MovieChat Forums > The Ten Commandments (2006) Discussion > Um...weren't the Egyptians black?

Um...weren't the Egyptians black?


I saw the photos of the upcoming Ten Commandments miniseries. Weren't the Egyptians of that day black?

KMeister1

reply

Supposedly they were black. There is evidence of this, but it isn't concrete since this period is a bit distant and obscure in a way. I think they just played it safe by getting Middle Eastern/Middle Eastern-looking actors.

reply

[deleted]

For those of us who are old enough to remember President Anwar Sadat of Egypt, his family lineage represented a true Egyptian. As one historian stated, "if ancient Egyptians lived in the Southern Part of the United States during the segregation period - they would've had to sat in the back of the bus, drank from the colored fountains and abide by other segregated laws."

reply

And this proves what??????? A lot of Hindus are very dark skinned as well.

reply

It is true, the Upper Nile were black, as in a range from Saddam's color, to Nubian (which was pure black) the Upper Nile people were a black Middleastern mix, making them mestizos, okay maybe not mestizos but something if they were in Mexico in the 1800s (a little off topic), so techinically it was the half black lost civilization.

reply

______________________________________________________________________________

omar sharif is egyptian, and he is not black, he looks arabic
______________________________________________________________________________

Omar Sharif is of Lebanese and Syrian descent (his parents were lebanese and syrian). He just happened to be born in Egypt. That doesn't mean he is of ancient egyptian descent, as the peoples of the 10 commandments are supposed to be.

From anthropologist's we have learned that the ancient egyptians were afroasiatic. The ancient egyptians were multi cultural, but certainly were not caucasian/european.

reply



Current genetic research indicates that Egyptians are related to the Caucasian race from India. And thus Ancient Egyptians resembled modern-day Indians. (Not southern africans.)

---
Everything God creates is majestic and sinless, and that includes the human body.

reply

What current genetic research are you speaking of? I can't seem to find much on this theory which it seems to be and not pure science. Can you give me a link or something. Thanks!

reply

Arabic refers to the South Semitic language and its alphabet, not to a person. Arab is the correct term here.

reply

"if ancient Egyptians lived in the Southern Part of the United States during the segregation period - they would've had to sat in the back of the bus, drank from the colored fountains and abide by other segregated laws."



so would hispanics, or any minority for that matter.

reply

So did the Irish after the British took over or the Poles between the Germans and the Russians, its time to get over the 'We had it worse' complex. Just ask the Koreans how the Japanese treated them. If you think that the problems of mixed cultures or races are indemic to the U.S. your knowlege of history is sorely lacking. These comments are not directly orientated to ANGELABACA, but you have to post somewhere.

As for the Egyptians they don't even think of themselves as Africans nor their ancient civilations having anything to do with African roots, other then a geographical location. Note; Ramses the Great had red hair.

reply

[deleted]

pretzel-jetzel; One thing we know he was not bald nor looked like YUL BRYNNER!
New discoveries are being made all time. Example, it is possible that CLEOPATRA VII was of a mixed heritage. When it was commonly believed before that the PTOLEMYs' were of all Greek heritage and practiced a strict inter-marriage among themselves.

One thing I do know from personal experience. Egyptians consider themselves Egyptians and not Africans. Their 'Historical Civilization' which they are very proud of was created by them and not peoples that they looked upon as barbarians. Their words not mine.

reply

Endemic

reply

niplips; Your point or are you just wasting our time?

reply

So, apparently, did Cleopatra.

reply

Sadat's mother was an escaped slave from Ethiopia who fled to Egypt.

reply

No they weren't, you're all wrong, really. The Croen.

reply

[deleted]

I recall that back when the "Ramses the Great" Exhibit was in Dallas, some of the local black community leaders raised a fuss because they said Ramses was black, but wasn't being presented as a such. When asked about it an Egyptian representive traveling with the exhibit stated "Ramses was not black or white. He was Egyptian."


Quoted for truth.

reply

Ramses the Great's mummy in Cairo has red hair and a very Roman looking nose. He would have looked very much like the Egyptians of today. When some people argue that the Egyptians were black they fail to mention that there were different time periods within that long history and different dynasties that ruled. The Egyptian dynasties that ruled and were black were from the lower Nile valley traditionally known as the "Upper" region. Confusing I know but when certain dynasties came up from what we would consider lower Africa to conquer and rule the upper "Lower" Nile region the artwork then reflected their appearance which was indeed black. So those who argue they were black and those who argue they resembled today's Egyptians are essentially both correct, depending upon the dynasty.

reply

And then there's the question of makeup. Women are portrayed as lily white while the men are portrayed as dark red. Since it seems unlikely that the women were one color and the man another it seems likely that one or both genders wore some sort of makeup. And they definitely di vary depending on the era. Ramses II looks very caucasian with a thin aristocratic face while Tutankhamon looks more like modern day blacks. And of course Ramses is the one in this movie.

reply

A lot of cultures have represented the sexes in different colors to distinguish them in art, such as the Etruscans and Greeks. It's a beauty thing, and also comments on the perceived qualities of each sex. It's not meant to be pictorally accurate; they didn't paint themselves red or white.

reply

Yes but the Egyptians invented it. They passed it on to the Minoans who presumably passed it on to the Myceneans who were conquered and became Greeks. And the point was precisely that the colorations weren't accurate representations of their skin color. Oh, and nobody really knows much of anything about Egyptian makeup. For all we know they could have painted themselves bright orange with tiger stripes.

reply

swivel412,

That's just moronic. Just because you don't know much of anything doesn't mean that nobody else does. Egyptology tells us tons of stuff that you are obviously completely clueless about.
Bright orange with tiger stripes... Please.

reply

You have it backwards. Lower Egypt is the area near the Nile delta in the *North* while Upper Egypt is upriver, in the south. Egyptian artwork was for the most part highly stylized, and is of little indication as to whether they fit any modern racial category. In any case, the Egyptians were not "black", and are distinguished from civilizations to the south like the Nubians. Modern racial categories do not fit the ancient world well.

reply

Egyptians of the Upper Nile (Southern Egypt)were, but those of the Lower Nile (Northern Egypt) were not. Looking at the art of the peroid you can how the two are represented. There is a distinct difference in the dress, headgear, skin color and facial features between the Upper and Lower Nile.

reply

[deleted]

omar sharif is egyptian, and he is not black, he looks arabic

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

Well one thing is definitely for sure...NONE of the Egyptians were pale white skinned with straight blond hair and blue eyes.

reply

"Well one thing is definitely for sure...NONE of the Egyptians were pale white skinned with straight blond hair and blue eyes. "

Well, as far as you may speculate.

reply

They were not "black" as in negroid, sub-Saharan black. They were Semitic looking like Saddam, the late King Hussein and Colonel Khadaffi of Libya.

Afrocentrists trying to pass off the Egyptians as the great, lost Black civilization are just a bunch of hokum, although there probably was some racial mixing among the Southern Egyptians and the Nubians, they were predominantly a medium skinned people.

reply

I am posting this as a reply to the first post on this thread, but the following is really meant as a reply/response to everyone that has posted on this thread. In this post, I will attempt to address and clear up some of the issues regarding race, ethnicity, and the people of Ancient Egypt. I may not go about doing it in the most organized way, but I hope to at least hit on most of the things that come up in discussions related to this issue. I’m doing this in part because I’m extremely irritated by the ignorance that is being flaunted in this discussion. It is beyond my understanding how the people on this thread can ramble on and on about something and with each word make it more and more obvious that they have absolutely no clue about what they’re talking about. Some of the more laughable examples have been references to Hindus (which is a designations related to religion, not race or ethnicity), Mexicans, and various & sundry rulers, political leaders, etc. of different countries of the modern Near & Middle East. I’ve also been astounded by some peoples struggles to properly comprehend and understand basic colors, such as shades of white, black, red, brown, and tan.

Before I get started, one of the first things to keep in mind is that there's more to racial & ethnic designation that just "Black" or "White".

What we in North America (and the rest of the English speaking world as well) refer to as "Black" people are the descendants (primarily) of Sub-Saharan Africans. That means south of the Sahara Desert. North Africa - Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco, and part of Sudan - has never had a significantly sized "Black" population. It is considered part of the Near & Middle East.

To know what the Ancient Egyptians looked like, we can look at the way they depicted themselves in their art. They had reddish-brown skin; almond-shaped eyes; thin lips; long, straight, narrow noses; and straight black hair (aside from a couple of stylized representations which we can discount in which people are depicted as being black, white, yellow, green, or blue, sometimes along with wings and other animal features and a couple of times larger than the other people around them). This description (the first one mentioned), not only fits with the physical remains we have of Ancient Egyptians (such as mummies), but matches the physical appearance of the Copts as well. The Copts are a small, persecuted minority group in Egypt who have long been known the be the descendants of the Ancient Egyptians. They are relatives of the Berbers and some other non-Arab ethnic groups living in North Africa. This also makes it a little more believable that Ancient Hebrews/Israelites/Jews were apparently able to pass as Ancient Egyptians at certain times with certain people as the Bible seems to indicate they were. Take someone who looks like what we know the Ancient Hebrews/Israelites/Jews to have looked like (and I can write another, longer post on that if you like), shave their face and head, put on Egyptian style makeup, clothes, and wig, (Egyptian men & women wore makeup and wigs) and it's not too hard to see why some people were fooled. Moses lived the first 40 years of his life as a member of the royal family of Egypt (although his position may have helped discourage questions about his true heritage). Zipporah and her sisters identified him as an Egyptian to their father after their first encounter with him (although they were Midianite and of Hebrew lineage as was Moses). Hundreds of years before, Joseph’s own brothers knelt before him, never questioning his identity as a high ranking Egyptian official (although, again, his position along with other factors may have kept them from really thinking about any issues related to the man’s heritage). Much later, the Apostle Paul may have been mistaken by a Roman soldier for an Egyptian after shaving himself (head, face, and all) as part of a vow (although it is probably more likely that the soldier mistook him for a particular Jew from Egypt).
By contrast, when the Ancient Egyptians depicted Black Sub-Saharan Africans, it looked like something that we might interpret as a racist caricature today. The skin and the very curly hair blended together, being the same pitch-black color. They appeared to have a prominent, low, sloping brow; a very broad, wide, flat nose; and big, thick, full, bright red lips.

The Ancient Egyptians never called themselves black. They referred to Egypt as The Black Land, which they documented as being a reference to the feature of their land that meant the most to them - the rich soil deposits brought by the flooding of the Nile. Although the people of Egypt were dominated by the "black" peoples living south of them from time to time, these brief periods of domination never lasted too terribly long in the bigger scheme of Egyptian history, and there was never a significant genetic impact made during these periods. Besides, they were more often dominated by and in contact with the Semitic peoples living north and east of them.

Finally, don’t try to say that the Ancient Egyptians were or even looked like Arabs. The Arabs were pretty much confined to the geographic region known as the Arabian Peninsula until the spread of Islam much later. Then, the Arabs spread throughout the Near & Middle East, intermarrying with the locals and imparting their language, culture, and religion to all. Pretty soon everyone was calling themselves "Arabs". However, Arabs don’t really factor into any Bible stories at all.

reply

[deleted]

shadymugs,

That assertion (that the Babylonians were Arabs) flies in the face of what history (as well as present day reality) shows to be true. What information are you basing this assertion on? Ask modern-day Chaldeans, the descendants of the ancient Babylonians, and they well tell you in no uncertain terms that they are NOT Arabs, nor were their ancestors. As I said in my first post, at that time, Arabs lived on the Arabian Peninsula. Kinda makes sense, huh? I mean, Arabian Peninsula, Arabs... Get it? It’s only a fairly recent thing (within the past millenium or so) for other peoples throughout the Near & Middle East to call themselves Arabs (I explained why in my first post, but I can try to make it more clear if you need for me to). Your post is another example of what I was saying irritates me in my first post! You seem to have such confidence in your ignorance!

reply

Upon further consideration, I feel the need to rectify my statement that "Arabs don’t really factor into any Bible stories at all."
The Kingdom of the Queen of Sheba was on the Arabian Peninsula, so that would technically make her an Arab.
There are also a handful of other references to the peoples of the Arabian Peninsula scattered throughout the Bible.
Peoples that were the ancestors of those outside of the Arabian Peninsula who call themselves Arabs today play a prominent role in many Bible stories.
However, it needs to be made clear that the peoples of Ancient Egypt and Ancient Mesopotamia were not Arabs, although a few of their descendents them would later intermarry with Arabs.

reply

The Arabs were not the olny ones on the Arabian peninsula. The Queen of Sheeba was Sheeba and spoke Saebean (I know i mispelled it) not Arabic. Sheeba had a stronger cultural connection with Aksum (in ethiopia) than it did with the rest of the peninsula for along time

reply

Sudan doesn't have a significantly sized black population? Okay...

Fact: Africa is a multicultural, multiethnic, and multiracial continent(including but not limited to SE, SW Asians, Semites and Caucasians). Did you know that there are people who look like "North Africans" in "sub-saharan Africa"? That there are people who look like "sub-saharan Africans" in "North Africa"? I really would like to know how you would classify those people. And who is it exactly that considers "North Africa" to be the Middle East? Certainly not the individuals who live in those countries, since they do identify themselves as Africans.

Fact: The ancient Egyptians originated from Punt - the horn of Africa - which is modern-day Somalia. There was a lot of migration(and I imagine, intermixing) in and out of Egypt, but all its legitimate(royal) rulers (note, not the Ramesids), were of Punt. (Trivia tidbit: the Odua people of (mostly) Western Africa are originally from Egypt - they left as a result of the Islamization of Egypt)

Fact: Egyptian art is completely symbolic. For instance, they depicted men with red paint and women with yellow ochre to signify that the men spent more time out in the sun and were thus darker than the women. Ask any Egyptologist if you require more enlightenment.

Fact: Thousands of freed slaves were able to successfully pass for Caucasian during the post-slavery and Jim Crow era in the United States(who knows, one of them might be your ancestor). This in no way negates their heritage.

Fact: The Egyptians only depicted people that they came across. This would include Greeks, Syrians, Hamites, Hittites, Hyksos, Libyans,etc. They depicted the Nubians in the manner in which you described, but because it was art (remember, Egyptian art is completely symbolic), they depicted them in an offensive, derogatory manner because they hated them; they'd been their enemies since the foundation of Egypt. It's the same way the Palette of Narmer depicts Upper Egypt subjugating Lower Egypt, even though in reality, the transition from two separate civilizations into one Egypt for the Old Kingdom was a peaceful economic and political alliance.

I could go on like this, but I hope you get my point.

Here's a cool link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversy_over_race_of_Ancient_Egyptians

Remember, the library is your friend.

"Let thy speech be better than silence -- or be silent." - Dionysus the Elder

reply

IdleMusings,

First off, you know nothing about me. You do not know my Racial or Ethnic background. You do not know what levels of education I have achieved or in what areas I have achieved them in. You do not know what my occupation is. You do not know what Countries or Continents my travels have taken me to. I could go on and on saying what you don’t know about me (and it would all be relevant and go towards giving you an understanding of how informed I am concerning the issues being discussed), but I won’t. I’m not terribly interested in sharing this information with you either, but I will say this: while you may have read some websites promoting an ill-informed revisionist view of African history, I have no need to consult any Egyptologist concerning these matters, but if I did, I could undoubtedly do so much more quickly and easily than you could. That’s part of the reason that I didn’t bother to click on your link. I have much more reliable sources than wikipedia.org at my disposal. Now, on to refuting some of your statements...
Fact: I said part of Sudan. The "Black" population of Sudan has generally stuck to the Southern 1/3 of the Country. The Northern 2/3 do not currently, nor have they ever, had a significantly sized "Black" population. It is this Northern 2/3 that is considered part of the Near & Middle East.
Fact: Yes, that’s right, the Near & Middle East, which is the proper name for this region. It includes parts of Africa, Europe, and Asia. Being an African, European, or Asian and being a resident of the Near & Middle East are not mutually exclusive identities. In, fact, for someone to be a resident of the Near & Middle East, it is necessary for them to be African, European, or Asian. Knowledgeable people, including the people of North Africa, are aware of this and acknowledge it to be true.
Fact: The use of the term "Black" (as well as its predecessors and the more recent term "African American") in reference to a person’s race originated with English-speaking persons of predominantly European descent (aka "Whites"). The term has always been used to refer to people of Sub-Saharan African descent. Sub-Saharan Africa was the practically the only source of the slaves that are the ancestors of the people whom this term is used in reference to. Ancient Egyptians were not Sub-Saharan Africans, therefore, they were not "Black". Many peoples of Africa (including people from some Countries that you named) who may have a skin color similar to that of some of the peoples of Sub-Saharan Africa consider themselves to be not only a different Nationality, but a different Race entirely (and vice versa).
Fact: The Egyptians depicted the people of Punt as looking almost identical to themselves. The location of Punt has always been and continues to be disputed. The Horn Of Africa and specifically Somalia have been considered as possible locations, but only by a minority of Scholars. Almost as many place Punt as far away as somewhere on the Arabian Peninsula. However, the overwhelming majority of Scholars agree that Punt was on the Continent of Africa, but much closer to Egypt than the Horn, although they still disagree about where exactly. Some contend that Punt was actually the name of a region of Africa and not necessarily a specific political entity.
Fact: Egyptian art is not completely symbolic, stylized, or conventionalized. That’s all that I can say. It’s simply not true. There is certainly a high degree of this present within Egyptian art, but Egyptians were sticklers for accurately representing various Nationalities (in addition to other things such as weapons). They were certainly not going to depict themselves as looking completely different than the typical Egyptian looked. More Egyptian art depicts women as being the same reddish-brown as the men than depicts them being any other color. I would also disagree with the listing of peoples that the Egyptians depicted in their artwork, but I guess it’ll do and I’ll let it stand.
I could go on like this, but you get my point.
The rest of your post was either not worth my time, too convoluted and obviously wrong to attempt to disprove, or was completely irrelevant and did not contradict what I said at all.
Remember, the internet is no substitute for actual scholarship and published academic works.

reply

these are movies and shows. everyone is already dead

reply

ahman 83,

We are free to discuss this issue if we so choose. Some people think that it is important to portray historically significant persons, places, events, etc. as accurately as possible. Others don't think it's that important, but have something to contribute to a discussion of how that would be achieved. Just because you aren't knowledgable enough to contribute, doesn't mean that others shouldn't. I'm sure that you have an interest that the rest of us would consider asinine, and - if you ever do actually interact or communicate with other people - you might actually discuss this interest with them, maybe even at lenght and in detail. You might even debate, disagree, and argue with them! Using "get a life" as your subject is unecessarily harsh and comes off as immature and childish. Any number of people could be extremely derrogatory and even cruel to you using only the information from your post. I noticed when I looked at your profile that you have been an imdb.com member for nearly a year, yet this is the first time that you've contributed anything. Nearly a year, and this is all that you've contributed? Kinda sad. My suggestion to you is if you don't understand something (which I imagine happens quite often), keep it to yourself unless you would like to know more and ask questions in order to learn, but don't waste your time and effort making an ass of yourself by attempting to put down those who are more thoughtful than yourself. Also, if you've got a life, why did you spend any of it reading 20 posts on a topic that you could care less about?

reply

cos-9,

Thanks for all your comments. It's a fascinating subject, and I think you've led us through the intricacies admirably. One suspects you're an academic; I hope you've published something on the topic.

I remember getting into a huge argument with a (supposedly) educated woman, a teacher, who assured me that I was racist because I didn't agree that Cleopatra was black. This woman (who was African American) spouted the most overt racism I've ever had anyone say to my face, and yet in her mind, I was the one who "didn't get it." I tried to explain, as you do here, that race involves more than just black and white, and that, even if you want to simplify and try to discuss only black and white, you can't do so in terms of 19th- (or for that matter 20th-) century American history. I couldn't even get her to understand that even if Cleopatra's "missing" grandmother was a slave, that didn't make her black. (I'm sure you know the whole argument.)

Anyway, thanks again.

reply

That type of extreme argument is not helpful, but it also isn't really relevant to the contemporary problem--studios and those casting films feel the need to put Anglo-Saxon whites into the major roles.

Moses was probably not "black" persay, but he certainly wasn't Anglo-Saxon white.

Hollywood is a stickler for NOT casting minority characters into roles of white historic characters (or even fictional main characters), what is with the propensity to do the opposite?

reply

xianb,

I couldn't agree more with your point that studios need to cast more ethnic actors (I used to date an Asian actor; go look for Asian faces on American television).

But I don't think that was the thrust of this thread, which seemed to be trying to assert that ancient Egyptians looked like modern African Americans. That's what cos-9 was refuting, and that's what I was agreeing with.

If your point is that they didn't look like modern Anglo Americans, I would agree with you too.

But I don't think we can make valid points about a genuine problem by using specious arguments.

reply

And just, btw...

Naveen Andrews is not "white". He's Indian (East Indian). Granted, he's also British, but racially speaking he's not considered "white". And while I agree about the issue of casting ethnic actors, I also know that, pragmatically speaking, you work with what you have, and a movie like the Ten Commandments, shot in the US, looking for British accents (and the movie industry knows that Americans tend to look for accents when they're looking at characters in a foreign setting... one of the main reasons "Rome" chose actors from the UK rather than the US), you're going to have a short list of experienced ethnic actors. It's a Catch-22. Since Hollywood has just recently gotten better about casting ethnic actors, there often aren't enough experienced ethnic actors to cast even if the director wants to cast them. They had similar problems with "Into the West", even though they were good about casting as many Native Americans as possible. There are even more problems when you need a large number of extras. (I understand that they had a good number of Moroccan extras, but I can't remember where I read or heard that (might have been Naveen's interview on one of the morning shows) and the web site hasn't been updated for trivia yet.)

So while I agree I'd like to see more, I was also very happy to see Naveen Andrews cast as Minereth, and the inclusion of so many ethnic faces among the minor players and extras.

reply

When looking at photos of Middle eastern, Northern African and Indian people the differences are not set in concrete or bone structure. The big problem is how Western European(white) Moses looked. This is an ongoing problem with both Moses and Jesus. They are modeled after paintings by white Europeans.

reply

kennrussell,

Thank you very much for your flattering post! I really appreciate it. Sorry it's taken me so long to get back to you.
Yes, Cleopatra was a Ptolemy. The Ptolemies were from Macedonia, which - at the time - was considered to basically be Northern Greece. They were also incestuous for the most part. This pretty much rules out the possibility that Cleopatra looked like anything other than your typical Macedonian, and that would be a far cry from her looking anything like "Black" Sub-Saharan Africans or even like the typical Ancient Egyptian.
It appears to me that many people have an almost emotional "need" for certain ancient groups of people to be of a particular race (and sometimes for them to not be of a particular race) despite all evidence to the contrary.

reply

Whoa!

o.k. "First off, you know nothing about me."
Yes. We know nothing about you, but your diatribe does not lend credence to your viewpoints, and I've met more than a few well traveled, presumably educated idiots whose scholarship wasn't worth a dime, so let's get off our high horse, shall we? You really don't know who anyone else here is either. For all you know, someone lurking here may be a leading Egyptologist (Which I tend to doubt, but still...) And since many of the current historical theories about Biblical and Classical history, especially afrocentrist revisionist historical theories, are controversial, even if someone here was a leading Egyptologist, that doesn't mean that s/he would agree with your viewpoint, and saying that you consider your sources "reliable" does not make them so (much less demonstrate that they are so to the satisfaction of a scholastic audience. if this were truly an academic audience, you'd need much more documentation than your word to demonstrate the reliability of your sources- which you should know if you are as academic as you seem to purport to be.)

That said, I do tend to agree with many of your points concerning revisionist history, but please... that "Fact: ..." format in and of itself lowers your credibility. Very little in history is established "fact", especially when you're talking about anything prior to the Industrial Revolution. At the most it's generally accepted theory or well established interpretations of the data.

For example:
"Fact: The use of the term "Black" (as well as its predecessors and the more recent term "African American") in reference to a person’s race originated with English-speaking persons of predominantly European descent (aka "Whites"). The term has always been used to refer to people of Sub-Saharan African descent." This statement is demonstrably untrue. While it is true that most negro slaves in the US came primarily from the West Coast of Africa and the legal definition of "black" in the South East generally refered to people of that descent, in slang "Black" has had many meanings. Even in American history, "black" has been applied to people of varying descent including Jews (along with most Middle Eastern, Mediteranian and , the Irish, and various other immigrant classes to differentiate them from people of English descent and as late as the 1950s East Indians in England were still considered "black" and Australian aborigones are even now refered to as "black" by several different English speaking peoples within the UK and Americas, as are some Pacific Islanders. Even a little research demonstrates this statement as false.

That said, I think it's interesting that the entire concept of race seems to have started in Egypt, and the fact that the Egyptian "Book of Gates" (dating back to 11th century BCE) lists 4 distinct "races" (determined not just by skin color but also by tribal and national identification), which are now generally refered to "Egyptians", "Asiatics", "Libyans", and "Nubians" demonstrates your assertion that Egypt was, indeed, multicultural.

Finally, the whole "Cleopatra was Black" phenomenon gets my goat as well. While the period of Ramses II was far removed from that of the Ptolomies, people who have an emotional investment in the idea that certain historical personages must have been black seem to ignore the fact that entire periods of Egyptian history were dominated by "Europeans" (assuming you consider blond hair, blue/green eyed "Macedonians" to be "Europeans" because of their skin tone.) While there is a very slight chance that Cleopatra was black (there were Nubian consorts in the Ptolemy line and we don't know for certain who Cleopatra's mother was), it seems a far fetched possibility. And even more so when you consider her portraits on coins (which have very "classical" greco-roman features.) Of course, if you look to history and what few portraits we have of her, she's also not particularly "beautiful" either. She was *powerful*, which was more important. If one wishes to look for a beautiful "Black" woman in history, one has only to look as far as Nefertiti, whose surviving busts show that she was both Black and Beautiful.

But to get to return to the original argument... no, the Egyptians weren't necessarily "black", and there's no reason to believe that the ruling class in Egypt was "Nubian" during the time of the Hebrew exodus. Furthermore, there is much evidence to support that they were not only multicultural, but also far less hung up on the whole issue of skin color than we are today.

reply

catdeville-1,

You seem to have missed that my post that you are responding to was made in response to one made by IdleMusings directed at me. Did you read that post? If so, mine would make a little more sense. For example, the "Fact:" format is something that I would never normally do. It was done in immitation of IdleMusings post.

reply

cos-9,

Your writings are well-researched and well-stated. Unfortunately, to the cultural relativists and historical revisionists of the world, there's no reason to let logic or facts stand in the way of what they want to be true. Thanks for the insights.

Art is not Truth. Art is a Lie that makes us realize Truth.

reply

MadMax-47,

Thank you for the compliments. I appreciate it very much.

reply

he genealogical chart in Genesis 10 lists Ham (Khem/ Khawm/Kam/Cham) as the paternal father of the Black Afrikans and from these Afrikans originated Egypt, Babylon, Persia, *beep* Ham had four sons: Cush (Ethiopia/Nubia), Mizraim (Egypt), Phut (Libya/East Afrika), and Canaan (Palestine) (Genesis 10:6). The ancient Egyptians are identified in the Bible as Hamites/Khemites (Psalm 106:21-22; 78:51; 105:27), and were descended through the line of Mizraim which is the name given for Egypt in the Hebrew Old Testament.

"Kemet" is an ethnic term derived from the word Khem (Khawm/Cham/Ham) which means burnt or Black. Ham, one of the three sons of Noah and the direct ancestor of the Egyptians, was Black; moreover, the Bible repeatedly refers to Egypt as the Land of Khawm /Ham, and equates Ham with Egypt. (Psalm. 78:51; 105: 23, 27; 106:21, 22). In other words, the Bible is calling Egypt the Land of Black people.

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. However, Western historians, Egyptologists, and professors disseminate the misinformation that the word Kemet only refers to the colour of the land which it can, and not to the colour of its people which it does. These Egyptologists, scholars and historians have deliberately manufactured this deception based partly on a section of Herodotus' statement which says that Egypt is a land of Black soil; completely ignoring the fact that he also said that the Egyptian people were Black.

Examine this sample of kings from the 1-5th dynasties of the early Egyptian period which many historians suggest was dominated by white rulers.
Pharaoh Narmer-Menes, 1st dynasty ruler of Egypt Hotepsekhemwy, 2nd dynasty ruler of Egypt Sanake, 3rd dynasty ruler of Egypt Khufu 4th dynasty ruler of Egypt Userkaf 5th dynasty ruler of Egypt
(1) - 1st dynasty (3890 - 2686 BC). Narmer (Aha/Menes) was the first unifier of Upper and Lower Egypt.
(2) - 2nd dynasty (3890 - 2686 BC). Hotepsekhemwy.
(3) - 3rd dynasty (2650 - 2575 BC). Sanakhte was the first pharaoh of the third dynasty of ancient Egypt.
(4) - 4th dynasty (2575 - 2467 BC). Pharaoh Khufu was the second king of dynasty 4 of the Old Kingdom.
(5) - 5th dynasty (2465 - 2345 BC). Userkaf was the founder of the 5th Dynasty.

These professors and Egyptologists sought to deceive the world by painting the picture that Egyptian civilization was created by the people who originally came from Asia, yet no Asian parent can be found anywhere. There are no buildings, writings, or cultural material to provide the evidence that anything came from Asia that could have produced what was found in Egypt, but on the other hand, there is plenty of evidence which clearly point to the fact that the reverse was true, including these words from the Egyptians themselves. "We came from the source of the Nile, the foothills of the mountains of the moon". A map will show that they either came from Ethiopia or Uganda, so taking the Egyptians own words as to where they came from, that would be the hinterlands of Afrika, up river, up the Nile, near either Mount Ruwenzori or Mount Kilimanjaro, which would take them either into Ethiopia or the Uganda, Kenya, Tanzania areas.

The Egyptians used only one term to describe themselves - KM(T) - which literally means Black men. The term represents a collective noun which describes the whole people of Pharaonic Egypt as a Black people, and this is the strongest term existing in the Pharaonic language that indicates Blackness.

Note the carving on the hieroglyph below where on the left centre there is a symbol that looks like a little stair step which is the hieroglyphic emblem or Medu Netjer symbol for KM. The symbol that looks like half a ball is the hieroglyph for T, and from these you get KMT (Kemet) and terms like chemistry, chemical, Kham. The symbol is enlarged and shown again separately on the right for clarity.

Article, how Egyptians saw themselves Hieroglyphic symbol referring to Black Egyptians

So KMT is the strongest word in the Egyptian language for Black, but in addition, note that there are also two little people sitting beside this symbol which indicates that it is referring to Black People, that is, the Black people of the Black land. So the Egyptians have given us a physical description as well as the term they used to call themselves, in their own words - KMT - Black people.

Note that the Egyptians made no distinction between themselves and the Nubians in the temple or in the tomb of Rameses III. The one on the left is Nubian; the one in the middle between the Semite and the Asian is Egyptian. This clearly shows that the Nubian and the Egyptian are identical to each other in physical type, which is the reason they are portrayed as BLACK.

Mural of races as depicted by the Ancient Egyptians

The original people of Kemet never depicted themselves as Asian or European types, and are never shown with white or pale skin on any of the authentic artefacts until the foreign period.

So there is more than enough Biblical proof supporting the Black origin of Egypt, but even in modern times there was an extensive range of techniques utilized by Dr. Cheik Anta Diop in the course of his Black-Egyptian efforts which included: accurate bone structure measurements and meticulous studies in the many related areas of anatomy and physical anthropology; examination of the epidermis of the mummies of Egyptian kings to verify their melanin content; comparing modern Egyptian and West Afrikan blood-types; detailed Black-Egyptian linguistic studies, the authentication of clear Black-Egyptian cultural traits; the writings of early Greek and Roman travellers as well as other scholars who described the physical characteristics of the ancient Egyptians as pure unmixed Blacks.

Speak Spanish like a native Latin American

When the original Egyptians were at the pinnacle of their glory they were not a mixed group by any stretch of the imagination. This mixing occurred during the middle dynasties in particular, when foreign people migrated to this great land and started intermarrying, and this may have triggered the downfall of this great Black Civilization.

Of course White supremacists, professors, scholars, historians and so on want you to believe that it was the other way around, that Egypt was originally a white nation until Blacks arrived and intermixed especially during the final dynasties like the 18th, resulting in the destruction of Egypt and causing Egypt to become a decadent and degenerate society because of this heavy infiltration of Black blood. They have even created a rule of thumb which states that any civilized white country will revert to a lower level of culture once the population becomes excessively mixed with alien genes. Portugal is sited as an example, but of course they will not point out that when practically all of Europe was living in the dark ages, the Black Moors returned to uplift and bring them out of their barbaric state and back into the light again, restoring some semblance of civility, just as they had done before.

Naturally modern Egypt would have changed considerably as a result of the waves of invasions by the Arabs and other foreign people, and this would have impacted heavily on the colour variations of the present region, but white Egyptologists only focus on the most recent world of the white and mixed people of the Greco-Roman period, erroneously teaching that the ancient Egyptians had always looked that way physically. This is like trying to prove that ancient America has always looked like the present day white population.

In fact, when white people visit Egypt today, the locals immediately recognize them as Khawaaga which means foreigners, but when Afrikan Americans visit they are often mistaken for native Egyptians and referred to as Masri or Egyptians. This is because. Egypt is, and always has been a Black Afrikan nation.

Since the Cairo Symposium of 1974, the Caucasoid origins of Egypt along with the western Asiatic theory have gradually been abandoned in most scholarly writings, which have been replaced by a new “mixed race” perspective without offering any significant evidence to support this new hypothesis, yet these far-fetched ideas continue to flourish in the popular media like television, modern paintings, cartoons, comic books and museum exhibits, which focus only on the foreign period of Greco-Roman occupation that signalled the fall of the great Black Egyptian empire.

Download movies, music

For decades, the National Geographic Magazine has played a key function in the misrepresentation of ancient Egyptian images. It started with a "so called" authoritative scholarly article issued in October 1941 which contained over 20 paintings by H. Herget, showing wild fantasy drawings of pale-skinned ancient Egyptians, and short Afrikans called "Deng" in Egyptian but "Pygmy" by modern Westerners, as an obscene caricature with a leash around the ankle, Black skin, ridiculously large red lips resembling an ape-like creature. The supporting text was prepared by William Hayes from the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York. This most vile and absurd anti-Black painting from that 1941 series shows that the editors of the National Geographic, which has set the standard and continues to be a leader in publicizing make-believe Caucasian images of ancient Egyptians, including modern day publishers who still use these images, are completely shameless in their racist representations of Black people.

Euro-American scholars continue to use these ridiculously outrageous images today as illustrations in their publications to enhance their scholastic writings. Clearly this ongoing fraud and deliberate misrepresentation of ancient images demonstrate the persistent attempt to continue denigrating Black people.

Edomites represent a group of whites which descended from an albino named Esau who was born ruddy (red) and hairy according to the Bible. (Gen. 25:25) The Bible also refers to white skin as a condition of leprosy (Num. 12:10-12, Lev. 13) and states that a race of people, (the Gahazites), was born white due to being cursed! (II Kings 5:27). In fact it was covetousness on the part of Gehazi that caused him to become cursed and converted to white for lying to Elisha after he had taken money and gifts from Naaman, the captain of the Syrian Army. "Therefore the leprosy of Na'aman shall cling to you and to your descendants forever. Then Gehazi went from Elisha's presence and he was as white as snow."

The Bible shows the true origins of the white race, where greed and covetousness, proved to be responsible for the conversion of Gehazi and all his offspring from Black to white forever.

The ancient Egyptians recorded the Tamahu which means created white people, and early Egyptian writings generally refer to whites as Typhonians (white devils). There was a migration of Afrikan Albinos northward to what is present day Europe, but remember that during Biblical times Europe was a part of Afrika until the Europeans designated and divided Afrika into the regions of Europe and the Middle East.

After these “white devils” were first released into the Black community in the Near East some 6000 years ago, they caused severe strife, so they were rounded up by the Afrikans, stripped of everything, and exiled to the caves and hills of the Caucasus Mountains.

So being totally cut off from civilization, these whites degenerated into uncivilized, nomadic savages, staying that way until about 2000 B.C. when numerous hordes of white barbarians suddenly left the Caucasus region and stormed all the Black centres of civilization throughout Mesopotamia, the Near East, Afrika and India, destroying and usurping them.

In other words, the arrival of the white man signalled the destruction of these ancient civilizations and the beginning of the white man's rise to power. The word Caucasian may have been derived from Caucasus, the mountain region where these people were held.

Ancient Egyptians painted brown

In depicting themselves through their art, the ancient Egyptians used brown paint to indicate Black skin, as illustrated in this painting. Black signifies Sacred, holy, powerful, reborn or resurrection.

reply

[deleted]

"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversy_over_race_of_Ancient_Egyptians";

Please: Wikipedia is hardly a know-al, scientific source.

The source you credit is mostly made of views and opinions - and not facts!

reply

I never presume to base any declarative statements I make on anything other than fact(s). How you choose to perceive said fact(s) is entirely up to you.

Wikipedia is a good source of information, to a certain extent; however, I don't see what led you to believe that just because I posted a link to it, I consider it my sole source of information. Anyone who relies on just one source for information is a moron; and even more of one when that one source is nothing but their own opinion.


"Let thy speech be better than silence -- or be silent." - Dionysus the Elder

reply

[deleted]

I do think that the egyptians in the hollywood movies are not portrayed as the real Ancient egyptians they are always played by a person who is white. That is what every one make a fuss about. Who really know how a ancient egyptain looked, many people are just guessing . You have consider for many years egypt has been invaded by many different races who most likey mixed with the locals.Causing egypt to have people with many different skin color not just one base color. Like the people said in a early reply that black people in american dont have the same color, they come in all different shades caused by the of the mixing of the races. So I dont believed that all ancient egyptian were black and of one race they were made up of all different colors and races.

reply

Depending on who conquered whom, Ethiopia or Semetic tribes, the intermingling and "arranged" marriages for political power, who knows the "melanin" shades?? Who cares.

"Karma is a "triple-whammy!!"

reply

yeah and the real Mosses was not a Scottish man........what are any of your points?

reply

I think most of the Egyptians, espeically the royals, were of some kind of Roman decent as well. The "black" people in Egypt were the Nubians and were mostly in the position of slaves. I think....

reply

rossaka,

Think so, huh? Obviously what you "think" isn't based on knowing anything at all. Your post was pretty idiotic. I hate to be that mean, but why would you even bother making such a post? Are you completely unaware of how ignorant you are in regards to these subjects?

reply

[deleted]

um... sorry... wrong time period, and terribly uninformed.

While Nubians are indeed 'black', and of African descent, and there were Nubians in Egypt from at least 2300 B.C.E. (Old Kingdom records mention trade with Nubia), they would not necessarily have been slaves (although some probably would have been, as one of the things that Nubia traded with Egypt were "slaves", and it was common among African tribes to trade enemies and members of other tribes captured in battle - which is a large part of where the African West Coast slave trade to the US began.) During the 12th century B.C.E. (the period when this movie is set, the reign of Ramses II), most of Nubia (already on its way to becoming Kush) had been annexed for several centuries as part of Egypt.

As for Romans... Rome wasn't around at the time of this story. Ancient Rome arose circa 8th century B.C.E. (Roman mythology places the founding of Rome by Romulus and Remus at 753 B.C.E.) ... this story takes place about 4 or 5 centuries earlier. The precursors of the Romans, the Etruscans, were not even known during the time of Ramses II, at least as far as we know. There is a theory that the "Sea People" conquered by Ramses III may have been Etruscans, but we don't know.

It wasn't until much later (343 B.C.E.) that Egypt fell to invaders (first to Persia, then Greece, and even much later to Rome, and finally to Persia again.) Until then Egypt was ruled by Egyptians.

reply

Um, that's all well and good, but you're conflating Biblical "history" with archaeology.

reply

[deleted]

Lacking any education or knowledge in the subject matter, I'll make this simple observation: The original poster only has 2 posts in their profile. In other words, me thinks you've all been played. Score 1 for the trolls!

You can't fix stupid.

reply

i just cant believe that you people are taking these conversations about ancient cultures here
and thinking you will get a straight answer.

look it up in a book.

reply