Egypt : Buddha was an Egyptian Priest.........

[Ankhur]

It says he was an Egyptian priest not that he was from Kemet. Furthermore, Buddha is a title for a group of priests not a single individual.

Folks here have been using the term Kemet instead of Egypt on this post for the past 4 years now all of a sudden there is a difference?

 

[Ankhur]

Prove it ... Cheik Anta Diop was no geneticist nor was any of the historians mentioned in this full thread ... Secondly, you must be able to prove to me without a shout of a doubt that race can be determined by DNA whether Y-DNA, mtDNA, autosomal dna - ... you have to prove it because there is no such determining factor. J, R1b was at one time determined to be European but they have been found in Cameroon, Benin, etc ... at deep levels which suggest they actually come from Africa ...

Prove to me and provide your resources which shows that RACE can be determined by DNA - and if you do find some ... lol ... I can guarantee you that its Racist material created by racist so-called scholars .... lol. I will do what I normally do to racist scholars that I derail on egyptsearch and other websites dealing with such topics - so if you provide your info make sure that you are not using as racist information as your proof. So many of our Afrocentric scholar don't even realize that some of the information that they use is not non-bias information ...

Peace and Blessings,

Ru2religious

read Civlization or Barbarism, and the tests he did on mummies to prove scientifically that they were Black

 

[Ankhur]

Class, Caste whatever - society has to have some sort of structure and no one has come up with a better idea yet. I'm just saying if the race isn't found in the original texts then people stop promoting that white Aryans just came in and gave them everything of merit.

the statemtns of Runoko Rashidi as well as the statements of the Dalits or untouchables have been posted, so is a cut and paste necessary to verify?

 

[Ankhur]

Now after rereading each and every response to give the claim the benfit of the doubt that 'facts have been posted" The gymnosphs or Bhuddists, missionaries coming to Egypt or Kemet or what ever one desires to call it Ta Meri,

is a good verification of a Bhuddist priest, becoming an Egyptian one , but in no way verifies the claim that the orginators of the first largest world religion (philosophies do not have rituals!) were a group of exiled priests from Egypt!

 

[Asomfwaa]

Look for an article entitled the aryan Dravidian controversy by David Frawley.

Very interesting article: http://www.indoaryans.org/Aryan-Dravidian-Controversy.html

Though, it seems European in scholarship. You know the old phrase--"How can you tell if a White person is lying? Answer: If his mouth is moving."

One thing about this text, is that it claims that the Indus Valley Civilization is a "Vedic" (North Indian) civilization. Robbing the Dravidians of their ancient civilization, but further destroying the idea that originally Nilotic people developed Southern India.

More, it goes on that bull crap that the Dravidians are a Caucasian people. This belief would make the ancient Buddha, a subject related to this thread, a Caucasian person despite his heavily Negro features: thick lips and such.

Finally, this article is contrary to observations:

Mr. [Wilford] . . . informs us that many very ancient statues of the God Buddha in India have crisp, curly hair, with flat noses and thick lips; and adds, “nor can it be reasonably doubted, that a race of Negroes formerly had power and pre-eminence in India.” This is confirmed by Mr. Maurice, who says, “The figures in the Hindoo [sic] caverns are of a very different character from the present race of Hindoos: their countenances are broad and full, the nose flat, and the lips, particularly the under lip, remarkably thick . . .” [The] testimony of the Rev. Mr. Maurice is fully confirmed by Sir W. Jones, who says, “The remains of architecture and sculpture in India . . . seem to prove an early connexion between this country and Africa . . . the ancient Hindus, according to Strabo, differed in nothing from the Africans but in the straightness and smoothness of their hair, while that of the others were crisp and woolly; a difference proceeding chiefly, if not entirely, from the respective humidity or dryness of their atmospheres.​

– Godfrey Higgens in “Anacalypsis, Volume I“​