Ancient Egyptians were Black : Proof

“Africa”

Level 7

Since: Jan 12

Oakland

#104 Feb 22, 2013
Rob wrote:
These Afrocentric fools are truly laughable, they make up so many fantasies. Have fun with your Black Lord of the Rings pretending Ancient Egypt was black. Face it, the only blacks were Nubian and they were overshadowed by Ancient Egypt, the Nubians copied them, had much smaller Pyramids and were considered Barbarians by the Egyptians.
The Nubians soaked up a lot of Egyptian culture, but they still retained their own identity, especially in later periods of Meroe, Christian Nubia, etc.
Rob wrote:
In addition, all American blacks have no relation to Nubian people since they descend from the West African slave trade, in Ancient Egyptian times these people were primitive nomads/tribal groups who lived in little mud huts.
A lot of Egyptians lived in mud huts. In Egyptian times, West Africans were developing their own independent agriculture, iron-working, artistic works, and walled cities. I don't think they were all that primitive.
Rob wrote:
Seriously, if Ancient Egypt was black, don't you think that other Black people throughout Africa would have been advanced to? It makes no sense, obviously they were not black.
Egypt hardly dealt with any other African civilizations outside the Nile.

Nubia had more contacts with inner Africa than Egypt did. And in any case, other parts of Africa did advance. Nubia in later centuries of antiquity, followed by Ethiopia, and West Africa during early antiquity, and especially during the early first millennium and beyond.
Rob wrote:
Ancient Egypt was NOT BLACK, Look at all the portrayals of Black slaves in Ancient Egypt.
There also "white" slaves in Egypt.
Rob wrote:
I highly doubt it was started by blacks to, even if it was it doesn't matter because Pre-Dynastic Egypt was not its golden age when many advancements were made. All Advancements in Ancient egypt were made by Caucasian type people, they did not look arab but the closest these people looked like were dark brown skinned Indians of today. Some had lighter skin to.
https://www.google.ca/search...
Just look at all the portrayals of Black Slaves in ancient egypt, the picture of king tut trampling nubians.
Obviously Nubia and Kush were black but their Pyramids were all smal and they were never as advanced as Egypt was. They were enemies
Nubians certainly became very advanced in later centuries. The Egyptians kept getting conquered by outsiders like the Persians, Assyrians, Romans, Arabs, etc.

ALL these people were repulsed by Nubians, so obviously, the Nubians were advanced ENOUGH to defend themselves from people Egyptians were UNABLE to defend themselves against.
Barros Serrano

Silver City, NM

#105 Feb 22, 2013
Bakari Neferu wrote:
<quoted text>
The Nubians soaked up a lot of Egyptian culture, but they still retained their own identity, especially in later periods of Meroe, Christian Nubia, etc.
<quoted text>
A lot of Egyptians lived in mud huts. In Egyptian times, West Africans were developing their own independent agriculture, iron-working, artistic works, and walled cities. I don't think they were all that primitive.
<quoted text>
Egypt hardly dealt with any other African civilizations outside the Nile.
Nubia had more contacts with inner Africa than Egypt did. And in any case, other parts of Africa did advance. Nubia in later centuries of antiquity, followed by Ethiopia, and West Africa during early antiquity, and especially during the early first millennium and beyond.
<quoted text>
There also "white" slaves in Egypt.
<quoted text>
Nubians certainly became very advanced in later centuries. The Egyptians kept getting conquered by outsiders like the Persians, Assyrians, Romans, Arabs, etc.
ALL these people were repulsed by Nubians, so obviously, the Nubians were advanced ENOUGH to defend themselves from people Egyptians were UNABLE to defend themselves against.
Really, Nubia stood as a unique and important civilization until the arrival of the bloody Arabs, and very nearly repulsed them. If they'd succeeded, how much better the condition of Sudan today!
algerie

Edmonton, Canada

#106 Feb 22, 2013
Egyptians were probably related to us berbers. Sorry, I'm berber and white as snow
pn2cladelover

Netherlands

#107 Feb 22, 2013
algerie wrote:
Egyptians were probably related to us berbers. Sorry, I'm berber and white as snow
go away and stop trolling

Level 2

Since: Feb 13

Location hidden

#108 Feb 22, 2013
pn2cladelover wrote:
<quoted text>
go away and stop trolling
How is that trolling? Our history has been supressed by arabs who have tried to arabize us for centuries and now afrocentrists.
pn2cladelover

Netherlands

#109 Feb 22, 2013
algerie wrote:
<quoted text>
How is that trolling? Our history has been supressed by arabs who have tried to arabize us for centuries and now afrocentrists.
whats your dna

is this man an ancient egyptian

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Huni-Statue...

YES or NO
Bill

Greenville, NH

#110 Feb 22, 2013
LivingInAmerica wrote:
^^Zahi Hawass admitted that the Ancient Egyptians were not Arabs so stop with that Middle Eastern BS.
That's right, he said they weren't Arabs AND they weren't black. He said they are mostly the same as the current Egyptian population, which is Middle Eastern but is not Arab, much like Persians are Middle Eastern and not Arab. DNA studies have largely backed this up as well.

This was his exact quote:

"Tutankhamun was not black, and the portrayal of ancient Egyptian civilisation as black has no element of truth to it, Egyptians are not Arabs and are not Africans despite the fact that Egypt is in Africa."

And he's absolutely right.
pn2cladelover

Netherlands

#112 Feb 22, 2013
Bill wrote:
<quoted text>
That's right, he said they weren't Arabs AND they weren't black. He said they are mostly the same as the current Egyptian population, which is Middle Eastern but is not Arab, much like Persians are Middle Eastern and not Arab. DNA studies have largely backed this up as well.
This was his exact quote:
"Tutankhamun was not black, and the portrayal of ancient Egyptian civilisation as black has no element of truth to it, Egyptians are not Arabs and are not Africans despite the fact that Egypt is in Africa."
And he's absolutely right.
but he in 2012 released the dna results of the mummys and it turns out they were related to other africans especiacially southernly

do you accept hawasses new findings

YES or NO
jumpstart

United States

#113 Feb 22, 2013
algerie wrote:
Egyptians were probably related to us berbers. Sorry, I'm berber and white as snow
no that just makes you a leper .

Level 2

Since: Feb 13

Location hidden

#114 Feb 22, 2013
jumpstart wrote:
<quoted text> no that just makes you a leper .
Have you ever seen algerians in real life?
Bill

Greenville, NH

#115 Feb 22, 2013
Bakari Neferu wrote:
<quoted text>
Nubians certainly became very advanced in later centuries. The Egyptians kept getting conquered by outsiders like the Persians, Assyrians, Romans, Arabs, etc.
ALL these people were repulsed by Nubians, so obviously, the Nubians were advanced ENOUGH to defend themselves from people Egyptians were UNABLE to defend themselves against.
That's true, but 99% of the people here won't care.

Why?

When there's a black civilization that it indisputably black, even when it was extremely advanced, Afrocentrists don't care, and the white racists will likewise not care. White racists don’t care for obvious reasons (they’re idiots and it would harm the credibility of their agenda), and Afrocentrists don't care because it doesn't polarize people - because proclaiming it historically black is factual and not outlandish. It alienates no one, and that is anathema to their cultish ideology. Afrocentrists would rather busy themselves claiming the histories of the Vikings, the English, the Chinese, the Olmecs, and the Moors rather than ponder the ramifications of, say, Great Zimbabwe. Why? It’s the exact same thing that separates a legitimate historian (one with a passion for the truth within the past) and a conspiracy theorist (one fixated on fantasy masquerading as reality).

The tragically ironic thing is - they accuse the world of dismissing the great civilizations borne from black Africans… And in fixating their efforts entirely in claiming peoples that are not black African they never bother to actually extoll the great civilizations that HAVE been borne from black Africans.
Bill

Greenville, NH

#116 Feb 22, 2013
pn2cladelover wrote:
<quoted text>
but he in 2012 released the dna results of the mummys and it turns out they were related to other africans especiacially southernly
do you accept hawasses new findings
YES or NO
It's "Mummies" and "Hawass's" (unless he has clones roaming around.)

Do you have a link to these findings? I am a fan of Dr. Hawass but I have yet to read it (not saying it doesn't exist, just saying I've yet to have been made aware of it.)
pn2cladelover

Netherlands

#117 Feb 22, 2013
Bill wrote:
<quoted text>
That's true, but 99% of the people here won't care.
Why?
When there's a black civilization that it indisputably black, even when it was extremely advanced, Afrocentrists don't care, and the white racists will likewise not care. White racists don’t care for obvious reasons (they’re idiots and it would harm the credibility of their agenda), and Afrocentrists don't care because it doesn't polarize people - because proclaiming it historically black is factual and not outlandish. It alienates no one, and that is

anathema to their cultish ideology. Afrocentrists would rather busy themselves claiming the histories of the Vikings, the English, the Chinese, the Olmecs, and the Moors rather than ponder the ramifications of, say, Great Zimbabwe. Why? It’s the exact same thing that separates a legitimate historian (one with a passion for the truth within the past) and a conspiracy theorist (one fixated on fantasy masquerading as reality).
The tragically ironic thing is - they accuse the world of dismissing the great civilizations borne from black Africans… And in fixating their efforts entirely in claiming peoples that are not black African they never bother to actually extoll the great civilizations that HAVE been borne from black Africans.
lol you sound angry,

how do you kniow the people on here do not read about other african civilizations?????

why are you so interested in a black civilization???? why are you trying to claim the ancient egyptians are not black
are you a eurocentrist

"but he in 2012 released the dna results of the mummys and it turns out they were related to other africans especiacially southernly"

do you accept hawasses new findings

YES or NO

the ancient egyptians were black

deal with it
Bill

Greenville, NH

#118 Feb 22, 2013
pn2cladelover wrote:
<quoted text>
lol you sound angry,
how do you kniow the people on here do not read about other african civilizations?????
why are you so interested in a black civilization???? why are you trying to claim the ancient egyptians are not black
are you a eurocentrist
"but he in 2012 released the dna results of the mummys and it turns out they were related to other africans especiacially southernly"
do you accept hawasses new findings
YES or NO
the ancient egyptians were black
deal with it
My intended tone was wrong then because I’m not angry at all man - if anything it makes me sad.

1: The [reasonable people] or the [Afrocentrists and the mirror-image white racist counterparts]? I’m sure the reasonable people DO read about those civilizations, and appreciate them (very few reasonable people seem to post, hence the hyperbolic 99% estimate). To be honest, I have no evidence that the Afrocentrists do read about or understand them because I spend quite a lot of time reading this forum and they rarely (if ever) discuss them…. So if they’re knowledgeable on those subjects they’re trying their hardest to keep it hidden. As to the white racists, I just assume they ignore any and all material that negates their philosophy, and I base this completely on the asinine things they say and write.

2: I’m interested in Black civilizations. I’m interested in White civilizations. I’m interested in East Asian civilizations. I’m interested in Native American civilizations. I am a human being and I have an interest in ALL of our civilizations. Why? I don’t know; I’m fascinated by the past and how exactly it birthed our present.

3: No. I only care about the truth. I believe the truth can only be uncovered by the shrewd examination of evidence from our past. Not selected evidence, but all evidence. For example, do I think the Moors were white? Do I think the Egyptians were white? Do I believe white people are responsible for all “advanced” civilization? Do I believe white people are inherently superior, as human beings, to any other people? The answer to all those questions, for me, is “No.”

4: I’m not questioning his findings man; I would just like to see them, honestly. I don’t just want to see them to prove or disprove anything already bouncing around in my head; I’d just like to see them because I have an interest in Egyptian history. If you could provide a link, or a summary… or something, I’d be appreciative.

5: See 4.
pn2cladelover

Netherlands

#119 Feb 22, 2013
Hawass et al 2012. Revisiting the harem conspiracy and death of Ramesses III. British Medical Journal, BMJ2012;345:e8268

http://press.psprings.co.uk/bmj/december/mumm...

and ill add dna tribes

http://dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2012-01...
pn2cladelover

Netherlands

#120 Feb 22, 2013
Bill

Greenville, NH

#121 Feb 22, 2013
pn2cladelover wrote:
Hawass et al 2012. Revisiting the harem conspiracy and death of Ramesses III. British Medical Journal, BMJ2012;345:e8268
http://press.psprings.co.uk/bmj/december/mumm...
and ill add dna tribes
http://dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2012-01...
What is this source? Who is this from?
I just don't want to click on a random PDF for obvious security issues.
Dr. Hawass has never issued ANY public findins by PDF on an obscure site. Do you have a summary or something? A link showing something in text?
pn2cladelover

Netherlands

#122 Feb 22, 2013
DESCRIPTION

1.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki /BMJ

OWNER

2.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki /British_Medical_Association

SITE

3.http://www.bmj.com/

STUDY

http://www.bmj.com/content/345/bmj.e8268
pn2cladelover

Netherlands

#123 Feb 22, 2013
Bill

Greenville, NH

#124 Feb 22, 2013
pn2cladelover wrote:
DESCRIPTION
1.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki /BMJ
OWNER
2.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki /British_Medical_Association
SITE
3.http://www.bmj.com/
STUDY
http://www.bmj.com/content/345/bmj.e8268
I wants me to sign in or something. How do I access it?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

African-American Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
more white men should become cuckold (Jul '14) 2 min Hellywood 129
Bi/Gay skype sex??? (Dec '12) 3 min Hellywood 106
NEANDERTHALS made WHITES more INTELLIGENT (Apr '13) 3 min Moses 1,757
the moors were black africans not arabs!!! (Jun '08) 5 min trollslayer 47,374
Boredaholic 7 min Sonya Davis 2
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 11 min Obama is a joke 1,406,198
Aging Europe has Nothing to Offer to Migrants 14 min Moses 6
Trump BUSTED .....PUTIN 20 min u make me laugh 25
BM Thwarts White Rapist & Robber. 52 min dindu tribal leader 39
Poll Will Donald Trump be the next President of the ... (Aug '15) 5 hr PATRIOT DVC MOLON... 1,585
More from around the web