What does this have to do with ethnography? Are you saying that you don't know? According to who? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hittites#Language The Hittite language (or Nesite) is recorded fragmentarily from about the 19th century BC (in the Kultepe texts, see Ishara). It remained in use until about 1100 BC. Hittite is the best attested member of the Anatolian branch of the Indo-European language family. Show and prove that the Hittites are "Hamitic". In the meantime, this is what we learn of the TRULY Hamitic peoples: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_language Written records of the ancient Egyptian language have been dated from about 3200 BC. Egyptian is part of the Afro-Asiatic group of languages and is related to Berber and Semitic (languages such as Arabic, Amharic, Tigrinya and Hebrew). The language survived until the 5th century AD in the form of Demotic and until the Middle Ages in the form of Coptic. Thus it had a lifespan of over four millennia. Egyptian is one of the oldest recorded languages known. Another "Hamitic" peoples: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akkadian_language Akkadian (lišānum akkadītum) was a Semitic language (part of the greater Afro-Asiatic language family) spoken in ancient Mesopotamia, particularly by the Assyrians and Babylonians. The earliest attested Semitic language, it used the cuneiform writing system derived ultimately from ancient Sumerian, an unrelated, non-Semitic language. The name of the language is derived from the city of Akkad, a major center of Mesopotamian civilization. Why would this same source (WIKI), say that Egyptian and Akkadian are essentially African (Hamitic) languages, but say the very opposite of Hittitic, if it in fact was a part of the same family? Also, why would they also say this of the Sumerians: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumerian_civilization#Background The term "Sumerian" is an exonym first applied by the Akkadians. The Sumerians called themselves "the black-headed people" (sag-gi-ga) and their land "land of the civilized lords" (ki-en-gir). The Akkadian word Shumer possibly represents this name in dialect. The Sumerians were a non-Semitic people and were at one time believed to have been invaders, as a number of linguists believed they could detect a substrate language beneath Sumerian. Also, I am not of the persuasion that interprets "Semitic" as "Black" either, so the Hyksos being "Semitic" does nothing but translate into "Eurasian" for me. You're correct, that's not in argument. In fact, that's what I'd stated earlier, that these cultures overlapped. The question still remains, as to their ethnicity. Unga-Bunga. Please learn to convey your point more clearly. To which I've shown you that some of those are in disagreement, not only with one another, but also with your perspective. Perhaps you should spend more time scrutinizing these "Black minds" more in-depth, rather than simply trying to harness them and their reputations to support your view, simply because they are "black minds". Out of curioisty, do you hold all "black minds" in high-esteem, even when their perspectives don't match yours? Because it seems that you were just trying to down-play DIOP as a "Black Mind", since he doesn't support/endorse your view. By far, with the exception of perhaps DR BEN, DIOP is the most qualified in this field. I know what you were referring to. And just because they are of this persuasion, doesn't mean that they are qualified to speak on the subject. Are all Black Baptist Christians qualified to speak on the origins of Christianity, as it pertains to Africans? As usual, your logic is flawed. Even if we accept this assertion, how do you account for those that weren't? That's fine, but we are not talking about "the beginning of human history". That there were no whites at that time, there is no doubt. There were also no "Semites" at the beginning of human history either. Besides, earlier in this essay it is stated regarding this very same historian: Also relying upon the Christian bible, Robert Benjamin Lewis in Light and Truth: Containing the Universal History of the Colored and Indian Race, from the Creation of the World to the Present Time (1844) wrote that all of human history began in Afrika with Afrikans. It has been proven time and again (as is the very crux of contention within this discussion), that the Bible is not nearly the most accurate source of demography and ethnography. Also, since you have sited this link, how do you feel about the notion that another historian James W. C. Pennington who asserts: "Pennington said Afrikans in the United States were "properly the sons of Cush and Misraim amalgamated." Aren't you of the persuasion that Blacks in America are the children of Israelites? Neither have you, so then our perspectives on this are equally inadmissable. Since you lastly agreed not to question any source or perspective, no matter where it derives, I see no reason to comment on this last statement. Based on....? I didn't say he wasn't a knowledgeable person. I said he was functionally illiterate. What on earth does "reading the heavens" (My God, you sound like a spooked out Christian) have to do with demography and ethnography? "Has been found".......where? Show and prove. Could the man read a book, yes or no? Then I don't think you have the slightest clue what an anthropologist actually is. He would never have heard about "Israel and the Jews", had he not read it in a book (most likely the Bible), or at least have heard about them in a sermon just prior. If you can show and prove how he would have read it from the "heavens" or some other such non-sense, then I would gladly review the evidence. What "other information"? Since you are obviously admitting that the Hebrews (whomever they were) were obviously not homogeneous or homeostatic ("mulatto" is a clear reference of such), then please demonstrate how, why, when, and where, such a mulatto strain would have crept into this bloodline. Book, chapter, and verse, please. It's hard to read your statement in context, when it's laced with so much misinformation. The jewish Calendar matches the ancient calendar almost precisely. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nisan Nisan (Hebrew: נִיסָן, Standard Nisan Tiberian Nîsān ; from Akkadian nisānu, from Sumerian nisag "First fruits") is the first month of the civil year and the seventh month (eighth, in leap year) of the ecclesiastical year on the Hebrew calendar. The name of the month is Babylonian; in the Tanakh it is called Aviv, meaning spring. It is a spring month of 30 days. Nisan usually falls out in March–April on the Gregorian calendar. So now what are you talking about? Isn't that what your Bible says? I've heard Hebrew Israelites make the same claim. Why do you insist on siting Dr Ben, when you've already been informed that he has recanted his position on the Jews? All you are indicating here, is that your studies on these matters are not current, if in fact you are studying at all. LOL, I love how Bible Believers continuously take these "black" references out of context. Stay tuned for my rebuttal to this, later in this post. Chapter and verse? You'll forgive me if I don't trust in your Unga-Bunga talk. Then you obviously did not even read your own link. There are only 4 Black Scholars mentioned in this link: http://www.cwo.com/~lucumi/nile.html And out of the 4, only one of them makes a loose allusion to Semites. The descendants of Shem were denominated Assyrians and Syrians -- blacks with long straight hair."8 As for the progeny of Japhet, Lewis writes they "were also denominated colored people by the Grecian historian."9 Outside of that, all 4 of them speak specifically and explicitly about Cu****es and Kemites. Disagree with what? I don't think you even understood my point, which is obvious, from the fact that you misinterpreted my statement by thinking that I stated "white people lived in that region for a few thousand years." Then we disagree. Some of whom you have not thorougly read or studied, if at all. So you didn't read the link? That's good to know. But you still have not shown and proven what period of time the seed of "Abraham" were slaves (or whatever they were) in this land. Please show and prove this, because conventional Biblical wisdom all agrees with this. So unless you know something they don't........Perhaps you are able to "Read the Heavens" as well? Yes, of course, that's precisely what I'm doing. My question to you then is, how do you discern when they are doing which? How do you decide which is the truth of admission, and when is their "teachings"? For the sake of equilibrium, how do you determine such a criteria? It seems that you place yourself the category of biased scrutiny; you site a source only so long as it suits you, and then condemn anything else from that same source as a "lie". This sort of mindset is not only biased, but un-academic, un-intellectual, and also immature. Weren't you telling me about "Ethiopians" later on in your last response? What language do they speak? But that's not the point: The general assertion of the Lemba is that they have always known that they were the descendants of Israel. When did they become "a lost tribe"? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemba The Lemba or Lembaa are a group of people numbering 70,000 in southern Africa. Although they speak Bantu languages similar to their neighbours, they have specific religious practices and beliefs similar to those in Judaism, which have been remembered and transmitted orally through the generations. Mainstream Judaism also has the tradition of the Oral Torah. When was the intercession of Bantu? Do you know? And why does none of their culture outside their Jewish beliefs, resemble Hebraic culture? In other words, "you don't know". I thought KOHEN was Hebrew? Where does the White man fit into this? The Lemba clearly aren't white, and you are claiming that Hebrew as a language, culture, and ethnic identity aren't white, so why are you adding the White man into this equation? That sounds like another excuse on your part, to keep from simply saying "I don't know". If the Lemba are making this claim of heritage, then no white man's translation should be necessary. "Rarity"? Surely you jest. See above. That wasn't my point of mentioning that. The issue lies in the fact that you claim the Bible is a historical text. There is historical reference in the real world that would serve to corroborate my (and MANY others) assertion that Solomon and Sheba were an item........Thus, SOLOMON in SOS was not talking to "Israel" in some poetic sense. All of whom are just as "mulatto" as the "HABIRU" that you admitted to being such. Do you think these 2 groups are in any way homogeneous? The point? More of that Hebrew Israelite non-sense. An African is an African,despite his geography. Besides, "Levantine" has about as much relevancy as "Berber", "Nomad", "Arab", and some of the other words mentioned here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levantine 'Levant' or in Arabic الشام, Ash-Shām is an imprecise geographical term historically referring to a large area in the Middle East south of the Taurus Mountains, bounded by the Mediterranean Sea on the west, and by the northern Arabian Desert and Upper Mesopotamia to the east. While I agree that the origin of humanity, and thus all these regions were at one point Black, that is not what is in discussion, nor in contention. "At one time", does not translate into the time period we are speaking of right now. Whatever, this is pointless dialogue. I'm not focused on the spears, but the ethnography of the peoples holding them, and that they are being used upon. See my statement from earlier. In the meantime, I'm going to use this same "argument" against you, the next time you pull all sorts of Bible books and chapters into the discussion, that have nothing to do with the SOS. See above. Again, how are you qualified to make the distinction? Again, apparently SOLOMON didn't have too much of a problem with white skin, as he had laid next to it on NUMEROUS occasions. See above. Fair enough. Are you trying to be funny? Didn't you just admonish me for speaking about anything other than the SOS? I know what strange means, and nothing within this definition alludes to "GODS". Can a woman not be "foreign", in your Biblical view? Or even in your modern view? Besides, since you seem to harp on about "white skin being a disease" (which Btw, I agree, but not for any Biblical reasoning), I would think that a white woman is a strange woman, despite whatever god she worships. Thus, how do you reconcile Solomon sleeping with Eurasian women? Unless you are going to convince me that "EDOMITES" are not White as well? Obviously you minterpreted what I was saying. All of these things are fluidic in nature, and are produced internally within the organism that creates them. White skin, white hair, etc are all external in nature and function. See above. Would you eat a coconut, if the skin on the OUTSIDE is white? Is the milk from a white breast the same in quality as that which comes from a melinated one? Source? Because I've seen NOTHING about them in academic works, that paints them as HAMITIC--The only loose "source" otherwise stems from your Bible: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_Hittites The Hittites (also Hethites) and Children of Heth, translating Hebrew חתי HTY and בני-חת BNY-HT are the second of the eleven Canaanite nations in the Hebrew Bible. They are purportedly descended from one Heth (חֵת, Standard Hebrew Ḥet, Tiberian Hebrew Ḥēṯ), a son of Canaan, son of Ham, and they are mentioned in Genesis as having sold land to Abraham. In the early 20th century, the Biblical Hittites were identified with a newly discovered Indo-European-speaking empire of Anatolia, a major regional power through most of the 2nd millennium BC, who therefore came to be known as the Hittites. This nomenclature is used today as a matter of convention, regardless of debates about possible identities between the Anatolian Hittite Empire and the Biblical Hittites. Once again, academic scholarship trumps Bible belief everytime. If these people were Hamitic, why then does nothing of their linguistic system and culture match nothing of traditional Hamites, like the Kemetians (as demonstrated above)? This is the same question I've asked you about the Lemba, to which you've claimed that "the next time you see a Lemba (which will be probably never), you'll have to ask him"....... Let me know, then, when you ask a "Hittite" anything. #1) There was no such word as "Church" during the time SOS was written. #2) There was no New Testament during that time #3) There was no "Christ" during that time. #4) "Church" is an exonym, regardless of the time period. It sounds like you are attempting to merge a whole bunch of unrelated concepts and time periods together, into one "cohesive" ideology. You'll have to pardon me if I don't buy into that. See above. Actually, it has to do with your discernment of these ideas. For you, "Black" only means Black skin whenever it is mentioned anywhere in the Bible, while "White" can mean anything the reader can take it to mean. Again, you'll have to excuse me as I do not support this notion. Actually, I love how you are twisting the meanings, as usual. If you have such a problem with the interpretation of "BLACK" in this instance, then why did you use this site to support your notion? Let us examine further: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Jeremiah The Book of Jeremiah, or Jeremiah (יִרְמְיָהוּ Yirmiyahu in Hebrew), is a book that is part of the Hebrew Bible, Judaism's Tanakh, and later became a part of Christianity's Old Testament. It was originally written in a complex and poetic Hebrew (apart from verse 10:11, curiously written in Aramaic), recording the words and events surrounding the life of the Jewish prophet Jeremiah who lived at the time of the destruction of Solomon's Temple (587/6 BC) in Jerusalem during the fall of the Kingdom of Judah at the hands of Babylonia. Hmm, interesting.......So this book is written "poetically".....The same assertion that you had for SOS......Thus, why are we being made to take the term "BLACK" as being literal, while "white" is being used poetically, as was your assertion for SOS? Further, the Book of JEREMIAH, along with LAMENTATIONS were books concerning the themes of sorrow, regret and grieve; Israel as a nation was "falling from grace", living in sin and anguish, and these books were the Prophet's call to rise out of their terrible social and spiritual condition. Thus, when we see verses such as: Jer 14:2 Judah mourneth, and the gates thereof languish; they are black unto the ground; and the cry of Jerusalem is gone up. And: Jer 8:21 For the hurt of the daughter of my people am I hurt; I am black; astonishment hath taken hold on me. In context, "BLACK" in these instances are used as a term og berievement and sorrow. Any layman can see that a sporadic and non-sensical addage of one's racial heritage in such a context would be utterly ridiculous. Why is it so far-fetched for you to see this? Any basic dictionary indicates that "Black" is not always used as a color, just as you have said for "white: http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/black.html black [ blak ] adjective (comparative black·er, superlative black·est) Definition: 1. of darkest color: being the color of coal or carbon 2. devoid of light: completely dark, with no light 3. peoples Another spelling of Blackadj (sense 1) (sense 2) 4. beverages containing no milk: served without adding milk or cream black coffee 5. funny and macabre: dealing with very serious things in a humorous and often macabre way black humor 6. military clandestine: carried out in the utmost secrecy 7. full of anger: filled with anger or hostility in a black mood 8. hopeless: so depressing as to end all hope The future is looking black. 9. dirty: covered with mud, soil, or any other dark substance 10. seriously bad or unfortunate: causing or associated with severely bad conditions or misfortune a black day for the industry 11. dishonorable: extremely dishonorable and deserving the most serious criticism 12. evil: relating to evil If your Hebrews were able to attribute a quality to "White", why then were they not able to do the very same to "Black"? http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/white.html white [ wīt, hwīt ] adjective (comparative whit·er, superlative whit·est) Definition: 1. snow-colored: having the color of fresh snow or milk, as a result of the reflection of nearly all light from visible wavelengths 2. without color: lacking color or hue 3. pale-skinned: relating to or belonging to a people with naturally pale skin, especially one of European ancestry 4. comparatively light: light in color in comparison with others of the same kind white cabbage 5. wine made from white grapes: describes wine made from pale-skinned grapes 6. lacking pigment: describes hair that has lost most or all of its pigment, usually as a result of aging 7. having very pale complexion: unusually pale in the face, e.g. from fright or shock 8. zoology botany having white parts or colorings: describes plants or animals with light or white parts or colorings white bass 9. food industry without bran or germ: describes wheat flour that has had the bran and germ removed 10. cooking made from white flour: made using white flour 11. beverages served with milk: served with milk added white coffee 12. unmarked by writing: not written on or printed on 13. pure: unblemished, especially in character 14. wearing white: dressed in white, or characterized by the wearing of white 15. incandescent: heated to such a high degree that the substance turns white in color 16. having snow: accompanied or characterized by the presence of snow 17. music lacking tonal warmth: relating to a pure musical tone that lacks warmth, color, and resonance 18. history politics politically conservative: conservative in political outlook noun (plural whites) Definition: 1. colors color of snow: the color of fresh snow or milk 2. graphic arts white paint: a paint or dye that is or is near to the color of fresh snow 3. white fabric or area: a white substance or fabric, or the part of something that is white, e.g. an unprinted area on a page 4. white thing: a white object 5. pale-skinned person: a member of a people with pale skin, especially one of European ancestry 6. food part of egg: the transparent liquid that surrounds the yolk of an egg and turns white when the egg is cooked 7. anatomy part of eye: the part of the eyeball surrounding the iris 8. board games game piece or player: a white or light-colored piece or set of pieces in a game such as chess or checkers, or the player using them 9. insects butterfly: a butterfly that is predominantly white in color. Family Pieridae. 10. archery part of target: the white outermost ring of an archery target, or a shot that lands in it [ Old English hwīt < Indo-European, "shine"] This is no different than "Black Friday", "Black Magic" and "Black Cats", vs "White Lies" "White Christmas", and "White Doves". Thus, the very link that YOU provided is correct: qadar (kaw-dar') a primitive root; to be ashy, i.e. dark-colored; by implication, to mourn (in sackcloth or sordid garments) be black(-ish), be (make) dark(-en), X heavily, (cause to) mourn. So then, show and prove that this is a "Bold-Faced Lie". What colors do people wear during funerals (a time of mourning)? Whether you like it or not, this fits the context perfectly. I would ask that you either concede this point, or concede the other one about "White". You can't have both. See above. With what, one chapter, and perhaps 2 verses? Psa 82:1 ¶ [[A Psalm of Asaph.]] God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods. Psa 82:6 I have said, Ye [are] gods; and all of you [are] children of the most High. Since you seem uninformed about the NOGE, perhaps you should check their official website for their official POV about the Bible. Again, I ask you to refrain from siting people whose perspectives do not match yours. OK, but that's not the only issue here. The NOI also believe that SOLOMON was speaking to SHEBA. There are those in the Black cultural community who assert that SOLOMON was at least a mulatto, vis' a vis', his Hittite heritage. DR YORK has always asserted this, throughout his doctrinal incarnations. I showed you a historical reference that lends credence to the Biblical notion. Let us note the FACT that besides the addage of chapter 1:1, no where is there any mention of the name of any one person.....Thus, you don't KNOW if "SOLOMON" wrote any of this, any more than I do. Therefore, any assertion about the matter is fair game, especially if there is historical relevance to support such a claim. Further, you continue to shirk one point, in favor of another. There is more than one issue here: #1) SOLOMON (or the person whom you are alleging wrote the text) is calling someone "He, Him, His" in the latter parts of the text. This runs incongruent with your assertion earlier, that he was speaking to Israel and/or wisdom, in the poetic form of a woman. #2) The issue about the representation of race is in scrutiny. "Black and white" means all sorts of things in the Bible, yet you are asserting your position as the athoritative one on the matter. What criteria are you using to establish this? #3) There is historical "proof" that Israel ala SOLOMON intermingled with Ethiopia ala SHEBA. Speaking of which: "Imagination" indeed, since you are clearly using yours. Obviously you are not aware of the fact that Ethiopia as a nation is not by any means homogenous; it consists of several ethnic groups. Do you think Amhars look like Tigrays? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethiopia#Demographics What complexion are these people: http://pigseye.kennesaw.edu/~mbekele/Ethiowomen.html http://www.jdc.org/images/p_is_ps_wmn_eshetM.jpg You claim to live in NY, and you've never seen lightskinned Ethiopians? What complexion was Haile Selassie I? Was he the darkest Ethiopian? Which ethnic group did he belong to? To lump all Ethi's together as one ethnic group is the same in folly, as to do the very same for African Americans. Do you think we all came from the same tribe, when we were brought over here? However, once again you are shirking the point. Some Ethiopians are ethnically lighter than others. Since SELASSIE, one FAMOUS example of this lightness (take notice not only to his complexion, but also his nose and other features.......And THEN compare them to the darker Ethiopians that you posted: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/db/Hallies.jpg ) is claiming descendancy from SOLOMON, and the earliest Nubian/Cu****e/Ethiopian ethnic types were universally dark, as seen in ancient stelae, how do you account for these people's lightness after coming in contact with some peoples calling themselves "Jews/Hebrews/Israelites"? Fair enough. PEACE
(SAMURAI36) - What does the word "SHEM" mean in Kemau? (hint: it has nothing to do with ethnicity.) looks like...south, relative, kin, hot, wiseman, demon, foreigner...etc. if we don't have glyphs we can't say what shem means, imho. although the shem in ta shemau apparently means "south". "land of the south". not an ethnicity, not there.
Many of the allusions you have pointed to here, are very close to being accurate. A Shems is an initate. A Shemsu is a body or class of Initiates. A Shemset is a female initiate. And Ashem is a Sage. My Brother(who created this very thread)'s name is 'SHEMSI ENTEHUTI" which means "He who walks the path of Wisdom". When we say "Shem-Hotepu", it means "walk the path of Peace". In the Pert, we find the phrase: "Shemsu-Heru", which means "followers of the Path of Ascension" (a Priesthood of Heru). Thus, "TA" means "land of" and Shem meaning intiates, or followers.....It's not hard to piece together what this term means....But it is far from an ethnic one. PEACE