Black Egypt the cover up - compilation video

reply to post by dragonridr

See Luxus post above that was my reply ..

reply to post by Spider879





i said nothing about the Turks other then the area of turkey near Elba a city near the syrian turkish border to be exact.Traveling through an area and being Turkish are to different things dont cloud the issue.As for the dawn of civilization it was in the tigress Euphrates area archaeologists have little doubt on that. It didnt originate from Africa it traveled towards it.

dragonridr
reply to post by Spider879

 

i said nothing about the Turks other then the area of turkey near Elba a city near the syrian turkish border to be exact.Traveling through an area and being Turkish are to different things dont cloud the issue.As for the dawn of civilization it was in the tigress Euphrates area archaeologists have little doubt on that. It didnt originate from Africa it traveled towards it.

There were multiple dawns of civilizations occurring just about the same time within centuries of each other I am going to take a guess that you did not do any research on the development of civilization in the Nile Valley and immediate areas for if you did there is no way you could make that assumption.
gotta get some shut eyes nighty nite.

Spider879

dragonridr
reply to post by Spider879

 

i said nothing about the Turks other then the area of turkey near Elba a city near the syrian turkish border to be exact.Traveling through an area and being Turkish are to different things dont cloud the issue.As for the dawn of civilization it was in the tigress Euphrates area archaeologists have little doubt on that. It didnt originate from Africa it traveled towards it.

There were multiple dawns of civilizations occurring just about the same time within centuries of each other I am going to take a guess that you did not do any research on the development of civilization in the Nile Valley and immediate areas for if you did there is no way you could make that assumption.
gotta get some shut eyes nighty nite.

Follow the pottery this is the latest method for tracking civilizations. So i suggest you look into it also tracking languages also reaffirms predynastic egypt and where they came from.

Also it really doesnt matter what color the Egyptians were since the whole argument seems to be white vs black well its not. The whole area of the middle east contained every race it was a melting pot heres what i mean lets look at a hieroglyph found in Seti the first tomb.

files.abovetopsecret.com...

Thought id add this as well the truth is that Egyptologists are not involved in some massive conspiracy of lies designed to subjugate black populations, as has often been charged. Indeed, most modern Egyptologists are rather quite when it comes to the subject of race. Nor have the black Africans been "robbed" of their legacy. Civilization as it exists today is the culmination of the historical development of mankind, layer upon layer from ancient times to modern, each group contributing its share to the whole. There were 3 major areas where civilization appears the Indus valley the Yellow River in China and the Tigress Euphrates. they expanded out from there influenced there neighbors. Prior to Egypt being formed where they black probably but by the time the dynastic period starts they were influenced by all races and was truly a melting pot. Culturally you can see sumarian influence this tells us they obviously moved in to the area.

Egyptians didnt divide themselves by race actually when you see colors on walls it was to denote not race but location. Nubians would be black Persians depicted would be white and Egyptians tan,this was nothing more then a method to let the reader know they were not Egyptians.But trust me when i say there were very light skinned Egyptians very dark skinned Egyptians and everything in between.

reply to post by Spider879


Haha, its called hair relaxer, nasty stuff, can give you chemical burns!

BTW Ethiopians have significant Eurasian genetic inheritance 40% ^

In the above image you see the enemy of the Egyptians being slaughtered, they have two skin tones, one is lighter then the other. This is explained by Philostratus who noted that people living near the Nubian border were lighter than Ethiopians, and that Egyptians were lighter still. So the darker skinned were the Ethiopians and the lighter from kush what we now call Nubians

tadaman
reply to post by Hanslune

 

also why were the structures and level of engineering never repeated elsewhere in the African continent?

ever wonder?

edit on 9 17 2013 by tadaman because: (no reason given)

The most impressive and enigmatic structures in Egypt such as the great pyramid, the Sphynx temple, Osirion, Napta playa etc weren't even repeated in Egypt by the so called Egyptians that supposedly built them. You are talking about "elsewhere in Africa?"

Come on, you gotta do a lot better than that!

LUXUS

In the above image you see the enemy of the Egyptians being slaughtered, they have two skin tones, one is lighter then the other. This is explained by Philostratus who noted that people living near the Nubian border were lighter than Ethiopians, and that Egyptians were lighter still. So the darker skinned were the Ethiopians and the lighter from kush what we now call Nubians

And like I said earlier other Africans and their descendants often depicted themselves thus, it have nothing to do with Eurasians.

Dahomey

Modern painting

Ethiopian

Very Dark skinned East African
A chocolaty toned East African
Upper right a brown skinned Levantine.
Bottom right a creamy colored coastal North African

The extremely dark-skinned person upper left do not represent majority of Black people you ran into either in Africa or Black communities outside of it. the majority tend to be chocolate colored,and is it your belief they represent the archetype of a Black then you would be wrong as they just represent one variation of an African.

reply to post by dragonridr

Follow the pottery this is the latest method for tracking civilizations. So i suggest you look into it also tracking languages also reaffirms predynastic egypt and where they came from.

Also it really doesnt matter what color the Egyptians were since the whole argument seems to be white vs black well its not. The whole area of the middle east contained every race it was a melting pot heres what i mean lets look at a hieroglyph found in Seti the first tomb.

Spread of the Afrasian Language group.
I have followed the pottery and they came from the south and south West not from Mesopotamia.
Sumerian is no way apart of the Afrasian Language group although Akkadian is and before you say it.. no! it did not came into East Africa it spread from there into other places and from the Levant it developed into Semitic which is the youngest form of it.

A Conversation with Christopher Ehret
Christopher Ehret, UCLA
Interviewed by WHC Co-editor Tom Laichas

There's another really interesting innovation in Africa: pottery. There are two places in the world which develop pottery really early. One is Japan, where you find pottery before 10,000 BCE, going back to at least 11,000 or 12,000 BCE. And then you've got pottery by 10,500 BCE in the eastern Sahara, and it spreads widely in the southern Sahara. Unlike the Middle Eastern ceramics, where you can see the development of pottery at every stage, the stuff we find in the southern Sahara is already great pottery. So there's probably 500 years we're missing from the archaeological record. So let's say that pottery develops in the southern Sahara 2,500 years before Middle Eastern pottery. The Middle Eastern stuff does look like it was developed independently of the African, but ­ hey, this is really interesting! Africa is not too far away; there may have been some diffusion.

WHC: You describe two other groups. One of them is the Afrasans. Can you talk about them for a moment?

Ehret: These are people who have been called Afro-Asiatic and also Afrasian. I'm saying "Afrasan" because I'm trying to get "Asia" out. There is still this idea that the Afro-Asiatic family had to come out of Asia. Once you realize that it's an African family with one little Asian offshoot, well, that itself is a very important lesson for world historians.

We actually have DNA evidence which fits very well with an intrusion of people from northwestern African into southwestern Asia. The Y-chromosome markers, associated with the male, fade out as you go deeper into the Middle East.

worldhistoryconnected.press.illinois.edu...
Pls klik^^
If you don't take the surrounding areas of Africa into your research you will run into trouble trying to explain how Kemet or other Nile valley cultures came into being.

Hanslune

Spider879



What questions have I avoided or refused to answer??

My previous posting posted on Sep, 16 2013 @ 14:04

I did answer your question.
Spider

I am not at all concerned about the exact shade of skin the ancient kemetians had if you read my post carefully I said they were biologically African and culturally African at-least the core population were, I am in no way the flip side of the Negro phobic Luxus so stop with the comparison, I have said that academia have settled the issue for sometime now see links provided, the problem now is with pop media and culture and even then there are subtle changes.

reply to post by Spider879


Your miss quoting him which he warns about in the article. Hes saying its possible that pottery was developed in the middle east from Africa because of a 500 year gap. But notice he points out that middle eastern pottery developed on its own. He was simply telling the interviewer who obviously had an agenda it was possible but then made sure to stipulate pottery from middle east is unique. So Maybe some potter found his way into the middle east but there is no way to prove it. however after pottery develops in the middle east we can follow it all the way back to the Nile delta and further into North Africa.

So this means culture came from the middle east was there outside influences probably. Several archaeologist believe Asia had its influences as well he doesnt seem to like that idea. In truth doesnt matter when dealing with pre civilizations. In order for a civilization to occur archaeologists look for 3 things a writing system and farming and domestication. Thats why you can follow the pottery and the influence in pre dynastic Egypt was not Africa.

dragonridr
reply to post by Spider879

 

Your miss quoting him which he warns about in the article. Hes saying its possible that pottery was developed in the middle east from Africa because of a 500 year gap. But notice he points out that middle eastern pottery developed on its own. He was simply telling the interviewer who obviously had an agenda it was possible but then made sure to stipulate pottery from middle east is unique. So Maybe some potter found his way into the middle east but there is no way to prove it. however after pottery develops in the middle east we can follow it all the way back to the Nile delta and further into North Africa.

So this means culture came from the middle east was there outside influences probably. Several archaeologist believe Asia had its influences as well he doesnt seem to like that idea. In truth doesnt matter when dealing with pre civilizations. In order for a civilization to occur archaeologists look for 3 things a writing system and farming and domestication. Thats why you can follow the pottery and the influence in pre dynastic Egypt was not Africa.

edit on 9/19/13 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)

How can you say that when he states pottery developed in Africa first and a high degree of development in the South Sahara 2500 yrs before it developed in the middle east pls reread what he said in any case whether pottery developed independently in the Middle East or not it is clear that it did not come from there into Africa.

About farming and domestication that used to be the case until relatively recent discovery of a pre-farming hunter gathering society that built Gobekli Tepe, and writing many a civilizations did fine without it example the monument building Inca and Zimbabwean,perhaps we need to redefine what we mean by civilization.

Inca

Zimbabwe

reply to post by Spider879


Incans had a writing system in fact had 2 of them the most interesting is knots called quipu. And as far as any civilization goes writing is a requirement. Because with a civilization planning is required which requires records. I think its obvious by looking at language and pottery where pre dynastic Egyptians came from but even if you refuse to believe that there was a major influx in the first dynasty from the middle east a war insues and the Nile valley is taken. So even if we make the argument that Nubian lived there the war in the first dynasty drove them out. well actually dynasty 0 but none the less Egypt was freed of taken over depending on your point of view by Egyptians.But keep in mind egypt was a cross roads so it really was a melting pot there never was just one color there. But the people that identified themselves as egyptian were not black or white.

But really does it truly matter there a culture that developed in Africa so they are African skin color is irrelevant. Didnt matter to Egyptians in the least what color you were. Now im going to stop arguing this because it seems you have a pre conceived bias and want this to be true it seems important to you. Ill just end it by saying main stream archaeology disagrees with you.

dragonridr
reply to post by Spider879

 

Incans had a writing system in fact had 2 of them the most interesting is knots called quipu. And as far as any civilization goes writing is a requirement. Because with a civilization planning is required which requires records. I think its obvious by looking at language and pottery where pre dynastic Egyptians came from but even if you refuse to believe that there was a major influx in the first dynasty from the middle east a war insues and the Nile valley is taken. So even if we make the argument that Nubian lived there the war in the first dynasty drove them out. well actually dynasty 0 but none the less Egypt was freed of taken over depending on your point of view by Egyptians.

There is no evidence that Egyptians were black archaeologists cant find any roots for Egypt anywhere but Syria and middle east. But really does it truly matter there a culture that developed in Africa so they are African skin color is irrelevant. Didnt matter to Egyptians in the least what color you were. Now im going to stop arguing this because it seems you have a pre conceived bias and want this to be true it seems important to you. Ill just end it by saying main stream archaeology disagrees with you.

Okay but before you go pls find me a credible link by a bonafide archaeologist/Egyptologist and linguist within the last 10 to 20yrs that put the origins of Kemetic civilization in Syria or the so-called Middle East,and at this point I am not concerned with their blackness but their origins I had made plenty of links to such throughout this thread.

Spider879

Excuse me, your brain seams to have skipped a few beats...where is the picture of actual Egyptians, you know the people who actually live in Egypt, I noticed you have conveniently excluded them from your little collection!

So for balance lets include a pic of actual Egyptians





btw Darkest black were Ethiopians, next Nubians, next Egyptians, next Libyans, next Syrians.

reply to post by LUXUS



Mexico city where are the
Aztecs and Maya,sure
one can do a Dna test
of any of these folks
and you may likely get
a hit on native American
ancestery or you could
just visit the country side
and see folks who are not so
mixed.

Aztec fam rural area.


Egyptian kids middle and upper Egypt rural areas.
In any case both lite-skinned and dark-skinned Egyptians are
the descendants of their darker ancestors and are therefore
authentic even if they only have one drop of ancient Kemitic blood in them.

Painted House, Gurna Village, West Bank, Luxor, Egypt

Sure it's a modern painting but they are making a point and No!! they ain't "Nubians"

reply to post by Spider879


Now why am I not surprised that you think the original Aztecs were black

reply to post by Spider879


Im sorry said i wasnt going to comment but i cant help it off all the places you could have chosen you chose gurna village as proof of black Egyptians i suggest you look into the area.They arent egyptians that area has been under land disputes since Muhammad Ali Pasha al-Mas'ud ibn Agha tried to drive Mamluk out of this area and lost. Mamluk is freed slaves they moved into the area from all over Egypt. then the place becomes abandoned people eventually move into the area. but the Egyptian government basically said they dont own the land and were not egyptian mainly because they wanted control of the archaeological sites. Which is why these people were there in the first place workers brought in to dig and yes many from Ethiopia. Ive been there these people are not Egyptians its just mostly 2nd generation immigrants trying to survive.

reply to post by dragonridr


You are correct I was in that area a long time ago.

I see the two racists are fighting it out each cherry picking data - love it. Like you the idea that the AE were a mixed 'race' is pretty obvious and that they were influenced by people in northern Africa, Asia and central Africa.

But let them fight....it amusing to watch

LUXUS
reply to post by Hanslune

 

I did not answer because you assume my understanding of evolution on this planet is in keeping with current ideas, it is as foolish as saying which flower developed from which flower.

Ah so you are what backwards? More seriously what do you mean have you created your own theory?

There has been many types of humanoid that have developed on this planet, but to say they all were related is not correct. It would be like saying a chimp evolved from an orangutang just because there are similar features and yes even similar genetics. What colour was the skin of the neanderthal, who is to say Caucasians did not inherit their characteristics (including lighter skin) thru mating with other humanoids now extinct?

They are all related back to where we split from rest, there were lots of 'cousins' as you will but there is no sign of two independent (or more) developments of mammals with 'hominin' traits - if that is what you want.

The supposedly scientific theory of skin depigmentation due to lack of sunlight is in my view stupid and I don't believe it for a second, polar bears btw have black skin!

Science doesn't require your consent to be correct...lol

You also ask me to answer another question I view as being somewhat foolish, at what percentage of melanin would a person become black/white...its not a question of colour, An African albino is not a Caucasian despite being white. The fact that a forensic crime investigator can determine race, age and gender by examining bones is proof that its more than skin deep!

The why do you keep showing pictures of light skin people to try and prove your point?

Science so far has traced some of our genetics back to Africa but the thing that makes white people white is not to be found in Africa and no its not lack of sun but rather genetic input from another now extinct race of humans.

Yes probably the Neanderthals or as you say another unknown but even Neanderthal came from Africa too - I see you are very uncomfortable with the idea you are evolved from an African base....oh my...must be tough to be a ....what do you call your ideas anyway?