Print Page | Close Window

Truth revealed: Negro Egypt is finally..

Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Regional History or Period History
Forum Name: African History
Forum Discription: Talk about African History
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=29990
Printed Date: 18-Jun-2024 at 03:24
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Truth revealed: Negro Egypt is finally..
Posted By: Wadjet Horus
Subject: Truth revealed: Negro Egypt is finally..
Date Posted: 07-Aug-2011 at 04:42
True! Negroes rejoice!! You did built Giza after all. Why, listen:
 
to my discovery in the identity of the afro-asiatic lineage, I concluded that Giza was built before the dynastic Egypt by ancestors of black people. It will be too long to prepare a essay but I will just make it concise:

1--Dating of Giza to 2700BC-2660BC within the dynatsic period is unreliable, due to the board use of calibration standards, which disregard the unique climate of Sahara area that may have impact on the carbon dating results. Giza is at least from 3500BC.

2--The establishment of king Tut as indo-european works against the white Egypt theory, if taking Giza as religious structures(the most likely explanation), those late egyptians were the lest related to the builders of Giza, since dynastic egyptians knew nothing about Giza and its relationship to Osiris. Even they worshiped Osiris yet they knew nothing about Gizas Osirian symbolism.

3--Ancient religious sites are meant to be used only once and then be abandoned forever, this phenomenon is common among the mesoamericans, which built their religious sites during a sprcial period and then abandoned them after the period for which the sites were built. Therefore, the dynastic egyptians were more possible to have been colonizers/invaders rather than those who actually built Giza. Giza itself should be regarded as a non-egyptian structure, and irrelevant to either Luxor or even Memphis. Giza and dynastic Egypt are two different things. Giza may have attracted people to build kingdoms there but they obviously never understand the structure. People who understand the Giza would SHUN them not get close to them, shunning Giza were those african blacks, and guanches, possibly chachapoyas(guanches and chachapoyas mummified their deads too, and they all belong to same race with african blacks)

4--Black africans have a unique genetic lineage Y HG-E, sharing this haplogroup with other indigenous africans like berbers, also guanches and chachapoyas which are not black. The diversity of phenotype under Y HG-E could also mean possible divergence of ancient culture. This possibility includes that a non-black Y HG-E people were the first africans and egyptians and built Giza.

5--Culturally speaking Y HG-E people is unique to Africa and they are the oldest school of civilization in the world, they do not belong to any of western cultural schools: indo-aryan, indo-european, semitic etc. They had their own cultural identity which is afro-asiatic, this cultural was closely related to the most ancient civilizations. If these people were majority in Africa, there is no doubt they created the first monuments of Egyptian civilization, but not alone. Listen below:

6--These people have asiatic connection, notably the mtdna M founda mong the berbers, this is the only population to share mtdna M with east asians and indians outside East Asia and southwestern Asia! The asiatic component is obvious mongoloid,on the otehr hand, genetic also proves that mongoloid people dominated India long before the arrival of western caucasians, the religious legacies of mongoloid people in India, Mesoamerica, China clearly indicate some exclusive religious connection to ancient Egyptian cults, and these connections are not to be found within any of non mongoloid cultures after ancient Egypt.

7--The native tribalistic cultures of Y HG E people(african negroes, guanches, berbers) is more fited into the model of ancient cultic traditions and thus made them more disposed for religious collaboration with the mystic eastern ancient cults. Most indo-aryans and europeans, semites are basically agains the serpentine deities, religiously speaking indo-aryans and semites are both unlikliy to accept the eastern influences. The obvious culture trait of indo-aryans are building palaces, trading and invading, not building pyramids and worshipping the serpents.

8--Y HG E as an independent african ethnic people their ancient culture and eastern cultures had great mutual interests: when their lack of religious connection to ancient Egpt can be explained by the influence from eastern religions, the discrepancy between the way of egyptian cult and the cult of the same serpent deities in East asia can be explained by the interference of such african people. By the notion of afro-asiatic cultural and religious collaboration, the cultural discrepancies between ancient Egypt and african and east asians can be fully clarified, and thus they are the most eligible people to legacy of the highest Egyptian monuments, Giza.

Blacks is E, so are berbers and guanches, this haplogroup is unique, they were not only the earliest western neolithic people also the first one to connect to the east, under the auspice of the eastern influence, they have the most priority to claim Giza, regardlessly to their skin.




Replies:
Posted By: red clay
Date Posted: 07-Aug-2011 at 09:59
Don't suppose you have sources or refs. for any of this?

-------------
"Arguing with someone who hates you or your ideas, is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what move you make, your opponent will walk all over the board and scramble the pieces".
Unknown.


Posted By: unclefred
Date Posted: 07-Aug-2011 at 12:37
Caesar was black too.


Posted By: Toltec
Date Posted: 07-Aug-2011 at 13:39
I have truth to reveal too, all the rap bands in the world ever, were white.

-------------
Stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?

http://historyplanet.wordpress.com - History Planet Website
<br /


Posted By: Nick1986
Date Posted: 07-Aug-2011 at 16:00
Gentlemen, please remember that Wadjet Horus is Chinese. He may not understand the offensive connotations of "negro"

-------------
Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains!


Posted By: Baal Melqart
Date Posted: 07-Aug-2011 at 17:52
Well, maybe he meant Negroid which is a legitimate scientific term...

-------------
Timidi mater non flet


Posted By: Mosquito
Date Posted: 07-Aug-2011 at 19:24
Originally posted by Nick1986

Gentlemen, please remember that Wadjet Horus is Chinese. He may not understand the offensive connotations of "negro"
in Polish it also is not considered offensive

-------------
"I am a pure-blooded Polish nobleman, without a single drop of bad blood, certainly not German blood" - Friedrich Nietzsche


Posted By: Wadjet Horus
Date Posted: 07-Aug-2011 at 21:41
Originally posted by Toltec

I have truth to reveal too, all the rap bands in the world ever, were white.
 
It is not true, whites were nomadic tribes, no mean to offend white people, but it is simply true.
 
Blacks and mongoloid dominated Sumer, Indus Valley since 9000BC untill 3000BC, and pre-dynastic Egypt. I think white did dominated dynastic Egypt by invasion, it is where whites started conquer afro-asiatic people and inherit the afro-asiatic heritage.
 
Afro-asiatic built, white invaded and claimed.


Posted By: Wadjet Horus
Date Posted: 07-Aug-2011 at 21:48
Originally posted by red clay

Don't suppose you have sources or refs. for any of this?
 
You know these are simply true:
 
1- YHG-E people dominated pre-dynastic lower Egypt where the pyramids of Giza were built,
 
2- There were a tiny mongoloid population there too according to a genetic test on cemetary, one is O3, dating to 3500BC.
 
3-Lets forget about skin, just remember Y HG-E people was a dominant lineage of the mysterious afro-asiatic school, which predates Indo-aryan, indoeuropean, semitic. Y HG-E were not all blacks, but the belong to the same race by genetics.
 
 


Posted By: red clay
Date Posted: 08-Aug-2011 at 09:57
Originally posted by Wadjet Horus

Originally posted by red clay

Don't suppose you have sources or refs. for any of this?
 
You know these are simply true:
 
1- YHG-E people dominated pre-dynastic lower Egypt where the pyramids of Giza were built,
 
2- There were a tiny mongoloid population there too according to a genetic test on cemetary, one is O3, dating to 3500BC.
 
3-Lets forget about skin, just remember Y HG-E people was a dominant lineage of the mysterious afro-asiatic school, which predates Indo-aryan, indoeuropean, semitic. Y HG-E were not all blacks, but the belong to the same race by genetics.
 
 
 
 
No, I don't.  That is why I am asking for sources.  Some of your statements go against accepted truths.
Again, please produce some sources for your opinions.  Peer reviewed would be nice.
 
 


-------------
"Arguing with someone who hates you or your ideas, is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what move you make, your opponent will walk all over the board and scramble the pieces".
Unknown.


Posted By: red clay
Date Posted: 08-Aug-2011 at 10:01
Negro is not an offensive term, just archaic.  It's no longer used in general communication.  Much the same as "colored people".

-------------
"Arguing with someone who hates you or your ideas, is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what move you make, your opponent will walk all over the board and scramble the pieces".
Unknown.


Posted By: Baal Melqart
Date Posted: 09-Aug-2011 at 14:02
Who ever said that Egyptians were white and what is our definition of white? As far as I know they were 'tan' somewhat like people from the Middle-east, is that white or black?Otherwise, consider that some ancient peoples like Lybians and Berbers were white even though they are originally African.


-------------
Timidi mater non flet


Posted By: Wadjet Horus
Date Posted: 09-Aug-2011 at 19:31
Originally posted by Baal Melqart

Who ever said that Egyptians were white and what is our definition of white? As far as I know they were 'tan' somewhat like people from the Middle-east, is that white or black?Otherwise, consider that some ancient peoples like Lybians and Berbers were white even though they are originally African.
 
Skin color becomes out of question here, I am of opinion that those who built Giza were genetically blacks but however, they maybe look lile berbers, white skinned, strange.


Posted By: Wadjet Horus
Date Posted: 09-Aug-2011 at 19:38
Originally posted by red clay

Originally posted by Wadjet Horus

Originally posted by red clay

Don't suppose you have sources or refs. for any of this?
 
You know these are simply true:
 
1- YHG-E people dominated pre-dynastic lower Egypt where the pyramids of Giza were built,
 
2- There were a tiny mongoloid population there too according to a genetic test on cemetary, one is O3, dating to 3500BC.
 
3-Lets forget about skin, just remember Y HG-E people was a dominant lineage of the mysterious afro-asiatic school, which predates Indo-aryan, indoeuropean, semitic. Y HG-E were not all blacks, but the belong to the same race by genetics.
 
 
 
No, I don't.  That is why I am asking for sources.  Some of your statements go against accepted truths.
Again, please produce some sources for your opinions.  Peer reviewed would be nice.
 
 
 
http://mathildasanthropologyblog.wordpress.com/2009/04/13/egyptian-y-dna-and-mt-dna-reference/ - http://mathildasanthropologyblog.wordpress.com/2009/04/13/egyptian-y-dna-and-mt-dna-reference/
 
One haplogroup O, 6 haplogroup F, O and F are both mongoloid haplogroups.
 
And E are predominant: 32 of them.
 
 
 


Posted By: Don Quixote
Date Posted: 22-Aug-2011 at 01:41
Originally posted by Wadjet Horus

Originally posted by red clay

Originally posted by Wadjet Horus

Originally posted by red clay

Don't suppose you have sources or refs. for any of this?
 
You know these are simply true:
 
1- YHG-E people dominated pre-dynastic lower Egypt where the pyramids of Giza were built,
 
2- There were a tiny mongoloid population there too according to a genetic test on cemetary, one is O3, dating to 3500BC.
 
3-Lets forget about skin, just remember Y HG-E people was a dominant lineage of the mysterious afro-asiatic school, which predates Indo-aryan, indoeuropean, semitic. Y HG-E were not all blacks, but the belong to the same race by genetics.
 
 
 
No, I don't.  That is why I am asking for sources.  Some of your statements go against accepted truths.
Again, please produce some sources for your opinions.  Peer reviewed would be nice.
 
 
 
http://mathildasanthropologyblog.wordpress.com/2009/04/13/egyptian-y-dna-and-mt-dna-reference/ - http://mathildasanthropologyblog.wordpress.com/2009/04/13/egyptian-y-dna-and-mt-dna-reference/
 
One haplogroup O, 6 haplogroup F, O and F are both mongoloid haplogroups.
 
And E are predominant: 32 of them.
 

I don't understand how the page form Mathilda's blog supports what you said in your first post.  From what I understand here, there is a significant amount of Eurasian DNA in the samples from Gurna and Siwa, which means that the ancient Egyptians there had significant flow form the Middle East /something which when I mentioned in another forum earned me days of verbal abuse and accusations in "white  supremacy"/. But in your first post you stated that the Egyptians were black, with African genes, not that they were mixed with Middle-Easterners.





-------------


Posted By: Fula
Date Posted: 16-Dec-2011 at 18:16
Originally posted by red clay

Negro is not an offensive term, just archaic.  It's no longer used in general communication.  Much the same as "colored people".


Umm...Negro is definitely an offensive term. Dont think anyone can really judge whats not offensive. Pretty sure people of African descent wouldn't enjoy being called "Negro"


Posted By: unclefred
Date Posted: 16-Dec-2011 at 19:01
Originally posted by Fula

Originally posted by red clay

Negro is not an offensive term, just archaic.  It's no longer used in general communication.  Much the same as "colored people".


Umm...Negro is definitely an offensive term. Dont think anyone can really judge whats not offensive. Pretty sure people of African descent wouldn't enjoy being called "Negro"
Umm...you just did.


Posted By: Baal Melqart
Date Posted: 17-Dec-2011 at 17:12
Thank you unclefred for bringing this topic yet again to my attention, you see I follow topics by using the 'New posts' button.

I can't believe Nick and myself actually were trying to absolve WadjetHorus from his racist rants. He seems to have this misconception that 'white people' only destroy but never build. That Africans, Asians are the only races that are capable of creativity.

Look, I agree with you that the origin of the ancient Egyptians was from the south in Nubia. We are 100% certain that they were originally of African descent, no one can deny this. It is also plausible to say that the knowledge required to build pyramids came from this same place, Nubia, because we have uncovered pyramids in meroe which are smaller than the ones in giza but still provide us with some kind of prototype, the same way the Bent Pyramid and the Pyramid of Djoser were a prototype of the later Giza pyramids.

Yet I think it is totally farfetched for someone to claim that Egyptians were of one stock and had no eastern genetic influence. Egypt and the Middle-east flourished relatively during the same period. Assuming or trying to prove that no cultural exchange occurred between one of the most advanced civilisations of the time is ridiculous, more so due to their proximity! All I see in your reasoning is some attempt to disqualify other races from having contributed to the amazing heritage of ancient Egypt, by saying that Giza was built by pure Africans.


-------------
Timidi mater non flet


Posted By: Fula
Date Posted: 17-Dec-2011 at 18:22
Originally posted by unclefred

Originally posted by Fula

Originally posted by red clay

Negro is not an offensive term, just archaic.  It's no longer used in general communication.  Much the same as "colored people".


Umm...Negro is definitely an offensive term. Dont think anyone can really judge whats not offensive. Pretty sure people of African descent wouldn't enjoy being called "Negro"
Umm...you just did.


lol Umm...not sure what your referring too. People can judge what is offensive to them but no one can say "thats not offensive"


Posted By: Nick1986
Date Posted: 17-Dec-2011 at 19:04
A lot of black people also find "colored" offensive, especially in the UK

-------------
Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains!


Posted By: Baal Melqart
Date Posted: 17-Dec-2011 at 20:25
Originally posted by Nick1986

A lot of black people also find "colored" offensive, especially in the UK


They should, the term coloured is scientifically incorrect since the lack of colour would appear as black. White on the other hand is an amalgamation of Red/Blue/Green Big smile


-------------
Timidi mater non flet


Posted By: lirelou
Date Posted: 17-Dec-2011 at 23:08
Actually, Red Clay, 'colored people' is still in common use, by people who like to refrase it and add an 'of'.  As in "People of color".  It takes a lot of diversity training, but if you are successful you will short circuit enough people's brain cells so that they see 'people of color' as meaning something markedly different from "colored people'.  Proof enough the the old United Negro College Fund add is at least halfway true: "A mind is a dangerous thing...(to waste)."

Hmmm, I wonder why they haven't changed their name to: The United Peoples of Colour College Fund. 




-------------
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì



Print Page | Close Window

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz - http://www.webwizguide.com