Ancient Egyptian Fraud Series part 3 of 100: Prof. proves Egyptians were white

Mary Leftkowitz, the leading eurocentric in academia and opponent of martin bernal's black athena studies proves the ancient Egyptians were white.





Most white anthropologist, historians, etc I know are not stupid enough to get into a debate about this because they know they will "smash" the so called delusional people like me how Mary Leftkowitz smashed the black Egypt theory. 99% will just say so what, or race doesn't matter because the ancient didn't understand race as we do today. The other 1% who are not smart enough usually get in the debate, get their butt handed to them, shut up and go home and join the 99%.

Quote:

Were the ancient Egyptians black? Some experts say yes. If so, then Western civilization may owe its existence to black Africans. In Black Spark, White Fire, award-winning journalist Richard Poe explores new and controversial evidence from linguistics, archaeology, and anthropology, suggesting that Egyptian explorers may have landed in Greece 3 to 4,000 years ago, reared cities and pyramids, established cults, and founded royal dynasties. In the process, the spark they lit may have kindled the fire of Western Civilization. Black Spark, White Fire follows a slender trail of clues that leads from the highlands of Ethiopia to the barrows of the Russian steppes. It pieces together the forgotten story of an Age of Exploration that ended nearly 3,000 years before Columbus - a time when Egypt ruled the waves, Africa was the seat of learning and power, and Europe a savage frontier.

Quote:

Did the first Egyptian pharoahs come from a lost civilization deep in the heart of Africa? did Egyptian explorers establish cults in Greece? Did black Africans, in fact, civilize ancient Europe? Solid research and tantalizing clues point to astounding answers in 'Black Spark, White Fire', a book with surefire appeal for anyone liberating history from old, inaccurate shibboleths

You see books like black athena, or black spark white fire, aren't even written by black people. Then you have greek archaeologist like Theodore Spyropoulos who endorse black spark white fire ( a book that basically says ancient greece was founded by black african colonist). So the claim of afrocentrism falls apart quiet quickly because the MAJORITY of writers claiming these ancient peoples were black are NOT BLACK.

It is really laymen who watch too much tv and hold racial prejudices against blacks and know little of history who go out and make the claims of insert society was not black. Their claims are laughable. They will make remarks like well when men left africa he stopped being black because the middle east is hotter than most of tropical africa so he would have become lighter. Or black people could not pass subsaharan africa because the desert in antiquity was a barrier.
Africa 10,000-4000 bc


http://www.livescience.com/10944-fis...ca-theory.html
Fish Swam the Sahara, Bolstering Out of Africa Theory

Quote:

Now it turns out the Sahara might not have been quite as impassable as once thought — not only for humanity, but for fish as well. "Fish appeared to have swam across the Sahara during its last wet phase sometime between 10,000 and 6,000 years ago," researcher Nick Drake, a geographer at King's College London, told LiveScience. "The Sahara is not a barrier to the migrations of animals and people. Thus it is possible — likely? —that early modern humans did so, and this could explain how we got out of Africa." Using satellite imagery and digital maps of the landscape, the researchers found the Sahara was once covered by a dense network of rivers, lakes and inland deltas. This large waterway channeled water and animals into and across the Sahara during wet, "green" times. [See digital map of ancient Sahara]

Quote:

If fish could have crossed the Sahara, it is hard to imagine that humans didn't. Analysis of African languages and artifacts suggest that ancient waterways recently affected how humans occupied the Sahara. For instance, speakers of Nilo-Saharan languages once lived across central and southern Sahara, and may have once hunted aquatic creatures with barbed bone points and fish hooks. In addition, ancient lake sediments suggest the Sahara was green roughly 125,000 years ago, back when anatomically modern humans might have begun migrating out of Africa.

People who know their sheeit aren't stupid enough to come up with lies to support political positions.

Quote:

Greeks Praise "Black Spark, White Fire"? Mr. Poe writes that: Previously, Black Spark had aroused nothing but praise from Greeks -- specialists and non-specialists alike. Archaeologist Theodore Spyropoulos -- who has done 30 years of field work directly related to the prehistoric Greek cultures discussed in Black Spark, White Fire -- strongly endorses the book and believes it glorifies Greece rather than defaming it.

http://dienekes.awardspace.com/blog/...es/000114.html

Yes Greek SPECIALIST AGREE THAT THEY WERE COLONIZED BY BLACK PEOPLE IN ANTIQUITY. It is just the stormgrunts who say impossible. If black people moved from Kenya or Tanzania all the way to sudan and egypt and south africa and west africa, what reason would they have to not go to greece?

These are all the place Africans spread to during the OLD STONE AGE and colonized, but you'd have us believe blacks couldn't cross the sahara or go to greece DURING the NEW STONE AGE




Black man colonized the entire world thousands of years before white skin even existed according to science


Black man Arrives in Australia 40-60k years ago, but the eurocentrics would have you believe they couldn't cross a desert... or a small sea, or land, in 10,000 or 6,000 or 4000 bc to reach greece.





paleoStone age men could cross the desert and live in it... 60,000 years ago... but neolithic men 6000 years or 4000 years ago.

Eurocentrics would have you believe these are not black people,


But these are


But these people identify themselves as black, consider their ancestors black africans, look black and science agrees. The eurocentrics insist that these people are not black because they are closer to asians genetically. But since when has a continent that already has 3 races (white central asian russians, blacks and mongoloids) have a particular genetics? Would not the first man in Asia be black? They probably claim well they are closer to mongoloids genetically. Ok, but is that because they were the first people in mongolia, if not when did the han chinese people come to australia and where are the native han chinese of australia today? And when did chinese start painting themselves up like that, everything about their culture is african.



The same blacks who colonized australia 60,000 years ago entered china more than 20,000 years ago. This is why they are closer genetically, they share a more recent common ancestor (60k vs 20k years). Han Chinese have distance african dna like all humans but the particular ancestor shared between the han and black asian go back about 20-30 ybp. The argument has a faulty premise.