Nubia birthed Egypt (WWII, Rome, Great Britain, Washington)

[Wild Style]

Wanted to add this video of Dr. Chris Ehret who is a linguist. He talks about the spread of languages in Africa. Pay close attention to what he speaks about around 40:00. There he speaks on how you may have migrations of large groups of people into one area, yet their language may not come with them. So for example, conquerers may speak one language, yet their kids may adapt the language of the major group they conquered. Also, you may come up with a pidgin language. By this I mean a creole language where a blending of the old and new language comes about. We saw this in Britain with English after the conquest of the Normands, we saw this in Haiti with creole, and there are some who argue the ancient egyptian language was a creole of various african languages.


Dr. Chris Ehret - YouTube

[oberon_1]

Originally Posted by The Unbreakable

So deny that the ancient Egyptians were black because you have an ignorance of true African history, and from that believe that black Africans are intellectually inferior? I'm not even going to get into the hypocrisy of this accusation coming from someone of Western European origins, but you're entitled to your ignorance.

Where did Goat say anything about intellectual inferiority? I read the thread several times and really, didn't see this mentioned. I must have missed that. Honestly, I don't get what this is about (probably, my intellectual inferiority is preventing me from..)
Anyway, for those of us who don't get it, maybe you can sum up your idea in one or two sentences?
Thank you.

Originally Posted by NJGOAT

2. You are on a mission to prove something and are absolutely convinced in your beliefs and truths.

Mission? What mission?

I am far more malleable in that the particular topic of the race of ancient Egpytians is not something I spend my nights pondering.

"Et tu, Brute?

[The Unbreakable]

Originally Posted by NJGOAT

SOY Keita in 2008..."There is no scientific reason to believe that the primary ancestors of the Egyptian population emerged and evolved outside of northeast Africa.... The basic overall genetic profile of the modern population is consistent with the diversity of ancient populations that would have been indigenous to northeastern Africa and subject to the range of evolutionary influences over time, although researchers vary in the details of their explanations of those influences."

If you read the entire thread rather than jumping head first into semantics in regards to my stance on the topic, then you would have seen where I referenced this exact same quote from the National Geographic website. Keita is correct, but he does not go into details in this passage about chronology of these populations affinities and instead makes a broad statement about all of Dynastic Egyptian history. For that reason I cited this statement from one of Keita's other studies in which he goes into detail about these affinities:

Actually, it was always biologically wrong to view the Broad phenotype as representative of the only authentic "African," something understood by some nineteenth century writers. Early Nile valley populations are best viewed as part of an African descent group or lineage with tropical adaptations and relationships. This group is highly variable, as would be expected. Archaeological data also support this position, which is not new.

Over time, gene flow (admixture) did occur in the Nile valley from Europe and the Near East, thus also giving "Egyptians" relationship with those groups. This admixture, if it had occurred by Dynasty I, little affected the major affinity of southern predynastic peoples as illustrated here. As indicated by the analysis of the data in the studies reviewed here, the southern predynastic peoples were Saharo-tropical variants.

SOURCE: S. O. Y. Keita, "Studies and Comments on Ancient Egyptian Biological Relationships," History in Africa 20 (1993) 129-54

link

So as you can read, the Saharo-tropical Africans (black) were the original and general population of early ancient Egypt, and Middle Eastern and European affinities came in later with their migration. This all occurred during Dynastic times, albeit later Dynastic for the migrations. This makes Keita's statement that modern Egyptian diversity would have been seen in ancient times correct, but the FREQUENCY of which any particular phenotypes is not specified in this statement of his.

Originally Posted by NJGOAT

Like I have been saying there is still some debate over exactly what they looked like.

There is no debate about what they looked like? They were identical in phenotype to the Sudanese Nubians and various other Africans further to the south:

"However, as is well known and accepted, rapid evolution can occur. Also, rapid change in northeast Africa might be specifically anticipated because of the possibilities for punctuated microevolution (secondary to severe micro-selection and drift) in the early Holocene Sahara, because of the isolated communities and cyclical climatic changes there, and their possible subsequent human effects. The earliest southern predynastic culture, Badari, owes key elements to post-desiccation Saharan and also perhaps "Nubian" immigration (Hassan 1988). Biologically these people were essentially the same (see above and discussion; Keita 1990).-- S. O. Y. Keita, "Studies and Comments on Ancient Egyptian Biological Relationships," History in Africa 20 (1993) 129-54.

This is no longer up for debate, as you many other people who think like you wish to make it out to be. They were black Africans just like the ancient Nubians whom they descended from were.

Originally Posted by NJGOAT

That understanding does not diminish the fact they were an African civilization and many of them, including the rulers were what we would called "black".

So you went from admitting that the general populace was black and that the civilization came from black peoples from the south, to now trying to limit it to "some" or "many" of them were black. More deceptive tactics.

Originally Posted by NJGOAT

Manu Ampim claims this plate as evidence that there is a "conspiracy" to "white wash" Egypt while simultaneously acknowledging that no other "Table of Nations" in any tomb shows a similar image.

How many table oc nations are there showing ancient Egyptians? There's Lepsius (Ramses III), Denkmaeler plate (Seti's tomb) and the one that you presented earlier.

Originally Posted by NJGOAT

Frank Yurco pointed out that the "plate 48" is basically a 'pastiche' of Lepsius' notes and incorrectly labels the figure shown as Egpytian. Later exploration and updated photographs by Erik Hornung of the actual tomb purportedly support Yurco. However, Ampim still claims that version of "plate 48" to be authentic and accused both Yurco and Hornung of trying to obfiscate the truth and presented his own evidence.

The late frank Yurco was a classicist to put it in the most respectful way possible. He LIED about this depiction and blatantly hid sections of this mural in the pictures that he took in order to distort the true picture. Here is what he did:

BOOK OF GATES 4:5 GATE OF TEKA HRA VIGNETTE 30
as in Valley of the Kings KV11 tomb of Rameses III



Fig 1. Condensations of KV8 & KV11 - repro Lepsius' team made somewhere between 1842 - 1859


Fig 2. Reworked KV11 condensation - after Lepsius/Sethe 1913



Fig 3. "Tjmhhw," Rt, "A3mw" - rearranged photo Hornung 1990 (Rt misidentified by Hornung as Nhhsw


Fig 4. Rt, "Tjmhhw," "A3mw" - photo Yurco 1996 after Hornung (Rt misidentified by Yurco as Nhhsw


Fig 5. Rt Rmtw - photo 1994 Ampim

Fig 6. Rt - photo Dzikowski (misidentified by Theban Mapping Project as a Nhhsy
Fig 7. Rt & Nhhsy - photos Ampim 1994


Fig 8. Nhhsw - photo Ampim 1994

Labeling of peoples follows that inscribed on the tomb wall.
Misidentifications are by those credited for their photos.

Originally Posted by NJGOAT

Regardless, you are simply affirming what I said to Wild Style. Their art doesn't really mean anything.

We are in agreement.

Originally Posted by NJGOAT

I already presented the source that counters that assertion, Najovits and Snowden. Perhaps like the accusations against Yurco and Hornung, they are simply trying to mislead people, but then I need to ask why? Why would these modern researchers be clinging to old racial stereotypes, what purpose does it serve?

As I stated the late Frank Yurco was a "traditional" Egyptologist, with a classicist agenda. That is he was an active participant in the "Black Athena" debates on behalf of the classicist "Mary Lefkowitz" argument. He attempted to do what you, myself and most other Egyptologist frown upon, which is infer biological affinities based on his interpretations of select pieces of stylized artwork. He was not a bio-anthropologist but made himself out to be such. One historian accounts an encounter he had with Yurco when he questioned him about the lie that he told about Lepsius:

‘In 1998, after reading Yurco’s “Two Tomb-Wall Painted Reliefs of Rameses III and Sety I and Ancient Nile Valley Population Diversity” in which he proclaimed that the “four races of man” pastiche used by many African-centred writers to demonstrate that the ancient Egyptians viewed themselves as a black people, is based on a nineteenth century copy that is incorrect, I informed Yurco that not only had I been in the tomb of Ramesses III but that I personally photographed the wall painting. He seemed somewhat surprised at the time. I invited him to view the photos at a training session for volunteers that I was conducting the following day at the Field Museum of Natural History . He did not show. Although we would occasionally see one another at the museum , nothing more was said about his article or my photographs, that is until the museum conducted another volunteer training session for the new Cleopatra exhibit which opened in October 2001. I saw Yurco at the first session and decided then and there that I would give him a copy of “The Unwrapping of Egyptology”, which was first published in the Kemetic Voice in 1999. The following week I did just that. I personally handed him a copy of the Kemetic Voice and asked him to read the article and to give me feedback. Amiably, he agreed. However, he did not show for the final training session. I do not know whether my article had anything to do with his absence, but I was reminded of the first time I tried to present him with this information in 1998.

Finally an opportunity presented itself during a walk-through of the Cleopatra exhibit. As I stood near the exit of the exhibit, I saw Yurco explaining certain aspects of the exhibit to a group of volunteers. I positioned myself so that it was virtually impossible for him to pass without seeing me. To my amazement, Yurco scurried right past me without uttering one word. I literally ran after him. Fortunately, there were two other members of the Kemetic Institute present to witness this encounter. When I caught Yurco and asked him what he thought about the article, the first thing he said was “I still maintain that it is a pastiche.” It was obvious from his statement that he had read the article. I again agreed with him on that point and pressed him further with regard to the contents of the pastiche and my photographs. In other words, were the ancient Egyptians as depicted in the tomb of Ramesses III shown in the same skin colour and dress as the Ku****es?

Still walking hurriedly and looking quite ill at ease Yurco finally conceded that the depiction of the ancient Egyptians in the tomb of Ramesses III shows them to have the same black skin colour and dress as the Ku****es. When asked if this was a valid representation of the ancient Egyptians, Yurco again conceded. ‘ (p34).'The Battle for Kemet' Charles A.Grantham

How is that for "why" people like Yurco wouldn't admit that they were black Africans? As I stated, I won't be too disrespectful of this late Egyptologist, but the man's classicist ideology drove much of his opinion on the subject of ancient Egypt. To the contrary contemporary biologist and other truly objective scholars/authorities admit that the ancient Egyptians were black Africans.

Originally Posted by NJGOAT

I don't know, but either do you, at least conclusively. Regradless they were African and would have been considered a "black race" even if they didn't necessarily meet the distorted Sub-Saharn definition of black.

What distorted definition of black? They were identical to the Sudanese Nubians, who no one disputes were black Africans.This has been proven to no end, but you still refuse to accept this fact. Both populations along the Nile formed a biological and cultural continuum which would have made it impossible for anyone to draw a line of what where black began and ended.

Originally Posted by NJGOAT

I think the colonial racism was responsible for attempting to place Egypt as a white/Caucasoid civilization. I don't know what the supposed reason behond continuing such a lie would be. Obviously there are researchers that don't share all of the views that you and your sources do. Why is that?

That's like saying I don't understand what was the drive of white racism in the Western world against blacks after the ending of slavery. It was Eurocentric ARROGANCE AND IGNORANCE!

Originally Posted by NJGOAT

Why doesn't Keita simply just state they are black. Why all the dancing around with "Northeast African biological affinity"?

I'm not explaining this to you anymore. He thoroughly explains why right here.

Originally Posted by NJGOAT

What's the point of suppressing it? I really fail to see what the continuing suppression of the racial properties of ancient Egypt would accomplish. You DON'T need to give me a history lesson on why the Eurocentric view came into existence. I really do understand that aspect of it. What I fail to grasp is why does that same view continue to be held today if the evidence is so clear? Who is really gaining anything by suppressing this apparent fact?

Wild Style gave a good enough explanation to you. You're asking the same irrelevant "why does the truth matter to you" bs over and over again, and no one has time for that type of ignorance. When you realize just how ridiculous you sound asking why the truth matters then respond with your realization.

[The Unbreakable]

Originally Posted by oberon_1

Where did Goat say anything about intellectual inferiority?

Please pay attention, as I did not quote Nygoat in that response. It was another user.

[NJGOAT]

Originally Posted by Wild Style

Again you dont know enough to really have this conversation with and googling to try and argue your point wont cut it. You said it best in your other post, you dont know enough to really argue the point, so just leave it.

First things first....

On the ancient Greek meanings, I simply provided you with a published academic source that disagrees with your translation. Is there no room for presentation of contradictive evidence, or am I to believe that your sources and interpretations are simply unquestionable?

The image I posted was from the tomb of Seti I, not Ramses III. Further, the point I was trying to make, which appears lost on you but not Unbreakable is that we can't tell anything from their artwork.

Secondly, I admitted I was not an "expert" in this field, however, that does not mean I do not have a basic understanding of the arguments and positions that goes beyond mere "googling". Yes, I google theories and images that I am aware of to provide reference and confirm my understanding. I imagine that you as well as everyone else posting in this forum is doing the same. Do not pretend to lecture down to me as if I was a mere peon unable to engage in this discussion or understand the points. Pray tell, what formal education have you had on this subject, what academic works have you published on this subject that would make you anymore of an "expert" than I?

1. I don't need to explain to you why its important to me, it doesn't matter. What matter is, we deal with reality, something you seem to be adverse too.

Actually it does matter. You have presented "evidence" and arguments as if they were the sole source of authority or content on this subject and dismiss any contrary evidence as being "biased". Obviously there are actual experts who disagree with some or all of your position. Where I fail is not being versed enough to pull all of the contrary material together. However, I would take your dogmatic approach to this topic to be indicative that questions remain about all of the claims you presented. Given your dogmatic approach to the topic and ready dismissal of contrary evidence do to "bias" then I think it is a fair question as to why this particular topic matters so much to you.

2. Umm you dont seem to understand how to interpret cultures. Once you determine who the people are, then you can start to explain cultural practices under the proper context.

For example you cant explain totemism of the ancient egyptians by european or Semitic culture because guess what, Europeans and Semitic people dont engage in totemism.

You cant explain the theology of ancient Egypt by way of semites or europeans either. The reason being is the Ancient Egyptian religious practices are akin to Ife in Nigeria, Dogon theology and most other traditional african religions. Once you take something out of context its meaning becomes misconstrued.

So, it is your opinion that we can only understand a culture based on some form of crude racial classification? Here I thought realizing that they were an indigenous African culture would have allowed us to make the connections you want to make.

Besides, if it wasn't such a important topic then all these eurocentric writers wouldn't fill volumes with the silliest arguments to try and fool readers that they know, are not well versed in the subject.
Case in point, a lot of eurocentric writers like to say the egyptians referred to the "nubians" as "wretched". Well yeah, but they also referred to every other political opponent they had on the planet by the SAME term. It wasn't reserved for just so called "nubians". A professor by the name of Mario Betty did a presentation in Greece on this topic, which showed that this has nothing to do with racial connotations, but is a socio-political term they they used for themselves, and for outside opponents. You can see what he spoke about here

So, why, in your opinion are these Eurocentric writers so hell bent on obfiscating the truth of ancient Egypt? I understand why they did in the past, but why does that matter now? Whose career besides perhaps Hawass would suffer from "telling the truth"?

This is the last reply I will be giving to you, because this isn't a intelligent discussion. This is more of a, we give you facts and you throw back uneducated conjecture. There is no growth or meeting of the minds in such a pursuit.

You're right, it isn't an intelligent discussion. Contrary statements or evidence are considered "biased uneducated conjecture" and the only idea that you will accept is the idea that you brought to the discussion.

Originally Posted by The Unbreakable

Wild Style gave a good enough explanation to you. You're asking the same irrelevant "why does the truth matter to you" bs over and over again, and no one has time for that type of ignorance. When you realize just how ridiculous you sound asking why the truth matters then respond with your realization.

I think the question of why it matters is an important one. You and Wild Style are both very adamant in your beliefs. Indeed, even the titles of your threads are engineered in a way to not illicit debate or contrarian views but to simply serve as a pulpit to express your thoughts. Anything presented to the contrary gets stamped "biased" and ignored while your own sources are held as the paradigm of study in the field. This has played out in other threads as well including labelling people racists who would dare question your sources or motives. I want to know why this topic matters so much to you. I want to know why virtually the entire content of your posting history on CD is tied to proving to people that ancient Egpyt was a black civilization.

I have my thoughts on why, but I would prefer you tell me lest I allow my conjecture to run rampant.

[The Unbreakable]

Originally Posted by NJGOAT

Held as the paradigm of study in the field. This has played out in other threads as well including labelling people racists who would dare question your sources or motives.

It's amazing that you feel that the labeling of one as a racist in these types of debates is uncalled for, and yet you don't want to acknowledge what posters like "noworneveragain" have stated as to why they believe that the ancient Egyptians were not? In case you missed here it is again. You also say this without acknowledging the deceptive tactics that you have done in this thread. What raises my eyebrow is why you and some others try so hard to drive a wedge between the physical appearance of the ancient Egyptians and the other black peoples of Africa, when you have no logical reason to believe that they were distinct. For example how many times has it been proven that the ancient Egyptians and the Sudanese were biologically (and even culturally during Pre-Dynastic times) indistinguishable from one another? Yet you for what ever reason want to infer that the ancient Egyptians were undisputably "African" but looked like pale skinned Northwest African populations. What is the motivation for such ignorance and denial?

Originally Posted by NJGOAT

I want to know why this topic matters so much to you. I want to know why virtually the entire content of your posting history on CD is tied to proving to people that ancient Egpyt was a black civilization.

The truth matters to me, especially when the lie that in many instances remains in place is there to intentionally take swipes at black people like myself. In other words the representation of ancient Egypt as a non black, "mixed" civilization is remnants of an colonial aged white supremacist/black inferiority model:

"The race and origins of the Ancient Egyptians have been a source of considerable debate. Scholars in the late and early 20th centuries rejected any considerations of the Egyptians as black Africans by defining the Egyptians either as non-African (i.e Near Easterners or Indo-Aryan), or as members of a separate brown (as opposed to a black) race, or as a mixture of lighter-skinned peoples with black Africans. In the later half of the 20th century, Afrocentric scholars have countered this Eurocentric and often racist perspective by characterizing the Egyptians as black and African....." Source: Donald Redford (2001) The Oxford encyclopedia of ancient Egypt, Volume 3. Oxford University Press. p. 27-28 "

In my experience 90% of the time these people are driven not by the belief that they acquired through actual research on the subject, but pure emotions. The idea that blacks are trying to "steal history", "rewrite history" (colonial history) or "rob" other people ("Caucasoids") of their "rightful heritage" are the most often notions given against this fact. These people outright reject acknowledging any of the sources confirming the "militant" beliefs because they believe that it is apart of some "liberal conspiracy" as though their own ideas were put in place by real objective scholarship, which shows their ignorance. I take issue with those types of people who make it a mission to try to talk down on those who try to dispell this notion and consequently are up and arms in defense of this obsolete paradigm.

[nyanna]

they are so jealous that they dont want black people to have their own history. jealousy

[NJGOAT]

Originally Posted by The Unbreakable

It's amazing that you feel that the labeling of one as a racist in these types of debates is uncalled for, and yet you don't want to acknowledge what posters like "noworneveragain" have stated as to why they believe that the ancient Egyptians were not? In case you missed here it is again.

It's always uncalled for to place a label as harsh as racist upon someone simply for raising a contrarian view or asking a question or making a statement you are uncomfortable with. I don't agree with the tone that "noworneveragain" used, it was hostile, but he raises a point mentioned in the other thread that illicited the same response from you, racism.

It is an interesting question in terms of what led the Egyptians to produce such an advanced culture, but that similar cultures, who I'm sure you believe benefited from this exchange with the Egpytians did not achieve similar advancement. Now, before you go off posting a bunch of pictures of Nubian pyramids and other things, understand that I have in several threads defended sub-Saharan African cultures and advancement against the "primitive tribal" stereotype that people like to imply. I am not one who believes in the stereotype that there were no civilizations in sub-Saharan Africa. However, there does remain some open questions as to what in particular retarded the progress of these civilizations who benefitted from Egyptian contact and influence. For example, writing. Not that holding a written language is the sum of civilization, but it is generally considered one of the defining characteristics. In Africa we find essentially three written languages that predate widespread outside influence (heiroglyphics, Tifinagh and Ge'ez), all contained around Egypt and the immediate vicinity. Why were written languages simply not developed over the course of thousands of years in other areas despite the apparent contact with Egyptian civilization?

You also say this without acknowledging the deceptive tactics that you have done in this thread.

What deceptive tactics have I used in this thread? I provided what contrarian evidence I was aware of.

What raises my eyebrow is why you and some others try so hard to drive a wedge between the physical appearance of the ancient Egyptians and the other black peoples of Africa, when you have no logical reason to believe that they were distinct. For example how many times has it been proven that the ancient Egyptians and the Sudanese were biologically (and even culturally during Pre-Dynastic times) indistinguishable from one another? Yet you for what ever reason want to infer that the ancient Egyptians were undisputably "African" but looked like pale skinned Northwest African populations. What is the motivation for such ignorance and denial?

I don't want to drive a wedge between anything. I have repeatedly stated that the racial classification of ancient Egyptians doesn't really matter one bit. My argument has essentially been with the totality of your statements that there is no other possibility and what you present is absolute and irrefutable fact. I will concede for the final time and not raise any additional protest that I believe and accept what Keita stated in the last paper you presented. I think they were Africans and I think they were "black" with all of the typical variety that would imply. Satisfied?

The truth matters to me, especially when the lie that in many instances remains in place is there to intentionally take swipes at black people like myself. In other words the representation of ancient Egypt as a non black, "mixed" civilization is remnants of an colonial aged white supremacist/black inferiority model:

So, what do we do with this information? What does acknowledging that Egpyt was "black" or had a "black" root do for us? What does it do for you?

In my experience 90% of the time these people are driven not by the belief that they acquired through actual research on the subject, but pure emotions. The idea that blacks are trying to "steal history", "rewrite history" (colonial history) or "rob" other people ("Caucasoids") of their "rightful heritage" are the most often notions given against this fact. These people outright reject acknowledging any of the sources confirming the "militant" beliefs because they believe that it is apart of some "liberal conspiracy" as though their own ideas were put in place by real objective scholarship, which shows their ignorance. I take issue with those types of people who make it a mission to try to talk down on those who try to dispell this notion and consequently are up and arms in defense of this obsolete paradigm.

My issue isn't with the debates over the racial classification of the Egpytians, it's what often comes next in the discussion, which I posted a quote from Clarence Walker earlier that explains it...

"Afrocentrism is a mythology that is racist, reactionary, and essentially therapeutic. It suggests that nothing important has happened in black history since the time of the pharaohs and thus trivializes the history of black Americans. Afrocentrism places an emphasis on Egypt that is, to put it bluntly, absurd...I'm an old-fashioned intellectual critic. I don't like a lot of work being done in the field. No history should be presented as an exercise in celebration...What black people really need is a usable present, not a usable past."

You have to admit that there are "Afrocentric" authors and researchers who have gone well beyond arguing that the Egpytians were "black". (FWIW, I am placing black in quotes, because I still believe that ascribing modern racial classifications to ancient peoples is foolish.) You obviously see presenting the history in a "black" context will somehow right an injustice. Why do you think that? Do you really think that white people in 2012 are still tied to wanting to "own the glories of Egypt" for their race? Does it really make you feel better or more complete about yourself to know that "black" men built the pyramids and sphinx 4,500 years ago?

Originally Posted by nyanna

they are so jealous that they dont want black people to have their own history. jealousy

Why do you think that "they" which I can only assume is a stand-in for the collective of the "white race" don't want black people to have their own history?

Further, what is this collective "black people" that you are referring to? Am I to believe that all "black people" are the same and that they all share the same history and past? If I'm to believe that then no matter how "white" I may be I also share an equal connection to the black Africans that built Egypt. We are, afterall, of the same species and our common ancestor most likely evolved in Africa. I guess what I find interesting about all of this is that so many people and indeed the real academic world doing this research have moved so far beyond the social construct of race that the fact you are still assigning great importance to it seems almost anachronistic.

[Wild Style]

Originally Posted by NJGOAT

First things first....

On the ancient Greek meanings, I simply provided you with a published academic source that disagrees with your translation. Is there no room for presentation of contradictive evidence, or am I to believe that your sources and interpretations are simply unquestionable?

The image I posted was from the tomb of Seti I, not Ramses III. Further, the point I was trying to make, which appears lost on you but not Unbreakable is that we can't tell anything from their artwork.

Secondly, I admitted I was not an "expert" in this field, however, that does not mean I do not have a basic understanding of the arguments and positions that goes beyond mere "googling". Yes, I google theories and images that I am aware of to provide reference and confirm my understanding. I imagine that you as well as everyone else posting in this forum is doing the same. Do not pretend to lecture down to me as if I was a mere peon unable to engage in this discussion or understand the points. Pray tell, what formal education have you had on this subject, what academic works have you published on this subject that would make you anymore of an "expert" than I?



Actually it does matter. You have presented "evidence" and arguments as if they were the sole source of authority or content on this subject and dismiss any contrary evidence as being "biased". Obviously there are actual experts who disagree with some or all of your position. Where I fail is not being versed enough to pull all of the contrary material together. However, I would take your dogmatic approach to this topic to be indicative that questions remain about all of the claims you presented. Given your dogmatic approach to the topic and ready dismissal of contrary evidence do to "bias" then I think it is a fair question as to why this particular topic matters so much to you.



So, it is your opinion that we can only understand a culture based on some form of crude racial classification? Here I thought realizing that they were an indigenous African culture would have allowed us to make the connections you want to make.



So, why, in your opinion are these Eurocentric writers so hell bent on obfiscating the truth of ancient Egypt? I understand why they did in the past, but why does that matter now? Whose career besides perhaps Hawass would suffer from "telling the truth"?



You're right, it isn't an intelligent discussion. Contrary statements or evidence are considered "biased uneducated conjecture" and the only idea that you will accept is the idea that you brought to the discussion.



I think the question of why it matters is an important one. You and Wild Style are both very adamant in your beliefs. Indeed, even the titles of your threads are engineered in a way to not illicit debate or contrarian views but to simply serve as a pulpit to express your thoughts. Anything presented to the contrary gets stamped "biased" and ignored while your own sources are held as the paradigm of study in the field. This has played out in other threads as well including labelling people racists who would dare question your sources or motives. I want to know why this topic matters so much to you. I want to know why virtually the entire content of your posting history on CD is tied to proving to people that ancient Egpyt was a black civilization.

I have my thoughts on why, but I would prefer you tell me lest I allow my conjecture to run rampant.

You didn't provide me with anything, you dont know what you are talking about. We are talking about TWO totally different words. There is nothing to discuss in terms of what the word Ethiop means. You didn't provide me with ANY information in terms of what ethiop is or means. I doubt you even know that information. Either way, my information stands on its own.

[LS Jaun]

Originally Posted by noworneveragain

I have Egyptian friends and if you called them Black they would get really offended...

My Eqyptian Brother in law is the same way. He would have a cow if he found out my sister had a black boyfriend before they were married. I always figured most Egyptions were a mix, so I never got the Hostility. Maybe not much different then here after all.