Werer the Egyptians white or black?

Thats not true penguin

This link shows ancient African writing systems

http://www.library.cornell.edu/africana/Writing_Systems/Welcome.html

^ he probably didnt read much on that site just wait untill he reads the whole thing. most of the languages in africa are indigenous. some has been influenced, yes. but MOST of the AFRICAN languages is indigenous to africa.
some European languages are also influenced by outsiders. l

i'll just ignore what hes saying I already know enough about ancient african witting systems to believe his crap. saying that every language that africans speak is non-african is just stupid and ignorant.

now back to the topic please.


Edited by Almazy - 18-Aug-2007 at 01:03

What people have to understand is that practically all the history we know of today has been taught written and recorded, and then rewritten by the Eurocentist. That is why so many people are brainwashed. The people who rule most of the world will control the history most people learn.

Even many Caucasians and other ethnicities believe that many of the ancient Egyptians were blacks, it has nothing to due with Afrocentrisms.

We know that there are many people with sub-Saharan African features in north Africa or vice versa (probably due to countless population movements between the two regions from the ancient times). We also know that Sub-Saharan Africans do show a greater genetic diversity than do the populations in the rest of the world, based on studies of mtDNA and Y/X chromosomes, which have nothing really to do with physical characteristics but which can still give clues regarding ancient human movements. The genetic science at its present stage is not advenced enough at all to show more than the tip of the iceberg or to explain physical characteristics.

Generally, North Africans do have Mediterranean or Caucasoid physical characteristics which set them apart from the Sub-Saharan Africans. I guess in the context of Egypt, white and black suggest North African and Sub-Saharan African. Now it is obvious that with regards to race, ancient Egypt consisted of both North African and Sub-Saharan (east) African elements.
Whether which element was earlier or stronger is an academic matter, so I will leave it to the experts.

Edited by omshanti - 18-Aug-2007 at 03:47

Yeah! i like that!

Finally a view thats not narrow minded.

Originally posted by pinguin [QUOTE=Surmount]What people have to understand is that practically all the history we know of today has been taught written and recorded, and then rewritten by the Eurocentist. That is why so many people are brainwashed. The people who rule most of the world will control the history most people learn.

Where is the lie? The truth is that these were an African people. they also absorbed people who were not of an African physical type. What gets me is that all these years even to the present, Egyptians are portrayed in the media by people of Western European extraction and the only time they show blacks is in the capacity of being slaves or servants. Yet when people show that these people were in fact an African people, then they start calling foul. Granted, there are many people out there who are just wihite supremacists in reverse with black skins, but the misinformation of a few deluded people does not subtract from the truth.

The Greeks and Romans described these people as being dark skinned and woolly haired. They portrayed themselves as being dark skinned and having Afros. If you go to Egypt now in the South where the Pharaonic culture was strongest and where the vestiges of that culture still remains, the people are still perdominantly dark skinned and woolly haired and everyone knows it, so where is the lie. No one is claiming they are related biologically, at least not not in the last 2 to 3,000 yrs to West Africans, no one is saying that they are not also biologically related to other peoples as well.

You adamantly made a statement that they deffinately were not black, now you're back tracking and admitting there were two types in Egypt. If anything, the people who have offered evidence for their African affiliations have also been the ones to point out that they were also people of non African physical types in the country as well, so where is the lie? Even with the evidence of a clearly black mummy, instead of simply stating the obvious truth, you have to qualify it with "what about the mummies that didn't look black, there are many". Where's that coming from? Seems to me that you just have a very hard time facing the truth of the situation, that this was an African civilization, not a Mediterranian one. Although its northern boarder is on the Mediterranian, the majority of it lies in land in Africa, and the nucleus for that culture was not on the Mediterranian, but in the south nearest to Sudan and East Africa. Why is that so hard to accept? I think this in itself speaks volumes.

The Egyptians of today look the way they do due to Arabization.


Arabization is the gradual transformation of an area into one that speaks Arabic and is part of the Arab culture. It can also mean the replacement or displacement of a native population with Arabs, although this rarely happened in ancient times, as there weren't nearly sufficient numbers of original Arabs to replace or displace existing populations.


But the indigenous Egyptians were not Arab.


******The ancient Egyptians called themselves KM or Kam-Au which means Black people or Black God-people, and their country Kemet (Kamit /Khemit), which means land of the Black people and the Black Land. The foreign word Egypt is derived from the Greek word Aigyptos / Aegyptos which also means Black.*******

Originally posted by pinguin Other Egyptians that looked different: � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �

And the reason for these pictures is to proove? What exactly I don't know, since every single one of us has already stated that there were people of different physical types in Egypt. However, these figures do not look Meditierranina, they look like what I said, blended types or mulatos. The scribe is the spitting image of a very famous Egyptian actor. He sure ain't white, he sure ain't Arab and he sure ain't Mediterranian, whatever that is. A face like that is only found in one plece in that region, Egypt and no other.

Originally posted by omshanti Hello Rakasnumberone. If I am not mistaken, you are the person who asked many times what every body means by black. Now I hope you don't mind me asking you a question. What do you mean by ''non-African physical type'' and ''African physical type''? As far as I can see, North Africans who have Caucasoid or Mediterranean features are as native to Africa as Sub-Saharan Africans are. They are not foreigners or immigrants to their regions. They are the natives of their lands. Originally posted by Surmount Yeah! i like that!Finally a view thats not narrow minded. Thank you very much Surmount.

Two heads. africans definately don't have two heads. Just kidding!

What I mean are European or Western Asian physical types. North Africans also come in many physical types. They are not all fair skinned, and even the ones who are, are quite often mixed, showing features in common with other Afrcan peoples. You may for example find a person with very pale skin but kinky hair, or very full lips and prognethism, or wide nostrils. Some North West africans are in fact of a physical type we would identify as black.

However, for the sake of the discussion perhaps I should have said non tropically adapted physical types. Tropically adapted being africans who have dark skin to protect against UV radiation, wavey to kinky hair to allow for efficient heat escape to keep the brain and body cool. However, I did describe what I meant by african type, so non would be its opposite, but I do get your point.