First thing's first. Egypt is not the true name of the land we refer to North Africa. The true name of Egypt is KMT, pronounced Kemet (or Kimet). This name literally means, "The Black Land," or "The Land of Ham." As we all know Ham was the father of all african people ( Gen 9:6-20), but not all black people (we will get into this later). Ham was, of course, black. He was a black man. This is not disputed at all among history scholars, especially white scholars because they often like to associate the curse of Ham on blacks (I'll dispel this soon). So then, sense africans came from Ham, it is only right to think of Ham as a black man. In knowing this we can now equate the meaning of KMT or Kemet, or Kam as many state it, with Ham, its father. We can now say that Kemet means, "The Black Land," "The land of Black people," or "The land of Ham, the father of all African people." Scholars refute this meaning, mainly because it sheds light on who the people of KMT were and what color they were, but they say it was because of the dark black soil deposits of the nile shores. I find this just an excuse for white mainstream scholars to hide from the fact that KMT was predominantly black, as America is predominantly white. However these same connotations can be attributed to modern times. Lets take the naming of the Whitehouse of the America presidency and governing body of this country. The naming serves as two meanings, one hidden and subliminal, and the other overt and open in its meanings. The first and hidden meaning of the white house is that the forefathers of this country only wanted the inhabitants of the white house, thus the people in power being those who set the law and enforce them, to be white. In addition, all of this nation's presidents have been white, plus the house and the senate are mostly white as well. After knowing the first covert meaning it is easy to know the second and overt meanings of the whitehouse; hence the whitehouse being white in color on the outside. Thousands of years from now, when America will have fallen, and whites become the abase and oppressed people, they will say the same things blacks say; that America was a land ruled an founded by whites and that the meaning whitehouse meant that it was inhabited by white people.
I believe that these same overt and covert meanings were first found in Kmt. Even though the land itself was black from the rich despotism of the nile, the people who ruled, founded, an predominately inhabited the land, until its decline, were equally black in color as the soil. Moreover, Kmt's equation with Ham shows that its land was a land owned and ruled by African, black people. Also, its naming gives praise to Ham for fathering it.
"And the sons of Ham; Cush (Iotopi, or Ethiopia), and Mizraim (Kemet a.k.a. Egypt), and Phut (Libya), and Canaan (Modern day Israel, and Palestine)." Genesis 6.
Notice how the scripture itself talks about Ham's sons? We can then conclude that they all were brothers, and if all brothers, then most likely all alike in features, namely color. It then becomes very obvious that the people of Kmt were originally a black Africoid nation, much like its older brother Kush or Ethiopia. This is why they rarely fought amongst themselves, and shared the same architectural foundations such as obelisks and pyramids. Why is it that you never see the pyramids of Kush (Nubia or Ethiopia)? It is primarily because the eurocentric view of history does not want people knowing that Kush an older nation than Kmt erected pyramids as well, thus giving a clue that the two were the same and came from Ham. Lets look at the earliest images of Kmt so that we can tell if they were lack or not.
(Here is a modern day Kushite woman. Her complexion is dark, smooth, or swarthy. She is very attractive, and notably proud. Yet, at the same time she doent have the so called Africoid features that white historians classify blacks in. Her nose is straight. If she lived in Kmt she would have been made a goddess, and later had her nose chiseled off by some enraged roman or scientist who possibly couldn't conceive that blacks could have ''eurocentric features." I must note that whites have Afrocentric features, and not the other way around. Anta Cheikh Diop, a noted African scholar, proved with evidence that life, contrary to eurocentric belief, started in Eastern Africa. Science qualifies this by saying the first man was an African. If then the first man was African, he, or his African offspring, would have had to possess all the features that equip all the people of the world today, including facial features.)
Kmt had a very strong lack identity contrary to eurocentric beliefs and teachings. Mostly all the carvings of the images and sculptures are done in granite or a black dark stone. In contrast, Rome had a very strong white identity, because all sculptures were chiseled in a white stone color(marble):
(This is a pic of Black African Kemetite, Shepsut, and White Roman Agustus, both kings, but not both the same color. The art of both Kmt and Rome struggle effectually to show the true colors of its leaders and people. The Kemetians, in all their richness, prosperity, and trade could have made sculptures that portrayed the colors of the people in its truth. How come then, did all the sculptures be chiseled in black stone? Easy, they wanted to show a black identity. Likewise with Rome, 90% of all sculptures are done in white stone. Why? Because they wanted to let the people know that they were white, being distinct from Kmt. Historians of the eurocentric background fails to translate this contrast in modern history books. No wonder the Afrocentric view of history is gaining so much steam and popularity.)
I want to reiterate the fact
that Whites do not have Eurocentric features, but African features. I say
this because since life started in East Africa (note:
I said East Africa, not all africa) a place where most people
have straight noses and moderate sized lips yet are black, shows that they
possessed all the features of every people in the world. You will find
Africans with Asian features, Indian features, and white features. The
only outstanding thing is that whites turn this around to say that they
don't have black features. This is simply not true, because throughout
Africa you can find many black people, Im talking blue-black (no white
or asian blood in them), that has very "white" features aside from their
color. When God made man, he had to put every possible characteristic in
him that would be in all men; this includes straight noses, and "eurocentric"
features. So then, whites don't have "eurocentric" features, they have
African features, since the black man was the first man. I can hear the
historians getting frustrated now. Well, for evidence, lets take my son
and mother for an example:
(Here is a picture of my mother, compared to the picture of my son. My son looks just like an Asian boy, and would be depicted as such if he lived in Kmt on the walls. His, at that time, brown-reddish skin would also be depicted, but because he would be depicted as having light skin and Asian features, doesn't mean he isn't black. Moreover, his nationality is African American, and believe you me he will most likely be discriminated against in some way, shape, or form. Notice his eyes, his mouth, his hair, and his nose. Im willing to bet King Tut looked very much like my son Joshua at his age. His features are not "Africoid" as defined by eurocentric historians and anthropologists, but he is very much black, and would be a leader in the struggle for civil rights if called upon to do so by his family. On the other hand look at my mother. She doesn't fit the "Africoid" features either, having a long slender nose line, and slender oval eyes. Yet she is darker than me or my son, and my grandmother is darker than her and looks more Asian. This is not because Asian features are in blacks, its because black features are in the Asians, regardless of skin color..
Features: Comparisons of Blacks today
|Email a Brothah!!!|