Browns sue Abercrombie for "White" Image

[and2000x]

What color were they THEN? There is no proof that Egyptians were anything BUT white. The whole African thing was based on that fact that specific busts were seen to have all black skin. However, if one knows anything about Egyptian paganism, it is obvious that the color black represents someone who is dead. Just read it here: www.skepdic.com

I'm not a white supremacist, in fact my biggest envy is the ancient Asian culture (note I said 'ancient'), so don't shove that bullshit down my throat. Frankly, I admire anyone who is a Nazi, because they have the courage and pride to stand up for their race and their heritage in the face of egalitarian monetarism.

 

[Jihad_AlifLamLamHah]

What color were they THEN? There is no proof that Egyptians were anything BUT white.

So give me the proof they were white , you cant . There is also no proof that Egyptians were anything BUT Black .

Im not sure , but are you not a bit letting out the entire purpose of the paling of the skin ? The entire function it had in the evolutionary proces ? It would seem to me problematic to be white MILLENIA's and live in Africa .

Also , do you deny the white to be related to the Indo-European followers ? If the Egyptians were white , then the entire Indo-European thing would totally parish ..... you would have to go with a White everything in that region , would you not ? Sumer , Babylon , all white ? Semites white ? Africans White ? Your assertion doesnt fit ANYWHERE in the logics of ancient anthropology , so give me proof .

As for the Black color in Paganism , the link is general , please show me specific text . Also , please show me translation of that text within the kemetian scriptures .

And when you're done with that , then we can discuss weither that *Black* as a negative color you speak of is essential for their skincolor .

They also say Egyptian Book of Dead , while its Egyptian Book of COMING FORTH , wow ......

I admire anyone who is a Nazi, because they have the courage and pride to stand up for their race and their heritage in the face of egalitarian monetarism.

I think people who make up race and history to have identity they can feel proud about is simply sickening , and a highly psychological disorder . Its just like zionist ideology ......... Hebrew Shekels........ PATHETIC

 

[Mystech]

Originally posted by otheadp
but that's the thing. ignorance is bliss... and bliss is what it's all about.

Happyness form stupidity is not a situation that can last. If I'm ignorant of the mack truck that's about to run me over, I may well be singing in the street, but it's only a matter of time before the problem I'm ignoring catches up with me.

 

[Mystech]

Originally posted by Jihad_AlifLamLamHah
You are in error, the people who built the pyramids were white. The Afrocentric fallacy that Egyptians were black is still being propagated to this day.

Oh my God , do people like you still exist ?

What proof are you bringing in for this joke ? Dont say facial structure........PLEASE

Tell me , who else were white ? Tell us all about it

Haha, my reaction to his post was exactly the same! I must echo Jihad_AlifLamLamHah in these sentiments.

Are you completely fucking mental?

Why is it, then that the egyptions themselves always depicted themselves as a dark skinned people? When was it that these white people came to Africa? They didn't evolve there. Where have they gone since?

 

[and2000x]

I'll point this link out again, since you beg for evidence:
http://www.skepdic.com/afrocent.html

There were indeed Africans in Egypt, I would be crazy to deny that. However, there were no Africans in any place of Pharonic power, as all architecture points out. I will give you credit: WHATEVER race they were, they were not completely white, but may have been a mix. They may have in fact been Semites, however they were NOT black. Unlike you, I read and do not hold dogmatic asserations, therefore I leave it open that they could have been Semitic.

One can simply look at the artifact and make the distinction:
White or Semitic= Tan figures
Africans= Brown figures
Black= Represents dead humans.

Any Africans living in Egypt were part of a powerful band of mercenaries (whose name escapes me at this point). They were often hired be the army to helpd stop invaders and at one point managed to seize control of Egypt. However, there is no evidence that these Africans were hired to build the pyramids.

Sumer , Babylon , all white ? Semites white ? Africans White ? Your assertion doesnt fit ANYWHERE in the logics of ancient anthropology , so give me proof .

The race of the Sumerians is unclear. There is no evidence that they were white or black. Babylon was an all Semitic civilisation, not white. Furthermore, the Romans were white, and according to you, we were all supposidly living in caves during the time of the Pyramids.

Read this too:

http://www.chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/afrocent.html

Here is a less dogmatic approach:
http://www.geocities.com/CollegePark/Classroom/9912/egyptians.html

Another nut bag like you:
http://www.jhu.edu/~newslett/03-04-99/Opinions/6.html

 

[Jihad_AlifLamLamHah]

I'll point this link out again, since you beg for evidence:

Again ? Where do you see again ? Why did you think I ask for it ?

http://www.skepdic.com & http://www.skepdic.com/afrocent.html

arent the same . No AGAIN , buddy

But the link , yes very nice , very simplistic and incomplete as well , happens to be Im quite familliar with Afro-centrism , and it doesn end with the claim on Kemet .


First of all , your link doesnt provide they are white , as you claimed . Secondly , it wines and becomes more anti-Afro than rather a skeptic view at Afrocentrism :

an example :

that Greek philosophy and the mystery religions of Greece and Rome were stolen from Egypt; that the ancient Greeks did not have the native ability to develop philosophy;

It doesnt mention for instance that Greeks traveled to Kemet as well as Babylon and have taken along with them lots and lots of knowledge they found there .

Hey , let me give what you probably falsly would call : Arab-centrism . Did you know that the modern Europeans gained their knowledge of the Greeks through the Arabs , since everything was burned/dealt with in Christianity (those damn Pagan Greeks etc)

There were indeed Africans in Egypt, I would be crazy to deny that. However, there were no Africans in any place of Pharonic power, as all architecture points out

And how does this point out ?

I will give you credit: WHATEVER race they were, they were not completely white, but may have been a mix. They may have in fact been Semites, however they were NOT black. Unlike you, I read and do not hold dogmatic asserations, therefore I leave it open that they could have been Semitic.

Give me credit , what a funny man ...... they may have been semites , well they didnt speak a semitic language now did they ? How you mean they were not Black ? What is Black to you ? Shall we bring in color cards ? They were NOT Indo-Europeans , those peoples werent THERE at that time .

Im sure they had some racial-semitic mixture , its semitism that deals in essence with the typically "white" facial structure , guess what , Semites werent white either , go to Saudi & Ethiopia have a nice look . The reason many Arabs are white-ish today is because of the Caucasian intermixing (turkics) .

One can simply look at the artifact and make the distinction:
White or Semitic= Tan figures
Africans= Brown figures
Black= Represents dead humans.


Im not understanding what you mean ?

The race of the Sumerians is unclear.

How about Semitic ?

There is no evidence that they were white or black

How about the burning sun ? What do we know about climate ? Was it the freezing cold (which caused evolution into white skin) ? No there wasnt

Babylon was an all Semitic civilisation, not white.

Many similarities between Babylon and Sumer

Furthermore, the Romans were white, and according to you, we were all supposidly living in caves during the time of the Pyramids.

So the pyramids and Kemetian civilization are 2500 years old ?

Ill read your links later on

 

[Redoubtable]

Originally posted by Jihad_AlifLamLamHah


As for Aryan ....... what exactly do you consider Aryan ?

1)Just white ? Whats white ? Caucasian ? So Turks are Aryan ?
2)Germanics-Nordics ? Why ?
3)Any Blue-Blond ? Arabs 2 ?
4)Those from Sanskrit ?

Actually there is more evidence to suggest that the Aryans ended up in India, than in Europe, they aren't a blond haired blue eyed people. And really who cares what ancient tribe someone may have lineage from?

Hmmmmm . . . Whatever . . . here

THE ARYAN RACE (MORE COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE INDO-EUROPEAN RACE)
"Aryan" means "noble" in Sanskrit, and today the term designates a group of fair-skinned, light-eyed nomads who traversed the expanses of modern-day Russia and Turkistan in 2000 B.C.

Many of them went west and subjugated advanced cultural settlements in Asia Minor and Mesopotamia and eventually Greece and Europe. These are best known as the Persians and Medes of Iran, and the Dorians of the Greek Dark Age.

Some other Aryan Nomads invaded the Punjab region of the Indian subcontinent in 1500 B.C. and established themselves as the aristocratic caste and clergy of the newly forged kingdom. This is why some members of the Indian ruling class were once observed as having oddly fair-complexions and/or blue-eyes. Before the ground-breaking discovery of the antedilluvian and previously obfuscated Indus river-valley Culture, scientists and historians had presumed the Aryans to be the founders of all Indian society.

Originally posted by Xev
Excuse me, but my people are so oppressed, the word 'slave' stems from our ethnic group.

Xev, that's like ummmm really not true at all . . .

 

[and2000x]

Hey , let me give what you probably falsly would call : Arab-centrism . Did you know that the modern Europeans gained their knowledge of the Greeks through the Arabs , since everything was burned/dealt with in Christianity (those damn Pagan Greeks etc)

No clue what that has to do with Arab-centricism, however, any Arabic remark is a billion times more realistic and tangible than afro-centricism, seeing as Arabs are a lot more accomplished and trustworthy than a bunch of liberal revisionists pushing pseuo-history for their own agenda.

How about Semitic ?

As I said, historians have no clue, and I would agree that they are probably Semitic.

Now let's look at mummies. Obviously, they have unmistakably white facial features:

Debunking the black mummy theory:
http://www.commonsenseclub.com/Pharoahs.html

White mummies found in china:
http://www.mummytombs.com/market/books/world/urumchibarber.htm

Examples of deliberate forgeries to further a white-supremacist agenda:
http://www.raceandhistory.com/manu/update.htm

*White mummies in Egypt, notice the blonde hair:
http://www.white-history.com/hwr8a.htm

*= Most consider this site racist, but I look past such classifications to further my knowledge.

How about the burning sun ? What do we know about climate ? Was it the freezing cold (which caused evolution into white skin) ? No there wasnt

That’s a poor understanding of genetics. To say that skin color is simply a product of the sun is beyond retarded. By that logic, everyone is South America should be black, but they aren’t. Furthermore, North Americans that have lived in the tundra for thousands of years have very dark skin, yet Asians and Europeans living in the same climates are white as ghosts.

 

[and2000x]

I think people who make up race and history to have identity they can feel proud about is simply sickening , and a highly psychological disorder . Its just like zionist ideology ......... Hebrew Shekels........ PATHETIC

Pathetic? I wonder how long you would last in Japan if you were to say that to someone? People have pride in their race because they see at as an extension beyond their simple useless selves. It's a way to transcend and reflect, to say 'I'm here today because of great human civilizations, thus I am a part of something extending back millions of years.' They are not simply copying traditions, they are understanding them. This type of reaction to heritage is healthy, opposed to the severity of monoculturalism, such as the massive outbreak of ethnic schizophrenia: http://www.namiscc.org/News/2002/Summer/SocialFactors.htm

Afrocentricism is a disorder much like the one you describe. Where instead of embracing what they have, they make up the past. In essence, blacks are beating themselves up by following this garbage.

 

[Sinisister]

I think prozac has a valid point. You don't see any white people suing fubu. One thing I don't agree with would be the part about A&F having an all white sales force. In this day and age, trying to have a staff that excludes anyone based on race is primitive and asking for trouble.

 

[Redoubtable]

I think we should commence in a new legal practice: cutting off the big toes of everyone who loses a law suit that they started.
Maybe then people will take legal entanglements more seriously.

 

[Jihad_AlifLamLamHah]

and2000x

First on your whining :

I wonder how long you would last in Japan if you were to say that to someone?

I LOL at todays Jappo-culture , and I could care little for their identity bullpoo .

It's a way to transcend and reflect, to say 'I'm here today because of great human civilizations, thus I am a part of something extending back millions of years

My specific example is kinda false on this point wouldnt you say ? Or supposably you believe in the "white" Hebrew thing as well ?


http://www.namiscc.org/News/2002/Su...cialFactors.htm

ever heard about anti-semitism ? Thats a far better one

Afrocentricism is a disorder much like the one you describe

I agree they show disorders based on identity-crisis (same like Ashkenazim) , but why are you using this as an entire overlapping of the theories proposed ? Ever heard of Ante Diop ? He wasnt American , but from Senegal . What about African historians and anthroplogists ? Anywyas this entire point on Afrocentrism is relevant only up to a point , that we should consider a highly bias view . Thats all .

Now as for the question on skincolor . Lets try to figure this out then a bit civilizaed , shall we ? I mean if you are honest in accepting truth rather than having racist motives , then why oppose truth , correct ?

As I said, historians have no clue, and I would agree that they are probably Semitic.

Semitism is found in its purest forms around Saudi-Arabia & Ethiopia .

Obviously, they have unmistakably white facial features:

Ok lets wait a minute here , there is no such thing as "white" facial feautures .

ThatÂ’s a poor understanding of genetics. To say that skin color is simply a product of the sun is beyond retarded. By that logic, everyone is South America should be black, but they arenÂ’t. Furthermore, North Americans that have lived in the tundra for thousands of years have very dark skin, yet Asians and Europeans living in the same climates are white as ghosts

Fine , this is getting a bit silly . Please tell me then what exactly causes the evolotion of skincolor , and why it all "evolved" differently . Its obvious that you dont hold pale-ness just to Indo-Europeans , do you ? So tell me why are those things that you say so ? And have you studied exactly how long everybody suffers what climate and calculated mixing ?

As for your links :

Debunking the black mummy theory:
http://www.commonsenseclub.com/Pharoahs.html

To a man, they agreed that neither the pharaohs nor the common people of ancient Egypt were black or negroid

When they use such terms as "black or negroid" they do not make themselves credible as knowledged peopels on such anthropological questions .

the ancient Egyptians were Mediterranid Caucasoids

They originate in Caucasus but are not Indo-European ? How remarkable .

straight hair typical of whites

Why is straight here white ? I know more non-whites than whites with straight hair , and I do not mean in my personal community .

The authors explain that modern Egyptians are, in fact, somewhat darker than the ancients

LOL , and that with such Caucasian mixing within the Arabs , while Kemetians do not show resemblence with anything Caucasoid .

distinguishes the Egyptians and their neighbors by portraying the black-skinned Negro, the olive colored Syrians, the red-skinned Egyptian, and the white-skinned Libyan (then unmixed with the Arab hordes)….�

And Red means Caucasoid ? Anyways showing that they speak of Arab hordes makes this whole thing looking stupid as Arabs werent the hordes but the result of them . Also "hordes" , says plenty as well .

To the East, Egyptians were also in contact with Amorites and Hittites, who also are likely to have originated in Europe.

So we switched from the Caucasus to Europe ?

Well Ive had enough of that link , they're making every Ancient peoples White , its totally hilarious . They proof lack of credibility , and their name "common sense" club is totally retarded .

I havent seen any evidence , just statements and claims of evidence somewhere in books .

Caucasian mummies (dating from 2000 B.C.) have been found in western China,

So ? Whats your point with this link . It would only explain the lightned taint by mixing with Caucasians .

the Christian Copts who destroyed statues and monuments

Hey , werent they mentioned in that other link ? They were what Egyptians were like correct ? LOL

MARCH OF THE TITANS

Just gotta love this book , although I find many things very informative I really cant take their view on race seriously .

I mean .......... Hatshepsut the supposed ancestor of Jens Svenson , lets get real .

I think we should recollect our thoughts a bit on what we call race and what not . We cant just take some examples of today (fair hair blue eyes) and print it on a peoples just because it seems obvious today . If there is no historically logical sound theory on how it developed and who mixed with what and what happened etc etc , all this is a joke .

So please .......... enlighten us .

Redoubtable :
"Aryan" means "noble" in Sanskrit, and today the term designates a group of fair-skinned, light-eyed nomads who traversed the expanses of modern-day Russia and Turkistan in 2000 B.C.

I am not that well thought on these peoples specifically , but there are arguments that oppose Aryans as being who they are supposed to be :

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=8984

However I know too little to oppose your view

Back to our mr 2000 :

On that "less dogmatic link" :

The Mediterranean Myth: According to those who endorse and purport this claim, the people of ancient Egypt were not related to Black Africans but rather inhabitants of the Near East. These people, who fit under the category of Caucasian, are the creators and maintainers of Egyptian civilization. These people are known as Mediterraneans, Hamites, Dark-Whites and other confusing names. They are characterized as dark skinned peoples with straight hair, thin lips and elongated noses. Thus these peoples are not "true Africans" characterized by tightly curled hair, thick lips and flat noses.

This is totally flawed on somany points .
1)Semites are originally dark skinned , their culture however has mixed in immensly with Caucasians .
2)Again facial structures , very dark skincolor with very white facial structures proved different . This attitude is nothing but simplistic and ignorant .

they always painted themselves reddish-brown rather than black skinned.

Reddish-Brown isnt White

ancient Egyptians used a variety of styles and colors to portray themselves

So this isnt even relevant what they said ? Man this site is full of hilarious stupidity . Sorry cant take this serious your socalled less dogmatic perspective

 

[and2000x]

This is incredibly childish. I never been to one single class that has ever agreed that Egyptians were black (I've been to MPS, a school that is 90% black btw.)

I LOL at todays Jappo-culture , and I could care little for their identity bullpoo .

I think this shows the extent of your seriousness on this issue.

Ok lets wait a minute here , there is no such thing as "white" facial feautures .

Actually there is. Indo-Europeans have distinct bone structures due to the fact that they are part of an extended family. Even though race is an illusion, these family traits are still defining features of a large ethnic group (Ex: Asians are shorter, Europeans have higher cheek bones, etc) These traits CAN appear in other races, but the crossover is very rare in homogenous groups. I read an article a little while back about a (black) forensics expert who could easily identify the race of a pile of bones just by looking at a skull.

. Please tell me then what exactly causes the evolotion of skincolor , and why it all "evolved" differently . Its obvious that you dont hold pale-ness just to Indo-Europeans , do you ?

No one is 100% sure. We assume that it is geographical location, but it takes a lot longer than 7000-8000 years to change skin color.

When they use such terms as "black or negroid" they do not make themselves credible as knowledged peopels on such anthropological questions .

Those terms are still used today as general statements about a person's racial group, there is nothing politically incorrect about them. I'm fairly sure they are not using it in the connotation of the ancient middle age concepts of 'mongoloid' 'negroid' 'caucasoid', etc.

Semitism is found in its purest forms around Saudi-Arabia & Ethiopia .

Have YOU ever been to Saudi Arabia? I have been to Egypt and there are a lot of whites there, as well as semitic-white, arab-white, african-white mixes. It's not uncommon to see Africans with blue eyes!

They originate in Caucasus but are not Indo-European ? How remarkable .

That doesn't even make sense pal, Caucasian is another way of saying Indo-European.

Arabs werent the hordes but the result of them . Also "hordes" , says plenty as well .

You are being subjective. It is clouding your vision of what they are saying.

So we switched from the Caucasus to Europe ?

Once again, Caucasian means Indo-European. White/Indo-European/Caucasian/Aryan all refer to the same thing.

We cant just take some examples of today (fair hair blue eyes) and print it on a peoples just because it seems obvious today . If there is no historically logical sound theory on how it developed and who mixed with what and what happened etc etc , all this is a joke .

Actually we can take examples from today, because those are the defining feautres of European people. I have yet to meet non-mixed Zulus who have blue eyes.

 

[Jihad_AlifLamLamHah]

Seems we are back to the argue-game , too bad :

That doesnt usually result in any gain of knowledge , oh well ....

. I never been to one single class that has ever agreed that Egyptians were black (I've been to MPS, a school that is 90% black btw.)


Your classes have authority ? Why ? Why should I care they are Black ? As if that would make any difference (as long as they aint some Afrocentric sect) ? I have found little evidence .

I think this shows the extent of your seriousness on this issue.


It shows I think that all those hair-dying wannabe Westerners are hilarious when they start caring for identity , race , etc .
Also pride in something like such I consider ignorant .


Indo-Europeans have distinct bone structures due to the fact that they are part of an extended family. Even though race is an illusion, these family traits are still defining features of a large ethnic group (Ex: Asians are shorter, Europeans have higher cheek bones, etc) These traits CAN appear in other races, but the crossover is very rare in homogenous groups. I read an article a little while back about a (black) forensics expert who could easily identify the race of a pile of bones just by looking at a skull.


As far as facial structures go , all facial structures found on a White skin can be found on a darker (up to Blackest) skin as well . So no Indo-European may have specific facial structures in accordence to ther ethnic group , but in the wider picture they have no authority on calling it "theirs" since those facial structures were existent before they existed .

No one is 100% sure. We assume that it is geographical location, but it takes a lot longer than 7000-8000 years to change skin color.

And that is what happened to the Caucasians isnt that correct ? Anyways , seems that you are pulling back on your statement of me being "retarded" to bring up climate .

Those terms are still used today as general statements about a person's racial group, there is nothing politically incorrect about them.

Nobody said anything about political , and the fact they ARE used doesnt mean they SHOULD be used , and self-respecting anthroplogists dont equate black to negro and then come up with the whole thick lips etc bullpoo . Black doesnt mean West-African .

Have YOU ever been to Saudi Arabia? I have been to Egypt and there are a lot of whites there, as well as semitic-white, arab-white, african-white mixes. It's not uncommon to see Africans with blue eyes!

No I havent , but I am quite aware of their history in this sense . You dont seem to understand that what I am taliking about is that the original Semitic Sabean was Dark-skinned , and their purest traces are to be found in Saudi Arabia . The light-ness in some Saudi's skin is a result of mixing , maybe you dont know but its quite common to mix in Arabia (over the last 1000 years at least) . Light-skinned peoples of Egypt are because of the Northern-Arab influence rooted in Akkhadian Arabian , and resulted from Turkic (Caucasoid) intermixture .

You dont seem to know alot about this .....


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They originate in Caucasus but are not Indo-European ? How remarkable .
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That doesn't even make sense pal, Caucasian is another way of saying Indo-European.


Hey , it is YOUR link who is claiming that the Kemetians are Caucasoid while they are not Indo-European ? Obviously they have no relations whatsoever to the Indo-European language family whatsoever , yet they are Caucasoid ?


You are being subjective. It is clouding your vision of what they are saying.


Not one bit , they simply show their racist nature by the way they speak .

Once again, Caucasian means Indo-European. White/Indo-European/Caucasian/Aryan all refer to the same thing.

These peoples claim "originated in Europe" , while Caucasoid doesnt originate in Europe at all

Actually we can take examples from today, because those are the defining feautres of European people. I have yet to meet non-mixed Zulus who have blue eyes.

How about the hair ? Why do you leave out half what im saying ?

 

[and2000x]

Hey, no hard feelings right. This argument is getting ridiculous and subjectivism is no use unless it produces a positive result. You brought up very good points, and I managed to show you some links (even if you don't agree with them). I take it you have some clue what you are talking about, therefore I thank you for at least causing me to 're-think' my assumptions. I will look into it further if it comes up again. Cheers.

 

[Jihad_AlifLamLamHah]

No worries , if I may I would like to recommend you to read some Cheikh Anta Diop , he may be a bit Afro-centric but he's no identity-crisis suffering African-American , he's one of the most respected Senegalese anthropologists specialized in Kemet who provides serious scientific evidence on matters and not some racist-based understanding of mankind .

 

[Flores]

I had to do a class on African Civilization in college as an elective and unfortunately I was subjected to the useless stupid debate of whether Egyptians are White or Black. Talk about the most ludicurous question to present to an engineering student female from Egypt.

So are Egyptians white or black? They are clearly neither. I have been to Luxor, Aswan, and most other sites, including the Cairo Museam. I saw and own many papyruses. I saw so many mummies that I still dream of it, and I could say with confidence that Egyptians were neither black or white. They were light beige, more like the color of coffee with milk, features resembeling north Africans you see today specially in Southern Egypt. I wish I have a picture of my paternal Grandma, but that lady is from southern Egypt and seems like 100% pharoah to the 100 grandpa.

 

[Jihad_AlifLamLamHah]

You know Flores thats really nice and all , but do you have any evidence or a historical racial-theory proving they were "coffee with milk" ? If it is just based on their pictures etc , there werent any fotocamera's so they can illustrate everything they make as they wish to do so , based on the available colors . Also they used different stuff all the time , I rather suspect they have a quite different understanding of the colors of the images/sculptures they made than an anthropological one .

I suspect their color to be something similar to Ethiopian-semitic , lighter than Somalians or Sudanese and with a very "fine" facial structures we know from the sculptures (structures are more likely to be used anthropological than colors)

I found 3 examples of ethiopian woman that come in resemblence to what I believe to represent Kemetians best :

First without relevant skin-color to show the structure of this specific type of Ethiopian face :

And the color :

I wonder about the linguistical relation with Amharic , but I know to little on African anthropology to come up with a solid theory .

I do know that 8.000 BC there is little chance there was that much Caucasian intermixing to lighten up that skin . First of all these Kemetians were far superior to the Caucasians based on being civilized , I think the earliest intermixing might have been around 2000 BC or so (Caucasian(early Turkic)-Semitic) . I dont think however that even then it would be that easy for them to infiltrate in the kemetian society to seriously intermix , causing little change in color . In Babylon on the other hand as it was closer to the source this might have been going on a higher level . I wonder if anybody in here has actual knowledge on these exact developments , most information let out is almost always more propoganda than usefull .

And then there is ofcourse the Nubian thing .......

 

[prozak]

Re: Re: Browns sue Abercrombie for "White" Image

Originally posted by Mystech
What kind of double think is this?! You've just stated that their target audience is overwhelmingly non-white, and then in the same sentence said that their target market is all white. Pick a stance and stick with it.

I think you just stumbled over a reading comprehension issue of your own.

The population surrounding a store does not equal its target audience.

You'd have to be FUCKING STUPID to conflate the two, but hey, that's you.

 

[prozak]

Originally posted by Flores
I had to do a class on African Civilization in college as an elective and unfortunately I was subjected to the useless stupid debate of whether Egyptians are White or Black. Talk about the most ludicurous question to present to an engineering student female from Egypt.

So are Egyptians white or black? They are clearly neither. I have been to Luxor, Aswan, and most other sites, including the Cairo Museam. I saw and own many papyruses. I saw so many mummies that I still dream of it, and I could say with confidence that Egyptians were neither black or white. They were light beige, more like the color of coffee with milk, features resembeling north Africans you see today specially in Southern Egypt. I wish I have a picture of my paternal Grandma, but that lady is from southern Egypt and seems like 100% pharoah to the 100 grandpa.

Or southern Italians, or white people with suntans... hmm.