can't even be bothered
to spell their names correctly, let alone actually look at what made
them great. Talk about colonizing!
--
-30-
Bob Ingria
Bob Ingria
Also note that Aesop was a black man.
What's your source for this claim?
--
-30-
Bob Ingria
Kenn Barry
>of civilization, when so many civilizations were thriving when Greece showed up?
Oh for heaven's sake, is _that_ what has your knickers in a
twist? You must not have taken _anything_ but computer science when you
were in school. Nobody makes such a ridiculous claim. Civilization
appears to have begun in Egypt, or Mesopotamia, or maybe India or China,
but it sure as hell wasn't Greece. The Greeks in fact did revere the
Egyptians, knew the Egyptian civilization was old enough to make the
Greeks mere upstarts, and learned an enormous amount from the Egyptians.
Even a glance at Greek architecture reveals the Egyptian influence, for
example.
If that's your point, stop saying all the other stupid stuff,
and maybe people will pay more attention to you.
Kayembee
Kenn Barry
Speaking of spelling, should that be "colonizing" or
"colorizing"?
Kayembee :-)
Arthur Scribner
>In article <1993Feb4.2...@tinton.ccur.com> c...@tinton.ccur.com (Christopher J. Henrich) writes:
>>
>>By the way, the Egyptians of that time probably looked more like
>>today's tropical Africans than do today's Egyptians, who are
>>at least partly Arab in their ancestry. I think one can verify this
>
>I believe the ancient Egyptians were Caucasians. In addition
>to numerous pictures depicting them, I have heard a claim made
>by the Copts that they descended from the ancient Egyptians.
>Their claim makes sense, because according to the Egyptian law
>(Muslim law), if a Muslim and a Christian want to get married,
>the Christian party has to convert to Islam (at least that is my
>understanding of the law -- can someone confirm or deny that?).
>
First of all, the Egyptians themselves say the come from the foothills of
the Mountian of the Moon. In case you did not know, they were referring to
Mt Kilamanjaro, which sits on the border between Tanzania and Kenya and
is the main source of the Nile. It would make sense if they orginated
there, they would logically follow the course of the river since the land
becomes more fertile as you go downstream.
Also I did not know the Egyptians took pictures. Better yet, why don't
you look at the monuments that they built to themselves and how they depict
themselves.
>If that is the case, the intermarriages have not affected the Coptic
>community and they remain the carriers of the genes of the ancient
>Egyptians, as the Arabs who invaded Egypt were already Muslims.
>
>Eugene Veklerov
In case you didn't know, when the Arabs invaded Egypt, the religion of
Islam did not exist.
Gordon Fitch
are largely a cultural construction of Western European and
North American societies. The Mediterranean peoples of the
Classical era were of a great many degrees of pigmentation and
came from many different countries. While we might say that
Aesop, Terence, Socrates, Jesus, or Augustine were or may have
been of African ancestry, it is probably meaningless in terms
of their setting to call them "Black" or "White."
--
)*( Gordon Fitch )*( g...@panix.com )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta., NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
Roger Squires
>
>By the way, the Egyptians of that time probably looked more like
>today's tropical Africans than do today's Egyptians, who are
>at least partly Arab in their ancestry. I think one can verify this
>had black skins and "wooly hair.")
>
"The People who inhabited ancient Egypt still survive
in their descendants the modern Egyptians. ... The hundreds
and thousands of Greeks and Arabs who have settled in the
country seem to have been absorbed into it; they may have
modified the race in the great towns, where their numbers
were considerable, but in the open country they scarcely
produced any effect. The modern fellah resembles his
forefather of four thousand years ago, except that he
speaks Arabic, and has become a Mohammedan."
-- Adolf Erman, _Life in Ancient Egypt_
Chapter II
which I'm in the process of reading, even though its
pretty boring!
>
>Chris Henrich
rms
Roger Squires
>>Eugene Veklerov writes:
>
>>I believe the ancient Egyptians were Caucasians. ...
>>Eugene Veklerov
>
>WRONG! The ancient Egyptians were Black. This is a typical example of
>Causasian History. This is what white history scholars would want you
>to believe. ...
>
Actually, Adolf Erman, a (presumably) "white history scholar"
states quite clearly in Chp. II of _Life in Ancient Egypt_ (1894)
that "Ethnologists assert that nothing exists in the physical
structure of the Egyptian to distinguish him from the native
African, and that from the Egyptian to the negro population
of tropical Africa, a series of links exist which do not
admit of a break."
So, now that *that* digression is clear, where's the evidence
for Socrates being black? Is it just because he was ugly?!?
>Will
rms
Tammy Jo Eckhart
>
>WRONG! The ancient Egyptians were Black. This is a typical example of
>Causasian History. This is what white history scholars would want you
>The Great Sphinx is a portrait of the Black Pharoh Khafre. He was the
>first ruler to break the tradition of portraying all important Blacks
>with pronounced 'Causasoid' features. Before the nose chipped away, the
>nose was flat, typical of Black Africans.
If the Egyptians rulers were black then why did they depict
themsleves as white up until Khafre? Why would these earlier rulers lie
about their skin color? Please provide Egyptian text, if available, from
those periods to explain the reasoning behind lying about one's skin color.
Amazon-wanna-be,
Tammy Jo
Bob Ingria
How is it Aristotle wrote in heiroglyphics?
Oh, this is wonderful. Please tell me what silly-billy provided you
with this piece of riotous mis-information. Then, if it's really
correct, point me to just one of Aristotle's texts that is in
hieroglyphics. Just one. A fragment, even.
Hmmmm, I realize this line of arguing could go on and on to no end.
Of course, when your idea of argument is to make a flat assertions
with no evidence, and then to get all puffed up and offended when
people ask you for even minimum supporting facts.
--
-30-
Bob Ingria
eugene veklerov
>
>By the way, the Egyptians of that time probably looked more like
>today's tropical Africans than do today's Egyptians, who are
>at least partly Arab in their ancestry. I think one can verify this
I believe the ancient Egyptians were Caucasians. In addition
to numerous pictures depicting them, I have heard a claim made
by the Copts that they descended from the ancient Egyptians.
Their claim makes sense, because according to the Egyptian law
(Muslim law), if a Muslim and a Christian want to get married,
the Christian party has to convert to Islam (at least that is my
understanding of the law -- can someone confirm or deny that?).
If that is the case, the intermarriages have not affected the Coptic
Bob Ingria
the Romiti (Egyptians)
Alkebulanians (Africans)
Alkebulan (Africa)
Could you please state the proximate source (i.e. the secondary
sources you read) which give these names with these meaning? Could
you also give their ultimate provenance (i.e. what languages, in what
time period)?
Thanks.
--
-30-
Bob Ingria
Barbara Vaughan
>It seems to me that the terms "Black" and "White", as "races",
>are largely a cultural construction of Western European and
>North American societies. The Mediterranean peoples of the
>Classical era were of a great many degrees of pigmentation and
>came from many different countries. While we might say that
>Aesop, Terence, Socrates, Jesus, or Augustine were or may have
>been of African ancestry, it is probably meaningless in terms
>of their setting to call them "Black" or "White."
I'm sure this is true. I've read a lot of classical writings, and I've
seen many references to nationality but never any to race as we understand
it. Also, I would be willing to bet that the ancient Greeks and Romans
had much darker skin than their modern descendents. There have been two
periods of heavy infiltration of Germanic tribes into the region since
classical times, which must have lightened the average skin color a great
deal. So instead of claiming that the Greeks and Romans "stole" African
culture, why not just say that the Greeks and Romans WERE African. I'm
sure there was a fair amount of African heritage in all the Mediterranean
countries, because sickle cell trait is found all around the
Mediterranean, although it is most common in West Africa.
Also, the concept of theft of technology is a modern European idea. The
ancient peoples all considered knowledge to be the possession of
everybody. They had no patents, no copyrights, and no "intellectual
property" laws. When someone discovered something, everybody benefitted.
The Phoenicians developed the concept of writing from the Egyptians and
then spread it to the Greeks and then the idea spread like wildfire.
Nobody tried to keep the idea private.
Barbara Vaughan
Bob Ingria
That's not the point of contention. The argument here is over whether
the Library at Alexandria was an originally Egyptian library, taken
over by the Greeks after the conquest of Egypt by Alexander (the
George G. M. James and Afrocentric followers position), or a library
created in Alexandria by the Greek occupation government, after the
conquest of Egypt by Alexander (the standard mainstream position).
Clearly, over its entire history, it was meant to be a repository of
the knowledge of the entire oikoumene (``inhabited world'', as then
known).
Oh, one question, fellahs; since Alexandria is clearly a Greek name,
based on Alexander, could you answer me one simple, itty-bitty
question: what was the Egyptian name of the city, before Alexander
re-named it, as your theory would require? (And, to prevent further
go-rounds in these tedious proceedings, I will point out that
Rhacotis, a village near Alexandria, but not on its site, does not
count.) If there was indeed a city on the site of Alexandria, let
alone a great library, before Alexander's time, this should be an easy
question to answer.
--
-30-
Bob Ingria
John Misner
Disney's "Song of the South"
jm
William Karamo Motley
>I believe the ancient Egyptians were Caucasians. In addition
>to numerous pictures depicting them, I have heard a claim made
>by the Copts that they descended from the ancient Egyptians.
>Their claim makes sense, because according to the Egyptian law
>(Muslim law), if a Muslim and a Christian want to get married,
>the Christian party has to convert to Islam (at least that is my
>understanding of the law -- can someone confirm or deny that?).
>
>If that is the case, the intermarriages have not affected the Coptic
>community and they remain the carriers of the genes of the ancient
>Egyptians, as the Arabs who invaded Egypt were already Muslims.
>
>Eugene Veklerov
WRONG! The ancient Egyptians were Black. This is a typical example of
Causasian History. This is what white history scholars would want you
to believe. Speaking of numerous pictures depicting them, the head of
The Great Sphinx is a portrait of the Black Pharoh Khafre. He was the
first ruler to break the tradition of portraying all important Blacks
with pronounced 'Causasoid' features. Before the nose chipped away, the
nose was flat, typical of Black Africans. It was sort of as if Menes
envisioned that historians would try to 'Causasianize' Egypt. Why would
he go through the trouble of making the nose distinctly flat, if he were
white? Read "The Destruction of Black Civilization:Great Issues of a
Race from 3000B.C. to 2000A.D." Egypt used to consist of Egypt as we
know it today and Ethiopia. Before 3000B.C., or soon thereafter, the
Asians started to invade Egypt. Eventually, what ended up happening is
that Egypt was split in two: Upper Egypt(the south part), and Lower
Egypt(the north part). Upper Egypt was slowly taken over by the Asians,
and while the Asians were invading, intermingling of the races started,
and this is where historians trick people. Mulattoes were considered
'WHITE', even though their mothers were Black. As a side note, it was
the Asian MEN who intermingled with the African WOMEN. However it did
go both ways. But mulatto children went so far as to deny that they had
Black blood in them and would spite their mothers. Over time, the skin
color of mulattoes became lighter in complexion. Lower Egypt was all
Black even several hundred years before the birth of Christ. However,
the first people to be officially called 'Egyptians' were half-Asian
half-African. Ancient Egypt was not called Egypt, but was called Chem.
The southern part of Chem was called Upper Egypt after 3100 B.C., and it
also constituted the northern part of Ethiopia. Northern Chem was
called Lower Egypt after 3100B.C. All of Egypt was part of the
Ethiopian Empire before 3100 B.C., and the two main regions of the
empire were Chem and Nubia.
Will
The Lord is my light and my salvation.
Whom shall I fear?
The Lord is my strength and my guide.
Of whom shall I be afraid?
Mark Wilson
| Speaking of spelling, should that be "colonizing" or
|"colorizing"?
OK, who let Ted Turner in here?
--
Mob rule isn't any prettier merely because the mob calls itself a government
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Wilson's theory of relativity: If you go back far enough, we're all related.
Mark....@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
Charles L Isbell
|It seems to me that the terms "Black" and "White", as "races",
|are largely a cultural construction of Western European and
|North American societies. The Mediterranean peoples of the
|Classical era were of a great many degrees of pigmentation and
|came from many different countries. While we might say that
|Aesop, Terence, Socrates, Jesus, or Augustine were or may have
|been of African ancestry, it is probably meaningless in terms
|of their setting to call them "Black" or "White."
Well, since "Black" and "White" are cultural constructions and, in
particular, they have lots of symbolic meaning in USA 1993, it is
almost meaningless to apply them to people 2000 years ago *if* by this
we mean that those folks would consider themselves "Black"(tm) or
"White"(tm).
On the other hand, it may not be meaningless if we mean that these
folks would be considered "Black" or "White" by people today.
Of course, this whole exercise is useless--in all senses, as opposed
to some senses--if we pretend that there is no present symbolic
meaning in any of the assertions. Therefore we must ask WHY we are
even bothering to ask these questions.
Reminds me of a riddle:
A father and son are driving down the highway, doing whatever it is
fathers and sons do. Anyway, there's a crash and the father is
killed. The boy is rushed to the hospital for emergency surgery. The
surgeon comes in, takes one look at the victim and announces: "I
cannot operate on this child; he is my son."
What happened?
Think about it.
The surgeon was the the boy's mother.
Now, I don't know about the effects of reading--as opposed to
hearing--this riddle, but I've personally asked a few score of folks
this riddle and of the ones who did not already know the answer (it's
a famous riddle apparently), only one besides me got it on the first
try. Some of the guesses were ridiculous.
Why is that?
In any case, just as we assume surgeons are male and Blacks do drugs
more than Whites (as a percentage of each respective population,
Whites do more than their share and Black less), there is an
underlying assumption in much of our discourse about history that
Blacks (in particular) have contributed little if nothing to the
advancement of the species. In fact, most people (surely the people
in this thread are exceptions) seem to give credit to Greece for just
about everything basic "invented" in antiquity.
Therefore, even if our racial terms don't fit very well in the past,
there is significant symbolism in associating these terms with folks
who would fit the bill today (there has been a long tug-of-war over
whether we should think of Ancient Egypt as "Black" or "White" and I
think those doing the fighting have at least a visceral understanding
of the importance of outcome).
Hmmmm, I seem to have gotten off the subject. Whatever, my point to
Mr Fitch is that we should ask two questions: 1) why would Blacks
want to associate themselves with ancient "Black" contributors to
history and 2) why would Whites be unwilling to see any of these
contributions are being "Black"?
Both would claim a desire for finding the truth about history. One
side would claim the other is engaging in "revisionism" and the other
would claim that its opponents are defending the "revisionism" that
went on generations ago.
I find myself somewhat less interested in which side is right than in
why folks are having to fight over this in the first place.
--
Peace.
`Many Americans might not like me or my lyrics,
but I'll still make my millions, and
unlike many others, will pay my taxes on time.'
- paraphrase of Luther Campbell,
head honcho of 2 Live Crew
-\--/-
Don't just adopt opinions | \/ | Some of you are homeboys
develop them. | /\ | but only I am The Homeboy From hell
-/--\-
Barney Taylor
|> I believe the ancient Egyptians were Caucasians. In addition
|> to numerous pictures depicting them, I have heard a claim made
|> Eugene Veklerov
This is what I'm talking about folks. Eugene name one pharoh of ancient Egypt that
was unwrapped and behold a white man popped out. Explain how is it that these
Caucasians were at that time, as describe by many, "having thick lips, broad noses,
wooly hair, and burnt of skin" or black by todays term. I have also heard your
foolish counterparts claiming that these were black-caucasians. Until the hyksos
invasion approx 1675BC, 13th dynasty (I believe, I'm counting on my memory)
there are no depictions of, or descriptions of, Romiti (Egyptians) as
white (caucasian). By that time all of the pyramids had been built, the lunar
and solar calendar was complete, and other things. (Trying not to be long winded)
Also Kemet (Kem - which means black) means black land. Kemetians or Romiti which
means black people also indicates flaw in your belief. It is known now as fact that
life started near the Kilimangaro Mountains in Alkebulan and migrated out from there.
Kemet is the penicle (sp) of the Nile Valley Civilizations, which include
Ethiopia, Cush, Nubia, Kemet, and others. In that order. So your statement would
lead us to believe that the blacks of the Kilimangaro (they called mountains of
the moon) migrated to Ethiopia and set up civilization. Then Cush, then Nubia
which also had pharonic civilizations, then to Kemet upon which they turned white for
no apparent reason.
Oh yeah, what pictures?
Barney,
_________________________________________
NASA Computer Scientist / Software Engineer
The previous comments do not represent the
opinions of my employer or the government in
any part.
Hetep
-------------------------------------------
Barney Taylor
|> (I shall be disappointed if it turns out that Mr. Taylor is in the
|> habit of saying "heiroglyphics" when he means "the Greek alphabet,
|> which is related to such-and-such script used in Egypt.")
I am aware of the difference between metu neter (heiroglyphics) and
the Greek Alphabet. The two are vastly different, if in no other way
than one is highly conscious of the Gods of Alkebulan. In other
words in ancient Alkebulan the tradition, and culture combined
the so called government, church, and education so that to study and
learn in Alkebulan meant a constant intertwinning (sp) of each.
(i.e. mind, body, and soul). The Greek Alphabet is just that...
an Alphabet.
Janis Maria Cortese
Symbolic/religious depictions mean little for what the people really
looked like. Minoans depicted women with bone-white skin and men as
copper. Does this mean that there are two races?
Before anyone suggests the opposite, Minoan Crete was a relatively
egalitarian society, and there was no reason for women to remain
indoors; they actively participated in all aspects of life as did the
men, including bull-jumping, so the Victorian milk-white complexion
doesn't have a parallel here.
We have to keep in mind that old art was used for symbolic and religious
reasons, and NOT to depict reality. The initial use of perspective in
art was a curiosity, much like cubism was to us. Realism simply didn't
matter. You wanted to send a mythical message with your art back then,
not take pictures.
Regards,
Janis C.
Good refs are any archaeology/art history book, Jacquetta Hawke's _Dawn
of the Gods_ about Minoan/Mycenean culture, and Rodney Castleden's
_Minoans: Life in Bronze Age Crete_, as well as books on Linear A and
B.
Ken Arromdee
>Hmmmm, I seem to have gotten off the subject. Whatever, my point to
>Mr Fitch is that we should ask two questions: 1) why would Blacks
>want to associate themselves with ancient "Black" contributors to
>history and 2) why would Whites be unwilling to see any of these
>contributions are being "Black"?
>Both would claim a desire for finding the truth about history. One
>side would claim the other is engaging in "revisionism" and the other
>would claim that its opponents are defending the "revisionism" that
>went on generations ago.
>I find myself somewhat less interested in which side is right than in
>why folks are having to fight over this in the first place.
On the other hand, suppose one side is right, and another side is wrong.
Wanting to credit one's own race for ancient accomplishments is indeed one
motive. But if one side is in error, wanting to correct revisionism
(particularly revisionism intended for political purposes) is also enough of a
motive--all by itself.
Certainly both sides call the other revisionists. That doesn't mean, though,
that both of these claims are equally valid. You have to _determine_ which
side is right _before_ you can talk about people's motivations, since if there
is really a difference which makes one side right and another wrong, that
difference could itself be a motivation. If you don't know whether or not it's
there, you can't properly analyze motivations.
--
"On the first day after Christmas my truelove served to me... Leftover Turkey!
On the second day after Christmas my truelove served to me... Turkey Casserole
that she made from Leftover Turkey.
[days 3-4 deleted] ... Flaming Turkey Wings! ...
-- Pizza Hut commercial (and M*tlu/A*gic bait)
Ken Arromdee (arro...@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu, arro...@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu)
Barney Taylor
Africa, Mother of Western Civilization, Dr. Yosef A A ben-Jochannan
There are many others, but that for now answers your question well.
I don not know which page, it is near the beginning I believe.
The time period was the old kingdom. (can't remember for sure though)
Peace,
Robert Parson
>>
>
> First of all, the Egyptians themselves say the come from the foothills of
> the Mountian of the Moon. In case you did not know, they were referring to
> Mt Kilamanjaro, which sits on the border between Tanzania and Kenya and
> is the main source of the Nile.
>It would make sense if they orginated
> there, they would logically follow the course of the river since the land
> becomes more fertile as you go downstream.
Between the upper nile and Egypt you've got the Sudd Swamps and the
Sudan Desert. A lot less fertile than Uganda, say.
> In case you didn't know, when the Arabs invaded Egypt, the religion of
> Islam did not exist.
>
Wrong. The Arabs invaded Egypt under the first Muslim Caliphs (either
Abu Bekr or Omar, I think the latter), in the century after Muhammed's death.
Robert
Loren I. Petrich
>In article <1993Feb3.0...@midway.uchicago.edu>,
>th...@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
>>In article <caHm02O...@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> kl...@cd.amdahl.com
>>(Kent L. Shephard) writes:
>>>Also note that Homer wrote of Egypt along with Socrates.
>Read the Illiad and Oddesy by Homer.
I don't think that the Homeric epics mention Egypt anywhere,
though a counterexample would be interesting to see.
>>>Also note that Atilla The Hun was
>Check your history books. The Huns were a group of black folks.
They were from Central Asia, and the last time anybody
checked, Central Asians have rather pale skins.
>>>black. The Babalonian Empire was black. On, and on, and on.
>
>Again check the lineage as described in the Bible. Babalon was a black
>empire.
I don't think the Bible is a very good source for anything
much older than the Israelites' Kingdom because a lot of its earlier
history is uncorroborated, to put it politely. There is no mention
whatsoever of the Exodus in Egyptian records, for example, and some of
the earlier Biblical characters have suspiciously long lives. I take
that about as seriously as I take the Sumerian King List which states
that the earlier kings had lived for several millennia each, placing
the earlier kings in the Paleolithic(!).
At any rate, I'm sure they were all white, and I'm sure also
that they would all have looked much like the people living in that
place today, who have the un-Nordic appearance of black hair and brown
eyes.
--
/Loren Petrich, the Master Blaster
/l...@s1.gov
Loren I. Petrich
>In article <1993Feb5.1...@news.columbia.edu> tj...@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Tammy Jo Eckhart) writes:
: In article <ofQTn2W00iUzE=46...@andrew.cmu.edu> William Karamo Motley <wm...@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
: >
: >WRONG! The ancient Egyptians were Black. This is a typical example of
: >Causasian History. This is what white history scholars would want you
: >to believe. Speaking of numerous pictures depicting them, the head of
: >The Great Sphinx is a portrait of the Black Pharoh Khafre. He was the
: >first ruler to break the tradition of portraying all important Blacks
: >with pronounced 'Causasoid' features. Before the nose chipped away, the
: >nose was flat, typical of Black Africans.
: If the Egyptians rulers were black then why did they depict
: themsleves as white up until Khafre? Why would these earlier rulers lie
: about their skin color? Please provide Egyptian text, if available, from
: those periods to explain the reasoning behind lying about one's skin color.
>Symbolic/religious depictions mean little for what the people really
>looked like. Minoans depicted women with bone-white skin and men as
>copper. Does this mean that there are two races?
Interestingly, this sort of two-toned look was an artistic
convention practiced by the ancient Egyptians contemporary with them
and a lot of classical Greeks centuries later.
>Before anyone suggests the opposite, Minoan Crete was a relatively
>egalitarian society, and there was no reason for women to remain
>indoors; they actively participated in all aspects of life as did the
>men, including bull-jumping, so the Victorian milk-white complexion
>doesn't have a parallel here.
But if men were more likely to specialize in outdoor
occupations than women, then men would be more likely to be tanned
than women.
>Good refs are any archaeology/art history book, Jacquetta Hawke's _Dawn
>of the Gods_ about Minoan/Mycenean culture, and Rodney Castleden's
>_Minoans: Life in Bronze Age Crete_, as well as books on Linear A and
>B.
Yannis Schoinas
>In article <1993Feb3.0...@midway.uchicago.edu>,
>th...@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
>>In article <caHm02O...@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> kl...@cd.amdahl.com
>>(Kent L. Shephard) writes:
>>>Please note that the Libraries oif Alexandria were in Alexandria,
>>Egypt.
>>
>>Built by Greeks and Macedonians.
>Oh, please.
>I guess the first university was not at Timbuktu either. The libraries were
>*NOT* built by the Greeks. Burned yes, built no.
The libraries of Alexandria, in Alexandria?
>>>Also note that Homer wrote of Egypt along with Socrates.
>>
>>More details, please.
>Read the Illiad and Oddesy by Homer.
Along with Socrates?
>>>Also note that Atilla The Hun was
>Check your history books. The Huns were a group of black folks.
You must be jokin, right? Or black folks stands for anyone that
is not milk-white? Are chinese black?
eugene veklerov
> Also I did not know the Egyptians took pictures. Better yet, why don't
> you look at the monuments that they built to themselves and how they depict
> themselves.
I meant pictures which are reproduced in all history books rather than
photograps. Also, there are a few well preserved mummies.
> In case you didn't know, when the Arabs invaded Egypt, the religion of
> Islam did not exist.
I did not know that and I believe you are mistaken here.
Eugene Veklerov
Arthur Scribner
> If the Egyptians rulers were black then why did they depict
>themsleves as white up until Khafre? Why would these earlier rulers lie
>about their skin color? Please provide Egyptian text, if available, from
>those periods to explain the reasoning behind lying about one's skin color.
>
>
>Amazon-wanna-be,
> Tammy Jo
Please provide references as to where these depictions of "white" Egyptians
can be viewed. If you look at the monuments that they made of themselves,
you will see individuals with features that would be considered "Black"
by todays standards. Also, the nose of the Sphinx was blown off by some of
Napoleans' soldiers, thus destroying the actual features.
William Karamo Motley
You are wrong. The Arabs invaded Egypt and surrounding areas
constantly before Christ was born. Unless there is a difference between
Muslim and Islam, Mohammed was not around until ~600years after Christ.
James Rice
[stuff deleted - I'd expect a mummy to come out a grungey brown
colour independent of its skin colour or origin. I'd
never expect it to come out white.]
Also Kemet (Kem - which means black) means black land. Kemetians or Romiti which
means black people also indicates flaw in your belief. It is known now as fact that
life started near the Kilimangaro Mountains in Alkebulan and migrated out from there.
Kemet is the penicle (sp) of the Nile Valley Civilizations, which include
Ethiopia, Cush, Nubia, Kemet, and others. In that order. So your statement would
lead us to believe that the blacks of the Kilimangaro (they called mountains of
the moon) migrated to Ethiopia and set up civilization. Then Cush, then Nubia
which also had pharonic civilizations, then to Kemet upon which they turned white for
no apparent reason.
I find the inumeracy of these statements fascinating. I am not an
anthropologist/archaeologist, but my understanding is that the
majority of scientifically literate individuals would accept that
currently the body of evidence would suggest that H. Sapiens can trace
its lineage to Africa, probably East Africa. To assert that "It is
known now as fact that life started near the Kilimangaro Mountains in
Alkebulan and migrated out from there." is a "fact" is a bit
much, even if we interpret the term "life" to indicate humans.
Of course, if you mean all life then you're even crazier than I
think. The geographical origins of anatomically modern man are
much less clear, as I understand it.
Let us now consider the time scale of this claim. Depending on
the particular evolutionary/developmental camp you fall into you
might assert that beings that were a reasonable approximation to
man came into existence somewhere in the region of 1-4 Million
years ago. Let's take 2M years as a reasonable sounding value.
Let's then assume that such beings would have had to travel 5000
miles (being generous) to get from their place of origin (probably
the rift valley, not Mt K, but that's another issue) to Egypt.
So, for us to assume that civilisation took this path and couldn't
have come any other way would mean that the human species would
have had to diffuse at the massive value of 12 feet per year.
Over this time scale, the species could (and did) spread all over
the world. There was more than enough time for people to have
gone multiple times around the world lose their melanin, and
evolve it back on their way back to Egypt.
Oh yeah, what pictures?
All of the pictures that I recall seeing (often on TV but also in
museums) taken from the walls of Egyptian tombs show the people as
being a lightish brown. I even have an ancestral memory of
Nubians being explicitly depected as being different (black), but
I'm prepared to accept the falibility of my memory (not enough
melanin, I guess). Anyway, it's clear that they used a brown
pigment, since there are lots of instances of black pigment in
these pictures so the depictions of people couldn't have been
black that faded to brown over the centuries, so the issue of
Nubians being black is clearly moot. You'd have to come up with
some pretty convincing evidence and reasoning to persuade us that
the powerful in Egypt had a good reason to depict themselves as
being any colour other than they really were.
Barney,
I really don't care what colour any of these people were, but
I have a problem with the rewriting of history by unsupported
assertion.
Rice
James Rice
looked like. Minoans depicted women with bone-white skin and men as
copper. Does this mean that there are two races?
Not as far as I can see.
Before anyone suggests the opposite, Minoan Crete was a relatively
egalitarian society, and there was no reason for women to remain
indoors; they actively participated in all aspects of life as did the
men, including bull-jumping, so the Victorian milk-white complexion
doesn't have a parallel here.
I think I have to disagree with this. It's not clear to me that the
level of egalitarianism in Minoan society has anything to do with
whether the women depicted in paintings were shown as white.
I'd reason thus: The women that are depicted as white in paintings at
Knossos were ladies of the court. They therefore were not compelled
to work out in the sun. [I don't have a good memory of the pictures of
ladies bull-fighting, but I don't remember them as being depicted as
white.]
The "Victorian milk-white complexion" you mention was certainly very
much the fashion in Homer's time and it seems reasonable to suspect
that this was a broadly held cultural norm. For women to be able to
show by their appearance (or clothes) that they do not have to work
seems to have been a fairly common thing in human history. {Perhaps
this was really rich men being able to show that they could afford to
have wives/concubines that didn't have to work, but I believe that the
effect would be equivalent]
To support my Homeric reference, I'd point you to book 6 of the
Odyssey in which Nausicaa (the beautiful daughter of the great-hearted
king Alcinous) is unambiguously described using the term "leukomenos"
(white armed).
We have to keep in mind that old art was used for symbolic and religious
reasons, and NOT to depict reality. The initial use of perspective in
art was a curiosity, much like cubism was to us. Realism simply didn't
matter. You wanted to send a mythical message with your art back then,
not take pictures.
Art was clearly used for a number of purposes. Sometimes it may be
supposed to represent reality.
Regards,
Janis C.
Good refs are any archaeology/art history book, Jacquetta Hawke's _Dawn
of the Gods_ about Minoan/Mycenean culture, and Rodney Castleden's
_Minoans: Life in Bronze Age Crete_, as well as books on Linear A and
B.
Rice.
Mellissa Namazi
writes:
>In article <1993Feb5.0...@afterlife.ncsc.mil>, ags...@afterlife.ncsc.
mil (Arthur Scribner) writes:
>
>> Also I did not know the Egyptians took pictures. Better yet, why don't
>> you look at the monuments that they built to themselves and how they depict
>> themselves.
>
>I meant pictures which are reproduced in all history books rather than
>photograps. Also, there are a few well preserved mummies.
>
>> In case you didn't know, when the Arabs invaded Egypt, the religion of
>> Islam did not exist.
>
>I did not know that and I believe you are mistaken here.
>
Mohammad was born in 570 AD
Around 610 first revelation
The Hijra (emigration to Medina) 622
Conquest of Mecca in 630
Died 632
Withing ten years Islam had reached Iran. I don't know the exact
date when Egypt was conquered.
By the time the Arabs invaded Egypt, Islam was established (i.e. it
did exist). However, with repect to Egyptian history, the comming
of Islam was a "new development". Thus when anyone makes any
arguments based on the Islamic time frame, caution should be used
since this is fairly recent history.
I believe this thread started with a reference to Copts in Egypt and
the policy of coversion to Islam. I am not positive, but I believe
that Islam only requires conversion when a female Muslim marries a
non-Muslim male. The male must covert. The opposite does not
apply (i.e. non Muslim women are not required to convert). The
Copts are Christians.
Regards
Mellissa
>Eugene Veklerov
Ted Frank
>
>|> (I shall be disappointed if it turns out that Mr. Taylor is in the
>|> habit of saying "heiroglyphics" when he means "the Greek alphabet,
>|> which is related to such-and-such script used in Egypt.")
>
>I am aware of the difference between metu neter (heiroglyphics) and
>the Greek Alphabet.
Good. Now maybe you can tell us your evidence that Greek philosophers
used heiroglyphics in their writings. Plato, among others, coined
new words using the Greek alphabet, so I'd be curious how those words
came into being with a non-phonetic written language.
--
ted frank | "So in 1986 Deprizio was lured to a vacant parking
th...@ellis.uchicago.edu | lot, where an assassin's gun and the obligations
the u of c law school | of a lifetime were discharged together."
standard disclaimers | -- Judge Frank Easterbrook, 874 F2d 1187
Roger Squires
> cor...@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (Jason D Corley ) writes:
>
>>From: wm...@andrew.cmu.edu (William Karamo Motley)
>> The Great Sphinx is a portrait of the Black Pharoh Khafre. ...
>>... Before the nose chipped away, the nose was flat ...
>
>Chipped away? That's not what I heard. I read somewhere that it was
>blown off in a war back in the 18th or 19th century! Am I waaaaaay
>off on this or what?
>
In Chapter 5, "The Long Egyptian Night," of _The Blue Nile_,
Alan Moorehead in discussing the (poor) state of egyptian
culture before Napoleon's landing, states that the Sphinx's
nose was "already broken." His sources are 18th and 19th
century travel accounts which are listed in the bibliography,
so I think we can accept this as fact.
>Jason D. Corley (alias cor...@gas.uug.arizona.edu), Mad Mathematician
rms
Makala P Mweene
>
>I believe the ancient Egyptians were Caucasians. In addition
>to numerous pictures depicting
I think that we should distinguish between the Egyptian tomb painters
and Michael Angelo. Egyptian was art was highly stylised and differe
nt people saw different things in it. Having said this, it should be
pointed out that Egyptian, Nubian and Ethiopian art were often exact
ly the same...... And while you love pantings so much let me suggest
one that will surely lay your concerns to rest. In the book "Egypt
Revisted" edited by Ivan Van Sertima and published by Rutgers Univ.
Press(?), there is a painting on the inside on the inside leaf which
I would like you to see. After you do that please post again on the
net, ok.
>
>Eugene Veklerov
makala
Carl J Lydick
Shephard) writes:
=>>Also note that Atilla The Hun was
=
=Check your history books. The Huns were a group of black folks.
Which Mongolian tribes are you claiming are black?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CA...@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL
Disclaimer: Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS. That's what I get paid for. My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below). So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it. If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
Kenn Barry
>In article <04Hh020...@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>, kl...@cd.amdahl.com (Kent L.
>Shephard) writes:
>=>>Also note that Atilla The Hun was
>=
>=Check your history books. The Huns were a group of black folks.
>
>Which Mongolian tribes are you claiming are black?
The Huns, obviously :-). Remember, in Kent's system, the human
race is divided into 2 groups: Blacks and Scandinavians. Once you get
that straight it all falls into place.
Kayembee
Jayesh Sahasi [MSAI]
>>
>>By the way, the Egyptians of that time probably looked more like
>>today's tropical Africans than do today's Egyptians, who are
>>at least partly Arab in their ancestry. I think one can verify this
>
>I believe the ancient Egyptians were Caucasians. In addition
>Their claim makes sense, because according to the Egyptian law
>(Muslim law), if a Muslim and a Christian want to get married,
>the Christian party has to convert to Islam (at least that is my
>understanding of the law -- can someone confirm or deny that?).
>
>If that is the case, the intermarriages have not affected the Coptic
>community and they remain the carriers of the genes of the ancient
>Egyptians, as the Arabs who invaded Egypt were already Muslims.
>
>Eugene Veklerov
From what little I recall of my world history, Egyptians were always a
mixed people...racism is a relatively recent invention. Pharoah Akhenaten's
mother, I believe, was from Sudan. So to say Egyptians were Caucasians
might not be strictly true...
============================================================================
*** Jayesh Sahasi, ***
*** Artificial Intelligence Programs, ***
*** University of Georgia, ***
*** Athens, GA 30602. ***
*** e-mail: jsa...@ai.uga.edu ***
============================================================================
What is not today will be tomorrow.
--Petronius
____________________________________________________________________________
Mike Hoffmann
>Please provide references as to where these depictions of "white" Egyptians
>can be viewed. If you look at the monuments that they made of themselves,
>you will see individuals with features that would be considered "Black"
>by todays standards. Also, the nose of the Sphinx was blown off by some of
>Napoleans' soldiers, thus destroying the actual features.
Uh, excuse me for joining the fray so late (lurking up 'til now), but this
can't stand.
I just happen to have borrowed a book about Egyptian art and architecture from
our library and still have it at home right now.
The one thing that struck me is the *diversity* of the skin colors of the
people depicted - all people. The kings, queens, priests, masons, field
workers, slaves, prisoners.
Contrary to this ongoing black-or-white Egypt discussion I get the impression
of a culture that was fabulously diverse in "racial" (if you want to use
that term) aspects.
Also it seems as if the Egyptian artists where very careful about their
depiction of these colors. You hardly see paintings of say, whole columns
and throngs of people in one color, because maybe the artist had preferred
one color or run out of others. No, you see scenes showing evreryday life,
with lots of different sexes, ages (yes, these are also distinguishable,
the love of detail in Egyptian art fascinates me no end) and *skin colors*.
It seems that they wanted to show people exactly as they looked like, no?
Same goes for the royal scenes: you will find black Pharaos , as well as
"tanned" (in a sunny desert country, you probably can't speak of "white"
in a Caucasian sense, but like Arabs or Mediterannean sense), i.e. white.
And I'm not speaking of paintings of the Hyksos kings!
This whole argument is merely political, and many seem to lose their
sense of appreciation of the high art of the Egyptians to further their
own ends, by twisting it's intentions to their own needs.
*Look* at those pictures! Enjoy them! Admire them for what they are!
Naive am I?
Mike (lover of Egyptian art)
--
Mike Hoffmann - Internet Administrator, Siemens-Nixdorf AG, SNI AP 712
INTERNET: Mike.H...@ap.mchp.sni.de
"I don't think we're in Riyadh anymore." - US-Marine in Somalia
William Karamo Motley
>"Raided", maybe - but Egypt remained an integral part of the East Roman
>Empire until it was conquered by the Muslim Arabs in about 645.
>
>Robert
Robert, I see your point, but Arabs had some control over Upper Egypt in
the second millenium B.C. for a while. Eventually, the Egyptians drove
the Arabs out, and the Arabs did continue to 'raid' Egypt from that
point on until Egypt fell in 645.
lees...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
"Black Zeus" and other things in this area. Check it out.
.
Tammy Jo Eckhart
>
>> If the Egyptians rulers were black then why did they depict
>>themsleves as white up until Khafre? Why would these earlier rulers lie
>>about their skin color? Please provide Egyptian text, if available, from
>>those periods to explain the reasoning behind lying about one's skin color.
>>
>>
>>Amazon-wanna-be,
>> Tammy Jo
>
>
>
>Please provide references as to where these depictions of "white" Egyptians
>can be viewed. If you look at the monuments that they made of themselves,
>you will see individuals with features that would be considered "Black"
>by todays standards. Also, the nose of the Sphinx was blown off by some of
>Napoleans' soldiers, thus destroying the actual features.
>
>Arthur
I was asking the person who stated that Egyptian rulers were suddenly
shown as black instead of white even though they were always black. If that
is true, my question is why did this change and why were they shown as white
in the first place?
Amazon-wanna-be,
Tammy Jo
Gordon Fitch
| |It seems to me that the terms "Black" and "White", as "races",
| |are largely a cultural construction of Western European and
| |North American societies. ... [ therefore it is not useful
| |to ask who was Black or White in the ancient world ] ....
isb...@ai.mit.edu (Charles L Isbell) writes:
| [ question means something in modern terms ]
|
| I find myself somewhat less interested in which side is right than in
| why folks are having to fight over this in the first place.
I think we know the answer to that: African influence on
Europe and the Mediterranean world was denied or obscured
by many for a long time for obvious political reasons. I
have been reading Latin literature off and on for about
forty years, and it was only a few years ago that I found
that Terence was "Black" (Nubian).
--
)*( Gordon Fitch )*( g...@panix.com )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta., NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
Malcolm D. None of ya Bizness Moore
$In article <ISBELL.93...@panther.ai.mit.edu> isb...@ai.mit.edu (Charles L Isbell) writes:
$>Hmmmm, I seem to have gotten off the subject. Whatever, my point to
$>Mr Fitch is that we should ask two questions: 1) why would Blacks
$>want to associate themselves with ancient "Black" contributors to
$>history and 2) why would Whites be unwilling to see any of these
$>contributions are being "Black"?
$>Both would claim a desire for finding the truth about history. One
$>side would claim the other is engaging in "revisionism" and the other
$>would claim that its opponents are defending the "revisionism" that
$>went on generations ago.
$>I find myself somewhat less interested in which side is right than in
$>why folks are having to fight over this in the first place.
$
$On the other hand, suppose one side is right, and another side is wrong.
Man are you smokin crack or what? Didn't you read what he just said?
He's not interested in who's right. He's more interested in what
caused the disagreement in the first place.
That is another problem with people--this goes far beyond the reaches
of this newsgroup--people are always looking for the path of least
resistance, always looking for somebody or something else to blame for
their problems. That's part of what creates the fear which creates
this race division. Somebody else posted on here a response to
another post saying that there were no concentrated anti-white groups
in America, talkin about "Well, what about the Nation of Islam led by
Louis Farrakhan?" What *about* it? It certainly isn't an anti-white
group. Stop looking for someone else to blame. Come to the table and
find out what's goin on.
$Wanting to credit one's own race for ancient accomplishments is indeed one
$motive. But if one side is in error, wanting to correct revisionism
$(particularly revisionism intended for political purposes) is also enough of a
$motive--all by itself.
$
$Certainly both sides call the other revisionists. That doesn't mean, though,
$that both of these claims are equally valid. You have to _determine_ which
$side is right _before_ you can talk about people's motivations, since if there
$is really a difference which makes one side right and another wrong, that
$difference could itself be a motivation. If you don't know whether or not it's
$there, you can't properly analyze motivations.
But how are you going to go about doing this? Who is going to decide
who is right or not? This certainly isn't a clear cut case. If you
rely on entities who are associated with each side, you're never going
to get to the truth of the matter because each entity has an opinion
of their side, and the opposing side.
So it's really a no-win...unless you can get an arbitrator. Time
would be better spent finding out what caused the mess in the first
place.
$Ken Arromdee (arro...@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu, arro...@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu)
--
Malcolm Diallo Moore, CIS-Univ. of Minn mmo...@epx.cis.umn.edu
386BSD/Linux Tinkerer moor...@student.tc.umn.edu mmo...@ref.tfs.com
Ed McMahon: "Please order now or we'll have to drop you from the mailing list!"
Me: "I'm up to my ass in magazine subscriptions Ed! DROP me the damn $10 mil."
Robert Parson
"Raided", maybe - but Egypt remained an integral part of the East Roman
Makala P Mweene
(Tammy Jo Eckhart) writes:
>
> All of this discussion is great, but it didn't answer my original
>question as to why Egyptian rulers were shown as white if they were really
>black.
Your question is based on a wrong assumption. Egyptians never painted their
rulers in the likeness of white people. White people as known in the dynast
ic times were Lybians and the Semitic tribes of the Sinai. The Egyptians
never painted themselves in the color of the Lybians or the Sinians. The
y painted themselves in a reddish brown clour for men and yellowish red
color for women. Lybians and Sinians were painted bright yellow. Further
the Egyptians alsoi called themselves Ta Merians where as they called the
Lybians Tamou (Sianians??). They called their fellow black Africans from
Nubia TaNehesians. When ever they did not paint themselves the colours
above, the Egyptians painted themselves black. For this I refer you to the
book "Egypt Revisited", where on the inner cover there is a picture of the
races as Known to the Egyptians in the time of Rameses III. Observe that
the Egyptians could NOT have been of the color they often depicted them
selves in, becuase there are no humans in that part of the world who are
of that color.
> What were the philosophical or religious reasons for this? From
>memory I recall that in drawings from Egyptian tombs people who were not
>royalty are shown in different skin shades so the reason for showing the
>rulers as white must be more completed than simply "they could afford to stay
>inside". Did the Egyptians explain what colors represented to them? Did
>they explain it themselves or are modern scholars just guessing?
> Ancient Egypt isn't my area of study but it is interesting.
You ask a good question. Even you acknowlegde that these colours sometimes
used on the paintings were ritualistic or stylistic. Infact E A Wallis bu
dge tells us in "Osiris and The Egyptian Resuurection" that the custom
of coloring oneself red exists among mordern day Africans, such as the Mas
ai. Herodotus tell us that the customs, dress, manners of Egyptians were
identical to those of the Ethiopians and the Nubians. Strabo says "Egypti
ans settled Colhci and Ethipia!!!".........
Makala
>
>Amazon-wanna-be,
> Tammy Jo
Richard A. Schumacher
peaches-and-cream. Their color was irrelevant to their
accomplishments. Claiming that Socrates was black is
silly because it's not true. Claiming that people of color
are responsible for all things good is as silly as making
that claim about people of pallor.
Makala P Mweene
>Please provide PRIMARY sources for your claim that there was a library
>at the site of Alexandria before Alexander the Great conquered Egypt.
>``Oh, please.'' is not an argument. And, as far as the rest of the
>world knows, the Library at Alexandria was burnt during the
>post-classical period.
>
According to Prof. Ben-Yochanan, the Library at Alexandria began as an
extension of the Egyptian Library at Luxor. It is fair to say that after
the Greeks pillaged Egyptian writings they deposited these in the Alexa
ndrian Library......
makala
Makala P Mweene
>Oh, one question, fellahs; since Alexandria is clearly a Greek name,
>based on Alexander, could you answer me one simple, itty-bitty
>question: what was the Egyptian name of the city, before Alexander
>re-named it, as your theory would require?
But even Egypt is a Greek name. The Ancient Egyptians called their
country Kemt not Egypt. Even Ethiopia nad Africa for that matter are
not African names.......Many Egyptian cities such Memphis have Greek
names. Even Egyptian Pharoahs had Greek names...The greeks gave names
to everybody and everything they saw.....
>count.) If there was indeed a city on the site of Alexandria, let
>alone a great library, before Alexander's time, this should be an easy
>question to answer
Well, as I said before, the Library at Alexandria began as an extension
of the Egyptian Library at Luxor......
>Bob Ingria
makala
Janis Maria Cortese
Sorry, but I haven't seen that claim made seriously. All people have
said is that Egyptians were Africans and likely dark. I can't believe
for a minute that peaches-and-cream exist anywhere that close to the
equator.
No one has been saying that people of color are responsible for every
advancement ever made. I think it much more illuminating that someone's
suggestion that Socrates was black is stomped on. It's the merest hint
that dark skinned people may have had high civilization and mathematical
acumen of any sort that is greeted as if the speaker were just trying to
be PC or something. No one is saying that white people are not learned
or have not made great contributions; yet, that is what many white
people assume is being said when dark-skinned people claim a past of
great accomplishment and high learning. When an African-descended
person finds pride in the past of that continent, they are not throwing
down on everyone else. Again, I think it very illuminating that people
assume that the elevation of dark people automatically requires the
denigration of whites.
NO ONE IS SAYING THIS. You are subscribing to a perfect "either/or"
mentality by knee-jerking to the conclusion that just because someone
says someone smart may have been black that they are putting you one
down.
This reminds me a bit of something I saw being advertized by the
Smithsonian -- you know, all those collectible knick-knacks theyre
always selling. Well, this was a porcelain doll of "the most beautiful
woman in history," Nefertiti. She was a "classical example of female
beauty and lauded throughout the ancient world." It goes without saying
that the doll had skin lighter than mine, and blue eyeshadow on, with a
tiny little nose and tiny little lips.
Great dark people are *forever* getting bleached. Whether Socrates was
dark or not, white people have a lot of gall getting threatened when
someone attempts for once to dye someone great a nice shade of black.
Regards,
Janis C.
Makala P Mweene
(Jayesh Sahasi [MSAI]) writes:
>
>From what little I recall of my world history, Egyptians were always a
>mixed people...racism is a relatively recent invention. Pharoah Akhenaten's
>mother, I believe, was from Sudan. So to say Egyptians were Caucasians
>might not be strictly true...
>*** Jayesh Sahasi, ***
Your assertion is true with some modification. If you say that Egyptians
'BECAME' mixed people as time went on that is certainly true. In the latter
part of their history, pharaohs became infact very mixed. The pharoahs had
married. Akhenten was NOT mixed because his mother was from Sudan. Egyptians
became mixed when any of their parents were NOT black African. Two black
Africans do not lead to a mixed child. An caucasian blood in Akhenaten would
have been due to the admixture of foreign white blood in the line of his
father.....
Makala
:wq
Makala P Mweene
(William Karamo Motley) writes:
>Robert,
> You are wrong. The Arabs invaded Egypt and surrounding areas
>constantly before Christ was born.
Actually, the Arabs invaded Egypt in two waves in 640 A.D. 6 centuries
after Jesus......
> Unless there is a difference between
>Muslim and Islam, Mohammed was not around until ~600years after Christ.
A muslim is someone who practises Islam....
makala
Carl J Lydick
>Also, the concept of theft of technology is a modern European idea. The
>ancient peoples all considered knowledge to be the possession of
>everybody. They had no patents, no copyrights, and no "intellectual
>property" laws. When someone discovered something, everybody benefitted.
So you're saying that, e.g., the stories about a certain dye being made only in
Tyre, and the techniques for making it are unfounded? Or certain techniques
for making steel?
>The Phoenicians developed the concept of writing from the Egyptians and
>then spread it to the Greeks and then the idea spread like wildfire.
>Nobody tried to keep the idea private.
Ah, but writing was something for which teaching it to others helped you. We
don't try to keep the idea of writing private today (though given some school
systems, perhaps there's reason for some skepticism about this claim).
Makala P Mweene
What sort of an answer is this? I think we must know rather than obscure
the truth in comfortable compromise. The fact of black Egyptianess was not
diminished by the presence of white foreigners in their midst any more than
white Germaness is by the presence of black Africans in Bonn.
makala
Carl J Lydick
=$>Both would claim a desire for finding the truth about history. One
=$>side would claim the other is engaging in "revisionism" and the other
=$>would claim that its opponents are defending the "revisionism" that
=$>went on generations ago.
=$>I find myself somewhat less interested in which side is right than in
=$>why folks are having to fight over this in the first place.
=$
=$On the other hand, suppose one side is right, and another side is wrong.
=
=Man are you smokin crack or what? Didn't you read what he just said?
=He's not interested in who's right. He's more interested in what
=caused the disagreement in the first place.
Curiosity?
Robert Parson
> In article <1993Feb5.1...@Princeton.EDU>, bvau...@sheps.Princeton.EDU (Barbara Vaughan) writes:
>>Also, the concept of theft of technology is a modern European idea. The
>>ancient peoples all considered knowledge to be the possession of
>>everybody. They had no patents, no copyrights, and no "intellectual
>>property" laws. When someone discovered something, everybody benefitted.
>
> So you're saying that, e.g., the stories about a certain dye being made only in
> Tyre, and the techniques for making it are unfounded? Or certain techniques
> for making steel?
>
In fact, the composition of Greek Fire is still not precisely known.
Robert
J. Sunny Egbo
|> In article <1993Feb5.2...@afterlife.ncsc.mil> ags...@afterlife.ncsc.mil (Arthur Scribner) writes:
|> >Please provide references as to where these depictions of "white" Egyptians
|> >can be viewed. If you look at the monuments that they made of themselves,
|> >you will see individuals with features that would be considered "Black"
|> >by todays standards. Also, the nose of the Sphinx was blown off by some of
|> >Napoleans' soldiers, thus destroying the actual features.
|>
|> I just happen to have borrowed a book about Egyptian art and architecture from
|> that term) aspects.
Why is it that most Americans think that ancients Egyptians were white? It
is no mystery that an attempt has been made by the white admitted supremacists
(and white non-admitted supremacists alike) to re-write history. Yes, there
has been a conspiracy by Europeans to re-write history. Thus, they have
taken great care to destroy many evidence contradicting their "superior race"
philosophy. So, before you start quoting me any book, let's look at some
uncontested facts; start with geography. In 1980 Iran did NOT have a border
with Nicaragua.
Egypt is located in the African mainland, NO ocean or major physical barrier
separates it from other African groups. Thus, it is highly unlikely that the
racial make-up would be different from say what you will find in Ethiopia,
Kenya, Zimbabwe or Sudan. Many physical structures such as carvings and
paintings that support the fact that the earliest Pharoahs and Egyptians were
Black (or what is considered African) are now beginning to surface. Similarly,
many recent archealogical digs are discovering artifacts incredibly similar to
those of the Egyptians in many other parts of Africa with the most notable
ones in Nubia (go see the display at the University of Pennsylvania). The
climate in Egypt is HOT, HOT, HOT. No one will claim that the Scandinavians
of say 500 B.C. were Africans. It is just as absurd to claim that the
ancient Egyptians were white or anything other than black; yet this is what
has been highly promulgated by many western intellectuals. Give it up!
I suspect that until we get many Africans to study archeology, to insure
accurate interpretations of historical objects, we will continue to be
fed the same "whites are the only intellectuals of the world" nonsense.
So before you quote anything, consider the fact that an attempt has been
made by European colonialist to metathesize and confuse African history.
Where are archeological digs from many African countries today? In
warehouses in England, France and Germany. When will these be released
to the countries that own them?
[* Aside * Someone told me that Egyptians are classified as Caucasians by
the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service. I did not believe it.
Is this true? If true why? If not true, what are they classified as? **]
|>
|> Also it seems as if the Egyptian artists where very careful about their
|> depiction of these colors. You hardly see paintings of say, whole columns
|> and throngs of people in one color, because maybe the artist had preferred
|> one color or run out of others. No, you see scenes showing evreryday life,
|> with lots of different sexes, ages (yes, these are also distinguishable,
|> the love of detail in Egyptian art fascinates me no end) and *skin colors*.
|> It seems that they wanted to show people exactly as they looked like, no?
It seems that many archeologists had taken great liberty to repaint what
they want.
|>
|> Same goes for the royal scenes: you will find black Pharaos , as well as
|> "tanned" (in a sunny desert country, you probably can't speak of "white"
|> in a Caucasian sense, but like Arabs or Mediterannean sense), i.e. white.
|> And I'm not speaking of paintings of the Hyksos kings!
|>
|> This whole argument is merely political, and many seem to lose their
|> sense of appreciation of the high art of the Egyptians to further their
|> own ends, by twisting it's intentions to their own needs.
|>
Yes. It is politically orchestrated to support the racial superiority
hierarchy of the west.
|> *Look* at those pictures! Enjoy them! Admire them for what they are!
|>
|> Naive am I?
|> Mike (lover of Egyptian art)
|> --
|> Mike Hoffmann - Internet Administrator, Siemens-Nixdorf AG, SNI AP 712
|> INTERNET: Mike.H...@ap.mchp.sni.de
|> "I don't think we're in Riyadh anymore." - US-Marine in Somalia
-Sunny (Lover of intellectual accuracy).
Brad Kepley
>
>Why is it that most Americans think that ancients Egyptians were white?
Elizabeth Taylor?
--
Brad Kepley Internet kep...@photon.phys.unca.edu
Work-days Voice (704)252-8330
--
PELTON MATTHEW ALAN
>is no mystery that an attempt has been made by the white admitted supremacists
>(and white non-admitted supremacists alike) to re-write history. Yes, there
>has been a conspiracy by Europeans to re-write history. Thus, they have
>taken great care to destroy many evidence contradicting their "superior race"
>philosophy. So, before you start quoting me any book, let's look at some
>uncontested facts; start with geography. In 1980 Iran did NOT have a border
>with Nicaragua.
No, I would guess it didn't. And, barring any vast changes in world geography
I would guess it never will. What the hell are you talking about?
>
>Egypt is located in the African mainland, NO ocean or major physical barrier
>separates it from other African groups. Thus, it is highly unlikely that the
So, by that token, everybody on the European-Asian-African land mass is
of the same ethnic group? After all, they're all connected.
>racial make-up would be different from say what you will find in Ethiopia,
>Kenya, Zimbabwe or Sudan. Many physical structures such as carvings and
>paintings that support the fact that the earliest Pharoahs and Egyptians were
>Black (or what is considered African) are now beginning to surface. Similarly,
>many recent archealogical digs are discovering artifacts incredibly similar to
>those of the Egyptians in many other parts of Africa with the most notable
>ones in Nubia (go see the display at the University of Pennsylvania). The
>climate in Egypt is HOT, HOT, HOT. No one will claim that the Scandinavians
>of say 500 B.C. were Africans. It is just as absurd to claim that the
>ancient Egyptians were white or anything other than black; yet this is what
>has been highly promulgated by many western intellectuals. Give it up!
>
>I suspect that until we get many Africans to study archeology, to insure
>accurate interpretations of historical objects, we will continue to be
>fed the same "whites are the only intellectuals of the world" nonsense.
>So before you quote anything, consider the fact that an attempt has been
>made by European colonialist to metathesize and confuse African history.
>Where are archeological digs from many African countries today? In
>warehouses in England, France and Germany. When will these be released
>to the countries that own them?
Technically, these "countries that own them" sold them to the countries
that currently possess them. Unless you're talking about soime greater,
metaphysical sense of "ownership," I'd say they're in the hands of those that
own them...
>
>[* Aside * Someone told me that Egyptians are classified as Caucasians by
>the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service. I did not believe it.
>Is this true? If true why? If not true, what are they classified as? **]
>
>|>
>|> Also it seems as if the Egyptian artists where very careful about their
>|> depiction of these colors. You hardly see paintings of say, whole columns
>|> and throngs of people in one color, because maybe the artist had preferred
>|> one color or run out of others. No, you see scenes showing evreryday life,
>|> with lots of different sexes, ages (yes, these are also distinguishable,
>|> the love of detail in Egyptian art fascinates me no end) and *skin colors*.
>|> It seems that they wanted to show people exactly as they looked like, no?
>
>It seems that many archeologists had taken great liberty to repaint what
>they want.
Sure. The archaeologists repainted the finds. You're posting to
sci.skeptic, you know. We're not liable to believe everything you say.
Try alt.conspiracy.
>
>|>
>|> Same goes for the royal scenes: you will find black Pharaos , as well as
>|> "tanned" (in a sunny desert country, you probably can't speak of "white"
>|> in a Caucasian sense, but like Arabs or Mediterannean sense), i.e. white.
>|> And I'm not speaking of paintings of the Hyksos kings!
>|>
>|> This whole argument is merely political, and many seem to lose their
>|> sense of appreciation of the high art of the Egyptians to further their
>|> own ends, by twisting it's intentions to their own needs.
>|>
>
>Yes. It is politically orchestrated to support the racial superiority
>hierarchy of the west.
>
>-Sunny (Lover of intellectual accuracy).
bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!
--
-- Matt
Brad Kepley
>has been a conspiracy by Europeans to re-write history. Thus, they have
>taken great care to destroy many evidence contradicting their "superior race"
>philosophy.
But this is nothing but a diatribe. I don't find it at all hard to believe
that racism has ruined many history books, but when you start
calling it a grand European conspiracy, you've lost me.
>The
>climate in Egypt is HOT, HOT, HOT. No one will claim that the Scandinavians
>of say 500 B.C. were Africans. It is just as absurd to claim that the
>ancient Egyptians were white or anything other than black; yet this is what
>has been highly promulgated by many western intellectuals. Give it up!
So do I understand you to say that modern Egyptians are "black" too? It's
still HOT, HOT, HOT isn't it? I'm not saying that the ancient Egyptians
were not black. I don't really care if they were or not. I'm just
trying to understand what you mean by black.
>
>I suspect that until we get many Africans to study archeology, to insure
>accurate interpretations of historical objects, we will continue to be
>fed the same "whites are the only intellectuals of the world" nonsense.
But aren't you making the same mistakes that the whites did? You want
historical interpretations by persons conscious of their skin color
it seems to me. And "whites are the only intellectuals of the world"
is only fed to skinheads and boneheads.
>Yes. It is politically orchestrated to support the racial superiority
>hierarchy of the west.
>
You sound more than a little paranoid to me. But I can understand your
resentment of Western dominance. There was a time when the shoe was
on the other foot though wasn't there?
>
>-Sunny (Lover of intellectual accuracy).
--
Yannis Schoinas
>Robert,
> You are wrong. The Arabs invaded Egypt and surrounding areas
>constantly before Christ was born. Unless there is a difference between
>Muslim and Islam, Mohammed was not around until ~600years after Christ.
When exactly did the Arabs invaded Egypt? Can you provide us with the
approximate date?
Yannis.
Yannis Schoinas
>g...@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>| |It seems to me that the terms "Black" and "White", as "races",
>| |are largely a cultural construction of Western European and
>| |North American societies. ... [ therefore it is not useful
>| |to ask who was Black or White in the ancient world ] ....
>isb...@ai.mit.edu (Charles L Isbell) writes:
>| [ question means something in modern terms ]
>|
>| I find myself somewhat less interested in which side is right than in
>| why folks are having to fight over this in the first place.
>I think we know the answer to that: African influence on
>Europe and the Mediterranean world was denied or obscured
>by many for a long time for obvious political reasons. I
>have been reading Latin literature off and on for about
>forty years, and it was only a few years ago that I found
>that Terence was "Black" (Nubian).
You don't suppose it has anything to do with the fact that
the ancient writers didn't give a nickel about the color of
the skin? And that Roman was a statement of culture and not
physical characteristics?
Yannis.
Kenn Barry
Oh, probably because they think of today's typical Egyptian as
"white", and assume the ancient Egyptians were their ancestors.
I think we need a professional anthropologist in this debate.
I am not an anthropologist, but I'll give this my best shot. "Race" is
a loose concept at any time, and it's looser than ever in this
argument. I don't propose to tell you that ancient Egyptians were
either "black" or "white", at least not until we all agree on what
those terms mean. The Aborigenes of Australia and the Dravidians of
southern India are about as dark as any peoples in the world, but are
not grouped with black Africans because of other physical differences,
and no close genetic links. Anthropologists also consider Bushmen and
Pygmies separate groups, though more closely-related to the dominant
black populations of Africa today.
Anthropologists say the main population of ancient Egypt was
Hamitic. Whether dark or light, they class Hamitic people as Caucasoid
based on skeletal subtleties. I would imagine skin color is hard to
determine from skeletons, and not much easier with mummies. They sure
as hell _were_ Africans, unless Egypt has been moving around :-). But
it appears their earliest ancestors migrated in from southwest Asia,
rather than up from southern Africa.
>Egypt is located in the African mainland, NO ocean or major physical barrier
>separates it from other African groups.
Well, there's this little thing called the Sahara Desert. Add to
that that the Nile was unnavigable farther south, and it's easy to see
why Egypt had more contact with Asia, and even Europe, than sub-Saharan
Africa.
>Thus, it is highly unlikely that the
>racial make-up would be different from say what you will find in Ethiopia,
>Kenya, Zimbabwe or Sudan.
According to the anthropologists, northern and eastern Africa
was mainly inhabited by a proto-Hamitic Caucasoid population in
Paleolithic times. There is a very ancient Negroid population in the
region of Khartoum, but apart from that, the oldest Negroid remains come
from West Africa. Negroid peoples later expanded into the rest of East
Africa south of the Sahara, though even today the average East African
is lighter-skinned and has more Caucasoid features than the average
West African.
As for the early Egyptians, here is a quote from _A Short
History of Africa_, by Roland Oliver and J. D. Fage:
The physical types found in predynastic and early
dynastic burials are remarkably consistent, and show that
the ancient Egyptian cultivators were of a short and rather
lightly-built race indistinguishable from the modern Beja of
the Red Sea hills or from the Danakil and Somali of the
Horn of Africa.
I will leave it to those who care to decide if that makes them
"black" or "white"; I'll settle for "brown". What they surely weren't is
European.
- From the Crow's Nest - Kenn Barry
----------------------------------------------------------------
ELECTRIC AVENUE: ba...@netcom.com
Tammy Jo Eckhart
>I think we know the answer to that: African influence on
>Europe and the Mediterranean world was denied or obscured
>by many for a long time for obvious political reasons. I
>have been reading Latin literature off and on for about
>forty years, and it was only a few years ago that I found
>that Terence was "Black" (Nubian).
Really! In my introduction to Roman Drama book from a few years back
it says that Terence "was born in Africa, brought to Rome as a slave,
educated by his owner, the senator Terentius Lucanus, and upon liberation
took the name of Publius Terentius Afer ("the African")." The book is
called: _Roman Drama_ the Macmillan Publishing Company 1965.
Amazon-wanna-be,
Tammy Jo
Tammy Jo Eckhart
> Anthropologists say the main population of ancient Egypt was
>Hamitic. Whether dark or light, they class Hamitic people as Caucasoid
>based on skeletal subtleties. I would imagine skin color is hard to
>determine from skeletons, and not much easier with mummies. They sure
>as hell _were_ Africans, unless Egypt has been moving around :-). But
>it appears their earliest ancestors migrated in from southwest Asia,
>rather than up from southern Africa.
In one of my archaeology classes, the teacher ( who is one of the
best known Italian archaeologist in the world) told us about new techniques
that used genetic testing of skeletons and human remains that can show what
the person looked liked so that reconstruction of the skeleton is made
easier and very accurate. Unfortunately, this testing is expensive and
archaeologist have a very difficult time finding money to complete digs, let
alone use genetic testing.
Amazon-wanna-be,
Tammy Jo
A.T. Fear
>
>>I think we know the answer to that: African influence on
>>Europe and the Mediterranean world was denied or obscured
>>by many for a long time for obvious political reasons. I
>>have been reading Latin literature off and on for about
>>forty years, and it was only a few years ago that I found
>>that Terence was "Black" (Nubian).
>
> You don't suppose it has anything to do with the fact that
> the ancient writers didn't give a nickel about the color of
> the skin? And that Roman was a statement of culture and not
> physical characteristics?
>
> Yannis.
Yannis is by and large right here, although maybe legal status might
work better than culture as some very odd people ended up as Roman
citizens from time to time. As regards Terence his racial origins are
by no means clear. His full name was Publius Terentius Afer and
'tradition' holds that he was born in Carthage/North Africa. My guess
would be that if this was the case, and it's not certain, he was more
likely to be of Phoenician or Berber extraction than Nubian. Another
problem is the way in antiquity lives were made up for ancient figures
by guesses from their names, works etc. Virgil is a good example of
this. All of this 'tradition' might just have been made up from the Afer
part of Terence's name and that is no guarantee of African origins of any
sort, blue blooded Romans could also sport this name, e.g. Gnaeus
Domitius Afer. Evidence like this presents methodological nightmares
and is best left alone. Why not take Yannis' advice and just read the
plays and enjoy them?
Andy
J. Sunny Egbo
|> In article <1993Feb7.0...@cs.wm.edu> su...@ma.cs.wm.edu (J. Sunny Egbo) writes:
|> >separates it from other African groups.
|>
If you are talking about the Sahara desert consider that it was much smaller
than it is today. Africa is a big continent, so try approaching Egypt from the
south and the west. I have no intention of being your geography teacher.
-Sunny
|> --
|> "On the first day after Christmas my truelove served to me... Leftover Turkey!
|> On the second day after Christmas my truelove served to me... Turkey Casserole
|> that she made from Leftover Turkey.
|> [days 3-4 deleted] ... Flaming Turkey Wings! ...
|> -- Pizza Hut commercial (and M*tlu/A*gic bait)
|>
|> Ken Arromdee (arro...@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu, arro...@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu)
J. Sunny Egbo
|> In article <1993Feb7.0...@cs.wm.edu> su...@ma.cs.wm.edu (J. Sunny Egbo) writes:
|> >
|> >Yes, there
|> >has been a conspiracy by Europeans to re-write history. Thus, they have
|> >taken great care to destroy many evidence contradicting their "superior race"
|> >philosophy.
|>
|> But this is nothing but a diatribe. I don't find it at all hard to believe
|> that racism has ruined many history books, but when you start
|> calling it a grand European conspiracy, you've lost me.
|>
I suppose you are going to tell me next that there were NO European CONSPIRACY
to kill off the American Indians or to capture Africans into slavery by any
means necessary (including pious one). It just happened, right?
Where did the kings and queens of Europe, and yes the pope, stand on these
matters? Please spare me.
|> >The
|> >climate in Egypt is HOT, HOT, HOT. No one will claim that the Scandinavians
|> >of say 500 B.C. were Africans. It is just as absurd to claim that the
|> >ancient Egyptians were white or anything other than black; yet this is what
|> >has been highly promulgated by many western intellectuals. Give it up!
|>
|> So do I understand you to say that modern Egyptians are "black" too? It's
|> still HOT, HOT, HOT isn't it? I'm not saying that the ancient Egyptians
|> were not black. I don't really care if they were or not. I'm just
|> trying to understand what you mean by black.
|>
Even western intellectuals agree that major medittaranian civilizations
(the Greeks and the Romans), civilizations that are credited with morden
western thoughts, happened way after the Egyptians and were affected by
Egyptian thoughts and technology. According to historians, mordern day
Egypt is an amalgamation of people that came with influence of the Greeks,
the Romans, the Ottomans, perhaps Genghis Khan, the Moslem crusaders, and
finally modern Europeans. Yes I dare say that the aboriginals of Egypt
and present day Arabia penninsula were Africans since the climate is hot,
the land mass have been connected all along, and the first humans we know
of were Africans.
Just for everyone else that want to say something about this: the land
mass of Africa (including the size of Sahara or Arabian deserts) has
changed tremendously since ancient Egypt. So think and read your
geography before you speak.
[ ... stuff deleted ...]
|> >Yes. It is politically orchestrated to support the racial superiority
|> >hierarchy of the west.
|> >
|>
|> You sound more than a little paranoid to me. But I can understand your
|> resentment of Western dominance. There was a time when the shoe was
|> on the other foot though wasn't there?
|>
What's paranoid about stating the facts? Resent western dominance? I don't
follow you.
|> --
|> Brad Kepley Internet kep...@photon.phys.unca.edu
|> Work-days Voice (704)252-8330
|> --
-Sunny
Jason D Corley
>In article <1993Feb7.0...@cs.unca.edu>, kep...@photon.phys.unca.edu (Brad Kepley) writes:
>|> In article <1993Feb7.0...@cs.wm.edu> su...@ma.cs.wm.edu (J. Sunny Egbo) writes:
>|> >
>|> >Yes, there
>|> >has been a conspiracy by Europeans to re-write history. Thus, they have
>|> >taken great care to destroy many evidence contradicting their "superior race"
>|> >philosophy.
>|>
>|> But this is nothing but a diatribe. I don't find it at all hard to believe
>|> that racism has ruined many history books, but when you start
>|> calling it a grand European conspiracy, you've lost me.
>|>
>
>I suppose you are going to tell me next that there were NO European CONSPIRACY
>to kill off the American Indians or to capture Africans into slavery by any
>means necessary (including pious one). It just happened, right?
>
>Where did the kings and queens of Europe, and yes the pope, stand on these
>matters? Please spare me.
>
Spare you? I'd rather strike you! (pratfall) Thanks for coming,
I'll be here all week, enjoy the buffet!
But seriously...think about what you just said. The kings and queens and
popes certainly supported these horrible acts...but this doesn't
point to a European conspiracy (there are Europeans who are not kings
and queens and popes), but an _aristocratic_ conspiracy which also
has the following advantages:
1. It explains the horrible exploitation of _European_ workers at the
times you mention.
2. It explains how the conspiracy could take place...nobles were usually
in constant communication by messenger in those days, letter-writing
was very gentile.
3. It also explains why slavery never caught on in Europe despite
your claim of a "European conspiracy"....the aristocracy didn't
need African slaves when they had European slaves to work for them.
Seems to me there's a big hole in your argument.
Later.
--
"When Frederic Myers wrote his two-volume 'Human Personality and Its Survival
After Death' (1903), he did not, in fact, interview any dead people to ask
if their personalities had survived."--William Marston
Jason D. Corley (alias cor...@gas.uug.arizona.edu), Mad Mathematician
Arthur Scribner
>
> I don't think the Bible is a very good source for anything
>much older than the Israelites' Kingdom because a lot of its earlier
>history is uncorroborated, to put it politely. There is no mention
>whatsoever of the Exodus in Egyptian records, for example, and some of
>the earlier Biblical characters have suspiciously long lives. I take
>that about as seriously as I take the Sumerian King List which states
>that the earlier kings had lived for several millennia each, placing
>the earlier kings in the Paleolithic(!).
>
> At any rate, I'm sure they were all white, and I'm sure also
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>that they would all have looked much like the people living in that
>place today, who have the un-Nordic appearance of black hair and brown
>eyes.
>
>--
>/Loren Petrich, the Master Blaster
>/l...@s1.gov
As you can see, this is the typical attitude of the White historians who have
published the history books of the mainstream academia. They assume all of
the important people of antiquity to be White, no matter where they are from.
They even go so far as to discredit eye-witnesses whose account seems to
differ from their own.
Arthur
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/_/ ||
_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ || "THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE!"
_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ || THE HIGHLANDER
Brad Kepley
>In article <1kukbf$r...@s1.gov> l...@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>>
>>
>> At any rate, I'm sure they were all white, and I'm sure also
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>that they would all have looked much like the people living in that
>>place today, who have the un-Nordic appearance of black hair and brown
>>eyes.
>>
>>--
>>/Loren Petrich, the Master Blaster
>>/l...@s1.gov
>
>As you can see, this is the typical attitude of the White historians who have
>published the history books of the mainstream academia. They assume all of
>the important people of antiquity to be White, no matter where they are from.
>They even go so far as to discredit eye-witnesses whose account seems to
>differ from their own.
>
Well, I don't see anything of the kind unless you're saying that Loren
Petrich is a White historian. Is he (she?)? And this "typical attitude
of White historians etc." hasn't been my experience. Maybe you go to
the wrong schools?
Yannis Schoinas
>In article <1l0cac$6...@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>, mi...@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de (Mike Hoffmann) writes:
>|> In article <1993Feb5.2...@afterlife.ncsc.mil> ags...@afterlife.ncsc.mil (Arthur Scribner) writes:
>|> >Please provide references as to where these depictions of "white" Egyptians
>|> >can be viewed. If you look at the monuments that they made of themselves,
>|> >you will see individuals with features that would be considered "Black"
>|> >by todays standards. Also, the nose of the Sphinx was blown off by some of
>|> >Napoleans' soldiers, thus destroying the actual features.
>[ ... Stuff deleted ...]
>|>
>|> I just happen to have borrowed a book about Egyptian art and architecture from
>|> of a culture that was fabulously diverse in "racial" (if you want to use
>|> that term) aspects.
>Why is it that most Americans think that ancients Egyptians were white? It
>is no mystery that an attempt has been made by the white admitted supremacists
>(and white non-admitted supremacists alike) to re-write history. Yes, there
>has been a conspiracy by Europeans to re-write history. Thus, they have
>taken great care to destroy many evidence contradicting their "superior race"
>philosophy. So, before you start quoting me any book, let's look at some
>uncontested facts; start with geography. In 1980 Iran did NOT have a border
>with Nicaragua.
I don't give a nickel on what most Americans today think. But I am getting
really pissed off with this obsession of americans with revisionism. Every
bloody group and subgroup and subsubgroup in this country seems to believe
that the standard version of history is an attempt to
>Egypt is located in the African mainland, NO ocean or major physical barrier
>separates it from other African groups. Thus, it is highly unlikely that the
>racial make-up would be different from say what you will find in Ethiopia,
>Kenya, Zimbabwe or Sudan.
Are you sure? Perhaps, you are forgetting Sahara?
>Many physical structures such as carvings and
>paintings that support the fact that the earliest Pharoahs and Egyptians were
>Black (or what is considered African) are now beginning to surface. Similarly,
>many recent archealogical digs are discovering artifacts incredibly similar to
>those of the Egyptians in many other parts of Africa with the most notable
>ones in Nubia (go see the display at the University of Pennsylvania). The
>climate in Egypt is HOT, HOT, HOT. No one will claim that the Scandinavians
>of say 500 B.C. were Africans. It is just as absurd to claim that the
>ancient Egyptians were white or anything other than black; yet this is what
>has been highly promulgated by many western intellectuals. Give it up!
You claim about climate it is the most ridicilous one that I have heard.
The climate in Wisconsin is COLD,COLD,COLD and yet COLDER. So, we should
expect that no blacks are to be found here, right? Have you by any chance
heard about the African kingdom of the Vandals? Do you have any idea about
what the Vandals were? And the climate of Egypt is not much hotter than
anywhere else in Mediterannean.
>I suspect that until we get many Africans to study archeology, to insure
>accurate interpretations of historical objects, we will continue to be
>fed the same "whites are the only intellectuals of the world" nonsense.
I cannot but agree with this. Study, man, STUDY. And then try to interpret
history or accuse the mainstream version as biased.
>So before you quote anything, consider the fact that an attempt has been
>made by European colonialist to metathesize and confuse African history.
>Where are archeological digs from many African countries today? In
>warehouses in England, France and Germany. When will these be released
>to the countries that own them?
>[* Aside * Someone told me that Egyptians are classified as Caucasians by
>the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service. I did not believe it.
>Is this true? If true why? If not true, what are they classified as? **]
>|> Also it seems as if the Egyptian artists where very careful about their
>|> depiction of these colors. You hardly see paintings of say, whole columns
>|> and throngs of people in one color, because maybe the artist had preferred
>|> one color or run out of others. No, you see scenes showing evreryday life,
>|> with lots of different sexes, ages (yes, these are also distinguishable,
>|> the love of detail in Egyptian art fascinates me no end) and *skin colors*.
>|> It seems that they wanted to show people exactly as they looked like, no?
>It seems that many archeologists had taken great liberty to repaint what
>they want.
Are you in your senses?
>|> Same goes for the royal scenes: you will find black Pharaos , as well as
>|> "tanned" (in a sunny desert country, you probably can't speak of "white"
>|> in a Caucasian sense, but like Arabs or Mediterannean sense), i.e. white.
>|> And I'm not speaking of paintings of the Hyksos kings!
>|>
>|> This whole argument is merely political, and many seem to lose their
>|> sense of appreciation of the high art of the Egyptians to further their
>|> own ends, by twisting it's intentions to their own needs.
>|>
>Yes. It is politically orchestrated to support the racial superiority
>hierarchy of the west.
There have been such an attempt in the past centuries and if you read
such books, you cannot but agree that they sound ridiculous. But claiming
the racial superiority of the blacks is even more ridiculous. Simply
because you do it today and not a century ago.
>|> *Look* at those pictures! Enjoy them! Admire them for what they are!
>|>
>|> Naive am I?
>|> Mike (lover of Egyptian art)
>|> --
>|> Mike Hoffmann - Internet Administrator, Siemens-Nixdorf AG, SNI AP 712
>|> INTERNET: Mike.H...@ap.mchp.sni.de
>|> "I don't think we're in Riyadh anymore." - US-Marine in Somalia
>-Sunny (Lover of intellectual accuracy).
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Are you joking?
Yannis.
ps: Of course, this is flaming.
Sean Edward Hillyard,F7 Clark,50649,
>
>>[* Aside * Someone told me that Egyptians are classified as Caucasians by
>>the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service. I did not believe it.
>>Is this true? If true why? If not true, what are they classified as? **]
Dictionary entries:
Caucasian: 1. A native or resident of the Caucasus. 2. A member of the
Caucasoid ethnic division.
Caucasoid: Of, relating to, or designating a major ethnic division of the
human species having certain distinctive physical characteristics such as
skin color varying from very light to brown and fine hair ranging from
straight to wavy or curly and regarded as including groups of peoples
indigenous to or inhabiting Europe, northern Africa, southwestern Asia,
and the Indian subcontinent and persons of this ancestory in other parts
of the world.
SEH
Arthur Scribner
I never said that Loren was an historian, I am inferring that this attitude
is prevalent among White historians. Loren is merely reflecting that type
of propaganda. What schools do you go to that do not give this point of view.
There are countless examples of how historians have "whitened" certain peoples
of antiquity, in attempt to deny people of color an accurate representation
of their ancestors contribution to civilization. I might also add that there
are some who actually tell the truth, but they are quickly attacked by those
in the "mainstream" as being incorrect or doubtful in their findings. Some
examples of the whitewash; the Egyptians being portrayed as White; James
Breasted claiming that the civilzations in the interior of Africa were the
results of a "Great White Race"; the ruins of Monomotopa, in what is now
present day Zimbabwe, were reported to be built by Greek sailors that were
lost and shipwrecked; The fact of "ALL" people of the earth being descended
from Africans is being shunned, despite strong evidence supporting it; even
the portrayal of Jesus as a European. In case you were not aware, the current
representation of Jesus is based on the rendition by Michaelangelo on the
Sistine Chapel ceiling in which he used his own cousin as the model for Jesus.
And if color was not important, then why was the concept of races (which is
incorrect when used in this context) invented??
Arthur
that
Arthur Scribner
>In article <04Hh020...@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>, kl...@cd.amdahl.com (Kent L.
>Shephard) writes:
>=>>Also note that Atilla The Hun was
>=
>=Check your history books. The Huns were a group of black folks.
>
>Which Mongolian tribes are you claiming are black?
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CA...@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL
>
There are a number of accounts of ancient Black populations in Asia.
Arthur
Arthur Scribner
>
> All of this discussion is great, but it didn't answer my original
>question as to why Egyptian rulers were shown as white if they were really
>black. What were the philosophical or religious reasons for this? From
>memory I recall that in drawings from Egyptian tombs people who were not
>royalty are shown in different skin shades so the reason for showing the
>rulers as white must be more completed than simply "they could afford to stay
>inside". Did the Egyptians explain what colors represented to them? Did
>they explain it themselves or are modern scholars just guessing?
> Ancient Egypt isn't my area of study but it is interesting.
>
>Amazon-wanna-be,
> Tammy Jo
>
>
As I have stated earlier, the concept of race seems to be a more modern
concept (17th & 18th centuries) and the ancient civilizations did not appear
to be so pre-occupied with different "colors" of people.
Brian Chung
>
>There are a number of accounts of ancient Black populations in Asia.
Name one.
>
>Arthur
>
--
T. H. Brian Chung | Happiness is... | This .sig was brought
j...@alchemy.tn.cornell.edu | "Tea, Earl Grey, hot." | to you by Frungy, the
j...@cornella.bitnet | 210 Lake St. Apt. 11-A | sport of kings.
CESR10::THC | Ithaca, NY 14850 |
Arthur Scribner
>In article <1993Feb7.0...@cs.wm.edu> su...@ma.cs.wm.edu (J. Sunny Egbo) writes:
>>Egypt is located in the African mainland, NO ocean or major physical barrier
>>separates it from other African groups.
>
>"On the first day after Christmas my truelove served to me... Leftover Turkey!
>On the second day after Christmas my truelove served to me... Turkey Casserole
> that she made from Leftover Turkey.
Excuse me Ken, but the Sahara was not always a desert. There is an abundance
of evidence that shows the the Sahara was a pastoral land inhabited by
Africans who grazed their animals and and left numerous rock paintings
depicting their lifestyle no less that 3500 years ago. To quote Henri Lhote
"One word can conjure up images of sand and heat with men and beasts dying of
thirst. That word is Sahara. But the world's greatest desert was once a
bountiful land where rain fell, streams flowed and grass and trees flourished.
Elephants, antelopes and many other animals roamed at will. Men lived there
too, raising cattle, harvesting grain and producing vivid works of art that
show what life was like when the Sahara was green."
Arthur Scribner
>In article <1993Feb7.0...@cs.wm.edu> su...@ma.cs.wm.edu (J. Sunny Egbo) writes:
>>Why is it that most Americans think that ancients Egyptians were white?
>
>based on skeletal subtleties. I would imagine skin color is hard to
>determine from skeletons, and not much easier with mummies. They sure
>as hell _were_ Africans, unless Egypt has been moving around :-). But
>it appears their earliest ancestors migrated in from southwest Asia,
>rather than up from southern Africa.
>
themselves as to where they come from. They state that they came from the
foothills of the mountain of the moon which translated means Mt. Kilamanjaro.
And also, if you travel south from Egypt you will find smaller, older
pyramids and other structure that could be viewed as prototypical of the later
Egyptian monuments etc.. Why is it that they say man originated in Africa,
but he comes from Asia to populate Africa. The oldest known hominid skeleton
has been found in Africa "Zinjanthropus Erectus" circa 1,750,000 B.C.E. but
yet it is still trying to be argued that man came from somewhere else.
>>Egypt is located in the African mainland, NO ocean or major physical barrier
>>separates it from other African groups.
>
> Well, there's this little thing called the Sahara Desert. Add to
>that that the Nile was unnavigable farther south, and it's easy to see
>why Egypt had more contact with Asia, and even Europe, than sub-Saharan
>Africa.
>
As I stated in a previous post, the Sahara was not always a desert. As recent
as 3500 years ago, the area known as the Sahara was inhabited by Africans
from the south who grazed their animals, cultivated the ground and roamed
the pastoral plains with an abundance of fauna and flora.
>>Thus, it is highly unlikely that the
>>racial make-up would be different from say what you will find in Ethiopia,
>>Kenya, Zimbabwe or Sudan.
>
> According to the anthropologists, northern and eastern Africa
>was mainly inhabited by a proto-Hamitic Caucasoid population in
>Paleolithic times. There is a very ancient Negroid population in the
>region of Khartoum, but apart from that, the oldest Negroid remains come
>from West Africa. Negroid peoples later expanded into the rest of East
>Africa south of the Sahara, though even today the average East African
>is lighter-skinned and has more Caucasoid features than the average
>West African.
>
Not only is your assertion inaccurate, but is illogical as well. First of all,
the oldest "Negroid" remains are found near the Olduvai Gorge in East Africa.
The were a small people but nevertheless "Modern man". They are about
200,000 years old. Here's another interesting fact. The oldest remains of
"Modern man" found in Europe belong to a "Negroid Race" known as the Grimaldi.
They date back about 50,000 years. I have plenty of information on them if
want it. Anyway, the reason the lighster skin exists in E. Africa is because
of miscegenation between the native Africans and the Arab population that
invaded those lands many years ago. Look at the shades of some African-
Americans in this country from just 400 years of mixing.
Makala P Mweene
(Brad Kepley) writes:
>>Why is it that most Americans think that ancients Egyptians were white?
>Elizabeth Taylor?
>Brad Kepley Internet kep...@photon.phys.unca.edu
And of a woman whose father was half black, as were most of the Ptolemies...
makala
Makala P Mweene
>
>Robert, I see your point, but Arabs had some control over Upper Egypt in
>the second millenium B.C. for a while. Eventually, the Egyptians drove
>the Arabs out, and the Arabs did continue to 'raid' Egypt from that
>point on until Egypt fell in 645.
>Will
>
Please can you be more specific? What dynasty, what Arabs and what raid
s were these????
makala
Makala P Mweene
> The source of the Nile is in Burundi. It's nowhere near Kilimanjaro.
You would better check your geography again. The nile river is fed by
two main tributaries, the blue and white nile. The blue nile jas its
source in Ethiopia. The blue nile drains lake Mobutu Sese Seko (nee: lake
Albert) and Lake Kiogo. There is a river between Lake Victoria and Lake
Kiogo. The mt Kilimanjaro is within the "same " region of East Africa.
Infact between the source of the nile and Burundi, there is another samll
country Rwanda. No, the nile does not begin in Burundi. There is a basis
for saying that it begins near kilimanjaro..
>>It would make sense if they orginated
>> there, they would logically follow the course of the river since the land
>> becomes more fertile as you go downstream.
> Between the upper nile and Egypt you've got the Sudd Swamps and the
> Sudan Desert. A lot less fertile than Uganda, say.
According to Diodorus of Sicily:
"The Ethiopians say that the Egyptians are one of their
colonies which were brought into Egypt by Osiris."
Gaston Maspero :
"By the almost unanimous testimony of Ancient writers,
they belonged to an African [read:negro], which first
settled Ethiopia on the middle nile; following the course
of the river, they gradually reached the sea"
Strabo:
"Egyptians settled Ethiopia and the Colchis"
> Robert
Makala
Kenn Barry
>Why is it that they say man originated in Africa,
>but he comes from Asia to populate Africa. The oldest known hominid skeleton
>has been found in Africa "Zinjanthropus Erectus" circa 1,750,000 B.C.E. but
>yet it is still trying to be argued that man came from somewhere else.
Well, it couldn't have anything to do with the fact that I'm
talking about events occurring about 1.75 million years later than that.
I haven't seen anyone argue that the human race did not arise in
Africa. I also can't imagine anything sillier than trying to assign such
old fossils to modern racial groups.
>>>Egypt is located in the African mainland, NO ocean or major physical barrier
>>>separates it from other African groups.
>>
>> Well, there's this little thing called the Sahara Desert.
>>
>As I stated in a previous post, the Sahara was not always a desert.
No, and the Mediterranean was not always a sea. It does help if
you keep track of the time period being discussed.
>As recent
>as 3500 years ago, the area known as the Sahara was inhabited by Africans
>from the south who grazed their animals, cultivated the ground and roamed
>the pastoral plains with an abundance of fauna and flora.
3500 years ago the Sahara was narrower, north-to-south, but
still stretched across the entire continent of Africa.