Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 12/29/2005 4:21:35 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/29/2005 4:25:17 PM EDT by SteyrAUG]
Apparantly all those ancient depictions of Egyptians being distinctly lighter than other black Africans from places such as Nubia are meaningless.

Yes apparantly everyone, including Jesus, was Black.

I mean Nefertiti is clearly as black as Oprah.



And as Tut is one of her decendets he must have been just as black.

Never mind that depictions of Egyptians of the time show that Egyptians were distinctly lighter than Africans in the central regions. Funny how people get darker near the equator isn't it, almost like a genetic suntan or something absurd.

Now some enlightened individual will show up with evidence of BLACK Egyptians such as this.



But what those people will fail to mention is Egyptians were often represented as "the color of fertile soil" in accordance with religious beliefs just as they were commonly depicted as representative of one of their Gods.

And the controversy, which began with the Los Angeles King Tut exhibit and continues here in Ft. Lauderdale, began with this depiction.



Black communities are actually PROTESTING the depiction of Tut as anything other than a Black King.

African-American community raises issue of color at King Tut protest

FORT LAUDERDALE -- A "King Tut is back and he's still black" placard drew the gaze of visitors making their way to view the acclaimed exhibit at the Museum of Art on Saturday.



Their efforts have been so successful that a depiction of a Black King Tut has been included in the official exhibit.

In a related story the influence of Ghetto culture into the mainstream is so complete down here that news stories often refer to King Tut as "The King Of Bling."

Link Posted: 12/29/2005 4:26:16 PM EDT
AMEN brother Steyr!

but I'm still betting only 3 pages b4 the lock.
Link Posted: 12/29/2005 4:26:23 PM EDT
Considering that the Egyptian royalty was originally from someplace that in modern day is in Iraq, they were much more pale skinned that the Egyptian native born folks.
Link Posted: 12/29/2005 4:30:41 PM EDT
He was Egyptian-American
Link Posted: 12/29/2005 4:31:03 PM EDT
and why is the yammering of fools important?

Or maybe he will qualify for reparations if it can be shown he was black? Jesse check your messages...
Link Posted: 12/29/2005 4:32:03 PM EDT
Why do they think the Egyptians back then were any darker than current reidents of that region? I've been there,and they aren't black by any stretch of the imagination.
Link Posted: 12/29/2005 4:34:08 PM EDT
Well, after all, he did wear a lot of gold jewlery and bling-bling.
Link Posted: 12/29/2005 4:35:29 PM EDT
Written records, drawings, paintings, statues, mummies, DNA.

Nope, none of that counts for shit when you have an agenda and "feel" that something "just isn't right".

Link Posted: 12/29/2005 4:36:47 PM EDT
did his gold casket have rotating rims?
Link Posted: 12/29/2005 4:36:50 PM EDT

Originally Posted By LoginName:
Well, after all, he did wear a lot of gold jewlery and bling-bling.



damn,,, now that was funny
Link Posted: 12/29/2005 4:37:00 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Lord_Grey_Boots:
Considering that the Egyptian royalty was originally from someplace that in modern day is in Iraq, they were much more pale skinned that the Egyptian native born folks.



Not to mention the extensive depictions of Egyptians and their BLACK slaves that still exist from the time. As well as other pictures that CONTRAST the differnet races of Africans from the time.



Egyptians, Canaanites, Nubians and Lybians on fresco in tomb of Seit. c. 1300 BC.

I guess some of those Black Egyptians must have caught the same disease that turned Michael Jacksons skin lighter.

Link Posted: 12/29/2005 4:38:13 PM EDT
You're all just in DeNile!
HAH!
Link Posted: 12/29/2005 4:38:15 PM EDT
I thought Egyptians, even nowadays were kinda Middle Eastern looking. If Egyptians were all black, then how come modern Egyptians are not?

Zahi Hawass is the most famous Egyptian I know of and whose name I could remember, and he ain't Black. He's got a cool site too. guardians.net/hawass/. Maybe we should send him an E-mail, I think he would be most interested in this sort of thing, or at least knowledgeable.
Link Posted: 12/29/2005 4:38:23 PM EDT
I'd be interested to hear if this view is held by anything more than some fringe group
Link Posted: 12/29/2005 4:40:56 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Lord_Grey_Boots:
Considering that the Egyptian royalty was originally from someplace that in modern day is in Iraq, they were much more pale skinned that the Egyptian native born folks.



That depends on the time period… Egyptian royalty after Alexander were largely Greek (European). Cleopatra for example was basically of Greek decedent and the same people that will tell you Tut was black despite the historical record will tell you Cleopatra was black.

Some of these people may also tell you other interesting things… like black people once had wings and could fly… and yes I am being serious.

Link Posted: 12/29/2005 4:41:19 PM EDT
wouldnt that make him an african-egyptian?
Link Posted: 12/29/2005 4:45:08 PM EDT
The real issue is what POSSIBLE difference does it make? Are modern americans of African descent in ANY way related to ancient egyptians? Nearly 100% of the Africans sold into slavery during that unfortuanate period (American slave trade) were from central and west Africa. A completely different ethic group. What connection do two groups 1000 miles in distance and 3000 years in time have, anyway?

The swedes and the chinese are from the same continental land mass (EurAsia) but I don't see either one clamoring for the laurals of the other.
Link Posted: 12/29/2005 4:46:33 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/29/2005 4:48:01 PM EDT by SteyrAUG]

Originally Posted By yekimak:
I thought Egyptians, even nowadays were kinda Middle Eastern looking. If Egyptians were all black, then how come modern Egyptians are not?

Zahi Hawass is the most famous Egyptian I know of and whose name I could remember, and he ain't Black. He's got a cool site too. guardians.net/hawass/. Maybe we should send him an E-mail, I think he would be most interested in this sort of thing, or at least knowledgeable.



I met him 2 weeks ago.

He is aware of the controversy, and the addition of a depiction of a "Black" Tut to the exhibit, and I think he is just being polite by not making a definitive comment in the issue.
Link Posted: 12/29/2005 4:49:32 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:

Originally Posted By Lord_Grey_Boots:
Considering that the Egyptian royalty was originally from someplace that in modern day is in Iraq, they were much more pale skinned that the Egyptian native born folks.



That depends on the time period… Egyptian royalty after Alexander were largely Greek (European). Cleopatra for example was basically of Greek decedent and the same people that will tell you Tut was black despite the historical record will tell you Cleopatra was black.

Some of these people may also tell you other interesting things… like black people once had wings and could fly… and yes I am being serious.




Hit Probability 98%
Link Posted: 12/29/2005 4:51:28 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Dave15:
You're all just in DeNile!
HAH!



That is the funniest damn thing I've read this week.
Link Posted: 12/29/2005 4:51:29 PM EDT
That is interesting...

The egyptians had slaves over 2000 years ago. The slaves were jews and were used to build pyramids and all that good stuff. Keep in mind this all happened 1600 years before African Slaves were brought to the good ole USA.

If TUT was black then his people (the black folks) need to pitch in and pay some reparations to t he jews and quit bitching about what happened to them, since they started this tradition of slavery over several thousand years ago.

how about it? am I full of shit or what? I'm not much of a history buff.

Link Posted: 12/29/2005 4:51:29 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/29/2005 4:52:27 PM EDT by ArmdLbrl]

Originally Posted By Lord_Grey_Boots:
Considering that the Egyptian royalty was originally from someplace that in modern day is in Iraq, they were much more pale skinned that the Egyptian native born folks.



You cant say that.

There were so many chainges in Dynasties over three millenia you cannot say that ALL Egyptian royalty were Semtic people or the ancestors of modern Copts.

Egypt was invaded too many times for the ruling class to be "pure"

The average working Egyptian is far more likely to have retained a racial distinctiveness than the small royal/priestly class.

This subject has been debated for close on a century now, because the images on the sarcophagi and statues (those that survived) of Tutankamun's predicessor Akanatun, the heritic king beleved to have been the first person in the world to have practiced monotheism, and his queen Nefertiti always LOOKED like they had stereoypic Negriod features.

And they only have to be Negroid on ONE side of the family tree too. All it would of taken was some prior king to have taken a Nubian princess as his primary wife.
Link Posted: 12/29/2005 4:53:05 PM EDT

Originally Posted By home_with_kids:
The real issue is what POSSIBLE difference does it make? Are modern americans of African descent in ANY way related to ancient egyptians? Nearly 100% of the Africans sold into slavery during that unfortuanate period (American slave trade) were from central and west Africa. A completely different ethic group. What connection do two groups 1000 miles in distance and 3000 years in time have, anyway?

The swedes and the chinese are from the same continental land mass (EurAsia) but I don't see either one clamoring for the laurals of the other.



It destroys truth and history.

Anyone is free to believe ANYTHING.

But when they manage to get their ridiculous notions INCLUDED with the historical record then they are destroying history and truth.

Imagine if the "We never went to the moon" idiots managed to get their ridiculous beliefs included with the official Nasa record. Future generations would be forced to consider the possibility that we in fact never went to the moon based upon the historical record.

This is why it is important to ignore idiots and NEVER give their ridiculous bullshit any kind of real consideration.
Link Posted: 12/29/2005 4:53:17 PM EDT
although Egypt is in Africa the people are arabic, which are caucasoids, not negroids
Link Posted: 12/29/2005 4:58:35 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/29/2005 5:02:55 PM EDT by ArmdLbrl]

Originally Posted By sharky30:
although Egypt is in Africa the people are arabic, which are caucasoids, not negroids



Egyptians are not Arabs.

Technically Egyptians are Copts.

The popultion of Egypt was so much larger than their Arab conquerors that any assumption of a "Arab" identity is political, not biological.

Assuming that Modern Egyptians are the same ethnicity as the Ancient Egyptians is dangerous in itself, however assuming that the ruling elite in Egypt was always the same race as their subjects is even more likely to be wrong.

Egypt had conquered Nubia more than once. They traded and had alliances with them for even longer periods, and its entirely possible that Nubians more than once invaded the Upper Nile.

Nubia itself had a very Egyptophile culture for most of the ancient period. They were still building pyramids for their kings when the Greeks got there, two millenia after the Egyptians proper stopped.
Link Posted: 12/29/2005 4:59:44 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:

This subject has been debated for close on a century now, because the images on the sarcophagi and statues (those that survived) of Tutankamun's predicessor Akanatun, the heritic king beleved to have been the first person in the world to have practiced monotheism, and his queen Nefertiti always LOOKED like they had stereoypic Negriod features.

And they only have to be Negroid on ONE side of the family tree too. All it would of taken was some prior king to have taken a Nubian princess as his primary wife.



Ummm, there is a bust contemporary to Nefertiti above. She wasn't black.

As for Akhenaten (Amenhotep IV)...



Most of his depictions are heavily stylized and representative of his association with Aten.

You need to study Egyptian history and the nature of their representations. Some are direct and literal depictions, some are not. People take the ones which are NOT and present them in a way that supports their agenda.
Link Posted: 12/29/2005 5:01:14 PM EDT


BigDozer66
Link Posted: 12/29/2005 5:03:01 PM EDT
He was black, eh?

Yeah. Right.

Sounds like Calypso Louis is at it again.....
Link Posted: 12/29/2005 5:04:55 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:

This subject has been debated for close on a century now, because the images on the sarcophagi and statues (those that survived) of Tutankamun's predicessor Akanatun, the heritic king beleved to have been the first person in the world to have practiced monotheism, and his queen Nefertiti always LOOKED like they had stereoypic Negriod features.

And they only have to be Negroid on ONE side of the family tree too. All it would of taken was some prior king to have taken a Nubian princess as his primary wife.



Ummm, there is a bust contemporary to Nefertiti above. She wasn't black.

As for Akhenaten (Amenhotep IV)...

www.touregypt.net/featurestories/amarnaperiod2.jpg

Most of his depictions are heavily stylized and representative of his association with Aten.

You need to study Egyptian history and the nature of their representations. Some are direct and literal depictions, some are not. People take the ones which are NOT and present them in a way that supports their agenda.



I have studied Egyptian history for many years. I know very well the debate over symbolic and literal descriptions of their royals. Which is yet another reason why you cannot rule out that in some Dynasties the kings of Egypt were of Negro decent and appeared Negro.
Link Posted: 12/29/2005 5:07:50 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:

This subject has been debated for close on a century now, because the images on the sarcophagi and statues (those that survived) of Tutankamun's predicessor Akanatun, the heritic king beleved to have been the first person in the world to have practiced monotheism, and his queen Nefertiti always LOOKED like they had stereoypic Negriod features.

And they only have to be Negroid on ONE side of the family tree too. All it would of taken was some prior king to have taken a Nubian princess as his primary wife.



Ummm, there is a bust contemporary to Nefertiti above. She wasn't black.

As for Akhenaten (Amenhotep IV)...

www.touregypt.net/featurestories/amarnaperiod2.jpg

Most of his depictions are heavily stylized and representative of his association with Aten.

You need to study Egyptian history and the nature of their representations. Some are direct and literal depictions, some are not. People take the ones which are NOT and present them in a way that supports their agenda.



I have studied Egyptian history for many years. I know very well the debate over symbolic and literal descriptions of their royals. Which is yet another reason why you cannot rule out that in some Dynasties the kings of Egypt were of Negro decent and appeared Negro.



I'm gonna defer to Dr. Hawass on this one. He seems to know what he is talking about.
Link Posted: 12/29/2005 5:07:58 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/29/2005 5:09:47 PM EDT by LoginName]
There is some evidence that King Tut was white...

www.ifilm.com/ifilmdetail/2408125?htv=12&htv=12



Hey... finally some use for the ARFCOM Tut smiley!
Link Posted: 12/29/2005 5:11:12 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/29/2005 5:11:38 PM EDT by home_with_kids]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally Posted By home_with_kids:
The real issue is what POSSIBLE difference does it make? Are modern americans of African descent in ANY way related to ancient egyptians? Nearly 100% of the Africans sold into slavery during that unfortuanate period (American slave trade) were from central and west Africa. A completely different ethic group. What connection do two groups 1000 miles in distance and 3000 years in time have, anyway?

The swedes and the chinese are from the same continental land mass (EurAsia) but I don't see either one clamoring for the laurals of the other.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------



It destroys truth and history.

Anyone is free to believe ANYTHING.

But when they manage to get their ridiculous notions INCLUDED with the historical record then they are destroying history and truth.

Imagine if the "We never went to the moon" idiots managed to get their ridiculous beliefs included with the official Nasa record. Future generations would be forced to consider the possibility that we in fact never went to the moon based upon the historical record.

This is why it is important to ignore idiots and NEVER give their ridiculous bullshit any kind of real consideration.


okay, but I tend to think along the lines of "let whiners whine, its what they do". How sad is the life of this crowd that they have to bolster their heritage by co-opting the history of some dead king from thosands of years prior?
Link Posted: 12/29/2005 5:11:14 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/29/2005 5:13:25 PM EDT by CB1]

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:

This subject has been debated for close on a century now, because the images on the sarcophagi and statues (those that survived) of Tutankamun's predecessor Akanatun, the heretic king believed to have been the first person in the world to have practiced monotheism, and his queen Nefertiti always LOOKED like they had stereotypical Negroid features.

And they only have to be Negroid on ONE side of the family tree too. All it would of taken was some prior king to have taken a Nubian princess as his primary wife.



Ummm, there is a bust contemporary to Nefertiti above. She wasn't black.

As for Akhenaten (Amenhotep IV)...

www.touregypt.net/featurestories/amarnaperiod2.jpg

Most of his depictions are heavily stylized and representative of his association with Aten.

You need to study Egyptian history and the nature of their representations. Some are direct and literal depictions, some are not. People take the ones which are NOT and present them in a way that supports their agenda.



when I was in art history class we were taught that Akhenaten had major deformities to his body.
he is the only Pharaoh to have been drawn not looking like all the other drawings. he shows elongated neck and distended abdomen, which are not featured in other paintings. I don't think his image represents african/negroid features.

But no matter what. Tut is no way showing negroid features, especially after that MRI reconstruction.




Link Posted: 12/29/2005 5:13:06 PM EDT
Not likely.

The song clearly says:

"Buried with a donkey...he's my favorite Honkey."

Every bit as scientific a method as those described at the start of this thread.
Link Posted: 12/29/2005 5:13:35 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/29/2005 5:14:55 PM EDT by SteyrAUG]

Originally Posted By home_with_kids:

okay, but I tend to think along the lines of "let whiners whine, its what they do". How sad is the life of this crowd that they have to bolster their heritage by co-opting the history of some dead king from thosands of years prior?



If all they did was whine I'd not care at all.

But they managed to get a depiction of a Black Tut included with the exhibit. This legitimizes their ridiculous claim.

Imagine for a moment the KKK protested and demanded King Tut was WHITE. Imagine if this picture was included in the official exhibit and historical record.

Link Posted: 12/29/2005 5:16:18 PM EDT
When your only claim to fame is spears and lion cloths, you clain someone else's heritage
Link Posted: 12/29/2005 5:17:12 PM EDT

Originally Posted By CB1:

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:

This subject has been debated for close on a century now, because the images on the sarcophagi and statues (those that survived) of Tutankamun's predecessor Akanatun, the heretic king believed to have been the first person in the world to have practiced monotheism, and his queen Nefertiti always LOOKED like they had stereotypical Negroid features.

And they only have to be Negroid on ONE side of the family tree too. All it would of taken was some prior king to have taken a Nubian princess as his primary wife.



Ummm, there is a bust contemporary to Nefertiti above. She wasn't black.

As for Akhenaten (Amenhotep IV)...

www.touregypt.net/featurestories/amarnaperiod2.jpg

Most of his depictions are heavily stylized and representative of his association with Aten.

You need to study Egyptian history and the nature of their representations. Some are direct and literal depictions, some are not. People take the ones which are NOT and present them in a way that supports their agenda.



when I was in art history class we were taught that Akhenaten had major deformities to his body.
he is the only Pharaoh to have been drawn not looking like all the other drawings. he shows elongated neck and distended abdomen, which are not featured in other paintings. I don't think his image represents african/negroid features.

But no matter what. Tut is no way showing negroid features, especially after that MRI reconstruction.

members.aol.com/egyptold/photo/aten.jpg
socrates.berkeley.edu/~mah/AkhnatenAndFamily.jpg
www.dabar.org/Sayce/RBM-Akhenaten-solardisk.jpg
www.homestead.com/wysinger/akh18_op_413x800.jpg



Don't you know? Those are literal depcitions of Akhenaten as he is the first human offspring from a mating with Space Aliens who built the pyramids. The guys across the street with the "King Tut was a Martian" signs will tell you all about it.
Link Posted: 12/29/2005 5:20:27 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/29/2005 5:37:11 PM EDT by ArmdLbrl]

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:

This subject has been debated for close on a century now, because the images on the sarcophagi and statues (those that survived) of Tutankamun's predicessor Akanatun, the heritic king beleved to have been the first person in the world to have practiced monotheism, and his queen Nefertiti always LOOKED like they had stereoypic Negriod features.

And they only have to be Negroid on ONE side of the family tree too. All it would of taken was some prior king to have taken a Nubian princess as his primary wife.



Ummm, there is a bust contemporary to Nefertiti above. She wasn't black.

As for Akhenaten (Amenhotep IV)...

www.touregypt.net/featurestories/amarnaperiod2.jpg

Most of his depictions are heavily stylized and representative of his association with Aten.

You need to study Egyptian history and the nature of their representations. Some are direct and literal depictions, some are not. People take the ones which are NOT and present them in a way that supports their agenda.



I have studied Egyptian history for many years. I know very well the debate over symbolic and literal descriptions of their royals. Which is yet another reason why you cannot rule out that in some Dynasties the kings of Egypt were of Negro decent and appeared Negro.



I'm gonna defer to Dr. Hawass on this one. He seems to know what he is talking about.



He may be right, other Egyptologists still dont agree with him.

EITHER WAY to try to say it was impossible simply because some Negro political group wants to use it for propaganda purposes is just as bad as the propaganda itself.

Its just like the Chinese with their trying to bury/destroy the all the caucasian, probably proto-Celtic, mummies they find in Xingjang out of the fear that Westerners might try to use it for propaganda purposes... or the Amerindians suing to keep Kennewick Man from being scientifically studied because he MIGHT be a Siberian/Ainu caucasoid and they dont want to hear that a "white man" (even though still not a European) was in America before their Mongaloid ancestors- its dumb. Paranoia doesn't belong in science.
Link Posted: 12/29/2005 5:22:38 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/29/2005 5:24:56 PM EDT by home_with_kids]
SteyrAUG said:
But they managed to get a depiction of a Black Tut included with the exhibit. This legitimizes their ridiculous claim.
spelling edit

I think I see our difference of opinion. Where you see it as adding legitimacy to their claim, I see it as giving poo to poo-flinging monkeys. Maybe an unfortunate metaphor there...

I concede your point, but place my faith in the fact that history is (usually) not written by long-haired protestors, or screaming race-baiters.

And I learned a lot about Tut just from this thread!
Link Posted: 12/29/2005 5:40:21 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/29/2005 5:44:19 PM EDT by SteyrAUG]

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:


I'm gonna defer to Dr. Hawass on this one. He seems to know what he is talking about.



He may be right, other Egyptologists still dont agree with him.

EITHER WAY to try to say it was impossible simply because some Negro political group wants to use it for propaganda purposes is just as bad as the propaganda itself.

Its just like the Chinese with their trying to bury/destroy the all the caucasian, probably proto-Celtic, mummies they find in Xingjang out of the fear that Westerners might try to use it for propaganda purposes... its dumb. Paranoia doesn't belong in science.



Some of those Egyptologist who disagree with him also think the Spinx was built 15,000 years ago.

But what I'm saying is literal depictions of Egyptians, especially those who are the relatives of "Tut" all show they are NOT Black.

The depictions that show them as "black" are religious in significance (the color of the Nile soil) and THAT is what is being distorted.

And that is the truth that is being denied. Either that or this is literal proof that some ancient Egytians were actually Smurfs.



And the basis of my objection is NOT that some group is promoting it for their own agenda, my objection is that their promotion is based upon a deliberate misrepresentation.
Link Posted: 12/29/2005 5:52:45 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/29/2005 5:55:53 PM EDT by SteyrAUG]

Originally Posted By home_with_kids:
SteyrAUG said:
But they managed to get a depiction of a Black Tut included with the exhibit. This legitimizes their ridiculous claim.
spelling edit

I think I see our difference of opinion. Where you see it as adding legitimacy to their claim, I see it as giving poo to poo-flinging monkeys. Maybe an unfortunate metaphor there...

I concede your point, but place my faith in the fact that history is (usually) not written by long-haired protestors, or screaming race-baiters.

And I learned a lot about Tut just from this thread!



Sadly, from my experience, lots of propaganda becomes part of the historical record.

Ever seen Hitler dance a "jig" after his successful invasion of France? I've seen it taught as factual history many times, even in a school history book. The reality is the film of him taking a single step were re editted to appear as if he danced a jig. Many have seen the film footage the pictures came from and know he took a single exaggerated step, but just as many honestly think he danced a celibratory jig.

Hitler's Silly Dance

Ever seen Hitler sit down in disgust following the Jesse Owens win at the 1936 Berlin Olympics? I've seen the film and still of the "insult" several times and was even shown the film in public school once. But what I actually was shown was a re edit of Jesse Owens gold medal win followed by Hitler sitting down dissapointed by Germany dropping the baton in a relay race they were all but assured to win. The re edit of Hitlers dissapointment following Germany's loss of one race being placed after the Jesse Owens win creates a different gesture entirely, one of disprespect for Jesse Owens. While it is certain Hitler was probably not a fan of Jesse Owens his reaction to the win was NOT filmed in the Leni Reifenstahl film "Olympia" and the German crowds wildly cheered Owens.

These are but two examples of RECENT history, where the truth is even documented, but the created lie is often more popular and believed by many as FACT.
Link Posted: 12/29/2005 5:53:47 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/29/2005 5:57:43 PM EDT by Andreuha]
-edit: nevermind...

BTW, they should all read Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel
Link Posted: 12/29/2005 5:54:28 PM EDT
Their misinterpretation of that image doesnt change the fact that he still could easily been the offspring of a Nubian princess that his father or grandfather horsetraded for in some trade deal or military alliance...

Showing the Pharoah in black as symbolic of the fertility of the delta soil is a new one to me though. Though it certainly is a as logical a reason for it as being of Nubian decent.
Link Posted: 12/29/2005 6:00:25 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/29/2005 6:10:20 PM EDT by SteyrAUG]

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:
Their misinterpretation of that image doesnt change the fact that he still could easily been the offspring of a Nubian princess that his father or grandfather horsetraded for in some trade deal or military alliance...

Showing the Pharoah in black as symbolic of the fertility of the delta soil is a new one to me though. Though it certainly is a as logical a reason for it as being of Nubian decent.



Don't take this the wrong way but it shouldn't be new to you.

It is very, very common and well known.

Breaking the Color Code

Black symbolized death, the underworld, and the night. We see this reflected in Osiris, who was referred to as "the black one" because he was king of the afterlife, and also with reference to the god of embalming, Anubis, who was portrayed as a black jackal or dog. Because Queen Ahmose-Nefertari was the patroness of the necropolis, she was often shown with black skin.

In a rather unusual about-face, black could also represent fertility and resurrection because of the dark silt left behind by the annual Nile flood. From the most ancient Egyptian times, Egypt was known as Kemet, or "the black land", because of the dark soil of the Nile Valley; therefore, the color black symbolized Egypt itself. When used to represent resurrection, black and green were interchangeable.


This is also covered in Tutankhamun and the Golden Age of the Pharaohs by Zahi Hawass.

Fairly comprehensive for an exhibit companion book.
Link Posted: 12/29/2005 6:06:43 PM EDT
Black or white, the ancient Egyptians sure did look UGLY! (based on the pics I see in this thread).
Link Posted: 12/29/2005 6:17:19 PM EDT
Looks black to me.

Link Posted: 12/29/2005 6:18:47 PM EDT
All there KINGS are dead. Last one in 68.
Link Posted: 12/29/2005 6:23:29 PM EDT

Originally Posted By MrClean4Hire:
All there KINGS are dead. Last one in 68.



He was white. You can tell by his name that he was clearly related to Martin Luther.

Top Top