Why do Afrocentists try to relate themselves to Egypt rather than claim their real history? (country, life)

[cachibatches]

Originally Posted by CaliDude1

I guess the Africa forum has no moderator. Seems this thread has been going in the same circle since the 3rd or 4th page. Now its at 50 pages. And most of it is nonsense by one poster OBSESSED with African Americans. This thread should have been locked a long time ago.

Yet another person who can't read through the thread. Since I am not talking about African Americans, your post is just plain goofy. I do seek out and contest Afrocentrists wherever I see them.

A little comical that you are crying that a thread should be locked. You have every freedom to not look at it or post on it. But you are interested in limiting freedom...think we can guess which side you are on.

[cachibatches]

Originally Posted by 20yrsinBranson

I believe that you are in error.

While it may be true that the RULING FAMILIES of ancient Egypt may not have been of African American descent, most certainly the citizenry of Egypt were black.

We have posted DNA, skeletal, and dental studies in this thread. There was sub-Saharan input, but largely they were/are Eurasian/North African haplotypes. Feel free to read through the studies.

Regardless, even of they were "black," African Americans don't come from them. It would be like me claiming Persia as my heritage.

Originally Posted by 20yrsinBranson

And while, most certainly the average citizen of ancient Egypt did not enjoy the benefits as the ruling families, they still benefited from the culture as a whole. It is absurd to even imagine that, since purportedly Africa is the birthplace of humanity, that the northern portion of Africa would somehow be magically devoid of the indigenous population in favor of some immigrant race. Unless of course, you ascribe to the theory that the Pharaohs of Ancient Egypt came from the star system Sirius and came to earth to tinker with the genetic populace for their own purposes.

20yrsinBranson

Again, read through the studies. Eurasians back migrated constantly throughout the stone ages. Also, indigenous North Africans phenotypically look like Middle Easterners, because they evolved on the same latitude.

[hvl]

Originally Posted by 20yrsinBranson

I believe that you are in error.

While it may be true that the RULING FAMILIES of ancient Egypt may not have been of African American descent, most certainly the citizenry of Egypt were black.

And while, most certainly the average citizen of ancient Egypt did not enjoy the benefits as the ruling families, they still benefited from the culture as a whole. It is absurd to even imagine that, since purportedly Africa is the birthplace of humanity, that the northern portion of Africa would somehow be magically devoid of the indigenous population in favor of some immigrant race. Unless of course, you ascribe to the theory that the Pharaohs of Ancient Egypt came from the star system Sirius and came to earth to tinker with the genetic populace for their own purposes.

20yrsinBranson

Korea is filled with stereotypical east-asian people.
Since Lebanon is on the asian continent too, then Lebanon is and has always been filled with stereotypical east-asian people, since Lebanon is in the western part of that same continent of Asia.
Makes sense, right ?

[dominicwilde]

Ancient Egypt was originally a Black civilization.


1. The Greeks (Herodotus) described Ancient Egypt as black. Herodotus wrote that the Egyptians were dark like the Aethiopians. Greeks called everything south of Egypt & Libya......Aethiopia. Aethiops means "burnt face".



2. The statues of the earlier Egyptian pharoahs (Narmer/Menos) are Negroid in appearance. Even when you go into the later dynasties, people such as Nefertiti or King Tut and his family clearly looked African.

3. DNA Scribes published findings that linked King Tut and his family primarily to Sub-Saharan and Central Africans. Another one linked Ramseses the III as well.

http://www.dnatribes.com/dnatribes-d...2013-02-01.pdf



4. The Ancient Egyptians said they originated from the land of Punt, which is modern day Ethiopia/Eritrea/Somalia/Djibouti (i.e. East Africa). Which also happens to be the same region that is thought to be the birthplace of human civilization. You don't say The White Nile River starts in Lake Victoria. The Blue Nile River starts in Ethiopia. The two meet and form the Nile River, which flows South to North, forming a mouth at the Mediterranean Sea. This gives credence to the fact that the original peoples (i.e. Blacks) moved up along the Delta to Egypt.



5. There are hundreds of pyramids littered throughout Nubia/Sudan. More primitive than the ones found in Egypt. Only a handful have been dated. Id reckon there's a few that are older than the ones in Egypt. It would make sense that the original peoples made poorly constructed pyramids along the Nile Delta and over time, the Egyptians, their descendants, perfected the craft. That makes sense. What doesn't make sense is how pyramids are not a part of ancient Arab culture, as in, not a single pyramid can be found throughout the entire Middle Eastern region but, they're supposedly the mother culture of Ancient Egypt. Shouldn't the mother culture have some traces of the culture to which it gave birth?

6. Ancient Egypt was settled in 3500 B.C.

http://www.ancientegypt.co.uk/time/explore/main.html

Ancient Egypt didn't have a single invasion until 1700 B.C. by the Hyskos. That's nearly two thousand years of no outside interference. That's 6-7 times as long as the United States has been around. So...yea. You have a group of people who say they originated from East Africa (i.e. The Land of Punt/Put) and they ruled their new kingdom (i.e. Egypt/Kemet) for 1800 years without any outside interference.....what is your reasoning for saying they weren't Black? What else could these people have been? Unless you're saying Arabs ruled Ethiopia, Eritrea and Somalia 5,000 years ago


7. One last thing. A tactic of white supremacy used to marginalize black achievement throughout history was to divide the African peoples. This was mainly used to cut East/North Africa off from the rest of the continent. That's frankly bull****. Africans have the most diversity in phenotype. That is no set look on what is "Black". The same way there is no set look to what is "White" or what is "Asian". Southeast Asians don't look like Koreans, Chinese or Japanese. But they're all considered Asian. Mediterranean Europeans (Greeks, Italians, Spanish) don't look like English, Scottish, Finnish or Irish people. But they're all considered White. But when it comes to Africa, unless you're blue-black, big lipped and wide nosed, you're not a real African and thus the civilization was not really "Black". There are tribes in West Africa (The Fulani or the Igbo) that are brown like the people in North/Horn of Africa and there are tribes in North/Horn of Africa (The Dinka) that are as dark as anyone in West or Sub-Sahara Africa.


8. And one other last thing. Blacks do claim other great African nations. There's Ancient Ghana, Ancient Mali, The Songhai Empire, The Zulu Kingdom, Benin, etc. Ancient Mali was the second largest kingdom of its time, larger than any kingdom in Europe. Only the Mongolian Empire was larger. Ancient Mali had one of the largest libraries and universities of the Ancient World. Ancient Mali was so wealthy, Mansa Musa devalued the price of gold in the entire Mediterranean Region for a decade. One man. So much gold, he bankrupted economies via hyperinflation. The only time in history a single person has done this. Of course, Western schools don't teach Black kids about these West African kingdoms either, so O/P's question was disingenuous to begin with

[cachibatches]

Originally Posted by dominicwilde

Ancient Egypt was originally a Black civilization.


1. The Greeks (Herodotus) described Ancient Egypt as black. Herodotus wrote that the Egyptians were dark like the Aethiopians. Greeks called everything south of Egypt & Libya......Aethiopia. Aethiops means "burnt face".



2. The statues of the earlier Egyptian pharoahs (Narmer/Menos) are Negroid in appearance. Even when you go into the later dynasties, people such as Nefertiti or King Tut and his family clearly looked African.

3. DNA Scribes published findings that linked King Tut and his family primarily to Sub-Saharan and Central Africans. Another one linked Ramseses the III as well.

http://www.dnatribes.com/dnatribes-d...2013-02-01.pdf



4. The Ancient Egyptians said they originated from the land of Punt, which is modern day Ethiopia/Eritrea/Somalia/Djibouti (i.e. East Africa). Which also happens to be the same region that is thought to be the birthplace of human civilization. You don't say The White Nile River starts in Lake Victoria. The Blue Nile River starts in Ethiopia. The two meet and form the Nile River, which flows South to North, forming a mouth at the Mediterranean Sea. This gives credence to the fact that the original peoples (i.e. Blacks) moved up along the Delta to Egypt.



5. There are hundreds of pyramids littered throughout Nubia/Sudan. More primitive than the ones found in Egypt. Only a handful have been dated. Id reckon there's a few that are older than the ones in Egypt. It would make sense that the original peoples made poorly constructed pyramids along the Nile Delta and over time, the Egyptians, their descendants, perfected the craft. That makes sense. What doesn't make sense is how pyramids are not a part of ancient Arab culture, as in, not a single pyramid can be found throughout the entire Middle Eastern region but, they're supposedly the mother culture of Ancient Egypt. Shouldn't the mother culture have some traces of the culture to which it gave birth?

6. Ancient Egypt was settled in 3500 B.C.

Menu

Ancient Egypt didn't have a single invasion until 1700 B.C. by the Hyskos. That's nearly two thousand years of no outside interference. That's 6-7 times as long as the United States has been around. So...yea. You have a group of people who say they originated from East Africa (i.e. The Land of Punt/Put) and they ruled their new kingdom (i.e. Egypt/Kemet) for 1800 years without any outside interference.....what is your reasoning for saying they weren't Black? What else could these people have been? Unless you're saying Arabs ruled Ethiopia, Eritrea and Somalia 5,000 years ago


7. One last thing. A tactic of white supremacy used to marginalize black achievement throughout history was to divide the African peoples. This was mainly used to cut East/North Africa off from the rest of the continent. That's frankly bull****. Africans have the most diversity in phenotype. That is no set look on what is "Black". The same way there is no set look to what is "White" or what is "Asian". Southeast Asians don't look like Koreans, Chinese or Japanese. But they're all considered Asian. Mediterranean Europeans (Greeks, Italians, Spanish) don't look like English, Scottish, Finnish or Irish people. But they're all considered White. But when it comes to Africa, unless you're blue-black, big lipped and wide nosed, you're not a real African and thus the civilization was not really "Black". There are tribes in West Africa (The Fulani or the Igbo) that are brown like the people in North/Horn of Africa and there are tribes in North/Horn of Africa (The Dinka) that are as dark as anyone in West or Sub-Sahara Africa.


8. And one other last thing. Blacks do claim other great African nations. There's Ancient Ghana, Ancient Mali, The Songhai Empire, The Zulu Kingdom, Benin, etc. Ancient Mali was the second largest kingdom of its time, larger than any kingdom in Europe. Only the Mongolian Empire was larger. Ancient Mali had one of the largest libraries and universities of the Ancient World. Ancient Mali was so wealthy, Mansa Musa devalued the price of gold in the entire Mediterranean Region for a decade. One man. So much gold, he bankrupted economies via hyperinflation. The only time in history a single person has done this. Of course, Western schools don't teach Black kids about these West African kingdoms either, so O/P's question was disingenuous to begin with

More or the usual nonsense.

1. He did NOT say they were dark like Ethiops. He said they were melanchroes. This word does not mean the same thing.

2, The ancient statues look "negroid" to you. Most people do not agree, and some of the images I have seen going around, like the famous one or Narmer, are altered. When you google the real image, they don't look "negroid" at all.

3. Best for last. See below.

4. The Egyptians can say they were from the land of Punt all they want, they were known to have come from all directions when the Sahara expanded. What is more, the horn of Africa is also very genetically mixed. So the phenotype of the people that they came from would be in doubt, even if true.

5. This is delusional. The archeological record is well known. The pyramid process began in Egypt, and there is a perfect understanding of its evolution from mastabas, to the step pyramid, the imperfect bent pyramid, to the great pyramid. I am very fond of the Nubia pyramids, but they are not only smaller, they are relatively modern.

6. I don't know what they date of settlement has to do with anything- Eurasians had been back migrating into North Africa since at least the paleolithic.

7. This is simply a common tactic of saying that even though they weren't black they were still black. As I have demonstrated again and again and again on this thread, they are the same people that they always were. They are not largely considered "black" today because most have features and skin tones that cluster with other North Africans and middle Easterners.

8. Nothing disingenuous here except the constant, never-ending attempt to steal Egyptian history.

As for the DNA tribes garbage, it is:

A) Irrelevant at best, because it is a measure of a New Kingdom dynasty long suspected of being Nubian, and thus has nothing to do with the first Egyptians.

B) Based on science by the Journal Of American Medicine which was exposed as falsified.

"Zinkhas stated that the tests did not get the same results each time they were runand the results reported in the JAMA paper are those the team adjudged"most likely" based on "majority rule" (Curse of thePharaoh's DNA AWT Conference Review, Marchant; 2011)

C) Further distorted by DNA tribes when they used a comically few number of STA markers from the JAMA data. Here are a couple of letters written to people who called bull**** on the "study."


Thank you for your interest in therecent Digest Article. The 8 STR loci tested do not allow a fine leveladmixutre analysis to identify percentages of ancestry from world regions orcontinents. However, in this case, available results indicate the Amarnamummies have inherited several alleles that are most frequent in African populations, which suggests someAfrican ancestry (not necessarily excluding other ancestral components) forthese ancient individuals.

Best regards

Lucas Martin

DNA Tribes

The presence of some African allelesamong the Amarna mummies does not necessarily exclude that ancient Egyptianpopulations were descended from multiple ancestral components (possiblyincluding regional contacts related to modern populations of Egypt).

These preliminary results onlysuggest that based on the 8 STR markers tested for the Amarna mummies, one ofthese ancestral components might have been indigenous to Africa

Best regards

Lucas Martin

DNA Tribes

So no. No evidence presented here.

[dominicwilde]

Originally Posted by cachibatches

More or the usual nonsense.

1. He did NOT say they were dark like Ethiops. He said they were melanchroes. This word does not mean the same thing.

2, The ancient statues look "negroid" to you. Most people do not agree, and some of the images I have seen going around, like the famous one or Narmer, are altered. When you google the real image, they don't look "negroid" at all.

3. Best for last. See below.

4. The Egyptians can say they were from the land of Punt all they want, they were known to have come from all directions when the Sahara expanded. What is more, the horn of Africa is also very genetically mixed. So the phenotype of the people that they came from would be in doubt, even if true.

5. This is delusional. The archeological record is well known. The pyramid process began in Egypt, and there is a perfect understanding of its evolution from mastabas, to the step pyramid, the imperfect bent pyramid, to the great pyramid. I am very fond of the Nubia pyramids, but they are not only smaller, they are relatively modern.

6. I don't know what they date of settlement has to do with anything- Eurasians had been back migrating into North Africa since at least the paleolithic.

7. This is simply a common tactic of saying that even though they weren't black they were still black. As I have demonstrated again and again and again on this thread, they are the same people that they always were. They are not largely considered "black" today because most have features and skin tones that cluster with other North Africans and middle Easterners.

8. Nothing disingenuous here except the constant, never-ending attempt to steal Egyptian history.

As for the DNA tribes garbage, it is:

A) Irrelevant at best, because it is a measure of a New Kingdom dynasty long suspected of being Nubian, and thus has nothing to do with the first Egyptians.

B) Based on science by the Journal Of American Medicine which was exposed as falsified.

"Zinkhas stated that the tests did not get the same results each time they were runand the results reported in the JAMA paper are those the team adjudged"most likely" based on "majority rule" (Curse of thePharaoh's DNA AWT Conference Review, Marchant; 2011)

C) Further distorted by DNA tribes when they used a comically few number of STA markers from the JAMA data. Here are a couple of letters written to people who called bull**** on the "study."


Thank you for your interest in therecent Digest Article. The 8 STR loci tested do not allow a fine leveladmixutre analysis to identify percentages of ancestry from world regions orcontinents. However, in this case, available results indicate the Amarnamummies have inherited several alleles that are most frequent in African populations, which suggests someAfrican ancestry (not necessarily excluding other ancestral components) forthese ancient individuals.

Best regards

Lucas Martin

DNA Tribes

The presence of some African allelesamong the Amarna mummies does not necessarily exclude that ancient Egyptianpopulations were descended from multiple ancestral components (possiblyincluding regional contacts related to modern populations of Egypt).

These preliminary results onlysuggest that based on the 8 STR markers tested for the Amarna mummies, one ofthese ancestral components might have been indigenous to Africa

Best regards

Lucas Martin

DNA Tribes

So no. No evidence presented here.

1. Melanchroes means "black/darkskinned". If the ancient Egyptians were White, Herodotus would have used the term “leucochroes” and if the ancient Egyptian were brown or red skinned, the term “phrenychroes” would have been used.

Herodotus, a Greek writer in the 5th century B.C. claims that "the people of Colchis must be Egyptians because like them they are black-skinned and wooly-haired."

The Greek philosopher Aristotle writes in the 4th century B.C. in Physiognomonica that the "Egyptians and Ethiopians were very black."

In other words, you don't know what you're talking about.

2. The Ancient statues do look negroid. Maybe not to racist European archaeologists during the 1800s who had a white supremacist agenda to uphold. Couldn't have the world believing Africans were able to create a marvelous civilization that gave the Greeks Science, Medicine, Math, Philosophy, Astronomy, Writing etc. and still be able to justify that Trans-Atlantic Slave trade thing, now could they? They had to make the world believe blacks were animals and savages to justify putting Africans in chains To anyone who isn't white, they can see these statues have African characteristics. Whites spent centuries making caricatures of our big lips and wide noses and now you want to say this big lipped, wide nose fellow was Arab/White?




This man looks African



This man looks African



This woman looks like an old Black woman



There are women all over Ethiopia and Somalia that look like Nefertiti



I guess the Discovery Channel was wrong too when they made this facial reconstruction of King Tut



4. The Ancient Egyptians said where they came from, from their own mouths. But no, they were wrong. You know more about their origins than the actual people. Its also a crazy coincidence to me that the Nile River just happens to begin in the same region as this "Punt" place

At times, the ancient Egyptians called Punt, "Ta netjer", meaning "God's Land". This referred to the fact that it was among the regions of the Sun God, that is, the regions located in the direction of the sunrise, to the East of Egypt. These eastern regions' resources included products used in temples, notably incense. The term was not only applied to Punt, located southeast of Egypt, but also to regions of Asia east and northeast of Egypt, such as Lebanon, which was the source of wood for temples. Older literature (and current non-mainstream literature) maintained that the label "God's Land", when interpreted as "Holy Land" or "Land of the gods/ancestors", meant that the ancient Egyptians viewed the Land of Punt as their ancestral homeland. W. M. Flinders Petrie believed that the Dynastic Race came from or through Punt and E. A. Wallis Budge stated that “Egyptian tradition of the Dynastic Period held that the aboriginal home of the Egyptians was Punt..

5. Actually, its very well documented that only a few of the 227 Nubian pyramids were dated. Nubia preceded Ancient Egypt. I'm willing to bet a few of those pyramids preceded the ones in Egypt as well. That makes sense. What doesn't make sense is that there's not a single pyramid in The Middle East. If they were the precursors to Ancient Egypt, then there should be some elements of Egyptian culture in Ancient Arabia. But there isn't any. You can find elements of Egypitan culture in Nubia/Kush/Punt however.

6. The settlement of Ancient Egypt actually means everything. Ancient Egypt was founded in 3500 B.C. And the Hyskos didn't invade until 1700 B.C. So for the first 2,000 years....where were all these mixed/non-black peoples coming from? You think there was a massive migration of whites out of Africa to Europe, then another massive migration of whites back into Africa to settle Egypt, then another massive migration of whites back to Europe to start Western civilization? But I'm the delusional one

For two thousand years, there were no Turks, Greeks, Assyrians, Persians, Arabs or Romans in Egypt. There's no record of any invasion of any kind until 1700 B.C. The Ancient Egyptians wrote they came from Punt/East Africa. If there was no record of any large outside groups in Egypt at the time and if the group in Egypt said they came from the area thats now known as Ethiopia and Eritrea, what does this mean? They were BLACK!!!!!!!!

7. The modern Egyptians you see today are the descendants of the Ancient Egyptians. But they are also the descendants of the invaders. Their blood is mixed/diluted with the Romans, Arabs, Turks, Greeks. That's why the Northern Egyptians look the way they do in 2014. But when you go further south in Upper Egypt/Lower Nubia/Upper Nubia, the indigenous people there become progressively darker.



This is also why King Tut and his family had more genetic relation toward the Black Africans in Sub-Sahara, West and Central Africa, then they did the modern day Egyptians. Because....dun dun dunnnnn.....cue evil music.....they were primarily Black/African too , and were not a product of centuries of admixture with every outside invader.


To put it in a modern perspective, if in 500 years the United States of America became completely biracial/multi-racial and this is a very real possibility....some jackass in the future could claim that the original settlers of the United States looked biracial/mixed, instead of European/White, because the majority of people walking around 500 years in the future look biracial/mixed. That's the logic you are using right now

8. Its funny that you think Africans are the ones stealing Egyptian history. Africans stealing history of a country in Africa Whites are the ones stealing history. You're so transparent about it. That's why there are two Hollywood films (Gods of Egypt, Exodus) about Ancient Egypt coming out soon and the entire cast is full of white actors. For all your talk about Egypt being Middle Eastern/Arab, you would think that Hollywood would have cast Middle Eastern/Arab actors but, no, they have Gerald Butler and Sigourney Weaver playing Ancient Egyptians. This is because Whites don't really care about Arabs and whether or not they were the true Ancient Egyptians. Its just a ploy/strategy that racist Whites used to make Ancient Egypt not Black. Anything but, Black. This is the same reason White historians tried to classify East Africans as a Caucasoid group, when Horners are clearly Black, because racist historians knew that Ancient Egypt had roots in East Africa.



Also......you still didn't address the point about why Greeks/Romans are considered white even though they look nothing like English/Irish/German people. Why do nordic and germanic whites get to claim two Mediterranean civilizations they had no part in? Why is it that society considers somebody from Greece with dark olive skin/brown eyes/black hair......the same race as somebody from Germany with pale skin/blue eyes/blonde hair, eventhough they look widely different from each other? To me it seems like you want to put all of Europe under one giant banner of Whiteness, and then at the same time, try to dictate and impose the most rigid classifications on what is "African" to Blacks




If this Greek girl is still considered white/european, eventhough she looks nothing like this German girl, then what gives you the right to say brown/medium brown/light brown Africans aren't black?



I noticed that when it comes to the racial dynamics in the United States, due to the one-drop rule, anybody that has a splash of black blood is considered Black. But when it comes to ancient African civilizations, if they had a splash of non-black blood, then that means they're white. I guess racists only get really particular when it comes to Blacks who have accomplished great things


It doesn't matter. At the end of the day, I take great pleasure in the fact that every few years, more and more facts will come out showing the truth about Ancient Egypt. All these lies that racist Europeans told over the last 500 years will come to light. And there's nothing you can do about it.

[cachibatches]

Originally Posted by dominicwilde

1. Melanchroes means "black/darkskinned". If the ancient Egyptians were White, Herodotus would have used the term “leucochroes” and if the ancient Egyptian were brown or red skinned, the term “phrenychroes” would have been used. .

"Ethiope" is the closest ancient word for "black" in the modern sense. Melanchroes just means swarthy. There really is no debate about this. And anyone following along can see that I am right with a 30 second google search.

Originally Posted by dominicwilde

In other words, you don't know what you're talking about.

Of course I do. And anyone following along can see that I am right with a 30 second google search.

Originally Posted by dominicwilde

2. The Ancient statues do look negroid. Maybe not to racist European archaeologists during the 1800s who had a white supremacist agenda to uphold. Couldn't have the world believing Africans were able to create a marvelous civilization that gave the Greeks Science, Medicine, Math, Philosophy, Astronomy, Writing etc. and still be able to justify that Trans-Atlantic Slave trade thing, now could they? They had to make the world believe blacks were animals and savages to justify putting Africans in chains To anyone who isn't white, they can see these statues have African characteristics. Whites spent centuries making caricatures of our big lips and wide noses and now you want to say this big lipped, wide nose fellow was Arab/White?






This man looks African



This man looks African



This woman looks like an old Black woman



There are women all over Ethiopia and Somalia that look like Nefertiti



I guess the Discovery Channel was wrong too when they made this facial reconstruction of King Tut



4. The Ancient Egyptians said where they came from, from their own mouths. But no, they were wrong. You know more about their origins than the actual people. Its also a crazy coincidence to me that the Nile River just happens to begin in the same region as this "Punt" place

You have undone yourself on the first pic- by placing the real one against the Afrocentric distortion, anyone can see that they look nothing alike.

Ti and Tut are both from the New Kingdom- more than 1500 years removed from the original Egyptians. They are from one family long suspected of being a Nubian dynasty. There is great evidence that they weren't and that bust of Ti only represents the fact that wood darkens over time, but what does it matter? There was nothing remotely original about their dynasty. It proves nothing.

Nefertiti, called in her day: "fair of face," the same. Anyone can see by that bust that she is more classically North African than Sub-Saharan.

Yes, yes I do know more. People often make up fake origin stories about themselves, as did the Greeks, Romans, Mesopotamians, and every other ancient people. I know the modern archeological record.

Try again.

Originally Posted by dominicwilde

5. Actually, its very well documented that only a few of the 227 Nubian pyramids were dated. Nubia preceded Ancient Egypt. I'm willing to bet a few of those pyramids preceded the ones in Egypt as well. That makes sense. What doesn't make sense is that there's not a single pyramid in The Middle East. If they were the precursors to Ancient Egypt, then there should be some elements of Egyptian culture in Ancient Arabia. But there isn't any. You can find elements of Egypitan culture in Nubia/Kush/Punt however.

You would bet wrong. Pyramids developed in Egypt from the piling up of mastabas. It is well known.

Egypt had many precedents. What you are doing is called "false dichotomy." It is recognized as a logical fallacy.

What is more, because the step pyramid is made in smaller bricks, it has been argued by many archeologists that Mesopotamian ziggurats were partial inspirations.

Not a single archeologist anywhere argues that Nubian pyramids are more ancient than Egyptians. When you say that "you would bet," what you mean is "you fantasize." Show me a MAINSTREAM archeological opinion No Afrocentric nonsense.

Originally Posted by dominicwilde

6. The settlement of Ancient Egypt actually means everything. Ancient Egypt was founded in 3500 B.C. And the Hyskos didn't invade until 1700 B.C. So for the first 2,000 years....where were all these mixed/non-black peoples coming from? You think there was a massive migration of whites out of Africa to Europe, then another massive migration of whites back into Africa to settle Egypt, then another massive migration of whites back to Europe to start Western civilization? But I'm the delusional one

As I have already proven with dozens of studies, there had been massive back migration since the Paleolithic. What is more, African does not equal black. North Africans who evolved on the same latitude approximately as Middle Easterners largely look like middle easterners. Show a study saying that there was no one in Egypt until 3500 B.C, because I say that as the nexus of three continents, that is stupid on its face.

Originally Posted by dominicwilde

For two thousand years, there were no Turks, Greeks, Assyrians, Persians, Arabs or Romans in Egypt.

Correct, because in pre-historic times the Eurasians who back-migrated into North Africa did not have such labels.

Originally Posted by dominicwilde

There's no record of any invasion of any kind until 1700 B.C.

Correct again. Since there was no state in pre-historic times, there was no "invasion." It was merely a matter of migrations.

Originally Posted by dominicwilde

The Ancient Egyptians wrote they came from Punt/East Africa.

You can keep declaring it, and yet the same two points are still valid:

A) The archeological record says that Egypt was formed when people came from all directions due to the desertification of the Sahara region.

B) Horners are mixed race, and even if there was some kind of memory of a dynasty coming from there, it does not settle what they looked like.

Originally Posted by dominicwilde

If there was no record of any large outside groups in Egypt at the time and if the group in Egypt said they came from the area thats now known as Ethiopia and Eritrea, what does this mean?

Just plain silly. There would of course be no records in pre-historic times.

Originally Posted by dominicwilde

They were BLACK!!!!!!!!

No. Largely they weren't.

Originally Posted by dominicwilde

7. The modern Egyptians you see today are the descendants of the Ancient Egyptians. But they are also the descendants of the invaders. Their blood is mixed/diluted with the Romans, Arabs, Turks, Greeks. That's why the Northern Egyptians look the way they do in 2014. But when you go further south in Upper Egypt/Lower Nubia/Upper Nubia, the indigenous people there become progressively darker.

No, there is more mix today from black people due to the Arab slave trade, as I have already proven. They are almost genetically identically, but if anything, slightly darker today. Please read through the thread before repeating dogmatically the same nonsense.

Originally Posted by dominicwilde

This is also why King Tut and his family had more genetic relation toward the Black Africans in Sub-Sahara, West and Central Africa, then they did the modern day Egyptians. Because....dun dun dunnnnn.....cue evil music.....they were primarily Black/African too , and were not a product of centuries of admixture with every outside invader.

I have shown you that the "study" you keep citing is falsified on a couple of levels, but you keep trying to cite New Kingdom pharaohs to prove that the first Egyptians were "black." It is completely non-sequitar.

Originally Posted by dominicwilde

To put it in a modern perspective, if in 500 years the United States of America became completely biracial/multi-racial and this is a very real possibility....some jackass in the future could claim that the original settlers of the United States looked biracial/mixed, instead of European/White, because the majority of people walking around 500 years in the future look biracial/mixed. That's the logic you are using right now

Complete gibberish. I have posted large numbers of studies from experts showing what actually happened, and you are talking about what might happen in America. Please stick to history and evidence. By the way, emoticons are childish.

Originally Posted by dominicwilde

8. Its funny that you think Africans are the ones stealing Egyptian history. Africans stealing history of a country in Africa Whites are the ones stealing history. You're so transparent about it. That's why there are two Hollywood films (Gods of Egypt, Exodus) about Ancient Egypt coming out soon and the entire cast is full of white actors. For all your talk about Egypt being Middle Eastern/Arab, you would think that Hollywood would have cast Middle Eastern/Arab actors but, no, they have Gerald Butler and Sigourney Weaver playing Ancient Egyptians. This is because Whites don't really care about Arabs and whether or not they were the true Ancient Egyptians. Its just a ploy/strategy that racist Whites used to make Ancient Egypt not Black. Anything but, Black. This is the same reason White historians tried to classify East Africans as a Caucasoid group, when Horners are clearly Black, because racist historians knew that Ancient Egypt had roots in East Africa.

You are stealing history. Regardless of what color the Egyptians were, they have NOTHING to do with your ancestors. They are from the other side of the continent, have demonstrably lighter skin and finer features. largely spoke a different language group, did not transfer their culture in any demonstrable way to your ancestors, differentiated themselves from those in their region who looked most like your ancestors, and were highly genetically dissimilar. You have NO Ancestor that built a pyramid, wrote in hieroglyphic, or contemplated ma'at. Your connection is a fantasy.

Originally Posted by dominicwilde

Also......you still didn't address the point about why Greeks/Romans are considered white even though they look nothing like English/Irish/German people. Why do nordic and germanic whites get to claim two Mediterranean civilizations they had no part in? Why is it that society considers somebody from Greece with dark olive skin/brown eyes/black hair......the same race as somebody from Germany with pale skin/blue eyes/blonde hair, eventhough they look widely different from each other? To me it seems like you want to put all of Europe under one giant banner of Whiteness, and then at the same time, try to dictate and impose the most rigid classifications on what is "African" to Blacks

Its a nonsense point. Italians and Greeks cluster closely with Germans and Celts even if not identical. Egyptian are a mixed race that mostly cluster with Middle Easterners and some Eastern/southern Europeans.

Originally Posted by dominicwilde

If this Greek girl is still considered white/european, eventhough she looks nothing like this German girl, then what gives you the right to say brown/medium brown/light brown Africans aren't black?

See above. Mediterraneans largely cluster with Caucasians.

Originally Posted by dominicwilde

I noticed that when it comes to the racial dynamics in the United States, due to the one-drop rule, anybody that has a splash of black blood is considered Black. But when it comes to ancient African civilizations, if they had a splash of non-black blood, then that means they're white. I guess racists only get really particular when it comes to Blacks who have accomplished great things

There is no "one-drop" rule anymore. It is an affectation of days gone by.

Originally Posted by dominicwilde

It doesn't matter. At the end of the day, I take great pleasure in the fact that every few years, more and more facts will come out showing the truth about Ancient Egypt. All these lies that racist Europeans told over the last 500 years will come to light. And there's nothing you can do about it.

Yup. DNA studies, skeletal studies, cranial studies, blood type studies, dental studies, all show them clustering with North Africans, West Asians, and Europeans. I have posted a number in this thread. Please read through them.

But all of that is irrelevant. Because, in the end, the point of the thread is that they have NOTHING to do with African American Afrocentrists what-so-ever. Nothing.

And again, like everyone else on this thread coming at me, you claim that you are proud of the achievements of your real ancestors...AND ONLY WANT TO TALK ABOUT EGYPT!

Next!

[dominicwilde]

1. Melanchroes DOES mean darkskinned or black. Its sad you lie about something anybody can google in 2 seconds.

The Ancient Egyptians may not have thought themselves dark as the Nubians but, they also didn't see themselves as white as the Libyans/Greeks/Romans or red like the Persians either. They made themselves brown/dark brown in all of their art.

The Greek historians (Herodotus, Aristotle) grouped the Egyptians and the Ethiopians (which included the Nubians at the time) together because they thought they all looked similar. You have no leg to stand on here

You say Melanchroes doesn't mean "black" but, just "swarthy" or "dark complexion" but, NOBODY ELSE was called Melanchroes by the Greeks except for the Egyptians, Ethiopians and the East Indians. Nobody! The implication being these people were very dark


Your logic is basically this......because Will Smith doesn't see himself the same complexion as Wesley Snipes, then that means Will Smith isn't black. You sound stupid.

And then there is how the Egyptians saw themselves to outsiders. While Egyptians perceived themselves as lighter in complexion than Nubians to the south, what Eurocentrics do not tell you, is that the Egyptians also perceived themselves as darker than white Libyans and olive-colored Semites. As can be seen in this image. Here we see the first three figures are Libyans, whom the Egyptians called "Tamahua" which means "People Created white." Their nose is aquiline, their lips thin, their skin color very pale white, and their hair reddish-blond. They are followed by a Nubian, with classical African features, dark ebony skin, and black woolly hair. The figure after is a Semite with brown hair, an aquiline nose, and olive skin. The last figure to the far right is an Egyptian. Note the dark-brown skin, black curly braided hair, and the small semi-aquiline nose. The Egyptians were clearly not of the same race as the three Libyans and the one Semite. And likewise here is a picture of a group of Semitic pastoralists with their animals, and two Egyptians. The two Egyptians are depicted in a much far darker color than the Semites. Which show Egyptians were not the same race as them.


But all pictured showing typical Egyptian natives, always have them as being a much darker hue than Libyans and Semites. And this is in keeping with the eye witness statements by Greek writers like Herodotus, Aristotle, Lucian, and others, whom described the ancient Egyptians as being black-skinned or "melanchroes" with curly hairs. The explaination given by Eurocentrics that "melanos" merely means dark, cannot be established, since the context in which it is used by Greek writers clearly means very dark, and not just merely dark. The term "melanos" and "melanchroes" is never used on such dark-skinned races as Persians, Syrians, Phoenicians, and Arabs. Only on Egyptians, Ethiopians, and East Indians. This goes to show the context in which melanchroes was used menat black or very dark. Of course Egyptians were not as dark as Nubians, but were still much darker than Europeans and Western Asians. Even today amongst black peoples in Africa there is variation in blackness. The same is true of the ancient Egyptians.

Contrary to what Eurocentrics claim, the ancient Egyptians were a dark-skinned people with racial affinities to Black Africans. While not unmixed black, were still black enough to be considered black in the western world. They were in truth a mixed-race people. And like all peoples of mixed ancestry, their features morphed from near Negroid to near-Eurpoid, with all kinds of variations in between. The position held by Eurocentrics that the ancient Egyptians were white people is pure myth and nonsense

2. Ancient Egyptians referred to their land as Kemet. Kemet means black.

This was another lie Europeans told. The lie being that Kemet referred to the "Black soil" instead of "Black" to once more deny the African origins of Egypt.

The Kemetic (Egyptian) people referred to themselves at Kememu (means Black people). If Kemet truly meant "Black Soil", then that means the Ancient Egyptians were calling themselves the "Black Soil people" when they said Kememu

3. Who gives a flying sh**t about the anti-Black research study you choose to believe. The Ancient Egyptians themselves said that they came from "The Land of Punt". Which is modern day Somalia/Ethiopia/Eritrea. There are several credible resources that verify this. Deal with it.

And East Africans are BLACK!!!!!! East Africans look different from West Africans because they adapted in a tropical environment (which the Nile Delta region was thousands of years ago) whereas West Africans went in the hot, arid jungles. They don't look different because they're Caucasoid East Africans share genetic markers with Asians/Whites because you DESCENDED from them. We're your fathers. Not the other way around. You left out of Africa and populated the rest of the world. Africans are the original stock from which the other races adapted away from. Every phenotype that can be found in Whites and Asians can be also found in Africans.

This is why The Khosian people have an Asian look to them, despite never having stepped foot out of South Africa nor having any admixture in their tribe. Again, Deal with it.





This is a group of Ethiopian children. According to you, these East Africans are "mixed" and not really "black"




4. The Ancient Egyptians spoke an Afro-Asiatic language

The origins of Egyptian ethnicity lay in the areas south of Egypt. The ancient Egyptian language belonged to the Afrasian family (also called Afroasiatic or, formerly, Hamito-Semitic). The speakers of the earliest Afrasian languages, according to recent studies, were a set of peoples whose lands between 15,000 and 13,000 B.C. stretched from Nubia in the west to far northern Somalia in the east. They supported themselves by gathering wild grains. The first elements of Egyptian culture were laid down two thousand years later, between 12,000 and 10,000 B.C., when some of these Afrasian communities expanded northward into Egypt, bringing with them a language directly ancestral to ancient Egyptian. They also introduced to Egypt the idea of using wild grains as food.

5. The Sphinx was a Black Woman. Of course, over time her wide nose and full lips were tampered with.



6. The Pyramid of Giza is also known as the Pyramid of Khufu (Khufu is an African name)

7. According to you, the Ancient Egyptians were a mixed-race, and thus, Non-Black......but, the Ancient Greeks, who were undoubtedly a mixed-race also, were not mixed and just solely White and European.

Do you not see how hypocritical that makes you sound? You think a Greek and a Irishman are both undoubtedly white despite looking different, but an Ancient Egyptian and an Ancient Nubian can't both both black despite looking different.

Oh wait, that's right. Your argument is that the Egyptians separated themselves from the Nubians in their art.

That's funny considering the Greeks separated themselves from their northern Barbarian neighbors too

8. Again, Ancient Egypt was settled in 3500 B.C. There was no invasion until almost 2,000 years later.

3500 B.C. Early settlers in the Nile valley
3400 B.C.
3300 B.C.
3200 B.C.
3100 B.C. Hieroglyphic script developed
3100 B.C. Narmer unified Upper and Lower Egypt Hieroglyphic script
3000 B.C.
2900 B.C.
2800 B.C.
2700 B.C. First stone pyramid built Step pyramid
2600 B.C. Pyramids of Giza built Pyramids of Giza
2500 B.C.
2400 B.C.
2300 B.C.
2200 B.C. Various kings ruled Egypt
2100 B.C.
2055 B.C. Mentuhotep II gained control of entire country
2000 B.C. Agricultural development of the Faiyum
Earliest parts of Temple of Karnak built
Egyptians control Nubia
1900 B.C.
1800 B.C.
1700 B.C. Hyksos rulers took control of Delta region

Pinpoint this massive migration of Whites/Arabs back into Ancient Egypt. Help us all out here. Ancient Egypt didn't become a mixed civilization until the later dynasties. For almost two thousand years, it was SOLELY Black/African.


8. King Tut and his family were proven to share more genetic relation toward Southern Africa, Tropical Africa, Great Lakes Region. Deal with it

I posted those pictures of King Tut, his grandfather, his great-grandfather and his grandmother to show that even in the later dynasties after Ancient Egypt became a mixed nation, there was still clear signs that the rulers had African/Negroid characteristics in their appearance.

9. As far as your reports/studies.....why in the hell should anyone hoping to uncover the truth about Ancient Egypt's African origins trust studies done by Arabs/Europeans, when their vetted interest is in proving the opposite? Yea. That makes sense. DNATribes has not been debunked by anyone besides groups clinging onto the notion of a White Egypt. I'll believe a peer review study done by the Chinese before I'll believe anything done by an Arab or European institution.

10. You keep saying West and Sub-Saharan Africans are desperate by clinging on to Ancient Egypt. You damn hypocrite. Most white people in the United States are English-American, Irish-American and German-American. Those are the THREE LARGEST EUROPEAN ETHNIC GROUPS in the United States...........yet your school books are filled with pages about the Greeks, the Romans, the French, the Spanish, the Ottomans, etc. Take your own damn advice. You want to celebrate and teach all of European history in your school systems, history your barbarian/germanic ancestors had no part of, then have the nerve to turn around and tell Blacks they can't do the same and study all of African history. Hypocrite.

I'm done talking to you. I have better things to do than talk to your racist ass.

[dominicwilde]

Lmao @ there not being a one-drop rule anymore. I wonder why Barack Obama wasn't called the first mixed President then

I wonder why racist whites don't think of Barack Obama as one of them

[cachibatches]

Originally Posted by dominicwilde

1. Melanchroes DOES mean darkskinned or black. Its sad you lie about something anybody can google in 2 seconds. .

You are the liar, and it is pathetic.

It is just as I have said. Melanchroes means swarthy...not black. Here is a passage from the Odyssey in which Athena restores Odysseus to health:

With this, Athena touched him [Odysseus] with her golden wand. A well-washed cloak and a tunic she first of all cast about his breast, and she increased his stature and his youthful bloom. Once more he grew dark of color [melanchroiês], and his cheeks filled out, and dark grew the beard about his chin.

Originally Posted by dominicwilde

The Ancient Egyptians may not have thought themselves dark as the Nubians but, they also didn't see themselves as white as the Libyans/Greeks/Romans or red like the Persians either. They made themselves brown/dark brown in all of their art. .

No one said that they were "white.". I have said repeatedly said that they cluster most closely with North Africans, Middle-Easterners and Europeans. And they do. They were largely Caucasians, Caucasians do not perfectly equal white.

Originally Posted by dominicwilde

The Greek historians (Herodotus, Aristotle) grouped the Egyptians and the Ethiopians (which included the Nubians at the time) together because they thought they all looked similar. You have no leg to stand on here .

He didn't group them together. You have obviously never read Herodotus. I have, along with Suetonius, Tacitus, Josephus, Thucydides, Arian, Caesar, Cicero, Aristophanes, Xenophon, Procopius, etc.

You are a pretender, who reads Afrocentric nonsense and presents yourself as more than you are.

Originally Posted by dominicwilde

You say Melanchroes doesn't mean "black" but, just "swarthy" or "dark complexion" but, NOBODY ELSE was called Melanchroes by the Greeks except for the Egyptians, Ethiopians and the East Indians. Nobody! The implication being these people were very dark .

Wow. You must feel embarrassesed by the quote above. You honestly have no idea what you are talking about and have presented yourself as some kind of expert when you only know second hand Afrocentric nonsense.

Originally Posted by dominicwilde

Your logic is basically this......because Will Smith doesn't see himself the same complexion as Wesley Snipes, then that means Will Smith isn't black. You sound stupid..

You are a buffoon.

Originally Posted by dominicwilde

2. Ancient Egyptians referred to their land as Kemet. Kemet means black.

This was another lie Europeans told. The lie being that Kemet referred to the "Black soil" instead of "Black" to once more deny the African origins of Egypt. ..

The Egyptians called their country "the two lands." Kemet does obviously refer to the soil. They referred to the non-fertile lands as DSRHT, from where our modern word "desert" derives. Saying that the Egyptians referred to Egypt as Kemet is the same as saying that Americans refer to their country as "The Midwest."

It is just stupid.

Originally Posted by dominicwilde

The Kemetic (Egyptian) people referred to themselves at Kememu (means Black people). If Kemet truly meant "Black Soil", then that means the Ancient Egyptians were calling themselves the "Black Soil people" when they said Kememu

See above. And again, emoticons identify you to any intelligent posters as a buffoon.

Originally Posted by dominicwilde

3. Who gives a flying sh**t about the anti-Black research study you choose to believe.

I have posted mainstream science. You have posted Afrocentric gibberish. And I have demonstrated as much. You are an advocationist who will never know the truth. The thousands who read thorough this thread will see that I have posted dozens of mainstream studies, and you have posted one falsification.

Originally Posted by dominicwilde

The Ancient Egyptians themselves said that they came from "The Land of Punt". Which is modern day Somalia/Ethiopia/Eritrea. .

How many times must you keep dogmatically repeating nonsense? Moderns science has told us that the Ancient Egyptians settled the Nile from all directions.

Originally Posted by dominicwilde

There are several credible resources that verify this.

But none from modern science. when you say 'several," you mean one that was later echoed by other afrocentrists

Originally Posted by dominicwilde

Deal with it.

Actually, the opposite is true, so you deal with it.

Originally Posted by dominicwilde

And East Africans are BLACK!!!!!! East Africans look different from West Africans because they adapted in a tropical environment (which the Nile Delta region was thousands of years ago) whereas West Africans went in the hot, arid jungles.

Uh...actually west Africans have the most classically tropical adaptions. Of all, I am almost astonished by this.

Originally Posted by dominicwilde

They don't look different because they're Caucasoid

East Africans are known by science to be heavily mixed.

Originally Posted by dominicwilde

East Africans share genetic markers with Asians/Whites because you DESCENDED from them.

Simply incorrect. I don't even think you are listening to an Afrocentrist idiot-guru at this point. I think you are making this up entirely on your own, because as much of this idiocy as I have heard before, I have NEVER heard this own. I think you are merely shooting from the hip.

WHAT HAPLOGROUPS DO YOU THINK WE ARE TALKING ABOUT ANYWAY?

Originally Posted by dominicwilde

We're your fathers. Not the other way around.

Afrocentirc gibberish.

Originally Posted by dominicwilde

You left out of Africa and populated the rest of the world.

And? You don't understand that other genotypes and phenotypes evolved?

Originally Posted by dominicwilde

Africans are the original stock from which the other races adapted away from. Every phenotype that can be found in Whites and Asians can be also found in Africans.

Astonishingly incorrect. And even if it was true, it still would not mean that the Egyptians were "black." So humanity developed the "white" phenotype in Africa...how does that mean the Egyptians were "black?"

And make no mistake about it...you are admitting that the Egyptians were closer to "white" than "black."

Originally Posted by dominicwilde

This is why The Khosian people have an Asian look to them, despite never having stepped foot out of South Africa nor having any admixture in their tribe. Again, Deal with it.

I don't have any idea what the hell you are trying to say here, but you obviously have no idea of African history (or any other history, for that matter).

Asians did not evolve from Khoisan. It is what is called "convergent evolution." Asians are very far apart from any Africans. You don't understand this because you don't understand history or genetics.

Originally Posted by dominicwilde

This is a group of Ethiopian children. According to you, these East Africans are "mixed" and not really "black"

Mixed does not necessarily mean that all members of a population will be mixed. Most people of even average intellectual capabilities can understand this point. Of source you can grab a picture of those weighted to one side to "disprove" me. It disproves nothing. In fact, it isn't even disputed amongst those who know what they are talking about. .

Originally Posted by dominicwilde

4. The Ancient Egyptians spoke an Afro-Asiatic language

And?

Originally Posted by dominicwilde

5. The Sphinx was a Black Woman. Of course, over time her wide nose and full lips were tampered with.

Well, no. It supposedly represents Khefre, who was not a woman . In any event, the head is so small compared to the body that it has often been suggested that the sphinx has been "renovated." In any event, it it meaningless in the face of the massive number of non-negroid Egyptian representation's that we have, including those of Khafre.

Originally Posted by dominicwilde

6. The Pyramid of Giza is also known as the Pyramid of Khufu (Khufu is an African name)

Gibberish. It is an Egyptian name. Egyptian does not mean black African. Even on its face I don't think even the simplest would accept this, whatever it is you are trying to say, and any kind of evidence.

Originally Posted by dominicwilde

7. According to you, the Ancient Egyptians were a mixed-race, and thus, Non-Black......but, the Ancient Greeks, who were undoubtedly a mixed-race also, were not mixed and just solely White and European.

Greeks cluster closest to other Eurasians. Egyptians also cluster closest to other Eurasians.

Originally Posted by dominicwilde

Do you not see how hypocritical that makes you sound? You think a Greek and a Irishman are both undoubtedly white despite looking different, but an Ancient Egyptian and an Ancient Nubian can't both both black despite looking different.

They were mostly brown, but closer to "Caucasian" than "negoroid." No hypocrisy here. You are just struggling to NOT understand so that you can keep your fantasy. They had some admixture, but were largely not black/negroid/sub-Saharan/whatever-you-want-to-say.

Originally Posted by dominicwilde

Oh wait, that's right. Your argument is that the Egyptians separated themselves from the Nubians in their art.

No. It is a sub-set of the argument, but by no means the argument itself. Nor have I ever presented it as such. This is just Afrocentric chest-thumping. Whatever. The important point is that they thousand who will read though this thread and will see the difference, and see that I have already refuted most of these sorry arguments/non-arguments by posting scientific studies long before you got here. You just decided not to read.
That's funny considering the Greeks separated themselves from their northern Barbarian neighbors too

Originally Posted by dominicwilde

8. Again, Ancient Egypt was settled in 3500 B.C. There was no invasion until almost 2,000 years later. .

Again, this is gibberish. Where is your source? The peoples of North Africa and the Nile Valley have been mixed since paleolithic back-migration regardless of when Egypt was settles, and what is more, I have seen no source claiming that there were no people in Egypt until 3500 BC. It doesn't matter how many times you say it, it is still gibberish.

Originally Posted by dominicwilde

Pinpoint this massive migration of Whites/Arabs back into Ancient Egypt. Help us all out here. .

I have already done so several times over. And by the best scientists that have already studied the subject. It is not my problem that you are too lazy and to read through the thread before jumping in and talking nonsense.

Originally Posted by dominicwilde

Ancient Egypt didn't become a mixed civilization until the later dynasties. .

Yes. That mix being black African.

Originally Posted by dominicwilde

For almost two thousand years, it was SOLELY Black/African..

There is NO evidence to suggest this. All evidence suggests the opposite. Please read through the thread. If you don't want to address what scientists have to say, then you are no good here.

Originally Posted by dominicwilde

8. King Tut and his family were proven to share more genetic relation toward Southern Africa, Tropical Africa, Great Lakes Region. Deal with it ..

You are clinging desperately to a "study" which was long ago exposed as a falsification, and at its best would be meaningless, since it applies to one New kingdom dynastic family which has long been suspected of being Nubian.

Originally Posted by dominicwilde

I posted those pictures of King Tut, his grandfather, his great-grandfather and his grandmother to show that even in the later dynasties after Ancient Egypt became a mixed nation, there was still clear signs that the rulers had African/Negroid characteristics in their appearance. .

And I shown you multiple flaws in this line of reasoning. for one thing, they are a New Kingdom Dynasty, and long suspected of being Nubian. They actually weren't, but I tis just not important.
In your best case scenario, they are irrelevant.

9. As far as your reports/studies.....why in the hell should anyone hoping to uncover the truth about Ancient Egypt's African origins trust studies done by Arabs/Europeans, when their vetted interest is in proving the opposite? Yea. That makes sense. DNATribes has not been debunked by anyone besides groups clinging onto the notion of a White Egypt. I'll believe a peer review study done by the Chinese before I'll believe anything done by an Arab or European institution.

10. You keep saying West and Sub-Saharan Africans are desperate by clinging on to Ancient Egypt. You damn hypocrite. Most white people in the United States are English-American, Irish-American and German-American. Those are the THREE LARGEST EUROPEAN ETHNIC GROUPS in the United States...........yet your school books are filled with pages about the Greeks, the Romans, the French, the Spanish, the Ottomans, etc. Take your own damn advice. You want to celebrate and teach all of European history in your school systems, history your barbarian/germanic ancestors had no part of, then have the nerve to turn around and tell Blacks they can't do the same and study all of African history. Hypocrite.

I'm done talking to you. I have better things to do than talk to your racist ass.[/quote]