For all those interested, this language is the same as Coptic. The only difference is that in 300BC, the Copts started using Greek letters+ 7. The language is still spoken in Coptic churches and by some Copts. Cheers.
i think they spoke arabic or hebrew cause its none other languige in egypt. white people just make up theyre own storys. you have to go to egypt to know
@0pteryx have you ever heard this languige? how could they know how to read it if they never heard someone pronounce it? who are you by the way to say that to me
Anyways we shouldn't discern ourselves with issues as petty as race when discussing the world. Everyone is led to believe western knowledge is correct but when it wrong is causes identity crisis in some individuals. Western culture has a bad rep for suppressing racial identity... so I (and hopefully you) can understand why people react the way the do.
Of course egypt was probably black. Egypt was invaded by the persia around 500 BC. And then a lilttle later Greeks then the Arabians... they mixed the colors up and took the culture and science like the US and the native americans. Its not amazing that you found a correlation between coptic latin or hebrew or arabic. We think the scientifically oldest civilization is in india not sumeria. Our knowledge of history is still flawed though. You or I do not know.
I hope your still alive and could remake this video, seems like great information although I can not read most of the things in this video!! in the mean time I will try to get my telescope in front of my computer : )
Thank you, most people don't really appreciate my words. Mainly because they do not understand me. If like philosophy, let me ask you this question. I've been wondering about this question for many years and it may sound a bit strange, but: What is the Way?
I don't know where the question came from but I have finally realised the answer. It has something to do with our religions.
@PseudoHuman16 If the real truth is viewed from a different perspective, then all perspectives are the "real truth". Your words may be deep, but they are also hallow.
Very good! That is exactly what perspectives are. Their deep but their hallow as well. Even my previous saying is just a perspective. And that's the strange thing about perspectives, through it we try to discover the deeper meaning in the world. But is there a deeper meaning? Or are we creating this ourselves?
Thee trouble with these language courses is that you first have to have a refresher on English language. I have no idea what a "causative verb" is for example, and that's only after looking at it for 2 seconds. I'm sure it gets harder.
@ukthesisful Not that this has anything to do with the subject, but this is the funny thing about youtube. I made that comment a year ago if it isnt more. But I absolutely do not recall why I made it or what this video is actually about.
This study is false. As of 3 years ago (2007), a team of scientist have identified the CORRECT gene (SLC24a5 gene) for pale skin.? The gene is recorded as merely 6k - 12k years old. So your Jablonski/ Chaplin study (a 10 year old study at that) has been proven false!
being white Greek woman who have studied a little about the origins of Greek civilisation I can say that it a fact that the Greek belong to an African phylogenetic mainly and partially to Indo-European.
@nafsika2004 Indo-European is not a racial term it is a linguistic term and to a lesser extent cultural term.
Greek is a clear Indo-European language it classical form preserved many elements from Proto-Indo-European language. Before Greece was mainly IE speaking they seem to have not spoken languages related to Egyptian or any Afro-Asiatic language like Minoan for an example.
@mikedav9O No no it was 8,000 years that people in the Northen parts of the world gott very pale skin devolpt in eastern Europe. How ever people where paler then let's central africans before that and that is obveious considering that in the cold north you need more vitamin D and less protection from the sun. Eskimos have kept a darker skin because of there diet consisting of fish that already gives them vitamin d.
@mikedav9 part 2 : Greek civilization was not 8000 years ago was it ?
Besides I guess you will argue that Berbers are black, Sumerians where blacks and northen Egyptians and etc andn ot mediterianians with no evidence to back them up. And besides I went here to learn about the language not to see comments from black supramists... after dealing white supramists I sure don't want to switch one bullshit over another.
"i guess you will argue that berbers were black, sumerians were blacks"
Eopyk, the whole world started black. That's a genetic fact. Now can you destroy that statement? Do you have any evidence which will debunk that statement? If you do not, then it is safe to say that if the world was started by black people, then the ENTIRE world is still black. Terms such as white (european), yellow (asian), red (native american), are recent innovations (16th century AD)
@mikedav9O have I said anything else ? Humanity started black skinned and the adapted to there enviroments.
Well yeah we are all homosapians and define the term black.
I say race is bullshit because we are all homosapians. And my point was that many black nationalist will insist that those who spoke Sumerian and Egyptians (even northen ones) looked like central africans and that is from all we know not true.
I am against racism in all shapes forms. I myself is ''mixed race''
Dumb ass, black people come in all shades. It is also biological fact that blacks have more genetic diversity than all races combined. Black people had to be genetically diverse to populate the world. So black people do not come in one or two shades. We come in all shades. It is merely you white nationalists that believe all blacks look like central africans
If you are not a white nationalist, then you need to stop challenging black people with out-dated material, sources, information, and then labeling these black people as BLACK NATIONALISTS, because they speak the truth
@mikedav9O no they do not. Cultural sciences is one of my passions and what you say is to a larg extent bullshit.
Mike the procees of more paler skin took time not one day. And it happend indipendently in various areas for similear reasons the Eskimos keept a darker skin because of there diet already gave them Vitamin D
You labeling me white nationalists shows that you think people disagreeing with you automaticaly is a racist even tough you show to be a racist yourself.
White boy, I never said pale skin came in 1 day. So stop trying win a worthless argument by putting YOUR words in my mouth. Look here, white boy, find where on this forum did I say "white skin came over a day". YOU CAN'T you fucking loser. You labeled me a black nationalist, that shows that anyone who disagrees with you is automatically a racist. Remember, dumb ass, it was YOU who started the name-calling with your IGNORANT WHITE ASS.
@mikedav9O and you when you say Romans, Northen Egyptians where ''black'' that is acadamicly wrong. Egyptian where then as they are now meditiranians geneticaly Egyptians are still to this day more less direct dissendens of old Egypt only language and culture has changes.
And also you have not awsner what skin colour has to do with the Egyptian language what ? Nothing nothing at all.
Once again, white boy, I never made any statement about Romans being black. So this is your final warning. You are the typical white trash who has found a black man who is smarter than you, so like any typical white trash, you try to win an irrelevant debate by putting YOUR words in mouth. You have not supported anything that you have claimed. This is your final warning before I put your dumb white ass on mute.
@mikedav9O oh sorry correction from my side.. gah read wrong. ''Scientists discovered a skin-whitening mutation that largely explains the first appearance of white skin in humans between 20,00050,000 years ago'' So there as we know peopel who have lived in the northen sphere paler trough time. And it began LOONG ago.
You just spew bullshit like pale peopel coming from nowhere 5000 years ago ( That would still be long before the Roman Empire, and Greece. Read some real science
@mikedav9O racists bullshit because I refuret he bullshit notions that pale skinned people just apeared 5000 years that is bullshit. We know that is not true
You have no proof that pale skin as a genetic trait existed 10s of thousands of years ago. In fact, leading scientists, today, have agreed that the gene and/or mutation for pale skin is merely 5,500 - 12,000 years old. So it is merely YOU who are lying.
@mikedav9O the skin gott paler in various palces for similear reasons. '' Scientists discovered a skin-whitening mutation that largely explains the first appearance of white skin in humans between 20,00050,000 years ago.[21] In Jablonski and Chaplin's (2000) study, The evolution of human skin coloration, Europeans have lighter skin (as measured by population average skin reflectance read by spectrophotometer at A685) than any other group that was measured''
@mikedav9O Part 2 : I want people to see themselves as homosapians and drop this colour bullshit that sadley exist to this day.. and I came here wanting to learn linguistics and I see talk about ''races'' that made me upset.
@mikedav9O part 2 even if Europeans fro around 10 000 and 8 000 years ago might devolopt even lighter skin then before. Skin colour can be mathanetical detrimed if a population lives in a enviroment long enough.
Ah black supramist... and white supramists.. bullshiting everything they can at all times in all worlds..
Oh yeah one last thing and sorry for the many comments just I get extatic when something like racism something and upsets me very much ocur and bullshit is spread with it. Paler skin seem to have ocurred in North Africa, Europe, and Asia indipendently of each other . It is seemply adaption to ones enviroment and the mutation responsible for it seems to very old and thus '' paleinisation'' seems to have began early20,00050,000 . I came to this video to learn about Egyptian language not racism
If I have to remind you, Egyptian1922, all people on this planet are descendants of black Africans. It is totally impossible for you to exist at the same time these black African ancestors existed. There were no other people in the world, but black Africans. So please tell me how you (an Eurasian) was here on earth 150,000 - 200,000 years ago, the same time blacks were just getting started to migrate the world. You can't. Because, it's a lie. No other races existed at that time!
If your claim that black Africans are 200,000 years then you concede to the fact that black African are 200,000 years behind in evolution (You would make 19th century proponents of Social Darwinism very happy)? Of course your wrong seeing as haplogroup E (which 99% of every back african contain) is 30-40 thousand year old.
Having a background history of your genes can serve you well in the future (for instance you wont post comments that make you look like a complete retard).
"you concede to the fact that black African are 200,000 years behind in evolution"
Once, again, this is merely the way you want things to be. According to legitimate science, every person on the planet is specified as Homo Sapien Sapien. Now, if any race has "EVOLVED" beyond Homo Sapien Sapien, they would be labeled with with a new classification. Please do not keep the secret from me. Do tell!... You simply c-a-n-t. All the information you have posted thus far is unsupported "junk".
The oldest race in the world is 200,000 years old. They are black Africans. Since black Africans did not leave Africa until 50,000 years ago, to populate the world and therefore create the white race, asian race, and all other races, due to the timing they left, you did not exist as a race. Therefore, you could not have out-ran/ or out-trotted these black Africans to the site now called Egypt, because you were not created as a race- and would not be seen for another 150,000+ years.
Common knowledge says the first documented Pharaoh of Egypt is King Menes. Have you ever seen the sculpture of Menes? I have. He is clearly black African: exagerated wide nose, thick lips, and a forward prognathism of the lower jaw. these are negro traits. If you have never seen King Menes, the first Pharaoh, I suggest you google for the images.
The bust of King Menes is from the Royal Ontario Museum. I doubt museums hold fraudulent antiquities or allow black people to sneak in at night to exchange busts. Which presently makes your statement incorrect. You also made an error in dates. The Great Hierakonpolis Palette (referred to as Menes' Palette) is dated at the museums as 31st century BC. Therefore, not only is the largest statue in Egypt (the sphinx) of a black pharaoh but the bust of Menes is also negro.
Now according to these leading researchers and foundations, Caucasians are merely 6k - 12k years old. If that is true, and it really is, because we have the genetic map in the SLC24A5 gene, then one can conclude that Caucasians (or Eurasians, whichever you prefer) did not erect or build Egypt, for there are statues and monuments in Egypt far older than the aforementioned race.
According to anthropology, you're lost in your own delusions. I have yet to witness these anthropological that somehow insinuates that Egypt was founded by your people.
"I have yet to witness these anthropological that somehow insinuates that Egypt was founded by your people"
Your people??? Son, I am yet to find a legitimate researcher that can declare Rome or Ancient Greece as founded by your people. For Ancient Rome/Greece are a Mediterranean race. In fact, "your people" did not have a civilization which is documented by those same Romans and Greeks, nevertheless any assistance in building Egypt.
You must be confusing me with somebody else. I am Egyptian, not Italian or Greek, although I look like them. Our DNA tells us we were in Egypt from the beginning. It's science. It's a fact. Accept it.
1 - What exactly were you checking? If you are referring to the website American Assoc Of Physical Anthropologists, maybe you purposefully did not check correctly/ or maybe the website disagreed with your stance; thus, you found nothing there. As to what you are referring to has me stumped
2 - To correct you: The SLC24a5 gene and its alleles are the only two catalysts responsible for skin color. Caucasians have threonine alleles, while the rest of the Non-White world have alanine for alleles
1. What I fail to notice in the article you provided is the authors indication that the gene they found is the only product responsible for light skin.
2 Wrong. You fail to understand that proteins are interconnected and can not function on only "two catalyst". Elementary biology would serve you well. Otherwise every biological organisms would fail exist. Genes responsible for light skin is as follows: MYO5A,DTNBP1,TYRP1,SLC24A5, AIM1, KITLG, and many, many more.
1.If you register in school and learn the significance of alleles, then the gene SLC24a5 becomes an epiphany.
2. hair comes from proteins, your eyes come from proteins, everything concerning the human body does, not just pigmentation. So, once again, as usual, you added triviality to this discussion. Essentially, in Layman's term, genius: the only goal of the DNA double helix is to build proteins. Duh!-- i am glad you just found that out. However, your SLC gene will make the proteins
"Genes for light skin is as follows: MYO5A, DTNBP1, TRYP1, SLC24A5, AIM1, KITLG"
Are you researching the junk you posted? I wrote a paper on TYRP1. Are you calling yourself an "albino"? Furthermore, "albinism" is not even a race. At the moment, we are discussing specificity! This is the garbage one spews to derail a discussion. Only one gene is the focus of this discussion. I think you knew that (SLC24a5). Don't weigh down the topic with junk you haven't researched or intend to!
3 - I never stated Cavelli-Sforza commented on Cro Magnons. I stated, instead, that Cavelli-Sforza was one of the researchers who assisted Keith Cheng in discovering the SLC24a5 gene-- the gene responsible for skin color; the gene which is also responsible for accurately dating when Europeans began turning pale: 6,000 - 12,000 years ago.
4 - Well, if what you say is true, you would have never insinuated that "white" skin in humans is older than black skin
furthermore, there is a scientific video on YouTube depicting how the top forensic scientists in the world (Frank Domingo) arrived at the conclusion that the sphinx of giza is black african. copy and paste the following into your Youtube search engine"
"SCIENCE : Race of ancient egyptians now revealed watch !"
your genetics is faulty, for all people in the world have the genes that their ancestors gave them. those ancestors were black. never once, while talking with me, have you asked for my credentials. i think it's best to display them when we discuss genetics:
according to mitochondrial-DNA, life started in sub-saharan africa-- not europe or egypt or the garden of eden. only one race is indigenous to all of africa
"according to mitochondrial-DNA, Egyptians live in Africa for 25,000 years"
that's correct. the black race itself is 200,000 years old. blacks are responsible for populating the entire world. so if egypt is in africa, which it is, why do you think the blacks wouldn't populate that area first before moving on to populate the middle east and europe? egypt is much older than 5,000 years. history, simply had a face-lift to support african slavery.
No, they didn't. Linguistics prove that the Afro-Asiatic language tree is Nostratic. Proto-Nostratic was spoken in Central Asia, if I remember good. That means that 25000 years ago when we entered Egypt we were the same as the Eurasians.
they didn't what? i do not know what you are refering to. you jump from DNA, and when your DNA theory is proven false, then you jump back to language. all this jumping around can be interpreted as one thing: you are desperate to prove egyptians were not black. now if you are on some racist mission, we can end this discussion right here. i will not take part in it! however, if we discuss egypt, you should do better than "language" and "DNA", because these things were started by blacks
CORRECTION: arabs/ middle easterns did not invade egypt until the 7 century AD (precisely 639 AD). this, too, is well documented. that means egypt was a well established civilization before the middle east and islam took it's root in her. however, i am unsure by what you mean "eurasian", if you mean Caucasian, then this is also untrue. the white race according to mt-DNA is merely 6,000 - 12,000 yo-- there are statues in egypt older than the race.
Judging by your responses, it leads me to concluded that you are misleading when referring to your credentials.
I would like to point out something I think is faulty about your comment on white skin. According to Oppenheimer (a geneticist at Oxford University), the mutation that resulted in light skin is 20,000 to 50,000 years old (and it has been found).
At the American Association Of Physical Anthropologists in 2007, Dr Keith Cheng, MD/ PhD, and one of the top geneticist in the world, L. Luca Cavalli-Sforza, from one of the top universities in the USA (Standford Univ) both concluded that the gene SLC24A5, responsible for white skin, is merely 6,000 - 12,000 years old. You will need an acct to read the article, I saved you the trouble by saving it as a jpg
SOURCE: htt p : // img46.imageshack . us /img46/4784/eurospaleonlyrecen tlypu0 . jpg
Cavalli-Sforza didn't conclude anything. He stated that the Cro-magnons had brown skin, he never included SLC24A5. If you research more information about the gene, you would notice that it does not include all Europeans, just the minority. Another reason why your approximate date is wrong is due to the fact that if the mutation took that long to appear, then that would have spelled the end of those who settled Europe.
CORRECTION: here's the website right here. anyone reading our comments can go read the article for themselves. i have no reason to give false testimony, because i have nothing to cover up. furthermore, the article and it's title states: "European Skin Turned Pale Recently". so that one sentence destroys your basis for an argument...
Carvalii-sforza did not mention the gene, nor did he comment on when European developed their genes.
And again the gene is only a recent mutation of a previous gene. Inductive reasoning (and basic understanding of gene mutation) would lead us to conclude that the gene mutation would have to come from a preexisting gene with similar functionality.
"Carvalii-Sforza... did not comment on when European developed their genes"
CORRECTION: In the reliable article that I presented you, it clearly states:
[["European ancestors were brown-skinned for tens of thousands of years—a suggestion made 30 years ago by Stanford University geneticist L. Luca Cavalli-Sforza."]]
The article goes on to prove Pale Skin Became common in Caucasians 6000 Years Ago. Which makes the race relatively young. You have not provided any proof which would object
It goes like this earliest humans where very pale after have lost most of the fur then becoming darker in skin the those moving out of Africa adapted there skin more and more to there enviroments and sunlight. And that it ... why make such a big deal out of skin colour ? Why is there any point ? No it is not just drop it ffs. No one is better because of a skin colour it is bullshit. I am half north african and half Scandinavian does it matter no it does not
"the gene mutation would have to come from a preexisting gene with similar functionality"
Genes do not work that way. What do you think that BIG WORD "mutation" is? If a gene mutates, it can be isolated from the habitual population. In-breeding would allow this gene's survival. Mutations do not necessarily mean the gene did so due to similar functionality of precursor genes. Something so mundane as climate or diet can also produce isolated mutations in a race as well.
"...your APPROXIMATE DATE is wrong is due to the fact that if the mutation took that long to appear, then that would have spelled the end of those who settled Europe"
CORRECTION: unlike some of us here, i do not make up dates or compile them. the article is presented by the scientific community, specifically The American Association Of Physical Anthropologists. surely you are not implying that you know more than they do. if you would like the direct link, here it is in the next comment box
No you dont, but you seem to ignore the history of the gene, and its preexisting ancestors. You seem to also ignore ancient genes of similar functionality. A presentation of a source by an individual with no knowledge of its content is as good as null. A lack of genetic knowledge is never a substantiating claim.
"you seem to ignore the history of the gene and its preexisting ancestors"
The ancestors of ALL human genes are black people. Case closed! I know that fact hurts many people like you, but there's nothing you can do about it. You have propped yourself up to claim Egypt and many other things that you had nothing to do with, but you can't claim the first human genes. Eurocentricity dies with the age of legitimate science. Your name tells me what you are all about, "logical european".
Website: (to the direct article/ link) htt p :/ /ww w . sciencemag . org / cgi / content / short / 316/5823/364a
--------------------------------
Afterthought: It is also ironic that one of us is providing actual REPUTABLE links to vouch for his statements. While the other is merely telling one what he thinks, or how things should be.
I have on occasions pointed out inconsistencies, and never have I doubted the gene you spoke of. Though you must learn the basics of nucleotide sequences, and melanocyte functions. In others everything is interdependent. The gene you mentioned is not the only gene responsible. I suggest you read up on MC1R. Link on next comment.
"you must learn the basics of nucleotide sequences, and melanocyte functions"
Caucasians have little to no melanocytes and exhibit [["inhibitors that suppress melanin production"]] (Halprin & Ohkawara). Which is why I stated a few days ago that ancient Greeks, Romans, Egyptians were not white, for they had (at that time period), skin overwhelmed by melanocytes. Maybe, you should visit an "accredited" school, because, you're assisting me in making a fool out of you
@mikedav9O Greeks where as they where today kinde bland of more paler to more meditaranian. They spoke and Indo-European language. The Indo-european languages root are usaly at the Eurasian stepps later on Proto-Indo-European language spread trough Europe, India, and the Persian pleatue.
"the mutation that resulted in light skin is 20k to 50k years old"
CORRECTION: many descendents of Europe confuse Cro Magnons-- an Upper Paleolithic people who look identical to Caucasians, today-- as their ancestral heritage. While Cro Magnons are indeed "people", they are another specie, which is why they are categorized as "cro magnon / or homo sapien" and not the typical classification "Homo Sapien Sapien" which represent modern man: You and me!
"While Cro Magnons are indeed "people", they are another specie"
No offense, but that comment is the epiphany of stupidity. Cro-Magnons are considered modern humans, and hence not a different specie. Haplogroup N for instance (a Cro-Magnon haplogroup) is still found in the Middle East, Europe, and North Africa.
Excuse, me, sir, but Cro Magnons are not modern humans that we see walking around, today. If Cro Magnons were at the bus station or taking a cab, you would notice a difference in them. According to ALL reputable sources:
[["Cro-Magnons were relatively more robust and powerful than today's humans"]]
Genius, it is the reason why they are designated "Cro Magnon". If they were the same as you or me, they wouldn't need a special classification.
Cro-Magnons are anatomically, genetically, and socially human. Yes I agree, you dont see Cro-magnons walking in the sreets, but you do see modified versions of them taking cabs, modern European. Yes, you would notice differences in them as you would with Arabs and Asians. Phonotypical difference does not necessarily count them as non-human.
All humans are classified, as I'm sure quite aware those classifications.
"you dont see Cro magnons walking in the streets, but you do see modified versions of them"
CORRECTION: Who comes from Cro Magnons? You come from black people, nor can you find a REPUTABLE source that says Europeans are descendants of Cro Magnons. In the histories of modern men, there is no time-line of our ancestral Africans having Cro Magnon offsprings. Neanderthal and Cro Magnon existed during the same period when the only true, ancestral modern humans in the world were black Africans.
And again, I would like to point out a faulting reasoning on your part. According to you, the black race populated the planet, but if you put it into scientific perspective light skin is much older. Take an ape for example, if you shave all its hair you would notice that its skin is white, hence light skin is older than dark skin. Now Im not implying that whites are older than blacks, Im merely pointing out the deficiencies in your own argument.
"the black race populated the planet, but if you put it into scientific perspective light skin is much older"
In association with Stephen Oppenheimer, the Bradshaw Foundation, one of the more respectable institutions in the world, have on their website an interactive 2D timeline which traces the journey of man.
SOURCE ht tp : // ww w . bradshawfoundation . com /journey /
Life does not start in Europe. Life, as I've correctly stated, starts in sub-saharan Africa, more than 160k years ago
I never said life started in Europe, and your insinuation that I did further convinces me of my opinion of you. I was commenting on skin color, not the geographical origin of our ancestors.
"I never said life started in Europe and your insinuation that i did further convinces me of my opinion of you"
Let me make myself clear: The pigmentations of the first modern humans were black. They also resembled Africans, today. Actually, they are the same. They resided in sub-saharan Africa where dark skin would have been most beneficial.
It must be stated that you had an opinion of me, simply because I, and every scientific outlet, disagree with Eurocentricity which is FALSE science
The pigmentation's of the first humans would have ranged from brown to light brown (and I'm not implying west/East African brown). The divergence from the median color is an extreme form of adaptability (and in this instance I'm referring to both out people specifically).
Again I must remind you that the climate of Africa today was not the same through out its history. keep that in mind.
The pigmentation's of the first humans would have ranged from brown to light"
You may slice the cake in as many exponentially irrelevant parts that you may think you need, but at the end of the day, the global science community says they were black/ negro. And I predict, you will not produce a source to debunk this notion.
"I must remind you that the climate of Africa today was not the same through out its history"
CORRECTION: Let me remind you that sub-saharan africa (the birthplace of modern man) is on the equator -- and has been in that "boring" position for a hundred million years. The last significant mantle convection would have happened long before humans arrived. Thus, the following rule applies: People living near the equator are very dark compared to those whom live farthest away.
@mikedav9O equator are very dark compared to those whom live farthest away yes for very obveious reasons to .
Anyway I needed to correct you bullshit on that pale skin just apeard 5000 years ago that is bullshit but rather European started to get really pale over 8000 years ago and before they where more pale then the people living in Central africa. Just like Meditarianians are more pale then Central africans but darker then Scandinavians in general
Thanks for your insightful comment, and as matter fact you are right. I personally stumbled upon evidence while looking through my telescope at Mount Olympus Mon (you know, the great volcano build by the long lost African Civilization?). Any why it was inscribed that indeed the Semitic languages were stolen FROM them. Interesting find, you should check it out.
how sad, you remind me of this idiotic jew that tried to convince me israel was in europe.
you do know we a baffled by the level of stupidity right.
so sad.
it was written on the luxor and auset temples also the walls dedicated to akhenaten
seriously sad, i feel sorry for you, science is not your friend. the more you look to find more and farther back you look you will only see blacks staring you in the face.
i don't think the person that put this video up is trying to say egyptians spoke a different language than ordinary black africans. so please enjoy the video and leave race out of it. if, however, you wish to know where language began, google "linguistic science", you will find that all languages in existence, today, can be traced to black africans. these people were the first people on the earth-- and the ancient egyptians spoke that language!
"The ancient Egyptians didn't speak proto-World/Adamic"
i am not a religious man (in reference to: "adamic languages"), so forgive my ignorance. i, thus, must speak from scientific, intellectual honesty instead. and that honesty is: the egyptians did, in fact, speak a language in what we term presently as black languages. this, however, is common knowledge.
not only must the DNA of every person be traced to black men in africa but also the multitude of languages spoken, today.
Emperor Napolean I (aka Bonaparte) had several failed campaigns in Egypt 1798-1801 AD. before these campaigns took place, Count Chassebœuf was on an exploration through the middle east and egypt. there were many frenchmen exploring egypt (one such was french royal Baron Vivant Denon who you really need to look up). it was upon the arrival of egypt, after looking at the sphinx, that he made the aforementioned quote.
early i mentioned Baron Vivant Denon. Denon was appointed first director of the Louvre Museum by Napoleon after the Egyptian campaign of 1798-1801. in 1802 he published his Voyage "dans la Basse et la Haute Égypte pendant les campagnes du général Bonapart" (Journey in Lower and Upper Egypt during the campaigns of General Bonaparte). A source-book of egyptian architecture. Denon drew the image of the Sphinx of Giza around 1798, prior to it's defacement. it was a black man.
no. the khafra myth was destroyed EVEN today by Harvard professor and medical doctor Sheldon Peck and USA's most premier Forensic scientist Frank Domingo. here is the article in the New York Times.
@mikedav9O I AGREE WITH EVERYTHING U HAVE SAID, BUT TO ME THE SPHINX LOOKS LIKE AFRICAN WOMAN. KILL THEM WITH THE TRUTH! YOUR GRASP OF ANCIENT HISTORY IS ADMIRABLE,THESE YOU TUBE RACE FANATICS THINK EVERYTHING WAS AND IS WHITE NO MATTER HOW MUCH EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY YOU PROVIDE. U COULD SHOW THEM ARTIFACTS OF BLACK PEOPLE ALL OVER THE WORLD ALL DAY AND THEY STILL WILL SAY SEMITIC ASIATIC BLACK CAUCASIANS NOT TRUE NEGROS MEANINGLESS WORDS LIKE BANTU MEDITERRANEAN RACE. A WASTE OF BREATH.
@9xxxxxxxxx Try not to let such things get the better of you. White people have been led down the garden path just like everyone else, told to believe certain things, taught it in school....real indoctrination. It takes time for the truth to rise through the muck but it will. My personal belief is that there were many different races in ancient Egypt because in the paintings they show that there are many different colours of skin etc. But blacks were in ruling positions obviously.
When the pharoah died he became the new Osiris and a god himself. In the image to the right of the Opening of the Mouth Ceremony, note the skin tones of the mummy and Anubis. Both are divine beings and both have golden skin. Compare this to the priest and the mourning women, who have the classic reddish-brown and pale pink skin tones of humans. They were not black !!! U are looking at there gods that ate painted red green gold black and blue real living egyptian were painted light skinned
Denon's book still exist, today. The image he drew in this book is still there. here is the geniuine image in the book-- the "blackness" reported by the Count just 9 years earlier:
htt p : / / s8int . com / images4 / sphinx2 . jpg
now ask yourself, why is the largest statue in egypt of a black pharoah, unless the ANCIENT egyptians were themselves black??
When I search for 'black-ness' in a statue I look at the nose and lips. Since there aren't any, I can't tell you anything. BUT. The spinx is KHAFRA3. Khafra3 is has NO sign of black-ness in his face. A PURE EGYPTIAN.
I created a simple program which enabled me to store, and categorize peaces of information for more than 5 years. Over that time period I was able to gather loads of Ancient Egyptian vocabulary. I can sell you a copy of the program with all my data collected to so far for a limited price (that only covers the expenses, I get no profit). If your interested, or know anyone that is, contact me at;
For all those interested, this language is the same as Coptic. The only difference is that in 300BC, the Copts started using Greek letters+ 7. The language is still spoken in Coptic churches and by some Copts. Cheers.
remenkimi1 1 month ago
i speak ould egyptian language=berber language
tiziouzou2000 3 months ago
i think they spoke arabic or hebrew cause its none other languige in egypt. white people just make up theyre own storys. you have to go to egypt to know
outernettboy 5 months ago
@outernettboy Quit the dope for a few days bro, then you'll start to think a little more clearly.
0pteryx 5 months ago
@0pteryx have you ever heard this languige? how could they know how to read it if they never heard someone pronounce it? who are you by the way to say that to me
outernettboy 5 months ago
Anyways we shouldn't discern ourselves with issues as petty as race when discussing the world. Everyone is led to believe western knowledge is correct but when it wrong is causes identity crisis in some individuals. Western culture has a bad rep for suppressing racial identity... so I (and hopefully you) can understand why people react the way the do.
NaveTrauss 6 months ago
Of course egypt was probably black. Egypt was invaded by the persia around 500 BC. And then a lilttle later Greeks then the Arabians... they mixed the colors up and took the culture and science like the US and the native americans. Its not amazing that you found a correlation between coptic latin or hebrew or arabic. We think the scientifically oldest civilization is in india not sumeria. Our knowledge of history is still flawed though. You or I do not know.
NaveTrauss 6 months ago
@NaveTrauss Afro Semitic occult madness
VendPrekmurec 1 month ago
@NaveTrauss - no egypt was never a black civilization.
masristud 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
the exact same as modern Egyptian language
visit: masrilanguage*blogspot*com
ahmedzs1 7 months ago
Comment removed
VendPrekmurec 10 months ago
I hope your still alive and could remake this video, seems like great information although I can not read most of the things in this video!! in the mean time I will try to get my telescope in front of my computer : )
followsthesun 11 months ago
This seems like an excellent piece on Egypt, it is just a shame that the text is so difficult to read.
goldilocqs 11 months ago
"hallow" is spelled "HOLLOW"
FunNotNuts 1 year ago
"Shamoneh" is Hebrew for "eight", and Michael Jackson for "Come on".
Muhnazer 1 year ago
Nothing else matters, tune! love the video excellent work..
michael616joaquin 1 year ago
I love your use of the Metallica song "Nothing Else Matters"!
Excellent Vid!
SubjectAlpha100 1 year ago
i knew that i knew the song, but i just remembered, it's nothing else matters...
cinder87aljoy 1 year ago
hamitic languages or afroasiatic from the same group we find Amazigh Galla somalian
Tamazgha2959 1 year ago
...and Nothing else matters...
redwar85 1 year ago 5
What site is that? Please ANSWER
nikkit1909 2 years ago
The "Afro-Asiatic" linguistic phylum originated in Africa.
Some useful information:
- Ancient Egyptian = "Afro-Asiatic".
- Africa has the greatest diversity of "Afro-Asiatic" families, all but one are exclusive to Africa.
- "Afro-Asiatic" has an origin in Ethiopia, Sudan, or the eastern Sahara.
- Omotic and Ongota have the most in common with ancestral "Afro-Asiatic", they are only found in Ethiopia.
PhineasGage22 2 years ago 6
Every single human views the world from it's own perspective. For every human it's perspective is the truth.
But the real Truth can only be understood by not looking through yourself.
PseudoHuman16 2 years ago
Wow that's real deep and true!I understand what you mean
TR1F3DAGOD 2 years ago
@TR1F3DAGOD
Thank you, most people don't really appreciate my words. Mainly because they do not understand me. If like philosophy, let me ask you this question. I've been wondering about this question for many years and it may sound a bit strange, but: What is the Way?
I don't know where the question came from but I have finally realised the answer. It has something to do with our religions.
PseudoHuman16 1 year ago
@PseudoHuman16 If the real truth is viewed from a different perspective, then all perspectives are the "real truth". Your words may be deep, but they are also hallow.
LogicalEuropean 1 year ago 2
@LogicalEuropean
Very good! That is exactly what perspectives are. Their deep but their hallow as well. Even my previous saying is just a perspective. And that's the strange thing about perspectives, through it we try to discover the deeper meaning in the world. But is there a deeper meaning? Or are we creating this ourselves?
PseudoHuman16 1 year ago
@PseudoHuman16 My latter comment was supposed to outline your apparent contradiction, not to reimburse it.
LogicalEuropean 1 year ago
@LogicalEuropean his words are "hallow" lol
nactan 1 year ago
@PseudoHuman16
Thee trouble with these language courses is that you first have to have a refresher on English language. I have no idea what a "causative verb" is for example, and that's only after looking at it for 2 seconds. I'm sure it gets harder.
ukthesisful 1 month ago
@ukthesisful Not that this has anything to do with the subject, but this is the funny thing about youtube. I made that comment a year ago if it isnt more. But I absolutely do not recall why I made it or what this video is actually about.
PseudoHuman16 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"in Jablonski and Chaplin's (2000) study"
This study is false. As of 3 years ago (2007), a team of scientist have identified the CORRECT gene (SLC24a5 gene) for pale skin.? The gene is recorded as merely 6k - 12k years old. So your Jablonski/ Chaplin study (a 10 year old study at that) has been proven false!
Here is my source.
Title: European Skin Turn Pale Recently
Website: htt p : / /w ww . sciencemag . org / cgi /content/short/316/5823 / 364a
Date: 20 April 2007
mikedav9O 2 years ago
Title: White Europeans evolved only 5,500 years ago
Source: Times Online
Date: August 30, 2009
Website: htt p :/ /w ww. Timesonline . co . uk / tol / news /science/article6814896 . ece
This means white people had nothing to do with the construction of Egypt or Even Greece.
mikedav9O 2 years ago
being white Greek woman who have studied a little about the origins of Greek civilisation I can say that it a fact that the Greek belong to an African phylogenetic mainly and partially to Indo-European.
nafsika2004 2 years ago
@nafsika2004 Indo-European is not a racial term it is a linguistic term and to a lesser extent cultural term.
Greek is a clear Indo-European language it classical form preserved many elements from Proto-Indo-European language. Before Greece was mainly IE speaking they seem to have not spoken languages related to Egyptian or any Afro-Asiatic language like Minoan for an example.
Black athena is not considerd acadamic at all.
Eopyk 2 years ago
@mikedav9O No no it was 8,000 years that people in the Northen parts of the world gott very pale skin devolpt in eastern Europe. How ever people where paler then let's central africans before that and that is obveious considering that in the cold north you need more vitamin D and less protection from the sun. Eskimos have kept a darker skin because of there diet consisting of fish that already gives them vitamin d.
So stop your bullshit
Greece was not 5000 years ago but could be around
Eopyk 2 years ago
@mikedav9 part 2 : Greek civilization was not 8000 years ago was it ?
Besides I guess you will argue that Berbers are black, Sumerians where blacks and northen Egyptians and etc andn ot mediterianians with no evidence to back them up. And besides I went here to learn about the language not to see comments from black supramists... after dealing white supramists I sure don't want to switch one bullshit over another.
What is a white European? Race is bullshit.
Eopyk 2 years ago
"i guess you will argue that berbers were black, sumerians were blacks"
Eopyk, the whole world started black. That's a genetic fact. Now can you destroy that statement? Do you have any evidence which will debunk that statement? If you do not, then it is safe to say that if the world was started by black people, then the ENTIRE world is still black. Terms such as white (european), yellow (asian), red (native american), are recent innovations (16th century AD)
mikedav9O 2 years ago
@mikedav9O have I said anything else ? Humanity started black skinned and the adapted to there enviroments.
Well yeah we are all homosapians and define the term black.
I say race is bullshit because we are all homosapians. And my point was that many black nationalist will insist that those who spoke Sumerian and Egyptians (even northen ones) looked like central africans and that is from all we know not true.
I am against racism in all shapes forms. I myself is ''mixed race''
Eopyk 2 years ago
Copy -
Dumb ass, black people come in all shades. It is also biological fact that blacks have more genetic diversity than all races combined. Black people had to be genetically diverse to populate the world. So black people do not come in one or two shades. We come in all shades. It is merely you white nationalists that believe all blacks look like central africans
mikedav9O 2 years ago
@mikedav9O part 2: How ever skin for obveious reasons more and more adapted it's enviroment
I am not a white nationalist I HATE RACE CLASSIFICATIONS because they are bullshit.
You show that you are a black nationalist.
Who seems to like to spew the bullshit science just like white nationalists.
And also you think your more better then anyone esle just because of your skin reacts to sunlight it is insaine
Eopyk 2 years ago
"I am not a white nationalist"
If you are not a white nationalist, then you need to stop challenging black people with out-dated material, sources, information, and then labeling these black people as BLACK NATIONALISTS, because they speak the truth
mikedav9O 2 years ago
@mikedav9O no they do not. Cultural sciences is one of my passions and what you say is to a larg extent bullshit.
Mike the procees of more paler skin took time not one day. And it happend indipendently in various areas for similear reasons the Eskimos keept a darker skin because of there diet already gave them Vitamin D
You labeling me white nationalists shows that you think people disagreeing with you automaticaly is a racist even tough you show to be a racist yourself.
Eopyk 2 years ago
White boy, I never said pale skin came in 1 day. So stop trying win a worthless argument by putting YOUR words in my mouth. Look here, white boy, find where on this forum did I say "white skin came over a day". YOU CAN'T you fucking loser. You labeled me a black nationalist, that shows that anyone who disagrees with you is automatically a racist. Remember, dumb ass, it was YOU who started the name-calling with your IGNORANT WHITE ASS.
mikedav9O 2 years ago
@mikedav9O and you when you say Romans, Northen Egyptians where ''black'' that is acadamicly wrong. Egyptian where then as they are now meditiranians geneticaly Egyptians are still to this day more less direct dissendens of old Egypt only language and culture has changes.
And also you have not awsner what skin colour has to do with the Egyptian language what ? Nothing nothing at all.
Eopyk 2 years ago
Once again, white boy, I never made any statement about Romans being black. So this is your final warning. You are the typical white trash who has found a black man who is smarter than you, so like any typical white trash, you try to win an irrelevant debate by putting YOUR words in mouth. You have not supported anything that you have claimed. This is your final warning before I put your dumb white ass on mute.
mikedav9O 2 years ago
@mikedav9O you said roman could not be pale nether could the Greeks.
Well the way you described was like 5000 years ago and poof dark skin become pale.
I am not a white boy.
I am half north african and half scandinavian.
Well since you call me white trash label me a white nationalist even tough nationalism in all shapes and forms.
Eopyk 2 years ago
even tough I am against racism in all shapes and forms*
Regards Jasmine
Eopyk 2 years ago
@mikedav9O I see that Logical European does care about ''race'' :/ Either way your Afro-centrist views are not correct either.
Eopyk 2 years ago
@mikedav9O oh sorry correction from my side.. gah read wrong. ''Scientists discovered a skin-whitening mutation that largely explains the first appearance of white skin in humans between 20,00050,000 years ago'' So there as we know peopel who have lived in the northen sphere paler trough time. And it began LOONG ago.
You just spew bullshit like pale peopel coming from nowhere 5000 years ago ( That would still be long before the Roman Empire, and Greece. Read some real science
Eopyk 2 years ago
Eopyk,
You have no source to back up your racist bullshit. So, I simply ignored the other garbage you posted!
mikedav9O 2 years ago
@mikedav9O racists bullshit because I refuret he bullshit notions that pale skinned people just apeared 5000 years that is bullshit. We know that is not true
Eopyk 2 years ago
Eopyk -
You have no proof that pale skin as a genetic trait existed 10s of thousands of years ago. In fact, leading scientists, today, have agreed that the gene and/or mutation for pale skin is merely 5,500 - 12,000 years old. So it is merely YOU who are lying.
mikedav9O 2 years ago
@mikedav9O the skin gott paler in various palces for similear reasons. '' Scientists discovered a skin-whitening mutation that largely explains the first appearance of white skin in humans between 20,00050,000 years ago.[21] In Jablonski and Chaplin's (2000) study, The evolution of human skin coloration, Europeans have lighter skin (as measured by population average skin reflectance read by spectrophotometer at A685) than any other group that was measured''
Eopyk 2 years ago
Comment removed
mikedav9O 2 years ago
@mikedav9O Part 2 : I want people to see themselves as homosapians and drop this colour bullshit that sadley exist to this day.. and I came here wanting to learn linguistics and I see talk about ''races'' that made me upset.
All love and respect
Eopyk 2 years ago
@mikedav9O part 2 even if Europeans fro around 10 000 and 8 000 years ago might devolopt even lighter skin then before. Skin colour can be mathanetical detrimed if a population lives in a enviroment long enough.
Ah black supramist... and white supramists.. bullshiting everything they can at all times in all worlds..
Eopyk 2 years ago
Oh yeah one last thing and sorry for the many comments just I get extatic when something like racism something and upsets me very much ocur and bullshit is spread with it. Paler skin seem to have ocurred in North Africa, Europe, and Asia indipendently of each other . It is seemply adaption to ones enviroment and the mutation responsible for it seems to very old and thus '' paleinisation'' seems to have began early20,00050,000 . I came to this video to learn about Egyptian language not racism
Eopyk 2 years ago
Comment removed
likedolls 2 years ago
Hebrews were Africans
FulMetaJakit 2 years ago
@FulMetaJakit Any evidence to back that up ?
Eopyk 2 years ago
CONTINUE
If I have to remind you, Egyptian1922, all people on this planet are descendants of black Africans. It is totally impossible for you to exist at the same time these black African ancestors existed. There were no other people in the world, but black Africans. So please tell me how you (an Eurasian) was here on earth 150,000 - 200,000 years ago, the same time blacks were just getting started to migrate the world. You can't. Because, it's a lie. No other races existed at that time!
mikedav9O 2 years ago
If your claim that black Africans are 200,000 years then you concede to the fact that black African are 200,000 years behind in evolution (You would make 19th century proponents of Social Darwinism very happy)? Of course your wrong seeing as haplogroup E (which 99% of every back african contain) is 30-40 thousand year old.
Having a background history of your genes can serve you well in the future (for instance you wont post comments that make you look like a complete retard).
LogicalEuropean 2 years ago
"you concede to the fact that black African are 200,000 years behind in evolution"
Once, again, this is merely the way you want things to be. According to legitimate science, every person on the planet is specified as Homo Sapien Sapien. Now, if any race has "EVOLVED" beyond Homo Sapien Sapien, they would be labeled with with a new classification. Please do not keep the secret from me. Do tell!... You simply c-a-n-t. All the information you have posted thus far is unsupported "junk".
mikedav9O 2 years ago 2
The oldest race in the world is 200,000 years old. They are black Africans. Since black Africans did not leave Africa until 50,000 years ago, to populate the world and therefore create the white race, asian race, and all other races, due to the timing they left, you did not exist as a race. Therefore, you could not have out-ran/ or out-trotted these black Africans to the site now called Egypt, because you were not created as a race- and would not be seen for another 150,000+ years.
mikedav9O 2 years ago
Common knowledge says the first documented Pharaoh of Egypt is King Menes. Have you ever seen the sculpture of Menes? I have. He is clearly black African: exagerated wide nose, thick lips, and a forward prognathism of the lower jaw. these are negro traits. If you have never seen King Menes, the first Pharaoh, I suggest you google for the images.
mikedav9O 2 years ago
That bust is made during the 25 Nubian Dynasty. I other word: It's fake.
Yes, we are living here 25000 years. DNA, BABY!
SCIENCE, ME 10 - 0 YOU!
Egyptian1922 2 years ago
The bust of King Menes is from the Royal Ontario Museum. I doubt museums hold fraudulent antiquities or allow black people to sneak in at night to exchange busts. Which presently makes your statement incorrect. You also made an error in dates. The Great Hierakonpolis Palette (referred to as Menes' Palette) is dated at the museums as 31st century BC. Therefore, not only is the largest statue in Egypt (the sphinx) of a black pharaoh but the bust of Menes is also negro.
mikedav9O 2 years ago
CONTINUE
Now according to these leading researchers and foundations, Caucasians are merely 6k - 12k years old. If that is true, and it really is, because we have the genetic map in the SLC24A5 gene, then one can conclude that Caucasians (or Eurasians, whichever you prefer) did not erect or build Egypt, for there are statues and monuments in Egypt far older than the aforementioned race.
mikedav9O 2 years ago
Dude, this myth is busted wide open. They tested MODERN Egyptians and we live in Egypt for 25000 YEARS. MODERN EGYPTIAN DNA.
Egyptian1922 2 years ago
Egyptian1922,
I am obviously not talking about the "modern" Egyptians. I am simply discussing the builders of Egypt-- who are not you.
mikedav9O 2 years ago
We live here 25000 years. When was the first dynasty established? Circa 3150 BC!
Automatically, we modern Egyptians are the first people to populate Egypt.
Egyptian1922 2 years ago
according to anthropology, it wasn't you living there for 25,000 years. and you are not the first to populate egypt.
mikedav9O 2 years ago
According to anthropology, you're lost in your own delusions. I have yet to witness these anthropological that somehow insinuates that Egypt was founded by your people.
LogicalEuropean 2 years ago
"I have yet to witness these anthropological that somehow insinuates that Egypt was founded by your people"
Your people??? Son, I am yet to find a legitimate researcher that can declare Rome or Ancient Greece as founded by your people. For Ancient Rome/Greece are a Mediterranean race. In fact, "your people" did not have a civilization which is documented by those same Romans and Greeks, nevertheless any assistance in building Egypt.
mikedav9O 2 years ago
You must be confusing me with somebody else. I am Egyptian, not Italian or Greek, although I look like them. Our DNA tells us we were in Egypt from the beginning. It's science. It's a fact. Accept it.
Egyptian1922 2 years ago
Lets review all the top notch anthropologist sources (with their websites included) that I provided:
1 - American Association Of Physical Anthropologists: stated people did not pale until 6k to 12k years ago
2 - Keith Cheng. MD/ PhD, responsible for finding the SLC24A5 gene
3 - L Luca Cavelli-Sforza. A top researcher from Stanford University
4 - Stephen Oppenheimer in association with the Bradshaw Foundation: both say life begans in sub-saharan Africa
Everything I say is true!
mikedav9O 2 years ago
1. I have checked, and got nothing as of yet.
2. SLC24A5 is not the only mutation dealing with light skin.
3. Cavelli-Sforza never commented on when the Cro-Magnons developed their light skin.
4 I never once claimed that life originated anywhere but Africa.
LogicalEuropean 2 years ago
1 - What exactly were you checking? If you are referring to the website American Assoc Of Physical Anthropologists, maybe you purposefully did not check correctly/ or maybe the website disagreed with your stance; thus, you found nothing there. As to what you are referring to has me stumped
2 - To correct you: The SLC24a5 gene and its alleles are the only two catalysts responsible for skin color. Caucasians have threonine alleles, while the rest of the Non-White world have alanine for alleles
mikedav9O 2 years ago
1. What I fail to notice in the article you provided is the authors indication that the gene they found is the only product responsible for light skin.
2 Wrong. You fail to understand that proteins are interconnected and can not function on only "two catalyst". Elementary biology would serve you well. Otherwise every biological organisms would fail exist. Genes responsible for light skin is as follows: MYO5A,DTNBP1,TYRP1,SLC24A5, AIM1, KITLG, and many, many more.
LogicalEuropean 2 years ago
1.If you register in school and learn the significance of alleles, then the gene SLC24a5 becomes an epiphany.
2. hair comes from proteins, your eyes come from proteins, everything concerning the human body does, not just pigmentation. So, once again, as usual, you added triviality to this discussion. Essentially, in Layman's term, genius: the only goal of the DNA double helix is to build proteins. Duh!-- i am glad you just found that out. However, your SLC gene will make the proteins
mikedav9O 2 years ago
"Genes for light skin is as follows: MYO5A, DTNBP1, TRYP1, SLC24A5, AIM1, KITLG"
Are you researching the junk you posted? I wrote a paper on TYRP1. Are you calling yourself an "albino"? Furthermore, "albinism" is not even a race. At the moment, we are discussing specificity! This is the garbage one spews to derail a discussion. Only one gene is the focus of this discussion. I think you knew that (SLC24a5). Don't weigh down the topic with junk you haven't researched or intend to!
:)
mikedav9O 2 years ago
@mikedav9O There is no such thing as race.. to put all people who never is homogenetic into strict racial classifications fail.
Eopyk 2 years ago
3 - I never stated Cavelli-Sforza commented on Cro Magnons. I stated, instead, that Cavelli-Sforza was one of the researchers who assisted Keith Cheng in discovering the SLC24a5 gene-- the gene responsible for skin color; the gene which is also responsible for accurately dating when Europeans began turning pale: 6,000 - 12,000 years ago.
4 - Well, if what you say is true, you would have never insinuated that "white" skin in humans is older than black skin
mikedav9O 2 years ago
3. Cavelli-Sforza had nothing to do with SLC24a5 or Cheng. I suggest you read the articles that you claim back your position.
4. I was merely mimicking your way of reasoning in hope of showing you how truly foolish they are. Irony if you will.
LogicalEuropean 2 years ago
3. Cavelli-Sforza's name is in the article. Why don't you take a look to find out why.
4. son, to mimick is all you have going for yourself at the moment, ok " LogicalEuropean " ? lol
mikedav9O 2 years ago
furthermore, there is a scientific video on YouTube depicting how the top forensic scientists in the world (Frank Domingo) arrived at the conclusion that the sphinx of giza is black african. copy and paste the following into your Youtube search engine"
"SCIENCE : Race of ancient egyptians now revealed watch !"
mikedav9O 2 years ago
there is no way you can prove the race of the sphinx. It's built by man's hands and not a machine. It has no nose and lips.
Egyptian1922 2 years ago
so far, i have provided leading experts and their work. lets review the experts:
1 - Count Constantin-François Chassebœuf (historian/ philospher)
2 - Baron Vivant Denon (savant writer and artist)
3 - Frank Domingo (today's top forensic scientist)
4 - Dr Sheldon Peck (today's Harvard medical doctor)
5 - a YouTube video depicting how Frank Domingo arrived on his conclusion
these are all experts. the egyptians were black. this is not afrocentricism-- but to deny them is eurocentrism
mikedav9O 2 years ago
but genetics tell another story
BLACK PEOPLE (AFRICANS) GENETIC MARKERS ARE:
1. HAPLOGROUP A (M91) Y-DNA
2. HAPLOGROUP B (M60) Y-DNA
These black African markers are NOT RELATED to the genetic markers of the ANCIENT EGYPTIANS... nor found anywhere in the LEVANT or CANAAN.
Egyptian1922 2 years ago
your genetics is faulty, for all people in the world have the genes that their ancestors gave them. those ancestors were black. never once, while talking with me, have you asked for my credentials. i think it's best to display them when we discuss genetics:
BS- biology, Minor - chemistry/ physics
MS - MPA (master of public administration)
Job Title - Public Health Microbiologist
mikedav9O 2 years ago
What ancestors. Adam and Eve? That was a VERY LONG time ago.
Egyptian1922 2 years ago
"what ancestors. Adam and Eve"
according to mitochondrial-DNA, life started in sub-saharan africa-- not europe or egypt or the garden of eden. only one race is indigenous to all of africa
mikedav9O 2 years ago
So? How does that effect me?
Egyptian1922 2 years ago
"So? How does that effect me"
i merely respond to your statement "afrocentrism". how the scientific facts affect you, does not have anything to do with the discussion.
mikedav9O 2 years ago
according to mitochondrial-DNA, Egyptians live in Africa for 25000 years.
Egyptian1922 2 years ago
"according to mitochondrial-DNA, Egyptians live in Africa for 25,000 years"
that's correct. the black race itself is 200,000 years old. blacks are responsible for populating the entire world. so if egypt is in africa, which it is, why do you think the blacks wouldn't populate that area first before moving on to populate the middle east and europe? egypt is much older than 5,000 years. history, simply had a face-lift to support african slavery.
mikedav9O 2 years ago
No, they didn't. Linguistics prove that the Afro-Asiatic language tree is Nostratic. Proto-Nostratic was spoken in Central Asia, if I remember good. That means that 25000 years ago when we entered Egypt we were the same as the Eurasians.
Egyptian1922 2 years ago
they didn't what? i do not know what you are refering to. you jump from DNA, and when your DNA theory is proven false, then you jump back to language. all this jumping around can be interpreted as one thing: you are desperate to prove egyptians were not black. now if you are on some racist mission, we can end this discussion right here. i will not take part in it! however, if we discuss egypt, you should do better than "language" and "DNA", because these things were started by blacks
mikedav9O 2 years ago
"we were the same as the Eurasians"
CORRECTION: arabs/ middle easterns did not invade egypt until the 7 century AD (precisely 639 AD). this, too, is well documented. that means egypt was a well established civilization before the middle east and islam took it's root in her. however, i am unsure by what you mean "eurasian", if you mean Caucasian, then this is also untrue. the white race according to mt-DNA is merely 6,000 - 12,000 yo-- there are statues in egypt older than the race.
mikedav9O 2 years ago
Judging by your responses, it leads me to concluded that you are misleading when referring to your credentials.
I would like to point out something I think is faulty about your comment on white skin. According to Oppenheimer (a geneticist at Oxford University), the mutation that resulted in light skin is 20,000 to 50,000 years old (and it has been found).
LogicalEuropean 2 years ago
At the American Association Of Physical Anthropologists in 2007, Dr Keith Cheng, MD/ PhD, and one of the top geneticist in the world, L. Luca Cavalli-Sforza, from one of the top universities in the USA (Standford Univ) both concluded that the gene SLC24A5, responsible for white skin, is merely 6,000 - 12,000 years old. You will need an acct to read the article, I saved you the trouble by saving it as a jpg
SOURCE: htt p : // img46.imageshack . us /img46/4784/eurospaleonlyrecen tlypu0 . jpg
mikedav9O 2 years ago
Cavalli-Sforza didn't conclude anything. He stated that the Cro-magnons had brown skin, he never included SLC24A5. If you research more information about the gene, you would notice that it does not include all Europeans, just the minority. Another reason why your approximate date is wrong is due to the fact that if the mutation took that long to appear, then that would have spelled the end of those who settled Europe.
LogicalEuropean 2 years ago
"Cavalli-Sforza didn't conclude anything"
CORRECTION: here's the website right here. anyone reading our comments can go read the article for themselves. i have no reason to give false testimony, because i have nothing to cover up. furthermore, the article and it's title states: "European Skin Turned Pale Recently". so that one sentence destroys your basis for an argument...
SOURCE htt p : / /w ww . sciencemag . org / cgi /content/short/316/5823 / 364a
mikedav9O 2 years ago
Carvalii-sforza did not mention the gene, nor did he comment on when European developed their genes.
And again the gene is only a recent mutation of a previous gene. Inductive reasoning (and basic understanding of gene mutation) would lead us to conclude that the gene mutation would have to come from a preexisting gene with similar functionality.
LogicalEuropean 2 years ago
"Carvalii-Sforza... did not comment on when European developed their genes"
CORRECTION: In the reliable article that I presented you, it clearly states:
[["European ancestors were brown-skinned for tens of thousands of years—a suggestion made 30 years ago by Stanford University geneticist L. Luca Cavalli-Sforza."]]
The article goes on to prove Pale Skin Became common in Caucasians 6000 Years Ago. Which makes the race relatively young. You have not provided any proof which would object
mikedav9O 2 years ago
It goes like this earliest humans where very pale after have lost most of the fur then becoming darker in skin the those moving out of Africa adapted there skin more and more to there enviroments and sunlight. And that it ... why make such a big deal out of skin colour ? Why is there any point ? No it is not just drop it ffs. No one is better because of a skin colour it is bullshit. I am half north african and half Scandinavian does it matter no it does not
Eopyk 2 years ago
"the gene mutation would have to come from a preexisting gene with similar functionality"
Genes do not work that way. What do you think that BIG WORD "mutation" is? If a gene mutates, it can be isolated from the habitual population. In-breeding would allow this gene's survival. Mutations do not necessarily mean the gene did so due to similar functionality of precursor genes. Something so mundane as climate or diet can also produce isolated mutations in a race as well.
mikedav9O 2 years ago
"...your APPROXIMATE DATE is wrong is due to the fact that if the mutation took that long to appear, then that would have spelled the end of those who settled Europe"
CORRECTION: unlike some of us here, i do not make up dates or compile them. the article is presented by the scientific community, specifically The American Association Of Physical Anthropologists. surely you are not implying that you know more than they do. if you would like the direct link, here it is in the next comment box
mikedav9O 2 years ago
No you dont, but you seem to ignore the history of the gene, and its preexisting ancestors. You seem to also ignore ancient genes of similar functionality. A presentation of a source by an individual with no knowledge of its content is as good as null. A lack of genetic knowledge is never a substantiating claim.
LogicalEuropean 2 years ago
"you seem to ignore the history of the gene and its preexisting ancestors"
The ancestors of ALL human genes are black people. Case closed! I know that fact hurts many people like you, but there's nothing you can do about it. You have propped yourself up to claim Egypt and many other things that you had nothing to do with, but you can't claim the first human genes. Eurocentricity dies with the age of legitimate science. Your name tells me what you are all about, "logical european".
mikedav9O 2 years ago 2
AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGISTS
Website: (to the direct article/ link) htt p :/ /ww w . sciencemag . org / cgi / content / short / 316/5823/364a
--------------------------------
Afterthought: It is also ironic that one of us is providing actual REPUTABLE links to vouch for his statements. While the other is merely telling one what he thinks, or how things should be.
mikedav9O 2 years ago
I have on occasions pointed out inconsistencies, and never have I doubted the gene you spoke of. Though you must learn the basics of nucleotide sequences, and melanocyte functions. In others everything is interdependent. The gene you mentioned is not the only gene responsible. I suggest you read up on MC1R. Link on next comment.
LogicalEuropean 2 years ago
h tt p: / / w ww . sciencedirect.c om/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T99-46KR4T0-9&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221& _version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md 5=c72a9eb20dc61e85ad9afb82e1229f55
LogicalEuropean 2 years ago
"you must learn the basics of nucleotide sequences, and melanocyte functions"
Caucasians have little to no melanocytes and exhibit [["inhibitors that suppress melanin production"]] (Halprin & Ohkawara). Which is why I stated a few days ago that ancient Greeks, Romans, Egyptians were not white, for they had (at that time period), skin overwhelmed by melanocytes. Maybe, you should visit an "accredited" school, because, you're assisting me in making a fool out of you
mikedav9O 2 years ago
@mikedav9O Greeks where as they where today kinde bland of more paler to more meditaranian. They spoke and Indo-European language. The Indo-european languages root are usaly at the Eurasian stepps later on Proto-Indo-European language spread trough Europe, India, and the Persian pleatue.
Eopyk 2 years ago
"the mutation that resulted in light skin is 20k to 50k years old"
CORRECTION: many descendents of Europe confuse Cro Magnons-- an Upper Paleolithic people who look identical to Caucasians, today-- as their ancestral heritage. While Cro Magnons are indeed "people", they are another specie, which is why they are categorized as "cro magnon / or homo sapien" and not the typical classification "Homo Sapien Sapien" which represent modern man: You and me!
mikedav9O 2 years ago
"While Cro Magnons are indeed "people", they are another specie"
No offense, but that comment is the epiphany of stupidity. Cro-Magnons are considered modern humans, and hence not a different specie. Haplogroup N for instance (a Cro-Magnon haplogroup) is still found in the Middle East, Europe, and North Africa.
LogicalEuropean 2 years ago
"Cro-Magnons are considered modern humans"
Excuse, me, sir, but Cro Magnons are not modern humans that we see walking around, today. If Cro Magnons were at the bus station or taking a cab, you would notice a difference in them. According to ALL reputable sources:
[["Cro-Magnons were relatively more robust and powerful than today's humans"]]
Genius, it is the reason why they are designated "Cro Magnon". If they were the same as you or me, they wouldn't need a special classification.
mikedav9O 2 years ago
Cro-Magnons are anatomically, genetically, and socially human. Yes I agree, you dont see Cro-magnons walking in the sreets, but you do see modified versions of them taking cabs, modern European. Yes, you would notice differences in them as you would with Arabs and Asians. Phonotypical difference does not necessarily count them as non-human.
All humans are classified, as I'm sure quite aware those classifications.
LogicalEuropean 2 years ago
"you dont see Cro magnons walking in the streets, but you do see modified versions of them"
CORRECTION: Who comes from Cro Magnons? You come from black people, nor can you find a REPUTABLE source that says Europeans are descendants of Cro Magnons. In the histories of modern men, there is no time-line of our ancestral Africans having Cro Magnon offsprings. Neanderthal and Cro Magnon existed during the same period when the only true, ancestral modern humans in the world were black Africans.
mikedav9O 2 years ago
And again, I would like to point out a faulting reasoning on your part. According to you, the black race populated the planet, but if you put it into scientific perspective light skin is much older. Take an ape for example, if you shave all its hair you would notice that its skin is white, hence light skin is older than dark skin. Now Im not implying that whites are older than blacks, Im merely pointing out the deficiencies in your own argument.
LogicalEuropean 2 years ago
"the black race populated the planet, but if you put it into scientific perspective light skin is much older"
In association with Stephen Oppenheimer, the Bradshaw Foundation, one of the more respectable institutions in the world, have on their website an interactive 2D timeline which traces the journey of man.
SOURCE ht tp : // ww w . bradshawfoundation . com /journey /
Life does not start in Europe. Life, as I've correctly stated, starts in sub-saharan Africa, more than 160k years ago
mikedav9O 2 years ago
I never said life started in Europe, and your insinuation that I did further convinces me of my opinion of you. I was commenting on skin color, not the geographical origin of our ancestors.
LogicalEuropean 2 years ago
"I never said life started in Europe and your insinuation that i did further convinces me of my opinion of you"
Let me make myself clear: The pigmentations of the first modern humans were black. They also resembled Africans, today. Actually, they are the same. They resided in sub-saharan Africa where dark skin would have been most beneficial.
It must be stated that you had an opinion of me, simply because I, and every scientific outlet, disagree with Eurocentricity which is FALSE science
mikedav9O 2 years ago
The pigmentation's of the first humans would have ranged from brown to light brown (and I'm not implying west/East African brown). The divergence from the median color is an extreme form of adaptability (and in this instance I'm referring to both out people specifically).
Again I must remind you that the climate of Africa today was not the same through out its history. keep that in mind.
LogicalEuropean 2 years ago
The pigmentation's of the first humans would have ranged from brown to light"
You may slice the cake in as many exponentially irrelevant parts that you may think you need, but at the end of the day, the global science community says they were black/ negro. And I predict, you will not produce a source to debunk this notion.
mikedav9O 2 years ago
"I must remind you that the climate of Africa today was not the same through out its history"
CORRECTION: Let me remind you that sub-saharan africa (the birthplace of modern man) is on the equator -- and has been in that "boring" position for a hundred million years. The last significant mantle convection would have happened long before humans arrived. Thus, the following rule applies: People living near the equator are very dark compared to those whom live farthest away.
mikedav9O 2 years ago
@mikedav9O equator are very dark compared to those whom live farthest away yes for very obveious reasons to .
Anyway I needed to correct you bullshit on that pale skin just apeard 5000 years ago that is bullshit but rather European started to get really pale over 8000 years ago and before they where more pale then the people living in Central africa. Just like Meditarianians are more pale then Central africans but darker then Scandinavians in general
Eopyk 2 years ago
the semetic languages were stolen from the metu neter, this is no mystery /facepalm
Azzaiel 2 years ago
Thanks Sherlock, another mystery solved.
LogicalEuropean 2 years ago
lol your entire video is a joke i was being kind hahahah egypt was triple black sun-worshippers
LMMFBAO!!!
delusional eurotrash is more like it hahahaha
Azzaiel 2 years ago
Thanks for your insightful comment, and as matter fact you are right. I personally stumbled upon evidence while looking through my telescope at Mount Olympus Mon (you know, the great volcano build by the long lost African Civilization?). Any why it was inscribed that indeed the Semitic languages were stolen FROM them. Interesting find, you should check it out.
LogicalEuropean 2 years ago
how sad, you remind me of this idiotic jew that tried to convince me israel was in europe.
you do know we a baffled by the level of stupidity right.
so sad.
it was written on the luxor and auset temples also the walls dedicated to akhenaten
seriously sad, i feel sorry for you, science is not your friend. the more you look to find more and farther back you look you will only see blacks staring you in the face.
there is a saying about staring at Abyssinians
Azzaiel 2 years ago
We a do get baffled by levels of idiocy :) To bad those preaching it are unsure of their own level, which makes me doubt them even more.
I have yet to see those writing, I would be glad if you send me a link.
Keep your pity, charity starts at home, and if you take the time and reread your comment you'll see why.
The only blacks staring me in the face is my friends, and his family.
Yes, Ethiopia has a lot of diverse faces to stare. It's almost a whirlpool of genetic interbreeding
LogicalEuropean 2 years ago
ok you win
Azzaiel 2 years ago
Fuck afrocentrics. Egyptians are real Egyptians.
Egyptian1922 2 years ago
Egyptian1922,
i don't think the person that put this video up is trying to say egyptians spoke a different language than ordinary black africans. so please enjoy the video and leave race out of it. if, however, you wish to know where language began, google "linguistic science", you will find that all languages in existence, today, can be traced to black africans. these people were the first people on the earth-- and the ancient egyptians spoke that language!
mikedav9O 2 years ago
I was talking about the clowns under me. The ancient Egyptians didn't speak proto-World/Adamic.
Egyptian1922 2 years ago
"The ancient Egyptians didn't speak proto-World/Adamic"
i am not a religious man (in reference to: "adamic languages"), so forgive my ignorance. i, thus, must speak from scientific, intellectual honesty instead. and that honesty is: the egyptians did, in fact, speak a language in what we term presently as black languages. this, however, is common knowledge.
not only must the DNA of every person be traced to black men in africa but also the multitude of languages spoken, today.
mikedav9O 2 years ago
CONTINUE
the distinguished french scholar, historian, and royal count of Emperor Napolean I ( yeah that one: napoleon bonaparte), wrote:
"de penser que cette race d'hommes noirs, aujourd'hue notre esclave et l'objet de nos me'pris,
est celle-la' meme a' laquelle nous devons nos arts, nos sciences, et jusqu'a' l'usage de la parole."
mikedav9O 2 years ago
FINISH
[[English Translation]]
[["To think that to a race of black men, whom are today our slaves and the object of our contempt,
are the very same ones to whom we ow our Arts, Sciences, and even the very use of Speech"]]~
Count Constantin-François Chassebœuf. 1789 AD.
*Noble Historian to Emperor Napoleon I (aka Napoleon Bonaparte), Empereur des Francais (Emperor of the French).
mikedav9O 2 years ago
So? It's not reffered to Egyptians.
Egyptian1922 2 years ago
"so? It's not referred to Egyptian"
Emperor Napolean I (aka Bonaparte) had several failed campaigns in Egypt 1798-1801 AD. before these campaigns took place, Count Chassebœuf was on an exploration through the middle east and egypt. there were many frenchmen exploring egypt (one such was french royal Baron Vivant Denon who you really need to look up). it was upon the arrival of egypt, after looking at the sphinx, that he made the aforementioned quote.
mikedav9O 2 years ago
CONTINUE
early i mentioned Baron Vivant Denon. Denon was appointed first director of the Louvre Museum by Napoleon after the Egyptian campaign of 1798-1801. in 1802 he published his Voyage "dans la Basse et la Haute Égypte pendant les campagnes du général Bonapart" (Journey in Lower and Upper Egypt during the campaigns of General Bonaparte). A source-book of egyptian architecture. Denon drew the image of the Sphinx of Giza around 1798, prior to it's defacement. it was a black man.
mikedav9O 2 years ago
No one can redraw the sphinx' face. Nobody has seen it as a whole. Many say it's Khafra3. Khafra3 has a Middle Eastern head. Especially the nose.
Egyptian1922 2 years ago
"Many say it's Khafra"
no. the khafra myth was destroyed EVEN today by Harvard professor and medical doctor Sheldon Peck and USA's most premier Forensic scientist Frank Domingo. here is the article in the New York Times.
TITLE: Sphinx May Really Be a Black African
SOURCE: New York Times magazine
PUBLICATION: July 18, 1992
mikedav9O 2 years ago
@mikedav9O I AGREE WITH EVERYTHING U HAVE SAID, BUT TO ME THE SPHINX LOOKS LIKE AFRICAN WOMAN. KILL THEM WITH THE TRUTH! YOUR GRASP OF ANCIENT HISTORY IS ADMIRABLE,THESE YOU TUBE RACE FANATICS THINK EVERYTHING WAS AND IS WHITE NO MATTER HOW MUCH EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY YOU PROVIDE. U COULD SHOW THEM ARTIFACTS OF BLACK PEOPLE ALL OVER THE WORLD ALL DAY AND THEY STILL WILL SAY SEMITIC ASIATIC BLACK CAUCASIANS NOT TRUE NEGROS MEANINGLESS WORDS LIKE BANTU MEDITERRANEAN RACE. A WASTE OF BREATH.
9xxxxxxxxx 1 year ago
@9xxxxxxxxx Try not to let such things get the better of you. White people have been led down the garden path just like everyone else, told to believe certain things, taught it in school....real indoctrination. It takes time for the truth to rise through the muck but it will. My personal belief is that there were many different races in ancient Egypt because in the paintings they show that there are many different colours of skin etc. But blacks were in ruling positions obviously.
FunNotNuts 1 year ago
When the pharoah died he became the new Osiris and a god himself. In the image to the right of the Opening of the Mouth Ceremony, note the skin tones of the mummy and Anubis. Both are divine beings and both have golden skin. Compare this to the priest and the mourning women, who have the classic reddish-brown and pale pink skin tones of humans. They were not black !!! U are looking at there gods that ate painted red green gold black and blue real living egyptian were painted light skinned
lar5220 9 months ago
CONTINUE
Denon's book still exist, today. The image he drew in this book is still there. here is the geniuine image in the book-- the "blackness" reported by the Count just 9 years earlier:
htt p : / / s8int . com / images4 / sphinx2 . jpg
now ask yourself, why is the largest statue in egypt of a black pharoah, unless the ANCIENT egyptians were themselves black??
mikedav9O 2 years ago
When I search for 'black-ness' in a statue I look at the nose and lips. Since there aren't any, I can't tell you anything. BUT. The spinx is KHAFRA3. Khafra3 is has NO sign of black-ness in his face. A PURE EGYPTIAN.
Egyptian1922 2 years ago
lol yeah, fuck actual facts lol
Azzaiel 2 years ago
And Greeks are partly African!
malfini1 2 years ago
And the Vikins too! LOL.
Egyptian1922 2 years ago
Where did you get all this info?
cosettemalfoy 2 years ago
I created a simple program which enabled me to store, and categorize peaces of information for more than 5 years. Over that time period I was able to gather loads of Ancient Egyptian vocabulary. I can sell you a copy of the program with all my data collected to so far for a limited price (that only covers the expenses, I get no profit). If your interested, or know anyone that is, contact me at;
erotischerkerl @ googlemail . com
LogicalEuropean 2 years ago
bravoo ! it's so semilar to my Tamazight (berber language) we use also T,Ta for feminine words like Tadart Tamazgha Tilila Tichka Tadart....
iwn=color
ink= I also nich = ik =I
Nil=bleu
Egypt=Mazra(Eyptian and berber)=Masr(arabic)=Misraem(hebrew) =land of ston
cat = kotos and more other examples
samysamy25 2 years ago
METALLICA NOTHING ELSE MATTERS :D
andiikordo 2 years ago
wake me up when it's over zzzzzzzzz
GundisalusMenendiz 2 years ago
Ge'ez (Ethiopic) writing system finds its origins purely Egyptian Heiroglyphs!
EthiopianNews 2 years ago
That's obviously bull seeing as the Hieroglyphs are symbols.
LogicalEuropean 2 years ago
"The Comaparative Origin And Usage of Ge'ez Writing system of Ethiopia"
By: Gabriella F. Scelta
EthiopianNews 2 years ago
Ge'ez is South Arabian in Origins.
LogicalEuropean 2 years ago
Du treibst mich in den Wahnsinn!!!!!!!!!!
Ge'ez is ETHIOPIAN ORIGIN!!!