Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
One of the reasons why some (even in the mainstream scientific community) continue to deny that the rise of the ancient Egyptian culture was innate and intrinsic is certainly due to the sacred (but false) belief that white Europeans were responsible for every major innovation and discovery throughout history. Blind ethnocentrism is a very subversive thing because most perpetrators and sufferers of such haven't the slightest idea that they are affected.
Near the Gulf Coast, in the state of Vera Cruz, Mexico, massive stone heads have been unearthed. They resemble exactly African seafarers from the west coast African kingdom of Timbuktu. Many small stone carvings have been unearthed throughout Mexico that exactly resemble figures of ancient African royalty. There are pyramids in Mexico that were proven to have been built in the same manner as the Egyptian pyramids. When Columbus went to South America on a subsequent voyage he entered into his dairy that he saw black negroid types of warriors that did not resemble any of the native population.
There is much more convincing evidence available that the anciect Egyptians reached the American continent long before Columbus. There was an experiment done by a European fellow in the 1960's, I believe: he built a boat with the exact specs. of the ancient north African seafarers and drifted from the west coast of Africa to South America easily in around a month. The currents there will direct a boat from west Africa to America easily. The shortest distance across the Atlantic from Africa to South America is shorter than the width of the widest part of the continent of South America.
All of this is brilliantly explained in a book by Ivan Van Sertima called "They Came Before Columbus: African Presence in Pre-Columbian America."
The ancient Egyptians were travellers and seafarers; they certainly had contact with other cultures throughout Africa. It is more than probable that they were involved, perhaps along with other African explorers, in reaching the Americas, independent of, and before Europeans.
One of the reasons why some (even in the mainstream scientific community) continue to deny that the rise of the ancient Egyptian culture was innate and intrinsic is certainly due to the sacred (but false) belief that white Europeans were responsible for every major innovation and discovery throughout history. Blind ethnocentrism is a very subversive thing because most perpetrators and sufferers of such haven't the slightest idea that they are affected.
Near the Gulf Coast, in the state of Vera Cruz, Mexico, massive stone heads have been unearthed. They resemble exactly African seafarers from the west coast African kingdom of Timbuktu. Many small stone carvings have been unearthed throughout Mexico that exactly resemble figures of ancient African royalty. There are pyramids in Mexico that were proven to have been built in the same manner as the Egyptian pyramids. When Columbus went to South America on a subsequent voyage he entered into his dairy that he saw black negroid types of warriors that did not resemble any of the native population.
There is much more convincing evidence available that the anciect Egyptians reached the American continent long before Columbus. There was an experiment done by a European fellow in the 1960's, I believe: he built a boat with the exact specs. of the ancient north African seafarers and drifted from the west coast of Africa to South America easily in around a month. The currents there will direct a boat from west Africa to America easily. The shortest distance across the Atlantic from Africa to South America is shorter than the width of the widest part of the continent of South America.
All of this is brilliantly explained in a book by Ivan Van Sertima called "They Came Before Columbus: African Presence in Pre-Columbian America."
The ancient Egyptians were travellers and seafarers; they certainly had contact with other cultures throughout Africa. It is more than probable that they were involved, perhaps along with other African explorers, in reaching the Americas, independent of, and before Europeans.
Connecting the Olmecs to the kingdoms of central africa is a bit of a stretch. Likewise, it's unlikely the Ancient Egyptians made it across the Atlantic. They were NOT a stong seafaring people unlike the other civilizations of the Mediterranean, despite the extensive trade networks that existed during the time, and most routes hugged the coast and involved "port hopping"; stopping at a new port each night. If anyone during that time and place tried it and had a chance to make it to the Americas it would have been the Phonecians, not the Egyptians.
I think there was a much greater chance the Polynesians made it to the Americas in ancient times. Also, the Chinese could had made it a couple hundred years before Columbus. And of course the Vikings beat Columbus here too.
Connecting the Olmecs to the kingdoms of central africa is a bit of a stretch. Likewise, it's unlikely the Ancient Egyptians made it across the Atlantic. They were NOT a stong seafaring people unlike the other civilizations of the Mediterranean, despite the extensive trade networks that existed during the time, and most routes hugged the coast and involved "port hopping"; stopping at a new port each night. If anyone during that time and place tried it and had a chance to make it to the Americas it would have been the Phonecians, not the Egyptians.
I think there was a much greater chance the Polynesians made it to the Americas in ancient times. Also, the Chinese could had made it a couple hundred years before Columbus. And of course the Vikings beat Columbus here too.
There is evidence that supports the idea that there was pre-Columbian contact between Amer-Indians and Africans (most likely from the kingdom of Timbuktu). However, I do agree with your statements concerning the possibility of a Polynesian or Phonecian contact. Interesting.......
One thing is for sure though: There were other "discoverers" of America prior to Columbus. Columbus was the last person to "discover" the Americas.
Yes, it was a indigenous culture influenced by Asia and Europe.
Yes during the later dynasties of this civilization. AGAIN I've presented numerous scholarly opinions and research, who all agree of the more Southenly African origin of Ancient Egypt. You've offered nothing but an opinion!
Quote:
But it was a Mediterranean culture, just as Micenics, Phoenicians and Hitites
Again evidence actually..presented sugguest otherwise. That it was just as African in origin as Nubia.
Quote:
As to race, they were Berbers, but also included Greeks and East Asians.
Berber is not a race it's a language. Secondly there is no generic look to berbers or North Africans for that matter. They range from Black to white and in between, as population after population has left their mark on that vast region.
Secondly you have no scientific evidence to support your opinion let alone refute the evidence that I've presented on page one linking Ancient Egyptians most closely to Horn Africans.
Quote:
No, they weren't an "African" "civilization", but a Mediterranean and Eastern culture.
Once again another completely bogus statement supported by absolutely no scientific evidence, but rather wishful thinking! From shear logic how in the heck and any civilization be on the African continent not be called African. So if you would please explain how you've come to this completely backwards conclusion.
Anyone who opposed the OP's horse was going to be racist, Eurocentric, yahda yahda.
WRONG! The problem that I have with most of the people who oppose my opinion is that 99.9% of the time they offer not a SHRED of evidence to back their opinion. To the contrary my first post encouraged anyone who wanted wanted crania analysis, skeletal, genetic, linguistic, cultrual, or archaelogical evidence (and I have MUCH MORE) to simply request it they did and I PROVIDED IT it's still on PAGE 1. The evidence from numerous scholars all point to ancient Egyptians origins in the horn Africa.
What does however make me and most others think that Eurocentrism/racism is a major factor in this debate is when the evidence presented PROVING my case is simply IGNORED, and someone ignorantly says
EGYPT wasn't Africans....No evidence
They hated black African...No Evidence
along with a host of other unsupported claims posted directly under SCHOLARLY evidence to the contrary. That's what leads to those charges being called, NOT simple opposition. The unwillingness to accept or even asess the evidence presented, but rathe simply DENY IT!
Quote:
The entire subject was racially motivated from the opening post.
No it was to inform the misinformed and be informed!
Quote:
It's really too bad, because it detracted from what had potential to be a good topic.
And it still can be just post to scientific information to "inform" me of your stance on the subject.
Louisvilleslugger, I applaud your extensive referencing. And, you know, there is a segment of population, an exceptionally vociferous population at that, who will never accept those facts. Don't sweat it. Their ignorance doesn't become them.
Nope. Right. Your first post hinted at it and your later posts made it manifest. Denying it in boldface, a little hysterically, makes it even clearer. At least you made little effort to hide the fact that it was racially motivated, so props for that. When you make quite clear that the side that disagrees with you (and all its sources) are going to be lumped in with old racists, that demonstrates racial motivation. Which is your prerogative, long as you understand that it'll extinguish much real chance of proving your point since anyone attempting to defend the counterpoint is going to be painted not merely as incorrect, but a bigot as well.
Nope. Right. Your first post hinted at it and your later posts made it manifest. Denying it in boldface, a little hysterically, makes it even clearer. At least you made little effort to hide the fact that it was racially motivated, so props for that.
Racially motivated
The point of this thread was to ask why people in light of such evidence refuse to accept the indigenous origin of this African civilization. What's so racist about this?
Quote:
When you make quite clear that the side that disagrees with you (and all its sources) are going to be lumped in with old racists,
Newsflash dude I've engaged in this debate numerous times even with extremely racially biased White Nationalist (just for kicks). In all likelyhood I probably have a saved response to just about every study you could present to sugguest a non African origin of Egypt. I've never claimed that C. Loring Brace was a racist because of his conclusion in his recanted 93 study "Clines vs Clusters" sugguesting that the ancient Egyptians weren't related to Sub Saharan Africans. So that sugguestion made on your behalf was false.
Your generalization that I'll label you a racist for your opposition is very misguided and to me shows that you fear debating me in this topic!
Quote:
to defend the counterpoint is going to be painted not merely as incorrect, but a bigot as well
LOL Well my friend that happens in most debates, the opposition is seen as wrong in their beliefs and if you don't feel that way then what's the point of a debate?
Quote:
Which is your prerogative, long as you understand that it'll extinguish much real chance of proving your point since anyone attempting
(Mod Cut) If you have evidence to sugguest that my information is wrong then please provide it, rather than assuming that you'll be labeled a racist for doing such. I promise that I won't label you a racist more merely presenting scientifc information to prove your position. On the other hand if you're going to make the statements that I've listed earlier with no evidence then you probably will be
Nope. Right. Your first post hinted at it and your later posts made it manifest. Denying it in boldface, a little hysterically, makes it even clearer. At least you made little effort to hide the fact that it was racially motivated, so props for that. When you make quite clear that the side that disagrees with you (and all its sources) are going to be lumped in with old racists, that demonstrates racial motivation. Which is your prerogative, long as you understand that it'll extinguish much real chance of proving your point since anyone attempting to defend the counterpoint is going to be painted not merely as incorrect, but a bigot as well.
----
I agree.
This person is far more "flabbergasted" than Von Daniken himself.
No, Egiptians were not "dudes".
Sorry.
Man whatever, please either put up or shut up. If you have evidence to sugguest that my information is wrong then please provide it, rather than assuming that you'll be labeled a racist for doing such. I promise that I won't label you a racist more merely presenting scientifc information to prove your position. On the other hand if you're going to make the statements that I've listed earlier with no evidence then you probably will be
See, there you go. You're already setting it up to call me a racist. That's why your opinion is not of value to me, and why I distrust your initial motives (and whatever methods you might use to marshal evidence). It's the same reason that I don't put stock in David Irving's take on WWII.
In fact, I don't yet have a position on the topic, and my disappointment is that I'm no closer to finding one now than when the thread started. I came to this thread hoping to gain information of value, only to find that the OP was operating from a very racially motivated perspective, making sure to tilt the debating field so that he could throw the r-word in case he needed it. I felt it was really too bad, because if you hadn't loaded the dice, this might have had greater value. As it was, all I've learned is that not only did you load the dice, you tell people to shut up when they question your motivation, and get all emo about it.
By the way, 'racist' /= 'racially motivated.' Two different terms.
The greatest irony of all is that based on what I knew going in, I tend to think you're likely more right than wrong about the issue of ancient Egyptian racial origin. So here's someone who was perfectly open to your conclusion, but questioned your underlying objectivity. You can't refute him--your lack of objectivity was manifestly clear--so you ridiculed him for pointing it out. Great scholarship, sir. I tip my mortarboard.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
LOL Well my friend that happens in most debates, the opposition is seen as wrong in their beliefs and if you don't feel that way then what's the point of a debate? 
