 |
Michael B. Moore
A1 ·
14190 Forum Posts
|
November 21, 2005 6:33 AM |
Anyone find it a bit, well, _odd_ that we have "bought" a savior (sold to us by our oppressor) that is in the image of our oppressor?
Replies:
66
 |
James Wesley Chester
A1 · 9838 Forum Posts
November 21, 2005 at 7:48 AM
(Last Edited:
|
Everyone 'finds it odd.'
Fear prevents anyone from speaking out.
Fear of God.
Fear of the minister.
Fear of parents.
Fear of contemporaties.
Fear of being wrong. Oh my God!!!
The ultimate rationale is 'What does it matter?'
This while failing to question why God made most men to look different from himself.
Oooooooo!
PEACE
Jim Chester
|
|
Melesi
A1 · 1236 Forum Posts
November 22, 2005 at 9:39 AM
(Last Edited:
|
MBM,
So what did the savior look like?
|
|
Michael B. Moore
A1 · 14190 Forum Posts
November 22, 2005 at 1:20 PM
(Last Edited:
|
quote: Originally posted by Melesi:
MBM,
So what did the savior look like?
As you know, the predominant image portrayed throughout Western Christianity is something like the attached. 
|
|
Melesi
A1 · 1236 Forum Posts
November 22, 2005 at 2:31 PM
(Last Edited:
|
Yes, but that's not the point. What did he look like?
|
|
Michael B. Moore
A1 · 14190 Forum Posts
November 22, 2005 at 2:32 PM
(Last Edited:
|
I could care less what he looked like. The point of this thread is what we have been sold that he looked like.
|
|
Melesi
A1 · 1236 Forum Posts
November 22, 2005 at 2:50 PM
(Last Edited:
|
If we don't know what he looked like, if we don't even care what he looked like, then I fail to see the importance of your concern over what he looked like or the way that he is protrayed. If we don't know, then he could have looked like that.
|
|
Michael B. Moore
A1 · 14190 Forum Posts
November 22, 2005 at 3:13 PM
(Last Edited:
|
Do you disagree that the image I posted is a common image of Christ that is used in Christianity? The reality of Christ's image is irrelevant if the attached one is what has been "sold" to us.
Futhermore, I'm sorry if you cannot understand the problem of accepting an image of a savior who looks like your oppressors.
|
|
Melesi
A1 · 1236 Forum Posts
November 22, 2005 at 3:53 PM
(Last Edited:
|
I find it hard to believe that you would be sorry about anything that has to do with me.
It does matter, MBM, if you are complaining about something that you have no reason to complain about and prompting others to do the same.
This image is "wrong" only if Jesus didn't look like that. If he did, then it doesn't matter if it's like our oppressors or not. That fact then simply would be that our oppressors look like the savior, not that we have been sold an incorrect look.
But since you do not know what he looked like, and even worse, since you do not care, then your complaint is misleading because it is ulterior.
I would conclude from your response that you only wish to incite hate. To use an image of one who was for peace--with God and with each other--for that purpose is manipulative and malevolent.
 |
kresge
A1 · 4297 Forum Posts
November 22, 2005 at 4:00 PM
(Last Edited:
|
quote: Originally posted by MBM: quote: Originally posted by Melesi:
MBM,
So what did the savior look like?
As you know, the predominant image portrayed throughout Western Christianity is something like the attached.
Almost 40 yrs after Albert Cleage's Black Messiah and Jams Hal Cone's [Black Theology and Black Power[/i];and more than 125 years after Bishop Henry McNeal Turner declared that God was a Negro, is it your opinion that this is still the dominant "image" of Jesus accepted by African Americans.
|
|
Melesi
A1 · 1236 Forum Posts
November 22, 2005 at 4:02 PM
(Last Edited:
|
kresge,
is that question to me or to MBM?
|
|
Michael B. Moore
A1 · 14190 Forum Posts
November 22, 2005 at 4:33 PM
(Last Edited:
|
quote: Originally posted by kresge:
Almost 40 yrs after Albert Cleage's Black Messiah and Jams Hal Cone's [Black Theology and Black Power[/i];and more than 125 years after Bishop Henry McNeal Turner declared that God was a Negro, is it your opinion that this is still the dominant "image" of Jesus accepted by African Americans.
I would hope not. I was referring to the image of Christ that was sold to us in slavery and further alluding to the role that that image played in our enslavement.
 |
Nmaginate
A1 · 12097 Forum Posts
November 22, 2005 at 5:23 PM
(Last Edited:
|
MELESI, we know for sure Jesus didn't look like that. And you can reference some modern science on this subject, let alone actual history.
The picture is Germanic. Jesus was Jewish... Beyond that, the fact that plenty of Africans brought to America as slaves did not even believe in Jesus, let alone a Jesus that looked like their oppressors, then we know that it is your comments here that are the most curious and unexplainable.
And KRESEGE... I would think that with all of the movies (the Passion), etc. that "WHITE JESUS" dominates most Americans ideas what Jesus looked like.
Once that image is presented, you just can't simply erase it. Now, if you have some actual survey of Black Churches that have quarantined their members (and non-members) against those images then please share.
|
|
kresge
A1 · 4297 Forum Posts
November 22, 2005 at 7:11 PM
(Last Edited:
|
quote: Originally posted by Nmaginate:
MELESI, we know for sure Jesus didn't look like that. And you can reference some modern science on this subject, let alone actual history.
The picture is Germanic. Jesus was Jewish... Beyond that, the fact that plenty of Africans brought to America as slaves did not even believe in Jesus, let alone a Jesus that looked like their oppressors, then we know that it is your comments here that are the most curious and unexplainable.
And KRESEGE... I would think that with all of the movies (the Passion), etc. that "WHITE JESUS" dominates most Americans ideas what Jesus looked like.
Once that image is presented, you just can't simply erase it. Now, if you have some actual survey of Black Churches that have quarantined their members (and non-members) against those images then please share.
I do not have data to that affect, nor do I know whether it exists or not. Anecdotally, I see numerous images of Black Messiah/Jesus/Christ in the churches I attend, but they do tend to be the more progressive congregations. The interesting thing for me in this issue is whether the image of "da Lord" in the minds of slaves was that of a white person. It was almost assuredly not the image that MBM posted in the sense of portraying the sacred heart, as the version of Christianity adopted by blacks was Protestantism, and particularly the Baptist and Methodist. But was the Jesus of the spirituals, white. Was the God that was worshipped in hush arbors and root cellars an old white dude with white hair and a white beard? Du Bois's various stories where he invokes an image of Jesus is always as a person of color. I already mentioned Bishop Turner. Is the white Jesus more a phenomenon in black consciousness later, say a 20th century occurence. Again, within Protestantism, there is an iconoclastic orientation. It would be interesting to find the dates when the white Jesus pictures actually started appearing in people's homes. My 87 year old grandmother still has hers up, along with her triptych of JFK, Martin Luther King, Jr. and Robert Kennedy.
|
|
Michael B. Moore
A1 · 14190 Forum Posts
November 23, 2005 at 4:23 AM
(Last Edited:
|
quote: Originally posted by kresge:
The interesting thing for me in this issue is whether the image of "da Lord" in the minds of slaves was that of a white person.
Certainly, throughout slavery, white America was worshipping (as they are now) a white Jesus. In their efforts to "humanize" us, you think they would have given us a savior who was different from their own?
|
|
kresge
A1 · 4297 Forum Posts
November 23, 2005 at 5:47 AM
(Last Edited:
|
quote: Originally posted by MBM: quote: Originally posted by kresge:
The interesting thing for me in this issue is whether the image of "da Lord" in the minds of slaves was that of a white person.
Certainly, throughout slavery, white America was worshipping (as they are now) a white Jesus. In their efforts to "humanize" us, you think they would have given us a savior who was different from their own?
This was not the question that I was raising. I was attempting to get at what the slaves did with the images given to them. Sources for discerning this would be spirituals, slave narratives, conversion stories, and artifacts that depict images of Jesus. Africans, as we know, where not tabla rasa. We also know that even those who converted to Christianity did not do so under the terms and by the constraints assumed and imposed by their oppressors. For example, "Steal Away to Jesus," "Swing Low Sweet Chariot" was used in relation to the Underground Railroad. But even on a religious level, is the image of the Jesus that of the oppressor. What about songs like, "Ride on King Jesus" or "Pharoah's Army Got Drowned", or "There is a Balm in Gilead". While not the U.S. we know that in the Caribbean the slaves where also given Christianity in the form of Catholicism. But while they used the outward signs of the saints, they were often really covering up their worship of the Orisha. So we get Voudon, Santeria, Candomble, etc. Was God or Jesus white to these people? MBM, I guess what I am saying is that it is not so clear cut to me what the mind of those who initially received these images where. I would agree with you that it has and still has a profound effect. I have already mentioned my grandmother, but another example would be the National Baptist headquarters built a few years back in Nashville, I think in the late 80's or early 90's. These Negroes actually have a huge depiction of a white Jesus prominent when you walk into the building. Now that says there is some serious pathology at play there.
|
|
James Wesley Chester
A1 · 9838 Forum Posts
November 23, 2005 at 7:56 AM
(Last Edited:
|
quote: Originally posted by Melesi:
If we don't know what he looked like, if we don't even care what he looked like, then I fail to see the importance of your concern over what he looked like or the way that he is protrayed. If we don't know, then he could have looked like that.
The ultimate rationale is 'What does it matter?'---JWC Told ;ja. That "Jesus-thing' is debilitating. PEACE Jim Chester
|
|
James Wesley Chester
A1 · 9838 Forum Posts
November 23, 2005 at 8:15 AM
(Last Edited:
|
It would be interesting to find the dates when the white Jesus pictures actually started appearing in people's homes. My 87 year old grandmother still has hers up, along with her triptych of JFK, Martin Luther King, Jr. and Robert Kennedy.---kresge
All the bibles I saw as a child, in a penecostal church, and all the other churches in our community, all the bibles and the fans had an image similar to that shown by MBM.
I think that gets us back to, at least, the first quarter of the 20th century.
The 5th edition of Lerone Bennett's 'Before the Mayflower' recounts the beginning of 'black' churches, particularly the AME and AME Zion, but includes Baptist and other Nethodist.
He didn't show pictures in his work, but the point can be made that it is not likely the images of Jesus in 'white' churches where those 'black' denominations spun off were not 'white'.
That gets us bact to around the first quarter of the 19th Century.
Keeping the discussion in the U.S., I don't think there was a 'black' Jesus sold by Europeans to Africans at any point.
You know if you want a fight, go to the Church of God in Christ a hang up a picture of a 'black' Jesus.
If there is no 'fight', things sure have changed.
The man, MBM, has a point.
PEACE
Jim Chester
|
|
Melesi
A1 · 1236 Forum Posts
November 23, 2005 at 8:41 AM
(Last Edited:
|
But not as it seems he thinks.
What Jesus was in Rosa Parks' mind? Or Martin Luther King's? Was it a white Jesus that kept our forefathers in slavery, or was it the whip and the laws? If a white Jesus was used as a quieting influence on them, did it work, and how would we know?
Jesus was Jewish. Sure, he probably didn't look Germanic, but since we don't have a description of him, anything that we say about his appearance is a speculation. Since it is our speculation, we have to be very careful that we do not merely substitute one image for a bad reason for another. There can be just as bad a reason for insisting that Jesus was black or brown as for his being white.
MBM's reason is a bad one, for he has said that he does not care about historical accuracy. That leaves him then the opportunity and motive for manipulating the image of Christ for social or political purposes, and that is just as bad as manipulating his image--if that is why it happened--for oppressive purposes. ONe is just as oppressive as the other.
We can go back to catacomb art and see a very Roman-appearing Christ. We can look into some black churches and see an African-appearing
Christ. Both can be wrong. Both can be right. It depends on the motive.
|
|
Michael B. Moore
A1 · 14190 Forum Posts
November 23, 2005 at 9:50 AM
(Last Edited:
|
quote: Originally posted by Melesi:
MBM's reason is a bad one, for he has said that he does not care about historical accuracy.
Melesi - sorry you missed the point. What Jesus actually looked like is irrelevant when considering the images that were given to us. Whether Jesus really looked like the image I attached or looked like Whoopi Goldberg is irrelevant. Somewhere along the way the image I posted was embraced by the Christian church and sold to the world. That image is what I am contending with, not what Jesus really looked like.
|
|
Melesi
A1 · 1236 Forum Posts
November 23, 2005 at 10:22 AM
(Last Edited:
|
MBM,
No, I didn't miss the point, I merely disagreed with it.
Your last comment contained the words, "What Jesus really looked like" is partly why I disagree with your post. I say that it is irrelevant and deserves to be ignored.
What Jesus did look like is not irrelevant to any discussion of whether damage has been done to a people by a particular image. If the person under discussion really did look like that, then we must look for the damage somewhere else than in the image itself. Complaining about the image is distracting. It's griping about symptoms while ignoring the disease.
In fact, I think the damage was done by something other than the image. Have there been loving, strong, and capable AA Christians whose image of the Christ was that of a white one? Have there been loving, strong, and capable white Christians (say some of those white marchers we can see in pictures of the civil rights movement in the 60s) whose image was that of a white Christ? Or perhaps were willing to accept the image of a black one? I know white Christians who are willing to accept such a black Christ. That doesn't make them slavish any more than an image of a white Christ in a black church makes them so.
If black theology is primarily liberationist, and if the image of Christ is primarily that of a white man, then we simply cannot say that the image has the influence and consequence that you seem to want to say or believe it does.
Especially if Christ were not black. If he was not black, then he was more like that Germanic image than some of us may want to admit. That is a possibility that we need to hold open. It's part of what's called "humility," and it is a cardinal Christian virtue.
Since he is not described, then we need to concentrate on his words more than on his appearance. Those words are without color. Perhaps our religion needs to be as well. I think your point, that his appearance is all that important, is just wrong.
 |
MidLifeMan
A1 · 906 Forum Posts
November 23, 2005 at 1:25 PM
(Last Edited:
|
If we don't know, then he could have looked like that.
COULD is the operative word. That is the point we DON'T know so THEY put THEIR face on him.
I'm sorry if you cannot understand the problem of accepting an image of a savior who looks like your oppressors.
IF he did look like our "oppressors" what would that matter?
So, IMHO, from a religious stand point he should have no image. From a cultural stand point and historical he was probably a man of color. Philosophically, I think when we think of his "image" it should be the face of the individual looking at the image meaing...it is the goal of a Christian to be "Christlike" so we should see ourselves.
 |
Frenchy
A1 · 2755 Forum Posts
November 23, 2005 at 2:11 PM
(Last Edited:
|
quote: Whether Jesus really looked like the image I attached or looked like Whoopi Goldberg is irrelevant
 |
SistahSouljah
A1 · 1663 Forum Posts
November 24, 2005 at 9:43 AM
(Last Edited:
|
Jesus was born in the so-called "Middle East", so he most likely looked similar to what Middle Easterners look like today, IMO, with a neither black nor white complexion, but a medium-brown tone.
Then again, who knows, damn.
|
|
Nmaginate
A1 · 12097 Forum Posts
November 24, 2005 at 10:42 PM
(Last Edited:
|
quote: Sure, he probably didn't look Germanic, but since we don't have a description of him, anything that we say about his appearance is a speculation. Since it is our speculation, we have to be very careful that we do not merely substitute one image for a bad reason for another. There can be just as bad a reason for insisting that Jesus was black or brown as for his being white.
MELESI, you act like you can't hear. There is no "probably" to it. WE KNOW Jesus did not look like that GERMANIC image. quote: We can go back to catacomb art and see a very Roman-appearing Christ. We can look into some black churches and see an African-appearing Christ. Both can be wrong. Both can be right. It depends on the motive.
Your usual, empty MEALY-MOUTH. What is your motive? quote: In fact, I think the damage was done by something other than the image. Have there been loving, strong, and capable AA Christians whose image of the Christ was that of a white one? Have there been loving, strong, and capable white Christians (say some of those white marchers we can see in pictures of the civil rights movement in the 60s) whose image was that of a white Christ? Or perhaps were willing to accept the image of a black one? I know white Christians who are willing to accept such a black Christ. That doesn't make them slavish any more than an image of a white Christ in a black church makes them so.
And your motive here? Obviously, you missed the point entirely... All because someone mentioned the Christ of whom you presume to be the foremost authority. In other words, everything I just quoted is IRRELEVANT. On each and every thing said: Has MBM or anyone questioned or said any of those things would be ruled out by the idea of the image (Oppressor As Savior?)?? NO! So what really is your motive? Always the Apologetics for you... Like this... quote: Especially if Christ were not black. If he was not black, then he was more like that Germanic image than some of us may want to admit. That is a possibility that we need to hold open.
Now who has presented their case for a historically, Biblically linked BLACK JESUS or said anything about discounting a Jesus that was not "Black"?? See...? These are your APOLOGETICS gone wild. quote: What Jesus was in Rosa Parks' mind? Or Martin Luther King's? Was it a white Jesus that kept our forefathers in slavery, or was it the whip and the laws? If a white Jesus was used as a quieting influence on them, did it work, and how would we know?
Hmmm.... Juxtapose the perception and rhetoric of Malcolm X vs. King and then ask me again.... "If it worked"??? So affectionately White Americans are fond of the "love" MLK had for "all people". King's philosophy (of non-violence and overall approach) was a "turn the other cheek", "pray/love those who despitefully use you" variety that can arguably be seen to be severally limited in it's conception which can arguably be linked to "White Jesus." You spoke about "MOTIVE." Well... Arguably, even with Rosa and King, I could definitely detail how such a WHITE OPPRESSOR'S MOTIVE worked even with them. Don't let those absolutes fool you. Do that juxtaposition then re-ask your question. quote:
Now, taking that report as accurate, what was it? Was it [1] "White Jesus", [2] MLK's belief in Christianity itself or [3] MLK's esteem of the Constitution that informed/influenced his earlier posture? Can you effectively rule "White Jesus" out? I think not... unless you contrive (as you have tried) some extreme and exaggerated (and absolute, all or nothing) idea about what the White Jesus Effect was/is suppose to be.
 |
DivineJoy
A3 · 310 Forum Posts
November 30, 2005 at 4:31 AM
(Last Edited:
|
quote: Originally posted by MBM:
Anyone find it a bit, well, _odd_ that we have "bought" a savior (sold to us by our oppressor) that is in the image of our oppressor?
The description of the people in the Holy Bible are Black. Those reading the text are aware of the deception, and understand why God has allowed it to happen. He wants to know who is truly seeking Him out. Those who are not, will look at this white Jesus. "You will know them by their fruits"... ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Job 30:30 - My skin is black upon me, and my bones are burned with heat. Song 1:5 - I am black, but comely, O ye daughters of Jerusalem, as the tents of Kedar, as the curtains of Solomon. Song 1:6 - Look not upon me, because I am black, because the sun hath looked upon me: my mother's children were angry with me; they made me the keeper of the vineyards; but mine own vineyard have I not kept. Jeremiah 8:21 - For the hurt of the daughter of my people am I hurt; I am black; astonishment hath taken hold on me. Lam 4:8 - Their visage (face) is blacker than a coal; they are not known in the streets: their skin cleaveth to their bones; it is withered, it is become like a stick. Lam 5:10 - Our skin was black like an oven because of the terrible famine.
 |
Oshun Auset
A1 · 7168 Forum Posts
December 1, 2005 at 12:24 PM
(Last Edited:
|
quote: Originally posted by SistahSouljah:
Jesus was born in the so-called "Middle East", so he most likely looked similar to what Middle Easterners look like today, IMO, with a neither black nor white complexion, but a medium-brown tone.
Then again, who knows, damn.
That doesn't take into account the fact that populations migrate to and from different areas and can completely be replaced in particular areas by folks that are not native to the land. By your same logic the ancient Egyptians were not Black Africans....That's what 'they' want us to believe. The Indo-Europeans(Hiksos, Marmelukes, Geco-Romans, Persians, and Arabs...In that cronological order I might add) moved down into the area now known as the middle East from the East and West. The former natives of this land such as the Summerians were known as the "Black Heads" and South East Asia(the so-called Middle East) was a part of what the Greeks and Romans referred to as Eastern and Western Ethiopia(Burnt faces) even during thier time. Since the time of Yeshua was during the Roman conquest of this this area... (The Persian and Arab conquest occurred AFTER this) Than if he wasn't a Roman he was a Black faced Ethiopian with some possible mixed heritage from the Hiksos invasions that preceded the Greco-Roman invasion of this area that extended into Northen Africa. He was definately not a Florentinian or Arian person. Anyone who is comfortable with this image of Yeshua being promoted worldwide(to a 90% non-'white' wolrd I might add, when it is a bold faced innaccuracy is nuts. Anyone who doesn't understand that symbolic language is of the utmost importance is an idiot IMO. Melesi, are you one of the oppressors?
|
|
Melesi
A1 · 1236 Forum Posts
December 1, 2005 at 1:01 PM
(Last Edited:
|
except that genetic studies show that the people who are there now are the people who have been there since the pyramids. Sure, there has been some coming and going, but not so much as we might like to think.
|
|
Oshun Auset
A1 · 7168 Forum Posts
December 1, 2005 at 1:29 PM
(Last Edited:
|
quote: Originally posted by Melesi:
except that genetic studies show that the people who are there now are the people who have been there since the pyramids. Sure, there has been some coming and going, but not so much as we might like to think.
In an ass backwards way you may be right...I know it was not your intension to prove a point for me, but you have. The majority of the population of Egypt are still phenotypically Black Africans, although culturally they have been Arabized and somewhat genetically they have also 'mixed'(much like folk in neghboring Sudan...which BTW scholars say is just a continuation of the Arab intrusion into North Africa)... So you don't see any hostile Arab Northern Aggression and displacement of population....downright genocide of Black Africans going on there? Even though the so-called Sudanese Arabs look phenotypically Black African to outsiders? And it isn't because of religion. The folks in Darfur are all Muslim. But of course the discovery channel special you are referring too only showed the light skinned Arab looking folk that are the elite minority in Cairo and do not make up the majority of the folks in Cairo or rural Egypt...Kind of like the TV show "Friends" depiction of the racial makeup of NYC. BTW, You will never see these folks on tel-lie-vision, you would have to travel there and take photos (or know several people who have), and/or researched it to the enth degree though books and the internet(both which I have done). You can check the photos out in another thread on the subject of ancient Egypt, posted by me, in the History section of this site. Those "genetic studies" probably tested the majority populous, hence there conclusion that no great genetic 'shift' had occured since ancient times. And that's if we think they are reliable, when considering who funded them. If you think that has nothing to do with the results of the study than I have a few recently reacalled pain killers I would like you to take, and I suggest Phen-phen for wait loss. The White supremacy run media will never project worldwide the phenotypical appearance of the actual genetic populous of Egypt, ancient or modern. It would not serve their interests. The Arab elite has a vested interest in pretending they lay claim to the ancient genius of Black Africa also for similasr reasons. They don't like to talk about the fact that they are invaders to North Africa too much... Even though they refer to Black Africans as 'abd'(slave)... There have been MAJOR migrations, displacements, conquests, and genocides, throughout history....Ask the Aboriginal populations of the Amerikkkas, Australia, Tazmania(good luck finding any Tazmanians, they were wiped out), New Zealand, ect., ect. But some people don't like to think about them for obvious reasons. So, are you one of the oppressors, or are you just serving their interests with your distortion of history and facts?... Or are you so gullible that you just belwhatever the oppressor spoons feeds you? ...The question is largely rhetorical considering you hard lined X-tian fundy like posts...
|
|
Melesi
A1 · 1236 Forum Posts
December 1, 2005 at 1:57 PM
(Last Edited:
|
um, no actually.
REcent gentic tests on mummies buried during the time and in the places of the pyramids show that they are the direct ancestors of the Egyptians who are living there now.
Remember the existence of the "Wild Nile" and the way that it blocked passage down the Nile from the south, leaving the northern route from the east the only way into Egypt.
By the way, I don't have cable and have never seen the Discovery Channel.
|
|
Oshun Auset
A1 · 7168 Forum Posts
December 2, 2005 at 8:15 PM
(Last Edited: December 5, 2005 at 4:43 PM)
|
quote: Originally posted by Melesi:
um, no actually.
REcent gentic tests on mummies buried during the time and in the places of the pyramids show that they are the direct ancestors of the Egyptians who are living there now.
Remember the existence of the "Wild Nile" and the way that it blocked passage down the Nile from the south, leaving the northern route from the east the only way into Egypt.
By the way, I don't have cable and have never seen the Discovery Channel.
Uhm.... What population of people did these tests compare the DNA of the ancient Egyptian mummies too Melesi? And are they known mummies of 'asiatic' foreign occupiers(according too egyptiasn papyri) like the Hyksos that were around during the pyramid building times(That were all expelled from the country later)? Or is that irrelavent in your mind? No shit they tested the mummies, I was talking about who's genes were the mummies compared too genius, or have the folks who put on the study just made up a modern genetic 'average' of the entire modern populous of Egypt? And the test giver would have absolutely no vested interest in selectively picking particular phenotypes that are obviousely the genetic descendents too prove that 'modern Egyptians' are the genetic descendents while putting the phenotypically Asiatics on TV, magazines, and books... They are soooo above that type of trickery! Give me a break! BTW.... Humans can travel across land too. Does the Bantu migration ring any historical bells? Shit, the Yoruba of West Africa(many of our direct ancestors) lived along the Nile about 1000 years ago. How do you think they made it all the way across Africa? I don't recall a river in Africa they could take that travels East to West. Do you? You just can't stand not having a comeback.
 |
Fine
A1 · 2549 Forum Posts
December 2, 2005 at 8:48 PM
(Last Edited: January 5, 2006 at 6:59 AM)
|
quote: MBM--Anyone find it a bit, well, _odd_ that we have "bought" a savior (sold to us by our oppressor) that is in the image of our oppressor?
I find it not only odd but racist. The whitewash, however, started long far before the enslavement saga. Many, black churches still have an image of a white Jesus hanging in their church sanctuaries. All black churches continue to preach the lying lore of christianity via Europe, and do not protest the whitewash--so I'd say that pretty much sums up the the fact that they've bought into the scam hook line and sinker...
|
|
DivineJoy
A3 · 310 Forum Posts
December 6, 2005 at 8:12 PM
(Last Edited:
|
quote: Originally posted by Melesi:
um, no actually.
REcent gentic tests on mummies buried during the time and in the places of the pyramids show that they are the direct ancestors of the Egyptians who are living there now.
Yeah, the Egyptians were olive skin, and they enslaved us! After we were delivered, we were sold by other Africans, and enslaved by whites.  Now it is important to not be enslaved mentally.
|
|
kresge
A1 · 4297 Forum Posts
December 6, 2005 at 8:41 PM
(Last Edited:
|
quote: Originally posted by DivineJoy: quote: Originally posted by Melesi:
um, no actually.
REcent gentic tests on mummies buried during the time and in the places of the pyramids show that they are the direct ancestors of the Egyptians who are living there now.
Yeah, the Egyptians were olive skin, and they enslaved us! After we were delivered, we were sold by other Africans, and enslaved by whites. Now it is important to not be enslaved mentally.
Olive skin  Again, I ask, where is the historical, anthropological, and archaeological data to support this claim. What I see is an interesting spin on an origin myth found in the Hebrew Bible, but that does not constitute history.
|
|
DivineJoy
A3 · 310 Forum Posts
December 6, 2005 at 8:52 PM
(Last Edited:
|
quote: Originally posted by kresge: Olive skin Again, I ask, where is the historical, anthropological, and archaeological data to support this claim. What I see is an interesting spin on an origin myth found in the Hebrew Bible, but that does not constitute history.
So, do you think the Egyptians were Black? Why? My proof - we are taught Joseph was sold into slavery TO ARABS, and he was sent to Egypt. The Holy Bible is Black History. One day you will realize it.
 |
Fagunwa
A1 · 787 Forum Posts
December 7, 2005 at 5:38 AM
(Last Edited:
|
quote: Originally posted by DivineJoy: quote: Originally posted by kresge: Olive skin Again, I ask, where is the historical, anthropological, and archaeological data to support this claim. What I see is an interesting spin on an origin myth found in the Hebrew Bible, but that does not constitute history.
So, do you think the Egyptians were Black? Why? My proof - we are taught Joseph was sold into slavery TO ARABS, and he was sent to Egypt. The Holy Bible is Black History. One day you will realize it.
We are taught by who?
|
|
DivineJoy
A3 · 310 Forum Posts
December 7, 2005 at 8:39 AM
(Last Edited:
|
quote: Originally posted by Fagunwa:
We are taught by who?
The holy Spirit. There is nothing mankind can do to stop God from completing what he started in the earth. We are told how to identify his true Word, and the false christs that would arise.
|
|
Fagunwa
A1 · 787 Forum Posts
December 7, 2005 at 11:37 AM
(Last Edited:
|
|
|
MidLifeMan
A1 · 906 Forum Posts
December 7, 2005 at 12:18 PM
(Last Edited:
|
Like Ivan VanSertima said in his books, it's not a question of if the Egyptians were black or white. You can find Blacks among ancient Europeans and Asians but this didn't make them less Caucasian or Asian. So finding whites among the Africans doesn't mean much.
The question should be asked if they were predominantly African during their beginnings and major dynastic periods and the evidences say -YES.
|
|
Empty Purnata
A1 · 5066 Forum Posts
December 7, 2005 at 1:43 PM
(Last Edited:
|
quote: Originally posted by MidLifeMan:
Like Ivan VanSertima said in his books, it's not a question of if the Egyptians were black or white. You can find Blacks among ancient Europeans and Asians but this didn't make them less Caucasian or Asian. So finding whites among the Africans doesn't mean much.
The question should be asked if they were predominantly African during their beginnings and major dynastic periods and the evidences say -YES.
Well, the simple answer is: the ancient Egyptians were neither Black or White. They were not Black, but they were closer to Black than they were White. The ancient Egyptians were most likely an Afro-Asiatic (Hamitic) ethnicity. Hamitic tribes (like the North African Berbers) weren't quite Black, but they classify under Negroid (although I like the nuanced scientific term "Congoid" better). They had brown skin and some "Black" features, but had rounded Caucasoid and sometimes slanted Mongoloid eyes, Semitic noses and curly-to-wavy hair. The thing you have to understand about the racial categories of "Caucasoid"/"Mongoloid"/"Negroid ["Congoid"] is that Caucasoid DOES NOT MEAN "WHITE" Mongoloid DOES NOT MEAN "EAST ASIAN" Congoid DOES NOT MEAN "BLACK" Those ethnicities are just the largest groups in those racial categories.  For example: Central Asians and Semites are Caucasoid, but not White, Hamites are Congoid but not Black, and some East Indians and Pacific Islanders are Mongoloid but not East Asian. The Egyptians were most likely a Hamitic peoples that were a transition between Black and Semitic.
|
 |
Tags
You can edit the tags associated with this topic.
None
|
|
|
network.
Network Home
Explore
The LiveCloud Blog
LiveCloud Chat Events
Activity Stream
Forums
Clips
