|
Post by alexandrian on Mar 10, 2005 19:37:13 GMT -5
i have evidence although none is factual,go to your nearest egptian museum and observe the black faces you see in the egyptian art. hahahahaha....we are Egyptian...to see Egyptian faces we just need to look in the mirror...and they are far from black You've admitted yourself there is no factual evidence whatsoever to support your hideous claims. I'm sorry you have no heritage to cling to but it doesn't give you a carte blanche to steal mine Egyptians clearly differentiated between themselves and Nubian East Africans. The difference is stark. Moreover, all proof points to a relation between modern Egyptians and their ancient counterparts. There's evidence all over this topic...find it
|
|
|
Post by alexandrian on Mar 10, 2005 19:39:06 GMT -5
You are a Johnny come lately not only in Ta-Merry but in history in general. WHere have you been. I have already posted the pictures from Usr-Maat-Ra Meri-Amen's tomb that is clearly what ignorant laymans call "Negro" features for the Rmt-n-Kmt and the Nehesu. The Kmtjw did not see any difference between them and their other African brothers. Please brother study. Just because you are a mixer of Persians, Turks, Greeks, Romans and Arabs (don't know what you call yourselves today) doesn't make you a Kmtjw. George Bush will never be a Cherokee. Just because his people are dominant currently in the States, doesn't mean they are from the lineage of Native Americans. The same goes for you and all of the rest of the Johnny Come Lately "Egyptians" on this board. Study people study. Hahahaha...for every piece of evidence you posted I posted five. There is absolutely no connection between Egyptians and West AFricans. Egyptians are more similar to Sicilians than East Africans and its been proven time and time again. Face it buddy, you're about as Egyptian as Mao Tse-Tung or Nelson Mandela. Anyone who claims CHiekh Anta Diop as a reputable, unbiased source shouldn't be taken seriously.
|
|
|
Post by alexandrian on Mar 10, 2005 19:44:03 GMT -5
The Kmtjw did not see any difference between them and their other African brothers. Oh really, is that why they kicked out all southern Negroes during the Middle Kingdom? Some brotherhood that is Compare the Egyptian on the far right to the nubian in the center. THe difference is crystal clear. Another one: In the pic above, the Egyptians portray themselves with features almost identical to the Libyans Look at the stark physical difference between they egyptians and their Nubian captives.
|
|
|
Post by imhotep06 on Mar 10, 2005 21:14:24 GMT -5
In what manner have you put "evidence?" You still haven't answered how the Jews so-called built the pyramids before the first Jew Abraham was supposed to have been born. And I notice you are a skater. Instead of dealing with the evidence, you skate. Please brother, the second picture is a reproduction and doesn’t even put the names of the people in glyphs. He doesn’t even copy the Kmtjw correctly. Kurt Sethe / Richard Lepsius reproduction (description by C.A. Diop): [2] Cheikh Anta Diop, _Civilisation ou barbarie_ (original French edition, 1981) / _Civilization or Barbarism_ (English ed., 1991), p. 66 (figure 17). Figure 4 Yurco shows only 2 members per group Figure 7 Hornung's distortion of the group order: Photo 4 Yurco's distortion of the group order: Also see: Figure 2 for text of the scene which identifies the Egyptian group: And once again I site for you this article by Dr. Clyde Winters www.geocities.com/Athens/Academy/8919/theory2.htmWhen are you going to deal with the tomb evidence? What is your excuse for the Ramesis Tomb? Are these just “dark whites?” or some now extinct Arab tribe? So I want to see your counter evidence to the above information and to what was mentioned in the first reply. • The supposed construction of Pyramids by Jews who didn’t exist by the time the last major one was built • How the Kmtjw are not African people based on evidence such as………. • That the origins of the Kmtjw do not have a southern origin • That Alexandrian somehow is related to the REAL “Egyptians” portrayed by THEMSELVES and described by the early Greek writers (Please provide a picture of yourself)
|
|
|
Post by alexandrian on Mar 10, 2005 21:25:04 GMT -5
I know the Jews didn't build the Pyramids, and neither did Blacks. Egyptians built it. I don't need to prove to you that i'm egyptian, I know I am. You are the one with no connection to egypt. You're just an ashamed AFrican-American with nothing to find in your WEst African heritage. You claiming ancient Egypt is like a Yemeni claiming ancient China. Furthermore, your "evidence" revolves around a reproduction of a painting that doesn't even show the actual painting and that is in a book by a notoriously idiotic Afrocentrist, CHiekh Anta Diop. Furthermore, the original reliefs you show are not of egyptians. WHy would the artist get it wrong, if in his pic there were clearly four Libyans, while in the Diop reproduction that isn't true?
I've already disproved the Herodotus quote earlier in the thread and have provided Greco-Roman texts that suppot my point of view.
Interesting how you refused to comment on this actual relief, taken straight from the tomb Why did you not comment on the last two tomb pictures I posted that clearly showed stark differences between Egyptians and Negroes? Afraid to see the truth?
The burden of proof is on you buddy, with no genetic evidence to back up your opinion, a couple of misinterpreted quotes, and an inaccurate reproduction of a tomb relief, you don't have much of a case against something we in the real world like to call common sense. Common sense is what hits you when you clearly see in the last two tomb pictures I showed that the ancient Egyptians completely differentiated themselves from black Africans,
Sorry to break it to you buddy
You are not an Egyptian
I am
You have no claim to ancient Egypt
I do
Nobody in the real non-Afrocentric world views you as related to the AEs
|
|
|
Post by mike2 on Mar 11, 2005 0:55:08 GMT -5
Imhotep, the second picture reproduction doesn't need to put the names on the mural. Anyone with a shred of common sense knows what Libyans, Semites, Nubians, and Egyptians looked like.
The fact that Diop labels the Libyan-looking person in that mural an "Indo-European" type proves to me that he doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. The picture you rebuke is the more reliable while the one you brandish is a wet dream. We all know it because we all know what the Egyptian racial self-image was. There would be no reason for the Egyptians to portray themselves as brown-skinned Caucasians one day and then black-skinned Congoids the next. That is just stupid. One faked representation of a Congoid Egyptian and mangled hieroglyphs does not advance the Afrocentrist case because most of us know better. Our minds, like yours, are set on this issue. If you want to believe that the white man has robbed darkie of his glorious Egyptian history you're certainly free to do so. But you're not winning any converts here. We've all heard it before. Good ol' zealous Alexandrian has summed up the sentiment. There is nothing more to say about it.
|
|
|
Post by Faelcind on Mar 11, 2005 17:00:53 GMT -5
Alexandrian if your were so incredible biased you would see that the egyptian in your picture is as distinct from the libyan as he is from the nubian. Almost identical are you blind?
|
|
|
Post by alexandrian on Mar 11, 2005 17:18:42 GMT -5
Alexandrian if your were so incredible biased you would see that the egyptian in your picture is as distinct from the libyan as he is from the nubian. Almost identical are you blind? In the four races picture, I said their features are almost identical. And they are. THe Libyans and the Egyptians have almost identical noses and mouths. It's obvious that their facial features are extremely similar unlike the Assyrians with hooked noses and the Nubians with Negroid noses. If you disregard the skin tone and dress, you'll see the resemblance. The egyptian is certainly closer to the Libyans than the Nubian.
|
|
|
Post by Faelcind on Mar 11, 2005 17:26:51 GMT -5
The egyptian looks exactly intermediate to me. the face is smalle and more prognathic, the hair is curlier the beard less devolped. And why would the skin colour be represented differently the both came from the same climate?
|
|
|
Post by Human on Mar 11, 2005 17:33:13 GMT -5
The egyptian looks exactly intermediate to me. the face is smalle and more prognathic, the hair is curlier the beard less devolped. And why would the skin colour be represented differently the both came from the same climate? again you view ancient egypt exactly like i do, intermeditate. that coincides with their geographical position, etc, etc. some continuous gene flow from the river nile. predominantly caucasoid (north african). interaction with the middle east due to proximity. and even with europeans (the first to be civilized, minoans, crete, etc etc). does the history of Germany include Jewish history? i guess so, in a way, as an ancient and continous jewish presence in germany (dating back to the romans) is reported. does the history of ancient egypt include blacks? in a way, yes. there were part black in ancient egypt , no doubt. one can argue the extent (i think and this is rather accepted they were predominantly caucasoid), but still they were there. largely nubians were interacting with ancient egyptians time and again. in a way, this should be stuff for reflection as mixed people should not be necessarily seen as incapable of building civilizations. at that time, the 'pure white', germans and britons, were savagely barbaric, a fact vastly acknowledged (human sacrifices, no writing, etc etc).
|
|
|
Post by alexandrian on Mar 11, 2005 17:36:51 GMT -5
The egyptian looks exactly intermediate to me. the face is smalle and more prognathic, the hair is curlier the beard less devolped. And why would the skin colour be represented differently the both came from the same climate? THe Libyans were living in a coastal Mediterranean climate, while Egyptians lived in a stronger-sunned desert environment. Moreover, although there are common genetic affinities between Libyans and Egyptians, they probably aren't the same people. Also, Egyptians were out in the sun all day in just loincloth whereas the Libyans were a more mercantile and war-like people who didn't have much arable land to farm. Until they came to Egypt. THe hair is no curlier in one than the other, in both peoples, the hair was clearly curled no more in one than the other. Also, the reason why the beard was more developed was because Egyptians were one of the few egyptian peoples who actually shaved. They chose to grow their beards short. Also keep in mind that the Egyptian's beard is straight. Moreover, you didn't mention the nose and mouth. The nose and mouth shape of the Egyptian is almost identical to that of the Libyans. There is no doubting that the picture shows Egyptians closer to Libyans than Nubians.
|
|
|
Post by mike2 on Mar 11, 2005 17:38:46 GMT -5
I think Berter pointed out that those four Libyans are representative of the fair-skinned, coastal-dwelling Ibero-Maurusian type, a type which was and still is mostly Brunn and Borreby-looking. The Capsians are the ones who brought the related Atlanto-Mediterranean type and the Afro-Asiatic Berber language to Barbary and would have probably appeared similar to that of the Egyptians. I completely agree with Faelcind's point though that the Egyptian could have a significant East African influence. If the Cushites mixed with the Nilotes to form the Aethiopid type I don't see why their fellow Hamitic brothers the Egyptians would have been any different. I'm rambling. Sorry.
|
|
|
Post by Faelcind on Mar 11, 2005 17:43:21 GMT -5
Your ad hoc hypthosizing to explain things that don't fit your extreme prospective I don't buy any of it. As to mouth and nose I did mention they mouth look up prognathic is charecteristic features of SSA africans, though on second glance its not significant enough in that picture to indicate one way or the other. The egyptian nose is on the other hand is significantly shorter then the libyan and slightly upturned it much more closely resemlbles the nubian then the libyan.
|
|
|
Post by alexandrian on Mar 11, 2005 17:45:22 GMT -5
If the Cushites mixed with the Nilotes to form the Aethiopid type I don't see why their fellow Hamitic brothers the Egyptians would have been any different. I'm rambling. Sorry. Because they clearly showed themselves as different from the Cushites.
|
|
|
Post by alexandrian on Mar 11, 2005 17:50:23 GMT -5
Your ad hoc hypthosizing to explain things that don't fit your extreme prospective I don't buy any of it. As to mouth and nose I did mention they mouth look up prognathic is charecteristic features of SSA africans, though on second glance its not significant enough in that picture to indicate one way or the other. The egyptian nose is on the other hand is significantly shorter then the libyan and slightly upturned it much more closely resemlbles the nubian then the libyan. Wow. I really took you seriously until now. This just proves your a radical leftist obsessed with appeasing blacks. The Egyptian nose doesn't look REMOTELY similar to the Nubian nose. There is absolutely NO resemblance. It's not even marginally upturned. How can you even see that close?? THe face of the Egyptian is completely and utterly different from that of the Nubian, not even a minimal resemblance. I don't see any Negroid influence from the nose up. THe egyptian nose, like the Libyan nose, is relatively short but pointy. It is straight, unlike the broad, weirdly-shaped, completely upturned nose of the Nubian, and the long, hooked nose of the Asiatic. The egyptians clearly showed their mouths similar to the Libyans while the Nubians were shown with lips that extruded significantly and pointed up. Moreover, how could the Egyptians be black? Look at the other picture, the difference between themselves and the Nubian captives is striking.
|
|