King Tut controversy.

[jae]

in all REALITY, nobody here can truely argue any point other than what OTHER people wrote as OPINIONS in books,websites, news, etc... so how can anyone here, including myself, TRUELY give a credible argument about something we TRUELY know NOTHING about other than what people have written "opinions" about time and time again? and i say "opinions" because unless you were there, thats all it can be.

TODAY we see pyramids in egypt, we say they had pharoahs (judging by the art paintings found on the walls and the old tomb stones), we call that area africa, TODAY africa looks black, so thats my opinion of what king tut was. a black man. simply speaking..... all the art work that i've seen, supposibly from their walls has black faces on it. kings, queens, slaves, and servants. if a gangsta of today drew a picture on his wall in their hood, i'm surely going to imagine it would be a picture of what people in the hood looked like.

[Dr. Gonzo]

Great!

When people talk about America and describe it as the way it is now we should forget about the Native Americans.

According to you all that matters it what America looks like now not the past.

[shadoworder]

in all REALITY, nobody here can truely argue any point other than what OTHER people wrote as OPINIONS in books,websites, news, etc... so how can anyone here, including myself, TRUELY give a credible argument about something we TRUELY know NOTHING about other than what people have written "opinions" about time and time again? and i say "opinions" because unless you were there, thats all it can be.

TODAY we see pyramids in egypt, we say they had pharoahs (judging by the art paintings found on the walls and the old tomb stones), we call that area africa, TODAY africa looks black, so thats my opinion of what king tut was. a black man. simply speaking..... all the art work that i've seen, supposibly from their walls has black faces on it. kings, queens, slaves, and servants. if a gangsta of today drew a picture on his wall in their hood, i'm surely going to imagine it would be a picture of what people in the hood looked like.

most of that art which depicts egyptians as black,are from the 25th dynasty,when egypt was spiraling downward fast,not from the time that egypt was at its peak.how do you explain egyptian art that depicts various pharoahs and others with red or blonde hair,or with blue eyes??or well preserved egyptain mummies that have red or blonde hair ??

[blakman]

in all REALITY, nobody here can truely argue any point other than what OTHER people wrote as OPINIONS in books,websites, news, etc... so how can anyone here, including myself, TRUELY give a credible argument about something we TRUELY know NOTHING about other than what people have written "opinions" about time and time again? and i say "opinions" because unless you were there, thats all it can be.

TODAY we see pyramids in egypt, we say they had pharoahs (judging by the art paintings found on the walls and the old tomb stones), we call that area africa, TODAY africa looks black, so thats my opinion of what king tut was. a black man. simply speaking..... all the art work that i've seen, supposibly from their walls has black faces on it. kings, queens, slaves, and servants. if a gangsta of today drew a picture on his wall in their hood, i'm surely going to imagine it would be a picture of what people in the hood looked like.

most of that art which depicts egyptians as black,are from the 25th dynasty,when egypt was spiraling downward fast,not from the time that egypt was at its peak.how do you explain egyptian art that depicts various pharoahs and others with red or blonde hair,or with blue eyes??or well preserved egyptain mummies that have red or blonde hair ??

You can't be serious white boy!!! Oh no let me guest,you are serious with that dumb ass statment! White people mostly white arabs invaded Kemet several time and breeded with the africans after that!

Does different colors on the walls have to do with religious practices then anything else.The funny part about all of this is, that you even had romans and greeks in their books tell you that they got their ideas and kessons from Kemetans and the discribe the egyptian as dark skin people just like the ethiopeans!! These where white people saying this! Now we have people today saying "no, they where wrong in their discription and we are right in our belief in what the egyptians looked like" . I mean get the fu ck out of here with that B.S man!The egyptian were black african!!

[Dr. Gonzo]

Egyptian King, Ramses II had red straight hair, I guess he was black LOL.

[img]http://img115.imageshack.us/img115/8227/rammummy014bc.jpg[/img]

[se11]

Egyptian King, Ramses II had red straight hair, I guess he was black LOL.

[img]http://img115.imageshack.us/img115/8227/rammummy014bc.jpg[/img]

lol that pic freaks me out.

[shadoworder]

in all REALITY, nobody here can truely argue any point other than what OTHER people wrote as OPINIONS in books,websites, news, etc... so how can anyone here, including myself, TRUELY give a credible argument about something we TRUELY know NOTHING about other than what people have written "opinions" about time and time again? and i say "opinions" because unless you were there, thats all it can be.

TODAY we see pyramids in egypt, we say they had pharoahs (judging by the art paintings found on the walls and the old tomb stones), we call that area africa, TODAY africa looks black, so thats my opinion of what king tut was. a black man. simply speaking..... all the art work that i've seen, supposibly from their walls has black faces on it. kings, queens, slaves, and servants. if a gangsta of today drew a picture on his wall in their hood, i'm surely going to imagine it would be a picture of what people in the hood looked like.

most of that art which depicts egyptians as black,are from the 25th dynasty,when egypt was spiraling downward fast,not from the time that egypt was at its peak.how do you explain egyptian art that depicts various pharoahs and others with red or blonde hair,or with blue eyes??or well preserved egyptain mummies that have red or blonde hair ??

You can't be serious white boy!!! Oh no let me guest,you are serious with that dumb ass statment! White people mostly white arabs invaded Kemet several time and breeded with the africans after that!

Does different colors on the walls have to do with religious practices then anything else.The funny part about all of this is, that you even had romans and greeks in their books tell you that they got their ideas and kessons from Kemetans and the discribe the egyptian as dark skin people just like the ethiopeans!! These where white people saying this! Now we have people today saying "no, they where wrong in their discription and we are right in our belief in what the egyptians looked like" . I mean get the fu ck out of here with that B.S man!The egyptian were black african!!

oh im serious blackboy,as someone else pointed out,the roman descriptions of egyptians being black date back to when egypt was in its decline,and when in fact it was ruled by blacks(25th dynasty)no one describes the egyptians who built the pyramids and the sphinx and who established that great civilization as being black.and its not just the artwork,as i said their are mummies that show total european charecteristics,here are a couple:
[img]http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y169/ultravio13/thuya.jpg[/img]
Thuya, great grandmother of Tutankhamen.Blonde hair still preserved.
[img]http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y169/ultravio13/39.jpg[/img]
Pharaoh Seti 1.Seti was the son of the great Ramses I, and became pharaoh in 1320 BC. Look at his well preserved facial features.he was obviously White.
[img]http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y169/ultravio13/vizier.jpg[/img]
The White racial features of the vizier Hemiunu, who was the architect for the Great Pyramids of Giza.

[Aristotle]

Egyptians were a tan colored people migrating from different lands. Ironically so, he owned slaves of the same exact ethnicity. Back then it wasn't about propaganda; It was about getting your work done, and having someone else do it for you. These days racism is centered down to black slaves, black people, white slave owners, and white people. However this barely knicks the skin of racism's reality.

I'll edit with a better post when I'm not high and tired. Lol, lates.

[Fatestar]

King Tut was obviously a Caucasian. Just look at the physical characteristics, look at the skull shape, looks caucasian to me. Anyways there werent any powerful black kingdoms in northern Africa during the days of King Tut, these Caucasian Africans might have had dark skin, but they definately werent negroid.

[tysuave]

youll know what ive read this whole thred and no one made any valid points most of youll views or prety much based on what you want to belive,then your so called facts or of what youve heard from else where if it was a proven fact then there couldent be an arugment right.point is on history were all brainwashed and counfoused but one thing is fosho and that is, africa had the first signs of men kind now thats been proven so far now to king tut whether he was black or middle eastren I think prety much thats the debate, well if he is middle eastren dosent that still make him black or black blood aint that why you whites call arabs sand niggers humm but my onpion on king tut I think he has black blood like most people expect real whites but he 's not black like nigga black or real african black now I think that just about sums everything up.

[jae]

youll know what ive read this whole thred and no one made any valid points most of youll views or prety much based on what you want to belive,then your so called facts or of what youve heard from else where if it was a proven fact then there couldent be an arugment right.point is on history were all brainwashed and counfoused but one thing is fosho and that is, africa had the first signs of men kind now thats been proven so far now to king tut whether he was black or middle eastren I think prety much thats the debate, well if he is middle eastren dosent that still make him black or black blood aint that why you whites call arabs sand niggers humm but my onpion on king tut I think he has black blood like most people expect real whites but he 's not black like nigga black or real african black now I think that just about sums everything up.

yeah, thats like what i'm saying. nobody really knows, which is why we, as people, will CONSTANTLY debate on it. everything is guesstimated from the past. so what i was saying is why continue to study something like that? let's study now, and study the solutions to our problems, and stop dwelling on the problems itself. people seek to constantly dig dig dig up the past, but in your findings, what will that do for you/us, as a people today?

we all know the past, we all know whats right and whats wrong so regardless of who did what, said what, lets not point fingers and argue about the past, lets look at ourselves right now and say "maybe i was wrong, maybe i was right. what can WE do together,as people, to satisfy the situation?" and work from that. dont get me wrong, i love my people, but it's not them so much anymore, it's US. We all brainwashed, so it's REeducation time.... let's build!

[Anonymous20]

youll know what ive read this whole thred and no one made any valid points most of youll views or prety much based on what you want to belive,then your so called facts or of what youve heard from else where if it was a proven fact then there couldent be an arugment right.point is on history were all brainwashed and counfoused but one thing is fosho and that is, africa had the first signs of men kind now thats been proven so far now to king tut whether he was black or middle eastren I think prety much thats the debate, well if he is middle eastren dosent that still make him black or black blood aint that why you whites call arabs sand niggers humm but my onpion on king tut I think he has black blood like most people expect real whites but he 's not black like nigga black or real african black now I think that just about sums everything up.

it really hard to decipher what race the pharoahs were. Especially a kingdom that lasted a couple thousand years. There were probably a mix of different ethnicities.

Just imagine when people look at the population of the United States today 2 thousand years from now. If somehow all the writings and data are destroyed, and you used tv, magaine, music videos, and entertainment to measure what the population looked like, you might think that the US was 50% Black, 50 % white and nothing else although blacks are only 12% black today, noone would believe that 2,000 years from now. Most people dont realize that today, so how can we know what race, negroid, cacausoid, etc ruled Egypt. They might have looked Semitic middle eastern. Didnt Egypt enslave the Jews? and if Moses, a Jew, grew up in an Egyptian environment and noone knew he was Jew, the probably looked similar. Can you image us saying that people in Texas look a certain way and Floridians are know for a ethnic characteristic? funny stuff.

[blakman]

youll know what ive read this whole thred and no one made any valid points most of youll views or prety much based on what you want to belive,then your so called facts or of what youve heard from else where if it was a proven fact then there couldent be an arugment right.point is on history were all brainwashed and counfoused but one thing is fosho and that is, africa had the first signs of men kind now thats been proven so far now to king tut whether he was black or middle eastren I think prety much thats the debate, well if he is middle eastren dosent that still make him black or black blood aint that why you whites call arabs sand niggers humm but my onpion on king tut I think he has black blood like most people expect real whites but he 's not black like nigga black or real african black now I think that just about sums everything up.

it really hard to decipher what race the pharoahs were. Especially a kingdom that lasted a couple thousand years. There were probably a mix of different ethnicities.

Just imagine when people look at the population of the United States today 2 thousand years from now. If somehow all the writings and data are destroyed, and you used tv, magaine, music videos, and entertainment to measure what the population looked like, you might think that the US was 50% Black, 50 % white and nothing else although blacks are only 12% black today, noone would believe that 2,000 years from now. Most people dont realize that today, so how can we know what race, negroid, cacausoid, etc ruled Egypt. They might have looked Semitic middle eastern. Didnt Egypt enslave the Jews? and if Moses, a Jew, grew up in an Egyptian environment and noone knew he was Jew, the probably looked similar. Can you image us saying that people in Texas look a certain way and Floridians are know for a ethnic characteristic? funny stuff.

I know the answer!! They where black african people. The egyptians called themselves kmt. It basicaly means "the land of the black" But white egyptologist didn't want to hear that and started saying that they were actualy talking about the fertile soil. You know the black land During the later years, when the arabs and persians and the turks start invading egypt is really when you started seeing the mingling of the races. But before all that, the black africans had alot of time to develope the first human civilization on earth!! But that is the truth nobody is ready to hear!!! It's shows us where we still are in the tear 2005, mentaly.

Here is a link about african/black history.
http://www.freemaninstitute.com/wmj-dsl.ram

[TheReal]

This is an interesting thread on the subject. Check it out the information and evidence these folks present...

And make sure to check out all of the evidence, the both sides are presenting, which will take you all the way to the end.

http://theblackwall.blackvoices.com/n/p ... lkoftheday

[Anonymous20]

youll know what ive read this whole thred and no one made any valid points most of youll views or prety much based on what you want to belive,then your so called facts or of what youve heard from else where if it was a proven fact then there couldent be an arugment right.point is on history were all brainwashed and counfoused but one thing is fosho and that is, africa had the first signs of men kind now thats been proven so far now to king tut whether he was black or middle eastren I think prety much thats the debate, well if he is middle eastren dosent that still make him black or black blood aint that why you whites call arabs sand niggers humm but my onpion on king tut I think he has black blood like most people expect real whites but he 's not black like nigga black or real african black now I think that just about sums everything up.

it really hard to decipher what race the pharoahs were. Especially a kingdom that lasted a couple thousand years. There were probably a mix of different ethnicities.

Just imagine when people look at the population of the United States today 2 thousand years from now. If somehow all the writings and data are destroyed, and you used tv, magaine, music videos, and entertainment to measure what the population looked like, you might think that the US was 50% Black, 50 % white and nothing else although blacks are only 12% black today, noone would believe that 2,000 years from now. Most people dont realize that today, so how can we know what race, negroid, cacausoid, etc ruled Egypt. They might have looked Semitic middle eastern. Didnt Egypt enslave the Jews? and if Moses, a Jew, grew up in an Egyptian environment and noone knew he was Jew, the probably looked similar. Can you image us saying that people in Texas look a certain way and Floridians are know for a ethnic characteristic? funny stuff.

I know the answer!! They where black african people. The egyptians called themselves kmt. It basicaly means "the land of the black" But white egyptologist didn't want to hear that and started saying that they were actualy talking about the fertile soil. You know the black land During the later years, when the arabs and persians and the turks start invading egypt is really when you started seeing the mingling of the races. But before all that, the black africans had alot of time to develope the first human civilization on earth!! But that is the truth nobody is ready to hear!!! It's shows us where we still are in the tear 2005, mentaly.

Here is a link about african/black history.
http://www.freemaninstitute.com/wmj-dsl.ram

The first Egyptians may have been black, but just saying that does not explain alot of other inconsistencies. A Very complex issue to label one land, one race that ruled for over 2,000. Some depictions of them look very negroid while other look mixed.

But I can tell you this with certainty, Egypt was NOT the first civilization, they were the first empire, or super power. As I mentioned on another post, the first civilization goes back to Mesopatamia, where Iraq is today. One way to know where the first people where is to trace language. What are the oldest languages in the world? Consensus tells us the semitic languages are among the oldest, and the semitic languanges are traces to the Mesopotamia area where Iraq is to Isreal.

Here is an interesting quote I read on a language website:

"Semitic languages are the only branch of Afro-Asiatic based outside of Africa. The Semitic, Berber and Egyptian branches are predominantly (though by no means exclusively) spoken by Caucasoid people, while Cushitic, Chadic, and Omotic are spoken by black Africans."

[blakman]

[quote="tysuave"]youll know what ive read this whole thred and no one made any valid points most of youll views or prety much based on what you want to belive,then your so called facts or of what youve heard from else where if it was a proven fact then there couldent be an arugment right.point is on history were all brainwashed and counfoused but one thing is fosho and that is, africa had the first signs of men kind now thats been proven so far now to king tut whether he was black or middle eastren I think prety much thats the debate, well if he is middle eastren dosent that still make him black or black blood aint that why you whites call arabs sand niggers humm but my onpion on king tut I think he has black blood like most people expect real whites but he 's not black like nigga black or real african black now I think that just about sums everything up.

it really hard to decipher what race the pharoahs were. Especially a kingdom that lasted a couple thousand years. There were probably a mix of different ethnicities.

Just imagine when people look at the population of the United States today 2 thousand years from now. If somehow all the writings and data are destroyed, and you used tv, magaine, music videos, and entertainment to measure what the population looked like, you might think that the US was 50% Black, 50 % white and nothing else although blacks are only 12% black today, noone would believe that 2,000 years from now. Most people dont realize that today, so how can we know what race, negroid, cacausoid, etc ruled Egypt. They might have looked Semitic middle eastern. Didnt Egypt enslave the Jews? and if Moses, a Jew, grew up in an Egyptian environment and noone knew he was Jew, the probably looked similar. Can you image us saying that people in Texas look a certain way and Floridians are know for a ethnic characteristic? funny stuff.

I know the answer!! They where black african people. The egyptians called themselves kmt. It basicaly means "the land of the black" But white egyptologist didn't want to hear that and started saying that they were actualy talking about the fertile soil. You know the black land During the later years, when the arabs and persians and the turks start invading egypt is really when you started seeing the mingling of the races. But before all that, the black africans had alot of time to develope the first human civilization on earth!! But that is the truth nobody is ready to hear!!! It's shows us where we still are in the tear 2005, mentaly.

Here is a link about african/black history.
http://www.freemaninstitute.com/wmj-dsl.ram

The first Egyptians may have been black, but just saying that does not explain alot of other inconsistencies. A Very complex issue to label one land, one race that ruled for over 2,000. Some depictions of them look very negroid while other look mixed.

But I can tell you this with certainty, Egypt was NOT the first civilization, they were the first empire, or super power. As I mentioned on another post, the first civilization goes back to Mesopatamia, where Iraq is today. One way to know where the first people where is to trace language. What are the oldest languages in the world? Consensus tells us the semitic languages are among the oldest, and the semitic languanges are traces to the Mesopotamia area where Iraq is to Isreal.

Here is an interesting quote I read on a language website:

"Semitic languages are the only branch of Afro-Asiatic based outside of Africa. The Semitic, Berber and Egyptian branches are predominantly (though by no means exclusively) spoken by Caucasoid people, while Cushitic, Chadic, and Omotic are spoken by black Africans."[/quote]


But did you know that the original Iraqis or what used to be called Mesopatamia were black people.

What people need to know is, how words are used to confuse the masses of the people. Take for example the U.S government! They say that the new largest minority in the counrty are now latinos. Since when as Latino become a race? I would really like to know when latinos became a race. For most people it doesn't even occur to them that to be latino, you have to come from a spanish speaking country and to partake in the culture of that spanish speaking country. That's all it takes!! Again, I say that use of words is offen used to confuse people.

I mean, you have black,white,asian,mulatto and mestizo latinos!! You have Cubans, Peruvians.Perto ricans,Dominicans, Colombians....(ect) who all have similar but distinct cultures.So how are you going to put them all in one group and say this is a new race!! Again, fancy word play, to try and confuse people!!

Now, the middle east!! Can somebody please tell me where it's in the middle of? Again,I will tell you that it is a play on words to confuse people! If there is a middle east,there also needs to be a middle west, a noth and a middle south! But, we all know that no such thing exist!! What people don't realize is, that the middle east used to be attached to the African continent, but over time, it got detached from the continent. What we now call the middle east, is really North east Africa.

But like everthing else they have done to africa like,lie cheat, steal,distort,hide and manipulate, they feel like they have to seperate egypt from africa and african history because, that is the only way to uphold the idea of white supremacy and to continue to perpetuate the idea of black inferiority!!

[se11]

But did you know that the original Iraqis or what used to be called Mesopatamia were black people.

then what happen? did they magically turn tan one day?

What people need to know is, how words are used to confuse the masses of the people. Take for example the U.S government! They say that the new largest minority in the counrty are now latinos. Since when as Latino become a race? I would really like to know when latinos became a race. For most people it doesn't even occur to them that to be latino, you have to come from a spanish speaking country and to partake in the culture of that spanish speaking country. That's all it takes!! Again, I say that use of words is offen used to confuse people.

again, for the 60th time someone will say this a latino is a mix between a spanard from spain and a native american from the americas.

I mean, you have black,white,asian,mulatto and mestizo latinos!! You have Cubans, Peruvians.Perto ricans,Dominicans, Colombians....(ect) who all have similar but distinct cultures.So how are you going to put them all in one group and say this is a new race!! Again, fancy word play, to try and confuse people!!

because they ALL came from some sort of decendants of a native american.

What we now call the middle east, is really North east Africa.

every place else was once attached to africa as well. europe, asia, australia, antartica, the americas. at one point they all were attached.

[Sentenza]

But like everthing else they have done to africa like,lie cheat, steal,distort,hide and manipulate, they feel like they have to seperate egypt from africa and african history because, that is the only way to uphold the idea of white supremacy and to continue to perpetuate the idea of black inferiority!!

Who is THEY?

[Sentenza]

Now, the middle east!! Can somebody please tell me where it's in the middle of? Again,I will tell you that it is a play on words to confuse people! If there is a middle east,there also needs to be a middle west, a noth and a middle south! But, we all know that no such thing exist!! What people don't realize is, that the middle east used to be attached to the African continent, but over time, it got detached from the continent. What we now call the middle east, is really North east Africa.

yes you are right. This perspective is qwrong and it is called eurocentristic, since it looks at the world from cntral europe (middle east, far east blabla)

Humans did barely exist when Arabia and africa were closely connected, so you cant call Arabia North east africa. Thats totally anachronistic and simply wrong. Arabia is on another tectonic plate, so it does not belong to africa anymore since maybe million years.

[img]http://geology.er.usgs.gov/eastern/plates.gif[/img]

You know just because Europe and africa used to be connected i do not consider africa as southern europe.

And you could call africa "western arabia" than aswell....this is straight BS.

[Sentenza]

But did you know that the original Iraqis or what used to be called Mesopatamia were black people.

wrong, they were mixed. even more than egyptians. Sumerians (ca. 4500-5000 B.C.) from Iraq

Anthropology

All of these topics have shown agreement with the possible northern origin of the Sumerians. Perhaps the most diversity is with the anthropological analyses of their racial elements, which reflect their assimilation of very different local ethnic elements along with some northern Mesopotamian elements. Generally the Sumerians are called by a vague "Asianic" term implying their central Asian origin, however they also included "Armenoid" elements, which should properly be called based on history to be SUBARIAN- HURRIAN, northern types, from Anatolia. However there were also some distinctly southern racial types amongst them which can be tied to the aboriginals of the Indian Ocean area they absorbed.

In various articles on the Sumerians, they are called a "broadheaded" people, of unknown origin. Scientifically this head shape is called "branchycephalic" and indicates the width of the skull as seen from the top down, not the face. This type of head shape makes the most efficient use of the space, since its more spherical, but it doesn't imply a large head at all. It has been spreading in Europe in recent times, however it wasn't that common in the western parts of Europe until lately, except in central Europe where its major center is in the Carpathian Basin and other FinnUgor territories. It has been the most common type there for a considerable amount of time and was believed to come from Anatolia in prehistoric times, with the spread of agriculture. It is called the "dinaric" type at times, or a later variation is called "caucasian-mongoloid", with no intended link to the orient. A variation among the Ob-Ugrians is called Americanoid, since it resembles the mixed Euro-Asiatic types found in many North American Indian types, which basically came from the same original area in north central Asia as these people.

The Sumerians also seem to have elements that were probably found there earlier and associated with types like the Dravidian types of India, which were probably seafaring people of the Indian Ocean, similar to a degree to the Poleniseans, who were also originally from the Indian Ocean area. Recently this linguistic group has been using the term Austric and shows some degree of similarity also with the other agglutinative languages inland to Asia. In reviewing these comparisons with Austric Languages, they seemed to be limited by very basic pronouns and suffixes that are also quite common elsewhere. We also know that the Sumerians also traded with the Dravidians in Pakistan, in an area known as Meluah, as well as Bahrain, known as Dilmun. This is also a very interesting fact that is made even more tantalizing by the fact that Dravidian languages of India also share considerable amount of basic vocabulary with Finno-Ugrians and Sumerians and perhaps is best explained by the Dravidians originally also being in south western Asia and before being pushed into Southern India. The current theory is that the Elamites, the eastern neighbors and enemies of the Sumerians were linguistically related to the Dravidians in India. This would explain why the common terms and religious motifs are found between Dravidian and early Elamite.

As might be expected the end of the Sumerian nation resulted in their blending into their neighboring nation's and their mixed gene pool. Some may have escaped and moved away but most probably couldn't. Some have made up wild eyed speculations about them moving back to their old homelands in the north east, but that at best could only be for an insignificant few, who had the means to do so under the most difficult circumstances. These old lands were no longer available for colonization. It is believed that the ancestors of the Indo-Europeans occupied the Black Sea areas, probably about 2,000 years after the Sumerians left it (?3,500BC or earlier). I personally see no way that the Sumerians could have influenced the languages of the north during their Mesopotamian tenure nor after their demise due to the large separation and isolation.

[Anonymous20]

But did you know that the original Iraqis or what used to be called Mesopatamia were black people.

There is no evidence of that. Most African scholars will not state that. Now, I am sure that there are those that believe that, and probably some notable people might claim that, but the overwhelming authority will not state that.

What people need to know is, how words are used to confuse the masses of the people. Take for example the U.S government! They say that the new largest minority in the counrty are now latinos. Since when as Latino become a race? I would really like to know when latinos became a race. For most people it doesn't even occur to them that to be latino, you have to come from a spanish speaking country and to partake in the culture of that spanish speaking country. That's all it takes!! Again, I say that use of words is offen used to confuse people.

Actually the US Cenus bureua treats the Hispanic category completely different. Hispanic is the only category that you can select, and then pick Black or White too. And they have been doing this for years.

Now, the middle east!! Can somebody please tell me where it's in the middle of? Again,I will tell you that it is a play on words to confuse people! If there is a middle east,there also needs to be a middle west, a noth and a middle south! But, we all know that no such thing exist!! What people don't realize is, that the middle east used to be attached to the African continent, but over time, it got detached from the continent. What we now call the middle east, is really North east Africa.

The middle east is called the middle east because to the Europens, the Asian continent was the area of Oriental, or meaning East or Far East, and the area accros the Atlantic was Occidental meaning to the west, and the middle East is a central location. Their perpective. Has anyone ever seen a map of the world by Australians, or China. Every region has a different perpective of the world.

But like everthing else they have done to africa like,lie cheat, steal,distort,hide and manipulate, they feel like they have to seperate egypt from africa and african history because, that is the only way to uphold the idea of white supremacy and to continue to perpetuate the idea of black inferiority!!

One reason why northern Africa is called the Middle East, is because of Arab colonialism and slavery. The Arabs had been invading and attacking northern Africa from the year 600 AD. Blaming white people or Europeans for the distorted perception Africa is a joke historically. Yes, since the 1400s, the French, English, the Beligiums, and Portuguese messed Africa up in the last 550 years. Yes they engaged in the first stages of white supremacy. But if we look at history, it was the Arabs that laid down the foundation for African slavery, it was the Arabs that colonized northern Africa, it is the Arabs that are enslaving Africans today, it was the Arabs that never left northern Africa and because of their occupation northern Africa has become the Middle East.

But lets not deviate too much from the topic of King Tuts race, What was he? Who realy knows? any other photos. or quote from the leading experts.?

[blakman]

alonso wrote:

One reason why northern Africa is called the Middle East, is because of Arab colonialism and slavery. The Arabs had been invading and attacking northern Africa from the year 600 AD. Blaming white people or Europeans for the distorted perception Africa is a joke historically. Yes, since the 1400s, the French, English, the Beligiums, and Portuguese messed Africa up in the last 550 years. Yes they engaged in the first stages of white supremacy. But if we look at history, it was the Arabs that laid down the foundation for African slavery, it was the Arabs that colonized northern Africa, it is the Arabs that are enslaving Africans today, it was the Arabs that never left northern Africa and because of their occupation northern Africa has become the Middle East

.

You are right, about the fact that the arabs laid the foundation for what Africa and Africans have had to go through with the europeans!! But when I say that white people did this and white people did that, that I am including Arabs with the europeans, even though I understand that Arabs are a lot like latinos were you have some white arabs,some black arabs, but most arabs, are for the most part, a mixed group of people!!!

That's why I got my own personal issues with arabs!! Before 9/11, the arabs really did not like or respect black people all over the country, even when we were spending our hard earned money in their shops. But after 9/11 happened, all of a sudden they're out here call me and my boys "brother" and telling me,that we minorities need to stick together! I had to tell him:"Look Habeeb .....no, but for real though Habeeb, just last week you were giving me bad looks and following me around like I stole something, but now, you want to call me your brother"!! I had to tell him to get the fu ck out of my face, before I hit him in the jaw for saying something like that!!! So yes I know all about the arabs man!! I just count them along with white people, that's all.

[Anonymous20]

well i wouldnt put Arabs in a white category, they are a mix of Mongoloid (asian) and Cacausoid (white) with some traces of Negroid (Black) in some of the population. Many white think of Arabs as "sand niggers" but they are certainly their own ethnicity and identity with nations stretching from Northern Africa to Iraq.

But what are some other thoughts on King Tut.

[Fatestar]

A great majority of Arabs are Caucasian. Even though some are Mongoloid (Asian), and some Arabs exhibit a combination of Mongoloid and Caucasoid (Caucasian) features.

[TheReal]

But what are some other thoughts on King Tut.

*I think that the bust of King Tut, that the french had created, as well as what the egyptians had created, along with the computer graphic design of Tut, in the Discovery Documentary, has a little bit of truth in each of them.

I personally believe that Tut was what we would consider today, a mulatto, or someone who's biracial, or multi-racial, with black ancestry. The reason why I feel that he has black ancestry in him, is because of his grandmother Queen Tye.

To me, this is an obvious black woman.

Not only that, my features are similar to that of Tuts bust (not the image constructed by the french), with full lips, pointed nose and straight hair, acquiline and somewhat high cheek bones, yet I'm still black. As a matter of fact, I have a friend whose from Eritrea, with curly brown hair, who has thin lips and a pointed nose, similiar to Tut's.

And his sister (who I am presently dating) has a cafe au lait type/mariney type of complexion, with brownish/reddish straight/wavy hair, that goes midway down her back. And also, she herself has acquiline features. So in the end, I do believe that the construction of Tut, created by the French, could've been more forthcoming in it's presentation, especially as it related to skin complexion, and race.


Additionally, the head structure of Tut, and how it's shaped, from what I've been able to witness, is a shape that is common amongst sub saharan black african folks primarily: just look at Duane Martin, and to a lesser extent, Tupac Shakur's cranial structure. It always appeared as if this cranial structure was negroid...

[TheReal]

And by the way, in the above post, when I mentioned the Eritrean ethnic group, just know that these folks are really Ethiopians, who within the last century, separated themselves from Ethiopia, and created their own nation...

[razbojnik]

Where the fuck did Gonzo go???

[Sentenza]

Considering the fact that i was standing in front of his corpse last year i would say he looked to me as if he was arab looking, but i am not an expert on anthropological issues.

Other then that, concerning the question if ancient egyptians were black or not...
Some people claim that because the name of ancient Egypt was "Khemet", which means black land, all the people living there were black.
This is not true. I learned in Egypt, that that term refers to the flood of the Nile and the fertile black mud that it left behind on the shores on which the farmers grew their stuff, which made the land look black. Hence "black land".
That ancient Egyptians would base the name for their country on colour of skin and give it a racial touch doesnt make sense to me, since race and colour of skin did not play any role whatsoever in the world until the colonial era. This sounds to me as if people try to apply our modern scheme of thinking on the past.
But of course it is also stupid when white supremacist historians try to take away from the black-african influence on ancient egypt by claiming they were white. Either way it is stupid, causae no one gave a damn back then.
We just have to look at ancient wall paintings and hieroglyphs and it is not hard to tell that you had both, black and arab/light skinned people all over Egypt. And unlike some racists, historical evidence is not biased and doesnt lie.