It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A Racist Conspiracy? Why are we taught that Black Africans never formed or ruled Ancient Egypt?

page: 26
27
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 07:08 AM
link   
Ok back to the original question, why is it that people don’t think black Africans built Egypt. The answer to that is easy, because the Egyptians built it, Kinda obvious don’t you think!







posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 08:24 AM
link   
reply to post by DeNaga
 


Wheres your History coming from? Never heard that before. Indians are the actual Natives as far as im concerned.

We treated them pretty bad , but hey we are here now , and we got things to do ... a lot more than worrying about your skin color.

And if im wrong , and blacks were truly here first in 4000 BC ... looks like the civilizatoin failed and some one else moved in ... its no longer established here.

Meaning ... this Land is our Land now unless that Civilization thinks it can do something about it , which it obviously cant. So its actually the the American people's land. We took it. Just my two cents.
edit on 04/30/2011 by milkyway12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 08:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by milkyway12
reply to post by DeNaga
 


Wheres your History coming from? Never heard that before. Indians are the actual Natives as far as im concerned.

We treated them pretty bad , but hey we are here now , and we got things to do ... a lot more than worrying about your skin color.

And if im wrong , and blacks were truly here first in 4000 BC ... looks like the civilizatoin failed and some one else moved in ... its no longer established here.

Meaning ... this Land is our Land now unless that Civilization thinks it can do something about it , which it obviously cant. So its actually the the American people's land. We took it. Just my two cents.
edit on 04/30/2011 by milkyway12 because: (no reason given)



FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
November 4, 1996

The Wa#aw Nation Agrees to Mutual
Recognition with The Republic of Texas
Today, Archie Lowe, President of the Provisional Government of The Republic of Texas, announced that the Empire Wa#aw de Dugdahmoundyah has officially recognized The Republic of Texas as an independent nation. President Lowe commented, "We are very encouraged and pleased to be recognized as a nation by our neighbor, the indigenous Empire Wa#aw de Dugdahmoundyah. We look to the future as being bright with possibilities in establishing mutual assistance and exchanges under natural law with our Wa#aw brothers and sisters, knowing that our Creator wishes that we all dwell as sovereign peoples in love, peace and harmony."

President Lowe stated that Vice President Steven Crear, as an indigenous person, opened negotiations with Empress Verdiacee "Tiari" Wa#aw-Turner Goston El-Bey, and as a result of their open dialogue and mutual respect and with the assistance of Republic of Texas Ambassador Richard McLaren, this milestone in human achievement has been accomplished. "Today we received from the Empress a Treaty of Peace and Recognition. It is such an honer to deal with this great lady, the Empress Verdiacee," Mr. Lowe added.

In the treaty, the Empress states, "May the sovereign peoples of the Emperial Wa#aw Nation and the sovereign peoples of The Republic of Texas forever live in peace in the enchanted lands of the Empire, reaching out with genuine love to resolve the differences that naturally arise between humans on this earth, before the sight of the One and Only Creator."


This connects to "Egypt" but I see going thru the ins and outs of this whole situation would require much of my time and, I see it's pretty futile so believe what you want. We are all welcome to our own opinions. Whatever makes you sleep at night. I know my history and it doesn't stop in "Egypt". That was just one part of the vast empire that hopefully one day they will admit existed...



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 08:59 AM
link   
reply to post by DeNaga
 


No idea what that post you just made was suppose to prove?



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 09:01 AM
link   
Does this help?

www.stewartsynopsis.com...

Wa#aw, Yamasee, Iroquois, Cherokee, Choctaw

Blackfoot, Pequot & Mohegan (and/or All Indigenous People of America)







In 1993, the United Nations Center for Human Rights, recognized the Wa#aw de Dugdahmoundyah Muur Empire as the Oldest Indigenous group of people on Earth. The registered Project # 215/93 ensued. Just read this. From 15,000,000 to 20,000,000 slaves arrived in the Americas between 1540 and 1850 over—a 310 year period (according to US History books). If you look at the following facts of published material, we are living under another ideological part of American Revisionist History. Also, the following undermines the whole breadth and depth of what is written in American history books. By using simple calculations, the following information can be ascertained:

Over a period of 300 years, is it fair to say that 60,000 slaves were transported annually to the Americas or has the transportation of slaves to the Americas been one big myth?

The largest seagoing vessel carried 400 slaves but not all of the ships were that large.

Time of passage was 3 - 4 months. That means 200 vessels/ships per year would have to travel carrying 300 people. One ship could make 3 passages per year. The Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade Database says there were 1100 - 1400 voyages made over that 300 year period. If that is the case and each ship carried 400 people, the total number would be 560,000 Africans were transported. It still does not add up.

We already know that over 83% of all Americans with African ancestry have Native American blood.

Did Native American tribes help slaves escape or were Americans with African ancestry already part of the Native American Nations?

According to the figures above, many more slaving companies would have to be in the business of human trafficking annually to come up with the numbers of slaves actually transported, but the published material lists only three (3) major companies that dealt in the slave trade and were given a 31 year monopoly by the British Government. The Royal Adventurer later was named the Royal African Company, so it was one in the same company. Independent companies engaged in slave trade, but there were only three (3) main companies engaged in human trafficking. The Guinea Company--at its height--had 15 ships from 1618 - 1650. The Guinea Company also dealt in gold, dyes, and other things other than just the human trafficking of slaves. British, French, Dutch, and Danish participated in human trafficking. Statistics have not taken into consideration the Portuguese ships that sailed at the time, but from what is out there, the Portuguese and Spanish transported 81,000 slaves to the Americas. Following is a table from "Slave Statistics" by Hugh Thomas published in 1997 by Simon and Schuster:




After 20 years the Royal Adventurer--with its 15 ships had transported between 90,000 and 100,000 slaves. That is a long ways from 15,000,000 to 20,000,000 slaves who were supposedly brought to the Americas. Doesn’t that leave a little over 14,000,000 to 19,000,000 people not accounted for—What’s up with that? The calculated median of 15 and 20 million would be 17.5 million. Divide it by 400 people—the largest slave vessels. That comes out to 43,750 trips. Can you show me a record where this many trips occurred, or the number of trips calculated by the so-called experts? (Figures exist of 27,000 - 35,000 voyages). The same thing happened with the holocaust in Germany during World War II. Six million people were supposedly killed, but there are not that many names referenced who died totaling six million.



The statistics state only .05% or 1/2 of 1% of all Indigenous people of North and South America are in existence as a result of Christopher Columbus and his European travelers' conquests. Ninety-five (95%) percent were massacred by Columbus and his European crews shortly after 1492. Around 1900, it was thought Native Americans were on the brink of extinction with only 250,000 left. I would like to share a picture from my family. This is a picture of a relative who was a Michigan Chippewa Indian from the Reservation in Mt. Pleasant, MI, taken in the 1800's. It is true that Native Americans harbored runaway slaves, but the lady pictured at the right was already in Michigan before the slaves migrated as free people. I don't think it matters whether Native Americans are Wa#aw or Lumbee from North Carolina or Chippewa from Michigan. All tribes have Black Roots. The phenotypes of Native Americans point to the theories held by Diop and Van Sertima. What this amounts too are further discrepancies in what is written in our history books. Even though the evidence is right here and pushed in a person's face, there are those who still believe the "Old Guard." It is nothing more than Revisionist History.



The United Nations recognizes the Wa#aw Muurs Nation within the United States along with the other Indigenous people of America. The Declaration On Rights Of Indigenous People includes the Wa#aw Nation, a nation that is made up of Black People who have the archaeological and historical evidence to prove that the original inhabitants of North and South America (so called "Indians") were Black People who came here from Africa. Have you been to a Powwow? I have been and was astonished at all of the Black Native Americans. The powwows I have attended were in Michigan and Ohio. Those Native Americans did not harbor runaway slaves which led me to believe the following: Black Indians are not solely a result of African slaves mixing with so-called Red Indians who were fleeing from slavery as many documented sources would have you to believe. Black Indians are indigenous to America—North, South, and Central before the so-called Red Man, before the Europeans, before the so-called Bering Strait crossings. The Olmecs, Wa#aw, Moors, Yamasee, Mound Builders planted the seed of civilization in the Americas—Black Indians!"



The Wa#aw were direct descendants of the Olmecs who mixed in the Malian Moors. The name “Wa#aw” comes from the Wa#a River which flows along Northwest Texas and Oklahoma to the Red River where the Cheyenne Native Americans lived with the Chawasha, meaning “Raccoon People.” The Washo were a Negroid tribe living above the New Orleans Bayou and were of Tunican linguistic stock. The name “Wa#aw” is a derivative of the term “Ouachita” or what is now “Wichita.” The term is a Choctaw term which means “Big Arbor” which represented the Grass thatched homes. The Wa#aw was originally from lower Mississippi, Louisiana, and Alabama (named after Nubian-Sudanese Ali Baba). The tribe was officially named “Wichita” by the US Government in the Camp Holmes Treaty of 1835. The Wichita were also known as “Paniwassaha” or by the French Panioussa which means “Black Pawnee.” French traders from Illinois called them “Pani Pique” which means Tattooed Pawnee. The Wa#aw or Raccoon People were called Raccoons because of their black faces. When describing the Wa#aw, the French describes the blacks who lived in the large grass houses. The tribe is the descendants of the Olmecs and Toltecs of Mexico.









Otter Belt

Comanche
A Medicine Man
Crow King

Sioux






Skulls shed new light on migration to Americas
Cranial shapes hint at two separate waves of settlers

(Life Science 2005)



It is recorded in history books the first group of people to populate North and South America crossed over from Siberia by way of the Bering Strait on a land-ice bridge. Research by authors like Van Sertima and Rogers have already confirmed what is now considered a new revelation set forth by Euro-American Scientists. Here we go again—VALIDATION by Euro-America. After examining a collection of South American skulls, research indicates that a different population crossed the bridge to America 3,000 years before that first crossing from Siberia.



Euro-American Scientists have now discovered skulls in South America that look like indigenous Australians, Melanesians and Sub-Saharan Africans more than Northern Asians—THE GIANT OLEMEC HEADS CAME FROM—WAKE UP! Scientists compared 81 skulls from the Lagoa Santa Region of Brazil to worldwide data on human variation.



The information indicates the skulls — dating between 7,500 and 11,000 years ago — were not anomalies but supports the hypothesis that two distinct populations colonized the Americas. The skulls of Native Americans and Northern Asians generally feature short, wide craniums, a broader face and high, narrow eye sockets and noses. This particular collection is remarkably different.



The skulls belonging to the earliest known South Americans — the Paleo-Indians — had long, narrow craniums, projecting jaws and low, broad eye sockets and noses. Drastically different from American Indians, these skulls appear more similar to modern Australians, Melanesians and sub-Saharan Africans.



The research was published online this week by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences and will appear in the Dec. 2005 issue of the journal.







Tlapacoyan, Mexico

100 - 1000 BC

(von Wuthenau 1969)
Oaxaca, Mexico

400 BC - 100 AD

(von Wuthenau 1975)
Veracruz, Mexico

300 - 700 AD

(von Wuthenau 1969)







Burrows Cave Illinois
Ancient Negroid

basalt mask

Canada (1879)
Florida Museum Florida Museum

Source: Ancient American: Archeology of the Americas before Columbus



Over 200,000 ancient pyramids and huge mounds of the Earth in the shape of cones, animals and geometric designs can still be found from the southern coast of America to Canada. These structures were built by people known as "The Mound Builders." They were dark-skinned woolly-haired Blacks who were indigenous (native) to North America and kin to the Olmecs of South America.



During Pangea, the Afrikan and American continents were joined. The Black Mound Builders were the Wa#aw-Muurs (Ouachita-Moors), the ORIGINAL inhabitants of North and South America. Columbus was not entirely wrong in calling these people "Indians"! The true meaning of word "Indian" is ("INDI" meaning black, as in INDIa ink, hINDu and INDIgo the darkest color of the color spectrum). The massive remains of this ancient BLACK civilization /empire still stand in both North and South America.



Ivan Van Sertima writes about the reported: "Evidence for black-skinned natives in the Americas long before the arrival of Columbus Ancient American Magazine (Issue 17), From the distinctly Negroid features of colossal Olmec sculpted heads and a pre-Aztec obsidian bowl being upheld by a figure with unmistakably black characteristics, to the bones of Negroid persons excavated from a 2,000 year-old mound in northern Wisconsin, a wealth of material exists to establish the certainty of non-White, non-Indian population living in pre-Columbian America along with these other groups." Many Mound Builders were huge; their ancient skeletons were often 7 to 8 feet. The only other living people on Earth this tall are another group of Blacks, the Massai of Afrika.



Many details are available in "Return of the Ancient Ones," a book by the Empress of the Wa#aw, Verdiacee 'Tiari' Wa#aw-Turner Goston El-Bey. She is the Empress and Head of the present-day Wa#aw Nation in Louisiana and is recognized by the United Nations.



The earliest people in the Americas were people of the Negritic African race, who entered the Americas by way of the Bering Straight. About 30,000 years ago a worldwide maritime undertaking included journeys from the Sahara towards the Indian Ocean and the Pacific, and from West Africa across the Atlantic Ocean towards the Americas. According to the Gladwin Thesis, (outlined on RaceandHistory.com...) this ancient journey occurred, particularly about 75,000 years ago and included so called Black Pygmies, Black Negritic peoples and Black Australoids similar to the Aboriginal Black people of Australia and parts of Asia, including India.

Ancient NATIVE Black Nations of America before and after Columbus include:

The Wa#aw of the Louisiana/Midwest

The Yamasee of the South East

The Iroquois

The Cherokee Indians

The Blackfoot Indians

The Pequot and Mohegans of Connecticut

The Black Californians (Calafians) (CAL in CALifornia literally means BLAK, after the name of the Great Mamma KALi / Queen KALifa)

The Olmecs of Mexico

The Darienite of Panama - A number of Black Negroid Peoples are mentioned in the works of I. Rafinesque ("Black Nations of America," Atlantic Journal and Friend Knowledge; Philadelphia 1832; p. 86: Also I. Rafinesque, pgs. 121, 186, 187, 194, 208, 209). Rafinesque was a naturalist who explored and took accurate documentation of his works through out the U.S. In mentioning Negroes, Blacks, Moors, Ethiopians....explorers such as Rafinesque referred to Negro Black Africans, not dark skinned "Indians."





INGO HEAD IN 14TH CENTURY

MEXICO.

MADE BY THE MIXTECS
An early Black Californian, a member of the

original Black aboriginal people of

California and the Southwestern U.S.
Florida Museum





NOTES



Skulls were derived from ancient mounds in Scioto Valley, Ohio.

“Mummy from Oregon”

“Two tattooed heads from Fiji”

“Peruvian mummies”

“Two Egyptian mummies”

“The skull and paws of a chimpanzee”

The collections remained in the Patent Office in part until 1858 and in part until 1862, until transferred to the Smithsonian Institution. The Smithsonian Institution was established.



Pigmy "Race" of Mississippi Valley. Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila., I, 1841, pp.215-216.



Negro Skulls capacity. Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia, I, 1841, p. 135.



Observations on Egyptian ethnography, derived from anatomy, history, and the monuments. Trans. Amer. Philos. Soc. Phila., IX, 1843, pp. 93-159.



Observations on a second series of ancient Egyptian crania. Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila., II, 1844, pp. 122-126.



The Skull of a Hottentot. Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila., II, 1844, pp. 64-65.



Skull of a Congo Negro. Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila., II, 1845, pp. 232-233.



Skulls of New Hollanders (Australians). Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila., II, 1845, pp. 292-293.



Remarks on an Indian cranium found near Richmond, on the Delaware, and on a Chenook Mummy. Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila., III, 1847, p. 330.



On an aboriginal cranium obtained by Dr Davis and Mr. Squier from a mound near Chillicothe, Ohio. Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila., III, 1847, pp. 212- 213.



On the Position of the Ear in the Ancient Egyptians. Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila., III, 1848, p. 70.




edit on 8-8-2011 by DeNaga because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 11:01 AM
link   
reply to post by DeNaga
 



De Naga, did you watch the two vids I posted. First one shows the tomb of the builders, the ones who actually built the pyrimids whilst the seconds shows proof that they were Egyptians....so has it hit home yet would be my question?



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 11:51 AM
link   
So this debacle of a thread has progressed from "Blacks built the pyramids" to "Blacks were the original inhabitants of the Americas" So are you contending that all great historical people were somehow Black Africans? You know there are ruins in Japan that are known to predate the Japanese settlement of the islands maybe Blacks built those too? Hell I guess everything was ACTUALLY invented by Blacks but us dirty stinking theiving White men took it all right? Or maybe it was those dirty JEWS that took all your glory right? Its all been one big ol giant conspiracy to keep the brothas down right? Like how Ancient Egyptian Blacks had wings before the white man came and cut them off right? Dont try to deny that one I have heard black revisionist actually tell this whopper to their children first hand. What nonsense. Grow the hell up and get over it.
edit on 8-8-2011 by Dragoon01 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by LUXUS
reply to post by DeNaga
 



De Naga, did you watch the two vids I posted. First one shows the tomb of the builders, the ones who actually built the pyrimids whilst the seconds shows proof that they were Egyptians....so has it hit home yet would be my question?


Yes, very educational they were. Now I know beyond a dadow of a shout that the "Egyptians" were not African...but the TaMereans were black, and they made some key mistakes by saying 6000 years ago.

So I guess some europeans came into africa and built this society, and showed the nubians how to build their society, and went to america and showed those people how to build a society and taught them their language.
Gotcha.

I still wondering why you haven't asked me about the name of the people meaning black and it's not kemet?

www.youtube.com...

I already know the trick they are trying to pull because I know about blood types and the scientific reasons for it being royal.



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dragoon01
So this debacle of a thread has progressed from "Blacks built the pyramids" to "Blacks were the original inhabitants of the Americas" So are you contending that all great historical people were somehow Black Africans? You know there are ruins in Japan that are known to predate the Japanese settlement of the islands maybe Blacks built those too? Hell I guess everything was ACTUALLY invented by Blacks but us dirty stinking theiving White men took it all right? Or maybe it was those dirty JEWS that took all your glory right? Its all been one big ol giant conspiracy to keep the brothas down right? Like how Ancient Egyptian Blacks had wings before the white man came and cut them off right? Dont try to deny that one I have heard black revisionist actually tell this whopper to their children first hand. What nonsense. Grow the hell up and get over it.
edit on 8-8-2011 by Dragoon01 because: (no reason given)


OK, but only because you said so.

I know it's just history, I mean it's not like their could be a direct correlation to this information and the fact that a lot of blacks are lacking in their contributions to society now because of this information being hidden.

If we could only let go of Darwin's theory, then maybe we could get past these silly things, but I do fear this will be the downfall of society as a whole.



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 12:08 PM
link   
Just found some new information. I am sorry I was wrong, you guys are right the Egyptians were white. Not black, not arab, not mixed, I don't know what I could have been thinking.

www.youtube.com...

good day



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 01:28 PM
link   
Look its all your presentation man. I am perfectly willing to accept that Egypt was a multi racial state. I think there is ampel evidence for this. I am perfectly willing to accept that historians are very wrong about the origins of many cultures and people. But I am not willing to accept an Afrocentrist victimization mantra. I understand that blacks in the US want to look back on their ancestors and see a rich culture and heritage to identify with. But heres the deal. LETS suppose that indeed the "nubians" that you speak of were the original Egyptians. And indeed they were African light skinned Negroids. That still does not make the decendents of WEST AFRICAN SLAVES in the US in any way genetically related to these "nubians".

Stop trying to invent a history and jam it down peoples throats in an effort to prop up your own self worth. Be proud of where you actually came from and how your people are. There is nothing wrong with a tribal lifestyle living close to the land with your family and ancestors. Thats West African culture and it has a perfectly fine history of art and story. Its not an empire building culture and thats fine. In many ways its more noteworthy than a culture that did build an empire only to have it lost and destroyed. Progress in terms of cities and farms are built up because of social pressure. People compete over resources and strife creates a need. If your people did not build big stone cities its because they did not see a need to do so. They continued to live a tribal lifestyle because it filled their needs completly. There is nothing wrong with that. Its entirely possible that there are great sub-saharan African empires that existed and died waiting to be discovered in the vast reaches of Africa. There are hints that they do indeed exist. Great fine lets find them and complete the record but stop trying to shoehorn into a civilization that at best you were only a part of.



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by DeNaga


I mean it's not like their could be a direct correlation to this information and the fact that a lot of blacks are lacking in their contributions to society now because of this information being hidden.


Ok so its all in that statment, you believe if you convince the rest of the world that black africans built the pyrimids basically it will help black people.....see what my people did kinda thing!

one problem, the egyptians built it, and no you cant have it!



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dragoon01
Look its all your presentation man. I am perfectly willing to accept that Egypt was a multi racial state. I think there is ampel evidence for this. I am perfectly willing to accept that historians are very wrong about the origins of many cultures and people. But I am not willing to accept an Afrocentrist victimization mantra. I understand that blacks in the US want to look back on their ancestors and see a rich culture and heritage to identify with. But heres the deal. LETS suppose that indeed the "nubians" that you speak of were the original Egyptians. And indeed they were African light skinned Negroids. That still does not make the decendents of WEST AFRICAN SLAVES in the US in any way genetically related to these "nubians".

Stop trying to invent a history and jam it down peoples throats in an effort to prop up your own self worth. Be proud of where you actually came from and how your people are. There is nothing wrong with a tribal lifestyle living close to the land with your family and ancestors. Thats West African culture and it has a perfectly fine history of art and story. Its not an empire building culture and thats fine. In many ways its more noteworthy than a culture that did build an empire only to have it lost and destroyed. Progress in terms of cities and farms are built up because of social pressure. People compete over resources and strife creates a need. If your people did not build big stone cities its because they did not see a need to do so. They continued to live a tribal lifestyle because it filled their needs completly. There is nothing wrong with that. Its entirely possible that there are great sub-saharan African empires that existed and died waiting to be discovered in the vast reaches of Africa. There are hints that they do indeed exist. Great fine lets find them and complete the record but stop trying to shoehorn into a civilization that at best you were only a part of.


The Nubians build more pyramids than Egypt. They also had female rulers that where just as powerful as the male counter parts(predates women's lib for thousands of years). There where several empires in Africa. Ethiopia still survived even after all the stuff they when through.

We when through imperialism and mass kidnapping,institutionalize racial terrorism and several eugenics campaigns. We are still here.
We have far more history than just colonial slavery and Egypt.Our History goes back 200,000 years(with the oldest structures in the world.) and is still going. We have spread to 3 continents and the Caribbean islands.


More western-centralism thinking that if it didn't happen in the west to the west then it doesn't count.

edit on 8-8-2011 by John_Rodger_Cornman because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-8-2011 by John_Rodger_Cornman because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dragoon01

Stop trying to invent a history and jam it down peoples throats in an effort to prop up your own self worth. Be proud of where you actually came from and how your people are. There is nothing wrong with a tribal lifestyle living close to the land with your family and ancestors. Thats West African culture and it has a perfectly fine history of art and story. Its not an empire building culture and thats fine. In many ways its more noteworthy than a culture that did build an empire only to have it lost and destroyed. Progress in terms of cities and farms are built up because of social pressure. People compete over resources and strife creates a need. If your people did not build big stone cities its because they did not see a need to do so. They continued to live a tribal lifestyle because it filled their needs completly. There is nothing wrong with that. Its entirely possible that there are great sub-saharan African empires that existed and died waiting to be discovered in the vast reaches of Africa. There are hints that they do indeed exist. Great fine lets find them and complete the record but stop trying to shoehorn into a civilization that at best you were only a part of.


Look dude, I just conceeded, I have never tried make anyone believe anything because that is impossible for some people. I read a thread when it first started and read page after page of people just dissing black folk so I decided too speak. This is a forum and I can do that. The beauty of the time we live in now is we should see a lot of mysteries being revealed soon so no worries.,
I don't have to prop myself up because I have a rich history regardless. I have actually said to Africans that I work with that we are not the same people as some would have you believe but I guess you know this and the history of how it happened. I know what type of blood flows through my viens and my family has already proven done official research and recognized by those that count so nothing to prove and no monkey blood over here.

I know who I am, and I know my history and a lot more. No one wants to talk about blood or languages so to keep this banter back and forth is futile so I conceeded. I know you see what I did there so please don't act like something change from your wisdom. Let it go man.



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 02:42 PM
link   
STATE = khemet core...with a multi - cultural north

ROYAL LINE = thinnite/ abydos league...the south...

maitrachy to keep bloodline of king from the south......paitrachy from the north led to foreign mixes

peaces



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 06:53 PM
link   
reply to post by gremlin2011
 
Huge cove up in history..the blacks were ran out or made slaves by other forces.It is sad that all those years of being mislead to believe that the greeks were first or the romans did it first.The man was holding down the africans back then,and now...Mother AFRICA is dying with the pollution of negativity,her land is being raped and the people are suffering.I believe the NWO is just waiting to kill off the native people(just like the indians in america) and rip apart the recources and give land up to japanease that are on a sinking ship i mean island.Only the stongest survive in this world and when the time comes hopefully as human beings we can pull our head out of our butt and see the BIG PICTURE!


If we don't stand up..! we get what we deserve




posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 09:12 AM
link   
The article below is a peer reviewed summarization of the population history of ancient Egypt, based on the numerous findings spanning of the last couple of decades.


"The question of the genetic origins of ancient Egyptians, particularly those during the Dynastic period, is relevant to the current study. Modern interpretations of Egyptian state formation propose an indigenous origin of the Dynastic civilization (Hassan, 1988 Early Egyptologists considered Upper and Lower Egyptians to be genetically distinct populations, and viewed the Dynastic period as characterized by a conquest of Upper Egypt by the Lower Egyptians. More recent interpretations contend that Egyptians from the south actually expanded into the northern regions during the Dynastic state unification (Hassan, 1988; Savage, 2001), and that

the Predynastic populations of Upper and Lower Egypt are morphologically distinct from one another, but not sufficiently distinct to consider either non-indigenous
(Zakrzewski, 2007). The Predynastic populations studied here, from Naqada and Badari, are both Upper Egyptian samples, while the Dynastic Egyptian sample (Tarkhan) is from Lower Egypt. The Dynastic Nubian sample is from Upper Nubia (Kerma). Previous analyses of cranial variation found the Badari and Early Predynastic Egyptians to be more similar to other African groups than to Mediterranean or European populations (Keita, 1990; Zakrzewski, 2002). In addition, the Badarians have been described as near the centroid of cranial and dental variation among Predynastic and Dynastic populations studied (Irish, 2006; Zakrzewski, 2007). This suggests that, at least through the Early Dynastic period, the inhabitants of the Nile valley were a continuous population of local origin, and no major migration or replacement events occurred during this time.

Studies of cranial morphology also support the use of a Nubian (Kerma) population for a comparison of the Dynastic period, as this group is likely to be more closely genetically related to the early Nile valley inhabitants than would be the Late Dynastic Egyptians, who likely experienced significant mixing with other Mediterranean populations (Zakrzewski, 2002). A craniometric study found the Naqada and Kerma populations to be morphologically similar (Keita, 1990). Given these and other prior studies suggesting continuity (Berry et al., 1967; Berry and Berry, 1972), and the lack of archaeological evidence of major migration or population replacement during the Neolithic transition in the Nile valley, we may cautiously interpret the dental health changes over time as primarily due to ecological, subsistence, and demographic changes experienced throughout the Nile valley region." -- AP Starling, JT Stock. (2007). Dental Indicators of Health and Stress in Early Egyptian and Nubian Agriculturalists: A Difficult Transition and Gradual Recovery. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 134:520–528


Clearly the article is saying that original ancient Egyptians were black Africans from the south, whom had closest biological affinity towards other black Africans prior to the migration of populations from the Mediterranean, which caused a discontinuity of biological affinities from the Pre-Dynastic to the Late Dynastic period. It is an indisputable fact that the closest populations to the ancient Egyptians biologically were the black Nubians, contrary to popular belief which is more often than not based on subjective artwork. This is all stated in the article above.

The Dendrogram below further confirms that biologically Nubians and early ancient Egyptians were essentially indistinguishable. You will also notice that modern East African populations from the Horn of Africa are the next population to group with the Egypt-Nubian cluster and not modern Egyptians (who are rather distant from early Egyptian samples). This suggest that modern populations from the Horn are a better representative in terms of phenotype of the ancient Egyptians than the modern day inhabitants of Egypt.



This stark distinction between modern and ancient Egyptians in terms of phenotype is most likely due to the fact Egypt (especially in the North) have been the recipient of countless foreign invasions, and almost all of which came from either then Near East or Europe. None the less genetic evidence has shown that modern Egyptians (especially those in the south who have received much less of the foreign admixture) do have a predominant ancestral lineage pointing towards their Horn African and Nilo Saharan origins.
edit on 14-8-2011 by SirShawn because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 09:21 AM
link   
Below is an article by renown linguist Christopher Ehret, who details the cultural origins of ancient Egypt based on linguistic and archaeological findings.

"Ancient Egyptian as an African Language, Egypt as an African Culture

Christopher Ehret
Professor of History, African Studies Chair
University of California at Los Angeles



Ancient Egyptian civilization was, in ways and to an extent usually not recognized, fundamentally African. The evidence of both language and culture reveals these African roots.

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.

[B]A new religion came with them as well. Its central tenet explains the often localized origins of later Egyptian gods: the earliest Afrasians were, properly speaking, neither monotheistic nor polytheistic. Instead, each local community, comprising a clan or a group of related clans, had its own distinct deity and centered its religious observances on that deity. This belief system persists today among several Afrasian peoples of far southwest Ethiopia.[/B] And as Biblical scholars have shown, Yahweh, god of the ancient Hebrews, an Afrasian people of the Semitic group, was originally also such a deity. [B]The connection of many of Egypt's predynastic gods to particular localities is surely a modified version of this early Afrasian belief. Political unification in the late fourth millennium brought the Egyptian deities together in a new polytheistic system. But their local origins remain amply apparent in the records that have come down to us.[/B]

[B]During the long era between about 10,000 and 6000 B.C., new kinds of southern influences diffused into Egypt. During these millennia, the Sahara had a wetter climate than it has today, with grassland or steppes in many areas that are now almost absolute desert. New wild animals, most notably the cow, spread widely in the eastern Sahara in this period.

One of the exciting archeological events of the past twenty years was the discovery that the peoples of the steppes and grasslands to the immediate south of Egypt domesticated these cattle, as early as 9000 to 8000 B.C. [U]The societies involved in this momentous development included Afrasians and neighboring peoples whose languages belonged to a second major African language family, Nilo-Saharan[/B] [/U](Wendorf, Schild, Close 1984; Wendorf, et al. 1982). [B]The earliest domestic cattle came to Egypt apparently from these southern neighbors, probably before 6000 B.C., not, as we used to think, from the Middle East.[B]

[B]One major technological advance, pottery-making, was also initiated as early as 9000 B.C. by the Nilo-Saharans and Afrasians who lived to the south of Egypt. Soon thereafter, pots spread to Egyptian sites, almost 2,000 years before the first pottery was made in the Middle East.[/B]

Very late in the same span of time, the cultivating of crops began in Egypt. [B]Since most of Egypt belonged then to the Mediterranean climatic zone, many of the new food plants came from areas of similar climate in the Middle East.[/B] Two domestic animals of Middle Eastern origin, the sheep and the goat, also entered northeastern Africa from the north during this era.

[B]But several notable early Egyptian crops came from Sudanic agriculture, independently invented between 7500 and 6000 B.C. by the Nilo-Saharan peoples (Ehret 1993:104-125). One such cultivated crop was the edible gourd. The botanical evidence is confirmed in this case by linguistics: Egyptian bdt, or "bed of gourds" (Late Egyptian bdt, "gourd; cucumber"), is a borrowing of the Nilo-Saharan word *bud, "edible gourd." Other early Egyptian crops of Sudanic origin included watermelons and castor beans.[/B] (To learn more on how historians use linguistic evidence, see note at end of this article.)

[B]Between about 5000 and 3000 B.C. a new era of southern cultural influences took shape. Increasing aridity pushed more of the human population of the eastern Sahara into areas with good access to the waters of the Nile, and along the Nile the bottomlands were for the first time cleared and farmed. The Egyptian stretches of the river came to form the northern edge of a newly emergent Middle Nile Culture Area, which extended far south up the river, well into the middle of modern-day Sudan.[/B] Peoples speaking languages of the Eastern Sahelian branch of the Nilo-Saharan family inhabited the heartland of this region.

From the Middle Nile,[B] Egypt gained new items of livelihood between 5000 and 3000 B.C. One of these was a kind of cattle pen: its Egyptian name, s3 (earlier *sr), can be derived from the Eastern Sahelian term *sar. Egyptian pg3, "bowl,"[/B] (presumably from earlier pgr), a borrowing of Nilo-Saharan *poKur, "wooden bowl or trough," reveals still another adoption in material culture that most probably belongs to this era.

[B]One key feature of classical Egyptian political culture, usually assumed to have begun in Egypt, also shows strong links to the southern influences of this period. We refer here to a particular kind of sacral chiefship that entailed, in its earliest versions, the sending of servants into the afterlife along with the deceased chief. The deep roots and wide occurrence of this custom among peoples who spoke Eastern Sahelian languages strongly imply that sacral chiefship began not as a specifically Egyptian invention, but instead as a widely shared development of the Middle Nile Culture Area.[B]

After about 3500 B.C., however, Egypt would have started to take on a new role vis-a-vis the Middle Nile region, simply because of its greater concentration of population. Growing pressures on land and resources soon enhanced and transformed the political powers of sacral chiefs. Unification followed, and the local deities of predynastic times became gods in a new polytheism, while sacral chiefs gave way to a divine king. At the same time, Egypt passed from the wings to center stage in the unfolding human drama of northeastern Africa.

A Note on the Use of Linguistic Evidence for History

Languages provide a powerful set of tools for probing the cultural history of the peoples who spoke them. Determining the relationships between particular languages, such as the languages of the Afrasian or the Nilo-Saharan family, gives us an outline history of the societies that spoke those languages in the past. And because each word in a language has its own individual history, the vocabulary of every language forms a huge archive of documents. If we can trace a particular word back to the common ancestor language of a language family, then we know that the item of culture connoted by the word was known to the people who spoke the ancestral tongue. If the word underwent a meaning change between then and now, a corresponding change must have taken place in the cultural idea or practice referred to by the word. In contrast, if a word was borrowed from another language, it attests to a thing or development that passed from the one culture to the other. The English borrowing, for example, of castle, duke, parliament, and many other political and legal terms from Old Norman French are evidence of a Norman period of rule in England, a fact confirmed by documents.


References Cited:

Ehret, Christopher, Nilo-Saharans and the Saharo-Sahelian Neolithic. In African Archaeology: Food, Metals and Towns. T. Shaw, P Sinclair, B. Andah, and A. Okpoko, eds. pp. 104-125. London: Routledge. 1993

Ehret, Christopher, Reconstructing Proto-Afroasiatic (Proto-Afrasian): Vowels, Tone Consonants, and Vocabulary. Los Angeles: University of California Press, Berkeley. 1995

Wendorf, F., et al., Saharan Exploitation of Plants 8000 Years B.P. Nature 359:721-724. 1982

Wendorf, F., R. Schild, and A. Close, eds. Cattle-Keepers of the Eastern Sahara. Dallas: Southern Methodist University, Department of Anthropology. 1984"



edit on 14-8-2011 by SirShawn because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 03:19 AM
link   
I don't think Black Africans did, there's way to many flaws in the "nubian" theory.
This seems to be more brainwashing by Farrakhan and his cronies, don't get fooled comrade.



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 04:03 AM
link   
reply to post by 907blkcat
 


Blacks have been killing and raping each other for thousands of years, they weren't a peaceful society and they spread out through Africa to flee.

White people were also uncivilized once, but the overall majority grew a conscious.

And yeah I'm sure the Japanese would fall over their feet to even get a clean patch of country in east africa.



new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join