African Presence in Pre-Columbian Times

[Meathead]

Afrocentrics are probably the most dogmatic and simple people possible. Africa's relevance to the advancement of human civilization is incredibly modest.

I do like watermelon, and I do believe in giving credit where credit is due. That's about it.

 

[Asclepias]

BTW Logly I checked out your girls blog and I about fell out laughing. i was wondering why you didn't link your source. This is from 2008 and she has been clearly debunked by DNA evidence. Not that she was ever even a valid source in the first place but she was clearly prejudiced against the notion that the Egyptians were Black.

About me and my blog | Mathilda's Anthropology Blog.

Personally… I’m currently an anthropology student, now my youngest has started school. Hence the lighter blogging schedule these days. I’ve been blogging nearly two years now.

Didnt you say you were into science? Let me get this straight. You believe the word of an anthropology student over trained geneticists from 3 different sources? Is this what you are really saying?

 

[longknife]

Afrocentrics are probably the most dogmatic and simple people possible. Africa's relevance to the advancement of human civilization is incredibly modest.

I do like watermelon, and I do believe in giving credit where credit is due. That's about it.

And don't forget frying. Before that, civilized people either roasted or stewed their meats.

 

[Asclepias]

Afrocentrics are probably the most dogmatic and simple people possible. Africa's relevance to the advancement of human civilization is incredibly modest.

I do like watermelon, and I do believe in giving credit where credit is due. That's about it.

Egyptian Rhind Mathematical papyrus

BBC Radio 4 - A History of the World in 100 Objects, The Beginning of Science and Literature (1500 - 700 BC), Rhind Mathematical Papyrus

Egyptian Medical Papyrus

Egyptian medical papyri - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Asclepias]

Afrocentrics are probably the most dogmatic and simple people possible. Africa's relevance to the advancement of human civilization is incredibly modest.

I do like watermelon, and I do believe in giving credit where credit is due. That's about it.

And don't forget frying. Before that, civilized people either roasted or stewed their meats.

Ramesses III - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ancient Genetics
According to a genetic study in December 2012, Egyptian Monarch Ramesses III belonged to Y-DNA haplogroup E1b1a with an East Africa Origin, a YDNA haplogroup that predominates in most Sub-Saharan Africans.[26]

 

[Meathead]

Afrocentrics are probably the most dogmatic and simple people possible. Africa's relevance to the advancement of human civilization is incredibly modest.

I do like watermelon, and I do believe in giving credit where credit is due. That's about it.

Egyptian Rhind Mathematical papyrus

BBC Radio 4 - A History of the World in 100 Objects, The Beginning of Science and Literature (1500 - 700 BC), Rhind Mathematical Papyrus

Egyptian Medical Papyrus

Egyptian medical papyri - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your only problem there, and it is a big one, is that Egyptians weren't black. I am Greek, and ""melachrinos" meant dark-skinned and and still does today. In antiquity "Ethiopian" was used for blacks and the term "mavros" (black) is today.

As much as you may wish it, there is no way any people with straight and lighter-colored hair could be sub-Saharan Africans.

 

[Asclepias]

Afrocentrics are probably the most dogmatic and simple people possible. Africa's relevance to the advancement of human civilization is incredibly modest.

I do like watermelon, and I do believe in giving credit where credit is due. That's about it.

Egyptian Rhind Mathematical papyrus

BBC Radio 4 - A History of the World in 100 Objects, The Beginning of Science and Literature (1500 - 700 BC), Rhind Mathematical Papyrus

Egyptian Medical Papyrus

Egyptian medical papyri - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your only problem there, and it is a big one, is that Egyptians weren't black. I am Greek, and ""melachrinos" meant dark-skinned and and still does today. In antiquity "Ethiopian" was used for blacks and the term "mavros" (black) is today.

As much as you may wish it, there is no way any people with straight and lighter-colored hair could be sub-Saharan Africans.

DNA says you are wrong. How did you miss that?

The interesting thing about what Herodotus wrote is that had he believed the Egyptians to be any other color than black like other Africans he could have chosen other Greek words than the one he chose. His word is melaschroes, black-skinned. If Herodotus thought the Egyptians were white he would have used leucochroes. Had they been simply brown, like so many African Americans, he may have used phrenychroes, but he chose the word melaschroes. This word comes from the same root as Melanesia, the black island, or melanite, a black garnet. The ancient Greek use of "melas" was precise. Egypt is in Africa. Why shouldn't the ancient Egyptians be anything other than black?

You must be lying about being Greek or you are ignorant of your own language. BTW you are correct about one thing. The Greeks did use Ethiopian to describe the Nubians. That is another Black civilization down the road from Egypt. I got some more info on that coming so you have no doubt about what the Greek thought.

 

[Asclepias]

Physiognomonica - Aristotle - Google Books

The Greek philosopher Aristotle writes in the 4th century B.C. in Physiognomonica that the "Egyptians and Ethiopians were very black."

Any other concerns you need covered?

 

[Asclepias]

Hey MeatHead check this one out.

 

[longly]

BTW Logly I checked out your girls blog and I about fell out laughing. i was wondering why you didn't link your source. This is from 2008 and she has been clearly debunked by DNA evidence. Not that she was ever even a valid source in the first place but she was clearly prejudiced against the notion that the Egyptians were Black.

Personally… I’m currently an anthropology student, now my youngest has started school. Hence the lighter blogging schedule these days. I’ve been blogging nearly two years now.

Didnt you say you were into science? Let me get this straight. You believe the word of an anthropology student over trained geneticists from 3 different sources? Is this what you are really saying?

I am not refuting anything. I am not able to post links because I have not posted here enough, but I would be willing to look at your link if you are be willing post it here so I don’t have to look for it; I am short of time. My search came up with nothing. If you have irrefutable proof that settles it; I have no investment one way or the other in this subject. But I don’t believe that is true for Afrocentric scholars they seemed to be prejudiced towards finding that help them sell book to Afrocentric readers. In order for them to sell books they have to tell their readers what they want to hear..

I believe that grad students general work under the supervision of a professor and that it is a generally accepted practice.

 

[JQPublic1]

I never heard this. How does hair appearance trump DNA? That's like genetics. You know like the genetics that prove we all came from a women in Africa? Either way not only do some Black Africans have straight hair without being mixed, the embalming process would have straightened the hair of someone with kinky textured hair as well.

Mathilda's Anthropology Blog: “The vast majority of hair samples discovered at the site were cynotrichous (Caucasian) in type as opposed to heliotrichous (Negroid), a feature which is standard through dynastic times .”

I it is the Cross section of the hair that matters not the straightness.

It means so much to you Afrocentrics that I would like to tell you that your Afrocentric theories are correct. But I can’t, I am personally dedicated to the concept science and I can’t say something that I don’t believe to be true. The truth is the truth and should be honored for its own sake. This philosophy has given us the standard of living that we have in the West.

You still haven't revealed the site of your illusions. If the bodies examined were from the time of Ptolemy's rule they are going to be Greek. Those found way before KMT became Egypt would be Black... woolly or straight haired.

Your crude hair analysis is not a good determinant of race. Although KMT was originally founded and built by Black Kings and Pharaohs, later racial admixture would void any positive conclusion concerning cross sections of hair except for those that were positively identified as Black African.
++++++++

You say you are dedicated to the concept of science yet you ignore the DNA factor that
Asclepias has been so kind to present for us. That is irrefutable science that ought to be evidence enough for even the most fastidious empiricist. Why don't you accept it? Is it because you are harboring something more sinister inside?

 

[Asclepias]

BTW Logly I checked out your girls blog and I about fell out laughing. i was wondering why you didn't link your source. This is from 2008 and she has been clearly debunked by DNA evidence. Not that she was ever even a valid source in the first place but she was clearly prejudiced against the notion that the Egyptians were Black.

Personally… I’m currently an anthropology student, now my youngest has started school. Hence the lighter blogging schedule these days. I’ve been blogging nearly two years now.

Didnt you say you were into science? Let me get this straight. You believe the word of an anthropology student over trained geneticists from 3 different sources? Is this what you are really saying?

I am not refuting anything. I am not able to post links because I have not posted here enough, but I would be willing to look at your link if you are be willing post it here so I don’t have to look for it; I am short of time. My search came up with nothing. If you have irrefutable proof that settles it; I have no investment one way or the other in this subject. But I don’t believe that is true for Afrocentric scholars they seemed to be prejudiced towards finding that help them sell book to Afrocentric readers. In order for them to sell books they have to tell their readers what they want to hear..

I believe that grad students general work under the supervision of a professor and that it is a generally accepted practice.

It just seems weird you think an anthropology student working under a professor knows more about DNA than trained geneticists. Scroll up and you will see at least 1 link right on this page showing Rameses III DNA. I also posted a 2 links from a genetic company called DNAConsultants. wiki is available to you correct?

 

[longly]

BTW Logly I checked out your girls blog and I about fell out laughing. i was wondering why you didn't link your source. This is from 2008 and she has been clearly debunked by DNA evidence. Not that she was ever even a valid source in the first place but she was clearly prejudiced against the notion that the Egyptians were Black.



Didnt you say you were into science? Let me get this straight. You believe the word of an anthropology student over trained geneticists from 3 different sources? Is this what you are really saying?

I am not refuting anything. I am not able to post links because I have not posted here enough, but I would be willing to look at your link if you are be willing post it here so I don’t have to look for it; I am short of time. My search came up with nothing. If you have irrefutable proof that settles it; I have no investment one way or the other in this subject. But I don’t believe that is true for Afrocentric scholars they seemed to be prejudiced towards finding that help them sell book to Afrocentric readers. In order for them to sell books they have to tell their readers what they want to hear..

I believe that grad students general work under the supervision of a professor and that it is a generally accepted practice.

It just seems weird you think an anthropology student working under a professor knows more about DNA than trained geneticists. Scroll up and you will see at least 1 link right on this page showing Rameses III DNA. I also posted a 2 links from a genetic company called DNAConsultants. wiki is available to you correct?

I looked at your link and you are correct in what it says, but Family Tree DNA is an enterpriser that is dependent on black customers, it may be a case of telling the customers what they want to hear. I would like to see academic confirmation in the from of peer review. I am not saying it is not true; I am saying that I am suspicious. But even if it is true one man does not make a whole nation. Few people disagree that ancient Egypt was a mixed country with the south being more black the rest of the country. I believe ancient Egypt looked a lot like it does today which is predominantly Caucasian.

Afrocentrics have lost credibility for some the outrageous things that they have claimed. Afrocentric have claimed that both the Carthaginians and Cleopatra were black neither of which is true. So I remain suspicious of any Afrocentric claim.

Also, I was not talking about DNA but cross sections of hair; something much easier to review than DNA and in this case just as valid and all one needs is a microscope.

 

[Asclepias]

I am not refuting anything. I am not able to post links because I have not posted here enough, but I would be willing to look at your link if you are be willing post it here so I don’t have to look for it; I am short of time. My search came up with nothing. If you have irrefutable proof that settles it; I have no investment one way or the other in this subject. But I don’t believe that is true for Afrocentric scholars they seemed to be prejudiced towards finding that help them sell book to Afrocentric readers. In order for them to sell books they have to tell their readers what they want to hear..

I believe that grad students general work under the supervision of a professor and that it is a generally accepted practice.

It just seems weird you think an anthropology student working under a professor knows more about DNA than trained geneticists. Scroll up and you will see at least 1 link right on this page showing Rameses III DNA. I also posted a 2 links from a genetic company called DNAConsultants. wiki is available to you correct?

I looked at your link and you are correct in what it says, but Family Tree DNA is an enterpriser that is dependent on black customers, it may be a case of telling the customers what they want to hear. I would like to see academic confirmation in the from of peer review. I am not saying it is not true; I am saying that I am suspicious. But even if it is true one man does not make a whole nation. Few people disagree that ancient Egypt was a mixed country with the south being more black the rest of the country. I believe ancient Egypt looked a lot like it does today which is predominantly Caucasian.

Afrocentrics have lost credibility for some the outrageous things that they have claimed. Afrocentric have claimed that both the Carthaginians and Cleopatra were black neither of which is true. So I remain suspicious of any Afrocentric claim.

Also, I was not talking about DNA but cross sections of hair; something much easier to review than DNA and in this case just as valid and all one needs is a microscope.

Maybe you completely missed the implications of just that one man being that percentage of sub-saharan DNA. That would mean his father, grandfather, great grandfather etc were also Black. Are you saying their was a ruling class of Blacks over a mixed society? If so were is your proof of this? Early white historians have zero credibility as they have been caught in several serious breaches, omissions, and outright lies.

 

[longly]

It just seems weird you think an anthropology student working under a professor knows more about DNA than trained geneticists. Scroll up and you will see at least 1 link right on this page showing Rameses III DNA. I also posted a 2 links from a genetic company called DNAConsultants. wiki is available to you correct?

I looked at your link and you are correct in what it says, but Family Tree DNA is an enterpriser that is dependent on black customers, it may be a case of telling the customers what they want to hear. I would like to see academic confirmation in the from of peer review. I am not saying it is not true; I am saying that I am suspicious. But even if it is true one man does not make a whole nation. Few people disagree that ancient Egypt was a mixed country with the south being more black the rest of the country. I believe ancient Egypt looked a lot like it does today which is predominantly Caucasian.

Afrocentrics have lost credibility for some the outrageous things that they have claimed. Afrocentric have claimed that both the Carthaginians and Cleopatra were black neither of which is true. So I remain suspicious of any Afrocentric claim.

Also, I was not talking about DNA but cross sections of hair; something much easier to review than DNA and in this case just as valid and all one needs is a microscope.

Maybe you completely missed the implications of just that one man being that percentage of sub-saharan DNA. That would mean his father, grandfather, great grandfather etc were also Black. Are you saying their was a ruling class of Blacks over a mixed society? If so were is your proof of this? Early white historians have zero credibility as they have been caught in several serious breaches, omissions, and outright lies.

Maybe you completely missed the implications of just that one man being that percentage of sub-saharan DNA. That would mean his father, grandfather, great grandfather etc were also Black. Are you saying their was a ruling class of Blacks over a mixed society?

Lonely wrote: At more time yes, stranger things have happen in history. There once was an ancient Roman emperor who’s father was a slave.





If so were is your proof of this? Early white historians have zero credibility as they have been caught in several serious breaches, omissions, and outright lies.

Longly wrote: I try not to imply all of anything; everybody can’t be wrong.

You know that genes are swapped randomly during conception. A person could be Caucasian in all appearances and still have some black, Negroid, Congoid DNA and the opposite is also true. According to USA DNA Most Southern white in the US from old southern families probably have at least two to three percent black DNA.

 

[Asclepias]

I looked at your link and you are correct in what it says, but Family Tree DNA is an enterpriser that is dependent on black customers, it may be a case of telling the customers what they want to hear. I would like to see academic confirmation in the from of peer review. I am not saying it is not true; I am saying that I am suspicious. But even if it is true one man does not make a whole nation. Few people disagree that ancient Egypt was a mixed country with the south being more black the rest of the country. I believe ancient Egypt looked a lot like it does today which is predominantly Caucasian.

Afrocentrics have lost credibility for some the outrageous things that they have claimed. Afrocentric have claimed that both the Carthaginians and Cleopatra were black neither of which is true. So I remain suspicious of any Afrocentric claim.

Also, I was not talking about DNA but cross sections of hair; something much easier to review than DNA and in this case just as valid and all one needs is a microscope.

Maybe you completely missed the implications of just that one man being that percentage of sub-saharan DNA. That would mean his father, grandfather, great grandfather etc were also Black. Are you saying their was a ruling class of Blacks over a mixed society? If so were is your proof of this? Early white historians have zero credibility as they have been caught in several serious breaches, omissions, and outright lies.

Maybe you completely missed the implications of just that one man being that percentage of sub-saharan DNA. That would mean his father, grandfather, great grandfather etc were also Black. Are you saying their was a ruling class of Blacks over a mixed society?

Lonely wrote: At more time yes, stranger things have happen in history. There once was an ancient Roman emperor who’s father was a slave.





If so were is your proof of this? Early white historians have zero credibility as they have been caught in several serious breaches, omissions, and outright lies.

Longly wrote: I try not to imply all of anything; everybody can’t be wrong.

You know that genes are swapped randomly during conception. A person could be Caucasian in all appearances and still have some black, Negroid, Congoid DNA and the opposite is also true. According to USA DNA Most Southern white in the US from old southern families probably have at least two to three percent black DNA.

I think you got confused somewhere along the line. White were in Europe during the time the pyramids were built. There is no record of whites ever being in Egypt until after Greece became the first country in Europe around 800 BCE. Where did these whites come from and where did they go leaving absolutely no record? You have to have something other than you think this is what happened. As I pointed out:

The Greek philosopher Aristotle writes in the 4th century B.C. in Physiognomonica that the "Egyptians and Ethiopians were very black."

He never mentioned anyone being very white. How do you explain this enigma? What makes more sense to you? That white people rose up from the Ice ages in Europe, traveled to Africa, built a great civilization in Africa under the supervision of a Black ruling class and then left and went back to Europe and never built anything like Egypt or that the Black people that actually lived there built, developed and governed Egypt? And yes "everybody" can be wrong. Remember the flat earth crowd? The ironic thing is your claim of "everybody" is not even true. There are plenty of white scholars and historians that advocate an all Black Egypt.

 

[longly]

Maybe you completely missed the implications of just that one man being that percentage of sub-saharan DNA. That would mean his father, grandfather, great grandfather etc were also Black. Are you saying their was a ruling class of Blacks over a mixed society? If so were is your proof of this? Early white historians have zero credibility as they have been caught in several serious breaches, omissions, and outright lies.

Maybe you completely missed the implications of just that one man being that percentage of sub-saharan DNA. That would mean his father, grandfather, great grandfather etc were also Black. Are you saying their was a ruling class of Blacks over a mixed society?

Lonely wrote: At more time yes, stranger things have happen in history. There once was an ancient Roman emperor who’s father was a slave.





If so were is your proof of this? Early white historians have zero credibility as they have been caught in several serious breaches, omissions, and outright lies.

Longly wrote: I try not to imply all of anything; everybody can’t be wrong.

You know that genes are swapped randomly during conception. A person could be Caucasian in all appearances and still have some black, Negroid, Congoid DNA and the opposite is also true. According to USA DNA Most Southern white in the US from old southern families probably have at least two to three percent black DNA.

I think you got confused somewhere along the line. White were in Europe during the time the pyramids were built. There is no record of whites ever being in Egypt until after Greece became the first country in Europe around 800 BCE. Where did these whites come from and where did they go leaving absolutely no record? You have to have something other than you think this is what happened. As I pointed out:

The Greek philosopher Aristotle writes in the 4th century B.C. in Physiognomonica that the "Egyptians and Ethiopians were very black."

He never mentioned anyone being very white. How do you explain this enigma? What makes more sense to you? That white people rose up from the Ice ages in Europe, traveled to Africa, built a great civilization in Africa under the supervision of a Black ruling class and then left and went back to Europe and never built anything like Egypt or that the Black people that actually lived there built, developed and governed Egypt? And yes "everybody" can be wrong. Remember the flat earth crowd? The ironic thing is your claim of "everybody" is not even true. There are plenty of white scholars and historians that advocate an all Black Egypt.

You either are confused or bad at exaggerating. When I agreed that is was possible that a black could be a Egyptian pharaoh I did not mean that all Pharoses were black. The Bible states that Joseph , a Hebrew , rose in Egypt to be only second to the pharaoh himself. A cleaver and unscrupulous man capable of rising that high from slavery could seize power for himself.


Also, I never said or implied the that ancient Egyptians where white. There were some whites in ancient Egypt if the wall painting are to be believed, but they were a minority , most likely war captives. The majority of ancient Egyptians were Caucasians, but not whites. There actually is no such thing as a white race; white is just another term for Europeans and Europeans are just one group of Caucasians. All Caucasians no matter where they live or what their skin tone is originate from one tribe of people form prehistoric Central Asia.

They came from the Eurasian steppes and settled in the Middle East either before and just after the last Ice Age and displaced the few Negroid peoples who lived in the area. Sometime later they moved into North Africa including the a Nile valley and did the same thing there. This is a recurring migration pattern through out history. There have been numerous migration invasion from the North, but there has only been one from the South, the Nubians.

The people of present day Egypt are predominately Caucasians it is much more logical to believe they came from the Eurasian steppes than to believe that a mythical black population was exterminated by invading Islamic Arabs. The Arabs were not interested in exterminating but converting.

 

[Asclepias]

Maybe you completely missed the implications of just that one man being that percentage of sub-saharan DNA. That would mean his father, grandfather, great grandfather etc were also Black. Are you saying their was a ruling class of Blacks over a mixed society?

Lonely wrote: At more time yes, stranger things have happen in history. There once was an ancient Roman emperor who’s father was a slave.





If so were is your proof of this? Early white historians have zero credibility as they have been caught in several serious breaches, omissions, and outright lies.

Longly wrote: I try not to imply all of anything; everybody can’t be wrong.

You know that genes are swapped randomly during conception. A person could be Caucasian in all appearances and still have some black, Negroid, Congoid DNA and the opposite is also true. According to USA DNA Most Southern white in the US from old southern families probably have at least two to three percent black DNA.

I think you got confused somewhere along the line. White were in Europe during the time the pyramids were built. There is no record of whites ever being in Egypt until after Greece became the first country in Europe around 800 BCE. Where did these whites come from and where did they go leaving absolutely no record? You have to have something other than you think this is what happened. As I pointed out:

The Greek philosopher Aristotle writes in the 4th century B.C. in Physiognomonica that the "Egyptians and Ethiopians were very black."

He never mentioned anyone being very white. How do you explain this enigma? What makes more sense to you? That white people rose up from the Ice ages in Europe, traveled to Africa, built a great civilization in Africa under the supervision of a Black ruling class and then left and went back to Europe and never built anything like Egypt or that the Black people that actually lived there built, developed and governed Egypt? And yes "everybody" can be wrong. Remember the flat earth crowd? The ironic thing is your claim of "everybody" is not even true. There are plenty of white scholars and historians that advocate an all Black Egypt.

You either are confused or bad at exaggerating. When I agreed that is was possible that a black could be a Egyptian pharaoh I did not mean that all Pharoses were black. The Bible states that Joseph , a Hebrew , rose in Egypt to be only second to the pharaoh himself. A cleaver and unscrupulous man capable of rising that high from slavery could seize power for himself.


Also, I never said or implied the that ancient Egyptians where white. There were some whites in ancient Egypt if the wall painting are to be believed, but they were a minority , most likely war captives. The majority of ancient Egyptians were Caucasians, but not whites. There actually is no such thing as a white race; white is just another term for Europeans and Europeans are just one group of Caucasians. All Caucasians no matter where they live or what their skin tone is originate from one tribe of people form prehistoric Central Asia.

They came from the Eurasian steppes and settled in the Middle East either before and just after the last Ice Age and displaced the few Negroid peoples who lived in the area. Sometime later they moved into North Africa including the a Nile valley and did the same thing there. This is a recurring migration pattern through out history. There have been numerous migration invasion from the North, but there has only been one from the South, the Nubians.

The people of present day Egypt are predominately Caucasians it is much more logical to believe they came from the Eurasian steppes than to believe that a mythical black population was exterminated by invading Islamic Arabs. The Arabs were not interested in exterminating but converting.

Where is your proof that the majority of ancient egyptians were Caucasians? Do you have anything at all that proves this? Also you are wrong about there being only one migration out of Africa. The facts point to the first migration which resulted in the Aborigines and the Negritos. What would much later become the so called caucasian migrated next, followed by the same Black people that populated Nubia, Kemet, India, and Sumer. Whites came about as a result of the Ice Age. All the Pharaohs were Black until Persia invaded. Please show me the evidence that refutes the mountains of evidence that the egyptians were Black sub-saharans as the Greek historians said themselves. Do you have even 1 link?

http://atlantablackstar.com/2013/10/25/10-arguments-that-proves-ancient-egyptians-were-black/2/

 

[longly]

I think you got confused somewhere along the line. White were in Europe during the time the pyramids were built. There is no record of whites ever being in Egypt until after Greece became the first country in Europe around 800 BCE. Where did these whites come from and where did they go leaving absolutely no record? You have to have something other than you think this is what happened. As I pointed out:

He never mentioned anyone being very white. How do you explain this enigma? What makes more sense to you? That white people rose up from the Ice ages in Europe, traveled to Africa, built a great civilization in Africa under the supervision of a Black ruling class and then left and went back to Europe and never built anything like Egypt or that the Black people that actually lived there built, developed and governed Egypt? And yes "everybody" can be wrong. Remember the flat earth crowd? The ironic thing is your claim of "everybody" is not even true. There are plenty of white scholars and historians that advocate an all Black Egypt.

You either are confused or bad at exaggerating. When I agreed that is was possible that a black could be a Egyptian pharaoh I did not mean that all Pharoses were black. The Bible states that Joseph , a Hebrew , rose in Egypt to be only second to the pharaoh himself. A cleaver and unscrupulous man capable of rising that high from slavery could seize power for himself.


Also, I never said or implied the that ancient Egyptians where white. There were some whites in ancient Egypt if the wall painting are to be believed, but they were a minority , most likely war captives. The majority of ancient Egyptians were Caucasians, but not whites. There actually is no such thing as a white race; white is just another term for Europeans and Europeans are just one group of Caucasians. All Caucasians no matter where they live or what their skin tone is originate from one tribe of people form prehistoric Central Asia.

They came from the Eurasian steppes and settled in the Middle East either before and just after the last Ice Age and displaced the few Negroid peoples who lived in the area. Sometime later they moved into North Africa including the a Nile valley and did the same thing there. This is a recurring migration pattern through out history. There have been numerous migration invasion from the North, but there has only been one from the South, the Nubians.

The people of present day Egypt are predominately Caucasians it is much more logical to believe they came from the Eurasian steppes than to believe that a mythical black population was exterminated by invading Islamic Arabs. The Arabs were not interested in exterminating but converting.

Where is your proof that the majority of ancient egyptians were Caucasians? Do you have anything at all that proves this? Also you are wrong about there being only one migration out of Africa. The facts point to the first migration which resulted in the Aborigines and the Negritos. What would much later become the so called caucasian migrated next, followed by the same Black people that populated Nubia, Kemet, India, and Sumer. Whites came about as a result of the Ice Age. All the Pharaohs were Black until Persia invaded. Please show me the evidence that refutes the mountains of evidence that the egyptians were Black sub-saharans as the Greek historians said themselves. Do you have even 1 link?

10 Arguments That Prove Ancient Egyptians Were Black - Page 2 of 6 - Atlanta Black Star

What happened to all those hypothetical black Egyptians, extermination camps? In ancient times Egypt was the most populated country in their part of the world. The Persians were Caucasians but they were a minority in Egypt. They didn’t defeat the Egyptian because they out numbered them but because the Egyptian couldn’t get their act together.


The problem with Afro-Centric sources is that Afrocentrics are so invested in the outcome that some invent their own facts. Just because a people have live in Africa for thousands of years does not make them black.

I know that you won’t believe me, but it means so much to you that I would like to tell you that you are right, but I can’t lie.

 

[Asclepias]

You either are confused or bad at exaggerating. When I agreed that is was possible that a black could be a Egyptian pharaoh I did not mean that all Pharoses were black. The Bible states that Joseph , a Hebrew , rose in Egypt to be only second to the pharaoh himself. A cleaver and unscrupulous man capable of rising that high from slavery could seize power for himself.


Also, I never said or implied the that ancient Egyptians where white. There were some whites in ancient Egypt if the wall painting are to be believed, but they were a minority , most likely war captives. The majority of ancient Egyptians were Caucasians, but not whites. There actually is no such thing as a white race; white is just another term for Europeans and Europeans are just one group of Caucasians. All Caucasians no matter where they live or what their skin tone is originate from one tribe of people form prehistoric Central Asia.

They came from the Eurasian steppes and settled in the Middle East either before and just after the last Ice Age and displaced the few Negroid peoples who lived in the area. Sometime later they moved into North Africa including the a Nile valley and did the same thing there. This is a recurring migration pattern through out history. There have been numerous migration invasion from the North, but there has only been one from the South, the Nubians.

The people of present day Egypt are predominately Caucasians it is much more logical to believe they came from the Eurasian steppes than to believe that a mythical black population was exterminated by invading Islamic Arabs. The Arabs were not interested in exterminating but converting.

Where is your proof that the majority of ancient egyptians were Caucasians? Do you have anything at all that proves this? Also you are wrong about there being only one migration out of Africa. The facts point to the first migration which resulted in the Aborigines and the Negritos. What would much later become the so called caucasian migrated next, followed by the same Black people that populated Nubia, Kemet, India, and Sumer. Whites came about as a result of the Ice Age. All the Pharaohs were Black until Persia invaded. Please show me the evidence that refutes the mountains of evidence that the egyptians were Black sub-saharans as the Greek historians said themselves. Do you have even 1 link?

10 Arguments That Prove Ancient Egyptians Were Black - Page 2 of 6 - Atlanta Black Star

What happened to all those hypothetical black Egyptians, extermination camps? In ancient times Egypt was the most populated country in their part of the world. The Persians were Caucasians but they were a minority in Egypt. They didn’t defeat the Egyptian because they out numbered them but because the Egyptian couldn’t get their act together.


The problem with Afro-Centric sources is that Afrocentrics are so invested in the outcome that some invent their own facts. Just because a people have live in Africa for thousands of years does not make them black.

I know that you won’t believe me, but it means so much to you that I would like to tell you that you are right, but I can’t lie.

Its not that I don't believe you. Its that so far you have yet to show me any proof. Not even 1 link except to claim hair samples from mummies that have been DNA tested to be Black sub-saharan Africans. The problem with that is that you lack any credibility. If you want to claim something please back it up like I did. I know you would like to be right but I'm sorry. You just haven't proven your claim. Not even a little bit. How could I possibly believe you without any evidence that refutes what I have?