Rosskii:
Were the Spaniards colonised by black African Moors, yes or no?

Did black Egypt and Nubia exist in all their glory before Rome existed, yes or no?

Did Rome and Greece exist before the Kushite and Egyptian empires, yes or no?

Did the Celts have armies that rivalled the Nubian military or Shaka Zulu's armies, yes or no?

See, anyone can play this silly game of yours, where you pick a relatively weak African paradigm to juxtapose with a strong European one. It's a childish, cheap game no one here will fall for. We are far smarter than you think. Nice try though. Move on.

He can never win, because ancient Egypt is the foundation of human civilization. Even the ancient greeks, the fathers of european science and mathematics, studied in ancient Egypt, thats just a fact.

"Here in Egypt he frequented all the temples with the greatest diligence, and most studious research, during which time he won the esteem admiration of all the priests and prophets with whom he associated. Having most solicitously familiarized himself with every detail. He did not, nevertheless, neglect any contemporary celebrity, whether a sage renowned for wisdom, or a particular mystery; he did not fail to visit any place where he thought he might have discovered something worthwhile. That is how he visited all of the Egyptian priests, acquiring all the wisdom each possessed. He then passed 22 years in sanctuary, studying astronomy and geometry, and being initiated in no casual or superficial manner, in all the mysteries of the gods."

- Iamblichus (neoplatonic philosoher) on the life of Pythagoras.


"But since we must speak of the origin of the arts and sciences with reference to the present world cycle, it was, we say, among the Egyptians that geometry is generally held to have been discovered."


- Proclus (neoplatonic philosopher)

This is the supposed "father of mathematics." Who received his mathematical education in Egypt. Why don't we call the Egyptians the fathers of mathematics and science? Because they're African?

Source: The life of Pythagoras. (if you google the quote you'll find the book).

Rosskii:
Were the Spaniards colonised by black African Moors, yes or no?

Did black Egypt and Nubia exist in all their glory before Rome existed, yes or no?

Did Rome and Greece exist before the Kushite and Egyptian empires, yes or no?

Did the Celts and Germanic tribes have armies that rivalled the Nubian military or Shaka Zulu's armies, yes or no?

See, anyone can play this silly game of yours, where you pick a relatively weak African paradigm to juxtapose with a strong European one. It's a childish, cheap game no one here will fall for. We are far smarter than you think. Nice try though. Move on.

Answer my questions before I answer yours.

We all know all of ancient Egypt wasn't black. Of course we had prominent black figures like Queen Nefrititi. But many of the Egyptian Pharoah paintings are not black even the sculpture. The Nubians were primitive and sacked continuously by the superior mixed Egyptian Empire.

And Rome was miles better than Nubia. And arguably better than Egypt, which is expected since they existed after Egypt and had improved technology passed from the Egyptians to Babylonians to the Greeks. Ife and Bini can never measure up to Rome or even Egypt (despite being in close proximity to Egypt).

Rome and Greece were grander civilizations than Egypt in all things except architecture. And as I said Egypt was not entirely black like Ife and Bini. Moreover Egypt is not in sub-Saharan Africa.

Rome sacked the Egyptian army. Greek proteges sacked the Egyptian army. No army on the planet could stand up to the Romans and Greeks in the height of their power.

The Shaka Zulus and Nubian military never ever crossed the shores of Africa. They didn't even have a formidable Navy. The Celts, Germanic tribes, and Vikings would have turned them to shreds if they were in close proximity.

The strongest you just named are Egyptian and Nubian, both of them were crushed by the Greeks and Romans. Egypt never conquered Europe but Europe conquered Egypt.

Let's not even start talking about Ife and Bini. That are actually core sub-Saharan black African kingdoms.

I've told you to tell me any sub-Saharan black African kingdom that rivals any of the great civilizations and you are yet to show one.

You don't even know that Egypt is not in sub-Saharan Africa. You are too dull.

Or will you call the shaka-Zulus wearing leaves and animal skin a match for the Babylonians? Or is the Nubian civilization a match for the Persians?

Now can you see that your African supremacy does not hold water.

-Lord

TheStronghold:


He can never win, because ancient Egypt is the foundation of human civilization. Even the ancient greeks, the fathers of european science and mathematics, studied in ancient Egypt, thats just a fact.



This is the supposed "father of mathematics." Who received his mathematical education in Egypt. Why don't we call the Egyptians the fathers of mathematics and science? Because they're African?

Source: The life of Pythagoras. (if you google the quote you'll find the book).

Is Egypt in sub-Saharan Africa?

PS: Look at the attached for proof that ancient Egypt and Nubians were mixed. Ramses is light-skinned. One of his lieutenants is dark-skinned. The Nubians he is crushing are both light-skinned and dark-skinned.

Which is why I've been echoing black sub-Saharan civilizations and you lots are quoting North African mixed civilizations.

-Lord

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w56XPsFfPuk

Hidden Colors- The Moors

Here is a sneak preview of the film Hidden Colors. Come out and be the first to see the new,ground breaking documentary from Tariq Nasheed,that talks about untold Black American,African,Moor,and aboriginal history.

For those who don't know simple history, like LordAdam

Egyptian Empire was formed around 3100 B.C.
Roman Empire was formed around 27 B.C.
And the Greek Empire was formed around 1100 B.C.

So the Egyptian Empire precedes Rome and Ancient greece by at least 2,000 years.

"All three of Giza's famed pyramids and their elaborate burial complexes were built during a frenetic period of construction, from roughly 2550 to 2490 B.C. The pyramids were built by Pharaohs Khufu, Khafre, and Menkaure."

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/archaeology/giza-pyramids/

The first people to conquer Egypt were the Greeks in 332 B.C., but as you can see, Ancient Egypt already built their pyramids before the greeks, were already skilled in mathematics before the Greeks, and were the leaders in math and science before the first external influence in the greeks.

It is already noted that Pythagoras travelled to Ancient Egypt to learn mathematics and Astronomy. He lived from 569 B.C. to 500 B.C., which is BEFORE Greece conquered Egypt. As the father of Greek mathematics and science, not knowing advanced mathematics and learning it from Ancient Egyptians, it is clear that the first conqueror of Egypt, Greece, or any other external influence, had no effect on turning the African Empire of Ancient Egypt into the fathers of mathematics and Science as they truly were.

And Arab and Muslim conquest of Egypt came LATER, in 639 AD. (Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_conquest_of_Egypt). So anyone claiming the Greeks, Romans, or Arabs were the creators of the pyramids or of Ancient Egypt, clearly have no knowledge of History. Let that myth die right here and now.

Marble Busts of a Moor - Italy ( 1750s)

Source: http://picssr.com/photos/medievalpoc/interesting?nsid=111594556@N06

Braden2:
Race or skin color is totally irrelevant . We now have the technology to depigment a dark skin or Tan a light skin. Rhinoplasty to shape a person's nose however they desire. Hair transplant,etc. All of these will only improve and become more affordable and available with time .
if all humans have a good quality of life , there'll be no racism and discrimination. Poverty breeds bad behaviour ,and in this world ,most black people are poor and black nations underdeveloped .
Most white nations are developed and majority of whites have a good Quality of life than blacks . This does not in anyway mean that blacks are inferior or white is superior .
If a black person is raised in a good environment and has good quality of life,the individual will lean towards a polite and studious outlook . if a white person is raised in a ghetto or trailer park,the individual will lean towards bad behaviour and negative outlook .THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BEVERLY HILLS AND COMPTON IS NOT RACE BUT CLASS.

black people are looked down upon and demonized in society because most African nations and societies are underdeveloped with poverty,diseases,crime etc. when you think of black ,the subconscious images come to mind :inferior,slave,backward,gangster,thug,thief,poor,dirty,etc. and that's the image propagated by the media into our minds.
Even if all humans are white, those who live in trailer park will be looked down and discriminated.Whether or not that black person wears a suit and carries bible . that image is already embedded in the subconscious mind . Majority always take the vote.
Poverty breeds bad behaviour and culture. for example ,gangster rap,sagging of pants,all originated from the black ghetto as a form of rebellion towards a perceived oppressive system. Punk rock and metal and biker gangs and tattoos originated from trailer parks . If the individual grew up in a sane environment,would they behave that way?Probably not. Everything wrong in this world has been deliberately orchestrated. Ghettos and underdevelopment are manmade .no one is inferior . all humans desire to have a good quality of life and live in a sane environment.



When Europeans arrived Africa, there was no racism. They traded for many centuries . when the Americas was discovered ,labourers (or what we now know as slavery) were needed . The British and Spanish kings sent message requesting labourers from the African kings. Prisoners of wars were sold to the Europeans . When the kings saw that the business was profitable ,they instigated more wars and captured more criminals of wars and sold to the sailors.
British and Spanish prisoners were appointed as supervisors at the plantations in the Americas,just as some were shipped to Australia . They took out their anger on the slaves and treated them cruelly in order to feel superior and feel better about themselves. The Europeans had a civil relationship with the ordinary Africans in Africa.
Institutionalized racism all began when everyone who had a dark skin like the slaves were now viewed as inferior whether or not your ancestors were slaves or not. whether you are black Zimbabwean or African american,you are simply viewed as slaves.This is the same way a white Romanian or Serbian may be respected by Africans despite the fact that Serbia is poor. That British ,French and Spanish glory simply affects all whites while slavery affects all blacks.

Very nice and intelligent contribution
This captured my thoughts well

LordAdam16:


Is Egypt in sub-Saharan Africa?

PS: Look at the attached for proof that ancient Egypt and Nubians were mixed. Ramses is light-skinned. One of his lieutenants is dark-skinned. The Nubians he is crushing are both light-skinned and dark-skinned.

Which is why I've been echoing black sub-Saharan civilizations and you lots are quoting North African mixed civilizations.

-Lord

The Egyptians back then were mostly of dark skin
The hieroglyphs prove that

TheStronghold:
For those who don't know simple history, like LordAdam

Egyptian Empire was formed around 3100 B.C.
Roman Empire was formed around 27 B.C.
And the Greek Empire was formed around 1100 B.C.

So the Egyptian Empire precedes Rome and Ancient greece by at least 2,000 years.



The first people to conquer Egypt were the Greeks in 332 B.C., but as you can see, Ancient Egypt already built their pyramids before the greeks, were already skilled in mathematics before the Greeks, and were the leaders in math and science before the first external influence in the greeks.

It is already noted that Pythagoras travelled to Ancient Egypt to learn mathematics and Astronomy. He lived from 569 B.C. to 500 B.C., which is BEFORE Greece conquered Egypt. As the father of Greek mathematics and science, not knowing advanced mathematics and learning it from Ancient Egyptians, it is clear that the first conqueror of Egypt, Greece, or any other external influence, had no effect on turning the African Empire of Ancient Egypt into the fathers of mathematics and Science as they truly were.

And Arab and Muslim conquest of Egypt came LATER, in 639 AD. (Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_conquest_of_Egypt). So anyone claiming the Greeks, Romans, or Arabs were the creators of the pyramids or of Ancient Egypt, clearly have no knowledge of History.

Who said the Greeks, Romans or Arabs were the creators of the pyramids or of Ancient Egypt?

Are you high on something?

I said the Greeks, Romans and Arabs conquered Egypt which is fact. And you've proven it.

Maybe you should show me where I said the Greek, Romans or Arabs built the pyramids. Your head is really paining you.

And what is all the sudden fraternity with Egypt now?

Egypt is mixed. Nubia is mixed. North Africa is mixed and they're very different people from sub-Saharan Africans.

That is why I have been sounding Black Africans and Black sub-Saharan Africans since my first reply.

So, talk about sub-Saharan black civilizations not mixed North African populations. The North Africans don't even call themselves black or white because they know their skin color is a spectrum.

Or do you want me to start quoting statements where I asked any of you to explain why core sub-Saharan civilizations like Ife and Bini empires couldn't rival ancient Egyptian and Carthage kingdoms?

This stupid nonsense you guys are doing is insulting. First you say Blacks ruled all of Europe. When that did not hold water, now you're claiming Egypt is in sub-Saharan Africa.

I see you are not disputing the fact that the Europeans did conquer the Egyptians. So, what is it you are yapping about really?

And as you said the Greeks conquered Egyptians in 332 B.C. Which is a solid 900 years before the Moors conquered Spain and Portugal in 711 AD.

So, where is the black supremacy of Europe jargon coming from?

-Lord

Ugosample:


The Egyptians back then were mostly of dark skin
The hieroglyphs prove that

Skin color really has nothing to do with it. There are light skinned africans with 99.9% (which is 100% but due to statistics, it can't be presented as such) subsaharan african DNA. Just look at the Igbos, or the various south african tribes. White people aren't a different species that affects skin color of africans only through offspring of mixed DNA. There are africans with light skin and zero influence of any other race. Africans are the most genetically diverse people on the planet. Scientifically, african genes are classified as dominant, while european genes are classified as recessive. All this is to say that genetically, two 99.9% genetically african people can produce light skinned africans, and also white people as well, but white people can not produce an african. There are light skin africans now, there were light skinned africans back then, and there will be light skinned africans in the future.


http://nypost.com/2010/07/21/blond-bombshell/

Ugosample:


The Egyptians back then were mostly of dark skin
The hieroglyphs prove that

Oga, the hieroglyphs and paintings proved only one thing that Egyptians were a mixed race. Which makes sense because they're in the Mediterranean.

So they were light skinned Egyptians as much as they were dark-skinned Egyptians. And everything in between. Ancient Egyptians were not all black. That is a theory that was recently started by the same people like Horus and Rossikk. They take only the dark skinned portraits and ignore the light-skinned portraits. In the same way that the European supremacists of the 18th century took only the light skinned portraits and ignored the dark skinned portraits.

If you look at one of my earlier post, you'll find a balanced portrait that depicts the balanced view of Egyptian skin color in them days.

Ramses the II was light skinned. Queen Tiye was dark-skinned. There was no discrimination based on color of the skin.

Discrimination based on color of the skin in this world started very recently. It's not even up to 400 years old.

Which is why when I see African supremacy, I'm miffed in the same way I'm miffed by accounts of White supremacy.

Even before the Moors invaded Spain, there were black-skinned people in Europe. Black skinned and light-skinned people fought in the pits in ancient Rome.

Slaves were of different colors from pure white to pure black. In the same way that free men were of different colors from pure white to pure black in the great open civilizations.

Civilizations with predominantly black or white people were civilizations that were locked up from the outside world completely like the Aztecs, and primitive sub-Saharan African civilizations like our very own Bini and Ife.

-Lord

Ugosample:


The Egyptians back then were mostly of dark skin
The hieroglyphs prove that

[img]http://mathildasanthropologyblog.files./2008/07/nubian-mummy.jpg[/img]
Maiherpri Mummy (18th Dynasty, 1427-1392 BC)


Maiherpri Mummy (18th Dynasty, 1427-1392 BC)

Maiherpri, Buried at Thebes in Egypt, Valley of the Kings, New Kingdom 18th Dynasty, 1427-1392 BC


Maiherpri Mummy (18th Dynasty, 1427-1392 BC)

Maiherpri was buried in a Royal Egyptian Tomb in the Valley of the Kings, the royal necropolis (Egypt). The mummy was unwrapped in March 1901, revealing a very dark skin with woolly hair. In Maiherperi's tomb, a papyrus was found depicting him with literally "blackish" skin. The papyrus in question was the Book of the Dead (Picture below).


Papyrus of Maiherpri

Why are some people so bent on discrediting this thread?

LordAdam16:


Oga is Spain and Portugal all of Europe?'

It's like when some ignorant white people call Africa like it's one country.

Use clear language.

Black Africans did not rule Europe. Say they ruled Spain and Portugal. Europe is bigger than Spain and Portugal.

-Lord

And is Spain and Portugal in Asia or America?

TheStronghold:

Skin color really has nothing to do with it. There are light skinned africans with 99.9% (which is 100% but due to statistics, it can't be presented as such) subsaharan african DNA. Just look at the Igbos, or the various south african tribes. White people aren't a different species that affects skin color of africans only through offspring of mixed DNA. There are africans with light skin and zero influence of any other race. Africans are the most genetically diverse people on the planet. Scientifically, african genes are classified as dominant, while european genes are classified as recessive. All this is to say that genetically, two 99.9% genetically african people can produce light skinned africans, and also white people as well, but white people can not produce an african. There are light skin africans now, there were light skinned africans back then, and there will be light skinned africans in the future.

https://thenypost.files./2010/07/baby1.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&w=1328&h=882&crop=1

http://nypost.com/2010/07/21/blond-bombshell/

Are you so sure about the bolded. The Igbos claim to have migrated from Israel (at least that's what they say). Europeans visited South Africa.

Skin color has everything to do with it. It's all about the dominant color. Among the Yorubas, Hausas, Binis, the dominant skin color is black. Among sub-Saharan people, the dominant skin color is black. Lighter skinned people are in the minority.

And because majority of the people taken abroad for slavery were from Western, Central and Eastern Africa, the vast majority of slaves in the New World were blacks.

So, you can't say Black is a spectrum and White is not a spectrum. The color of skin is a spectrum everywhere, but what we talk about the dominating skin color. Egypt is like India, the skin color is a spectrum between white and black. In North Africa, especially with the close proximity to black-dominating sub-Saharan African peoples, the composition of different skin tones is so varied that the only right way to call them is mixed.

That's why North Africans say they're different from predominantly black sub-Saharan Africans and are also different from the predominantly light-skinned Arabs.

North Africans are only Africans in geography. That's why I've been sounding it from my very first post. Black sub-Saharan Africa.

Don't carry your inferiority complex to join North Africa. Those people don't care about their skin color. They're know they're mixed. They've always been mixed.

For example is Israel Europe or Middle East? Is Kazakhstan Europe or Asia?

Egypt is not sub-Saharan Africa. Period!

-Lord

ephi123:
Why are some people so bent on discrediting this thread?

Because they are non-blacks and self hating blacks. Anytime they see something depicting black power or ancient black achievements, they do all what they can to bring it down

slurryeye:


And is Spain and Portugal in Asia or America?

Oga they said Blacks ruled Europe simply because they conquered Spain and Portugal.

It's like saying the British ruled Africa because they colonized parts of West Africa.

Why can't they be truthful.

Must we lie with everything?

-Lord

slurryeye:


Because they are non-blacks and self hating blacks. Anytime the see something depicting black power or ancient black achievements, they do all what they can to bring it down

Not a surprise. That's their typical approach.

They should go take a seat somewhere. Afterall this site is owned by a Black, so really they shouldn't be here.

LordAdam16:


Oga, the hieroglyphs and paintings proved only one thing that Egyptians were a mixed race. Which makes sense because they're in the Mediterranean.

-Lord

False. 1st, as i've told him, there are 100% light skinned africans in SUB SAHARAN africa. So I don't know why you keep bringing that up. You can keep looking at pictures and determining that they're mixed. But we only deal in science [/b]and [b]eye witness here. Subsaharan africa is a place, not a people, and it has shifted over time. And scientifically, the Ancient Egyptians are what we know today as sub-saharan africans.This video sums it up perfectly.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-wyBXnYgXI

In addition to all of those scientific facts. Here is primary sources from Greek eyewitnesses who travelled to Egypt THEMSELVES and described the people.

Some of the most-often quoted historians are Diodorus Siculus and Herodotus.

According to most translations, Herodotus wrote that a Greek oracle was known to be from Egypt because she was “black,” that the natives of the Nile region are “black with heat,’ and that Egyptians were “black skinned with woolly hair.”

Diodorus Siculus wrote that the Ethiopians considered the Egyptians their colony.

Lucian observes an Egyptian boy and notices that he is not merely black, but has thick lips.

Appollodorus called Egypt the country of the black-footed ones.

Aeschylus, a Greek poet, wrote that Egyptian seamen had “black limbs.”

Gaston Maspero states that “by the almost unanimous testimony of ancient [Greek] historians, they [ancient Egyptians] belonged to the African race, which settled in Ethiopia.”

Now you can try to deny all of these scientific and fact based evidence that the ancient egyptians were basically sub saharan africans before being conquered at the tail end of their empire, but everyone will see you as you truly are, a denier of the truth.

Thanks to Rossikk for creating this thread, and it's great it got to Frontpage.

As for the derailers, if you are so pained why not create a counter thread rather than being a nuisance on another person's thread.

Nwachineke1980:
Am a black man and appreciate history alot but I hate is when you twist history for personal reasons.l checked Charles V in Wikipedia and what l saw was the pic of a white man.Also,the Moors,i believe where Arabs from Morocco and Algeria.These guys are Caucasians(whites).

Anyone can edit a page on Wikipedia, it's not absolute truth.

LordAdam16:



So, you can't say Black is a spectrum and White is not a spectrum.

Yes, I can. Because that's science and genetics. Genetically, Africans are a spectrum, and the progenitors of all races of this planet. That's not an opinion, it is scientific fact. Today, the african has the largest genetic variation of any other people on the planet. Not only that, scientific research has proven that Africans are more genetically diverse than the rest of the world combined. That is also a scientific fact. I study science, and everyone who takes any genetics, or biology class learns this.

You can read up on it here: https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/06/01/does-africas-rich-genetic-diversity-explain-dominance-of-elite-african-runners/

Egypt is not sub-Saharan Africa. Period!

-Lord

And there we have it, you refuse to see the truth. Clearly you are a white guy, a mixed guy, or some extremely self hating african. Regardless, I can't entertain this any further.

LordAdam16:


Are you so sure about the bolded. The Igbos claim to have migrated from Israel (at least that's what they say). Europeans visited South Africa.

Skin color has everything to do with it. It's all about the dominant color. Among the Yorubas, Hausas, Binis, the dominant skin color is black. Among sub-Saharan people, the dominant skin color is black. Lighter skinned people are in the minority.

And because majority of the people taken abroad for slavery were from Western, Central and Eastern Africa, the vast majority of slaves in the New World were blacks.

So, you can't say Black is a spectrum and White is not a spectrum. The color of skin is a spectrum everywhere, but what we talk about the dominating skin color. Egypt is like India, the skin color is a spectrum between white and black. In North Africa, especially with the close proximity to black-dominating sub-Saharan African peoples, the composition of different skin tones is so varied that the only right way to call them is mixed.

That's why North Africans say they're different from predominantly black sub-Saharan Africans and are also different from the predominantly light-skinned Arabs.

North Africans are only Africans in geography. That's why I've been sounding it from my very first post. Black sub-Saharan Africa.

Don't carry your inferiority complex to join North Africa. Those people don't care about their skin color. They're know they're mixed. They've always been mixed.

For example is Israel Europe or Middle East? Is Kazakhstan Europe or Asia?

Egypt is not sub-Saharan Africa. Period!

-Lord

I know you will come up with the usual sub saharan African mumbo jumbo. I'm very sure you're non-black, and everytime you see something that pertain to black greatness, you go crazy. Sub saharan Africa is a term coined by the white to divide Africa for their selfish interest. You claim North Africans are mixed but evidences show that the original inhabitants of ancient Egypt are black people (the Kemets). As much as you guys have twisted history, there are many things you can't hide forever such as the original Egyptians are 100% black africans. The Arabs of North Africa are immigrants that committed genocide against the original black inhabitants of the land. We will get to that issue eventually but first we black people need to get our sh.it right first
The fact that you claim that sub saharan African are predominantly black shows that you don't know what you're saying. I guess the light skinned Khoisan people of Southern Africa are also mixed race .

slurryeye:


Because they are non-blacks and self hating blacks. Anytime they see something depicting black power or ancient black achievements, they do all what they can to bring it down

My first post on this thread gave great insight about the fact that black Africans would certainly have achieved a lot in ancient civilizations. There were black people in Egypt so it is conceivable that there were black people in Rome, Greece, and Christian Europe.

The issue however is not achievements, it is African supremacy.

Don't mix the two. Achievements is I did something. Supremacy is I did something and I am better than you.

And as I said, while we can acknowledge the achievements of black Africans as individuals and even as a people in sub-Saharan Africa, we SIMPLY CANNOT translate that to African supremacy. That's a line we MUST not cross because all evidence point to the contrary.

A few pages ago, Rossikk was mentioning paved roads in Ife as proof of African supremacy and I reminded him that Egypt already had paved roads at least 2000 years before Oduduwa existed.

So, while you can call Ife paved roads an achievement like we can call Bini art an achievement, we cannot call it evidence of black African supremacy. Because the people these uninformed people claim to be superior to have had far grander achievements for centuries before our core sub-Saharan civilizations existed.

Don't praise yourself by lying about someone else.

Earlier on, they were subtly claiming the Moors started the wave of cleanliness in Europe by building many public baths. Whereas ancient Romans already had the practice of building public baths.

They're doing the exact same thing the White Supremacists were doing in the 18th century. Lying through their teeth.

The difference between white supremacists and black supremacists is color of skin. Deep down they're all crazy, nasty people.

-Lord

TheStronghold:

False. 1st, as i've told him, there are 100% light skinned africans in SUB SAHARAN africa. So I don't know why you keep bringing that up. You can keep looking at pictures and determining that they're mixed. But we only deal in science [/b]and [b]eye witness here. Subsaharan africa is a place, not a people, and it has shifted over time. And scientifically, the Ancient Egyptians are what we know today as sub-saharan africans.This video sums it up perfectly.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-wyBXnYgXI

In addition to all of those scientific facts. Here is primary sources from Greek eyewitnesses who travelled to Egypt THEMSELVES and described the people.



Now you can try to deny all of these scientific and fact based evidence that the ancient egyptians were basically sub saharan africans before being conquered at the tail end of their empire, but everyone will see you as you truly are, a denier of the truth.

Load of nonsense.

So you're saying there were no fair-skinned people in Egypt?

Ancient Egyptians were mixed. They were not predominantly black people.

LordAdam16:


Load of nonsense.

So you're saying there were no fair-skinned people in Egypt?

Ancient Egyptians were mixed. They were not predominantly black people.

Of course, you ignore all that evidence, and respond with one picture. You're clearly a troll.

LordAdam16:


My first post on this thread gave great insight about the fact that black Africans would certainly have achieved a lot in ancient civilizations. There were black people in Egypt so it is conceivable that there were black people in Rome, Greece, and Christian Europe.

The issue however is not achievements, it is African supremacy.

Don't mix the two. Achievements is I did something. Supremacy is I did something and I am better than you.

And as I said, while we can acknowledge the achievements of black Africans as individuals and even as a people in sub-Saharan Africa, we SIMPLY CANNOT translate that to African supremacy. That's a line we MUST not cross because all evidence point to the contrary.

A few pages ago, Rossikk was mentioning paved roads in Ife as proof of African supremacy and I reminded him that Egypt already had paved roads at least 2000 years before Oduduwa existed.

So, while you can call Ife paved roads an achievement like we can call Bini art an achievement, we cannot call it evidence of black African supremacy. Because the people these uninformed people claim to be superior to have had far grander achievements for centuries before our core sub-Saharan civilizations existed.

Don't praise yourself by lying about someone else.

Earlier on, they were subtly claiming the Moors started the wave of cleanliness in Europe by building many public baths. Whereas ancient Romans already had the practice of building public baths.

They're doing the exact same thing the White Supremacists were doing in the 18th century. Lying through their teeth.

The difference between white supremacists and black supremacists is color of skin. Deep down they're all crazy, nasty people.

-Lord

I kinda understand you now, and buy into your thoughts about the supremacy part too.
I see

slurryeye:


I know you will come up with the usual sub saharan African mumbo jumbo. I'm very sure you're non-black, and everytime you see something that pertain to black greatness, you go crazy. Sub saharan Africa is a term coined by the white to divide Africa for their selfish interest. You claim North Africans are mixed but evidences show that the original inhabitants of ancient Egypt are black people (the Kemets). As much as you guys have twisted history, there are many things you can't hide forever such as the original Egyptians are 100% black africans. The Arabs of North Africa are immigrants that committed genocide against the original black inhabitants of the land. We will get to that issue eventually but first we black people need to get our sh.it right first
The fact that you claim that sub saharan African are predominantly black shows that you don't know what you're saying. I guess the light skinned Khoisan people of Southern Africa are also mixed race .

You are already over your head.

The Khoisan people are not light-skinned. They are predominantly black. Don't fool yourself. The KhoiSan is a unifying term for two groups, the Khoi and the San. Read about them here -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khoisan.

Sub-Saharan people are different from North African people. Stop cherry picking pictures that suit your narrative and leave the ones that don't.

Look that a painting on King Seti's tomb:

Can you note the gradation in skin color?

-Lord

TheStronghold:

Of course, you ignore all that evidence, and respond with one picture. You're clearly a troll.

What silly evidence are you talking about?

Individual paintings of black people in a mixed population? Can you hear yourself. So in a place like America, if you take only the pictures and paintings of black Americans, does than mean everyone in America is black?

You need flogging.

You think I have the energy to find and post multiple pictures to try to prove a point? A few is enough. It's out there on the net. If you want to lie to yourself, that's your business.

-Lord

Ugosample:


I kinda understand you now, and buy into your thoughts about the supremacy part too.
I see

No he's distorting the premise. First of all, supremacy is a mind set. No one can say Ancient Egypt being more supreme to any other civilization is a lie. Its an opinion and based off of what you believe. There is no measurement that says civilization A> Civilization By that same token, if I believe that Ancient Egypt was the greatest civilization on this world, i'm not lying about Rome or ancient greece, i'm just stating my opinion. No one can lie on those civilizations, everyone knows the great things they did. That is what Rossikk was saying. I agree with him.

.

LordAdam16:


What silly evidence are you talking about?

Individual paintings of black people in a mixed population? Can you hear yourself. So in a place like America, if you take only the pictures and paintings of black Americans, does than mean everyone in America is black?

You need flogging.

You think I have the energy to find and post multiple pictures to try to prove a point? A few is enough. It's out there on the net. If you want to lie to yourself, that's your business.

-Lord

That image is just as valid as one showing all black skinned africans proving its dominantily black skinned. And did you miss the history lesson I gave you showing that Ancient egypt were later conquered by the romans and greeks? Obviously they'll be images of them.