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

The Ancient Egyptians were all shades just like the Egyptians of today are now.

Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.

reply

Aiw12674,

What do you base this knowledge on?

reply

cos-9 I have been to Egypt and I base the knowledge on what I have seen and common sense.

Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.

reply

My father is Egyptian and like people of any race/origin...color of skin tone varies from light to dark so yes it is possible that some Ancient Egyptians had dark skin...it does not however mean they were black...it also doesn't mean they weren't...anyways what real difference does it make? they are by race known as Egyptians not black not white not redheaded and many of their leaders or highly respected 'royalty' were Roman or Greek by birth so the mixture of races/nationalities was not uncommon either...

reply

No... More like "Brown"... The Egyptians descended from Noah's grandson (i.e. Ham's son) Mizraim who is listed second among the sons of Ham. (Ge 10:6) Mizraim was the progenitor of the Egyptian tribes (as well as some non-Egyptian tribes), and the name came to be synonymous with Egypt. (Ge 10:13, 14; 50:11) Thus, the word "Egypt" in English translations actually renders the Hebrew Mits·ra´yim (or Ma·tsohr´ in a few cases, 2Ki 19:24; Isa 19:6; 37:25; Mic 7:12). The Amarna Tablets, written in the first half of the second millennium B.C.E., refer to Egypt as Misri, similar to the modern Arabic name for the land (Misr).

The Black "African" ethnic group was descended from Ham's (i.e. which incidentally means, "brown" in Hebrew) son Cush and Put, NOT the cursed Canaan! Despite what white racist preachers teach "knowingly" INCORRECTLY to their unquestioning and unchallenging flocks! Egyptians were of various skin tones just like the ancient Hebrews were. The Israelis today IMO can not "legally" prove through Mitochondrial DNA (MtDNA) ANY such connection with the ancient Hebrews hence making the 1948 land grant by US President Truman to be very suspect, as the ancient Romans under Cestus Gallus destroyed ALL Israelite birth/death records in 70 C.E. I’m sorry if that pisses off some Jewish people… but IMO that is the truth (as I see it of course)!

Egyptians today, and some ancient ones, too are mainly of Arabic ancestry and not the central African ethnic groups as American Black amateur "arm-chair anthropologists" try to "guess at" incorrectly at (i.e. Farakhan et al). Black or "dark skin" Ethiopians and further southern Africans were kept as servants to ancient Egyptian royalty (i.e. Ethiopian Eunics, etc.). However, further south there were ancient reports of darker skin pharaohs, but not in Egypt. If you need a skin tone to base ancient Hebrews and ancient Egyptians look at the complexion of Hollywood actors like Denzel Washington (a medium toned Black man) to Rita Moreno (a lighter skin Puerto-Rican woman). IMHO Puerto-Ricans make excellent American castings for Hollywood movies about Arabic lands like Egypt and Israel (i.e. Palestine). Omar Sharif (i.e. Jethro) AKA "Michael Shalhoub" born in Alexandria Egypt in 1932 was an absolute perfect casting and skin tone for Jethro, Moses father-in-law! Dougray Scott (Moses) and Mía Maestro (Ziporah) were all wrong!!!

Incidentally Moses was born in 1593 B.C.E., in Egypt, being the son of Amram, the grandson of Kohath, and the great-grandson of Levi. His mother Jochebed was Kohath’s sister. Moses was three years younger than his brother Aaron. Miriam their sister was some years older.—Ex 6:16, 18, 20; 2:7. Therefore I believe that he was descendant of Noah's son Shem as were all Hebrews. IMO his skin tone was probably much like the medium brown skin toned Hollywood actor Will Smith (i.e. Muhammed Ali fame). Not much unlike Yeshuah Ben Joseph (Jesus) who too was a descendant of Shem (i.e. the word Semite) by way of his mother Mary. The people in Palestine have recently proven through MtDNA that they DO descend from ancient peoples like the Phoenicians (i.e. Tyre and Lebanon). It's time the Likud Party to step up and have thier people take the DNA "mouth swabs" and let Harvard University prove once and for all time who "they" are really from. My guess is that most of them descend from ancient northern Europeans and northern Asians not Hebrews or Semites. Look up on GOOGLE the "Cohanim Project" - modern DNA links to Moses' brother Aaron. As they say in poker: "Time to put up or shut up!"

The parts about skin tone are just IMHO. The rest is the Bible "thumping" truth! :-)

reply

spookysr,

It's amazing how often I actually end up saying this to people on these boards, but pretty much everything that you just said is wrong and incorrect.

reply

Um... OK... But I think I used the abbreviation IMO or IMHO so how could my "opinion" be logically called "wrong" without the obligatory caveats? Wouldn't it be better to say that it is YOUR OPINION that my opinion is wrong? That would be less dogmatic of you...

However, I know for a fact that I was not wrong about the Bible names, places, and chronology (e.g. as I don't follow the wholly misguided and arguably false Constantian-based pro-Platoian-Sumerian dogmatic teachings of modern theology with it's very sly and subtle anti-Christian undertones - i.e. Devil and God don't really exist? If He does it must be in a pagan Aristotle-esk 3-in-1 deity? Jesus was born on a pagan holiday of Dec. 25th? yada yada yada - Balderdash!).

Skin-tone... well I'll give you that... that was just W.A.G. on my part. Guilty as charged. But I say its an educated wild-a%%-guess. I mean explain to me how people of SW Asia and northern Africa can have facial features and skin-tone of Dougray (i.e. Moses) and the other Europeans in this history poor movie?

FWIW - Jesus, Moses, Pharaoh, et al where NOT blond blue-eyed Europeans as falsely depicted in many Hollywood movies, churches, and totally inaccurate Italian paintings! They were Mediterranean dark complexion SW Asians of small stature and build. That's already been proven through modern archealogy and anthropology. If you are using the complexion of modern day Isrealis you are deluding yourself. They arguably do not have the corresponding MtDNA genetic material of Aaron and his people as some people today actually do. That can be proven with one Q-Tip swab in their mouths. IMO the darker skin Palestinians and Egyptians of today are much better representations of ancient SW Asian and North African skin-tones of the Bible. "The Truth Is Out There..." - Chris Carter

OK the Apostle Paul was a Roman (European) citizen (via Tarsus) but was actually that was in name only. He was an ancestral Hebrew. So "white" guys did not write the Bible! They were all Asians. Also the only "true" darker skin toned Blacks mentioned in the Bible where probably Ham's wife, Cush, Put, Nimrod, Jethro, Ziporah (his daughter), Queen of Sheba (probably Yemeni), The Ethiopian Eunuch, and maybe the Shulamite Maiden. Of course here AGAIN that is only IMHO! So I could stand corrected if someone wants to elucidate... I'm open-minded...

reply

"FWIW - Jesus, Moses, Pharaoh, et al where NOT blond blue-eyed Europeans as falsely depicted in many Hollywood movies, churches, and totally inaccurate Italian paintings! They were Mediterranean dark complexion SW Asians of small stature and build. That's already been proven through modern archealogy and anthropology. If you are using the complexion of modern day Isrealis you are deluding yourself. They arguably do not have the corresponding MtDNA genetic material of Aaron and his people as some people today actually do. "

Ummm... just curious... where did you find archeological reports of mitochondrial DNA tests done on Jesus, Moses or (and which, btw?) Pharaoh? I'm sure that I'd *love* to see that.

If you can't cough that up, then your statements are non-sequitor inferances based on unrelated data.

Now, I grant you, I also don't believe that Jesus (if he existed historically) or Moses (ditto) were "blond, blue-eyed Eurpoeans), but nothing concerning either the historiocity nor the DNA background of Jesus or Moses has been "proven through modern archeology and anthropology." Some things may have been posited, based on extrapolation of data which is considered contemporary, but without their bodies we don't have data from which to derive such tests. And while Moses' body might show up some day (doubtful, and how would you know it was his?)... there's a catch-22 if Jesus' body ever shows up, since, Biblically speaking, he ascended bodily into heaven and left no body behind.

So could we stop making ludicrous statements as though they were fact?

Finally, as to "'white' guys did not write the bible! They were all Asians." Not only do I not consider Semetics, Middle Easterners or Mediteranians "Asians", you're making another ludicrous (as well as racist) statement here. While I agree that the Bible was not "written" by what most folks would consider "white guys" (Anglo-Europeans), making sweeping statements about who wrote it shows an ignorance of Bible History. Most of it (the Old Testament) was written by what we would currently consider "Semetics" over a period of several centuries. The rest of it (the New Testament) was written many years, also by a number of writers, one of whom, the most proficient, was (as you admit) Roman. But for the most part the authors are unknown. (Genesis, for example, is a compilation of texts written by two different authors, which is not unusual.) And since the authors are various, spread over centuries and unknown, how could we have any proof as to their mitochondrial DNA?

"However, I know for a fact that I was not wrong about the Bible names, places, and chronology (e.g. as I don't follow the wholly misguided and arguably false Constantian-based pro-Platoian-Sumerian dogmatic teachings of modern theology with it's very sly and subtle anti-Christian undertones - i.e. Devil and God don't really exist? If He does it must be in a pagan Aristotle-esk 3-in-1 deity? Jesus was born on a pagan holiday of Dec. 25th? yada yada yada - Balderdash!). "

"So I could stand corrected if someone wants to elucidate... I'm open-minded... "

Yep... we see how open minded you are. Son, before you go "teaching your grandma how to suck eggs", you might want to finish seminary. Or at least take a decent class or two on Bible history, ancient history, comparative religion... pretty much any area which you're spouting off about. Or at least do some research before you go spouting off what you "know for a fact...", because what's coming out of your mouth (or more precisely, through your fingers) just convinces us of your ignorance and close mindedness.

reply

[deleted]

My belated response (essay) to Grandma' CATDEVILLE from April 12 2006 posting.
I put name labels for when I (Grandpa' ) was speaking and when she (Grandma' ) was speaking. I hope its easy to read and offers some insight to where I "was really coming" from and not succumb to invective vitriol of some. US President Abraham Lincoln once said something really "smart" but I won't stoop to cloaked invective speech. Oops!
LONG POST WARNING!


April 12th 2006
SPOOKYSR: "FWIW - Jesus, Moses, Pharaoh, et al where NOT blond blue-eyed Europeans as falsely depicted in many Hollywood movies, churches, and totally inaccurate Italian paintings! They were Mediterranean dark complexion SW Asians of small stature and build. That's already been proven through modern archeology and anthropology. If you are using the complexion of modern day Israelis you are deluding yourself. They arguably do not have the corresponding mtDNA genetic material of Aaron and his people as some people today actually do. "

CATDEVILLE: Ummm... just curious... where did you find archeological reports of mitochondrial DNA tests done on Jesus, Moses or (and which, btw?) Pharaoh? I'm sure that I'd *love* to see that.

SPOOKYSR: OK you read my statement wholly out of context Cat. I was referring to SW Asians (southwest asians) of antiquity, not just Jesus, Moses, or Pharoah. But IMO they were not blond blue-eyed Europeans. I guess my writing style needs work, as I am not good at typing technical essays and thesis on a web forum like this. If you want to see some work done on what Jesus MIGHT have looked like try Googling “Richard Neave” of U of Manchester UK. If you are not up to date on MtDNA and other WELL DOCUMENTED research then I advise you to Google: "The Cohanim Project" and Harvard’s Dr. Spencer Wells "National Geographic Genographic Project". BTW Moses’ and Jesus’ skeletal remains were “taken care of by God” (for obvious reasons) as is well documented in the biblical record. Regarding Pharaoh Ramses skeletal remains I guess you just don’t keep up with current Egyptology news huh… Nope you Google it…

CATDEVILLE: If you can't cough that up, then your statements are non-sequitor inferances based on unrelated data.

SPOOKYSR: OK if you say so… You’re the S.M.E. (subject matter expert) huh?

CATDEVILLE: Now, I grant you, I also don't believe that Jesus (if he existed historically) or Moses (ditto) were "blond, blue-eyed Eurpoeans), but nothing concerning either the historiocity nor the DNA background of Jesus or Moses has been "proven through modern archeology and anthropology." Some things may have been posited, based on extrapolation of data which is considered contemporary, but without their bodies we don't have data from which to derive such tests. And while Moses' body might show up some day (doubtful, and how would you know it was his?)... there's a catch-22 if Jesus' body ever shows up, since, Biblically speaking, he ascended bodily into heaven and left no body behind.

SPOOKYSR: If he existed historically? Uhhhh... So you've never heard of the Roman (i.e. pagan anti-christian) historian Flavius Josephus - huh? Sorry "Grandma'" there is no 'Santa Claus' but there was a 'Jesus Christ'... I never said anything about Jesus or Moses bones! They are all gone! One does not need DNA evidence in the light of old and modern Archaeology and Anthropology. DNA forensics is a new technique to both. I agree I need to work on using the subjective use of the subjective term "proven" versus "posited" or "IMO" (in my opinion). I’ll try and work on that Cat.

CATDEVILLE: So could we stop making ludicrous statements as though they were fact?

SPOOKYSR: Albeit, I have not "proven" to be the "ludicrous" one I will try and stop using the subjective phrase "proven"... oops!

CATDEVILLE: Finally, as to "'white' guys did not write the bible! They were all Asians." Not only do I not consider Semetics, Middle Easterners or Mediteranians "Asians", you're making another ludicrous (as well as racist) statement here. While I agree that the Bible was not "written" by what most folks would consider "white guys" (Anglo-Europeans), making sweeping statements about who wrote it shows an ignorance of Bible History. Most of it (the Old Testament) was written by what we would currently consider "Semetics" over a period of several centuries. The rest of it (the New Testament) was written many years, also by a number of writers, one of whom, the most proficient, was (as you admit) Roman. But for the most part the authors are unknown. (Genesis, for example, is a compilation of texts written by two different authors, which is not unusual.) And since the authors are various, spread over centuries and unknown, how could we have any proof as to their mitochondrial DNA?

SPOOKYSR: Again you are taking me waaay out of context Cat. How "ludicrous" (sorry ). My use of the phrase "white guys" was rhetorical (i.e. for effect) not racist. Racist would mean that I some how negatively impacted a racial group. Did I? The land once known as ISRAEL (Palestine by some), Turkey (aka Asia Minor) , Babylon (Iraq), Persia (Iran), Media (southern Iran and Afghanistan) were all known as mainly as "Asia Minor" by ancient and modern theologians (IMO!!!). Today all of those lands are in southwest Asia. If you want to argue geography on this one guess who looks "ludicrous"? Not me!

Oh my... did you think ASIANS just meant Chinese (et al east Asian) people? Oh my... how, well you know...

SPOOKYSR: Genesis was written by TWO authors??? Uhhh... sorry it was written by one Bedouin-like Hebrew guy in the Sinai desert in the year 1513 B.C.E. namely Moses. But if you want to include the conjectured writings of "Adam" I guess I could accept that but Moses did the actual scribing of the book (scrolls) known as Bereshith to the Hebrews. "New Discoveries in Babylonia About Genesis" written in 1949 by P.J. Wiseman (a real SME) points out that skeptics were totally wrong about "writing being unknown" in Moses’ day.

SPOOKYSR: "However, I know for a fact that I was not wrong about the Bible names, places, and chronology (e.g. as I don't follow the wholly misguided and arguably false Constantian-based pro-Platoian-Sumerian dogmatic teachings of modern theology with it's very sly and subtle anti-Christian undertones - i.e. Devil and God don't really exist? If He does it must be in a pagan Aristotle-esk 3-in-1 deity? Jesus was born on a pagan holiday of Dec. 25th? yada yada yada - Balderdash!). So I could stand corrected if someone wants to elucidate... I'm open-minded... "

CATDEVILLE: Yep... we see how open minded you are. Son, before you go "teaching your grandma how to suck eggs", you might want to finish seminary. Or at least take a decent class or two on Bible history, ancient history, comparative religion... pretty much any area which you're spouting off about. Or at least do some research before you go spouting off what you "know for a fact...", because what's coming out of your mouth (or more precisely, through your fingers) just convinces us of your ignorance and close mindedness.

SPOOKYSR: OK Grandma SME... but don’t go sucking any raw eggs... Salmonella and all ya’ know! Duly noted that I shouldn’t try to type things without written reference material next to the keyboard. I’m getting old (probably older than you Grandma' – maybe) and I do tend to say things without checking - busted! The ol' gray memory is not what it used to be. So good advice. I’ll try and work on that. Care to 'splain what balderdash I’m guilty off in my last statement up there ^^^ Grandma' SME???

SPOOKYSR: Well I guess next you’re gonna’ say the doctor, gospel writer, and apostle Luke was a European and not at all an "Asian" SW or otherwise? Well some unenlightened types hold that Luke was a Gentile (a non-Jew), basing this mainly on the scriptures at Colossians 4:11, 14. Because Paul first mentioned "those circumcised" (Colossians 4:11) and later referred to Luke (Colossians 4:14), the implication is drawn that Luke was not of the circumcision and hence was not a Jew. But this is by no means conclusive! Romans 3:1, 2 states that God entrusted his inspired utterances to the Jews (i.e. SW ASIANS*?). Luke is one of those to whom such inspired utterances were entrusted. The Scriptures likewise furnish no basis for identifying Luke with the Lucius mentioned at Acts 13:1 or Paul’s "relative" of the same name referred to at Romans 16:21.

IMHO the ancient Egyptians melatonin ranged from BROWN to DARK BROWN not BLACK ¹... That's just in my humble opinion of course!

¹BLACK - BTW - is any human on planet Earth really the so-called skin color "BLACK" ? I thought that black was the absence of all color, scientifically speaking (i.e. blackness of outer space?). Since our Sun (star: Sol) is actually a yellow star. That would mean that we all share various shades of that color naturally in our melatonin (and vision) not black which is not even a color, per se. The color Red denotes the high iron content of our planet's (et al) soil. Brown is a combo of Red and Yellow. And Adam's name means "from the red earth" in Hebrew... ergo...
Also the same applies to the human skin-color incorrectly called "WHITE". It doesn't exist naturally in human melatonin unless you are Albino or Enemic, IMO of course. And the definition of "white-light" is not the same as human "white" skin-color. If ya' want to toy with the skin-color term "TAN" and it's many shades... well that would be a bit more accurate...


SPOOKY-SR


*Israel is and always has been in Asia (albeit the southwestern end). If you live(d) in Southwest Asia you are an Asian. Just like if you are an North American (or "euphemistically" American - as even Mexico and Canada are technically Americans just not U.S.A. citizens) if you live North America. As the sage old wise man George W. Bush once said: "What is our children learnin'?"

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

reply

spookysr,

I currently don't have the time to really get into all of that with you, but you seem to be assuming alot about what I think, whereas if you actually read my posts, you'd kow better. I do want to mention one thing, though...
I'm assuming that you're using the term "SW Asians" to refer to persons of Hebrew descent. In that case, there is one Biblical author who does not fall into that category. Luke, author of the Gospel that carries his name, as well as the Acts Of The Apostles, was Greek.

reply

I've been reading this post, and I can't help but reply.... it's ridiculous. First, I happen to be Egyptian. I do consider it to be part of the Mediterranean/Africa/and Middle East. And for anyone who has never been there, you will find that Egypt is a diverse mixture of the three.

As far as "color" goes... why don't you all just watch "Journey of Man". Because really... what the hell does the bodies genetic reaction to certain climates have to do with a nation? But if we must distinguish, to this day, we as Egyptian don't really separate by skin color... I mean, it's noticeable that more dark people live in the south and more lighter people live in the north... but here's a news flash "ITS HOTTER AND SUNNIER IN THE SOUTH!"

Later...

reply

[deleted]

I think the earlier, Egyptians were black. I mean we have Nefertiti's bust that clearly shows as one person has already stated, she was both black and beautiful. Part of the problem surfacing here, is that anything of importance that blacks have contributed is swept under the rug. I mean if you ask many people, especially children..most dont have a clue where Egypt is.. its like it is its own continent..anything but refer to it being in and apart of Africa.

Moses didn't look like the guy in this movie, nor did he look like Chuck Heston. And it is probably fairer to say, he looked far more like Denzil then he did Chuck. The point is that any one of importance that might have been black is showed as white or we take the safer line and go with someone darker (Liz Taylor for example and yes I know Cleo was Greek and that far back they were far darker then Liz..). Since we are speaking of the bible in regards to some of this, the Bible clearly says what Jesus looks like.. He had curly hair like wool..etc...look it up for yourself.. The discription is ignored, and clearly describes him of being of a black descent. If the bible flat out said he was black for those that can't figure it out..it probably would have been either stricken from the book or quoated as being wrong. I myself dont know any white person that fits that..I have not seen one movie, one tv show one picture that follows what the bible said. If it did, there would be a uprising of how untrue it is..

As to Moses, wasn't he and Jesus both of the same descent? If the bible describes what Jesus looks like and Moses and jesus were of the same race..and Moses manage to pass as Egyptian... we now sholve it under the rug and say well he passed because his position was to high in the royal house?

Many things people see as fact are being challenged everyday. For instance the age of the pyramids, and the sphinx being far older then originally stated. Once an idea that is globally accepted is true and fact has been laid down, few will go out on the limb to say oh this is wrong..this will rewrite history. Tell a lie enough times it becomes truth.. Well it doesn't really, but dont rely on this board or what people tell you. If you really want to know, do your own research..

reply

I mean we have Nefertiti's bust that clearly shows as one person has already stated, she was both black and beautiful.

You mean this world famous bust? http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/46/Nefertiti_30-01-2006.jpg



BAFTA rules! Screw AMPAS!

reply

Synergi,

First off, I'll say that I personally have no agenda to discredit or rule out possible contributions by "Black" Sub-Saharan Africans or their descendants. I don't think there'd be anything wrong with having actors & actresses of such descent playing Ancient Egyptians, Hebrews, Israelites, Jews, etc. It wouldn't be any less accurate than the current casting for such roles (except for a few exceptions). In fact, it might be an interesting, welcome change. However, I would still rather see an attempt made to utilize casting, hair, makeup, etc. to make such characters have more of an ethnically accurate appearance, and that does not mean making them look like "Black" Sub-Saharan Africans. You can read my earlier posts as to why this is the case in regards to Ancient Egyptians, and I'll spare you the details as to why this wouldn't be the case with Hebrews/Israelites/Jews. If you really wanna know, though, let me know.
Secondly, your interpretation of Nefertiti's bust is debatable. I - along with many others - see no resemblance to true, full-blooded "Black" Sub-Saharan Africans and see that it matches what all other evidence points to as being the correct colors & featuring (and therefore, by extension, race & ethnicity) of Ancient Egyptians. If they really wanted to, I'm sure plenty of peoples could see themselves in this bust, as well as other Ancient Egyptian artwork - Arabs, Berbers, Hispanics/Latinos, Native American Indians, people from the East Indian Sub-Continent, etc., etc...
Third, Cleopatra was of Macedonian descent, which was considered to be the Northern part of Greece at that time. What evidence do you have that Greeks of the time were far darker than Liz? I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just asking how you know. We have plenty of evidence to indicate that in Macedonia there were plenty of fair skinned people with red hair or blonde hair (such as Alexander The Great perhaps), as well as blue and green eyes. However, I tend to think that Cleopatra was not so fair skinned or fair haired, and that Leonor Varela probably bore more of a physical resemblance to her than most other actresses that have played her onscreen.
Finally, in reference to your claim that "the Bible clearly says what Jesus looks like," you give no reference for this supposed passage that achieves this. However, the Biblical passage that I assume you were referring to is Revelation 1:14-15 which states, "His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow, and his eyes were as a flame of fire, and his feet like unto fine brass, as if they had been made to glow in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters." In the context of this first chapter of Revelation, this is a reference to a vision that John had of Heaven, and of a supernatural being he saw there, referred to as "one like unto the Son of Man" and therefore assumed to be Jesus in His Heavenly form, because He referred to Himself as the Son of Man. The word "brass" is replaced by "bronze" in some translations, but the meaning is the same. Either metal would be glowing (as stated in the passage), not blackened, after being removed from a furnace. It's still just his feet, though, and not his whole body. Also, the text refers to the color of his head and hair in comparison to wool (which is white), not its texture, but even if it is was the texture, the wool of the sheep native to the Near and Middle East is straight. But if it were the type of sheep with curly wool, well, I know plenty of white people with hair that is that curly. Ever heard of the "Jewfro"? At any rate, it is still NOT a physical description of Jesus in His Earthly, human form. If it were, it would say that his head was white. "White" people have white heads! How would we interpet that "His eyes were as flames of fire"? Does that mean they were red, orange, yellow? Or white or blue like the hottest part of the fire? Or did they flicker different colors? No, it's not a physical description of Jesus in His Earthly, human form. If I'm completely wrong about what passage you are referring to and I somehow missed it, please let me know the book, chapter, and verse.

reply

Hi Cos,
No I actually did read your posts and enjoyed them. I could point out a black african model that looks a lot like that bust. Imani i think is her name. She was once all garbed in egytpian clothing for one of M Jacksons videos a long time ago. But im not really agreeing or disgreeing with what you said. I was mostly commenting on the fact that Hollywood down plays any important role Blacks have had in history. Be it Egytpian Pharohs to open heart surgery. I think more were complaining they would like to see the roles in movies somewhat portrayed as close as possible to what they were. We can see Chuck Heston playing Moses back in the 50's..but today in this day and age its time to move past that.

I was on the Wonder Woman board where people were saying they'd like to see Wonderwoman played by someone of color..and I thought it should lean toward someone with greek since Wonderwoman is suppose to be greek. However Isis is also in the works. I think it makes far more sense for someone of color to play her..but that probably won't happen either.. and I think its that kind of thing that is the real question the original poster is asking. Black or Arab or something in between.. I think we all agree Moses wasn't a Scot or Viking.

reply

Synergi,

Iman is her name, and she is Somali. She did appear in Michael Jackson's video "Remember The Time" as an Ancient Egyptian Queen. However, Iman is darker than color of the bust of Nefertiti. I'd love to see her play an Ancient Egyptian Queen again, though.
Despite their skin color, many Somalis do not consider themselves to be of the same race or ethnicity as the Sub-Saharan Africans that are the ancestors of modern day "Black" people of North America. However, it is, of course, a debatable issue.
I'm not going to get involved in a discussion about anything related to Wonder Woman.
I noticed that you had nothing to say about what I had to say in regards to your claim that that particular Biblical passage tells us that Jesus was Black. Is this because you agree?

reply

No the coloring isn't the same but, but its close. Iman has a reddish hue to her skin and Somalia is in Africa. We can label her Somalia, to most black people she is still african. I was more or less refering to the facial features of the bust and Iman when she was dressed up in the Egyptian garb. And yes Iman is the one, I couldn't rememeber but thank you on that point.

Im not getting into a debat on Wonderwoman or Isis, I was just making a point about Hollywoods role in not casting the right or atleast close to right racial groups in important roles. The wall reliefs might not show them as pitch black, but black comes in many shades and colors.

As to the passage in the bible, I said that if the passage said flat out Jesus was black it would be stricken from the record or quoated as being wrong. Also, wither it be wrong or right, most black people feel anyone with dark skin is somewhere in the line descended from darker people. Again, the question isn't to debate over Jesus persay..as it is getting away from the original question that started this post...It is really a question about isn't it time Hollywood start protraying the roles blacks have had other then slaves.

What of Herodotus who lived in 5 century BC.. He refered the Egyptian's dark skin and wooley hair. None of which we saw shown in ten commandents unless it was a Nubian slave.. Sadly what it comes down to, is if anyone said Vikings started Egypt..it would be acceptable. To say Black people ruled it..then we distance Egypt as if its not a part of Africa and we look at how they look today to define them.

With all the debate going on over the actual age of Egypt (before it was Egypt) The pyramids, in Egypt along with the Mayans etc.. how much of history from ancient times is actually right? Does anyone really know..can anyone say 100% yes this is a fact?

reply

Synergi,

Ok, now I have no idea what you're saying. It's real convoluted, and I just can't make sense of it. Sorry...

reply

Sorry hun I was in a hurry.I should have re read that.. It has been updated.

reply

[deleted]

foxyfabu345,

You're thinking of the Copts, and they're not "Black". I mentioned them in my first post on this thread. It would be a good idea for you to read the other posts on a thread before you post.

reply

There were probably black people in Egypt before nomads came in from the fertile crescent. The black pharos you often here about were not actually Egyptian, but *beep* or Nubian, from modern day Sudan, but the ancient Ehyptians probably look looked something like the modern copts.

reply

[deleted]

I think we can all agree the Ancients didn't look like Paul Rhys..I mean they didn't even try to go with someone darker.. Yul brenner had more color.. And I think its that side of it, or part of it that was a slap in the face to many.

reply

[deleted]

The Song of Solomon says:
SOS 1:5 I am BLACK, but comely, O ye daughters of Jerusalem, as the tents of Kedar, as the curtains of Solomon.(KJV)

But it also says:
SOS 1:2 Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth: for thy love is better than wine. (KJV)

Was Solomon Black according to the text? Well the SOS 1:2 text suggests him to be GAY as well. It is well known that Solomon loved many WOMEN so perhaps he was NOT GAY and co-authored this with a woman (probably the Queen of Sheba). She was apparently the one who was Black and wanted him to kiss her.

Just as Revelation 1:14 refers to the hair COLOR of the ‘one like unto the Son of man’ we can easily misrepresent the texts if we are not careful.

Now the Hebrews spent at least 400 years in Africa (Egypt) and perhaps more but that is not conclusive evidence of an African ethnicity. Archeology has established that Jewish people in Jesus’ day people did not resemble European stock but also were not of dark-complected lower African stock either. Their complexion was something between the two extremes (perhaps an olive-tan color).

Did Jesus have long hair? Paul writes in 1st Corinthians 11:14 that is it shameful for man to have long hair. Pictures painted in the third century (AD) were found in a Syrian Synagogue that typically reflect Jewish males with short, dark hair and beards. The conclusion here is that Jesus probably did not have long hair and likely wore a beard as most Jewish men of his day did.

reply

life4all,

I completely agree with your conclusions. However, the two verses that you have given from the Song Of Solomon (also known as the Song Of Songs, and sometimes in both versions of the title the word "Canticle" replaces "Song") are given out of context. It is actually an very well known fact that is extremely obvious in the text that there are two speakers in the Song, one male, the other female, and that the verses in question come from passages where the female character is speaking.
Also, having two different speakers of different genders from each other does not necessarily imply dual authorship in the least. In fact, it is generally accepted that the Song is the work of one author.
Any connections between the content of the Song and a supposed relationship between King Solomon and the Queen of Sheba are highly conjectural and pure speculation.

reply

[deleted]

Merissa88,

All that we are told about the identity of the woman in question in Bible is that she is the Queen of Sheba. Sheba is the name of the country that she ruled, which was in the southern part of the Arabian Peninsula. It was not a personal name.
There are a couple of extra-biblical traditions about her that do give a name for her, but none of these can be traced very far back in time. Certainly not anywhere close to the time when the Queen of Sheba actually lived.
Your description of what "Africans say" about her is quite humerous. I laughed out loud when I first read it!
What "Africans" are you refering to? Are you lumping the whole Continent together? Because I can tell you that most cultures in Africa do not have any traditions regarding the Queen of Sheba whatsoever, and those that do can be extremely varied from each other. I'm not familiar with any that describe the Queen of Sheba the way that you do, however.
You seem to indicate that you believe that the Ancient Egyptians were "Black". What are you basing that belief on? Have you not read the other posts on this thread?
You also seem to indicate that you believe that the majority of the inhabitants of modern-day Egypt are for the most part more or less "Black". That's just plain silly. This is such a common knowledge sort of thing that I find myself unable to really offer up anything to refute it. It's just a well known fact that the overwhelming majority of the inhabitants of modern-day Egypt consider themselves to be Arabs, and do not look very different from most of the other peoples throughout the Near & Middle East that also consider themselves to be Arabs. Copts make up the largest minority of Egyptians that do not consider themselves to be Arabs, and there are also small communities of Berbers, peoples of European descent, and, of course, various "Black" African groups.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

Merissa88,

"Blah blah blah blah"? That's real mature! Can't do any better than that, huh? I'm not trying to argue with you! It's not about belief! It's about facts. Certain things are true, and certain things are false. It doesn't fall into the realm of belief at all.
Are you calling me an "anonymous white" person? That statement comes across as kinda racist. Besides, you have no idea whatsoever what my race and/or ethnicity may be! I don't plan on divulging it either, as it is not relevant to what is being discussed, yet would nevertheless unduly "color" peoples perceptions of what I say (pun fully intended again).
And the whole thing about "non-basised archaeologist"? I'm assuming that you meant "non-biased". That's pretty strong to imply that the overwhelming majority of archaeologist that have done any work related to Ancient Egypt have some sort of racial bias against persons of Sub-Saharan African descent. You shouldn't accuse people that you don't know anything about like that. It's not very nice and just plain rude. And non-biased archaeologist see the Ancient Egyptians for what they truly were and don't try to impose this or that agenda on them in regards to race or ethnicity. There are more options available than just "Black" or "White" and everyone who looks at the evidence with an open mind sees that neither of those designations apply to the Ancient Egyptians.

reply



The Black Egyptians are the original settlers of KMT. "The native Sudanese are one of the original pigmented Arabs in that region. They are members of the same ethnic family with the ancient Egyptians, the Ethiopians, the Southern Arabians, and the primitive inhabitants of Babylon. All founders and sustainers of the mighty Nilotic civilization we still admire today. They are very great nation of Blacks, who did rule almost over all Africa and Asia in a very remote era, in fact beyond the reach of history of any of our records.

Egypt is a Greek word meaning “Black.”
bullet The Egyptians of the Bible were Negroid.
bullet The bible says both Egyptians and Ethiopians are descendants of Ham.
bullet Arabs invaded Egypt in the 7th Century AD; therefore,
bullet Arabs have no more connection to Ancient Egypt than Europeans have to Ancient America.
bullet

Black Egyptians were eventually mixed with invading Libyans, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Turks, Arabs and Western Europeans. That is where the mixed people of the modern-day Arabs come from.



The following is supporting evidence from The African Origin of Civilization: by: Cheikh Anta Diop



1.

Evidence from Physical Anthropology
The skeletons and skulls of the Ancient Egyptians clearly reflect they were Negroid people with features very similar to those of modern Black Nubians and other people of the Upper Nile and of East Africa.

2. Melanin Dosage Test
Egyptologist Cheikh Anta Diop invented a method for determining the level of melanin in the skin of human beings. When conducted on Egyptian mummies in the Museum of Man in Paris, this test indicated these remains were of Black people.

3. Osteological Evidence
"Lepsius canon," which distinguishes the bodily proportions of various racial groups categories the "ideal Egyptian" as "short-armed and of Negroid or Negrito physical type."

4. Evidence From Blood Types
Diop notes that even after hundreds of years of inter-mixture with foreign invaders, the blood type of modern Egyptians is the "same group B as the populations of western Africa on the Atlantic seaboard and not the A2 Group characteristic of the white race prior to any crossbreeding."

5. The Egyptians as They Saw Themselves
"The Egyptians had only one term to designate themselves =kmt= the Negroes (literally). This is the strongest term existing in the Pharaonic tongue to indicate blackness; it is accordingly written with a hieroglyph representing a length of wood charred at the end and not crocodile scales," singular. ‘Kmt’ from the adjective =kmt= black; it therefore means strictly Negroes or at the very least black men. The term is a collective noun which thus described the whole people of Pharaonic Egypt as a black people."

6. Divine Epithets
Diop demonstrates that "black or Negro" is the divine epithet invariably used for the chief beneficent Gods of Egypt, while the evil spirits were depicted as red.

7. Evidence From the Bible

The Bible states that "…[t]he sons of Ham [were] Cush and Mizraim [i.e. Egypt], and Phut, and Canaan. And the sons of Cush; Seba, and Havilah, and Sabtah, and Raamah and Sabtechah." According to Biblical tradition, Ham, of course, was the father of the Black race. "Generally speaking all semitic tradition (Jewish and Arab) class ancient Egypt with the countries of the black."

8. Cultural unity of Egypt With The Rest of Africa
Through a study of circumcision and totemism. Diop gives detailed data showing cultural unity between Egypt and the rest of Africa.

9. Linguistic Unity With Southern and Western Africa
In a detailed study of languages, Diop clearly demonstrates that Ancient Egyptian, modern Coptic of Egypt and Walaf of West Africa are related, with the latter two having their origin in the former.

10. Testimony of Classical Greek and Roman Authors
Virtually all of the early Latin eyewitnesses described the Ancient Egyptians as Black skinned with wooly hair.

After the conquest of Egypt by Alexander, under the Ptolemies, crossbreeding between white Greeks and black Egyptians flourished. "Nowhere was Dionysus more favored, nowhere was he worshiped more adoringly and more elaborately than by the Ptolemies, who recognized his cult as an especially effective means of promoting the assimilation of the conquering Greeks and their fusion with the native Egyptians." {Endnote 15: J. J. Bachofen, Pages choisies par Adrien Turel, "Du Regne de la mere au patriarcat." Paris: F. Alcan, 1938, p. 89.}

These facts prove that if the Egyptian people had originally been white, it might well have remained so. If Herodotus found it still black after so much crossbreeding, it must have been basic black at the start.

Before examining the contradictions circulating in the modern era and resulting from attempts to prove at any price that the Egyptians were Whites, let us note the comments of Count Constantin de Volney (1757-1820). After being imbued with all the prejudices we have just mentioned with regard to the Negro, Volney had gone to Egypt between 1783 and 1785, he reported the Egyptian Race is the very race that had produced the Pharaohs: the Copts (p. 27).

“All have a bloated face, puffed up eyes, flat nose, and thick lips; in a word, the true face of the mulatto. I was tempted to attribute it to the climate, but when I visited the Sphinx; its appearance gave me the key to the riddle. On seeing that head, typically Negro in all its features, I remembered the remarkable passage where Herodotus says: "As for me, I judge the Colchians to be a colony of the Egyptians because, like them, they are black with woolly hair. ..." We can see how their blood, mixed for several centuries with that of the Romans and Greeks, must have lost the intensity of its original color, while retaining nonetheless the imprint of its original mold. We can even state as a general principle that the face is a kind of monument able, in many cases, to attest or shed light on historical evidence on the origins of peoples. {End quote}

When Egypt was invaded by Arabs - Egypt suffered turbulent times when, in 609 AD, the country had sided with Nicetas, a lieutenant of Heraclius, in the rebellion against the emperor Phocas. Only shortly after Heraclius overthrew Phocas, the Byzantines were attacked by the Persians. The armies of the Sasanid King Khosrau II invaded Egypt, inflicting cruel suffering upon its some of its inhabitants. This Persian occupation lasted six years.

reply

Nothing that anyone posts on this board is going to make any difference to anything, because people who are insistent on branding the Egyptians "black" are not going to accept logical arguments to the contrary--it's too much of an emotional issue for them.

For what it's worth, I studied this issue somewhat extensively at university and have a bit to say about it. If anyone is interested, the "truth" as the vast majority of reputable scholars see it is as follows:

1. Many of the sources that were quoted above in support of the Afrocentrist position (Diop, etc.) have been systematically refuted--see, for example, Mary Lefkowitz's "Black Athena Revisited" or the rather provocatively titled "Not Out of Africa: How Afrocentrism Became An Excuse To Teach Myth as History." Shockingly, Bernal, Diop, and numerous others often used spurious evidence and misleading arguments to make their points. Of course, their proponents are not going to believe me, but if they're confident in their beliefs, I encourage them to pick up Lefkowitz's book and attempt to refute the claims that she and a dozen other leading ancient historians/anthropologists/linguists make in it.

2. KMT does not mean land of the blacks--it means "Black Land" and was used to refer to the black alluvial soil around the Nile River--this was in contrast to DSRT, which meant "Red Land." Similarly, the ancient Greek word for Egypt (from which derived the Latin name "Aegyptus," and our modern word "Egypt") does NOT mean land of the blacks, but "House of Ptah."

3. Greek and Roman writers consistently differentiated between Egyptians and the people who lived to their south. Pliny and others claimed that while the Egyptians had curly hair and dark skin, the "Ethiopians" were darker still and had even curlier hair, and that the Egyptians were actually lighter than the South Indians. This seems like a good description, because it even holds true today, with the population of Egypt appearing more "Negroid" south of Aswan.

4. Egypt is on the continent of Africa, but it would be absurd to claim that everyone on the continent was or is of one race. The North African Berbers, for example, are very different from the Zulus of South Africa. Historically, people of the North African countries have seen themselves as both African and Middle Eastern, and this has nothing to do with race and everything to do with culture. To be fair, most of the proponents of Afrocentrism are referring to the West African phenotype when they say the word "black." The Egyptians were not and have never been West African, and I suspect that people from countries like the Ivory Coast would question it if you claimed that they looked identical to people thousands of miles away simply because they were on the same land mass (and separated by the largest desert on the planet). No matter what color the ancient Egyptians were, they were not the ancestors of the West African blacks whose descendants (forcibly) came to America.

5. Egypt has been and is a racially diverse society. It stands on the crossroads of three continents, so this is to be expected--just like the people from central Asian countries often exhibit a rich variety of phenotypes. It would be a lie to say that there were no ancient (or modern) Egyptians who probably looked like today's American blacks--it would be an equal lie, however, to claim that EVERYONE looked that way. According to most anthropologists, the way the Egyptians look today is probably how the ancient Egyptians looked--some look darker than others. To those that say that Europeans and Arabs "whitened" Egypt over time, (1) levels of immigration were never so high as to substantially alter the local population's makeup (at least according to most cultural anthropologists) (2) from the earliest pre-dynastic sites of Egypt, evidence of multi-racial societies have been found (red haired mummies, realistic art showing people who looked both "caucasian" and "negroid," etc.)

6. Ancient Egyptian art often caricatured different ethnicities (Libyan, Ethiopian, etc.) Ethiopians are often shown with jet black skin, curly hair, and facial scars from ritual practices (something unknown in Egypt)--Libyans and Semites are shown as a bit lighter than Egyptians. It's clear from this that the Egyptians themselves thought there were qualitative differences between themselves and the people to their south (and east).

7. Ancient Egyptian mummies have been found with blonde and red hair--including the mummy of Ramses II. However, I myself have seen mummies that seemed more "black" in their features--again, this supports the almost universally held belief that the society was multi-racial (which makes sense, given its location).

8. The term "black" is a political one, not a scientific one. Is someone black if they possess a single drop of "Negroid" blood? (Then again, what exactly is Negroid, when even sub-Saharan Africa contains such a rich variety of phenotypes?) The irony is, insistent claims about the "blackness" of the ancient Egyptians are often incredibly racist in their reasoning and rely upon pseudo-scientific terminology that was often popular in the 19th century ante-bellum south.

9. Afrocentrism has done a great deal to help the self-esteem of certain contemporary people, which is great--that does not mean, however, that the ancient Egyptians would have agreed with today's politically loaded terminology.

10. The ancient Egyptians cannot be called universally "black," but they also cannot be called "white" from the vantage point of modern terminology--they were simply a North African people who exhibited a range of racial characteristics defined by the people to their west, south, and east.

reply

spqrclaudius,

Good job! Thank you so much! I couldn't have said it better (or even close to as well) myself!
jedioutkast90 obviously cut & pasted these articles from somewhere on the internet, and the less than scholarly nature of the writting is painfully obvious. This is especially true towards the end of the first post, when it really just becomes blatantly racist. It's just plain silly, really.
One thing in particular that I noticed that spqrclaudius didn't mention was the reference to the Moors as being "Black". Despite what Shakespeare thought, the Moors were not "Black" but were close relatives of the Berbers and came from what is now Morocco.

reply

[deleted]

Yeah, I posted this infomation to sink into your heads because all these years this info has been hidden by Western/Euorpean historians and i'm sick of people whitewashing egypt!

Now, exlpain the images of these early kings.

1st king of egypt. dynastyhttp://www.stewartsynopsis.com/images/Narmer.gif

2nd dynasty.http://www.freemaninstitute.com/Gallery/Egyp141_big_copy.jpg

3rd dynasty.http://www.stewartsynopsis.com/images/Hetep.jpg

4th dynastyhttp://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/snofru3.jpg
http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/djedefre1.jpg

5th http://www.sofiaoriginals.com/se525d15.jpg

it is clear they were negroes.

As even the greek scholar said "The Colchians, Ethiopians and Egyptians have thick lips,
broad nose, woolly hair and they are burnt of skin."
-- Herodotus, 450 BC

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

amarantha w,

Thank you very much for your support.
In regards to movies that depict modern Egyptians properly, there are - of course - always plenty of Egyptian movies (as in movies made by Egyptians in Egypt) that hopefully accomplish this.
There is also a movie from Youssef Cahine (one of the better known Egyptian filmmakers) that is very losely based on the story of Joseph from the Bible and the Quran. The title of the movie is Al Mohager (The Emigrant).
Finally, I think that you've got a good point there, so...
Any Egyptologist out there?

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

funn how arabs try linking themselves to egyptians and yet they are not the indigenous people of that land who invaded and destroyed egypt in the 7th centurey ! I was reading a story a few days a ago from a actual egyptian who happens to be Black, she said that arabs are exterminating their people like nearly everyday and they are hiding like animals and many of them are living in the slums of egypt. Just shows how much racism those people have to go throough.

And for you people who believe black egyptians don't exist;
please read this http://www.thumperscorner.com/discus/messages/2152/9008.html?1137179313
http://www.geocities.com/wally_mo/mod_egyptians.html

also please read about how how the christian copts are un-egyptian. http://www.egypt-tehuti.org/articles/copts.html

reply

I don't think anyone is claiming that black Egyptians don't exist, and it's true that classical and ancient scholarship (to say nothing of popular culture) have sometimes underestimated the contribution of black Africa to pharaonic civilization. However, this does NOT mean that Egypt was a black civilization in the modern sense of that term; again, all of the evidence seems to point to a mixed population that exhibited a range of phenotypes (just like today).

The source quoted above about the Copts is highly questionable--how could the Jewish population of Alexandria have been 1 million in the first century AD when Rome, the largest city in world history until the 18th-19th centuries, barely had 1 million people TOTAL at that time? And note that the Jews were a minority in Alexadria--this and similarly questionable claims make me doubt the validity of the websource.

For the record, here are what some ancient historians had to say on the subject of the colors of the Egyptians:

Manilius: When describing the people of the world, he said that "Ethiopians (were) the blackest, Indians, less sunburned, Egyptians, mildly dark, and Moors, the lighest." ("Bernal's Blacks and the Afrocentrists, pp. 113)

Flavius Philostratus (Life of Apolonnius): "The Nubians are not fully black, not as black as Ethiopians, but darker than Egyptians." Notice that the "Nubian" population begins south of Aswan, and that to this day, the people's skin is a beautiful dark brown color, in contrast to most of the people to their north. The Nubians are called by the Latin term "subfusculi" (somewhat dark)

Arrian (Indike 6.9): He desribes the people of the world as follows: southern Indians are similar to Ethiopians insofar as they have dark black skin, but do not have flat noses or wooly hair. Northern Indians are "more like the Egyptians."

Pseudo-Aristotle (Physiognomonica): This describes both Egyptians and Ethiopians as "melanes," but only singles out the Ethiopians for having broad noses and wooly hair.

Herodotus (7.70): Although it's true that he described the Egyptians as "melanes," at this point in the text, he singles out Ethiopians for having the wooliest hair of any race.

Ultimately, though, this discussion is ridiculous--even the ancient authors were generalizing. Can't we just agree that the evidence seems to point to the fact that Egypt was essentially multi-racial, with the population getting darker further up the Nile? To deny this would be sort of unreasonable--you can't argue with Ramses' red hair and hooked nose.

PS In reading over this thread more carefully, I became absolutely horrified by some of the racist and illogical reasoning I saw, including this gem:

"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."

reply


To spqrclaudius

The black egyptians are in fact the oringal settlers of Kemet including the old and middle kingdom, i mean look at their statues and their people, it should tell you enough. Egypt's archaeological came from kush(ethoipoia)and including west africa there are no traces of them coming from Asia, but Africa. Egypt's art and culture is african influenced 100%
http://www.lincoln.edu/history/his307/kmt-clips/dvdsn-002-ppl-of-kmt.wmv

http://www.lincoln.edu/history/his307/kmt-clips/dvdsn-003ramsey-temple.wmv
Yes there were other cultures coming in but still this by no means you should deny the black founders of Egypt.

Like here, Basil davidson british scholar and arccheologicalist shows that black africans actually inhabited north africa and at the time it was at the time it was a Green sahara by which I mean a green valley, it shows them devoloping chariots farming and buildings included!!
check it out.
http://www.lincoln.edu/history/his307/kmt-clips/

The edvidence is clear, egypt was a negro nation with other people living there.

But still egypt is being whitwashed no matter what you saw, here is a bit of good edvidence http://www.raceandhistory.com/manu/vanish2.htm

Now about the copts, The reason why their was to have said been one million is because remeber Ptolemy took over israesl then keep importing jewish assassins including syrian, madesdonians, Asiatics(some persians i think also) to fight off the persians, also them came the ptolemies, but the thing is that Ptolemy including the romans much later kept importing outsiders into egypt for military support also he did to gave them tracts of land among the Egyptian population in towns near the capitals of the provinces, into which Egypt was divided. Since the jewish communtiy was so big many immigrants from israel probably have game and colonized their with them, here
even wikiepdia has the same exact infomation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_diaspora

reply

jedioutkast90,

Quite frankly, your post is so convoluted and poorly written that it is practically un-intelligable.
However, you seem to be implying that the presence of a significantly sized Jewish population in Alexandria in ancient times had the effect of lightening the skin color of the Egpytian people (presumably due to intermarriage).
It is extremely un-likely that there would have been any large-scale intermarriage amongst the Jews and the native Egyptians.
However, even if there were, this shouldn't have impacted the complexion of the Egyptians. Remember, according to the Bible (which, no matter what you think about it, was at least written in ancient times by people that had at least actually seen some Ancient Egyptians) Joseph passed for a high-ranking Egyptian official amongst his own brothers, who never questioned his identity as a member of the Egyptian arristocracy. Moses' identity as a member of the Royal Family of Egypt went unchallenged for the first 40 years of his life. The Jewish Communities of the Near & Middle East have been showed by genetic testing to be closest to being of pure, full-blooded Ancient Israelite descent. Their skin color generally matches what is most commonly seen in Ancient Egyptian art (yet they don't look like "Black" Sub-Saharan Africans by any means).

reply

Well put, cos-9. And as a followup (which I reproduce below):

Ultimately, it's just absurd to claim that Egypt was a ever a fundamentally "Negro" nation, because to do so would imply a kind of philosophy of racial purity unheard of since the 19th century. Why would gene flow from the West and East be cut off? Were the ancient Egyptians racists who refused to breed with the populations that surrounded them? Considering the traditional tolerance of the Egyptians to newcomers and their ability to subsume them into the local population and overwhelm them with culture (like the Chinese), it would be highly doubtful that no intermarriage took place with the Semitic and Berber peoples of North Africa and the Middle East. And of course, this is actually CONFIRMED by the anthropological, literary, and archeological record. There is no such thing as a racially pure country--like it or not, Egypt has always had a plethora of people in it of many different colors, from kings to slaves, and no one was more "Egyptian" than anyone else because of their racial background. How sad that rather than viewing this as a testament to racial harmony, so many people are tempted to use Afrocentrist arguments to justify virulent versions of modern day reverse-racism.

And incidently, since when did the Egyptians become such good models for civilization, considering that it was a brutal nation that enslaved the people around it and remained basically unchanged for 3000 years, producing no great works of philosophy, science, or literature? How ironic that while slaves once sang spirituals about liberation from Egypt, some modern people rejoice in a fantasy of the country as a racially pure black wonderland.

PS The classical population of the whole of Alexandria was not more than 500,000.

reply

[deleted]

Αποτελέσματα doesn't mean Black, it means Egyptian

Root word for black is: μαύρος

Do those two words look even half way close to the same?

Being a descendant of Ham doesn't make them black, it only makes them a descendant of Ham.

Mizraim the son of Ham is looked to be the father of Egypt in the Bible, but the cruse was put on Canaan not Ham:

And Noah woke from his wine, and learned what his younger son had done unto him. And he said, Cursed be Canaan: a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. And he said, Blessed be the Lord God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.

And the Canaanites are not Black and the word for Canaanites Αποτελέσματα, which again has nothing to do with being Black.

In Hebrew the word black is: אמריקאי

In Hebrew the word Egypt is: םירצמ

Notice they are not alike?

רוחשה עבצה is also Black in Hebrew and see now close it is to Negro:
רוע רוחש


The Egyptians of today have very little if nothing to do with the descendants of Mizraim, as Egypt has been conquered and dominated for well over 3000 years since the Pharaohs of the Exodus, by a number of other peoples.


Sorry folks it want post the Hebrew are Greek, just say the poster before doesn't understand Greek or Hebrew thats all.

reply

foxyfabu,

First of all, the proper name for the entire region is the Near & Middle East, although it is often shortened to "Mid-East".
There are many non-Arabic speaking countries within this region, such as Israel, where Hebrew is the dominant language; Iran, where Farsi is the dominant language; and Turkey, where Turkish is the dominant language. Aramaic, Armenian, Berber, Kurdish, and even Greek are also spoken in various places throughout the region.
North Africa - including Egypt, part of Sudan, Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, and Morocco - is considered to be part of the Near & Middle East as well. The majority of the people in North Africa consider themselves to be Arabs, and speak Arabic (although there is also a significant number of people who are Berbers who - of course - speak Berber).
You seem to be under the impression that there is a language called "African". However, this is not the case. There are well over a thousand languages spoken on the Continent of Africa, and most of them are a member of one of the following four distinct families of languages: Afro-Asiatic, Nilo-Saharan, Niger-Congo (which is further sub-divided into Niger-Congo A & Niger-Congo B), and Khoi-San. There are also a significant number of speakers of Indo-European languages (yet another family of languages), including English, French, Portuguese, and Afrikaans. Malagasy, a member of the Austronesian family of languages, is spoken on Madagascar.
Therefore, Arabic (an Afro-Asiatic language) can be considered a language of Africa (although it did not originate there) since a significant number of people on the Continent of Africa speak it (although most of its speakers live elsewhere).
Also, I disagree with your statement that the majority of people on this thread agree that the Ancient Egyptians were of the same race as "Black" Sub-Saharan Africans. I would say that the majority of people that have posted on this thread that are informed and educated on the issue would not agree with that statement at all.
Finally, you have misunderstood the poster to whom you were responding (although I can’t understand how or why). Although I strongly disagree with that person and highly doubt the accuracy of their information, they were not calling anyone an animal. They were saying that because of the way a certain group of people has supposedly been treated by their alleged persecutors, they have supposedly been forced to live like animals. The statement was intended to garner sympathy for the people who have supposedly been forced to live like animals. The poster’s sympathies clearly lie with these people.
"Racist" is a very ugly and very serious thing to call someone, and it is not something that should be done lightly.

reply

cos-9

I have to give it to you that you're still trying to enlighten people, but I think it's a lost hope. Belief is always stronger than fact, and emotionally, for whatever reason, they have to believe in this fallacy.

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

reply

MadMax-47,

Eh, I'm not wearing myself out by posting a little info on some internet message boards. I appreciate the sentiment though. However, I believe some things that alot of people think are pretty absurd though myself.

reply

Go to www.rhifilms.com and see the Q & S section.

They say it is accurate down to the jewellry, sets, and costumes.

reply

Mick2,

I think that you mean the Q&A section. Halmi’s statements are nothing new for this genre. Almost every Biblical movie that has ever been made has had a Director that claimed that extensive, painstaking research was done and that the people involved, as well as the time & place in which they lived, was reproduced with 100% accuracy and authenticity, down to the very last detail.
Unfortunately, this has never, ever been accomplished in any movie.
The Ten Commandments does not reproduce the clothing, the jewelry, the pottery, the buildings, or anything else that Halmi claims accurately at all. I mean, as far as the architecture, furniture, clothing, arms & armour, etc. of the Egyptians goes, there is a sort of superficial Ancient Egyptian-esque quality to the appearance, but no true accuracy or authenticity. This version of The Ten Commandments doesn’t do any better in this department than any previous movie adaptation of the story.
I think that the Art Directors and the Production & Costume Designers often “sell” the Director “a bill of goods” as they say.

reply

All of these posts are very fascinating. There is no doubt that the ancient Egyptians represented all that the Mediterranean has had to offer. But, of all the posts made, I find jedioutkast90's post to be the most inteesting for its argument. The arguments being the visibility of the sub-Saharan African in ancient Egypt. This is despite the politically polarized nature of many of the web-sites which were listed by him/her. The pictures of the sculptures do lend to the idea that the earlier dynasties were comprised largely of people of sub-Saharan African descent. The sculptures of Menkaure, Mentuhotep, Amenemhet III give testament to this. Even the much damaged face of Sphinx displays the prognathism and weathered remnants of such features. The historical accounts of eye witnesses previously mentioned on this board doesn't hurt either. I felt that spqrclaudius' attempt at the descriptions of the ancient Egyptians was a fair attempt, but was not well equipped for its intended purpose. Of all the accounts of the historians listed by spqrclaudius, the earliest was that of Arrian, dated somewhere in the 4th century B.C. This was a time after at least thirty(30) of the Egyptian dynasties had past. For me, I do not find this to be a sufficient enough description to encompass all of the Ancient Egyptians. However, I do find a large similarity in many of the faces of the sculptures from the earlier dynasties to resemble that of the sub-Saharan African.

reply

There are a range of phenotypes exhibited since the earliest dynasties. All of these are Old Kingdom:

http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Alley/4482/Hetepheres-2jpeg.jpg

(Queen Hetepheres)

http://www.courses.psu.edu/art_h/art_h111_bac18/Images/egyptok/rahotep.jpg

(Prince Rahotep and Nofret)

http://www.visitingegypt.com/photo_gallery/Cairo/Egyptian%20Museum/06-the-seated-scribe.jpg

("Seated Scribe")

http://www.butte.cc.ca.us/~dcooper/Lit_up_website/Egypt/images/DSCN0943.jpg

(Another scribe)

http://www.egyptmyway.com/images/photo/egmuseum/djoserhorus_b530.jpg

(Khafre)

http://www.egyptgiftshop.com/images/gallery/th_114.jpg

(Egyptian woman)

http://www.biblepicturegallery.com/free/Pics/Ham.gif

(Image showing how Egyptian art portrayed Sub-Saharan phenotypes, New Kingdom

http://www.numibia.net/nubia/images/nubians_2.jpg

(Another, New Kingdom)

Why would the earliest dynasties be any different from later dynasties? To assume that they were would mean that gene flow from the West and East was forcibly cut off, and there's no reason to assume that that was the case (on the contrary, since so many cultural ideas were coming from Mesopotamia, it seems likely that there were movements of people as well). Moreover, blonde mummies have been found from pre-dynastic sites (though "Negroid" mummies have been found as well). Finally, why does everyone assume that Egypt was "whitewashed" over time--considering that the periods of Nubian political domination were from later in its history, one could also make the case that it was "darkened" over time. Ultimately, however, I think this is misguided--the evidence points toward a consistently mixed population of Berber, Nilotic, and Western Asian/Semitic types.

reply

First Dynasty



1st king Narmer menes <img src=&amp;quot;http://www.stewartsynopsis.com/images/Narmer.gif&amp;quot;>;

Notice his thick lips and broad nose? Sure looks negroid too me!



all the others king have no images of themselves



Secound dynasty

1stHotepsekhemwy <img src=&amp;quot;http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/Hotepsekhemwy2.jpg&amp;quot;>;



3rd king Nynetjer <a href=&amp;quot;http://photobucket.com&amp;quot; target=&amp;quot;_blank&amp;quot;><img src=&amp;quot;http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v319/jedis/9f1fd03f.jpg&amp;quot; border=&amp;quot;0&amp;quot; alt=&amp;quot;Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting&amp;quot;></a>

last king of the secound dynasty <img src=&amp;quot;http://www.pyramidoftruth.com/images/Img37.gif&amp;quot;>;

clearly a negro



there are no images of these other kings



3rd dynasty



2nd king djoser <img src=&amp;quot;http://www.fh-augsburg.de/~harsch/museum/Chronologia/C_a0270/Djoser/djoser2.jpg&amp;quot;>;

last king huni <img src=&amp;quot;http://xoomer.virgilio.it/francescoraf/hesyra/huni.jpg&amp;quot;>;

there are no bust of the other kings of this dynasty



4th dynasty



2nd king



King Khufu! <img src=&amp;quot;http://nefertiti.iwebland.com/portraiture/4d/khufu.jpg&amp;quot;>; The name sounds african and his look looks black african!



3rd king djedefre <img src=&amp;quot;http://chfbs.org/art_web/egyptian_4_djedefre.jpg&amp;quot;>;



4th king Khafre <img src=&amp;quot;http://www.freemaninstitute.com/Gallery/Egyp182_big_copy.jpg&amp;quot;>;

5th king Menkure, <img src=&amp;quot;http://www.freemaninstitute.com/Gallery/Egyp151_big_copy.jpg&amp;quot;>;
with Hathor and Hare-Nome

6th king Shepseskaf <a href=&amp;quot;http://photobucket.com&amp;quot; target=&amp;quot;_blank&amp;quot;><img src=&amp;quot;http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v319/jedis/8d74c71e.jpg&amp;quot; border=&amp;quot;0&amp;quot; alt=&amp;quot;Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting&amp;quot;></a>

5th dynasty

Userkaf <img src=&amp;quot;http://www.freemaninstitute.com/Gallery/Egyp158_big_copy.jpg&amp;quot;>;

Ok, i've had along day and so i will continue to post more images of the black kings

reply

But what are you trying to prove? I agree with you that there were some Egyptian people that probably looked like Sub-Saharan Africans. The only thing I'm saying is that it was a mixed population.

Ultimately, it's just absurd to claim that Egypt was a ever a fundamentally "Negro" nation, because to do so would imply a kind of philosophy of racial purity unheard of since the 19th century. Why would gene flow from the West and East be cut off? Were the ancient Egyptians racists who refused to breed with the populations that surrounded them? Considering the traditional tolerance of the Egyptians to newcomers and their ability to subsume them into the local population and overwhelm them with culture (like the Chinese), it would be highly doubtful that no intermarriage took place with the Semitic and Berber peoples of North Africa and the Middle East. And of course, this is actually CONFIRMED by the anthropological, literary, and archeological record. There is no such thing as a racially pure country--like it or not, Egypt has always had a plethora of people in it of many different colors, from kings to slaves, and no one was more "Egyptian" than anyone else because of their racial background. How sad that rather than viewing this as a testament to racial harmony, so many people are tempted to use Afrocentrist arguments to justify virulent versions of modern day reverse-racism.

And incidently, since when did the Egyptians become such good models for civilization, considering that it was a brutal nation that enslaved the people around it and remained basically unchanged for 3000 years, producing no great works of philosophy, science, or literature? How ironic that while slaves once sang spirituals about liberation from Egypt, some modern people rejoice in a fantasy of the country as a racially pure black wonderland.

PS The classical population of the whole of Alexandria was not more than 500,000.

reply

Jed I sent you a private message..

Even if we agree that Egypt was a melting pot. Someone still had to start and settle it... Are we to believe they all wondered in from all directions at the same time and decided to start this great nation? I wonder how they decided to settle on a language... there sytem of belief..

reply

cos-9

First I would like to thank you for your well-written, informative posts.You've shared a lot of information with us.

You mentioned that Turkey is in the region called the Near & Middle East. I have heard different arguments about Turkey being either a part of the Middle East or Europe. I'm not sure which area Turkey is considered to be in. Can you clear this up?

reply

prettyhatemachine171,

Thank you very much. I've sent you a Private Message in response to your question.

reply

Egypt is a Greek word meaning “Black.”


I think you need to go back and study your Mycenaean Greek. Its kemet which means "black land", derived from word for fertile black soils of the Nile and trust me its not a Greek world. The Greek word for Egypt is Aiguptos, literally translates to "House of Ptah", the name of the temple complex of the god Ptah at Memphis.

reply

The ancient peoples of kmt (egypt) were indeed indigenous Africans...not Asian, not Europeans. Point blank!

To discuss it further please go here: Egyptsearch.com

For those believing in an Asian and European origin to the Nile Valley Civilizations...be prepared to get your azzez thoroughly whipped. That is, if you are brave enough.

reply

[deleted]

Yes, you are correct. Cleopatra was the last ruler in a dynasty of Egyptian royalty that originated in Macedonia, which was - at the time - considered part of northern Greece.


It is still considered part of northern Greece. Not sure how familiar you are with the region but Pella, Greece, the area where Alexander the Great and Ptolemy I were born is within Greek boarders and still called Macedonia. Do not confuse it with the Slavic country up north.

As for Cleopatra, she lived in an Egypt that was very Hellenistic...some say there were more Greeks living in Egypt at that time than any other place. Infact when you cross The Gates of Alexandria, you will notice that it is still written in Greek one side, Arabic in the other...so yes the Ptolemaic Dynasty were Greek:
http://alexandriatour.com/alex11.jpg

and there is still a pretty big Greek community in Alexandria living mostly in the area known as the Greek Quarter of Alexandria. Infact two of the most well know Miss Egypts from the early days are both of Greek descent; Antigone Costanda, who I believe was the bases on the Elizabeth Taylor Cleopatra look...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antigone_Costanda
and Marina Papaelia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marina_Papaelia

More about the Hellenic community of Egypt:
http://www.greece.org/alexandria/eka/index.htm
http://alexandriatour.com/alextown.htm

More Egyptian-Greeks:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demis_Roussos
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Moustaki

reply

apro282,

Thanks very much for the clarification and other information. I really appreciate it. It's very interesting.

reply

Your very welcome. Aside from that, I was reading your other posts and you seem very well informed on the subject matter of ancient Egypt. Which is a breath of fresh air compared to the fact that most in modern times don't know what they are talking about.

reply

apro282,

Thanks again! I have no problem with people being relatively ignorant in regards to certain subjects, even subjects that I'm passionate about. I'm sure they're geniuses when it comes to plenty of things that I have no clue about. However, what really bothers me is when they try to talk about something that they are completely ignorant about, which is the case with most of the people that have posted on this thread.

reply

wow, it took me awhile but i read everything! and learnt alot. very interesting.

reply

oh my god who put this idea in you heads guys Egyptian were black . this is the frist time i hear that and i am egyptian coptic descent from the ancient egyptain and very weak greek origin so what is this you are saying and i read egyptian history more than once and i never heard that doesn't mean that we aren't proud that we are African even if we aren't black
also there one of wrong ideas of the immigrant people who inhabited egypt and made it's great ancient civilization

reply

[deleted]