europeans want Kemet so bad. i appreciate scholars and historians that prove them wrong and extremely thirsty. Kemet was already ancient by the time they slithered in.
You are projecting. In reality you desperately want Egypt. Ancient Egyptians looked like Modern Egyptians. They were Northern Africans. You try to claim they as Sub Saharan Africans. The other day, scientist presented a reconstruction of the King's Tut face: www.nbcnews.com/id/7806495/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/ct-scans-reveal-king-tuts-face/#.XQJuKohKjIU He doesn't look European, but white people were not protesting - blacks were.
@@endover422 whatever...when were you born...or moreover where? Look at some school books of not that long ago and what rubbish has been taught by European colonial rhetoric with the sole aim to indoctrinate the uninformed and mislead them to thinking they have contributed nothing to humanity...you must have been born under a rock...Truth, is what people are aiming at...that's it! Just like a criminal courtroom aims at truth of the matter...not opinions or beliefs or heresy but empirical evidence!!! C'mon bloke be reasonable...smh.
At last a man who thinks with his mind not his emotions. This is not divisive dogma or agenda but what education used to be and might be again someday, just the facts. He is the Joe Friday of his field. My only question would be the ages of things which I think are inflated.
If only that were true. In reality, S.O.Y. Keita is a disciple of Cheikh Anta Diop, who is widely known as one of the founders of Afrocentricity. Diop was a pseudo-historian who actually contended things like the Olmec civilization was founded by migrants from West Africa (LOL). Afrocentricity is essentially a therapeutic coping mechanism for black people experiencing acute identity crises and/or inferiority complexes. It's almost completely based on emotion, not facts. Surely, Keita here is a little more objective and less cavalier than Diop. He definitely comes off as more credible, but for those with an adequate understanding of ethnohistory and ethnolinguistics, we know that half of what he's saying is controversial at best, and his motivations are highly suspicious because this topic is embroiled in so much ethnocentric fervor. I listened to about 10% of one of his presentations and immediately noticed a glaring lie. Keita contended Afroasiatic languages developed in central Africa because of the "greatest diversity principle," meaning that the place with the most linguistic diversity within a certain language group can be interpreted as the origin/Urheimat of that language group. That is false. Completely false. Look at Indo-European. It includes 445 languages and 90+% of those languages are at the edges of the language's dispersal in Western Europe and the Indian subcontinent. The origin of proto-Indo-European has the LEAST amount of linguistic diversity, not the most!!! If central Africa was the Urheimat of proto-Afroasiatic, it would be the LEAST diverse, linguistically, not the most diverse. Keita knows that there is a correlation between the spread of genetics and the spread of language (example: the spread of Indo-European and the R-M269 haplogroup). The spread of language typically follows the spread of genetics, in particular paternal genetics. Since he wants to prove Egypt was a black African civilization, he must claim that the language they spoke originated in Africa and spread northward to Egypt. If he admitted it spread from the Middle East (it did), then that would contradict his narrative and suggest that the Egyptians were an closer to Near Easterners in terms of genetics.
@@googleisskynet7312 Don't need to prove Egypt was a black African civilization,you see so many similares in Africa. You people can't prove any simailiars anywhere in Europe or the Middle East based on this video. ru-vid.com4cgsAtC1loI?si=pbBRFty5jOGSYPrh
Emotions... you've been lying since the beginning of time, and now you're being called out. Don't need to prove Egypt was a black African civilization,you see so many similares in Africa. You people can't prove any simailiars anywhere in Europe or the Middle East based on this video. In addition, you didn't exist or could walk/work around building pyramids in 90 to 120 degree. Not possible. ru-vid.com4cgsAtC1loI?si=pbBRFty5jOGSYPrh
@@googleisskynet7312 No, Afrocentricity is simply the black counterpart to Eurocentricity. The great George Reisner couldn't even bring himself to believe that the Nubians were black. And yet, here today, the 25th Dynasty is called the black pharaohs. So, you have to blame Europeans for the division. They started it. Not us. And it's not going to change until you all start allowing true history to be taught.
CrowdPleeza no, that’s where you believe them to come from out of a debunked dna study in terms of it representing there origins. You can’t post one academic source that says the Egyptians originated from there and entered a empty Egypt because the source doesn’t exist lol
@@NationalDeputy That 2017 study hasn't been debunked. Those Abusir mummies do seem to have been native Egyptians. Its just at this point it may be best to limit the Abusir DNA results to Abusir until more mummies are tested from different regions and time periods.
@@NationalDeputy What about the Eurasian DNA found in the middle kingdom mummy of Djehutynakht? What could his DNA indicate about the middle kingdom population? This was before the Hyksos. www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/how-fbi-helped-museum-learn-identify-4000-year-old-severed-head-180968674/
@@CrowdPleeza As for the Djehutynakht mummy, after doing some quick research i came across this. *At the time DNA testing was performed on the tooth, and for reasons previously discussed, very little had been published on DNA recovery from ancient Egyptian human remains. Only one publication including HTS and quality control measures was available in early 2016, which described the mtGenome sequencing of an Egyptian mummy from the Greco-Roman period. The individual belonged to mtDNA haplogroup I2 [80]. Two other studies describing mtDNA recovery from ancient African samples were also available at the time, but centered on skeletons from more southern regions of the continent. One described the L0d2c1c lineage mtGenome of a 2330-year-old male skeleton from South Africa [81], while the other described the recovery of a L3x2a mtGenome from the remains of a 4500-year-old individual from Ethiopia* *Given limited available data and the fact that U5 is the dominant mitochondrial haplogroup found among hunter-gatherers in Europe [83,84], the recovery of a haplogroup U5b2b5 sequence from the mummy of Djehutynakht raises the question of data authenticity, despite the molecular metrics suggesting otherwise. When the mummy’s mtDNA sequence is viewed in the context of modern mtDNA diversity, however, the observed U5 lineage could potentially reflect interactions between Egypt and the Near East that date as far back as the Predynastic and Early Dynastic periods [85]. Trade between Egypt and the Near East is evidenced by, among other things, ceramic imports to Egypt [86]. In addition, dwellings similar to those found in Palestine suggest some immigration to Egypt from more arid Near Eastern areas from the late Predynastic to the Old Kingdom [85,87]. Both trade and immigration between Egypt and the Near East continued to increase over time. Demand in Egypt for cedar of Lebanon wood (a wood available and harvested in Lebanon and Syria during the MK) led to the further establishment of trade routes between Egypt and the Levant [85,86]. It is interesting, and perhaps not coincidental, that the individual with the mtDNA sequence most similar to Djehutynakht comes from a Lebanese individual* Back migration happened into egypt during predyanstic times and before that, thats been proven by DNA, Egypt became a diverse place, Non African DNA doesn't mean the original people weren''t Africans tho, i showed you the national geographic link that showed genes from africa into europe since the ice age
i am a Pilipino from The Phillipine Islands, in The South Pacific Asia, our ancestors are The Aeta, they are African, but not The Hamitic type, The Aeta are similar to The Pygmies of The Congo Basin, and share almost the same body conformation, and share the same type of living conditions, Aeta stands no more than 5 feet tall, height is identical to The Pygmies of Africa, as The Aeta are also hunter gatherer, they said The African have six phases, i do agree with The Professor, about the deepness and the different types of The African. i have a book by Albert Hourani, A History Of The Arab People, The Arabians ruled North Africa for a long time, The Arabian Tulunids ruled Mir or Egypt from 868-905, The Arabian Aghlabids ruled Tunisia from 800-909, some of The Berber population resisted the coming of Islamic rule, and when The Berber became Muslims, Khariji ideas spread among The Berber, for a time there was a powerful dynasty of Ibadi Imams, that of The Rustamids, which their capital at Tahart in Western Algeria 777-909, their claimswere also recognized by the Ibadi's of Uman or Oman. There are 2 types of Arabians, The Original Arabians are The Himyaritic from Yemen which is The Hamitic type, they are Kushites the Himyaritic from Yemen, modern type of Arabians are the Semitic type, like The prophet Muhhamad peace be upon him, The Arabian peninsula belong to Kushite of Ethiopia, before The modern Semitic Arabians took Arabia from The Africans. North African has been a victim for a long time, The Semitic Kambises from Western Asian is one of the first invasion in Mir or Egypt from 500 before Yesu Kres, and then roman, greeks, Arabs etc. North Africa is not African or The Old Hamitic type, North Africa has been Semi African for a long time, Truth thats not even a fact.
Most of the amazigh aka Berbers are homogeneous, and the empires that ruled North Africa didn't completely change demographics or features or mixing and many of Settlers and occupiers and immigrants were killed or fled or lived in specific areas.
If only that were true. In reality, S.O.Y. Keita is a disciple of Cheikh Anta Diop, who is widely known as one of the founders of Afrocentricity. Diop was a pseudo-historian who actually contended things like the Olmec civilization was founded by migrants from West Africa (LOL). Afrocentricity is essentially a therapeutic coping mechanism for black people experiencing acute identity crises and/or inferiority complexes. It's almost completely based on emotion, not facts. Surely, Keita here is a little more objective and less cavalier than Diop. He definitely comes off as more credible, but for those with an adequate understanding of ethnohistory and ethnolinguistics, we know that half of what he's saying is controversial at best, and his motivations are highly suspicious because this topic is embroiled in so much ethnocentric fervor. I listened to about 10% of one of his presentations and immediately noticed a glaring lie. Keita contended Afroasiatic languages developed in central Africa because of the "greatest diversity principle," meaning that the place with the most linguistic diversity within a certain language group can be interpreted as the origin/Urheimat of that language group. That is false. Completely false. Look at Indo-European. It includes 445 languages and 90+% of those languages are at the edges of the language's dispersal in Western Europe and the Indian subcontinent. The origin of proto-Indo-European has the LEAST amount of linguistic diversity, not the most!!! If central Africa was the Urheimat of proto-Afroasiatic, it would be the LEAST diverse, linguistically, not the most diverse. Keita knows that there is a correlation between the spread of genetics and the spread of language (example: the spread of Indo-European and the R-M269 haplogroup). The spread of language typically follows the spread of genetics, in particular paternal genetics. Since he wants to prove Egypt was a black African civilization, he must claim that the language they spoke originated in Africa and spread northward to Egypt. If he admitted it spread from the Middle East (it did), then that would contradict his narrative and suggest that the Egyptians were an closer to Near Easterners in terms of genetics.
@SteelerzReignSupremeII I know it's hard to believe that some people actually have the intelligence and education to think and write comments that appear authoritative. You're probably used to people who are equally as stupid as yourself.
The Egyptians called their country Kemet, literally the "Black Land" (kem meant "black" in ancient Egyptian). The name derived from the colour of the rich and fertile black soil which was due to the annually occurring Nile inundation. So Kemet was the cultivated area along the Nile valley.
And? Even the statue of Buddha was found in ancient Egypt. And there are dark skinned south Asians. Even Native Americans were described as black. That doesn’t mean they are black. Ancient view on race today is not comparable. The only thing you can trust is DNA and science and not your beliefs. Never forget that Egyptians are Mediterranean people because Egypt belongs to the Mediterranean region. And never forget that Africa is a continent
A certain haplogroup in the Y chromosome which is present in the Y chromosome of as much as 75% of people in the African continent doesn't take into account the other half of African genealogy, which comes from the female lineage. The feminine lineage must have been much more varied than the male lineage to explain all the alleged variability within ethnic groups living in Africa nowadays. Another explanation could be the recent admixture due to the Phoenician settlements, the Roman invasion, the Vandal invasion and the Arab invasion. However when one considers the widest possible spectrum of genetic markers, no Europeans are genetically farer from each other than 2 people from Africa and Europe. That is to say that so far the 2 more genetically different people found in Europe so far are much closer than the 2 genetically distant people, one from Africa and one from Europe. So, even if I agree with Professor Shomarka about race not be a clearly defined concept, race is still a very good guide to categorise people based on genetic traits. Of course to have the ultimate answer one should analyse the DNA of any and each human being and I mean a complete analysis of all the Nucleotides and then put them in a database. Then one could I think see that there are still very strong delimitation between certain populations and that those delimitation could very well serve the concept of racial differences because most people will cluster, to use a term that Prof. Shomarka likes, in some major groups which will match quite well the present racial classifications.
Dr. Keita is arguing that Egypt had an indigenous black African population [52:45], he tells us that Egypt has been populated for at least 55,000 BP, and he says some anthropologist argue beyond 60,000BP which is before an outmigration occurs so there is no need to try and explain Egypt's origin or its population coming from the Near East, it doesn't make sense. Dr. Keita goes on to explain that just because you have populations that look the same [phenotype], does not mean that they are recently connected or connected at all [it may be parallel evolution]. Further, he argues that there is as black, not African [because that word is laden with a long history of racial interpretations and ideas that have a particular geographic reality, not a phenotypic or genetic reality], substratum in Asian populations and perhaps original population that is Asian genetically, but looks "African". Dr. Keita makes us understand that African [geographic] diversity on a genetic level occurred before the outmigration, so there are populations in Africa today that vary in hue, eye color, hair texture and type, size, nose length and width and they are all recently genetically related as Africans. He never once suggests that Ancient Egypt is anything other than black African, infact, he argues that it was exactly that. As for Herodotus' Ethiopian dynasty, the word in translation is actually Nubian, Europeans have been interjecting that word Ethiopian for Nubian to create the ideas of racial distinction where none exists. And Herodotus was not making any racial distinctions: "There can be no doubt that the Colchians are an Egyptian race ...My own conjectures were founded first, on the fact that they are black-skinned and have woolly hair...[BookII.104 - Rawlinson's translation]." Herodotus was making a geographic distinction, Nubia which was South of Kmt, the Thebaid region was taken over by the Nubians which ushered in the 25th Dynasty.
joe anon He said very clearly that Northern Egypt was light skinned and had straight hair, and probably always have been, even though genetically they were partially related to sub saharan Africans.
[41:52 pay attention] Bootz what are you talking about? And what were you listening too? Dr. Keita is clear in explaining that the differentiation of blacks took place on the continent before the movement out of Africa. Being light-skinned is not being white, nor does having straight hair suggest whiteness, that is what Dr. Shomarka Keita callls "African DIVERSITY"... which Allen WIlson and Rebecca Cahn made clear in 1987 [Africans have 4x more diversity than all other peoples in the world] -- embryo.asu.edu/pages/mitochondrial-dna-and-human-evolution-1987-rebecca-louise-cann-mark-stoneking-and-allan
joe anon joe anon He also said that they only shared 8% of their Dna with sub Saharan Africans. Meaning they may have been an African people, but they were not the same as southern Africans. They evolved into their own group. They weren't black they weren't white, they were their own people.
Again, Bootz, subsaharans are not the only black African people that exist. Dr. Keita is clear. When one of the audience members ask about mediterraneans, he explains that the people of North Africa in that region were clearly dark-skinned, they WERE NOT BLOND, how dark-skinned he cannot say, but the ecology of the region designated it so, and that their limbs were consistent with tropical blacks. What you are suggesting is that people like African-Americans are not really black because they are their own people? what is that? Sharing 8% genes with subsaharans doesn't negate blackness, it means 8% percent of their DNA was consistent with black subsaharans.
the doctor is being to vague to clear up existing confusion...........to make things clear he has to define what he means when he says people from the Mediterranean were dark ...........I don't believe that's true and neither do most scientists ........he won't use the term Negro . why not?..........whatever term he uses to separate the races ,Africa is a continent with three races..........the Asia / Africa connection is much easier to explain than he is making it look...........Africans went to Asia and came back to Africa with Asian features...............light skinned is vague he needs to use racial terms........... several features define race not just skin...........hair is a definitive feature of race............if you are born with straight hair you are either white or east Asian.............black hair is unique to the black race ...........no one else has black hair
The word "Egyptian" or "Egypt" is Greek in origin. Interestingly enough the Ancient Greeks could not distinguish them from Ethiopians in Africa. I think that alone says it all.
@Fuk U The name 'Egypt' comes from the Greek Aegyptos which was the Greek pronunciation of the ancient Egyptian name 'Hwt-Ka-Ptah' ("Mansion of the Spirit of Ptah"), originally the name of the city of Memphis.
@fuku4229 "it's not".wow, that's so scientific refute what he said with facts or even educated guesses. Herodotus is just one contemporary who said that the ancient Egyptians were black.why can't you people just use your eyes and common sense.if an ancient Egyptian walked up to you right now and asked you for the time you'd ignore him and pick up the pace while your wife clutches her pocket book
@@dericnorman7741 He NEVER said anything of the sort (wishful interpretation), all were Caucasian, the tombs tell the story and the bodies/mummies are all Caucasian except for one slave.
Excellent work by Dr Keita. No shade on Dr. Keita but I think that his conclusion is still political. Even though he appears apolitical. The new concept that race is a social construct and has no basis in biological reality Is a ploy. The Egyptologists claim they’re against race politics but will participate in documentary projects and books that use the term “Black “. They will readily apply this term to ancient Nubia but will avoid any racial designation of the ancient Egyptian population. The documentaries that Egyptologists participate in almost always depict the ancient Egyptians as lighter skinned when they know as Dr. Keira has stated they had DARK skin. Ancient Egyptians were Black and we can’t be afraid to say it
Keita doesn't say the ancient Egyptians were Black. He says they were Africans who originated in North east Africa. Keita has pointed out that Africans can have various physical appearances. The olive skin and tan skin people you see in Egypt are likely descended from the ancient Egyptians. Because people who look like them according to Keita can be indigenous Africans also. That's the point he's making with that guy at the Q&A part who asked when did "Mediterranean people" first come into Egypt? Keita said that those Mediterranean people are just some more Africans. Not all indigenous Africans are Black Africans.
The Kushites are not the race of Egypt, the Kushites, historical documents, the most ancient Egyptian enemies The ancient Egyptian is a North African race, distinguished by the African white meaning the color of the wheat grain The features of the ancient Egyptian face the features of the Middle East, a small nose and a small mouth, not like the black features of Africa's face It has been proven that the present Egyptians by DNA analysis are the descendants of the ancient Egyptians at a rate of 80%, even with the presence of some Arab and some European race. As for Kush, which is a neighboring civilization, Kemet, they are black and have large facial features, and there are hundreds of archaeological evidence that prove that the Kush and ancient Egyptians are ethnically different and were enemies Do not fool yourself, an African, not one race, an African, 12 different races out of 3 races
@@CrowdPleeza that's not what he said..he said they weren't blonde hair as in modern European but African with variations..but from the same ancestry..that means they were light skin black not white as in modern European..what don't you guys understand about that..he said as far up as the Mediterranean..he said those you say are Mediterranean are just light skin African..he straight up said as in modern there is NO CONNECTION AT ALL..you guys need to listen or watch the video again..
No people in Europe 60,000 years ago ? " The partial skull was discovered in the Apidima cave on the Mani peninsula of the southern Peloponnese ( Greece) and has been dated to be at least 210,000 years old."
They were NEANDERTHALS, not human Homo Sapiens. Neanderthals have a separate evolutionary path. He is correct there were no human beings in Europe 60,000 years ago. Humans Homo Sapiens are from Africa and went into Europe last. Neanderthals were in Europe for a million years. Whatever was found in Europe during that period it was Neanderthal which is a lesser species.
@@lf1496 "A far older skull fragment, Apidima 1, was also assumed to be Neanderthal, but scientists now say it belonged to a modern human (Homo Sapiens) Credit...Katerina Harvati, Eberhard Karls University of Tübingen"
The Great thing about true scholarship is that he would amend his view when new evidence is presented. He has a profound respect for his peers and those who preceded him, even with their clear bias and incessant need to defame people of African descent.
Egyptian language still alive today and many nations speak it but it is not arabic or European for sure. Megalos is a cushite word meaning citadel or city and all human civilisation is based on this word "Megalos" borrowed by Helenics from ancient Egypt.
They did a study in Cuba 🇨🇺 with people believed to be from Africa and they found that half of the people had more blood type percentage from Italy than Africa or Spain.
Did they take into account the colonial domination of the region and the power dynamics? European ancestry is common in the Caribbean. These islands where run as slave plantations by Europeans. Sexual relations between the races would not be that unusual, consensual or otherwise. I have no specialist knowledge of the subject. I believe that DNA testing follows one particular genetic lineage, which is one of possibly many thousands.
I love how you say Africa or Spain because those are two place with totally same genetic origins, it's almost like Spain is indo-european and Africa isn't
Egypt experienced a civil war and remained split between two regions. This left it vulnerable to further invasions and control from the Assyrians in 671 BCE, the Persians in 525 BCE and finally the Greeks in 332 BCE. At the end of Egypt’s empire the climate became erratic and unstable. The Egyptians relied on the water from the Nile floods to help their crops grow, but the Egyptian climate experienced roughly a hundred of years of dry spells and water became scarce.
@@NeptunesLagoon Ancient Greeks were a mix of different ethnic groups, including African...Stop using 19th century terminology to describe ancient civilizations.
Interesting how so many who hate Afrikans have a reply on this video. The thing that is easy to state is Dr. Keita makes it plain. The people of Afrika are the original people and the original simply mutates, devolves, degenerates, deforms, deviate and becomes incomplete, recessive, and unhuman. This happens in the genes, mind and every part of this original people. We traveled the world and all these changes were going on and even the changes are changing, for example; the mutant is also devolving, degenerating, deforming, deviating becoming incomplete, recessive, and unhuman. The other forms of the original are like wise changing. Which is still obvious in present day science presentations of medical studies. The KHMTYU were Black when they built the MrKht or pyramids.
Kimet was not black. The ancient Egyptians were a distinct race called the North African race in the African sense, white meaning the color of wheat grains and small facial features, the features of the Middle Eastern face
You can’t prove that people that have African and European traits did not come from mixing of both cultures because you were not their 10,000 to 20,000 years ago.
No, they were a mix of related natufian ancestry and west African, and hadza like ancestry. It’s been proven in the oldest genetic find in North Africa Iberomaurusian DNA
What this man is saying is going over everyone’s head. There’s no such thing as a “black race” in which this man explains, Australasians are far more distant from sub Saharan Africans than other Eurasians, The caucasoid race is also false as there’s Eastern Asians who have similar features eg Ainu, and some native Americans. By genetics North Africans make up their own group within Africa, the same way each sub Saharan African makes their own such as South Africa, east Africa, west Africa or central Africa. This man is clearly saying although different North Africans Mediterranean’s have certain features, they still partially related to other groups within Africa. Now some would argue that the ancient populations of the middle easterners and North Africans were black in appearance but that’s another argument for another video
18:00 Physical Anthropology does tell you everything you need to know about the person regarding who, what, when, how and where to help with the study. We learn what kind of diseases, diet, admixture, Cranial and dental morphology, and how the person died.
It's very simple to determine who the Ancient Egyptians were just ask anyone who claims Ancient Egypt to explain what and who Ma'at is, any answer that is less that Ma'at being the supreme Creator, means they had nothing to do with Ancient Egypt.
I get what you're trying to get at, and when we gotta preach we gotta preach I do it too. But just because someone now a days doesn't know who Ma'at is doesn't mean they aren't ancient Egyptian. You could have the guy most genetically similar bow a days to ancient Egypt and he could not know the first thing about the guy. At that point that's his "privilege" in a way. That being said I don't know who Ma,at is lol.
@@johnbarnesNnaptown Ma'at is not a him, we use the real name for our Creator and mother which is Ma'arifa, meaning knowledge, Information, self consciousness. If you are not Afrikan, you know nothing about Ma'at.
Has anyone ever heard Keita speak on whether the modern day Egyptian Copts are descendants from the ancient Egyptians? Isn't Coptic closely related to the old Egyptian language?
The word copt has two meanings. The modern and English speaking meaning, means religious affiliation rather than race. The old meaning and the origin of the word from the Greek language which was transferred to Latin, Arabic and other languages, comes from a holy city in egyot which was called Gypt and the Greeks heard the Egyptians say that and from it came the variations of aegyptus, aegypte, egypt, etc. In short, copt is a phonetic evolution of gypt, which means all Egyptian, not only Christian
Coptic means Egyptian, so Copts are Egyptians, it’s western classification upon religion, for religious separation that is not cool , cuz Muslims are Copts too .. Copts is an ethnicity not a religion
The professor is suggesting that the evolution to lighter color and straight haired Egyptians happened in Africa not through a mix. I am not an expert but that does not seem to be supported well by the time interval required for such an evolution.
I had to see the whole video..I only saw a short before but these racist aren't gonna like what he's saying..he's saying that Mediterranean people have an African ancestry and that modern Europeans weren't a phenotype involved in Ancient Culture..they didn't exist..the DNA markers for Mediterranean and the supposed Sub-Saharan Africans share the same DNA make up..white with blue eyes but you are still African and have more in common with supposed Sub-Saharan black Africans than they have with Europeans..thats some real shit..its like a black mother having a Jet Black child and a Red bone child..but they share the same parents..racist won't like that shit..sorry but you weren't even in the game..that I can agree with..everything he said makes alot of sense but we get caught up on skin color but your brother just has white skin because of geography nothing more than that..so the whole notion of a white Ancient Egypt is a myth..we are related amd have nothing at all to do with Europe..even tho the first Europeans were black as well..its crazy how as humans we are..so diverse and hating each other for the color of the skin which is so ignorant..thats why they painted themselves black cause they were and just adapted to their environment..
@@WiserThanEinstein Yes it does but it also points to different tribes leaving Africa and going to Europe and Asia mixing with another races and the climate changing the skin hair eye color
You guys who think he was saying misidentified white Europeans has anything to do with Ancient Egypt (Kemet)..really need to watch his other videis..he says it then and like here they were definitely Black Africans amd like here the Ancient Mediterranean people are related to Ancient Africans..thats if you want the truth instead of trying to twist his words..Straight up Ancient African culture, heritage and history..
@@hamzaalmdghri8741 hey my friend I don't think you understand..Ablack tropical person as you speak of can gave a lighter skinned child..Africans come in all shades,shapes colors and sizes..they are Africans and this was about the pyramid builders and those that established the cultrue..they were tropical as you say since when it started it was a tropical area..those you speak of cane at a later time..that was the point of the lecture and why it was pointed out that they are all related due to the change in climactic region..no one disputes that lighter skinned people came into effect but it started off black tropical as you say when the culture was established..
@@hamzaalmdghri8741 that's right some of then yes sir but all Black African aren't "Tropical" African and that is exactly his point..Africans are the most diverse and it seems you people don't know what diverse mean..that means different, different than the majority of humans on earth..Africans have the highest DIVERSITY some they all aren't the same..You would like to say there is a stereotypical feature of African but that goes along with racist tropes and doesn't conform to science which shows the genetic diversity..I'm not sure why you guys can't understand what these people are saying unless you just want to play ignorant but it doesn't matter cause it doesn't change the facts..
@@matrixxx3662 we can agree on that..there is evidence they are much older than they say and the kings list goes back much,much farther they they say and it's even written on their walls but if they conclude that that's real then everything they've been saying would have to be change and they know it..that's why they go against the evidence of some geologist but even in their own writings the Sphinx was there for along time..
Yeah nobody likes to acknowledge the Bible as history even though Noah’s ark, Red Sea crossing, and sodom and Gomorrah have all been found. The Bible in Ezekiel 29:14 said the place of origins for the Egyptians is Pathros which is upper Egypt. After everyone scattered across the earth Mizraim (Ham son) descendants would settle in Pathros and from him the Egyptians came. Egyptians did not come from the Mediterranean, they come from upper Egypt like the Bible says.
@Fuk U You call it a lie but I disagree, I believe the Bible to be factually accurate as they have found the Red Sea crossing- ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Nsa7ebyUVD4.html Sodom and Gomorrah - ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-tZKBHyIBrHA.html And Noah’s ark - ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-IoTkguzRaCU.html All these videos show scripture by scripture of where these events took place and provides evidence. With sodom and Gomorrah they found 98.6 pure sulfur, the purest form of sulfur ever found in the world and the Bible said God rained brimstone(sulfur) and fire. With Noah’s ark they found iron ribbets, drogue stones, Petrified wood, and did a radar scan on the boat shaped object showing three floors and a ramp system which corresponds with the Bible description of the ark. At the Red Sea crossing they found chariot wheels and human and horse Skelton bones. Evolution is a theory for people who want freedom from God. There’s design everywhere but people would rather believe we come from nothing because that gives them freedom from God rules that limits their careless lifestyle.
22:18 Relatedness and appearance. I would respectfully disagree, that there is no correlation between phenotype and genotype. For instance, the Semang and Andamanese looke like Central Africans. In fact they look like the Pygmys and the Khoisan. Is that a coincidence? No. They are closely related... 50,000 years ago. In Africa. Bushmen - A Pygmys - B Semang - C Andamanese D The Pygmys are closely related to the Bushmen. The Semang have haplogroup C, which also left Africa 50,000 to 80,000 years ago. The Andamanese have haplogroup D, which is very close to DE, which generated D and E. E is the most widespread haplogroup in Africa - West, East, North and South. So I would say these populations are closely related to eachother, just not recently. Andamanese - male haplogroup D, mtdna or female haplogroup M-32. M1 was derived from L3. L is the oldest female haplogroup and today only occurs in Africa and among ancient Out of Africa migrations, like Navarro in Spain. That they're M-32 means they are descended from the original Out of Africa lineage M-1 and have been in Asia for a very long time. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andamanese Semang en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semang BTW this is what people looked like when they left Africa 50,000 years or so ago. That's whose ancient sculptures and statuettes you're finding from around the world at that time. 36:23 Algerians from that earlier period had very elongated limbs, like the Somalis. Both Somalis and Berbers have haplogroup E1b1b. Maybe they were the same people?
@@africanhistory 1. How do Pygmys and the Khoisan look alike? Very subjective. They are both short, have Afro hair and have black skin - all of which are Sapiens' ancestral expressions of genes that involved the phenotype - or slightly lightened skin in the case of the Khoisan. The people who spread across the world that most people outside of Africa are related to also looked like that. The Andaman Islanders and the Negritos of Asia. 2. I would say Chinese and Xhosa look alike but then that would also be subjective. Not at all - they do look alike, and for good reason. The Xhosa are 23% Khoisan-Baka. The oriental eyefold and the derived allele on OCA2 that reduce skin pigmentation are already present in the Khoisan. They are part of the population that was the only Sapiens population for 200,000 - 250,000 years. (NATURE COMMUNICATIONS) Khoisan hunter-gatherers have been the largest population throughout most of modern-human demographic history "Coalescent analysis shows that the Khoisan and their ancestors have been the largest populations since their split with the non-Khoisan population ~100-150 kyr ago. In contrast, the ancestors of the non-Khoisan groups, including Bantu-speakers and non-Africans, experienced population declines after the split and lost more than half of their genetic diversity."
Egyptians, like all Afro-Asiatic peoples, have roots in the Horn of Africa and would’ve been “black” before foreign admixture. Coincidentally, modern Egyptians and North Africans are the only people on Earth who can exhibit Afro-textured hair without being “black”.
@@joalvarado8506 "Egyptians, like all Afro-Asiatic peoples," The Ancient Egyptians became the Bantu. The highest MLI number means 'most like', and the Amarna Dynasty is consistently most like people today living in Southern Africa and the African Great Lakes - Eastern Bantu. Who came from the Urewe Culture at the source of the Nile in Uganda, 3,000 years ago, around the end of the 20th Dynasty and the start of the 3rd Intermediate Period. *Tutankhamun* Southern African *1,519.03* African Great Lakes *1,328.01* Tropical West African 314.00 Horn of Africa 44.35 Levantine 21.08 Aegean 9.85 Arabian 10.91 Northwest European 15.01 *Amenhotep III* Southern African *108.53* African Great Lakes *222.53* Tropical West African 37.43 Horn of Africa 12.03 Levantine 10.30 Aegean 9.06 Arabian 5.58 Northwest European 3.99 Google: DNA Tribes Digest January 1, 2012 pdf4pro The Bantu, Yoruba, Jola dna origin is in late Paleolithic Arabia. DNA Tribes - in the Neolithic, about 8,000 years ago: “In the Arabian Peninsula, EEF farmers mixed with ancestral Sub-Saharan Africans related to modern Nigerian, Gambian, and Botswanan populations.” Source: DNA Tribes Digest, April 2, 2014 Ancestral meaning that is where they were at that time, and only thousands of years later moved to 'Sub-Saharan Africa'. I think the Cushites have their roots in the Horn of Africa. The Ancient Egyptians, Cushites, Libyans and Levantines are listed among the sons of Ham in Genesis 10, the Table Of Nations.
@AshyrahASMR Yes ancientr Egypt were too, ancient Egypt was as diverse as the modern one, you ever heard of Roman Aegyptus? The Ptolemaic Kingdom? (Greek Egypt), sorry honey, northern Africa has never been black, Berbers are Caucasian, they have a huge overlad with Europeans and they have lived in northern Africa since forever
The good Dr. needs to address head-on the fact that the entire concept of "race" was invented strictly for SUPERFICIAL reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with science or culture for that matter. All the older texts he cited were based upon and sought to support this superficial obsession. The question about "Mediterranean people" was based on the same logic.
@@irnrcybernetics a Race is NOT a superficial construct. Race is a reality that contemporary narrative tries to stifle. Look at three skulls 💀 Negroid, Caucasoid, and Mongoloid. They each can easily be distinguished from each other. One of those type of skulls has traits that are archaic.
@@MrRodrigorama race - categorization of people based on physical & social distinctions. Socio-physical reality as you clarify to us. Still a superficial construct; Race studies is rooted in surface level observations of human sociology. RACE IS NOT GENETIC EVOLUTION. Just an observation of similarities & differences. A superficial reality through & tbrough.
Because women stayed at home, men are darker to indicate that they work outside the house. In reality the men are the same color as the women if they stay indoors,men a painted as tanned pretty much
@@CrowdPleeza have you seen a so called black light skin woman in America? They can be a yellowish tone when not exposed to sun. My mother is full so called black and is almost pale is places where no sun hit her skin. I am a shade or so darker tna my mother AND father...
Here's how an Egyptology source explains it. "Egyptian women were generally depicted with yellow skin, as were Asiatics and Libyans. During the Old Kingdom powerful officials were often depicted with yellow skin indicating that they (like women) spent more time indoors away from the suns rays. Depictions of groups of people often alternate yellow and brown skin to differentiate the members of the group, and younger people are more often depicted with lighter coloured skin." From: Colour: Yellow Ancient Egypt Online
⚡️Black History and Islâm start with Forefathers Âtum, Sét, Idris Jëhûti’Habu and Nûh and Foremother Hëwët’Sét in Kush and Këmët. The intrusions of the Greeks and Hyksos ( “Rulers of foreign lands" in the Alkebulan Këmite langage) in the last era of the History Këmët’s Colonial Abnormalities they are.
Do you know what Nubia is, or do you know which region was named after Nubia at the time of the ancient Egyptians? I will tell you that you do not know the original Nubia Nubia is a small area on the border between Egypt and Sudan. In the ancient era, the era before the Pharaonic dynasties, there was an Egyptian king named the Scorpion King And the land of Anubia was called at the time the land of the seven arches, and the ancient Sudanese were infiltrating from it to Egypt to fight the Egyptians because they were not black And the Scorpion King decided at that time to gather an army of peasants in Egypt at the time and fight the ancient Sudanese, and this was already done, and the Egyptian King Scorpion won and placed five Egyptian families from the Egyptian countryside in the land of Nubia to be a wall against the attacks of the ancient Sudanese And the Scorpion King planted his plant in the land, and from here came the name of the land of Nubia after the name of the land of the plant That is why Nubia is not older than Egypt, as you think. Egypt is more than seven thousand years old, but Nubia is five thousand years old You can search on Google for the Scorpion King and the history of pre-dynastic Egypt
@@monagallal9297 Wow....what a ride. Bottom line, Egypt was the name given by the Greeks to what was known as Kemet. Kemet was ancient Egypt and they were Africans. Black!
@@NeptunesLagoon who’s telling lies now? No scholar in his time refuted nor attempted to refute Diop’s findings…none. You white people are so insecure and so absorbed by your insecurities and inferiority complex that you Need to be and project superiority. There’s no debate here. Even geneticists know of how lowly you people truly are and the pathology you bring to the world.
Diop didn't have DNA tests. His linguistic comparisons between the Egyptian language and west African languages have problems. Most west Africans speak Niger-Congo languages. The Egyptian language was an Afro-Asiatic language. Also no Egyptian writing can be found among west Africans.
One problem with the lecture is that Keita didn't include photos of the Africans he was talking about. I wished he'd included photos of modern day Egyptians who he believes would be good matches for ancient Egyptians. Not doing this causes too many people to speculate about what he means about African diversity.
1. Henna, which is used by Egyptian women, is used by women in Egypt, Morocco and all Arab countries as well. Pakistan and India are not used by women in Africa. 2. The natural alcohol that Egyptian women use is used by women in Egypt, Morocco and all Arab countries, even the shape of their eyes is the same. 3. The Egyptians use it over their heads against the sun's rays. They are now using it in the Arabian Peninsula, the Tuareg and Mauritania 4. Even the dress is the same shape as the Berbers, Iraq and Palestine itself, even the decoration may be dysfunctional? 5. The Hebrews lived in Egypt, why are they not black? Even their language is close to Arabic. 6. Osiris means minister in Arabic
Egyptians spoke an Afro asiatic language not Arabic or Semite language If they were the same as asiatic did they depict them yellow skinned and themselves Reddish brown
@@trevormcdonald385 No, but Arabic. Originally, even the European who translated the hieroglyphs needed to learn Arabic and take the translation from an Arab. As for the issue of language, the Greek language is taken from Arabic, but the Asians still preserve their language. If you translate the hieroglyphs, you will find Arabic words such as Osiris, which means minister. I did not talk about palm trees and dates, they are Arabic words that cannot bear discussion. Even the Jews lived there and their language is taken from Arabic, but they are almost Arabs... Even the prophets were there in the Middle East and their names are Arabic. I am talking about the period of the first family. Even the habits of today's Arabs or Muslims are the habits of the ancient Egyptians. Such as circumcision of the male child, as well as the slaughter of the sacrifice, and only Muslims do it today. Rather, even belief and faith, such as the heart, the balance, the afterlife, and the afterlife, these are beliefs that Muslims believe in, and in the Qur’an. Even the method of burial. Even the customs of food, sheep grazing, and pottery in Palestine, Somalia, the Berbers, and Egypt, even the clothes of the Egyptians, and even the head covering, these things are not among the Africans. Even the European colonization changed its language, religion, and culture. Or the Arabs and the Berbers today, since the Roman colonization, they could not change their religion until the European colonization until today, so the people will find it Always united against the will of Western conspiracies, despite the destruction of countries, even though they migrate to the West, and these things do not change until now, despite the destruction of Iraq. It is the oldest place in the world, not Egypt, and it is under the sands, and in Saudi Arabia, according to religious books. I am talking about this because there is a secret in this area. He tried to search, as for the Asians, they came for a period and overthrew Pharaoh and ruled Egypt and he became king. Even this is in the Qur’an during the era of the Prophet Yusuf, so that he spoke in Arabic. There are many things that they did not talk about, such as cats, natural alcohol on the eyes, henna on the hands of women, and some foods that are still used only today among Muslims .... We did not talk about genes You are wrong
@@trevormcdonald385 And who are those with brown skin today? Africans are black. And the Chinese cannot become black even with exposure to the sun, and you will not find a black Chinese, even the genes do not exist. We have Europeans who are white with exposure to the sun showing redness for them. As for the brown ones, it is among the Arabs today from Morocco to Oman. Even the blood type 0 is negative, it is found in Morocco only, which means that they did not mix and studies were conducted. The Amerindians in Oceania and America in the past, when they mixed with Europe, gave a hybrid generation, and the Africans and the Amerindians a hybrid generation, so that they are not black in Brazil. As for the whites, they did not change despite the sun. As for Morocco, for example, it becomes red, and this is well known. And women put henna on the hair to give that way. Even Jilbab Mazal until now. And there is a mistake that the dress in the neck they think that there is a necklace. This is a mistake, but an ornament associated with the dress and you need to be skilled in sewing, and I will leave you to discuss who is decorated in the art of sewing by hand and in the same dress, so that it is him. If we continue to talk like this, I will give you many things that cannot be counted, and you will not find them among Africans, Europeans, or Asians, only among Arabs and Muslims, such as Pakistan.
@@moroccomc2670 Africans are brown actually the only black skinned people are really those in South Sudan. As an Arab your tribal affiliation and lineage is well documented and Egypt is not apart of it. The ancient Egyptians were not desert nomadic people like the Arabs
38:52 "When the Mediterranean people first went into Egypt" Pagani: Modern Egyptians are 80% Arabic and arrived 750 years ago - in the 13th century AD. "Using ADMIXTURE17 and principal-component analysis (PCA)18 (Figure 1A), we estimated the *average proportion of non-African ancestry in the Egyptians to be 80% and* dated the midpoint of the admixture event by using ALDER20 to around *750 years ago* (Table S2), consistent with *the Islamic expansion* and dates reported previously. 13,14" Source: (AJHG) Tracing the Route of Modern Humans out of Africa by Using 225 Human Genome Sequences from Ethiopians and Egyptians
Most modern Egyptians aren't Arabs. Look this up: "As the graph below shows, only 17 percent of Egyptians are Arabs, while 68 percent of the indigenous population is from North Africa, four percent are from Jewish ancestry, three percent are of East African origins, another three percent from Asia Minor and three percent are South European." DNA analysis proves that Egyptians are not Arabs-Egypt Independent
Yes the ancient Egyptians were African. But what kind of African? They were North African. Many North Africans are Berber types. How much does that apply to the ancient Egyptians? Then you had a certain amount of stone age back migration from the Levant to consider.
⚡️Këm Âpp’amëb ak Islâm ño ngi tamballi ak Mam’Bây’i Âtum, Sét, Idris Ahnûh Jëhûti’Habu and Nûh ak Mâm’Yây Hëwët’Sét ci Kush ak Këmët. Aqh’in’i Yunn ak Hëkau’hasut ( “hëk’kat’i ci biti’im ręw" in the Alkebulan Dôm’u’Këmët lâkk wi) yi ) ci mujj jamono’u Âpp’amëb’u Këmët a’i Dëjj’in’ëlu Yôn’ëdi’t’êf la ño.
I am backed by these African American who brings race into every topic including science. When science is discussed, it’s decisero about race. Hiw about your contribution as a scientific, yoi contribute from the angle of race. You contributed to life and speak aa it places and everything life based in race! You discover based on race, I find it insane. African Americans do not belong to ancient Egypt. They are America, their background is likely from west Africa. They come to Africa and discuss it based on race , again, rather than histroy, everything is about race!
That's equivalent to saying white people from Europe don't belong in Africa at least with black Americans they are trying to rediscover the continent they came from and don't resort to taking artifacts
The Berbers with blue eyes and blonde hair have ethnicity of European. They might have genes of Africans but they have European genetics also that makes them a different race.! We all humans have traits of Africans but, that doesn’t make us the same or to different from the human race but we are different races in looks, Culture, language, food, we all are different.
Orlando I thought that too, but evidence points to the Berbera as evolving in place. The Egyptians also evolved in place. The ancient Europeans did not invade North Africa, although many Europeans were taken as slaves by the Berbers in the 17th and 18th century.
I think you missed his point. If a nightblack person in Nigeria has blue eyes and blond hair, are they ethnically European ? What about mixed people with blue eyes are they European ?
@@matrixxx3662Cro-Magnon is an outdated term. The earliest Europeans are referred to as the Aurignacian Culture and they were still “black” because “black” was humanity’s only phenotype at the time. Dark skin, dark hair, wavy-straight hair, light eyes and skulls shaped more like East Asians. Nothing like modern Europeans at all.
Yes because a YT channel is an alternative to actual research. You can find 3 people in biology who reject evolution but that doesn’t mean that they are an alternative to the existing scientific consensus.
An Egyptologists explains how much the Arabs did and didn't change the Egyptian population starting in 640 AD. At 10:45 ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-fRI0N2f0Te0.html
@@NationalDeputy because some handpicked mummies and questionable DNA evidence from one particular test said so. Typical "because I'm white and I say so." never mind every piece of evidence suggest that the Egyptians were from east central Africa.
i came here attracted by the tile 'origins' and now run away by incomprehensible argumentation. what the hell is going on here: some sort of program to take away from africans their story or populating egypt from inner africa, developing culture and spreading it globally...that all people are from an african base that is the story..there is no other. all people are from an african origination..what the hell is all this confusion about? and that african moderator..who is he..what is he trying to prove..that he can be brilliantly confusing..even more so that regular white academicians? I am pissed and cant go further with this. Rebecca Cann wasn't anywhere close to this seemingly deliberately complex nonsense. the hallmark of erudition is simplicity. deliberate confusion is the hallmark of charlatans
Navin Lamervich Did you really waste your time writing this long comment? When did he ever make the argument that Egypt was populated by non-Africans? I heard him make the argument that it was populated by north east Africans, including those of the eastern Sahara.
You're not Egyptian. Here several reasons(Thief of civilization influenced by a fallacious and deceptive ideology) : 1)The Anthropologist Adolphe Bloch specified : "Herodotus, speaking of the natives of Colchis, said that they were black like the Egyptians. Aeschylus, in the Suppliants, attributes the same color to the Egyptians. Lucien, in one of his Dialogues, portrays an Egyptian, whom he represents as being black. Galen, who stayed in Alexandria for five years, says that Egyptians were black in complexion. Certainly the ancient Egyptians were not absolutely black, and what the authors meant was that the Egyptians had skin dark compared to the white skin of the Greeks. Thus Ammien Marcellin reports that the Egyptians are, for the most, dark or blackish brown (subfusculi and atrati.) Moreover, the Egyptians themselves represented themselves in reddish brown. on monuments, and women in yellow. But it is not likely, however, that the color was so uniform in antiquity." 2) Foreign influence from West Asia, Greece, Rome was limited during the more than 3000 years of ancient Egyptian history (Even during the reign of the Hyksos). On the other hand, the mixtures with the Nubean populations in the south were more consistent. The 90 mommies(including 3 complete genomes studied) were found in an Egyptian antique necropolis based in Abusir el-Meleq so it remains very significant. 3)The Cheikh Anta Diop theses remain controversial today and are seldom taken up within the scientific community, particularly on the subject of ancient Egypt and the origin of the Wolof language. It is not to be taken seriously. 4)To speak of the history of Africa as a unified and homogeneous component is bullshit. Indeed, the San Bushmen, Yoruba, Xhosa, Hausa, Himba, Oromo tribes are not the same and do not share the same history. Especially since the ancient Egyptians made a strict distinction between themselves and their neighbor to the south belonging to the civilization of the Kushites. 5)Ultimately, I think most "Afro-Americans" are from West and central sub-Saharan countries (Mixed with Europeans) and scientific genetic testing is proving it [Haplogroups E1b1a ...]. You probably have no connection with the ancient Egyptians knowing that the direct descendants are likely most of the modern Egyptians[Haplogroup E1b1b...] (Especially the Copts having undergone little or no mixing since the end of the ancient Egyptian civilization). NB : I hope that the owner of the channel will not delete my comment otherwise it will be a propaganda channel.
Dani. Afro Americans don't have any relation to Central or southern Africans either, yet people of West African descent are grouped with Central and Southern Africans and called "sub-Saharans". So, you guys have no issues with grouping all sub-Saharans together as though they're are the same, though they have thousands of different ethnic groups. But when we group ALL Africans together, then there's an issue. Ultimately, the ancient Egyptians were Dark-skinned peoples of African origin and descent just as we are Dark-skinned peoples of African origin and descent. The skin, the hair, that's what we are SEEN as, and people prejudge others by what they LOOK like, not their actual relation. The early Egyptians, many who looked like modern day Afro-descendant peoples, prove that the racialist idea of an inverse correlation between skin color and intellect is incorrect. Try telling Europeans that the ancient Romans and Greeks, who were Mediterraneans, weren't really European and see where that gets you.
@@gsutton78 @ Where are your achievements southern Egypt ? Nothing to be proud ! You have no motive of pride in your true countries in subsaharan Africa! Egypt and all North Africa are mediterranean since the dawn of humanity and nothing will change it ! I'll tell you why there is no clues of civilisation in black subsaharan countries! Because your ancestors in leaving your world for Egypt erased all trace of civilisation there and brought all their knowledge and books for Egypt. Conclusion : if you are so undervelopped now it's the fault of your ancestors who exported all form of knowledge from black Africa to mediterranean Egypt.
@@redak1978 Where are the achievements? Egyptian culture emerged in the South, particularly near the sites of Nabta Playa and Gebel Ramlah, as well as further up the Nile in the regions of modern day Uganda and Ethiopia. That's where it all began; INNER AFRICA. Or what you racists term, "sub-Sahara". The culture then spread from Nubia down the Nile or North into Egypt, not the other way around. And no. Africa is where it is because of the literal trillions of dollars of resources extracted from it every year for decades. Not to mention the trillions of dollars worth of free slave labor which built America and Britain, but that SHOULD have been used in industrializing Africa. Don't make me give you a history lesson.
@@scorpiorob7986 Atlantean as a tribe west of Libya according to Herodotus. Atlantean is present day Mauritania . Mauritania is derived from the word Maur which means black. You can’t start without Africa. Even your machines
The Kushites are not the race of Egypt, the Kushites, historical documents, the most ancient Egyptian enemies The ancient Egyptian is a North African race, distinguished by the African white meaning the color of the wheat grain The features of the ancient Egyptian face the features of the Middle East, a small nose and a small mouth, not like the black features of Africa's face It has been proven that the present Egyptians by DNA analysis are the descendants of the ancient Egyptians at a rate of 80%, even with the presence of some Arab and some European race. As for Kush, which is a neighboring civilization, Kemet, they are black and have large facial features, and there are hundreds of archaeological evidence that prove that the Kush and ancient Egyptians are ethnically different and were enemies Do not fool yourself, an African, not one race, an African, 12 different races out of 3 races
@@marielaveau6362 The Kushites are not the race of Egypt, the Kushites, historical documents, the most ancient Egyptian enemies The ancient Egyptian is a North African race, distinguished by the African white meaning the color of the wheat grain The features of the ancient Egyptian face the features of the Middle East, a small nose and a small mouth, not like the black features of Africa's face It has been proven that the present Egyptians by DNA analysis are the descendants of the ancient Egyptians at a rate of 80%, even with the presence of some Arab and some European race. As for Kush, which is a neighboring civilization, Kemet, they are black and have large facial features, and there are hundreds of archaeological evidence that prove that the Kush and ancient Egyptians are ethnically different and were enemies Do not fool yourself, an African, not one race, an African, 12 different races out of 3 races \\\\\\\\\\\Shut up, ignorant, I am Egyptian and I work in teaching history. It is clear that you are an ignorant and thief The ancient Egyptians were not black. By analyzing the DNA, they themselves are the ancestors of the present Egyptians at a rate of 80%, while the Arab and European mixture is only 20%. If only our problem was that the Europeans enslaved the black American, now the black American feels that he is less than human, so he decided to steal the history of a human being who does not come close to him until he feels that it is better Later, the black American will be hit with sandals because he wastes more than he breathes
@@listenup2882 You are the one who says false words. You are a psychopath and hate against Egyptians. I want to tell you, ignorant, that the ancient Egyptians are with us with their bodies because their bodies are mummified and well preserved By analyzing the DNA, they are a white-skinned balloon and the color of wheat grains, and they are a North African race distinguished by the features of the Middle Eastern face and have no relation to the Negro And I work as a teacher in the EGYPTOLOGY department. I am a history teacher, and I am also an Egyptian. I carry an Egyptian blackboard. As for you, there is nothing until you speak. You do not have any personal capacity to talk about it. And I will tell you something. I will give you free information. There was nothing in the past called Ethiopia. All Ethiopian land was part of Sudan and its name was the tribes of Kush. And the southern half of the current Ethiopian state was the Aksum tribe, which was part of the Somali state in the past, in addition to the Somali region. And I will tell you something else. The ancient Egyptians are the most intelligent race on the face of the earth, and there is no relationship between them and the lowest race on earth and the most stupid, and I do not know why all blacks are stupid and determined to try to steal a lineage that does not belong to them Go and search for the history of another country in order to try to steal it, nigger, did you know that the Negro race is the race of the stupid and lowest race of mankind, and it is certain that they have nothing to do with the blue race on the face of the earth .You are only good at rhetoric, many, many words, without any evidence blblblblblblblblblblblblblblblblblblblblblblblblblblblblblbl
@@monagallal9297 There is an intellectual gene,the more you have the more intelligent,go look it up, The group you called stupid have 8-9 of those genes,the people you attribute intelligence to have 4-6 of those.Science does not lie.Get off your delusional high horse!
