True people of Kam, Kem, Ham, Cham (Kemit/Egypt)

[TheSeun9]

WHAT TRIBE OF ISRAEL ARE WEST AFRICANS!?

[thotsins]

@TheSeun9 We are not from the tribe of israel, even though some of us my have had some hebrews assimilate with us in times past during their dispersal; however, we come from the family lines of Ham, primarily mizraim and cush. Israelites are from Shem.

[TheSeun9]

@thotsins so are you saying Jesus didnt come for us?

[thotsins]

@TheSeun9 Nope, he did not. That would be an extreme idea that is contrary to all the evidence, including the extensive genealogies that exist tracing him back through the lines exclusively to the lines the Shemetic people, not Hamite, which is what we are.

Everybody in history was not black.

[thotsins]

@TheSeun9 African tradition and dna shows that during he israelite dispersal, there were some shemite people that intermarried with african tribes, so as a result some african tribes have traces of shemite dna, but that is about as far as it goes. Jesus was not a Hamite, he was a Jew of Shemetic stock.

[BALEnaVICO]

I'm from the eastern tribes of the Fiji Islands and my grandfather told me that a long time ago, my forefathers left Egypt and sailed the ocean hiding a sacred chest... They sailed on bush-rub boats... Two bush-rub boats to be exact. On the north eastern part of northen Fiji, there is a swamp of bush-rub believed to be one of the boats, the second is said to be somewhere in the lake on Taveuni. Jewish scholars are claiming Fijian to be Israelites from the Roman occupation.

[REDDRAKON]

were any Pharaohs going back in recorded history actually black. like full African, or was there time before that? i guess they dont really know when a lot of that shit was built, i would bet its older then people think, its strange how if people would occupy a land and adopt its religion, or was the religion introduced and the black Egyptians believed something else? many questions and few actual answers, i think egypt likes it that way

[thotsins]

@REDDRAKON Yes they were black. The reason? Because they were Mizraim. That's all the proof you need. Mizraim people are nothing else but black. But people have to remember there are different types of "black." All don't look alike.

And there is no such thing as "full African." Full Khami? YES, they were.

Full African? No such thing.

[REDDRAKON]

@thotsins yea i know there are all different kinds of black, light dark tall short ect, but id say some tribes in certain areas are still full african, i mean, with out arab, turkish, greek, roman ect dna that have given current egyptians there distinct look.. i could be way wrong im no expert, but unlike saying you cant be full Mexican i think you can still be full african but maybe not, anyways i like to imagine that ancient egypt was built by blacks before the mixing.. maybe not though

[thotsins]

@REDDRAKON Yea, true, the only thing is you can't really say "full African" cuz africa is just a location. There are some "blacks" who never came into Africa with the rest of us, yet they were still full Kami people, like the indigenous Minoans. In Africa it is the name of ancestral people that spawns us that what we are called, the land now called "Africa" is just where some of us live. Some Kami people did not look like what most people would call "fully black," yet they were, like Sidonians.

[thotsins]

Yea, true, the only thing is you can't really say "full African" cuz africa is just a location. There are some "blacks" who never came into Africa with the rest of us, yet they were still full Kami people, like the indigenous Minoans. In Africa it is the name of ancestral people that spawns us that what we are called, the land now called "Africa" is just where some of us live. Some Kami people did not look like what most people would call "fully black," yet they were, like Sidonians.

[thotsins]

@REDDRAKON And yes, you are right, the egyptians were "black" people cuz they were Mizraim, which is a Kami ethnic group. It is collective that most black ethnic groups that live both in & outside of Africa trace our origins back to those original swarthy ancestors. Amongst the different tribes, we have variations of the same term we use to refer to our Kami ancestors that left Egypt. However, there were others that left & settled elsewhere, still others didn't come into africa at all.

[BigPreme]

@thotsins That is not true/makes no sense. There are tons of people who have not mixed who are in Africa today. For instance, this is why they said in south africa and in west africa these are the people with no neanderthal DNA. Yet everyone on earth elsewhere has it. Because the mixing was not going on there. Even in Ancient Kmt they didn't mix until MUCh later on. Until middle dynasty. Because they didn't allow outsiders in. Only until Hyksos time do you see this.

[thotsins]

@BigPreme That's what I said, I've said this already, that there are tons of people not mixed in Africa.

[BigPreme]

@thotsins sorry, i must have mis read

[waffiki]

the truth is setting us free.

[7troding]

this debate as morphed into the absurd . any body with a clear thinking head and no ax to grid , and some education know that blacks build ancient egypt

[rahotep101]

The Lower (northern) Egyptians have negligible French, English, Roman or Persian admixture. The Coptic Christians of Egypt (who have no Turkish or Arab or Mamluk blood) look no different from the Muslims, whatever part of Egypt they live in. Those dark southerners, who are admixed with black Nubians (who invaded and formed the 25th dynasty) are no more or less true Egyptians than the rest of the population.

[thotsins]

@rahotep101 Egypt at present has been a melting pot for a long time of numerous peoples, including the indigenous population—The Misiris (AKA Mizraims) as well as the later foreign settlers & developments birthed through admixture of peoples like the Coptics, Mamluks, etc.

The only true Egyptians are the descendants who trace back to Mizraim, brother of Cush, son Ham.

In Africa, we call them our ancestors, KHAM (Ham) and MISIRI (Mizraim. And this is who we came from as well as Kush.

[rahotep101]

@thotsins I suspect the Bible records personifications made up to explain existing peoples and tribes, fictional ancestors. The Copts are the descendants of the ancient Egyptians, and have been in place at least since Predynastic times. Statues and images from the early dynasties often show lighter, more Mediterranean/Caucasoid looking Egyptians as well as dark ones, and these are much older than the Hyksos or other invasions.

[thotsins]

@rahotep101 Then you'll just have to learn the reasons why the biblical characters are not fictional. Logic tells us, there is no way us indigenous tribes would have these ancestors listed in our GENEALOGIES—when we've never read the bible.

[thotsins]

@rahotep101 Written records are one of the most reliable ways to discover factual history. Although a religious book, the bible is also one of those written records, and it is one of the most detailed accurate written records & and has maintained a flawless record of being medically, scientifically, historically, and prophetically accurate for thousands of years. So that's pretty hardcore, solid credibility.

[rahotep101]

@thotsins The Bible is not so reliable. Many of the names and characters are probably purely mithical, invented to explain existing tribal names and national distributions, and in some cases to give the Jews an excuse to seize their land.

[thotsins]

@rahotep101 "Many of the names and characters are probably purely mithical, invented to explain existing tribal names and national distributions, and in some cases to give the Jews an excuse to seize their land. "

Saying "probably" means you're guessing; the statement is not factual with any proof, but just your personal guess. Nobody has presented any proof that these characters are not factual.

[thotsins]

@rahotep101 The reason we know they weren't mythical is: If the bible mentions empires like Rome, Assyria, Babylon, Chaldeans, & people like Cyrus, Tiberius, Sennacharib, etc—well, these were all REAL people, weren't they? Many of whom were contemporaries of the aforementioned empires we're talking about here. So if the characters in the bible were mythical, then these commonly known people & empires would be too. There is not one biblical character that has been proven to be fictional.

[thotsins]

@rahotep101 And you really can't call these characters "biblical," as if they only exist in the bible—because they are also found not only throughout other written historical records and archeological tablets, but also mentioned amongst the numerous indigenous tribes and peoples across the entire planet that mention these exact same peoples and tell the exact same stories.

So this is why we know they are not fictional. Look into to it, I'm sure you'll find it enlightening.

[thotsins]

@rahotep101 The Copts were not the indigenous population. They may have been termed or believed to be the indigenous people by the arrival of the later arabs and other peoples. But time period is everything. Who is deemed as indigenous will differ depending on what people new arrivals encounter during different time periods.

[thotsins]

@rahotep101 People of Kham were not of Yaphet descent. And "Mediterranean/Caucasoid" is NOT an ethnicity, it's just a term made up to calssify a region and certain type of features. Having features westerners deem so called "Caucasoid" does not mean those people are of Yaphetic descent.

We Khami people have a wide variety of physical appearances, and even my tribe—westerners have begun calling "Caucasoid" just cuz we have features common to Yaphetic people. And statues in Egypt look pure Khami.

[rahotep101]

@thotsins Most ancient Egyptian statues look just like modern Egyptians, and there are as many that would be called 'white' as 'black'. The Copts (who call themselves rem en kemi' are pure indigenous Egyptians, (with no recent Arab or Turkish admixture) . They likewise have a variety of features and skin tones, and despite their 1400 years of genetic isolation still reflect the look of dynastic Egypt.

[thotsins]

@rahotep101 Yea, I've heard this before. But, unless they can trace their lineage from Mizraim like the rest of Africans can—they are not the indigenous people of Kemet.

Thorough, fair DNA extractions of bones is what's needed. But the foreigners who occupy Egypt today have taken the DNA samples, but for some odd reason refuse to publish what they found. You'd think that would have been the first thing they publish. One of the few markers found, was actually a genetic marker found in Cameroon.

[thotsins]

@rahotep101 One thing about the region modernly called "Egypt" is that who is viewed as "indigenous" differs greatly depending on what time period you reference. We know the indigenous people of the region were Mizraims, after the progenitor of the population which synonymously (as was common in ancient days) was also given as the name of the land they settled. Most africans trace our ancestry to these ancestors by name in our genealogies.

[thotsins]

@rahotep101 No matter what they may have originally looked like, which can only be found through testing ancient DNA from the bones of the first population of Mizraim descendants (Which Dr. Hawass refused to share with everyone), we know they were Khami peoples along with the Cushites and the people of Put, etc. etc. and we all are VERY diverse. Most Africans, though trace our lineage back to Kush and Mizraim. For instance my tribe is one of those, and we know our origins very well.

[thotsins]

@rahotep101 The dilemma with so called "science" of current society, is that it is admittedly corrupt. Most scientific FACTS, we don't see. We're merely presented with fragmented data that has been carefully pieced together and given a spin of interpretation spawning from the bias imaginations of those who control the industry, who—just as every empire has done—use their power to dictate a history that is too often not really factual. My ancestors did; and every empire has done it.

[thotsins]

@rahotep101 In Africa, there is no such thing as "Afrocentrism," we don't even know what it is. We just have histories passed down through tradition, culture, & our writing systems which are often written in code.

When this system of industry is finally done away with, we'll finally be granted the opportunity to discover accurate science based off THOROUGH data that has been allowed to interpret itself, rather then presented with fragmented data, that is then shrouded in biased theory.

[saddat1965]

shortyjored88,I saw a video clip called zeitgeist reloaded where they were saying that Moses of the bible was really an egytian pharoah from I believe they said lower egypt.Since there is no proof of a Moses and 1 million hebrews living in the desert for 40 years,the only event that did happen to come close to this tale is upper egypt and lower egypt had a war and the pharoah of lower egypt led his people to the middle east and created the hebrews by mixing with others who lived in the mideast.

[thotsins]

@saddat1965 Hebrews were Shemetic peoples. The bible although not a history book documents an extensive genealogy of Hebrew people that are remembered in modern arabia, and Moses was a descendant through Hebrew people who are Shemetic.The Joktani, Assyrians, Syrians, etc. Hebrews came through Shem, not Kam.

Egyptians and Cushites, indigenous Lybians etc. came from Kham (aka Ham). That is who we descend from in Africa, although some of us were and still are present outside Africa.

[thotsins]

@saddat1965 I've watched both zeitgeist films and both are filled with errors.

People need to understand there are two explanations to reality that have been given to mankind. One true one, and one counterfeit one based off the true one that surfaced shortly after. Researchers need to make sure they are not quoting data from the counterfeit as oppose to the true. They also need to make sure they are not missing any facts that do in fact exist.

[thotsins]

@saddat1965 One thing about the Misiris (Egyptians) is that it was customary not to document defeats. So even though this event of the israelites defeating the Misiris occured, they were certainly not going to document that account. The closest thing that has surfaced was the documentation about the Hyskos in Egypt. People speculate that they may have been the israelites whose God defeated the Misiris and their gods.

[saddat1965]

I try to tell my African american brothers and sisters this all the time but they don`t even care and I think it`s just sad that they believe all the lies that are being told by european books and american tv. I know who my ancestors are and I feel a real connection with them.Home is always calling out to me to know more about my true culture.I think it should be considered a war crime for them to dig up our ancestors graves and put them on display to make money.

[thotsins]

@saddat1965 AMEN. It should be prohibited to dig up the artifacts of our ancestors and ship them out.

[Shortyjored88]

Ironically it was Nimrod who led the world at that time to built the Tower of Babel. Think about this? Do you not see a connection with Pyramids of Egypt. How ironic it was a Ham descendent that led and brought the idea of building the Tower of Babel. This Tower would have surpassed the Great Pyramids if God didn't intervene. If Nimrod a descendent of Ham would lead the world to built this big monument why will it be hard to believe the descendents of Ham would built pyramids?

[thotsins]

This was the only accurate portrayal of Khami people we ever saw and I tell you a lot of us africans rejoiced!

watch?v=kY8RW1EfSdA

[thotsins]

Your welcome, you in all of our traditions in africa, from tribe to tribe, our traditions say we came from Egypt and the Land of Cush and those are our ancestors. Modern Egypt was long ago overthrown by middle eastern and european invaders who are what make up the present population in mainstream cities like Cairo. However, in the rural areas, you still find some of the original Egyptians, but some of those places are not allowed access.

[thotsins]

Interestingly, Dr. Hawass, on his latest King Tut documentary, took King Tut's Dna test from his mummy on February 17th this year. They discussed how the DNA revealed how king Tut died (malaria and broken leg), they pieced his whole family tree together finding out who his mother, father, grandparents etc were, but—DELIBERATELY DID NOT MENTION WHAT HAPLOTYPE HIS DNA REVEALED. They were very quiet about that. They talked about everything else but what ethnic stock his dna proved to be.

[thotsins]

Those who dominate Egyptology are the people with the money and who they choose to fund. Unfortunately that is not us Africans. It is in the control of Europe who also grant some domination of the field to the arabs, so we Africans are not permitted access to the same deep areas of data and study as they are. They most likely will not let any of us do a DNA on his Mummy ourselves. That's how they control what info comes out and what doesn't.

[ankhenaten2]

great video, real facts in a video