The Original Egyptians

[rufian]

Re: The Original Egyptians

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: franksterr</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sukuna</div><div class="ubbcode-body">it is actually quite relevant it takes us to the roots of these different ways of thinking. relevant because one sees how egyptian come into any discussions. Just like the Dr. say back then there was no Europe, back then there was no Race </div></div>

Race is a social convention, and as such its meanings change over the yrs....Race is often another word for a people(or perjoratively-breed). So back then their may not have been racism(as we know it today)but race in terms of a specific people their most definitely where. </div></div>
I see you agree with me that race is not constant. interesting is your discussion on the other thread which is running in a different direction however. Neither the social nor the biological remains constant.

The Egyptians as used in the bible you mean to tell me was race? The bible also refered to Sons of their father and never to a race, to a people but not a race

[franksterr]

Re: The Original Egyptians

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sukuna</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: franksterr</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sukuna</div><div class="ubbcode-body">it is actually quite relevant it takes us to the roots of these different ways of thinking. relevant because one sees how egyptian come into any discussions. Just like the Dr. say back then there was no Europe, back then there was no Race </div></div>

Race is a social convention, and as such its meanings change over the yrs....Race is often another word for a people(or perjoratively-breed). So back then their may not have been racism(as we know it today)but race in terms of a specific people their most definitely where. </div></div>
I see you agree with me that race is not constant. interesting is your discussion on the other thread which is running in a different direction however. Neither the social nor the biological remains constant.

The Egyptians as used in the bible you mean to tell me was race? The bible also refered to Sons of their father and never to a race, to a people but not a race </div></div>

Their is a difference between race and Afrikan.
Nothing is eternally constant except change.
The biological remains constant for long periods of time, with small incremental(adaptations) changes,usually tied to climatic conditions, unless an admixture of foreign genes intercedes, then you may have macro changes over few generations.

[jah_yout]

Re: The Original Egyptians

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sukuna</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: franksterr</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sukuna</div><div class="ubbcode-body">it is actually quite relevant it takes us to the roots of these different ways of thinking. relevant because one sees how egyptian come into any discussions. Just like the Dr. say back then there was no Europe, back then there was no Race </div></div>

Race is a social convention, and as such its meanings change over the yrs....Race is often another word for a people(or perjoratively-breed). So back then their may not have been racism(as we know it today)but race in terms of a specific people their most definitely where. </div></div>
I see you agree with me that race is not constant. interesting is your discussion on the other thread which is running in a different direction however. Neither the social nor the biological remains constant.

The Egyptians as used in the bible you mean to tell me was race? The bible also refered to Sons of their father and never to a race, to a people but not a race </div></div>

<span style="font-weight: bold">I am black, but comely, O ye daughters of Jerusalem, as the tents of Kedar, as the curtains of Solomon.</span>song of solomon 1:5 from the bible

[rufian]

Re: The Original Egyptians

the colour of his skin no doubt

different context, come better than that.

[rufian]

Re: The Original Egyptians

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: franksterr</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sukuna</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: franksterr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

it is actually quite relevant it takes us to the roots of these different ways of thinking. relevant because one sees how egyptian come into any discussions. Just like the Dr. say back then there was no Europe, back then there was no Race </div></div>

Race is a social convention, and as such its meanings change over the yrs....Race is often another word for a people(or perjoratively-breed). So back then their may not have been racism(as we know it today)but race in terms of a specific people their most definitely where. </div></div>
I see you agree with me that race is not constant. interesting is your discussion on the other thread which is running in a different direction however. Neither the social nor the biological remains constant.

The Egyptians as used in the bible you mean to tell me was race? The bible also refered to Sons of their father and never to a race, to a people but not a race </div></div>

Their is a difference between race and Afrikan.
Nothing is eternally constant except change.
The biological remains constant for long periods of time, with small incremental(adaptations) changes,usually tied to climatic conditions, unless an admixture of foreign genes intercedes, then you may have macro changes over few generations.

============

Alright pal, me know agree with me that the individual should accept all of their ancestors
You see here is where you psyc comes in. Diop also proved that there are indian ethnic groups that are negroid

wa happen? black man build taj mahal too

[jah_yout]

Re: The Original Egyptians

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sukuna</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: franksterr</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sukuna</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

it is actually quite relevant it takes us to the roots of these different ways of thinking. relevant because one sees how egyptian come into any discussions. Just like the Dr. say back then there was no Europe, back then there was no Race </div></div>

Race is a social convention, and as such its meanings change over the yrs....Race is often another word for a people(or perjoratively-breed). So back then their may not have been racism(as we know it today)but race in terms of a specific people their most definitely where. </div></div>
I see you agree with me that race is not constant. interesting is your discussion on the other thread which is running in a different direction however. Neither the social nor the biological remains constant.

The Egyptians as used in the bible you mean to tell me was race? The bible also refered to Sons of their father and never to a race, to a people but not a race </div></div>

Their is a difference between race and Afrikan.
Nothing is eternally constant except change.
The biological remains constant for long periods of time, with small incremental(adaptations) changes,usually tied to climatic conditions, unless an admixture of foreign genes intercedes, then you may have macro changes over few generations.

============

Alright pal, me know agree with me that the individual should accept all of their ancestors
You see here is where you psyc comes in. Diop also proved that there are indian ethnic groups that are negroid

wa happen? black man build taj mahal too

egypt &amp; nubia are in africa and india is not

so let me ask you a question...
is it that you believe blacks had nothing to do with ancient egypt or is that you just like to play devil's advocate

[franksterr]

Re: The Original Egyptians

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sukuna</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: franksterr</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sukuna</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

it is actually quite relevant it takes us to the roots of these different ways of thinking. relevant because one sees how egyptian come into any discussions. Just like the Dr. say back then there was no Europe, back then there was no Race </div></div>

Race is a social convention, and as such its meanings change over the yrs....Race is often another word for a people(or perjoratively-breed). So back then their may not have been racism(as we know it today)but race in terms of a specific people their most definitely where. </div></div>
I see you agree with me that race is not constant. interesting is your discussion on the other thread which is running in a different direction however. Neither the social nor the biological remains constant.

The Egyptians as used in the bible you mean to tell me was race? The bible also refered to Sons of their father and never to a race, to a people but not a race </div></div>

Their is a difference between race and Afrikan.
Nothing is eternally constant except change.
The biological remains constant for long periods of time, with small incremental(adaptations) changes,usually tied to climatic conditions, unless an admixture of foreign genes intercedes, then you may have macro changes over few generations.

============

Alright pal, me know agree with me that the individual should accept all of their ancestors
You see here is where you psyc comes in. Diop also proved that there are indian ethnic groups that are negroid

wa happen? black man build taj mahal too

Yes that is TRUE, the man now thought to be God on earth is one such individual.

[rudemonk]

Re: The Original Egyptians

bring the rest now...my man has SAUCE, lol.

these discussions always seem silly to me. my own prejudice is against anything that tries too hard to lay claim to too many incongruous other claims- like when people say ancient hebrews were africans, modern jews are kazars, and egyptians were africans and attempt to use the hebrew bible to prove it- JY you use one of the more famous verses in defense of each position- both sides say it proves their point not realizing they both try for the same point which remains...subjective or prejudicial- so one black person tells another black person they are black. Doesn't make much sense. At what point does culture separate people into camps of skin tones. Since all humanity descends from African origin- the term 'race' needs get tossed on the scrapheap.

It could be of course, proof of something, it just seems unlikely that people would state the obvious to one another. In many geneaologies in the Bible people's backgrounds are made note of, so that seems to me to be done for a reason, being that there was something different about that person that was worthy of mention or that set them apart. Obviously man brings his prejudice to play, we know from Yashua's lineage he had ancestors born in Africa, for example, so the ignorance of the italian renaissance has yet to be overcome, But anyway, especially in the ancient world, and even today, people don't live in static vacuums, why can people not rise above these chains and just see things as they really are.

we have a HUGE visual record of these peoples, stretching back...argument should be done. Just look at what they looked like, and THAT should be the basis upon which the discussion about who they were should be based, not our reverse engineering from our biases which I would say odds are render many of the perspectives moot.

[rufian]

Re: The Original Egyptians

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: monk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">....
we have a HUGE visual record of these peoples, stretching back...argument should be done. Just look at what they looked like, and THAT should be the basis upon which the discussion about who they were should be based, not our reverse engineering from our biases which I would say odds are render many of the perspectives moot. </div></div>
where else are humans going to originate from if the continents were in one? also obvious
do tell me about that HUGE visual record.
who created it and for which purpose? To my knowledge neither photograhy nor video was invented, all others being even more subjective

[Derek]

Re: The Original Egyptians

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Magix_di_PM</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So mi fly with a Egyptian flight attendant today!

An she was willing fi reason so mi a aks her bout dis ya ting.

Well she tell me seh Egyptians been in Egypt forever. An when mi ask her which pawt dem come from, she tell mi seh Egypt. So mi ask her if she consider herself Numbian (she nuh look black at all) an she tell me she her grandfather was Nubian.

But then mi ask her who the last Pharoe was, and she couldn't remember. So mi figure there must have been a blonde in her lineage somewhere as well. </div></div>

I just spoke to an Egyptian guy in our office; educated, graphic designer.
He'd never thought about the Napoleon incident and maybe the Sphinx's nose eroded due to the weather.
It seemed to me that these skin tone debates never occur amongst the average white-ish Egyptians.

[rudemonk]

Re: The Original Egyptians

well, all cultures produce a visual record, some withstand the ravages of time and descend to us, some do not. In Egypt's case there are also bodies of various royalty.

I'm just saying, if you study Egypt's history, you can look at the visual record of their history as they themselves saw themselves, idealized themselves, sometimes as they re-recorded themselves, and depicted themselves, their wars, their conquests, their daily life...to say the 'original' Egyptians I'm not sure what that really means, because to me, just looking at it, you see the same kinds of people there now in many cases as you see in their art despite all the influxes and what not, many of these groups have long long histories- Egypt itself is one of the longest histories...and Africa is a vast continent, it's huge, and you don't see pyramids in Zululand. Isn't Ramses credited with most of the monumental architecture, is it fair to call him an 'original' Egyptian...or are the original Egyptians actually the people who were united into &quot;Egypt.&quot;

the nose of the Sphinx, well his nose was long gone before the little french man got there as sketches of the Sphinx which predate Nap show him without his nose. But there are other busts of that Pharoah so you can see what his nose once looked like. I forget his name. Starts with a KH? I think there is a story of some Islamic sufi or imam who wrecked the nose, as they can't seem to stand representational art, like the destruction of the buddha statue in Afghanistan...the sufi took umbrage and it was noted he wrecked it. According to the legend, the locals were so p!ssed they in turn hung him and buried him nearby the Sphinx. Napolean seems to have been known as a bit of an Egyptologist actually.

[rufian]

Re: The Original Egyptians

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Derek</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Magix_di_PM</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So mi fly with a Egyptian flight attendant today!

An she was willing fi reason so mi a aks her bout dis ya ting.

Well she tell me seh Egyptians been in Egypt forever. An when mi ask her which pawt dem come from, she tell mi seh Egypt. So mi ask her if she consider herself Numbian (she nuh look black at all) an she tell me she her grandfather was Nubian.

But then mi ask her who the last Pharoe was, and she couldn't remember. So mi figure there must have been a blonde in her lineage somewhere as well. </div></div>

I just spoke to an Egyptian guy in our office; educated, graphic designer.
He'd never thought about the Napoleon incident and maybe the Sphinx's nose eroded due to the weather.
It seemed to me that these skin tone debates never occur amongst the average white-ish Egyptians. </div></div>
my point exactly

[rufian]

Re: The Original Egyptians

let me dissect this
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: monk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">well, all cultures produce a visual record, some withstand the ravages of time and descend to us, some do not. In Egypt's case there are also bodies of various royalty.</div></div>
the visual records by cultures have purposes except to help africans in the diaspora identify themselves
and as such is by no means accurate for this end
the bodies offer no visual reference in my opinion as a matter of fact in most cases to bone structure, well, you know
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: monk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
I'm just saying, if you study Egypt's history, you can look at the visual record of their history as they themselves saw themselves, idealized themselves, sometimes as they re-recorded themselves, and depicted themselves, their wars, their conquests, their daily life...to say the 'original' Egyptians I'm not sure what that really means, because to me, just looking at it, you see the same kinds of people there now in many cases as you see in their art despite all the influxes and what not, many of these groups have long long histories- Egypt itself is one of the longest histories...</div></div>
point being made here that even how they idealized themselves does not have to map to the reality it could also be &quot;a like to have&quot;, like the broad shoulders.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: monk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
and Africa is a vast continent, it's huge, and you don't see pyramids in Zululand. Isn't Ramses credited with most of the monumental architecture, is it fair to call him an 'original' Egyptian...or are the original Egyptians actually the people who were united into &quot;Egypt.&quot;
</div></div>
why must you see pyramids to see civilization and as something to be proud of? these pyramids served purposes just as any other objects in Africa. Why to follow the road of European fascination with them is a definition of being truly black is beyond me

[Derek]

Re: The Original Egyptians

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: monk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">well, all cultures produce a visual record, some withstand the ravages of time and descend to us, some do not. In Egypt's case there are also bodies of various royalty.

I'm just saying, if you study Egypt's history, you can look at the visual record of their history as they themselves saw themselves, idealized themselves, sometimes as they re-recorded themselves, and depicted themselves, their wars, their conquests, their daily life...to say the 'original' Egyptians I'm not sure what that really means, because to me, just looking at it, you see the same kinds of people there now in many cases as you see in their art despite all the influxes and what not, many of these groups have long long histories- Egypt itself is one of the longest histories...and Africa is a vast continent, it's huge, and you don't see pyramids in Zululand. Isn't Ramses credited with most of the monumental architecture, is it fair to call him an 'original' Egyptian...or are the original Egyptians actually the people who were united into &quot;Egypt.&quot;

the nose of the Sphinx, well his nose was long gone before the little french man got there as sketches of the Sphinx which predate Nap show him without his nose. But there are other busts of that Pharoah so you can see what his nose once looked like. I forget his name. Starts with a KH? I think there is a story of some Islamic sufi or imam who wrecked the nose, as they can't seem to stand representational art, like the destruction of the buddha statue in Afghanistan...the sufi took umbrage and it was noted he wrecked it. According to the legend, the locals were so p!ssed they in turn hung him and buried him nearby the Sphinx. Napolean seems to have been known as a bit of an Egyptologist actually. </div></div>

Good post.

True, you don't see pyramids in Zululand but there are a few in Sudan, which predate the Egyptian ones. How come nobody talks about the Sudan pyramids?

[rudemonk]

Re: The Original Egyptians

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sukuna</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
point being made here that even how they idealized themselves does not have to map to the reality it could also be &quot;a like to have&quot;, like the broad shoulders.</div></div>

yup, and to go a little more in this direction, it is commonly known that royalty liked to have the fiat of the Gods, and that rulers tried to invoke, if not directly claim, to be descendents of Deity...Like the Law Stele of Hammurabi and the legal code, to give it ooomph Ham made the claim it was given him from the God Shamash. Or look at Moses. Can anyone in their right mind actually believe that an all powerful God would resort to speaking to Moses from the confines of a burning bush, or would need Moses to ascend some mountain to pick up the fax...err...stone tablets. If God really wanted to impress the Jews of the import of the Ten Commandments, I mean. He is God. How about dropping a 64 inch solar powered Plasma in Moses' lap with each commandment looped with crazy visual effects. BAM How about that sh!t! But the people who made up these stories couldn't come up with that. Or look at how many rulers had themselves depicted as giants, dwarfing everyone else. I guarantee if he had done something ill like that, people would have been getting tattoos of the ten commandments. Instead people literally believe Moses had to carry some slabs of rock which God chiseled up.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: monk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
and Africa is a vast continent, it's huge, and you don't see pyramids in Zululand. Isn't Ramses credited with most of the monumental architecture, is it fair to call him an 'original' Egyptian...or are the original Egyptians actually the people who were united into &quot;Egypt.&quot;
</div></div>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style="font-style: italic">why must you see pyramids to see civilization and as something to be proud of? these pyramids served purposes just as any other objects in Africa. Why to follow the road of European fascination with them is a definition of being truly black is beyond me </div></div></span>

Got me. I think things like the Sphinx and the pyramids are nice and all, certainly epic feats, maybe kind of pointless though? Or the pyramids in the Americas. I mean human sacrifice, that basically sucks, you want to talk about ignorance and ignorants. So you have people who built a monumental structure for an idiotic purpose. I mean what do the pyramids really do, beyond being incredible feats of architecture and engineering, and maybe astronomical points of reference or tombs or whatever the hell they are.

but people tend to gloss over these ancient cultures, skimming for what's useful or what can prove an agenda or point, without taking the whole of it into consideration. The ancients got a lot of stuff wrong, they were confined to be products of their time, and they were really kind of ignorant if you look at them. true they of course pushed boundaries etc, and we stand on their shoulders so of course we must all strive to understand our collective and singular histories as peoples, but it just goes to show *what* people think of as an accomplishment. For example Zulu, which I mentioned, their empire did not produce something like a Pyramid, are they then discountable and discardable- yet they handed the British their asses, perhaps their poetry was greater in purpose than any Pyramid Pharoah ordered built, if only they had understood or taught themselves the use of the guns they took. perhaps it can be said they didn't have enough time, maybe they would have built a Pyramid or something equal to it if that must be the benchmark of a worthy civilization...but one has to wonder would your average Zulu warrior, if his impi were to look on the pyramids in Egypt, would they see them the same way as they would view the Pyramids in Tenochtitlan, or as someone from Britain...I would wager yes they probably would. Why would they draw any connection to the pyramids beyond what generally exists for all human beings seeing something monumental produced by human hands. Would an Italian in Milan look at the Empire State Building in NY as a symbol of their own identity, or even an Italian American look to ancient Rome for definition.

These kinds of definitions are all just abstractions which people concoct which we really need to have be transcended and not looked for or dwelt on, in my opinion. I mean this concept people have of 'race' is imbecilic and a need for some kind of identity...for others to see you and recognize you as part of something? That's too corruptible. I always say not to tie yourself too closely to the past. How many times has the birth of civilization been declared, then moved some place else. Africa, China, Mesopotamia...each has claim and record.